Bigfoot News October 11, 2013

Warning: Long: 47 pages.
Rumor: Dr. Bryan Sykes study will confirm the existence of the Yeti and reject the existence of Bigfoot. There is a rumor flying around UK Bigfoot circles that Sykes only has valid relict hominid DNA from his Yeti samples and he has nothing from his purported Bigfoot samples.
Sykes book publisher’s press release the other day said that 28 out of 30 of Sykes’ samples failed, instead coming out human or known animals. Only two samples tested positive, presumably for some relict hominid. I have now received word that the two positive or interesting samples were both from Asia, presumably Yetis then. If the rumor is true, then Sykes will conclude that Yetis are real based on his samples, but that based on his samples, he is unable to prove the existence of Bigfoots.
Sykes finds that Yetis are not human on the MtDNA side. Although Dr. Melba Ketchum has found (I believe correctly) that Bigfoots are human on the mitochondrial side and relict hominid on the NuDNA side, Sykes has been rumored to find that Yetis are not even human on the MtDNA side. I do not want to say where I believe this comment came from because every time I quote this clown, he sends me cease and desist mails ordering me to remove the “libel.” Sigh. If this is so, it is quite interesting. It might mean that Yetis are the more primitive type and Bigfoots are the more advanced type. Perhaps a Bigfoot is simply an Asian Yeti crossed with humans to form a gigantic Western Hemisphere form.
First results in on Justin Smeja’s samples in Sykes’ study. I have the first results in on 2 of the 5 samples that Justin submitted to Sykes as part of the Sierra Kills. I am told that while the results do not validate Justin’s story that he killed two Bigfoots, they do not invalidate it either. I am not sure what that means, but apparently the results are inconclusive as far as whether these two samples are Bigfoots or not. Justin has not yet received the results of his other 3 samples; he is still awaiting them. Justin submitted his boots, multiple hair samples, flesh and tissue with muscle included. He also submitted scat and some ticks to another lab.
Sykes may have tested on MtDNA and not NuDNA. If Sykes finds that 28 of our finest Bigfoot samples are failing to test positive as relict hominids, that is very depressing to our side, as it means our finest samples are failing to prove that this creature exists. However, if Sykes is only testing MtDNA (as every Bigfoot researcher but Ketchum has done), then the results make sense. The rumor is that Yetis are not human on the MtDNA; instead, the MtDNA is relict hominid. However, Bigfoots are hybrids, being human on MtDNA and relict hominid on NuDNA. So if he’s only looking at MtDNA, only the Yeti samples will be positive and all of the Bigfoot samples are going to fail.
Did Sykes test NuDNA? The problem is that it is nearly impossible to test NuDNA on Bigfoot samples. Ketchum tried over and over, but it kept failing to amplify. Although in peer review, her peer reviewers said that amplification failures are typically a result of degraded DNA, Ketchum proven (successfully, I believe) that her samples were very pure and were not degraded at all. Instead they were failing to amplify because human primers were failing on the NuDNA side, presumably because that side of the creature is not human.
Ketchum had to invent her own special Bigfoot primers to get the stuff to amplify and this involved a long trial and error process. Furthermore, the primers would only work for a bit and then they would stop working and she would have to make new ones or make more. In other words, the whole process of sequencing the NuDNA was a great big gigantic, humungous mess and it took forever.
What this means for Sykes study is that the NuDNA of his Bigfoot samples is not going to amplify no matter how hard he tries. To get anything out of it, he is going to go Ketchum’s route and invent his own primers with the resulting great, big gigantic mess. If Sykes was working with Ketchum, he could have enlisted her in his study, asked to use her primers or asked her how to make the primers, but Sykes did not want to cooperate with her at all.
In fact, the word I got was that he saw her as deadly competition, and he did not work with her at all. In fact, within the Ketchum camp, there were longstanding accusations that Ketchum’s failures in peer review at Nature were perhaps due to the influence of Sykes and his supporters. I do not believe there is yet any evidence that Sykes sabotaged her study, but that is what some of the Ketchumites believe at any rate.
What if Sykes did test NuDNA somehow by inventing his own primers? Then the results, if the rumors are correct, are very depressing for our sides. All of our Bigfoot samples, possibly 28 out of 28, would have tested positive to either humans or known animals. Sykes will not verify that Bigfoots exist, and proof will still be beyond our grasp. Further, up to 28 of our best samples would have failed badly.
Peer review documents from the JAMEZ journal regarding Ketchum’s Bigfoot DNA submission. Published first on Scott Carpenter’s blog, these documents show up a couple of lies that the Ketchum-haters have told about Melba.

  1. There was no such thing as the JAMEZ journal. Not so, it does appear to have existed, as some of her worst critics such as Over the Line, Smokey are starting to admit.
  2. Ketchum did not undergo any sort of peer review at this nonexistent journal.

Am I an enemy of Ketchum? It keeps getting thrown about that I am an enemy of Ketchum. This is not the case. I simply report whatever comes across my desk. I do not cotton well to Machiavellian types, and she is one in spades. But that is just her personality and personal politics, both of which simply rub me the wrong way, as in, I am not personally wild about such folks. But really none of that is here or there.
What really matters is Ketchum’s science. Is there anything to it? I believe there is. Is she a fraud or a hoaxer? That is an extremely serious charge, and there is not yet any good evidence to prove scientific fraud in her study. If she did hoax her results, she is guilty of scientific fraud, her career is over, and she will never publish again. It would have been a suicide mission for her. Other than possibly suicide by fork (a mission she shares with many other Americans), I do not believe this woman is suicidal in any way, shape or form.
Almost all of Bigfootery is united in sheer hatred for this woman, including utter denigration of what may in fact be good science on her part. It nearly makes me sick to go on Facebook sites and see the way this woman is run into the ground. Part of it is Melba’s own fault as he has heedlessly alienated and angered a lot of folks due to the personality stuff discussed above.
Some of the people she screwed over or used up and tossed aside are now extremely bitter enemies and they are doing their best to give her a death by a thousand cuts. There is not yet any good, hard evidence that her science failed and certainly none that she hoaxed or is guilty of scientific fraud. The future remains unknown. Fidel Castro says, “History will absolve me!” Perhaps this will be the case with Ketchum also.
Criticism of Ketchum in Bigfootery and among skeptics. I must say that I am appalled at the way this woman is being treated with these two crowds. Absolutely disgusting. For one thing, there were endless remarks about her appearance, particularly comments about her “Dennis the Menace” or “Debbie Harry” hairdo. Most of the comments came from men, but some came from women too. It is terrible that this woman is being run down on the basis of her looks. This is a common feminist complaint about society, that woman, no matter how high achieving they are, are still judged on the basis of their looks. I am not wild about feminists, but their analysis here is surely correct.
About Ketchum’s hairdo: I rather liked it myself. It is hard to make a 55 year old look fantastic anymore, much less make her look like a 20 year old, but I thought her makeup artist did a very nice job. Now all Melba needs to do is maybe head to the gym.
The treatment of Ketchum on Fox News in particular was terrible. The blond Fox bimbo was nasty and hostile the whole way, kept interrupting Ketchum, and at the end cut her off rudely with, “Well, I hope you catch one (a Bigfoot).” She made Ketchum into a laughingstock, and my heart went out to her.
Ketchum is a bit nervous on stage and in front of cameras which is a longstanding issue. However, in spite of that, I thought she did pretty well under some very hostile questioning.
Back story on the Matilda footage. When Erickson first contacted the couple in Kentucky, the offered him one or two videos for sale. Erickson shopped them around to various experts and the conclusion of at least some of them, including Bill Munns, was that they were fakes using a Chewbacca mask. Munns wrote up a 16 page pdf document documenting his conclusion on why the video was a fake. Erickson apparently agreed that they were possibly fakes using Wookie masks. Hence, Erickson refused to purchase the video from the couple.
Later, after Dennis Pfohl loaned Sissy a video camera and a ghillie suit and showed her how to sneak up on the Bigfoots, Sissy was able to get some much better footage of Matilda. This was shown to Erickson and the team, along with a lot of other footage that Sissy shot.
The Matilda footage once again came back looking like a Wookie mask, but this time the video was so convincing that Erickson apparently decided that maybe Matilda looked like a Wookie after all. Since Erickson apparently felt that Munns simply had a poisoned mind against the footage this woman shot and any footage looking like a Wookie mask, Erickson apparently did not send this footage to Munns to look over.
However, Erickson had other experts look at it and the general conclusion was that this footage was good and apparently Matilda is simply a Bigfoot that happens to look like a Wookie. Munns would like very much to release his pdf document discussed above, however, Erickson has not yet given him permission to do so.
Excellent proof that Adrian Erickson’s Matilda video is not a Chewbacca mask. One of the arguments that Matilda is wearing a Wookie mask is that her mouth does not move and is open the whole time. A mouth that stays open the whole time is a sure sign of a mask, according to Bill Munns, and he is onto something. However, Bill Munns is simply wrong in this case. This is because in the full Matilda footage, her mouth is closed for much of the footage, and she opens and closes her mouth a few times. She also moves her lips about. Do Wookie masks have movable lips and mouths that open and close? So Munns argument that Matilda mouth never moves is just wrong. Perhaps in the footage he saw….
In addition, in the full footage, Matilda’s mouth not only opens, but her tongue comes out her mouth at one point. And her tongue is black. Do Wookie masks have tongues that move and go in and out of the mouth? How does that work? Do Wookie masks allow your own tongue to go in and out of your mouth? How does that work?
Even if it is so, how was it that the person wearing the Wookie mask had their tongue painted black. Since the inside of Matilda’s mouth is the inside of a living creature, either a masked human or a Bigfoot, this leaves us with more problems. On examination, Matilda’s gums and the inside of her mouth are also black. This means that the person wearing the mask somehow painted their gums, the inside of their mouth and their tongue black. How and why did they do that, assuming it was done?
In addition, you can look closely at Matilda’s lips and you can see that they look fleshy and real. Even more shocking, they are slightly chapped. Have you ever seen a mask with slightly chapped lips? Have you ever seen a mask that had fleshy appearing lips, chapped or not? If those are the human who is wearing the mask’s lips, what sort of a mask allows you to show your own lips in the mask. Find me a Wookie mask that allows the wearer to show their own lips, inside of mouth, gums and even tongue. I am waiting.
How much does a good Bigfoot suit cost? To make an excellent custom Bigfoot suit yourself (and how would you do it?) it would cost you $10,000 in materials alone. If you wish to buy one, the cost from an excellent special effects artist is ~$40,000.
Demolishing a myth about Bigfoots and Wookies. The myth states that no description of a Bigfoot has ever described a Wookie type creature. However, a cursory look through the BFRO’s database shows at least 6 reports describing a Wookie like creature, including one from 1972. I have also heard that the Bigfoots from around Appalachia can be quite hairy, often described as having long, flowing manes.
From Scott Carpenter’s blog, a commenter backs up the claims that Matilda is a real Bigfoot:

This may be a trivial point to make, but an old Nuxalk Indian tracker by the name of Clayton Mack who lived 1910-1993, used to guide hunters on grizzly and black bear moose and the like in the wilds of British Columbia. Mack himself was a Bella Coola Indian. Seeing Sasquatch, or what he called boqs, was a frequent and quite matter of fact thing to him.
A facial description he once gave while looking through the telescopic sights of his gun was that the mouth was was black inside, the skin was black, the nose very much like are own but a little wider and black, and also like Matilda, from the side view, the features which stuck out the furthest was the lips of the mouth. Now Mack’s Sasquatch sightings were before Star Wars and even before the Patterson tape. So, this seems “not” to be a new look for Matilda…and if Sasquatch are indeed partly human, then descriptions can be expected to be many and varied.

So we can see that Matilda matches Clayton Mack’s description on a number of different levels.

  1. Inside of mouth black? Check
  2. Nose similar to Homo sapiens but a bit wider and black? Check
  3. Greatest prognathism in the jaw, lips and mouth? Check.

Marked up stills from the Sleeping Bigfoot video. Via the Bigfoot Lunch Club, here are some stills from the video with lines drawn around what looks like the curled up body of a sleeping Bigfoot, along with a drawing of an Almas from Mongolia showing that these relict hominids may indeed sleep like this.

First still, not marked up, hard to distinguish.
First still, not marked up, hard to distinguish.

First rough markup showing a body shape in the sleeping figure.
First rough markup showing a body shape in the sleeping figure.

A more fully fleshed out version of the same markup showing the sleeping figure.
A more fully fleshed out version of the same markup showing the sleeping figure.

A drawing of a sleeping Almas from Mongolia, drawn by a Mongolian witness.
A drawing of a sleeping Almas from Mongolia, drawn by a Mongolian witness.

Mary Green on the Sleeping Bigfoot video. Note that this may be a different sleeping Bigfoot than the Sleeping Bigfoot video we have so far been shown – in other words, there may be two Sleeping Bigfoot videos, one of Matilda’s mother and one of Matilda herself.
Mary Green’s comments on the full video, which I have been told is ~5 minutes long.

This shows another sleeping Bigfoot. This one is Matilda. She is mostly on her back, and you can see her face in full. She looks very relaxed. The video zooms in on parts of her body, her arms, her fingers, etc. Her hand is large and does not look human, in particular, the thumb is placed in a completely different place than a human thumb is.
The video focuses on her body, and it is very stocky and well muscled, much more so than most humans. Also this video continues for some time. Towards the end of the video, the creature starts to stir and move about and seems to be waking up. Then the videographer backs off a bit. In addition, her fur is exactly the same color as the Matilda face video that everyone insists is hoaxed.

Original Mary Green interview about Matilda. It is very hard to find on the Internet anymore, but here is the famous interview with Mary Green about Matilda that lays to rest a lot of the myths surrounding this footage.

Canadian Energy Sector Multimillionaire Adrian Erickson’s Sasquatch Videos

The Mysterious Kentucky Project

Video Footage of Sasquatch Was Supposedly Obtained in Northern Kentucky

When will they release it? This is the question asked the most when it comes to the mysterious Kentucky footage. And there isn’t just one film, but many. Up to 20 clips, John Bindernagel told me. The wildlife biologist from Vancouver island saw the clips and watched a Sasquatch on the location in Kentucky himself in 2007. It’s still unknown when the videos will be shown to the public.
Chris Noel, a Bigfoot researcher with the BFRO from Vermont, said in August in a radio interview that a documentary will be released before the end of the year. John Bindernagel had announced that it would be out in fall 2008 or spring 2009. Nothing came out. Adrian Erickson, who owns the clips, has not give any information about his plans and the project at all.
It is also not known how these clips will be released. Will they be put on a DVD for sale? Or aired on TV? Maybe as a launch of the forthcoming BFRO documentary series? Will the clips be shown in a Monster Quest episode? Or will they be presented at a press conference? If they do have such clear footage as some have claimed, I would assume that they will present their effort at a press conference. It’s the way the “Missing link” fossil of an early primate was presented last year. They did a conference first to draw attention and then showed the evidence for everybody in a documentary on popular TV channels worldwide.
There’s a lot known about the Kentucky project although the owner of the clips and the BFRO try to keep it secret. Questions and posts about it get deleted at the BFRO discussion forums. Probably most of the involved people were told to keep their mouths shut. Stan Courtney, a researcher from Illinois, who was involved in an early stage of the project, told me that he’s not allowed to say anything. “I signed a non-disclosure agreement.” So did probably other involved parties.
But this is known: Adrian Erickson, company owner and Bigfoot research financier from British Columbia, is reportedly in possession of several videos of Sasquatch. They were taken during the last couple of years on a rural property in northern Kentucky. Allegedly there was a so called habituation scenario: A family had regular visits of these creatures. A friend of the family eventually submitted a message to the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization (BFRO) in 2005. Several researchers came to investigate.
They obtained footage: the controversial “Pancake Video”. Erickson purchased the footage from the BFRO and took over the case. He bought the property because he wanted to collect further evidence. He hired Colorado Bigfoot researcher Dennis Pfohl and ecologist/biologist Leila Hadj-Chikh. In 2007 scientists Jeff Meldrum and John Bindernagel visited the research site.

Hoaxed Or Not?

But it seems that not everything went the way Erickson wished to. D.B. Donlon, who maintains the Blogsquatcher website, speculated that they didn’t get new footage after Erickson took over the case. “After the original witnesses sold the house to the Canadian the activity stopped,” he told me. “From what I heard, but this was early on, Leila Hadj-Chikh had not seen anything herself at the location.”
Donlon, who investigated the Kentucky case firsthand in 2005 when he was still with the BFRO, said that he had heard of five videos and had seen two. “All of those had been filmed either by or with the help of the original witnesses.” They had other problems too: The notorious Bigfoot hoaxer Tom Biscardi found out about the project. He went to the site but was eventually chased away by the former property owner.
Did the creatures move on? Is this the reason why Adrian Erickson bought another research area in Tennessee? As Bigfoot researcher and author Mary Green told me, the Canadian paid a new house for the notorious Bigfoot “contactee” Janice Carter in Tennessee in 2006. Green wrote about Carter’s case in the much-debated book 50 Years with Bigfoot. But the Tennessee project was a failure for Erickson according to Green: “Janice couldn’t furnish any footage or evidence to Erickson.” Green guessed that Erickson established a second project because he wanted to back up his findings in Kentucky.
And there’s the question of authenticity. Donlon thinks that at least one clip was faked. “The first video, the one I describe in my blog posts, was destroyed by the witness, and I believe it was destroyed because it was too obviously a hoax when shown on a larger TV in good resolution,” he told me. “It’s important to keep in mind that these witnesses were paid for their home, either $100,000 or $200,000 as a result of their videos. They had a very clear motive to hoax.”
Donlon found other evidence much more convincing. “A footprint had visible dermal ridges and was large.” But the most persuasive sign for Donlon was the behavior of the dogs of the property owners. “I’ve never seen dogs act like that. They were truly deathly afraid of whatever was in those woods.”
Another controversial piece of film coming from the Kentucky project is the “Pancake Video”. It’s a night-time video, showing a creature with a striking large head that reaches for a bait. It appeared on Cryptomundo for a short time in 2007. “One researcher I know said that it might show a creature with dwarfism – the overlarge head and the short arms being a trait for that,” said Donlon. “By my measurements, the creature could not be the lady witness, and she was the only one unaccounted for at that time.” Alton Higgins, Bigfoot researcher and biologist from Oklahoma, analyzed the footage also. He believes that it shows a person.
At least one video may be very conclusive according to Mary Green, to whom Dennis Pfohl showed some clips. “You could see the creature from above her forehead somewhat and then down to about her waist. It was slowly walking through the woods and coming closer,” she described to me. Green rules out that the creature was someone in a suit or a misidentified animal. “In my honest opinion it clearly shows a Sasquatch.”
Chris Noel spoke about another clear clip on the radio. “The woman was able to obtain daylight color high-definition video of this animal. It’s a five and a half foot tall female juvenile Sasquatch. This footage is going to blow the roof off the whole field.” He said that it would be as least as convincing as the Patterson footage, if not a lot more. It’s probably the same video Green told about.

The Best Video Since ’67?

It seems fishy that this footage – as good as it is supposed to be – hasn’t seen the light of day and that its owner hasn’t spoken a word about it. Up to now, film footage was released shortly after it was taken. For example, the Patterson film in 1967: without getting it analyzed, Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin showed their video only days after filming all over the country. But the result was disappointing for them: hardly did scientists took note of it.
According to Mary Green, Janice Carter was told that Erickson won’t publish anything until he has many hours of footage and DNA results and until everything is properly analyzed by scientists. It is uncertain if the project is completed. If not, they surely don’t want to attract other Bigfoot researchers or the media. The Georgia hoax last year demonstrated how newspapers react to claims of sensational Bigfoot evidence: they go crazy.
Another reason to keep it on the low could be that Erickson and Co. were hoaxed and are now trying to gloss it over. So there are reasons to keep the Kentucky Project in the dark. Fact is that information is leaking out. Maybe this is unintentional, but maybe not, as D.B. Donlon points out: “I don’t think they are trying to keep a real tight lid on things. My assumption is that Adrian wants to maximize his profit from his video, so leaks here and there are good things.”
The over 40 years old Patterson film from northern California is still considered the best (video) evidence to date. Several alleged videos were shot though in the meantime. The Freeman footage is the most spectacular. In the last year, several nighttime videos were obtained. The most interesting is the Mike Greene thermal video.
But none of these could convince science of Bigfoot’s existence. Nor will the Kentucky videos. It doesn’t matter how good they are, because films can be manipulated in perfection today. But backed up with testimonies of scientists who have actually seen the creatures on the location, a multi-year study and maybe DNA evidence, the Kentucky project could be a groundbreaking event in Sasquatch research.

Interview with Mary Green

“The Video Clearly Shows a Sasquatch”

Mary Green is a Bigfoot researcher and author of the controversial book “50 Years with Bigfoot.” She says she has seen some of the Kentucky clips. She describes two in detail and doesn’t think that they are hoaxed.
Mary Green, you have seen some of the so called Kentucky clips. Can you tell me about them?
Yes. Dennis Pfohl showed me several videos, some of them taken in color and daylight. I watched them on his laptop screen one by one.
Why did Dennis Pfohl show you these clips?
I believe he did so because he was hoping to win Janice Carter over and have her work for Adrian Erickson. They wished to have another habituation case to help back up the Kentucky project. But I think Janice was never able to furnish any videos or other proofs to Adrian Erickson.
Who had taken these videos from Kentucky?
I just know that S. had taken the close-up videos of the female and was told by Dennis that J. had taken a couple of good videos of the male. I did not get to see any videos of the male. Dennis did say that there was a resident male around at times and that he thought this female was its mate. I did not get to see any video of the baby either.
Can you tell me about the videos Dennis Pfohl presented to you?
One color video showed several minutes of the young female sleeping on the ground. It was a bit dark in the woods but the one who filmed did an excellent job of capturing her while she slept. The female hominid was not curled up tightly, but rather laying mostly on her back. She looked very relaxed.
What was the color of the creature?
It had very thick, soft and silky looking black hair, with maybe a slight reddish hue at times, but that could have been from maybe the sunlight coming through the trees and reflecting a bit of red in the hair.
What else did you notice?
A bit of a zoom-in was next done by the person filming. The hominid was thick around the middle. I don’t know if this was before she had her young one or not. The camera then focused along her arms and hands and fingers. Her hands were very human looking and the thumb looked to be at about the same place as a human’s would be, maybe only slightly lower. I did note that the shoulders and upper arms, and the forearms were extremely muscular. The hair all over the hominid was long and wavy across the chest area and the stomach area and down the shoulders and arms. The forearms hair was maybe a little bit shorter.
Did you see muscle movement?
Her muscles moved as they should in the arms and hands and fingers. I did note that the young female began to move more and more and stir like she was waking up and that whoever had the camera was backing off some.
Did she have large breasts?
I did not see any breasts. They may have actually been shown but not close enough for me to see them. If she had breasts, they were certainly not even close to the size of Patty’s in the Patterson/Gimlin film.
How do you know then that it was a female?
I just took Dennis’ word for it. He told me it was a female, and I believed him.
Can you tell me about the other clip?
This was the best. The hominid, probably the same female, was slowly walking through the woods and coming closer to a couple of trees. She went out of sight behind two of them and then appeared on the other side of them, stopping and standing still as she peered around the woods. You could see her from above her forehead somewhat and then down to about her waist. Clearly, the camera had been zoomed in. Her right side was against the tree and it left her left side free and you could see her shoulder and some of her upper arm too.
This one was of the same color as the first. It had curly, sometimes wavy hair all over her body, on the back of her hands, on the top of her head, and along down to her shoulders and chest. Her hair was from at least 3 inches to possibly 8 inches long, with the longer hair mainly on the head, shoulders and upper body.
How did the face look like?
Her face reminded me of a wookie from Star Wars, with a rather flat face in some respects. Although she was totally black skinned, her face did look a whole lot like an Eskimo’s face. But this is just my own impression. Her head looked to be more rounded and not one of those with a pointed head at all. Her eyes were of a beautiful dark brown, almost black color. There were a lot of the white areas like on our eyes. They were set deep in their sockets. She had very bushy eyebrows. If I remember correctly, she had soft hair all over her face and maybe a very small portion of just hairless skin around her eyes and nose.
How was her nose like?
Her nose was like ours, very much so. It began and ended where our noses do. But it looked more like a black person’s nose, a bit wider on the base where the nostrils are. Her nostrils were big also.
Lips and teeth?
Her lips were lightly rosy in color and plumper on the lower lip. It may have looked plumper because her upper lip came down over the lower lip due to the eye teeth which were grown out on each side of her mouth. The eye teeth were pointed and not flat like ours are. They curved backwards. They looked exactly like small fangs. The inside of her mouth was pink like ours and the rest of her teeth looked very white and more like human’s. Her cheeks were fat and rounded.
How did she move and act?
Very cautious. She displayed a look of wild cunning as she looked slowly around. I did not see her blink at any time, but this video was also fairly short. She was an intelligent being in my own opinion. She did move her lips and opened her mouth a little, and turned her head from side to side very slowly every now and then.
Did you notice any similarities to the Patterson creature?
Both had hair on their heads, faces, and bodies. But Patty had far less hair and looked larger and also more human without the fangs.
Do you think the creature in this video was real?
I believe that it was not a person in a suit or a hoax of any kind.
But is it really a Sasquatch?
In my honest opinion it clearly shows a Sasquatch. There is no doubt in my mind. I know what orangutans are and monkeys, great apes, bears, cougars, and many other type creatures look like. This was an unknown creature to mankind.
Were there any other videos Dennis Pfohl showed you?
Yes, beside the “Pancake Video” he showed me another video. Leila Hadj-Chikh was with S. (Sissy) in this video. They were driving. Then they stopped the car. I was told at this point that the female Sasquatch was calling to the two women from across a strip of field at the wood line. You could barely hear something making some noise. Then the video showed the two women talking to the Sasquatch and trying to entice it closer to them. The two eventually went on to town.
The next morning, as I was told, someone found that S.’s (Sissy’s) car windshield had been struck rather badly. The video showed it. It looked like two or three big fists had broken it in. The hood of the car was bashed in all over.
Do you know why they are holding back the clips?
I was told by Dennis that Adrian did not wish to release the video clips and other biological information until all work was completed. They wanted to take a certain number of hours of good, clear films of the Sasquatches. I was also told that Adrian would most likely first release the clips in Canada. I think Dennis said that Adrian felt more comfortable doing this in his own country. However, this was a few years back so I cannot be certain that this is still their plan.
Were you asked to keep the project secret?
No, I was not asked to sign any documents about what they have shown me or told me. So I am not bound to keep this secret.
Very interesting interview with a Virginia hunter who claims he shot a Bigfoot in Virginia in 2003. I have not listened to the whole thing yet, but he claims that government people came out and took samples of the blood and that later some government folks came out and threatened him, ordering him to shut up about it. The man was interviewed anonymously by Thomas Marcum of Crypto Crew, who is one of our finest Bigfoot bloggers.
From what little I listened to, the man was hunting deer and thought he heard a bear. He then saw what was apparently a female Bigfoot in a tree. It grunted at him and he shot it in the chest. It fell out of the tree and a much larger male Bigfoot came from out of nowhere and picked his mate up “like a rag doll.” He then took off, mate in one arm, over a 20 feet sheer cliff in 4-5 strides as if it were nothing and then disappeared over the ledge. He estimated that the male was 900 pounds and the female may have been 5’5 and 400 pounds. It amazing the the male picked up a 400 pound creature like it was a rag doll.
More on the now-famous Stoneman footage out of Pennsylvania. There are a lot of myths out about this footage, one of them that it is a tree stump or uprooted root-ball, others that the videographer, Stoneman, has admitted it was all a hoax. Neither of these are true. It has apparently not been proven that this is a root-ball. This seems to be a lie started by a local gas fracker who hates Stoneman due to his anti-fracking activism. In fact, an independent investigator went to the exact site where Stoneman took the video and there is no root-ball there. There are before and after shots that show the strange objects appearing in the before but not in the after shots in the same exact location.
Sharon Hill is now reporting that Stoneman himself is admitting that it was all a big hoax. As best I can tell, this is not true. So Hill is wrong again, as she is with most things Bigfooty.
I will see if I can more for you on this. I have seen a number of photos of these possible Bigfoot objects, and in some shots, they look very different than in other shots. If they are root balls, then there is more than one root ball in the area. Furthermore, at least some shots do not look like root balls at all. Instead, it looks like animal hair. I have also seen the before shots showing the objects and the after shots with no objects and no root balls. Have some patience.
Possible Bigfoot photo from New Meadows, Idaho in 1972. This location is 40 miles north of Boise, Idaho. This was at a time when almost no one was hoaxing Bigfoot videos or photos. I have always liked this photo, but it sure is scary.

New Meadows, Idaho, 1972.
New Meadows, Idaho, 1972.

“Alaska Bigfoot” photo. This photo shows up on a lot of Bigfoot sites and in a lot Bigfoot videos. I never knew what it was, but I was always suspicious of it as it looked just too much like a man to me. Now I have learned that it is yet another of Ivan Marx’s infamous hoaxes.
Ivan Marx fake: "Alaska Bigfoot" photo.
Ivan Marx fake: “Alaska Bigfoot” photo.

Honey Island Bigfoot video. This is a still from the famous Harlan Ford Honey Island Swamp Monster video from 1962. This is probably the earliest Bigfoot video of all. I have seen a breakdown of it, and I believe it is a real video. It was found in the man’s closet after he died.
Still from the Honey Island Swamp Monster video, 1962.
Still from the Honey Island Swamp Monster video, 1962.

Please follow and like us:
Tweet 20

46 thoughts on “Bigfoot News October 11, 2013”

  1. It doesn’t make sense to spend money on two documentaries that produce FAILS for two DNA results. If the Yeti results are the only good ones then make one successful documentary – no? Otherwise it’s a very shameful money making con job. I expected more from Sykes.

      1. You two Guys are a Joke. Hahaha, the greatest Discovery in the History of biology and they Talk about wasted Money and Lost credibilty. These two Guys will Never learn, but who cares? I expected more from Sykes LOL!!!
        Sykes will be very disappointed Not to have convinced Nobel Prize Winners Warren and Nominay!!! LOL!!!!!

        1. We’ve been down this road before, where evidence of Bigfoot is a constant mirage, but keep denigrating others to make your point.

      2. jacki we dont have enough good people in the bigfoot community for you to leave. besides our bigfoot can beatup your yeti. Come over the pond to ourside. the government will reopen soon and you can go squashing.

  2. Munn’s side by side comparisons of different masks and Matilda should be done one on one. Seems like cherry picking to get the desired match results for each angle. Did he also make comment on the sleeping video? Munn’s explained in great detail in the 2013 BF Conference presentation on video that elements of standardized costume making are obvious to the trained eye. Would he be as confident with the fur being a suit as he is with the mask? Can’t have one without the other.
    Curious to see both Syke’s and the EP’s results. Release of both parties info will surely create some interesting discussion. From your report Robert it seems that although there is reluctance to share in study between groups, the DNA testing will be the common denominator that won’t allow a disconnect.

    1. “I am now beginning to feel that Hank doesnt exist afterall. If Sykes’ study does not contain any mention of a body lying in the USA and being studied, then as far as I am concerned, there is no body.” ~ (Jacki Boyce)
      Well, I thought you had already (more or less) concluded this, Jacki. 😉 I truly hope you now realize that there will be no REAL body produced by POS and that everything associated with that man is BOGUS.
      You left TT because you felt it was a shady operation, so, now it’s time for you put any and all speculation aside of everything this man is claiming.
      I guess this just proves we all have different criteria and thresholds that need to be addressed in order for us to see things a certain way…..

    2. Unfortunately Jacki, like different levels of Government, egos will always make collaborative work the last resort. We have even seen this type of attitude in police investigative work between states or between Federal and State forces on high profile cases. In an age where team work is widely accepted as a fundamental part of project success, I agree it is odd these groups don’t collaborate even though they are working individual as teams. Like I said, the DNA will eventually bring them together.
      Hank is a singer, not a BF. RDs story and his reputation as a hoaxer make for a curious platform to collect $ from those who are not good at managing their assets. How anything RD says and particularly does can bring any level of confidence or understanding to his claims is a very far reach. I highly doubt Sykes even considered RDs involvement in the study at all. And if RD had to spend any $ on shipping a sample, I would say it wouldn’t have happened at all even if it was considered.

  3. Robert I am amazed that you continue to prpmote the fallacy that Nuclear DNA and Mitochonfdrial DNA can be treated as coming from completely separate individuals.
    Please allow me to explain this very basic fact once again. HALF of the nuclear DNA comes from the father. HALF of the nuclear DNA comes from the mother. That is the basis for and the mechanism of sexual reproduction. That is why we can speak of such things as “Haplotypes” as representing on strain or the other in a descent group. ALL of the mtDNA comes from the mother because she produces the egg cell (ovum)(ordinarily, sometimes a very little mt DNA evidently comes along with the sperm) BUT HALF OF THE NUCLEAR DNA COMES FROM THE MOTHER, THE SAME INDIVIDUAL THAT PRODUCES THE Mt DNA!!
    From the beginning of the Ketchum study I have been pointing out this basic and fundamental flaw in her thinking. She evidently assumes that only males participare in sex on the male side of the line up to the point when they mate with human females to produce the Bigfoot hybrids. Evidently Ketchum can coneive of such a thing because she is a lesbian, because otherwise it would dawn on her that even if there was hybridization going on, HALF the nuclear DNA should still be human, the same type of modern human as the mt DNA, only being the corresponding normal Nuclear DNA instead.
    From the Wikipedia
    ” In organisms that reproduce sexually, once a sperm fertilizes an egg cell, the result is a cell called the zygote, which possesses half the DNA of each of its two parents” Those parents being a male and a female. The male organism still possesses half of its DNA from its mother and only half of its DNA comes from the male progenitor line.
    Snap out of it, man, you sound like somebody that has been under deep hypnosis. You cannot have such a thing as all-male-parent nuclear DNA. The idea is ridiculous, and it is the easiest reason to say that Melba Ketchum hasn’t a clue about what she is saying and is ignorant of the most basic facts in genetic science. There is ample reason for the scientific community to reject her analysis and her paper. She is speaking nonsense.
    And once again I hold that the majority of creatures called Bigfoot worldwide are substantially the same as humans genetically and are basically only hairy humans. Yes I base that I part on inside information from pre-Ketchum, pre-Sykes DNA comparisons. But of course once you cross that threshold there is no turning back. A species can only be one thing and not half one thing and half another. If something has human DNA then it is human, period. And humans are not an unknown species.
    I shall be very interested to know what results Sykes has on the Yeti, especially since the term is generic and can refer to any one of four or five different things in Tibet. The name means basically “Monster of the wilderness” and can be used to mean a bear, a monkey, an unknown ape, a wildman or just “Something” undefinable. Similarly the term “Bigfoot” is generic and can refer to whatever the witness is calling a “Bigfoot” in the USA.
    Hope to see you continue covering the issues the way you do, it affords me a considerable amount of free space that I find useful to work with.

    1. Ketchum did say that much of the nuclear DNA was in fact human, so this would prove your theory correct.
      Anyway, the MtDNA being human only means that a Homo Sapiens female got into the line somewhere along the way, is how Richard Stubstad described it to me.
      If most if not all subsequent matings were between Bigfoots (relict/human crosses themselves) then the nuclear would not be 50% human. In fact I believe it would be 25% human.
      Bigfoot + Bigfoot doesn’t have to end up with a whole lot of NuDNA matching human. See what I am saying.
      The relict-human crosses were simply what birthed the species. Since then they have been breeding among themselves with not much breeding with humans.
      So Bigfoot mother + Bigfoot father does not have to have a whole lot of human DNA in it as both are 100% Bigfoot and there is no human in the picture.

      1. Hey Robert,
        Had a chance to drive on Mann Rd. in Crittenden KY today. I drove the length of the road.Pretty “Squatchy” area, but there are a lot more homes than I expected. Saw two deer and some wild turkeys so there is a food source and a creek runs along the road in several places. Pretty cool to be in a place that is on the Bigfoot researchers’ radar right now!

    2. Dale,
      I agree with most of your comments and regarding what species a group belongs to.
      “A species can only be one thing and not half one thing and half another. If something has human DNA then it is human, period” ~ (Dale Drinnon)
      What Melba’s research findings indicated was indeed that the mtDNA was human female and the nuclear DNA was ‘male’, ‘unknown’ and if to be believed a male sasquatch.
      You also said:
      She evidently assumes that only males participare in sex on the male side of the line up to the point when they mate with human females to produce the Bigfoot hybrids”
      This is of course speculation on your part, but speculation that I would think seems a bit illogical. If a primitive but ‘human’ hominid would ever ‘consent’ to sex or even be forced into sex with an opposite sex sasquatch type creature, it would be a human female with a male sasquatch. I don’t think a female sasquatch would be forcing sex onto a human male and even if this happened, there would be no sure way to insure that the male implanted or impregnated this female creature. Males have to be turned on to have sex and ejaculate. Sorry, and if I’m not understanding your argument fully…..
      What we do know today is that species in the same family tree can mate and produce young. Donkeys with horses, tigers with lions, house cat with lynx. So, what you are saying is basically true that only creatures or animals in the same family can reproduce. What Melba’s research concluded was that half the DNA was human and half the DNA was “unknown”. This is where I understand completely what you’re saying.
      All I can say or counter you with is, the sasquatch is a HUGE enigma and we just don’t know for sure all the nuances or details about how such a creature could come into existence. Scientific experiments have been done in the past by many in order to create a new species from two separate ones. The nazis were working on this 70 years ago and so were the Americans. Plum Island comes to mind here but it is still speculation and conspiracy theories. However, I do believe that genetic advancement is a lot further along than what we’ve been told or know.
      I also have other ideas and theories that might explain a human/sasquatch hybrid, but you and many others are likely not interested or would ever consider such theories.
      Just contemplate this statement; nothing is impossible, only CURRENTLY unknown or misunderstood. 😉

  4. Robert, you must be insane to believe this Wookie Matilda bull shit, you act like an academic, but yet your actions in banning anyone who disagrees with you proves your a narrow minded child without a broad expanse of wisdom between your ears at all. please…. try too refrain from falling in to the idiot catagory by at least waiting for all the full evidence, its fine to sit on the fence..but too play the ‘reaper’ and pretend you have all the inside info all the time, really shows your in ability to reason with any sound mind.

    1. Dr Law, if you don’t mind me asking, how did you come to a conclusion about the EP when it appears you didn’t even follow your own advice to Robert?

  5. Sorry readers, I am now TRIPLE posting my comments. I didn’t even realize that a new article had been posted by Robert while I was composing my comments on the October 8th blog…
    I am personally very disappointed with the Erickson project results and subsequent press conference. Their video evidence is basically laughable and it’s no wonder why everyone (bigfoot community or otherwise), is giving these results a big thumbs down!
    Many have pointed out the numerous ‘red flags’ and all are worth noting. From the extreme likeness to the chewbacca mask, the artificial looking shaggy/dull hair and to the blurry, grainy images of the creature moving on film. I just cant say I’m the slightest bit convinced. If this is what they spent all that time and money on in order to prove the existence of sasquatch to the world, then they should have shelved this evidence and waited for better evidence….
    I don’t generally see blatant likenesses when someone shows a mask and tries to attach that mask to a specific hoax, but in this case, I definitely do. It really seems to be one of the several chewbacca masks out there available and that has been altered a bit in an attempt to deceive. It failed miserably though and nearly everyone in the bigfoot community agrees that it’s one of those ‘chewie’ masks.
    Regarding the Sykes DNA study, I am somewhat anxious to hear about this, although I don’t hold out much hope either. We’ve been down this road before and trying to prove a species is real, without a dead specimen for reference, is almost impossible. A REAL (dead or alive) specimen for a sequencing model is paramount when trying to use DNA to prove that species exists.
    With saying this, I do believe Dr. Melba Ketchum’s study wasn’t as flawed or inconclusive as many think. I believe she and her research team did excellent work using the samples they received and more or less proved that there is an unknown hominid with half human DNA.
    The problem is and has always been; this won’t be enough for mainstream society to believe what the DNA evidence appears to be showing. There is too many variables and the science itself is still imperfect.. DNA research is constantly improving but, unfortunately and at this time, it’s still not far enough along to solidify the case for sasquatch being a real creature.
    All of us are frustrated with the studies, the poor video evidence, the lack of physical proof AND the hoaxers. Myself, I’ve been an avid enthusiast for over 25 years and I keep waiting for this mystery to be solved once and for all. I 100% believe the creature exists, but like many of you, I want validation, confirmation and for this question to finally be answered by the scientific community. We aren’t crazy for believing and neither are the 1000′s of credible witnesses who’ve reported about seeing these things!
    We have to remember to keep an open mind about this subject, but not so much that it blinds us to obvious fakes, hoaxers and hoaxes. To quote the infamous POS; USE COMMON SENSE PEOPLE! LOL. Common sense is a wonderful thing actually and not everyone has it. Sadly, even many of the brightest minds don’t have basic, common sense.
    Furthermore on the Dyer (POS) front, he’s been really quiet these last couple of days. No shows, no videos posted…nothing.
    Just a tidbit though for anyone who didn’t know, he did have a radio show on Wednesday past. It was uploaded and appeared on his channel for about 20 minutes, then it was deleted. The majority of the show was basically the same old drivel with Cali, Boswell and Phillips promoting the DVDS and pay-per-view LV viewing. However, near the end of the 1 hour show, Dallas began elaborating about his personal experiences with bigfoots he’d seen and their various physical characteristics. He mentioned seeing one bigfoot with long, vicious looking canine fangs, and another one that had ONE, very unusual but beautiful blue eye.
    Fangs, blue eyes…these are characteristics that very few have ever reported about this creature. Now, I don’t necessarily put too much stock into what Dallas says, but in the same breath, I think he has much more experience & credibility than say, POS DYER!
    I don’t know why the show was abruptly interrupted but, while Dallas was reporting on his various encounters and what the creatures looked like, POS jumped in and said to his listening team; “sorry to cut the show off but I’m holding a mandatory TT meeting now on a private link and anyone who doesn’t attend is OFF THE TEAM!”
    Since then, there has been absolutely NO activity on POS’s Y/T channel.
    And just as a reminder for one and all…these videos says so much with so few words…..and NO, they aren’t mine, my creations or channel.

    1. Maybe this is the creature with one blue eye that Dallas Gilbert saw once upon a time. 😉 Maybe he WAS the 6 million dollar man back in the 1970’s…..hehehe.
      Just kidding and having some fun.
      Seriously though, this program, along with the REAL sasquatch footage of “Patty” in 1967 were both reasons that I became fascinated by the subject and creature. Fiction was based on many facts back in those days.
      Take note though of the obvious poor costume used in this 1977 TV series, a full decade after the Patterson/Gimlin footage. Here we have a costume used by a production company likely with significant financial resources. Compared to an amateur film by P & G 10 years earlier…which looks more ‘real’ ?
      The PG footage is the gold standard and contrary to popular belief, it’s never been debunked.

        1. Yes Lucas and this was done at the exact same time period as the bigfoot on the 6 million dollar man/bionic woman series.
          This was probably the same costume used in ‘WIldboy’ and the bionic shows. The fur is shaggy, long and the costume itself isn’t form fitting whatsoever. It’s a stark contrast to ‘Patty’ and her short hair/fur, musculature easily visible under the hair and the vastly differently proportioned creature compared to the humans in the costumes on this show, the SMDM and BW

    2. Al, it’s funny to me that you ask people to have an open mind and take a common sense approach to find validation from the scientific community on this subject. Yet you dismiss the EP based on the video evidence. The video evidence is not scientific right? But unless you can settle on the fact that the video may be real you can’t accept the findings of Ketchum’s report which supposedly used samples from the same critter.
      The term “common sense” is not applicable to bigfootery. Very little of what is public information on the subject can be perceived, understood and judged without debate. I do agree some of the brightest minds don’t have common sense as some people have an ability that is much higher than the average person. It’s not sad, it just takes deeper understanding.

      1. Woodchucker,
        I know and agree. There seems to be no logical explanation for the EP/Ketchum collusion on the findings. I don’t know enough about either to form a good opinion.
        From what I do know about Melba, she was an unbiased and untainted person to undertake this DNA study. She allegedly had no interest or affiliation with the bigfoot community prior to starting her research.
        I agree again that we as the public get very little in the way of true and factual information about anything or anyone in the field, especially those who are less accessible by the masses. Few few in the field make themselves available or open to all questions and concerns. POS is the ONLY person who ‘whores’ himself out to the world, wants it, relishes it and THRIVES on that type of attention.

    1. I can, yep. The emails from last December and direct from Bryan, so the ‘is’, is out of date, I should have said ‘was’ but here’s the email. My email to Bryan is below. I’ve removed my personal details.
      Yes, when appropriate.
      Bryan Sykes MA PhD DSc
      Professor of Human Genetics
      Wolfson College, Oxford,OX2 6UD
      From: *************
      Sent: 07 December 2012 09:38
      To: Bryan Sykes
      Subject: RE: Oxford-Lausanne Collateral Hominid Project
      Professor Sykes,
      Apologies for bothering you again. We have one final question we’re hoping you can answer, then I promise we’ll leave you alone. Are you looking at nuclear DNA as well as mitochondrial DNA?
      Many thanks in advance,

  6. Wow, Robert…great report, even more to it after I went to bed!
    Jacki raises a great point I hadn’t even considered in all the confusion of the past year: that this Sykes project is a major undertaking, and wouldn’t be completed without some kind of evidence included from a great big dead Bigfoot body lying on a slab in Las Vegas. The closer we get to the Sykes report’s release, the more obvious it is that there’s no “oh, by the way…” moment.
    The thing I can’t get past with the Matilda face footage is how people say she has a “human” nose that’s just very dark. But that nose is clearly canine…small and separate from its face, not part of it like ours. What am I missing there?

  7. “Very interesting interview with a Virginia hunter who claims he shot a Bigfoot in Virginia in 2003. I have not listened to the whole thing yet, but he claims that government people came out and took samples of the blood and that later some government folks came out and threatened him, ordering him to shut up about it.” ~ (Robert Lindsay)
    Yes, I watched the full interview and video the other day and also commented about certain indiscrepancies with this man’s testimony and the one from POS.
    I truly believe that the US secret government knows about and has been clandestinely researching sasquatch for decades, many, MANY others believe this as well. There was a wildlife manual published decades ago basically admitting that such a creature exists in the forests of Oregon.
    We have two very similar claims but can we validate who’s telling the truth or not…nope. Both seem credible, very sincere but both tell two completely different stories about how the government officials handled the situations. POS said that a female government agent arrived and basically said: “congratulations, well done” and then left without asking anymore questions or calling anyone else in the government. Then we have this guy from Virginia, claiming almost the same story, sans the filming crew. He tells his story to one government official, warned that he might get a second visit by another government agency, this happens and then subsequently threatened to keep this information to himself. Which seems more likely to you or anyone? Does anyone truly believe that that US government wouldn’t have an interest in this creature and wouldn’t have been researching it from the very beginning?
    So, who’s lying, POS or the hunter from Virginia? The man from Virginia seems much more sincere & believable to me than Dyer. I’m not suggesting this is fact but, it can’t be both ways. Either the government is extremely interested in, curious about and/or has been keeping tabs on this creature for decades or they aren’t.and don’t.

    1. The Army Corp. had Sasquatch/Bigfoot acknowledged back quite a few years…check out Washington Environmental Atlas images here.
      PS: I think Dyer is wrong stating that there are only ‘5’ maybe ’10’ bigfoot left, all other sightings are the results of TV shows like ‘Finding Bigfoot’
      PS: Yep …he actually stated that(Oct 8 show)

  8. Al, said:
    “I also have other ideas and theories that might explain a human/sasquatch hybrid, but you and many others are likely not interested or would ever consider such theories.”
    “Just contemplate this statement; nothing is impossible, only CURRENTLY unknown or misunderstood. ”
    I, for one, would be very interested to hear your theory. I agree that thinking “outside” the box is what’s needed here. I believe you might have some insight that could be beneficial. I would hope we would all keep an open mind. In fact, it’s all theory with regards to BF anyway?

    1. Hi Rob,
      I’m reluctant to elaborate on my other theories and again as you mentioned, they are ONLY theories. Nearly everything we ‘know’ about this creature is conjecture and theory. However, I do believe we all need to keep an open mind where this creature is concerned. Don’t misunderstand me though, I don’t think this involves being open to obvious hoaxes through evidence that just seems utterly ridiculous or shows a good likelihood of being fake.

  9. It’s hard, I feel, to draw any conclusions about Professor Sykes’ findings. Clearly the low number of ‘interesting’ results is likely to be disappointing but we don’t know for sure. I think that, even if the American samples don’t produce anything definitive, it may be that Professor Sykes curiosity, which after all lead him to pursue the Yeti mystery in the first place, and assuming that has shown positive results, might lead him to work with some of the serious researchers in America in the future. After all, the American documentary is due to air last (if that information is correct) which leaves the option for Sykes to leave his findings open to further investigation.

  10. The denial of Bigfoot? If that is the case, based on the samples he accumulated and tested if some of the more sophisticated field research group findings are included in those samples, it would indeed be a very big blow. But I am comfortable to wait and see what Sykes reports. To date what we have heard from Sykes and Ketchum so far is there is DNA which isn’t identifiable. If BF / Yeti isn’t the culprit I expect to hear of a new critter discovery! That or a very logical reason for the DNA not pointing to a known critter.

  11. The “other” sleeping video seems to be featured in the “colors” video link on the Erickson Project website at 0:15 seconds.

  12. Pretty much commendable sir. People would generally lose their interest on any subject over a period of time but I see you still write about Bigfoot passionately right from the beginning without showing any signs of decline. Your articles are top-notch and must come out as a book sir……

  13. IF -and that’s a BIG IF- this arrogant Ba($)tard has in fact hunted down and killed a genuine Bigfoot, I for one have more disdain for this Redneck Idiot for killing an unknown species, possibly a ‘missing link’ of our own human race that has managed to elude the public eye for centuries, and bragging about it as if he’s some sort of valiant hero who should be praised by the world for killing ‘the big bad monster.’ He should be the one hunted down and publicly convicted for mercilessly slaughtering an endangered species.

  14. You’ve got to be kidding me right? The guy is a used car salesman, has already fooled people several times, and you believe him? How many times is he going to fool you before you wise up?
    There is no Bigfoot body, he probably shot some poor homeless guy and stuck fur to his body.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Enjoy this blog? Please spread the word :)