Sasquatch Coffee

New Bigfoot Video From Idaho?

Posted by: Craig Woolheater on March 20th, 2012

This video showed up on youtube a week ago.

What do the Cryptomundians think?

Bigfoot Sighting In Idaho 2012

A large shady creature which appears to be a Bigfoot is spotted walking through the trees across a canyon. Before we began filming the figure could be seen walking through the clearing of snow just to the left of the trees.

we never really got a good look but at first we saw what we thought was a person walking across the canyon but after looking at it for a second it looked more and more not humanUploaded by Lukeking327 on Mar 13, 2012

About Craig Woolheater
Co-founder of Cryptomundo in 2005. I have appeared in or contributed to the following TV programs, documentaries and films: OLN's Mysterious Encounters: "Caddo Critter", Southern Fried Bigfoot, Travel Channel's Weird Travels: "Bigfoot", History Channel's MonsterQuest: "Swamp Stalker", The Wild Man of the Navidad Destination America's Monsters and Mysteries in America: Texas Terror - Lake Worth Monster, Animal Planet's Finding Bigfoot: Return to Boggy Creek and Beast of the Bayou.


56 Responses to “New Bigfoot Video From Idaho?”

  1. peteyweestro responds:

    I’m going to say the obvious in that 16 seconds isn’t enough time to say either way, but to be a “glass half full guy” I am going to say that in the short stabilized version it sorta looks like the head shape is how normally described and it seems like it’s sorta wide so for 16 seconds i will say maybe!

  2. Hapa responds:

    This is just another reason among many why the idea of a “photographic holotype” is Bull Hockey. Might as well take film from Blade Runner the Director’s Cut, where the Unicorn makes an appearance (and far clearer and more realistic than most Bigfoot films and photos, might I add) and say “Its absolute proof that Unicorns exist! We have a Photographic Holotype! Yeeeehaaaaaaw I’m gonna be on Leno!!!”.

    We need to prove Sasquatch exists, not by films, not by pics, but by a corpse, live specimen, or major parts of one. The Scientific powers that be are NOT going to take vids like this at face value.

  3. Ed62 responds:

    Interesting…but, the other comment is right….16 seconds, who knows…:)

  4. AreWeThereYeti responds:

    Could it be Bigfoot? Sure. Could it be just about anything else? You betcha. Underwhelmed. Next…

  5. etheral responds:

    Atypical for a Bigfoot video posted to YouTube… distant, blurry, shaky. It could be a Bigfoot, but as usual, it will be impossible to prove with this particular piece.

    I can see Finding Bigfoot doing an episode on it, however.

    Even though video evidence will likely never prove its existence, I imagine the day will come when someone nabs video of a Bigfoot that will be truly remarkable.

  6. Cryptoraptor responds:

    If that video doesn’t convince people about the existence of bigfoot, I don’t know what will. ;)

  7. Midwestern72 responds:

    Looks like another “Blobsquatch” to me. Nothing special here.

  8. Desertdweller responds:

    Could be a Bigfoot. Could be a big bear.

    I agree with Hapa. No photographic evidence is going to prove the existence of Bigfoot. No matter how good, some “experts” will claim a photoshopped fraud.

    I ask you, if you were to fake a Bigfoot video, wouldn’t you want the “Bigfoot” to be seen clearly? The critter in this video doesn’t have a clearly defined shape. It could be any big shaggy thing, moving through the trees.

    The fact that the creature in the video is so indistinct adds credibility to the video, in my opinion. The most credible thing the photographer could have done would have been to get up to where the thing was seen, and try to gather some physical evidence.

    There is no “specimen type” for Bigfoot DNA. But, there are samples of physical evidence from alleged Bigfoots that typically give the results “unknown primate”.
    I think the logical next step would be to compare DNA sequencing from various specimen samples from different locations. Even if you do not have a specimen type for comparison, the samples could be compared with each other. If they display a consistent result, it would provide good evidence for a new species.

  9. DWA responds:

    Another hoonose.

  10. springheeledjack responds:

    What I like about the footage: the figure appears to be oblivious to the camera and is working its way through the brush. The stabilized view makes me think it’s bipedal. It fits the description of Bigfoot. The range makes me think that they were honestly taping something crossing the ridge.

    The cons: Far enough off it could be a human, though it seems bulky. It could be a good set up with some skill.

    Honestly, unless we get good, close up video that we can rule out fakes and what not, a video or a picture isn’t going to cut it anymore. There’s just way too much computer tech to turn almost anything into a realistic cryptid video. That and there seems to be no shortage of idiots who have nothing better to do other than put together cryptid footage.

  11. WinterIsComing responds:

    yeeeeah…It could be anything, just another blob in the woods…someday maybe.

  12. CDC responds:

    I don’t understand…National Geographic Channel’s Navajo Cops had a pretty good sighting with audio and video and nothing on Cryptomundo except the preview for the show last week

    I don’t know, but that Nat Geo clip carries more weight than this youtube stuff

    Why the black out on the Skinwalker? Did I miss something?

  13. Cass_of_MPLS responds:

    No, it isn’t Bigfoot. It’s BETTER!

    That is footage of an actual paranormal event

    What we see is the ghost of famed Idaho Mountain Man “Cougar Dave Lewis” wearing his familiar bearskin coat as he always did in the winter months.

  14. big max responds:

    A Youtube Bigfoot video, huh?!
    One of 3 things….
    (a) a fake (planned)
    (b) an innocent fake (unknown to video taker)
    (c) an actual animal (bigfoot, bear, etc)
    If the video poster knew it was the real thing, it wouldn’t be on Youtube.
    16 seconds only and focused on the image….smells like a fake.

  15. Redrose999 responds:

    Blobsquatch! Dang, looking forward to seeing the future line of HD cameras. Films like this would be better for discussion.

  16. Oakums responds:

    Orly? Is that really “Cougar Dave Lewis”? I did a little looking and found no photographic evidence that “Cougar Dave Lewis” wore a bearskin coat.. . Looks like a bear searching through the bush and wearing a bearskin coat to me.

  17. oldphilosopher responds:

    In answer to desertdweller’s question, “If you were to fake a Bigfoot video, wouldn’t you want the ‘Bigfoot’ to be seen clearly?” …. I would say that the answer depends entirely on how convincing your ‘Bigfoot suit’ looks. If all you have is the Georgia Boy’s gorilla suit, you want ‘distant and fuzzy.’

    I have no idea what this video may be, but I did get a vague impression of exaggerated movement that struck me as clumsy. Perhaps that is just the result of my inherently suspicious nature.

    Ultimately, of course, Hapa is correct.

  18. Sharon Lee responds:

    I find it amusing that someone said they think it’s a fake because the videographer focused in on the object. There is no pleasing you people! lol So if it was out of focus and blurry you would think it was legit?

  19. DWA responds:

    Sharon Lee: precisely.

    Circumstances seem to point to this not having been faked. Whatever-that-is is far away from the shooter; why would one even bother with any kind of suit fake for something like this? Not rational to presume that, at all. I think that
    an easy, believable backstory is that he saw movement and focused on it.

    Now, can’t tell you what it is.

  20. DWA responds:

    Hapa:

    Nobody’s saying anyone can put something like this in front of the scientists and declare victory.

    I’ve never seen a cryptid video on this site that could serve as a holotype. And I’d be willing to bet lunch money that I never will. I have only seen two that could be put forward as compelling evidence. In both of those cases, strong vouchers, complete with copious supporting observations, by scientists present at the filming would be required to lend them legitimacy (which didn’t happen), and they still would constitute no more than compelling evidence that a push for proof is now required.

    I look at submissions like this (which definitely could be a legit bigfoot video, there’s just no way to tell that for sure) as the follow-up to an understandably human impulse:

    This is interesting; I got something; not sure, but maybe it’ll help.

  21. DWA responds:

    Whoops, didn’t finish my thought.

    Hapa, a photographic holotype is NOT ‘bull hockey.” Why? It’s happened. Period.

    I’m not expecting that to happen in this case. But it’s definitely conceivable that a video taken by an expedition with serious scientific chops, at high definition and close range, vouched for with sufficient supporting evidence by scientists present at the filming, could seal the deal.

    (One of the reasons I turn my nose up at reported habituation scenarios: we should have this for them. Period.)

    A video by an amateur would have to be BBC-nature-closeup good, with sufficient detail for scientists to point up clearly non-human markers.

    A photo?

    Unlikely, no matter who takes it. You know what they will always say about one image: could have been faked. Much harder to do with a moving, clearly shot subject.

  22. mandors responds:

    Okay, could be:

    1. Black bear

    2. Guy in a suit

    3. Bigfoot.

    Doesn’t look or move like a black bear. So is it a guy in a suit? The problem is that it looks like the SAME suit and the SAME guy as about a dozen other “reliable” videos spanning about fifty or sixty years. That’s why I think there may be a chance this is real. I also think that this maybe the problem with Bigfoot in general, if it does exist: it is a species, as ignoble as it sounds, that really does look like a big dumb guy in a black fur suit.

  23. SquatchDoc83 responds:

    Pretty difficult to say. The head shape and brief glimpse of the neck are squatch like, but the resolution is so low. Hard to even say for sure that it’s bipedal. tough to gague the size but seems person size or smaller. Videos will never be proof enough……

  24. mitchigan responds:

    With all that snow, they should have went to look for foot prints,
    yes?

  25. DWA responds:

    mitchigan: with all the movement toward proof that tracks have afforded us, not surprising to me that they didn’t go there to check for them. I might not have.

    Besides that looks like a slog in those conditions for something that might not be all that clear. I don’t think the snow’s that deep.

    Of course, I don’t think we’ve had the combination of a video and an interesting recorded trackway yet, either.

    (Other than Patty.)

  26. Jonathan Poulsen responds:

    Too far away to make any serious scientific judgement. However, since the ground was snow-covered, there may/might have been some clearly visible footprints.

  27. Jonathan Poulsen responds:

    It appears to be functioning a bipedal locomotion, so we can rule out black bear as they can only stand erect stationary. That leaves two other alternatives, a man in a monkey suit or a Sasquatch (the ‘man in a monkey suit’ option fits the description of the film-subejct, case-closed).

  28. D2K4 responds:

    I’m no expert when it comes to identifying things on camera by any means but to my mind, whatever it’s worth, the object in the film looks similar to the Patterson film Bigfoot. Same color…looks like it moves the same…looks like the same general shape. Again, that’s just my take on it.

  29. Hapa responds:

    DWA

    “Hapa, a photographic Holotype is NOT bullhockey! Why? Its Happened. Period.”

    It has? Could you give an example, something like a link to an academic site? Did it involve a vertebrate, a mammal, or even something that was deemed a mythical animal until it was found? Is there documented evidence that the pictures were subjected to intense scrutiny over photoshopping and or older fashion methods of hoaxing? Was there major parts of a body found that went with the species identification (for smaller animals it would be a substantial part of an animal, no matter how small. A bone, a (relatively or absolutely) ginormously large piece of meat with skin an scales/hair attatched, organs (even the latter two might not be enough)?

    I don’t care how many scientists are around when the animal is pictured or filmed: If a bunch of credible scientists saw a Unicorn or a Pegasus or a Vampire, or a pink floating asparagus that sings, or even a one-eyed-one-horned-flying-purple-people-eater with DNA, they are not going to be believed (they probably wouldn’t even bother looking at any DNA evidence, save for possible Ergot DNA from the LSD they will assume the scientists consumed on a friday night bender). And if we are getting to the point in science where a photograph is an okay replacement for a body, major parts of one, or a live specimen, then China deserves to get ahead of us in science because we don’t know what the word means anymore.

    The only way to find proof of Sasquatch without doing violence is to find a dead body or a fossil. If you want to do that, then on the former, good luck, and on the latter, forget the camera and get the shovel and pickaxe and get hunting in the Pacific Northwest. That’s the only workable alternative, but even still, the fossil wont prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that it still exists today, unless it has enough of a complete skeletal remains that are so similar to what Bigfoot’s would be like that Skeptics would look desperate to continue to stick their noses up in the air.

    To all:

    If most Bigfoot researchers believe in this “Magic Photo” or “Magic film” theory about proving Sasquatch, it will most likely become extinct before we can get the proper evidence to prove it and therefore be able to push for its protection. People are killing sasquatch with their “moral” objection to shooting it.

    Sorry Sasquatch. RIP.

  30. Cass_of_MPLS responds:

    Oakums…ever been in Idaho in the winter?

    EVERYBODY wore bearskin coats in the winter to keep warm when out checking traps and so forth and so on and Cougar Dave was no exception.

    Buffalo robes were also quite popular but too heavy for general use.

  31. Cass_of_MPLS responds:

    @Hapa

    The problem with producing a corpse, fossil evidence*, etc etc is that no such thing has ever been found.

    All you get are footprints and pics/video.

    The problem with Sasquatch is that it doesn’t leave any more physical trace behind than the Jersey Devil or any of a dozen other Cryptids.

    *Unless it IS Gigantopithecus, of course.

  32. DWA responds:

    Hapa:

    Right here on Cryptomundo
    :

    That’s a slightly tougher call than an eight-foot, 500-pound bipedal ape. (In fact, at first they presumed it was a known animal.) But they made it.

    I don’t trust us and our record for killing stuff. Frankly? I’d rather it go unconfirmed than kill one to prove it’s alive.

    The evidence doesn’t convince me totally. But when one is as acquainted as I am with it, one doesn’t get so all-fired excited about executing one to prove it’s real.

    That’s about as good an argument as I can give for getting acquainted with the evidence.

  33. Hapa responds:

    DWA:
    Yes I did some researching after I put out my last post and came upon that Monkey, and how originally illustrations were allowed as holotypes and how recently photographs were used (which is absurd if you think about it: Gazillions of Bigfoot photos/films have been rejected by mainstream science, yet a monkey gets a pic and its automatically discovered? If I paint a Monkey Yellow with purple polka-dots and take a photograph scientists would accept it? I guess I should take a picture or film of a guy in Zombie makeup, take DNA from a Corpse, get the backing of scientists with a sense of humor and satire, and make the case I discovered Zombies!). Despite the use of a picture as a holotype, however, the webpage you linked to states that the animal wasn’t recognized as its own genus until a actual physical specimen was taken. Before that, it was considered a new species of Mangabey. After a physical specimen, it was found to not be a new species of Mangabey, but in a different genus.

    Once again, a physical specimen trumps a pic. Though the animal was described as something new (by a scientific elite that are hypocritical in the wazoo-extreme, for taking a photograph of all things as evidence while dismissing countless cryptid films and photos of the 20th century alone), it wasn’t properly understood until a physical specimen was taken.

    And, as you would agree, a monkey is one thing, a upright Gorilla is another.

    We are up to our hairlines in sasquatch photos, films, tracks, accounts (oh, so many accounts!) and not one has been accepted as a type specimen. None will. Even with a scientific team taking such evidence, it would still most likely be ignored or ridiculed. a Body must be found. And if you’d rather have the animal remain undiscovered than have it to be shot, then you’d rather have it go extinct instead of being found and protected. Just because it is not proven scientifically does not mean it is not at this moment being bagged stuffed and mounted in some rich guy’s private collection of dead beasts.

    If crypto-zoology is not about discovering new animals, if its about believing that the journey is more important than the goal, if it is about believing it is amoral to kill one cryptid yet okay to let it go extinct in human ignorance, then it is a joke, it is a lie, it is foolish, it is half-baked, it is a scam, and it should be shelved with Phrenology and other so-called “Sciences” that have been disregarded.

    Hint hint: People, lets prove the above paragraph wrong, and succeed in discovery for a change!!!!

  34. DWA responds:

    Hapa:

    I’m not going to kill a sasquatch for cryptozoology’s sins. Or the skeptics’ for that matter.

    That this animal remains undiscovered – actually thousands have apparently discovered it already – isn’t its fault. Cryptos have a mountain of evidence in their favor; they have chosen, for the most part, to snipe at, harangue and discredit one another rather than pooling resources to pound on the door of science. The skeptics have chosen to wallow in ignorance rather than take on the scientific proponents, or – since they can’t do that – come out, with them, for science to get involved and settle this bet. In a battle of wits, they are half-armed. I’ve chewed up and spat out enough of them to know.

    And science? Don’t get me started. And of course it’s not science but scientists, still way too damn many of them, ridiculing a topic they know nothing about rather than at least having the decency to sit on the fence and encourage research into the unknown. The exceptions, one would think, would shame the rest into proper scientific behavior. But, um, guess not. It’s enough to make one question anything a scientist says.

    That the kipunji revealed more when a specimen was collected says nothing. Every species whose scientific name I knew as a child – I honestly cannot think of an exception – has a different one now. Because science is a set of PROVISIONAL truths, always being amended by evidence.

    And I’m confused why you, pushing pushing pushing for confirmation confirmation confirmation, don’t see the value of saying THIS IS A NEW SPECIES at the earliest possible opportunity. Isn’t that precisely what you are arguing? How is it “worse” to wait for a body – and reduce the species by, for all we know, a critical one to get it – than to, say, declare this a species based on P/G, and immediately get about protecting it, starting by making it a felony to kill one? Huh?

    I’m right.

    Right…?

  35. Hapa responds:

    DWA:

    “I’m not going to kill Sasquatch for Crypto-zoology’s sins. Or the skeptic’s for that matter.”

    You won’t kill one to prove the species and therefore attain it the protection needed? You would rather see it go extinct than that one dies for the sake of all of it’s kind?

    “And of course its’s not science but scientists, still way too [bleep] many of them, ridiculing a topic they know nothing about rather than at least having the decency to sit on the fence and encourage research into the unknown.”

    Agreed. But to them Sasquatch is as likely as the Tooth Fairy. Without a rotting body to rub in their face they will continue to add to the great wide joke that society christens “Bigfoot”, instead of aiding the discovery of the real animal behind the myth.

    “That the Kimpunji revealed more when a specimen was collected says nothing.”

    Other than the fact that the animal was far, far, far better understood than before with a crummy photograph. By a actual physical specimen, science was added to, our understanding of the animal kingdom was added to, and ultimately human knolwedge was further enriched.

    “Every species whose scientific name I knew as a child-I honestly cannot think of an exception-has a different one now.”

    Canis Familiaris and Felis Catus should not have had any name changes recently. Likewise many fossil animals have kept their traditional names over time. However your are correct animal names tend to change upon further discovery.

    “And I’m confused why you,pushing pushing pushing for confirmation confirmation confirmation, don’t see the value of saying “THIS IS A NEW SPECIES at the earliest possible opporitunity.”

    Same reason why I don’t jump and say UNICORNS PEGASUS ZOMBIES HECHATONCHIRES DEER WOMAN MODERN DAY GORGONOPSIDS are new species and deserve immediate protection without something substantial to back up the claim.

    Might as well was that “CERBERUS is a new species, and is critically extinct (depsite multiple heads, just one animal) and therefore people should simply accept my claim without a corpse but with my blurry photographs and films (which are so easy to fake in modern times I get sick everytime i see a bigfoot film/photo nowadays) and therefore we should enact a Law based on BS evidence!!!!!!!!!!

    “How is it “worse” to wait for a body-and reduce the species by, for all we know, a critical one to get it- than to, say, declare this a species based on P/G, and immediately get about protecting it, starting by making it a felony to kill one? Huh?”

    But you don’t know whether one killed would be a critical one because you don’t have the proof they exist in the first place, let alone a census of how many there are. Might as well take the Film footage from the recent movie “Troll Hunter” and call for immediate species recognition and protection for that species.

    Let’s not forget that any Bigfoot that would be shot would have DNA, would have sperm or ovaries, and therefore would present us with a chance to clone and or artificially inseminate a wild female sasquatch out there. So it doesn’t have to be a critical loss, if at that.

    first a Finger + then a trigger = shot. Likewise, first a physical specimen (doesn’t have to be complete) + then a species recognition= species protection. And if you are so bound and determined not to kill one, nor capture one (arguably worse for the animal), then go after fossils. Just because one of Sasquatch hasn’t been found in North America doesn’t mean they are not there to find. That to me would be an acceptable alternative to a killing, capture or major parts of a body.

    Remember: there are not people out there dressing up in Kimpunji suits and getting filmed or photographed.

  36. Pam responds:

    I wish it looked like a bigfoot. It just looks like a bear to me. Somebody please show me a Bigfoot! :)

  37. Hapa responds:

    Case_of_MPLS

    “The problem of producing a corpse, fossil evidence*, etc etc, is that no such thing has ever been found.
    All you get are footprints and pics/video.”

    We also do have a lot of hairs, too, but they might as well be on par with pics, vids and tracks; none have dethroned the skeptical elite. Having said that, just because more substantial physical remains have not been found does not mean they are not there to find: There were no physical remains of Gorillas to prove their existence (though proof might have been found when Hanno of Carthage came across “Gorillas” and took a pelt or two of them, but those finds have been long lost to history), nor have there been no fossils of Gorillas found to this day. Nevertheless before they were discovered by western science they did indeed exist, and were known by the natives of the regions where their lived.

    Likewise, just because we have no substantial physical remains does not mean that we have no substantial physical remains. Sounds odd? Its happened before: Before the Neanderthal holotype was found in Neander Valley in Germany, a Neanderthal woman’s skull was found on Gibraltar. It was not identified as a bonafide Neanderthal till after the Neander specimen was recognized as a new species of man. If it was, we would have called them “Gibraltars” instead of Neanderthals. Plus Dinosaur bones have been found for ages in ancient Greece and China, yet were not recognized for what they were until more modern times, when people “discovered” dinosaurs bones, and later using history figured out that people had found them in ages distant as well (Adrienne Mayor’s “The First Fosil Hunters” covers this to an amazing degree, for both dinosaurs and other prehistoric beasts.)

    We have had numerous documented finds of “Giant human bones/skeletons” that were either proven not to be and discarded, or discarded without further inspection, or “proven” to be other creatures when they might have been something more interesting. Then there is the Minaret skull which still resides somewhere in California I believe, which was discarded as an unusual Indian’s skull, despite the fact that it was similar in shape to what we would think a Sasquatch’s skull would be. There is also a browridge from Mexico that looked a lot like a Homo Erectus as well (still under intense scientific scrutiny).

    Primate fossils can be hard to come by, people think twice before shooting something primatesque in North America (Man, or maybe a Bear out of season), not a lot of major academic interest and University-funded expeditions, misidentifications, hoaxing out the wazoo, has aided in this creature (if it does or still exists) remaining hidden.

    “Unless it IS *Gigantopithecus, of course.”

    Some scholars like Loren Coleman and Mark Hall would consider the more unusual and larger “True Giants” of North America (tall lanky upright primates of 10 feet or even far higher, flat faced and flat handed, leaving 3 to 4 toed tracks) as Giganto instead of the more classical Neo-Giant Bigfoot. Giganto could be Bigfoot. One reason mainstream scientists are not anywhere near as skeptical of the Yeti as they are of Sasquatch is because their fossils are found in Asia, home of the Yeti. The possibility pops up in Prehistoric beast scientific lit. However, it has yet to be found in America. If it is, then it is a major breakthrough. If proven to be a bipedal walker, even more so.

  38. DWA responds:

    Hapa:

    “You won’t kill one to prove the species and therefore attain it the protection needed? You would rather see it go extinct than that one dies for the sake of all of it’s kind?”

    No to the first sentence, and no to the second (which isn’t an either/or), for precisely the reasons I’ve outlined, which are good ones. No reason to kill one, period.

    We can protect the sasquatch right now, if we want to, the same way they do the yeti in Bhutan: create reserves, which do not require a proven species, and which will protect everything in them whether the sasquatch is real or not. And put a federal law on the books prohibiting the shooting of any species that is not specifically identified as legal in the hunting regulations of the jurisdiction where shot. If we don’t do that, we don’t want to protect the sasquatch. Period. And we – not it – deserve whatever happens. Killing stuff is how extinction has become a weetad of a problem.

    “Agreed. But to them Sasquatch is as likely as the Tooth Fairy. Without a rotting body to rub in their face they will continue to add to the great wide joke that society christens “Bigfoot”, instead of aiding the discovery of the real animal behind the myth.”

    Once again: I’m not killing a sasquatch to rub it in someone’s face. That kind of thinking is precisely how extinction has become a weetad of a problem. You don’t think one is a big deal? Show me your population numbers and the evidence to back them up. Otherwise, let’s not kill one when we don’t even know how many there are. Estimates by the TBRC of the species’ population density in the Ark-La-Tex-Oma region put the species in critical danger of extirpation there if one breeding-age animal is killed.

    “That the Kimpunji revealed more when a specimen was collected says nothing. Other than the fact that the animal was far, far, far better understood than before with a crummy photograph. By a actual physical specimen, science was added to, our understanding of the animal kingdom was added to, and ultimately human knolwedge was further enriched.”

    Human knowledge gets enriched first by the identification of a species, which in the kipunji’s case was: photograph. (It can’t be crummy to be sufficient for science.) Species designation is where the learning starts, not where it finishes. There is no reason anyone can come up with that makes sense that science should not recognize a species with a photograph if same is held by consensus of experts to be clear enough, particularly if that species appears to be in possible danger of extinction. Why in the WORLD would ANYONE prefer killing one to identifying it as a species with a photo? Makes no sense, no matter how one slices it.

    “Canis Familiaris and Felis Catus should not have had any name changes recently. Likewise many fossil animals have kept their traditional names over time. However your are correct animal names tend to change upon further discovery.”

    Canis domesticus and Felis domesticus when I was a kid. And no I ain’t old.

    “Same reason why I don’t jump and say UNICORNS PEGASUS ZOMBIES HECHATONCHIRES DEER WOMAN MODERN DAY GORGONOPSIDS are new species and deserve immediate protection without something substantial to back up the claim.”

    We have more – much more – to back up the sasquatch than they did to back up the kipunji. The P/G film and Meldrum’s paper should suffice for provisional identification of an animal awaiting full scientific classification. The avalanche of guidebook-consistent sightings by reliable individuals, continuing to the present day, is the icing on the cake. No, I’m right. Shame science doesn’t see it that way. If you can turn around and call something not a planet that, um, IS one, and has been one since 1930, and do it by a VOTE ferepetes, you can do this. Read: if you can do something stupid by scientific fiat, you can do something smart. Science should. The acceptance of Meldrum’s paper, in fact, seems somewhat odd, at least, without such a complementary move. Times change; science should change with them; and the yeti should replace the sasquatch as the natural phenomenon of modern times with the most substantiating evidence before formal action by the scientific community.

    (You need to read you some John Bindernagel. He considers the sasquatch a scientific discovery that has already happened; it just hasn’t been universally recognized yet. And he’s as no-nonsense as Meldrum.)

    “Might as well was that “CERBERUS is a new species, and is critically extinct (depsite multiple heads, just one animal) and therefore people should simply accept my claim without a corpse but with my blurry photographs and films (which are so easy to fake in modern times I get sick everytime i see a bigfoot film/photo nowadays) and therefore we should enact a Law based on BS evidence!!!!!!!!!!”

    Show me your CERBERUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! database, and your CERBERUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! video and trackways, and you could get me to agree with you if the frequency and coherence are there and CERBERUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! can be clearly ID’d on the video and fakery ruled out (as it has effectively been for P/G). Let us restrict the conversation to reality, thank you.

    “But you don’t know whether one killed would be a critical one because you don’t have the proof they exist in the first place….”

    …which is about the best reason I ever heard not to kill one. Thanks! Aldo Leopold said it best: the first rule of intelligent tinkering is to save all the parts. He didn’t say “except the one you kill.” He said ALL the parts. He’s right.

    ” Might as well take the Film footage from the recent movie “Troll Hunter” and call for immediate species recognition and protection for that species.”

    As I, er, have, ah, um, firmly established beyond question, um, no. BTW: I am on the record that no trolls nor troll hunters should be killed just to prove they are real.

    “Let’s not forget that any Bigfoot that would be shot would have DNA, would have sperm or ovaries, and therefore would present us with a chance to clone and or artificially inseminate a wild female sasquatch out there. So it doesn’t have to be a critical loss, if at that.”

    That should only take about a hundred years. It’s like killing a horse to save the hooves so you can clone a horse someday. How about just not kill it?

    “first a Finger + then a trigger = shot. Likewise, first a physical specimen (doesn’t have to be complete) + then a species recognition= species protection. ”

    Killing something to save it didn’t work for Lt. Calley. It doesn’t set well with me. We don’t need to do it; so why do it? I like it when our species progresses. We need to get beyond this killing-to-save nonsense. The peculiar human talent that has brought us to the brink of destroying the natural beauty of the planet: easy rationalizing. We need to cut that out. One thing I haven’t heard from any pro-killer: Why do you think nobody’s brought one in yet? Other than scientific recognition that there’s even something out there to confirm, what makes you think someone will do it? This kill/no-kill discussion is not making the difference the pro-killers think it’s making. It’s not like anyone is awaiting the go-ahead to go out there and kill one. I have read numerous reports from hunters who said they could have shot at one. They had good reasons for not doing it. Good for them.

    “And if you are so bound and determined not to kill one, nor capture one (arguably worse for the animal), then go after fossils. Just because one of Sasquatch hasn’t been found in North America doesn’t mean they are not there to find. That to me would be an acceptable alternative to a killing, capture or major parts of a body.”

    People are looking for fossils all the time, so: check. That one hasn’t been found yet that connects the dots to the sasquatch doesn’t mean it won’t happen.

    “Remember: there are not people out there dressing up in Kimpunji suits and getting filmed or photographed.”

    As I’ve said here many times: the fakes are so obvious they aren’t even part of the discussion. A fake is of no issue to a photo holotype. You can bet everything your family ever made or will on this: a photo holotype won’t pass muster if it isn’t unequivocally the real thing.

  39. Hapa responds:

    DWA

    “No to the first sentence, and no to the second”

    It is an either or, and you have just proven you would rather put your sympathy for one animal over the needs of the species.

    “We can protect the species right now, if we wanted to, the same way they do the Yeti in Bhutan: create reserves, which do not require a proven species, and which will protect everything in them whether the Sasquatch is real or not.”

    That may work in Bhutan where Yetis are by and large believed in, but not in western society where Sasquatch is relegated to Werewolves and Pixies, and where you need more than a photograph to keep loggers from badly needed jobs and natural resources (to say nothing of other resources such as coal).

    “Killing stuff is how extinction has become a weetad of a problem.”

    Extinction has always been a problem since then beginning of life on earth. Yet often some species can withstand high numbers of fatalities and survive as a species. If Killing things was the sole reason for extinctions, then why are cattle still existant (You know how many burgers and steaks are out there?), or chickens or Misquitoes (plenty of those things are killed, yet they thrive.). “Killing things” is a mere oversimplification that ignores more complicated pieces of the puzzle (domestication or near domestication, monetary value for the species to be either alive and thriving or rare then dead, recovery time of a population after mass loss of populations, genetic health, human culture, etc. And while some species that have been discovered did not fare well afterwards (Thylacines and Passenger Pigeons), others have been highly successful (Coyotes, Raccoon Dogs, Norway Rats) and even many that were brought to the brink of the species have grown in population again (Mountain Gorillas, European Winsents) and even have broke out of the endangered species list (Bison are indeed back). Discovery does not in and of itself lead to extinction (oterwise we would have no domestic animals, let alone as many wild animal species that we do now. Its human greed, error, population pressures, evil, and other aspects of the human animal, not discovery. Many animal species go extinct without ever being discovered (which kills the theory that un-discovery saves species.)

    “You don’t think one is a big deal? Show me your population numbers and the evidence to back them up.”

    News flash: the animal hasn’t been proven to exist yet. Not to the scientific community. Until that is done, the “one” argument is bumpkus. Show me your proof that has led without all other’s knowledge for the scientific community to accept sasquatch as a species and the field work notes done on population. If you don’t don’t waste valuable time.

    “Estimates by the TBRC of the species’ population density in the Ark-La-Tex-Oma Region put the species in critical condition of expiritation there if one breeding age animal is killed.”

    …And the evidence for this is? It’s funny how Diane Fossey, when she did her surveys of Gorillas (numebring their population), she didn’t just use tracks, signs, etc, but actually also COUNTED LIVE ANIMALS. Animals that had been proven long ago by a kill shot, incidentally.
    Until sasquatch is proven, any population estimates are laughable, idiotic, and sad. It has no weight in the scientific community.

    And also remember: Sasquatch has been seen/heard/left tracks and hair from the Yukon to British Columbia, from vancover Isle (yes you read that right, isle) to Ontario and most likely beyond that province, all the lower 48, Alaska, Hawaii (Yes, even Hawaii, specifically Oahu. They are called Aikanaka. See Loren Coleman’s and Mark Hall’s “True Giants”, pages 67-68.), all the way down to central and South America (Sisemite, Vasitri, Mapunguari (some sightings sound like Giant Ground Sloths, others like Bigfoot), Ucu-Ucumar (some sightings are bigfoot like, others like a Bigfoot-bear hybrid).

    For an animal that just might be in the brink of extinction, it SURE does get around!
    Face it: we have far more pics film and hair and DNA evidence for Sasquatch than we do for the Kapunji, and yet the Kapunji is considerd legit, the Sasquatch is not. Never going to be, until the proper physical proof is provided.

    …”which in the Kapuni’s case was: photograph.”

    Among gazillions more that were proven by actual physical remains, live specimens. Even the drawings that were made holotypes were done with such detail that they could not have been done by glimsping the beasts drawn within a few seconds or very far, far away. We have the P/G film which is clear enough to show its realism (and film is harder to fake than pics: a pic of a hoaxer in a suit might be good enough to convince with its realism, but a film of that person in a suit walking might just reveal more obvious signs of hoaxing in the subject’s movements. Still, no type specimen)

    “Why in the WORLD would ANYONE prefer killing one to identifying it as a species with a Photo?”

    Because Photos can be FAKED, a bonafide corpse cannot.

    “We have more- much more-to back up Sasquatch than they did the Kapunji.”

    And yet the Kapunji was accepted, the Sasquatch still not. Makes you wonder why…

    “The Avalanche of guidebook-consistent sightings by reliable individuals, continuing to the present day, is the icing on the cake.”

    And yet Skeptics often over-indulge on the mis-identification factor that, if they ran our courts, eyewitness testimony would never be allowed as evidence at trial, and the scientific community is behind them on this. They fart away such evidence. A body on a slab, or a live specimen in a cage being researched, or major parts of a body or a fossil, cannot.

    More to come…

  40. Hapa responds:

    DWA

    “No, I’m right.”

    Arrogance should be left to the skeptical elite, not believers or seekers.

  41. Hapa responds:

    DWA:

    “And the Yeti should replace the Sasquatch as the natural phenomena of modern times with the most substantiating evidence before formal action by the scientific community.”

    Comparing Yeti to Bigfoot in terms of evidence is like comparing apples to oranges: though we have far more evidence of Sasquatch than Yetis (we have hundreds I believe of Bigfoot tracks, only a few handfuls of Yeti tracks), the evidence for the Yeti far, far outweighs the evidence for Sasquatch.

    1. Remoteness (the Himalayas of Nepal are far better suited to hiding a big animal than North America
    2. Unlike North America, fossils or large non-human primates (Orangutans, Gigantopithecus (both Giganteus and Blacki) and homonids (Homo Erectus, The Denisovans, Neanderthals, the Red Deer Cave Folk, Possible the Giant Hidelbergs) have all been found in Asia, many close to where the Yeti is said to roam.
    3. Even mainstream scientific literature acknowledges that Gigantopithecus could still survive in Asia, giving rise to sightings of the Yeti (One example is the Illustrated Encyclopedia of Dinosaurs & Prehistoric Creatures, Revised and Updated by Douglas Palmer, page 293. The Book Companion to “Walking with Prehistoric Beasts” also mentioned the possibility of Yetis being Neanderthals.”
    4. At least one type of Yeti (there are three), the Dzu-teh, was discovered who knows how long before the west’s Yeti craze hit: Himalayan Brown Bear (Ursus arctos isabellinus)

    Though I do think Sasquatch is a reality, the Yeti has a lot more substance going for it.

    “Show me your CERBERUS database and your CERBERUS video and trackways, and you could get me to agree with you if the frequency and coherence are there and CERBERUS can be clearly ID’d on the video and faker can be ruled out (as it has effectively been for the P/G film). Let us restrict the conversation to reality, thank you.”

    1. Not seeing the forest for the trees: despite the evidence we have for Sasquatch, it is still grouped by most scientists in the world of fantasy beasts, like Unicorns, Pegasus and (drum roll) CERBERUS. This didn’t happen to the Kanpunji. Maybe should tell you something about what evidence would mean in this case…?

    2. If fakery had been “effectively” ruled out for the P/G film, then why haven’t scientists declared it a new species. Heck why didn’t they do it in the 60’s when it was taken? Because no matter how good the P/G and other evidence is, there will be no acceptance until a body, major parts of one, or a live specimen is caught.

    3. That “let us restrict the conversation to reality” remark is just what a skeptic thinks when you bring up your believe in Sasquatch. They are less likely to believe in Sasquatch (by believe I mean here to accept sasquatch officially into Taxonomy) than you are to believe (actually think its real) in CERBERUS. Woof woof, woof.

    “Which is about the best reason I have heard for not killing one. thanks!”

    Considering that the animal is seen all across North America, down into South America, and in both Vancouver and Hawaii, your above statement, based on the possibility of the animal being endangered, is laughable.

    “Killing something to save it didn’t work for Lt. Calley.”

    1. Did he kill it to both save it and prove it, or just to prove it?
    2. People discovered Raccoons, Raccoon dogs, rats, cockroaches, white tail Deer, Cougars, Tasmanian Devils, Dingoes, Giant Squid, Colossal Squid, Lion’s mane Jelly fish, etc, and a vast horde of other known animals, most of which since ancient and prehistoric times (not just western science here, but mankind as a whole), and these were not discovered to save these species, and yet they survive, and many I listed are thriving. Most Owl species known to man are common or locally common. Most of the animals were proven to western science by bodies or live specimens or major body parts, and most without intent of conservation: they are doing well.

    “as I, er, have, ah, um, firmly established beyond question, um, no.”

    The only thing you’ve established is the human tendency for laziness in discovery, and scientific procrastination. And an odd use of words.

    “That should only take about a 100 years.”

    Mammoths will be cloned in 5 to 10 years time. And we grow more advanced with science as years go by. And if they indeed are a subspecies of man, or close enough related to man, you only need a willing volunteer to carry a clone to term. Or if its closer to Gorillas in DNA, a female of one of those species (with C-section no doubt required if the infants prove to big to continue to full term or cannot fit through the birth canal.) Artificial wombs are already on the way too. Have faith in progress.

    “Why do you think nobody’s brought one in yet?”

    A question skeptics ask us Bigfoot enthusiasts all the time.

    1. Most hunters prefer to be safe than sorry: they don’t want to shoot a man in a suit or a Bear out of season (a risk that must be taken in order to snag a specimen, and a risk brought down considerable if you take with you proper equipment to aid in distinguishing hoaxer and bear from bigfoot)
    2. If it proves to be a subspecies of man or closer, you have the murder charge possibility again
    3. As you pointed out earlier, not all sasquatch researchers co-ordinate their efforts
    4. The Vast majority of Sasquatch investigators are not credentialed scientists, and most (if not all) are not heavily funded by major universities
    5. Some shooters might, like yourself, not want to kill something in order to prove it and gain protection for it
    6. Possibility that the animal in view might be an escapd Gorilla or Orangutan or large Chimp and therefore one could be a poacher if you shot it
    7. Possibility that the gun they brought with them might not be powerful enough to kill it
    8. Skeptics would add: doesn’t exist. No body, no proof. Never a body, never proof.

  42. DWA responds:

    Hapa:

    Come back to me when you’ve read up on the evidence and thought about it some. You say too many things up there that require far more time than I can devote here. But they all point to somebody who needs to devote some time before pronouncing and judging.

    You have to devote it, like I did.

    Killing something to save it – when it’s not necessary – is no sign of compassion. It’s rather a selfish desire for what one wants at the expense of something else’s life.

  43. DWA responds:

    OK, since you seem like a good person, I’m going to help out here.

    First: presume I’m a physicist. You get in my face and say: Quarks are CRAP! Well, I know you’re wrong. But am I going to take the time to regurgitate all the evidence on quarks? Give you an advanced physics class when you aren’t on elementary yet? Write you a textbook?

    Shoot, I close to have. But I won’t. I’ll simply say you need to read up.

    I’ve done a lot of reading on this topic. I’ll just say where you’re wrong. You read up.

    1. “Killing things” is a mere oversimplification that ignores more complicated pieces of the puzzle…” I agree. Like, say, the evidence, which says we don’t have to.

    2. [me] You don’t think one is a big deal? Show me your population numbers and the evidence to back them up
    [you] News flash: the animal hasn’t been proven to exist yet.
    [me] You never kill something when you don’t even know what it will mean to do it. Period. Leopold, once again, was right.

    3. “Until sasquatch is proven, any population estimates are laughable, idiotic, and sad. It has no weight in the scientific community.” Um, wow. Laughable and idiotic. Oh-kay there.

    4. “vancover Isle (yes you read that right, isle) …” (a) it’s Vancouver; (b) Bindernagel considers isles, yes, isles of the PNW to be possibly the richest sasquatch habitat. He isn’t alone. Evidence backs him up big time.

    5. “For an animal that just might be in the brink of extinction, it SURE does get around!.” Some crap really is crap. One must learn to separate that for which there is evidence from that for which there isn’t.

    6. “Face it: we have far more pics film and hair and DNA evidence for Sasquatch than we do for the Kapunji, and yet the Kapunji is considerd legit, the Sasquatch is not. Never going to be, until the proper physical proof is provided.” You have just said (a) science knows nothing about this topic (true); (b) the sasquatch should be considered legit. You don’t know how close that is, do you.

    (Kipunji.)

    7. “And yet the Kapunji (see above) was accepted, the Sasquatch still not. Makes you wonder why…” No, I KNOW why: the European wildman tradition. Science has that one precisely backward. (Yes, you do have some reading to do.)

    8. [me] “No, I’m right.”
    [you] “Arrogance should be left to the skeptical elite, not believers or seekers.” Only in crypto could you get away with saying that. (The skeptics aren’t elite anything. And cryptos constantly let them get away with that.) READ UP. I’m RIGHT.

    9. “…though we have far more evidence of Sasquatch than Yetis (we have hundreds I believe of Bigfoot tracks, only a few handfuls of Yeti tracks), the evidence for the Yeti far, far outweighs the evidence for Sasquatch.” Very most definitely NOT true. And you just said a major reason why.

    10. Um, Ursus arctos isabellinus is a bear, not a primate. It was also a fool excuse for Anglos to ignore yeti evidence.

    11. “If fakery had been “effectively” ruled out for the P/G film, then why haven’t scientists declared it a new species. Heck why didn’t they do it in the 60’s when it was taken?” They failed to understand their role as scientists. Your reasons are wrong.

    12. Don’t talk about the need to convince the skeptical fringe. I don’t care what they think, except to make fun of it. It’s not important.

    13. Don’t ever use the word “laughable,” or anything like it, when surrounding words indicate your need to get familiar with the topic.

    14. “Mammoths will be cloned in 5 to 10 years time.” Um, no they won’t.

    15. Why do I think no one’s brought one in yet? Your reasons show why not, and show no way that will happen. Meanwhile the thing has more evidence backing it up than a host of things science accepts. So let’s get out there and confirm this the right way.

    Now go read up. ;-)

  44. Hapa responds:

    DWA:

    “Come back to me when you’ve read up on the evidence and thought about it some.”

    Come back to me when you don’t assume too much.

    “But they all point to somebody who needs to devote some time before pronouncing and judging.”

    Like thinking twice before writing “I’m RIGHT.”?

    “It’s rather a selfish desire for what one wants at the expense of something else’s life.”

    Like your selfish desire for burgers at the expense of the life of the cow it took to get it? Let me predict that you will say you are a vegetarian (yeah, good save.)?

  45. Hapa responds:

    DWA:

    1. Comparing Sasquatch to Quarks is like Comparing Magic with black holes. You are comparing the former, something not proven to exist, with the latter, something which has the backing of the scientific community and actually proven to exist. Proven.

    2. “I agree. like, say, the evidence, which says we don’t have to.”

    Or, like, the people who don’t distinguish between evidence and wishful thinking.

    3. “You never kill something when you don’t even know what it will mean to do it.”

    Considering it is seen across North America, to say nothing of Vancover and the Hawaiian Islands, it won’t do much, other than prove it exists.

    4. “Um, wow. Laughable and Idiotic. okay there.”

    This is like telling a Lemming its suicidal to go off a cliff. Just won’t sink in, huh? I feel like I’m talking to a flat-earther.

    5. “Bindernagel considers isles, yes isles of the PNW to be the richest Sasquatch habitat.”

    Which means it isn’t in danger of extinction, then (eye wink). That was the point I was making: you can’t say killing one will render the population possibly in danger of extinction due to genetic/inbreeding issues when they are found both on and off North America. And since such islands are considered the richest sasquatch habitat by Bindernagel (I see no reason to disagree), then shooting or tranquilizing one there won’t damage the population any then.

    6. “Some crap really is crap. One must learn to separate that for which there is evidence from that from which there isn’t.”

    So tracks and sightings and hairs from the aformentioned places are to you not evidence? Eyewitness testimony from Hawaii (as listed and considered evidence by both Coleman and Hall in their True Giants book) is not evidence in your book? Who made you lord of the Cryptids?

    7. “You have just said science knows nothing about this topic the Sasquatch should be considered legit.”

    Yet its not, because no body or living one is so far available. I’m not the one you need to convince that Sasquatch is real; you have to convince the world. No broad recognition, no broad resources for species protection.

    8. “No, I know why: the European wildman trradition.”

    Ye-ah. Ri-ght. Has nothing to do with the fact that Sasquatch can be hoaxed by someone in a suit while a (Kinpunji) cannot be hoaxed by a man in a monkey suit? Or the legacy of the Piltdown Hoax?

    9. “READ up. I’m RIGHT.”

    Read up, your mistaken.

    10. “Very most definitely NOT True.”

    ROFLMBO! WABOBS!

    11. “And you just said a major reason why.”

    There is a difference between quantity of evidence and QUALITY of evidence. Fossil canidates for Yeti=Neanderthal, mainland Asian Orangutan, Gigantopithecus, Heidelbergs, Homo Erectus (perhaps a hairy version than normal that trekked into the Himalayas ages ago) the Red Deer Cave People, Denisovans. North America=a primitive looking browridge found in Mexico, species not yet determined (possibly Homo Erectus, possibly not), and the Minaret skull which is still unavailable for confirmation. Fossils alone Give the Yeti more credence than Sasquatch. eyewitness accounts and tracks out the wazoo do not rival those two factors that give the Yeti more respectability

    12. “Um, Ursus Arctos Isabellinus is a Bear, not a primate.”

