Squatchdetective.com
  • Home
    • The Five Tenets
    • About
  • 🆕Squatch-D's Blog
    • Old Blog Site
  • | Squatch-D TV
    • Squatch-D TV Channel
    • 🆕Squatch-D TV 24-7
  • | Events
  • | Investigations
    • Vermont Chapter
  • | 🆕Resources
    • Squatch-D University
    • Audio Library
  • |🆕Interactive
    • 🆕News Room
    • 🆕Reddit r/Bigfoot Feed
  • | Contact
    • Report Encounter
    • Media Contact Page
    • Booking Steve Kulls
    • General Comments / Questions

The Consequences of Discovery: What Happens If Bigfoot Is Proven Real?

6/3/2025

0 Comments

 
Picture
    For decades, the existence of Bigfoot has remained just outside the grasp of mainstream science. While skeptics point to the lack of a type specimen, many of us who have spent years in the field know that there is a body of compelling evidence that cannot be dismissed outright. From footprint morphology and vocalizations to behavioral observations and forensic reports, the case grows stronger.
​   
​    But if tomorrow, we collectively crossed the Rubicon and confirmed the existence of this elusive hominin, the consequences would be both groundbreaking and potentially catastrophic for the species.

Impact on the Species

PictureDr. Jane Goodall
    Bigfoot, based on behavioral patterns and ecological inference, is likely a low-population-density species. It occupies vast ranges of wilderness across North America and has remained largely undetected by practicing caution, nocturnality, and avoidance of human infrastructure.
​   
​     The discovery of even one individual would lead to a deluge of activity into these wilderness areas. The media would swarm. Government agencies, scientific bodies, and opportunists would descend rapidly into known sighting zones. Just as we have seen with the mountain gorillas in Rwanda, even well-meaning scientific research can cause population stress, behavioral change, and unintentional habitat degradation.

     
    When Jane Goodall first made contact with chimpanzees in Gombe, her presence caused immediate behavioral alterations in the troop. While it led to revolutionary discoveries, it also resulted in cross-species disease transmission and increased human dependency within the studied population. Similarly, if Bigfoot exists, its adaptation to a near-total avoidance of human contact suggests that it has no built-up resistance to diseases we may bring into its ecosystem. The impact of direct or indirect contact could be devastating.

Environmental and Legal Precedents

PictureThe Northern Spotted Owl
    Should Bigfoot be officially recognized, the most immediate question becomes legal classification and protection. We would likely see federal involvement through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and possibly the National Park Service. Listing it as endangered under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) would be the most logical path. But precedent shows that this process is neither fast nor clean.
   
    Look at the saga of the Northern Spotted Owl, protected under the ESA in 1990. Its listing led to over six million acres of Pacific Northwest forests being placed under logging restrictions. Entire rural economies were altered. Lawsuits mounted. Political factions formed around the implications of its habitat protections. Now imagine similar restrictions triggered across known Bigfoot sighting corridors like the Cascade Range, the Sierra Nevadas, and the Appalachian forests. The logging, mining, and even off-road vehicle industries could be profoundly impacted.

   
​     Additionally, in 2023, protections for the Lesser Prairie Chicken were reintroduced under the ESA. The reaction was swift. Oil and gas companies, along with several states, filed suits claiming overreach and economic harm. If a creature as obscure to the general public as the Lesser Prairie Chicken can cause multi-state legal battles, imagine what would happen if a massive great ape species was discovered to inhabit multiple states across national parks, private lands, and tribal territories.

​Immediate Legislative Action

    There is some early precedent for action. Skamania County, Washington, passed a symbolic ordinance in 1969 prohibiting the harm or harassment of any “Sasquatch-type creatures” with penalties including jail time. Although written somewhat tongue-in-cheek, it has remained on the books and has been reaffirmed in modern times as part of the county's heritage.

    In 2021, the Oklahoma State Representative Justin Humphrey proposed an official Bigfoot hunting season. While this was framed partly as a tourism stunt, it triggered public backlash and debate over what protections a hypothetical species should receive.

​    Should a discovery occur, we would likely see fast-tracked legislation, especially in states like Washington, Oregon, and California where the sightings are most frequent and the environmental lobbies most powerful.

​Conservation Versus Exploitation, A History Lesson

PictureDian Fossey
    History shows us that discovery does not equal protection. In 1902, the mountain gorilla was discovered by a German officer, and what followed was nearly a century of poaching, war-zone habitat destruction, and trophy hunting before serious conservation efforts stabilized the population.

​    If Bigfoot were found, the demand for physical specimens, black-market trophies, and private exhibitions would spike almost instantly. Without immediate and aggressive intervention, the creature could be more at risk post-discovery than it was in obscurity.
​

    Conservation groups would need to act in concert with state and federal authorities. DNA samples and non-invasive research would become the gold standard. Infrared and acoustic monitoring might replace traditional field studies. Ideally, any research effort would be modeled after the Dian Fossey and George Schaller conservation-first approaches, which focused on habitat preservation and minimal human impact.

How Discovery Could Aid the Species

PictureThe Saola aka "Asian Unicorn"
    While much of the discourse around Bigfoot’s potential discovery leans toward the dangers of exposure, there are legitimate and compelling ways that such an event could serve to protect the species if handled correctly.

​    First and foremost, confirmation would elevate Bigfoot from folklore to zoological fact. That shift alone would attract the attention of legitimate scientific institutions, conservation NGOs, and funding agencies. Rather than fringe groups operating in the shadows with limited resources, real scientific infrastructure could be mobilized for habitat preservation and biological study.

    Species with confirmed taxonomic status receive access to global conservation mechanisms. This includes funding from the World Wildlife Fund (WWF), the Wildlife Conservation Society (WCS), and potential inclusion in the Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Fauna and Flora (CITES). Bigfoot could quickly become a centerpiece for environmental protection across multiple North American biomes.

    The discovery of the Saola, or "Asian Unicorn," in the Annamite Mountains of Laos and Vietnam in 1992, led to an international conservation campaign that protected large swaths of its range from deforestation and poaching, despite the animal being rarely seen since.

    If research determines that Bigfoot relies on intact old-growth forest or isolated highland regions, conservationists could use that data to lobby for the expansion of protected areas. National forests could gain new designations, similar to how critical habitats are carved out for endangered species like the Florida panther or grizzly bear.


    Discovery would also catalyze a shift in public perception. What was once dismissed as fantasy would become an icon of biodiversity one with the potential to inspire the next generation of conservationists, zoologists, and field biologists. Much like gorillas and orangutans became mascots for wildlife protection in the 20th century, Bigfoot could serve the same role in the 21st.

    Additionally, local communities near sighting hotspots could benefit economically from responsible ecotourism, scientific field stations, and conservation grants. This can create a financial incentive for protecting habitat rather than exploiting it.

Final Thoughts and Conclusions

    We who investigate Bigfoot must not only be prepared for the moment of discovery, but also for what follows. That discovery is not the end of the mystery. It is the beginning of a moral, scientific, and ecological obligation.

    If we fail to prepare, the very act of proving Bigfoot exists could lead to the destruction of the species. The best defense of the creature’s survival will not come from those who just now believe, but from those of us who have always looked, always cared, and always understood that respect must come before recognition.

    The real challenge will not be finding Bigfoot. The real challenge will be protecting them from us.

Till Next Time,

Squatch-D

0 Comments

The Rise and Fall of BlogTalkRadio: A Pioneer That Lost Its Voice

5/26/2025

0 Comments

 
Picture
    In the early days of internet broadcasting, before podcasting was a household word, BlogTalkRadio (BTR) changed the game. Founded in 2006 by Alan Levy and Bob Charish, BTR offered anyone with a phone and internet connection the power to host a live talk show. It was raw, accessible, and revolutionary, a true equalizer in a media world dominated by gatekeepers.

    But on January 31st, 2025, BlogTalkRadio officially shut down. Its final social media post read like a eulogy, and its once-bustling homepage now only displays a "404" notification. What went wrong?

A Voice for the Voiceless

Picture
    At its peak, BTR hosted thousands of shows across every topic imaginable from paranormal investigations to political debates, niche hobbyists to independent journalists. It even drew the attention of high-profile figures like Barack Obama, who used the platform in 2008 during his campaign to speak directly with grassroots audiences.

    For many, it wasn’t just a platform, it was a community.

    “Squatch-D TV first started out on BTR as Squatchdetective Radio. At the time, it was an innovative revolution and a great way to put a voice out there and interact with others who shared similar interests.”
                                                                                                    —
Steve Kulls, Founder of Squatchdetective.com

    That’s the kind of connectivity BTR made possible. It was a direct, unfiltered pipeline to an audience—something that, back then, was hard to come by. But behind the scenes there was quite a bit of controversy that is often overlooked when recounting this now passe innovator. 

The Betrayal

Picture
    When BlogTalkRadio emerged to entice new content creators (a term we use now, but didn't back then), it presented itself as a partnership. They distributed PDFs and advertisements that promised a shared revenue model—BTR would provide the platform, run advertisements, and split the ad revenue 50/50 with hosts.

    That promise was short-lived.
​

    Once ad placements began, the model quietly shifted to a click-through ratio, which meant fractions of a cent per listener. In many cases, even successful shows struggled to reach a quarterly payout of more than $20 to $30.

    “Squatchdetective Radio had one show where the platform had to open up bandwidth to accommodate over 31,000 live listeners. The payout? Forty dollars. That was Betrayal #1.”
                                                                                                                   — Steve Kulls
​

    This bait-and-switch wasn't just financial—it was personal for many creators who had helped build BTR’s content ecosystem from the ground up.

    “When Squatchdetective Radio began airing, I’d get calls from their program director, Amy Domestico. After some conversations, and at my urging, they opened up a new category: ‘Paranormal.’ We were the first Bigfoot-themed show on the platform and the first in that category. That was innovation.”
                                                                                                                   — Steve Kulls


    But soon after, came Betrayal #2, the platform’s transition to charging hosts to continue creating content.
For years, BTR had offered the ability to broadcast for free. Then came the price tags: $39.99 per month, later discounted to $29.99 for some. Yet, even with a dedicated audience, Squatchdetective Radio operated at a loss.
   
    “They wanted us to pay to give them content—and it wasn’t cheap. And despite that, they never truly invested in upgrading the technology on the host side. They polished the listener interface, but we were still struggling with sound quality and technical limitations. But for us, it was about passion not dollars.”
                                                                                                                      — Steve Kulls


    Many creators resorted to hacks like Skype just to get cleaner audio. But BTR never met them halfway. Over time, the passion remained, but the platform didn’t.

​Where It All Fell Apart

1. Monetization Missteps 
     Originally a free service that championed independent voices, BTR introduced tiered pricing models that locked essential features—like show length, archiving, and analytics—behind paywalls. This reversal alienated loyal creators and exposed what many saw as a cash grab. 
Around the early 2010s, BTR moved to a paywall model, introducing paid plans for key features like live broadcasting over 30 minutes, archiving shows, or accessing basic analytics. 

   Many long-time users felt betrayed by what was once a free speech-driven community. Critics accused the platform of exploiting its user base after gaining traction. Smaller podcasters with limited budgets found themselves priced out or forced to migrate to newer and more affordable platforms.


2. Audio Quality Never Evolved
    While other platforms embraced modern recording methods, BTR stuck to its telephone-based system. The result was often garbled, low-fidelity broadcasts. BTR relied on traditional telephony (POTS – Plain Old Telephone Service) as its primary input method. As competitors adopted VoIP, XLR mic support, and multitrack recording, BTR stuck with an outdated system that produced tinny, compressed audio. Additionally, guests calling from different devices led to massive volume disparities. There were limited post-production tools on the platform to correct this.

3. Technological Stagnation
    BTR failed to evolve with the medium. It lacked:
  • Real podcast distribution to Spotify, Apple, or YouTube.
  • No Native Mobile App for Hosts (Until Very Late).
  • Multitrack recording or stereo audio.
  • Mobile-friendly tools for hosts.
  • Integration of visual or multimedia content.
  • Poor Analytics.
  • No Real-Time Chat or Listener Interaction Tools such as polls or easy chat moderation.
  • No video broadcasting features.
  • No investment in creator tools like guest booking tools and automatic transcription.
As the industry embraced HD video, shareable media, and dynamic user interfaces, BTR remained frozen in time.

The Collapse of Support and Engagement

    Another major failing of BlogTalkRadio was its complete disengagement from its creator community in its final years. Despite social media being one of the most powerful tools for brand communication and user support, BTR’s official Twitter (now X) account shows a shocking lack of presence between late 2019 and its shutdown announcement in March 2025. In nearly six years, the account was effectively dormant. No updates, no community highlights, no technical notices, and certainly no outreach.

    Worse still, what little activity remained on their posts was dominated by frustrated broadcasters complaining about technical issues, audio malfunctions, and platform instability. These weren’t casual gripes, but rather, they were creators reporting that their live shows were failing in real time, often with no response or resolution from BTR. This silence marked a stark contrast from the early years, when BTR had a program director like Amy Domestico who would personally call hosts to troubleshoot problems or collaborate on platform improvements.

    “They used to treat us like partners. The people who mattered. By the end, we were just subscription numbers on a spreadsheet. And if your show failed because their platform didn’t work, tough luck.”
                                                                                                                                   — Steve Kulls


    The deterioration of customer support, particularly the loss of live, real-time assistance, was a final insult to the community that had helped build BTR’s brand. For many, it wasn’t just that the platform stopped working, it was that no one seemed to care anymore.

A Passion That Outgrew the Platform

Picture
     "Over time, new platforms emerged that let us not only talk about our research and investigations but actually show our audience what we were seeing such as video, stereo sound, real-time media sharing. That's when I realized BTR wasn't just behind; it had become a burden.”
                                                                                                                             — Steve Kulls

     In July 2019, Squatchdetective Radio made its final transition to Squatch-D TV on YouTube. It was the logical next step: a platform that let creators show, share, and connect with far more impact.
​

   “I don’t believe BTR was short-sighted. I believe it was greedy by trying to squeeze every dime out of creators without putting that money back into innovation. It felt like a ruse. Bait and Switch. A 'sorry, not sorry' shrug from the people who ran the place. We helped build their empire and they handed us a bill.”
                                                                                                                              — Steve Kulls

The Final Sign-Off

Picture
         In its shutdown notice, BTR said:

     “While there are no other platforms that offer the live guest call-in option... "

        But that “unique feature” had long stopped being relevant as anyone can now purchase a Rodecaster board and add a Bluetooth phone connectionadd in a Google Voice number, yes, you CAN have a call-in option. 

         The podcasting world had evolved. BTR hadn’t.


    As companies like iHeartMedia absorbed the remnants of the brand and reallocated its assets, the writing was already on the wall. For the diehards, those who had stuck with it through the thin and thinner, BTR’s fate was no surprise.


    “I was one of the last OGs to leave. Five and a half years later, the whole platform folded. Why? Because in the end, BTR became the kind of platform where creators paid to give someone else their content and got very little in return, let alone anything new.”
                                                                                                                                — Steve Kulls

Legacy versus Lesson

    BlogTalkRadio was a pioneer. It opened the airwaves to voices that never had a mic. It gave rise to shows, communities, and conversations that might never have existed otherwise. It started with innovation, empowering a generation of internet talkers before “podcasting” became mainstream

    "The original Bigfoot podcasts on BTR had a comraderie like no other I have seen since. It was truly a brotherhood and sisterhood. I keep in contact with many of those broadcasters today."
                                                                                                                                    -Steve Kulls 
​

    But its refusal or inability to keep up with industry standards and user expectations led to a slow, inevitable decline. However the mourning of BTR is short-lived when its broken promises, treating podcasters like customers rather than partners where everyone would like to see success and its prioritization of profit over partnership sealed its fate.

     For those that left years prior was not a question of if this would happen, but when.


Till Next Time,
Squatch-D 


0 Comments

Science Catches Up: Chimpanzee Drumming Study Validates Decades of Bigfoot Research

5/10/2025

0 Comments

 
   For over my 27+ years, those of us on the front lines of Bigfoot research have documented and discussed a phenomenon many dismissed as folklore, imagination or junk science: wood knocks.

​   From the dense forests of the Pacific Northwest to the remote hills of Appalachia, researchers and witnesses alike have reported rhythmic knocking sounds often described as deliberate, spaced, and often responsive.

​   Our community has long proposed that these knocks serve as a form of communication, possibly used by Bigfoot to signal location, alert others, or mark territory.


    Now science is finally catching up.
PictureSource: Current Biology
   A newly published peer-reviewed study in Current Biology has revealed that wild chimpanzees, our closest living relatives, engage in rhythmic drumming behaviors using the buttress roots of trees. The researchers analyzed over 370 drumming bouts across 11 chimpanzee communities, spanning two subspecies: eastern (Pan troglodytes schweinfurthii) and western (Pan troglodytes verus). What they found is remarkable.  

PictureSource: Current Biology
​​ These apes do not just strike trees randomly. They drum with intentional timing, show isochrony—regular intervals between hits—and even demonstrate distinct rhythmic patterns based on subspecies. Western chimpanzees drum more consistently and rapidly, while eastern chimpanzees alternate between short and long beats, introducing variability into their rhythms.

   Not only do chimpanzees drum rhythmically, but they often do so during travel, rest, or in conjunction with pant-hoot vocalizations. These behaviors are not arbitrary. They appear to convey social information such as identity, location, and movement, which precisely what we have long suggested Sasquatch may be doing with wood knocks.

Let that sink in.

   This study confirms that percussive behavior, using objects in the environment to create rhythmic sound is not just a human trait. It exists in the wild among great apes. And while primatologists are just now recognizing its importance, we in the Sasquatch research community have been reporting and interpreting this behavior for decades.

This is not about taking a victory lap. It is about validation.


   We have always been cautious not to leap to conclusions. Anecdotes are not data. But when thousands of independent reports describe the same behavior, patterns emerge. The wood knock theory did not arise out of fantasy. It was born from field observations, audio analysis, and boots-on-the-ground experience. And now, science is showing that such a communication method is not only biologically plausible, it is already happening in known primate species.
The implications are massive.

PictureSource: Squatchdetective University
   If chimpanzees are using drumming to coordinate, communicate, and perhaps even express individual identity, it strengthens the argument that a highly intelligent, socially complex hominin like Sasquatch could use similar methods in its natural habitat. Especially one operating in dense, acoustically rich forest environments where vocal signals can be distorted or masked.

   This moment reminds us that real discovery does not always start in a lab. Sometimes it starts in the field, with researchers following intuition, patterns, and persistence. And sometimes it takes decades for science to catch up with what seasoned investigators have known all along.

PictureClick on the image to go to podcast where we discuss this in depth!
Keep knocking. They might just knock back!

​'Till Next Time...
Squatch-D



Here is the attribution for the Scientific Study below: 
"Chimpanzee drumming shows rhythmicity and subspecies variation"
Author: Vesta Eleuteri,Jelle van der Werff,Wytse Wilhelm,Adrian Soldati,Catherine Crockford,Nisarg Desai,Pawel Fedurek,Maegan Fitzgerald,Kirsty E. Graham,Kathelijne Koops,Jill Pruetz,Liran Samuni,Katie Slocombe,Angela Stoeger,Michael L. Wilson et al.
Publication: Current Biology  Publisher: Elsevier Date: Available online 9 May 2025
Your browser does not support viewing this document. Click here to download the document.
Steve's Scientific Paper on Rhythmic Percussive Communication in Primates...
Your browser does not support viewing this document. Click here to download the document.
0 Comments

From Curiosity to Condescension: Bigfoot Research and Media Bias

4/24/2025

0 Comments

 
Picture
In October 1967, the famous Patterson–Gimlin film thrust Bigfoot into the American mainstream, turning a Pacific Northwest legend into a household name. Early coverage of the grainy footage which allegedly shows a large, hairy biped striding along Bluff Creek was marked by fascination as well as healthy skepticism. Newspapers reported on the film and subsequent footprint finds as intriguing mysteries, and television programs in the 1960s and 70s often treated Bigfoot as a possibility rather than a punchline.

