International Cryptozoology ConferenceWholeBeastBanner

The Money Behind Moneymaker

Posted by: Loren Coleman on December 17th, 2007

People outside the study of “Bigfoot searching” create a good deal of speculation and melodrama about the feuds and in-fighting occurring in our field. What is often overlooked is how that within cryptozoology and hominology, oftentimes, the bottomline comes down to a mutual support of the overall effort to find new species.

Being a chronicler and student of the students of the pursuit, of course, I have observed how people have hunted Sasquatch for a long time. I felt it was such an important topic that I included a “Bigfooters” chapter in my Bigfoot book, and did an entire biography on Tom Slick who funded the early expeditions.

Having interviewed members of the Slick family about Tom Slick, I understand all too well how important it is for those that have money be free to give to those they please, in support of Yeti expeditions and Bigfoot search parties.

Therefore, let me be perfectly clear about how I feel about the new revelations that have come out in today’s article (see below) on millionaire Wally Hersom’s support of the BFRO.

I am absolutely delighted for Matt Moneymaker.

I am very happy to hear that someone in the tradition of Tom Slick and Tom Page is out there funding research on Bigfoot, in whatever way that individual wishes to donate his money. Those that are wealthy should be encouraged to pursue their interests, especially in the realm of cryptozoology, and in whatever direction they want to go. I am glad to hear about this detailed news.

My sincere congratulations to the BFRO for obtaining this funding.

Here’s the news item about which I am sharing the above commentary, dateline Devil Peak, El Dorado National Forest, California:

Wally Hersom is an intuitive man, with an instinct for when opportunity might knock.

It’s not knocking now.

The soft-spoken, white-maned Hersom is standing in the dark on a remote mountaintop in Northern California listening to the eerily quiet rustling of leaves.

“It’s too quiet,” he says. “It doesn’t feel right.”

Below him in the pitch-black hollows of this remote forest area, groups of men and a few women sit crouched, pointing $9,000 thermal imaging cameras at the darkness.

Every so often, one of them emits a blood-curdling shriek.

They are searching for a monster.

Hersom, 72, is the reason why. Over the past year, the part-time resident of San Juan Capistrano, Calif., (Hersom’s primary home is in Henderson, Nev.) has pumped tens of thousands of dollars into the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization, an Orange County-based group of Sasquatch-hunters.

Hersom pays the salary of Matt Moneymaker, the BFRO’s director. He has outfitted the group with 10 thermal imaging cameras, as well as video recorders and night-vision devices. Total cost: more than $100,000.

In the process, Hersom hopes to change the popular conception of Bigfoot believers from wooly-eyed weirdos to heroic hominoid hunters.

Hersom, like the more than 2 dozen people who have joined him on this expedition to the El Dorado National Forest, believes that Bigfoot is a yet-undiscovered species of immensely strong, craftily intelligent and highly elusive great ape.

“I think the timing’s right,” Hersom says. “In the next 12 months, this thing is going to break wide open.”

Hersom is the former owner of HC Power, an Irvine, Calif.-based company that manufactured power conversion equipment for cell phone towers and industrial facilities. The company flourished, Moneymaker says, in large part because Hersom foresaw the importance of gadgets like cell phones and computers and created technologies to serve them.

“He’s an engineering genius, and … he’s got this almost spooky sense of when it’s the right time to do something,” Moneymaker says.

That sense convinced Hersom to sell his company in 2000, before the dot-com bust. He reaped $110 million and decided to indulge a lifelong fascination: Bigfoot.

“My broker – when I told him what I was doing he couldn’t stop laughing,” Hersom says. “He thought I was crazy. But I think we have a unique opportunity because nobody believes us. Once [it’s] proven that Bigfoot is out there, … I think this is going to be the biggest discovery of the century.”

Hersom stumbled on Moneymaker’s BFRO Web site, one of many such sites that track and list Bigfoot sightings around the country. He went on an expedition in Wisconsin.

Nothing happened.

Hersom tried again on a second expedition. This time he says he heard howls in the night and had rocks thrown at him – typical Bigfoot behavior, according to Moneymaker.

“I heard three distinct steps near my tent,” Hersom recalls. “I thought ‘Oh, my God, here it is.'”

The experience sold him. He joined the BFRO and went on four more expeditions. He collected photographs and plaster casts of 15-inch-long Bigfoot tracks, which he displays in his stately San Juan Capistrano hilltop-home. He bought cameras and other equipment in hopes of generating photographic proof for the naysayers – and lucrative film footage for himself.

Moneymaker and Hersom speculate that Bigfoot has a nocturnal animal’s acute night vision. The key to “discovering” Bigfoot, if such a creature exists, is to mimic that ability.

“The only way we’re going to [prove] it is if we can film in the dark,” Moneymaker says. Hersom has enabled the BFRO “to bring some technology to bear that has been out of reach of Bigfoot researchers.”

On the mountain, Hersom stands silently while Moneymaker and his group of volunteers put the equipment to use. Through the camera’s glowing scope, the darkness transforms into a silvery landscape. But there is no Bigfoot to be seen.

Moneymaker tips his head and emits a piercing scream. Over the radio, the scattered group of BFRO members is instructed to do the same and to knock baseball bats against trees. The screams and knocks are meant to mimic the alleged noises of a “real” Bigfoot. The hope, Moneymaker says, is to trick the creatures into coming within filming range.

Does Hersom ever feel … er … a bit ridiculous?

“I’m just going to play it by ear,” Hersom says. “I’m going to go as long as it feels right for me.”

Hersom says he has only heard Bigfoot, but many within the group report more intimate encounters. They describe a giant apelike creature that walks on two feet and appears to have its own language (called “Samurai” for its sing-song resemblance to un-dubbed ninja warrior movies).

Bigfoot also is, some say, capable of projecting a paralyzing telepathic feeling of fear that stuns humans and animals alike. Moneymaker uses the term “infrasound” and calls the experience being “zapped.”

Why then, would anyone pursue an encounter?

Moneymaker describes the discovery of Bigfoot as a “historical prize.” But for many members of this (mostly male) group of enthusiasts, the quest is the lure.

“Part of me really like the mystery of it – the not knowing, the seeking,” says Robert Leiterman, who works as a park ranger in Humboldt County, Calif.

Leiterman is one of a half-dozen past and current Orange County residents who have joined Hersom and Moneymaker on this expedition to Northern California.

Among the group: two employees from an architectural design company, an advertising executive and the director of security for a hotel.

“I just have to know the truth,” says Kathy Lammens, 43.

Lammens is on the expedition with friend and office-mate, Brooke Sharon, 54. Like many members of the BFRO, they are captivated by their obsession and capable of laughing at it.

“I am one of these people who have an open mind,” Sharon says. “I love the idea of Bigfoot, of UFOs, of Nessie. Why not? Who’s to say it’s not true?”

Does it bother BFRO members that nothing will come of this night spent in the cold mountains of California – or the next two nights to follow?

“I’m a little bit discouraged that we didn’t hear anything,” Hersom says. “They’re not everywhere all the time.”

Good timing is Hersom’s stock in trade. But even he acknowledges that “there’s some luck involved.”

“Some people say: Bigfoot will find us, we can’t find Bigfoot,” Hersom says.“Hunters of Sasquatch undaunted by failure,”
The Baltimore Sun, December 16, 2007.

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.

57 Responses to “The Money Behind Moneymaker”

  1. olejason responds:

    I just wish they’d be a little more scientific in their research before announcing ‘findings’ and show a little humility in their theories about bigfoot. It has always irked me how they state certain theories of bigfoot behavior as cold hard fact. The idea that juvenile sasquatch move on all fours, for example.

  2. Artist responds:

    Congratulations to Matt and The BFRO for finding a kindred soul in Wally Hersom – perhaps now, with night- and thermal-vision equipment, and the right enthusiasts, in the right place, at the right time, Squatch research may be able to finally bear fruit!

    Good Luck on your 2008 Expeditions!

  3. Alligator responds:

    There is no doubt, serious scientific research and extensive well-planned expeditions in the field takes $$$. Casual weekend trips to the woods won’t cut it. Olejason above had some good comments above…but that has been a problem not just with BFRO, but with cryptid studies in general regardless of the animal being discussed. Congratulations to BFRO and here’s hoping that they will be able to take things up a couple of notches on the professional and forensic science scale.

  4. DWA responds:

    Whoo brother.

    And once again the paralyzing telepathic fear of A Slow News Day stuns – sorry, “zaps” – bigfooters into saying all kinds of funny things about a big ape.

    What is this paralyzing telepathy? This elusive-ghostliness? This “samurai” language? This “typical” rock tossing? Here’s what it is: the frustration, boiling over, of people who can’t seem to get it into their heads that a weekend in the woods ain’t gonna get anything discovered, and that nothing is discovered until documented.

    There’s lots of data on lots of behaviors and characters that seem eerily consistent, given their sheer volume, combined with the enormous spans of time and space over which they occur – unless they are coming from a consistent source, external to the observers. Or from an unprecedented web of deliberate misinformation.

    That – says this skeptic – is NOT an animal. Yet.

    But. If money doesn’t get this done, nothing will. So, here’s to money. Now the BFRO just needs to pick its Joe/Jane Goodall.

  5. DARHOP responds:

    Very Kool. Glad to see some dollars put into the field. No matter who it’s going to. I wonder though, will the BFRO reduce the price for expeditions now that they have all this equipment. $100,000 can buy quite a bit of night vision I think. I mean wasn’t that one of the main reasons for the high price of the expeditions, so they could buy this kind of gear. Well it’s been handed to them. But I doubt the expedition price will go down. What a bummer.

    Anyway, great news for the BFRO.

  6. Benjamin Radford responds:

    I hope this will quell the Bigfoot apologists who say that the reason there’s no hard evidence for Bigfoot is that no one is funding the research.

  7. Mike Smith responds:

    I think no matter what, I would still go out and work with the Texas group. All they ask is that you get out there and work.

  8. byondbyond responds:

    if i had that kind of money i would contribute too. – but i would not put all eggs in one basket. there are a lot of deserving and hard working groups out there.

  9. Sergio responds:

    Once again, Radford shows what a non-genius he is with another totally non-brilliant statement.

    Giving money to Matt Moneymaker is no different than giving money to Tom Biscardi.

    Neither are engaged in real research — they’re all about making money — that’s it.

    It’s not so-called “bigfoot apologists” who say that, Radford. It’s bigfoot realists who speak the truth — even in light of this, there is STILL NO FUNDING for real bigfoot research.

    Is this really what you’re about, just stirring things up with ridiculous assertions all the time? You really can’t be that dim.

  10. DWA responds:

    Well, Sergio, you gotta get used to this.

    I mean there are always gonna be some people who just don’t understand enough about the way the world works to know that giving a fat wad of cash, about five minutes ago, to a group whose field methods have demonstrably not worked – for reasons such as you and I have gone over and over and over on this site – isn’t exactly “funding bigfoot research.” I mean, no more than funding Evel Knievel was furthering cutting-edge investigation of the potential of manned space flight. Never mind that it looks as if that generous contribution to “research” is going totally to Moneymaker’s salary and cameras.

    This is only about the forty-eighth time Ben’s done this one. It ranks up there with “ivory-bill researchers should see Bigfoot every time out, even if they’re not seeing the damn woodpecker” and “these fooprints and that film are fake, because they’ve never been debunked.” Or this one: “Bigfoot isn’t real because of all the mistakes people make looking for it.”

    But I admit, it is hard to get used to. There could be a dimness issue.

    I could write Ben’s response. I mean, I’ve read it before, and so have you. But I won’t. I’m hoping to read something original from him someday. But hey. I’m hoping the sasquatch is documented this year, too. Let’s not get our hopes TOO too high there.

  11. gavinfundyk responds:

    I have two concerns:

    (1) “In the process, Hersom hopes to change the popular conception of Bigfoot believers from wooly-eyed weirdos to heroic hominoid hunters.”
    That is an excellent idea. However, the following comments make that difficult to accept:
    “Hersom says he has only heard Bigfoot, but many within the group report more intimate encounters. They describe a giant apelike creature that walks on two feet and appears to have its own language (called “Samurai” for its sing-song resemblance to un-dubbed ninja warrior movies).

    Bigfoot also is, some say, capable of projecting a paralyzing telepathic feeling of fear that stuns humans and animals alike.

    Trust me, that doesn’t help. It’s hard enough to get persons to not laugh when discussing cryptids. And I feel that there is a preponderance of evidence in favor of Bigfoot/Sasquatch existing. Just keep the Paranormal out of the story.

    (2) As regards the research, there is no proven way to search for Bigfoot. Trial and error is better than nothing.

    Here’s hoping they find something soon. :-)

  12. DWA responds:

    I should note, in addition, the way folks like Radford telegraph what they think about topics like this.

    See that nice phrase “Bigfoot apologists”?

    Why would one be an “apologist” for something that quite possibly exists?

    Right. One wouldn’t. One would simply want to know whether the thing existed or not.

    One would, however, use the phrase “Bigfoot apologists” to whoops! there, tell all the rest of us, without really intending to, what he thinks of the animal’s exsistence.

    Which is: IT DOESN’T.

    But it’s always nice for those who like to tell us they have been (wait for his response, watch) searching for Bigfoot for, what, decades now, to send nice little signals now and then of places NOT to route money for “Bigfoot research.”

    I’m pretty sure what he’s going to SAY when (and if) the animal is documented by science.

    I also know how he’s going to FEEL. Because he tells me so, every time he’s on here.

    He’s going to feel really, really stupid.

    If he’s smart, that is.

  13. Benjamin Radford responds:


    I agree with you about the lack of real Bigfoot research done by Biscardi and Moneymaker. My point was that there is money available for funding the research; Moneymaker found it, so could Jeff Meldrum or others.

  14. DARHOP responds:

    I’m sitting here wondering, does Ben ever have anything nice to say ? Or does he just like stirring the pot on any given subject ?
    100,000 is a few bucks. but I wouldn’t consider it alot for research. And is it truely research the BFRO is doing? Or is it just some expensive camping trips with whooping and wood knocking going on? Like I said, 100,000 grand is a few bucks. Harley Davidson spent 4 million dollars on research when they made the V-Rod. Now that is some research $. But 100,000 grand is better than 0. Hopefully the BFRO puts it to good use.

  15. DWA responds:



    About Ben, of course. But also about that 100 grand. It sounds like a lot of money. For serious field research, well, I won’t say pittance, but look what it’s paying for! Not much field in those line items, is there?

    The problem – as some of us have said repeatedly here – is that the research being done is of the sort pretty much guaranteed to come back with nothing. It MIGHT succeed; they MIGHT get lucky. For short bursts, it’s worth it for that alone. The TBRC seems to get *this close* every time they go out. (I have less confidence in the similar allegations of the BFRO. But not having been out there, I can’t say for sure.) Circumstantial evidence – one or two additional people seeing something they can’t ignore each time out – can eventually tip the balance in favor of a good scientific look, whether you get the discovery shot or not.

    They’re meeting something out there, seems to me; but it’s generally after dark for only moments at a time. Heck, it would be hard to document a raccoon to science’s satisfaction under those conditions. It doesn’t take anything smarter than a nocturnal ape to thwart any effort I’ve heard of, Patterson’s included. (He got lucky.)

    Research requires money and time. And yes, if you’re serious, much more than a week, and much more than a hundred grand.

  16. Benjamin Radford responds:

    Folks, a quick reality check: If Bigfoot are not out there, all the money in the world won’t find them.

    If they are, it doesn’t take a dime to look for them, all you need is time, a good pair of hiking boots, and a camera.

    If all of you are so certain that Bigfoot are out there, and that all it takes is money to prove it, put your money where your mouth is, write some checks, pool your resources, and give it to whoever you think has the best chance of getting good evidence. If you’re right, you’ll go down in history as heroes of cryptozoology (and zoology for that matter) who helped find Bigfoot.

  17. DARHOP responds:

    I totally agree DWA. Serious research takes more than week-end warrior camping trips. Or a week here or there whoooping it up and banging on trees in hopes of getting any real proof of the BigOnes. Unless like you say, one gets very lucky. It takes years of research sometimes to find the smallest evidence of something. I’m almost starting to think that when the BigOnes are ready to be ” discovered ” they will let us know. Hopefully that time is coming, but I’m not holding my breath. I think they really don’t like us and just want to be left alone. I think they have actually seen too much of humanity, and what man can do and want nothing to do with it. Like most animals of the forest. And I’m honestly not trying to start anything here but I am talking about hunters. I have nothing against hunters. But I think the BigOnes have seen many many animals killed by hunters, and have been fired upon themselves sometimes. And I think they are affraid of us and our fire sticks to be honest. That’s is why I’m not holding my breath on them showing themselves anytime soon. And I’m not only talking hunters. They have seen and been dealing with us hacking the forest to bits for a long time. I mean it is their home. They see us out on our atv’s ripping up the forest. Again it’s their home. I don’t think I would like us to much either!
    Oh, and I still wonder when and if Ben will ever have anything nice to say on any given subject.

  18. jerrywayne responds:


    I am a bit surprised that you seem pessimistic about the prospects of finding conclusive evidence concerning the existence of sasquatch.
    Through your many posts, you seem confident enough in sightings, which number in the hundreds, if not thousands. Since sasquatch has been stumbled upon crossing creek beds, standing in bean fields, crossing roads, walking along roadsides, strolling down hillsides, as well as shot and killed in such places as the Texas panhandle and the Minnesota woods (according to testimonies), as well as leaving prints in many, many locations easily found by folks (looking or not), and has been filmed on occasion (once by a couple of guys out in the field looking for saisquatch for only a week), why are you so pessimistic? I would think you would be beaming with confidence, believing that just any day now, or any moment really, the definitive proof will be revealed or found.

    If definitive film of some nocturnal little rat with ears like a burro, living in some far off remote waste land, is doable, then why all the pessimism concerning proof of a giant, bipedal ape that populates virtually every state in the union (according to your stated beliefs).

    Also, if YOU were given all the money you needed to prove the existence of sasquatch, how would you go about it? Where would you look first? How long would you stay in the field without results before you would change your mind about the existence of a giant, American native ape? Months? Years? Decades? A lifetime?

  19. Benjamin Radford responds:

    Jerrywayne wrote: “If YOU were given all the money you needed to prove the existence of sasquatch, how would you go about it? Where would you look first? How long would you stay in the field without results before you would change your mind about the existence of a giant, American native ape? Months? Years? Decades? A lifetime?”

    Excellent questions, I’ll be very interested to see the answers.

    Also, I’m puzzled by DARHOP’s question: “I still wonder when and if Ben will ever have anything nice to say on any given subject.” I started out by saying that there is money available for Bigfoot research, and that serious researchers like Jeff Meldrum should go after it. What’s negative or “not nice” about that? I’m encouraging serious investigation of Bigfoot; how is that negative?

  20. Lyndon responds:

    If they are, it doesn’t take a dime to look for them, all you need is time, a good pair of hiking boots, and a camera.Benjamin Radford

    Ah but time is money. Very few people can afford to give up work and spend a lot of time in the field as, for example, like Roger Patterson managed to do. Patterson and Gimlin spent the best part of a month in the Bluff Creek area, and a lot of time before that in Washington state.

    How many people do you know with the time to do that, or something similar? Most people just haven’t got the money to do that. They need to earn a living instead.

    Most people, even researchers, spend a few days here, a weekend there. Not much more than that. Sure, the odd few might get a week off work or two weeks but that’s about it for the most part.

    What is needed is a full time researcher or researchers out in the field for months on end. A wealthy backer could pay for the resources and the time needed for that type of thing.

    My idea, if there was a wealthy backer, would be to have a number of permanent hides, or semi permanent hides with a dedicated small group of researchers in each hide being self sufficient and being well stocked with supplies. The area I would choose would be the tidal estuaries and flats along the coast of British Columbia and south east Alaska. Months permanently in the field deligently glassing and observing the relatively open and clear fields of view there might well be the best chance of all. An observation boat would also of use.

    Paid full time observers would be the way to go.

  21. Ole Bub responds:

    Dear Skeptics…

    Most of the habituating folks we work with are doing precisely that…”putting their time, money, efforts and the welfare of their critters” where their mouths are…JMHO

    If you have interaction with these creatures, representing a significant investment in time, treasure and compassion…why would you subject yourself and your critters to the ridicule, threats and skepticism of wannabes and scoftics…JMHO

    As for Wally Hersom…and other financiers…most habituators don’t want the “strings” attached to funding…and what makes you think scientists are not endowed and funded…a very niave asssumption on your part…in my humble opinion.

    Myself and others have underwritten many research efforts, and frankly their results are none of your business.

    live and let live…

    ole bub and the dawgs

  22. DARHOP responds:

    Benjamin Radford responds:

    Also, I’m puzzled by DARHOP’s question: “I still wonder when and if Ben will ever have anything nice to say on any given subject.” I started out by saying that there is money available for Bigfoot research, and that serious researchers like Jeff Meldrum should go after it. What’s negative or “not nice” about that? I’m encouraging serious investigation of Bigfoot; how is that negative?

    Um, I believe you started out like this,

    Benjamin Radford responds:
    December 17th, 2007 at 9:13 pm

    I hope this will quell the Bigfoot apologists who say that the reason there’s no hard evidence for Bigfoot is that no one is funding the research.

    Sorry Ben, but to me this looks like you are trying to stir the pot again. Maybe it’s the way I read it. Maybe I’m wrong. But it doesn’t sound very positive to me.

  23. DWA responds:

    Jerrywayne: good questions.

    For answers, read Lyndon, he did good. But you can read me too.

    Your questions boil down to: why am I pessimistic?

    Um: who’s being pessimistic?

    You simply have to devote the time and the effort to get confirmation, for big apes as much as for burro-eared rats. If there’s anything I don’t trust, it’s scientists’ ability to trust what’s pretty much right in front of them, which is a pile of evidence that, in my opinion and in the opinion of others who are experts in their fields, demands followup.

    Heck, there’s much more evidence for the ape than there is for the rat. MUCH more. It’s just that, for various and sundry reasons, most of them profoundly irrational, going against every single thing they have been taught, scientists don’t TRUST the evidence for the ape the way they do the evidence for the rat. They don’t FOLLOW IT UP, because they’ve been told you are crazy, and will not get funding, and so will not eat properly, if you do. (Oh. That last reason? Proufoundly RATIONAL, and probably the basis for all the irrational ones. As the man once said: if your livelihood depends on not seeing something it will be awfully hard to make you see it.)

    I’m betting more people see a sas in a year than see any of a dozen or more species we know to exist. But scientists don’t turn that evidence into documentation. OK, some are trying to. But they aren’t being funded to do what Lyndon tells you up there needs to be done: not analyzing footprints and movies, but getting into the field in a focused effort to find and study the real animal. Weekenders won’t document most species we know about, much less one that we don’t recognize. (Note there: “see” and “document” are as different as “night” and “day.” BFRO and TBRC trips are seeing, and hearing, the animals, according to what I read. Which of course you don’t trust, right? See where my not-pessimism-just-realism is coming from?)

    Oh. How long would it take? Ask Patterson and Gimlin. They know.

    But you don’t trust that. I’m not saying as proof. Heck, I don’t even go that far. But you, and most – note I said MOST, although it’s ALL the ones who fear for their jobs otherwise – people whose opinions the public would trust in matters like this don’t even trust it as a piece of evidence. It’s just a guy in a suit to you, although all the evidence of the sort a scientist would count says otherwise, and nobody has come up with a scrap of evidence other than simple hearsay that that’s a guy in a suit. In 40 years.


    SEE what I mean? I know you do.

  24. DARHOP responds:

    Wish somebody would pay me to be a full time BigOne researcher. Trying to prove their existence, spending months on end in the bush. All equipment paid for. What more could a guy ask for? Would be better than being a paid full time skeptic. Trying to bash and discredit any an all evidence brought forth. Maybe skeptic isn’t the word I’m looking for. I myself am a skeptic sometimes. How bout debunker. Yes that is a better word. Better than being a paid full time debunker. With never having anything good to say about a person’s evidence. Always looking for the, it can’t be that, because of this reason. But I guess in the world we live in we need both. I’d rather be the paid researcher though.

  25. DARHOP responds:

    Oh, and this is pretty easy for some one that is “paid” to trounce on peoples claims to say.

    If all of you are so certain that Bigfoot are out there, and that all it takes is money to prove it, put your money where your mouth is, write some checks, pool your resources, and give it to whoever you think has the best chance of getting good evidence.

  26. Daryl Colyer responds:

    Jerrywayne wrote: “If YOU were given all the money you needed to prove the existence of sasquatch, how would you go about it? Where would you look first? How long would you stay in the field without results before you would change your mind about the existence of a giant, American native ape? Months? Years? Decades? A lifetime?”

    Well, Jerry, there is no way to know how much money is needed to prove the existence of the sasquatch; the research of other species has received copious amounts of funding (Ivory-billed Woodpecker/IBW research funding is now into the millions), and in some cases it has taken years of such funding to obtain even marginal results.

    In the case of the IBW, and with millions of dollars being channeled into it, there is still no specimen; the best they’ve been able to come up with are anecdotes of visual and aural contacts, and a couple of grainy images.

    But for the sake of argument, let me try to answer your question on the face of it.

    The TBRC is now a non-profit tax-emempt organization, and we do receive monetary contributions. In fact contributions have enabled us, for the most part, to conduct our camera trap project (which now includes over 30 digital Reconyx and Cuddeback cameras). We plan or, more accurately, hope, to have 100 camera traps deployed and operational by 2012.

    Anyway, if tomorrow we were to receive $10,000,000 from a wealthy donor, the TBRC’s Finance Committee would decide how to allocate those funds. I don’t know if $10,000,000 would be enough to get it done, but it would certainly be a shot in the arm. Being a Director, Treasurer and a member of the TBRC Finance Committee, this is how I would suggest to the Finance Committee to allocate the funds:

    I would suggest that at least 10 hardcore field researchers be put on staff full time, with at least that many on part-time staff.

    I might suggest purchasing some land in certain key areas.

    After that I would advocate that half of the funds go into MASSIVELY expanding our already existing camera trap arsenal with the latest, quickest, best cameras out there (probably Reconyx brand supplemented by some Cuddebacks);

    I would advocate the purchase and deployment of HUNDREDS of camera traps and field viewers. An ancillary fund would need to be in place to keep the camera traps operational 365/12/7/24. It would be a gigantic undertaking just to keep 500 – 600 camera traps running without dead time. I would probably advocate looking into rigging solar energy cells to keep the camera traps perpetually powered.

    I would advocate perhaps a half dozen places on the continent where the incident reports and trace evidence are most prolific and that’s where I would suggest deploying the camera trap arsenal. (Personally would look closely at sites in Washington, N. California, B. Columbia, Texas, Oklahoma/Arkansas, maybe Georgia and or/Oregon). If we had 500 – 600 cameras, that would allow for roughly 100 camera traps in each location, which is still not a drop in the bucket when contrasted with the vast amounts of remote timberland in the regions I’ve mentioned). I would further recommend that local/regional teams manage the camera traps to help with logistics.

    I would suggest obtaining a fleet (10?) of 4×4 electric golf carts; three dozen or so gen 3 goggles; a dozen or so thermal units; an arsenal of small cameras to be mounted on researchers when out in the field. I am sure there would be other expensive technical acquisitions that the committee would want, but I can’t think of them now.

    I know that the project would need at least a 10-year commitment; it’s taken that long or longer to document some other species.

    Since Craig, Gino and I and a number of TBRC investigators have seen the species, as well as physical trace evidence of its existence, to me it would make no sense to cease search operations, ever.

    It seems to me that anyone who insinuates that someone should stop researching if definitive evidence has not been gathered after a given period or perhaps years knows very little of field documentation of wildlife. Just ask the Cornell and Auburn IBW guys how long they are prepared to go; I bet the ones who saw an IBW will say until the job is done. Well that’s how I feel (no doubt as do many of my colleagues). We won’t quit until the job is done or we’re just not physically or mentally able to continue.

    If we can’t do it in our lifetimes, well, maybe it’s possible that our research will be helpful to others in the future.

  27. DARHOP responds:

    Wow. Don’t know if $10,000,000 would be enough for everything Daryl Colyer just mentioned. But it would be a hell of a good start. Wish my name was Bill Gates, because he would have that and more. Because that’s the kind of research I’m talking about. 10 year commitment at least. Something like this is easily a never ending journey.

  28. Benjamin Radford responds:

    One thing that people seem to miss in this issue is that money follows success.

    Money rarely follows failure, and (sorry to be negative, but it’s the truth) so far Bigfoot research has 100% failed to find hard evidence. Can anyone really wonder why people aren’t eager to pour money into a topic that has yielded so little results? If you have good evidence, money will follow, it always does. Focus on that.

  29. DARHOP responds:

    Money rarely follows failure, and (sorry to be negative, but it’s the truth) so far Bigfoot research has 100% failed to find hard evidence.

    One persons trash is another mans treasure. Focus on that !

  30. DWA responds:

    “money follows success.”

    We’re not missing that. Not a bit. What people who say that are missing, as I so clearly point out above, are the SUCCESSES.

    Few searches for any new species have been more successful – in generating evidence sufficient to command additional funding to secure proof – than the search for the sasquatch. In fact, I’m betting no one could give me an example. It’s so obvious that I question why even cryptos don’t seem to understand that. Ask the thousands who have seen one – many who have seen them on expeditions to find them. Ask the many more who have found evidence. (I don’t know what “hard evidence” means, unless it means proof. And whether the evidence amounts to proof is up to scientists.)

    So where’s the money?

    When I say above that there’s more evidence for the sas than there is for the long-eared jerboa, I am talking about much more of EXACTLY THE SAME KIND OF EVIDENCE. The only difference is in scientists’ willingness to trust it – and in most people’s ignorance of how much of it there is.

    Now of course I’m trusting that the biggest scam/sham operation in history hasn’t generated all that “evidence.” I simply find that possibility virtually impossible to conceive.

    Looks like an animal to me. Success! OK. NOW show me the $$.

  31. bartlojays responds:

    Great post and great ideas. I’m always pulling for you guys over there!

    Thank you for posting the two-page article, and I appreciate you doing so in such a positive manner, recognizing and highlighting the significance and potential of Wally’s contributions as it currently applies to our organization and hopefully soon, the whole “bigfoot community.” As both a good friend of Wally’s and as a spokesperson for our organization, I can’t emphasize enough how thrilled we are collectively to have this opportunity and collectively, we intend to make the most of it.

