Guest Alpinist Posted August 28, 2011 Posted August 28, 2011 This whole thing does not make any sense to me. Something does not make sense here and it's not that Adrien Erickson is too stupid to follow Bigfoot news or that Matt Moneymaker thinks that he can boost ratings by exposing hoaxers on his highly rated TV show. I'm starting to think that they know something we don't. Good observation Cisco They do know something that you don't and that is the fact that there are multiple species comprising the Sasquatch phenomena, very likely including living homo sapien sapien / sasquatch hydrids. The PGF imagery has been erroneously set as the Benchmark footage. Clearly it's not. Some high profile Sasquatch commentators have managed to elevate themselves to authority positions on the appearance of the subject hominids, without ever having a personal sighting or an encounter. This is just adding confusion to the mix with what are really are just opinions on what a sasquatch is supposed to look like. The truth of the matter is that these "experts" have no way of knowing the range or variance in the species, or that multiple species are involved, and that much I did extract from Jason Erickson, that multiple species are involved. His opinion is that Todd Standing is going to get himself killed doing what he is doing. The orignal players in the research field which developed the model of Sasquatch have cherry picked reports and witness accounts to fit the old school model. Conveniently throwing out witnesses and reports that dont meet their criteria as hoaxes. The reality is that the new data crucifies the old model. Additionally I believe these species are surviving without a minimun viable population, just as the critics say, which is introducing deformities and mutations further complicating the expectations of those with the fixation that PGF is the benchmark for conformation and physical appearances.
Guest Posted August 28, 2011 Posted August 28, 2011 I completely agree with the previous 2 posts... people say the eyes don't look right, the mouth doesn't look right, the jaw isn't wide enough etc... the question is, how do you know? lets be open minded minded about BF/sasquatch until we actually find one... I am in no way saying that standing is legit and for all I know everything he says may be completely fabricated, let's hope finding bigfoot can get to the bottom of this once and for all
Guest Posted August 28, 2011 Posted August 28, 2011 Why expect Finding Bigfoot to get to the bottom of anything when the 'bottom line' of a film production is about Ratings! Ratings, ratings, ratings! Given the momentum of certain soon to be publicized footages, the relationships that exist are further developing into a 'who jumped on the boat' scenario, so hyping of certain people and events will be part of the grand plan to success for those involved. Finding Bigfoot will also likely do the same thing as they did with the McKenzie footage by getting as much mileage out of it as possible in as many ways as possible and by not offering any damning findings to spoil the pot. If AE is who is putting the $2 mil into Standing's deceased body fund, why would Finding Bigfoot rock that boat too much? They won't! But if Erickson hasn't been to Sylvanic himself, and is simply relying on the same footage, claims, and hype the public is, even with personal meetings, well he doesn't know any more then we do. Standing operates a sizable video production company with complete access to makeup artists and their own NDAs as well. We won't get truth but instead a 'the footage and claims are compelling' outcome from FB. If a multi-millionaire believes that something is legit, even though that person doesn't know the full back-story of claims, money can compel true or false evidence forward equally. That's what money does. Likewise there are people without money and very real evidence who are never afforded equal opportunity. Money talks, and so do snazzy videos. To give another example of where AE was not around to examine, is when Standing rode the wave about the teens who disappeared in Sylvanic. Man did that story get hyped up by Standing for a long period. Those people were legit as can be if you listened to Standing. Remember, he was protecting the families by not mentioning their names. He had inside information during the hype. He knew how to work it and as he leapfrogged it to the next level, he was then able to discretely leave that one behind and move to the next level. Standing did this over and over and I suspect Erickson is just as gullible as the next person despite his money. I tried to open Erickson's eyes here to these incidents but even millionaires can fall for things. I hope he is reading this too because if he doesn't examine and question all those early false claims of Standing that were part of what made the claim, he's just doing a big disservice to this mystery and the public. The same goes for Finding Bigfoot.
Guest HairyGreek Posted August 28, 2011 Posted August 28, 2011 Besides, is easier to believe a fellow Canadian. It is equally doubtful that MM would go very far against AE's position on how Standing is viewed. I hope that this is speculation and not truth. If I ignored someone's opinions and/or beliefs due to their nationality, I would be very intellectually poor indeed.
Cisco Posted August 28, 2011 Posted August 28, 2011 Good observation Cisco They do know something that you don't and that is the fact that there are multiple species comprising the Sasquatch phenomena, very likely including living homo sapien sapien / sasquatch hydrids. The PGF imagery has been erroneously set as the Benchmark footage. Clearly it's not. Some high profile Sasquatch commentators have managed to elevate themselves to authority positions on the appearance of the subject hominids, without ever having a personal sighting or an encounter. This is just adding confusion to the mix with what are really are just opinions on what a sasquatch is supposed to look like. The truth of the matter is that these "experts" have no way of knowing the range or variance in the species, or that multiple species are involved, and that much I did extract from Jason Erickson, that multiple species are involved. His opinion is that Todd Standing is going to get himself killed doing what he is doing. The orignal players in the research field which developed the model of Sasquatch have cherry picked reports and witness accounts to fit the old school model. Conveniently throwing out witnesses and reports that dont meet their criteria as hoaxes. The reality is that the new data crucifies the old model. Additionally I believe these species are surviving without a minimun viable population, just as the critics say, which is introducing deformities and mutations further complicating the expectations of those with the fixation that PGF is the benchmark for conformation and physical appearances. Alpinist, Why does Jason Erickson think that Standing is going to get himself killed? Thanks Cisco
Guest Alpinist Posted August 28, 2011 Posted August 28, 2011 (edited) Cisco, to me, what Jason did imply is that you are on a limited timeline for personal survival, if you continue to travel alone, or with companions into territories under control of humanistic, prehistoric beings, and try to video tape them. It's a serious matter doing what guys like Dennis Phol and Todd S. was/are doing, don't kid yourself. Jason certainly didn't doubt the veracity of Standings unpublished footage which apparently is spectacular full body sequences in motion. My impression is Adrian paid big bucks for all of Todds grade "AAA" footage which has never been made public. Apparently the similarities between the Sasquatch Todd has filmed and the Sasquatch Dennis Phol et. al have filmed which were totally sufficient to justify the purchase of Todds clips. The off camera behaviors of the shooter is irrelevant to Erickson. Adrian is completely objective about the resultant footage, I bet you can be a convicted criminal, but if your Sasquatch footage is genuine I am sure the Erickson project will add it to their growing collection. You will notice down the road that once Erickson publishes footage, he is not going to credit the shooter once he becomes the owner of the sequence, it is his footage, and his footage alone, perhaps shot by "some guy", but that guy will never be referred to by name when the EP goes public Once the Ketchum report is released, the current EP critics will be sorely under qualified to participate in future discussions on the subject, which will be taking place at a much higher academic level than they are now. If you don't have PhD. you can forget about your "opinion" or "analysis" getting any serious traction in the future. The folks who delivered the physcal evidence, the DNA, will be the only ones the media and academics will be paying attention to in the future. Anyone else is going to be the equivalent of a little mouse squeaking in the corner "Look at me world. Look at me .... I have an opinion which contradicts the physical evidence" - Edited August 28, 2011 by Alpinist
bipedalist Posted August 28, 2011 BFF Patron Posted August 28, 2011 Alpinist, excuse me, but if a PhD is what's required to take this to the next level then sadly some good data in the field will be lost to history. Since the paper has not yet been submitted it could be written by 20 PhD's but where is that going to take us in 3 months, 6 months, another year. Certainly if Standing had something and sold it then lo and behold the poor person that got stuck with that bag. I couldn't care less about what Standing had or has or sold to somebody else. The man was caught shilling his own comments and research/films, what more needs to be said about the veracity of someone who was caught red-handed touching up his own rep by subterfuge. As to the species make-up of any sasquatch or related organisms, I believe I will await the findings in print. Even if you have a Ph.D. yourself it is all just hearsay at this point. Sorry, but that is where we are at. Nothing personal. Just that there are no rock stars in this field. And yes, I have data and have my own personal sighting so don't go there. Now all I guess I need is a PhD?
