Bigfoot Attacks RV?
Posted by: Craig Woolheater on October 28th, 2012
If state police catch the vandal who threw rocks at John Reed’s motor home in Lykens earlier this month, the perpetrator could face criminal mischief charges.
Not big news. But state police troopers better have strong handcuffs if they make the arrest.
The accused is Bigfoot, according to the complaint that state police issued Friday morning. The cops description lists the suspect as very large, brown in color and walks somewhat hunched over.
According to Reed, who filed the complaint, a Bigfoot type of creature is responsible for smashing the windows and taillights out of his 1973 Dodge Winnebago.
“It wasn’t a person. I didn’t see any clothes or coat or anything like that,” said the 39-year-old Reed, who is a member of Lykens Valley Sasquatch Hunters. “I don’t think it was a bear, it didn’t move like a bear.”
The incident took place just after midnight along a dirt road off White Oak Road in state game lands in Jackson Twp.
State police at Lykens issued a press release later Friday morning saying they were investigating it as a criminal mischief complaint. When contacted, the trooper said the investigation is not being actively pursued, pending further evidence.
Nor, he said, is Bigfoot likely to menace any area residents — this is the first complaint the state police have received.
But should the Sasquatch in question be apprehended, Dauphin County District Attorney Edward M. Marsico Jr. said his office would prosecute the Sasquatch.
“We have been searching for him for years,” Marsico said with a laugh. “We would be glad to prosecute, assuming the elusive thing is captured.”
Source: The Patriot-News
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.
I think this guy is a true squatcher and this sighting is NOT a hoax. It seems like the ABC announcers didn’t believe bigfoot. But they will someday!!
How is it that a Bigfoot would attack a RV, yet when ever people and researches have a sighting while in their stationary car or truck (a much easier target for aggression one would think), it doesn’t get molested? It seems too convenient a story.
There are a number of reports that seem to indicate a level of interest in cars.
Among them are more than one report of a car being lifted by the bumper and shaken, with people in it, and more than one report of a sasquatch chasing a moving car along a highway. (A security patrolman in AK reported being knocked out by a rock thrown through his open driver’s window by…well, circumstances make a person a very unlikely culprit.)
Why one would do this, you got me. But it’s not impossible.
The Bigfoot community is the most naive bunch I have come across. Every story, no matter how incredulous gets serious response. Cryptozoology will never be taken seriously because of stories like this and people like Smeja and Ketchum. CM is the best forum, but that’s not saying much.
This alone? Means nothing. In context of other encounters….?
Yep, many of the reports document vehicle slapping, rocking, lifting, etc.. One trucker stopped by the interstate in an area of high previous/subsequent activity had his entire rig shaken like a martini mixer. He was in the sleeper, wife was up front. They both saw it retreat into the woods. ICC regs be damned, they got back on the road and drove until daylight.
Why this behavior? Only the Big Guy knows.
yeah maybe a bigfoot threw rocks at his RV….or….hes been a “bigfoot hunter” since he was a child…already believes a creature is out there…runs a website dedicated to bigfoot hunting….had someone throw rocks through his rv….says it’s bigfoot…..because he runs a website about bigfoot….so free publicity…
I’m sorry but you can’t just sat, “well stories like this pop up several times so it must be true.” No it just means people who read this stuff read other peoples stories and borrow from them when they tell their own. Sure they may be telling the truth but you know what? they may also be lying…which is why this doesnt matter.
And before people who shall not be named come back here and ask “Why would someone make it up? what do they get out of it?” Well in his case its more hits on his blog. In other cases….it could be as simple as…oh I dont know, its fun? It’s fun telling monster stories, its fun watching gullible true believers eat it up and defend it. I mean hell I could go make a second account, come on here and give my own “experience” about a bigfoot shaking my car blah blah blah, and hell there is supposedly one of them wandering around a swamp in these parts I could just use all the descriptions from all the stories on here and you people would defend it tooth and nail because it matches stories that have been given before! so it must be true! surely someone wouldn’t lie! People don’t do that.
….or:
maybe a bigfoot threw rocks at his RV.
Or:
You know exactly what happened. How? Tell us.
(No. You don’t.)
Or:
You just parrot what all the other cynics tell you.
(Yes. You do.)
That’s fun? How?
lonzo:
Impressive waste of time, dude. How else do you waste time?
You don’t read much about this topic do you?
(No. You don’t.)
