What If Nothing Comes Of The Ketchum/op/erickson Projects?

[Guest RedRatSnake]

Parn, I'm sorry for that sarcastic response to your question.

AWESOME ~

We are all intertwined in this and really do need to just talk it out no matter what side we are on ? Think of bigfooting as kinda like a Cat, you love it and care for it and want nothing but the best for it's health and well being, But no matter what your best intentions are all you get back is give me more ~

[BobbyO]

???? That is way far off, 2 seconds into a Google search and i found an awesome collection, unless i am missing something here within the conversation? you can get a mask that is absolutely killer anytime.

http://www.google.co.uk/search?tbm=isch&hl=en&source=hp&biw=1440&bih=626&q=big+foot+mask&gbv=2&oq=big+foot+mask&aq=f&aqi=g-s1&aql=&gs_sm=e&gs_upl=1681l7631l0l8242l17l17l2l1l1l0l232l1975l2.10.2l14l0

Yeah i think you've read it wrong Tim, i know you can buy BF Masks at anytime..

Edited November 24, 2011 by BobbyO

[Guest RedRatSnake]

Yeah i think you've read it wrong Tim, i know you can buy BF Masks at anytime..

You should take up fishing then you would know how to bait a hook, You said this ~

I think you'll find most BF Masks would have roughly the same kind of look Crow, there's not really a great deal of variation to them overall...

Man that was the easiest fish i have caught since i have joined this forum.

[southernyahoo]

Please show me a representation of Bigfoot, either drawn or mask-wise, that as closely resembles these two representations as they do each other, please.

Perhaps you make too little of the similiarities.

Do you know where these come from Jerry? This is a real test of your familiarity with several players in the bigfoot community that you should have in order to be making any judgements. Mulder did say general description, and your comparison couldn't be anymore meaningful than the fact that the images below were derived from both evidence and a forensic scetch made by an expert artist , both provided by the same witness.

[BobbyO]

You should take up fishing then you would know how to bait a hook, You said this ~

I think you'll find most BF Masks would have roughly the same kind of look Crow, there's not really a great deal of variation to them overall...

Man that was the easiest fish i have caught since i have joined this forum.

You've lost me as usual Tim..

& i wasn't fishing either, 100%.

Unless this has completely gone over my head, i was attempting to make the point that BF Masks would probably look like BF's & they would all have pretty much the same thing going on with them IE Hairy Monster, Chewbacca kind of thing..

Do you know where these come from Jerry? This is a real test of your familiarity with several players in the bigfoot community that you should have in order to be making any judgements. Mulder did say general description, and your comparison couldn't be anymore meaningful than the fact that the images below were derived from both evidence and a forensic scetch made by an expert artist , both provided by the same witness.

The one on the right is 2R isn't it ??

[southernyahoo]

The one on the right is 2R isn't it ??

The one on the right comes from this link. http://www.texasbigfoot.com/reports/report/detail/429 In 2007 at the TBRC conference, Alton Higgins released this composite as representative of what a bigfoot looks like. He arrived at this appearance by extracting facial features discernable in a couple photographs provided to him by a witness who took them in Oklahoma. He used these features in conjunction with input from the witness from Marion Co. Texas , plus the help of Pete Travers to complete the sketch.

I had the opportunity to ask the Marion Co. witness how he felt about the final sketch, he said he was mostly satisfied with it, but said he remembered the face being wider.

The one on the left is the forensic sketch that Harvey Pratt drew in an interview with the same witness that provided the photos to Alton Higgins.

[Guest]

Do you know where these come from Jerry? This is a real test of your familiarity with several players in the bigfoot community that you should have in order to be making any judgements. Mulder did say general description, and your comparison couldn't be anymore meaningful than the fact that the images below were derived from both evidence and a forensic scetch made by an expert artist , both provided by the same witness.

I understand you are making a point, I just don't understand what that point is.

Let's back up. I presented the EP artistic image of a sasquatch that some folks think is a rendering based on video images held by the EP. I offered a comparison image of a sasquatch mask that looked very similar to the EP image. This is not a definitive indictment of the EP, there may be a reasonable explanation for the similarities (such as the image is not related to the videos, but was a rendering of the mask --- we would need to check certain dates to consider this a possibility). On the other hand, it may possibly indicate hoaxing.

Mulder chimed in and suggested the comparison was a non-issue because everyone knows what a sasquatch looks like, suggesting to me that he was stating the artist's rendering and the artist's mask were standard sasquatch images. I asked him to find sasquatch images that would be close matches to the rendering and mask, as close as they are to each other.

The issue is that the EP image and the mask are really atypical sasquatch images, but closely matching each other. Here are several sketches of Bigfoot based on eyewitness statements: http://www.thepaintedcave.com/img/pete/sasketch/hypo/head/index.php (My favorite is number 2 --- Son of Kong!).

