Erickson Project

[steenburg]

Oh man. Come on. Pages and threads of people saying things...please. I think after all the other writing you have done here you can type more than "Erickson knows." How does he know? Who told him, when did it happen, and how was it done? Over what form of communication and was it confirmed? I am sorry, but if you all can go posting pics and videos debunking someone's pics and videos and calling them hoaxes, surely you can give more detail into how you got the word to Erickson. I am not saying you didn't, I am really just tired of hearing about things with no proof. If you say you do on the record and how you did it, well, it would make a much greater impact if the vids and pics from this guy are on Erickson's final cut. Just sayin'...

He and myself spoke face to face about it last April in Harrison Hots Springs. Jeff Mel-drum was listening in. I assume he could hear us. I even asked him if any of this was going to be in the documentary? He neither said yes or no but mentioned that due to legal matters he could not say anything about the content of the documentary. I wished him the best of luck with it and he replied thank you. i did not record the conversation but noticed that other people standing near by had cameras going? If they caught any of it I don't know. But again. He does know.

Thomas Steenburg

Edited August 25, 2011 by steenburg

[Guest tpick]

Miller and Steenburg, We will come on one more Time, We will say it again, Brisson is no Hoaxer, He is the Erickson Canadian Part, He has the Vids, the Pics, The Hair, The other Evidence, The DNA.

You Guys are Pissed its not you, This is your Backyard, And Your not involved, Yes Erickson has been to the stump, Those Pics and the Video are Real, You and Miller, go on on year, after year, about this, No one cares, When it all comes out and is said and Done, you guys are going to look like the fools you are, You have it in for him, You guys talk about if Adrian knows this or that about Brisson, They have had many encounters when Brisson was not even there.

You should call Mr Erickson, than keep all this crap talk you guys say, Thomas what Researcher, Who has wrote books, and been involved in Bigfoot for 20 years or so, and call yourself a expert would say. Is the Dam thing even out there, We have only been in this 3 years and Dam well know there Real, LOL, you guys are the Hoaxers, We cant wait for you to see the results, when the Doc, and DNA, Come out, They are Human, Thats why Brisson Pics look Human.

There are hundreds and hundreds of pics and Vids out there, but you go on and on about this Brisson, face the facts your Jealous, and cant take it. WERE IS YOUR PROOF OF ANY HOAXING, WE WANT TO SEE IT NOT HEAR IT.

"you and Miller go on year after year about this..."

Your points, sir, may be valid but the "year after year" business lies at the feet of Erickson. How many projected release dates will pass before we see the evidence? I think the EP is the most exciting thing this century in Bigfoot Research, but we ain't gettin any younger...

[Guest HairyGreek]

He and myself spoke face to face about it last April in Harrison Hots Springs. Jeff Mel-drum was listening in. I assume he could hear us. I even asked him if any of this was going to be in the documentary? He neither said yes or no but mentioned that due to legal matters he could not say anything about the content of the documentary. I wished him the best of luck with it and he replied thank you. i did not record the conversation but noticed that other people standing near by had cameras going? If they caught any of it I don't know. But again. He does know.

Thomas Steenburg

Now THAT makes it important to the thread to me. I would be interested in someone with a greater knowledge of video and photography to verify the dispute is at least reasonable as far as Brisson's visual evidence. As far as the rock throwing incident which speaks to the character of the witness, I would need to hear if anyone else on the trip felt the same as you about being hoaxed. I like when everything is out in the open. If you all are willing to go there, I am all for you speaking up. Let's just hope it isn't in vain and Erickson hasn't already dumped this guy. Also, I hope for your sakes you are both right about Brisson as you have effectively shredded his credibility on a public forum and it will be on your shoulders if you were wrong.

[Guest]

Agreed that they have kept it civil. Still not really sure why this is relevant though. What am I missing here? Being a Bigfoot researcher doesn't make Bigfoothunter Bill Munns. What makes him an expert in video analysis/evidence? If he is, sweet. I would feel better knowing that he is since he is leaving no room for anything but this being a purposeful hoax. If not, well, I can tear apart lots of stuff because I think different. Cool, they have an opinion on the subject and they have been Bigfoot field researchers. Everything else is still hearsay. Actually, I would like to hear Bill's opinion on this since it is important enough to call Erickson's judgement into question to some and he is is an expert in video analysis. This almost is to the point of deserving it's own thread.

For the record, I have no idea who Bigfoothunter is, or who Steenburg is, or any of these other people hashing things out. I think that gives me some objectivity that you won't find anywhere else on the forum. So far, what I have gotten out of this is the photo or video has questionable qualities. Bigguysquatch thinks it is authentic. I've seen why Bigfoothunter thinks this is a hoax, but nothing to substantiate the authenticity of this photo/video from Bigguysquatch. Supposedly, this is going to be a part of the documentary that Erickson will release one day, but no one is certain of that. Since Erickson is associating with the person who obtained this photo/video with questionable qualities it might threaten the credibility of the project. That would be the cliff note version as I see it.

And Hairy, please feel free to correct me if I missed the nuances but all of it is a matter of opinion, everyone has one no matter what the topic is on a bigfoot forum. How is either of these two gentlemen with differing opinions any different than any other forum member making claims lately? I've seen proof of absolutely nothing from anyone no matter how self important they may think they are. Your opinion about the direction of this thread is dually noted also but you are not a moderator. If you have issues with what is posted in this thread hit the report button or PM a moderator. I'm not the only one that is reading this thread, and I'm certainly not the only one addressing reports.

[steenburg]

Now THAT makes it important to the thread to me. I would be interested in someone with a greater knowledge of video and photography to verify the dispute is at least reasonable as far as Brisson's visual evidence. As far as the rock throwing incident which speaks to the character of the witness, I would need to hear if anyone else on the trip felt the same as you about being hoaxed. I like when everything is out in the open. If you all are willing to go there, I am all for you speaking up. Let's just hope it isn't in vain and Erickson hasn't already dumped this guy. Also, I hope for your sakes you are both right about Brisson as you have effectively shredded his credibility on a public forum and it will be on your shoulders if you were wrong.

You can visit the west coast Sasquatch forum page and follow the entire history of this sad affair from the beginning. Also I would suggest just googling Brison hoax and you find comments from others who were on the same outing as myself during the small stone throwing day of July 20 2009. Also try Blog talk radio and punch in Randy Brisson and listen to the interview he gave. It will leave you stunned. Also try you tube under trailerrider research. Also the BFRO forum page since the other people out that day were BFRO members.

Thomas Steenburg

[Guest HairyGreek]

For the record, I have no idea who Bigfoothunter is, or who Steenburg is, or any of these other people hashing things out.

That makes two of us...

I think that gives me some objectivity that you won't find anywhere else on the forum. So far, what I have gotten out of this is the photo or video has questionable qualities. Bigguysquatch thinks it is authentic. I've seen why Bigfoothunter thinks this is a hoax, but nothing to substantiate the authenticity of this photo/video from Bigguysquatch. Supposedly, this is going to be a part of the documentary that Erickson will release one day, but no one is certain of that. Since Erickson is associating with the person who obtained this photo/video with questionable qualities it might threaten the credibility of the project. That would be the cliff note version as I see it.

I got that part of it. But if no one even knows or can say for sure that it will be on the EP video, it is hard to see why so much time is spent on it when the other guy ain't putting up much of a fight as far as evidence to the contrary.

And Hairy, please feel free to correct me if I missed the nuances but all of it is a matter of opinion, everyone has one no matter what the topic is on a bigfoot forum. How is either of these two gentlemen with differing opinions any different than any other forum member making claims lately? I've seen proof of absolutely nothing from anyone no matter how self important they may think they are. Your opinion about the direction of this thread is dually noted also but you are not a moderator. If you have issues with what is posted in this thread hit the report button or PM a moderator. I'm not the only one that is reading this thread, and I'm certainly not the only one addressing reports.

Correct. I am just sharing my opinion as well. My opinion is that it is going nowhere unless Erickson is involved which has now been clearly stated is not the case. I am not reporting it or trying to moderate Jodie; just putting in my two cents as well (I guess I could have thrown out some JMOs in with my comments). But really, you know I am not afraid to hit the report buttton!

[Guest Bigfoothunter]

Now THAT makes it important to the thread to me. I would be interested in someone with a greater knowledge of video and photography to verify the dispute is at least reasonable as far as Brisson's visual evidence. As far as the rock throwing incident which speaks to the character of the witness, I would need to hear if anyone else on the trip felt the same as you about being hoaxed. I like when everything is out in the open. If you all are willing to go there, I am all for you speaking up. Let's just hope it isn't in vain and Erickson hasn't already dumped this guy. Also, I hope for your sakes you are both right about Brisson as you have effectively shredded his credibility on a public forum and it will be on your shoulders if you were wrong.

I spent years analyzing film concerning the JFK assassination, not to mention the countless digital images I have shot. I also know photographic experts who I seek opinions. All I was doing is asking someone like BigguySasquatch to explain these things just so I'd know if they had any idea of the subject or were just being a cheerleader.

As far as destroying credibility ... someone should count the story changes that Brisson made and examine them as far as the timing when they were made. Each time never being mentioned until a problem had been pointed out with the old version. Brisson has been his own enemy. Speaking about that ... care to explain Brisson's latest version whereas the body of the alleged 7' Squatch was leaning over to its right and yet managed to get its head in a vertical position while keeping its shoulders below the stump line with the head seen well above the stump?

Also, feel free to compare the head size to Steenburgs. And we have to hope we are right about Brisson ... the same Brisson that seems to be the only one common denominator in the rock throwing incidents in that area. The day that Brisson got caught, people had paid good money to come from the Island on a Ferry, drive from Mission, Vancouver, only to find that it was Brisson throwing the stones. When Brisson was in view - no stones were landing. When he lagged behind or thought he was far enough to the side - the rocks seemed to come. It was then that the rest of the party started pretending not to be looking. It6 was said by some that it was like Brisson could help himself when each opportunity arrived. Steenburg was one of the people who saw Brisson throw a rock and we need to hope that we are right about Brisson being a hoaxer .... give me a break!

I'm feeling confident and I can tell you the nail in the coffin may be coming soon as one more test at the stump is in the working.

And for those who don't know who Steenburg is ... I entered the name sasquatch/steenburg into Google and got this ...

http://www.google.ca/search?q=sasquatch+steenburg&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=com.yahoo:en-US:official&client=firefox

Edited August 25, 2011 by Bigfoothunter

[Guest HairyGreek]

I spent years analyzing film concerning the JFK assassination, not to mention the countless digital images I have shot. I also know photographic experts who I seek opinions. All I was doing is asking someone like BigguySasquatch to explain these things just so I'd know if they had any idea of the subject or were just being a cheerleader.

I'm no one's cheerleader so no worries there. I do tend to gravitate towards calling into question others when they call someone elses credibility to the table in public. Just my nature I guess. I have no idea who you are claiming BigguySasquatch is or who you are. I have friends I can show things to as well and I have spent years analyzing the Bible. That doesn't make me an expert.

As far as destroying credibility ... someone should count the story changes that Brisson made and examine them as far as the timing when they were made. Each time never being mentioned until a problem had been pointed out with the old version. Brisson has been his own enemy. Speaking about that ... care to explain Brisson's latest version whereas the body of the alleged 7' Squatch was leaning over to its right and yet managed to get its head in a vertical position while keeping its shoulders below the stump line with the head seen well above the stump?

Actually, I would care for someone to explain to me why you care so much about his lying if it is as self evident as you claim. I can't muster up the time to look into this more until I know for sure it will be on the Erickson release.

Also, feel free to compare the head size to Steenburgs. And we have to hope we are right about Brisson ... the same Brisson that seems to be the only one common denominator in the rock throwing incidents. The day that Brisson got caught, people had paid good money to come from the Island on a Ferry, drive from Mission, Vancouver, only to find that it was Brisson throwing the stones.

Sometimes the silliest questions are the most logical. First, why again can't a Sas have a "human sized" head? How do I know Steenburg's melon isn't above the human average. I know plenty of people with all different sized heads. I am sure this can be demonstrated in animals of all kinds as well. You are trying to place a head size on a creature that has never even been captured accurately on film more than once (if you buy the PGF, which I do). Second, maybe you just explained why he threw stones if he indeed was caught. He didn't want to disappoint and ruin the chance at some cash. "Money is the root of all sorts of evil" and all that.

I'm feeling confident and I can tell you the nail in the coffin may be coming soon as one for test at the stump is in the working.

As with the EP, the OP, and the KP...I will believe it when I see it. Until then, I like calling into question anything I can see worth doing it. It's what makes this board fun. Sometimes, playing the devil's advocate is a necessary evil. No pun intended. And no worries, I have no dog in this hunt as far as Brisson goes. This is all just my very humble opinion! Edited August 25, 2011 by HairyGreek

[Guest HairyGreek]

And for those who don't know who Steenburg is ... I entered the name sasquatch/steenburg into Google and got this ...

http://www.google.ca/search?q=sasquatch+steenburg&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=com.yahoo:en-US:official&client=firefox

Thanks for the help with that "google" thing...wasn't sure how it worked yet.

[steenburg]

Quote,[How do I know Steenburg's melon isn't above the human average]end quote.

HarryGreek have you been talking to my ex wife???

Thomas Steenburg

[Guest HairyGreek]

Quote,[How do I know Steenburg's melon isn't above the human average]end quote.

HarryGreek have you been talking to my ex wife???

Thomas Steenburg

ROFL! I like you sir. I appreciate that you can have a sense of humor about the situation and still understand my concerns enough to address them. I also like that you don't think I should know who you are and obviously don't take yourself too seriously. Your friend on the other hand, needs to calm down a little IMHO. Most people on here just want the truth about Sasquatch. I would rather you two be focusing your energies on getting your own evidence/footage rather then debunking someone else who, according to you both, seems to do a pretty good job of it all by himself. No matter what you all do or say, someone will believe this guy no matter what you say. And honestly, until this thread I had never heard of him or seen any of this stuff.

[steenburg]

I appreciate what you are saying HarryGreek. But I can assure you Bigfoothunter is a very common sense researcher who just sticks to the facts. If he thought those photos were of a real Sasquatch he would be just as passionate in their defence as he is when exposing a hoax. He does spend more time in the bush than most people as he is in a position where he can research full time. No job, family, or dog to have to worry about. He also hopes that the EP does live up to all the pre release hype. And is worried about the same rumors and red flags that I am.

Thomas Steenburg

[Guest Bigfoothunter]

name='HairyGreek' timestamp='1314245080' post='94666']

I do tend to gravitate towards calling into question others when they call someone elses credibility to the table in public. Just my nature I guess. I have no idea who you are claiming BigguySasquatch is or who you are. I have friends I can show things to as well and I have spent years analyzing the Bible. That doesn't make me an expert.

In think in all fairness to those who have done so, people should take the trouble to learn the facts and history of the issue before the calling into question of anyone. I have shared pieces of a story that seems to be well known to everyone but a few. I've been to the site in question and studied it. What I seem to get in responses is information that makes me think some people don't even know the basics of the known evidence. It's been said that even if Brisson was to ever really see a Sasquatch - how would we know it if he has been known to hoax. I can tell you how ... we start by learning the original story and we look how at each step when the story of Brisson's changed, it came in response to incoming data that exposed details of the original story that obviously were not true. We didn't go to Brisson for a story - he gave us one and ina public way. So when that story changes ... are we supposed to ignore it - I don't think so. For instance, we have another known hoax (nothing to do with Brisson) that we have not exposed publicly for it hasn't to our knowledge gone public. However, if it does ... we will expose it publicly.

Actually, I would care for someone to explain to me why you care so much about his lying if it is as self evident as you claim. I can't muster up the time to look into this more until I know for sure it will be on the Erickson release.

Because it isn't self-evident to those who know little details of the subject matter being discussed. We don't expect everyone to know, but we certainly feel obligated to share what we know.

I agree that you may want to wait until you see what's put out by Erickson. In the meantime, please consider learning what you can about the morphing of this story by its author and then you may have a better understanding why so many of us know that it was a hoax. Then if the EP uses Brisson, then at least you will be up to speed so to make informed postings of your opinion.

Sometimes the silliest questions are the most logical. First, why again can't a Sas have a "human sized" head? How do I know Steenburg's melon isn't above the human average. I know plenty of people with all different sized heads. I am sure this can be demonstrated in animals of all kinds as well. You are trying to place a head size on a creature that has never even been captured accurately on film more than once (if you buy the PGF, which I do).

The pieces of the puzzle should come together to make one complete picture. I know how big Steenburg's head is as almost everyone in the sasquatch field who has met him knows. He is as well known in this field as anyone I know who's still living with the exception of Green. There is hardly a time that he is not in a documentary, in the newspaper, on TV, at a conference, if not one of the speakers. This is why I posted the Google link so to show just how well he is known. Photos of him with Dahinden, Krantz, Gimlin, Meldrum, Bindernagle, Murphy, Green, Knoll, Greenwell, Kirk, and the list goes on and on. Such a lineup should offer good idea as to his head size against those I just mentioned. Until now, I didn't think that anyone would not be familar with Steenburg and what he looked like. So to answer your question, you would know if you bothered to research the answer. His head is of average size for a 5'8" man. The alleged 7' Brisson subject's head (hair and all from ear to ear) can fit on Tom's face. So can there not be a Sasquatch with a large body and a head so small ... maybe, but that is not anything that Brisson described. But who knows but after this last study at the stump is over ... I bet the small head scenario will have morphed into the next story change.

Second, maybe you just explained why he threw stones if he indeed was caught. He didn't want to disappoint and ruin the chance at some cash. "Money is the root of all sorts of evil" and all that.

BINGO!!!

Until then, I like calling into question anything I can see worth doing it. It's what makes this board fun. Sometimes, playing the devil's advocate is a necessary evil.

BINGO AGAIN! We want the evidence we found tested and scrutinized, but we would hope that its done by people who have learned the facts and history of the case beforehand. In the case of Ivan Marx ... Marx claimed that the sasquatch he filmed was 9 - 10 feet tall. Marx knew this because of the known height of the tree branch near it for Marx had been there. Soon afterwards his hoax was exposed when the site was found and it was discovered that the tree brack wasn't but half as high off the ground that Marx misled people to think.

[Guest HairyGreek]

In think in all fairness to those who have done so, people should take the trouble to learn the facts and history of the issue before the calling into question of anyone. I have shared pieces of a story that seems to be well known to everyone but a few. I've been to the site in question and studied it. What I seem to get in responses is information that makes me think some people don't even know the basics of the known evidence. It's been said that even if Brisson was to ever really see a Sasquatch - how would we know it if he has been known to hoax. I can tell you how ... we start by learning the original story and we look how at each step when the story of Brisson's changed, it came in response to incoming data that exposed details of the original story that obviously were not true. We didn't go to Brisson for a story - he gave us one and ina public way. So when that story changes ... are we supposed to ignore it - I don't think so. For instance, we have another known hoax (nothing to do with Brisson) that we have not exposed publicly for it hasn't to our knowledge gone public. However, if it does ... we will expose it publicly.

I am not sure why you think everyone should know so much about Brisson and his stories or yours. Not everyone travels to conferences and listens to every radio show and reads every blog and book that comes out. Some of us see a little too much conjecture being defended like religion to swallow up everything that comes out. Wasn't it you who said a few posts back "If I want to believe everything one man says, I will follow religion" (paraphrased)? Hence me being a part of this forum. Perhaps you should have written a terse well written cogent statement regarding ALL the facts with names, pictures, etc and place it on this forum in one post or provide a link to one located elsewhere. Someone else did. The MK Davis study. I would think that would be the way to do it as you expect everyone to study all the facts of this alleged hoax and the possible importance it will play. JMO, as Jodie pointed out, I am no Mod or Admin and I am not trying to tell you what to do.

Because it isn't self-evident to those who know little details of the subject matter being discussed. We don't expect everyone to know, but we certainly feel obligated to share what we know.

Granted, then like I said above, lay it all out one one statement with everything you have along with why it is important. You know, like a report.

I agree that you may want to wait until you see what's put out by Erickson. In the meantime, please consider learning what you can about the morphing of this story by its author and then you may have a better understanding why so many of us know that it was a hoax. Then if the EP uses Brisson, then at least you will be up to speed so to make informed postings of your opinion.

Agreed, I will wait. Also, even if you are wrong, you will have sent off a red alarm in my head any time I hear Brisson is the source now; so mission accomplished. I am not saying it is not a hoax, but I cannot say it is either until you can show something besides conjecture on head size and one discolored pixelation. Hopefully the new study will "put the final nail in the coffin" as you say. And then, only if it makes it into the Erickson Project will I bother with it. Sorry. There is lots of crap out there. I think it is enough you have rasied reasonable doubt as to his authenticity in most peoples heads (including mine). But just an FYI, most already walk around with enough of that about Bigfoot "evidence" regardless of the topic or source. I had not heard of the Brisson photo/vids. I remember watching somehting on YouTube about the stump, but I thought it was just examing someone's story. It wasn't well explained why they were there and until I see the video, the jury is out for me. I also can't discount the video or pics based on the rock-throwing incident. Sorry. Even the boy who cried "wolf" got it right once. I do appreciate you bringing it to the board though so if it becomes an important piece of the puzzle, people on the board won't be caught off-guard when/if it is proven to be a definitive hoax.

The pieces of the puzzle should come together to make one complete picture. I know how big Steenburg's head is as almost everyone in the sasquatch field who has met him knows. He is as well known in this field as anyone I know who's still living with the exception of Green. There is hardly a time that he is not in a documentary, in the newspaper, on TV, at a conference, if not one of the speakers. This is why I posted the Google link so to show just how well he is known. Photos of him with Dahinden, Krantz, Gimlin, Meldrum, Bindernagle, Murphy, Green, Knoll, Greenwell, Kirk, and the list goes on and on. Such a lineup should offer good idea as to his head size against those I just mentioned. Until now, I didn't think that anyone would not be familar with Steenburg and what he looked like. So to answer your question, you would know if you bothered to research the answer. His head is of average size for a 5'8" man. The alleged 7' Brisson subject's head (hair and all from ear to ear) can fit on Tom's face. So can there not be a Sasquatch with a large body and a head so small ... maybe, but that is not anything that Brisson described. But who knows but after this last study at the stump is over ... I bet the small head scenario will have morphed into the next story change.

Again, dropping names and expecting me to know someone's head size just rubs me the wrong way. It makes me itch all over. I am interested in Bigfoot, not in all the cult followings some of these gentleman have. I am sure they are all great men and researchers. I respect that the spend their free time in the woods trying to uncover something fantastic. Here is the rub for me though and I know this is tantamount to Bigfoot Blasphemy to say this, but the jury is still out into how important any of the guys you mentioned are until Bigfoot is found and proven without a doubt.

BINGO!!!

My question is, how desperate is this guy to put some food on the table? How does he live? Dupping others to get money is no excuse for being a conman and a liar. But I always like to understand someone's motives better.

BINGO AGAIN! We want the evidence we found tested and scrutinized, but we would hope that its done by people who have learned the facts and history of the case beforehand. In the case of Ivan Marx ... Marx claimed that the sasquatch he filmed was 9 - 10 feet tall. Marx knew this because of the known height of the tree branch near it for Marx had been there. Soon afterwards his hoax was exposed when the site was found and it was discovered that the tree brack wasn't but half as high off the ground that Marx misled people to think.

Your second sentence there...what are you implying exactly? Sometimes the best, most objective people are the one's who look in from the outside; not the ones sitting around consumed with the facts everyday and clouded by one point of view. Also, YOU brought it to the forum and into this thread so if the fact that not everyone here is an expert in the "Brisson Hoax", maybe you should have picked a better venue. JMHO. Thanks for your time in responding and remaining somewhat cordial. I wish we could hear Brisson's side though. I would like to hear you two go at it; not the other guy who keeps writing.

[Guest Bigfoothunter]

name='HairyGreek' timestamp='1314282700' post='94743']

I am not sure why you think everyone should know so much about Brisson and his stories or yours. Not everyone travels to conferences and listens to every radio show and reads every blog and book that comes out.

A simple Google search would have been a good start so you'd know things like the size of Steenburg's head angainst the 'Men in Black' sized head on a 7' body that Brisson offered. After all, it was you who asked how you would know ... ? At first glance, MK Davis offered a story about a group of men slaughtering a family of Sasquatch in Bluff Creek that seemed interesting, but it was a careful study on our part that led to the write up called 'The Massacre in Bluff Creek'. Below is a line that Dahinden once said and its one of the best pieces of advice I have ever heard when it comes to investigating things.

"Everyone has a right to their own opinion, but no one has a right to be wrong about the facts. Without the facts, your opinion is of no value.†Rene Dahinden, August 1999.

Agreed, I will wait. Also, even if you are wrong, you will have sent off a red alarm in my head any time I hear Brisson is the source now; so mission accomplished. I am not saying it is not a hoax, but I cannot say it is either until you can show something besides conjecture on head size and one discolored pixelation.

I guess you didn't understand my mentioning how pieces of a puzzle should come together. It is those things you mentioned above that caused me to ask questions when put up against the many known things Brisson had said about his encounter that wasn't true. Major changes in his story is one example. One doesn't need to know Steenburgs head size to see doubts in a claim if they know the difference between a short distance from a GEP parkinglot from the deep remote forest of Pitt Lake. The same can be said about hearing the original story as Brisson not seeing the subject again after it dropping down behind the stump - to later saying that he watched it run away. These are just two such problems and there were more. I've not even mentioned the perfect centered framing , both vertically and horizontally) of the pictures themselves that were said to be taken from the hip without the use of the viewfinder ... and this includes the photo of just the stump after it was said the subject had ducked down behind it and hissed. Then bring into the mix the alleged rock throwing that people were experiencing when with Brisson ... I personally some people who thought it legit. It was certainly something that has been reported by others in other areas, but in Brisson's case he was caught red handed by more than one person. And while its nice to keep an open mind, I must be careful not to open mine so far that I'll appear as if my brains have fallen out.

Again, dropping names and expecting me to know someone's head size just rubs me the wrong way. It makes me itch all over. I am interested in Bigfoot, not in all the cult followings some of these gentleman have.

I didn't know much at first as to what happened in Dallas when JFK was shot even though I was quite interested to know more, so I first studied the subject in great detail so I could be satisfied that I could form a reasonable opinion. In the case about the head remark ... would you not feel it important to find out someone's head size before thinking that an alleged 7' tall sasquatch's head could fit hair and all between Steenburgs ears ... and see the relevancy to it when that one piece of the puzzle is put up against all the other pieces ... I certainly think so.

My question is, how desperate is this guy to put some food on the table? How does he live? Dupping others to get money is no excuse for being a conman and a liar. But I always like to understand someone's motives better.

My only advice is to learn the story first ... then try and understand the motives later. Those who busted Brisson throwing the stones and acting like it was Sasquatch were not being paid. So what's left but a desire to make others appear that he is something that he is not. The why he does it isn't important for me to know, but good luck to those who might want to pursue it.

Your second sentence there...what are you implying exactly? Sometimes the best, most objective people are the one's who look in from the outside; not the ones sitting around consumed with the facts everyday and clouded by one point of view.

I agree, if those looking in know the facts so to be able to offer an informed opinion.

Edited August 25, 2011 by Bigfoothunter