April 30, 2006

Petition to Protect Bigfoot/ Sasquatch

Here is your chance to make a difference in this search. Whether you think this animal exists or not - lets give this as yet undocumented North American Primate a chance to be proven without being killed.

Go to this website HERE and sign the petition.

This petition is courtesy of the X-Zone Radio Program with Rob McConnell.

April 22, 2006

A Very Special Congratulations

Congratulations to Sean Forker and his Wife on The arrival of their new Son !!!!

I am so very happy for you both, there is nothing more precious in life than the arrival of a new child - and the love that brings into your heart and life.


Well, new information popped up this week on the Sonoma Footage. For those of you who are not familiar with this video of an alleged Sasquatch in California - here is a link to the video to start out.

Mark Nelson's Sonoma Footage

Scroll down the page to the link that says VIDEO.. There are stills on this angel fire site as well.

Now, this "Mark Nelson" claimed to have filmed a Bigfoot while he and his girlfriend were taking a casual stroll out in the California Country Side one afternoon. Now, he sees this alleged Bigfoot - and grabs his camcorder - and gets the find of a lifetime on film. He then sets up this website - posts the footage and I think - then contacts various Bigfoot Research Groups. An Investigator out of California agreed to try and make contact with this "Mark Nelson".. Mr. Nelson was contacted - but was very evasive and would not agree to meet with the investigator. You can read much more about this investigation - look for the username "MasterBlaster" who is John Freitas, on this website: Bigfoot Forums

In the end John Freitas declared the footage and the story a hoax, and life went on as normal in the Bigfoot Community -- although -- the BFRO soon picked up this footage and published it and a full story on their website. To be correct in this I will say - the BFRO (Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization) became involved before Mr. Freitas had ended his investigation into the situation. The BFRO even went so far as to posting a statement about contacting Mr. Nelson through their website, although the BFRO already knew this was being investigated by someone - they jumped feet first right in the middle of things - and refused to listen to what Mr. Freitas had uncovered.

This in fact is the Statement put out by the BFRO on their website regarding the Sonoma Video;

The Sonoma Footage - 11/14/05

This amateur footage is blurry, shakey, and frustratingly short, but it's recent and it's better than the Manitoba footage.

It was obtained by a hiker on November 14, 2005, off Rock Pile Road in Sonoma County -- Northern California.

The BFRO will be managing the use of this footage, at the request of Mark Nelson.

For inquiries about the licensing of this footage,

please email

or leave a message at 949-278-6403

There is no practical, objective way to determine with absolute certainty that this figure is a sasquatch. The same applies to any footage, but the public should still be able to see the footage when there's reason to believe it is authentic.

Various people in the BFRO have seen sasquatches in the field and know what they look like. This looks like a real sasquatch.

We've seen plenty of hoaxed footage over the years -- footage of people in costumes (here's a recent example of hoaxed footage).

We don't think the figure in the Sonoma footage is a man in a costume. We would not be able to duplicate the anatomy of this figure, and we doubt anyone else can either.

The average person will look at this footage and dismiss it as a man in a dark costume who is pumping his arms in an exaggerated manner.

We see a skeletal anatomy that is not consistent with a human. For various reasons, the Sonoma figure would have to be a fairly simple costume. Yet a simple costume doesn't change the limb ratios of a human, only its surface appearance.

The young cameraman, Mark Nelson, was not looking for a bigfoot when this incident happened. He wasn't even interested in the subject before it happened, but he thought the thing he videotaped might be a bigfoot, so he let his girlfriend make a web page for the clip on He posted his phone number and email address on that web page also. Consequently, he received many phone calls. A few of those people were very pushy and tried to interrogate him, as if he had done something wrong. He didn't deserve that kind of treatment.

Nelson's story is consistent if you account for a few minor mistakes about the location description.

The location is on private land, in Sonoma County. Nelson got confused about the road name, stating that it off was Skaggs Springs Road. Driving the route he refers to in his description, the road begins as Skaggs Springs Road and then becomes Rock Pile Road. It's very easy to think, if you're not paying attention, that you are still on Skaggs Springs Road after it becomes Rock Pile Road.

Nelson also said he was fifteen minutes from the "recreation center" when it was actually a "visitor center". These are mistakes that someone might characterize as "evidence of deception," but they are simple mistakes that anyone might make who is casually driving through the area.

"We were driving west on [Rock Pile] Road. We were about fifteen minutes from the [Sonoma Lake visitors center] looking for a place to pull off the road and go hiking. We found a big pullout and stopped there. There was a cattle fence along one side of the pullout. There was a deer trail on the other side of the fence heading away from the road. We were hiking along that deer trail when we saw it."

Mark first noticed this figure as it was moving away from him. He had his small camcorder with him in his daypack. He pulled it out and ran toward the fleeing figure and continued videotaping.

At the beginning of the clip Mark is looking around trying to figure out where it went, when he saw it down below him on the hill. In the footage the figure moves to the left at first, then squats down trying to hide in the grass. It gets up and moves to the right, toward thicker brush and trees. Mark tries to zoom in but looses focus just before the figure is out of view.

An important lesson in this clip, and the Manitoba clip : Don't try to zoom in if you've got something like this in frame. Instead concentrate on aiming the camera and holding it steady if you've already got it in focus. It's easy to lose sight of a moving object when you zoom in, and you will lose focus for a few seconds at least.

Also, if you get footage of a bigfoot, we recommend you do not post your phone number on a public web site, unless you want pushy jerks to call you and interrogate you and threaten you. Instead you should report the incident to the BFRO, and provide your contact info only to us. We will protect your contact info and treat you respectfully.

The entire clip will be posted eventually. The clip available at present cuts off right as Mark zooms in and looses focus. There's only a few seconds more, but you don't see the figure any longer. The camera swings down to the ground right after the last frame in the present clip.

We've asked Mark Nelson to provide the full sequence. It will be posted when received, but we expect it won't show much more than what you see in the current clip.

Well, guess what... This week Showtime announced their new season for a show called "Bullshit" starring Penn and Teller, you can view the promo Here. Guess what will be airing on that program - The "Sonoma Footage". Penn and Teller are taking full responsibility for this video and even state as much in their promo for the show "We wanted to see how far a free website and a video would take us" or words very close to that. Well - they got the attention and publicity necessary to complete their hoax compliments of the BFRO.

But - will the only people who take a hit in this be the BFRO? I don't think so. I am sure the BFRO will take the largest hit - but other serious researchers will suffer, as we always do and move on.

Question - is it easier to create a hoax than it is to actually do the work involved in helping to solve a mystery such as this? I have a message for Penn and Teller - yes, we already knew it is possible to fake Bigfoot footage - Just ask John Freitas aka "MasterBlaster", as he didn't fall for yours. People outside this research seem to think, Bigfoot Researchers just believe whatever comes along - we do not. But, we do investigate sightings seriously.. Its not for us to decide based on a phone call or an email whether a claim is legitimate, you must speak to the person first and evaluate the area in question. We know its possible - as many videos have been exposed by the Bigfoot Community themselves as a hoax.. No one is harder on the Bigfoot Community than the researchers themselves.

What have Penn and Teller proven? Well, nothing in my opinion. We already know some research organizations are anxious and want to be the first involved in something ( bill gates would be proud of this thinking). We already know its possible to create a fake video - we have seen many blobsquatches and fuzzy pieces of footage before --

So, what have they proven?

I guess we will just have to tune in to find out. I have always liked Penn and Teller, and this will not change my opinion. I just hope they can be fair to the investigators that didn't fall for their little game. :)

April 20, 2006

Mike and Steve Part II

Steve, would you be willing to tell the readers about your "sighting"?

Steve: "Before I get into the circumstances of the picture, I want to explain what I was trying to do when I took it. Like many researchers, my comrades and I sat around a lot trying to come up with sneaky and devious ways to get close to the animals. One of the methods I decided to try was this: Pat Akin, John Prescott and I were normally the three that went on trips/overnights into our main research area in Pike County, west of Zebulon, Georgia. On a side note, this is approx. 20 miles from where the Elkins Creek footprint was found and cast. While we were walking through the area, Pat and John would hike at the front, going a normal speed, talking loudly and stopping occasionally.

I would hang back about 50-100 yards back, being as stealthy as I could, often crouching down and listening/watching. The idea was that if we walked through an area with an animal close by, the animal would key on Pat/John and try to cut behind them and tail them to see what was going on. If I tried to be as quiet as possible and keep low, maybe the animal would be concentrating on the other two and swing around close to me without realizing it. When out in the woods I like to hang back and on occasion suddenly stop, turn around and look around behind us for a few seconds. The photograph is one of those occasions where I believe the technique may have actually worked.

"On Sunday, March 7 1999, the three of us decided to take a day trip to our main area west of Zebulon. We actually entered the woods around 10:00 am and left around 2:00 pm as I recall. We had been walking around through one particular area for a couple of hours and had already had a couple of interesting noises/vocalizations and one crash through the woods. All three of us were armed with handguns. We went through one particular area and the two ahead of me decided to stop for lunch and sat down on a fallen tree in a small clearing. I was about 75 yards behind, and once I saw them sit down I stood erect and looked around. There, to about my 4:00 and about 75-80 yards away was an upright, pitch-black object standing in the middle of the trees. I was near a large tree (the one you see up close at the right end of the photo) so I stood behind it, peering around the side and watched the object for about two minutes. I estimated it to be between 6.5-7ft tall (I'm 6'-6" and I seemed to be about even with it as best I could tell at that distance). Due to the dense trees apparent in the photo I really couldn't find an angle from my perspective where I could get a look at the entire object, only above where the knees would be. I could make out the general outline of the object and what I thought might be a face and the outline of an arm ( I didn't have any binoculars with me that day; they're usually useless in this area due to the density of foliage), but I was too far away to see any real detail. The object didn't so much as twitch the whole time I looked at it. It's funny what you don't think of when you find yourself in that situation, but it didn't occur to me to try to get closer. I just stood there and watched it. So after about two minutes I decided to take a picture, which is the one you see here, at an angle where it seemed I could get the most of whatever it was in the shot. At this point I began to get concerned about losing track of my friends so I turned back around to check on them. They were still sitting on the tree eating their sandwiches. I turned back around to look at the object, and it was gone. I was getting a little spooked at that time, and when I reached Pat and John I told them what had just happened, none of us felt like rushing over to the spot and looking around. On our next visit to the area some weeks later we did visit the spot but found nothing. The ground was still cold and hard and there was considerable leaf litter on the ground, so we didn't see anything there in the way of spore.

"What I think happened is that the animal was moving (with respect to the perspective in the photo) to the left and was tailing my friends. It would have been nearly 200 yards behind them at that moment. When I stood up and looked around, it saw me and froze. Unfortunately for it, at the moment it froze it was against a light background and its dark fur/hair stood out and I could see it. It stayed frozen and watched me until I turned around to check on my friends; it then saw its chance and escaped. Soon afterward I examined the photo with a magnifying glass and scanned enlargements and Dr. Jeff Meldrum looked at it with a microscope (he determined it was inconclusive), but until lately that is all the analysis that has been done on it. "

Finally Steve, Can you give any advice to the New Researcher in the field?

I think the most important things are:

1) To have a clear, solid understanding with yourself as to exactly why it is you want to go look for Bigfoot
2) Have a clear, solid understanding of just how you really intend to go about your research and how you intend to actually accomplish your goals (think persistence and LONG TERM).
3) Be as objective and scientific as you can, and realize that this is the only way you will ever be respected.

Have these to heart and you'll do as well as most anyone has.

I would like to thank both Mike and Steve for granting this interview.

*Photos courtesy of Steve*

April 15, 2006

Profile of Mike and Steve , Part I

*Photo of Mike (aka Mike2K1)

Ohh, about a year ago, I was reading a website - and I found a whole area devoted to bigfoot. I happily opened it and began reading. When I then noticed someone using the name "Mike2k1" - he seemed very knowlegable about a particular topic he was discussing, in the area of bigfooting. I read many of his posts. I had not yet become "Active" in the world of Bigfoot Research, I was still planning my move to Texas, and kept my interest in bigfoot to a passing interest.

Then one afternoon, I read a comment by Mike2k1 - he only gave half the information, I knew there had to be more - so, being the nosy person I am, I fired off a Personal Message to Mike2k1 - and our friendship began. Mike2k1 helped to bring my interest in this Research from a passing interest to being an active participant. He has always been helpful and encouraging - friends like this are hard to find. I cannot say enough good things about Mike. So, you can imagine I am thrilled to be doing this interview and to be including his good friend and research partner Steve.

* Photo of Steve

I only met Steve once, at the 2005 Bigfoot Conference in Jefferson Texas (where he outbid me on a book - noooo, I haven't forgotten, LMAO) he is a quiet guy - but I imagine when he has something to say - he is someone worth listening to, as I pay very close attention to all his posts and take his comments seriously.

Question: How long have you been doing this research?

Answer from Mike: Actively, I have been doing research for about 5 years. I have had an interest that stemmed from a series of vocals I heard at a hunting camp back in the early 90's. I wasn't real sure about what they were other than they made me really nervous at the time. A few years later I was watching T.V. and ran across a program about sasquatch and they played a clip from the Sierra Sounds and it made me stop my surfing because it was similar to the vocals I heard at the hunting camp. I don't know if what I heard was a sasquatch or not but I have been looking at the phenomena with much interest in the possibility of something being out there.

Answer from Steve: I've been reading about Bigfoot since I was a child in the early 1970's; I've been active in the field off-and-on for the past 10 years or so.

Question: Are you Independent Researchers or are you involved with a group?

Answer from Mike: Steve and I formed SEBRA(South Eastern Bigfoot Research Association) about a year ago and it has been fun. I'm also involved with SRI and I am very excited to be involved with Georgia Bigfoot and the Blog. I respect Sam Rich and what he has done over the years. I think the three of us mesh well and look to see some exciting stuff down the road. I still look at myself as an independent, but involved with some fantastic folks.

Answer from Steve: I'm involved with SEBRA which is Mike's group. But for practical purposes I'm independent.

Question: Have either of you had a "Sighting"? If not, how did you become interested in this research?

Answer from Mike: I haven't been fortunate enough to have a sighting. I pretty much covered my interest origin in question one. LOL. I will say the more I'm in the field and the more I experience. The more I'm intrigued.

Answer from Steve: As a child I was interested in all kinds of mysteries, from UFOs to mystery animals to ghosts to Bermuda Triangle, you name it. Bigfoot was just one of my favorites. I didn't have a "sighting" until after I became a field researcher.

Follow up answer on this question to come :)

Question: Is there one specific area of research that interests you the most? Do you spend more time researching the animal, or do you research habitat as well?

Answer from Mike: I'm a field guy. I'm at home in the woods and swamp and prefer to be there. I do love the human aspect also. The study of the phenomenon has led me to meet some really neat folks over the years, some I have grown to call good friends. If there was one area that really interested me the most, it would be vocalizations and other sounds attributed to sasquatch.

Answer from Steve: Bigfoot as a human cultural phenomenon has always interested me a lot, but all aspects of the animal are interesting to me. Habitat considerations and the animal itself are closely intertwined; you have to study and make some assumptions about the animal itself to decide on what might be good habitat. I spend about the same amount of time thinking about both.

Question: Your thoughts on the Elkins Creek Cast? How was it discovered, who discovered it and where do you think its standing is within the Bigfoot Community and this search?

Answer from Mike: Steve is the one who could answer this the best. As far as the standing, I think before the cast was made sasquatch was primarily believed to be a Northwest phenomenon, but after the cast was presented eyes turned East. I have held and looked a Steve's copy of the cast and it is very impressive.

Answer from Steve: The Elkins cast was taken by my good friend Pat Akin, who at the time was a deputy sheriff in Pike County, Georgia. It was one of a trackway of five prints discovered at the site of a farm on Elkins Creek that had experienced strange happenings including a barn door that had been torn off to steal corn from a crib. When the police were called to investigate the barn incident, Pat was the responding officer.

Grover Krantz, Jeff Meldrum and Jimmy Chilcutt have all studied the cast and have concluded it's likely a real animal, particularly based on the dermal ridge evidence that has been found on it. It remains the only evidence from east of the Rockies that has withstood scientific scrutiny the way some of the PNW evidence has. Because of the Elkins cast, the idea of a Southern animal now receives a lot more credence from the Bigfoot community as a whole, and many established PNW researchers show a lot more interest in what's going on down here than they used to.

Question: What is the one piece of Equipment you never forget when going into the field?

Answer from Mike: My philosophy is:1: If you got'll forget it.2: If you need don't have it.3: If you buy'll never use it.4: If you do buy it, and don't forget will probably breakdown on you anyway.

Answer from Steve: I don't know, I think I've actually forgotten just about everything at one time or another LOL. The one thing I bring consistently is a small video camera, and I film all the time as a documentation of the trip.

Question: Can you both tell the readers something about yourselves?

Answer from Mike: I live in central Georgia. I've been in the auto industry for about 15 years. I'm married, no kids except for a German Shephard and a crazy orange and white cat. I enjoy fishing, several shooting sports, knife collecting and I have played the guitar since I was about 10 yrs old. I'm also an avid reader and read around 3 books a month on average.

Answer from Steve
: I currently live in central Georgia. I'm a manager for a mining company by day, and my other hobbies include collecting and restoring antique radios and electronics, antique firearms, and music.

Question to Mike
, Can you give any advice to the New Researcher in the field?

Well the best advice I can give anyone new to the field is to read Steve's "6 Things For A New Researcher." That is tremendous amount of useful info. The other thing is to, yes look at things with an open mind but realize that you can explain a tremendous amount of things with some research and investigation. There is nothing wrong with critical thought. Lastly, the biggest thing for me is the amount of wonderful people I have met. Craig Woolheater told me in Texas last year that it is the friendships that are built that in the end mean the most and he is right. I have met some great people in this field who have turned into some of my closest and dearest friends. To the new folks that is the best thing.

Stay tuned for Part II of this interview - Steve has more to share. :)

April 8, 2006


Alliance of Independant Bigfoot Researchers has members all across the United States and Canada. (link provided above)

Texas Bigfoot Research Center

Texas Bigfoot Research Center, Takes reports from all over the United States, with a focus on Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana and Oklahoma.

April 6, 2006

Vocalizations Discredited - Bigfoot Forums

Vocalizations Discredited - Bigfoot Forums

I would like to thank the men at West Coast Sasquatch Research for the time and effort (and chance) that they have put in researching this Chehalis Scream. I must admit, I am disappointed. The scream had been indentified by the researchers that this is a coyote.

However, this changes nothing about my beliefs that there is an unknown primate lurking in the forests of North America.

Some people seem do seem to be unhappy with this find, and that is their prerogative. But lets be realistic, the point of this research is to find evidence that convinces beyond a shadow of doubt that these creatures exist. Not to soothe our own personal wants for what is real.

As unfortunate as this is, it is also the prime example of un-bias research. Which, is what we all should endeavor to accomplish.
Job well done!

April 3, 2006

My First Cast

Well. I always talk about the work of other researchers and never my own... That's pretty much the way I like it - lmao.

I had a brainstorm the other day - I had never done a Track Cast, and who knows when I will ever get a chance to - lets face it, evidence of this animal is hard to find and the animal even more difficult to come across.. So, how do we practice and get good at making Track Casts?

We get our own feet dirty :)

Sunday I decided to turn off my computer, and run out to my local Home Depot( across the street ), Where I purchased Plaster of Paris, 2 - 2.5 quart buckets, latex gloves, and a good tape measure. I also picked up 2 rolls of hot pink tape - as it will be great to have in the field to mark my finds, or a trail.

Ok, so I took my supplies and headed down to the little creek that flows just below my apartment complex. I had a volunteer step into the moist soil near the creek( with their shoes removed ). I then thanked the person and asked their foot size - 10 1/2, you didn't think I would use my own foot!! :)

It should be noted, before trying any of this, I read and re-read the blogs by Rick Noll on Casting Tracks. I took notes and paid close attention to what he did, as he has great success - so why try to reinvent the wheel?

I dug out around the footprint - creating a "trench" if you will. I then marked off the area around the footprint with my hot pink tape - so I wouldn't step on it and ruin the print before pouring my plaster of paris. I then grabbed one of the 2.5 quart buckets and filled it with water from the creek, being careful to remove any leaves, twigs, etc. I then grabbed the 2nd 2.5 quart bucket and with my dry hand, I put in about 3 hand fulls of the plaster of paris, then slowly added water..

First Mistake: Put the Plaster of Paris into the water - pouring the water over the dry plaster of paris just makes clumps. I knew this before hand - and in my excitement to get to the finished product, I forgot. All was not lost, it just took a little longer to get all the lumps out.

It was decided in the beginning I would do 3 "pours" - the first being a thin mixture, the second being a little thicker, the 3rd being the thickest. Turns out, my volunteer didn't step deep enough or the soil just wouldn't allow the foot to sink in deep enough - or I filled too much for the first splash coat - lmao.

I cleaned out my bucket holding the plaster of paris mixture after the first splash coat - and waited for it to set, being careful to not let it sit too long before the 2nd splash. The second coat was applied approximately 15 mins later, being very careful to get around the edges outside the track cast and not get any sand into the plaster of paris.

Second Mistake: I didn't figure the moisture of the soil into the mixing of my Plaster of Paris.. All was not lost - it took a little longer for the plaster of paris to set up enough to start pulling away the outer edges, but it did not affect the final outcome.

Texas Soil is very sandy and has a lot of clay in it. This I discovered while digging the "trench". As I scraped the soil off my knife - I could feel the clay, I was surprised by that. I expected the sand but not the clay.

Why didn't I use Hydrocal? Well, I must find a store that sells it first. Second, this was practice, and I wasn't to concerned about needing hydrocal for practice. The measurements in this are not precise - I tried to get measurements, but I think its a matter of feel.. Also, its hard to take measurements on this for a 10 1/2 and translate those to a possible track of 12 or even larger, at least for me, as I hate math.

After letting the plaster of paris sit for about a half hour or maybe around 35 mins, I began to slowly pull the sand from the outer edges, being very careful to only take away what would fall freely. This is a very time consuming task, but the outcome would be worth it.

After pulling the cast from the ground - I took it back into my apartment where I put it in an old baking dish - and put it in my oven, set the temp to 200 degrees, where it cooked for about 2 hours. I then pulled it out of the oven and began the task of clearing away the sand that was remaining.

Here is the finished product - or as good as its going to get for now. :) Im happy with my very first attempt.. Practice, Practice, Practice. :)

And, Yes, I know I need to work on my Picture taking skills too :)

April 1, 2006

Lets Discuss Psychology.

The mere mention of the word "Invisibility" in bigfoot research - makes the majority of researchers pick up and high tail it for the nearest exit -- with myself quickly following behind. Now, before you read the word "Invisible" and pick up all your toys and go home, give me a chance to explain what Im talking about here. Do I think this animal can make itself "Invisible" - ABSOLUTELY NOT, let me be clear - ABSOLUTELY NOT. I am also NOT advocating the discussion of "Invisible" Bigfoot, it has no place in this research, and I will not allow responses by anyone who wants to argue that this animal can make itself "Invisible". This blog is not going to entertain that idea, NOT AT ALL. I can not state that clearly enough. I believe this animal to be flesh and blood, and when something is flesh and blood - it cannot make itself "Invisible".

Question, why would a small percentage of people report this? Lets say for the sake of argument these make up 2% of reports - it is a small amount of reports where this is discussed. Now - lets say only 1% of these reports are by credible witnesses - they display no outward signs of paranoia or any other form of mental condition, and the rest of the report seems to be credible - do we disregard the report based on the word "Invisible" - or should we look even closer at this report?

What is going on with these people?

Now, you can argue that 1% isn't a large enough percentage of reports to even care about - I say researchers in this field do not have the luxury of throwing out reports based on whether we understand Psychology. Yes, that's exactly what I said - PSYCHOLOGY. Im not discussing the "Paranormal" or anything like it here, so lets keep this to the facts. It frankly irritates me when a discussion like this goes into the "Paranormal" - or a fellow bigfoot researcher calls this "Paranormal" and refuses to discuss it. Im not sure who said it but "Keep your mind open, but not so much, that your brain falls out". Things we don't understand should be discussed - there are explanations to situations, some would find incredible and totally unbelievable - but you have to keep your mind open and be willing to listen -- unless of course you have found your bigfoot and are ready to march it in front of the media cameras. This is a discussion about Psychology and the role it can, and may play in our research, when dealing with witnesses.

It is a medical fact -

The human mind can only take just so much in a traumatic situation, and then it just shuts down, if you will. I think there is a very good chance that this 1% could be experiencing this very problem. This is known as a "Mental Block" (for lack of a better word). This happens to victims of violent crimes all the time - whether they be the victim or just the witness - it happens to men, women, children every single day. These people can tell you details of what happened, but when it comes to an ID of the suspect - they are blank, or they can remember something like clothing, but discuss a facial feature - and the witness just can not tell you anything, and the fact they can not remember haunts them - and many seek hypnosis to recover the memory. They can and do discuss things that are what I call "Safe" - a vehicle, clothing, things of that nature, they discuss events leading up to, during and after, but when it comes to the person committing the offense, its a complete blank.. Which in my mind is incredible.. But, I have seen it. Children can remember years of violent abuse at the hands of a parent, loved one or even a caregiver - they know who did it, but cannot remember exactly what happened to them - although they know they are terrified of the person as an adult, and as an adult the memories are recovered through counseling and hypnosis.

I started wondering about this when I read a specific report one afternoon. The witness described the area where the sighting happened, the witness discussed the events, etc... But, even with many attempts to see what was the source of the noises and or vocals - the witness could not spot the animal, and by the witnesses own account - the animal should have been right in front of him - as grass etc was flying into the air in front of the witness. So, the witness said the animal must have been "Invisible". It is very possible, with the fear discussed by the witness, this person was so scared and traumatized, he/she simply "blocked" the animal in question. It should also be added, the witness to this event discussed seeing footprints much earlier to the actual event - so, the witness had already set up in his/her mind that something was in the area, and if that's the case - could have already begun the process of fear leading up to the Mental Block. Now, can I say I completely believe this report, I don't know for sure, and just like any other woodland animal - this one could be very good at standing next to a tree or hiding in tall grass and "taaa daaaa" gone, but I also haven't talked to the witness either. I use this as a possible example and that's all.

I can not tell you how many times I have heard witnesses or victims of violent crimes tell me, during the attack they actually said to themselves "Im not seeing this", "this isn't happening", "make it go away".. So, are they getting their wish? I don't know - but this is something that should be discussed. It happens to crime victims every day of the week, and it shows no mercy to one particular sex - sorry guys, it happens to you too. As a researcher, you may not be afraid of these animals - or any animal in the woods - but there are people out there who are not Bigfoot Researchers, or even hunters - who know nothing about the woods, they go off for hikes and expect a nice day in the woods, then they come across something they have never seen before and the human mind takes over. Some people are just a little scared - others are Terrified.. Could the animal in question be anything other than a Sasquatch - ABSOLUTELY.

I have never seen an armadillo close up - until I moved to Texas.

Heck, I didn't even know they were in Texas - if I hadn't found out before I came across one in the field one afternoon - I may have ran for my life. So, hypothetically I could have set myself up for the very thing I discuss here - over an armadillo. Funny, yes - serious - you betcha. So, are witnesses seeing a sasquatch and "blocking" out of fear? I don't know for sure, but I also wont know - if I don't take the report and listen closely to what the witness is saying. Agreeing with the witness that their animal in question is "Invisible" only makes the situation worse, as they will then believe the animal is "Invisible" and the chances of this witness recovering the memory are much less.

If these reports of "Invisibility" are a psychological response to fear, are we being fair to the witnesses by not taking these reports seriously? Do we know so much about this animal that we can simply throw out reports because there are words or situations we as researchers do not understand? Are we doing this research any good by doing so?

If law enforcement officials take reports from victims of crime, and the victim has mentally blocked the suspect, are they crazy to believe these witnesses? Should Law Enforcement officials stop taking these types of statements?

This is about Psychology. Either you understand it, or you don't...

But, to simply dismiss the possibility of this happening - even though it does in fact happen to people who are traumatized in other situations, is not fair to the witness or to the research. This type of report might require a little work, and some real foot work, some good honest investigation.

But, isn't that what this is all about?