Guest MikeG Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Mike,Darwin both presented and published his paper before the book was published. OK, thanks for that. I was wrong. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 If Erickson has faith in this paper Ketchum is suppose to be coming out with, and believes its going to prove something,then why not release a glitzy documentary to coincide with the publication of the paper? Since he is reputed to have financially backed the project, and assuming he believes the results will prove the existence of such a creature, then it would be great timing for cashing in on such a sensational discovery. Is there anything unethical, or immoral about that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest exnihilo Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 A couple of years ago, folks might have expressed something like this: "Yeah, these cops are pretending they have a bigfoot in their freezer so they can make a quick $50k off some rich, gullible donor and get on national television." I don't know yet what to make of this whole Ketchum thing - and I'm reserving judgment until the day something actually comes to light sans speculation - but let's just say that stranger things have happened in bigfootery than for someone to expend a whole lot of effort trumping up something that was never really there in the first place. ...and subjecting that trumped up evidence to the rigors of science before attempting to make a dime. After all, glacial patience and profound circumspection are the hallmarks of idiotic and insane people. Am I allowed to use the word "obtuse"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 ^By all means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Ahh , here it is, it was "Ida" the 47 million year old lemur fossil that was supposed to be the missing link. Everything was timed to be released at the same time after the peer review was completed. http://www.revealingthelink.com/more-about-ida/scientific-publication Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 If Erickson has faith in this paper Ketchum is suppose to be coming out with, and believes its going to prove something,then why not release a glitzy documentary to coincide with the publication of the paper? Since he is reputed to have financially backed the project, and assuming he believes the results will prove the existence of such a creature, then it would be great timing for cashing in on such a sensational discovery. Is there anything unethical, or immoral about that? They'll probably make some money off of it, and probably in a variety of ways. But I think that the primary reason for releasing the DNA Study and the Field Study (isn't the Erickson project documenting bigfoot at habituation sites?), is that they are mutually supporting. The DNA study runs the risk of being marginalized without supporting evidence (as has been observed on this thread). The field study runs the risk of being declared a hoax. Together they are stronger. Released together, they will garner more attention from the public (gotta admit, the public just doesn't go for the dry statistical stuff, but loves video), and the public response will influence the scientific community's response (hard to stay entrenched when civilians are over-running your position asking why you hadn't told them about all this bigfoot stuff before). The scientific community may actually be forced to get on the bandwagon or be "overcome by events". If things progress well, there'll be money for bigfoot study from all sorts of sources and that, if nothing else, will drag the scientific community along. And as all of this develops, Ketchum and Erickson will be in the forefront with the choicest opportunities. If you can do something great for science, good on you. If you can do something good for science and make money in the process, great on you. No conflict unless the pursuit of money taints the science (yes, the potential does exist). But we haven't seen that happen with this crew yet. If anything, they didn't run right out and release everything for a quick buck right away. They've been holding back evidence for years, if I'm not mistaken. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bipedal Ape Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Looks this this documentary will be very disapointing http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2012/02/how-erickon-project-movie-will-play-out.html#moretop Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 What are you basing the projected disappointment on, Bipedal? What changes if Lindsay's source is accurate? The documentary will still contain the "money shots." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 After all, glacial patience and profound circumspection are the hallmarks of idiotic and insane people. I take it you don't have children. Or at least you don't have 11 of them. RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bipedal Ape Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 What are you basing the projected disappointment on, Bipedal? What changes if Lindsay's source is accurate? The documentary will still contain the "money shots." Why use that russian footage at all? Just removes any credibility they may have had. And that sleeping bigfoot... LOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Well that's assuming the rumor is even true. I wonder why they used Caesar's face on the front cover? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bipedal Ape Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Let's hope that is just a rumour and the video blows everyone away Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 You have eleven kids Ray? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 (edited) I don't see what's laughable about the sleeping Sasquatch. If, as is apparently the case, they have extended footage of this scene, of which we've only seen a single frame, how can we judge the entire clip as unworthy? Also, the Erickson Project itself did not put Caesar's face on the cover of anything; that was a poster mock-up/visual aid to accompany a blog speculation about a theatrical release. Edited February 14, 2012 by Christopher Noel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 Excuse me, but I took it at FACE value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts