Sasquatch Coffee

“Definitive Guide” to Bigfoot [Updated With New Images]

Posted by: Loren Coleman on May 15th, 2011

UPDATE: This program is being re-broadcast during May in the USA, and will be shown for the first time on Canadian television this month, as well. It appeared to be a timely move to post this again, and get new comments. Here are new images from the program.

(Several of these sheets are now at the International Cryptozoology Museum. See below for more details.)

Cryptomundians who watched “Bigfoot: The Definitive Guide” had some immediate reactions. Reviews from viewers among the readers here make sense. The following are the first few [posted Feb. 3rd; updated for Feb. 5th, and updated again on May 12th, 2011].

Random thought: Humm, that “guide” name sure is familiar.

The Field Guide to Bigfoot and Other Mystery Primates.

Dr. Anna Nekaris, the only female expert on the program’s panel, received a grant from Primate Conservation Inc. towards her study of the endangered Sumatran slow loris in Aceh Province, Sumatra, in 2007. She was a refreshing new addition to the usual male lineup.

Add your critique, praise or criticism to the comments section, below.

FeralThrowback writes: “Just watched it! Very good presentation and the retelling of events was fun for me. The Chapman family part sort of seemed inaccurate as compared to what I’ve read but that one aside I was pleased.  I thought it interesting to see where they had boiled down places where they thought it most plausible for a group of these creatures to exist.  Worth the watch!!”

Ozarkmom pens: “I was very excited to watch ‘Bigfoot: The Definitive Guide’ due to the fact that it was new and not the same reruns you see all of the time. Unfortunately, it left me very disappointed…it may have been a new program, but it was just more of the same old stuff. It was not only disappointing and empty, but also completely absurd when one of the people they interviewed suggested that what people could be seeing are Indian Shamans….so I guess it’s normal for a Shaman, when they’re out in the forest for many years, to grow 3-4 feet, put on several hundred pounds, and double their shoe size….COME ON NOW PEOPLE!!!!! The show was basically a waste of 2 hours.”

RoR emails: “I thought it was a great show. Some of the sequences [seemed as if they] were from MonsterQuest, but all in all, it was still a great show. I am still a supporter of the Myaaka Skunk Ape photo. Two of the hosts did not make a good argument for a man in a suit theory on the Patterson video.”

Mcw2112 says: “I hate to be negative, but I just finished watching the special and I have to say I feel like I seen this all before. They begin the program saying that they’ve brought together a few experts that will ‘settle the question, once and for all,’ BUT the program ends predictably, saying, ‘We may never know.’  Lots of questions were posed and opinions were provided on both sides. Interesting circumstantial evidence was discussed, but nothing that I would call ‘definitive’ came out of the study at all. Honest to goodness, the next time one of these programs comes on, I’m just going to watch the first and last five minutes and be done with it. It looks like these kinds of programs will all be the same until some idiot shoots one of these poor creatures and we have a carcass for all the world to see. I’m sorry, but some folks, even experts, sitting around a table and espousing their opinions, no matter how educated, is a futile exercise for the viewer. The only good that comes out of it is the very fact that it is being discussed at all.”

Faceless Man sends this in: “Good time waster for an insomniac like myself, I guess. Still, the fact that the theories they came up with were the same theories I have been trying to inform people of for the past few years tells me that either I’m ahead of the game, or they’re way behind.”

LH writes: “I enjoyed the show. I wish they would have discussed a little more in detail the dna from some samples that have shown ‘no known species’ all in all quite informative. I am glad they talked about the sound (screams) that are also reported. We hear alot about whoops but not about the other sounds.”

RH mentions: “Still trying to convince my wife to go camping with me…so she watched the show too. Did not like the fact that all the visuals of Bigfoot showed a scary, mean looking creature, with an angry look to it, rather than a more curious inquisitive demeanor. She still is too scared to go out with me, lol.”

CB notes: “I liked the show. Alot of great reenactments. Looked more of a round table discussion of intellectuals vs a real field investigative approach. Overall positive though.”

JW says: “I suspect the animation [made this look like MonsterQuest]. I find it hard to believe they slam the Patterson footage using the argument that special effects in 1967 could make anything look real and yet the computer animated stuff they use on shows like this, while highly technical, still look glarlingly fake in 2011!”

MW writes: “As far as the show, I thought it was interesting and thought-provoking. I am still not convinced or a believer in the theory that the creatures seen in the Pacific Northwest are nothing more then ‘wild men’ who were/are shaman.”

LM writes: “It didn’t add anything to the debate. I thought the proposed Shaman theory lacked any real logic. The close examination of the infamous Patty footage was the same old, same old. I did enjoy the map of global sightings and the monster-like like portraits that appealed to my inner 10 year old, so I guess that’s something to cheer. I guess there are worse ways to spend two hours but overall the programme was a disappointment. History Channel needs to rethink Cryptozoology.”

RM says: It was a great show on the mysterious Hominids. I agree with the conclusion of one of the guests that the Orang-pendak is the most likely to be found by science, hopefully this year. Bigfoot if he exisits is most likely an Ape of some sort. I look for Loren Coleman to lead the next expedition and to discover it’s existence.”

MB emails: “I was disappointed. It started well, and the reenactments were well done, but near the end it degenerated into wild and pointless speculation. Aside from Redmond and Meldrum, it’s clear none of the others had ever spent any time in the field looking for sasquatch, or else they would not have made such lame arguments. I was hoping Meldrum would shut them down during the P/G debate with his discoveries of leg injuries and moving mouth he uncovered in other documentaries. Granted, they have to ‘dumb down’ the show for uninitiated viewers, but I felt cheated. It hardly lived up to it’s optimistic title: ‘The Definitive Guide.’”

TCM comments: “Dr. Meldrum thank you very much for such a wonderful show. I learned a couple things that was intriguing in itself. the basket part carried by Mr. foot. Wild man introduction.”

JD: “I found the theory about the shaman interesting, but not plausible, as Kathy Strain pointed out! They started on some of the physical evidence, but just kinda left it! I’m sure many of you who are field investigators you recognized some of of the wooden structures! But nothing about the vocalizations, wood knocks, rock clacking, instead the show patterned the worn out old tabloids. The History Channel had 5 very credible scientists at their disposal….but apparently didn’t have a clue as to how to use them and their expertise, and produce a much better show! The only thing I took away from the show was the proclamation that someone needs to form a research team and spend 8-10 months in the field 24-7!.”

PM: “It’s not the scientists that will find bigfoot, it will be some researcher like us that will one day obtain the evidence! And yes it will take a rather lengthy expedition with qualified researchers who know what to look for to find the right spot. The Shawman thing in my opinion should be flushed down the toilet! I have never heard anything that stupid before in all my days of research!! I kinda felt insulted when I watched that part of the tv special! Do they really think that we are that stupid?”

SW says: “I was surprised that they was able to have a two hour show and talk about nothing. I thought it was not very good as BF shows go.”

Meldrum Speaking at IUS

Let us hear what you thought of the History Channel special. Thank you.

[For the sake of clarification, I, Loren Coleman, was only involved with being asked about a few images, late in the game. I was not asked for an on-camera interview or any consulting assistance to this program. As far as I could see, I did not even receive an end credit. Also, the ground-breaking new material about True Giants and the newer Denisovan results, beyond the initial finger bone, both from December 2010, were not included in this program. But new images, seen below and above, were.]

[Late thank you to the producers of this program. Dangerous Films of the UK have donated several of the light table sheets to the International Cryptozoology Museum for display.]

About Loren Coleman
Loren Coleman is one of the world’s leading cryptozoologists, some say “the” leading. 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.


58 Responses to ““Definitive Guide” to Bigfoot [Updated With New Images]”

  1. Averagefoot responds:

    It was alright. I enjoyed it; I liked the re-enactments and the interviews even though most of us already know all of these accounts quite well. And while the discussion among the experts is quite futile I still found it enjoyable.

    I think it had a nice pacing, nowhere near as boring as Monsterquest. Just like every other Sasquatch program it ended with a big question mark, but did anyone really expect anything more?

    Let’s not kid ourselves people, until we have a physical specimen (alive or recently dead) none of these shows are going to miraculously come out with something new and groundbreaking.

    Overall I’d say it was a good watch.

  2. Rob008 responds:

    Great show. I suspect that the same people who made “MonsterQuest” made this show. The drawings of the animals were better than other shows. I thought the two hosts who believe in the man in the suit theory for the Patterson video, really did not have a compelling argument to support their theory. I hope to see more shows like this.

  3. MountDesertIslander responds:

    I went into this show with great expectations. Production values seemed very high, the panel was good, and there seemed to be the right amount of scepticism balanced with advocacy. As the show unfolded I found my attention drifting. After two hours the only thing new that came out of this was the illuminated map.

    They missed a real opportunity by ignoring their own map. The concept of plotting sightings by location, timeline and classification was solid. There was a wealth of information that they failed to discuss. They should have done more in the way of exploring theories regarding migration routes, dispersal, sub-species and pressure from the encroachment of civilization than return to the Patterson film once again. Sadly, it seems they didn’t have enough faith in their own creation to mine it for whatever information was there.

    I would like to single out Ian Redmond as a very strong presence on the show. His camera time was always productive. I thought he provided the only fresh fodder for this ongoing debate.

  4. DWA responds:

    I didn’t watch the program, but the “Indian shaman” thing tells me almost all I need to hear. This makes it “all”:

    “two hosts who believe in the man in the suit theory for the Patterson video, …”

    HUH?

    We really should have gotten past the point by now that ANYone thinks it OK to “believe in” something. Particularly when they are trying to hold the other side’s feet to the fire of science.

    No one who proposes this theory has come up with a plausible scenario (unless this show presented one, and it hasn’t been related here). Which means that one can only “believe in” it, as ALL the evidence points to a non-human subject. Anyone who believes anything else doesn’t understand how evidence works, period.

    If this show hasn’t gotten past that thinking, it was a waste of time. Please tell me I’m missing something here.

  5. DWA responds:

    “Let’s not kid ourselves people, until we have a physical specimen (alive or recently dead) none of these shows are going to miraculously come out with something new and groundbreaking.”

    Well, not really. There is much room for “new and groundbreaking” without a specimen, namely: an approach to the evidence that recognizes what it is, i.e., compelling, but short of the proof that must now be obtained.

    Skeptics have gotten away for decades with saying, this ain’t proof. IT DOESN’T HAVE TO BE. The evidence for the sasquatch points overwhelmingly to an unverified natural source. The fakes aren’t even in the discussion; that’s all they are, fakes. They have no bearing on the evidence. The data has frequency (lots are encountering this phenomenon) and coherence (they are describing the phenomenon very consistently). THESE TWO THINGS ALONE make the data compelling to any scientist who truly examines it – as history has shown. Everyone who has looked at it in depth says one of two things: either, this is real, or this deserves serious research to find out what’s causing it.

    It would be new and groundbreaking indeed for science, as a body, to come out with: we are now going to ACT LIKE SCIENTISTS (surprise!) when it comes to this topic. We are going to stop talking about men in suits and hallucinations and woo-woo, and either (1) look carefully at the evidence or (2) STOP DISCOURAGING INTEREST IN THE TOPIC with eyerolls and “expert” opinions that call into question our scientific credentials. We will make it our position – officially – to maintain open minds; to question the scientific objectivity of those who do not; and
    to either join in the search, or await proof. You know, the way we do with all other legitimate topics of inquiry.

    THAT would be the most groundbreaking thing that has happened to the scientific community since Einstein. Until THAT happens…you can forget a body. You won’t get one.

    (Nobody should be allowed on one of these programs who “believes” Patty’s a man in a suit, unless they have a soup-to-nuts theorem that passes muster. I’ve already said why that is.)

  6. size 13 responds:

    Where were the real experts? The people who see these creatures on an ongoing basis, those who are in the field at every chance to see these animals. We just got a few degreed professionals debating ongoing surmising and speculation. They didn’t mention Texas, Louisiana, or Oklahoma, Mississippi and Alabama, real hotbeds for these animals.

    Has any of these people ever seen this animal ?I have had the privilege of sighting this animal twice now and there are those who couldn’t count the times they have seen them. Definitive? I say NOT. Then this was just a show, nothing more and nothing definitive. Just a vehicle for commercial revenue.

    Interesting, Yes. Definitive, NO!!!!

  7. Greg102 responds:

    I always enjoy these programs but it was a little disappointing. They spent way too much time discussing a wildman theory and some type of neanderthal. come on, half the panel believes the Patterson film which obviously isn’t a wildman. They didn’t really debate the evidence. briefly the Patterson film. there was no real segment on DNA of hairs, or footprints. They showed the yeti print, but that is a reconstruction from a single photo, so that’s worthless. I enjoyed all the re-enactments of bigfoot sightings. the first hour was good, but the second hour sucked, as they hung onto the shaman, wildman, neanderthal, human theories. Oh well its always good to see bigfoot programs, where the production value is really high, but they failed miserably, where they could have hit a home run.

  8. shownuff responds:

    DWA I completely agree. Also looking at Dr. Meldrum’s face when the other guy said it was a man in a suite was priceless. You know that behind the scenes Meldrum went to work on the Patty film. The Shaman thing Bogus! Thumbs down. Not giving Mr. Coleman props, another thumbs down! I really was excited to watch this. But was highly disappointed. Only the little parts when they showed quick flashes of the guy with the European accent was out in the field was exciting. I saw him on a boring Yeti documentary a while back. Plus NAPE’s are not always aggressive. Most of the time they are gentle just watching us in the woods. But they are good at hiding. Same as Gorillas do. They can be Four feet away, directly in front of you and you still wont see a Gorilla. For as big as they are they make no noise. And there can be over twenty of them. And you still wont hear a peep. That is why I love these NAPE’s. because they share the same characteristics as the African Mountain and Low land Gorillas. I am going out in the field to the Pacific North West this spring. I have some down time before I get shipped out. Whatever happened to the genetic Doctors that were going to bring out DNA samples and presenting it to the world stage? I heard her on a c2c video. Female Scientist I forget her name. Someone help me out here? I will check back for an answer.

  9. somebodyssquatchingme responds:

    They asserted that after the P-G film, there was a huge spike in sightings in this country – even produced a graph. There was only a spike in “reports” not sightings – big difference. To suggest that sightings have remained constant for hundreds of years is boring, and furthers no private agenda.

  10. paulmann responds:

    I was OK with the TV special last night until one theory was discussed. I really believe that Bigfoot is gigantopithecus-blacki that did not totally extinct. According to the Shaman theory, the tribal member that decided to go alone into the wilderness away from EVERYONE would have to have grown around 1-3 feet taller while they were in the wild. I found this extremely hard to believe. Bigfoot being a member of the giganto family makes a heck of alot more sense considering the characteristics of giganto!! This is my own personal opinion!! Thank you!!

  11. sigeweald responds:

    I agree with many on here – I’m tired of the “man in a costume” denials. And the Indian shaman theory – I’ve stayed in the woods a good bit but never started growing hair all over my body – geez. But, overall, I enjoyed the show – like someone said, good to see something other than the same old Bigfoot reruns, “watch me set up my game camera – now watch me not find anything”. What I’d like to see is a compilation of actual witness testimonies, real folks in their own words relating what they saw – sure, a lot of people would not want to go on record or appear on TV, but there are enough witnesses out there who would be willing – this way, viewers could judge their credibility for themselves & whether the thousands of reported sightings are all liars or nuts or decide that perhaps there is something out there unknown. The sheer number of credible sightings across the U.S. has been enough to convince me – but like UFO’s, too many give it the “woo-woo” treatment rather than admitting there are things out there we don’t understand.

  12. airforce47 responds:

    I concur with most of the positive and neutral comments made by other posters. The show was good and a review of a lot of previous material.

    The Shaman theory may be correct for a small number of encounters but overall it can’t be supported.

    It was disappointing to see the team not delve more into reports from East Texas. This is a prime area as reported by the TBRC.

    Missing from all the discussions was the fact that some encounters involve observed phenomena which isn’t known to our science. I maintain that any hypothesis or theory for the existence of the species must account for these phenomena when they’re reported by credible witnesses.

    The 2 best theories are still Giganto as proposed by the late Dr. Krantz and Para as proposed by Professor Coleman. As good as they are they still don’t account for all of the existing evidence.

    As stated only a specimen will do either living or dead so long as it’s enough to be thoroughly analyzed by science. My best,

  13. sasquatch responds:

    I am a stop motion animator, and once I made a lion puppet for a film, so therefore all lions are fakes. I also made a wolf for another short film-so again this means all reports of wolves in the wild are hoaxes. I say this in response to the guy in the show who said Patterson was an inventor and drew a female sasquatch once, so therefore the film is a fake. Terrible logic…First of all, there was a 50/50 chance of the sasquatch being female if he was to actually find one-not bad odds I’d say. Furthermore,Patterson was in the area because of recent footprint finds and because he was aware of the area being a “hotspot” -again the odds go up of finding a real one.
    The feral human or “Wildman Shaman thing could account for some long distance accounts but is not even close to explaining most reports of Giant gorrila-like creatures between 7-10 ft tall with footprints of 14″-22″…Overall a disapointingly, smug, show….much of the representaions of the creatures were very leading too. They seemed to be putting the idea of a human explanation in your head without actually saying it-even tho’ they DID say it…Silly show.

  14. Shelley responds:

    Reminded me of a kid opening one of those big jigsaw puzzles and trying to jam the pieces together just because he wants them to fit, not because they fit.

    If I were Loren or some other expert in the field, I would refuse to contribute to these mishmashes. They always go back to square one ["Theory: Water is wet, yes or no?"] so they don’t ever have time to include the latest developments. They always have to include the people who believe that it is a guy-in-a-suit, as well as mixing in obvious hoaxes, wasting a lot more time. This is obviously included so they can never actually conclude that there are large beings living in these isolated area; saying that the evidence is now overwhelming is apparently politically incorrect. They exclude good research such as the person/people who deconstructed the Patty film and some other film and tracks and proved that no human being as currently assembled could move in the way Patty or the others moved. And then to make it “new” or “interesting” they drag in a hopelessly lame theory like the Indian shaman one, to mess up the whole thing. The end product looks like a mudpie of bits and pieces, so they can say we didn’t prove anything and we will never know. If we had done the research to get to the moon this way, we would still be debating green cheese versus mile deep dust theories after 50 years.

    I know money is a problem, and there are problems stating that there may be another humanoid species living with us–after all, none of the last Republican party presidential candidates believed that humans ever evolved from apes, so this would really be a taboo subject. The development of DNA testing and creating charts for all existing possible samples needs to be done, and more work on identified humanoid species such as Flores, Neanderthal, etc. needs to continue.

    I’d like to see all of the good bits of film and writing that come to a real conclusion put together in one site so that people can start from there. Also maybe another site that includes known hoaxes or mistaken sightings. THEN start adding new information.

    Someone commented on the art work of the early humanoids that was included in some of the show. These were really “art,” as most of them were very speculative drawings made during the 19th C when Neanderthal and other fossils began to be identified. They cannot currently be taken as forensic art identifying any known human or humanoid being. Nice to look at, and better drawn than most of the real sightings of Bigfoot done by amateurs who have actually seen them, but just eye candy.

    Sadly, much of this show, and too much of Monster Quest was just eye candy.

  15. Daryl Cline responds:

    I was very disappointed.

    Seemed like a rehash of rehashed shows with some new sensationalism thrown in with the Indian Shaman.

    As time goes by the history channel is becoming more sensational and less scientific.

    It’s more Science Fiction then the SyFy Channel.

    When their programs on bigfoot start suggesting that they are actually space aliens in fur coats; relatives of the ones who flew their space ship into an asteroid to save planet earth; then they will lose what little credibility they have left with me.

    How much longer are respected scientists going to associate with the likes of the History Channel?

  16. Steleheart responds:

    “Looking for the wrong creature all along?” With regard to the notion that this creature is human related rather than ape related; Homo heidelbergensis would have to have gone crazy and lost his intellectual ability for tool making, reverting back to an ape-like existence for the mere hope of survival? To me this was the most disapointing aspect of the show, not to mention the fact that only 2 of the team regard the PG film as authentic. Considering the possibilities in choosing an alternate genus to Gigantopithecus for sasquatch, I would have been more intrigued if the team had considered Mr. Coleman’s earlier assertion that Paranthropus would be a better fit.

    Having said that, I must say that Dr. Nekaris captured my interest more than anything else in the show and I am not even sure what she talked about, haha.

  17. mcw2112 responds:

    My apologies to Mr. Coleman as I thought he was in some way connected to this show. I agree with many here that pointed out the inclusion of sad arguments against the Paterson film. I believe that this thing has been analyzed to death, has it not? I may be mistaken, but as far as I know, it has never been debunked, even with multitudes of folks trying to do so. I do stand by my earlier remarks that this program was all too similar to previous ones; promises to settle the question of existence and only ending up with the same old “we may never know” statement at the end. As one reader said, at least we didn’t have the old “put up a camera and film nothing” routine going on. And to think I missed Pawn Stars to see this.

  18. DWA responds:

    Read Shelley’s second paragraph. That’s why the Ben Radfords of the world feed on this stuff like sharks on chum. It DOES look like a mishmash, as if no orderly sorting of the evidence at all has gone on.

    We need to stop worrying about those who don’t know/don’t care, and start producing these shows for the people who really are interested. You know, like all the rest of TV. Give the progress of the search; amass the best evidence and present it; and skip all the outdated/discredited dreck.

  19. Ozarkmom responds:

    I found the show a complete waste of 2 hours. It was very disappointing, empty, and at times completely absurd…especially when someone suggested that what people could be seeing are Indian Shaman’s.

  20. lpb responds:

    I’m not going to go into a big explanation of why I liked it. I just really enjoyed watching it. Fresh faces, recent information, quality insight and theories as well as showing how even the experts agree to disagree on certain points. I thought this was a really good program.

  21. lpb responds:

    P.S. Also to everyone here saying this is mishmashed and re-hashed information. I beg you to recall that although we are all fans of cryptozoology and have seen most of the theories and stories before, this show is a ‘guide’ which should cater to all people. Such as in a field guide to birds it still includes the even most common of birds (i.e. Canada goose, house sparrow). This inclusion and repetition allows people new the subject to enjoy the thing all of us find interesting about cryptozoology, the mystery.

  22. Hambone responds:

    I liked it. It gave a broader explanation of the possibilities of what Bigfoot could really be. We need to have more shows like these with great stories.

  23. springheeledjack responds:

    Alright, first, I thought the show had merit. I’m not as up on my anthropology as others as water cryptids are my fav’s so no surprise there. And I did learn quite a bit about other humanoid ancestors walking around the same time as present day man. Interesting.

    I also agree that it’s high time we quit wasting time with these back and forth melodramas. We ALL KNOW there are people who think BF is rubbish (scoftics), and those who are actually investigating data coming in (skeptics). It’s time to quit trying to present both sides of the issue in each show–it’s a waste, because so much show time is eaten up by giving the other side their due. Make a show about finding BF, evidence of BF, present info on BF and so on. IF the scoftics want their side told, let them come up with the cash to make their own. Presenting both sides has less to do with being scientific, and more to do with not wanting to offend anyone. Get over it. My money is that most people tuning in are people who are interested in getting to the bottom of the BF issue–people who think BF is rubbish aren’t going to tune in just to make sure the dissenting side was fully represented…unless maybe you’re a scoftic with nothing better to do.

    I’m with the others up there–let’s take the “belief” in BF out of the equation altogether. There’s evidence of something out there, and let’s go figure out what it is. And let’s take the Patterson Film out of it. There’s been enough good study of the film to lay that to rest too. Someone can and will always be able to take the “guy in a suit” theory just to get their fifteen minutes, but there’s no reason to waste any more time on it.

    The BEST thing about last night’s show? They did discuss some theories on behavior and eating and personal behaviors–yeah, and I agree with MountDesertIslander–they missed lots of opportunities to just pick apart the data we DO have, and spend the show discussing that. That, at least, would provide a good model for the amateur BF hunter to use when they go tromping the woods on their weekends.

    I agree the shaman theory was out there–I seriously doubt shamans are creeping all over the place–hiary, seven feet tall, and with oversized feet (Eye rolling). AND, yay, they DIDN’T waste time hanging on empty camera traps.

    I also liked the fact that Jeff MEldrum pointed out that fakes and hoaxes actually account for a very small amount of the body of sightings (another favorite invalid argument used by scoftics–this sighting was a hoax, thereby we can conclude all sightings are hoaxes–total rubbish). Way to go Meldrum!

    I don’t think any discussion cryptozoological is a total waste of time, but we need to stop wasting time debating the issue and pandering to the scoftic crowd, and concentrate on the evidence and data we do have. That’s how we’re going to make strides.

    SHJ

  24. inbetween responds:

    I think there were some pretty clear mistakes, the guys on the ATVs weren’t competent enough to correctly read sign, case in point the foot tracks they saw and claimed at the very first that they looked real good. I was watching from TV and could easily see they were human tracks. Sometimes it’s better to keep your mouth shut instead of looking like an idiot while making broad baseless claims.

  25. BOOTYMONSTER responds:

    This was the type of Bigfoot show I have been hoping for! Very well researched and very respected folks involved with it. I’ve always thought the Patty film looked stiff/suspicious through the back and butt, and the the face looks like a slit in fur to see through (till “enhanced”). I was also glad to finally see some considerations for some type of Neanderthal.

  26. DWA responds:

    lbp:

    I think that those of us who believe this show missed the mark – and again, I’m going on what I’m reading others say, I didn’t actually watch it – simply think it’s time for the mystery to which you refer to come front and center, and not be constantly obfuscated by the b.s., which does not speak to mystery but to ignorance.

    A special on the gorilla might begin with a note that early reports of the animal were that it routinely squeezed women to death. But it wouldn’t spend much more than that one sentence on that thoroughly discredited item. We might talk about how solar eclipses were once viewed as dragons eating the sun. But we wouldn’t have an ‘EXPERT’ ON THE SHOW who still held that belief.

    That Patty is a man in a suit is right in the league of those beliefs. In over 40 years, there has not been one scrap of evidence that this happened. We hear so much from skeptics that “someone would HAVE TO HAVE [shot a bigfoot; hit one with a car; found bones; etc.] by now that…

    …well, here I’m going to toss one in.

    IF PATTY WERE A FAKE, EVIDENCE OF SAME WOULD HAVE TO HAVE BEEN UNEARTHED BY NOW.

    PERIOD.

    Things like this NEVER go this long without being exposed. That Patterson and Gimlin are technically responsible for it is malarkey (experts in the field call it all but impossible even for pros to do); that they were conspirators, or fooled, has never been shown by one dram of evidence. No “I’m the guy in the suit” has ever been able to explain how it happened. All the evidence found at a site examined leaf by leaf for over 40 years supports the stories of the principals, which have never been found inconsistent with either one another or the evidence at the site.

    In short: you can’t be an ‘expert’ and BELIEVE that’s what happened. Experts rely on one thing and one thing only: EVIDENCE. It would be nice if there were any (repeat: THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE). There is NONE.

    Stop talking about it, skeptics, unless you have evidence. This needs to die, without mention other than to say that it’s been thoroughly discredited. Same goes for the idea that the fakes somehow cause researchers problems. NO THEY DON’T. The researchers are responsible for pinning down every fake that has been exposed. The evidence that still stands is copious, and very consistently unlike the fakes, which are themselves very consistent. Fakes can simply be tossed as a factor in this discussion; they cast no more shadow on the evidence than a man in a gorilla suit does on the gorilla.

    The mystery is how something that has left this much evidence remains unconfirmed. THAT’S THE MYSTERY. You want mystery? There is the biggest mystery in the biological sciences. The show should focus on that. And only on that. No more malarkey.

  27. Fhqwhgads responds:

    DWA shows a great deal of frustration, perhaps even anger, that not everyone finds the evidence currently available for the real existence of Bigfoot as compelling as he does. It’s natural to have such feelings, but scarcely more “scientific” than the “beliefs” he insists on criticizing.

  28. DWA responds:

    Fhqwhgads: I think you have tried this before. (I try to be civil and…tut-tut.)

    So I’ll try it with you. Give me five pieces of evidence that point to the sasquatch being a figment of our imagination.

    (Bet ya can’t fake just one.)

    And none of that “you can’t prove the nonexistence of something.” Not what I’m asking. But a scientist would know that. ;-)

    I know the evidence is compelling – as every scientist who shows cognizance of it does, and unfortunately there are few – because I have reviewed it. As they have. You have not.

    I just don’t think TV should cater to the ignorant any more than it does. That’s all. Stop being so, I don’t know, ANGRY about it.

  29. springheeledjack responds:

    Actually, that is DWA’s point: evidence and fact. The debunkers aren’t dealing in fact, but supposition. “Hoaxes have happened, so all of the big foot phenmenon is hoaxed.”

    The PAtterson film has been gone over a zillion times, and they’ve found no zippers, no shirt tails hanging out. The one dude on the show (sorry, forget his name), said he didn’t think the PAtterson animal was real because the face looked too human. That’s subjective. For him, it didn’t add up, but that isn’t and was in no way objective.

    In addition to the thousands of sightings, the historical record of the creatures through the American Indian peoples, the foot casts, the hair samples that don’t match any known types, and all of the other anecdotal evidence does not mean that we’re dealing with a social psychological need for monsters–if that were the case, then a whole lot more than 10% of the population would believe in said monster (and yeah, I pulled that fact from the show).

    It wasn’t until the giant squid was actually taken seriously as a living breathing animal (and wanted to know more about them), that scientific expeditions were actually able to go out and come up with footage of them below depths (yeah, I know there’s one in the smithsonian), but they were relegated to sailor stories too. Now that we’ve got footage and more specimens, we’ve discovered the collossal squid and even a ton of other unrelated species just because we’ve been probing the depths.

    I’m with DWA here. If BF was a myth, the imagination and solely the result of guys in boots with fake feet strapped to the bottoms, we’d have ferreted it out a long time ago. Hoaxes do not hold up under intense scrutiny, or time, for very long. Look at your Georgia bunch (not that I ever thought that was legit…always go with show me the hardware first).

