The Massacre Theory put to rest…

This is the finale of a 3 part series on the Bigfoot Massacre Theory.

• Part One
• Part Two

For those who didn’t catch the 2 + hour long Squatch-D TV show of April 26th, featuring Thom Steenburg, Russell Acord and Rictor Riolo, we finally put the “Bigfoot Massacre” Theory to rest.

Part one featured Thom, showing where false assumptions and using less than stellar copies of evidence led to the incorrectly formed opinions of the authors of the massacre. According to Davis there were two massacres, one in Bluff Creek and one earlier in Blue Creek. The basis of the Bluff Creek massacre was alleged photographic evidence showing “blood.” The Blue Creek one was that of Bob Titmus leading a tracking dog owned by a Dale Moffitt and John Green. In actuality Titmus was not present at all and again “interpretation” of a badly color corrected film.

Getting the facts straight

Steenburg also brought up the FACT that it was Keith Chiazarri (a pilot) there, not Bob Titmus. The article covering his surprise trip to Orleans, Ca. is covered here:

Below are pictures of Chiazarri confused by the theorists as Bob Titmus.

Chiazarri (claimed to be Titmus by the massacre theorists) in various frames on left. Chiazarri with Dale Moffitt on right.  Chiazarri with John Green below.

We also talked about Al Hodgson admitting he was wrong about Bob Titmus being there as he had mistakenly said that to the late Bobbie Short.

Steven Streufert 2011 interview with Al Hodgson – Source Bigfoot Books Blog

A quick note: Blood will turn black relatively in quick fashion as the iron in the hemoglobin oxidizes.

Psychologically

Now let’s look at some “Post Offense” behaviors by the alleged “suspects.”

After the alleged massacre, John Green, Rene Dahinden, Bob Titmus, Roger Patterson all wanted to prove the existence of Sasquatch right?

So did they bring any evidence forth? NO!

What one did, Roger Patterson, is bring a controversial film forward that proved NOTHING! So after the critics backlash why didn’t Roger go back and find some biological evidence?

He wasn’t making millions which any and all of them could have done bringing back a body. If the payoff was from loggers, why show the film and put yourself there? And why would the film get support from people, like Green, Dahinden, Titmus who were not receiving payment from Paterson?

If the payment was from loggers to eradicate a nuisance problem, post offense behavior would be to say and do nothing about it. Not show a film.

Legally

Would they be worried about being arrested for murder?

Well legally the answer to that would be NO.

Here’s why:

1. You have to prove that the creature killed is part of the homo genus.
2. Once and IF that would be established, it would get a date.
3. You cannot go behind that date and charge someone with a crime, because on that date, it’s genus, had yet to be established. Therefore not making it a crime at the time of the alleged offense.

Another example is in a penalty phase of a convicted crime; hence why if in a death penalty state if you get convicted of a capital murder that occurred before the death penalty was established and written into law, the death penalty cannot be applied to such a conviction.

NONE of the massacre theorists “reasoning,” both legally and (in criminal psychology “post offense”) behaviorally makes any sense.

People forget too that a somewhat naïve and conceited cryptozoologist decided on his own accord in 2008, convinced what the massacre theorists had said was true, had written the Humbolt County D.A. at the time to investigate the claims. He interjected himself into saying if contacted he could give sources and “evidence.” I am sure that “letter” is framed somewhere today with people pointing and snickering to it.

No rebuttal or admission they were wrong, just more nonsense

One would think that if presented the evidence a logical person would say…oops, I made some mistakes. No actually Davis removes logical questions and points about the massacre theory being wrong.

The new proponent in this field with the loudest voice lately has been, not only “ I drank the Melba-Ketchum Kool-Aid” researcher Scott Carpenter but also internet bully Steve Isdahl.

And make no bones about it; Isdahl IS a cyber-bully. Often telling people, stay off the internet or people are going to pay or be scared. The only thing I can say positive about the guy is at least he isn’t hiding behind a screen name like so many other of the mindless followers that see fit to throw threats to an 88 year old man by the name of Bob Gimlin.

People have called putting fact out as character assassination, yet one person who accused us of doing that began to talk about John Green’s father. Now if that’s grasping at straw and character assassination I don’t know what is.

But these are FACTS:

 

If you don’t think what I say is true, look at the video “Debunking the Texas Fence Walker.” Anyone who  thinks that a Sasquatch has skinny legs like that, and doesn’t see the pants…well I have little hope in your objectivity.  Also notice how cleaner my enhancements are than that of Davis very short, grainy enhancement.

If you don’t think Isdahl (Mr. HowToHunt) is not out for the clicks…just look at this graphic. (Remember he used to say Bigfoot was supernatural…ask yourself how would they have killed them then?). Proof of being disingenuous if you ask me.

Our third proponent, Scott Carpenter who likes to bring up Bobbi Short, an elderly woman at the time of her writings, and proven by Al Hodgson’s own comments he was incorrect about Titmus being on scene.

People have told me that they do not believe Carpenter intentionally hoaxes. But I ask the question,”Why no video showing any movement of the alleged subject?”

This is one of the “BlobSquatchers” we talk about. A guy with allegedly all this acumen, is not investigating further on his “alleged” evidence?

But even if not… he is what we classify as the “Unintentional Hoaxer.” The guy who goes out and sees Sasquatch in everything and more often than not. And uses pareidolia to either fool his audience or justify to his audience what they are looking at is a Sasquatch. 

At the very least it should question his reasoning ability.

Here are the proponents and who they actually are.

The above are not character assassinations, but all FACTS! They are all out for clicks and relevancy by producing either phony, disingenuous or totally naïve  information without relevant investigation on the Bigfoot phenomena.

That being said, we can put this stupid notion (and that’s all it is) that a bigfoot massacre occurred at Blue Creek and Bluff Creek to rest.

Till Next Time,

Squatch-D

“Mr. Clickbait” not so genuine after all! (Massacre Pt. II)

In continuing this brawl on the “Massacre Theory”, as I stated in my last blog, when “HowNotToHuntBigfoot” Isdahl stated he doesn’t give a F*** about what people think.

 

As I predicted, apparently he does ,especially with the “I Stand With Bob” Facebook page created by Russell Acord.

Let’s look at this point by point:

1st – Promoting the issue. “Mr. Clickbait” jumped on the issue, he could have stayed out of it. He “believes” in the massacre theory, yet says Squatchies are Demonic and / or supernatural.

(Like I said on the last blog, how did they kill them then? Holy Water? Silver Bullets? Proton Pack?) You can’t have it both ways!

2. Not about Bob Gimlin? He was there!!! You weren’t! He is the only living witness to this. Why is he getting threats then?

3. This is about lying, bullying, bastards?  Seems like the believers of this are doing the bullying, but wait… how about Isdahl’s own cyber bullying?

“I’m going to make antis TOO SCARED TO STOP CONSERVATION…” – Steve Isdahl, 2018

     

          Source: http://victoriaanimalnews.com/the-loudest-voices-carry-guns-and-snares/

How about Isdahl lying by inference / omission?

A Mark Anders “Mexican” Bigfoot picture posted with a snow track..inference that you own it!

When people asked, “Is this yours?” they were met with crickets.

Let’s not forget just posting this on Instagram too, in this case with NO explanation:

It caused confusion in many that saw his post. Did he care? (See his point #1 what he called Marketing 101!):

Here is a response from an angered fan:

Of course a year passes with many other posts, but not a single reply can be seen to any of these. Hmm you know what we call these folks don’t ya? It begins with an “H”.

Apparently he is only able to count to 3 on this post, so the rest of the point’s we will number ourselves.

4. To date he has seen emails and letters from all. Email from 1967? Proof please? Of course not. Evidence presented… nope.

5. He has looked into the eyes of a bonafide law man and the law man has seen the unedited…yadda yah. As I mentioned in the previous blog, here we go again with the “anonymous witness.” Evidence? Again zilch.

I have spoken much, even just recently, as a suspect gets called on the carpet for a shaky story and making up stuff starts to provide more details which should have been there in the first place. It’s because they are making it up on the fly. Someone’s pants are on fire! (BUT WE THINK WE KNOW WHO THE LAW MAN IS!)

So if folks are still buying into him after seeing all this, I would like to introduce those folks to a guy I know… his name is Zorth!

