International Cryptozoology ConferenceWholeBeastBanner

Sasquatch’s Fingerprint?

Posted by: Loren Coleman on November 23rd, 2008

Is this the first clear evidence of an imprint from the index finger of a Sasquatch?

Click on the above image for a larger version of the photograph.

Here is the backstory that I am able to share about this alleged eastern Sasquatch fingerprint:

The source of the print is from a North Carolina human family of three, two adults who have one son. They own cats. One of their cats has appeared to have adopted a local Sasquatch family. When the cat insists upon getting out of the house, they know the Sasquatch, a family of four hairy hominids (e.g. Dad, Mom, one teenager, and a young child) are nearby.

The human residents set up a feeding location. It is a white lawn chair adjacent to the woods at the edge of the yard. The Sasquatch take the food. Sometimes, it is taken daily. Sometimes, it is not retrieved for a week. The food goes when the cat disappears, which is a good indication in this case.

Recently, in May 2008, one of the Sasquatch inspected the human father’s pickup truck, leaving fingerprints and nose prints on the passenger window. A local policeman was called. He collected the fingerprints and palm prints, a full set, but refused to date and sign the card because he “knew what we had” and would not allow his name to get involved with these events.

The humans have a video camera at the location. When it is working, the Sasquatch refuse to collect the food. When the camera quits, the Sasquatch resume their activity. Reportedly, the Sasquatch cannot affect the video or computer recording operations, but certainly they seem to know when the system works and when it quits.

There reportedly exists two fleeting videos of the Sasquatch and nothing more. One is the arm of the black Sasquatch father, and the other is the hand of the white teenager with pink skin.


Permission was granted to post this photograph, and the details given above in an attempt to gain a variety of broad-based expert opinions and forensic analyses of this fingerprint.

I have a 4 MB image of the fingerprint, which I will send via email to certified fingerprint and forensic experts. If anyone has access to a law enforcement database to see if it is a match for a known human, that would be helpful, as well. Please contact me at lcoleman[@] (remove the brackets).

Loren Coleman About Loren Coleman
Loren Coleman is one of the world’s leading cryptozoologists, some say “the” leading living cryptozoologist. Certainly, he is acknowledged as the current living American researcher and writer who has most popularized cryptozoology in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Starting his fieldwork and investigations in 1960, after traveling and trekking extensively in pursuit of cryptozoological mysteries, Coleman began writing to share his experiences in 1969. An honorary member of Ivan T. Sanderson’s Society for the Investigation of the Unexplained in the 1970s, Coleman has been bestowed with similar honorary memberships of the North Idaho College Cryptozoology Club in 1983, and in subsequent years, that of the British Columbia Scientific Cryptozoology Club, CryptoSafari International, and other international organizations. He was also a Life Member and Benefactor of the International Society of Cryptozoology (now-defunct). Loren Coleman’s daily blog, as a member of the Cryptomundo Team, served as an ongoing avenue of communication for the ever-growing body of cryptozoo news from 2005 through 2013. He returned as an infrequent contributor beginning Halloween week of 2015. Coleman is the founder in 2003, and current director of the International Cryptozoology Museum in Portland, Maine.

72 Responses to “Sasquatch’s Fingerprint?”

  1. Cryptonut responds:

    Any way that DNA can be recovered from the finger prints??

  2. Ceroill responds:

    Very interesting. I’m curious to see if anything comes of this. Thanks for the post, Loren.

  3. Dj Plasmic Nebula responds:

    Animals are smart. Well, some I guess. :)

  4. Richard888 responds:

    This story sounds compelling. Many people are involved and the police is involved (again). But it may gain little acceptance from the skeptically inclined because it has an element to it that does not fit with scientific models. That is, the Sasquatch’s ability to know when it is under camera surveilance and avoid being filmed. It sounds like Sasquatch is capable of telepathy. As far as I know telepathy is not accepted as a real ablity by science. Like stories of inventions that stop working when scientific examiners are called in, this story has a “weakness.” It is for more open minded researchers like you Loren.

  5. mystery_man responds:

    I’m no expert on fingerprints, but that looks like it could easily be from a human. In my opinion, there is nothing to get particularly excited over at this point.

    Of course, we don’t know anything about sasquatch fingerprints, so it is perfectly possible that they do indeed look human. However, if we are to use this print as any sort of evidence for sasquatch, there is going to have to be something to establish these as not coming from a human other than the testimony of the witness and the mysterious claim that the police officer “knew what he had.” That last point is a very odd turn of events to me. Is that really something a cop would do in this situation? Really? If this is true, I sure would like to know why he thinks so.

    I suppose a good place to start here would be by determining how close to human they are (which to me so far looks very), then if that is inconclusive maybe checking the fingerprints against family members or others that might have touched the car. Right now I just can’t get over the impression that I am looking at a human fingerprint.

  6. swnoel responds:

    Sounds like another Carters Farms excapade.

    This screams hoax/fraud when someone says that this animal doesn’t show because a camera is in the area.

    Put a few Reconyx RC60HO cameras in the area… if this is for real, we’ll get pixs.

  7. shumway10973 responds:

    As far as them knowing if the camera is on or off…I dunno know. I can hear some equipment when it’s on. I know people who say they can “feel” (their best description for the sensation involved) such electronic devises being on and that each function has a different “feel”. Cats are strange that way. It’s just lucky these haven’t been extremely hungry meat eating things. I’m not sure about this one, though. Hey, I’ve got an idea! Why don’t they buy Loren a ticket down so he can be there when the sasquatch family come to visit. just a thought.

  8. ksr responds:

    Sounds like a case for Jimmy Chilcott!!!!

  9. sculpterist responds:

    I can believe the part about them knowing when the camera is working. I have an odd sort of hearing (I can’t hear deep low sounds, tho I can feel them. But high pitched sounds that nobody else around me hears drive me insane!) Cameras and electrical stuff make a lot of noise in that high pitch range.
    I’d love to get an update on this!