    Wally’s a wonderful, selfless guy and as far as I’m concerned, “walks on water” after being directly responsible for making my lifelong dream come true last August 18, 2007. Thanks to Wally’s equipment contributions- that night I undeniably witnessed one of these “animals” from approximately 50 yds through a hand-held thermal imaging unit for 2+ minutes near Mt Rainier, WA on an independent expedition. As frustrating as it is, we failed to record footage that night because of the unexpectedness of the encounter coupled with our own admitted unpreparedness and continuing minor engineering issues in regards to establishing more user friendly recording capabilities with these units.

    But, we live, we learn, we adjust and then we move forward, and we do so (thanks to Wally) with technological equipment possessing heat-sensing capabilities that at least in my experience-evens out the playing field for us with these animals’ shy and nocturnal tendencies. Even so, it’s not going to be easy and their still is the matter of right place right time. So when someone like Ben says 60 years of bigfoot research and no definitive evidence, I say 60 years with researchers not having access to conducive and necessary equipment. The more of us with access to this thermal technology with the ability to record translated heat images, the closer we are to having undeniable footage. After all, out of Ben’s suggested prerequisites simply needed to prove existence “time, camera and hiking boots,” only time (being there) was relevant to my encounter- because what good were the other items to me when the subject was standing comfortably away from our camp where it was pitch-black on an almost moonless night with countless acres of thick forest to the subject’s back. Only armed with a camera, I wonder if I would’ve asked nicely, the subject would’ve given me time to make sure the flash was on and throw a “Patty-pose.”

    I commend you on much of your work with claimed paranormal incidences, mass hysteria and even some purported cryptids currently unrecognized by science, probably for good reason. Not to mention your willingness to engage and discuss purported evidence claims with proponents in this field. I also agree with you 100% that as researchers and enthusiasts, it’s our burden to prove these animals exist and not the other way around.

    However Ben, no matter how insufficient or “amateurish” bigfoot research has been to this point in history and how implausible, illogical and remarkable the existence of these animals are to you personally, god as my witness and on all those I’ve loved that have passed before me, I can say your absolutely wrong on this one. And as Daryl said, many of us are in this for the duration and we won’t stop until it’s done. Why? because not only do many of us enjoy every minute of what we do, but some of us are more then just optimistic and hopeful believers (I once was). We now know the truth because many of us have been blessed with an opportunity to see one of these animals with our own eyes (and I’m not talking a split second blurry glimpse). When discovery day comes, I predict it will with a progression of evidence, I’m going to be interested to see if you were truly sincere when you told my good friend Melissa Hovey in your interview on the “Let’s Talk Bigfoot” show-“I want bigfoot to exist and I want bigfoot to be proven real.” Because although I concur with your assessment that we as bigfoot researchers can do much better (absolutely myself included) I question (due to many of your recent pertaining comments with the subject) if you were just in fact patronizing us when you made those interview statements. I’d like to think deep down your wishing us best of luck out there with this recent opportunity we’ve been given, unless of course you really enjoy your current comfortable stance & position on the subject. Hey afterall, you’ve got nothing to worry about, right? Or do you?

  32. mystery_man responds:

    It is good to see money put into the field, and hopefully this money will be put to good use, but there are some thing that does not sit well with me here. I find the way the organization makes assumptions about sasquatch behavior or photos, and then presents them as if they are fact, to be questionable and not very scientific in my opinion.

    For instance, it was stated that rock throwing is a “typical sasquatch activity”. It seems from some reports that rock throwing IS a sasquatch activity, but I am not sure what evidence there is to show that it is a “typical” one. All I ask is that maybe the BFRO be a little more scientific and say that this “seems to be” a typical behavior, rather than making definitive statements, as if this is an established animal with behaviors that have been well researched and documented as fact.

    Another seemingly casual assumption is that sasquatch are nocturnal, yet I don’t think anyone is at the point where that can be stated as a fact. Now maybe the BFRO has seen a lot of activity at night, and so have come to this conclusion, but the fact also remains that a very large number of sightings are made in broad daylight. Indeed, the best piece of footage, the PG footage, was taken during the day. I find the large amount of daytime sightings to suggest that sasquatch could be diurnal. Since nocturnal animals are notoriously hard to study and are rarely seen even at night, if sasquatch was a night time creature, I don’t think it would be sighted as much as it has been.

    I am wary of calling sasquatch nocturnal at the moment for other reasons as well. Granted, there ARE nocturnal primates. The prosimians, such as lemurs, tarsiers, aye aye, and lorisinae of the Galapagos are all either nocturnal or cathemeral (meaning that they are sporadically active over a 24 hour period.) There is one monkey, the douroucouli, (or Owl monkey) of South America that is nocturnal as well. However, I don’t believe that the Bigfoot can be reliably compared to these animals. Sasquatch seem to share more in common with larger primates (or us), and all of the great apes, including chimps, gorillas, and orangutans, are diurnal rather than nocturnal. The same could be said for us humans.

    Does this mean that sasquatch cannot be nocturnal? No, I suppose it doesn’t. I won’t assume that. It does mean, however, that I find the evidence found in related modern creatures we know to exist as pointing more towards the reasonable likelihood that sasquatch are diurnal. Of course even if it is diurnal, it would be able to be active at night if it needed to be (after all, humans do the same), so that may explain the night time activity described. Sightings show evidence of diurnal activity and what could logically be seen as the probable closest relatives of the sasquatch are all diurnal, so it seems at least plausible that the sasquatch is as well. In my opinion, to say that sasquatch are nocturnal is speculative at best and is debatable.

    And “infrasound”? Say what? A telepathic ability to “zap” an animal with fear? Does this have any basis in scientific fact or research at all? Let’s not go writing that page of future zoology books just yet, shall we?

    All of this is provided that sasquatch even exists in the first place, mind you. In the end, though, no one knows for sure if sasquatch are nocturnal, or what their other behaviors and abilities are, so I would like to see that uncertainty at least acknowledged by these BFRO researchers until there is scientific evidence to that effect. I also think that the group might want to maybe try an approach that does not involve people screaming or bashing baseball bats against trees. Maybe mixing up the approach will yield more results? Just an idea.

  33. DARHOP responds:

    Thanks to Wally’s equipment contributions- that night I undeniably witnessed one of these “animals” from approximately 50 yds through a hand-held thermal imaging unit for 2+ minutes near Mt Rainier, WA on an independent expedition.bartlojays

    I bet this happened near the Gifford Pinchot. That’s it, I’m going for at least a week this summer. Does anybody have an idea of about how much a half way good thermal imaging camera runs? Seriously. Guess I can check online somewhere.

    Tomorrow I’m going to meet a lady that had an encounter with her dad, sister and I think a friend was with them. This happened when she was 17. I think she is about 30 now. I think it was in Mason county. I’ll find out about this tomorrow when I meet her. From what I understand, this thing wasn’t happy about the meeting. She said it let out the loudest ear piercing scream she had ever heard. And she said it chased them? I personally think if it was chasing them it would of caught them had it wanted to. I think it more likely paralleled them in the bush while they were running. Anyway, I’m kind of excited to meet this lady. She will be number 5, of people I know that have had some kind of encounter with the Biguns.

  34. Benjamin Radford responds:

    Hey bartlojays

    Thanks for the comments. Of course I was and am sincere that I want there to be a Bigfoot, and I want it to be found! Why wouldn’t I? If I was certain these creatures weren’t out there, I wouldn’t waste my time on it. I have spent months and years of my life looking for lake monsters, chupacabra, Bigfoot, and other cryptids. Why would I bother if I was certain they did not exist? Do you really think I have nothing better to do?

    Why wouldn’t I want there to be a Bigfoot? As I have stated before, I have no axe to grind in the matter. The discovery of a Bigfoot would be a wonderful thing, and it doesn’t threaten my worldview in the least. I can’t imagine any legitimate reason someone would NOT want there to be a Bigfoot, or to not want it found. I do not have a problem with Bigfoot, I have a problem with bad logic and poor evidence being passed off as valid in the search for Bigfoot.

    When I criticize poor research, when I point out logical and factual errors, my purpose is to help sincere researchers find Bigfoot. But the first step toward doing that is bringing science to it, clearly separating fact from fiction, truth from speculation.

    I don’t like posting here and getting criticized and attacked for trying to help out. I don’t like having to take the role of the nasty, negative skeptic in the punchbowl of Bigfoot fun. But for Bigfoot research to make any gains, it needs to straighten out its own house, and needs more skeptical voices. Bigfoot research has generally ignored the skeptics, in my opinion largely to its detriment.

  35. DARHOP responds:

    Well I guess I can forget a thermal imaging camera. I just looked online and a cheap one was over 5 grand. I’m still going out next summer though, fancy camera or not. Never know maybe I’ll get lucky. bartlojays, do you live here in Washington? Cuz if you do, and you ever need any help investigating the Big Ones, I’d be happy to lend a hand. Do what ever I can to help out. Just in hopes of maybe getting a chance to actually see one of the Biguns. Bet your heart was just a pounding that night on Rainer when you saw what you saw.

  36. bartlojays responds:


    Let’s just say if you were flying over northern Gifford Pinchot at 35,000 feet and jumped out- some strong prevailing winds in the right direction might get you close. I also live in central CA and do most of my research in northern CA unfortunately.

    If your interested, my encounter is well-documented online due to the rarity and sophistication of heat-sensing units currently in this type of research and witness encounters with them. In a nutshell, the subject I witnessed stayed within a 15 yard window for likely more than two minutes in which I clearly watched it drop to all fours twice and transitioned itself with impressive agileness into several positions repeatedly on the ground in what looked like various unsuccessful attempts to conceal itself. The last 30 seconds of the encounter was of the subject “frozen” with its back to me in an exit position, left leg slightly forward in which the whole animal’s profile (from calves to top of head) was clearly discernible. I’m rather convinced that the subject I witnessed that night is not a hominid in the true sense of the word but likely a bipedal ape of some sort due to its behavioral and physical abilities (extreme agileness and visual evidence of acute hearing sense) and physical characteristics (never saw subject’s feet)- primarily bipedal with hour-glass type body with estimated 70% of its body weight in the upper extremities, absent neck, smallish-head with no discernible sagittal crest, massive shoulders, clavicles, traps and lats to upper back, arms which appeared exaggerated in length in comparison to legs with thinner mid-section and waist. Compared to 6’3 170 lb fully “clothed” fellow researcher standing in the same “window” from my position at 50 yds, I estimated the subject I witnessed at close to 7ft, 450 lbs and fully “naked.” I should also mention that my heart wasn’t so much pounding that night, I believe that would’ve been different had I witnessed the subject in daylight or through full-moon silhouette. Seeing one through one of these units can only be described as surreal (because the subject is white on black essentially) and my feeling was more stunned and of complete disbelief but with a psychological comfort in easily distinguishing a safe perceptual distance from the subject and knowing I had several companions very close.


    You bring up some valid points that I’d like to clarify. Although a primary active period is speculative at this point, I concede they may in fact be predominantly diurnal as you’ve suggested and not inheritantly nocturnal. However, based on my personal definite experience and a few other intriguing but not clearly defined encounters, all took place during nocturnal hours. Regardless, thermal-imaging units work day or night with variable efficiency based on present heat radiation of objects in view. Either way, I contend that thermal footage is much more valuable with its “what you see is what you get” quality compared to any daylight footage that’s not within a few feet of the subject.

    As for the unfortunate “telekinetic zapping or energy” comment mentioned in the article. I should mention that Matt Moneymaker did not make that exact comment that looks like an actual quote. I know, because I was there when the conversation took place. Someone from the group interrupted a conversation between Gwen (the reporter) and Matt, suggesting Matt tell her about “infrasound.” Matt reluctantly did so, without ever have experiencing it himself but in the context of fear reactions reported by many witnesses which coincided with their encounters. The term “telekinetic” is defined as a occult/paranormal power or ability not scientifically-proven, where infrasound is a scientifically-documented low-frequency sound ability of some larger predators to stun prey or disable aggressors. Unfortunately, Gwen (reporter) likely in the context of an honest mistake in believing the two words were synonymous, more so then for sensationalistic purposes, used the term “telekinetic” in the article. Regardless, whether many witnesses experience an understandable internal fear reaction or these animals do possess infrasonic capability, its a moot point in my opinion and won’t be of much relevance- scientifically speaking until even after maybe the species is proven (with a specimen). It’s just unfortunate that it was mentioned at all in this column because of the false paranormal perception it radiates to the casual reader of the article.


    It’s great to know that your in fact hoping we’re proven right. Proof of these animals certainly won’t erase your resume or any of your previous accomplishments as a necessary “checks and balances” when it comes to speculative or extraordinary claims. Although I absolutely now know they are as real as you or me, personally I too am disappointed and unconvinced with a majority of the current pile of accumulated evidence. However, I will say this, if my experience as a researcher/enthusiast for 28 years and seeing one of these animals has taught me anything, it’s that blind believers unnecessarily overestimate the ability of these animals to attempt to justify their existence, while blind skeptics consistently underestimate obvious and reasonable abilities you’d expect in a species such as this to justify their arguments. Looking back in hindsight one day, I’m confident what I just said will ring true.

  37. Ole Bub responds:


    Look for thermal imagers and cameras on Ebay, especially those used by Fire Departments in search and rescue, you can find excellent used units for $1,500 or less.

    Less than the cost of a few Eco-tours, such a small price to pay for the thrill of a lifetime, huh.

    live and let live…

    ole bub and the dawgs

  38. DARHOP responds:

    Thanks for the info Ole Bub. I didn’t even think about ebay. $1500 or less is more my speed. I can afford something at that price. Thanks again.

  39. DWA responds:


    Interesting stuff. And OK, I’m envious.

    And couldn’t agree more with what you have said about the way proponents and skeptics view the animal. Many proponents don’t think through why “there is so little evidence” (untrue), and find themselves coming up with outlandish presumptions to explain what they presume to be true (and isn’t). The evidence I’ve seen points to an animal, with abilities and powers well within those we’ve seen from other animals. Being a bipedal ape in the temperate zone, it’s no gorilla; evolution sure would not have favored that. But one would expect an ape in the temperate zone to look and behave in the way sas reports suggest.

    And I’m disappointed in the pile of evidence too. It really should have spurred more interest and effort than it has. One possible reason it hasn’t? The bad things that happen when overenthusiastic cryptid proponents overestimate the capabilities of journalists.


    Many North American mammals show marked ability to function both in the daytime and at night. The sas could be assumed from reports to be no different. There do seem to be way too many daylight encounters to lead to a presumption that we have a nocturnal specialist here. As to a greater nocturnal proclivity than for the other great apes, this seems something it would make sense for selection to favor in a temperate-zone ape, which among other things, it seems to me, would need a wider window of time to fill its nutritional requirements.

    As to the BFRO: they have provided much – including a formidable base of encounter data – to the search for the sasquatch. And some things they do can make you scream. You could give money to a much less deserving group. But I think, let us just say their field protocols and practices need to shift. The TBRC seems to provide a good model, although I think that “active” techniques such as call-blasting and combing an area with large parties need to increasingly take a back seat to single-and-pair research teams, resupplied for a long stay and rotated regularly. And, as Daryl seems to see, lots and lots of game cameras.

    But what are “lorisinae of the Galapagos”? There are prosimians there? Do tell!

  40. Sergio responds:

    Benjamin Radford wrote:

    “I don’t like posting here and getting criticized and attacked…I don’t like having to take the role of the nasty, negative skeptic…”

    You’re attacked precisely because you are really NOT a skeptic in the true sense of the word; you’re a cynic.

    When I look at the definitions of the words skeptic and cynic, I find that the definition of cynic is far more accurate in describing the Benjamin Radford who posts here and elsewhere, and also stars as a talking head on some TV programs.

    From The Free Online Dictionary by Farlex:

    skep•tic also scep•tic (sk p t k)
    One who instinctively or habitually doubts, questions, or disagrees with assertions or generally accepted conclusions.

    cyn•ic (s n k)
    A person whose outlook is scornfully and often habitually negative.

    In 1596 we find the first instance of cynic meaning “faultfinder,” a sense that was to develop into our modern sense. The meaning “faultfinder” came naturally from the behavior of countless Cynics who in their pursuit of virtue pointed out the flaws in others.

    This describes you, Benjamin Radford, perfectly; skeptic, truly defined, misses the mark. You even admitted that you are nasty and negative. Why? Because you exemplify cynicism, NOT skepticism, which is really more about questioning and doubting, NOT scorn, castigation, arrogance and/or patronization.

    You see, Radford, there is a fine line between the two, and you are clearly on the side of the line that is cynicism.

  41. DARHOP responds:

    bartlojays responds:
    December 20th, 2007 at 3:24 pm

    Let’s just say if you were flying over northern Gifford Pinchot at 35,000 feet and jumped out- some strong prevailing winds in the right direction might get you close.

    Darn it, now you gotta go and throw a mathematical quiz at me. I’m no scholar. I always hated them, if 2 trains were traveling at the speed of ?’s

    How’s this, do you think the Gifford Pinchot would be a good place for an enthusiast such as myself, to look for evidence and maybe with luck see a Bigun? What about Mason County Wa. Do you know of any areas in Mason county that might be a good place? Like Hamma Hamma in the Olympic Nat. Forest. Or the Hoh Rain Forest? Do you think they might be good places? I’m just trying to find good spots to go when I go. I don’t want to be wasting my time in the wrong areas. I personally think, that here in Washington there are many, many good places.

  42. bartlojays responds:


    Sorry to throw you a terrible riddle but out of respect for my friends in WABFR (this is one of their primary research areas and I was a guest) I can’t be more specific other than it took place on the eastside of Mt. Rainier within the Wenatchee National Forest. Interestingly enough, I received a message from Bob Gimlin about a month and a half ago that he saw 6-7 hunters butchering and skinning elk in the exact spot we were camped in last August when I had my sighting. Might be why our presence there (in what normally is a fairly desolate area) finally was acknowledged by one of these animals after 3 nights of socializing and only hearing barred owls.

    And Darhop, I’m certainly not complaining about northern CA, but if I had to pick one state to freely research in, time permitting, it’s WA state. You’ve got many options there with the Cascades, the Olympics, the Blues and the Grays Harbor area off the top of my head.

  43. Benjamin Radford responds:


    I’m sorry you feel that way. I think if you actually read my articles, books, and postings, you will find that there is very little “scorn, castigation, contempt, or arrogance.”

    In fact, I almost always stick to the facts. I do not ridicule or scorn anyone; I value civility and respect in discourse, and I go out of my way not to engage in personal attacks and scorn.

    When I referred to being “negative and nasty,” I was referring to how I am sometimes accused of being, by you and others. Not how I am.

    I’d be very curious if, out of the dozens and hundreds of articles and posts I’ve written, you could find more than a few that could fairly be characterized as scornful or contemptuous. Can you even find one or two? Where are all the examples of my scorn and contempt?

  44. DARHOP responds:

    bartlojays, I totally understand about not giving specifics. I wasn’t really trying to get the exact location. But the east side of Rainer narrows it down. And I always thought about the Wenatchee Forest too. Thanks for the info you have given me. It gives me a pretty good idea where to start anyway. I am going to try and spend a lot of time in the bush this summer. More than the little woman is going to like I think.

    Thanks again bartlojays.

  45. mystery_man responds:

    DWA- Sorry to disappoint you, but there aren’t any prosimians in the Galapagos. That part of my post was the result of poor editing, sleepiness, and a typo. I meant to explain how the Lorisidae, (I also typoed the “d” in there) or lorids, evolved uniquely like the animals of the Galapagos. Somehow while editing my post, I cut out some pieces of this explanation and forgot to re-write them, and somehow came out with Lorisidae of the Galapagos in the end. That was an editing mistake based in part on carelessness and partly on being really tired at the time. I’m actually glad you pointed it out, because I didn’t catch it until I read your post! I was , like, “prosimians in the Galapagos?! Since when?! Oh, yeah, I wrote that.” Sorry for the misunderstanding. It would be cool if they were there, though.

    As to North American animals, yes many animals are capable of being active at different times of the day but this does not change the fact that they still fall into a general activity cycle. A lot of factors have contributed to this and activity cycles are an intrinsic part of an animal’s lifestyle as well as their survival. Some of the common cycles are diurnal, nocturnal, crepuscular (active at dawn or dusk), and there are the cathemeral animals I mentioned (animals that are sporadically active over a 24 hour period). Regardless of whether animals are able to be active at different times when needed, their behavior is going to mostly revolve around whatever particular cycle their species follows and these periods will see the most activity. There is a lot of evolution behind this and even those North American animals you mention have to follow the biological rules. Anyway, you said basically what I said earlier, that even a diurnal animal is able to be active at night if it needs to be and could generate reports.

    I have no problems at all with the idea that sasquatch could have developed nocturnal habits, I’m just saying that the animals we know of that best compare to it and to us, are all diurnal and so I am hesitant to start calling the sasquatch nocturnal. The way I see it, a fully nocturnal animal would not generate the amount of daylight sightings we see, whereas a diurnal animal that is sometimes active at night could cause a lot of the night time sasquatch activity we hear about. I agree though that due to the temperate habitat of sasquatch, some adaptations could occur concerning its activity cycle.

  46. mystery_man responds:

    DWA- Anyway, in the end I suppose if you can see deer or bears at night and during the day it of course stands to reason that sasquatch wouldn’t be any different. The main point of my post was to express my disagreement with labeling sasquatch as a nocturnal animal based on the information we have.

    Bartlojays- Thank you for taking the time to clarify those things for me. I appreciate it.

  47. mystery_man responds:

    DWA- My last post was not exactly accurate, I’d like to rephrase. I actually shouldn’t say it stands to reason that sasquatch wouldn’t be any different, since after all sasquatch are most likely related to other large primates, not deer and bear or other North American animals. And primates are diurnal. We cannot assume what the sasquatch would do based on unrelated animals that happen to share its habitat. Diurnal animals, nocturnal animals, all share the same ecosystem in any given habitat, and assumptions should not be made one one based on the habits of another. More accurate would be to say that sasquatch might have developed similar habits and that even if it is diurnal, could have developed nocturnal habits and therefore might be seen at night as well as during the day. The reports seem to point in this direction, but we should not conclude anything based on the behaviors of other North American animals. Like I said before, even those other animals have activity cycles and have times of the day (or night) where they are comparatively most active.

    Sorry to go on like this. I just don’t like jumping to conclusions or making assumptions as if they are fact when the available evidence doesn’t neccesarily point that way.

  48. mystery_man responds:

    Bartlojays- Thank you for not only clearing up your thoughts on nocturnal sasquatch, but also for explaining how the “infrasound” quote came about. Interesting thoughts on the benefits of thermal imaging. Thanks again for taking the time to respond to me.

  49. Sergio responds:

    I didn’t have to look very hard.

    Scorn, derision, arrogance:

    “I hope this will quell the Bigfoot apologists who say that the reason there’s no hard evidence for Bigfoot is that no one is funding the research.”


    “…there is money available for Bigfoot research…”

    “Can anyone really wonder why people aren’t eager to pour money into a topic that has yielded so little results?”

    Which is it? There’s money available, or since bigfoot research is such an abject failure, there is no money?

    cas·ti·gate (kst-gt)
    tr.v. cas·ti·gat·ed, cas·ti·gat·ing, cas·ti·gates
    To severely criticize.

    There is such a thing as positive, constructive criticism. Such criticism helps because it is done not from a position of superiority or condescension, but from a position of truly wanting to make a positive contribution. It is not done out of a desire to inflate one’s own ego or self-importance.

    Someone who can find nothing positive to say, at all, squarely fits into the category of cynic, by definition.

    Your rants are, and have been, replete with examples of scorn, criticism and derision. I merely had to look on this same thread to find an example of it.

  50. DWA responds:

    mystery_man: far be it from me to jump to conclusions, about anything. I mean, I’m a skeptic. :-)

    Evolutionary drivers include where and under what circumstances, and what specific random mutations occurred and got selected for, as well as the species to which an animal is related. There are temperate zone nonhuman primates; there are, as you pointed out, a few active at night; and, well, there’s one that inhabits the Poles (well, one of them anyway, and visits both) and shoots rockets into space.

    I would consider it reasonable that evolution to exploit the food niches available in the temperate zone could involve the development of bipedality, with attendant speed and agility on the ground; omnivory with a significant carnivorous component; and the adoption of a more nocturnal lifestyle, with attendant physical traits, including possibly night-specialized eyesight. After all, the animals I listed with day and night habits in North America aren’t all closely related to each other. A significant factor in how they evolved was the characters that got selected for their benefits in the habitat the animals shared.

    Don’t know what the sas is. But a bipedal ape with night vision isn’t far fetched to me. There sure is a weirder bipedal ape running around (spinning blogs and creating the internet) than that, eh? And that one makes night vision you can wear. 😀

  51. mystery_man responds:

    DWA- I didn’t mean that YOU jumped to conclusions, I was talking about the statement made in the article about sasquatch being nocturnal, which seemed to me to be be made as if it were fact, which it isn’t. At least not at the moment it isn’t.

    As far as the evolutionary role of these activity cycles, it’s not really the habitat that the animals share that determines whether they are nocturnal or diurnal, I mean after all a wide variety of species both nocturnal and diurnal can share the same habitat and yet they have evolved differently. A whole range of different habitat types have diurnal and nocturnal animals living there, so it is not the habitat itself that determines it as this is almost universal. I would say a more significant factor would be what is best suited to the niche the animal fills within that habitat, as well as which is more conducive to gathering or exploiting new resources needed to survive, and avoiding predation. I won’t go too much more into it here because I get the feeling I am getting off topic, but diurnal and nocturnal lifestyles both have their advantages and disadvantages. The selective pressures of the animal’s role within the habitat is going to determine what sort of activity cycle best suits its survival and which disadvantages are acceptable in light of the benefits. It doesn’t matter what the habitat is, rain forest, temperate zone, arctic circle, whatever activity cycle a particular animal needs to survive best in its niche, or biological role, is the one it is going to adopt. The niches that the great apes, and indeed almost all monkeys, fill seems to favor a diurnal lifestyle. How this relates to the sasquatch is entirely debatable, but I am certainly not out of line in thinking it could be diurnal as there is biological evidence and sightings evidence to support that.

    In the end, you are right that we don’t even really know what the sasquatch is exactly, or what its role within its habitat is to any great degree. We do not know its nutritional requirements, movement patterns, or reproductive habits. Really we actually don’t know a whole lot other than what we can speculate on from sightings reports and circumstantial evidence. This being the case, it is hard to make any solid comparisons to other known animals and I will admit that even though we don’t know of any now, an ape could develop a nocturnal lifestyle if it was evolutionary advantageous. I just don’t feel the evidence necessarily supports a predominantly nocturnal sasquatch at this time or even one that has evolved in any considerable way to have nocturnal adaptations such as keen night vision. Please notice that at no time have I stated that sasquatch can not be nocturnal or that the idea is totally far fetched or impossible. I am just presenting the case that it might not be nocturnal.

  52. Benjamin Radford responds:

    Sergio sez:

    “I hope this will quell the Bigfoot apologists who say that the reason there’s no hard evidence for Bigfoot is that no one is funding the research.”

    Are you serious? You consider this to be full of scorn and derision? Wow. Someone would have to be incredibly thin-skinned to consider the above any kind of scorn; it’s simply making a point, and does not ridicule or attack anyone. I guess if you want to make up your own definitions of scorn and ridicule, you can interpret pretty much anything that way.

    By the way, there’s no contradiction in what I wrote: I never said there was no money, in fact I said the opposite. All I said was that people are not eager to pour money into Bigfoot research. This is true; there is no contradiction.

  53. mystery_man responds:

    Benjamin Radford- If it is any consolation at all, I don’t think you are particularly scornful or derisive and I really don’t know why you get some of the responses here that you do. You tell it like you see it, and you bring up things that some people would rather not think about, but I don’t think that warrants some of the animosity that seems to get directed at you whenever you post. The posts directed at you are far more castigating and scornful than anything you say. I don’t always agree with you, but you have as much right as anyone else here to put forward your opinions and share your findings. Personally, I welcome your input into these debates and think you have a lot to bring to the table.

  54. Loren Coleman responds:

    I understand how much fun it is for everyone to go off-topic, but this blog entry was NOT about Ben Radford, pro or con. There’s another blog about that. You can find it here:

    Staying on-topic about Bigfooters, millionaires, the BFRO, money, and Bigfoot within this comment section would be appreciated.

    There is no reason these comments should become a love or hate fest for Radford, thank you.

  55. mystery_man responds:

    I really must say that I like Hersom’s quote at the end of this piece. “Bigfoot will find us, we can’t find Bigfoot.” To me, there’s something somehow very poetic and inexplicably sad about that comment, an idea put into words that Bigfoot is beyond our abilities to find it, like an ephemeral, tenuous dream creature roaming through a shadow forest beyond our grasp. The idea that it is seen only when it wants to be seen, that any evidence found is somehow evidence it didn’t mind us having (or wanted us to find), and that if it finally ever gets verified by science it will somehow be on Bigfoot’s terms. I don’t know how accurate these things are, (probably not very) so call this the romantic in me talking, but it is a sentiment that just stirs up a feeling of wonder and mystery for me. Maybe I am reading far more into the quote than was intended, but I like it.

  56. DWA responds:

    mystery_man: yep, you’re reading far more into that quote than you shoud. 😀

    “We can’t find Bigfoot” sounds, well, wrong. I mean, that is, if any of that evidence out there is evidence of what proponents think it is. We’ve already found the big dude, many times over, and we keep finding him.

    Again, it’s just the mainstream of science not trusting the evidence that’s turning up enough to follow it up. I think that, if the big guy actually exists, and mainstream scientists go Ivorybill on him, we’ll “find” him all right. Or rather: we’ll see the mainstream finally confirming something that has been very much there all along.

    IF HE EXISTS. gotta toss that in. (Speaking of not trusting evidence LOL.)

  57. mystery_man responds:

    DWA- Yeah, of course if Bigfoot is out there, it can be found. I was just putting aside my scientific side for a moment and embracing the mystery of that quote (or at least the mystery I perceived). If sasquatch is out there (and isn’t an interdimensional orb projector :) ), it is another animal like any other and it is capable of being found and studied in its natural habitat. The thing is, doing these things takes money and a whole lot of time, both of which seem to be in short supply for research groups on the subject.

    I would really like to see a well equipped, well funded, scientifically trained group get put down in an area with a lot of reported activity and have as much time as they needed. Let them have free reign to bring to bear their expertise and resources onto the phenomena, to really focus on it in a long term project. I’m not talking about one expedition, or a weekend excursion where everyone has to go back to work on Monday, but rather an ongoing legitimate scientific study. I would be very interested to know what such a project turned up. Wonder how likely we are to see something like this any time soon?

    For now, the fact that there seem to be wealthy men out there willing to contribute funding into the search is encouraging but I think unfortunately far from enough.

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.