Friday, September 16, 2016

Campers Terrorized By Group Of Sasquatch In Colorado


From Sasquatch Chronicles: 

Tonight we speak to Mike from the state of CO. Mike tells us about an encounter he had while camping. Mike and his friend were terrorized by a group of Sasquatchs while camping in the Rockies. This is the first time Mike has ever shared this story with the public.

84 comments:

  1. Replies
    1. Hey Khat!! Hope you are well my darling!!

      Delete
    2. Great First--------

      Khat, is that your first first??? ha ha ha ha.

      Delete
    3. Hi Iktomi. Yes, you are probably right about Erickson being hoaxed with the face of Matilda. I only bring it up because every six months or so I get really irritated by the collapse of The Erickson Project after we all waited for so many years for it's findings. But can we dismiss all their footage? I've mentioned to you before about the clip of one seemingly getting-up. I think it looks pretty genuine. And, ha ha, I can't help adding Standing's Running Sasquatch... highly unlikely a bloke in a suit could do that step down and immediate step up so athletically. Anyway mate, keep up the postings and have a good weekend. Cheers, Tim,U.K.

      Delete
    4. ^ Really Joe, the tim u.k. account again?

      Delete
    5. Hey Tim!!

      I don't think we can dismiss the rest of the footage he accumulated, no... But at least seeing it would be a good start to determining that. I believe I may have seen that snippet of Erikson's footage where the subject gets up and walks away into the brush... Is it in night vision by any chance? I seem to remember seeing it on a news programme that did a story on the up and coming documentary? It's very frustrating that we may never see that documentary. I was led to believe that there was going to be a few pieces of footage released, which ultimately begs the question, how many more important pieces of footage is out there that we may never get to see?

      Delete
    6. Hi Iktomi, yes that sounds like the clip I mean. Indeed it does beg the question. How about the alleged Security Surveillance film from The Cheyenne Arapahoe Lucky Star Casino in Oklahoma (?)? The tribe won't release it, apparently in order to protect the creatures from gun-toting researchers. Oh well. Cheers, Tim,U.K.

      Delete
    7. I've not heard of that. Do you by any chance have a link? To the cynic, it may sound like a convenient excuse, but the natives never want to allow these creatures to be messed with. It's in their culture to respect it and leave it alone. Messing with it is "bad medicine".

      Delete
    8. No link, sorry, I read it in Paulides' Tribal Bigfoot (pg.401).

      Anon 7:01 Don't be so daft.

      Tim,U.K.

      Delete
    9. I keep telling myself I'll get around to reading that bloody book!!

      Delete
    10. I'M DAMN TIRED OF CONSTANTLY HEARING ABOUT ALLEGED VIDEO THAT'S BEING COVERED UP. EITHER SHOW THE DAMN VIDEO OR STFU ABOUT IT!!!!!

      Delete
    11. I keep an open mind on Matilda,i wonder if some bigfoot look like Matilda and get reported as dogman.That report above is very believable.Very interesting too xx

      Delete
    12. 8:54... I guess in the mean time, you can just content yourself with the readily available video evidence.

      Delete
    13. Your conception of Native Americans ("messing with it is bad medicine") is cartoonish and insulting. You need to stop getting your information about Native Americans from old episodes of F Troop and John Wayne movies.

      Delete
    14. The fuckawai tribe was a real tribe idiot

      Delete
    15. Not only is iktomi a Stoodge,!! he also suffers from Dyslexia.

      HAAAA HAAAA HAAAAAA LOL!!!
      AC collins

      Delete
    16. Extraordinary how these Anons etc. chime in on a conversation that they really are not interested in. I guess they are children. Bless. Tim,U.K.

      Delete
    17. It's all about getting the reaction... the subject matter isn't important in the slightest.

      Delete
    18. Talking to himself now, guess that's two in Bellevue ^^

      Delete
    19. Anon 1:06 Don't be daft. Tim,U.K.

      Delete
  2. Replies
    1. Are you posing as the 20 something year old Khat Hansen today, or the 60 plus year old? I get confused with your daily lies.

      Delete
    2. You get confused opening a jar of mustard!

      IDIOT!

      Delete
    3. I'm posing as the female today

      Delete
    4. Rictor say's"TROLL KILLER WAS BORN TO SUCK KNOB"!!

      HAAAAA HAAAAA HAAAA LOL!!!

      good ole AC collins !

      Delete
  3. Replies
    1. ^ never did a damn thing in his miserable existance

      Delete
    2. That's right, give ole nappy Matt hell!

      Delete
  4. Yeppers it was my firsty TK yea!!Iam NOT 60 you troll twits! You don't know me!
    Hello my wonderful friend Iktomi! I hope you and all my other wonderful friends on here have a great day. I hope it's filled with smiles and laughs. Give all the trolls on this site their daily beatdowns that they deserve

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Fair enough Khat, but you seriously need to clear up an issue here. This very site posted a blog entry about you last year i believe. I can find it if you wish. It featured Khat Hansen, choctaw medicine woman, and the girl in the video, was maybe 30 at most. And i highly doubt that. She looked to be mid to late 20s and was quite attractive i might add. She also had a very distinct nose. Not that it matters in this case. It was Matt or Shawn who psoted this, and you may have even commented on it. Joe, Chick, and all the others praised the interview of Khat Hansen.

      There is a problem though. There is another person, who i suspect is the real you, who also calls herself Khat Hanse, choctaw medicine woman bigfoot enthusiast. Only this woman, yourself, is most certainly in your 50s, and is physically impossible to be the same younger individual featured on this blog. The reason i say this seems to be the real Khat Hansen (yourself) is because when you google your name, the common image that shows up in numerous instances is this older individual. These feature you at different speaking functions, etc.

      So Khat, who was this person featured on this blog, by the blog owners, and supported by the enthusiasts on this site, who was much much younger? You obviously can't be both of these people, so what is going on here?

      Was this younger Khat Hansen some type of phony? If so, why would she possibly pretend to be you? And why would this blog feature her and proclaim her to be Khat Hansen.

      If you can clear this up I will gladly stop asking about it. But i am not the only one who has noticed this. 2 very different women claim to be Khat Hansen choctaw medicine woman bigfoot enthusiast. So who is the real one, and why are there 2 of you? These are very fair questions, and like i said, if you answer them, ill stop bringing it up

      Delete
    2. Here is the young Khat Hansen featured on this site.

      http://truthseekerforum.com/about/khat-hansen-choctaw-medicine-woman/

      Delete
    3. And here is the older Khat Hansen, who appears to be yourself. So which one are you Khat? Why do 2 people claim to be bigfoot enthusiast choctaw medicine woman Khat Hansen?

      http://newsoftomorrow.org/abductions/visions/khat-hansen-femme-medecine-choctaw-sur-les-peuples-de-la-realite-multidimensionnelle

      Delete
    4. Wheres your pic? I wanna see it Donald!

      Delete
    5. Well alright. Want any of you sexy blokes want my email? Huhhh huhhh.


      http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/hippopotamus-in-the-mara-river-picture-id536986391?s=170667a

      Delete
    6. To Joe and the others who seem to talk to Khat regularly, can you explain this??? This isn't trolling. This is a legitimate question. There are 2 different people who are claiming to be this one character. So who is the real one?

      Delete
    7. And here I am at the beach. I know RIGHT!?

      http://flutterinn.com/hippo.jpg

      Donald/ Stuey/ Brandon/ Fake Joe

      Delete
    8. Largest ok at the troll go ^ ^^ ^^^ ^^^^

      The meds are kicking in now boy !

      Delete
    9. ^^^ What the heck is wrong with you....WHO CARES?? This is supposed to be a Bigfoot Evidence site, dingbat! What satisfaction do you need wonder who Khat is, really, seriously, get a life!!

      ALL THESE BIGFOOT TERRORIZING PEOPLE WITHOUT CAMERA'S...EPIC!

      Delete
    10. Dr. Squatch I think you are suffering from pareidolia which is seeing faces when your brain is just synthesizing the image you should look it up it might help you improve your photogrpahy.

      Delete
    11. That's Ok Dr Squatch, I'll gladly answer, I am a grifter

      Delete
    12. It doesn't matter who she is. What matters is that there are 2 people claiming to be the same individual. This individual supports and speaks on the bigfoot community. So wouldn't you want her to have crediiblity? And if someone is pretending to be her, why aren't you concerned.

      Why arent you conerned DS, that there is somethign very off here? I don't care what Khat Hansen looks like, but I do care that there are 2 people saying they are her.

      Wouldn't you want the bigfoot community to be honest with you? All Khat has to do is to explain whats going on here.

      Delete
    13. also Dr. Squatch you should look at this wiki entry:

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Focus_(optics)

      "An image, or image point or region, is in focus if light from object points is converged almost as much as possible in the image, and out of focus if light is not well converged. The border between these is sometimes defined using a circle of confusion criterion."

      Delete
    14. The more I watch this blog, the more it seems that the bigfoot community will defend anyone who claims to be a believer, regardless of what they do, or have done.

      You have DS and his insane theories, of course thats assuming he isn't just trolling. You have people who believe in cloaking, zapping, mindspeak, portal travel, etc, and not one bigfoot believer here EVER EVER EVER questions them or calls them out. And the trend seems to be continuing with the Khat Hansen thing.

      Being a bigfooter, it seems you have to follow a set of rules. One being to always defend other believers, no matter what they do. This is the same rule followed in the black communities.

      Delete
    15. That's ok, no one should take me seriously. ..halitosis, halitosis

      Delete
    16. Who are you pretending to be at 6:49? Another Khat? I guess you're guilty of the crime then aren't you? Didn't think that one out well did you?

      Delete
    17. lol circle of confusion

      Doc has the franchise on "not well converged" bahahahahahahahaha

      Delete
    18. And now you've gone full retard once again. Big ^surprise.

      Delete
    19. The crime of being a woman with a penis , I guess I am the real Khat

      Delete
    20. Well he does use a dildo for a camera. You ever try to focus one of those things?

      Delete
    21. Apparently you didn't think out your response well 6:54, that or you have little intelligence. You seem to believe, much like Joe, that all these comments are coming from one troll. You would be wrong. So your comment bares no merit.

      Delete
    22. Aaah guh guh guh. . Penisk

      Delete
    23. Oh yes I know you count your multiple personalities as separate people. Unfortunately that doesn't make it so. Take your meds, you've fractured too early in the day, you'll never make it until dinner time.

      Delete
    24. You just don't realize how stupid you look 7:02. To mee, and also to the troll you are referring too who is also in this comment sections. But try and take the focus off of Khat. For all i know, you are the one who is trolling with the fake Khat Hansen account. It has as much merit as you blaming me. Are you sure your not Joe? You sound like him.

      Delete
    25. Get the auto-focus dildo silly.

      Delete
    26. Heavenly Father talks to me in my head and tells me that is Iktomi, he is as smart as KAUPE and Dr Squatch so you trolls are outmatched in the witless department

      Delete
    27. Docs stuff makes me hungry cause it sometimes looks like food. Does that make sense?

      That last one from yesterday looked like a stack of pancakes with butter an syrup on em and a couple of days ago one looked like roast beef yknow like a roast. See what I mean ok now I'm hungry.

      Delete
    28. Yes Dr Squatch doesn't even bother to go to the back porch to take photos anymore, he just sees Bigfoot everywhere

      Delete
    29. Dr Squatch, you are quite right. All these people being harassed on their properties and NO photos. Much as I like The Sasquatch Chronicles, when Callers complain about harassment I can't help but think why the hell don't they put motion-activated cameras and spotlights around their houses? Either this will stop the creatures coming around, or they'll get photos. Result either way. Tim,U.K.

      Delete
    30. In optics, a circle of confusion is an optical spot caused by a cone of light rays from a lens not coming to a perfect focus when imaging a point source. It is also known as disk of confusion, circle of indistinctness, blur circle, or blur spot.

      In photography, the circle of confusion (CoC) is used to determine the depth of field, the part of an image that is acceptably sharp. A standard value of CoC is often associated with each image format, but the most appropriate value depends on visual acuity, viewing conditions, and the amount of enlargement. Properly, this is the maximum permissible circle of confusion, the circle of confusion diameter limit, or the circle of confusion criterion, but is often informally called simply the circle of confusion.

      Real lenses do not focus all rays perfectly, so that even at best focus, a point is imaged as a spot rather than a point. The smallest such spot that a lens can produce is often referred to as the circle of least confusion.

      Delete
    31. 6:54, What?? I'm on EVERY believer/researcher who doesn't produce evidence!
      I don't have any theories i can't prove...all of my evidence is 100% Legit.

      Delete
    32. Two important uses of this term and concept need to be distinguished:

      For describing the largest blur spot that is indistinguishable from a point. A lens can precisely focus objects at only one distance; objects at other distances are defocused. Defocused object points are imaged as blur spots rather than points; the greater the distance an object is from the plane of focus, the greater the size of the blur spot. Such a blur spot has the same shape as the lens aperture, but for simplicity, is usually treated as if it were circular. In practice, objects at considerably different distances from the camera can still appear sharp (Ray 2000, 50); the range of object distances over which objects appear sharp is the depth of field (“DoF”). The common criterion for “acceptable sharpness” in the final image (e.g., print, projection screen, or electronic display) is that the blur spot be indistinguishable from a point.
      For describing the blur spot achieved by a lens, at its best focus or more generally. Recognizing that real lenses do not focus all rays perfectly under even the best conditions, the term circle of least confusion is often used for the smallest blur spot a lens can make (Ray 2002, 89), for example by picking a best focus position that makes a good compromise between the varying effective focal lengths of different lens zones due to spherical or other aberrations. The term circle of confusion is applied more generally, to the size of the out-of-focus spot to which a lens images an object point. Diffraction effects from wave optics and the finite aperture of a lens can be included in the circle of least confusion;[1] the more general circle of confusion for out-of-focus points is often computed in terms of pure ray (geometric) optics.[2]

      In idealized ray optics, where rays are assumed to converge to a point when perfectly focused, the shape of a defocus blur spot from a lens with a circular aperture is a hard-edged circle of light. A more general blur spot has soft edges due to diffraction and aberrations (Stokseth 1969, 1317; Merklinger 1992, 45–46), and may be non-circular due to the aperture shape. Therefore, the diameter concept needs to be carefully defined in order to be meaningful. Suitable definitions often use the concept of encircled energy, the fraction of the total optical energy of the spot that is within the specified diameter. Values of the fraction (e.g., 80%, 90%) vary with application.

      Delete
    33. ^ Joe posting anonymously. Notice that the above paragraph was all copy and pasted from another site, and not cited as a source. I wonder who does that regularly. Caught again copyrighting Joe.

      Delete
    34. In photography, the circle of confusion diameter limit (“CoC”) for the final image is often defined as the largest blur spot that will still be perceived by the human eye as a point.

      With this definition, the CoC in the original image (the image on the film or electronic sensor) depends on three factors:

      Visual acuity. For most people, the closest comfortable viewing distance, termed the near distance for distinct vision (Ray 2000, 52), is approximately 25 cm. At this distance, a person with good vision can usually distinguish an image resolution of 5 line pairs per millimeter (lp/mm), equivalent to a CoC of 0.2 mm in the final image.
      Viewing conditions. If the final image is viewed at approximately 25 cm, a final-image CoC of 0.2 mm often is appropriate. A comfortable viewing distance is also one at which the angle of view is approximately 60° (Ray 2000, 52); at a distance of 25 cm, this corresponds to about 30 cm, approximately the diagonal of an 8″×10″ image. It often may be reasonable to assume that, for whole-image viewing, a final image larger than 8″×10″ will be viewed at a distance correspondingly greater than 25 cm, and for which a larger CoC may be acceptable; the original-image CoC is then the same as that determined from the standard final-image size and viewing distance. But if the larger final image will be viewed at the normal distance of 25 cm, a smaller original-image CoC will be needed to provide acceptable sharpness.
      Enlargement from the original image to the final image. If there is no enlargement (e.g., a contact print of an 8×10 original image), the CoC for the original image is the same as that in the final image. But if, for example, the long dimension of a 35 mm original image is enlarged to 25 cm (10 inches), the enlargement is approximately 7×, and the CoC for the original image is 0.2 mm / 7, or 0.029 mm.

      The common values for CoC may not be applicable if reproduction or viewing conditions differ significantly from those assumed in determining those values. If the original image will be given greater enlargement, or viewed at a closer distance, then a smaller CoC will be required. All three factors above are accommodated with this formula:

      CoC (mm) = viewing distance (cm) / desired final-image resolution (lp/mm) for a 25 cm viewing distance / enlargement / 25

      For example, to support a final-image resolution equivalent to 5 lp/mm for a 25 cm viewing distance when the anticipated viewing distance is 50 cm and the anticipated enlargement is 8:

      CoC = 50 / 5 / 8 / 25 = 0.05 mm

      Since the final-image size is not usually known at the time of taking a photograph, it is common to assume a standard size such as 25 cm width, along with a conventional final-image CoC of 0.2 mm, which is 1/1250 of the image width. Conventions in terms of the diagonal measure are also commonly used. The DoF computed using these conventions will need to be adjusted if the original image is cropped before enlarging to the final image size, or if the size and viewing assumptions are altered.

      Delete
    35. Using the “Zeiss formula”, the circle of confusion is sometimes calculated as d/1730 where d is the diagonal measure of the original image (the camera format). For full-frame 35 mm format (24 mm × 36 mm, 43 mm diagonal) this comes out to be 0.025 mm. A more widely used CoC is d/1500, or 0.029 mm for full-frame 35 mm format, which corresponds to resolving 5 lines per millimeter on a print of 30 cm diagonal. Values of 0.030 mm and 0.033 mm are also common for full-frame 35 mm format. For practical purposes, d/1730, a final-image CoC of 0.2 mm, and d/1500 give very similar results.

      Criteria relating CoC to the lens focal length have also been used. Kodak (1972), 5) recommended 2 minutes of arc (the Snellen criterion of 30 cycles/degree for normal vision) for critical viewing, giving CoC ≈ f /1720, where f is the lens focal length. For a 50 mm lens on full-frame 35 mm format, this gave CoC ≈ 0.0291 mm. This criterion evidently assumed that a final image would be viewed at “perspective-correct” distance (i.e., the angle of view would be the same as that of the original image):

      Viewing distance = focal length of taking lens × enlargement

      However, images seldom are viewed at the “correct” distance; the viewer usually doesn't know the focal length of the taking lens, and the “correct” distance may be uncomfortably short or long. Consequently, criteria based on lens focal length have generally given way to criteria (such as d/1500) related to the camera format.

      If an image is viewed on a low-resolution display medium such as a computer monitor, the detectability of blur will be limited by the display medium rather than by human vision. For example, the optical blur will be more difficult to detect in an 8″×10″ image displayed on a computer monitor than in an 8″×10″ print of the same original image viewed at the same distance. If the image is to be viewed only on a low-resolution device, a larger CoC may be appropriate; however, if the image may also be viewed in a high-resolution medium such as a print, the criteria discussed above will govern.

      Depth of field formulas derived from geometrical optics imply that any arbitrary DoF can be achieved by using a sufficiently small CoC. Because of diffraction, however, this isn't quite true. Using a smaller CoC requires increasing the lens f-number to achieve the same DOF, and if the lens is stopped down sufficiently far, the reduction in defocus blur is offset by the increased blur from diffraction.

      Delete
    36. They're saying you're insane Dr Squatch

      Delete
    37. "circle of indistinctness"

      roflmao

      Yep thats Dr. Squatch!

      Delete
    38. Bigfoot blur the best camera's, if you researched them, and had pics of them you would know this!
      If it is camera blur, then everyone should have a Bigfoot pic right?
      WRONG! Blurry is a good thing as far as i'm concerned, it differentiates real from fake, most of the time.
      Eyes, and lips are apparent!

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zW0Ff-Cc_QE

      Delete
    39. Yes, eyes and lips of dogs and squirrels submitted as Bigfoot evidence

      Delete
    40. Wait... Bigfoot blur cameras? How?

      You mean they are interdimensional, right?

      Delete
    41. Camera man/woman just blinded me with science xx

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2VNxmn0lNA

      Delete
    42. My oh my 5:47, you DARE to question Khat! A Choctaw Medicine woman who interacts with Beings known as Bigfoot! The audacity of your accusations is shocking. If her Sasquatch friends don't get you than Deebs surely will! Either way your head is coming off like a soda bottle cap. Repent now to the heavenly father before it's too late!

      Delete
    43. I've spoken out against DS several times. Along with any researcher who claims a majority of what you listed. Please stop your blabbering.

      Delete
  5. This comment section is a Circle of Confusion.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. More like a circle of jerkin

      And all from one troll

      Delete
    2. Aaah guh guh guh. . Penisk

      Delete