"Squatchers"

Well, having been thrashed myself for admitting to folks here that I do use dowsing to find buried utilities and other obstructions, I'll say that I am skeptical, but keep an open mind. Back when I was a kid in Arkansas, we had the Fouk Monster. I think it was made into a movie of sorts.

Here Rick:
http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/FoukeMonster3.jpg

The movie was "Legend of Boggy Creek" and I guess it can still be found.

[video=youtube;JKEgINMVHoo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKEgINMVHoo[/video]
 
Last edited:
I am with you dipbait, put some of my boy's catch dogs on him, there ain't nothing on the planet those dogs are afraid of and I don't care how bad you are, 4 pits with cut collars and vests on and ole bigfeet is going to have a bad day. Like I said before, about the only rational explanation is supernatural, anything natural would have left a trace. Chris
 
Last edited:
The thing that stumps me is, with so much interest in Squatch these days, is that everyone who finds a supposed hair or stool sample manages to wait 2 years (or some other ridiculous period of time) to have it tested.

OK, maybe they don't have the cash in their pockets ... but there are enough people interested in this who DO that it seems ridiculous not to find such a person and get it done. Such people are major detriments to solving these mysteries in and of themselves - not only do they destroy potential evidence, the reluctance does little to aid credibility of the claims.
 
if you want more information from both sides of the debate go to bigfoot forums
i do not believe they exist but I know 3 people that have claimed to have seen a sasquatch
 
google sierra shootings or ketchum dna study
mr.trooper said:
The thing that stumps me is, with so much interest in Squatch these days, is that everyone who finds a supposed hair or stool sample manages to wait 2 years (or some other ridiculous period of time) to have it tested.

OK, maybe they don't have the cash in their pockets ... but there are enough people interested in this who DO that it seems ridiculous not to find such a person and get it done. Such people are major detriments to solving these mysteries in and of themselves - not only do they destroy potential evidence, the reluctance does little to aid credibility of the claims.
Click to expand...
 
yes there is guy named Jeff Meldrum that has studied the tracks
Google his studies
Codger_64 said:
I have been following and enjoying this thread. Thanks to those who have related their beliefs and experiences. Perhaps we can bring the subject up again if/when some positive proof comes to light. Meanwhile, I also would be interested in any information on tracks being professionally analyized.
Click to expand...
 
Interesting that the gentleman that did this film also wrote a book on sasquatch prior to this expedition and it that book there was a drawing of a sasquatch quite similar to the one that was filmed.
A little research also shows that he was definitely not a man of high moral fibre.

A couple of facts about the film
The original film was lost many years ago an no one knows what happened to it.
The first generation copies have all suffered damage by repeated viewing through the old film projectors of the time, so some detail is lost.
I have been fortunate enough to view a dvd high resolution copy of a first generation film copy (about as good as it gets today), and I found the film less then compelling when you add in all the other information surrounding Patterson.
He also borrowed money to buy the movie camera to make a film about sasquatch right before the expedition.
jill jackson said:
The creature in the film, did not walk right upon the men on horseback. They rode upon it and it was beside a fast running stream, I've read that the noise of the stream, may have drowned out the noise of the approaching men and also it's thought the creature may not have thought much about the sound of horses walking, as it would have been similar to the sound elk would make walking. In any event there is a film something walking before the camera and I myself don't believe a couple of guys like them could have came close to faking it.
Click to expand...
 
Erasmus
There are many sasquatch believers that think that sasquatch moves both bipedal and as a quadruped, some even think that the young start out basically as a quadruped.
Some believe that there are at least two different types of BF type creatures in north America.
The first being the large hairy usually non-aggressive type reported in areas like British Columbia and a smaller more aggressive type reported more in the Southern US.
I do thank you for sharing your report
Erasmus said:
Eh, why not spill it...


I've been wracking my brain, trying to remember exactly when this occurred. It was during my .410 bore phase, so I'd say it was about 10 years ago, occuring in Sand Canyon. To date, I've been hunting in this region for (scratches head and does the math) almost 30 years. With and without hunting buddies, w/ and w/o labradors.

At the time, I had parked my car at the trailhead, and walked in and upwards, about 5 miles to the beginnings of scrubby pines. At some point during the quail hunt, I paused on the edge of an opening located in a thin, frozen but sun-lit forest to mess around with my pack, my back to the open space. For some reason I turned around suddenly, and looked behind me. 50 or 80 yards behind me was a downed tree. It was one of those classic Sierra Nevada straight trunked trees, with no branches at all, near the base. It's diameter was about belt buckle high to a 6' man, and was resting flat on the ground.

Well, as I spun around, I saw a "hairy man" on the other side of that tree, watching me, sticking up almost 2' above the downed tree. He was just about the size of a 5 1/2' or 6' guy, and built real beefy, like a highschool football player. He had no neck. His big human shaped head sat directly on his shoulders. His fur covered him completely, and was about 3" long, and was so dark brown, as to appear blackish. This long hair didn't lay flat on his skin, but stuck out at about a 45 degree angle, exactly reminiscent of an orangutan. I don't recall making out any facial detail. It seemed to be way to shaggy to make out any detail on.

I have 20/10 vision, and for less than 10 seconds, I had a damn good (and also damned shocked) look at the upper 1/3 or 1/4 of his body.

As a hunter, I know that you will often walk past hiding animals, which then feel free to pop up when they think your back is turned, usually either to have a look at you, or more often, to flee and hide elsewhere.

His posture and attitude seemed to be one of, "well shit, how'd you know to turn around catch me looking?!" So, after several seconds of us staring at each other, he sinks straight down silently. For my part, my fear level and adrenaline are sky high. I'm standing there and saying to myself, "WTF was that?!"

Any time you find yourself saying that to yourself, you already know wtf that was, you are just in denial-- stalling for time, trying to get your scared brain to catch up to reality...

Tweren't no black bear, cat, nor person.

So, I stalled there after the sighting for almost a minute, trying to make up my mind what to do. Being somewhat young but plenty stupid, I then charged over to the tree, directly where it was standing, and bent over and looked over this 3' diameter tree (maybe 50' in length). The biped was long gone...

I honestly believe that it dropped down on all fours and hauled ass laterally in a monkey-like fashion and hid from me. The frozen dirt yielded no tracks that my scared brain noticed. At this point, I myself had had enough, and split, myself.


I'm easy to recognize in the hunting fields. I'm the guy who still bird hunts in this and other similar nearby canyons, but with a .45 along for company.



I told this incident straight up. It happened just like I say, w/o any exageration or embellishment.
Click to expand...
 
It was interesting to me, in the video I posted about Oklahoma what the Native American said about their belief in bigfoot having, "special powers". So, I looked into it further...

http://www.bfro.net/legends/

"The existence of Bigfoot is taken for granted throughout Native North America, and so are his powerful psychic abilities. I can't count the number of times that I have heard elder Indian people say that Bigfoot knows when humans are searching for him and that he chooses when and to whom to make an appearance, and that his psychic powers account for his ability to elude the white man's efforts to capture him or hunt him down. In Indian culture, the entire natural world -- the animals, the plants, the rivers, the stars -- is seen as a family. And Bigfoot is seen as one of our close relatives, the "great elder brother"
 
Last edited:
it seems as if no matter what the issue is the people who believe in them always come up with a reason to discount the evidence or better yet the lack of evidence, actual evidence, like a body.
if these things were as smart as people say they are, they wouldn't be animals anymore, just lower forms of humans.
animals don't think like people, they use instinct, yet bigfoot is smart enough to elude all the bigfoot hunters and dogs and cars and trucks on the roads today. not to mention the ATV's all over the back country.

the digital camera has changed game cameras into an inexpensive thing you can get at almost any box store with a sporting goods section. they are cheap and all over the woods before and during hunting season. there was one posted on this thread.
one of the issues with this is, its pretty easy for us(people) to spot them, and that means it would be pretty easy to fake a sighting on somebody else's camera.

once again, just because indians believe it doesn't make it true. the psychic theory only makes the people that believe in bigfoot look kinda silly to the people on the fence or that just don't believe in them. (sorry, just my opinion, nothing personal)

the stuff these animals are supposed to be able to do is stuff that most humans can't do. I'm talking about staying hidden while moving long distances. staying off paths, off roads, out of huge fields not following the path of least resistance. they don't seem to eat out of the trash like bears, or kill livestock like wolves, coyotes or mountain lions.

the only explanation is they are psychic and more intelligent than any other animal on the planet(except us, or at the least most of us) or they don't exist.

i think its the latter.
 
Last edited:
Am I really the only hunter on this board who has "seen something?"


I admit, that for the first 20 years of my hunting career, bigfoot was just another fun, but unlikely, campfire story to me. Until it wasn't.

FYI, it isn't hard at all to hide from hunters on ATV's and 4x4's. I've done this myself to road hunters, just for fun. All you have to do is stay off the dirt roads they frequent, and freeze when they come into view. Their loud buzzy engines give almost a minute's warning, even with my sketchy hearing. This past deer season in D8, I ONLY saw roadhunters cruising around, no one on stand or walking around away from their vehicles, at all.

I was the only backpack hunter around. Try hiding from roadhunters yourself, and see how ridiculously easy it is. They roadhunt because they're scared to get lost if they leave their vehicle on the roadnet, plus, they almost completely lack the ability to walk, nevermind over rough cross country terrain.


I'm still reveling in the fitness high I reached last Summer, walking the JMT. It's almost like my body forgot to get soft and lazy. A typical day quail or chukkar hunting trip for me involves a 10 or 15 mile walk over crappy, step terrain, in or near the Eastern Sierra deer zone known as X 10.
 
Erasmus,
I spend a lot of time canoeing and camping at Uwharrie National Forest, which according to the discovery chanel is a Bigfoot hotspot, that was where they got one on thermal stealing a candybar IIRC. I have never heard or seen a trace of anything. Chris
 
I wouldn't say that shows "coyotebc" is wrong at all. I'm limited to my searching ability here at work but I read an interesting piece that roughly describes the "crooked deals" and such behind the rights of the Patterson film. It's towards the bottom of the page.

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/forslund.htm

Then just a brief bit from wikipedia which isn't the best source but it kind of backs up the previous link.

"Henry Franzoni reports that "Mrs. Patterson, Roger Patterson's widow, who still lives in Yakima, Washington, has the TV and movie rights to the actual film. René Dahinden had the rights to the 953 still frames from the film." Five known copies were made of the original film. The five copies were once in the possession of René Dahinden, John Willison Green, Grover Krantz, Jon-Erik Beckjord, and Peter Byrne. René Dahinden possessed one of the copies up until his death. The film now is in possession of Dahinden's family. It is no longer known who possessed the other four original copies, or if they still exist."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterson-Gimlin_film#Legal_status

So 40+ years later its all he said she said nonsense and at this point who knows. Everyone would like to think they know, but does anyone know? Those links I posted like many others posted are what they are. People are trying to put something together based on what? What makes someone a "Bigfoot" expert? I wasn't there, was anyone else? And really at this point who knows if the original exists or not, but really what's it relivant too?

I would think the Patterson film was the catalyst that launched sasquatch into what it is today. Regardless of whether the film is fake or real I think it's relivant. What I don't understand is people will defend the Patterson film with every breath in their lungs. The Patterson film is tainted with so much controversy I think it's time to look beyond that drama. Why concentrate on that one when there are other more relivant pieces that could be studied.

An example might be Michael Greene's thermal video, it's pretty impressive as well as the story behind it. I don't think it's been proven as a hoax that I'm aware of.

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2010/06/prweb4079494.htm

IMO the only people who can add any relivance of existance into the sasquatch mix are people who have had an encounter. They know beyond a shadow of a doubt because they were there. Me, I'm an armchair quarterback who can use google...Guess that makes me a "Bigfoot Expert"... :D
 
Just to be the Devil's Advocate :]

It seems that every last interesting happening is "tainted with controversey", suspicious secrecy, and gaps in the chain of evidence. Hell, there are lots of people who doubt we even went to the moon, or that the earth is spherical.

It doesn't help matters that it is either ultra expensive or incredibly, vanishingly rare to experience most "unexplained" or controversial phenomena. Expense and rarity make evidence gathering highly problematical.


Personally, I don't believe the IRS guy exists. Sure, I keep writing this fictitious bogeyman checks, but where's the damn proof?! I'm not buying your pixilated, photoshopped, grainy internet footage as proof. I suppose I could just stop paying, and then wait with a 16mm film camera!

"Show me your hands, SHOW ME YOUR HANDS..."
 
One of the (many) problems with the sasquatch search/legends is it's attraction of hucksters. Charlie Pierce showed the world with his early docu-drama that there was big money in bigfeet(s). His 1972 low budget film ($10,000 production cost) grossed $25 million and is still earning profits. (Pierce later wrote the screenplay for Clint Eastwood's "Sudden Impact" including the line "Make my day").

There is no doubt that the maker of the 1967 film was also profit driven as he borrowed the money to make his film, including the cost of renting the Kodak 16mm camera for that day's shoot. And the tussle for profit shares from his film has continued to this day.

Even if the actual subject is real and exists out there, hucksters and fakers have tainted the entire subject for most people. At least for those who have not personally seen a bigfoot. Evidence has been faked such as footprints, hair samples, stool samples and pictures. IMHO, with a history like this, it is no wonder that most people are very sheptical and will only believe when a reputable scientist is able to prove the existance beyond a shadow of doubt with irrefutable proof.

At this point, reputable scientists who are willing to join in the research are few and far between. One would think that with today's computer capabilities, the few films in existance could be minutely scrutinized for biomechanical traits but, as far as I know, this has not been done yet. Look at the computer animation done in the production of "Polar Express" using Tom Hanks as a model.
 
What makes people think that the Patterson film is genuine is the detail in the movements of the body, the detail of the musculature, the relative proportions of the arms, legs, torso, etc, the way that it moves when it turns, and probably a dozen other things. Biologists, anatomy experts, film experts, human motion experts, animal motion experts, and a host of other experts have examined the Patterson film, and one reason that the story survives is that many experts were impressed. If those two guys did manage fake that in 1967, it was nothing short of astonishing and it still hasn't been proven to be a fake.
 
I'm surprised nobody posted this.

Bob Heironimus claims he wore the Patterson suit, and he even passed a lie detector test on TV.

[youtube]HCzRBzBmUjE[/youtube]
 
5.56 said:
I'm surprised nobody posted this.

Bob Heironimus claims he wore the Patterson suit, and he even passed a lie detector test on TV.

[youtube]HCzRBzBmUjE[/youtube]
Click to expand...

A link I posted above, explains that and the fact Patterson also took a LD test and passed it, too. His lower legs move nothing like the film. (which for some reason are absent , from the knees down, in this one)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top