Is The Discovery Channel Investigating The Edward Waterman Photograph?


If the news is true (or perhaps we're misinterpreting things), Ed Waterman's research could be a big deal if the above photograph is proven to be a Bigfoot. Waterman claims national film crews from Animal Planet and Nat Geo and Discovery Channel are planning a trip into Kitsap and he's pretty stoked about things. It's unclear whether or not they'll be investigating his research, or his evidence, but Waterman seems have inside knowledge of what's to come. He wrote this on Facebook last night:

There are national film crews from Animal Planet and Nat Geo and Discovery Channel coming into Kitsap blowing the lid off this thing. Thought you might want to know what we already do. There are all sorts of creatures in our local forests not in our textbooks and zoos. We're not crazy. You have been sheltered by your government what they choose to disclose to you in their public school classrooms. This is what REALLY lives in our forests. We have over 8000 photos of different beings and forest people you will never see in a textbook or in Woodland Park Zoo or Burke Museum. We are in our forests every day and take the photos they don't want you to see. These aren't black bears or homeless people from camps. Homo sapien cognatus. They have already been studied with DNA and named a new unique North American hybrid species. Do your research. We simply take their photos. We mostly encounter them while shooting macro photography and other landscape shots in our forests. They photobomb us all the time and get in our pics of other subjects.

Waterman has a montage of photographs from his research. Here are a few:



Waterman's best evidence seems to be his photograph from June 2014:


Here's the discussion we took from Waterman's Facebook page:

K Elle Leigh Wow, I expected more responses to this pic! Didn't you, ed? Running around on all fours, then standing up and walking into the woods, where no trail existed. All while we stood in amazement, just watching. Pretty exciting day that was!

Ed Waterman Very exciting day. Our Patterson-Gimlin moment.

Ed Waterman No Annie. Black, no clothes and when I went back to measure, it was 7 feet tall. At that thickness it was in excess of 700 lbs. There's not a single person close to that size in our county.

K Elle Leigh I'm a witness to that. We turned around and I was stunned. Ed said TAKE A PICTURE! I didn't even have the camera ready. Thank God I was able to snap this quickly. We couldn't believe what we were seeing.

K Elle Leigh And even when I was SEEING this happen with my own eyes, my mind was saying "is that a person? A bear maybe. ." There we are, hunting squatch, seeing squatch in the woods, cloaking and whatnot. .here was one running around in the open. We were so surprised. But, prior to this happening, we were up at that place and I ran down towards Ed because I was getting rushed at by something I couldn't see. Scared me!

Ed Waterman Those are some serious birthing hips on this female squatch . . . the height is deceiving. This thing was 7 FEET TALL. It's the thickness of it that gets me. This also is one of three photos in a quick burst series. We have the same squatch in two other positions afterwards. And this was after we saw it running massively quick in circles on all fours on the trail. We walked by and were on the next ridge of the trail and it jumped out behind us. I'm surprised Kristin got such a great shot because we were 1/8th mile away at least, the telephoto is difficult to focus quickly and you have to hold it really still. K did great!



Comments

  1. From what I have read and seen the guy is a hoaxer.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You guys remember Bert Street?

      That Phagg was a true woman-hater!

      Delete
    2. Red Flag 1: The subject has very short arms.

      Red Flag 2: Obvious attempt to bring attention to the picture by the group in question.

      Red Flag 3: Group in possession 8k pictures of unrecognized species.

      Red Flag 4: No recreation of picture to demonstrate the claimed height.

      Red Flag 5: Unfounded claims that these pictures will be investigated by more than one network.

      The smell of BS is strong with this one....

      MMG

      Delete
    3. So yeah, hundreds of photos of stumps and a guy in a black parka. Please pardon me if I'm not convinced. (BTW, I'm a believer in Bigfoot)

      Actually it kind of reminds me of a conversation I had with Betty Hill. She was telling us how she saw UFOs every night. I mentioned that she lived only a few miles from a couple of airports, public and military. She said to me, "Well, if you want to see airplanes you will see airplanes."

      Delete
  2. That photograph looks A LOT like a person.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Unfortunately, another collection of poorly focused or in-motion images. Many leave the viewer to conclude for ones self what you may be viewing. The one reasonably clear image of a possible hominid could just be someone wearing black walking away from the camera.

    "Nothing to see here folks... move along, move along."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Matching specimens to Patty;

      http://youtu.be/cR2cREt95sU

      ... As years go by and the sheer lack of fur cloth techniques to replicate human anatomy fail to materialise, one can only conclude that in relation to how successfully these subjects evade to the frequency of how many times they would be caught out with someone not inflicted with too much shock to be able to film one, makes total sense and what we see in the footage of the PGF is a living breathing hominid that's been documented by tens of thousands of people since.

      Delete
    2. This photo debunked in just over a minute https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Aak9oYnrSEw

      Delete
    3. Of course you really don't need any type of help on this one, but it's even clearer in the link.

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

      Delete
    5. Uh Joe, the link is about the Ed Waterman video- not your comment. A little testy there.

      Delete
    6. I fully understand that, I responded to the "help on this one" part of the comment. I think you may appreciate why I responded like that.

      I apologise.

      Delete
    7. No problem, just don't be in attack mode all the time :-)

      Delete
    8. Is the frequency of sightings increasing or decreasing?

      Delete
    9. Patty was a woman with hypertrichosis. Case solved.

      You cannot disprove my theory, therefore I win.

      It is, far and away, the most likely scenario.

      No bigfoot. now get over yourself.

      Delete
    10. Yes... You may be quite right in a sense. Giant humans with hypertrichosis (with archaic anatomical and morphological traits) is exactly what we could be dealing with here. You're learning.

      I can't disprove your theory, but I can test it and should I fail to reinforce a conclusion that suits my premise, then you win. See how it works?

      Plenty found, none caught.

      Delete
    11. Google images for trichinosis. Dead ringer.
      We have photos, we have specimens.

      Case closed.

      Still have dogman. Better get cracking.

      Delete
    12. We also have giant skeletal specimens documented, cover them with hair and give them the breath of life and hey!

      Your theory would hold weight if I haven't maintained from day one that Patty is a hairy human. You're new around here, right?

      Delete
    13. bigfoot=modern day human with rare genetic disorder

      yawn

      Delete
    14. Replace that with "archaic genetic features", and you're almost up to scratch.

      Time for your bedtime me thinks.

      Delete
    15. total crap. you cannot have features without a specimen.

      you have no specimen, therefore it is all conjecture.

      I have specimens. I have solid, verifiable proof.

      Where is your scientifically verifiable proof?

      Where are the clear images of your specimen?

      Why do you try so hard to convince people of something you have no way of knowing?

      Is this how you get your jollies?

      Delete
    16. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypertrichosis

      https://www.google.com/search?q=hair+growing+disease&biw=1127&bih=686&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=3zRWVOHyD4afyQSoioLAAQ&ved=0CAYQ_AUoAQ

      Delete
    17. lol I think you will appreciate why I butt into conversations and act like my poo doesn't stink.

      Tip: keep your poop in a jar.

      Delete
    18. 5:41... Not crap, we can have features with footage, and do so very nicely.

      We've had specimens at one time, but in the mean time we can content ourselves with footage on line with tens of thousands of reports.

      Proof of these specimens is in be science journals I can reference, notably big hitters like Scientific American and the Smithsonian from the 19th century, even scientific papers from the mid 20th.

      Lear specimen is in the PGF, try to keep up son.

      Why do you try so hard trying to convince people who know the suvject to be real otherwise? Is it reassurances? Fear??

      Delete
    19. http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-N35SyJw07Ls/UzCjDhvwrTI/AAAAAAAABmQ/EuJdR-CRSwo/s1600/983611_1564260197131658_1002017755_n.jpg

      There is Joes proof right there. Plus he is about to source you a whole bunch of material that proves his specimen exists. He doesnt need to actually find one. He has a literal mountain of material detailing conspiracies, coverups, and expert testimonials that pretty much proves its impossible for it NOT exist. Prepare to hear about the meltdown you are having, you butt hurt, skeptard.

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

      Delete
    21. Still crying? Glad you chimed in... I was waiting to remind you I'm still waiting for you to again prove your points and show me where the photogpraphs were hoaxes, remember? Oh... And posting the same photogpraph that's been explained as a photoshop image by a fan, and listing the many things you've managed to epic fail on doesn't really cut it... Embarrassingly for you.

      Oh... And I've never claimed to prove the existence of Bigfoot, only the evidence that gives kids like you your little meltdowns.

      ; )

      Delete
    22. http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-N35SyJw07Ls/UzCjDhvwrTI/AAAAAAAABmQ/EuJdR-CRSwo/s1600/983611_1564260197131658_1002017755_n.jpg

      LOL!

      I guess his argument is that bigfoot is just a human being. Which is what the skeptics have said since day one.

      Derp.

      Delete
    23. Oh... And by the way, what are we admitting to here exactly? That Patty is organic tissue, and a woman with a hypertrichosis? Cause you've conceded it's not a suit if that's the case, and the morphological traits and bulk isn't seen anywhere in woman other than female Sasquatch reports.

      Brains.

      Delete
    24. 6:16... Ha ha ha!! Are you conceding that you don't have an argument to point out where the images are hoaxes? You keep avoiding this like the plague, man up and acknowledge what's being put to you son, you're quite ready with the questions but don't appear to have the b*lls to answer them put your way?

      Oh... And giant human beings with archaic anatomical and morphological traits.

      Delete
    25. Helloooooooooooo??

      Repeatedly, like many, many things written to you, I've stated that I'm open to be shown where they can be proven to be fake, why can't you put your money where your mouth is? Is it because you are too dumb or not honest about your stance?

      I'm waiting...

      Delete
    26. you can tell how badly joe is getting his ass kicked by how many times he posts in a row.

      so Patty was a normal human with a rare genetic disorder.

      I googled hypertrichosis, and she is a DAED RINGER for some of the photos.

      Perfect match. Case solved.

      Might I suggest you go to a carnival? Maybe they can hook you up with a bearded lady.

      Delete
    27. (Pffff)

      Ass kicked by what... You admitting it's not a suit?

      What's going against your rare genetic disorder is matching footage, hair, giant tracks, inumerable sightings and the fact that the subject in the footage has bulk, head morphology, everything that goes against the suggestion of someone with mere hypotrochosis.

      But hey! I'm not exactly talking to Einstein here now, am I?

      Delete
    28. Basically, ten thousand years worth of consciency that smashes all but one second of stupidity on your part.

      Like I said... I'm not talking to Einstein, and if I've got multiple comments it's cause I'm smashing two twonks at once.

      : p

      Delete
    29. what hair? Sykes put the kibosh on the hair thing.
      quit repeating lies, it only makes you look desperate.

      footage? PGF was the 'Holy Grail'. And I've killed that for anyone reading this today.

      Tracks? Crap. Many proven hoaxes, none proven real.

      Delete
    30. It does indeed cut it. Its just a clearer picture with no branches. If it would make you feel better I can post the one with the branches in the way if you feel that one is any less laughable. I haven't epic failed on anything. You just refuse to acknowledge anything Ive pointed out. This is really simple, you have no real credibility. You bank everything on a 50 year old video. Many people have pointed out there obviously had to be many takes. Last I heard the whereabouts of the original film reel are unknown. So I guess we will never know for sure huh? Shot by a man with a very questionable reputation, under questionable circumstances. Authenticated by Dr. Jeffrey Meldrum who has made inaccurate statements about the alledged tracks found. On top of that Meldrum works with Todd Standing. Standing is shunned by most of the community due to being a known hoaxer. You have scientific papers from the 19th century and mid 20th century but you have no current scientific papers. There are no current records or news stories of giant human remains being found, even though we still constantly find ancient human remains. You link old newspaper articles about giant remains being found but nothing mentioning giant artifacts with them. Which you alledge is because of a coverup. Then you link articles of giant artifacts which make no mention of being found with giant remains. We have thousands of eyewitness reports, of very up close and personal encounters. Yet when people have cameras ready we can only muster up blurry videos, quick snippets of footage of something rummaging behind trees. Thermal images of the same thing. Drones have produced nothing of value. Who knows how many trailcams, have produced nothing of value. I know you say that they can detect trailcams. But that would mean every single one of them would have to have super sensory perception, as a normal human wouldnt detect a trail cam unless they saw it. So to repeat what Ive said probably a hundred times allready. You have a solid theory. What you are saying this could be makes sense to me. Take your theory and attach it to someone who has the common sense to not put much wieght into the evidence submitted thus far and then we would have someone worth listening too. However the majority of your evidence comes from people with questionable motives, and there is no room for that in the field. And theres just no way someone as smart as you are doesnt realize that. Which leaves the one and only option that you are in on the hoax in your own way. And of course you will never admit to that, but you also cant prove otherwise. You can only source a bunch more material. Im saying we need a group of people that know to not put much value into questionable sources, because the only thing that proves this is capturing a specimen. The Standings, the Dyers, the Fasanos, the Fitzgeralds, the Meldrums, are all the people crushing the credibility of anyone who is legitimately trying to find this specimen. You are obviously a smart person Joe, which makes your motives even more questionable to me. And I will save you a little typing this time. Yes that was meltdown, I am also butthurt.

      Delete
    31. No... He put the 'whatever' on some hair samples... The hair samples that Fahrenbach has, just for example. Your ignorance ain't nobody else's lies in afraid, Einstein.

      You've "killed the PGF"? What you've done is given everyone a cracking good laugh son... I can tell you that for sure! You've admitted it's not a suit, therefore a woman with all the other traits associated with Sasquatch should be unaccounted for becuase you're too dumb to explain?

      Dermals with species traits that transcend States and decades, found tens of miles into wilderness areas are proven to be fake where? How?

      Delete
    32. Essay at 7:02... I'll address in an hour.

      Delete
    33. And for all the vast intelligence you possess at the end of the day you still tell yourself this could be real.

      http://doubtfulnewscom.c.presscdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/todd-bigfoot_big.jpg

      I cant stop laughing about that.

      Delete
    34. It's easy son... Show me its not real... You've been asked ten times.

      Grow a pair.

      : )

      Delete
    35. Open to the idea... Just show me, it's your job to test it and prove your claims.

      Keep crying though, it makes me smile.

      Delete
    36. More reason to question the credibility of Meldrum. Who authenticates the Patty footage.
      http://orgoneresearch.com/2012/02/08/dermal-ridges-updated-review-material/

      Delete
    37. And wow, even more still on Meldrum. I guess his pairing with Standing makes perfect sense now.

      http://bigfootevidence101.blogspot.com/2014/06/why-is-dr-jeff-meldrum-fraud-bigfoot.html

      I cant show you its not real and you know that. Like I said you seem smart and to me it seems like common sense would show you that, and you wouldnt be so open to the idea. I can only point out how vastly different that looks compared to the other Standing photo. If the other photo didnt look almost identical to Standing himself, I would have almost bought off on that one, much better effort. I know everyone looks different but damn man, they arent even close. You are really telling me that you believe that picture could be real? I still cant believe that you really buy that, its ridiculous. Why do you support known hoaxers? Other than they are the backbone of your theory. Come on man, salvage your credibiltiy, you have a solid theory, dont ruin it with this garbage as support.

      Delete
    38. Relevant points countering the link in an old commet of mine below;

      "Elk Wallow casts are dissimilar to the wrinkle foot casts which was what Crowley analysed;

      http://orgoneresearch.com/2012/02/08/dermal-ridges-updated-review-material/

      Artificial desiccation has it's own uniform style that does not match one school of alleged Sasquatch traits;

      http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/2490-dermatoglyphics-casting-artifacts/

      My emphasis of dermal ridges is on the morphology of the three Elk Wallow track casts, which show the greatest detail, especially in terms of the pattern of dermal ridges that was OBSERVED IN THE ACTUAL TRACKS, and that has been
      preserved in parts of the plaster casts. There is indeed a striking similarity of dermals to dissection, and I'm aware of the amount of researchers who are now in agreement, but it doesn't account for the thorough impartial professional
      analysis gone into analysing the tracks, and the complex data identified as consistent with species traits and organic foot conditioning to the elements.

      “Matt has shown artifacts can be created, at least under laboratory conditions, and field researchers need to take precautions.”
      - Jimmy Chilcutt

      The key words of focus here being "laboratory conditions". Now... Considering the time that most of these tracks that yield dermals were found... Is it logical that the people 'hoaxing' would go into such an environment to make their fake tracks? Although Chilcutt admits Crowley’s work appears to duplicate
      the friction ridges on one cast (Onion Mountain cast), this does not account for the fact that dermals have been recognised in tracks prior to the casting processes and Chilcutt maintains that the Onion Mountain cast, is of the foot of a real animal. He explains, “the Walla Walla and Elkins casts display similar
      dermals to Onion Mountain.” Even the flow pattern appears in the Elkins impression, “although it is hard to see.”

      If dermals were down to plaster cast anomalies, we would see these in the inumerable other examples to which are made my amatuer casters. Chilcutt expressed the sentiment that it is extremely difficult to get prints from the average casting processes; this being an echo of the frequency of such casts and the very special and unique nature of such that have this trait occur. Again... Wouldn't all of these 'fake tracks' have these anomalies? The fact that the frequency of dermals matches the professional opinion and expectancy of rarity says it all. Look at the extent in which Sarmiento's unique technique of faking tracks for example. Is it realistic that someone with such a unique and advanced insight would brainstorm an idea of faking tracks that by chance is merely the same idea spawned many years later by people with half the knowledge?"

      Delete
    39. Addendum (Opinions by Other Experts)

      Tatyana Gladkova, Dermatoglyphics expert at the USSR Institute of Anthropology. Saw photographs of casts, including enlargements of key areas. (Response provided through Dmitri Bayanov, Moscow, USSR.)
      I see dermal ridges of the arch type distally directed. I see sweat pores. If it's a fake, it's a brilliant fake, on the level of counterfitting, and by someone well versed in dermatoglyphics.
      Anthropologists Mikhail Urisson and Vladimir Volkov-Dubrovin (Deputy Director of the Institute) agreed with the above opinion.

      Henrietta Heet, Candidate of Biological Sciences and Senior Scientific Worker, Institute of Ethnography of the USSR Academy of Sciences. Saw several photographs and brief description of circumstances of discovery. (Response provided through Dmitri Bayanov, Moscow, USSR.)
      Regarding photographs of skin imprints sent over by G. Krantz. I fully agree with his opinion on these footprints, as well as the opinion of Benny Kling. The structure of the dermal ridges is very much like that of man. The sweat glands have large openings because the ridges are much bigger than in man. It was great luck that the footprints were left in the soil that revealed fine details of the imprints. As for the patterns of ridges, some irregularity in ridge lines in separate places in the photos may be connected with the peculiarity of the material in which the imprints were made (unevenness of soil, various inclusions, such as small pebbles, pine needles, etc.). Another possibility is scars and skin injuries.
      Incidentally, even in ideally made human imprints there can be such irregularities. There is even a whole branch of dermatoglyphics studying genetic irregularities in ridge lines, i.e. medical and genetic dermatoglyphics.
      In the imprints shown by the available photographs, I cannot detect anything unusual, except digit I, left foot, which shows, apparently, a pattern of the arch type (in man the whorl type is more frequently found).

      Delete
    40. Douglas M. Monsoor, Supervisor, Criminalistics Unit, Department of Public Safety, Lakewood, Colorado. Certified Latent Print Examiner, and fellow of the Fingerprint Society of the United Kingdom. Was sent detailed photographs in late 1982, examined original casts in December, 1982, and again in June, 1983, for two hours on each occasion.
      I see the presence of ridge structure in these track casts which, in my examination, appears consistent with that type of ridge structure you would find in a human. Under magnification, they evidence all the minute characteristics similar to human dermal ridges. The sizes, distributions, and orientations of the ridge patterns are consistent with those found on a human foot. Of the ridge structure visible in the impressions, I believe it was produced concurrent with the creation of the overall impressions, and not added later.
      If hoaxing were involved, I can conceive of no way in which it could have been done. They appear to be casts of original impressions of a primate foot — of a creature different from any of which I am aware.

      Robert D. Olsen, Sr., Criminalist, Kansas Bureau of Investigation, Topeka, Kansas. Certified Latent Print Examiner, Fellow of the American Academy of Forensic Sciences, Fellow of the Fingerprint Society of the United Kingdom, Member of International Association for Identification, etc. Was sent detailed photographs in late 1982, and Silastic lifts in early 1983. Examined original casts and two-color lifts in June, 1983, for several hours.
      Based on everything I see, there is nothing in these tracks that is inconsistent with the impressions of an actual living primate foot. Ridges and pores are consistent with real primate skin. I'm convinced that this represents real friction skin and shows no inconsistencies in structure or orientation.
      If they are faked, the individual would have to know an extraordinary amount about fingerprinting. I could not have done it. A faker would have to be an accomplished artist as well as an expert on dermatoglyphics. He would also need a knowledge of gross anatomy of feet. The amount of time needed to do all this work is beyond the realm of believability.

      Delete
    41. Edward Palma, Fingerprint examiner for the Laramie County Sheriff's Department, Cheyenne, Wyoming. Had latex lifts from the footprints in late 1982 — inked these and traced print pattern extensively. Had cast copies to examine at leisure. Saw original casts for several hours in early 1983 — made Duplicast impressions of critical parts, and took photographs for further study.
      My professional opinion of the three casts is that they represent footprints of a living higher primate of an unknown species. The over-all configuration of the foot is roughly human, but it is too wide — a human foot would not be over five and one half inches [wide] for this length, and thus these impressions could not be human. The actual width is represented and supported by ridge pattern.
      My study of the tracks concentrated more on the sole than on the more conspicuous details of the toes. I traced the ridge pattern over the entire breadth of the forefoot, finding triradius landmarks appropriate in their respective positions with intervening ridges flowing in proper directions. It could not have been patched together from smaller parts that were copied from skin of a known primate.
      The detailed morphology of the ridge and furrow structures and patterns are especially convincing to me. In all details, they conform perfectly in design and size to real friction skin. The sweat pores are clear and are lined-up and spaced just as expectable, and can be distinguished from occasional air bubbles in the casts.
      I began this investigation with the goal of showing how these prints were, or might have been, faked. All evidence now tells me that any faking would be impossible.

      Benny Kling, Instructor, Law Enforcement Academy, Douglas, Wyoming. Had latex lifts from the footprints in late 1982, and cast copies shortly thereafter. Saw original casts for several hours on two occasions in early 1983.
      These track casts show all the characteristics of real friction skin derived from a higher primate footprint. The ridge details, in all respects, duplicate that found in human feet. Parts of the pattern on right and left feet are near-mirror images; some displacia is indicated in the areas where it could be expected; smoothing by wear shows on the weight-bearing areas. In addition, the footprints indicate that an unusual proportion on the body weight fell on the front of the foot, and the arches are evidently flat.
      This kind of print could not have been made by a human foot, nor that of any known animal. It could not have been manufactured by any hoaxer; the design is too dermatoglyphically correct, and the engraving job would be beyond the capabilities of the best forger. Descriptions of the supposed Bigfoot, or Sasquatch, are consistent with the traits found in these footprints.

      Delete
    42. Joe getting smoked again..

      Joe thinks the Standing muppets are real?

      That is too funny. What a desperate fool.

      Ah well. Some people will do or say anything for a handful of butt kissers. Or a speaking fee.

      Delete
    43. Here's an old response to the same source regarding Meldrum's presentations;

      "It's pretty simple, as was put to you up top... Maybe he simply didn't know about the re-evaluated height proportions that Munns has most reached at, this wouldn't be far different from many people within the field that still maintain Patty's height is at that.

      But hey! If we can't prove his research wrong, let's find inconsistencies in his presentations, eh? Career tarnishing... Totally.

      If he profits off his work, then that's fine in my book. If you were an author and at the centre of a research field, you may get a little lazy and forget to update your touring material, it means little about the credibility of said researcher,, and certainly doesn't mean he's not deserving of making some money from his hard work"

      Delete
    44. 7:31... Do you know something an SFX expert doesn't? Cause he couldn't rule them out as hoaxes?

      Come on, man up and show me, I'm waiting!

      : )

      Delete
    45. 7:36... Come on bro, show me how they're fake, it's as easy as that.

      I'm willing to agknowledge the case, I'm just saying show me the proof.

      ; )

      Delete
    46. As usual you have a convenient excuse for every hole in your credibility. If that isnt a damning sign of a blatant liar then I dont know what is. One of these days Im going to count all the various excuses you have made to try and patch this thing togther, its a lot. Like I said there is a wealth of material on the many frauds of Meldrum and Standing. Just look it up. And what a hypocrite you are for criticizing people for finding his large number of inconsistencies. Thats what you do all day long. Thats how you make your incredibly stupid lie work. Oh yeah.. butthurt.. temper tantrum.. all that other jazz.

      Delete
    47. wanna buy a skookum cast?

      he should have been laughed out of that college many moons ago

      Delete
    48. LOL @ USSR.

      Nothing better on a Sunday in Wales than to get online and yell at anonymous readers.

      Delete
    49. You are moron for asking me to prove something you know I cant. It just goes to show how childish you are. I never said anyone proved they were fake. People have come up with very damning evidence that points to a fake. I mean his face lines up perfectly with the face of the creature. I guess he has a Sasquatch twin brother? You cant prove any of this crap. Im saying that is the fakest looking piece of crap I have ever seen. To the point where I cant imagine any sane human being could look at it and not instantly realize it was a fake. I literally laughed out loud the first time I saw it. I cant prove any of your story ISNT true, I am can only show how poor the credibility of it is, how many excuses you have made to patch it together. Then ask people to make thier own judgement of you, how good of a source you really are on this due to the fact you refuse to seperate yourself from fraudulent people and material. The only explanation being you are in on the fraud yourself, of course you will fight that to the death. What we need is someone with your theory, but with a reputation we could trust. We might get somewhere with that.

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

      Delete
    51. I use to give footers the benefit of a doubt. But Joe has made me hate them all.

      Delete
    52. Phone going dead! Be back to answer the other dribbles in about two hours!

      : p

      Delete
    53. 8:01... Stop crying and prove your points, I'm waiting.

      : )

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

      Delete
    55. ... A dumb dog!

      Be back later, phone going dead.

      ; )

      Delete
    56. This is truly laughable.You keep piling on the excuses. As well as keep referencing pictures and video that are ridiculous to use as source material. Are any of these an up close picture or video of your said subject that you could say 100 percent is an unknown hominid? Hell no, and you further ruin your credibility by continually reposting them. Even more laughable is you crying over and over for me to prove my points when I myself admit that none of this can be proven. What kind of dunce repeats my point to try and make thier own point. Your asking me to prove my points, when you cant prove one single thing you say is true. Ill repeat it again, not for you, because you are obviously too dense to understand what Im saying. But for the people that take your word as gospel. There is an ENORMOUS amount of evidence that points to the fact that Meldrum and Standing are fraudulent. It is your choice to believe they are or not. I personally feel there should be a common sense element to this. I feel most rational adults should be able to look at the Standing photos and instantly see they are hoaxes. Add to the fact there are multiple sources indicating that Meldrum is fraudulent as well and look to the motive that this has been very profitable for both of them and draw your own conclusion. Follow the path down to poor old Joe, who is defending them to the death and ask what part he is playing in this. Only to add to my own personal amusement, what then is your standing on the Matilda footage?
      Check your pants, they are probably on fire.

      Delete
    57. 7:57, the face line-up/exact match Bob H myth is Pate et al hoaxery. That's old news. You are regurgiating proven hoaxes. Photoshop-force-fits courtesy Pate & Co.

      PGF is so poor you howled on the floor on initial viewing.

      PGF is so bad no costume maker has duplicated what is shown in the film.

      Six Million Dollar Man Andre the Giant bigfoot, 1975, is the best Hollywood could do with a top budget of a top-rated series. The short-armed buttless wonder is the best they could come up with.

      What is it today? Is Packham's strutting orange stickman a resounding duplication of Patty, or was BBC bgfoot "intentionally bad in order to keep the bigfoot gravy train rollin'"? Which one do you choose today? You have espoused both. And they are opposites.

      There seems to be a vast loneliness inside your skull.

      Sharon Shill is here posting links to her own Doubtful News site. At least she named the site correctly: Everything you read there, you doubt.

      "Frankly, Sharon [S]Hill doesn't know what she's talking about." Jeffrey Meldrum

      Delete
    58. Many inmates of the asylum are known to howl on the floor while viewing the PGF. 7:57, the goofy propagandist.

      Delete
    59. My alleged lies, are in fact the areas of which are your failures to counter. If there is a conclusive means to prove not only that Meldrum endorses Standing's photogpraphs, but that Standing's photographs are hoaxes, then post it. Please, please, please just show me where I am wrong, I'm not even trying to be offensive, I'm just asking for you to help me out and show me where it's been done... There's a reason why you're so angry. "Just look it up"... I have, there is nothing to prove Standing's photogpraphs are hoaxes.

      Inconsistencies? Show them... Show these apparent inconsistencies, these 'inconsistencies' have been shown to have very simple answers, answers you've been presented time and time again, answers you fail to counter and then celebrate very cringingly, it's not how adults debate I'm afraid... Show them, prove me wrong son. If I successfully look at inconsistencies in your arguments, then that's what proper skeptics do, yet here is yet another admition that your claims can't stand for holes being indentified, yes? You won't have me so readily in admition because I've yet to see the evidence of such... Just the same old mantra you think is convincing people, when you come across as a spoilt child requiring a serious understanding of how things work.

      "butthurt.. temper tantrum.. all that other jazz."

      Are you aware of the quality of your comments son? Ha ha ha!! All that jazz is quite correct, I've got you in my pocket and it's blatantly obvious, Ha ha ha ha!!

      So FINALLY!! You can't prove that The photogpraphs are faked. But you still maintain Standing is a hoaxer? This is the logic of a child, and again... You must prove your premise before making such allegations. Opinions are fine, but don't count when you're arguing something so adamantly, because the collective opinion of the Bigfoot community is that Standing is worthy enough of revealing "earth shattering news"... So I'm curious to see how you explain that one away. And all these people can come up with "very damning evidence" all they like, it proves nothing, especially when every single one of those points has a countering source that at least isn't based on assumptions and inaccurate data. I've asked you a million times now to show me these "damning evidences" I'm almost ready to post them for you and THEN take the liberty of taking them apart, that's how pathetic your case is at the moment.

      You say it's the biggest crap you've ever seen, I'm saying show me it can be faked. I respect your opinion, that's perfectly cool to me... What's evident of you being a spoiled little butthurt brat, is that you not only can't respect my stance which is openly impartial, but you can't put your money where you mouth is... Embarrassing son. If any sane human being could look at it and not instantly realize it was a fake, then why didn't an SFX expert not come to that conclusion? Are your credentials those that exceed his?

      (Pfffft)

      You can't prove any of my 'stories' aren't true, you can "only show how poor the credibility of it is, how many excuses I have made to patch it together"... That's ok then, just do it. Stop saying you're doing something when you're not delivering on that, this could possibly be the 50th time it's been addressed, do it son. If the people I have an open agenda towards are fraudulent, show that to be the case... If you can't then you look as silly as you come across.

      And now I'm in on the fraud? Sounding a little kooky now son, that sounds a bit like a conspiracy theory to me you know? Are you ok??

      (Cookoo!!)

      Delete
    60. Are any of these an up close picture or video of said subject that I can say 100% is an unknown hominid? Yes, the PGF. And all the while you stamp and scream, you're no closer to proving your premise and the default position is in my favour stands. My credibility would be harmed should you reverse that scenario, not before.

      It's easy... The points I put across require testing. If you cannot do that, if you cannot reinforce your allegations about their authenticity, then they stand... That's how I can keep requesting you prove things you say. You are not excempt from doing what is required of anyone in any debate situation... Moma can't buy you your way around here, you have to show that your opinion can stand with data that counters mine. Again... You've never done that, only claimed to have "shown the world I'm a horrible liar", it's embarrassing son.

      "There is an ENORMOUS amount of evidence that points to the fact that Meldrum and Standing are fraudulent."

      Ok... Post it. It's really simple, post it and we can get closer to your premise holding weight. I'm genuinely curious now, and would love to know what all the excitement is about... Come on bro, you can do it surely? It's all there ready to post right? Laughably... I'm not defending anything because I don't have to, Meldrum does not endorse the photogpraphs, he endorses what sources Standing has yet to present. This has been put to you ten times now, and considering Standing is conducting talks to the Bigfoot community, well your stance looks shaky at best. I don't have to defend the photogpraphs because I'm not... I want to be shown how they were faked, but you can't do that.

      The Matilda footage? A Chewie mask... But hey, you should probably go on another ten essay cryfest about how you would rather me think about that, posting irrelevant links and presenting more unsubstantiated claims about my character, because you're a spoilt little kid that can't get his own way... Plain and simple.

      Funny as heck.

      ; )

      Delete
    61. "There are a number of subjective elements to this paper (this paper being A Critical Examination of the Todd Standing Sylvanic Video Subjects By Daniel Falconer and Phil Poling... Your best aeguement that the pictures are fake), including the paper's claim of the lack of a caruncula lacrimalis in the corners of the eyes of the video 4 subject. Humans and all primates have that. However, the resolution of the blown-up image of the photo shopped head is not good enough to be conclusive. In the paper it is Fig. 01.02. Moreover, the image they used to show a lack of caruncula lacrimalis is an image that is photoshopped by a man named Alex Putney to show what the subject might look like if the branches were removed, and the area of the caruncula lacrimalis on the right eye is created on a computer, and they therefore use a made up image to point an arrow to showing the lack of anatomy.

      The photo below, which shows the image before and after it was photo shopped, demonstrates what Mr. Putney did, unsolicited by Todd Standing, to extrapolate what the face might look like if it was unobstructed by foliage. He sent it to Mr. Standing who did post it.

      http://s172.photobuc...822532.gif.html

      The paper also made the following statement using the photoshopped head as its reference:

      "The anatomy of the Video 4 subject's eyelids is exceedingly simple and uniform, having more in common with a toy than a living animal, suggestive of a sculpture rather than real anatomy."

      Again, the paper included the above statement just below Fig. 01.02 of the photoshopped head, saying the eyelids are too uniform and look sculpted. Indeed, Mr. Putney created the upper eyelids of both eyes himself. The only eyelids he didn't create on a computer is the left lower eyelid and part of the lower right eyelid. The authors of the paper are claiming the eyelids look like something someone created on a prop, when in fact they are critiquing what Mr. Putney created on a computer. At the end of the paper the authors acknowledge they are aware it is a photoshopped image."

      http://sasquatchresearchers.org/forums/index.php?/topic/309-north-american-wood-ape-conservancy/

      Delete
    62. 10:11 Im still talking about Standings face lining up perfectly. I dont even really know what you are trying to say here. Its almost unrecognizable garbage. My only statement here is Joe is a shady individual with a bunch of shady information from a bunch of shady sources, with a mountain of excuses and conspiracy theories to patch the whole thing together. Once again if we are trying to prove anything here then we are all chasing Sasquatches and ghosts. The fact the legitimate researchers data might get mentioned in anything Joe says is the real crime here. How disheartening it would be to actually be in this to honestly find a specimen and get clumped in with you bunch of dishonest loonies.

      Delete
    63. I'm a shady individual = Show us how.

      Shady information = show it to be.

      Shady sources = show them to be.

      Excuses = show them to be.

      Conspiracies = you bet ya!

      Dishonest loony = show me to be one.

      You're only angry at me because I'm showing you just how baseless your claims are. Come on bro... I'm waiting?

      Delete
    64. Ive done it all day. Its actually to the point now where Im honestly not sure if you are a blatant liar or just really that mentally impaired. Im now starting to lean towards the mentally impaired. Common sense would tell us that it is very likely Meldrum and Standing are frauds. If Standing releases this groundbreaking video and there is something truly definitive in there Ill eat my words. Gut feeling says this is the Erickson project all over again. Wouldnt be the first time Standing mislead the public about his videos. Until that time however I will choose to believe what the majority of information points to, and that is Meldrum and Standing are frauds. And that you are either completely bat shit crazy, or a big fat liar. Im starting to lean towards the cray cray. In which case I am sorry. Hopefully science will be able to find a cure for you someday.
      P.S.
      :(

      Delete
    65. Ok... Let's try it this way... Paste the comments to me where you've achieved this. Post them here in the very next comment for us to try and understand what you mean.

      Meldrum and Standing are frauds yet you can't agknowledge that Meldrum doesn't endorse these contraversial photos, neither do you show us how they are faked to warrant them being frauds.

      Are you basing your accusations that Medrum is a fraud because you know what Standing has to deliver? Are you a mind reader?? You won't eat your words because you're anonymous and no one cares what you think. Come on bro... I'm waiting... You've got a lot of insults, but nothing to back up your claims?

      Odd???

      Delete
    66. 1) Patty was a normal human with Hypertichosis.

      2) No hair has ever been proven to be anything except know animals or synthetic.

      3) No tracks has ever been proven real, nor could they ever be without a specimen. Many have been proven to be hoaxes.

      4) Joe got smoked. Same as it ever was. He is the poor man's DWA.

      Delete
    67. Joe Fatz got his ass whooped

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

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

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

      Delete
    71. 1) Patty was a normal human... ... ... With hypertrochosis, gigantism, steroid abused, receding skull, longer arms, mid tarsal break, spinal erectors and inhuman proportions.

      This was countered.

      2) "Scientists are using a new DNA matching process to determine whether tufts of hair, recovered in the Blue Mountains of southeastern Washington state in August, could belong to the beast known as Bigfoot. The two tufts of hair, each consisting of about a dozen strands, were sent to Ohio State University. These samples have the best possibility of being real, said Paul Fuerst, OSU associate professor of molecular genetics. Fuerst and a graduate student, Jamie Austin, are using a DNA testing procedure being developed by the FBI for analysis of hair strands that lack the roots normally needed for identification. Tests, which are being done for the Oregon Regional Primate Research Center, so far suggest the hair did not come from a known primate, Fuerst said. Final results are expected later this month, November 1995."

      "On August 5, 1995, two separate sets of hair samples were collected by three persons (P. Freeman, B. Laughery, and W. Sumerlin) in the Blue Mountains east of Walla Walla, Washington. The group first tracked three sets of fresh foot prints, then found freshly twisted-off trees with hair caught in them, and within a short time later observed a sasquatch at less than 100 feet with binoculars. The hair was sent to Dr. W. Henner Fahrenbach (Beaverton, Oregon), who determined microscopically that the hair appeared to have come from two individuals of the same species, that it differed in color, length and hair growth cycle between the two sets, had not been not cut, and was indistinguishable from human hair by any criterion. I have by now a dozen purported sasquatch hair samples, all morphologically congruent (which rules out hoaxing) and all effectively indistinguishable from a human hair of the particular structure (great variability is available among the latter). DNA extracted from both hair shaft or roots (hair demonstrably fresh) was too fragmented to permit gene sequencing. That characteristic is also sometimes found in human hair that lacks the medulla (as does sasquatch hair - at least what I am willing to identify as such).

      Dr. W. Henner Fahrenbach"

      ... And that's just one example;

      http://www.texlaresearch.com/unknown-chimp-bear.jpg

      3) tracks found 50 miles into wilderness areas with species traits exceeding States and decades verified by a long line of forensic and biology experts are not hoaxed because these traits were observed in actual tracks pre casting, and have at least not been proven to be fake. When found with hair; Occam's Razor.

      4) oops! I did it again!

      Delete
  4. you can see skin on right hand of pic with figure walking away

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thats what I thought too.

      Delete
    2. Looks like a woman in a coat,i just hope she doesn't find out she's been compared a bigfoot :)

      Delete
    3. That is pretty funny EVA R.

      JOE. From where did you grab the above posts of yours.
      Chuck

      Delete
    4. That was good Eva! What if her name is Patty lol!

      Morning Eva Joe Chuck and all!

      Delete
    5. Every body wants to believe yet every body is out to discredit somebody for work or lack of. One day such a theory of big foot will come to light and be proven to be real yes there are ALOT of hoaxers out there looking for 15 minutes of youtube glory to hit 10000 views and 12 subscribers but what should be happening is investigators and alike linking together to get the proof these big hairy mofos exist. I say rally up get out there and show the world the squatch dos walk 8ft tall smelling like a hobos under garments with more hair then your nans chin ��

      Delete
  5. if bigfoots[snigger] skipped along roads in broad daylight when they know people are there its really surprising they are not filmed in HD ALL THE TIME

    come on

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Whenever I have to fill out a form that asks about race I always enter 'Other' and then pencil in Sasqautch', misspelled on purpose.

      Delete
  6. The arms are way too short, and it looks like a human hand on the right.
    All the proportions look human.

    ReplyDelete
  7. As usual every photo is blurry or just can't make out the subject in that video,hmmmmmmm, I wonder wonder why........

    ReplyDelete
  8. it's woman wearing black clothes and walking into the forest





    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. yep. get that stank booty in dem woods

      Delete
    2. Whatever it may be, I guarantee it's not a bigfoot. Bigfoot has been declared a myth, and we can all go home. Thank you for MY time

      Delete
  9. I see a woman wearing a black coat and purple pants.

    ReplyDelete
  10. The slide show is garbage, it's all false pattern recognition. I don't understand how their is a group of people out there that do this with every photo they take. It really shows you the intelligence level we are dealing with most "footers" and observers.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When you have been molested by one of these animals you will become a 'knower'. It's a pretty exclusive club. And they unanimously enjoyed every second of it.

      Delete
  11. Mountain monsters, monsters and mysteries,ghost lab.
    Yep they don't mind wasting their time on silly hoaxes.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Just a fat woman power walking at the park.

    ReplyDelete
  13. What a CROCK! Who is this guy trying to kid anyways? All except one pic, have shadows or burned stumps from a past fire in Kitsap County. Apparently, the dark bipedal subject FAILED TO BUY MATCHING PANTS, since the brown pants do not match the Black coat, and you can see how the coat rides up over the butt, exactly like all other winter coats do. This guy is just one more moron seeking his 15 minutes of fame, based on absolutely no legitimate evidence. Get the hook!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Joe is pounding this moron again! LMAO... Run for the hills anon...school is in session. Way to go JOE!

    ReplyDelete
  15. All I saw is a bunch of "stump" squatches, "shadow" squatches and "moss" squatches. With all the thousands of ppl specifically looking for this supposed thing, by now someone would have come up with real evidence. Anyone can lie, make a fake foot print or dress up in a suit. Unless these things really do come from space or some other dimension. I think people like a mystery and other like to keep the mystery going.........

    ReplyDelete
  16. and by the way........Your Mother!!

    ReplyDelete
  17. So are FooTARDS now saying that Bigfoot IS anything that they say is Bigfoot? Like this photograph of a wide hipped white woman power walking in a park? FooTARDS are always good for a laugh.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Did you read the reaction to this phorogpraph?

      (What was I thinking?)

      You don't read.

      Delete
  18. do they take pictures of every dark spot in woods and think its squatch

    ReplyDelete
  19. I must say, These two really take the Bigfoot cake! and the rehearsed Facebook chat, ANYthing for 5 minutes of attention, to freakin funny...LOL......

    ReplyDelete
  20. this guys evidence is HORRIBLE!! pictures of shadows in the forest and stump, and someone in a puffy winter coat, what a waste of time

    ReplyDelete
  21. It looks suspiciously like a guy in a hoodie to me...

    ReplyDelete

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