Speaking again of: Where are the Sasquatch Snow Tracks?

Posted by: Craig Woolheater on August 8th, 2013

I felt the following comment deserved to be elevated to a more visable post here on Cryptomundo.

Cryptomundian NMRNG asked the following questions:

Interesting. After nearly two weeks, no one has bothered to respond. Surely at least a few people subscribed to this thread? It’s hard to believe that everyone who participated at length here was following the thread only as long as it was on the website’s front or second page.

I checked out the three videos posted above. The first two were essentially worthless because of lack of resolution and clarity – the first looked to me to be a guy-in-a-gorilla-suit hoax and the second likely showed a person goofing around in the snow on top of the hill. Most of the bigfoot in the snow videos have to be hoaxes because there’s no follow-up. Every genuine bigfoot captured on video would be followed up by the videographer walking up to the site of the video capture and getting close-ups of the footprints. None of those videos do that. The third video, that of the bigfoot trackway in the deep snow of northern Minnesota was much more convincing. The “I can’t walk without dragging my feet through this deep snow” commentary and demonstration could have been exaggerated and it’s possible the tracks were by someone wearing smaller snowshoes, but the stride length did appear to be longer than what a person could typically produce in deep snow, without drag marks through the snow from one footprint to the next.

Speaking of what was shown in that video, PhotoExpert, did you happen to watch that bigfoot trackway video? What did you see in the background? Two things: woods, and snowmobiles. The people in the video saw the tracks while out snowmobiling through the woods. I don’t have the specific figures for what portion of snowmobile trails are in the open versus through the woods, but I would hazard a conservative guess that at least 30% of snowmobile trails are in the woods or immediately alongside wooded areas and it could easily be double that figure based on the hundreds of miles of snowmobile trails I’ve seen from roads or highways in Wisconsin and in Minnesota or that I’ve hiked in the summer and fall that are marked with snowmobile signs for the winter. There are over 25,000 miles of snowmobile trails in my state of Wisconsin alone, so you’ve got to figure that with the other northern states and pretty much all of Canada combined, there has to be more than a HUNDRED THOUSAND miles of snowmobile trails through the woods of North America. So yes, snowmobilers are out in bigfoot habitat.

Also, while I’ve never been to Yosemite in the winter, I have been to Yellowstone in late December and there were hundreds of tourists there, skiing, snowmobiling, taking snow cat tours, etc… and I imagine it would be the same at many other large parks. So PE, your ignorance is starting to show, rather badly. Looking back, I see it was you who made the ridiculous comments about the ski hills as well. I couldn’t tell from a comment above, but are you from Australia or someplace like Florida, where there isn’t much if any snow? That at least would partially excuse your ignorance. You’re an odd duck – you’re quick to point out the obvious when there’s a too frequent implausible account here of some alleged cryptic sighting, but when I raise a questions about a genuine issue, you immediately reject it as the work of a troll, citing spurious and erroneous reasons for jumping to that conclusion.

As for your statement that one finds sasquatch only in wooded, remote habitat, well, there is plenty of that in Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine, particularly in the mountainous regions that cover most of those three states, yet there are more sasquatch sightings reported in flat, relatively featureless farm-and-ranchland prevalent Nebraska than in those three states, double the number of sightings in Iowa compared to those three states combined, and nearly triple the number of sightings in Oklahoma as one finds in Vermont, New Hampshire, and Maine combined. (source: BFRO.net). Why? Clearly trees and remote hills alone do not provide the answer.

Are there photos and videos of alleged tracks in the snow posted online? Sure. And like the bulk of them taken during the other three seasons of the year, they are generally at best inconclusive and much more typically, hoaxes. Other than the Bossburg prints and the example from the 1980s someone cited above, where else has any bigfoot author mentioned any bigfoot tracks in the snow in more recent times, let alone over the last two decades? Has there even been a single mention in the written literature of bigfoot tracks in the snow since 2000? I’m not aware of any, but I haven’t read that many books. OK, so let’s put together a list of all of the television episodes of people studying bigfoot who thought to cover tracks in the snow – I’ll list all of the episodes of Finding Bigfoot, Monsterquest, Animal X, Destination Truth (maybe – I stopped watching it after the second season because it was so awful), Nat Geo specials, etc.. that cover Bigfoot in the winter:

That’s right, zero. There was one episode of Finding Bigfoot where they fly in a helicopter to the top of a snow-covered mountain where someone shot a distant photo of a skier who hiked to the top of the next peak over and they misidentified this figure as a bigfoot, but they did not mention tracks or address the topic of sasquatch in the winter. None of the shows about this cryptid have ever covered sasquatch in the wintertime (to the best of my knowledge – please correct me if I’m wrong). I would say that between the written and televised media (i.e. the most credible portion of the recordings of the study of sasquatch), that’s a significant gap in coverage, one worthy of my original inquiry.

PhotoExpert, you flippantly dismissed my inquiry with a speculative response about migration (and someone else suggested it in a non-flippant fashion). Let’s suppose sasquatches do migrate south in the winter. Where do they go? Are they hiking hundreds or thousands of miles to the southern third of our country? How about the ones spotted in Alaska and further north in Canada? Are they going 2,000 miles or more south? Do they really need to? Virtually all reports of sasquatch close enough to see the beast’s coat report it is thick and at least medium length, tending more toward several inches in length, not the sort of thin coat that would be inadequate for colder weather. Sasquatches allegedly live in many of the same part of North America as the gray wolf. Wolves tend not to migrate during the winter – they may follow caribou herds when that is their primary local pray, but the wolves living in Minnesota, Wisconsin and Michigan don’t flee the snow every winter and their usual prey essentially stays put when the snow falls.

If sasquatch migrates, wouldn’t the incidents of sightings of roadway crossings be greatly increased in November and late March to Early April? Is there any such statistic that would prove this? I haven’t heard of it and that seems like it would be something I would investigate if I dedicated a significant portion of my life to studying this legendary beast. But no one else seems to be asking these sorts of questions. Wildlife biologists who study caribou and wildebeests and other such migratory mammals surely study patterns of movement, but I’ve never heard of any of the handful of more serious bigfoot investigators out there considering this migratory theory.

And let’s say that sasquatch does move south – the Minnesota ones head down to the Ozarks, for instance and the Michigan ones head to Kentucky or Tennessee. One would have to assume that the number of sightings in these states would be higher in the winter than in other times of the year (when not only the population has increased from the migrations south, but there’s less leaf cover behind which an 8′ tall mammal can hide), but that’s not the case, per the state sightings reports on BFRO.net. And since there are sightings year-round in these states, that would suggest a resident population. What predatory mammalian species, man included, has ever welcomed competitors into its territory in the history of our planet? Sorry, but I don’t buy southern sasquatches welcoming their northern kin “Hey! There’s Uncle Aaaarghnnahaahooo and Auntie Neeenugnog! We’ve been expecting you for days! Make yourselves at home – we’ve got plenty of food.” As far as I know, no one’s ever reported any sasquatch fights and territorial conflicts, but there would have to be some if northern sasquatches migrated south – ALL predatory mammals defend their hunting territories. To me, the migration theory is not impossible, but it’s not very plausible, either.

PhotoExpert, you asked if I’ve read Loren Coleman. Yes, I have. It may be almost sacrilegious to say this here on a site where he was a founder (I have no knowledge of his exact role in starting and leaving this site), but I thought his Bigfoot: The True Story of Apes In America had a decent portion on the Native American traditions and legends, it had some OK original research material he conducted, but was otherwise rather poorly written, very poorly edited, and it was biased and amateurish, clearly the product of a bigfoot believer, not an objective study of the creature. For specifics, see my review on Amazon – it’s the lengthy 2/5 star review, the only one that gives specific examples and page numbers for each of the many problems with the book. Coleman’s prominence in the field over multiple decades should not give his ideas and theories any more credibility than they are worth based on their objective merits without regard to who came up with that theory.

There are some long-time regulars who posted above back in June who casually dismissed my inquiries, but they did not do much more than put casual thought into rejecting the points I made and questions I asked. Asking “What does it do and where does it go?” are not dumb questions to ask about any living species. And so far, my suspicions appear to be correct, that other than discussion of a few decades-old reports, there is virtually no mention in the most reliable portion of the sasquatch media (i.e. in books and television shows on sasquatch**) of what bigfoot does in the winter and why there aren’t more tracks. And no one has answered that rather pertinent question: when 90+% of its tracks are going to be visible on snow-covered ground (as opposed to what, 1 to maybe 10% of its tracks in non-winter months), why has no one tracked down a sasquatch in the snow? These are valid questions, ones that are intended to shed genuine light on this subject. I’m asking questions that should be addressed in books and shows about sasquatch, if those who were investigating this cryptid were doing a thorough, comprehensive, and objective job. Unfortunately, they don’t seem to be doing that.

People should be asking hard questions and addressing problems with the bigfoot theories, not sweeping them under the rug. I understand that Jeff Meldrum is himself loath to admit that he’s been conned by hoaxers in the past and he does not adequately acknowledge the role of hoaxers in tainting the quantity of sasquatch evidence out there; at least he didn’t in Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science (and I thought very highly of that book, but not so much so that I could not assess it objectively). People should be asking about seeming inconsistencies in what is reported about sasquatch. Washington and California (the mountainous northern portion of the state) lead the country in sasquatch sightings. But why is it that there are more sightings in Ohio, Illinois, and Florida, than there are in the state that sits between California and Washington – Oregon? (source: BFRO.net).

The bottom line is that I’m not trying to be some sort of obnoxious miscreant who delights in making conflict on an internet site. I’m merely asking hard questions about issues that the small handful of professional and semi-professional sasquatch researchers out there should be asking and addressing, but seem to be avoiding. That does not make me a troll.


** I am, by no means, calling the television shows on sasquatch and other cryptids universally reliable sources. Destination Truth is hosted by a bombastic assclown and is as amateurish as any documentary-style show I’ve ever seen. Animal X wasn’t much better. Even Finding Bigfoot is at least as much entertainment as it attempts to portray any sort of genuine research. However, these shows often do feature people who take the subject more seriously, such as Dr. Meldrum and Loren Coleman and they have a greater overall reliability than what one finds on YouTube.

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.

14 Responses to “Speaking again of: Where are the Sasquatch Snow Tracks?”

  1. madzap63 responds:

    These are questions that should be asked. Had i been paying attention to the particular thread I may have touched upon a couple myself. I do get tired of questioning everyone else’s supposed evidence and being treated like a troll when I do. that’s the problem with trying to get people to take you seriously when you present evidence and attacking the detractors does not help.

    NMRNG is dead on. There are things that we don’t touch upon like the migration questions. Why wouldn’t there be more roadway sightings during migration at change of seasons? It’s a fair question. Maybe the answer is they only go lower in elevation in some areas and in others migrate further for warmer climates. Bigfoot might be the original snowbird!

    My point in bringing it up is that as researchers we need to gather more data and present more questions then see if we can find the answers. I believe it’s time for more research groups to collaborate on their evidence and their regions. Science won’t take us seriously as long as we remain fragmented. Let’s face it. Some are in this for the money and some are in it for species preservation and study. The ones in it for the recognition of and protection of a species need to collaborate. Spend time being expert researchers instead of the usual halfhearted attempts made by so many.

    Who cares about the skeptics? Maybe if we ignore them completely they will question their own existence.

    My new creedo! “Have a great day. Ignore a skeptic.

  2. Ploughboy responds:

    Meh. Not a real burning issue for me. And yes, I’ve done my share of time in the snow. (Snowshoeing, X-country skiing backcountry, Arizona, Utah, Montana, East Coast Appalachia…) Frankly, I don’t think most people have the skill to recognize the probable identity of ANY trackway, either snow or barren ground, but there is no real mystery as to why the majority of tracks are spotted in warmer months. The tracks are clearer and the majority of people are in the woods during warmer months, and are more likely to venture further from the trailheads and tourist hot spots. Zipping along on a snowmobile in the woods is not exactly conducive to track spotting. The nature of snow is to mutate with freeze/thaw cycles and most types of snow cover in the West don’t imprint very well at all. If you didn’t take note of the stride length, you would probably just write it up to a man wearing showshoes, if you noticed it at all.

    Besides, that said, I can recall at least six encounter reports of the BFRO site and others documenting recent snow tracks. Some may remember that Dr. Jeff Meldrum’s “Road to Damascus” moment was after viewing tracks in mud/snow conditions.

  3. NMRNG responds:

    Earlier this very busy summer, in the midst of two week-long vacations away from the internet, I took a 5-week hiatus from Cryptomundo and when I came back, discovered that an inquiry I had made back in early June about the seeming lack of bigfoot tracks in the snow had been turned into its own post. I discovered that a number of the site’s old timers had concluded that the fact that a) I was a newbie to the site; b) I did not blindly accept everything that the cryptid world shovels out; and c) asked some questions about issues that don’t seem to be addressed meant that I was a “militant skeptic” (i.e. a troll). Several of these old timers got pretty pompous in making some altogether ridiculous arguments about both my ideas and their phenomenally astute ability to sniff out alleged trolls and in the process managed to mischaracterize some of what I had written and make a number of puzzlingly ignorant statements.

    Two weeks ago when I first discovered that my inquiry had been made a post here, I submitted a lengthy response to the 40+ comments that had been left to the post, addressing many of the substantive arguments, clarifying some points I made in my initial inquiry, and addressing the “militant skeptic/troll” allegations. One can find that prior post by clicking the magnifying glass “search” icon on the top right of the site screen, typing in “snow” and scrolling down. Although I imagine that some of the people posting on that tread were subscribing to it, no one responded, so yesterday I added the above comment to that old post from June.

    Following up on my original comments and Madzap63’s comment above regarding roadside/crossing sightings, I have to ask a question that no one else here seems to find puzzling: why are there any road crossing sightings at all? Many bigfoot believers, particularly the habituators, claim that sasquatch is too smart to be caught on camera, which is why there are so few trailcam photos of something that might possibly be sasquatch, despite the presence of thousands of such trailcams in places where deer and bear are abundant (i.e. presumably good bigfoot habitat) placed by hunters, plus at least dozens, if not hundreds, placed by bigfoot researchers in known bigfoot habitat. How is it that a primate can be so intelligent, perceptive, and wary as to avoid a silent, often camouflaged 6″x6″x3″ box strapped unobtrusively to a tree, but time and again they cannot seem to avoid a 15′ long 5′ high noisy contraption that can be heard at least 3/4 of a mile away and can be seen at night several miles away?

    It does not make sense to me that this ultra-wary creature allows itself to be seen lumbering across roads, when it could easily hide in the brush and trees nearby until there are no cars coming and then cross. Has this quandary occurred to anyone else and is anyone else bothered by this seeming inconsistency? All of the roadside crossings that I’ve heard of feature a sasquatch walking or striding across a road, not sprinting after prey which might explain inattentiveness toward motorized vehicles. And the roads they are seen crossing tend to be rather remote ones, not so heavily traveled that there would be few breaks in the stream of cars, so one would assume it would not require much patience at all to wait until no cars were around to cross.

  4. Bipedal_Bill responds:

    I was snowshoeing in Colorado in March in the late 90’s. Approximately 2 miles down a snow mobile only road at an elevation of about 9500 feet, I ran into a set of tracks coming one direction down off a mountain going to a stream and then going back up the mountain. These tracks were about the size of a gym bag with 4 foot strides, left then right, etc. I was snow camping and looking for bigfoot in an area that had some recent activity. I followed the tracks back up the mountain until they disappeared in the melted side of the mountain above tree line. I camped that night where the tracks ended. I had brought 2 audio recorders with me and several microphones. At 11pm at night, I heard a loud howl from the top of the mountain ridge (approx 11,000 feet). I quickly went to record the sound with my Marantz recorder and it was completely frozen. It wouldn’t move. So I grabbed a pocket micro recorder and recorded the howls for the next 15 minutes. Unfortunately, it was an old micro recorder and the howls were distant, so they were barely audible. Those old micro cassettes make more noise recording the wheels turning. I ended up hiking out of the woods that night, due to cold. I can tell you from living in Colorado for years, that at that time of year and elevation, the elk stay much lower where the grass is, the cougars follow them. There is nothing I could imagine making a noise that loud from the above treeline at 11,000 feet in March. It was eery. I do have a couple pictures of the tracks that took, setting a backpack next to them for comparison. So winter tracks happen. It’s just that not many people are hiking through remote areas of the woods in the winter.

  5. Ploughboy responds:

    NMRNG: To just be flippant about it, you could say, “Because that is what they do.” Really, at this point, it is about the sum of our knowledge. The real quest is to find out that answer, and the question is much different than, “Do they exist?”

    The idea that a Sasquatch is a hyper-secretive animal is more of our own construct than what the evidence shows us. I prefer to use the description used by the NAWAC: Furtive. That covers it nicely, I think.

  6. Insanity responds:

    I cannot speak for others, but I have not been getting notifications for responses, though I see that may have been recently reset.

    In regards to snowmobile trails used as an argument, a problem I see is that the area that they cover is not really significant. Wisconsin has an area of 169,639 km2, of which 17% is water, leaving 140,800 km2 as land area. Wisconsin is 45% (2002 figure) forested or 63,642 km2 of the land area is forested.

    If NMRNG’s conservative guess of 30% of trails are in or around wooded areas is correct and with Wisconsin having about 25,000 mi (40,233 km) of trails, that gives 7,500 mi (12,070 km) in or about wooded areas. How much area do these trails cover? What is the average width of trails? These are narrow strips of area, and even with 12,070 km in or about wooded areas, the area they cover is likely not that great. If we use 100 ft (30 m) for the width of all trails, then Wisconsin’s snowmobile trails covers about 1,207 km2 or 0.86% of Wisconsin’s total land area. Of the 12,070 km of trails in or about wooded areas, the area they cover is 362 km2 or 0.57% of the forested area. How much area beyond this can one reliably survey while snowmobiling? How many trails are groomed on a regular basis, which would completely obliterate any tracks on them and how often are they groomed?

    I could not find figures for total length of snowmobile trails in Michigan, but the DNR site did say there are about 6,200 mi (9,978 km) of designated snowmobile trails that are located throughout the forests, three national forests and many acres of private lands. Michigan is about 51% forested, giving an area of 75,028 km2 as forested and using 30 m as the width, these trails cover about 300 km2 or 0.40% of the forested area.

    Minnesota has about 22,000 mi (35,405 km) of trails, if 30% are in or about wooded areas they cover about 320 km2 or 0.53% of the forested area.

    Sasquatch may or may not exist, and yes, snowmobilers may be in its habitat, but likely not in a significant manner. Hundreds of people may traverse these trails daily during the seasons they are in use, but that is really hundreds of people covering the same and relatively small area, isn’t it? Even if there are 100,000+ mi of snowmobile trails between the northern states and Canada, the total area covered by them will likely be less than 1% of the total forested area.

  7. madzap63 responds:

    NMRNG is right to ask the questions. We should all be tolerant of questions. That is how we make sure that we are on the right track (pun intended). So many see one person’s multiple questions as a nuisance or trolling just because they’re afraid to be proven wrong or questioned on their evidence.

    As for the road crossing question there are reports of sightings near roads. This is when the most humans see one in a sighting. I recall one report on BFRO’s site where one was reported to be caught on a roadway in a heavy rain. This resulted in multiple reports as it was supposedly seen by occupants of dozens of vehicles going by. it’s my belief that when there is a sighting near a road it’s quite by accident on the part of the Sasquatch. It might be through distraction, disorientation, or due to bad timing on the hunt. After all, they don’t know our rules of the road and avoiding these noisy machines should be easy. It was easy for me as a kid in the old neighborhood so why not for a creature with heightened sense of smell or hearing. If correct this would mean that there are many more crossing roads than what has been reported in sightings. I’m guessing that maybe less than one percent to maybe two percent get seen crossing. Most of those probably don’t get reported due to the witness not truly understanding what they saw.

    I usually eliminate vision as heightened because they live mostly in heavily forested areasf and this limits their normal field of vision. Their night vision must be unparalleled within their field of vision. They may be spotting the trail cams through smell rather than actually noticing beyond possibly seeing the IR sensor light. If elephants with relatively poor vision are reported to tear them down then why not Sasquatch? So far it has not been proven how the elephants notice them but they do tear them down from time to time.

    For answers to some of your questions NMRNG, I recommend reading some witness reports on the BFRO site. Be discerning as to the veracity of those reports because they are eye-witness testimony and some I’m sure are manufactured.

    I would be glad you have you as a member of my website for collaboration. I need some critical minds to review evidence. If you would like to know more click, “Will You Collaborate With Other Organizations to Prove the Existence of Sasquatch?” for more information.

  8. springheeledjack responds:

    I was going to let this one go: Bigfoot is not my favorite or most well known cryptid. I saw this posting and going back to the original, I got in late, but I didn’t really have anything to add–as I said, Bigfoot, while intriguing and probably one of the more likely cryptids I suspect is real, I don’t have a lot of reading in on him.

    However, this evening I was off on another project, and I went through a database of sightings. You should run through the bfro.net for lists of accounts. Yes, you’ll have to slog through a lot of accounts, but there are several findings of tracks in the snow. As for pictures, I doubt there are many, if any, but that doesn’t surprise or bother me.

    Fewer people are out in the wilds or even the rural during the winter, and especially the cold or snow. Couple that with the fact that even fewer are sporting a camera while out in the snow–even if they are snow mobile-ing or skiing–again it doesn’t surprise me. But they are there. I saw one account tonight of tracks going through 21″ of snow. I don’t think the witness followed, or for very long considering it was almost two feet of snow, but the account is there.

    I guess the other consideration for snow tracks is the weather. If something walks through the snow, tracks can be quickly distorted by sun, wind or even more snow. I am certainly not a professional outdoorsman, and aside from a length of stride, after a day or so, I might come upon large tracks and assume they’ve been melted, unless they were really clearly, human and barefoot shaped–which I don’t think you get that kind of detail in the snow unless you get lucky. I’d guess because of the distortion factor, most BF enthusiasts probably don’t put too much stock in snow prints.

    And as I said the first time, I doubt most people are even thinking Bigfoot when they head out into the snow–even if they come across strange tracks. Add to that the fact that most people are not overly observant either.

  9. NMRNG responds:

    Yes, I recognize that there may be fewer people out in the remote snow covered portions of North America than there might be in those places during the warmer months (but for reasons I’ve explained previously their numbers are not as low as some who are less knowledgeable about the northern outdoors have contended). And yes, tracks in the snow aren’t necessarily going to be there unaltered for weeks on end. However those factors should be balanced to a significant extent by the fact that each sasquatch will be producing hundreds or thousands of visible tracks every day, not just a few that happen to land on a softer patch of dirt or mud as may be the case in spring, summer or fall. Not to mention that a long line of tracks is easier to spot than a few isolated tracks here and there.

    Wouldn’t it be nice if in a few days Rick Dyer does produce an actual sasquatch body, lets reputable scientists examine it and confirm its authenticity, so that these sorts of questions can be asked and studied in the context of acquiring information for purposes of advancing zoology and biology, rather than posing questions in the realm of cryptozoology? Too bad that’s not actually going to happen, though.

  10. springheeledjack responds:

    I’ll give you the constant lines of tracks if Bigfoots are as mobile as I think. However, I think you over estimate the innate curiosity and awareness of the average snow mobiler and skier. And yes, probably plenty of people go outside in the winter, but I doubt they go as far or for as long as in warmer months which makes for smaller areas that said Bigfoot would have to go through in order to be observed. There are also fewer sightings of Bigfoots in the winter months too compared to the summer months.

    As I said, while I am interested in this stuff–it’s a fact that I’m the one or two in forty at my work place that is, or even has a working knowledge of these kinds of things. For most people, Bigfoot or Nessie are a passing water cooler topic, nothing more, and I’ve rarely run into a person that even knows what “cryptozoology” is if I bring it up. Mostly, it’s “what’s that?” or a flat out, blank look.

    Also, just because those tracks should be out there, doesn’t mean people are going to where the tracks are. Grant me for the moment that Bigfoot does exist–and we know little about its behavior, its motivations and next to nothing about its habits or movement during different seasons. Just because it’s hairy, does that mean it’s immune to the cold? Maybe, maybe not. Like you said, until we catch one and can start figuring it out, we’re working under a lot of handicaps.

    However, just because it hasn’t happened doesn’t mean it can’t or won’t. I doubt it will be Rick Dyer that breaks it open though–that I won’t put money down on.

    In the end, I’m not bothered by the fact that we don’t have a library of photos and videos of bonafide Bigfoot tracks in the snow–who would verify that they were legit anyway? That would create a tirade of arguments both ways anyway that would go on for 50+ postings here.

    You’re saying we should be seeing tracks in the snow everywhere during the winter months, and I don’t see that correlation at all. For all of the reasons I listed, plus other variables like terrain and proximity to civilization and so on, it doesn’t surprise me that we don’t have a library of photographic evidence.

  11. NMRNG responds:

    Sorry Jack, but I didn’t say that “we should be seeing tracks in the snow everywhere during the winter months.” I know it makes it easier to win an argument if you mischaracterize what the other person says, but that only works if you don’t get caught.

    What I said was that there should be hundreds of millions of sasquatch prints in the snow every winter, so we should be seeing more reports of them than we do. Obviously I’m talking about most of those tracks being in more remote areas (i.e. places where one typically encounters sasquatch), not in downtown parks and arboretums.

    Certainly many snowmobilers will be going too fast and will be focusing on the rush of their machines (and some of them have a few ounces of schnapps in them as well) instead of what they’re encountering in their natural surroundings. But skiers would tend to notice something like a trackway of large bare foot prints. I don’t know if anyone else here has been snowshoeing, but I own a pair of snowshoes, and I don’t think it would be very easy to confuse a trail made by a roughly 200lb showshoer wearing 25+” long snowshoes sinking only part of the way into the snow with a trail made by a 7-9′ tall primate with 17″ feet, weighing at least 400 pounds, who would sink all of the way down.

    I’d like to see Finding Bigfoot (or more reasonably, some other TV show – Matt Moneymaker isn’t in the sort of condition to be able to hike more than maybe a mile in deep snow) with a reasonable budget put together a winter team, find a set of tracks, and actually track down a sasquatch, maybe with a helicopter on standby if the terrain becomes too rugged or steep for the team to navigate.

  12. springheeledjack responds:

    The only thing you caught me at was calling you out. You may not have said that verbatim, but it was the implication. And you conveniently ignored all of my other points. That’s a traditional scoftic approach for sidetracking an argument.

    I don’t honestly know if you’re trying to argue a small population of Bigfoots out there because of few tracks, whether you’re going down the “Bigfoot is a dimensional being that can come and go from our world,” or you think you’ve got some lynchpin for the non-existence of Bigfoot. If it’s a small population theory, maybe, but we don’t have anything solid on a population. If it’s the second, I’m not buying it: there’s too many accounts of Bigfoot tracks, sightings, and so on for me to believe that it’s coming and going from the world as it pleases–that’s an easy out like magic or aliens to explain something when you don’t know what’s going on.

    If it’s an argument for there not being Bigfoot at all, you’ve still got nothing. There are plenty of accounts of tracks–you do have to look for it. If you’re quibbling over the amount of accounts and reports, then do some research and see if there are more. The fact that it’s not enough to satisfy you hardly solves the eternal enigma of Bigfoot.

    It also ticks me that you supposedly got all offended when people “attacked” you instead of answering your question. However, you’ve gotten your answers–it’s not my fault or anyone else’s fault you don’t like the answers you got. It’s no wonder no one bothered to follow this post further–I’m sorry I wasted my time talking to someone who’s already latched onto an idea without working it out.

    Nuff said–moving on! Sheesh.

  13. NMRNG responds:

    Jack, I think you are mistaken. Which of your points did I “ignore?” I believe I addressed all of your points that warranted discussion. You typed a lot of words but didn’t actually say much – go back and re-read your posts and if you are at all astute and honest, you’ll see that this statement is accurate.

    I was dissatisfied with a lot of the answers I received because a) many of them simply parroted points I had conceded in my initial post; and b) many of the remainder showed a very significant ignorance of anything that goes on in the winter in the northern half of the country – it seemed like I was getting responses from people who had never in their entire lives left the confines of Dade County.

    You don’t know what my perspective is because you did not bother to read carefully anything I have written on this site. I don’t cater to the Twitter crowd and if my more-than-140-character posts taxed your attention span, you have my apologies. I have stated the following:

    1) I believe that the quantity of sasquatch evidence cannot be adequately explained by the usual exuses of hoaxes and misidentification and think it more likely than not that there is a bipedal ape in the wilds of North America.

    2) I do not mindlessly and vapidly accept any and all theories about bigfoot that many of the believers accept or at least entertain. I believe that any theories about alleged paranormal/extraterrestrial/extradimensional, etc… aspects or origins for sasquatch are nonsense, the product of bored people with overactive imaginations. Too many fans of cryptozoology accept too much and ask too few questions.

    3) There are few reports in the written materials on sasquatch about winter track sightings (principally the Bossburg crippled foot incident) and none at all in any of the television shows dealing with this issue and I felt there should have been more reports. I pointed out that the fewer people in the outdoors in wintertime should have been balanced to some extent by the greater number of tracks that would be visible in the snow. Several people did cite to a few Youtube videos and a few sightings on the BFRO website, sources I appreciated.

    4) There are hundreds of phony sasquatch and sasquatch track videos on Youtube. Had I done as some people rather flippantly suggested and performed a google search, most of what I would have found would have been Youtube hoax videos. Maybe you have time to sit down and look at every one of those, but I don’t.

    5) I have suggested that there are some puzzling holes and inconsistencies in the information and evidence about bigfoot and instead of pretending they don’t exist as you and other believers appear to like to do, I have suggested we address these questions and attempt to find some sort of explanation for seeming inconsistencies. However, your concept of evidence apparently is “accept all the supporting evidence, reject or ignore all of the non-supporting evidence or pretend it does not even exist.” I’m trying to advocate for a thorough and objective study of this cryptid, you apparently prefer to stick your head in the sand because you are highly critical of me for daring to ask questions that are glossed over by many others because they do not always tip the scale more in favor of “Yes, Sasquatch Is Real.” Really, copping an arrogant, dismissive attitude toward my questions challenging the evidence is no different than what the non-believing academics are doing when they are dismissing all of the sasquatch evidence as proof of nothing. I’m trying to have an objective dialogue and address all facets of the “Does sasquatch exist?” question and you’re snidely (and in a very conclusory, unconvincing fashion) claiming that my concerns are unimportant or have been answered when they have not.

  14. DWA responds:

    “Many bigfoot believers, particularly the habituators, claim that sasquatch is too smart to be caught on camera, which is why there are so few trailcam photos of something that might possibly be sasquatch, despite the presence of thousands of such trailcams in places where deer and bear are abundant (i.e. presumably good bigfoot habitat) placed by hunters, plus at least dozens, if not hundreds, placed by bigfoot researchers in known bigfoot habitat. How is it that a primate can be so intelligent, perceptive, and wary as to avoid a silent, often camouflaged 6″ x 6″ x 3″box strapped unobtrusively to a tree, but time and again they cannot seem to avoid a 15′ long 5′ high noisy contraption that can be heard at least 3/4 of a mile away and can be seen at night several miles away?”

    This paragraph is a classic example of taking everything every proponent throws out there as a legitimate target. In point of fact, most of what most proponents (i.e., the “fringe,” which is the vast majority of this field) assert is flat hooey.

    How the heck does ANYONE know that sasquatch are “too smart to be caught on camera”? (Research indicates, actually, that alpha COYOTES are too smart to be caught on camera.) There are numerous good explanations for why we don’t have sasquatch trailcam shots yet.

    (Oh wait. Let’s say that properly. No one has turned in, for scrutiny that has led to proof, a sasquatch trailcam photo. Yet.)

    To take untested assumptions above evidence – to presume, out of hand, that such assumptions automatically render evidence invalid – is far from a scientific approach. I’m not going to take a woo-woo proponent’s thesis and presume that countering it proves, or even indicates, anything. Why should it?

    The thousands of eyewitness encounter reports – a very large percentage of which involve road-cross sightings – are FACTS. They don’t prove sasquatch. But they must be addressed. Assumptions do nothing in this wise. Assumptions are always worthless in science. Observation trumps all; and the thousands of observations, consistent down to small details of primate behavior and morphology generally known to none but specialists, are FACTS that must be explained. They are evidence; and no amount of wishing will make them go away.

    So I’m not concerned about what fringe proponents say. Countering that does nothing.

    I want the evidence explained. Telling me that “we should have snow tracks” – um, we do, plenty – and that “proponents say these guys are too smart, so watch me shoot a hole in that with a bunch of road-cross sightings that can’t be happening” – um, they appear to be – don’t cut it with me.

    Address the evidence.

    (And tell me that habituators are key to the case for sasquatch, and I’ll just chuckle at you.)

Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|

Connect with Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest


Creatureplica Fouke Monster Sybilla Irwin


|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.