“Most Convincing Evidence of Bigfoot” Press Conference Footage
Posted by: Craig Woolheater on June 24th, 2011
Watch the press conference footage here on Cryptomundo.
What additional evidence was presented that we had not seen yet?
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.
These people are ridiculous. Apparently dermal ridges on our feet allow us to stand up in bare feet without slipping and falling down. Wow! Really? Someone get that man a Nobel Prize.
They had a footprint, which they decided not to cast. They have a supposed faceprint on the window of their vehicle, which they then drove down a mountain and across the country with this window up and open to the elements… yet now want money in order to salvage the DNA from it? Brilliant.
Greetings,
I watched the conference and it does appear they found something Bigfoot related. However, I’m not sure their find justified the press conference and all the attempted media spotlight but it’s their money.
What they’ve found is stuff we’ve found in CA at the Pollock Pines Sly Park area and again in the Eastern Sierra. Debris blocking roads deliberately placed there by the species, nests or suspected nesting areas, pine cone collections or cones broken down and the seeds eaten, footprints, damaged trees with limbs broken or twisted, forest debris and rocks thrown and sometimes with the intent or creating fear or intimidation, occasional sightings and contact with the species, reports from other persons of odd events and findings of missing items or things out of place and the list could go on but enough.
What is needed is either some really good video and photos or a specimen either living or dead. That will create solid public interest and so the research will go on. My best,
Very credible. I’m not sure why they can afford trail cameras and the like, but between the five of them and their friends they can’t come up with $5K for a DNA test. Maybe Cryptomundia can help.
Answering Loren’s question: they presented a couple of videos of figure’s they claim are bigfoots, one sitting and staring, another on a hillside supposedly moving but I didn’t see it. (This begs the question if one is going to drive miles into the wilderness why don’t you have decent cameras? Video and otherwise.)
There were also a couple of interesting shots of prints showing stride length. (Most foot print shots are close up, single shots that don’t give you a sense walking.) One was just gigantic.
Overall, it doesn’t smell like a hoax.
While it may not be the most compelling evidence, it sure wasn’t a sideshow attraction. I don’t spend hours surfing through internet finding obscure videos, in fact much of the videos I see are mainly through this site or on youtube. My point is I think this was somewhat credible, they seemed reasonable and more often than not, this is how it happens, just happenstance. They aren’t asking for money to make them rich. They mentioned a price for DNA testing, which I thought was reasonable, so instead of trashing it and placing it in the same realm as something that dude Biscardi or Moneymaker would hatch up, give pause and look at it objectively. The impression on the window could be anything, so let’s rule out anything first, right?
I thought it was interesting and looks like just a bunch of nice folks excited about what they found. I don’t think it required a press conference, though.
From the video, I honestly could not see anything on the window but what looked like something running down the center (water, saliva?). Couldn’t make out any face at all. Didn’t look anything like the still that was posted here, but that could be from the fairly low res video of a video problem.
Too bad there wasn’t some kind of “crypto fund” where people pay into it and if there’s anyone needs funds for something like that, they have a place to go.
I wish them luck and look forward to the results.
I didn’t see a reason for the press conference either. Their story and findings were mildly interesting, but fell well short of the greatest evidence ever found of bf. The second imprint looked like nothing at all. I just couldn’t see what they wanted us to see. The part about having possible DNA, but no funds to test it was strange. Dr. Melba Ketchum labs lists prices for DNA testing that starts at $35.00. What am I missing? She is supposedly working on sequencing BF DNA for Erickson. I know we’re talking about an unknown animal here, but c’mon, shouldn’t you do tests to see if you even have DNA before you call a press conference?
I don’t understand what the showing of still photographs of Blobsquatches are going to do for their funding. Yes, the shadows are squatch-shaped but, unless the still has scads of detail, it’s not going be considered evidence in this ‘photo-shop’ age. As Mandors says, if you’re going out for bigfoot, take good cameras, AND MEASURING DEVICES (a cell phone for reference? what model? what gen? sheesh.)
And a crypto-czar to fund things, Bobzilla? Good idea but, Who’s gonna watch the watchers? I wouldn’t want to fund shape-changers, no matter how Bigfooty it gets. Dr Jeff can be donated to, and Loren has an organization, along with Craig. There’s donatin’ to be done. They would, at least have their rep to protect, unlike some ‘Footers we won’t mention.
A press conference? Really? For that?
LOL
The first 15 minutes of the video is staring at an open microphone.
The rest, well, pretty anti-climatic to say the least.
I’m glad there are intelligent well spoken people who are doing research, but the conference was a bit much.
The basic message of the press conference: We have DNA. HELP!!!
The images on the windows were interesting (though that one still looks like a mask) and the pics and vid of supposed Sasquatch was pretty fascinating (though the first may have been a Porcupine, and I see equally interesting vids on Star Trek Enterprise and the old Babylon 5).
I rolled my eyes when they showed footprints first (and that one put on Cryptomundo still looks like a boot print over several bear prints. The prints in the press conference were better).
As for DNA: Scientists, though claiming to be as such, ignore anomalous DNA readings attributed to Sasquatch. One would at least suspect that they would be at least curious as to what made the hairs with dd DNA readings to begin with and launch some investigations, but they treat the samples almost as if DNA can be faked. The only thing that might draw their attention from their self righteous skepticism thrones would be a mapping of the genome of anomalous hairs. Even then I wouldn’t put it past them to try to explain it away as otter DNA fried by lightning (much like one in particular tries to use otters to explain away ALL lake monster, and perhaps (though not sure) even sea serpent sightings).
Once again, we need a body, live specimen, or bits and pieces of a specimen. Unlike what someone on here said earlier on a different thread, Video is not enough to prove anything: the alien autopsy footage hoax, Computer graphics, human ingenuity and Hollywood movie magic should show this clearly. I don’t like killing animals to prove them either, but that is one of the definite ways of discovering new species, along with bringing in one alive (which could doom the animal to a Zoo or lab forever). And conservation work goes a whole longer way with species that are KNOWN to exist.
One of the reasons anomalous DNA gets ignored is because they cannot rule out contamination. And science would rather throw the whole thing out than us a false positive as a baseline.
I do agree about cataloging and sequencing all the ‘unknown’ or ‘unspecified’ DNA results they have gathered from ‘bigfoot’ samples. I would be interested to know if there are any overlaps in any areas. Anything we can start to whittle down into a sequence that can actually be used and documented for ‘unknown mammal, Pacific North West’ or something of that nature.
As for SPS; I think they are sincere but I also think this ‘evidence’ does not rise to the level of excitement they are giving it. Maybe it’s confirmational bias, maybe its wishful thinking, or maybe they just want so desperately to find ‘something’ after all these years that they are going whole hog into ‘it must be Bigfoot’, much in the same way the fellow in the middle insists ‘they MUST have gotten DNA’ and refuses to accept the possibility that there may be nothing there at all to test.
Flame821:
Hellow 🙂
In “Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science”, Doctor Meldrum talked about meeting with a doctor Henner Fahrenbach, who has over a dozen suspected Sasquatch hairs that, while DNA analysis of at least some of the hairs has been unsuccessful (the others might be under analysis or also prone to analysis difficulty), they share a uniform set of morphological characteristics which point to an unknown species (and similar hairs were tested by another scientist, who said that they were most similar to Gorilla hairs, yet not gorilla). However, it seems no “major impact” or “Definitive” sample of DNA has so far not been found (Chapter 15, pages 261-271. He mentions again the indeterminable hair samples that share diagnostic-morphological characteristics on pages 275-276 of his book).
It’s not that DNA wasn’t found, but that it wasn’t good enough for a full fledged analysis. Having said that, I remember a net story about a Idaho museum based on his research that has hairs on display that have enough DNA in them to rule out most, if not all north American animals (if not more mammals), And he mentioned a well known Yeti hair sample that could not be sequenced, but which was ruled out as human, bear or anything else so far thought of (page 265).
Nearly every thing this guy doing the narration said was not backed up in the video/photo evidence. He talked about trees with branches on them did you see a branch on that tree ? He said there was no tire marks leading up to the trees crossing the road I saw very clearly on their really cheap cameras tire marks right up to the tree in question. In all the video evidence of Bigfoot they have gotten in 8 years never did they ever consider buying a camera that could zoom in or film get a camera operater who knew how to focus in on the subject or hold the camera steady. Every evidence video looks likes it’s being help by someone with the shakes. These guys call themselves researchers, you give them money and your throwing it away. They find a footprint and theres snow all around right but they find no other prints in the snow leading up to the truck !
I found the whole thing to be sad.
I don’t think these guys are hoaxers. There is a possibility that they did have squatch activity. But that doesn’t mean there weren’t bears around.
If I understood correctly, their best evidence, besides the DNA is that they found signs of dermal ridges on the window. The rest of the evidence, the way the smudges line up, etc is just circumstantial.
I found that Koala bears have dermal ridges (looks very human), and polar bears have dermal bumps, but nothing so far on black bears. So IF the dermal ridges are real, that’s good – but not solid proof.
To say you know it wasn’t a bear because it didn’t get into the coolers is ludicrous. Just because most bears would do so does not mean all bears will. What if the bear wasn’t hungry enough to go through the hassle of climbing into the back? Maybe that is why it looked in the window because it wanted to find easier pickings?
I feel sorry for these guys. If the DNA comes back bear, they will be laughing stocks.
I’m also mad at them. If the DNA comes back bear, they will be used as another hammer by the press to bash the reputation of people who believe in sasquatch.
I hope for their sakes, not just for the discovery, that the DNA comes back squatch.