Extra, Extra Read all about it

Patterson Bigfoot film subject has been identified as a human.

This "press release" just hit the internet this week. I have been very reluctant to discuss it on this blogsite for a couple reasons.

1. The person who released the information has not disclosed the information about how he came to this conclusion. So, basically I dont have enough information to really give a opinion one way or the other.

2. Im just not sure how one could make a statement like the one above, without a body.

For years the Patterson Film has been the subject of hot debate, it has been poked, prodded, pulled apart, digitized, stabilized and enhanced some more. Yet, to this day no scientist has been able to definitively prove what the subject of that film is (to a 100% degree of certainty).

Now comes MK Davis. MK Davis is a good man, who I am sure has his heart, and his drive in the right place. I just dont understand how he can make such a statement based on film footage. There is a big difference between saying "I think this animal could be close to humans" and "I think this is film of a human".

I am all for the documentation of this animal, thats why I am in this research. I just hope MK can prove the statement above, because if he cant - and there is any question in the mind of science, it will be one more way for the skeptics and science to point and say "your grasping for anything to hold onto in regards to this film". I want this research to be taken seriously. I have many times applauded MK for his work, but I just can not get my mind around what he is saying here, it could be because he has not released all the information.. Maybe my opinion will change once all the work has been released, but I dont think so.

There is already discussion of a film and now a DVD to be released in relation to this discovery. Makes me wonder if this "new evidence" contained in the Patterson Film will be shown in either the DVD or the movie. I know Mrs. Patterson is very careful what that film is used for... I wonder what she might think about all this. Im sure all involved will gain all the necessary copyright priviledges, because lord knows you cant have a DVD, about new discoveries in the Patterson Film, without being able to show those new discoveries. That would be a waiste of my money. As for the movie (?) I have no information about that. So, lets see what happens there. You can read about that here: Loren Coleman on Cryptomundo posts 1 and 2

Is MK Davis right? Who knows. Guess your gonna have to Buy the DVD that is currently in the works, and watch the movie.



*This wont be my last post on this issue. I will be responding to some criticism directed toward myself. That's your teaser to watch this blogsite in the coming week. I learned a very long time ago - there is always more to a story than one side. Stay tuned. :)*

*Join in the discussion at Searchforbigfoot.org*

Men in Bigfoot Research; John D. Pickering

*All scenery photos and game cam shots, provided by John D. Pickering*

Most researchers know who the subject of this article is, but for those who do not know.

John D. Pickering is a Bigfoot Researcher in the Pacific Northwest. He searches for evidence of this animal in what I think is the best place to look for this animal.

John is a down to earth, and friendly guy - but he does take this research seriously, I respect him for his ability to stay objective. I have been wanting, for a very long time, to get an interview with John, as he is someone I pay attention to when he posts on various forums. John is very down to earth, and always willing to discuss the issues of this research.

Mr. Pickering gives this blog a unique perspective on the Skookum Cast - as he has seen it "in the flesh". That is not something many can say. He has actually sat and studied the cast. This is an issue we discuss during this interview, and I am so glad he was willing to discuss his opinion of the cast.

I would like to thank John D. Pickering for allowing this interview, and I hope to speak with him again in the future. I hope everyone enjoys John's approach to this issue, as much as I do.


Men in Bigfoot Research: John D. Pickering


Question: Please tell the readers about yourself.

John D. Pickering: I was born and raised in Grays Harbor out on the coast of Washington State. Lived here for 41 years and have never wanted to live anywhere else. I'm employed at a local paper mill and have been for over twenty years.

My first wilderness experience was at eight weeks of age, my parents took me fishing, and being in the outdoors has been my main interest every since. Can't say that I remember that first trip but I'm told it started to rain and they put me in a cardboard box to get me out of the weather.

Hiking, hunting, fishing and general exploring the outdoors has always occupied the best of my off work time. Luckily I live in a location that allows me to step out my backdoor and be pretty much out in the woods.

Question: Are you a member of any Organized Group(s) or are you an Independent Researcher? Or both?

John D. Pickering: Right now I'm pretty much an independent researcher though I'm part of the North American Ape Project. Past membership in the WSSSG and BFRO stopped when I left those groups.

Question: How long have you been active in the field of Bigfoot Research?

John D. Pickering: I've been active in Bigfoot research for about nine years. Before that there was a strong interest in the subject.

Question: Have you noticed any changes in this field of research over the years?

John D. Pickering: One of the things I noticed pretty quickly about Bigfoot research is how competitive some people and groups are. How everyone appears to be trying to outdo the other person or group. It really has been frustrating at times. If anything it has gotten worse in the past years. Though I do see some hope with the new groups.



Follow up Question: Why do you think that is?

John D. Pickering: I think it really comes down to human nature. We're dealing with a subject that hasn't been proven to even exist. The big prize, for many people, is to find the evidence that proves Sasquatch is real. They feel that with that discovery will come fortune and fame. It is kind of a race to see who comes up with the prize. In that race you don't want the other guy knowing what you think is information that will get you to the prize before them. I feel it has gotten worse because of the internet's ease of communication. More people are getting involved.

Question: What has been your primary focus, in this field of study? Please explain.

John D. Pickering: My first love has always been the outdoors so doing fieldwork was a natural for me. Searching for sign of a Bigfoot was just another reason to go into the woods. I started working with remote cameras after I met Dr. Meldrum and joined the NAAP. I ran remote cameras full time for several years for the project. I still use remote cameras now and then in areas that capture my focused attention. My main focus for the past couple of years is to try and determine what local areas have the greatest chance of having a Sasquatch or a group of Sasquatch living in them or using them. Looking for things that may set the areas they appear to use apart from the areas they don't.

Follow up Question: Being a member of NAAP gives you access to Dr. Meldrum the way many researchers do not. What are your thoughts on Dr. Meldrum and how he approaches this field of research?

John D. Pickering: Dr. Meldrum is a true scientist. He looks at things with the background and knowledge that brings.

His approach is much the same as any scientist's would be studying any animal that little is known about. I have a lot of respect for him. The great thing about him is that he is very approachable.

Follow up Question: Have you seen the Skookum Cast? If so, what is your impression of it?

John D. Pickering: I've been able to sit down and look at the Skookum cast a couple of different times. Because of my NAAP connection I have also been able to see pictures of the impression, and information, of how it was obtained early on before I was able to look at it. The first time I had the chance to examine it was the best. I had plenty of time to look it over and ask questions.



Rick Noll, being the man of few words, let me just look it over and really didn't say much other than to ask what I thought after I had looked at it for some time. Then Owen Cady sat with me and talked about its features and what they had found in their examinations of the cast. I will say the first thing that came to mind when I looked at the cast was elk. It looked very much like an elk lay.

But, there were things that didn't look right to me. Some things just didn't fit if it were from an elk. Hoof marks were not in the right place. The tendon impressions were totally wrong to be that of an elk. I felt that the impression was either a hoax or very possibly the imprint of the lower half of a Sasquatch. I knew the people who found the impression and felt sure that they would not try a hoax. I don't know what the lower half of a Sasquatch looks like, but I do have a good working knowledge of what elk look like, and how their joints move. I don't believe it is elk. If it is elk then someone altered the impression. I can't say that it is Sasquatch. I just don't know. One other thing that didn't fit for me with it being elk is the few numbers of hairs that were found. Elk hair like many other mammals changes with the seasons. Animals that have this changing coat loose a lot of hair.

I personally feel that an elk would have left a lot more hair in that mud if it had rolled around than what was found. Numerous hairs were found of several different animals but none in the number I would feel should be present if the impression was made by an animal that sheds it's hair. Even during the fall when it would be growing its winter coat. Just my opinion.

Question: What keeps you asking questions?

John D. Pickering: There are so many unknowns about Bigfoot. Everything we think we know is just a best guess. Every time I go out in the field I find things that cause me to have more questions that answers.

Question: What do you think about the growing numbers of women becoming active in this field?

John D. Pickering: The growing number of woman in the field is great. Dr. Leakey didn't pick woman to do field research on the great apes by chance. Women have a great eye for detail. Men tend to be bound by their macho attitude. I don't need to read the directions! I know what I'm doing! Women take the time to check things out and do it right the first time. I hate to say it but many of the women that are doing Bigfoot research now are not near as afraid of the dark as many of the men are.

Question: Have you had a sighting? If so please explain.

John D. Pickering: I can't say that I have had a sighting. I did see two dark upright figures in my headlights one night. They were large and fast but I didn't see them good enough to say for sure what they were. It was in the same area that I had been roared at, heard some wood knocking and had found some possible tracks.

Follow up Question: Is that kind of situation more frustrating? Seeing "something" and just not knowing what it was for sure?

John D. Pickering: It drives me crazy! It's like your so close but just to far away. The worst thing was that, that night it rained like crazy, and destroyed any tracks that may have been present.



Follow up Question: Can you discuss the situation when you were "Roared" at? What happened?

John D. Pickering: A hunting partner and I were heading back across a large logged off area to my truck that was parked at a gate. The area is walk in only. He was on a small ridge parallel to me when something roared at us for about five seconds. It came out of some timber that was a good six hundred yards away. It was so powerful that nothing I know of could have made the sound. In my opinion it would have taken a concert sound system to produce the sound with that much volume and power. We stopped looked at each other and he asked "What the hell was that?" Just then it came again for about three seconds and again for about three seconds more. When we got back to the truck my partner said that he didn't want to know what made the sounds. I had a good idea what I thought had made them.

Follow up Question: What is your opinion on "Wood Knocking" viable research tool? If so, why?

John D. Pickering: Even though I was shown doing wood knocking, I don't really practice it in my research. If these animals exist, I believe they do, and if they do what we call wood knocking. Then they must do it for a reason. Without knowing what that reason is we are more likely to scare them away by trying to imitate their behavior. On the other hand you never know. It just may make one curious enough to answer back. We're not doing too good at sneaking up on them!


Question: One piece of equipment you think is the most important?

John D. Pickering: A good camera. Far too often things are found and not documented. I've done this myself and really feel stupid when someone asks. " Did you take pictures?" You can't document something to well.

Question: Most researchers have one Report that "Stands Out" in their minds, is there a report that still "stands out" for you?

John D. Pickering: I guess it would be a local man who had a fairly mellow daylight sighting of a large creature cross the road in front of him. This man had worked for the Forest Service for years. Talking to this man it became very clear that the sight of this creature changed his life. It really shook him up. When he saw it he didn't want to accept it. When he did he realized that for so many years he had been in the woods and thought he was alone only to find out he wasn't. The look in his eyes and the sound in his voice brought that feeling through.

Question: What questions would you like researchers to ask witnesses?

John D. Pickering: Don't know that I want them to ask a certain question as much as just let the person tell their story and not to lead them with the questions they do ask.

Question: What you would like people to know about you.

John D. Pickering: Can't think of a thing.

Follow up Question: What do you think is the best, single piece of evidence, for the existence of this animal?



John D. Pickering: I don't know that there is one single good piece of evidence. That is the problem. There is a lot of evidence that is compelling. I think the track casts that have been made represent the most solid evidence. For me the number and complexity of them makes it hard to believe that they are all a hoax.

Question: Do you have any advice for a new researcher?

John D. Pickering: If you want to do this kind of research sit down and really think about why you want to do it, and what your trying to accomplish. Stick to those things and don't let others sidetrack you.


*Again, many thanks to John for allowing this interview, I hope we hear more from him in the future*

Update

I told Mr. EB I would remove the article once the issues with a website had been fixed.

He has complied. I appreciate his quick and prompt attention to this issue.

Melissa Hovey
The Search for Bigfoot

Getting out the Information

Bigfooters are taking on the responsibility of putting out factual information --- all on their own.

Recently a couple of new BlogRadio shows have popped up, the idea being to get out the information. Sure, there are programs like the X-Zone, but these shows focus specifically on Bigfoot and other topics in cryptozoology.

Great idea isnt it.

"Sasquatch Experience"

Sean Forker and Henry May run this excellent show, while it is still in its infancy - its a fantastic program. Henry May and Sean Forker are two walking books on bigfoot.

A few weeks ago, they asked me to be on their program to discuss my blog, my casting experiments with dermal ridges and my over all opinion on the field of Bigfoot Research. If your interested in hearing what I think on these issues - click on the picture logo for "Sasquatch Experience" and scroll down the page and click on "Archived Segments", then look for my name. I will warn you - I do have very strong opinions on specific issues.

I hope you enjoy the program :)

Sighting Report

Investigated by: Melissa Hovey


Length of Observation: Approx. 5 to 10 Minutes.
Date of Observation: June 16, 2006
Time of day: Between 6 and 7 am
Weather conditions: Partly Cloudy/Overcast

ANIMAL DESCRIPTION

Approximate height: 7 1/2 to 8 Feet Tall
Approximate weight: 550 to 600 pounds
Torso, stocky, thin, muscular? Stocky to muscular Build
Shoulder width: Broad (Witness was looking down on it at an angle)
Hair/Fur color: Dark Brown to Black
Hair/Fur length & Texture: Shaggy, long, Matted on the legs and lower section of body. Animal observed while it was in and out of the water.
Was hair neat or matted? Matted on lower half of body
Was hair/fur more like an animal’s or human hair? More like an animals.
Did witness collect hair samples? No
How many? N/A
Was skin or blood attached? N/A
Where were samples found? N/A
Will the witness provide hair samples? N/A
Did witness see facial features? Yes
Eye Color: Darker color - brown or green
Nose details: Flat Nose
Mouth/Lips: Only visible while it was eating, but witness could not describe them due to the eating.
Teeth: Could not see the teeth due to the animal eating fish.
Skin color: Dark brown
Brow ridge: Witness made no note of this.
Facial hair: Yes
Head shape: Large - upside down Acorn shaped head. Witness states "I thought maybe the hair was bunched up on the top of the head, and maybe getting wider going down."
Did witness see ears? No
Was there a muzzle? No remarks about this.
Was the neck visualized? No, just shoulders and head
Arm length and apposition: Longer than a human arm - would add 10-12 inches to a human length, not sure on length - but witness reports the hands hung down to the knee.
Hands or paws: Hands
Leg length, shape and details: 40' approx in length, massive (like tree trunks) Fur/Hair covered.
Proportion of legs to arms and torso? Largest part of the body was the lower section. Arms were half the size of the legs, in muscle mass.
Feet: or paws? Couldn’t Tell - animal was in Canary Grass
Number of toes? N/A
Was odor associated with animal? Not sure.
Description of odor: Musty Wet Dog Smell. The entire area had this scent by the water. Witness could not attribute this odor to the animal completely.

LOCOMOTION DETAILS

Standing, walking, sitting, squatting, lying down? Standing while Grabbing for fish.
Direction of travel: South on the river.
Where was the animal going? No idea, woods everywhere down there.
What was the animal doing? Standing in water trying to grab fish
Description of Gait: Kind of hunched over, almost like bad posture, large steps.

SIGHTING AREA

Terrain: Heavily wooded, with hiking trails, river.
Description of area: Heavily wooded Park land surrounded by Private property.
Longitude: N/A Latitude: N/A
Available water sources: Embarrass River
Available food sources: All kinds of wild life. Deer, Bear, Turkey, Wolf and ample vegetation.
Bedding areas, if any, describe: None seen.
Any cave systems in the area? Not sure, he has never seen any.
Where in relation to sighting/vocal/tracks: N/A

TRACKS

Were tracks found? Didn’t look, animal observed in Canary Grass and in the river.
How many? N/A
Length of track: N/A
Depth of track: N/A
Width at ball: N/A
Width at heel: N/A
Number of toes: N/A
Dermal ridges: N/A
Casts taken: N/A
Number of casts: N/A
Custody of casts: N/A
Contact information: N/A
Stride characteristics and length: N/A
Tracks aligned or not: N/A


VOCALIZATIONS

Were vocalizations heard? Yes
Date heard: June 16, 2006
Time heard: Between 6 and 7 am
Recordings made: No
Date of recordings: N/A
Custody of recordings: N/A
Contact information: N/A
Number of vocals heard: Multiple. The witness is unsure of the actual number.
Duration of each vocal: Very short
Type of vocals heard: Grunts
Description of Vocals heard: Short duration Grunts
Animal activity during vocalization: As the Animal was attempting to grab fish from the river.
Number of witnesses: 2
Names and contact information: Witness requests anonymity. I will turn over any information on this to a follow-up investigator.

SCAT SAMPLES

Length: N/A
Diameter: N/A
Consistency: N/A
Texture: N/A
Undigested material: N/A
Found where: N/A
Specimen collected? N/A


ADDITIONAL INORMATION NOT COVERED ABOVE

Location of sighting: Hayman Falls County Park, Shawano County near Pella Wisconsin.

An investigator sent me a report he located on the internet of a fairly recent sighting that was reported on a website called "Cryptozoology.com", I was asked to follow up and talk to the witness. After exchanging a couple of emails with this witness, he then agreed to speak with me by phone. Our conversation took place on June 29, 2006 at approximately 2:00 pm, and the contents of that conversation are disclosed in this report.

Witness says he didn't note any indication that this animal was female, so he assumes it was male. Witness went into this park with his son who is 13 years of age to do some hiking, looking at fish in the river, and "hopping the rocks".

Witness reports they were walking up a trail, from a shelter. They went over a small hill, and just over that hill is an area where you can swim and kids can "hop rocks." The witness and his son took a trail for hiking that goes off to the left of this area. The witness then reports, he and his son, left the trail to look at a stream 100 yards off the trail, when they heard splashing in the water. Witness's son was the first to spot the animal. Both the witness and his son then ducked behind cover where they observed the animal standing in water to its knees trying to catch fish. The animal reportedly moved between the water and what the witness called "Canary Grass" which obstructed the witness’s view of the animal’s feet. After the witness and his son viewed the animal for approximately 5 to 10 minutes, the witness stated he thought the animal had maybe noticed something or someone in the area, because it then stopped what it was doing (trying to catch fish) and "took off." The animal appeared to be startled by something. While the witness reported that the animal "took off" he also went into detail stating, "while it looked to be moving quickly, it really was not. The animal appeared to move fast because its stride was so long; it covered a lot of ground very quickly". Witness states when the animal left the area, it did so upright on two legs, witness reports all walking and movement by this animal was bipedal.

It should also be noted, the witnesses' view of any facial features was obstructed, because in their words "We viewed the animal from above it, on a ridge approximately 80 to 120 yards away." Also, when the witnesses could see the facial features of this animal, it appeared to be eating fish.

The witness describes the muscles on the back were massive, and he could see them flexing, as well as the arms and legs. After the animal in question left the area, the witness and his son left the area immediately.

Witness reports he will not return to the area. While the witness and his son report the animal did not see them, the witness is fearful of seeing this animal again, but is willing to give directions, so an investigator can get to the area and follow up if so desired.

The witness is employed with a local paper mill, and is an avid hunter. Although this sighting happened on June 16, 2006, this witness still seems to be quite shaken by what he saw. He in fact requests anonymity. The son attempted to leave the area before the father when the father remarked "Where are you going? There could be more." The son then returned to his father. I find this witness to be open and honest. He did not attempt to impress me with extra or exaggerated comments. He answered all my questions in a straightforward manner, and even answered follow-up questions as necessary. He seemed more concerned with the safety of himself and his son should he decide to ever go into this area in the future, although he states he does not see that happening any time soon. I did discuss with the witness that the majority of reports given about this animal are just as he witnessed, overwhelmingly the animal wants no contact with humans and generally leaves the area before the human does. He did not seem too impressed by this commentary. He laughed and said "Well, I’m not going back there at this point."

Investigator Notes on this area:

Information on this area: Highly scenic Hayman Falls Park is located on the Embarrass River approximately 13 miles southwest of the city of Shawano. The park occupies 35 acres, with approximately five acres of the west side of the river and 30 acres on the east side.

I could only find one report from this county, details are at this website:

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=135

Shawano County Information: County population: 40,664

Land area: 892.5 sq. mi.
Water area: 16.8 sq. mi.

Local Area Latitude Longitude Hayman Falls County Park Clintonville North 44.75 -88.84

Notable locations in this county outside city limits: Lakes, Reservoirs, and Swamps: Spring Lake, Hennig Lake, Pine Lake, Smith Lake, White Lake, White Clay Lake, Bahr Lake, Baker Lake. Streams, Rivers, and Creeks: Pony Creek, Packard Creek, Rose Brook, Kroenke Creek, Cleveland Creek, North Branch Embarrass River, Logemanns Creek, Wilson Creek, Murray Creek.Parks in Shawano County include: Navarino State Wildlife Area, Jung Hemlock-Beech Forest State Natural Area, Shawano Lake State Fishery Area, and Hayman Falls County Park.