Erickson Project

[Guest Alpinist]

It's like every other relationship on earth be it romantic, friendship, or professional, once you lie, it's over, the trust is gone. The motive would be moot.

I'd like to see some dates and timeline presented by the accusers, my questions have been quoted and replied but not answered

What date and time and to which publication or media outlet did Brisson go public with his images. Apparently that is your stated procedure upthread with your exposure policies Bigfoothunter

Provide real information now to back up your stated claims of hoaxing for attention seeking

[Guest Bigfoothunter]

name='Alpinist' timestamp='1314575449' post='95785']

In the summer of 2010 while working at the Harrison Hotsprings Information booth, Bigfoothunter stated to a person known to Brisson, going by the initials M.N. that they had video of Brisson throwing rocks as a prank while on a hike with BFRO members.

I am not sure that I know the person you are speaking of and I can say straight up that I never said what you claimed. I said Brisson had been caught in the act. I do remember having a couple and their baby here as I told them what I have posted on the Bigfoot forums. If there was a video ... I would have posted it without hesitation and seen you have only offered an initial for this alleged informant - I see this as a waste of time to bother with. If accurate on your part, then why would I have only been reported once now after all thats been said over the bast two years or more ... get my drift!

Apparently this unrelated video is the damming evidence invalidating the Brisson copyrighted images currently viewable in Bigfoothunters posts on several threads right now. So what was previously denounced as a Brisson photoshop job by Steenburg / Bigfoothunter and then rescinded (correct me if I am wrong) as not being photoshopped is now qualified as a hoax, which though never publicly released by Brissonfor attention seeking purposes, but now because there exists a video of Brisson throwing rocks at BFRO members while on a hike in Golden Ears Park is sufficent evidence to overide all the other conclusions of the Brisson images as being genuine except for the Miller Steenburg conclusion ????.

Evidence pertaining to the history of what occurred has already been posted to this forum by myself. I do not know if you are purposely misrepresenting the facts or are just not up to speed on them, but you are way off base and need to get your facts ts straight.

I fail to see the connection between the photo and the pranksterism on the hike ? I fail to see anywhere on the internet the video of the pranksterism on the hike.

That is because you have relied on hearsay that was not accurate.

I fail to see how an unrelated video, or for that matter the shooters behavior, influences pixel study of an image, or the exif comparisons of the two photos, (we have yet to see Bigfoothunter release that part of his image analysis) of a photo, which was never publicly released by the shooter, Brisson, or the assumption that the legacy model of what a Sasquatch is or should look like what is in the photo.

Really what is the agenda here ??

With as much rumor and erred enuenndo as I have read in your previous post, I believe the agenda lies at your door.

Edited August 29, 2011 by Bigfoothunter

[Guest Alpinist]

I know the person you are speaking of and I can say straight up that I never said what you claimed. I said Brisson had been caught in the act.

e evidence pertaining to the history of what occurred has already been posted to this forum by myself. I do not know if you are purposely misrepresenting the facts or are just not up to speed on them, but you are way off base and need to get your facts ts straight.

that is because you have relied on hearsay that was not accurate.

With as much rumor and erred enuenndo as I have read in your post, I believe the agenda lies at your door.

None of your responses are answers to my questions, you deflect the scrutiny poorly

Dates and times of the media publication of the Brisson hoax Bigfoothunter - when was the public misled by Brisson ?

Who was first to issue the copyrighted images to the public -

you didnt answer a single question I posed because the answer is it was you whom violated Brissons copyright and published his photos claiming them as a hoax, just as you have once again violated his copyright by reposting his images here on this forum.

Brisson never published his images into the public doamin as an attempt to gather public attention regarding the images, but you, bigfoothunter have illegally published the images numerous times in violation of copyrights in an attempt to garner attention to yourself. Your behavior is exactly that of what you have described a hoaxers to be.

You guys just dont like the idea that a Sasquatch can be very human looking, and that there can be variance in the species. No problem everyone is entitled to an opinion, but thats all you have got going here.

For instance, we have another known hoax (nothing to do with Brisson) that we have not exposed publicly for it hasn't to our knowledge gone public. However, if it does ... we will expose it publicly.

