Lettuce Lake River Bigfoot Footage Debunked?
Are the Hillsborough River photos and Lettuce Lake Skunk Ape footage related?
FLORIDA BFRO and the entire BFRO organizatoin are awesome when it comes to debunking big claims. While Matt Moneymaker is the king of debunking, his entire organization takes the same approach to every claim (especially photographic evidence / video evidence) with skepticism. This latest report from FLORIDA BFRO's R. Monteith questions Matt McKamey, the person who sent us the Lettuce Lake Skunk Ape footage. No only did McKamey send it to us, apparently he sent it to a bunch of others as well -- including the BFRO and The Huffington Post.
According to FLORIDA BFRO, Matt McKamey appears to be a Bigfoot prankster. After carefully searching the web, the organization was able to define McKamey's character and what's in it for him. The BFRO explains in their blog post:
Given all the evidence we listed above, it is our belief, that the picture and video of a bigfoot in the Hillsborough River are both hoaxes perpetuated by the same group of people – Matt McKamey, Justin (Alan) Arnold, and Alan Stern.
On Friday, August 9, 2013 on Justin’s Tumbler Blog he mentions Matt McKamey being one of his favorite people in the world, but also mentions how P.T. Barnum fooled the public with great fanfare, when the Fiji Mermaid was an obvious fake. I imagine this gave him some ideas on fooling the public.
You can check out the debunking here: The Debunking of the Lettuce Lake Skunk Ape Footage
Lettuce Lake Skunk Ape Footage sent to BFE and other news organizations.
 |
| Is this the elusive Skunk Ape? A retired 66-year-old electrician named John Rodriguez claims it is. He sent this high-def photograph to The Huffington Post |
Special thanks to R. Monteith for digging this up. "I did the research, but not without the support of the other BFRO Florida Investigators. We are a Team. It was our pleasure exposing the hoaxers," Monteith wrote in an email to Bigfoot Evidence.
Look to the swamps!
ReplyDeleteWhy? There's nothing there. Ain't ya heard?
DeleteRobert "The Duchess" Lindsay says, Stealing Candy from a baby is the ultimate adrenaline Rush!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
DeleteCould have anyone had said for sure that the subject in this video was legitimate? No... But could anyone else to dismiss it for reasons of what we see? Most definitely not. There is simply not enough data in that footage to draw a negative conclusion, there is enough data for someone to invest enthusiasm in line with its apparent bulk and motion that it negotiates that environment. Phil Poling, one of the toughest people to fool appeared to agree with this aspect of the footage very much so. However, I've recently watched the breakdown by Michael Merchant, and though I don't agree with his reasons to dismiss it in general (the location, which I will come to shortly) it did eradicate one reason in me for the subject being authentic, in that it is not impossible for someone to wade through that swamp... Though they'd still be taking one heck of a risk. According to Merchant, there are no dangerous animals in that type of environment and this is good enough for me considering his background.
DeleteTHE single most utilised reason to dismiss the footage since its appearence is that it is surrounded by a built up area. This is not accurate in line with its access routes and increasing reports of Sasquatch encroaching on suburban areas that have such evasion corridors. JP Smith & Freeman Young have done extensive research on this in line with their own first hand experiences, and even David Paulides has touched upon this with recordings he attained from trailheads where hundreds of people would be walking every day. What I found interesting about the write up was the following;
"Myself and another BFRO Investigator, Marian Gant live very close to Lettuce Lake park. We know the area the video claimed to have been filmed at. There have been reports near it and we’ve found prints. So we thought it possible a bigfoot would be there."
This comfirms to me that the area is and was never an issue for a creature of this nature to temporality reside in. The reasons to dismiss this footage based on this were not good enough. I also don't agree with the premise that the story has holes in it. Since the subject in the footage left, this would account for them changing their minds to investigate the area, which was about 20-30 feet away. Both statements follow a very natural sequence of events. They row up & see the subject and "wanted to leave and I couldn't do both video and row." Then the subject leaves and; "it went underwater and vanished. Paddled up there and it was no where to be seen". This to me is not contradictory and one can draw from many instances of high emotional responses with this creature where people have not decided to film in order to prioritise confirming what they have seen. It could have been that there was a serious concern that the subject may return, to which the two would have had to have got out of there quicky and have easy access to rowing in line with not being able to film and row at the same time.
However, the dates in line with the weather, as well as the emails are what is sealing this as a hoax for me. I wouldn't say Montieth and the BFRO have done a stellar job at debunking this on the data available from the footage, the investigation into the emails has been excellent though.
Joe you are so stupid (along with Chuck). You idiots took it hook, line and sinker. Please do us a favor and leave the Bigfoot Community. Its people like you two Dildo's that make this subject look like a joke!
Delete"The community"? Please don't make me cringe anymore. It's a blog bro, let's not get too carried away. And who made you the spokes person for this "community" exactly? I think what you're pleading for as usual is a blog free to spout your disminformation. Not one of the reasons posed by you or anyone else were good enough to dismiss this footage... None of them still are. Like I said, if Big Phil can get enthusiastic and change his mind on more information coming to light, then so can anyone.
DeleteI'll be around to make your head spin a little longer son.
I wouldn't dismiss it alltogether either
DeleteJoe fitzgerald when are you going to get out of your moms basement and do something constructive with your life?
DeleteWell I dug out my old King Tubby CD's today... Does that count?
DeleteHey Rum!!
Clueless Joe fooled yet again. Was there ever any doubt? Not from me....poor Clueless Joe. Nincompoop extraordinare and leader of the Butt Diapers.
DeletePraise the Butt Diaper!¡ Praise IT!¡!¡!¡!¡!¡!¡!¡!¡!¡!¡!¡!¡!¡
http://www.isu.edu/rhi/pdf/Munns-%20Meldrum%20Final%20draft.pdf
DeletePage 15... Glad I could help you out again.
Uh oh.. You mean Joe is wrong? Again? Poor thing. He wants to believe soooo bad.
ReplyDeleteThe need to believe is strong in that one.
DeleteNever, ever say that Joe is wrong. Joe is never, ever wrong and I suspect you all know that.
DeleteOf course he's never wrong. He told me so himself.
DeleteHmm..He was wrong on Thinker Thunker's latest and this one, lol.
DeleteDon't be surprised if he disappears for a few days. Along with all his alter egos. That seems to be his M.O.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteIf good old Phil Poling can be wrong and reassess when more information arises, so can the best of em... And the best indeed do.
DeleteDisappear? Wishful thinking... You really don't know me very well, do you?
; )
I don't believe Phil really ever said this was real (not saying you did) despite what Merchant claims.
Delete"I find the look and movement of this thing very compelling... But that's as far as I'm willing to go with it at this point."
Deletehttp://youtu.be/ClWHeT74XRQ
A sentiment echoed by myself. I'll repeat, not one of the reasons conjured up here have been good enough to dismiss that footage. A good amount of us here would have been filled by the Sequoias Bigfoot if we didn't know betger the backstory.
Are you talking about the footage by the film student?
DeleteThat's the rub though, the better footage is often ambiguous in the end.
I couldn't possibly dissagree with you more, and find that sentiment the total embodiment of agenda driven. If that's the case, make a start with the video sources I've sourced below.
DeleteJoe = fuctard
Delete^ Aww come on now, Joe is the Perfect straight man, no need to get "base!! Have a cold one.
DeleteEnd of the day only a body will suffice as most videos can be hoaxed.
ReplyDeleteYes, although it would be nice to see a clear piece of footage that was really interesting.
Delete...Clear, sustained video from a credible source such as a university or media outlet will suffice...Even if the source is an average Joe, experts can tell if its bogus if it is clear and sustained and if average Joe will submit to enough questioning to establish his credibility....Something like this will get many peoples attention and the subject would no longer be ridiculed....Its a matter of common sense...A body is needed to name it, so I agree that one is needed; and you'll get it quick if good video is ever shot: the scientists will enter the game....
DeleteYou lost me when you put "credible" and "Joe" in the same post. Sorry.
Delete...Lol...
DeleteWhat's really "LOL" is calling a "media outlet" a "credible source."
DeleteExcuse me while I fall down laughing.
Maybe you can hook up with Brian Williams.
...Pass on that, thanks anyway...Well, perhaps I was too general but if bigfoots were on ABC news and featured in the NY Times people that did not accept their existance would be few and far between...Common sense...
Delete...and 9:43's comment was funny...Joe would probably agree and dishes out some jibes of his own..I think its usually in the spirit of fun although sometimes people get angry and take things a little too far....
DeleteFew can hurl turds better than I, however if you don't then you're simply not gonna last long around here.
DeleteThe reason that footage will never be good enough is because of one of two things; the first being that to the majority of the population who are scofftic of the topic, it'll always be a man in a suit or somehow the best usage of the most unrealistic of studio make up and effects. The second is that not even enough enthusiasts are aware of the accompanying physical evidence that supports such sources, so what chance have the scofftics got? There has already been as best a means of footage as you're likely to get considering how elusive this creature, that footage is waiting to be tested and because it can't to a conclusion that scientifically supports the negative premise, it's suppressed.
The audacity by anyone requiring more is self evident and it will require a body for many reasons irrelavent of how good the existing footage has or will get.
....Well Joe, I know one thing for a fact: I myself would be convinced of existence if high quality footage appeared on the 6 oclock news...As far as everyone else, I wont know until it happens...
DeleteWhat footage are you alluding to? The PGF? The provenance is poor as acknowledged by Roger himself...If Don Abbot and Grover Krantz got that footage the animal's existence would be accepted by their colleagues in academia at the very least.....
..I know a body is needed to name the things, but I'm sure credible, repeatable footage would result in a massive uptick in mainstream interest..After that it would only be a matter of time until a live one is caught or a dead one is found...I am against killing higher mammals like cetaceans and primates....
I'm sorry... What in blue blazes are you on about regarding Roger? Grover Krantz presented that footage at the time to his mainstream peers and were ridiculed, partly because they did not have the stabilization we can achieve with footage today. We know far more about these creatures in line with thousands of reports of "bipedal gorillas", therefore at the time and for many years after, people naive to these reports would naturally think it a man on a gorilla costume; this was in fact one of my first feelings on the source in question until I did my homework. Anyway, if Krantz's peers would have had that source stabelized in 1967, and considering the state of lesser expanded civilisation; this would no doubt have been considered far more than what it has been. One of the major factors against the acceptance of this footage has been simple duration, in line with waiting for technological advances; meaning people have naturally scoffed at the source but until recent years with key developments have hit a brick wall in that they can't show with any means available for the subject to be a suit.
DeleteAnd no, I can't dissagree more. Footage will never be good enough. Footage coducive to the current state of physical evidence has not been good enough, footage in line with the current state of SFX readily available to anyone, won't be to people who are so in tuned to denial, you'll have a tough job getting them convinced even if you rubbed their faces in it.
I think Joe is a hoax!
Delete...Thanks for response..I was referring to Roger's statement to the press that " I am the worst person to bring this out"...You are right about the SFX, but I can't imagine a professor presenting a hoaxed film to a seminar..I guess I can picture some media outlet desperate for ratings resorting to some advanced chicanery..I agree many will shout man in costume no matter what, but believe me under the rtight circumstances I myself wouldn't be one of them...
DeleteThat comment is in reference to an arrest warrant Roger had, it had nothing to do with the back story to which the Backstory Barkers like to drone on about. To state that the provenance of the source in question has something to do with this is misleading.
DeleteYour last sentence is of massive fail.
DeleteShirley you can't be that glib? Can you? Mr. Brian Williams.
Not like you to jib on showing me these "fails", is it... Einstein?
Delete^ Faaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaarrrrrrrrrrrrttttttttttt
DeleteKeep up the good work Kelly Shaw !
ReplyDeleteDid Joe believe the Buffalo video because that's been torn to shreds!
ReplyDeleteYep.
DeleteIn actual fact... When I first saw this video, I was lead to believe that the subjects were not a fair distance away. This I'm in good company about. There is a considerable difference by suggestion. None of the reasons to dismiss the footage were accurate and were typical approaches in line with a typical mindset. In actual fact... Scofftics were resorting to their own assumptions, what they wanted to see about comparitive scale, irrelvant of the facts about the camera focus.
DeleteIt took all of half an hour from being enthusiastic to adhering to the wider information about the source.
I heard that Joe had his way with a Buffalo once!
DeleteRobert "The Duchess" Lindsay says that its good to tune your body to drink your own urine, in case you one day find yourself dehydrated and in need of a thirst quinch!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!1
ReplyDeleteSeems like someone spent a lot of time and energy just to realize a myth was a hoax.
ReplyDeleteNext project: Looking into the validity of "Grandpa got my nose."
Is there a single piece of bigfoot footage that hasn't been debunked by someone?
ReplyDeletehttp://youtu.be/cR2cREt95sU
Deletehttp://youtu.be/luue2Mv_VNM
http://youtu.be/lOxuRIfFs0w
http://youtu.be/l96zvON3Rk8
http://youtu.be/xI8gcikwUEQ
http://youtu.be/BfuWuhEa3yI
http://youtu.be/ZlMQ9b2lnE4
http://youtu.be/h4QcYdT6keQ
http://youtu.be/cjEWDkcqjXI
... Get busy.
Mike Sells video is on your list? Prince Edward Island film? Yikes
DeleteHey! You'll have no issue in showing me how the motion and size were achieved then, right?
DeleteJoe thinks that just about every photo or video is a Bigfoot, just shows how stupid he really is!
DeletePeople playing the part.
DeleteI think you'll find that those videos referenced are a ridiculously small number in reflecting upon the amount of video there is out there. All have size or morion to address.
DeleteSomeone lacking any means of demonstrating otherwise, could be categorised, quite easily as stupid.
...Joe, do you really have Mike Sells on your list after this fiasco? Yeesh... Its the same schematics: the motion looks good but we know its a hoax because it was submitted by a hoaxer...MK Davis' group tossed that garbage long ago...
DeleteIts quality, not quantity that counts...
Show me a reason to dismiss it then. There is not one reason you can point to for not considering that footage. The size comparison of the fence, as well as the quadrupedal motion at the very start of the footge... Show me; it's quite simple.
Delete^ Never been to Golden Corral. The Soviet Army of food dispersal.
Delete4:55... "Quality not quantity that counts" is quite an audacious statement when you have video sources in that list that show motion outside of human capabilities, not to mention one that is endorsed by a line of highly relevant scientists who are awaiting their premise to be tested.
DeleteYour statement is in fact a euphemistic slant on rhetorical approaches, and I have no qualms about saying that, because any footage presented will always be a "man in a suit" or the most unrealistic of Hollywood make up & special effects.
...Well, I guess I'll have to respectfully disagree with your "look at the film" approach...I think their can be different interpretations of blurry and grainy films, while a clear submission from someone whose livelihood is dependent on their integrity, i,e an academic, would leave no room for doubt....
DeleteYet we have an example that you speak of.
DeleteAre you not aware of the fence fiasco? Davis lies about the height of the fence.
Deletehttp://youtu.be/0ovIcucRN7c
DeleteThe above is a comparision concerning the 'Fence Climber' film from the Sells tapes, from the Paris, Texas habituation site. Using the top of the fence, where the Sasquatch and M.K Davis are placing their hand, we can put them side by side and compare the height of the Sasquatch to be much taller than MK even leaning forward, the Sasquatch appears to be around the seven foot tall mark.
Delete...No we don't, Joe..We would if Krantz or Meldrum shot the PGF, not just endorse it...
DeleteDoes Joe work or do anything to contribute to society? It seems like his life and obssession
Deleterevolves around Bigfoot and this blog. Please Joe got out and find something to do!
Yes we do... Anthropologists are not the type of people to be out in the field collecting footage. The only reason you have wildlife photographers getting their footage is because they are under specific instruction by experts who know how to track specific animals.
DeleteIt's only when footage is accumulated can experts study it and take a stance. We have a long line of very relevant scientists endorsing that very footage now that it is stabelised, no one could have made that footage work in 1967 without the detail being.
JOE F CLAIMED THIS WAS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF PROOF POSITIVE OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE CREATURE BIGFOOT
ReplyDeleteNOW HIS HOPE ,THAT THIS WAS AN ACTUAL BIGFOOT,HAS BEEN TAKEN AWAY,HE IS STILL WRITING WAR N PEACE SIZE COMMENTS
what an idiotic man this is
I realise he is tolerated on here by people who feel sorry for the type of sad person he clearly is.
personally i find him an irritant and put off to reading thecomments as he dominates them
His sarcastic, witless utterances bring nothing to the debate on the films/pics we are viewing. yet he writes in 100% fact that this creature exists when there is no evidence of worth
On the surface this was an interesting film.it just shows how the back story, and finding out the characters of those involved is vital ,to validating a film
its sad that this has been debunked
I,like most on here, dont believe there is a creature in North American forests. The fact there are apparent credible eye witnesses gives us hope that ,just maybe, there could be something to their claims
This feels like another nail in killing of this myth all together
"JOE F CLAIMED THIS WAS ANOTHER EXAMPLE OF PROOF POSITIVE OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE CREATURE BIGFOOT"
DeleteI would love for you to quote me on that, son. I think you'll be hard pressed, not like people like you to run around putting words in people's mouths now, is it? Anyone would think there's not much else to go on?
"NOW HIS HOPE ,THAT THIS WAS AN ACTUAL BIGFOOT,HAS BEEN TAKEN AWAY,HE IS STILL WRITING WAR N PEACE SIZE COMMENTS"
It's pretty simple. One can come across as overly enthusiastic when they are countering cynicism, unfounded ideas based on bias and pushed as facts, with proper scepticism. It's like the same old vomit soaked angle that people like you use to tell me what I'm not sceptical about. They know nothing of the sort, but it's because I'm so frequently contesting the denialist's that I have no time to discuss what I'm sceptical about.
I'm afraid that there is plenty of evidence for this subject's legitimacy, and your hateful comment reaks of times past where I have probably left you a little too bitter to handle over it. It's simple, most psuedoskeptics are ignorant of the facts and celebrate their own ignorance to attain a sense of community. In sheer naivity of the facts regarding evidence, it's easy to come across so confident, but it only lasts as long as someone can point out these facts to which it then turns into aggresive denial and inevitably hate, because they've sounded off so much, for so long.
"On the surface this was an interesting film.it just shows how the back story, and finding out the characters of those involved is vital ,to validating a film."
And after all that hate speech, you in fact agree with me all along... What a face plant... What a prized prat.
What you have to go by those credible eyewitnesses are in fact many evidential factors that I'll be happy to kick at you, should you have the b*lls to post after you realise how much of an angry twonk you look now that I've pointed out that you in fact concur with what you're crying about.
(Pfffft)
This whole site should be renamed Joe F vs the world
ReplyDeleteAgreed!
DeleteDrSquatchlove or: how I learned to stop worrying and love the hoaxes
Deletewhy wood yoo wanna defunk a SKUNK APE that wood make tham harder to track! amaturs need to leev the monster huntin to the profeshunals!
ReplyDelete