|
Post by bigfoothunter on Aug 11, 2009 20:32:15 GMT -5
For anyone wanting to hear the facts:
To say that the BFRO is "swarming" like bees to honey in that area is mere propaganda and simply not factual. The BFRO (Darcy and Jason) been in to that area once to pull their game cameras out and re-position them to another part of the park.
Also .... Brisson's imaginary "friends" in the bush and who are telling him that the BFRO is out their in Golden Ears using their night vision are lying to him. That Tuesday that Brisson was caught throwing rocks was the only time they've been out there after dark.
Bill Miller Bigfoot Field Research
|
|
|
Post by lorelei on Aug 11, 2009 21:07:31 GMT -5
Just when I thought I was done, I read the description on the youtube video: "Sasquatch chooses whom he interacts with, therefore not everyone gets the same results in the same area.
Guest's in company of the host researcher for this area, often experience rock throwing. There are many individuals whom have accompanied the host to this area and have experienced rock throwing. On his own the host does not experience rock throwing. The host researcher is well known to this tribe of Bigfoot now.
Third party researchers are unlikely to experience rock throwing when visiting this area on their own. This video and area demonstrates my observed BF research phenomena "It's not where you are, it's who you are". In other words some people, for reasons unknown, become persons of interest to Sasquatch"This seriously cracks me up but explains a lot. I truly believe those who go to this extent, to fabricate elaborate hoaxes and fantasies about communing with Sasquatch are mentally unhinged. The degree to this 'unhinging' varies, but one thing remains consistent...these folks are megalomaniacs to the nth degree. This also ties in nicely with the obvious paranoia (ex Randy's 'friends' watching people in 'his territory'). A desperation to feel special or chosen seems to be the common thread with these types of people...a quest for fame or acknowledgment without the experience, education or simple leg work to back it up. And another thing...Randy Brisson (and now cameranut) came to us, not the other way around. Randy essentially marketed his area to us at Green Point, then spent a great deal of time hyping it up. I know a good sell when I see one and I was interested in getting out there just to see what else he would do, how this particular shell game would play out. Thomas luckily figured it out before the rest of us were taken. What I'm getting at is simple...Randy (and by proxy cameranut) have made some bold claims in the field of Sasquatch research, therefore it is up to them to prove it to us. We didn't go demanding answers or seeking anything from them, the ball was in his court to follow through with these claims, and he obviously failed. So camer nut, as with any scientific field, be it biology or theoretical physics, it is up to you to back your claims with tangible and testable evidence, otherwise it's just fiction...and if I want fiction, I'll go to the library.
|
|
duallie
Has opinions now!
Posts: 191
|
Post by duallie on Aug 11, 2009 22:57:11 GMT -5
So, Cameranut bids us all a goodbye, and 1 post later he's back! He obviously can't stay quiet. He'll just be back under a different name anyway. Cameranut. Well, the last part of his name is definitely accurate. Seriously, he suggests that red orbs and telekinesis are connected with BF. The guy believes that BF causes his headaches with telepathy. His headaches are obviously caused by his brain having trouble trying to make sense of all the nonsense being crammed into it. He needs to pick one 'unknown' and concentrate on just the one, rather than combining them. BF does not get from one location to another, or continent to another, by riding in spaceships. I've actually read a report where they said that they witnessed a craft landing, and BF walking out! And they link that to why they cannot be found and why there are worldwide sightings. But back to the main topic. That photo of the head in the tree is the weakest photo I've seen. Why is the face so much darker than anything else in the photo. It's like it isn't effected by the occurring light and shadows as the rest of the scene. There is nothing impressive about it in any way. I don't believe that anyone said that he 'doctored' the photo as cameranut suggests. I believe that the qualities of the photo may show that it hasn't been altered. That still does not mean that the photo is of a real BF. It isn't exactly difficult to go and place something in the tree. So why did he bolt outta there after rapid-firing the three shots? Isn't his purpose to find BF??? So, there he is, and he bolts?? REALLY!!!! If you're that frightened of BF then why choose to search for BF? How are you supposed to study something if your reaction is to run away from it? The video. Ugh! So lame. I could make that same thing every time I go out. Everyone could. There isn't a thing in that video that suggests BF. Even if the rocks were really thrown, nobody seen what or who threw them. You cannot automatically say that it was BF. That happens to me, the very first thing that I'm thinking is that someone's tossing rocks at me. The last thing I'd connect it to is a BF, even if I'm searching for them. After that, rocks are definitely getting tossed back. If it still continues, then I'd look for the culprit. After I chambered a round. Show me a video of BF tossing rocks. After seeing one, then I'll consider it a possibility. What 1000 lb. animals is cameranut familiar with, to have an idea of what it's weight must have been. No 1000 lb. animal is walking alongside them the whole time without being heard or seen. Do people not understand how big a 1000 lb. BF would be? Insanely enormous. Shaq is 300 lbs. and around 7 ft. tall. Use his image as a comparison and now over triple his size. Impossible. People's minds have formed an image of the BF 'monster' and grossly oversized him. Those are big slippers to remain silent also. The other 'encounter' that bothers me is when people suggest a splash in the water is a BF throwing a rock at them. I'm out on lakes alot at night. I go out in the evening on my pontoon boat flyfishing. Pitch black out, headlamp to see, kicking around the lake dragging a fly. Huge splashes occur alot. My reaction? Nice fish! The last thought in my mind is that a BF is tossing rocks at me. Oh sure. I could start screaming and splashing my way back to my truck, bolt outta there, and tell everyone about my amazing BF encounter. Or! I could enjoy the peacefulness of the evening and continue catching fish. I always choose the latter. I've found the snapped trees and had a couple strange events, but I still don't claim that they were BF-related. They may very well be, but until I witness one, they are just strange events. And if I did see BF but was unable to get video-proof, I sure wouldn't be wasting my time trying to convince others that I saw it. If you chose not to believe me, fine, I'd know what I saw. I catch a 30lb. fish and release it, but never got a photo of it. You don't believe I caught a 30lber. I don't care. I know I did. I caught it for me. For my enjoyment. Not for someone else's. I would not waste senseless time arguing about something that cannot be proven. It's pointless. I don't believe many BF reports. That doesn't mean that they aren't true. But if there isn't sufficient proof, it also doesn't mean that they are. Good work, Thomas, on exposing obvious hoaxes. And their attacks on you and the rest here are foolish anyway, since their apparent evidence is so, so weak.
|
|
|
Post by bigfoothunter on Aug 11, 2009 23:49:53 GMT -5
So MK Davis has now removed his video featuring Randys images. Thats one person whom by his actions, has defacto admitted he mishandled Randys images. Bill Miller you are next up to confess to your errors and retract your conclusions. Which are now magnified in my opinion because you did use Brisson's files. There is another option you let slide out of sight .... MK has realized that he has involved his name with a sorry individual who was running a hoax. And how can someone like myself argue with a screwball who first claimed I was using Youtube images and that was the cause of some error I was supposed to have made to now posting that I did use the original images and somehow nothing has changed. It's your intention to attempt to salvage a pathetic and obvious bit of damage control on your part. When I spoke to John Green about you and Brisson's behavior ... he replied that he no longer waste his time with people like that. It seems to be something that many of us are thinking at this time. Forget that the head remains on the same axis ... you continue to ignore that head remained the same size even though the camera was at a different distance to the stump between photos. Which by the way are the two photos that you claimed to be the same photo with only some narrowing of the image ... which was totally BS when we could see the tress in the background rotate against the stump. You have managed to argue against the law of physics that cannot be debunked with the images before you, so you instead ignore the problem and push disinformation in its place. You jokers are lucky that you aren't asked to reimburse all the people who spent their hard earned money going to a place that was little more than another Georgia Bigfoot in a Freezer hoax in a sense. Shame on you both! I have posted Brisson's own images from one photo to the other and it did change size ... countless people have pointed this out to you. In fact, if you look at the trees and tree limbs beyond the stump - they increase in size as well. It was only the pasted head that remained the same. This was an oversight by the hoaxer and misstating the facts will never convince anyone otherwise. You make claims, but offer not one animated overlay to back up what you are saying. The animation in this response speaks a thousand words and I have seen nothing that disputes its laws of physics. PS: Your headaches are more likely caused from trying to juggle excuses for the hoaxes you have participated in ... that's not the fault of the Sasquatch or will that be your final plea. (sigh~) Bill Miller Bigfoot Field Research
|
|
sebastian
Really into this!
Detective Gadget & Moderator
Posts: 512
|
Post by sebastian on Aug 12, 2009 0:16:50 GMT -5
The whole thing is starting to smell like a dead sasquatch in a freezer box.
|
|
|
Post by rastaman on Aug 12, 2009 2:54:04 GMT -5
Time for Cameranut to grab a few of these. Once someone is caught hoaxing, their credibility is gone. Attachments:
|
|
|
Post by Gerry on Aug 12, 2009 11:46:17 GMT -5
If things really get out of control, call in the forum administrator to silence the dissenters. Why do you insist on jabbing at me? It is almost like you would enjoy being banned yourself. Dissenters are not silenced on these forums. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. Even you. I am not at the beck and call of any persons who post here. This is a West Coast Forum which is open to the public. Play nice with your words and you get to stay. Play the part of an not a very nice person as your buddy did here...and you get your ass banned. Something you might like to remember.
|
|
|
Post by Gerry on Aug 12, 2009 11:57:08 GMT -5
So, Cameranut bids us all a goodbye, and 1 post later he's back! He obviously can't stay quiet. He'll just be back under a different name anyway. Cameranut. Well, the last part of his name is definitely accurate. Seriously, he suggests that red orbs and telekinesis are connected with BF. The guy believes that BF causes his headaches with telepathy. His headaches are obviously caused by his brain having trouble trying to make sense of all the nonsense being crammed into it. He needs to pick one 'unknown' and concentrate on just the one, rather than combining them. BF does not get from one location to another, or continent to another, by riding in spaceships. I've actually read a report where they said that they witnessed a craft landing, and BF walking out! And they link that to why they cannot be found and why there are worldwide sightings. But back to the main topic. That photo of the head in the tree is the weakest photo I've seen. Why is the face so much darker than anything else in the photo. It's like it isn't effected by the occurring light and shadows as the rest of the scene. There is nothing impressive about it in any way. I don't believe that anyone said that he 'doctored' the photo as cameranut suggests. I believe that the qualities of the photo may show that it hasn't been altered. That still does not mean that the photo is of a real BF. It isn't exactly difficult to go and place something in the tree. So why did he bolt outta there after rapid-firing the three shots? Isn't his purpose to find BF??? So, there he is, and he bolts?? REALLY!!!! If you're that frightened of BF then why choose to search for BF? How are you supposed to study something if your reaction is to run away from it? The video. Ugh! So lame. I could make that same thing every time I go out. Everyone could. There isn't a thing in that video that suggests BF. Even if the rocks were really thrown, nobody seen what or who threw them. You cannot automatically say that it was BF. That happens to me, the very first thing that I'm thinking is that someone's tossing rocks at me. The last thing I'd connect it to is a BF, even if I'm searching for them. After that, rocks are definitely getting tossed back. If it still continues, then I'd look for the culprit. After I chambered a round. Show me a video of BF tossing rocks. After seeing one, then I'll consider it a possibility. What 1000 lb. animals is cameranut familiar with, to have an idea of what it's weight must have been. No 1000 lb. animal is walking alongside them the whole time without being heard or seen. Do people not understand how big a 1000 lb. BF would be? Insanely enormous. Shaq is 300 lbs. and around 7 ft. tall. Use his image as a comparison and now over triple his size. Impossible. People's minds have formed an image of the BF 'monster' and grossly oversized him. Those are big slippers to remain silent also. The other 'encounter' that bothers me is when people suggest a splash in the water is a BF throwing a rock at them. I'm out on lakes alot at night. I go out in the evening on my pontoon boat flyfishing. Pitch black out, headlamp to see, kicking around the lake dragging a fly. Huge splashes occur alot. My reaction? Nice fish! The last thought in my mind is that a BF is tossing rocks at me. Oh sure. I could start screaming and splashing my way back to my truck, bolt outta there, and tell everyone about my amazing BF encounter. Or! I could enjoy the peacefulness of the evening and continue catching fish. I always choose the latter. I've found the snapped trees and had a couple strange events, but I still don't claim that they were BF-related. They may very well be, but until I witness one, they are just strange events. And if I did see BF but was unable to get video-proof, I sure wouldn't be wasting my time trying to convince others that I saw it. If you chose not to believe me, fine, I'd know what I saw. I catch a 30lb. fish and release it, but never got a photo of it. You don't believe I caught a 30lber. I don't care. I know I did. I caught it for me. For my enjoyment. Not for someone else's. I would not waste senseless time arguing about something that cannot be proven. It's pointless. I don't believe many BF reports. That doesn't mean that they aren't true. But if there isn't sufficient proof, it also doesn't mean that they are. Good work, Thomas, on exposing obvious hoaxes. And their attacks on you and the rest here are foolish anyway, since their apparent evidence is so, so weak. Good post duallie! Welcome aboard!
|
|
vilnoori
Really into this!
Bone Collector
Posts: 547
|
Post by vilnoori on Aug 13, 2009 17:02:52 GMT -5
To me no picture would be proof, and all digital pictures are easily modified. However, the image seems to me to be a pivot around a focal point, as cameranut suggests, not the image shrinking in any way. Bill's animation actually enhances that, so thanks, Bill. I only wish the image was bigger, so we could see it better. It is definitely fishy that the face doesn't change in any way, in spite of the difference in camera angle. So that in itself makes me wonder. But if Randy is not capable of photoshopping, we need to suspect one of his associates...he did mention a son of his was helping him with these images. Childish prank?
I also have questions about what Thomas says he saw. DID you actually see Randy throw a rock, and if so, where did he throw it? Are you implying he threw it straight up in the air? If he was throwing it outwards, wouldn't he be throwing it away from you and toward an assailant, if you were all together in a group? How clearly could you see Randy, Thomas? And what about the smells, footprints, etc.? Are you saying everything was hoaxed? If Randy was throwing rocks directly upward, wouldn't he at least have anticipated where they were going to fall (presumably on his own head) and taken evasive manuevers? It seems a bit odd of a scenario. How much easier it would be, if you wanted to hoax rock-throwing, to simply have an unseen associate throw rocks from a different location. Something about all this doesn't compute.
|
|
|
Post by bigfoothunter on Aug 13, 2009 20:07:44 GMT -5
To me no picture would be proof, and all digital pictures are easily modified. However, the image seems to me to be a pivot around a focal point, as cameranut suggests, not the image shrinking in any way. Bill's animation actually enhances that, so thanks, Bill. I only wish the image was bigger, so we could see it better. It is definitely fishy that the face doesn't change in any way, in spite of the difference in camera angle. So that in itself makes me wonder. But if Randy is not capable of photoshopping, we need to suspect one of his associates...he did mention a son of his was helping him with these images. Childish prank? The objects in the background grow in size ... there is no way around it. You may not be able to see it, but they do and are measureable. Now Randy has said lots of things that don't have a ring of truth to them, as well as McDonald, so because one of them merely says that Randy has no computer skills ... we are to presume that to be true??? (Give me a break!) In fact, I believe that it was McDonald that said Randy has no real computer skills or words to that effect, but he also said while posting as someone else that he didn't know where the rock throwing video was taken ... that Randy was swatting mosquitoes ... and so on. For me to give credibility to anything he has said would only make me look like an idiot. How others wish to spend their time is their business. I am however pleased that you realize that my animation just isn't one single photo being squeezed vertically as McDonald was trying to get people to believe. This means that you at least saw some of his McDonald's con-job! Tom can answer for himself, but we talked about this in detail and Tom caught Randy at least once throwing a rock behind his back so to make it appear that a stone came from off to the side. As far as smells ... Tom didn't mention any smells and all you have to rely on his the word of a now known hoaxer(s). The one alleged footprint in the rock throwing video was a joke. not inches away from that alleged deep print was the start of another deep inmpression, but the cameraman chose to ignore it - why??? I believe the reason is because something hasn't stepped there, but rather something had been laying there at one point and had been moved and thats why the other impression was ignored. But then again, we have only a single deep impression shown on film being offered up by non-credible people as a possible foot print. Its these same individuals who one claimed only three photos were taken of the stump while a cohort claims there were more images ... and taken from a movie film on top of it all ... now that's a bit odd in my view. So what is it exactly that shouldn't compute when it comes to four individuals catching Brisson throwing rocks at various times and the many moments that Brisson knew he had someone looking at him not a single rock was thrown ... not even from those alleged possible accomplices that may have been hiding in the woods - presumably in the trees so to drop rocks straight down from seemingly 12 feet above the witnesses. And let us think about those unseen accomplices or Sasquatch that could have thrown the rocks. It was said that some rocks seemed like they were dropped straight down from above and others had never hit a sinlge leaf or tree branch even when there was dense forest 360 degrees around them. So if we are to accept that some hidden enity could throw rocks without concern of hitting people in the head, then should we not be given a rational explanation why that would not be applied to a hoaxer who each time he slips behind you is when the rock seems to come from above. Its one thing to be fooled .... but its another to play the fool. Go back and listen to Brisson's own radio show interview and all its contradictions ... he was and is his own worst enemy. Bill Miller Bigfoot Field Research
|
|
|
Post by thomassteenburg on Aug 13, 2009 21:50:36 GMT -5
To me no picture would be proof, and all digital pictures are easily modified. However, the image seems to me to be a pivot around a focal point, as cameranut suggests, not the image shrinking in any way. Bill's animation actually enhances that, so thanks, Bill. I only wish the image was bigger, so we could see it better. It is definitely fishy that the face doesn't change in any way, in spite of the difference in camera angle. So that in itself makes me wonder. But if Randy is not capable of photoshopping, we need to suspect one of his associates...he did mention a son of his was helping him with these images. Childish prank? I also have questions about what Thomas says he saw. DID you actually see Randy throw a rock, and if so, where did he throw it? Are you implying he threw it straight up in the air? If he was throwing it outwards, wouldn't he be throwing it away from you and toward an assailant, if you were all together in a group? How clearly could you see Randy, Thomas? And what about the smells, footprints, etc.? Are you saying everything was hoaxed? If Randy was throwing rocks directly upward, wouldn't he at least have anticipated where they were going to fall (presumably on his own head) and taken evasive manuevers? It seems a bit odd of a scenario. How much easier it would be, if you wanted to hoax rock-throwing, to simply have an unseen associate throw rocks from a different location. Something about all this doesn't compute. The stones! Since nothing larger than a golf ball was thrown. From the moment we crossed the main road to the moment we returned to the main road, stones would be thrown at the group. Later when the group was split in two, only the group with the person in question had stones thrown and the second group,300 or so yards behind had nothing. It didn't take to much common sense to notice that all the stones seemed to occur when this person had stepped a few paces behind, or just out of eye sight. So I spent a good deal of effort trying to keep him in front of me, and I am still amazed he did not catch on to my suspicions and cut out the behavior. His real downfall was not being able to stop himself. I had David stay back about 80 yards or so on the last leg of the walk. If he had an unseen accomplice following in the bush that person would have been seen. This is not a city park with flat cut grass between trees here. The walk was approx 3 km in and 3 km back. When we were about to cross the main road on our way back to the parking lot, it was as if he had to get just one more in. He didn't notice that I was looking in his direction as he took about one and a half steps back of David and winged the last one behind his back with the the right hand which hit a trail side tree with a loud whack. I think hitting the tree was not planned, the sound being loud enough for everyone to hear and look back. Me standing there shaking my head. Had a little talk with David about what he saw or heard. But all the people there never let on we were on to the hoax and never confronted him of our suspicions. But I am still amazed he didn't clue in and stop what he was doing after the first 7 or 8 stones. The one alleged track he pointed out could have half a dozen explanations for it as it was by no means a clear cut footprint. As for all the other trips he has done when stones were thrown I can't nor have I ever commented on those trips as I was not there to witness anything, all I can speak for is July 21st 2009. But I will admit I was very suspicious of the overall situation before this little hike started. Thomas Steenburg
|
|
|
Post by Gerry on Aug 14, 2009 10:16:08 GMT -5
Wow, not much else to say here, it is entertaining though, Thomas and Bill in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent. I would tend to agree. I have known Thomas for years and the integrity he holds while studying aspects of this mystery is beyond reproach. And anyone who states differently, just do not know the man, or his convictions. And Bill is not one to jump to snap conclusions about the veracity of a piece of evidence until he has eliminated all other possibilities.
|
|
|
Post by bigfoothunter on Aug 14, 2009 14:37:49 GMT -5
And Bill is not one to jump to snap conclusions about the veracity of a piece of evidence until he has eliminated all other possibilities. I personally believe that its not the witiness that I should listen to, but the evidence either against or in support of what he or she has told me. I have personally come across evidence that many researchers would have embraced from the onset, but I found myself wrestling with observations that I didn't understand before being convinced one way or the other. Allow me to give one such example: A couple of years or so ago I had taken my Polaris up to 20mile bay to see a fellow that works as a watchman for a logging camp. It was just one of those days where I wanted to get out and explore some areas I had not been beore. Just as I rolled into the logging camp, I saw John Myles (the watchman) carrying his rifle and gear down to the boat dock as he was preparing to go up the lake by boat. After a short discussion, I convinced John to put his trip on hold and to come exploring with me. John and I had discussed the week before about some areas we might go to when I made it up his way again. I got around to telling John that I'd like to go up the logging road that he said had been completely grown over for the past three years. When we got to the turn off point from the main logging road, I found the old logging road to be completely covered in thick dense shrubs and small trees. I hesitate to guess how far we traveled at a walking pace in my Ranger 6WD whereas we were literally breaking through a constant barrier of shrubs before getting high enough to actually feel that were we on an actual road. As we finally reached the top of the mountain and had rounded the last corner ... up ahead we came to a halt when we noticed a dark spot ahead of us. I couldn't tell as I sat on the Polaris some 20 feet away if something had scraped the road or had possibly urinated on that spot. I think it was John that noticed some other scuffs heading off the side of the road and towards the hillside overlooking Harrison Lake far below. By that time I had joined John and walked towards the hillside while John back tracked the other direction. As I walked back to the Polaris, I saw John near a run-off ditch alongside the logging road and he was just staring down at the ground. It wasn't long that he called for me to come and look at what he was seeing and to see what I thought about it. When I reached this location and looked down into the clay mud ... I was looking at a typical Sasquatch print with a few exceptions ... or so I thought. I photographed and filmed the location thoroughly ... even the scuffs that left that ditch and headed in a straight line towards the hillside. After getting all the photos and film I wanted, I then took off my shoe and placed my foot in the clay mud so to leave an impression that could be used for later scaling purposes and foot comparisons. This inded had become an interesting find, but there were a couple of things that I couldn't understand about the evidence that left me bordering on whether this was an actual legit find or not. The idea that someone may have tried to play a hoax on me was in my mind and even John couldn't be ruled out even though he never knew I was going to be at his camp that day. Now what was the problem with this find you might be wondering: The problem was that only three of the toes (starting with the big toe) had made a clear impression in the drying clay mud. There was also this mid-tarsal breaking appearence, but not from pushing the soil back as the foot lifted off the ground, but rather as if the tarsal of the foot had never touched the ground. I had sent copies of my photos to Jeff Meldrum for his thoughts and had showed them to Steenburg, Mathews, Green, and etc.. The track reached a depth in the clay mud that was double of my own. Its heal was well rounded like a typical Sasquatch track and the toes showed the gradual down-sizing that is not common with human feet. But the last two toes were not clearly visible and that off mid-tarsal area not touching the ground had me completely stumped. One day while visiting Gerry Mathews with Steenburg ... Gerry pointed something out to me that I didn't catch myself and that was that because of a couple of rocks just barely visible near the surface of the clay mud and because of the defects in the clay being flattened on the surface ... the smaller toes had appearently made their mark, but it must have been the roacks under the surface that prevented them from reaching the depth of the three larger toes. Now all of a sudden the outer edge of the foot was making sense. Gerry had gotten a straight edge and showed Tom and I the outer shape of the upper foot that we were not clearly seeing before that moment. It wasn't long after this meeting with Garry Mathews that I saw a part of Meldrums 2005 conference presentation that I had missed somehow. In Jeff's presentation, he had showed some images of 'Patti' on Roger and Bob's film whereas she had cupped her foot in mid-step. Until then I was totally unaware of a Sasquatch being able to do this. I understood the premise of the mid-tarsal break going one way when pushing off of the ground, but I had no idea these creature's could also cup their feet the other way. Now the foot track made sense. That this animal had cupped its foot slightly for what ever reason as it fled was now apparent. It was at this time that I was finally feeling confident that this was a legit experience up on that mountain. That John Myles nor anyone else could have set this up under the circumstances in which I found it. One other thing I didn't mention here is that the scuffs we found on the road had disappeared within 30 minutes of our arrival. What had happened was that the small stones had been overturned which caused their damp underside to appear dark. The air then dried their now exposed surface with 30 minutes of our arrival. This was a strong inclination that what made that track in the clay mud had just departed the area prior to our arrival. The creature may very well have heard us coming up the mountain and fled just moments before our arrival. With this being said and the animals track depth being double of my own and its foot being wider than my own, but not much longer ... this should a weight than may have been double of my own. Tom Steenburg and I went back to that location in hopes of Tom seeing the track and a partial track for himself. During that time since John and I being there ... a rain had fallen and the tracks in the clay mud were completely erased smooth. Had it not been for my film and photos - nature had all by concealed any evidence of a Sasquatch ever being there. Combined with these details and the distance we traveled to get up the mountain, not to mention the undergrowth that never appeared to be disturbed before our arrival - Gerry's observations f the track and Meldrum's showing how Patti could cup her feet ... I believed our find that day to be legit. While interesting at first and even knowing the tracks could not have been made long before we got there .... it took the additional data to convince me that the evidence was genuine. Had it not been for those developements - I may still have been scratching my head on that experience. Bigfoothunter Bigfoot Field Research
|
|
vilnoori
Really into this!
Bone Collector
Posts: 547
|
Post by vilnoori on Aug 14, 2009 15:00:16 GMT -5
Thanks, Thomas, Bill, that is much clearer a scenario.
|
|
|
Post by thomassteenburg on Feb 25, 2010 17:46:12 GMT -5
Looks like ole Randy is still at it. Oh well
ShareThis Share Listen - Email - Print Recipient email: You can enter up to 10 comma-separated email addresses. Your email: optional Message: optional
+Add image Randy Brisson This is the picture Pravda claims was submitted to the international Center of Hominology by Randy Brisson. Brisson said he took this photograph near Pitt Lake, British Columbia. Vote up this image! Pravda claims a Canadian cryptozoologist sent a photograph to a Russian organization called the International Center for Hominology. Pravda claims this photograph was submitted by Randy Brisson, who lives in British Columbia, Canada. Brison's big claim to fame was finding tracks of an adult and juvenile Sasquatch near East Stave Lake, British Columbia in February, 2009. The murky picture published in Pravda Thursday looks like it could be something ... and it also looks like it could be nothing. It appears to be a disembodied dark hairy face in a forest. Brisson is reported to have encountere the Sasquach near Pitt Lake, B.C. There are about six or seven photographs posted on Bigfoot Encounters of the footprints, as well as some other interesting pictures. The International Center for Hominology does not provide news updates, and its investigations appear to be firmly rooted in the past. Two instances intrigue the Russian cryptozoologists: the Minnesota Iceman and Zana, a wild woman who was found and captured in the late 1800s. The Minnesota Iceman, a circus side show exhibit in the 1960s, is now thought to be a hoax. If the legend of Zana is correct, there should be a line of half-human, half-Sasquach descendents still in Georgia. Pravda's story noted that the Sasquatch was made a mascot of the 2010 Winter Olympics, currrently under way in host city Vancouver. Named Quachi, the mascot
"... is a young sasquatch who comes from the mysterious forests of Canada. Quatchi is shy, but loves to explore new places and meet new friends."
Pitt Lake is near Vancouver, and is not very accessible as it is "surrounded by rugged terrain." Perhaps some tourists in town for the Olympics might make the short trip to Pitt Lake, which has a fascinating history that includes stories of murder, sasquatch and alien sightings, and tales of lost gold mines. It is not yet known why Brisson declined to share his photograph with Canadian media.
Once a hoaxer always a hoaxer.
Thomas Steenburg
P.S. the photo did not transfer for some reason ? But it is the same head on the stump photo we exposed last summer.
Thomas Steenburg
|
|