Friday, August 24, 2007

Dueling Mothmen

Observations of the Bigfoot Community:The Burden of Proof

Definition of Believe
v. t.1.To exercise belief in; to credit upon the authority or testimony of another; to be persuaded of the truth of, upon evidence furnished by reasons, arguments, and deductions of the mind, or by circumstances other than personal knowledge; to regard or accept as true; to place confidence in; to have an opinion; to think; to consider; as, to believe a person, a statement, or a doctrine.
::All of the following content is of my own opinion, and in no way reflects the opinions of others. I reserve the right to change my opinion at any time due to any circumstance. It's all part of the natural growth and learning experience. Opinions can be temporary, or ever lasting. They are at no time set in stone, and should not be viewed as such. If you are offended by the things I say, good. If you think I am talking about you as an individual, I'm probably not. Either way, I'm glad you read it.::
Observations of the Bigfoot Community:The Burden of Proof
by Matt Knapp
First I want to say this. There is NO SUCH THING as a "Bigfoot Scientist." There are certain fields of science that happen to overlap with not only items involving Bigfoot research, but with each other as well. In those areas of overlapping, it can be somewhat beneficial to involve scientific findings of the individual fields. Such as comparing hard evidence with known physiology traits, or using known facts involving biomechanics to study track impressions and castings. Outside of that, the facts are the actual scientists involved in Bigfoot research comprise less than 1% of the research community as a whole. Those very few individuals who are actual accredited scientists in their respected fields have absolutely no credibility in regard to Bigfoot's existence. Let me clarify that I mean no disrespect by saying that. What I simply mean is that Jeff Meldrum for instance is an accredited scientist, but even his expertise has no persuasion towards proving Bigfoot's existence to the rest of the scientific community. So claiming to be a scientist, or that the burden of proof lies on the shoulders of researchers to prove Bigfoot's existence to scientists is a moot point. No scientist in this field is anymore an expert on Bigfoot than I am, and thus far has had no more success in proving their existence than anyone else. So what difference does it make if a person is a scientist, or a tow truck driver, if the results they achieve are the same? At one time I believed if a scientist were to make the statement that they for instance found a Bigfoot track to be authentic, and belonging to an unknown species, that their voice would be heard to the rest of the scientific community. Where if I were to make the same such claim, I would go ignored due to my lack of professional credentials. History has proven that theory false however. It doesn't matter who you are, what your background is, what degree you have or don't have. The scientific community views your findings in this field no different than anyone else's. And without a specimen, all of those findings will be found irrelevant.
If you are collecting physical evidence and data in hopes of compiling information on this creature, I do believe scientific principles should be followed. This is simply for the fact that if you do so, your evidence and data will not have holes allowing it to be instantly dismissed. For instance, unless proper procedures are taken in the collection of DNA, that DNA will become contaminated and worthless. Tracks are only worth casting, if the castings are done properly as to maintain the slightest amount of detail as possible. So on and so forth. The pro-kill individuals need not worry about these procedures. If they are able to bring in a specimen, all of that work will be done by the scientists in the proper laboratory settings. Not out in the field by individuals who are not properly trained in the collection techniques. By saying that I am not trying to down play the significance of proper scientific methods used in the field. I in fact practice them myself, and believe anyone who has purposes other than bringing in an actual specimen should follow them as well. If nothing else it shows that we are serious about what we're doing, and are at least attempting to go about it in a professional and constructed method.
Mud slinging, name calling, my side vs. your side, agree with me or you're wrong, your information doesn't support my opinions, and various other forms of absolute ignorance. It seems as though I've been here before. The continued chasing of our own tails as though we're caught in some sort of never-ending loop of time and space. That tail my friends is called ego. Condescending, self-absorbed, ego. There are different classes of knowledge when it comes to this field. There are those who believe it or not actually do KNOW some things about these creatures. There are also those in this field who know NOTHING about these creatures. In the case of people who do know some things, there are individuals who act as though they know it all. Then there are those willing to admit they only know some. In the group of those who know nothing, there are individuals who act or believe as though they actually do in fact know things. There are also those who openly admit they know nothing. Regardless, none of us know all of it. While some of our knowledge may be spot on, there will always be some of it that isn't. No-kill doesn't mean you are the enemy of pro-kill. It means you possibly have a different goal, and you certainly have different methods. Choosing one side or the other doesn't make you any more or any less intelligent than the other side. Whether it be the good ole boy from the south roaming the woods with a high powered rifle, or the stuffy tight collared science drove researcher who spends hours dissecting other people's evidence and reports, or even the professor at the university with several degrees sitting on top of their reference book shelf, all of them so far have produced the same results and had the same amount of bearing on the scientific community in proving this thing's existence. Absolutely none. It certainly doesn't make any group more or less intelligent than the other, and even if there was a difference in overall intelligence, none of that intelligence applies to the field of Bigfoot. How does knowing more about the skeletal structure of an upright mammal in comparison to it's weight distribution give you a leg up in the field of Bigfoot? Especially if you've never seen one. Perhaps if you had that knowledge, and then observed a Bigfoot walking, you would at least then know "Hey, I was right." or "I was completely wrong about what I thought." Perhaps if you took the time to have an open mind, and listen to people who actually have observed these creatures, you would have a better understanding, or even be able to give them knowledge they could apply in the field based on their own observations. We're too busy for that though. We're too busy trying to prove one another wrong or discredit the things each other say because they don't mesh with what we believe or what we know. Sounds like a waste of time to me.
Which brings us to our beginning. Before all of this, I gave a link to an article about critical thinking, and the definition of the word "believe."
