Tag Archive: Chris Bennett


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

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

123

j

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:

1967article1-300x293

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

Unknown10Titmus&Moffit-1967

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.

Titmus and JG

pilot2

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.

Hodgson1

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

GRAPHIC-A

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

BloodyCrimeScene2

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:

Graphic B 

Slide 4

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.

Slide 6

Slide 7

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.

Graphic D

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.

Slide 5

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.

Slide 8

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

I recently read an older (circa 2016) article by UK Paleontologist, Dr. Darren Naish that was a short piece that widely covered the topic in the Scientific American website.

1200px-Darren_Naish

Dr. Darren Naish, Paleontologist

I love to do point counter point on his article. Of course I am not a scientist, nor do I claim to be. I am an Investigator by trade. Now how all that moshes into the Bigfoot mystery sums up as this.

As an investigator (not a scientist) my job is to gather evidence forensically to prove to the scientist either it is worth taking a reexamination of the topic or to prove it is existence.

My job is not necessarily the scientific method of hypothesis, experiment, result and repeat to see if we get the same result. That is rather a difficult task since like us and other animals, behavior is dynamic and can be different, for the same experiment.

My job is to document, gather evidence and present a good case. Most of the evidence is either direct evidence (in the form of testimony), subjective evidence and circumstantial evidence. Physical evidence would be things such as DNA, hair samples (which would defy classification), undisputed photographic evidence (which with CGI today, even if the real thing would be argued for decades). Track evidence which can be forensically determined (which also is a point of dispute amongst folks).

So lets look at some of the things Naish has stated.

“I do not think that the data we have at the moment – this includes tracks, hairs, vocalizations, photos, and the innumerable eyewitness accounts – provides support for the notion that Bigfoot is real, and have come to the conclusion that it is a sociocultural phenomenon: that people are seeing all manner of different things, combining it with ideas, memes and preconceptions they hold in their minds, and interpreting them as encounters with a monstrous, human-like biped.”

Counterpoint: I agree that the data at the moment does not provides scientific support, however the sheer number of eyewitness reports defies that.  The old adage of “preconceptions” does not hold water to the folks that have encounters that, do not one iota, believe in the existence of such a creature until they have a sighting. Some are left traumatized, and haunted by what the have seen because it defies their belief system. And while this blanket statement may hold true for some it is not applicable to all. The article later goes on to state that long time Sasquatch researcher Rene Dahinden never found tracks (or had a sighting), can lend credence that Naish’s statement is in error. Certainly, Dahinden had a preconceived notion, as did Green, and Byrne, yet neither of those veteran researchers had laid eyes on a creature.

“…while writing this article (and others) is that there’s scarcely any Bigfoot imagery online which is marked for re-use: everything is protected by copyright and unavailable for free use by others. Make of that what you will.”

Counterpoint: Well, we are in the internet age. Everything in places is subject to copyright. There are pictures of all sorts of animals on the internet that are copyrighted. Does that mean they are faked or not real?

“Bigfoots purportedly make noises, and a standard part of modern Bigfoot lore is that people might be able to ‘call in’ or even communicate with Bigfoots by making wails, screams, roars or howls, or by hitting trees or rocks to make far-carrying percussive whacks, these sounds resembling the noises that are attributed to the creature. What’s notable is that these vocalizations are phenomenally diverse: the ‘Ohio howls’, ‘Samurai chatter’, the whoops, whistles, growls and howls attributed to this animal well exceed what we’d expect for a single animal species that communicates over long distances, and there’s nothing approaching homogeneity of the sort present across known primate species… The conclusion must be that the noises have diverse origins, by which I mean that they are mostly sounds made by known animal species, including cattle, coyotes (and their hybrids) and humans.”

Counterpoint: Dr. Naish may be a paleontologist, but not a primatologist whom will tell you, whistles, growls, howls and whoops are all part of primate communication. However in fairness, there is a diverseness to many vocalizations some of which I am certain are misidentifications, and I truly do not consider them much other than anecdotal evidence. They will not prove a Sasquatch exists unless there is direct or physical evidence proving they are the ones making the sounds, tree knocks, etc. But in an investigation, these are important to make correlations amongst other investigators (researchers). The conclusion must be, more research and good investigation is required, not an assumption, because there is no more proof than Dr. Naish’s conclusion than a conclusion that a Sasquatch caused it.

 

        Bigfoot-Recordings-Vol.-1-Digital-Downloadrm-1-300x238

The Sierra Sounds recordings, Ron Morehead

 

“Indeed, some of the most incredible of these sounds – if you’ve never heard the ‘Sierra sounds’ or ‘Samurai chatter’ recorded by Ron Morehead, well, you’re in for a treat – sound nothing at all like the others that have been reported and recorded, and have only been heard exclusively in one small area…And, yes, I think that many of the more incredible Bigfoot sounds – ‘Samurai chatter’ and other speech-like utterances among them – were generated by people.”

Counterpoint: In one of more recent posts was mistaken for defending the Sierra Sounds. That was not necessarily my intention. But in the last comment by Dr. Naish, it is an opinion, as are all of the above statements. Has Dr. Naish taken the Morehead – Berry recordings to an acoustical engineer to analyze the audio? Certainly not mentioned in his statement, making this a layman’s opinion as his field of expertise is Paleontology (which is the scientific study of life that existed prior to, and sometimes including, the start of the Holocene Epoch). His area of expertise is not acoustics, nor primatology nor anthropology, all of which Dr. Naish’s “conclusions” are based upon. However stuff of the “Sasquatch Ontario” ilk definitely are human and hoaxed.

Summary

 

I respect Dr. Naish, for being a scientist, and he has a bit of an open mind to the topic, but all of what you have heard by him is opinion, some of which is spin by the scientific community to brush away the phenomena which we have heard over the last two decades.

Remember the older excuse of there not being enough food source in the forest, until it was mentioned that a black bear needs 21,000 calories a day for a month prior to hibernation?

I have the ability to read and learn of things that cross over into other realms of expertise. So why is his opinion more weighted than any other laymen who have read upon topics? I am sure his intentions are well meant, but many times scientists are turned into talking heads, basing their statements on opinions rather than research.

Many of heard me speak about Dr. Phillip Stevens and Biologist Curt Kogut talk of some of the ridiculous “talking head” statements said on my MonsterQuest episode. This is is vary similar, but with more fairness and a gentle touch.

“There is no evidence that North America could support a large primate”

                                                                          — Dr. Phillip Stevens on MonsterQuest

                “Homo-sapiens are large primates, and so were the aboriginal native Americans!”

                                                                                           —- Steve Kulls

“If these things were out there, people would be seeing them”

                                                         —Curt Kogut Biologist, NYS ENCON

“WTF???”

                                                             —- Steve Kulls


RadioLogo2018

This week on Squatchdetective Radio (4/22/18)

Chris and I are pleased to have on as our guest, Suzanne Ferencak, the main subject of a Bigfoot documentary named “The Back 80.” Also we’ll have on Alan Megargle, Jesse Morgan of Twisted Tree Productions, the duo behind “The Back 80!”

 

maxresdefault

Click on photo to order DVD

“In the heart of mid-America, among the forests and streams, something terrifying lurks. During the summer of 2013, a woman’s world is turned upside down after seeing a creature cross the road in front of her one afternoon. She soon realizes that she is not alone on her own property and struggles to separate the truth from her own obsession. After some digging, she finds others in town who have similar stories to tell. Her quest for answers takes her to the only place these creatures could live…the abandoned, gated woods of the back eighty.” – http://www.theback80.com

Listen Live Sundays 9PM EST:

download

Podcasts available on:

Web YT Graphic

en_badge_web_musicdownload (2)downloaddownload (2)

Till Next Time,

Squatch-D

From time to time in the Bigfoot research arena, we for years are continued to be deluged with video we have seen time and time again. Often having us dust off old files to again retell the debunking or the truth in the subject matter.

Some of the “Noobs” often would like to argue with the facts long established, sometimes decades old. Instead of taking the long procedural approach many researchers took the “Pre-Social” media age somehow some of these new folks want to reinvent the wheel.

Okay fine, but often we see leaps of faith because the evidence used in the original investigations has since long been removed or deleted from existence.

I have seen that in the Bannon Bigfoot photo hoax several times over.

bigfoot-youtube

Mind you this video came out in the late 2000’s. However a relative new person in 2014 did a video analysis (long since removed).

Analysis

“A closer look reveals this video might be the most impressive Sasquatch footage ever…”

                                                              Anonymous poster Dec. 3rd, 2014

See again, a video, photo or audio is only as good as the story behind it. This is where a lot of the newer folks go wrong. The same way years ago Facebook FindBigfoot went wrong.

To take a piece of video, photo or audio on basis alone, without the well documented story behind it you  have nothing. It defies the investigative process and it defies the scientific process.

This had long been researched and was found to belong to an unestablished film maker, by the name of Shawn Bannon, who once owned a production company by the name of StudioDrome. While on the face the videos and photos may look fascinating, the story of how he came about the video and photos were very scant aside from being out in the forest with friends.

bannon

Shawn Bannon

Although personally I did not investigate this, I publicly stated my opinion, and again I emphasize my opinion, that the evidence was a studio production because the pictures specifically looked airbrushed or altered in some manner and story and the willingness to communicate with researchers was a bit weak. (Much in the day before FotoForensics). And usually my gut is a good indicator and their are times you do have to fight that gut instinct, but not in this case.

As it turns out after much debate and conjecture, and evidence against this being real, Bannon released some of the documentary on Vimeo in 2014, very clearly stating the Sasquatch in the video and photos were not real.

Bannon2

Source: http://vimeo.com/89030476

Despite Bannon “coming clean” in 2014, it does not take away the fact for years he propagated the media as authentic.

Editor’s note…. What the new folks have to do is use the old analyses as a starting point. Find flaws in it if there are any that stick, and go from there. Not just arbitrarily take the evidence and go at it like it has never been looked at before. Does that create a bias? Perhaps, but as mentioned above some of the evidence available then, may not be available now. Check it’s history and fact check yourself and source your material. And it is okay from time to time be wrong or take a misstep. Freely admit it, we are human after all.


 Fast forward to 2018

Now the matter at hand, as an Alberta, Canada video has resurfaced and now let the series of misinformation begin.

THIS IS HOW IT ALL BEGINS!!!

Posted on January 18th, 2018: 

Sun Post pt 1

Sun Post

Source: https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5368423/bigfoot-canada-video-real/

Here we have an article being propagated by a UK news source, and there are now a couple stating this video was recently filmed on January 5th, 2018.

In reality had there been some due diligence, the YouTube site Modern Galaxy properly sourced the video and never made the claim it was filmed on January 5th of this year. The original link was posted right below the video, all one had to click on “Show More.” 

Mod Gal 1

Mod Gal 2

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H3t7mDe3SOo

The fact is the video was uploaded originally to a YouTube user site by the name of “foxrf600” on January 27th, 2014.

Canadian BF Video post

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l96zvON3Rk8

No surprise it was the last video uploaded to the account and only one other video had been uploaded to the account in 2010. Since the Homepage of the account has been edited to not include the “About” section, there is no way to send this user a message.

No previous videos other than the one on the account to me makes it very suspect. May have been an old or forgotten account, hence the one earlier video. But none afterwards makes everything seem to me the person wanted to remain anonymous.

Which leads to the next question, which I will answer.

Doesn’t a witness deserve anonymity?

Answer: Yes, absolutely, but if they wanted anonymity, why the hell post it on YouTube?

Well its one of those inconclusive things. On merit the video looks like it may be possible, although there has been internet exchanges that the wording by the witnesses seems a little, “prepped.” Some claim though it seems authentic.

Who knows at this point, because go back to my earlier statement: A video, photo or audio, without a story behind it, other than a cursorily posted description as the one above, is WORTHLESS. IT’S NOT EVIDENCE, IT’S NOTHING!

Usually videos with such vague descriptions such as the one above generally tend to fetter out as nonsense anyway. Don’t know for sure in this case, but just stating the norm.


Squatchdetective Radio Returns March 2018

Sundays 9PM EST on BlogTalkRadio

SquatchdetectiveRadio.com

BlogtalkRadio.com/Squatchdetective

radio2

Till Next Time,

Squatch-D

Tonight the return of Steve and Chris to the Internet airwaves.

image

Join  us 10PM EST at SquatchdetectiveRadio.com

Till next time,
Squatch-D

Quick Program notes

After taking some much needed time off from the blogosphere and had a lot of inner and outer reflections on our goals and studies here at Squatchdetective.com, some amazingly good things are beginning to happen and we are happily planning away at our 2015 research schedule now that this past winter has finally appeared to release most of its nasty grip upon us.

10270588_10152879239310979_6371615094837960539_n The team last fall planning night time activities

On another great note Squatchdetective Radio will soon be on the air once again as we have found a new home at BuzzSprout.com. Chris Bennett and I are quite excited to get back at it again.

8986792

 _______________________________________________________________________________

Now..the beef of the day

Someone brought up a good point to me the other day. I have been blessed in my life with a terrific family in so much as they accept what I do, and actually either participate or take interest in what I do between Bigfoot Research and my paranormal thing I do over at ExPERT.

There are many reasons why people get involved in Bigfoot Research, Ufology or Paranormal Investigation. For some it wasn’t ever planned, just a chance encounter which immersed them in their particular topic. Others because of an inane curiosity which needs to be satisfied. Others for a thirst of knowledge. Whatever it is, we have all come together with at least one commonality.

The battle for acceptance of loved ones in what we do.

Where the problems and toils begin for many researchers, is when some in their family becomes judgmental and critical. In my “older age” I have lost much patience for such.

Again I was blessed to have a parent, as my father passed away prior to this long foray into the Cryptid world and Paranormal, that was supportive. My father however also introduced me to this world and had quite an open mind to such mysteries.

My family always told me my father would have been proud to see what I have accomplished thus far. I am very modest, but my family dotes a bit much that I have been on TV, written books and does something very exciting.

To me its just having fun, a passion, friendships and some level of excitement. I have always stated that if you turn a passion into a career, then that is a life fulfillment. Although it is not a full time career, it still dominates a lot of what I do in my spare time. I am blessed to have a girlfriend right along side of me in my endeavors.

If what you do brings you joy (in multiple senses), and brings joy to some others (which is what we generally try to do here and especially in the paranormal field by helping folks), then that, is a special life of fulfillment.

Unfortunately some families that fail to see their own shortcomings because of a close minded, or “all knowing” approach, or throwing the “God Card,” as I call it. And criticize and even at times mock their loved one. That is a failure on their part not only in their own lives’ fulfillment but an injustice to those that they claim to love. Love is unconditional so should acceptance.

I have family with different political viewpoints than I, but I love them and accept their beliefs unconditionally. We may spar over these things, but it is respectful and never, “your ideas are a farce, or stupid.”

At the very least we try to understand the importance and meanings of our beliefs to each as an individual and accept them. 

Continue reading

%d bloggers like this: