Melba Ketchum/ Erickson Project Press Conference

[Bill]

Well, what I can't understand about BipedalCurious' comments is that the person seems to be saying he/she will not accept matilda as a fake unless we concede Patty is one as much, and there's no way I'll declare patty a fake because I'm 100% certain she's the real deal. So Curious can think Matilda is real too. Adrian will love that.

 

Anyways, the name is an apt one because it's such a curious point of view, and I can't see the point..

 

Bill

[bipedalist]

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.

 

Can't disagree with your slant on feeding pablum to the masses but to think that anybody could put any validity to Standings work is simply way out there.  If he made the hall of shame, he is a part of the boy that cried bigfoot syndrome.......  unless he gave a bloody beasty part to Sykes, I'd say his fate is sealed re: being taken seriously any more in this field.  Heck even Finding Bigfoot nailed him, lol.  Imagining what a Bigfoot looks like and knowing what Standing fabricated in terms of his own support emails lauding his own work are two different things. 

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

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.

 

Well if Standing's photos were real, you'd have a valid point there, but this can't possibly be real:

 

Edited October 9, 2013 by OntarioSquatch

[Guest]

That one reminds me of an inuit snow mask, or a taxidermist deer butt "sasquatch" ... it's the skin texture, looks like hide, scraped hide, not tanned.

 

Indicative of style, but not a near match ... http://www.123rf.com/photo_1778577_traditional-eskimo-mask-made-of-skin-and-fur.html

 

edit: Warmer? http://p2.la-img.com/282/822/368052_1_l.jpg

Edited October 9, 2013 by Flashman2.0

[Guest]

Well if Standing's photos were real, you'd have a valid point there, but this can't possibly be real:

 

Looks like a display in a museum

[Cisco]

I mentioned Standings prior photos in my original post. However, my point is NOT to defend Standing or to gain him any credibility. Rather, it's to use his photo as an example of what I would expect a Bigfoot to look like. I'm also of the opinion that, proving the existence of Bigfoot, via video or photos, is more about the person that obtained the footage, than the footage itself.

 

Again, Standing is a perfect example of this. As far as I know, nobody has debunked his images in the traditional manner, such as finding a corresponding mask or costume. Instead, he's been debunked because people question his credibility and because some of his photos do not match the Bigfoot stereotype. Erickson is no different than Standing, except Erickson has/ had a better reputation. However, unlike Standing, Erickson's Bigfoot, Matilda, has been officially debunked.

 

I'm just flabbergasted that Erickson would even try to pass along his Matilda images as a real Bigfoot. How can he believe, it would pass muster; when its such an obvious fake?

[Guest]

Well, what I can't understand about BipedalCurious' comments is that the person seems to be saying he/she will not accept matilda as a fake unless we concede Patty is one as much, and there's no way I'll declare patty a fake because I'm 100% certain she's the real deal. So Curious can think Matilda is real too. Adrian will love that.

 

Anyways, the name is an apt one because it's such a curious point of view, and I can't see the point..

 

Bill

 

Actually those were not my words. I simply suggest that the same level of scrutiny be applied to the Matilda video as has been applied to the PGF. I am not suggesting it is real and fully understand why most people are leaning towards it being a fake. But I wouldn't dare claim it as either without doing the necessary background analysis and being fully transparent with my findings.

 

If you truly have 12-15 pages of detailed analysis backing up your claims then release it. Don't preach pretorian from the mount that Adrian Erickson is preventing you from doing so. We had enough of that during the days of Kitakaze and his secret reasons for not revealing more about the suit.

 

Step up. The Bigfoot community deserves it. Don't you think?

[Bill]

Curious:

 

What part of "he commissioned it (and paid for it) so he controls it" don't you understand?

[Bill]

I just can't figure out the agenda of the dialogue. once something's been shown as a hoax, further analysis isn't really necessary. The PGF analysis is so comprehensive precisely because it hasn't been shown to be a hoax, and showing it's real obviously requires a far more in depth analysis because that is the more extraordinary claim, and as we are told a million times by advocates of hoaxes, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs". Matilda is an ordinary hoax, The PGf is an extraordinary event, so it requires an appropriate higher level of examination and analysis.

Edited October 10, 2013 by See-Te-Cah NC
To remove reference to removed content

[See-Te-Cah NC]

Actually those were not my words. I simply suggest that the same level of scrutiny be applied to the Matilda video as has been applied to the PGF. I am not suggesting it is real and fully understand why most people are leaning towards it being a fake. But I wouldn't dare claim it as either without doing the necessary background analysis and being fully transparent with my findings.

 

Why in the world would anyone bother to batter a turd?

 

Some things are just obvious. The Ketchum/Erickson footage is so bad I believe that any effort wasted on it is misguided. There are more important things to devote time and effort to, like watching paint dry or grass grow.

 

Applying the same scrutiny and effort to this nonsense that was expended on the PGF would be a supreme waste.

[Guest]

Curious:

What part of "he commissioned it (and paid for it) so he controls it" don't you understand?

Probably the part where you leaked the photographs that he controlled as well.

 

Some things are just obvious.

yes some things are obvious and this is the main argument that people use when looking at the PGF. it is a sad day when people who call themselves bigfoot researchers start using that same argument without backing up their claims.

Edited October 10, 2013 by BipedalCurious

[Guest]

BipedalCurious, perhaps you might like to contribute to the discussion, instead of discussing the discussion, by pointing out features in the video/subject that you believe to be indicators of it's authenticity.

 

Could it be possible that Matilda just had a botox treatment and that's why there's no movement in facial features. ?

[See-Te-Cah NC]

yes some things are obvious and this is the main argument that people use when looking at the PGF. it is a sad day when people who call themselves bigfoot researchers start using that same argument without backing up their claims.

 

If those people are so daft that they can't see an extreme difference in the PGF and the Ketchum/Erickson absurdity, then they're the sad ones.

 

The man told you he can't release the study of the footage, which I'm certain was a complete waste of his time. Why do you continue to insist he provide it? You can argue the findings if/when the they're presented. In fact, you could badger Erickson with your demands, but for some reason you don't.

 

May the force be with you.

[Guest]

Oh I think AE should be just as transparent. I won't argue that point with you.

[Cisco]

I just can't figure out the agenda of the dialogue. once something's been shown as a hoax, further analysis isn't really necessary. The PGF analysis is so comprehensive precisely because it hasn't been shown to be a hoax, and showing it's real obviously requires a far more in depth analysis because that is the more extraordinary claim, and as we are told a million times by advocates of hoaxes, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proofs". Matilda is an ordinary hoax, The PGf is an extraordinary event, so it requires an appropriate higher level of examination and analysis.

 

There are some images and video out there, I think, meet this criteria of needing further analysis. As far as Bill Munns having to share his analysis with all of us, in order to back up his claims, I don't think there's any logic to that reasoning. The "analysis" belongs to AE and Bill has simply given us the end result of his analysis. AE paid Bill to explain all of the technical reasons as to why Matilda is or is not a real Bigfoot. We don't need to have the detailed analysis to ascertain the validity of Bill's claims; simply because he's already given us his answer. If one does not accept his answer, then it's likely, the analysis will not make a difference.

 

Personally, I would love to see Bill do some similar work with some of these images that have been out there for a while, that nobody has definitely debunked. Standings afore mentioned photos are a good example of this. The Hoavey photo is another one and I'm sure many others will have suggestions. I'm not suggesting that Bill devote as much time to these as he's done with the P&G. However, it would be fascinating to hear explanations on some of these other images that we've debated over the past 5 years.