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.]

Addressing Skepticism and Cynicism in the Bigfoot field

Friday, November 15, 2013

Americas Book of Secrets - The Mystery of Bigfoot

 Science Hub
 Published on Aug 21, 2013

A pretty decent bigfoot documentary here. Not one of my top of the top pile ones, as it briefly touches on some pretty far-fetched theories, like Bigfoot being alien in origin and the government covering up the existence of Sasquatch to ward off a hit to the logging industry, due to it being endangered, which I've heard no researches say is even the case, absent a few cases in Florida where the creatures, if there, were getting isolated in swamp areas and inbreeding, presumably due to human encroachment on their environment. All that said, this doc is scant on that material opposed to the amount of solid material presented. Enjoy.

Florida Bigfoot Hunter Widget

"Hunter" in this case means not to kill, but hunt down with audio/video equipment, etc.

Fingerprint Expert Tries To Debunk Bigfoot

Jimmy Chilcutt is not someone most people would associate with the kind of wild, unsubstantiated stories that show up in supermarket tabloids.

Chilcutt, 54, is skeptical by nature. His job as a fingerprint technician at the Conroe Police Department requires hard-nosed judgments and painstaking attention to detail.

Sunday, November 10, 2013

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

Ranae Holland of the Animal Planet program Finding Bigfoot stated, "I don't know what those... howls were, I feel electric," after hearing the sounds recorded in this clip.

In this video, Cliff Barackman from Finding Bigfoot notes that he believes the sounds were indeed Sasquatch and not people as they triangulated where the sound came from and that it was in an area where "there were no roads or campsites," "You just can't get up there," Barackman states, "the gates are shut and all the roads are closed down... and it was also quite late."

From the Finding Bigfoot Facebook page:

The wait is almost over! NEW episode of Finding Bigfoot coming up on Sunday at 10PM EP. In the meantime, check out our new and improved evidence map!

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

New York Comic Con - Animal Planets Finding Bigfoot 

Jeff Probst Bigfoot Debate with Cast of Finding Bigfoot

Thursday, November 7, 2013

One More Debunker Exposed A Review of Anthropologist Dr. David Daegling's Book: "Bigfoot Exposed"

Thanks to gifts from Bobbie Short and Roger Knights, the International Center of Hominology now has two copies of Bigfoot Exposed -- An Anthropologist Examines America's Enduring Legend (AltaMira Press, 2004) by Dr. David J. Daegling; University of Florida, Dept of Anthropology.

As indicated by the subtitle, the purpose of the book is to assure the public that Bigfoot is only a legend. The educational bottom line is this: Bigfoot "is a human invention, and it is reinvented constantly"(p.248). In this respect, it's a repeat of John Napier's message in his BIGFOOT (1972), and to the question, which book is better or worse, I have to repeat Stalin's phrase "both are worse". Still, Napier's has certain merit over Daegling's, for Napier openly avowed the real reason why he "will happily settle for the myth": otherwise anthropologists "shall have to re-write the story of human evolution"(p.204).

Daegling is a spokesman of a Knowledge Monopoly, and has written his
book accordingly. (See Henry Bauer's article "Science in the 21st Century: Knowledge Monopolies and Research Cartels", in The Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol.18, # 4). Still, we should be thankful to him and all other monopoly authors, for the more they engage in explaining Bigfoot away the more they expose their prejudice, bringing closer the day of Bigfoot recognition.

Daegling exposes Bigfoot from the position of associate professor at the University of Florida. I am exposing Daegling from the position of science director at the International Center of Hominology in Moscow, Russia. Hominology is a branch of primatology, founded in the middle of the 20th century in science's "no-man's land" between zoology and anthropology. An immediate impulse for its emergence was the Yeti problem, while an underlying historical and scientific reason was the discovery that "wild men" have been known throughout history all over the world. The self-laudatory term Homo sapiens was introduced by Linnaeus in the middle of the 18th century in contrast to what he termed Homo troglodytes and Homo sylvestris.

Hominology is the science of living non-sapiens hominids (homins, for short), so of necessity it could only come into being after the emergence of the theory of evolution and paleoanthropology. Homins were unknown to modern science because there was no modern natural science to know them. Hominology means a scientific revolution in a number of disciplines, first and foremost in the theory of man's origin (anthropogenesis), as Napier rightly feared. Without considering this crucial factor, it is impossible to understand the attitude of mainstream scientists to the subject of Bigfoot or any other relict hominids.(Let us note that gorillas, chimpanzees and orangutans are also relict species today). Hominology's evidence comes from natural history, mythology, folklore, ancient and medieval art, eyewitness accounts, footprints, vocalizations, and photography. 

Why as yet no living or dead specimen or a part of its body? The shortest answer is that too little time has passed since the birth of hominology. It is a newborn science, devoid of recognition and funding. Even with  the greatest funding in the world it takes time to apprehend certain bipeds not wanting to be apprehended, as, for example, Osama bin Laden. There is little doubt that Bigfoot and other homins are not willing to be apprehended and have every capacity to stay at large. The rare cases of their capture are marked in history as special events. On the other hand, the accidental capture of a specimen by apple orchard guards in Russian in 1989 ended in the release of the creature because it threatened to ruin the car in which it was imprisoned. Had the car owner been promised a tiny fraction of the reward for the capture of Osama bin Laden, the situation in hominology would now be different. 

In his book The Locals, Thom Powell presents the case of a Bigfoot reportedly captured in 1999 in Nevada during a forest fire. The creature was said to have been taken away by the authorities and disappeared without a trace. I take the story seriously because of its many realistic details and because we have had similar reports in Russia. Now that the name of the wealthy Hollywood owner of the so-called Iceman has been indicated, I am convinced that Ivan Sanderson and Bernard Heuvelmans were not mistaken when they said that what they saw was an object of biology, not fakery. The corpse was both exhibited and withdrawn for religious reasons. 

So a more involved answer to the question why definitive biological evidence in hominology is not available is this. The number of people interested in obtaining such evidence is an infinitesimal fraction of those who are indifferent to the task or are against it for one reason or another. Further, the number of those among the interested who may have a chance to find and recognize such evidence is also an infinitesimal fraction. The negative impact of indifference on one side, and hidden or open hostility on the other, leaves the tiny number of hominologists little chance to quickly obtain traditionally acceptable biological proof. For this reason hominology still finds itself in a cryptozoological phase of development.

And yet of all cryptids in the world Bigfoot is the best documented biologically. We have for it eyewitness accounts, footprints, handprints, a body print, hair samples, scat, recorded vocalizations, and a film footage. The progress in obtaining and analyzing so many different kinds of evidence by unfunded volunteers is amazing (see Christopher Murphy, Meet the Sasquatch, 2004 , Hancock House). For hominologists this is more than enough to take Bigfoot for a reality, but it is not yet enough for mainstream scientists, and this is not only because Bigfoot is not an ordinary primate, but because it is the harbinger of a scientific revolution. 

Many hominologists agree with me that it is impermissible for moral reasons to seek the solution of the problem by means of a rifle. We pin hopes on the method proposed by our teacher, the founder of hominology, Boris Porshnev, who wrote:

"If proceeding most cautiously we succeed in conditioning the creature to come and take food in a definite place, that would be a real scientific victory. There is a basis for such prospects, namely, the above-mentioned cases in different geographical areas of local people habituating and even befriending relict hominoids. Scientific work could be launched in such a case even without direct contact of researchers with the specimen, for modern zoology boasts of an excellent means of taking color films with a telephoto lens at a great distance. A relict hominoid would then appear on the screen showing its usual movements and habits against a background of its natural environment. So step by step relict hominoids on earth could find themselves under man's protection and permanent scientific surveillance. At a certain moment it would be possible, of course, to observe the death of this creature. Then the anatomist would get a corpse for autopsy. Thus the perspective of studying Homo troglodytes   looks as the reverse of zoology's canon: not from  dissection to biology but from biology to dissection" (Porshnev 1963, in Dmitri Bayanov, pp.13,14). Bigfoot: To Kill or To Film? The Problem of Proof, 2001,
Thanks in part to the Internet, the secrets of habituation are beginning to open up, turning Boris Porshnev's vision into  a reality, as indicated by the book 50 Years with Bigfoot: Tennessee Chronicles of Co-Existence, 2002, by Mary Green and Janice Carter Coy, and by Igor Bourtsev's article "Russian Hominologist in Tennessee" ( Bigfoot Co-op, December 2004). 

Finally, why is hominology scientific rather than pseudoscientific, as alleged by some critics? According to Henry Bauer's Science or Pseudoscience, 2001, the main criterion of a scientific pursuit is "connectedness", i.e. "crucial links with the mainstream"(p.158). "All natural scientists accept and draw on the same laws, facts, and methods"(p.11). I understand this as follows. The unknown can only be studied and understood by proceeding from and connecting with the known. Magnetism has been known to science since antiquity, while electricity was much of an unknown two centuries ago. Faraday and Maxwell connected electric phenomena with magnetism and thus ushered in the era of electricity. So their work was very scientific.

By this criterion, UFOlogy is not yet a science because so far specific UFO observation reports cannot be connected with or explained by the existing scientific knowledge. Hominology, on the contrary, by the criterion of connectedness seems to be the most scientific of sciences for it provides "crucial links" with and between the theory of evolution, paleoanthropology, mythology, demonology, folkloristics, the history of religion, and the history of art. 

In addition, hominology gives a natural answer to the natural question why apes are still with us while brainier apemen or pre-sapiens hominids died out. The answer is they didn't. Their wholesale extinction is the illusion of Paleoanthropologists who are as adequate experts on relict hominids as paleontologists were on living coelacanths. Relict hominids are hidden in natural forests and mountains, but above all they are hidden in "the forests of the mind". The task of hominology is to drive them out of those "forests" into the open vistas of science.
Such is the necessary prelude to taking Dr. Daegling on in earnest. Someone declaring nowadays that stones falling from heaven are nothing but a myth would have to refute the science of meteoritics. Similarly, anyone publishing a book declaring that Bigfoot is a myth has to take on the science of hominology in its theoretical, historical and geographical aspects. As this task proved Herculean for Dr. Daegling, he opted for the simple job of declaring all the sightings mistaken, all the footprints faked, and the Bigfoot documentary hoaxed. The whole tome of 276 pages consists of nothing but endlessly repeated naysayings. John Green has already challenged Daegling's expertise on Bigfoot tracks:

"People who have never seen any tracks but claim to know more about them than those who did see them are not a rare breed, their number is legion, but for someone to join their ranks waving the flag of "scientific verification" is bald-faced hypocrisy. What the tracks were like may be "anecdotal" to Dr. Daegling, but it is first-hand knowledge to those of us who studied them, photographed them and cast them, and because of our efforts there is plenty of solid evidence available to any scientist who will take the trouble to see if it can be verified or not. Dr. Daegling is not among those who have been prepared to take that trouble. Instead he stayed home and wrote a book" (John Green's email Bigfoot Exposed, Jan.3, 2005).
As for eyewitness accounts, they, according to Daegling, cannot be trusted for the following reason: "Unfortunately, we have been asking the wrong question through the years. "What did you see? we ask the eyewitness. If we take the answer at face value, we miss the meaning of the phenomenon. It may be more important to ask the one question the eyewitness may be in no position to answer: "Why did you see it?"(p.259). What a useful piece of advice, especially for detectives seeking information from witnesses, or for zoologists interviewing eyewitnesses with the aim of determining habitats of rare animals, or for physicists collecting sightings of ball lightning. 

The major part of the author's naysayings are devoted to the Patterson-Gimlin film. This part of the book is of special concern to me and my Russian colleagues because the film was for the first time systematically studied and validated to our own satisfaction in Moscow back in the 1970s. So let us see what the author says about the Russian research and researchers.

It is untrue that "the Moscow Academy of Sciences boasted its own Institute of Hominology"(p.111). The Institute is even today nothing more than a dream of mine.

It is untrue that Porshnev's first name is Victor (p.111). It is Boris.
It is untrue that Dmitri Bayanov is schooled in biomechanics(.p111).      
It is untrue that Donskoy's "report ... is thoroughly subjective and devoid of any particulars of argument"(p.111).

It is untrue that "Up until 1992, (...) there had been no scientific efforts directed at the film that took up the issue from a purely quantitative (and ostensibly objective) standpoint"(p.119). Daegling's References include our paper, published in 1984, "Analysis of Patterson-Gimlin Film: Why We Find It Authentic." It is based both on quantitative and qualitative analysis and presents quantitative findings.

It is untrue that the film speed "is unknown"(p.128). Igor Bourtsev did find it in 1973. His method and result stand in black and white in the above mentioned paper, listed in Daegling's References.

It is untrue that Perez "threw down the gauntlet" (to the mainstream) in the matter of the Bigfoot film (p.119). This was done by Russian hominologists in their report presented in 1978 at the Vancouver Sasquatch conference.

It is untrue that "The gait of the film subject (...) is easily duplicated by human beings"(p.147). Mimicked, yes, but not duplicated. Human beings can mimic the walk of different animals, such as bears, camels, elephants, as well as of the film subject. But they cannot imitate it in a natural, uncontrived manner characterizing Bigfoot's gait.

It is untrue that "Skeptical inquiry into the film has made significant strides since 1967" (p.205). Actually, it hasn't moved an inch. On the contrary, all aspiring debunkers of the film over the past decades have been exposed and defeated, and not a single proof or argument put forward by us for the film's authenticity has been refuted.

Dr. Daegling claims to have found "a glaring anomaly" in the film subject, namely, "the Achilles tendon appears to attach far forward on the heel, where the adaptive advantage of having an elongated heel in the first place is completely lost. (...) A prosthesis explains what is seen in the film; evolution, by contrast, cannot make sense of it"(p.144). In our paper published 20 years before Daegling's book and listed in his References, the matter of Bigfoot's elongated heel and Achilles tendon is dealt with as follows:

"The heel is actually seen to be sticking out in an inhuman way in some frames, suggesting an unusually large heel bone (calcaneus) as has been predicted by Grover Krantz using theoretical considerations and the evidence of the footprints. That the heel of the filmed subject is really unusual is testified to by the fact that this feature was independently discovered in Moscow and Ottawa. In Moscow it was seen by Bayanov and Bourtsev as "an omen of the creature's reality". (...) It is worth pointing out also that this peculiarity has never been reported by eyewitnesses because it appears only for a fleeting moment when the Achilles tendon is not tight in a certain phase of the stride" ( The Sasquatch and other Unknown Hominoids, edited by Vladimir Markotic and Grover Krantz, 1984, p.226). 

The film records in some of its frames these fleeting moments. In other words, there is no anomaly with attachment of the Achilles tendon. It is attached in the usual place at the end of the heel, and the impression that it is attached in a wrong place appears only when the tendon is slackened, not tightened. Dr. Daegling hides this fact from the reader by hiding our analysis of the film, described by Dr. Roderick Sprague as "by far the best and most thorough discussion of this classic film" ( CRYPTOZOOLOGY, Vol.5,1986,p.105). 

On p.211, Daegling quotes Dahinden's phrase "lying by omission". Dr. Daegling's biggest lie by omission is his total silence about my book America's Bigfoot: Fact, Not Fiction. U.S. Evidence Verified in Russia, 1997, devoted to our validation of the Patterson-Gimlin film, which is not even listed in his references. A possible reason for the omission is the strength of the case it makes, as indicated by this appraisal by Dr. Henry Bauer, Professor Emeritus of Chemistry & Science Studies:

"Glimpses of the Patterson film in various television shows had left me incredulous that the creature shown in it could be real. This book has made me almost equally incredulous that the film could have been faked, and thus I have become open to the staggering possibility that relict hominids may still be with us in sufficient numbers that we have the chance to learn something about them. I recommend this book heartily as a highly interesting reading adventure"( Journal of Scientific Exploration, Vol.18, Number 3, 2004, p.533).

On p.211, we read Dr. Daegling's conclusion that "Poor scholarship is one tell-tale sign of a pseudoscientific approach". This remark applies in full measure to the author. What's more, his book, by its intent and quality, is simply anti-scientific. Its contents do nothing but delude the reader.

Fortunately, with the wide means of exposure provided by the Internet, Dr Daegling's book, unlike that of Dr. Napier, is not destined to delay the search for Bigfoot. The process of undeceiving the public is gathering speed.

Review © Dmitri Bayanov
International Center of Hominology, Moscow, Russia

After reading his book, it is my opinion that Daegling was out of his scholastic element writing this book, ...the sole reviewers heretofore were known skeptics, personal friends and not seasoned veterans in this field of research. Hundreds of us have spent what seems like a life time researching detailed evidence in this field, ...the elementary blunders in Daegling's publication are glaring testimony to his youthful inexperience in homin research. His expertise in mandibular biomechanics did not qualify him and I cannot help but wonder how in hell he got through post grad school. .....truly, one would expect more from a professor of anthropology; this research has not been served well by our anthropologists, not since the passing of Grover S. Krantz, physical anthropologist, WS
U....Bobbie Short, 2005

Additional commentary:
If your facts are correct it is another unbelievable example of why this topic is full of so many misconceptions.  Before I produced "Sasquatch: Legend meets Science" I spent well over 2 years (full time) researching the topic and interviewing many eyewitnesses, forensically analyzing films, talking to scientists, studying evidence first hand trying to get answers to the many questions. My point is: anyone who spends that much time at least has my mutual respect if they want to dissect and dispose of the evidence. This author should be ashamed of using his credentials to skate by with laziness of  both action and thinking. ...Doug Hajicek, Discovery Channel Producer, Legend Meets Science