Guest slimwitless Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 You're right about what I was getting at. True, we can not make a judgement based on a single photo published in a newspaper. However, if the Erickson videos and photos aren't as impressive as some are saying, or worse, if they are phony looking, would that damage the DNA report indirectly? Something to think about. That could be why Ketchum seems to be distancing herself from the Erickson Project. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 I asked about it on bfro and was told not to mention it--in a pm from a mod. the mod said they don't want to give them more publicity etc. Turned up their nose at it. Although I don't take anything they say at face value--they always have ulterior motives is my impression. THey are so weird and secretive about a lot of stuff. Just my honest opinion. gday kings i was shafted from the bfro forums because i dared to question their dictator style running of the forums, closing down any topic to do with the sierra shootings or erickson project, so much for free speech! im thinking jealousy has alot to do with it, thank goodness its a lot more open here at bff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
steenburg Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 (edited) Like I have said before I will wait to see the whole footage before making up my mind despite the red flags and rumors I have heard about this video. As for John Green He has said to myself and Bill miller personally that the video in his opinion does not live up to some of the pre release hype. I can say this when the video is released if what is seen is open to interpretation than the Hype was very premature. As evidence it will be useless. Thomas Steenburg Edited August 20, 2011 by steenburg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bill Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 It would be wise to seperate any video material from the dna issue, as the dna is not from what is shown in the videos. So let each analysis material rise or fall on it's own and not impact the veracity of the other. As much as I personally love photographic and video material, I think the major breakthrough (if there is one) will be the dna. Any specific video or photographic material, which cannot be directly connected to a sample used in the dna studies, still must be validated on its own as something real. And as we know, video material (especially recent stuff) hasn't been very compelling. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bigfoothunter Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 But...if the fur looks manufactured and the DNA shows Bigfoot, the implication would be that Bigfoot fur looks manufactured. Again ... there must be a chain of evidence that clearly shows that the said DNA came from the subject in question. Showing an image of something that may or may not be manufactured and claiming that something containing DNA came from it will not advance the case for the Sasquatch one bit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 I'll ask a dumb question and apologize I haven't kept up with the latest. I understand the new "photo" is a screen capture of hd video. If that's the case, where is the video? A mere screen capture doesn't engulf me in confidence this isn't another bust. Hoping for the best.....BUT.......a screen capture? Why not the video? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Forbig Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 Did you check their forum? If so, they are quiet because they deleted any discussion that arose on the subject. Yes, and if this turns out to be the real deal we're sure to see them dedicate an entire show on it. I believe they're just a little suspecious of the whole thing and are waiting to see how it all plays out. It wouldn't be very proffesional of them to speculate right now when they know nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HairyGreek Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 That could be why Ketchum seems to be distancing herself from the Erickson Project. Nah...I haven't seen any proof that she has. Have you? He took the Standing reference off the website, but Dr. Ketchum still has her own splash page. If there is anything going on between them, it is whom will release what, when so as to be thought of as the "discoverer" of Sasquatch. That is a big if since I have not even heard a rumor of this and even if I had, it would still simply be a rumor. I think it is funny people who haven't seen, or cannot even accurately describe what they did see, say this picture from God knows where looks fake so the whole Erickson thing is a hoax. I love all this armchair detective stuff without any sort of evidence to back it up. Ya'll are killin' me. Really. Opinions are totally cool. I am up for that. People stating it like it is fact and not just an opinion though... It seems everyone is so afraid this will ruin Bigfootery forever if this or the Sierra Kills or whatever is proved a hoax. So now everyone is a skeptic outwardly with their hand behind their backs crossing their fingers. Everyone is hedging their bets to say "I told you so". Why so scared? Why so serious? Will facing Parnassus on the board the next day be so bad that you can't get out of bed? Was Georgia really that bad for people? Did it set discovery back years or something? Until there is definitive evidence, the number of