Category: Analysis


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.

3

 

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

web

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?

Bullying

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

      34

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

How about Isdahl lying by inference / omission?

Isdahl Hoax

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.

94182611_1295463973981162_8874680504134139904_n

94307108_2914925325313113_8998439299573612544_n

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

si instagram

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

si3

Here is a response from an angered fan:

94688622_168398787740016_3475056501595308032_nsi4

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.

Jumping the Shark

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

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 replacementTeeth can be replaced once (diphyodonty).
      • Prismatic enamelThe 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 condylesTwo 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

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?

writer-laptop-c83a907fb7e84bd4973f819d05af59e4

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


0-Banner

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:

51AMrCt1l5L

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

Hoax-Spotting

Get your reading glasses out folks!!!

Something I study is criminology and psychology behind crimes. In this, I have observed a number of hoaxing characteristics and psychology behind them are very similar. Hoaxing is not necessarily a crime but the reason why it shares many common traits with certain criminal activities is that it relies heavily upon deception, concealment, misdirection and the air of trying to get away with something.

A great article came out a few years ago, “5 telltale signs of an online hoax”.

The article has some “real world” examples which I will provide if you wish in the future involving the Bigfoot Community. However, I would like to go into some detail on those points covered in the article.

1. Timelines don’t add up

“People perpetrating a hoax often have to construct a backstory in order to build credibility. This may involve creating a history for a company, person, or other entity. The farther back they go to establish credibility, the more likely they are to make mistakes.”

That is provided you are given a timeline. Many hoaxes lack a timeline which in of itself is dubious. I always say, “A picture, video and audio is only as good as the story behind it.


2. Names and people are problematic

“The names and people cited in hoaxes often have gaps in their history, and offer a very thin profile. This is because most of the time they simply don’t exist.”

The lack of any source material, lack of names and places aside from scene preservation should be suspect.


3. It appeals to a specific group or ideology or is too perfect

“Humans love to hear things that we already believe. It is immensely comforting for us to be told information that conforms to our existing beliefs and knowledge.”

As I have stated previously, there is always a target group. Whether it be particular organization or the community as a whole.


4. It has the trappings of authenticity

“A hoax has to find ways to convey a sense of credibility. Fake news articles often cite other media reports to back up their claims, but they will not link to these (non-existent) articles or they’ll simply inset links that go to the homepage of the website they mention. "

The term “con” is an abbreviated slang for confidence. Always remember that. A person’s charm, sincerity should be discounted in these situations because to sell a story, you have to be a salesman (or woman). 


5. It falls apart when you focus on the details

“Click all of the links, Google all of the names, reverse image search all of the images, run a Whois on the domains mentioned. This is how you’ll find the loose thread that untangles the whole thing. Every piece of information offered is a detail to be examined. Something that reads as real will quickly fall apart in the face of a few clicks and searches.”

Con-artists rely on our natural human nature to be trusting and on laziness to count on you taking their word, rather than doing your homework.


Motive

Now I would like to move on to motive. For every audience targeted there is a motivation behind the hoax. As the internet progressed it is difficult sometimes to get to the real motivation.

Let’s look at some of the motivational factors for hoaxing (From the Squatch-D Hall of Shame):

The Psychologically Needy Hoaxer 

  One who hoaxes due to a recent psychological event in their life such as divorce, being widowed, or general loneliness and do it for company and or attention. They need to feel special or have special abilities to a particular class of people and have to fell superior within that class. These are the folks we see constantly on Facebook live espousing their special abilities to communicate,  detect or otherwise be “in the know.” This type of hoaxing overtook the field over the Prankster or Jokester with the advent of Facebook live and YouTube. Often when facing critics they use the term “jealousy,” often because it questions their superiority.

    -Subclass:  The Unintentional Hoaxer 

 One who has a legitimate sighting and due to psychological effect of the sighting, every bump in the night becomes a Bigfoot. Often confused with misidentification, however differs due to frequency of misidentifications by the subject. The reason why this is a sub-class because it’s root cause is a psychological effect of a sighting on them.


The Prankster or Jokester

One who hoaxes for humor and enjoyment. There is a psychological need , however in some instances. While there is obvious parody, which should not be misconstrued as hoaxing, the person, as a prank, tries to hoax,  is trying to belittle others in some manner either privately or publicly. The hoaxer at times wants to feel superiority over a particular group. It should be noted that some parody can be utilized for the same purpose. This motivation can be muddled at this point, due to monetization of YouTube Channels however. But the main motivation is usually the former.


 The Profiteer

One who hoaxes in an attempt to garner financial gain either directly or indirectly. These are the folks which associate most with criminal traits. Narcissism, sociopathic tendencies among others can be at play. Remember a person who hoaxes for profit, is the same type of personality which others take with more defined “shortcuts” in life. They often espouse their position with overconfidence and power plays.


Hoaxing will always continue to plague the community. The more aware we are of how to research and understand some of the psychological factors and behaviors associated with hoaxing, the quicker we can put the garbage to the back of the line and focus on more genuine material being presented.

Be sure to catch Chris Bennett and I on Squatch-D TV Sundays 9PM Eastern, the “not clickbait” show where we present the truth…the good, the bad and the ugly!

See you Sunday!!!

Banner

Till next time,

Squatch-D

A recent analysis of what has become known as the “NY Baby Video”  was done by Darren Lee, Director of the Mid-America Bigfoot Center (MABRC).

Now in this analysis Darren did work on a few misconceptions and I do admire Darren’s efforts in the field and consider him a friend.

In  February 2008 I was on “The Creature Chronicles” on WNYT Channel 13 out of Albany, where I am on record of saying, “we at least have something here on video that is not human.”

For sure whatever it was (because we shall never know with 100% certainty, is not a normal resident of New York State.

Know let me address Darren’s misguidance on what he perceived was “confirmation bias”

For those who know me, I am a real…well “prick” when it comes to evidence. Now please do not quote me on exact dates of the investigation, but even where the initial report showed up, it was incorrectly placed as well.

It was late 2003 when I saw a report out of Ulster County pertaining to a film. The initial investigator (not the follow up) was by Paul Kutscera. He blew the film off without even seeing it. (Now there is bias right there.)

I asked if I could reach out and see what the guy has and was extremely skeptical. When I observed the film I knew what I was seeing was not at all human, let alone a flag on an antenna (one other theory floating on the internet).

I was the only investigator. ONLY. For the folks that know me “confirmation bias” is not in my nature.

Even in the screenshot of my report for the BFRO you see what is around the word, “baby”.

cb

Now I will address some of the points in Darren’s write up…

Previous claims that the area has a history of encounters and activity have to be severely questioned with only 3 reported Class "A" encounters stretching from 1983 to 2004. 

I hate to say it, but the BFRO does not get the lion share of Bigfoot reports in New York and is not the only game in town.

modena map

I had personally in the same time frame investigated 3 sightings from Greene County (Which includes the Catskill Mountains) immediately to the north, and have heard of several in Orange County (Base of the Appalachin Trail) which an old research partner of mine was investigating. Historically, there was a late 1800’s account in Margaretville, NY which is almost dead center in the map above. These reports consisted of actual sightings of the creature, not track finds, audibles or the ilk.

The BFRO database as well, has been scrubbed of some older reports, because at the time there were way more than just one report for Orange County or Columbia County. Now I am not entirely sure of what was edited in the BFRO report, either added or removed over the years.

Which brings me to the point of Darren not knowing the Bigfoot history of the area. For example, the 1980’s “Kinderhook Creature” flap. Kinderhook is a community in Columbia County.

Sightings occurred on December 1978, 12/5/1979, April 1980, 9/24/1980, 2 in November 1980, April 1981, 5/8/1981, June 1981, November 1981, May 1982, July 1982, On the border of Columbia County –August 1984,  January1990. Seems pretty “rich” to me and considering the time frame 2003… they were a lot more recent than they are today.

The drop off in some volume of sightings in those areas of course could be due to urban sprawl.

What I do know is the area of the video upon visiting the site in 2012, was ripe with apple trees, (there was an orchard in the background) and wild berries of all sorts and colors.

Darren provided a satellite photo of the area in 1995 and went on to state:

The forest around this area is fairly sparse, with large open tracts of farmland and orchards with quite a few houses and other buildings spread throughout the area.  Not an ideal place for a female Bigfoot to raise a young one with all the human activity and habitat in the area.  The land where this event occurred was also a working orchard, among other commercial ventures that the landowners were involved in.

Here is a workup of where the sighting had occurred using Darren’s satellite photo.

Satellite

What Darren states is he believes that the premise is a baby being raised in the area. That’s quite an assumption. No where does it say one was being raised there. If you follow primate behavior models quite the opposite. It’s behavior was of a primate just passing through. No Sasquatch would call that area a territory. But as with all primates, they are opportunists.

Below is some of the closest sighting reports in Whitehall, NY. In the 70’s one was actually seen disturbing garbage cans in a more rural part of the town. Whitehall has not much changed in urban sprawl at all since the 70’s. In fact I have seem some urban shrinkage over the years. whitehall

Darren believes it’s grasping the tree trunk with it’s feet. Well given the quality of the video, the distance to the subject and it’s relation to sunlight, how in the world can you say it is “grasping” with it’s feet. Even humans use their feet to stabilize when climbing.

What is known is in the video the little one, “Unsub #1” climbs hand over hand into the tree.

Hand over hand

It is not uncommon for baby gorillas to take to the trees as they are nimble enough, and primates go through an exploratory stage with their hands and feet. Often we see human infants using their feet to hold things. And that’s also why in human culture, we have something called “monkey bars.”

 imagesbaby gorilla in tree'

In the second picture, the baby gorilla is not using his feet to grab the tree, he is merely using his feet for support.

depositphotos_125689516-stock-video-an-adult-male-hand-holding

Darren surmises that what we are looking at is a Gibbon owned privately and in New York illegally.

As Steve Kulls has pointed out, New York state has laws constricting private ownership of most exotic animals, including chimpanzees.  However, as with most laws, there are lots of people out there who violate those laws and this can be confirmed to be the case in New York simply by searching Google for the news stories of people being caught with animals. 

But what Darren failed to mention was, and I confirmed this with Mike Lembo, the owner of the property and event organizer at the time was, they were searching at the gate for animals and would not let anyone in because they were not insured for it.  Now we expect someone with a gibbon not to cause a commotion and keep it hidden during the entire event for the weekend? And common sense says you wouldn’t let your pet gibbon up into a tree unleashed would you?

Next we come to the behavior of what Darren believes to be the handler. “Unsub #2” in the video, seen walking from the right to the left, where Unsub #1 appears to leap off of into the tree. The behavior and characteristics of Unsub #2 are completely ignored in Darren’s analysis, an not to offend Darren, but he seemed to be predisposed to what it was and shows his own bias by omitting any commentary on Unsub #2’s behavior.

First, Unsub #2 is uniformly colored. One would expect that with the backlighting. However when it enters out of the area of the backlight, it almost becomes invisible, head to toe.

Next is the behavior. If your pet monkey jumps in a tree without a leash, you would expect that person to “about face” immediately and there would be some sort of commotion. There was no such commotion as when the videographer was interviewed, his party did not hear, see or notice anything. Common sense would have told you that there would have been a fuss, or a flashlight. But there was not.

Furthermore it does not explain why Unsub #2 continues it travel path for a while and then after some distance turns around and walks toward the tree Unsub #1 is and out of sight somewhere behind the tree. This is not consistent with someone who has snuck an illegal pet into a venue they are not supposed to have one.

1 -Unsub 1 Initial

2 -Jump Sequence

Distance before turn

Last point

As I have stated in the past, investigations and analysis run by Bigfoot Researchers seem often to be two dimensional. We are presented with a film or a photograph and we run with that alone. We forget to look at behaviors and testimony of eyewitnesses. To me in my opinion, that can suffice for about 75% of what we get, because it is so blatantly obvious. But in certain circumstances, we must look at behavior, motive as well. 

When I first got this video to investigate I had to rule out Motive #1; a hoax. First, given the time that had passed since the video was taken, over five years, I found it unlikely.

Second, Doug Pridgen never noticed Unsub #2 nor any of his party noticed any commotion of any sort.

Third, the people staying in the visible tent in the video, had asked Doug and his party to keep an eye out as they went to the festival across the lake. In the video our back is to the access to the area where Doug and company were staying. The did not return until well after the video was taken.

So do we now have a prowler with a pet monkey?

Next I contacted the property owner to confirm about the “no pet” rule and it was confirmed.

Then came the search for any escaped lab, zoo or circus animals in the area; Bupkis.

Mind you, I was looking for an out, for an explanation, and the norm, if you can call it that just did not seem logical.

I even let the case marinate for a few months, to cross my T’s and reevaluate, reevaluate and reevaluate.

To me the possibility of a Sasquatch with it’s young visiting a nutrient rich area at dark, especially when we have known them to do this in the past seemed more logical than a guy prowling around someone else’s tent after illegally bring in a pet primate into NY, and sneaking a type of primate that is usually cantankerous past people searching for such cantankerous things at the gate, the only egress to the area, and then allowing such illegal and not allowed primate to frolic in a tree unharnessed.

At least that’s the way I see it.

Is it proof, or is it evidence? No, the dang video just isn’t good enough, given the fact we are still debating it after 22 and a half years.

At least that’s the way I see it.

Thanks Darren however, you at least are in the camp that this is a biological and I thing it puts to rest that this is something on the end of a car’s antenna! On the rest we have to agree to disagree.

And of course it is more of an interesting debate than most possible Sasquatch videos out there.

Till Next Time

Squatch-D

%d bloggers like this: