deal with this as evidence.
Brief History :
This picture was sent to me from a family who claimed to have Bigfoot in and around their isolated cabin home in the mountains of Tenn. ( I know what your thinking but no not that one)
Thunder TN asked to see this evidence and that is why I am trying to post it.
Measurements were taken but I can't recall specifics.
The window supposedly was off a porch and some 8 feet up.
Reportedly this family had seen these creatures and had them getting into dogfood on their porch and at least two family members watched as they peered in through this window.
Please note the lady making the report was very upset and scared when reporting this claim.
At that point in time we could not discredit the photo nor approve it as evidence.
What would you do with it besides trashcan it?
Full Version: Handprint in Window
Bigfoot Forums > Bigfoot/Sasquatch Discussion > Research & Investigation > Report Publication and Board of Review
Nothing to go on really. There is no way to tell how big the print is for one thing and there are no discernable prints.
I dont think it needs to have alot of effort put into the photo. I would tell her thanks and ask her if she could use a ruler next time but the photo is pretty useless.
Now if more photos were of the area and not just the window and prints it may tell a better story, and of course a good close up of the prints without a big bright flash in the middle would be helpful. Of course not everyone thinks of these things when excited. If all she had was a story and this photo, I would do alot of my judgement of the case based on the pyscological state of the witness. Before during and after the encounter. Her stories , when she seems to get the excited the most while telling it and trying to see if she can accurately recall what she just said after I change the tone and her mood, usually within a half hour.
Most folks who make stuff up on the fly get real excited in telling it but will have a hard time dealing with the short term recollection of what they just said. Give em too much time and they can put it all back together as best they can and it will seem more solid.
And this is why I could never do an investigation for any org. Its more than I can handle. My hats off to you folks who go out and talk to witnesses. I did it a couple times on my own and 2 of the 3 times I was certain I uncovered a wild imagination more than anything. The other I am still workng on. (kinda sorta)
PS - I couldnt find the prints Robert. The ones I remember were taken in the daytime and were from the second story window supposedly.
I dont think it needs to have alot of effort put into the photo. I would tell her thanks and ask her if she could use a ruler next time but the photo is pretty useless.
Now if more photos were of the area and not just the window and prints it may tell a better story, and of course a good close up of the prints without a big bright flash in the middle would be helpful. Of course not everyone thinks of these things when excited. If all she had was a story and this photo, I would do alot of my judgement of the case based on the pyscological state of the witness. Before during and after the encounter. Her stories , when she seems to get the excited the most while telling it and trying to see if she can accurately recall what she just said after I change the tone and her mood, usually within a half hour.
Most folks who make stuff up on the fly get real excited in telling it but will have a hard time dealing with the short term recollection of what they just said. Give em too much time and they can put it all back together as best they can and it will seem more solid.
And this is why I could never do an investigation for any org. Its more than I can handle. My hats off to you folks who go out and talk to witnesses. I did it a couple times on my own and 2 of the 3 times I was certain I uncovered a wild imagination more than anything. The other I am still workng on. (kinda sorta)
PS - I couldnt find the prints Robert. The ones I remember were taken in the daytime and were from the second story window supposedly.
Really nothing you can do with the picture except shrug your shoulders. No scale, terrible lighting, no detail, interesting length and apparent thumb position - but nothing that couldn't be explained by slippage or faking techniques your average 12 year old could think of.
Nada!!
Nada!!
hey robert, she told me it was an upstairs window, but i have heard of it happening before from a researcher in washington, they took the whole pane of glass out of the window. so here is an experiment, for those who do live in the boonies, clean all your out side windows, then monitor them daily, see if something or someone has been looking in them, it couldn't hurt, and hey ya got clean windows.............. 
The prints in the photo look like very normal human handprints. Can't really say much beyond that since there's no scale in the photos to directly measure them against...alas...
(Oops--I submitted this post on the other thread on this sighting, but it's more appropriate here, so I'll add it here.)
Even a smudged print is now valuable, for its DNA:
Even a smudged print is now valuable, for its DNA:
QUOTE(RogerKni @ Jan 25 2004, 01:42 PM)
IF "unknown animal" DNA evidence can be picked up within (say) six months from fingerprints left on trees, as the reference below seems to indicate, that would be a source of evidence that would validate (some) tree breaks. It would also give us an indication of the type of tree breaks that are likely BF-related (e.g., "twists," and also perhaps certain patterns of damage, such as a series of 9-foot high limbs being broken). And it would also, in the process, validate BF him/herself!
Meantime, since strange tree breaks give a clue as to where BF DNA might be collected (and without any damage or even trauma to the animal!), I think it is a topic that should be on researchers' front burner. BF research needs to try doing something different, as many astute observers have noted. Here is “something different” that is inexpensive, objective, and has breakthrough-potential. I.e., it not only would make a real impact on scientific opinion, but would open up a new avenue for lots of investigators to collect lots of data and develop a profile of high-potential tree-damage patterns, and from that even a picture of BF wanderings in various areas.
All a dedicated researcher or (preferably) organization has to do is have the nerve to contact the technique’s inventors and make arrangements to start sending them suspect DNA swabs for analysis. The inventors might go along with this (i.e., with doing the analysis for free) if they were “sold” on the fantastic publicity benefit their technique would garner if it turned out to be the key that unlocked the door to The Missing Link.
Here’s info. on the article describing the technique (with an updated URL):
“DNA extractable from fingerprints”
By Charles Choi UPI Science News
http://cmbi.bjmu.edu.cn/news/0307/175.htm
Here is contact info. for the inventor, or the spokesperson for the inventing team:
Maria Viaznikova
University of Ottawa Heart Institute
40 Ruskin Street
Ottawa, ON
K1Y 4W7
Telephone: + 1 613 761-5000
Facsimile: + 1 613 761-5323
webmaster@ottawaheart.ca
Also, a Nov. 2003 news item has described new techniques using chemical sprays that enable fingerprints to be made visible on wood and rocks. This could help clarify cases involving twisted-trees, and rock-throwing, and rock-stacking. In particular, it would give field investigators a clue as to whether a tree contained BF prints to take a swab of for DNA analysis, so they wouldn’t be making stabs in the dark. They’d have a much higher likelihood of sending non-dud swabs to the analysts in Ottawa. It’s: http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s998859.htm
Meantime, since strange tree breaks give a clue as to where BF DNA might be collected (and without any damage or even trauma to the animal!), I think it is a topic that should be on researchers' front burner. BF research needs to try doing something different, as many astute observers have noted. Here is “something different” that is inexpensive, objective, and has breakthrough-potential. I.e., it not only would make a real impact on scientific opinion, but would open up a new avenue for lots of investigators to collect lots of data and develop a profile of high-potential tree-damage patterns, and from that even a picture of BF wanderings in various areas.
All a dedicated researcher or (preferably) organization has to do is have the nerve to contact the technique’s inventors and make arrangements to start sending them suspect DNA swabs for analysis. The inventors might go along with this (i.e., with doing the analysis for free) if they were “sold” on the fantastic publicity benefit their technique would garner if it turned out to be the key that unlocked the door to The Missing Link.
Here’s info. on the article describing the technique (with an updated URL):
“DNA extractable from fingerprints”
By Charles Choi UPI Science News
http://cmbi.bjmu.edu.cn/news/0307/175.htm
Here is contact info. for the inventor, or the spokesperson for the inventing team:
Maria Viaznikova
University of Ottawa Heart Institute
40 Ruskin Street
Ottawa, ON
K1Y 4W7
Telephone: + 1 613 761-5000
Facsimile: + 1 613 761-5323
webmaster@ottawaheart.ca
Also, a Nov. 2003 news item has described new techniques using chemical sprays that enable fingerprints to be made visible on wood and rocks. This could help clarify cases involving twisted-trees, and rock-throwing, and rock-stacking. In particular, it would give field investigators a clue as to whether a tree contained BF prints to take a swab of for DNA analysis, so they wouldn’t be making stabs in the dark. They’d have a much higher likelihood of sending non-dud swabs to the analysts in Ottawa. It’s: http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s998859.htm
Benthere_2 any plans to followup with the people who sent you the photo? Keep us updated.
If the print is still there, it may be printable. You might contact your local law enforcement agency and see if they would be willing to provide you with the prints. If they will do that for you, you may wish to contact the Conroe, Texas Police Department and look for Ofc. Chillcut who is doing some amazing things with BF footprints. As a fingerprint expert, he might have some information to shed.
NO No no followup on this one. 
If it was true the particular party discredited the whole scene
by appearing out of no where to enact tales of watching Sasquatch Mothers
with babies ( this may have given Jan here start) and aging white Bigfoots all on her
place (3 to be exact) after some scrutinizing she all but admitted to adding a little romance to dress up the stories. Now that I think of it alot of her stories are very similair to Jan's and happened before Jan hit the scene as Bigfootlady duece on
the GCBRO message board. This was perhaps 3-4 years ago when The
MONKEYCHASERS PalTalk room was NUMBER ONE Bigfoot Voice Chat on PalTalk
then an explosion of rooms brought forth more
idiots then I care to mention. It was and in my opinon still is a valueble networking
tool for Bigfoot Entusiasts to meet and share Information and Build Friendships.
You have text chat , video and Voice. You would be surpised as to the photo evidence floating back and forth over this network. It has since gone to about $30.00 a year or more for membership ( get your name BLUE also get streaming video) This was all free
when MC started the chatroom. Still well worth the money for a valueble tool and does
have entertainment not just adult but in it's music and I must add Religion.
This is a dead end on these pictures.
:doh:
Robert
If it was true the particular party discredited the whole scene
by appearing out of no where to enact tales of watching Sasquatch Mothers
with babies ( this may have given Jan here start) and aging white Bigfoots all on her
place (3 to be exact) after some scrutinizing she all but admitted to adding a little romance to dress up the stories. Now that I think of it alot of her stories are very similair to Jan's and happened before Jan hit the scene as Bigfootlady duece on
the GCBRO message board. This was perhaps 3-4 years ago when The
MONKEYCHASERS PalTalk room was NUMBER ONE Bigfoot Voice Chat on PalTalk
then an explosion of rooms brought forth more
idiots then I care to mention. It was and in my opinon still is a valueble networking
tool for Bigfoot Entusiasts to meet and share Information and Build Friendships.
You have text chat , video and Voice. You would be surpised as to the photo evidence floating back and forth over this network. It has since gone to about $30.00 a year or more for membership ( get your name BLUE also get streaming video) This was all free
when MC started the chatroom. Still well worth the money for a valueble tool and does
have entertainment not just adult but in it's music and I must add Religion.
This is a dead end on these pictures.
:doh:
Robert
Gawd, if something like this ever happens again, it needs to be documented a whole lot better- close-up photos from every angle, with a ruler in the shots, measurements taken down, and finally the whole handprint needs to be dusted and lifted.
Here's the address for Conroe PD-
Conroe Police Department
ATTN: Det. Jimmy Chilcutt
401 Simonton St
Conroe, Texas 77301
(936)756-5588
I got a crash course in lifting latent prints last fall, and I could probably talk someone through the process w/o too much trouble.
My advice to everyone would be to get at least a pocket size print kit to keep in their field bag. You can get a small basic one here- http://www.sirchie.com They have 3 different "Value" kits for under $20.00, and a nice "Patrol" kit for around 27.00. Just make sure whatever kit you get has both light and dark powders, and a feather, or fiberglass brush- I think camelhair is too firm for beginners like us.
-Sarge
Here's the address for Conroe PD-
Conroe Police Department
ATTN: Det. Jimmy Chilcutt
401 Simonton St
Conroe, Texas 77301
(936)756-5588
I got a crash course in lifting latent prints last fall, and I could probably talk someone through the process w/o too much trouble.
My advice to everyone would be to get at least a pocket size print kit to keep in their field bag. You can get a small basic one here- http://www.sirchie.com They have 3 different "Value" kits for under $20.00, and a nice "Patrol" kit for around 27.00. Just make sure whatever kit you get has both light and dark powders, and a feather, or fiberglass brush- I think camelhair is too firm for beginners like us.
-Sarge
In addition to what Sarge said, you need to practice, practice, practice and practice some more. Then, when you think you are ready, practice some more. Dusting for prints and lifting same is a technique learned over time. Too much powder ruins the prints and inability to find the prints or gathering the wrong prints makes it much more difficult.
QUOTE(BenThere_2 @ Sep 16 2004, 06:03 PM)
NO No no followup on this one.
If it was true the particular party discredited the whole scene
by appearing out of no where to enact tales of watching Sasquatch Mothers
with babies ( this may have given Jan here start) and aging white Bigfoots all on her
place (3 to be exact) after some scrutinizing she all but admitted to adding a little romance to dress up the stories. Now that I think of it alot of her stories are very similair to Jan's and happened before Jan hit the scene as Bigfootlady duece on
the GCBRO message board. This was perhaps 3-4 years ago when The
MONKEYCHASERS PalTalk room was NUMBER ONE Bigfoot Voice Chat on PalTalk
then an explosion of
If it was true the particular party discredited the whole scene
by appearing out of no where to enact tales of watching Sasquatch Mothers
with babies ( this may have given Jan here start) and aging white Bigfoots all on her
place (3 to be exact) after some scrutinizing she all but admitted to adding a little romance to dress up the stories. Now that I think of it alot of her stories are very similair to Jan's and happened before Jan hit the scene as Bigfootlady duece on
the GCBRO message board. This was perhaps 3-4 years ago when The
MONKEYCHASERS PalTalk room was NUMBER ONE Bigfoot Voice Chat on PalTalk
then an explosion of
Was it Deelady aka caglemtn dee? I seriously thought Jan was her when she first popped up.
Here is something to consider... What (if anything,) do we know about the window?
This window appears to be a "Tip-Out" style window. Typically, the trim or frame around most windows, (especially "tip-out" windows,) are between 1 1/2" to 2" in width. If you take a spreader, and get the width from the frame... you will find that the hand print is approximately 4X the width of the window frame.
If it was a 2" frame... the hand print would be approximately 8" in length. (My hand is 8" in length.
) If the frame was only 1 1/2" in width... the hand print would only be 6" in length. (My son's hand is 6" in length.) If by chance it was a 3" frame (doubtful,) well... you might have something there!
Also, most board "Wall Covering" is 4" in width. In the background, it appears that the owner of the house has used something similar to a "Tongue-n-Groove" style wall covering. (again... this style of wall covering is usually 4" in width.)
The wall covering is approximately 2x the width of the window frame... again... giving the impression that the widow frame is in fact 2" in width.
Whatever the case may be... nothing in this photo would compel me to believe that something large left these prints. It might be time to call the Sheriff's Office and request extra patrol for possible thieves in the area.
Donnie
This window appears to be a "Tip-Out" style window. Typically, the trim or frame around most windows, (especially "tip-out" windows,) are between 1 1/2" to 2" in width. If you take a spreader, and get the width from the frame... you will find that the hand print is approximately 4X the width of the window frame.
If it was a 2" frame... the hand print would be approximately 8" in length. (My hand is 8" in length.
) If the frame was only 1 1/2" in width... the hand print would only be 6" in length. (My son's hand is 6" in length.) If by chance it was a 3" frame (doubtful,) well... you might have something there!Also, most board "Wall Covering" is 4" in width. In the background, it appears that the owner of the house has used something similar to a "Tongue-n-Groove" style wall covering. (again... this style of wall covering is usually 4" in width.)
The wall covering is approximately 2x the width of the window frame... again... giving the impression that the widow frame is in fact 2" in width.
Whatever the case may be... nothing in this photo would compel me to believe that something large left these prints. It might be time to call the Sheriff's Office and request extra patrol for possible thieves in the area.
Donnie
QUOTE(BenThere_2 @ Sep 16 2004, 08:05 AM)
The window supposedly was off a porch and some 8 feet up.
Reportedly this family had seen these creatures and had them getting into dogfood on their porch and at least two family members watched as they peered in through this window.
Reportedly this family had seen these creatures and had them getting into dogfood on their porch and at least two family members watched as they peered in through this window.
It's a hoax
Gotta agree with BEH on this one. The whole thing screams pathetic attempt at a hoax.
Nice analysis Donnie.
Donnie just goes to show any picture will have a number of detailed clues.
QUOTE(Maheekat @ Sep 16 2004, 02:32 PM)
LMAO - I can see this dufus scrubbing on this window shouting out you damned spot out!
Since apparently no more window-peekies happened after the good scrubbing, are we to assume vinegar is a good B.F. deterrent?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.