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