Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 08/30/2010 in all areas

  1. 22 points
    BFFers, I'd like to address the "tracks" reported to Cliff Barackman and the BFRO near Elbe, WA. I afforded the individual involved a lengthy period of time (five months) to do the right thing, and fully disclose his involvement with the event. That hasn't happened yet. Moreover, the individual involved has continued to insist (privately) that he had absolutely no involvement with the event in question. His denial of involvement has driven people to question my initial statements and assertions. Initially, I granted the person involved a chance to admit his involvement privately to the people who were the most affected by his actions; the people who invested personal time and resources to his claims. The guilty party never did so, and still continues to insinuate that I had no real evidence against him. Here's the deal, folks: The first report regarding the track line was submitted in email form to Cliff Barackman, which was forwarded to the BFRO six hours later by the same source. The email address was "davepmorrison@...", but curiously the name signed to the email was "David Morris"; a small (but interesting) discrepancy. I immediately started "sleuthing" this individual in an effort to find out more about them via their online presence. Essentially, the vast majority of the people who submit reports, emails, and phone calls to the organization have an online presence. Some people have left huge amounts of information online, and some very little; but in the vast majority of instances it's very easy to verify who a person is, where they live, their means of employment, etc. I quickly found that the email address provided wasn't linked to any social media or website whatsoever; no Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, MySpace, etc., etc. Moreover, there were no "Dave Morrison", "Dave P Morrison", "David Morrison", "Dave Morris", "David Morris" matches which in any way "fit the bill" (geographically and otherwise) for this individual. Hitting that dead end was fairly concerning, because I can almost always find corroborating information about a person in a short amount of time. When I couldn't locate any information about this person, a huge red flag was raised. A few days later, I logged into FLATS (the internal BFRO reports database) and saw that the individual had also submitted a report via the BFRO Report Form. He included that his name was "Dave Morrison" (as opposed to "Morris" and included the same email address. Luckily for us, FLATS records the IP address of every report submission. That gave me a new clue to go on, and I immediately cross-referenced it with the IP address that the original email to Cliff was sent from. It was a match, which means that the same person submitted the initial email and the report three days later. Cliff also sent me another email that the reporting party had sent him, and it came from the same IP address as well. Unfortunately, you can't just Google the owner of an IP address. Various places online will display user's IP addresses (like certain forums, online email lists, etc.), but you'd really have to know where to look, and who you're looking for. Luckily, one of the places that I looked into displayed the IP addresses of the posters. It provided me with the poster's real name and username, and gave me a whole new lead to follow. A few minutes on Google revealed that this person was very involved in the online bigfoot community, and was an ardent skeptic. I recognized his username immediately, and knew that if he was the one who submitted the first reports that something was VERY wrong with the track line. I immediately called Cliff and Scott to fill them in. Derek called within minutes, and I brought him up to speed as well. I enlisted the help of a BFRO member that I work with often with locating information online and asked him to help me find more instances online of this same IP connected to the same individual (username/real name, etc.). Within a few hours, we had collected multiple examples of this person's IP address from various locations on the web. I also contacted veteran researcher Daniel Perez, who had corresponded with this individual before, and asked him if he would forward me the raw source data from the emails that the individual had sent him. He did, and the source data of the two emails matched the IP address. Daniel helped me tremendously by sending me those emails, and I am very thankful that he did. In other words, we now had irrefutable proof that the original email and FLATS report were sent in by a guy who is a borderline fanatical skeptic, and who is a very active member of the online bigfoot community. That, and the guy only lives 47 miles from Elbe. An exhaustive reading of his online posts revealed more information. This guy has been working on creating a life-sized Patty replica in his workshop in an effort to demonstrate that the PGF is fake. He describes (in detail) multiple pairs of fake feet that he has fabricated as part of this experiment. Here are a few quotes from him: June 2012 - "By the way, footprints are easy to fake, require little commitment in time and materials and effort. Which might account for their continued popularity, who knows. Footprints are an easy hoax." August 2012 - "Why spend hours looking for online videos when any one of us can test it simply and easily. It does mean going outside for a while, but it's summer and not too hostile out doors right now. Make a set of fake feet, 14-15 inches long, strap them on so that the toes stick out a ways in the front, and then walk around a bit, walk fast, see how well you adapt and lift your feet. To match the challenge, I'll do the same thing here in a few minutes. Again. Reason I say "again" is because I have already done this experiment. I'm not just sitting here at the keyboard speculating about how people walk barefoot, or with big shoes on or any of that. I like to have fun, play a bit, and enjoy experimentation to test out various ideas. Which is why I say that people lift their feet higher with big shoes on, because that's just what they (we) (I) do." And the most incriminating quote of all: March 2012 - "So how would one explain spayed toes in some faked bigfoot prints? Non-wooden stompers. I'm not going to say right now that there are no bigfoots, or that all prints are fake. However, I will say that making pliable, naturally behaving fake feet is not some rocket science... I have a pair of bigfoot feet I made from dock flotation foam, a sort of shiny plastic closed cell foam that is flexible, firm, easily carved with a knife and shaped with a scraper. Paint them with latex or acrylic paint, and they do everything a real foot would do in terms of print making." Once I had all of that information, it was undeniable that this individual was responsible for the Elbe tracks. After numerous attempts to get the perpetrator to cooperate, I sent him this email on October 3rd: "Axxxx, I've tried to avoid writing you this email, but given your last few posts on the BFF and JREF, I suppose it's time that I contact you about your claims. Here's the bottom line: I have irrefutable proof that you sent the first email to Cliff Barackman, the secondary email to the BFRO, and also submitted a report to the BFRO database. Myself and others compiled this proof and shared it with several researchers (12 to be exact, including Derek) on September 26th. I know that you're very worried about people finding out that you were involved (in any capacity), and you'd prefer not to have your name associated with this. Truthfully, it was never my intention to publicly "out" you. If I had wanted to, I could've done that immediately on the BFRO website and the BFF. It would've looked something like this: 'The investigation of the initial report led us to irrefutable proof that Axxxx Sxxxxxxx AKA "Tontar" was responsible for using a pseudonym and submitting the initial reports regarding the trackway. That evidence has cast doubt over the entire event, and as such, we can't endorse its legitimacy." There would be nothing ethically wrong with releasing that statement either, as it is completely true (unlike the majority of the things you've been posting since the "tracks" were discovered). Obviously, I don't know if you were responsible for faking the tracks themselves, or if you had help from other individuals, etc. What I do know is that you were behind those emails and the BFRO report. Anyone who researches your public claims would also be convinced that you fabricated those tracks. Whether you faked those tracks, or merely reported them for someone else, people will see those statements and assume with certainty that you did it, and that you've been experimenting with fake tracks since March of this year. Many people will also interpret the act as malicious. Maybe you were conducting a legitimate experiment with stompers for your PG recreation. Perhaps you took those things out on a test drive and realized that they looked pretty good. Whatever the reason, things certainly changed when you created an email address and a pseudonym and sent reports and emails to Cliff and the BFRO. That's the part that people will undoubtedly get the most upset with; your desire to deceive others. You lied, plain and simple. You are continuing to lie. You are trying to insinuate that others are responsible, when you know exactly who is truly responsible. Derek Randles is a friend of mine, and I refrained from handing over information to others about your involvement because Derek thought that you would cooperate with him based on good faith. He told me that the two of you had communicated, and had intended to meet. Meanwhile, I continue to see the things that you post in public venues about the researchers' "inabilities" to identify who "did the deed". We've known who "did the deed" for over a week. Every day that we have kept your name confidential should be viewed as a gift. Every day that we haven't done our due diligence and released that information has been an opportunity for you to be honest with the people who deserve to know the truth about this. Derek thought you would. For a moment, I thought you would, too. Instead, you're continuing to lie about the incident, and constantly trying to shift the focus (and the blame) back on to the "researchers"; the very people whom you had hoped to fool. I gave you the chance to admit it on the BFF when I insinuated that you knew exactly where those tracks were before anyone else found them. Instead, you tried to divert attention away from you by concocting a sarcastic response, and then followed it up with a response implying that it was probably a bigfoot proponent who did it! I am tired of giving you opportunities to do the right thing. I am pretty sure the other researchers and investigators are, too. Matt Pruitt" After sending that email, I had a lengthy phone conversation with Tontar about "doing the right thing" and working directly with the people that were affected. It was a nice conversation, and one that left me feeling that Tontar would do the responsible thing and be honest. That still hasn't happened, and since then, many people have questioned my investigative integrity for pointing a finger at Tontar. I have many, many screenshots of all of this information. I can release all of that information if need be. I am hoping (once again) that Tontar will fully disclose the extent of his involvement with this event. His posts about Bill Munns' recent violation of trust related to a different event were what prompted me to finally post this. Tontar's words were the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. It's pretty clear that he never intended to disclose the truth to anyone. Disclosing the truth was always my intention. I only delayed it because I truly felt that I was doing the right thing by allowing him to divulge his side of the story in a way that allowed him some sort of control over the way his story was presented. He sent the emails and the initial report. Do the math, folks. Tontar is responsible for the fabricated tracks at Elbe.
