This is from the Bigfoot Field Guide's blog that was started on Blogspot, and this allows us to incorporate it here.
The Bigfoot Field Guide is the brand for videos, newsletters, magazines, books and even a radio show about all things Bigfoot.
By now, most folks in the Bigfoot Community has seen the latest news about a Bigfoot captured on video at Salt Folk State Park in Ohio. If not, here are some screen captures of the posts made by the perpetrator who claims to have produced it.After watching the video, there is no doubt in anyone's mind that it's not a Bigfoot, and this is nothing more than a hoax. The channel that it is hosted on at YouTube is definitely something that would produce something to this effect.When people questioned or said fake/hoaxed, Nate Gray would start attacking those people, and then claim that he was being attacked. Classic hoaxer antics. When people posted screen captures of the figure in his video, it is clearly someone wearing a mossy oak jacket and jeans. The picture posted here is in dispute over who originally posted it, so until now, I will say whoever did it, thanks, and when I figure out the originator, I will give them proper credit.
An analysis of the New York "Bigfoot" baby footage, by D.W. "Darkwing" Lee, MABRC Executive Director.For years, many of the researchers in the Bigfoot Community have struggled with the past evidence of famous and infamous events, and some of the proclamations made about such evidence. With newer technology and software, reviewing these pieces of evidence is now even more critical so that we may either be able to debunk the evidence or at least confirm it as "probable" or "possible".To that end, a recent post on my YouTube channel where a copy of the New York "Bigfoot" baby footage was placed, it stated that the so-called "Bigfoot" baby in the tree was a flag on an antenna on the white car in the background.So that caught my attention and I decided to run the footage through the software I use to analyze video with, which does what is called deshake, a term for removing the shakiness of the camera operator and stabilizes it as much as possible and allows for better viewing. The second part is to run it through software that professional athletes and trainers use that allows you to slow the footage down and magnify parts of the footage so you can get a better look at it.This software was not available until about a decade ago, nearly 10+ years after this footage came to light.I studied the previous reports that was made when this footage was first brought forward, as it went through the BFRO and I looked at their map for New York to see if there were other sighting reports for that part of the state.Ulster County is in the downward funnel that goes down towards New York City, and has 4 counties that have reports from. Ulster County itself only has one Class "A" sighting report of an encounter in December 1985, while Columbia to the Northwest has a Class "A" sighting report of a May 1983 encounter. To the Northwest, Delaware County has a Class "A" sighting report from March 2001-2004 of a multiple observation over a three year span. The other two counties have Class "B" encounters, which I have discarded as data for this analysis as most Class "B" encounters are not relevant.So this is what the encounters list looks like on BFRO's Ulster County, New York sighting reports.Previous claims that the area has a history of encounters and activity have to be severely questioned with only 3 reported Class "A" encounters stretching from 1983 to 2004.I am placing the BFRO Report here with the investigator comments for everyone to read.Report # 7514 (Class B)Submitted by witness on Sunday, December 7, 2003.Video footage shot at dusk shows a primate in a tree in the backgroundYEAR: 1997SEASON: SpringMONTH: MayDATE: 23STATE: New YorkCOUNTY: Ulster CountyLOCATION DETAILS: Lake near Modena, New York.NEAREST TOWN: ModenaOBSERVED: Original submission from Doug Pridgen.I have a tape you may want to see. It's that of a few friends drinking around a camp fire up state New York.The tape was shot in 1997 and not looked at until a year or two ago.My girlfriend was watching the TV while we were transferring the tape and said what is that in the tree? I had to rewind the tape ten or more times. I did not know what to make of it at first, but I knew it was not from the wilds of N.Y. state!At first, you think "big monkey," but what the hell would a monkey be doing in the woods of N.Y.? The thing swings from one tree to the next and moves up and down it with ease! It hangs by one arm and pulls its self up and around in this tree at a speed you have to see. It looks to me to be about 5 to 5-1/2 feet in height, dark in color, very strong upper body and fast as hell in the trees.ALSO NOTICED: Not a thing.OTHER WITNESSES: None of us at the camp saw a thing that night. It was not till 5 or 6 years after the event that the thing was spotted on the tape. Everyone that was on the camping trip saw the tape and thinks it might be an ape or a baby bigfoot.OTHER STORIES: I was at this camp site for 4 days. I never heard a thing about the spot before or after.TIME AND CONDITIONS: It was at dusk. Clear sky, a cool night.ENVIRONMENT: The camp site was in a apple grove next to a small lake that sat in a valley. All around it is farm land.Follow-up investigation report:After reviewing the tape, doing a frame by frame analysis, and speaking with the film maker for some three months, I have come to the conclusion that the tape was not hoaxed. The film was taken at dusk, and appeared to capture two unknown bipedal creatures in the background. Because of the lighting conditions, details of the creatures are silhouetted.Weather conditions, including sunrise, sunset, and temperature, were cross referenced for the date of the video. They matched the conditions shown on the video for the time given.Subject one is a large bipedal figure . It appears to have a conical shaped head. A second smaller subject apparently springs from the back of the big one and climbs into a tree, hand over hand, with great speed and agility. Subject one moves to the left of the screen perhaps fifteen feet, returns to its original location, stands in a wooded area, and apparently enters it after several seconds. All of this is in silhouette.The "baby" appears to have no tail. After climbing the tree it swings out on a large branch approximately 20 feet in the air.The big one is on film for approximately 10-14 seconds; the "baby" for approximately 40 seconds.The property is privately owned, but allows camping, fishing and hosts ATV races. No pets are allowed on the property.The campsite in the footage was set on the opposite side of the lake from the other campers.There was a small outdoor music festival (100-200 people) happening on the property when the footage was shot. At the entrance of the property, vehicles were searched for glass bottles and pets. One man tried to bring in a parrot and was turned a way. A chimp or gibbon would have been difficult to miss... even if someone dressed it up and put a Raiders hat on it...The property owner did not know about this footage, and has not heard of any anomalous events on the property.See feature on the BFRO homepage for more information on this footage and follow up efforts.The initial follow up was by investigator Steve Kulls. Further follow up was done by investigator Paul K (lawyer - NYC).
In terms of historical information, I also used Google Earth to look at the overall area from different times in the past, starting with March 1995 shown below:
Then an aerial view from 2006 as shown below:
Then the current view:
The forest around this area is fairly sparse, with large open tracts of farmland and orchards with quite a few houses and other buildings spread throughout the area. Not an ideal place for a female Bigfoot to raise a young one with all the human activity and habitat in the area. The land where this event occurred was also a working orchard, among other commercial ventures that the landowners were involved in.
In my previous blog post about this footage, I noted that I made three clips out of the footage that showed the "figure" in the tree, out of the 2+ minutes of the footage, this was the times that showed the "figure". Those times are listed here for a refresher.
00:01:23 to 00:07:64
00:10:08 to 00:26:32
00:47:20 to 01:19:17
The footage was slowed down to 25% speed, and the magnification is set to 2.5x in the larger square viewer window.
The screen captures below are close ups and concentrate on a short section of the video in which the subject swings back and forth between a branch and the tree trunk. Upon viewing the video in slow motion and one frame at a time, it becomes apparent that the figure is grasping the branch and the tree trunk with it's feet. Take a few minutes to preview the pictures below:
As Steve Kulls has pointed out, New York state has laws constricting private ownership of most exotic animals, including chimpanzees. However, as with most laws, there are lots of people out there who violate those laws and this can be confirmed to be the case in New York simply by searching Google for the news stories of people being caught with animals.
I bring this up for a reason, the figure in the tree is clearly grasping the branch with it's feet, before swinging back to the tree trunk and clutching it with it's feet. If this is a baby bigfoot, it's feet would more resemble this below:Based on what we speculate about Bigfoot feet, they do not have the ability to grasp things the way monkeys and chimpanzees are able to with their feet as shown below:The claims that this is a baby "bigfoot" is not supported by the evidence presented by the analysis of the footage, it does support that this is a monkey or small chimpanzee as it swings more in common with one of those types of animals than what is known about bigfoot.Jim Whitehead, MABRC Oklahoma State Director, and biologist noted that it could also be an Eastern Hoolock Gibbon, or similar type animal as shown in the YouTube video below:With all due respect to my colleague Steve Kulls, this is not a baby bigfoot and I do believe that all who were associated with the initial investigation went into the investigation with confirmation bias that this was indeed a Bigfoot. I am the first to admit, that when I got into Bigfooting back in 1991, I suffered from having confirmation bias as a beginner, but once I seasoned up and was shown the right way to investigate by the old timers with a skeptical view of the evidence and allow the evidence to produce the results. While some may shout that I am skeptical of Bigfoot evidence overall, I am searching for the answers and if I have to debunk some of the long-standing evidence that others have presented in order to bring forward the evidence that is truthfully presenting a Bigfoot.
The Mid-America Bigfoot Research Center was honored by a request from Osiyo TV, the Cherokee Nation of Oklahoma's video production company to put together a piece on Searching for Bigfoot in the Cherokee Nation Tribal areas, many of our Oklahoma members are members of many of the tribes here and this is the result. We are proud of the way the producer and crew made the episode with a serious note to it, and not like many of the production companies make us look like these days.
By D.W. "Darkwing" Lee, Executive Director, MABRCNot in my official capacity as the Executive Director of the Mid-America Bigfoot Research Center, but on my own accord, I decided to check further into the "famous" or "infamous" New York Baby "Bigfoot" footage that has been around since about 2004/2005. In this footage, what appears to be something swinging in the background behind some festival goers has been repeatedly claimed to be a juvenile Bigfoot swinging in the trees. What is it really? We will never really know for sure, but with the advances of technology, we can delve into the footage and see more than was previously viewable in the past.
What made me decide to look into this was a post made on the Bigfoot Field Guide episode that showed the New York Baby "Bigfoot" footage. Which can be viewed here:What did the post say? Here is a screen capture of the post.There is a lot of debate about whether it's a small flag tied to the antenna, but I decided it was worth looking at the footage to see if there was any credibility to that statement.Just some quick background information from Steve "Squatchdetective" Kulls website about the investigation he conducted into the footage. I highly recommend checking out Steve's site for not only this footage, but a lot of other investigations he has conducted. Squatchdetective WebsiteI will give just a quick rundown of the information here.The Event
On May 23rd, 1997, Doug Pridgen and his wife were camping at Lembo Lake Campground, located in Modena, New York, in the heart of New York's apple country.
A music festival was occurring at the campground and pets were not permitted at the campground, due to insurance reasons, which property owner Mike Lembo confirmed.
A couple, in which tent was visible in the film, was working the festival and had asked Pridgen and company to keep an eye on their tent while they were across the lake working the festival that evening.
What followed was a video clip of about a minute and a half, carrying a 45 second glimpse into a strange occurrence in the background. It should be noted the subjects intended to be shot in the film were not the strange bi-ped and climber shot in the background. Nothing was observed by Doug and his crew.The Investigation
The film was shot with an Video 8 Sony Handycam, model number TR64, shot in NTSC format, on May 23rd, 1997 at approximately 7:30 - 7:45 PM EST, in Modena, NY, specifically at the Lembo Lake Campground.
Weather information was compared to both the videographer's account and as indicated on the video and was accurate. The property owner Mike Lembo was contacted and confirmed the information per not allowing pets was accurate, and it was. Nearest game farms and zoo's were contacted and none reported loosing any primates in that time period, and newspaper articles were searched for any plausible explanations and none were found.
The campground, unfortunately had since been turned into an ATV park, now called "ATV Park New York," and the original campground terrain is nothing as it had been in 1997, many trees being removed and original trails bulldozed.
Immediately behind the area is a large apple orchard and the area is ripe with farms and orchards, and is immediately adjacent Plattekill, NY, an extremely rural community.
Upon initial examination of the VHS tape, videographer had supplied me with, which was eventually sent off to the parent organization I belonged to at the time, it was discovered that there were actually two unsubs in the film. One larger and on the ground, and one which appeared to start, either being carried by the larger one, or on its back.
The larger unsub walks from right to left in the video, and appears to stop and move back to right to the point of where the small unsub had begun to climb the tree. The larger unsub then walks away from the focal point of the camera and out of sight. The smaller unsub, climbs the tree in under ten seconds, appears to swing twice between the two trees and the begins to hang off a tree. The height estimate from the ground, of the creature in the tree ranges from about 25 feet to about 20 feet depending on which part of the film is being explored.
I had the VHS tape converted to a DVD and the VHS was sent off to my parent organization at that time. (BFRO), but retained the DVD, which made video capture and analysis easier.
Throughout the years the videographer's story has remained consistent and concise and no deception has been indicated.The videographer even sent Steve a drawn out layout of how the camp and trees were situated.So what did I do to analyze the footage?First I obtained a 1st Generation copy of the footage from it's conversion from videotape to DVD from Steve Kulls. I converted this into HD avi format and ran a deshaking program on it, as shown below:I then used software that is used by world class athletes to examine their motions by being able to slow down the video and by magnifying certain parts of the video so that a trainer is able to view anything that may be unhealthy or that needs to be worked on.Doing this, we discovered that out of the entire 2 minute and 12 second video, that there were only three short periods of time that the tree and figure were viewable, so we selected only those time frames for the analysis.Times:Minutes:Seconds:Milliseconds00:01:23 to 00:07:6400:10:08 to 00:26:3200:47:20 to 01:19:17
The footage was slowed down to 25% speed, and the magnification is set to 2.5x in the larger square viewer window.The first video (00:01:23 to 00:07:64 ) is posted here:The second video (00:10:08 to 00:26:32) is posted here:The third and final video (00:47:20 to 01:19:17) is posted here:So what did the analysis reveal to me? I will reveal that in the next post here on the Bigfoot Field Guide Blog, so stay tuned. (Also because it's 2 a.m. in the morning and I'm exhausted, so another blog post will be made.)
While doing research, in particular, photo analysis, the importance of using an EXIF viewer on the photos is very critical, in that it reveals a lot of information that the researcher can use in that analysis. The following slides are from the MABRC Training Facility and is used to train MABRC Researchers in this very important aspect of research. ALWAYS!! use an EXIF viewer to look at the details on a photo, don't never take anything at face value, no matter who it is that provides you with a photo.
Download EXIF Reader here
Written by Randy "Rebelistic" Savig, MABRC Missouri State DirectorYou know I wish I had a dime for every time I’ve heard this sentiment. When it comes to bigfoot the public and wanna believers seem to only want the great videos, pictures and audio. They want the Oohhs and aahhs so they can say they now know bigfoot is real. Details don’t matter as long as it is cool! So here goes a couple of questions, does this help research or get us closer to proving the existence of an undocumented species? Is it only the cool stuff that matters?
With humans being so used to be entertained by all the available media out there it is hard to suffice the appetite for being entertained. Sadly, real research seldom sees the cool stuff when they go out. There are the hours in the woods. There are the hours of review. There are hours of planning. There are the hours of try to put patterns together to make the time in the woods more productive. On and on it goes. Another sad fact is that what is cool to researchers ain’t always what is cool to the public. You bet we love to hear and record the screams etc., see the possible structures or manipulations, or get lucky enough to catch something on video or thermal.
Yes, we also appreciate the pat on the back when we do catch something from the public and other researchers. Unfortunately for a lot of folks the Oohhs and Aahhs become addictive. I think that is why there is such a hoaxing problem that we see every day on Facebook and Youtube. It would seem like once you put something out there that is cool and possibly bigfoot related the public’s appetite just gets bigger. At times it seems that they get demanding and what more from you. Any researcher worth their salt know that we spend a whole lot more time without the so-called cool stuff happening. We still do the planning, head to the woods, review what we have recorded, try and figure out things. But we don’t get the Oohhs and Aahhs from that. I’ve seen so many get into the trap of letting the notoriety get in the way and try and force things to happen. If that fails, try and hype up the stuff that does happen just because they feel an obligation to fulfill the public’s appetite for so something cool. I’ve seen scary bigfoot pictures added to audio, scary background music during talks about experiences, all in hopes of feeding the public’s hunger. Sorry folks, that doesn’t do much but muddy the waters and takes away from the research. All those scary pictures and music won’t help find the evidence needed to prove the existence of bigfoot.
Now don’t get me wrong, I realize that folks are interested in bigfoot. When putting presentation on for conferences and radio shows we need to share the cool stuff we get as that is what folks want when attending them. Just don’t let the cool stuff be all that you are after. The data is in the details. The little stuff. I can’t even begin to state the importance of how sharing the little stuff around campfires has made new ideas and filled in the blank to help others in researching their areas.
So, one final thought. As a researcher is your priority to the insatiable hunger of the public or to adding to the possible evidence to further push the existence for an undocumented species, we call bigfoot.
An article written by Randy "Rebelistic" Savig, MABRC Missouri State DirectorThis is one of those things that at face value seems to be accepted as a typical Bigfoot activity by most field researchers. Why? Where did it come from? The history of wood knock reports go back generations forBigfoot researchers. There has been written accounts in newspaper, even some reports that have been collected. Some of those can be see in the MABRC forums.So, if this is an activity of bigfoot, why is it done? Hunting? During the day that would make sense. I could see knocking on a tree to scare a small critter to a smaller tree in hopes of shaking it out of the smaller tree. But what about at night? I can’t see that being viable. Could we be missing something? We know other primates do this type of thing, why is at this time not been answered, but they do. We still don’t know if the knock that we hear is wood on wood, rock on wood, or another mechanism all together. Is it possible that it is a hand clap? Maybe chest slap? The reality is that we just don’t know. One thing is clear. We hear knocks in areas of bigfoot sightings areas, associated with tracks and possible manipulations to nature so we can’t discount it.The sad fact is I had pretty much quit clipping knocks out during audio review because a knock is just a knock, right? I would log it in the review file, but it wasn’t a cool sound so why bother?In this article I would like to present what I have found while working with audio that may shed some interesting insight to the topic. I’ve regularly recorded what we call knocks in many of the areas that member of the MABRC has been researching for years as well as my primary research area. This article is by no means proofof anything, just what I have been able to come up with using audio analysis in the same way I do when identifying known and unknown vocalizations that have been recorded. Every sound whether natural, known, or unknown have a signature that can be seen on a spectrogram. They all have certain profiles, tones, how they start and end that can help identify what the sound is. Nature allows variables in the sounds as no critter is the same. However, the structure or signature will still follow patterns of the known sounds.One of the more interesting things about knocks is that they have different tones to the knock. You may say “duh” but let me explain what I mean. In doing the Silent Hills Project it was realized that the sound of the knock comes from the object that we do the knock with not the sound of the tree. The axe handle we used didn’t change tones when we hit on three different trees. The only change was the volume, NOT the tone of the knock. Some were softer, some were louder depending on the softness of the bark or the strength behind the knock. However, if the handle was held closer to the middle of the axe handle the tone would change. With that being said, the number of knocks that are reported verses the number of sightings report that are only a small handful that ever say things like carrying a stick or club. Now if a stick was used to make the sound, you would expect a lot more reports than what is there. Even the sightings reports that talk “as it disappeared into the woods we heard a knock” sort of thing none of those talk about a club being carried during the sighting. That brought me to the thought that they could maybe pick up a stick to hit with. It didn’t take long to realize the problem with that. It is a lot more difficult to walk through the woods, pick up a stick of any size to use as a knocking stick. The majority of what is on the ground and rotted to make it useless for more than a pale knock as it breaks. Nature just claims things back too fast.For several years I have suspected that for the most part knocks were a way of locating other when they were foraging through an area. The reason for that was based on drop box recordings where you could hear faint knocks that got louder then soft again. It was like something came up and passed the recorder and continued until it got too distant to record. These knocks were not evenly spaced or even the same volume, but it always came together. Like one knock and a reply a few seconds later almost as one was answering the first one. It wasn’t until the Silent Hills Project that it hit me that the tones of the knocks would be the same if it was one knocker was doing the knocking. When I did a spectrogram analysis of the knocks, I was taken aback when it should that there were two different tones to the knock. Those two tones of the individual knockers didn’t change. Whether close or far, the tones didn’t vary. It was easy to see the difference in the frequency (hertz) each knock. Using that information, we started what we called knock - knock games to try and lure them in. We have had some interesting results. Other researchers have over the years had results also by returning knocks and getting responses back. Here are some links to what we recorded.
Now if you paid attention to the dates on the three clips you will notice that there were two close together and one a lot later. The third was recorded in a new listening post we just started to use and a seldom in that area. If you watch how they evolved, you’ll notice that the knock – knock game changed after the first one. It was almost like they learned our knock’s tone. They seemed to be able to challenge us to see if it was one of them or us. I understand that it is to a lot for folks a big pill to swallow. I know it was and is for me also. When I brought it up to some of the MABRC members a couple years ago needless to say I got mixed opinions. One piece of advice they all basically had was collect the data and follow the evidence.
Because of the lack of sightings where them carrying clubs or stick, it made me highly suspicious that it was actually wood on wood sounds we were hearing. Even a rock on wood would not be sensible as there isNO reports of any carrying rocks from what I have read. I also can not find reports of other primates that carry rock with them as they travel from place to place. Yes, chimps have been known to pick up rocks and strike a tree for an undetermined reason but the drops it as it leaves. It is also a rare situation for other primates but knocking sounds seems to be fairly prevalent with Bigfoot.
All primates have an ability to make a knock like type sound with their bodies. Chest slap, and clapping are the two. To my knowledge only the gorilla uses its chest. But all do clap their hands. Could that be what is happening that we think is knocking? With the quick response to our knocks like is recorded it would seem highly unlikely that they could be that quick if they had to swing a stick. Then you add the rapid one that we caught, it is not possible for us to knock nearly that fast using our ax handle. Then add the two tones ones and that is impossible using a stick or handle.
During the Thumperville Expedition with the Western MABRC Team last fall I had them help me collect more data by trying hand claps and knocks from different trees and distances. We did a simplified version of the of the Silent Hill Project so the folks in attendance could experience the results of the experiment. Here is the baseline knocks for each person there.
With all the participants using the same ax handle as was used in the Silent Hills Project you can hear they are all a little different. Hand placement, hand grip used, and even the size of the person using it made a difference.
In the first field round, we had adults and a young teen doing the knocks. With the recorded audio it was easy to hear which person was doing the knocking even though they could not be seen. Each had distinct difference in the tones of the knocking stick and could easily be identified with who it was. They all used the same knocking stick on the same trees as they went further and further from the recorder. Even with the volume decrease as the space widened, the signatures on the spectrogram stayed mostly consistent with each person. Here’s the results of the knocking as they moved away from the recorder. During this portion of the experiment I also had them do a long vocal as a way of showing how the howl/whoop compared to a knock as far as how the different sounds travel.Again, notice the different tones each person knocking produces using the same knocking stick. Even without seeing who was doing the knocking if it was compared to the baseline knocks you could pretty much figure out who it was that was doing the knocking.
We did not do a hand clap during the experiment but with the significant difference with the initial baseline of the experiment it was truly remarkable the sounds of the individual claps among the whole group. Here are the results of the clapping.It is easy to hear the difference between each participant’s clap. Big hands, small hands, soft and rough all had a different tone. Now I know that our clapping sounds don’t travel as far as the ax handle. But with the individual clapper’s tones being so different and distinct, it would make one question if a stronger species with apparent bigger and stronger hands could it travel further if not the same as us swinging an axe handle? If in fact they do clap to make the sound we call a knock, could their clap be as distinct as ours?
We recently had a night out in our primary research area where we recorded knocks that happened on and off for 3 hours. No, they were not consistent but in total there were over 50 knocks on the camp recorder alone. This has been recorded several times in this location and I suspect it is used as location during foraging behavior. However, there hasn’t been this may in such a short period of time before. Maybe they were out of sight from each other but not out of sound range? With some knocks having the same tones that were recorded before my arrival back at camp and may have been done to alert others of people presence. This was a recording from the camp recorder using the Zoom H2n which have less distortion than my other recorders. However, you will also hear some camp noise being fire snaps or other man-made audio. This was a quick cleanup to eliminate as much audio between knocks a possible.With the knocks being close to one after another it is easy to hear the different tones of the different knock. While listening and observing the signatures on the spectrogram it would appear like there is 3 possibly 4 different tones of the ones the recorder picked up. I highly suspect as with what the Thumperville Experiment shows, that this is more than one critter producing the knock.
So, what does this all mean? I’m not sure, but it does seem to point to that each Bigfoot may have a unique tone to their knocks however they are making them. Could we use this as a way of counting how many individuals are in the area at a given time? Could we use their distinct tones as a way of identifying certain individuals? Maybe even track them year to year? All these questions need to be answered by the bigfoot community if we want to solve the mystery. Hopefully others will also look at this and see if they can collaborate what I have found. The answer is in the woods. Let’s see if we can start putting the puzzle together using a more thorough analysis of the possible evidence.
As always, the reporter left a few of my words out, but overall, a pretty good article in my humble opinion.
The MABRC would like to thank Don Lee for the help in recovering all the episodes of the Bigfoot Field Guide Radio Show, I have uploaded them to the Talkshoe page and also to the Google Drive folderwhere people can now access them. Let's give a big whoop to Don for his help, we couldn't have recovered the shows without his help.
The Bigfoot Field Guide Radio Show archives were lost when Talkshoe did an upgrade on their system, however, I have been able to recover the first 23 episodes from my extensive data storage and have placed them here at the following link for now for those who wish to relisten to the old shows.
Written by Randy "Rebelistic" Savig, MABRC Missouri State Director
I’ve become fascinated with the Bigfoot TV shows and all the Facebook groups make it looks so easy so I’m going to start my own group! I’ve got a perfect location and I’m sure nobody is doing it there or it would be on Facebook right? And I’ve got a ton of ideas that I’ve came up with! I’m so excited to get into the woods and find their signs, collect audio, and most likely get one on video or a picture. Wow this is going to be cool!!
If I had a dime for every time I’ve seen or heard this, I’d be able to buy a ton of equipment to take into the woods. I think Bigfoot research has become what ghost hunting has. Let me explain a bit. If you just watch the TV stuff and think it is really what happens out there you need to reconsider your thoughts. Folks, this is for entertainment. PERIOD! Not every spooky looking house in the world is haunted by evil ghosts or demons. The ghost hunting shows made it look so easy that everyone wanted to try it. You could go on the internet and buy all types of fancy ghost hunting equipment to guarantee you’d find a ghost. And when folks went out there, they showed them with a camera filming themselves running out of a house screaming because the old floor creaked which they knew was a demon or evil ghost coming to inflict all sorts of ills upon them, just like they do on TV. Tons and tons of natural things became ghosts because well, it had to be. I mean they were out ghost hunting, right? Video and camera artifacts automatically became normal things posted as true and real ghosts. Every sound recorded was a ghost saying this or that. People wanted it so bad that they actually went out of their way to hear things in what was actually natural sounds or recording artifacts. So, what has happened? Something that I feel should be truly researched and documented and could have some real discoveries won’t be taken serious by science because of all the garbage out there.
So now that very few people think ghost are real and science won’t even look at the actual evidence of potential ghostly activities, it has pretty much fallen to the side of being a joke. All the serious researchers and even scientists that were involved in long time research have seemed to disappear. Some of the places that did have what appeared to be legitimate haunting activities have closed access because of all the negative experiences they have had from all these “groups of real ghost hunters” that came in. Some were even destroyed just to avoid the harassment and trespass that was going on. All that potential evidence gone forever.
Sadly, this appears where Bigfoot research is going if not already there. It seems like everyday we see or hear of a “new” bigfoot group that has all these “new” ideas and all these fuzzy, grainy pictures and shaky videos of the”real” bigfoot that are out there. Auto focus and facial recognition stuff in cameras is great stuff ain’t it? When looking for faces you will find them even if they aren’t there. All the audio that is collected out there that just has to be bigfoot because this “new group” is out there looking for it, so it must be. And the sad fact is people who want to believe in Bigfoot ooh and ahh it as absolute proof and stroke the egos of these “new group’s new ideas” that work every time they hit the woods. And folks wonder why people are wanting to hoax things so that they can be an expert? They want the oohs and ahhs too. Folks that strive for attention can sure get it when saying bigfoot no matter how outlandish it is. We constantly see pictures repeat themselves over and over that is supposed to be taken yesterday by a buddy’s game cam of a real bigfoot. Whether it is the one who posted it that was hoaxing it or one of his buddies is trying to trick him, the results are the same. Arguments, hurt feeling, name calling, and it usually ends with something to the effect of if you were got out and looked you’d know. It’s a complete waste of research time. I think that a lot of folks that want to do honest research are driven away because of this sort of thing.
Now don’t get me wrong, we need people out there to help solve this mystery and I’m all for that. But like ghost hunting, folks are doing it without researching what is already out there. The invent of the internet has really been a double-edged sword. One side is it’s a great tool for learning what groups have done and using their experiences adding to the knowledge base. The other side is unfortunately where egos and popularity seem to be more important than anything else. Attention hungry people love to dazzle people with whatever they can pass off as real or get them the attention they seek. Facebook has not been beneficial to any type of mystery in my opinion. It’s only on Facebook where you can go from ghost, to bigfoot, to alien, to telepathic being, to interdimensional entity, to inner earth being, all in the same post by all who are self-professed experts in the situation. And the scary part is that they all have followers that will tear you to shreds if you dare ask how they came up with those conclusions. It’s really amusing of how the answer “I just know” seems to be acceptable in those cult-like situations. God help you if you dare question the Bigfoot gods of these groups! It seems real troubling to me that the search for what appears to be an undocumented animal has turned into a religion! WOW.
As far as these great “New” ideas that seem to recirculate with just a little research you can find out what results have been done in the past with them. One that was put out there again recently was the “Crying Baby” recording being played in the woods to attract a possible response. Yep. Its been done and definitely had results. The original poster had this thought that it may attract a female bigfoot through her maternal instincts. It sure could if one was in the area. However, with a little research you’ll also find out that the audio is very close to a fawn in distress, so it also could bring in predators looking for an easy meal. Bears, wolves, coyotes and even possible bigfoot could be drawn to your location so, IF you use it you had better be prepared for the outcome!
I recorded some vocalizations a few years back that I really think would draw them in, but I honestly am afraid to use it as it appears by the situation to be a territory dispute. I may be fairly gutsy out there, but I sure don’t want to challenge them to territory! So, as of yet we haven’t tried it.
Another recent “New” idea was walking with a camera mounted to see behind you. This gal went absolutely ballistic when she was told that it has and is being done as part of research. It was sad and comical all at the same time to see the responses on that post from folks. The ornery me wanted to post “yep, it was her New Idea that the captured interdimensional sasquatch we got last week was used to transport us into the future and steal that New Idea and transport back years ago and implement just so she couldn’t take credit for it!” I seriously fear that someone may have believed it as a fact! At the MABRC we have used for years the saying of thinking outside the box, but I think that has been taken as a challenge by some folks who don’t know what a box is.
So, if you aren’t into bigfoot to try and make a name for yourself, seek attention, or stroke your ego and just want to help try and prove the existence of an undocumented critter, what should you do? Join a group? If so what group? These can actually be easily answered. Do your research. How long has the group been around? What possible evidence have they shared? Are they close enough for you to easily participate? Do they have enough people to help with analyzing possible evidence you collect? What is the group’s goals in research? Don’t look for the perfect group because there are none. Each has folks with egos. Each has some members that don’t get along with members of other groups. Do they have info on their websites that shows what they do? What they have found? When you find one that seems to fit for you, humbly join it. My personal advice would also be to stay off Facebook unless you look at it the same way you do the TV shows, as entertainment! Don’t get me wrong there is some actual good information there, but you usually must wade through two tons of bull crap to find it and for me it is not worth my research time to do it.
What is wrong with a new group? Actually, nothing really, except that you’d be starting at ground zero just like every group out there did. Having the support and knowledge with a group of more seasoned researchers can be a huge asset to you. You can just get a quicker understanding of what seems to work best. You have other eyes and ears to help you understand what is what. Not every person can have a good understanding of possible tracks, tracking, possible structures, photo analysis, video analysis, audio analysis, etc., and so on. Another thing to consider. Is a group already actively researching the area your “new group” wants to research? The MABRC and APES holds a Fouke Expedition every year, that is one of those hot areas that a lot of folks want to research. It is one of the areas that anyone wants to experience where the Fouke Monster was as their curiosity of Bigfoot began from the famous movie. To keep from having contamination of the possibility of recording other researchers call blasts as possible evidence a lot needs to be done to try and assure it least likely to happen. Planning, research areas less travelled, being able to control access to the area of research all play part of making it a hopefully contamination free expedition.
Here’s a scenario that would be devastating to the bigfoot community. Let’s say two groups both want to research X river basin. Most likely it happens on a Friday or Saturday evening. Each set up on opposite sides of the river. Just over the bank and into the woods where neither can see the other. Both do some vocals and knocks. Each think that they are interacting with a possible bigfoot, but in reality, they are interacting with the other group. Both post it as a highly active weekend and what a great place they found. Did either hoax anything? Nope. Is any possible evidence collected over the weekend valid? Sadly, no unless the two groups can meet and compare all the evidence the other has and anything that isn’t the exact sounds as they both did could be bigfoot related. But what would most likely happen is both groups would bad mouth each other making a mockery out of the others and themselves. Tempers would flair and anyone in the scientific community that had a fleeting interest in either of the groups would run for the hills laughing at the amateurs now convinced that they are no bigfoot, just bigfooters making other bigfooters believe in bigfoot. I know it has happened before. A “New” group came into an area of another group and started the one up’em routine. Not only did bad mouthing and tempers flare, but deliberate misrepresenting possible evidence and even try in hoax the other so they could discredit the other group. And folks wonder why science doesn’t take Bigfoot research seriously. Why would they?
There are a lot of groups out there that have been there for a long time. New blood in older groups is a great thing. Different perspectives from new folks helps keep the old timers on their toes. More ears, eyes, boots and equipment on the ground can take a mediocre expedition with minimal possible evidence and make it excellent just by adding fresh ideas. If you want to ask an old timer why they think the way they do, you can ask, question, and even challenge their ideas. It really is acceptable to do that. If you want to be respected, remember, respect is a two-way street. You have an idea. Share it. New ideas are always wanted. New possible evidence is always wanted. But it is paramount to be willing to change your perspective and thoughts if the evidence is there. Even if it is different than what you were expecting. Just because I think I know something doesn’t make it fact. Fact is based on available evidence. And proving the existence of an undocumented animal doesn’t happen by what we know, it happens on what we can prove as fact. And the reality is that facts don’t care about feelings.
So you still want to start a “New” Bigfoot group?
BFG Note: Leroy was one of those individuals whose wild theories and beliefs about Bigfoot made a lot of folks shake their heads, but in the end, he was a member of the Bigfoot Community. The BFG Staff offers their condolences to his family and friends. Rest in Peace Leroy, you know the secret of Bigfoot now.From Loren Coleman: Bigfoot skeptic/debunker/conspiracy theorist Leroy Blevins Sr, born 1967, died Dec 1, 2018. Author of Bigfoot in the Holy Bible, Revenge of Bigfoot (fiction), and various nonfiction JFK nonfiction books.
Written by Randy "Rebelistic" Savig
MABRC Missouri State Director
That is a good question. A lot of folks think that we just collect sounds and vocals. That is true to an extent. But can it be an invaluable tool with a real benefit to a researcher? Yes, it can. When I first started this adventure, I had one recorder and took it out set it up outside camp in hopes I would hear something cool that night and it would be recorded. One thing folks must remember, the time we have available to go to the woods is limited. Jobs and family’s come first as they should. The chances of being in an area that they are on that night is pretty slim. So, then we review the audio and hear nothing but normal night sounds just like we did when we were out there. Most of us love the woods and being in them so there is never a bad night in the woods, but it still doesn’t help us to solve the mystery we are after.
When I got into this I was able to stomp the woods a lot more than I can now. I had the ability to go out and look for the common possible signs we all hear about and it helped with knowing where what was I thought was the best place to set up recorders. Unfortunately for me that was pretty short lived. At one time I was even thinking about getting out of field research and go back to being a computer researcher. The woods and collection of audio desire was just too strong, so I had to figure out how to use the equipment to do the woods stomping work for me. It dawned on me that I may only be able to go out and do a listening post once every couple weeks or at times once a month. What happens if you have 3 or 4 recorders stretched out a few miles apart? That way you couldhearwhat was going on in 4 places at a time when you do the audio review. The thrill of hearing the sounds that night in person doesn’t happen but it did one important thing. It gave you a date and location of where they were that night. Using this method makes it a lot easier to establish patterns of their movements throughout their territory. This can really be invaluable as once you get the pattern figured out you can set your listening post up where you will have a best chance of being there when they are. This takes a long time, even years if you are real limited on time to get out and collect audio. This in my opinion is how the best possible evidence is collected.So, then what? You’ve established a pattern and have a good idea where they may be there and when. Now is when things can get interesting. You move all your audio equipment into that area. Set up 3-4 recorders within a couple of miles at the most from each other and record. This will help you zoom into the areas that are closest to them. Adjust listening posts to where the suspected audio as close as you can. From experience they are usually in the areas that are hardest to access without walking in a lot or even to other private property that you don’t have permission to be on. The game isn’t over if that happens. Researchers have for years used different methods to try and lure them closer to where they are instead of going where they are. Curiosity does seem to be their downfall, or they wouldn’t be spotted close to camps. Scents and sounds seem to do the trick. Cooking at camp, using spray deodorizers, scented candles, even flashing lights have had success in drawing them in. Of course, sounds can also peak their curiosity. We’ve all seen that on TV where they howl and knock waiting on a hopeful return. Just remember the data from the Silent Hills Project, sound doesn’t travel as far as one thinks it does.One other method I use frequently is with the use of parabolics. There are two areas where I can’t physically get to and set up drop boxes. I can however get on 2 and at times 3 sides of that area and let the parabolics get me closer. With parabolics being directional as well as good amplifiers you can get a lot more distance than with open mics, kind of like being there. This is where knowing your equipment’s abilities and limitations come into play. I can not over state, know your equipment! One important thing about using both drop boxes and parabolics is that they are passive. I feel that they can collect audio that is more natural for the critters whether it’s a known or unknown critter. Every animal acts difference in the presence of people. In my opinion this is how the neatest vocals are collected and a way of trying to understand behavior is done. There is quite a difference of how they wander through the woods naturally than when they are around camp. From my experience they really don’t try and be quiet when wandering through an area verses when approaching or avoiding camps during our research outings. Another huge benefit of using this method is that when you have 2 or more recorders aimed to an area from different directions it is much easier to hear and see the difference in the spectrogram of the sounds and vocals. It is a lot easier to know what environmental distortion is. It sure does help in identifying known and what could be possible bigfoot sounds and vocalization.I have one ridge in my research area I call Pine Ridge. Here is a few of links to the audio collected from there.
I have pretty much determined that this is a normal area of either travel or possibly where they stay in the area. I came to this determination using audio. Let me explain. I’ve set up my big parabolic on the ridge to the east of that area pointing west. Several times I have gotten some interesting audio collected like the ones above when I set up this way. The trouble is there are two ridges within a mile and a half from the parabolic so, which one is the sounds coming from? What I do to try and narrow it down? I set up my largest parabolic pointing the usual west direction in my normal spot for it. In each of the 2 hollers that are on either side of the ridge, I set up smaller parabolics as close to the bottom as I could, pointing north. After doing this set up about a dozen times over the course of about 6 months I had results. From the audio collected it appears that they came in from the southwest side of the western most holler and onto Pine Ridge. Again, this was only found out after the audio review a week or so when I reviewed that recorder. I collected the recorders the following morning after that was recorded and there was nothing recorded that would indicate that they left the area that night. So I suspect that at least that night they stayed on that ridge. It can be real amazing of how sounds go over the hollers when recorders are near the bottom verses when they are put on ridge tops.I think any of us that have a love for the woods and wilds would much rather be out stomping and exploring. I know that I’m that way. But when that isn’t an option, audio can get you there if you let the equipment do the work. There is a real thrill for me when I review audio and find out that woods came alive with activity whether I was in that exact location or not. Hands down, I’ve recorded most of the interesting audio when I wasn’t there by using these methods than I have from a camp recorder. Just the man hours needed to be in 3 or 4 spots at the same time to learn patterns would make it nearly impossible to gain the knowledge one can get from remote audio set ups in the woods when nature can do as nature does. Sure videos, thermal, and personal experiences are the ultimate thrill when doing this. But audio does play a crucial role in research if we use it. Many group expeditions have used the audio to help determine where the hotspots are, and that data is used in the following expeditions of the area with some noticeable results.
By Randy "Rebelistic" SavigI’m not saying this is the only way to do it, but this is what I did and still do. First is to go into the woods both day and night with your new recorder and find a comfortable tree to sit at and listen. I found out that it takes about 30 minutes of sitting quiet for the woods to come back alive. It is truly amazing to me of how the woods goes quiet when a person enters and walks through. Just sit there with the recorder on. No looking around. Don’t play on your phone. Just sit, not moving, even close your eyes so you can focus on listening and wait for the woods to come back to normal sounds. Use the audio as a baseline of what normal woods sounds. I’ve always been one that I spent a lot of time in the woods throughout the years and thought I knew what the woods sounded like. I was wrong. It doesn’t hurt to do this several times as the sounds do change with the seasons.
One really important thing to remember is our ears can play tricks on us just as our eyes do. There hasn’t been a time where I have been in the woods where I had a camp recorder running and heard what I thought was one thing just to do the review it is apparent that it was something else. That is one reason that using a camp recorder has such value. Not only can you use it to verify what you are hearing at camp such as movement around camp, but it keeps you grounded because it also disproves what you thought it was. Using a camp recorder also gives a way of adding possible evidence to any experiences you have at camp. The first one that helped give more than just a story was a rock throwing incident that happened a few years back. Without a recorder at camp this would been nothing than a cool story and personal experience.
I was lucky enough to have a great mentor when I chose to deal with audio. I was told by MedicDon that the most important things in audio collection.
1. Know your equipment.
2.Use an easy and good audio editing program to review your collected audio.
3.Always, ALWAYS verify with known sounds of nature and known animals.
4.When in doubt… Throw it out!
Even though these topics could make a long post in their own right, I’d like to touch a little on each of these points.
There are numerous choices of audio recording equipment out there for people to choose from. Some like a specific brand for specific reasons. I have my favorite brands, but it is a personal preference and not what this is about. No matter what brand you choose you need to learn the advantages and the limitations of the unit. Not all recorder mics are the same. If you decide to use external mics, they can really vary, some are mono, stereo, cardioid, powered, etc. Each have their own qualities and limitations. Then you add parabolics to it then things even get more complicated.
When I finally decided to build my first parabolic it was a 12” “salad bowl” mic. No, they are not a true parabolic, but it still does give a lot of directional control amplifying sounds from a certain direction giving adding to the distance of the mics collection. The way I compared the parabolic to the open external mic recorder was to set them up together. I hung the drop box external mic set up at the bottom of the parabolic and let them record for a night together. During the audio review it was easy to see the difference in the spectrogram as far as volume, signature, and contamination levels. At this point I usually quit using a parabolic in the summer as yes, it is better for hearing further distances, it also amplifies every tree frog and bug in the forest.
One critical thing in using parabolics is what I call an echo effect. If the sound comes from the side or rear of the dish it does distort the audio giving what at times sounds like an echo. When I first ran into that I didn’t know what was causing it and that it was an artifact of recording with a parabolic. When I suspected it had to do with the dish as the mic didn’t do it when it wasn’t in the dish I did a little experiment. I set up the parabolic in my yard went out about 150’ from the mic and even though it may sound crazy, I made the same sounds as I walked around the mic. Now if I had a neighbor see me they would have known I was nuts! To try and keep the tones, volume, and to take out any variances, I walked around singing “Row, row, row your boat”! It may sound funny or stupid, but it was an eye opener for me. This is what I’ve been willing to do to get to know my equipment. Any new additions to your equipment I would highly suggest doing this kind of thing to learn your new equipment.
Each of my recorder setups whether drop box with external stereo mics, to drop box with powered external mic, to 12” parabolic, 36” parabolic, to the H2n. Each record different and has benefits depending what you are trying to accomplish using your audio.
My second point is being able to use editing software for audio review. Why is that important? The plain fact is our ears do play tricks on us. If you are in the woods trying to record possible Bigfoot vocalizations, guess what? You can easily interpret things wrong. We can’t help it, it happens to all of us. Personally, I use Audacity. Primarily because it is a free download and easy to use. There is a quite a learning curve to learn it but once you do the filters and other parts of the program help immensely especially the spectrogram. Each vocalization and sound has a signature. Each has consistent way that the sound and form that does not change. When using the spectrogram during reviewing new audio makes it easier to identify known sounds and vocals.
When first using the spectrogram, I used the gray scale as made it easier to see the signatures and learn to read the spectrogram. After getting used to seeing the signatures I switched full color scale as it is easier to see how the signature is formed as well as volume changes in the vocalization as it is being formed. It is easy to see if vocalizations are possibly moving. Once you get to where you identify signatures of known animal vocalizations even when there is distortion do to echoes or ambient contamination, it saves time in running filters of what would otherwise be unidentified by hearing it only. When reviewing hundreds of hours of audio a year, time does make a difference. Audacity also makes it easier to clip out possible Bigfoot vocals to either clean up and post or to save in a file for future comparison. In science repeatability of possible vocals can add a lot of weight to prove that it was not just some anomalous vocal cause by distortion of the audio.
The third point is probably the most time consuming especially when you first start. Where do you find verifiable recordings of known animals? YouTube? Other researchers? Those are better than nothing, but many times I have listened to stuff from YouTube where the author of the video says it’s a bobcat and it is a fox. Us researchers are also at fault in doing this if we haven’t done our due diligence. Just because it sounds weird doesn’t make it a bigfoot because you were out looking for one. More arguments and bitch sessions have started because of that than you can shake a stick at.
The places I use the most is college sites, animal research centers and zoos. Yes, a lot of them are on YouTube but you must stay with reputable sites. What I have done is make a file with the known sounds and spectrograms to use as a quick reference that I look at during audio review if I have any doubt of a sound or vocalization. To collect comparison audio I keep it simple. I have often plugged into the headphone jack on the computer into the mic of the recorder and recorded whatever vocal I am wanting to collect and send that file to Audacity. Once on Audacity I can either take a screen shot of it or make a short video screen capture so that I always have the audio and spectrogram together. I store all these in a file for easy access.
That works great for animal vocalizations in the woods but what about the other sounds that we hear in the woods that could be attributed to possible Bigfoot? Footfalls, rock clacks, knocks, movement in the leaf litter are all things that we hear in the woods and are so easy to misidentify. One amazing audio clip I heard shortly after joining the MABRC was one that TEXLA http://www.texlaresearch.com/ collected. It was of a possible Bigfoot coming up to a recorder and licking it where the entering bipedal footfalls, the licking sound, coughs, and the exit was all recorded. They had put peanut butter on the recorder as a draw and this time it had results. You can check it out here. http://www.texlaresearch.com/coughing_sequence_5-4-08.mp3
This is one of those real grey areas in audio collection that can easily make us post this as evidence without doing the proper home work to insure it isn’t a known critter. So, I hear movement in the leaf litter what now? First you must try and figure out if it is four-legged or two. Deer can even sound bipedal if they step in their own tracks. What I did was head out to the woods and set up a recorder and went for a walk around the recorder. I also made the effort to record walking from about 100’ from the recorder, passing by the recorder, and another 100’ past it again to see what the limits of the recording distance of my footfalls could be heard. The fall is the best time to do this as the leaf litter is fresh and easiest to hear. What I do when I hear what I think is bipedal walking is listen to it several times and try to listen to the ground. Sound weird? You’d be surprised at how many times you can hear rocks hitting hard hooves. There is also how you can hear the size of the foot by the sound it makes in the leaf litter. The bigger foot the more leaves are crunched in each step. There can be other subtle clues also that can be heard if you take the time to really listen.
I also did that with knocks and rock clacks to get a baseline of the structure or signature of the sounds. This is how the whole Silent Hills Project started. Different types of sounds travel different distances. When dealing with skeptics, being able to provide a baseline with known sounds goes a long way towards ending unnecessary arguments. I can’t count the number of times I have heard the line “I know it was this or that because I hear it all the time”. Again, our ears do play tricks on us. Arguing doesn’t make a stronger case for us. Evidence does. Having a file of baseline sounds keeps us grounded which brings me to the next point.
The fourth and final point of this post is when in doubt, throw it out! There is no bigger hit to your credibility and the Bigfoot Community than posting possible bigfoot audio evidence that is easily dismissed because it’s a known critter or sound that could have been prevented by you doing your due diligence. The only thing that will make it worse is if you argue it without some baseline evidence. The sad truth of the matter is you can post 100 good things and 1 bad and folks will only remember the one. That just seems to be the way it works.
One thing that I do want to point out is that I never actually throw out anything when it comes to audio. I have kept all the raw data that I have recorded since day one. If at any time someone wants to hear the context surrounding any possible audio clip I have the data for verification or authentication. If I have a doubt on a sound or vocal I clip it and put it into an “Unknown File”. If that sound or vocal repeats or is recorded clearer at a time in the future I have it there for comparison. One such occurrence that I had with this is early in my research I recorded what I thought was something handling my drop box. However, there was no footfalls and virtually no sounds before or after it. Even though I was super excited and wanted it to be my TEXLA moment, it wasn’t. I kept the clipped file and hoped for another that would back it up. Low and behold, a few weeks later it was recoded again. But this time there was definite wings buzzing before and after the recording. It was a bug crawling on the external mic. Luckily at that time I was pretty computer illiterate, so I never posted that as possible Bigfoot playing with my recorder. Lesson learned. When we are trying to help scientifically prove the existence of Bigfoot it is vastly important to be able to back up our evidence and show repeatability. That can not be done if we don’t do our homework.
Every so often on Facebook or on one of the few Bigfoot message boards still active, someone jumps up with what they claim is an original idea of their own to try in Bigfoot research. And every time, I have to shake my head, as the idea they come up with, has been tried by those in Bigfoot research before them. They either have seen the idea posted somewhere before, and try to pass it off as their own, or they just don't do any research to see if their idea has been tried before.
The latest "Great new idea" that is making the rounds, is to play a crying baby while researching. I've seen this appear on several Bigfoot Facebook groups, and some people were upset when it was noted that the MABRC had used the crying baby sounds back in 2007 onward.
Here is the excerpt from my book, Bigfoot Field Guide - Shadows in the night, available on Amazon (Kindle Version here) (Paperback Version here)
"Arriving on site, we put all the windows down and began playing the cd at a high volume. It was nearly pitch black with the full moon beginning to rise behind us. After about 10 minutes in of playing the crying baby audio, on the ridge line up the slope from us, we heard a vocalization, more like a roar. It’s nearly a ¼ mile from the ridge line to the road, and we listened to something big coming crashing down the slope towards us.
