Bigfoot Researchers Declare 2013 "The Year of the Bigfoot"

[Gutter Monkey]

Bigfoot Researchers Declare 2013 "The Year of the Bigfoot"

Bigfoot researchers have noticed an increase in the quantity and quality of Bigfoot videos submitted to Facebook.com/FindBigfoot (FBFB). It's only a matter of time before this species is discovered. FBFB declares 2013 "The Year of the Bigfoot."

The article posts a link to “The Camper” video which they think is so compelling that it "entered the FBFB’s 'Top 50 Bigfoot Videos' list at #2 behind the famous Patterson/Gimlin footage." They're reeeally excited about this video.
I remain very, very unconvinced. That could so easily be a hoax video of a guy in a costume and the video's narrator goes to some frankly embarrassing lengths to legitamize the footage.



In further Bigfoot news an anthropologist from Idaho State University is planning on searching for the hairy beasty with a remote controlled blimp with thermal-imaging cameras. The university has approved the project but the researcher needs to raise the necessary $300,000 budget himself from private donations and this recent Huffpo article reports that "financial support for the venture has been slow in coming, with Meldrum failing so far to raise a single dollar for the effort." Maybe he would have more success if he tried Kickstarter?

[crocoduck_hunter]

Bigfoot researcher is an oxymoron.

And most of the people who call themselves that seem to be regular morons, too. It's freaking embarrassing to see that collection of idiots on the Animal Planet show go crashing around the woods with night vision cameras- they clearly have no idea what they're doing but the network keeps shilling them as if they're actual experts.

[Gutter Monkey]

Yeah, the media just laps up these guys. Here's an ABC report from about a week ago about another terrible 'Bigfoot' video (there's an indistinct furry thing behind a tree, whoopee) and they actually contacted "self-proclaimed “Bigfoot Hunter” Tom Biscardi" for a response. They somehow failed to mention that Biscardi completely embarrassed himself a few years ago when he held a press release about how some guys had found a Bigfoot corpse and had it in their freezer and it turned out it was just a rubber halloween costume.


One hilarious aspect of Bigfoot 'research' is that there's an out-and-out war between all the different factions. The Bigfoot Evidence blog had a guest blogger last week who wrote a piece with the ridiculous title Can Someone Prove To Me The Tent/Camper Video Is Fake? (science doesn't work that way, my friend. The burden of proof is on you guys) and the comments section has exploded with vitriol and name calling. Apparently one of the guys who hoaxed Biscardi with the rubber costume in the freezer is also somehow involved with this video.

[Gayle]

Ah, do you remember the days when we had our very own bigfoot troll here?

[Gutter Monkey]

Originally Posted by Gayle

Ah, do you remember the days when we had our very own bigfoot troll here?

Baboon extra head?

[Sylvanz]

I haven't seen the show on Animal Planet, but the ads are atrocious: "There's a squatch in these woods." said in a breathless stage whisper. And, "This place is real squatchy." Ugh! I can't believe they even put it on the box, but to each their own I guess.

[mags]

I know it's awful, but I'm sort of looking forward to the day when one of those guys actually gets attacked by one of the bears they think are Bigfoot.

Of course, they probably still wouldn't believe it was a bear.

[Richard W]

Originally Posted by Gutter Monkey

Baboon extra head?

Yes, I was going to say that the baboon extra head should get its own year...

He wasn't a troll, though; I think he actually believed that stuff and was somewhat insane. He died a few years ago, and obituaries popped up for him in some places that suggested he was reasonably well-known in these circles, and possibly even held in some esteem.

In fact, he has a Wikipedia article:

Jon-Erik Beckjord.

[Gutter Monkey]

They don't show those Bigfoot hunter TV shows here in Australia so I just looked up an episode of Finding Bigfoot on youtube and it was just embarrassingly bad. A 'Squatch hunter had caught some footage of what he thought was a Bigfoot with his thermal imaging camera so the FB team decided to recreate the scene with one of their guys standing in for the Bigfoot to show that a human would look much smaller and you could see that they were wearing clothes. That'd prove that whatever was in the original footage had to be a Bigfoot, right? Unfortunately for them the recreation looked exactly the same as the original footage. A reasonable person would have then concluded that the original footage had been sufficiently debunked (and one of them does draw that conclusion) but the other clowns kept trying to argue that it might have been a juvenile Bigfoot and the video didn't prove anything either way.

They then wander around the forest at night and one of them goes tearing off in pursuit of something he saw and loses it and they spend the rest of the night arguing about whether he did the right thing or not. And that's only the first 10 minutes of the episode!

[crocoduck_hunter]

Yeah, even if Sasquatches were real, the chances those bozos have of finding one is effectively nil.

Every time I see an ad for them on the TV, I find myself hoping that the show's popularity stems more from people desiring to see them get amusing self-inflicted injuries than the expectation that they'll actually find a real bigfoot.

But I doubt it- even Jane Goodall at least used to think that bigfoot was real (don't know if she still does).

[Mickey Blue]

Regarding the various "Monster hunter" type shows that are all over discovery channel:

While I don't buy into 'cryptozoology'* I do find it fascinating in both an "I want to believe" kind of way as well as just hearing the various stories about different cultures 'monsters'. To me the irritating thing about those various shows isn't that they talk about almost certainly fake creatures as if they were real, but that they spend the whole time tromping around in the forest shouting "What was that!?!?!" every time they hear a twig snap or see some animal eyeshine.

The people who watch that show must never have gone camping in a more remote area; I camp at in the foothills of St. Helen's before climbing the next day and at night you hear all sorts of crazy stuff. Never thought that it may be a Bigfoot.

So yea, the interesting topics about the various creatures of myth and legend around the world is interrupted by some giant idiot making a fool of himself (while establishing worship among believers, making tons of money, getting famous, and getting to travel around the world for free.. So I don't blame him). I also like how they always go out at night (no doubt to have the semi-creepy night vision and make it harder to see that they are seeing/hearing nothing..) even when the monsters they are searching for aren't inherently nocturnal.

*I have no issue with the idea that we may find new creatures, even large significant new creatures. My issue (like most educated people) is that what they are doing isn't science by any definition. They are on the same level as people who hunt around for people who are possessed, or for weird stains on walls that look like Jesus or Mary, as 'proof' of God.

You could do real research to see if a Bigfoot (or any 'cryptid') were real, but they don't want to do that, that's not sexy. They want to take fun camping trips and look at blurry pictures online.

[Singing in the Drizzle]

The Tent/camper video does look real, just not slightest big convinced it is a Big Foot. Look to be at most the size of a real gorilla since the camera appeared to be looking straight out and maybe a little up out a small vent not far off the ground. Not to mention there is nothing telling us were the video was taken.

All I will say is that it look to be a real video taken with a halfway decent camera (doubt it was a cell phone camera) of a primate of some sort somewhere in the world through the vent in a tent. That is a long way from saying it proof of Big Foot.

[Mickey Blue]

It looks real in the sense I don't think it's camera trickery or just a blurry patch in a picture.. But, as you say, that's a long way from 'it's really a bigfoot', it could easily be a guy in a gorilla suit, possibly even another animal.

[crocoduck_hunter]

The lack of experts out hunting for Bigfoot is primarily caused by one thing: the experts have looked at the evidence and concluded that actually going out and trying to look for a real, live Bigfoot would be a total waste of their time.

There just isn't enough evidence out there in favor of there being an actual unknown species of anthropoid ape running around the woods of North America. Despite hundreds of sightings, no one has ever managed to video or photograph a clear picture of one with the camera zoomed in, all we've got are blurry, low quality images that show few, if any, details. And that and the occasional footprint, both of which are easy to fake, are the only bits of evidence we ever see. There's no bones, no dung piles, no carcass of a Bigfoot that was shot by hunters or hit by a car while crossing a highway... nothing.

It's just not ecologically possible for an animal of that size to have enough of a population in the places it's supposed to live that it's still reproducing yet not leave huge amounts of evidence that it's there. At present, all we've ever found has been things that either look like people mistaking something else for a Bigfoot or deliberately faking it. So the real experts don't bother with looking for Bigfoot because they've got more important things to worry about, like wolf packs expanding their ranges, elk herds being affected by chronic wasting disease, or pine beetles wiping out forests.

[ganzfeld]

I think Jane Goodall has a lot of experience with elusive primates who, just like a bear or other large mammal, can often live very close by without letting anyone know they're there. What she seems to forget, IMO, is the amount of evidence large animals would have to leave behind if there were any sustainable population. Even for the most elusive mountain gorillas we have a lot of other evidence, even when sightings are rare. That and folklore aren't her area of expertise (although of course she certainly knows a heck of a lot more about both than I do). But I think her input on the matter has been very valuable. I'd be a little disappointed in her famous curiosity if she simply dismissed them.

[Gayle]

Originally Posted by Richard W

Yes, I was going to say that the baboon extra head should get its own year...

He wasn't a troll, though; I think he actually believed that stuff and was somewhat insane. He died a few years ago, and obituaries popped up for him in some places that suggested he was reasonably well-known in these circles, and possibly even held in some esteem.

In fact, he has a Wikipedia article:

Jon-Erik Beckjord.

I think he did believe his theories, but he was so unbelievingly condescending and rude to everyone who didn't agree with him, it makes it hard to believe anyone respected him very much.

[crocoduck_hunter]

Originally Posted by ganzfeld

I think Jane Goodall has a lot of experience with elusive primates who, just like a bear or other large mammal, can often live very close by without letting anyone know they're there. What she seems to forget, IMO, is the amount of evidence large animals would have to leave behind if there were any sustainable population. Even for the most elusive mountain gorillas we have a lot of other evidence, even when sightings are rare. That and folklore aren't her area of expertise (although of course she certainly knows a heck of a lot more about both than I do). But I think her input on the matter has been very valuable. I'd be a little disappointed in her famous curiosity if she simply dismissed them.

The problem with Goodall's expertise is that it's in dealing with animals living in a tropical rainforest, which doesn't translate terribly well to temperate forests: there's some significant differences caused simply by the much greater seasonal shifts. And she seems to have gotten a bit too caught up in how cool it would be if Bigfoot was real, something that pretty much every ecologist and biologist I know agree on, but the evidence just isn't there.

[ganzfeld]

All true. But I suspect there's something else going on, maybe that even she isn't fully aware of. She has her own objectives and in many ways and for many reasons, those objectives benefit from the possibility of a large apelike creature living in North America. It would be nice if every scientist could be 100% objective but, when the stakes are so high, I find it hard to criticize her.

[crocoduck_hunter]

Oh, yeah. The problem, of course, is that like all scientists, she's a human and therefore unable to maintain 100% objectivity. Can't fault her for it, but it is a touch annoying to have her name tossed out as an argument from authority when someone brings up the existence of Bigfoot.

[Gutter Monkey]

Originally Posted by Singing in the Drizzle

The Tent/camper video does look real, just not slightest big convinced it is a Big Foot. Look to be at most the size of a real gorilla since the camera appeared to be looking straight out and maybe a little up out a small vent not far off the ground. Not to mention there is nothing telling us were the video was taken.

All I will say is that it look to be a real video taken with a halfway decent camera (doubt it was a cell phone camera) of a primate of some sort somewhere in the world through the vent in a tent. That is a long way from saying it proof of Big Foot.

Oh it's definitely a primate. I'm pretty sure I know the exact species as well.
As Mickey Blue said, the likeliest explanation is that it was a homo sapiens in a costume. Here's a video of someone in a silicone Bigfoot mask that shows at least as much facial mobility as whatever was in that initial video. Foam latex prosthetics would look even more realistic. Movie special effect techniques are becoming fairly accessible to the general public so it's becoming easier and easier to create fairly convincing hoax videos every day.

The fact that whoever shot the video is staying anonymous and a known hoaxer is somehow involved in it also throws up BIG red warning signals.