Home / Culture and Society / Science and Technology / Bobby Clarke Bigfoot Video – Don’t Believe the Hype!?

Bobby Clarke Bigfoot Video – Don’t Believe the Hype!?

Please Share...Print this pageTweet about this on TwitterShare on Facebook0Share on Google+0Pin on Pinterest0Share on Tumblr0Share on StumbleUpon0Share on Reddit0Email this to someone

 It seems some news services are scrambling for updates on the recent Bobby Clarke Bigfoot video, and a statement on the case made by James Hare, a zoology professor at the University of Manitoba is apparently the best they`ve found. *Mr.Clarke is refusing interviews for the time being.


“Despite mounting excitement over a reported sighting of Bigfoot in northern Manitoba, a zoologist is warning people not to believe the hype. ‘I would say I’m very skeptical, because indeed most of these purported sightings prove to be hoaxes in the end,’ James Hare, a professor at the University of Manitoba, said yesterday.” He continues, ‘There is absolutely no credible scientific evidence of the existence of Bigfoot or Sasquatch or whatever you want to call it.’ – The Edmonton Sun


“There is absolutely no credible scientific evidence of the existence of Bigfoot or Sasquatch or whatever you want to call it” ….This slightly biased sounding statement led me to question to what extent Hare has studied the subject. Before accepting this statement as fact, I decided to do a little investigating myself. 


Believe it or not, there are  reputable scientists out there who consider not only the existence of Bigfoot plausible, but who warrant what little evidence we do have, as credible enough to merit serious study.


Discovery Channel`s, Daily Planet offers a video clip in which  Missy Flett, who has viewed the Clarke videotape, gives an audio description of what she saw, and her opinion on it`s authenticity. Also on the clip is an interview with Dr. Jeff Meldrum, an anatomist,  primatologist, and paleontologist with the University of Idaho who has been analyzing plaster casts of  purported Bigfoot tracks. Daily Planet, Latest Show, “I See Bigfoot”


In an 2003 article published on NationalGeographic.com, titled Forensic Expert Says Bigfoot Is Real, Investigator Jimmy Chilcutt of the Conroe Police Department in Texas, a specialist in finger- and footprints, states that after analyzing a plaster cast of a foot print found in Walla Walla, Washington in 1987, he is convinced that Bigfoot is real, and why. 


The NationalGeographic.com article also gives a solid overview of the history of Bigfoot phenomena, including a view from both sides of the debate….


Michael Dennet, from the Skeptical Inquirer states – “It’s the same kind of eyewitness reports we see for the Loch Ness Sea Monster, UFOs, ghosts, you name it,” he said. “The monster thing is a universal product of the human mind. We hear such stories from around the world.” – NationalGeographic.com


  Jane Goodall  in an interview on National Public Radio – “Renowned chimpanzee researcher Jane Goodall last year surprised an interviewer from National Public Radio when she said she was sure that large, undiscovered primates, such as the Yeti or Sasquatch, exist.” – National Geographic

*Goodall Interview Transcript. To listen to the interview – NPR Archive


If you`re interested in cryptozoology, or would like to learn more,  cryptozoology.com is a great resource site. After scanning their message board, it seems that some members have contacts who have supplied a few further details on the Clarke case not yet reported. For instance, the video apparently was filmed with a digital video camera, and was equipped with a zoom lens. Other sources have reported that Clarke is no longer in possession of the videotape, which I would presume to mean he has found someone to enhance, and possible verify the videotape as authentic.

Crypotzoology.com was spotlighted on Discovery Channel`s  Web guide: Cryptozoology.

The photo above is from the 1967 Patterson video


Annie`s Ink



Powered by

About Annie

  • The Patterson video is a fraud.

  • Nick Jones

    The “Loch Ness Sea Monster”? Well, what would you expect from one of those Skeptical Inquirer assholes anyway.

  • Bennett Dawson

    LOL! Good of you to pick that up, Nick.

  • Assholes… Rather than challenge their conclusive debunking of big foot fairy tales, you resorted to snide comments and peripheral nitpicking.

  • Ok,, so where can we download this video to watch?


  • The video hasn`t been released yet, Dave. The people who have seen it are friends and neighbors of the family.
    I do know that Clarke has spoken to some authorities on the subject, and has taken the video to Winnipeg to be analyzed, and enhanced, and to speak with his lawyer.

    Apparently the family has been inundated with inquiries from the media, and are holding out for the best offer, which I would do too!

    From what I`ve read, I don`t think the video is a hoax, at least not on the part of the family.

    I`ve heard that Clarke will be releasing a still from the video, and possibly holding a press conference soon.

    As far as the Patterson video being a fraud, I`m not convinced. First of all, the figure seen in the film has obvious female breasts…I just can believe a hoaxer in 1967 would go to the trouble of designing a “gorilla suit” with natural looking, AND moving breasts.

    Secondly, not just one “man in the gorilla suit” has come forward and confessed to playing the bigfoot role in the Patterson film, MANY have done so. From what I`ve read, as of yet, none have actually been able to prove their claims.

    If anyone knows of a proven claim to the film being a hoax, by all means I`d like to know about it

  • mikeymike

    Bigfoot enthusiasts,
    Read the letter below by a physician, in response to a Washington man claiming to be the guy in the suit in the 1967 Patterson film..
    Dear Editor,
    I read the absurd assertion that some guy named Bob Heironimus was
    the bigfoot creature in the Patterson/Gimlin film of 1967. One of
    my colleagues, Dr. Phil Mortensen actually met this Heironimus;
    allow me to say that if you believe that he actually was in the
    film, you are a fool’s fool. I have had the opportunity to examine
    the film frame by frame, and no way, especially in ’67, was such a
    suit that exhibited muscle movement and contraction available. Nor
    would one be easy to create today. I have attached frame 72, and
    prior and subsequent frames show muscular contraction and expansion,
    as one would expect from an upright, walking biped. And I speak
    specifically; the latissimus dorsi of the back, the gluteus maximus
    of the rear, the semitendinosus and biceps femoris of the back of
    the upper leg, and the plantaris tendon and gastrocnemius of the
    calf area. Even if none of that makes sense to you, this Heironimus
    is not nearly big enough to fill the suit out. We have determined
    the creature in the film to be nearly 7 feet tall, and in the area
    of 450-500 lbs. I know you have to write books, and hopefully this
    is just a ploy to sell them. You can’t actually believe the
    guy-in-the-suit theory…Can you?
    The muscles I wrote of were, of course, those of the human (and some
    primate) anatomy. I too, was hugely skeptical about the possibility
    that the bigfoot existed. I am now 60, and didn’t actually view the
    P/G film closely until 2002. I remember seeing it way back, probably
    in the early 70’s, but didn’t get the chance to dissect it, as it
    were, until fairly recently. I truly can think of no way to
    replicate such proper muscular movement. The creature we see in the
    film is alive, and is NOT a human being. In fact, the concurrent
    contraction of two or more muscle groups that occurs during a human
    walk (leg and lower back, for example, or gluteus maximus and upper
    leg) is nearly impossible for a layman to comprehend, much less
    Now the trick is to catch one of these beasts to lay all skepticism
    to waste. However, if one IS found, do the masses flock to the
    backcountry to see for themselves? Is it better left an unknown? Is
    the thrill gone should a corpse or live creature be collected? Ah..
    the mystique of it all.
    Best wishes, Dr. Lawrence Willard Foley, Orthopedist
    Submitted by mikeymike

  • Hey, Nick. Skeptical Inquirer happens to be one of the best magazines going. – that is of course unless you are a bigfoot/Loch Ness monster/aliens/ghosts…believing moron.

  • Eric Olsen

    I used to live next door to the Hendersons

    great post Annie, please keep us up on th story

  • Eric Olsen

    Annie, have you seen this Big Foot links site?

  • sydney

    What possess people to want to believe such ridiculous things? Why do people want so badly to believe superstitions?

    Funny that big-foot is always caught on tape or in a picture. Never any scientific proof, just little snippets of tape. No corpses. no bits of fur. No signs of its existing.

    Sasquatch must be the most illusive of all beings. More illusive than God himself. I mean, there have been more supposed witnesses to Christ’s miracles than to this sneaky sasquatch species.

    And the species is living right here in N.A. amongst 330 million people! And procreating for thousands of years, undetected, never leaving a trace of its self behind. It’s as though its all existence is designed to be unseen by humans.

    Annie’s a god-damned idiot. Go see your analyst Annie.

    MikeyMike you are a fool. You should check your sources.

    For all you Americans out there; Canada is a big place but it’s not that big. It’s not like we have a species of 8 foot tall beasts living under our noses and don’t realize it.

    I find this so hilarious, yet maddening at the same time. It doesn’t inspire much faith in mankind when you realize how naive and ignorant they can be.

  • Joe

    Sydney- you really should apologize, why do you want to be a dick to Annie and Mike? I mean from the multitude of comments you’ve posted today a casual observer could easily reach the conclusion that you’re pretty naive and ignorant yourself. Big frownie face to you.

  • sydney

    Fair enough, I probably deserved that and I expected it.

    I felt like being a dick, to be perfectly honest, because Annie and Mike’s opinions make me angry and frustrate me.

    I hope they don’t take it too personally. I wasn’t aiming to make them feel like shit after they hop up from their computer.. Just wanted to jostle them while they’re writing about Sasquatches.

    Anyway I apologize to Mike and Annie. Sincerely. I’m sure your nice people, and your opinions are likely no more outrageous than my own.

  • Eric Olsen

    there are perfectly respectable and reasonable scientists, like the one in the Discovery Channel video from Idaho, who think there is plenty of footprint evidence to believe a large undiscovered primate exists in North America. This does not strike me as on the same plane as ghosts or UFOs.

  • Rio

    Idiot of the year award–Sydney. How stupid are you? Dogmatic dismissals are a sign of the worst ignorance. I bet you sat your ass in church yesterday. What proof of God do you have? Yet there you are in church. Look at the evidence–1000’s and 1000’s of eye-witness sightings, pictures, video footage, tracks, and many hair samples that don’t match any other known creature. Dumb ass retard Sydney, look at the evidence before you open your big dumb ass mouth.

  • ClubhouseCancer

    The real problem is, Sasquatch refuses to believe that the Skeptical Inquirer exists.

  • Eric Olsen

    Sydney apologized – it should be accepted

  • Zorg

    I’m having a flashback here. This heightened interest in “real film” of a “longstanding mystery” reminds me an AWFUL LOT of Ray Santilli and the “alien autopsy” footage of several years back. Not saying that the same people are involved, just that the same TYPES of people are involved. The same tricky bank shots. The same waiting-with-bated-breath true believers.

  • Eric, I have been to that site…I`ve done a LOT of reading on the topic these last few days. Thanks for the heads up though!

    Mike, thanks for the info. I`m going to read up on it.

    Joe, thank you. 🙂

    Sydney, as a matter of fact, Canada has one of the lowest population densities in the world, with almost 90% of it`s 9,970,610 square kilometers of land mass being uninhabited. Plenty of room for an 8 foot creature to not only hide, but thrive undetected.

    If you don`t mind my asking Sydney, how you have come to your conclusions? Considering your strong stance, may I assume you`ve studied the subject? Or was this something you wrote off as too foolish to bother with?

    Everyone should keep in mind that resorting to name calling does little to add credibility to your point of view, which I`ll assume is important enough for you to have commented here in the first place. Play nice!

    Here`s a question…Twenty years ago, “Martians” were considered as plausible as the Boogy Man…Should NASA not have spent the billions of dollars it has searching for an impossibility ? Should they give up now?

    Sydney, apology accepted.

  • Duane

    It never ceases to amuse and amaze me … the things some people believe. Bigfeet in Canada!? Ha! With all the moose hunters up there, there is no way that a Bigfoot would not have been bagged by now. Every sane and educated person knows that the only genuine Bigfeet population lives in the Himalayas, where the locals know them as Yeti, or Bikfiti (the latter of which inspired the name “Bigfoot,” by the way).

  • Don’t you think by now, especially since everyone carries a camera or video recorder around with them for the last decade or so, that someone would have captured one of these guys on film, that is not a mile away, or undecipherably blurry, or shaky, or faked, etc.? That doesn’t even count the professional search expeditions out there looking for the big guys. That is why I compare Bigfoot to space aliens. Hundreds(?) of reported sightings each year, but no hard evidence at all. Come on.

  • Eric Olsen

    Paul, I am a skeptic regarding all manner of unproved claims, but unclassified species are hardly a bizarre concept. Who would have believed a dinosaur fish could still exist before a coelacanth turned up in a net?

    If these creatures are shy, somewhat intelligent, scarce, and remain in remote areas, it is hardly insane to think they could exist without yet having a specimen. There are footprint casts which a number of functioning breathing scientists, anatomists are convinced are not hoaxes and support the descriptions of large bipeds from a number of unrelated sources.

    No one knows the answer yet, but an open mind is a terrible thing to waste.

  • Eric, I hear what you are saying about unclassified species, and I just think it is “unlikely”, not insane, without having a specimin or other hard evidence by now. If Bigfoot does exist, I just hope he is friendly like when Andre the Giant played him on the Six Million Dollar Man.

  • Eric Olsen

    or Harry of the Hendersons

  • sydney

    Annie said:

    “Sydney, as a matter of fact, Canada has one of the lowest population densities in the world, with almost 90% of it`s 9,970,610 square kilometers of land mass being uninhabited. Plenty of room for an 8 foot creature to not only hide, but thrive undetected.”

    — Yes I realize this, I lived there for some time. I disagree that this is sufficient room for a species of animal to live undetected for 100’s of years.

    There are small, communities throughout nothern manitoba and all though I believe a reasoning, human being could elude us for a few years, perhaps, I don’t see a animal eluding us for that long.

    Nothern Manitoba is fairly heavily traversed in the summer time. There are fsihing camps, indigenous communities, cottages, and regular flights overhead.

    The biggest evidence against the sasquatch idea has to be genetics.

    One specimen of a species does not exist on its own. There would need to be 100’s (if not 1000’s) of these species in order to generate enough genetic variability to ensure suvival of the species (especially over 1000’s of years). By now they would be so goddamned full of disorders, disease and retardation that they sure as hell would have a difficult time hiding themselves.

    Secondly, Why is it these animals, unlike every other primate in the history of the world, avoid contact with other species’, and are able (it would seem, conciously) to erase all traces of it’s existence.

    Thirdly, I don’t believe a footprint is sufficient to prove anything. Nor do I believe it’s possible that anyone can say a footprint cannot be a hoax. Regardless of the accuracy of the casting. DNA is about the only thing we have tha

    I don’t have a great science backround but I have a minor in biology and I’ve spent enough time reading about science related articles over the years (since I teach it at the highschool level). My better judgment suggests that any scientist banking his claims on a few foot prints would not/is not accpeted by the larger scientific community.

    I also believe that many scientists make outrageous claims simply for fun, for money, and/or for recognition. Discovery chanel is suspect source.

    So to summarize, I just think this is so incredibaly unlikely that people need not bother to specualte about the validity of the evidence, but rather investigate the possibility/or liekly-hood of the animals existance.

    But as eric says, I’ll try to keep my mind open… and try not to get so frustrated.

  • Festus


    I agree with your comments about genetic diversity for a healthy reproductive population and I am aware of no reasonable explanation for that issue.

    However, it should be pointed out that a large primate species was recently discovered (by western science)in India (http://www.wcs.org/353624/6827362) – a country with higher human population density than either U.S. or Canada. I suspect the human traffic through the remote areas of this forested region in India is either comparable or higher than the deep woods of North America. The article at the referenced website indicates the locals were familiar with this monkey much as many North Americans claim to be familiar (have had contact) with sasquatch.

    Unique footprint evidence coupled with anecdotal information has in the past been sufficient to warrant serious scientific research for new primates. Perhaps Meldrum and Chilcutt have established (or getting close too) a sufficient level of fidelity in their observations of footprint castings to warrant scientific review.

    Since we don’t know what sasquatch DNA would look like, I don’t know how DNA evidence can prove the existence of a new primate species on its own. With proper documentation of its collection, it would be most useful to establish differentiation of species. This would probably require a dead or incapacitated critter.

    It should also be noted, scientific fraud occurs in all branches of research. Established scientists hungry for acclaim, tenure and funding make misleading claims all too frequently. It is not unique to cryptid research.

    I am curious but cautious on this issue.

  • sydney

    Well, that’s an interesting article but I don’t see it as being overly relevant.

    The primate from your article exists amongst at least 20 other primate species in that same region. It’s understandable that the locals or passers-by might not make special notice of it.

    It is also a very small and conspicuous animal which adds to it’s ability to hide.

    Lastly, I think this area of India would be far less traversed than northern Manitoba.

    As the article says the indigenous people of that Indian province were well aware of that species for many years. This suggests the species was quite visible, and that had people of the developed world frequented the area they would have noted the primates existence a long time ago.

    The sightings of Saquatches in North America are not like this. They are very suspect and very infrequent, despite the supposed enormity of the animal. Also, having now discovered this new primate in India, it is probably very easy to find it again, routinely (logically). Why isn’t this the case with the big-footed monsters?

    All the same, I take your point and am slightly more curious about the possibility than I was before.

  • bill green

    hi eveyone good evening i think the manitoba sasquatch footage could be real. but it defiently needs more researching done to it. hope its mentioned on more tv news shows etc. has there been any other sightings of sasquatch this month in manitoba or canada that maybe would kinda connect this footage to other sightings. thank you bill green ct sasquatch researcher.

  • jim smith

    there is more scientific evidence of the big hairy fellow than there is of God, why havent you folks at the skeptical inquirer done a piece on Him yet?

  • CODY

    there is DNA evidence.
    hairs have been found and analyzed.

    and have been found to be from not any known animal.

    BC alone is three times the size ( or more) of the UK but has less population then south wales. i personally have flown over BC and i can tell you the bush is very deep and rugged. also the forested area’s of BC are amazingly deep and thick. i can see sasquatches hiding in there for a long time. as stated before, there havent been any bodies , but then again, how often do you see a dead bear? i personally think that the sasquatch is gigathropithicus ( not sure on spelling). this species had learned early on to flee and hide from primitive man. also bigfoot is also claimed to be nocturnal, another reason for the lack of sightings.

    just my thoughts

  • scar
  • Kevin

    well, i have read all of these arguments. I for one believe very strongly that bigfoot is very real and alive. You really need to think about this in an objective way, for example, many of us have traveled in the woods many times. Have any of you ever ran across a carcus of a bear? a deer? any larger animal? i haven’t. Secondly, why would the possibility of bigfoot burying their dead be so far out of the realm? The creature seems to try to keep to itself and does not want to enter into our world, in fact for the most part even seem to be scared of it. The footprints are solid proof of its existence. The bigfoot prints found have dermal ridges that run the opposite way of humans. The patterson film is also very real. No one could possibly hoax this. Even in todays day and age I am not even sure it could be done. Yes there are hoaxs out there, but on the other hand, there are very many credible sightings. This is also something that is not only in the U.S. or Canada, there are sightings around the world. How can you explain that?

  • ree

    I think the skeptics are jealous because their not the ones who took the shot of bigfoot. I wouldn’t mind kicking them where the boot hits. Don’t be a skeptic about something, if you have nothing good to say about something, shut up.

  • Dan

    I have to answer some of your arguments. You said that Manitoba is not large enough for a bigfoot to have eluded us for all these years. And you are correct. They haven’t eluded man. The Indians know about them and if you do some research there are many reports of modern day man seeing them in Manitoba and all across the Western part of Canada. So its not as if we just recently made them up. Do you honestly believe that thousands of people for the last several hundred years have all been lying or hallucinating about seeing the same exact animal? I find that hard to believe also.
    Why is it that nobody has been able to show how the Patterson video was faked in almost 40 years? Why can’t someone show exactly how the footprints that show great weight and moveable toes is being faked. Not to mention that some of these footprints show dermal ridges AND sweat pours (?). Its easy to say that they are faked but can you show me or the scientists how they were faked? I realize that nobody has found a body yet but that is just the way it is. I still have to ask. How is this stuff being faked? And if you can’t tell me that then your argument for a body is no better. Its just your opinion based on nothing. The tracks are real. The Patterson tape is real. Prove it wrong. You can’t and nobody else can because it is a live animal. I also have a 4 year degree in biology and have been studing this for at least 30 years. You come up with hoax and I come up with it being the real thing.

  • digger

    I just hope that whoever airs the clip on whatever channel week after next, has done a good job of cleaning, not editing the tape, so that we can all come to our own conclusions as to what the heck this video is about. Settle some confusion maybe. Gee this is exciting!

  • gridbug

    I think that the majority of the readers/participants in this forum are of the “want to believe” variety -myself included- so instead of wasting time trying to reason with those who clearly have none, I put forth the following topic: Why in the HELL would Bobby Clarke give a crap tabloid show like A CURRENT AFFAIR (on FOX no less) the liscensing rights to his video when there’s undoubtedly plenty of other, obviously more reputable outlets upon who’s program a bit more credibility might have been extended? A CURRENT AFFAIR?!? That in and of itself is a forehead slapper… from everything I’ve read about the video so far, it doesn’t feel like a hoax situation, at least not as perpetrated by Clarke. I’d love to see the Bigfoot phenomena taken more seriously, but this turn of events is a pretty big letdown. Still, I’m grateful for the opportunity to view the footage, even if the venue is less-than-sterling. Hopefully, if the video is as good as we all anticipate it to be, it’ll get a more serious looksee from the general public. Anyway, them’s my two cents and I’m sticking to ’em. By the way, and not to go off topic of sorts, but it was “The Legend of Boggy Creek” that ignited my lifelong interest in the Bigfoot/Sasquatch/Yeti phenomena, even though it simultaneously burned a primal terror of all woodland areas into my soul in the process! 🙂

  • penelope

    My husband is Native American, born in Canada, and has seen Sasquatch a few times when working in British Columbia and the Northwest territories. He has told me about how native women would encounter them while picking berries and he has never known of a native person being hurt by a Sasquatch. They are not seen often now because they know how to stay out of our way. My husband also confirms that the Elders have always said that it is considered a gift and an honor to be allowed to see one.

  • Charles Longway

    Just a few comments:

    Skeptical Inquirer – To my knowledge, this organization has not proved that anything is true. The tool of skepticism has its limitations.

    Wood Bison – Canda is home to the largest animal on the continent, the wood bison. The wood bison was thought to be extinct for a few years and rediscovered. The point is that if the largest animal on the continent can get lost, then it may not be impossible for Bigfoot, that prefers to hide from man to remain elusive.
    “By 1940 the Wood Bison were declared extinct. Then in 1957 a wonderful discovery was made. Through a piece of unbelievable luck, a few Federal Wildlife officers, flying over a remote north west part of Wood Buffalo National Park found a small, isolated herd. Inspection of these animals showed that they were indeed the last remaining pure Wood Bison in the world.”

    Canadian Moose hunters report Bigfoot encounter from time to time. Nearly all humans who see Bigfoot are both scared and feel that the facial features are sufficiently human to avoid shooting. One such Canadian hunter reported that he had slipped, was injured and a Bigfoot came out of hiding to help, but quickly realized that the hunter was actually alright.

    Bigfoot Population – A species that numbers less than 100 is in danger of extinction. The Bigfoot population has been estimated to be 2000 – 8000. This number is sufficient to preserve genetic variation.

  • Sam

    It is impossible to prove a ‘negative’.


    Put everything that exists in the universe into a ‘set’. For someone to have knowledge of everything in this set they must either:

    a) Have knowledge of each and every item in the set.
    b) Understand the rules that govern what can or cannot be included in the set.

    I would be quite surprised to find that anyone can claim either one of these things.

    To prove something exists can be as easy as holding it in your hand to show others. To prove something does not exist, do you not have to show everything that does exist, and therefore claim this thing is not of the set of existing things?

    Probability of existence is yet another topic. Personally I do not believe in God, yet I cannot say he does not exist. I can say that I believe the likelihood of his existence is low, but I cannot prove he does not exist.

    I am a skeptical person by nature. I put the existence of ghosts, alien abduction, supernatural events, alien-created crop circles or pyramids, vampires, werewolves, Loch Ness monsters, etc. as being very low on the probability pole of existence.

    I have done a fair amount of research on the phenomenon of an as-of-yet undiscovered (by the established scientific community) North American bipedal primate. If you take the time to research you will begin to see a pattern emerge that you will recognize as being the truth. These creatures are real. We have tracks and photographic evidence and eyewitness accounts. Not to say that there has not been hoaxes perpetrated, because there has, but that fact does not diminish the true evidence.

    As hard as this may be to accept, because it certainly was for me, but we are sharing this planet with another species of bipedal primate that has all the physical attributes of nothing less than the boogieman. Fortunately for mankind, these creatures do not have a boogieman temperament.

    The scientific discovery/validation of these creatures will be the anthropological discovery of the century. There will be a great number of people in the scientific community that will then ‘come out of the closet’ and say they suspected the creature’s existence all along. It will happen.

  • Fred

    Manitoba is not big enough to hide Bigfoot?

    Whomever makes this claim is a total idiot and any comments by that person should be ignored. Manitoba (and most of Canada) is mostly uninhabited forest.

    Proof: go to http://maps.google.com and type in “Norway House, Manitoba”. Then click on the “Satellite” link on the upper right hand corner. It will show you a satellite picture from the keyhole spy satellites recently purchased by google.

    You will clearly see that there is nothing but wilderness in/around Manitoba and most of Canada…

  • empirestatebloke

    i am always amazed at how passionate the doubters are. one would imagine that if you don’t believe in something then it has little impact on your life. however, some of the comments on here by the sceptics seem to me to be far too harsh bearing in mind the ignorant perspective from which they originate.
    don’t get me wrong i’m not having a go. i am just saying that there seems to be a gut reaction to this subject. people who know absolutely nothing about the subject get automatically fired up at the very idea. yet if you read the posts above, there is a reasoned case and if you bother to research you will find that there is a very reasoned case.
    however, the idea that a human-like creature exists is a scary one. there is no case against bigfoot. the possibility of a large nocturnal creature remaining hidden is feasible. there is enough uninhabited land to hide it, there are tracks, sightings, hair samples, and allegedly habituation projects where bigfoot has become comfortable enough to show himself.
    like i said, there is no case against but still the hostility of the doubters echos louder than the scientific evidence. i just wonder why we fear the very idea so passionately.

  • To Jim Smith,

    They have, quite extensively.

  • Johnny works in retail and deals with questionable, seemingly unexplainable lifeforms daily.

    Many seem human like, but there behavior isn’t like that of homosapiens. They often “speak” in grunts and barks, and usually move quickly…as if they’re afraid of being caught…

    …maybe Johnny’s actually waited on a Bigfoot? Possibly even a Yeti…


  • squatchguy

    A comment:

    Just reading through some of the blogs here confirms something that researchers and scientists have known for years. The ridicule and public embarrassment of coming forward after seeing an unknown creature/object/ghost or whatever is so far beyond most peoples understanding. A lot of these encounters are revealed under hypnosis and even as death bed confessionals. You don’t have to believe in Bigfoot. If you’ve never seen one, you have that right. Be skeptical. Thats okay.But….believers…..BELIEVE. Those people look at themselves in the mirror in the morning and have to deal with it. Give them that right and respect it.

  • Nancy

    I started reading up on these critters a few months ago, and quickly got hooked. Like many others, I am intrigued by the possibilities and the evidence thus far collected, and extremely frustrated by the lack of decent photographic evidence.

    I have to question why, when parties supposedly go armed w/cameras and looking for sasquatch, they never seem to be ‘ready’ to actually film one: it’s always blurry, jerky, too far away, too dark, etc. People caught unawares have an excuse, but Gimlin and Patterson were out trying to deliberately find evidence, yet the camera they took with them had only a few feet of film left in it when they did find their subject (they had not reloaded from previous days’ shoots). My first reaction was this was remarkably stupid and incomprehensible behavior not to have kept the camera freshly loaded and adequately supplied at all times, considering the stakes. Then I remembered my Dad’s efforts with his comparable camera back in those Old Days, when film didn’t come in cassettes or disks but had to be laboriously hand-loaded and rewound, and remaining footage available had to be guesstimated, and it becomes more understandable, if not excuseable.

    I also am surprised and at a loss to understand how anyone who has had a close encounter with a sasquatch can fail to garner all the physical evidence possible when they do come across it, such as hairs or possible skeletal remains; the BFRO has run several reports where such remains were available but the witnesses did not bother to gather anything, and additionally there are multiple reports in other sources of such opportunities lost. Well, I can hope that should I be lucky enough to come across such evidence, I will maintain enough composure to behave as I ought, and not as I probably will be inclined to do.

    Meanwhile, considering that it is highly unlikely that any one of us is a confidant of God, and has been made privy to all secrets of creation (and if you think you have, I can refer you to a wonderful shrink – either that, or you should go into politics), and considering also that coelecanths, “hobbits”, and other apochryphal oddities keep turning up after the “experts” have pronounced that they can’t possibly exist, I am at least willing to believe that sasquatch also MAY exist, and that there is actually a very good probability they DO exist, given all the material and reports on them. After all, many of us believed (and may still) one man’s word that there are WMDs in Iraq, on far less evidence. At least the sasquatch leave tracks.

    There is also the fact that, like the ‘native population’ in India, the ‘native population’ in Canada and the US have also been aware of these things for a long, long time, and have been saying as much for a long, long time. I see no reason to think they are any less credible than the next group, but I agree it sure would be nice to see some more solid concrete evidence, of any sort, and I look forward eagerly and with enthusiam to seeing what’s next.

  • Eric Olsen

    very well put Nancy, that’s about my perspective as well

  • I put a lot of faith in the BFRO’s techniques for wading through the evidence presented to them. Of all the BF sites I have browsed they seem to be the most conservative in what they will present as valid evidence. With that said the comments they have posted thus far in regards to the Manitoba Footage appear to lean toward it being legitimate. I look forward to the chance to view the footage myself so that I can make my own judgments on it as I have on the PGF which I believe is legitimate footage of a female Sasquatch.

    I believe people think that the creature in the PGF is a man in a suit because it exhibits so many traits that are “man-like”. Their minds are unable to accept the fact that their is a creature out there that resemble us so closely (but not exactly).

    There have just been too many close range encounters by credible witnesses for me to think that this is all a hoax. By close range I don’t mean seeing something moving in the woods at a distance of a mile, I mean up close visualizations where they are able to ascertain anatomical and physiological details and recount them to an investigator.

  • Dan

    To put the bigfoot case into a little more perspective, CNN shows a picture of a Ivory Billed Woodpecker thought to have been extinct for over 40 years. Now they have a video of one. The video was taken in Arkansas where millions of people live. How could it be that millions of people couldn’t see the missing bird for all these years? Scientists are just like anyone else. They can and do make mistakes. I think more of them should seriously look at the evidence for Bigfoot and I think they will be enlightened.

  • jemezdave

    I for one will not believe that that bird exists until someone provides me with a corpse. I mean a video is too easy to fake.

    Ridiculous isn’t it?

    “Unlike cryptozoological research for other animals like the Tasmanian Tiger, that for Wildmen is really anthropological research (i.e. the search for unknown human beings) and must therefore be conducted according to the ethical principles and scientific rules of anthropology rather than of zoology or palaeontology. If there is now the tendency, among more enlightened primatologists and other scholars, to view the Great Apes as being entitled to the same protection as humans (right to life, protection of individual liberty and prohibition of torture), why should this not be so for still unknown hominoids and especially non-sapiens hominids? The latter are clearly man and should automatically enjoy the rights thereof, regardless of whether these rights will eventually also be accorded to the Great Apes” (Seeing is believing, or is it? How scientific is ‘Wildman’ research? By Dr. Helmut Loofs-Wissowa).

  • digger

    Getting back to the size of Manitoba and the ability for such a creature, or batches of these creatures to keep out of sight all these years, here is some additional insight.

    I worked in Northern Manitoba for two years. I travelled often to places like Lynn Lake, The Pas, Thompson, Flin Flon, Snow Lake, Churchill, Gillam, Snow Lake, and others. There is a great deal of real estate up there that is scarcely if ever visited by anyone, except perhaps by fly-over in a plane where you wouldn’t see much anyway, especially if the creature wanted to stay out of sight. And if you look at a map, you’ll see how most of these places I mentioned still do not include the upper third of the province, albeit the tree line is getting close, with limited vegetation.

    One question I do have though, is whether these creatures are supposed to hibernate in the winter. Northern Manitoba is awfully cold and desolate in the winter, and a creature that big, if not hibernating, would need to eat quite a bit. Vegetation is pretty scarce at that time of year, and I haven’t heard that bigfoot can or would run down moose or wood caribou for food. So what do they eat in winter in Manitoba, or do they hibernate?

  • Sam

    This is how they get through winter digger…

  • Daniel

    I have often wondered why no one has seemed to mention much the possibility that they could use caves as shelter (much like primitive man). Who knows..perhaps there are networks of caves interjoined they are using as short underground pathways so to speak. Just a thought 😉

    Oh and I definately believe as I have had an experience that in no way could have been attributed to a being of less than human like intelligence. They are real and very smart. Perfectly feasible that they could outwit us in their environment and not be found all these years.

  • bill green

    hi everyone good evening i was wondering how to contact bobby clarke through snailmail or email becouse i would like to talk to him or his family about his new sasqutch footage i would like to hear everything about his sighting & footage in his own words. thank you bill green

  • Eric Olsen

    I’m sure Annie can point you in the right direction Bill

    I agree with those who aren’t particularly troubled by lack of physical biological evidence, but it would certainly be helpful!

  • Sam

    If I am not mistaken Daniel it was/is believed by the Native Americans in and around the Mount Saint Helens area that Sasquatch live in the caves there.

  • digger

    Daniel and Sam,
    There are few caves up in northern Manitoba.

  • digger

    Wow! Thanks, Sam, first I heard about this..

  • bill green

    hi everyone has there been any resent sightings this week of sasquatch creatures in manitoba. has the footage been mention on any newspapers websites in manitoba today. has anyone here ever saw a sasquatch or its fooprints in manitoba. yes i agree there is probley is great sized caves in the mountains in manitoba where sasquatch used. i wonder if bobby clarke will write a book about his now famous sasquatch encounter. please keep me posted ok. thank you bill green p.s. has there ever been a possible sasquatch photographed in manitoba. 🙂

  • Hi everyone. I have been a long time believer in bigfoot, I’m not really sure why. To me, the footprint, hair sample, and sightings are substantial evidence to say that there is something or “someone” out their we don’t know about. Another strengthening factor for me is the fact that Native Americans have had stories and even painting about bigfoot for far longer than we have been on NA. I know that I and all of you are anxiously waiting this newest addition to the Sasquatch evidence file.

    I’d like to touch on a few skeptics claims I’ve seen here so far. I am no expert and claim to be no such thing, so please feel free to correct me if im wrong.
    -Firstly, the idea that Sasquatch, if real, would be a “stupid animal” and unable to hide from us. I disagree, from all the accounts so far they are very intelligent animals who engage in inter-communication and pack hunting, as well as being able to walk silently in woods and use calls and hitting trees to cause Deer to fall for a trap.
    -Secondly, as to the idea that there is not enough uninhabited landmass in NA or any other continent to harbor such creatures. As many people, much more experienced than I, have posted before there is quite enough unforested and untouched real estate in NA to harbor populations of these creatures. And due to their shy behavior it is no suprise they can hide from people when they do incur into these areas.

    Myself, I have had a strange sighting of a “thing” but as to whether or not it was a sasquatch I will never know. During deer season two years ago, it was getting towards evening and we were on our way back to the highway. We stopped for a moment to look for deer when to the right (which I suspect was west, I’m terrible with directions) on a hill about 400 or so yards out I noticed a figure on the top of a hill. It was not out of the ordinary I suppose except for the fact that this “person” was wearing NO orange hunting vest, coat, etc. This is VERY strange, because it would be very dangerous for any person to wander around in the hills without this type of gear on during Deer season. Unfortunately my father and uncle were uninterested and shrugged it off as simply another hunter and left, I was unable to get a look through a high power scope which I regret.

    Well those are my 2 cents and my little story. I hope to catch this footage when it finally airs!

  • jay

    Almost every body is none believer until the day a sasquatch steps or walks out in front of you and then your life is changed forever and you are now a believer!Policemen firemen etc.. dont report there sightings until 1,2,5,10 years after there sighting or after they retired.

  • Nick Jones

    Rather than challenge their conclusive debunking of big foot fairy tales, you resorted to snide comments and peripheral nitpicking.

    I’m reminded of the time I saw SI‘s Joe Nickell being interviewed on Unsolved Mysteries, for a segment on Spontaneous Human Combustion. When they went back to him for the third or fourth time, he had a combustion of his own: he lost his temper and blew up on camera, saying that the SHC believers should “get a life!”
    Seems less than professional to me. [Singsong voice] Somebody needs to switch to decaf.

    Despite the name of their magazine, these people are not true skeptics, but debunkers, who will deny uncomfortable reality, mirroring the True Believers on the other side. The Skeptic says, “I’ll believe it when I see it.” The Debunker says, “I’ll see it when I believe it.” (And that’s my original; don’t use it without attribution.)

  • Chris B

    I would just like to point out to many of the people here who may not be aware.. The BFRO Recovered a body cast of a sasquatch in the year 2000. This cast included a hair sample, which was examined by an expert, and turned out to be hair of “an unidentified primate”

    Also there was a VERY detailed heel imprint with an achilles tendon, which was not of a human. To me personally, I dont think there should be any arguement what so ever as to whether or not Sasquatch Exists.

    Link here:


  • Nancy

    I DO wonder about one aspect of sasquatch behavior, considering their reputed intelligence: their demonstrated tendencies to step out onto roadways in front of oncoming cars, trucks, etc. without bothing to look first. Gee – maybe they ARE human after all?! 😉 Seriously, if they are intelligent, and have superior eyesight and hearing (which most reports seem to bear out), how is it that the majority of encounters are of people seeing them on the road in front of them, almost hitting them, a few actually hitting them, etc.?

    Unrelated topic: I would ask here, if anyone knows where I can read the report from Mt. Shasta (back in the 70s?) of sasquatch giving birth, or any others regarding sasquatch ‘children’ and infants. I’ve already read the well-known episode of the 3 sasquatch digging in the rock piles. Many thanks.

  • Greg in BC

    Hey, Nancy…good question.

    Being a native Floridian of a certain age, I recall the 1974-75 vehicle strike of a ‘skunk ape’ on U.S. 27 in the Everglades. I’ve often wondered, and I think they are just curious about us and our noises.

    There are lots of descriptions in the BFRO files of sasquatch shielding their eyes to LOOK at cars and occupants. To me, it points up a very intelligent ape, who has perhaps been observing us and learning our ways for a few thousand years. By the way, the latest (April 29th, 7am) is a report that ‘Inside Edition’ has licensed the Manitoba footage, and will be showing it in the next few weeks.

    Those calling the skeptical inquirer objective are just wrong. Read about their birth as an organization, and their crusade against credible parapsychologists if you think otherwise. Of course, if you defend them out of hand, I imagine you only read about parapsychology IN the Skeptical Inq.

    Nick is right…debunking is different from skepticism.

  • Bearhunter

    Just a quick note on the genetics argument presented by Sydney.

    “The biggest evidence against the sasquatch idea has to be genetics.

    One specimen of a species does not exist on its own. There would need to be 100’s (if not 1000’s) of these species in order to generate enough genetic variability to ensure suvival of the species (especially over 1000’s of years). By now they would be so goddamned full of disorders, disease and retardation that they sure as hell would have a difficult time hiding themselves.”

    Moose are not indigenous to Newfoundland. They were introduced when two animals were transported by boat to the island. They were released and never seen again. Two more were subsequently transplanted to the island. Ask anyone from Newfoundland if there are a lot of Moose on the island today.

  • bill green

    hi everyone has bobby clarke s sasquatch footage been mentioned on any radio talk shows today. please keep me posted. bill green please keep in touch ok.

  • There is far more imperical evidence that Bigfoot exists than the claim that Windows “Long horn” will be released before 2007.

    It’s just a fact, and you cannot deny that.

  • digger

    More info this morning on Manitoba CBC news.

  • bill green

    hi everyone bobby clarke s sasquatch filmfootage does sound real becouse i saw a tv segment about the footage on the internet. the area where the sasquarch was walking on river bank looks like great habitat for these creatures. i see the footage is still makeing the newspapers etc. has anyone ever thought they encountered a sasquatch or its footprints. i would like to hear about it. i can understand if bobby clarke wants to make money off the filmfootage for copyright reasons. thanks bill green

  • gridbug

    I’ve been hovering patiently, here’s this bit from the BFRO site:

    “Update – April 27, 2005 – The Fox Television program A Currrent Affair has licensed (i.e. not purchased outright) the Manitoba footage for two broadcasts. Both broadcasts will be the same installment of the program. There will be an inital broadcast and then a repeat of it. Contrary to what has been posted on a different bigfoot-related web site, the footage will not be airing this Friday, April 29th. A producer from A Currrent Affair confirmed to the BFRO that the info about the Friday 29th broadcast is false. The footage will be airing the following week, at the soonest. Two analysts from the BFRO will be appearing on the Current Affair program to discuss the footage.”

    Can’t seem to find anything else as specific…

  • This is the stabilized Patterson footage. You can clearly see the breats on this BF or “guy in a monkey suit” take your pick.


  • Henrik Bro

    Nancy, I think the reason there are so few steady Bigfoot videos, is because a person having a Bigfoot encounter will be totally surprised, will stare at this creature in amazement and worry about his own safety, rather than concentrating on holding the camcorder steady.
    The creature will also most likely be moving, which will result in shaky filming.
    This latest video sounds very promising, like the Marble Mountain video showing an 8ft tall male Bigfoot.

  • There was a series of sightings here in Colorado a couple of years back; the Denver Post did a multi-page write-up on it at the time. It’s not just crackpots who are believers; the world’s foremost experts on primate research and footprinting have a high confidence that Sasquatch exists.

    As someone above pointed out, the Ivory Billed Woodpecker has been considered extinct for 50+ years; the last confirmed sighting was in the 1920’s. In all that time, with several extensive searches, no-one has so much as confirmed hearing the bird (which has a distinctive call, and woodpeckers aren’t generally known to be silent…). This sighting, with footage no better than a Bigfoot film, was corroborated by a Cornell U. ornithologist’s sighting.

    I find it harder to disbelieve the evidence at this point than to disbelieve the possibility.

  • gridbug

    I really REALLY want to believe, but I checked that link to the stabalized Patterson footage and watched it over and over and -despite having seen it before- started to get a strange feeling in my stomach. Here’s why: if you watch Patty’s right leg, just when she does the “lookback” at the camera, there’s a strange “fold” effect on the side of her upper thigh that looks a little too much like a crease in (dare I say it) a costume. Watch it several times in succession and see if you find it as peculiar as I do… also, there’s a noticable lack of “flex” in the back, glutes, etc. I’d read reports that have dissected the video and claimed to detail the moving musculature under the hair, but I don’t see it, unless I’m just not looking hard enough. I’ve always been the first to argue for the validity of the Patterson footage, but after taking a closer look, I’m actually beginning to have doubts, scant as they may be…

    Here’s the link again, copied from an above post.


  • cody

    the fold, i rembered reading that.

    the fold was said to be a type of muscle problem, as the creature tracks show some sort of a walking problem. BFRO also said the same when they had the tape examined. i dont know, i still think that is real.


  • Eric Olsen

    that’s some amazing footage – too bad it’s so short

  • Sam

    I am no anatomy expert, but it has been suggested by those that are, that the upper leg bulge is a result of soft tissue pathology. The suggestion is that it may be associated with the iliotibial band or may be a rupture of the quadricep muscle.

    If that is what it is, it is speculated that an injury of this type would affect locomotion.

  • jemezdave

    Gridbug, If you haven’t seen the BFRO produced documentary “Sasquatch Legend Meets Science” you should check it out. One of the experts (I believe in musculature and bone strutcture, it’s been a while since I watched it) believes that is evidence of an injury to the illiotiblio band which is a long ligament on the leg. I believe that the thought was that there was a tear in the ligament which allow muscle to bulge out. That video is a must see for anyone interested in this phenomenon. They show a lot of the PGF and other video as well. Also, check out the book “Meet the Sasquatch” by Chris Murphy. He has good sized photos of the PGF that really make the muscle structure visible.

    As far as steadying the camera goes let me say this: no one can tell what their reactions will be like in a situation like that until they have experienced for themselves. I have heard screams (which is the background of my interest in BF) on two occasions which I believe could have been a Sasquatch. Both times the screams were the same, the difference being volume which I associated with the distance from the creature. These screams had a human quality like that of a woman only more animal like and distinctly non-human. The first time I heard them the volume was INCREDIBLY LOUD! They started at a lower volume but got louder as if this thing were approaching me and my friends. At first I thought it was a dog way off in the distance (that was the relative volume). It kept getting louder and finally was at the point where we could tell that it was definitely not a dog or anything else that we could recognize. It got loud enough for all of us (3 young men and two women) to become frantic in our desire to leave the area. We all grew up in the mountains and spent much of our time outdoors in a variety of activities which provided some of us the insight into what sounds are made by certain animals in the woods including elk, bear, cougar, deer, etc. It was definitely none of those. The closest thing I’ve heard to it is the supposed Sasquatch whoop-howls heard on the BFRO site (# 1978 Whoop-Howl from Snohomish County, Washington
    # 1993 Whoop-Howl from Del Norte County, California). Sorry to digress a bit here but my point is that you can say that you’d be able to maintain your composure in the face of one of these beasts but in reality you have no idea how you will react until it happens. We were scared shitless. I woke up shaking the next day. The next night we planned to go to the same area well armed to see if we could here this sound again but as we approached the turn to that area we all agreed that maybe we should go somewhere else that night. And that was after merely hearing a noise. Many eyewitnesses report being overcome by great fear in their observations.

    Sorry, you’ll have to copy and past the links as I don’t seem to be able to get my BBCode to work properly.


  • gridbug

    Yep, I have a copy of the BFRO dvd, as well as a VHS copy of Mysterious Monsters and that dodgy X-Creatures episode with the HORRIBLE reenactment/debunking attempt of the Patterson video. Even without any footage or photographic evidence, I’m pretty certain that these creatures do exist based on the centuries-old testimonies themselves. Hundreds of thousands of people from multiple continents can’t be wrong, even though Ray Wallace DID start the whole thing back in the late 1950’s. *hardee har har* Despite my hesitancy regarding the Patterson footage, I’m still inclined to lean more toward the possibility that it’s the real deal. 🙂

    Speaking of BF documentaries… I distinctly remember seeing one on TV back in the mid to late 80’s that I’d never seen or heard of before in cinema or on TV. I can’t remember the name of it, but it was pretty well done and had some decent re-enactments of encounters, one in particular that I’ll never forget; it was a short incedental clip of a woman waking up in an upstairs bedroom in a log cabinish house at night to see a medium sized bigfoot sitting in her rocking chair across the room watching her sleep (!?!) and then tearing off down the stairs and out the door (the bigfoot, not the woman). I can’t recall if she screamed or not, but it was a totally surreal/creepy/humorous bit and I’ve never forgotten it. I lived in Michigan at the time, but can’t recall what station it was on and I’ve yet to come across anyone who recalls it, nor anything about that program itself. I’m almost certain it was a stand-alone special, not an Unsolved Mysteries sort of thing. If this trips anyone’s memory circuit, please let me know!

  • bill green

    hi everyone i think the bfro & other researchers are up at that area where the sasquatch was filmed. plus they are probley still talking to bobby clarke about his encounter. please keep me posted. thanks bill green 🙂

  • joe smitt

    it never ceases to amaze me of all the things millions of people throughout the world continue to believe in and even teach their own children to believe in.when there is absolutely no (zero) tangible evidence.no sight,smell,taste or touch of ever by man of the thing(s) believed in by so many people throughout the world,and yet through the ages with the only thing going for their belief in them,is a story,these people put their life and faith into a god,jesus,holy ghost,etc…
    yet these same people will down play the dozens of photos ,thousands of experiences of people who glimpse a sight of a “bigfoot”.people,there is nothing to be afraid of,bigfoot is just another living animal,as a chimp or human is.(yes,we may think were above other life,but as far as evolutionary time scale surviving,were a lower life form.why? well,the shark,whom has been around for millions of years,didnt need to deviate much of its original plan,because of it’s efficiency for survival). man,on the otherhand doesnot really adapt anymore to his environment,instead takes the easy way out and tries to change things to suit him.big mistake,now we are de-evoluing.why doesnt the governt. want you to see actual proof that bigfoot exist or life may exist on another planet?the earth could change in a day.peoples beliefs systems would crash,possibly upsetting this delicate “un-balance” the governments have created over the years………….

  • Pete Zablotny

    I truly feel they exist, but am having a difficult time with the enhanced Patty footage. The strides seem a little too short (not that I’ve ever seen a sasquatch walking)judging from the surroundings. Then when it turns it’s head, I kind of see a bulging brow and what looks like a face outline/jaw line, but then as it looks at the camera, it just doesn’t look right. It looks to me that there is too much light coloured skin around the eyes, and it’s like it’s a rectangular light patch that just doesn’t look natural.
    I’d like to believe in this video footage, but am not sure, especially with all the controversy surrounding it.
    I can’t wait to see the Manitoba footage!

  • Dom French

    Regarding the Nelson River ferry siting by Clarke. There are bigfoots (mamemgishe in Cree) throughout that area. They have been seen around Grand Rapids, Manitoba and also on the opposite side of the lake so have to walk around Lake Winnipeg by Limestone Bay. I have been on that ferry so can easily believe this siting is true. The sounds and action tally well. There is a poulation that supposodly overwinters in caves near the Ontario borde east of Pauingasse, the people ther all know about them. If you want more information from me please let me know, but I am talking about the 1970s. Dom French, presently living in Medicine Hat, Alberta. Previously of Grand Rapids, Manitoba and temporarily the Berens River area.

  • tyler

    Wanted to address so many points, but most have been defended in some manner or other.
    Yes, BFRO,net is likely the best source of info out there – including estimates of populations (2-5000) and reasons why no physical remains have been found.
    I think one of the reasons for so much skepticism is that people still have it in their heads that this is some “mystical” “magical” supernatural animal, instead of accepting that nearly all the continents have primates, so why not North America? It is speculated that these animals (possibly Gigantopithicus) were hunted to near extinction in the psat, and so natural selection has left us with nocturnal, very skittish animals.
    As to why no one seems to get them on film, or shoot them?
    That’s easy – for myself, it was not until I saw one, that I tried to find out what it was – so it’s not like you are out there looking for one, when it crosses your path. Almost all incidents are less than 10 seconds, and you are startled, and possibly scared – the time needed to turn your battery operated camera on, (that you have off, to save the batteries) and the wherewithall to do so, are simply not there in sufficient quantities to enable you to act appropriately in those few seconds – and you are too spooked to stick around and try to collect evidence afterwards.
    Remains?.. there are one or two accounts that suggest they could bury their dead… When a gopher dies, he gets dragged back in the whole, and I believe, eaten. (wild speculation on this one – better reasoning at the BFRO)
    Food supply? – dear, fruit, fish, if Grizzlies can survive, no reason these animals can’t.
    Lastly, (as has been touched on but maybe not forcibly asserted)is the point that the technology simply DID NOT EXIST to fake the Patterson footage, or the details of legitimate foot casts, back 40 and 50 and more years ago, when the casting started, and Patterson got his footage.
    And to repeat – there IS DNA evidence of primate hairs in North America that do not match any known primate/hominid.

  • Bigfoot stole my wife. There’s no other logical explanation.

    So now I’m a believer.

    (With profuse apologies to Ron Carlson.)

  • Huey

    I find that stabilized version of the Patterson movie very interesting. I just got the “Sasquatch: legend meets science” video as I go fishing in Sasquatch park in BC with my 2 boys (6 and 7) and they asked me about it.

    It looks to me as if there is a hernia in the IT band on the lateral thigh of the animal such that when it swings it’s knee forward part of the quads bulges through. This would cause a fair amount of pain and watching the stabilized video linked above you can see that the animal limps: it slows down quite a bit on the right leg part of the walk.

    I find it credible (ie possible) that this animal does exist and it’s very interesting now that there is some new footage. However, I think the only way to persuade most people of the fact that a very large, bipedal ape exists in the forests of North America would be to offer a large (several hundred thousand or a million) reward for recovery of a Bigfoot, dead or alive.

    Even then, only those hunters out in the bush at the right time of year with the right caliber weapon, considering that they might see a Bigfoot, and then able to shoot an animal that looks human, would be able to bag one.

  • digger

    I must have gotten up on the wrong side of the bed….
    I am upset because here we have had occasional updates of the news of the new footage fron Norway House for two weeks now, with no conclusion yet. Until this American show “Current Affair” decides on their own good time to air something, we are all still in the dark, except for the priveliged few of Bobby Clarke’s family and neighbours who saw the footage. The rest of us poor suckers who have never seen a real live Bigfoot, but would like to get better confirmation one way or another, are left hanging in the dark again. Why couldn’t some university, or official body have come forward, paid the guy what he got from Current Affair for rights to the footage, and published it for us all to see so we can make up our own minds? Its almost like the coverup stories; maybe the authorities just want to ignore this, hoping it’ll it’ll go away. Maybe they fear it’ll hurt the tourist industry. I for one would be alot less likely to go camping in the woods knowing there is a slim possibility one these things might come a-visiting and scare the bejesus out of me!!! What do you all think about my reasoning?? Gotta go have a coffee. I’m teed off.

  • Nancy

    Current Affair hasn’t decided yet how they’re going to ‘hype’ it: as a discovery or an expose` (sorry ’bout that, can’t get my accent mark to work). Also they haven’t started the publicity buildup yet. I imagine their PR goons are working on that as we type. C.A. isn’t going to air this until they can drum up & maximize public interest on this to get the most ratings/news bang for their buck, naturally. As for a cover-up, if someone pays them enough, of course they’ll cover it up; commercial enterprises are there to make money, and don’t generally care how they do it, as you should all know; their basic and foremost question is, what’s in it for us, and how much? As for less bottom-line institutions like colleges or government, who knows how those people think (I’ve worked in both and I know the really loony “corporate cultures” prevailing in both)? I imagine elements in either do not want to be known as the institution that spent good tax funds on a bigfoot video. I, personally, wish some altruistic party would ante up so we could all see this – but you know it ain’t gonna happen. When it does appear, depend on it, it will be HEAVILY edited, and we won’t get to see the entire clip.

  • gridbug

    I’m hoping that since the BFRO is involved to a certain extent with the Current Affair situation, they’ll try and ensure that the program will handle the subject matter in a serious (as best as can be had) light. An unsubstantiated report said that Current Affair (or perhaps their network) paid a six-figure sum for the licensing rights of the footage, which in a way makes sense as I doubt National Geographic or the Discovery Channel would have ponied up that much cash for “Bigfoot footage”. There’s still a lot of positives/negatives to wade through, but so long as the footage gets out there so everyone can make their own judgement call on its authenticity, that’s what’s most important at this point. Perhaps the BFRO will be able to show some of the footage on its site? Also, there was another report over the past couple days that Bobby Clarke will supposedly release a still from the video very soon, though the licensing deal may have nixed that. Til then it’s unfortunately all about the “wait and see”.

  • I would imagine much of what Bobby Clarke says and does for the time being will be governed by his agreement with “A Current Affair”. If they can provide a still from the video which is impressive enough to help build the hype, then they`ll release one for sure. When will that be? Who knows. I do know that Mr.Clarke took the video to Winnipeg to try and find someone who could enhance it, but had no luck. He returned home with the video. It was reported early the following morning that an American TV show had purchased rights to the video, which leads me to believe that if a still is released, it`ll be by A Current Affair, and out of Bobby Clarke`s hands.

    Since “A Current Affair” has licensed the rights to broadcast their same BF episode twice…My guess would be that they`ve reserved exclusive rights to the video until after the second showing, and who knows how long that may be. My hope is that Clarke will then license the video to a more scientifically oriented program…The validity of these sorts of things are usually equated with the reputation of the show it`s appearing on, and how it`s presented…If their reputation is to preceed them, it doesn`t look good. Then again, the show has been revamped, so they may have cleaned things up.

    My cable network doesn`t even offer the channel it`s to be aired on, nor does anyone else`s I know. I think a large chunk of Canada will be out of the loop on this one. Guess I`ll have to wait even longer to see it 🙁

    The one thing that strikes me with the Patterson video, is the face. As someone else mentioned above, the hair line around the face does seem strange…almost too squared. I think I`ll see if I can`t find a copy “Sasquatch: legend meets science”, and take a better look.

    Bill, I`m sorry, I can`t give you any direct contact info for Bobby Clarke. As to recent sightings in the area…the only one I`ve heard about was by a retired ferryman who worked on the same ferry as Clarke. The gentleman claimed recently, that he`d seen a similar creature in the same spot as Bobby`s sighting the year before. He apparently watched it for about six minutes, before it walked back into the woods. No camera, and he never went to look for physical evidence. I`ll keep my ears open for you.

  • Nancy

    Since we have a sasquatch blog going, I’d like to throw out a sort of outre question/idea: I’ve noticed in bigfoot encounters, whether in person or just hearing screams/calls, etc., that an awful lot of them start out with the human not being particularly concerned. It is only after a hiatus that a feeling of dread, or panic, comes over them and they then flee. I wonder (just being way off base, here) if anyone has considered if these guys have some sort of esper ability to protect themselves by projecting a feeling of danger (perhaps even their own?) so the intruder will be impelled to flee and leave them in peace? OK – yeah, I’m a goof. But, it’s an interesting idea, considering the stories I’ve read…. Comments? Suggestions (besides referring me to a good shrink, that is)?

  • gridbug

    It does kinda suck that Current Affair is the venue that will be debuting the footage, and I can tell you that their show hasn’t been revamped that much from when Maury Povich hosted it way back when. Current Affair is largely like 99.9% of American infotainmment, including the “legitimate news” programs; ethical, responsible journalism taking a far back seat to sensationalism with top ratings as the primary motivation. Since I live in Los Angeles I see this first hand and it’s pretty sickening. Funny then how that slanted approach to reporting works in the favor of getting airtime for the Manitoba Footage, even if it’s a lousy tabloid show that’s debuting it. As far as Canadian cable not carrying the program, I’ll bet that soon after it airs it pops up on the internet somehow. I don’t have cable myself, so I’ll have to settle for watching it on a slightly-fuzzied picture as I still use an analog antenna to draw the signal. I’ll help keep an eye out online though! 🙂

  • Sam


    In general, I would be quite surprised to learn that any creatures, including humans, have the ability to purely psychically influence the thoughts and feelings in another being.

    From my own experiences in dangerous situations where there was no precursive activity that hinted to the danger, I can tell you that while living the experiencing, I was not cognizant of the magnitude of the danger until afterwards. Upon reflection of what just took place and the realization of the gravity of the situation and how it might easily have been the last thing I may have done on this earth; that’s when the fear and panic set in.

    In my unprofessional opinion (I am not a psychologist) I believe the human fear response after the fact can be explained by basic human psychology.

  • jemezdave

    Actually Nancy, the panic in my experience was a result of the volume of the screams becoming very loud. It wasn’t a case of us hearing the noise at the same volume and then the feeling of panic coming on after some time, rather it was the fact that the volume continued to increase which gave the distinct impression that what ever was making this noise was approaching us. This happened 22 years ago so it’s hard for me to put a time frame on the whole incident but I seem to remember the time between noticing that the sound was unique and becoming panicked was rather quick (a few minutes duration with continuous vocalizations at a rate of every 5-10 seconds).

    Digger, call me nuts but I actually make a point of going into areas where there have been sightings in the hopes of actually seeing one of these creatures or at least to hear the sound again. Two of my closest friends and I do a couple of backpacking trips a year with that intention.

    The best views I have seen of the female Sasquatch in the PGF are the stills in Chris Murphy’s book “Meet the Sasquatch” as I mentioned before. The size and quality of these stills reaffirmed for me the legitimacy of this footage.

  • bill green

    how many sightings of sasquatch were there in april in manitoba. does bobby clarke have a email so we can contact him or a mailing address etc. is there any radioshows planning on interveiwing bobby clarke this comeing up week. please keep me posted. also i wonder if bobby clarke will eventally write a book about the filmfootage etc. 🙂

  • Greg in BC

    Hey Nancy,

    I spent several years in Africa as a kid…and in fact have had several experiences with large dangerous animals.

    In 1973, I was present for the death of a famous guide named Johnny Uys in Rhodesia (now Zimbabwe). We were following a herd of elephants through thick bush, and the matriarch decided we were a threat. When things went wrong, they went wrong very rapidly. Of the eight people there, only my Dad and one other tourist understood how much danger we were in. Johhny was killed, and I believe that if my Dad and his friend had NOT realize when they did that it was a terminal encounter, we would have all died.

    It didn’t take any ESP sense, just a knowledge of elephant behavior for Dad to get us moving. The thing is, there is no knowledge base for sasquatch/human interaction, except for the sighting reports.

    I would add that the feeling of being watched is NOT psychic in nature…simply a vestigial response to man being hunted since antiquity by large predators. ANY large animal can be dangerous…that includes mountain gorillas and even chimps. My thinking is that this ape may have co-evolved with us, and we know that early man hunted and ate other primates. That would make Sasquatch very smart, very curious, but ESPECIALLY adept at avoiding us, and scaring the be jeesus out of us when contact is unavoidable.

  • Please remember to report all Bigfoot sightings to the Bureau of Sasquatch Affairs, which maintains a wealth of useful information on our hirsute distant cousins and their unique and priceless cultural heritage.

    Thank you for your support.

  • bill green

    hi everyone i wonder if current affair will show a preview of the manitoba sasquatch footage segment in their website. thanks bill green. im sure bobby clarke is still getting offers from tv & radio shows & researchers etc.

  • RogerKni

    Oops: I posted this on the wrong thread–on the one about the book “The Field Guide to Yeti etc.” (Please delete it there–sorry).

    Regarding Gridbug’s comment (#74) about the “fold” in the upper thigh as being perhaps indicative of a costume. First, it’s unlikely that such an otherwise tight, form-fitting costume would have such a large area of loose costume flapping around. Second, the bulge appears and vanishes (I’ve read) within four frames, or .25 seconds. That’s too fast (I suspect, not being knowledgeable in biomechanics or costume design) for a fold in a costume of fairly heavy material to pop and plop; a muscle twitch, which operates at high speed, seems more likely.

    As to the lack of flex in back and scapula motion, too-short strides (#82), etc., I think these are fairly minor red flags. That is, Bigfoot is an odd species, and would no doubt exhibit a few odd traits. I believe there is on one of the Bigfoot sites a link to a video of a chimp that has managed to walk upright. If its back muscles and scapula are similarly non-mobile, that would tend to diminish the suspiciousness of the PG creature’s similar configuration.

    Re comment 82: The oddity of the clear rectangular area around the eyes is something I asked questions about on one of the BF sites; I was told (I think) that the contrast between the light and dark areas on the face was exaggerated because of overexposure, and that other frames in greater enlargement looked less suspicious. (And it would have been so easy for a hoaxer to have blurred over the straight lines around the bare portion of the face with little wisps of hair that it’s hard to imagine he wouldn’t have done so, given the great care that was taken to make other, more minor details look realistic.)

    Re comment 84, on the brief time window to get a videocam out and operating: There’s now a $370 or so (Amazon) always-on, flash-memory based videocamera that should help with this. It’s called the Deja View (Google for it); its small lens clips on to the frame of eyeglasses or the bill of a cap, and a cable runs down into a pocket where the main box is carried. The operator presses a button to capture the previous 30 seconds of footage.

  • bill green

    hi researchers i wonder if bobby clarke now goes in the wildernesses of manitoba to look for sasquatch or its footprints etc with his camcorder & camera.i hope he does. plus im sure more sightings will be reported by people in manitoba. thanks bill green

  • BJB

    Nancy, Greg, et. al.-

    In regards to the fear response felt by humans during an encounter, I feel a much more plausible (and, I believe, scientifically verifiable) explanation would be the existence of a pheromone that elicits a fear response in an encounter with other animals/primates (possibly another example of evolution to avoid human encounters?) If you read enough eyewitness accounts, there are plenty which describe an intense feeling of fear either immediately preceding or coinciding with an encounter with a Sasquatch. This is a hypothesis I have been mulling over for some time, but I haven’t really seen the possibility mentioned elsewhere. I believe this could help explain why so many people never encounter a Sasquatch in the first place–the pheromone would give a preliminary, sub-conscious “warning signal” that could alter behavior before an encounter took place (a “change of plans” without knowing why) if the Sasquatch was aware of an intruder early enough. There are pheromones for attraction in primates; why couldn’t there be a pheromone for the repelling of other primates as well? Just a thought. (I am a high school English teacher who has always been fascinated by unexplained phenomena, and recently became very interested in this subject after helping a student with a research paper on the Sasquatch question.) Anyone who hasn’t checked out BFRO.net should do so, no matter which side of the fence you’re on.

  • Nancy

    You’re right: I forgot all about my high school biochem. Pheromones! Of course! Sure a lot more viable theory, and more logical, than psi factors, LOL! This is what I get for being a long-time S/F fan.

  • Charles Longway

    On Pheromones and subliminal perception:
    Could pheromones influence humans in a subliminal way? The vomeronasal organ (VN) responds to smell, but does not send signals directly to the conscious centers of the brain. From answers.com –
    “Some scientists believe that in humans the vomeronasal organ is nonfunctional and regresses before birth, as is the case with some other higher animals, including cetaceans, some bats, and apes. These scientists also believe that in adult humans, there is no neural connection between the organ and the brain. Nevertheless, some evidence suggests that the vomeronasal organ does not atrophy and remains functional throughout a person’s life. Thus, its function in these organisms and in humans, if indeed real, is still somewhat mysterious.”
    An individual with a defective VN organ may not feel the same sense of fear that others feel during an encounter with BF. If the VN organ could temporarily be knocked out with medication BF researchers may experience an encounter more rationally.
    Another conjecture is that the fear is subliminal perception. Some BF encounters are accompanied with a quietting of natural sounds. The unnatural quiet may be a trigger for a subliminal sense of fear. Another subliminal sound effect could be that BF may give a very low vocalization, below the ability of humans to hear. Elephants definitely do communicate with very low sounds. Humans do not have the same sense of dread around elephants, so this explanation is not a likely one.

  • gridbug

    Hey! May 3rd BFRO Update on the Manitoba Footage!

    Includes descriptive analysis of the video and more info about A Current Affair’s showing.

    From the sound of it, the PGF may still be the best we’ve got. 🙂

  • Nancy

    Dagnabbit! Those sasquatch are doing this just to make us all crazy.

  • It doesn`t sound too promising, does it. He said he saw a copy of the master video…Does that mean Fox wasn`t able to enhance it at all?

    I hope they get some shots of a man standing in the same spot for a height comparison before they air it. That may be the only substantial evidence we can glean from all this.

  • Eric Olsen

    maybe the one will finally turn up at a bus station on a seedy stretch of Route 66 near Albuquerque

  • digger

    Phemerones, psi, fear factor; subliminal perception!! Holy smoke, thats too deep for me!! Hey, if I was casually walking through the woods and rounded a corner to stand face-to-face with a 500+ pound – 8 foot tall hairy, smelly gorilla-like creature, I am sure my response would be immediate, and not a result of anything nearly as complex as phemerones, etc. One result of my immediate response would be that I’d probably smell as bad or worse than the sasquatch! Hopefully, he/she/it would understand and not take offense!!However, if he/she/it let out one of those horrendous screams that have been attributed to these creatures, I’ll bet I could still run like hell, regardless of the condition of my drawers!! And I suspect most of you would be right behind me!!

  • bill green

    hi everyone good evening im so happy we all are going to this new manitoba sasquatch filmfootage on a current affair tommarrow or next week sometime finaly. but i dont see it mentioned on the a current affair website yet. i hope i get to see it becouse i live in connecticut im not sure which channel its on. thank you bill green ct sasquatch researcher. please keep me posted ok.

  • Greg in BC

    Digger makes my point EXACTLY. As mostly urban dwellers, we are ‘tuned out’ to alot of the dangers signals that our more primitive cousins are tuned in to. Spend some time in the woods…and I mean the BIG woods, and you’ll see what I mean.

    We shouldn’t overcomplicate or mysticize this…it could just be a BIG, SCARY APE! Two of the three people I know who’ve seen a sasquatch related that it was months or years before they felt comfortable in deep woods again.

    The third one? She still insists that what she saw was a ‘big monkey, probably an orangutan escaped from a zoo’. Next to the highway. At night. Below freezing. In Alberta. In January.

    Denial is a terrible thing.

    Disappointing news about the quality of the footage. Autofocus is the PITS. Learn to tape without it, and I promise, you’ll be a better photographer.

  • bill green

    hi everyone good morning i agree the footage might be blurrey kinda but from what heard i heard on the bfro website from bfro researchers that it looks like a great piece of evidence. im realy looking forward seeing on a current affair tommarrow night. thanks bill green

  • jemezdave

    Looks like it will air tomorrow

  • gridbug

    In case anyone hasn’t seen it yet, the latest from Globe and Mail

    It mentions that Manitoba Footage could be shown as early as tomorrow (May 4th) and -lucky for you Canadian folks- will be available for viewing on A Current Affair’s website: http://www.acurrentaffair.com/index.php

    Hope it’s worth the wait! 🙂

  • bill green

    hi gritbug and everyone i totaly agree with all your posts im looking forward on seeing this sasquatch footage. bill green :)please keep me posted.

  • the unsilent majority

    But lets not forget what proven fact we all have conclusive proof about…………that, Danny is a total MORON.


  • Sascrotch

    I was very excited about this, but now I think it’s crap.

    This guy supposedly dropped the camera when the subject turned to look at him?

    Now I read that its a blurry blob? How could he see in full digital blocky zoom mode that it turned to look?

    And that “bringing the camera to work” story. This is too fishy for me.

    I’m a believer, but I don’t like the looks of this one. I also detest the “feel like someone or something was watching me” routine that I read from time to time. When I read that, I also think it’s bunk.

  • td

    From what I have read most of the arguments go like this.

    1) Plenty of physical evidence exists, including thousands of footprints. 2) Only the Patterson film exists because it is very shy and lives in very remote parts of the wilderness.

    1) Every hair found at the scene of a sighting has been determined to be from a bear, elk, hoarse, etc. (Someone mentioned a hair that has been analyzed and determined to be unknown. Please provide a link.) No bones have ever been found. This might pausible if it was only a pop. 2-5000. But that would be current figures. How many thousands – millions have died in the past. Further, what is the evolutionary history. No bones have been found in North America, or anywhere else that show an Ape / Humanoid from which Bigfoot could possibly have evolved. Oh but that’s because we don’t know where to look. Hmm… maybe we should try the area’s where natives say they saw them all the time in the past. As pointed out, many animals, including large ones, are still being discovered. However, in every case another similar animal already exist in the region, or it was know to be introduced to the region by humans.

    Finally, the footprints. Of the thousands of foot prints accumulated, most are physiologically different from one another. Some have 2-3 toes, others have six. The shape of the foot varies as well as the weight distribution. Therefore most can be deemed hoaxes immediately. So you have a few that can not be proven to be hoaxes. Of these some probably are hoaxes, just no proven, and others are probably just flukes. Given the propabilities of nature, every once and a while a cliff face is going to look like a human face. Symbols will appear in tree bark. And footprints will appear in river banks. This is far from absolute proof.

    2) Well, which is it. Is Bigfoot a very shy creature that only lives in remote places, or is the Patterson film real? It’s hard to imagine both are true because if the creature that has managed to stay hidden for hundreds of years, why was it walking within 5 minutes of a highway, and why when seen by humans is its first reaction to keep walking casually along in plain sight. This is a pretty big hole in the logic of the argument.

    Am I saying that the film is fake? Yes. Patterson was a notorious con artist. He had been trying to film bigfoot for years, unsuccessfully. Why did he want to film it. Money. So he decides to fake a bigfoot film. Where does he get the costume? John Chambers, the guy who was making nearly identical costumes for Planet of the Apes and Lost in Space during 65 & 66. The initial attempts of these costumes were sold to novelty stores around the country. (If you look at the monster costumes he created for the Lost in Space series they are very similar.) You can make all the ‘scientific’ hypothesis you want about the creature on film, but there is no doubt that such a costume, with all the realistic features displayed, could have been created back in 66-67. Dozens of special effects masters have agreed on this.

    But Chambers denied creating the costume? True. But would you own up to it, and have hundreds of bigfoot fans showing up at your door trying to prove you wrong. The fact is, either he is lying, or dozens of others including Director John Landis are lying when they say Chambers admitted it to them in private. And as I said, this guy made dozens of similar costumes and plenty of prototypes that the studio has stated were sold to variety shops prior to the Patterson filming.

    Comment as you wish. I’m not going to go back and forth to arguing with fanatics that have already made up there mind. There is no scientific proof. And every ‘theory’ concerning how they came to be, and how they continue to exist has gaping holes in it. So until one of the thousands of hunters who supposedly have seen the creature decides to actually shoot one, the rest of the world will remain solidly unimpressed.

  • Eric Olsen

    good points on both sides – that’s why I’m in the middle

  • jemezdave

    Do your research (Third to last paragraph).

    The existence of these “Dozens of special effects masters” is unknown to me. Could you site references please.

    If you wish to talk about footprints why not talk to this guy ? He seems to be convinced that these creatures exist due to the footprint evidence. I’d call him an expert in that area.

    And then there’s this guy. He seems to be pretty convinced as well.

  • Nancy

    The following are excellent sites to start out checking up on whatever you want to find out about sasquatch. The last especially is an really good reference site that has the websites of a good many others listed. Both BFRO & TBFRO (plus another named the Gulf Coast Bigfoot Research Org.; I don’t have the website address but the Friends of BF does) and the others also have some pretty good Q & A sections that start anyone off well on the basics. BFRO also has all latest updates on whatever seems to be going on overall w/sasquatch-oriented news.


  • jemezdave

    Here’s a good objective view from Dr. W.H. Fahrenbach on hair samples.

  • td

    Okay, I responded to your questions. Here’s mine (in emphatic jerry mcguire like fashion). Show me the body !!! Hair, Teeth, Bones, Saliva, Finger Nails, Blood, etc. etc. Thousands of reported sightings and not one piece of physical evidence other than footprints, that can not conclusively be ruled out as fakes.


    Do your research (Third to last paragraph).

    What? Where it says footprints found on a BFRO expedition match a ‘foot derived by Meldrum’? Is that the objective research I am supposed to believe. All these ‘scientists’ are able to say is that the prints found are not human. They cannot say that the prints are real prints. They might look like real prints. They might be hard to fake prints. Etc, etc. But are they evidence of real prints? Not without the foot they aren’t.


    The existence of these “Dozens of special effects masters” is unknown to me. Could you site references please.



    If you wish to talk about footprints why not talk to this guy ? He seems to be convinced that these creatures exist due to the footprint evidence. I’d call him an expert in that area.

    I’d also call Russell Ciochon an expert in that area. And he seems pretty convinced that they don’t. In fact this article, posted on bfro, is a good example of the problem with the evidence. They quote many scientist who believe that the samples match what they would expect a bigfoot sample would look like. But other than Meldrum, none of them state that they could not be fakes.


    And then there’s this guy. He seems to be pretty convinced as well.

    Although none of his findings have been verified by anyone, I accept that Chilcutt seems certain that Fingerprints he found could not be made by a human foot. However, he does not rule out them being fakes. Just that the ridge patterns do not correspond with human samples. Without having the actual foot that made the prints you cannot say they are not fakes with any certainty. And it doesn’t help that the tracks he examined can from an admitted bigfoot hoaxer.

    Here’s a good objective view from Dr. W.H. Fahrenbach on hair samples.

    Well, I’m not going to respond by saying ‘Why doesn’t he post his finds in Science, or Nature magazine’, or ‘Have his results verified by other parties like any respectable scientist does.’ Instead I will let the man tell it in his own words:

    Update, November 3, 1999:
    I have by now a dozen purported sasquatch hair samples, all morphologically congruent (which rules out hoaxing) and all effectively indistinguishable from a human hair of the particular structure (great variability is available among the latter). DNA extracted from both hair shaft or roots (hair demonstrably fresh) was too fragmented to permit gene sequencing. That characteristic is also sometimes found in human hair that lacks the medulla (as does sasquatch hair – at least what I am willing to identify as such).

    I am concentrating now on blood or tissue, as the hair holds no promise.


    Concerning the following sites:


    They are great for finding out what people believe is evidence about bigfoot. But the are not objective. The world is full of 1000’s of scientist who don’t care if Bigfoot does or doesn’t exist. Take your ‘evidence’ to them.

    Well, you provided your resources, all from BFRO suprisingly. Here’s another one to add to the list. National Geographic. http://www.nationalgeographic.com They have commented on most of the claims made by scientist like Meldrum. And produced several shows looking at research from an objective standpoint. They are as yet, unconvinced.

  • td

    Sorry. Forgot to post a link.

    Here is the article I was talking about in the third section of my responce.


  • gridbug

    I wonder why it is that some folks are so vehemently opposed to the possibility that Bigfoot exists? Why not entertain the notion and keep an open mind? To spend so much energy trying to disprove the phenomena seems (to me at least) to go against the acedemic and scientific standards that propel our knowledge forward. Sure, everyone is entitled to his/her opinion, but isn’t it a lot more fun to say “what if” as opposed to “there’s no way in hell that these things exist and you’re all crazy if you believe it”?

    Oh, and there’s an update on the Current Affair website which includes a promo for the show and a pretty nondescript still from the video. :/


  • gridbug

    PS: I just checked out the “promo” for the tonight’s Current Affair episode via their website… the footage is awfully murky and heavily pixelated (lotsa blocks, super low definition) so I guess I’ll have to wait for the broadcast tonight to see if I can get a better view.

    I’d love to hear everyone else’s opinion of the footage!

  • Famousguitars

    I guess some people just can’t accept the fact these amazing animals exist without seeing it for themselves but that’s okay I was sort of like that until I had my sighting of an adult and juvenile myself…

  • famousguitars

    Gridbug… Personally I think something is a little funny here with this video but that’s just one guys opnion. If I had a camera when I had my sighting, you could bet your life I would have had a clear shot and video of something this amazing. It just makes me wonder if someone is hiding something when they can’t or won’t focus in on the subject a lot better then this guy did.

  • Nancy

    Gridbug, have you posted it anywhere I can read about it? What happened, where, and when?

  • Dan

    You need to get your facts straight.
    1. You say that most footprints of bigfoot are all different? I would say that 95% of them show the same foot morphology and have 5 toes. Some even show dermal ridges with sweat pours.(finger prints) Some say these can be faked but no one has ever shown how they did it. I also can’t imagine someone going miles into a wilderness area and faking these footprints just on the off chance that someone might come along and take a plaster cast of them. Little far fetched if you ask me. You say that some perfectly good footprints just appear on river banks? Hmmm. Never seen that before. Care to explain that to us?
    2. You say that there is no related ape that could be the ancester of Bigfoot? Have you ever heard of Gigantapithicus Blacki? This was a giant upright walking ape that lived several hundred thousand years ago and maybe even more recent. The jaw bones and teeth have been found of this ape. Bigfoot could be a direct decendent of this ape.
    3. You say that the Patterson Video was taken 5 min. from a highway? The film was taken at least 20 miles from the nearest highway in some very rugged country. It was near a logging road but it is in some very remote and rugged mountains.
    3. You say that Roger Patterson was a notorious con artist? Where you getting this stuff. You make that up? Sure he wanted to make a video of bigfoot. I would love to also as would a lot of people. Doesn’t mean he is a con artist. He wanted to take a video of a bigfoot and sell it so he could keep going with this stuff. He put his whole life into the search for this and didn’t have a regular job so of course he needed money. That makes him a con artist? Don’t think so.
    4. John Chambers said he did not make the suit for the Patterson Video because he said he couldn’t make one that good. Get your facts straight.If you will look at the Planet of the Apes suits you will see that they look nothing like the figure in the Patterson Video. Chambers said that he wished he could of made a suit that was that good but in fact couldn’t. Chambers said that he never denied making the suit because it was good for business. John Landis said that Chambers made the suit for Patterson because he assumed that Chambers did. He said this because he couldn’t think of anyone else that could even come close to making a suit that good. Chambers said he didn’t do it. End of story. How come he didn’t produce anymore of these fantastic suits if he did?

  • Doug H

    Roger Patterson WAS a notorious con artist, fraud and cheat. This has been exhaustively documented in “The making of Bigfoot: The Inside Story.” by Greg Long.

  • gridbug

    Nancy; not sure to what you’re referring. If you mean my comments re: the Manitoba Footage, a snippet of Bobby Clarke’s video is up on the Current Affair website. If you’re using Mozilla Firefox as your browser (like I am) you might have trouble viewing the PROMO which is basically the commercial for that episode in a flash-based sort of format. I had to open a Microsoft Explorer browser to be able to view the promo. Any other info I’ve been able to find has been via the BFRO website and/or various Google visits. 🙂

    In regard to our skeptical friends (the John Chambers suit, Greg Long’s book, etc) the fact is that NO ONE is able to either come up with the original suit supposedly used in the PGF; or even more telling, construct a new one that compares to the one in the PGF. Simply put, despite a bunch of heresay about “the suit” and “who wore it” (various people have come forward with that claim, which says a lot right there) there still to this day hasn’t been a successful debunking of the PGF. No, there hasn’t. Really. I’ve checked.

    Personally, the fact that folklore from the past several hundred years (perhaps more) has documented these creatures is good enough for me to give serious consideration to the sightings and encounters that continue into our present day. Seems to me that either there is a very real, mysterious phenomena regarding these creatures, or there’s a fantastical epidemic of mass hysteria spanning decades in which countless people from all walks of life are imagining their detailed experiences with heretofore unknown hominids. 😀

  • famousguitars

    WOW!!!!!!!! Roger Patterson a fraud??? Hmm that’s got to be the silliest thing I’ve ever heard.Although it does strike me as odd that he set out to film a Sasquatch and actually did get one on film but I think that was just a fluke and those of us who have had actual sightings can tell you it’s just a matter of being lucky and in the right place at the right time I only wish I had my cam-corder when I had my sighting. Also I don’t think “ANYONE” would have had that kind of technology to make a suit to look like the Sasquatch in the Patterson film, and even today nobody has been able to duplicate it or even come remotely close to duplicating it. I understand how hard it is for the non believer to believe these amazing animals actually exist and I was one of those people but I’ll tell you this, if you ever get the chance to see one like I did there will never be anyone that could convince you they don’t exist.By the way my name is Tim and I live in British Columbia Canada..

  • Famousguitars

    Hi Guys.. Can someone please just place a note here so I know my post’s are showing up. I can only get to this area through Bobbie Shorts website and can’t find this area through this website.

    Thanks. Tim .

  • In the Patterson film, you can clearly see a pair of breasts moving.

    Now, if I was going to make a bigfoot suit to fake a filming, putting breasts on the suit just wouldn’t occur to me…

  • Tim

    That’s what I mean when it comes to detail who would have thought about placing breast’s on a suit and also if it was supposed to be faked I personally think the film would have been more blurry and harder to make out but the Patterson film is just the opposite which tells me he had nothing to hide.

  • td

    1. Why would anyone fake prints? It’s a very good question. I can’t answer why anyone would do that because I agree with you. It seems like a stupid, boring, and pointless hobby. However, people do fake bigfoot prints all the time. Most of which are proven to be hoaxes by people like the BFRO. So you ask me if it’s far fetched….I agree. But it happens.

    “Bigfoot print hoaxing is a time-honored cottage industry. Dozens of people have admitted making Bigfoot prints. One man, Rant Mullens, revealed in 1982 that he and friends had carved giant Bigfoot tracks and used them to fake footprints as far back as 1930 (Dennett 1996). In modern times it is easier to get Bigfoot tracks. With the advent of the World Wide Web and online auctions, anyone in the world can buy a cast of an alleged Bigfoot print and presumably make tracks that would very closely match tracks accepted by some as authentic. ”


    2. Gigantapithicus Blacki does exist, but it’s still a long way from bigfoot. Here are the ‘facts’ that you left out. According to the scientist that discovered the animal, it walked on all fours, not upright. It never travelled further north than china. And it became extinct over 300,000 years ago. Are saying is that you choose to use some of the scientists research to back up your argument, but other parts of it are dead wrong?

    3. Already answered.

    4. All the sources I have read say Landis heard directly from Chambers that he had made it. If you have other sources i’d be interested in reading them.

    As for why Chambers didn’t outright admit to it, or why he didn’t make any other suits, etc., etc. I don’t know why. I can only speculate that he probably didn’t want to deal with bigfoot supporters and he had nothing to gain by admitting it was his.

  • td

    Nobody has been able to replicate the PGF? True. Then again, nobody has really tried. What? The BBC film. Yeah, they tried so hard that they didn’t even get the hair color right.

    Why breasts? Why not. If you’re making a whole bunch of prototype costumes for a movie studio you probably make some with breasts, some without.

    Remember. The Chambers theory assumes that the costume was NOT made to be used in a BF hoax film. It was made to be a ape costume for a major motion picture in which they wanted realism and had the money to pay for it.

  • gridbug

    My thoughts on the whole “breasts on the costume” point is that if I wanted to create an effective, original costume to make Bigfoot seem real, I’d consider adding details that would make most people go “why would a hoaxer go though the trouble of adding breasts to the costume?”. It’s all very interesting, and until there’s definitive proof that the PGF was faked (or not) we’ll never really know…

  • Tim, your comments are showing up.

    The direct URL to this article/comment thread is http://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/04/24/140559.php

    Hope that helps!


  • Chy

    Gigantopithecus Blacki is not assumed to have walked on all fours. In fact, no skeletal bones have been found, only teeth and the parts of the jaw, IIRC. No one knows what it looked like, all recreations are assumptions, as to its posture, there are several theories based on tentative relations to other hominids.

    The Landis story is bull, it was debunked years ago. In addition, the Chalmers suit the PGF creature was said to resemble appeared on ‘Lost In Space’ the original series, and is about as laughable a suit as can be imagined.

  • digger

    I hope the clip on Current Affair tonight is better than that snippet they showed last night. Boy it sucked!

    Couldn’t see much of anything that would allow any kind of conclusion!!

  • Doug H

    Gridbug wrote:
    “there’s a fantastical epidemic of mass hysteria spanning decades in which countless people from all walks of life are imagining their detailed experiences with heretofore unknown hominids.” Yep. That sums it up nicely. There are certainly no shortage of similar examples of human credulity: UFO’s, crop circles, Lake monsters, fairies and angels, and, dare I say it GOD. Yes. Human gullibility knows no bounds.
    The trick is to cash in on it, as Bobby Clarke is blatantly doing (if not he would have handed his video over to his local media at no cost).

  • Dan

    DR. Grover Krantz studied the jaw of the Gigantipithicus Blacki and came to the conclusion that it probably walked upright due to the fact that the back of the jaw was so wide. This is to allow room for the spinal chord to fit on an upright walking animal. That is why ours is so wide in the back. In a dog or animal that walks on all fours the back of the jaw can be narrow because the spinal chord enters the head at the back of the head instead of from the bottom. This still doesn’t prove that Blacki walked upright, it only is a strong suggestion that it did.
    It is always assumed that when some one sees a print cast of a bigfoot that every footprint that was there looks exactly the same. This is not true. Many of the footprints in the same line of footprints show different toe positions and differences in many of the steps. A fake print will always look exactly like the next one. One of the most intriguing things about footprints is how they show a great weight needed to make them. Many prints would take an estimated 7 to 800 lbs to create them in the type of soil they are found. If someone is faking them then they haven’t told us how they manage that.

  • Tim

    Thanks Annie… I wasn’t sure because no one was saying anything about what I said. I made a blog what ever that is hahahah.. I’m actually fluent with the inner workings of computer’s but not so much with the different program’s.

    I agree that the little bit of footage on the Manitoba sighting wasn’t that good to say the least.

  • gridbug

    I’m sure that Bobby Clarke is only acting in his best interest, and as I have no idea as to his background, personal life or financial situation, I can’t judge him for getting paid by licensing his footage to A Current Affair. Truth be told, if I were in his position I’d certainly see how I could supplement my income too, though I’d try and get more experts and folks with a higher degree of credibility to study the footage and/or lend themselves to its debut.

    There’s always gonna be doubters and naysayers, and everyone can believe in whatever/whoever they like. When (note I didn’t say “if”) the Bigfoot phenomena is finally realized by definitive proof, I’m sure the resultant chaos will be VERY entertaining to watch. All those “experts” (armchair or otherwise) who were so certain it was (is) a bunch of nothing are gonna look pretty silly. 🙂

  • gridbug

    LOL… I just watched the Current Affair promo again (this time with the sound up as I’m now at home) and it’s high-larious! The narrator tries to sound all ominous but it comes off as just cheezy, and the snippets of footage look TERRIBLE. I can only hope that they’re saving the best bits for the broadcast.

    Over footage…
    “What is that?”
    “Bobby Clarke, a ferryman in the wilds of the great northwest saw it as he crossed the Nelson River. Black, hairy, too big to be a man but standing upright. A lumbering giant caught on a two minute forty-nine second video tape, another Bigfoot mystery.”

    And then to cap it all off, the promo suddenly switches gears:

    “Also, the Ex-Wives Club Day Three, on the next A Current Affair!” Complete with a horrible reality-show inspired shot of a group of middle-aged lovelies dressed all sexyish -not that there’s anything wrong with that, but whatta forum to debut new Bigfoot footage.

    Why, Bobby Clarke, why? 🙂

  • gridbug

    Here’s a decent article that seems to be pretty direct in regards to the supposed John Chambers/Patterson suit subject:


    From CNI News


    “Planet of the Apes” Special Effects Designer Says He Didn’t Do It

    The November 1, 1997 edition of CNI News carried a story alleging that Oscar-winning Hollywood special effects wizard, John “Planet of the Apes” Chambers, was responsible for creating a costume featured in the famous Bigfoot film footage shot by Roger Patterson in 1967. The claim for Chambers’ authorship of the alleged costume was attributed to respected film director John Landis and was reportedly supported by numerous artists within the special effects industry.

    However, new information from Brian Penikas, Creative Director for a company called Makeup & Monsters, puts to rest the theory that Chambers had any hand in the Patterson film. Penikas writes:

    “Recently my crew and I were involved in a surprize 75th birthday tribute to Mr. Chambers, for which 9 of us recreated a parody skit re-enacting characters from the Ape movies. Mr. Chambers and the rest of the guests, many of whom were survivors of the Apes saga, were wonderfully surprised.

    “I had only met Mr. Chambers briefly prior to the surprise party, and the opportunity to discuss the “suit” rumor was not high on my agenda… This past Saturday [October 25, 1997], however, the cast of the Apes birthday skit went back (sans costumes and makeup) to visit with Mr. Chambers and his wife… [This] was our chance to truly and finally confront Mr. Chambers about these rumors and stories about him being involved in the Patterson film project”Mr. Chambers told his story, on video tape, to us to set the record straight. I now have pictures of the suit that Chambers did make and you can rest assured that it is NOT the famous Patterson Bigfoot. In fact, it’s not a suit AT ALL. It is an 8 foot tall plaster dummy of actor Richard “Jaws” Keil that was built (in 4 days) as a prop for a travelling carnival to be billed as “Bigfoot’s Body” or some such sideshow attraction, and was apparently displayed in a coffin. That’s all. Just a solid, 800-pound prop.

    “Mr. Chambers did say (in regards to the Patterson footage) that he and his crew wished they had done it, because they would have done it differently. I believe his exact words were, jokingly, ‘We could’ve done better.’

    “So there you have it… We can all smile with relief that the Patterson footage is still the most convincing proof of our great folk legend’s existence, and that it still has not been debunked.

    “I want that film to be real just as much as the next guy,” Penikas said in conclusion.


    Seems reasonable enough, doesn’t it? 😉

  • Doug H

    gridbug wrote:
    I can’t judge him for getting paid by licensing his footage to A Current Affair.
    Well I can. I’m sorry but this DOES diminish his credibility at least somewhat, CAN’T you agree? By the way, good luck in your quest for definitive proof of bigfoot, alien abductions, unicorns or whatever else turns your crank. Logically I certainly can’t prove any of these DON’T exist, in fact it would be way cool if they did, but in the abscence of any compelling physical evidence I’m not holding my breath.

  • gridbug

    Re: Doug’s comments…

    I think it’d be different if Bobby Clarke was going out of his way to try and capture footage of Bigfoot, running his mouth about it to everyone etc kinda like Roger Patterson did and then suddenly he got this footage. As far as we know, Clarke is just a guy who happened to catch something on video -whether it’s authentic or not- and decided to better his financial situation while he could. Apparently he’d been hearing noises in the area while on the job and wanted to get a recording of them via his ubiquitous video camera. Not knowing him personally, I can’t say what sort of motivations he has.

    Also, if you really think it’d be “way cool if they did” exist, then why all the humbug? Do you really, honestly believe that the THOUSANDS of people who swear to their highly detailed, life changing encounters were in fact hoaxed by individuals who COMPLETELY FABRICATED THE ENTIRE BIGFOOT MYTHOLOGY IN ORDER TO MAKE FAKE OVERSIZED FOOTPRINTS/MONKEY SUITS FOR LAUGHS? Not to mention running the risk of getting shot at by hunters and/or getting plastered by 3am traffic on lonely forest highways in the pitch darkness? If you’re willing to swallow that, then I got a bridge in San Francisco I’d like to sell ya. 🙂

    Oh, and here’s another great article on the Patterson film that touches on a lot of the same points our skeptical friends love to tout:


    And by the way, shouldn’t we be referring to the Manitoba footage as a possible Sasquatch instead of a Bigfoot due to this being a Canadian sighting?

  • Anyone listen to Coast To Coast AM last night? They had a “bigfoot rountable” with some experts and callers recounting their experiences.

    Some of the stories were quite good, like the one about the guy who saw BF in on a trail about 100 yards ahead of him. They made eye contact. He ran away, fell into a 5 foot hole and when the light pored into the hole, he realized their was another bf in the hole with him. He passed out due to the tremendous fear he felt… This story starts 3:20 into the show.

    The show is archived in realaudio in the newsgroup alt.binaries.great. It will be compressed in RAR format.

    It’s a fun listen, regardless of where you stand on the issue.

  • “…a ferryman in the wilds of the great northwest”!? They can`t be serious…can they? I just had to laugh listening to it. The first thing I thought too, Tim….WHY OH WHY THEM!???

    I`d have held out for money too. Why not!? If not him, someone else out there would have found a way to cash in on it. Better him, than them.

  • The Unsilent Majority

    Hey TD (Too Dumb)

    Got a little question for you, but…It’s a real difficult one and might give u a headache, so u’d better sit down first.

    Haven’t a weenie bit MORE than a few thousand sitings of Pigeons been made by people?..including you? So then tell us then you atomically uneducated bigmouth…….how many baby pigeons have you ever seen?? …LMARO!

    [ And no, baby pigeons don’t have the ability to run and hide like a Sasquatch can, and no, pigeons are NOT cavity nesters so as to be TOO hidden from view to find (so u should forget about using that as yet another one of your typically lame grasps lol). And, a baby pigeon would’nt have anywhere near the intelligence of a Sasquatch…something u can obviousley relate to. 😀 ]

    Maybe Sydney would like to answer this as well, that is if he’s done cowering in hiding after actually realizing that he doesn’t even have the brains to continue with his typical meaningless psycho babble, let alone to continue being wrong/misinformed about everything that he says.

    [ NEWSFLASH! —- TD and Sydney’s reply to this will be: “What are you talking about baby pigeons for? Is that all you can come up with to try and prove the existance of Bigfoot?” ………… Um, no. It’s only just ONE little thing I can mention. And it’s All I wanted (needed) to mention at this time….ONE thing. So as to not give you two a brain hemorrhage.

    LMAO again


  • Doug H

    gridbug wrote:
    “If you’re willing to swallow that, then I got a bridge in San Francisco I’d like to sell ya. :)”

    How much?

  • Gdub

    Hey guys, did the “bigfoot” video air yet?

  • Gdub

    Okay, so seeing as the Manitoba Bigfoot video should be airing on “A Current Affair” tonight, I figure I’d share some goodies with you guys, which might help understand if the video is bogus or not.

    Seeing as how I’m in Canada, and without a dish, I’m unable to watch “A Current Affair” tonight. If the video is anything like the promo that was offered, it should be a mess to look at.

    Anyway, here goes:
    I live in Thompson, Manitoba, several hours away from Norway House (A First Nation Aboriginal Reserve). The population of my home town is three times that of Norway House, everybody nearly knows one another here, so the majority of the Norway House residents will know each other. This sounds a bit stupid right now, but it makes sense…

    I was in law class today, when one of the middleage aboriginal ladies was mentioning that she used to live in Norway House just last year. We were discussing the recent “bigfoot video” topic, and I made a remark like “Oh, it’s probably just some big native.” The natives can be quite large in size in town here, and most that reside here, have came in from the surrounding reserves. She went on to make fun about really big aboriginal men she knew, when I asked her “What was the biggest one like?” She said “He was 8 or 9 feet tall. When I worked at the bar, he would have to crouch like an old man to get in (the doorway)”

    I had a thought about her story, and remembered seeing the Mb (Manitoba) news article quoting video witnesses as saying “The figure in the video is 8-10 feet tall”.

    I jokingly suggested that the man she had told me about was “bigfoot”. She then told me that this man’s name is “Dorrian”. (dorian, dorean)

    Dorrian is related to Bobby Clarke. I was told by Emma, that she was familiar with Clarke, but knew Dorrian as a regular at the local bar she worked at.

    -So, the man videotaping bigfoot is, through marriage, related to a man relative to it’s size? It gets better..

    After some questions, Emma goes on to tell me about the appearance of Dorrian, and how he’s quite scruffy, has very rubby (neandrothol) features, and dresses very poorly. A lot of aboriginals have drinking, financial and even gas-huffing problems in some of these reserves, which makes for low living standards. Very similar in appearance to the homeless.

    I’m not trying to label, you can see for yourself…google THOMPSON MANITOBA POST OFFICE, PLAZA, LAMPWICK, T.I./THOMPSON INN or COMMUNITY PHOTOS, I’m sure you’ll find at least one picture depicting an unfortunate folk. These well known people tend to be intoxicated a lot of the time, have very caveman features and stumble about the town.

    Then, she goes on to tell me about the Chief of Norway House. Apparently, he’s the man responsible for assisting in searching for a newsgroup to purchase the bigfoot video. Apparently, he’s also related to Bobby Clarke.

    The initial amount requested for the video was $20 million dollars. Canadian. Not very smart, I know, but that’s still a lot of money. Still….20 million for nearly 3 minutes of footage? Is it THAT good?

    The video was licensed to Fox, as everyone knows, for a six-figure amount. Enough to buy ol’ Dorrian a cold one.

    I don’t believe in Bigfoot/chupacabra cropcircles/psychics/ghosts/UFO’s or even David Blaine, street magician….not until I see ultimate evidence that presents it so.

    I would like to hear some feedback on this topic, as well as what you guys thought of the show’s video clip segment aired tonight.

    -Hope this helps, Thanks everybody.

  • Doug H

    Gdub. Excellent work. I wonder if your “expose” of this shalow hoax will get the media attention it deserves.
    I logged on to remind gridbug that the NUMBER of people who believe in a particular kind of nonsense doesn’t constitute SCIENTIFIC proof, as evidenced by the millions who believe a recently deceased gentleman in Rome had some unique relationship with some form of supreme being.

  • Gdub

    Thanks Doug.
    I forgot to note how casual bigfoot was walking in that promo…almost like a human walking in some kind of news commercial promo. LoL.

    David Cross said it best: “The bible was written by people…dumber than people today.”

    I think the only thing supernatural/mysterious nowadays is one’s interest on the topic itself.

  • chacha

    Six figures for some blurry footage of a hungover eskimo in a parka? Nice job Bobby! Beats staging a slip and fall at Wal-Mart.

  • gee

    I’m not shocked by the skeptics about the video on bigfoot. Their still skeptical about the Patterson clip, UFO’s, Martin’s Sponsorship scandal, Bush’s WMD missiles and the elusive Bin Ladin. What gives, we only see Bin Laden on video tapes, is he real? Believe what you want to believe but don’t be an %&& hole about it.

  • gee

    By the way good work Bobby, I would’ve done the same thing with the video. I believe in sasquatch, good luck.

  • gridbug

    Sez Doug:

    “…the NUMBER of people who believe in a particular kind of nonsense doesn’t constitute SCIENTIFIC proof…”

    Okay, let me make sure I understand your logic. Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems you’re saying that all the varied eyewitness reports from all the different people who’ve experienced some form of encounter with these as-yet-to-be-classified creatures don’t amount to anything because they can’t be SCIENTIFICALLY proven? The people who don’t try to milk their experience for a fat paycheck, even going so far as to NOT talk about their experience for years because of fear of ridicule, are all woefully mistaken in what they’ve seen because… why, exactly? I’d love to hear your explanation for the persistance of these encounter stories. I’m sure it’ll be extreeemley enlightening. *yawn*

    Okay, now that I’ve stopped laughing, lemme get serious. These are strange times we live in. Not to tread all over anyone’s personal beliefs, but there are now serious attempts to get the theory of evolution (which is science) bounced out of scholastic curriculums in favor of creationism (which ISN’T science). Now, what’s more disturbing: the fact that there are those who are totally behind the creationism movement, or the fact that it’s already being implemented in American schools? How much stock is being placed in the actual science that we were taught as kids?

    I’d love to have concrete proof that Bigfoot exists… in fact, I can’t wait for it to happen. And even though I favor evolutionary science over theoretical (theological) creationism, I’m the first to entertain the notion that for centuries there have been reports of these strange creatures, reports made by people who, despite not knowing exactly what it was they experienced, know exactly what they DID NOT experience. Their word is good enough for me. I’m sure that some of them may have been mistaken, and some might even be out for that fast buck, but at this point in the mystery the fact that these reports continue to trickle in definately place the odds squarely in favor of there being something solid behind it all. And by solid, I don’t mean Ray Wallace’s piss-poorly carved wooden bigfeet.

    So please, by all means stick to your “they can’t exist because they haven’t been proven that they exist therefore they don’t exist” guns all you want. I’m pretty sure you don’t need my encouragement.

    Me, I’m very comfortable with having unknown variables in the world. Even if I have to suffer the closed-circuit logic of the prove-it-to-me’s.

    By the way Doug, I’m still working out the estimate for that bridge. Of course we’ll need to run your credit report before we can finalize your financing, though it’d probably just be easier if you give me your checking account number and I’ll keep you informed of the payments. 😉

  • gee

    Do you really need scientific proof for anything? You need scientific proof that food digested will become poop? How old are you? Scientific proof is for people who cannot interpet the phrase, “how can it be?” Yes, you digest food and poop will come out. You don’t need scientific proof, genius to know if you eat you will poop. If your so gun ho’ about finding proof, look for it, don’t be a skeptic until you have found no solid proof. Find it, not just blah, blah, blah, and blah about how skeptical you are. Listen your the genius and genius don’t sit on their booty’s and just think about it.

  • Pete

    Gdub and Doug.
    Why don’t you guys free your minds? As humans we think we know a lot, if not everything…how simple it all is hey?
    What a joke. I suppose we know all the creatures that live in the oceans too…even though there is way more ocean than land. Speaking of land, Gdub, you should how much bush there is up around Thompsen and all over northern Canada. Take a look at a map. Do you even leave the library/school where you are taking your law class? Do you expect to learn everything from a book?

    I have been hiking in the backcountry of BC since I was a young kid. When I was 8 my father took me to Alaska for a month and we hiked all over the place. I’ve been to the tops of many mountains, hiking in of course, in BC, Alberta, the Yukon, and Alaska. It took me almost to my thirties to see my first Grizzly bear in the backcountry. That is a long time for the amount of time I put in. There is a fairly healthy Griz population in BC, so why did it take me so long to see one? My wife and I spent a week hiking at a fly in only cabin on Kodiak Island, where the pop density of Kodiak bears is 2.5 per sq mile. We saw no bears.

    We think we have it all covered, but really, take a good look at a map(s), good maps. There are roads, with towns along them, and to either side of the road what is there? Travelling to Alaska from BC, there are only two highways, the Alaska Hwy and the Cassiar Hwy. There are hundreds of miles between the two with absolutely no people or towns in the middle. As for northern Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Ontario, there are even less.
    Look at the U.S. You’d think a population of 10:1 when compared to Canada would mean people are living on top of each other. There are vast, vast areas of wilderness that few, if any people travel to.

    I am not intending this to be in any way insulting, just open up your mind. How can you be absolutely sure?

    Has anyone seen the vid yet?


  • chacha

    Somebody will eventually shoot and kill one of these creatures. And when the hillbilly corpse is pulled out of the chewbacca costume we will all be able to move on with our lives.

  • gord

    geez chacha I can’t stop laughing!!

  • Gdub

    Free our minds? Wait…are we discussing Matrix quotes or the bigfoot video?

    I understand you feel that I’m advocating disbelief, in which I AM NOT.

    Also, I know there’s a lot of woods around Thompson, chum….I live there. And yes I do go outside, when not in college, and for your devious information….I did not recieve any information from a book. I have no idea where that remark came from…..and the library? oh…forget it. cold, hard, irrefutable facts must mean nothing…here’s a tip…watch the video, contemplate my post regarding a possible relation..and if you feel that I don’t make sense, then leave it be. I’m not twisting your arm to hear my thoughts. I stated those notes, as additional information one can use in regards to the video, not to argue about. Thanks and g’night.

  • Doug H

    gridbug asks?
    “Correct me if I’m wrong, but it seems you’re saying that all the varied eyewitness reports from all the different people who’ve experienced some form of encounter with these as-yet-to-be-classified creatures don’t amount to anything because they can’t be SCIENTIFICALLY proven?”
    Wow! You’re geting good at this. That is EXACTLY what I’m saying. Poeple think they see all sorts of things that aren’t there, especially in the woods where shapes are notoriously ambiguous. Just ask all the people that get shot each year because they looked like a deer or moose. Well, actually, that might not be so easy. There’s way more people blundering around in the woods with guns than video cameras, so shoot one of these samsquanches fer chrissake, and settle the matter once and for all. Seriously tho, if we don’t require minimum standards of evidence then we’re back in the middle ages burning people for suggesting the world is round when “everyone can see it’s flat”. Yes, I’m a skeptic, and by that I mean I’m like the guy who walks into the car dealership and is shown the new model SUV that, it is claimed, gets 100 miles to the gallon. Thats wonderful! But do you mind if if could see some evidence of that? “Show me”. That’s all I ask.
    About the bridge you’re selling. I don’t think you’ll have any trouble getting “A Current Affair” to make you a generous offer.

  • gridbug

    Well, I just caught the Current Affair spot. Because I don’t have cable I had to tune in via an analog antenna, which meant slightly fuzzed out reception. The actual Sasquatch footage looked about as good as it does on the Current Affair website, but that’s only because I don’t have the crystal clarity of digital cable tv, so I can’t comment on that aspect.


    Bobby Clarke stated toward the end of his interview that he wanted to “help the people” and after seeing the B-roll footage of Norway House, it looks pretty barren and kind of rundown -no offense meant to the people of that area. So in that respect, I can understand him wanting to get some money for the footage to better the area. I don’t think he’s all about getting himself rich off this, but all I can go by is what he said. We’ll see how sincere he is as this continues to develop.

    Secondly, and this is perhaps the biggest strike against it, Current Affair had -of all people- Dr. Franklin Ruehl on as one of the “experts”. I almost fell off the couch. Talk about someone you DON’T want to have tied to the story! Based in Glendale, California, Dr. Ruehl hosts a cable access tv show called ‘Mysteries From Beyond: The Other Dimension’ that has to be seen to be believed. Do a Google search for him and try to find a good image of the guy and you’ll see what I mean.

    Now, don’t misunderstand me on this. I’m certainly not one to judge, and I’m sure that in his own way Dr. Ruehl offers some valid contributions to the world of paranormal phenomena. For whatever it may be worth, in addition to his show, he’s also a published author. But this guy’s the best that Current Affair could trot out? Sure, Matt Moneymaker from the BFRO was on there for about thirty seconds, but to actually give Dr. Ruehl screen time (“This could be the tape of the century!!!”) is just begging to be kicked, which is precisely what the naysayers are gearing up to do. Watch this forum and see if I’m wrong. Cue Doug, chacha, Gdub, et al.

    Anyway, I’m now in the same boat as you Canandian folks and will have to wait for the footage to pop up on the internet so I can get a better viewing. As soon as I find it I’ll letcha all know. If someone beats me to it, please post the info.

    Also worth noting is Current Affair’s host mentioning that “…as we speak, we have an expedition heading into the forests of Norway House to investigate.” Apparently they will provide ongoing updates on the next few shows.

    One things for sure; it ain’t no ‘Mysteries From Beyond: The Other Dimension’.

    Good night, and have a pleasant tomorrow. 🙂

  • bill green

    hi everyone good early morning. im looking forward on seeing the future segments of manitoba sasquatch filmfootage on a current affair. but of course my cable company comcast doesnt have a current affair. could someone here email me the whole segment about bigfoot if possible. i agree with all your posts/ thank you bill green ct sasquatch researcher.please keep me posted ok

  • Doug H

    Thanks for the review gridbug. Classic! “I want to help the people” “we have an expedition heading into the forests of Norway House” win win all around – the scam artist and the sleaze TV show both laughing all the way to the bank, and sniggering at the collective gullibility of the North American public. But then, when has it ever been otherwise?
    As you say:
    “One things for sure; it ain’t no ‘Mysteries From Beyond: The Other Dimension’.”
    A more damning indictment could not be conceived.
    I think the bridge deal is looking up tho.

  • td

    Hey The Unsilent Majority,

    You know what, I never realised that I was taking the completely wrong approach to this debate. Why did I bother to support my points with sources and science when I could just call people names and say “i’m right, you’re wrong, and I don’t have to provide anything to back this up, just trust me when I say I have all the evidence to prove you wrong.”

    What a compelling argument.

    Here’s your baby pigeon. Took me a whole of 15 seconds to find.

    As far as all the arguments that “not every animal has been found”, “think of the oceans, and all the fish yet to be found”, “how can you be close-minded” etc, etc, etc.

    I’m not against the possibility of Bigfoot existing. And I don’t think any of the other non-believers are either. What we are challenging is not the possibility of Bigfoot’s existence, but rather the so-called scientific proof that has been presented to back up it’s existence. Provide evidence that cannot be disproven by a 15 second google search and maybe the scientific community will pay more attention to your theories.

    As far as chambers/patterson. That article was interesting. i still don’t rule out that he might have been lying, but then again maybe he wasn’t. It’s kind of a double-edged sword though. It doesn’t support him making the costume, but it does support the possibility that a costume like it could have been made. (“We could have done it better”)

    It still comes down to science though. All the sightings, prints, etc can be explained by science if they are considered to be humans faking them. There is no scientific evidence that suggests humans could have been responcible for all of this. (Well, how did they make a 700 lb footprint?) Maybe they brought 700 lbs of bricks with them. Maybe a 150 lb guy stood jumped on the cast 5 times. You can go through the same questioning for all the evidence and all your are left with is the ‘Well, what if’ argument.

    You know what can’t be made by humans, DNA. Get any of the physical samples that I mentioned before and then you’ll have actual evidence.

    But if all you have is: Maybe an Ancient Asian gorilla crossed the barren straights, evolved into bigfoot, has teeth, hair and bones have never been found, and has lived as the largest mammal in North America for 1000’s of years without ever being killed by a human.

    Sure this may be possible, just not probable. And certainly not provable.

  • Dan

    The video aired on A Current Affair. Very very poor quality. You couldn’t tell if it was a man or beast. Having said that, it still doesn’t prove or disprove anything. Bigfooters don’t have a body and naysayers still can’t explain how the PGF was made or how footprints are faked. Wooden feet and gorilla suits do not account for what has been found. That is what keeps many people believing that these things are real. That plus thousands of eye witnesses. I for one don’t believe that all these people are delusional or liars. I can’t prove that they were all telling the truth. It just is so highly unlikly that they are all lying that it is rediculous. Plus the fact that the native americans have known about these since before white man moved in. Are the native americans all liars or delusional too? Seems unlikly. Why don’t we have thousands of people reporting dragons? or maybe unicorns? or how about lepricons? Why is there a consistant reporting of a creature that looks exactly like the creature in the PGF video? Come on guys don’t go way out there and come up with some psychobable to explain it and that is supposed to make everyone go “oh ya that must be the reason”. You don’t have to believe in Bigfoot. Many don’t. I just want some real answers to some real questions. Thats what keeps me looking and asking questions.

  • Sharness Henry

    Anywhoo, hey its me, Bob’s sis jsut checkin some websites out and stumbled upon this have any q’s?? well i saw the premiere or whatever u call it yesterday on a current affair, they did a good job…. anywhoo there is supposed to be a team of some people copming down from the states to look for bigfoot today….i hope they dont kill it if they do find it 🙁 anywhoo im in school doing my work…later doOds!!

  • Sharness

    “Are the native americans all liars or delusional too?” No. my brother is perfectly normal and he is an honest man in our community. Bigfoot is believed to be spiritual, many elders have spoken about that, maybe thats why they can never find bigfoot, and i know for sure this isnt a fake!! come on! the video on current affair wasnt even enhanced!! even if it was, “it” was standing in at least 4 feet of water!! and u still can see his calfs!!!

  • gridbug

    From the BFRO website:


    “Update – Thursday, May 5, 2005 – The Fox program “A Current Affair” aired the clearest portions of the Manitoba footage with plenty of overstated hype. In the lead-in comments they described it as “the footage of the century” …

    At the end of the segment the announcer mentioned an “expedition” to Manitoba. The announcer said a team was already in Manitoba ready to go into the woods. He claimed there would be daily updates about the team’s progress from this point forward.

    The BFRO is not involved in their Manitoba effort. We know nothing about it, except that the producers apparently came up with the idea of this announcement only a day or so before the program aired ..

    We know there was little to no planning for an expedition, nor do they have anyone with them who has ever pursued these animals before.

    As their audience you should be mindful that A Current Affair will say or show anything to get you to watch their show.

    You won’t need to watch A Current Affair to find out about their daily “expediton updates”.

    On this web page we’ll post daily updates about their daily updates, so you can keep track of them more easily.

    You won’t be missing any interesting new footage if you don’t catch their updates. If they actually do get something good on tape while they are up there, then you can bet you’ll hear loads of hype about it long before it airs on the show. They won’t just show new footage in an update piece. They’ll make a big deal out of it.

    Until that day comes, we’ll be able to brief you on their promised, daily progress bulletins, or the lack thereof.”


  • jemezdave

    The video was disappointing.

    Clarke states something along the lines of he always wanted to help people. He hopes that this video will help people. The only person Clarke was interested in helping was himself. He and his family list a number of news agencys that contacted him about the video. How does holding out for the highest offer add any credibility to this footage? The worst part is the fact that A Current Affair has pledged to conduct a search for BF.

    td, I provided links so that you could read the articles and make your own conclusions which you have. Thank you for providing the link to how stuff works so that I could read that article. It strikes me that your evidence for the Patterson-Gimlin footage being a hoax is just as questionable as my evidence for it’s legitimacy. “Unfortunately, Chambers, now 75, lives in a nursing home and is unable to confirm or deny the rumors. So, on this day (October 20), the 30th anniversary of the Patterson-Gimlin footage, Landis may have felt it was time to clear up the old hoax. Then again, this is Hollywood. The latest revelations could be the hoax. We may never know.” The jury is still out on that one in my view as your article states: “Its authenticity, though, is still subject to debate.” No one can prove that it’s a hoax or real.

    I believe the footage is legitimate. I have viewed it many times, looked at large stills from it and read both sides of the argument. What I see is muscle tone and contractions that I have yet to see Hollywood be able to replicate. Obviously what you see is a guy in a monkee suit.

  • Hi Sharness,

    I have a few questions for you, if you don`t mind?

    First of all, did anyone cross the river after Bobby`s sighting to look for tracks? I read that two people did, but later denied it.

    You said that the sasquatch was standing in 4 feet of water. What are the people there, who know the area, judging the figure`s approximate height to be? I`ve heard any where from 8-10 feet tall…Have you been able to narrow that down at all? And if so, how?

    I`ve got to ask about the choice of shows Bob sold the rights too…Did he have any idea ACA was a tabloid show with a somewhat seedy reputation? I`m afraid going with them did little for the credibility of the video, or Bobby for that matter. A shame really. A reputable science program, one which would have properly documented, and investigated the sighting,and footage might have been taken more seriously. I`ve listened to the show, and watched the promo…IMHO they`ve made a complete farce out of this story, and did more harm than good. I`ve yet to read a favorable comment on last night`s show, and many have written off the video completely.

    Have there been any other offers for the video that are being considered?

    One last question. You said that the video shown on ACA last night wasn`t enhanced. Why was that? Is this because they determined the video couldn`t be enhanced? Or perhaps, was time was a factor?


  • sharness

    ok nevermind about the q’s. I really do not know anything. The things that are being said in the family are to be on the down low for awhile. Maybe if ya give me your email we can chat privately 🙂 thanx i feel that its better.

  • Hi Sharness, I can understand your situation. You can email me at anniethinks(at)hotmail com

    Looking forward to hearing from you,

  • Henrik Bro

    Shooting a hillbilly in a monkey suit wouldn’t prove anything or be the end of Bigfoot, only the end of that guy.

  • Gdub

    This is a quote stated by Sharness Henry….

    “Bigfoot is believed to be spiritual, many elders have spoken about that, maybe thats why they can never find bigfoot, and i know for sure this isnt a fake!! come on! the video on current affair wasnt even enhanced!! even if it was, “it” was standing in at least 4 feet of water!! and u still can see his calfs!!!”

    I dont’ mean to be an arse about this, but HOW do you know for sure that this isn’t FOR SURE a FAKE? That’s a pretty bold statement.

    Also, I cannot see bigfoot in the water in the video. Can you? Sure, we see him near the riverbank, but not actually, physically IN the water. Not from what I’ve seen. So, is bigfoot none other than Norway House resident, Dorrian?

  • gridbug

    Bobby Clarke’s sister is in here? That’s a pretty slick turn of events!

    I’m sure we all have a lot of questions, but since it looks like Annie might be handling the Q-and-A session with Sharness privately, hopefully we’ll get some straight info about just who or what Bobby got on video.

    The whole “Dorrian” angle is pretty intriguing, but even if this particular case is shown to not be genuine Sasquatch footage, I’m pretty sure it won’t change the believer’s minds…

  • gridbug



    Update – Thursday afternoon, May 5, 2005 – Newspaper Article – Toronto – GlobeandMail.com:

    Global and Mail journalist Oliver Moore gathered reactions to last night’s airing. He incorrectly quotes a previously published, important comment about the footage :

    Oliver writes:

    “[The] director of the U.S.-based Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization, has viewed the video and says it points to ‘a credible encounter.’ In a statement on his organization’s website, he says that the subject on the tape is either human or sasquatch, but adds that ‘it is not clearly one or the other.'”

    The sentence Oliver quoted (from this very this web page, above), does not say the “video” points to a credible enounter. The comment says the “full circumstances of this incident” point to a credible encounter.

    The video and the full circumstances are two different things.

    The determination about the full circumstances pointing to a credible encounter was made prior to anyone from the BFRO seeing the footage.

    The determination could have been made even in the absence of seeing the footage.

    The full circumstances relate to the identity of the cameraman, his activity, his position in the community, the terrain, the regional history of sightings, the chain of events following the incident, the reactions from local people who had saw the footage several times, and those who knew the cameraman well.

    Those were the same circumstances that encouraged so many major news organizations to jump for this video, because they pointed to a credible encounter.

    Given all the interlaced circumstances, it is more likely than not, in many opinions, that Bobby Clark had a real sighting of a real sasquatch. It is less likely that he executed an elaborate scheme to create all these circumstances. Nor does it seem likely that he was a gullible target for a costume prank.

    Among other things, given where the incident occured and when it occurred, the figure Bobby described seeing, was more likely a sasquatch than a prankster in a costume.

    Note: If an incident occurs at the same place in the future, those will be entirely new circumstances, because of the attention the location has received since Bobby’s incident.

    Bobby’s video is not clear enough to clearly exclude either a human or a sasquatch.

    The video does support his story about the circumstances of the taping, but the image of the creature in the video does not stand on its own, without a forensic work up, to eliminate a sasquatch or a human.


    I’m glad to see that the BFRO are approaching this story with cautious optimism. As stated above, there are still unknown variables that must be factored in, and I’m sure there’ll be plenty more before we’re through here. The video itself may not be the bombshell evidence we’ve all been waiting for, but if all it amounts to is a proponent for further study in Manitoba, then that’s cool too. Whether that study leads to Dorrian or a credible encounter with a Sasquatch (or both?!?) we ain’t gonna know until we know. 🙂

  • theapparentlawclassbookworm

    How right you are, Gridbug!

    At one point, I wondered what I would have done in the shoes of Bobby Clarke. Not in terms of videotaping procedures, but rather in terms of actions. I would have yelled, or tried to communicate. This might have helped figure what it was, if it replied. (man or bf)

    He said he was frightened….well, any of us would be if this was the case, but bigfoot was on THE OTHER SIDE of the river (Jeez, Bobby shoulda thought of this…lol)
    Big arms, or not….swimming IS slower than that pulley ferry, if bigfoot chases.

  • Unfortunately for me, I was unable to see the footage. Much to my shagrin the local FOX affiliate doesn’t carry A Current Affair. I hope it will be webcast on the internet soon so I can see it in its entirety.

    I dug up an interesting website, Bigfoot: Fact or Fantasy

    The most interesting part of this website was “The Creature” story under Sasquatch Classics. It is a 15 page long story of an anonymous person’s relationship with a possible sasquatch. Fact or fiction I found it a good read. Even though I was hungry didn’t get up until I had finished.

    Also under Sasquatch Classics are several articles stating Native myths and stories.

    While coming the sites news section I can across this very interesting article about a new gorilla-chimp primate found in the congo.
    ‘New’ giant ape found in DR Congo

  • chacha

    my name is Billie SmellsLikeMooseChip. I am Bobby Clarke’s 8th cousin and pilates instructor.
    this legend go far back in tribal history. it is said when blur monster appeer his soul will be stolen by brave warrior named “he who laughs all way to bank”. such is the way of our people. send questions to Shamess

  • chacha, that comment was both uncalled for, and juvenile. If your intention was to make an impression, it did. Please take your bigotry else where.


  • gord

    Once again you’ve put this all into perspective for me chacha .good one! Have you considered stand up? By the way , since you obviously know something about moose , how does a 1500 lb animal like that survive those vicious Manitoba winters?

  • Dani

    Here’s a few thoughts for you. I am from Northren MB and the winter’s aren’t that bad. For people further south and in warmer climates, your winters have more moisture in the air so you can feel it more. Up here the air is drier. Unless there is a wind you can’t tell the difference between -20 and -40.

    As for the uninhabited bush, wouldn’t that make it an ideal location for them to live? They wouldn’t want to live near Toronto. Just a thought, could be wrong.

    Does anyone know where I can download a copy of this new tape? I haven’t seen it yet and would like to. Everyone keeps talking about it *sniff* lol

  • Dr. Chacha


    Attempting to recreate the footage our team purchased the lowest possible quality camcorder available from the electronics department at K-Mart. We then coated the lens with 10w40 motor oil and attempted to shoot footage of a man in an ewok costume from 1.5 miles away through a peice of dirty saran wrap. We then gave the camera to a chimpanzee on methamphetamines. After viewing our footage we were amazed at the clarity (including corresponding contractions of gluteal and back muscles) when compared to the actual Manitoba footage.
    A)Manitoba footage is crappy on a supernatural level.
    B)Blur Monster is generally harmless.
    C)Avoid eye contact with Blur.
    D)Do not get between Mama Blur and her young.
    E)Diet: Mainly roots and tubers.

  • gridbug

    re: chacha’s comment

    That was seriously in very poor taste.

    I’m guessing that you were trying to be “funny” but all you wound up doing was putting your mean-spirited ignorance on display for everyone here.

    If you really want to impress us, head on over to Norway House and try that stand up routine for the locals. Not only will it go over real well, but you’ll probably get some well-deserved lumps on your skull.

    Please let that be the last time you grace us with your wit.

  • Chacha this is supposed to be a serious discussion about the existance or non-existance of Sasquatch and of the new Manitobe footage.
    The way you act makes you look like your 12 years old, if you can’t control yourself and join us in this discussion in a mature manner perhaps you should just stop posting.

  • gord

    Forget what I said earlier chacha, a stand up comedian wouldn’t take 3 hours to come up with that. Sounding alot like a guy,who thinks 3 syllable words give you an honorary doctorate, standing in line for ” Episode 3″ . Yet, you are brilliant, in an ewok kind away!


  • gord

    post script “away” as in ,get away.

  • mona

    Good for you MR.Clarke, I don’t know if any of those Thompson turkeys making their comments could have filmed what you did,they most likely would have been so scare they would have craped their pants or filmed their foot instead.How hows that for a good old redneck LOL

  • ChaCha

    This footage does not merit a serious discussion.
    Take Care Believers.

  • Nancy

    I also missed the Current Affair airing, so I second the request made by Dani: can/will someone give us a site where we can download or see the video clip? Surprisingly, the BFRO doesn’t have a copy. Many thanks.

  • Eric Olsen

    was the footage shown on the air any better than the preview on the website?

  • JP

    Here’s a URL for the best copy of the footage I could find. LARGE file (180 MB).

    Dialup people can look at this but the sound sucks and video may not be as good.

    Both links are from here

  • Eric Olsen

    JP, thanks for the links

    EVERYONE, we appreciate URLs but please make them actual links by using html. Thanks

  • JR

    I live in the states and viewed the footage on A Current Affair…I must say the video is of such poor quality that it proves nothing. A distant, blurry, black upright figure could easily be a “man in a monkey suit”. I do, however, agree with the statements on the BFRO site regarding “what it is”:

    The figure in the footage is definitely :

    1) Not an illusion created by a play of light and show (i.e. not a “blobsquatch”).

    2) Not a bear, or any other large, known, native species.

    3) Not a composit, fabricated image.

    4) A dark, upright, primate figure, with arms and legs somewhat like a human, standing on a riverbank.

    5) Either a human or a sasquatch, but among those two candidates it is not clearly one or the other, due to the blurriness of the footage.

    Don’t misunderstand me…I do believe this creature exists. I have studied the evidence: tracks, hair samples, PG video, Freeman video, sound recordings, the Glickman NASI report, etc and am convinced. But this video doesn’t really help. I don’t blame B Clarke for selling it to the highest bidder…it is unfortunate, however, that the highest bidder was that rag show ACA. I did not take the advice on the BFRO site to NOT to watch ACA for updates (mistake!) Yesterday, they introduced their “Bigfoot investigating team”…It is made up of Dr. Franklin Ruehl (he should be in a padded cell), some ex-rock star woman who now does chainsaw sculpture, and a producer from the show.

    I think I will get all my updates from the BFRO now ;>)

  • Eric Olsen

    just watched the footage – it IS the same as the preview on the site and just a big blurry mess. How can this purport to prove anything other than the videographer’s lack of skill?

  • Ray

    Current affair is obviously making a joke of the whole manitoba footage and the so called “expedition” now on going. Look at that team of squatch hunters, what a bunch of clowns. I don’t think any them have even stepped in a forest. Keep one thing in perspective about A Current Affair, its produced by Fox Television whose main audience is a bunch of bible thumping, reality TV watching creationists. They’ll make a joke of the whole thing for that reason alone. Which is “GREAT NEWS” for us real squatch believers.

  • I think the problem here is that ALL the emphasis was put on the video, when the video should have only been classified as supporting evidence for the sighting. Had an experienced team been put together to investigate the sighting, this would have been presented in a much different light.

    This “Bigfoot Hunt” ACA is conducting is about ratings and sensationalism, and nothing more. They`ve made a mockery of this, but that`s not really a surprise, is it.

    Mr. Clarke never claimed that the video was conclusive evidence on it`s own merit. He did state that it was very blurry, and had tried on his own to have the video enhanced, but was unsuccessful.

  • JP

    In reply to:
    Comment 200 posted by Eric Olsen on May 6, 2005 08:23 AM:

    “EVERYONE, we appreciate URLs but please make them actual links by using html. Thanks”

    Actually, I made an effort to use HTML links (by coding href tags in my post) and got this:

    “Too many URLs for one comment, sorry, it looks too much like spam to my automated eyes!”

    Is there a method that forum users know and I don’t? Do you have a tutorial somewhere? And what about people who want to post links but don’t speak HTML?

  • Eric Olsen

    JP, you are correct and I apologize. You can’t put in more than two HTML links per comment due to the explosion of comment spam. YOu can put in two, however, and if you have more links, just go on to another comment. Thanks and sorry again

  • gridbug

    I agree that the Manitoba footage was (and is) pretty anticlimactic. And as far as ACA is concerned, they’re basically pissing all over this with no real regard to serious study. I’m guessing that since ACA just came back on the air a couple months ago, they needed a serious ratings booster to try and capture an audience, which is why they were determined to shell out the $$$ for Bobby Clarke’s video. Second to that, I’m guessing that Bobby knows that the chances of his video being taken seriously by the general public and a good number of serious Sasquatch studiers (say that five times fast!) aren’t too good. Thus, it’s all about getting as much as he could from whoever he could while he could, whether to help Norway House or pad his own bank account. Under these circumstances, Bobby Clarke and A Current Affair seemed to be a perfect fit.

    As far as the legitimacy of Bobby’s video, the more the whole circumstance is examined the more we’ll know. Til then, it’s still conjecture and debate… but then again, hasn’t it always been? 😀

  • gridbug

    “…their “Bigfoot investigating team”…It is made up of Dr. Franklin Ruehl (he should be in a padded cell), some ex-rock star woman who now does chainsaw sculpture, and a producer from the show.”

    *cringe* It’s worse than I thought. That sounds like some kind of half-assed reality show disaster in the making! Actually, there are probably some top level FOX execs who are at this very moment sketching out the treatment for that very idea. The addition of Dr. Ruehl definately ups the “kook” factor, and not necessarily in a good way. The ex-rock star chainsaw sculpture lady?!? Too stupid to believe. They may as well add add Gary Coleman, a non-English speaking immigrant and that head-to-toe tatooed guy from the Jim Rose Circus Sideshow. R-I-Diculous.

    Where the hell’s Fox Mulder when you really need him? 😉

  • Sharness Henry

    i hated the way a current affair made my brother look but anyways that is not how the tape really looks, ive watched the original and it looks way better than it was on that stupid t.v show. thats all i have to say for now. so HA! bye!

  • Eric Olsen

    they made him sound all Canadian, too

  • Sharness Henry

    i know my own cousins….Dorrian may be big in width but he aint no more than 6’5, as i said before, some local hunters checked out the sight and couldnt find footprints because the bush is right up to the water (about 4 feet at the shore), so there isnt any land to walk on…….

  • JP

    1. Eric, np, didn’t mean to sound so outraged.

    2. RE blurry footage and man-in-monkey suit:

    At that quality, it could be a hooker in DRAG and we couldn’t tell. I think if it was a monkey suit Bobby woulda focused better to make more money.
    a) ACA did make it more blurry, but I’ll explain below why I don’t think so.
    b) He filmed a HUMAN blurry and told everyone it’s a sasquatch.
    c) It’s real.

    3. RE ACA made the footage blurry.
    i) They would make more money with better footage.
    ii) “BFRO Director Matt Moneymaker has seen a digital copy of the master tape” and would say something if what aired was more blurry.

  • Gdub

    “they made him sound all Canadian, too”

    Well, Eric, a chinese man WOULD sound chinese, no?

    Secondly, why would ACA show a downgraded version of the footage? I don’t know, because if I paid out enough money to buy a Dodge Ram 1500 Hemi Quad-Cab for some blurry footage, I would make sure it looked as decipherable as possible.

  • Eric Olsen

    Gdub, it was a joke, eh?

  • jemezdave

    JP, I suggest using Firefox as your browser, than you can get cool extensions including this one which allows you to easily insert HTML with a right click!

  • Sharness Henry

    ACA jsut wants to get their audience wanting more…. maybe thats hwy they didnt show the whole tape

  • gridbug



    Update – Friday, May 6, 2005 – A Current Affair’s first “expedition update” was shots of the “expedition team” while still in Los Angeles.

    Ah yes, Los Angeles … where it’s not difficult to quickly assemble an “expedition team” from a Gilligan’s Island collection of studio employees and visitors. They were the nearest warm bodies when the producers realized they needed shots of the “expedition team” for Manitoba.

    Only one of the people in the “expedition team” is actually going to Manitoba — the unit producer Brett Hudson. It’s his big story.

    Dr. Reuhl, the “anomalist” from Glendale (the “footage of the century” guy), was shown as one of the expedition team members, but he is not in Manitoba with Hudson, nor will he be. Neither is the girl. Hudson only has three video/audio technicians with him, three dudes from New Jersey … No one else from L.A. went up there.

    It’s not an “expedition” even by the loosest definition of the word. It is merely a low-brow tabloid program’s cheapest attempt to make you tune in to more shows. They really don’t care about anything else. They will fake what they need to in Manitoba to provide exciting updates.


    There’s much more to read, but I only snipped the beginning because that “Gilligan’s Island” analogy is too true and it totally cracked me up.

    The entire update is worth a read, as it hits points about A Current Affair and their apparent general disrespect of the Cree Nation, to the point of obvious exploitation and general unstrustworthiness. Alas, it is as we’ve feared.

    Hopefully Sharness can keep us updated from her insider’s point of view as this continues?

    Here’s a link to the BFRO’s Manitoba Footage Updates page:

    Not like you’s all don’t already have it bookmarked, right?

    “Little Buddy!”

  • gridbug


    The Current Affair website has posted the video update, which shows the “Expedition Team” gearing up. The sheer stupidity of this almost made me go ballistic. As much as I LOATHE directing traffic to their website, here’s the link so you can see the video spot:


    The Bobby Clarke footage is also shown in the same spot, and to me at least it looks a little clearer than it did on the initial broadcast. There’s not much to see, but it’s still pretty interesting.

    I now am of the opinion that Bobby Clarke made a GIGANTIC misstep in collaborating with A Current Affair on this, and I have a feeling it’s gonna get a lot worse before it gets any better.

    All you have to do it see Dr. Franklin Ruehl in his winter coat and pith helmet to get the full scope of the tragic travesty this is becoming.


  • Sharness Henry

    i saw those people today from down south, I wasnt suprised, i didnt even want to bother so i left the mall. As i was walking out, I saw that old guy with the thick glasses talking to one of the managers for KFC, I have no idea what stupid things they are going to do now :s I hope the wilderness scares the shit out of these people so they can leave us alone…..

  • gridbug

    “…As i was walking out, I saw that old guy with the thick glasses talking to one of the managers for KFC…”

    *sound of me slapping my forehead*

    Hi Sharness, and thank you for your contribution to this forum! I’m sorry that the situation has deteriorated into such a ridiculous situation for you guys.

    Keep us posted if you can, and try to keep your sense of humor about this… I’m sure the comedy factor is going to be amped up pretty high the longer these geniuses wander around in the woods. 🙂

  • jemezdave

    Gridbug brings up a good point about seeing the humor in all of this. I am a believer but I still love it when the Weekly World News runs an article like “BIGFOOT SAVES BABY FROM FLAMING CAMPER”. It’s just a side of all of this that makes me smile.

    I had a hard time believing that there was a member of the Cree nation that was 8-10 feet tall as an earlier poster stated he heard someone say. All I could think was show me the proof that this 8-10 foot tall Canadian Indian exists. I mean come on with today’s technology someone has to be able to get a photo or video or even a DNA sample to prove his existence.

    Law school huh? Keep at it, you might figure it out someday.

  • Mike

    Hello Everyone.

    I have seen the clip on ACA website and it looks ok to me, all things considering. I am not THAT disappointed with the quality. It looks to me to be something VERY big. In fact I am very impressed with the size alone. Too big, IMHO, to be human. And that’s exciting. Therefore, I consider this video to be one more piece of evidence for the proof of Sasquatch’s existence. Good job Bobby.

    ASA’s involvement is unfortunate. Maybe they will come away from this humbled, once they have been in the Canadian wilderness. It’s no joke.

    Thank you Sharness for your input. It’s good to be hearing from someone who lives in Norway House, and the sister of Bobby too! We are fortunate to have you here.


  • bill green

    hi shameless & everyone good evening whats new about the manitoba footage. has any researchers etc gone up the area of the footage yet. has there been any sightings or footprint finds in manitoba lately. thank you bill green 🙂

  • Good evening,Bill!

    No, no researchers yet. There is however an obscure TV show host, a chainsaw artist, and an L.A. tabloid producer on the scene at this very moment.

  • bill green

    hi annie thanks for the reply. i think its realy stupid for a current affair to make fun bobby clarke & his footage. i think bobby clarke should have got inside edition to interview him instead. but im sure other tv news shows are still calling him. thanks bill green

  • gridbug

    Directly from the Current Affair website, as if we need any more evidence of their bottom-of-the-barrel “professionalism”…

    “If you submit a show idea and/or show topic (“Show Ideas”) to A Current Affair, you are granting Twentieth Television Inc. (Twentieth Television) a world-wide, royalty free, perpetual, irrevocable and non-exclusive license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt and publish your submitted Show Ideas in and in connection with A Current Affair. You are also granting Twentieth Television a royalty-free, perpetual, irrevocable, non-exclusive and fully sub-licensable right and license to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, perform and display your Show Ideas (in whole or in part) worldwide and/or to incorporate it in other works in any form, media or technology now known or later developed. You will not be paid for submitting Show Ideas or for granting Twentieth Television any of these rights. Twentieth Television is in no way obligated to use your Show Ideas, and you will not be given an on-screen credit if any of your Show Ideas are used. In addition, we can not make any guarantee that we will respond to your submissions.”

    In other words, thanks for the money, chump. :/

    BTW, any idea who the blonde with the chainsaw is? Does she have anything even remotely to do with the Bigfoot phenomena at all? I watched the clip via the ACA website but I couldn’t get the sound to work and feel like I only got “half” the story. Thanx!

  • Sascrotch

    This is terrible.

    First I get my hopes up that the footage was going to be “Patterson II”.

    It’s totally hyped up on the internet.

    Then the negativity comes around.

    Then the footage totally sucks. And on “A Current Affair” to boot. Terrible job.

    Now, the show is going to extend the silliness of it to the next level.

    For anyone who wants the Sasquatch to exist for whatever reason, this is a step backwards.

    I guess after all of this, I have changed my mind – not that the Sasquatch doesn’t exist – but that one is going to have to be killed to prove it. I used to think killing one would be the wrong thing to do.

  • Sharness Henry

    Nothing going on right now, its pretty quiet. I’ll post some news if i could later!

  • Bobby Clark


  • Gdub

    I would believe Bobby Clarke could at least spell his name correctly, so a true sucker is one to believe that Clarke posted “suckers!!”

    And this is for JemezDave: There are Canadian indians that can range from 7 to 9 feet. If you don’t think this is true, I should post links to pics that I will take over the following week of Thompson locals, WITH myself/objects in the picture as size scale. Just for you. Buddy.

    Secondly, I am not in law school. Get your facts straight. I don’t advocate those notes that I’ve posted, at the same time, I’m not throwing them out, just because you deem Canadian folk as people whom cannot reach a height of 8 feet or higher.

    I’m not saying “this is right. believe this.” If anything, it’s YOU who’s implying what’s right and what’s not. Believers, or non-believers both have interesting viewpoints, which I take into consideration, rather than judgment on the speakers behalf.

  • Bobby Clarke


    p.s. Thanks Gdub

  • gridbug

    Gee whiz, Gdub! I bet we’d ALL love to see some pics of 7 to 9 foot tall Canadian Indians… wait, wouldn’t they be Native Canadians? Seriously though, that’d be a cool, interesting aside unto itself. How soon can you post some pics?

  • The Unsilent Majority


  • Inhalien

    I feel sick to my stomach when I see the racist comments. These beings have been reported by First Nations peoples WELL before us Anglo Saxons joined in and spread out. Lets face it…there is something to be learned here. That is, the elders have spoken, these beings exist. So drop the fancy gadgets, grab a full water bottle and go hiking in the wilderness. Just think…..you may but into something….

  • Inhalien

    …that would be ==BUMP== into something…


  • The Unsilent Majority

    TD (still Too Dumb)

    [Comment 171 posted by td on May 5, 2005 08:56 AM: “Here’s your baby pigeon. Took me a whole of 15 seconds to find.”]

    Hey TD. Here’s your Sasquatch. Took me a whole of 15 seconds to find also… http://www.rense.com/1phts/4th.jpg

    By the way TD……do u happen to have some pigeon’s nesting on a shelf in your own living room?

    LOL you brainless grasping upstart

  • jemezdave

    Wow now there’s a story for A Current Affair: “The Village of Nine Foot Tall Canadians”! Of course they’d have to visit the local strip club while they were at it.

    Can’t wait to see the pictures. Actually I can’t wait to see these 9 foot tall Canadians in the NHL should they ever get the league going again.

  • gridbug

    I know I’m not the “voice of authority” here, but can I make a request? How about we leave the unnecessary insults about ethnicity and culture out of the discussion. The native people have been around a lot longer than the white folks, and their stories and legends should be at least treated with respect, even if you decide not to buy into them. Making fun of Bobby Clarke, the Cree Nation, the teachings of their elders etc isn’t going to further any sort of progressive debate/discussion here. All it’s going to do is hurt feelings, make other people angry and wind up alienating both the individuals making the nasty comments as well as those who are offended and may otherwise have valuable insight into this subject.

    Hope I didn’t come off as overly-righteous, because I’m far from perfect myself. I just think that if we all respect each other, no matter who believes what, and apply a little maturity to this forum, we could all stand to learn some pretty cool new stuff.

    Thanks for listening! 🙂

  • gridbug

    BTW, there’s a new update on the BFRO site about last night’s ACA “expedition” report:


    Friday May 7, 2005 — Quoting another web site: “Ruehl, the crackpot in the Frank Buck hat, portrays himself as bizarre, eccentric moron whacking the air with a stick yelling ‘may the cosmos be with you.’ [He] promises the Manitoba Village of Norway House will show him a clump of sasquatch hair. …Then, as the nutcase continues his stick whacking at imaginary things in the air, we are told to ‘stay tuned’ …”

    If you are a First Nations person in the U.S., and you saw this broadcast, and you happen to have friends on the Norway House Cree Reserve in Manitoba, do call them and tell them what Current Affair is actually saying and showing about them.

    These Current Affair people are taking advantage of the fact that the Cree cannot receive the American broadcast. The tribe may be told or shown something different than what is actually being broadcast in America.

    If there is a video crew on the Reserve gathering landscape footage for these sham updates then the Cree are within their rights to confiscate their vehicles and equipment and make them leave the reserve immediately.

    Bobby Clark and the Cree tribal council are hoping to do something beneficial for the tribe with this video. They hope to license it to other television production companies, or sell DVDs with the full footage and comparitive images included. That potential is being taken away by Brett Hudson, among others, as he makes a mockery of the footage, the Wetigo, and the Cree, every day on American television. The Cree Nation would be very offended if they saw what was happening.

    Please call or email the Norway House Cree Nation and describe to them what they are not able to see for themselves on television.


    I think there’s a valid point in the urgent need for the residents of Norway House to try and do whatever they can to halt and/or reverse the damage that ACA’s exposure will bring them. ACA is mocking this (and milking it) for all they can and I for one would love to see them get their collective hats handed to them. To exploit a people for the sake of ratings is nothing new, but that doesn’t make it any less disgusting.

    Hopefully the Cree Nation will recognize ACA’s true motives and will do whatever they can to thwart ACA’s attempts at making maximum profit at the the expense of a honorable people.

    Okay, no more soapbox speeches for me. It’s just that I for once really want to see the “little guy” come out on top. 🙂

  • Gdub

    I just think that if we all respect each other, no matter who believes what, and apply a little maturity to this forum, we could all stand to learn some pretty cool new stuff.

    Excellent wording, Gridbug. We need to stop being so rash with each other in this board, everybody! As for the whole 7 to 9 foot aboriginal canadians, it’s not like they don’t exist, I didn’t say they’re ALL over the place and ALL 9 feet. Sorry, sorry, sorry. Okie?

    I’m heading out to Winnipeg with some friends today, hopefully we can get a chance to stop in Norway House, if there’s time. Bringin’ my Samsung, and a friends diggiecam! See ya next week guys!

  • Doug H

    Gridbug wrote:
    “I now am of the opinion that Bobby Clarke made a GIGANTIC misstep in collaborating with A Current Affair on this”
    I guess that all depends on whether the cheque clears.

  • Jordy

    Hey guys The saquatch isnt real, Heres Proof: No Dead Body of a sasquatch has been found and they have been supposedly around for decades(people have been searching for decades!!

  • Kimosabe

    “If there is a video crew on the Reserve gathering landscape footage for these sham updates then the Cree are within their rights to confiscate their vehicles and equipment and make them leave the reserve immediately.”
    You must be kidding! This will not happen. You are opperating under the erroneous and condescending assumption that the natives involved in this scam are simple country bumpkins that are being cruelly exploited. It is blatantly obvious they are using “A Current Affair” for personal reward and free publicity as much as ACA is using them. Both sides are going to milk this to the full extent the gullibility of the North American public will allow. Regretfully, a limitless standard as many posts here attest.

  • Sharness Henry

    Hey Gridbug, thanx for the lil speech there, and oh, thats not my brother saying “SUCKERS” ihave no idea who that is……

  • Sharness Henry

    Hey Gridbug, thanx for the lil speech there, and oh, thats not my brother saying “SUCKERS” ihave no idea who that is……

  • gridbug

    Aw shucks, no need to thank me. I’m just happy no one thought I was overstepping my boundaries and I’m glad I didn’t come across as “scolding” or trying to be all self-righteous. I just felt it important to reiterate the common goal that we all have here: the believers who don’t need the proof would be glad to have it, which is all that the skeptics demand. Once that proof is found, it’s a win-win situation, right? At some point some damn fool is going to stumble upon something (deliberately or not) that’ll blow this thing wide open. Will it be Dr. Franklin Ruehl and his Manitoba Expedition? I sure hope not. Then again, the thought of his crazy ass running smack-dab into the genuine article is pretty amusing. 😀

    Sharness, please continue to let us know what the ACA crew is doing up there. I’m sure as long as Dr. Ruehl is still whacking weeds with his stick, there’ll be plenty of entertainment for you guys.

    “May the cosmos be with you!”

  • cc

    Who is Moneymaker to say who the experts are regarding Bigfoot? The fact is there are no experts because we have yet to locate and study this species if it even exists. I would personally much rather see the current affair team track bigfoot than some overweight middle aged geek with no personality. They have as good a chance as anyone. And instead of wasting his energy on smearing A Current Affair why doesn’t he take some initiative and go there himself. Sounds like sour grapes to me.

  • gridbug

    Kimosabe makes an interesting point, but I’m not sure I can buy into the Cree Nation/Current Affair co-conspirator angle geared toward taking the gag as far as they can. I’m not saying that isn’t possible, in much the same way that ANYTHING’S possible on a public forum like this, e.g. we have no solid proof that the “Sharness Henry” that’s posting in here is actually THE Sharness Henry. We take in on good faith that she is who she says she is. Sheeit, for all you guys know, I might even be a Current Affair staff member in here to win your trust and then wreak all kinds of nasty havoc. But I’m not. So I guess we’re back to reading, watching, listening, discussing and debating.

    By the way, I wouldn’t work for ACA no matter what they’d pay, and that’s official. 🙂

  • gridbug

    re: cc’s comment…

    Damn, that’s a good point too. In fact, I was wondering why Matt Moneymaker isn’t in here himself, since this is the only blog that he decided to list on the BFRO site. It’s all too easy to be an “armchair expert” as opposed to getting out there in the field and seeing what’s what from a first person perspective. It’s most likely a money situation, as in ain’t no one getting paid to traipse around in the woods for months on end hoping to snag some Bigfeets. Dunno what Matt Moneymaker’s regular gig is (I think I heard he was a lawyer or something?) but I do respect his efforts in keeping the BFRO site one of the best Bigfoot/Sasquatch databases on the internet. Maybe he’ll decide to get in on this discussion?

    Even though there’s NO ONE more qualified to lead the Manitoba Expedition than Dr. Ruehl. *smirk*

  • cc

    Moneymaker critisizes the team ACA put together when he himself will take large groups of people into Bigfoot “hotspots” that are supposedly secret areas with multiple sightings he does not even reveal on his website.
    What are the only qualifications he requires of his special Bigfoot taskforce? Cash, check, or credit.

  • Doug H

    “What are the only qualifications [Moneymaker] requires of his special Bigfoot taskforce? Cash, check, or credit.”

    And, apparently, he is aptly named to boot!

    ” I just felt it important to reiterate the common goal that we all have here: the believers who don’t need the proof would be glad to have it, which is all that the skeptics demand.”

    A nice sentiment, but I have to confess I am puzzled by the concept of “believers who don’t need the proof”. It may be nice to believe in one or more of the countless imaginary creatures that every human culture has conjured up, be it mermaid, leprechaun, troll, fairy, angel, hobbit, ghost, goblin, alien, unicorn, centaur, phoenix, elve, orgre, santa claus, easter bunny or big hairy man-like creature in the woods. The problem, of course, is that these “beliefs”, while touching and quaint, and occasionally helpful in getting small children to behave, are not something that adults (outside of custodial institutions)seriously espouse. The philosophical position that: “Even tho no specimen of mermaid, leprechaun, troll, fairy, angel, hobbit, ghost, goblin, alien, unicorn, centaur, phoenix, elve, orgre, santa claus, easter bunny or big hairy man-like creature in the woods has ever been proven to exist I happen to believe in one or more of them and I don’t need proof!” is not one that I personally would relish defending, but feel free to take the challenge. Just spare me the “open your mind canard”. If asked to compare someone who is willing to concede the existence of any of the above, given scientific proof, to someone who just “believes and doesn’t need proof”, I would have to say the former has the more open mind.

  • gridbug

    Hi Doug… by “believers who don’t need proof” I mean -in the case of Bigfoot- that the sum total circumstantial evidence that exists by way of sightings, footcasts and vocal recordings is enough for me to say “yeah, there probably is something out there” without having to “see the body”. In the case of fairies, ogres, unicorns etc, that’s a whole different thing. If there were continued reported encounters, footprints and vocal recordings of any of those creatures, then the same thing would apply. I’m sure from the skeptical POV it’s easy to lump Bigfoot in with mermaids, leprechauns and Santa Claus, but that’s not really being fair.

    BTW, didja ever realize that if you rearrange SANTA you get SATAN?!? ;p

  • Doug H

    If your standard of proof is “the sum total circumstantial evidence that exists” then I’m guessing you also believe in alien encounters. The problem is, having arrived at your “belief”, there is nothing that could happen that would change your mind. So it is now effectively closed to the possibility that the myriad sightings were either hoaxes or misinterpretations of other visual stimuli. What would it take to change your mind – we already know what it would take to change mine.

  • jemezdave

    If any of my comments were taken by anyone as racially offensive I certainly do apologize.

    None of my friends from the Jemez Pueblo seem to be offended by the term American Indian so I merely transplanted Canadian in there in reference to the Cree.

    I can’t imagine that anyone up North is as tall as this guy. My comments in reference to height were merely in question of the possible hoax theory that was being presented. There have still been no comparisons made of a human in the same area as the alleged Sasquatch. Why couldn’t ACA just done that when they were getting their footage from the same vantage point?

    Matt Moneymaker is probably the best expert you could get as far as evaluating video as well as statements in regards to a BF sighting in my opinion.

  • gridbug

    Hi Doug…

    “If your standard of proof is “the sum total circumstantial evidence that exists” then I’m guessing you also believe in alien encounters. The problem is, having arrived at your “belief”, there is nothing that could happen that would change your mind. So it is now effectively closed to the possibility that the myriad sightings were either hoaxes or misinterpretations of other visual stimuli. What would it take to change your mind – we already know what it would take to change mine.”

    If by standard of proof you mean the thing that will solidify my suspicions, then obviously something tangible that I can see/touch etc would be that ultimate standard. In the case of Bigfoot, there’s a large enough amount of circumstantial evidence that -to me- points to a credible phenomena that needs to be supplemented by serious examination/investigation, which we’d hope would lead to the iron-clad evidence needed to lay the issue to rest. Certainly my mind isn’t closed to the hoax/misidentification factors; my problem is with the hard-line skeptics who use those hoaxes and mis-id’s as their sole reasoning for their argument. There have been plenty of reports over the past several decades that are inconclusive, not because they’re all fakes and mistakes, but because they’re NOT fakes and mistakes and therefore fall into the classification of “probable”. If it’s been determined as best as possible that there was no trickery involved and that it wasn’t a bear or other such animal, then all you’re left with is a big, hairy bipedal question mark, which is proof that SOMETHING is out there, something that we have yet to effectively tag and classify. It’s that fact that keep me open minded and intrigued as to the possibilities. Can you clarify your position a little better as to why you’re so 100% certain that every single bit of circumstantial evidence for the existance of Bigfoot is invalid?

    Maybe this’ll help; what sort of questions would you ask someone who claimed to have a no-mistaking-it broad daylight encounter with a Bigfoot? Would you accept that person’s statement as fact or would you just shake your head and try to convince them that it was only A) a bear or other such animal, or B) their imagination? If that person were an educated, rational member of society who was shaken by something they didn’t expect to see and can’t exactly explain, and are reluctant to explain out of fear of ridicule, how would you present your query?

  • Doug H

    Can you clarify your position a little better as to why you’re so 100% certain that every single bit of circumstantial evidence for the existance of Bigfoot is invalid?
    I already have. Once again, the problem is there is not one piece of generally accepted PHYSICAL evidence, which beggars belief given the number of so-called encounters and their wide geographic distribution.
    “If that person were an educated, rational member of society who was shaken by something they didn’t expect to see and can’t exactly explain, and are reluctant to explain out of fear of ridicule, how would you present your query?” This is analagous to UFO encounters, and in both cases prosaic explanations are usually found after rational investigation. This is not to say the person experiencing the phenomenon is an idiot – almost everybody, including me, has seen strange things they can’t initially explain. Science calls this evidence “anecdotal” and while it may be compelling (particularly in medicine) experience has shown it can’t be relied on to advance our knowledge.

  • gridbug

    Help me out, Doug. Are you saying that it’s your opinion that anyone and everyone who has ever, in the history of this phenomena, reported an encounter, no matter how lucid, professional and detailed, are all either mistaken or participating in a hoax?

  • gridbug

    Addendum: by “this” I’m referring to a physical encounter with a Bigfoot, not some ambiguous lights in the sky.

  • Bobby Clark

    If you are checking out this blog i just want you to know that i think you are so freaking hot! Let’s get some coke and a hooker and get some more footage! wink wink

  • Sharness Henry

    Well, i guess the ACA team is up here somewhere up in the bush, and recently just found more footprints around the area. Apparently there are more than just one sasquatch hanging around here. I dont know, maybe they are just overreacting on the whole idea. AND more news, a family near Winnipeg (actual researchers) are coming up here to Norway House soon, to do a reanactment. We are going to get a tall indian guy to stand where the sasquatch was and walk! ok thats all i know for now bye 🙂 I have no idea of they are going to air this……..if it gets going soon

  • Doug H

    gridbug wrote:
    “Help me out, Doug. Are you saying that it’s your opinion that anyone and everyone who has ever, in the history of this phenomena, reported an encounter, no matter how lucid, professional and detailed, are all either mistaken or participating in a hoax?”
    Yes, most probably they are. I can’t say for 100% certainty they didn’t see an actual Sasquatch, but in the absence of any physical evidence the best you can say is “maybe it was, but more likely it wasn’t”. Again, these kinds of accounts do not, cannot and should not be accepted as evidence without physical corroboration.
    If you have a chance check out the Sasquatch articles in the last two issues of Skeptic Magazine. A fair and clear-eyed examination of the phenomenon IMHO. As Sasquatch researcher Dr. Krantz concludes: “The proof required in this case is an actual specimen, nothing less will suffice. At this point the burden of proof is still on the believers. Until a specimen is produced the skeptics will continue to hold the field” 80 years of searching with nothing to show for it. How many more years are you willing to go on?

  • cc

    When you hear hooves approaching look for horses and not unicorns.

  • kimosabe

    “You can’t convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it’s based on a deep-seated need to believe.”

  • cc

    The ‘Skoocum Cast’ is used as an example of BF evidence. Pheremones and high quality acoustic equipment (to broadcast Bigfoot calls) was used to lure bigfoot to a particular area. In the morning there was an impression in the ground and some partially eaten apples. I just don’t understand why anyone who really wanted proof of BF and seemed to go to great lengths to attain it would not spend $50 on a motion sensitive camera with a flash. This is just one more example of keeping the legend alive for fun and profit.

  • Doug H

    I take it all back. Bigfoot has been found! Definitive proof here!

  • bill green

    hi everyone good evening so has any other tv news shows other than a current affair asked bobby clarke for interviews yet. has the footage been mentioned in the newspapers etc this weekend. please keep me posted ok. bill green

  • RTLowe

    Quote: “You can’t convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it’s based on a deep-seated need to believe.”

    Like God for example?

  • JP

    “You can’t convince a believer of anything; for their belief is not based on evidence, it’s based on a deep-seated need to believe.”

    Whatever, beliefs change all the time. But I bet it would be hard to convince the person who said THAT.

    Anyway, a lot of skeptics seem to think believers NEED this to be real. Truth is, it’s not going to change my world when the proof comes. It’ll just be a species we weren’t sure existed. I might not even get in line to see a live specimen.

    The important question in my mind is: What do you lose if you think it’s real and it turns out it’s not? On the other hand, if it’s real and you choose to believe it’s not you may contribute to endangering it.

    I think the safe side to err on is to say that it might be real. The burden of proof should not lie on the believers.

  • td

    The problem with the so-called circumstantial ‘evidence’ is that it only points to ‘something’ being there. It is then up to the individual to hyposethize what that something is. Maybe it’s bigfoot, maybe it’s a guy in an ape suit.

    You can’t rule out either possibility without being provided with more than just sightings, vocal recordings, and footprints, because you can’t rule out that they are not fakes, and you cannot rule out that they are not fakes.

    Sure you can say, well nobody has replicated the hoax, but this is not Proof that nobody can. The famous ‘Piltdown Man’ hoax in england fooled scientists for over 40 years before proven to be faked. And that was the top scientists in the world working on one sample. Therefore, it is certainly not improbable that a handful of scientists have not been able to disprove the few hundred BF samples deemed ‘real evidence’.

    Again, this does not mean that BF does not exist. Only that the evidence is not proof of Bigfoot.

    Finally for “The Unsilent Majority”,

    Type in ‘Dissect Pigeon’ into Google images.

    Then try it with ‘Dissect Bigfoot’.

    What is your goal anyway? Are you saying that there is as much evidence supporting the existence of Bigfoot as there is supporting the existence of Pigeons. Is that really your argument?

  • Doug H

    JP wrote:
    “The important question in my mind is: What do you lose if you think it’s real and it turns out it’s not? On the other hand, if it’s real and you choose to believe it’s not you may contribute to endangering it.”
    Actually the complete opposite is true. If there really is a bigfoot roaming around Norway House, who is putting it in more danger, the knukleheads from ACA trying to hunt it down or me sitting here laughing my ass off? Pascals Wager works neither for God nor for Bigfoot.

  • Gdub

    Horrible weekend…
    J’s F150 is now a write-off and have a broken foot to boot! Way to start my summer…

    That’s great to hear that the ACA is finding evidence out there, hopefully it’s not tampered. Great to hear about the re-enactment. I don’t know how many times I’ve E-mailed ACA in request of one. But, please ACA, leave that HORRENDOUSLY exaggerant narration/commentary out this time.

  • JRG

    Skeptics consider this; there are 100’s of DIFFERENT track castings taken over most of the world not just in North America. There are many videos, many photographs, many sound recordings, unidentified hair samples, eye witness reports, native population legends, media reports etc. Some of this evidence, perhaps most of it, could have been hoaxed. Some of the “eye witnesses” are not credible. Some of the legends are just that…legend and myth. But, if just 1 track was not faked, then by definition (not faked) there exists a creature that “science” is not ready to accept. I believe there is enough credible evidence to seriously investigate this and to be able to do so without ridicule. I am open to the idea that bigfoot does not exist…I am also open to the idea that it does exist…I tend to lean toward the latter statement based on what I believe to be credible evidence but I am keeping an open mind. It seems the skeptics blogging here will not accept even a remote possibility of it’s existence. I would be willing to wager that most if not all of the skeptics here have not studied or researched the phenomenon at all but merely have an opinion based on information from the likes of ACA. “Mainstream” science seems to want it to go away…the idea of an upright, undiscovered primate which may or may not be related to humans is a concept which scares many people…it may interfere with their comfortable idea of nature or god.

    Bottom line is this: Study ALL of the evidence. Not just the tabloid (ACA) reports. Don’t just look at ONE picture of a cast, look at many. Read the reports…some are biased, some are not. Watch the videos including forensic examinations of them. Check out the web sites. Some are pretty funny, some are pretty serious. Keep an open mind. If you are not afraid.

  • Doug H

    I don’t know why I bother. I try and carry on a civilized debate about this and JRG comes along and repeats all the ridiculous stereotypes “believers” have about “skeptics”:
    1/”It seems the skeptics blogging here will not accept even a remote possibility of it’s existence.”
    WRONG Go back and read my posts.
    2/” I would be willing to wager that most if not all of the skeptics here have not studied or researched the phenomenon at all but merely have an opinion based on information from the likes of ACA.”
    WRONG. Go back and read my posts. I even provided references to a scientific review of the issue.
    3/ “”Mainstream” science seems to want it to go away…the idea of an upright, undiscovered primate which may or may not be related to humans is a concept which scares many people…it may interfere with their comfortable idea of nature or god.”
    So there’s a massive conspiracy to suppress all this evidence? Just like with the aliens. PLEEEEEEZE.
    Can you imagine the fame and fortune awaiting the first scientist to prove they exist?
    4/ “Keep an open mind. If you are not afraid.” Actually I’m gonna quit studying this right now. I just realized ARRRRGH I’M AFRAID!

    You also make the common argument that the sheer VOLUME of sightings, videos, eye witness reports, native legends, etc. etc. should be regarded as positive evidence towards the existence of the creatures. “If just 1 track was not faked”. Actually the exact opposite conclusion must be drawn. Each of these encounters carries a probability that conclusive physical evidence will alsobe found. (Blurry videos, footprints, and “unidentified hair samples” don’t count. A body would be nice, but even a hair sample with proveably unique DNA from any known species would suffice.) As the encounters mount up (and time marches on) the unfortunate conclusion that the creature doesn’t actually exist becomes more probable. Sorry. I am as bummed about this as you. As I said earlier in this thread, finding Bigfoot would be “neat”. And I can also appreciate the sentiment of the poster who wrote:

    “Whenever I hear about some recent sighting, or in this case, new video footage, I become a kid again. I get SO excited.
    I should know better to believe that definitive evidence of bigfoot would ever be aired on a show like “A Current Affair.””
    Perhaps on that we can agree.

  • JRG

    OK DougH, I apologize to you for including you in this statement:

    1/”It seems the skeptics blogging here will not accept even a remote possibility of it’s existence.”
    WRONG Go back and read my posts.
    I didn’t mean to hurt your feelings.

    2/” I would be willing to wager that most if not all of the skeptics here have not studied or researched the phenomenon at all but merely have an opinion based on information from the likes of ACA.”
    WRONG. Go back and read my posts. I even provided references to a scientific review of the issue.

    Sorry, could not find your post with a “reference to a scientific review”
    unless you are referring to Skeptic magazine which purports to unravel the “Bigfoot Hoax” through it’s article about Ray Wallace.

    “So there’s a massive conspiracy to suppress all this evidence? Just like with the aliens”

    No, just an unwillingness to do more than “poo poo” the evidence because of the ridicule poured upon those presenting it.

  • gridbug

    Nicely done, JRG! Believe me, I know how it feels to go around and around with the skeptics, right Doug? 😉

  • JP

    Actually the complete opposite is true. If there really is a bigfoot roaming around Norway House, who is putting it in more danger, the knukleheads from ACA trying to hunt it down or me sitting here laughing my ass off?

    Actually, that supports my argument. Those ACA guys are up there filming Jackass II because they don’t really think it exists. If they did they would send zoologists, anthropologists and environmentalists.

    Pascals Wager works neither for God nor for Bigfoot.

    Actually I’d never heard of Pascal’s Wager before but it’s a great read. Thanks for the reference. I’d like to know more about why you think it doesn’t apply but that doesn’t fall into the scope of this forum.

    PS – I think big part of the problem is the name ‘Bigfoot’. It conveys a sense of make-believe, like ‘bogeyman’ or ‘wolf-man’. Perhaps if we used a more scientific term it would be taken more seriously.

  • The Unsilent Majority

    There is proof of the existence of sasquatch’s in one single book alone: [Big Footprints, by Dr. Grover S. Krantz].
    It states several complete and obvious facts…definitive proof why many different footprints could not have been faked. And no one, can argue those facts with any reasons….without sounding like a totally desperate and grasping incompetent bigmouthed uneducated ass.

  • The Unsilent Majority


    Since WHEN do children and morons take anything more seriously if you give them a scientific term instead?

  • gridbug

    Actually, I think the usage of a more scientific name is a pretty good idea. If we were talking about a possible Gigantopithicus Blacki sighting in Manitoba, it might be taken seriously. Big words seem to impress smaller minds.


  • Doug H

    Actually, that supports my argument. Those ACA guys are up there filming Jackass II because they don’t really think it exists. If they did they would send zoologists, anthropologists and environmentalists.
    If zoologists, anthropologists and environmentalists thought it was worth going up there they would go.

    Actually I’d never heard of Pascal’s Wager before but it’s a great read. …I’d like to know more about why you think it doesn’t apply.
    Because the “you have nothing to lose if you believe” part of the argument is false.

    The Unsilent Majority wrote:
    And no one, can argue those facts with any reasons….without sounding like a totally desperate and grasping incompetent bigmouthed uneducated ass.
    If the debate on this thread is going to sink to this level I see no reason to continue posting. You do not do your side any favors with your last 2 posts.

  • JP

    Since WHEN do children and morons take anything more seriously if you give them a scientific term instead?
    -Unsilent Majority

    Happens all the time. What would you take more seriously? Mad Cow Disease or Bovine Spongiform Encephalopathy?

    Also, I realize you’re on the same side of the debate as I am, but I don’t agree with your name-calling. There is no reason for it and it really makes you sound less credible, as if you’re calling people names because you have nothing logical to argue with.

  • JP

    If zoologists, anthropologists and environmentalists thought it was worth going up there they would go.

    They don’t go because they believe it doesn’t exist. I think that too supports my earlier argument.

    Because the “you have nothing to lose if you believe” part of the argument is false.

    I’d like to hear what you think I’m losing by choosing to sit in the Believers section. (Yes, it’s a choice for me because I really don’t know either way)

  • Doug H

    They don’t go because they believe it doesn’t exist. I think that too supports my earlier argument.

    I agree with your first sentence. I don’t quite understand your second.Are you referring to this:
    I think the safe side to err on is to say that it might be real. The burden of proof should not lie on the believers.

    The problem with this position is that you are asking non-believers to do the impossible: Prove a Negative. You cannot PROVE God, Bigfoot, Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy DON’T exist. You can be fairly sure, but you can’t prove it for certain. This is why the burden of proof MUST always be on the believers.

    I’d like to hear what you think I’m losing by choosing to sit in the Believers section. (Yes, it’s a choice for me because I really don’t know either way)
    Hey! You sound more like a skeptic now. A skeptic is open to either position. Skeptics are like people from Missouri “Show Me”. A believer has closed his mind off to the possibility his belief is wrong. A believer has difficulty answering the question: “What would it take for you to change your belief.” A skeptic can answer easily.

  • td

    I’m not going to argue the T.U.M. I’ve already pointed out repeatedly why footprints alone, no matter how numerous, are not definitive evidence. One anthropologist may not agree with me, but hundreds of others do. Just because you have a degree doesn’t make you immune to mistakes.

    Concerning Pascals Wager, ‘what harm does it do to believe?’

    As already stated, this approach detracts from the scientific process. Scientists gather evidence, examine it, and then hypothesize what the evidence is. If you approach evidence wih a pre-determined hypothesis you are more likely to close your mind to other possible explanations of the evidence.

    For ex: Not everybody who witnesses a bigfoot howl in the night is an anthropologist who can tell the difference between the call of an unknown species and that of an injured bear. If the witnesses go in believing that bigfoot exists in the area, they will probably assume that what they heard was bigfoot, and as such will not report it to state rangers, but rather to someone like the BFRO. If everybody who hears these calls does the same, the state rangers may not become aware of a local hunter who is placing illegal bear traps out in the wild.

    The point is, if you don’t examine the evidence with an open mind, you can come to false conclusions, and these conclusions may overlook an actual problem that could have been resolved.

    Therefore, is it harmful that BF believers are examining forest samples? Well, I think all rape victims that don’t report it right away are faking it. Should I reconsider my choice to become a police detective. I mean, what harm does it do to believe?

  • Doug H

    I think Professor Farnswoth put it best:

    Sal: Yeah. Have yous ever seens Bigfeet?

    Park: Technically no. But I do see him each night in my dreams and each day in the silent faces of hairy children.

    [Farnsworth stands up and shakes his fist.]

    Farnsworth (shouting): Bunk! Bunk I say! Bring me a bag full of Bigfoot’s droppings or shut up!

    Park [holding up a bag]: I have the droppings of someone who saw Bigfoot.

  • I feel sorry for Bobby Clarke. He evidently saw something, filmed it as best he could, can’t explain it, and would like some answers. Too bad he didn’t retain control over the situation, letting his elders (wiser?)do the negotiating. The choice they made has made an absolute farce out of this entire event. The ACA got involved, and televised that blurry film clip, then announcing the “expedition”. What a farce. The one ACA update I’ve bothered to watch was ludicrous.

    But worse, the discussion on this blogsite is dropping to new levels. This is all quickly becoming stale old news. The media coverage of this event has dropped to nil.The only recent bright spot was the interview by the radio station in The Pas, which was a lot more professional and informative than that silly ACA coverage.

    All of this leaves me with a sense of sadness about the way the whole thing has transpired, and is becoming a turn-off. I wonder why(!)Can’t anyone say or do something constructive? How does Bobby Clarke feel about this? (the real one, that is)

    – digger

  • I agree digger. What should be focused on is the sighting itself, rather than the manner it was presented to the public.

    The most compelling element of the sighting is the height of the figure. I`ve heard from a few residents of NH who have seen the video, that the figure must have stood between 9-10 feet tall.

    The ACA did re-trace the steps of the “bigfoot”, using a man in it`s stead. In doing so, they should be able to judge the aprox. height of the figure. I have also been told that a second group, apart from the ACA crew, were planning on doing the same.

    Now, say the height does fall into the 10 foot range…How would one go about hoaxing this? Anyone have any reasonable suggestions?

  • Doug H

    How does Bobby Clarke feel about this? (the real one, that is)
    He’s crying all the way to the bank.

    Now, say the height does fall into the 10 foot range…How would one go about hoaxing this?
    I thought about this for a long time and I’m stilt, oops, I mean still stumped. I guess this is the proof we’ve all been waiting for at last. I mean how can science NOT accept this now as the definitive proof?

  • goodstory

    The A Current Affair Bigfoot expedition team will reveal its findings at a noon news conference in Los Angeles tomorrow.

    They will also present evidence to the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization for analysis.

    (location of news conference: where else? The Bigfoot Lodge.)

  • Doug H

    I heard they have a bag full of Bobby Clarke’s droppings. Metaphorically at least.

  • JRG

    So DougH, you really believe someone could wade through 4 feet of water along a riverbank which is most likely muddy and debris filled while wearing stilts and a fur covered monkey suit?

    Talk about denial! Doug, we all know you are absolutely convinced this is a hoax and Bigfoot can’t, doesn’t, and never did exist, so why are you hanging around? You just like to stir up trouble I think.

  • Thanks goodstory.

    Okay, Doug, stilts. How? Say we have a ten foot creature. In the video, you can make out the bend at the knee as it walks. This would mean that even a 7 foot man, would have to be wearing 3 foot stilts strapped to his calves. Add three feet to his own (a rough guess)3.5 foot long calves, and that would add up to 6.5 feet from his knees to his feet. Proportionately, I would think that this would result in an extremely odd looking Bigfoot.

    Additionally, this man would have to manage to walk fairly gracefully (from what we can make out from the video)on three foot stilts on sand, and rocks.

    Now was it actually on land? According to Sharness Henry, Bobby Clarke`s sister, there is no land along that stretch of the river. The tree line stops at the waters edge, and drops immediately to a 4 foot depth.

    If this is the case, our man in stilts would now have to walk in silt. The only way I can imagine this being done without sinking, would be to add some kind of feet, or platforms to the bottom of the stilts. Can you imagine the resistance 4 feet of water would have on these contraptions strapped to his calves? I would think that this would result in an obviously awkward gait,that`s if it`s actually possible.

  • Sharness Henry

    i wish i could show the video to people who didnt get enough on the ACA show because they did do a crappy job at the video……. it looks WAY WAY better on my TV 🙂

  • digger

    Thank you, Annie and goodstory. This type of information/discussion is useful.

    – digger

  • Doug H

    The most compelling element of the sighting is the height of the figure.
    The video is so blurry even believers admit it could easily be a large man. The margin of error in determing the creature’s height from the video will easily encompass this possibility. Actually I don’t believe this was a stilt hoax either – just threw it out as a posible explanation if someone wanted to stage something like this. So I’m betting on the large man explanation.
    One explanation often given for Bigfoot’s “non-discovery” to date, is their notorious shyness. Why then was he sauntering along the shoreline in view of a ferry heading towards a road. If the ferryman could see him, I’m sure he could see the much larger ferry even sooner, so why didn’t he just skeedaddle?

    Talk about denial! Doug, we all know you are absolutely convinced this is a hoax and Bigfoot can’t, doesn’t, and never did exist, so why are you hanging around? You just like to stir up trouble I think.
    Apart from the occasional lapse into sophomoric humor, which is my weakness, I have tried to make some serious and sincere contributions to this blog. If you want me to go away so you and your fellow believers can wallow in your mutually-reinforcing speculations, so be it. Just be aware that you will still have to answer the same points I raise if you ever want to be taken seriously outside this little enclave.

  • bigfoot

    I bigfoot. I eat allllll!
    Holy Cragstan monkey commands it!

  • Okay for a start – video camera lenses always exadurate distance. Especially when using zoom. The filmer had a MUCH better view of the creature than the camera does.

    “All I could see was this figure. I knew it couldn’t be a man. It was a little too large to be a man.”

    In the words of Penn & Teller: BULLSHIT!

    Hell. Amagine if the camera was in focus. How freaking clear would it be?? He saw it in focus, and seemingly MUCH closer than we are. Geez.

    My statement is neither for or against. I simply state that the filmer has a MUCH better view than we do.

    We are looking at an extreme zoom. Our field of vision is very narrow. We cannot judge the surroundings against the size of the figure without some math since it is warped.

    Hey I’m only an amature and even I realise this crap. Come on, think about this and stop calling Duggie names.

  • Bigfoot

    Bigfoot need food!
    Believers feed bigfoot or eat!
    Will carry out prime doctrine of church of Cragstan until feed!

  • bigfoot

    No feed?
    Now eat believers. Not eat nice skeptics, they leave bigfoot alone, but believers come with cameras and annoy bigfoot, so I eat.

    *eats believers*

  • bill green

    hi everyone good evening has there been any tv or radio interviews with bobbi clarke about his sasquatch filmfootage this week. has there been any newer reports in manitoba of sasquatch creatures or its footprints sounds. i wonder if bobbi clarke will write a book about his encounter. thanks bill green

  • digger

    For what its worth – a news item about the infamous Current Affair expedition: http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/WinnipegSun/News/2005/05/14/1039268-sun.html


  • Doug H

    A Bigfoot expedition team assembled by American tabloid news program A Current Affair discovered “physical evidence” such as hair strands, abnormal sized footprints and an alleged Bigfoot feeding ground.
    Bunk! Bunk I say! Bring me a bag full of Bigfoot’s droppings or shut up!

  • bill green

    hi everyone good evening so has bobbi clarke been interviewed by any radio shows etc this weekend. also any new manitoba sasquatch sightings lately. please keep me posted. bill green

  • Kimosabe

    also any new manitoba sasquatch sightings lately

    May long weekend in Canada here. Heap big drinking in woods. Many sightings likely.

  • bill green

    WOW i see that there is alot updates about the manitoba sasquatch tonight. please keep me posted ok. thanks bill green ct sasquatch researcher

  • digger

    I see this blogsite has petered out. I think I’ll move over to http://www.wriversasquatchassoc.net/ to get the goods, instead of this drivel.



  • Sharness Henry

    just go to “tracking Manitobas bigfoot” more news there than in here!

  • Gdub

    Well, I’ve never seen a blog about something local last 308 posts, even though 100+ were not necessary, such as this one. Perhaps this is the last we’ll hear about bigfoot in Manitoba??? Not that I WANT it to be, but how long can ACA hold ANY story? It would be a different story if the research was committed by adequate professionals, and not some monday-morning, water-cooler exploitation squad, such as ACA. I hope they get to the bottom of the video, if they don’t someone else will have to conduct a re-enactment, or etc. in hopes of validating the video. This feels like ACA is like the government, hiding JFK information. But at least we know there WAS another shooter(s). Hey….could have been biggie…?

  • bill green

    hi researchers good evening so has bobby clarke been interviewed by other news or radio networks also he been interviewed about his footage by other sasquatch organizations etc. bill green please keep me posted.

  • This video I’ve seen is more than creepier than other footage that has ever been released, maybe you watch to much Simpsons but in order to believe you have to live it come to the true white north and search yourself maybe you’ll find BIGFOOT in your own back yard. Yes there has been many sightings in Northern Manitoba, Just hook up with Dennis Flett he’ll show you where he’s at he will be your guide.


    Storm Cloud

  • gdub

    Is this blog finally dead?

  • Patsy

    So how can we watch this BigFoot video? Please tell us where this can be located?

  • Bill Blake


    Since advanced language skills are supposedly one of the traits that separate humans from animals such as bigfoot, could you please learn the difference between the words its and it’s?



    A little late for the insults, there, Bill. Complaining about how one types is not the way to go about the internet. Did you JUST discover the act of posting in forums, message boards and chat rooms? Don’t worry, they have many books out there for people like you, maybe you should read one of them, considering you’re quite the grammar buff.

    Take care. ITS a crazy world out there. Idiot…..

  • Saz Quatch

    Hi. I am Bigfoot. I wish everyone here would just leave me and Mrs. Foot alone and let us live in our cave. We don’t bother you, except maybe to steal an occasional pudding can from one of your camps. So please let me and my wife and my son Cleetus alone.

    Thanks. Oh, and by the way, the Patterson film is a fake. I’ve seen it. We do not look like that. NO WAY is my butt that big!

  • Psycroptic

    “Hey, Nick. Skeptical Inquirer happens to be one of the best magazines going. – that is of course unless you are a bigfoot/Loch Ness monster/aliens/ghosts…believing moron.”

    LOL, what a retard!!
    If you don’t believe in those thinhs WHY THE F**K WASTE TIME READING ARTICLES DEBUNKING THEM??
    What a total ass;)
    Must be Andy Rooney’s son, living just to bitch and gripe.

  • TJ

    I find it interesting how people are easily deceived. However, being naive is also a bit precocious. I agree we have no scientifically definitive proof. Although, ask yourself this. How many airplanes have went down over the NW United States in the past 50 years? Out of those, how many were not ever found? – Do the research, then ask yourself one more question. If there has been ___ airplanes that have crashed in the mountains of the northwestern United States and were never found, how do you think you could find a bipedal humanoid who lives in the forest. After all, a airplane wont move, hide and certainly would be obvious to the naked eye in trees etc. This is my two cents worth anyway. All I’m saying is too not completely close your mind. Charles Darwin came up with the theory of Decent With Modification and at the time everyone laughed at it. Take a look at the fossil record (takes some time –not just the basics). There’s a approximately 300,000 years with no fossil record then modern day human shows up and with two less chromosomes than prior hominids. Whatever your opinion might be, please do at least some research and then decide for yourself. Until definitive proof is entered into some museum we will never know for sure, or will we?

  • paul garnett

    For people who do not beleive in Saquatch or other phenomena, i have this to say. Christaians have beleived in God without ever seeing him or touching him. they beleive the Bible holds truth. Well read it again!!! The Bible talks quite frequently about starnge phenomena. To beleive that Humans are the only life in the universe is utterly ridicoulous. Sasquatch is real. He has been here for perhaps as long as 30-40 million years. just as we did, he evolved, he has not reached his evolutionary brink. Why is it so hard for people to accept this? do research as I have and you will discover that almost every year new species of plants and animals are coming to attention. Ever go hunting deer with a helicopter and a few dogs? ever see or find an animal by making lots of noise? Nope didn’t think so. Leave an animal carcass in the woods for a few days and then let me know if you find it. Duh stop asking stupid questions and do research stop being afraid of being related to Apes and realize you are!!!!

  • Nate

    you guys suck

  • charlie

    I saw a web site that showed the big foot patterson film frame by frame real clearly. showed his buttcheeks flew while walking. Also showed her knee buckle. If anyone can give me that address again I will be greatful. I was drunk while viewing it and forgot to bookmark.

  • When i got home to my logde in British Columbiai saw a big hairy freak with broad shoulders, he was about 10ft tall and he smelled me and he ran away.

  • jim

    You people are crazy. Bigfoot got some good pussy.

  • golfstar17

    i think sydney is correct… and he apologized for being rude. there is no possible way for a species to erase all evidence of itself – unless it were super intelligent. and if it is so intelligent, would it not have appraoched US by now?

  • golfstar17

    all you beleivers have too little faith in our god-given instructions to be rulers of this planet

  • Dave

    It wasn’t until 4 or 5 years ago that the “rumors” of wolverines in the washington cascades were proven to be true. Same with the Compi, the Panda, and the mountain gorilla, the best evidence that these animals exist is that they are doing a good job of hiding from us, especially people like sydney

  • Dave

    Hey Bill Green, hope you still check from time from time, sighting in walla walla wa blue creek/blacksnake area called turkey point, not recent but repeated from there to mill creek area. Area is adjacent to walla walla watershed and leads further into back country of the blue mtns.