International Cryptozoology ConferenceWholeBeastBanner

Patterson’s Old Woman Bigfoot

Posted by: Loren Coleman on April 24th, 2007

Roger Patterson Film Frame Drawing Comparison

One of the subjects that often is debated is whether Roger Patterson based a supposed and alleged staging of a filmed hoax of a female Bigfoot on his idea of what a female Sasquatch might look like. And did he show his hand in his only book?

In Patterson’s Do Abominable Snowmen of America Really Exist? (self-published in 1966), he drew the “old woman,” the seemingly more mature female Sasquatch seen by Albert Ostman, as shown, near Toba Outlet, British Columbia in 1924.

Here is the comparison between that sketch and the well-known black & white apparent public domain photograph taken on October 20, 1967, at Bluff Creek, California, the famed frame from the Patterson-Gimlin footage.

What do you think? Did the 1966 sketch have anything to do with the 1967 Bigfoot? Do you see more similiarities or differences between the two? What are your thoughts on this matter, as we rush forward to the 40th anniversary of the taking of this film?

Roger Patterson Film Frame Drawing Comparison

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.

74 Responses to “Patterson’s Old Woman Bigfoot”

  1. Bob Michaels responds:

    Meet the Sasquatch by Christopher L Murphy in association with John Green and Thomas Steenburg spells it all out frame by frame, it erased any doubts that I may have had.

    Bigfoot exists, further elaboration in Dr Jeffrey Meldrum Sasquatch, Legend Meets Science. It’s a must for those who want the truth about this North American Ape.

  2. springheeledjack responds:

    Coincidence or not…Just because the pictures have some similarities does not mean that it was all staged…if you have someone drawing a person, unless you have it as a straight on shot, chances are you are going to draw it look like it was moving–it is a BIG stretch to say that a drawing is “give-away” of a staging of a film…nah, I don’t buy it.

    Besides–there are a few similarities, but if the picture was a sketch of what they were supposedly going to stage and fake, the thing in the film does not look that close to the drawing…aside from fur and arm position, but the still from the film is not the only pose, just the famous shot.

    Actually the drawing is similar to my grandmother…maybe Patterson was channeling my grandmother (sorry grandma)

  3. Ceroill responds:

    I don’t see any real cause for correlation. You might as well take a photo of a man doing naked jumping jacks and say it was inspired by DaVinci’s ‘Vitruvian Man’ diagram. They both show a hairy biped walking from left to right, and are both female. Alright….so? Is it possible? Of course. Is it probable? I don’t really think so.

  4. Daniel Loxton responds:

    It’s the Roe sketch that suggests itself most strongly as Patterson’s inspiration…

  5. elsanto responds:

    I agree with Herr Loxton. It’s an interesting coincidence to be sure, but were it truly the case why has no one been able, even with more money and better technology, to come up with a better fake? If that film is of a fake subject then Patterson was a 20th Century Da Vinci or Mozart.

  6. wildmanmarty responds:

    If I may comment from an artist’s perspective…..Patterson’s drawing, in my opinion, is above average for a non-professional artist. From an anatomical standpoint, it is not very “realistic” looking. Also, the hair is not drawn in what would be considered a natural flow or growth pattern—-it is drawn in random directions and does not have a natural feel to it whereas the creature in the film has a hair growth pattern (on the left arm especially) that just looks right to me.

    What I am getting at, is that if this film were hoaxed, I certainly don’t think they used Roger’s drawing as reference! You may say that anything is possible, but there are just too many details about the Patty footage that to me, override the notion that the drawing is a model for a faked film. Of course, this will be debated on and on, until they find the “suit”, or they find a Sasquatch.

  7. simianfever responds:

    I think it definitely kills the argument you sometimes hear “that a hoaxer would not think to fake a FEMALE bigfoot”, which honestly was ridiculous to begin with. Obviously Patterson had them in mind and it could of carried over to his ruse.

    As much as I would love to have undiscovered giant hominids roaming the US and other parts of the world, what’s considered the best evidence to me could still easily be a guy (or a girl) in a suit. Still waiting…

  8. DWA responds:

    Of course the other logical explanation: the sighting from which the drawing came, and the sighting that’s the subject of the Patterson film, are of the same animal.

    Pretty logical, n’est-ce pas?

    I do think it’s kinda interesting that I’ve never seen a female hoaxsquatch. We really need to do something about a clearly nonexistent cryptid: The Omnipotent Hoaxer. Breasts are a major complication, that ain’t gonna be in a suit.

    OK, prove me wrong. Can anybody find a commercially available FEMALE ape suit? Let’s see video of someone waliking in it.

    Proof? It wouldn’t prove anything. But I do get tired of hearing this old wrangle.

  9. fuzzy responds:

    I love it when you speak French.

  10. Morgoth responds:

    One image is a static picture of something walking, the other image is a selected frame in a video series of someone walking. All you need to do is pick the right frame from the video and bingo! A match…

  11. raisinsofwrath responds:

    For this footage to be under scrutiny for so long and still stand up kinda makes the drawing a moot point IMO.

  12. mystery_man responds:

    Well, here’s one way to think about it. If they are both real, then why wouldn’t the sketch resemble what was seen in the video? If someone were to draw a sketch of, say, a gorilla, wouldn’t that resemble the subject of a video showing a gorilla? If the sketch is based on the description of a real creature, then the PG video was taken of a real creature, then it stands to reason that they would be reminiscent of each other since they are both the same species. I’m not saying that this is definately the case, but I am leaving the possibility open that perhaps they are similar not because of a premeditated hoax, but rather because they both represent the same species.

  13. showme responds:

    I’m still not convinced the PG film is real, but if Patterson did want to base it on the drawing, I think he would have made the subject walk in a way that supported the Ostman abduction account. Ostman said that the “old woman” walked in a waddling, ducklike fashion. The subject in the Patterson film walks quite differently.

  14. Tengu responds:

    Agreed, Sasquatch is always descibed as striding away, never bolting like a human would do.

  15. DWA responds:

    mystery_man: you’re talking about the regular recurrence of a major flaw in the skeptical argument: the apparent presumption that if some aspect of a hoax was possible, the whole hoax was probably done. One has to assess not just the possibility but the LIKELIHOOD, against other, at-least-equally-logical possibilities. THEN one has to assess the likelihood that ALL those possibilities came together in a believable SCENARIO. I’m still waiting for that. Forty years, and still waiting for something so simple? Raises my eyebrows.

    raisinsofwrath: agreed. The analysis of the film sure doesn’t seem to support the propounded theory here. “Clear fake” would. “We still can’t tell?” Not so much.

    Morgoth: what kind of match? An illustration “matched” against a living, moving object, even one trapped in a frame of video, is going to show significant differences, as even a cursory review of the above images shows. Having seen many stills of P/G, and the film itself, numerous times, I can assure you there is no “match” in that film, anywhere, to this image.

  16. Morgoth responds:

    Hi DWA, I was just pointing out that by selecting the right frame from the video one could get the best match with the picture. So the similarity becomes less suspicious, there was bound to be a frame that was closer to the picture than the others.

  17. kamoeba responds:

    For the purposes of my two cents’ worth I’ll assume the P/G film is fake. I don’t know if it is or isn’t, but if it is, here is my two cents’ worth…

    A note about guys wearing monster suits: Showme states that the subject of the Patterson film does not walk the way Ostman described. First, if Ostman’s creature was an “old woman”, it might walk differently than a younger creature of the same species. I know some people older than me who have different postures and walking speeds than I do. I walk differently than younger people and even people roughly the same age. Anyway, on to my point about costumes…if anyone has seen behind-the-scenes footage of the actors moving about in Godzilla (and other men-in-suits movie monsters) they can validate that the actors in the suits move as fast as they can. They do this because (A) they can only stay in the suit for a short period of time (it is incredibly heavy and very hot inside), and (B) the camera is filming them at a higher rate of speed than normal so that when played back, it adds a sense of mass to the character. Of course, the P/G film wasn’t in slow-mo like those old men-in-a-suit monster movies, but if it was a guy in a costume, I bet he couldn’t stand to be in that suit for very long. Of course, not every actor who dons a monster suit is lucky enough to have it tailor made to fit him or her. If Patterson wanted a “duck-walking” bigfoot his actor may have been restricted in certain movements.

    As for the realism of the creature (or costume as it may be), I think the Zapruder-like quality of the film leaves a lot to the imagination. I’ve always thought that the scariest horror movies have that cheap home movie camera look to them. If the original B&W “Night of the Living Dead” had a polished look to it, it wouldn’t be half as scary. But then if you’re trying to perpetrate a hoax you’d want that, wouldn’t you? A lot of YouTubers out there try to capture that home movie realism with their hoaxes but most fail.

  18. DWA responds:

    Morgoth: OK, good point. I thought you were going a different way with that. Thanks.

    kamoeba: good point to showme (which I’d been about to point out but didn’t). You expect some kind of consistency, but not total, exact congruence. Different people have different gaits; but they are the same in consistent ways. But showme does have a valid point too: if Patterson wasn’t that sophisticated (of course how could he have made something this baffling if he wasn’t?), he might have taken a “pet” encounter report and copied it. Yeah, maybe even right down to the breasts – yet another point for the P/G film being genuine, if you ask me. If a hoaxer had put breasts on it, he’d have blown it. There’s too much to get right; and the breasts are one of the less problematic parts of the P/G figure for a hoaxer to get right.

  19. monkeyz responds:

    I am starting to become a skeptic, it’s really quite a sad feeling.

  20. Pentastar responds:

    I have read more theories and comments about the PG footage than what would fit on a million A4 pages. How ever, in the end pf the day, it´s always the same story. What I wanna read is comments from a reliable and solid person who had a sighting (or many) of the creature. That would make it clear. If I had seen a BF I could easily determine if the PG clip shows a creature that looks like the creature I saw. Of course this requires that BF exists.

  21. wildmanmarty responds:

    simianfever, I don’t think the Patterson film IS the best evidence for Bigfoot’s existence. Read “Sasquatch, Legend Meets Science” and find out why I think this is the case. Of course, read Loren’s book too! I suspect that many, if not most skeptics (and I am not necessarily lumping you in with them, simianfever) have done very little research or reading on the subject. I suspect that many scientists dismiss the matter out-of-hand, without a serious study of the facts. I challenge any reasonable, unbiased (keyword here, “unbiased”) person to read a couple of really good books on the subject and not come away with the conclusion that, at the very least, it is possible these animals exist. If Patterson’s film turned out to be a hoax (which I believe is highly unlikely), it would not disprove the existence of Sasquatch.

  22. kamoeba responds:

    Regarding skepticism: monkeyz, don’t feel bad about being skeptical. Being skeptical of things helps us learn and keeps us from making bad decisions. I’ve read many comments here at Cryptomundo that plainly state that fellow readers would like bigfoot (and/or other cryptids) to be proven real. I’ve been interested in cryptozoology since I was in grade school. When I was younger I wanted Bigfoot and Nessie and all of these other mysterious creatures to be proven as real. As I grow older, I just want to know the truth, whether that means these creatures are real or not. The older I get the more I realize that if any of these creatures are proven to be real then the more danger that puts them in from the world’s deadliest, and oftentimes dumbest creature…man.

  23. mystery_man responds:

    DWA- That is exactly what I was saying. It is frustrating, isn’t it? A lot of times, people will look at how a hoax could be done and then bend their theory around that. In this case, they see the sketch, then look at the video, and they come to the conclusion that it was hoaxed. To me, this is just as bad as claiming everything to be real, and it is not a concrete reason why this must be a hoax, other than pointing at the coincidence of the time the two were made. I just don’t see why the hoax theory carries any more weight than the theory that the sketch and the video are of the same species of creature. Why should the hoax theory be embraced first without looking at all of the possibilities? It seems odd to me that a flimsy, unsupported skeptical story is often believed and taken to be truth far more quickly than a strong, reasonable theory supporting Bigfoot’s existence. This is an obvious bias towards skepticism I have seen from many who look at this sort of evidence, including at times even me. I think there are other possibilities to be considered before just jumping to any conclusion either way. The resemblance of the photo and the video COULD be evidence of a hoax, but does not mean it IS to me. It also COULD be a sketch of the same kind of creature shown in the video, and I don’t see why that theory should be just thrown out the window.

  24. springheeledjack responds:

    I was thinking about what DWA said concerning the female bigfoot thing.

    Guys as a general rule…and there are always exceptions…are male-o-centric…in writing you rarely find a male writer that desires to write from the female perspective…most people stick with what they know (trust me, I’m not off on a tangent here…I do have a point)

    in the case of the Patterson film, if two guys were going to fake a BF video/picture, most likely they would not even consider building a female suit–because a) it would be easier to build a male suit because of perspective, b) I am not sure most would even consider it–after all who cares if it’s female or male, the point is it’s BF, and c) guys wanting to make a female suit would have to spend a lot more time getting it believable and while your hoaxers can be ingenious and clever, I do not believe most hoaxers are going to want to spend that much time on their hoaxes (and several of the last blobsquatch/hoaxed videos seen here in the last months are proof of that).

    To me, the idea of putting together a suit, and a female suit, just for the purposes of setting up a hoax doesn’t add up based on the time, situation and circumstances.

    (now you hoaxers don’t go out there and make a bunch of female suits just to prove me wrong…chances are you’ll do a crappy job anyway and we’ll catch you)

  25. jamesrav responds:

    The semi-matching sketch can certainly be used strongly for either argument: it matches the hoaxed footage because Patterson used it (foolishly) as the basis for his subject, or, it matches because this is how a Bigfoot really does look and Ostman’s story is true. I for one do not believe there are many ‘varieties’ of Bigfoot living in the Pacific Northwest, I’d be happy with just one. So a powerfully built, stocky, female hominoid with hair-covered breasts may be the one and only type. I still find the subtle, delicate finger movement in the film the most convincing evidence for its authenticity. I just don’t see how that could be faked with your stand ‘bulky’ costume arm or gloves.

  26. Lyndon responds:

    To be honest I’ve always felt that the drawing shows more disimilarities than it shows similarities.

    The drawing looks almost human with few apelike characteristics. The body is spindly with only sparse hair covering. The breasts are flat and the legs are complete with knobbly nees.

    The footage on the other hand shows a lot of apelike characteristics. The body is immensely powerfully built with (although short hair) complete hair covering. The breasts are full and the legs are heavily muscled.

    If the drawing is being put forward as a model for the footage then it’s a very poor piece of clutching at straws.

  27. DWA responds:

    Pentastar: why wish? You can have what you want. The Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization ( and the Texas Bigfoot Research Conservancy nee Center ( have loads of sighting reports. By reliable, solid people. Read those. Surprise! They make P/G look pretty plausible. (They also say that female is VERY well fed, not too surprising for October.)

    mystery_man: frustrating, indeed. But the normal rules of rationality and evidence clearly do not apply here. Well, they do, but scientists and skeptics don’t know that, or at least don’t act as if they do. Skeptics ask where the scientific evidence is. Science MAKES scientific evidence, by pronouncing it diagnostic of a recognized phenomenon when found. Until science recognizes Bigfoot as real, there by definition is no scientific evidence. There is most certainly, however, lots of evidence of something needing to be recognized. Science has to do what has been done so many times before: pursue the evidence that exists, and come up with the scientific evidence.

    Lyndon: yep. Much of the skeptical argument is clutching at straws. Their main problem is focusing on a few pieces of questionable evidence, rather than truly considering the full body of the evidence.

  28. simianfever responds:

    WildmanMarty, I actually have read Sasquatch by Meldrum along with a dozen or so other books on the subject over the years. The idea and possibility certainly fascinates me, though I’ve seen no good evidence. In fact, Meldrum seems convinced on very little which made it hard to accept his book as a good scientific read. The majority of his evidence is prints that could easily (and have) been faked over the years. Dermal ridges and all. Additionally he visits one guy who just happened to find prints that morning! And he isn’t a little bit fazed by that?

    Things like that definitely throw a cloud over an allegedly scientific look at Bigfoot. I’d love for it to be true, but there really isn’t anything all that compelling IMO at this point… though that hasn’t stopped me from being interested in following continued research into the possibility.

    I must admit to not having read Loren’s book on this topic, SORRY!

  29. DWA responds:

    simianfever: first confessing I haven’t read Meldrum’s book, he doesn’t seem the kind that would be convinced on little evidence.

    Skeptics? Now they do.

    Not saying you are one. But the statement “prints that could easily (and have) been faked over the years” sounds like more of the straw-grasping referred to above. In fact, it’s just what I’m talking about. Sure, fakes have happened. But saying that all the many trackways that have been found – in all the remote, extremely unlikely spots – “could easily” have been faked would require a severe redefinition of the word “easily” that might not sit well with Mr. Webster.

    It might not be judicious to totally swallow dermal ridges as diagnostic. But again. One must consider the weight of the evidence – not just a few questionable whiskers around the edges.

  30. Jeremy_Wells responds:

    The legs seem more “compact” in the drawing, the “cone” head isn’t the same… this bears no more resemblance to the creature in the film than do old traveler’s sketches of highly anthropomorphized chimpanzees when compared to the actual creature.
    Just my two-cents.

  31. mystery_man responds:

    DWA- Well, now now, let’s not go putting down all skeptics here. :) I know you have been known to have your skepticals on from time to time. There’s nothing wrong with skepticism as long as it isn’t misplaced and does not throw out perfectly good , rational explainations in favor of the grasping at any sort of skeptical theory just for the sake of being skeptical. I for one am a skeptic myself and being from a scientific background, I really can see some of the problems we face from mainstream science. But I also have an open enough mind and enough ability to get away from established narrow minded doctrine to recognize that there really are some plausible scenarios for a large hairy hominid in the Pacific Northwest, indeed in many parts of the world. I can detach myself from the old chestnut “there’s no body, it can’t exist” line of thinking. I believe most skeptics, as I know you know, just want to look at things with the “zen” mind and see the evidence for what it is, without the preliminary belief in the cryptid in question. Don’t blame skeptics, true skeptics want to find the truth and in some ways look at things in a less biased fashion than many so called “believers”. It’s those “scofftics” and the scientists that are unwilling to see the forest for the trees that we have to worry about, eh? :)

  32. DWA responds:

    Well, see, mystery_man, here we go with labels again.

    That’s it. I am using “scofftic” from now on for the kind of critic I’m talking about here. Because as far as true skepticism goes: without skeptics we could have no science.

    So duly noted. Fifty lashes with a wet unknown-primate hair.

  33. Ceroill responds:

    mystery-man, Skepticals! I like that! Nice play on words, and I think a good coining for a new term. I do not have your credentials, but I agree completely with your sentiments here.

  34. mystery_man responds:

    Well, Ceroill, you can thank DWA for the term “skepticals”! He used it once and I’ve been using it ever since. He came up with “scofftic” too. I’d like to claim it as my own, but it isn’t. :) But it is a good term, that is for sure.

  35. Ceroill responds:

    Ok, then thanks to DWA! I like them both, but somehow I’d misssed ‘skepticals’ before. By the way I do agree with the ideal of maintaining a neutral or ‘zen’ mindset, and hoping for decent evidence on any and all sides.

  36. mystery_man responds:

    Ceroill- That is one of the the hardest things to do in this field, yet one of the most important things to be mindful of, I think. So many “want to believe” or “want to disbelieve” and somewhere the actual unbiased examination of what is presented gets lost. Personally, I am willing to look at whatever comes up on its own merit and I am just as willing to accept evidence of a hoax as I am evidence of the real deal. I am equally willing to accept the existence or lack thereof of this creature, but what influences me is not any preconceived notion, but rather the quality and rationality of the evidence and theories put forward. To me, there is far too little of this being done. Therefore you get those claiming a hole in the ground or broken branches must be the work of Bigfoot and conversely scientists who ignore very compelling evidence in support of Bigfoot.
    There was a time when I was a pretty straightforward, traditional thinker as far as science goes. I started out in this field quite the opposite of most. I actually was a staunch debunker of many cryptids and I guess you could even say “scofftic”. I was trained and studied under very mainstream influences and as a result I can now say that my mind was quite closed. It wasn’t until I really started reading more about these cryptids and started looking at theories that at times went against what I had always thought, that I started to think that there may be something to these cryptids. As a result, although I do not think these all exist without a doubt, I have become more willing to open my eyes and see what is really there to see rather than what I am told to see.

  37. mystery_man responds:

    So I guess that although some in mainstream science could say that I’ve “turned to the dark side” or turned to some sort of “pseudo science”, I disagree. I think all science should approach their respective subjects with this sort of open mind to the possibilities, to depart from the rigid doctrines and jargon and take a good look at what is out there. A lot of fields in mainstream science have this sort of problem even within their own fields and it does not enhance the search for the truth. Zen mind is very important I think.

  38. DWA responds:

    Well, mystery_man: you’re in good company.

    I mean, I’d go with Jane Goodall and George Schaller and Grover Krantz and Jeff Meldrum and John Bindernagel before I’d go with some “expert” who’s mainly got his tenure in mind.

    Wouldn’t you?

  39. Ceroill responds:

    Mystery-man, Yep. I know what you mean. Again, I’m not a full fledged Scientist, but I am reasonably well read and fairly intelligent. It’s not that hard to notice these tendencies. I’ll give two contrasting examples from my own memory. I cannot gauarantee absolute accuracy with either one.

    I recall many years ago seeing a cartoon that poked fun at archaeologists. The scene was that of an alien symposium on long extinct Earth cultures. The slide being projected (or image on big viewscreen) was a crumpled beer can. The lecturer was expounding, “We’re not entirely sure what the function of these objects was, but we’ve found so many we think they must have some kind of votive religious significance.”

    The other anecdote has to do with a Brittish (I think) project in recreating a neolithic village, complete with volunteers spending some time there to see how things worked, and if they could gain some insight. One of the puzzles facing them from examining the remains of a similar site was that in just about every building, just inside and to either side of the doorway, there was a shallow bowl-like depression in the ground. They had no clue how to interpret this, and ideas ranged from the religious to the banal, but nobody was sure. The volunteers had only period clothing and technology to live with, as well as a few animals they’d found traces of, such as chickens (as a modern approximation). One day when rain rolled in everyone hurried in out of the wet, as did the chickens. The bird then would go to one side of the doorway, and roll around in the dirt to dry off….

    Anyway, sorry to go on so long.

  40. mystery_man responds:

    I’d have to agree there DWA! :) There are some “experts” out there who are all too willing to dismiss evidence of Bigfoot without even doing cursory research into this field. There are some who would condemn the PG footage without even really watching it, or Bigfoot in general without having read any of the history or circumstances surrounding the sightings or the evidence. Doesn’t sound very scientific to me. There are some skeptics that have done their homework and make good points, but these are unfortunately few and far between. Before anyone jumps on the debunking bandwagon, I’d suggest they at least look into the subject and see for themselves what is out there before being too quick to judge Bigfoot as a hoax.

  41. mystery_man responds:

    Ceroill- Great antecdotes! :)

  42. DWA responds:

    Ceroill: what the heck is your point?

    Beer cans? religious significance? A coincidence?

    I THINK NOT! Bravo, science!

  43. Ceroill responds:

    DWA: The point was that some people doing science make assumptions, and some don’t. I was not making a comment on our society as a whole, that was the point of the original cartoon, but not my point. I apologize for being less clear in my intent.

  44. DWA responds:

    Ceroill: I apologize too.

    From now on I need to include appropriate signage when I’m joking. 😀

  45. mystery_man responds:

    Ceroill- I can see your point very clearly. I rather enjoyed your antecdotes and will probably relate them to someone at some time in the future if you don’t mind.

  46. Ceroill responds:

    DWA, I’ve noticed that this is a problem when communicating only with written words. Without tonal or body language clues, we lose a lot of unspoken context. Unfortunately this is what often can lead to ‘flame wars’. No, I’m not suggesting that you were flaming. Just remarking on the limitations of this medium, and assuring you that there is no offense on my end. 😉

  47. Ceroill responds:

    mystery-man, feel free, I have no copyright on them!

  48. DWA responds:

    Ceroill: It’s also a commentary on making too lightly the obvious connection between beer and religion. 😉

  49. Ceroill responds:

    DWA, lol, indeed.

  50. Greg(Not that Greg) responds:

    DWA posted:
    ” Their main problem is focusing on a few pieces of questionable evidence, rather than truly considering the full body of the evidence. ”


    As opposed to all the un-questionable evidence ?

    Which is …….. ? ( Just a piece or two; to see what you have in mind .. )

    In any event, what would be ‘ skeptical ‘ about not focusing on the questionable evidence .

    As long as it’s being tossed about, shouldn’t the skeptics be allowed to play also ?

  51. DWA responds:

    Greg(Not that Greg):

    Exactly. Scofftics (not skeptics! Read all posts!) refuse to focus on unquestionable evidence.


    1. Sightings. I’ve never heard a scofftic who doesn’t sweep them under the rug, in toto, despite their painting an almost complete, and totally consistent, biological picture of a species, complete with key population concentrations that one would expect for such a species. That this would happen with no real animal to back it up is a longer shot than hitting Powerball every week, buying one ticket each time.

    2. The unquestionable LACK of evidence that P/G was hoaxed. Scofftics are particularly intellectually lazy on this point (if they’re not lazier on 1. It’s really hard to decide). If you posit a hoax, you must propose a reasoned scenario. Never been done.

    2a. You have a P/G scenario? Good. Now for the scenario that all of this evidence is faked. Yep. You need that too. Not a scrap. Scofftics have had a half-century. C’mon.

    3. The experts in relevant fields who have pored over P/G and either propose it genuine, or say they can’t tell. (Right they can’t. They can’t say they can tell because of what they would say and what it would do to their livelihoods.)

    That’s three; and that’s plenty.

    The key scofftic mistake is misunderstanding what “unquestioned evidence” is. It doesn’t mean “unquestionable proof,” just that it is, beyond a doubt, evidence, and merits following up. Sightings that adhere to a pattern which suggests a source external to the observers (Nessie: NOT an example; UFOs: NOT an example; ghosts: NOT an example; the sasquatch: BIG TIME example) are unquestioned evidence, not only of the existence of something, but of the need to search where sightings are concentrated to see what the something that people are seeing might be. You can’t get scientific evidence for something science doesn’t acknowledge. (In other words: the absence of scientific evidence is science’s fault.) That doesn’t mean that there’s no evidence.

    It is most certainly skeptical to focus on questionable evidence. Not focusing on the good evidence?


    You have to consider all the evidence. Scofftics consider an infinitesimal fraction of it. (Many sas scholars don’t even consider P/G a major piece of the evidence. Which should indicate how much there is, and how good it is.)

    To paraphrase John Green: how odd that people’s imaginations dry up in areas with less than seventeen inches per year annual rainfall. Or that the lower their population concentrations, the more vivid their hallucinations.

    Yeah. THAT must be it. That’s the ticket…

    Just from reading the anecdotal evidence, I know more about the sasquatch than I know about most animals that science considers to exist. Not what you’d expect from a bunch of folks making stuff up, or seeing things.

  52. Greg(Not that Greg) responds:

    Why would any of those examples be unquestionable ?

    It is all hearsay and opinion.

    Nothing that can be verified .


    ” To paraphrase John Green: how odd that people’s imaginations dry up in areas with less than seventeen inches per year annual rainfall. Or that the lower their population concentrations, the more vivid their hallucinations.”

    Funny you should use that example, when it has been shown with actual rainfall data, that it simply isn’t true …

    Mr. Green could make statements like that and not be questioned, when he had a receptive audience, and no internet; where in a few seconds anyone can actually Google the facts and show it isn’t true..

    Funny how science really works..

  53. DWA responds:

    G(nG): you need to read what I wrote.

    When it’s not recognized by science, it’s not scientific evidence. Doesn’t mean it’s not evidence. And when it shows a pattern that only a scientist could stitch together – and most of the observers aren’t scientists – a scientist who’s thinking (big if there when it comes to the sas) will scratch his head and go, hmmmm.

    And all of it can be verified. The sas is a critter. All you have to do is find it. bingo. Verification. Just ask Roger Patterson. Who’s going to look at those reports then and say the observers were lying?

    And as to Green’s example, it’s not only true but it’s been corroborated by others. (Like me. I’m telling you. READ SIGHTING REPORTS. I will keep saying it until the blind do see.) Sas sightings are, always, closely correlated with nearby water. And the rainfall that implies.

    Unless you have evidence. Which is how science works.

  54. DWA responds:

    G(nG): elegant example of how science confirms Green.

    Bigfoot/Sasquatch Sightings in Texas: Correlations to Annual Rainfall Totals, Waterways, Human Population Densities and Black Bear Habitat Zones

    That’s how it works. 😉

  55. kitakaze responds:

    DWA: Your example is neither elegant nor reliable evidence for the existence of bigfoot. By whom and how were those sightings compiled? I can cherrypick data, too. Bigfoot isn’t claimed to be encountered in desert areas? Science has not confirmed BF in any way, shape, or form. Simply, there is no reliable evidence for bigfoot whatsoever. Please don’t make the mistake of confusing reliable evidence with proof.

    In answer to a request for ‘unquestionable evidence’ what have you offered?

    1. Sightings
    How reliable are sightings? People have consistently claimed to see UFO’s, el chupacabra, Nessie, and Jesus incarnate. Odd that for this pan-continental beast reported from Alaska to Iowa to NY to Florida that not one alledged encounter has led to any manner of reliable evidence.

    2 & 3. The PGF
    That the PGF hasn’t been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to have been hoaxed is unquestionable evidence? You don’t seem to understand what you have been asked for. If you really want the people who count to take the notion of an unidentified North American primate seriously then you’d best be advised to set aside a 40 year old questionable film taken by a questionable man under questionable circumstances of a questionable subject at considerable distance. Surely you have something more substantial to support your claims.

    Here you are presented with the fact that Patterson in his only book made a rather skillful drawing (for an ‘aw shucks’ rodeo clown) of a female bigfoot and miraculously in the following year produces what he claims to be a film of a live female bigfoot. Many of the responses here say far more about the nature of BF belief than they do about the subject of the film itself. ‘The picture doesn’t match the film.’ ‘The hair flow is different.’ ‘The boobs are so natural.’ (!?) ‘There is delicate finger movement.’ ‘What about all those sightings?’ Who’s clutching at straws?

    BTW, DWA, I noticed another poster credit you with the term ‘scoftic’ and ‘skepticals’ which interestingly you did not refute. Are you in fact the originator of those terms or did you just not find it worth acknowledging?

    Let’s have a look a few bigfoot myths-

    Scientists/field researchers are not consistently in areas reported to be bigfoot habitat. (Ever heard of the Vancouver Island marmot?)

    Hunters have not brought down a bigfoot as they look too human. (Tell that to the dead humans accidentally brought down by hunters.)

    Nobody finds bears dead of natural causes. (Come to the JREF for some not so lovely pictures.)

    DWA, you say that skeptics ignore the full body of evidence. I think I’ll pass on the invitation to weak coffee. Would you be interested in a lovely knitted sweater? You can have and enjoy it on the condition that you don’t pull at all the loose threads hanging all about it as it will quickly and completely fall apart if you do. Just like the case for bigfoot.

    If the position of bigfoot skeptics is so flawed then I invite you, DWA, to come and demonstrate this to us at the JREF where we discuss the bigfoot phenomenom. Many of us would be thrilled to be served a fat dish of crow where bigfoot is concerned because really, how cool would that be? I’m looking forward to any reliable evidence (again, not proof) you have to offer in support of bigfoot’s existence. Otherwise, I’d suggest coming up with a more meaningful distinction between ‘scoftic’ and ‘skeptic’or at least being a little more forthright about knowledgable BF skeptics.


  56. DWA responds:

    kitakaze: I can wait until you read my posts again. People who don’t read carefully come off looking like scofftics.

    Scofftic: skeptic who pays no attention to any evidence that doesn’t fit pet theorems.

    And who serves up lots of weak coffee. (All those “bigfoot myths”: easily refuted. Been done lots of times on this site. Mostly by me. Use that Search, man. Please don’t make me do it again, OK?)

    Oh, BTW: Bigfoot have been shot, more than once. At least once fatally. One shot, good rifle. Yep, I’ve put up the link to that one too, right here, read all about it. READ SIGHTING REPORTS. I know, broken record. But folks just ain’t doing it.

    Waiting for a sas to climb into your truck ain’t gonna get it done. Following evidence? Now THAT has a track record.

  57. kitakaze responds:

    DWA: I read your posts carefully. Interesting yet typical that you responded to mine without answering any of the questions posed to you. Where is this reliable evidence of bigfoot? Bigfoot has been shot? Lovely. Reliable evidence? You were stating it as fact, you know. I’ve been reading sightings reports for the better part of my like. Again, el chupacabra, Nessie, UFO’s, and Jesus Incarnate. Nice try with the reversal but a whole lotta paltry evidence is indeed weak coffee. Funny that when you are faced with an actual informed BF skeptic you offer nothing but evasion. I’m taking it that you’re declining an invitation to step up to bat with us at the JREF.

    DWA, all your base are belong to me!

  58. DWA responds:

    All right, kitakaze, all right. [sigh, here we go again…]

    (BTW: I don’t have much use for scofftic forums. If the thinking in your post is typical of the breed of “skepticism” at whatever-JREF-means, I can skip. Open minds are my meat, closed ones my punching bag. But my arms get sooooooo tired.)

    Let’s knock off the myths first.

    “Scientists/field researchers are not consistently in areas reported to be bigfoot habitat. (Ever heard of the Vancouver Island marmot?)”

    Yep, the wolf too. How many of them do you think the marmot researchers saw? How many cougar, how many wolverine? Added up, probably many more of those animals on VI than there are sas. Plus the sas seems a damsight smarter. Plus, the marmot people weren’t looking for sas evidence. This scofftic idea that you’re gonna see everything when you’re looking for one thing is an idea whose time has went. But it’ll remain live, as long as scofftics don’t get out much.

    Hunters have not brought down a bigfoot as they look too human. (Tell that to the dead humans accidentally brought down by hunters.)

    Humans kill humans hunting for precisely one reason: they DO NOT SEE THEM AS HUMAN. They fire at movement, or at a patch of color they haven’t identified as to what it might be. What you are saying – know it or not – is that hunters deliberately commit murder. (Don’t believe me? Think about what you wrote. See, I read what you post.)

    Oh. And I said this: hunters – and fools with guns – have shot at sas, deliberately. One’s been killed, but accidentally. (Manitoba. On the BFRO database. Come back when you’ve read it. Surf from there; it’s easy.)

    “Nobody finds bears dead of natural causes. (Come to the JREF for some not so lovely pictures.)”

    I’ll pass. But I’ve hiked in woods packed with bear for over a quarter century and haven’t found so much as a claw. Sure, I’ve seen plenty live ones. Woods packed with them, remember? There are fewer sas in North America than there are bears in PA or VA, maybe fewer in the continental US than there are bears in NJ or MD. For any big animal, you’ll see many live ones for each corpse you find – unless there ain’t many. (Oh. Like two deer carcasses for me, lifetime, in country beyond packed with deer.) But again, scofftics don’t get out much.

    The absence of carcasses is an eyebrow raiser for skeptics like me. But not as eyebrow raising as the idea that all the evidence has been cleverly – and I mean really cleverly – faked. You need to find someone that clever. good luck with that. I can see how no one’s REPORTED – that’s REPORTED – finding sas remains. It’s a stretch; but not a big enough one for a biologist (like, oh, say, George Schaller) to find implausible. The Omnipotent Hoaxer? Nonexistent cryptid; but one scofftics firmly believe in. I described him to my kids; they laughed, and they still believe in the Easter Bunny.

    And now for your take on sightings. (And yes, sighting report databases are the source of the above estimates – like they are for known animals.)

    “How reliable are sightings? People have consistently claimed to see UFO’s, el chupacabra, Nessie, and Jesus incarnate. Odd that for this pan-continental beast reported from Alaska to Iowa to NY to Florida that not one alledged encounter has led to any manner of reliable evidence.”

    That’s a typical scofftic take, the scofftic making the mistake of lumping the sas with those characters. Big mistake there. Sighting reports there are for all those para-critters. And they’re all over the map as to what’s being seen. (Quick! Describe a chupacabra.) I hate repeating myself, but here goes for the 1,000th time: sas reports can be plotted on a bell curve that when you look at it you go: that’s what a species looks like. The odds against that happening, if these people are seeing things? Don’t play them, man. BTW, “seeing things” is the most laughable explanation I have ever heard for anything, particularly anything seen this often, with reports this consistent. I can say with confidence, in fact, that I have never seen-things, one time, in my entire life. Neither has anyone I know. But scofftics lean on this, all the time. Bad crutch.

    Somebody needs to stretch somebody’s comfort zone. READ SIGHTING REPORTS. (It’s OK. I have a machine type it for me now. 😉 )

    And what do you say to people like MultipleEncounters, who know? Hmmmmm? (I peeked. I know what he says to you. 😀 )

    And guess I have to toss this in too.

    “Here you are presented with the fact that Patterson in his only book made a rather skillful drawing (for an ‘aw shucks’ rodeo clown) of a female bigfoot and miraculously in the following year produces what he claims to be a film of a live female bigfoot. Many of the responses here say far more about the nature of BF belief…”

    Not really. But that passage says much about scofftic belief. You guys see a drawing – you note yourself that it’s too good for Patterson to have done it, and it doesn’t look like Patty even if he did – and you immediately think hoax. When there’s a much more logical explanation.

    Nice straw, man! 😀

  59. mystery_man responds:

    Whoa what have I just walked in on? :) I can see some good points being made on both sides actually, but a bit of fire being spewed here! Kitakaze, being originally a pretty out and out skeptic myself, I can relate to a lot of the ideas being put forth by you and if I was in a devil’s advocate mood, I might be supporting some of what you are saying. But DWA does have some good counter points to be made as well. It’s too late here in Japan for me to really start a long post right now, so I’ll see how long this debate has dragged on tomorrow. It is good to see a full fledged debate roaring here, but I do hope that you don’t lose your heads too much and remain civilized!

    Kitakaze- By the way, since I live in Japan and am fluent in Japanese, I could not help but notice that your name means North Wind. Were you aware of that and if so, any significance to it? I’d be interested to know. I know, off topic, but I am curious.

  60. DWA responds:

    Note, mystery_man, when you come back here tomorrow :-D, that I haven’t labeled an individual a “scofftic,” yet.

    I wait until I see the evidence that they just aren’t reading to do that. Because brother, I read.

  61. DWA responds:

    Sorry, guys, but I’m off work today.

    kitakaze says: “DWA: Your example is neither elegant nor reliable evidence for the existence of bigfoot. By whom and how were those sightings compiled?”

    Answer: by someone who reads sighting reports, and notes what they say. (TBRC is doing real science in TX. Elegant? ohyeah. Not acknowledging that there’s something going on there – and elegantly pointed out and summed up – is sounding suspiciously scofftic to me. Don’t MAKE me call you a scofftic.)

    “I can cherrypick data, too. ”

    Don’t I know THAT. 😉

    “Bigfoot isn’t claimed to be encountered in desert areas?”

    Um, yeah. (Saaaaay. You DIDN’T read that link, did you?) Along or near waterways, always.

    “Science has not confirmed BF in any way, shape, or form.”

    And you’re blaming me for that? Go get mad at them; they’re the lazy ones.

    “Simply, there is no reliable evidence for bigfoot whatsoever. Please don’t make the mistake of confusing reliable evidence with proof.”

    As I didn’t. Saaaay. You’re not reading ANYTHING that doesn’t agree with you….? Don’t MAKE me call you a scofftic. 😉

  62. kitakaze responds:

    quick post for Mystery_Man. I live in Japan also. I’m a Canadian ex-pat and have been here 4 years. My wife, son, step-mother, and extended family are Japanese. Before coming here I lived with Japanese in Canada since I was 16. Naturally, I’m fluent as Japanese is my primary mode of communication. I’m well aware of what kita kaze means as it was the title of the first record I produced as a house and techno music producer when I was still a teenager. ところで、日本のどこに住んでるのか?僕は東京に住んでる。

  63. kitakaze responds:

    DWA: For someone who talks so much of reading post properly and getting out you’re not doing so well.

    The Vancouver Island marmot is Canada’s most endangered species and one of the rarest mammals in the world. Field researchers work tirelessly to preserve this species and it’s habitat is right where bigfoot is supposed to be. A wolf eats a marmot, they know about it. A cougar eats a marmot, they know about it. You’re not doing your homework as you think wolverines are on Van Isle. Bigfoot stars such as Kathy Strain have at least the intellectual forthrightness to say ‘good point, I don’t know’. Researchers meticulously work in the field document exactly what’s going on in that environment. If an 8ft bipedal primate which according to your sightings reports often exhibits engaging behaviour to human activity is there than evidence will be found.

    On the hunter point you are showing particularly poor reading comprehension. Nevertheless, you have assisted me. Hunting accidents involving human fatalities involve hunters firing at movement. Yes, there’s far too many such cases. Anyway, oops, I shot a bigfoot. I mean, yay! I shot a bigfoot! I asked you for reliable evidence of a fatal bigfoot shooting. What did you give me? Manitoba. Come back when I’ve read it? I’ve read it many times. Nice illustrations. You’re not doing to well by offering anecdotes. How about Ape Canyon? You don’t seem to comprehend the meaning of reliable evidence but that’s no surprise.

    Don’t fancy a debunk on dead bears? That’s fine. Never heard of the JREF? Wow, not too versed, are you? The point is that your body of sightings evidence contradicts the fact that there is no carcass. Proponents talk about sas in the deepest, most inaccessible, untouched places but hey, man, one word. Iowa. Nevermind that, recent BFRO entry- farm on the outskirts of Victoria, BC. Cherrypicking time, no?

    I’m sorry that you don’t like the point about el chupacabra, Nessie, or UFO’s but they are reported in a consistent descriptive manner. You respond by trotting out Fahrenbach. That’s sad. He also thinks Mary Green’s hair samples have shown that BF is genetically indistinguishable from humans. Ouch.

    More DWA reading problems- you think I said the old lady drawing was too good for Patterson. Try again. Proponents often appeal to an image of Patterson as too simple to have made such a hoax as what we see in his film. Here in a book a year prior to his famous film we see an skilled illustration by him of a female sasquatch. Why do I need to repeat myself?

    Unfortunately, you’re wearing your experience on your sleeve by saying that bigfoot hasn’t been reported in desert areas. Three words- read the sightings.

    Again, DWA, all your base are belong to me.


  64. DWA responds:


    “DWA: I read your posts carefully. Interesting yet typical that you responded to mine without answering any of the questions posed to you…”

    OK, you’re NOT reading.

    Come back when you have some info.

  65. kitakaze responds:

    DWA wrote: “OK, you’re NOT reading.” How so? I think you’re confused.

    “Come back when you have some info.” About? You are the one who seems woefully lacking in that department. Posting a lot and repeating yourself doesn’t strengthen your points in any way at all.

  66. DWA responds:

    kitakaze: show me what you know. ONE post.

    You’ve given me what I consider the Urban Objections to the sasquatch: those that could be given by anyone whose total exposure is one screening of the P/G film at their book club – and no time outdoors at all.

    If you could get beyond that, we could talk. I do have to say this, though: I don’t consider anyone who tosses sightings, out of hand, as evidence worth wasting time on. It’s indicative of, well, an Urban Objector.

    I need someone who’s read up a bit. Someone interested in true skeptical discourse could have come up with at least ten leading questions – check that, forty – from what I’ve put up.

    But a scofftic posts something like, well, you did.

  67. DWA responds:

    But I do have to say something about one of the funniest Urban Objector fixtures: the idea that a scientist seeing a sasquatch in the backcountry would come running out of the woods trumpeting the fact.

    If a cougar ate one of those marmots, they’d know. If a wolf ate one, they’d know.

    If the evidence pointed clearly to the sasquatch as the single greatest threat to the marmot: you can bet your last grant dollar that no one outside of those researchers would EVER find that out. “Um….er…..lotta cougars here, huh?…”

    Biologists care about where their next dollar is coming from, and they sure aren’t going to jeopardize that, ya think?

  68. DWA responds:

    Kitakaze says:

    “You’re not doing your homework as you think wolverines are on Van Isle.”

    Really? OK, then I’ll let you talk to someone who is: Try this.

    Which of course says nothing about the sasquatch. About which the evidence – take it from a true skeptic – says that its existence is still a VERY open question.

  69. DWA responds:

    kitakaze: stop speed-reading, man!

    You asked the same question twice. The first time:

    ““Bigfoot isn’t claimed to be encountered in desert areas?”

    I answered:

    “Um, yeah. (Saaaaay. You DIDN’T read that link, did you?) Along or near waterways, always.”

    [Translation: YES there are desert sightings. Always near water, indicating that the animals use watercourses as travel routes to get from one well-watered area to another.]

    Then you said: “Unfortunately, you’re wearing your experience on your sleeve by saying that bigfoot hasn’t been reported in desert areas. Three words- read the sightings.”

    I agree, man. DO it. But SLOW DOWN. Then I won’t have to repeat myself.

    At least I’m slowly making a convert. Man, they’re right. Missionary work is TOUGH. 😀

  70. mystery_man responds:

    Kitakaze- I have lived in Japan for 11 years. My wife and extended family are also Japanese too. Interesting about your name. I won’t keep this off topic too much, just interesting to see someone in similar circumstances to me. oh and by the way 私も東京に住んでいる。

  71. kitakaze responds:

    DWA: I’ll get to the rest of you post a little later this evening as I’m short for time now but I wanted to apologize about my blunder concerning Van Isle wolverines. I should be doubly embarrassed as I now distinctly remember making the exact same mistake some time ago at the JREF. I’m sorry.

    Now, as for sightings as evidence, I long argued at the JREF that they should be considered but the simple fact is that without corroborating evidence they will never singularily or as a whole rise to the level of reliable evidence. It’s hard for many not to look at people like Dr. Matthew Johnson’s claimed encounter and not find it credible but one really needs to take careful heed of the circumstances surrounding such claims. What do you think of the current state of the BFRO’s database?

    You stated as fact that a sasquatch has been fatally shot. I asked for reliable evidence of this. You then responded with the very old Manitoba anecdote. Can we agree that your assertion is not an established fact?

    Sorry, one more thing- you still haven’t clarified whether or not you refute claim to being the originator of the terms ‘scoftic’ and ‘skepticals’.

  72. Loren Coleman responds:

    Please stay on topic about the “Old Woman.”

    If you wish to talk about “scotific,” please go here: Is “Scoftic” A Useful Term?.

    If you wish to get into personal issues, take it offline and go private.

    Thank you.

  73. DWA responds:

    kitakaze: I’m presuming the following aren’t too too far off topic as yours is still up.

    Wolverine: hey, stuff happens. It’s appparently barely hanging on on VI because, well, wolverines need lots of room and VI is, well, an island. But it once ranged over it, east to west.

    The only thing that can be done with sightings is to vet them for reasonability; note where there are concentrations of them; and follow those concentrations up to collect better evidence. If you could consider sightings proof I’d take MultipleEncounters’ word for it and be done. Boy, he sounds like it happened to him. But until the rest of us see the confirmation, we’re stuck where we are, wondering. I’d just like to see the field go somewhere, and so far hashing over 50-year-old evidence hasn’t cut it. That’s what makes sightings important, to me: that’s where they were JUST seen, not in 1967.

    I wish I knew what to think about the BFRO in general. Things are looking a weetad sloppy over there right now. But I sure can’t just take it for granted that the reports up there are faked. Not all of them; not most; not even a significant minority, unless someone can show evidence I can accept. There are too many voices in those reports; they sound like the Great American Novel. They have a genuine ring to them. And I’m cautious about confusing the integrity of the people taking reports with those reporting them. That said: There ARE people of integrity over there; it’s that thing about one bad apple spoiling (or not?) the bunch.

    The Manitoba report is like any other. By itself it could be anything. So I don’t know. But when people say, nobody’s shot one, well, maybe someone has. That’s as far as you can go; but it’s not definite that no one has. And why would this guy, if he did it, be the only one who has, and he just decided to say something when, decades later, he found out what it was?

    I most definitely refute any claim to having coined any crypto term. But a new thread looks like it took care of that one for me. Sorry I missed it the first time you mentioned it; there seemed bigger fish to fry. 😉

  74. mystery_man responds:

    Well, I have been away for a couple of days, so I guess I kind of missed out on the tail end of this debate, and it looks like it has wound down so I look forward to exchanging ideas on another thread in the future.

    Kitakaze- I am glad you are on this site and posting your ideas, so as far as I’m concerned please don’t think too much of anyone saying “why are you here?”. Your input is appreciated from my end. I find it very interesting that we come from completely opposite ends of the spectrum as far as our interest in this field. As I understand it, you once were a supporter of the existence of Bigfoot and slowly came to be a skeptic. As for me, I started out a skeptic and a rather close minded one at that, and slowly came to where I am today being quite a bit more open minded based on my own research of what is out there. I am still a long way from saying that Bigfoot definately exists, but I am now more than willing to look at any sort of evidence, circumstantial as it may often be. I am willing to look at both evidence for and against Bigfoot and I am perfectly able to accept either as free as possible from any preconceived belief. I still play devil’s advocate with myself relentlessly. I just am seeking the truth, whatever that may be. Look forward to some interesting input from you in the future.

    That’s all I have to say in closing on this thread. Everything else will be about the “old woman”. Promise! :)

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.