Another pic for Sasquatch or Black Bear? This time from Minnesota.

I don't always see why it's a question at all.  The pic in question is a black bear for sure.

The shiny jet black fur is the first clue.  The fore legs and hind legs bend at the right place. While at first glance it looks like the legs are straight, that's not the case. The left hind leg is bent toward us so it's not clearly a bend at the joint at first sight.

The tips of the ears are also visible over the foliage.

Colorado Shelter? I'm Not Sure About This.

I saw this on Bigfootbuzz.net.  This shelter/structure that was made on a rock outcropping shows something or someone made it.  I think it was  a person.  Watch the video and see why after the vid.

When it gets to the entrance on the side I realized this had to be man made.  Judging by what we see, this is several years old.  A bigfoot is going to make a structure with an entrance that's hard for a man to get into?  I don't believe it at all. There are a lot of people that make things like this.  The person had some outdoors skills.  The location is excellent and the one log that is too heavy to move is probably retaining water in it's spongy state which is why it cannot be lifted.  It was likely dragged into position from a few feet away.  I can't see this as proof of bigfoot. There was no hair found inside, no tracks outside.  A fugitive might be to blame for lack of sign.  That's always a possibility.  There are many who run away from the law who have some outdoors skills and could survive for years out there. I'd love it myself but that's just because I've never been comfortable around people.

Is Pixellation to Blame for Movement in this Bigfoot video?

I found this on BigfootBuzz.net and it seemed sincere enough but the movement this guy is recording seems more like pixellation and camera movement causing it to me.

Sasquatch Speak?

The videographer claims this is a Sasquatch speaking.  I still  maintain it's someone with too much beer.

Doubtful News on Sasquatch Research Vs. Onlinguito Study

I came across a post referring to my article, Sasquatch Cannot Exist But New Species Can Be Discovered, by Sharon Hill of Doubtfulnews.com.  In her article, "Why the Olinguito is Bad News for Cryptozoologists", it appears to me that she came away with the wrong intent and served her own needs at this point.

Read her article here: Why the olinguito is bad news for cryptozoologists, and my rebuttal since she truly misunderstood the intent. Essentially she proved the point I made in the article that skeptics and science take what they want out of an issue and refuse to recognize and study the evidence.

Here is my rebuttal in comment on doubtfulnews.com:

Hi Sharon,

I noticed that you linked to my blog. My purpose in the post was to point out what I see as a double standard in science and not entirely why Sasquatch could not exist. While the blog was titled for effect it was meant to show more of a double standard in the skeptic community. Your using it seemed to assist in making my point more for the fact that you took away what you wanted out of it and nothing more. This is often a problem that is seen in cryptozoology.

I stated that the onlinguito was known about for years and implied it was treated as a subspecies of olingos in zoos where they attempted mating with olingos. After realizing it was not olingo it was recognized as an unknown species in 2006 which precipitated the study on the species thus the discovery of olinguito and the four subspecies.

I did not miss the fact that there was scientific work involved but did not allude to it as the only proof to get the study going. In effect the study had to start with inconsistencies in the two species, bones in a box, folklore, and eye witness reports which all resulted in a lengthy study. There was some conjecture as to where this species live and in your words, “they went and found it.”

While I am not a zoologist or even a science major I am attempting to get the Bigfoot/Sasquatch community to take a real scientific approach such as diagramming tree structures that are perceived as created by Bigfoot (prove that something extraordinary happened based on real data, e.g. measurements distance, locations etc.) I am also encouraging the standardizing of evidence collection procedures and how to effectively and scientifically measure perceived track ways. How about also identifying vocalizations from other species in the woods as Elk, deer, moose and bear are often mistaken for Bigfoot? Grouse taking off or startling predators is often mistaken for breast beating. I also encourage independent evaluation of perceived evidence by several critical sources. I even went so far as to make a website devoted to evidence review and collection so there can be a safe place to find independent researchers interested in the truth instead of what they believe or want. It seems your take on my blog post mis characterized the point I was truly making.

Science and the skeptic community are often found lacking in reviewing evidence but are very good at finding reasons to not review said evidence overall. I know there will be many who disagree and will try to take me to task for that statement but it cannot be denied based upon the work done by science and skeptics toward finding Bigfoot. Very little has been done by way of work on evidence but more has been done to discredit the self proclaimed researchers instead.

Go back to the blog and read some more posts. You will see that I am sincere and I do not announce myself as a cryptozoologist and prefer not to refer to myself as a researcher overall. I prefer to be called a tracker or woodsman with the experience to know my areas and the subjects to which I refer.

Bigfoothunting.Blogspot.com

Thanks for your thoughts on the post.

Amazing Superstructure By Bigfoot? I Have My Misgivings...

Here is a Youtube video posted by Kelly Shaw. I didn't bring this up to pick on Mr. Shaw but I'm not there and the only proof we have is the word of a tracker and nothing more than video on this. I do not doubt their honesty but I have to point out again there are some assumptions made. Since I have not received any other photos or video showing more details I can't say this is anything more than natural.

Watch the video then check me on my facts.

Here is what is wrong with what I am seeing as a professional tracker and woodsman:  These trees are in a storm damaged area where either there is not enough ground water, the stand was diseased, or time and wind caused this. There are a lot of fallen logs in the area indicating they had may have had affected root systems or extremely high winds. The ones that are in the structure show various levels of decay. That may be due to different species in the structure or it may be natural.  I'm thinking natural myself just for the other fallen logs in the location. Some of them appear from 8 to 10 years old while others as little as 3 to 5 years. Imagine a younger more vibrant tree with heavy foliage near the top in a high wind.  These will snap off like a twig.

While I am sure that Kelly has another opinion I would like to address the fact that once again there is too much information missing.  The area of the structure needs to be measured, a grid created on paper and the logs need to be re-drawn on that grid.  Yes a three dimensional grid. An over view or an under view and a side view as dictated by the measured grid lines.  The video itself needs to show us the side angle at the very least and the ends of the logs.  If there are any stumps nearby that fit the bill for those logs or the diameter, those should be shown as well.  If those stumps are out of your grid area by more then ten feet then another smaller overview should be drawn with stumps around it.  Ends of logs and stumps should be numbered on this to indicate location.

This sounds like a lot of work but it will be worth it to prove whether something extraordinary occurred or not.  Judging by the amount of fallen trees in the area along with the rate of decay on the structure I will have to say that this was natural until those other details come out. All of the dead wood in the area is the biggest clue.  If you are seeing this then you're likely seeing a natural structure.  Trees do not always fall in the same direction.  Only two need to cross in forest to start a structure like this.  Over time and with different wind directions these structures become more common.  I live in an area where this is quite common. I have spent most of the summer pulling down and cutting away manhy crossed fallen trees to keep the home safer

It should always be remembered that these should be considered unstable since they are deadfall. The weather may have them settled a bit giving it apparent strength but I wouldn't  be stepping underneath one. Eventually someone will get hurt by doing so I just hope it's not this crew.  Really I hope nobody gets hurt this way.  These can be deadly traps. Shaw's group is earnest in their desires and goals and might be successful but there needs to be a better understanding of the way nature works when we're not in the woods to see these made.  That is why I suggest diagramming. If done properly it can show beyond doubt that something unusual is taking place and that only extreme circumstances in nature will create structures like this.

Keep trying Kelly.  Good luck. We'll be waiting for more and watching.

Sasquatch Cannot Exist But New Species Can Be Discovered

With announcement of the Smithsonian discovery of the Olinguito most will realize how little we know of our world.
The announcement in the USA Today article, Smithsonian discovers rare new mammal species, states, "A Smithsonian zoologist announced Thursday the "spectacular" discovery of a new mammal species -- the olinguito -- a small member of the raccoon family that lives in the Andes."

While I realize that this species has been seen before it was not studied exclusively until 2006 when it was recognized as an unknown species. It was brought into zoo captivity for years prior to studying as olingo in hopes it would mate with other olingo.  Kris Helgen the curator of mammals at the Smithsonian National Museum of Natural History announced that there are four subspecies of the Olinguito.  In the same announcement he states, "The discovery of the olinguito shows us that the world is not yet completely explored, its most basic secrets not yet revealed,"

Most of us in the Sasquatch/Bigfoot research field understand this is not a rare case where science recognizes how little we know and understand of our own planet.  What is more common though is the ignorance of science to recognize this and the reverse pareidolia that science suffers from just due to general disbelief.  I say reverse pareidolia because some things seem so unbelievable that science dismisses them based not on real science but it's own disbelief without truly studying the evidence with a scientific eye.

While it is true that burden of proof is on the believer, scientists have been known to outright dismiss evidence based upon a short study of a piece of evidence.  Again it seems not worth their time so it is often proclaimed, "That is not possible." They often see what they want to see or expect to see and go no further than that.  Upon studying the Patterson-Gimlin film scientists will dismiss it as evidence without thoughts of authenticity because they expect to find lines or seams in a supposed suit.  Therefore it must be a suit.  

Skeptics point out sources of hearsay rather than actual evidence as proof that it is not real. They attempt to discredit the filmographer instead of the film.  They do not find any evidence other than the word of an author or supposed participant neither of which are necessarily an expert on authenticating films and hoaxes. Authors may however, be considered an expert at investigating facts or just presenting arguments.  We should all know and understand by now that investigations are often wrong especially if you do not do the work to fully understand and investigate the evidence presented.

In effect, disbelief is a form of belief that brings on it's own pareidolia. Seeing things that do not exist based upon one's belief or desires. I see this as the true schism in understanding that Sasquatch exist.

Come back in a few days for my response to the recent Skeptoid.com article on the Patterson-Giml