Who Forted? Magazine

“Most Convincing” Evidence Of Bigfoot “Accidentally” Leaked

Sanger Paranormal and their totally not photoshopped van.

UPDATE: WF? was present at the Bigfoot evidence press conference. For a full run down of all the events, the evidence presented, and the complete and utter disappointment of Sasquatch enthusiasts everywhere, CLICK HERE.

Last week, the folks from Sanger Paranormal, a group based out of California, made the announcement that they were scheduling a press conference to discuss what they’re calling “potentially the most convincing evidence of Bigfoot since the Patterson film of 1967″. That’s a pretty lofty announcement if I’ve ever heard one.

The “evidence” in question consists of two full body impressions on the left and right passenger side doors of a truck, impressions that are reported to have captured the imprints of the nostrils, lips, and nose of a Sasquatch. In addition, Sanger claims they’ve also collected hair samples and footprints from the same location.

Jeffrey Gonzalez, founder of Sanger Paranormal, told AOL news that when he returned to his vehicle after “an expedition in the High Sierras of California”, he was so shockedby the imprints that he almost threw up. He’s convinced that it’s Bigfoot.

“Apparently, the creature was looking in the window and left behind dirt and oil on it, leaving such an awesome picture, you can see the nose, the eye, the hair all over the face and the shoulders — it’s creepy, and it’s not a bear.”

The press conference is scheduled for tomorrow afternoon at the Picadilly Inn in Fresno, California, where Sanger Paranormal intends to unveil video and images of their amazing evidence.

The problem is, they accidentally leaked it already.

The "most convincing" Bigfoot evidence since the 60's is not a body, video footage, or hair sample. It's a big grease splotch.

In what was either a really dumb mistake or a “hail mary” for media attention, Sanger Paranormal uploaded an iPhone image of one of the impressions to their website, only to quickly remove it. Unfortunately for them, several people snagged the image before it was gone, and it’s now made the rounds through cryptozoological circles, where it’s already being attributed to snooping homeless folk, bad photoshop, pareidolia, and even the bear that Gonzalez insists it isn’t.

“I’ve shown people — non-believers — this photograph and this totally freaked them out.”

The evidence is, frankly, disappointing. If one looks hard enough, they can, indeed, see a face in the mess of smears and wrinkles, but that’s nothing strange. Faces can be found in anything if you’re looking for one.

Gonzalez is almost defensive in his declaration that the smudges do not belong to a bear, a deduction that he only reached because the three coolers in the back of the truck, filled with food, were left untouched. That’s a hard sell.

But the oddest part of Sanger’s attempt to sell their “evidence” to the media was the bizarrely unprofessional press release that doesn’t prove the existence of Bigfoot so much as demonstrate that there were no efforts to involve real scientific investigators in the case:

No, it’s not a Bigfoot in a Freezer and we are not affiliated with those guys in any way. This evidence was captured during an expedition in the High
Sierra’s of California during the Memorial Day weekend of 2011. There were a total of 5 people in attendance who made the discovery. Three of those people
are………….

1. Is an award winning High School Principal with a Masters Degree, Formerly a Science Teacher and a former investigator for www.BFRO.com.

2. Correctional Officer for 19 years and is Employed at a prison in California. Was featured on a Episode of Monster Quest titled” the Sierra Sasquatch”.

3. Is a Employe at AT&T Telephone. Associates Degree in Electronics. Founder of the www.SangerParanormalSociety.com

Also, a 14 year Forensic Specialist who is friends with 2 of the people mentioned above was called out to come and take photos and swab For DNA……

This location where the evidence was captured is known for heavy Bigfoot activity…

That was over half of the press release, presented exactly as it was formatted. Sanger Paranormal dedicated only 25% of the release to discussing Bigfoot, and 50% to tell the press not why they were qualified to make statements like “this is the most convincing bigfoot evidence since the Patterson film”, but rather, to tell us why they’re super cool guys with neat hobbies. The other 25% of the release consisted of how to contact them.

While frustrating, the naysayers and the “accidental” image leak aren’t deterring Sanger from their quest for a reality tv show the truth, and they hope that the DNA tests (being performed by a friend) will come back with results that are more man than animal. We’ll wait and see.

I don’t think it’s any coincidence that Sanger’s announcement has come at a time when the public’s interest in Bigfoot is soaring. Sightings are on the rise, Finding Bigfoot is on the air, and enough time has gone by that people are over the last big Sasquatch hoax. The real question is whether or not the public is interested in Bigfoot enough to take this “evidence” seriously when it smacks of a publicity stunt.

We’ll find the answer in the banquet hall of the Picadilly Inn tomorrow afternoon at 4PM PST.

UPDATE: WF? was present at the Bigfoot evidence press conference. For a full run down of all the events, the evidence presented, and the complete and utter disappointment of Sasquatch enthusiasts everywhere, CLICK HERE.

Greg Newkirk

Greg Newkirk

Senior Editor at Who Forted
Documentary film-maker, professional monster chaser, and mystery monger, Greg is the senior editor for Who Forted? 'Zine. When he's not occupied by writing about the wide world of the weird, he's busy directing and editing documentary films like The Bigfoot Hunter: Still Searching or writing about offbeat travel for Roadtrippers. He's currently in production on his new project: an original documentary web series titled Planet Weird. He currently lives in Cincinnati.
Greg Newkirk
Greg Newkirk

19 Comments

  1. Christina

    06/21/2011 at 12:33 PM

    Is it a requirement that every paranormal group get a picture taken looking all tough? Question: Which one of the girls is Scooby?
    I await the DNA testing….but not holding my breath for it. It will probably come back as “inconclusive” which of course will mean “we aren’t going to tell you that it was some normal animal”. These kinds of groups and claims are why I am such a cynic.

