The first ever recorded thermal image of Bigfoot was filmed in July 2008


According to BFRO president Matt Moneymaker, this is the first thermal footage of Bigfoot ever. It was recorded  Phillips, Wisconsin at a BFRO hotspot. "This is the first thermal footage ever obtained of a sasquatch, though its quality will not stand on its own to convince the world. The key portion is only about a second long," says Moneymaker. "Several people in the BFRO heard the distinct sounds of sasquatches in the same area during a BFRO expedition in 2006."

BFRO investigator Don Young wrote this about how the footage was obtained:

I did a 5 day 4 night camping trip by myself at [a location in Price County]. It was slow at first. I was not picking up anything with the thermal [imager], not even rodents or other animals, as if the woods around me were devoid of life.

The 3rd night I had a feeling of being watched so I stayed close to the truck and set up the thermal to watch the tent. Nothing came around the tent.

On the 4th night things started to happen. A thrown rock or piece of wood came very close to my tent and hit a tree with a very loud thud-pop. I got out of the tent and panned around with the thermal, which was running already outside the tent. It was on a tripod aimed down a trail off the [dirt road]. It looked like nothing was out there.

After about an hour of panning around with the thermal I stood back up and stretched. I aimed the thermal to watch the walking trail, and then I started to go back into the tent when I heard the sounds of brush cracking on both sides of me. This was so close to me that it made the hair on my neck bristle instantly.

I started to pan with the thermal again from one side to the other. After what seemed like about a half hour into it, a bright warm blip in the appeared in the background. It was some kind of animal along down the walking trail. It seemed to be on the edge of the trail and low to the ground.

After I watched it for a while with the thermal I got the sense that it was watching me, and it was peeking over a clump of brush on the edge of the trail. I watched it for a while, until I accidentally kicked into my bag of cans and garbage. I also bumped into the tripod when this happened, which jerked the thermal to the right a bit. Then the blip stood up and ran off on two legs, hunched over.

I could hear it as it ran away from me to the north. I could hear the brush and its footsteps fading into the distance. As the sound trailed off, all around me the brush started to thrash and snap. I
continued to pan around me but saw nothing. The edge growth was so thick on the sides of this overgrown road that the imager could only see in 10-15 feet or so.

Something was back in that brush, on both sides of me. There was two of them, and they both got noisy at the same time as, if trying to get my attention. It seemed like they wanted to get my attention so that I would not follow the one that was walking away. I couldn't see the ones to the side through the thick brush. I looked for a while, but then gave up trying to see them that way. The other way was to aim the thermal imager at the tent, and set it up to record all night, then go sleep.

I went to sleep with the thermal aimed at the tent. I could hear things to the sides of the road for a while. I could only hope they would come closer to the tent. Didn't happen though, so I drove home in the morning to review the footage that I was sure I got.

I watched it on the computer when I got home. It looked like a sasquatch to me. It was peeking over brush for a while, and moving strangely, and then running away hunched over, like it was dodging a sniper.

It was no bear, or other four-legged animal. It was bipedal and it was agile.

When I shot this footage it was almost pitch black outside. There was no moon. So this thing has the ability to run through the dense brush in total darkness, and watch me in total darkness.

I got the impression from the video that it had long arms and big hands and very muscular legs. It doesn't look very large. It
could be a juvenile. It seems to have that spirit to its movements.

The other ones that made the noise around me may have been young ones also.

The other cameras (trailcams) I had set up around my camp area picked up nothing. I did not have a light on or any lantern. It was a cold camp. There was no camp fire for the entire stay.

The squatches arrived at 1:00 AM on the fourth night or 5th morning, and seemed to be all gone at around 2:30 to 3:00 AM.

It was total darkness out there. The trees had a thick canopy over the road. It blocked out any night sky. Without the thermal I could only see darkness.




Comments

  1. Replies
    1. Dr Meldrum i presume :) xx

      Good last first btw xx

      Delete
    2. First ever bigfoot thermal hoax is more like it.

      Delete
  2. when in doubt call it a bloke in a suit.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When Panicin' Skywalker... Call everything a bloke in a suit.

      Delete
    2. Well with no other bipedal species in north america what else are you gonna call it numb nuts?

      Delete
    3. I'm sure Wikipedia and that overpriced therapist may leave with you with that reassuring evaluation, I'm here to tell you plenty found;
      http://youtu.be/cR2cREt95sU
      http://youtu.be/luue2Mv_VNM
      http://youtu.be/lOxuRIfFs0w
      http://youtu.be/l96zvON3Rk8
      http://youtu.be/xI8gcikwUEQ
      http://youtu.be/BfuWuhEa3yI
      http://youtu.be/ZlMQ9b2lnE4
      http://youtu.be/h4QcYdT6keQ

      ... None caught.

      Delete
    4. LOL. All these clips could just as well be hoaxes.

      Unless you can prove that they are not hoaxes, they are hoaxes.

      Delete
    5. ... That's just it. One source is waiting on a monkey suit... Get busy, unless you can deliver then I guess you're one step closer to the straight jacket being a regular outfit.

      Delete
    6. What you meant to say is that one source is waiting on a confirmed species that matches.

      I'm sure it was just a typo on your part.

      Delete
    7. It matters not. If you can't show the premise supporting that footage to be false, then it stands and doesn't stop being a reality because research doesn't start at conclusion... This being your negative proof fallacy.

      I'm sure that rhetorical sentiment was not expressed intently on your part.

      Delete
    8. LOL Joe. Do you not realize that your "monkey suit" rationale works both ways?

      Prove 100% that these clips are not hoaxes.

      Delete
    9. No it doesn't... How does one test the premise put forward by an anthropologist, a wildlife biologist, a primatologist and a pioneering plastic surgeon that the subject is organic? That's right...

      If you don't think science should be tested consistently, then that's a supression of evidence fallacy. With regards to the other sources, show me an example of a normal human achieving the stealth on display and you'll get a little closer to showing my premise is wrong. You think they're fake, it's your duty to support that, not my problem.

      Delete
    10. Robert Lindsay says that he used to be a stand in actor for the captain on Whale Wars!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Delete
    11. Joe, 6:59 is correct. The fact that you respond with "No it doesn't" shows that you have a screw loose.

      Delete
    12. This is probably legit. What thermals have found is that even in pitch darkness BF remains stealthy in its approach to humans. There are even better thermals by respected researchers like Mike Green. I know researchers who know Green and vouch for his footage.

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uihtBi88qOU

      Delete
    13. Hey Dover! I've got to say, I've always liked this thermal. Green is a good guy.

      Delete
    14. I too think it is legit. The guy who took it has some solid credentials. The equipment was bought for him by Wally Hersom after getting some pics before this.

      D Dover is right about remaining stealthy towards us even in pitch black for the most part. I wonder if they realize we can not see in the dark so well?
      Chuck

      Delete
    15. That is what I've wondered to, if they might not realize people can't see as well, although I interacted with one that I believe realized I couldn't see it. It was standing maybe 12 feet from in the shadows, and when I finally made it out I was gripped with sudden fear at the sheer height of that thing standing so close. When it realized I was looking at it, it casually turned to its right and walked down hill.

      Delete
  3. How can you say a distinct sound of a sasquatch when nobody has seen a Sasquatch actually vocalize or have that on video?

    Also, how can you say it is a Bigfoot/Sasquatch?

    I have a blurry white blob of a Unicorn and know it for fact as I heard the Unicorn beforehand.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. How? Because there were sightings reports in conjunction with the recorded audio;

      "These recordings later became the subject of a year-long University of Wyoming-based engineering study to determine their authenticity and to understand the nature of the vocalizations relative to those of humans and other primates. The results of that study were published by the University of British Columbia Press in 1980 in "Manlike Monsters on Trial", an anthology of professional papers presented at a 1978 UBC-sponsored symposium entitled Anthropology of the Unknown. The study concluded that the unusual vocalizations were primate in origin, and that at least one of the voices exceeded normal human ranges. Although the study did not rule out the possibility of human source, it established that the vocalizations were spontaneous at the time of recording and that there was no evidence of pre-recording or re-recording at altered tape speed."

      ... Still no unicorn sightings.

      : (

      Delete
    2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bAdAfZwdyCU

      ; )

      Delete
    3. Robert Lindsay says that he currently is on a diet of nothing but refried beans!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Delete
    4. If unicorns are real, why are there no bodies?

      Delete
  4. "I love you, you love me. Going down the sugar tree. We'll go down the sugar tree, and see lots of bees: playing, playing. But the bees won't sting, because you love me."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Not if they're African colonize killer bees !! They could care less who's in love !

      Delete
    2. Did you really have to ruin a magical moment? xx

      Delete
    3. Robert Lindsay says that you can always tell if a woman was once a guy by comparing there fingers lengths!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Delete
  5. LOL. What makes anyone think that this is a bigfoot and not a human?

    Thermal footage is easier to fake than regular video footage. Thermal is and always will be entirely useless when it comes to providing evidence for the existence of bigfoot.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. http://cliffbarackman.com/research/field-investigations/the-brown-footage/

      http://youtu.be/l-xAuHHdaYU

      ... If there's data, it can be analysed and tested.

      Delete
    2. Yeah, analyzed and tested by people who believe that bigfoot exists and make a bigfoot out of everything.

      Delete
    3. An opinion by someone who denies everything based on the lie that anyone concluding on a positive result is therefore untrustworthy... That doesn't even begin to address the data that's been analysed and tested.

      Delete
    4. I agree with Anon 5:53. Simple broken branches, faint scratches in the dirt, blurry images and various animal howls are attributed to bigfoot because the advocates WANT it to be so. Their faith convinces them even if the evidence is really not there. This may do when preaching to the choir however they will need much more to convince the rest of the world.

      Delete
    5. Analyzed and tested by whom? Tell us about one thermal clip that was analyzed and tested by an objective independent organization/lab that concluded that any thermal image of a bipedal subject is undoubtedly not a human.

      As a side note, I don't entirely dismiss the possible existence of bigfoot. However, as I stated previously, thermal has not and will not prove anything regarding the existence of bigfoot.

      Delete
    6. 7:04... Who's maintaining otherwise? You see it's people like you who are naive to the state of evidence, and it's people like me, who in a couple of comments, will no doubt be attacked for pointing this out to you... Allow me to demonstrate. There is physical evidence accumulated in tack impressions that show species traits of an unknown primate. There is biological evidence accumulated in hair samples that shows uniform species traits of an unknown primate... And like what was posted here earlier, audio akin to an unknown primate. This doesn't prove anything, but it at least shows there's evidence for an unknown primate in the U.S. Considering we have footage that has stood the test of all scrutiny for 47 years (that has matching specimens in other sources of footage to support), then we have a little more than broken branches, faint scratches in the dirt, blurry images and various animal howls. Faith is for religion and this field has science to reference, and audaciously it's a matter of mere faith to state otherwise in the face of that referenced science.

      7:05... It's pretty simple, you really don't need a lab to test thermal footage (cringe), you just need the available data from subsequent size comparisons which is all in the two sources given to you. Subjects in the 8.5 and 9 feet range, tend to be a leaner for the enthusiasts, I'll admit I'm guilty of that. I do agree with you that most thermal is crud, but it's usually because size comparisons aren't made.

      Delete
    7. They do make a very good point Joe. which is that this thermal video "might show" a sasquatch and on the other hand it "might not",plain and simple............

      Delete
    8. I really don't endorse this video to be honest, and I would concur.

      Delete
    9. Robert Lindsay says that he is a 3 time purple heart winner!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Delete
    10. Don Young, the man who took this footage, is also responsible for the laughably obvious "Big Phil" hoax photos.
      http://www.bfro.net/news/roundup/wi_06_notes_big_phil_images.asp

      The guy is a hoaxer, plain and simple. I read some pretty damning stuff years ago about this guy but can't remember where about how much of a sleazeball he is.

      Delete
    11. Oh yeah....
      http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2012/05/heres-photo-of-big-phil-that-we-cant.html

      Robert Lindsay says Don Young is currently serving a 7 year term in prison for having sex with his 14 year old stepdaughter!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Delete
    12. Your reference to faith was interesting Joe. Unlike you, I myself see many parallels between the belief of Bigfoot and a higher power. Both are not recognized by mainstream science but both camps purport to have "evidence" proving them to be fact. Almost all religions have sacred relics which they believe is "proof" of their belief. The Bigfoot advocates have their own "proof" such as film, hair, DNA and such. But in the end none of these things offer the indisputable evidence which is unquestionable even to the most sympathetic judge. The one thing that ties this two different camps together is faith. Even when shown solid negative evidence many will not accept it choosing to maintain their belief based on FAITH.

      This comes from a one time believer but I have lost my faith. You are all of course free to think otherwise but that is the way I see it.

      Delete
    13. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    14. Argh well that's where I can draw similarities between religion and your mindset, Mr Curious, along with the current attitudes towards the evidence which is quite simply a dogma. I find it slightly offensive, that for all that dogma not one person, however qualified can present a case to not consider the evidence. You must test science with science, not dismiss it because of a negative proof fallacy; it's a major slap in the face of scientific principles. I also find it quite audacious that anyone so apparently experienced in this topic, can be so ignorant of the level of this impartial and consistent science, and then compare it to religious relics... This is very typical of "sceptics" who are trying to maintain a false version of the state of evidence. To deny the evidence prevents the awkward reality of debating it, and like all good people practicing Scientism, when something's a little difficult to answer; it's time to deny there's anything to answer. Not once has there been a reason presented to not consider this frequency of evidence, and as far as this "negative evidence" goes... You can test science with science, you can't prove a negative, by the way.

      And this is it... I have yet to come across any that claim to have proof, what is a reality is an enthusiams for the frequency of existing data that points to something very real residing in the wilderness of the U.S. This is why people invest enthusiasm, people who aren't prepared to swallow a preference of conclusion that cannot be supported with supporting data. People who aren't seemingly bitter at the subject, because the bipedal gorilla owed to them for their time spent, didn't show.

      "A conscious entity practicing science can only draw on its subjective experiences to form beliefs. This means that no matter how objective science appears to be, there are generally two assumptions which must be taken entirely on faith."

      I have no reason to merely believe, because I am convinced by the evidence... And the Virgin Mary don't leave tracks.

      Delete
    15. For people who argue that thermals can never prove BF, there are other purposes for videos, thermal or otherwise, than proving the existence of BF, like studying habits, anatomy, etc., for people who understand they are real.

      Joe, to add to the "frequency of evidence," the totality of so much evidence doesn't work in the negative. There have been well over 2,000 reported sightings in N. Amer. since 2007. Are there that many hoaxers and lunatics, including people of all professions and walks of life?

      This video is just one facet of a large conglomerate of evidence: footprints, handprints, fingerprints, eyewitnesses, bones, DNA, etc.

      Delete
    16. I quite agree Dover. Glad you dropped in sir.

      Delete
  6. Just running up the numbers...

    Still zero bigfoots

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Plenty found;

      http://youtu.be/cR2cREt95sU
      http://youtu.be/luue2Mv_VNM
      http://youtu.be/lOxuRIfFs0w
      http://youtu.be/l96zvON3Rk8
      http://youtu.be/xI8gcikwUEQ
      http://youtu.be/BfuWuhEa3yI
      http://youtu.be/ZlMQ9b2lnE4
      http://youtu.be/h4QcYdT6keQ

      ... None caught.

      Delete
    2. So you admit zero confirmed bigfoots? Thanks

      Delete
    3. I'll admit I stoop ridiculously low in responding to you... I'll admit that.

      Plenty found...

      Delete
    4. Clueless Joe has come to grips with reality, finally. That's right Clueless Joe, still ZERO Bigfoots as of Sunday, 25Jan15 @ 1028.

      Delete
    5. Maybe today is the day, Clueless Joe?

      Delete
    6. Ger busy... Calling people names with the creative equivalent of a ten year old doesn't even begin to getting around to showing the sources aren't what they are.

      Plenty found...

      Delete
    7. More accurately plenty claimed...

      Delete
    8. Robert Lindsay says that there are many creative ways to use certain vegetables!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Delete
    9. Robert Lindsay says:Robert Lindsay says:Robert Lindsay says: My god marry the guy already!!!

      Delete
  7. Replies
    1. ...You should do a thermal vid of your poop collection...If the jars are room temp and the turds are body temp, on the film it will look like they are floating around the room...put it up on youtube, thanks....

      Delete
    2. I have a sad feeling that the actual pooping would be the main attraction.

      Delete
  8. This Don Young must have been one scared son of a gun out there in total darkness. He is filming what he thinks is a Sasquatch, while one or two others are flanking him, very typical of Sasquatches.
    This video can not stand on its own to the outside world, but the movement is very indicative of a Sasquatch and to blast off into a forest in total darkness is also.
    Chuck

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Robert Lindsay says that he wrote the original verse to stairway to heaven!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

      Delete
    2. You could see the pecs on that dude when he lunged out from the tree. His right arm was running down the near side of the tree, enabling him to push off and cover some ground quickly. This is a pretty good therm.

      Delete
  9. Plenty found and none 100% proven yet............

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The day will not come in your lifetime Joe. Take it from someone who has been waiting for decades. All you have to do is check back in ten years. There will be nothing. And ten years after that, nothing still. Ad infinitum.

      Delete
    2. Listen sir, we've only been actively looking since 1967, and for most of that people have been lookig for a bipedal gorilla with, in my opinion, very stupid methods. It is no coincidence that with the development of the Internet and the linking of ideas and research that we are starting to get some very serious scientists asking the quesions. Stay patient, I mean that very respectfully.

      Delete
    3. I happen to be one of those who have waited. My interest began even before the PGF and I thought for sure Bigfoot would be proven after that. Now after nearly 5 decades I have almost completely dismissed the idea of it existing. The game changer for me is that our technology has advanced so far in that time that for such a large primate to escape detection seems almost impossible. I think I have been fair and been open to the "evidence" however it just never pans out. The interest and mystery now for me is the psychological aspects. Why do some interpret seemingly natural fallen branches as signs of Bigfoot? Why do some interpret fuzzy images and shadows as Bigfoot? The subject still intrigues me but on a whole different level.

      I'm curious - how long would you wait for conclusive proof? Ten Years? Twenty? For the rest of your life?

      Delete
    4. I got my positive proof in 1975. Sorry it has not worked out for you.
      Chuck

      Delete
    5. The way I look at it, is that for all our technological advances, we can now account for every source of evidence short of modern type specimen... For all our technological advances, we seem to me accumulating more scientists, not less.

      I really can understand why some people who have been into this topic way longer than I would have lost patience... But in doing that, you seem to stop agknowledging the scientific evidence that stands up, almost like you're too angry/pessimistic at the topic to turn back with impartial eyes. If this creature is real (which I feel it is undoubtedly) then it would have to be the most amazing biological entity we've ever known, and to have to have evaded so successfully, so amazingly, to me merely fits with the duration it's still managing to do that.

      There are also major factors with the past, present and future regarding this topic, that I feel have and always will have a major bearing, that I don't wish to discuss... But honestly, I respect anyone who has been into this longer than me.

      Delete
    6. Angry? No. Pessimistic? Yes. But why not? What scientific evidence is there that has been universally accepted by science. First there was the film, then hair, then DNA - all purportedly showing positive proof of Bigfoot and then for one reason or another it did not pan out. Oh yes, it was proof to the advocates but once again it was dismissed by those who have the official credentials to recognize it (I am talking about the scientific community as a whole). Back in the day it was thought of as a shy apelike creature but because it has avoided capture it has now evolved into an intelligent human-like entity with almost superhuman senses, speed and strength!

      I have no malice against those who believe after all, I was once one of them. I actually would love for this thing to exist but I simply no longer share the belief. I think I can say that for most of the skeptics here nothing would delight us more then if it was a flesh and blood creature but it just defies logic. To those of you who have seen such a creature I do believe you saw "something" and that is where the mystery remains for me. Whether it was a biological creature or something to do from a sensory aspect still remains a question for me. There are two things I will close with. Never doubt what a determined hoaxer is capable of and never be surprised what our brain and senses can conjure up.

      Delete
    7. You as "angry", not so much but there are plenty who are and this was my focus. To have evidence "universally accepted as Bigfoot", you need a body. You can't have evidence for an unknown primate, like species traits published and presented to the scientific mainstream public, because it's not conclusive, it lacks classification. But like I said previously, when you have physical, biological and audio evidence of an unknown primate that has been verified by scientists not interested in the subject matter, then there is plenty of reason to apply principles like Occam's Razor, plenty of reason for people to keep going in attempting to get to the bottom of this subject. Considering that, I find it baffling how anyone can dismiss it all with no countering scientific means and conclude that there is no reason for people to still be asking the questions. When you have the primate to go with that evidence, then you'll have something "universally accepted", the problem is that half the enthusiasts in this field are ignorant of the evidence, what chance do the scoffing mainstream have? And please... Please don't approach me with an ideal scenario where mainstream science has even looked at the full extent of the subject, and please don't try and sell a scenario where they're not restricted either. With regards to the DNA as proof (I'm assuming Ketchum), this was always going to need retesting and I don't endorse it, I don't endorse anything as proof, only that there is evidence that suggests something very real is leaving it.

      The scientific community can dismiss everything and anything they choose to, if they haven't taken the time to analyse the data, or if they haven't presented a reason with science to not consider not only that evidence (namely dermals, hair, audio and footage) but also the opinion of their superiors; the very best primatologists & conservationists in the world (pioneers were always is the minority) then it counts for nothing and the evidence known by the few who are interested enough or not restricted enough to look at it will be used as a means to justify further enthusiasm. There is a reason that more people are now considering it as human based, and that's because we know more. With the development of the Internet, research ideas have been exchanged, whilst culture (burial & language) implies a far greater sentience than that of an ape. This is in line with thousands of years of native culture that have always agknowledged them as another tribe of humans. A wild human would have many these aformentioned attributes. And though I like you (it wouldn't matter if I didn't, I know) and find your approach refreshing, important and genuine, please don't refer to too many around here as sceptics. For a mindset that is supposed to reserve judgement, that is about as real as your idealistic version of mainstream science and this topic. For a creature that evades in social groups, buries it's dead, is largely nocturnal and has both human and wild animal attributes, and considering the frequency of sightings and the level of data that seemingly supports such... There is simply nothing iological in wanting more answers. If it's good enough for big hitters like Sykes, it sure as heck should be good enough for the rest.

      Delete
    8. I'll be back in the morning to respond to any comments left... Enjoy what's left of the weekend, Mr Curious.

      Delete
    9. Mr. Curious, what do you have to say about multiple eye witness encounters? Some multiple eye witness encounters involved trained observers, i.e. police, military, pilots, etc. Did their brains conjure that up, and did they all just make up a story for career suicide purposes. People from all walks of life are seeing Sasquatches. We convict and execute alleged criminals every day with far less evidence. Multiple eye witness testimony is hard evidence. I don't care what your science book says. It's reliable.

      Delete
    10. Well Noble Savage, I would say that multiple witnesses would be prone to the same misidentifications that a single observer was. In addition some may be influenced by one insisting he/she had seen a Bigfoot even though they were unclear exactly WHAT they seen. Trained observers are not infallible and can make mistakes like any human. Yes, people are convicted and executed based on eyewitness testimony with these sad results:

      http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/Eyewitness-Misidentification.php

      In conclusion I absolutely disagree that multiple eyewitness testimony is hard evidence. We need look no further than the recent events in Ferguson MO to see that.

      Delete
    11. Me Curious... This is a prime example of what sceptics take and run with, with a fundamental flaw;

      • Witnesses substantially changed their description of a perpetrator (including key information such as height, weight and presence of facial hair) after they learned more about a particular suspect.

      • Witnesses only made an identification after multiple photo arrays or lineups — and then made hesitant identifications (saying they “thought” the person “might be” the perpetrator, for example), but at trial the jury was told the witnesses did not waver in identifying the suspect.

      ... You see, if eyewitnesses make missidentifications regarding key information of an incident, they rarely make missidentifications of the actual incident. For example, multiple witnesses to a giant hairy human stepping out into the road may make missidentifications regarding weight, height, whether it had hair on its face... But not that the giant hairy human stepped out into the road.

      Delete
    12. Curious, on the Ferguson Mo. note you bring up, it was not the issue of multiple witnesses, it was the issue of what people who were not there wanted to hear. There was one Black person who told the truth who became in fear of his safety by those who didn't like hearing it, and that's how I would surmise those who discount the witness of thousands of people who have seen BF, that is not what they want to here.

      And good one Chuck, got my positive proof in the mid 80's. I wish it had worked out for more also.

      Delete
  10. Don Young is yet another shameless fraud who happened to dupe MM and Wally Hersom for $. I used to think he fooled MM, but now I wonder if he doesn't just knowingly go along with other self-serving lies also, in addition to his own now.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Be sure to send a note off to Don Young on this. Let us know what he has to say.
      Chuck

      Delete
    2. The story behind Don Young's alias name Psycho, for which has been on numerous forums was brought up during an interview with his family members a year after the 2006 expedition that I attended.
      I had decided to return and interview area people and Mr. Young's family members to conclude my investigation of him and his encounter.
      From what his family members told me, Mr. Young got the name Psycho after he nearly beat three bikers to death with his bare hands.
      They had reportedly made advances towards his wife in an Ashland county tavern, and he went wild.
      I got the Taverns name from his family members and visited it that week end, the bar owner confirmed the story, and stated charges had not been filed against Mr. Young as he paid for the tavern damages with cash.

      J.J.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Samurai Chatter: Have you used it in the field?

BREAKING: Finding Bigfoot Production Company Seeks Filming Permit In Virginia

Bigfoot injured by a forest fire was taken away and hidden by the authorities, not even Robert Lindsay can top this story