Wednesday, August 11, 2010
Over the last 24 hours we have received many questions on just the exact area we photographed the Bigfoot. Some authority figures are questioning if the area was at or near Sru lake. Also, questions are arising on if USFS needed to be aware of our search and all evidence collected. Our attorney has made it quite clear that for no reason were we ever required or even compelled to say anything to USFS. I'm very familiar with the laws of the state about who has jurisdiction over any such animals.
The pictures have come out better than we thought possible.
It was one of these pictures that Mrs. Hamilton was able to identify the Bigfoot as the very same creature that she saw. Something we've never talked about is the facts that brought us up to this area again. We had received very good evidence from a person about the recent sighting of this creature from a nearby lookout.We have not said anything that was told to us and we won't divulge their name or report .
Emery, Saxton and Parchell have applied for copyrights to these photos. Numerous request for viewing have come, and in two cases were allowed. Now, one other thing; It has been brought up that we may be causing the Bigfoot to be harassed by other Bigfoot hunters or researchers by releasing the photos of it. We must dismiss this notion because absolutely nobody other than ourselves know the location of our recent project.
The Sru Lake area was only a point of reference for people to know the general region we were in.
Bill, Cole nor I, will not make it easy for anybody with different reasons like money or fame to find it. This creature needs to be respected and left alone in his home.
Comment #2: Hank
When the pictures are copyrighted they will be all sent to Linda Perry for viewing on Ballyhoo. Nobody else will receive them. Linda deserves praise from all for posting this journey with ECP and keeping Bigfoot a respected animal not a circus show. Good Night All
Thank you so much Hank. We appreciate your answering our questions. ... Linda Newton-Perry
Hank, did you get to see the other three cam trail photos? Did the Hamilton's recognize the animal's face from the first photo (face only) or from one of the four cam trail photos?... I'm asking these questions for all of us bigfoot believers. You know we are very excited to hear news. Of course, only news you feel comfortable in telling. Thank you for all the information you've already given us. Your account of the sighting was almost as good as being there. Well .... maybe not as good as but real close. ... Linda Newton-Perry
Original photo: photoexpress
Discovering bigfoot shouldn't be a game. In the end, we will all be winners. Talk bigfoot, be positive and let's get on with winning the prize! Comment on bigfoot sites and tell them about Bigfoot Ballyhoo. Tell them we "expect" to win because bigfoot is no joke, and finding him is no "winner takes all game"!
Comment that applies here:
Another thought, there have been so many hoaxes over the years that people are loath to get excited about possible proof. They are watching everything very closely but acting like it's a joke so they cannot later be ridiculed if nothing pans out. It's too bad people have to take themselves so seriously and can't just relax and enjoy the fun of this whole adventure.
Tell us what you're learning on other sites; what do you think about all this petty rivalry! We want to know, so comment.
(Part 1 of 2) So far, what I have found, is that the sites that I hold high regards for don't really have much as far as this story goes. Is it because they are sitting back and waiting to see what transpires before making any judgements? That would be the responsible thing to do, or do they just not know about Bigfoot Ballyhoo?. I'm not sure, but, the sites I despise going to (because they are just plain rude), for the most part, make desparaging comments about this site and the Emery team. What is so funny to me, again, is how they get the facts so wrong. I was reading some comments today that couldn't get the name of the lake right, the old name or the new name, or what has actually happened up there. Here are a few samples of what they are saying:
"The women in charge of the site doesnt want her 15 minutes to end so she starts talking about a crazy bigfoot that's running around and killing (killing? Where did that come from?) people up at Squaw lake. Everyone goes nuts. When I say everyone, Please note... I mean 10 people!" Obviously someone that really hasn't read what is truely going on, and miscontrued the facts...that is called ingnorance! Then we, again, have the "armchair researcher" that wants everyone to do all the work to prove to him they exist: "Here's a tip to all. If you have a "Clear Photo", either post it where the world can see it or don't SAY anything. Otherwise people will speculate and most of won't be positive. We've all been burned too many times. The fact that most in this field haven't figured this out yet is disturbing." Yeah, we all know what happens when you "post it where the world can see it". It wouldn't matter to these people even if it was a clear photo, they would quickly blow it off as a guy in a suit. (end of Part 1)
(Part 2 of 2) Then there's this: "This isn't poker. There's no reason to hold all your cards until you get something more convincing, or you can make some sort of coherent story. If the evidence can be shot down individually, then it can be shot down collectively. Even though some people say that blobsquatches aren't evidence, they actually are, just not good evidence." "This isn't poker"...actually it is, or at least it has been lately. Think of a prosecutor trying to prosecute a suspected murderer, you don't go to trial with one person that says he's pretty sure he saw that person leave the area sometime around the killing. Instead you build a case using evidence you have collected. Part of the evidence is used to create a timeline of the events, and other evidence is used to put that person at the crime scene. The more evidence, the stronger the case. And the more work the defense has to do to counteract that evidence. Each piece of evidence on its own can easily be dismissed, but, you put it together with other pieces that fit in the puzzle and things become clearer. An example of this would be; If I was issued a speeding ticket and there was no other evidence other than the cops word, a good attorney could get the charges dropped. But, if that same cop came to the court room with video of me during the time of the stop, a recent radar gun calibration sheet for his radar gun, and dispatch recordings of the stop, well then it looks like I would be paying a fine for speeding. Each piece of evidence can be refuted, but combined, a whole lot more difficult. Sorry for so much posting and the long comments Linda, I usually sit back and read, but lately the ignorance of the facts, especially the facts that go against preconcieved notions or agendas is alarming to me. I'm thinking its because of the economy, people who have lost their jobs are spending their days on the Internet, and it is easier to be a non-believer than a believer, you don't have to come up with any evidence, just shoot everything down either by laughing at the evidence or name calling (moron, nutcase, simple minded or worse). That's what I think is going on anyway. I could be wrong, wouldn't be the first time. Thanks for listening to this diatribe.
Anonymous has left a new comment on your post "Hank Answers More Questions":
Kevin, I know just what site you refer to. I've read darn near everything they have posted over the last couple years without ever commenting. Someone posted a link to Ballyhoo a few months ago and now this is my bigfoot homebase. I'm even commenting here because I feel comfortable unlike there. Just ignore them. No matter how good the proof is they will tear it down because many there are skeptics who will never believe. I've always felt proof was going to come from someone not 'looking for bigfoot', but Bill seems to have proved me wrong.
Comment: Diann E
Kevin you summed up the general attitude. In the last months one well known researcher with a good site has changed directions to witness advocate another completely said good-bye, I'm moving on, another has had a shake up in management.
Many who post sound bitter and disillusioned while declaring themselves belonging to the "premiere site" and the harshest critics of evidence but it is all self proclaimed. The statement that Emery is a non-player is simply he is not a member of the good ole boys club, he doesn't hang on their every word and rush his evidence for their approval and disapproval.
Generally there is a wait and see attitude. I know realistically Team Emery's evidence will not change some minds at all, however those field investigators who quietly work in the field every chance they can without the fanfare of the "good ole boys club" will use and benefit from Team Emery's whole package of evidence. Like the late Dale Saxton, Bill, Cole, and Hank, they are the REAL investigators out to show the world that North America has an amazing bipedal mammal living within it's forest and wilderness areas and that's just as it should be.
The only way I can correct comments is when they are in this section. I put Diann's here so I could correct the last name of Dale Saxton. ... Linda Newton-Perry
Woman is saying: "Jim, I'm telling you, it hasn't moved. It's not a bigfoot!"
Man is saying: "No, to the right and just down. Do you see the green building? Just straight up..."
It seems I can't go to the country without this happening to me. ... Linda Newton-Perry