International Cryptozoology ConferenceWholeBeastBanner

Footage Released: Sasquatch Caught on Therm by Olympic Project?

Posted by: Craig Woolheater on November 27th, 2013

The video that the still posted here on Cryptomundo yesterday was taken from has been stabilized and released for public consumption.

On 10.30.13, the following footage was recorded by a FLIR BTS series thermal imaging camera by Jon, Sara and Ben Brown of Grays Harbor, Washington with the help of Derek Randles and The Olympic Project.

Special Thanks to Wally Hersom for the equipment and Carl Olinselot for this amazing video editing.

The subject measured 6’6″ hunched over. The cow was about 30ft feet away and the subject was about 120ft away.

Now that the footage has been released versus just seeing a still image, what are the thoughts on this?

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.

74 Responses to “Footage Released: Sasquatch Caught on Therm by Olympic Project?”

  1. Caddyfan responds:

    inconclusive but very interesting. if I were them, I’d certainly be coming back to this area.

  2. Duncan Hopkins via Facebook responds:

    Interesting but why no movement at all? That would better show living being

  3. William Dranginis via Facebook responds:

    Its great that these people are out there looking for evidence but people are again calling something a Bigfoot even though they have no idea what they filmed! The photo recreation they did was a waste of time as they were off in measurements, angles and other specifics, yet they claim exact measurements of the subjects size??? This group jumped to conclusions just way to fast, another sad day for Bigfoot research…

  4. chadgatlin responds:

    I don’t see why that couldn’t be a pile of fresh cow dung. I didn’t see the subject in question move at all.

  5. DWA responds:


    REALLY!!??!?!?!? A COW PIE BIGGER THAN A 6-FOOT-TWO-INCH MAN!?!?!??! That’s the biggest crypto story of the decade!

    Backstory. Can’t just watch the video.

    No human has been born who can remain stationary as long as most animals can. He probably knew about the humans (at a distance of only 117 feet, count on it…and that is a HYOOGE cowpie at that distance), and a “defensive freeze” is mentioned in many reports.

  6. dconstrukt responds:

    the problem to me is that image doesn’t seem real based on viewing OTHER video shot from the same FLIR BTS series.

    here’s one from 6-7m (22 ft)

    notice the shading and how the entire object doesn’t light up as this “bigfoot” does.

    if the bigfoot has fur, it would show up as a lighter color, not black, but a greyish.

    all you seem to see is a steady upper torso, but it’s very misleading… it could just be a blob of urine or something with a heat signature that looks the same shape.

    if the body is crouched or behind a tree, you would see some bits of it between the leaves in white or a grey.

    Also, why does it not move EVER in the video? thats odd.

    when the cow comes into the scene… you’ll see it is just as white as the bigfoot, yet the bigfoot is covered in hair… which make no sense.

    look at the video i added above, a raccoon with fur shows grey… not all white. why does this “bigfoot” not show the same thing if its covered in fur?

    here’s another video of a FLIR BTS:

    shot at 30 m (98 ft)

    the rabbit, also covered in fur, does NOT show up white, it shows as a darker grey than the environment.

    All these discrepancies makes me leery of this video.

    VERY leery.

  7. Ploughboy responds:


  8. chadgatlin responds:

    DWA, I did read the backstory. I just don’t think you can take videographer’s word for the distance is all. There is nothing written saying they saw this with the naked eye and knew it was an animal of some sort, or how far away it was, just that they heard tapping and started therming. Now, maybe there is more to the story, I’ll grant you, but based on what is here no clear conclusion can be made as to what that is. The only certainty is the cow.

    I do know that animals can remain still, I just don’t think from what is presented we can reach any conclusions about the figure. I think it is very likely as dconstrukt said that is fresh urine or as I said feces. The size is not able to be determined because the distance is not able to be determined.

    Please don’t take me wrong. I am not “calling you out” or insulting anyone else’s opinions. You and everyone else are as free to come to your own conclusions as I am. I am simply stating my opinion of th evidence shown. I mean no ill will, and enjoy reading your and others’ commentary on this site.

  9. Ploughboy responds:

    When one is confronted with a position that nothing in this world should be taken at face value, what is left to discuss?

    If you’ve not the acumen to realize that objects of the same thermal signature will read warmer the closer you are to them, where does that leave you?

    So, now we are seriously discussing cow manure as Sasquatch? Really?

    If you don’t have the gumption and plain native curiosity to look into other sightings and evidence gathered by the Olympic Project in this same area, why would your opinions matter to anyone at all?

    You guys should maybe probably get out more is all I can contribute.

  10. PhotoExpert responds:

    Meh, it’s slightly interesting but is proof of nothing.

    I am not so sure it is a cow pie because I do detect slight movement and I am pretty certain that cow pies do not move.

    I can not say that what I am viewing is a Bigfoot either.

    For that reason, the subject of this video is definitely inconclusive, even with the backstory.

    This is one of those videos where pareidolia comes into play. Seriously, it could be anything. Just let your imagination and subconscious self wander a bit.

    So for me, the response is–meh!

  11. skeptik responds:

    I was watching this, add in the cow, and that the unknown creature doesn’t move or react to the cow; what if it’s another cow, laying down?

  12. shmargin responds:

    In my random observers opinion, dconstrukt raises a good point with the other thermal imaging cameras footage. These fur covered animals at a distance don’t glow nearly as much.

    Granted I don’t know if that’s a difference in cameras and/or settings or what, but am interesting observation.

    Either way, it’s still an extreme blobsquatch, and as a result cannot and will not ever prove anything to anyone.

    So the search continues…

  13. Gene Baade responds:

    It appears to me that very few people who have so far posted on this story have ever seen a pile of cow dung much less a single cow pie. In fact, I not sure anybody has even seen from any angle a cow that has laid down for the night. Having shoveled tons of the former in my boyhood and youth, and having moved it around into piles or spread it on the ground — and having been around enough cows either standing up or lying down to last a lifetime — I simply shake my head at this line of analysis. Call it what you want; doubt it if you will; but don’t call it a cow pile or a cow.

  14. eyeofstrm responds:

    Yawn, sorry not impressed. Blobsquatch.

  15. dconstrukt responds:


    guys… use your brain a bit here and look at the evidence I posted.

    I researched that model FLIR.

    if you watch the 2 videos, and then watch the “bigfoot” one, you clearly can see something isn’t right.

    the videos I posted in the comments are from different distances as well because there’s 5 or so models of that FLIR each with different spec’s.

    the proof is right there in front of you… all you gotta do is watch it.

  16. cryptokellie responds:

    Well, I guess they could have been smashing pumpkins on Mischief Night or Cabbage Night as we used to call it…maybe they tipped one of those cows later on.

  17. William responds:

    I don’t see how anyone can conclude this could be a sasquatch from looking at this. In fact, I am not sure it is identifiable. I do know that the cow didn’t seem the least bit interested in it or afraid of it, which on the surface would seem to rule out a giant bipedal predator sitting there unnoticed.

    Cows aren’t as stupid as people think. I was raised on a farm and know that cows are scared of bears, bobcats, or any type of predator and will even form a circle around their calves to protect them. So that factor alone would rule out a sasquatch IMO, as well as some of the other descrepancies already pointed out by many others, i.e. lack of movement, light color, etc. I would say there is about as much chance as this being an alien from another planet sitting there invisibly observing cattle, as there is of this being a bigfoot doing the same…

    The Olympic project seems to be about as noteworthy as the Finding Bigfoot folks in not finding what they are looking for.

  18. DWA responds:


    You know, that “use your brain” schtick gets really old when used in front of knowledgeable, incisive thinkers who can readily see you’re shutting down large sectors of yours to address this topic.

    Right after your Thermal! Extravaganza! Ploughboy shot you down in, let me count here, nine lines of text. (Better rounded to eight.)

    He didn’t mention this, maybe because he was too embarrassed:

    That bunny? Are you honestly telling us that that bunny shot colder than the snow?

    Ever heard of “hot black”? That’s an inverted thermal that shows heat signatures as darker in shade.

    Use your brain before you start lecturing other people about using theirs. You’re obviously young, and learning, and full of yourself as many are during the years of testosterone overload. But coming on as the Cool Knowitall is something we’ve seen too often, and it is generally backed up by not much.

    You do seem to have a somewhat open mind. Use it to suss evidence better, and make it more useful. Gurarantee, it’s tons more fun, smarter too.

  19. DWA responds:


    I don’t see how anyone can conclude this could be a sasquatch from looking at this.

    Anybody who has read reports – and I have read more than most – knows that’s the thing the image looks the most like. Other evidence backs it up.

    In fact, I am not sure it is identifiable. I do know that the cow didn’t seem the least bit interested in it or afraid of it, which on the surface would seem to rule out a giant bipedal predator sitting there unnoticed.

    Nope, doesn’t, at all. See below.

    Cows aren’t as stupid as people think. I was raised on a farm and know that cows are scared of bears, bobcats, or any type of predator and will even form a circle around their calves to protect them. So that factor alone would rule out a sasquatch IMO,

    This has nothing to do with the stupidity of cows. Anyone familiar with large predators knows that the stereotypes of predator/prey behavior get shot to pieces in the field. Specifically, there are many reports of sasquatch hanging around mildly-to-unconcerned livestock, cattle specifically. (And wild polar bears playing with sled dogs; lion prides protecting human infants and strolling through herds of unconcerned prey; etc.) We think we know everything about nature. If we could truly see everything, set against what we know, “nothing,” I am betting, would look more like it.

    as well as some of the other descrepancies already pointed out by many others, i.e. lack of movement, light color, etc. I would say there is about as much chance as this being an alien from another planet sitting there invisibly observing cattle, as there is of this being a bigfoot doing the same…

    “Lack of movement” is a prominent feature of many compelling sasquatch reports. No human can stand as still as most predators can. And what is this with the “light color”? Anyone who has read a lot of reports would expect that. They are covered with hair and not fur; it is frequently noted as fairly sparse in areas. Reports show sasquatch as appearing more muscular, and less fat, than, say, bears. One would expect high heat signature with that.

    The Olympic project seems to be about as noteworthy as the Finding Bigfoot folks in not finding what they are looking for.

    Well, adopt some more patience and understanding of the rigors of open science and one might change that view.

    We don’t know what this is. It’s positively irritating to read people that I know for a fact don’t know saying they know. Come ON with that. Don’t we want to find out? This shooting-the-messenger crap is the main reason crypto isn’t taken seriously, contrary to popular belief.

  20. dconstrukt responds:

    DWA – HAHA are you for real bro?

    plowboys comment?

    he talks about different distances…. thats why I posted 2 DIFFERENT videos, shot at close and at similar range to the “bigfoot” video to show the difference.

    Say whatever you want dude to convince yourself…

    I’m looking at the videos and they don’t match up.


    You can chose to neglect the facts, I refuse to.

    Same camera.

    the “bigfoot” has a solid heat signature, even though its supposedly covered in thick hair…

    whereas every other animal, even the cow in the same video has a light grey coat for the slight amount of fur it is.

    How do you explain that one genius?

    I work in video… I know what thermal footage looks like.

  21. dconstrukt responds:

    watched it again…. had some more questions….

    if the bigfoot is 6-10 ft tall, how can it lie down like it appears to be in the photo on its stomach while arched up? (like a surfer)

    does not seem possible for that big of an animal.

    if its crouching, where are its knee’s? they would have to be in front of the chest area, yet you dont see anything.

    the ground appears to be flat, so not sure if there’s a ledge its on…. or not.

    where’s the rest of the body?

    if you can see the upper part through the bushes, why is the rest of it not visible at all?

    shot in the summer as reported by the person.

    if its hiding behind a tree or bushes, why are you not able to see them with the thermal?

    Also if an animal is crouching, his upper body would be leaning forward, its a natural body position, so the video of the animal’s position seems weird.

    would love to hear what someone else thinks about these things.

  22. DWA responds:


    If you “work in video,” you should know more about thermal. More about animals would help, too.

    You don’t. Everything’s easily explainable. And has been. Your baby steps are fun to watch, though. Do carry on.

  23. Gene Baade responds:

    Dear dconstrukt, I am not doubting that you work “in video” if you say you do. But would you be willing to provide the forum with some details of your technical & professional experience as well as training? I’m sure there are many experts out there, but sometimes we never know what enables them to be an expert or if it is just a self-bestowed title. I think readers really focus on folks who both have and share their professional education, training, and experience. Thank you.

  24. DWA responds:

    Gene Baade:

    Right. As a first step, but only as a first step.

    Nobel laureate Richard Feynman says that “[S]cience is the belief in the ignorance of experts.” In no other field can he be so easily shown to be right. Most scientists’ views of this subject I can readily dismiss. They can trot degree after degree in front of me, but when it comes to this, they ask the same silly questions I can hear at a scientist-free cocktail party.

    Now. If someone applies his video expertise to the video at hand, and avoids saying anything that he doesn’t know but thinks he does, that is another matter. Problem here is: what does he know about sasquatch? And that’s gonna kinda hamper any other expertise he applies.

    Humans invented science, an almost perfect discipline. But we keep screwing up by assuming and jumping to conclusions. The Olympic Project is doubly impressive in that it puts observations out there and – unlike most in this field – makes no presumptions of omnipotence, superior expertise, inside information or “this is just the way it is.” In fact it may be unique in that regard.

  25. Gene Baade responds:

    Dear DWA, I couldn’t agree more completely. People with extensive experience and solid credentials disagree all over the place with each other in just about any field and interpret the same data in different ways. But I’m curious to see exactly what the “first step” is from those who claim to be experts or knowledgeable. If that passes some sort of — yes, often subjective — standard (which is the “right” university to get a degree from, or the “right” lab, etc.), then constructive debate (emphasis on constructive) may more easily bear fruit. Of course where the data is fairly limited, even if the meaning or source of it is not absolutely known, then debate at some point will have tentative or temporary closure and even experts will agree to disagree. My experience, however, is that many people want to continue to disagree disagreeably. They just want to prove the other side wrong.

  26. dconstrukt responds:

    Gene Baade – No.

    Appreciate your mancrush but I’m not into dudes.

    focus grasshopper.

    this is about the video in this post, not about me.

    I’ve posted valid proof and questions about it.

    Everyone talked about how explainable my points were… yet no one had a single answer.

    i’m waiting with an open mind …

    would you be willing to stake your reputation and go on CNN and tell the world this is a bigfoot?

    (highly doubt it)

    DWA – You’re running your mouth flaming me on every post…

    Are you threatened by my comments or something that you feel the need to have to personally attack me each time I post?

    Pretty lame… and low class bro… especially from someone who claims to be SO smart.

    I posted valid questions… feel free to discuss them.

    no need to personally attack me.

    feel free to gang up on anyone who doesn’t agree with you guys.

    god forbid someone use their brain and think maybe the evidence isn’t always bigfoot.

    happy holidays. :)

  27. Gene Baade responds:

    Dear deconstruct:

    Gene responds: It is your prerogative to not share with us your training, education, and experience working with video. If you don’t we are then free to assume you don’t have any worth considering. Honesty, I believe you probably do have experience worth considering — i.e., I don’t believe you are lying about it — but if it is a secret or for some reason you don’t want to make it public, then don’t be upset if someone dismisses your claims to expertise.

    Appreciate your mancrush but I’m not into dudes.

    Gene responds: I’m not “into dudes” either. Not sure where you picked up the “mancrush.” Sorry to disappoint you if you tried to infer that in any of my statements. I’m happily married to the same beautiful woman for over 45 years.

    focus grasshopper.

    Gene responds: It’s the first time anybody has ever called me a grasshopper. Thank you for doing me the honor. Having grown up on the plains of Oklahoma among many of them in the summertime, I’m still trying to find a reason God created them. But I do know the reason he created me.

    this is about the video in this post, not about me.

    Gene responds” I’m afraid it is at least partly about you. When someone proposes they are expert enough to make comments and ask questions about a particular technology, and that they are doing so because they have expertise in that technology, the expert, himself or herself certainly comes into play. It is about both the expert and the video, itself.

    I’ve posted valid proof and questions about it.

    Gene responds: I think most questions are valid. I’m not so sure you have posted valid proof. Maybe you have and maybe you haven’t. That is not for me to decide.

    Everyone talked about how explainable my points were… yet no one had a single answer.

    Gene responds: They were good questions. Not having been there, it is best for me to defer answers to someone else. I think I could answer some of them because I’m not registering the red flags as much as you are. The is where our subjective viewing comes into play, I think. For example, you seem to be expecting the lower part of the body to be in view; I’m not, perhaps because I am picturing the ground or terrain differently than you.

    i’m waiting with an open mind …
    Gene responds: Good.

    would you be willing to stake your reputation and go on CNN and tell the world this is a bigfoot? (highly doubt it)
    Gene responds: Of course not. And I don’t think that is the intention of anyone associated with the video. Just because someone has proposed evidence “A” and possible conclusion “B” doesn’t mean that they intend to go national and proclaim that possible conclusion “B” is irrefutable.