  10. sschaper responds:

    The angle of the whorl resembles that on my thumbprints. I am interested to hear what Chillicut will say.

    I do think that an animal can indeed hear the high-pitched whine of the motor in a camcorder. It can be an issue with wildlife photography, so why not with Napes? Sometimes we forget just how well-tuned animals are to their environment. Even growing up on a farm, I can tell you that we humans when not overloaded with urban noise, can develop a very good mental baseline of the specific area, and then anything that is changed will stand out very noticeably. Sort of like running “diff” on a file. This may be the issue with camera traps, as well.

  11. Ole Bub responds:

    Good morning Cryptomundos…

    This is account represents atypical visitation/habituation behavior…in the Southwest…and probably elsewhere. Modified pet behavior is a classic and common indication of frequent visitation. Thom Powell has written extensively about the camera shy nature of the “Locals”.

    The feeding station camera is an impediment to establishing a bond of trust. They are smart enough to realize the feeding station is bait for a camera trap. The intelligence and family structure alluded to in this post is commonplace, yet some folks persist in ridiculing the source, which is why most rural folks are reticent to share their experience with outsiders…JMHO

    live and let live…

    ole bub and the dawgs

  12. Storfot responds:

    “The human residents set up a feeding location. It is a white lawn chair adjacent to the woods at the edge of the yard. The Sasquatch take the food. Sometimes, it is taken daily. Sometimes, it is not retrieved for a week. The food goes when the cat disappears, which is a good indication in this case”

    Makes me wonder about sasquatches’ food preferences. Does not food that is left for a week become moldy or get eaten by other animals?

    Further details that make me wonder if any tangible evidence will come from this:

    The cat part of the story also makes me wonder. Sasquatches’ dislike dogs but are fond of cats?

    The sasquatches’ ability to know whether the cameras are turned on or off. Do these cameras create some kind of noise that is out of the human ears’ range but not the sasquatches’?

  13. Medieval1028 responds:

    At first glance, it doesn’t look like any human fingerprint I’ve seen. That said, I’m interested to see what a forensic examination turns up.

  14. gkingdano responds:

    I think that I would put up a couple of different brands of cameras And maybe put some black tape over the little red “recording” light. The cat only going out when the BFs are coming should be a help. Maybe they could find a camera with a remote on/off switch to turn it on when the “BF Family” is at the feeding station. Of course, maybe the daddy bigfoot was just looking to see if the man left the keys the the car some the family could go to Grandma BF’s house for some thanksgiving dinner NOT left out for the cat.

  15. Exactly Squatch responds:

    Looks like two *human* fingerprints that are overlapping each other.

    How could anyone be able to claim it was made by a sasquatch without an actual basis for comparison?

  16. swnoel responds:

    For those wondering about a Reconyx RC60HO camera.

    The camera is noiseless, it’s also know as a black flash which means there is no visable emitter light or white flash… you don’t know that it’s taking pictures.

    It takes pixs out to 75′ at night and has one of the best trigger speeds and probably the best detection range of all the cameras.

    Trust me nothing will know it’s around if you know what your doing and it will capture pixs that other cameras would only wish they could.

  17. thehoch responds:

    The Bigfoot family know when the camera is and isn’t working?

    I also heard that the Bigfoot family know when you’ve been sleeping and know when you’re awake. They know if you’ve been bad or good, so be good for goodness sake.

  18. helgarde responds:

    The fingerprint -looks- human, but how big is it? No one seems to have asked that question. The photograph has no way to show scale. It could be that the creatures, being hominids, have fingerprints like ours, but if their hands are in scale with their height, then the fingers would be much larger than even the largest human’s.

    As for the camera–I concur with those who have said it isn’t a case of the Sasquatch being telepathic, is a case of it having a great sense of hearing, perhaps with more sensitivity to higher and lower frequencies than humans can detect. Remember, most mammals have better hearing than we do, and, as also noted by another poster, humans who live away from noise filled urban areas have more sensitive hearing than those who do. It only stands to reason that an intelligent animal who lives in the wild would avoid an area when something in the environment is different, such as the sound of a camera running.

    Do I think this is the real deal?

    It could be. Of course, we just got burned by the Georgia incident, so we are all extra special skeptical, but that doesn’t mean that this report is false or a hoax. It just means we need to proceed carefully and see what evidence may or may not unfold.

  19. Kitsos responds:

    Maybe someone can suggest to the family to try and gather any “nose-goop” or other stuff left behind on the car assuming they take an interest to it again. It sounds like a much more plausible place to look for clues (hair, nose dribble, saliva etc might provide DNA)

  20. Pink Elephant responds:

    This sounds like another hoax to me. Leaving fingerprints “and” nose prints?? On top of that they have to clarify why they don’t have any visuals of the Saquatch family by saying they “sense” the camera?? C’mon…

  21. gridbug responds:

    Happened to catch Hammer Films’ “Abominable Snowman of the Himalayas” yesterday on cable… such an exceptional film in how it deals with the more spiritual/mental aspects of Yeti (and by extension Bigfoot and Sasquatch) communication and how they affect their environment and those they come in contact with. I’ve always held that these creatures are somewhat of an advanced missing link, superior to man in many respects while leaning more toward the bestial, and it certainly wouldn’t surprise me if we come to find out that they are in fact capable of certain forms of thought projection… a “Bigfoot jedi mind trick” if you will. It would clarify some of the “here one minute gone the next” aspects, not to mention the “spider sense is tingling, gotta leave the area pronto” emotional responses that some witnesses have.

    Great post, Loren! Can’t wait to see what develops!

  22. Ole Bub responds:

    Good afternoon Cryptos…

    Folks interested in this thread…may want to listen to Brian Brown’s excellent “Bipto” Podcast, “Sasquatch on the Prairie”. found on the Texas Bigfoot Research Conservancy website…JMHO

    live and let live…

    ole bub and the dawgs

  23. Dj Plasmic Nebula responds:

    knowing that, i can see how smart animals can be, but to use the word smart… after reading these comments i come to know that animals have some sensory organ that allows them to sense things… like a camera off her on, BIgfoot of some kind, may have some kind of electrical discharge when equipment is on, like a shark. A shark swings around, and when it bumps into things, it can feel some electrical current, even if small portion, they go taste it.

    Bigfoot is probably the same, it can sence it, maybe not taste it after sensing it, but sense it.

    I remember feeling things, and turning around and someone was there… :) i had a feeling on my back, like a strange feeling…example is like when your feets fall asleep i had a similar feeling on my back, and it turns out someone is near me… :)

    I hear dolphins are telepathic.. if true.. wow,
    even eels have electricity power, fireflys have light, and some animals have fire, some have venom some have poison, some have stench. who knows what other animals have…

  24. Dj Plasmic Nebula responds:

    Besides those finger prints don’t look Human to me.. it looks primate..

  25. fossilhunter responds:

    Greetings All!

    Some extra info would be helpful, such as how they found out about the Sasquatch being there; can they see them from their home; what time of day/night they think the food is being taken; and how do they know the cat goes *to* the Sasquatch instead of high-tailing it the other direction, then coming home when it is “safe”?

    A few thoughts came to mind on this.

    1) I like the “send Loren to watch” idea!

    B) If they can see the “feeding station” (didn’t realize I’ve got three “feeding stations in the house myself!) from their home, there must be electronics in there that don’t bother them, set up 24/7 video cameras looking out a window or two. One wide and one tight shot.

    III) Technology isn’t always the solution. Set up an old-fashioned SLR with a “bulb” trigger, with a volunteer to trip it and get one *good* picture at a time when they show up.

    d) As a last resort hook kitty up with a critter-cam, maybe trying to make it really small and innocuous. Hopefully it won’t scare them off permanently.

    Five) Obviously Papa ‘Squatch is a pick-up truck kinda guy, lets buy him an old F-150 for the holidays! Load it up with enough cameras to choke an ox (and LoJack) and see what happens!

  26. Spinach Village responds:

    great post! … very curious i am

  27. DWA responds:

    Is that a squatch print? What do you think, studious? CLICK on it. It’s HYOOOOGE.

    But seriously.

    It is interesting – as helgarde notes, and as I was wondering – that there’s nothing in the blog about how big that print was. That’s sort of what we call prima facie evidence.

    There are a number of other good observations in here, along with the standard presumptions we can’t make (they hate cameras; they all hate dogs but all love cats; they can hear cameras; they care about cameras one way or the other; etc.)

    I have to admit I begin to smell fish in the dumpster when I read “habituation” stuff. Given what we know about all other animals, it should be more than possible to get somebody with genuine scientific cred into the vicinity to observe these critters when they’re around if they’re habituated. Now, sure, they could be different. But there are too many reports showing a general indifference to humans – and too many showing genuine curiosity – for me to swallow whole the supposition that when a scientist is around (or a videocam is on), the animals just disappear.

    i’d expect a habituated bear, or deer, or rabbit, etc., to leave, sooner or later, evidence that could be tested for origin. Why doesn’t that ever seem to happen in these habituation cases?

  28. MattBille responds:

    The detail that raises doubts to me is the the one about the animals and the camera. Sure, a creature with sharp hearing could pick up when a camera was on, especially if it was close to the feeding station. Where is the camera in relation to the feeding station, I wonder? Why not try moving the camera further away? The animal doesn’t know if a distant camera with a good zoom is on it.

    That aside, if an animal picks up the noise, why should they avoid it? Even if it seemed odd and therefore suspicious to them at first, wouldn’t they become acclimated to it? I’ll be interested to hear what an expert says about the fingerprint, but my first reaction is to doubt the whole claim.

  29. swnoel responds:

    Even with low cost game cameras, the camera has been tripped and the picture has been already taken, after you see the white flash or red blink. Your picture has been taken.

    Many are capable of multiple shots quicker than you can get away.

    It’s quite apparent that many of the posters have no clue how these cameras work.

    The big question is, is Tommy B involved with this?

  30. Loren Coleman responds:

    It is my understanding from inside and outside this investigation that TB is not involved, at all.

  31. airforce47 responds:

    As mentioned earlier, this is a case for Jimmy. He has the know how, equipment and data base to compare the print to. If the print is human Jimmy will spot the normal characteristics of a human print and let us know.

    If it’s not it may take some time for him to study the print and render a decision. Jimmy is thorough and knows his stuff. I’ll wait to hear his decision although this is quite an interesting devleopment.

  32. mcw2112 responds:

    Sounds like total BS to me. The most sensitive animals on the planet are photographed all of the time. And I just don’t buy the fact that these animals could be fed and NEVER has there been an opportunity to catch even one of them on film. I just don’t follow the line that they are ‘magical’ beings and can consistently outsmart technology and from what I have read over the years, they’re just clever animals who usually live in vast areas of wilderness where they can remain mostly undetected by man. Fun post, though!

  33. flame821 responds:

    Count me in among the others who have odd hearing. I often hear a high pitched whining noise in the presence of certain electronic devices. And if anyone is keeping track, I live in a semi-rural area.

    I’m actually more curious about one of the described youngsters. Did they mention white and pink? As in an albino? That would be quite unusual (extremely small percentage of any population of animals) and also stick out like a sore thumb, particularly in the Fall (aka, deer hunting season). I’m curious to see what other readers think about this.

  34. sasquatch responds:

    Roger Patterson was using a 16mm motion picture camera that was probably a wind motor type…I have 2 like this…They are NOT electronic but mechanical devises…There is no “On /Standby” electronic noise, but once the shutter is released these cameras can be quite noisey. By the time “Patty” heard Rogers camera it was running already. I think this theory is quite interesting.

  35. napalmnacey responds:

    I’m no fingerprint expert, in fact I would be a fingerprint dunce really. I know a bit about gauging spacial relationships (I’m an artist) and I’ve had a quick glance at some human fingerprints. Now, in my experience, which is minimal, I would say that’s a damned odd looking human fingerprint.

    Then again, I only just realised that my fingerprints aren’t the same sort on each finger. So what do I know?

  36. davidk responds:

    After the Georgia webortion if I was a cop in the USA I wouldn’t be prepared to put my name down for anything. Not saying there is or is not anything in the print. I just wouldn’t…

  37. Honets John responds:

    If TB was already involved, the cat would be dead, it’s blood removed, and it would have BF bite marks on it’s back!

    And TB would have a date, to be announced soon, for when the frozen cats body would be for sale on eBay!

    Maybe the prints are TB’s?

  38. DWA responds:

    napalmnacey: gotta admit I thought the same thing you did. It looked (admittedly intuitively) non-human to me.

    But of course I have said here more than once that any animal will, sooner or later, make an almost perfect copy of a different animal’s print. So that may be neither here nor there.

    Still seems to me you’d want to know how big the print was. If an adult male squatch, I’m not thinking human would be your first thought on seeing it. At least it wouldn’t be your second.

  39. jaguarsky responds:

    Like a sighting of a bright light in the sky, this “fingerprint” photo simply does not give us enough info to determine para, or normal. Of course, if the big guys exist in a real world, real time enviornment, then are are by definition, “normal”, but I digress. I would be much more interested in seeing the alleged nose prints from said Daddy Squatch.

    While reading this article, I was reminded of the woman who said not only was she familiar with BF, but he talked and came to her house to ask for garlic; seems a little too much. (Joking here, but maybe he’s Italian?) I thought the pink and white adolescent was a nice touch tho.

  40. ladywolf responds:

    In one encounter I’ve read, a Bigfoot didn’t even like a man’s coffee grounds, so why would he want garlic?

  41. raisinsofwrath responds:

    As a couple of readers have already said, there are many video cameras that make no discernible noise. furthermore, why would a Bigfoot care if the camera were on or not? Do they really know what the camera is doing and make the connection that it’s a form of exposing them? I find it hard to swallow but hey, how about they use a camera with a lens that can shoot from a safe distance whereby the BF’s wouldn’t even know it was there?

    Now, on the side of total belief, if a BF knows when it is being filmed and can make associations to that fact then obviously they are much more intelligent than we had ever imagined. Keeping that in mind would explain many other issues such as them not leaving scat in open areas or disposing of their dead so as not to leave bones around. In fact, they probably talk as well but probably only to cats.

    These people either are trying to pull a fast one or are just wishful thinking. I’d say it’s likely the latter. Maybe one of these times the homeless transients will forget to turn off the camera or the family will forget to lock the car and will find it missing some morning. Oh, maybe Sasquatch drives as well!

    OK, so lets review:

    1. BF is psychic
    2. They love cats
    3. They know the intricate working of video cameras
    4. They sometimes eat moldy, week old food
    5. They talk to said cats
    6. They may or may not drive automobiles depending on whether the car is stick or automatic.

    Sounds about right! Call in MQ! We could entitle the episode:

    Sasquatch Kidnaps Cat and Steals Car

    Of course it would be a 2 parter with

    Sasquatch Kidnaps Cat and Steals Car II

  42. Scari responds:

    Problem I have with this is the food disappears when the Cat does isn’t it possible it’s the cat who eats it? The camera part raises a red flag with me too, supposedly other bigfoots that have been “filmed” didn’t seem to be bothered too much about being filmed. Maybe this is something but it’s highly doubtful.

  43. skretch responds:

    Bill Dranginis of the Virginia Bigfoot Research Organization has a theory that Bigfoot can sense ultrasonic sounds and stay away from those that cameras normally emit. He’s developed a camera system that eliminates those sounds. I’d be interested if that sort of camera system could be tested in this situation.

  44. MindEcdysiast responds:

    This is one of the more interesting posts Mr. Coleman has made. What makes it interesting to me is the interaction between the humans and the BF family. I am all for having Mr. Coleman go there and take note, or observe.

    This of course reminds me of the things that happen when (Gag!) the Amazing Randy is about. For those of you that never heard of him, he is a magician who posted a million dollar prize for anyone that can prove the existence of paranormal events. Of course when he goes to the site, or they come to him, nothing happens, so in the last thirty or so years no one has ever collected.

    With that in mind, if these BF actually make their appearance so often, then there must definitely be a path worn out to their lair. How have the humans figured out what the correct diet is? Who handles the camera? Snapshots are fast and none invasive if without a flash. As an electronics engineer I can tell you that the simplest method for minimizing if not taking away altogether the electronic imprint of the camera would be enclosing it (except for the lense of course) in a fine wire mesh box (copper preferably) and then grounding the mesh to an electrical ground. Noise reduction can be done by enclosing the whole thing with foam or any other noise dampening material.

    The BF can get aclimated to the camera by leaving it always on station. It is hard for me to understand how is it that the BF would be aware of the camera unless there is movement or spontaneous lights that go with it. Even humans will go to the same spots always unless something physically interrupts their routine. The only perceptible noise should be the lense focusing unless of course we are talking of a 1920’s winding camera. Maybe its time they traded in their rotoscope camera for a digital video camera, a good tripod, a 25 foot cord and a DVR to go with it. I hear sound activated switches work great too. Just MHO…

    And if worse comes to worse, they can always invest in a computer and a couple of survelance micro cameras for it. The again I guess when the BFs see the Site Under Surveillance signs they won’t return either… Oh well.


  45. sausage1 responds:

    I thought it was Thunderbirds who knew when a camera was working. F.A.B.

    Seriously, this sounds like a bit far-fetched.

  46. Pink Elephant responds:

    If BF is smart(or cautious) enough to avoid cameras, then why would it be brave(or careless) enough to take a risk to approach the pickup truck just to see what’s inside?? Maybe they should install the camera inside the truck. And why only arms captured? Pink arm? This story is def. BS to me…

  47. red_pill_junkie responds:

    Maybe Sasquatches are extremely sensitive to high-pitch sounds —I sometimes can’t stand the ‘noise’ that my night lamp emits when it’s turned on— maybe they are even sensitive to electromagnetic fields created by modern electronic devices. But all this is pure speculation, originated by an as-yet inconclusive piece of evidence.

    I also wish we could have something to see the real scale of the print.

    So what kind of food are they putting on?

  48. seethingcauldron responds:

    Here’s a thought.

    What if its not the sound of the electronics that it notices… but the very weak electromagnetic field the device gives off? We have many examples of animals that possess such an electric sense. An old pickup truck wouldn’t give off any such field.

    Or barring that… is it possible to come up with an unknown sense that would explain some of bf’s known behaviours?

  49. cryptidsrus responds:

    I know what I’m about to say will not be accepted by a host of people here, but I personally have no problem accepting that the creature is incredibly intelligent and may have paranormal powers—therefore it would come as no surprise that they would be able to detect when a camera would turn on and off. Researchers like Nick Redfern have advanced the idea that these creatures are at least PARTIALLY supernatural—their ability to seemingly come out nowhere and their ability to seemingly know when people would be around would confirm that. We need to think outside the box, folks.

  50. octavioa1 responds:

    Anyone ever “hear” a TV when the volume is all the way down? That high pitched “EEEEEEEEEEEEEEE” sound. A similar high pitched sound is currently used as a ringtone for cellular phones, popular with teenagers in high school because the sound is inaudible to adults over 40 years old (teachers). I’m inclined to believe that a sasquatch type creature can hear or sense the electromagnetic field in electronic equipment, especially in areas where like in the deep woods where there is little EM pollution.

  51. Wutwuzit responds:

    I live in a very Rural area of Virginia. In fact “Rural” is part of my town’s name. I too can hear/feel electronic devices. Its odd.

    Anyway, I have no experience with those cameras so I can’t vouch for much there, but others have said its silent, so I trust them.

    Could it be that the sasquatch may simply be smelling the humans instead of sensing the camera? Or that they notice when their has been unusual human activity around the feeder and avoid it?

    I know if my family had a camera and possibly unusual creatures around, my immediate family would all go out to help set the trap, put food in the feeder, check the trap. I’m assuming they are just avoiding the area when the interest picks up enough to bring humans close.

    btw: I also saw that show about the lady and the bigfoot asking for garlic. XD said it kept the bugs away.

  52. Wutwuzit responds:

    I forgot to mention the fingerprint looks apelike. I’m assuming its because of the shape. Humans tend to touch/press/grab with the tips of the fingers, Apes with the entire finger. The print in question has the print of not just the tip, but the actual lower part of the finger like and Ape should.

    Although it could easily be 2 different human prints smudged together. So who knows?

  53. DWA responds:

    cryptidsrus: I couldn’t ignore this.

    “Researchers like Nick Redfern have advanced the idea that these creatures are at least PARTIALLY supernatural—their ability to seemingly come out nowhere and their ability to seemingly know when people would be around would confirm that. We need to think outside the box, folks.”

    Well, no, let’s not.

    See, that’s what we’ve been doing for the past half-century: thinking outside the box. So far outside it that we’ve scared mainstream science out of wanting, ever, to have anything to do with hairy hominoids at all, other than dead fossilized ones.

    The reason we are all here huddled around this trying to figure out: IS IT REAL!?!??!?!?! rather than having about fifty ongoing studies of identified sasquatch family groups in various parts of the country, and debating whether the six recognized regional races of sasquatch are in fact one species, and oh by the way, is the yeti off the endangered species list yet?

    …is: too much thinking outside the box.

    So. How do we prove this paranormal stuff? The same way we always have. Which is NOT. Says here: if science doesn’t engage in this question, we will all go to our graves not knowing, and the next however-many generations after us. Barring, of course, the many, many people who have seen them, and the others who have at least (raises hand) seen tracks. That didn’t look paranormal to me.

    Science – and only science – can resolve this question, barring events that no one on, or off, this board can foresee. And I have read nothing, ever, in any sasquatch report – and I will bet none here have read more – that indicates anything other than: this is a primate, probably an ape, and being seen at least as often as a number of species we know about.

    Let’s stick to science. “Outside the box” is where your brains fall when your mind is too open.

    Just sayin’. Where has paranormal speculation gotten us? Any scientist can tell you, with a snicker, where it’s gotten us.

    Look for an ape. We found the gorilla, we will find this too, and all the other hairy hominoids as well, if they’re out there and we look the way we did for the gorilla.

    That simple.

    Over and out.

  54. EastTexan responds:

    Very interesting post.
    I, too, am aware of a very high-pitched sound from some electronic equipment (i.e. TVs) so I can relate to the possibility of Sasquatch hearing something from the camera. However, we don’t know how close the camera is to the feeding location, just that there is a camera “at the location.” Distance could be a factor as to whether the BF “heard” something or not. Also, the wording about the camera “working” or “when it quits” instead of “on” or “off” is interesting to me. Does the camera work only sporadically? And where is the story and information from? Newspaper, personal interview, an email to Loren?

  55. mystery_man responds:

    I’m not sure I understand some of the assumptions made here that the finger print is huge. How could one come to that conclusion based on this photo alone? There is nothing to really give any size comparison. I can’t see how anyone could get even an intuitive sense that what we are looking at is an enormous print without more to go on. It looks like it could just as easily be within human size range. I want more hard information showing the size or how this is not a human print rather than subjective opinions on the size of it.

  56. mystery_man responds:

    I suppose we could ask the officer who took the prints off the car window how big they were. Oh no, that’s right, he refused to sign off on them because he “knew what he had”. That whole part of the story seems fishy to me. I find it odd that we have this photo, yet no measurements at all, no size reference, no information really except the witnesses assurance that a sasquatch made it. That is extremely shaky evidence for which to judge any real potential merit of these fingerprints.

    The print still looks like it could be human to me. If it is not, I’d like someone to prove that, show that it is not human. I would love to have my impressions be proved wrong. If I seem skeptical, it is just because I just am not in the habit of seeing a fingerprint like this and needing to entertain the thought that it COULD be that of a sasquatch based on so little or because this eyewitness said so. I need something more concrete than that if I am going to make that jump here.

