Will Finding Bigfoot Have A Negative Impact On Sasquatch Research?

Posted by: Loren Coleman on January 13th, 2012

Will the Animal Planet program Finding Bigfoot have a negative impact on Sasquatch field studies and research?

One researcher certainly feels so.

William Dranginis of Manassas, Virginia, and director of Virginia Bigfoot Research, gives his permission to share his sense of the influence of the program on today’s research and discovery of Bigfoot:

First of all the BFRO (Finding Bigfoot) is NOT a scientific group or does it practice Scientific Methodology in any of their investigations, that I know of anyway. When I was a BFRO Curator back in 1999/2000, no scientific methodologies were used. The Finding Bigfoot Show is no different than the Ghost Hunters show on the Sci-Fi channel. How do I know that, I was contacted by the producers of the Finding Bigfoot show when the show was
in its infancy. I was told by them it would be just like the Ghost Hunters show except they will be looking for the Bigfoot creatures. I didn’t want any part of it so I declined.

Before the Finding Bigfoot show aired, I seldom received Bigfoot Sighting Reports that included sounds like calls and tree knocks. The sighting reports I received were of the actual creature or creatures and possible tracks. When I traveled to the sighting location and interviewed the eyewitness, it was rare that any type of calls or tree knocks were mentioned. The sightings I received were randomly scattered throughout remote areas.

Since the Finding Bigfoot show aired, a majority of the reports that come into my website are from people in urban areas usually in housing subdivisions. Those reports have included tree knocks, calls or rock clacking sounds. Not a single creature sighting.

When I contact the person that files the report, they expect a TEAM to come out and set up equipment at their property to monitor the activity 24/7. And since their children are into Bigfoot because of the television show, they need to be part of the team! About three months ago I received two separate reports from the same subdivision in a nearby town, both families lived in homes that back to the same patch of woods, both had young children, both watched Finding Bigfoot, both would go out to their back woods and broadcast Bigfoot calls they found on the internet and also do tree knocks and rock clacking.

What one family was hearing and reporting were the sounds generated by the other family down the street. Then without knowing, they would reverse rolls, ultimately both families contacted me through my website to report Bigfoot lives in their back yard! Once I discovered what was going on I told them to stop the calls and tree knocks, since then, the
Bigfoot seemed to have disappeared from the subdivision.

With that said, it’s my opinion that the Finding Bigfoot show has actually polluted the once tranquil environment of the forests, now those same woods are filled with children and people hoping to lure Bigfoot in with their calls and tree knocking. The members of the Finding Bigfoot show are now teaching the children watching the show that everything they
hear, smell or see is a Bigfoot!!! There is absolutely no science being practiced by the Finding Bigfoot team, just deception of the children’’s young minds that watch it.

Also, how many children and adults will be victims of tick bites that will result in Lyme disease or get bitten by poisonous snakes as they venture into the woods looking to Find Bigfoot? Maybe the Finding Bigfoot producers should think of putting in some disclaimers on the show just like the Myth Busters television show does. Better yet, TEACH the children
about the hazards of being in the woods while Finding Bigfoot. Teach them about ticks and Lyme disease and how you can get it, TEACH them about poisonous snakes and how to identify them and what to do if bitten by them.

It’s my opinion that the hands of the Finding Bigfoot Clock have been pushed back and are actually reversing direction with the Finding Bigfoot show.

BTW, my Finding Bigfoot Clock” (trademark) is based on the famous Doomsday Clock face started in 1947 by the board of directors of the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists at the University of Chicago. The closer the clock is to midnight, the closer the world is to global disaster!

The “Finding Bigfoot Clock” (trademark) time has been going backwards since the Georgia Boys fiasco and Animals Planet’s Finding Bigfoot came out.


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.

34 Responses to “Will Finding Bigfoot Have A Negative Impact On Sasquatch Research?”

  1. Jason Moore via Facebook responds:

    Of course it will.
    Everybody and their dog is going to become a “researcher” and the woods are going to be flooded with “researchers” disrupting the balance that they are accustom to.
    Bigfoot being in the limelight is going to be detrimental to them as a whole.
    This is of course just my opinion and really means nothing.

  2. LobsterBoy responds:

    Ouch! Boy the truth sure does hurt sometimes!

  3. Joe Rowell via Facebook responds:

    Do you really have to ask? Clowns like the Finding Bigfoot crew are why so few qualified scientists want to be involved in the hunt.

  4. Sasquatch Up Close responds:

    I stopped reading as soon as I saw that Mr. Dranginis couldn’t even successfully construct his first sentence:

    “First of all the BFRO is NOT a scientific group or does it practice Scientific Methodology in any of their investigations…”

    “Or”? Eighth-grade English, anyone?

  5. bigfoots responds:

    the thing is the show is not stopping competent people from doing their own scientific investigations… I have not once had any issues with “the forests being polluted by enthusiasts out doing calls or knocks” when i was out on excursions…
    I’m sure that there are a lot more questionable reports coming in as a side effect but they are easy to weed out for the most part.
    I do wish the show was more scientific and im sure matt sold his soul a little bit to do things the way the producers want it but I’m not nearly as bitter about it as this guy…
    my advice to him would just be to keep doing what hes doing and not to worry about everyone else or the show…

  6. flame821 responds:

    I have to agree with Mr. Draginis. All the ‘it’s a Squatch’ and ‘we know Sasquatch do this’ have really done a disservice to the field. Stating opinions as if they were scientific fact is harmful to the community.

    As for the dangers in the woods, Mr. Draginis is correct but my big fear is someone will be out looking for Bigfoot during hunting season. Most researchers know enough to find out when and where hunters are, some kid trying to copy a TV show probably wouldn’t even think about it. Imagine some kid making growls and howls in the twilight hours during hunting season. I know that as a hunter you are not to take a shot if you cannot positively identify the animal and even then only if there is something behind it to catch the bullet should you miss, but how many people actually stick to those rules?

  7. fuzzy responds:

    Jeez, talk about a tempest in a teapot!!

  8. zpf responds:

    Ha–that story about the two families doing identical things is hilarious!

  9. Walter responds:

    I dislike “grammer Nazis” more than closed minded skeptics.

  10. flame821 responds:

    @ Walter
    LOL especially when it could simply have been a typo. If it were a there, their, they’re mistake I could possibly understand the irritation.

    @ Bigfoots
    While I agree this show is not stopping dedicated researchers from going out and doing their thing I have to wonder two things.
    1] Can they be sure knocking and howlings are not coming from other humans (although I have to wonder how widespread knocking and call blasting is among actual researchers)
    2] The show comes across as such a mockery that many people who ‘might’ have considered looking for Bigfoot now view this along the lines of snipe hunting or a fratboy’s Scooby Doo and won’t bother looking any further to see how actual is done. They will simply walk away from the whole mess and we lose more people (as if time constraints and the economy haven’t done a good enough job of that)

    The fact that people watching the show seem to think nothing of ‘hearing’ a Bigfoot in an urban housing project is just too much. Glad they both contacted the same fellow though, he must have laughed himself silly over it.

  11. Autumnforest responds:

    I definitely get his POV. As a ghost hunter, the show really ruined the research by teaching people bad techniques. Teams cropped up everywhere and acted like fools and historic sites no longer wanted hunters there. They scared people with hocus pocus and magic and proclaimed everything haunted. That being said, it also managed to show people that there is a way to debunk and explain a lot of phenomena and not everything is haunted. They also showed new equipment and attitudes about the field that differed from the turn of the century spiritualists. I think any time you raise the public in a discussion of Bigfoot and have them opening their minds to the possibilities and teaching them how very elusive it is, that’s a good thing. On the other hand, BF teams are grouping everywhere, going onto private property and carrying guns. That’s the scary part. I admittedly love the show but its more about their enthusiasm and the mystery of the world of woods than about education. I don’t expect it to be real research, it’s entertainment. Kind of like I don’t expect the Kardashians to be real human beings. They are purely comedy.

  12. Sasquatch Up Close responds:

    So Walter, you don’t value even rudimentary communication skills?

  13. jlehane3 responds:

    I applaud the BF researchers and enthusiasts for breaking down the wall of mystery and ignorance of the complacent people who don’t even care about Bigfoot going off all negative as knee jerk nags. I have included a link for evidence of Life on Mars, people, animals, statues, high tech, fossils, civilization. I designed the Mars rovers 1987. Google my name Jerry Lehane + Mars or directly google images “Mars Wolfman” to see a Spirit rover image of a wolfman face looking directly at camera. He’s the closest thing I’ve found on Mars to Earth Bigfoot.

  14. DWA responds:

    One thing about the BFRO that deserves respect is their database of reports.

    It’s unlikely in the extreme that they’re making all that stuff up, which means that those are people’s experiences, lots of them. They give good ideas for a number of places where serious searching might start. Unless someone can get out there and debunk every one of them – or at least enough to throw the rest into question – they stand as testable evidence that there’s something out there that needs a look by science.

    As to tree knocking: there is substantial evidence that it might be an aspect of sasquatch behavior. The obvious caveats – including the above by Dranginis, humorous to say the least – notwithstanding, we don’t necessarily want to throw that baby out with the dirty bath water.

  15. Va-Bigfoot responds:

    Sasquatch up close…

    It was a typo, should be “nor”, not “or”.

    Thank you!

  16. gridbug responds:

    I actually, literally laughed out loud when I saw the title of this post. Obvious much?


  17. CryptoRaven responds:

    I don’t watch ‘Finding Bigfoot’. In fact I don’t watch much at all,save for what I rent from the movie store,watch occasionally online(limited data package here in the boonies) or check out from our local library, but I have heard bits and pieces of what the show is about and how people react to it.
    I usually try not to form too many opinions about anyone’s research methods. After all, everything we do is in theory right now because we have no official fact sheet to go by. But I do agree that we should be respectful and wary of the fact that others are watching and learning from us. It’s in part how we learned too. Our research should show us being cautious and respectful of the land as well as its inhabitants, no matter who they are.
    Humor is fine. I have a great sense of humor and so does my daughter/teammate.
    And if what I do wasn’t ever fun, I wouldn’t want to do it.
    But again, we should remember,young people and new enthusiasts may be impressionable and looking to these shows as guidelines. But at the end of the day, hopefully they remember……TV is TV. Its got to have “entertainment value” or it may hit the cutting room floor before it even had a chance.
    I will reiterate that I’m not condoning or condemning ‘Finding Bigfoot’. I have no room to have an opinion. I’ve not seen it myself. But I just think everyone should take ANY information with a grain of salt and think it through before giving it a try themselves, especially where children are involved.

    As for wood knocking, I use it in my research. Notice he said “seldom” received reports of wood knocks, not NEVER.
    This is a valuable research tool in my opinion, especially since we know that some primates do use sticks and branches as tools.
    We are testing and experimenting and taking notes.
    Everything is wide open until it’s proven without a shadow of doubt.

  18. PoeticsOfBigfoot responds:

    Yes, but it will sell a lot of beef jerky.

  19. jlehane3 responds:

    Once again,search Google Images “Mars Wolfman” to see the closest living being I’ve found from Mars rovers images since 2004 to Bigfoot on Earth.As far as size,there can be no comparison.Mars environs,what we know of it,is sparse and almost certainly mostly underground for humanoids or near-human.Earth Bigfoot to me seem much wilder,bigger,stronger,more scary.

  20. Opalman responds:

    To those Folks that seem too obsessed with grammatical issues to address the debate I offer the following advice: “Get a Life”!

    Regarding “Finding Bigfoot”; I’ve been making this very point since the show’s inception, And what a “show” it is.
    The most amazingly obvious fact for me is how so few cryptomundians (as well as other sasquatch investigators; casual or otherwise) seem to ascribe so little importance to the entire “Finding Bigfoot” issue. I’ve personally been on the receiving end of vitriolic comments deriding my interest in sasquatch research directly due to those commenters having viewed one or more episodes of “Finding Bigfoot”. One has to wonder how many otherwise interested scientists (or laymen) the series has put off for fear of their interest reminding someone of the “Finding Bigfoot” series with all its pseudoscientific hubris. I applaud William Dranginis and his commentary. We need more outspoken individuals unafraid to state the truth and its sorry ramifications.

    Another sickening phenomenon that outrages many, (as well; illustrates the sophomoric mentality of these dorks) is their insistence on referring to sasquatch as “Squatch”, As in “I think there’s a squatch in these woods” At least to me it is so utterly infuriating. I just can’t imagine a real biologist using such slang terminology.

    That brings up another issue; I’ve been looking for documentation for “Biologist” Ranae Holland’s much toted credentials and thus far have come up with Bachelor of Science degree from the School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences at the University of Washington. (although I can’t find any evidence of her ever graduating…for that though I’ll give her the benefit of a doubt) While a BA in fisheries science qualifies her (sort of) to use the term biologist it is a far cry from being a Biologist or a “scientist” I’m not trying to belittle anyone here, let the facts be known, whatever ill treatment these “Finding Bigfoot” “experts” receive from an audience quickly wising up to their deceptive games, they deserve. People like these belittle and humiliate the memories of the brave forefathers of sasquatch research; people Like Ivan T. Sanderson and Dr. Grover Krantz; to mention only two.

  21. Robb responds:

    Once upon a time, I thought BFRO was a respectible organization and I followed the information on their website.

    Finding Bigfoot has certainly removed any hint of respectibility from them.

    Why not just go all the way, and replace Bobo with “Professor Bobo” from Mystery Science Theatre? Then they can have a guy in an ape suit declaring that everything “feels squatchy”.

    …and, they obviously aren’t “Finding Bigfoot”, or the series would be over, I suppose. Shouldn’t they just call it “Failing to Find Bigfoot”? After all, looking in Rhode Island for the big guy seems like a stretch. Maybe they should do an episode in Manhattan?

  22. SlamesR responds:

    “Also, how many children and adults will be victims of tick bites that will result in Lyme disease or get bitten by poisonous snakes as they venture into the woods looking to Find Bigfoot? Maybe the Finding Bigfoot producers should think of putting in some disclaimers on the show just like the Myth Busters television show does. Better yet, TEACH the children
    about the hazards of being in the woods while Finding Bigfoot. Teach them about ticks and Lyme disease and how you can get it, TEACH them about poisonous snakes and how to identify them and what to do if bitten by them.”

    Don’t venture out of the village, there are monsters in those woods! That paragraph is too ridiculous. How many people will watch the Dog Whisperer and walk down the street and get mauled by a German Shepherd? How many people will watch Cosmos, go out to look at the stars, and get pulverized by an asteroid? Damn you Carl Sagan!

  23. terry the censor responds:

    > Will Finding Bigfoot Have A Negative Impact On Sasquatch Research?


    It will also have a negative impact on anyone who watches it.

  24. gridbug responds:

    “Another sickening phenomenon that outrages many, (as well; illustrates the sophomoric mentality of these dorks) is their insistence on referring to sasquatch as “Squatch”, As in “I think there’s a squatch in these woods” At least to me it is so utterly infuriating. I just can’t imagine a real biologist using such slang terminology.”

    Yes, yes, a thousand times yes! Usage of “squatch” in relation to our creature of interest is one of the most contrived and asinine things to come down the pike in many years. What’s especially sad/hilarious is the actual definition of the word per urbandictionary.com which I will not repeat here as I consider myself a gentleman. It reduces the time-honored and age-worn monikers of these noble beasts to a ridiculous and self-conscious attempt at creating a hipster / insider vibe, and it is complete and utter fail. Let it be spoken no more in these hallowed halls, lest it be spoken in jest. Anything less is uncivilized and an affront upon the good character of our favorite elusive hominid!


  25. Va-Bigfoot responds:


    My intent was not to keep people from going into the woods, that would be the last thing I would want to do! The forest can be the perfect classroom as long as people are educated on some of the dangers they may encounter while there. Poisonous snakes and ticks are just examples of what can be encountered while in the woods. My point was to be prepared before you venture in.

  26. Opalman responds:

    Regarding the dangers of snakebite while doing sasquatch field research:

    In most Northern locales popularly identified as the best areas to make a sasquatch observation (Pacific NW) the danger from snake envenomation is statistically very low. The species most responsible for serious injury in the NW is the Northern Pacific Rattlesnake, (Crotalus oreganus oreganos)..

    (The Southern Pacific rattlesnake: Crotalus oreganus helleri is of no significant importance to us, it being a dessert species, also the case with many other species endemic to CA.) Northern Mohave Rattlesnake; Crotalus scutulatus scutulatus, the Great Basin rattlesnake: Crotalus oreganus lutosus (relatively common in Siskiyou county, CA as is the Pacific Northern Rattlesnake) the Pacific Northern Rattlesnake has extremely virulent venom with a neurotoxin component. If that weren’t bad enough the Northern Pacific is generally a very irascible character willing to stand his ground at all costs. The possibility of being bit always exists in any area where venomous snakes are found, but the danger is very much exaggerated.