DWA
I’m not a skeptic , I just don’t believe that every BF hunter has an experience when they go out seeking one. I do believe that there is something out there, I’m just not going to fall for every story that gets posted. Be selective in with the evidence you read or see, it’s not all true. Loren, Smeja, meldrum, ketchum, moneymaker, all have a vested interest (money)in what you and others believe. This is these people’s livelihood, and that’s great, but be smart.
lonzo:
the point is: we don’t know.
There seems to be a strain of thought in this field that each and every incident is either proof, or a crock. Not true. No incident, by itself, is anything but one story that might be, might not.
When a story runs true to numerous other accounts – and you know this, because you read the accounts – there’s nothing to do with it but toss it on the pile.
Just as paranoia doesn’t mean they aren’t out to get you, being a sasquatch hunter doesn’t mean you never see one. Shoot, could be this guy’s particular curse in life to get lucky, multiple times, and nobody believes him.
We don’t know.
Ionzo…fair enough. You can’t overlook a financial interest and the possible bias it creates. I regard the reports from “professional” BF seekers to be a notch down from all the others. My point is that you don’t need to rely on this account anyway. Or any of them, standing alone. They shouldn’t be read in isolation or without making scientific deductions about the greater context. This report is “of a type” and “consistent with other accounts” is all.
Lonzo…. i’m with you…. I am not a skeptic… i really think there is something out there…. however i am not as naive as some of these people…
its like everything they see/hear is automatically a bigfoot… its absurd…. some of the videos and photos are so fake a 10 year old would be able to tell in seconds…. i mean, it’s no wonder no one takes any of this seriously. (which is sad)
Then you get comments from DWA…. dude not everyone is naive and gullible as you… some of us have a brain and actually use it… its amazing, when you use your brain, its easy to see that most of the bigfoot “evidence” is fake.
dconstrukt:
You don’t have to so obviously look as if you aren’t paying attention.
What about my post is not clear to you?
Do you honestly think you know what happened here? Do you honestly think that you know that most of the evidence is fake? Do you honestly think that your opinion on that is something I couldn’t shoot to pieces were you ever to coherently present it? Do you honestly think I am going to take your word over the word of credentialed scientists that I can clearly see are bringing their science to bear on this?
That’s naive. To say nothing of gullible.
Swallowing cynicism force-fed to you is not a difficult, nor a particularly intelligent, stance; nor is very clearly wasting your time. I spend no time at all on anything I believe is a crock. You have too much free time on your hands, pal. People that run around scoffing at stuff they don’t understand are not telegraphing outstanding grey matter.
(It probably took me far more thought, and far less time, to post this than it took you to post yours. Bad sign there, dude.)
“…its amazing, when you use your brain, its easy to see that most of the bigfoot “evidence” is fake.”
Um, comparing you to Meldrum, Krantz and Bindernagel, I’m making bets on who’s brain-using here. So’s Jeff.
We ain’t betting on you.
“i really think there is something out there.”
Great. Based on no evidence. Come to think of it, I’m putting RV Guy way ahead of you. At least he saw something.
OK, young cryptos, dconstrukt is aptly named. He’s a great clinic for dconstrukting True Believers, of which he appears to be one. (In something, what I can’t guess.)
(Evidence, young cryptos, evidence only allowed here.)
“…some of the videos and photos are so fake a 10 year old would be able to tell in seconds…. i mean, it’s no wonder no one takes any of this seriously. (which is sad)”
Yes, young cryptos, it is sad that anyone would even consider as evidence any video I’ve seen, but for two. That’s it, period, and that’s all anyone should expect.
And, as for “no one” taking any of this seriously, that’s a bold-type indicator that you Simply Believe Something, without evidence. I mean, shoot, the Great Pumpkin could be real too. Go for it. Be the first on your block.
The eyewitness testimony and the footprints and the P/G film….those are another story.
And if you don’t buy those…and “really think there is something out there”…well, um, OK there. Just don’t hurt yourself doing that daily living thing.
Oh come on DWA its like you aren’t even trying anymore… Did you even read anything I actually wrote? Where did I say I knew exactly what happened? Because if you had read anything of what I wrote it looks like I said in the VERY first line “Yeah, maybe a bigfoot threw rocks at his RV.” And then I go on to list other possibilities…it doesn’t really look like I said I knew what happened.
Second…I’m not repeating what skeptics are telling me, I’m giving my own point of view. See some people have those and they don’t just keep giving out info other people have come up with and call it research. DWA if all you have done is read other peoples research…that doesn’t count for anything unless you are planning on writing a book report.
The problem with all the armchair scientist circle jerking that goes on on this forum is that you guys actually think you are doing something. Regurgitating what scientists that agree with you say doesn’t accomplish anything, you aren’t furthering the “field” by coming on here and having delusions of grandeur about “knowing the facts” and being superior to other people on this forum.
And honestly…I thought your silly rants were fun at first I got a kick out of coming on here and seeing you lose your mind….but now it seems you actually believe you are somehow more experienced in this issue then everyone else on here, and that worries me a bit. You see, other people have read the reports and the papers and all the other evidence….Not just you. And just because someone doesn’t agree with you doesn’t mean they don’t understand something you do…it just means the “evidence” didn’t convince them…and of course you will say that anyone who doesn’t find the evidence to support what you want is just simply wrong….but if that were so obviously true…would we all still be arguing about the existence of this thing? Oh but that’s right…there is the grand anti-bigfoot conspiracy! Because if science ever officially discovered bigfoot…what? Why do scientists not want bigfoot to be real?
WIC:
I’m not trying anymore. For some posts it’s just not worth it.
Give me something the provenance of which I can respect and I might respect it.
The point of your post was obvious. At least have the courage of your convictions.
You have to research and apply your own knowledge. In my case, I did. In your case…? All you seem to do is come on here and stir up trouble. Serious opinions are always appreciated, when you have one.
The evidence is the evidence, whatever you think. Pay closer attention. This just gets tiresome.
But, young cryptos, we do have to check out this doozy:
“Second…I’m not repeating what skeptics are telling me, I’m giving my own point of view. See some people have those and they don’t just keep giving out info other people have come up with and call it research. DWA if all you have done is read other peoples research…that doesn’t count for anything unless you are planning on writing a book report.”
This basically says: if I personally didn’t do the research, it’s crap. I don’t know who did the research, I have no idea who they are, but that doesn’t matter. I didn’t do it, so it’s crap. My opinions are sacred, even if they are based on, well, nothing, including analytical thinking.
When you read something alleged to be research, you check it out against what you know. You compare the credentials of the researchers with what they are asserting, and determine whether they are to the best of your knowledge using their science to come to their conclusions.
And for pete’s sake, when people post paragraphs like that one in quotes, and don’t say a single thing opposing serious scientists who to all appearances are using their science to advance the cause of knowledge, don’t give them the time of day.
Call them trolls and move on.
Next lesson, budding young cryptos:
When somebody puts up something like this
“You see, other people have read the reports and the papers and all the other evidence….Not just you. And just because someone doesn’t agree with you doesn’t mean they don’t understand something you do…it just means the “evidence” didn’t convince them…”
…they better back it up. (Remember Rule One of Scientific Debate: Every position must have an argument, backed by evidence.)
Anyone who has done this and come up with ….well, what WIC has come up with, is ….
1. Lying;
2. Lacking in the reading comprehension departimento; or
3. Just about to give us – finally, and we have seen not Bit of Evidence One of this yet – the reason for what they (allegedly) think.
(And it better be a whole lot more than “it’s not proof,” at which you can just laugh and go look for someone serious. “The evidence is inconclusive” is Geek for “I’m going to shut up now, and let the big dogs hunt.”)
It’s best to just not believe that part in quotes, unless they can show you. WIC hasn’t read it, or hasn’t thought about it, one or both. Wanna bet?
DWA
It doesn’t take much to fire you up, just a difference of opinion sends you over the edge. Chill out its just Bigfoot. To this day there hasn’t been any definitive evidence of anything. This is not to say “he” isn’t real, just that “he” hasn’t given us any tangible evidence of his existence. I, like you, believe. Maybe someday it will happen, but not one good shred of evidence has come to light yet. I hope it someday it will.
While I am a strong believer in the likelihood that Bigfoot exists, I am also a strong doubter that this was an actual encounter in this specific incident. For one thing, the vehicle appears to be parked adjacent to an nearly in someone’s paved driveway. So it’s not like this took place somewhere off the beaten path where Bigfoot would be unhappy about intrusion. There is a frigging house right there folks! I think it much more likely that some kids found out about what they think is a kooky guy and his girlfriend looking for Bigfoot and took full advantage of it by chucking rocks and the guy’s imagination took over seeing and describing what he was hoping for. I would be checking out kids living around the area if I was investigating this claim, which I believe is not valid at all.
lonzo:
Yo dude! Nobody having more fun here than me.
I actually feel sorry for people who don’t understand that
1. One report could be anything…except proof;
2. Addressing the evidence is not only the intelligent way to do this, it’s the fun way;
3. People that don’t think before they post make themselves fun targets!
Anybody that worries about that needs to enjoy this site more. Chill? All the time. Just that when people aren’t paying attention I poke them, that’s all.
I should also add this:
I don’t “believe” anything, without evidence.
There’s a lot of evidence for the sasquatch, much of it “tangible.” What it hasn’t amounted to yet is proof sufficient for mainstream science – which has largely not addressed it.
Staying abreast of this is a whole lot more fun that “believing” and getting disappointed by every thing that comes along that isn’t proof.
If more folks got that they’d enjoy being here more. Just sayin’. If folks don’t like being told what the deal is, or being told that just because you think it doesn’t make it true, not sure what to say about that.
But come here to sneer, like some do, and some of us here just enjoy laughing and starting in on you. If you can’t hear the laughter in it, oh well.
One more thing.
Come on with namecalling and ad hominem instead of thought, I’m just gonna kick you around a little. Can’t apologize. Not saying you personally, lonzo (although “The Bigfoot community is the most naive bunch I have come across” isn’t to the best of my knowledge tailored to attract friendly responses).
And then there’s this:
“The problem with all the armchair scientist circle jerking that goes on on this forum is that you guys actually think you are doing something. Regurgitating what scientists that agree with you say doesn’t accomplish anything, you aren’t furthering the “field” by coming on here and having delusions of grandeur about “knowing the facts” and being superior to other people on this forum.”
OK, young cryptos.
Have you ever heard anyone like this cite anything worth listening to from any scientist who agrees with him?
That’s called “prosecution rests” in jurospeak.
Hard not to feel superior when the knowledge is on your side, WIC. Bring a scientist who agrees with you on here. Shoot, bring him to me in person. Go ‘head.
I’ve got to pile on DWA’s point y’all. If you’re not interested in discussing the body of evidence, and only wish to make sure you are on the record responding “meh” to every piece of information (in isolation from, and to the exclusion of, all other corresponding evidence), what is it, exactly, that cranks your Allis Chalmers? Cynicism without engagement is a pretty pathetic approach to most things, this subject especially. That some show up specifically to do that here leads me to scratch my noggin, I got to tell you. So, why do you bother, exactly….? My working assumption (though sorely challenged) is most folks come here out of respect for the discipline of Cryptozoology. Throwing brickbats at the evidence without any alternative scientific explanation (And no, “I just don’t believe it” is not scientifically valid) is just annoying, adds to the noise, and doesn’t boost the signal.
And like the man said, I definitely find that getting engaged with the evidence is high-grade fun. Bring something to the party, I say. A real shame if you have that capability but decline to make the effort.
Both DWA and I have made a point of soliciting thoughtful conversation on this subject from those who would disagree. If you’ve got some explanation that hasn’t been considered on review by others of the evidence, and have a scientific framework to hang that on, bring it. So far? White noise is all I hear.
And really, I’m not being disingenuous at all. I really would like to hear something that explains what is going on that makes sense. But, I believe you’ve got to first engage with the fact that the oral eyewitness reports are coming into the BF websites at a rate of sometimes one per day, and they are excruciatingly detailed and consistent. If you have any experience in the ways people tend to fabricate evidence, you’ll appreciate that these are not of that type.
So, somebody, anybody, offer me an alternative explanation that hunts. Failing that, I’m whipping out Occam’s razor and stropping it up.
William:
Many people encounter sasquatch in their driveways; in their backyards; at their front or back doors; etc.
Now in virtually every such case, thousands of acres of what looks like it could make excellent habitat is right next to those houses. Not sure if that’s the case here. That there’s a house right there doesn’t say anything, one way or another, until we know what kind of habitat surrounds, or is next to, that house.
(“…along a dirt road off White Oak Road in state game lands in Jackson Twp.” Hmmmm.)
Now, in terms of your potential alternative explanation: No way I’d discount it right off the bat, for sure. When the local kids hear about a Bigfoot hunter, well, gee, what might happen next?
(I’d engage the local truant officer, but I’m just such a killjoy that way.)