Rod Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 Can the BF community finally cleanse its hands of both Ketchum and Erickson? Or, will it continue to regurgitate the nonsensical drama? You decide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 (edited) Skywalker, that sounds like quite a lifestyle change for Adrian from prior to the economic bust, maybe a welcome one. The money and time spent may be lost and if there is no hope of substantial recovery , ahh... I can see many responses. The problems started early for him b/c of the Moneymaker connection and his sale to Adrian of what later appeared to have been one or two hoaxed films by the owners...something like that...and a price tag, and of course all the "rest of it" we had privy to on the internet.....whatever that was, b/c something appears to have gone wrong...from elation and promise to...his present weary attitude.. Does he have any samples in the Sykes/O-L study? Edited October 2, 2013 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 Disappointing. Thermal and IR blobs, with not even enough straight walking on to make determinations about stride length IM index or anything like that. Sleeping rugsquatch, and while at a glance the slightly matted look is consistent with the Hovey photo and pictures of other animals whose fur is becoming matted, on fullscreening the HD link above it appears to have a a crinkle in the hair which is highly suggestive of synthetic fiber. Then, wow, I have defended the "wookie" description against undue derision because you put hair on the face of anything vaguely manlike and it DOES look wookie-ish, but I am afraid that that headshot is just way too identical to a wookie for me. I ran it backwards and forwards multiple times looking for ANYTHING redeeming about it, but nothing to be seen, not a jaw or tongue movement, it doesn't look like the dentition fits together, the teeth seem too white. Also though I don't know how long a BFs canines SHOULD be, they are longer than I would expect. Seems to have doglike teeth vs, primatelike teeth. (Front incisors also appear doglike to me) edit: further viewing seems to show a pale line showing inside the mouth which would be very condemning if the "actors" own teeth. After the part with the wookie mask, I don't know how any of that video can be taken seriously. Only a bonehead would add in obviously fake footage along with the real deal. It's all fake from where I'm sitting. For me, this just doesn't even come close to passing the "eye test". I don't see a real living creature (not counting the person under the costume) when I watch those clips. Nothing about it looks natural. You never watch a nature film and think, "Wow, is that actually a real animal?" Can the BF community finally cleanse its hands of both Ketchum and Erickson? Or, will it continue to regurgitate the nonsensical drama? You decide. The entire community? Nope There will still be defenders, which blows my mind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 The dead skunk I ran over this morning smelled better than this "evidence" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 Apparently Melba Ketchum and members of the Erickson Project held a press conference today in Texas and showcased never-before seen footage of their creatures. Not to much info at the moment... the news report is pretty brief. Link to video: http://www.wfaa.com/news/entertainment/pets/Bigfoot-is-real-research-teams-claim-226033481.html?c=n&fb=y&can=n I like how it's filed under Pets and Animals. The nerve of that Erickson. The absolute nerve. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 Which way round is it though, you think your vids are sketchy so you hope the paper will help hold them up, or you think your paper is sketchy and hope the vids hold it up. Just a w.a.g., but I think you could say Ketchum's flag is the claim she already sussed out the genome, and will be validated by Sykes. If that happens, the video naturally acquires an aura of authenticity, no? They've put their markers down, so we'll just wait until the wheel stops spinning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuyInIndiana Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 Just a w.a.g., but I think you could say Ketchum's flag is the claim she already sussed out the genome, and will be validated by Sykes. If that happens, the video naturally acquires an aura of authenticity, no? They've put their markers down, so we'll just wait until the wheel stops spinning. No, it really wouldn't. They've have to have proof that the DNA is the subject of the video, but the greater problem with the DNA study is that fact it came to no proveable conclusions of a new species. SHE CAME to that conclusion, but the science didn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cisco Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 Wow!!! A friend of mine forwarded the press conference video to me, otherwise, I would not have found out about it. About a year or two ago, I did a lot of research on the Erickson documentary and did not uncover anything that everybody else, already knows. I did spend some time going through Bill Munns analysis on Melba, as well as the story and circumstances surrounding it. There is no doubt in my mind that Munn's analysis was spot on and Matilda is just an altered Chewbacca costume. Furthermore, it's now clear to me that Erickson is fully aware that he's promoting hoaxed video. Erickson has had the Chewbacca video for over 4 years now and there's a reason it's taken this long to release the footage. I assume he must have been under some pressure to release the images that were shown at the press conference. In fact, Matt Moneymaker was shown this exact footage, years ago, prior to the Finding Bigfoot show. Why is this important? Remember one of the first episodes of Finding Bigfoot, when Moneymakes makes a comment about Bigfoot having black noses, like a dog? Where do you think he got the idea that Bigfoot has a nose like a dog? He got that idea from watching the Matilda video that Erickson showed him 4-5 years ago. It's a sad day when the World's number 1 expert, on Bigfoot, gets taken