19 Responses to “Goat Mt. Bigfoot Hoax”

1. Lyndon responds: August 30th, 2008 at 4:22 am

   The show ultimately ends with an attempt to create a convincing hoax, which all agree is very difficult.

   No only that but also John Waters, as a professional wildlife cameraman himself, noted how hard it would be to film something like a sasquatch in the deep dense dark and wet forests of the PNW. If fact, he seemed to be of the opinion you can hardly film anything properly there out in the real deep parts of the forests and to him it wasn’t all that surprising that no close up clear footage of a sasquatch has ever been taken. He said the PNW forests were amongst the darkest and gloomiest he had ever been to

   It was nice to see and hear a bona fide nature photographer come out with that and not the usual babble about finding it impossible than none have been filmed clearly.

2. swnoel responds: August 30th, 2008 at 7:43 am

   I do agree with the statement that some regions would be difficult, but this animal is purported to be seen in nearly every state in the union, which would only lead one to believe that not every region would have the same difficulty.

   While many hold out with the belief and or hope this animal exists, time and technology still has yet to prove it’s existence.

   While days, months, years, decades, and centuries have gone by, it’s certainly starting to appear that this creature only lives in the imagination and minds of the believers.

3. mystery_man responds: August 30th, 2008 at 8:35 am

   Lyndon- It certainly is refreshing. I admit I don’t know much about photography, I don’t even try to pretend to understand all of the intricacies and equipment involved with properly filming even a creature known to exist, with habits and movements that we actually understand. However, I have learned a lot from several posters here who are quite knowledgeable in photography, most notably the poster PhotoExpert who is I understand a professional nature photographer as well. These people, even ones who are skeptical, consistently expound on the difficulties of nature photography and how it can be a lot harder than simply (or not so simply, as the case may be) of finding the animal.

   I have come to understand that it is technically more difficult than many realize, especially with an animal you do not expect to come across and which is fleetingly glimpsed, isn’t standing still for photo ops, or is not habituated to human presence. Even with animals that are expected to be there and that you have specifically come to photograph, there will be a couple good shots in whole batches of bad ones. Even professional photographers must spend a lot of time and effort pursuing good shots, and this is for known animals.

   I am actually a bit suspicious of the lack of good photographic evidence and I find it to be a glaring hole in the evidence for such an apparently widely and prolifically spotted creature, often being spotted very near human inhabited areas. I do not mean to say that I do not find it odd and I think that just because there is a possible explanation doesn’t mean that is what is happening. But I can say that because of some knowledgeable posters here I do have a growing appreciation of the difficulties involved with getting good shots of wildlife. Although that doesn’t explain everything to me, I definitely think it is something to consider.

   So yeah, to hear another pro (especially one trying to show how a film can be hoaxed) to come out and admit the potential difficulties of photographing them rather than go off about how impossible it would be for a sasquatch to go without a clear picture is nice.

4. quatchibc responds: August 30th, 2008 at 2:21 pm

   What I have never understood is that the series Planet Earth went to extraordinary lengths to film some of the rarest animals on earth for the documentary, including sending some individuals to a place for up to 3 years. Why didnt they decide to try and film bigfoot? If they had have been successful they not only would have changed science but become immensely rewarded. And then to have it included in a very acclaimed documentary series would have further aided the videos reputation instead of having it come out through youtube or a cheap $50 website.

5. Lyndon responds: August 30th, 2008 at 5:34 pm

   swnoel writes:

   “”I do agree with the statement that some regions would be difficult, but this animal is purported to be seen in nearly every state in the union, which would only lead one to believe that not every region would have the same difficulty.”"

   That’s if you buy the ‘hypothesis’ that sasquatch/bigfoot is widespread and abundant.

   I don’t.

   I happen to believe that the vast majority of ‘bigfoot’ sightings/reports are not authentic.

   I see little to convince me that sasquatch really is outside the PNW/BC/Alberta/SE Alaska area.

   Sorry.

6. Lyndon responds: August 30th, 2008 at 5:51 pm

   mystery-man wrote:

   “”I am actually a bit suspicious of the lack of good photographic evidence and I find it to be a glaring hole in the evidence for such an apparently widely and prolifically spotted creature, often being spotted very near human inhabited areas.”"

   That’s the point though, mate. We do have to try and establish just how prolific and widespread this animal actually is. Is fashion/penchant for the abnormal actually interfering in a bona fide search? The old saying is ‘no smoke without fire’ but does that mean that ‘every bit of smoke puff’ equates to a FIRE everywhere???????
   It surely can’t be logical that sasquatch is in almost every state of the U.S.A?????? That’s just plain ridiculous.

   I’m extremely skeptical concerning many (most?) claims. My personal opinion is that sasquatch is restricted largely to the PNW/BC/Alberta/SE Alaska area……….for now.

   I see no convincing argument otherwise……yet.

7. DWA responds: August 30th, 2008 at 7:40 pm

   Lyndon says:

   “Is fashion/penchant for the abnormal actually interfering in a bona fide search? The old saying is ‘no smoke without fire’ but does that mean that ‘every bit of smoke puff’ equates to a FIRE everywhere???????
   It surely can’t be logical that sasquatch is in almost every state of the U.S.A?????? That’s just plain ridiculous.”

   No more ridiculous, actually, than that it’s holed up in a tiny pocket on the northwestern corner of the continent.

   Again (I hate reiterating this) I have read, in all probability, more sighting reports than anyone else posting here. Anyone. By a pretty large margin. How can I tell? By what they say here.

   I can tell you that the data coming from the following states is every tiny bit as convincing as anything I have read from the PNW:

   Ohio (almost as many reports as PNW)
   Texas
   Arkansas
   Oklahoma
   Louisiana (which together with the three previous states rivals the PNW in reports)
   Florida
   Maine
   Michigan
   Arizona
   Alabama
   Georgia (no, not that one)
   Pennsylvania (almost as many reports as PNW)
   New Jersey
   Maryland

   Reports make it, to my mind, extremely unlikely that this animal ISN’T in many locations on the continent, if it exists. It is extremely agile and fast; highly adaptable; capable of procuring, and eating, more different kinds of wild food than all but one other North American species (burp, excuse me); smarter than anything else out there that doesn’t have a degree. (Including many members of our species that don’t.)

   For my money, if it only exists in the PNW, then it doesn’t exist. I used to believe differently. But then I reviewed the evidence. If the reports I’ve read from the above states (and others) are not real, then my money says nothing else is either. There is no more reason to believe the reports I’ve read from Washington and Alaska and British Columbia than the ones from Ohio. Particularly since the midwest and east are better habitat for an animal like this than the PNW, for one thing.

   I have gone over and over, on this site, all the reasons why it’s perfectly reasonable to see this critter as continent-wide, if it’s real.

   Inherent implausibility is hampering the search, not a continent-wide sasquatch. The best sas operation on the continent is operating in Texas and the adjacent states (the TBRC). My money is on them.

   But Ohio could beat ‘em to it.

8. DWA responds: August 30th, 2008 at 8:08 pm

   “I do agree with the statement that some regions would be difficult, but this animal is purported to be seen in nearly every state in the union, which would only lead one to believe that not every region would have the same difficulty.”

   Anyone familiar with animals and photography knows that only three kinds of animals get photographed:

   1. Animals accustomed to hanging out for extended periods of time in the direct presence of humans. (And even some of them, like songbirds, are quite difficult to shoot.)
   2. Animals that are the specific target of an extremely well-funded, diligent, and grueling search on the part of the photographer.
   3. Captive animals.

   Period.

   Here’s why the lack of clear sas photos: Patterson and Gimlin remain the only two people, in all history, to have done anything like what would be required to get a photo of one.

   Period. Although right now the TBRC is working on it.

   “While many hold out with the belief and or hope this animal exists, time and technology still has yet to prove it’s existence.”

   Simple explanation: time and technology haven’t been working on it. At all anywhere near what’s needed. (Ten years to get the first photographic evidence of a huge, dumb rhino. On an island. With full time biologists working on it. How many? However many, it’s that many more than are working full time on the sasquatch.)

   “While days, months, years, decades, and centuries have gone by, it’s certainly starting to appear that this creature only lives in the imagination and minds of the believers.”

   You should talk to the people with advanced degrees in directly relevant study fields who disagree with you.

   OK, teachers of America, I agree with you. Education is HARD.

9. DWA responds: August 30th, 2008 at 8:25 pm

   quatchibc:

   “Why didnt [Planet Earth] decide to try and film bigfoot?”

   Simple answer: bad bet, plus too hard anyway.

   The very size and scope of that (from what I hear, still haven’t seen all of it) incredible production means tight deadlines, tough shoots, and you better know it’s there when you go. All of the animals seen in that series were very well known before the production; the people who filmed them had to dedicate huge amounts of effort and talent to get those shots anyway. They followed known chimp trails to known summer polar bear habitat, right where the whales are in August, to get great spider shots of those birds of prey who were right where that elephant herd is known to be during the latter half of the dry season.

   Um, you get the idea, right?

   They followed known sign to go to known places where animals known to exist were very likely to be found. Now all you need to do is be an INCREDIBLE photographer and voila!

   No one even agrees on what a forest looks like when sasquatch live and feed in it.

   So where and when do you look? Where someone in Oregon saw one last week?

   The COSTS of the production, unfortunately spent before the profits roll int, dictate you go for really tough shots …that are very good bets to get.

10. swnoel responds: August 30th, 2008 at 9:40 pm

    Since you are apparently an authority on this animal, could you kindly share with me the evidence that is available to prove this animal is real.

    Please don’t include highly speculative and easily manipulated casts of tracks or someones opinion.

    As your probably aware , in the legal community, it is well know that most people don’t make good witnesses.

    Since the rediculous event in Georgia, I’ve come to the conclusion that no one can be trusted when it comes to the existance of Bigfoot and any further evidence will more than likely be ficticious and a hoax.

    The P/G films , while entertaining (I actually went and saw it when it first hit the movie theaters) only fuels more debate, it has proved nothing.

    My belief is if this animal is proven, it will be by accident and not on purpose.

    Most likely by one of those thousands of game cameras throughout the country.

11. DWA responds: August 30th, 2008 at 11:20 pm

    swnoel:

    You sound like a true believer whose hopes have been dashed, turning him into a cynic.

    Don’t do that. It’s just so, well, sad.

    Just read up. Like I have. I mean, I have shared what I know here, many times. Just run “sasquatch” through the search engine here and look up ol’ Dr. DWA.

    Silly! If there were proof, we wouldn’t be talking about the sas here. He’d be in our guidebooks and on the pages of National Geographic. One thing I get tired of is folks not bothering to learn the difference between evidence (tons, most of it good) and proof (what I still need to see, and what I will not see unless evidence is followed up. As I have explained, to a fare-thee-well, about as many ways and as many times as that could be done here).

    I have no earthly response to “please don’t show me anything, unless it’s proof.” If that’s the way scientists behaved, we’d be discovering fire any day now.

    It is hard, class, to educate you in this topic if you insist upon not doing your homework.

    RSR!

    OK, I have wasted my time on this one, but here goes, for the 1000th time.

    “As your probably aware , in the legal community, it is well know that most people don’t make good witnesses.”

    NO ONE IN THE LEGAL COMMUNITY IS THAT CRAZY OR THAT UNINFORMED.

    People are the best witnesses in the animal kingdom. Witnessing is what has gotten Homo sapiens to the top of the animal heap. What happens to the legal community is that people have INCENTIVES TO LIE. Or to report fuzzy stuff as fact, because either they really want to help, or they really want to keep someone out of trouble. Or get someone in it. Their perception is not the problem. Their motivation is.

    In the case of the sasquatch, virtually every eyewitness is someone who badly does not want to say he saw this. BUT HE DID. This is the funniest thing about the sasquatch. ALL THE EYEWITNESSES WERE SKEPTICS!

    You need to see a sasquatch, sonny. That’ll help.

    ‘Til then, do your homework. RSR!

12. mystery_man responds: August 31st, 2008 at 2:05 am

    DWA- Very good insights into the difficulties of getting good photographs and video of wildlife. Especially about why Patterson would be one to get good footage of a sasquatch. I agree with everything you say.

    Even considering this, though, I still find the lack of good photographic evidence of Bigfoot to be odd and I’ll tell you why. Bigfoot is seen by so many people, from all walks of life, and in so many places that I often find it hard to think of it as a particularly rare or elusive animal. It is a very large animal seen perhaps a lot more than reports would suggest, and often these sightings happen in less than remote areas. Bigfoot seems to be all over the place. No matter the arguments of difficulties of wildlife photography. They are all true and good points, but the lack of good shots of such a large and ubiquitous animal must surely give even the staunchest believers pause. Isn’t that a little strange? A good quote I heard once was “Bigfoot is everywhere, and nowhere.”

    Then you have perfectly good shots of extremely rare animals, far less seen than Bigfoot, in areas nowhere near human settlement, or in the depths of the ocean, for which we have quite clear photographs. Some of these animals are almost exclusively known from these photographs, some of them have never been seen before, and some of them were photographed by camera traps by accident. Sure these are most often the culmination of a concerted effort and technology, I won’t dispute that. It’s true. But Bigfoot is apparently not extremely rare or afraid of humans it seems, if the sheer number of sightings is any indication. Surely the potential difficulties of photographing one, in this age of portable cameras, can not be compared with the rigors of tracking and photographing an almost never seen animal far from people? All of the camera traps in the US have not captured one decent shot? I don’t expect tons and tons of photos, but surely something more than we have now. I do appreciate the reasons for why this might be, and it is not enough for me to discount the existence of sasquatch, but I also think it is strange and something to consider.

    It’s funny that for me the amount of coherent, reliable sightings from all walks of life is at once the most compelling circumstantial evidence in the case for Bigfoot’s existence yet also the thing which makes me most suspicious. It seems Bigfoot is not limited to isolated populations living in the middle of nowhere like the gorillas were. Bigfoot are everywhere. How could something so often seen and so widely dispersed in every state be so rarely photographed? It is something that I’d be willing to get to the bottom of, and I think something strange is afoot whether Bigfoot exists or not. I certainly don’t think it is a discrepancy to brush off lightly.

    Concerning the apparent range. I will say that if one wants to accept credible eyewitness reports as valid data, then they pretty much have to consider all such reports. It is difficult to pick and choose which reports to believe based on assumptions of where Bigfoot should be found. One should be willing to look at all solid, reliable reports as worthy of follow up, or none at all. We simply don’t know enough to make many arbitrary distinctions.

13. Lyndon responds: August 31st, 2008 at 6:29 am

    DWA wrote:

    “”No more ridiculous, actually, than that it’s holed up in a tiny pocket on the northwestern corner of the continent.”"

    What is ridiculous about that? After all, that’s where grizzly bears are. I also don’t think it’s a ‘tiny pocket’ from, say, northern California up to Alaska. That’s still a substantial area.

    I also think you misunderstand me. It’s not the idea that sasquatch can’t be continent wide that I have a problem with, but rather I have a problem in accepting that sasquatch is continent wide in almost every state, which would mean it’s pretty abundant….yet still no proof. No bones, no body, no fossils, no clear pictures………nothing.

    I have an easier time with the idea of a smaller number ‘just’ hanging on (maybe they are even on the way out?) in the rugged and dense mountain forests of northwest corner of the continent without being established as fact than the idea that they are just about everywhere without being established as fact.

    The lack of suitable fossil environment in the PNW would explain the conundrum there. The PNW is notoriously bad for fossils. The soils there are very acidic and not conducive to much by way of fossil records. But the rest of the U.S.A????

    “”I can tell you that the data coming from the following states is every tiny bit as convincing as anything I have read from the PNW”"

    Not in my view it isn’t. Not to me at least.

    “”For my money, if it only exists in the PNW, then it doesn’t exist.”"

    I have the opposite viewpoint. We’ll have to agree to disagree I guess.

    It’s like saying if there is an Ogopogo then there has to be a Champ. Just because I accept one doesn’t mean I have to accept the other.

    “”There is no more reason to believe the reports I’ve read from Washington and Alaska and British Columbia than the ones from Ohio. Particularly since the midwest and east are better habitat for an animal like this than the PNW, for one thing.”"

    I disagree entirely with that. The coast ranges of the PNW/BC/south east Alaska doesn’t have as harsh winters as the midwest and east, has an abundance of spawning fish stocks, has innumerable tidal flats and estuaries with high sustenance content, much more rugged and denser cover and far less people. In BC and south east Alaska, for example, often the only way in is via boat or plane.

    Give me $100,000 to bet and I wouldn’t bet on Michigan or Pennsylvania or Texas as the best place to look for a sasquatch. I’d head for the rugged coastal estuaries and tidal flats of BC and south east Alaska. Perfect habitat. Much more perfect than anywhere else. Why do you think the grizzly bear still flourishes in the north west corner of the continent when it has been wiped out everywhere else? Because there they can live in relative peace largely away from man’s interference. That’s why.

    “”"I have gone over and over, on this site, all the reasons why it’s perfectly reasonable to see this critter as continent-wide, if it’s real.”"

    It’s not reasonable at all in my view. There would be absolute proof if so. A species of animal can survive scientific cataloging if their numbers are smaller and more localized in rugged terrain, but it becomes much more of a problem avoiding scientific cataloging if their numbers are said to be more abundant and widespread over almost the entire continent.

    What with the combination of all the fashion for bigfoot, wishful thinking, genuine misidentification, hoaxing etc etc that goes on, I suspect that more than 90% of sasquatch claims are bunk.

    I see much stronger evidence from the PNW than anywhere else. I see much stronger logic from the PNW than anywhere else. The maps of the PNW sightings and reports make far more sense to me.

14. Lyndon responds: August 31st, 2008 at 7:05 am

    mystery-man,

    The fashion for bigfoot is high, and it’s been high since the 1970s. Nowadays they are being seen everywhere, but that doesn’t mean that they are everywhere. There have even been supposed bigfoot or bigfoot like sightings in Britain, incredible as it may seem. Doesn’t mean they are in Britain.

    Personally, modern accounts interest me less than they used to. Today, there are a lot of Tom, Dick and Harrys out for a laugh, to entertain or to hold court on internet forums. It’s very difficult to sift through modern reports and make some sort of sense out of them because ‘bigfoot’ has become so contaminated these last 30 or so years. Nowadays anybody can log into the internet, get a feel for what people are supposedly seeing and then come up with false stories. That wasn’t the case 30 or 40 years ago.

    I take more notice of older reports. With the high public consciousness for bigfoot these days it’s hard to take current reports at face value anymore.

15. mystery_man responds: August 31st, 2008 at 8:59 am

    Lyndon- Just for the record, I also find it difficult to think that sasquatch are found in every state. I’ve argued against the notion here before. Based on what we know (or probably more accurately, what we don’t know), I think it is perhaps overzealous to think that such large and undiscovered creatures would be so widespread. I also think that just because there is an area where they COULD exist doesn’t mean that they DO exist there. Look, I’m not even convinced they exist at all. I was illustrating that similar evidence has been found all over. I was merely saying that if you start putting weight on some reports more than others based on personal assumptions or presumptions about where they are likely to be found rather than just the credibility of the witness, the waters get a little muddy and it becomes hard to decide which reports and areas are actually worthy at all of follow up. I am sure there are absolutely bogus reports.

    I’d agree that a lot of convincing evidence, and video footage I might add, has come from the Pacific Northwest. It would be a reasonably good place to start. But who knows? Sure I am skeptical but if people want to look, more power to them. Maybe they will surprise us. Loose cannons that have looked where others won’t have helped our search for knowledge before. But make no mistake I am quite skeptical of the idea of a continent roaming sasquatch, (and in fact of Bigfoot in general, even if an open minded one). I did not mean to imply that I embrace the idea of them all over the place. I do think, though, that it is hard to whittle down where they might be.

    And Bigfoot in Britain? Heck, there apparently have been reports from Hawaii. Maybe Bigfoot is a good swimmer. Surf’s up.

16. Lyndon responds: September 1st, 2008 at 2:17 am

    mystery-man,

    I know what you are saying and I’m with you on most points. I just feel there is better and more persuasive evidence from the north west corner than elsewhere…..which really shouldn’t be the case if they were almost everywhere.

    The sasquatch ‘classics’ as we call them are all from the PNW (Roe, Ruby Creek etc), Bluff Creek ‘58, the P/G footage, the good and often talked about track casts, Skookum (if you believe that or not), hairy man pictographs as well as other native American representations on things such as totem poles etc etc.

    If you read something like Grover Krantz’ Bigfoot Sasquatch Evidence book which was updated just a decade ago, he doesn’t even touch on any good evidence from outside the PNW except for one mention of a cast which turned out to be a hoax. What has changed in ten years? If they really are all over the place, there should be far more evidence for it besides sighting reports. Sighting reports alone just aren’t enough for me anymore. As I said, if they were then sasquatch is in Britain.

    I would buy it more with sasquatch being a bit more widespread in Canada. Far far less people and many more remote and seldom visited areas.

17. DWA responds: September 1st, 2008 at 10:40 am

    Lyndon/mystery_man: too much to respond here, and it’s going to be tough but I’m gonna try to summarize.

    1. One thing these aren’t is “all over the place.” And sightings tend to be in remote places; even those near structures are on the edge of large parcels of suitable habitat.

    2. As to which: Lyndon, you’re across the pond. I’m here. I’ve hiked and backpacked extensively in all quarters of the country, and some in Canada. And I can tell you that the SE US - with reports to rival the PNW - is MUCH better habitat, year round, PARTICULARLY in the winter. The NE is a tad harsher in coastal areas; the two compare further inland. And most people don’t know how empty of folks much of the midwestern US is.

    3. I value more recent reports MUCH more highly. It’s logical, for a number of reasons, of which the three key ones are:

    a. Old-time local US papers did much less fact-checking than the BFRO or the TBRC. (Moneymaker, Schmoneymaker. The witnesses and the regional researchers are what counts with the BFRO.)

    b. Recent reports can be followed up; old ones can’t.

    c. The recent reports are the ones that interest those scientists who are interested. Because THEY BEHAVE THE WAY BIODATA BEHAVE, plain and simple. They paint a species picture. Hoaxes and hallucinations don’t.

    d. I think there’s a long time bias in Western science - which is the basis of the scientific mainstream - against hairy hominoids. When you need proof, it cripples that the ones who must certify it won’t even look at the evidence.

    4. As to the animals which can be photographed, the sasquatch doesn’t fit in any of the categories I list, and it adds a wild card: people who see it are so utterly flummoxed that it stands to reason a photo won’t be the first thing they think of, even if they get a long look.

    5. For the reasons you two state, I’m not a proponent. But I think there’s lots of data that bears review here.

18. mystery_man responds: September 1st, 2008 at 5:19 pm

    DWA- Definitely a lot that bears review. That’s why I’m here.

    Lyndon- As for sightings, I agree that we cannot take them all at face value. I certainly don’t think they should all be given equal weight. That is why I advocate an approach of scrutinizing them critically, taking into account various criteria. I think there has to be a balance between credibility of the witness, the ability of the ecology of the area in question to conceivably support such a large animal while keeping them hidden, any physical evidence collected in the area, as well as (and I know DWA hates this word) the plausibility that they would be found there. For example, say what you want, but the possibility of sasquatch in Britain or Hawaii is remote and I would say that those reports could be pretty much dismissed. Sightings on their own aren’t much good on their own if we are unable to ascertain which ones are possibly genuine.

    I think if certain criteria are looked at carefully and taken into account, then some (not all) eye witness reports could potentially be helpful in getting an idea of where someone could focus their resources on searching for them.

    I guess I take a middle ground between you and DWA when it comes to the possible range of sasquatch. I think the Pacific Northwest is the most promising for several reasons, and I do not think that there are sasquatch in every state. But at the same time I do think there is a chance that there are maybe a few pockets of sasquatch in other areas of the U.S. outside of the PNW. Texas seems promising to me, (indeed the TBRC in my opinion is one of the most scientific Bigfoot organizations out there), and a few places on the East Coast could possibly be worth looking into.

19. mystery_man responds: September 1st, 2008 at 7:29 pm

    DWA- For what it’s worth, I thought I’d throw in some of my thoughts on each of the points you mentioned.

    1) That’s true that most sightings are remote. But many sightings have also taken place near well used roads, near towns, even rummaging around in people’s backyards. Granted that these are on typically on the fringes of society, and that would most likely be due to us encroaching on their habitat, but in my opinion it still means that the amount of sightings in these circumstances points to an animal not as elusive or scared of humans as some proponents would have us think. Sasquatch is more often seen than a lot of known animals.

    2) As an avid outdoorsman myself, I see what you are saying. But just because a habitat IS suitable doesn’t follow that sasquatch are there. Many large animals are not found in every single habitat that could possibly support them, or in every state, and in fact a lot of large fauna has seen the tendency for their habitat to SHRINK. It is curious that while animals such as the cougar and bear are pushed from their former range, a huge animal that would require space and resources, such as the sasquatch, could not only be thriving in all states, but doing so while remaining undiscovered. (although granted, the sasquatch by all indications would seem to be quite adaptable.)

    3) I agree. Modern reports are more easily followed up on and more likely to be fact checked. The problem for me is in the way the media can sensationalize them. But yeah, sightings databases can be a good place to get an idea of where sasquatch might be found and what their behaviors could be. I don’t think that a report reflecting proper animal behavior necessarily marks it as authentic, though, because-

    a. Someone who knows about animal behavior could fake it.

    b. The image of what a sasquatch should act like is out there for anyone to peruse. Someone could use the data to fake a report just as readily as check it for consistency of bio data. If you know the species picture, so does a hoaxer who does his homework.

    c. We simply don’t really know all that much about how sasquatch actually behave. Sure, we have ideas, and we can get some insights from existent apes, but there is a lot we just do not understand. How do we know which sighting reports communicate accurate behavior and which data is genuine when so much is unknown? Maybe some hoax reports utilize false behavior patterns, which are copied by other reports and in turn spread misinformation. We don’t know.

    I think sightings reports are helpful, but they need to be approached carefully and critically, in my opinion. I think RSR (read sightings reports), is a good idea.

    4) I also think the WOW factor would be one of the big reasons for the disappointing lack of good photographs. Even so, it is still something that I find very odd.

    5) I completely agree!

Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|