Critical thinking is extremely crucial in solving this mystery. It provides a philosophical checks and balances system amongst our peers for the study and review of evidence brought forth. A part of that critical thinking is in fact scientific skepticism. An ability to weigh the evidence from a scientific standpoint. There's nothing wrong with being skeptical. A lot of the people in this field who make some of the boldest claims, are in fact skeptical people. I was skeptical of their existence until I saw one. Now I am skeptical of certain other people who claim to have seen one. This skepticism is based from my own observations, and my critical thinking. There are others however, who claim to be critical thinkers, and scientifically minded in their endeavors. This group of people is rapidly growing. They do not fairly and genuinely assess the evidence. Seldom do they put forth the effort to even find out for themselves if something is true or not. They are a new breed of skeptic. A skeptic that comes from within our own community. They sit atop their Mount Olympus, hurling lightning bolts at the peasants below. They view terms such as "believer" as if it's some sort of derogatory moniker. No evidence passes their scrutiny. Anyone who makes claims of a sighting or an encounter, regardless of circumstance, is met with hostility and instant disbelief by these individuals. Unless of course it comes from within their own group of colleagues. They are not the self-proclaimed experts of the past. Although one would make the observation that they do in fact believe themselves more knowledgeable than all others as a whole, they would never give you the chance to use that against them by admitting they are in fact "experts." They hide behind their pseudo-humbleness when ranks are drawn against them. However they attack with the ferocity of rabid lions when it plays to their favor. They do not dare tip toe onto one side of the fence or the other, constantly adjusting their position in accordance with the others around them. These groupings constantly manifest into new forms, as the fate of these individuals is to find themselves in constant arguments, eventually with one another. They then run to a new group of individuals, and start the process all over again. In a lot of ways they are like angry and bitter orphans, running from one orphanage to the next. Never having the integrity to form an opinion of their own, or at least to publicly state those opinions, they instead choose to agree with whomever has the popular voice at the time. They've never seen a Bigfoot, nor would they ever admit that they believe Bigfoot to be real. For to do this would be saying they believe someone other than themselves Self-righteous thinkers refuse to do that. Always displacing their reasons behind their comments onto some grand motive that represents the well being of everyone. For instance, if you were to show them a cast of a track, they would drill you with questions in an ultimate attempt of putting you on the defensive. When confronted with the question as to why they are trying to disprove your finding, they would claim that it is you who has the burden of proving the casting was in fact that of a Bigfoot. These are often the people who rely on "If you didn't see a Bigfoot do it, then you don't know a Bigfoot did it." Which is a true statement, but then if you were to claim you did in fact see a Bigfoot leave the track, then they would ask that you prove that you saw a Bigfoot do it. These people claim to be Bigfoot researchers. I repeat, these people claim to be Bigfoot researchers. If the only proof of evidence they will accept outside of their own circles is unobtainable, then why waste not only the time and energy of everyone else in the community, but of themselves as well. If they have to follow the strict guidelines they put on everyone else, as they claim they do, then what would be the point of their exercise in futility? What is it they seek? What is it they hope to gain? The feeling of superiority perhaps?
Belief. I am sick and tired of people using the word against others. A believer is not a person who is mindless and goes through life with limited blinders on due to their actual belief. I want to say this to all the people who believe in the existence of Bigfoot, even if you have never laid eyes on one or taken a step out into the woods. IT'S OKAY! Do not hold your head in shame for your beliefs just because some ignorant fool attacks you for those beliefs. There is no such thing as a non-believer. Everyone believes in something. Creationists are believers. Evolutionists are believers. Skeptics are believers. Quantum physicists are believers. Doctors, lawyers, police officers. All believers. The entire realm of science is based on various belief systems. I am a believer. I believe in what I have seen and experienced. I believe in what certain others have seen and experienced. Some people I do not believe because I believe I know something. Some people don't believe me because they believe someone else, or they believe that if I were right in what I say, they would know it. Do not discredit someone else for their beliefs or that of your own. I can take any aspect of life and show the lack of self proven fact which in turn makes it nothing more than a belief. If the same standards that are put on us in the field of Bigfoot research were applied to everyday life, we would have accomplished nothing. The burden of proof for instance. If I find a track in the woods, how do I know Bigfoot left it there? Did I see Bigfoot leave it there? If I didn't see Bigfoot leave it there, how can I prove it is in fact a Bigfoot track? Are there not other possibilities? Do I have any proof that I did see a Bigfoot leave the track if I in fact say that I did? Who is your mother? How do you know she's your mother? Have you done DNA testing to prove that she's your mother? Do you have non-stop video documentation of your life since the moment of birth, to show that she is indeed your mother, and that the infant she gave birth to grew up and became who you are at this very moment? Have you had the video analyzed to make sure it hasn't been edited or tampered with digitally? Isn't there the possibility you were lied to, or that your mother was fooled, and her actual infant was switched with another at the hospital? It almost sounds silly doesn't it? The point being, every aspect of life is based on belief. To attack someone, or use the term "believer" as a derogatory term is ignorant at best. Besides, if you truly felt that way, you would have to stop because you would believe you were right. That would make you a believer.
If we would just lower our own standards a bit. Focus on the task at hand, and not get caught up in trying to be superior to someone else. Listen to one another. Give someone the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise. There can be checks and balances. There can be critical thinking, scientific skepticism, and scientific method and guidelines followed in the collection and presentation of evidence and data. What needs to stop is the destructive and negative criticism of our peers who are just out there trying to accomplish their own goals, or the goals commonly shared by others in this field. Express your own ideas and findings instead of attacking the ideas and findings of someone else. If you think I'm wrong about something, show me different. Don't attack me for it. If I think you're wrong, I probably won't even say anything. I don't need to. You being wrong about something isn't going to change anything for me. If I can help you out, or show you something so you can see how you are wrong I might do that. As long as you're open and willing to learn. If you aren't willing to be wrong about anything, then you aren't willing to learn. At that point I have no use for you, and you have no use for me. Either way there is no reason to attack or argue about it. In all honesty, this entire endeavor is probably pointless outside of bringing in a specimen. Anything beyond that should be done for your own self. The chances are, if a specimen is brought in, the scientific community isn't going to be interested in any evidence or data we've collected. Once they have a specimen, they will collect their own data using their own methods. I no longer feel the burden of proof lies on us. It is not up to us to prove Bigfoot exists. The only thing for us to do is present a specimen to the public and scientific communities. The specimen will prove it's own existence. All we're here for is to make sure it gets there. Or at least that's what I believe.
Matt Knapp 2007
Explore Phantom Black Dogs

