posted on Jan, 12 2014 @ 03:27 PM
I consider the area of sasquatch research to be my forte, as that is the only subject that I truly "research" in person, as well as online, and I
also consider myself relatively well-versed on just about everything bigfoot-related. With that said, I am 100% confident that this is a HOAX. Rick
Dyer is an EXPOSED hoaxer, having already claimed to have a body back around 2008 or so, which turned out to be nothing more than a costume, along
with some animal parts. It was utterly ridiculous, and another well-known hoaxer was in on it as well.
I recently discovered that you will not find anything regarding this "story" on the most reputable bigfoot forums on the internet, because of
Dyer's affiliations with previous hoaxes. The moderators will not even allow him the publicity of speaking of his hoaxes, and I think that is
understandable and just. It is one thing for someone to be thought a hoaxer, and a completely different thing to have been outed as a hoaxer, with
Having had the luck to once see a sasquatch in the flesh, I can say that the photos he provides are not consistent with what I saw. Granted, a few
features were the same or similar, but overall I don't think this is legitimate. I have heard, although I don't know that this is true, that the
main is being sued for fraud. By whom I don't know, but it wouldn't surprise me if that was true. That is how bad his reputation is in the bigfoot
world, for those who do not know. In fact, out of all the known hoaxers, he is probably in the top 5 at least for "people to stay away from," and
people whose claims one shouldn't take seriously.
But something important to remember is that even hoaxers will sometimes go out looking for bigfoot, and thus could have a legitimate sighting, but
here is why I don't think this is what happened in this case: first of all, this shooting, where the body was acquired, supposedly happened a few
years or so ago. And he is just NOW releasing the first "evidence," and I use that word tentatively. Someone who actually had a body would not be
doing things the way he is doing them. The way he is doing this makes it look like he is out for one or two things; mainly notoriety/fame, and money.
That is something he has in common with the majority of bigfoot hoaxers out there, and these people are just making things more difficult for those of
us who are truly scientific in our approach, and who wish to see the topic taken seriously based on the mountains of evidence, of which most people
These hoaxes tend to muddy the waters to a great extent, and I have time and time again seen individuals who would have given some thought to some
evidence be discouraged and change their minds because of all the drama and fakery that seems to draw people to this area of research. And people like
him are a huge reason why the subject doesn't get the mainstream attention it deserves. The majority of attention that the subject gets is negative,
tongue in cheek type stuff, and it really annoys me because I have seen one of these animals, with absolutely zero room for misidentification or a
hoax. And what's more, there are literally thousands upon thousands of reports that have been submitted since the late 90's until now, the vast
majority of which are likely to be authentic.
Despite popular belief it is not that easy to misidentify a bear or other known animal as a sasquatch. But even because there is the possibility, I
tend to quasi-dismiss many of the reports where the sighting was obstructed to some degree by trees or brush or whatever. But one would be surprised
just how many sightings have occurred where one of these animals has been caught out in the open. Sightings are usually bried, given the instinctive
nature of the animals, but it does not take long to realize that what you are seeing is real. When there is something that is around 8 feet tall and
covered in hair, with muscular definition and mass that literally ASTOUNDS you, one can be sure that they are NOT seeing a bear. And watching a
sasquatch walk bipedally, which I did during my encounter, and then having someone tell you it was a bear or something, is ridiculous. If you would
have been there, and seen how it walked, you would understand why it couldn't have been a bear or something, considering bears don't have long legs
or a compliant gate, and the long arms of a sasquatch are quite difficult to confuse with the shorter arms, which are shaped differently, of a
And a sasquatch has the exact same muscle groups as a human, at least in the arms, and this is quite apparent, or was during my sighting. About the
only thing that a bear and a sasquatch have in common as far as an encounter goes is that they both are hair-covered. That's about it. The shapes of
every part of the body are different on the two animals. I am focusing on bears because this is about the only thing that one could confuse for a
sasquatch, IF it were through thick brush or something. Other animals don't look anything like a bear or sasquatch, so someone who states that these
thousands of people, 4500 people to be exact, and that is just from the BFRO's database, are THAT impaired when it comes to using their eyes and
interpreting what they're seeing, is utterly absurd.
And this is not to mention that if there are that many sightings that have been reported in just the last couple of decades, which is about when
groups started accepting sighting reports, then there were probably tens of thousands since the colonization of North America until now. And logic
dictates that the vast majority of sightings will not be reported, either because the witness doesn't know who to report it to, or they are fearing
ridicule. And ridicule ALWAYS comes from ignorant people when it comes to sasquatch. They too are hurting the entire field, and are holding back
identification of the species to an extent, or have done so I mean.