Bigfoot Files: Episode 2 The Sasquatch

Posted by: Craig Woolheater on November 1st, 2013

Episode 2 The Sasquatch

Mark Evans visits America’s Pacific Northwest in search of ‘Sasquatch’. In 1958 a digger driver called Jerry Crew found a series of huge footprints in Willow Creek, Northern California and the Bigfoot legend took off.

Since then the region has had over 1000 Bigfoot encounters. But for decades science has scorned the idea of Bigfoot, and anyone who studies it.

Mark meets some of the Bigfootologists who believe they’ve come face to face with these creatures: Justin Smeja, who claims to have shot two Sasquatch; Vietnam vet Dan Shirley, who claims he can communicate with Bigfoot by ‘wood knocking’; Derek Randles, who’s been a Sasquatch obsessive since a close encounter in 1985; and Native American Marcel Cagey, who says a Sasquatch changed his life.

And Professor Sykes reveals the results of his DNA tests on the hair samples he’s collected. Will the results confirm the Bigfootologists’ stories or will it be bad news?

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.

6 Responses to “Bigfoot Files: Episode 2 The Sasquatch”

  1. Hapa responds:

    Excellent episode. I find the lack of actual sasquatch DNA evidence, ie. all the samples turning out to be well known non-ape animals, disturbing. Is this the best we can do? Is this the best we can come up with? We have found anomalous hairs before, why did they not get re tested (if they were, then obviously they were discovered to be more well known animals)? I hope and pray that some Canadian samples made it to Sykes lab; perhaps they will be more intriguing in their results. Without a body, major parts of one, a live specimen, or fossil, these findings might start us on the path to little to no legit research into this creature.

    I am glad that the Justin Smeja incident is resolved: If I had not learned some of the sketchy stuff about that so called sasquatch killing, I would have been more hopeful in it being real. I’m glad the truth of the matter is out now.

    I think the host too readily buys the Ray Wallace hoax claim for the Jerry Crew Tracks: Jeff Meldrum himself studied those tracks and found that they were not made by blocky, wooden feet, but by something that was pliable, like flesh, and, correct me if I’m wrong, a midtarsal ridge or break, neither of which Ray Wallace would have been clever enough or capable of faking. The tracks don’t match the ones shown by the Wallace family, and the family failed to properly replicate the tracks. Sad they bought into this.

    Nevertheless, Sasquatch researchers failed to provide proper DNA evidence…this is very troubling…

  2. lancemoody responds:

    Hilarious. And a very exact portrayal of what Bigfoot belief is all about. So now an entire branch of the pretend evidence worshipped by believers is sheared off. Will believers reconsider their mythology or will they double down?

    It’s a rhetorical question, I know exactly what will happen.

  3. DWA responds:


    nothing troubling about this. When people (who?) send in samples (what?), this is garden variety. Doesn’t really say anything about the question one way or another.

    The best Sykes can do is a clean result that says “primate, species unknown.” Or in the alternative, raise scientific interest in anomalous DNA results (which one hopes his “Himalayan polar bear” results will do). The “unknown primate” has come in before, but without an animal to attach it to, the mainstream feels safe going back to sleep.


    Um, what’s the point? Man, I’d have moved on long ago if I had your interest level.

    My take is:

    Better to be snickered at by the idiots now than by the smart people later!

  4. lancemoody responds:

    DWA, My interest level isn’t low. I love seeing the development of a proto-religion. It’s fascinating.

  5. DWA responds:

    lancemoody: then go looking for one in all the right places.

    Not saying it doesn’t happen in crypto, far from it. Fringes are bound to happen when stuff that isn’t considered real by the mainstream is the topic.

    But proto-religions and what evidence points to are two distinctly different things, and some of us recognize the difference.

  6. Hapa responds:


    Though I said Troubling, I don’t mean definitive: I’m only saying that we had the chance to prove our case with multiple samples, and we fell short, which may “prove” to many who are or were open minded to the reality of Bigfoot that it does not exist. True, it does not disprove sasquatch, but it is a bullet that skeptics can use, among other things, to discredit the case for the cryptid. And if this type of DNA gathering from multiple sources for testing is repeated over the years, with the same results…then maybe we HAVE been duped. Not saying we are, but it would begin to look that way.

    Real physical evidence is desperately needed.


    I do admit that for a lot in this field, bigfoot takes on a religious significance. But not all of us are like that. Some like DWA, I, and some major movers and shakers in the field, like Jeff Meldrum, go by facts and science, not by a desperate desire to reinforce what we WANT to believe.

    Don’t paint us all with the same brush.

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.