hoaxes could quadruple in a year and no one except people like the ones on this forum will even care. This is the kind of thinking that makes certain bloggers think they are "celebrities". This is a very small dedicated community in the scheme of things. No one but us even knows about the EP, OP, Sierra Kills, etc. Sorry guys, but the rumor mill on here just to protect personal feelings and agendas seems a little crazy some days. JMVHO...which I know I am going to get roasted for. The picture looks to me like something furry laying on the forest ground. What is it really and did Erickson even release it, who can really say with any certainty? Why is the camera man so close and trash strewn about? Supposed to be a habituation site, correct? So...maybe he/she saw or knew the smell of the camera man and didn't feel threatened because he is the one feeding the creature. Someone earlier said that this type of behavior would blow out of the water everything they thought they knew about these creatures. Is that what everyone is so afraid of? That the Northern American wood-knocking Great-ape is not going to be anything like that? Seriously, is that why everything that comes out has to be torn to ribbons? By the way Slimmy, this tangent was not brought on by your post. Sorry for the rant everyone. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Thepattywagon Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 My feeling about this is if The Erickson video, or ANY video, is going to ride coattails on a DNA project of the magnitude of the Ketchum report, it had better be a piece of footage that is beyond reproach. This is not 1967, and any footage of an alleged Sasquatch will have to be extremely convincing, if not conclusive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 Again ... there must be a chain of evidence that clearly shows that the said DNA came from the subject in question. Showing an image of something that may or may not be manufactured and claiming that something containing DNA came from it will not advance the case for the Sasquatch one bit. DNA will show where the "donor" fits in the tree of life. Even if you don't know what the creature looks like, you can still tell whether it's a hominid and how far it is between man and other primates. If the DNA shows unknown hominid, that's an amazing discovery. Yeah, without a body we won't know whether it technically came from a sasquatch but I think that would be the working hypothesis for most honest observers. We'll see. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 Nah...I haven't seen any proof that she has. Have you? He took the Standing reference off the website, but Dr. Ketchum still has her own splash page. No proof. Like most things about anything on this forum, it's pure speculation. But...she used to be on Erickson's site as a team member - no longer. There's also this line from the recent article in the Maple Ridge News: "Ketchum stresses the DNA testing is being done independently of the Erickson Project". I'm not saying Erickson's videos are fake. I just think the bar is very high for video evidence in this day and age. DNA is practically unassailable by comparison. By the way, has anyone noticed the image on her Facebook page has changed from a casual snapshot to a professional, publicity-ready photograph? To quote Buffalo Springfield, "There's something happening here, what it is ain't exactly clear." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 Of course, that interview was on Mar 7, 2001. That said, it must be assumed that the video of the sleeping sas was prior to Mar 7, 2001. If not, then John Green had not seen it prior to that particular interview, thus his comments are not applicable to this particular video. Blogtalk radio was launched in 2006, so that might point to a typo, maybe 2010 instead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Forbig Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 My feeling about this is if The Erickson video, or ANY video, is going to ride coattails on a DNA project of the magnitude of the Ketchum report, it had better be a piece of footage that is beyond reproach. This is not 1967, and any footage of an alleged Sasquatch will have to be extremely convincing, if not conclusive. We're long overdue for a clear video and hoaxing one will be nearly impossible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HairyGreek Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 (edited) "Ketchum stresses the DNA testing is being done independently of the Erickson Project". Maybe the simple answer is she doesn't want to be tied to any of these projects other than being the person who provided the DNA research evidence that everyone else hinges their research on. She becomes the center as opposed to a spoke in the wheel. In other words, maybe she isn't distancing herself, she was never as close as what people were thinking or speculating and she was just providing clarification. We have the OP, the EP, and the KP. The OP and the EP need the KP, but the KP don't need EP or the KP and nobody wants the TB. Edited August 20, 2011 by HairyGreek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest magic genius Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 (edited) you can see moneymaker wants to be the one to prove it. he is probably livid he is not the one to get the proof. Edited August 20, 2011 by magic genius Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts