“Stargate” Portals and Bigfoot

Posted by: Craig Woolheater on May 1st, 2015

Matthew “Dr. J” Johnson recounts a Bigfoot encounter he had with fellow researchers Adam Davies and John Carlson. Johnson told this story April 25, 2015 at the first ever Bigfoot Habituation Research Conference in Bremerton, Washington.

Read much, much more about this here: The Earth is No Longer Flat: The SOHA Portal (June 2014)

The following image is being used by Dr. Matt Johnson as a depiction of what he is calling the “red sky portal beings”.

Illustrator Hal D. Crawford drew this image for the 1970 book “The Aliens” by Crawford, Hayden Hewes and Kietha Hewes. It depicts a creature associated with 1950s UFO landings. Source

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, Animal Planet's Finding Bigfoot: Return to Boggy Creek and Beast of the Bayou.

9 Responses to ““Stargate” Portals and Bigfoot”

  1. PoeticsOfBigfoot responds:

    Two words- Awe…Some!

  2. SirWilhelm responds:

    Now that they know where a portal is located, and how to trigger it, why don’t they go there and take videos and pics of it? They should take credible, unimpeachable witnesses with them, and a skeptic and/or debunker, too.

  3. PhotoExpert responds:

    I always found Dr. Johnson to be a very credible witness.

    However, I find this story hard to believe, even though it is coming from someone who I have found to be sincere in the past.

    Perhaps there was a fourth person with Dr. Johnson, Adam Davies and John Carlson on that trip, namely Jack Daniels.

    Seeing a BF and then describing the encounter is one thing. However, going to sleep and having a dream and then attributing to BF mindspeak is another. Maybe there is such a thing as BF mindspeak. I don’t know. But being objective, one would first have to prove there is such a thing as BF. And BF’s existence is yet unproven.

    Perhaps Dr. Johnson was simply having a dream. I mean, he was out there at a BF habituation sight, correct? And he admits he was asleep, correct? Well, as a psychologist, Dr. Johnson of all people should know how the mind can play tricks on you and that dreams can appear to be so real. Therefore, I have to discount this testimony.

    Now on to the portal thing. I find this fascinating. If visible light shuts it down, then how much visible light does it take to do that? Or is it a durational thing? Does it take a constant flow of visible light to shut it down? If so, perhaps a camera flash going off would not shut it down due to it’s short duration. But if it was an intensity thing, then a flash could shut it down where dimmer lights of any duration may not shut it down.

    And my next question would be does IR light shut it down? Does UV light shut it down? If this portal exists, then Dr. Johnson and his colleagues need to try a few tests using various types of light of various durations.

    My thoughts are, that if one can not prove the existence of BF, that this phenom is even bigger than BF and maybe concentrate on that. Imagine a researcher searching for an undiscovered fish that is thought to exist and coming across a plesiosaur! I think that would be even more newsworthy.

    Yet all we have is an eyewitness account not backed up by any footage or photos. I find the explanation of visible light shutting it down interesting, but a skeptic would find it a convenient excuse.

    And on Dr. J’s dream interpretation, I have to discount that as BF mindspeak. If Dr. J is as objective as I think he is, he would even have to agree with that.

    Other than that, I say a fourth person was there with them, Jack Daniels.

  4. SirWilhelm responds:

    PhotoExpert. You make good points, and ask good questions, which makes it all the more puzzling that you stoop to personal attacks on the witnesses. It’s hard enough to deal with skeptics and debunkers, without making everything personal. And to infer JD was involved?!? That’s not only personal, that’s hitting below the belt!

  5. PhotoExpert responds:

    SirWilhelm–What personal attack? I said nice things about Dr. Johnson such as “I always found Dr. Johnson to be a very credible witness.” And, “coming from someone who I have found to be sincere in the past.”

    So how is any of those nicely worded things a personal attack? Either I don’t get it or you don’t get it. I think it is the latter rather than the former!

    Oh, I see, you are referring to the JD implication. That was joke my friend! I can tell you have not read many of my posts here because you fail to see the humor of my post.

    So let me break it down for you, I was implying that I find Dr. Johnson very credible and believable. The implication was that he was either dreaming or alcohol must have been involved for Dr. Johnson to say something so incredulous as BF mindspeaking to him. Afterall, he is a man of science. And as a man of science, he should be dealing with facts and not dream interpretations. My point was that dream interpretations are just as unscientific for a credible scientist to be using as evidence, as is the eyewitness testimony from someone who has been drinking JD. In other words, an objective person would have to throw both of those babies out with the bathwater.

    Perhaps you do not get my humor or perhaps it was too indirect that you took the JD implication seriously, However, it was not meant that way.

    It was meant to say that I typically believe Dr. Johnson and what he says. But dream interpretations being used as evidence for BF mindspeak is unscientific, beneath Dr. Johnson, and as a psychologist and scientific person, he should know better than that. So my point was, this is so untypical of Dr. Johnson, that perhaps JD was involved.

    Get it now? When you have to explain a joke, it loses some of it’s momentum towards humor. Ugh!

    I’ll try to be more direct next time for those that don’t get my humor. Hopefully my explanation will satisfy you.

    Let me try one more joke: You say I may have hit below the belt by my inference that Dr. Johnson and the others may have had a few belts to come up with such poor unscientific evidence.

    So the puzzle should be solved for you now. I was attempting to add some humor to express my disappointment in Dr. Johnson’s dream interpretation. That’s all!

    But thanks for saying that I ask good questions and make good points. Now that portal thing, that was interesting. And I do not think JD was involved there. Clear enough?

  6. SirWilhelm responds:

    Yes, I did not get your humor, my apologies.

  7. PhotoExpert responds:

    SirWilhelm–Apology accepted, although not necessary. Not a problem, my friend! I appreciate you posting back to me.

    Sometimes when you are typing and not speaking directly to a person, you lose something in the written word. You can’t put inflections and tone into the typed word. And sometimes it falls short. I think that is what may have happened here.

    See you around Cryptomundo!

  8. SirWilhelm responds:

    Thank you, and yes, see you around.

  9. cryptokellie responds:

    One of your best posts but I believe the JD inference to be short sighted. It was his friend Johnny Walker.

Sorry. Comments have been closed.

|Top | Content|

Connect with Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest


Creatureplica Fouke Monster Sybilla Irwin


|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.