I continued letting it play the audio, No Mercy kept asking me if it was time to turn it off, as we could hear the crashing over the crying. Finally the maker of all that crashing noise popped out on the road about 75 feet ahead of the vehicle. It was the white Bigfoot, and he stood on the road looking at the vehicle. I reached over and shut off the radio, the Bigfoot stood for several minutes looking at us still, before it turned and went back into the woods.
No Mercy sat in silence for a few minutes before he caught his composure and uttered some of his most famous words. “We ain’t playing the crying baby cd anymore.”"
This happened in 2006 on a personal level, but the next year in 2007, on the MABRC Memorial Day Expedition at Honobia, MABRC Junior Researcher Goose, along with myself and another researcher went out on a remote ridge line in an UTV at night, with no moon out. Using a call blaster, we played the crying baby cd for nearly 15 minutes, and had multiple responses from the other ridges to the north of our location. It was quite the experience.
We've used it on other occasions too, in remote camps inside tents and even in our camps, it will draw in predators looking for an easy meal, but it has brought in Bigfoot checking out to see if an infant was in trouble or abandoned. Whether the Bigfoot was looking for a free meal or what, we will never know since putting a real human infant at risk is unfathomable to attempt.
So what does all this mean D.W.? It means, before you jump up and proclaim that you have a new idea, you should do some research to make sure it hasn't been tried before, and that way, you won't get hammered for trying to lay credit for something that has been done before.
Can the MABRC claim this as their idea? No, we can't, because this was discussed on the old Bigfoot message boards back around 2001 to 2002, we were just one of the first to actually put it into practice and see the results.
Just do your research folks, it will prevent you major headaches in the future.
Without a doubt, the largest collection of information about Bigfoot used to be the website of Bobbie Short, Bigfoot Encounters, but since her passing, no site has come close to surpassing the amount of information about Bigfoot except the MABRC Forums.
While there will be those who disagree and even attack the MABRC for the content displayed there, the truth is, the Forums has been collecting articles, sighting reports and more from all over the Internet and placing it in one location, making it easier for folks to find the information they need.
The MABRC researchers even have their own research threads, where you can follow along on their research and what they have collected evidence-wise over the years.
Thirteen wings of library information is available, with each wing holding 300 different articles or other pertinent information about Bigfoot.
There is also the National Sightings Database, where we have combined nearly every online sighting report into an easy to search database using the Forums' search engine.
While guests are able to view a lot of information, joining as a forum member opens up more information for you to view. (Please note: Joining the MABRC forums does not mean you are a member of the MABRC organization, you are simply a forum member.)
So check it out now, by going to the following link: www.mabrc.com/forums
Over the years, I have noticed a lot of pictures where the witness claimed there was a light brown Bigfoot in the picture, and after further evaluation is was determined to be a burned out cedar. Now Cedar trees can turn brown from disease and from dying out, much like any other tree can turn brown on certain limbs and can cause someone to misidentify what they see as a Bigfoot. Here are some photos for comparison of what I mean.
In the early days of the Internet, there was no Facebook, Instagram or other social media sites, instead, the Bigfoot Community relied on message boards where we could communicate with each other, sharing ideas and working together. While a vast majority of them are now defunct, the MABRC (Mid-America Bigfoot Research Center) Forums have continued to exist since the very early 2000's. The newer people coming into the Bigfoot Community have no clue about the history that has been produced by these message boards and the amount of information that was contained in them.
Currently the MABRC Forums is the largest online repository of Bigfoot-related information in the world, with over 13 Library Wings containing articles, papers and more. The National Sightings Database contains sightings culled from the major Bigfoot Research Groups as well as those forums and websites that have become non-existent.
The role of the MABRC Forums is simple, to provide a safe bastion for the collective knowledge of the Bigfoot Community for new and old researchers alike. While the public side of the forums only shows a small percentage of what is contained inside the forums, by joining as a forum member, you can access all the information that is presented there.
Now please note, that by joining the MABRC Forums, this does not make you a MABRC Organizational Member, you are only a Forum Member. To become a MABRC Organizational Member, you need to go to the MABRC website and fill out the membership application and someone from the MABRC will contact you and interview you for membership.
You can also view the research threads of MABRC Researchers and Independent Researchers where they discuss their research and methods, and show the evidence collected.
With the MABRC Forums, you will find nearly everything you need to know about doing Bigfoot research and especially the history behind the community.
Shelley Read, Kerri Martin, Debi Jones, Lauren A. Smith, Randy Savig, Randy Edwards, Mike Hartsell, James McFadin, D.W. Lee and many others attended the MABRC 2018 Memorial Day Expedition in Oklahoma. This video shares some of our goals and strategies along with helpful research tips and a little bit of evidence that has already been analyzed. Enjoy!
By Jim "Biggjimm" Whitehead, MABRC Western Oklahoma State Director
I took the liberty to plot locations of Crybaby bridges in Oklahoma. I thought it would be interesting to demonstrate why I came to the conclusion they are related to the bigfoot phenomenon. If you look at the red dots (crybaby bridges) many of them are very close on the same creek systems. If they were really haunted then you wouldn't expect that pattern. You would have one or two single haunted bridges. Instead you have a lot of them, giving the impression that something is MOVING up and down the waterways. Also ,skeptics will state that the stories are simply urban folklore. However, many of the reports at these bridges predate the internet. Unless the original stories were widely circulated via television, newspapers, and books, you shouldn't expect the people across the country to report the same things being heard. I can't actually find very many cases of the stories being spread prior to the internet, so the idea that it is all copycat folklore isn't really all that strong.
What exactly are they reporting? Well here is a list of common reported experiences: Dark figures moving in the woods along the creeks and crossing the roads, woman-like screams, rocks being thrown, crying baby noises under the bridges, large unseen entities moving about and breaking branches, parked vehicles getting slapped (complete with giant hand prints) and glowing eyes being seen in the woods. This is all in line with bigfoot encounters, not the paranormal. In fact, every Cry Baby Bridge that I have looked into has had bigfoot sightings nearby, usually with in 1/4 of a mile or less. Very often the actual sighting is right at the bridge in question itself. It is also quite often more than one sighting in the area.
So what would bring a bigfoot underneath a bridge? The MABRC has found evidence of them using rock overhangs as shelters in Adair County. Many of the reasons for this also apply to bridges. They are sheltered from the sun, heat, and wind. They also have the added draw of having an available fresh water source nearby. It isn't inconceivable that in case of bad weather, these creatures could also pile some brush up under the area were they are nesting at, creating a wind break.
In our folklore, we have stories about trolls living underneath the bridges. Perhaps there is more truth to that than we would think.
I have taken this video and deshaked it, to stabilize it, then slowed it down to 20% and magnified the figure to 2.5 times it's normal size. I am placing it here for the viewer to make their own judgement based on what they see. Below is the information that the original user posted on YouTube when it first came out.
Published on May 24, 2012 by Spencer Nussbaum
In August 2008, my brother and I were out photographing and filming wildlife in the Uinta Mountains located in North Eastern Utah. We were camping at Marsh Lake, and had ventured off a few miles through the forest heading east. We noticed something moving in the trees and thought it was a black bear that another camper had informed us was in the area. However, as I struggled to get the camera turned on, the creature walked on two legs into the trees. We followed, but were unable to spot the creature again for some time. A little later, it made a brief appearance in a meadow about 200 yards from where this footage was captured. This is original footage and the only editing was for length so I could post it on this site. I apologize for the camera shaking at first, not only was I nervous, but had a hard time locating the creature in the once I began filming.