Update: Erickson Project Photo of a Female Sasquatch?
Posted by: Craig Woolheater on August 31st, 2011
Cryptomundian sassy quatch did some detective work and found the original frame grab that was featured in the Maple Ridge Pitt Meadows News online.
Here is the link to the entire August 17, 2011 hard copy edition featuring the frame grab as published that day.
I would imagine that this is the highest quality version of the image that is available online.
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.
Now that is a better pic. Clearer, more realistic. I wish I could save it and put it on my computer screen for a closer view (can’t click and save it on the website). Thank you Mr. Woolheater for posting this.
BTW: Is there anything new about when this Erickson Project will come out, or when the DNA results will be made? Its interesting that Dr. Melba Ketchum will be speaking at a Bigfoot event on October 1rst (on the same day another Bigfoot convention will happen in Tyler Texas. Maybe, just maybe by then?
I feel like a kid waiting on santa at xmas for the erickson project to come out with their findings. Has anyone heard how far into the peer review process they are or any expected time frame?
Never say never? Didn’t know that guy was a JB fan…Okay but seriously. A question someone asked earlier kind of bothers me. Why couldn’t someone get a better picture of a sleeping sasquatch than that? Is the Erickson Project concealing valuable evidence until their documentary is released? I don’t know
On page 7 of that document/newspaper there is also what appears to be an op-ed piece ( @ chat ) that suggests the reason people are claiming no Eastern Cougars or Sasquatch exist in the area is due to the Logging Industry.
The main picture IS much clearer but it still could be a bear, dog, sasquatch or costume. It just isn’t clear enough, especially with the brush in the way, to make a solid call on it at this point.
Can’t wait to see more of their work and the evidence they have collected and here’s to hoping it stands up to inquiry and rigorous testing.
I don’t see a difference. It still looks like a dead dog.
Starting to have more doubts about Erikson project. You either have real footage or not-what’s with the tease stuff? this could be a bear, a rug, a costume, a dog…come on man! Makes me NOT want to buy any forthcoming DVD because this smacks of exploitive, manipulative tactics that Exploitive, manipulative T.B. types try to make $ even tho’ they have nothing real. Hope I’m wrong.
@ Hapa:
According to Erickson’s website, “the release of the documentary will coincide with the release of the DNA findings collaboratively with Dr. Melba Ketchum.” I think the news article says that’s expected by the end of the year.
I was very excited about this, but I’m quickly losing faith. I’ve seen a lot of “I have bushels of indisputable photographic evidence, but you just have to wait, and here’s a very poor sample in the meantime” come and go over the years.
@Hapa
Doesn’t “Print Scrn” followed by pasting into a blank Paint image work for you?
Sasquatch sleeping?
That grab looks more like it gives a new meaning to the term “empty suit.”
sasquatch:
“You either have real footage or not-what’s with the tease stuff? this could be a bear, a rug, a costume, a dog…come on man!”
You never see real scientists do this. The first peep you hear from them is, um, here’s something new.
And the findings blow your mind.
“The tease stuff” is about the most reliable “fake” marker available (other than a figure that looks precisely like a human in a suit).
BF Skinner: this is not about faith. It is about evidence. There’s nothing here; and there won’t be until the scientific mainstream gets involved.
And you’ll know that they have when you hear:
Um, here’s something new.
And the findings blow your mind.
I still don’t like the “hair”. It looks very costume like. I remember I had a Chewbacca costume as a kid and it looked just like that. Plus it reminds me of the fake Georgia Bigfoot hair.
Really cannot make much of the heap of hair in the picture shown by the newspaper. It could be a sasquatch or a hairy old rug and the paper doesn’t give any information about it. So the picture just wants filing on a wait and see basis. Could have been a good chance to get some hair for DNA tests!
I’m sure there is something in Ercikson’s promises but I am not expecting any quality sasquatch portraits! DNA is another matter I think it likely some unique results will be published possibly this year.
Thinks are now moving with regard to Sasquatch and similar DNA and a big player has now entered the scene. At his lecture on 20 8 11 at the centre for fortean zoology Prof. Bryan Sykes invited samples for DNA analysis both from collections and individuals in order to positively identify what they are. He says his and Dr. Startori’s, from laussanne museum of zoology, research programme will not confine themselves to the yeti etc but clearly are focused on unknown hominids. Reading between the lines Prof Sykes suggests that a new species can be scientifically established from DNA samples.
Prof Sykes shows a strong interest in cryptozoology and has been to look at Heuvelmans collection in Laussanne so hopefully will continue to take a positive interest while meeting reasonable scientific criteria. In his lecture he mentioned that one sample from the himalayas he had previously found to be ‘unknown’ had now been revised to be ambiguous and in effect a non-result.
Dr Ketchum is hoping to have enough Saaquatch DNA results to have a new species recognised and says ( perhaps optimisticaly) her paper will be out by the end of this year. Will she recieve as much flak as the hobbit results did? Meanwhile results are awaited from Dr Lars Thomas for the Mande Barung and it’s not unlikely Adam Davies will have more Orang Pendek samples for him after his coming expedition. Many more scientists will have to sit up and take notice if some good results for unknown hominids come up; Especially in quantity, I believe they will.
At present I think John Bindernagel is absolutely right in that regarding Sasquatch ‘ a de-facto discovery has been made but not recognized by the wider scientific community’. DNA results in my opinion can and should change this.
@ DWA:
Sorry. Let me clarify my statement:
I am quickly losing faith in this person’s (Erickson’s) ability to provide evidence.
Doesn’t look like a dog to me. Looks more like a dead long haired cat. It’s pretty scraggly so it was probably a stray.
Wuffing: Hello 🙂
My laptop is not connected to a Printer. But that’s okay: found a copy of the image on another site.
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…
@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. :/
The fur appears realistic compared to the enhancements I’ve seen. The fur looks slightly matted, but different than “fun fur”.
🙂
😛
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.
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.
The DNA results are in!!!
65% Polyester
25% Cotton
10% Spandex
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.
It looks like a stuffed monkey that got accidentally left outside. Also, do Bigfeet have tails? This one looks like it.
Anyone keep a grab of the grab?
Nothing there now.