“Definitive Guide” to Bigfoot [Updated With New Images]

Posted by: Loren Coleman on May 15th, 2011

UPDATE: This program is being re-broadcast during May in the USA, and will be shown for the first time on Canadian television this month, as well. It appeared to be a timely move to post this again, and get new comments. Here are new images from the program.

(Several of these sheets are now at the International Cryptozoology Museum. See below for more details.)

Cryptomundians who watched “Bigfoot: The Definitive Guide” had some immediate reactions. Reviews from viewers among the readers here make sense. The following are the first few [posted Feb. 3rd; updated for Feb. 5th, and updated again on May 12th, 2011].

Random thought: Humm, that “guide” name sure is familiar.

The Field Guide to Bigfoot and Other Mystery Primates.

Dr. Anna Nekaris, the only female expert on the program’s panel, received a grant from Primate Conservation Inc. towards her study of the endangered Sumatran slow loris in Aceh Province, Sumatra, in 2007. She was a refreshing new addition to the usual male lineup.

Add your critique, praise or criticism to the comments section, below.

FeralThrowback writes: “Just watched it! Very good presentation and the retelling of events was fun for me. The Chapman family part sort of seemed inaccurate as compared to what I’ve read but that one aside I was pleased.  I thought it interesting to see where they had boiled down places where they thought it most plausible for a group of these creatures to exist.  Worth the watch!!”

Ozarkmom pens: “I was very excited to watch ‘Bigfoot: The Definitive Guide’ due to the fact that it was new and not the same reruns you see all of the time. Unfortunately, it left me very disappointed…it may have been a new program, but it was just more of the same old stuff. It was not only disappointing and empty, but also completely absurd when one of the people they interviewed suggested that what people could be seeing are Indian Shamans….so I guess it’s normal for a Shaman, when they’re out in the forest for many years, to grow 3-4 feet, put on several hundred pounds, and double their shoe size….COME ON NOW PEOPLE!!!!! The show was basically a waste of 2 hours.”

RoR emails: “I thought it was a great show. Some of the sequences [seemed as if they] were from MonsterQuest, but all in all, it was still a great show. I am still a supporter of the Myaaka Skunk Ape photo. Two of the hosts did not make a good argument for a man in a suit theory on the Patterson video.”

Mcw2112 says: “I hate to be negative, but I just finished watching the special and I have to say I feel like I seen this all before. They begin the program saying that they’ve brought together a few experts that will ‘settle the question, once and for all,’ BUT the program ends predictably, saying, ‘We may never know.’  Lots of questions were posed and opinions were provided on both sides. Interesting circumstantial evidence was discussed, but nothing that I would call ‘definitive’ came out of the study at all. Honest to goodness, the next time one of these programs comes on, I’m just going to watch the first and last five minutes and be done with it. It looks like these kinds of programs will all be the same until some idiot shoots one of these poor creatures and we have a carcass for all the world to see. I’m sorry, but some folks, even experts, sitting around a table and espousing their opinions, no matter how educated, is a futile exercise for the viewer. The only good that comes out of it is the very fact that it is being discussed at all.”

Faceless Man sends this in: “Good time waster for an insomniac like myself, I guess. Still, the fact that the theories they came up with were the same theories I have been trying to inform people of for the past few years tells me that either I’m ahead of the game, or they’re way behind.”

LH writes: “I enjoyed the show. I wish they would have discussed a little more in detail the dna from some samples that have shown ‘no known species’ all in all quite informative. I am glad they talked about the sound (screams) that are also reported. We hear alot about whoops but not about the other sounds.”

RH mentions: “Still trying to convince my wife to go camping with me…so she watched the show too. Did not like the fact that all the visuals of Bigfoot showed a scary, mean looking creature, with an angry look to it, rather than a more curious inquisitive demeanor. She still is too scared to go out with me, lol.”

CB notes: “I liked the show. Alot of great reenactments. Looked more of a round table discussion of intellectuals vs a real field investigative approach. Overall positive though.”

JW says: “I suspect the animation [made this look like MonsterQuest]. I find it hard to believe they slam the Patterson footage using the argument that special effects in 1967 could make anything look real and yet the computer animated stuff they use on shows like this, while highly technical, still look glarlingly fake in 2011!”

MW writes: “As far as the show, I thought it was interesting and thought-provoking. I am still not convinced or a believer in the theory that the creatures seen in the Pacific Northwest are nothing more then ‘wild men’ who were/are shaman.”

LM writes: “It didn’t add anything to the debate. I thought the proposed Shaman theory lacked any real logic. The close examination of the infamous Patty footage was the same old, same old. I did enjoy the map of global sightings and the monster-like like portraits that appealed to my inner 10 year old, so I guess that’s something to cheer. I guess there are worse ways to spend two hours but overall the programme was a disappointment. History Channel needs to rethink Cryptozoology.”

RM says: It was a great show on the mysterious Hominids. I agree with the conclusion of one of the guests that the Orang-pendak is the most likely to be found by science, hopefully this year. Bigfoot if he exisits is most likely an Ape of some sort. I look for Loren Coleman to lead the next expedition and to discover it’s existence.”

MB emails: “I was disappointed. It started well, and the reenactments were well done, but near the end it degenerated into wild and pointless speculation. Aside from Redmond and Meldrum, it’s clear none of the others had ever spent any time in the field looking for sasquatch, or else they would not have made such lame arguments. I was hoping Meldrum would shut them down during the P/G debate with his discoveries of leg injuries and moving mouth he uncovered in other documentaries. Granted, they have to ‘dumb down’ the show for uninitiated viewers, but I felt cheated. It hardly lived up to it’s optimistic title: ‘The Definitive Guide.'”

TCM comments: “Dr. Meldrum thank you very much for such a wonderful show. I learned a couple things that was intriguing in itself. the basket part carried by Mr. foot. Wild man introduction.”

JD: “I found the theory about the shaman interesting, but not plausible, as Kathy Strain pointed out! They started on some of the physical evidence, but just kinda left it! I’m sure many of you who are field investigators you recognized some of of the wooden structures! But nothing about the vocalizations, wood knocks, rock clacking, instead the show patterned the worn out old tabloids. The History Channel had 5 very credible scientists at their disposal….but apparently didn’t have a clue as to how to use them and their expertise, and produce a much better show! The only thing I took away from the show was the proclamation that someone needs to form a research team and spend 8-10 months in the field 24-7!.”

PM: “It’s not the scientists that will find bigfoot, it will be some researcher like us that will one day obtain the evidence! And yes it will take a rather lengthy expedition with qualified researchers who know what to look for to find the right spot. The Shawman thing in my opinion should be flushed down the toilet! I have never heard anything that stupid before in all my days of research!! I kinda felt insulted when I watched that part of the tv special! Do they really think that we are that stupid?”

SW says: “I was surprised that they was able to have a two hour show and talk about nothing. I thought it was not very good as BF shows go.”

Meldrum Speaking at IUS

Let us hear what you thought of the History Channel special. Thank you.

[For the sake of clarification, I, Loren Coleman, was only involved with being asked about a few images, late in the game. I was not asked for an on-camera interview or any consulting assistance to this program. As far as I could see, I did not even receive an end credit. Also, the ground-breaking new material about True Giants and the newer Denisovan results, beyond the initial finger bone, both from December 2010, were not included in this program. But new images, seen below and above, were.]

[Late thank you to the producers of this program. Dangerous Films of the UK have donated several of the light table sheets to the International Cryptozoology Museum for display.]

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.

58 Responses to ““Definitive Guide” to Bigfoot [Updated With New Images]”

  1. Loren Coleman responds:

    Over fifty comments! Great to see people have so much to say about this program and this topic.

    Regarding the above ongoing theme that in some way this program used footage from or involved parts of the same crew from “MonsterQuest,” I think that is incorrect.

    Yes, similar ground was covered, some of the same stories were used, and a few of the same people were re-interviewed, but, unless I am totally wrong, this program has nothing to do with the production company that produced “MonsterQuest.”

    Doug Hajicek’s group, Whitewolf Entertainment of Minnesota produced “MonsterQuest” and “Legend Meets Science.” Dangerous Films of London, UK produced “Bigfoot: The Definitive Guide.” There is no overlapping personnel between Doug’s group and the Dangerous people behind this documentary.

  2. sasquatch responds:

    I have watched all the Monsterquest shows on Bigfoot at least twice each and would swear that that was the same interview;the guy in the car, then he’s talking standing there-I thought his vocal inflections were the exact same etc…then they put in new “wildman” footage and took out the original stuff where the creature (looking like a furry bigfoot-not a caveman) is leaning out and reaching towards the water-from a felled tree that’s over the river.
    I issue a friendly challenge to go back and watch that original episode about the Vancouver Island Bigfoot, and compare the two.
    I’m gonna do the same thing because IT IS possible, as you say that they “re-interviewed” people, but I think it’s the same footage edited differently. Thanks. Best wishes

  3. DWA responds:

    It occurs that I have the Amazon URL to only one of the books I have above cited. Here’s Meldrum’s. Here’s Alley’s.

  4. DWA responds:

    I came back to add another book to read, and another comment.

    1. Myra Shackley’s “Still Living?” shows how frequency and coherence can be used to separate wheat from chaff (hint: don’t mount an expedition to find European Wildmen just yet). It also summarizes the compelling evidence that sasquatch and yeti aren’t all there are…and this was almost 30 years ago.

    2. Alley’s book cited in my previous post is important not only for the depth of reportage from a specific area of interest, but for showing how much we “know” from the evidence. There’s a “Field Guide to the Pacific Coast Sasquatch” at the end that is a lot more comprehensive and cohesive than we have for species confirmed to exist. It’s of practical use for anyone interested in this animal, anywhere. I saw a potential piece of evidence in Maryland a couple of weeks ago that is almost precisely like one that this book reports from Alaska; this book is the only reference to the phenomenon I had come across before I saw it myself. Since I saw it, a BFRO report from Washington state has surfaced that includes a similar observation. This sort of knitting-together of observations from widely-separated locales is important for pushing the study of phenomena that science doesn’t yet accept. Alley is also extremely perceptive in discussing why something for which this much evidence exists is so difficult for the mainstream of science to swallow. It is as good a read on the subject as anything I have seen. I’ve come back to it again and again.

  5. DWA responds:

    I have to add to previous comments one thing, about a picture new to this blog.

    Does that last photo look like SuperHeroBigfoot, or what? I think I have heard of blue eyeshine in night sightings. But the luminous NightVisionBrow is a new one on me.

  6. 76sagi responds:

    I personally really enjoyed the program. Was there rehashed information? Of course there was. But given the lack of a considerable amount of new evidence, I thought it was a thoroughly informative and entertaining show. While the “shaman” hypothesis was far-fetched, I always enjoy listening to Dr Meldrum speak on the scientific end. To me, his input lends credibility and fairness to the program. That being said, there certainly is a lot of reworking older content for new Sasquatch shows; more visual and conclusive evidence is needed. As with many here, I’d like to see more scientific study and investigation on the subject.

  7. dharkheart responds:

    I thought the show was great. Jeff Meldrum always brings measured analysis and the addition of Anna Nekaris was like letting in a new ray of light; one that shone brightly in comparitive analysis and field experience from a younger generation’s perspective. All of the individuals making up the round-table are sound scientifically speaking.

    I look forward to seeing more of them!

  8. whiteriverfisherman responds:

    I did not comment on this show the first time around because I didn’t think it was worth wasting the time or effort. What I will say is if I were Mr. Coleman, which I am not, I’d be very thankful my name was not associated with this show. I thought it was an embarrassment to the entire Sasquatch research community. Semi quote “Man in a suit” How do you know with such certainty? “Because it is” Yeah, that’s real scientific. How about a shaman in a suit? Let explore this one more!! RIDICULOUS!! No wonder so many main stream scientists laugh at this subject.

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.