I am very curious about Erickson’s Matilda, in the "sleeping Sasquatch” photograph recently released that shows her breathing.

Allowing for the same physical differences we see expressed between the ethnicities in humans; Matilda appears to be quite different among thousands of previously reported bigfoot portrayals.
In nearly thirty years receiving reports in North America and reviewing the data in other collections, I have not seen a description that would explain what we see in Matilda.

Matilda does not resemble in the least the subject in the film clip attributed to Roger Patterson affectionately called “Patty.” She does not resemble anything I’ve personally witness, not that what I’ve seen holds much water; but consider the data.

More than anyone else in research, Randy Brisson (a member of Adrian Erickson’s team) has great BF photos that general research scoffed at...but those photos have been verified by hair and other evidence to be presumptive for Sasquatch by Dr. Melba Ketchum’s lab lineup. The Brisson images reflect similarities to the Patterson film subject as they do my sighting and those credible instances in the database. In contrast to the Brisson photos, - Matilda does not resembled the Brisson photos; not even close; but read on.

Erickson’s Matilda does not resemble the hair in the Hovey photo or the muscle definition in the Freeman footage or in the Jeane Hiebert-Ontario-Canada photograph. Although in the Jeane Hiebert photo there is much thicker hair, but uneven hair to be sure, not pelage that resembles manufactured fabric or faux fur.

In the enhanced photo analysis of the Patterson subject, we see high set glutes; the data supports this particular description. Where are Matilda’s well-defined glutes also described as high-set or shelf-like buttocks. Where is Matilda’s muscle definition and broad shoulders so often described in the data, even in females. Matilda looks much like a shag rug or a shaggy dog.

We also do not find a descriptive head of hair on Matilda generally noticed by the casual observer or the head of hair drawn in almost every sketched likeness in the database.

I am not saying that Matilda is not a sasquatch, I don't know - but *if* she is, she matches absolutely nothing in the data; which strikes me odd.

What I notice, fwiw, is that Matilda’s hair (pelage) looks like manufactured fabric. It doesn't fall naturally or part like hair should part...read on...

“If” Matilda's hair isn't manufactured fabric and it's real hair, then to me it looks more like fur, not the hair of a human-like being (Bigfoot) I observed. How is it that the sleeping sasquatch's mtDNA is 100% human but her hair looks like clumpy animal hair? Her pelage looks nothing like any of the great apes, human hair or bear hair. It looks like faux fur.

Think on this for a minute. Natural hair grows with some uneven sparseness to it. See: http://www.bigfootencounters.com/patty_thorax.htm Notice the natural way the hair grows on “Patty” with balding to no hair between her underarm and body. Natural hair wears away with friction. The Patterson subject clearly shows the erratic way body hair wears and grows in a natural uneven pattern. Patty’s skin color is defined; she’s Caucasian under that hair. Observe attentively the large areas of skin showing no hair in the enlargements of Patty and compare them to the density of Matilda’s unusual hair growth pattern. There is no natural wear seen in Matilda's pelage.

What is Matilda?

Matilda does not express any muscle definition; her hair does not resemble the Hovey photo, the Freeman film, the Brisson images, the Ontario Jean Hiebert photos or the 45 years’ worth of sketches listed in the database; Matida does not come close to what I've seen or any other case description listed in general data.

Is she a Sasquatch or something else?

Matilda appears to have hair on the bottoms of her feet; how did that happen? Does Matilda look like she is of the weight that could leave deep tracks on the same level as the Patterson subject?

For me, here is where it gets crazy. Matilda is described as having a pink mouth with a black tongue. Sounds more like a Chow Dog or dog-like than anything supposedly human. Black tongue? Who would believe a human hybrid with a black tongue?

Matilda’s teeth were described as "pointed like fangs." Again, the description is dog like and who got close enough to see fang-like pointed teeth?

People who dabble in alternate realities will have a field day with this next description, "Matilda's eyes were deep set and darted around, they do not blink." That is nonsense, all eyes blink, even lizard eyes blink; the exception might be some snakes.

How would Matilda keep dust, debris and insects out of her eyes if they didn’t blink? The eyeball cannot be sustained without fluids and blinking. The ability to blink spreads lachrymal fluids across the cornea, keeping it clear for perfect vision. Who in the world would believe the absurd idea that sasquatch eyes don't blink except perhaps members of research who dabble in the occult or some level of alternate realities?

Other descriptions of Matilda are listed here:
http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2011/11/erickson-project-considering-pulling.html

Like everyone else, I can definitely see the subject Matilda inhaling/breathing. Whatever is breathing in that video clip is beyond anything I've seen or read about in thirty years of collecting data. And, ...any time something human breathes only 6 times a minute, that is reason for grave concern.

Matilda’s description is not supported by the data.

Who were the experts that advised Adrian Erickson that this was a female Sasquatch? Who shot the Matilda footage? How credible is their background? Where was the Matilda footage shot? How many were present?

Perhaps Adrian Erickson has been ill-served by the people he trusted as his "experts." Maybe this is a case of misinterpretation, a fabrication or false perceptions; I don’t know.

What I do know is that Matilda is most unusual and her physical description is no where else in the data and this of course, is allowing for variances in descriptions on the same level as we see in the varied ethnic descriptions of mankind.

I seriously question if any of Erickson’s advisors ever observed a sasquatch for any extended period of time!

My last question would be, was any evidence (blood, hair or tissue samples) taken directly from Matilda and analyzed presumptive for Bigfoot or something totally different???

My guess is, Matilda may be something else; she does not resemble any description in the data. This is, of course, nothing general research cannot determine on their own.

Bobbie Short, February 14, 2013 ..

Back to What's New?
Back to Stories??
Back to Newspaper & Magazine Articles
Home/Main

Portions of this website are reprinted and sometimes edited to fit the standards of this website
under the Fair Use Doctrine of International Copyright Law
as educational material without benefit of financial gain.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html