Archive for January, 2013

What are the types of evidence?

Lately there has been a misinformed pesky critic, who defies some rules of etiquette, forcing him to be bounced here and there.

Any way this critic has made the comment:

“I love how the footers (Including Kulls) use the witness argument when referring to court proceedings. Any witnesses to an event must have Corroborating evidence tending to confirm other evidence, or strengthen or confirm the initial evidence.

So I ask you, how can a bigfoot witness report confirm the initial evidence?…what evidence about bigfoot existence has ever been confirmed?….none! therefore any eyewitness is not direct evidence when referring about bigfoot…he’s wrong!”


Some folks think I go off half-cocked when I speak on shows about evidence. But I don’t.

mirror neuron

Let’s look at the Wikipedia definitions of evidence:


Direct Evidence supports the truth of an assertion (in criminal law, an assertion of guilt or of innocence) directly, i.e., without an intervening inference.

For example of Direct Evidence: a witness who testifies that he saw the defendant shoot the victim gives direct evidence. A witness who testifies that he saw the defendant fleeing the scene of the crime, or a forensics expert who says that ballistics proves that the defendant’s gun shot the bullet that killed the victim both give circumstantial evidence from which the defendants’s guilt may be inferred.

In direct evidence a witness relates what he or she directly experienced. (Usually the experience is by sight or hearing, though it may come though any sense, including touch or pain. State v Famber, 358 Mo 288, 214 SW2d 40.)

Circumstantial Evidence, by contrast, consists of a fact or set of facts which, if proven, will support the creation of an inference that the matter asserted is true.

Real evidence, material evidence or physical evidence is any material object, introduced in a trial, intended to prove a fact in issue based on its demonstrable physical characteristics. Physical evidence can conceivably include all or part of any object.

Corroborating Evidence is evidence that tends to support a proposition that is already supported by some initial evidence, therefore confirming the proposition.

An example of Corroborating Evidence, W, a witness, testifies that she saw X drive his automobile into a green car. Meanwhile Y, another witness, testifies that when he examined X’s car, later that day, he noticed green paint on its fender. Or there can be corroborating evidence related to a certain source, such as what makes an author think a certain way due to the evidence that was supplied by witnesses or objects.

                                                                                       – Source: Wikipedia

I suggest that anyone so outspoken as this gentleman, make sure they understand the definitions of testimonial evidence before spouting off that I am wrong.

These are principles I’ve learned since my college days, as I took criminal justice with a business law minor. Not only that, but in my career path I took for seventeen plus years, evidence wasn’t something anecdotal, but a practical application used almost every day.

Keep warm everyone!!!

Till Next Time…



Hey gang. After years of doing this, I have been implementing over the last several years methods to prevent hoaxing.

These are just some of the tools available to the researcher, that can mitigate hoaxing from the start.

  •  Web Submission Form: I have all sighting reports I investigate that come directly from the website, fill out a web submission form. This keeps track of the IP address it comes from. One of the best ones available is Email Me Forms,
  • Check the IP: Next always cross check your IP address to see if there’s a conflict in the data provided. An excellent source to track an IP address can be found at
  • Always cross check the phone number: Does it come back to the person they are claiming to be. There are several resources on the web that will provide this information.
  • Google search the email address: Sometimes it may reveal a Craigslist ad, EBay ad, or something that could point out something nefarious.
  • If you have a hotline number: Make sure it only accepts certain types of phone number, my old hotline, denied Skype calls, Payphone calls and Private Number calls, in other words you need to show the real phone number if you are calling in.


A great resource.

This is just the information at the initiation of the case. Now we move into the second phase. The interviews.

  • Ask the witness if you could record the telephone interview: Not for public consumption mind you, now you have something to compare to the original written account. If all passes move on to the next step.
  • Ask the witness if you could record the face to face interview: Again not for public consumption. In both requests ask them casually, and the major reason for doing such, is not only to weed out the hoaxer but to verify, on record they are being truthful and credible. Perhaps even video their interview. It could be useful afterwards to review.
  • Review all the interviews: Look for discrepancies, if there are none, you have one credible witness or a well polished hoaxer, so we get to move on to the next stage.

Now we move to the investigation phase, but its not all about getting to the woods yet. You’ve checked the IP, cross referenced the data, interviewed the person and everything checks out. What needs to be done next?

  • Check the weather data:  Is the weather data, or does the sighting report match up with what they have told you. Remember a well polished hoaxer may be able to keep their story straight, but they rarely look at the weather data for the day of the occurrence. Weather questions are some of the most important in determining the “stink” factor to a story.
  • Check the drive times: Be sure if it’s a road side crossing case to ask them about what they were doing prior to the event, what time did they leave and where from. If they become defensive, let them understand the more detail, the better it is for verification and validation of their sighting. Be sure to measure the drive times yourself, don’t take their word for it.
  • If there are other witnesses: First interview them separately, but if they are not present for the interview, see if you can obtain at the very least, their name, for at the very least verification that an event had happened. Reluctance in doing this, can be a warning sign.
  • Ask for any secondary witnesses: They may not have seen anything, but the witness has told them their story, and can at least validate the “post incident” events.



A good resource of checking weather data

Of course if everything seems in line, you move on to the field research portion, but by now they have passed the “Sniff Test” and you at this point should feel comfortable with the witness.

I cannot stress in cases the importance of corroborative witnesses, either during the incident or post incident. See it’s easy for one person to be a hoaxer, but if all of a sudden, now your talking to a significant other, about the post incident, and they seem uncomfortable, squirmy, or unwilling, chances are something is amiss.

Here is a forensic interview chart, very simple in nature on purpose, I created:



One of the things, that needs mentioning is one of the important sign of guilt, and that would be the objective reason. Beware a witness who comes forth and states that, “I would never hoax anything like this, I have no reason to.”

That is an almost certain indicator of guilt. In Forensic Interviewing, we would handle these statement, after the evidence to the contrary has been collected, and reply to them, “Well under normal circumstances that would be true, but these aren’t normal circumstance going on around you…”

It is important to look at some of the reasons psychologically why they might have for pulling off a hoax. 

  • Are they recently divorced, or lost a significant other, best friend, etc. ?
  • Do they live alone? If so, does their lifestyle, domicile seem out of order?
  • Do they have material around their home that could indicate they have researched the alleged topic?

Many times, the motivation for the mass of submitted hoaxers, I have found is one of four reasons.

  1. The Jokester: They have the need to feel superior over someone.
  2. The Lonely: They have the need for attention.
  3. The Profiteer/Promoter: They are malicious and doing it for monetary reasons. From promoting hoaxes or creating their own.
  4. The Attention Seeker: They are doing such for the attention

Remember knowing is half the battle. In each case I handle, I try to rethink all of these items. Life handles us sometimes the hardest lessons. Learn from my mistakes and some of others.

Some of this information can be found at in the Squatchdetective University section.

Getting closer to our move to SEPIA Radio.


We’re getting closer to our premier date on SEPIA Radio so we look forward to seeing the familiar faces on the new network, as well as the addition of many, many new listeners to the Bigfoot world, and Squatchdetective Radio.


Till Next Time,


LNP Ballyhoo–The Movie!

This about sums it up… I don’t expect her to keep her promise because typical of some hoaxers, she insists she’s in the right….well wrong!!!!


Ballyhoo busted, the damning evidence that Bigfoot Ballyhoo is a fraud, and LNP doesn’t keep her word.


Till Next Time,


Again, I love going back to an old case and adding some more into the “complete” file, especially using new technology.

This picture bothered me for some time, and I figured I put it to the test.

Here we have Linda Newton-Perry’s ESP Team, the late “Dale Saxton” on her “tribute page” to him posting a picture of Dale and the boys, posted on February 4th, 2010, claiming to be from Burnt Mountain Oregon.



This was posted pretty close to the inception of Bigfoot Ballyhoo. The caption states “Dale and crew 1977.”

Well not to be outdone, we used our new web scrubbers and guess what we found?


The picture comes from the Sierra Logging Museum, which was posted on November 18th, 2009 and the original link can be found by clicking here, and lists all the names of the loggers pictured, (absent in the names were Saxton, and Parchell) which was coincidentally shot in the Sierra’s, not where Ms. Newton Perry claims.

Yep another Ballyhoo/LNP falsity DEBUNKED as a hoax.


Till Next Time,


Things like this give me hope for the discovery of some our favorite cryptids including our hairy friends, the Sasquatch.

This article popped on the newswire and it is very exciting for those who love to search for the unknown.

‘Kraken’ caught on film at last

Nature’s Mysteries /Published January 07, 2013 /

“The elusive giant squid, which can grow to a monstrous 26 feet in length and is likely the source of the Nordic legend of the kraken, has been captured on film at last.

The creature spends its days trawling the depths of the Pacific Ocean, at a depth where there is little oxygen or light and crushing pressure from the immense weight of the water above. It was spied by Japan’s National Science Museum, working in tandem with Japanese broadcaster NHK and the Discovery Channel, according to AFP.

"It was shining and so beautiful," museum researcher Tsunemi Kubodera told AFP. "I was so thrilled when I saw it first hand, but I was confident we would because we rigorously researched the areas we might find it, based on past data."

The immense creature, which has razor-toothed suckers and eyes the size of dinner plates, has been the subject of fables and fairy tales since ancient times. The Norse legend of the sea monster and the Scylla from Greek mythology might have derived from the giant squid.


  giant squid filmed giant squid filmed 2

Footage captured by NHK and Discovery Channel in July 2012 shows a giant squid in the sea’s depths. (NHK/NEP/Discovery Channel)

This is the first recorded footage of the giant squid in its natural habitat, squid specialist Kudobera said. He also filmed what he says was the first live video footage of a giant squid in 2006, but only from his boat after it was hooked and brought up to the surface.

"Researchers around the world have tried to film giant squid in their natural habitats, but all attempts were in vain before," Kubodera said.

The squid was spotted at a depth of around 2,000 feet using a submersible in July, about 10 miles east of Chichi island in the north Pacific Ocean.

"With this footage we hope to discover more about the life of the species," he told AFP, adding that he planned to publish his findings soon.

Discovery Channel will air the footage in the special “Monster Squid: The Giant Is Real,” on Sunday, Jan. 27 at 10PM EST.

"Our crew came face-to-face with the giant squid, and it’s the ideal season finale for our ‘Curiousity’ series that stirs the imagination of our audience, bravely asking questions and fearlessly seeking answers. This latest production, four years in the making, is a world-first achievement for television, and I’m excited to share it,” said Eileen O’Neill, group president of Discovery and TLC Networks.

Which other mystical creatures will finally be revealed? We’re looking at you, Bigfoot.”

Read more:

Keep the search alive folks!!

Till Next time,


%d bloggers like this: