Come join Steve Kulls and Billy Willard in welcoming Sally and “Ammi” to the show to discuss some ongoing experiences in southeastern North Carolina. Do they have a habituation scenario started there in NC? Tune in as we discuss what they are doing and what they have experienced. This is sure to be a very interesting show!
The show can be found on the BlogTalk Radio network at http://www.blogtalkradio.com/TheSquatchdetective
At exactly 9:00 pm EST, a button will appear on the main page that says “Listen Live”, simply click that button and you will automatically be entered into the live broadcast and chat. You can join in the conversation by joining the “Live Chat” on the site and if you want to call in and ask a question, the call in number is (347) 996-5800.
It always helps if you are first registered on the BlogTalk Radio site. If you are not already registered on the site, simply click on the following link to create a free listeners account: http://www.blogtalkradio.com/Register.aspx
By registering, your username will show up in the chat room and we can call you by your username and not just “GUEST”.
Hope you see you there!
Billy Willard
Director, Sasquatch Watch of Virginia
Co-Host, Squatchdetective Radio
Sunday, December 16, 2007
Sunday, December 02, 2007
Coyotes in Virginia?
Coyotes are no longer just residents of the West. Now they live in the East, too. By Donnie Johnston...click the following link for the story... http://fredericksburg.com/News/FLS/2007/042007/04282007/278721
Sunday, September 23, 2007
Hoaxer Alert near Danville, Virginia
Attention...
It has been brought to the attention of Sasquatch Watch of Virginia that someone in the Danville, Virginia area is dressing up in a gorilla suit along Route 41. Please be aware that anyone having a sighting in this area must be aware that there are IDIOTS doing this.
Now, I am sure that the person or person's doing this do keep up with Bigfoot groups on the internet. So, for that reason, I issue the following statement...
"Bigfoot groups nationwide are constantly told that the only way to prove the existence of this creature is to BRING IN A BODY! Everyone in this field will agree with me, we constantly hear the words, "BRING IN A BODY". So what do you think this encourages? It is only a matter of time before some trigger happy person takes down one of these creatures or someone in a gorilla suit. Please heed the warning! If you want to commit suicide, well, just keep doing it. You will likely be shot or hit my a fast moving vehicle as you will become a target to someone trying to bring in the prize. Sorry for being so blunt, but someone needs to keep you informed."
I would like to state that the members of Sasquatch Watch of Virginia do NOT wish to harm this creature. Therefore, its the SEVERAL OTHERS to worry about. There are alot of other practical jokes that are safer to practice, this isn't one of them.
I would like to thank the individual who brought this information to our attention, you know who you are and I greatly appreciate it.
Billy Willard
Sasquatch Watch of Virginia
It has been brought to the attention of Sasquatch Watch of Virginia that someone in the Danville, Virginia area is dressing up in a gorilla suit along Route 41. Please be aware that anyone having a sighting in this area must be aware that there are IDIOTS doing this.
Now, I am sure that the person or person's doing this do keep up with Bigfoot groups on the internet. So, for that reason, I issue the following statement...
"Bigfoot groups nationwide are constantly told that the only way to prove the existence of this creature is to BRING IN A BODY! Everyone in this field will agree with me, we constantly hear the words, "BRING IN A BODY". So what do you think this encourages? It is only a matter of time before some trigger happy person takes down one of these creatures or someone in a gorilla suit. Please heed the warning! If you want to commit suicide, well, just keep doing it. You will likely be shot or hit my a fast moving vehicle as you will become a target to someone trying to bring in the prize. Sorry for being so blunt, but someone needs to keep you informed."
I would like to state that the members of Sasquatch Watch of Virginia do NOT wish to harm this creature. Therefore, its the SEVERAL OTHERS to worry about. There are alot of other practical jokes that are safer to practice, this isn't one of them.
I would like to thank the individual who brought this information to our attention, you know who you are and I greatly appreciate it.
Billy Willard
Sasquatch Watch of Virginia
Thursday, September 13, 2007
Gorillas now 'critically endangered'
By ERICA BULMAN, Associated Press Writer
GENEVA - The most common type of gorilla is now "critically endangered," one step away from global extinction, according to the 2007 Red List of Threatened Species released Wednesday by the World Conservation Union.
The Ebola virus is depleting Western Gorilla populations to a point where it might become impossible for them to recover.
Commercial hunting, civil unrest and habitat loss due to logging and forest clearance for palm oil plantations are compounding the problem, said the Swiss-based group known by its acronym IUCN.
"Great apes are our closest living relatives and very special creatures," Russ Mittermeier, head of IUCN's Primate Specialist Group, told The Associated Press. "We could fit all the remaining great apes in the world into two or three large football stadiums. There just aren't very many left."
In all, 16,306 species are threatened with extinction, 188 more than last year, IUCN said. One in four mammals are in jeopardy, as are one in eight birds, a third of all amphibians and 70 percent of the plants that have been studied.
"Life on Earth is disappearing fast and will continue to do so unless urgent action is taken," the IUCN warned.
The Western Gorilla's main subspecies — the Western Lowland Gorilla — has been decimated by the Ebola virus, which has wiped out about a third of the gorillas found in protected areas over the last 15 years.
"In the last 10 years, Ebola is the single largest killer of apes. Poaching is a close second," said Peter Walsh, a member if IUCN's Primate Specialist Group, told the AP. "Ebola is knocking down populations to a level where they won't bounce back. The rate of decline is dizzying. If it continues, we'll lose them in 10-12 years."
Female gorillas only start reproducing at the age of 9 or 10 and only have one baby about every five years. Walsh said even in ideal conditions, it would take the gorillas decades to bounce back.
The World Conservation Union also said the Yangtze River dolphin is now "possibly extinct."
There have been no documented sightings of the long-snouted cetacean since 2002. An intensive search of its habitat in November and December proved fruitless but more searches are needed as one was possibly spotted in late August.
The Redheaded Vulture soared from "near threatened" to "critically endangered." The birds' rapid decline over the last eight years is largely due to diclofenac, a painkiller given to ill or injured farm cattle so they can still work. But the substance poisons the vultures when they scavenge livestock carcasses.
Only 182 breeding adults of the Gharial crocodile remain, down almost 60 percent from a decade ago. India and Nepal's crocodile has become critically endangered because dams, irrigation projects and artificial embankments have reduced its habitat to just 2 percent of its former range.
The woolly-stalked begonia is the only species declared extinct this year. Extensive searches have failed to uncover any specimens of the Malaysian herb in the last century, IUCN said.
Only one species moved to a lesser category of threat. One of the world's rarest parrots 15 years ago, the Mauritius Echo parakeet, eased back from critically endangered to only endangered. That was a result of close monitoring of its nesting sites, and supplementary feeding combined with a captive breeding and release program.
IUCN says 785 species have disappeared over the last 500 years. A further 65 are found only in artificial settings such as zoos.
The Red List, produced by a worldwide network of thousands of experts, includes some 41,000 species and subspecies around the globe.
GENEVA - The most common type of gorilla is now "critically endangered," one step away from global extinction, according to the 2007 Red List of Threatened Species released Wednesday by the World Conservation Union.
The Ebola virus is depleting Western Gorilla populations to a point where it might become impossible for them to recover.
Commercial hunting, civil unrest and habitat loss due to logging and forest clearance for palm oil plantations are compounding the problem, said the Swiss-based group known by its acronym IUCN.
"Great apes are our closest living relatives and very special creatures," Russ Mittermeier, head of IUCN's Primate Specialist Group, told The Associated Press. "We could fit all the remaining great apes in the world into two or three large football stadiums. There just aren't very many left."
In all, 16,306 species are threatened with extinction, 188 more than last year, IUCN said. One in four mammals are in jeopardy, as are one in eight birds, a third of all amphibians and 70 percent of the plants that have been studied.
"Life on Earth is disappearing fast and will continue to do so unless urgent action is taken," the IUCN warned.
The Western Gorilla's main subspecies — the Western Lowland Gorilla — has been decimated by the Ebola virus, which has wiped out about a third of the gorillas found in protected areas over the last 15 years.
"In the last 10 years, Ebola is the single largest killer of apes. Poaching is a close second," said Peter Walsh, a member if IUCN's Primate Specialist Group, told the AP. "Ebola is knocking down populations to a level where they won't bounce back. The rate of decline is dizzying. If it continues, we'll lose them in 10-12 years."
Female gorillas only start reproducing at the age of 9 or 10 and only have one baby about every five years. Walsh said even in ideal conditions, it would take the gorillas decades to bounce back.
The World Conservation Union also said the Yangtze River dolphin is now "possibly extinct."
There have been no documented sightings of the long-snouted cetacean since 2002. An intensive search of its habitat in November and December proved fruitless but more searches are needed as one was possibly spotted in late August.
The Redheaded Vulture soared from "near threatened" to "critically endangered." The birds' rapid decline over the last eight years is largely due to diclofenac, a painkiller given to ill or injured farm cattle so they can still work. But the substance poisons the vultures when they scavenge livestock carcasses.
Only 182 breeding adults of the Gharial crocodile remain, down almost 60 percent from a decade ago. India and Nepal's crocodile has become critically endangered because dams, irrigation projects and artificial embankments have reduced its habitat to just 2 percent of its former range.
The woolly-stalked begonia is the only species declared extinct this year. Extensive searches have failed to uncover any specimens of the Malaysian herb in the last century, IUCN said.
Only one species moved to a lesser category of threat. One of the world's rarest parrots 15 years ago, the Mauritius Echo parakeet, eased back from critically endangered to only endangered. That was a result of close monitoring of its nesting sites, and supplementary feeding combined with a captive breeding and release program.
IUCN says 785 species have disappeared over the last 500 years. A further 65 are found only in artificial settings such as zoos.
The Red List, produced by a worldwide network of thousands of experts, includes some 41,000 species and subspecies around the globe.
Wednesday, September 05, 2007
Sasquatch Watch of Virginia Makes the News
Sasquatch Watch of Virginia was interviewed by WTOP News in Washington, DC this week. Click the link below for the full story...
http://www.wtopnews.com/index.php?nid=600&sid=1239133
http://www.wtopnews.com/index.php?nid=600&sid=1239133
Thursday, August 23, 2007
Beware of Photos coming out of East Texas
Courtesy of Melissa Hovey
PSA Beware Of Photos coming out of East Texas.
Yesterday I came across an interesting post on a message board not my own. On this message board a gentleman claimed to have met with TBRC Conference committee. Why you ask? Well, apparently he claims to have photos that are “Ground Breaking” “Rivaling the Patty Footage" (his words not mine). Well, Craig Woolheater and Monica Rawlins were more than happy to meet with this man at a Borders Bookstore here in Dallas Texas.But, why did he want to show these “ground breaking” photos to Craig and Monica? Well, he wanted to be listed as a speaker for the 2007 Texas Bigfoot Conference to be held in Jefferson Texas. He wanted to show a powerpoint presentation on his still photos. Craig and Monica as always are happy to meet with witnesses and evaluate their potential evidence and their stories, but make no mistake the TBRC maintains high standards when it comes to any possible evidence. Well, I think this exchange next will speak for itself.Monica found out about this person posting, after the TBRC had met with this gentleman and politely declined, the following is the email sent to this gentleman:Craig WoolheaterWithout direct TBRC involvement in the matter, we are unable to conclusively determine whether or not the quality of the photos and the conditions described by the photographer(s) meet our evidenciary standards. Therefore the Conference Committee cannot justify inclusion of an additional presentation on the matter in the 2007 Texas Bigfoot Conference. For the record, should conclusive, unequivocal evidence be discovered by or made available to the TBRC at some point in the future, we do not believe that the Conference or any other symposium will be the forum of our choice at which to exhibit such findings. More than likely, the TBRC will seek to cooperate with several governmental and private agencies in steps leading tothe listing of the species and publish the findings in a reputable scientific journal. On behalf of the TBRC, the Committee wishes to thank you for the opportunity to consider your request and looks forward to seeing you and your team members in November in Jefferson.Sincerely,Craig WoolheaterChair, TBRC Conference Committee MembersThis is a pretty straightforward letter, it is not insulting and not demeaning to the person who was offering the information. Truth is, his offer was declined because he had not had his photos evaluated by those who could say whether these were authentic or had been photoshopped. Having your potential evidence validated by someone with expert knowledge of say photos – to determine if Photoshop had been employed is the very first thing you should do as an investigator.So, on with the story.To the above email, this gentleman with his “ground breaking” photos jumped online and went to a message board and posted this:[name withheld, for now]Posted: Aug 18 2007, 08:57 AMJust heard back from the 2007 tbrc conference committee (who haven't seen a bf either..I asked them point blank). They have turned down my request to speak at their conference, show photos and other evidence from East Texas. Woolheater said that since the evidence didn't come from the tbrc, it doesn't meet their "evidenciary standards". As I expected from them. They also stated that evidence of that nature should best be left for government and private agencies to process and posted in scientific journals...but not at a conference. They're keeping a tradition alive....surrounding themselves with self proclaimed "experts" who have never seen a bf, nor inter-acted with one of more of them, but proclaiming their existence through circumstantial evidence....in front of the media.How many people in the field of Bigfoot Research do not know about Craig Woolheater’s sighting? He also goes on in another post to say Craig's sighting was a “rear view mirror” sighting. He couldn’t be more wrong. Which causes my first bit of concern with this guy. Know of which you speak, or forever remove the question of how well you pay attention. Thats free advice Apparently we were good enough for him to want to speak at our conference, but now that we question him we are a horrible organization, does anyone else get the irony in that??Well, does anyone else smell something foul? Compare what he says was the response from Craig Woolheater and what was actually sent to him. By the way, the above email from Craig Woolheater was supplied by the person whom I quoted above, not Craig Woolheater…. Something is rotten in East Texas.The evidentiary standards of the TBRC include a chain of custody, and an expert to back up what you say about the evidence. Simply telling us “I didn’t photoshop anything” just isn’t going to cut it. There is a reason why the TBRC has such a good name, and it’s not by accepting every piece of information as the gospel when it’s thrown out in front of us.To continue….Now of course just about everyone who was (with the exception of a silent few who were paying close attention) following after this guy on that specific message board is buying his info hook line and sinker. Even the members of the TBRC are now taking a hit, and unfounded accusations, and outright lies are being thrown about as if they are the truth (problem was they didn’t get the actual email until my involvement). I had to call this guy out and question his story. Yep, that’s right.The girls had to step up. I fired off an email to Monica. I offer this first post by Monica.Posted: Aug 22 2007, 01:38 PMOh my dear, dear (Name removed for now). Remember me? I was the one sitting next to you when you showed the pictures to Woolheater. You did not meet with the entire conference committee, just myself and Craig. The other person was a member of the Board of Directors, as you were told but conveniently forgot. To say that no one on the conference committee ever had a sighting is bull, Craig told you about his sighting when you asked; and if you need to know, I am the only one on the committee who hasn't had a sighting.The pictures do not meet our evidentiary standards because no expert has reviewed them. Experts in the field of photography do exist, you know. Have you shown them to one? You refused to allow us to have one examine the photo's for doctoring or photoshopping, so no, as they as they stand now do not meet our standards because they have not been reviewed by any expert; are we to just take your word for it? A third party unknown to any of us could give an unbiased opinion, although I really don't think you want that, do you? You had to point out in one of the pictures where the supposed BF was hiding. Now, if these are the ground breaking pictures you are bragging about here, why do you need to point it out. If it rivals the P/G film, as you told Craig, wouldn't the image be obvious? The other photo's are compelling, until you look at them closely. As someone who works closely with advertisers who use Photoshop, they looked pretty photoshopped to me. You told us in the meeting that Chester Moore was "chomping at the bit" to use the photo's at his conference, so do it. Show them there and move along.His response? Good Question. This response is so telling it makes my liver hurt.All you ask would have been presented formally at the conference. As I have heard it from Craig directly, he and his wife MAY have seen something on the side of the road in their rearview mirror back in the late 1970's. If he has had any other experiences, I am unaware of them. 25 years of speaking in front of groups of scientists in my scientific discipline (Geology and Geophysics related to petroleum exploration), all presentation orientated and peer reviewed. I have made no harsh claims against anyone. Only stated what I have read in some of the books published by the registered speakers, that the group of speakers is very weak or non-existent on personal sightings and encounters. They are strong on circumstantial evidence and I agree with them on many aspects of their published work. Some of it fits with our field work....some doesn't. I'll take hands on in- the- field experience over internet message board research anyday. The evidence has been shown to those that our group trust....thats all....one of which is(Name Removed). It will not be shown to those whom we don't know or trust. We have had some of the evidence attempted to be stolen by outsiders. Unknown people have shown up at doorsteps requesting to review the evidence. Because of these occurances, we choose to keep it protected. If it were yours, I would assume you would do the same thing. I gave the tbrc a chance to use their forum to allow me to show the evidence obtained from E. Tx, since its promoted as a TEXAS BIGFOOT CONFERENCE. They chose not to....its their right and choice. I have talked with Chester Moore, and if he has a conference in '08, I will discuss it with my group and we will talk with Chester about presenting it there. When the time is right (when our group decides its right), we plan on making the evidence known to the scientific community (of our choosing, no one else's) and let them run with it. I have known Chester and Craig both a long time. Chesters conference was my first choice as a venue to present the evidence, but he isn't having a conference in 2007, Craig is.....thats the only reason the tbrc was considered for release of this data. Data of this type is best reviewed first in conference form. Once discussed and presented formally, decisions can be made where and whom to talk to next concerning the validity of the data and any additional testing necessary to firm up our findings.“All we asked would be presented at the conference?” Monica got it right when she responded with this:Posted: Aug 22 2007, 02:14 PMI would think it logical to have your ducks in a row PRIOR to formally introducing evidence to the public, not afterward.Standing ovation for Monica – that is an extremely valid and EXCELLENT point. I’m so happy she is on the Board of Directors for the TBRC – and thank god everyone on that board would have said the exact same thing.When questioned about the tall TBRC tales he told, he had this to say:Posted: Aug 22 2007, 02:34 PMNo, No, No....I never said I received a slap in the face. Quite the contrary. The tbrc made a decision to not let me present our findings at their venue. Its their right. I gave them the opportunity first and they elected to pass on it. Thats all fine. I have no problem with their decision....its solely theirs. However, if its a Tx Bigfoot Conference....show some real Texas research....not some rehashed authors with limited real life experience selling books.So, from his response above, he would like everyone to know he is not upset that he was turned down by the TBRC.. I love all the fancy foot work he does to play “Nope I didn’t say that”.I would be a fool if I had not responded with:QUOTE (Our New East Texas Friend)They're keeping a tradition alive....surrounding themselves with self proclaimed "experts" who have never seen a bf, nor inter-acted with one of more of them, but proclaiming their existence through circumstantial evidence....in front of the media.Quote by me: So, you didnt say the above quote?Quote by me: Or this one,QUOTE (Our New East Texas Friend)I got the biggest kick out of the fact that the photos don't meet their "evidenciary standards". Fact is...they don't have any standards, because they don't have any evidence...nor do they have people capable of gainiing such. If they took these photos, they would be beating down the door to get the media involved...pure hyprocrisy.This gentleman never did respond to this. How could he? He had been caught in an outright lie trying to establish himself as an injured party, so those he was complaining to would feel sorry for him and listen even more intently to what he had to say. “Look at the bully picking on me”. Even though the “Bully” had remained silent to this point.He not only got caught, he provided the information that was his ultimate undoing. People like this get cocky, and they get so self confident that they think no one is smarter than them. Well, this guy was undone by his own words.He can now take his photos to Chester Moore for the 2008 Conference, so why is he clearly so upset about being turned down by the TBRC when he clearly thinks the TBRC isn’t capable of evaluating anything? Would you take your evidence to someone or a group you felt were completely inept? Would you really trust them to not screw something up?Well, here is another question that’s just begging to be asked, why not take them to Chester now? Chester is very well known in this research and could possibly open a lot of doors for analysis and documentation of the animal he claims to have captured in these photos. Apparently, he is choosing to wait until the 2008 Conference… I am confused by this. Can anyone explain this reasoning to me – doesn’t that go against everything we are in this for?Ok, maybe some just want really, really cool pictures. You can keep your cool pictures, I want proof.When questioned by another forum member about whether he intended to post his photos on their forum, he responded with this:Posted: Aug 22 2007, 07:37 AMI figured this would come up. The answer is no. I/we won't post anything on the internet in the way of photos or other tangible evidence. The evidence is just too hard to come by, to put into the public domain. The cost I/we have incurred in getting to the point we are at is huge. Equipment alone we, together, have probably $75,000 invested. (Name Removed) has seen the photos and other evidence due to my absolute trust in him. He can comment on them if he wishes. There were conditions place on the tbrc if they accepted my offer to show them....such as no photo's, video's at all...only audio so Woolheater could make some money on the conference. I/we have logged many, many hard nights in the woods, spent lots of money and nurtured relationships to get to the point we are, and I/we aren't giving it up to the public at this point in time. Maybe later, once certain conditions have been met. Sorry.Your damn right people are going to ask to see your pictures, you brought it up. When someone goes out of their way to tell you they have awesome photos then refuses to show them, citing copyright – you should yell BS and RUN FOREST RUN!!!! Something is not adding up. That is why people get a copyright on these things – to protect their financial interest number one, and two to keep others from claiming ownership, so they can then show others – and protect their interest. You don’t get a copyright then say “I have a copyright, but I won’t show you because I’m afraid someone will steal my photos”. That was frankly the most laughable comment I have heard in some time. My favorite line from his above quote is this:I/we have logged many, many hard nights in the woods, spent lots of money and nurtured relationships to get to the point we are, and I/we aren't giving it up to the public at this point in time.But that’s exactly what he offered the TBRC. I think there is another reason why he won’t post those photos. I offer this for your inspection and consideration:MMRawlins Posted: Aug 22 2007, 01:42 PMThe pictures do not meet our evidentiary standards because no expert has reviewed them. Experts in the field of photography do exist, you know. Have you shown them to one? You refused to allow us to have one examine the photo's for doctoring or photoshopping, so no, as they stand now do not meet our standards because they have not been reviewed by any expert; are we to just take your word for it?He also claims to have spent $75,000.00 on photos he has not yet had analyzed by an expert in photography. Was the $75,000.00 just for the copyright? What could possibly cost so much? Why would you do that, with no expert authentication? You have no scientific validation to back up your story, you have no hard evidence by way of DNA or anything else (not even a hair sample) yet, you decide $75,000.00 is a worth while investment for something you can’t prove anyway?? Ok, this is your second clue to “head for the hills”. Politely thank the person for their time, but scram out of that place as fast as you can.Posted: Aug 22 2007, 02:16 PMPosted by our New East Texas FriendWe have refused to let anyone, outside our group, have a copy of anything. We have all played this game before and don't trust anyone outside the group. Yes, the photos have undergone analysis by an unbiased third party with the original shots. Some of the pics that I brought for you to see have been lightened or outlined or colors of foliage removed...others were untouched.You don’t trust anyone outside your group? Remember, you came to the TBRC – the TBRC did not come to you. So, yes, the burden of proof is squarely on your shoulders.In an exchange between this gentleman and Monica he says he planned to have his photos analyzed AFTER the conference. Let me say that again, I don’t want anyone to miss this. He said he would have his photos analyzed AFTER the conference. Now above he says analysis has been done. Enhancements have been done. Why didn’t he bring a report by this expert that analyzed the film? That’s very standard. Anyone rendering an expert opinion would give the person requesting such analysis a final report – in writing. That was not supplied or even hinted at during his meeting with Craig and Monica.This gentleman has some serious inconsistencies in his story, as he told Craig Woolheater and Monica he had no work done on those photos, then he admits to photoshopping out leaves etc and enhancing the photos (was this part of the $75,000.00 price tag?) Big no no. Anyone who has been in this long enough should know by now – you do not have anything done to photographic evidence. You do not manipulate images in any way, shape or form, for no reason whatsoever.He refuses to have his photos analyzed by an independent expert, yet the TBRC and its members are horrible for not simply taking him at his word, and allowing him to give a presentation on supposed evidence with no factual information to verify his claims of legitimacy.That my friend is how you get hoaxed.These are the things you watch out for. Now, I am not posting this mans name, because as was pointed out to me, he may be an innocent victim in this as well. My money is on not. He has gotten himself in too far to be so innocent. And I don’t care how many friends you have, if your evidence amounts to your “word” and yet you want to put it out to the world as factual information – sorry I will always do whatever I think is necessary to put a stop to it.Researchers have a decision to make when it comes to these issues.. Stick your head in the sand and bury it, or speak up and don’t allow others to be taken in by these things. I am choosing to speak out, because I have first hand information, and I feel it is my responsibility once things go too far – to inform other researchers of what to watch out for. If evidence is good enough for you based solely on the person who obtained it – don’t come crying to me or write up long diatribes about how you were suckered into believing someone, when you just didn’t want to see the truth. I wont be bullied either to keep my mouth shut when I think someone is attempting to push off bad information. I will always do what I think is right - and let the chips fall where they may.So, if you get an email or read a post about photos that “Ground Breaking” out of East Texas – be wary, use caution and please do not be taken in by this.
PSA Beware Of Photos coming out of East Texas.
Yesterday I came across an interesting post on a message board not my own. On this message board a gentleman claimed to have met with TBRC Conference committee. Why you ask? Well, apparently he claims to have photos that are “Ground Breaking” “Rivaling the Patty Footage" (his words not mine). Well, Craig Woolheater and Monica Rawlins were more than happy to meet with this man at a Borders Bookstore here in Dallas Texas.But, why did he want to show these “ground breaking” photos to Craig and Monica? Well, he wanted to be listed as a speaker for the 2007 Texas Bigfoot Conference to be held in Jefferson Texas. He wanted to show a powerpoint presentation on his still photos. Craig and Monica as always are happy to meet with witnesses and evaluate their potential evidence and their stories, but make no mistake the TBRC maintains high standards when it comes to any possible evidence. Well, I think this exchange next will speak for itself.Monica found out about this person posting, after the TBRC had met with this gentleman and politely declined, the following is the email sent to this gentleman:Craig WoolheaterWithout direct TBRC involvement in the matter, we are unable to conclusively determine whether or not the quality of the photos and the conditions described by the photographer(s) meet our evidenciary standards. Therefore the Conference Committee cannot justify inclusion of an additional presentation on the matter in the 2007 Texas Bigfoot Conference. For the record, should conclusive, unequivocal evidence be discovered by or made available to the TBRC at some point in the future, we do not believe that the Conference or any other symposium will be the forum of our choice at which to exhibit such findings. More than likely, the TBRC will seek to cooperate with several governmental and private agencies in steps leading tothe listing of the species and publish the findings in a reputable scientific journal. On behalf of the TBRC, the Committee wishes to thank you for the opportunity to consider your request and looks forward to seeing you and your team members in November in Jefferson.Sincerely,Craig WoolheaterChair, TBRC Conference Committee MembersThis is a pretty straightforward letter, it is not insulting and not demeaning to the person who was offering the information. Truth is, his offer was declined because he had not had his photos evaluated by those who could say whether these were authentic or had been photoshopped. Having your potential evidence validated by someone with expert knowledge of say photos – to determine if Photoshop had been employed is the very first thing you should do as an investigator.So, on with the story.To the above email, this gentleman with his “ground breaking” photos jumped online and went to a message board and posted this:[name withheld, for now]Posted: Aug 18 2007, 08:57 AMJust heard back from the 2007 tbrc conference committee (who haven't seen a bf either..I asked them point blank). They have turned down my request to speak at their conference, show photos and other evidence from East Texas. Woolheater said that since the evidence didn't come from the tbrc, it doesn't meet their "evidenciary standards". As I expected from them. They also stated that evidence of that nature should best be left for government and private agencies to process and posted in scientific journals...but not at a conference. They're keeping a tradition alive....surrounding themselves with self proclaimed "experts" who have never seen a bf, nor inter-acted with one of more of them, but proclaiming their existence through circumstantial evidence....in front of the media.How many people in the field of Bigfoot Research do not know about Craig Woolheater’s sighting? He also goes on in another post to say Craig's sighting was a “rear view mirror” sighting. He couldn’t be more wrong. Which causes my first bit of concern with this guy. Know of which you speak, or forever remove the question of how well you pay attention. Thats free advice Apparently we were good enough for him to want to speak at our conference, but now that we question him we are a horrible organization, does anyone else get the irony in that??Well, does anyone else smell something foul? Compare what he says was the response from Craig Woolheater and what was actually sent to him. By the way, the above email from Craig Woolheater was supplied by the person whom I quoted above, not Craig Woolheater…. Something is rotten in East Texas.The evidentiary standards of the TBRC include a chain of custody, and an expert to back up what you say about the evidence. Simply telling us “I didn’t photoshop anything” just isn’t going to cut it. There is a reason why the TBRC has such a good name, and it’s not by accepting every piece of information as the gospel when it’s thrown out in front of us.To continue….Now of course just about everyone who was (with the exception of a silent few who were paying close attention) following after this guy on that specific message board is buying his info hook line and sinker. Even the members of the TBRC are now taking a hit, and unfounded accusations, and outright lies are being thrown about as if they are the truth (problem was they didn’t get the actual email until my involvement). I had to call this guy out and question his story. Yep, that’s right.The girls had to step up. I fired off an email to Monica. I offer this first post by Monica.Posted: Aug 22 2007, 01:38 PMOh my dear, dear (Name removed for now). Remember me? I was the one sitting next to you when you showed the pictures to Woolheater. You did not meet with the entire conference committee, just myself and Craig. The other person was a member of the Board of Directors, as you were told but conveniently forgot. To say that no one on the conference committee ever had a sighting is bull, Craig told you about his sighting when you asked; and if you need to know, I am the only one on the committee who hasn't had a sighting.The pictures do not meet our evidentiary standards because no expert has reviewed them. Experts in the field of photography do exist, you know. Have you shown them to one? You refused to allow us to have one examine the photo's for doctoring or photoshopping, so no, as they as they stand now do not meet our standards because they have not been reviewed by any expert; are we to just take your word for it? A third party unknown to any of us could give an unbiased opinion, although I really don't think you want that, do you? You had to point out in one of the pictures where the supposed BF was hiding. Now, if these are the ground breaking pictures you are bragging about here, why do you need to point it out. If it rivals the P/G film, as you told Craig, wouldn't the image be obvious? The other photo's are compelling, until you look at them closely. As someone who works closely with advertisers who use Photoshop, they looked pretty photoshopped to me. You told us in the meeting that Chester Moore was "chomping at the bit" to use the photo's at his conference, so do it. Show them there and move along.His response? Good Question. This response is so telling it makes my liver hurt.All you ask would have been presented formally at the conference. As I have heard it from Craig directly, he and his wife MAY have seen something on the side of the road in their rearview mirror back in the late 1970's. If he has had any other experiences, I am unaware of them. 25 years of speaking in front of groups of scientists in my scientific discipline (Geology and Geophysics related to petroleum exploration), all presentation orientated and peer reviewed. I have made no harsh claims against anyone. Only stated what I have read in some of the books published by the registered speakers, that the group of speakers is very weak or non-existent on personal sightings and encounters. They are strong on circumstantial evidence and I agree with them on many aspects of their published work. Some of it fits with our field work....some doesn't. I'll take hands on in- the- field experience over internet message board research anyday. The evidence has been shown to those that our group trust....thats all....one of which is(Name Removed). It will not be shown to those whom we don't know or trust. We have had some of the evidence attempted to be stolen by outsiders. Unknown people have shown up at doorsteps requesting to review the evidence. Because of these occurances, we choose to keep it protected. If it were yours, I would assume you would do the same thing. I gave the tbrc a chance to use their forum to allow me to show the evidence obtained from E. Tx, since its promoted as a TEXAS BIGFOOT CONFERENCE. They chose not to....its their right and choice. I have talked with Chester Moore, and if he has a conference in '08, I will discuss it with my group and we will talk with Chester about presenting it there. When the time is right (when our group decides its right), we plan on making the evidence known to the scientific community (of our choosing, no one else's) and let them run with it. I have known Chester and Craig both a long time. Chesters conference was my first choice as a venue to present the evidence, but he isn't having a conference in 2007, Craig is.....thats the only reason the tbrc was considered for release of this data. Data of this type is best reviewed first in conference form. Once discussed and presented formally, decisions can be made where and whom to talk to next concerning the validity of the data and any additional testing necessary to firm up our findings.“All we asked would be presented at the conference?” Monica got it right when she responded with this:Posted: Aug 22 2007, 02:14 PMI would think it logical to have your ducks in a row PRIOR to formally introducing evidence to the public, not afterward.Standing ovation for Monica – that is an extremely valid and EXCELLENT point. I’m so happy she is on the Board of Directors for the TBRC – and thank god everyone on that board would have said the exact same thing.When questioned about the tall TBRC tales he told, he had this to say:Posted: Aug 22 2007, 02:34 PMNo, No, No....I never said I received a slap in the face. Quite the contrary. The tbrc made a decision to not let me present our findings at their venue. Its their right. I gave them the opportunity first and they elected to pass on it. Thats all fine. I have no problem with their decision....its solely theirs. However, if its a Tx Bigfoot Conference....show some real Texas research....not some rehashed authors with limited real life experience selling books.So, from his response above, he would like everyone to know he is not upset that he was turned down by the TBRC.. I love all the fancy foot work he does to play “Nope I didn’t say that”.I would be a fool if I had not responded with:QUOTE (Our New East Texas Friend)They're keeping a tradition alive....surrounding themselves with self proclaimed "experts" who have never seen a bf, nor inter-acted with one of more of them, but proclaiming their existence through circumstantial evidence....in front of the media.Quote by me: So, you didnt say the above quote?Quote by me: Or this one,QUOTE (Our New East Texas Friend)I got the biggest kick out of the fact that the photos don't meet their "evidenciary standards". Fact is...they don't have any standards, because they don't have any evidence...nor do they have people capable of gainiing such. If they took these photos, they would be beating down the door to get the media involved...pure hyprocrisy.This gentleman never did respond to this. How could he? He had been caught in an outright lie trying to establish himself as an injured party, so those he was complaining to would feel sorry for him and listen even more intently to what he had to say. “Look at the bully picking on me”. Even though the “Bully” had remained silent to this point.He not only got caught, he provided the information that was his ultimate undoing. People like this get cocky, and they get so self confident that they think no one is smarter than them. Well, this guy was undone by his own words.He can now take his photos to Chester Moore for the 2008 Conference, so why is he clearly so upset about being turned down by the TBRC when he clearly thinks the TBRC isn’t capable of evaluating anything? Would you take your evidence to someone or a group you felt were completely inept? Would you really trust them to not screw something up?Well, here is another question that’s just begging to be asked, why not take them to Chester now? Chester is very well known in this research and could possibly open a lot of doors for analysis and documentation of the animal he claims to have captured in these photos. Apparently, he is choosing to wait until the 2008 Conference… I am confused by this. Can anyone explain this reasoning to me – doesn’t that go against everything we are in this for?Ok, maybe some just want really, really cool pictures. You can keep your cool pictures, I want proof.When questioned by another forum member about whether he intended to post his photos on their forum, he responded with this:Posted: Aug 22 2007, 07:37 AMI figured this would come up. The answer is no. I/we won't post anything on the internet in the way of photos or other tangible evidence. The evidence is just too hard to come by, to put into the public domain. The cost I/we have incurred in getting to the point we are at is huge. Equipment alone we, together, have probably $75,000 invested. (Name Removed) has seen the photos and other evidence due to my absolute trust in him. He can comment on them if he wishes. There were conditions place on the tbrc if they accepted my offer to show them....such as no photo's, video's at all...only audio so Woolheater could make some money on the conference. I/we have logged many, many hard nights in the woods, spent lots of money and nurtured relationships to get to the point we are, and I/we aren't giving it up to the public at this point in time. Maybe later, once certain conditions have been met. Sorry.Your damn right people are going to ask to see your pictures, you brought it up. When someone goes out of their way to tell you they have awesome photos then refuses to show them, citing copyright – you should yell BS and RUN FOREST RUN!!!! Something is not adding up. That is why people get a copyright on these things – to protect their financial interest number one, and two to keep others from claiming ownership, so they can then show others – and protect their interest. You don’t get a copyright then say “I have a copyright, but I won’t show you because I’m afraid someone will steal my photos”. That was frankly the most laughable comment I have heard in some time. My favorite line from his above quote is this:I/we have logged many, many hard nights in the woods, spent lots of money and nurtured relationships to get to the point we are, and I/we aren't giving it up to the public at this point in time.But that’s exactly what he offered the TBRC. I think there is another reason why he won’t post those photos. I offer this for your inspection and consideration:MMRawlins Posted: Aug 22 2007, 01:42 PMThe pictures do not meet our evidentiary standards because no expert has reviewed them. Experts in the field of photography do exist, you know. Have you shown them to one? You refused to allow us to have one examine the photo's for doctoring or photoshopping, so no, as they stand now do not meet our standards because they have not been reviewed by any expert; are we to just take your word for it?He also claims to have spent $75,000.00 on photos he has not yet had analyzed by an expert in photography. Was the $75,000.00 just for the copyright? What could possibly cost so much? Why would you do that, with no expert authentication? You have no scientific validation to back up your story, you have no hard evidence by way of DNA or anything else (not even a hair sample) yet, you decide $75,000.00 is a worth while investment for something you can’t prove anyway?? Ok, this is your second clue to “head for the hills”. Politely thank the person for their time, but scram out of that place as fast as you can.Posted: Aug 22 2007, 02:16 PMPosted by our New East Texas FriendWe have refused to let anyone, outside our group, have a copy of anything. We have all played this game before and don't trust anyone outside the group. Yes, the photos have undergone analysis by an unbiased third party with the original shots. Some of the pics that I brought for you to see have been lightened or outlined or colors of foliage removed...others were untouched.You don’t trust anyone outside your group? Remember, you came to the TBRC – the TBRC did not come to you. So, yes, the burden of proof is squarely on your shoulders.In an exchange between this gentleman and Monica he says he planned to have his photos analyzed AFTER the conference. Let me say that again, I don’t want anyone to miss this. He said he would have his photos analyzed AFTER the conference. Now above he says analysis has been done. Enhancements have been done. Why didn’t he bring a report by this expert that analyzed the film? That’s very standard. Anyone rendering an expert opinion would give the person requesting such analysis a final report – in writing. That was not supplied or even hinted at during his meeting with Craig and Monica.This gentleman has some serious inconsistencies in his story, as he told Craig Woolheater and Monica he had no work done on those photos, then he admits to photoshopping out leaves etc and enhancing the photos (was this part of the $75,000.00 price tag?) Big no no. Anyone who has been in this long enough should know by now – you do not have anything done to photographic evidence. You do not manipulate images in any way, shape or form, for no reason whatsoever.He refuses to have his photos analyzed by an independent expert, yet the TBRC and its members are horrible for not simply taking him at his word, and allowing him to give a presentation on supposed evidence with no factual information to verify his claims of legitimacy.That my friend is how you get hoaxed.These are the things you watch out for. Now, I am not posting this mans name, because as was pointed out to me, he may be an innocent victim in this as well. My money is on not. He has gotten himself in too far to be so innocent. And I don’t care how many friends you have, if your evidence amounts to your “word” and yet you want to put it out to the world as factual information – sorry I will always do whatever I think is necessary to put a stop to it.Researchers have a decision to make when it comes to these issues.. Stick your head in the sand and bury it, or speak up and don’t allow others to be taken in by these things. I am choosing to speak out, because I have first hand information, and I feel it is my responsibility once things go too far – to inform other researchers of what to watch out for. If evidence is good enough for you based solely on the person who obtained it – don’t come crying to me or write up long diatribes about how you were suckered into believing someone, when you just didn’t want to see the truth. I wont be bullied either to keep my mouth shut when I think someone is attempting to push off bad information. I will always do what I think is right - and let the chips fall where they may.So, if you get an email or read a post about photos that “Ground Breaking” out of East Texas – be wary, use caution and please do not be taken in by this.
Friday, January 12, 2007
New Sasquatch Watch of Virginia Online Store !
Sasquatch Watch of Virginia has opened a new online store to purchase merchandise such as shirts, hand bags, coffee mugs, calendars and many other items. Feel free to stop by our new online store and check it out!
The link to the online store is http://www.cafepress.com/sasquatchwatch
The link to the online store is http://www.cafepress.com/sasquatchwatch
Thursday, January 04, 2007
New Sasquatch Watch of Virginia Logo
We are pleased to announce that Sasquatch Watch of Virginia has created a new logo. I would like to personally thank Tom Lancaster for the creation of this new logo. Thank you Tom!!!
Tuesday, January 02, 2007
NEW!!! SASQUATCH WATCH OF VA HOTLINE!!!
Sasquatch Watch of Virginia has created a new telephone HOTLINE for Bigfoot/Sasquatch sightings or encounters. The HOTLINE phone number is (206) 203-4264.
Sunday, December 17, 2006
Peers scoff at professor's quest for Bigfoot
(12-17) 04:00 PST Pocatello, Idaho -- At a glance, Professor D. Jeffrey Meldrum would seem to be a star on the Idaho State University campus here.
A popular instructor, Meldrum has written or edited five books, written dozens of articles in academic journals, and ranged across the American West and Canada for his field research. Famed primatologist Jane Goodall wrote a blurb for his latest book, which she said "brings a much-needed level of scientific analysis" to a raging debate.
The problem is the debate: Is Bigfoot real?
Meldrum, a tenured associate professor of anatomy, is in pursuit of the legendary ape-man also known as Sasquatch.
Some of his colleagues are not amused. They liken Meldrum's research to a hunt for Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny, and 20 of them signed a letter earlier this year expressing worry that Idaho State "may be perceived as a university that endorses fringe science over fundamental scientific perspectives that have withstood critical inquiry."
Or, as Douglas P. Wells, a physics professor here, puts it: "One could do deep-ocean research for SpongeBob SquarePants. That doesn't make it science."
The affable Meldrum, 48, who has a mop of brown hair and a bushy gray mustache and is the father of six sons, declines to say whether he believes Sasquatch exists, but adds that based on the evidence he's gathered over the last decade, he thinks the likely answer is yes.
"I believe it would be more incredible to dismiss all the assertions about Bigfoot as a series of hoaxes and ruses," he says with academic precision, "than it would be to at least entertain the possibility that an unrecognized large primate exists in North America."
Even as they defend the concept of academic freedom, some who teach here worry that Meldrum's new book, "Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science," is "pseudo-science," in the words of Steven Lawyer, a clinical psychology professor.
"It's the kind of thing that will make Idaho State the butt of jokes," Martin Hackworth, a senior lecturer in the physics department, says of the book, born out of a 2003 program on the Discovery Channel and published by an offshoot of a science-fiction house.
The controversy over Meldrum's work is testimony to the enduring fascination with Sasquatch, as the Salish Indians called the ape man; or Bigfoot, the term the Humboldt Times in Eureka coined in an August 1958 article about a local logging crew's purported discovery of giant footprints.
But while there have been plenty of books on the subject over the years, Meldrum's is one of the few that could put its author in the middle of an academic fracas.
Twice passed over for elevation from associate to full professor, Meldrum says he would proudly present his Sasquatch research as part of future consideration. As the book's overleaf puts it, he is "willing to stake his reputation on an objective look at the facts." (None of his other books deals with Sasquatch, and he covers the topic in just one lecture of a survey class he teaches, on living and fossil primates.)
Skeptics say it is absurd to think that a huge ape roams the American wilderness.
No carcass has ever turned up, and many footprint "discoveries" over the years have been correctly dismissed as hoaxes, Meldrum concedes in his book.
Ray Wallace, a force behind the 1958 footprint discovery and a source of Bigfoot photographs over the years, famously confessed on his deathbed four years ago that the hulking creature once captured on film was really his wife dressed in a gorilla suit.
On the other hand, no one has ever proved that Bigfoot doesn't exist.
Into this void comes the 297-page book, published by Forge. It's an entertaining compendium of Bigfootology.
A chart compares estimated physical dimensions of one purported Sasquatch with Arnold Schwarzenegger "at the peak of his bodybuilding career." The California governor comes off as a pipsqueak next to the 7-foot-4, 700-pound creature.
Meldrum's small office in Pocatello is crammed with plaster casts he has collected in the wilds of strange footprints and handprints, even a print of buttocks that he firmly says do not belong to any known mammal.
The professor says he has heard the strange wailings that some attribute to Bigfoot, and once he was in a cabin in Ontario when a big rock got thrown against an outside wall.
Bigfoot, he presumes.
It is unclear at this point how his new book will affect Meldrum's review when he comes up again for full professor, perhaps in a year or two.
"Jeff is a great teacher, and he does real good things for his department," says John Kijinski, dean of arts and sciences at Idaho State. "He runs the cadaver lab and it's excellent."
Kijinski says he had not read the Bigfoot book and could not comment on how it would fit into Meldrum's job review, although he suggests that work in a "nonpeer-reviewed press" would probably count less than that in a university press or other academic forum.
"Venue where publication occurs is extremely important," he says. "As is the case with all the scientists here, our basic standard is peer review."
Meldrum's agent for the book, Michael Hsu, president of Minneapolis-based BooBam Ventures Inc., says it involves "too edgy a topic" for academic presses and was intended for a "general audience."
Meldrum says most of his research has been financed with private donations -- about $80,000 so far, the bulk of it from a Texas oilman who believes he may have encountered Bigfoot on a hunting trip to east Texas.
The professor's supporters point out that his Bigfoot work doesn't interfere with what he does all day, which is teach human anatomy.
"I had heard he was way into Sasquatch, but he hasn't even mentioned it in our course," says Heather Lien, a 29-year-old graduate student in physical therapy, pausing in her laboratory dissection of the cadaver of a woman in her 70s. "I gather it's just a sideline interest of his. I think it's fascinating."
"Unless I ask, he doesn't even bring it up," says Steven Johnson, 25, another graduate student involved in the dissection.
The Idaho Museum of Natural History, on the campus, has a popular "Bigfoot: How Do We Know?" exhibit, which details the scientific quest for the great hairy man and discusses the roles of knowledge, belief, faith and folklore in keeping the Bigfoot story alive.
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so," says a quote from Mark Twain in the display.
Meldrum's interest in the topic dates to an itinerant childhood in the prime Bigfoot-sighting terrain of Utah, Oregon, Idaho and eastern Washington, where his father was a produce merchandiser with the Albertson's supermarket chain.
"I spent a lot of time in the woods," Meldrum recalls. He was fascinated by animals of all kinds.
When he was 13, his parents gave him a book called "Abominable Snowmen: Legend Come to Life," which he keeps in his office. His interest in the creature -- and the mystery and romance of the search for it -- grew so profound that one friend wrote in his 1976 Idaho high school yearbook: "Good luck hunting for Bigfoot."
Meldrum received bachelor's and master's degrees in zoology from Brigham Young University, and a doctorate in anatomical sciences from the State University of New York at Stony Brook.
His specialty is the evolutionary adaptation of bipedalism, or walking on two legs. (One of the books he edited is called "From Biped to Strider: The Emergence of Human Walking, Running and Resource Transport") Over the years, Meldrum says, he and others have come across large prints that cannot be attributed to known animals.
"The subject begs for investigation," he says, rummaging through the large metal file drawers where he keeps the plaster footprint casts.
