Another Monster Quest Followup
Posted by: Loren Coleman on November 12th, 2007
There is a rumor going around ~ I literally have now read it from individuals in three countries ~ that the “Sasquatch Attack” documentary “occurred five years ago.”
I’m not sure where some people get their information, but I think the dating of the nail board incident is being confused with the making of the documentary.
Supposedly, the nail board events took place in 2003 or perhaps 2004. There is enough vagueness about whether one or several animals might have stepped on this trap to raise some questions. But the board held only an old sample or samples, that’s for certain.
The board events may have happened in 2004, because in some accounts, the board was said to have been gathered two years later, during the production of the documentary, after something stepped on it. The date when the film production crew and Meldrum was in the field is known.
Doug Hajicek has directly answered my question about when the episode was filmed, and it occurred in 2006. The sample vials clearly are labeled with the date of their collection, August 14, 2006, in the series.
Dr. Jeff Meldrum indicated at the Texas conference no further DNA testing would be done, but Doug Hajicek told me overnight that qualified labs may be sent further samples.
One more thing. It was against the law for those devices to be used in the woods, in the first place.
According to Canadian law, the use of “nail traps” (sometimes with screws instead of nails) is illegal. Here’s a tidbit picked up from the Bigfoot Forums, posted by a former Canadian police officer:
Criminal Code ( R.S., 1985, c. C-46 )
247. (1) Every one is guilty of an indictable offence and is liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, who with intent to cause death or bodily harm to a person, whether ascertained or not,
(a) sets or places a trap, device or other thing that is likely to cause death or bodily harm to a person; or
-b - being in occupation or possession of a place, knowingly permits such a trap, device or other thing to remain in that place.
- Similar Phenomena:
[SIGH]
It won’t change anything, because it can’t. And maybe it shouldn’t. But what the heck.
I notice lots of people getting frustrated [SIGH] at the merry-go-round of hairy hominoid discovery. (Although not so much on this one. Good for you.) Hey, is this a footprint? Hey, did this TV show prove the sasquatch? Hey, these guys are coming out with a BOOK. Hey, is that cast real? Hey, is this guy a fraud? Hey, did these guys record sas vocalizations? Then of course there’s the final fade to black with the only mystery - other than the obvious one - being: Hey, what happened to the story?
I guess this is just the way it is with marquee cryptids. What the search is lacking is people and $$$$$, which tend to come with publicity. Mainstream scientists don’t have to deal with this. Compared to cryptos, they’re like the Defense Department, which gets money for new weapons shoveled at it, while schools have to hold bake sales to buy books. So, unlike the case with mainstream zoology, which keeps everything under wraps until the final confirmation shows up in the mass media, you get to see sausage being made. Because, unlike the making of real sausage, there’s titillation in them thar hills, which means $$$$.
If you’re frustrated, just remember: they went through all this getting the rhino video in Borneo too. You just didn’t hear about that.
So when did the nail board incident happen in relation to the whole rock throwing thing? I was under the impressio they happened at around the same time. Am I wrong on this?
That did seem pretty brutal…If you’ve ever had a nail go through your foot as I have a few times you’ll agree…AND a board full of screws?! Wow! That was ugly.
Does Sasquatch have access to tetanus shots?
If this is such a hot spot why were camera traps not set up, Instead of this nasty device?
I only caught the last 10 or so minutes of the show, and I eagerly await a chance to see it in full (when will it be on again?). The nail trap did seem quite brutal, but if I am not mistaken, hadn’t the cabin suffered vandalism? As a property owner, I can understand the temptation to “protect” your property.
I am also amazed that there were no camera traps (both thermal and photographic) set up. If this cabin has such a high incidence of activity, why is no one setting up cameras, humane traps etc there RIGHT NOW?
I watched the Monster Quest program the other night and was really excited about it. My brother actually just published a book about a group’s fictional encounter with a cadre of malevolent bigfeet in the woods of E. Kentucky. The group wants to bring back proof of existance. Anyway, it’s a good read and has many of the same aspects seen in Monster Quest (rock throwing and tree knocking) are in the book which I thought was cool.
His book is called “The Devil’s Ridge” or “Intruders at Devil’s Ridge” by Andre Bergeron. You can find it at amazon.com http://www.amazon.com/Devils-Ridge-Andre-Bergeron/dp/1601360169/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1/105-8408179-2576440?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1194879060&sr=8-1
Check it out if you want a good yarn about bigfoot!
Nail traps are indiscriminate and a cruel device. I’m confused - were the nail traps placed to collect Sasquatch DNA or to protect the property from vandalism? If they were collected after being in the field two years, they are useless for DNA tests. Any DNA would be degraded, if it stilll existed at all. Bears, cougars, raccoons, dirt, sunlight, rain anything would degrade or contaminate any DNA evidence within a matter of days if not hours.
If this place is a regular hotbed of activity, it shouldn’t be too difficult to engineer a plan for the definitive proof to be captured. Thermal imaging, night binoculars, trail cams, hair snares at bait stations, etc. if used methodically and over a consistent period of time should yield something concrete and irrefutable. Physical creatures eventually leave some form of physical evidence of their presence.
The story is intriguing and seems to be honing in on “smoking gun” evidence, but there still seems to be some gaps in the story that need resolution.
If I recall the program the son of the owner said he had set the trap the year before when the cabin was trashed by the critter. The samples were at least a year old ????
This is so big! I wonder what the skeptics are saying? I wonder whats on Benjamin Radfords’ mind right now?
But what does this all mean? Why was this particular lake and cabin location chosen ~ because of previous reports of Squatch activity there? What reports? Who reported? When? If not, was it just a random choice? Is it possible, then, that ANY random lake/cabin in that area might yield the same behavior from local opposably-thumbed fauna?
Could it be that the ENTIRE surrounding forest is full of these animals? Did the crew do anything to attract their attention (other than just being there)? Did they call blast? Did they set up monitored bait spots? Why didn’t the crew wear hard hats? Why were there no automatic thermal cameras set up everywhere?
Seems if you were gonna fly hundreds of miles into the wilderness to investigate a known cryptid exhibiting known behaviors, you would bring appropriate people and equipment, and attempt to communicate with the creature.
Will there be a WebSite with a full report and DNA analysis updates?
Haven’t we learned anything from all the Expeditions?
So many unknowns.
Artist, I agree with you completely. There are lots of unknowns in this story. There appear to be lots of holes in this experience/story and I’m now totally confused on the time line of the events. I need more clarification to make sense of it all. The only quest I see going on here is one for ratings.
From what I’m reading here, alot of you did not watch the show. If you watched you would have heard the men who owned the cabin say that one of the mens father went to the cabin to check it when he found the vandalized cabin. There is even video which shows the damage to the inside of the cabin (for insurance reasons). Also the nail trap incident happened years before the monster quest crew got there. That is one of the reasons why they chose that particular spot. Another thing, the Canadian law states it is illegal to use the trap to inflict damage to a human, but didn’t the guy say he thought it was a bear that trashed his cabin and that’s what he was trying to keep from coming back?
From the Video shown i am sure the nail board was placed at the door entrance several yrs before Dr Meldrum and Dr Nelson arrived at the fishing cabin, that was one of the reasons for their interest, ; they would be able to obtain some DNA. We should note, what was shown does not prove the existence of BigFoot.What do we really know of the chap who owned the cabin, his background, was he paid for the use of the site?let`s put everything on the table. We don`t need any fraudalent evidence in reference to the quest to prove sasquatch`s existence
Sasquatcher- Thanks for the info. You are correct, I have not seen the show as it was not aired over here in Japan. I wish I had seen it so that I would be more able to participate in a discussion about it in a more informed manner. I can give my opinions on the DNA tests and rock throwing, but I just do not know all the details or when these things happened in relation to each other. Already it is turning out that events did not transpire exactly the way i had thought. I have been trying to piece together the timeline of events and what exactly happened from the articles posted here at Cryptomundo and people’s comments. The DNA samples seem like potentially groundbreaking news to me, and the rock throwing incident is curious, but I am still a bit unsure about the details of the chain of events. Anyway, the clarification is appreciated! That goes for other posters who have been providing details into what happened too. Thanks!
I ,for one will keep watching. Doug Hajicek has done alot of good things for the field in a short amount of time. Also, Dr. Meldrum is one of the few people I feel like I can trust when it comes to the sasquatch phenomenon. As for the dvd of the show, go to the history channels website.
Camera traps were set up all around the cabin when the crew first got to the island but they never said anything about if the cameras caught anything on film. I wonder if the dvds will have extra scenes added, as it sounds like some footage was cut from what was shown on television. I hope the extra footage will be added because the history channel releases their shows on dvd-r format, which means there won’t be any extras in the menu to choose from.
If they,the producers of the show had proof in the way of snapshots they would have been shown. the results were negative.Those of us who are believers in the existence of Big Foot or Giganto would like some solid evidence. At least there were no signs of a Biscardi operation.Dr Meldrum and Dr Nelson if allowed,will come up with the evidence.
Haven’t seen the show, watched a video on youtube, and did a search on Snelgrove Lake . Good luck finding it. First it’s a flyin, and secound ,it’s probably Crown land. And where are all the reports to make anyone even think of looking there?
Yes I’m privy to some reports in that area, and believe it would be a good area to look, but not to the average joeblow. The whole Lake of the Woods area is good habitat. For that matter, all of Northwestern Ontario up to Hudson Bay is good. One of the better kept secrets of Ontario.
Could have and should have don’t cut it, so if you want to make a difference in this quest, send your money to the serious researcher of your choice.
One thing for sure about the show is thats its raised a lot of interest here. Pity more people dont watch a show before commenting on it.
The lake and cabin were not selected by the investigators, it was selected by whatever has repeatedly attacked it, trashed it, and/ or lived near it or passed by it.
Cameras were set up, and obviously caught nothing or that would have been the lead story.
The time line on the screw board is laid out in the show. The samples were collected two years after the creature stepped on it. The board was put out to keep the animal/creature away that had trashed the cabin, not to collect samples of any kind. I dont understand how the board was left behind with potential evidence still on it.
Here we have an area not cluttered up by hoards of would be bigfoot expeditionaries, shouting and screaming lame calls into the night. Hopefully a select few qualified people can return and work scientifically.
The last thing needed is an expedition of wannabes.
No hard hats, no pith helmets just scientific study.
I think the good doctors did a good job, but there is much more to be done. Good Luck to them.
I was under the impression (from what the owner of the cabin stated) that these “nail boards” were common protection against bears at hunting and fishing cabins.
I think the use of the word “trap” is misleading. The board was in plain sight in front of the door. I assume that once a bear steps on on of those once it will know the next time to skip that cabin.
According to what Dr. Meldrum said at the Texas Bigfoot Conference this weekend, the board had been set out years before (as you have all noted above) and that when it was mentioned to him he was skeptical anything could be gathered after such a long period. When he examined it though he found that they were screws, not nails, so instead of blood there was dried flesh in the turns of the screw and, on closer examination, a powdery residue that resembled dried fat. This, they decided, was worth examining, even with the advanced age, but the analysis was only able to come up with around 300 pieces of the DNA sequence (or at least that was Dr. Meldrum’s understanding as of Saturday). According to Dr. Meldrum he wasn’t aware of any further testing being done, and the results of the very limited sequencing that has been done were not discussed in detail.
Hope this adds to the confusion!!
If I were a Sasquatch and stepped on a nailboard you can bet my big hairy hands are gonna trash your cabin with as many rocks as I could find!
Hard hats,I got yer hard hats right here!
P.S. I took a dump in yer well!
Cryptomundians, take another look! Look behind the curtain: it’s not the Wizard after all!
Look again. Watch the program one more time. Notice please: there is absolutely no evidence for the existence of sasquatch presented on the show. None. Look again.
You have the Ostman tall-tale dramatized (no doubt to set the spooky tone and excite the imagination).
You have a dramatization of the Thompson tracks found over a century ago, tracks that Thompson himself inferred were bear tracks.
You have a cabin that has been trashed. Absolutely no reason to suspect an ape as the guilty party.
You have a screw trap that has been left to the elements for a year. It purports to have hair and blood samples on it. An independent lab finds no usable blood samples. The hair is degraded.
You have a guy camping out alone. He sees nothing, despite spooky night vision filming.
You have someone throw a rock at the cabin during the night. He or she repeats the event shortly later.
Look again. Where in all of this is there evidence of a native Canadian ape?
I suggest this show is the product of what I call “enchanted cryptozoology”. In other words, Meldrum and Nelson are “enchanted” by the notion of sasquatch and as “true believers” they see sasquatch behind every tree. Remove their verbiage from the program and you find nothing to hang a case for sasquatch on.
What should happen to advance the issue is to invite knowledgeable skeptics along with Meldrum and Nelson to counterbalance their pro-sasquatch inclinations. If such an arrangement where made, the show probably wouldn’t have resulted in the “camp-fire spook story” and “believe-it-or-not” account that was the end result.
And what can we make of Meldrum’s hiding out when the find of the century was literally a stone’s throw away?
Recent work (sept 2007) by Penn state university has proved that DNA is found within hair keratin and is both well preserved and protected from contamination. It should therefore be possible to retest the hair samples with possibly better and more confident results.
I expect Dr Meldrum is already on to this.
I have Monsterquest on my DVR and have watched it a few times now.
1: The nail board was put out in 2003 after the inside of the cabin had been vandalized. It was put there as a bear deterrent. They came back three days later and discovered the pool of blood on the nail trap. Note: They put out the trap if they will be gone from the lake for more than a day.