Guest Alpinist Posted August 28, 2011 Posted August 28, 2011 (edited) Bipedalist I don't expect many of us, my self included, to be regarded as anything more than foot notes, post discovery. Some book authors will be noted, but my belief is professional academia will move forward on its own, looking for fresh data with their own methods. Or enlisting those whom have mastered successful DNA collection techniques, not just the guys submitting a handful of hair Regardless of your bigfoot experiences or mine, I doubt most of us will be heard or seen. If that happens, I'm not going to worry about it, nor should you. Our category was described by Bindernagle as "amatuers", and according to him we have done a good job, but clearly he also believes that the academics must do the heavy lifting going forward And of course this is only my opinion, but yes thats what I see happening. I am also quite certain, that going forward, the professionals and academics involved, will solely be judging imagery, objectively, just on its technical merits, not the behaviors of the camera man Edited August 28, 2011 by Alpinist
Guest Posted August 28, 2011 Posted August 28, 2011 (edited) If the cameraman has access to makeup artists and actors, then someone has a responsibility to verifiably rule those out as the means for the end product. As Bipedalist again mentioned above, Standing did utilize shill methods to hype his film and research. For what is being presented, there is a mountain of consequential claims by Standing that have never been authenticated. Edited August 28, 2011 by PragmaticTheorist
Guest Alpinist Posted August 28, 2011 Posted August 28, 2011 (edited) If the cameraman has access to makeup artists and actors, then someone has a responsibility to verifiably rule those out as the means for the end product. As Bipedalist again mentioned above, Standing did utilize shill methods to hype his film and research. For what is being presented, there is a mountain of consequential claims by Standing that have never been authenticated. Speculation about video production and makeup artists is neither here nor there in my opinion. Nor does subjectively about the shooters behaviors qualify a sequence Determining the location and scooping Todd for some footage of your own from his site is would be much more productive. Truth of the matter is in British Columbia, certain wild areas consistently yield encounters, the quantifier is are you skilled enough to get the shot ? Regardless of his over the top hype, I have no doubt he is going into areas of high Sasquatch activity. These areas are not scarce in British Columbia. If you wanted to be thorough, you would discern the location and make the trek to the site yourself, look for evidence of Sasquatch there, and perhaps shoot your own footage. I am always in contact with people in BC asking me to visit them or come to my areas. Sadly Todd is not very friendly in that regard or I would have made the trip out there. tho now it seems he has a tv production crew coming for a visit. That much gear and people are guaranteed to yield a "negative result". Edited August 28, 2011 by Alpinist
Guest Posted August 28, 2011 Posted August 28, 2011 I've had four visual encounters and countless non-visual ones Alpinist and the visual encounters weren't even while looking. You could say I've also outgrown the desire to prove their existence for ethical reasons. I am more interested in the process of truth and consequences that curtails if and when they be proven. I also have no need or desire to locate or capitalize on some location in BC that has no more bigfoot there then places I know of. Finding Bigfoot isn't just some exploitive tv show. lol Nope, sorry, can't alter priorities. Standing has skeletons still standing behind his claims. Here's another.. Where is that botanist who discovered a never before species of plant in the lost land of Sylvanic?
Cisco Posted August 29, 2011 Posted August 29, 2011 I've never met Standing and know nothing about the man, other than what has been said on this forum or others like it. What I do know is that he keeps presenting video footage and it's getting better and better, insofar as clarity and detail is concerned. Is it real? I don't know as I have never seen a Bigfoot with my own 2 eyes. However, I get a little concerned when Standing's footage is dismissed because the creatures in his videos don't have the right size mouths or eyes. Is it possible that there's a variance in appearance within the species? Clearly, Standing has told some "whoppers" over the years and appears to be a complete self promoter. He may have lied and used underhanded tactics to create hype and interest in his videos or website. Regardless, does this mean he lies about everything, all the time? Speaking for myself, I have told a few lies over my lifetime but don't consider myself a pathological liar. Again, I'm not saying that Standing's footage is real but I do believe that it could be and, judging by Erickson and the BFRO's interest, it very well might be. The close up of his most recent video, looks very lifelike and I'm able to see movement as well. I'm keeping an open mind on this one.
Guest Alpinist Posted August 30, 2011 Posted August 30, 2011 I spent a lot of years going over the area of Alberta where this Sylvanic valley or whatever it is is said to be. There is no such place by that name. News flash - active field researchers do not like divulge actual locations to anyone particularly other researchers
Guest jimmy simpson Posted August 30, 2011 Posted August 30, 2011 Im agreeing this is all about ratings.... The majority of the population rarely gives bigfoot a second thought... even less are those who research in any capacity. The whole Todd Standing thing would grab peoples attention who would otherwise not be interested....
Guest Posted August 30, 2011 Posted August 30, 2011 They need to do a show on Biscardi. The Master Hoaxer. This to me would be a huge mistake.... #1 I am sick and tired of people defending this man- claiming he was "duped" into believing the Georgia hoax. SERIOUSLY- have you seen the video's where his brother, and associates of his are giving the two Georgia boy's a hand "unpacking" the hoax bigfoot from the freezer? They are not surprised at all with the contents, and stand around joking with both men who had supposedly found the dead creature. I'm sorry, but at this point in time it's not a question at all to me that he was most likely involved from the get go... #2 With what the two guy's in Georgia are spouting now- that "the government swooped in and stole our "real" bigfoot- is why we had to perpetuate a hoax"... How is that going to make anyone take these creatures seriously? Answer? It's not... It's just another instance where "normal" folks can guffaw and belly laugh at those silly people who believe in the existence of these creatures... I agree- the show is about "finding bigfoot"- not making people think the idea is even more ridiculous than they do already... Thats my .02 cents, your mileage may vary. Art
Recommended Posts