Kentucky Man's Description of 36 to 42 Inch Tall Sasquatch
Last September, a motorcyclist in Petersburg, KY caught a small glimpse of a possible juvenile sasquatch crossing the road. The witness claims that he has seen deer crossing in this part of the road before. According to the motorcyclist, who happens to be an avid bow hunter, this creature he saw was around 36 to 42 inches tall and it reminded him of a chimpanzee as he it watched it move across the road and into the scrub brush and out of sight.
In the follow up report by BFRO Investigator Don Adkins, the witness did not believe in Bigfoot at the time but after doing extensive research into animals that are native to area, he's convinced that what he saw that evening was a juvenile sasquatch.
Here's the BFRO report submitted last December:
YEAR: 2011
SEASON: Fall
MONTH: September
STATE: Kentucky
COUNTY: Boone County
LOCATION DETAILS: 3/4 of a mile west on KY 8 (aka 3608) from the I-275 petersburg exit in kentucky. Just past where the guard rail stops on your left as you go through the valley and start up the hill.
NEAREST TOWN: petersburg
NEAREST ROAD: KY 8/3608, KY 20, I-275
OBSERVED: I was leaving a freinds house a little after 9 pm on a week night headed home. I was on my motorcycle going east on KY 8 about to come up on a bend in the road. I had lived in this area for about 5 years and had just recently moved. In the years of living in this area and being an avid bow hunter, I have observed lots of deer crossing the road just around this bend. I slowed down because the sun had set not long before and the deer move at that time. As I came around the bend, I realized there was something in the road in the oncoming lane. I slowed down futher, it was crossing the road into my lane. I rapidly slowed and swirved left to go behind it. I almost hit it, missed it less than a foot. I stopped about 10 feet past where it crossed in front of me. I quickly turned around in the road and aimed my light on it as it went into the thick brushline next to the road. It was about 36 to 42 inches tall, short legs and long arms, black hair 4 to 5 inches long, walking upright bipedily.
Follow-up investigation report by BFRO Investigator Don Adkins:
I spoke with the witness by phone. He first stated that he is not a believer in bigfoot, but that after his encounter, he had done extensive research into animals that are native to Kentucky and could not rule out the possibility that he had seen a young sasquatch.
He stated that it was about 48 inches tall, with dark black hair the color of a black bear. It walked bipedally as it swiftly crossed the road, possibly dropping to all fours briefly as it crossed the ditch beside the road. He said it's physical features reminded him of a chimpanzee, with short legs and long arms. I asked him if it seemed to move bipedally in a comfortable manner, unlike a chimp. He said that it remained upright and hunched slightly forward almost the whole time he watched it move across the road and into the scrub brush and out of sight.
Dr. Meldrum has always said the juveniles may look more chimpanzee like. It's turning out that way, the odd thing is that all of the pictures they get all have that same chimp look to them. The one in New York looks just like the one in Pennsylvania.
ReplyDeleteWhy are they showing a picture of a bear in reference to a young Bigfoot ?
ReplyDeleteA biped would not get into a pushup position to lower it's head to the ground to smell or lick something. Try it yourself. Use some common sense folks !
Its a bear.
ReplyDeleteThat isn't a bear
DeleteBear with mange.
DeleteLimb to body ratio analysis of this creature is way out of proportion to a bear or a human. Also young children will sometimes assume this posture for a short period.
ReplyDeleteChuck
That a bear pic. Meldrum doesn't say young sasquatch have chimp proportions. That's dumb. We're supposed to think that young sas have arms longer than legs, then when they get older the arms are shorter than the legs, like what is seen with Patty? Think, people. Sheesh.
ReplyDeleteSeveral people have debunked the limb to body ratio "analysis" as being non-scientific malarky. When done properly, it comes up BEAR. Not to mention that there are bears in the pictures, bears everywhere, yet because one pic looks a little screwy it's sasquatch!!!! No, it's a bear....
ReplyDeleteThe limb to body ratio was performed for the BFRO by a University of Vermont professor and scientist from Duke University, hardly non-scientific malarky.
DeleteA bear limb to torso ratio is in the low 6o% of limb to torso, and the bears in the photos one half hour earlier met this ratio. The Jacob creature ratio was over 100% which is indicated in humans and primates.
I know some folks say it is a bear with the mange. I have seen photos of bears with the mange and they look quite different than this creature.
Also the body position the creature assumes is common in the primate world, not in the bear world. The creature was inspecting some deer attract chemicals. A bear will sniff things the same way a dog will.
I also do not see any bear ears on this creature and they were seen in the bear photos earlier.
There are more arguments in favor of this being a juvenile sasquatch than a bear. The BFRO is convinced this is a juvenile sasquatch. I think it is by I may be wrong.
Chuck
I am glad that particular pic was posted with this article, because it would have immediately came to my mind anyway. I think that the animal in the pic is not a bear, but rather a "toddler" version of a larger teenage/young adult animal I encountered a very long time ago in a different area, that was also not a bear. This pic reminds me of what I saw, more so than any other pic I have seen. I for one, am very convinced it is not a bear, but I do not have a scientific background. I have never seen a bear that looked like that, and I would think that if it is a bear, it has more severe issues than a case of the mange.
DeleteNo Shadow
Now we are getting somewhere. The motorcyclist in the article saw what he now believes to be a juvenile squatch cross a road and reminded him of a chimp. You have seen one that reminds you a lot of this pic. The creature in the pic is much closer in anatomy to a chimp than a bear. I have to respect your opinion on this No Shadow as you have seen a young one.
DeleteI would really like to hear more details of your sighting and I'm sure others here would also. That is if you are up for it.
Chuck
Just to clarify. I had seen a rather large filled out version of an animal that looked to be the young adult equilvalent of what I perceive to be a very young example of the same type of animal, which I believe is represented in the photo, and furthermore, may have been similar to the animal cited in the referenced report.
DeleteI have referenced details of my account a few times, and apolgize if the repeated info irritates anyone.
I saw an animal in 1978 that was about 6-6.5 ft tall, dark brown to black in color, very muscular and "thick" with very large arm/shoulder area. I saw it in South Carolina when I was 14. I saw it from the back at pretty close range. I did not act very bravely, nor did I tell anyone for a very long time.
I also agree with Lobster... "Not Conclusive"
No Shadow
That sounded even more confusing, so let me try to say it this way.
DeleteI think I saw an example of a particular species that is not bear. I think I saw what might me thought of in human terms as an 18 yo.
I think what I see in the pic is an example of the same species, but more like a 3 yo in human terms. "A toddler".
My line of thought was that to be 7 feet tall, you must be 3 or 4 feet tall at some point prior.
No Shadow
I understand and it makes perfect sense to me.
DeleteI think bear as well. But at least there is something to discuss here. The chicken bone yesterday really took the cake. The Seminole Tribe should sue the guy for using thier name.
ReplyDeleteIf that's precedent for a lawsuit then I think the Cleveland Indians are in trouble.....
DeleteWhy is everyone commenting on the picture? The picture is completely unrelated to the BFRO report.
ReplyDeleteI live on Ky8. This is about 25 miles from me, I know pretty much from the description, the vicinity of this sighting. There are no bears at all around here. There are no bears within hundreds of miles of here and even then, their numbers are very low. This sighting occurred about 30 miles from where the pancake eating Bigfoot videos were made. It happened in a somewhat rural area, but still within a large metropolitan area.
ReplyDeleteCould've been someone's pet monkey.
Why are some of you morons commenting on the attached photo? It's not even related.
Maybe it was a young squatch trying to hitch a ride to the nearest IHOP. Monkeys have tails MORON.
DeleteI'm from "around" that area as well. And Anon is right about the Bear sightings. Seeing a bear in those woods is probably rare as spotting a big foot so an argument could be made. But we just don't have bears that I know of.
DeleteIt's scary riding on Motorcycles at night on the back roads. I would have crapped my pants seeing something like that run out in front of me.
Herein lies the problem regarding evidence like the photo: no determination can be made because there is no type specimen and the photo is not conclusive. I don't mean to be disrespectful towards anyone, but that makes the photo nothing more than an interesting curiosity.
ReplyDeleteNo, herein lies the problem: This thread is not about the photo above. The limited comprehension level of some people here make it hard for them to understand that.
DeleteNo comprehension problem here. But the photo does accompany the text, and people seem to be discussing both. Why so serious?
DeleteI made comments regarding the photo, and it was not due to a lack of comprehension skills. I did not post the photo, but as I said earlier, I'm glad it was posted. I can only guess as to why it was posted, but it seems like a small BF may be present in the photo. The motorcyclist apparently also saw something similar, and thus the pic perhaps becomes related somehow. Do you have a better pic of a small BF?
DeleteShawn, Damien, and others who post articles here are very appreciated, but only the poster would know why it was posted. I commented because it was posted and in my opinion, was relevant.
If anyone has a "limited comprehension level" it might be you. It sounds like you are the one that has trouble understanding. To insult people anonymously, or otherwise, is not very productive.
No Shadow
Are you positive it wasn't Danny DeVito?
ReplyDeleteI remember that picture it was no bear! When it happened it revived the entire world with interest in Bigfoot after everyone was turned off by what Bob Heironuimus was saying. MSNBC even said it revived the entire subject. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21518056/ns/us_news-weird_news/t/hunters-pics-revive-lively-bigfoot-debate/
ReplyDelete