Blockbuster News

[georgerm]

In his mind that's all it could have been, a bear. When the bullet hit its mark, it started to become apparent that it wasn't a bear. It did not drop right there, it ran off. They thought they heard it crash in the brush but did not see it go down.

Something still doesn't add up. Experienced big game hunters know to wait for up to a half hour to let the wounded animal lie down to die. It takes time for it to bleed out so the animal can run quite a ways especially if he missed vitals. Then you trace the blood trail to the animal for miles if necessary. From the phone conversation description, none of this was mentioned. It sounded like he just let the wounded animal run off without spending hours searching for it. It still might be found or we have a misplaced shot and a wounded animal running around suffering. Not cool.

Did the bullet rip a chunk of flesh off?

Then did the same thing happen to the young one? Did it run off wounded too? With a big game rifle and a small animal, it should have dropped right in it's tracks and retrieved.

They got very close to him and at one point one positioned itself above him on a outcrop. He shot it out of fear of being attacked.

Can you get the rest of the story?

Edited June 28, 2011 by georgerm

[Guest ajciani]

At a later date a search was carried out at the site and a piece of flesh was recovered. NOT A BODY, only a small piece of flesh witch was later cut in two pieces, hence the cut line. I'll say it one more time, no body's were found or recovered.

How much later? Two weeks, as stated in the blog?

How small a piece of flesh? From what part of the body?

Do you know how the flesh had been removed from the body (cut, blown off, gnawed, torn, etc)?

Given the location, would it have been from the juvenile or adult?

Obviously, the genetic test results are covered under the NDA. Although, if OP paid (a customary and proper fee) for the testing, I don't see how the results could be covered under a NDA (the NDA would be invalid).

[Guest FuriousGeorge]

Thanks for clearing up things, Derekfoot. 997 bears also thank you for setting the record straight. I wonder if the next blog will try to justify that story by saying he meant to say 1,000 bees.

[Guest JAGNJ]

Thanks for clearing up things, Derekfoot. 997 bears also thank you for setting the record straight. I wonder if the next blog will try to justify that story by saying he meant to say 1,000 bees.

Wow people are really having trouble following this story. I thought it was quite clear. The person who shot 1,000 bears is the person who gave the interview. He's speaking about another man, who happens to be Derekfoot's friend, who is the one who shot the bigfoots.

And apparently with the credentials of the man that is alluded to giving the interview, it is possible he's killed and mounted a great many bears.

Hope that clears it up finally.

[Guest Bigfoothunter]

The only thing I got from these stories is that the word "alleged" should have been used.

[Guest Bigfoothunter]

Derekfoot,

Who is "they"? Your version has more than one person present when the alleged shooting took place.

"When the bullet hit its mark, it started to become apparent that it wasn't a bear. It did not drop right there, it ran off. They thought they heard it crash in the brush but did not see it go down"

[Guest Silver Fox]

But you say in your above post that Derek as far as the shooter is concerned is correct. Yet soon after you said Yes the guy who shot Two Sasquatch does indeed exist. I take you are also meaning that even if he did shoot two Sasquatch he is not claiming to be in possession of the bodies?

Thomas Steenburg

Exactly, hunter shot the BF, but he doesn't have 2 bodies, right.

The guy I talked to assumed that the shooter was in possession of the two bodies, just by putting two and two together and making obvious assumptions. He never knew this for a fact. All he knew was:

1. 2 Bigfoots get shot

2. He assumed the guy took the BF's

3. The guy is in touch with Olympic Project

4. Soon OP is submitting samples that appear to be sawed off a dead BF cadaver, with the same coloration as the shot BF

He puts it all together and assumes that the shooter kept the bodies, has them on ice, and OP is using them to submit samples. Logical assumption.

However, Derek says:

1. Guy shoots 2 BF's

2. Leaves them in the field.

3. Contacts OP

4. OP goes out 2 weeks later and finds pieces of the one or more carcasses

5. OP uses these slices to submit to Erickson Project

In this case, I change my mind, disagree with the interviewer and agree with Derek as his story tidies up the loose ends and ultimately wraps things up a lot better. So, yes, I believe that Derek's view is correct then.

[Guest Silver Fox]

How much later? Two weeks, as stated in the blog?

How small a piece of flesh? From what part of the body?

Do you know how the flesh had been removed from the body (cut, blown off, gnawed, torn, etc)?

Given the location, would it have been from the juvenile or adult?

Obviously, the genetic test results are covered under the NDA. Although, if OP paid (a customary and proper fee) for the testing, I don't see how the results could be covered under a NDA (the NDA would be invalid).

All I know is that when the Erickson Project received the tissue sample, they thought it looked like it had been cut off the thigh tissue of some sort of hominid cadaver, either very hairy human, BF, or hoax. Over to Derek to the rest.

[Guest Silver Fox]

And Silver fox, your speculating is way off. Plausible deniability, please. I just gave you clarity. Crystal clarity.

Thx for clearing things up, Derek. I accept your clarification of this story as the best explanation for the facts so far until we get more information anyway.

I also made some changes in the article in line with your comments to make the hunter look better - removed certain statements.

[Guest rockinkt]

Thx for clearing things up, Derek. I accept your clarification of this story as the best explanation for the facts so far until we get more information anyway.

I also made some changes in the article in line with your comments to make the hunter look better - removed certain statements.

Wow! Is that how journalism is taught these days? Send out a story that is not fact checked and then molded and shaped as new facts (???) come in. Plus - an admission that certain statements are removed to make a certain party "look better"?

How can you made a person like Derekfoot's friend look better? He broke every ethical - and some legal - rules in the book!!!

I'm screen capturing this whole mess. I want a good record of this.

[Guest Silver Fox]

Hoping this doesn’t violate any sort of board policy, but the below was fairly easy to figure out (assuming my logic is correct) via a few google searches. Took me much more time to summarize the below. Google is your friend.

The “doyen of North American†comment (extremely specific – almost as if it was meant to be found, to be honest) combined with cross-references against various interests / background given (taxidermy, bear, hunting, etc.) made this fairly easy to narrow down. Even if it isn’t him, Walker’s experience is an interesting read.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/art/3639588/Stuffing-bunnies-Its-an-art-form.html

Identifies a “Ken Walker†as “the doyen of North American taxidermyâ€. Found via googling “the doyen of North American†bear. Tons of references to a “Ken Walker†as a leading taxidermist.

http://www.taxidermy.com/cat/04/MammalWTC.html

Found via googling "Ken Walker" taxidermy bear. First result – suggests Walker is an expert in bear taxidermy, fitting the bear hunting / taxidermy expertise described in the narrative. Note there’s a picture of him.

Found a facebook site for a Ken Walker (won’t post the link here in respect for privacy) - whose picture appears to match the one noted directly above, whose interests / pages include taxidermy (multiple pages) and sasquatch (multiple pages).

http://www.mnh.si.edu/museum/news/taxidermy/

See picture caption – suggests a “Ken Walker†was part of the Smithsonian Museum – National Museum of Natural History’s “award winning taxidermy teamâ€. Appears to fit “America’s foremost†museum affiliation / employment. Interestingly, the picture doesn’t seem to match the 2 referenced above, although the facebook pic above looks a lot like the first person on the left (perhaps the “left to right†statement in the picture caption isn’t accurate). Found via googling "Ken Walker" taxidermy (first result).

{edited mostly for formatting}

While you are at it, you can probably uncover the name of the shooter too from clues in the story. I didn't reveal his name though I know it. I don't want to give the guy anymore grief than he already has, plus I figure he deserves his privacy.

Don't know if it would be cool to reveal the guy's name on the board though.

[Guest Bigfoothunter]

Send out a story that is not fact checked and then molded and shaped as new facts (???) come in.

Hearsay at best ... nothing was fact based.

fact: the quality of being actual : actuality - a question of fact hinges on evidence

hearsay: Information received from other people that cannot be adequately substantiated; rumor.

[Guest Silver Fox]

Wow! Is that how journalism is taught these days? Send out a story that is not fact checked and then molded and shaped as new facts (???) come in. Plus - an admission that certain statements are removed to make a certain party "look better"?

How can you made a person like Derekfoot's friend look better? He broke every ethical - and some legal - rules in the book!!!

I'm screen capturing this whole mess. I want a good record of this.

How can you possibly fact-check these kind of rumor "unidentified sources say" type stories? Impossible.

I removed the part about him poaching. We don't know he was poaching, and he says he wasn't, so let's leave it at that. I included the hunter's account of why he shot the creatures - he thought one was a bear and he thought the juvenile was going to attack him. I added in notes of his account, saying that he says he left the bodies lying there and did not take them. I said the hunter says he doesn't have the bodies.

It's fair to present both sides of the story.

I don't do attack journalism, though it's all the rage these days. I try to stay on everyone's good side.

Send out a story that is not fact checked and then molded and shaped as new facts (???) come in.

Check war reporting, current events reporting, heads of foreign state, riots, disturbances, etc. This is the way things are often reported. See the disturbances in Syria, Yemen, Egypt, etc. Rumors of Hugo Chavez in critical condition in Cuba. You get your rumors, check them out, run with them, then try to adjust them constantly as new facts and rumors come in while you try to check those out.

Edited June 28, 2011 by Squatchdetective
Political Comments Removed

[Guest Silver Fox]

Hearsay at best ... nothing was fact based.

fact: the quality of being actual : actuality - a question of fact hinges on evidence

hearsay: Information received from other people that cannot be adequately substantiated; rumor.

Right, it's an interview in hearsay mode. There's not a whole lot to fact-check. It's just this guy's word against anyone else's. It's all just rumor.

[Guest rockinkt]

How can you possibly fact-check these kind of rumor "unidentified sources say" type stories? Impossible.

I removed the part about him poaching. We don't know he was poaching, and he says he wasn't, so let's leave it at that. I included the hunter's account of why he shot the creatures - he thought one was a bear and he thought the juvenile was going to attack him. I added in notes of his account, saying that he says he left the bodies lying there and did not take them. I said the hunter says he doesn't have the bodies.

It's fair to present both sides of the story.

I don't do attack journalism, though it's all the rage these days. I try to stay on everyone's good side.

Send out a story that is not fact checked and then molded and shaped as new facts (???) come in.

Check war reporting, current events reporting, heads of foreign state, riots, disturbances, etc. This is the way things are often reported. See the disturbances in Syria, Yemen, Egypt, etc. Rumors of Hugo Chavez in critical condition in Cuba. You get your rumors, check them out, run with them, then try to adjust them constantly as new facts and rumors come in while you try to check those out.

Didn't your mother tell you that just because other people are doing it - you don't have to?

Look at your misleading title for this thread. Blockbuster Erickson Project News. Didn't see anything stating that this was just an unsubstantiated rumor.

The real news is screwed up because of the competition to get the scoop. Acuracy is not important today - it is the first who report it that get the viewers and that means money. The news is about making money - not getting facts out to the population. That is their excuse.

Just out of curiosity - what is the need for speed on your part? Why the rush to put rumors out? How many sources with the project did you contact trying to ascertain the validity of the OP?