    Take BF out of the fairy tale realm and legitimize it as an animal/man and we’re off and running. I’m in.

  30. DWA responds:

    My favorite lines in this discussion so far:

    shj – “I don’t think any discussion cryptozoological is a total waste of time, but we need to stop wasting time debating the issue and pandering to the scoftic crowd, and concentrate on the evidence and data we do have. That’s how we’re going to make strides.”

    And, saying why this is true:

    Shelley – “If we had done the research to get to the moon this way, we would still be debating green cheese versus mile deep dust theories after 50 years.”

    You’re not doing a disservice to your audience to clear the ignorance out of the discussion. In fact, now you have stopped talking down to them. You are making them “listen up.”

  31. Carlfoot responds:

    I give it a thumbs in the middle. The shaman theory just holds no water. But, it had a couple good ideas for what bigfoot could be, especially for the rookie bigfooter.

  32. Fhqwhgads responds:

    DWA: Yeah, several months ago I asked you to provide what you consider the 5 best pieces of evidence for the existence of Bigfoot. You were either unable or unwilling to do this. Your call for me to prove something about the state of your mind is a lame dodge.
    Sorry, I can’t prove that you are delusional; I can’t prove that your friends at the Carter farm are, either. There are other possibilities, of which the existence of Bigfoot is only one.

    Regardless, my point is: be patient. If Bigfoot is real, there will eventually be sufficient evidence to convince mainstream science. If he’s not real, people will keep looking for him for a few more decades and then gradually drift away, and mainstream science will have been right not to hastily affirm his existence. In the meantime, diatribes against “the scientific establishment” are a strong indicator of pseudoscience, and they do nothing to enhance the credibility of your studies. So keep looking, sift through the data, and when you’ve got something really compelling you’ll get to have the last laugh — and if you never get really compelling evidence, you won’t wind up a bitter old crank.

  33. Mïk responds:

    OK, we’ve all agreed that the show had nothing for those who read this site. WHAT”S NEW? If you’re here, you’ve seen most of the stuff they produced, thanks to Craig and Loren. I thought the show did a nice round-up of the information available. I don’t know what was expected by you good folks, but it was put together in the Monster Quest style “film a scenario illustrating the facts”, and they didn’t let the facts get in the way of a good story.

    The two “man in a suit” contenders were probably goaded into that by the producers to add an opposing side to the panel. Otherwise in would have been 5 people patting each other on the back, and that woulda been the dead of the show. The ‘shaman theory was just plain stupid…if he was goaded into that, he shoulda known it would be the death of his credibility. They needed SOMETHING new, because everything was old news, but that was asinine. If he actually believes that, he needs his ‘Expert’ license disbarred. I still think of Dr Jeff as the #1 expert in this field, but as a bonifide scientist, he wasn’t gonna stick his neck out on ANY theory for a TV show. Probably the same applies to the other panelists, with the exception of the one who did.

  34. DWA responds:

    Fhqwhgads: I’ve walked this road with you before. Don’t need to do it again.

    Your posts bespeak your attention to the evidence. It’s self-evident.
    If I told you relativity is hogwash, show me in three equations that it’s real, and I have to understand them all, I know what you’d say to me.

    You’re in the same boat when it comes to this topic. READ UP.

    I know nothing about relativity; don’t care…and don’t spend my spare time trolling relativity sites. I’m just smart; care about the natural world; have an inquiring mind; think like a scientist…

    …and get, yeah, a bit exercised at scientists who can’t do that, after all they’re scientists ferpetes AND ARE PAID TO; …

    …get outside, a lot; and the gulf of the knowledge gap that separates us when it comes to this specific topic shows all of this in spades. You don’t have to do anything about that, just as I can continue letting relativity go about its business without me. Not like I plan to leave home tomorrow and come back last year anytime soon.

    But why are you, um, here again? I thought I saw posts that hinted at that…then I see these…

    (Note that those of a scientific bent focus on the evidence; the others just call names and fling crap, actually behaviors which are characteristic of all higher primates when they let their emotions get the better of them.)

    You’re just funny. But thanks for the exercise.

    It says something about your tack that I wrote this *before* you responded…and didn’t have to change a word. Just a drill I like to run occasionally. You have to stop being so predictable. All you scoftics do.

    ————————————————————————

    Now, for the rest of you: here’s what The Show As Produced by Dr. DWA would look like.

    1. History. Sightings dating from earliest European occupation; Native narratives dating from far before that, treating the animal no differently from the way the ones we know of are treated. (The Columbia River carvings, and their treatment by scientists, would be a honey to toss in here; How Scientists See Just What They Want To See.)

    2. Media treatment, starting with nineteenth-century accounts and continuing through the CA track finds of 1958 to the present.

    3. The Tracks. Volume of finds. Characteristics. Analysis by experts.

    4. Sightings by laymen. Frequency; coherence; obedience to biogeographical rules and statistical expectations. Websites where viewers can check for themselves.

    5. Collateral evidence. Provenance; analyses; scoftical treatments by scientists.

    6. Scoftical objections. After all that’s preceded, most people will laugh at these; probably shouldn’t take five minutes.

    [Once again: IF YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE, KEEP YOUR OPINIONS TO YOURSELF. The First Rule of Scientific Discussion, violated at one’s own risk.]

    7. The evidence, taken as a whole. (Summary: a pattern any field biologist would recognize. And we’ll find the animal right….*here.*) (If we ever decide to pull off the blinders, and look.)

    There is so much information that the challenge will be how in the HECK one can fit this into seven one-hour specials. For the overview, that is.

    (If we like dancing on the heads of the ignorant, OK, OK, I’ll give the scoftical objections a one-hour tar-and-feather session. Call me sporting.)

  35. norman-uk responds:

    Unfortunately, I haven’t been able to see the programme so far but hope I will able to when it comes to the UK. Looks like there will be a lot of interesting material in it even if it is not new to everyone. There are bound to be exasperations, isn’t it always so?

    There are those who cannot except the probability of bigfoot unless they are absolutely forced. Nothing less than having lunch with the Hendersons and having Harry standing behind them. Oh my gosh!!

    One can pick at the evidence, which isn’t to difficult, something negative can always be russelled up and serious sceptics are only concerned with the negative. But there is ample evidence, especially eyewitness reports (yes) to make an overwhelming case out for sasquatch, if not absolutely certain.

    BUT the new kid on the block is DNA. In time this will mean everything, including the equation dna=body=specimen. From it it will be possible to read out all the characteristics of our specimen and even give the potential of a clone, a hugely challenging question. The thing is to get the DNA while it is available and keep enough for testing not only now but in the future.

    What sasquatch dna samples need is the sort of testing and analysis and attention that is being given to Neanderthal, Denesovan and Floriensis samples. We have the first two and currently there is optimism that a new method will shortly supply the hobbits dna. This could be very interesting and important for comparison with sasquatch etc.

    Strange how bigfoot samples always seem to be degraded contaminated or unavailable. This for a wonderfully plentiful, robust and durable substance! I have a worry that when the sasquatch riddle is solved the magic of it will be leached away. Isn’t that what science does, missing that with living things the sum is greater then the parts.

  36. Fhqwhgads responds:

    DWA:

    You’re doing better, now. Ignoring the childishness of made-up insult words, I take it your evidence comes in something like these categories (not necessarily how you grouped them):

    1. Sightings as reported by
    1.a. Native legends.
    1.b. People of European descent, up to the Age of Television.
    1.c. People of European descent, after the beginning of the Age of Television.
    2. The tracks/footprints.
    3. “Collateral evidence”. I have no idea what you mean by that, and I think this category is a mixed bag that needs to be broken up, but here are some things you maybe meant.
    3.a. Droppings, blood, or hair.
    3.b. Video evidence.
    3.c. Audio recordings.
    3.d. Nesting sites.

    I’ll avoid commenting on these for now, other than to say that 2 and 3a are by far the most promising at present.

    By the way, if you ever want to read up on relativity, I can recommend specific books for you to read. I wouldn’t just tell you to read up without recommending a book and think that I had given even a moderately complete answer.

  37. Fred123 responds:

    Once again I’m reading folks demonizing the scientific community for refusing to admit the bigfoot might exist even though these same pepple refuse that bigfoot might not exist. I’ve been reading the same books as the rest of you since I got my mother to record Ivan Sanderson for me on a local talk show when I was in grade school. After looking at the same evidence that you did, I concluded that the evidence wasn’t sufficient. Could there be this many cases of fraud, mistaken identity and outright nuttiness (I realize that this isn’t PC, but the guy from North Carolina last year seems this last category to a tee) in a sample population of over one billion? Absolutely. Giants living in artificially lit caves in Guam for the past sixty years? I doubt that even the most devout cryptid fan would run such a fanciful tale past a genuine nature researcher, let alone a genuine scientist. Why are you always insisting that anybody who doesn’t believe with you hasn’t looked at the evidence? A decent summary of the evidence airs on shows like MonsterQuest on a monthly basis. I haven’t seen anything that greatly improves the case for sasquatch since I read John Green’s Sasquatch the Apes Among Us over a quarter of a century ago. I have seen my share of indisputable hoaxes since then. If you people are going to keep demanding your due respect from the sceptics, it’s high time that you started showing some respect yourselves. Maybe someday somebody will drag a big hairy humanoid body out of the woods (I doubt it, but I could be wrong). But until then, I’ll assume that it’s still pretty safe to wander in the woods across from Greengate Mall.

  38. Fhqwhgads responds:

    Fred123:

    Correct. Not to mention the same evidence, or at least many examples of the same kinds of evidence, are frequently reported on an obscure web site called cryptomundo.com.

    It’s just that some people think that a hair sample that tests as “unidentified primate” *must* mean that there is a new species of primate out there, while others will question whether the lab has enough experience with a variety of animals to confidently rule out all known animals. (In fact, the emotions shown by the scientists performing the test range between, “Another mundane sample” to, “That’s odd,” but don’t ever seem to rise to “Wow, I’m going to be on the cover of Nature!!”)

    The same can be said for footprint evidence. I’m talking about the good stuff here, not tracks in the snow that might have expanded, blurry, partial prints that might have come from a bear, etc. Some of them are so good that they cannot be misidentification; they can only be (1) real tracks made by a large, non-human, bipedal ape, (2) elaborate frauds made by someone with a good understanding of biology, or (3) frauds made by someone without a good understanding of biology that were just “lucky”. Option (3) is quite a stretch in many of these cases. At any rate, there are only a handful of such high-quality tracks, and it’s not hard to find out about them. The difference comes in asking what they mean. I think they are interesting and justify keeping an open mind, but the possibility for deliberate fraud still exists. After all, the percentage of people who understand the bone structure of the human foot is nothing like as low as is usually claimed by Bigfoot proponents.

  39. springheeledjack responds:

    The scientific community isn’t being demonized…except, when it starts throwing words around like “don’t believe.” Or when you take the idea of “hoaxing” and apply it to the body of sightings, tracks, samples, etc. as a whole. In fact there’s much more than a billion people roaming, but not in the U.S. and Canada, and even granting that just for the sake of a quality argument, the small % who hoax is not enough to account for all of that. You’re basically suggesting an entire community of people devoted keeping a myth alive. Which do I find harder to accept: an organized sub-culture spending countless hours, time (over decades), resources (and I’m being very lenient here–from the show, Meldrum also pointed out that the foot print evidence is varied and detailed, which he would have expected from an actual population–pointing to the fact that most people wouldn’t have even the knowledge to think to fake an oversized, realistic hominid foot, let alone the resources or the savvy), risk (dressing up in suits to scare civilians is risky even though no one’s taken a shot at one yet), AND able to coordinate over the entirety of North America (I’ll leave the rest of the world out of it for now) considering the internet has only been around for a short while and certainly no where near the beginnings of BF. AND being able to keep this secret society…secret?

    OR the fact that there’s some unknown bi-ped actually roaming the PAcific Northwest and other places that we haven’t discovered yet.

    I’ll take the latter based on the body of evidence. You can call it sasquatch, BF, feral humans, neanderthals, or whatever, but there’s enough evidence to convince me we’re looking for a real living entity, instead of Medusa, gremlins or some psychosis of the human mind (the last always earns eye rolling). And I’m not even a BF researcher. It’s the water cryptids that have my fancy.

    I guess the one ego-centrism that fires me up the most is the age old argument that if BF was here we would have found one by now. Why, because humanity is so observant and intelligent that a life form larger than us would never be able to use their own environment to outmaneuver us? Please. AND, we have found them. The catalogue of sightings alone says we’ve been seeing them, but it doesn’t mean humanity has been able to capture one (though if you look through the history, there may be some dispute on that too). That’s the darwin concept to a “T”. They’ve been able to adapt to their environment and stay off the radar of humanity–and maybe that’s why they’ve been able to survive for so long.

    I’ve said this before: you’re free to believe what you want. Doesn’t bother me at all. However, don’t take the hundreds of years of history, sightings, tracks, samples, etc. and try to sell me on the fact that it’s all hoaxes and fraud. I don’t accept that argument as valid or factual.

  40. Mahalo X responds:

    Typical TV program on the subject; Hard to watch!
    I’ll stick to reading books and articles. These folks already had their minds made up, not very scientific!

  41. Fhqwhgads responds:

    It all comes back to the assumption that if someone doesn’t agree with you, he must be ignorant, or evil, or a fool. Or maybe all 3 at once. Certainly it can’t be the case that YOU are mistaken. Only an ignorant, evil fool would think that; the matter does not bear further thought.

    It’s that zealotry that makes most scientists welcome cryptozoologists the same way most people welcome Jehovah’s Witness missionaries at their front door.

    Well, this is doing no good for me and no good for anyone else. Those who want to believe that they are the chosen few to whom the truth of Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, Mothman, etc. have been revealed will go on in smug confidence and disdain for the outside world, all the while complaining that they are unfairly marginalized as a bunch of kooks.

    Good luck, guys. I’ll watch the National Geographic special when you find what you’re looking for.

  42. lumbarjack03 responds:

    I’ve been interested in bigfoot since i was a child, I read ivan T. sandersons books and many others. I am also frustrated by the continuous lack of evidence that abounds, besides the usual footprints, blurried images and eyewitness testimonies, nothing has come out in the last 20 years that shows anything other then a possibility. In the courts the evidence presented would probably be enough to indict me on whatever trumped up charges the authorities have had in mind. having said all that I still believe something is outhere, i don’t make much credence to someone stating that the creature in question is a bear or in case of Dr. nekaris’ summations a misidentified goat (with the yeti being in mind here). I am from the big city and i spend sometime outdoors, but I’ve seen a bear in the zoo or on tv that i am pretty sure a bear would look just like a bear or a goat just like a goat. a person tarveling in the higher altitudes in nepal or wherever i’m sure would remark like the following “oh boy what is a goat doing all the way up here” I don’t know i am just giving my opinion.
    as for the relict populations of early humans, i don’t know why to some this isn’t plausible, I’ve always held this belief that sasquatch was something more closely related to man then to ape. I know that apes are smart and can avoid human contact but they have been found and documented. I don’t know if any of you watched the movie “nell” but tsake it in once and you’ll be surprised how normal people can turn wild. do stories of wild children or people have any credence in this discussion i think so.

    again I don’t think that sasquatch is a shaman or a wild human but being closely related with us shouldn’t be thrown out either. the lack of bodies (yeah never found a dead bear in the woods either, but if a scientific research team was put together i am sure they would come up with a few). anyway everyone is so p***ed off at this film i for one think that for a novice it left some interesting points out on the table.

  43. gridbug responds:

    I submit that all told, there’s more actual evidence (physical, circumstantial, folklore etc) for the existence of Bigfoot than there is for God. Which says a lot.

  44. springheeledjack responds:

    lumbarjack03–yeah on the bear. I saw footage of a three legged bear walking upright (missing a front paw, and it might have been MonsterQuest–correct me if I’m wrong folks), but when it walked, it solidified for me that bears are not the main culprit of sasquatch sightings.

    Even this bear who had learned to walk on its hind legs because of its predicament didn’t have a normal “gait” on two legs. It walked on a road, but it could never have loped through the brush on two legs, as often is the case with BF. Also, after a few short seconds it was plain to see that a bear walking on its hind legs doesn’t fit the familiar pattern either…bears have short legs (and short arms for that matter), no where near the length of a man or what is detailed in BF sightings, and it doesn’t look like a man.

    I’d say if you saw a bear at a hundred yards in the woods, for only a couple of seconds, you might see a big furry something and decide it was a BF, but any longer and you’re going to figure out it’s a bear. From the reports, BF’s exhibit much different behavior and definitely do not move like bears.

    And Fhqwhgads…you’re getting way too bunged up on this. Again, you’re looking at this from a “belief” standpoint, which relegates BF and the water cryptids to the realm of fairies (sorry fairy supporters). I’ve looked at the evidence, and I’m swayed by it enough to make me think there’s a critter roaming out there. As I said earlier, you’re welcome to take any stance you want. Don’t believe in BF. That’s fine. However, if you’re going to come in here with that opinion, back it up with something concrete other than “there’s not enough evidence to prove there’s a BF.” That’s a cop out-because all you’re really saying is that you’re not going to accept the existence of a BF until we have a body.

    And when that day comes, we’ll all be watching the National Geographic Special.

    For me, there’s enough evidence. I’ll waste my weekends and small vacations in the hot spots, tromping the woods on the lookout with binoculars and a camera (a gooood camera and a tripod)–when I can’t get to a good Scottish lake, that is…or one in Champlain, Canada, South America, etc.

    Obviously, no matter what anybody thought about the show, it produced a lot of good discussion and ideas. And for me, not having a savvy background in earlier forms of man, I did learn a couple of things. Don’t think we have a crazy bunch of shamans prowling the forests, but some new ideas did rear their heads. And BF is always a worthy topic, if not loaded from the get-go. Night, all.

  45. zobo1942 responds:

    I watched this yesterday, and really enjoyed it. I liked the ’roundtable’ idea, and the different people sharing theri opinions. Pretty close to the best ‘crypto-’ show I’ve ever seen, actually.

  46. angelsman responds:

    Ok folks, let me just say it; if I hear one more “expert” say the Patterson film is hoaxed, I’ll scream. If an out of work rodeo cowboy on a tight budget can make the biggest hoax movie of all time, with no special effects, then why doesn’t someone else step up and just do it! If it was so easy, I want to see someone make a replica movie with 1960′s technology. Even now they can’t perfect the look of “Patty”, remember Harry and the Hendersons? Close but no cigar. Put up, or shut up you naysayers. C’mon Mythbusters, lets see it. And….Lets see a documentary with some “new” stuff in it, that show was just a re-hash of all the stuff us Squatchers already know.

  47. DWA responds:

    shj:

    “back it up with something concrete other than “there’s not enough evidence to prove there’s a BF.” That’s a cop out-because all you’re really saying is that you’re not going to accept the existence of a BF until we have a body.”

    Precisely.

    This is what all the scoftics wind up saying: there’s no proof. Did I say this before or did I not? THERE DOES NOT HAVE TO BE. There only has to be enough evidence to prompt anyone who looks at it and knows what he’s looking at to say: this is a worthy subject of scientific investigation. It is.

    And only those totally unacquainted with the evidence wind up sputtering stuff like

    “It all comes back to the assumption that if someone doesn’t agree with you, he must be ignorant, or evil, or a fool. Or maybe all 3 at once. Certainly it can’t be the case that YOU are mistaken. Only an ignorant, evil fool would think that; the matter does not bear further thought.”

    READ UP, man. I have run out of interesting people to talk to on this site who DISagree with me! Lack of acquaintance with the evidence, in a scientific discussion, will do that to you.

    My challenge still stands. I have encountered no one with my level of understanding of the evidence who disagrees with me that – at the very least – the search for the sasquatch is as fully legitimate as anything going on in any scientific field.

    SCIENTIFIC DEBATES ARE NOT ABOUT BELIEF. THEY ARE ABOUT EVIDENCE.

    If they are worth having, that is.

    And let’s stop mis-labeling grown up, sophisticated words like “scoftic.” Only true skeptics truly deserve that name. And shooting from the hip in a scientific debate is not a grownup thing to do.

  48. norman-uk responds:

    I don’t think it it necessary to conform to scientific ritual to be into cryptozoology or be a gardener or an angler or a lover. It only becomes obligatory if you wear the mantle of a scientist and expect official scientific accreditation. Ultimately sasquatch has nothing to worry about from good science, unfortunately this isn’t totally available along with a media that tend to find the subject a bit of a joke. The name Bigfoot doesn’t help with its maybe subliminal sexual inferences.

    In the case of sasquatch, I am convinced of its physical reality because of all the number and quality of eyewitness reports, not forgetting it is only until recently the evidence for the moon was basically eyewitness reports and I for one didn’t think it was green cheese! Then there is a whole matrix of other evidence which dovetails into a persuasive whole if you don’t get bogged down in those things that are ambiguous or not see through the wood for the trees.

    In a sense we are really lucky to have this sasquatch mystery and all the others like it throughout the world and it is there to be enjoyed before they almost certainly become extinct. A big problem about intrepid scientists going to those unexplored place where no one treads is that locals get access and knowledge thereby and this leads to exploitation of these environments. So what may be the means of saving these creatures by their recognition, unless we hurry up, will be the means of their doom!

    The thing about accepting the reality of sasquatch one can and should accept some of the iconic instances concerning manimals as more than likely true rather than less and not bow to the sceptics. With events in life concerning people there are usually contradictions and this sometimes means that a report of an event in the past could even be considered validated by some contradictions. These events are not judged by the event but by the report of the event and one must allow the reporter leeway. I am minded of trying to tell the doctor what ails one sometimes

    Then working on the basis of the reality of sasquatch there must be physical evidence of its existence. There should be bones and bits of this and that all over in dusty cellars in museums or cupboards, neglected and forlorn. I have read that there are lots of giant’s bone here and there in museums in America particularly. These all warrant looking at with a view to identifying the possibility of them being sasquatch.

  49. DWA responds:

    This deserves comment.

    “By the way, if you ever want to read up on relativity, I can recommend specific books for you to read. I wouldn’t just tell you to read up without recommending a book and think that I had given even a moderately complete answer.”

    I gave a TOTALLY complete answer. I said what one has to do. Tell me ONE book on the sasquatch, let alone plural, that has been thoroughly vetted by the scientific establishment and put forth as, yes, this is the book with the proof.

    There aren’t any. If that makes you impatient, well, welcome to the science of the unknown and not accepted. This may be your first stop here; prepare for a bumpy ride, one in which your own judgment will play a major role, as you can’t just fall back on some authority’s acceptance as your point-to when someone says: relativity is NUTS.

    Only, well, I actually can. But more on that shortly.

    As with any topic that the scientific mainstream ignores, you have to read, well, pretty much everything. I have, pretty much. Because I am interested in the topic. You don’t have to be, but why come here if you aren’t?

    OK, but let me go beyond complete here. Here’s what you read.

    1. Jeff Meldrum’s “Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science.” Here is a scientist – credentialed in a couldn’t-be-more-relevant field – who has done extensive field research; can tell you what a nutty notion it is that someone – or multiple, interconnected someones – with the required knowledge would run around faking an upright ape; and has had experiences in the field that back up his research. Two of the world’s preeminent authorities give ringing endorsements to the book.

    2. All the reports on the Texas Bigfoot Research Conservancy and Bigfoot Field Reserchers Organization databases. I said all, and yes I have. Don’t worry. Long before you finish, you will know you don’t need to, because you will know you didn’t know anything you thought you did.

    3. I’ll toss in J. Robert Alley’s “Raincoast Sasquatch.” A slew of reports from the region extending from Puget Sound to Yakutat, AK…that sound like folks are seeing the exact same thing folks are seeing in 1. and 2. above. A LOT of folks.

    If, after reading the above, you have a theory about how all this could ring up to a false positive, I can guarantee you it won’t hold water. No one has met that challenge yet. You’d have to be a whacko conspiracy theorist to say whatever will come out of your mouth. Just so you know: any scientist will tell you that the LEAST LIKELY source of This All Being Made Up is a random concatenation of stuff, such as people who don’t know the evidence postulate. This isn’t lies, drugs, alcohol, innocent mis-identification, elaborate hoaxes etc. etc. etc., all just neatly tying up to conform to biological expectations for an animal. It is either a willful conspiracy several hundred years old, with thousands of history’s most unlikely conspirators ever, or it just ain’t happenin’.

    That’s just the start, by the way. You aren’t near what I’ve read when you’re done. But you will think what I think, or I can dismiss what you think. Really. It’s that strong, and I’m as skeptical as you will meet.
    That’s why I think it’s loony to presume it’s all made up, unless you are blissfully unburdened by information. I couldn’t call myself a skeptic if I said anything else.

    Oh. I’m not interested in the occult, the paranormal, ghosts, or anything like that. Somebody thinks that stuff is real, sure, prove it to me, but I’m not waiting up for you. I’m interested in critters. That’s what the evidence says we have here. If you’re a bettin’ man, and you read what I’ve outlined above, put some money here.

  50. sasquatch responds:

    Did anyone notice that the scene (taken from Monster Quest) where the man in B. Columbia who says he saw one across the river
    had been altered? The original M.Q. version of his interview showed a more traditional bigfoot reaching into the river trying to grab a fish or something-the new version edited that out, and put in a new shot of the silly looking cave man guy scratching around on the ground above the river bank. I wonder if the producers of Monster Quest were aware of this? or is it all the same group on History Channel and nobody cares what they do to their own shows? George Lucas would approve…’cept he’d take out the live action and insert CGI. Hee, Hee.

  51. Loren Coleman responds:

    Over fifty comments! Great to see people have so much to say about this program and this topic.

    Regarding the above ongoing theme that in some way this program used footage from or involved parts of the same crew from “MonsterQuest,” I think that is incorrect.

    Yes, similar ground was covered, some of the same stories were used, and a few of the same people were re-interviewed, but, unless I am totally wrong, this program has nothing to do with the production company that produced “MonsterQuest.”

    Doug Hajicek’s group, Whitewolf Entertainment of Minnesota produced “MonsterQuest” and “Legend Meets Science.” Dangerous Films of London, UK produced “Bigfoot: The Definitive Guide.” There is no overlapping personnel between Doug’s group and the Dangerous people behind this documentary.

  52. sasquatch responds:

    I have watched all the Monsterquest shows on Bigfoot at least twice each and would swear that that was the same interview;the guy in the car, then he’s talking standing there-I thought his vocal inflections were the exact same etc…then they put in new “wildman” footage and took out the original stuff where the creature (looking like a furry bigfoot-not a caveman) is leaning out and reaching towards the water-from a felled tree that’s over the river.
    I issue a friendly challenge to go back and watch that original episode about the Vancouver Island Bigfoot, and compare the two.
    I’m gonna do the same thing because IT IS possible, as you say that they “re-interviewed” people, but I think it’s the same footage edited differently. Thanks. Best wishes

  53. DWA responds:

    It occurs that I have the Amazon URL to only one of the books I have above cited. Here’s Meldrum’s. Here’s Alley’s.

  54. DWA responds:

    I came back to add another book to read, and another comment.

    1. Myra Shackley’s “Still Living?” shows how frequency and coherence can be used to separate wheat from chaff (hint: don’t mount an expedition to find European Wildmen just yet). It also summarizes the compelling evidence that sasquatch and yeti aren’t all there are…and this was almost 30 years ago.

    2. Alley’s book cited in my previous post is important not only for the depth of reportage from a specific area of interest, but for showing how much we “know” from the evidence. There’s a “Field Guide to the Pacific Coast Sasquatch” at the end that is a lot more comprehensive and cohesive than we have for species confirmed to exist. It’s of practical use for anyone interested in this animal, anywhere. I saw a potential piece of evidence in Maryland a couple of weeks ago that is almost precisely like one that this book reports from Alaska; this book is the only reference to the phenomenon I had come across before I saw it myself. Since I saw it, a BFRO report from Washington state has surfaced that includes a similar observation. This sort of knitting-together of observations from widely-separated locales is important for pushing the study of phenomena that science doesn’t yet accept. Alley is also extremely perceptive in discussing why something for which this much evidence exists is so difficult for the mainstream of science to swallow. It is as good a read on the subject as anything I have seen. I’ve come back to it again and again.

  55. DWA responds:

    I have to add to previous comments one thing, about a picture new to this blog.

    Does that last photo look like SuperHeroBigfoot, or what? I think I have heard of blue eyeshine in night sightings. But the luminous NightVisionBrow is a new one on me.

  56. 76sagi responds:

    I personally really enjoyed the program. Was there rehashed information? Of course there was. But given the lack of a considerable amount of new evidence, I thought it was a thoroughly informative and entertaining show. While the “shaman” hypothesis was far-fetched, I always enjoy listening to Dr Meldrum speak on the scientific end. To me, his input lends credibility and fairness to the program. That being said, there certainly is a lot of reworking older content for new Sasquatch shows; more visual and conclusive evidence is needed. As with many here, I’d like to see more scientific study and investigation on the subject.

  57. dharkheart responds:

    I thought the show was great. Jeff Meldrum always brings measured analysis and the addition of Anna Nekaris was like letting in a new ray of light; one that shone brightly in comparitive analysis and field experience from a younger generation’s perspective. All of the individuals making up the round-table are sound scientifically speaking.

    I look forward to seeing more of them!

  58. whiteriverfisherman responds:

    I did not comment on this show the first time around because I didn’t think it was worth wasting the time or effort. What I will say is if I were Mr. Coleman, which I am not, I’d be very thankful my name was not associated with this show. I thought it was an embarrassment to the entire Sasquatch research community. Semi quote “Man in a suit” How do you know with such certainty? “Because it is” Yeah, that’s real scientific. How about a shaman in a suit? Let explore this one more!! RIDICULOUS!! No wonder so many main stream scientists laugh at this subject.



Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|


Cryptomundo Merch On Sale Now!

CryptoMerch

Connect with Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest

Advertisers

DFW Nites


Champ Camp Monstro Bizarro Everything Bigfoot



Advertisement




|Top | FarBar|



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