Bluegrass Bigfoot and the Erickson Project
Posted by: Craig Woolheater on July 29th, 2011
Updates on the Erickson Project included in this news story.
Co-founder of Cryptomundo in 2005.
I have appeared in or contributed to the following TV programs, documentaries and films:
OLN's Mysterious Encounters: "Caddo Critter", Southern Fried Bigfoot, Travel Channel's Weird Travels: "Bigfoot", History Channel's MonsterQuest: "Swamp Stalker", The Wild Man of the Navidad, Destination America's Monsters and Mysteries in America: Texas Terror - Lake Worth Monster, Animal Planet's Finding Bigfoot: Return to Boggy Creek and Beast of the Bayou.
Even though the video footage may be real, the Erickson Project is loosing traction with having direct ties with fraudulent the Sylvanic Hoaxters and now having ties to a blood thirsty glory hound trophy hunter who shot and killed 2 innocent Hominids. From what I understand, the footage alone was definitive proof. And I understand that it’s better to be accepted under peer review than scrutinized, but REALLY????
So maybe one year we will see the Erickson Project. And I know sooner not later, the hunter that killed the 2 hominids will be brought to justice. That’s not a hunch, that’s a fact. Considering that his name is known and a giant blip on the DNR radar.
There are absolutely no “updates” contained in this clip. Why the hype?
IMHO It’s too soon to box Erickson project in with the hunter. All we have is 2nd and 3rd hand stories from several sources with conflicting information. At this point, Erickson Project’s only ‘tie’ to the shooting appears to be receiving samples of ‘bigfoot steak’ (I hate that term, who came up with that?) from the accused shooter and/or a representative of the Olympic Project.
I’m going to be a fence sitter on this one as I don’t have enough hard facts to make an informed decision. I also want to see what the science shows. For all we know those ‘steaks’ will come back as bear or human. And NO, I in no way, shape, or form accept that the stereotypical ‘bigfoot’ is 100% human. Primate yes, but not modern human. If the DNA markers come back as human I, and many others, will be looking at human contamination as the reason.
To me to two likeliest scenarios are
1] Up to this point, unknown primate which is native to North American and can be traced back to a cousin of modern humans.
2] A niche filler of bear origin. (I know this sounds odd, but look at the Fosa in Madagascar. There were no apex predators, no large cats so a mongoose mutated and evolved to become the Fosa. Why couldn’t the same thing happen in NA, which was, I believe, the last continent to have humans habitation)
Isn’t the evidence that two sasquatches were killed… umm, nonexistant? Seems that way so far. No sasquatch kill has ever been documented with hard evidence, and I’m not holding out much hope for this one, either.
Sasquatch the quest comes out this year? I wish they would have been more specific, but as a Brit would say, it’s about bloody time. I thought they might extend this into next year. This has been too long in the waiting. Let’s hope this isn’t another Sylvanic goofball show.
K-dawg: Footage is never evidence. Footage is all but useless. Footage may be something to go on, but can be well faked and is never used in science for proof of a new species. The proof science demands is a body, parts of a body, or a live specimen. Without it, footage, prints, hairs and DNA samples are totally useless in getting something recognized. Though DNA would get their attention enough to look for it themselves, if it is remarkable enough. Even still science wont recognize a new species without enough physical remains besides hair.
Footage? Let me see!
@Hapa, point well spoken and point agreed
I beg to differ here in several respects. I think there is now ample evidence for the reality of bigfoot and similar creatures this is without DNA evidence or a body being available. The foundation of the evidence is of course eyewitness reports but much more. The case adds up wonderfully such that Sagan’s dictum oft quoted by sceptics that ” extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence” now rebounds back on them and they need to come up with extraordinary evidence. My opinion is they do not have it!
Obviously my statement about ample evidence doesn’t have to be taken at face value but it does have to be researched and will speak for itself for those who have an open but discriminating mind. For example not to follow the sceptic mantra that bigfoot DNA, that is DNA with bigfoot provenance and a forensic trail is valueless! It is like eyewitness reports, a wonderful resource with huge potential. Clearly more DNA results are on the way from different sources and how can sceptics continue in denial when there are a dozen, a hundred, a thousand results of this kind!
I liken the case for looking at the evidence for bigfoot to be something like looking at a one of these stereograms. Note some people are unable to see the image which is nevertheless real.
It will be interesting to see what can be attributed from these results like size, like hair colour etc and relationships etc etc. Even bigoots smell which now apparently also can be found in the hair of some humans. If the results turn out to be human I suggest it is unscientific to say the samples must be contaminated but to consider what kind of human. Human gentics tend to be more of a political issue rather than scientific and there may be difficulties in that area
As I consider Bigfoot has been proved as good as many other matters accepted by the scientific world. This is not to say the evidence is perfect-Einsteins theories are still being proved. I have no trouble in believing bodies and bits of bodies have been found and wouldn’t be at all surprised if two had been shot in Alaska(?) and samples taken. The post by k-dawg gives one reason why this might be happening and if the timber industry are involved in a cover up they might do better in examining and promoting the manifest benefits to wildlife of second growth forest instead.
It will be interesting to hear what prof Bryan Sykes ( The Seven Daughters of Eve) as to say about DNA when he gives his talk in the UK on 19 aug about the Yeti. He was perhaps the first to come up with DNA in 2001 which wasn’t on the genbank list and doesn’t seem to have been in the public eye since then , except for in 2008 when he found a purported yeti hair sample to have human DNA. I would like to know what kind of human?
The problem isn’t so much the lack of a body but scientists getting in the way of science and not being flexible enough, after all evidence and proof vary with the subject and DNA is a whole new area still. Here is an example, which may be of interest, of where a reputable scientist got it wrong- because he was not being scientific.
I live in Anderson County Ky. I have lived here for many years and I have not heard nor seen a Bigfoot. I’m not saying it is not here or never has been here, but the facts are, the entire county is surrounded by highways or the Kentucky river by very, very steep banks (impossible to climb). I’m sure someone would have photographed it by now. Also, I don’t think the Bigfoot in only 6000 acres would remain “undiscovered” for all this time. Tim Farmer is on TV all the time here on a show called Kentucky Afield, it is a hunting/fishing show. He has been in the woods all his life and has never seen anything.
My point is, other then the PG film, we have nothing after all these years. I am a skeptic, but wish it was real and remain open minded. I cannot see, in my rational mind, how a creature much larger then a human would remain all over the world, without absolute proof by now. It cannot be THAT smart. Sure, I can see an undiscovered frog in the amazon or small fish in the ocean, but not anything this large. I think it is more of man wanting something to connect to, a way of finding another man-like creature more then being rational.
About the upcoming film: If something was truly discovered, there is no way it remain secret. There are 10’s of millions of dollars to be made if someone had 100% proof and something to study. No one would take the time to make a film if they had a dead bigfoot. They might make a documentary while it is being studied with National Geographic or the Smithsonian scientist, but the discovery would be released to the world way before that film came out. Anytime something washes up on a beach, we all know about it by next day and it always turns out to be a whale/shark, or squid, sometimes raccoon. If I am way off base on any of this, please fill me in. 🙂
Signed, still not holding breath…
norman-uk
Hello.
It does not matter how much DNA or eyewitness testimony you have for bigfoot: science has always and will always recognize a new species only if there is a type specimen, body (live or dead) or parts of one (bones, fossils, etc), nothing less. Pseudo skeptics have practically poisoned the well when it comes to eyewitness testimony (Cant remember his name, but one prominent one claims that people mistook the common barn owl (18 inches high) for a 6 foot Mothman in Point Pleasant West Virginia) prints (lets come up with a explanation as to how hoaxers make them, don’t follow up the research, and ignore when anyone begs to differ!) and tape (film CAN be hoaxed, therefore it MUST be hoaxed!) that to use the for evidence has become impossible. It is no longer extraordinary evidence. Having said that, Science always demands a body or major body parts. You can have Bigfoot write his autobiography and science still wont believe it. You can have him on Jerry Springer get into a fight with his Loch Ness Monster lover and science will refuse to acknowledge it.
If Bigfoot researchers think they can prove this creature to science and the world through Videotape, DNA and hairs, then the search is useless and we should all take up shuffle board instead, leaving a legend to die and be laid to rest in its Pacific Northwest domain, where (if it exists, and I think it does) will become extinct do to human environmental pressures.
In other words, embrace failure.
If Footage and anything besides a body is the Bigfoot hunter’s ultimate way of proving Bigfoot, then they waste our time as well as that of science and the world.
To clariry what I meant as “Embrace failure:”
whoever tries to find bigfoot with the apriori belief that eyewitness testimony, footage, odd noises, Indian legends and artifacts, bear-Bigfoot drawing comparisons, Asian ape fossils, tracks (including those with dermal ridges and even sweat pores noted) DNA and hairs are enough to prove sasquatch, will only achieve failure and inherit the wind: For species recognition, anything less than a living specimen, a corpse, or major part(s) of a corpse, is absolutely indeed a FAILURE.
We have failed for over 60 years. ’bout time we succeeded. If we don’t, then lets go back to Yeti for a change, or something else…
scotteb
Looking at Anderson county as a whole on google earth it appears to be heavily wooded not just the frazier land this gives bigfoot room to roam and opens all of America to supply whatever it and its offspring needs. Steep banks and rivers may direct its wanderings but would be no real barrier.
Tim farmer (who says he is a skeptic) you mention as not having seen ‘anything’. I cant help suspecting he must have seen the signs but being a skeptic would have some difficulty in appreciating it as relating to bigfoot. As a hunter he would presumably be active in daylight when chances of seeing bigfoot itself are much less. I’m sure bigfoot through bitter experience, would steer clear of anyone hunting. In the forest its not hard to notice the arrival of a vehicle and there are special noises and smells that suggest a hunter. Deer act the same and there is the phenomenon of disturbance of wildlife radiating out from the cause by the movement of animals.
Bigfoot is not undiscovered though all the evidence is not all in, there are reasons for this, one being there is no such animal. Against this is plenty of evidence which if a balanced view is taken means there is or at least a very good case for professionals as well as amateurs to fully explore-and enjoy!
I don’t suppose the Erickson film will have a body but it no doubt will have further evidence. Whatever it is I will appreciate it dredging through the showbiz aspects and enjoy it and hopefully be a little wiser.
So don’t give up, possibly bigfoot awaits your camera and will add a bit of a frisson to trips in the countryside. All we have in the UK are big cats and the possibility of the reappearance of wild boar!
@scotteb
You hit it on the head buddy!
If a large apeman existed, and in the case of Sasquatch all around the country, surely something concrete for evidence would have been found by now. In the almost 100 years of the automobile and the millions of people who drive them, surely one would think a Sasquatch would have been hit/runover ala Harry & the Hendersons! A large animal like a Moose & bear get hit by cars all the time. No one can even get a decent photo of one. And don’t bring up the Patterson film. As nice as it looks the backstory of the film all but screams FRAUD.
Sadly I think Sasquatch is a myth. I say this because growing up I was all over reading anything Bigfoot related.
I suggest to anyone wanting to believe in an unkown primate stick with the Orang Pendek.
As far as the Kentucky Bigfoot, it surpasses Osama Bin Laden as the Hide & Seek champ of the world! 😉
Actually I have to disagree about DNA being worthless. It is worth quite a bit.
In Science you need a starting point. Unknown DNA from a Mammalian species in America would be a huge thing. It would alert main stream scientists that there is, in fact, an undocumented species in a specific area. If the DNA can be whittled down to the Primate Family or even the Ursus (Bear) Family it will start a search for this animal by Biologists and by Environmentalists. It may or may not be called “Bigfoot” but it will be looked for by main stream science which is what we need if we want to find anything. All sightings and evidence of unusual creatures WILL be re-evaluated for clues and patterns. With more trained eyes searching, more is likely to be found.
As for the ‘there is no way Bigfoot could live in the USA, we would have found him by now’ school of thought. Please, direct your attention to google maps and use the hybrid option. There are HUGE swaths of forests in North American, even in highly populated states. New York is a prime example. Everyone thinks of NYC and goes ‘no way’ which I agree with, but NY is MUCH more than NYC. Look at the borders. It butts up against PA and the ‘Black Forest’ area where reports of unknown and extremely large birds have been coming from for decades. Look to upstate NY and see the amounts of forests there. Most states have large, unpopulated areas like state parks and game lands. I am not claiming all can support large mammals (big cats, bear, deer) but many of them can and do.
Granted there are no longer unobstructed corridors for migrations like there once were but that doesn’t mean animals can’t survive. It means the populations get cut off from one another, populations decreases, a bottleneck of the population occurs and things eventually reach a steady state. As long as the population stays healthy (genetically speaking). And if Bigfoot has/can learn to capitalize on human populations like deer and raccoon have, we may see a slight upswing in BF numbers and sightings (if they approach human dwellings to scavenge scraps, raid vegetable gardens,hunt livestock, etc)
Hapa
If scientists will not accept DNA as evidence of bigfoot from samples in an appropriate context, especially multiple samples which share some conformity. Taking account of all the other wealth of evidence, especially eyewitness sightings then science will find a way round them. Mustn’t forget science and scientists are two different thing, the first is an ideal the second idealy human as opposed to robotic, with human strengths and weaknesses. Usually what happens in this type of situation, where there is dogmatism like insisting on a traditional view which is no longer valid is the venerable scientist will retire or be promoted to higher planes. Of course this may take a long time, too long in the case of sasquatch where extinction may be looming.
Of course bigfoot researchers can expect their eyewitness reports and samples to be valued and contribute to proof of sasquatch. Eyewitness reports are fundamental to science and most science comes to it at a basic level. In the case of bigfoot all the hoaxes and fakes have muddied and are muddying the waters. These should be ignored as they should not determine what people believe but proper evidence from responsible sources.
Being human scientists are affected by what goes on around them and it does not help those in the know about Bigfoot do not appreciate and do not promote the fantastic luck that there is such a thing as DNA and DNA results are being produced relative to bigfoot. It is not a scientific fact that these DNA results have no benefit but if this is spoken of a great deal or emphasised then the position of a scientist with a favourable view is undermined.
Flame821:
“In science you need a starting point”
Agreed. But it is but a starting point. Name one species that was recognized as such by DNA alone (not subspecies, species). The DNA evidence is enough to convince ME that there is something out there, but its not enough to get the Taxonomy guys to get into gear and name a new species: They need a body part or a body. And even wit the DNA evidence there would be skeptics (contamination! DNA scientists in on a Hoax! Just look at the accusations against Dr Melba Ketchum’s work with the Erickson Project leveled on this website alone), and lets remember that Unknown DNA collected from a so called Yeti nest in Bhutan: We haven’t seen George Schaller hunting for Yeti in response. We haven’t seen a Nigel Marvin “Yeti special” after the Destination truth guys and gals found their unusual DNA results from Yeti sites either.
Norman-uk
“Mustn’t forget that science and scientists are two different things.”
Yes the Emperor has no clothes. But with this Emperor you need more than someone pointing this out to dethrone the illusion. As I point out in my response to Flame821, even DNA evidence has been met with passive armchair laziness and apathy.
This is not to say that DNA in and of itself is not a big push forward in the Bigfoot phenomena research: its just not “proof” to the scientific establishment, i.e. enough ammo to force them to admit it as a new taxon. Jeff Meldrum pointed this out in his “Sasquatch Legend meets Science”, where he states the following on pages 269-270:
“Clearly the question of sasquatch’s existence is unlikely to be resolved conclusively without physical evidence. The conventions of zoological taxonomy require a type specimen, traditionally in the form of a body or a sufficient diagnostic physical body part, to decisively establish the existence of a new species. Whether DNA alone will ultimately satisfy that standard remains to be seen. I am doubtful. I am not aware of a precedent for determining a new species on the basis of DNA evidence, in the absence of a physical specimen. Sub-populations of recognized species have been differentiated based on DNA sequence differences and been given species status, but those sub-populations were previously known and sampled.”
Afterwards he says that a goodly DNA discovery would be a major breakthrough, but the fact remains that using DNA alone to discover Sasquatch, i.e. to get it recognized, is something that even he is very doubtful of, and though many here might pounce on Meldrum’s allowance for its possibility, one needs simply to look at the scientific response (if you can call it that) to the Yeti DNA evidence and the fact that no species have been recognized by DNA alone, and the current business-as-usual paradigm in Science to conclude that Sasquatch needs to be discovered the old fashioned way.
The only way I could see DNA being enough is for a lab to use any DNA obtained to clone and grow a specimen in a lab somewhere. Any Tom Slicks out there that are interested in that idea?
“Eyewitness reports are fundamental to science and most science comes to it at a basic level.”
Agreed, but it doesn’t matter what be think: it matters what the powers that be think.
Remember that thing I told about that Pseudo Skeptic (Joe Nickell, I now have the name) claimed that those in Point Pleasant West Virginia who claimed to have seen a 5 to 7 foot high mothman monster were actually seeing a barn owl (which once again reaches a foot and a half high)? Numerous scientists would find such an explanation “Scientific” (!). Even Niel De Grasse Tyson, an otherwise good scientist, has gotten on the misidentification bandwagon (where he uses similar arguments to debunk UFOs). Science, scientists, no matter what you call the powers that be, will often accept the ridiculous in order to avoid something they cannot allow to exist, either by their own logic or by unusual brain numbing (and perhaps brain dumbing) agendas. To cut through this mess, a body must be brought forth, the only thing that will silence them all. They will wiggle their way out of anything else.