Posted by: Loren Coleman on March 1st, 2011
The Bigfoot drawing above is via The Erickson Project, and posted under fair use to highlight the developments coming out of that group’s new enhancements and alleged discoveries. The image is a mixed media drawing done by their project associate dArlet Devisser. It as an illustration. It is not a true representation of the facial footage. The sketch was employed as a design element within the text of The Erickson Project’s webpage.
This could be the most exciting news in years.
The Erickson Project could hold the key to more understandings about the Bigfoot question than has come along in decades.
Okay, that being said, let’s, nevertheless, list some cautionary notes.
What you are about to read could be hype to promote and sell a new film.
It could be an experiment in eyewitness/general public gullibility.
This news could be someone’s cruel idea of punking, pranking, and faking out those who wish to “believe” without thinking.
Or it could actually be a bit of a breakthrough in hominology, cryptozoology, and Bigfoot studies, and thus anthropology and zoology.
Over the weekend,
…someone purporting to have seen the best clip from “The Erickson Project” posted a rather detailed description of close-up footage, a description contained in this YouTube clip. At the same time (on the site linked below), Erickson has now confirmed “success in capturing the first ‘facial’ footage ever recorded.”
So says the site “Impossible Visits.” Indeed, the site had mentioned this footage earlier:
A new website has appeared about “The Erickson Project” that includes some fresh information and strikes me as more solid and professional than the documentary trailer released last fall.Impossible Visits
And the person, identifying himself as “InsideSasquatchSourc,” who has seen the face of the Bigfoot in the footage writes this:
I have been lucky enough to view the best clip in “The Erickson Project” documentary, soon to be released. I was not asked to sign a nondisclosure agreement, so I have described what is shown in the clip in some detail here, so that the patient research community who has been waiting for five years can get a better idea exactly what to look forward to. Hope you enjoy!InsideSasquatchSourc
Then this individual describes what he has seen via “The Erickson Project” footage taken in Kentucky as #10 at the end of this video.
Just in case the text is withdrawn, here is the exact wording of what is noted.
The Kentucky Footage
Soon to be Released as part of “The Erickson Project” Documentary
I am one of the few people lucky enough to have viewed the best clip…
Much more detailed than the Patterson/Gimlin Film
Here is just some of what you are going to see:
A full facial close-up:
~ nose similar to ours (but w/ larger nostrils)
~ slightly chapped, rosy lips
~ pink mouth, blackish tongue
~ pointed teeth, like fangs
~ deep set eyes that dart around and don’t blink
~ her head is round, shaped more like ours than a gorilla’s, but her brow is much more prominent
~ she has lots of fine, flowing hair on her head (dark reddish brown) and soft short hair on her face
~ when she walks away, she moves just like the female in the Patterson Film
I can’t wait ’til everyone can see this.InsideSasquatchSourc
Leila Hadj-Chikh, Ph. D.
Melba S. Ketchum, DVM, DNA Diagnostics.
Okay, it is time for us to all see this documentary. It is time to learn more about who captured the footage, and what are the long-term objectives of the Erickson Project.
We all, indeed, are positively looking forward to viewing the new documentary, with a skeptically open-mind, as all footage should be viewed.
UPDATE UPDATE UPDATE
The Blogsquatcher has posted an extensive commentary on his knowledge and feelings about this video.
He reproduces a posting he wrote in 2009, first. It says in part:
On the question of the film that is rumored — everything that I have heard and seen indicates that it is the same film that Greg [Clay] described to me in the summer of 2005. I heard then that there were four pieces of footage obtained not by the investigators, but by the original witnesses. All of them were described to me, and of these, two of them would have been very interesting. But the best piece, which is what I assume Dr. Bindernagel and the others have been referring to, was not something that would have convinced me due to the circumstances in the filming….I do believe that something was going on at that location, but I do not believe that any legitimate film was taken there. Of course, this is just my belief, and I could well be wrong about it.Blogsquatcher
Blogsquatcher goes on to make some points. I will note a few:
The original filmmakers filmed at least four bits of film and the one mentioned by Cryptomundo sounds exactly like what Gregg described to me back in 2005; if it is the same film, that would mean that it was filmed by the property owners and not Erickson’s crew….
The original film (which is different from the film in question here), the cast of the footprint, and the tape of grunts and growls have all been lost. It was my opinion that a detailed analysis of any one of these items would have proved that they were hoaxed. Notice I said this is my opinion, but it sure would be nice to have these items around to test them. I consider it extremely suspicious that they would have been lost. (If you had evidence of bigfoot that you thought would possibly make you money, would you lose it?) I know the first film was “accidentally” erased. I do not know what became of the taped sounds or the footprint cast.Blogsquatcher
We know that the original witnesses recorded a “full facial video” of what they said was a bigfoot before Pfohl and Hadj-Chikh were onsite for the project, because Gregg Clay saw it and described it to me in the Summer of 2005 well before the home had been purchased and Leila took up residence there.Blogsquatcher
So let’s be clear that I’m not saying that there wasn’t a bigfoot there. I have no idea and experienced plenty of weirdness in one day that I thought was quite suggestive. I’d be prepared to learn that there was indeed actually a bigfoot there, whatever that is.
I’m just saying there are reasons to question any evidence that came before the property was inhabited by Hadj-Chikh and Pfohl.
So my question is what has this video apparently finally been made part of a documentary almost six full years after it was filmed. A documentary has long been rumored, but never released.. Is this finally it?
Is the documentary really going to be complete?Blogsquatcher
Finally, he compares the Matilda image with a costume that surfaced in 2002:
There are many more insights than those. Read them all. For the full critique by D. B. Donlon (Blogsquatcher), please click here.