    In the Appalachians, southern (Texas, Florida etc.) and Southeastern states there are several species to be aware of:

    They are the Eastern Diamondback Rattlesnake, the canebrake R/S, Timber R/S, (and other less common), copperhead; Agkistrodon contortrix mokasen and cottonmouth (Water Moccasin); Agkistrodon piscivorus, The coral snake; Micrurus tener (Texas coral snake) and common coral snake; (Micrurus fulvius) are rarely aggressive but accidents do happen due to handling or misidentification. An envenomation from a coral snake is a serious matter in spite of the frequent lack of symptoms. The venom is very similar to the Asian krait’s; Bungarus caeruleus, and kills rapidly due to paralysis of the diaphragm and inability to breath. The coral snake is rarely seen, being nocturnal hiding under leaf litter in semi-wet areas. Their behavior is much more aggressive during hours of darkness.

    As with many things information is the single most useful snakebite deterrent. Anyone planning to travel or camp off the beaten path should avail themselves of a basic knowledge of venomous snakes, what they look like, where and how they live and forage.

    (Please note: although it is seen everywhere (including scientific treatises) the use of the word “ poisonous” is technically an improper use of that word when referring to reptiles, insects arachnids etc. Poisonous refers to poison; which enters the body by mouth or skin—venom enters the victim by injection only…toxic snakebites are venomous whereas the Roman emperor Nero murdered some of his family members by poisoning them with cyanide.

    The only universally accepted first aid recommended for snakebite these days is to splash the area with an good antiseptic and apply a crepe bandage (Pressure Immobilization Bandage) PIB’s main utility is to slow the rate of venom infusion within the victim’s lymphatic system and its use is probably only moderately useful in cases of pit viper envenomization (because of the great depth the venom is injected) while its benefits would be very significant in the case of a coral snake bite. Always make an effort to take a decent picture of the snake if possible to facilitate the administration of the proper monovalent antivenin; which is always more effective than polyvalent antivenin. See applicable texts or references regarding the proper ace bandage application—as I’m sure this site cannot condone or offer medical advice.

    THE BEST TREATMENT FOR SNAKEBITE IS IMMEDIATE TRANSPORT TO A HOSPITAL AND THE QUICKER PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL TREATMENT IS OBTAINED THE BETTER THE OUTCOME. For this and other reasons a satellite phone or a GPS pinger (SPOT®) is a very crucial piece of equipment. (GPS pingers provide a wide range of emergency location features that work worldwide and are very affordable $170+ ≈ $100 / year service subscription) SPOT® connect works with your smart phone and provides worldwide connectivity. ≈ $150

    Tick and Lyme disease are another exaggerated concern. If you reference a map of Lyme disease incidence in the US you’ll find, remarkably, that the risk of contracting Lyme Disease from ticks is very low to non existent in areas where most sasquatch reports occur! (excepting Rhode Island; LOL) Still, daily visual inspection is necessary after traipsing through the woods. Remove any ticks or chiggers found according to the proper medical protocol. Be advised that immature ticks are almost microscopic but can carry Lyme Disease just as readily as adults ticks can.

    The wilderness can harbor innumerable dangers both great and minor. Again—read and study before putting yourself in harm’s way; one book on one subject is not enough; read several well recommended books, get an assortment of different authors anecdotes and histories, For instance; if you’re traveling in BC; read an assortment of bear attack avoidance books. By doing this one quickly discovers that there are major disagreements amongst even the best experts on important issues. I used to think that wearing bear bells was a good strategy while hiking but now I believe otherwise; in spite of the fact that just about every park service officer in the world still thinks it a great idea. The reasons are many but can be summed up by the following: 99% of the time Mr. Bear knows where and who you are; bells on your ankles only add another curiosity factor to the hiker’s profile. Handheld pressurized air horns = a totally different result.

    I offer all of this in the earnest desire to do whatever I can to help my fellow field- investigator be as safe as possible and to help eliminate unfounded fear in the wilderness environment. Stay safe and enjoy what has to be one of the planets greatest adventures.

  27. Walter responds:

    Sas up Close: I value good communications skills. However, I aint gonna quit reedin something just cuz someone aint gud at riten.:)

  28. gollumses responds:

    Whilst I heartily agree that I most exuberantly despise the inclinations of spelling Nazis (when it is not plainly evident that it isn’t just a simple typo) to admonish those of seemingly lesser grammatical prowess, I do have some problems with the opinions expressed in the article.