I don't see a match to the EP rendering or the mask. The atypical sasquatch presented by the mask and seen in the EP image might indicate something suspicious. The answer to the similarity between mask and EP picture, and their matching non-conforming image of sasquatch, is not found in assuming they mirror a general imaging of sasquatch --- because they do not.

You enter with two sketches representing the same witness's memory of his sasquatch sighting --- to show ---- what exactly? Honestly, I don't know what you are aiming at. (BTW, the two images you provide are close enough, if allowing for making 2 heavier. I am wondering, though, why one has a widow's peak and the other does not.).

As to your "real test", I recognized Pratt's handiwork because I've read The Hoopa Project. I'm assuming this sketch is from Tribal Bigfoot, which I need to read. Also I read the TBRC witness account before. I read on TBRC some time ago about the photo of Bigfoot that AH has and I e-mailed JH requesting information. He stated that AH had presented the photo at a Bigfoot conference in OK. but had not published it anywhere. Have you seen this photo and is it impressive?

3 questions seeking your opinion.

1. If you and the TBRC believe the witness (whose sasquatch images you presented), then why does the TBRC seem to think they are dealing with "wood apes" and are favoring shooting them on sight?

2. Why has AH not released the photo(s) he has of OK Bigfoot?

3. Are you bothered by different looks attributed to Bigfoot? For instance, at Honobia they had a life size artist's rendering of Bigfoot, looking for all the world like a hirsute Conan the Barbarian, facially hairless, rounded head with long head hair. A few miles away, it was later reported, a TBRC member shot at what he said was a sasquatch known by the signature "cone-head". Even looking at the sketches at The Painted Cave show gorilla-like Bigfoot, caveman looking Bigfoot, Patty looking Bigfoot, human looking Bigfoot, etc.,etc.

[Guest Jodie]

So am I ready for that, you bet! I'm ready for anything.

Derek, seriously,if the forensic test that was done first on Justin's piece of flesh came back as human, but whatever Melba does is refuted for whatever reason, then the first ID will stand. You aren't ready if that thought hadn't occurred to you before now. It doesn't mean anybody's lying about anything, just means the world sees it a different way. I wouldn't fall on a sword for anyone, not for something like this. Both of you probably need to get some advice now, rather than wait, no matter how unlikely you think that will be the outcome.

[Guest StankApe]

Really guys? I'm usually skeptically optimistic, but I see no reason to debate a drawing Vs a mask.... Regardless of your beliefs, any bigfoot predisposition is going to influence a drawing even IF it's an attempt to recreate info given to you by an outside source (hence the difference between the two above drawings). I don't think there's a drawing of the big feller out there that doesn't resemble some mask or another!

[southernyahoo]

You enter with two sketches representing the same witness's memory of his sasquatch sighting --- to show ---- what exactly? Honestly, I don't know what you are aiming at. (BTW, the two images you provide are close enough, if allowing for making 2 heavier. I am wondering, though, why one has a widow's peak and the other does not.).

It was to show the general appearance of one bigfoot arrived at by two different artisits, and two different methods. I explained in a later post that the image on the right had two different inputs of info so it is a blend from photographic evidence and witness memory. The input from the Marion county witness might have skewed what would have been there if using the photo's only.

As to your "real test", I recognized Pratt's handiwork because I've read The Hoopa Project. I'm assuming this sketch is from Tribal Bigfoot, which I need to read. Also I read the TBRC witness account before. I read on TBRC some time ago about the photo of Bigfoot that AH has and I e-mailed JH requesting information. He stated that AH had presented the photo at a Bigfoot conference in OK. but had not published it anywhere. Have you seen this photo and is it impressive?

I've seen the photo's during AH's presentations a couple times, they are lucky amatuer shots that grain out a bit when zoomed in, though facial landmarks can be made out. You should try and catch his presentation on that sometime. Check tribal bigfoot page 400.

3 questions seeking your opinion.

1. If you and the TBRC believe the witness (whose sasquatch images you presented), then why does the TBRC seem to think they are dealing with "wood apes" and are favoring shooting them on sight?

I think it is a simple black and white issue with them. If it is not 100% Sapiens then it is an animal and OK to kill it.

2. Why has AH not released the photo(s) he has of OK Bigfoot?

Like many images of BF. They are'nt HD and in your face close, full body shots. They wouldn't be definitive on their own.

3. Are you bothered by different looks attributed to Bigfoot? For instance, at Honobia they had a life size artist's rendering of Bigfoot, looking for all the world like a hirsute Conan the Barbarian, facially hairless, rounded head with long head hair. A few miles away, it was later reported, a TBRC member shot at what he said was a sasquatch known by the signature "cone-head". Even looking at the sketches at The Painted Cave show gorilla-like Bigfoot, caveman looking Bigfoot, Patty looking Bigfoot, human looking Bigfoot, etc.,etc.

I doubt the wider variations in appearance, like the fully ape kong appearnce with tiny cranium, I think that a pattern of hair growth could explain the cone shape on the head. I think a wide variance would have to be from their blood lines and whether there are various degrees of hybridization.

Edited November 25, 2011 by southernyahoo

[southernyahoo]

The issue is that the EP image and the mask are really atypical sasquatch images, but closely matching each other. Here are several sketches of Bigfoot based on eyewitness statements: http://www.thepainte.../head/index.php (My favorite is number 2 --- Son of Kong!).

I don't see a match to the EP rendering or the mask. The atypical sasquatch presented by the mask and seen in the EP image might indicate something suspicious. The answer to the similarity between mask and EP picture, and their matching non-conforming image of sasquatch, is not found in assuming they mirror a general imaging of sasquatch --- because they do not.

Your link is to a gallery of "hypothetical" renderings. They are to offer a starting point for a witness, to begin a more accurate description. Travers will work with a witness to alter the starting sketch to get it right. So you are grossly misrepresenting those images. Same as with the assumption that the EP image is suppose to represent what he has on film and derrived from the mask. You can't use assumptions like that to infer or bolster a suspicion.

How do I know some guy isn't making masks to match various pieces of art which may or may not correspond to a genuine forensic sketch or film image so that people like you could infer that the reverse occured and someone hoaxed with the mask?

[bipedalist]

2. Why has AH not released the photo(s) he has of OK Bigfoot?

Follow-up to this follow-up. Is the alleged picture alluded to as the AH picture of BF in any way associated with the Oklahoma

Casino incident?

[southernyahoo]

Follow-up to this follow-up. Is the alleged picture alluded to as the AH picture of BF in any way associated with the Oklahoma

Casino incident?

Well not directly tied to the casino incident but in that general area, yes.

[Guest]

Derek, seriously,if the forensic test that was done first on Justin's piece of flesh came back as human, but whatever Melba does is refuted for whatever reason, then the first ID will stand. You aren't ready if that thought hadn't occurred to you before now. It doesn't mean anybody's lying about anything, just means the world sees it a different way. I wouldn't fall on a sword for anyone, not for something like this. Both of you probably need to get some advice now, rather than wait, no matter how unlikely you think that will be the outcome.

Jodie, do you seriously believe that we haven't thought of all scenarios? Seriously??? I didn't just ride up on a pumpkin truck! I'm not going to lock myself in a panic room over what this sample might be. I had nothing to do with killing anything. I'm a Sasquatch researcher involved with a DNA study. I hear that somebody shot one. I urge that person to go back and look for evidence. Some evidence is recovered. I direct him where he can send it if he so desires. Authorities are told about indecent and not one takes it seriously. The sample reaches its destination and tests very well. It's now part of a large DNA study. At what point do I fall on the sword? What would you have done differently? Understand, there is no precedent for this. This is new ground. Has everything been done perfectly? I have no idea, this has never happened before. Just like our work with the Skookum cast, everybody thinks they could have handled it better than we did. My answer is, get out there and do it then. If you want to be a serious researcher, get out from behind the computer, get off the couch, pop yourself up from the recliner and get your butt out in the field. Stop talking and start doing. Just be careful, when and if you do find something, folks will come at you from all angles....you're lying, or why did you do things that way...or what's your motivation...MONEY, oh ya I'll bet that's it, it's got to be MONEY!!!!.

I truly love this research, and it's a good thing, because if I didn't, I'd never put myself through the ridicule and all the BS that comes with it.

DR

[Guest Jodie]

I truly love this research, and it's a good thing, because if I didn't, I'd never put myself through the ridicule and all the BS that comes with it.

DR

Ok, first off, from what you haven't said, you do come off as short sighted and you have changed your story a couple of times, that's not good. By the venom and defensiveness in your response I can see that you probably didn't initially think it all through and now you are stuck. It's only taken me and a few other posters several times asking this same question in many different ways over the course of a few months to even get an answer, if this is what you want to call an answer.

You keep saying Justin submitted the sample but you have yet to explain why you are the one receiving the test results. So, excuse me for being concerned, but it still sounds like you need some help since things never, ever work out the way you anticipate. Even if everything turns out the way you want it too, there will be differences in what you said here versus the book so which version is the truth? Why respond on a thread if you can't tell the truth to begin with? That just further eats into your credibility IMO, even though I've found it all fascinating, just like I do when I drive by a car accident on the interstate.