southernyahoo Posted December 5, 2011 Posted December 5, 2011 I try not to get emotional about all this, but the facts will simply speak for themselves. If science agrees with the findings, then the laymen comments won't mean much in the matter. There might even be some crying who knows! I think one crowd will be silent while the other is loud.
Guest RayG Posted December 5, 2011 Posted December 5, 2011 I think one crowd will be silent while the other is loud. Why? I'm guessing the two crowds you refer to are skeptics and non-skeptics. If DNA testing confirms an undiscovered/unclassified critter then it's a win-win situation and both crowds will welcome the news. If DNA testing is inconclusive, then what is there to be loud about? Nothing will have changed. RayG
southernyahoo Posted December 5, 2011 Posted December 5, 2011 Yes we could have skeptics and proponents who are loudly rejoicing in the discovery. I just don't call some who are certain BF doesn't exist, " skeptics" you must remember.
Guest RayG Posted December 5, 2011 Posted December 5, 2011 Assuming the DNA conclusion is positive, I see skeptics changing their position on bigfoot. However, what happens if it isn't? Will the loudest of proponents rethink their position? I doubt it. RayG
southernyahoo Posted December 5, 2011 Posted December 5, 2011 I think my hypothesis would change and be rethought , but then I don't personally have a sighting that is definitive for me. Those that do have that probably won't give up. I really think that if this project can't nail something down on this seemingly simple question of existence it won't likely happen. Here's a question for you. Would existence be enough, or would you want to have every aspect of their lives studied to go with the proof?
Guest RayG Posted December 5, 2011 Posted December 5, 2011 Can't speak for anyone else, but their substantiated existence would suffice for me. RayG
Cotter Posted July 17, 2012 Posted July 17, 2012 Wanted to bump this to discuss the Erickson Project. Not much has happened in that camp as of late. Are they dead in the water? I would just guess that activity may increase on their site as the Ketchum DNA paper nears the final chapter (alledgely). Anyone heard anything recently?
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted July 17, 2012 Posted July 17, 2012 I read it'll be released right after Dr. Ketchum's paper is published.
Guest Shaun Posted July 17, 2012 Posted July 17, 2012 I read somewhere it's at a Hollywood production company for 'polishing'. Whatever that means.
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted July 17, 2012 Posted July 17, 2012 Oh ya, the Sasquatch on the home page is a sketch of Matilda http://www.sasquatchthequest.com/images/matilda.jpg
Cotter Posted January 30, 2013 Posted January 30, 2013 The Erickson Project has kind of faded. Has anyone caught any blurbs on any of the talk shows about this lately?
Guest Posted January 30, 2013 Posted January 30, 2013 ^Last I heard, still in a "holding pattern' pending the KS results.
Guest Posted January 30, 2013 Posted January 30, 2013 Assuming the DNA conclusion is positive, I see skeptics changing their position on bigfoot. However, what happens if it isn't? Will the loudest of proponents rethink their position? I doubt it. RayG there can't be a 'positive' result, only a result that generates more questions.
Guest Darrell Posted January 31, 2013 Posted January 31, 2013 ^Last I heard, still in a "holding pattern' pending the KS results. So it will probably never see the light of day?
HOLDMYBEER Posted January 31, 2013 Posted January 31, 2013 I kinda wonder that happened to the people associated to the Erickson Project. Seems like Dennis Pfohl and Leila Hadj-Chikh would still be in the mix. Even with NDAs they would seem to have something to say.
Recommended Posts