Should not you be taking the same strategy as with the Brisson images and exposing them publicly now, yourself, before the hoaxer attempts to publicly garner attention to himself ? Which forum do you preffer which accommodates unauthorized, previously unpublished copyrighted sasquatch image publications with no repercussions to yourself Bigfoothunter ?

Why the policy inconsistency on the new case versus the never owner-self-published Brisson images, of the not so well known incident, by some members here, Brisson "Hoax" Bigfoothunter ?

Please explain

[Guest Alpinist]

Brisson is rumoured to have been paid by Erickson for being a part of the documentary, thus financial gain certainaly appears to have been a possible motive.

Correct - Brisson was paid 1,000 dollars a month to hike 6 days a week in Golden Ears Park by Erickson. The Sasquatch images Bigfoothunter accuses Brisson of HOAXING were first exposed to the general public on August 6th 2009 . See my gallery photos for a screen capture of Bigfoothunters Illegal copyright violations of said images on West Coast sasquatch Forum on the aformention date. The question remains what are the contract/NDA dates of Brissons tenure with the Erickson Project.

If the image was shot during his participation in the Erickson Project then motive exists. If Brissons image dates are significantly prior to tenure with the Erickson Project then every single image shot by anyone from say 2005 to 2010 can be considered financially motivated by the EP. The two Brisson image dates are May 22 2009

See my gallery for the EXIF information from the two original Brisson images claimed as hoaxes by bigfoothunter

Edited August 29, 2011 by Alpinist

[steenburg]

None of your responses are answers to my questions, you deflect the scrutiny poorly

Dates and times of the media publication of the Brisson hoax Bigfoothunter - when was the public misled by Brisson ?

Who was first to issue the copyrighted images to the public -

you didnt answer a single question I posed because the answer is it was you whom violated Brissons copyright and published his photos claiming them as a hoax, just as you have once again violated his copyright by reposting his images here on this forum.

Brisson never published his images into the public doamin as an attempt to gather public attention regarding the images, but you, bigfoothunter have illegally published the images numerous times in violation of copyrights in an attempt to garner attention to yourself. Your behavior is exactly that of what you have described a hoaxers to be.

You guys just dont like the idea that a Sasquatch can be very human looking, and that there can be variance in the species. No problem everyone is entitled to an opinion, but thats all you have got going here.

Should not you be taking the same strategy as with the Brisson images and exposing them publicly now, yourself, before the hoaxer attempts to publicly garner attention to himself ? Which forum do you preffer which accommodates unauthorized, previously unpublished copyrighted sasquatch image publications with no repercussions to yourself Bigfoothunter ?

Why the policy inconsistency on the new case versus the never owner-self-published Brisson images, of the not so well known incident, by some members here, Brisson "Hoax" Bigfoothunter ?

Please explain

So let me get this straight. When was the PUBLIC mislead by Brisson. Who said that he tried to mislead the public? He tried to mislead the Sasquatch community by hoaxing stone throwing, and claiming fake photos are of Sasquatch. Other photos as well he sent me long before his head on the stump photos of May 2009. Dates and times, he never gave a exact date of the month of May 2009 to me even when I questioned him about it. I can give you the date of the stone throwing hoax. (July 20Th 2009).

Who was the first to issue the photos to the public? I don't know. Bigfoothunter is sure not the one who put the images on YouTube, Or sent them to the Pravda newspaper in Russia, Or Bigfoot encounters website, Perhaps you should ask Randy? These photos have all over the Bigfoot community since the pictures were first taken. There are most likely on web sites I don't know about. Someone told me they saw them in the British Press? If Randy has a legal complaint than he knows what action to take. You claim Randy didn't release the photos, but whom else would have sent them to the Russians and the Pravda newspaper? to go along with a story claiming what great groundbreaking evidence they are. Bigfoothunter?

You said Randy never published them? Prove that. Don't come here asking others to do your homework for you. Your last paragraphed really reveals your true agenda. Once again we big bad it's an ape old timers are just overflowing with grief that this creature may turn out to be more human than ape. It could turn out to be anything for all we care as long as it is proven to exist. I afraid the only agenda I had looking into and investigating Randy Brisson evidence has come to pass. No one was more disappointed than I was that he chose to hoax evidence.

