Indeed, the evidence is where it’s found, period. I just don’t think that the urge to Make Stuff Up runs so strongly in the American character, heck, in human nature for that matter, that this sort of thing could get the kind of traction it does on the basis of lies and hallucinations alone. I once thought it could; fortunately, some of us grow up, and learn stuff.

When one RSR, one notes that the same animal, with the expected nuances for individuals, is being seen far and wide. And it’s not a shambling, knuckledragging slowpoke. Harry wouldn’t recognize it, and neither would the Hendersons. In fact, when skeptics lump the sasquatch with paranormal phenomena, this is a critical factor they overlook, because by and large they don’t RSR. Paranormal phenomena are propped up by people with a dire Need To Believe. The sasquatch runs on continued encounters with people who either were sure it didn’t exist, or knew for sure that it didn’t exist in their neck of the woods. But they are unequivocal on what they experienced. And I read report after report, prepared as any skeptic should be to Do The Eyeroll. And time after time I say: wow, another sasquatch. ‘Cause the descriptions don’t stop with big dark and hairy, but persist in moving on to the unmistakable details.

He’s bad. He’s nationwide.

And he’s just a critter, not an Earthshaking Implausibility, which some foks need to just get over.

Perhaps like the black bear, mountain lion, coyote, bobcat, and other such creatures, this one (Bigfoot) has an extensive distribution.

Just like Bindernagel, I used to take reports outside of the PNW with a ton of salt; I thought they raised the likelihood that all of it was wishful thinking or people seeing things. The more I’ve learned about wildlife, however, to say nothing of human nature when it comes to observation, the more I - like Bindernagel, who’s a wildlife biologist - have become convinced that it’s truly the most reasonable scenario.

Once again: RSR! (I really do have to get a hotkey for that.) Not only are the wild places of this continent much larger, everywhere, than people give them credit for; there’s also no reason that an animal with the sas’s apparent brains, catholic tastes and ability to move would hole itself up in a corner of the continent that doesn’t even appear to be the best available for meeting its needs. Solitude included.

Today in 2007 where everyone has some sort of camera we produce grainy, pixilated, out of focus, shaky glimpses of something we cant even identify… others have tried to reproduce the Patterson film and have failed, even with today’s technology the Patterson film in an enigma…

Where there’s money there’s dishonesty… people are not has honest today as they once were. Most are out for a quick buck or some youtube fame, some are willing to say or do whatever it takes including hoaxing. If you doubt what I’m saying go watch a little youtube and see just how dumb the general population really is…

Question, why was Paul Freeman (rest in peace Paul) able to find Bigfoot so many times but all of his films are of poor quality?

I don’t know the answers but what I do know is most of the footage people try to pass off as genuine is laughable…

Question: Isn’t the sasquatch or bigfoot only in the Pacific Northwest?

Answer: It is a common perception that, if the sasquatch exists at all, it lives only in the Pacific Northwest (Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Northern California, British Columbia), since that geographical area is thought to be the only region of North America capable of providing sufficient habitat for such a species to remain hidden and elusive. This line of thinking usually goes hand-in-hand with the notion that there is inadequate forested habitat in Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas and Louisiana to allow for a bigfoot population to exist undocumented by science.

As discussed by TBRC Director Craig Woolheater in his piece entitled Bigfoot in Texas?, many who live outside the borders of the Lone Star State, and indeed, many who live within its borders, actually know little of its varied landscapes and environment. Thanks to decades of Hollywood portrayals of the region, many visualize Texas (and Oklahoma) as being arid, desert-like, and complete with abundant saguaro cacti. (The range of the saguaro cactus actually is limited to the Sonoran Desert of extreme southeastern California, southern Arizona and adjoining northwestern Mexico.)

While portions of far western Texas and Oklahoma are certainly semi-arid, the eastern sections of both states receive abundant annual rainfall. These areas are heavily forested and feature an abundance of waterways and lakes; they are very much ecological clones of the two neighboring eastern states of the region, Arkansas and Louisiana.

The combined total amount of forestland in the four-state region equates to roughly 65,000,000 acres, or 100,000 square miles (the size of the state of Oregon). According to The Online Handbook of Texas, there are roughly 22,000,000 acres of forest in Texas alone; per the Arkansas Forestry Association, there are roughly 19,000,000 acres of forest in Arkansas; the Louisiana Forestry Association reports that there are 14,000,000 acres of forest in Louisiana; Oklahoma has approximately 10,000,000 acres of forest as indicated by the Oklahoma Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry.

While the forestlands of Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana and Oklahoma may be somewhat more parceled, or discontinuous, than northwestern forests, it is obvious that they are enormous in scope and depth, contrary to the misperceptions of some. Wildlife biologist Dr. John Bindernagel, who visited the region in 2001 and 2002, was struck by the richness and scope of the region’s forests, which are predominantly mixed deciduous, as opposed to the largely coniferous forests of the Pacific Northwest. Dr. Bindernagel recognized the value and productivity of deciduous forests in terms of wildlife habitat and he pointed out that large species of mammals living in the southern forests would almost certainly require smaller home ranges than in northern coniferous forests.

Not only is habitat in the south-central U.S. likely sufficient to support a population of large undocumented primates, but reported observations of sasquatch-like creatures are by no means exclusive to the Pacific Northwest in terms of both historical and contemporary contexts. Indeed, an early journalistic account of such a creature in Arkansas and Louisiana was featured by the Hornellsville Tribune in 1856. The so-called “Wild Woman of the Navidad” (Texas), was reported to have been quite fleet-footed and covered in short brown hair; the reports of the wild woman originated in 1837. The Memphis Enquirer reported of a similar encounter with a “wild man” in Greene County, Arkansas, in 1851. The residents of Gatesville, Texas were reported to be “excited” about the appearance of a large orangutan-like creature in 1871, as reported by the Michigan Argus that same year.

In addition to anecdotal accounts, physical evidence regarding the existence of the sasquatch outside of the Pacific Northwest has been recovered. For example, in 1999, Jimmy Chilcutt, a latent fingerprint examiner and primate dermal ridge expert, studiously examined an alleged sasquatch footprint casting from Georgia, taken by a Pike County sheriff’s deputy. Chilcutt’s conclusion was that the cast contained unique dermal ridge patterns and that the footprint was made by “an unknown primate.” Chilcutt further concluded that the dermal ridge patterns on the Georgia cast matched those of a cast he had examined from Washington.

So, in conclusion, sufficient and appropriate habitat exists to support a population of large primate such as the sasquatch, historical records indicate the presence of the species in Texas and adjacent states, and physical evidence comparable to that collected in the Pacific Northwest has been collected in southern parts of the U.S.

The placement of the camera makes it suspicious to me.

Yes, there are plenty of places for Sasquatch in Texas. East Texas is basically swamp and thick forest. It is also near the Arkansas border where the Legend of Boggy Creek occurred.