International Cryptozoology ConferenceWholeBeastBanner

Sasquatch Face Print Exclusive!

Posted by: Loren Coleman on June 16th, 2011

The folks at Sanger Paranormal are not paying attention. They put out a news release, we discussed it here earlier, and now this morning AOL News has broken the story in the mass media. But despite Sanger’s desire to keep the imagery secret until their news conference of the 23rd, in a move that is strangely similar to the leaks of the “Georgia Bigfoot” under ice hoax of 2008, Sanger has leaked the face print of the Sasquatch early. It was found on their site, and then quickly removed. But here’s what they posted, which was saved by a Cryptomundo reader, Rick Sheen and forwarded to Cryptomundo:

The image made into a thumbnail photo actually shows the open-mouthed creature’s head, turned to the left from the viewer’s point of view, a bit better:

Meanwhile, thanks to my tip, Lee Spiegel at AOL News interviewed and investigated this unfolding series of events further, and has just released the following article: “Bigfoot Investigators Hope DNA Test Will Confirm Existence Of Two Man-Beasts.” Read the entire AOL account at the link noted, but here’s the section involving how I feel about this developing story:

“One of the cautions I have about finding a nose print or anything on the side of a car is that it could be a homeless person, resulting in people letting their imaginations go wild,” suggested Loren Coleman, owner of the International Cryptozoology Museum in Portland, Maine.

“Of course, if you take a DNA sample and it comes back near-human or primate, then it would match both Bigfoot and a homeless person,” Coleman told AOL.

But what about the addition of the large footprint near the truck where the window impressions were made?

“A 12-inch footprint is not too exciting, because it could be a human or bears imprinting on top of each other,” Coleman speculated.

“In this case, it might not have been a homeless person, but in wilderness areas, there are other hikers and somebody would’ve naturally put their nose up to the window to look inside the car.”

Gonzalez is holding a news conference on June 23 at the Piccadilly Inn in Fresno, Calif.

“I’ll be presenting video of both windows, pictures and live testimony from the people who shared the event with me. We will also have a forensic expert who took DNA samples,” he said.

Coleman, a long-time investigator of Bigfoot and other legendary creatures that come under the category of cryptozoology, is cautious about the outcome of this kind of news.

“You know, I’d be a fool if I didn’t say that I’m hoping there’s definitive evidence of Bigfoot found. I hope somebody will turn over any evidence to some scientists who could then hold a news conference at a university.

“Then people won’t doubt what’s going on.”

[Interview note: I gave answers about the “homeless person” in discussing imprints in general, without reference to knowing the exact circumstances of the location, to the reporter. Then I was told more unpublished details about the site, and noted the hikers scenario. There are wilderness vagrants, but I am not silly enough to have said there were homeless people up in the wilderness areas near Fresno.]

Furthermore, Sanger Paranormal has released a footprint photo to AOL News, with the notes that it was found near the truck, and measured 12 inches long. Frankly, I think the lower imprint looks like a boot print, and I wonder if the one in the middle of the photo is also a human print. These prints are being associated with the face print, but there is no evidence of a direct connection, at all.

AOL News caption: “This footprint was found over Memorial Day weekend, 2011, near Fresno, Calif. by a group of campers who were on a Bigfoot-hunting expedition. The print, measuring approximately 12 inches, was found near a truck where possible DNA evidence was left behind by more than one Bigfoot creature.”

Loren Coleman About Loren Coleman
Loren Coleman is one of the world’s leading cryptozoologists, some say “the” leading living cryptozoologist. Certainly, he is acknowledged as the current living American researcher and writer who has most popularized cryptozoology in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Starting his fieldwork and investigations in 1960, after traveling and trekking extensively in pursuit of cryptozoological mysteries, Coleman began writing to share his experiences in 1969. An honorary member of Ivan T. Sanderson’s Society for the Investigation of the Unexplained in the 1970s, Coleman has been bestowed with similar honorary memberships of the North Idaho College Cryptozoology Club in 1983, and in subsequent years, that of the British Columbia Scientific Cryptozoology Club, CryptoSafari International, and other international organizations. He was also a Life Member and Benefactor of the International Society of Cryptozoology (now-defunct). Loren Coleman’s daily blog, as a member of the Cryptomundo Team, served as an ongoing avenue of communication for the ever-growing body of cryptozoo news from 2005 through 2013. He returned as an infrequent contributor beginning Halloween week of 2015. Coleman is the founder in 2003, and current director of the International Cryptozoology Museum in Portland, Maine.

57 Responses to “Sasquatch Face Print Exclusive!”

  1. Sharon Lee responds:

    This image bothers me as there is TOO much detail! It’s almost like the Shroud of Turin where allegedly the fabric was wrapped around Jesus thereby molding every detail.

    This seems almost too artistic as if someone has actually designed this image.

    For a person or thing to have pressed it’s entire upper body and face against a window, with the obvious pressure needed to create this image seems a bit of overkill just to peer inside.

    This screams to me HOAX!

    But hey, they are having their 15 minutes of fame.

    Has anyone heard from Dyer or Whitten lately?

  2. semillama responds:

    I have to say, that seems like a pretty small bigfoot – you can’t even see the top or bottom of the truck window in the shot. I’m with Loren on this one – smells fishy.

  3. bobzilla responds:

    I’d have to see the video for it to be even remotely convincing. Right now, the still looks like a Photoshop sketch using the dodge and burn tools.

    And, the footprint looks like a boot print overlaying (or being overlayed by) some other print.

  4. mungofoot responds:

    something about this pic just screams fake and after taking a few good looks at it I am wondering if that isn’t a shirt or some type of fabric draped over the left shoulder of the man/bigfoot, a towel maybe? also I think the only 2 ways you would get this kind of detail from a bigfoot pressing against the glass is if it was actually a person perpetrating a hoax and getting too perfect an image or if the bigfoot fell against the car and then I would expect more smudging. there is just no reason for the creature to need to press that hard against the glass trying to see inside

  5. Loren Coleman responds:

    Hey, bobzilla, from the release and comments from the people holding the news conference, the “video” being mentioned is of the people talking about their experiences finding these face and foot prints. There is no video of a Bigfoot.

  6. rickodemilo responds:

    Seems like whoever made this print forgot that bigfoot is hairy.

  7. bobzilla responds:

    Hi, Loren…

    I actually, I meant video of them possibly talking while filming the smudged window. Boring, yes, but it’s easier to fake a still than to fake video. So, I figured the video might show more, as in the video of the hand print on the glass from the Finding Bigfoot episode.

  8. Redrose999 responds:

    Looks too much like one of the masks from Planet of the Apes to me. Sure they didn’t grease a ape mask and mush it into the window?

  9. DWA responds:

    Wow, eyeprints!

    I agree with Sharon Lee on this one. That doesn’t look like a faceprint on a window; that looks like a face looking in at me through a window.

    You can always pick out the fakes; they show clearly that they aren’t acquainted with evidence, and don’t know how stuff like this happens. Suit guys look like people, wearing suits. A faceprint of me on a window will not look like my face!

  10. Peter Von Berg responds:

    Looks like a Halloween mask to me.

  11. dharkheart responds:

    What do you get when you spread an oily substance all over a halloween mask and then press it agains glass? Methinks I smell a definite odor of fish.

  12. mrdark responds:

    Is it me, or does anyone else see at least two CLEAR bear prints in that footprint photo? Bear shaped print with claw marks pointing at about 9-10 o’clock, bear shaped print with claw marks pointing a 1 o’clock, then somewhere in the mashed-up mix, a kind of bare human print with toes pointing at 5 o’clock.

    I also have to say I see -nothing- in the face print photo. I can’t make out any definable features. Looks like wispy smoke unless you focus in and see it’s on glass.

  13. Kahil Nettleton responds:

    Ummm….yeah…. Who’s going to take this seriously? There needs to be evidence that someone with a little imagination can’t easily fake.

  14. Nominay responds:

    Looks too 3 dimensional and perfect to be legit. I’d never heard of Sanger’s site before, hopefully for him he’ll get more attention now.

  15. Cernovog responds:

    It’s difficult to make any sort of judgment looking at a photo. You really can’t say either way without looking at the real thing. If you can look at the actual print, obviously that can’t be photoshopped as some have suggested. If someone “greased up a monkey mask” as has been suggested, that procedure wouldn’t leave epithelial cells.

    You can’t make any of these kinds of observations sitting at home looking at a picture on your computer. Until a trustworthy investigator actually sees the thing and takes the steps to authenticate it, we can’t say if this is real or faked.

    Again, I have seen zoo gorillas press their hands and faces up against the glass of their enclosure and leave remarkably detailed prints. The claim of a sasquatch engaging in this sort of behavior isn’t far fetched.

  16. mandors responds:

    How did the bigfoot get inside the vehicle? Look at the angle of the car frame. The person is standing outside of the car. It’s either a reflection, or the subject is inside the car. Also, it’s an iPhone, the photo should be in color. iPhones don’t shoot b/w unless you have a program.

  17. airforce47 responds:


    I see pretty much what everybody else does. The footprint photo looks hokey and an overlay. No definite clear evidence of a BF. The faceprint is a possible but lacks clear definition. As for calling it clear and compelling evidence come on Jeffrey this group of readers knows what is good evidence and what is not.

    While interesting the evidence presented doesn’t constitute a confirmed BF encounter. I think it’s back to the forest for these folks and better luck next time. My best,

  18. whiteriverfisherman responds:

    I agree with DWA and Sharon Lee on this one. To me it looks nothing like a smudge print. It looks like an image projected onto the glass. Has anyone made a face print on glass when you were a kid? There is no way to achieve that much definition by making a face print. The glass is a flat, hard surface. A face is not flat. In order to get nose, mouth, eyes and the other detailed impressions at one time the person or creature would have to crush their facial bones to do it. Or use a mask and fake it. More opossum DNA will probably be found in the forensics testing. We’ll see.

  19. Kyle responds:

    Hello all. This is my first post, but I’ve been lurking for quite some time. While we’ve all heard the old saying “no press is bad press”, does that necessarily apply to Bigfoot? 2008 left a definite “black eye” on the Bigfoot community in general. It seems to me that far too often, the press chooses to run with the most sensational flavor of the minute, while completely ignoring the more mundane aspects of pure research. I’m no expert in the field by any means, but the first time I saw the P/G footage, I was hooked. I was 5 then, and I’m 39 now. This may make complete sense, as I don’t venture out into the wilderness much, but I wonder about this statement.

    “They concluded their hairy intruder wasn’t a bear because none of the four ice chests that were filled with food on the back of Gonzalez’s truck had been touched.”

    Why leave the ice chests that were “filled with food” behind?

  20. riverguy responds:

    I’m not looking at the photo with any particular opinion, because by its very nature it’s too subjective.

    Instead, I may look further into the background of each of these people ‘claiming’ this subjective photo as evidence. Their history will define their character, and that’s about as close to a personal ‘gut check’ if their photo may be possibly legit.

    I look at P/G Film and then look at Bob Gimlin as a person, looking into his long background and history, and my ‘gut check’ is that this is genuine footage.

    I look at the Greene Thermal Video and then look at Mike Greene’s long background and history (among other things a career forensic Fraud Investigator for the government) and my ‘gut check’ is that this too is authentic.

    It’s the same way as I look at the character of Jeff Meldrum, Cliff Barackman and others in this field of study.

    Gentlemen like Gimlin and Greene have everything to lose, and nothing to gain by their experience and evidence. For example, if Greene were proven a hoaxer, then every case he’s ever worked on throughout his forensic Fraud Investigation career completely unravels. I’m in an industry where we license exclusive footage for various reasons and I can report that no one is getting rich licensing their exclusive footage – especially if it’s unverifiable footage. Sometimes, there’s no pay at all, just the ability to “get your name out” by putting your name behind the “Source:” tag.

    The way these gentlemen are promoting their photo “World Wide Breaking News” and other claims indicate there’s someone with amateur marketing techniques behind this claim. Hmmm.

    The “World” nor the “World News” does not care or recognize these gentlemen’s claims. World news agencies want the same thing we want; close-up HD extended length video taken by recognized experts, but preferably “a body”

  21. dermal_ridges_are_proof responds:

    Cernovog:- The voice of reason.

    I’m 100% with you on your take on this unfolding story. Your observations passed down the line are insightful to say the least.

    I just can’t believe people here are so quick to dismiss what they see, with silly supposition and even mocking conclusions based on extremely limited information supplied so far. It’s their right to cry ‘hoax’ now if they wish. …But it’s early days indeed!

    The original photos may be higher definition than currently what we see before us on our computer screens. And I understand their’s more of them to come.

    So far I’m open minded. Please consider how many ‘jigsaw puzzle pieces’ of evidence are needed ‘for assembly’, prior to anyone making an accurate assessment as to the authenticity of Jefferey Gonzales story.

    I’ve always thought that one day genuine evidence would surface, and that it may well come from an unexpected quarter!

  22. MelissaHovey responds:

    Did anyone see the “deli tray” laid out as bait?? Cripes, If I had stumbled on that vehicle, that faceprint would have been mine….

    Oh, and that “footprint” looks like a hiking boot. While I am not a professional tracker, I really do not think anyone needs to be to call this “footprint” what it is.

    I am going to be hiding under my bed until this one blows over, covering my eyes and wishing people would stop and think just a little before the next press conference on the “best evidence of bigfoot since the Patterson/Gimlin film.”

  23. Greg102 responds:

    that has got to be one of the dumbest pieces of “evidence” i have ever seen. These clowns are actually going to hold a press conference? I hope no one shows up. So how does one get that type of detail from just placing your head against a window? how does it show all these random facial details, depth, etc..? That would be impossible from just sticking your head against a window. These guys are fools if they think they have “evidence” of bigfoot, and if any media shows up, they would lose any type of journalistic credibility.This is so ridiculous i can’t even believe i’m taking the time to comment on this…

  24. Hapa responds:

    One of those footprints looks like a boot print with round smudges at its front, to make it look like a Bigfoot print. The other facing right looks a little more authentic, but as a whole I think the tracks are at the very, ultra least show a man had stepped on a supposed sasquatch track, or far, far more likely a hoax, and not a very good one.

    The face print is more than that: it is a neck, head, and even a partial chest print. I have the feeling this is another sham job. They better prove otherwise, but i’d say the chances of that would be quite dismal.

  25. Hapa responds:


    Yes I did see some similarities with bear prints in the track print. If it wasn’t for the boot imprint and the toe prints around the print’s front, i might have thought bear before hoax. Maybe a person stepped on some bear prints, either unintentionally, or to make a hoax. Maybe someone did step on a bigfoot print too, but the murkiness of the evidence is leading me down to the Georgia Gorilla huckster road

  26. DWA responds:

    cernovog: It’s not just the image. It is certain bits of protocol that folks like this commit/omit, that tend to shoot their case in the foot.

    (Although I want somebody, somewhere, anywhere to show me a faceprint like that that is authentic.)

    1. Sanger *Paranormal.* This ain’t a paranormal topic, folks. Sorry; this connection scares scientists off…

    2. …which presents a weetad of a problem when the talk turns to DNA analysis. First of all: there is no type specimen to which the DNA can be compared. There have been numerous “primate/inconclusive” DNA test results, which have brought us no closer to proof. Going this long without proof….

    3. …indicates that a lack of mainstream scientific support is the major obstacle here. That’ll be hard to get when paranormal guys start over-trumpeting the value of DNA evidence.

    4. This approach has been done too many times. Nothing ever comes out of it.

    Although that “faceprint” looks dicey in the extreme, it’s not my problem. It is that, once again, somebody who doesn’t understand how stuff like this works is blatting way too soon. Every time we see this…pfffffffffttttt.

    Better to keep evidence cards under the vest until the proof is in. My evidence? Over a half-century, and counting….

  27. sausage1 responds:

    What exactly am I looking at here? I may be dumb, bald old get (needs citation) but this just looks like a splodge to me.

  28. manticora responds:

    Damn!! I can see nothing in that!!!

  29. SirKen63 responds:

    I would say you need to listen to this guy story on June 1 to get more details and it does answer a lot of question brought up here.

    Fist off, let me say I do not know one way or the other and will have to see more of what he has and the DNA result before I say he is a hoaxer. He sounds like he did have a encounter and he trusts what he is saying.

    As for the footprint, he even says it could be anything, they thought at first it could be a bear print. As for all the food lay out it either a picture of them showing you all the food that was in cooler in the back of the truck and if it was a bear that food and everything else in the back of the truck would have been all over the place. Or it could have been a pic of the food that he placed for the Bigfoot as a thank you. He said he filled a cooler with fruit, banana leaves and other things and brought back up there and spread it out.

    Also he is saying there was more than one of these creatures out there. They say they know from the motion sensors going off the night between in 2 stop on opposite side of there camp at the same time And that one of his buddies have been going there for years and knows they are there and knows there is more than one.

    I am not saying it’s real. All I am saying is let’s wait for them to show everyone the evidence they have and then we will know. You can fake evidence, but it never holds up. And like this evidence, we will be able to rip it apart when he shows it. Or sit back and go, “Thank god someone finally got something good.”

    Time will tell.

  30. dermal_ridges_are_proof responds:

    Sharon Lee:- You may have hit a certain nail on the head! (but in truth difficult to tell at this time)

    I’m only speculating here; but I wonder if just like the image on the ‘Turin shroud’ the original ‘positive’ tonal values have been completely reversed during the processing of the face print image, and turned into a ‘negative’ image just like the image on the linen cloth of the shroud. This reversal of tones for the sake of presentation has much greater dramatic impact, as can plainly be seen.

    PS: I’m given to understand that this face print (junior bigfoot) is the smaller of the two. They found a much bigger face print on the window on the driver’s side of the pickup truck. The length of the lips alone is reported to be six inches long, and also provides good details of other facial features too… …we will have to wait and see!

  31. TheBeardedMan responds:

    @ sausage1

    I don’t see it either…

  32. JMonkey responds:

    That strange guy wearing a monkey mask covered in mineral oil strikes again. Sorry, I know that is not nice, but where is the proof? This looks like a photo inlay. No smudging or movement. I am having a hard time getting over the “crystal clear” detail. I guess we would be complaining just the same if it was all kinds of vague, but now even those of us who actually believe that something is out there have to be very skeptical when looking at evidence thanks to some of the “unnamed” shady characters in the business of Bigfoot Sensationalism these days.

  33. springheeledjack responds:

    Definitely a wendigo….

  34. thegsmiths4 responds:

    I find it a little too much of a coincidence that on Finding Bigfoot we learned that the bigfoot who opened the Bridge’s door left a print because its hand was greasy. So greasy even its hair left a print. Then only a week later, these guys find an upper body print on a window made by a bigfoot that was…greasy. And you can see marks left by its hair, too.

  35. korollocke responds:

    It’s one of two things: a reflection of someone wearing a Halloween mask sitting in the truck, or it’s a photoshop hoax. Way too detailed to be a real face print, no streaks, smudges or distortions that would occur from something pressing on glass.

  36. dermal_ridges_are_proof responds:

    Bearded man and sausage:-

    It’s funny that! At first I stared at the image for a good half an hour and saw nothing but splodges too, thought I could pick out two large nostrils and a jaw line, but I was wrong on that one. It was only when I stared at the smaller picture it all suddenly came into sharp focus and became apparent it was a three quarter view of the face with loads of detail.

  37. Eevilbob responds:

    All of you arm chair bigfoot hunters really crack me up!! If you don’t like the evidence that other real hunters bring out of the woods, get up out of your computer chair, grab a tent and get your butt up there!!

    As for the photo, it’s really pretty blurry, but I saw the face right away. Reading all the comments is even funnier. The bigfoot fell onto the car window? Really? For a bigfoot to make a face impression on a window it would have to crush it’s skull bones? Wow. Put half your face on a car window and I bet your bones don’t have to be broken. There is also the hair factor. To the guy who has been saving his Evidence for half a century, what are you waiting for? Someone to capture one? Then you can come out and say I knew 50 years ago, See my evidence?? By then no one will care about your 50 year old whatever. I think you’re just afraid to stick your neck out and say, “look what I found”, because some armchair hunter will laugh at you. I could go on and on just hammering out the flaws in most of the arm chair logic you people are spewing out.

    I will say this, I know at least one of the guys from that expedition very well and I can say without a doubt, he would never ever take part in a hoax. He wants to find the holy grail of bigfoot evidence. Considering what he came down the mountain with, I’d say he’s on the right track.

  38. ChrisK responds:

    This reminds me quite a bit of the promo for the video-game from a year or so ago. It was a screen grab or a production shot, etc.

    I think that’s what this will turn out to be. Viral marketing for a new game of some sort.

    This looks nothing like a print on a window and everything like a CG rendering.

  39. whiteriverfisherman responds:

    Hmmm, arm chair Bigfoot hunters…cute. I will say this, you don’t know me Eevilbob and I am sure that also goes for everyone else you are referring to. Cute label but highly inaccurate. Oh, and I don’t own an arm chair.
    Not everyone here is saying this is a hoax. Most are simply stating their thoughts on what was presented in this post. Is it a legit piece of evidence? Only time will tell. Is the evidence presented here worth getting excited over? No, not in my opinion and an opinion does not make me or anyone else an armchair Bigfoot hunter.

  40. RocKiteman responds:

    @Sharon Lee: Maybe it’s the “Shroud Of Sasquatch”….


  41. dermal_ridges_are_proof responds:

    For anyone who hasn’t yet heard it. I strongly recommend you listen to Jefferey Gonzales video/radio broadcast from the 1st june. It’s essential background information which tells the whole story. From the horses mouth!

  42. scosmo451 responds:

    Well, I own an armchair but it’s not at my computer desk, so call me an armless chair hunter. (Crikey, look at the size of that chair! 6 feet at least, without an arm to be seen!) My opinion falls in line with most of the opinions above – this kind of print doesn’t seem right. Maybe I should have taken pictures when my daughter was younger and liked to place her face up against glass. Didn’t look much different than when the dog pressed her nose against the glass – just smudges, no detail.

  43. Redrose999 responds:




    Good one :)

  44. Mibs responds:

    Looks like an imprint made by those masked Mexican Wrestlers

  45. korollocke responds:

    DWA what do you have as proof? Over 50 years worth! Wow! Not disrespecting you just curious, bold statement you made.

  46. terry the censor responds:

    Caution is warranted, kids. Sanger Paranormal is just Jeff “Two Vans” Gonzalez, alleged MUFON investigator. Jeff is an excitable boy who occasionally makes dubious claims that fall apart under the least scrutiny.

    He claimed to have footage of an unconventional flying craft (perhaps a saucer, perhaps a secret military plane). He identified it as an unknown by claiming it had the wrong number of lights according to FAA regulations. I could not find any such regulation in the government regs, so I asked thim, repeatedly, to cite the text or provide the reg number. He would not, but simply repeated his notion of this regulation. I chased him around the ‘net for a couple weeks; he relented that he got the reg from the MUFON handbook but STILL refused to give an exact quote or reg number. I concluded this FAA regulation existed only in his mind.

    When the Golden Knights paratroopers did a sparkly night drop over El Paso last October, Jeff insisted these could NOT be paratroopers. I linked him to press reports announcing the impending jump, other Golden Knights videos, plus the Golden Knights blog post confirming afterward that they had indeed made the jump and were the source of the falling sparks. Jeff ignored it all, stating with faux-scepticism: “.Until I see 2 camera men follow them, one in the plane and 1 on the ground and document another jump equally the same as this one, well, then I am going to call it a UFO.” Jeff also claimed to have received and analysed the original footage of the jump — when pressed for confirmation info, Jeff went silent.

    See the comments here for my fact-based beatdown of Jeff and his silly legal threat.

    And here are the two vans that Jeff claims were used by the Men in Black!

  47. Outlaw109 responds:

    These guys went on a bigfoot search and their camera of choice was an iPhone? That seems odd right there. On the other hand, the camera used to photograph the prints doesn’t appear to be an iPhone. Why wasn’t that phone used to photo the faceplant?

    As for the image, why are the parts that would stick out on a face, like the nose, eye ridges, and lips, brighter in color than the other parts? If it’s just grease off of a face, wouldn’t all the grease be the same color?

  48. dermal_ridges_are_proof responds:

    I think Jefferey Gonzalez intended his friend from the police department to come over and give the prints a dusting; it’s like a silvery powder, and might acount for the highlights on the image.

    Just speculation here, in accordance with what he said on his radio broadcast.

  49. DWA responds:


    I don’t have any proof, nor does anyone. Or we wouldn’t be talking about this.

    What I have is tons of evidence, which any scientist will tell you counts when you’re trying to find out what something is. First, animals don’t leave casual prints that duplicate their faces all over stuff, and when you press your face against a glass, a good recreation of your face structure is just not likely to result. Second (and this is what I think you are referring to), I’ve read hundreds of eyewitness sasquatch reports. They are not proof. They are evidence. And they are consistent on one thing: the sucker just did not look human. So, if a sasvid looks like a human wearing a suit, I’m not going to get all excited about it, and neither is Jeff Meldrum.

    I’m betting Jeff isn’t getting out of his chair over this either.

  50. dermal_ridges_are_proof responds:

    You are so wrong DWA. Evidence always offers proof of ‘something’ otherwise it would not be called evidence!

  51. DWA responds:


    “You are so wrong DWA. Evidence always offers proof of ’something’ otherwise it would not be called evidence!”

    Is that a joke?

    Hint: different words.

    (Please God, don’t make me give more clues. Wha…????? OK…..[sigh])

    Dude! Dictionary!

  52. dermal_ridges_are_proof responds:

    Don’t ‘Dude Dictionary’ me!!!

    I think you misunderstand. Let me clarify. One example to illustrate: Dr Jeff Meldrums, 2007 culminating scientific paper ICHNOTAXONOMY OF GIANT HOMINID TRACKS IN NORTH AMERICA. This is a casebook of evidence which I think provides proof (to me and many others!) that an uncatalogued species of bipedal ape is living in the American N.W.

    You don’t have to agree with me, but to me this is a case proven; AS FAR AS IT GOES. Much more bona fide evidence giving further proof as to the ‘specifics’ of species type, behaviour etc are obviously required, so that all the many aspects or facets are covered. (easier said than done, I know)

    But you see I’m making the distinction between strong, bona fide SCIENTIFIC evidence that provides proof of certain aspects of the bigfoot mystery up to a point; which then makes prior supposition redundant. …And submissions of weak, suspect or bogus evidence that count for nothing or very little, and doesn’t provide any proof positive.

    I’d like to ask you what you think of the P.G. footage? Does it mean anything to you? What does it tell you personally?

    Regarding the original theme of this thread (the face print):

    I don’t know how you can enter into this initial stage of debate concerning (so far) a couple of leaked photos, and bring into it such ‘heavy duty’ bias, prejudice, and even a ‘hoax’ conclusion from the comfort of your armchair! Very scientific! If interested academics are following this one as it unfolds, they may harbour private doubts but (unlike you) would refrain from giving any kind of conclusion until all the evidence was on the table for assessment and analysis.

    In the ‘final analysis’ the evidence will speak for itself and will stand the test of time or not!

  53. DWA responds:


    Here’s “proof,” in the only sense that the word means a thing to the crowd at Cryptomundo, or in the world at large for that matter:

    It’s real; everyone knows it; and any lunkheads still in doubt will just be told to look it up, and rejoin the conversation when they are informed. Like robins; pigs; the sun and the moon. Denying them makes you look hospitalizable. That’s proof.


