First, a genuine thank you to David Zigan for the time and energy he devoted to reviewing our Poplar Bluff photo analysis. Scientific, forensic, and Bigfoot research needs this kind of rigorous scrutiny to grow stronger. Engaging critically with evidence, even when we disagree, elevates the field and keeps all of us accountable.
What Zigan Raised
In his paper, Zigan argued that:
In his paper, Zigan argued that:
- Our reported height range (quoted by him as 8.25–11.5 ft) was overly precise.
- Small fore-aft distance differences invalidated our pixel-ratio calculations.
- Using manufacturer field-of-view data compromised our distance estimates.
- Lighting, reflections, and the lack of detected tampering hinted at inconsistency or bias.
- We may have spoken with the witness before completing measurements, potentially influencing our results.
 Dehazed photo |  Side by side comparison (Scaled accurately) |
Where The Analysis Differ
- Misquoted Height Range: Our report clearly stated 8.5–10.5 ft, not 11.5 ft. Expanding our numbers exaggerated the point about precision. Those were the original numbers prior to the water level difference range.
- Distance Exaggeration: At ~100 ft, a three-foot offset changes scale by only about 3%, comfortably within our ±0.5 ft tolerance. This still places the unsub into a "likely taller than human/likely fauna spectrum." But does not authenticate this as being Bigfoot or Sasquatch.
- Field-of-View Misuse: FOV specs were used only as an independent check, not the foundation of our height calculation, which relied on in-scene control ratios that cancel out FOV differences.
- Incorrect Witness Timeline: The claim that we consulted the witness before measurements is incorrect. We performed the geometric analysis first, then interviewed the witness afterward as a post-hoc validation step.
Areas of Agreement
To be fair, Zigan’s reminder to be transparent about potential lighting differences and to emphasize error margins is entirely valid. These are important considerations in photogrammetry and image forensics, and we appreciate those reminders.
To be fair, Zigan’s reminder to be transparent about potential lighting differences and to emphasize error margins is entirely valid. These are important considerations in photogrammetry and image forensics, and we appreciate those reminders.
Clarifying Our Methodology
Our workflow included:
Our workflow included:
- Pixel-Ratio Analysis: Primary method for height estimation.
- Water-Depth Bracketing: Adjusted for changing water levels to produce a range, not a single value.
- Secondary FOV Check: Used manufacturer specs only as a cross-check, not a main factor.
- Forensic Tools: Employed Forensically modules, EXIF checks, and hash verification to confirm file integrity.
Psychological Context of the Submitter
Although our published analysis omitted a psychological profile, for security reasons, privately we noted the submitter appears earnest, detail-oriented, and motivated by genuine curiosity rather than attention-seeking. This informal observation has no bearing on the image measurements but adds human context.
The recent viral publication of photos on world-wide media, was a result of a memeber of the media monitoring the BFRO website, not that of the submitter's doing, hence the quoting of the BFRO website rather than the witness himself.
Although our published analysis omitted a psychological profile, for security reasons, privately we noted the submitter appears earnest, detail-oriented, and motivated by genuine curiosity rather than attention-seeking. This informal observation has no bearing on the image measurements but adds human context.
The recent viral publication of photos on world-wide media, was a result of a memeber of the media monitoring the BFRO website, not that of the submitter's doing, hence the quoting of the BFRO website rather than the witness himself.
Invitation for Further Peer Review
We welcome additional independent reviews or replications using the same image set. Constructive scrutiny benefits the entire research community and strengthens our collective understanding.
We welcome additional independent reviews or replications using the same image set. Constructive scrutiny benefits the entire research community and strengthens our collective understanding.
Our Disclaimer Still Stands
We wrote: “No positive artifacts of manipulation were detected at the available resolution and compression level. Undetectable edits cannot be completely excluded.”
That remains our position: a cautious, transparent statement, not an absolute claim of authenticity.
We wrote: “No positive artifacts of manipulation were detected at the available resolution and compression level. Undetectable edits cannot be completely excluded.”
That remains our position: a cautious, transparent statement, not an absolute claim of authenticity.
The Broader Lesson
This exchange underscores that Bigfoot research, like any investigative science, must pair open-minded curiosity with disciplined rigor. Respectful debate, grounded in facts and careful analysis, is how the field advances. Thanks again to David Zigan for contributing to that process.
This exchange underscores that Bigfoot research, like any investigative science, must pair open-minded curiosity with disciplined rigor. Respectful debate, grounded in facts and careful analysis, is how the field advances. Thanks again to David Zigan for contributing to that process.
Closing Thoughts
David Zigan’s effort demonstrates the rigor our field deserves. Even when critiques contain errors or assumptions, (some caused by our own oversight) they push us to clarify methods and sharpen standards and point out mistakes we make. By addressing misquotes, mistakes and correcting the witness timeline, on both sides of the analysis we keep Bigfoot research grounded in evidence and respectful debate, a principle we’ll always uphold.
Till Next Time...
Squatch-D
Here are the files mentioned in this post:
| | | |
RSS Feed