in by a Wookie costume... No wonder the FB team is always running around chasing their own shadows. I really had high hopes for the Erickson documentary as Erickson had a very good reputation when he first announced his upcoming documentary. Now, 4-5 years later, he's making a press release, in the company of dubious "experts" in the Bigfoot world, and he KNOWS that he's promoting a hoaxed video. That's a big step down from where he was, when he first started. Erickson's documentary is just more fuel for the skeptics fire and rightly so. Erickson, Ketchum and others like them, just bring a circus mentality to this whole subject. I'm grateful for people like Bill Munns or Bart Cutino, that just tell it like it is, without trying to make more or less of new evidence. As an aside, I think the best Bigfoot, facial shot award, belongs to Todd Standing. Hoaxed or real, his last video is hands down, better than anything else we've seen. The irony is that we'll probably never know, one way or another. I'm looking forward to seeing more from Erickson. I wonder how far down the slide he's willing to go? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 (edited) No, it really wouldn't. They've have to have proof that the DNA is the subject of the video, but the greater problem with the DNA study is that fact it came to no proveable conclusions of a new species. SHE CAME to that conclusion, but the science didn't. I dunno, you'd have to ask her what she thinks she's doing, I guess. That is just my stab at it. But, if two independent genome studies come to roughly the same conclusions it is going to be quite newsworthy, and it casts some different light on those with claim to have footage, etc., like this here. I respect Bill Munn's opinion on this subject as he is undoubtedly the expert, but I can't help but scratch my head at someone's choice to perpetrate a hoax using the visage of one of popular culture's most identifiable characters. It is so ludicrous to think somebody would chose to do that it perversely makes you wonder IF they did it. Like, what? Nobody would notice who their critter looks like? Can the BF community finally cleanse its hands of both Ketchum and Erickson? Or, will it continue to regurgitate the nonsensical drama? You decide. But you see Rod, I really don't have to decide that. It costs me nothing to read and think about everything they put out. My wife will still love me, my kids will still (I think) respect me and I won't lose my job. This idea that we are all guardians of the purity and integrity of the evidence, always poised to give thumbs up or down, is just absurd to me. I must have missed that vote to appoint me an arbiter of the truth as I see it. Obviously, some here campaigned for that office, and won, and now feel they have a mandate. Frankly, I wouldn't want the job. Edited October 2, 2013 by WSA 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 years and years of being told that these folks had definitive airtight proof in the form of a conclusive dna study and hd video and this is what we're left with. it's sad. i placed a lot of my skeptical reservations on hold in the optimistic hope that melba and erickson would deliver, but it seems that we're right back where we started - the uncertain yet compelling patterson film, and a whole lot of questionable efforts that people shape to their respective agendas, believer and skeptic alike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 Matt Moneymaker wasn't the only one taken in by the wookie mask. John Bindernagel and Jeffry Meldrum also saw the footage and apparently didn't recognize the chewbacca resemblence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DaveBeaty Posted October 2, 2013 Share Posted October 2, 2013 Matt Moneymaker wasn't the only one taken in by the wookie mask. John Bindernagel and Jeffry Meldrum also saw the footage and apparently didn't recognize the chewbacca resemblence. Drs. Bindernagel and Meldrum have never seen a sasquatch, so I can give them the benefit of of the doubt that they gave the footage the benefit of the doubt (even though there are too many hoaxers with this subject to do that) but Mr. Moneymaker claims to have seen one. He should know better! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 it sure is funny that everyone is commenting and criticizing a video that they've never seen in its entirety. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 I heard an interview with Moneymaker about 6 months ago and he was asked about Munns response to the pictures. Moneymaker said the video he saw was most definitely not a mask and was the real thing. I wondered then how he could be so positive and thought maybe there was some other video, but now I doubt there is much else. Surely they didn't just stop recording and this bit of footage is all there is, but who knows. I wonder if they have something more compelling would they leave that out now or not. Its really hard to tell what they are planning or hoping to achieve now. I know I'm not contacting any skeptic friends and telling them to watch this because they will definitely laugh it off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted October 3, 2013 Share Posted October 3, 2013 (edited) " This idea that we are all guardians of the purity and integrity of the evidence, always poised to give thumbs up or down, is just absurd to me. I must have missed that vote to appoint me an arbiter of the truth as I see it. Obviously, some here campaigned for that office, and won, and now feel they have a mandate. Frankly, I wouldn't want the job." -WSA I don't understand this. You are human. Surely you have, at a minimum, a preliminary opinion based on your first impression? You are allowed to have a reaction and an opinion without being an "arbiter of truth". From Toejam, to Timbergiant, and now to this, you refrain from an opinion on what looks to be pretty sketchy all the while taking shots at people that do express an opinion as if you are taking some moral high ground. I'm sorry, but I don't understand that approach at all. Edited October 3, 2013 by dmaker 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts