The Massacre Theory put to rest…

This is the finale of a 3 part series on the Bigfoot Massacre Theory.

• Part One
• Part Two

For those who didn’t catch the 2 + hour long Squatch-D TV show of April 26th, featuring Thom Steenburg, Russell Acord and Rictor Riolo, we finally put the “Bigfoot Massacre” Theory to rest.

Part one featured Thom, showing where false assumptions and using less than stellar copies of evidence led to the incorrectly formed opinions of the authors of the massacre. According to Davis there were two massacres, one in Bluff Creek and one earlier in Blue Creek. The basis of the Bluff Creek massacre was alleged photographic evidence showing “blood.” The Blue Creek one was that of Bob Titmus leading a tracking dog owned by a Dale Moffitt and John Green. In actuality Titmus was not present at all and again “interpretation” of a badly color corrected film.

Getting the facts straight

Steenburg also brought up the FACT that it was Keith Chiazarri (a pilot) there, not Bob Titmus. The article covering his surprise trip to Orleans, Ca. is covered here:

Below are pictures of Chiazarri confused by the theorists as Bob Titmus.

Chiazarri (claimed to be Titmus by the massacre theorists) in various frames on left. Chiazarri with Dale Moffitt on right.  Chiazarri with John Green below.

We also talked about Al Hodgson admitting he was wrong about Bob Titmus being there as he had mistakenly said that to the late Bobbie Short.

Steven Streufert 2011 interview with Al Hodgson – Source Bigfoot Books Blog

A quick note: Blood will turn black relatively in quick fashion as the iron in the hemoglobin oxidizes.

Psychologically

Now let’s look at some “Post Offense” behaviors by the alleged “suspects.”

After the alleged massacre, John Green, Rene Dahinden, Bob Titmus, Roger Patterson all wanted to prove the existence of Sasquatch right?

So did they bring any evidence forth? NO!

What one did, Roger Patterson, is bring a controversial film forward that proved NOTHING! So after the critics backlash why didn’t Roger go back and find some biological evidence?

He wasn’t making millions which any and all of them could have done bringing back a body. If the payoff was from loggers, why show the film and put yourself there? And why would the film get support from people, like Green, Dahinden, Titmus who were not receiving payment from Paterson?

If the payment was from loggers to eradicate a nuisance problem, post offense behavior would be to say and do nothing about it. Not show a film.

Legally

Would they be worried about being arrested for murder?

Well legally the answer to that would be NO.

Here’s why:

1. You have to prove that the creature killed is part of the homo genus.
2. Once and IF that would be established, it would get a date.
3. You cannot go behind that date and charge someone with a crime, because on that date, it’s genus, had yet to be established. Therefore not making it a crime at the time of the alleged offense.

Another example is in a penalty phase of a convicted crime; hence why if in a death penalty state if you get convicted of a capital murder that occurred before the death penalty was established and written into law, the death penalty cannot be applied to such a conviction.

NONE of the massacre theorists “reasoning,” both legally and (in criminal psychology “post offense”) behaviorally makes any sense.

People forget too that a somewhat naïve and conceited cryptozoologist decided on his own accord in 2008, convinced what the massacre theorists had said was true, had written the Humbolt County D.A. at the time to investigate the claims. He interjected himself into saying if contacted he could give sources and “evidence.” I am sure that “letter” is framed somewhere today with people pointing and snickering to it.

No rebuttal or admission they were wrong, just more nonsense

One would think that if presented the evidence a logical person would say…oops, I made some mistakes. No actually Davis removes logical questions and points about the massacre theory being wrong.

The new proponent in this field with the loudest voice lately has been, not only “ I drank the Melba-Ketchum Kool-Aid” researcher Scott Carpenter but also internet bully Steve Isdahl.

And make no bones about it; Isdahl IS a cyber-bully. Often telling people, stay off the internet or people are going to pay or be scared. The only thing I can say positive about the guy is at least he isn’t hiding behind a screen name like so many other of the mindless followers that see fit to throw threats to an 88 year old man by the name of Bob Gimlin.

People have called putting fact out as character assassination, yet one person who accused us of doing that began to talk about John Green’s father. Now if that’s grasping at straw and character assassination I don’t know what is.

But these are FACTS:

 

If you don’t think what I say is true, look at the video “Debunking the Texas Fence Walker.” Anyone who  thinks that a Sasquatch has skinny legs like that, and doesn’t see the pants…well I have little hope in your objectivity.  Also notice how cleaner my enhancements are than that of Davis very short, grainy enhancement.

If you don’t think Isdahl (Mr. HowToHunt) is not out for the clicks…just look at this graphic. (Remember he used to say Bigfoot was supernatural…ask yourself how would they have killed them then?). Proof of being disingenuous if you ask me.

Our third proponent, Scott Carpenter who likes to bring up Bobbi Short, an elderly woman at the time of her writings, and proven by Al Hodgson’s own comments he was incorrect about Titmus being on scene.

People have told me that they do not believe Carpenter intentionally hoaxes. But I ask the question,”Why no video showing any movement of the alleged subject?”

This is one of the “BlobSquatchers” we talk about. A guy with allegedly all this acumen, is not investigating further on his “alleged” evidence?

But even if not… he is what we classify as the “Unintentional Hoaxer.” The guy who goes out and sees Sasquatch in everything and more often than not. And uses pareidolia to either fool his audience or justify to his audience what they are looking at is a Sasquatch. 

At the very least it should question his reasoning ability.

Here are the proponents and who they actually are.

The above are not character assassinations, but all FACTS! They are all out for clicks and relevancy by producing either phony, disingenuous or totally naïve  information without relevant investigation on the Bigfoot phenomena.

That being said, we can put this stupid notion (and that’s all it is) that a bigfoot massacre occurred at Blue Creek and Bluff Creek to rest.

Till Next Time,

Squatch-D

What is debunking?

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?

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

---

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:

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

A rebuttal to a recent analysis (NY Baby Video)

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”.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.”

 

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

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.

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

Guess who’s back and what’s back…

Hey folks, sorry to take some time off. The year started off quite challenging as my almost six year relationship came to an end. Inevitably a period of self-evaluation ensues.

I also took that time to get myself in better shape and a better mindset. All is good, and I am back with a vengeance!!!

---

#StopTheWoonacy

In case some didn’t know a couple of huge things happened this past month. First up is the #StopTheWoonacy.

The Stop the Woonacy movement was inspired by my frustration in both the “Woo” (or what people profess to be the supernatural Sasquatch), the common posting of constant contact with “Sasquatch People,” “Forest Friends,” stick structures, tree bends, “BlobSquatchery,” Hoaxes, and people professing to be on the side of science while making factual statements that are obviously complete horseshit.

The movement, campaign or whatever you would like to call it is not to nullify people who claim to have a single, or even a few supernatural experiences with what may or may not be a Sasquatch, but the people who form cults around them professing to have the secret knowledge or special powers to communicate, draw out, have conversations either in person or in their dreams with a Sasquatch and state that as the gospel. These folks are on Social Media ever day with this non-sense.

Someone has to stand up to it and be the voice of reason and point out the ridiculousness of their actions and stories.

Take for example this gem of the “uncloaked” Bigfoot head in this picture the submitter claims, as the Sasquatch have the “ability” to only partially materialize. (Yeah, I kid you not…this is what was said!)

It is obvious that what we are seeing here is pareidolia. I too used the same effect to see what I believed was in the picture just above the “Sasquatch’s” head.

 

It’s Rocket from Guardians of the Galaxy!!!

I would also like to point out…why is this picture in black and white??? My guess is the head is actually the same color as the foliage as well. Posting this in a photoshopped format (to remove color) and making the claims the submitter does, seems a bit disingenuous.

---

The Re-Birth of Squatch-D TV

The real big change was the move from Squatchdetective Radio to Squatch-D TV as we finally have found a platform that serves what we have wanted all along.

Several years back we tried Squatch-D TV with the now defunct Paranormal TV Network lineup. We had to use an outside producer who would broadcast remotely and after several months the network eventually shut down because the president of the company wanted to be a grandmother and passed the channel off to someone who was not at all committed to the network.

On this new platform we have just about complete control. No fancy software, no remote producer and is all web based. Not only do we broadcast on multiple platforms, we are able to “screen share” providing video, pictures, audio, live time looks at websites and Power Point presentations.

Multi-streamed over Facebook, YouTube, Twitter and Twitch (Maybe more to come) we can now reach over 15K people a week, per episode. The show is streamed Sundays at 9PM Eastern on the following platforms:

http://facebook.com/steve.kulls

http://twitter.com/squatchdet

http://youtube.com/stevekulls

Replays can also be found at

 Squatchdetective.com 

 http://facebook.com/SquatchdetectiveTV

http://facebook.com/Squatchdetective

The only loss, currently, out of the new system is the inability to take callers which in the past has proved to be problematic, as the call screening with BTR was a it clumsy. The cool thing is that for our Facebook and YouTube viewers, the comments come across as a chat on our control panel. And we have the ability to share those comments and questions live on the air with the click of a button!

Not having to register for a BTR account to talk in the chat (comments) is really one advantage we have gained and the conversations have been marvelous since airing our fifth show last night.

---

Who is Jan Klement?

This mystery has nipped at me for several years and about a year and half ago, I dug into the mystery of the book, “The Creature". First published in 1976, recounts most likely the first Bigfoot “habituation” culminating in the death and burial of a Bigfoot called “Kong.”

Now buried in the story-line are a couple of far fetched tales of Kong’s escapades that really should make the reader scratch their head.

Now digging into the mystery I did not only find out the location of the cabin noted in the book along with the potential burial site, but clues within the book and the subsequent volume updates, led me directly to exactly who Jan Klement was and the biggest question; Was the story true?

Unfortunately, I won’t post the spoilers here because one should see how we came to those results and walked through the investigation on the latest edition of Squatch-D TV (August 18, 2019: Bigfoot Cold Case).

^{Click on image to go to show.}

Till next time…

Squatch-D

Thoughts of the day…

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.

 

 

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.

 

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.

 

 

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

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.

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

 

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.

 

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

---

                            

Till next time,

Squatch-D