Sasquatch Coffee


Breaking News: Navajo Bigfoot Captured in Photos by Paramedics!

Posted by: Craig Woolheater on March 11th, 2013

Tweeted to Matt Moneymaker and Bobo from Animal Planet’s Finding Bigfoot by Joseph Gomez, @TeamGomezBoxing

Im a professional boxer, looking for all the fights I can get.love fighting for the fans! I have a little girl and she’s the world to me.
Aztec, New MexicoJoseph Gomez

navajobfcrop

What do the Cryptomundians think?

Moneymaker thinks it’s a squatch…

About Craig Woolheater
Co-founder of Cryptomundo in 2005. I have appeared in or contributed to the following TV programs, documentaries and films: OLN's Mysterious Encounters: "Caddo Critter", Southern Fried Bigfoot, Travel Channel's Weird Travels: "Bigfoot", History Channel's MonsterQuest: "Swamp Stalker", The Wild Man of the Navidad Destination America's Monsters and Mysteries in America: Texas Terror - Lake Worth Monster.


62 Responses to “Breaking News: Navajo Bigfoot Captured in Photos by Paramedics!”

  1. Matthew Pfeifer via Facebook responds:

    guy in a suit

  2. Sebastian Wang via Facebook responds:

    Something tells me the pictures don’t look right somehow, particularly the first picture.

  3. Alan Clark Huffines via Facebook responds:

    Good link, thanks.

    Like most if these it’s just impossible to determine.

  4. Andrew Navarro via Facebook responds:

    Ah…I see…yeah no

  5. angle responds:

    I’m glad they had a blow-up of the supposed bigfoot because I couldn’t see it in the original.

  6. sasquatch responds:

    Looks pretty big. Guess we need BoBo to go stand there and photograph from same angl camera etc…But since the legs are obscured we can’t tell how far away from the ledge the subject is.
    Looks more real than most pics tho’.-color, etc…

  7. John Kirk responds:

    Looks like a tree to me. If it’s a sasquatch, there are no details to indicate that it is.

  8. Big Frank responds:

    Clearly, that’s a blob.

  9. Averagefoot responds:

    Calling this a blobsquatch would be giving this photo too much credit. We need a term for photos and footage that are even worse than blobsquatches.

  10. shownuff responds:

    this feels not rite..

  11. SIRUPAPERS responds:

    While the second photo gives an excellent outline and general shape of the upper torso the top photo gives the figure the best sense of size and it is clearly a massive figure. Though clearly not conclusive, one is hard-pressed to explain away a figure of such proportions.

  12. Adrian Laine via Facebook responds:

    Nice cardboard cut out.

  13. DWA responds:

    I’ve seen things “squatchier” than this that, when a researcher stood in that spot later, it was evident were pretty big, and not simply site features, light tricks, etc.

    Until then…well, it’s whatever it is.

  14. RedLandsBigfoot responds:

    Good lookin fake.

  15. PoeticsOfBigfoot responds:

    After all the hype, that’s it? Ridiculous.

  16. dconstrukt responds:

    you’re telling me this is bigfoot?

    its a still image of some dark blob in the background… it could be ANYTHING, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

    I WANT to believe, but this is garbage…

    sorry, this does NOT even remotely qualify.

    NEXT.

  17. bobhelferstay responds:

    I don’t see a tree or Bigfoot. I see a black, human shaped object. Needs to be thrown out. There is no way to tell what it is.

  18. edsbigfoot responds:

    Interesting, I know this area a bit, the folks out there aren’t “likely” to fake this kind of thing, but….who knows. Photos will never do. Only a body will do, either by accidental death on a road, a forest fire etc, or one sedated by a tranquilizer or something. If Sasquatch looks part human and part animal/primate whatever, it may always possibly look like a person in a suit, even if there are good trees etc. to measure size against…especially from a distance. Interesting pic though, especially considering the circumstances with the paramedics etc, and the fellows tweets seem OK, he seems sincere. Are there any stories of the government/military from here or anywhere else ever capturing or killing a Sasquatch? Not that I’d like that, just curious though….

  19. Iceman responds:

    Moneymaker thinks everything is a squatch…

  20. DWA responds:

    bobhelferstay:

    “I don’t see a tree or Bigfoot. I see a black, human shaped object. Needs to be thrown out. There is no way to tell what it is.”

    Not necessarily. There is one way to tell what it is: go there, follow up evidence, and find out.

    Random pics like this tossed in front of us will not be likely to be followed up. That is not to say they can’t be. It is strictly up to folks’ time and inclination. If Jeff Meldrum were to go there, I’d be interested in what he had to say. If he doesn’t, well, that is understandable too.

    What people taking photographs like this need to understand is that photos will almost certainly not be enough to interest a serious researcher. I mean, not photos like these. Other evidence needs to be gathered to interest serious people with limited time. Any tracks? Hair? Damage to trees/vegetation? Other signs of the passage of something big? Other sightings nearby? Evidence of the aforementioned kind associated with those?

    The biggest – and apparently almost universal – misconception in cryptozoology is that each piece of evidence is either proof or crap.

    Nope.

    Each piece of evidence is either followed up to a conclusion, or isn’t. When anything isn’t…well it may not be crap, but the best you can do with it is toss it on the pile of stuff that needs explaining. Where this goes on that pile doesn’t matter.

    If, that is, they only got this.

    But it simply isn’t scientific protocol to call something trash because one can’t explain it. Can it be followed up? That’s the only question that matters.

  21. PhotoExpert responds:

    Well, there are those that will think anything is a Bigfoot, no matter how weak the evidence is at hand.

    In this case, the evidence is extremely weak–just a bunch of undifferentiated dark pixels. It could be anything. I agree with the posters who have already said this evidence is extremely weak and below the level of a blobsquatch. And one poster suggested a new term for such evidence. I have it.

    It is “nothing”!

    Or another name could be EBAS. It’s Everything But A Squatch.

    Sorry for being cynical. But after great claims and analyzing shady to weak evidence for so long, it is difficult to get excited when a supposedly new photograph appears, only to find out it is a bunch of dark pixels even less quality than the last blobsquatch.

    But then again, there are those that will determine this photo depicts a living breathing undiscovered hominid from a handful of dark pixels. Simply amazing!

  22. mijbil9 responds:

    Chewbacca !!

  23. semillama responds:

    Could just be a guy in a parka. Gets cold out there too. At the least, there needs to be a comparative photo with a person in the approximate location.

  24. Blobber responds:

    Obviously a giant lemur in a parka, with his hands in his pouches looking for a human female to mate with.

  25. squatchman responds:

    It kind of looks like a costume, but we need a size comparison. If it’s huge, I will be sure that it’s a sasquatch.

  26. KPG1986 responds:

    Maybe it’s not Bigfoot at all…what if it’s a Skinwalker that’s taken the shape of the Sasquatch? Of course, the Skinwalker would have to have Bigfoot’s hide to do so…where is he going to get one of those? Just a thought.

  27. painted8 responds:

    Wait, Moneymaker thinks it’s a squatch?!? SHOCKING!

  28. alan borky responds:

    Craig are we witnessing the establishment of a new advertising style technique for putting out Sasquatch etc evidence?

    Don’t allow bloggers like yourself the best material so you can hit people straight between the eyes with it but rather use bloggers like you to seep out the poorest weakest stuff so when the best stuff’s finally released it conveys the illusion it’s better than it actually is.

  29. Goodfoot responds:

    edsbigfoot: Does the Jicarilla Apache Reservation extend that far west?

  30. Ninepipes responds:

    I’m somewhat of an expert after watching a couple of seasons of Finding Bigfoot. The real test is: (1) Are there coyotes in the vicinity? (2) Is there an animal bone anywhere to be found, laying on the ground? (3) Does it “feel Squatchy” in that area?

  31. edsbigfoot responds:

    It looks like its moving, because in one pic its to the left of the brown “bush”, and in the other pic its to the right of it…I think:)…so it doesn’t look like a tree to me, especially when I saved the pics and blew them up. It looks like a figure to me, but that doesn’t make it a sasquatch….then again, these two cell phone snaps were supposedly taken by paramedics responding to a call and saw it walking on the mesa…they probably weren’t “habituators” out to prove the existence of Bigfoot:) Saving it to my desktop and blowing it up helped me think it may be a figure walking, especially if you notice where the bushes etc are in relation to each pic, and the stone patterns on the mesa also let you see some of the movement…but, as always with any of this stuff….who knows:)

  32. skimmer responds:

    So after the first picture was taken the camera person moves over to the right, far enough to bring the bush that is to the object’s left in the first image over to the right of the object. It is interesting that this gives the impression that the object has moved or is moving behind the ridge when in fact it is the camera person that has changed the perspective to where it appears the object has moved relative to the bush.
    The bush on the left of the object in first image is below the ridge on the viewers side and has two leaf covered branches on the right side–they form a bite in the profile. The branches match the branches seen on the bush in the second image, only the bush is now on the left of the object.
    I conclude that after the camera person took the first shot they moved to the right and took a closer shot but from a very different angle. The pine tree in the second image could be out of frame in the first image. To me the object looks like it has not moved between shots and it is probably inanimate.

  33. Dr Kaco responds:

    Gotta give Moneymaker credit on this one. At LEAST he stated it could be a ‘fake squatch’. I think poor Moneymaker is tired of all the phonies and critics. But come on, then stop responding to every Blobsquatch on the the planet bro! ;p …. just sayin…

  34. skimmer responds:

    Sorry about the goof up–To many rights and lefts. I changed the text a bit, though it may not make it any less confusing but i hope you get the idea

    So after the first picture was taken the camera person moves over to the right, far enough to bring the bush that is to the object’s right in the first image over to the left of the object. It is interesting that this gives the impression that the object has moved or is moving behind the ridge when in fact it is the camera person that has changed the perspective to where it appears the object has moved relative to the bush.
    The bush on the left of the object in first image is below the ridge on the viewers side and has two leaf covered branches on the right side–they form a bite in the profile. The branches match the branches seen on the bush in the second image, only the bush is now on the left of the object.
    I conclude that after the camera person took the first shot they moved to the right and took a closer shot but from a very different angle. The pine tree in the second image could be out of frame in the first image. To me the object looks like it has not moved between shots and it is probably inanimate.

  35. sasquatch responds:

    Compared to most “blobsquatches” this is much clearer…first of all; it is not in a bunch of foliage that requires chalk outlining to show you what the presenter says they see. It is clear what is being claimed COULD be a Sasquatch. To say that this is below the level of blobsquatches is ridiculous.
    Sometimes I wonder about the logic of posters here.
    Now I’m not saying IT IS Bigfoot, but please; a little objectivity and seriousness of critique is really called for.

  36. DWA responds:

    Sasquatch: exactly.

    What we see here (what we always see on these) is people trying to make playground points and “look skeptical.” Which is not really a skeptical attitude at all.

    One cannot tell what this is; no you can’t, and don’t tell me you can. I’ve read a number of eyewitness reports that this might be a make on. Tall head; no neck; as deep through as wide; etc.

    Like sasquatch says: don’t telegraph inexpertise and naivete with quick-draw dismissal. It marks you a novice and earns chuckles from the serious. That could be a sasquatch.

    I might not buy a plane ticket to go find out. I’d need more than this to do that. But one is not exhibiting a milligram of serious chops tossing off a see-I’m-skeptical! guess.

    I don’t know what that is.

    Neither do you.

    “To me the object looks like it has not moved between shots and it is probably inanimate.”

    Except that sasquatch remaining immobile as if to avoid detection is frequently reported.

    If we see a pic of a researcher standing there and no big black thing, and we see as I bet we would that’s a *big* black thing, what now, huh? You know, this doesn’t strike me as a place where people have much time for nonsense. How come the country is full of hoaxers …yet not a one of us knows one?

    So far, to assume has made an a-double-snakes out of bigfoot research.

    Some suspension of disbelief might be helpful.

  37. dconstrukt responds:

    no, you can’t tell what it is, but based on the EVIDENCE, I can as a person with a brain can tell that is not anything for me to take note of.

    could it be? sure.

    but the odds are it isn’t.

    the evidence is very poor at best.

    TO ME, it doesn’t show me **beyond a reasonable doubt** that it is a bigfoot.

    so what? is every single far off photo of some dark mass now considered a bigfoot?

    If thats the case, I’m a photoshop whiz, i could hoax these photos left and right.

    once again, we’re talking about bigfoot folks, not a bear or lion… for this, extraordinary claims (this SURELY would qualify) require extraordinary proof. (this does NOT qualify).

    I’m waiting for real, solid proof… really… i am. :)

  38. DWA responds:

    dconstrukt:

    If there is one thing I have learned watching this field it is:

    Assume nothing and question everything.

    I’ve seen – more than once – pics no clearer than this that – if one does what one should, and allows the evidence to speak – seem more likely a sasquatch than anything else.

    Unfortunately, other than the accounts (of which we have almost nothing in this case but the photos), the pics are all we have, and no, unclear pics and no other followup won’t get us closer to proof.

  39. Goodfoot responds:

    DWA: These pics are atypical of blobsquatches in only one respect I can see: they do NOT appear to show or portray motion in any way. Not even a brief pause in motion.

    No sir, that there whatzit stands there like Stonewall Jackson standing like a stone wall. It may be stuck into the ground like a cake decoration, far as I can tell.

    After seeing the first pic, I said, “ghillie suit”. When I looked at the second, I changed my mind. I don’t know what it is, but it doesn’t convey any propensity to locomote, pard. I don’t even think it’s a person. It might be a cutout, might be a bush or shrub.

    But it seems telling there’s no testimony by the EMT as to what he actually could SEE. The human eye can detect much more detail – shape, texture, subtle shadings, the whole shebang. All we have on that is silence, emptiness.

    Okay… I just went back and looked again. I now doubt the vegetation theory entirely. It’s just too dry there, and what foliage we can see has that “no appreciable moisture recently” look about it.

    In fact, I am beginning to doubt this pic was taken at this time of year AT ALL. I lived in Taos County nearly six years, and recently (2011) too. This is two counties to the west. There should, seems to me, be some trace of snow in the shadows, either as outright snow, or a damp-looking spot. There’s not a ton to go on, it’s true, but it just doesn’t seem right to me.

    And I don’t give two drips what Matt Moneymaker says about ANYTHING.

  40. lancemoody responds:

    This right up there with the rest of the “evidence”.

  41. DWA responds:

    So what I’d say to the “paramedics” is:

    If you are really interested in finding out what that is, send somebody up to that spot to look for any other evidence, and snap a photo from the locations of these two photos for size comparison. The person should be holding a large object of known height, say, like the one this guy’s using.

    And try not to Photoshop anything.

  42. DWA responds:

    dconstrukt:

    And I should respond to this:

    “TO ME, it doesn’t show me **beyond a reasonable doubt** that it is a bigfoot.”

    Well, neither does the Patterson-Gimlin film.

    Once again: 99.99999999999999999999% of the evidence in the history of science wasn’t proof; but it pointed the way to proof of something. (Examples: what we know about gravitation on earth has propelled our knowledge into the far universe. What we know about the sun and our solar system’s planets has helped ID a plethora of other bodies.) This doesn’t show me that it’s even likely this is a bigfoot, let alone beyond a reasonable doubt. But it could be. And if someone did what I suggest in my previous post, and they found something, that could change folks’ opinion on this pretty fast.

    Proof is never constructed of one piece of evidence.

  43. Goodfoot responds:

    lancemoody: If you are suggesting no Bigfoot evidence rises above the level of those two pictures (and I’m pretty sure that’s what you’re saying), you either haven’t studied the subject in depth, or you’re a fool.

  44. DWA responds:

    lancemoody:

    I might not be so, er, emphatic about it as Goodfoot. But that statement does not speak well for your acquaintance with the evidence. As Darren Naish – a straight zoologist whose sheer command I’d put up with any I’ve read – puts it:

    ——————————–

    I think that even expressing an interest in issues like this is a bad idea. That’s ridiculously unfair of course, stemming only from ill-informed knee-jerk negativity to this subject, and given that scientific inquiry of any phenomenon is a worthwhile pursuit, I like to think that more zoologists should actually get informed about mystery animals. …I note that hardly any hard-line sceptics of things such as sasquatch display familiarity with the literature on the subject.

    ———————————-

    Meldrum agrees; as do Krantz and Bindernagel and Swindler. A non-inclusive although short list; and I’m taking them over you.

  45. Goodfoot responds:

    DWA: the only thing I’d take over you is a lifetime supply of Lion Stout (it’s from Sri Lanka!)

  46. lancemoody responds:

    @Goodfoot, DWA

    Yes, yes, anyone who doubts that Bigfoot is real is a fool.

    Keep trying to convince yourselves that the evidence is conclusive or overwhelming. Keep ignoring that the entire idea of a huge creature that lives over the ENTIRE continent (and hilariously most everywhere else in the world) but has never provided a specimen is not a silly idea on the face of it.

    At what point does Bigfeet belief stop being reasonable and start becoming ridiculous for you? How many years of abject nothing? How many decades of tired, inconclusive, dubious nonsense (like this very entry)? Is it ever reasonable to look at the sacred Bigfoot Jesus and ask the believers to put up or shut up?

  47. DWA responds:

    lancemoody:

    er, ah, read my post again.

    Them over you.

    When the search BEGINS in earnest, let me know. Until then, I’ll have another Lion Stout.

    Hey, a scoftic with a persecution complex: bad combo, man.

  48. dconstrukt responds:

    DWA…. cmon man.

    patterson shows something moving… who the hell knows if its a person or not?

    it does show MORE than this photo and way more compelling.

    This photo can EASILY be duplicated…. EASILY.

    either in 1 photo or by combining 2.

    so that to me, is debunked.

    footprints up there?

    those can be done by a person as well.

    proof IS and can be in 1 photo: if i have a photo of a dude shooting another guy… thats not proof he did it?

    if i have a photo of one car running a red light hitting another, thats not proof he did it?

    but of course all these bigfoot photos are blurry using cameras from 1970s. (or thats what it seems), so ya, those blurry ones are never proof.

  49. DWA responds:

    dconstrukt:

    Um, c’mon what?

    What that you say differs from what I think?

    Except of course for this.

    Nothing is debunked because of something you assume. One can only debunk something by showing it is THIS, and not THAT. One must PROVE that. Or else we have an unresolved question, period.

    There is a persistent fail in bigfoot skepticism, this idea that current knowledge has some sort of special privilege and is automatically assumed to be true against any challenge. Current knowledge is what we know today. It can be overturned, today. It has no privilege in the discussion; the challenges to it must be refuted with evidence.

    When it comes to topics like this, scientists choose to forget that little fact. Somebody told them when they were little that “ghosts aren’t real;” and so they think that this sort of “reasoning” holds against anything they are uncomfortable with.

    It doesn’t.

    When the discussion gets off the scientific rails, I am here to shove it back on. Assuming things: off the rails. Hip-shoot “debunking”: off the rails.

    If one knows what that is, one can offer one’s evidence.

    If not…what that is, is unresolved.

  50. DWA responds:

    Maybe this will help.

    If something makes one uncomfortable, it’s really easy to sweep it under the rug if circumstances let one do it.

    Now.

    Say you are a scientist…and your boss is saying to you: tell me what that is. We need to know what that is. And it’s implicit that if you can’t….well, he can find someone else who can.

    Much tougher question now, isn’t it?

    That’s the scientific standard.

    What is it?

    Really?

    What is your evidence?

  51. lancemoody responds:

    DWA,

    Yes, current knowledge DOES have a privilege over unproven paradigm-changing ideas. This does not mean that current ideas are always correct. They aren’t. But scientific ideas supported by evidence conforming to the hypothesis ARE preferable to unsupported paranormal guesswork devised mostly by amateurs.

    And make no mistake, the Bigfoot hypothesis IS a paranormal belief. It wasn’t always so but as time has gone on and the hypothesis has expanded (even while the evidence has remained stagnant, wretchedly worthless and wholly unconvincing), it has become an hypothesis that only exists by special pleading against all known scientific data.

    The Bigfoot hypothesis suggests that the Bigfeet occupy the entire North American Continent (as well as almost everywhere else in the world)! The breeding population for such a creature would have to vast. That there is no specimen makes the idea ridiculous on the face of it and well-deserving of all derision cast by skeptics and scientists.

    Indeed it is this expansion of Bigfoot’s domain that underlines and supports what skeptics argue: that this is a sociological/psychological phenomenon (along with a healthy amount of fraud). Bigfoot is seen everywhere because he isn’t real.

    I realize that Bigfoot proponents desperately want their beliefs to be validated by science. But the fact that evidence never gets any better and never converges (as would be expected by a real phenomena) even while the claims get more and more grandiose insures that this will never happen.

    Best,

  52. DWA responds:

    Lancemoody; nope.

    Not paranormal at all. The evidence is extensive, Scientists with directly relevant training see this. That the scientific mainstream simply does not is a fact plainer than plain to anyone who takes the time required to, well…to have any reason to be here.

    And why is that for you again…?

  53. dconstrukt responds:

    DWA. i tend to agree with almost all you say… (plus you seem to know a heck of a lot more ‘inside’ stuff than me). i’m just a dude who’s been fascinated with this since I was a kid.

    but me? i’m not after stories… which is what people’s accounts are… (albeit some really interesting stories)

    i’m after hard, real tangible proof.

    ALmost everything I’ve seen can be either hoaxed or debunked.

    Most of which to me, is garbage.

    you bring up the ghost stuff… but here’s where those “ghost hunters” succeed… where this community seems to fail miserably….

    their entire goal is to DEBUNK any possible evidence… then… and only then they are left with REAL, credible evidence.

    bigfooters on the other hand (and sorry for making an overall generalization – just my take from what I’ve seen), they take everything and assume its bigfoot… INSTEAD of doing this same process of debunking FIRST before revealing any evedence as “this is bigfoot”

    no credibility in my book… and the “evidence” would get an F – in grade school…

  54. DWA responds:

    dconstrukt:

    Here’s where acquaintance with evidence comes in handy.

    99.9% of this field, roughly, is sideshow crapola. Too many bigfooters see a squatch (I hate that word) behind every bush. But the ones I pay attention to don’t, because they’re skeptics. Proper skeptics, not “bigfoot skeptics,” who aren’t skeptical. Relentless naysaying isn’t skeptical. That’s cynicism, and cynicism tends not to be intelligent. It’s interesting that many bigfoot skeptics used to be believers. They didn’t understand evidence and the workings of the scientific method then, and unsurprisingly they don’t now.

    Reviewing each piece of evidence with a critical eye? That is skeptical; and that’s what Jeff Meldrum and the TBRC (apparently just renamed, but hey) do. And calling crap on a story just because it isn’t proof isn’t skeptical. The fact is that no one calling BS on this has a thing to back that up. And the fact also is that if no one follows up there and finds evidence, then all this is is one more story that doesn’t matter.

    Bigfoot skeptics are the ones who should be debunking and aren’t. They are calling BS on legitimate evidence – which most any evidence is that has not been debunked. Debunked means proven to be something other than authentic. Note that word proven. The only skeptical approach to this topic that dignifies the term is an approach that exposes fakes with evidence. Generic naysaying – like we see here – wastes bandwidth and hinders the march of science. It is patently not true that the skeptics are being asked to “prove a negative.” They must prove false positives, which involves legwork and deductive reasoning and not generic crap-slinging. For 45 years now they have been yelling about Patty. Not one piece of evidence have they produced that Patty is anything but what Patterson and Gimlin say she was. That’s only one example. The they-are-seeing-bears tack is one of the silliest things I have ever heard, no honest, and is completely contradicted by the evidence they fail to read. I could go on. And on.

    Wanna stop hand-wringing over stories like this? Follow texasbigfoot.com; and read Meldrum and Bindernagel. Toss in Alley’s Raincoast Sasquatch and the BFRO database. (That is legit, “Finding Nothing” notwithstanding.) No bigfoot skeptic ever bothers to confront these people on the science.

    Which tells you something, right there.

  55. dconstrukt responds:

    thanks for the heads up…. interesting thoughts…. thats what i’m talking about. i like the stuff you say.

    so i went to the tx bigfoot site… looking @ the evidence page… and read this on #8.

    Two images, in the possession of the NAWAC, of a wood ape photographed in Oklahoma bear a remarkable resemblance to the Patterson/Gimlin subject, lending further credence to the film (and to the photos).

    so why, if you have these photos, why wouldn’t you show them on your site?

    what are you hiding?

    I dont get it.

  56. DWA responds:

    The photos are on the site.

    Gotta click links and move around.

    Keep in mind: only the analysis that followed the photos means anything. These are not blobsquatches. Followup is critical.

    And this is what I mean about hip-shot ‘analysis’. Because it ain’t analysis.

  57. DWA responds:

    I probably should add that those photos weren’t on the site for a long time. Brian Brown of the TBRC (now NAWAC) said, over on the Bigfoot Forums, that one reason they didn’t was that they didn’t want to deal with the bandwidth-hogging from hip-shot artists who do all their “analysis” inside their heads.

  58. DWA responds:

    Here’s another report with two of the kind of photos we’re talking about.

    Again: combine the report and the post-analysis with the bad cell photos and you can see pretty clearly that this isn’t red-circle-around-a-shadow blobsquatch material.

    (You can also see why anyone who tells you that millions walking around with camera phones would have to equal proof of sasquatch by now is talking out the wrong orifice of his ape suit.)

    You don’t know what those photos are. Saying you do only highlights that you don’t.

  59. Goodfoot responds:

    DWA: Are you saying analysis occurs someplace other than the head?

    Yer pal,
    Puzzled

  60. Goodfoot responds:

    DWA: regarding the link to the photos you posted, all I can get out of it is the “photographer” can even get a clear picture of a TREE. SERIOUSLY, does he have palsy or something? I can’t see anything in Photo 1, and I agree with you that no decision or claim can be made about any of those. Except the the picture-taker can’t hold a cell-phone still.

  61. DWA responds:

    Goodfoot:

    “DWA: Are you saying analysis occurs someplace other than the head?”

    Well, sometimes – even in bigfootery – it happens in the field.

    EXAMPLES:

    IN THE FIELD:

    Let’s put a guy there. He’ll be holding a pole of known height so as to provide a solid yardstick. At least we’ll say how tall/heavy he is. If that object isn’t there at that time, then it must have arrived at the scene, then left. Unless somebody put something there, then removed it. OK. Any other evidence? Tracks; hair; scats; kills; other reports; LARGE dark bigfoot statue in front of somebody’s trailer; anything…? etc.

    IN THE HEAD:

    Not a bigfoot. Trust me, I just know.

    OR:

    That’s clearly a bigfoot. We are Facebook Find Bigfoot. Confirms on: squatchiness; likes Indians; tree-peeking (without tree); gas station with beef jerky nearby

    And as to that other link I provided, there seems an object – bigger than the human by about the margin sasquatch reports would lead us to expect – that was on the scene at the time of the sighting but not when the followup got there. It seems to have traveled the same route as explained in the very detailed report of the sighting. Maybe that’s a head with sagittal crest in the “clearest” photo. Now: what other evidence is there…?

    Anything is better with followup. Even bad photos.

  62. Goodfoot responds:

    DWA: All right then. It’s just that I never heard of a field analyzing ANYTHING.



Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|


Cryptomundo Merch On Sale Now!

mmcm

Connect with Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest

Advertisers

DFW Nites


Monstro Bizarro Everything Bigfoot The Artwork of Sybilla Irwin



Advertisement




|Top | FarBar|



Attention: This is the end of the usable page!
The images below are preloaded standbys only.
This is helpful to those with slower Internet connections.