Category: Evidence Review


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

Advertisements

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

Introduction:

It’s time to shape up folks. It’s time to change to be better. It’s time to take some heartfelt advice from someone who has had a handful of sightings and a handful of experiences. But they weren’t every time out nor every area I went to. That takes time, logistics, analysis and a lot of luck.

But what I have seen trending over the last several years, much in part to social media, is the rise of some sycophants who are so starved for attention they find Bigfoot at every turn and play to an uneducated, drive by audience.

Then there is the ones who try so hard, that they find evidence at every turn. I understand the bias towards ones own evidence, but if someone shows you the light, or gives you constructive criticism, take it!!! Not personally.

The audience that reads this blog, is educated, because they took time to come here, visit the site, read through the archives, Hall of Shame and of course Squatchdetective University. The people that read this are more than just your average enthusiast, they seek more. Of course many researchers read my blog and site as well.

Over the years I have made some missteps. Admitted such and learned from them and moved on.  I have found evidence and some landed in my lap which have become neat discoveries which have fueled the debate of the existence of the creatures.

But..my mission was always to tell everybody the good, the bad and the ugly.

I have tried to stay clear of many rivalries that exist today in this pseudo-scientific field. Because lets not kid ourselves, we’re not scientists. There are some in the field, but very few and far between.

I was told the other day, I am known for busting hoaxes.  I actually was offended by this at first thinking it was a slam. But what I should be known for is telling it like it is.

See the reason why I am known for is busting hoaxes, is because usually I handle misidentifications quietly. There is no need for embarrassment of the individual for they have done nothing wrong.

So in effect for every hoax I have thrown out to the public there have been a number of those which have been categorized as misidentifications and a few that don’t live up to me posting them, but I just couldn’t tell you honestly what I think because I am not sure.

I have been quiet because the field team is nursing family members who are in ill health, working on education and I myself am nursing a sprained ankle. But we are on the move this month.. so look forward to seeing some reports, even if it is nothing important, we’ll keep you updated.

You see for a long time I have sat by quietly and not commented. Well that time has ended.

But let me predicate this with my background, I have been an investigator practically all my adult life. I have have worked numerous years in retail loss prevention and investigation, and as a Private Investigator in the criminal, civil and insurance industries.

Lesson 1: The need for patience

I never really had a problem at being patient as an investigator. For some reason, and being in the “Information Age,” everyone wants information “Now, now, now!”

In 2008 everyone was looking for a condemnation without evidence, and I stood up for my principles then, and took tremendous heat for it, but in the end when I did manage to get that evidence, everything was set back to normal. And I stand for my principles now.

But as an investigator, rushes to judgment always spell a person’s demise. Whereas a slow and methodical approach, you tend to get it right more often than naught.

Take for example this week the posting of a Drone Video, by a drone enthusiast “Hardpack101.”

Capture

So what do you think will happen when someone’s excitement to get the story first overtakes investigative common sense? Well what happens is you may rush to the scene, lose all objectivity and find all sorts of “evidence.” Then the person comes out and states its all a hoax.

See, people don’t listen. People who follow me know the first rule of my evidentiary evidence procedure.

“A piece of evidence, film, photo or audio is only as good as the story behind it.’”

                                                                —Steve Kulls

 

When you forget that and let passion, ambition or whatever else motivates you, other than the truth, then you set yourself up consistently for failure.

I will not specifically mention the folks or the group behind this blunder by name. Enough people know it already, but this needs to be pointed out to folks sometimes even when you take you time in an investigation you make mistakes, but when you rush… it can be catastrophic.

So if you don’t start off by a detailed interview of the person behind the film, especially when they are as communicative as the hoaxer of this film, it’s a big misstep. If you decide to base your investigation on the bias it is real, without speaking personally to the witness you’re doomed from the onset.

Even more embarrassing is when you make a post that you have found evidence and even more so when you proclaim something is authentic when obviously you haven’t completed the all crucial important first step.

This should show that finding something is “alleged evidence” until it can be processed, such as a hair as they had claimed they had gotten.

Capture2

Part of claims made on a website about the Drone Video.

Capture3

Facebook response in regards to the Drone Video by the director of the organization.

 

Later it was claimed by the group or the director of the group that their was evidence planted. And that the hoax was called because he did not want the researchers wasting any more money in analysis or research of the area.

So now a little back pedaling, which at this point is understandable however the addition of the term “planted evidence,” has now been dropped on us.

capture4

Well it is embarrassing enough to admit that perhaps you had been fooled by  “planted” evidence. But perhaps you did this to quell the notion that you had been a little over enthusiastic and took normal things in the outdoors and turned them into Bigfoot “evidence” in your mind.

Or how some have suggested that perhaps there was no evidence at all. That the director had made statements to this effect to generate buzz for his group and website.

One person stated they corresponded with “Hardpack101” and stated that he did not plant any evidence whatsoever. We here at Squatchdetective.com corresponded with him as well and received a similar response.

 

Response

Apparently now the organization is patting itself on the back for getting itself involved and putting the hoaxer “in a corner.” Unfortunately, the way we see it here is the hoaxer had a conscience and did not want people blowing money on testing. That’s not being “put in a corner.”

He could have said “F*** it and let the tests go on. Then the hoax would have gone on for weeks. So it was just luck that the perpetrator had some semblance of a conscience.

Imagine if the hoax had been perpetrated by someone similar to Rick Dyer’s personality?

Their involvement DID bring it to a close, so kudos for getting involved and quickly, BUT not just the reasons why they stated.

Again they do not at all mention or explain, why they at first thought this was REAL. There had been no presentation of any sort of evidence for the public to see. And to place it there now would be after the fact.

Mind you we are not being harsh and the persons involved should not look at this as anything negative towards them, just trying to teach lessons here.

Here’s the take aways!

  • HAVE PATIENCE… being first doesn’t always mean being right, and in this business you need to be right.
  • Don’t pass judgment on alleged evidence until the T’s are crossed and I’s are dotted. Again…patience!!!
  • If you say you have evidence…SHOW IT. Seeing is believing.
  • If you mess up, admit it, especially before patting yourself on the back for getting involved in the first place.

Lesson 2: Will the real Nathan Reo stand up???

Well we again have another ringer to claim he is a Sasquatch researcher, Nathan Garn (aka Nathan Reo). He claimed to know so much after asking a few researchers advice on methods etc. But after putting a video out there with known Bigfoot audio, claiming originally it was his until caught, seems to have taken his marbles and is on the run.  The guy adds vocalizations to his video, claiming them to be real… that is until he gets caught….ugh.

 

         reobioNeo Garn

Trying to get noticed…counselor turned aspiring filmmaker Nathan Garn

 

Yep and guess what? He’s an aspiring filmmaker. Kinda like that Harpack101 guy above with his drone video and that Canadian guy too… what’s his name? Oh yeah, Todd Standing.

 


Lesson 3: Beware the guys who find evidence at every turn

I frankly grow tired of the guys who rush in and just seem to get evidence at every turn, every time and every where… people like the guy who sees cloaked bigfoots everywhere, the guy from Ontario and that guy with the kid shaking the tree in Ohio.

Here’s the link where I busted one of his “Craptastic” audios as a hoax… and then he tries to turn around an claim now its not Squatch talk but EVPs. (Electronic Voice Phenomena, but if I recall he supposedly heard these.)

Those of us who really walk the walk know much better, and please spare me the “you’re doing it wrong bullshit.”

My response to that is “You are a bullshit artist.”

They’re all about the YouTube ratings folks.


Lesson 4: Habituation is why it is wrong. 

Habituation : is the verb tense of habituate meaning:

  • To accustom (a person, the mind, etc.), as to a particular situation.

Those who use the term a lot of times mean habitation. Sasquatches DO NOT live where you live….WRONG.  Their number one survival skill is avoidance of humans. Hence why we have such a hard time proving they exist. 

 

Habitation:

  1. a place of residence; dwelling; abode.
  2. the act of inhabiting; occupancy by inhabitants.
  3. a colony or settlement; community

                                                       Source: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/habitation

 

They’re only visiting at best and the property, again at best, may be a Foci of Activity area. A “foci area” is a part of the primate living and behavior model.  If they were habitating a particular area, it wouldn’t necessarily be all that pleasant.

Unless they are knocking on the door asking you for garlic, they’re not accustoming to anyone.

 

“I can’t see any sense in solving one mystery by introducing another mystery”

                                                                          —John Green

Neither are they coming to you in your dreams, except as a figure of a very over active imagination, mind_speaking to you, being picked up by a flying saucer to be dropped of at Nibiru, home of the Nephlim, nor are they jumping through a portal nor cloaked either.

If you leave food on a stump guess what may take???

Raccoons, badgers, ground hogs, squirrels, woodchucks, fishers, coyotes, bears, wolves, bobcats, lynxes, mountain lions, deer, elk, moose, rabbits, porcupines, stray dogs and cats, mice, prairie dogs, wolverines, weasels, and whatever else runs around your neck of the woods at night. YOU LEFT IT ON A STUMP OR A LOG.

Of course it must have been Sasquatch. 

And why is there never a trail cam picture of this??? Oh conveniently they avoid the trail cameras. I call BS.

 

These are the by-products of several things:

  1. Over active imaginations.
  2. Psychological needs for the need to belong or feel special.
  3. Psychological needs because you have been traumatized by an actual sighting.
  4. Possibly hit by infrasound during an actual encounter, provided that a Sasquatch uses infrasound.
  5. Finally, you have had some other phenomena other that a legitimate Sasquatch encounter, it just manifests that way to you.

Social Media: Our friend and our enemy

As I was saying last night on Squatchdetective Radio, Social Media has all but made the Forum boards obsolete. Years ago when I first started in this adventure, we all communicated in groups via Yahoo Groups, which was basically an email list. That’s how much discussion was dealt with.

The came the Forums which made those initial Yahoo groups obsolete.

Finally we have the Social Media platforms today. Much more powerful than the forums which became obsolete by these venues. The only problem was policing the trolls and the drive-bys.

People who had no education on the subject could just interdict an opinion and mob-rule begins. It has happened before on forums, but usually was quashed. Now the problem is prolific.

The lack of objectivity on both sides of the coin are apparent. Not because they just don’t agree with me, but rather have no rational backup for their stories. I remember being told by people whom were very scientific, that the Vermont trail cam picture is an owl, despite having a scientist evaluate it and using scientific law it is not something flying in front of the camera and is on the ground. What was the basis of their statement?

Their opinion. So much for scientific right?

So I see a hypocrisy. I really do.  Not that it not being an owl, proves it’s a Sasquatch. Far from it, and although I have an opinion about it, I can’t prove it because there was only one dang picture. But common sense gave it enough argument to post.

More recently is the Dodson Video cap. What folks don’t know is after doing this for 18 years I have developed a method for determining whether the “Blobsquatch”, or other anomaly is foliage or not. By changing the some values I create a composite of the picture creating a picture that consist of black, white and shades of the primary colors. As well as using an ELA test to determine if their was any photo manipulation.

So here we have the original video cap which has been shared all over the “social network” recently by someone who believes in opinion over fact, after all why believe in the truth, just believe what you want right?.

orig

13606909_10206754763044492_403501817679818365_n

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 17 U.S.C. § 106 and 17 U.S.C. § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.

 

First we need to determine, since the picture was distributed with the infamous red circle if the picture was manipulated or not. We do this via the ELA (Error Level Analysis) test, to see the photo has been manipulated.

 

What is Error Level Analysis?

ELA highlights differences in the JPEG compression rate. Regions with uniform coloring, like a solid blue sky or a white wall, will likely have a lower ELA result (darker color) than high-contrast edges. The things to look for:

  • Edges
    Similar edges should have similar brightness in the ELA result. All high-contrast edges should look similar to each other, and all low-contrast edges should look similar. With an original photo, low-contrast edges should be almost as bright as high-contrast edges.
  • Textures
    Similar textures should have similar coloring under ELA. Areas with more surface detail, such as a close-up of a basketball, will likely have a higher ELA result than a smooth surface.
  • Surfaces
    Regardless of the actual color of the surface, all flat surfaces should have about the same coloring under ELA.

    

    13606909_10206754763044492_403501817679818365_nELA Test

 

If you observe the photo with its ELA test which clearly shows the added red circle and arrows. So… not a photo manipulation.

BUT… If you notice the “Bigfoot Face” appears green. Well lets look at some examples of my methods to determine whether we are looking at foliage or not.

 

Example 1: Gorilla in the foliage. (Video Cap)

Test 1Test1 Composite

 

Example 2: Gorilla behind some foliage.

                             Test2Test 2 Composite

Example 3:  Gorilla in the foliage from a distance.

  Test 3Test 3 Composite

Example 4: “The Myakka Ape” (Who knows if its real or not)

 

                   bigfoot_myakkaMyakka Composite

 

Finally the Dodson Face:

13606909_10206754763044492_403501817679818365_nDOD1

 

Ladies and gentlemen, unless Bigfoot is green; we have foliage. 

But low and behold that’s not what the majority of the masses wanted to believe so instead of looking at science, because it can be repeated and repeated with the same result. Here it is with the original…

orig

Original Composite

The original, the green is much darker… but still green

So the talk soon became, “look at this ‘enhanced picture’.” Someone photo shopped what it should look like. People were like “WOW!”

I was totally blown away, because now people are substantiating that a photo shopped photo PROVES to them something is real.

I was going to joke when I posted my findings and sarcastically talk about it being a “cloaker” but someone brought it up in a semi-serious tone.  I just don’t get it.

Someone even said “we wouldn’t know a Squatch if it was standing in front of our nose.” Well son I have seen them, and I know  what they look like and what they don’t. And they are certainly are not green.

But what I can tell you is if they throw the following out there:

  • They’re just jealous…
  • They wouldn’t know a Sasquatch…
  • Don’t be a hater…

They are full of “you know what!”


What the future holds

I was a huge resident of many Social Network groups, and I always will maintain a presence on Facebook, Twitter, YouTube and such. But I have unjoined over 65 Bigfoot groups yesterday. Why?

Because the discussion has fallen out of the scientific and factual realm and plays now to people’s fancies rather than fact.

This is nothing personal, and nothing I say here is personal. From now on if people I want me to analyze anything, it will be posted here and at Squatchdetective.com rather than in a Facebook Group other than a handful I have remained to be a part of.  Or I can privately tell folks what I think.

If I see evidence and facts disregarded on either side of the coin, I will disembark from those groups as well as my tolerance for fantasy and whim has fallen. I will not engage in useless dialogue with folks if they have no penchant for honoring evidence, fact and scientific law other than in a one on one format.

When people disregard evidence, fact and at times common sense, it makes us ALL look bad. It makes us look desperate to prove something.

And they would be right for making such an assertion. 

For those with me, stand for the facts and the truth in this mystery, as I will always try to be a guide on that journey. I will always tell the truth, and I will always let you know where I stand.

My thirst for the facts and more importantly the truth has never been greater.

Till Next Time,

Squatch-D

%d bloggers like this: