The Best Program On Air (For Independent Thinkers):

Friday, October 22, 2010

Various Talk-Radio Callers Verify Bigfoot, But Where's The Evidence?

Listening in to both news-talk radio and online blog radio, I find it ironic that numerous callers claim to have Bigfoot creatures where they live.

I've heard various stories about families and tribes of Bigfoot, with some callers relating that such are regular visitors around or near their homes. Some have related that the Bigfoot even visit them at times. And I've heard some state they know places where the Bigfoot creatures would call their home.

I'll have to play the skeptic here. For some reason, we're not provided with photographic or video evidence of such. Now, if you had such Bigfoot in your area, and spotted them regularly, how difficult would it be to capture such occurrences?

It seems that every time a camera or visual-recording device is produced, the Bigfoot will not appear. As if they know somehow they'll be recorded. I don't see that as being possible. Or probable. And when trail cameras are set up to record such Bigfoot, they always seem to have the ability to evade its scope.

And when I hear Bigfoot investigators speak with various callers, they offer -- and possible do -- send out researchers to investigate. Yet, I've yet to hear any follow-up that confirms the callers' experiences. Or accounts.

Are the Bigfoot that insightful or super-clever in that regard? I don't think so.

Since the Patterson-Gimlin film, in my view, we haven't see any such striking recorded evidence of Bigfoot existence. I admit the Harley Hoffman film comes close. I don't know what is going on the various callers. Are they seeking publicity, without realizing that if what they say is happening, it could be confirmed by others?

I've learned to be wary of any stories about Bigfoot sightings these days. Some have credibility, I'm note, but those lack recorded evidence (other than the occasional tracks/casts).

I would like only one of these callers to be right. Out of 100 sightings, for example, let's say 99 are bogus or created. Now, we still have to explain the credible one. Even one of 100 should be enough to confirm something of substance.

But I listen -- and listen I'll continue to do. Perhaps, one of these days, at least a single case will be reliably confirmed, to the point that proves Bigfoot exists. But from what I've heard in recent times, that hasn't happened -- and perhaps that won't change.

Friday, June 25, 2010

"Git!": Bigfoot Encounter Reported in North Carolina

Here is a recent news report about Tim Peeler, of North Carolina, who claims a Bigfoot-type creature encroached on his property in Cleveland County:

If I take Mr. Peeler at his word about this incident, I'll say it handled it right. He says the creature apparently killed one of his dogs. My instincts tells me that the Bigfoot didn't know that those dogs or any other livestock belonged to someone. I feel Mr. Peeler let that creature know that. Perhaps it understood. As he says, he "rough talked him." And Mr. Peeler is what we call "an 'ole boy," and I agree with the use of the word "git!" in such circumstances. It's just what I'd say, too!

I feel if that Bigfoot was truly aggressive, also considering its reported size, it would have acted so. But the report indicated it didn't. Not in this case.

If this account is credible, it says a lot about the nature of that Bigfoot. Basically peaceful, I'd say, and seemingly respectful of humans. At least, that human.

Peeler's 911 call to authorities can be heard here:

I will say I just have some doubt when I listen to the call. Note his slurred speech at times. I know I've sounded that way when I've "had one too many," as they say, and leave it at that.

And I came across a follow-up story, in which another man found a large footprint miles away from Peeler's stated sighting:

Decide for yourselves, all.

Wednesday, May 26, 2010

Bigfoot Tracks Found In Northern Minnesota

By James Alex Gerard

Earlier this month, the crypto zoology community noted the report of Bigfoot tracks found in Northern Minnesota.

Television station KSAX/KRWF-TV in Minnesota reports the following (see link below):

I'd note the varied indentations of the footprints which seem to diminish the chance of these being fakes. But, as you'll note from the sources of the KSAX/KRWF-TV report, I agree that overall we get no reliable sightings or other truer evidence.

I will follow up with a entry later on in which I examine the possibilities of why Bigfoot is so elusive. I'll offer a promo by stating I feel this creature is actually more spiritual than physical, but can and does assume a tangible form -- only at times.

Also note that I'm skeptical of the recent "trail cam video frame" from Minnesota. That photograph is noted in the above listed news report. But it lacks the overall "feel" of the subject seen in the Patterson-Gimlin film.

Tuesday, February 2, 2010

Fred Beck's Account of the 1924 "Ape Canyon" Incident: Do You Believe Him?

By James Alex Gerard

A number of you may have heard about -- as I did when I was younger -- of the supposed attack several "Bigfoot-type" creatures waged upon a group of miners in 1924. Occurring in the Mount St. Helens, Wash., area, the incident apparently gained a measure of publicity at the time, and went on to become the stuff that legends are made of.

It wasn't until last year that I came across a firsthand account -- from one of the participants -- at the following URL:

This miner, Fred Beck of Kelso, Wash., described the events of that incident in 1967 (oddly enough, shortly before the Roger Patterson-Bob Gimlin film) to his son. It is posted as a short -- but riveting -- book that's posted online there: "I Fought The Apemen Of Mount St. Helens, WA."

Beck As "Major Thinker;" Story Met With Skepticism
I must say that this is among the most complex of "Bigfoot Tales" I've ever read. And I read a lot of them. If anyone is interested in Beck's account, please read it online -- rather than have me ramble on with what I think. Please be sure to read the entire work, because the last chapter seems very insightful for just "some old boy from some boondocks" to surmise and perceive as he describes.

Mr. Beck is a major thinker to me, although a number of critics emerged through the years to attack Beck's character. I can relate firsthand to what he says about being clairvoyant, and experiencing things beyond the "normal senses" that most do not. And despite the accounts that labeled Beck a liar, basically, I feel there is something truly behind what he says.

But I encourage the power of independent thought, so I'd like any of the forum members here to draw their own conclusions. I did read that Becks claims he never made a dime from his account and didn't want to. If so, that is a hard thing to find in a world where so many hoaxers seek some measure of fame and profit for staging purposeful deceptions and downright lying about what they present as evidence -- and supposed truth.

You Can't Libel The Dead
I've learned something useful things during my years in journalism, including the following. There's a simple rule of "tell-all stories" that people should be aware of. In the United States' legal system, you can't libel the dead. Anyone can write a work -- or say anything -- about a deceased person and be safe from the responsibility of character defamation.

After Roger Patterson's death, his name and reputation were discredited. He indeed may have had some "shady traits," but he's been basically convicted of creating a fraud with the 1967 film of the supposed Bigfoot. Beck may share that share measure, becoming discredited as a liar and hoaxer after his own death as well.

It comes down to this, fellow readers: Fred Beck's Account of the 1924 "Ape Canyon" Incident: Do You Believe Him?
Original Post At:

How "Primitive" Is The Bigfoot Species? Perhaps Not At All...

By James Alex Gerard

There's just been too many accounts through too many years -- even those predating the European presence in North America -- to dismiss Bigfoot as some myth. At least that is my view.

It's been theorized that the Bigfoot is some "primitive creature" or such. But I think a bit differently about that. It obviously is on the Earth today for a reason. Its kind survived the process of natural selection. It was selected to survive. For a reason. Therefore, I conclude it had to evolve to do that. So how "primitive" could it be? I feel it would have to have a level of advancement. Even possibly possessing a social order and language.

Overall, the Bigfoot species doesn't seem to want to harm mankind. Just avoid our kind -- for a reason. Could the Bigfoot species know more about other forms of life than we realize? Or recognize somehow that 'the other two-legged one" (us) is more advanced, and has mechanical devices and tremendous structures?
Is it more at mankind being civilized, in the most basic sense of the word?

And several weeks ago, a guest on the "Coast To Coast" radio talk show described his four-month, solitary stay in the Pacific Northwest wilderness while searching for Bigfoot. The guest stated that, considering what it's like to exist out there," he's not surprised anymore how such an adaptive species can exist without detection. Or lives in the heart of that wilderness with little or no traces.

I feel the Bigfoot species has evolved and has survived because it established a niche -- and stayed there. I feel those of the Bigfoot species know there is nothing mankind offers that's advantageous to its survival, and brings nothing of substance into its world.

Now who's the advanced being?

Monday, February 1, 2010

The 2002 Mount St. Helens photos: Cause For Skepticism?

By James Alex Gerard

I encountered this web page last year, and again it's another of those "no way to know for sure" recorded "supposed-Bigfoot sightings." There's also an accompanying story:

I note the apparent plausibility of the story behind those photos. It sounds like something like that could happen. Note the incident details, right down to the described body odor apparently emanating from the "Bigfoot subject." There are a number of accounts which I feel are credible that describe the Bigfoot examples as having some form of extreme, prominent body odor.

But it's the photographs themselves than bring out the skeptic in me. There's no clear front view or facial detail. In one shot, some evidence of the face is apparent, but that looks like it's some kind of mask to me. I can see an "outlined area" near the eyes, as if it's an ill-fitted costume application. Again, this is merely my own view, and I will gladly admit I could be wrong.

But even more unconvincing to me is the physical attributes of the subject itself. I note the lack of musculature or definition, unlike the Patterson-Gimlin film subject. And the subject doesn't appear broad enough to me, unless this is one scrawny, ill or malnourished Bigfoot. Now, this could be a smaller, immature or juvenile example, but the build looks just "too human" to me.

In addition, the Mount St. Helens' subject has uniform, brown body hair or fur. That's a trademark of the Bigfoot costumes I've seen. I've even seen one getup which mirrors what I see illustrated in those photos, a "Sasquatch Adult Halloween Costume."

At this point, I'll say I doubt the photographs are those of a real Bigfoot example. It's possible that in some cases, the camera persons are unaware that they're being hoaxed themselves by a third party, so I keep that in mind as I evaluate these accounts.
Original Post At:

Saturday, January 30, 2010

"The Harley Hoffman Film": Teetering On the Edge Of Credibility And Incredibility

By James Alex Gerard

I've seen a number of films -- supposedly showing actual Bigfoot subjects -- come and go over the years. Most are downright laughable, obvious hoax attempts. But in my studies of such films, I recently came upon one that I considered unique.

I could find little information about it, except that it was attributed to one Harley Hoffman, and was taken in 2001 in British Columbia. The clearest video clip I found was posted here:

In my view, this film teeters on the edge of credibility and incredibility. First of all, I'll say that if that's a costume, it's a rather detailed one. Although the subject stays in frame only briefly, I note its apparent size -- mainly height and broadness -- compared with the surrounding environment. It has some scale to it, and I can tell it's big -- whatever it is.

If it's a person in a costume, it's a large person who's unusually wide, or the outfit itself has outstanding bulk. And I perceive a degree of musculature in the subject's shoulder and upper-back movements.

I also note the apparent patchy fur, and it's dark -- basically black -- coloration. Costumed hoaxers I've seen employ outfits with uniformed, even-distributed body hair or fur coverings. In addition, Bigfoot costumes I've seen use a brown color scheme, although the Halloween-type Gorilla novelty suits tend to be ebony in color. But the subject in "The Hoffman Film" sure doesn't look like any stock Halloween-type costume I've seen.

That suggests that modifications would be required to make it appear more credible, and I have my doubts that's what I'm seeing there. Also, the subject appears to have some sort of obtrusion on its upper back, from what I see. It resembles those square, padded neck and head protectors I've seen football players wear. Or maybe it's just my failing eyesight in my middle age, or some effect from the dark subject area -- or the lighting itself.

I'll say that the subject I see in this video bears a remarkable similarity to the subject I see in the Patterson-Gimlin film. It appears these two subjects are physically related, as it refers to a common ancestry or genetic background. And I do not feel it's case of reverse engineering by the costume-maker -- if it's such.

Considering the videos of supposed Bigfoot I've seen, it's only "The Hoffman Film" that comes close to having that same measure of "Boy, that looks like a real one" that I feel marks the subject seen in the 1967 film.

Now the downside of what I see. The subject stays in frame only briefly and fleetingly. There also appears to be some editing done on the clips, where the subject is at close first, then is seen at a distance in the next shot. And the subject never turns to the camera, keeping its front out-of-shot. Without being viewed from this angle, the subject lacks the detail seen in the Patterson-Gimlin film.

For those who haven't seen the digital enhancement of the subject's "mug shot" from the Patterson-Gimlin film, I found a "magnify-able" (enlarge and take a good look!) image posted here:

So, with "The Hoffman Film," we have the subject walking away from camera shot, so added physical detail is absent. And the subject never seems interested in the filmmaker, if it even recognizes or acknowledges the fact it's being observed.

I'll conclude that I believe in what I am seeing as some sort of unique species -- and not a costumed individual. I feel something "real" is captured on that film, and that it's also not some computer-generated, "digital special effect."

Like the Patterson-Gimlin film, if it's a hoax, it's a good one. -- and I've been fooled once again.

"They're being trained as weapons," radio-talk show caller claims

By James Alex Gerard

On the New Year's night "Coast To Coast" radio-talk show, a woman caller claimed the U.S. Government is holding such -- if I remember her wording correctly -- "Bigfoot, Sasquatch, Yeti or whatever" at one of those "Area 51-type secret military bases."

Without disclosing the source of her information, the caller said these captive "things" are hairy and stand eight feet tall. In following up, the show's host asked the caller why the government would be keeping these "Bigfoot, Sasquatch, Yeti or whatever" in captivity -- if such a story was true. Her answer was simple and understandable: They're being trained as weapons.

And I agree with what the show's host stated. If that was true, such information would be highly classified. Do I consider her tale far fetched? Not really. And the show's host also indicated something along those lines: When anything is harnessed in this world, it's not surprising that its first purpose would be deployment as some weapon.

If anyone had the resources to locate, track and then capture these "Bigfoot, Sasquatch, Yeti or whatever," I feel it would be the military. And I ponder it further. It's possible someone had the "brilliant idea" of taking the proverbial "guard dog" one step further.

I can see how someone would attempt to "recondition" such "Bigfoot, Sasquatch, Yeti or whatever" into becoming a loyal and responsive "attack animal."

It's called exploitation. It's called manipulation. It's called the superior being imposing its will upon the inferior being. It's called might makes right. And all of that. As a younger man, I was an amateur scientist. I was around various types of animals -- both predators and prey.

What did I learn? In nature, there are no killers. In nature, there is no malice, greed, or ill will. There's only truth. Although nature seems cruel and unfair at times, it is still truth.

Mankind is the only living being that maintains, employs and supports falsities. Why? To further its own ends. To get something out of it. Perhaps such "Bigfoot, Sasquatch, Yeti or whatever" are more evolved than we think. I would be interested to know -- if that caller's story is truth -- what is learned from the captive species.

Perhaps the supposed "inferior being" has a lot to impart about this world to ourselves -- the "superior being."

And perhaps such "Bigfoot, Sasquatch, Yeti or whatever" avoids mankind for a simple reason. There's nothing to gain by "associating" with "the other two-legged one" who hold falsities in a world dependent upon truth.
Initial Post At:

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

On The 1967 Patterson-Gimlin Film: Why I Believe In What I See (001)

By James Alex Gerard

First things first, I am firm believer in the Roger Patterson-Bob Gimlin film. Taken at Bluff Creek, Calif., in October, 1967, the film -- I feel -- portrays "some kind of species yet unknown to our science."

Why do I say this? My experience, for one. I was an amateur scientist in my younger days, and spent time around various types of wildlife. And I've never seen of anything even resembling the subject of that film. If it's some kind of hoax, it's the best I've ever seen, and even I've been fooled.

But the physical characteristics, mannerisms and musculature displayed by the subject convince me of its authenticity. And I say this despite those who have debunked it as a fake -- and those who've "come forward" since that time with "proof" of its falsity.

I believe the film's truth will not be accurately determined one way or the other. No one has ever produced such an exacting costume or "special effect." And I further that no one will. I have seen the various "hoax attempts" that have followed through the years -- and none have the measure of the Bluff Creek video.

Someday, I hope to have the chance to see firsthand such a creature -- so I'll know for myself. Is it more human than animal? Is it actually a primitive creature, or does its existence today show it must be evolved? Does it hold, as I feel, some answer to the overall spirituality of living things on this planet? Or our own existence?

But let me expound a point further: Do we -- as inquisitive human beings -- want the myth to be proved or disproved? Won't the solution spoil the mystic that compels our thoughts? And our reasoning? And our nonstop stream of debates -- and the controversy?

Don't we "need" these mysteries to remain just that, so we will always seek the answers -- rather than really have them?

Fight Plagiarism!

Protected by Copyscape Plagiarism Check