Roadside Bigfoot Sighting in Southeast Texas
Posted by: Craig Woolheater on November 28th, 2006
Several weeks ago, I posted an interesting road crossing Bigfoot sighting report here on Cryptomundo.
I just posted another interesting roadside Bigfoot sighting report on the Texas Bigfoot Research Center’s website.
The witness recalled seeing movement at her 1:00 o’clock position in the tree line; it was the movement that captured her attention. Had it not been for the movement, the witness was certain that what she saw, because of natural coloration and camouflage, would have blended in almost perfectly, concealing its presence. It was at that point that point that the witness identified what she described as an upright, tall (six and one half [6 ½] to seven [7] feet in height), hair-covered, reddish-brown, muscular creature, as it seemed to put its left arm on something before leaping. The visual encounter was no more than a few seconds; the witness mostly remembered seeing the whole figure, and prominently seeing the arm and leg movement. The witness emphasized to me that the creature seemed almost effortless in its movement; she described the creature as “graceful” and “agile.”
The witness recalled quickly seeing eyes, but could not remember details about the face, other than the face was less hairy than the rest of the body, was a lighter color and appeared more human-like than gorilla-like.
To read the full report at the Texas Bigfoot Research Center’s website:
Woman reports daytime visual encounter on Highway 59 near Shepherd.
Co-founder of Cryptomundo in 2005.
I have appeared in or contributed to the following TV programs, documentaries and films:
OLN's Mysterious Encounters: "Caddo Critter", Southern Fried Bigfoot, Travel Channel's Weird Travels: "Bigfoot", History Channel's MonsterQuest: "Swamp Stalker", The Wild Man of the Navidad, Destination America's Monsters and Mysteries in America: Texas Terror - Lake Worth Monster, Animal Planet's Finding Bigfoot: Return to Boggy Creek and Beast of the Bayou.
Please don’t get me wrong, I believe that Bigfoot is real. But sometimes I wonder if some of the sightings aren’t just people in well made suits that put them on and walk around to increase tourism or give more popularity to an area.
I hope I’m not offending anyone by making this statement.
The height of this Bigfoot and of most other sightings are within human range, so a tall man could wear one of those suits I mentioned.
Riptor,
I’m sure that there are some folks that are stupid enough to do that in East Texas. Most have already been culled out of the gene pool, but some may still be stupid enough to pull that off. Once, maybe twice.
But here in East Texas, it’s deer season. The woods are full of hunters with itchy trigger fingers and a load of various adult beverages under their belts. Anyone dumb enough to walk around in the woods dressed as a hairy hominid, fits the description of suicidal, and in all probability, will shortly be removed from the chain of evolution.
Yes, there are hoaxers out there. But these animals are out there as well.
Indeed.
I guess it’s not wise to do that during hunting season. But there are some really stupid people out there that might try to. Besides, do you hunt near roads? If you do, isn’t that dangerous for passing traffic?
Anyway, in other cases, in other places outside hunting season, it’s possible that this type of hoax occurs.
But by doing that, they are harming the already fragile credibility of Bigfoot’s existence.
In any case, thanks for the info Al.
Tell you what, I think a number of us ought to try monkeying around in a suit for a day or so.
I hear tell it’s hard work. If I were doing it, I wouldn’t settle for giving you that teeny glance. I’d run out in the middle of the road, shaking a branch or beating my chest. I’d let numerous motorists see me, good solid looks; and I wouldn’t turn tail ’til one of ’em slowed down (or until I saw a cop). I would damn well do SOMETHING to justify the stultifying experience of being locked up in that suit!
Hoaxes tend to be exposed because somebody wants credit. They want their name and pictures in the paper. These sightings aren’t being staged by anyone who wants credit. And that just ain’t like hoaxers.
I like sticking to the simple explanations. And with each sighting Bigfoot seems a simpler and simpler one to me.
Plus, of course, it’s not working.
If I were the guy in the suit, I just don’t think that the only notice of my stunt would be an anonymous submission to a website I was likely unaware of, a year after the event.
That wouldn’t even be worth the suit rental.
Has ANYONE ever seen a convincing ape suit? Just wondering.
Riptor,
As an aside, and a little more info for you, here in Texas, very few hunters get more that a couple of hundred yards from any roads.
I think that most find it inconvenient to break brush to get into the more remote areas, especially in the Big Thicket and the Pineywoods.
