Tag Archive: Evidence


Again I hope this finds everyone in good health.

Debunking – to expose the sham or falseness of…

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/debunk

So over the last couple of days I have debunked a series of pictures of a video of an alleged Bigfoot peeping in a window. The debunking was largely based on the submitters outright lies. That combined with the ridiculousness of the nature of the statement he had made easily showed that the pictures submitted could not be real.

Part one of the investigation dealt with the man’s story and how it doesn’t fit true to his background. Inconsistencies were found.

Part two dealt with the little information we had on the photos and combined them what we do know, where the submitter lived. And the theory seemed to match pretty well.

The majority of folks are in line with the results. But there are a very few hold-outs claiming that this “debunking” is not valid because the pictures were not disproven. Apparently, lying about how the pictures were taken and came to be is not enough to debunk them. HUH?

writer-laptop-c83a907fb7e84bd4973f819d05af59e4

So apparently the ONLY thing on the above screen we are to believe is the photos?

There does seem to be a confirmation bias along with this syndrome as well.

My reply was the following to this:

Debunking doesn’t have to deal with the photos, although if you read part II I did deal with the photos. The story is a LIE. People act with such naivety.

Everyone is focusing on his record. That wasn’t the only point. His wife has passed, and he doesn’t live nor does he own property as he stated, in Bailey. BS in equals BS out. If you have a BS story you have BS evidence.

The reason why people get duped is they are two dimensional which people ignore the problems with his story as shown in 2 different blogs and. How can you debunk photos when you have no real information nor an original file? You can’t.

Why did he wait almost three years to say something about this? (His own Facebook page didn’t have these pictures on them until March of this year.)

Conveniently has a video recorder next to him?

Didn’t call his wife to see what was going on?

Videotapes for ten minutes..then he thinks of grabbing his gun?

Original file destroyed in a fire?

Come on… people THINK!!

Vague details on what sheriff’s department he called or where this alleged fire was. Vagueness in verifiable details is a huge flag.

But some people have such strong confirmation bias, that they are willing to overlook REALITY. Dyer’s tent video and 2nd body was a great example of that.

People forget in the REAL world when physical evidence is scarce or limited; what real-world investigators do is look at the suspect account.

So is this your stance now that if someone takes a picture of a Sasquatch that no story can be used to verify or debunk a claim, only the pictures? So if someone reports seeing Sasquatch we should just take their word? I mean if you find flaws in their story it is a "debunking" rather than a debunking.

If certain people believe that, enjoy your "research."

I find it pretty biased that people that state, "just because he can’t have a gun doesn’t mean he didn’t have one." Agreed he could. But it’s also kind of stupid to put that on blast around the internet.

Why do you call the photographer the "alleged" photographer? He admitted he was. Seems to me you use quotes when you want to emphasize sarcasm. Matter of fact every reference on the internet points back to him as the source of the photos. Or are you trying to shape a new theory based on….? Confirmation bias perhaps?

I say this not as a criticism but as a teachable moment.

What evidence do you have that the photos are legitimate? You don’t because his story is BS.

But the other points of the debunking are being ignored. Why is common sense being ignored? Why? Confirmation Bias.

It is inconceivable to me, other than confirmation bias, that a person would overlook someone’s statement to rule or rule out a piece of evidence’s reliability.

In the case of Susan Smith, the evidence was 2 missing kids and a car. The police had nothing other than that besides her statement. How did they debunk she was carjacked? By breaking down her story.

Similarly here we are left with a series of photos with NOTHING to verify their authenticity. All we had was the story. So there you have it.

Inconsistencies in ANY investigation, civil, criminal, cryptid, UFO or paranormal, regardless if evidence is collected or not is a huge flag.

Not only did our investigation provide the submitter’s real address, it gave us confirmation of something we suspected in the photos in regards to the lights in the background.

Rather than today going on a long soliloquy of the process of investigation we just wanted to bring this gem of an excuse up. 

On Squatch-D TV this Sunday we will be breaking down the investigation as well as having our good friend Ben Radford on. 


If you haven’t read about the “Bigfoot Peeper” you can read them here:

Part I

Part II


0-Banner

We must all keep reality in mind when conducting investigations and cast all aspersions aside to conduct fair, unbiased and ethical investigations.

If you want further investigation tips you can visit Squatchdetective.com and click on the Squatchdetective University or (shameless plug!) you can read my new book, The Sasquatch Playbook:A Believer Looking at the Sasquatch Mystery Through the Eyes of a Skeptic:

51AMrCt1l5L

Click on photo for more info!

Everyone please keep safe and be sure to comply with social distancing. We are getting there…slowly…but getting there!

Till Next Time,

Squatch-D

What are the types of evidence?

Lately there has been a misinformed pesky critic, who defies some rules of etiquette, forcing him to be bounced here and there.

Any way this critic has made the comment:

“I love how the footers (Including Kulls) use the witness argument when referring to court proceedings. Any witnesses to an event must have Corroborating evidence tending to confirm other evidence, or strengthen or confirm the initial evidence.

So I ask you, how can a bigfoot witness report confirm the initial evidence?…what evidence about bigfoot existence has ever been confirmed?….none! therefore any eyewitness is not direct evidence when referring about bigfoot…he’s wrong!”

 

Some folks think I go off half-cocked when I speak on shows about evidence. But I don’t.

mirror neuron

Let’s look at the Wikipedia definitions of evidence:

 

Direct Evidence supports the truth of an assertion (in criminal law, an assertion of guilt or of innocence) directly, i.e., without an intervening inference.

For example of Direct Evidence: a witness who testifies that he saw the defendant shoot the victim gives direct evidence. A witness who testifies that he saw the defendant fleeing the scene of the crime, or a forensics expert who says that ballistics proves that the defendant’s gun shot the bullet that killed the victim both give circumstantial evidence from which the defendants’s guilt may be inferred.

In direct evidence a witness relates what he or she directly experienced. (Usually the experience is by sight or hearing, though it may come though any sense, including touch or pain. State v Famber, 358 Mo 288, 214 SW2d 40.)

Circumstantial Evidence, by contrast, consists of a fact or set of facts which, if proven, will support the creation of an inference that the matter asserted is true.

Real evidence, material evidence or physical evidence is any material object, introduced in a trial, intended to prove a fact in issue based on its demonstrable physical characteristics. Physical evidence can conceivably include all or part of any object.

Corroborating Evidence is evidence that tends to support a proposition that is already supported by some initial evidence, therefore confirming the proposition.

An example of Corroborating Evidence, W, a witness, testifies that she saw X drive his automobile into a green car. Meanwhile Y, another witness, testifies that when he examined X’s car, later that day, he noticed green paint on its fender. Or there can be corroborating evidence related to a certain source, such as what makes an author think a certain way due to the evidence that was supplied by witnesses or objects.

                                                                                       – Source: Wikipedia

I suggest that anyone so outspoken as this gentleman, make sure they understand the definitions of testimonial evidence before spouting off that I am wrong.

These are principles I’ve learned since my college days, as I took criminal justice with a business law minor. Not only that, but in my career path I took for seventeen plus years, evidence wasn’t something anecdotal, but a practical application used almost every day.

Keep warm everyone!!!

Till Next Time…

Squatch-D

%d bloggers like this: