Wednesday, January 2, 2013

HuffPost Showcases Facebook/FindBigfoot Videos and Bigfoot Blimp

Clockwise: Patterson/Gimlin film, a still for a FB/FB analysed video,
and the Bigfoot Blimp

The Huffington Post's Lee Speigle filed a report about the current state of Bigfootery from his limited perspective. We can give you the Readers Digest version. People are waiting for Melba Ketchums' Bigfoot DNA results. Facebook/FindBigfoot (FB/FB) have positioned themselves as video analysis experts and are claiming 2013 to be year of the Bigfoot. Finally, Idaho State University Anthropology Professor Jeff Meldrum supports a Bigfoot Blimp project.

Each of these three Bigfoot news items (DNA, video, blimp) have encouraged great conversations and debates within the community. These items are not without concerns. Regarding the DNA, after 5 years there are those that are anxious for results. As far as FB/FB video analysis? There are those that feel FB/FB does not take into account the submitter of the videos, some known submitters are considered dubious at best. And the Bigfoot blimp? Some feel no matter how great the camera technology is (and it is really amazing, best of the best) a blimp may not be a practical way to navigate under a forest canopy.

Despite these concerns, at Bigfoot Lunch Club we find these high visibility projects encouraging and innovative. As for most Bigfoot endeavors it is best to take a "wait and see" approach. 

Some interesting quotes from the article.

Jack Barnes of Facebook/FindBigfoot on the Bigfoot "camper" video:
"What's so amazing about this new video is how close the Bigfoot is to the camper's tent," Jack Barnes, chief video analyst for FBFB, said in a press release. "A Bigfoot usually maintains maximum distance from humans, but this one couldn't have been more than 25 feet away."
 Dr. Jeff Meldrum on the Bigfoot blimp:
"It won't be this big, ominous blimp cruising over the tree lines, but it will be this little speck at night that's painted black with some lights on top. It'll just blend in with the starry background," Meldrum said. "Most wildlife usually aren't as aware of things up in the air as they are of things at eye level and on the ground, and even if they did happen to glance up, they wouldn't take notice."
If you wanna see some high quality, quick-witted Sasquatch video analysis, check out Phil Polings YouTube channel ParaBreakdown. Phil Poling does a great job keeping his analysis interesting (FB/FB can be dry and boring at times) and he always takes you through a logical structures argument.

You can read the whole article at Bigfoot Video, DNA Tests Raise Hopes For Believers In The Legendary Beast (VIDEO)


  1. Doesn't FB/FB find EVERY video credible?

    I was disappointed in this piece by Lee but I don't think much of HuffPo in general. More hype than thought and substance. I think they missed the boat on this update entirely.

    1. I agree on both counts. FB/FB has a low a very low bar for determining the "authenticity" of their videos. I also thought Lee missed the boat and offered very little insight, if any, to the topic in general or the three news items in particular.

    2. Guy, we profoundly disagree with the fact that we have a very low bar. We actually have vigorous protocols, no one has a higher bar.

      We contact every poster, ask for background videos, check each video against a morphological checklist. We vote as admins as to authenticate as a group and then publish the video using other videos and other evidence (footprints, sounds, sighting reports etc.) to prove our point. We are very familiar with everyone who has attempted to do "breakdowns" and many/most have no protocols whatsoever.

      We have written a serious book on the subject, It is the only work that we know of that uses non-bigfoot evidence to create a world that makes infinitely more sense with a bigfoot than without. We congeal our theories into a comprehensive and definitive explanation.

      Lastly, FBFB has a policy of non-retribution or attack, we are a neutral party. We have never commented or posted on the sierra kills for example or have weighed in on the many bigfoot wars. As soon as we found that the Washington Trackway this year (you were in attendence)was not real, it was removed from our wall and picture archives.

      Jack and Jeff

    3. Thanks for the comment Jack and Jeff. I would love to do a post on your protocols and how you decided to create them.

      As I stated in previous conversations, I am a big fan of your earlier, strictly morphology, stuff. The recent Bigfoot through the tent screen video doesn't seem to have enough information to make ANY kind of determination. I understand as a content creator myself, sticking with morphology limits your ability to produce content.

      We are very much looking forward to your book, "You are Sasquatch." (available now on

      Although, I am not sure the TV show Finding Bigfoot, as you say in your book's first chapter, is named after your Facebook Page and based on your video analysis.

      I appreciate your neutral approach to your critics, staying above the fray. I also appreciate the opportunity to share my perspective in more detail. Thanks again for the comment!

  2. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

  3. In regard to blimps. Recently both "Gold Rush" and "Finding Bigfoot", have attempted to use small blimps that have silent motors similar to as described for Meldrums project. Both failed because they could not tolerate any wind, whatsoever. In addition, a guided balloon had been used on a Monsterquest in the Andes show with Adam Davies. It also failed. We all should pony up and buy Meldrum a TV set, so that he can learn from other peoples mistakes. And abandone the coming blimp debacle. There are so many Bigfoot in the PNW, that one cannot toss a stone without throwing it through one. Yet they don't show up on either thermals, full spectrum or standard photography. Since the instruments have failed to do the job. Coupling failed instruments together with a miniature Hindenburg, is not going to increase the odds of success either. If that was not enough, we can assume that there will be at least one DNA study complete and published by the time summer rolls around again. Therefore, Bigfoot will have both been proven with DNA and accompaning hi-def video. What exactly is the purpose of attempting to capture long range ambiguous thermals, of something that we would already have daytime closeup hi-def videos of? Inquiring minds want to know.

  4. As I often encounter in comments by armchair critics to my HuffPost stories, it's funny how easily people just throw around phrases like "more hype than thought and substance," "after five years, there are those that are anxious for results," "some known [video] submitters are considered dubious at best," and "a blimp may not be a practical way to navigate under a forest canopy." Let's look at each of these quotes/criticisms of how I've "missed the boat" on this subject:

    1) In my story, I clearly indicated that "skeptics and believers are holding their collective breath waiting for the results" of Melba Ketchum's DNA studies. So why did you have to basically repeat what I had already written, as if you came up with this notion yourself?

    2) In fact, it's more than just "SOME known submitters" who are considered dubious. Did you even notice in my story where I posed a thoughtful question, asking if it's possible that a small percentage of these eyewitnesses might have honestly captured something real on film or video and they simply, honestly, want to share it? I haven't seen many other media writers even approach that possibility.

    3) Re. a blimp not being a practical way to navigate under a forest canopy, where did I mention that in my story? Nowhere. If Meldrum and his colleagues come up with the funding they need to at least TRY and use a high-altitude blimp as a novel way of coming up with Bigfoot evidence, why should anyone criticize them ahead of that effort? I don't see the majority of armchair critics doing anything better to try and confirm Bigfoot's existence.

    So, how exactly, have I missed the boat in the way I present the current state of Bigfoot exploration? All I'm doing is trying to accurately report what's going on, which is much more than I can say for most other mainstream media outlets, who prefer to denigrate and ridicule such subjects, hoping for a quick news fix. I'd like to think I'm a bit beyond that attitude. Thanks for your time here.

  5. Steady on Lee. As a 'neutral' reader it didn't appear to me that Mr. Edwards' post gave you cause to throw up the barricades, ration the food supply, and start to prime the Molotovs . . . As a sceptical believer in this critter I long since gave up holding my breath over anything Ketchum does. That's a fool's errand. I know several like-minded folk in the bf community who share that opinion, so perhaps the elephant in the room is that your comment wasn't as representative as perhaps you hoped. It appears that you are at cross purposes re: pt. # 2. You begin by acknowledging that there are a great many hoaxers out there which you then appear to want to buttress by stating that many of them simply don't know what they have on film. These are statements that are simply not mutually sustaining. A blimp isn't a reasonable tool in this investigation. It's been attempted more than once and more than once failed. Here again, Mr. Edwards was simply pointing out its liability, not assaulting you. Given the volatile personalities involved in bigfoot research Guy Edwards strikes me as a reasonably calm and rational chap. We need a few more of 'im . . . Cheers!



Please read our terms of use policy.