    The entire “Lyme Disease” and “snakebite” argument (and the explanation for it) is asinine to me. Children all over the world have been wandering out into the woods to play since the beginning of time. SOMEHOW, the greatest majority of them have managed to not be snake bitten nor become Petri Dishes for Lyme Disease. I can’t imagine after reading that statement that you grew up anywhere near any woods (or if you did, you never played in them).

    I doubt that “Finding Bigfoot” will affect anyone of a scientific nature, one way or another. Normal-minded people see the TV Show for exactly what it is …… “Infotainment.” If someone claims that they were put off on Bigfoot Research due to that television show, then I think it very likely they would not have been very neutral in their research in the first place.

  29. Opalman responds:

    I couldn’t agree with you more regarding the snakebite / tickbite rational. I doubt anyone considers “Finding Bigfoot” any kind of enticement that might result in possible injury. The original premise had nothing to do with my informational post.

    Personally as an outdoorsman I am much more concerned with hyped up sasquatch hunters (urbanites) with firearms entering the woods. Shooting safety isn’t something that necessarily comes naturally and given the fact that folks might already be “pumped” when entering the woods; on hair trigger alert, (sort of speak) the last place I want to be is in the “cosmopolitan” or “neighborhood woods”. Once you’re a mile or more away from any trail or road things improve greatly; safety-wise.

    @ gollumsas you said; “I doubt that “Finding Bigfoot” will affect anyone of a scientific nature, one way or another. Normal-minded people see the TV Show for exactly what it is …… “Infotainment.” If someone claims that they were put off on Bogfoot Research due to that television show, then I think it very likely they would not have been very neutral in their research in the first place.”[sic]

    I strongly disagree: “Finding Bigfoot when viewed by the casual infotainment audience member leaves them with the impression that the entire sasquatch issue is nothing but mythology and hoaxes and they are not induced to look into the possible existence of a North American bipedal hominid in any of the many decent scientific treatises now readily available. In the words of the BFRO’s Cliff Barackman; a regular on the F/B series: “Bigfoot field research isn’t about having an encounter or finding a bigfoot, its about getting out there and having fun…camping with a purpose” . (my paraphrase) The series fosters zero credibility for what is touted as “The only scientific organization dedicated to proving the existence of Bigfoot” [sic] While their database of sightings is the largest and best organized on earth. In my opinion the remainder of their efforts are presumptuous, arrogant, fraudulent and for the most part just plain ignorant.

    Naturally when folks hear claims like;” The only scientific organization dedicated to proving the existence of Bigfoot”, and then watch what is actually offered as evidence within the purview of the “Finding Bigfoot” series; the huge credibility gulf that already exists widens tremendously. Research grant moneys are hard enough to get these days.

    Do you actually believe that “Finding Bigfoot” helps any university professor obtain research resources? I fail to understand how you can arrive at the opinion that “Finding Bigfoot” doesn’t effect “anyone of a scientific nature”[sic]—(I’m sure you mean anyone with a scientific background or interest.) Of course it has a major detrimental influence on researchers and science in general by making it difficult for learned professors who have studied the subject in great detail, to put together research programs and, again: obtain needed funding.

    Why is scientific research needed regarding sasquatch? Many reasons come to mind; the biggest being that the existence of sasquatch will rewrite what we assume to be true regarding paleoanthropology—knowledge is good! Another: The creature or being needs to be protected from mankind’s expansive overuse of natural resources and wilderness / forest areas.

  30. Artist responds:

    GRIDBUG (and some others): Another teapot tempest! If you were searching for chimpanzees in the wilds somewhere, and you heard a familiar chatter in the distance, might you not casually say to a co-researcher, “I think that’s a chimp.” OR “That sounds like chimp chatter over there.” more quickly then using the full “chimpanzee”?

    We use slang and idioms frequently in casual conversation with co-workers – informal jargon is familiar and comfortable to use, and the “FB” presentation is certainly aimed at viewers familiar with the terms. However, I hear Matt formally asking of the town meeting assemblages, “Who here has seen a ‘Sasquatch’?”, utilizing full formality to maintain credibility in that venue.

    Lighten up, huh?

