Why Do People Leave The Bigfoot Field?

Posted by: Loren Coleman on April 24th, 2010

Why do people exit the stage after spending a bit of time in the pursuit of Bigfoot, Sasquatchery, and hominology?

Needless to say, there are many reasons. There may be too many to cover today, but let’s look, for a moment, at this exit scenario.

First, a bit of breaking news that some may have heard, and others, who wait for the weekend, may be catching up to.

Bigfoot blogging lost another one this week. It is quite the buzz on the Internet that D. B. Donlon (shown above, with a furry friend) decided to leave the field with his announcement that surprised many, over at The Blogsquatcher.

As the Anomalist summarized it: “Into the Sunset The Blogsquatcher ~ The search for the answers to the mystery known as Bigfoot is coming to an end for The Blogsquatcher, according to his latest post….DB Donlon gives his reasons for abandoning a quest to bring meaning to the mystery of Bigfoot. He will be missed.”

In his own words, Donlon states it flatly: “There comes a time when all things must change, when our interests transform, and our needs become different. That time has come for me in respect to this blog. I have enjoyed the journey that this blog represents, but my friends, I must tell you, it is done.

“In fact, I am now retired from looking for bigfoot in any capacity from here out. For me, bigfoot has become not less of a mystery since I started looking into it in 2004, but much, much more mysterious. I despair of actually ever discovering what lies at the bottom of the matter.

“But whether or not that is the case, I have exhausted the energy I have to spend upon it.”

[Historical footnote: Yours truly, Loren Coleman coined the term “blogsquatching” on the Internet, at the Cryptomundo blog, on November 25, 2006, in a posting I was writing about the origins of the word “blobsquatch.” See here. I said then that “this new term is the use of web logs to spread information on unknown hairy hominoids such as Sasquatch, Yeti, and Yowie across the internet.” D. B. Donlon took me to heart, and took on the word, literally, for his blog.]

Donlon mentions having been hunting Bigfoot since 2004, but, specifically, his blog began at 8:28 AM, on Thursday, October 4, 2007.

He wrote:

“A new blog rises

I’ll make this first post a short and sweet mission statement. I plan to post original work here having to do with bigfoot research. You might occasionally find links here to whatever the “bigfoot outcry of the day” seems to be, but I’m not going to focus on that. (For that sort of thing you can easily go to cryptomundo.) I want to instead dig into the deeper levels of sasquatch research. So in a lot of ways, this will be a ‘meta’ blog. But I will also detail whatever I’m finding in my own research. I have quite a few things planned already….”

It is intriguing that right before Donlon left the field, he explored the paranormal side of things, to find some answers. I’ll won’t go into this, psychologically, because I don’t wish to be misunderstood. But I do internalize this and understand that the process for some comes out of being frustrated in looking for concrete answers. It is a natural progression of the intellectual process, as humans explore all kinds of avenues in trying to find the keys to their questions, as well as the answers themselves.

Do not misread me. I am not placing judgments and different values on these different paths. Certainly, the validity of the search rings true for many, and the various paths to be explored need to be supported and reinforced by all of us (save for the ones that lead down roads of greed, fakery, and destruction – those evil pools of quicksand, indeed).

I am reminded, in reading of D. B. Donlon’s recent musings, of the similar journey many of us have watched Mac Tonnies and his friends and followers take. Mac Tonnies, 34, a rising intellectual presence in Fortean thought, the “Posthuman Blues” blogger, never got to see his The Cryptoterrestrials (2010), published to grand reviews and hot sales. Sadly, he left the scene before he could put all the pieces together. He was found dead in his apartment on Thursday afternoon, October 22, 2009. People, as I mentioned, leave the field in many ways.

Tonnies was covering the same ground many others had before, but, although this often was not acknowledged by him, he may not have been intentionally ignoring previous thinkers. In many ways, Tonnies had found a way to view Bigfoot and the other minions by going along a different path to end up, intellectually, with youth, at a place similar to Donlon’s. I know, because I wandered in that forest with Jerome Clark, once upon a time. I have never denied that. Donlon, despite his “last sunset” posting, however, is not dead and still survives to think tomorrow. That is an important and significant difference from those who leave due to death. The end is so final that way.

Nevertheless, some people make wonderful homes for their thoughts in the occult, paranormal, Jungian, or spiritual forests, like Jacque Vallee. Even others find it creepy and scary, like John A. Keel, and yet still may remain inside their own dark woods.

Others take detours and decide to go other places. The tale of Jim McClarin is known to many. He was very intrigued by Bigfoot, intensively interested in the field work and early computer research, and will forever be known as the guy that stood in for Bigfoot in John Green’s post-Patty film at Bluff Creek. Jim also will be remembered for his statue at Willow Creek. He’s still a friend, personally to me, and yet he left the field (or so he thought) in 1975, to become a survivalist, then later a politician, and today, an insect photographer.

A similar person many of us knew in the 1990s was thought by everyone to be the next leading light in Sasquatch research. Instead, here is how Kyle Mizokami (shown above, still hiding? today) writes about himself on WordPress in 2010, where he is still blogging about things that catch his fancy: “Kyle majored in history at San Francisco State University. Among his many jobs he has worked reviewing x-rated web sites, at an arms and armor auction house selling guns, and in a fortune cookie factory. Kyle once spent five years chasing Bigfoot, whom he did not catch.”

Who are any of us to say when the time is or isn’t right for people to go elsewhere in their lives?

Various former Bigfooters have left after marriage, when having kids, due to moving, when they changed jobs or became academics. All of these may seem like mundane choices. But to each of these people, it may have turned into the right ones for them.

Some have departed the field because the phenomena got too close to them. They believed their contact with Bigfoot, for example, gave them insights that told them to save Sasquatch, that they had to abandon the search. Others have felt their positions – in their colleges or their marriages – would be jeopardized if they stayed on the hunt.

A random few have felt betrayed by Bigfoot and Bigfoot hunters, due to the sense of false promises of immediate discovery or the terrible human interactions with hoaxers and fakers.

The Bigfoot research field is no different than any other, but, then again, we are seen as very dissimilar by most people.

Besides merely passing this way, some people do pass away. But people like Grover Krantz have given a lot, just like Tonnies, no matter their age, no matter their tenure, before they die.

In many ways, when you look at it, it is really amazing that there are people like me, John Green, Daniel Perez, Jeff Meldrum, Matt Moneymaker, Scott McClean, and many others who are still around – despite how people might feel about any of us personally. Or how any of us think about each other. 🙂

Goodbye, D. B. Yes, you will be missed, but I am reminded of a California employer who once hired me for a job before I left his first interview. What he said to me was this: “I’d rather have the absolutely best person I could get for one year of work, than have someone who is half as good who will promise to stay and work for me for ten years.”

When hunting, researching and being interested in Bigfoot, there are many reasons for departing from the field. Likewise, there are many levels of appreciation for the fact that partners in our pursuit have stayed on the trail even for a year or decades.

Loren Coleman About Loren Coleman
Loren Coleman is one of the world’s leading cryptozoologists, some say “the” leading living cryptozoologist. Certainly, he is acknowledged as the current living American researcher and writer who has most popularized cryptozoology in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Starting his fieldwork and investigations in 1960, after traveling and trekking extensively in pursuit of cryptozoological mysteries, Coleman began writing to share his experiences in 1969. An honorary member of Ivan T. Sanderson’s Society for the Investigation of the Unexplained in the 1970s, Coleman has been bestowed with similar honorary memberships of the North Idaho College Cryptozoology Club in 1983, and in subsequent years, that of the British Columbia Scientific Cryptozoology Club, CryptoSafari International, and other international organizations. He was also a Life Member and Benefactor of the International Society of Cryptozoology (now-defunct). Loren Coleman’s daily blog, as a member of the Cryptomundo Team, served as an ongoing avenue of communication for the ever-growing body of cryptozoo news from 2005 through 2013. He returned as an infrequent contributor beginning Halloween week of 2015. Coleman is the founder in 2003, and current director of the International Cryptozoology Museum in Portland, Maine.

18 Responses to “Why Do People Leave The Bigfoot Field?”

  1. LanceFoster responds:

    This is a very interesting post, Loren.

    Perhaps some day you will write a book about the human and social context of searching for Bigfoot (and other cryptids). The different paradigms. Like an anthropology not of Bigfoot, but of the people in the Bigfoot field. That would make a fascinating book in itself.

    I gather from your books and those of Jerome Clark’s, that you guys thought of Bigfoot more in Keelian/Fortean terms decades ago. My impression is now both of you have moved away from that paranormalist stance; you see Bigfoot pretty much as a biological species now As well as other cryptids), and Clark sees UFOs more in the spaceship mold?

  2. MountDesertIslander responds:

    I became a silent Bigfoot enthusiast after about 5 years of serious searching in the early to mid 1970’s. After that, I became more of a cheerleader/ supporter of those who could not resist the mystery. Now I am content to follow the breaking news as best as I can on the Internet and the wonderful world of satellite television. If you can remember back to the 70’s-80’s there was precious little on television besides the old ‘In Search of…’ program.

    Here are the reasons I abandoned the quest in order;

    1. My best friend and fellow hunter left for college, never to return to the area. It’s a lonely hunt when there isn’t anyone to share the experience with.

    2. Lack of physical evidence to take to the doubters.

    3. Constant ridicule and spoofing of evidence.

    4. Bickering within the search community. In Pennsylvania in the mid 1970’s we had believers in the cryptid as a species, the paranormal connection advocates, and there was a strong contingent that even tied Bigfoot to UFOs. That created 3 distinct camps of bigfoot hunters who had no problem in ridiculing people they should have been supporting.

    5. Poor field equipment 30 years ago.

    6. Cost

    7. Self doubt

    8. Social pressure and real world commitments

    When these factors begin to feel like a suffocating blanket, it’s easy to close the door on that chapter of your life and move on to more mundane pursuits. In my years of camping, hiking, and investigating other people’s sightings I thought I had one possible close encounter. It still makes my hair stand up when I think about it. But, that’s it. That 2 minutes sustained me for 5 years. Now I’m too old, too tired after a week of work, and too worried about what others might say to go back into the field. It always was, and will remain, a young person’s game.

  3. DWA responds:

    Why do they leave? Oh, I can hazard some reasons.

    1. They don’t understand how science works, and that this is a scientific quest and requires scientific resources and time.

    2. They came to this from the paranormal, with the corresponding unrealistic expectations.

    3. They get tired of people with scientific credentials behaving like ignorant laymen. Tough tide to swim against.

    4. They don’t reflect on how few mink or bobcat they’ve seen in their lives. (Probably zero.) If you had to see a mink within a year, you better become a mink hunter. FULL TIME. I’d still bet against you. Same with sasquatch.

    5. How many ways can you say: IF YOU DON’T DO THIS FULL TIME, GOOD LUCK, and you’ll probably never get as good as you need?

  4. mystery_man responds:

    I agree this is a very interesting post.

    My own area of cryptozoological research, or at least the area where I’ve made any real contributions as evident from my guest blogs here, lies in Japanese cryptids rather than Bigfoot but I can relate to what has been said here.

    I personally have on occasion diverged from my own path of crytpozoological enlightenment. I probably wouldn’t say that I’ve ever left the path entirely, but rather taken short detours off of it from time to time. The reasons are many, but mostly they stem from family issues and commitments I have at work (as a teacher of high school biology), and with research I do in more mainstream areas (namely the implications on native ecology posed by invasive species).

    These things do not always mesh with my desire to research cryptozoology, and so on occasion I do have to take breaks from my pursuits in this field. Many here who know me may have noticed my absence from the site here as of late and this stems from the reasons I have outlined here.

    None of this is by choice. We all have commitments and we all must put food on the table. Very few people, at least honest researchers not out for a sensationalist buck (cough* Biscardi *cough) actually make money in this field. I think there are a lot of extenuating circumstances that effect to what degree we are able to realistically pursue cryptozoology.

    Each individual has their own personal reasons, however for those with a real passion for cryptozoology I do not think it comes down to a conscious choice to abandon this field. I for instance would love to devote myself one hundred percent to cryptozoology, but what we desire and what we are realistically able to do are very often different things.

    As for myself, I have been busy. Loren is aware of this and to any who have missed me here my apologies. I am back on track with cryptozoology. I am writing again and hope to have more guest blogs in the future here.

    While I may take short forays off of the path, I have never, nor ever will, fully leave it. I’m here to stay.

  5. jodie responds:

    I became seriously interested in the topic of Bigfoot a couple of months ago and was very enthusiastic. I pretty much left the field before I even got started. In the two months I’ve been following the forums and listening to blog talk shows, the topics have been discussed ad nauseum and the shows are starting to recycle the guests. The infighting is disgusting and rather pointless. The field seems to attract a large number of eccentric people. I’ve never met anyone who could quit their day job to make money at doing strictly bigfoot research so I’m not quite sure I follow the logic for this common accusation. Greed seems to be a generalized refrain when I hear researchers question each other’s motivation or evidence, and the core reason for hoaxing. The ones who actively do field research never seem to find anything, or if they do, they don’t discuss it for the above stated reasons. I certainly don’t think they are finding anything definitive. I’m not patient enough to put in several years of effort and expense to essentially accomplish nothing. I’m still interested, my intuition tells me people are certainly seeing something, odds are they aren’t all cases of misidentification, but I have plenty of other more meaningful things to funnel my time and energy into that maybe more fulfilling and productive. The hunt for bigfoot, the forums, the shows, the infighting, and the socializing all remind me of a modern day version of Don Quixote.

  6. wuffing responds:

    Jodie – I can understand your position completely – it seemed like an interesting subject with a reasonable chance of successfully filling a gap left by mainstream science, then you found it wasn’t.

    MountDesertIslander’s points #2,3 and 4 sum it up really; nobody’s finding anything, some are faking evidence and others are arguing all the time. Some people will stay in the field because they have seen something inexplicable themselves and hope to identify it, but looking around the websites people will conclude that many of the other dedicated Bigfoot hunters can really be classified as “slow learners”. W

  7. bigfootboy_2000 responds:

    D.B. is a good god guy and his insight will be missed.

    I have been in this for only about 13 years and have studied this phenomenon for about 30 years. Along the way, I have left the field a time or two for personal, family or work reasons for a few months or a year.

    Over the years, I have met many of my childhood heros who I only read about it books and magazines such as Peter Byrne, John Green, and Bob Gimlin. I feel I have a good working relationship with Jeff Meldrum, Loren Coleman, and many other notables in the field. I have met a good amount of good people in this field, who are very serious about this subject and really care about it and those who do the work.

    However, there is a dark side to all this and I have also met those people in this field. Those who are in this to feed ego’s, make money, hurt other people and really arent in this for the subject at all. They are in it for themselves. Heck, I even ended up in some of the the politics side of Bigfooting. In 2008, I became slightly involved in a public issue defending a friend, although she did not ask me to. Also In 2008 I became involved in defending a friend who was involved with the Georgia hoax although he did not ask me. I learned my lesson at that time and I learned at that time, that there are a lot of “new comers” (those who have been in this for a few years) who seem to think the people aspect, gossip, and bad mouthing others is more important than the study of the phenomenon.

    I used to be about helping whomever I could, and have donated a lot of my own time and money to helping people along the way. I helped people with advice, lending a hand with investigations, research, donating items for conferences or fund raisers, helping people who requested me for radio interviews, or sharing my information with those writing books. During the past two years, I have started to stray away from helping people because of the negative aspects and am now concentrating on those I have befriended, and who are providing a positive impact to the study and doing good for it. Now I stay away from the lists, blogs, forums, etc. I read them once in a blue moon to see if there is any new news and information to help me in my study. I still see that some of these negative people are still out there. Guess they always will be and I dont want bothered with that.

    I am at the point now where I help out, keep in touch with and work with the good folks in this field and those who I have befriended over the years. I associate myself with those whose intent is positive and are trying to find answers by doing it the right way.

    I still run the PA Bigfoot Society and we keep our group small to avoid politics as much as possible. I still conduct research and am in the field as much as I can be. My family and career comes first. I make those my top priority. Bigfoot comes second. Ive given up trying to prove Bigfoot exist and I do the research for mine and my groups benefit. I will continue to study as long as I am able and conduct my work for my and my groups benefit and those who matter to me.

    I can certainly understand why people come and go. It is an intriguing mystery. One that involves more than just the search for the creature and the study of the phenomenon. I am grateful for the past 30 years of what I have learned, but theses days I do it more for my own benefit, my groups own benefit and am more interested in learning the truth for myself than for anyone elses own sake. Good luck to you D.B. I hope you find the answers you are looking for and hope one day you will return to the search. We need more good people like you in this.

  8. Jack Lee responds:

    Just want to make a quick comment about the topic, based on a recent personal experience I had here in Alabama. A pre-historic stone temple mound and a ceremonial mound estimated to be over 1,500 years old have been desecrated “in the name of progress” in my home town. As a person of Mvskoke heritage, I have been vigilant regarding stories about this on the local grapevine. Since I am also interested in “Sasquatchery” (or “Skunk Apery” lol) I noticed that there have been several sightings of such beings reported locally. Two such reports have been relayed to me by my own relatives, along with uncharacteristic avoidance of the favored mountain top retreat where the sightings took place. When I relayed my concerns over the sightings to another mound keeper, I could see her mentally pull back and sit farther away from me! So my best guess would be that many leave the field over other people’s disbelief of Sasquatch being “real” and that anyone who believes in such a being might be dangerous or off beam. At least, that is my experience. Did it make me stop believing? no, but I am more discriminating on telling others about it. 🙂 BTW, the term “Sasquatchery” should catch on just fine!

  9. LanceFoster responds:

    After reading these comments, all you folks sound like practical, common-sense good guys. This field needs more of your influence. And just think if Loren had abandoned the field. (shudder)

    We all bring our own experiences and paradigms to the question of cryptids. People won’t always agree. Respectful collegiality is the key. You are the kinds of people who need to stick around.

    But as to the badmouthing, attention seekers, hoaxers, and assorted bad eggs, now you see why lots of people who experience things bail on talking about them. Some stuff will never be talked about, even between close friends face-to-face. It’s just not worth it.

  10. fuzzy responds:

    D.B. Donlon’s curiosity, sincerity and unique viewpoint will be missed… we despair of finding a suitable replacement.

    Thanks for the interview, D.B. – it was a pleasure.

  11. DWA responds:

    jodie says: “I’ve never met anyone who could quit their day job to make money at doing strictly bigfoot research so I’m not quite sure I follow the logic for this common accusation.”

    Not so sure it’s an accusation. It’s just the facts. It’s just life.

    When you are looking for something every single encounter with which is presumed to be either a lie or a mistake, you have a very tough row to hoe. Logic says you will not get your proof part time. How could you? You could see a sasquatch or evidence of same every day you are in the field. What does it matter, when the default judgment is that you are mistaken? That your film or photo – you almost certainly will get only one chance, if that – is a guy in a suit; that those tracks aren’t what you say they are; and those hairs came back “unknown,” which doesn’t mean sasquatch, mainly because, the animal not being known, there’s no type specimen against which to make the essential call: This is that?

    And when reality – meaning practically every animal we know about that isn’t either superabundant or conditioned to humans, or both – tells you that you will almost never come across any evidence of an animal like this working part time, then where are you?

    If you are a part-timer: you are shooting craps and hoping to get really, really lucky.

    I have said it here a thousand times, and here goes again: Unless the search for this animal (presuming of course that there is only one species, something on which the evidence seems to cast at least a little doubt) goes full time, we will need to get really, really lucky to get confirmation. Nothing is ever confirmed by the latter method – at least not the latter method alone. Even when evidence is stumbled upon – Eris, the coelacanth, the saola, the kouprey – it is taken seriously by the first person who stumbles upon it, and confirming it is a full-time job until done. Everything that’s been confirmed has been so pretty much that way.

    The sasquatch and the yeti and the orang pendek (and whatever other primates may be out there, hiding under that umbrella) will not be confirmed, says here, until a piece of inconclusive evidence turns enough heads that the search goes full time and serious. Yeah, someone could just stumble upon a body, AND have the wherewithal to get the word to science AND the desire to do so, AND be taken seriously by the first AND the second AND the third AND etc. people who obtain custody of that evidence, until a critical mass of serious scientists get interested. But nobody who has ever found remains in the field – and yes they have (allegedly) been – has navigated that road successfully. Gee, wonder why not, when the first words you are likely to hear contain the word “nuts” somewhere in there?

    Full time. Period. No full time, no sasquatch. If we aren’t going to get full-timers then we aren’t going to confirm. And we just have to be OK with that. ‘Cause that’s science, and that’s life.

  12. hudgeliberal responds:

    I am sad to hear that another bright star has vanished. I spoke with DB one late night on the phone (my ABS interview) and found that I could not stop talking as we talked late into the AM. He was personable, listened well and was well spoken. I think the point where he started to dip into the paranormal and habituation crowd, that was the point where he seemed to go downhill and his updates were few and far apart. I think while it is necessary to have an open mind, I also believe we must think in realistic terms and keep a wary eye out for hoaxers and scam artists that seem to pop up everywhere in this field. Those few bad apples are the reason that many (who are serious and valuable) get disgusted and move on. I urge anyone out there to BEWARE of those who make outrageous claims such as the ability to call in bigfoot on cue and other far fetched stories. Those who seem to crave the attention and the spotlight and have answers for any question, should be looked upon with a wary eye. I think that the old school researchers of the 60’s and 70’s were closer than we are today. I long for the good old days of sasquatchery. Anyway ,good luck DB and if you ever decide to return, I’m sure most would welcome that day. Peace friends.

  13. John Cartwright responds:

    We have lost one of the good guys from this field. DB made me feel comfortable when he was interviewing me about my encounter. He taught me when I was lucky enough to go into the field with him. He is one of the reasons I am involved in this endeavor. I just returned from a week of field investigations to hear this sad news. I wish DB and his family all the best. I don’t really know what else to say.

    You will be missed my friend, take care

  14. jerrywayne responds:

    I too will miss reading new posts by Blogsquatcher at his site.

    There is an incongruity basic to Sasquatch phenomena that sometimes takes a toll on advocates: the lack of hard evidence is inconsistent with the abundance of soft evidence. Blogsquatcher seems to have been driven to the deep end of the pond, where murky mysticism lives, because of the apparently irreconcilable tension found in virtually ubiquitous “evidence” that leads to nowhere, or more specifically, to no animal.

    Instead of moving toward a paranormal view, or obscuring the lack of hard evidence by making, by rote, villains of skeptics, or by blaming the scientific establishment for its collective disinterest, perhaps advocates should rethink their notions making the collected soft evidence sufficient enough (for them) to conclude there are apes (or ape apparitions) among us.

  15. DWA responds:


    The lack of “hard evidence” isn’t inconsistent at all with the abundance of soft evidence.

    But of course that depends on what you call “hard evidence.”

    If you mean “proof,” well, if there was proof, we wouldn’t be talking about this here.

    But sasquatch sign has been found, of every kind that has been found for every other kind of animal, if you believe the accounts (and I’ll get to that in a minute). Blood; feces; hair; partially decomposed feet (maybe the same find twice, in the same area of SE AK); other bones, for which the finder could come up with no satisfactory conventional explanation; nests and similar structures for which no conventional explanation works; tracks and tracks and tracks, for which no conventional explanation has been made to scan; and a film for which skeptics cannot point to one piece of evidence that indicates a fake – but scientists in relevant fields can point to much that indicates authenticity. And I don’t need to go into sightings, because I know you have read as many as I have, amigo. 😉 I could have listed more (like the hunters who have reported killing one), but I won’t.

    If you mean “forensic evidence,” there has been a lot. Either it doesn’t get brought to the scientific community, because the finders either don’t want the hassle or are satisfied that they at least know or are creeped out at having to deal with it or their buddies are and so discourage them etc etc etc….Oh shoot, no point in even going on here.

    The key is what I have said in those other posts I’ve made up there.

    EVERY SINGLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE IS PRIMA FACIE PRESUMED A LIE OR A MISTAKE. No matter the effort involved in bringing it to science’s attention. No matter the inability of any debunking to make a dent in it. That’s the issue, period.

    I’m amazed *anyone* does bigfoot research, the way mainstream science treats it. I sure have no intention of subjecting myself to that. I’m more than sastisfied that all the evidence points to the animal’s existence. Far as I’m concerned, science has to show me it DOESN’T exist.

    But science won’t even look at the evidence.

    The inattention of the scientific community is the only gripe a Bigfooter needs to offer. Because that’s the problem. All the Benscardis out there shouldn’t obscure the validity of the evidence. Not to any scientist worth his salt who takes a good look. As a number of them have.

    But science – other than those brave (and tenured, of course) few – won’t even look at the evidence.

    THAT’s why people leave the field. Full-timers only will solve this.

    And there are none.

  16. bccryptid responds:

    I think get in thinking they expect results, get frustrated by the lack thereof, and people get bored, too. For me, it’s always been a way to get my arse off the couch and into the woods, and since I don’t need the sasquatch for that in the end, it just adds excitement to any outing.

  17. jerrywayne responds:


    In 1847 at the Boston Society of Natural History, two naturalists described for the first time scientifically the gorilla. Their paper was based on bones found at market in Liberia. If we have discovered the feet of the American primate in Arkansas, Sasquatch, as you suggest, then we do have hard evidence that would be conclusive. (And Dr. Meldrum should be the one to describe it to a scientific conference or society). On the other hand, if all we have is another “sighting report”, this time a sighting of decomposing primate feet, then surely you must know this is no evidence at all, just talk.

    You argue that “sasquatch sign has been found, of every kind that has been found for every other kind of animal….” There is a mitigating difference in this comparison: we have hard evidence for “every other kind of animal” and we do not for Sasquatch. I have yet to find a compelling explanation for this fact, other than the explanation that Sasquatch is a cultural myth and its “evidence” mimics real evidence for real animals via human imagination, failure of comprehension, and deceit.

    I am suggesting that this dichotomy of abundant soft evidence and absent hard evidence is a cause for some once enthusiastic Bigfooters to abandon the hunt, and apparantly in some cases, to capitulate to paranormalism.
    This is understandable because, like you amigo, they accept the soft evidence as virtually conclusive and have a very hard time believing it is all just based on human folly of one sort or another. So if the evidence is compelling (it must seem), if Sasquatch is real as the evidence tells us it is (surely it is), then WHY are we unable to FIND IT?: this is the wearying conundrum that can tire out even the most ardent advocate over time.

    You often seem to argue that only a dedicated team of scientists can solve this issue and that not much has really been done so far to solve this mystery. Why? You must have a guess as to how many Bigfooters alone and in concert, poorly financed and financed sufficiently, have been in the field since the 1960’s, trying every method imaginable to find proof of an American ape, spending untold hours in the bush sweating or freezing. To no avail.

    The first observation and specimen taking of a gorilla in its natural habitat, by a white man, occurred in the late 1850’s by an explorer with an entourage of porters. Imagine: over a 160 years ago, in a very remote, lush, dangerous part of the world, the gorilla was found. Today, in a highly industrialized nation, founded by westward marching pioneers of every stripe, home to millions of sportsman and outdoorsman over the centuries, of countless naturalists and scientists in the field, and we have acquired no hard evidence for the existence of a native population of mere apes.

    Its no wonder Bigfooters get discouraged and
    move on.

  18. DWA responds:


    Africa had been regularly visited by white men for centuries – and been mostly civilized for thousands of years – before the gorilla was confirmed, scant years after its very existence was scoffed at as a ridiculous native story. Ancient Egypt – one of the world’s great civilizations – had frequent contact with civilizations living at the gorilla’s doorstep for centuries.

    1847, you say?

    For those who know how to think about this, no big surprise that the sasquatch hasn’t been confirmed. Look at this alone:

    “If we have discovered the feet of the American primate in Arkansas ( I said SE Alaska), … then we do have hard evidence that would be conclusive. (And Dr. Meldrum should be the one to describe it to a scientific conference or society).”

    Um, he has to, um, have them in his possession to do this. Not his fault that the people who made the finds – and numerous others – grievously mishandled them. Or – and this happens more often – refused to handle them at all.

    Allegedly, sure. So there is no possible basis for these allegations other than mistakes or jokes? Shoot, with that prevailing attitude, a population of ten million sasquatch would remain unconfirmed. (“I’ve seen three in the past year. They must be mistakes.”) You clearly misunderstand what must happen before science can confirm something: people have to be able to say they saw it without being fitted for extra-long-arm jackets.

    “On the other hand, if all we have is another “sighting report”, this time a sighting of decomposing primate feet, then surely you must know this is no evidence at all, just talk.”


    SIGHTING REPORTS ARE EVIDENCE. Any scientist worth his degree knows one thing if he knows anything worth knowing: that sentence is true beyond doubt.

    (‘Tis how we confirmed the gorilla; the giant panda; oh shoot no sense typing for the next five years to get in all of them).

    And evidence displaying frequency and coherence is prima facie scientifically compelling.

    Problem is: scientists operating outside the bounds of the known frequently stop behaving like scientists.

    (Boy, do they ever. I bite my tongue, frequently, before referring to them as idiots. They’re not idiotic, they just, under certain circumstances, seem that way. 😀 .)

    Problem is: the attitude that if you don’t have proof, you have nothing, and that there is no evidence other than proof.

    (An attitude with which, well, we wouldn’t be living in caves; we’d be extinct.)


    And it has frequency and coherence. Which automatically interests any scientist who (1) looks at it and (2) has his thinking cap on.

    And this is by a bunch of not-even-part-timers trying to solve the problem.

    That science, as a body, continues to display no serious interest will – I would bet on it, a lot, ‘twere I a betting man – one day be shown to be one of its most spectacular failures.

    (Everything is “just talk” to a person who doesn’t know – probably because he hasn’t read up – what should arouse a smidgen of natural human curiosity, amigo. But I’m willing to wait for you to catch up. On some things, one just has to have faith. 😉 )

    (Patty didn’t dump you, amigo. YOU DUMPED HER. 😀 )

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.