Rod Posted August 19, 2011 Author Share Posted August 19, 2011 BTW - The Oregon Bigfoot Blog has a interpretation of the photo that makes me doubt mine. Instead of the hand grasping its shoulder, they've made a pretty good case that hand is actually by the head. Same fetal position, but arm is different than my outline. Erickson Project Photo Release That seems to substantiate what I read- that the right arm is shielding the eyes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Forbig Posted August 19, 2011 Share Posted August 19, 2011 I can't wait to see the DNA and it doesn't matter what part they take it from because it's the same in every cell (with a nucleus). The DNA in blood is the same as the DNA in skin cells, hair, perspiration, saliva... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 this whole thing is keeping me awake with excitment lol. Im like a kid on Christmas eve. I really hope it's not a big let down. I must say the photo does not overly fill me with confidence... Slightly off topic, but with the real possibility that proof could come to the public domain here, I really start to question whether we should really want that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 For what it's worth, when I first looked at the image before reading anything, I thought I could see a face on the other end of the body, as if she was resting her head on her arm with her face partially hidden behind the branch. (see attachment and forgive my terrible attempt to edit the pic). I could be way off? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 It looks like it is in these sleeping positions that almasty and feral people sleep in: http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/wildsleep/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Posted August 20, 2011 Author Share Posted August 20, 2011 For what it's worth, when I first looked at the image before reading anything, I thought I could see a face on the other end of the body, as if she was resting her head on her arm with her face partially hidden behind the branch. (see attachment and forgive my terrible attempt to edit the pic). I could be way off? Of course, there are a few interpretations out there. But, yours does look like she is sucking her thumb. I guess we won't know for certain until we see her move/stir and stand up in the video, which are things she is alleged to have done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 It will be interesting to see how all this plays out. From this vantage point, however, the alleged forthcoming evidence seems to be somewhat contradictory. From what Paulides is saying, the DNA results will show that those who believe Bigfoot is an ape are wrong. From what I understand from remarks by Ketchum, the DNA results will suggest a continent wide habitat for this animal. And from descriptions of the videos from Erickson, the creatures filmed are different in many respects from the Patterson iconic image. Erickson's heavily furred and fanged Bigfoot, at first glance at least, seem removed from human. Green is not impressed with what he has seen of Erickson's videos. Yet others are very impressed. As I understand it, some of the videos of Bigfoot were taken by the family that reported a habituation of sasquai, prior to Erickson's involvement. Do the creatures in these videos look like the one's filmed elsewhere? The track illustrating the news article is seriously ambiguous. If the Erickson Project involved long term on-site investigation of a habituation location, abundant tracks and trackways should have been copiously filmed and cast. Maybe the Erickson videos are not so convincing and thus need to piggyback with the DNA results. Here's a disconcerting thought: on one end of these breaking developments is the "Sierra Shootings" which some folks find dubious, on the other end are the Erickson videos which some folks are questioning, and in the middle is the DNA report that allegedly verifies the reality of the shootings and videos. Is this a house of cards? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 Of course, there are a few interpretations out there. But, yours does look like she is sucking her thumb. I guess we won't know for certain until we see her move/stir and stand up in the video, which are things she is alleged to have done. LOL. It does a wee bit. Maybe I am just viewing it from the perspective of the position I sleep in, and thus see what I expect. Heres hopin for the video! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Posted August 20, 2011 Author Share Posted August 20, 2011 Green is not impressed with what he has seen of Erickson's videos. Could you please present a source for Green's comments? I missed those somewhere along the line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 Could you please present a source for Green's comments? I missed those somewhere along the line. Here you go: http://www.oregonbigfoot.com/blog/bigfoot/erickson-project-photo-released/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Posted August 20, 2011 Author Share Posted August 20, 2011 Here you go: http://www.oregonbigfoot.com/blog/bigfoot/erickson-project-photo-released/ 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bigfoothunter Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 All this talk about DNA and what good is it if one cannot produce the specimen from which it came. As far as the image ... there are things about it that those of us who have seen one might find out of place. To date, a hair sample can only tell us at best that there is an unknown species out there. One would need a chain of custody from what ever the DNA came from so to prove from what creature it came from. What I have seen so far is not promising. It's alleged fur looks like that of which one would find on a carnival stuffy. Animals as I have seen them have flowing hair ... let us use Patty as an example. The same goes for bears, racoons, skunks and etc. As far as Erickson spending millions ... that remains to be seen. And if he really had something good to offer, then why throw it into the mix with obvious hoax. Again here is one of his side-kick's alleged photo of a Sasquatch which was said to the Russians that it was taken in the deep remote forest of Pitt Lake, BC ... when in reality it was taken less than 70' off a road in Golden Ears Park in Maple Ridge, BC. (see below) The above alleged Sasquatch photo must be the first one in history where the head didn't sit down in the shoulders, but rather high above them on a neck like a humans. In the original collection of photos sent to Thomas Steenburg, the author of the above image (and Erickson contact said to be participating in this 'Project') had this image included. When pressed as to the story behind it, Thomas was only told that it belonged to a woman friend in Washington. Her name was never revealed, which means that the story could not be substantiated. The white arrow points to an individual believed to be a man. Those who wish to can blindly believe the alleged Sasquatch was real. (see below) As far as holding out for a big pay-day ... the story of getting such a film(s) - owning its rights - book deals and etc., would be the pay-day which has nothing to do with the immediate validation of the said evidence in my view. The Sasquatch should always come first and the rest will follow. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest believer Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 Did like the point out of the fingernail Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Forbig Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 I checked out the BFRO and they're being pretty quiet about this whole thing they seem to be sitting back and waiting like the rest of us. Once the news gets out I'm sure they'll get to the bottom of it. Meanwhile I'm keeping my fingers crossed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest 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. My statement was "Green is not impressed with what he has seen of Erickson's videos." Perhaps "Green was..." would have made the sentence clearer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts