Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
Child of Bast

Searching for bigfoot among the redwoods

68 posts in this topic

Though Bigfoot remains elusive, enthusiasts still prowl the forests in search of proof of its existence.

Amateur researchers in the United States continue to eagerly search for the mysterious creature known as Bigfoot, staking out California's redwood forests at night in their hunt for the elusive beast. Despite many claimed sightings, the existence of Sasquatch has never been proven. Yet that hasn't stopped the obsessed from pursuing his giant footprints.

arrow3.gifRead more...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah but if it doesn't look Squatchy, they're just wasting their itme.

On a serious note, I was recently listenting to an interview with a Cornell biologist who spends a good deal of time researching in the forests of the Northwest. One of the audience questions was "had he ever seen any evidence of bigfoot?" Interestingly he didn't laugh off the question, but he did answer no. Then he brought up an interesting point that I think gets lost in the whole Bigfoot discussion - on an annual basis, there are thousands of trained biologists, zoologists, entomologists, botonists, etc. going all through the forets of the Northwestern US and Canada conducting research. Why do none of these people ever report sightings or evidence? Why is it always amateurs?

And before anyone claims that it's some kind of scientific conspiracy, just think about what it would mean to a scientist to discover proof of Bigfoot's existence. We're talking Nobel Prize level stuff here and millions upon millions in research funding. No scientist in their right mind would walk away from that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah but if it doesn't look Squatchy, they're just wasting their itme.

On a serious note, I was recently listenting to an interview with a Cornell biologist who spends a good deal of time researching in the forests of the Northwest. One of the audience questions was "had he ever seen any evidence of bigfoot?" Interestingly he didn't laugh off the question, but he did answer no. Then he brought up an interesting point that I think gets lost in the whole Bigfoot discussion - on an annual basis, there are thousands of trained biologists, zoologists, entomologists, botonists, etc. going all through the forets of the Northwestern US and Canada conducting research. Why do none of these people ever report sightings or evidence? Why is it always amateurs?

And before anyone claims that it's some kind of scientific conspiracy, just think about what it would mean to a scientist to discover proof of Bigfoot's existence. We're talking Nobel Prize level stuff here and millions upon millions in research funding. No scientist in their right mind would walk away from that.

Excellent points. It is clear that bigfoot does not exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm more on the side of Bigfoot being legendary as well, surely as Rafterman said, with all the scientists, biologists etc that would be in that part of the world doing research, they would have found some evidence by now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Though Bigfoot remains elusive, enthusiasts still prowl the forests in search of proof of its existence.

Thanks for posting! It's nice to hear the fellas keeping one step ahead of the interploopers..

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah but if it doesn't look Squatchy, they're just wasting their itme.

On a serious note, I was recently listenting to an interview with a Cornell biologist who spends a good deal of time researching in the forests of the Northwest. One of the audience questions was "had he ever seen any evidence of bigfoot?" Interestingly he didn't laugh off the question, but he did answer no. Then he brought up an interesting point that I think gets lost in the whole Bigfoot discussion - on an annual basis, there are thousands of trained biologists, zoologists, entomologists, botonists, etc. going all through the forets of the Northwestern US and Canada conducting research. Why do none of these people ever report sightings or evidence? Why is it always amateurs?

And before anyone claims that it's some kind of scientific conspiracy, just think about what it would mean to a scientist to discover proof of Bigfoot's existence. We're talking Nobel Prize level stuff here and millions upon millions in research funding. No scientist in their right mind would walk away from that.

If you think you can win this argument using common sense and logical reasoning, think again. It's been tried, time and time again, to no avail.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm of the opinion that Bigfoot is possible. The fact that few people see him, and almost no scientists, is telling. And the lack of evidence is more so. But, I feel that prooving the the Swamp Ape is not real does not detract from bigfoot being in Oregon and vice versa. I do think there is a lot of poorly researched land, and land that only very rarely sees a human stop by, expecially in Canada.

Being mostly a skeptic, I do not hold out a lot of Hope, but I do acknowledge the possibility.

I do think you have to watch out for anything said by a "Squatcher", going out "Squatching". It is more a hobby for those guys then a science. They clamber around the woods at night making a crazy noise and they wonder why they can't find one.

Edited by DieChecker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm of the opinion that Bigfoot is possible. The fact that few people see him, and almost no scientists, is telling. And the lack of evidence is more so. But, I feel that prooving the the Swamp Ape is not real does not detract from bigfoot being in Oregon and vice versa. I do think there is a lot of poorly researched land, and land that only very rarely sees a human stop by, expecially in Canada.

Being mostly a skeptic, I do not hold out a lot of Hope, but I do acknowledge the possibility.

I do think you have to watch out for anything said by a "Squatcher", going out "Squatching". It is more a hobby for those guys then a science. They clamber around the woods at night making a crazy noise and they wonder why they can't find one.

I find it almost amusing that bigfoot is always limited to spots that have not been "totaly" explored yet. Now it is Canada. Next it will be bigfoot who lives in the bottom of a deep cravasse at the bottom of an ocean.

Only TV shows do their research at night.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah but if it doesn't look Squatchy, they're just wasting their itme.

On a serious note, I was recently listenting to an interview with a Cornell biologist who spends a good deal of time researching in the forests of the Northwest. One of the audience questions was "had he ever seen any evidence of bigfoot?" Interestingly he didn't laugh off the question, but he did answer no. Then he brought up an interesting point that I think gets lost in the whole Bigfoot discussion - on an annual basis, there are thousands of trained biologists, zoologists, entomologists, botonists, etc. going all through the forets of the Northwestern US and Canada conducting research. Why do none of these people ever report sightings or evidence? Why is it always amateurs?

And before anyone claims that it's some kind of scientific conspiracy, just think about what it would mean to a scientist to discover proof of Bigfoot's existence. We're talking Nobel Prize level stuff here and millions upon millions in research funding. No scientist in their right mind would walk away from that.

Well said, I believe the same, I have even offered reports of many expeditions led into this very area, right down to people counting snails and slugs. I figure if people meticulously crawling throughout the woods is not detailed enough, what is?

Then you have UNi's learning how to do all this stuff.

Then you have private enterprise, campers loggers, etc ets. I do not think the area is quite as mysterious as is made out.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it almost amusing that bigfoot is always limited to spots that have not been "totaly" explored yet. Now it is Canada. Next it will be bigfoot who lives in the bottom of a deep cravasse at the bottom of an ocean.

Only TV shows do their research at night.

What is amusing about it? It is only logical that if such a creature existed, then there would have to more then a few and the only place they could hide would be large areas of undeveloped land, such as is found in central Canada.

How would I explain the sightings in the lower 48? Mostly with hallucinations, hobos, and other misidentifications, but.... also by lone rogues, or wanderers, driven out of the home territory and wandering around. A cougar wandered from Montana to Conneticut last year, so clearly animals can wander through the length and breadth of the US.

I don't think you are going to get much milage out of that "Bigfoot at the bottom of the sea." theory of yours. :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well said, I believe the same, I have even offered reports of many expeditions led into this very area, right down to people counting snails and slugs. I figure if people meticulously crawling throughout the woods is not detailed enough, what is?

Then you have UNi's learning how to do all this stuff.

Then you have private enterprise, campers loggers, etc ets. I do not think the area is quite as mysterious as is made out.

What I remember is that the loggers, uni's, campers and others that see bigfoot are always called, "inexpert witnesses", or "untrained observers", and then their report/story is dismissed.

While it is true that many biologists and other trained wildlife personnel move through the forests and wild areas regularly, the numbers of campers, loggers, hunters, hikers and other people using the forests outnumbers them by like fifty to one. At least. Thus, you would expect that the vast majority of reports would come from the laypeople of the forests, not the experts. There are several bigfoot proponents that are trained biologists, but usually due to their belief in BF, they are regarded as obviously kooks and thus are also dismissed.

Another thing I usually try to point out is that if someone is out counting wild horses, they probably don't care how many deer they see, or even bother recording that they saw any. People have told me though, that this is not the way biologists think and that if they are out counting wild horses, they also will record the number of rabbits, owls, ground squirrels, deer, coyotes and people that they see go by. This may very well be true, as I am an Engineer so I focus on what I am doing and don't worry about that other thing next to me... until I am done and then I can turn and work on that other project. It could very well be that most people that focus on biology would record everything...?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I remember is that the loggers, uni's, campers and others that see bigfoot are always called, "inexpert witnesses", or "untrained observers", and then their report/story is dismissed.

On the information supplied, or on their conclusions?

While it is true that many biologists and other trained wildlife personnel move through the forests and wild areas regularly, the numbers of campers, loggers, hunters, hikers and other people using the forests outnumbers them by like fifty to one. At least. Thus, you would expect that the vast majority of reports would come from the laypeople of the forests, not the experts. There are several bigfoot proponents that are trained biologists, but usually due to their belief in BF, they are regarded as obviously kooks and thus are also dismissed.

And that is how the statistic lies, the average sighting is not by an official, which is why when an official makes a public statement, it makes the papers.

Have any Bigfoot proponents given face to face encounter tales? I thought the best the professional contingent had was some foot casts, a few hairs and swags of hypotheticals.

Another thing I usually try to point out is that if someone is out counting wild horses, they probably don't care how many deer they see, or even bother recording that they saw any. People have told me though, that this is not the way biologists think and that if they are out counting wild horses, they also will record the number of rabbits, owls, ground squirrels, deer, coyotes and people that they see go by. This may very well be true, as I am an Engineer so I focus on what I am doing and don't worry about that other thing next to me... until I am done and then I can turn and work on that other project. It could very well be that most people that focus on biology would record everything...?

I think being trained to observe nature, that they would be the first ones to spot something "out of place" and recognise it as different. I would expect fewer Bear/Biff reports and blobsqatches from this corner.

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recently i was hunting with a friend, when i came uppon strange tracks in the snow, i followed them and came uppon a spot were something had releived itself (no2 i mean), and that "pile of sh.." looked very weird so i called my friend over on the radio, when he came over i showed him the tracks and the Sh.. and i told him "it looks weird i think it's a Bigfoot who did this", he looked at me and said "how dare you calling me a Bigfoot"......from now on, i quit searching for a bigfoot....and this is a true story....i never felt so stupid in my life.....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Recently i was hunting with a friend, when i came uppon strange tracks in the snow, i followed them and came uppon a spot were something had releived itself (no2 i mean), and that "pile of sh.." looked very weird so i called my friend over on the radio, when he came over i showed him the tracks and the Sh.. and i told him "it looks weird i think it's a Bigfoot who did this", he looked at me and said "how dare you calling me a Bigfoot"......from now on, i quit searching for a bigfoot....and this is a true story....i never felt so stupid in my life.....

:tu:

lol.jpg

Thanks for sharing, that, I got a real chuckle, that was an awesome tale :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The most interesting "evidence" of Bigfoot for me it the Patterson film. It seems like a lot of trouble to make a costume of that quality, especially for that time period, and to make it female as well. That is a lot of expense just to pull of a hoax, and recreations of the event by costumed humans don't have the same look or feel.

But having said that it would seem that after many decades of searches, after virtually every other species North American animal having been found dead on our highways, with growing human population and with legions of amateur naturalists, hunters and filmmakers armed with ever increasing better technology, something would have turned up by now.

Still the Giant Panda was thought to be myth by westerners and so have other beasts, so there is a slight possibility that this animal may yet show up and surprise everyone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It seems like a lot of trouble to make a costume of that quality, especially for that time period, and to make it female as well. That is a lot of expense just to pull of a hoax

For realism in a Bigfoot costume, it is easier to attach a couple of breasts than to simulate the male tacklebox and some sort of muscle definition in the chest. Patterson, to his credit, did a good job but the breasts are uniformly hairy (ie hairy all over even underneath) which does not appear to occur in nature.

And you'd be surprised at the lengths some people go in order to have some fun at the expense of others. People like Wallace and Patterson redfined a genre of folk-entertainment that is still going strong today. Their names live on after their deaths and will do so for a long time to come. The real prize of Bigfootery is to weave one's name into the tapestry of a legend thereby becoming legendary in one's own right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The most interesting "evidence" of Bigfoot for me it the Patterson film. It seems like a lot of trouble to make a costume of that quality, especially for that time period, and to make it female as well. That is a lot of expense just to pull of a hoax, and recreations of the event by costumed humans don't have the same look or feel.

Not really, costumes of higher calibre had been used in film for decades before. Charles Gemora is a good example. Also, Patterson was quite enthused with the success Krantz had with his article, so it likely seemed a good investment. The wonder had been established by Krantz, Patterson just marketed that interest. I do not think he was much of a WIldlife crusader, simply a clever opportunistic man.

But having said that it would seem that after many decades of searches, after virtually every other species North American animal having been found dead on our highways, with growing human population and with legions of amateur naturalists, hunters and filmmakers armed with ever increasing better technology, something would have turned up by now.

Indeed. Biffs lack of presence surely must some day be considered and not wondered. It is evidence, not mystery.

Still the Giant Panda was thought to be myth by westerners and so have other beasts, so there is a slight possibility that this animal may yet show up and surprise everyone.

I guess that would have much to do with Westerners not living in Asia? It is like asking why Kangaroos were not in 15th century english encyclopedias. Historical record shows that the Panda has a long history with people, even medicinal, although rare, the few known uses include the Sichuan tribal peoples' use of panda urine to melt accidentally swallowed needles, and the use of panda pelts to control menses as described in the Qin Dynasty (221 to 207 BC. ) encyclopedia Erya. The West first learned of the giant panda in 1869 because the French missionary Armand David received a skin from a hunter on 11 March 1869. With Biff, Americans are the locals, so here the comparison ceases to exist at all. There are no pelts, no bones, nothing. Just anecdotes. That is all we have seen ever. Surely this important fact will eventually be recognised.

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I have seen a lot of searches for big foot but I never seen a damn dog in any of them who goes hunting for game and not bring a dog for the price of one of those fancy cameras you could probably get a couple of good hounds

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I have seen a lot of searches for big foot but I never seen a damn dog in any of them who goes hunting for game and not bring a dog for the price of one of those fancy cameras you could probably get a couple of good hounds

You wouldn't want that guy in the suit to get bitten, would you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I have seen a lot of searches for big foot but I never seen a damn dog in any of them who goes hunting for game and not bring a dog for the price of one of those fancy cameras you could probably get a couple of good hounds

I agree with you, but some people have good excuses for this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

he would to 10-20 good hounds could run down about anything or aleast hold it till you got there with the gun.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry didnt see how you could cancel a second copy of the post

Edited by tantalusw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well I have seen a lot of searches for big foot but I never seen a damn dog in any of them who goes hunting for game and not bring a dog for the price of one of those fancy cameras you could probably get a couple of good hounds

Actually, I remember Diechecker posting a link some time back that lead to a group pf people training a Beagle to specifically locate Bigfoot.

That seems to have gone rather quiet. Do you by any chance still have the link Diechecker? I wonder how that project is coming along.

Edited by psyche101

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope. I tried keeping links for a while and then when it got over a hundred, my organizational skills began to crumble and I ditched the lot of 'em.

From what I remember these people collected hair and scat they found in the woods that they thought was from a BF and then trained the dogs off it. Clearly what they were using could have been from a selection of animals.

I remember reading about some people who found footprints and then set their scent hound off after the trail. The dog ran off and eventually entered a large thicket some distance ahead of the trackers/bigfoot hunters. The dog supposedly came running back out yelping and scared and refused to again go after the scent trail. Supposedly these were honest people, but you never do know. I've seen about a half dozen stories/reports where dogs were involved and I think in all of them the dog ran away, some immediately, some after attacking the BF.

I even read a report of a BF that had a pack of dogs traveling with it.

I'd go back and google check through all those old UM bigfoot posts, but my workday is almost over (7 to 7) and so I have to go now. A good search might find those links.

Edited by DieChecker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I even read a report of a BF that had a pack of dogs traveling with it.

Just thinking about this is awesome beyond words. No wonder no one can catch bigfoot, if they get close bigfoot sicks his dogs on them. We don't find bigfoot remains in the woods because his dogs eat the dead body, you know how dogs love to eat bones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.