Guest Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 BH, the man being interviewed, is the one who turned down a job at the museum. He is not the same guy who shot two BF's. Well I ain't buyin' that either one of them shot 2 bigfoots or 1000 bears. (Just for you SY!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 Thanks Saskeptic, I don't think he has shot exactly 1000 either, I think he would have lost count, or not stopped at exactly 1000. But this is what we need right here right? Two words: "logging truck". That's what bigfootery needs to make a real difference. So why would the bear hunter have a tougher time than the log truck driver proving a dead BF? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 I think derekfoot made it clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Thepattywagon Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 (edited) Couldn't the hunter have simply claimed he was being attacked, and shot them both in self defense? I can't get past the standoff on the logging road, sorry. Why would an adult male Sasquatch allow itself to be caught out in the open like that, particularly if it had a juvenile in tow? That's not the kind of elusive behavior that lends itself to survival of the species. Edited June 27, 2011 by Thepattywagon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 I'm no expert on writing but after reading the interview it's pretty obvious to me the interviewer and the person being interviewed are the same person or "voice". Complete bs IMO. Ditto Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steenburg Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 There has been far to much of this in recent years. Extraordinary claim of having extraordinary proof, but for some reason that proof can't be produced right now? Unless these so called bodies are produced than this whole thing and everything and every one involved is just another Georgia boys type story or a Carter Coy, just take my word for it. If you have evidence to the existence of the Sasquatch than by all means produce it. Enough of the B.S. I have been in this to long for the game playing. Thomas Steenburg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 (edited) Couldn't the hunter have simply claimed he was being attacked, and shot them both in self defense? I can't get past the standoff on the logging road, sorry. Why would an adult male Sasquatch allow itself to be caught out in the open like that, particularly if it had a juvenile in tow? That's not the kind of elusive behavior that lends itself to survival of the species. Now's the time for someone to suggest that the bridge was out ahead. There was a report in the Reno Evening Gazzette back in the 80's where some Bighorn sheep hunters claimed a squatch came over a hill yelling and waving it's arms at them. It chased them off. If the poacher's account is an accurate description, it may have felt its young were in jeopardy and stood its ground for their sake. Perhaps it waved to draw attention to itself, or simply to appear bigger and more menacing. Edited June 27, 2011 by JDL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 We have multiple fascinating samples from a wide range of areas but we won't say anything about results until the science is done. Otherwise we wouldn't be doing justice to the subject. Once again, is that so hard to understand? When the info does come out it needs to be accurate! Just to clarify, which project are your samples associated with (I've lost track). Erickson? Ketchum? Olympic? Also, I fully understand you not being able to discuss the nature of the evidence given the NDA, but can you comment on when the science on them might be done? Ketchum for example has revealed that the paper is finished and out for review, IIRC. Are you anywhere near that point (assuming your samples are not part of Ketchum's work)? I believe we are on the brink of species verification. This doesn't need to turn into a giant controversy, or a witch hunt. It should be exciting! I agree, but as some of our resident Skeptics have already made plain, they'll still find reasons to dismiss, deny or denigrate anything short of a full-bore body plopped right on their dissection table. And that is a whole can of worms, as you stated. Just ask the Black Hills Institute, the people who found the T-Rex skeleton that got named "Sue"...the Feds can and will storm in and take anything they don't want you to have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest billgreen2010 Posted June 27, 2011 Share Posted June 27, 2011 this is definetly very informative NEW BREAKING NEWS about the ongoing erickson sasquatch project to be continued...... indeedy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 You know Steeburg, I've defended you on this forum before. I've always had a lot of respect for you and your research. I'm not full of BS and I take offence to your comments, and I can assure you this is no game. I expected more from you. Good science takes time. You know this. I've been in this field as long as you have Thom. Put yourself in my shoes for a second. Would it be responsible to just blurt out everything I know just to appease everybody who wants to know, when I've given my word, not to mention NDA's that I've signed? Do the math! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 Mulder, I will clarify the situation. We, the Olympic Project are involved with Ketchum and her ongoing DNA study. We are not involved with, or do we want to be involved with the Erickson Project. If you want to know what we're about you're free to visit our website. I, like everybody else would love to see Erickson's footage, but it has nothing to do with us. We are not attached to any other organization. We have over 100 samples involved in this study from different locations around the Northwest. We are working with her. I cannot speak to her involvement with the Erickson Project. That's between them. As far as the skeptics go, I could care less what they think. Everybody's entitled to their own opinion. This science will speak for itself. I don't sit up at night hoping to prove anything to skeptics or non-believers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bigfoothunter Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 I am lost, Derekfoot. I do not think Thomas was addressing you, but rather speaking in general that we have grown tired of carny claims that have not panned out. If anyone has a body, then all the other DNA test in the world on other samples are moot. You said, "I will say that we do not know anybody that possesses or has ever possessed a Bigfoot body, or body's. God as my witness, that's the truth". I think that is basically what Thomas was saying. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted June 28, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted June 28, 2011 Wait........Jim Shockey was poaching bear in California??!! Wait on it http://www.realtree.com/blanton/2007/06/debunking-myth-of-jim-shockey.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steenburg Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 You know Steeburg, I've defended you on this forum before. I've always had a lot of respect for you and your research. I'm not full of BS and I take offence to your comments, and I can assure you this is no game. I expected more from you. Good science takes time. You know this. I've been in this field as long as you have Thom. Put yourself in my shoes for a second. Would it be responsible to just blurt out everything I know just to appease everybody who wants to know, when I've given my word, not to mention NDA's that I've signed? Do the math! Sorry Derekfoot I should have been clearer as to the target of my comments. It was intended for the individual or individuals, again as in all similar type claims over the last few years nameless. Whom claims to have two dead Bigfoot which he shot and is holding in secret. Not you as you claimed in post # 66. Didn't mean to suggest that you were in cahoots with these people that was not my intent. After all If someone has a dead Bigfoot then theres the evidence right there. Everything else is moot. Thomas Steenburg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 28, 2011 Share Posted June 28, 2011 Until then, well... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts