Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Scraptee
Trad climber
Tacoma
|
|
this was a scary encounter at the top of Third Pillar of Dana until I realized the feet in the photo were my very own size 14s...
|
|
golsen
Social climber
kennewick, wa
|
|
LEB, "Time seems altered somewhat."
I have experienced much the same thing when reading LEB's posts...
|
|
bmacd
Trad climber
British Columbia
|
|
Wilderness sculpture, created by Sasquatch
Photo Credit - Mungeclimber
|
|
bmacd
Trad climber
British Columbia
|
|
|
Dec 10, 2009 - 12:24pm PT
|
[lifted from bigfootencounters.com] - Adrians Bio can be found at http://www.regalridge.com/RegalRidgeAcreages_developer.htm
Canadian energy sector multi-millionaire Adrian Erickson's Sasquatch Videos
The mysterious Kentucky project
Video footage of sasquatch was supposedly obtained in northern Kentucky.
When will they release it? This is the question asked the most when it comes to the mysterious Kentucky footage. And there isn't just one film, but many. Up to 20 clips, John Bindernagel told me. The wildlife biologist from Vancouver island saw the clips and watched a sasquatch on the location in Kentucky himself in 2007. It's still unknown when the videos will be shown to the public. Chris Noel, a bigfoot researcher with the BFRO from Vermont, said in August in a radio interview that a documentary will be released before the end of the year. John Bindernagel had announced that it would be out in fall 2008 or spring 2009. Nothing came out. Adrian Erickson, who owns the clips, has not give any information about his plans and the project at all.
It is also not known how these clips will be released. Will they be put on a DVD for sale? Or aired on TV? Maybe as a launch of the forthcoming BFRO documentary series? Will the clips be shown in a Monster Quest episode? Or will they be presented at a press conference? If they do have such clear footage as some have claimed, I would assume that they will present their effort at a press conference. It's the way the "Missing link" fossil of an early primate was presented last year. They did a conference first to draw attention and then showed the evidence for everybody in a documentary on popular TV channels worldwide.
There's a lot known about the Kentucky project although the owner of the clips and the BFRO try to keep it secret. Questions and posts about it get deleted at the BFRO discussion forums. Probably most of the involved people were told to keep their mouths shut. Stan Courtney, a researcher from Illinois, who was involved in an early stage of the project, told me that he's not aloud to say anything. "I signed a non-disclosure agreement." So did probably other involved parties. But this is known: Adrian Erickson, company owner and bigfoot research financier from British Columbia, is reportedly in possession of several videos of sasquatch. They were taken during the last couple of years on a rural property in northern Kentucky. Allegedly there was a so called habituation scenario: A family had regular visits of these creatures. A friend of the family eventually submitted a message to the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization (BFRO) in 2005. Several researchers came to investigate. They obtained footage: the controversial "pancake video". Erickson purchased the footage from the BFRO and took over the case. He bought the property because he wanted to collect further evidence. He hired Colorado bigfoot researcher Dennis Pfohl and ecologist/biologist Leila Hadj-Chikh. In 2007 scientists Jeff Meldrum and John Bindernagel visited the research site.
Hoaxed or not?
But it seems that not everything went the way Erickson wished to. D.B. Donlon, who maintains the "Blogsquatcher" website, speculated that they didn't get new footage after Erickson took over the case. "After the original witnesses sold the house to the Canadian the activity stopped,” he told me. “From what I heard, but this was early on, Leila Hadj-Chikh had not seen anything herself at the location." Donlon, who investigated the Kentucky case firsthand in 2005 when he was still with the BFRO, said that he had heard of five videos and had seen two. "All of those had been filmed either by or with the help of the original witnesses." They had other problems too: The notorious bigfoot hoaxer Tom Biscardi found out about the project. He went to the site but was eventually chased away by the former property owner.
Did the creatures move on? Is this the reason why Adrian Erickson bought another research area in Tennessee? As bigfoot researcher and author Mary Green told me, the Canadian paid a new house for the notorious bigfoot "contactee" Janice Carter in Tennessee in 2006. Green wrote about Carter's case in the much-debated book "50 Years with Bigfoot". But the Tennessee project was a failure for Erickson according to Green: "Janice couldn't furnish any footage or evidence to Erickson." Green guessed that Erickson established a second project because he wanted to back up his findings in Kentucky.
And there's the question of authenticity. Donlon thinks that at least one clip was faked. "The first video, the one I describe in my blog posts, was destroyed by the witness, and I believe it was destroyed because it was too obviously a hoax when shown on a larger TV in good resolution," he told me. "It's important to keep in mind that these witnesses were paid for their home, either 100,000 or 200,000 dollars, as a result of their videos. They had a very clear motive to hoax." Donlon found other evidence much more convincing. "A footprint had visible dermal ridges and was large." But the most persuasive sign for Donlon was the behavior of the dogs of the property owners. "I've never seen dogs act like that. They were truly deathly afraid of whatever was in those woods."
Another controversial piece of film coming from the Kentucky project is the "pancake video". It's a night-time video, showing a creature with a striking large head that reaches for a bait. It appeared on cryptomundo.com for a short time in 2007. "One researcher I know said that it might show a creature with dwarfism - the overlarge head and the short arms being a trait for that," said Donlon. "By my measurements, the creature could not be the lady witness, and she was the only one unaccounted for at that time." Alton Higgins, bigfoot researcher and biologist from Oklahoma, analyzed the footage also. He believes that it shows a person.
At least one video may be very conclusive according to Mary Green, whom Dennis Pfohl showed some clips. "You could see the creature from above her forehead somewhat and then down to about her waist. It was slowly walking through the woods and coming closer", she described to me. Green rules out that the creature was someone in a suit or a misidentified animal. "In my honest opinion it clearly shows a sasquatch."
Chris Noel spoke about another clear clip on the radio. "The woman was able to obtain daylight color high-definition video of this animal. It's a five and a half foot tall female juvenile sasquatch. This footage is going to blow the roof off the whole field." He said that it would be as least as convincing as the Patterson footage, if not a lot more. It's probably the same video Green told about.
The best video since '67?
It seems fishy that this footage – as good as it is supposed to be – hasn't seen the light of day and that its owner hasn't spoken a word about it. Up to now, film footage was released shortly after it was taken. For example the Patterson film in 1967: Without getting it analyzed Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin showed their video only days after filming all over the country. But the result was disappointing for them: Hardly did scientists take note of it.
According to Mary Green, Janice Carter was told that Erickson won't publish anything until he has many hours of footage and DNA results, and until everyhing is properly analyzed by scientists. It is uncertain if the project is completed. If not, they surely don't want to attract other bigfoot researchers or the media. The Georgia hoax last year demonstrated how newspapers react to claims of sensational bigfoot evidence: they go crazy. Another reason to keep it on the low could be that Erickson and Co. were hoaxed and are now trying to gloss over. So there are reasons to keep the Kentucky project in the dark. Fact is that infos are leaking out. Maybe this is unintentional, but maybe not, as D.B. Donlon points out: “I don't think they are trying to keep a real tight lid on things. My assumption is that Adrian wants to maximize his profit from his video, so leaks here and there are good things.”
The over 40 years old Patterson film from northern California is still considered the best (video) evidence to date. Several alleged videos were shot though in the meantime. The Freeman footage is the most spectacular. In the last year, several night-time videos were obtained. The most interesting is the Mike Greene thermal video. But none of these could convince science of bigfoot's existence. Nor will the Kentucky videos. It doesn't matter how good they are, because films can be manipulated in perfection today. But backed up with testimonies of scientists who have actually seen the creatures on the location, a multi-year study and maybe DNA evidence, the Kentucky project could be a groundbreaking event in sasquatch research.
Interview with Mary Green
“The Video clearly shows a sasquatch”
Mary Green is a bigfoot researcher and author of the controversial book “50 Years with Bigfoot.” She says she has seen some of the Kentucky clips. She describes two in detail and doesn't think that they are hoaxed.
Mary Green, you have seen some of the so called Kentucky clips. Can you tell me about them?
Yes. Dennis Pfohl showed me several videos, some of them taken in color and daylight. I watched them on his laptop screen one by one.
Why did Dennis Pfohl show you these clips?
I believe he did so because he was hoping to win Janice Carter over and have her work for Adrian Erickson. They wished to have another habituation case to help back up the Kentucky project. But I think Janice was never able to furnish any videos or other proofs to Adrian Erickson.
Who had taken these videos from Kentucky?
I just know that S. had taken the close-up videos of the female and was told by Dennis that J. had taken a couple of good videos of the male. I did not get to see any videos of the male. Dennis did say that there was a resident male around at times and that he thought this female was its mate. I did not get to see any video of the baby either.
Can you tell me about the videos Dennis Pfohl presented to you?
One color video showed several minutes of the young female sleeping on the ground. It was a bit dark in the woods but the one who filmed did an excellent job of capturing her while she slept. The female hominid was not curled up tightly, but rather laying mostly on her back. She looked very relaxed.
What was the color of the creature?
It had very thick, soft and silky looking black hair, with maybe a slight reddish hue at times, but that could have been from maybe the sunlight coming through the trees and reflecting a bit of red in the hair.
What else did you notice?
A bit of a zoom-in was next done by the person filming. The hominid was thick around the middle. I don't know if this was before she had her young one or not. The camera then focused along her arms and hands and fingers. Her hands were very human looking and the thumb looked to be at about the same place as a human's would be, maybe only slightly lower. I did note that the shoulders and upper arms, and the forearms were extremely muscular. The hair all over the hominid was long and wavy across the chest area and the stomach area and down the shoulders and arms. The forearms hair was maybe a little bit shorter.
Did you see muscle movement?
Her muscles moved as they should in the arms and hands and fingers. I did note that the young female began to move more and more and stir like she was waking up and that whoever had the camera was backing off some.
Did she have large breasts?
I did not see any breasts. They may have actually been shown but not close enough for me to see them. If she had breasts they were certainly not even close to the size of Patty's in the Patterson/Gimlin film.
How do you know then that it was a female?
I just took Dennis' word for it. He told me it was a female and I believed him.
Can you tell me about the other clip?
This was the best. The hominid, probably the same female, was slowly walking through the woods and coming closer to a couple of trees. She went out of sight behind two of them and then appeared on the other side of them, stopping and standing still as she peered around the woods. You could see her from above her forehead somewhat and then down to about her waist. Clearly, the camera had been zoomed in. Her right side was against the tree and it left her left side free and you could see her shoulder and some of her upper arm too.
This one was of the same color as the first. It had curly, sometimes wavy hair all over her body, on the back of her hands, on the top of her head, and along down to her shoulders and chest. Her hair was from at least 3 inches to possibly 8 inches long, with the longer hair mainly on the head hair and shoulders and upper body.
How did the face look like?
Her face reminded me of a wookie from Star Wars, with a rather flat face in some respects. Although she was totally black skinned, her face did look a whole lot like an Eskimos face. But this is just my own impression. Her head looked to be more rounded and not one of those with a pointed head at all. Her eyes were of a beautiful dark brown, almost black color. There were a lot of the white areas like on our eyes. They were set deep in their sockets. She had very bushy eyebrows. If I remember correctly, she had soft hair all over her face, and maybe a very small portion of just hairless skin around her eyes and nose.
How was her nose like?
Her nose was like ours, very much so. It began and ended where our noses do. But it looked more like a black person's nose, a bit wider on the base where the nostrils are. Her nostrils were big also.
Lips and teeth?
Her lips were lightly rosy in color and plumper on the lower lip. It may have looked plumper because her upper lip came down over the lower lip due to the eye teeth which were grown out on each side of her mouth. The eye teeth were pointed and not flat like ours are. They curved backwards. They looked exactly like small fangs. The inside of her mouth was pink like ours and the rest of her teeth looked very white and more like humans'. Her cheeks were fat and rounding.
How did she move and act?
Very cautious. She displayed a look of wild cunning as she looked slowly around. I did not see her blink at any time, but this video was also fairly short. She was an intelligent being in my own opinion. She did move her lips and opened her mouth a little, and turned her head from side to side very slowly every now and then.
Did you notice any similarities to the Patterson creature?
Both had hair on their heads, faces, and bodies. But Patty had far less hair and looked larger and also more human without the fangs.
Do you think the creature in this video was real?
I believe that it was not a person in a suit, or a hoax of any kind.
But is it really a sasquatch?
In my honest opinion it clearly shows a sasquatch. There is no doubt in my mind. I know what orang-utans are and monkeys, great apes, bears, cougars, and many other type creatures. This was an unknown creature to mankind.
Were there any other videos Dennis Pfohl showed you?
Yes, beside the "pancake video" he showed me another video. Leila Hadj-Chikh was with S. in this video. They were driving. Then they stopped the car. I was told at this point that the female sasquatch was calling to the two women from across a strip of field at the wood line. You could barely hear something making some noise. Then the video showed the two women talking to the sasquatch and trying to entice it closer to them. The two eventually went on to town. The next morning, as I was told, someone found that S.'s car windshield had been struck rather badly. The video showed it. It looked like two or three big fists had broken it in. The hood of the car was bashed in all over.
Do you know why they are holding back the clips?
I was told by Dennis that Adrian did not wish to release the video clips and other biological information until all work was completed. They wanted to take a certain number of hours of good, clear films of the sasquatches. I was also told that Adrian would most likely first release the clips in Canada. I think Dennis said that Adrian felt more comfortable doing this in his own country. However, this was a few years back so I cannot be certain that this is still their plan.
Were you asked to keep the project secret?
No, I was not asked to sign any documents about what they have shown me or told me. So I am not bound to keep this secret.
|
|
Fletcher
Trad climber
The beckoning silence
|
|
The real Bigfoot don't need no steenkin' permits!
http://www.keenesentinel.com/articles/2010/01/04/news/local/free/id_384925.txt
Summit stunt: ‘Bigfoot’ cries free-speech foul
By Jessica Arriens
Sentinel Staff
Published: Monday, January 04, 2010
JAFFREY — In early fall, Keene resident Jonathan C. Doyle had a spontaneous idea: Dress as Bigfoot and appear atop the summit of Mount Monadnock.
He surprised some 80 hikers, then shot video of interviews with them and posted the clip on YouTube.
A couple weeks later, he took it even further with a performance art piece, acted on the mountain and featuring not only the legendary Sasquatch but a pirate, a Yoda-esque character, and some singing and dancing.
It was meant to be an absurdist idea, but has evolved into something a bit more solemn: an accusation about a violation of First Amendment rights.
Doyle, an artist and videographer who runs his own online company called NYCreator, has filed a complaint with the N.H. Civil Liberties Union Foundation, alleging that his free speech rights were trampled during the second Bigfoot appearance.
During the performance, a group of six — including Doyle, who was filming — were acting out their parts while hiking up the mountain.
Doyle said his group was on a lesser-used trail and wasn’t bothering any other park attendees.
“If we had sensed that we were creating a real disturbance I think we would have changed our ways,” he said.
The performance ended about halfway up the mountain, however. Doyle and crew were stopped by a park ranger and told to leave, because they did not have a permit to perform at the park.
New Hampshire law states that a special-use permit is required at state parks when people hold “organized or special events which go beyond routine recreational activities.”
Through the N.H. Civil Liberties Foundation, Doyle is arguing that the expulsion violated his First Amendment rights, by curbing free speech in a public forum — a state park.
In a Dec. 14 letter to George Bald, commissioner of New Hampshire’s Department of Resources and Economic Development (which includes the Parks Department), Foundation Staff Attorney Barbara R. Keshen says the special permit rule is vague, giving “unchecked discretion” to the park director.
“The Permit requirement is unconstitutionally broad on its face and as applied to Mr. Doyle and his production team,” the letter said.
Doyle said he hasn’t received any reply from the parks department.
Amy Bassett, a spokeswoman for the N.H. Division of Parks and Recreation, said the letter had been forwarded to the state Attorney General’s office.
“At the time we were following our administrative rules,” she said.
“At this point (we’re) just waiting to hear back from the AG’s office.”
Doyle is seeking two results from the complaint: an apology from the department and a chance to finish his film.
“I have no problem with following rules,” he said.
But to just apply for a permit now would ignore the First Amendment violation, he said.
Despite the free speech challenge, Doyle said it’s important for people to remember that the Bigfoot performance — and accompanying film — is still the absurdist, humorous idea it started out as.
“This is not meant to be some glorified famous event.”
|
|
Gunkie
Trad climber
East Coast US
|
|
something wierd way up in a tree in Maine. just posted to utube this week
That's actually pretty cool video. The obviously agitated kid, the comments about getting good video, and the height off the ground where the animal sits is all interesting.
|
|
Klimmer
Mountain climber
San Diego
|
|
Yep. True story.
My Dad's Bigfoot Encountered my butt one day when I was in my youth.
I deserved it.
Ouch!!
Space Aliens, no problem, but BigFoot??? C'mon, people what are you thinking? Lol.
(Just imagine the worst Ad Hominem attacks posted here . . .)
(Maybe a posting of someone wearing a tin-foil hat, well, you get the picture . . .)
As you can see I'm not very good at this, trying to make people feel insignificantly small and without common sense.
Like I said before, perhaps Bigfoot is, was, Cain from Genesis, and his descendents have been with us ever since. The curse of GOD? Who knows?
Interesting to speculate though.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
Interesting to speculate though.
I agree it's 'interesting to speculate' - to a point. It's also 'interesting' to apply science to it and try to establish some credible and plausible boundaries around that 'speculation'. This isn't cosmology or quantum physics, it's about the probability of the existence of a large hominid-like, bipedal mammal - or, if you believe all the 'sightings' of many such creatures across the lower 48 states.
Biology, ecology, population studies, and ethology are all relatively well-understood science when it comes to large animals. That science always comes back to the harsh realities implicit in the concept "minimum viable population" with an emphasis in 'viable'. Allied concepts such as 'territorial range' also come into play. Together they lay some pretty specific boundaries around what is likely or possible.
The Loch Ness monster is again a good example of this - the physical and biological parameters of the lake are well known and there simply isn't an available foodstock in the lake to support any such creature let alone a minimum viable population of them.
Then there is the dreaded common sense - ever been to the west half of Kentucky or southern Illinois? They aren't 'big' places and don't have much remaining 'wilderness'. If there were Sasquatch there then they'd show up on 7-Eleven and Walmart demographics for store siting.
From my perspective the first 'speculation' that has to happen is to establish plausibility. 'Speculation' that simply assumes the sale - the existences of Sasquatch - and then attempts to explain it skips a very necessary first step.
|
|
bluering
Trad climber
Santa Clara, Ca.
|
|
at the 3 sec mark in that last video, the head is blurred a bit, why?
It's bogus.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
When you view the link Peter Haan has posted in a different thread concerning the enormousness of the universe, other possibilities open up.
There is nothing about the contents of that link, the scale of time/distance of the universe, or our insignificance within it that in any way opens the door to the 'paranormal' with regards to a large mammal in the lower 48 states of America on planet Earth. There are no 'paranormal' species on Earth other than in our very creative imaginations.
|
|
the Fet
climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
|
|
Everyone knows bigfoot is an alien robot right?
Where's the thread where bigfoot is on the webcam at glacier point? I couldn't find it on search.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
What else exists in that vast space that we know nothing about and which could conceivably impact this scenario.
The only way that could impact 'this scenario' on Earth is if there are mammals with infinitely powerful internal fusion generators and a mind capable of navigating time travel. Great scifi, but that's about the limit of it.
|
|
bmacd
Social climber
British Columbia
|
|
The Bigfoot mystery isn't going away, it's been around a long time. It's very frustrating for those of us who have seen one. The paranormal explanation is the only one that works for me.
Here is a Utube playlist of 19 possible bigfoot videos for those whom are interested.
http://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=34C7E0F5D3A1B659
click the "play" button on the right
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
Oh, I'm open to all the usual things involved with astrobiology. I'm not open to large, hairy mammals with infinite power generators and the ability to navigate time travel.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
I have no problem with lore. Love Tolkien, but don't spend my time in the woods looking for trolls and elves.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!