  28. Goodfoot responds:


    The act is getting really, really stale. Most here have concluded you completely lack maturity by now. Do you really need to keep confirming it?

    And please learn how to use apostrophes.

  29. PhotoExpert responds:

    Wow! I returned to this thread to see if anyone had anything positive to add in the way of the video and it looks like things heated up quickly.

    Fellas! Hey fellas! Time out! Settle down. Take a breath. My goodness, there is no need to debate and flame over this video. Seriously, as I have stated several times about this video, it is inconclusive and proof of nothing!

    It does not prove Bigfoot nor does it disprove Bigfoot. The quality is just not there to do a detailed analysis. For those that took the video, better luck next time in the field.

    I can see if you guys were arguing over the validity of the PG footage. I get that! But this? Really? You want to flame each other over this video? Boys, I don’t know about you, but I definitely have better things to do with my time. And debating or analyzing this video is not one of them.

    My best advice for the three of you is to move away from the keyboard, calm down, watch some hotties on TV with a cold one! Do what men do! But this arguing and flaming is not manly at all. It is beneath all of you.

    Deconstrukt–I understand what you are saying. But I would much rather have come here and read something from you like: “Are these jabronies trying to say this garbage video is of a Bigfoot”? That is what I expect to hear from you. And I would laugh because that is what I would expect. I have never seen you take the bait in a debate.

    And DWA–My brother from another mother. Where did you go for a minute? Typically, I am expecting to read your eloquent and well thought out logical arguments as to the merits of a video. I did not at all expect the emotional responses I read from you. You are the Mr. Spock of this site and the emotionality of your response to deconstrukt left me wondering if you threw your logical ways out the window.

    Gene Baade–I have not read many of your posts, just these recent ones. So you get a pass! I did not know what to expect.

    Anyway, my fellow Cryptomundians, it appears I went to a fight and a hockey game broke out, or something like that. Let’s get back on track, back to the game and hand. And for this video, there is no game to be won either way. Of that, I can assure you! It’s a “meh” video at best. Save your ammunition for a better quality video which is worth expending the time and energy on.

    Just my two cents boys!

    I’m going to take off my referee shirt now and grab a few ZZZZZZZZZZZs.

  30. William responds:


    I appreciate your viewpoint, but nothing is going to persuade me one iota that this is a video of a bigfoot, any more than that of an alien, or ghost for that matter. It is simply unidentifiable, period.

    However, I challenge anyone to explain why cattle would nonchalantly ignore an alleged sasquatch (800 pound apex bipedal predator) that would be almost in their midst?

    I mean c’mon, there have been cases of horses being scared out of their minds when encountering only the terrible smell of an alleged bigfoot. No less than the PG film itself reflected a horse throwing an expert rider in Roger Patterson after encountering “Patty.” So why would cattle not have any fear whatsover? What is this supposed bigfoot, their friend, or a friendly farmer sitting there watching them with their safety in mind. Gimme a break..I don’t know what this is, but it certainly is highly unlikely to be what is being portrayed. Talk about a leap to a conclusion, with little to back it up!

  31. Gene Baade responds:

    Dear PhotoExpert. I agree this is not worth getting all worked up about. I think if you review my comments about cows, cow pies/piles, and video, they are actually pretty calmly put, albeit with a bit of tongue in cheek. Reading the threads, it simply seemed reasonable to me to ask a rational question about video credentials. It’s one I would ask if I were setting down over coffee with the gentleman, or would want to know in a public forum. I didn’t expect to receive the somewhat personal innuendo that was returned. These I answered with low emotion, but also some amusement, granted. I normally stay away from commenting on these websites, but having viewed the video last weekend at the Sasquatch Summit, and having heard the commentary of the presenter and the responses of the assembly, I had a more than usual interest in it. But thank you for the cautions you have advanced. It is easy to get wound up about these things. Best wishes.

  32. Goodfoot responds:

    And yet, we have tales (possibly true) of Bigfoots braiding the manes of horses. So can horses develop trust with Bigfoots, sometimes?

  33. Gene Baade responds:

    William: I don’t think the cow reaction is a cut and dried case one way or the other. Cows are primarily diurnal; so did it see the object 90 feet away very well or at all? I’m not sure. Of course it was walking around that night, so it had some vision. Did it smell whatever it was? I’m not sure. Far fewer than one half of reports of encounters with sasquatch have smell associated with them. Most don’t. Cows will suddenly bolt at about anything unusual, but usually something moving or getting close to them. The object was stationary and not unusually close. Sometimes cows just stand and stare and try to come to a decision as to what to do, stand there or run away. The buffalo of the plains were picked off one by one by hunters and didn’t blink an eye when one beside it hit the ground. At other times they stampeded. Of course that’s herd reaction, but it usually took one individual to start the whole chain reaction. Unrelated to sasquatch and cows, but still an interesting study on cattle/predator behavior is found online here. It’s a Univ of Nebr site. I suppose every person who has worked cattle in one way or another has an opinion. Mine is that they are somewhat unpredictable and will respond to quiet and still stimuli with flight in some cases and in other cases just amble away. The will recognize predators such as wolves, according to the Nebr study, and take defensive measures, but not so much with cougars. Where the sasquatch fits into this is anybody’s guess. I don’t think at the moment there is any “have-to” one way or the other for a cow and a sasquatch. Just my ruminations.

  34. DWA responds:


    [wiping excess teen hormones off screen] Dude! When you’re 17 you are gonna look back on this as an embarrassing period of your life.


    How you doin’ brother? Emotions are part of who I am, believe it or not! I call schticks. dconstrukt’s I’m not the only one getting tired of. There seem to be cracks of openness in that mind, but too often he uses bluster where knowledge is more appropriate.


    This is not about every piece of evidence being either proof or trash. Science is not like that. Anyone as familiar with the evidence as I am knows this is an intriguing video that makes this a hot site warranting more attention, which it sounds like it’s getting. I go with the boots on the ground, every time. Again, there are reports of sasquatch getting far chummier with cattle than this.

  35. DWA responds:

    Gene Baade:

    Actually cattle have pretty good night vision. Whatever that is I’m pretty sure the cattle knew it was there.

    You further reinforce the point that it’s best not to speak from predator/prey stereotypes, particularly in the case of an unconfirmed species. Responses not only vary, but they vary from end to end of the spectrum. Your bison example reminded me of the YouTube video of a buffalo herd turning on a pride of lions that had singled out and jumped a calf. We all just knew that never happens; and one can watch one individual, then another, then another, then another joining the fray until the whole herd is converging on the lions, who know when they’re beat, leave the calf to the herd, and split.

    Animals are individuals; and attempting to predict what they’ll do is unwise. But many commenting in this field do so from an inadequate base of knowledge about animals.

  36. dconstrukt responds:

    DWA …you talk a good game… now… show us how smart you really are… answer the questions.

    you say this is a bigfoot in the video.

    I say no and I have posted video and questions about the “bigfoot” in the video.

    burden of proof is on you, not me.

    Yet not a single soul has attempted to answer.


    Because you have no answers that will justify your position.

  37. DWA responds:


    It is because we understand that you don’t know what this is, and no one does, not even the folks who shot it.

    Only I’ve read enough reports to know that of the things this is alleged to be, a sasquatch is the one it looks most like. Given it’s a thermal, that’s not conclusive. It is, rather, what a scientist calls “intriguing.”

    Jeff Meldrum’s intrigued. So the burden of proof is on YOU. Why should I take you over him?

    (I shouldn’t.)

    This proof-or-trash approach to each individual piece of evidence isn’t science, which is why cryptozoology isn’t one yet.

    This is a LEAD. Some of us want to know what it leads to, and aren’t interested in hip-shoot ‘analysis.’

    The attitude of the scientist is to let the research play out and the evidence lead where it does.

  38. Gene Baade responds:

    To DWA: Well said.

    To all: Recently I contributed at length to an Amazon review thread regarding the Prothero – Loxton book, Abominable Science — well, maybe “contributed” is an overstatement. What I discovered in that lengthy thread, and what appears to be the case here, is that some skeptics make their criticisms and raise their questions, probably all of them valid on some level (I have generally adopted the cliché position that there are no dumb questions), but resist upping the ante in repeated demands. If they are not satisfied with the answers they get or cannot get, they are nevertheless eventually able to “live and let live.” Such skeptics, as well as “believers,” understand that many problems or pieces of evidence remain for the moment, or for a lot longer, unresolved.

    However, other skeptics seem not to be satisfied with the “tabling” of the resolution. They continue to demand either absolute proof (including perfect answers to all their questions) or capitulation. Sometimes they put words in the mouths of those who believe in the existence of the sasquatch, or those who present a particular piece of evidence. The more compelling or interesting that piece of evidence is, such as this video, the more they continue to demand explanations for details that may not be able to be satisfactorily explained at the moment.

    I am led to ask, “what engine is driving this train?” when proof or capitulation are the only options given to the presenters of evidence. What emotionally and personally drives an almost angry insistence that one either proves a case to everyone’s satisfaction, or gives in? I understand that some “believers” also have, to add a prefix, a “disprove or capitulate” mentality, although by far most “believers” I have talked to through the years are not like that at all. Healthy skepticism is vital in this research, as Ray Crowe has repeatedly pointed out. But skeptics who adopt a “prove or capitulate” approach, and sometimes resort to personal attack, need to ask themselves the question, “what is driving my train?” in my approach and my emotions. The “preacher” of this paragraph admits that he has to continually re-examine himself as well.

    I give credit to those who offered this film footage for the advancement of knowledge and the continuing search for the truth. I do not expect that “prove or disprove” will go away and I suspect you don’t either. But we need to name that approach for what it is, and search inside of ourselves for the motivations for what we say. Thank you for your time.

  39. Goodfoot responds:

    No, I really agree, Gene. I didn’t exactly grow up around cattle, but I’ve camped in fields of them, and I agree one can’t exactly predict their responses. I’ve had them ignore me. I’ve have them back a little distance away, but once they’re satisfied you’re not a threat, they’ll simply ignore you. I’ve had them graze pretty close to a tent in the middle of the night.

    When I lived in Taos, I had some experiences in a horse pasture out back that I’ve mentioned before. I lived within 20 feet of that pasture for 5 1/2 years, and I only heard one of the horses whinny in the middle of the night once. There were parts of the pasture, it was maybe 20 acres, maybe more, that were far enough I might not have heard them. But the night I had the particular hearing experience, the horses never made one peep. Maybe there were periodic visitations, and they came to trust there was no threat.

    The same might be true of cattle. I have no idea.

  40. Gene Baade responds:

    I don’t want to beat a dead horse here with cows, but have a couple of other thoughts. In my research I read of very, very few situations where cattle or horses are actually prey for the sasquatch. Bigfoot Behavior Book One (Ray Crowe) has only a tiny report list, and these are under “Hanging Kills.” Going out on horse’s mane here with speculation, but might there be an understanding on the part of the sasquatch that farm stock is off limits for one reason or another? I mean, ranchers and farmers don’t want their stock killed by predators. If cattle & horses were a staple of sasquatch meat diet, then I suspect that farmers & ranchers would have brought in a sasquatch a long time ago. I’m not entirely jesting here. And cattle in sasquatch territory just might have enough of a sense or instinct to not fear one. (It was quipped that sasquatch have been reported getting chummy with cattle & there is a report to of that; maybe this was one contented cow! Sorry. I couldn’t resist.). I know I’m assigning probably too much to cow sense, but I have to put it out there. I don’t know what goes on inside their thick skulls. Furthermore, sasquatch going after deer or other wild ungulates would represent a prey without many people getting upset, and who would know anyway? Are the Forest Service and state DNR / Fish & Wildlife monitoring the movements of every single deer, elk, and moose?

  41. dconstrukt responds:

    DWA – no, I have absolutely no clue what it is… none of us do, however I don’t believe its a bigfoot.

    I’m not running around saying this is a bigfoot.

    I’m not the one posting the video either.

    the burden of proof is not on me pal.

    However I’ve posted facts and questions to support my opinion.

    I am using my brain… it’s common sense when looking at the video… to ask questions of things that don’t fit.

    The shape looks of the head of a bigfoot, somewhat, however there are SEVERAL things that don’t jive. (see below)

    you say its a lead, I agree, however i’m posting questions and facts why I think its bogus…

    And no ones had remotely an answer to them… not a peep from anyone.

    why is that?

    You guys rush to say its a bigfoot, yet when someone has valid questions, it becomes a ghost town LOL.

    And btw… Mledrum last I checked is a foot expert (a professor of anatomy). Not a thermal expert or anything else. he’s THE expert in that area.

    If we have footprints, he’s THE man to bring it to.

    You wouldn’t go to a professor of anatomy for throat surgery.

    or have him give you a root canal either.

    So the fact he’s intrigued while great, really means nothing to me.

    I’m posting why I believe its NOT a bigfoot.

    And i’ve given facts (same flir, same distances, different results), along with the questions below to support my opinion.

    I’m listening with an open mind to anyone who’s got some answers…

    1. if the bigfoot is 6-10 ft tall, how can it lie down like it appears to be in the photo on its stomach while arched up? (like a surfer)

    2. if its crouching, where are its knee’s? they would have to be in front of the chest area, yet you dont see anything.

    3. if you can see the upper part through the bushes, why is the rest of it not visible at all?

    4. if its hiding behind a tree or bushes, why are you not able to see them with the thermal?

    5. Also if an animal is crouching, his upper body would be leaning forward, its a natural body position, so the video of the animal’s position seems weird.

  42. Goodfoot responds:

    I agree, Gene. I think deer are the main meat diet, with fish and turtles added where relevant. Also, there is indication of rock-hunting for small rodents in the Northwest. Taking large stock would run into trouble, and there is no real indication of it in the literature.

  43. Goodfoot responds:

    dconstrukt: if only you weren’t so utterly predictable.

  44. dconstrukt responds:


    everone’s a self proclaimed genius, yet no one has a single answer.

  45. Goodfoot responds:


  46. Gene Baade responds:

    To dconstrukt: I wasn’t there; I have no idea where the site is; therefore I cannot with accuracy determine the exact terrain and topography. But let me take a stab at an answer — and no, I am not a self-proclaimed genius. Never claimed that, and don’t see anybody else here claiming it either.

    If the site is a knoll behind which the creature was either standing or lying on its stomach, it seems to me to be easily possible for only the shoulders & head to show and nothing lower on the body. No knees to see, no crouching, no leaning forward, no heat signature through branches.

    If standing, obviously the knoll or rise would have to be significant, or the creature further back down the slope. If on its stomach, the knoll would not have to be terribly high. I see no reason why this kind of a primate could not arch its back when on its stomach and have the head & shoulders essentially in the same plane vertically. Humans do it. I just did it on the floor. My arms don’t have to show if just below ground level on the other side of the top of the knoll.

    It has been reported that sasquatches sometimes sneak up on campsites on their stomachs, perhaps like a soldier. Why not here? Also, if the superimposition of the person in the edited video was on the same spot, the film takers could give us a probable posture or body position and/or location.

    I’m not saying this is the way it was, but it’s a possibility and would seem to me to at least partially answer some of your questions. My above offered explanation is why earlier I said that I look at the video and see things differently than you to — not better, just differently.

    I cannot speak to heat signature readings or cameras whatsoever.

  47. Goodfoot responds:

    Sorry. Thought we were talking about the Oklahoma imagery.
    Kindly ignore!

  48. dconstrukt responds:

    gene. thanks… appreciate the stab at it, but it doesn’t line up with the image in the video, does it?

    if the bigfoot was lying on its stomach, how can you see its chest, head, shoulders as if its standing up?

    the head looks as if its straight up and down, but there’s no way any animal not even a human can lay down on its stomach and have its chest and head appear totally upright.

    not possible.

    the knoll or cliff or whatnot would to me, be the only explanation… you can clearly see its not a tree or whatnot because the tree’s are in the foreground and visible.

  49. Gene Baade responds:

    dear dconstrukt: I can visualize your point of view. On first glance the eye may easily place the creature upright. However, in my opinion, only the upper part of the shoulders/chest are showing, not that far below the corner of the shoulder. It is possible to elevate from a prone position and look like that. I think I see it frequently at the gym. I see it in kids. I can do it. Yes, I readily grant we would be looking at a massive torso here & not a child or flexible adult human. As far as the head & chest appearing totally upright, how can one tell the difference at this distance between totally upright and, let’s say, a 20 to 30 degree slant from shoulders to top of head from a stomach prone position? I’m not saying this is the way it is; I don’t know. I’m not saying it is comfortable to maintain this position for a longer period of time, either, human or sasquatch. Truth be told, only the folks who took the film can tell us exactly what the topography and terrain is at that exact spot, and what the superimposition of the human figure is in terms of position. If that would happen, we probably wouldn’t be having this conversation. To repeat: yes, I can see your point of view. I respectfully disagree that this must be the exact presentation of the subject due to the fact that really very little of the chest is showing. Magnification of the image shows that better than a smaller image.

  50. DWA responds:

    dconstrukt: Right. Nobody has an answer, including the scientific establishment.

    But some people are trying to get one. And some self-styled experts keep demanding proof at every turn; fail to understand that’s not how science works; and instead of taking the mainstream to task for its utter failure to engage, slag the folks working on the answer.

    (And provide, well, “half-baked ‘analysis'” is as kind as I can get. And look, I even get all the punctuation correct.)

    “Mledrum last I checked is a foot expert (a professor of anatomy).”

    Is that serious? (GOD, spell stuff right, man!) What do you think, “Mledrum” only knows this topic from the ankle down? Him over you, every time. Thanks for reinforcing that.

    Your concerns have all been answered. Got no more time for you, man. Step up game.

  51. DWA responds:

    Gene Baade:

    From the backstory, the animal (at least it has to be an animal, right?) was on the reverse side of the ridge, just below the ridgeline, which explains well to me what we see.

  52. dconstrukt responds:

    appreciate the feedback from the Gene… very insightful.

    Meldrum received his B.S. in zoology specializing in vertebrate locomotion at Brigham Young University (BYU) in 1982, his M.S. at BYU in 1984 and a Ph.D. in anatomical sciences, with an emphasis in biological anthropology, from State University of New York at Stony Brook in 1989.

    He’s an expert in those areas 100% no doubt.

    NOT thermal imaging.

    his speciality is vertebrate locomotion.

    what does vertebrate locomotion have to do with this thermal video?


    The name dropping doesn’t impress me and means nothing.

    take meldrum everytime, god bless ya.

    heck, feel free to take any other doctor as well.

    I’m sure they’re ALL taking classes in university for thermal imaging.

    you know it is a requirement before you can get your doctorate.

    So they’re all experts in thermal imaging now too.

    when you state a position, usually you back it up with proof… to justify your position, otherwise all you’re speaking is hollow words …

    otherwise called nonsense

    thats something jabronies do. :)

  53. Gene Baade responds:

    DWA, thank you for reminding me of the ridge. I wasn’t clear on that as the daylight image doesn’t reveal that very well. Or maybe it was just me. I’m still interested in knowing, not the location (well of course I am, but that is not possible), but the specific topography.

    deconstruct, you have a point about Dr. M. and thermal, but sometimes points can be made too narrowly, sharply, or formally. Even someone who doesn’t have a degree in a particular science or field can by experience and further non-degree training can still know a heck of a lot about something outside their formal degrees. We listen to them with that understanding and may give them a certain amount of credence we wouldn’t otherwise. It wouldn’t surprise me if Dr. M. had experience in the area of field photography and/or knows people who are truly experts and has learned from them. Obviously, in a formal setting like a jury or scientific panel, an expert witness or member must have clear and present academic and job credentials in the specific field he/she is called to address. But so far this has not been a formal debate nor has it been a jury (although it sometimes seems like one) or a juried forum with peer review.

  54. dconstrukt responds:

    hey Gene, thanks… interesting points but it doesn’t jive.

    i have degrees in photography, video and design from one of the best advertising schools in the world.

    I’ve learned from some of the best in the world.

    doesn’t make me an expert in thermal… does it?

    does a dentist have knowledge of everything scientific just because he’s a doctor?

    even if he went to harvard?

    I mean… lol… really…. while I appreciate the effort, it just doesn’t hold water.

    he’s very knowledgeable, yes, totally respect the doc, hate to break the news, but he’s probably got as much knowledge about thermals as the rest of us…

    one thing to note, the person who shot this thermal said they had no knowledge of how to use the thing… so perhaps that might lend some clue’s on what it is.

    the ridge or cliff to me, seems like the only plausible explanation for the cut off of the body and the way the body appears.

    until we have more data, i’m afraid no one can say what this is or isn’t however i’ve got far too many doubts and questions about this one.

  55. DWA responds:

    Gene Baade: right.

    One thing cryptos are gonna have to learn if this is ever going to become a science is the new rigors imposed by “open science,” in which amateur groups like NAWAC and the Olympic Project are pioneers.

    Classically, science has been “closed;” we never found out what scientists were working on until they presented the findings. The good part: they had to make sure their science was utterly shipshape, so the findings wouldn’t be contested once released. The bad part: the findings not infrequently get contested, because people whose expertise might have been solicited earlier weren’t on the team, and either things were done wrong or those left out believe that they were.

    (The even-worse part: the influence of classical science has infested bigfootery from its start, which is why you have all this data hoarding and claim and counterclaim rather than collaboration.)

    The Olympic Project is releasing information as they get it; they have explicitly avoided hiding, hoarding and inflated claims, and have explicitly sought help from those of other viewpoints. It is uncertain what this image represents, but of the two alternatives most focused upon – cow or sasquatch – sasquatch looks the more compelling, when the overall body of evidence is taken into account. Meldrum certainly knows what a bigfoot looks like, at least indirectly; that he’s intrigued says this is hot.

    Follow-up is going to be necessary. But this says that follow-up should happen. Catcalls are unwarranted, and tend to point up issues with one’s approach.

  56. Gene Baade responds:

    Dear deconstruct: Thank you for sharing some of your training and background. I appreciate it. You said: “one thing to note, the person who shot this thermal said they had no knowledge of how to use the thing… so perhaps that might lend some clue’s on what it is.” Not sure what the connection is you’re making. Please elaborate when you have time (“thing” referring to camera; “it”: the object? If so what clue are you suggesting?).

    You said: “until we have more data, i’m afraid no one can say what this is or isn’t however i’ve got far too many doubts and questions about this one.” I have no problem with your viewpoint when you put it like that.

    As for Dr. M., you may be right, or maybe not. Not for me to say; only for him to say.

    Thank you for the dialogue.

  57. Gene Baade responds:

    DWA: well put. And I came a away from Sasquatch Summit 2013 with a high regard for Olympic Project. Already had a high regard, but reaffirmed. On history of science subject, Brian Regal’s book, Searching for Sasquatch Crackpots, Eggheads, and Cryptozoology, is an excellent treatment on the development of the philosophy of science into the modern era. Bindernagel’s Discovery of the Sasquatch delves into the proof process quite well.

  58. Goodfoot responds:


    The word is JIBE. Not “jive.”

    Otherwise, keep up the good work; you never fail to say exactly what i expect you to say. PREDICTABLE.

  59. Goodfoot responds:

    Gene+dekonstruct: He — USED the infrared device. It WORKED. Therefore, he knew how to work it.

  60. Gene Baade responds:

    Goodfoot, thank you for that piece of information.

    I’m not having any real problem with this video, partly out of technical ignorance and partly out of making sense of it and its context from my own knowledge base outside the specific camera technology. I appreciate the back and forth from everyone, even when the fur flies. Dialogue gets a lot of interesting stuff out that I otherwise don’t consider or see in the proper light.

    My main interest at this point is knowing precisely the topography/terrain, not because I’m doubting the information, but because I naturally want to better visualize the setting. What kind of ridge? How steep, etc.. I don’t know how much marrow there is left to suck out of this bone.

  61. Goodfoot responds:

    I can feel your urgency, Gene. I hope you can find some help with your questions. I’d be interested in finding out more, to a degree, but in the final analysis, my gut tells me this thermographic footage is just not going to prove that important in the long run.

  62. dconstrukt responds:

    Gene – ya we need daytime to know where this was shot… otherwise, what else can we discuss on this?

    Goodfoot – ummmm negative. sorry pal… it’s jive.

    Jibe is a sailing term.

    But you knew that already.

    its not an infrared as you said… it’s a thermal.

    Do you even know the difference?

    Go read, it’ll do ya some good before you post here trying to look like a genius. :-)

  63. DWA responds:


    As with any scientific investigation, follow-up will determine how important this turns out to be. Nothing conclusive can be gleaned from thermals; but they can point discussion in a direction.

  64. DWA responds:

    Harrumph. From Wikipedia:

    “Jive” is often used incorrectly in place of “jibe”, meaning “to agree or accord”. While one recent dictionary accepts this usage, most sources consider this an error.

    Go read, it’ll do ya some good before you post here trying to look like a genius.

  65. DWA responds:

    Two reports of interactions with unconcerned cattle:

    First one

    Second one

    Note in the latter report the investigator’s statement that “Also, I have seen in other reports that cows have acted both scared and unconcerned.”

    (YOU find ’em. This was hard enough!)

    I should note also that the BFRO report was courtesy of alert by this website. This is a high school kid; and this site alone counts for more than everything I have read from the mainstream on this topic. In this installment, he’s discussing this thermal:

  66. dconstrukt responds:


    are you serious pal?

    wow you must seriously feel threatened by me to keep flaming me with this garbage.

    are you that insecure?

    Nice to know you’ve still got that man crush on me

    why don’t you edit my post and fix it since you obviously know what I said.

    what a putz.

  67. Goodfoot responds:


    jibe (1) Nautical v. jibed also gybed, jibing also gybing, jibes also gybes v. intr.
    To shift a fore-and-aft said from one side of a vessel to the other side while sailing before the wind so as to sail on the opposite track.

    jibe (2) To be in accord; agree: Your figures jibe with mine.

    thermal, Adjective
    Relating to heat.

    infrared, Adj.
    having or employing wavelengths longer than light but shorter than radio waves.

    I am simply NOT going to parse with you, engage in hair-splitting with you, now or at any other time, or under any conditions, over the difference between THERMAL and INFRARED. Both are; each one is; an expression of HEAT.

  68. Gene Baade responds:

    I like the cattle citations, not just for the reports that support the opinions we have expressed, but the humorous nature of that west Texas observation. Thanks for doing the research.

  69. Goodfoot responds:

    DWA: did you run across one story (or more) of a Bigfoot engaging in carnal knowledge with a cow? I remember one. Maybe can find it one day.

  70. Gene Baade responds:

    Re cows/”carnal knowledge”: Loren Coleman, his book, Bigfoot, page 185.

  71. dconstrukt responds:

    thermal and infrared are not the same things.

    neither is jibe and jive. no one says jibe – go out of your little bubble and talk to people (foreign for you i’m sure)

  72. DWA responds:


    “thermal and infrared are not the same things.”

    Irrelevant to the discussion; stay on topic.

    “neither is jibe and jive. no one says jibe – go out of your little bubble and talk to people (foreign for you i’m sure)”

    Wow. In the face of proof that you’re wrong. That’s evidence of who’s in the bubble.

    Or alternately, who is still having trouble discerning the difference between what the unwashed do, and what informed people do. It’s pretty obvious that the mass culture is wrong on sasquatch. And that you may not be speaking to people who use the king’s English correctly. I hear jibe a lot, correctly, from people who like to use correct English.

    Getting proven wrong – and coming back insisting one is still right – is not the best way to get people who aren’t sure what to think about a topic to accept one’s way of thinking about it.

    Get talked to the way you are talking here, and see how you treat it. Doesn’t work.

  73. Goodfoot responds:

    Yeah, I remember. I think it referred to an account by a supposed PA college professor who built a cabin, and had repeated contacts by a Bigfoot he called “Kong”. Am I right? The entire story probably can still be found online. It’s novella-length. I am not suggesting it is fiction. It may be.

  74. Goodfoot responds:

    DWA: what else can you expect from a 15-year old? Mentally and emotionally, at least, if not literally.

    dkonstruct: WISE UP, LITTLE BOY.

Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|

Cryptomundo Merch On Sale Now!


Connect with Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest


DFW Nites

Creatureplica Fouke Monster Everything Bigfoot


|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.