Sasquatch Coffee

Show Me the Bigfoot!

Posted by: Craig Woolheater on November 7th, 2013

Report # 41395 (Class A)
Submitted by witness on Thursday, June 13, 2013. Daylight sighting outside Grain Valley near the Monkey Mountain Park Reserve

YEAR: 2013

SEASON: Spring

MONTH: June

DATE: 7th

STATE: Missouri

COUNTY: Jackson County

LOCATION DETAILS: Monkey Mountain is an 855 acre nature preserve in Eastern Jackson County, halfway in-between Grain Valley and Oak Grove.

NEAREST TOWN: Grain Valley

NEAREST ROAD: Old 40 Hwy

OBSERVED: On the 7th of June 2013 a friend of mine and I decided to visit the Monkey Mountain Nature Reserve in Grain Valley as she believed we might catch sight of a Sasquatch, since there had been documented sightings in that area and she knew that I was very interested in the Sasquatch legend. As we traveled down E RD Mize Road towards the parking lot area, we were startled when a large creature on all fours crossed the road less than a hundred feet in front of us. My friend stopped the car and we watched it cross the road from North to South. It appeared it had come from a field to the right of us. It was covered in dark hair and very muscular. The back was arched and its head was tucked. I didn’t see a tail of any kind. I did however, notice the hair on its back was considerably shorter than it was on the rest of its body. It seemed to just glide across the road which I though was strange since it was very large. I’m guessing it weighed at least five hundred pounds or more. I reached for my camera which was in my lap but the creature had already disappeared. We continued down the road and reached the parking lot where I asked my friend to go back so that we could look for prints, but she refused. I told her I thought we’d just seen a Sasquatch and she told me it must have been a large dog possibly a Newfoundland because they are large black dogs. I told her that we had a better chance of seeing a Sasquatch in that particular area than a Newfoundland. It was then she told me that she was going to keep quiet about what we had seen and that I should do the same, which obviously I didn’t do. I know what I saw and it wasn’t a dog, a deer or anything I had ever seen before.

ALSO NOTICED: No I didn’t notice anything out of the ordinary.

OTHER WITNESSES: There were two of us.

OTHER STORIES: Yes, There was an incident just recently that involved a hunter and his dogs in approx the same area as my sighting.

TIME AND CONDITIONS: It was about 3:00 in the afternoon. It was a beautiful day partly cloudy with a slight breeze a little humid.

ENVIRONMENT: The incident occurred near an open field.

Follow-up investigation report by BFRO Investigator Carter Buschardt:

I spoke with the witness for nearly 2 hours. She had filed a report about 2 weeks prior from when she was out taking photographs. I am quite familiar with both locations and there are 3 other reports at this, and the other location. They are 30 minutes from my home, and I have been to both. After her initial encounter, she became quite interested in the Sasquatch phenomenon and was devouring as much information as possible. Being Native American, she has some childhood memories of the subject.

She told her girlfriend about the first encounter, and the girlfriend told her they should maybe go to Monkey Mountain, because “I think they have lots of woods there”. Her above report is pretty concise and I will add to it per our conversation.

They were headed east on the road towards the parking lot. It had black hair, not fur. The hair on the arms was 2-3 inches long and it appeared shorter on the massive back, but not by much. The back, arms, legs and buttocks were very muscular and she could see the musculature rippling as it moved. The head was tucked in towards the right side of its body as it moved from left to right. In her words, “its movement was elegant, graceful, flowing like a Gazelle”. The back was heavily arched, and would be somewhat similar to what a human would look like if it were to try to run on all fours without the knees touching the ground. The hair was flowing as it ran, and the build was as described, estimated to be at least 8 ft. tall and a minimum of 500 lbs.The bottoms of its feet “were white”, or at the very least, considerably lighter than the rest of the body. The creature was “incredibly, powerfully built”.

This location has had recent and steady activity, and this investigator has filed 3 reports at this location. I did not interview the friend, as stated, her friend says she didn’t see anything but a big dog.

After our conversation, the witness had a second sighting on a trail in the James A. Reed Wildlife Area and called me. She often visits the area of her prior Report #41195, and she walks the same trail every time she goes out there, many times with her granddaughter in tow. She said it was clear as a bell and knows exactly what she saw. This occurred within 100 feet of a previous sighting filed by myself, see Report #40306. She called all excited and out of breath. “I got him, I got him”……she was watching it as it watched her, to the side of the trail, and snapped several pics.

Unfortunately the photos didn’t come out all that clear, this is the best one:

41395a

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.


13 Responses to “Show Me the Bigfoot!”

  1. DWA responds:

    Given there doesn’t seem any reason to consider the witness lying, hoaxing (THAT bad!?!?!?) or out for publicity (again: THAT bad!?!?!?), this is another indictment of the skeptical charge that camera phones should have given us something indisputable by now.

    No they shouldn’t; and no, bet on it, they won’t.

    Reference this.

    But anyone who has significant experience with a camera phone, other than shooting one’s friends at close range, knows this.

  2. dconstrukt responds:

    interesting story… not getting my hopes up for this one.

    something interesting to note:

    they went there LOOKING for bigfoot. (intent)

    they saw something they couldn’t immediately explain…. so of course its GOT to be a bigfoot! (bias)

    This is the problem with all these stories… people have the intent of finding something, so naturally the brain works to make sure they find what they’re looking for.

    This is a natural bias… so of course whatever they find, they will use to try and justify their belief.

    This is how the human mind works.

    Yours, mine, everyones.

    This is also why I think 95% of the bigfoot sightings are nonsense.

    read this:
    How come when I buy a new car I start seeing more just like it!
    The Reticular Activating System
    How the Brain Works, Coherently

  3. mandors responds:

    I’m sorry, but I’m calling complete BS. Jackson County is an SSMA. 650K people. Home of Kansas City, the Royals, the Chiefs, etc. If you map the Monkey Mountain Reserve, it’s smaller than Central Park, and surrounded by development.

    Maybe, possibly, a slim chance it was a bear. But I doubt it.

  4. chadgatlin responds:

    I don’t see anything in the photo. Just blurry leaves. You could move the red circle up and to the right slightly and get the same sort of pareidolia effect.

  5. Ploughboy responds:

    dconstrukt…..A frequently made observation, and one I always find to be well beside the point. It is the quality of the evidence that matters, not the intent of the person who brings it. And, O.K., here it is not so great, admittedly.

    As any hunter will tell you, you don’t find quarry by pretending you are looking for something else. No other field of human activity requires you to have an intent to accomplish something else if you have any hope of your findings being treated seriously. This rises to the point of being ridiculous when comments are made to discredit what is shown on the P/G film by pointing out the two men were actually looking to film a Bigfoot. (Ummm, yeah, that would explain why they had a camera with them, I guess…)

    I’d also propose we need MORE people intentionally looking for this animal, not fewer. If it is on enough radar screens, the chances for evidence being reported increases. Thinking an encounter has to be completely random and fortuitous to be taken seriously is one of the most puzzling memes I run across.

  6. hoodoorocket responds:

    I agree with chadgatlin. There is no figure here, just a pattern caused by the edges of leaves.

  7. DWA responds:

    Ploughboy: could not have said it better. Might as well say that’s not a deer on your hood, buddy; ferpetes you went out looking for one!

    No. In logical terms: precise same thing.

    Says here, just as you do: no evidence will be brought back by anyone not looking for one. Patterson got his film precisely – and only - because he was looking for one.

    Mandors:

    With the current state of societal acceptance of sasquatch, most of the parks in NYC could have a mating pair and the world wouldn’t know. I can’t take seriously range proscriptions for an animal about which we know nothing and accept nothing.

    I’d also like to add: a bad photo doesn’t say anything. Is there any way that anyone can show us she’s mistaken or not telling the truth?

    No?

    On the pile.

  8. DWA responds:

    dconstrukt:

    As Ploughboy said, those examples are beside the point.

    When you buy a car, you are sensitized to that car because you have now seen one and own one. You react when you see precisely that car. You don’t go out mistaking Volkswagen Beetles for Honda Odysseys.

  9. Goodfoot responds:

    Mandor, DWA: I agree the &%*# photo is beside the point. This sounds as if it could have been a legit sighting.

    The text doesn’t specify, but, if they were on ” E RD Mize Road”, and the creature was “going north to south” they had to be going west, right? A missing detail, but my analysis would seem to be correct?

    Since it was spring, maybe it was trying to catch a Royals game!

  10. cryptokellie responds:

    The narrative is interesting but the photo shows nothing except what anyone will interpret as being what they want to see. For example to the right and above, I see a theropod dinosaur stalking the supposed Bigfoot figure. To the left of the Bigfoot figure I see a naked woman emerging from behind the tree nearer to the viewer…need I go on?
    This is a product of the visual perception phenomena Pareidolia which we have discussed here on this site before.

  11. PhotoExpert responds:

    Hmmmm, I don’t give much credence to this as a Bigfoot sighting. I give more credence to it as being a large dog sighting or rare bear sighting.

    Am I missing something here? The witness states: “…we were startled when a large creature on all fours crossed the road less than a hundred feet in front of us.”

    So Bigfoot is now a quadraped? It chose to cross the road on all fours? I had to stop right there after reading just that. Yes, I have heard some reports claim that Bigfoot will sometimes get down on all fours. But the vast majority of those reports are for juvenile Bigfoot sightings and only for a short distance. By the witness’s own account, she said the animal was huge, about 500 lbs. Am I to believe an adult Bigfoot, a bipedal cryptid, has chosen to revert to it’s juvenile way of travel and cross a road on all 4s? Right there, her account does not jive with other Bigfoot accounts.

    Let’s give her the benefit of the doubt and say that she just hit the lotto and saw a juvenile Bigfoot travel across the road on all 4s for a longer period of time than it normally would. If that is true, then I would have to say her 500 lb. estimate is way of the mark. That makes her credibility in judging weight way off the mark. If it is a juvenile moving in quadrepedal fashion, it did not weigh 500 lbs. And if it was an adult and she got the weight correct, it most certainly would be moving bipedally. She can’t have it both ways. Her report would contradict almost all known reports about Bigfoot.

    For me, dconstrukt hit the nail on the proverbial head with the “intent” and “bias” angle.

    Added to those facts, she states she was less than 100 feet away. Yet her friend and her statements contradict one another. If they were in agreement, that would be one thing. But since they contradict each other, someone is wrong about what they saw. Logic tells me it is the witness, given the other biases.

    Take into account her friend in the car even tried to tell her it was a dog. I think the witness is just so hell-bent on her sighting being a Bigfoot that she misrepresents what her friend saw, a dog. Therefore, her friend said it was a dog and not trying to do a black ops operation with a false flag on a supposed Bigfoot sighting.

    I am all for eyewitness testimony! But that testimony has to be credible as well as the witness. Neither are credible for me!

    DWA–I agree with you. I do not think we are ever going to get a reliable photo from people carrying a cell phone with built in camera. I have posted about this many times. If we do get some great photos, they are going to be from an amature or professional photographer, out and about in search of bird or nature photos, and a Bigfoot stumbles along. Even then, they are human and might be scared or in disbelief and forget about the camera until it is too late. Even if they are not scared or in awe, they might have to change their f/stop or ISO setting to get a clear photo and it might take too long for an elusive Bigfoot. If we do get a clear Bigfoot photo, it will be by chance with all the right conditions and the right photographer behind the camera. And that photographer will not be actively searching for a Bigfoot photo. It will be by chance.

    DWA–I agree with you on the camera phone thing! It is not a surprise to me either. I hear ya!

    dcontrukt–I agree with your bias and intent statements. However, I do not think 95% of the Bigfoot sightings are nonsense. I think some are misidentifications, some are the witness being the brunt of a hoax, and some are just hoaxes. But I think stating 95% as nonsense is a bit harsh.

    Mandors–I totally agree with everything you said!

    chadgatlin–I only see leaves too.

    Ploughboy–I agree with you on the quality of evidence statement you made. And I agree with you again on your PG footage statement. But I do not necessarily think that we are going to get quality photos from just people who are searching for Bigfoot. I believe there is just as good a chance of getting quality photos from the right type of photographer with the right equipment, searching for some other subject and happening upon a Bigfoot. And I also agree with you that it is puzzling why people who are actively searching for a BF are dismissed summarily just because they are out looking for a Bigfoot. That makes no sense to me either! I am with you on that!

    hoodoorocket–Although we disagreed last time about root stumps, I totally agree with you this time–leaves!

    Goodfoot–LOL A Royals game you say? Awesome statement and funny too. Man, I am searching for your posts now actively for their comedic value. You have upped your game on humorous statements in the last month. Keep it up! I am enjoying your posts immensely!

  12. dconstrukt responds:

    lol… you guys, don’t get it twisted… you’re not getting how it works.

    you have intent… to find something.

    you go looking for it.

    you see something you can’t immediately explain.

    your mind works to justify why this is what you came looking for.

    Thats exactly whats happening over and over here in bigfoot proof videos.

    Now… contrast this mindset with an example from TV…. the show ghost hunters. (i’m not a big fan of the show, but I like their intent)

    they go into investigate paranormal activity.

    They go in and document whats there (collect data)

    Then they go and analyze the data and see whats there.

    Anything they can possibly debunk, they dismiss…

    They’re left with a body of evidence.

    And they let that evidence speak for itself. (which is how it should be done)

    Vs…

    We’re going to look for bigfoots.

    We saw something that looks like a bigfoot.

    Not sure what it is but it must be a bigfoot.

    VERY different perspectives here folks.

  13. William responds:

    That particular photo IMO has quite a resemblance to the subject in the Freeman video/photo, except a bit slimmer. It would be nice if someone did a followup investigation at the location to help determine the height of it. Where is Bobo when you need him? (LOL).



Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|


Cryptomundo Merch On Sale Now!

CryptoMerch

Connect with Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest

Advertisers

DFW Nites


Creatureplica Monstro Bizarro Everything Bigfoot



Advertisement




|Top | FarBar|



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