Friday, December 27, 2013

What Kinds of Sounds Do Sasquatch Make? - Sasquatch Sounds vs Known Animal Sounds

Sasquatch sounds vs Known Animal Sounds


Audio Evidence

From Sasquatch Bioacoustic: A site dedicated to the review and analysis of potential sasquatch vocalizations, Sasquatch Bioacoustic combines techniques from the domains of intelligence collection, audio analysis and bioacoustic studies to examine the evidence of sasquatch through their vocalizations.

The easiest way to access all of the audio analysis from Sasquatch Bioacoustic is via their YouTube page's video tab:

Here is one example of their audio analysis.

Uploaded on Feb 14, 2012
Over several years of research Cliff Barrackman has collected a number of audio clips containing vocalizations consistent with other suspected sasquatch recordings. Originally available through his website, a review of these clips turns up some important attributes that not only confirm, but also extend elements of the growing sasquatch lexicon. These clips include whoops, possible integrated wood knocks, falsetto shrieks, pitch changes, and a new vocal type referred to as a "yodel" (comprised of very rapid pitch changes).

Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization Sound Recordings
The Sierra Sounds

From Years ago, through a year-long study at the University of Wyoming, it was established that the vocalizations which we recorded were not manufactured by an alternative source, i.e., speakers, amplifiers, man.  More recently, it was established, through a Crypto-Linguistic study, that the sounds we recorded have a complex language structure.  And, anything with a language ‘must’ exist."

“Having analyzed a tape recording of purported Bigfoot speech using accepted techniques of signal processing, the authors conclude that the means and ranges of the recorded pitch and estimated vocal tract length of the speakers indicate that the sounds were made by a creature with vocal features corresponding to a larger physical size than man.’ They also conclude that the tape shows none of the expected signs of being prerecorded or rerecorded at an altered speed and hence diminish the probability of a hoax.” - Professor R Lynn Kirlin and Lasse Hertel, after a year-long university of Wyoming-based study of the Bigfoot Recordings.

"We have verified that these creatures use language by the human definition of it." - Scott Nelson, Retired from the U.S. Navy as a Crypto-Linguist with over 30 years experience in Foreign Language and Linguistics, including the collection, transcription, analysis and reporting of voice communications.

"I challenge anyone to make those exact same noises with the exact same pronunciation and at that speed... I don’t think Homo sapiens can make all of these noises and in this fashion. I’ve heard and practiced a lot of known human language sounds and vocalizations and these don’t fit any of them and I can’t make these noises. One example of this is that the ‘whistling’ noises they make sound to me like they are coming from the throat. I don’t know any human who can do that, though with practice someone might??? [Sound analysis of the whistles shows they are harmonic and do not originate at the lips, as would an ordinary human whistle. AB] This (that the noise is not human) does not rule out that it is language. The vocalizations seem to have some elements of language to me, i.e. certain repeated phoneme patterns and a certain organization to the chattering." - Human Sound Expert, Nancy Logan

Regarding her qualifications she writes:
I’ll give you some of my ‘qualifications’ to study these sounds…we (my twin sister and I) have what is known as ‘perfect pitch,’ or ‘absolute pitch,’ which permits a person to know what a note is without having any reference note played…and to be able to mimic and hear language sounds that are not of that person’s ‘native language’”

“I’ve had the experience over and over of being able to reproduce the pronunciation of other languages immediately after hearing them the first time, when people who have studied those languages for years can neither reproduce them nor hear them. This talent (has) led me to play lots of musical instruments growing up…at present I play the flute, the Japanese harp (Koto) and the piano. I have a Russian friend…she thinks I’m a Russian…the bottom line is I have a very sensitive sense of hearing…”

“I am currently the only interpreter in the State of California who is court certified in Spanish/English and Japanese/English and court registered in French/ English…I also speak Russian and Italian (fluently) although not at the level of an interpreter, which is very fluent. There are only 10 people in the State of California who are currently certified in Japanese/English. There are approximately 600…who are certified in Spanish. That is out of a population of 20 million in the southern California region…about 1% of the people taking these tests pass. Besides the languages I speak, I also (have) studied others, such as Chinese and Arabic….”
The Bigfoot Sounds That Made Skeptic Ranae Holland 'Feel Electric'

Wednesday, December 25, 2013

Here's Wising Everyone a Very Squatchy Holiday Season


The Twelve Days Of Bigfoot Christmas 
On the first day of Christmas,
my true love found for me
A Bigfoot beside a large tree.

On the second day of Christmas,
my true love found for me
Two turd drops,
And a Bigfoot beside a large tree.

On the third day of Christmas,
my true love found for me
Three fresh hairs,
Two turd drops,
And a Bigfoot beside a large tree.

On the fourth day of Christmas,
my true love found for me
Four muddy tracks,
Three fresh hairs,
Two turd drops,
And a Bigfoot beside a large tree.

On the fifth day of Christmas,
my true love found for me
Five primate screams,
Four muddy tracks,
Three fresh hairs,
Two turd drops,
And a Bigfoot beside a large tree.

On the sixth day of Christmas,
my true love found for me
Six traps awaiting,
Five primate screams,
Four muddy tracks,
Three fresh hairs,
Two turd drops,
And a Bigfoot beside a large tree.

On the seventh day of Christmas,
my true love found for me
Seven lads a-baiting,
Six traps awaiting,
Five primate screams,
Four muddy tracks,
Three fresh hairs,
Two turd drops,
And a Bigfoot beside a large tree.

On the eighth day of Christmas,
my true love found for me
Eight men a-searching,
Seven lads a-baiting,
Six traps awaiting,
Five primate screams,
Four muddy tracks,
Three fresh hairs,
Two turd drops,
And a Bigfoot beside a large tree.

On the ninth day of Christmas,
my true love found for me
Nine horses packing,
Eight men a-searching,
Seven lads a-baiting,
Six traps awaiting,
Five primate screams,
Four muddy tracks,
Three fresh hairs,
Two turd drops,
And a Bigfoot beside a large tree.

On the tenth day of Christmas,
my true love found for me
Ten dogs a-tracking,
Nine horses packing,
Eight men a-searching,
Seven lads a-baiting,
Six traps awaiting,
Five primate screams,
Four muddy tracks,
Three fresh hairs,
Two turd drops,
And a Bigfoot beside a large tree.

On the eleventh day of Christmas,
my true love found for me
Eleven callers calling,
Ten dogs a-tracking,
Nine horses packing,
Eight men a-searching,
Seven lads a-baiting,
Six traps awaiting,
Five primate screams,
Four muddy tracks,
Three fresh hairs,
Two turd drops,
And a Bigfoot beside a large tree.

On the twelfth day of Christmas,
my true love got for me
Twelve cameras rolling,
Eleven callers calling,
Ten dogs a-tracking,
Nine horses packing,
Eight men a-searching,
Seven lads a-baiting,
Six traps awaiting,
Five primate screams,
Four muddy tracks,
Three fresh hairs,
Two turd drops,
And a Bigfoot beside a large tree!

- Source/2nd Image Source:

I'm a vegetarian, so this first video should not to be seen as an endorsement of eating Jerky, anymore than my amusement at these commercials should be presented as proof that that I've adopted a pro "messing with" Sasquatch position. :)

Messing With Sasquatch - Holiday Greeting

I Wanna See a Sasquatch for Christmas
sasqWAH the Singing Bigfoot: Let It SNOW!

Other Image Sources:,195835401

Sunday, December 22, 2013

Faking Bigfoot Tracks in More Sophisticated Ways Than Wooden Replicas

In the book Sasquatch True-Life Encounters With Legendary Ape-Men it's written:
Most fakes are made by people using wooden plates carved to the size and shape of a Sasquatch footprint...

A more sophisticated method of faking Bigfoot tracks emerged in the later 1980s. A number of tracks and footprints began to be found... They had been made by a soft foot-like object, but while they showed dynamic interaction between the foot and ground they did not show the foot or the toes moving or flexing in any way...
On the other hand, we have evidence like this cast from the Freeman case showing the toes sliding back in the mud.

The book goes on by noting that hoaxers, "First a site needs to be found where the surface is firmer rather than soft. The person laying the fake trail needs to cover his or his own own shoes in bags containing padding so that they will not leave a track."

Interesting, as the Patterson Gimlin Bigfoot film and other tracks found previously at the time in the area were in soft soil. I'll hazard a guess this has been the case in many other track finds.

In the following videos Dr. Jeff Meldrum, a Full Professor of Anatomy and Anthropology, as well as fingerprint technician Jimmy Chilcutt, who is trained in identifying even primate dermal ridges, debunk the argument that Bigfoot tracks are all fakes. Those who make this charge have often never even studied the intricacies of the footprint evidence, a very pseudo-skeptical approach.

Thursday, December 12, 2013

Don Keating White Bigfoot Video

Click to Enlarge reports:
Here are some interesting facts we have come to after examining the film countless times as well as doing experiments in the field at the same location to duplicate the feat on film.

It covered 28 feet in 1.55 seconds.

It covered the 28 feet with just four steps.

It walked past three posts in the ground, which were 49 inches tall.

It was twice as tall as they were. Its waist was just above the tops of the posts, yet a man of 5 foot 11 inches was barely visible because of the angle of the filming. Just his head was visible above the top of the posts.

A bush in the background which is walks by is 12 feet tall. It was three quarters as tall as the bush.

It was light gray or white in color.

The distance from the camera to the individual was about 262 feet.

To this point, I have not been able to come near duplicating what is on the film, nor has anybody else... Virtually everybody who sees it believes it is a Sasquatch.
In his book Bigfoot: Encounters Past & Present veteran Bigfoot investigator, Daniel Perez, of reports the following of the White Bigfoot video:
Experiments were conducted using people of known height. When we tried to duplicate the scene with the same video camera in the same position, but using a man of 5 feet 11 inches tall it was clear we could barely see this man's head in relationship to the wooden posts in the ground. Don and I both concluded whatever was filmed was extremely tall and moved extremely fast.

On several reviews on the film it appears the subject comes out from the brush on the far side of the hard packed dirt road and then goes back into the brush in less than two seconds. It my view there's no possibility it was a hoax. It is also hard to believe it is a man as no clothing is showing. 
See the video in this free online episode of the TV program "Monster Quest."

Wednesday, December 11, 2013

Silver Star Mountain Bigfoot Photos

In his book Bigfoot: Encounters Past & Present veteran Bigfoot investigator, Daniel Perez, of states the following regarding pictures below:
In my view, after spending an entire day with Randee Chase and going to the sighting location, there is no hint this was a hoax. Mr. Chase is a very credible eyewitness and not the type of person to be playing a practical joke in my view. It was obvious by having Randee Chase stand where he photographed Bigfoot, there could be no mistaking this for a man in a heavy black jacket...
As a Bigfoot researcher for the past quarter century, I think Randee may have snapped pictures of Bigfoot.
Interesting Photos:

The figure you see could be a sasquatch...

There's nothing in the outline to indicate that it's another person (except for the upright posture). There's no lines indicating clothing or a pack. The lump on the neck could easily be a clump of hair, similar to what you can see in the PGF.

snowshoers or backpackers in these conditions would look different than this silhouette.

Location : Silver Star Mountain, Washington
Date : November 17, 2005

Native Americans and Bigfoot

Documentary on the Native American legend of Bigfoot or Sasquatch. Examining ancient legends and folklore to uncover the truth about the myth of the Bigfoot beast.   

Dr. Jeff Meldrum, a Full Professor of Anatomy and Anthropology, writes in his book Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science:
The first inhabitants of North America were aware of these creatures long before Columbus arrived. They depicted them in their art and ceremonies along with animals more commonly known to the western world. Ceremonial masks and totem figures depicting the wildman display surprisingly apelike features, considering there are no apes in North America to serve as models for these effigies----at least none recognized.

To those pseudo-skeptics who claim Bigfoot is a myth started by a hoaxer named Ray Wallace in the 1950's, Meldrum writes:
To offhandedly dismiss the question of Bigfoot or sasquatch as the outgrowth of some sophomoric prank by a good-humored road building and his relations is to trivialize the profound cultural heritage of the earliest inhabitants of this continent. The figure of a hairy wildman occupies a prominent role in those indigenous cultures that inhabit, or have inhabited in the past, areas associated with what is considered by some likely sasquatch range. The Tsimshian mask, already discussed, suggests an early knowledge by Northwest aboriginals of beings with apelike features.

Saturday, December 7, 2013

Free Traveling Sasquatch Sticker

Want a Traveling Sasquatch sticker? They look just like this, only stickier.

Just send your mailing address to

We’ll send one your way!


If Patty Was a Costume, Why Can't They Recreate It?
December 7, 2013

When Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin filmed the Bigfoot walking across the sandbar back 1967, little did they know that their film would be scrutinized by skeptics trying to debunk it. To this day, no one has been able to duplicate the creature they caught on film. The BFRO gives us an example of one colossal failed attempt by a TV network to recreate the "costume":
Q: Why can't it be done? Why can't anyone accurately recreate the "costume" sued in the Patterson footage?

A: It's not a man in a costume ...

The image on the right is from a scene in an episode of X-Creatures. X-Creatures was a wildlife documentary series made by the BBC's (British Broadcasting Company) Natural History Unit. The episode was filmed around 1995 or later.

In this program the BBC sought to debunk the Patterson footage by recreating the "hoax."

In order to have the most exacting re-enactment possible, the BBC hired the best monster costume designer in Hollywood and even took the costume to the same location where the Patterson incident occurred in Northern California.

How could the BBC have missed the mark so badly with their replica of the Patterson "costume"?

In the Patterson footage, the figure's muscles are flexing noticeably as the figure walks away. To simulate that, the BBC's costume designers in Hollywood had to create a costume that would show the same effect of flexing muscles.

Remote controlled soft-tissue prosthetics were not invented until well after 1967, so they could not have been used in an honest replica of a 1967 costume. The costume had to allow the actor's own muscles to flex the outermost surface of the costume.
Related Posts:

Patterson Gimlin Bigfoot Film- Analysis by Bill Munns and Dr. Jeff Meldrum

Peer-reviewed Science Proving the Patterson-Gimlin Film is not of a Bigfoot Costume but a Novel Primate Species

Debunking Claimed Patterson-Gimlin Film Bigfoot Hoaxer Bob Heironimus

Skeptic Questions Patterson Bigfoot Tracks

Friday, December 6, 2013

Breakdown - Bigfoot or Hoax?

Published on Dec 6, 2013
A close look at the Klamouth Oregon Bigfoot and others that could be the work of some self-promoting prankster.

Thursday, December 5, 2013

1996 Memorial Day Bigfoot Footage

Some have declared that the second-best piece of Bigfoot film/video footage, after the Patterson-Gimlin film, is this series of moving pictures...

The Memorial Day video shows a figure, matching the description of a Bigfoot, running across a hill. It disappears behind a less-inclined, sloped area, then reappears briefly, walking this time, before going into the trees at the extreme right of the frame.

This is the third clip analyzed in the program Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science (the so-called Exhibit 8). The History documentary produced and directed by Doug Haijcek (today most recalled for “MonsterQuest”), was released January 9, 2003. In the hour-long program, the location where the Memorial Day footage was taken is used to make forensic measurements to determine the film subject’s height, path, speed, and stride by measuring the subject against fixed objects in the background.

Derek Prior, a three-time All-American sprinter from the University of Washington, runs the same route as the filmed figure to determine if the alleged Bigfoot’s running speed was too fast for a human to duplicate, to compare his speed and stride to the subject’s, and to give a visual comparison to the figure in the footage.

In the concluding segment of Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science, the results of the forensic measurements are revealed. The film subject – supposedly a Bigfoot – has the following alleged measurements:

A height of 5.3 ft (1.61 m)
A leg length of 2½ ft (0.76 m)
A running speed of 8.56 mph (13.77 km/h)
A stride of 4.25 ft (1.29 m)

Derek Prior, a Homo sapiens, on the other hand, was able to run the same path at 17.1 mph (27.51 km/h) and had a stride of 6.8 ft (2.07 m).

One aspect of the film continues to remain a mystery. At the end of the Memorial Day footage, before the subject disappears into the tree line, it seems to grow taller by 8 inches (20.32 cm). One possible explanation was suggested that if it was indeed a real animal, it could be carrying a younger animal that had climbed higher on its back.
As the years have passed, more and more skeptics within the Bigfoot field have surfaced, regarding the footage. It has been pointed out that Dr. Grover Krantz decided to avoid any discussions of the Memorial Day footage when he revised his book on Sasquatch, commenting that “he wouldn’t waste ink on that footage.”

It appears Daniel Perez has become one of the most outspoken critics from within Bigfootery to question the footage. He wrote, for example, in part:

When the Memorial Day footage is displayed, the audio is silent without any narrative explaining why. If the producers of the program felt the remarks made on camera were racist, they could have bleeped the questionable dialog. The real reason, I believe, is that the audio is both illuminating and revealing.

Here are excerpts of the audio:

“He was right behind that small pine tree, right?”

“I’m freak.”

“Yeah, I’m scared.”

“I could make a million bucks.”

“That’s a guy with a big hair cut. . . .”

“Sure is ambitious, running a lot. . . .”

“It’s a Bigfoot.”

“That’s not a Bigfoot. . . .”

“It’s a Dickfoot.”

“It’s all on video!”

“I’ve only had two drinks.”

“Me, too, two too many.”

And somewhere in the audio, as the subject comes into view is this: “looks like a white boy to me,” a statement made without a doubt by the late Fred Bradshaw, an avid Bigfooter from Elma, Washington. Having known Fred Bradshaw since 1995, his voice is easily recognizable. Isn’t it convenient, or too convenient, that a Bigfooter would be present when a camping couple just happens to film a Bigfoot? What was Fred Bradshaw’s connection to Owen and Lori Pate? And why has the couple never acknowledged Bradshaw was there? Their reluctance to be interviewed or questioned on the matter speaks volumes. ~ Daniel Perez, 2007 - Source:

Dr. Jeff Meldrum is a Full Professor of Anatomy and Anthropology, who in his book Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science (which is an expansion of the aforementioned program by the same name) wrote the following concerning the experiment with the sprinter:
As the team was preoccupied with the scale and speed of the figure, less commentary was offered about the specifics of the anatomy and behavior that could be observed from the video image itself. The subject reportedly hesitated at the tree line for a considerable time and was seen occasionally peering from behind some cover. When it finally broke from cover and was captured on videotape, it made its descent down the hillside, apparently with something of a slightly lighter hue on its back. That something then appeared to slip lower on the figure's back and an appendage of sorts, flailed behind. At that point the running figure, with arms pumping, reached back with its right arm to clasp the object itself, without breaking stride. Also discernible were unmistakable breasts that gyrated with each running step. There are no indications of clothing, no bulging, bunching, or borders. There is nothing to contradict Line's testimony that he saw a hair-covered figure through the binoculars. The figure passed behind an intervening rise in topography and when it emerged beyond, its right arm was poised upward, toward or above its head, as if steadying something. The arm dropped and the figure noticeably increased in height before entering the timber.

Could this be a female sasquatch, perhaps a young female, with a youngster on board? The smaller size and apparent breasts suggest this might be the case. Was the infant nearly dislodged from its piggyback position as its mother made a dash for cover behind the intervening high ground? Did it receive a boost into a position behind the female's neck and peer over the top of her head? This is a posture for infant transport that is typically practiced by apes, and humans for that matter. Infants ride atop the adult's back or shoulders and peer over the adult's head. This is sometimes until the infant is quite large, if the adult is indulgent.
The site argues strongly for the films authenticity, stating:
In the Sasquatch Legend Meets Science DVD, a track star ran the same course and it was discovered that he was both larger and faster than the subject in the the film. Some feel that those details automatically discount the Memorial Day footage as a hoax. (I  guess Bigfoots are never supposed to be shorter than humans no matter what their age or gender, or run slower than a track star when their reportedly carrying  a baby on their back...) The funny thing is Mr. Track Star biffed it [slipped and was almost injured] on his first attempt. In running shoes.


If they wanted to make a valid comparison, why didn't they dress Mr. Track Star in a monkey suit.

In my opinion, it's unlikely that anyone in a gorilla suit could run like that across a steep uneven hillside without falling.
The TV program Fact or Faked: Paranormal Files had one of their investigators do just that in an episode entitled Sasquatch Sprint / Alien Attacker. When dressed in a Bigfoot costume the investigator, who is in good shape, indeed fell on his first attempt and thought he might have sprained his ankle. It also took him  12.06 seconds to cover the same ground in the suit, that the the figure in the original video covered in only  10.6 seconds. The investigator took off the Bigfoot mask at the end of clip to see if that could account for what is a believed by some to be a the baby on the back of the figure and it did appear similar. The show interviewed the witnesses and found them credible, but concluded they believed they were victims of a hoax.

The Oregon Bigfoot site also estimates that a jump the 5'3"  figure does, which is featured in the video below, to be approximately 7 feet in length. Presumably also hard to do for a person of such stature in a monkey suit.

Here is a video making a case for the baby on the back idea from an individual that has made many similar analysis videos, including one where he was apparently fooled by a hoax. That said, each of his analyses should be judged on their own merits. Remember, in this one he is making a case for an idea raised by a scientist first.  

Conclusion: From the info we have there is nothing to suggest a high-probability this is a Sasquatch, but there is enough to say that it's a possibility, which is almost as rare.


Sunday, December 1, 2013

The Legend of Boggy Creek - Fouke Monster

The Legend of Boggy Creek - Full Official Movie - Great Quality Film :)

The Legend of Boggy Creek is a 1972 horror docudrama about the "Fouke Monster", a Bigfoot-type creature that has been seen in and around Fouke, Arkansas since the 1950s. The film mixes staged interviews with some local residents who claim to have encountered the creature, along with fictitious reenactments of said encounters. Charles B. Pierce, an advertising salesman from Texarkana on the Arkansas/Texas border, borrowed over $100,000 from a local trucking company, used an old 35mm movie camera and hired locals (mainly high school students) to help make the 90-minute film. It has generated approximately $20 million in revenue and can be found on DVD.


The film, which claims to be a true story, sets out to detail the existence of the "Fouke Monster", a bigfoot-like creature that has reportedly been seen by residents of a small Arkansas community since the 1950s. It is described as having a foul odor, completely covered in reddish-brown hair and having 3 toes and also known by leaving tracks found in beanfields.

Several locals from the small town of Fouke, Arkansas recall their stories, often appearing as themselves, claiming that the creature has killed several large hogs as well as other animals. In one scene, a kitten is shown as having been "scared to death" by the creature. The narrator informs us that while people have shot at the creature in the past, it has always managed to escape. In another scene, hunters attempt to pursue the creature with dogs, but the dogs refuse to give chase. A police constable states that while driving home one night, the creature suddenly ran across the road in front of him.

In a later sequence, culled from the actual newspaper accounts inspiring the film, the creature is shown menacing a family in a remote country house. After being fired upon, the creature attacks, sending one family member to the hospital.

Squatch Calls in Boggy Creek Return Creepy Response | Finding Bigfoot  
Bigfoot Movie Talk: Beast of Boggy Creek Author, Lyle Blackburn Interview

Saturday, November 30, 2013

Stan Lee's Comikaze 2013 Ghosts, Bigfoot & Beyond Panel

Published on Nov 28, 2013
Red Glean Media Communications Creator, Christiane Elin moderated the Ghosts, Bigfoot, and Beyond: Paranormal Television Panel at Stan Lee's Comikaze 2013. The panelists included, Ben Hansen (Syfy's Fact or Faked: Paranormal Files), Jason Gates (Syfy's Haunted Collector), Josh Gates (Syfy's Destination Truth & Stranded), and Erin Ryder (Syfy's Destination Truth & Nat Geo's Chasing UFOs).


Monday, November 25, 2013

The Doug Pridgen New York Bigfoot Baby Footage

According to primatologists George Schaller and Esteban Sarmiento, the smaller figure is an ape, and must either be: 1) an exceptionally large gibbon, or 2) a year-old chimpanzee, or 3) an unclassified ape species. Gibbons and chimps are commonly called "monkeys" but are technically apes.

Reasonable skeptics are left with the possibility that the footage shows a lurking human releasing an ape into the trees -- an unlikely scenario considering that very few people own pet apes ... and if you were to release a pet ape into the trees you would not get it back very easily ... Based on measurements of the tree taken at the site, the swinging figure is approximately 3-4 feet tall from head to toe -- about the size of the figure in the Jacobs photo from Pennsylvania. - Source:

2012 Bigfoot Video Captured at Mink Creek, Idaho

Getting an Expert's Take On the Evidence | Finding Bigfoot

Finding Bigfoot Season Three – Ripped from the Headlines

Idaho Field Notes

The Idaho episode was filmed towards the end of June in 2012. It was the last to be filmed of the ten or so episodes for that particular run, so it’s a little funny that it is the first one to be aired for this season.
We were actually on the road filming the season when I first heard of the Mink Creek footage. Brandon Tennant sent me a clip of it after he and Dr. Jeff Meldrum visited the location to do some on-site investigation and comparisons. Since the initial investigation by these two researchers didn’t turn up any signs of the clip being a hoax, we got the producers on the trail and started the wheels in motion to do an Idaho episode.

The young men who filmed the Mink Creek footage were in high school at the time, but had now graduated and were moving on with their lives. When the footage was obtained, they were in the area doing erosion studies for one of the science classes. While walking across a hillside, one of them noticed a dark figure contrasting against the snowy background on the opposite side of the valley. After taking a few looks at the figure and agreeing that it looked very unusual, they got out a video camera and started recording it just before they lost sight of it.

The trail head at the film site’s location

After filming the figure, the witnesses made their way up to the location where the creature was seen walking. They had some difficulty getting up there through the thick brush and sometimes-knee-deep snow. Upon arrival, they found where the creature had walked and photographed one footprint left in the snow. Having this piece of corroborating evidence was very important for this case.

I initially had some reservations about the footprint. It looked a little funky to me, and some of the contours of the foot caused some concern. After later visiting Dr. Meldrum and discussing the print, he put my concerns to rest by showing me examples from his extensive cast collection that mirrored some of the morphology of the Mink Creek print. I am much more willing to accept the print as authentic now than I was before.

The only photo of a footprint from the film site

Knowing that films and recordings never truly show what can be seen and heard with our senses, I asked the young men to describe what they saw with their own eyes. The saw the figure far to the left of where the film shows it, and it was walking through the treed area towards the thick brush. They reported that it looked very massive, and they saw no signs of clothing or skin. If this was a person who was dressed in heavy winter clothing, it was all of one color, and no skin was showing anywhere.

The distance from the camera to the film subject was measured at the location to be 170 yards. I believe we positioned Ranae very close to where the figure is seen to be walking in the film. The witnesses laughed at how small Ranae looked compared the figure.

Ranae and a producer at the location of the film subject

I came into this investigation thinking that this could very well be a case of hoaxing by teenagers, especially with the concerns I had with the footprint photograph. However, after speaking with the witnesses, I am pretty convinced that they are not lying about what happened that day. They proved themselves to be people of religious morality and intelligence with future aspirations that mirror this. In fact, their wish to remain anonymous is partly due to their concern about sports scholarships and pending acceptance to universities. At worst, this might be a case of a misidentification, but I think it’s very likely that they filmed a bigfoot.

The town hall meeting was pretty interesting. Dr. Meldrum attended with a couple of his sons. There was a botonist that saw a large sasquatch many miles back in a wilderness area. Another man had photographed footprints just the weekend before in an area of frequent bigfoot activity, which is where Ranae went for her solo camping excursion. Many Native Americans from the local Fort Hall Reservation came out to hear stories of bigfoots from the area, but almost none of them shared encounters… until after the meeting ended. We were then overwhelmed with both the number and quality of sightings from the local Indians. As is often the case, they just didn’t want to share their encounters on camera out of respect for the sasquatches.

The Idaho expedition was one of the first times I really was taken by surprise as to where bigfoots hang out. While the mountains surrounding Pocatello, ID are typical bigfoot habitat, the flat lands look like about the last place a bigfoot would want to hang out. Yet, there are very credible sightings from these flat, largely-treeless areas. These sightings usually happen in farm lands that are not far from waterways. Some of the reporting witnesses are law enforcement officers who have seen the sasquatches both with their eyes and with thermal imagers. Once again, bigfoots do some very unexpected things in some very unexpected locations. They are full of surprises, to say the very least.

One of the highlights of this episode was a visit to Dr. Jeff Meldrum’s laboratory at Idaho State University. He is such a huge source of knowledge, not only in his chosen field of expertise (anatomy), but also in the ecology and biodiversity of the surrounding wild areas. Upon his investigation of the Mink Creek footage, he noted that just above where the creature was filmed was an extensive field of Hawthorn berries. Hawthorn berries fruit during the cold winter months, and are high in antioxidants. Bears in the area often eat tons of hawthorn berries before they enter hibernation or torpor (a level of very low activity) during the winter to allow the antioxidants to clean their systems. Perhaps this is what the bigfoot was doing up on that hill at that time? Dr. Meldrum also told us of the field work he has done in the surrounding mountains at various times of year, and recommended a specific area where we might have some luck with our last night investigation.

Producer and “show runner,” Chad Hammel with Dr. Jeff 
Meldrum in his laboratory at Idaho State University

Bobo’s idea for our last night investigation’s search technique of holding a rave in the woods may sound ridiculous and uniquely “Bobo” in character, but I agree with him that this sort of thing could work. While I’m not, nor have ever been, a raver of any sort, I do know that the kids that hang out in the woods and party outside of Estacada, Sandy, and Molalla in Oregon often report strange things in the woods nearby their loud parties. Adding some lasers, a light show, and some interesting noises just might make our presence irresistable for a curious bigfoot to come check out. Besides, Bobo is pretty strong in the Force, and he has a strange sense of luck surrounding him. Additinoally his ideas, though kind of nutty on the surface, are usually grounded in some past experience. One thing for sure is that his ideas are always fun.

That night, Bobo filmed something in a tree just 150 yards below his and Matt’s position. That thing was reported to be perhaps two-thirds of my size. For some reason, the other team told Ranae and I to move to the location to check it out, which we were more than happy to do. When we got there, we found that Bobo and Matt could have easily moved down slope a bit to see it for themselves, rather than having Ranae and I move down crumbly ledges, through thorny thickets, and bushwalk almost a third of a mile to the location.

When we were at the site, I climbed the tree and Bobo described the differences between what he saw and how I looked in the same thermal. I thought at the time that it was possible that he filmed a bigfoot, but most likely some other mammal such as a bear or porcupine. Now that I have seen the footage, I am much more certain that he most likely filmed one of the latter species and not a bigfoot at all. Still, if it was a bear then neither Bobo nor Matt saw it leave the area. If it was a porcupine, I never saw it near or in the tree. I don’t know what Bobo filmed, but I tend to think it was a more common animal and not a bigfoot. We will never know.

Idaho was an eye-opening experience for me. The witnesses described pretty typical bigfoot encounters, but the terrain was so different than what I was used to down on the flat lands. The visit with Dr. Meldrum was definitely a high point, and in fact we had lunch the next day to further discuss the London trackway and other bigfooty things. It was a great end of a long run of filming episodes, having been on the road since the end of February at the time. I also think this episode is a strong opener for the brand new season of Finding Bigfoot.

Enjoy these photos from the trip:

This rural farm was repeatedly visited by more than one bigfoot. It hardly appears to be typical bigfoot habitat, but there is a canal nearby, and the witnesses seem to be honest people.

Once you gain a little elevation, the habitat becomes lush and perfect for the big guys.

The actual camera used to film the Mink Creek footage

Mike Greene's Thermal Video of 'Squeaky' the Sasquatch Stealing a Candy Bar

Mike Greene has an MS in Behavioral Psychology, is a court-qualified Questioned Documents Expert and for 20 years was Chief Investigator for a State Fraud Bureau. He is a pilot and a former EMT and member of the National Ski Patrol.- Source:

The figure in this footage got the nickname "Squeaky" from some of the items left for it at the tree stump "altar" of offerings, to which the figure had been lured and habituated to over the course of two (2) years.

Among the items intended to pique its curiosity were squeakable bath toys, including a rubber ducky. Various toys were moved repeatedly on the stump, and occasionally taken. Some were later found deep in the woods. It was thought that whatever carried away the squeaky toys must have noticed their squeakability at some point, and perhaps found them curiously amusing -- hence the nickname "Squeaky"...

There is a high degree of confidence among many members of the BFRO that the Squeaky footage shows a real sasquatch. More than a handful of BFRO members have reported direct observations of a sasquatch near this spot, along with a long list of Class B incidents, over the past three (3) years.

There is also high confidence in Mike Greene's credibility as a bigfoot researcher, and confidence in his periodic trial-and-error efforts at the site over the years. His patient approach was the most logical, feasible strategy for getting a sasquatch on camera at that site. His success on this particular occasion demonstrated a new technique for obtaining footage -- the unattended camp. - Source:

The clip of the figure grabbing the candy bar after belly crawling to it can be seen at 36 seconds in.

In this video, Cliff Barackman of the Animal Planet program Finding Bigfoot, states:
I do believe it was a Sasquatch... because Mike was positive, therefore I'm fairly certain, that there was nobody else at the campsite at the time. He was alone at the campground and he parked at the entrance to the campground, so he knows that nobody else was there but him. The only other option is that somebody snuck in... off trail, in the dark, to steal a candy bar from Mike and Zagnuts aren't that good. Mike Green is a very trustworthy figure. He was actually a welfare fraud investigator for decades. He is used to dealing with people that might be a little shady, he himself is not shady at all. I've spent a lot of nights in the woods with that guy. I met him up in British Columbia on a Bigfoot trip and we immediately hit it off, we became very good friends... I trust him with my life. I said that in the episode and I do mean it, I trust Mike with my life. He's a very, very, honest guy.

Finding Bigfoot: Black and White Thermal Footage of a Bigfoot - The Brown Footage

"Captured outside Tallahassee, this thermal footage appears to show Bigfoot walking through the Florida woods."

After a recreation of the video in the exact same spot it was shot, Finding Bigfoot's resident skeptic and Research Biologist Ranae Holland, stated that she was "very surprised, almost alarmed, at how small (stocky 6'4" James "Bobo" Fay) was compared to the original figure." Holland noted the figures longer arms and legs, further stating that Bobo looked like "a little gummy bear" comapred to the "long, lean, and considerably taller figure." Holland concluded by stating that the video is the first one "outside of the Patterson Gimlin film" where she "cannot explain it away." Bobo noted the size of the hands. The figure covered the same ground in one step as Bobo did in two.

A 5 ft 9 in human is shown next to the possible sasquatch. Click to enlarge.

Two images superimposed over one another showing the step length of the creature.

"I have interviewed both of the witnesses that were there that night and I am satisfied that they are not lying about what they did and observed.  Their actions since obtaining the footage support that the footage is not a hoax in that they have spent considerable money visiting the location on many occasions since to do further research and to obtain accurate measurements at my request.  The measurements they obtained were used to calculate the dimensions of the creature in the footage, and every result of every calculation showed that whatever is in that film is simply immense.  While the results of my calculations are only approximations of the creature’s size, it is clear that the figure is very large.  It seems to stand somewhere around 8.5 feet tall, and have a shoulder width of about 4 feet.  The creature is simply too big to be a human, and the steps are ridiculously long.  The figure’s shape, posture, and gait match those seen in other films purporting to show sasquatches.  The data provided by the Browns strongly suggests that the figure seen in their film is a sasquatch." - Source:

Top 10 Bigfoot Sightings Playlist | Finding Bigfoot

by Animal Planet

The team from "Finding Bigfoot" has been investigating some of the most compelling potential Bigfoot sightings of the last several decades.

Related Posts:

Finding Bigfoot: Black and White Thermal Footage of a Bigfoot

Two Free Full Episodes of Finding Bigfoot

Police Dash Cam Bigfoot Footage Analysis

The Bigfoot Sounds That Made Skeptic Ranae Holland 'Feel Electric'

New York Comic Con - Animal Planets Finding Bigfoot 

Jeff Probst Bigfoot Debate with Cast of Finding Bigfoot

Two Free Full Episodes of Finding Bigfoot

Finding Bigfoot: Season 2 Episode 8 (Full Episode)
Finding Bigfoot Season 3 Special Episode 7


Finding Bigfoot - Full Episodes

Finding Bigfoot Season 6 Full Episodes

Two Free Full Episodes of Finding Bigfoot

Finding Bigfoot S05E01 Bigfoot Call of the Wildman 

Finding Bigfoot S05E07 Bobos Backyard

Finding Bigfoot: Black and White Thermal Footage of a Bigfoot

Top 10 Bigfoot Sightings Playlist | Finding Bigfoot

Police Dash Cam Bigfoot Footage Analysis

The Bigfoot Sounds That Made Skeptic Ranae Holland 'Feel Electric'

New York Comic Con - Animal Planets Finding Bigfoot 

Jeff Probst Bigfoot Debate with Cast of Finding Bigfoot

The Jacobs Photos - Trail Cam Bigfoot Photo Analysis

 "Many have speculated that this image is either a juvenile sasquatch or a bear. Myself, and many others tried to figure out the final pose and what the creature was doing. I created a clay likeness of the image and the pieces of the puzzle started to come together. The tree root was sprinkled with deer bait. This was of interest to the bear cubs and the subject in question. The first picture shows that the creature is taking an interest in the deer bait. I believe it is sniffing at it. The next pose seems to indicate that the subject is rubbing it's shoulder on the bait. I have seen my dog do this when it finds a curious smell. It will rub it's shoulder on the scent. I believe that is what the creature is doing in this pose, rubbing the deer scent on it's shoulder."


Debunking the Pennsylvania Game Commission

Jacobs Photos - Pennsylvania, 9/16/2007

Police Dash Cam Bigfoot Footage Analysis


In an enhanced episode of this program Bobo notes that off camera the cop said it was definitely a Sasquatch.

Related Posts:

Finding Bigfoot: Black and White Thermal Footage of a Bigfoot

Top 10 Bigfoot Sightings Playlist | Finding Bigfoot

Two Free Full Episodes of Finding Bigfoot

Police Dash Cam Bigfoot Footage Analysis

The Bigfoot Sounds That Made Skeptic Ranae Holland 'Feel Electric'

New York Comic Con - Animal Planets Finding Bigfoot 

Jeff Probst Bigfoot Debate with Cast of Finding Bigfoot

Friday, November 22, 2013

Bigfoot Hotspot Radio - EP2 Class A Bigfoot Encounters

Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization FAQ - Are they dangerous?  

Bigfoot Hotspot Radio - EP2 Class A Bigfoot Encounters
Published on Nov 22, 2013
Class A Bigfoot Encounters and aggressive Bigfoot encounters. William Jevning will be interviewing Woody and Wes as they recount their aggressive encounter with Sasquatch that happened one year ago this month. We will also be discussing other aggressive Sasquatch behavior and encounters.We will be discussing recent encounters and older encounters including the Cowman story.

Join Will Jevning, Wes Germer and Woody Pratt as we discuss recent Sasquatch sightings, encounters and talk to Bigfoot eye witnesses. People are seeing something in the woods and there are too many reports for this too be ignored. Listen as we talk to researchers, witnesses and investigators to unravel the mystery of Bigfoot. Every week we will also bring you the latest Bigfoot news and information. Our live call in number is 646-716-8791. You can email us at Find us on facebook at Subscribe to our RSS feed at

Sunday, November 17, 2013

Joe Rogan & Dr. Jeff Meldrum Talk Bigfoot

Comment Regarding 'Pseudo-skeptic Sharon Hill' Post

Regarding yesterdays post "Pseudo-skeptic Sharon Hill Gets no Respect for Behaving Worse Than Badly," "GuyInIndiana" at the forum writes:
I've seen her post a lot of crock over at JREF. She's no different than any of the others over there: it's just that she takes the time to write a blog as well and claims to take an honest look at both sides of any equation.

I agree that many in bigfooting are hardly objective at all, but there's no difference in the "skeptics" and their blind dismissal of real evidence when it's presented, because they CAN just broad-brush it all as "non-evidence" since they already *KNOW* that the creatures don't exist.

I have as little patience or respect for them as I do for people involved in BF'ing that turns everything that happens outdoors into "proof of bigfoot". Both extremes do themselves a disservice.
JREF is a debunking forum located at At the 29 minute mark of this great lecture by Dr. Jeff Meldrum regarding sasquatch, he briefly addresses pseudo-skeptical arguments and JREF forum debunkers.

Saturday, November 16, 2013

Free E-book: Abominable Snowmen: Legend Comes to Life

Hat tip to "moregon" over at the for sharing this.

I've never read it, but by almost all indications I see it's likely a solid work. At two different listings with more than 1 review (as there is 1 lone 2.0 star rating at another posting) it sits with a 4.5 and 5.0 star ratings, after 3 and 11 reviews respectively. The review that most caught my attention reads:
Since this book first appeared in the early 1960s, it has proven to be the basic text book for understanding this mystery. The reason for this is not that Sanderson includes all the eyewitness and other accounts concering mystery hominids/hominoids or that he surveys the entire planet in looking into this mystery. Sanderson's strength is that he was a biologist and brought the rigor of his dicipline with him. Sanderson not only describes the action, Sanderson tells you why these mystery creatures are found where they are found. He explains fringe areas and montane forests and their significance in a biological explanation of what is happening. In short, Sanderson's book gives this mystery a predictive value, telling the reader where creatures should be seen based on the geography and biology of where they have been seen to date. Anyone wishing to understand mystery hominds/hominoids should consider Sanderson's work essential and the fundamental work in the field. This holds true as much today as the day it first appeared.
Here is the title page to begin reading the ebook for free:

From there you turn pages with the link all the way at the bottom-middle, which while you are on the title page states "Next: Dedication."

 For anyone who might be interested in a hard copy of the book, I've put together an widget with the best prices I found of the many varied copies they are selling. In the widget there are 3 different printings of the paperback from 2006, 2007, and 2008, as well as 1 hardback from 2007. Same book, different covers.

Pseudo-Skeptic Sharon Hill Gets no Respect for Behaving Worse Than Badly

Editor of the Bigfoot Times, Daniel Perez, comments throughout a recent Bigfoot debunking article by Sharon Hill in red text. I've reproduced the article below. In the article itself, an book review by Bill Munns is mentioned and linked to. Please do read that Amazon review after reading Sharon Hill's article with Daniel Perez's added red comments sparsely throughout. But before you do all that, I implore any doubters to visit this linked page here on Undebunking Bigfoot and watch at least the first video from National Geographic detailing Munns' unprecedented restoration and analysis of the the famous Patterson-Gimlin Bigfoot film of 1967. 

Because try as Munns does to impress upon the reader how powerful the new film analysis is, no words alone can adequately achieve the same results as the visual medium when dealing with visual evidence. At the end of the Sharon Hill article, Daniel Perez reveals that he told her via email that "she is no researcher, just a writer," and he adds a "psuedo-scientist" as well. Amen to that. 

Munns' film analysis is coupled with his experimental work trying to build a Bigfoot costume to match the 1967 film and co-authorship of  a peer-reviewed paper showing it couldn't have been a costume. Munns studied film and worked for 35 years making monsters for films, museums, and wildlife exhibits, thus is highly-qualified for the study he has done.  

Unless you're a pseudo-skeptic, his conclusions cannot be glossed over or dismissed out of hand.  Hill did exactly this when she chose to focus on the first line of his review that stated, "This book entitled 'Abominable Science' achieves a level of scientific and journalistic hypocrisy that warrants the publisher recalling the book." 

She chose to paint this statement as if it were some type of literal demand to the publishers to have the book recalled, as opposed to a literary device. In her focus on his hyperbole, she avoided acknowledging the other 1,450 words in his review focused on the importance of the empirical evidence over anecdotal based objections. Again, look at his work linked to above and you decide what was more important in his review, his opening line, or the message to get empirical before claiming to be skeptical.

Cursing at someone for telling you that you are not living up to your skeptic/researcher title, when that is in fact the case, is behaving worse than badly.

Cryptozoloogy Gets Respect While Bigfooters Behave Badly

By Sharon Hill, researcher, scientific consultant, Editor of
Posted on September 10, 2013, 5:26 p.m.

 The book, Abominable Science: Origins of the Yeti, Nessie and other Famous Cryptids by Daniel Loxton and Donald Prothero is very different than other monster books. You can get an idea about the quality of the volume from the reviews by Nature, theWall Street JournalThe Times of London, Discover magazine, etc. here. They liked the book. It's beautifully produced, level-headed, readable, and chock-full of fine scholarship with references to original sources.

[Editor of the Bigfoot Times, Daniel Perez, comments. The people at Nature, the Wall Street Journal, The Times of London and Discover, in general, know very little about the topic and are star struck that the book is published by Columbia University Press. There is no question the book is beautifully produced and loaded with good pictures and illustrations but when writer Sharon Hill states, "chock-full of scholarship," she plainly does not know what she is talking about. The two most devastating and critical reviews were posted to by myself and by a person from the U.K.,  R. Watson. As I am no Nessie researcher, Watson opened my eyes to how bad this book is through and through. In brief he writes, ..."the authors began to dig a hole for themselves in terms of accurarcy." Later, "A major omission..." "...the authors seem to be selective in what they say..." and more, "Again, it is what is not said rather than said this is significant here." And some more: "But the book seems intent on whitewashing every witness with the same brush." You would be better off reading Watson's entire review of the book to get the real flavor, but at least what I have quoted here gets the point across].
Who didn't like the book? Bigfooters.
Why didn't they like it? Because it effectively poked holes in their beloved idea of Bigfoot reality. It clearly made the case that the current practice of popular cryptozoology is a cheap imitation of science. This book is a challenge to their structure. One reviewer [BILL MUNNS] even demanded to the publisher that the book be withdrawnAnother [DANIEL PEREZ] panned the book based on a few chapters and a few possible errors without clear indication he read the rest. Comments berating him for that were met with the response from the peanut gallery: "Why should I read this book? I know what the nonbeliever skeptics say." [Here is what I posted in reply to Sharon Hill in "I have no qualified opinion outside of the subjects I discussed but if what I reviewed represents the tone of this volume, I need not go any further in discussion. My best, Daniel Perez"]
Talk about closed-mindedness! (I have talked about that before, this was a blatant example.) They respond with condescension and name calling as well (referring to skeptics as "scoftics") instead of pointing out the disagreements and providing counter references in defense.  Maybe it's because they don't have a defense. It's been over 50 years. We still have no proof of Bigfoot in the bag. That's got to be embarrassing. But, wow, did they throw a hissy fit about it. This book hit a nerve and Loxton and Prothero should be proud.
Bigfootery these days is extremely unscientific, resembling a religion in more ways than one. There are the priests and the saints (the TV Squatchers, the authors, and few scientists and advocates who promote the cause), there are relics (footprints, hair samples, etc), there is cryptozoological canon (the Patterson-Gimlin film, certain books by experts now deceased) but most of all there are followers with faith. Bigfooters have experiences that they attribute by default to their monster of choice - they hear tree knocking and vocalizations, they have stones thrown at them, they find tree structures and broken limbs that they interpret as a form of communication. Some say there are habituation sites where Bigfoots repeatedly visit and accept food from human neighbors.
If that sounds like convincing evidence to you, pause a moment.
Those are all stories and interpretation of observations based on wishful thinking. We have never found solid evidence of a Bigfoot. Tracks, traces, anecdotes... shouldn't there be MORE than that? Individuals have different ideas about what evidence is convincing to them. My bar is set much higher in response to this particular claim due to its implausible nature. This is why scientist are not too interested in cryptid-hunting. The evidence is weak and explainable through other means. It's extreme to think that if there was a new ape out there to find in North America that, first, we would not already have found it decades ago, and, second, that scientists would not be falling over themselves trying to study it.
When critical thinkers approach the subject of Bigfoot (or cryptozoology in general) with a focus on the evidence, they are met with reproach. We are challenging much more than the claim; we challenge their belief. They will resort to what Biblical literalists will do to evolutionists - they demonize, call us names, misquote [This is exactly what Sharon Hill did, misquote me. -Daniel Perez], pick at small mistakes, and take words and ideas out of context. They create an extreme position and shoot it down (called a "straw man" argument) because it's a power play to make them feel superior. (Note that some aggressive "skeptics" will do that and it's not fair play in that case either.) All the while, they skirt the MAJOR flaws in their own conclusions.
Bigfoot-themed and other cryptozoology blogs and forums are typically hostile to skeptics, even moderate ones like myself. They can't understand why we even want to participate since we are going to "deny" everything. Gee, sorry for being interested in the topic and in getting a good answer for peoples' experiences. Questioning is not denying, it's thinking.
One popular Bigfoot blog posts every crazy claim or video under the heading "Bigfoot Evidence". They get hits regardless that the content can be outwardly sexist and rude and crude comments are allowed. Those that contribute to this site are considered Bigfoot "experts" even though their qualifications are shallow and questionable. Their information comes from one side only and they won't acknowledge skeptical input unless they have an opportunity to mock it. (The exact same methods are used on other paranormal sites that refuse to acknowledge critical pieces about their pet topics. Hmm... cowardly? Yes. And, I would add, intellectually dishonest.) It's seen to be more profitable, socially and economically, to be a Bigfoot believer than a scientific skeptic. While I'd like that to change, I don't think it will.
We have every reason to question the Bigfoot evidence out there. It's not good, it's flimsy. Oh, sure, a hundred people will chime in and disagree. I expect that. Just like Loxton and Prothero expected huge pushback from the Bigfoot community. Predictably, that's what they got. These outraged commentators provide nothing new or convincing. Just like the tired old arguments in favor of Creationism, Bigfooters have their go-to tales and favorite examples. Why have these theories not been supported by stronger evidence over time? The field has not advanced, except in public popularity. Bigfoot is an icon, a commodity. But it's still not a valid animal.
Are you on the fence about Bigfoot, just curious about the topic? Want a great example of solid research written in an entertaining fashion? Pick up a copy of Abominable Science and weigh that against what you see on TV and on the pro-Bigfoot internet sites. Note the tone, language and quality of arguments of each circle. Observe the difference between examining the evidence of the subject and having faith in it. There is a HUGE and obvious gap.
[When I wrote Sharon Hill after reading this piece via the e-mail for her Doubtful News, and told her point blank, she is no researcher, just a writer, she responded with: "Don't contact me again. Unless you have a Goddamn Bigfoot." If anyone is a practicing psuedo-scientist, it is her. That she misquoted me so badly might speak volumes about her other writings.]