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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Inside of mouth black? Check
- Nose similar to Homo sapiens but a bit wider and black? Check
- 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.
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.
“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.
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.