Category: Evidence Review


Hey gang, it’s been a while since writing a blog. A lot has been going on. I spent much of the year building my private investigation business and working as a full time investigator again. So while I am on the computer and in the field quite a bit over the summer, much of it was spent in professional efforts rather than a cryptozoological one.

Now that thinks are back to a dull roar, I can now spend some time enjoying my pastime, the more crypto and paranormal things.

First my usual winter warning. Lots of times I will get pictures from folks featuring tracks in the snow. Many do not consider that melt can occur even in freezing conditions as sunlight hits a track.

 

20181203_082231

 

Here’s a picture from my front yard showing what a boot print looks like after a few days of some sunlight on it. The print itself expanded exponentially and looks more like a bare foot than a booted or shoed one. So..caveat emptor.


The latest picture making the rounds

So over the fall during the Whitehall Sasquatch Festival I met a lot of folks.  The first was a woman who had a very interesting video capture and is going to be the focus of an investigation over the spring when foliage comes back, and the snow cover get’s lost! Sorry have to hold that one back until I can properly investigate it.

I also had a gentleman approach me and state he had an interesting trail camera shot, and showed it to me and I took a picture of the picture.

 

20180929_105736

In the beginning of December it has started to make the rounds on YouTube and several websites and Facebook posts.  The video below from the Squatch Watchers Channel has an interview with Joe Hunt, the submitter of the picture.

 

 

Vidcap1

 

The picture was taken on private land in June. Now the picture does have a year stamp of 2015 and whether that was an oversight, we are still not quite sure if the camera had the wrong year on it or whether or not it was taken in June of 2018. During the interview, which appeared to be sincere and authentic of Mr. Hunt, he did state the picture was taken in June on private land adjacent to the South Mountains Game Land in North Carolina.

map

 

What would I like to see, is some comparison pictures of humans, using the same camera with the same tree.

This is what needs yet to be done and should be done:

  • Comparison pic with the camera, posted on the same tree, at thee exact same height and angle the camera was originally placed with some known variables as a test subject to properly ascertain height, width and distance from the camera.
  • Clarification on the exact date, 2015 or 2018?
  • Other captures from the camera the time it was up during the photo in question.

Other than some testimony from an experienced hunter, we lack the investigation into the photo and we get rather a subject analysis, albeit a good one. A proper investigation will answer the questions to lend credence to the photo that this is a Sasquatch, or debunk it, but it needs to be done.

 

Sharpened Cropped

A little quick work of my own… sharpened and cropped.

 

The good news at least is that there is a story behind it, not just some random photo and it certainly requires more investigation before any labels be put on it.

My initial thoughts are, look at the leaves in the background and sticks on the ground. If we are looking at a 5, 6 or 7 foot creature, those leaves and sticks look awfully big. And we don’t see trees in the background, we see plant life. A recreation photo would do much to answer those questions.


Sad News

I’d like to share a couple of passings in the Bigfoot Community.

First is Leroy Blevins. Mr. Blevins wrote a book about the Patterson-Gimlin film and recreated a suit to pony tail the work of Greg Long. Although I did not agree with Mr. Blevins sentiments on the PG Film, and he was aware of that, he was a gentleman.

1291218_583120501734776_1363237958_o

Leroy Blevins

While at ScareFest in 2017, he came up to my table and introduced himself and presented a copy of his book to me. Although I did not agree with it’s final premise the book did contain some great historical items not easily found.

20181209_11294920181209_112956

Another and very sad passing was the passing of William Dranginis long time Virginia Bigfoot researcher and an expert on FLIR technology.

_dev_pubsys_images_1216235165_m_dc_cover_issue_29b_1

 

William personally was a humanitarian and dedicated family man, but perhaps best known for creating a FLIR surveillance vehicle he used in his Sasquatch missions.

ST_42_obsessed3_f

 

William was a mentor to many a his grounded approach to Sasquatch research and he will be greatly missed.


                             RadioLogo2018-2Capture (2)

Till next time,

Squatch-D

Advertisements

Well with Spring finally springing, I thought I would point out some common mistakes made in the field by some, identifying bear sign as Sasquatch sign, which with the advent of social media has become more common place.

Whereas twenty years ago, tracks were usually a Sasquatch print or a hoaxed print, today we see many a new researcher indicating bear tracks as Sasquatch tracks.

The idea sprung on me when perusing my usual sites, I came across a Ballyhoo post which showed a track. Now this is one of the rare instances where I do not think LNP is pulling our leg. She legitimately thinks that this track could belong to a Sasquatch.

footprint018)

Capture5

Bigfoot Ballyhoo Blog April 21st, 2018

However what LNP appears to be looking at is a bear overstep. Judging from the size, a black bear because the width of the track in comparison to LNP’s hand is too narrow to what we have observed in Sasquatch tracks.

The other tell tale sign is the shift to the left the print takes looking at it from top to bottom, as you will see an unusual indentation on the right side of the track outline going from top to bottom.

in this enhanced photo you will see what appears to be toes, in the upper middle portion of the print indicating overstep.

lnp2a

Needless to say this is not uncommon. The most common tell tale sign of an overstep is a deviation in the flow of the foot. The heel being at an awkward angle to the direction of the toes.

Once I had responded to a call from a man claiming to have numerous tracks near the Black River in the Adirondacks. I ha seen some of his casts and they looked peculiar. Sure enough we had gone to the location and discovered a set of fresh tracks in the sand on one of the banks to the river.

Clearly what was we saw was a bear overstep.

100_0522

Black River, Adirondacks: Bear overstep.

Again you can see the similarities in the LNP print and this one. Again the deviation from the upper middle section of the foot on the right.

Again this is a common mistake made by some folks not akin to tracking and animal sign. Again this is a learning curve and not meant as a put down. I too, took my bumps many years ago to learn the correct way to observe track evidence.

If you are not sure don’t be afraid and ask. Do not be in a rush to get those track photos posted. If you can cast them, please by all means do. Even if it is not a Sasquatch print, it’s good practice!

A lesson learned

In 2004 I had very little experience with bear sign and I had a reported sighting by two children stating they had observed a Sasquatch briefly. After interviewing them, their story was compelling, and upon examination of the area, just some 72 hours after their sighting, we found some scat I had never seen before. I did the right thing, and asked a veteran Bigfoot researcher and Forester Kathy Strain to look at a picture of the scat.

It was black bear scat. The children had heard stories previously of the Sasquatch, which may have predisposed them of a bear on its hind legs being a Sasquatch. I now believe what they had observed may have been a bear on its hind legs observing them. At least that’s what the physical evidence leans towards.

Point being, if you don’t know, be a responsible researcher and ask. And it changed the outcome of the investigation from likely Sasquatch, to likely bear.

And as a responsible researcher you should feel good about that, because our overall aim should be to the truth.

Some more Bear Sign

Capture

Capture2

Capture3

BearScat

Source: https://www.wildernesscollege.com/american-black-bear-tracks.html

Many of the above bear sign is often shown to me as Sasquatch sign by some researchers. I suggest researchers go to the following site, if not to learn but rather to brush up.

https://www.wildernesscollege.com/american-black-bear-tracks.html

It should also hone the enthusiasts of Sasquatch and its research, to be more the wiser when perusing some sites showing “evidence” of a Sasquatch, which seems for some to come on a daily basis, another huge warning sign that their research lacks cross checking and self-analysis, which we should all be doing as responsible researchers.

Of course everyone be safe out there, and remember to Squatch responsibly and make sure when you head out to the forests to be prepared for whatever.


This Week on Squatchdetective Radio:

Dallas Morgan

Till Next Time,

Squatch-D

Since Todd’s release on Netflix, for the new folks…here’s a little Todd Standing refresher with some new stuff added at the end.

                 9130212_origmissingman (1)

Sylvanic 2005

The Natives call it Sylvanic?? That term comes from”Latin” so that is extremely unlikely.

And the long since removed Sylvanic video #1:

https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x4kchq

Let’s not forget the Toddster ran a production company, and called for actors shortly before Sylvanic Video #1.

adnreg_thumb_thumb

Ad requesting actors, same phone number as Sylvanic’s registry

https://squatchdetective.wordpress.com/2014/11/23/todd-standing-the-history-we-forget/

muppetmuppet face

Muppet face debunked via flaw on nose.

Let’s not for get good ole “Blinky.”

03_11_cal_bigfoot_toddstanding_thumb1

“Blinky”debunked.

The photo analysis of “Blinky.”

https://squatchdetective.wordpress.com/2014/04/26/analysis-in-todd-standings-blinking-bigfoot/

Being accused by a “Standling,” of taken a photo cap and manipulating the info… when in reality I got the picture via the media who did not alter it, who in turn got it from Todd.

source_thumb

https://squatchdetective.wordpress.com/2014/04/27/source-of-the-analyzed-capture-is/

And finally some analysis of the TS “Survivorman footage:” Short but sweet and to the point:

                    TS FootTS Rght Foot

(Above) Left foot, right foot…no wearing on the souls of the feet. That equals either costume feet or shoes.

Till Next Time,

Squatch-D

Bigfoot research over the decades has had its ups and downs. What I love most are the true scientists that come forward to assist us in the daily fight against pseudo-science and at the same time assist us in the fight against the mainstream science which out of many times, opinion discounts what thousands of witnesses have seen over the generations.

 

 2003-5DSCN3491

(Left): Track found investigating a sighting report in Whitehall, NY 2003, (Right) Track found along the Poultney River, Vermont. (Photo Credit: Steve Kulls)

 

One other double standard was the discovery of the Bili Ape. It began to originate from footprint evidence that there was a different type of primate inhabiting the jungles of Africa. However since day one, science has discounted the numerous tracks found by people, citing hoax or misidentification from minute one.

 

       20161023_154910Picture1

(Left) Print found in Chautauqua County, NY 2016, (Right) Track-way of the Fort Ann Cast 2006) (Photo Credit: Steve Kulls)

Also misleading are some of the statements made by the skeptical scientists interviewed on some documentaries. They generally state opinion. One skeptical scientist actually stated, “If these things were out here, people would be seeing them.”

WHAT????

DSCN3363

Squatchdetective Field Investigation Team camp shot 2013

 

The sad fact is though with the proliferation of social media, it has become easy for false news stories and junk science to be promoted as fact. And it allows people whom naively follow people without doing their homework.

We have seen this time and time again with some of the folks exposed in the Hall of Shame. They obtain a following and what they say is gospel to the people who blindly accept what they preach. That is usually until they do their own research.

I’ve always said here, “Don’t take my word for it. Do your own research and use what I say as a starting point.”

 

Deflating the Claims of the Ketchum Study

One such scientist that’s on our side, being that he is looking at things from an unbiased point of view is Dr. Haskell V. Hart, who breaks down the nitty-gritty of DNA results and puts them to the test. Particularly Dr. Melba Ketchum’s DNA Study.

The first thing that threw my BS Meter abuzz was the manner in which she released the information.

Many forget about a press release a day or two before the release of the study. This violated the normal standard for scientific studies being released into the public.  Dr. Ketchum was charging $30  for a download of the report the next day. Sounded to me like it was a promotional pitch to increase sales, much the way Apple releases their products.

Now one might say she was trying to recoup what she spent in the study, however she was charging the folks that submitted samples in the study for those costs. Not to mention a draconian non-disclosure agreement. Basically stating they had a right to get the results, but couldn’t talk about it, ever, at all unless Dr. Ketchum herself, gives permission.

All of this sounds highly irregular right? But it goes on.

Ketchum had published the study in a scientific journal called the Denovo Journal, which at the time of release was called the Journal of Advanced Multidisciplinary Exploration in Zoology.

Shortly thereafter, as all skeptical Bigfoot researchers do, dug up the fact she owned the very journal and was purchased very recently to the study being published.

Ketchum stated,

“After this journal agreed to publish the manuscript, their legal counsel advised them not to publish a manuscript on such a controversial subject as it would destroy the editors’ reputations (as it has already done to mine).  I have documentation on all of this drama.  So, rather than spend another five years just trying to find a journal to publish and hoping that decent, open minded reviewers would be chosen, we acquired the rights to this journal and renamed it so we would not lose the passing peer reviews that are expected by the public and the scientific community.  Denovo, the new journal is aimed at offering not only more choices and better service to scientists wanting to submit a manuscript, but also reviewers and editors that will be fair, unlike the treatment we have received.

It has been a long and tedious battle to prove that Sasquatch exists.  We have had the proof for nearly 5 years but building enough data to convince mainstream science has taken a lot of time.  Trying to publish has taken almost two years.  It seems mainstream science just can’t seem to tolerate something controversial, especially from a group of primarily forensic scientists and not “famous academians” aligned with large universities, even though most of our sequencing and analysis was performed at just such facilities.

We encountered the worst scientific bias in the peer review process in recent history.  I am calling it the “Galileo Effect”.  Several journals wouldn’t even read our manuscript when we sent them a pre-submission inquiry.  Another one leaked our peer reviews.  We were even mocked by one reviewer in his peer review.”

 

Did Ketchum realize that Albert Einstein formulated his theory of General Relativity in 1911 and didn’t get it published until 1919?

The process of publishing a scientific paper is grueling and tedious. No doubt she had some push back given what I stated earlier, but patience and perseverance is what normally wins the day.

So this puts the entire publication in doubt, whether it be by misstep or otherwise.

I was waiting too for something incredible and instead was immediately disappointed.

Soon afterward Dr. Ketchum fell into the category of what some researchers call the “woo.” She began to claim Bigfoot was braiding her horses hair on her ranch, and a very bizarre to say the least Bigfoot encounter.

“She is the fairies’ midwife, and she comes

“In shape no bigger than an agate stone…

That plaits the manes of horses in the night

And bakes the elflocks in foul sluttish hairs,

Which once untangled, much misfortune bodes.”

(Shakespeare: Romeo and Juliet Act One Scene 4).

An article on Elf and Fairy Knots and lore can be read here. Now we can move those into the Bigfoot column.

Enter Dr. Haskell V. Hart…

image Dr. Haskell V. Hart holds a PhD in chemistry from Harvard University and has a physical, inorganic, and analytical chemistry research background. He was Associate Professor of Chemistry, University of North Carolina at Wilmington, after which he was Senior Staff Research Chemist and Research Manager at Shell Chemicals. At Shell he both conducted analytical research and managed various analytical departments. His research interests have included analytical applications of x-ray diffraction, electron diffraction (two database patents), and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. Since his retirement, he has focused on long-range detectors and application of DNA sequencing to species identification, especially relict hominoid candidates. His blog, www.bigfootclaims.blogspot.com, contains over thirty articles on this subject and related issues.

Dr. Hart did a study of his own on the Ketchum Study and came up with some interesting take aways for those who want the science to debunk Ketchum’s rather incredible findings of a new Relic Hominid.

As suspected by this writer, and stated in the past, the problem was the Primer which is used to scan an area for like DNA. They used a Human primer, and not surprisingly we got mostly human results aside from contamination. They did not use a universal primer approach which would have been the appropriate primer to use for an unknown sample. (Hence could be the fitting of evidence to a story rather than fitting the story to the evidence.)

Dr. Hart breaks down the processes and how Ketchum was dealing with either contaminated or degraded DNA samples. And he breaks down some of the Study’s samples into a proper reading in the GenBank. Here’s just some of the highlights:


Further examination of the extra mutations in Table 2 here shows that in S2, S26, S36, S39b, S44 and S46, most of these extra mutations could be attributed to a second haplogroup, i.e. a contamination. However, Ketchum et al., in their paper and publicly, steadfastly deny any contamination in any of their samples…

Clearly, the Ketchum et al. study would have benefitted from this universal primer approach. Sequencing “whole” nDNA genomes of a black bear (S26) and a dog (S140) would have been avoided, and likely many other samples would have shown nonhuman matches by mtDNA sequencing with universal primers. It seems unlikely that all 111 of their study samples collected in the woods would turn out to have human mtDNA as reported, unless, of course, they were contaminated.

 Short Tandem Repeats at Microsatellite Loci… The method is used in criminal forensics and population genetics, and was used by Ketchum et al. (2013). Unfortunately, the method requires that you know what species you are dealing with and what the lagging and leading strand sequences are in order to pick the correct primers to sequence the intervening STRs (number of repeats). The method is not suitable for totally unknown samples.  

Specific Gene Sequencing…In a manner similar to mitochondrial methods, primers can be selected to target a specific portion of a nuclear gene, usually to detect SNPs related to a specific phenotype (gene expression). Ketchum et al. (2013) used this method with several genes, as discussed below. Again, the method requires detailed knowledge of the specific species’ gene sequence to select appropriate primers. The method is not suitable for totally unknown samples.  

 Bead Array Analysis for SNPs…The method is not suitable for totally unknown samples, except as a very expensive and complex way of matching an unknown sample to a very specific known species, with no indication of the species if there is no match.  This was the Ketchum et al. (2013) approach: attempting to match unknown samples to human.  

Use of a reference sequenceUnfortunately, their method used human chromosome 11 as a reference for the sequencing, thereby both greatly reducing the length of the resulting consensus sequences and biasing them toward only highly conserved human genes.

S26… Ketchum et al. concluded that all three sequences were from an unknown male primate/human female hybrid, and that they contained a mosaic of both human and other primate segments.  Sample 26 is a black bear  Ursus americanus). From searches of Genbank with BLAST™, using the whole S26 nDNA sequence as query, it was found that S26  matched  human and other primates only 94-95%, but matched polar bear (Ursus maritimus) about 98-99%. Black bear sequences in GenBank were sparse and relatively short, but matched S26 100%.

black-bear-backcountry-movieh_1

Will someone please feed S26?

S31… Ketchum et al. correctly concluded that S31 is human. Most database hits were 100% ID modern human (Hart, 2016a).

 

 

Funnyman_3_1130x350

That’s not quite what we expected!!! 100% Modern Human???

S140… Sample 140 is a dog (Canis lupus familiaris) or less likely a wolf or coyote, not a sasquatch. Since there is a wealth of dog DNA in GenBank, no other source was queried.  Hits averaged 99% ID match to dog compared to 94% for both human and other primates (Hart, 2016a).

20151103_150211

Here’s what S140 is… (I knew I would work a way to get Watson on the blog!!)

Source: Research Article:  DNA AS EVIDENCE FOR THE EXISTENCE OF RELICT HOMINOIDS  by Haskell V. Hart Ph.D

Dr. Haskell outlines the proper DNA sequencing of unknown subjects at the end of his report as well. A great guideline for future DNA studies.

Dr. Hart’s report can be found at:

 http://www2.isu.edu/rhi/pdf/HART-DNA-Evidence.pdf


So there we have it. It would appear that the Ketchum Study had a theory prior to testing, and went with it.

sasquatch_genome_project001001

Picture on Dr. Ketchum’s site… wow.

The results for them were either one pointing to what they wanted to believe, versus what it was actually.  Her bias, I cannot prove, but in my opinion it was there. And now, there seems to be some science behind that opinion. 

Well at least that’s how I see it.

 

Now onto some hope…

I always love when things are found. In one case the Sea Blob was finally photographed after not being seen for over 100 years. The Bathochordaeus charon, not seen in 100 years was photographed in Monterey Bay, California.

 

b-charon-dr457-crop

The Bathochordaeus charon. (Credit: Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute.)

And in other exciting news scientists have found dinosaur feathers (that’s right feathers) embedded in amber.

 

gr3_lrg

(Source: Current Biology)

The Scientist.com writes:

The feathered tail of a 99-million-year-old dinosaur, complete with eight vertebral segments as well as evidence of soft tissue and blood, has been found in Cretaceous amber, according to a December 8 study in Current Biology. The 1.4-inch segment likely came from a coelurosaur about the size of a sparrow, the authors wrote in their paper.

New discoveries and rediscovered animals, motivates me as we still know very little about what has inhabited, or continues to inhabit, this planet!

Till Next Time

Squatch-D

I started using the original video for analysis rather than using the picture circulated on the internet. Strangely the pareidolia aspect of it comes into perspective.

 

Dodson

 

Very clearly now you see a leaf which at  this angle is visible. The shadowing at another angle gives it the effect of looking like a face.

Dodson4

Till Next Time,

Squatch-D

%d bloggers like this: