Sasquatch Coffee

Virginia Hunter Shoots a Bigfoot!

Posted by: Craig Woolheater on October 10th, 2013

From the Crypto Crew:

The below phone interview is well over an hour long but it is an amazing tale.

A hunter encounters 2 bigfoots and feeling in danger of being attacked shoots one of the creatures. The Virginia Fish and Wildlife get involved and another unnamed government department. Blood samples and photos were taken. The person who contacted me wishes to remain anonymous because there could be negative effects on his personal life and his company/business.The Crypto Crew

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.


41 Responses to “Virginia Hunter Shoots a Bigfoot!”

  1. dconstrukt responds:

    real interesting to hear….sounds credible…. the way he’s explaining things… the details….

    but i mean, the story is great, you gotta see proof at the end of the day.

    its like me telling you how much money I have… all the places i’ve been… the stories… sure it sounds great… but you wanna see it for yourself, right?

  2. shmargin responds:

    Can’t watch the video right this second, at work. But, since no still shots accompany this story, I assume that means no one has access to these pictures. And if it’s legit, why remain anonymous?

    I’m pretty sure discovering a new species of ape/man living in north America wouldn’t be too bad for business.

  3. Jayross responds:

    And of course, the equivalent of The X Files’ ‘Smoking Man’ swoops in to expunge any evidence.

    Yeah.

  4. Ploughboy responds:

    Couple of observations:

    My family settled in N.E. corner of Tazwell Cty ,Va. around 1786 (Abb’s Valley…Boissevain, Va.) and I’m familiar with the terrain, topography, habitat and wildlife in this this part of the world. I also know the accent, and this guy is from S.W. Va.

    The cadence, inflection, emotion and everything else associated with this narrative says to me this is not a tall tale.

    There is no physical evidence to back this up, so all it can ever be is an anecdotal account, unless some of the evidence surfaces, but…

    If this guy didn’t actually shoot a bigfoot, he is doing a danged good imitation of a guy who did.

  5. cryptokellie responds:

    “And that’s a 99 on the laugh meter, Ward.”

  6. WVBotanist responds:

    Wow. I wish I could contact this guy. I just spent the past week in the woods in this exact area, probably the exact ridge (the continuous cliffs below the ridge – to an extent that you have to actually search for a break, gives it away pretty well if you know the area). But I can understand him wanting to stay anonymous, as well. I do field biology and ecological surveys all over this area, and have always been interested in bigfoot reports in this area; there are a surprising number of reports between this area, along East River Mountain, and along the streams and thickets past the two Bluefields and on into Princeton. The accent, cadence, and storytelling style are definitely native, and don’t sound fabricated at all.

  7. WVBotanist responds:

    Ploughboy – yes, I was also thinking immediately SE of Abbs Valley, the old remnant highwalls from the ’40s – about the only continuous cliffs in the area; the Easter River Mountain ridge doesn’t have anything continuous because of the limestone. This would be the southeastern limit of the Pocahontas series coal seams, that supported Boissevain (the Pocahontas No.3 seam, literally Boss Vein, 8-10 feet thick of low sulfur, low ash coal). Multiple seams were highwall or contour mined to a point just south of the Va border, and the upper seams took a thick cut that persists in the soft sandstone as an apparent cliff bordered by a logging road or trail. 60-70 years of regrowth along those benches is amazing.

  8. DWA responds:

    “I’m pretty sure discovering a new species of ape/man living in north America wouldn’t be too bad for business.”

    No. If you had proof. If you didn’t…oh, I get it.

  9. DWA responds:

    Bottom line: it’s one story.

    I don’t care how interesting, compelling, true to life, locally-true, or whatever one story is. It’s one story.

    There is, to my mind, a vanishingly small, no-one-would-bet-it possibility that all of this evidence is a deliberate or inadvertent concoction. (A combination of the two? Anyone who knows how to think about this knows that that’s far LESS likely. FAR less.)

    But that’s ALL of this evidence.

    There is only one piece of evidence that I consider unlikely, in the far extreme, to have been made up. That’s the Patterson-Gimlin film.

    Any other piece? Could have been. Sure.

    It’s the volume and the consistency of many pieces of evidence that does it for me, not the compelling nature of any single one. Sure, some of them are cooler stories than others, but cool made-up stories happen.

    This could be a cool, made-up story.

    But I do have to say that this guy went to far more trouble than would have been necessary to fake about 95% of the other pieces of evidence I’m aware of. And he doesn’t sound to me like he’s spinning a story; it sounds to me as if he’s trying to re-create details.

    In other words:

    I never – ever – heard a better story. If he’s faking, I never heard one half as good.

  10. cryptokellie responds:

    Ooops, my “Laugh Meter” response was actually meant for the Baby Bigfoot video item. Sorry.

    BTW; Does anybody else remember “Can You Top This?”

  11. eyeofstrm responds:

    I don’t have to listen to this to know it’s BS !!!!! Am I to understand that the Govt. can’t even keep its military plans a secret without them being published by the New York Times, but they can keep Bigfoot, the existence of an actual primate on the continent of North America, which by the way the only continent in the world without a registered primate, a secret! What would be the purpose of that? I do believe there is a large unregistered primate out there, what I don’t buy into is when some A-hole conjures up a great big pile of BS about killing one and then claims the govt. came in and covered it up. Unless it was the cigarette smoking man from the X-Files, that I would believe.

  12. PhotoExpert responds:

    I enjoyed listening to this story but I like any kind of story, fictional or not.

    I am in agreement with Ploughboy on this one. Without the evidence, it is just that, a story.

    DWA–You stated you have never heard one half as good. I have heard one that came close to this, maybe even better. And for that reason, I have problems believing this one too. You might remember George Noory interviewed this guy named Buggs on his Coast to Coast AM radio show. In fact, he had Bugs or Buggs on more than once. Buggs claimed to have been a poacher and shot and buried a Bigfoot in the past. He claimed he was afraid to come forward for fear of prosecution. I tell you DWA, there was as much detail, even more than was in this story. Most of the people calling in fell for it. He almost had me believing. But since he could not produce any shred of evidence, my BS meter went off. Sometime later, someone was able to recognize Buggs’ voice, tracked him down, and he admitted he made the whole thing up. The gig was up!

    This story is just like that one. In fact, Buggs’ story had less red flags and George Noory had convinced Buggs to send him a map of where the Bigfoot was buried. Buggs stated he would think about it. Hoaxers will go as far as they will go until they are found out. They just keep at it and long as the public keeps eating it up.

    There are more red flags with this story than Buggs’ story. First of all, the guy proclaims in the beginning that he was out hunting about 1 in the evening. Uh, it is either 1 in the AM which would be morning or 1 in the PM which would be afternoon. Most hunters do their thing at dawn or near dusk. But the day before Thanksgiving, on the East Coast, with Daylight’s Savings Time, it was probably getting dark between 4 and 5. Was he hunting at 1 AM or PM, it makes a difference. If it was at 1 AM, he would not be able to give any detail as he did, so we must assume it was 1 PM.

    The second red flag comes when he states that the DNR showed up the next day on Thanksgiving. Although that is possible, it is highly improbable. There are so few DNR agents to cover so much area, it is hard to get one to respond quickly when midweek, let alone on Thanksgiving Day. And if he got home late on the eve of Thanksgiving, I am sure no one was answering the phone at the DNR office after dark. Very suspicious for me! And the DNR guy shows up the next day? Sure he did! LOL I called the emergency number for the DNR to report illegal fishing activity in the afternoon. I waited 3 hours and the DNR never showed up. I called back to complain as the poachers got away. And that was their emergency number! Tell me who answers the phone after working hours for a government agency? No one! They are off when the big hand and little hand tells them they are off.

    The third red flag is that the DNR told him that another government agency would be in touch with him. That is not the way things work in the real world. Although the DNR work with local police agencies, I don’t think they have a special connection to secret Bigfoot detectives. LOL

    The fourth red flag is that supposedly this happened about 10 years ago. But it is only coming out now? Seriously? Why didn’t this hunter use that special red phone he called the DNR on Holiday hours and follow up on it? So it never crossed his mind in 10 years? And after the alleged DNR agent went out with him to the “kill sight”, he never kept in touch with that DNR agent? Sure, that is how it happened.

    The last red flag for me is the hunter saying that some unknown government officials, one with long hair that did not look like he was part of a government agency, implied threats to him and that the hunter was to say, he never shot a Bigfoot. LOL The first thing I would do is hit every news agency in my area. That is sure protection from a threat. Let everyone know!

    Now if someone had the time, this story would be easy enough to check out. He gave us the date and time. We know the general area and state. And there are a finite number of DNR agents for that state in that year. A report had to be made and sent to another government agency or he would not have received a supposed second visit from that agency. That report could be obtained from a simple FOIA request. No report, phony story! If there is a report, then it would be great to share here. If there is a report, then someone could interview the DNR agent because his name should be on the report and he may still be active.

    Sorry, this is not even as good as the Buggs story. And with no supporting evidence to the claims, it is just a story.

  13. mandors responds:

    Ten years ago. Where are the photos. Where are the samples. What are/were the results.

    (If he answers this eventually, I apologize, but I didn’t listen for the entire hour, fifteen.)

  14. Ploughboy responds:

    Photoexpert….of course, there is no way for us to know, here. But, I should point out 1:00 P.M. is, to many Southerners, especially those in the AppalaTchians, the “evening”, and it can get gloomy at that hour as you close in on the winter solstice. Just the same way “dinner” is what you eat at noon. Can’t recall if your are N. or S. of the M.D., so forgive me if I’m telling you something you know already. Our narrator also related he was not actively hunting, only scouting for a place to put up a deer stand and ambush the big buck he had captured on his game cam.

    As for the archetypical M.I.B….I note they also showed up in the late afternoon, about the time you would expect them to if they were hauling down from NOVA/D.C.

    Putting it on the pile, as DWA would say.

  15. Ploughboy responds:

    LOL Eyeofstrm…”I don’t have to listen to this to know it’s BS !!!!!” Thanks for allowing me to skip the rest of your post then.

  16. DWA responds:

    PhotoExpert:

    As no one respects your opinion on this site more than I do, I’ll just say this:

    Yep, one story. But to me there are no yellow flags on it, much less red ones. Everything – including every jot of behavior reported from government officials, including (and especially) the big hippie hairy guy, and I work for the government – sounds utterly completely and totally plausible to me. They could indeed be trying, in the ham-handed way bureaucracies do, to keep this on the hushhush, for no other reason than the management headache, a superior one to be sure, it would become if it got out. Of course it doesn’t even have to be federal does it? The refusal to state or show credentials could mean that all of them are VA Fish and Game. I’m not saying they are, or even that I’d bet they were if I had a side twenty to bet. I’m just saying that it isn’t inconceivable. I know government bureaucracies a bit.

    As Degnostik says on another thread, and I consider it most apropos here:

    …my first thoughts are still that people are honest and know what they are doing and talking about, and wait untill I’m proven wrong, not the other way around. Believe me, it’s faster – foul things get obvious quickly, while the other way keeps you in the dark.

    One story. True or false? I don’t call bunkum. I await the proof.

    eyeofstrm:

    As we can see right this very minute, not only does the government do stupider things than hiding bigfoot, it does them regularly. That’s people, not government.

    (It’s not “Washington” either. As we DCers like to say: we don’t even have a vote in our own city! This government – especially this Congress – and all it’s doing to us right now, YOU sent us, America.)

    Besides which: I think that this conversation – one of a vast number going on right now – is evidence what a good job the government is doing “hiding” bigfoot. It doesn’t need the help. The rest of us are hiding bigfoot just fine.

  17. William responds:

    @Photoexpert:

    I totally agree with this part of your post as I too was almost fooled by the “Bugs” fabricated story which indeed was more believable, yet a total lie:

    DWA–You stated you have never heard one half as good. I have heard one that came close to this, maybe even better. And for that reason, I have problems believing this one too. You might remember George Noory interviewed this guy named Buggs on his Coast to Coast AM radio show. In fact, he had Bugs or Buggs on more than once. Buggs claimed to have been a poacher and shot and buried a Bigfoot in the past. He claimed he was afraid to come forward for fear of prosecution. I tell you DWA, there was as much detail, even more than was in this story. Most of the people calling in fell for it. He almost had me believing. But since he could not produce any shred of evidence, my BS meter went off. Sometime later, someone was able to recognize Buggs’ voice, tracked him down, and he admitted he made the whole thing up. The gig was up!

    This story is just like that one. In fact, Buggs’ story had less red flags and George Noory had convinced Buggs to send him a map of where the Bigfoot was buried. Buggs stated he would think about it. Hoaxers will go as far as they will go until they are found out. They just keep at it and long as the public keeps eating it up.

    There are more red flags with this story than Buggs’ story….”

    Yes there are and I got really irritated after listening and wasting nearly an hour of my time to realize this beyond any shadow of a doubt, near the end of the recording when he threw into this yarn the additional (previously omitted) detail that the Game Warden, in addition to the “blood snowball” also scooped up a small piece of “meat.” At that point I realized this guy is a flat out liar, and if I had a chance I would tell him so to his face. This was especially glaring evidence of lying, since about a minute or two before that extra detail, he had mentioned “Justin Smegja” who is infamous for his bigfoot “steak.” So he was familiar with him and that just totally blew his cover. This guy is another member of the liars or tall tale tellers club that “Bugsy” is president, and he is simply following suit.

    Anybody who buys this, must not be familiar with the “Bugsy” tale. Bugsy even went so far as to volunteer to take the radio host to the spot with a backhoe to dig up the bodies, but much like George Castanza in that Seinfield episode where the took his fiancee’s parents to his “place in the Hamptons,” he pushed too far and had to rely on the old government stealing the evidence and cover up theory in a lame attempt to extricate himself. This VA hunter’s story is pure fabricated B.S. I guarantee it. He is indeed such a good liar, he could probably even pass a polygraph.

  18. DWA responds:

    William:

    Somewhere in there you were going to tell us how you knew this guy was lying. But I don’t see it.

    Stringing together unrelated things to reveal A LIE! is no better than stringing together unrelated things to PROVE BIGFOOT SAUCER PEOPLE!

    Knowing about Smeja proves this is a lie? Does knowing about four-wheeled cars prove I’m a liar when the next car I report seeing just happens to have four wheels? Any logician would recognize this as an exact equivalency. Other things in one’s store of knowledge mean nothing in interpreting one’s story of what one saw.

    When you call him a liar to his face, don’t stand too close, and make sure he doesn’t have a gun.

    Degnostik nails it. Those of us who agree with him seem to be able to surf the crap and suss out the kernels.

  19. William responds:

    @DWA. I thought it was obvious how I detected the lying by this VA yarn spinner. However, since you failed to see it, I will gladly explain in as simple terms as I can:

    1). He made NO earlier mention when telling his tale in excruciating and painstaking detail as we put up with his sniffling as an annoying distraction (has he never heard of taking a decongestent or antihistimine) of what most folks would consider an amazing and extremely important detail that along with blood sample taken by the game warden he also took a piece of “meat.”

    2) Why would he NOT have mentioned that as he was telling the story in precise sequence earlier in his tale? I will tell you why, he only thought to beef it up with this detail AFTER his mentioning of Smeja. That was the trigger causing him to add this as he went on. Classic lying tactic. Such an important detail as that would not have been omitted as he told how the even unfolded originally, and he had TEN years to get this story straight!

    In fact, I stoppped listening after that, so I don’t know if the host asked him the name of the game warden, but if he indeed had such “evidence” he (the game warden) should be called upon during an investigation of this matter because either he would be lying or this VA hunter. I would bet on the latter, a year’s pay. In fact, I would have called him out to give the name of the Game Warden and then find out if he was even working on Thanksgiving. His family could easily verify this. It would not surprise me if this yarn spinner was asked this he would come up with some lie that the Game Warden passed away, etc.

    Again, if you actually buy this crap, you really need to listen to the “Bugsy” tale, as it was much more believeable and there was no mention of any piece of meat, or any sort of copying another bigfoot lie. Yet it was an utter fabrication that only came to light when he finally admitted it.

    Had this guy left out the “meat” detail, which is crucial to note, only came in as an afterthought, and only after mentioning the liar Smeja, his tale was fairly believeable. The problem with lying or yarn spinning, is the more a person talks, the more chance they have of slipping up, which is exactly what he did.

    3) Another part of his story which I find hard to reconcile, is he went hunting again within a quarter of a mile from the area the next year. If he truly was so scared as to almost urinate and deficate his pants, would he go back to the same area to hunt? I have read and heard many hunters who will never again go hunting where they got the scare of a lifetime by siting one like this guy claimed. Sorry, I don’t buy any of it.

    4)I also find it hard to believe any bigfoot would be tracked in the snow close to a four wheeler trail seven feet wide. Once they heard the noise of the vehicle, they would have moved far away from the area. It is only common sense.

    In summary, If he lied once, which he clearly did, the entire story is false. I will tell him he is a liar whether he is armed or not. He is what he is.

  20. Goodfoot responds:

    eyeofstrm:

    Two words for my friend, that describe the most successfully-known secret, that was kept totally secret for years, and involved literally THOUSANDS of people:

    MANHATTAN PROJECT.

  21. Goodfoot responds:

    DWA:

    Excellent point about the management hassles, to put it mildly, that would ensue from admitting they had Big, Unruly, Hairy Things in their wildlife management area.

    In many other areas (though it probably doesn’t apply in the case), it would put a dead stop to timbering. And it seems to me that government just naturally gravitates towards secrecy. I’m sure you’d agree!

  22. sasquatch responds:

    Well William, I listened to probably more of it than you did-but I was laying in bed falling asleep (I’m sure) through at least some of it..I too remember the Buggs tale-I thought it was Art Bell that he actually spoke to about it first tho’…anyway, he coulda been on both shows. Noory took over for Bell…

    It WAS interesting that in both stories there were two creatures-apparently a couple…it added more pathos to the story I thought- Instead of “the Big one” attacking the hunter, it ran to it’s fallen mates aid and picked her up-”like a rag doll”.

    Now, when he mentioned Smeja, it was done in a way that seemed fairly believable-like when someone says they had an experience that when they heard someone else recount it-they say-”HEY, that reminds me of a similar thing I experienced”…So that part didn’t bug (get it?) me as much as the similarity to Bugg’s story did.
    Anyway, you’re probably right. Tall tales-ville…

  23. DWA responds:

    William: wow, sounds like you really HATE this guy.

    That’d be the only reason I could think of to call him a liar…without pointing out a lie.

    If the only thing – the ONLY THING! – you are calling him on is the “meat” thing…that, um, isn’t a lie. Unless of course the whole story is. If it’s believable other than that, it’s believable.

    And you know, there are other things to do with a story than accept it outright or reject it outright. But I’ll just presume you know that.

  24. eyeofstrm responds:

    For all of you people out their who think the Govt. can cover up and keep a secret like the Manhattan Project which they couldn’t keep secret for 6 years before detonating the first atomic device, please tell me two things.

    1) Where’s the evidence and I don’t mean the kooks who make these claims, I mean actual whistle blowers who work or have worked for the Govt. and were involved in any type of cover up.

    2) Most important, why?!?!?!

    I myself have never heard of the Govt. denying the existence of Bigfoot. Hell even one our Presidents (Teddy Roosevelt) wrote about a Bigfoot story in his book The Wilderness Hunter. Highly doubt he would have wrote it if he didn’t believe it. So again someone give me a rational reason as to why the Govt. would cover up the existence of this animal?

  25. evilangusyeti responds:

    I have hunted/fished/hiked all over this area. I can positively verify that this area could sustain a large primate. I could live off the land here for a long time and barring the bitter cold of winter would say that a human could live year round here on the bounty of nature there. And that is a human, not an animal that is native here. Deer, rabbit, squirrel, nuts berries galore. And multitudes of unbroken forest. I am not saying that I think this is a true story by any means but if one was looking for a habitat that could contain an unknown large animal this more than fits the bill. I have been in this area before and went for 3 days without seeing another sign of a human. And I can verify that this person’s dialect is of that area. Hell, he sounds like some of my family! But if you add all this up it is still ZERO on the proof meter. I moved to a metro area a while back and miss the mountains dearly.

  26. PhotoExpert responds:

    Ploughboy–Yes, I know some people refer to 1 PM as evening. It was just confusing because some people refer to the early AM hours as evening. I was trying to ascertain which it was. Because if it truly was at 1 AM, then his detailed descriptions would have been impossible. Oh, and I am just south of the Mason Dixon Line. I could walk to it if I had to. My area is a mixture of Yankees and Southerners. I liked and enjoyed his story. However, the story by Buggs was better than this one and more believable and that was proven to be a hoax. And it isn’t just that one red flag I mentioned but the summation of all of them. Take into account the Buggs story being better than this one, my BS meter is going off on this louder than it did on the Buggs story.

    DWA–Hey brother! How are you doing? Yes, I know you respect me just as much as I respect you, and that is quite a bit! I see your point about the government agency and you could be correct about that. However, what about all the other red flags I mentioned? And if that is not enough, you stated you had never heard a more believable story. I put forth the Buggs story for you. That was well documented. It was definitely better and more detailed than this one. Yet that was proven a hoax! And this one is not as good as the Buggs story. So this one is even less believable for me. If you heard Buggs tell his story, you would have believed that too, but you would have been wrong. And what were red flags for me in Buggs’ story and this story, apparently are not red flags for you, not even yellow ones. I got to tell you DWA, I am always in agreement with you on eyewitness testimony. I joined you on that bandwagon. However, we must discern between credible witnesses and the validity of their stories and people with a good story attempting to hoax. For example, Rick Dyer, his story was crap and the evidence was crap. Many red flags for me. The Smeja story, interesting story, but no supporting evidence and just as many red flags in his story as this one. The Buggs story, maybe one or two red flags at most and he seemed extremely credible. Most people believed him even without supporting evidence. But his story was too convenient and combined with the other one or two red flags, I declared it as a hoax even before it was realized to be a hoax. Many would have argued with me before the hoax was proven. This story is similar to Buggs’ story in that a Bigfoot was shot and that there were two Bigfoots, a male and female. Just too many red flags for me bud. I have to disagree with you on this. Did you listen to Buggs’ story? If you had, you would have said it was better and more detailed than this one. You would not have even seen a yellow flag. But is was a proven hoax! This is a hoax that has yet to be proven. But the details are not adding up. I know you take the course of action of waiting and seeing. I do that myself too sometimes. However, since it is not as convincing as Buggs’ story, I am not going to sit back and wait on this one. More red flags that Buggs’ hoaxed story, less details, and not one shred of evidence even though he stated government agencies were involved. If they were involved, then there would at least be a paper trail from the DNR agent if the other agency was secret. Before the alleged secret agents got involved, that paper trail would have already been laid down. Therefore, he could have backed up his story with proof or evidence. And he can not even remember the DNR agent’s name? Seriously, I can remember the first time a DNR agent checked my fishing license. I only met him once briefly. I had fishing and girls on my mind because I was 17 at the time. His name was Bagwell. That was many years ago, more than 10 as is the case here, and I still remember it. He talks to the guy, rides with him, etc. and can’t remember the name? BS!!! And he excuses this by saying he did not ask for his card. LOL Seriously DWA, I would ask you to consider at least two other things and you will probably dismiss this too as just a story. What DNR office is open after 5 PM when this guy allegedly call the DNR after shooting the Bigfoot? And how or why would any DNR agent show up with hours, the next day, on a holiday, Thanksgiving? You have got to be kidding me. The story has more improbabilities than possibilities. They are red flags. And if that is not a enough to convince you, I would suggest maybe listening to the Buggs story. It may be on YouTube or on the Coast to Coast site. Listen to that well hoaxed story and tell me it is not better and more detailed and believable than this one. If the Buggs story is a hoax, this most certainly is too! Cheers my friend!

    William–I am with you 100% on this one! And I agree, if anyone heard the Bugsy tale, they would know this is fiction too. And I also think your observations were spot on. When he mentioned that “meat part” later in the story, I thought that was odd that he left it out earlier. That was a major point and piece of evidence.

    sasquatch–Good observations!

    eyeofstrm–I am not into conspiracy theories. Although, I am sure the government does not disclose everthing and probably has covered up some things in the interest of national security. But I am with you on this. I have never heard of any government agency denying the existence of Bigfoot. In fact, on almost every show I watch about Bigfoot where they have the DNR or Fish and Game, the official states he believes they exist. That does not sound like much of a cover up or denial. Even Jane Goodall thinks there is an undiscovered ape in North America. No one thinks she is bonkers or covering anything up. So I agree with your statement there. But you know, almost every story, like the one where paramedics and firefighters took care of a burned Bigfoot from a forest fire, had the government cover up and denial as part of that story. It seems they always throw that in there in the hopes of making the hoax more believable. So that is always a red flag for me too!

    evilangusyeti–I enjoyed your take on this from a personal perspective.

  27. DWA responds:

    PhotoExpert: yep, it’s agree to disagree on this one.

    My rule about stories is: one can’t disprove one story by reference to another, any more than one can prove one by referring to another. Whatever one is trying to do, one or two or three stories don’t do it, for me.

    Generally, I’m not even going to listen to a guy tell a story for an hour or so. Why? I can read dozens of equally compelling accounts in that hour, is why. Length and detail don’t make one piece of evidence worth more, to me, in objective terms, than another. Might make one more fun; but doesn’t make it, objectively, weightier to me. One story is just that: one story. The non-Shakespeare who wrote one paragraph, five lines, eight typos, three egregious grammar violations, might have seen one. This year’s winner of the Alabama Hawg-Callin’ Yarn-Spinnin’ Contest…maybe not.

    Just in this case….well, you know me. I ACTUALLY HAVE read all the reports; and I had time to kill while doing other stuff online, so I listened to this one. Nothing makes me rate this one more, or less, than any other.

    Hindsight tells us how to treat many stories. Our noses tell us how to treat others.

    And Degnostik says it for me better than anyone.

    Until proof, one way or the other…on the pile.

  28. William responds:

    @DWA – FYI, I don’t “hate” this particular guy any more than any other liar, but do admit that I would stand in line to get a chance to punch Rick Dyer, Tom Biscardi, and this guy, right in the keister. You know why? Because, lying is dishonest, and is theft of people’s valuable time they spent, listening to or reading the b.s. The only time a “lie” is acceptible IMO is if it saves someone from harm or has some sort of justification. In this case, this clown has none.

    Again, what bigfoot leaves tracks in the snow next to a four wheeler path and then doesn’t vacate the premise when they hear the ATV getting closer? Even in darkness, they avoid man and are not going to be so easily tracked by this dumbass as he describes it. He probably has killed a couple of deer in his career and thinks he is a big game hunter. I don’t buy it for a bit that he has killed that many black bear in the state of VA.

    As Photoexpert pointed out, he cann’t even recall the name of the Game Warden? How convenient and another added red flag to this crock of b.s. I fail to see how anyone could be so gullible to believe this guy.

  29. DWA responds:

    William:

    I don’t see how anyone could be so gullible as to think that one story is gonna solve this, one way or the other.

    I also don’t see how forgetting a guy’s name – I will not remember yours unless I have heard it a minimum of three times, count on it, particularly if I’m focused on other things than your name at the time – invalidates his whole story. The ‘meat/Smeja’ thing doesn’t either.

    I don’t believe him; I don’t disbelieve him.

    There’s the story. I have nothing invested in it one way or the other.

    Conclude – on any story – at your own risk.

  30. William responds:

    @DWA, since you seem like a most intelligent chap, I have to respond to you. If I didn’t respect you, I certainly wouldn’t bother. Simply forgetting an unimportant someone’s name is one thing, but forgetting this particular Game Warden’s name, who quite remarkably, supposedly came out on Thanksgiving Day, would have meant he had forgotten the name of someone who would have claimed some of the most vital pieces of evidence in history ( actual blood and flesh sample of a sasquatch) and that seems absurd to me. Certainly, most reasonable folks would have at least followed up with the Game Warden to see what happened with this “evidence” and in doing so, would have to know his name. It isn’t really that difficult to find a Game Warden in any state the size of VA as there aren’t that many. Just saying.

    Also, you have yet to mention my observation that a sasquatch would be acting abnormally from everything reported by allowing some idiot to ride up on a four wheeler (with all the noise) and quickly track them to where they were with little dificulty in broad daylight. I have not heard many accounts where they were that careless. Just one red flag after another, after another = big lie in my estimation.

  31. PhotoExpert responds:

    DWA–OK, I see where you are going with this one. It is an “into the pile” story. Whew! Good! I’m OK with that. At first, the way you posted, I thought you were jumping right in, sitting in the passenger seat and driving away with the storyteller. It appeared from your posts you were actually defending him. It seemed like more than that, that you were defending and agreeing with the storyteller.

    I can see from your subsequent posts and further explanation, that it is just business as usual for you. Thank goodness! I thought I had lost you. I thought you threw objectivity out the window while you were taking a ride with the story teller. I can see now that you are just doing what you always do, being objective.

    Basically you are saying that to keep your objectivity, you will not be suaded by another story, no matter how similar. And that you will take each fact and determine it’s credibility on your BS meter. And that if a fact does not exist, that is not evidence of anything. It can not support or take away from the argument, if it is not there to analyze. In a case like that, you will wait for the fact to show up and then critique it. Until that time, you will heap it in the pile.

    I get where you are going with this now, thanks to your further explanation. And I am OK with that in principle. We actually agree more than we disagree. I just did not want you missing the obvious red flags. Where we differ in opinion is that lack of evidence for me, such as not remembering the DNR officer’s name is a red flag where it might be a yellow flag or no flag for you. I get that! I disagree with that but I get it. You see, when someone is telling a story and can remember every single detail except an occassional but extremely important detail, that is deceptive. It is selective memory or an outright fabrication or lie by ommission! And I am not afraid to call BS on that. Homicide detectives use this method for analysis when interviewing suspects. When they get selective memory coming from a suspect or the suspect remembers everything else in detail except for important key points, it almost always leads them to further investigation of the suspect and they find out later through DNA evidence the suspect was fabricating a story. What led them to believe this? The evidence or details the suspect forgot when he should have remembered. You put that into the pile. I, on the other hand, say that is evidence in itself. It is part of the credibility factor. It is important evidence. And I consider that objective because I am taking into accounts the numerous times when this “selective memory” was the evidence of the entire alibi or story being an outright lie.

    Here is the past history. Rick Dyer, turned out his selective memory was part of the evidence that I did not throw onto the pile. Turned out, he had a story. It was a lie, a hoax and I called that one out early. Because history tells me, we can use the selective memory as a determining factor in calling out hoax or liars. The Justin Smeja story falls into this same category. I already called it a lie, and a story that was made up. You probably have this one on the pile. The Buggs story, well, I had that one on the pile for a few mere seconds. So, I, like you, put it on the pile and immediately pulled it off. But I get it. You would have kept it on the pile until it was proven a hoax.

    So maybe I should look at the ability to see through BS early as a gift. You might say, I am not being objective enough by calling things out you might have in your pile. And I might view your pile as being overly objective to the point of a fault. You will fail to recognize indicators such as selective memory until all the facts come to light. I get it. But for me, it is too late by then when you could have called it out and save many people valuable time and aggravation. There is such a thing as being overly objective. And you can be overly objective to a fault. That is, to your detriment or the detriment of others. An example would be DNA analysis for a murder case. Both you and I would say, we are objective and waiting for the DNA analysis to come in. And then when it comes in, we have it but start discussing the protocols and why it might have been contaminated. I might say, case solved. And you might still keep it in the pile until and second or third DNA company confirms the findings. For me, it was conclusive after the first result when combined with the other red flags. That is why you have to consider all red flags too, along with the evidence. In my DNA example, if we were homicide detectives, there is a risk in being overly objective. I would get an arrest warrant and hold the individual on murder charges. You would allow him to remain free until the second and third lab sent the results. If the subject turned out to be the murderer when those results came in, it meant you kept his freedom alive, allowing him to possibly kill others while being overly objective.

    Now that is an extreme example, I know. But that is the reality. And if we allow hoaxers to continue and the risk of harming or killing real cryptozoological efforts in establishing the existence of BF, then being overly objective is a major flaw and concern. That is why when the scales of objectivity, point more to hoax and story, I nip it in the bud and take a stance. Being overly objective allows the hoax to continue. That is destructive to the efforts of real cryptozoologists. It hurts funding, it gives sceptics talking points and evidence against true efforts in the field, and it allows others to do damage to the thing we love. Just like allowing a murderer to remain free as you wait for the second and third DNA lab to report in and you keep the first report in the pile!

    See where I am going with this. Yes, we are both objective. And I do see your point. For you, not enough evidence, selective memory and lack of evidence to back up a claim, is not evidence and must then be thrown on the pile. OK, I get that. But the damage that is incurred by being overly objective to a fault is harmful to the cryptozoological world and the people that live in it. What I am saying is, if everyone was overly objective, there would be no hoaxes in our world because unless the hoaxer admits it, it would still be in your pile awaiting proof. The proof is there on hoaxes, we just have to have the eyes to see it and be objective just enough, that when we see the pointer on the scale leaning towards hoax, call it out. That’s what I do and did in this case.

    Anyway, DWA, I see where you stand. Yep, you are not supporting this hoaxer or story, you are remaining objective while doing so. But as that pile builds, hoaxers are doing more damage than good to the cryptocommunity. And I think there is a point where the scales tip. I choose to call it out when that happens and you choose to wait until more evidence comes in.

    Have a great weekend DWA!

  32. DWA responds:

    PhotoExpert:

    Again, I can’t consider anything in there a ‘red flag.’ As I said, don’t count on me to remember the guy’s name either, if I only heard it once and didn’t get anything afterward from him. I haven’t had an experience like this guy [allegedly] did. Many who say they’ve had one didn’t look for tracks or any other evidence; they figured they had enough. Well, that’s a far more serious slip-up than forgetting a game warden’s name. But when there are as many as there have been and the details are as consistent as they are, there’s really no choice but the pile. Remember, those screw-ups are part of the ‘cryptozoological community’ too. If I’m cutting them slack, I cut this one slack. I have to see serious evidence of deliberate lying here and I don’t. With nothing else to go on there’s nothing I can do about it. That’s what the pile is: stuff that without proving the animal – which can be done by following the pile to the places where lots of stuff that’s in it seems to be happening – we’ll never know about one way or the other.

    Bigfoot skeptics, in my opinion, have never had any talking points. That we continue to think they do is the field’s major failing. They really shouldn’t get time of day, as their stance is credulous, not skeptical.

    BTW, a suspected murderer gets detained pending trial if there’s any evidence – even one story with several mistakes in it – if I’m the DA. (“Person of interest.”) That’s a little different from this. I’m not gonna worry that the one story forgot the name of one guy, no matter whom.

    My final word on the pile is that if we’re not going to prove the animal, the pile really means nothing, except to those of us who note its sheer volume and consistency, and the people with serious scientific chops who vouch for it. This guy’s story, I guess I’m trying to say, means nothing more than any other one does to me. The proof is what we need. I see no point judging individual pieces; we’ve had enough for 50 years to get science on this full time. The failure is the mainstream’s and shame on them.

    And BTW: I am very careful about any “should have remembered”s in a case like this. Because I haven’t seen a bigfoot.

    As a story though: nice job. Good story. It’ll keep folks entertained around a campfire; I mean, look at this thread!

    William:

    Again, I can’t let assumptions get in the way. They’re dangerous; the skeptics’ case stands on a very shaky and very tall pile of assumptions. So I try to avoid them. No one can show me this guy was lying, particularly by referring to another story for which we found out for certain… and not from a single thing that was in the story, remember. When somebody finds out for certain, great. Until then…on the pile. Makes no nevermind to me. The only reason I’m spending this kind of time on it is that folks need to understand how to parse evidence. As Leopold said: the first rule of intelligent tinkering is to save all the parts. As someone else said: there’s a sucker born every minute. And suckers tend to “just know.” Again, Degnostik nails it, perfectly.

  33. William responds:

    @DWA – in response to your lastest comments directed to me, I say fair enough. However, in case you may think I am a so called “skeptic,” I am in the opposite camp. I just have little patience or ability to find any positives in “stories” that would in my way of thinking, go on the “BS” pile, whereas other sitings or even narratives like IMO, the Ostman one, would go on the definite “realm of strong possibility” pile.

    Whereas, you chose to have one all encompassing pile. I see it as two, and I don’t want them intertwined.

  34. DWA responds:

    William: I don’t have an all-encompassing pile. I have two.

    The BS pile has about 99.9999999999999999999% of this topic in it. If there’s a media furor over it, count on it, it’s in this pile.

    Here they are:

    1. Meldrum; Bindernagel; Krantz; Green; NAWAC; BFRO (database only). Alley’s and Shackley’s books go in this pile too, but not much else.

    2. Everything else (the BS pile, until it shows me different).

    When I refer to “the pile,” I’m referring to 1. I don’t even consider the second one relevant (bigfoot skeptics’ big error: they do).

    Outliers like this I just point to Degnostik’s quote and say: Let ‘em sort themselves out. Nothing we can do with ‘em.

  35. Degnostik responds:

    Maybe I’m a bit late, but I didn’t want to comment until I found the time to listen to the story, and then to read at least most of the thread…

    DWA: thanks!

    Basically, none of us here is stupid (not even the guy who makes a conclusion without bothering to know what he’s making a conclusion about) – just the angles are different, so shades fall differently.

    Government secrets: we cannot meaningfully argue about how capable the government is to keep its secrets under wraps, because all the secrets we know of are the ones that leaked. We could talk about the possibility that some of those may have been leaked purposefully or count the decades it took some top secret projects to leak, but it doesn’t change anything. Be it secret military experiments, interests of lobbyists for the logging industry, protection of a major dogma, outlandish scenarios of UFO-related end-of-the-world conspiracies, or even a benevolent Bigfoot conservancy through denial plan, which would maintain the number of accidentally shot individuals at minimum while perfectly preserving their way of life (I consider a wicked alliance of human politicians and reptilians much more plausible) – governments have and always will have secrets, and have and always will have mystery agents. I live in a relatively poor country in the Balkans, one of those that went through wars and dictatorships in the last decades (took active part in overthrowing some of them), and I can tell you with certainty that I can’t even imagine what governments of countries such as US, Russia and China can be up to, and they sure are up to many things. For me, when somebody says “the agents came and took it all”, it’s nothing strange. It’s just that here all they come to shut up and cover up is plain old high-level corruption.

    About “Bugs” – not sure. His story sure sounded authentic, but it’s not true that it was similar to this one in tone and detail, most certainly not more detailed or convincing. Listen to it again. Not even close. And yet, I don’t think he ever admitted he was hoaxing. Did I miss it?

    This guy now… Much more emotional. The fact that he says an agent came on a Holiday talks more about it being authentic than not. Name of warden? Well, this guy is way too much cautious and less narcissistic than “Bugs”. He didn’t invent a nickname for the purpose, and either fear or empathy screams in every word. Except while talking about people not believing – than it’s just plain, a bit childish, pride. Honest and less egocentric people tend to say “don’t remember” instead of “I don’t want to say”. Although a lie, “don’t remember” is not only much safer, but also modest and downplays personal importance. Also, imagine the extent to which he was afraid, than confused, than insulted by the guy. You’d say these are reasons to remember the name – but it’s a perspective of a man who was never in such a situation, and is quite the opposite.

    His storytelling has all the normal gaps and seemingly illogical elements that you see when people are recollecting long past events they went through “million” times in their minds. Says nothing about credibility. Ten years never make the story straight – on the contrary. Adding details after mentioning Smeja – interesting observation, but this same exact associative mechanism also works when telling the truth.

    He doesn’t know how to pronounce “Smeja”. Meaning – he just read a little about it. And of course he did – wouldn’t anybody who had a life changing experience look for similar cases?

    I see no “red flags”, juts “trigger happy” skepticism. Which is ok, because we’re talking Bigfoot, but let’s leave the safety of that stance sometime and say “this could actually be real” instead of “there’s a suspicious detail – it must be all faked!”

    That said – on the pile, off course. The first one.

  36. WVBotanist responds:

    I have no idea if this is a true story, but it ‘sounds’ real to me. Yes, there are a lot of things that are completely unverifiable, but a story without hard evidence doesn’t automatically make it untrue. Also doesn’t automatically make it true. One point I have seen raised over and over, as an indicator of this being fabricated is the response of the game warden on Thanksgiving Day. One thing that may be unique to this general area of the Appalachians (maybe applies elsewhere, I’m just not aware): Thanksgiving Day marks the high point in the annual Whitetail buck season. There are generally more hunters out on this day, in this area, than any other day in the season. While local schools also schedule a short fall break to coincide with Thanksgiving Day and on into the weekend, many schools show an increase in absences at the start of the Thanksgiving week. Hunters in groups of friends and family spend as much time as possible in the field that week, being joined daily by others, as work schedules allow, culminating in the highest density of hunters on Thanksgiving day itself. Fish and Game officers (DGIF in Va, or DNR rangers, on the WV side) as well as USFWS officers are VERY active on Thanksgiving Day, performing road checks, patrolling, collecting population data at game checking stations, and staying alert for safety and rescue responses. I would posit that it is MORE likely to get a game officer response on Thanksgiving than on most other days.

    Like I said, I don’t know if this is true or not, but it is very interesting. Given the increased density in hunter activity, that could also potentially explain some of the animals’ behaviors that have been described as non-typical.

  37. William responds:

    @DWA, thanks for your clarification. Sort of curious as to where you put the PG film? While it has some red flags, which mainly go to the background and motives of Roger Patterson, I really find it hard to believe something this realistic looking could have been faked back in 1967. Especially, when it has not been able to be replicated since by anyone.

    Logic would dictate if something could be “faked” to the degree of that film, someone else could closely replicate it. Plus film enhancement shows the mouth opening, and you can clearly see muscle movement by the subject, and the engima of the “breasts,” if this indeed was a fake. In other words both the “how” and the “why” such details are seen has never been explained by the skeptics.

  38. William responds:

    @WVBotomist: I live in WV and have also hunted before in the State of VA (GW National Forrest) so while what you are claiming about many more Game Wardens working and being out on Thanksgiving Day may be true in WV, I don’t think that holds true in VA.

    I will explain why. In WV Thanksgiving is during the FIRST Week of Deer Season (firearms) but the VA season always comes in the prior week. So actually Thanksgiving Day falls on the SECOND week of their firearm season, and most second weeks of any state’s deer season have much less hunting pressure and you see far fewer deer.

  39. DWA responds:

    Degnostik:

    I was hoping you’d show up here! That quote of yours just sums it up. And you make more telling points in your post. Nice job. “Trigger-happy skepticism” is in its own way True Believerism, in what one wants to believe. Leaving the safety of that stance, as you put it, is the only way science ever truly advances.

    The best way to wade through this information is to presume people are on the up and up; to realize there are many kinds of up and up, along with people who aren’t, even if one may not know that for sure yet; and to let time and research help one sort out what to think might add up to something and what might not.

    In other words: it is just as credulous to pin this down as a lie as to pin it down as authentic. There are no markers that truly lead one to either conclusion. (Remember: Bugs’s problems weren’t in his story. They became obvious only when the lie was proven.) If the “lie voters” turn out to be right, they had a 50/50 minimum chance from the start; it won’t be because of anything in the story, count on that; and …99.99999999999999999% of this field doesn’t pass the sniff test anyway.

    (Your 9s may vary.)

    WV Botanist: telling points indeed. I too felt that the Thanksgiving angle, if anything, added to the credibility of the account. It certainly took nothing away.

    William:

    P/G is the only single piece of evidence that I put – firmly – on “the pile.” The rest gets there because of its volume, internal consistency…and particularly its consistency with P/G. No one piece of the rest of the evidence could make it by itself. Patty gets there all alone.

    Were that the only Bigfoot encounter on record, the world would still be wondering what it was. It ties an animal the likes of which many have seen with footprints the likes of which many have found. People with very substantial technical qualifications vouch for it. Not one person of such qualifications has come down with a negative finding backed by evidence.

    In fact, in 46 years, no one has come up with the first shred of evidence giving credence to a fake.

    Much has been made of the motives of Roger Patterson. I say this: he could have gut-shot his grandmother, stolen her camera, and had Gimlin steal the horses.

    So? Who cares (other than obvious humanitarian concerns)? WHAT IS ON THAT FILM?

    All that is known about Patterson says he was very serious about this. It also says that he lacked – maybe only slightly less than I do – the wherewithal to carry this out. (To say he was hoaxed – or had a powerful partner – adds exponential layers of complication to which Occam gives the firm thumbs-down.) Having met and talked with Gimlin at some length I am certain he couldn’t take part in something like this, then hold it in for 46 years. He’s too good and honest a person. Am I wrong on that?

    The film is my answer. WHAT IS THAT?

    All that matters. And it says here: Patterson and Gimlin didn’t do it…and in 1967, no one else could either.

    And no one has even come close since.

    There is no more telling fact in any scientific field.

  40. WVBotanist responds:

    Good point William, as a WV resident I was thinking of WV season and the overlap. Maybe my point wasn’t as relevant as I thought

  41. PhotoExpert responds:

    Degnostik–A little late to the party, eh? Well, I guess better late than never. But just because you were late, I am not going to let you off the hook for your post. Afterall, by your own admission, you wanted to read most of the thread.

    About the Buggs story: You are simply and definitely wrong! I am not going to sugarcoat it. Your facts are incorrect, definitively incorrect. It was most certainly more detailed than this one. I know, I listened to both times when he was on Coast to Coast. And other posters here have made that clear too. The simple data tells one that it had to be more detailed than this one. The Coast to Coast show runs for 4 hours at a time. George Noory asked questions and in the last hour of both show, many callers asked specific questions as well. So that is a total of 8 hours of questions and answers, specific questions. This interview was only an hour and 15 minutes. By sheer logic, the Buggs story was more detailed than this one. It was 8 times longer just by the clock! 8 times more longer is more detailed by the sheer nature of the beast of an interview. In the very least, it was at least twice to three times as more detailed and Buggs showed emotion too, almost crying at a couple of points in the story. By empirical data and listening to the show, it was more detailed than this one. For you to say that, and I quote, “most certainly not more detailed or convincing” is incorrect. At best, you are misinforming readers here. At worst, you are outright lying. Which is it? You can not change the facts and data to fit your hypothesis. I doubt you even listened to both Coast to Coast programs to make such a statement like that. Your statement is untrue!

    To add insult to injury, you imply that Buggs never admitted he was hoaxing. You asked, “Did I miss that?” You most certainly did! It was all connected by someone and when Buggs’ feet were figuratively held to the fire, he admitted it was made up and his true identity was revealed. So your implication was wrong too. It was a proven hoax and you missed it.

    Your credibility has went to zilch as far as I am concerned with your mistatements, implications and getting the facts wrong. Go back and actually listen to the two Coast to Coast shows with Buggs, there are more similarities than differences between the two stories. Yet you claim, it was certainly not more detailed or convincing. You are wrong! Other posters here even back that up. Someone who states that it is, obviously did not listen to the Buggs story at all or in the very least, did not pay attention to it.

    On not remembering the DNR agent’s name. Well that could be true or may not be true. But common sense tells me, most people would remember it. Especially when he spent some time showing the agent where he allegedly shot a Bigfoot. When I was asked to show my fishing license to a DNR agent over 30 years ago and having spent less than two minutes with the agent, I still remember his name. Yet this guy spends Thanksgiving with the guy for more than an hour and can’t recall his name? Logic dictates he either has one of the worst memories in the world or is a complete liar. I opt for the latter.

    I have no idea what your standards are for scepticism. But they must be different than most Cryptomundians here. You call looking at the facts logically as “trigger happy” scepticism. Really? Cryptomundians pointing out one lie and red flag after another or pointing out actions that go against common sense is trigger happy scepticism? You sound like a “believer” and not at all objective. And proof of your believing and lack of objectivity is evidenced by your statements about the Buggs story. You have selective memory. In other words, you only remember details that support your beliefs in BF and ignore and throw out anything that contradicts that. Worse than a sceptic is a believer that ignores the facts. That is why I stay in my camp, the camp of objectivity.

    Your overlooking the facts at hand put this story in the Bigfoot pile for you while ignoring the obvious red flags. For most objective people, including me, this one goes on the pile too, the BS pile!



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


Champ Camp 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.