    Just Because it’s a bear does not make it any less of a Yeti, and the following will show.

    “The Dzu-teh (Big thing), another animal reported as a Yeti, is a big, hulking animal that is usually quadruped but can walk as a biped. It may therefore be heretofore-uncatalogued large bear. This is the animal that Reinhold Messner claims to have seen. He collected tales of the Chemo, another name for the Dzu-teh, which merely reinforced the conclusion that the animal is a bear. The Fact that the Dzu-teh raid small livestock holdings and leave behind clawed prints, one on top of another, is a certain indicator that this “yeti” is a bear.”

    Crypto-zoology A to Z, by Loren Coleman and Jerome Clark, page 255 (read 254 about the 2 to 3 “types” of Yeti noted, the others being the small Teh-lma (discussed on same page as Dzu-teh) and the Gorilla-like Meteh).

    Reinhold Messner (the Michael Jordan of Mountain Climbing) wrote about his encounters with the Yeti, and concluded based on his encounters (and seeing one in a Zoo, as pictured in his book) that the bear specifically involved is indeed the Himalaya Brown bear (read his book “My quest for the Yeti”)

    “It was in this postwar period that the name “Yeti” began to be given to the strange creature. The word is not, in fact, very accurate because it is derived from yeh-the, a generic Nepalese term for any large animal that lives in the high mountains. This has led to some confusion over the years. Locals may refer to the Himalayan Red Bear, which they specifically call the dzu-the, as a yeh-the since it is large and lives in the high mountains. Those who live in the Himalayas are quite right to be nervous of the Red bear. It is notoriously bad-tempered, it will attack without warning and is strong enough to kill an adult Yak with ease. Many later travelers who heard stories about the aggressive yeti had in fact been listening to tales of encounters with the Red Bear-the Yeh-the.”

    Sasquatch: true life encounters with legendary Ape-men, by Ruppert Matthews, page 127

    And yet you say I need to read up.

  46. Hapa responds:

    DWA:

    “Don’t talk about the need to convince the skeptical fringe. I don’t care what they think, except to make fun of it. It’s not important.”

    The “Skeptical Fringe” you talk about, when it refers to Bigfoot, includes almost all the scientific communtiny. Even Pseudo skeptics have immense pull in science (Michael Shermer is a regular columnist for SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN)

    “They failed to understand their role as scientists.”

    You’ve failed to understand science.

    “Don’t ever use the word “laughable” or anything like it, when surrounding words indicate your need to get familiar with the topic.”

    Quit saying laughable things ad I’ll consider it.

    “Um, no they wont.”

    Watch the video.

  47. DWA responds:

    Hapa:

    [sigh]

    Gotta read the right stuff. There’s a lot of dross in this field. Read: most of it, including your citations. (Ruppert Matthews?)

    Down the road, dude. I sounded like you, once. Then I read up. The right stuff.

  48. Hapa responds:

    DWA

    (sneeze)

    As I told you last time, we simply have to agree to disagree. Personally the writings of Meldrum, Shuker, Coleman, and others like them I consider the right stuff. I am however will attempt to snag Bindernagel’s latest book from Amazon.

    Ruppert Matthews is the author of numerous books on history, Natural History, paranormal/unexplained including Cryptozoology.

    Here is an alphabetical list of his books.

    Here is the website’s homepage.

    Ironically, I was once like you. I’ve grown to think differently, no doubt reading the same things you have. We’ll just have to agree to disagree.

  49. DWA responds:

    Hapa: had to come back to say this.

    If you consider Loren the right stuff, and you should, then you must be OK with his “laughable, idiotic, and sad” population estimates. ;-)

    Down the road.

  50. Hapa responds:

    DWA:

    Just because I consider Coleman’s work the right stuff does not mean I agree with everything he says.

    Up the highway.

  51. Hapa responds:

    And BTW DWA:

    No offense to Mr. Coleman on this regard. Nevertheless, I disagree.

  52. Loren Coleman responds:

    BTW, was it Hapa who has my book’s title as “Crypto-zoology A to Z”? It is Cryptozoology A to Z. It is a common mistake due to the fact that Simon and Schuster’s cover title designers split the name on the front of the book.

    Also, I’m not sure how I got pulled into this, but if you Hapa are calling any of my population “laughable, idiotic, and sad” ~ besides that being a personality-based and not intellectual critique ~ I would enjoy reading your best guesses.

    Cheers, gentlemen.

  53. Hapa responds:

    Mr. Coleman:

    I did not know at the time that I wrote that post that it was your population estimate. DWA said it was TBRC’s, an ogranization of which I am not familiar, not mentioning it was your organization until just quite recently. For the statements I am sorry.

    I don’t have a guess as to how many Bigfoot there are in North America: The hijinks aside form DWA I would be hesitant to give a number, due to so many unknowns about the creature itself and reaction by media and pseudo-skeptics at population estimates. Plus there is also the differentiation we have to make between Neo-giants and True-giants, which might very well take a chunk out of the 4,000 Bigfoot population estimate. To me I would guess the number could very well be 4,000 or higher, depending on the actual range of the creature, of which we have not a full knowledge of. It could very well be also that a tiny population exists in Canada (Nahanni Valley) while everywhere else sightings are based on hoaxes mis-identification and escaped apes and monkeys (Not likely I think, considering that Bindernagel concludes that Sasquatch exists on Vancover and similar isles, and there is I believe about a million acres or unexplored regions in North America where the animal could easily hide). Meldrum thinks there could be some populations in the Appalachains (probably not spelled right) as well as the PNW, But until a survey is carried out we won’t know, and we have only estimates left until the animal is proven and we get the surveys, estimates that are not excepted by the mainstream Scientific community.

    I’m going to look up TBRC, Never heard of it before till now.

  54. Hapa responds:

    Texas Bigfoot Research Conservancy?

    If so, then their estimates are half of DWA’s. About 2,000 animals in North America,

    I didn’t read anything there of Mr. Coleman’s estimates (DWA must be referring to a totally different Estimate than the TBRC).

    Still, this is only an estimate. When the animal is proven, a more accurate field count should be made.

  55. Hapa responds:

    BTW: BFRO’s Population estimate is 2,000-6,000.

  56. Hapa responds:

    Another interesting point: there was some discussion about an estimate of 100,000 Sasquatches by one Daniel Perez a while back here. That number seems kind of high, yet the man did say that trying to nail down a Bigfoot population was a whole lot of guesswork.



Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|


Cryptomundo Merch On Sale Now!

CryptoMerch

Connect with Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest

Advertisers

DFW Nites


Creatureplica Monstro Bizarro Everything Bigfoot



Advertisement




|Top | FarBar|



Attention: This is the end of the usable page!
The images below are preloaded standbys only.
This is helpful to those with slower Internet connections.