Thomas Steenburg

Edited August 29, 2011 by Jodie
edited out profanity

[Guest]

5. If you have grievances against others from the past, leave them in the past and do not bring them here.

I thought a decent back and forth debate could be done in this thread but I see I was mistaken. This seems to be a very old argument and is a violation of the forum rules. It certainly has drifted away from the topic. Cease and desist now, take it to PM if you must continue.

[Guest RedRatSnake]

It's like every other relationship on earth be it romantic, friendship, or professional, once you lie, it's over, the trust is gone. The motive would be moot.

100 % ~

[Guest HairyGreek]

No one mentioned filming Brisson throwing rocks that I am aware of. The evidence that Tom has mentioned was him and others who accompanied Brisson into the bush had actually saw him throwing the stones.

Yeah, I didn't remember that mentioned in the thread either. It was pointed out to me by PM and I thought I might have missed something. I had thought you said you had eyewitness accounts only as Steenburg and other members of the expedition party witnessed these actions by Brisson. Although since it is being revisited I feel the need to remind all, without the testimony of the other eyewitnesses it still remains a "he said/ he said" story that should not impact others regarding their decision on the stump video/pics hoax theory you are working on.

[Guest]

Yeah, I didn't remember that mentioned in the thread either. It was pointed out to me by PM and I thought I might have missed something. I had thought you said you had eyewitness accounts only as Steenburg and other members of the expedition party witnessed these actions by Brisson. Although since it is being revisited I feel the need to remind all, without the testimony of the other eyewitnesses it still remains a "he said/ he said" story that should not impact others regarding their decision on the stump video/pics hoax theory you are working on.

Did you not see what I said in the post two above yours? This particular drift of the conversation is over in this thread.

[Guest Alpinist]

I have explained why the head looked Photoshop'd at the time. Until now ... where was it previously said that Brisson's camera was broken?

The skin color on the nose between pictures seems like a fair question ... you have not addressed what was broken on the camera that would cause this color tone to be seen around the nose. The same color tone is not seen on the other image, so please give me you best explanation for this selective lone color change from what is being said to have been taken from a broken camera?

Bigfoothunter the fact that the AWB - automatic white balance setting was on, meaning with each shot the color temperature of the image was automatically set by the camera even though both readings show a color temperature of 5000 K and identical tint according to my imaging software the colors in the two images are remarkably different throughout the image and not just in the subjects face. Please explain. If the camera was malfunctioning then was the white balance settings reported by imaging software correct or false ? Does this explain the color discrepancies. What were your conclusions regarding camera automatic white balance ?

With the flash setting indicating it also fired according to exif data, what is your conclusions on what the exif data says about the camera ?

Did your image analysis include exif, and white balance setting analysis, and if so why was it not included in your orignal report date Aug 9th 2009 on West Coast Sasquatch, which is where I read your first report.

Please keep us up to date with further image analysis, should you choose to revisit and report on image data ommissions from your original, but incomplete report.

see my gallery for exif data on the images in question, I am working through this from the original photos. given to me by the shooter. Thanks in advance Bigfoothunter for walking me though your image analysis details, or lack thereof ...

Edited August 29, 2011 by Alpinist

[Guest]

THREE STRIKES AND YOU ARE OUT DUDE!!!

Seriously, if you can't follow directions, then the thread needs to be closed. There have been numerous reports, lots of editing of profanity, and the list goes on. Take it somewhere else.

[Guest]

I opened this thread again after a cooling off period. If any of the previous discussion starts back again, it will be closed yet again.

[masterbarber]

[/url]Page three has a pretty high quality image:

http://issuu.com/map...1_onli?mode=a_p

[Guest wudewasa]

Page 3 has the pic of the "slumbersquatch."

The figure in this pic looks like a stuffed animal that some child dropped in the woods, or some individual that got lost coming home from a furry convention and passed out in the tree line- http://www.post-gaze.../1155879-53.stm (pics AND video!)

[Guest Thepattywagon]

Also, isn't the head of the creature on the right hand side of the photo? I recall a post showing the head on the left, and I could never see that. Now with this clearer pic, it looks like the head is on the right side.