Bobby Clarke Bigfoot Video - Don't Believe the Hype!? - Comments Page 2

Article comments

Subscribe to comment RSS

• 26 - Festus

  Apr 26, 2005 at 3:01 pm

  Sydney,
  
  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.
  
  
  

• 27 - sydney

  Apr 26, 2005 at 3:48 pm

  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.
  

• 28 - bill green

  Apr 26, 2005 at 5:12 pm

  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.

• 29 - jim smith

  Apr 27, 2005 at 1:00 pm

  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?

• 30 - CODY

  Apr 27, 2005 at 6:28 pm

  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

• 31 - scar

  Apr 27, 2005 at 6:43 pm

  here

• 32 - Kevin

  Apr 27, 2005 at 6:57 pm

  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?

• 33 - ree

  Apr 27, 2005 at 7:13 pm

  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.

• 34 - Dan

  Apr 27, 2005 at 7:19 pm

  Sydney,
  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.

• 35 - digger

  Apr 27, 2005 at 8:17 pm

  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!

• 36 - gridbug

  Apr 27, 2005 at 9:24 pm

  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! :)

• 37 - penelope

  Apr 27, 2005 at 10:20 pm

  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.

• 38 - Charles Longway

  Apr 27, 2005 at 10:49 pm

  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.
  

• 39 - Sam

  Apr 27, 2005 at 10:55 pm

  It is impossible to prove a ‘negative’.
  
  Example:
  
  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.
  or
  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.
  

• 40 - Fred

  Apr 28, 2005 at 1:59 am

  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...
  
  

• 41 - empirestatebloke

  Apr 28, 2005 at 4:16 am

  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.

• 42 - Paul Roy

  Apr 28, 2005 at 6:41 am

  To Jim Smith,
  
  They have, quite extensively.

• 43 - Throbbin Johnny

  Apr 28, 2005 at 7:19 am

  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...
  
  ...IJO

• 44 - squatchguy

  Apr 28, 2005 at 8:18 am

  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.

• 45 - Nancy

  Apr 28, 2005 at 9:15 am

  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.

• 46 - Eric Olsen

  Apr 28, 2005 at 9:19 am

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

• 47 - jemezdave

  Apr 28, 2005 at 11:46 am

  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.
  
  
  

• 48 - Dan

  Apr 28, 2005 at 1:10 pm

  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.

• 49 - jemezdave

  Apr 28, 2005 at 2:08 pm

  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).
  
  

• 50 - digger

  Apr 28, 2005 at 5:20 pm

  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?

• 51 - Sam

  Apr 28, 2005 at 6:25 pm

  This is how they get through winter digger...

• 52 - Daniel

  Apr 28, 2005 at 7:17 pm

  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.

• 53 - bill green

  Apr 28, 2005 at 7:19 pm

  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

• 54 - Eric Olsen

  Apr 28, 2005 at 7:25 pm

  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!

• 55 - Sam

  Apr 28, 2005 at 8:03 pm

  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.

• 56 - digger

  Apr 28, 2005 at 10:44 pm

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

• 57 - digger

  Apr 28, 2005 at 10:45 pm

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

• 58 - bill green

  Apr 28, 2005 at 11:08 pm

  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. :)

• 59 - Shawn

  Apr 28, 2005 at 11:44 pm

  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!

• 60 - jay

  Apr 29, 2005 at 12:05 am

  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.

• 61 - Nick Jones

  Apr 29, 2005 at 12:08 am

  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.)

• 62 - Chris B

  Apr 29, 2005 at 12:20 am

  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:
  
  http://www.bfro.net/NEWS/BODYCAST/

• 63 - Nancy

  Apr 29, 2005 at 7:30 am

  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.

• 64 - Greg in BC

  Apr 29, 2005 at 8:59 am

  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.

• 65 - Bearhunter

  Apr 29, 2005 at 10:30 am

  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.
  
  
  
  

• 66 - bill green

  Apr 29, 2005 at 10:39 am

  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.

• 67 - Jodeo

  Apr 29, 2005 at 11:35 am

  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.

• 68 - digger

  Apr 29, 2005 at 12:38 pm

  More info this morning on Manitoba CBC news.

• 69 - bill green

  Apr 29, 2005 at 1:32 pm

  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

• 70 - gridbug

  Apr 29, 2005 at 2:10 pm

  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...

• 71 - Triniman

  Apr 29, 2005 at 2:33 pm

  This is the stabilized Patterson footage. You can clearly see the breats on this BF or "guy in a monkey suit" take your pick.
  
  http://www.unexplained-mysteries.com/media/displayimage.php?album=6&pos=1
  
  

• 72 - Henrik Bro

  Apr 29, 2005 at 3:01 pm

  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.

• 73 - Les Barstow

  Apr 29, 2005 at 3:41 pm

  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.

• 74 - gridbug

  Apr 29, 2005 at 4:40 pm

  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.
  
  Discussion?

• 75 - cody

  Apr 29, 2005 at 5:35 pm

  yes
  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.
  
  
  Cody