For those bold enough to go deep into the woods and the bottoms, there is a virtual treasure trove waiting for them. Trophy deer, bears, and yes, even Boogers, inhabit the areas where man is rarely seen.
You don’t have to hunt for Bigfoot down here. Just go deep into the forest, set up camp, and he will come to visit you. Sometimes they will come close, other times they will hang back. But they will come if you are in or near their area. Just be patient.
DWA,
You’re right. I have never seen a convincing ape suit. Maybe that’s why they only give a glance to people, so they don’t see any details that might identify it as a suit. So, unless you have a convincing suit, you shouldn’t jump in front of cars and give them a chance to see you in detail.
As for not getting lot’s of recognition, that’s also true. But they know that sooner or later those sightings will appear posted on a number of Cryptozoology related sites. And let’s face it, it’s Cryptozoologists or people with great interest in cryptozoology that usually travel to those locations to try and get evidence or video footage.
That’s what I think anyway.
Al,
Thanks for the further information. I think you’re right. Sometimes if you try to hard, things don’t happen. If you’re patient and determined, good things will come to you. I find that to be true in any area.
I think a lot of people, perhaps because of their belief system, are turning the sightings of actual creatures to conform to what they believe. Some are seeing werewolves and others are seeing bigfoot and I think it all boils down to a persons perception. I saw a werewolf once, but that is because I was conditioned to believe that a hairy, eight foot tall humanoid with a snout is a werewolf. That doesnt mean it was.
BG
You don’t go far in the woods here in East Texas unless you have either a compass, map, or know where the heck you are. Getting lost out here is just way too easy, hence sticking to nearby roads. As for the suit, if the underbrush doesn’t get you, some prickly vine or bush will, if not the aforementioned person with a weapon. I’m not saying people are trigger happy down here, but people do have a habit of pulling out a weapon when they’re faced with the unknown. To pull some kind of prank like imitating Bigfoot, a person would have to be willing to go through some extraordinary measures, esp. if they willing to take the chance of dying from the heat while wearing that suit. *rolling eyes*
If this sighting is indeed real, then it would seem hard to pull off for a guy in any kind of convincing suit. Wearing these suits are hard work, as DWA put it nicely. Whenever I read about people in the movies who wear these things, they always talk about how heavy and uncomfortable they are as well as difficult to get around in. The fact that this witness emphasized that its movement was “graceful” and “agile” and “effortless” just does not seem like the movements of a guy in a suit. This is something she seems to remember very well and it does not seem like a guy in a suit would have left this impression. Even in the videos where it is well known that it is a guy in a suit, you do not see that kind of graceful, effortless movement. I’m not saying that this sighting really happened, but if it did, I do not think it was a guy out there in a suit.
A point needs to be made here that all too rarely is: the sheer difficulty of a single hoax to pull off, to say nothing of a network of independent, or (cue Conspiracy Music here) centrally orchestrated hoaxes, all producing evidence the composite of which points to an uncatalogued species, with differences among individuals totally consistent with that. (Time and time again I read a sighting report of someone who said “it didn’t look like a Bigfoot” — and then went on to describe something that sure sounded like one to me.)
Scoffers get away with murder when it comes to Bigfoot. I’ve heard it said on this site that the Patterson film needs to be put to rest, because it’s simply the scoffers’ word against the word of those of us who are right.
😉
Seriously, folks. One thing the scoffers are never asked to do is to explain how their scenario is plausible. As more than one disinterested observer has pointed out, accepting the existence of an uncatalogued animal is not a bit crazier than accepting the enormous web of lies, hoaxes, mental illness, intoxicants and honest misinterpretation that is supposed to account for ALL THIS evidence.
And maybe that’s the problem: scoffers say there’s no evidence.
There’s plenty of evidence. None of it is scientific evidence yet, true. But at one time an apple falling on someone’s head wasn’t evidence of anything but a bad place to sit down.
Then one hit Sir Isaac Newton.
Maybe I didn’t express myself correctly. I was not talking about this sighting in particular. If you read what I put on my original post, it say “some sightings” might be just guys in suits looking for publicity for that particular area, in order to improve tourism or something.
It is indeed very difficult to walk around in one of those suits, it’s like you’re wearing an oven, a heavy, hairy, smelly oven (don’t ask me how I know, I just do!).
I agree that when a witness says the animal moved quickly or gracefully it’s probably not a guy in a suit, unless he’s had lots of training and air conditioning in that suit.
However, we must keep in mind that in order to fill some gaps in their stories, some people fill in the blanks with sometimes inaccurate details.
So to sum up:
– You’re all right, you all make good points.
– I was not talking about this particular sighting, but about “some” of the sightings.
🙂
True, riptor, to be fair, the folks who think there’s an uncatalogued species here need to keep in mind the power of false memory.
You can’t quantify it. You just have to keep an open mind, and recognize that, not matter how detailed the report, it’s at least moderately likely not to be EXACTLY what was seen.
But I rarely see grace and agility in these sightings; it’s an odd thing to remember. Not a piece of Evidence For, mind you. Just something.
Riptor, I think a lot of sightings are probably guys in suits. I agree. Certainly a lot of the photographic evidence is! As far as hoaxes go, I also find it far fetched that such an elaborate wide spread hoax could have been pulled off by so many people, so convincingly, for so long. Of course skeptics might say a lot of people could have been copy cats and made hoaxes based on what they know about Bigfoot (it is such a pop cultural icon by now), but I feel this would only explain a percentage of the sightings. Some of the skeptical theories are often more farfetched than the idea that these creatures are out there, yet it seems to me that somehow they expect their ideas to carry more weight. Scoffers say there is no evidence yet they lack that very thing in some of their own ideas. I think that they must be expected to provide as much evidence for their own theories as any Bigfoot researcher would be.
hey everyone this is a very interesting informative new texas sasquatch encounter.
One thing that people are constantly overlooking or just ignoring to suit their argument, regarding costumes or suits, is terrain. Keep in mind that in addition to a suit or costume just being difficult to wear, it’s all the more difficult to wear one and attempt to manuever in densely wooded/swampy terrain, such as the terrain in this report. There was water “everywhere” in the words of the witness. There were woods everywhere.
I think it’s apparent that this was no costume. Either she made it up, or she saw something, to which many of us emotionally react by being unable to comprehend or accept. Denial or unacceptance is purely an emotional response based on our inability to grasp the potential of something like this existing.
Another point all to rarely made to the scoffers:
Evidence for the animals’ existence: numerous metric tons, all of which mainstream scientists have simply refused to evaluate. Out of smugness or sheer denial, can’t say; but obviously a lot of both.
Evidence that anything not yet shown to be a hoax IS a hoax: not one shard.
Some of the strongest scoffers are scientists. Time to hold their feet to the fire.
We’re not asking for proof of a negative here. (“Prove it doesn’t exist” is lame; no scientist can do that, and any worth his/her salt would point that out to you immediately.) We’re looking for this: take this piece of evidence; this one; this one; this one. SHOW THAT THEY ARE ARTIFICIAL; i.e., show clear earmarks of human hoaxing/tampering/fabrication.
It’s really lame that scientists can say the Patterson film should be discounted because it could have been a guy in a suit. Duh. It could have been a retouched portrait of Beethoven.
SHOW THAT A HUMAN OR HUMANS DID IT, by laying out a plausible scenario then documenting it in the film.
Not doing that?
Lame.
Also worthy of mention is that the TBRC investigators seem to be extremely thorough in their investigations. It seems to me that a hoaxer or liar would find the going pretty rough at the hands of an experienced savvy investigator. Of course, the investigators are human, but it seems these guys are pretty good at vetting these reports. I think Woolheater has said that the public only sees a fraction of the reports they get, because they’re well able to sort the wheat from the chaff, so to speak.
To take something Sergio posted, I believe that the terrain where Bigfoot is sighted can be very relevant.
If a sighting occurs deep inside woods or dense forests, it is unlikely a hoaxer would go so far wearing a suit just to hoax one person. Besides, so deep inside woods, who knows when somebody with a camcorder might come along.
Those sightings are the most relevant ones to me, because it would seem likely that such ans elusive species would remain hidden is dense forests for most of the time. If it showed itself too often near human settlements, it wouldn’t be long until evidence was found or conclusive footage was taken.
Riptor,
Keep in mind that nearly no one keeps a camera handy and already on in their moving vehicles. These roadside occurences are mostly fleeting. In this case, she said she only saw the creature for a few seconds. That is barely long enough for any human to even register what they are seeing, let alone slow down, reach to a camera, turn it on, focus and take a picture of (at that point) a likely quickly moving target.
And as to the hoax idea, I have to say two things. One, I believe that an extremely high percentage of people who would wish to pull off such a stunt are doing so to fool friends or someone else they know. People just aren’t willing to waste their time hoping someone sees them. I should know, as I know a few people over time (myself when I was younger) who have done such a thing. And, looking back it was an extremely foolish thing to do. I did that near an urban area in Iowa, not Texas, but there are plenty of people with guns anywhere you go, and fear makes people dangerous and unpredictable.
Two, I agree wholeheartedly with the contingent of commenters who discussed the difficulty of looking natural, not to mention “graceful” in a costume of any kind. Please note with humor how “Boston” Rob fairly recently took a tumble as he was attempting his own downhill hoax on TV!
All of you are making valid points. I would point out though, that very few encounters have been proven to be hoaxed by a guy in an ape suit. Of course, very few encounters have been proven to have happened, at all.
I do know, that none of my encounters were with a guy in a gorilla suit. He would be dead. No man, in a costume, miles from the nearest road, would be able to be as elusive as these animals are. I do not believe for a moment that that is physically possible.
The lady probably saw something. Just as many of us have. The question is “What did she see?”. “What have any of us seen?”. We call it Booger, Bigfoot, Sasquatch, Monster, or any other of dozens of names, yet none of us really know what it is. Just that we have seen it, heard it, and/or smelled it.
I’d say she probably saw one of these animals. After all, there are plenty to go around, and in that area, there many reported encounters.
Probably. That’s the best we can do, for the moment, without calling the poor frightened woman a liar.
I wouldn’t try to read too much into the reasons that someone might wear a Bigfoot suit and try to fool people. Some people will do anything on a dare.
I tend to believe that most hoaxers would simply lie about seeing a BF. That would be easier than putting on a suit, wouldn’t it?
And, if you were really going to go all that trouble, you’d have a blobsquatch photograph to show.
Not trying to read anything into anything, I just think that the “man in an ape suit” hypothesis should be discarded, out of hand, first thing in any sas sighting, except in the case of obvious fakes on film. It’s a red herring that’s letting science off far too easily. In a remote area, it is far, far likelier that that’s just an animal. Right?
Right.
Unless you simply have blinkers on that blind you to the very idea that anything like this can exist. Which is the problem with most scientists. Science’s biggest strength is also its biggest weakness: it’s so careful (good) that it’s so conservative and so slow to change (bad) that — well, in this case, the public will probably be the force that finally pushes the scientific mainstream to consider the simple possibility that there’s an ape here and somebody might want to find it.
My wife and I drive a lot in the country of central Indiana where there have been several sightings of Bigfoot-like creatures. We always look for the roads as far away from the routinely travelled ones that we can. She’s an artist and I’m a photographer. I’ve taken to carrying with me (besides my camera, of course) some plastic bags, empty film cannisters, q-tips, and a folding knife just in case we should ever encounter anything that we might be able to get samples of. That is, hair, blood, tissue or whatever. I also carry with me a .45 SAA just in case that “something” isn’t at all friendly. but the point is, I would suggest a makeshift forensics kit would be a good idea to have with you at all times and not just a camera.
LOL, not that I’m about to take samples from a live bigfoot mind you.
I just meant it for any evidence left behind.
I’ve said this before, and I’ll probably end up saying it again, but anyone who would put on a suit in a rural area and walk around trying to scare/startle/surprise/prank folks is putting themselves in extreme danger because folks in this country love their second amendment, and not everyone is as dedicated to the “no kill” philosophy as most of those who leave comments here.
Are there stupid people who wouldn’t be deterred by that idea? Sure. But there are people who bungee jump from 25 foot ridges with 30 foot of cord too.
I think that the continuing strength of the man-in-suit so-called argument stems, as do so many of the arguments against the existence of the sas, from ignorance of the way things really are out there in the field.
Until we have a specimen or other generally acceptable evidence — and the recent reports from east Texas give some reason to believe that might not be long — all we can do, really, is argue over the merits of sightings and other secondhand evidence. But it’s definitely worthwhile for sas proponents to continue to stress that serious misconceptions in the relevant areas of knowledge constitute the great bulk of the “con” side’s case.