Bigfoot--New Evidence

Bigfoot--New Evidence

RubyRed
RubyRed

February 4th, 2011, 2:30 pm #1

Well, I DVRed this two hour program hoping to hear NEW evidence, although the good doctor was one of the "experts" whose opinion was solicited. At least the documentary did not include that other "expert" whose face is seen often on this kind of program. As far as I'm concerned, this program presented only one new idea that made sense to me--that Sasquatch/Bigfoot is a descendant of a Neanderthal-type human. That dove-tailed nicely IMHO with the news release produced by M.K. several years back that caused LC to accuse him falsely of racism. You must all remember those stupid allegations. I'm sure M.K. would prefer to forget that painful episode, so forgive me for bringing it to the fore. That Bigfoot/Sasquatch may have descended from a type of ancient human was interesting...but there was so much about this program that WASN'T interesting or new.

Some eye-witness accounts filmed for "Monsterquest" were rehashed, including one about a BC man who saw a Sasquatch hunkered down beside a river. In the "Monsterquest" version, the man stated he probably saw a Sasquatch. In this Bigfoot documentary, he claimed it was a wildman-type creature; in other words it looked like a human being wearing furs. After hearing his "new" version, I thought I hadn't heard correctly; for I remembered he had previously used the word Sasquatch and now he was saying Wildman.

Every time the good doctor talked, I muted the sound, so I didn't hear clearly most of what he said but I think the mid-tarsal break was discussed because he was holding a giant foot casting while he talked. What was precious to me was the strange look that appeared on two scientists' faces while Meldrum commented on that track casting. IMO, the look "said" that they found his statements odd. One scientist I truly respected was the primate behavior expert whose first name was Ian. Sorry, CRS prevents me from recalling his last name without viewing the documentary again. His statements about apes--the scientists seemed determined to make the Sas an ape--were based on field knowledge of primate behavior and they made perfect sense to ignorant me. During one scene, he discovered a strange uprooted tree structure in a forest and talked about the strength required to uproot and move bamboo or small trees into such a formation. But he went one step farther; he explained why apes might do such a thing. In the wild, apes make bamboo structures to tell other apes that it's their land--so stay off.

So,IMHO Bigfoot: New Evidence producers could have saved money by condensing their "new" evidence into one hour. New eye-witness accounts were acted out well and the computer generated Sasquatch was very realistic. I was impressed with the historical record presented but I was under the impression that Mr and Mrs. Chapman were native people. In this program, Mrs. Chapman, her husband and two of their 10 (I think they had 10) children were all Caucasian not Native Americans. And they told only half of the Chapman tale. To anyone who has has done research into native legends and stories, this was a slap in the face because they changed the historical record. One does wonder how the Bauman story, if re-enacted in this documentary, might have been changed too.

It was a long two hour program, allieviated in some parts by the eye-witness re-enactments and one or two new ideas.

RubyRed reporting
Quote
Share

Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

February 4th, 2011, 2:50 pm #2

I really don't think anything discussed hasn't been thought of or hashed and rehashed many times by us amateur researchers...with their collective educational backgrounds I think interested people will come to understand there was not anything mentioned that was definitive...

Programs like this are for entertainment purposes...
Quote
Like
Share

Lone Wolf
Lone Wolf

February 4th, 2011, 3:15 pm #3

Well, I DVRed this two hour program hoping to hear NEW evidence, although the good doctor was one of the "experts" whose opinion was solicited. At least the documentary did not include that other "expert" whose face is seen often on this kind of program. As far as I'm concerned, this program presented only one new idea that made sense to me--that Sasquatch/Bigfoot is a descendant of a Neanderthal-type human. That dove-tailed nicely IMHO with the news release produced by M.K. several years back that caused LC to accuse him falsely of racism. You must all remember those stupid allegations. I'm sure M.K. would prefer to forget that painful episode, so forgive me for bringing it to the fore. That Bigfoot/Sasquatch may have descended from a type of ancient human was interesting...but there was so much about this program that WASN'T interesting or new.

Some eye-witness accounts filmed for "Monsterquest" were rehashed, including one about a BC man who saw a Sasquatch hunkered down beside a river. In the "Monsterquest" version, the man stated he probably saw a Sasquatch. In this Bigfoot documentary, he claimed it was a wildman-type creature; in other words it looked like a human being wearing furs. After hearing his "new" version, I thought I hadn't heard correctly; for I remembered he had previously used the word Sasquatch and now he was saying Wildman.

Every time the good doctor talked, I muted the sound, so I didn't hear clearly most of what he said but I think the mid-tarsal break was discussed because he was holding a giant foot casting while he talked. What was precious to me was the strange look that appeared on two scientists' faces while Meldrum commented on that track casting. IMO, the look "said" that they found his statements odd. One scientist I truly respected was the primate behavior expert whose first name was Ian. Sorry, CRS prevents me from recalling his last name without viewing the documentary again. His statements about apes--the scientists seemed determined to make the Sas an ape--were based on field knowledge of primate behavior and they made perfect sense to ignorant me. During one scene, he discovered a strange uprooted tree structure in a forest and talked about the strength required to uproot and move bamboo or small trees into such a formation. But he went one step farther; he explained why apes might do such a thing. In the wild, apes make bamboo structures to tell other apes that it's their land--so stay off.

So,IMHO Bigfoot: New Evidence producers could have saved money by condensing their "new" evidence into one hour. New eye-witness accounts were acted out well and the computer generated Sasquatch was very realistic. I was impressed with the historical record presented but I was under the impression that Mr and Mrs. Chapman were native people. In this program, Mrs. Chapman, her husband and two of their 10 (I think they had 10) children were all Caucasian not Native Americans. And they told only half of the Chapman tale. To anyone who has has done research into native legends and stories, this was a slap in the face because they changed the historical record. One does wonder how the Bauman story, if re-enacted in this documentary, might have been changed too.

It was a long two hour program, allieviated in some parts by the eye-witness re-enactments and one or two new ideas.

RubyRed reporting
I watched the show yesterday, I thought most of it was ok the parts that bored me was when they tried to make BF a Neanderthal.
They also lost me when they tried to present all of the B.C. sightings on Native Shaman in training wearing animal furs..........

I also liked the computer generated Squatch.

Keep the thorough reviews coming Ruby, good job!
Quote
Share

woodswatcher
woodswatcher

February 4th, 2011, 6:26 pm #4

Well, I DVRed this two hour program hoping to hear NEW evidence, although the good doctor was one of the "experts" whose opinion was solicited. At least the documentary did not include that other "expert" whose face is seen often on this kind of program. As far as I'm concerned, this program presented only one new idea that made sense to me--that Sasquatch/Bigfoot is a descendant of a Neanderthal-type human. That dove-tailed nicely IMHO with the news release produced by M.K. several years back that caused LC to accuse him falsely of racism. You must all remember those stupid allegations. I'm sure M.K. would prefer to forget that painful episode, so forgive me for bringing it to the fore. That Bigfoot/Sasquatch may have descended from a type of ancient human was interesting...but there was so much about this program that WASN'T interesting or new.

Some eye-witness accounts filmed for "Monsterquest" were rehashed, including one about a BC man who saw a Sasquatch hunkered down beside a river. In the "Monsterquest" version, the man stated he probably saw a Sasquatch. In this Bigfoot documentary, he claimed it was a wildman-type creature; in other words it looked like a human being wearing furs. After hearing his "new" version, I thought I hadn't heard correctly; for I remembered he had previously used the word Sasquatch and now he was saying Wildman.

Every time the good doctor talked, I muted the sound, so I didn't hear clearly most of what he said but I think the mid-tarsal break was discussed because he was holding a giant foot casting while he talked. What was precious to me was the strange look that appeared on two scientists' faces while Meldrum commented on that track casting. IMO, the look "said" that they found his statements odd. One scientist I truly respected was the primate behavior expert whose first name was Ian. Sorry, CRS prevents me from recalling his last name without viewing the documentary again. His statements about apes--the scientists seemed determined to make the Sas an ape--were based on field knowledge of primate behavior and they made perfect sense to ignorant me. During one scene, he discovered a strange uprooted tree structure in a forest and talked about the strength required to uproot and move bamboo or small trees into such a formation. But he went one step farther; he explained why apes might do such a thing. In the wild, apes make bamboo structures to tell other apes that it's their land--so stay off.

So,IMHO Bigfoot: New Evidence producers could have saved money by condensing their "new" evidence into one hour. New eye-witness accounts were acted out well and the computer generated Sasquatch was very realistic. I was impressed with the historical record presented but I was under the impression that Mr and Mrs. Chapman were native people. In this program, Mrs. Chapman, her husband and two of their 10 (I think they had 10) children were all Caucasian not Native Americans. And they told only half of the Chapman tale. To anyone who has has done research into native legends and stories, this was a slap in the face because they changed the historical record. One does wonder how the Bauman story, if re-enacted in this documentary, might have been changed too.

It was a long two hour program, allieviated in some parts by the eye-witness re-enactments and one or two new ideas.

RubyRed reporting
my son and i have been discussing the show, the scientist and their theories as well as some of the situations that they talked about.

i really didn't want to write anything about it in detail until i had a chance to think about it all.

1- i think the scientists were probably the best bunch they have had on anytype of Bigfoot/Monkee show. the two Primatologists were honest in their thnking and open minded.

2- Meldrum, well- he is justwho he is, Meldrum.

3-lets talk about the Indians. first- this was the first show to my knowledge that anyone has ever broached the subject of these primates being an "indian" group. sure MK brought this to our attention in some fashion a year ago.

4- unknown hominids. i have an open mind. this is the first show that i can remember that went into detail of possibilities.

5- double speak, i get sick of the double speak. they use the PNW as the Gold Standard of Bigfootery, based on long term history and the Native America Co-Existance. well, every tribe in North America and Canada has a history of interaction with these creatures.

6- double speak again, the PNW is the only place in N.A. that has the capability of sustaining these creatures. - the Midwest and South feed the world? not only do you have agriculture, but you also have some of the greatest populations of game and fish in N.A. but, in the next section it is mentioned that the possibility of the torso length allows for a greater length in digestive cavity which would allow for more complete digestion on minimal food sources.

7-they seem to pick and choose at will to meet their own scientific conclusions. nothing is more chosen than the discussion of the Patterson Film. when the film is discussed, rather than discuss and critique the film, they bring up their critique of Patterson personally, making mo mention of the many things we have discussed from our own observations- many of which are brought to our attention by MK.

the scientists are limiting themselves in their study by the PNW fixation. i'd welcome either of the Primatologists to Oklahoma anyday. I believe they would be open to what we have found in the South.
Quote
Share

woodswatcher
woodswatcher

February 4th, 2011, 6:29 pm #5

Well, I DVRed this two hour program hoping to hear NEW evidence, although the good doctor was one of the "experts" whose opinion was solicited. At least the documentary did not include that other "expert" whose face is seen often on this kind of program. As far as I'm concerned, this program presented only one new idea that made sense to me--that Sasquatch/Bigfoot is a descendant of a Neanderthal-type human. That dove-tailed nicely IMHO with the news release produced by M.K. several years back that caused LC to accuse him falsely of racism. You must all remember those stupid allegations. I'm sure M.K. would prefer to forget that painful episode, so forgive me for bringing it to the fore. That Bigfoot/Sasquatch may have descended from a type of ancient human was interesting...but there was so much about this program that WASN'T interesting or new.

Some eye-witness accounts filmed for "Monsterquest" were rehashed, including one about a BC man who saw a Sasquatch hunkered down beside a river. In the "Monsterquest" version, the man stated he probably saw a Sasquatch. In this Bigfoot documentary, he claimed it was a wildman-type creature; in other words it looked like a human being wearing furs. After hearing his "new" version, I thought I hadn't heard correctly; for I remembered he had previously used the word Sasquatch and now he was saying Wildman.

Every time the good doctor talked, I muted the sound, so I didn't hear clearly most of what he said but I think the mid-tarsal break was discussed because he was holding a giant foot casting while he talked. What was precious to me was the strange look that appeared on two scientists' faces while Meldrum commented on that track casting. IMO, the look "said" that they found his statements odd. One scientist I truly respected was the primate behavior expert whose first name was Ian. Sorry, CRS prevents me from recalling his last name without viewing the documentary again. His statements about apes--the scientists seemed determined to make the Sas an ape--were based on field knowledge of primate behavior and they made perfect sense to ignorant me. During one scene, he discovered a strange uprooted tree structure in a forest and talked about the strength required to uproot and move bamboo or small trees into such a formation. But he went one step farther; he explained why apes might do such a thing. In the wild, apes make bamboo structures to tell other apes that it's their land--so stay off.

So,IMHO Bigfoot: New Evidence producers could have saved money by condensing their "new" evidence into one hour. New eye-witness accounts were acted out well and the computer generated Sasquatch was very realistic. I was impressed with the historical record presented but I was under the impression that Mr and Mrs. Chapman were native people. In this program, Mrs. Chapman, her husband and two of their 10 (I think they had 10) children were all Caucasian not Native Americans. And they told only half of the Chapman tale. To anyone who has has done research into native legends and stories, this was a slap in the face because they changed the historical record. One does wonder how the Bauman story, if re-enacted in this documentary, might have been changed too.

It was a long two hour program, allieviated in some parts by the eye-witness re-enactments and one or two new ideas.

RubyRed reporting
corect me if i am wrong, didn't Mrs. Chapman cover the childrens head to avoid them looking at it, due to the Native belief that children who looked at them died shortly after and didn't she have children die later at young ages?

Quote
Share

Nellie
Nellie

February 4th, 2011, 6:56 pm #6

Well, I DVRed this two hour program hoping to hear NEW evidence, although the good doctor was one of the "experts" whose opinion was solicited. At least the documentary did not include that other "expert" whose face is seen often on this kind of program. As far as I'm concerned, this program presented only one new idea that made sense to me--that Sasquatch/Bigfoot is a descendant of a Neanderthal-type human. That dove-tailed nicely IMHO with the news release produced by M.K. several years back that caused LC to accuse him falsely of racism. You must all remember those stupid allegations. I'm sure M.K. would prefer to forget that painful episode, so forgive me for bringing it to the fore. That Bigfoot/Sasquatch may have descended from a type of ancient human was interesting...but there was so much about this program that WASN'T interesting or new.

Some eye-witness accounts filmed for "Monsterquest" were rehashed, including one about a BC man who saw a Sasquatch hunkered down beside a river. In the "Monsterquest" version, the man stated he probably saw a Sasquatch. In this Bigfoot documentary, he claimed it was a wildman-type creature; in other words it looked like a human being wearing furs. After hearing his "new" version, I thought I hadn't heard correctly; for I remembered he had previously used the word Sasquatch and now he was saying Wildman.

Every time the good doctor talked, I muted the sound, so I didn't hear clearly most of what he said but I think the mid-tarsal break was discussed because he was holding a giant foot casting while he talked. What was precious to me was the strange look that appeared on two scientists' faces while Meldrum commented on that track casting. IMO, the look "said" that they found his statements odd. One scientist I truly respected was the primate behavior expert whose first name was Ian. Sorry, CRS prevents me from recalling his last name without viewing the documentary again. His statements about apes--the scientists seemed determined to make the Sas an ape--were based on field knowledge of primate behavior and they made perfect sense to ignorant me. During one scene, he discovered a strange uprooted tree structure in a forest and talked about the strength required to uproot and move bamboo or small trees into such a formation. But he went one step farther; he explained why apes might do such a thing. In the wild, apes make bamboo structures to tell other apes that it's their land--so stay off.

So,IMHO Bigfoot: New Evidence producers could have saved money by condensing their "new" evidence into one hour. New eye-witness accounts were acted out well and the computer generated Sasquatch was very realistic. I was impressed with the historical record presented but I was under the impression that Mr and Mrs. Chapman were native people. In this program, Mrs. Chapman, her husband and two of their 10 (I think they had 10) children were all Caucasian not Native Americans. And they told only half of the Chapman tale. To anyone who has has done research into native legends and stories, this was a slap in the face because they changed the historical record. One does wonder how the Bauman story, if re-enacted in this documentary, might have been changed too.

It was a long two hour program, allieviated in some parts by the eye-witness re-enactments and one or two new ideas.

RubyRed reporting
there were 3 or 4 children, the family was Native American, and everyone eventually later died from drowning and/or sickness. The Indians believed if you were to look upon such a beast that you would have bad luck come to you.
When the narrator mentioned the Myakka skunkape(Sarasota)he was correct about the lady who took the pictures but he said the creature had been getting in her garden...her letter stated to the sheriff's dept that it had been coming up to the house and stealing apples she had set outside.
When I see a show like this on TV it just makes me feel that it's made for the percentage of the American public that are not knowledgeable or are narrow-minded on Bigfoot and Sasquatch...that they are still out there and more so than they know. But it seems by keeping the PNW creatures in reference it is more familiar with the percentage of Americans that believe in the creatures because of the Patterson film. It's amazing how many people I have talked to that didn't know that Bigfoot creatures are in every state except Hawaii(I have always read that Hawaii didn't have them so if I'm wrong please somebody correct me). Just my thought on the show.
Quote
Share

Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

February 4th, 2011, 7:12 pm #7

Scroll down it's under the Roe report...

Bobbie Shorts web site...

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/truemag.htm
Quote
Like
Share

RubyRed
RubyRed

February 6th, 2011, 6:42 pm #8

corect me if i am wrong, didn't Mrs. Chapman cover the childrens head to avoid them looking at it, due to the Native belief that children who looked at them died shortly after and didn't she have children die later at young ages?
my point exactly; she didn't want her children looking the creature in the eye or the creature clearly seeing her children. Native American family NOT White.
Quote
Share

Gernimo
Gernimo

February 6th, 2011, 10:21 pm #9

Well, I DVRed this two hour program hoping to hear NEW evidence, although the good doctor was one of the "experts" whose opinion was solicited. At least the documentary did not include that other "expert" whose face is seen often on this kind of program. As far as I'm concerned, this program presented only one new idea that made sense to me--that Sasquatch/Bigfoot is a descendant of a Neanderthal-type human. That dove-tailed nicely IMHO with the news release produced by M.K. several years back that caused LC to accuse him falsely of racism. You must all remember those stupid allegations. I'm sure M.K. would prefer to forget that painful episode, so forgive me for bringing it to the fore. That Bigfoot/Sasquatch may have descended from a type of ancient human was interesting...but there was so much about this program that WASN'T interesting or new.

Some eye-witness accounts filmed for "Monsterquest" were rehashed, including one about a BC man who saw a Sasquatch hunkered down beside a river. In the "Monsterquest" version, the man stated he probably saw a Sasquatch. In this Bigfoot documentary, he claimed it was a wildman-type creature; in other words it looked like a human being wearing furs. After hearing his "new" version, I thought I hadn't heard correctly; for I remembered he had previously used the word Sasquatch and now he was saying Wildman.

Every time the good doctor talked, I muted the sound, so I didn't hear clearly most of what he said but I think the mid-tarsal break was discussed because he was holding a giant foot casting while he talked. What was precious to me was the strange look that appeared on two scientists' faces while Meldrum commented on that track casting. IMO, the look "said" that they found his statements odd. One scientist I truly respected was the primate behavior expert whose first name was Ian. Sorry, CRS prevents me from recalling his last name without viewing the documentary again. His statements about apes--the scientists seemed determined to make the Sas an ape--were based on field knowledge of primate behavior and they made perfect sense to ignorant me. During one scene, he discovered a strange uprooted tree structure in a forest and talked about the strength required to uproot and move bamboo or small trees into such a formation. But he went one step farther; he explained why apes might do such a thing. In the wild, apes make bamboo structures to tell other apes that it's their land--so stay off.

So,IMHO Bigfoot: New Evidence producers could have saved money by condensing their "new" evidence into one hour. New eye-witness accounts were acted out well and the computer generated Sasquatch was very realistic. I was impressed with the historical record presented but I was under the impression that Mr and Mrs. Chapman were native people. In this program, Mrs. Chapman, her husband and two of their 10 (I think they had 10) children were all Caucasian not Native Americans. And they told only half of the Chapman tale. To anyone who has has done research into native legends and stories, this was a slap in the face because they changed the historical record. One does wonder how the Bauman story, if re-enacted in this documentary, might have been changed too.

It was a long two hour program, allieviated in some parts by the eye-witness re-enactments and one or two new ideas.

RubyRed reporting
I was looking forward to the program after hearing about it here on this forum. But we have not been getting much sleep because our six month old baby likes to stay up late hooting with the owls. Inevitably, both my wife and I fell asleep half way through the program.

We DVR'd it, so I will watch it again when I get the chance. However, I do remember that they were talking about MR. Patterson's need for money as a potential reason for hoaxing the film, but they made no mention of Mr. Gimlin. I know that I have been out of the loop for a while but, did Mr. Gimlin get voted off the island? Is the new story that Mr. Patterson was out there by himself or without a credible witness? I will refrain from more comments until I watch the whole program.

I did read the Roe and Chapman reports from the link that Jim provided. It was interesting to read how the behavior differed from one report to the other. Roe experienced a sasquatch that thought it was alone and did not want anything to do with Roe. Maybe it was due to it being female and ofcourse shy. The other sasquatch went out of its way to come down to the Chapman house and make himself at home. This I will attribute to it being male. Like a rude brother-in-law.

What I found very intereting though was that Ms. Chapman knew the survival "rules" of coexisting with these creatures. And even knew that she had to hide her children to protect them from the sasquatch. That tells me that the survival rules were compiled over many different encounters with these creatures. And many of the encounters involved physical contact.
Quote
Share