When Did Bigfoot Become Popular? What Year?

[GuyInIndiana]

GuyInIndiana- Wallace may have been a fake but Jerry Crew swore the tracts he encountered the morning after a mad Sas threw loaded 55 gallon drums down the gulley and equiptment being thrown around was beyond human strength. Many Sas footprints from the site were verified and documented. Hey. if you have time try to look up the Jerry Crew article;and also noted articles by John Green and Rene Dahendien(?).

 

Right. None of that's new information. My point being it [bigfoot] wasn't a new topic in 1967 when the PGF came to be, since that was the question I was answering in that post.

[JDL]

The short answer is that bigfoot entered the public consciousness when people realized they could make money off of feeding it to the public.

[roguefooter]

The topic for the most part has been regional up until the late 50s and Jerry Crew. The 60's brought us the magazines like Fate, Pursuit, and Argosy. These brought those regional stories to life, which sparked the adventurers namely Patterson. The Patterson film vaulted the subject into popular thought as the film was shown around the country. The 70s brought Bigfoot into pop culture with the movies, docudramas and researchers coming out with their books on the subject. The 80s were all the above, the 90s brought us the internet and the explosion in Bigfoot databases, stories, and information. The turn of the century brought us the blog groups, conferences, radio, and tv. The subject has been evolving and growing interwoven into the fabric of the nation to where it's hard the know when it all began.

 

I would agree with this, with the addition of the Abominable Snowman craze of the 50's and 60's. The snowman popularity kind of started the big interest here and was a pedestal for the Bigfoot sightings.

[norseman]

You guys should really check out my Bauman story thread.

This topic has been flogged thoroughly.....

[Drew]

Bigfoot legend took off when IN SEARCH OF... was televised nationally in 1977.

 

Patterson had made inroads, but with a mailed newsletter for only a couple years, he could not get mass coverage.

 

His movie was only shown in a few theatres in the NW.

[JDL]

Remember the Nimoy show.  First episode.  The familiar, though distorted, howl at the beginning.

[Guest Darrell]

When did it get popular? As far as main stream this phenomina ebbs and flows. PGF, Legend of Boggy Creek movie, Mysterious Monsters movie, all had people talking about bigfoot every few years from the late 60's to about 1976. Then it pretty much dies out until the internet becomes popular in the late 90's. Then come the cable bigfoot shows in the mid 2000's. Im sure in a couple years when nothing gets found it will get quiet until the next big thing bumps it up.

Edited January 27, 2014 by Darrell

[Guest JiggyPotamus]

There is a stigma attached to even the idea of bigfoot. There are a lot of individuals who think that if someone mentions bigfoot in a serious manner the person is weird, or worse. Sasquatch is a legitimate scientific topic, although very few scientists realize the fact. And there is a disservice being done to science, and anyone who takes the subject seriously, when there is this perpetuation of the stigma. Just about every single time I can remember hearing something about bigfoot on the news, there has been a hostile attitude, although sometimes masked, towards the topic, or it will be a tongue in cheek sort of thing, and it really aggravates me. What I mean by a hostile attitude being masked is that someone may not come right out and call you stupid for believing in bigfoot, but judging by their expression, body language, tone of voice, you can tell that is what they're thinking. I don't know what's worse...People thinking you're crazy, or stupid...Although being thought of as both crazy and stupid is undoubtedly worse than either individually...

 

And in my opinion these outdated attitudes are the result of ignorance and intolerance. I mean can you believe that there are people who will automatically attack anything they don't believe in, even though they know absolutely nothing about it? This has happened numerous times in various scientific fields, often over extremely important ideas and topics. I'm sure we've all heard about how difficult it was for certain scientists to first get someone to listen to their idea, instead of continually dismissing it. And sometimes this turned into personal attacks on the individual attempting to correct everyone else's ignorance. And can you believe that even after evidence was presented that corroborated the new hypothesis, there were often times still many scientists in the field who continued to deny, denounce, defame, and who knows what else, instead of changing their world view to encompass the new evidence.

 

I just don't understand why there are people who seem to be threatened by new ideas. In certain cases it is understandable. In science I don't think it is ever acceptable, considering that every single scientist has always stated that science is strictly about the evidence, yet time and time again they have shown that this is not the case. It is often about personal beliefs and biases moreso than evidence and the truth.

 

It is not the questioning of the evidence in relation to sasquatch that bothers me, and it isn't even the skepticism; rather it is the outright rejection of the possibility that really aggravates me. This is mainly because those who are not allowing for the possibility are acting in the exact same manner as those who have come before them and been proved wrong, albeit in different fields. These people were also so certain, regardless of where the evidence was pointing.

 

I won't argue about the quality of the accumulated sasquatch evidence that is available today, but I think that there is enough circumstantial evidence to justify the possibility of sasquatch for someone who has not had their own personal experience. I am not saying they must accept the fact that sasquatch exist, but I am saying that outright denial of the possibility is a very bad thing, intellectually and scientifically speaking.

 

Holy cow, I completely forgot what this thread was about, lol. Okay, moving on, I am not positive, but I believe it was somewhere between the 50's and 70's. I think things might have taken off a bit more in the 70's though, but I am not sure to be honest. But ya know, I think sasquatch has always been a popular topic among small groups of people, even before the arrival of Europeans, as the Native Americans all believed in sasquatch, as many had personal experiences. It is highly coincidental that independently of Native American experiences other people have been reporting similar things. I think it would be wrong to believe that Native Americans started up some legend about bigfoot, and that legend remained in various places throughout North America, only to take off again 40 years or so ago. Especially considering it was a rare thing for Natives to discuss the topic with white men. It just did not happen, especially back then. It happens more today, but still not that often, especially among Natives who still live a traditional lifestyle and who have not been westernized as much as a typical American...If that makes sense. Those who still hold strong ties to their roots, traditions, customs, etc...That's a better way of putting it.

 

Many witnesses never gave any thought to bigfoot, until they had an encounter. In fact, I would guess that quite a few researchers got started because of an experience they had, or because of an experience by someone they trust. The Ostman story is interesting for many reasons, especially because of the minute details and characteristics he reported. If his story is true, and as far-fetched as it sounds, I believe it probably is, it is one of the most important encounter reports, or the most important, we will ever receive. I can think of no other report where the witness was in a position to learn so much. And Ostman reported information regarding their behavior that we can get nowhere else. And a very important aspect of the whole story is that the things he stated at the time were not popular knowledge like they are today.

 

And not only that, but the things he stated have more or less been confirmed with later research, and most investigators in this field, armchair or field researchers, accept the fact that there are certain traits shared among the entire population of sasquatch. And Ostman nailed some of these traits, well before anyone knew about them. I would not be so sure such information was ever being talked about among the Native Americans. So it is not likely that Ostman, at such a time, could have easily picked up such information. And then he would have had to come up with the whole story. Some of the behaviors described once he was back at their "camp" are behaviors that only a small percentage of Native Americans would have known about...They knew of sasquatch, and occasionally had sasquatch steal their fish, or they would see them, much like we still do today. But they didn't live with them. They didn't have an intimate knowledge of them. If they did, then many tribes probably wouldn't have attributed supernatural abilities to them. It is exactly because of the ambiguity in the two species' relationship that such traditions and rumors developed. At least in my opinion.

 

The Ape Canyon story is interesting, and I also believe there is some truth in it. Rock throwing among non-human primates was not something that was widely known, or even known at all, for quite a long time. What is described in that story just makes sense, and again, the behaviors it presented have stood the test of time. We don't know everything there is to know about sasquatch, but we know more because we have more data and evidence. Much, much more, than anyone did back then, or even during Patterson's time.

 

And regarding the PGF, and how well-known bigfoot was at the time, I don't think it was very well known at all. Many people may have heard of bigfoot, but I would guess that most did not really understand the idea, or take it seriously. This is evidenced by the lack of researchers. Look at the number of researchers we have today, and compare it with the small number that were around in Patterson's time. Certainly that is a sort of gauge for popularity and maybe even belief.

 

And the PGF has a lot of things going for it. It has never been definitively proven to be a hoax, and I don't think it is. The detractors and skeptics of the film, hypocritically in my opinion, attempt to use the exact same forms of argument to "prove" it is fake that others do to prove it is real. But those who are attempting to prove its authenticity get scolded because their arguments are not sound, or are not "proof" of any kind. It is laughable to be honest, if you have ever seen or been involved in such an exchange.

 

There are things about the subject in the PGF that never received widespread attention. Especially considering there was no internet back then. And wouldn't you know it, that in a number of videos that supposedly depict bigfoot, some of those same characteristics can be seen. Take something like the compliant gait. For someone who was attempting to pull off a hoax, they would have to really do their research. Well, not so much today, since recently such talk has become popular. But there are still videos of supposed bigfoot that show such a method of locomotion, prior to a time when the focus of a hoaxer would have been on that area. Maybe that isn't definitive, but it sure seems coincidental that things start falling into place all the time, and prior evidence seems only to be bolstered by new evidence in the majority of cases. One should expect a small number of hoaxes here and there, and I would bet that the divergence from the main characteristics depicted by sasquatch in the majority of video evidence will fall within the expected percentage of expected hoaxes. Of course it is not really possible to know what such a number would be, but it would be a single digit in my opinion.

Edited January 27, 2014 by JiggyPotamus

[Guest]

Thankyou jiggy

[hiflier]

Hello ItsAsquatch,

I'm with you. Nice one Jiggy.

[Drew]

There is a stigma attached to even the idea of bigfoot. There are a lot of individuals who think that if someone mentions bigfoot in a serious manner the person is weird, or worse. Sasquatch is a legitimate scientific topic, although very few scientists realize the fact. And there is a disservice being done to science, and anyone who takes the subject seriously, when there is this perpetuation of the stigma. Just about every single time I can remember hearing something about bigfoot on the news, there has been a hostile attitude, although sometimes masked, towards the topic, or it will be a tongue in cheek sort of thing, and it really aggravates me. What I mean by a hostile attitude being masked is that someone may not come right out and call you stupid for believing in bigfoot, but judging by their expression, body language, tone of voice, you can tell that is what they're thinking. I don't know what's worse...People thinking you're crazy, or stupid...Although being thought of as both crazy and stupid is undoubtedly worse than either individually...

 

And in my opinion these outdated attitudes are the result of ignorance and intolerance. I mean can you believe that there are people who will automatically attack anything they don't believe in, even though they know absolutely nothing about it? This has happened numerous times in various scientific fields, often over extremely important ideas and topics. I'm sure we've all heard about how difficult it was for certain scientists to first get someone to listen to their idea, instead of continually dismissing it. And sometimes this turned into personal attacks on the individual attempting to correct everyone else's ignorance. And can you believe that even after evidence was presented that corroborated the new hypothesis, there were often times still many scientists in the field who continued to deny, denounce, defame, and who knows what else, instead of changing their world view to encompass the new evidence.

 

 

 

Jiggy-

The problem is, that Sasquatch is not a legitimate scientific topic.  To a vast majority of people who have had a cursory glance at the Bigfoot phenomenon, it is a joke.  Bigfoot comes down from UFO's, Bigfoot is an emissary from the 5th dimension headquartered at the center of Mars, Bigfoot raped me and I liked it, Bigfoot braided my horse's mane, Bigfoot stole my beans, and left me a dead birdie as payment.   These are just the beginning, the media people have had people coming forward with their Bigfoot videos, and press conferences and every one of them turns out to be a hoax.  How can you blame anyone on TV news for being anything BUT mocking?

 

You keep talking about the 'New Evidence', it's the same evidence regurgitated in different formats time after time.   Film, Video, FLIR, Bumbling stars of Bigfoot TV Series, it is ongoing Fail! year after year.

[Guest Urkelbot]

I agree it's not a legitimate scientific topic until some evidence comes foward that is definitively from an unknown primate.

The subject of Bigfoot will continue to be ridiculed and mocked until this occurs. You can parade all the current evidence before a scientist, garbage man, middle schooler, etc and the first thing they'll ask is where's the bodies, clear photos, DNA, fossils. Proceed with all the fashionable excuses and watch the eyes roll.

There's just a lot of things missing that shouldnt be if your dealing with an animal that has a continental range. Most people more or less understand this and so disregard the field as a joke.

[norseman]

Jiggy-

The problem is, that Sasquatch is not a legitimate scientific topic. To a vast majority of people who have had a cursory glance at the Bigfoot phenomenon, it is a joke. Bigfoot comes down from UFO's, Bigfoot is an emissary from the 5th dimension headquartered at the center of Mars, Bigfoot raped me and I liked it, Bigfoot braided my horse's mane, Bigfoot stole my beans, and left me a dead birdie as payment. These are just the beginning, the media people have had people coming forward with their Bigfoot videos, and press conferences and every one of them turns out to be a hoax. How can you blame anyone on TV news for being anything BUT mocking?

You keep talking about the 'New Evidence', it's the same evidence regurgitated in different formats time after time. Film, Video, FLIR, Bumbling stars of Bigfoot TV Series, it is ongoing Fail! year after year.

And yet we now know the hobbit and homo

Heidelbergensis existed in Asia until at least 12000 years ago. And we have found a completely new species in the fossil record homo denisova in Asia as well.......,.

So the fossil record gets bushier and bushier as time goes on, with Asia being a prominent place for new discoveries.

With the hobbit having its own native myth surrounding it, the natives called it ebu gogo.

So while science can avoid the subject of Sasquatch or yeti or yeren or whatever because they find it impossible for something like that to still exist?

The evidence to the contrary is actually stacking up against them.

[roguefooter]

^Science was actually starting to take the field seriously back around 2003, then all of a sudden everything turned into a big joke. Autumn Williams throws in the towel over a hoax story. The Georgia boys fool believers and make headlines. Finding Bigfoot makes a total mockery of the field. Ketchum makes things look even worse. We had a panel of 'pros' of the field presenting pictures of Chewbacca as evidence. Then there's the field trusting Smeja only to see it backfire. Now Dyer is at it again making headlines.

Edited January 29, 2014 by roguefooter

[Guest DWA]

Interesting question; I'm seeing lots of stabs at it. 

 

I think it's hard to say when the critical mass of awareness started to build.  One thing is for sure:  P/G, hoax or not, is the first bigfoot film in history.

 

The Crews tracks made a bit of a flap, but I don't think they created a firestorm of media attention nationwide.

 

Bindernagel mentions a New York Times editorial from 1871 saying, essentially, "it's about time we cleared up what this 'wildman' thing represents."

(April 26, 1871.  See Bindernagel's The Discovery of the Sasquatch, p. 131-32.  If you have an Amazon account, you can look up the entry.)