  2. 13 points
    Truth? In the time I've been here I haven't seen you add anything to a conversation, all I see is your snarky one line quips and comments taking away, distracting and derailing topics ... ending discussions I would like to see continue because I might learn something. Are you here for any reason other than to stroke your ego by intellectually bullying others? That's a serious question, not the insult it probably looks like. I'm trying to solve the puzzle, not just talk about it as a form of entertainment. I don't care about your faux-intellectual wrangling. I want to hear from the witnesses. Y' know what? Some are indeed full of crap. My ego is not wrapped up in abusing people just because I don't believe them. I listen, I judge, I move on. Nowhere on that list is pronouncing my judgment. Maybe I don't belong here. Folks here have chased most of the witnesses off and gagged the rest. If you think about it, without the witnesses, a bigfoot discussion is pretty much a mental masturbation exercise. That's not what I came here for. People wonder why BF hasn't been proven. The conduct right here on BFF illustrates the answer. Ego ahead of understanding. MIB
  3. 13 points
    It seems to me that this “infamous†Matilda is causing a lot of confusion and frankly, I’m tired of confusion and really would like to see progress toward clarity and truths we can rely upon. So after considerable thought on the matter, I thought it’s time to try and make an effort to help clear up the confusion. The images I’m showing you are a few sample video frames I was given to analyze, and my conclusion was that the images shows a simple commercial Chewbacca mask with the hair modified to a different color and texture. The frames are each side-by-side with a picture of Chewie in about the same pose, for comparison. With this posting, I cordially suggest the following: 1. If anyone wishes to publicly acknowledge that this is their footage, I invite them to do so, and if they are correct, I’ll acknowledge it to be true. 2. If anyone feels the video frames show a real creature and not a Chewbacca mask, I welcome their analysis of why we should consider that to be so. 3. If anyone has seen the “Matilda†footage, I invite you to let us know if this is or is not the footage you call “Matildaâ€, because maybe what I’m looking at isn’t her, and I welcome being corrected if that is so. 4. If my display of this chart causes anyone to feel that they should file some type of civil action against me, please have your lawyer contact me at wmunns@gte.net so we can set an appointment for my receiving the service of papers, and we can discuss the matter on the public record, in a court. For the record, I will confidently and clearly offer an appraisal of evidence as being something real, if I truly find the evidence leads to that conclusion, and my appraisal of the PGF as being real supports that position. But as much as we must support what we find to be real or valid, we must also reject or discount what we find to be false or fake. Our obligation is to find the truth, and I think it’s time we all knew the truth about this “Matilda†thing. I finally decided it’s time I did my share to get the truth out. So hopefully, someone who has seen the “Matilda†footage will tell us the truth. Is this her (pictured below), and is she real? Bill
  4. 12 points
    I haven't been out of the business for 30 years. I'm still in it, although not working regularly full time. But Squatchy doesn't really care about facts, just fabricated talking points.
  5. 11 points
    No issue with honest skeptics here. I have an issue with dishonest scoffers who call themselves skeptics and masquerade outright abuse of witnesses as "honest questions." MIB
  6. 11 points
    Sasky: Thank you for sharing with us all the NDA's. As I recall, I signed three different versions at differnt times, and it would be fascinating to sort out which one prevails as the operative document. That aside, I will re-affirm that if anyone wants to serve me with a lawsuit, please email me at wmunns@gte.net and i will be pleased to arrange an appointment to receive service of papers, and I look forward to discussing this matter on the public record in a court. As to professionalism, or lack of same, is it professional to hide the truth or to find it? Is an NDA valid if it protects a lie, a fraud or a deception upon the public? I look forward to exploring these concepts with impartial judgment prevailing. Bill
  7. 10 points
    I've arrived at the conclusion that it isn't just the bigfoot proponents that "have it all figured out".
  8. 10 points
    Read it. I can't say I followed each of those imbedded links though...time does not allow. I get the reviewers issues with Bill inserting his opinions about the probability of it being hoaxed. I've no great urge to explain Bill's motivations for doing that, I must confess. If I had to suppose, I'd say that Bill wanted to put a little more meat on the bone than just a technical discussion of the film qualities alone. I'll leave it to him to say, or not. But look, Bill doesn't end with the back story discussion of who Roger Patterson was, or why he may/may not have wanted to hoax the film. It is only his point of departure for (and not a crucial part of) the more objective stuff. Granted, no matter Bill's level of expertise on special effects and film techniques, that will always be just one guy's opinion. (I think it is certainly reasonable that Bill wished to share his bona fides with the reader. How many words he takes to do that, on comparison to how many he chooses to spend on the film itself is not real crucial for me to know, I don't think) Your discussion seems to want to end there though. Bill has opinions PLUS an analysis that strikes me as pretty compelling. As an unanswered position, it still is out there to be rebutted, point by point. We still see no takers on that chore. One subjective point I can't let pass though. The reviewer takes the remarkable stance of proposing to say what a Sasquatch "should" do when confronted by two men on horses, one running toward him with a camera. When somebody tells me they know how an unlisted, unconfirmed animal is "supposed" to act/look/sound/behave, I just double over holding my sides. We've got plenty of KNOWN animals who apparently don't know how they are supposed to behave. I'm willing to bet Patty didn't get the memo either.
  9. 10 points
    I feel frustrated about the direction that the research aspect of the subject seems to have taken. People making outlandish claims, some researchers (term used loosely) presenting findings that cannot be substantiated, and the shows used to entertain do nothing for the seriously interested enthusiast. They all seem to discredit and make light of both the creature and the study of them. There's no shortage of serious research efforts, though. All you have to do is find that niche' among the muck and mire. Personally, I tend to shy away from outlandish claims like mind speak, telepathy, teleportation, association with orbs, and habituation claims with spiritual implications for the humans. It seems that if any of this stuff were true, these "knowers" would present proof of such claims, but, rather conveniently, they claim to choose not to do so because of their desire to protect the creature, or because they feel "special" to have been selected by the creature because of some purity or goodness that they themselves posses. To listen to some of these descriptions of the creature, you'd think they are bullet-proof and clad in a cape. Fortunately, there are more grounded claims and efforts to disseminate more logical and realistic information without all of the anthropomorphic and paranormal associations. These outlandish claims make the topic a target of ridicule and make anyone with a serious interest in the creature look like a lunatic to the majority of the populace. Personally, I think the warm, fuzzy, flute playing, supernatural, wise and benevolent forest hippy persona of the creature has done more to deflect from serious research by the scientific community than anything else.
  10. 9 points
    It seems this argument will never end, but in a naive moment of wishful thinking, I will once again try to lay out the reality. If Patty is a suit, then she can be replicated. Anything built by one person can be replicated by another. If Patty's a cheap suit, then she can be replicated cheaply by any person of mediocare talent with modest expense. If Patty is real, then it may be that she cannot be replicated by any suit, regardless of expense or the talent of the artist, because there are simply some realities we cannot replicate perfectly with a human in a costume. The best example is gorilla costumes and the movie "Return to Me" (staring Minnie Driver and directed by Bonnie Hunt). In one of the last scenes, a zoo gorilla named Sidney is seen walking along a corridor to a doorway outside to a landscaped habitat. Sidney then goes outside and we see him walking along the terrain to a steel pipe structure maybe 20-25 feet high. He climbs that structure and then stands atop it, on his hind feet alone and he beats his chest with his arms. No big deal, in terms of action, but NO GORILLA SUIT EVER MADE can replicate that film sequence perfectly, or even close to perfectly. Only a real gorilla can do it. A human in a costume cannot. This isn't a maybe, or a likely, this is an absolute certainty. No human in costume can replicate that activity and convince anyone it is real. Why? Because there are some realities we cannot replicate. Patty is one such reality. I have not attempted to make a "Patty" suit because I explain in detail in my book exactly why such a costume cannot be made. So my position is that it cannot be done. So my not making one is because I have no desire to expend enormous effort doing the impossible. It is the people who caim it is possible, because they think Patty is a suit and thus it follows someone else can replicate it, they are the people who must prove their claim by doing one, since they argue it can be done. In so far as experts, once again, I will repeat the foundation concept for an "expert witness" and "expert testimony". To qualify, three basic criteria are needed. 1. Establish the expert's qualification. 2. Define in detail the evidence the expert has and used for the analysis. 3. Define in detail the methodology of analysis applied to the evidence so described in #2. Mr. Smith, Mr. Walas, and all the other makeup people quoted only satisfy Item #1, Their remarks exclude Items #2 and #3, thus eliminating the remarks as "Expert Analysis", and reducing thse remarks to simply "personal opinion." Any if anyone here does not know the difference between "expert analysis" and "personal opinion" then you are just shouting at the wind. Bill
  11. 9 points
    Seems like a whole lot of effort on Kit's part to avoid talking about what is actually shown on the film. As much as I may want to do it, I can't disown my driver's license photo by trolling through court records to see if the DMV photographer ever beat his wife. Suppose we all just humor Kit and admit that Roger Patterson was probably a liar, a cheat, a fraud, a con man, possibly a thief and an all-around not nice guy? Then maybe we can get around to the point of Bill's book? At the bottom of this is probably Bill's own diagnosis: The failure to know good evidence from bad. There is a hierarchy, and there is a common consensus in this world of ideas as to which is better, or worse, for objectively evaluating facts. Not all have this discernment. That makes it difficult indeed. If you don't like what you see on the PG, fine by me. Just say so and move on. From all I know about Bil'ls work to date, he stands for the idea that it is what the figure on the film appears to be, and how the camera was employed to film it, that matters only. The rest is just self-pleasuring.
  12. 9 points
  13. 9 points
    Seriously, if in posting that above info are ya'll trying to out the location of "X"? If it is indeed that location.............Shame on all of you!
  14. 9 points
    The real biology comparisons are pretty irrefutable (unless somebody wants to accuse me of photoshopping the real people comparisons), but we can always count on the denialists to run back to their "backstory" bucket list of circumstantial talking points to try and blow smoke and cloud the topic. Patty's the real thing (whatever that is, biologically) and isn't a suit. People who continue to see a suit are seeing what they wish to see, not what the facts determine. Bill
  15. 8 points
    If MIB leaves then the skeptics have scored another victory. One by one legitimate researchers get tired of the crap and leave. Is that the chronic skeptic tactic? Silence those that contribute evidence? Note to administrators: That sort of thing will kill this website. I can see that people are becoming reluctant to post experiences because they get pounced on by the skeptics. Much of what happens in the field does not lend itself to being provable. Provable or not I want to hear what others experience.
  16. 8 points
    Inability to respond? No, it was a refusal to respond, and he admittedly refused to read the questions about what he'd presented.
  17. 8 points
    Nowhere, but I wasn't saying that they should substantiate their claims. All I was saying is that if protecting their privacy was of concern that they should not share any information. Privacy, if what's truly desired, isn't protected by "Hey, look at what's happening to me" in the day and age of computers. I believe they want to make claims to draw attention to themselves, which is the exact opposite of protecting their privacy.
  18. 8 points
    I've never implied any such thing. You can ask questions, but that's not what's happening here. A question gets asked, the answer is considered to be inadequate by those skeptical of the endeavors, and the speculations of hoaxing and being hoaxed start. And they continue regardless of the fact they've already been answered. How is questioning a tax exempt status, or implying it's undeserved, challenging the events in Area X? That seems to be aimed at the member's credibility in an attempt to besmirch their efforts. You'll not imply anything on my behalf, just as you won't continue to badger Bipto about the activities in Area X. It's fine if you don't believe him, but make that case and move on. There's no need for the constant attempts to badger his efforts or to question his motives, i.e. - tax status. That has nothing to do with the activity. In fact, I'll go on the record to say that it's just an effort to call another member's integrity into question to tarnish their efforts, which is an attempt to antagonize and provoke the member. How this is seen as productive by the skeptical is beyond me, as it accomplishes nothing except to promote antisocial behavior. If the skeptical believe that the creature's existence is an impossibility, why do they see the need to belittle and tarnish those that are searching for proof? To build up their own egos, to make themselves feel better, or to convince themselves that their stance is correct? Possibly, but I believe it's to discredit those that want to find evidence in an effort to make them look foolish in public, or to hinder their efforts by casting doubt on their motives and methods. There, I've put it out there to remove the need to claim I'm implying anything.
  19. 8 points
    Again, any assessment of the camera man's actions is nothing more than applying your own values from the safety of your computer. Indicting the guy because he ran (at all) or too soon is irrelevant to the full body of the data he did capture. Better to focus on what we have (the creature's movements, sounds, behaviors) than what we do not (the ability to climb inside the camera man's head and know what he was thinking at the time).
  20. 8 points
    Beg pardon, but don't some of the posters you converse with claim to have near personal interaction with the creatures? If that were so, and if they were as concerned as you, wouldn't they feel compelled to offer whatever evidence they could? Yet, they don't . Hmm, Can't help wondering their evidence, or their concerns. Edit: A cold body upon an examining table will prove the point, eh? And those raising doubts and concerns should do their part, too, eh? Yet, they don't, or as I believe, are unable. Thus, the need for the cold, dead body upon a clinical slab. You might exhibit your concern, but realize, if you (or anyone else) chooses not to provide proof, then the need for those bent upon bringing evidence to the forefront.
  21. 8 points
    It's a factual conclusion based on the most comprehensive and scientific analysis effort ever undertaken by a person with expertise in the design and fabrication of such creature costumes, a first hand knowledge of the materials available in 1967 (when I started), and based on actual scientific experiments that studied the two alternatives, real biological anatomy and costume fabricated anatomy, subjecting both alternatives to identical test processes, and the most comprehensive and rigorous evaluation of PGF image data to insure that what is referenced in PGF image data is in fact actual and reliable image data and not image artifact from copy process, grain noise or anomalies, or any kind of editing or tampering. Bottom line, I'm taking the analysis to a level of scientific certainty that nobody before in the past 45 years could or did even attempt. And there's nobody on the opposing side who's even in the ballpark with any kind of equally scientific and systematic analysis to argue the opposing conclusion, that Patty is a hoax with a costume. If I'm wrong and somebody is in the ballpark, tell me who that person is, and where I can read his/her analysis, because I'd love to study a well-developed scientific opposing analysis, if one exists. And spare me the "Skeptics don't have to prove anything" because they do. The question is "What is it we see walking away from Roger's camera in the PGF?", and any answer, any determination, must be supported by a scholarly proof. So any answer to that question ("What is it?") requires a formal proof we can study. If the answer is "it's just a guy in a cheap suit" that answer must be proven to the same exactitudes of science, and I sure don't see anybody doing that. Bill
  22. 8 points
    My attempt to create it ( done in Paint shop Pro x using warp brush to morph the shape and some standard image filters like, levels and motion blur) ( Click picture to start animation.. could take a while loading it )
  23. 8 points
    Marlboro, as a skeptic, I have to tell you, you missed a bunch of excuses. In fact, your list is rather weak and you need to do some more reading to get the really good ones. You've shot your load before even aiming! Stick around a while, gather some info, reload and try again. But if you're a shallow drive-by skeptic, I recommend the JREF forums.
  24. 8 points
    Ok, now remember that my investigation of this happened way back around Easter of 1988. That's 24 years ago and I don't remember some of the exact details. I used to keep a log book of my investigations back then, but that log book disappeared during the time that I divorced and moved several times during the late 90's/early 2000's. Here's the lead in: When I worked for a large NASA and Department of Defense contractor, I worked with a couple of other guys that had had encounters with BF. One of the guys was also one of my hunting buddies and he had family in New Mexico and friends in Colorado - and I'll call him Bob. The other guy was on TDY (Temporary Duty) with me for several months at White Sands Missile Range (WSMR) - and I'll call him Carl. Carl and I had been investigating sightings around central NM in our spare time and had encountered BF on the Mescalero/White Mountain Apache Indian Reservation east of WSMR and had even had one pretty harrowing rock throwing experience there. Bob and I had hunted elk and mule deer in the Rio Grand National Forest, northwest of Alamosa, CO, a few years earlier and we were planning on hunting them again that fall. One of his friends in CO had a friend that was attending classes at one of the gunsmithing schools in CO and this friend-of-a-friend guided hunters in the fall. Bob had talked to him on the phone a few times and then Bob and I talked and it was decided that I would take an extra day or two off on Easter weekend and drive up to CO from WSMR and meet him in Alamosa - about a six and a half to seven hour drive. Then we would drive up into the mountains and he would show me the areas he proposed for us to hunt that fall. Some places were better for mule deer and some places were better for elk. At the end of our conversation, Bob told me to ask the "guide" about his experience with BF a few years earlier - that he had quite a story that he had heard from his and the "guide's" mutual friend. On Good Friday, I drove to Alamosa and met the "guide" - and I'll call him Mike. That night, over supper, I told him that I investigated BF sightings and encounters and that Bob had told me that he had had an encounter and I asked him to tell me about it. Mike clammed up and said he didn't want to talk about it. I pulled out my log book and opened it up in front of him and let him look over a few of my reports so that he could see that I was legit. Now, keep in mind that I was only 32 years old at that time and Mike was only around 24 to 26 y/o, and he was still in college, so you've got to apply the term "guide" to him very loosely - and I found that out for sure later that fall. And at that point in my life, neither I nor my friends could afford the services of a REAL professional guide service. Anyway, at that point, he reluctantly started to slowly relate to me the story that I told on Blogtalk. As I showed serious interest in it, and showed no doubt, ridicule or criticism, and asked intelligent questions, he opened up more. The incident supposedly had happened 3 to 5 years earlier, and, if I remember correctly, I think it was supposed to have been in 1984, but I’ve forgotten for sure. Over the next two days, we rode around in my Blazer to different places that Mike had hunted in Rio Grande, Mineral, Archuleta, and Conejos Counties doing pre-season scouting. At one point we were on another fairly dim jeep trail/logging road and came into the downhill, southeast corner of a cutover (logged) area that was around 80 or so acres in size and was on the east slope of a mountain or foothill. The seedlings that had been replanted in there were around mid-chest to head high, a few taller, there were still brush and waste piles and lots of vegetation and weeds growing there, so I figured that area had been logged three to six years earlier (I'm not familiar with the re-growth rates of seedlings in that part of the country, so this is an educated guess). The cutover area was surrounded by fairly mature evergreen forest interspersed with areas of aspen - typical for that area. Mike said "this is where it happened." I don’t know which of those four counties we were in at that time. A couple of details of what he told me come to mind. The hunter was using a bolt-action .270 Winchester. I don’t know the brand of rifle, so I can’t judge how prone it might have been to jamming. He said that the rifle itself didn’t jam on its own, but that the hunter, in a panic as the second BF was charging, short-stroked the bolt at least once and somehow ended up with a live cartridge with the point of the bullet jammed into the rear face of the breech, missing the chamber, and the case head wedged down into the magazine. He said that that was the condition the rifle was found in when they came back later. I personally know that can happen when someone is excited, because I’ve seen it personally, and it even happened to me once. It’s primarily caused by a lack of realistic practice with a weapon. Realistic practice develops “muscle memory†that goes a long way towards preventing human error of this type. I asked him why he threw down his rifle when he ran. He said that he already knew that BF know when you have a weapon or not and that he didn’t want that charging BF to see him with a rifle and think that he had anything to do with shooting the other one. And he said plus he could run faster without it. That made sense to me then and it makes sense to me still. Plus he had to have been in his very early 20’s then, and that would have been a natural reaction. As far as finding any BF evidence there, I didn’t see any, but I didn’t have time to look around much. Mike didn’t like being there and wouldn’t walk four feet away from the truck. The place had a “boogery†feel to it, but that could have just been my reaction to his story. His story didn’t change from the time he told me at supper Friday night to the time he showed me the place where it supposedly happened. He also said that the story was in the local papers as a bear attack. But, I thought at the time that a bear attack, and especially a death, would have hit most of the papers in the state, plus northern New Mexico. We parted ways late Sunday afternoon and I spent the night in Alamosa. Next morning, I found the newspaper office there and tried to search their archives. They didn’t have ANYTHING computerized and there were no microfiches either, so it was paging through big bound volumes of old newspapers. I looked all through the papers for the fall of the year it was supposed to have happened, and I found at least one or two bear attacks and maulings, that might have been in that area, but I found no deaths due to bear attack in that south-central CO/north central NM area. Then I went to the Alamosa County Sheriff’s Office and tried to discreetly ask a few questions. One of the two guys in there said that he’d heard of some guy that was torn up pretty badly over around the Rio Grande National Forest somewhere a few years ago but he didn’t know about anybody being killed. Then he asked me why I wanted to know, and I told him that I was gonna hunt in there this fall and I didn’t want to hunt where there were killer bears. That got a good laugh out of them and I left. Based on that lack of info, I didn’t give the story much credence. Later that fall when several of us got together and hunted in CO and Mike was supposed to be our guide, I believed it a lot less. We were each supposed to take turns having him guide us one-on-one for the whole day. His idea of guiding was to take one of us out early in the morning, show us where we were on a topo map and give us an idea of the lay of the land and then point and say “hunt that park over there†or “hunt that canyon down there†or “stalk around that grove of aspensâ€, or some such, then he’d disappear and go hunting for himself and you wouldn’t see him till you got back to camp after dark. We each took turns coming back to camp after lunch and spending the afternoon helping him get supper together, chopping firewood, cleaning up, etc. On one of my days to be “camp monkey†I was hiking in and I heard rifle shots. It sounded like somebody target practicing. There was a big beaver pond just below the camp and when I got to camp, there was Mike up on top of a HUGE boulder that sat at the edge of the pond, shooting at trout in the pond with a .257 Weatherby Magnum. He killed or stunned about a dozen and a half nice trout with the hydrostatic shock from that rifle, and at the time I thought that that wasn’t really kosher doing what he did, but we ate like kings that night. I found out later that what he did was highly illegal. The best thing about that trip was that Mike was a fantastic cook and all meals were awesome. He kept a wonderful camp, but he didn’t know squat about being a good guide. Bob and I tried to get some more specific info out of him about the supposed victim’s name, exactly where the incident happened, month and year for sure, and so on. Even though I’d been there, I couldn’t point to it on a topo map, and we’d ridden so many back roads, logging roads and jeep trails, that I didn’t even know what county the place was in. Mike was evasive and reluctant to talk any further about it. Based on that and my previous lack of findings in the Alamosa newspaper archives, I rated the incident “Improbable/Unlikely†in my log book. My BF’n buddy Carl always talked about probability of truth, and so to satisfy him, I gave it less than 10 or 15% probability of being true. Now let’s fast forward to around 2000. My friend Jim “Bear†Grant was researching old news stories on the internet about “wild menâ€, “ape menâ€, “hairy menâ€, “boogersâ€, “yahoosâ€, and other such things that were probably referring to what we now call bigfoot or sasquatch. He came across a story in Antebellum 1800’s about a guy that specialized in hunting down escaped slaves. He was hired to hunt one down had tracked him into the Okefenokee Swamp area, if I remember correctly. Somewhere in there, they encountered a BF, somebody shot at it, it attacked them, several more opened fire on it, but it didn’t stop right then, and the first thing it did was yank off their heads. Bear then found other old stories, some of referenced here in this thread, where the same thing happened. It may have partially dismembered some of them further, but I can’t remember. Anyway, when I read that, I remembered Mike’s story, in CO. He said that the first thing the BF did to the hunter was yank off his head. Where did Mike get that idea, if he didn’t see it happen? Remember, this was in the pre-internet days and I believe it was extremely unlikely that he had read one of those old newspaper stories somewhere in a book at that time. Did he just make it up and just happened to exactly describe the killing method supposedly employed by other BF? I don’t know….. This has had me scratching my head ever since then. Also, back in the 1960’s, a family that lived just west of our farm had a harrowing incident with a BF. I went to school with their two sons, and graduated high school with the oldest one. They sent their two trained German Shepherd guard dogs after what they thought was a bear raiding their garbage cans. The bear stood up and they saw that it wasn’t a bear. My classmate described it as a “yetiâ€. We hadn’t heard the word “bigfoot†at that time, but National Geographic had just put out their first special about the “Abominable Snowman†or “yeti†a year or so earlier, so he used the only word he knew to describe it. Anyway, the BF grabbed the first Shepherd that arrived and twisted its head around backwards, snapping its neck and killing it instantly, then threw it on their roof. The second Shepherd, it grabbed and twisted it’s torso, snapping its spine and threw it into their side yard. It was found on the ground with the back half of its body pointed upwards. If the front legs were pointed down, the back legs were pointed up. I would say that the muscular/skeletal structure of a big German Shepherd’s head and neck is stronger than a human’s. That action would have probably beheaded a human. Very similar killing method that I had forgotten about until I read the old slave hunter story. In addition, the method of hunting and herding the deer towards a hidden accomplice that Mike described the BF were doing matches what I've, years later, heard described by others, and it makes perfect sense. The fact the the deer were being herded or driven uphill in the morning perfectly matches the method that you would use to employ the rising morning thermals to take the herder's or driver's scent up to the deer, causing them to move uphill away from the driver (that's downhill), to where the accomplice was hidden (uphill) and HIS scent would be also taken uphill, but AWAY from the deer, allowing him to remain hidden. Also, when I’ve since gone back and researched bear attack deaths in the US, there is a great difference in the numbers of deaths listed in different sources. And we all know that Wiki, and any other internet source, is NOT infallible. For instance see: http://en.wikipedia....n_North_America and then compare the numbers to: http://www.blackbear...-statistics.htm . And the list gets bigger with further digging. And I also know for a fact, from my years of working for the Government, that LOTS of things are either covered up completely or altered so much that there is no way of getting to the truth of some incidents. So, to cut a really long story short, I’m not so sure that ol’ Mike was telling a bald-faced big one anymore. But, I’m SURE NOT going to submit it somewhere as a bonafide incident. I think it’s somewhat more likely that it happened, but I still categorize it as “Needs Much More Hard Evidence for Verificationâ€.
  25. 8 points
    Posted again in the hope that Parn will eventually stop misrepresenting what Stubstad has said about the early DNA results from the Ketchum report.
This leaderboard is set to New York/GMT-05:00