Melba Ketchum/ Erickson Project Press Conference

[Rockape]

This is for Inc. and his unfortunate whiskey episode.

 

 

 

[Incorrigible1]

Okay, outta plusses, but thanks to both you guys for a good laugh. ::raises old-fashioned glass with E Brooks with a splash of soda, I consider it "neat."::

[Guest]

BipedalCurious,

One has requfoil the studious work of Bill Munns. The other? Well, let's just say that it's so easy a caveman could do it.

I find it funny that when skeptics use the same (easy as a caveman) argument to say the PGF is fake everyone cries foul and points to the exhausting detailed work of Bill Munns.

Where is the exhausting detailed study of the Matilda footage? if we're going to start judging evidence using only claims that we don't need to investigate it because it's so easy a caveman can do it then I think we ought to give a lot more weight to the skeptical arguments coming out of JREF since the same exact argument is being utilized.

so the next time someone says that Patty is a costume simply because it's so obvious a caveman could see it just remember you've used the exact same argument yourself

[Guest]

i guess it was at 2 yeaterday http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngyuHEKv46s

[bipedalist]

I find it funny that when skeptics use the same (easy as a caveman) argument to say the PGF is fake everyone cries foul and points to the exhausting detailed work of Bill Munns.

Where is the exhausting detailed study of the Matilda footage? if we're going to start judging evidence using only claims that we don't need to investigate it because it's so easy a caveman can do it then I think we ought to give a lot more weight to the skeptical arguments coming out of JREF since the same exact argument is being utilized.

so the next time someone says that Patty is a costume simply because it's so obvious a caveman could see it just remember you've used the exact same argument yourself

 

 

It seems PGF was released in toto.   Where is toto when in comes to Matlilda?   Why be so judgmental?  Aren't you just sour graping on Munn's?   (no need to answer that last one, your strawman's take care of that one for you). 

 

I'm not concerned about these Ketchum pressies, if Sykes is publishing a documentary first before his paper, let's just hope the paper is in Nature and has positive novel hominid/hominin results.  I tend not to be worrying too much about the nature of that study either.  You can sit tight when you know they exist and don't have to depend on the popular press to confirm them for you.  

Edited October 8, 2013 by bipedalist

[Bill]

BP

 

A fairly exhaustive analysis of matilda was done. Adrian Erickson is hiding it because he's determined to cling to the notion Matilda is real.

 

I know the analysis is real and detailed because I wrote it, after image stabilizing his 20 second facial closeup footage in HD format for him. The PDF document of my analysis was about 12-15 pages in detail.

 

You can't see it because he's hiding it, not because one wasn't done.

[Guest]

What happened at the end of that video?  Did the video mess up or did she just interupt Ketchum and completely cut her off and end the segment?  I think she did. 

 

My friend, who likes to make fun of me for being into bigfoot called yesterday around 2 and said bigfoot is on fox news. He was of course laughing as he said it.  I knew it was probably Ketchum.  He mentioned that the reporter agreed with him and did not believe it at all.

[See-Te-Cah NC]

I find it funny that when skeptics use the same (easy as a caveman) argument to say the PGF is fake everyone cries foul and points to the exhausting detailed work of Bill Munns.

Where is the exhausting detailed study of the Matilda footage? if we're going to start judging evidence using only claims that we don't need to investigate it because it's so easy a caveman can do it then I think we ought to give a lot more weight to the skeptical arguments coming out of JREF since the same exact argument is being utilized.

so the next time someone says that Patty is a costume simply because it's so obvious a caveman could see it just remember you've used the exact same argument yourself

 

I'm not arguing skeptic and proponent. It's about obvious garbage verses a piece of evidence (PGF) that has been debated and discussed for 46 years. Regardless of how you attempt to liken the two, they just aren't in the same league.

 

I don't have to worry about what someone else says about the PGF because it stands on it's own, and has for 46 years. The Ketchum/Ericson presentation? Personally, I wouldn't waste my time trying to address it in the same manner the PGF has been. All one has to do is take a look at the Chewbacca mask and the presented video to know that the force isn't with it.

 

If those on the JREF want to believe that there's a correlation between these two pieces of video, well, I suppose that's their prerogative. However, expecting others to do likewise is simply an attempt to coerce others into a line of thinking that makes no sense, not even for the JREFers. The validity of each example should be based on their own merits, not based on someone's personal conjecture.

[Rockape]

so the next time someone says that Patty is a costume simply because it's so obvious a caveman could see it just remember you've used the exact same argument yourself

 

I fail to see your point on that. It's not like that arguement or one just like it hasn't been used against the PGF a million times already.

[Cisco]

Here is a facial image of Todd Standings Bigfoot. This, I believe, is the most recent one that he's published and, a year prior to when this photo was taken, he'd released some other images of some very dubious looking Bigfoot. However, because many people don't like him or think he's a hoaxer, Standing's videos have all been dismissed as hoaxes. This is why there will never be any video, that's good enough to convince the public or the Bigfoot community. This photo looks as real as it gets and if Meldrum had been the one to release it, we'd all be on his bandwagon.

 

Regardless, of whether or not you believe Todd Standing's Sylvanic claims, this particular photo looks like what I imagine a Bigfoot should look like. It does not make it "real" but it does look "realistic."

 

Not ever having seen a Bigfoot, I can't say if Matilda is real, nor the photo from Standing. However, I've never heard or read a witness sighting report that describes Bigfoot looking just like Chewbacca. In fact, a while back, there were rumors that Erickson had approached Todd Standing, in order to purchase or include Standing's Sylvanic footage in his documentary. I don't know how true this rumor was but it would not surprise me. After all, Erickson has put together a collection of videos and photos that were taken by his team as well as videos that were taken by people that were not affiliated with him, in any way. In short, he was motivated to collect as much video as possible in order to build a documentary around it. I assume the purpose of this documentary was profit and that is enough motivation for him to ignore the possibility of hoaxed or fake video.

 

After all, Bill Munns blew Erickson's Chewbacca video out of the water, not too long ago. To such a degree that Erickson threatened legal action and, regardless of all that, he still decided to release and promote his documentary. What does that tell you?

 

Erickson knows **** well that the Bigfoot community will reject his claims. However, he's smart enough to know that we really don't matter and that, the average TV viewer will, more than likely, be very interested in watching his documentary. After all, look how popular Finding Bigfoot has become and they NEVER show any evidence, much less "real" video of a Bigfoot. If Erickson can sell this to Discovery, he'll make a killing and won't lose a wink of sleep over the potential fall out.

[GuyInIndiana]

The only thing in that last paragraph that I take exception to is that as popular as the bigfoot thing *is*, if people have to pay for it, they're not going to bite. If it's free on cable or satellite, sure. If and when that documentary hits the shelves, it may need the dust blown off it first.

[Guest]

BP

 

A fairly exhaustive analysis of matilda was done. Adrian Erickson is hiding it because he's determined to cling to the notion Matilda is real.

 

I know the analysis is real and detailed because I wrote it, after image stabilizing his 20 second facial closeup footage in HD format for him. The PDF document of my analysis was about 12-15 pages in detail.

 

You can't see it because he's hiding it, not because one wasn't done.

 

Then I would challenge you to release your detailed analysis. It seems only fair to do so based on your own words from the Munns Report website.

 

1. Claims of Proof - People will commonly say some

specific fact or condition is "proven", as if

it truly were. But without a citation of the actual

proof, a source that describes who proved it and

what academic or investigative group may have revie

wed or certified that proof, a claim of proof

really is just a strongly held opinion by that indi

vidual. Sometimes pictures will be shown,

attached to claims the picture "proves" what is bei

ng argued, but people have made some very

bold claims with pictures, photos and diagrams, and

you really should consider how well the

"proof" is explained, before making any conclusion

yourself.

Edited October 9, 2013 by BipedalCurious

[Guest]

what exactly is going on here?

Are you defending this video or is this an attempt to make a point about the BF community? I'm okay with either one for the record.

[Bill]

BP:

 

The detailed analysis was commissioned by Adrian Erickson, so he owns it. Maybe you should ask him to release it. I'm already in potential hot water just releasing that one chart "Is this Matilda?".

 

You don't seem to understand that most of the information is being deliberately withheld from the public, even as a lot of his other footage of infrared night sightings was withheld from me, and my analysis of Matilda is now being withheld from any public review.

 

So get him to come onboard and give written permission for me to release the analysis and I'll be glad to.

[Guest thermalman]

Don't waste your time Bill. There are many others who care and appreciate all you've done.