Guest believer Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 In the Oregon John green article that is Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Posted August 20, 2011 Author 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. Did you check their forum? If so, they are quiet because they deleted any discussion that arose on the subject. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Posted August 20, 2011 Author Share Posted August 20, 2011 "Perhaps "Green was..." would have made the sentence clearer. You're darn right it would have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 Bigfoothunter has an interesting point concerning the Erickson creatures. If their fur looks manufactored, as suggested from one photo, then what does that imply if the DNA report verifies Erickson's samples as real Bigfoot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Posted August 20, 2011 Author 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. Pfft... I knew it. Like I said above. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless 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. I thought Erickson didn't start collecting evidence until 2005. Are you sure that's not a typo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 You're darn right it would have. Do you have an updated opinion by Green concerning the Erickson videos and photos? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bigfoothunter 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. Green was shown the footage of an alleged sleeping Sasquatch during a visit from Erickson. The images were viewed on a computer. So yes, Green saw it well after the said date you mentioned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Posted August 20, 2011 Author Share Posted August 20, 2011 Do you have an updated opinion by Green concerning the Erickson videos and photos? I do not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 Bigfoothunter has an interesting point concerning the Erickson creatures. If their fur looks manufactored, as suggested from one photo, then what does that imply if the DNA report verifies Erickson's samples as real Bigfoot? I don't think there's enough detail in that photo to conclude anything. But...if the fur looks manufactured and the DNA shows Bigfoot, the implication would be that Bigfoot fur looks manufactured. I'm guessing that's not what you were getting at though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HairyGreek Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 I don't think there's enough detail in that photo to conclude anything. But...if the fur looks manufactured and the DNA shows Bigfoot, the implication would be that Bigfoot fur looks manufactured. I'm guessing that's not what you were getting at though. LOL! Well said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bsruther Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 I think this article and picture are all about geeting the focus back on the Erickson Project. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RedRatSnake Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 I don't think there's enough detail in that photo to conclude anything. But...if the fur looks manufactured and the DNA shows Bigfoot, the implication would be that Bigfoot fur looks manufactured. I'm guessing that's not what you were getting at though. LMAO ~ Tim Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 20, 2011 Share Posted August 20, 2011 I don't think there's enough detail in that photo to conclude anything. But...if the fur looks manufactured and the DNA shows Bigfoot, the implication would be that Bigfoot fur looks manufactured. I'm guessing that's not what you were getting at though. 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts