Comments on: Update: Erickson Project Photo of a Female Sasquatch?

By: Loren Coleman

Loren Coleman — Mon, 05 Dec 2011 10:54:58 +0000

Anyone keep a grab of the grab?

Nothing there now.

By: kittalia

kittalia — Sat, 03 Sep 2011 18:47:02 +0000

It looks like a stuffed monkey that got accidentally left outside. Also, do Bigfeet have tails? This one looks like it.

By: jan09

jan09 — Sat, 03 Sep 2011 07:37:32 +0000

Sigh. This is about as useful a “teaser” as the Johor drawings…and I suspect will have a similar outcome. And why a “teaser” anyway, if this is supposed to be a scientific endeavor? Brings back memories of the “teaser in a freezer” from Georgia. And why such an ambiguous, uninteresting “teaser” frame from a video that allegedly shows the bigfoot rising up from that position and looking/walking around? Maybe because there really isn’t any better footage? Sorry to say it looks like the Erickson Project is dutifully following all the steps that ultimately lead to a big letdown.

By: somebodyssquatchingme

somebodyssquatchingme — Sat, 03 Sep 2011 03:36:36 +0000

The DNA results are in!!!

65% Polyester
25% Cotton
10% Spandex

By: Hapa

Hapa — Fri, 02 Sep 2011 20:44:59 +0000

The only thing really interesting about the pic is that at the upper right there is an area of the sleeping form that looks like the curve seen in a human from the brow, around the eye, and onto the cheek. Be that as it may, it still could be a dog or man in a suit, and pics are never proof of cryptids to the scientific community: Living and or dead specimens, or major parts of dead specimens are.

Heck if videotape alone was good enough proof to scientists for new species then we would have “proven” Star Trek Vulcans far more often than Bigfoot in terms of footage!

One major (perhaps among many more) flaws in the Erickson research is not making an effort to bag a beast. Forget DNA and hair: a body is the Holy grail of Taxonomy.

As to those who responded to my difficulties on getting a pic: thank you very much for the information. Though I found a site where i right clicked and saved the clearer pic, I will investigate the Abduction Firefox thingy and other avenues of saving.

By: wolfatrest

wolfatrest — Fri, 02 Sep 2011 06:45:54 +0000

I was a pet groomer for over 10 years and my first thought at this much clearer picture was that here was dog in serious need of some grooming.

By: Joxman

Joxman — Fri, 02 Sep 2011 04:27:15 +0000

The fur appears realistic compared to the enhancements I’ve seen. The fur looks slightly matted, but different than “fun fur”.

By: aenea

aenea — Fri, 02 Sep 2011 03:23:13 +0000

@Hapa

If print screen doesn’t work for you, and if you’re using Firefox, you can install an add-on called Abduction.

The image is clearer than the first one, but there’s still not much to see. :/

By: springheeledjack

springheeledjack — Fri, 02 Sep 2011 01:52:58 +0000

Two comments:

1) After seeing the “grab” it looks more like a dog to me. The size doesn’t look that large–I think it’s deceptive. It definitely looks like fur, not hair.

2) Are we really sure this stuff is actually coming from the Erickson Project? There’s been a lot of supposed stuff coming from people who know people in the Erickson Project and so on, but that doesn’t mean it is.

And yes, I’m with DWA on this–if the Erickson Project is legit, they’re not going to fire a bunch of teasers at us and then pull back the curtain. They’re going to show up at the podium with everything they’ve got when they’re absolutely sure of their data…and then change the facts of science. If they’re legitimately using a scientific approach, it’s not going to be a P.T. Barnum shtick.

Again, are we sure we’re dealing directly with the Erickson Project here?

And, if it is, I’m not holding my breath anymore…

By: Hapa

Hapa — Fri, 02 Sep 2011 00:57:24 +0000

Wuffing: Hello

My laptop is not connected to a Printer. But that’s okay: found a copy of the image on another site.