Portals??

This question was posted on the Bigfoot Field Guide Facebook page today, and it brings up an interesting plague that has infected the Bigfoot Community now for the last few years.

Graphic above from www.bigfootlunchclub.com

After years reportedly of doing research like everyone else had for years, Matthew Johnson was coming up basically empty handed on his research.  So he changed his ways, creating a legend around a location he called SOHA (Southern Oregon Habituation Area), and began telling everyone he changed his ways and was having tremendous success, albeit, with no evidence to back up his claims.

He then proclaimed that he had found a way to open a portal that allowed Bigfoot to pass through from other dimensions into our dimension.  Once again, with no evidence to back up his claims, and anyone that asked for any evidence was quickly deemed an unbeliever and bounced from his Facebook group, the same group he begged his members to add anyone they knew to the group.

His attempts to grow his following in his beliefs brought about even more wild and supernatural claims.  He began taking people to SOHA that he thought would confirm his beliefs, people that he could influence easily.  While most of them have been cooperative in what he claims, mainly from his heavily strong-armed tactics that have been seen across the Internet, he then took Adam Davies up there.

While Adam did claim he saw something, he would not agree with Matthew on what Matthew claimed happened.

Finally after many in the Bigfoot Community would not believe Matthew's claims about a portal, he released a photo.

This is the portal that Matt claimed was opened.

But something about this picture didn't add up, and Randy Filipovic wrote a good blog about how it was debunked at his site.

To paraphrase what was found out, the photo was turned into a black and white photograph as shown below.

Black and white version of Matthew Johnson's "portal" photo.

Notice what appears to be a leg and a shoe?  Possibly a "croc" slip on shoe?  Where has that been seen before??

Because that is what Matthew Johnson usually wears in the field when it is warmer.  So what we have is a photo that Matthew is claiming is the portal, that is nothing more than a red filtered flashlight shined on Matthew's foot wearing "Croc" shoe.

So now, Matt is having to fake evidence to support his claims, in effect, he is now becoming a hoaxer in order to back up his claims.

He even claims that when the portal opens, its because he goes to the "House of Mystery" in Oregon to obtain the super powers to open the portal at SOHA.

Now, let's look at more facts, outside of Kewaunee Lapseritis, 99% of the actual Bigfoot Community researchers, people who spend their time in the woods looking for Bigfoot, have not come across anything outside of what Matthew claims to have discovered.  To this day, science has not been able to open an interdimensional portal with all the technology that they have, yet Matthew claims he can open it with nothing more than a flashlight.

Kewaunee Lapseritis is well known in the Bigfoot Community as espousing the "Woo" side of Bigfooting, from dimensional travel, to UFOs and more.  

Kewaunee Lapseritis graphic he likes to use that shows the extent of his "woo" beliefs.

So does Bigfoot "Portals" exist??  There is no evidence to even suggest that any such thing as "portals" are possible, scientifically, there is nothing to prove that they are even possible to be created.   Matthew is just using this to brainwash the masses who follow him into thinking he is the greatest Bigfoot researcher out there.  Even if Matthew would present more solid evidence to back up his claims, his hoaxing of the first portal photo will forever cast doubts on any evidence he produces.

PORTALS DO NOT EXIST IN BIGFOOT RESEARCH!!!

Dallas Gilbert Passes Away

Dallas passed away on December 9, 2016 at the age of 67 years old.  Dallas was well-known in the Bigfoot Community and while he could be proclaimed the "King of Blobsquatch photos" and some of his theories were a little far-fetched, you couldn't help but like the guy, he was good natured and willing to help anyone.  The BFG Staff and the MABRC would like to extend our condolences to family and friends of Dallas during their mourning.

Merry Christmas from the Bigfoot Field Guide

and from Bigfoot himself.

Stay safe everyone.

Misidentifications

Misidentifications

One of the most irritating issues facing Bigfoot researchers besides hoaxers and trolls, is misidentifications.

The photo below is an excellent example of what would be a misidentification.  While driving down a dirt road, I seen this dark object beside the road.  It has basically the outline of a female bigfoot with a sagital crest on top of the head.  

I realized within seconds it was a burned out tree trunk, but took the picture to show how people would mistake it for a Bigfoot standing there. 

In several cases that I have been involved in examining photos, it was clear that the person who took the picture knew what it was in the picture, but stepped back enough in hopes that no one would recognize that it was a burned out tree trunk and instead believe the claim that it was a photo of Bigfoot.

When a researcher is presented with a photo, they always need to play the Devil's Advocate and try to debunk the photo 100%, when they can't debunk the photo, then, and only then, should they say it's a "possible" Bigfoot photo.   Never, ever, should they say that is is a Bigfoot photo.  

Context and Patterns with Audio

Written By Randy “Rebelistic” Savig

Missouri State Director of the MABRC

I am often asked by people to listen to some audio they collected for an opinion from people in the MABRC and other independent researchers.  Over the years, I've listened to a lot of my own audio and have learned that context has a lot to do when trying to accurately identifying audio.  By no means am I am expert as there is no such thing as an expert in this field but I have compared a bunch of unknown audio to try and find what critter made it.

I have received a lot of clips with 1-3 seconds of a vocalization that is questioned.  It is so cool hearing the possible howls and screams that it is easy to just clip those out and say what is it. I've been guilty of that myself.  The biggest thing we deal with in the woods is distortion of the audio.  Whether it is the hills and hollers that echo, wind noise, insect or frog sounds, the quality of the audio is not the best for making proper Identification.  We all have recorded that howl or scream way off in the distance that barely registers on the spectrogram, which is the best tool for identification.  So we are left wondering.  Even some times when we do get close audio and a good spectrogram signature there can be distortion by mic hum, traffic in the distance, a whole bunch of things that doesn't make the audio crystal clear.


That is where context comes into play.  Without knowing what was going on before and after the vocalization was recorded makes it tougher for identification.  Let's make a scenario of audio in the woods.  Over the course of a five minute period you record 2 howls, 3 knocks and the neighborhood dogs go off.  In research we have all recorded stuff like that.  None of it alone is evidence by itself in my opinion.  But when it is reviewed as it was recorded the sounds can make a possible picture of what is going on at the time.  If the dogs weren't barking before the knocks and stopped when after the howls, it could say that whatever did the knocks alerted the dogs and the howls scared them.  Is that what went on for sure?  We don't know of course but it could be an indicator of some activity that may be what we are looking for, an apex predator.  Using context can also be very important when there is repeated sounds later in the same area.  Is there a pattern to it?  Do we still get knocks, then the dogs go wild, then the howls and the dogs go quiet?  If so that is a pattern and has more meaning than if it only happens once. Repeatability is one of the primary keys to collecting evidence.  If the same unknown sounds are repeated at different times it really makes easier to say that it is not a distortion.

I know that when we made the protocols for the MABRC Evidence Review Board, one of the requirement was to have at least 2 hours of audio before and after the suspected audio.  That way it is fairly easy to help weed out deliberate hoaxes, but more importantly gives us a good context on what is in the environment.  We've all seen those YouTube videos where someone goes out in the woods, sets up a video camera, and within seconds get a whole array of the different purported Bigfoot vocals.  The strange thing is that they are all so clear, they are all really quick and flip from one type of vocal to another.  Sorry folks, I've listened to a lot of audio collected in the woods and recorded some that I suspect is bigfoot and stuff like that in my opinion doesn't happen.  If it did we could track them easily find them because they wouldn't be quiet.  That is not the way any critters in the woods live.  One big red flag for me is when you ask these folks for the audio before and after you only get silence or the famous lines to the effect "if you can't tell this is bigfoot then you don't know anything".  Or "if you spent time in the woods you'd know what it is".   There is also some very good stuff out there but unlike the ones above there is usually a lot of subtle vocals mixed with regular woods noises.  Those are the ones where the average joe thinks is boring, or is mixed with known critters and because it is slow, or it must be a _____ because it happens at the same time, so they don't spend much time to listening to them.

The key to trying to understand the context of unknown sounds is a lot more than just listening to it happen one time.  When patterns start to be seen it is easier to compare to known animals in the woods.  Knowing where domestic critters are in your area and how they normally act, which dog bark is where, where the livestock animals are, all play in understanding when something happens that doesn't fit.  If you hear a cow or a dog where there is no dogs or cows you may want to take a better look at the sound to make sure your mind isn't filling in the blanks.  Keeping a detailed notebook of your audio you've reviewed including dates and times, keeping the raw audio files all are important if you are trying to see patterns and try to pick out behaviors as well as gives a better idea where you could set up the audio for clearer better results that could help identify what you are hearing.  This is very important for long term research as it allows us to better know when and where to set up to get a better chance of being in the right place at the right time.  I think we all would much rather spend time in the woods than sitting at the computer reviewing audio, comparing it to known animals, and looking for patterns, but by doing the review and research properly we can spend our time in the woods more effectively, have less review of the just normal known critters and regular woods sounds.  We all know how boring it can be listening to audio when nothing is going on and how exciting it can be when things are happening.  Context and finding patterns can help a lot when it comes to trying to limit uneventful recordings.


Also context and patterns can help with the known critters.  What coyotes, foxes, and other critters sound like.  What is the pattern of their vocals?  How long do the vocalizations last?  Is those odd sounding vocals that mix with coyotes actually coyotes?  Do they happen regularly or just occasionally?  Does it match the spectrogram of coyote vocals?  All that information makes it easier to hear when things are off or added vocals by another known or possibly unknown critter.  Listening to how normal critters travel through the woods can help with identifying foot/hoof falls.  Do they seem to move more when ambient noise is present or doesn't it seem to make a difference?  What can you hear happening during the movement?  Can you hear them eating as they move along?  Do they seem to linger in one area or just slowly travel through?  That can be some great information to have when trying to figure out what is moving around camp or recorders.  When you hear a predator call or an owl do the little critters of the forest give their alarm calls?  Or do they stay quiet?  How do the sounds change when a predator is in the area?  Again it is all stuff that we can use to put things into context to paint a better picture of how life in the woods works.  I think we all have experienced of how things can be so quiet when we come into an area.  But if we sit down by a tree and stay silent the birds, squirrels, and even the bugs start to move around again and there is quite a bit of activity and sounds out there.  I think there are patterns to all the critters out there like that which we can hear changes in activity and it makes it easier to understand what is moving through the woods.  

Funding and Farces

By Jim "Biggjimm" Whitehead, Senior Field Researcher, 

MABRC Western Oklahoma State Director, 

MABRC Mid-South Regional Assistant Director

What is the difference between seeking funds for research and scamming someone out of their hard earned money? Unfortunately, as far as cryptozoological research goes, its a very tight and non distinct line that is as blurry as hell. There are several reasons why this is true, and any researcher worth their salt should be aware of them. 

To start with, one needs to be aware of what real research is. Real research is not simply going out in the woods and sitting around listening for things that go bump in the night. Real research involves an honest attempt to gather data and interpret it, and then add it to the pool of knowledge. This means equipment. Any good researcher will tell you that there area certain tools you will need to gather said data. And these tools are not cheap. Scientists rely on research grants to obtain the equipment that they need. Unfortunately, this path is not available to most cryptozoological researchers. Most researchers are your average working class folk, and simply put cannot afford to buy the equipment that they need to advance their goals. This means that they have to seek the cash to buy equipment on their own.

Most researchers will actively find ways to obtain the needed money. This can include getting loans, saving, buying used equipment, or selling items at conferences and speaking events. There is no issue with that. But a researcher should NEVER ask for donations or set up online accounts designed for collecting money. In the eyes of the Bigfoot community, it immediately raises concerns that the individual is simply trying to get peoples' money and not do any kind of meaningful data collection. Often the researcher's reputation is tarnished if they try to gather donations, and anything they produce is widely thought of as questionable at best, or hoaxed at worst.

The issue again lies in the fact that cryptozoological research is widely regarded as a half witted psuedo-science by the media. In the public's eyes all researchers are scammers, idiots, crazy, or at the very least just plain weird. It appears to most people from the outside looking in that any attempt to ask for donations by a Bigfooter is a scam to get their money. With this kind of scrutiny from both inside and outside the Bigfoot community, a researcher should avoid the temptation to try to take donations at all costs.

Peers - The Scientific Community and Bigfoot Researchers - by Marie Simone Van Speybroeck

- by Marie Simone Van Speybroeck

November 10

Recently I had occasion to talk with some of my peers about the work amateur researchers conduct in the field of cryptozoological study. After speaking with several experts in the field of zoology. I noted that the same responses were prevailing among all of them.

There is a notable apprehension in the scientific community to accept data provided by amateur researchers in the field of cryptozoological study. Understanding that the cryptozoological and zoological study should follow the same rigorous guidelines is one of the key reasons for the disdain of science for the topic. 

So let’s see if I can try to explain how an amateur researcher can gain the respect of the professionals.

To fully understand the in-cognizance of the sciences in regards to cryptozoology one must understand the meaning of the word, (Cryptozoology). 

Cryptozoology is a pseudoscientific approach to the discovery unknown or legendary creatures many of whom are considered to be of folklore. It is a study in the undiscovered and is often conducted with out the disciplines and skills of a zoological team. The title of cryptozoologist is more often then not, a self bestowed credential. Though it is accepted by the public as legitimate the word describes a multitude of different disciplines. 

To understand this one must look at the field of zoology. Zoology is the study of animals. It is a multi disciplined field. A zoological team is comprised of several individuals whom are all expert in different disciplines. A typical team consists of a wildlife biologist, wildlife behaviorist, a veterinarian and a veterinary pathologist and a botanist as primary members, secondary or support persons would be a local guide and a animal tracker. For one individual to master each of these disciplines it would take a lifetime of vigorous study resulting in several degrees for a single individual. Not an impossible thing but a highly unlikely situation. 

So the first mistake made by many laymen researchers is to introduce themselves as cryptozoologists a word that describes multiple disciplines of which most laymen researchers simply do not possess. 

Credibility is dictated by the qualifications and credentials of the individual. So simply introducing oneself as a amateur researcher is far more credible then using the self aggrandized title of cryptozoologist. 

Credibility also demands solid repeatable performance witnessed by more then one individual and proven scientific technical methodology be used in all aspects of your research.

Literally 1000s of items of evidence are destroyed by contamination or improper retrieval, storage handling of evidence. 

Photographic evidence that is unclear such as blobsquatches. Should not even be submitted to the body of evidence. Researchers whom post photographic evidence and say “ can you see it?” expecting the viewer to find some fuzzy dark mass in a picture and convince them selves that it is indeed a picture of the creature in retrospect. Diminishes the researchers credibility. 

Researchers should never work alone. Teams of two are a minimum, teams of 4 or 6 are by far more credible. Every team should have one skeptic as a member of the team. This prevents enthusiastic researchers from committing (Boboizums) (named after Bobo, James Fay) a comedic term assigned to researchers whom are guilty of seeing and hearing a cryptid at every snap of a twig. Or fallen tree. So before you say that’s a squatch. Make sure it really is a Sasquatch. 

These things will all improve the credibility of the researchers. 


If you would like more help in research techniques please comment and I will do my best to help.