  2. Robyn

    06/21/2011 at 12:51 PM

    oh this is gonna be a good one!

  3. idoubtit

    06/21/2011 at 1:00 PM

    It’s quite the time to be a fan of cryptozoology. So much drama!!!!
     
    The unprofessionalism is rampant, isn’t it? Not only do we have the Sanger leak and the cringeworthy press release but we have Loren Coleman of Cryptomundo yelling at the Sanger group after they objected to his posting of the leaked photos on the blog (and for sure gathered some good hits on that one). I won’t even mention the unprofessional posts about “hot cryptozoo personalities” Loren posted earlier this week (oops, I just did) which included photos (yes, of himself too). Not cool. At all..
     
    Add to that the disclosures made by the Finding Bigfoot cast that their show was edited beyond what they thought was reasonable, resulting in it being described by commentators as “Faking Bigfoot”. Even the Bigfoot advocates smell something rotten. (And it ain’t a real skunk ape)
     
    Sad. And they complain they aren’t taken seriously? It’s a circus!!!

    • Greg Newkirk

      06/21/2011 at 2:10 PM

      I was going to actually mention Coleman’s complaining, but then I figured people had heard enough of that already. I won’t lie, I’ve been a fan of the Cryptomundo site for awhile, but lately it’s become unbearable. Between navigating through the sea of advertisements and posts like the “hotties of cryptozoolgy” (of course the feature picture is staring down the shirt of a chick with huge cans), Loren is quickly becoming the Harry Knowles of cryptozoology.

      The only saving grace is that popping in to watch people like Matt Moneymaker fight with the internet is hilarious.

      And speaking of Moneymaker, I can’t believe anyone, much less the Finding Bigfoot folks, are surprised to find out that their show is edited into oblivion. That’s what happens when you hinge the burden of proof on your own findings. I’m also kind of surprised that they’re being so outspoken about it. Either they didn’t sign a non-disclosure agreement, or they’re probably going to get in some doo doo for it.

      Everyone loves a circus, but throwing a carny in a labcoat doesn’t make you take him any more seriously.

      • idoubtit

        06/21/2011 at 5:23 PM

        As you know, I don’t go there because my replies either don’t get posted or get edited. And the regulars are a bunch of 13 year old smart ass kids or they are fooling me.

        • high alert

          09/02/2011 at 10:03 PM

          ps that’s what gmail accounts are for

      • high alert

        09/02/2011 at 9:59 PM

        my goodness you just about covered it all in a very concise way.
        I have been annoyed with coleman for awhile…first there was the constant begging for money because the IRS would not accept his crypto hobby as a business and they were ready to bust him, and now the constant begging for donations of cash and objects for the museum. I like the quote that the decor of the new place will be mid century to better fit with the display items…that means,”coleman is too cheap to actually redecorate, so were are leaving the mauve carpeting in place.” He trawls for hits with wacky moneymaker rants (does double m get a kickback?) He has a penchant for big assed native ladies and looking down cleavage, and offensive scatological comments about female cryptovictims. Loren’s fantasy? but including himself in the “hotties” category? too far…even with his zahi hat.

  4. Dana Newkirk

    06/21/2011 at 2:00 PM

    Looks like Kong.

  5. Mike

    06/21/2011 at 2:01 PM

    I just want to know how many bodies are inside that van.

    • Greg Newkirk

      06/21/2011 at 2:25 PM

      It’s hard to store anything in a van that doesn’t exist.

      • Mike

        06/21/2011 at 9:00 PM

        If they are finding Bigfoot I’m allowed to use my imagination also.

  6. Ro

    06/21/2011 at 8:57 PM

    If you squint it looks like someone wearing a kabuki mask kissing a katana.

  7. Scott L.

    06/22/2011 at 6:38 AM

    Pathetic…..

  8. Tony Morrill

    06/22/2011 at 11:19 AM

    I mean come on, really? Billy Meier’s UFO photos look better than this garbage.

  9. larrykat

    06/23/2011 at 10:21 AM

    If you had read their lit you would know that the photo you have is only one of the supposed “impressions” or faceprints. That, they say is the smaller one – there is a larger more impressive one on the other side of the vehicle they intend to unveil. I am not commenting on the veracity of Sanger’s claims – only on your incomplete and messy reporting you chose to base an entire article around.

    • Greg Newkirk

      06/23/2011 at 10:46 AM

      I did read the grammatical atrocity that was their “lit”, and made sure to mention that there were two impressions and that there was more “evidence” to be shown at their press conference. I fail to see how that is “messy” or “incomplete”.

      If any of the reporting was incomplete, it’s only because they haven’t announced anything yet.

  10. Talon

    06/23/2011 at 4:04 PM

    I’m sorry, but none of those people look like they could do a “expedition” into the mountains. And, since when can leave imprints of your full neck when your head and shoulder? Then there’s the facial highlighting around the eyes,nose, and lips. Looks more like someone was finger-painting with vaseline….

  11. Ken Summers

    06/24/2011 at 3:47 AM

    They’re way off base. What they caught there is an invasion of the Iron Man.

    On the bright side, they’s better dressed than most. Of course, I mean that in that “are they news anchorpeople or 90s after-prom models” sense.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>