Jeers to Bigfoot Fans

Posted by: Craig Woolheater on July 30th, 2007

In handing out their Cheers and Jeers, The Columbian has handed a jeers to “Bigfoot fans.”

Jeers: Why do the Sasquatch believers keep on keeping on?

Last week, according to The Associated Press, about 45 members of the Bigfoot Field Research Organization spent two days in the Uinta Mountains of Utah searching for the legendary apelike critter, emphasis on “legendary.”

They used sophisticated equipment such as parabolic microphones and night-vision goggles.

Here’s a shocker: A Forest Service District Ranger there said he was not aware of any sighting and that campers should be more worried about bears. Nevertheless, there are apparent true believers, including Scott Taylor of Tacoma, who said he saw Bigfoot in 2005 while deer hunting on the Washington coast.

Funny, that despite the occasional “sightings” and despite all the digital and cell-phone cameras everyone seems to carry these days, no one ever gets a bona fide picture or video of Sasquatch.The Columbian
Clark County, Washington

About Craig Woolheater
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.

14 Responses to “Jeers to Bigfoot Fans”

  1. Lyndon responds:

    Jeers: Why do the Sasquatch believers keep on keeping on?

    Jeers: Why do the scoftics keep on whining on about the believers keeping on keeping on?

    Who are the ‘believers’ hurting? Why do the scoftics care so much? Haven’t they got better things to do than whine about people ‘believing’ in bigfoot?

  2. mystery_man responds:

    The topic of why there aren’t so many pictures even with all of the cell phones has been discussed many times on this site, so I won’t touch on that too much. But it does remind me of a line from Close Encounters of the Third Kind. One skeptic asks why there aren’t any photos when there are so many cameras out there, to which the proponent argues that even with all of those cameras, how many car crashes have actually been photographed happening? That is even when car crashes are far more common than sasquatch sightings are. Nice little exchange.

    As far as criticizing any expeditions out to find Bigfoot, I would point out that this particular one was out there for two days. There have been animals out there that took years of active searching to properly document. Most researchers are out there out of their own pocket on their days off from their other jobs. I do not believe that the lack of success after a mere two days in the field is evidence of anything other than two days is maybe not enough time or that maybe the BFRO’s methods weren’t the best. To say that not finding anything after two days in the field means that sasquatch doesn’t exist and believers are fools is absurd. I do not absolutely believe that sasquatch are out there, but I’m fairly certain there’s a possibility they are and that a two day field expedition should not be a yardstick by which the existence of the creature should be measured.

  3. showme responds:

    I think the words “bigfoot fans” do cause some problems for the field of cryptozoology’s reputation. The term “fan” is derived from the word “fanatic”, implying that some bigfoot enthusiasts will believe in bigfoot no matter what, even if all evidence gathered so far is proved to be fake. Bigfoot has been absorbed into pop culture to the point of an almost cult-like status, making it harder and harder for scientific cryptozoology researchers to be taken seriously.

    In the realm of science, the word “fan” sounds too subjective. Have you ever heard someone say “I’m a big fan of gravity”?

    I think it’s possible that a large, undiscovered anthropoid exists somewhere on our planet– most likely in the warmer parts of Asia. How sasquatch would get through the North American winter is a
    huge problem. Apes have a body temperature close to that of humans, and without the ability to alter their environment (clothing, the use of fire), survival seems slim. I am open to hearing poeple’s theories, though.

    Are you a “fan” of Bigfoot, or do you want to know the scientific truth? If you’re both, which one comes first?

  4. grafikman responds:

    Y’know, I *almost* didn’t respond to this question. The scoftics parrot it over and over again and it’s so old and tired and ignorant.

    But yet again into the fires…

    We keep on because there’s far more evidence for these creatures than against, *if* you bother to look at the evidence. Yes, evidence.

    We keep on because *some* humans still have a sense of exploration of the unknown.

    We keep on to prove the skeptics *and* the hoaxers wrong. There is no more skeptical person than a sasquatch supporter evaluating a new piece of evidence.

    We keep on because we know it’s too easy to sit in the middle of a city in an air conditioned office high rise sipping on a latte in front of a laptop far from the deep woods where who knows what undocumented life still exists, typing know it all condemnations of people of all walks of life who aren’t stupid, drunks or drug users, aren’t liars, who have spent part of or their entire lives near or in these areas, with normal visual accuity, impeccable integrity and commendable courage to go public with their experiences, who have seen something that doesn’t fit the *officially* recorded fauna of this continent.

    ’nuff said.

  5. bill green responds:

    hey craig & researchers wow very interesting new bigfoot article here. i realy like the above replys as well. good evening bill green 🙂

  6. DWA responds:

    Educated ignorance is one of my favorite guilty pleasures.

    And once again we see the garden-party “arguments against,” so obviously displaying utter tabula-rasa brainvoid on almost every relevant topic as to become tiresome. At least I’m not upset about it. 😀

    I keep saying it: if you don’t read sighting reports, lots of them, you’re uneducated on the sasquatch. And I say this to skeptics scofftics and proponents alike.

    Showme: there are cats and bears and deer in the tropics and the temperate zones and the arctic. (Birds reptiles and amphibians too, but I’ll leave it.) The sas, if it exists, is simply a temperate-adapted ape.

    Bigfoot has no interest factor to me except as an animal, a critter. I think it’s way more than interesting enough, just as that. (If you don’t know why, read sighting reports, lots of them, and tell me what you think those people are seeing.) If you have a rooting interest, good for you. Just show me evidence. (Of which there’s much, if no proof yet.)

  7. mystery_man responds:

    DWA- You really need to get “read sightings reports” hotkeyed. 🙂

  8. damanuk responds:

    Sorry to butt into what is obviously a fascinating argument, but as an observer of the phenomenon known as bigfoot from overseas (the UK) you guys don’t know how lucky you are! The most fearsome creature I’ve ever come across in my back yard is a fox – although we do supposedly have some big moggies (cats) lurking about. Long may the search go on and I hope one is never found cos that will be the end of it for them. damanuk

  9. CBFResearcher responds:

    Once again, yet another city dweller who has not looked at the evidence! Here’s one to add…

    If the courts were to rely on the testimony in a murder case of just one witness who said he saw the person do it, and the outcome of the supposed murderer is life in prison or maybe death (and this has happened on occasion in the past!), then the sasquatch exists. How can we ignore hundreds if not thousands of eye witnesses, the footprint evidence, scientifically proven video that cannot be refuted by anyone with bipedal motorization expertise (I smell forensics here!) and hair samples that are known NOT to belong to any North American animal… etc.? (need I say more?) I think if you placed this evidence in front of a jury, then the choice is obvious, The jury says… YES, Sasquatch EXISTS….

    Then again…. There isn’t a skeptic alive that can prove it doesn’t exist. And they have no evidence…. Yada yada yada…

  10. rayrich responds:

    Cell phone cameras? Are you kidding me? Anybody who has experienced a sighting, including myself, is not in any frame of mind to take a picture, let alone from a cell phone camera. Where do these people think these sightings take place, some damn resort area where you have a cell phone or camera in your hand? These sightings usually take place when your least expecting it in remote areas while hunting or packing, so a camera or cell phone pic is the last thing your thinking about grabbing. Your in a shock, awe, and numbing phase to say the least. These clowns who question us who have had real encounters probably have never even spent a real night in the woods and would crap their you know whats if they saw something that even resembled a big guy.

  11. rbhess responds:


    Please remember that people don’t have to prove a thing doesn’t exist. That’s a common fallacy that I’ve railed against before. If there is an apparent phenomenon that is outside of the bounds of known science, (such as an ape or hominid living undetected in the Pacific Northwest) then it requires strong evidence, very strong evidence, to prove it is real. The prevailing scientific model does NOT have to prove that it doesn’t exist. And anyway I’d assume by now you’d have heard the axiom that you can’t prove a negative.

    Furthermore, science is not the same as a court of law. Witness testimony carries weight in a court of law for obvious reasons. In science, however, it’s the most worthless kind of evidence there is. Not because it IS intrinsically worthless, but because science cannot make assumptions about a person’s ability to observe, their propensity to lie, etc. The courts have the threat of perjury to hold over an eyewitness; science has no such leverage. For this and other reasons, it may be perfectly true that a witness could be someone you want to believe and feel you should believe…. but from a scientific standpoint you have no choice but to discount his or her unsupported story entirely—because whereas the law can make fair assumptions, science cannot.

    As for any videotape being “proven”, I can only assume you’re talking about the Patterson film—which has never been “proven” to be anything one way or another. It too is valueless from a scientific point of view because it could have been faked. No one has ever “proven” it wasn’t. And no—no one has to “prove” that it WAS faked… see above, it doesn’t work that way.

    Footprints are largely discountable for the same reason, though each one should be taken as a separate case and properly examined for authenticity. Hair samples and scat—yes… but so far as I know, nothing of this type so far found has been authoritatively established as definitely having come from an unknown animal—so far the evidence is inconclusive and the best that can be said is “maybe.”

    Science isn’t decided by jury or by majority vote. It has rules it has to play by. We may not like them, but they are the best guarantee we have for getting at the truth–which is what science is all about.

  12. sausage1 responds:

    Hello, DamanUK, I have seen a big cat twice in Norfolk (UK, NOT Va) and was met with total incredulity by my friends (Computer technician, art historian, pub landlord) but not by a local famer and a local gamekeeper, who had also seen it. Who’s judgement would an objective person believe on this?

    It’s the same paradigmatic phenomenon as our US and Canadian friends are talking about here. I couldn’t have seen it because it doesn’t exist. If it did exist people would see it.

    Interestingly I never saw a fox in ten years in Norfolk, despite keeping chickens in my garden. What I did see was loads of people hunting them in fields around my house in order to destroy the vast numbers of them that I could not see.

  13. CBFResearcher responds:

    In response to rbhess’s comments suggesting science and the court of law are separate reasons to discount the Bigfoot theory…

    First of all, science has already proven that the hominoid does exist. You probably haven’t checked it out that well. Let me guide you to the sources of some of the best scientists connected and you can check it out.

    But first, I have spent a lot of my time in the forests of BC and Alberta and have only found tracks of a cougar. Does that mean it does not exist. It must! I saw the tracks myself. However, I the 35+ years of deep bush experience, I have never seen a live one. I know a lot of people in the same position and they have never seen one either, yet we know they exist.

    How about the real evidence that is known to be scientifically proven true.

    A) Patterson film – it has never been proven to be a fake and ALL knowledgeable scientists who have studied in depth say it is NOT a man in a suit. Those that have tried to debunk it, turn out to not have any knowledge in biometrics, anthropology, or any other field, and I can assure you, have NEVER studied the film at all, except for a quick glance, but then again, they had already made up their minds before seeing the film anyways.

    B) Footprint cast evidence – Not sure how the faker got to a location I was at! Unless he came in by silent helicopter in the dark on a rainy night, where there was no chance of he/she knowing where I was at 5000 feet on a switchback logging road in the middle of nowhere, well then I given them credit! The problem with that theory, is they had no where to land!

    Let’s get real, Jeff Meldrum is just one of a few scientists with the qualifications to make a statement that the footprints cannot be faked and are in fact real, which, relating to my experience are real. Just like the cougar was when I spotted it.

    C) Hair samples = although few and far between, hair has been analyzed that has proven not to come from any “known” species of animal in North America. Has been proven to be apelike in nature but could not be matched against any known species of ape known to man! Notice I mentioned HAIR not FUR!

    D) Eye Witness evidence – Is it possible for thousands of reported sightings by people from all walks of life to be hallucinating? Science will tell you…. NO.

    The conclusion!

    In essence, science has already proven the existence of sasquatch without a body. The best educated in the theory have said all along that the evidence proves it… but yes, it would be nice to have a specimen, but then again, it sure would be nice to have a specimen of a cougar that died in the woods as well, and no one can one of those either… yet we know they exist in the wild!

    Remember, there are new species of plants, animals, and insects found every day.

    By the way, I have photo’s of very fresh bigfoot tracks not 10 feet from fresh cougar tracks from last summer, and no one was with in 30 miles of my location… This obviously leads me or anyone else to believe that if one animal I have never seen in the wild left tracks, and another animal left tracks not 10 feet away, then they both exist!

    Cheers… But let’s not beat this one to death. We could better use our energy on freeing the hundreds of obviously innocent people put in prison based on eye witness testimony and no forensic/scientific evidence that the jailed person ever committed a crime! And there are many!

  14. NHbigfoot responds:

    If you are in the middle of the woods, and you suddenly see an 8 foot tall bipedal creature, you first reaction won’t be to take a picture or film it. You would observe it and be in shock, and even be scared. These “critics” complain about bad quality of the footage and camera, but tell me, who the heck carries around state of the art video equipment in the woods? And if you saw a bigfoot, I don’t think you would be able to hold the camera steady due to being exited or fear. These critics need get out of their offices and think realisticly.

Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|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.