Pliciloricus shukeri">Karl’s Kritter: Pliciloricus shukeri

Apes In Green Hell: Racism and Revisions

Chupacabras 1951

Bigfoot Attack Video?

Thursday, August 23, 2007

John Green: Sasquatch Chronicler

Review: The Sasquatch Triangle 8-23-07

Don's guest was Diane Stocking, who discussed things such as Florida research, her views of David Shealy, Vince Doerr, the Florida "Skunk Ape," the whole phenomenon of Sasquatch and other topics. Ron Schaffner called in and spent the majority of the last 40 minutes on the air with us. We took some questions from our chatroom, and I also asked Diane if she knew anything about the "Bardin Booger." It was a great show, full of great information. Don's next guest will be Skip Frombach, who was made famous on an episode of Unsolved Mysteries more than 10 years ago. The show starts at 9:00 EST/8:00 Central at the link to the right. As always, please tune in and support great research.
Giganto: The Real King Kong

Agency Releases Woodpecker Recovery Plan
Giganto: The Real King Kong - Giganto: The Real King window » Giganto: The Real King Kongnew window » Giganto: The Real King Kong… Prequel new window

Farmdogfilmsnew window
The History Channel :: GIGANTO: THE REAL KING KONG on The History window

PSA Beware Of Photos coming out of East Texas.

Used with gracious permission by Melissa Hovey over at the Search For Bigfoot Blog

Yesterday I came across an interesting post on a message board not my own. On this message board a gentleman claimed to have met with TBRC Conference committee. Why you ask? Well, apparently he claims to have photos that are “Ground Breaking” “Rivaling the Patty Footage" (his words not mine). Well, Craig Woolheater and Monica Rawlins were more than happy to meet with this man at a Borders Bookstore here in Dallas Texas.

But, why did he want to show these “ground breaking” photos to Craig and Monica? Well, he wanted to be listed as a speaker for the 2007 Texas Bigfoot Conference to be held in Jefferson Texas. He wanted to show a powerpoint presentation on his still photos. Craig and Monica as always are happy to meet with witnesses and evaluate their potential evidence and their stories, but make no mistake the TBRC maintains high standards when it comes to any possible evidence. Well, I think this exchange next will speak for itself.

Monica found out about this person posting, after the TBRC had met with this gentleman and politely declined, the following is the email sent to this gentleman:

Craig Woolheater

Without direct TBRC involvement in the matter, we are unable to conclusively determine whether or not the quality of the photos and the conditions described by the photographer(s) meet our evidenciary standards. Therefore the Conference Committee cannot justify inclusion of an additional presentation on the matter in the 2007 Texas Bigfoot Conference.

For the record, should conclusive, unequivocal evidence be discovered by or made available to the TBRC at some point in the future, we do not believe that the Conference or any other symposium will be the forum of our choice at which to exhibit such findings. More than likely, the TBRC will seek to cooperate with several governmental and private agencies in steps leading tothe listing of the species and publish the findings in a reputable scientific journal.

On behalf of the TBRC, the Committee wishes to thank you for the opportunity to consider your request and looks forward to seeing you and your team members in November in Jefferson.

Craig Woolheater
Chair, TBRC Conference
Committee Members

This is a pretty straightforward letter, it is not insulting and not demeaning to the person who was offering the information. Truth is, his offer was declined because he had not had his photos evaluated by those who could say whether these were authentic or had been photoshopped. Having your potential evidence validated by someone with expert knowledge of say photos – to determine if Photoshop had been employed is the very first thing you should do as an investigator.

So, on with the story.

To the above email, this gentleman with his “ground breaking” photos jumped online and went to a message board and posted this:

[name withheld, for now]

Posted: Aug 18 2007, 08:57 AM

Just heard back from the 2007 tbrc conference committee (who haven't seen a bf either..I asked them point blank). They have turned down my request to speak at their conference, show photos and other evidence from East Texas. Woolheater said that since the evidence didn't come from the tbrc, it doesn't meet their "evidenciary standards". As I expected from them. They also stated that evidence of that nature should best be left for government and private agencies to process and posted in scientific journals...but not at a conference. They're keeping a tradition alive....surrounding themselves with self proclaimed "experts" who have never seen a bf, nor inter-acted with one of more of them, but proclaiming their existence through circumstantial front of the media.

How many people in the field of Bigfoot Research do not know about Craig Woolheater’s sighting? He also goes on in another post to say Craig's sighting was a “rear view mirror” sighting. He couldn’t be more wrong. Which causes my first bit of concern with this guy. Know of which you speak, or forever remove the question of how well you pay attention. Thats free advice :)

Apparently we were good enough for him to want to speak at our conference, but now that we question him we are a horrible organization, does anyone else get the irony in that??

Well, does anyone else smell something foul? Compare what he says was the response from Craig Woolheater and what was actually sent to him. By the way, the above email from Craig Woolheater was supplied by the person whom I quoted above, not Craig Woolheater…. Something is rotten in East Texas.

The evidentiary standards of the TBRC include a chain of custody, and an expert to back up what you say about the evidence. Simply telling us “I didn’t photoshop anything” just isn’t going to cut it. There is a reason why the TBRC has such a good name, and it’s not by accepting every piece of information as the gospel when it’s thrown out in front of us.

To continue….

Now of course everyone following after this guy on that specific message board is buying his info hook line and sinker. Even the members of the TBRC are now taking a hit, and unfounded accusations, and outright lies are being thrown about as if they are the truth (problem was they didn’t get the actual email until my involvement). I had to call this guy out and question his story. Yep, that’s right.

The girls had to step up. I fired off an email to Monica. I offer this first post by Monica.

Posted: Aug 22 2007, 01:38 PM

Oh my dear, dear (Name removed for now). Remember me? I was the one sitting next to you when you showed the pictures to Woolheater. You did not meet with the entire conference committee, just myself and Craig. The other person was a member of the Board of Directors, as you were told but conveniently forgot. To say that no one on the conference committee ever had a sighting is bull, Craig told you about his sighting when you asked; and if you need to know, I am the only one on the committee who hasn't had a sighting.

The pictures do not meet our evidentiary standards because no expert has reviewed them. Experts in the field of photography do exist, you know. Have you shown them to one? You refused to allow us to have one examine the photo's for doctoring or photoshopping, so no, as they as they stand now do not meet our standards because they have not been reviewed by any expert; are we to just take your word for it? A third party unknown to any of us could give an unbiased opinion, although I really don't think you want that, do you? You had to point out in one of the pictures where the supposed BF was hiding. Now, if these are the ground breaking pictures you are bragging about here, why do you need to point it out. If it rivals the P/G film, as you told Craig, wouldn't the image be obvious?

The other photo's are compelling, until you look at them closely. As someone who works closely with advertisers who use Photoshop, they looked pretty photoshopped to me. You told us in the meeting that Chester Moore was "chomping at the bit" to use the photo's at his conference, so do it. Show them there and move along.

His response? Good Question. This response is so telling it makes my liver hurt.

All you ask would have been presented formally at the conference. As I have heard it from Craig directly, he and his wife MAY have seen something on the side of the road in their rearview mirror back in the late 1970's. If he has had any other experiences, I am unaware of them. 25 years of speaking in front of groups of scientists in my scientific discipline (Geology and Geophysics related to petroleum exploration), all presentation orientated and peer reviewed. I have made no harsh claims against anyone. Only stated what I have read in some of the books published by the registered speakers, that the group of speakers is very weak or non-existent on personal sightings and encounters. They are strong on circumstantial evidence and I agree with them on many aspects of their published work. Some of it fits with our field work....some doesn't. I'll take hands on in- the- field experience over internet message board research anyday. The evidence has been shown to those that our group trust....thats of which is(Name Removed). It will not be shown to those whom we don't know or trust. We have had some of the evidence attempted to be stolen by outsiders. Unknown people have shown up at doorsteps requesting to review the evidence. Because of these occurances, we choose to keep it protected. If it were yours, I would assume you would do the same thing.

I gave the tbrc a chance to use their forum to allow me to show the evidence obtained from E. Tx, since its promoted as a TEXAS BIGFOOT CONFERENCE. They chose not to....its their right and choice. I have talked with Chester Moore, and if he has a conference in '08, I will discuss it with my group and we will talk with Chester about presenting it there. When the time is right (when our group decides its right), we plan on making the evidence known to the scientific community (of our choosing, no one else's) and let them run with it. I have known Chester and Craig both a long time. Chesters conference was my first choice as a venue to present the evidence, but he isn't having a conference in 2007, Craig is.....thats the only reason the tbrc was considered for release of this data. Data of this type is best reviewed first in conference form. Once discussed and presented formally, decisions can be made where and whom to talk to next concerning the validity of the data and any additional testing necessary to firm up our findings.

“All we asked would be presented at the conference?” Monica got it right when she responded with this:

Posted: Aug 22 2007, 02:14 PM

I would think it logical to have your ducks in a row PRIOR to formally introducing evidence to the public, not afterward.

Standing ovation for Monica – that is an extremely valid and EXCELLENT point. I’m so happy she is on the Board of Directors for the TBRC – and thank god everyone on that board would have said the exact same thing.

When questioned about the tall TBRC tales he told, he had this to say:

Posted: Aug 22 2007, 02:34 PM

No, No, No....I never said I received a slap in the face. Quite the contrary. The tbrc made a decision to not let me present our findings at their venue. Its their right. I gave them the opportunity first and they elected to pass on it. Thats all fine. I have no problem with their decision....its solely theirs. However, if its a Tx Bigfoot some real Texas research....not some rehashed authors with limited real life experience selling books.

So, from his response above, he would like everyone to know he is not upset that he was turned down by the TBRC.. I love all the fancy foot work he does to play “Nope I didn’t say that”.

I would be a fool if I had not responded with:

QUOTE (Our New East Texas Friend)
They're keeping a tradition alive....surrounding themselves with self proclaimed "experts" who have never seen a bf, nor inter-acted with one of more of them, but proclaiming their existence through circumstantial front of the media.

Quote by me: So, you didnt say the above quote?

Quote by me: Or this one,

QUOTE (Our New East Texas Friend)
I got the biggest kick out of the fact that the photos don't meet their "evidenciary standards". Fact is...they don't have any standards, because they don't have any evidence...nor do they have people capable of gainiing such. If they took these photos, they would be beating down the door to get the media involved...pure hyprocrisy.

This gentleman never did respond to this. How could he? He had been caught in an outright lie trying to establish himself as an injured party, so those he was complaining to would feel sorry for him and listen even more intently to what he had to say. “Look at the bully picking on me”. Even though the “Bully” had remained silent to this point.

He not only got caught, he provided the information that was his ultimate undoing. People like this get cocky, and they get so self confident that they think no one is smarter than them. Well, this guy was undone by his own words.

He can now take his photos to Chester Moore for the 2008 Conference, so why is he clearly so upset about being turned down by the TBRC when he clearly thinks the TBRC isn’t capable of evaluating anything? Would you take your evidence to someone or a group you felt were completely inept? Would you really trust them to not screw something up?

Well, here is another question that’s just begging to be asked, why not take them to Chester now? Chester is very well known in this research and could possibly open a lot of doors for analysis and documentation of the animal he claims to have captured in these photos. Apparently, he is choosing to wait until the 2008 Conference… I am confused by this. Can anyone explain this reasoning to me – doesn’t that go against everything we are in this for?

Ok, maybe some just want really, really cool pictures. You can keep your cool pictures, I want proof.

When questioned by another forum member about whether he intended to post his photos on their forum, he responded with this:

Posted: Aug 22 2007, 07:37 AM

I figured this would come up. The answer is no. I/we won't post anything on the internet in the way of photos or other tangible evidence. The evidence is just too hard to come by, to put into the public domain. The cost I/we have incurred in getting to the point we are at is huge. Equipment alone we, together, have probably $75,000 invested. (Name Removed) has seen the photos and other evidence due to my absolute trust in him. He can comment on them if he wishes. There were conditions place on the tbrc if they accepted my offer to show them....such as no photo's, video's at all...only audio so Woolheater could make some money on the conference. I/we have logged many, many hard nights in the woods, spent lots of money and nurtured relationships to get to the point we are, and I/we aren't giving it up to the public at this point in time. Maybe later, once certain conditions have been met. Sorry.

Your damn right people are going to ask to see your pictures, you brought it up. When someone goes out of their way to tell you they have awesome photos then refuses to show them, citing copyright – you should yell BS and RUN FOREST RUN!!!! Something is not adding up. That is why people get a copyright on these things – to protect their financial interest number one, and two to keep others from claiming ownership, so they can then show others – and protect their interest. You don’t get a copyright then say “I have a copyright, but I won’t show you because I’m afraid someone will steal my photos”. That was frankly the most laughable comment I have heard in some time. My favorite line from his above quote is this:

I/we have logged many, many hard nights in the woods, spent lots of money and nurtured relationships to get to the point we are, and I/we aren't giving it up to the public at this point in time.

But that’s exactly what he offered the TBRC. I think there is another reason why he won’t post those photos. I offer this for your inspection and consideration:

MMRawlins Posted: Aug 22 2007, 01:42 PM

The pictures do not meet our evidentiary standards because no expert has reviewed them. Experts in the field of photography do exist, you know. Have you shown them to one? You refused to allow us to have one examine the photo's for doctoring or photoshopping, so no, as they stand now do not meet our standards because they have not been reviewed by any expert; are we to just take your word for it?

He also claims to have spent $75,000.00 on photos he has not yet had analyzed by an expert in photography. Was the $75,000.00 just for the copyright? What could possibly cost so much? Why would you do that, with no expert authentication? You have no scientific validation to back up your story, you have no hard evidence by way of DNA or anything else (not even a hair sample) yet, you decide $75,000.00 is a worth while investment for something you can’t prove anyway?? Ok, this is your second clue to “head for the hills”. Politely thank the person for their time, but scram out of that place as fast as you can.

Posted: Aug 22 2007, 02:16 PM
Posted by our New East Texas Friend

We have refused to let anyone, outside our group, have a copy of anything. We have all played this game before and don't trust anyone outside the group. Yes, the photos have undergone analysis by an unbiased third party with the original shots. Some of the pics that I brought for you to see have been lightened or outlined or colors of foliage removed...others were untouched.

You don’t trust anyone outside your group? Remember, you came to the TBRC – the TBRC did not come to you. So, yes, the burden of proof is squarely on your shoulders.

In an exchange between this gentleman and Monica he says he planned to have his photos analyzed AFTER the conference. Let me say that again, I don’t want anyone to miss this. He said he would have his photos analyzed AFTER the conference. Now above he says analysis has been done. Enhancements have been done. Why didn’t he bring a report by this expert that analyzed the film? That’s very standard. Anyone rendering an expert opinion would give the person requesting such analysis a final report – in writing. That was not supplied or even hinted at during his meeting with Craig and Monica.

This gentleman has some serious inconsistencies in his story, as he told Craig Woolheater and Monica he had no work done on those photos, then he admits to photoshopping out leaves etc and enhancing the photos (was this part of the $75,000.00 price tag?) Big no no. Anyone who has been in this long enough should know by now – you do not have anything done to photographic evidence. You do not manipulate images in any way, shape or form, for no reason whatsoever.

He refuses to have his photos analyzed by an independent expert, yet the TBRC and its members are horrible for not simply taking him at his word, and allowing him to give a presentation on supposed evidence with no factual information to verify his claims of legitimacy.

That my friend is how you get hoaxed.

These are the things you watch out for. Now, I am not posting this mans name, because as was pointed out to me, he may be an innocent victim in this as well. My money is on not. He has gotten himself in too far to be so innocent. And I don’t care how many friends you have, if your evidence amounts to your “word” and yet you want to put it out to the world as factual information – sorry I will always do whatever I think is necessary to put a stop to it.

Researchers have a decision to make when it comes to these issues.. Stick your head in the sand and bury it, or speak up and don’t allow others to be taken in by these things. I am choosing to speak out, because I have first hand information, and I feel it is my responsibility once things go too far – to inform other researchers of what to watch out for. If evidence is good enough for you based solely on the person who obtained it – don’t come crying to me or write up long diatribes about how you were suckered into believing someone, when you just didn’t want to see the truth. I wont be bullied either to keep my mouth shut when I think someone is attempting to push off bad information. I will always do what I think is right - and let the chips fall where they may.

So, if you get an email or read a post about photos that “Ground Breaking” out of East Texas – be wary, use caution and please do not be taken in by this.


Bill Green's Review of Nick Redfern's "Man-Monkey"

man monkey by nick redfern
Did Prehistoric Man Enter Europe Through the Balkans?

Cryptomundo Headlines

Does Champ Exist?

New Unknown Fossil Great Ape

Cousteau and Tessie

Harrison author looks at sasquatch

Cryptotourism: Tassie Hunting

Wednesday, August 22, 2007

Review: Let's Talk Bigfoot 8-22-07

Todd Partain was the guest and was a great one. He discussed his documentary Eyes In The Dark: The Sasquatch Experience and the behind the scenes happenings on that, including his friend Tiger Augustine who played the Sasquatch in the film. I called in and asked Todd about Tiger and also about the location of some of the rocky locations in the film. Kathy Strain also called in and asked some questions. It was a great show. The next guest is Sam Rich (Bittermonk on Bigfoot Forums). The show starts at 10:00 EST/9:00 Central and can be found at Let's Talk Bigfoot

As always, we encourage you to tune in and support great research.

Special Offer From Don Keating!!!!!!!!!!!!!/Sasquatch Triangle Tonight...

Don Keating has hours and hours of programming from his annual conferences and meetings now available in either your choice of VHS or DVD. Many top Bigfooters are included in these presentations, including John Green, John Bindernagel, Jeff Meldrum, Ray Crowe, Larry Lund, Daniel Perez and several others. Each DVD presentation is 1 for $15.00; 2 for $22.50, 3 for $30.00 and so on depending on how many each person wants. Contact Don at for further details.

Diane Stocking will be the guest, at 9:00 EST/8:00 Central at Squatchmedia Productions

As always, we encourage you to tune in and support great research.
the international conservation

Mississippi Outfittersnew window
Frayed Safety Nets: Conservation Planning Under the Endangered Species ... new window
Mississippi Wildlife, Fisheries and Parks - Hunting - Trappingnew window

New e-mail address for SQuatchMedia!!!!!!

If anyone has any suggestions for guests on our SQuatchMedia Productions shows The Sasquatch Experience and the Sasquatch Triangle, or any questions, e-mail them to

Patty Tattoo

On This Day in Nessie History

Exciting Announcement about upcoming shows for "The Sasquatch Triangle"!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Don Keating and I work very hard on this program, and we are proud to announce that we have at least two named guests on our upcoming roster. The first is the one and only "Mr. Sasquatch" himself, Mr. John Green, who will be Don's guest September 6th. Then, on September 20th, one of my favorite Bigfooters, Mr. Scott "'Squatch" Herriott will be Don's guest. Both shows air at 9:00 EST/8:00 Central and can be found at the link to the right. We have several slots open for the months of September and October, so if you have any suggestions for guests, please e-mail them to or And as always, we encourage you to tune in and support great research.

Nessie Attack Publicity Stunt

Sasquatch Sighting Threatens Colorado Ski Resort Development?

Texas Bigfoot Conference - Who...
John Green's conclusion:
texas man "bugs" claims to hav...

Let's Talk Bigfoot Tonight...

Melissa and Teresa welcome filmmaker Todd Partain (Eyes In The Dark: The Sasquatch Experience)to the show. the show starts at 10:00 EST/9:00 Central and can be found at Let's Talk Bigfoot

As always, we encourage everyone to tune in and support great research.

Tuesday, August 21, 2007

Looking for Reading Material?

The Case for Legal Inquiry into Sasquatch Evidence

Editorial: The "Four Horsemen of Sasquatchery"

"Manlike Monsters on Trial" Early Records and Modern Evidence

Editorial: Bill Green: An Asset to the Bigfoot Field

Editorial: The Ivory-Billed Woodpecker: Extinct or rediscovered?

My sighting Reports

Reports Page
Scientists Re-Trace Evolution
Finding Sasquatch

GC's interview with John Green

GC's interview with Chris Murphy

GC's interview with Thomas Steenburg

J. W. Burns

Rene Dahinden

Bob Titmus

John Green

The British Columbia Classics

Sasquatch Country

John Green

Thomas Steenburg

Chris Murphy

Dr. John Bindernagel

Hancock House

British Columbia Scientific Cryptzoology Club

Western Canada Research Organization

Revisiting Reports!

Sightings Database


Sightings by Region

Reports recently added

Media articles recently added

Pre-Columbian and Early American Legends


Oldest Footprint

New Mystery Fish Photos


Sasquatch Books

Bigfoot article in Battle Creek Enquirer.

Globe and Mail

Interesting report I received 7 years ago

A fellow named Carlos N. (not his real name) who was confined to a wheelchair and was a really cool guy, told me that back in the mid-1970's when he was able to walk he was hitch-hiking near a town in northern California, and it was dark, and he was close to a small town (don't remember which one he told me) when he heard something parallelling him in the forest by the road. He said it was bipedal, but he didn't think much of it, and before he finally reached the town, the entity in the woods (which he never saw) stopped parallelling him, and he reached the town and told some locals of his experience. The townsfolk told him that there had been a few Bigfoot sightings close by the town, and he became convinced that he had been parallelled by a 'Squatch that night, even though he did not see it. Do I think he was parallelled by a 'Squatch? It's possible, but I do not know for sure. It could be just circumstantial evidence that there were sightings nearby and he just happened to be parallelled by something bipedal, we may never know. Still it is quite interesting, and is a possible case of a parallelling by a 'Squatch.

Review: The Squatch Detective Radio 8-20-07

This was a great show with Oregon Bigfooter Joe Hector Beelart, who discussed his research in Oregon as well as his associations with folks like Larry Lund, Ray Crowe and various other researchers in the PNW. Several callers called in, including Don Keating, Bill Green (via Billy Willard) and a prank caller, who seemed to be out of his element, LOL All in all it was a great show, and Joe was very knowledgeable and patient, answering all questions. No guest that I know of scheduled for next week, but whatever they decide it should be a good show. The link is at Squatch Detective Radio the time is 9:00 EST/8:00 Central. As always, we encourage you to tune in and support great research.
Topic has attachments"Bigfootville" Documentary

Monday, August 20, 2007

Links on Joe Beelart


Joe Beelart's Bigfoot-Sasquatch Field Notes

Bob Heironimus coming back to the XZone this Thursday night!!!!!!

Thursday, AUG 23/07 - Friday, AUG 24/07- Eastern
12A-01ABOB HEIRONIMUS - The Man Who Claims To Be Inside The Bigfoot Costume in the Patterson / Gimlin Film with a Very Special Guest and KAL KORFF

Cryptovideography Update!!!!!!

The Oklahoma Bigfoot video is now in the can! It's taken a long time and many re-edits, sometimes even going back and starting over but now it is done. I must admit I am quite proud of this production. "Bigfooting in Oklahoma" follows the quest of Esther Schritter as she seeks to learn more about Bigfoot. It is a chronology of her journey and a look into the life of a Bigfoot hunter.
Bigfooting in Oklahoma contains many interviews and stories of encounters with Sasquatch. The only thing left now is a few tweeks and to design the DVD case. We will announce a DVD release date soon. This is the finest program we have made so far, it's very professional! If you have any questions about the program we'd love to hear from you. Just write us at and we will get back to you. Look for "Bigfooting in Oklahoma" soon!

Cryptomundo/Anomalous Headlines

Russian Snowman Revisited

Artificial Life Likely in 3 to 10 Years

Editorial: "Skeptical Believers"

Some researchers in this field of inquiry are hardworking and dedicated to solving this mystery, but they do occasionally get taken in and fooled by things that would not fool a give-year-old child. Some of them are what we call "romantics" who tend to take every report, film, video, audio recording and piece of evidence at face value and don't question anything. Then there is a small but emerging group of researchers known as "skeptical believers." This group is one who stand back, look closely at pieces of evidence or stories or films or videos or audio recordings and say, "Whoa, wait a minute, let us be analytical about this and take a jaundiced view of it." I am beginning to become a "skeptical believer," even though I have had two sightings; Don Keating, a fellow "SB" from Ohio, has had one sighting, and he would be classed an SB" himself. Others considered "skeptical believers" are Larry Lund, Ron Schaffner, Bobbie Short, Diane Stocking, Eric Altman, John Green, Peter Byrne and Sean Forker. They do not take every piece of evidence or report without at least closely examining it for holes in the story or piece of evidence, and they try to be as objective as possible when it comes to these things and examine them with a jaundiced eye. I think they are extremely valuable to this field of inquiry, and they should be highly regarded in this field.

Re-Updated, Re-Advised Schedule for the Sasquatch Experience from August-December 2007*

314 8/26/07 Sasquatch Experience Flashback: "Ranger Tim" Cassidy

315 9/02/07 Larry Lund

316 9/09/07 Don Keating

317 9/16/2007 Ben Radford (T)

318 9/23/2007 Joedy Cooke

319 9/30/2007 Jason Valenti (T)

320 10/7/2007 TBA

401 10/12/2007 TBA

402 10/14/2007 Sasquatch Experience Flashback

403 10/20/2207 40th Anniversary of The P/Gimlin Film - Tribute Show

404 10/21/2007 Sasquatch Experience Flashback

405 10/28/2007 Autumn Williams (T) (T)

406 11/4/2007 Craig Woolheater (T)

407 11/10/2007 Remote from TX Bigfoot Conference

408 11/18/2007 Tom Steenburg (T)

409 11/25/2007 Sasquatch Experience Flashback

410 12/2/2007 Scott Herriott (T)

411 12/9/2007 Loren Coleman (T)

412 12/16/2007 Todd Neiss (T)

Sunday, August 19, 2007

Squatch Detective Radio Tonight...

Steve and Billy will welcome Oregon researcher Joe Beelart to their humble abode. The show starts at 9:00 EST/8:00 Central at Squatch Detective Radio As always, please tune in and support great research.

Review: The Sasquatch Experience 8-19-07

This was a wonderful (and controversial) show, with Mims, Florida researcher Diane Stocking. The first half-hour was devoted to news items and discussion of the latest happenings in the Bigfoot field. The second half-hour was devoted to our guest Diane Stocking, who really got into the meat of some controversy discussing the Skookum Cast, the Memorial Day Footage, the Paul Freeman Footage and research done by certain individuals which comes up lacking. We got no phone calls, but we did get quite a few questions from our chatrooms on Yahoo and Squatchmedia. It was a great show, sure to cause some sparks. Best comment of the night was from Mike Killen, who said something to the effect of "I'm a bit disappointed that Henry and Sean didn't pick a guest who wasn't afraid to speak her mind." LOL Mike. Our next show is what we like to call the "Sasquatch Experience Flashback" going all the way back to October 2006 when we interviewed our first three-peater guest "Ranger Tim" Cassidy. Then our next live show will have the one and only "Sasquatch Sleuth" Larry Lund back for a second visit. That show airs September 2nd at 9:00 EST/8:00 Central at the link to the right (our Flashback show airs next Sunday). We hope, as always, that you will tune in and support great research.
Can Nessie Survive the Internet?

How Sharks Hide Their Fingers

Bigfoot Film Takes Top Award

Bigfoot: Cashton, Wisconsin 2004new window
Mysterious Encounters - Bigfoot Forumsnew window