    If someone has seen a sasquatch, it is proven, to THAT person, and to that person only. (Only, now, if that person trusts the evidence of their own eyes. Many do not.) Not to me; not to you; not to Loren; not to anyone else here or in the world beyond crypto. But that person’s sighting is EVIDENCE, that can be compiled along with other reports to build a case to the larger society that maybe, just maybe, this thing is real.

    Proof can be relative. Above is one example. Another is when someone you truly trust tells you he’s seen one. If that utterly convinces you, you (and you only, unless others agree with you) have “proof.” I don’t. Nor does anyone other than the ones who totally trust that person.

    For the larger society, the sciences are the arbiter of proof. If they don’t think it’s proven, then to most of us, it isn’t.

    The larger society treats sasquatch sightings as mistakes, hoaxes and hallucinations precisely because, to the society at large, and to science as arbiter of what we as a SOCIETY consider reality, Bigfoot isn’t real. That is, no proof that means anything to the zeitgeist.

    There is a lot of evidence. (The P/G film is, to me, a significant piece).

    But to most of us, it simply doesn’t add up to proof. It does add up to “reason to look.”

  54. Nominay responds:

    DRAP – Since dermal ridges are a specified interest to you on Bigfoot, I wanted to ask you – what is their significance on the tree of humanity? Where do they fall on the evolutionary timeline? Would they preclude Neanderthals and modern humans as Bigfoot since some bozos suspect that this is what they are? How have dermal ridges shaped your opinion of Bigfoot beyond proof of its existence? Thank you.

  55. dermal_ridges_are_proof responds:

    DWA:- We aren’t so far apart in our thinking. Although I don’t like generalising. I just wanted to add that the wider societal view (regarding belief or disbelief) is in the hands of the ‘facilitators’ of bonafide scientific information. And here’s my frustration:-

    Although we have ‘no body’ I feel that Dr Jeff Meldrums culmative works, that build upon the works of other primatologists, are so compelling that I’m surprised more sceptical scientists (potential facilitators of the ‘good news’ to the wider public) haven’t been swayed or won over to the possibility of bigfoots existence

    If more numbers were won over, can you imagine what the collective message from an extended roll call of key scientists might be? Even if pronouncements concerned solely the ‘likelihood’ of existence rather than a declaration of absolute proof? Consequently I feel their would be a large shift in public perception of the bigfoot phenomenon towards belief. The process of gradual transformation of the wider publics ’belief’ would be well under way, at the moment I feel it’s ‘lagging’ in relation to the compelling evidence already in the public domain.

  56. dermal_ridges_are_proof responds:

    Nominay:- Sorry to disappoint you but dermal ridges are not my area of speciality!

    I’m not a scientist nor a qualified academic. I’m just a layman with a passion!

    And I make no bones about it; I’m on an extremely interesting learning curve.

    I chose my posting name because I thought it was a novel idea to ‘proclaim from the rooftops’ as it were an aspect of bigfoot evidence that is most compelling; dermal ridges as unique in form as a fingerprint! Can anyone seriously explain them away or debunk?

    I’ve just learnt that Matt Crowley’s past attempts at debunking dermal ridges by explaining them away as ‘desiccation ridges’ falls short. In a ‘nut shell’ I would say that desiccation ridges are identifiable and proven, and dermal ridges are also identifiable and proven. And when the two meet occasionally on the same plaster cast they are easily differentiated by the trained eye.

    Again, sorry to disappoint you if my answer doesn’t quite meet with you expectations

  57. DWA responds:

    DRAP: not disagreeing with anything you wrote in your last post.

    Neither is Dr. John Bindernagel, who considers the sasquatch essentially a discovery that hasn’t gotten full vetting yet.


Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|

Cryptomundo Merch On Sale Now!


Connect with Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest


DFW Nites

Creatureplica Fouke Monster Everything Bigfoot


|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.