Analysis of Bigfoot Evidence from Summer 2014

Posted by: Adam Davies on September 22nd, 2014

In June this year I spent three weeks in the U.S. For the majority of that I was engaged in field research in three locations:
1. The Olympic Project run by Derek Randles in Washington State.
2. Dr.Matthew Johnson’s SOHA site in Oregon.
3. The “Sierra Kills” site in California. Justin Smeja and Bart Cutino.

In the first two areas I observed what I considered to be possible Bigfoot activity and took hair samples from the epicenter of that activity as a consequence. In the third area, although it was a fascinating site and I find it highly plausible that Bigfoots could operate in that area, I did not observe any possible Bigfoot activity while I was there.


I had two objectives for this field research.

1. Previously, whilst in the Cascades of Washington State in May 2013 I had had what I considered to have been a direct encounter with Bigfoots. I had heard an apelike grunt, and I had repeated it back to the sender. This was repeated back to me, going backwards and forwards on several occasions. The details of this encounter will be reported shortly. I specifically wanted to see if I would be able to repeat this experience in my field research this year.

I am pleased to say that I was able to repeat this experiment successfully during my time in the U.S. Indeed, on one particular occasion in the Olympics I was able to initiate a similar interaction that was heard by multiple witnesses, some of whom I had never met before. Subsequent recording were then taken the next evening in the same location by Shane Corson of an apelike grunt, and the experiment has been repeated successfully since I left.

I consider this important observational information, most particularly if I am hearing the same grunts in different locales in different years.

I have already written about my experiences at both locations previously.
I consider this objective to have been achieved.

2. In terms of evidence, what I am always most interested in is D.N.A. evidence. All other evidence, including photo and eyewitness accounts, despite having intrinsic value, is I consider highly objective.

I have met some sincere people. However it matters not to science what my opinion is of them, or what their experiences are.

D.N.A. evidence is far more determinative in this matter. This is the level of proof I would like to see achieved.

From the first two areas samples were extracted and D.N.A. obtained. The samples were sealed and labelled and then sent for analysis to Professor Todd Disotell, who I have known for many years and who i trust implicitly.I also drafted him a short note in which I described the potential animals the samples could be from… not just Bigfoot, but bear and dog as well for example, as they were both observed in the locale of the second site whilst I was there.

The first sample, from the Olympic Project was always going to be a long shot. Hair samples were gathered from the trees surrounding the area where the location of the Bigfoot Grunts were heard in the slight hope that they may yield interesting results. They were however, right in the rodent (murid) range.

The second sample afforded more potential promise as it was extracted from bowls in Oregon from which food had been consumed.During the first step of the mitochondrial analysis the hair which amplified was found to be in the canid range. So,it was most likely to have come from Dr.Johnson’s dog, Atlas. He had not been eating from the bowls, but of course he sheds hair, and his hair had clearly blown into the bowls.

So, the second objective was not achieved, Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

Let’s do this!

See also:

Adam Davies & John Carlson Summarize Their Trip to Dr. Matthew Johnson’s Research Area
Adam Davies on Olympic Project
Cryptologic Radio: Adam Davies

About Adam Davies
I am an explorer, adventurer, and a cryptozoologist. I've traveled to some of the most remote and dangerous parts of the world in search yet-to-be-discovered animal species. From the dense jungles of the Congo and Sumatra, to the deserts of Mongolia, and the mountains of Nepal, I have traveled the world in search of scientific evidence of the existence of these creatures.

6 Responses to “Analysis of Bigfoot Evidence from Summer 2014”

  1. dconstrukt responds:

    adam… love reading your posts mate.

    you’re not one of these crazy mofo’s who rants that everything they hear or see is a bigfoot. (it’s rampant here)

    you’re subjective and not letting bias interfere with science and data collection…. you’re letting the data speak for itself.

    interesting on the grunts…. but these things are so elusive, its hard to spot one with the eye… probably like spotting a needle in a haystack…. but these things are HUGE (if patty is real)… so you’d probably hear them coming before you’d see them.

    to me… i’d think seeing data on sightings by time of year… with known food patterns… i think that would show some interesting data… like when people are seeing them and where… combined with fruit/berry/veggies/animal patterns.

    that i think would show some interesting info.

    whats next on the agenda?

  2. mandors responds:

    “All other evidence, including photo and eyewitness accounts, despite having intrinsic value, is I consider highly objective.” Subjective. Blobsquatches are subjective; DNA is objective.

    Still, good work. Going into the field, obtaining evidence, repeating experiments; it’s nice to see someone trying real science for a change.

  3. Adam Davies responds:

    dconstrukt and Mandors thanks both for your comments. Your points about gathering data are well made dconstrukt. I have not decided what I am doing next, money and time as ever. Yes Mandors, you are right, it should read subjective.

  4. PhotoExpert responds:

    Adam, I am glad to see you out and about trying to accomplish your objectives.

    My only concern with your first objective of making sounds, grunts, is that how do you know who or what the grunts were originating from? For the sake of argument, couldn’t there have been a person camping, hunting, hiking or another BF enthusiast in the field? If they were, they might be doing the same thing you were. Both of you think you are engaging a BF and collecting evidence when it is just two humans that are like minded, recording each other’s calls.

    If you met other strangers or people you did not know in those same woods, who to say there were not more strangers out there that you did not meet but were making calls, howls and grunts to attract their own subject for BF study. That makes just as much sense and jumping to the conclusions that you were engaging a BF. It’s just as plausible if not more plausible. See where I am going in scrutinizing that particular evidence and the methodology of collecting it? Now, if you said you had a sighting and seconds later had calls coming from the area, well, that is better evidence for me personally.

    Being objective, if there was no sighting prior to hearing sounds or grunts, they could have come from any animal, person, and not necessarily a BF. Perhaps another BF enthusiast, but nonetheless, not a BF but a human.

    Just my two cents on that. I could not put that encounter in the log book of BF evidence since we do not know where or from what the calls originated.

  5. Adam Davies responds:

    Hi PhotoExpert. I can confirm that there was nobody else making these grunts. It was night, the other group were at a considerable distance from us at a higher elevation, and the first grunt was emitted from a steep slope at an elevation that would have been highly dangerous to climb. A second grunt also came in response to mine from the opposite direction. A recorder was then placed there the nest night, and Ape like grunts were collected. This experiment has been repeated successfully since I left. I have heard these same grunts, exactly the same, in three different locales now over several years. Is it determinative evidence? No. Is it highly useful field research which is persuasive of a particular vocalisation of Bigfoot, I would say yes most certainly and it excites me because of that point.

  6. PhotoExpert responds:

    Well, that does add to the credibility of the evidence for me. Still not conclusive but it does up it’s validity for me a step or two.

    Keep up the field research and do it safely!

Sorry. Comments have been closed.

|Top | Content|

Connect with Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest


Creatureplica Fouke Monster Sybilla Irwin


|Top | FarBar|

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