Squatchdetective.com
  • Home
    • The Five Tenets
    • About
  • 🆕Squatch-D's Blog
    • Old Blog Site
  • | Squatch-D TV
    • Squatch-D TV Channel
    • 🆕Squatch-D TV 24-7
  • | Events
  • | Investigations
    • Vermont Chapter
  • | 🆕Resources
    • Squatch-D University
    • Audio Library
  • |🆕Interactive
    • 🆕News Room
    • 🆕Reddit r/Bigfoot Feed
  • | Contact
    • Report Encounter
    • Media Contact Page
    • Booking Steve Kulls
    • General Comments / Questions

Another Weak Swing at the Truth: Why the Vimeo “Expose” Fails Like the Rest

3/29/2025

0 Comments

 
There’s a long-running pattern in this field — occasionally when I shine a light on inconvenient truths, someone tries to shut me up. The latest attempt comes in the form of a Vimeo video that cobbles together selectively edited footage and twisted narratives in a feeble effort to discredit me and my work. But just like the attempts that came before it, this one collapses under the weight of cold, hard facts.

I rarely take it personally when I expose hoaxers — it comes with the territory. I understand that when they lash out, it’s usually because they can’t refute the facts or produce receipts of their own.

But when there’s a clear pattern of attempts to discredit me using deception, misrepresentation, or manufactured claims of wrongdoing, that hits differently. That’s not just damage control; that’s character assassination.

​I don’t hold grudges lightly, but when someone lies about me, lies to me, and recruits others to help carry out that smear campaign, they earn a place on a very short list. And unfortunately, this individual  and those who enable him  are firmly on it.


Let’s be clear this isn’t the first time someone from the Tom Biscardi camp has tried to muzzle me. In 2015, I received a cease-and-desist letter from the late Dennis Kazubowski, former SFBI shareholder and attorney who was then acting as Biscardi’s legal enforcer. The letter accused me of violating a confidentiality agreement I signed in 2008 during a specific expedition with Biscardi’s organization, Searching for Bigfoot Inc.

Kazubowski or perhaps more likely, the man pulling the strings behind him, likely hoped I’d forgotten the fine print. I hadn’t. The agreement applied only to “any and all information, data, and evidence gathered from this expedition.” That’s it. Nothing more. It didn't cover later actions. It didn’t muzzle me from speaking the truth about what I witnessed. And it certainly didn’t erase Biscardi’s public behavior or his repeated failures to follow through on his own claims.

And let’s not forget, even if they’d had a case (they didn’t), they were years past the statute of limitations. My Hall of Shame page? Online since 2010. My book Fifty Large? Published in 2011. The letter? May 2015. Game over.
​

Everything I’ve published has been grounded in verifiable facts. The 2008 Bigfoot freezer hoax wasn’t speculation. The other two people involved confirmed Biscardi’s role, and Biscardi himself went on Fox News to claim he had “touched it, felt it, smelled it.” His words — not mine. That’s public record.
PictureExplosive isn't it?
Now let’s fast forward to the present, and the latest video trying to rewrite history. It attempts to paint me as a hypocrite by showing clips of me in the field with SFBI. Here’s the irony: those clips prove exactly what I’ve always said: I was there. I was boots on the ground. I was embedded with the team, observing, assessing, and trying to get to the bottom of what was really going on.

They claim it's “explosive.” What it really is, is confirmatory.

My critiques of SFBI have always been focused on Biscardi himself, not the team members in the field. I’ve never labeled the crew as liars — I’ve said, and still maintain, that they were being manipulated by a man whose actual agenda had nothing to do with live capture of a Sasquatch. His real focus? Media hype, promotional footage, and building a brand around  low selling films, non-existent museums,  and his own name. 

Why those museums never went up? We get nothing but excuses. A reminder of the famous anonymous quote, perhaps it sounds familiar to someone:

Picture
​SFBI sold itself as a serious investigative team, but what I witnessed was something very different: a roadshow aimed at producing dramatic footage for promotional use. They weren’t solving cases. They weren’t following leads to resolution. They were moving from one scene to the next without closure — always forward, never looking back — because the goal was content, not truth.

And when I called that out, the response wasn’t to provide evidence to the contrary. It was to attack me personally, take my words out of context, and attempt once again to shut me up. That’s the pattern. And just like in 2015, it didn’t work.
So let this be clear: I won’t stop speaking the truth because someone finds it inconvenient. I won’t be bullied into silence by a man building a Bigfoot empire out of half-truths and staged drama. And every time they try to come after me, they only prove my point further.
​

Expose away — because the real story has already been told, and I’ve got the receipts to back it up.

Till Next Time,
Squatch-D 

Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Your browser does not support viewing this document. Click here to download the document.
0 Comments

Independence Day Bigfoot Video... Result is in.

3/24/2025

0 Comments

 
       People continually ask me to review the Independence Day Bigfoot Video, you know the one carrying the "baby." So here's the skinny of it all. Let's break this down in two ways. The actions of the videographer and the film itself. Here's just the raw facts. 

1. Videographer Behaviors

🔍 1. Camera Movement and Framing✅ Observed:
  • Camera pans and zooms toward the subject, rather than away.
  • The subject is often centered or near-center in frame.
  • There is little panic, no signs of running or stumbling.
  • Camera holds on the figure for several seconds, with minimal shaking for an alleged high-adrenaline encounter.
⚠️ Psychological Inconsistency:In a legitimate, high-stress sighting of an unknown hominid:
  • Most people experience a fight-flight-freeze response.
  • Expect erratic movement, loss of framing, or even abandonment of the shot altogether.
  • This footage demonstrates a level of composure and technical handling inconsistent with a spontaneous reaction to a large, unknown animal.
📌 Interpretation: Behavior suggests the photographer either knew where the subject would appear or was acting under low stress, possibly staging or filming a planned scenario.

🔊 2. Absence of Audio ReactionsIf audio is present (which it is in some versions), it's often eerily quiet:
  • No gasp, shouted expletives, or startled verbal confirmation ("What is that?!" etc.)
  • No labored breathing, even during a supposed chase or follow
  • No vocal communication with others, even if multiple people were allegedly present
⚠️ Psychological Inconsistency:In a real sighting, most people speak without thinking—verbalizing shock, fear, or even profanity. The absence of this is highly suspect unless:
  • The audio was muted or replaced
  • The videographer is unusually disciplined or disassociated (which is rare in spontaneous events)

🚶 3. Pursuit BehaviorThe camera tracks the figure without hesitation:
  • No decision-making moment ("Should I follow it?")
  • No concern for personal safety
  • No attempt to gain higher ground or safer vantage point
⚠️ Psychological Inconsistency:In genuine wildlife or cryptid encounters:
  • Most witnesses retreat or maintain safe distance
  • Rarely do they move toward the unknown, unless emboldened by group presence or a weapon
📌 Interpretation: Either the photographer did not perceive danger, or the event was scripted, removing the uncertainty normally present.

⏱ 4. Duration of FilmingThe subject is filmed for a prolonged period, with:
  • Subject in-frame for a surprisingly long time
  • No scramble to grab the camera, stabilize it, or refocus
⚠️ Inconsistency:Legit sightings tend to be extremely brief—many under 10 seconds—because the creature moves quickly or the videographer panics.
📌 Long, clear, and stable framing is atypical, especially if the encounter is described as "sudden" or "unexpected."

🧠 5. Cognitive-Emotional DisconnectThere is no visible or audible emotional escalation:
  • No shift from confusion → awe → fear
  • No sign of shaking voice or hyperventilation
  • No attempt to narrate, flee, or signal others
This suggests the event was either:
  1. Filmed calmly by someone who already knew the subject wasn’t dangerous, or
  2. Staged, and therefore lacking authentic emotional markers.
Picture

2. The Film... Inconsistencies show "post-production work"

Picture
Picture
📌 1. Zoomed-In Rock Interaction (Frames 1–4)These show the region where the subject appears to interact with or pass in front of the rock:
  • You can clearly see in Frame 2 and 3, the upper body cuts in front of the rock.
  • However, the legs remain visibly behind it, with no natural transition.
  • There’s no anatomical continuity, which suggests a compositing mask error.

📌 2. Marked Full FramesThese highlight the analyzed region with a red bounding box:
  • Note how shadows and edges behave unnaturally around the interaction point.
  • The rock edge remains static, while the subject's interaction with it is inconsistent across frames.
What’s notable here is the high initial motion (Frame 1–2) where the upper body appears in front of the rock, followed by a drop in magnitude, even though you'd expect consistent stride flow if the figure were moving uniformly. This supports the idea of compositional discontinuity or layer mismatch during the rock crossing.

Conclusion:

The inconsistencies in depth occlusion, combined with edge behavior and inconsistent motion magnitude, suggest the video segment likely underwent manipulation. The interaction between the figure and the rock violates physical continuity.  

So folks, this one is not a winner!!! 

Till Next Time,
Squatch-D 

0 Comments

What the Whoop? A Scientific Look at the 2023 Bigfoot Vocalization

3/22/2025

0 Comments

 
PictureSpectrogram of the "Whoop."
      In the field of Bigfoot research, it’s rare that an investigation yields data worthy of deeper scientific analysis. But that’s exactly what happened during the 2023 expedition to “Research Area 1,” What started as a routine night surveillance operation turned into something far more intriguing—a single, clear, and oddly powerful vocalization that sparked questions no campfire story could answer.

      Let’s cut to the chase: we recorded a “whoop.” Not just any whoop, but one with acoustic properties that stand apart from typical human calls and bear strong similarities to vocalizations of large-bodied primates.

     We broke this down in a recent scientific paper, comparing the vocalization’s spectrogram and frequency analysis to known calls of humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and howler monkeys. Here’s the kicker—the whoop was centered in a lower frequency range, averaging around 156 Hz. That’s significantly deeper than most human whoops, and well within the realm of some non-human primate vocalizations. We're talking frequency territory typically inhabited by gorillas or howler monkeys, not hikers or pranksters.

      And no, there are no known non-human primates in that area.

     To make things even more compelling, the context of the recording lends it additional weight. The whoop occurred shortly after I attempted to announce my presence, as I had for years prior, using vocal calls and whistles; methods also used in primate research to elicit response behavior.

​Coincidence? Possibly. But it’s one hell of a coincidence. 

Picture
​   The original archive entry  offers a boots-on-the-ground account of the event, but when paired with proper signal analysis and primate vocal studies, it becomes something more: an anomaly grounded in data. Not definitive proof, but evidence that demands attention and further study.

     What makes this case stand out isn’t just the quality of the audio, but the scientific rigor we applied afterward. This wasn’t brushed off as “just another sound in the woods.” It was analyzed, compared, and documented with transparent methodology.
​

     In a field often plagued by hoaxes and hyperbole, this instance stands as a model for how Bigfoot research should be conducted: evidence-based, technically analyzed, and open to peer review.
​

     Whether you’re a die-hard believer, an open-minded skeptic, or a hardcore primatologist, the 2023 whoop is worth a listen and more importantly, it’s worth a look through a scientific lens.

Want to hear it for yourself?

Check out the original post here: 
Expedition 2023 – The Best Vocal

Because sometimes, the woods talk back.

Till Next Time,
Squatch-D

Your browser does not support viewing this document. Click here to download the document.
0 Comments

Why Bigfoot Varies in Size Across North America

3/21/2025

0 Comments

 
A Look at Bergmann’s Rule, Allen’s Rule, and Regional Differences

      Why do Bigfoot seem to vary in size depending on where they’re reported? From towering giants in the Pacific Northwest to leaner, more agile variants in the South, this isn’t just a case of eyewitness inconsistency, there’s a biological explanation worth considering.
       Let’s break down what’s going on and how Bergmann’s Rule and Allen’s Rule might be the key.
Bergmann’s Rule: The Biology Behind the Beast   

      Bergmann’s Rule
is a principle from biology that applies to warm-blooded animals (endotherms). It states that animals in colder climates tend to be larger in body size than those in warmer climates.
      Why? Because larger animals retain heat better due to a lower surface-area-to-volume ratio, an evolutionary advantage in colder environments. It’s a law that holds true for bears, wolves, deer… and if Bigfoot is a real biological entity, it would make sense that the same rule applies.
Picture
Allen’s Rule: Shape Matters Too

      Allen’s Rule builds on this by looking at body proportions rather than just overall size. Animals in warmer climates tend to have longer limbs and appendages, while those in colder climates have shorter ones.
    Why? Because longer limbs radiate heat more effectively useful in hot environments. In cold climates, shorter limbs conserve heat. Again, this is a pattern we see in hares, birds, and even human populations.
​      So when we hear reports of long-limbed, lanky Sasquatches in the Deep South versus stockier, barrel-chested ones in Alaska or British Columbia it may not just be perception. It could be thermal adaptation in action.
Regional Differences in Bigfoot Size and Shape

      Across North America, reports and footprint evidence suggest distinct differences in size and build based on geography  which aligns remarkably well with both Bergmann’s and Allen’s Rules.
Picture
Final Thoughts: Nature Doesn’t Make Exceptions

       Sasquatch exists as a living, breathing creature, and  they are shaped by natural law like every other warm-blooded animal.
Bergmann’s Rule explains the massive builds in colder regions, while Allen’s Rule accounts for limb proportion differences across climates. Together, these biological principles help us make sense of the regional variation in Bigfoot reports, not as contradictions, but as
evidence of environmental adaptation.

      In short, it’s not that witnesses are inconsistent. It’s that Sasquatch may be evolving regionally, just like every other species.

Till Next Time,
​Squatch-D
0 Comments

The Flaws in the Patterson-Gimlin Film Hoax Claims: A Critical Examination

3/3/2025

0 Comments

 
      For decades, the 1967 Patterson-Gimlin Film has remained one of the most debated pieces of evidence in the study of Bigfoot. Many have sought to debunk it, but some of the loudest voices claiming it was a hoax, Bob Heironimus, Phillip Morris, Greg Long, and Kal Korff, have presented narratives riddled with inconsistencies, contradictions, and outright fabrications.
   
​     In my recent Critical Analysis of the Heironimus Claims, I dissect the claims made by these individuals and expose their glaring weaknesses. Here is a brief overview of the major points.
PictureBob Heironimus
Bob Heironimus: A Story That Keeps Changing 

    Heironimus claims he wore a Bigfoot costume in the film, yet his descriptions of the suit's material have changed drastically over time. At first, he described it as being made of a twenty-five-pound horsehide suit, then later changed his story to say it was a lightweight synthetic fur. He also gave conflicting details about its construction, the boots he wore, and even the filming location. Additionally, weather records contradict his claim that he was sweating profusely inside the suit on a hot day when the recorded temperature was just fifty-five degrees Fahrenheit. 
​    Perhaps most telling is Heironimus’ financial motive. He admitted publicly that his reason for coming forward was money, saying, "It’s my turn now." His claims only surfaced decades later, conveniently timed to align with a book deal.

PicturePhillip Morris
Phillip Morris: Where is the Proof?

     
Morris, a costume salesman, asserts he sold Roger Patterson the suit used in the film. Yet, he has provided no evidence, no receipts, no order records, and no surviving suit that matches the Patterson-Gimlin Film subject. His story also conveniently surfaced over thirty years after the film, once it was a recognized cultural phenomenon.
​
    Morris has a history of dubious business practices, including a lawsuit for selling unlicensed Barney the Dinosaur costumes and making opportunistic claims, such as falsely stating he inspired the character Dr. Evil from Austin Powers. His involvement suggests a profit-driven publicity stunt rather than a credible revelation.

Picture
Easy to tell which one is a costume!
Picture
The character assassination of a dead man.
PictureGreg Long
Greg Long’s The Making of Bigfoot: A Biased Attack Piece

      Long’s book, The Making of Bigfoot, set out to "prove" the Patterson-Gimlin Film was a hoax, but his research was deeply biased. He actively sought out negative testimonials against Patterson while ignoring key witnesses like Bob Gimlin. His portrayal of Patterson as a "liar and thief" is based on cherry-picked anecdotes, and his reliance on unverified hearsay further discredits his work.
     Most importantly, no physical proof of a Bigfoot costume was ever presented in Long’s book. Instead, his case rests on assumptions, contradictions, and biased storytelling.

PictureThe "Colonel" himself, Kal Korf (sitting between an American & Israeli Flag).
​Kal Korff: The Self-Proclaimed Intelligence Officer

     Korff, who played a key role in promoting the hoax claims and assisting Long lining up witnesses, has a well-documented history of fabricating credentials, including falsely claiming to be a Colonel in Israeli Intelligence.
​     His past is littered with publicity stunts and fraudulent statements, making him one of the least credible figures to support the hoax theory. Yet he writes the forward in Long's attack piece. 

​Conclusion: The Case Against the Patterson-Gimlin Film Falls Apart

     Despite their combined efforts, Heironimus, Morris, Long, and Korff have failed to present a consistent or convincing case that the Patterson-Gimlin Film was a hoax. Their testimonies contradict each other, rely on no physical evidence, and are financially and personally motivated. Meanwhile, the Patterson-Gimlin Film endures. Its subject displays biomechanics, proportions, and muscle movement that remain unmatched by any costume reproduction to this day.

     The hoax claims collapse under scrutiny. The film stands as a piece of evidence that has yet to be debunked and remains one of the most compelling pieces of footage in cryptozoology.

Below find the Critical Analysis in PDF form! 

Your browser does not support viewing this document. Click here to download the document.
0 Comments

    Archives

    June 2025
    May 2025
    April 2025
    March 2025
    February 2025

    RSS Feed

Picture


​Copyright 2006 - 2025

 Steve Kulls / Squatchdetective.com
Readers are free to use materials from this site provided that: 

the information is credited and the original intent, meaning or purpose is not altered.

This website is protected under :
The United States Copyright Act of Fair Use..

Section 107 U.S. Copyright Law: Limitations on exclusive rights:
​ Fair Use 
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phone records or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.