Vermont News: Sasquatch Authors, Witnesses and ‘Finding Bigfoot’

Posted by: Guy Edwards on April 13th, 2012

Bigfoot Lunch Club

WCAX news talks to Bigfoot Author/Witness Frank Siecienski

Paul Bartholomew, along with his brother have methodically researched, documented, and studied the Bigfoot question in both New York and the New England states for over thirty years.

Today ran a story with the author as well as witness Frank Siecienski. Siencienski had an apple orchard ravaged of so many of its apples he believed it was more than a deer, so he put a trailcam to see if he could see exactly what could be eating all his apples.

Then on a September evening in 2010 the camera caught what he suspects is a female Sasquatch carrying her young. The picture has made it’s rounds in the bigfoot community and now Finding Bigfoot will investigate it further.

Steve Kulls on the left, Mother Sasquatch with baby on the right.

Watch the WCAX newsclip and listen to the interview about the trailcam of a possible Sasquatch mother holding infant in an apple orchard at

Guy Edwards About Guy Edwards
Psychology reduces to biology, all biology to chemistry, chemistry to physics, and finally physics to mathematical logic. Guy Edwards is host of the Portland, OR event

15 Responses to “Vermont News: Sasquatch Authors, Witnesses and ‘Finding Bigfoot’”

  1. gridbug responds:

    Very interesting, looking forward to the critical thinking analysis and discussion on this one.

  2. darkhb responds:

    Very interesting picture; the first I’ve seen or heard of it. Obviously not a deer, and I don’t see a bear – the usual suspects eating drops in an orchard. Too bad it’s not clearer and what are the white patches – skin reflection? Any prints found?

    Seems to me this can only be one of two things: A sasquatch or a guy in a suit.

  3. BOOTYMONSTER responds:

    another fake. the evergreen limb tips are bigger on the BF photo. IMO in a attempt to make the “BF” look bigger. also the BF is blurred and mr. kulls is pretty clear. the camo pattern in his clothes and the wrinkles in it are clearly visible as well as his hand is clear and sharp. in the BF pic everything in the foreground and background is also much more focused than the supposed BF.

  4. hoodoorocket responds:

    Thought this one was put to bed a while ago.

    As intriguing as the photo is to an untainted imagination, look at it again with the supposition that it is a small owl close to the camera.

    The transparent parts are explained by rapid wing movement and you can make out pinion feathers of the wings and the spotted pattern of the birds back.

    At that point, I’m guessing the majority of people will no longer see bigfoot, unless they really want to see bigfoot.


  5. mitchigan responds:

    Seen this picture before, either here or on some other site. I remember that the popular consensus was that it was an owl flying in front of the camera.

  6. AreWeThereYeti responds:

    Why, why, why are there no good, quality, trail-cam photos of Bigfoot? Hunters & other outdoors(wo)men routinely capture crystal-clear images of birds, deer, coyotes, bears, people, etc. But, when it comes to Bigfoot, all we seem to get are blurry, questionable, pics that “might be” the back-of, of a piece-of the creature, or “something” in a contorted, inconclusive, pose…

    I’ve heard the arguments that ol’ Sas can sense (see/hear) the cameras but, if that’s the case, we should have NO photos: maybe they’re smart enough to know just how-much/exactly-when to move to foil all attempts for a clear ID? Yeah, right…

    Until/unless a clear photo is presented all the might-be/could-be examples will amount to nothing more than opportunities for skeptics/scoftics/believers to endlessly debate the matter. And let’s face it, even an unambiguous pic is gonna have people screaming “FAKE!” because it’s, “too good.” Sigh… As Hapa likes to say it’s “gonna take a body on a slab” to put this to rest.

    As for myself? I still feel the same as the first time this trail-cam photo made the rounds: if it is a Sasquatch, then they’ve begun wearing ghillie suits while out and about. Then again, that may be the reason why they’re so hard to spot (or get a good photo of)…

  7. gridbug responds:

    Pity that they’re trying to avoid the “tabloid mentality” because that’s pretty much what they’re gonna get with the Finding Bigfoot treatment.

  8. sasquatch responds:


  9. DWA responds:


    Nobody knows what that is. Nobody has any evidence what that is.

    I’d bet money it’s no owl. But other than that, who knows?

    It’s really funny that everybody thinks, or seems to sometimes, that every clip and every photo has to be proven to be something.

    No it doesn’t.

  10. hoodoorocket responds:

    @DWA agreed, not all mysteries are solvable. We will never know what it is for sure.

    But on the other hand, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and sh*ts like a duck, your first guess should not necessarily be hippopotamus.

    Vermont has many wonderful owl species. Boreals and mature saw-whets will both have spotted backs, but the shaggy nature of the spot pattern declares this to be a screech owl.

    On a side note anyone who has ever heard the cries from this tiny bird first hand, can easily believe in cryptids and paranormal ghoulies of the night. They sound for all the world like a woman or child being murdered in a most slow and violent way, and their volume knob goes to 11.

  11. DWA responds:


    My 15th guess wouldn’t be owl, and I’ve seen a lot of owls.

    We may never know what it is.

    But we know one thing it isn’t.

    That may just be my opinion. But “owl” shouldn’t be anyone’s conclusion.

  12. DWA responds:


    “Why, why, why are there no good, quality, trail-cam photos of Bigfoot? Hunters & other outdoors(wo)men routinely capture crystal-clear images of birds, deer, coyotes, bears, people, etc.”

    We know where the latter are and how to find them, because we have generations of experience – that everyone listens to because we accept those critters – telling us that.

    We don’t have those things for the sasquatch. The clearest thing we have – and I think P/G is pretty clear; you’ll get nothing with that film at that distance clearer – we have because the guys who got it put in the required time in an area of heavy recent activity, measured by sightings and tracks.

    There’s significant evidence that even the alpha coyote in an area will avoid a camera trap; the ones that get shot are the transients that don’t know the lay of the land.

    With the population density speculated for the sasquatch – itself no better than a SWAG based on sighting reports – I wouldn’t hold my breath to get a good trailcam photo until after the animal is confirmed.

  13. hoodoorocket responds:

    @DWA Not trying to be argumentative, but I find it very interesting that you don’t see an owl, back to camera, in this photo.

    When I look at it I see the back of the head- even the horned tufts of the screech owl, the correct pattern on the back, the blurred shape of the wings caught on the forward stroke… but as you say, we will never know what it is. I just find it interesting what two different observers see.

    At the end of the day we are both speculating, and each conclusion is as valid as the other. Jumping to conclusions is flawed, but it’s all that we can do after staring at an inkblot test.

    I suggest we concentrate on what we can see clearly- the photo of the man. Is it my imagination or is he wearing a camouflage snuggie?


  14. DWA responds:

    hoodoorocket: I’d be casing every household in that area for ghillie suits if it were me.

    Can’t say about that guy’s …shoot those could actually be giant coffee stains, couldn’t they? But I’m not sure what perspective he lends to this. It appears to me that whatever-that-is could be closer to the lens than him, and smaller. To say nothing of wearing a wholly different kind of pseudo-military housewear.

    But other than the ghillie search, I couldn’t even offer an educated guess what that is. It just doesn’t look like an owl. To me, now.

  15. hoodoorocket responds:

    @DWA: I know this is getting to be an old post, I promise to stop flogging it, but I just wanted to clarify “my” owl, because I don’t think people are looking at it right if they can’t imagine this an owl (not saying anyone has to believe it is an owl).

    The lump to the left is not what I see as the head, as is suggested by the comparison shot of the man in the cammo snuggie. Is that what is throwing people off?

    The back of the owl’s head, as I see it, is the topmost part, as the bird is upright with back to camera. There are two small tufts that resemble the horns. The two big fairly symmetrical blurry lumps to the right and left (the left being the “bigfoot head”) look to me like the shouldered wings pointing away from the camera. The white blobs look very much like the spots of a screech owl’s back.

    I can definitely see where people are seeing a man in a ghille suit and even a bigfoot. I don’t think that is what it is, but I can see what they are talking about. I am baffled that people cannot see an owl, even if they think it is not an owl…


Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|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.