Roman Coins, Spooky Places, Bigfoot

October Surprise: Frightening Photographs From Sasquatch Ontario

Some very compelling shit in here (along with some genuine shit on the Bigfoot Evidence blog).  I really appreciate what Sasquatch Ontario’s doing, and hope they’re able to keep it up for the YEARS it is likely going to take to collect definitive proof (whatever that might be).  These things take time.

Only one thing makes that sound.


Confusion over sounds recorded outside Umatilla?

There’s no confusion with that sound. Only one thing makes that noise and if you’ve heard it in real life, it invokes a feeling that’s entirely indescribable.

This definitely has that “woman being murdered” quality people have described hearing.


Our recent interview with Monster Hunter Adam Davies. Adam has had many amazing adventures. Please click the photo or link to read the complete interview and see some photos and a video.


Our recent interview with Monster Hunter Adam Davies. Adam has had many amazing adventures. Please click the photo or link to read the complete interview and see some photos and a video.


Is this a sasquatch, or an optical illusion?

This has been around since 2008, and while there are numerous claims that it has been debunked, I’m not so sure.  I opened the image up in Photoshop and did my usual tooling around to see if I could bring out more details, in particular around the “hand,” which would be the easiest place to establish whether or not it’s a part of the stump or separate.  Unfortunately, this version of the image is simply to low-res to establish anything one way or the other.  So, for me, it remains a curious anomaly…and a spooky image to haunt my dreams.


I was very skeptical of this video when it first came out, but the deep analysis is compelling.  Also, my original thought was that the movement of the head conflicted with the movement we’ve seen previously in the Patterson Gimlin Film, but now after watching this in HD and on a larger screen, I’m not so sure.  Really interesting stuff.


New statements from the Facebook group Facebook Find Bigfoot regarding the footage of a supposed sasquatch outside of a camper’s tent.

Looking at the looped footage, what strikes me is the movement of the creature’s head.  It seems to have a great deal of flexibility in its neck, which allows it to turn its had and look back over its shoulder.

I might be mistaken, but didn’t Bill Munns do a study of the Patterson-Gimlin film in which he determined the animal had a morphology similar to a gorilla as opposed to a human’s?  That being that, in order to look back, the animal would have to turn with its shoulders, because like a gorilla and unlike a human, the neck is much shorter and less flexible.  I think he might have talked about this on an episode of Monster Quest, back in the day, but I’m not sure.

If this is the case, the movement of the subject of the camper’s film would suggest a human in a suit.  But I might be misinterpreting the movement/contrast/color saturation.

I’ve always found the New York “baby” footage fascinating…if the film does, in fact, depict an adult and a juvenile sasquatch (we’ll never know for sure), then it captures one of those rare moments that wildlife researchers struggle to document even with known species.  In other words:  it’s much harder to film animals in the wild, especially interacting with their young, than most people believe.  I’m really looking forward to what the Finding Bigfoot team has to say about it on the new episode tonight.

Interesting and definitely worth a look, if only for the Darwin Award qualifying activities…I guess this is what kids in Oklahoma do for fun? 

I saw this on Cryptomundo and while it’s a cool video, it annoys me a little how they say it’s a “confirmed” bigfoot in the footage.  (I’m looking at you, Matt Moneymaker.)  With footage like that, you can’t “confirm” anything…at best you can be “fairly certain” that it is a “probable sasquatch.”  Don’t get me wrong…it’s very compelling footage.  But let’s get our language right.

It’s kind of the same thing that annoys me about the various sasquatch DNA projects going on out there.  You simply can’t use DNA to establish the existence of a new species based on one anomalous sample…all it is, is an unidentified sample.  You need to collect many samples, and prove a correlation between them, and many times even THAT won’t be enough to establish the existence of previously undiscovered species. 

So yeah, we do need to be collecting and analyzing those potential DNA samples, and building a sort of “possible-squatch DNA library”, but let’s not jump the gun.