Guest Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 (bolding mine) Is that so unlikely? According to these data, 2.8% of the U.S. adult population suffers from "severe mental illness." Assuming 200,000,000 adults from our population of just over 300,000,000, that's 5.6 million people who are severely mentally ill. The number with more mild illnesses and various personality disorders would be quite a bit more than that. These folks estimate 17.4 million Americans suffering from bipolar disorder, for example. So there are many millions of people in the U.S. suffering every day from mental illnesses that could lead them to behave erratically as perceived by folks without such problems. For multiple reasons, it would be inappropriate for me to suggest that Erickson or anyone else is "certifiable." That explanation is, however, an entirely valid hypothesis to explore if one is to assess the "Erickson Project" objectively. There is vastly more and better evidence that mental illnesses afflict people, i.e., millions of people are in fact certifiable, than there is that a population of undescribed giant, hairy hominids is running around in the woods right now. I appreciate that. Obviously the fact that some people are, in fact, certifiable is unquestioned, and thus more likely than the existence of Bigfoot. I was saying that I think it is just as unlikely that a person would go through this amount of trouble to perpetuate a hoax as it is that there is a population of giant, hairy hominids running around in the woods right now (not sure if "undescribed" is a scientific term that I am unfamiliar with, but as far as I know we do have a fairly consistent description of them). Taken as a stand-alone occurrence, I guess it is not that unlikely that any one person with the business savy, money, influence, and ability to appear perfectly sane would in fact be crazy enough (a very UN-scientific word) to do something like this over a period of 6-7 years for kicks. Taken as a stand-alone occurrence, I guess it is possible that every undeniable, broad daylight, eye-witness encounter who is 100% absolutely sure of what he saw could somehow still be mistaken and just saw a bear. Taken as a stand-alone occurrence, I guess it is possible that every set of tracks were either hoaxed or misidentified (by experts in that sort of thing), and that the hoaxers (across the entire continent) perpetuated their (individual or cooperative?) hoaxes in such a way that the size and shape of the feet follow a statistically significant bell-curve fairly consistent with the human population. For me, however, it starts to look less and less likely that all of these statistical anomalies would all occur congruently in such a way that would be necessary to keep the Bigfoot mythos alive all this time while not being true. If it is simply not real, then why is it not obviously not real? I understand the need for science to be absolutely sure in order to make any declarations, but how could one be so sure that all of these statistically unlikely things have lined up in such a way to convince reasonable people like myself and others much smarter than me that THE POSSIBILITY EXISTS that these animals might be out there? I can understand "I'll believe it when I see it", but I have a hard time understanding "I am 100% certain it DOES NOT exist". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 Taken as a stand-alone occurrence, I guess it is not that unlikely that any one person with the business savy, money, influence, and ability to appear perfectly sane would in fact be crazy enough (a very UN-scientific word) to do something like this over a period of 6-7 years for kicks. Sure, but you're also assuming that it's just been "for kicks." I'd argue that an even more likely potential explanation is that a perfectly rational, sane individual would do things like this for material gain. Many people think, for example, that Roger Patterson made no money on his film. In fact, some sources indicate that he made quite a bit. So the first thing I'd question if I was to seriously evaluate what this Erickson guy is up to is where and how he might be making money from this bigfoot stuff. Taken as a stand-alone occurrence, I guess it is possible that every undeniable, broad daylight, eye-witness encounter who is 100% absolutely sure of what he saw could somehow still be mistaken and just saw a bear. . . . Or be lying. Remember all those mentally ill people I mentioned? Taken as a stand-alone occurrence, I guess it is possible that every set of tracks were either hoaxed or misidentified (by experts in that sort of thing), and that the hoaxers (across the entire continent) perpetuated their (individual or cooperative?) hoaxes in such a way that the size and shape of the feet follow a statistically significant bell-curve fairly consistent with the human population. I'd call this exceedingly likely, not just possible . . . If it is simply not real, then why is it not obviously not real? To me it's obviously not real. I can understand "I'll believe it when I see it", but I have a hard time understanding "I am 100% certain it DOES NOT exist". Well 100% certainty is outside the realm of science, but for me it comes down to my understanding of just how unlikely it would be for something like a bigfoot to evade collection - even after death. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Biggie Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 No argument on the lack of detail. I only suggested that squiggly line was an ear because it's where an ear might be if the thing was curled up in the way I perceive/imagine it. With a bit more detail I might openly suggest it's a bolo tie on a dead prospector's buffalo robe. Right I knew you were just talking possibilities when I replied. It could be you never know. hehe ^ actual size. Thankfully we can just kill them here in the US with poison. That would be awful to have them as large as those where you could kill them with a pellet rifle. I still think there is a great chance that they purposely released a very ambiguous frame-grab from an excellent piece of video. That is certainly possible. I actually hope it is but I'm personally not putting any stock into it. Russell Brand? If I saw that in the woods I would definitely shoot it! by a million miles.. The picture that you posted on the right kind of looks like Chuck Norris to me. According to these data, 2.8% of the U.S. adult population suffers from "severe mental illness." These figures were from '04. I personally believe it may actually be substantially higher than that, especially with the wars and the bad economy where people are losing their jobs, homes, and going through divorces ect. With all the stress on people it's driving a lot of them nuts if they weren't to begin with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yowiie Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 I find it quite hard to beleive that the Erickson got so close too the supposed animal to video it. These animals are atuned to there surrounds and for one to be laying there sleeping while someone sneaks up and takes a vodeo. I don't think so Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted September 2, 2011 SSR Team Share Posted September 2, 2011 (edited) Russell Brand? Just for the record, you people can say what you like about Russel Brand but if you start saying bad things about his/our Football/Soccer Team, we're gonna fall out.. Edited September 2, 2011 by BobbyO Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 I find it quite hard to beleive that the Erickson got so close too the supposed animal to video it. These animals are atuned to there surrounds and for one to be laying there sleeping while someone sneaks up and takes a vodeo. I don't think so Well, supposedly (as the story goes), this particular group of BFs was on these people's land for a long time and they would leave food out for them regularly, so they became a bit accustomed to being around people, thus letting their guard down a bit; kind of like how the fish that live in the part of a stream that goes under a bridge don't get spooked as easily as the fish in the more remote parts of the stream do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted September 2, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted September 2, 2011 This is all I can think of when I see that pic. Yah, too bad the costumed actor was a bananaholic and forgot the suit mask mouth didn't open, thus the white impact zone slightly below the nose..... hate when that happens, lol, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted September 2, 2011 Share Posted September 2, 2011 Mr. Heironimus, how is Mr. Morris doing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Thepattywagon Posted September 3, 2011 Share Posted September 3, 2011 Yah, too bad the costumed actor was a bananaholic and forgot the suit mask mouth didn't open, thus the white impact zone slightly below the nose..... hate when that happens, lol, However, since that banana doesn't appear that it's been peeled, my guess is that the suit wearer had a coke problem, and had just come back from break. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LAL Posted September 3, 2011 Share Posted September 3, 2011 (edited) I would have to go and find this: <fixed it> Edited September 3, 2011 by LAL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 3, 2011 Share Posted September 3, 2011 No photos? Videos? Patty? Here's the new Sylvanic pic, looks a lot like Patty... Anything? If this is being passed off as a real picture or video clip of a Bigfoot then it is most likely a fake. If it is just art work for a web site or the TV show, it should have said it was just a . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Biggie Posted September 3, 2011 Share Posted September 3, 2011 (edited) Yah, too bad the costumed actor was a bananaholic and forgot the suit mask mouth didn't open, thus the white impact zone slightly below the nose..... hate when that happens, lol, Maybe he just really liked the smell of it and wanted to keep a little of it under his nose to smell for the rest of the day. Edited September 3, 2011 by Biggie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted September 3, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted September 3, 2011 If this is being passed off as a real picture or video clip of a Bigfoot then it is most likely a fake. If it is just art work for a web site or the TV show, it should have said it was just a F-A-K-E. Nice catch, what's with the white lettering across the forehead and midface, is that watermark too? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 11, 2012 Share Posted September 11, 2012 Does anyone have any updates on the documentary? Where it stands? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts