Bigfoot Hunt: One man's hunt for Sasquatch

Opinion: Patty's Motion vs. Humans

2016-04-15T14:54:00.003-07:00

ThinkerThunker has a video reporting that Patty from the Patterson/Gimlin film has a higher shin rise angle than humans.

When humans walk on a level surface, they have a 52 degree shin rise where Patty has a 73 degree shin rise. While I don't doubt the measurements I do doubt the conclusion.

Here is ThinkerThunker's comparison video showing the shin rise of Patty versus humans:

He seems to be missing the fact that all of his human subjects are walking on a flat level surface whereas Patty, is not. She is traversing an area littered with debris which requires greater clearance to walk through. When I walk off trail I have to raise my shins and knees much higher for my feet to clear the forest undergrowth. This is more than 73 degrees. Patty is about 2 to 2 1/2 feet taller than I am so it stands to reason she would have greater clearance. She would need a lesser angle than I would.

This next video is a little long in making the point but it compares an actor attempting to mimic Patty's motion.

They use an actor to mimic Patty's walk for a comparison. Since Patty was spotted in a creek bed she would have been moving up an incline to reach the treeline. As humans we have to lean forward when traveling up an incline so why wouldn't Patty?

Yet again our actor in the second video is on a level surface. It looks uncomfortable and odd. I think you can see why but Patty is on a sand/gravel bar littered with storm debris. She would have to raise her shins higher to clear the debris. We cannot see what's on the other side of the bar so we can't say what we should be seeing. We can't see her feet when she puts her weight on them as she is walking along. To me it means the view is obstructed by the sand/gravel bar making me wonder how they know the area is clear in front of her.

On the other side of this coin a creature that walks in the forest all the time would probably have a higher shin rise than humans who make flat surfaces for walking. The leaning I can't explain beyond the difference of an incline versus a level surface.

In my opinion both comparisons are invalid. The only thing they both show is that the humans are on a flat level surface and Patty is not.

D.L. Soucy and the Hunting Blind Theory.

2013-09-06T18:17:00.001-07:00

D.L. Soucy seems to have trouble explaining how the West Oxford Structure came to be. This is a basic survival shelter as taught in Boy's Life:

The Post I am referring to is on Bigfootevidence. Here's the video:

I don't see how any of it can be Bigfoot related. It is a fallen tree structure located and positioned for hunting. It's plain to see the abundance of dead leaves on the ground meant this was a debris structure of some sort.

While I like D.L.'s attitude, Bigfoot does not used hunting blinds quite like this. Only humans use these. I would expect Sasquatch to use something even more natural putting him within arm's length of his quarry.

Bigfoot Vocalizations Need Re-Thinking

2013-09-06T17:28:00.004-07:00

These reported vocalizations were posted on BigfootEvidence.

I cannot agree that this is Bigfoot making noise. There is so much out there that makes noise. There is no way to know the noise does not belong to someone else. Keep reading after the video and perhaps you'll see what I mean.

I believe this might be a bear. While I'm not sure of where this video was taken the sounds can be that of another animal. Animal sounds are not always like all the recorded sounds you can find on the internet or on TV. The Problem is that animals can make such a wide range of noises that it is impossible to tell what made the vocalization without seeing it or knowing a specific animal is or was in the area. As for Bigfoot making a sound?

Creatures that need to hide are not going to vocalize knowing there are humans in or around their territory. Most supposed Bigfoot vocalizations can easily be attributed to something else. The only time I believe one might vocalize is as a warning. I am not saying whether or not Bigfoot vocalize but it seems that an intelligent species bent on avoiding humans is not going to make a peep knowing that people are around.

Another pic for Sasquatch or Black Bear? This time from Minnesota.

2013-08-29T07:54:00.002-07:00

I don't always see why it's a question at all. The pic in question is a black bear for sure.

The shiny jet black fur is the first clue. The fore legs and hind legs bend at the right place. While at first glance it looks like the legs are straight, that's not the case. The left hind leg is bent toward us so it's not clearly a bend at the joint at first sight.

The tips of the ears are also visible over the foliage.

Colorado Shelter? I'm Not Sure About This.

2013-08-27T12:11:00.000-07:00

I saw this on Bigfootbuzz.net. This shelter/structure that was made on a rock outcropping shows something or someone made it. I think it was a person. Watch the video and see why after the vid.

When it gets to the entrance on the side I realized this had to be man made. Judging by what we see, this is several years old. A bigfoot is going to make a structure with an entrance that's hard for a man to get into? I don't believe it at all. There are a lot of people that make things like this. The person had some outdoors skills. The location is excellent and the one log that is too heavy to move is probably retaining water in it's spongy state which is why it cannot be lifted. It was likely dragged into position from a few feet away. I can't see this as proof of bigfoot. There was no hair found inside, no tracks outside. A fugitive might be to blame for lack of sign. That's always a possibility. There are many who run away from the law who have some outdoors skills and could survive for years out there. I'd love it myself but that's just because I've never been comfortable around people.

Is Pixellation to Blame for Movement in this Bigfoot video?

2013-08-22T11:42:00.001-07:00

I found this on BigfootBuzz.net and it seemed sincere enough but the movement this guy is recording seems more like pixellation and camera movement causing it to me.

Sasquatch Speak?

2013-08-22T11:32:00.002-07:00

The videographer claims this is a Sasquatch speaking. I still maintain it's someone with too much beer.

Doubtful News on Sasquatch Research Vs. Onlinguito Study

2013-08-16T08:39:00.001-07:00

I came across a post referring to my article, Sasquatch Cannot Exist But New Species Can Be Discovered, by Sharon Hill of Doubtfulnews.com. In her article, "Why the Olinguito is Bad News for Cryptozoologists", it appears to me that she came away with the wrong intent and served her own needs at this point.

Read her article here: Why the olinguito is bad news for cryptozoologists, and my rebuttal since she truly misunderstood the intent. Essentially she proved the point I made in the article that skeptics and science take what they want out of an issue and refuse to recognize and study the evidence.

Here is my rebuttal in comment on doubtfulnews.com:

Hi Sharon,

I noticed that you linked to my blog. My purpose in the post was to point out what I see as a double standard in science and not entirely why Sasquatch could not exist. While the blog was titled for effect it was meant to show more of a double standard in the skeptic community. Your using it seemed to assist in making my point more for the fact that you took away what you wanted out of it and nothing more. This is often a problem that is seen in cryptozoology.

I stated that the onlinguito was known about for years and implied it was treated as a subspecies of olingos in zoos where they attempted mating with olingos. After realizing it was not olingo it was recognized as an unknown species in 2006 which precipitated the study on the species thus the discovery of olinguito and the four subspecies.

I did not miss the fact that there was scientific work involved but did not allude to it as the only proof to get the study going. In effect the study had to start with inconsistencies in the two species, bones in a box, folklore, and eye witness reports which all resulted in a lengthy study. There was some conjecture as to where this species live and in your words, “they went and found it.”

While I am not a zoologist or even a science major I am attempting to get the Bigfoot/Sasquatch community to take a real scientific approach such as diagramming tree structures that are perceived as created by Bigfoot (prove that something extraordinary happened based on real data, e.g. measurements distance, locations etc.) I am also encouraging the standardizing of evidence collection procedures and how to effectively and scientifically measure perceived track ways. How about also identifying vocalizations from other species in the woods as Elk, deer, moose and bear are often mistaken for Bigfoot? Grouse taking off or startling predators is often mistaken for breast beating. I also encourage independent evaluation of perceived evidence by several critical sources. I even went so far as to make a website devoted to evidence review and collection so there can be a safe place to find independent researchers interested in the truth instead of what they believe or want. It seems your take on my blog post mis characterized the point I was truly making.

Science and the skeptic community are often found lacking in reviewing evidence but are very good at finding reasons to not review said evidence overall. I know there will be many who disagree and will try to take me to task for that statement but it cannot be denied based upon the work done by science and skeptics toward finding Bigfoot. Very little has been done by way of work on evidence but more has been done to discredit the self proclaimed researchers instead.

Go back to the blog and read some more posts. You will see that I am sincere and I do not announce myself as a cryptozoologist and prefer not to refer to myself as a researcher overall. I prefer to be called a tracker or woodsman with the experience to know my areas and the subjects to which I refer.

Bigfoothunting.Blogspot.com

Thanks for your thoughts on the post.

Amazing Superstructure By Bigfoot? I Have My Misgivings...

2013-08-16T01:46:00.002-07:00

Here is a Youtube video posted by Kelly Shaw. I didn't bring this up to pick on Mr. Shaw but I'm not there and the only proof we have is the word of a tracker and nothing more than video on this. I do not doubt their honesty but I have to point out again there are some assumptions made. Since I have not received any other photos or video showing more details I can't say this is anything more than natural.

Watch the video then check me on my facts.

Here is what is wrong with what I am seeing as a professional tracker and woodsman: These trees are in a storm damaged area where either there is not enough ground water, the stand was diseased, or time and wind caused this. There are a lot of fallen logs in the area indicating they had may have had affected root systems or extremely high winds. The ones that are in the structure show various levels of decay. That may be due to different species in the structure or it may be natural. I'm thinking natural myself just for the other fallen logs in the location. Some of them appear from 8 to 10 years old while others as little as 3 to 5 years. Imagine a younger more vibrant tree with heavy foliage near the top in a high wind. These will snap off like a twig.

While I am sure that Kelly has another opinion I would like to address the fact that once again there is too much information missing. The area of the structure needs to be measured, a grid created on paper and the logs need to be re-drawn on that grid. Yes a three dimensional grid. An over view or an under view and a side view as dictated by the measured grid lines. The video itself needs to show us the side angle at the very least and the ends of the logs. If there are any stumps nearby that fit the bill for those logs or the diameter, those should be shown as well. If those stumps are out of your grid area by more then ten feet then another smaller overview should be drawn with stumps around it. Ends of logs and stumps should be numbered on this to indicate location.

This sounds like a lot of work but it will be worth it to prove whether something extraordinary occurred or not. Judging by the amount of fallen trees in the area along with the rate of decay on the structure I will have to say that this was natural until those other details come out. All of the dead wood in the area is the biggest clue. If you are seeing this then you're likely seeing a natural structure. Trees do not always fall in the same direction. Only two need to cross in forest to start a structure like this. Over time and with different wind directions these structures become more common. I live in an area where this is quite common. I have spent most of the summer pulling down and cutting away manhy crossed fallen trees to keep the home safer

It should always be remembered that these should be considered unstable since they are deadfall. The weather may have them settled a bit giving it apparent strength but I wouldn't be stepping underneath one. Eventually someone will get hurt by doing so I just hope it's not this crew. Really I hope nobody gets hurt this way. These can be deadly traps. Shaw's group is earnest in their desires and goals and might be successful but there needs to be a better understanding of the way nature works when we're not in the woods to see these made. That is why I suggest diagramming. If done properly it can show beyond doubt that something unusual is taking place and that only extreme circumstances in nature will create structures like this.

Keep trying Kelly. Good luck. We'll be waiting for more and watching.

Sasquatch Cannot Exist But New Species Can Be Discovered

2013-08-15T09:42:00.000-07:00

With announcement of the Smithsonian discovery of the Olinguito most will realize how little we know of our world.
The announcement in the USA Today article, Smithsonian discovers rare new mammal species, states, "A Smithsonian zoologist announced Thursday the "spectacular" discovery of a new mammal species -- the olinguito -- a small member of the raccoon family that lives in the Andes."

While I realize that this species has been seen before it was not studied exclusively until 2006 when it was recognized as an unknown species. It was brought into zoo captivity for years prior to studying as olingo in hopes it would mate with other olingo. Kris Helgen the curator of mammals at the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History announced that there are four subspecies of the Olinguito. In the same announcement he states, "The discovery of the olinguito shows us that the world is not yet completely explored, its most basic secrets not yet revealed,"

Most of us in the Sasquatch/Bigfoot research field understand this is not a rare case where science recognizes how little we know and understand of our own planet. What is more common though is the ignorance of science to recognize this and the reverse pareidolia that science suffers from just due to general disbelief. I say reverse pareidolia because some things seem so unbelievable that science dismisses them based not on real science but it's own disbelief without truly studying the evidence with a scientific eye.

While it is true that burden of proof is on the believer, scientists have been known to outright dismiss evidence based upon a short study of a piece of evidence. Again it seems not worth their time so it is often proclaimed, "That is not possible." They often see what they want to see or expect to see and go no further than that. Upon studying the Patterson-Gimlin film scientists will dismiss it as evidence without thoughts of authenticity because they expect to find lines or seams in a supposed suit. Therefore it must be a suit.

Skeptics point out sources of hearsay rather than actual evidence as proof that it is not real. They attempt to discredit the filmographer instead of the film. They do not find any evidence other than the word of an author or supposed participant neither of which are necessarily an expert on authenticating films and hoaxes. Authors may however, be considered an expert at investigating facts or just presenting arguments. We should all know and understand by now that investigations are often wrong especially if you do not do the work to fully understand and investigate the evidence presented.

In effect, disbelief is a form of belief that brings on it's own pareidolia. Seeing things that do not exist based upon one's belief or desires. I see this as the true schism in understanding that Sasquatch exist.

Come back in a few days for my response to the recent Skeptoid.com article on the Patterson-Giml

BigfootBuzz.net Posting MK Davis on Footprints in the Road

2013-08-12T18:50:00.000-07:00

I just finished watching this video and found that MK Davis makes some sense with his analysis of the Footprints in the Road.

In-line stepping is not indicative of Bigfoot/Sasquatch. There are many reasons one walks that way. As humans we are restricted to our visual perception. The Footprints in the road photo shows footprints along side of the road near the edge. Notice how they keep in the same width of area and how doing this will effectively give an in-line gait. Walking near a line will do the same thing. Try it yourself and you will likely see what I mean.

As MK points out in the other pic he shows, the footprints in the sand are affected by speed, purpose of stride, but he fails to mention the strength of push off when we push off with the trailing foot. This can essentially wipe out the heal print depending on the terrain/surface.

Try some experiments with walking and in-line stepping. You will see the same things I do. I always considered this one piece of information as separating the professionals from the amateurs. Only an amateur would believe this since bigfoot and humans can balance themselves. It's what they both do when they are not paying attention to their path that is far more telling.

Check out MK Davis on Footprints in the Road.

See the original post here at bigfootbuzz.net

Sasquatch Canada Shows Tracks, Sasquatch Mystery Museum

2013-08-12T06:44:00.001-07:00

Check this video posted by Sasquatch Canada on Youtube of some credible tracks. These look real and cast out well. These are likely from the real thing.

More Bigfoot Structures or Just Storm Damage?

2013-08-12T05:52:00.001-07:00

I am not sure where this is so I cannot say much about it but this appears outwardly to be storm damage in a forest. This all seems kind of normal.

What do you think?

Bigfoot Evidence blog: Things We Know About Bigfoot

2013-08-12T05:32:00.000-07:00

William Barnes on the things we know about bigfoot. I consider the rest just conjecture and some of it very far fetched.

Quote of the Day From Falcon Project Founder William Allen Barnes

Some my wonder where the mention of infrasound or interdimensional travel is but these are not credible er..facts. Bigfoot cannot affect your consciousness by using infrasound. You may faint from shock but otherwise it's got to be a joke.

Bigfoot Crossroads: Bigfoot Researcher Sues YouTube User Over False Copyright Claim - The Aftermath

2013-08-12T05:19:00.000-07:00

Thanks to Bigfoot Crossroads for keeping it simple.

Sumatran Orangutan Birth at Durrell Conservation. Amazing Mother!

2013-08-11T07:53:00.002-07:00

View the below Youtube posting on the birth of a baby Sumatran Orangutan. Animals are amazing.

Sending Hair for DNA Testing? Questions Abound!

2013-08-11T07:44:00.000-07:00

The following video makes the assumption that this is Bigfoot hair. The problem here is that this barbed wire is there to keep animals in. Namely cows.

Now the video states there have been no cows in the area but now I have to ask. How old is this hair? It is also stated that there was another trail nearby. Question: What trail? For what? Don't cattle use trails? So the hair is also curly. I have seen my own straight hair caught in barbed wire and it curls to the same degree. One more thing, hair caught in more than one place will be cattle's hair after sticking it's head through the fence.

Without other immediate evidence this is a major assumption that I could not support. Especially sending it in for DNA testing. Unfortunately it will likely be found to be related to Bovidae taurus or may even be equine.

MonsterXRadio Ding Dong the Hoax is Dead!

2013-08-10T11:08:00.001-07:00

While I can't honestly say the hoax is dead, I can say I applaud Steve Kulls for going to LAX to prove that Dyer has not changed and isn't going to change.

Rick Dyer is the least credible voice in the Bigfoot community

Check it out here:

Monster X Radio: Ding Dong the Hoax is Dead

I'll be listening today.

Evolving Evidence Collection.

2013-08-07T02:38:00.001-07:00

Using critical thinking we must think better than in the past. We must be able to see evidence as prospective evidence instead of labeling it as evidence of Bigfoot and trying to support the assertion. Unless you have seen Bigfoot eat or tracked one and recognized sign of what they eat, you do not know what their diet is. Science will need more than a tracker's word. They will need the logic behind it as well as photographic evidence backing up the tracker's suppositions. It is not enough to say, "I saw some milkweed that was partially eaten over near the track way." You need pictures to prove it.

People often get too hopeful and ignore the obvious. We just muddle the middle ground by jumping to the result before we really have it. Researchers often end up looking foolish to academics and skeptics this way. We must be able to look at our supposed evidence and question its existence. After all, most woodsmen will tell you that not every unexplained thing is nature is Bigfoot. So much happens that we are not there to witness every day that it is almost impossible to say what is real evidence. Many get the impression that there are far more Sasquatch than actually exist based upon the amount of supposed evidence that is presented online. This leads to the obvious skeptical question, "If there are so many Sasquatch then why don't we see better evidence?" The answer is simple. Much of the "evidence" that is presented is not evidence of Sasquatch but is evidence of unusual things that we are not recognizing. As a community Bigfoot researchers cannot agree on what is evidence in many cases. They just present and argue the validity of the supposed evidence without ever improving on their collection techniques.

Why are we seeing what we consider a pine bed? Is it related to dead fall? Is it related to rutting season of deer and elk as they rub antlers against trees and branches? If not can we map the breaks in the boughs to their source? Did it all come from the same tree? How far away was each branch broken off? Keep in mind there are survivalists that spend far more time in the woods than most and they are creatures of comfort that wouldn't think twice about creating something softer for themselves. In addition why do we not find hair? After all, pitch from those pine boughs would If Bigfoot goes to the trouble to make a nest then were is the scat from the surrounding area? We have to prove this pine bed cannot be related to dead fall. We must be able to say why it is not related to elk or deer during their rutting season where they remove the antler velvet and break off branches. Elk antlers can reach up to 10 feet high in extreme cases.

We must be able to say that scat is not related to other animals and why it is not rather than calling it Bigfoot scat just because it is a large pile and looks human. Keep in mind the shape of the scat for most creatures will change based upon their recent diet..

As researchers we need to be critical of tracks and our casting procedures. Pouring casting material in a certain way can cause a ripple effect that looks somewhat like dermal ridges. Learn to pour casting material under many circumstances. Dry dusty areas require hairspray or a plastic protective spray to harden the track before casting. Spray polyurethane works well here. Wet mud can use dry plaster before the pour to help solidify the track. Practice casting your own or your children's footprints under a variety of circumstance so you get good at it and know how to handle the problems you will face in the field. Get Snow Impression Wax for snow and make sure you use several layers before casting. Find a track? Cast everything even if it's not such a good track. It's usually the best choice for any type of field casting.

Hair needs to be analyzed before it is proclaimed to be from a specific species. We need to eliminate raccoon, opossum, elk, deer, bear, wolverine, skunk, cattle, etc. This means we need to collect a comprehensive database of hair for comparison. Not just one of each species but multiple examples under a variety of circumstances from the same area and all of it needs to be documented.

Photo and video documentation is great but it is subjective so we must learn to collect more than one type of evidence when we believe we have photo or video evidence. Prepare the ground around your camera field to collect tracks. Make sure you know a bear track from a Sasquatch track. Make sure that you are not labeling it Sasquatch just because it is large. The American Black Bear can get very large and weighs in at over 400 to 500 pounds in rare cases up to 650 pounds the largest recorded was 7.9 feet at 900 pounds. The male grizzly can go up to 850 pounds and can get to 7 feet in length (standing). The largest came in at 10 feet long and weighed from 1000 to 1200 pounds. The Brown bear (on western coasts) will get to 3 to 3 1/2 feet at the shoulder giving a height of 6 to 7 feet but can be as large as a grizzly. A very large bear can have up to 1.5 meters between steps in a double step pattern. Running can cause this alignment as well as hurrying uphill. This makes for a huge disparity in tracks from the Southeast to the Northwest. Bear double-step looks like a bi-pedal track-way but in fact is a quad-pedal track-way that looks like it has a mid tarsal break. Photgraph your tracks in detail from multiple angles.

Painstakingly check the area for hair if you have any other supposed evidence. Once you have decided what the evidence is, get it verified by an independent expert. There are other expert trackers in the world that would be happy to give their opinions on tracks, pine and leaf beds. Just document it and measure everything track related. Keep in mind that this is also subjective. A good tracker however will be able to show their line of logic and how they came up with their answer instead of I don't know what that is. They will be able to give multiple ideas as to how logs land the way they do. A seasoned woodsman will often have an alternate answer that you might have to try to disprove. If you can do that then you may have real evidence

If you believe you have evidence, use your camera. Get multiple angles on each track. Close ups to show dermal ridges if you can. Take photos to show the nail indentations to also show that there are no claw marks. Photograph the ends of logs that appear to be structures. Measure the area. Draw a diagram, block it off and show stumps or breaks in relation to the logs or branches in the structure. Number the ends of branches or logs and give the same number to the tree or stump it came from. Do whatever you have to in order to get as much detail as is available and do not deviate from your procedures unless there is something that can be done better. Be consistent and be reliable in how you document all of your information. Note the eyewitness testimony but do not use it as evidence. Use it to point to fact or other evidence but do not use that testimonial because it has no worth in science.

The bottom line is that real research takes a lot of time and patience. It takes a methodology that must be understood and adhered to. Others may start taking us all seriously if we can do this. Keep in mind that negative attention received by researchers may make skeptics and scientists slow to accept all of this. More patience comes in at this point. It will garner more respect than the willy-nilly approaches used in the past.

Check my next post on Collaboration coming out later this week.

Acceptance of Sasquatch Research in Academia

2013-08-06T18:36:00.000-07:00

As researchers the highest priority is, we need to be real researchers. That does not mean the Wikipedia definition in which,

A researcher is somebody who performs research, independently as a principal investigator, the search for knowledge or in general any systematic investigation to establish facts. Researchers can work in academic, industrial, government, or private institutions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Researcher

Being a researcher does not mean just dedicating yourself to a subject and finding evidence of the existence of Bigfoot.

As a researcher there is a need for academic skills. It is important to produce good quality written work in the form of research papers. These are composed to reflect the argument and supporting evidence so they are clearly understood by the intended audience. Some audiences will be the casual reader where others may be more academic or specialized such as primatologists or anthropologists. A good researcher recognizes information sources that support their opinions and assertions. They also gather, organize, and analyze information or data as well as document their research in detail.

The definition we should meet is as academic researchers. We do not have to be college educated, but it does help. In order to fulfill the role of researcher we should develop skills in recognizing and framing key problems. A researcher needs to think both critically and analytically. In addition they must devise thoughtful, interesting and original insights. Though it is difficult to have original insights concerning unknown animals or creatures it is still possible. Some suppositions must be made based upon experience reported with other animal species.

Researchers need ambition and the ability to work toward higher standards than the next guy. In addition to taking initiative and responsibility, they must have organized, set procedures for handling evidence and be balanced in their judgment to make sure they understand the evidence they are reviewing. Researchers must also take constructive criticism and use it in a responsible and responsive way to help support or strengthen their case.

Effective researchers collaborate and liaise with other researchers and academics from other institutions, such as universities or even other research groups. All of this is necessary to integrate the subject to a larger community of scholars and research organizations. Researchers cannot always shun the next person or group who studies the same subject. That is what conferences are for.

Having defined the researcher's role how do we meet these goals? In the field of Sasquatch research there are very few who meet these criteria. Those that meet the requirements are already in academia. Many fail at consistently understanding the supposed evidence and underestimate the importance of handling and documenting the evidence. Because there are no rules then they should not have to follow any or should make them up right? Not so. It is time to stop calling ourselves researchers if we cannot fit the bill.

Please check back on this blog. This is the first in a series of posts concerning the academic acceptance of Bigfoot/Sasquatch research.

Is This Bigfoot Digging Beside Trailcam? Nope But Something is Grazing!

2013-08-06T03:15:00.000-07:00

I saw this one on Bigfootbuzz.net where the poster was asking what it was. After checking the video I found it to be some sort of cattle. This is a red heifer. Likely a steer. See this one for yourself:

Check me on these facts. Ear sticks out at about 50 degrees. Clump of hair on top of head between ears and wrinkles after that. Yes they get wrinkles behind the head along side of the neck. There is also the back of a cow across the road in the ditch to the left.

Check this pic for backup:

These cattle are being range fed on open range. It should not be a surprise to find them there.

Fringe News Sierra Investigation Wrap-up

2013-08-06T01:17:00.000-07:00

I'm sorry to say that I cannot believe Justin at this point. He does not know what kind of scat he is looking at. He clearly does not understand what he is hearing and says he killed a Bigfoot but brings absolutely no proof home. He has bear blood on his boots and a bear tag that was not filled out. Where I live it's called poaching.

There are too many negatives to waste any more time on this man. He has not provided any real physical evidence and has shown me that he is not a tracker based upon what he has shown. Evidence is indisputable Justin. You can't just sit around and say this happened or that happened. I want to hear your vocalizations. I want to see that rock flying. I want to hear the activity around you at night when you were escorted from the territory. I don't think you can provide this so good luck in the future.

Here is the last of his videos I will be posting unless he gets indisputable evidence.

Is This Mis-Information in the Guise of a Field Report?

2013-08-05T17:37:00.001-07:00

Another field report that doesn't do much for proving the existence of Bigfoot. Sasquatch Invenstigations of the Rockies

Here is a "field report" where the author claims to have a hair sample. I see a problem with this sample in that it looks like something removed from a hairbrush. I didn't know Sasquatch in that area had curly hair and if not, how did it curl so much on the one stick? I don't see where this is likely in any of the states that Sasquatch is to be found in.

Bigfoot Vocalizations? Sounds like bored frat boys

2013-08-05T17:05:00.001-07:00

I came across and post on Bigfootevidence.blogspot.com presenting some vocalizations. The first set sounds like and elk making noise and yes they do breathe that heavily when sniffing the air. Elk also make noise when they are not concerned about being detected. They also enjoy peanut butter and berries (jam). It's not out of order to believe this was an elk snorting and rooting around camp and nothing more. The ground around their gifting tree should have been prepared for catching tracks and I find it suspicious that it wasn't.

In addition the vocalizations that were presented with a name sounded like someone burping out the words just like your drunken friends used to do. The pauses in syllables were the dead giveaway. Here is the video so you can check for yourself:

While I cannot say this is Bigfoot, I can say some of it is animal. The problem is which one? Elk or human?

Problem With Bigfoot Research Today

2013-08-05T15:48:00.000-07:00

I just came across and article on Doubtfulnews.com where a research team that is looking for Bigfoot is holding "an information session," in Leetonia, Ohio.

This author agrees with Doubtful.The stories shared in this type of forum do not provide any type of evidence, "little presented has been confirmed as actually happening or investigated to see if an alternative explanation could be found." Many who come to these events want to see what people have to say. Some folks come to relate their story. Some who just want attention speak up as well. This is not a good basis to get reliable information on any subject.

Read the article on the problems with this kind of forum here at Doubtfulnews.com. The original article posted here by Youngstown News describes the event.

I have my own encounters with Bigfoot and realize the futility of sharing them. Stories do not prove anything. Eyewitness testimony will never be good enough for science and skeptics so with that in mind I prefer physical evidence. It is harder to come by than these groups think. Much "evidence" is not actually evidence but can be explained away in nature. In Finding Bigfoot the four stars interview groups, get stories and then focus on one or two individuals based on the credibility of the person's statements. Our four stars apparently determine the credibility of the witnesses and that's not good enough for me. They are comprised of three believers and one self-proclaimed skeptic. This does not involve critical thinking to any degree. Granted these stars actually go into some critical thinking in their investigations but when it is all said and done, Bigfoot is the real star and fails to make an appearance every time.

In a direct quote "The presentation will include audio footage as well as plaster foot casts and firsthand experiences from the researchers." In effect they are using what they have in order to bring in more people whether or not it is their intention. This may in turn affect the anecdotal evidence. I cannot say for sure but they are probably also asking for donations. In my opinion this type of meeting does not prove anything outwardly. While there seems to be nothing wrong with this, it brings the idly curious which will not help find Bigfoot. It not only spreads the word that there are more believers but also brings in converts. After all, if so many believe and have had experiences it must be true right?

I am a believer simply because of my own experiences. To many skeptics this means it is closer to a religion than it is to fact. As doubtful put it, "wishful thinking". I have spent enough time in the mountains to know that there are many things that cannot be explained. While I try to understand every noise I hear, every track I find and every bit of sign that I see, I cannot in good conscience say it is all Bigfoot. I know a little of it is but knowing is not good enough without the proof. It is time for someone with a critical eye and ability to think beyond Sasquatch to provide the proof. This means a person that will not accept everything that's odd or out of place as a sign of Bigfoot. My hope is that I am able to bring a valid contribution to all of the misinformation on Bigfoot while providing real physical evidence.

Check it out at Bigfoottracks or Facebook: Hunting for Bigfoot