Six things a new Bigfoot researcher should think about

Post Media reports and articles that you find elsewhere here, just make sure proper credit is given. If you write an article, you can post it here too.
Forum rules
This forum will sometimes contain copyrighted information, however, it is placed here under Title 17

Not withstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
MABRC Chief Forum Administrator, MABRC Executive Director
MABRC Chief Forum Administrator, MABRC Executive Director
Posts: 2741
Joined: Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:34 am

Six things a new Bigfoot researcher should think about

Post by admin » Sat Oct 12, 2019 9:34 am

Six things a new Bigfoot researcher should think about
by Steve Hyde

I want to state right up front that I don't consider myself a particularly smart
person or a very experienced researcher. I do however try to learn from observation and
the successes and failures of others. If you're new to the field of Bigfoot research it's
vitally important that you learn to develop this ability. You can learn a lot from watching
what other people in the so-called "Bigfoot community" do, from what brings them good
results and also what gets them into trouble. What follows are a few of the things that I
have observed and learned over the years, and that you need to consider if you are new to
this field. I hope that you will find them helpful.


It may seem an odd question, but now is the time to ask it. Just why do you
want to go look for Bigfoot? Your answer may be that you simply want to satisfy your
own curiosity, that you want to see it for yourself. That's fine. Or you may want to prove
that it exists. That's fine too. But you need to ask this of yourself, because your answer
will greatly affect how you go about the quest.

If you only want to satisfy yourself, then congratulations! You're the one that will
probably have the most fun doing this. Only you know what your standard of proof is and
it can be as high or as low as you want. If you're out in the woods and see a strange
shadow or hear an odd noise or see that faint mark that just might be a track and it
makes your hair stand on end, maybe that's all that needs to happen for you to be
convinced. That's great and nobody should have a problem with that. But you need to
realize that your experiences are not going to matter to anyone but yourself.

If you're out to prove the existence of Bigfoot to someone other than yourself, I'm
afraid you have a much tougher journey ahead of you. It's no longer your own standard of
proof that must be met, you must now meet the standard of proof of whomever you're
trying to convince. Even if that other person believes in Bigfoot's existence in the same
manner as you, he or she may not interpret your evidence or experience the same way
you do.

If you're going to prove the existence of Bigfoot to the world at large, you'll have to
meet the standards of proof of the world at large, and the world looks to the mainstream
scientific community to set those standards. And science demands concrete physical
proof. If you claim to have discovered a previously unknown species of animal, you will
have to produce substantial physical proof sufficient to be able to describe and classify it
with scientific rigor. The only proof that will accomplish this is a body or a substantial
piece of a body. Mainstream science has always demanded this, and it always will. You
might as well get used to that fact now because it won't change, no matter how badly you
may wish it to be otherwise and no matter how frustrated you may get at not being able to
find it. Your only available options are to kill or capture one or look for one that died of
other causes. Nothing else will do; not pictures, not casts, not hair, not trace DNA, not
tape recordings, not film and not stories. You will discover quite quickly that the Bigfoot
"community" is sharply divided between those who convey a willingness to obtain a
specimen by deadly force and those who object to harming the animals on moral grounds.

Although both sides can present good arguments to support their viewpoint, when it
comes to proving the animals exist the researchers willing to kill or capture a specimen
are the only ones who will have a reasonable chance of accomplishing their goal. Those
who object to this method are left with the option of chance discovery of remains, the
possibility of which is extremely remote.


This occurs in a number of ways. As with any group of people who interact with
each other, there are always the fusses, fights and squabbles, the making and breaking of
friendships and alliances. One thing you will learn is that the Bigfoot community is indeed
a microcosm of society in general. Human weaknesses abound in this field. You will
encounter the typical variety of ordinary folks, intellectuals, nut cases, pricks and morons.

But there are some individuals to whom you should be particularly wary. There exists in
the world a large group of people who think that anyone who believes in and/or spends
time researching Bigfoot (or UFOs or paranormal phenomena) is by definition an idiot.
There are a number of people within that group who decide to try and take advantage of the
"idiots" by jerking them around psychologically for their own amusement. Look at any of
the numerous Internet message boards and you'll see this happening. The most common
tactic used is to bait someone into an exchange of personal attacks. This will quickly draw
others into the fray, and any ongoing civil discussion degenerates hopelessly. The
instigators usually try to portray themselves as believers of some sort, but it becomes
apparent pretty quickly that they have little or no real knowledge of the subject. You will
also encounter "eyewitnesses" who do the same thing. They will contact you and report a
sighting or experience just to mess with you. The best policy is to blatantly ignore them.

When they don't succeed in baiting you they will disappear.

There are also a number of people who try to take advantage of the "idiots" by
making money off of them. These people generally take great pains to elevate themselves
in stature among the believers by constantly extolling their own virtues, exploits and
discoveries but never seem to have any evidence to back any of it up. When questioned
they become extremely defensive, almost to the point of hysterics in some cases. And
they always seem to be trying to sell you something, be it a book, a membership to their
organization, equipment, knowledge, merchandise, whatever. And cases of this are
becoming more prevalent. Again, ignoring them is the best policy.

As for the cynics (I differentiate them from mere skeptics), know that you will
always have the advantage over them. It's very easy to be cynical, especially about a
subject as elusive and complex as Bigfoot. Cynics think there is very little risk involved in
taking their position, but there is one great risk. It is impossible for them to prove that
Bigfoot does NOT exist; there is no practical way for them to do that. It is entirely
possible for you TO prove it if it DOES exist, if you find that elusive body. Then you can
pull the toilet handle and make them all swirl down into the septic tank of irrelevance, and
the last word would be all yours.


People's ideas about Bigfoot are much like people's ideas about God. Each
person has his or her own unique concept, and it will range from quite logical to seemingly
drug-induced. I'm quite sure you have your own opinions about Bigfoot, but if you're going
to be a good researcher you will need to consider your opinions in the light of theory and
not of belief. The reason is simple; if you consider your opinions to be a working theory,
then you can be flexible and modify or change your theory as necessary to fit the empirical
evidence you gather and analyze. If your opinions constitute a heart-felt emotional belief,
then you will tend to stick to that belief regardless of any evidence that would contradict it.

At present my own working theory of Bigfoot is that it is a quite normal animal, a
species of ape somewhat similar to the great apes we are familiar with. I call it a working
theory simply because I conduct my research using assumptions I have made based on
my theory. But I'm careful to keep an open mind and to try and be objective. If I were to
come across good evidence that Bigfoot is a hominid more closely related to humans
than the great apes or something else entirely, like the whole phenomenon is an
extraordinary human hoax or some type of mass hysteria, then I wouldn't have much
problem changing my working theory. But if I had a deep heart-felt emotional belief that
Bigfoot was (for example) a humanlike being with near-human intelligence and I acted
accordingly, my belief would constantly cloud my judgment and I could never be an
effective researcher, even if my belief in the end proved to be correct.


Remember that all theories and beliefs are based on assumptions, some more
valid than others. And it's important to question your basic assumptions occasionally.

Most researchers automatically assume that Bigfoot actually does exist and that is
always the first assumption in need of challenging, but there are others. For example,
there is a popular theory that Bigfoot is (or is a descendant of) the fossil ape species
Gigantopithecus Blacki. It's a perfectly logical theory; there is in fact a documented fossil
species of large ape that is thought to have lived between 1 million to 300,000 years ago,
and scientists have inferred from the fossils certain characteristics that match closely with
the more consistent descriptions of Bigfoot. But there are some shaky assumptions
involved. G. Blacki is the only fossil species of large ape we know about, but that doesn't
mean it was the only species that ever existed. And we only have G. Blacki's jaws and
teeth. No cranium or other remains have been found to date. In fact, the only thing we
know for sure about G. Blacki is that it was apelike and had big jaws. There is also a
popular theory that Bigfoot is a relic animal, an ancient species that somehow managed
to survive the Pleistocene epoch and remain in its primitive form. This may indeed be the
case, but on the other hand Bigfoot may be a species that has undergone as much or
even more evolution in the last million years than we have. It may actually be a form quite
advanced from its prehistoric ancestors. We simply don't know. But it shows that we must
be mindful of the assumptions we make.


We all get excited whenever we find evidence, especially if we think it's
compelling or of high quality. You must realize that unless your find consists of a body,
your evidence will be considered circumstantial. That is, the interpretation of the evidence
depends a great deal on the circumstances of its acquisition; where it was found, how it was
found, who found it, etc. and the predisposition of the interpreter to accept or reject it. We
also have to be realistic about the possible impact the different types of evidence can have
regardless of its quality.

Footprint casts. These are probably the most famous pieces of Bigfoot evidence.
This type of evidence tends to have very little effect in trying to prove anything because of
the possibility of misinterpretation and of forgery. The ones with dermal evidence aren't
really much better, since they can only further demonstrate what DIDN"T make the print.

You can demonstrate that a human foot or a known ape foot DIDN'T make the impression
by noting dermal or anatomical characteristics that are different from those feet, but you
cannot adequately describe what DID make it. I personally don't think that footprint casts
by themselves really matter much anymore, and I quit casting tracks some time ago. To me
tracks are more valuable in context. I'm more concerned now with what they can tell me
about where, when and why the animal goes on its travels. As you go in the field, don't be
real concerned about bringing plaster with you. Except in very extraordinary circumstances
casting tracks is a waste of time. You're better off learning how to study them in the

Photographs and film. Some very well known (to us, anyway) pieces of evidence
fall into this category. They also tend to be the most controversial, and their actual value
as evidence is hotly debated. You have the same problems here as with footprints since
there is always the possibility of misinterpretation and forgery. As with casts, you can at
most demonstrate only the possibility that something was indeed recorded on film. The
Patterson film and the saga surrounding it should be an abject lesson to all those who
think that film evidence by itself can be demonstrable proof of the animal's existence. It's
valuable only if the person examining it is already predisposed to believe in the animal's
existence. It will never constitute evidence to those who are not. If you are predisposed
to accept it, film and video can be valuable. Much was learned about the animal's actual
appearance and movement from the Patterson film by those who chose to accept it as
genuine. So it is worthwhile to take a camera with you on your trips, just don't expect
any real recognition to come from it no matter how good your results may be. The most
you can hope for is to perhaps convince someone to pay closer attention to the

Hair and trace DNA. I lumped these two together because they are both
analyzed much the same way. They also have the same problems as the first two
categories. At most, you can only demonstrate what it is NOT. Hair and DNA can only
be tested by comparing them to known control samples. If they don't match to any
known samples, then the result will be inconclusive. Think about it. The only way you
could positively identify a hair or DNA sample as coming from a Bigfoot is if you had a
known, beyond-a-shadow-of-a-doubt sample of Bigfoot hair or DNA to compare it to. If
you had such a substantial sample that it was known beyond all doubt to be Bigfoot then
you wouldn't have to resort to the DNA analysis. The mystery would already have been
solved by conventional means at that point. I always have to shake my head whenever I
see or hear of someone chasing the unmatchable trace DNA in bits of hair and feces and
the like trying to use it as proof, always to no avail. But I wouldn't tell you not to bother
collecting this type of evidence, since it's as close as most of us will ever come to
actually holding in our hands a bit of the unknown. If you're the sort who is into UFOs,
it's sort of like going to Roswell and finding a sliver of metal in the side of that hill. There's
no real way of knowing, but it could be. And that's personally satisfying for a lot of people.

Anecdotal evidence. This includes eyewitness accounts and the second-hand
stories that you always hear. Keep in mind that human eyewitnesses are notoriously
unreliable, and no two people will describe anything, much less a Bigfoot, in exactly the
same way. And since you weren't there when it happened, you not only have to deal with
whatever facts the witness can give you but also the witness' own interpretation of those
facts. Was it really a Bigfoot he heard screaming, was it really a panther, or was there
really even a scream at all? Ultimately the witness might seem pretty sure, but you can
never be. Two people may see the same animal at the same range at the same time.
One will see a dark-colored animal with prominent ears; one may see a light-colored
animal with no visible ears. The difference? Perhaps just the angle of the head and the
angle of the ambient light on the hair with respect to each witness, which could be very
different. The veracity, abilities and motives of the witness come into play too. For these
reasons and many others, eyewitness testimonies and anecdotes are intriguing but not
worth much in the way of solid evidence. They are often the only things you as a
researcher have to work with, but your interpretation of them is entirely subjective and you
alone have to decide how to act on them.


If there is one great thing about the Bigfoot mystery above all other great
mysteries, it's that it is within the reasonable capability of any ordinary person to
decisively solve it. All it takes is to be at the right place at the right time and to be
prepared. Think of all the other mysteries. Unless one crashed in my backyard, my
chances of scientifically proving that alien spacecraft are visiting the Earth are pretty slim.

I have absolutely no idea how I could go about scientifically proving the existence of a
ghost even if I thought I knew where one was. I would have to live close by a large lake
reputedly inhabited by a monster for it to be practical for me to try to find it, and even then
the cost of the equipment necessary to make a realistic effort would be prohibitive. The
sea serpent would be many times worse. I'm pretty sure some people will make the trip
to Mars in my lifetime and I'm just as sure I won't be one of them, so I can't research the
"structures" on Mars. Most all of the other natural and man-made mysteries always
seem to be in exotic far-flung locales that I can't afford to go to, and the paranormal
subjects are by their nature not scientifically approachable.

But Bigfoot is different. Bigfoot is the only mystery for which there does exist
some objective evidence to support it. That evidence indicates the presence of the
phenomenon in places as far apart as Washington State and Georgia. If for the sake of
argument we accept that evidence, then it stands to reason that it could be found in at
least some areas in between. That means that the mystery is potentially accessible to a
great many ordinary people. All they would need to do is think, study and plan logically,
and occasionally visit an area that they think could be a viable habitat and be prepared for
a possible encounter or to find evidence. Having a camera, tape recorder, sample bags
and tweezers along with the normal camping and safety gear would be the only real

Keep this in mind. There are people who have been actively in the field after
Bigfoot for decades working in the best possible areas. What do they have? A few
pieces of plaster, a hair or two, a few pictures and a lot of stories. Most of them still
haven't seen one. I've been an active field researcher for about seven years. What do I
have? A few pieces of plaster, a hair or two, a few pictures and a lot of stories. I do think
I've seen one a couple of times, but I'm not really sure. Most all of the witnesses who
have encountered Bigfoot weren't even looking for it. They were just out and about one
day and there it was. So don't let all this "have to spend a lot of time in the woods and
know all the secret knowledge and tricks" nonsense bother you. The real truth is that all
that is factually known or reasonably speculated about Bigfoot to date can be learned in a
few hours' reading. I don't know exactly what things it takes to find a Bigfoot, but one
thing is obvious: sheer time spent in the field and lots of trivial knowledge certainly doesn’t
seem to be among them. It doesn't matter how long you have or haven't been looking for
Bigfoot; whenever you do go out there, know that you're on the same level as any of us.
But above all, you should behave as if you always expect success. That way you will
always be prepared.


Return to “Media and Articles”

  • You do not have permission to post in chat.
@ admin « Tue 1:35 am »
Hey Yankeesearch, didn’t even know you were in chat, now you have the bug so bad you will have to keep going out to see another one. :)
@ yankeesearch « Tue 12:56 am »
Anyway, as I stand before God, I did not make this up!
@ yankeesearch « Tue 12:55 am »
Not saying it was Sq/BF/DM/Yeti... but it was strange. And I am locking my doors tonight for sure! :lol:
@ yankeesearch « Tue 12:54 am »
And just I was turning away, I thought I heard snort -- which could have been deer or maybe cattle... but... I do not know.
@ yankeesearch « Tue 12:53 am »
I did not have the creepy feeling I normally get in these situations... so I really do not know what to make of it.
@ yankeesearch « Tue 12:53 am »
One detail I forgot to mention: the whoop had almost a human like talk after it on both occasions.
@ yankeesearch « Tue 12:52 am »
I walked back to the other side, and thought I heard a knock...
@ yankeesearch « Tue 12:51 am »
Cattle about 1/8th mile away disappeared... and strangely at that location: it sounded like something banged the metal fence. Not loud... but never ever heard it before tonight.
@ yankeesearch « Tue 12:50 am »
Two whoops... and some deer scattering (they may have been scattering because of me).
@ yankeesearch « Tue 12:50 am »
From 6:20 PM to maybe 6:45 PM CST
@ yankeesearch « Tue 12:49 am »
I may have just had an encounter!
@ yankeesearch « Tue 12:46 am »
Hi gang! I know it has been a long time...
@ BrianDriver « Sat 12:59 pm »
Good quality pics. How long were the cams out?
@ admin « Thu 9:09 pm »
Just to get the chat going, it’s going to take some time to move over all the data, but in the end, hope everyone likes the layout here.

Who is chatting