    This print was reported on the passenger window, with no frame of reference for size, and to my eye nothing to clearly distinguish it from a human print. I am not saying that if sasquatch exists it does not leave prints, or that there are none out there. I’m just saying that considering what we know, I am skeptical that this is what we are looking at in this case.

    Until anything else comes up, I am leaning heavily towards this being nothing other than a smudged human print.

  57. DWA responds:

    “I’m not sure I understand some of the assumptions made here that the finger print is huge. How could one come to that conclusion based on this photo alone?”

    Has anyone made such an assertion? I think that all I’ve seen is people wondering why this information is absent from the account.

    I hope no one takes what I thought was a very obvious joke on my part for an assertion.
    If that happened, whoops, sorry about that!

  58. corrick responds:

    Amen. Your post on science vs. the paranormal/supernatural is one of the best I’ve ever read on this site.

  59. DWA responds:

    corrick: thanks. Much appreciated.

    To those who think I am pooh-poohing the supernatural or the paranormal: I’m not. Reason? Well, unfortunately, it’s the same reason so many scientists do; I don’t have the evidence to say it’s all a crock. I can’t, in fact, address it at all. There’s no mechanism for testing, no way to come to an explanation.

    The point I am making is simply this: The evidence for the sasquatch seems to uniformly point to a phenomenon explainable by science. Let’s work that angle. So far, we have not – mainly because the paranormal angle scares people qualified to work the scientific angle away from the topic.

    The paranormal angle seems to be based on some proponents’ presumption that this critter is simply not being seen, and there must be an explanation for that. The anecdotal evidence tells me it IS being seen, by LOTS of people. The entire range of encounters one might expect for a known animal are being reported for the sasquatch.

    What is not happening is formal followup, and confirmation, by science.

    Until somebody tells me something I haven’t heard yet: the paranormal/supernatural angle is untestable, and therefore untenable, in this discussion.

    Stick to science. I agree with all the skeptics who say that science should know by now. What we disagree on is whether science has looked.

    Science hasn’t, on anywhere near the scale it does for things it expects to find. And that’s why we don’t know. Except for those who have seen one.

  60. MindEcdysiast responds:

    Fingerprints! Did I read the post wrong or were there fingerprints and a nose smudge? If there were more than one where is the rest? If the BF approached the vehicle, where are the other fingerprints? As far as I can remember all hominids possess 5 digits per appendage.

    By the reaction of the police officer, apparently he has seen this before and in this place. He has probably answered more than one call about it too.

    I posted yesterday about the camera thing, but I am still curious. For those of you that keep bringing up the electronic noise, there are various frequencies that we hear at, some higher and some lower. The sound heard from TV sets as mentioned hear is about 60 Hertz tone produced by the amplifier. At times we are also able to hear the raster frequency of our TV, as a matter of fact that is also true of our beloved computers. People that can hear higher sounds are a dime a dozen, they are not unique. The difference being that they are more vocal about it. Notice what a difference it makes when we lose power and the lights go out?

    Animals differ from us in that they hear the higher frequencies. Some animals (like the elephants) do extremely well with lower frequencies. But we are not talking about an animal, this appears to be a Hominid of the class Homo. In other words, mans cousin. So we should presume it has the same hearing range that we have. Sharper because it does not live in an environment full of gadgets and noise. Sharper because it depends on its hearing to evade predators. And better because it doesn’t have an iPod or Zune blasting in its ear 24/7.

    BF in this case is coming into the open, putting itself in jeopardy, therefore his senses are sharper, just like deer, or even meerkats. I know I slept with one eye open (as we say) when I was in the military on patrol. You are aware of things that no one else notices or takes for granted.

    Loren, if I may, I think the best solution to capturing imaging of the BF, would be a good telephoto lens with a tripod in a blind, far away but with clearance to the spot where the feeding occurs. Making sure that no movement is seen into the blind and the sun does not reflect off the lens. Away from the BFs known path. I definitely know that film or images can be taken this way. I doubt that a digital cameras EMI/RFI can be heard over a good 60 or more feet away. Not unless the BF is carrying electronic surveilance equipment.

    Hasta luego, peace…

  61. cryptidsrus responds:

    DWA: Ok, I’ll bite. Btw, even I will admit that was a thought-provoking post you gave there. I always enjoy what you have say. You know me. I’ve been here for a while. I admit I’m more open to certain things than other folk here—fine. That’s what makes this site so satifying for me—a variety of thoughts and opinions and nobody freaks out—know what I mean????
    I WOULD like to clarify something:

    All I was reacting to was the the idea prevalent on this post that this must be a “hoax” because Sasquatch are not captured by the camera. The thinking is: “Sasquatch are never seen on camera, even though they’re ‘animas.’ Ergo, this must be fake, since animals are not smart enought to avoid being seen.” I’m not all posts are like that or that even you are saying that—I’m saying some of them are leaning like that.

    I’m sure it has occurred to folks here that Ole Hairy is intelligent-maybe as intelligent as us–so wouldn’t it make sense that as an intelligent being it would somehow intuitively know that it was being spied upon??? Even if that cannot be proven, we can at least “brainstorm,” right? By all means be scientific—just not engage in purely “deductive” methodology when there should be “inductive” methodology involved. Let’s look at ALL the available data and try to work out a reliable hypothesis/theory from that. Even include the dreaded “negative” results—which is what inductive methodology sometimes yields. I understand folks would disagree with that. I understand. As I’ve said before, I’m not a scientist. I’m just one of the “great unwashed” (i.e., working stiff) trying to make sense of the bizarre things that happen in the world around me. I am simply trying to see things from (and applying) Francis Bacon’s point of view—the guy who started basically the whole modern “scientific method,” ok? Science (and this is MY opinion, of course,) has veered away from those principles which he set down. Again, my opinion.

    Let’s forget the “supernatural” angle then. Let me put it this way—just because something does not fit somebody’s a priori conceptions of what that “something” should be or should not be like does not mean it is “unreal.” And yes, the fact that sometimes these “whatevers” do not act “scientifically,” (i.e., according to our current “conception”of how the universe operates) does not mean that we should throw out the baby with the bath water and not incorporate certain “non-materialistic” stuff in this. At least, we should enterntain these ideas. Rupert Sheldrake does. Alfred Russell Wallace did. William James did. Isaac Newton (who was an accomlished alchemist as well as a scientist) did. Kepler did (he was an astrologer). Boyle did (another alchemist). I can already hear the snickers. Fine.

    Again, I’m a nobody and I know you are scientifically more knowledgeable than me, DWA. I also acknowledge that this diatribe may seem incoherent and not “structurally precise” to some here. Fine. Remember, I’m a believer, not an open-minded skeptic. Just wanted to answer your post. You’re right—we can’t be so open-minded that our brains fall out. I just think the current method of dealing with these things does not work. But you certainly made very good points, DWA. You’re one of the reasons I come here. The current scientific debate does not accept “negative results.” I do. The split between science and “spirit/religion” is entrenched in western society. I think the split never should have occurred. And many agree with me. And actually, there is no such thing as “supernatural,”—just natural phenomenon we have not explained yet. Hopefully we can respectfully disagree. If we cannot, that’s fine as well. I love you all here. Great discussion, as always.

  62. DWA responds:

    Cryptidsrus: No one’s a nobody here.

    I feel the need to point out – with emphasis – that I AM NOT A SCIENTIST.

    OK. That said.

    Something odd is going on here. The world’s largest primate seems to be living in one of the world’s most civilized and technologically-sophisticated countries without being proven to exist. (In this case: a FAMILY of them are allegedly HANGING OUT, and we don’t have anything to sink our teeth into but an alleged fingerprint.) I sure would want to know why that was. One of the reasons so many are flat incredulous at the proposition is that they can’t get their arms around how that could possibly be, when we’re finding the teeniest things in the most remote places.

    I’m simply saying that, having looked at this quite a bit, I have come to the conclusion that it could be happening, and there could be nothing particularly unusual behind it, other than the refusal of the folks with the technical chops and funding to go out there and figure out what it is people are seeing. I think that one reason it may be happening is that we’re jumping to the point of positing stuff that can’t be tested or proven by currently understood and accepted methods, and that scares scientists – and their inherent need to be taken seriously when they say things – away from the topic.

    Really, that’s all I’m saying. I don’t mean to devalue anyone’s comments, just to remind all that claims in such a discussion always require evidence.

    No offense meant. Big tent, OK? I’m open to being shown what I don’t know. I just have to be shown is all.

  63. DWA responds:


    I should also point out that medicine is only one field where we’ve found out that today’s aboriginal mumbo-jumbo could be tomorrow’s science. (And that yesterday’s mumbo-jumbo is today’s science.)

    But as we’ve seen with medicine, for us to do much of practical value with it, we have to wait for science to catch up.

  64. red_pill_junkie responds:

    And actually, there is no such thing as “supernatural,”—just natural phenomenon we have not explained yet.

    I couldn’t agree more with that statement. Remember folks: not so long ago, when the Big Bang concept was proposed—by a Catholic priest nonetheless!—mainstream scientists scoffed at the idea, saying it was unscientific because it was unprovable… until we learned about the deep space microwave radiation; and suddenly, we can measure the beginning of the Universe to an astonishing accuracy.

    Do I agree with cryptidsrus in that I think Bigfoot posesses traits and abilities that could be considered ‘supernatural’ by some people? Not necessarily. But to me, considering that possibility does not trump my entire house of cards that is my belief system regarding the natural world.

    That said, I still consider this —the fingerprint photo—to be inconsistent evidence—why didn’t they take pictures of the entire window? that would give us the scale reference many of us wish for— but I’m glad it has stemmed a very interesting discussion about the effectiveness of modern equipment to detect this elusive creature.

  65. gridbug responds:

    I think we need to ditch the conception that BF is simply some “big dumb animal” out roaming aimlessly in the wilderness. Consider some “primitive” cultures that have never seen modern technology and are so in tune with the environment that they can come and go unnoticed by “civilized” man. If BF is somewhat of a cross between what we once were and what we could have been, and taking into account that these creatures have existed outside of human society (for the most part, not counting random encounters) then we have to consider the possibility that they are in such complete harmony with their surroundings that they are able to discern outside elements that us sophisticated technophiles have assimilated as commonplace. If BF can see well enough in a pitch black forest to run full tilt through past and around any and all obstacles, then it’s not too far a stretch to assume that their eyesight may work on a more developed spectrum than ours. A woodland dwelling creature with heightened senses (far more than our own) would probably be able to hear a high pitched emission from an electronic device, not unlike a dog whistle type situation. Nothing paranormal or supernatural about that. :)

  66. mystery_man responds:

    DWA- Oh ok, I see what you mean. That joke went completely over my head! I must have been tired when I responded. Whoops. It wasn’t until I went back and read it that I caught that. Sometimes this format makes it hard to catch the humor in statements. Re reading your post, then yeah that makes sense. Sorry! :) Nobody has made the assumption, but it has been hinted at with talk of spatial relationships and what not. Anyway the main thing is that this print looks like it could be human to me.

    By the way, I also liked your post on science and the supernatural. Not really much I can add there.

    cryptidsrus- Your opinions are more than welcome here, don’t worry about that at all. You have a lot of good things to say. Anyway, that’s what this forum is for, to get our thoughts out and learn new things in a constructive, respectful way. And don’t worry about being “structurally precise”. Your posts are fine by me. :)

  67. Ceroill responds:

    cryptidsarus, DWA, MysteryMan, and others: This kind of discussion is what I like most about Cryptomundo. I want to thank you all for taking part in this delightful and insightful exchange.

  68. DWA responds:

    m_m: Thanks. I was really hoping for some word on the size of that print. I can’t really say what it is, although it’s almost certainly an incomplete print.

    Showing a wider angle shot of the whole configuration – including that nose print – could be useful. Hope they got such a shot and just haven’t shared it yet.

    cryptidsrus: I second m_m with regard to your posts. Like I said: Big tent. I have learned from folks here, and I hope to keep doing it. Case in point: “The split between science and “spirit/religion” is entrenched in western society. I think the split never should have occurred.” We’ve probably hurt science by keeping it divorced too much from wonder. You don’t want your brains to fall out. But you don’t want to squeeze them so tight that you miss what’s right there.

  69. tropicalwolf responds:

    Thank You DWA!!!

    My first impression when I here people saying BFis “supernatural” is….”Oh great, this is JUST what we need.”

    One does nothing to provide for the scientific support/proof of a creature’s existence by subscribing said creature paranormal powers and then using these powers to explain why it is so hard to find said creature. Before casting supernatural abilities on a creature, shouldn’t one have a better foundation for its scientifically accepted existence? The BF “supernatural/paranormal angle” is simple, BASIC, false logic. As scientists, shouldn’t we do and expect better?

  70. DWA responds:

    tropicalwolf: Not sure what else I can say, but thanks.

    OK, there’s something else I can say. (Other than: let’s find out what we can about that print. There does appear to be enough to at least assert whether it’s mundane or hmmmmmmm.)

    On another thread, I just saw a post asserting that the sasquatch is telepathic. You know, they could be. Hey, what do I know? But what is our evidence?

    I am constantly hammering on scoftics for the total absence of evidence for their claims. You see, they honestly don’t think they have to do a single thing but sling brickbats at proponents – even if it involves making totally preposterous claims. That wasn’t a sasquatch; it was a moose, forced by injuries to run bipedally, with really flexible antlers, whose snout had obviously been bitten off by a wolf…

    One wonders where scoftics get this ridiculous attitude, that they can say pretty much anything they want; not bother to educate themselves on the topic AT ALL, Ben Radford; and not have to substantiate, with a single lick of common sense, a single thing they say?

    Well, I have an idea where they get it.

    Not a way to go, I don’t think, to get into the habit of speculating things that can’t be proven.

    OK, fine. Yet.

  71. MindEcdysiast responds:

    What do we know so far about this BF family?

    A-From North Carolina.
    B-A cat has appeared to have adopted a local Sasquatch family.
    C-BF family of four: a Dad, Mom, one teenager, and a young child.
    D-The human residents set up a feeding location.
    E-The BFs take the food. Sometimes, daily. Sometimes, not for a week.
    F-The food goes when the cat disappears.
    G-In May 2008, the BF inspected the human’s pickup truck, leaving fingerprints and nose prints on the passenger window.
    H-A local policeman collected fingerprints and palm prints, a full set, but refused to date and sign the card.
    I-The humans have a video camera at the location. When it is working, the Sasquatch refuse to collect the food. When the camera quits, the Sasquatch resume their activity.
    J-Reportedly, the Sasquatch cannot affect the recording operations, but seem to know when the system is operating and when it stops.
    K-Two fleeting videos of the BF. One is the arm of the black BF father, and the other is the hand of the white teenager with pink skin.

    We have eleven bits of information, some extremely important, and some not.
    Location? Not as important except where the feeding occurs.
    Pets? It takes enormous will for a pet to accept outsiders, specially from the forest, since the smell alone conveys danger.
    Feeding? Interesting and important, as this would tell if in reality the BFs are vegetarians or allegedly carnivores as has been implied in other sites. This would also explain why other BFs are seen around camping grounds, cabins, or homes. Unless the food is being eaten by the cat (the food goes when the cat dissapears).
    The Vehicle incident? Most likely curiosity because of some smell emanating from it or BF seeing itself against the glass, and trying to see if there was another BF inside.
    Camera activity? Important, since many people have been trying to capture images of BF and have been unsuccessful. The thing to remember is that the Paterson film was taken with an old winding camera (no EMI/RFI) that was noisy when running. You had to push the trigger to unwind the coil, it may have had a DC motor assist depending on the model, but no EMI/RFI from that. If BF is actually sensitive to EMI/RFI, then they would stay away from power lines or anything with high voltage. If it was the frequency then they would stay away from anything that emanates within their sensitivity range.
    Skin color? Of interest to a certain degree since this indicates that there is variety. Someone also pointed out that it is a bad thing specially for the Pink guy. True, since it cannot camouflage itself. It also means that this particular BF is not ostracized by the others. Since it would give away their whereabouts. Denoting emotions or feelings from the group.

    On the Paranormal (Fringe) side of thinking, much has been alluded to the BF being a telepath. If this were true then the BF should be able to communicate in various languages. Why? Because due to our way of education, we are taught to think in words not in pictures. Only the people with a higher degree of intelligence think in pictures. The majority of us must say the words in our concious mind in order to communicate, once again because that is how we have been taught. It would be dificult for BF to communicate when we answer but not when it talks. Judging by the fact that they are eating, tells us that these are physical beings, it left fingerprints. And no one seems to have observed UFO activity when the BFs are near.

    The questions then arise, do we really need to harrass this group by hunting, chasing them down for pictures/film? Why are they so eager to make contact with the NC family? How often do they visit? When during the day do they visit? Have they ever noticed the humans in the house? Do they care? Has anyone tried to make further contact? If the BFs can be seen from inside the house, then why not test with the camera and turn it on and off at intervals while they feed just to see how they react? I know they are not lab rats, but the more observations the better we can understand. What this family has in their backyard is the Holy Grail of BF research, yet no one is taking advantage of it.


  72. RiverRun responds:

    The obvious may be to check the families fingerprints for a match. If the officer that retrieved the print doesnt want his name associated, that alone speaks volumes. My guess? Complete hoax.

Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|

Cryptomundo Merch On Sale Now!


Connect with Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest


DFW Nites

Creatureplica Fouke Monster Everything Bigfoot


|Top | FarBar|

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