2013 Rookie of the Year

Editor's Note: This is a guest post by Bigfoot Evidence contributor Dirk Taylor, a Sasquatch enthusiast.

Once again it is that time of year, the time to announce the 2013 Bigfoot Researcher Rookie of the Year. The Rookie of the Year is the individual who has made the biggest impact on the field of Bigfoot Research during their first year “on the scene”.

Thanks to a number of suggestions from those who participated we have decided to “officially” name the award the “LeBus-Lindsay” Rookie of the Year award. This name is designed to honor initial winner Jim LeBus and incorporate Robert Lindsay, a man whose work is what all first year researchers should attempt to emulate. A huge thanks to all 458 people who participated.

For those who have asked, the voters consist of individuals involved in Bigfoot research who have been nominated to participate by three peers. For example if a person would like to be involved they need to have any 3 peers nominate them for participation. There is no special list of who can nominate a party, they only need be known in the field and their nomination verified.

First the runners up.

Mike Brookreson. (7 votes) If there were an award for trying hard Mike would be the winner. His hard work earned him a few votes but in the end you either have to deliver results or have an impact to be considered a serious contender. Keep trying Mike, you have a lot of potential.

Les Stroud. (67 votes) While already a well-known celebrity, Les had only briefly touched on his encounters prior to 2013. The minute he did everyone stood up and listened. Les created a huge buzz by recounting his own experiences in detail for the first time and announcing his intent to collaborate with Todd Standing. In any other year Les would have likely won the award as he is responsible for making the world aware of two encounters, immediately deemed legitimate, because of his credibility. By simply telling of his own experiences Les immediately created interest among many who had been very skeptical before.

Drum roll please.

The 2013 LeBus-Lindsay Rookie of the Year Award goes to none other than Superman himself Dean Cain. The host of Spike TV’s 10,000,000 Bigfoot Bounty, Dean made a huge splash in 2013, collecting 378 votes. While the show does not begin airing until next month, Dean’s involvement in the project generated a huge buzz and brought a great deal of mainstream credibility to the field. With all do respect to Matt Moneymaker, he is a researcher who became a celebrity. Dean Cain is a celebrity who became a researcher, the first of his kind and a pioneer. Dean’s involvement in the field will have a huge impact on future celebrities interested in the field and has opened the door for them to do so.

Congratulations Dean on the 2013 LeBus-Lindsay Rookie of the Year Award, you earned it and deserve it.


  1. Replies
    1. There's been a lot of talk around here last couple of days about Bill Munns? Anyone would think people are starting to get worried??

      Ha ha ha ha!!

      You see... A lot of what Bill does is mere common sense. Something that Tards are actually overthinking in their cartwheels of worry. When Bill Munns compares the proportions of Patty to a 'normal human'; we see something very obvious in the junction of two points of the right leg when pasted on top of eachother, from the hip socket. It is here where you have an amazing example of the posture of the upper and lower leg of Patty; the upper leg is far shorter. The crotch area of Patty is far more higher than the average human norm and like Bill States; "when you put a costume on, it always adds, it never subtracts". If you were to put the 'costume' on a human being, then we would expect the crotch area to be lower than what is clearly not the case when comparing the proportions. The arm length of Patty is 10% longer than that of a normal human in comparison proportion & scale, the 10% being in the shoulder area. When matching this over that of a normal human, the problem is evident when trying to accommodate this in comparison to a normal human, Patty's knees fall way shorter. Bill even extends this to show the possibility of using football shoulder pads, and it still cannot match the proportions of a normal human. Bill also extends the comparison image's scale of Patty by 25% , but you still have the arm with bending fingers reaching far lower than the proportions of what a normal human can achieve in a suit. The shoulder joint and base of the neck of Patty require to be shifted forward actually into the neck of a normal human for the eyes of the 'mask' to align with normal human proportions. It is therefore impossible to get the mask to fit on the shoulders of a normal human and maintain the rest of the proportions to fit on a normal person in a suit.

      Shall we talk about the materials that weren't even in production then and the reality of a broke cowboy attaining such materials?

      ; )

    2. That should get em a running!! Ha ha ha ha!!!

    3. The subject used in the Stanford University analyisis, obviously not Patty; an actor who, in the opinion of the researchers present; has a 'conclusively accurate' gate to Patty. Dr James Gamble makes two odd statements regarding the unnatural motion Patty has in comparison to the actor used:

      "He (the actor) won't be able to achieve foot clearance by bringing the foot up."

      "As the trunk is flexed or is leaning forward, this creature (on the basis of the difficulty & style of the actor and what he would be able to achieve) will not be able to walk all day in the upright position."

      Furthermore, you can see for yourself on the monitor with measured markings in comparison to Patty; the actor is close... But no match. What we have here is a conclusion based on closely re-enacted similarities, and is not conclusive as far as the footage goes when considering the counter arguments for them. So, if we are to accept the conclusions of Stanford, are we to not believe the subject in PGF is a Bigfoot based on reasoning that the actor used would have issue with maintaining the gate of the subject and that the gate replicated was 'close'? This is something mainstream science does so well in looking for closure; not good science. But this is just as far as the gate in concerned.

    4. ^^ talking to himself is a very bad sign of mental instability

    5. ... Said the therapist to his consultant whilst the scared and confused anon lay hypnotized on the couch...

  2. What's with all these ridiculous "Researcher of the Year" and "Rookie of the Year" awards? Has everyone in the field suddenly decided to stop taking it seriously and just act like it's all one big joke all of a sudden? I'm not complaining if they have but these silly jokey awards are just terrible.

  3. I thought that Matt Moneymaker was a tour guide who became a "no findum expert colored with plenty of BS to cover up for his failures".

  4. For a minute, I thought Peoria actually believed in a big hairy ape man named Bigfoot; now I see it is just a game, where some people pretend to be believers while others play the skeptic role. It's rather like wrasslin


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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

Samurai Chatter: Have you used it in the field?