We will be discussing this in-depth on this weeks Squatch-D TV with multiple guests. (April 26, 2020)

Stayed tuned for more from the front

Till Next Time,

Squatch-D

We know nothing about Bigfoot? Really?

One of my pet peeves in the Bigfoot community is the proclamation, “We don’t know anything about these creatures.”

For the people usually exclaiming this they are generally referring to themselves rather than people who have put in time to do their homework from a scientific basis.

For those that are scientific minded and have reality based research it is farthest from the truth provided these creatures exist, which I believe they do.

Unless you tend to throw out all the things we know about animals out the window when it comes to Bigfoot, then you aren’t being so scientific are you?

The fact is we know A LOT about these creatures if we look to what we know about similar animals. What do we know? Well let’s look at some of them.

Mammals

Mammals are vertebrate animals constituting the class Mammalia and characterized by the presence of mammary glands which in females produce milk for feeding (nursing) their young, a neocortex (a region of the brain), fur or hair, and three middle ear bones. These characteristics distinguish them from reptiles and birds, from which they diverged in the late Triassic, 201–227 million years ago.

Features of Mammals:

• Jaw joint – The dentary (the lower jaw bone, which carries the teeth) and the squamosal (a small cranial bone) meet to form the joint.
• Middle ear – In crown-group mammals, sound is carried from the eardrum by a chain of three bones, the malleus, the incus and the stapes.
• Tooth replacement – Teeth can be replaced once (diphyodonty).
• Prismatic enamel – The enamel coating on the surface of a tooth consists of prisms, solid, rod-like structures extending from the dentin to the tooth’s surface
• Occipital condyles – Two knobs at the base of the skull fit into the topmost neck vertebra.

Primates

Primates are defined as  having characteristics that represent adaptations to life in this challenging environment, including large brains, visual acuity, color vision, altered shoulder girdle, and dexterous hands.

Anatomy and Physiological traits of Primates:

• The primate skull has a large, domed cranium, which is particularly prominent in anthropoids. The cranium protects the large brain, a distinguishing characteristic of this group. The primary evolutionary trend of primates has been the elaboration of the brain, in particular the neocortex (a part of the cerebral cortex), which is involved with sensory perception, generation of motor commands, spatial reasoning, conscious thought and, in humans, language.
• Primates generally have five digits on each limb (pentadactyly), with a characteristic type of keratin fingernail on the end of each finger and toe. The bottom sides of the hands and feet have sensitive pads on the fingertips. Most have opposable thumbs, a characteristic primate feature most developed in humans, though not limited to this order.
• Primate species move by brachiation, bipedalism, leaping, arboreal and terrestrial quadrupedalism, climbing, knuckle-walking or by a combination of these methods.
• The evolution of color vision in primates is unique among most eutherian mammals.

Behavior Traits of Primates:

• Having Social Systems
• Interspecific Associations – Some primates associate with other primates in the wild.
• Primates have advanced cognitive abilities: some make tools and use them to acquire food and for social displays; some can perform tasks requiring cooperation, influence and rank;  they are status conscious, manipulative and capable of deception; they can recognize kin and conspecifics; and they can learn to use symbols and understand aspects of human language including some relational syntax and concepts of number and numerical sequence. Research in primate cognition explores problem solving, memory, social interaction, a theory of mind, and numerical, spatial, and abstract concepts
• Non-human primates and humans have been observed to be very similar in terms of personality, such as chimpanzees having "’Big Five’ personality factors found in humans, i.e. neuroticism, extraversion, openness, agreeableness, and conscientiousness". Primates seem to possess a sixth personality trait, dominance. Both humans and nonhuman primates, such as chimpanzees, exhibit proactive aggression, a type of preplanned aggression with a reward. This aggression is expressed between neighboring groups. Proactive aggression ultimately increases the fitness of the community as a whole as the size of the community increases. Unlike proactive aggression, reactive aggression is low in humans but high in chimpanzees. Reactive aggression is a result of anger in order to cease a stressful stimulus. Low reactive aggression in humans can be attributed to tolerance and cooperation. Wrangham found "evolution of within-group tolerance, such as individual selection for cooperative breeding, group selection for parochial altruism, and cultural group selection for prosocial norms". Ranking in nonhuman primates stems from the most aggressive male, while nomadic hunter-gatherers are respected for their prestige and ability to form alliances and negotiations.
• Primates have slower rates of development than other mammals. All primate infants are breastfed by their mothers.
• There are many reports of non-human primates using tools, both in the wild or when captive. The use of tools by primates is varied and includes hunting (mammals, invertebrates, fish), collecting honey, processing food (nuts, fruits, vegetables and seeds), collecting water, weapons and shelter. Tool manufacture is much rarer than simple tool use and probably represents higher cognitive functioning. Soon after her initial discovery of tool use, Goodall observed other chimpanzees picking up leafy twigs, stripping off the leaves and using the stems to fish for insects. This change of a leafy twig into a tool was a major discovery. Prior to this, scientists thought that only humans manufactured and used tools, and that this ability was what separated humans from other animals. Both bonobos and chimpanzees have also been observed making "sponges" out of leaves and moss that suck up water and are used as grooming tools. Sumatran orangutans have been observed making and using tools.

