State of Sasquatch Research

[Explorer]

Research into the sasquatch phenomenon for the past 50+ years has been dispersed, non-standardized, unorganized, and without any gate keeping organizations.  Diversity of strategies, methodologies and groups is generally good in the initial stages of discovery because nobody knows anything with certainty about the subject and a wide-net diverse approach could yield more evidence.  Nonetheless, as the years pass, we keep getting the same old pieces of evidence (anecdotal stories, casts of footprints, blurry photos (now in thermal), sound recordings, hairs (which analysis leads nowhere)) that are not conducive to scientific acceptance for the existence of this creature.

 

Meanwhile, the community of field researchers have grown significantly since the mid 1990’s thanks to the internet, new organizations that made it possible to connect researchers, and TV shows treating the subject seriously.  As a result, there are probably thousands of people in North America going into the field each year with similar ineffective tactics (placing game cameras, screaming BF like howls, sound blasting recordings of sasquatch, wood-knocking in the forests, walking at night with thermal imagers or night vision, looking for tracks and casting them, etc.). 

 

Many of these people just want to get the thrill of an experience and are not necessarily interested in the collection of evidence to prove the existence of this creature to the scientific community.  There is nothing wrong with that.  There are no accepted research protocols or standards, and every person is out there for get her/his own personal experience and contribution to the field. 

 

Stan Courtney tried to list all the sasquatch research organizations on his website, but the flux in and out is so high that many of the links do not work and he is probably missing many new organizations that pop in every year.

http://www.stancourtney.com/squatchmarks.html

 

One of the interesting aspects of the sasquatch research community is that not everyone has the same objectives.  Some organizations and individuals would like to get a specimen and settle the mystery once and for all.  While others just want to document their presence for themselves via audio, video, or photos, and don’t care what the scientific community thinks of this personal evidence.  Others just want to experience their presence without documentation.  Others (the habituators) want to establish communication and interaction with them without the collection of any evidence.  Some might just want to set up YouTube videos of their walks in the forest, pointing out every tepee or glyph that they think a bigfoot created. 

 

Juxtaposed to the personal objectives of independent researchers are those of the national and statewide organizations.  Sometimes these objectives align, and the groups grow, and sometimes they diverge and the groups break-up or shrink.   Of interest are the mission statements and objectives of some of the best-known sasquatch organizations:

 

BFRO:  The overall mission of the BFRO is multifaceted, but the organization essentially seeks to resolve the mystery surrounding the bigfoot phenomenon, that is, to derive conclusive documentation of the species' existence. This goal is pursued through the proactive collection of empirical data and physical evidence from the field and by means of activities designed to promote an awareness and understanding of the nature and origin of the evidence.

 

Olympic Project:  The OP is an association of dedicated researchers, investigators, biologists, and trackers committed to documenting the existence of Sasquatch through science and education. Through comprehensive habitat study, DNA analysis and game camera deployment, our goal is to obtain as much information and empirical evidence as we can, with hopes of being as prepared as possible when and if species verification comes to fruition. Our studies are conducted in a non-invasive manner with respect and sensitivity to probable habitat we believe this amazing species inhabits.

 

NAWAC:  To investigate and conduct research regarding the existence of the unlisted primate species we refer to as the wood ape, also known as the sasquatch or bigfoot; to facilitate scientific, official, and governmental recognition, conservation, and protection of the species and its habitat; and to help further factual education and understanding to the public regarding the species, with a focus on the continent of North America.

Our members are investigating one of the greatest natural enigmas of our time, and our main goal is to ultimately have the wood ape species documented, protected, and the land they inhabit protected.

 

AIBR: The Alliance of Independent Bigfoot Researchers: 

The main thrust of AIBR research is dedicated to the scientific study of the creatures popularly known as bigfoot. The objective of AIBR is to collect, collate and document evidence using forensically sound, scientific procedures, and present the resulting evidence to mainstream scientists as part of an effort to prove the creature’s existence. A significant effort is made into documenting Native American references to these creatures.

 

Of these 4 organizations, it seems that the AIBR was the one that could have helped the large diverse and disperse group of independent researchers across the US and Canada. Unfortunately, their website is no longer working. I don’t know if they are still active.  I believe that Kathy Strain was one of the founders and might let us know what their situation is.  If AIBR failed to get traction across North America, maybe it was because of the rugged individualism of the independent researchers and their lack of desire to join a group, share their findings, or be told how to conduct research properly. 

 

While the Olympic Project is making in-roads into the study of nests and implementation of e-DNA studies, we still have not seen any published papers from that effort.  NAWAC published a monograph on their findings in the Ouachita Mountains, but they have not been able to capture a specimen or gotten video or photographs after 15 years in the target area.  I am not sure if BFRO publishes any findings from their efforts.  I have never seen a monograph published by BFRO on the evidence found to date from all their collective research efforts (but maybe it is out there buried in their website). 

 

As of 2022, I don’t see any changes coming afoot on the research methods and practices that will change the game and increase the odds of better evidence coming forward.  Technology will continue to improve (drones, thermal imagers, game cameras, e-DNA testing, etc.) but I doubt they will change the outcome.

 

Despite all the smart people that have contributed to the field and are continuously and creatively looking for new ways to get better evidence (from Washington to Florida and from Canada to Texas and all places in between), the community at large has not been able to crack the code.  The odds are low that some new method or technique will arise that will change the game’s outcome, or the types of available evidence so far collected.  I don’t think the problem is a lack of technology available to the researchers. The problem probably lies on flawed field research practices and methods.

 

We could be making some wrong assumptions about the target’s capabilities, or the assumed hypothesis could be wrong. I don’t have the answers and just wanted to share my observations and misgivings.

[Patterson-Gimlin]

Thanks for sharing. An interesting read. 

[Marty]

Good read, I am probably in the minority with this mindset, but to me searching and the mere act of discovery is essentially an act of violence towards these animals and I'm under the hard assumption that discovery won't come from any team that regularly make themselves targets and underestimate the intelligence of these primates, but from a lucky, unsuspecting hiker/hunter or motorist. It just seems this way to me. I don't like to romanticize this, but I think people regularly make the mistake of calling them "just animals" undermining their intelligence as greater apes because Apes are really smart as well as fully aware. They know stuff.

 

Think Guerilla not Gorilla.

Edited March 27, 2022 by Marty

[gigantor]

3 hours ago, Explorer said:

there are probably thousands of people in North America going into the field each year

 

I disagree with you there. I think you could count with two hands the number of committed groups who hit the field repeatedly and methodically and that is the problem.

 

 

[FelixTheCat]

52 minutes ago, gigantor said:

 

I disagree with you there. I think you could count with two hands the number of committed groups who hit the field repeatedly and methodically and that is the problem.

 

 

Sadly, I think Gigantor is correct. groups that do research should share in my opinion.  This subject goes nowhere if everyone is worried about who gets credit.

[MIB]

Fair enough.    I have a different take-away though.

 

4 hours ago, Explorer said:

The problem probably lies on flawed field research practices and methods.

 

My analogy is icebergs.  10% above the surface, 90% below .. give or take.    I don't think it is our research practices or methods that are flawed, I think it is the assumptions that guide them .. a deeper, more fundamental flaw.  We're not inept.   I believe that if our assumptions were right, then our methods would have produced results.    

 

I don't know what the answer is but I am convinced that whatever it is, we're going to find that bigfoots aren't what we think they are.   

 

I think we need to step back and review the apparent crackpot theories.   Apply some science to them looking for ways they could succeed, not just for ways to dismiss them.    I think that because we are uncomfortable with aspects of them, we attempt to force failure so we don't have to face discomfort rather than looking into them to see how they might work thus suss out the answer to our mystery.    You might even say we use "pure science" as a means to hide intellectual cowardice. 

 

MIB

[Explorer]

5 hours ago, Explorer said:

We could be making some wrong assumptions about the target’s capabilities, or the assumed hypothesis could be wrong.

 

1 hour ago, MIB said:

I don't think it is our research practices or methods that are flawed, I think it is the assumptions that guide them .. a deeper, more fundamental flaw. 

 

@MIB , I agree with you that we might have the wrong assumptions (as I wrote above).  And if some assumptions are flawed, then some of our current methods and practices that are based on those assumptions are also flawed.

 

 

1 hour ago, MIB said:

I think we need to step back and review the apparent crackpot theories.   Apply some science to them looking for ways they could succeed, not just for ways to dismiss them.    I think that because we are uncomfortable with aspects of them, we attempt to force failure so we don't have to face discomfort rather than looking into them to see how they might work thus suss out the answer to our mystery.    You might even say we use "pure science" as a means to hide intellectual cowardice. 

 

 

I am open to new ideas and approaches.  

 

What I see happening today among many field researchers across the US (and yes there are thousands out there; they don't need to be academic or credentialed, just weekend warriors) are the same results (track finds, audio, blurred photos, tepee and glyph photos, etc).  

Like I said above, there is nothing wrong with being a weekend warrior field researcher and discovering on your own the reality of the sasquatch phenomena.

However, doing the same thing over and over again will not lead to new results.

 

 

Edited March 27, 2022 by Explorer

[wiiawiwb]

There are times I paddle out in a canoe or kayak on a large pond fishing for a good-sized largemouth bass. There might be thousands in that pond but there is no guarantee of hooking one. There are times when I am completely skunked. Maybe it was an impending cold front, maybe there weren't where I thought they'd be...who knows.

 

Instead of exploring 100 acres with thousands to catch when fishing, with sasquatching you may be exploring 1,000 square miles that hold only a handful...maybe. Those few have a developed brain and are purposely looking to avoid us.

 

I am convinced that with a sasquatch there's more than meets the eye. That said, there is only so much one person, or even a few together, can do in expansive areas.  I'm always willing to try new approaches so if someone has ideas, I'd love to hear them.

Edited March 28, 2022 by wiiawiwb

[BlackRockBigfoot]

8 hours ago, gigantor said:

 

I disagree with you there. I think you could count with two hands the number of committed groups who hit the field repeatedly and methodically and that is the problem.

 

 

This.

 

There are tons of people talk about it.  Post about it on Facebook.  Hang out at the local KOA and walk the perimeter of the campground at night banging on trees. 
 

Not that there is anything wrong with any of that… people should be able to enjoy the subject and involve themselves however they like.  
 

But, what I think would be considered ‘research’?  Not many people are involved with that.  
 

There’s a reason why more people gravitate to ghost hunting than Bigfoot research.  Because Bigfoot research is often difficult, dirty, time consuming often without much payoff, expensive, and often carries a bit of a social stigma.  
 

Not to mention the personality types that seem to be attracted to this sort of thing.  Petty infighting and jealousy.  Scarcity mentality.  Lack of self awareness.  All of those tend to keep the people from getting too involved as well.  

7 hours ago, MIB said:

You might even say we use "pure science" as a means to hide intellectual cowardice. 

This is one of the most truthful comments ever made on this forum.

 

Let’s be honest… witness reports, accounts, and evidence are often cherry-picked to conform with a person’s personal biases.  A lot of people cry out for a purely scientific approach to the phenomenon, while basically twisting accepted science into knots trying to explain that which seems to elude explanation.  
 

Warm blooded animals seeing in infrared.  Infrasound trotted out as a catch all explanation despite its established limitations.  Mammals displaying bioluminescence in sensory organs that depend upon light themselves.  Physical speed and stealth far in excess of any other primate.   “These things are just undiscovered apes… apes that display physical abilities far in excess than any other animal found on earth”.  
 

Established science gets tied into knots… and then the knot tiers complain about why established scientists don’t take the subject seriously.
 

A lot of people are not comfortable saying “I don’t know.”  They need to build a narrative to explain things.  
 

I don’t know what these things are 

6 hours ago, Explorer said:

Like I said above, there is nothing wrong with being a weekend warrior field researcher and discovering on your own the reality of the sasquatch phenomena.

However, doing the same thing over and over again will not lead to new results.

On the contrary… I think that you will find those independent weekend warriors to be more adaptable and willing to try new things than any established organization.  Those independents are not so constrained by groupthink or required methodology.  Those groups have their structure, beliefs, and methods… in order to be part of the group you will need to conform with those constraints.  
 

We see it all the time… people who are quick to attack others for having a different approach, all the while talking about their “20 years of experience”.  No, man.  You have one year’s experience repeated 20 times.

[norseman]

14 hours ago, Explorer said:

Research into the sasquatch phenomenon for the past 50+ years has been dispersed, non-standardized, unorganized, and without any gate keeping organizations.  Diversity of strategies, methodologies and groups is generally good in the initial stages of discovery because nobody knows anything with certainty about the subject and a wide-net diverse approach could yield more evidence.  Nonetheless, as the years pass, we keep getting the same old pieces of evidence (anecdotal stories, casts of footprints, blurry photos (now in thermal), sound recordings, hairs (which analysis leads nowhere)) that are not conducive to scientific acceptance for the existence of this creature.

 

Meanwhile, the community of field researchers have grown significantly since the mid 1990’s thanks to the internet, new organizations that made it possible to connect researchers, and TV shows treating the subject seriously.  As a result, there are probably thousands of people in North America going into the field each year with similar ineffective tactics (placing game cameras, screaming BF like howls, sound blasting recordings of sasquatch, wood-knocking in the forests, walking at night with thermal imagers or night vision, looking for tracks and casting them, etc.). 

 

Many of these people just want to get the thrill of an experience and are not necessarily interested in the collection of evidence to prove the existence of this creature to the scientific community.  There is nothing wrong with that.  There are no accepted research protocols or standards, and every person is out there for get her/his own personal experience and contribution to the field. 

 

Stan Courtney tried to list all the sasquatch research organizations on his website, but the flux in and out is so high that many of the links do not work and he is probably missing many new organizations that pop in every year.

http://www.stancourtney.com/squatchmarks.html

 

One of the interesting aspects of the sasquatch research community is that not everyone has the same objectives.  Some organizations and individuals would like to get a specimen and settle the mystery once and for all.  While others just want to document their presence for themselves via audio, video, or photos, and don’t care what the scientific community thinks of this personal evidence.  Others just want to experience their presence without documentation.  Others (the habituators) want to establish communication and interaction with them without the collection of any evidence.  Some might just want to set up YouTube videos of their walks in the forest, pointing out every tepee or glyph that they think a bigfoot created. 

 

Juxtaposed to the personal objectives of independent researchers are those of the national and statewide organizations.  Sometimes these objectives align, and the groups grow, and sometimes they diverge and the groups break-up or shrink.   Of interest are the mission statements and objectives of some of the best-known sasquatch organizations:

 

BFRO:  The overall mission of the BFRO is multifaceted, but the organization essentially seeks to resolve the mystery surrounding the bigfoot phenomenon, that is, to derive conclusive documentation of the species' existence. This goal is pursued through the proactive collection of empirical data and physical evidence from the field and by means of activities designed to promote an awareness and understanding of the nature and origin of the evidence.

 

Olympic Project:  The OP is an association of dedicated researchers, investigators, biologists, and trackers committed to documenting the existence of Sasquatch through science and education. Through comprehensive habitat study, DNA analysis and game camera deployment, our goal is to obtain as much information and empirical evidence as we can, with hopes of being as prepared as possible when and if species verification comes to fruition. Our studies are conducted in a non-invasive manner with respect and sensitivity to probable habitat we believe this amazing species inhabits.

 

NAWAC:  To investigate and conduct research regarding the existence of the unlisted primate species we refer to as the wood ape, also known as the sasquatch or bigfoot; to facilitate scientific, official, and governmental recognition, conservation, and protection of the species and its habitat; and to help further factual education and understanding to the public regarding the species, with a focus on the continent of North America.

Our members are investigating one of the greatest natural enigmas of our time, and our main goal is to ultimately have the wood ape species documented, protected, and the land they inhabit protected.

 

AIBR: The Alliance of Independent Bigfoot Researchers: 

The main thrust of AIBR research is dedicated to the scientific study of the creatures popularly known as bigfoot. The objective of AIBR is to collect, collate and document evidence using forensically sound, scientific procedures, and present the resulting evidence to mainstream scientists as part of an effort to prove the creature’s existence. A significant effort is made into documenting Native American references to these creatures.

 

Of these 4 organizations, it seems that the AIBR was the one that could have helped the large diverse and disperse group of independent researchers across the US and Canada. Unfortunately, their website is no longer working. I don’t know if they are still active.  I believe that Kathy Strain was one of the founders and might let us know what their situation is.  If AIBR failed to get traction across North America, maybe it was because of the rugged individualism of the independent researchers and their lack of desire to join a group, share their findings, or be told how to conduct research properly. 

 

While the Olympic Project is making in-roads into the study of nests and implementation of e-DNA studies, we still have not seen any published papers from that effort.  NAWAC published a monograph on their findings in the Ouachita Mountains, but they have not been able to capture a specimen or gotten video or photographs after 15 years in the target area.  I am not sure if BFRO publishes any findings from their efforts.  I have never seen a monograph published by BFRO on the evidence found to date from all their collective research efforts (but maybe it is out there buried in their website). 

 

As of 2022, I don’t see any changes coming afoot on the research methods and practices that will change the game and increase the odds of better evidence coming forward.  Technology will continue to improve (drones, thermal imagers, game cameras, e-DNA testing, etc.) but I doubt they will change the outcome.

 

Despite all the smart people that have contributed to the field and are continuously and creatively looking for new ways to get better evidence (from Washington to Florida and from Canada to Texas and all places in between), the community at large has not been able to crack the code.  The odds are low that some new method or technique will arise that will change the game’s outcome, or the types of available evidence so far collected.  I don’t think the problem is a lack of technology available to the researchers. The problem probably lies on flawed field research practices and methods.

 

We could be making some wrong assumptions about the target’s capabilities, or the assumed hypothesis could be wrong. I don’t have the answers and just wanted to share my observations and misgivings.

Out of the four groups mentioned? Only one is dedicated to taking a type specimen. And I just learned that actually a documented species needs TWO type specimens. One male and one female. No amount of DNA will replace sciences demand for two type specimens in order to recognize a new species. They require the morphology. I learned this from Dr. Mayor’s Lemur study in Madagascar.

 

So this is a game changer. Anyone who is advocating DNA testing? Are ultimately advocating that two specimens be collected and dissected. Full stop. Dr. Mayor is against killing animals and provided two Lemurs to live out their lives in captivity only to become type specimens after death. Which is fine for a species of tiny Lemur. It’s not applicable to a 800 lbs forest giant. Unless remains can be found.

 

I agree that the wood knock, whooping group with dental resin casts is a hobby. A hobby not taken seriously by science. They may have street cred, a long history and a really cool website? But this methodology is a dead end.

 

DNA is cool, it’s still problematic for the average amateur researcher. Cost, accuracy, and reliability all seem to be big hurdles. I.e. Dr. Mayor got a DNA hit for Chimp DNA in Kentucky. Cool. But where does that lead? Well it’s not a smoking gun. It’s only a hint of being on the right track.

 

So we are back to square one. A body is needed. Let’s push shooting one aside for a moment. What are other avenues we could explore?

1) Caves

2) Forest Fires

3) Rock slides

4) River banks

 

Could we use cadaver dogs? Or search and rescue dogs?

 

Homo Nadeli actively buried their dead. Denisovans, Homo Floresiensis and others? All bones found in caves. If we think Bigfoot is more human like? Caves are an excellent starting point.

 

Another lead is trying to find old news articles of giant remains found by settlers and then attempting to trace those remains down. They may be on a dusty museum shelf somewhere sitting in a box.

 

Scouting areas after forest fires or rock slides could yield fresh remains of a victim.

 

In Siberia every year something gets sluffed out of a river bank eroding. Mammoths, cave lions, dire wolves and many other species are found sometimes well preserved.

 

Any other thoughts?

 

I think it’s more productive to talk about what can be done than pointing fingers.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Catmandoo]

3 hours ago, BlackRockBigfoot said:

There’s a reason why more people gravitate to ghost hunting than Bigfoot research.  Because Bigfoot research is often difficult, dirty, time consuming often without much payoff, expensive, and often carries a bit of a social stigma.  

 

Good points by BRB.

What I have heard people say is that 'bigfooting' is snipe hunting for adults. I suspect 99.99% of the general public has that view.  Getting past the snipe hunting opinion is difficult. Takes time, money and a lot of skin in the activity.  

[wiiawiwb]

Excellent points BRB. You hit the nail on the head. Great job!

[Marty]

Lot of great takes in this thread, I like to see that

[Explorer]

16 hours ago, BlackRockBigfoot said:

On the contrary… I think that you will find those independent weekend warriors to be more adaptable and willing to try new things than any established organization.  Those independents are not so constrained by groupthink or required methodology.  Those groups have their structure, beliefs, and methods… in order to be part of the group you will need to conform with those constraints.  
 

We see it all the time… people who are quick to attack others for having a different approach, all the while talking about their “20 years of experience”.  No, man.  You have one year’s experience repeated 20 times.

 

Thanks for your passionate defense of the independent researcher and weekend warrior (of whom I am one).

 

However, you are not giving credit to all the smart and creative independent researchers who have come before you over the last 20 years and before.

These guys did not keep doing the same thing over and over again.

On the contrary, they tried many new things, and jumped on new technology and avoided groupthink and did their own thing.

 

There has never been any protocols for research in the past and all past independent researchers were experimenting just like today.

The time line does not start today, but started years ago.

 

I think there have been lots of smart and creative people giving it a shot in the past.

The issue is not lack of creative smart independent researchers doing things differently, the issue is that we keep getting the same results (more track casts, blurry photos, hair samples, etc.).

 

A good different outcome, that would impress me, is somebody capturing in clear video a sasquatch family living in the wild in daytime.  That would be something new!

What new strategy or methodology could yield that outcome that has not been tried yet?

 

 

Edited March 28, 2022 by Explorer

[gigantor]

34 minutes ago, Explorer said:

What new strategy or methodology could yield that outcome that has not been tried yet?

 

Not new, but simply not done.

 

Go out to bigfoot country, make a temporary camp and stay there from April to September. No motor vehicles. Live there for 6 months, cook, chop wood, hunt, fish, etc and be ready for the moment.