Sunday, December 18, 2011

What Randy Brisson is known for (and it's not his hair)

Randy Brisson wasn't always know for the Bigfoot hair samples he sent to Dr. Melba Ketchum for DNA testing. He also wasn't known for the purported hoax recently suggested by Robert Lindsay.

In March 2009, Bobbie Short ( received these photographs from Brisson, an Erickson Project team member. The pictures were taken 150 miles from Vancouver at Golden Ears Park. According to one source, Brisson's Sasquatch photographs were the first ever from this province.

Although it was proven to be authentic not too long ago, the photographs were initially met with skepticism. Here's what one Russian publication wrote:

Initial shots by Randy Brisson

These pictures were presented in the Web where they have caused waves of the most opposite opinions. Let us look at them thoroughly now.

The first picture was presented by №407. Then the photographer came a little near to the thumb. He made some steps forward to it and to right side as it is seen with changed positions of trees. Here he made the second shot. As Randy Brisson tells, after that the figure behind the stub had bent down and quickly left the place, disappearing behind it.

Some people said that those are the forgeries executed with help of Photoshop. Others found in them realistic features. The strange persons appeared in that area with weapons, intending to kill the creature. For Randy and his son Ray hard times of attacks and insults came.

Careful examination shows that the visible head in the photos is mobile, live, not stamped into picture. By computer processing I have received zoomed images of the head for both shots, and no point was inserted into the images by me manually.

The paper went on to compare the head of Brisson's creature to that of the Patterson-Gimlin creature:

Bigfoot head in shots by Randy Brisson

Use of gray scale in below row allows to reveal in this case such details which disappear in color mode. The gray images were also considerably light.

We see that this creature has face of the form which can be met among humans. Its skin is very dark. The face has considerable cheekbones protruding sideways. There is visible transition from them to upper cranium. Hair on the face falls from cheekbones, covering the low part of it. Possible prognathism is not seen, because the face looks directly to camera. The hair on the head seems to be slightly wavy (or confused), it does not hang down. The forehead is not high.

The first, 407, image shows that the creature may feel some worried. His mouth is slightly opened. His eyes are directed to the right side from the photographer. In the second image the mouth is wider, like in smile. He looks to the left and downwards. Obviously, the creature is observing to movements of the man and around him.

The head in these images is considerably different from what one can see in Patterson-Gimlin footage. In P-G movie head of creature (Patty) shows some anthropoid features. Images by Brisson bear characteristics close to modern human. If sometime it will be found out that Brisson's imagesit represent, nevertheless, real hominoid-bigfoot, it will be necessary to recognize that some different hominoid populations, probably different species, live in the Northern America.

Certainly, with these images only there is no impossibility to deny a man behind the stub. For example, it may be the local with strange behavior (to look out and disappear). In my opinion, his face has features that are common to some people of the Mongolian race. I do not know, whether American Indian tribes or other people there have similar anthropological type.

In such circumstances it is necessary to take into consideration the faithfulness of the observer. According to researcher Bobbie Short who is familiar for a long time with the father and son Brisson, they deserve full confidence. Without looking for sensations, they some years trace family of Bigfoots, that include a child. Their findings are presented in the Web.

In turn, according to stories by Brisson, these creatures trust them also. So, this mutual trust allowed to make these exclusive images.

I consider that photos by Randy Brisson are not fakes and deserve serious investigation.

Michael Trachtengerts
June 2010

On Bigfoot Encounters website (last updated May 15, 2011), it was determined that Brisson's image of Bigfoot was authentic.

As you can determine, there are no foreign fractal algorithms, no disconnected pixels in the Brisson images. The images provided Photoshop experts determined the image above to be authentic in 2009.

"The Erickson Project" team member Randy Brisson discusses the circumstances of how he obtained some of his materials for the upcoming, 2011 landmark documentary on Sasquatch with the grandfather of Hominology, Dr. Igor Burtsev from Moscow Russia. Igor recently toured British Columbia with me for 3 weeks


  1. Great post Shawn! To me they look authentic. I have friends with all sorts of head shapes. We would be narrowminded to think that bigfoots all have to have the same shaped head.

    Let the battle begin!


  2. It really doesn't matter right will never prove anything whether it was fake or

  3. If that's bigfoot, then bigfoot is one of my co-workers. That looks like a human with mutton chops.

  4. Oh my goodness. Does anyone not think that it's a man's head? I believe that bigfoot exists, but I'm sick up to here with crap like this.

  5. What the h@ll? Yeah, I also know that bigfoot. He drives truck for a compny that hauls in and out where I work.

  6. If this is what an "Erickson Project team member," is putting forth as bigfoot evidence, it's no wonder the Erickson Project isn't showing footage of Matilda.

  7. I'm not at all convinced about this one. The thing it has going for it (if you stretch your imagination you're looking at a face), is that it has a strip around the eyes like "Patty" did where that was the only skin seen. But, it really looks like a dude in a ski mask if you want to believe it's a face. I get a bit disappointed to see people posting evidence like this. It's so vague and without shots of the place later when this "thing" was gone, I have nothing to compare it with. It could even be a burned out tree stump. Really, at this point in the game, the only "evidence" if physical, not photographic.

  8. LOL at above coworker comments...

    Well I like it, I'm not saying it proves anything one way or the other, but it is not shopped and is a face IMO.

    If we accept the idea of diversity in this species it is within range I believe. Also, if this species is as promiscuous as our species then I believe it is within reason to entertain notions of interbreeding between this species and ours. Several native american tales allude to this occurring. So some populations may look a lot more human than one might be comfortable with...

    Remember that all the hundreds of breeds of dog breeds are considered the same species. Morphology tells us very little about distinctions between species.

  9. It's an authentic picture of a fake head. Where are the before and after shots-- or is this another of those "didn't see it till later" tales? Why won't people wise up and realize that hoaxing has infiltrated this field to the point of damaging nearly ALL credibility?

  10. Watch the video autumn..... shows the stump were the picture was taken.

  11. How could it disappear.. Its behind friggin' big stump out in the open.. I am sure a 'professional' like this guy would have walked left or right at least to see his BF behind the stump as it 'walked away'. If this was real, there should be more. It was caught out in the open forest.

  12. Widely thought to be a hoax. I am sorry that Bobbie Short fell for this one. That pic cannot possibly be real.

  13. Also for a creature who no one knows what they look like , how can anyone say for sure it doesn't look like the above face....maybe it does ?? If you look at the video, if this is a human faking it he must be huuuuuuuuuuge..... I'm not saying its real or not but people need to have an open mind and at least read the full article and watch the video before labelling it a fake otherwise your opinion doesn't hold much weight.

    1. To better understand the photo and its origin - one should know Brissons story and the way it changed over time from him saying it duck behind the stump to which it allegedly hissed causing Brisson to run away - to later changing that part to Brisson seeing the 7 foot tall Bigfoot running away from the stump. A group of individuals went to the stump and found that a 5' 8" tall Thomas Steenburg may have been slightly larger than the reported 7' tall Bigfoot. In an apparent effort to do damage control - Brisson then went back to the stump and said that the creature's body was behind the tall part (right side of the stump when facing the subject) where the ground behind the stump drops about a foot in elevation compared to the tree side and added that the subject was leaning far to its right to have its head seen on the lower side in front of the tree seen directly behind the stump when Brisson took his photo(s). The group of investigators contended that the alleged Bigfoot is standing erect and that the head is on both the horizontal and vertical planes. It should also be noted that the head of the alleged 7' Bigfoot could fit its entire head (hair and all) inside the parameters of Steenburg's own head. The photo(s) were also taken not deep into the mountains around Pitt Lake as it had been stated, but a rocks throw from the parking-lot at Golden Ears Park. Not long after this investigation - a group of BFRO people, along with Thomas Steenburg, went on a hike with Brission where they caught Brisson throwing rocks when he thought no one was looking. The rocks were claimed by Brisson to be being thrown by Bigfoot. I might add that these images were discussed on Westcoat Sasquatch and can still be seen there. An enlargement of the two faces displayed what looked to be a skin tone area that was not present in the other photo of the face - as if the subject wiped its face, thus removing what ever was used to darken it.

  14. Where's the rest. Mike's right. There has to be more than 2 photographs. This is a bigfoot hunter ladies and gentlemen and he has this thing dead to rights at 30 feet. Something smells fishy here.

    1. There were three photos in total that Brisson sent to Thomas Steenburg. The third photo was said by Brisson to have been taken of the stump immediately after the alleged Bigfoot ducked down behind it. The alleged hiss the Bigfoot was said to make in Brisson's initial story is what was supposed to have caused him to immediately flee the area and why no further photos were taken. It should also be said that all three photos sent to Steenburg were said by Brisson to have been taken from the hip without the use of a view finder and it should be said that all three photos were remarkably centered on both the horizontal and vertical planes with one location change between pictures. This raised doubts that Brisson actually was bent over looking at a track at the time he heard a noise at the stump which caused him to take his photo(s) from the hip.

    2. The group who investigated the alleged Bigfoot sighting location also found the forest floor rather thick and heavily padded in leafs debris which raised the question why Brisson left the hard road trail within 150 feet of the parking-lot, to which he alleges to have seen a track within 30 feet of the stump where he claimed a Sasquatch had been hiding behind. The group found in virtually impossible for Brisson to have known a track was 30 feet off the hard road and no reason for his going over to that particular spot so close to the parking-lot was ever given by him. The who affair had all the tell-tale signs of a hoax.

  15. Didnt realise this guy has been proved to be hoaxing. Takes all credibility away from the photos to be honest.

  16. Look how different people of different races appear. Look at an Eastern Black bear and a kodiak bear, look at pit viper vs non venous snakes. Goriila vs Baboon.

    Also look at all the different native stories that talk of peaceful friendly Sasquatch and the others that claimed them man eaters.

    Compare a 10 year old black male to an 80 year old white female- drastic differences in appearance despite them both being human.

    No conclusion should be drawn from what other photos show.

    I do not believe what Robert Lindsey said- but I don't disbelieve it either.

    The question is what is shown in the photo. This is always the question but with many hoaxes you don't even get to that. He was in the area and you can't clearly say its a hoax by the picture alone. Those who do base it on other information and the source not the photo standing alone.

    This falls into the category of those where many people would be surprised it it were real. This is because of the source and not is what is shown standing alone. Unless he admits this is a hoax then nobody can ever say for sure.

    The lack of the other photos mean nothing. If these are real- then he released these to create a buzz and then when the report and documentary come out attempt to sell them to the winning bidder.

    Say the History channel produces "BigFoot: Definitive Proof" after the release of the report . Selling the other photos would be shown for the first time would be something the History Channel would pay for.

    My argument against these photos: look how that stump resembles a "hut" or shelter like structure. That is a nice spot for a hoax because the viewer can infer something and not know it leading them to give it more credibility. The stump could have been set up to look like that and it looked different when they returned. There should be casts and other evidence- that is a humid area with soft earth, softer trees leaving claw marks easier.

    That stump would be a prime spot for a raccoon den- a raccoon thats injured, has rabies or mange or all three could account for the face with the shadows and humidity in the area accounting for some of the features.

    This one probably wont go away for a long time.

    My personal opinion is that this is a hoax based on what I said about the stump resembled a hut. It was taken after the remake of the planet of the apes and when there was buzz about rise of Planet of the Apes. It could be a mask grabbed from a dollar store over a soccer ball. I believe he is sincere that he has seen a great deal of activity in that area and believes it will become a new "Bluff Creek"- this lets everyone know he was one of the first to know this and in the area so he does not have to prove that later on and can cash in fast and be one of the few who actually does over the long term as well.

    That is the argument nobody talks about but the real reason people doubt Patterson and Gimlin. Patterson's estate did make a great deal of money on it- as they should- they had something people would pay for and this would make their lives better. Nobody has seen the original on the original films- why- because one day it will be auctioned for a very large sum. People see them being logical and acting as anyone would as a sign of a hoax- when in reality Patterson could have never imagined it would become what it did. Those who want to be the next Roger Patterson often forget the first one really had no idea anything he did would have the impact it did.

  17. Really? It looks like a picture of a human head that's been tweaked to darken the image to hide the detail. Fake as a $3 bill.

  18. Also Brisson said the pic was taken at Pitt Lake when in reality it was taken about 250 yards from the parking lot of the main campground at Golden Ears Park. Also, Randy originally said it was a large adult BF, but when it was pointed out that the head is SMALLER than the head of a human adult male, he changed his story and said it was an adolescent BF. He has also been caught hoaxing by throwing rocks when people were researching with him and saying a BF was doing it. He was caught doing this multiple times.

  19. @Robert Lindsay

    I'm just curious how close your sources are to the incidents you speak of. I'm fairly close to golden ears park. I would love for you to email me a map of the location from the parking lot, where he actually took these pictures. (250 yards is fairly close to find) I could go out there and find this stump, take some pics and send them back to Shawn. I'm sure the stump and trees are still there.

    At least by doing this we could put that part to rest. Also, maybe I'm just not that informed, but where did u read, that originally he said the pics were taken in pitt lake? I would like to read that.


  20. Doesn't seem logical he would stick his entire head up like that. He isn't peeking. Seems fake

  21. Those "photos" are and always were a joke. They are a bad Photo-Shop or other software creation and don't remotely look authentic.
    Randy Brisson is a shameless hoaxer and anyone on this blog that posts anything positive about his "work" is probably him!

  22. Furthermore, just posting the picture showing the individual pixels hardly says anything about it's authenticity. It would be great to have the "Photoshop expert" come forward and explain how they came to their conclusions. Great how in the Bigfoot world, you can post that something has been "proved authentic", but not give a shred of reasonable evidence of how the proof was derived.

  23. The title of the article reads: What Randy Brisson is Known For...
    Based on many of the comments here, apparently what he is known for is bigfoot hoaxing.

  24. The article says that this guy is "an Erickson Project team member." I guess the credibility of the Erickson Project is down to zero if there's a hoaxer in its ranks.

  25. Go to the article I linked to above. Thomas Steenberg and Bill Miller and some others go into deep detail about why they feel that Brisson hoaxed that photo. They also talk about him saying they were shot at Pitt Lake when Steenberg and Miller say they were shot 250 yards from the campground parking lot.

  26. Not sold 100% on the photo, but I know it's good, because everyone seems to be having an easier time journalistically discrediting the photographer... If the photo was trash, we'd be tearing it apart forensically. Just an observation.

  27. There's no need to discredit the photographer. He did that to himself by taking a photo of a man's head, doctoring it up, and trying to pass it off as a bigfoot.

    The Erickson Project might as well pack it in now if this guy is one of their team members. Even if the rest of the team and their findings are on the up and up, this guy has entirely ruined their credibility. Any hypothetical legitimate finding(s) from this group will be dismissed by science/skeptics (and likely some believers as well) as the handywork of this hoaxer.

  28. Why isn't anyone asking the obvious question ???

    Where is it shown that Randy Brisson was a member of the Erickson Project ??

    He has never been mentioned on the EP websites nor in any other articles I have seen.

    Perhaps someone should pony up this information about where the BS comes from.

  29. Brisson is not a formally a member of the EP, but his samples were part of the samples that the EP submitted to Ketchum. Brisson was also the EP's guy for the habituation site at Golden Ears Park, and he did get some real BF hairs. Brisson is under the control of Erickson, that's why Ketchum can't stop him from putting his samples online like that.

  30. I have a question?
    What if there are other videos out there by very different researchers in different parts of the nation and there appears to be very similar looking Bigfoot/forest people they've captured?

    By similar I mean as these two are similar, not identical but very similar. The two above are not identical. The one on the right reminds me of some Native Americans tribes.

  31. Let me rephrase, the pictures are supposed to be the same being,I don't think they are. That is only my opinion.

  32. If one doesn't think there is enough evidence within the image of the head on the stump so to know that it is a hoax, then what about Brisson's ever changing story?

  33. Wow, of course there's no body in the pic. That (showing the body) would prove it to be a hoax. Junk.