  31. Opalman responds:

    @Artist: Science is not the venue for colloquialism or the bastardization of the English language. In this case the word “squatch” is particularly objectionable since it has a disrespectful, demeaning and vulgar double definition. Since it appears that you missed “gridbugs” excellent post, please note: the word “squatch” has described certain characteristics of the female genitalia for much longer than it has been a BFRO cutesy-ism for sasquatch. Personally I’m surprised the networks even allow the term to be used on camera. Its common usage is highly offensive to me and I’m sure many others; as people who highly respect ladies in general.

    One of my English professors had a major obsession with the adulteration of the English language and how, over the years students have been dummied down with proper vocabulary and word usage falling by the wayside. He of course was quite correct all those years ago and its only gotten worse. In today’s world we have degreed biologist describing venomous snakes as “poisonous”, never understanding the two words and their difference in meaning. Apes are described as being a part of the monkey clan in my son’s sixth grade science class. I could go on and on and on: but…all in all; it’s beyond disturbing. And you want us to; “lighten up!” Maybe you need to; “tighten up!” Science is about eliminating confusion and arriving at repeatable outcomes using scientific protocol in well thought out repeatable experiments—its not about cutesy nicknames. If you can get her to write back; ask Dr. Goodall what she thinks about the slang issue! Without conformity in language and terminology taxonomical classification is impossible. Science is about being as exact as possible, that’s why we classify flora and fauna by taxonomical (Latin) names and not nicknames or someone’s idea of what sounds catchy. Most of us like to think were furthering science in some small way at least; that’s why people detest this squatch slang thing.

    In closing on this issue for which I refuse to yield even one millimeter, please allow me to relate something I read on Autumn Williams site for Nov. 23, 2011. She started a topic string asking her readers what they thought of the BFRO’s “squatch” terminology. Overwhelmingly with maybe one dissenter out of fifty or so everyone was thoroughly pissed off by the use of the word squatch. You might better get a bigger teapot.

  32. gollumses responds:

    @Opalman I guess we will have to agree to disagree. No matter the claim, a TV Show is a TV Show. Anybody that watches it for more than one or two episodes should be able to easily see that it is not conducting any scientific testing.

    If I were a Primatologist or a Paleontologist that only had a very vague knowledge of the subject of Sasquatch (yeah right), and an episode of this show piqued my curiosity, I might ask around amongst my colleagues as to what they knew on the subject. I might ask if they had watched the show, and if so, what did they think of it.

    While the above is pure conjecture, I have a pretty good suspicion that 99% of the scientific world already have a strong position one way or another on the subject. People new to the field may have a more malleable mind, but their beliefs are likely to be formed based on the beliefs of their peers (with whom they interact on a daily basis) much more so than from a TV Show.

    If this show gets more people off their couches and into Nature, then good for them. If this show puts a couple of people off regarding the existence of Bigfoot, then that’s too bad for them. Their loss not mine.

    @Artist In order to be intellectually honest, I have to agree with you regarding “Chimpanzees” and “Chimps”, but I also have to agree with “Gridbug and others” that every time I hear them use the term “Squatch” I cringe. Maybe it’s because I’m 48 years old and have heard the term “Chimps” all my life and have gotten accustomed to it, whereas “Squatch” feels like a derogatory name (i.e. g**k or cracker, you know what I mean). While there are “Chimps” and “Orangs”, even Magilla was called by his full surname of Gorilla! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

  33. gollumses responds:


    After posting the above, I remembered that although Magilla used the full name, there was Grape Ape! I still like the term “Ape” more than if someone would have coined the term “Rilla.”

    “I think there’s some Rillas in this jungle Bwana!” LOL

  34. DTK responds:

    I think once the newness of the show wears off most people will begin to tire of the “squatch behind every bush” mentality and they’ll stop tuning in. That is unless some really compelling evidence is produced sometime in the near future. Should they uncover undeniable evidence of an actual Sasquatch behind one of these bushes the game would change immediately. I doubt that typical “blobsquatch” evidence will be enough to hold the public’s attention for very long. Claiming that the loud “kerplunk” of a beaver slapping its tail in the water was actually a rock thrown by a Sasquatch just ain’t going the cut it in my opinion. Then again I could be wrong. The public has been entertained by far less.

Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|

Connect with Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest


Creatureplica Fouke Monster Sybilla Irwin


|Top | FarBar|

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