Virus Transmissions

Close interactions between humans and non-human primates (NHPs) can create pathways for the transmission of zoonotic diseases. Viruses such as Herpesviridae (most notably Herpes B Virus), Poxviridae, measles, Ebola, rabies, the Marburg virus and viral hepatitis can be transmitted to humans; in some cases the viruses produce potentially fatal diseases in both humans and non-human primates.

The above sources were from Wikipedia

This may answer someone’s question of can a Sasquatch catch Covid-19?  It is very indeed possible and should not be ruled out.

Life Spans

• Humans* – 79 years
• Chimpanzee – 39 years
• Bonobo – 40 years
• Orangutan – 35-45 years
• Baboon – 35-45 years
• Gorilla – 35-40 years

*However due to the “Age of Enlightenment”, human life expectancy has doubled. Before this the average human life expectancy was about 40 years. So this should give us a scientifically educated guess of about 40-45 years for the life expectancy of a Sasquatch.

And so people who think that Sasquatch are an ancient race of people (homo sapien)…

A hominid is a member of the family Hominidae, the great apes: orangutans, gorillas, chimpanzees and humans. A hominine is a member of the subfamily Homininae: gorillas, chimpanzees, and humans (excludes orangutans). A hominin is a member of the tribe Hominini: chimpanzees and humans.

We have to remember science and knowledge are the parameters we work within. To say we know nothing about these creatures, is a a slap in the face to the folks that came before you and to science itself. Although many believe science is the enemy. Maybe many scientists are to the idea of the existence of a Sasquatch, but science itself is a tool just like anything other tool it is there for us to use.

If you read the behavior accounts from reports coming out of the 50’s, 60’s and early 70’s where did you see all this so called supernatural behavior? You didn’t.

It wasn’t suppressed, it just rarely existed. But the behavior you saw was consistent with primate behavior and habitation models we now know of today. Coincidence? No.

That are just some of the notes and thoughts for the day and am wishing everyone well and safe in the Pandemic lockdown!!

Till Next Time,

Squatch-D

What is debunking?

Again I hope this finds everyone in good health.

Debunking – to expose the sham or falseness of…

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/debunk

So over the last couple of days I have debunked a series of pictures of a video of an alleged Bigfoot peeping in a window. The debunking was largely based on the submitters outright lies. That combined with the ridiculousness of the nature of the statement he had made easily showed that the pictures submitted could not be real.

Part one of the investigation dealt with the man’s story and how it doesn’t fit true to his background. Inconsistencies were found.

Part two dealt with the little information we had on the photos and combined them what we do know, where the submitter lived. And the theory seemed to match pretty well.

The majority of folks are in line with the results. But there are a very few hold-outs claiming that this “debunking” is not valid because the pictures were not disproven. Apparently, lying about how the pictures were taken and came to be is not enough to debunk them. HUH?

So apparently the ONLY thing on the above screen we are to believe is the photos?

There does seem to be a confirmation bias along with this syndrome as well.

My reply was the following to this:

Debunking doesn’t have to deal with the photos, although if you read part II I did deal with the photos. The story is a LIE. People act with such naivety.

Everyone is focusing on his record. That wasn’t the only point. His wife has passed, and he doesn’t live nor does he own property as he stated, in Bailey. BS in equals BS out. If you have a BS story you have BS evidence.

