In the Bigfoot research community, documentation is everything. Photographs, videos, audio files, and field notes gain evidentiary weight only when their provenance, their history, origin, and chain of custody, is clear and demonstrable.
Without that foundation, debates quickly devolve into circular arguments, red herrings, and personality-driven disputes that help no one.
A recent conflict involving a set of 2014 winter track photographs illustrates why investigators must anchor themselves to verifiable facts, not personalities or noise around the edges.
Without that foundation, debates quickly devolve into circular arguments, red herrings, and personality-driven disputes that help no one.
A recent conflict involving a set of 2014 winter track photographs illustrates why investigators must anchor themselves to verifiable facts, not personalities or noise around the edges.
The Provenance of the 2014 Track Photos
The photographs in question were originally posted publicly on Facebook by Will Ulmer on January 19 and 20, 2014, accompanied by commentary indicating he believed the impressions resembled a foot. More to the point, he believed they were Bigfoot tracks. Those same photos later appeared on his Pinterest account within the last six years. Again, logged under his profile and timeline.
 Original post 1/19/14 by Will Ulmer.  Video uploaded to Ulmer's YouTube page, 2014. |  Follow up post by Ulmer on 1/20/14.  Photos uploaded to Ulmer's Pinterest account, (last updated six years ago in 2019) |
There is also a YouTube video created by Ulmer himself, showing him presenting the very same track impressions on camera. That establishes:
In provenance terms, this is primary-source-level evidence. Anyone claiming ownership of previously published material must present at least comparable evidence such as metadata or original files.
Without it, any claim is unsupported.
- Original creation (he was physically present at the scene)
- Original recording
- Original publication
- Temporal documentation (timestamps from 2014)
In provenance terms, this is primary-source-level evidence. Anyone claiming ownership of previously published material must present at least comparable evidence such as metadata or original files.
Without it, any claim is unsupported.
The 2024–2025 Ownership Dispute
A decade later, in late 2024 and even into July 2025, another researcher named Jason Miller surfaced claiming these photographs were actually his. No metadata. No originals. No supporting witnesses.
When challenged to provide proof of ownership, something as simple as:
Instead, the discussion became mired in deflection tactics:
From an investigative standpoint, this behavior introduces noise, not data. The absence of proof is not a “side,” nor a matter of opinion but rather it is simply a lack of evidence.
In contrast, the original uploader has a documented, timestamped, and publicly archived timeline, establishing provenance beyond reasonable dispute.
When challenged to provide proof of ownership, something as simple as:
- the original high-resolution files
- source device metadata
- photographs of himself at the scene with the tracks
Instead, the discussion became mired in deflection tactics:
- Red herrings
- Shifting claims
- Attempts to redirect scrutiny
- Attacks on unrelated individuals
- Assertions without evidence
From an investigative standpoint, this behavior introduces noise, not data. The absence of proof is not a “side,” nor a matter of opinion but rather it is simply a lack of evidence.
In contrast, the original uploader has a documented, timestamped, and publicly archived timeline, establishing provenance beyond reasonable dispute.
Investigative Principle: Evidence vs. Assertions
A core principle in field investigations, whether Bigfoot-related, forensic, or journalistic, is:
The burden of proof lies with the claimant. Assertions require evidence.
When one party provides:
This is not a matter of character or loyalty. It is a matter of documentation.
The burden of proof lies with the claimant. Assertions require evidence.
When one party provides:
- timestamps
- platform history
- original uploads
- video documentation
This is not a matter of character or loyalty. It is a matter of documentation.
What the Tracks Actually Show
Ironically, the entire argument erupted around photos that are NOT EVEN Bigfoot tracks.
After a proper look at the photos this is what was revealed:
After a proper look at the photos this is what was revealed:
1. Classic Bear Overstep Pattern
What appears to be a long, humanoid-like print is actually a black bear rear foot stepping into the front foot track—a common distortion in snow. Impressions around the track of similar build indicate, small "heel-toe" gait, and quadrupedalism not bipedalism.
