Bigfoot News June 10, 2012

Why I released the Sierra Kills drawings and photo. The release of the artistic drafts of the two Bigfoots from the Sierra Kills and the photo of a hide skinned from the Bigfoot steak from the same Kills has caused a lot of controversy. A lot of people are saying that I didn’t have permission to release them.
One of the main problems is that I don’t even know who the copyright holder is on the drawings and the photo. If I don’t know who these people are, how can I contact them to ask them if I can post their stuff? It’s impossible.
The drawings and the photo or photos have been floating around the higher echelons of the Bigfoot community for a long time now. I have had them for two months.
I got them from someone along with the drawing of the head of the male Bigfoot from the Kills. My source gave me permission to post the head of the male, but soon after, I lost touch with them. I sent them multiple emails for two months trying to get ahold of them, but they had dropped off the face of the Earth. Apparently they have cut off all contact with me.
Now I have a problem. I have an agreement not to publish via someone who has stopped speaking to me. I honor agreements with folks who stay in contact with me. I tear up agreements with folks who quit talking to me. Since he quit talking to me, I felt I was no longer bound by our agreement. My agreement to publish or not was with the source, not the copyright holders, whoever they may be.
There’s a problem here. I am a journalist. We believe that information wants to be free. We pretty much want to publish just about everything unless there is some privacy reason not to.
We believe in the public’s right to know. We don’t believe in withholding valuable information from the public. What the public has a right to know is a very controversial matter, and I’m not sure the public needs to know about everyone’s private lives. But information like I published is the sort of thing that the Bigfoot community has a right to know.
I don’t believe in creating works of important art and then sticking them in your drawer forever so no one can see them. These are important graphics, and the Bigfoot community has a right to see them. They do not deserve to be shoved into a drawer somewhere where none of us can ever see them. There’s way too much information withheld from us already.
There have been some loud complaints from folks saying that I have no right to publish these items. Some are coming from folks who are in deep with the Ketchum Project and others are coming from folks in deep with the Erickson Project. Two groups shrouded in secrecy who have been withholding stuff from us forever.
Compare the hide from the Bigfoot steak (Shall we call it the Bigfoot hide?) to other photos of Bigfoot hair. It would be nice if someone could put these together into some sort of a montage. All of these hair samples have tested positive as Bigfoot by DNA.

Here is the Bigfoot hide from the Sierra Kills for comparison. Note the globule of fat in the upper right of the photo. This was from defleshing the hide. There is also an aberration in the lower left that looks like blood or bloody tissue of some sort.

White Bigfoot hairs from Randy Brisson gathered in Golden Ears Park in British Colombia. Compare with the kinky hairs seen in the Bigfoot hide above.

A closeup of the hair from one of Brisson’s sample. Note the kinky nature of the hairs somewhat resembling pubic hair or spermatozoa.

Grey hair from Randy Brisson gathered in Golden Ears Park in British Colombia. Note the kinky nature of the hair, almost like pubic hair.

Blond hair from Randy Brisson gathered in Golden Ears Park in British Colombia. This one is more wavy, but it still resembles the hair on the hide.

Reddish hair from Randy Brisson gathered in Golden Ears Park in British Colombia. More the wavy type here.

Please follow and like us:
error3
fb-share-icon20
Tweet 20
fb-share-icon20

0 thoughts on “Bigfoot News June 10, 2012”

  1. I’m with you Robert. The public does have a right to know. NO matter what way you slice it all the information being withheld is going to come under fire whether you release it now or later.
    To me it all boils down to what persons want to get rich off of this. The ones who want to get rich rather than bringing forth some of the most groundbreaking research ever done.
    I hate to say this but when lawyers get involved it’s to protect certain people from not making money. I guess I can understand that. I would respect it more if they just admitted it rather than attack those who just want to inform the publoic and could care less if they are going to cash in.
    Excuse the oxymoron, “But thats my two cents”.
    Hwy91

  2. If they have a claim Robert they need to express it to you. Hard to knowingly infringe on a copyright if there is no evidence that it is indeed copyrighted. The source won’t say, so maybe there aren’t, yet. Or, maybe you shall be hearing soon, and you can then respond with informed knowledge.. Or, maybe they are just BS, a plant…who knows? The upper echeleons of Bigfootery? Who are they?

  3. I know from relatives in the biz, Papers will employ the services of attorneys specializing in 1st amendment law. Articles will get screened before publication, so that owners may know where they stand and show that their intent was not reckless.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.