Erickson Project Photo Released

I’m still working on the next post in the “Sasquatch Semantics” series, so please bear with me.

In the meantime, an article was recently published in the Maple Ridge News regarding the Erickson Project. Word has it that Adrian Erickson has several pieces of footage of Sasquatches that have been incorporated into a documentary we discussed here last year, Sasquatch: The Quest. However, apparently Erickson is waiting to release the documentary until Melba Ketchum’s DNA project results are published in a scientific journal.

The article mentions the footage several times:

“So armed with cameras, in 2005, the Erickson Project began its quest to document the sasquatch, capturing what is purported to be the only other footage of the creature since the 1967 Patterson-Gimlin film.”

“Erickson and his Reel Productions team say they filmed the sasquatch in Maple Ridge and in U.S. locations. They didn’t just film one – but several. They caught them sleeping, peering through trees and via thermal images. In his film, you can hear the sasquatch make low guttural sounds, the kind that make your hair stand on edge. The creatures are in a variety of colours – grey, brown and an orangutan orange.”

“Although Erickson captured sasquatch several times in clear, crisp images, he soon realized people would still dismiss his video as a hoax.”

“The Erickson Project picked sites in Maple Ridge, Texas, Kentucky, Tennessee and Alabama where they knew they could get close to the creatures.”

Part two of the article discusses Ketchum’s work.

“‘As an ethical scientist’ Dr. Ketchum won’t comment on any of sasquatch DNA testing or her findings until her research has been submitted to a journal and has passed a confidential peer review by experts in the field.”

“Ketchum stresses the DNA testing is being done independently of the Erickson Project, the first multi-site field study of the sasquatch in Canada and the U.S. with the goal to have it recognized as a species. ‘The peer review is essential to protect the integrity of a study by independently verifying the scientific analysis and conclusions in order to minimize people claiming this research as another bigfoot hoax or fraud,’ said Ketchum. She hopes to have the peer review complete and results ready for release by the end of the year.”

“The Erickson Project intends to release their documentary Sasquatch: The Quest in conjunction with the DNA test results.”

In the online version of the article, there are several photos, including one of a purported footprint in gravel. However, in the print version of the article (uploaded at, there is a photograph that is captioned: “Frame grab from an Erickson Project Video, Sasquatch: The Quest, depicts sasquatch sleeping.”

While the word “depicts” as used by the newspaper might call into question whether this is actual footage or a still from some sort of reenactment, presumably this would be the first image released from the Erickson footage. The photograph shows a lump of fur or hair lying prostrate on the ground behind some branches.

At first glance, it doesn’t look like much, though we shouldn’t necessarily expect the Erickson Project to release anything compelling at this point. The photo does not show anything recognizable or distinct. However, upon close examination, I did wonder if my eye caught what might be curled fingers and a fingertip with a long, protruding nail toward the rear of the photo:

Upon closer examination, it looks like… I don’t know what. But after analyzing so many photographs over the years, my eyes tend to look for solid details in amongst the fuzz.

So what can we expect from the Erickson Project footage?

Bigfoot researcher Mary Green, who claims to have seen some of the footage, said: “Dennis Pfohl showed me several videos, some of them taken in color and daylight… 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…” You can read the rest of that interview with Mary here.

Apparently, according to the ASSR, Wildlife Biologist and bigfoot author John Bindernagel feels the clips are “for real and actually quite good”. (Quoting the Alberta Sasquatch Sighting Reports website paraphrasing Bindernagel.)

On MNBRT blogtalk radio with Abe Del Rio on  March 7, 2011, guest host Sharon Lee asked veteran Canadian researcher and author John Green whether he’d had the opportunity to view any part of Erickson’s documentary. Green replied, “I’ve only seen a few clips of what may be Sasquatch and he’s stopped in here a few times and we’ve talked about it. I think it’s, you know, before anything is going to be earthshaking it’s got to be better than the Patterson movie which is pretty hard to imagine. But I’m waiting just like everyone else to see what he is able to put together.”

Sharon responded, “Okay, so you haven’t seen any of it even though you are featured…”

John Green replied, “I’ve seen what, uh… I call his things ‘could-bes’… They may very well… There’s dozens and dozens of photographs and even movies of what could be Sasquatches, but uh… if there is any way that humans could be responsible for them they don’t have any impact. He may well have things that are better than that and I am hoping he does.”

And so we wait and see.


8/25/11 update: See this post from Guy over at BIGFOOT LUNCH CLUB for a great follow-up post and an amusing video by a guy who reads us as well, RW Ridley.



If you enjoyed this post, please consider leaving a comment or subscribing to the RSS feed to have future articles delivered to your feed reader.

18 replies on “Erickson Project Photo Released”

  1. If that is the best they have then I am sorely disappointed. This is just another blob squatch, or possibly just a dead bear. Wait and see, surely, but I’m not getting my hopes up. The last thing we need is more “could bes” after all this hype.

  2. Randy in WA says:

    Looks like a dead bear to me.

  3. Ravenmadd says:

    floppy floppy my late buddy?

  4. Ravenmadd says:

    I apologize for my humour …but I don’t see anything …it just reminds me of my late pet rabbit

  5. @Steven – I wouldn’t expect them to release anything really good yet. To do so would be to create too much hype that might hit the mainstream media long before the doc is set to release (the date of which is a variable, I think, at this point since it’s supposedly being released when the DNA results are made public). Is the footage good? I don’t know. I sure hope so. You know how I am about wanting to see those eyes again…

  6. Billy says:

    Squatches will never be a known species until, unfortunately, a dead body is given to science as proof IMO.

  7. Joisey Gene says:

    There certainly seems to be quite a bit of promising chatter lately regarding both the DNA & the videos/photos. I’m choosing to remain cautiously optimistic …;) of course that coupled with mixed feelings regarding the general acceptance of beings my heart tells me is better off as they are. My selfish need for validation seems petty in comparison. So I’ll wait patiently once again , with mixed feelings & hoping for best, but manly for them . :-)

  8. PA says:

    As usual, bologna,
    as usual, follow the money.
    It’s all crap.. Greedy bastards.
    But I’m glad that it will never be found.
    A world without mystery, would be dull indeed.

  9. Mike Brogan says:

    Looks like an old Sheepskin Rug we used to have after the Dogs had been at it !

  10. Cliff Falen says:

    It seems that there has been a race to be the first to present solid evidence that these humanoids exist. Yet there has been no evidence excepted by the world community as proof that these primates are real. Even if these folks in the Erickson project come out and say that this or that DNA is the DNA of the Sasquatch how are we suppose to except their conclusion as concrete evidence when there is no actual body to compare this DNA with? Unless they have a body or a body part that is in good enough condition to examin this project can not produce anything better than what has already been produced. (At least with prehistoric animals we have bones to classify). What do we have from the Bigfoot that we can use to classify them? Film, still photos, footprint casts, scat, and 100’s of thousands of eye witness accounts. These should be enough for the world community to at least say there are some primates not discovered yet. Instead of that there is a desire on our part to look toward the skeptical scientific community to validate what we have seen, heard, and smelt on our own. No one could ever convince me that I did not see a humanoid covered in hair running away from me in broad daylight. What I saw was real and in this light spectrum in which we can see. I do not need a “scientist” validating my sighting, my eyes have done that already. So I ask to all who read this, whats the point? Why have those who have not seen, heard, nor smelt these creatures validate what we already know?

    I have gotten to the point where I do not want these forest dwellers to ever be acknowledged by the world community. Any evidence that I may collect from them will stay with me. The need to expose the Bigfoot is a need that we humans have it is not what the Forest Dwellers want. That realization should be enough to stop all of us from trying to prove they are there.

  11. Bob says:

    “We got great photographic evidence – but we’re not gonna let you see it! Er – not just yet anyway. But we got it. Really!”

    OK, it’s wait – ‘n’ – see time again.

  12. Ed Wolvin says:

    Sounds to me like another “Blob-Squatch”. Tell me why you can not show a in focus shot. It is always out of focus crap ! I am so tired of hearing about who got what and it is always the same crap out of focus. They are waiting on DNA ? More like how they can feed the hungry with the same old out of focus pictures. If they do not want to post good quality video at least show a good in focus picture.

  13. Ed Wolvin says:

    After looking at the photograph more carefully…That is one Fat sasquatch. They say she is laying flat then why is there such a huge belly. It even looks fake.

  14. Melissa says:

    I would rather have proof in the forms of pictures, videos, and evidence that IS NOT faked. Rather than some fool going out there, and killing Bigfoot just to prove a point, and get famous.

  15. matt says:

    I’m not sure I see anything in these stills. And, while I generally agree with Cliff in that very little, if any, good would come from publicly accepted “proof” of a currently unknown mammal species…you gotta love the suspense!!

  16. Nancy Marietta says:

    Why is it we need to have everything wham bam here it is? Finding the truth about these creatures is like a jigsaw puzzle. But the pieces are not all in the box. We have to hunt for them, find them, and slowly put them together. If we are lucky, out of every show, every film, every picture, every encounter, we will find at least one fact that will help us find the truth. Even hoaxes can teach us.

  17. Jason Pratt says:

    I think we can safely call that a thumb (or some other digit) and a fingernail: only one small portion of the lower left outline of the shape happens to fit a framing object in the foreground (a branch), and everything else is more in focus than the patch of light behind it on the ground, which in turn surrounds the object completely. Plus the ‘nail’ shape has nothing else around that might plausibly account for it.

    Considering that the light limns the furry extension to the right of the digit, providing a clear shape, I would say in relation to that shape this is (almost?) certainly a thumb (and thumbnail).

    Note that this is entirely aside from the question of whether the photo is faked or not.


  18. Jason Pratt says:

    Once that’s in place, other features of the object can be sussed out by following expected lines.

    From photo right to left (and roughly photo top to bottom), the object’s details involve:

    1.) Curled fingers and the upper hand.

    2.) The thumb and a nail.

    3.) Wrist.

    4.) Hand and wrist are covering most of the head including and (unseen) ear. (The lack of a face is bothersome, as a face is one of the hardest things to fake, but realistic I suppose for a hominid sheltering its face from the light during a nap. The lack of an ear is more bothersome as instinctively or rationally either way covering the ear would be a bad idea to keep anything–like a photographer!–from sneaking up. What may seem to be an ear shape in the unzoomed photo turns out to be a small branch and smaller twigs in the zoom.)

    5.) Forearm and elbow, then following the shape back to a rounded shoulder.

    6.) Moving left from there, a right-side of the lower chest.

    7.) Hip with upper thigh raised/curled up (lower portions of the leg presumably obscured by rock in the foreground).

    8.) And finally, at extreme left, an outstretched other thigh.

    The figure is nominally facing the camera, so we’re looking at elements of its own right side limbs and chest and back of the head. The right-hand index finger is either curled forward (away from the camera back under the palm) in relaxation, or is possibly missing. A nice touch either way (even if this is faked.)


Comments are closed.