2: The video tape showing the damage was made by their insurance co. This tape dates 2002. You can see the date at the bottom of the screen as it was being filmed.
3: The monsterquest team started their investigation and filming of Snowgrove lake at the cabin in 2005.
4: The screw trap was stepped on in 2003 and when not in use it was leaned up aginst the side of the cabin. It had been used and was outside for two years before the samples were taken by Dr. Jeff Meldrum and Kurt Nelson. Kurt is a micro biologist at Univ. of Minn. These two scientists took the data off of the screw board.
4: When the cabin was vandalized, the bears in the area should already be in hibernation. This is what Lynn Rogers said when he viewed the ins. tape. He is a wildlife biologist from Univ. of Minn. who specializes in black bears.
I hope this helps with the confusion of dates some of you are wondering about. I hope I can answer more questions since I have this show taped and can watch it .
Come on jerrywells, Dr. Meldrum has never taken the “TRUE BELIEVER” approach to any type of sasquatch study. He is not known for this at all. That is why so many of us respect him. Get your facts straight befor you start labeling people.
The last comment was for jerrywayne not wells. sorry.
Jerrywayne—
Radford brought up the subject of the rocks two threads down.
The question is:
Are you expecting Sasquatch to come out and introduce himself or herself to the crew?
So you expect a Sasquatch to NOT throw rocks at people? So because he did, does it mean that this not evidence? Do you know something about Sasquatch behavior that we do not?
Again—were you there? Were you there when the creatures started throwing rocks at the cabin? Are you SURE you would have come out?
I have seen the show and the response by the scientists to stay in the cabin is very reasonable and gives this show credibility. I have been in the backwoods from the Northwest to Canada.
Running around in pitch-black woods after a potentially very angry primate who is faster, stronger and has better sensory equipment than you is not something even a seasoned hunter or tracker would attempt. I don’t believe they were even armed.
The show mentioned that the scientists were trying to draw the squatch in to their cabin area. My only complaint is that given this, that they did not set up better camera and sensor traps in a large area around the cabin.
Thanks SocialCryptid for pointing out a few things to jerrywayne. Skeptics are a good “devil’s advocate” for the most part, but when they just simply ignore evidence because they don’t or cannot believe something is possible, then they are wasting time and effort trying to persuade the believers that something does not exist.
Now if I can only find a skeptic brave enough to go out with to where incidents have occurred and have the crap scared out of them, they would truly believe something is out there worth investigating.
Like other animals, insects, plants, fish, and the like discovered over the last 100 years, anything is possible. Especially where physical evidence is obtained.
Does any one know when the show is coming to Australia? I have emailed the Histroy channel here in Australia but have not yet got a reply
Well (not to answer for Benny), but I would have been pretty scared and stayed in for the night myself. It would cross my mind that a crew member could be funnin’ with us tho’.
As much As I would like to believe in Cryptids such as bigfoot and lochness. I am not 100% convinced until i see a body in mainstream Media
I will always remain on the fence 50/50 until that day
SOCAL and CBFR:
Many “skeptics” are former True Believers who feel themselves jilted by Lady Patty. They just can’t understand why she’s playing So Hard To Get, so they get into this wishful thinking funk about it. I’ve read more than one of them here.
No matter what side of the bed you got up on today, your position MUST BE BASED ON THE EVIDENCE. Too many skeptics - pretty much all of them on this topic - reveal themselves ignorant of the evidence several times over within the first 30 seconds. (There are a few exceptions on this site.)
True Believing naysayers are no smarter than True Believing starryeyed optimists. It amuses me no end that so many think that skepticism and cynicism mean the same thing. The latter doesn’t really require much brainpower, just a bad attitude.
DWA - Your “They just can’t understand why Lady Patty’s playing So Hard To Get” comment reminds me of UFO skeptic’s “Why don’t they land on the White House lawn?” wail.
Name one species that has truly benefited from being “discovered” by humans.
Contrarian that I am, I couldn’t resist:
Artist; do you want name of just one species that’s benefitted from mans’ “discovery”? Perhaps this is one of those exceptions that prove the rule, as untrue as that logical fallacy may be.
I snagged this from the Golden Hamster Wiki. Check this out:
In 1839 British zoologist George Robert Waterhouse reportedly found an elderly female hamster in Syria, naming it Cricetus auratus, the Golden Hamster. The hamster’s fur was on display at the British Museum (Natural History). The Syrian Hamster was then ignored by European science for the next century.
In 1930, Israel Aharoni, a zoologist and professor at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, captured a mother hamster and her litter of pups in the Syrian desert. By the time he got back to his lab, most had died or escaped. The remaining three hamsters were given to his university, where they were successfully bred. Because they were a bit bigger than the ones Waterhouse found, they were named Mesocricetus auratus. Mesocricetus auratus is the currently accepted scientific name of the Syrian Hamster.
Descendants of these hamsters were shipped to scientific labs around the world for use as research animals. They arrived in the United Kingdom in 1931, and reached the United States in 1938. Soon after their initial discovery, they were found to make great pets. Just about all captive Syrian Hamsters today are descended from the original litter found in Syria, except for a few that were brought into the United States by travellers who found them in the desert. A separate stock of hamsters was imported into the US in 1971, but it is not known if any of today’s North American pets are descended from them. Recent genetic studies involving Mitochondrial DNA have confirmed that all domestic golden hamsters are descended from one female[2]
dogu4:
Contrarian that *I* am, I couldn’t resist the following:
1) not sure that being plucked out of the wild and domesticated - for which read “caged” and “experimented upon” - is what most species would call assistance.
2) In the archaic sense, “the exception that proves the rule” contains no logical fallacy at all. At the time the phrase was coined, one meaning of “prove” was “test.” Exceptions certainly test the rule.
Artist:
Typical of us to think Bozo is the Big Cheese. I’d think aliens would want to talk to a cockroach, a rat, an earthworm, or a particularly prevalent virus. (And may already have.) What’s so important about the White House?
DWA: thanks for the amusing insight and etymology. I’m all about “bringin’ back the archaic”…especially in the hamster’s original bioregion these days.
A few responses to a few responses.
1. The possibility that the pacific northwest and Canada harbor an unknown form of large primate does not equate with a certainty that they do. Please do not confuse possibility with certainty.
2. I use the term “enchanted” to describe those who hold a strong belief in the reality of unproven cyrptids, in lieu of hard evidence. I think Meldrum certainly falls into this category as relating to sasquatch. His book, Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science, has been criticized for being entirely slanted towards belief in sasquatch to the point of ignoring other explanations. The end result the subtitle should read “legend over science.”
3. The rock throwing incident seems to have confused some folks. There is absolutely no evidence or reason to believe a giant relic ape was tossing rocks at a cabin. No ape was observed; no evidence by way of tracks were discovered; no evidence of any kind determined.
The simple reality of the event does not support the notion of an ape involvement, so questions addressed my way, such as “are you expecting Sasquatch to come out and introduce himself or herself to the crew” are fine examples of begging the question.
6. We now know that Meldrum says he and crew did not hide in the cabin but stayed around outside trying to discover the origin of the rock throwing. I’m glad to hear this. It should be noted: nothing was ascertained.
7. I agree with one commentator: “your position MUST BE BASED ON THE EVIDENCE.” But please tell me then, at what point in the MonsterQuest program in question do you find “EVIDENCE” to support the following notions: sasquatch trashed a cabin; sasquatch stepped on a screw trap; sasquatch threw two stones at a cabin.
Don’t fudge. Where is your direct “EVIDENCE” (instead of mere conjecture)?
7. To the same commentator. I once thought there might be PNW sasquatch. I now think it is unlikely, but not impossible. I am still intrigued (but not “enchanted”) by the sasquatch phenomena. I assure you I am not “bitter” or “ignorant” because I’ve changed my mind.
8. I repeat myself. The MonsterQuest program offered no real evidence for a native Canadian ape. Look at it again without the verbiage to the contrary. It seems that even Meldrum is admitting to as much elsewhere.
A few more responses to a few more responses.
———————–
“The possibility that the pacific northwest and Canada harbor an unknown form of large primate does not equate with a certainty that they do. Please do not confuse possibility with certainty.”
————————-
Don’t think anyone here could agree more. Unless, of course, they’ve seen one, and they know.
—————————
“I use the term “enchanted” to describe those who hold a strong belief in the reality of unproven cyrptids, in lieu of hard evidence. I think Meldrum certainly falls into this category as relating to sasquatch. His book, Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science, has been criticized for being entirely slanted towards belief in sasquatch to the point of ignoring other explanations. The end result the subtitle should read “legend over science.” ”
——————–
The implication seems to be that Meldrum is obliged to spend a lot of time on “other explanations.” He’s not; that’s the skeptics’ job, to come up with their own evidence (and one they have flatly fumbled, just in my humble. It’s OK, I’ll wait ’til they get it right). His obligation is to show how the evidence does point to the possibility. And, of course, as a scientist, he can’t really touch “other explanations,” there being absolutely no evidence of any kind for those.
——————————
“The rock throwing incident seems to have confused some folks. There is absolutely no evidence or reason to believe a giant relic ape was tossing rocks at a cabin. No ape was observed; no evidence by way of tracks were discovered; no evidence of any kind determined.”
———————–
Right. Other than big rocks being tossed at a cabin that requires a pilot or weeks of bushwhacking to get to - a common prank of teenagers owning aircraft or with weeks of bushwhacking time on their hands, as we all know - no evidence at all.
)
(See what I mean about “other explanations?”
———————–
“The simple reality of the event does not support the notion of an ape involvement, so questions addressed my way, such as “are you expecting Sasquatch to come out and introduce himself or herself to the crew” are fine examples of begging the question.”
————————–
Logical fallacy. The “simple reality of the event” doesn’t point strongly to ANY cause. But one would have to wonder what kind of human, for what reason, would be doing this, eh? Or what other animal might be involved, eh? The fact is that a big unknown primate doing this - given all other factors involved - is about as logical as any other explanation. Failing to see this is performing the logical two-step I call the General Implausibility Theorem (the sas doesn’t exist because, because, be…IT CAN’T! IT CAN’T! Um, sure. Unless, well, it does.)
————————-
“I agree with one commentator: “your position MUST BE BASED ON THE EVIDENCE.” But please tell me then, at what point in the MonsterQuest program in question do you find “EVIDENCE” to support the following notions: sasquatch trashed a cabin; sasquatch stepped on a screw trap; sasquatch threw two stones at a cabin.
Don’t fudge. Where is your direct “EVIDENCE” (instead of mere conjecture)?”
——————
OK, let’s not fudge. Where’s YOURS?
Simple straightforward question. Thinking about this for awhile one would have to say that a human doing this - and Homo sapiens is the only other likely species culprit - is, well, kinda unusual. Evidence is evidence, period, until it’s either debunked or confirmed.
It’s a common skeptical red herring to confuse “evidence” with “proof.” Until the animal is confirmed, NO evidence is “direct.”
“
I am very objective.
When I watched the show, they said that bears don’t act that way.
It could have been partying teens,
who went miles out of thier way to get there.
A bear about to hybernate would have gone after the coolant in the “fridge.
They like it.
Well im not too much of a believer in bigfoot, however i think the neanderthal man does exist in the siberian land because there is much terrain yet to be explored. I aree with Bob Michaels they need to get a CLEAR photo of bigfoot or giganto to prove to the world these things exist but i dont think they do. The rock throwing incident i think was staged. What science needs is a body of one of thses thingsbut up to now it seems science has failed so therefore they dont exist.
Let’s not let natural skepticism override the FACTS here, Boyz:
SOMETHING threw rocks and a log at the cabin. Given the location and circumstances, and assuming all known thumbed limbs were accounted for, that’s a Fact we have to deal with.
Other Encounters have produced other Facts:
SOMETHING leaves assorted gigantic, widely spaced, articulated human-type footprints in dust, sand, mud and snow, in every mainland State and elsewhere in the world.
SOMETHING bellows ear-ringing, glottal, coloratura-modulated, roaring, howling, screaming, moaning challenges into the air.
SOMETHING unseen observes, then vanishes silently, or boldly watches, then crashes away thru seemingly impenetrable thickets, or dashes thru pitch-black forest with impunity, its huge bipedal form rarely viewed, its identity unknown.
SOMETHING human-shaped but huge strides quickly across rural roadways in full view of carloads of astonished eyes, then melts ghostlike into the verge.
SOMETHING is momentarily glimpsed in a farmyard, or silhouetted against an evening sky or caught in headlight beams or bounding across a snowfield, and their descriptions, allowing for lighting, distance, adrenalin and other factors, seem to confirm the consensus that…
SOMETHING is out there in our wildlands, and pompous demands for incontrovertible evidence are moot, until and IF one immense, bipedal, black/brown/grey, hair-covered, short-necked, wide-shouldered, bright-eyed individual deigns to emerge from myth into our tenuous Reality.
Until then…
40-odd Responses - reminds me of the good ol’ days.
DWA- Am I one of those few exceptions concerning skeptics you mentioned up there in your post?
I hope so.
It’s interesting that DWA mentions skeptics that were once “true believers” who felt somehow jilted by Bigfoot. I would consider myself a skeptic, yet the opposite is true for me. I was once a fairly dogged debunker when it came to Bigfoot. I once upon a time gave it no possibility of existing whatsoever, yet I have softened my stance.
In my case, I felt that there was enough circumstantial evidence that, while not convincing me that sasquatch are out there, at least led me to think there is some possible merit to following up leads. There are some things that just haven’t been satisfactorily answered by my old “denialist” arguments. There are things that I’ve become willing to delve into more, whether they point to Bigfoot’s existence or not. I am still pretty critical of purported Bigfoot evidence and of some of the arguments for Bigfoot’s existence, however I am open minded to the fact that it could be out there. It’s interesting to think that some can go the other way.
m_m:
You’re ALWAYS among the exceptions to that rule. I don’t know anybody on this site who’s more circumspect about evidence, or more concerned that science be served well in this field. And few if any have more real-world credentials actually practicing the kind of science (on known critters, that is) that I think is going to be essential to confirming the sasquatch.
Naming some others: well, me.
Matt Bille is another I’d put down. Daniel Loxton and I have some significant differences of opinion - particularly on the anecdotal evidence and the quality of the P/G hoax, if it was one - but he always hears out proponents, is unfailingly gentlemanly and fair, and most importantly, allows that neither he nor anyone else has any right to judge what an eyewitness saw. (He correctly calls it the “privileged viewpoint.” No one else was there.) things-in-the-woods and ceroill and dogu4 and springheeledjack also come to mind. And now if I don’t watch it people are going to start complaining I left them off. See what you’ve done? 
Sounds as if you changed your mind based on the evidence. You sure aren’t the first. I think that the essential problem true skeptics grasp on this issue is this: could every single thing we’ve seen, read and heard about the sasquatch be a tissue of fable, hallucination and lie?
A true effort to answer that question would bring a lot of cynics around to a different view.
And if you’ve seen one, well, talk about a privileged viewpoint. [sigh] if only.
Artist- I agree SOMETHING is causing the reports, footprints, and rock throwing. But let’s not translate that into some sort of proof these things being caused by a sasquatch. I don’t even know if I would label all of your examples as hard and fast FACTS. While some sightings undoubtedly are inexplicable, there are enough unreliable reports out there that I don’t think sightings can be confidently labeled as FACTS. This is not to say that sightings do not have merit, indeed they are one curious thing that turned me from the dark side of pat denialism. But not every sighting is a fact, and because of that, I think that sighting reports need to be handled carefully as false ones could throw us off the trail of potentially real ones.
The same goes for footprints. Some of them are definitely compelling, but we have convincing known hoaxes of footprints that I can only say they are a FACT in that there was a large human shaped footprint in the ground. I would not underestimate the lengths to which hoaxers are willing to go to fool people. I think Meldrum is doing fantastic work in this area, so footprints will likely gain more clout as evidence in the future. I will admit that certainly there are footprints that are intriguing.
SOMETHING causes loud screams at night, but there are known animals that can create some pretty alien sounding shrieks. Seriously, there are sounds made by mundane animals that you would have never imagined they could make. Someone not familiar with these sounds may be taken off guard and jump to the conclusion that the bellowing wails they hear are being caused by a mysterious creature. So yes, SOMETHING is making loud screams in the night, we have recordings of some of these, but this doesn’t mean that a large, hairy hominid has to be the one making them. Note that I am not saying that they CAN’T be caused by Bigfoot, only that there are other possible explanations.
SOMETHING definitely stepped on that nail board and left tissue behind, and it doesn’t seem to be immediately recognizable as a bear. This is one new development that i still find to be very interesting indeed.
SOMETHING causes these things, but where the debate for me lies is what that SOMETHING is. I propose that those “facts” you listed are not necessarily always ones that point to the existence of sasquatch. My skepticism takes a look at the fact that that SOMETHING is not always necessarily a sasquatch, and I do not think this skepticism is “overriding” anything. I don’t want to fit all of those things into any one explanation
DWA- Oh and thanks for the kind words.
I would have to agree with your list.
OK, I’m just a regular guy who watched the show because it was interesting & promoted itself to reveal new scientific evidence. But JerryWayne is absolutely correct: I’m very disappointed to agree there’s NO scientific or even mildly substantive evidence offered by the show. And, I’m completely dumbfounded as to how anyone could argue that point. (The only “evidence” was a suspect DNA analysis by Curt Nelson, one of the primary researchers. If independent labs yield the same results, then getting somewhere. But as is, zero evidence, zero.)
The following from Bigfoot Forums is particularly interesting.
The author stated: “And, as I found out by doing some digging, Snelgrove Lake isn’t as remote as they’d like us to believe. There’s a First Nations indian reservation about 9 miles from the lake. …there are other fishing camps nearby on other lakes. So, yes, it is the only camp on Snelgrove Lake, but there are other people around. By watching the show, I was left with the impression that there wasn’t another human for 200 miles. That simply is not true. So, to rule out human intervention and say this was done by a sasquatch, I think is really reaching. If you look at a topo map of the area, there is even a gravel runway just to the north of the camp.”