The reason why people get duped is they are two dimensional which people ignore the problems with his story as shown in 2 different blogs and. How can you debunk photos when you have no real information nor an original file? You can’t.

Why did he wait almost three years to say something about this? (His own Facebook page didn’t have these pictures on them until March of this year.)

Conveniently has a video recorder next to him?

Didn’t call his wife to see what was going on?

Videotapes for ten minutes..then he thinks of grabbing his gun?

Original file destroyed in a fire?

Come on… people THINK!!

Vague details on what sheriff’s department he called or where this alleged fire was. Vagueness in verifiable details is a huge flag.

But some people have such strong confirmation bias, that they are willing to overlook REALITY. Dyer’s tent video and 2nd body was a great example of that.

People forget in the REAL world when physical evidence is scarce or limited; what real-world investigators do is look at the suspect account.

So is this your stance now that if someone takes a picture of a Sasquatch that no story can be used to verify or debunk a claim, only the pictures? So if someone reports seeing Sasquatch we should just take their word? I mean if you find flaws in their story it is a "debunking" rather than a debunking.

If certain people believe that, enjoy your "research."

I find it pretty biased that people that state, "just because he can’t have a gun doesn’t mean he didn’t have one." Agreed he could. But it’s also kind of stupid to put that on blast around the internet.

Why do you call the photographer the "alleged" photographer? He admitted he was. Seems to me you use quotes when you want to emphasize sarcasm. Matter of fact every reference on the internet points back to him as the source of the photos. Or are you trying to shape a new theory based on….? Confirmation bias perhaps?

I say this not as a criticism but as a teachable moment.

What evidence do you have that the photos are legitimate? You don’t because his story is BS.

But the other points of the debunking are being ignored. Why is common sense being ignored? Why? Confirmation Bias.

It is inconceivable to me, other than confirmation bias, that a person would overlook someone’s statement to rule or rule out a piece of evidence’s reliability.

In the case of Susan Smith, the evidence was 2 missing kids and a car. The police had nothing other than that besides her statement. How did they debunk she was carjacked? By breaking down her story.

Similarly here we are left with a series of photos with NOTHING to verify their authenticity. All we had was the story. So there you have it.

Inconsistencies in ANY investigation, civil, criminal, cryptid, UFO or paranormal, regardless if evidence is collected or not is a huge flag.

Not only did our investigation provide the submitter’s real address, it gave us confirmation of something we suspected in the photos in regards to the lights in the background.

Rather than today going on a long soliloquy of the process of investigation we just wanted to bring this gem of an excuse up. 

On Squatch-D TV this Sunday we will be breaking down the investigation as well as having our good friend Ben Radford on. 

---

If you haven’t read about the “Bigfoot Peeper” you can read them here:

Part I

Part II

---

We must all keep reality in mind when conducting investigations and cast all aspersions aside to conduct fair, unbiased and ethical investigations.

If you want further investigation tips you can visit Squatchdetective.com and click on the Squatchdetective University or (shameless plug!) you can read my new book, The Sasquatch Playbook:A Believer Looking at the Sasquatch Mystery Through the Eyes of a Skeptic:

Click on photo for more info!

Everyone please keep safe and be sure to comply with social distancing. We are getting there…slowly…but getting there!

Till Next Time,

Squatch-D

Peeping Bigfoot Part II

Yesterday, I announced the sad and the shocking truth, here about the “Peeping Bigfoot” and why with looking at Yeoman’s background why his story was a fabrication.

To recap quickly:

1. He doesn’t live nor possess land in Bailey, Colorado or Park County, CO.
2. He wife passed away in 2012 and he hasn’t remarried, so how was his wife in the story?
3. He is not allowed to possess a firearm in Colorado, due to being a convicted felon.

There were other things of his story that didn’t jive from an investigator’s standpoint.

1. Why didn’t he call his wife in at the onset of the incident?
2. Convenient to have a camcorder sitting next to you in your living room, fully charged and ready to go.
3. Convenient that the original file was destroyed in a fire, but the pictures of the computer screen somehow survived. Details of the fire were vague.
4. Why wait almost 3 years to reveal this information?
5. Why didn’t he name the correct Sheriff’s Department? He just stated the sheriff.

A tell to investigators that something is wrong with a story is how some elements of an account are very detailed and some very vague, especially when it comes to verifiable information. I have seen this hundreds of times.

I did locate his actual Colorado residence located in Golden, CO and it was in a pretty congested neighborhood. (Remember I said, this whole revelation was discovered by trying to properly file a FOIL request to the Park County Sheriff’s Office by obtaining a workable address.) That led to the discovery of his real name, Jonathan Scott Yeoman and a social media scrub tying him to Kokomo, IN (Howard County) which in turn led to the discovery of his arrest in Howard County Indiana. His actual residence in Colorado is in Jefferson County and has a history there confirmed by a 2008 arrest in Jefferson County for harassment.

Again this is not a judge of his character in the sense that he had been previously convicted of a felony. As you can see all of the red flags in the story itself. 

It would not be uncommon for a convicted sex offender to alter their name a bit because of the stigma attached, to their crime so Jonathan Scott Yeoman became Scott Yeoman publicly. I believe in some part, I am sure, so people do not easily connect the dots to his past convictions. That all from an investigator’s standpoint makes perfect sense.

---

The response

The response amongst the community was mixed. For some it was shock, for some it was more of the same; another hoax, believers turned. A couple held out until they were shown some of the things I discovered in more detail, quelling any doubts. But I did hear one story that made me shake my head and laugh.

“ ‘So and so’ believes the story was made up but the pictures are real.” – Anonymous

Well I knew there would be a few holdouts believing that. Despite my astonishment that someone would be that naïve, let me point out a few of flaws in that.

1. Fruit of the poisonous tree. – Once a fabrication is revealed how can you trust any of this person’s evidence going forward? You cannot.
2. Motive. There is no valid one.

Let’s look at motive in a couple of aspects of why someone would fabricate a story.

1. To protect the creature? Well this doesn’t work here, why not just keep your mouth shut? It’s been almost 3 years. And why would you be alluding to the creatures currently on your land in social media posts?
2. To protect a person or other witnesses? Again why open your mouth? Why allude that they are on your property? You are drawing people in so that defies anything allegedly to protect anyone.

---

The missing piece: How was it done?

One question that kept prevailing, how did he do it? Well in investigation you don’t always get every single element of a crime. You may not get the stolen money recovered, or the murder weapon, or a motive, heck some murders you don’t even have a body!

But I can state my hypothesis based on some of the intelligence gathered now that we know Yeoman’s Colorado residence.

In my opinion this was a person in a mask or costume, and was shot with a video camera, like Yeoman states and photos were taken of the video on a computer screen. In doing what I do for a living I have seen plenty of taking photos from a phone of video surveillance to get into the of officers for a BOLO (Be on the lookout). So upon inspection of the pictures I concur.

The pictures may have only been released via social media and not directly sent to anyone as to mask any metadata on the pictures.  However in thinking of such, I give far too much credit to Yeoman for this. Given his background this may have been the only reason for him to distribute the photos.

That being said, I believe we are getting photos only because the video would prove this was a hoax by showing details Yeoman did not want people to say. He would simply counter any request of the video with they were destroyed in a fire.

However the photos provided do show an anomaly which I have identified as natural lighting source from a neighbor’s house, likely a patio given the vertical size of the light. The blurring of the light in one of the photos confirms to me this was a video.

Using Yeoman’s actual residence we can see the potential source of the light in the photos.

A representation using the submitter’s residence of how the video was shot. Line of sight may be off by several feet,

I think that sums that up pretty well.

---

Potential motive

I have thought long an hard on this one. As an investigator I do not want to think that given this man’s past this was for nefarious reasons, and that’s why for the most part I needed to get over my own shock of the matter.

I have stated in the past the need for a socially isolated person’s need to belong to something. And that something has to usually be done in a grand way. Loneliness can play with the mind, as we are all personally facing in this time of pandemic. But if our social circles are small and in some cases spatially distant, as we have seen with Yeoman and we see a man, likely condemned by his past, probably just trying to belong somewhere and he saw this hoax as an “in.”

Not for money, not for nefarious reasons, just lonely, bored and isolated.

---

We will be doing a full take on this, this Sunday, 9PM Eastern on Squatch-D TV catch us there to join the conversation.

Till next time,

Squatch-D