Something I suggested was a very real possibility a few years ago has been confirmed to me privately.
I suggested that, Bigfoot 'hunters' might get hoaxed or might even be confusing each other. So Mr Dum-a-Lot does not write for the umpteenth times in comments "Your a idiot" (he really needs a hobby) I shall explain.
A group of Bigfooters (Team A) go out into forestry where they have information that there have been sightings of a hairy hominid. They keep the location they are going to between themselves. At Midnight they decide to try wood-knocks and calls. The calls and wood knocks are returned -Bigfoot (singular and plural) is there!
Success. It is reported on their web site/blog and it's beers all round.
Now, as I have found before, people are not exactly tight-lipped when it comes to bigfoot or any other type of creature (the exception being locals in the UK and 'their' large non-native cats). So "Stompy" hears the same rumour that got Team A heard. So he gets Team B together. The one thing I have learnt about a lot of people in "Bigfootery" is that there is a lot of ego and wanting to out do and out claim anyone else. This creates problems.
You see it seems to all be about egoes. "I believe the Patterson-Gimlin film is genuine" spoken by one Bigfooter leads to a "dumb-ass" from another. Do you believe that Sasquatch creatures are some kind of other dimensional being? A Mother Earth Spirit? Result of a military experiment? A real, unscientifically discovered North American Great Ape? Aliens? Any one of those beliefs will have you the focus of anger from different quarters and all for different reasons.
There is, scientifically, only one real possibility, and that is that the Sasquatch (preferred term) is some form of Great Ape.
However, we cannot really classify such creatures as Great Apes until we have at least captured footage on camera traps as well as gathered samples -a large number of mammals have been discovered and accepted as being real without the need for a corpse and it is often stated that a specimen cannot be killed as we have no idea of population numbers
and that with the tools science has today killing is not really needed.
Wood-knocking and calls were never a part of Sasquatch reports until some tapes in the 1970s. These recordings have always sounded like humans messing around and there was
nothing "inhuman" about them. However, one group of Bigfooters claims to have heard vocalisations and wood-knocks will immediately have their report mocked or called "dubious" by another group.
You see, John Green never talked to Rene Dahinden and vice versa and Peter Byrne...well it goes on. There was almost -still is- a childish "It's mine!" attitude and if you ever watched Rictor Riolo's videos you will have seen the absolute joke that "Bigfootery" has become. Group A has a map of all Bigfoot activity in its area. Group B is based in the same area and has a similar map. Researcher 1 has his own map. Now, Scientifically, Group A and B as well as Researcher 1
should be sharing data and looking for patterns. But, oh no.
There have been rumours for a long time that, say, Group A was being hoaxed by other bigfooters, say Group B. Or even hoaxed by hunters out at night who are really pissed that they can't kill something because of all the noise.
The other alternative is that, on occasions, unbeknownst to each other, Group A has vocalised and wood-knocked and Group B out on its own secretive search has responded. Both teams are convinced that they have gotten a reaction from a real life sasquatch -or maybe two since teams split up and try vocalising and wood-knocking at two different spots. Each of the mini teams know where they are. Now, Team B hear the vocalisation and knocks and respond -both teams are absolutely over-the-moon with the responses. Except all they have done is get some coyotes to wonder what the hell these nutty humans are doing.
It is possible that the penny may drop when Group A or B sees what the other has reported. Do they now make themselves and their own claims seem silly or do they say nothing and hope no one finds out? Apparently, if rumours are true, they sit back and say nothing. The BFRO will probably log both sets of reports as genuine corroboration of "Bigfoots" and that's it.
Deliberate or accidental it means any results are a mess and of no use. Why doesn't Science take Bigfoot hunters seriously?
That would be a mess created by Bigfooters to which we add any hunters or jokers that might be out at night or even someone wanting to live out ion the forest who is getting equally pissed at the noise being made.
Sasquatch "nests" similar to those made by gorillas may certainly be interesting but when you see footage 'investigators' film as they discovered, walked through and pulled them apart looking for...well, something, all you see is any potential evidence being destroyed. Also, any primate using that spot is
not going to go back and use it again.
But what about "structures" -alleged Bigfoot lean-to, or almost teepee structures -I am dismissing out of hand branches that have fallen or been knocked over for one reason or another and those promoting these as Sasquatch evidence should be ashamed (or are psychologically ill). Well, I have watched videos of people talking about making this type of structure in the forest when they were kids in the 1940s, 1950s and right up to the 2000s. Even in the UK making similar used to be a good bit of summer fun. However, Bigfooters pretend this never ever happens. It's all "Bigfoots". In the UK there are (shamefully) a very large number of people who are homeless for various reasons and they build such shelters -some found have been put down to the fictional British Bigfoot or Woodwose and alcohol bottles and other waste found are where "people have been through here". No, people MADE that camp.
I have spoken to three people who teach "survival training" and asked them about structures. One summed things up when it came to these "mysterious structures": "You go out into country side and find a nice piece of woodland or forestry to start things going and you stumble onto shelters built by people -other another survival course or someone homeless". When I asked all three whether they would watch certain You Tube footage of these structures that were found all agreed to.
All later agreed -none of them were connected which is why this was a good opportunity to get independent opinions- that there was nothing unusual. Fallen tree branches were pointed out and all three thought that it was unbelievable that the TV survival expert could not explain these. All expressed the opinion that the 'mystery' must have just been there for TV.
All of them also stated that the various shelters found conformed to types that those on survival courses were taught to build. Again, all pointed out that since the 1990s all the TV survival series in the US and UK had resulted in thousands wanting to learn bush-craft and there were some anecdotes of bumping into other groups and all types of fun 'n' games to mess the other teams about.
There is nothing required in law that anyone has to report where they have set up bush-craft training or even set up camps. No, "Joe Brown built this" notes left on a lean-to.
Add all of this together and you have...a mess.
But one of the bush-craft teachers who was ex-special forces said that two of the shelters put down to bigfoot were "military". In fact, he claimed that the way certain structures were made were similar to the ones he had helped US Army Rangers build a few years before while on a training exchange. He explained that you had to train to survive and live in the forest and leave no trace but also how to construct make-shift shelters using what material were available.
This man then confessed that he had seen the military unity he was training with have "fun" with Bigfooters. A patrol had come back to their forest camp at around 0300 hrs and reported spotting some "footers". He assumed that they meant an infantry unit and queried why he had not been told it was a hide-and-seek outing (an 'enemy' unit trying to locate them)? He was told that "footers" meant Bigfoot Hunters and that meant fun. He went with three of the Rangers and using thermal equipment saw the Bigfooters. They watched them split-up into two groups. When the knocking and calls began to be made ("I had no ----- idea what was going on. I thought they were loonies!") two of the rangers shadowed the second group and then responded to calls and knocks with similar.
The Ranger with the British trooper, then began doing like wise and the response -very excited- from the Bigfooters was heard plainly. I asked whether he had joined in and got a categorical "no" and when I asked why he hadn't I was told: "The British Army is a professional army and I had it beaten into me that under no circumstances did you ever give away your position. Even in friendly territory".
The ex-forces man was curious, however, so he later asked about what happened and was told "It's kinda traditional if you stumble on footers to have a little fun. Breaks the tedium" but he was asked not to mention anything to officers.
This all added much more to the confusion.
Calls and knocks on trees are
not evidence and I think this post sums up why.
Science cannot and will never take Bigfooters seriously while there is arguing as well as hoaxing going on. Camera traps and traps designed to get hair samples are what are needed -not posted straight to You Tube (home of the hoaxers, publicity seekers and "unwell") either, nor sold immediately to news media but studied by primatologists or mammal experts first.
I was sat in the sunshine and having a coffee while discussing with some the fact that I was thinking of deleting the various books from my online store. After all if only three copies of one book have sold since 2010 what is the point?
