Sketch Of Maine Allagash Bigfoot Sighting
The sketch above was recently posted on TeamTazerBigfoot's Facebook page and it's a depiction of one man's close encounter with Bigfoot in Allagash, Maine. The artist's name is idig500, a YouTube viewer who's fascinated by the sighting.
If you haven't listened to SnowWalkerPrime's interview with the witness in Maine, we suggest you listen to it below. It's probably one of the most convincing encounter you will ever hear. The interview is with an ex-military man (anonymous) who came face to face with a Sasquatch from just 20 feet away. The encounter happened 20 years ago and it changed his life forever. To this day, his voice trembles talking about it and he still gets very emotional recalling what happened that day.\
One word: Yikes!
ReplyDeleteFake. Like every bigfoot sighting, the guy was aloene with no camera/phone. I call bs
ReplyDeleteI call dumbass.
DeleteHey dumbass above 20 years ago there where no cell phones that took pic !
ReplyDeleteThe cynics will never shut up, even if we give them great evidence, they will find something wrong with it! Like the above person said, no phones had cameras 20 years ago!
ReplyDeleteJeesum crowbars! Them Mainer's. Ayuh...
ReplyDeleteAnother Bigfoot drawing as some otherworldly monsterous bloodthirsty thing, when will that naivety of ours end. Hopefully with Dr. Ketchum's DNA study results.
ReplyDeleteThe illustration is meant to accompany the story. The witness said he got the feeling that these things were not safe. It bared its teeth at him and rocked back and forth. Both actions indicate that it was agitated and aggressive.
DeleteAnon..did u actually listen to the interview? If not..you're ignorant...if you did...you are stupid. Just like any other wild animal these things are probably very dangerous when caught by surprise. There is nothing about a DNA study that is going to reveal any behavioral characteristics. Quit posting your nonsense...it's getting old seeing this on here all of the time.
DeleteUmm... I didn't see it. But these were the characteristics noted in the interview:
Delete1. 7.5- 9' tall.
2. leaning against white birch tree, 3-4 feet off path, initially facing stream, holding tree, couldn't see hand only arm and forearm to wrist.
3. twisted upper torso toward person, shoulders with head, minimal neck movement (difficult to see neck, huge traps)
4. could see butt despite twist.
5. feet planted in bush; shrubs 2.5' tall up to knee & upper leg much longer - completely cleared shrubs.
6. barrel chest - at least 2-3 feet thick back to front. 4 feet wide at shoulder
7. pronounced shoulders. massive muscular.
8. very long arms - felt it could have knocked his head off if he walked by on path.
9. swollen belly but chest pronounced over belly
10. black body hair, oily and shimmered in moonlight
thin hair on chest, 4in hair rest of body, stach & beard, no hair around eyes. long hair off head onto shoulders. hair on arms swayed when it rocked.
11. big black bowling ball of head; rounded head - no sagital crest
12. mouth extended horizontal past outer edges of eyes.
13. could make out lips when snarled.
14. yellow teeth & short eyetooth fangs
15. flashed upper teeth only, couldn't see lower teeth.
16. thick brow.
17. dark eyes.
18. flat hooded nose.
19. pale grayish skin color around eyes.
20. wrinkles under eyes.
With that I think I did a pretty good job.
Perhaps it is normally docile, reads Utne Reader, and is more refined. But maybe the fella was just having a bad hair day and cranky about foul crayfish - it happens to the best of us. We can't all be Carebears. But even if a Carebear doesn't get the hugs it needs, it might look like above. :)
Playfully Yours, i-dig
Too funny i-dig! You nailed that description like police sketch artist. Great job!
DeleteBill unaware, so what's new. You can actually tell a lot from DNA, things like height, etc.
DeleteWe can always sit back and play the safe skeptic/cynic and mindlessly call BS on each and every witness statement that we read. That's always an easy, no risk position to take.
ReplyDeleteOne of the first reply posters does just that. Without thinking or even reading closely they call BS and say where's the camera and the phone. Well...20 years ago there weren't phones with cameras. Only a small percentage even had cell phones and I almost never have a camera with me. Maybe if I was warned I was going to see something unusual, I'd take a camera.
That being said. This is just anecdotal evidence. So we can only take it for what it is. And hopefully keep an open mind. if you are sitting at a computer looking for proof. You aren't going to find it. I've been in the woods off and on, all my life and I've not found anything attributable solely to Bigfoot. But, I choose to take what people say at face value and hope for better "proof".
If I call BS on every so called sighting....I've painted myself into a corner.
How can these differing reports even be considered the same creature? We have ape-like bigfoots, human-like bigfoots, and (as seen above) B-movie monster bigfoots. So what, we have 3 new 500lbs unknown mammalian species roaming North America?
ReplyDeleteIt can only be one of those. That's what is so incredibly dumb about this subject, all kinds of people thinking they know exactly what it is and yet nobody really does at present. That is, except perhaps Dr. Ketchum and her crew only. And she's already indicated this species is a human and no ape animal or any kind of wild drooling monster with fangs, so I rest safely knowing she's dealing with it seriously and carefully.
DeleteDifferent people will witness the same event or sequence of events in slightly differing ways. As an investigator with the WV State Police for years, we learned that the background of the person caused them to view an extreme event (murder, suicide, robbery, etc.)differently. Ex. someone who has a fear of guns/knives may not have much detail about the suspects face, but they can tell you the size, color, etc. of the weapon. People who are very aware of clothing trends can often tell you everything you want to know about the suspects attire, but nothing about their facial features, etc. All of these people see the same event, but recall it differently based on their ability to recall information. In the end, all of these people are credible and add to the validity of our case.
DeleteNo different when viewing a sasquatch. This guy was prior military and trained to observe details and body language. Our department trains us the same way. As far as the sagital crest is concerned, the witness may not have seen the crest simply because the creatures head was above the witnesses line of site. Unless the witness is as tall as (or taller) than the creature, he may not see the obvious crest of the head. (Or maybe it didn't have one.)
Skeptics always looks to "nit-pick" any thing. This guy would make a slam dunk witness in criminal court.
Archer1
He was a monster I tell you, a big hairy monster!!!
ReplyDeleteI wish some more skillful artists would interpret sasquatch, many are amateurish and tacky. Any tips on good sasquatch art?
ReplyDeleteThe Erickson Project website (http://www.sasquatchthequest.com/) has a drawing that is suppose to be based off a yet-to-be-made-public HD video of a female BF.
DeleteFWIW, their drawing doesn't look too different than the one above except for the longer head hair.
To anon 10 12. google charles middleton bigfoot art and his sight will come up. This man has the most awesome art collection of any I have ever seen and they can be purchased also. Hope this helps.
DeleteChuck
OK, well this just made me cry. Please realize that you are looking at my entire Bigfoot gallery as of this printing. I do realize that this is a tough crowd difficult to please, but will I even be given a chance to improve? Or prove that I'm more skillful than the average bear? (Since many here are skillful at spotting extraordinary bears). ;)
DeleteIn the meantime, I'll offer this suggestion: rather than complain about what's lacking out there, grab a pen, a paintbrush, or stylus and create too! The more the better.
But if you need proof that I can do more serious fare: http://snk.smugmug.com/Photoshops/GuidedByPandas/GbyP2011/i-8w8Cn7m/0/X3/remember01bfly-X3.jpg
And likewise, I have done far tackier monsters, like the Predaturnip (made entirely out of edible veggies and fruit): http://snk.smugmug.com/Photoshops/GuidedByPandas/GbyP2011/gbpmmt3r1/1224625234_JZVbo-X3.jpg
You probably won't like my next 2 Bigfoot pics, but the 4th one... that will turn the tide (hopefully not into a riptide). Forget my pic, but remember this: Life is short - stop to smell the skunk cabbage and watch the hair flowing in the breeze. Enjoy. :)
Playfully Yours, i-dig
Um... yes, that's some serious fare. But congrats on that outstanding HD shot of the dreaded Hawaiian Skunk Fruit Foot! Trailcam or long lens?
Deletei-dig here. That would be long lens. No, no didn't want to get too close to that. Scary yes, but I was also quite hungry. It was kinda gross really as I was salivating something fierce. When those sharp-toothed fireflies appeared in the background, I stumbled back, slipped in a a puddle of drool, and hit my head on a rock. When I woke up, I believed I was an artist.
DeleteI do not intend to be mean i-dig. I must be able to have an opinion about art without being a master painter myself. If I read a book that I didn´t like that much I say so and no one will tell me to write my own instead. I am not really saying you are not talanted, I appologize for my quite crude comment above.I really like the fruit-monster though.
Delete/The one above
No apology needed - you are entitled to your opinion. Art is very subjective - one person's Monet is another person's black-velvet Elvis. I run a digital arts community and host tournaments - I've seen high and low scores offered to the same work. So I understand completely. I also understand the "Ugh, so sick of the monster" angle. I do believe it is mostly our interpretation of the event and how we manage fear. But I also believe that different individual BFs have different dispositions. The highest compliment seems to be that BF is a human. Well Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer were human too but I wouldn't be quick to invite them to dinner.
DeleteThe interviewer portrayed a monster in his testimony and that's what I created, ugly in tone too (though the color is washed out from the original... not sure what happened there). Sometimes styles are intentional. ;) This is what the witness "believed" he saw. Did he actually see this? Our perceptions shape our memories. So all we have is his account and his perception since we weren't there.
I like to switch up styles: the 4th pic I mentioned - that will be warm & soft but heartbreaking illustrating an experience I'm sure we share. The blood & gore crowd will HATE that one. ;) i-dig
I agree to full extent on your last post on art as well as bigfoot-experiences. You seem like a nice guy and I appologized because I (wrongfully) thought that my comment made you cry and that made me sad. Peace
Delete/Ibid
Having read the prior comments, it seems many are over looking a very real possibility. If you study the reports over the last hundred years, and the accounts from Native American myths; as well as the countless reports around the world, from various cultures. We are not dealing with a single species of animal. It is very likely these reports represent several different species. For someone to make the sweeping statement that this rendition is incorrect, and that they don't have fangs, or teeth, or they are out hugging rainbows, hippie Bigfoot's rescuing lost children and bunny rabbits; is kind of naive. Animals are a lot like people. Just as there are good people and bad people, you run across nasty bears, docile bears, and I would expect the same with Bigfoot. Even within a single species, you should expect variation. Truth is, each encounter is different. If anything we should encourage people to attempt to illustrate this creature; given the lack of good photos or video. The more data and details we can collect, the better. SWP (TeamTazerBigfoot)
ReplyDeleteExcept these guys aren't animals as you seem to think, I'm quite sure you can take Dr. Ketchum's study showing they're a human species to the bank.
DeleteYet there is no evidence. We can find a new species of Monkey in the dense jungles of Asia, yet we can't find an 8 foot ape monster in the woods? Unlikely.
ReplyDeleteKetchum's hokum has you people in it's grip. It's all a big con, designed to separate you from your money. Don't buy into it. Critical thinking people. Empty belief is no better than religious fundamentalism.
nick b, you are correct. ketchum & erickson are full of it, if you have the proof/footage share it withe the bf community!
DeleteI keep hearing this stuff about money.
DeleteJust how is Erickson/Ketchum going to separate me from my money?
What is it that they have or will have that I won't be able to get for free? Bigfoot evidence??
If that is verified....free access is open from the verifying scientific journal.
Your comment is an irrational rant from an un-thinking frame of mind
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't we just see Ketchum set the stage for conference speaking engagements ($$$) by announcing it wouldn't be improper for her to discuss her paper prior to final "peer review" and publication?
DeleteI don't know if you're right or wrong.
DeleteIt wouldn't surprise me if there was talk of preliminary lectures prior to an accepted paper.
Have you ever been to one of these conferences?
I only ask because if you had. You'd quickly realize that these speakers and presenters can only be making basic expenses for their attendance and participation.
Those things aren't big money makers. I can't imagine anyone walking away from any of them with anything resembling bulging pockets.
Think about it. Average public attendance is in the low 100s. Price is around $20 to a high of $50. Hotel rooms, venue, permits, taxes, food, travel. There's not allot of money left over.
Without a doubt. Matt Moneymaker and the BFRO make allot more profit on their "expeditions" than these conferences make.
Sadly Nick's still as wrong on this as ever. LOL
DeleteAny time some repeatedly says 'To be honest....' I can't help but feel they are not being so.
ReplyDeleteFemale in the process of giving birth second was guard for her? Would account for swollen belly and lighter haired chest, would also account for grimace, birthing pain?
ReplyDelete