Look, I know people believe what they want to believe regardless of the evidence, but there’s no way a reasonable person could watch this show & disagree with Jerry’s comment much less chastise him (which is why I was compelled to leave a comment in his support). Jerry’s comment NEVER said Sasquatch doesn’t exist, he said the show offered no proof. And that’s undeniable. Thanks for bringing a reasonable critique of the show to the discussion, Jerry.
I’m watching this episode right now (I downloaded it in a torrent file) I searched on google and this site came up, I’ve registered to post because someone has to say something. I’m Canadian, the first HUGE grade school geography mistake this show made was saying “Snelgrove Lake” was in Ontario, 250 miles north of Canada’s capital Ottawa and then showing it basically just north of Minnesota on their map (where it a actually is), near Kenora and Dryden Ontario. Ottawa is clear on the other side of Ontario from where Ottawa actually is, on the border with Hull, Quebec. My aunt and uncle have lived in Eagle River near Dryden for more than 30 years. My uncle was a trapper and hunter for more almost the entire time until a few years ago when he retired with heart issues. No one up that way has ANY bigfoot or sasquatch stories at all, and trust me it’s not for lack of wanting something to talk about. I think there are many things unknown to man, and do believe in the sasquatch, but honestly this show is sensational garbage. I was looking forward to a well documented fact based investigation but this series is anything but. Shame on the History channel for producing such poorly thought out, pandering tabloid garbage. When mankind is still finding monsters like the giant squid, it’s sad when shows like this go for the cheap flash instead of investing in research and legitimate journalism to uncover possible truths to the millenia old tales.
Ha, next time tell the owner of cabin/pilot that you plan to fire into the woods at night whenever you hear stones being thrown. That will keep the pilot from landing on that “gravel runway just to the north of the camp” and hiking to the cabin to get publicity by throwing stones at night. See how many stones get thrown then!
Who or what trashed the cabin? Obviously, neither we, nor apparently the cabin owner KNOWS, but possibilities include Sasquatch, bear, ‘hermit/wild man’and teens- all mentioned- but other options include- small animals (raccoons, etc. can cause a lot of damage, especially over time), and, of course, fraud or hoax. We really are not shown enough to know- and in the intervening time there is probably no enough evidence to worry about.
Hair, blood, tissue sample? 1 in 5,000 chance it is not human? Is this another way of saying that about 200 people in a million show this characteristic?
The outline on the screw board? Assuming the outline is reflective of the actual stain shape, there is simply no way of knowing at this point if it was made by one footfall or several- as if the maker repositioned itself or placed different feet on it, etc.
Rock-throwing? I in no way wish to suggest that the central people on this were guilty of anything, but considering that filming crews consist of several people who are under the direction of people other than the good doctors, and those people are being paid for interesting footage, I would feel better if they could somehow positively state and document that ALL members of the crew were accounted for at all times and that none of them employed any form of catapult or anything.
Also- one of the ‘missiles’ was a ‘cord of wood’- which sort of implies that it was firewood… so did it come from close to the cabin?
Rock-throwing is one of those annoying things that really really does not prove much but is nice and dramatic- like the ‘orbs’ on night-vision footage of ghost hunts.
Could not have been locals? Why not? Surely people from all over the area knew that the small army it takes to do something like this was there. Such crews often use locals for many of the jobs. This is even more likely if the lake and cabin are closer to people as others have suggested.
It is just so dang frustrating that we have all these film crews out to ‘prove’ or ‘investigate’ things and we don’t seem to be any closer to any good proof. Planet Earth gets these great ‘first time on camera’ shots of rare leopards and such in remote harsh environments, and we cannot get even a decent photo of a creature that lives, literally, in our back yards.
I would like to point out that DNR biologists routinely fly airplanes at night over woods etc and use infrared cameras to count the number of deer. They can even see the shape of the critters and they are usually bedded down in groups. I am an excellent bowhunter for deer so I have read a little something on this. It would be very hard for a Big Foot to hide in the woods if someone were to go after it with this kind of equipment. There is a lot of equipment that could be used to find this creature if is exists. I think these scientists have simply not put much effort into it. Up until now I have been very skeptical. A good story can mean a good income for some locals. However I believe there have been enough witnesses and evidences to indicate that there just might be something out there. If they are it would have to be an extremely timid and shy creature that definitely would not get angry as one of you has suggested. It would instead get scared and run. Because if it was not extremely timid and shy we would have much more proof of its existence by now.