Meldrum says many of the prints would be extremely difficult to forge. The "flat flexible feet" -- up to about a size 28, quintuple-E-wide shoe -- are less rigid and arched than a human foot.
"All in all," he argues in the book, "this would be an efficient strategy for a giant terrestrial bipedal ape."
A popular instructor, Meldrum has written or edited five books, written dozens of articles in academic journals, and ranged across the American West and Canada for his field research. Famed primatologist Jane Goodall wrote a blurb for his latest book, which she said "brings a much-needed level of scientific analysis" to a raging debate.
The problem is the debate: Is Bigfoot real?
Meldrum, a tenured associate professor of anatomy, is in pursuit of the legendary ape-man also known as Sasquatch.
Some of his colleagues are not amused. They liken Meldrum's research to a hunt for Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny, and 20 of them signed a letter earlier this year expressing worry that Idaho State "may be perceived as a university that endorses fringe science over fundamental scientific perspectives that have withstood critical inquiry."
Or, as Douglas P. Wells, a physics professor here, puts it: "One could do deep-ocean research for SpongeBob SquarePants. That doesn't make it science."
The affable Meldrum, 48, who has a mop of brown hair and a bushy gray mustache and is the father of six sons, declines to say whether he believes Sasquatch exists, but adds that based on the evidence he's gathered over the last decade, he thinks the likely answer is yes.
"I believe it would be more incredible to dismiss all the assertions about Bigfoot as a series of hoaxes and ruses," he says with academic precision, "than it would be to at least entertain the possibility that an unrecognized large primate exists in North America."
Even as they defend the concept of academic freedom, some who teach here worry that Meldrum's new book, "Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science," is "pseudo-science," in the words of Steven Lawyer, a clinical psychology professor.
"It's the kind of thing that will make Idaho State the butt of jokes," Martin Hackworth, a senior lecturer in the physics department, says of the book, born out of a 2003 program on the Discovery Channel and published by an offshoot of a science-fiction house.
The controversy over Meldrum's work is testimony to the enduring fascination with Sasquatch, as the Salish Indians called the ape man; or Bigfoot, the term the Humboldt Times in Eureka coined in an August 1958 article about a local logging crew's purported discovery of giant footprints.
But while there have been plenty of books on the subject over the years, Meldrum's is one of the few that could put its author in the middle of an academic fracas.
Twice passed over for elevation from associate to full professor, Meldrum says he would proudly present his Sasquatch research as part of future consideration. As the book's overleaf puts it, he is "willing to stake his reputation on an objective look at the facts." (None of his other books deals with Sasquatch, and he covers the topic in just one lecture of a survey class he teaches, on living and fossil primates.)
Skeptics say it is absurd to think that a huge ape roams the American wilderness.
No carcass has ever turned up, and many footprint "discoveries" over the years have been correctly dismissed as hoaxes, Meldrum concedes in his book.
Ray Wallace, a force behind the 1958 footprint discovery and a source of Bigfoot photographs over the years, famously confessed on his deathbed four years ago that the hulking creature once captured on film was really his wife dressed in a gorilla suit.
On the other hand, no one has ever proved that Bigfoot doesn't exist.
Into this void comes the 297-page book, published by Forge. It's an entertaining compendium of Bigfootology.
A chart compares estimated physical dimensions of one purported Sasquatch with Arnold Schwarzenegger "at the peak of his bodybuilding career." The California governor comes off as a pipsqueak next to the 7-foot-4, 700-pound creature.
Meldrum's small office in Pocatello is crammed with plaster casts he has collected in the wilds of strange footprints and handprints, even a print of buttocks that he firmly says do not belong to any known mammal.
The professor says he has heard the strange wailings that some attribute to Bigfoot, and once he was in a cabin in Ontario when a big rock got thrown against an outside wall.
Bigfoot, he presumes.
It is unclear at this point how his new book will affect Meldrum's review when he comes up again for full professor, perhaps in a year or two.
"Jeff is a great teacher, and he does real good things for his department," says John Kijinski, dean of arts and sciences at Idaho State. "He runs the cadaver lab and it's excellent."
Kijinski says he had not read the Bigfoot book and could not comment on how it would fit into Meldrum's job review, although he suggests that work in a "nonpeer-reviewed press" would probably count less than that in a university press or other academic forum.
"Venue where publication occurs is extremely important," he says. "As is the case with all the scientists here, our basic standard is peer review."
Meldrum's agent for the book, Michael Hsu, president of Minneapolis-based BooBam Ventures Inc., says it involves "too edgy a topic" for academic presses and was intended for a "general audience."
Meldrum says most of his research has been financed with private donations -- about $80,000 so far, the bulk of it from a Texas oilman who believes he may have encountered Bigfoot on a hunting trip to east Texas.
The professor's supporters point out that his Bigfoot work doesn't interfere with what he does all day, which is teach human anatomy.
"I had heard he was way into Sasquatch, but he hasn't even mentioned it in our course," says Heather Lien, a 29-year-old graduate student in physical therapy, pausing in her laboratory dissection of the cadaver of a woman in her 70s. "I gather it's just a sideline interest of his. I think it's fascinating."
"Unless I ask, he doesn't even bring it up," says Steven Johnson, 25, another graduate student involved in the dissection.
The Idaho Museum of Natural History, on the campus, has a popular "Bigfoot: How Do We Know?" exhibit, which details the scientific quest for the great hairy man and discusses the roles of knowledge, belief, faith and folklore in keeping the Bigfoot story alive.
"Faith is believing what you know ain't so," says a quote from Mark Twain in the display.
Meldrum's interest in the topic dates to an itinerant childhood in the prime Bigfoot-sighting terrain of Utah, Oregon, Idaho and eastern Washington, where his father was a produce merchandiser with the Albertson's supermarket chain.
"I spent a lot of time in the woods," Meldrum recalls. He was fascinated by animals of all kinds.
When he was 13, his parents gave him a book called "Abominable Snowmen: Legend Come to Life," which he keeps in his office. His interest in the creature -- and the mystery and romance of the search for it -- grew so profound that one friend wrote in his 1976 Idaho high school yearbook: "Good luck hunting for Bigfoot."
Meldrum received bachelor's and master's degrees in zoology from Brigham Young University, and a doctorate in anatomical sciences from the State University of New York at Stony Brook.
His specialty is the evolutionary adaptation of bipedalism, or walking on two legs. (One of the books he edited is called "From Biped to Strider: The Emergence of Human Walking, Running and Resource Transport") Over the years, Meldrum says, he and others have come across large prints that cannot be attributed to known animals.
"The subject begs for investigation," he says, rummaging through the large metal file drawers where he keeps the plaster footprint casts.
Meldrum says many of the prints would be extremely difficult to forge. The "flat flexible feet" -- up to about a size 28, quintuple-E-wide shoe -- are less rigid and arched than a human foot.
"All in all," he argues in the book, "this would be an efficient strategy for a giant terrestrial bipedal ape."
Saturday, December 09, 2006
Welcome To Another New Member, Sean Forker !
The Directors of Sasquatch Watch of Virginia would like to take this opportunity to introduce another new member. We are pround to have him aboard. Below is a short biography. Welcome aboard Sean!!!
Sean Forker
Director, American Bigfoot Society
Host and Producer, “The Sasquatch Experience”
1015 ½ Park Avenue
Williamsport, PA 17701
Home: (570)-326-4686
Website: http://www.americanbigfootsociety.com
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/seanforker
Blog: http://americanbigfoot.blogspot.com
http://sasquatchexperience.blogspot.com
E-Mail: americanbigfootsociety@verizon.net
sasquatchexperience@gmail.com
BIOGRAPHY:
Sean Forker was born in Williamsport, Pennsylvania on August 29, 1985. His interest in
Bigfoot began when he was ten years old, when his father let him read his book “Sasquatch:
The Apes among Us”. It was then he fell in love with this mystery. Sean soon began to
assimilate everything he could on Bigfoot. At twelve years old, he began what would
anecdotally be considered field research. This led him to find others interested in this field.
He joined the Pennsylvania Bigfoot Society in February 2005. This has been a major
experience for him, as he alone is the researcher for seven counties. Sean investigated his first
two reports in the fall of 2005, one of which is available upon request. He is also currently on
the planning committee for the 2008 East Coast Bigfoot Conference.
Currently, Sean is the director; also Founder, of the American Bigfoot Society. The ABS
was founded in January 2006. We are an information exchange and research organization, with
members in various states. Sean was accepted into the Alliance of Independent Bigfoot
Researchers in May 2006, an achievement he is most proud of.
“The Sasquatch Experience” is a new show hosted and produced by Sean. This is a
weekly series that discusses current events, sightings, and interviews researchers from the US
and Canada. In December of 2006, Sean fulfilled his biggest dream by interviewing John Green,
the father of Sasquatchery.
Sean resides in Pennsylvania, with his wife of four years Laura. They have two children,
Alyssa (3) and Gabriel (8 months). Oh yeah… the also have a cat named “Patty”.
Sean Forker
Director, American Bigfoot Society
Host and Producer, “The Sasquatch Experience”
1015 ½ Park Avenue
Williamsport, PA 17701
Home: (570)-326-4686
Website: http://www.americanbigfootsociety.com
http://www.blogtalkradio.com/seanforker
Blog: http://americanbigfoot.blogspot.com
http://sasquatchexperience.blogspot.com
E-Mail: americanbigfootsociety@verizon.net
sasquatchexperience@gmail.com
BIOGRAPHY:
Sean Forker was born in Williamsport, Pennsylvania on August 29, 1985. His interest in
Bigfoot began when he was ten years old, when his father let him read his book “Sasquatch:
The Apes among Us”. It was then he fell in love with this mystery. Sean soon began to
assimilate everything he could on Bigfoot. At twelve years old, he began what would
anecdotally be considered field research. This led him to find others interested in this field.
He joined the Pennsylvania Bigfoot Society in February 2005. This has been a major
experience for him, as he alone is the researcher for seven counties. Sean investigated his first
two reports in the fall of 2005, one of which is available upon request. He is also currently on
the planning committee for the 2008 East Coast Bigfoot Conference.
Currently, Sean is the director; also Founder, of the American Bigfoot Society. The ABS
was founded in January 2006. We are an information exchange and research organization, with
members in various states. Sean was accepted into the Alliance of Independent Bigfoot
Researchers in May 2006, an achievement he is most proud of.
“The Sasquatch Experience” is a new show hosted and produced by Sean. This is a
weekly series that discusses current events, sightings, and interviews researchers from the US
and Canada. In December of 2006, Sean fulfilled his biggest dream by interviewing John Green,
the father of Sasquatchery.
Sean resides in Pennsylvania, with his wife of four years Laura. They have two children,
Alyssa (3) and Gabriel (8 months). Oh yeah… the also have a cat named “Patty”.
Wednesday, December 06, 2006
TRIP TO THE NEW JERSEY PINE BARRENS OCTOBER 2006
TRIP TO THE NEW JERSEY PINE BARRENS OCTOBER 2006
(Written by Tom Lancaster)
Prior to the outing, a U.S. Geological Survey topographic quadrangle map (dated 1981) and Google Earth aerial photographs (dated 2006) were obtained for the region of the expedition. Based on these documents, areas of interest for Bf reconnaissance included cranberry bog areas, potential sandy areas, and wide sections of creeks located in the wilderness of Wharton State Park. These areas of interest are seen in the following links to the topographic map and two aerial photographs (TOPOGRAPHIC MAP, AERIAL PHOTO #1, and AERIAL PHOTO #2). Referring to the topographic map, the cranberry bogs are located northwest and southeast of the NESRA base camp (i.e., Hawkins Bridge Campground). Looking at the aerial photo #2, the potential sandy areas (apparent cleared areas) are located near Mt. Sandy Ridge Road. These potential sandy areas were anticipated to be good potential locations to do "Bf footprint reconnaissance" during the daytime.Since deer may visit the cranberry bogs, these cranberry bogs were thought to be good potential locations for night surveillance for Bf hunting deer and/or possibly picking cranberries. Based on information about the CRANBERRY HARVEST season, the harvest period extends from mid-September to a few weeks before Thanksgiving, which includes the dates of the NESRA expedition. These relatively open cranberry bog orchards were anticipated to be good for extending a person's line of sight with night vision equipment and during the anticipated QUARTER-MOON PHASE, which rose during the a.m. hours. Additionally, the perimeters of these orchards were anticipated to be good potential locations to do "Bf footprint reconnaissance" during the daytime.DAYLIGHT INVESTIGATION ON FRIDAY 10/13/06 Friday afternoon, Billy and Tom got into their vehicle and headed west from the base camp on some dirt roads or jeep trails. Sections of these roads were partially obstructed by an overgrowth of bushes on the edges of the roads. Additionally, other sections of these roads had some pools of relatively deep standing water (some of these pools could be considered small ponds). Approximately three quarters of a mile west of the base camp, Billy and Tom arrived at a wide section of the creek that runs through the region. The daytime investigation of this creek area did not reveal any trace evidence of Bf. The location of this of daytime investigation area is labeled in the above-referenced links to the topographic map and the aerial photo #1. A PICTURE OF THE CREEK area is provides some hints why this area is commonly called the Pine Barrens. Later in the afternoon, Billy and Tom went to investigate the cranberry bogs located northwest of the base camp. They found that the roads leading to the cranberry bogs were partially obstructed by an overgrowth of bushes. As they drove further into the bog areas they discovered that most of the roads around the cranberry bogs were not accessible to vehicles and all of the cranberry bogs had been abandoned for many years. The daytime investigation location of one of these abandoned cranberry bogs is shown in the above-linked topographic map and aerial photo #2. A PICTURE OF ABANDONED CRANBERRY BOG shows an area of good visibility for night surveillance. The bog picture was taken from a “vehicle sand bridge” that extends across the cranberry bog. DEER PRINTS were found along this vehicle sand bridge. NIGHT SURVEILLANCE ON FRIDAY 10/13/06A couple hours before dusk, Billy and Tom walked about a quarter mile from their vehicle to the night surveillance location shown in above-linked topographic map and aerial photo #2. A SMALLER SCALED TOPOGRAPHIC MAP and SMALLER SCALED AERIAL PHOTOGRAPH of the night surveillance area shows the abandoned cranberry bog and lake on either side of a “vehicle sand bridge.” Pictures taken at the night surveillance location included the adjacent ABANDONED CRANBERRY BOG, the LAKE, and a NORTH VIEW and SOUTH VIEW of the sand bridge from the surveillance post. Billy and Tom’s night surveillance equipment included third generation night vision with headgear, digital video equipment, an eight-hour digital recorder linked to an omni-directional microphone capsule, two Garmin Rhino 530 GPS radios, and a 15-million candlelight powered light. An hour before nightfall, Billy and Tom were set up for stationary night surveillance. During this time, fog was not observed over the lake or surrounding land. It was a clear evening sky with a slight air movement (=< href="http://www.wunderground.com/weatherstation/WXDailyHistory.asp?ID=KNJHAMMO1&month=10&amp;amp;amp;day=13&year=2006" target="_blank">HERE) were as follows:_______________5:05 p.m.____________11:05 p.m.___________HUMIDITY-----------40% ---------------------91% TEMPERATURE------54.9 degrees F.-----------37.7 degrees F.DUE POINT TEMPERATURE------31.00 degrees F.---------35.30 degrees F.During the night of October 13, 2006, the localized humidity conditions over the swamp lands/water bodies surrounding the night surveillance post is anticipated to be higher than the humidity recorded in Hammonton, NJ. As referenced previously, the quarter moon was not anticipated to come out until a.m. hours.At 8:00 p.m., Billy and Tom heard what sounded like a log being rolled back and forth against other logs. This sound lasted about 10 seconds and re-occurred several minutes later. This sound appeared to be coming from the wooded area located approximately 200 to 300 yards from their surveillance location, which is just beyond the northwest corner of the subject abandoned cranberry bog. At 8:30 p.m., Billy and Tom heard a low frequency moan from the same location of the log noises. The moan lasted about 10 seconds. At approximately 10:00 p.m., Billy, heard several bipedal footsteps in the wooded area immediately outside of the southern bog perimeter. Billy, felt these footstep sounds were within 200 feet of him. At approximately 10:30 p.m., Billy heard a water disturbance approximately 50 feet south of him along the edge of the lake where a PATH TO THE LAKE was observed at the water’s edge. Billy said the water disturbance sounded similar to what you would hear when a man takes several quiet steps while entering relatively shallow water. As later measured, the water depth at one and three feet from the edge of the lake was one and three feet deep, respectively. Between 10:30 p.m. and 11:00 p.m., both Billy and Tom were dosing off occasionally. At 11:00 p.m., a crashing, thunderous splash occurred directly behind Billy and Tom. This extremely loud splash occurred within 10 feet of the edge of the lake, which is within 20 feet of Billy and Tom. Tom said the splash sounded like a 300-pound man doing a belly flop. Tom said it didn’t make a “Cur-Plunk” sound that a boulder would make when thrown in the water. When this splash occurred, Billy said he initially froze in his chair from the shock of the incident. Tom, on the other hand, reacted by jumping up and trying to get out of his chair only to fall with his chair still around him. When he tried to get up again, he said that he fell again. In an instinctual mode of self-defense, the 15-million candlelight powered light was immediately shined in the direction of the splash. Unexpectedly, an eight-feet high fog bank was observed in the direction of the splash at the water’s edge. This fog bank or steam was slowly moving toward Billy and Tom from the Lake (west-southwest) as it dissipated. Billy and Tom’s visibility over the lake extended no more than 10 feet with the 15-million candlelight powered light. However, approximately 20 feet north of their surveillance post, Tom saw that there wasn’t any fog or steam over the rest of the lake. Immediately before the the splash incident, there had not been any fog observed over the lake. Tom, said the steam or fog bank that occurred all of a sudden reminded him of a hot tub party in the middle of winter when everyone got out at once.Approximately 20 seconds after the first splash, a second thunderous splash (again, not a “Cur-Plunk” sound) occurred near the edge of the lake at approximately 50 feet south of the surveillance post, which is just south of the above-referenced path to the lake at the water’s edge. Immediately after the splash, Billy got a glimpse of something reddish brown standing in the water approximately 70 feet south of the surveillance post. Billy said it was close to the waters edge and partially covered by a tree limb that was hanging out over the lake. Most importantly, Billy said it was “moving” toward the water’s edge, which was interpreted to mean that he saw some sort of a creature or living animal. After this observation, no stationary or moving reddish brown object(s) or creature(s) was seen in that direction. Assuming the water is approximately two to three feet deep where the creature was seen, the height of the reddish brown creature was conservatively estimated to be 9 to 10 feet tall. After the second splash, both Billy and Tom were scared that whatever was out there was stalking them. They immediately packed up and quickly hiked the quarter mile back to their truck while being in a constant state of fear they are being stalked. After some discussions about the event with other NESRA officials, both Billy and Tom indicated that they did not see any logs that may have been thrown into water in the vicinity of the splash areas.Sunday, November 26, 2006
Breaking News!!!
There has been some Breaking News concerning the Patterson-Gimlin film. Please follow this link http://americanbigfoot.blogspot.com/2006/11/late-breaking-news.html to see the latest information. We will try to keep this blog up to date on the latest developments.
Thursday, November 23, 2006
Welcome Aboard New Members!!!
I would like to take this opportunity to announce some new members to the Sasquatch Watch of Virginia group. I am very proud to have these folks aboard.
Tom Lancaster - M.B.A., P.G., Principal Researcher and Co-Chairman
Tom Lancaster is the owner and president of an environmental consulting company. He has completed master's studies in geophysics in 1986 and business administration in 1999. He is a Virginia Licensed Certified Professional Geologist. Tom became interested in Sasquatch research as a hobby in 2005 after reading Bill Dranginis' Sasquatch sighting report (link), meeting him personally, and seeing his huge investment into Sasquatch research equipment (link). Through his love of the outdoors, Tom has grown to enjoy this hobby with his Sasquatch research partner, Billy Willard, and research association with Bill Dranginis. Recently, Tom has stepped up his efforts to include cutting edge scientific research strategies in Virginia and West Virginia.
Henry May - Member
Mr. Henry May is a Jacksonville, Florida native whose birthday is March 26th. He was born in 1970 and is 36 years old. His interest in Bigfoot began at age 5 when he saw his father with a book called Bigfoot: The Mysterious Monster, and also seeing pro-wrestler Andre the Giant as Bigfoot on The Six Million Dollar Man TV series. Two years later, he saw the movie based on the book his father had on TV at his grandmother's house. He began researching Bigfoot, reading every book he could find and watching every documentary he could see. Henry and his family moved from Tennessee to Pennsylvania to Georgia, where in each state he searched for Bigfoot in wooded areas. In Georgia, he had several "Not Sure" sightings and a possible vocalization encounter as well. He saw a possible Bigfoot in January 1984, but can't really confirm that because he was told 8 months previous that someone had a gorilla suit and was hoaxing Bigfoot in that area, so that sighting was a bit tainted. Henry and his mother and sister moved to Mississippi in February '84, where he had several "Not Sure" encounters until 1998, January 13th to be exact. Henry saw a large dirty-white creature cross the highway in front of him at 1:15 in the morning. It was a huge and massive creature. Henry continued reading as much as he could on the subject, even collecting the signatures of all four of the "Four Horsemen of Sasquatchery" (Green, Dahinden, Byrne and Krantz", along with Bob Gimlin's. Henry has over 80 books devoted to the subject of mysterious, unknown primates, along with a sample of shale sand from Bluff Creek, California, close to the P/G film site and a second-generation copy of a Bigfoot cast found by timber cruiser Pat Graves October 20, 1963 and cast by Roger Patterson the next day. He has had some vocalization encounters, including one 2 months ago. Henry started the Southeast Sasquatch Association in 1994 as a clearinghouse for sightings and information. Henry expanded this one-man organization to cyberspace in September 2004, on a website which can be found HERE. He expanded even further with his first blog found HERE in late-2005. In early-2006, he opened another blog based on his membership in a group of independent researchers called The American Bigfoot Society. His second blog can be found HERE. Henry is the President and CEO of the Southeast Sasquatch Association, a member of the International Bigfoot Society, the Pennsylvania Bigfoot Society and the American Bigfoot Society, where he is deputy director. He believes in a no-kill policy when it comes to Bigfoot.
I am very proud to have these guys joining us in our endeavors to research this creature that has been very successful in eluding humankind for a very long time. Welcome aboard guys and welcome!!!
Tom Lancaster - M.B.A., P.G., Principal Researcher and Co-Chairman
Tom Lancaster is the owner and president of an environmental consulting company. He has completed master's studies in geophysics in 1986 and business administration in 1999. He is a Virginia Licensed Certified Professional Geologist. Tom became interested in Sasquatch research as a hobby in 2005 after reading Bill Dranginis' Sasquatch sighting report (link), meeting him personally, and seeing his huge investment into Sasquatch research equipment (link). Through his love of the outdoors, Tom has grown to enjoy this hobby with his Sasquatch research partner, Billy Willard, and research association with Bill Dranginis. Recently, Tom has stepped up his efforts to include cutting edge scientific research strategies in Virginia and West Virginia.
Henry May - Member
Mr. Henry May is a Jacksonville, Florida native whose birthday is March 26th. He was born in 1970 and is 36 years old. His interest in Bigfoot began at age 5 when he saw his father with a book called Bigfoot: The Mysterious Monster, and also seeing pro-wrestler Andre the Giant as Bigfoot on The Six Million Dollar Man TV series. Two years later, he saw the movie based on the book his father had on TV at his grandmother's house. He began researching Bigfoot, reading every book he could find and watching every documentary he could see. Henry and his family moved from Tennessee to Pennsylvania to Georgia, where in each state he searched for Bigfoot in wooded areas. In Georgia, he had several "Not Sure" sightings and a possible vocalization encounter as well. He saw a possible Bigfoot in January 1984, but can't really confirm that because he was told 8 months previous that someone had a gorilla suit and was hoaxing Bigfoot in that area, so that sighting was a bit tainted. Henry and his mother and sister moved to Mississippi in February '84, where he had several "Not Sure" encounters until 1998, January 13th to be exact. Henry saw a large dirty-white creature cross the highway in front of him at 1:15 in the morning. It was a huge and massive creature. Henry continued reading as much as he could on the subject, even collecting the signatures of all four of the "Four Horsemen of Sasquatchery" (Green, Dahinden, Byrne and Krantz", along with Bob Gimlin's. Henry has over 80 books devoted to the subject of mysterious, unknown primates, along with a sample of shale sand from Bluff Creek, California, close to the P/G film site and a second-generation copy of a Bigfoot cast found by timber cruiser Pat Graves October 20, 1963 and cast by Roger Patterson the next day. He has had some vocalization encounters, including one 2 months ago. Henry started the Southeast Sasquatch Association in 1994 as a clearinghouse for sightings and information. Henry expanded this one-man organization to cyberspace in September 2004, on a website which can be found HERE. He expanded even further with his first blog found HERE in late-2005. In early-2006, he opened another blog based on his membership in a group of independent researchers called The American Bigfoot Society. His second blog can be found HERE. Henry is the President and CEO of the Southeast Sasquatch Association, a member of the International Bigfoot Society, the Pennsylvania Bigfoot Society and the American Bigfoot Society, where he is deputy director. He believes in a no-kill policy when it comes to Bigfoot.
I am very proud to have these guys joining us in our endeavors to research this creature that has been very successful in eluding humankind for a very long time. Welcome aboard guys and welcome!!!
Monday, May 29, 2006
Sasquatch Watch of Virginia - New to Blogging
Well, I guess it is time to try to learn new things. My name is Billy Willard and I am with Sasquatch Watch of Virginia. This is my first time using blog, so please bear with me through this learning process. I will try to update this blog often but it will all depend on my very busy schedule.
First of all, I would like to thank Sean and Melissa for turning me on to this blog. It looks like it will be very enjoyable.
I guess I will start my first blog by telling everyone a little about myself. I am 37 years old and live in Manassas, Virginia. I have three children (Frank, Josh and Tim) that keep me busy. I am currently an executive vice-president for an environmental consulting firm in Northern Virginia and have been employed there since 1999. I deal with leaking underground and aboveground storage tanks that leak petroleum into the environment.
I have had an interest in the Bigfoot/Sasquatch mystery since I was young. I remember watching the Creature from Black Lake and Leggend of Boggy Creek as a child. I started my active research and investigation into this mystery only a couple of years ago. I didn't realize how many independent researchers were out there until I got started with my research. Two of my son's (Josh and Tim) have had a sighting of this creature. I have not had this opportunity as of yet, but I have been close. Their sighting actually occurred at a site that we were actively researching. They were at the right place at the right time. Their sighting occurred in an area near Richmond, Virginia. I believe Tim will always have the image of what he saw in his mind. I say this because to this day, he has a true fear of being in the woods in the dark. I learned this most recently by taking him on an all night research project that had to be cut short due to his fear.
In summary, I look forward to sharing information on this blog from time to time. I may expand this blog in the near future to include comments on movies, books and investigations on Bigfoot/Sasquatch. I will also likely find others who would like to contribute reviews and other information.
Happy Squatching!!!
First of all, I would like to thank Sean and Melissa for turning me on to this blog. It looks like it will be very enjoyable.
I guess I will start my first blog by telling everyone a little about myself. I am 37 years old and live in Manassas, Virginia. I have three children (Frank, Josh and Tim) that keep me busy. I am currently an executive vice-president for an environmental consulting firm in Northern Virginia and have been employed there since 1999. I deal with leaking underground and aboveground storage tanks that leak petroleum into the environment.
I have had an interest in the Bigfoot/Sasquatch mystery since I was young. I remember watching the Creature from Black Lake and Leggend of Boggy Creek as a child. I started my active research and investigation into this mystery only a couple of years ago. I didn't realize how many independent researchers were out there until I got started with my research. Two of my son's (Josh and Tim) have had a sighting of this creature. I have not had this opportunity as of yet, but I have been close. Their sighting actually occurred at a site that we were actively researching. They were at the right place at the right time. Their sighting occurred in an area near Richmond, Virginia. I believe Tim will always have the image of what he saw in his mind. I say this because to this day, he has a true fear of being in the woods in the dark. I learned this most recently by taking him on an all night research project that had to be cut short due to his fear.
In summary, I look forward to sharing information on this blog from time to time. I may expand this blog in the near future to include comments on movies, books and investigations on Bigfoot/Sasquatch. I will also likely find others who would like to contribute reviews and other information.
Happy Squatching!!!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)