2. Distortion From Substrate
Snow collapses inward, elongates impressions, blurs boundaries, and makes almost any multi-step track look more dramatic than it is.
3. Dollar Bill Scale Shows True Size
A U.S. dollar is 6.14 inches long. These prints measure roughly:
Missing entirely:
Everything present aligns with bear tracks, not Bigfoot.
What appears to be a long, humanoid-like print is actually a black bear rear foot stepping into the front foot track—a common distortion in snow. Impressions around the track of similar build indicate, small "heel-toe" gait, and quadrupedalism not bipedalism.
2. Distortion From Substrate
Snow collapses inward, elongates impressions, blurs boundaries, and makes almost any multi-step track look more dramatic than it is.
3. Dollar Bill Scale Shows True Size
A U.S. dollar is 6.14 inches long. These prints measure roughly:
- 7–9 inches in total distortion
- Too small for hominin anatomy
- Perfect size for a juvenile or yearling black bear
Missing entirely:
- inline toes
- arch or midfoot pressure
- forefoot widening
- consistent bipedal gait spacing
Everything present aligns with bear tracks, not Bigfoot.
Did Ulmer Hoax and/or Intentionally Misinterpret the Tracks?
Make no mistake: bear overstep tracks are among the MOST commonly misidentified impressions in Bigfoot research.
I see no indication that these were hoaxed to resemble anything else than this: a likely case of someone not yet knowing what to look for in the field or taken over by excitement and/or confirmation bias.
The stride pattern alone makes the true identification clear. And as I always caution, be particularly wary of tracks found in snow; melt, collapse, and refreezing can reshape impressions into forms that appear far more dramatic than they are.
It’s also worth noting that excitement and confirmation bias can play a powerful role in these situations. When someone hopes to find evidence, their mind can unintentionally “fill in the blanks,” interpreting known animal tracks similar in shape as something Bigfoot.
That’s why careful analysis and a grounded approach are essential to every investigation.
I see no indication that these were hoaxed to resemble anything else than this: a likely case of someone not yet knowing what to look for in the field or taken over by excitement and/or confirmation bias.
The stride pattern alone makes the true identification clear. And as I always caution, be particularly wary of tracks found in snow; melt, collapse, and refreezing can reshape impressions into forms that appear far more dramatic than they are.
It’s also worth noting that excitement and confirmation bias can play a powerful role in these situations. When someone hopes to find evidence, their mind can unintentionally “fill in the blanks,” interpreting known animal tracks similar in shape as something Bigfoot.
That’s why careful analysis and a grounded approach are essential to every investigation.
Implications for Miller's Past and Future Research
Throughout this period, Miller’s online conduct, along with a research "partner", created the impression of attempting to silence legitimate questions.
Rather than providing documentation or clarifying his position, he and his "partner" repeatedly:
In any investigative field, whether scientific or journalistic, responding to criticism by attempting to discredit the critic rather than addressing the claim itself is considered a form of pressure that can come across as bullying, especially in public online spaces.
No claims are being made about motive or intent. What is clear is that the effect of the behavior was to discourage scrutiny and derail the evidentiary discussion.
As the dispute continued, Miller’s "partner" attempted yet another diversionary tactic and secretly recorded a phone call with another researcher and later shared the recording publicly. The individual making the recording was located in a one-party consent state, while the person on the other end of the call was in Washington State, which requires the consent of all participants before a conversation may be legally recorded.
Washington State, which is an all-party consent jurisdiction with some of the strongest privacy protections in the country and the recording potentially falls under Washington’s stricter standards, meaning it may have been unlawful despite the recorder being in a one-party consent state.
If someone in a one-party state records, without consent, a person in an all-party state, they may be exposed to liability under the all-party state’s law, because that state can treat the unconsented recording of its residents as a violation.
While only a court could make a definitive determination, at minimum it raises serious legal and civil issues as well as ethical concerns about recording and broadcasting the call without the Washington researcher’s consent.
Again yet another example of bullying.
When a researcher responds to evidence-based questions with:
By relying on distraction and pressure rather than evidence, Miller and his "partner" further undermined confidence in both their research practices and motivations.
Rather than providing documentation or clarifying his position, he and his "partner" repeatedly:
- dismissed requests for proof
- introduced unrelated accusations
- attacked the credibility of the person or persons raising the provenance concern
- reframed the discussion away from evidence and toward personal conflicts
In any investigative field, whether scientific or journalistic, responding to criticism by attempting to discredit the critic rather than addressing the claim itself is considered a form of pressure that can come across as bullying, especially in public online spaces.
No claims are being made about motive or intent. What is clear is that the effect of the behavior was to discourage scrutiny and derail the evidentiary discussion.
As the dispute continued, Miller’s "partner" attempted yet another diversionary tactic and secretly recorded a phone call with another researcher and later shared the recording publicly. The individual making the recording was located in a one-party consent state, while the person on the other end of the call was in Washington State, which requires the consent of all participants before a conversation may be legally recorded.
Washington State, which is an all-party consent jurisdiction with some of the strongest privacy protections in the country and the recording potentially falls under Washington’s stricter standards, meaning it may have been unlawful despite the recorder being in a one-party consent state.
If someone in a one-party state records, without consent, a person in an all-party state, they may be exposed to liability under the all-party state’s law, because that state can treat the unconsented recording of its residents as a violation.
While only a court could make a definitive determination, at minimum it raises serious legal and civil issues as well as ethical concerns about recording and broadcasting the call without the Washington researcher’s consent.
Again yet another example of bullying.
When a researcher responds to evidence-based questions with:
- unrelated accusations
- pressure tactics
- efforts to silence dissent
- and no supporting documentation
- personal attacks
- unethical tactics
By relying on distraction and pressure rather than evidence, Miller and his "partner" further undermined confidence in both their research practices and motivations.
In investigative work, credibility is cumulative. Each case contributes to, or detracts from, the level of confidence others can place in a researcher’s future findings.
When someone makes an unsupported claim of authorship, refuses to provide evidence, and relies on deflection rather than documentation, it has serious implications for how their past and future work is evaluated.
Since he cannot produce basic proof of authorship for these photos, then:
Not out of malice, but out of standard methodological necessity.
By making a claim he could not support and then avoiding opportunities to verify it, he has significantly damaged the level of trust that investigators can place in, and damages his, as well as his "partner's" credibility, in current and future research.
When someone makes an unsupported claim of authorship, refuses to provide evidence, and relies on deflection rather than documentation, it has serious implications for how their past and future work is evaluated.
Since he cannot produce basic proof of authorship for these photos, then:
- his prior evidence
- his future submissions
- his claimed field experiences
Not out of malice, but out of standard methodological necessity.
By making a claim he could not support and then avoiding opportunities to verify it, he has significantly damaged the level of trust that investigators can place in, and damages his, as well as his "partner's" credibility, in current and future research.
The Larger Lesson
This situation is not about personalities or accusations. It is a case study in why provenance matters and why researchers must hold themselves, and each other, to evidentiary standards.
When evidence is solid, documentation clear, and methodology consistent, the truth becomes self-evident:
In the end, this dispute highlights a simple reality:
Arguments collapse when the facts are examined. Evidence doesn’t need defending, only presenting.
Till Next Time,
Squatch-D
When evidence is solid, documentation clear, and methodology consistent, the truth becomes self-evident:
- The photos belong to the documented original uploader from 2014.
- The later claims cannot be substantiated by any supporting evidence.
- The tracks themselves are not Bigfoot, but bear oversteps.
In the end, this dispute highlights a simple reality:
Arguments collapse when the facts are examined. Evidence doesn’t need defending, only presenting.
Till Next Time,
Squatch-D
RSS Feed
