Bigfoot / Sasquatch In North America

SkepticalX

Ephemeral Spectre
Joined
Nov 19, 2009
Messages
272
Reaction score
531
Points
109
Location
Midwest, USA
There is something very human-looking in that running gait, Doc. Seems a very tall creature weighing several hundred pounds wouldn't run like Tom Cruise in a Mission Impossible movie.
 

Kondoru

Antediluvian
Joined
Dec 5, 2003
Messages
7,627
Reaction score
2,751
Points
234
Thats what I thought.

BF doesnt run.

They stride away. Has anyone actualy described a retreating BF as bolting?

(Though i imagine a youngster or one who has had a suddent ridiculously close encounter with a human might)
 

dr wu

Doctor Prog
Joined
Mar 12, 2002
Messages
2,374
Reaction score
1,855
Points
184
Location
Indiana
I'm not sure I would say he looks like Tom Cruise running but I take your point anyway;.....would a big ape type thing run like that? Good point.

So ..what we are left with then is that all these videos (and some look pretty good) are fakes..?
Are that many people over the years making ape suits and telling their Uncles to go walk through the woods while they film them for 2 minutes?
Really? I almost find that harder to believe than Bigfoot himself. :chuckle:
 

stu neville

Commissioner.
Staff member
Joined
Mar 9, 2002
Messages
12,667
Reaction score
6,864
Points
309
This was John Green's (and later my!) point -the hoaxer hypothesis relies on discovery of the evidence, which is why a mile of footprints in snow miles from anywhere are generally compelling. In the case of alleged movies or pics, however this is more nuanced. There are lots of fakes, some so obvious it's laughable, some borderline, but there are a significant few that are sincerely presented and have enough anomalous characteristics to merit continued examination.

Once again, we need to be mindful of syllogisms. Just because Exhibit A is ruled out it doesn't mean Exhibit B is immediately null and void. Each on its own merit, but you need to apply the metrics of both A and B to get a rounded view. It's for this reason that Freeman's output is questioned: for all we know #1 is entirely genuine and the subsequents were mocked up to consolidate this, but sadly evidence of fakery does have to be considered. As has been said on the Patty thread, however, we must not let the veracity of one piece or strand of evidence completely decide the issue one way or another. It's still an evolving picture.
 

Mikefule

Abominable Snowman
Joined
Dec 9, 2009
Messages
758
Reaction score
2,602
Points
149
Location
Lincolnshire UK
This was John Green's (and later my!) point -the hoaxer hypothesis relies on discovery of the evidence, which is why a mile of footprints in snow miles from anywhere are generally compelling. In the case of alleged movies or pics, however this is more nuanced.

The hoaxer hypothesis for any Fortean phenomenon has to take into account a number of possibilities, some of which may overlap. Examples include:
  1. The hoaxer simply makes up a story with no evidence to support it.
  2. The hoaxer, working alone, creates the evidence and presents the story to the media.
  3. Two or more hoaxers work together to create the evidence and present the story to the media. This may lead to inconsistencies between the stories as the hoaxers either fail to get their stories straight or — perhaps — they compete with each other to get the most attention.
  4. Hoaxers create some form of evidence and wait for an innocent party to discover it and present it to the media. The witness may be sincere and therefore very convincing, but they are unaware that they have been deceived.
  5. Hoaxers create the evidence and leave it to be found. An innocent party randomly discovers it, and then changes or exaggerates his story because he enjoys the attention.
  6. Hoaxers wait for an innocent victim, and create the evidence specifically for that victim to find more or less immediately.
  7. Any of the above, but with bogus witnesses coming forward with made up stories spontaneously to grab a bit of the attention that the original report generated.
The discovery of footprints in the snow miles from anywhere would be a fluke in the case of 4 or 5 above, but it is perhaps more likely in the case of 6 above.

Change of angle, but still on hoaxers:
I have argued earlier that there are many biomechanical disadvantages to being exclusively bipedal and that these disadvantages increase with size. The only reason to evolve to be bipedal is to release the upper limbs for some other purpose such as carrying tools or weapons or building shelters, yet Bigfoot is never seen carrying anything, and tools, weapons, or shelters are never found.

For comparison, gorillas generally move on their feet and knuckles, as do chimps. A different comparison, but equally relevant to my argument, is how "creatures" tend to move in science fiction or horror films. There is always something odd or exaggerated about their posture or gait.

I would expect a hoaxer in a suit pretending to be Bigfoot to adopt some unusual style of locomotion to make their appearance "less obviously human".

When I see films such as the Patterson-Gimlin, or the Freeman, or the Pate films linked upthread, I think they look so obviously human that I wonder why the hoaxers didn't make more effort. Then I wonder if I should interpret that as evidence that the films may genuine! Why go to all that trouble with the suit and the location then walk like a big boned man in a boiler suit?
 

Analogue Boy

Bar 6
Joined
Aug 10, 2005
Messages
11,761
Reaction score
12,131
Points
309
This was John Green's (and later my!) point -the hoaxer hypothesis relies on discovery of the evidence, which is why a mile of footprints in snow miles from anywhere are generally compelling. In the case of alleged movies or pics, however this is more nuanced. There are lots of fakes, some so obvious it's laughable, some borderline, but there are a significant few that are sincerely presented and have enough anomalous characteristics to merit continued examination.

Once again, we need to be mindful of syllogisms. Just because Exhibit A is ruled out it doesn't mean Exhibit B is immediately null and void. Each on its own merit, but you need to apply the metrics of both A and B to get a rounded view. It's for this reason that Freeman's output is questioned: for all we know #1 is entirely genuine and the subsequents were mocked up to consolidate this, but sadly evidence of fakery does have to be considered. As has been said on the Patty thread, however, we must not let the veracity of one piece or strand of evidence completely decide the issue one way or another. It's still an evolving picture.

I think I’ve made my views on the Patty film and the events surrounding it pretty clear but that’s just for that case. I’m open to the idea that SOMETHING is going on out there to cause reports.
While people have mentioned trail cameras, we see a lot of high quality thermal camera pictures here on British TV nature shows. Cop shows too. These seem to cover a very wide field of view, and while you’d probably just see a white shape, information on location and movement, speed and gait could be analysed from the heat signature. Is this a function in trail cameras?

 

dr wu

Doctor Prog
Joined
Mar 12, 2002
Messages
2,374
Reaction score
1,855
Points
184
Location
Indiana
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/5368423/bigfoot-canada-video-real/
Couldn;t find the original you tube link but this video is interesting...allegedly a family captured this and they are seen walking in the you tube clip...which I could not find the second time around..so were the family in on this 'hoax' or what? Did someone prank them..?
 

monkeyfudger

Open minded with healthy scepticism.
Joined
Nov 28, 2017
Messages
40
Reaction score
122
Points
34
Location
Essex, UK
@lordmongrove That was an entertaining watch, thanks for posting. As usual, these docs can unfortunately only offer (enjoyable) witness stories though. Apart from the Stacy Brown footage which is well known, had you heard of any of the other incidents conveyed, ie the two officers who were told to be quiet by govt officials after supposedly running down and killing a skunk ape?
 

lordmongrove

Justified & Ancient
Joined
May 30, 2009
Messages
3,470
Reaction score
3,373
Points
169
@lordmongrove That was an entertaining watch, thanks for posting. As usual, these docs can unfortunately only offer (enjoyable) witness stories though. Apart from the Stacy Brown footage which is well known, had you heard of any of the other incidents conveyed, ie the two officers who were told to be quiet by govt officials after supposedly running down and killing a skunk ape?
Nope, that was a new one on me.
 

On The Brink

Fresh Blood
Joined
Dec 20, 2020
Messages
14
Reaction score
23
Points
3
First of all, for the avoidance of doubt, I am neither hostile nor scornful towards those who believe in Bigfoot. I doubt that Bigfoot exists. If it does, then I expect it to be a flesh and blood cryptid rather than either a tulpa ot some sort of interdimensional being.

I absolutely agree that what is going on with the witnesses is interesting — and is Fortean in its own right. Simple "misidentification" and hoaxes happen, but they are not the whole story. Witnesses are strange things.

I did quite a lot of reading on the subject of witness evidence when I was working in a fraud department for an insurance company. I spent 36ish years investigating claims (including motor and workplace accidents) and 10 of those years specialising in fraud management.

There is a compelling amount of evidence that what someone "saw" depends on what they expected to see, and what questions they are asked after the event.

There was a study in which groups of subjects were shown a short video of a car crash. (Loftus & Palmer 1974)

After watching the video, they were asked to estimate the speed of the vehicles.

The groups were asked the same question with one word different. What was the speed when the vehicles [smashed, collided, bumped, hit, or contacted] each other?

Those who were asked with an emotive word (smashed) estimated the speed as substantially higher than those who were asked a more neutral word (bumped).

Later, they were asked whether they had seen glass on the road after the cars had [smashed, collided, bumped, hit, or contacted] each other.

Some subjects in each group reported seeing glass. However, those who were asked "smashed" were significantly more likely to report seeing glass. In fact, there was no glass on the road, so no one had actually seen it.

There is no reason to suspect that the subjects of this study attached any importance to their answers, or that they knew what they were being tested for, so we can assume that they were answering truthfully. Nevertheless, their answers were demonstrably inaccurate, and the inaccuracy was statistically linked to the way that they were asked.

This is how human witnesses behave when they are seeing something fairly routine in a calm and structured environment. Take these same witnesses into a forest and show them a fleeting glimpse of something that might just be an amazing anomaly and a once in a lifetime experience, and you could reasonably expect the effect to be amplified.

Who wants to concede, "Yes, it was probably a bear"? Also, most witnesses want to please the person asking them questions, rather than answering "I can't say" or "I don't know".

A trained and honest investigator knows to ask neutral and open questions: "How would you describe it?" "What did you see?"
A bad investigator asks leading questions: "Would you say it was nearer six feet or seven feet tall?" "Did you feel threatened?"
A poorly trained or amateur investigator acting in good faith may allow emotive words and lines of questioning to influence what the witness "recalls". "How tall was it?" invites an answer that suggests it was quite tall, for example.

Because witness evidence, especially filtered through interviews by amateur enthusiasts, is so unreliable, I am firmly in the camp of "I would love to find that Bigfoot really exists, but I need reliable evidence rather than reports. After all these years of searching, where are the clear and unequivocal photos and videos? Where are the spoors, DNA samples, etc.? We have more physical evidence of countless species from over 200 million years ago than we have for this species that is said to exist today.

Change of subject: Bigfoot is conventionally described as bipedal. The only truly bipedal mammals are humans. By being bipedal, we sacrifice speed across the ground for the ability to manipulate, carry, and throw things with our hands. You can't outrun a wolf, tiger, or a bear, but they can't build a shelter, tend a fire or make a spear.

Take a human shape and add 10% to its height and you add 33% to its weight, but only 21% to the cross section of the bones and muscles. The bigger it gets, the more disadvantageous being bipedal becomes. A species would only evolve to be bipedal if there were a gain somewhere else, such as tool use, building shelters, throwing hunting spears, carrying possessions, etc. Although we have found very few bones of prehistoric human species, we have quite a lot of their tools, art, fire places, middens and so on. We have none of this for Bigfoot.
 

On The Brink

Fresh Blood
Joined
Dec 20, 2020
Messages
14
Reaction score
23
Points
3
First of all, for the avoidance of doubt, I am neither hostile nor scornful towards those who believe in Bigfoot. I doubt that Bigfoot exists. If it does, then I expect it to be a flesh and blood cryptid rather than either a tulpa ot some sort of interdimensional being.

I absolutely agree that what is going on with the witnesses is interesting — and is Fortean in its own right. Simple "misidentification" and hoaxes happen, but they are not the whole story. Witnesses are strange things.

I did quite a lot of reading on the subject of witness evidence when I was working in a fraud department for an insurance company. I spent 36ish years investigating claims (including motor and workplace accidents) and 10 of those years specialising in fraud management.

There is a compelling amount of evidence that what someone "saw" depends on what they expected to see, and what questions they are asked after the event.

There was a study in which groups of subjects were shown a short video of a car crash. (Loftus & Palmer 1974)

After watching the video, they were asked to estimate the speed of the vehicles.

The groups were asked the same question with one word different. What was the speed when the vehicles [smashed, collided, bumped, hit, or contacted] each other?

Those who were asked with an emotive word (smashed) estimated the speed as substantially higher than those who were asked a more neutral word (bumped).

Later, they were asked whether they had seen glass on the road after the cars had [smashed, collided, bumped, hit, or contacted] each other.

Some subjects in each group reported seeing glass. However, those who were asked "smashed" were significantly more likely to report seeing glass. In fact, there was no glass on the road, so no one had actually seen it.

There is no reason to suspect that the subjects of this study attached any importance to their answers, or that they knew what they were being tested for, so we can assume that they were answering truthfully. Nevertheless, their answers were demonstrably inaccurate, and the inaccuracy was statistically linked to the way that they were asked.

This is how human witnesses behave when they are seeing something fairly routine in a calm and structured environment. Take these same witnesses into a forest and show them a fleeting glimpse of something that might just be an amazing anomaly and a once in a lifetime experience, and you could reasonably expect the effect to be amplified.

Who wants to concede, "Yes, it was probably a bear"? Also, most witnesses want to please the person asking them questions, rather than answering "I can't say" or "I don't know".

A trained and honest investigator knows to ask neutral and open questions: "How would you describe it?" "What did you see?"
A bad investigator asks leading questions: "Would you say it was nearer six feet or seven feet tall?" "Did you feel threatened?"
A poorly trained or amateur investigator acting in good faith may allow emotive words and lines of questioning to influence what the witness "recalls". "How tall was it?" invites an answer that suggests it was quite tall, for example.

Because witness evidence, especially filtered through interviews by amateur enthusiasts, is so unreliable, I am firmly in the camp of "I would love to find that Bigfoot really exists, but I need reliable evidence rather than reports. After all these years of searching, where are the clear and unequivocal photos and videos? Where are the spoors, DNA samples, etc.? We have more physical evidence of countless species from over 200 million years ago than we have for this species that is said to exist today.

Change of subject: Bigfoot is conventionally described as bipedal. The only truly bipedal mammals are humans. By being bipedal, we sacrifice speed across the ground for the ability to manipulate, carry, and throw things with our hands. You can't outrun a wolf, tiger, or a bear, but they can't build a shelter, tend a fire or make a spear.

Take a human shape and add 10% to its height and you add 33% to its weight, but only 21% to the cross section of the bones and muscles. The bigger it gets, the more disadvantageous being bipedal becomes. A species would only evolve to be bipedal if there were a gain somewhere else, such as tool use, building shelters, throwing hunting spears, carrying possessions, etc. Although we have found very few bones of prehistoric human species, we have quite a lot of their tools, art, fire places, middens and so on. We have none of this for Bigfoot.
What about The Hoopa Project book by David Paulides. Where he reserches one area and has a police artist draw up what the witness saw. One year there is a large forest fire nearby and more sightings occur.
 

Lord Lucan

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Feb 17, 2017
Messages
3,446
Reaction score
9,481
Points
204
Les Stroud a.k.a Survivorman has released his entire catalogue of Bigfoot episodes onto YouTube. There are presently 9 episodes and the first two have him interacting with Todd Standing (who doesn't have the greatest reputation in the Bigfoot/Sasquatch community).
Nonetheless, these are enjoyable.

From his channel:

The gold standard by which all other Bigfoot documentaries and TV series are measured, Les Stroud's Survivorman Bigfoot represents Stroud's yearlong foray into the world of cryptid exploration. With healthy skepticism and an open mind, Stroud places himself in remote and unforgiving areas as well as not-so-dangerous areas to experience what certain witnesses maintain is possible. Unconvinced by elaborate and fanciful, well told stories, Stroud does what he always has as a documentary film maker - seeks to get to the authentic bottom of the story.

Les Stroud - Survivorman's Bigfoot Videos
 

On The Brink

Fresh Blood
Joined
Dec 20, 2020
Messages
14
Reaction score
23
Points
3
Les Stroud a.k.a Survivorman has released his entire catalogue of Bigfoot episodes onto YouTube. There are presently 9 episodes and the first two have him interacting with Todd Standing (who doesn't have the greatest reputation in the Bigfoot/Sasquatch community).
Nonetheless, these are enjoyable.

From his channel:

The gold standard by which all other Bigfoot documentaries and TV series are measured, Les Stroud's Survivorman Bigfoot represents Stroud's yearlong foray into the world of cryptid exploration. With healthy skepticism and an open mind, Stroud places himself in remote and unforgiving areas as well as not-so-dangerous areas to experience what certain witnesses maintain is possible. Unconvinced by elaborate and fanciful, well told stories, Stroud does what he always has as a documentary film maker - seeks to get to the authentic bottom of the story.

Les Stroud - Survivorman's Bigfoot Videos
Thanks, i will take a look
 

monkeyfudger

Open minded with healthy scepticism.
Joined
Nov 28, 2017
Messages
40
Reaction score
122
Points
34
Location
Essex, UK
Thanks for the Survivorman link, I watched the first one so far, having never seen any of his stuff before. I remember reading about these a few years back on another forum (they are from 2013 I believe) due to Standing's involvement and his purported (fake) images. The general feeling seemed to be 'why would someone as authentic as Stroud get hooked up with this known hoaxer?'. I enjoyed watching though and will watch the rest. Here's an interview with Stroud and John Zada, who brought his own book out sometime afterwards.

https://www.johnzada.com/planisphere/survivorman-bigfoot-sasquatch-les-stroud/
 

eziofan

Junior Acolyte
Joined
Nov 14, 2005
Messages
39
Reaction score
96
Points
49
Just a thought, with the increase in forest fires in the US, you would have thought there would be an increase in Bigfoot sightings as they retreated from their supposed habitat. Until someone comes up with some physical evidence I remain unconvinced.
 

On The Brink

Fresh Blood
Joined
Dec 20, 2020
Messages
14
Reaction score
23
Points
3
Just a thought, with the increase in forest fires in the US, you would have thought there would be an increase in Bigfoot sightings as they retreated from their supposed habitat. Until someone comes up with some physical evidence I remain unconvinced.
Well in The Hoopa Project book it is mentioned that there was an increase in sightings after a forest fire in the Sashta region Northern California. This is about early 2000s. Dont know about recent fires. Depends where the fires are and how disruptive they are to Bigfoot.
 

Squail

Junior Acolyte
Joined
Jan 7, 2020
Messages
52
Reaction score
123
Points
34
Just a thought, with the increase in forest fires in the US, you would have thought there would be an increase in Bigfoot sightings as they retreated from their supposed habitat. Until someone comes up with some physical evidence I remain unconvinced.
Well in The Hoopa Project book it is mentioned that there was an increase in sightings after a forest fire in the Sashta region Northern California. This is about early 2000s. Dont know about recent fires. Depends where the fires are and how disruptive they are to Bigfoot.

More-"general" musings prompted by the above: I have long felt it to be a little odd that habitat-destruction by whatever direct agency -- seen as a scourge going on on an enormous scale, in many parts of the globe, including remote ones -- never seems to have the side-effect of leading to the discovery of creatures in the "cryptid" category. One might not expect this to happen all that much: a reclusive creature would do its utmost to retreat into such diminishing fastnesses (particularly of forest -- many cryptids, reputedly forest-dwelling) as remained -- but with so much wilderness being, "ongoingly", destroyed in various ways; still, this tragedy's potential fortunate "upside" for students of cryptozoology, seems not to occur.

As @On The Brink mentions: recounted increase in sightings, occasioned by forest fire -- but sightings don't lead a great deal further toward solving the mystery. Reduction of habitat, however rapid and catastrophic, seems never yet to have delivered a specimen -- alive or dead. This reinforces my feeling that the existence of cryptids -- Bigfoot, and others around the world -- as straightforwardly flesh-and-blood "fauna", seems improbable. (I'm no expert on biology / ecology -- maybe there are factors here of which I'm unaware, and I'm being naive.)
 
Last edited:

On The Brink

Fresh Blood
Joined
Dec 20, 2020
Messages
14
Reaction score
23
Points
3
More-"general" musings prompted by the above: I have long felt it to be a little odd that habitat-destruction by whatever direct agency -- seen as a scourge going on on an enormous scale, in many parts of the globe, including remote ones -- never seems to have the side-effect of leading to the discovery of creatures in the "cryptid" category. One might not expect this to happen all that much: a reclusive creature would do its utmost to retreat into such diminishing fastnesses (particularly of forest -- many cryptids, reputedly forest-dwelling) as remained -- but with so much wilderness being, "ongoingly", destroyed in various ways; still, this tragedy's potential fortunate "upside" for students of cryptozoology, seems not to occur.

As @On The Brink mentions: recounted increase in sightings, occasioned by forest fire -- but sightings don't lead a great deal further toward solving the mystery. Reduction of habitat, however rapid and catastrophic, seems never yet to have delivered a specimen -- alive or dead. This reinforces my feeling that the existence of cryptids -- Bigfoot, and others around the world -- as straightforwardly flesh-and-blood "fauna", seems improbable. (I'm no expert on biology / ecology -- maybe there are factors here of which I'm unaware, and I'm being naive.)
Well there are some hunters out there determined to kill one and bring back the body! Watch this space. The argument being even good quality film or photos will not be enough evidence. Oh, I wish you all a happier new year!
 

Sharon Hill

Complicated biological machine
Joined
Dec 16, 2014
Messages
864
Reaction score
1,716
Points
139
Location
Pennsylvania, USA
Well there are some hunters out there determined to kill one and bring back the body! Watch this space. The argument being even good quality film or photos will not be enough evidence. Oh, I wish you all a happier new year!
As they have been trying for over 5 decades without any luck. I'll play the odds instead and NOT watch for a dead Bigfoot.
 

Kondoru

Antediluvian
Joined
Dec 5, 2003
Messages
7,627
Reaction score
2,751
Points
234
Wildmen in Asia seem to have undergone a great decrease in numbers/size of range this century.

We don't know why. Presumably these creatures are, like all primates, prone to human diseases.
 

On The Brink

Fresh Blood
Joined
Dec 20, 2020
Messages
14
Reaction score
23
Points
3
Top