The term "Bigfoot" was even coined by a reporter named Andrew Genzoli, in October of 1958, some nine years earlier when bulldozer Jerry Crew discovered and cast a giant footprint of what was then termed in the media as Sasquatch.

Importantly, even after decades of analysis, the Patterson–Gimlin footage has “yet to be officially debunked”​a fact that hasn’t stopped a noticeable shift in media tone over the years. What began as curious inquiry in the late 60s and 70s has gradually given way to overt bias and ridicule in many U.S. media outlets today. This article explores how that shift occurred, highlighting specific cases where misinformation or selective reporting skewed public perception of Bigfoot research.

Picture
In the immediate aftermath of the Patterson–Gimlin film’s release in 1967, media reports demonstrated a mix of wonder and caution. The story hit wire services and national news, introducing “Bigfoot” to readers across the country. Magazines and TV documentaries of the era (for example, Leonard Nimoy’s “In Search of…” series) explored the Sasquatch mystery with a relatively straight face, interviewing eyewitnesses and scientists. This early coverage often maintained a tone of open curiosity, reflecting a willingness to at least entertain the question of Bigfoot’s existence. For instance, when footprint casts and alleged Bigfoot evidence were presented, news outlets would report the details and expert opinions, sometimes skeptically, but without the outright derision common in later years.

By the 1970s, Bigfoot had firmly entered popular culture, and media attention remained strong. Scientists like primatologist John Napier and later Dr. Grover Krantz publicly debated the evidence, which the press dutifully covered. In 1958 (a precursor to the film’s fame), the Humboldt Times ran a front-page story about giant footprints, and after it was picked up by the AP, even The New York Times and Los Angeles Times mentioned “Bigfoot” by name. An NBC quiz show at the time jokingly offered a reward to explain those prints​, indicating that while there was humor, the phenomenon was taken seriously enough to become a nationwide talking point. In summary, during the 60s and 70s the press treated Bigfoot as an open mystery, a subject of legitimate investigation and public interest. Articles would often conclude that further evidence was needed, rather than flatly declaring the topic “debunked.”
PictureThe Minnesota Iceman
As the decades progressed, a shift in media tone became evident. By the 1980s and 90s, Bigfoot research was increasingly framed as a fringe pursuit. Mainstream news coverage grew more sporadic and often carried a playful or dismissive undertone  as the nightly news might feature a Sasquatch sighting in the “odd news” segment, complete with tongue-in-cheek commentary or the X-Files theme music in the background. This era saw fewer serious investigations in prestige outlets, and more winks to the audience. The legacy of prominent hoaxes (like the 1969 “Minnesota Iceman” or various man-in-a-suit antics) perhaps made editors wary of treating Bigfoot as hard news. Instead, coverage often defaulted to skepticism first.

By the late 1990s, the prevailing media narrative was that Bigfoot was likely mythical. A position often presented as a given, without acknowledging that many questions remained unresolved. If an alleged sighting or footprint find was reported, it was typically couched with reminders that “no definitive proof” has ever been found, sometimes ignoring any supporting evidence short of a captured creature. Still, even with a cooler tone, outright bias had yet to fully replace curiosity; that change would accelerate in the 2000s with a couple of high-profile “debunkings” that media outlets trumpeted enthusiastically; sometimes too enthusiastically, at the expense of accuracy.

Picture
A turning point in media treatment of Bigfoot came in 2002 with the death of Ray Wallace, a man with a colorful history linked to Bigfoot lore. Wallace’s family came forward after his passing and made sensational claims that grabbed headlines: they showed reporters a set of crude wooden “big feet” carvings and declared that Ray Wallace had invented Bigfoot as a prank in 1958. In initial reports, the family even alleged that Wallace made a “deathbed confession” admitting it was all a hoax​bfro.net. The media leapt on the story. Virtually every major newspaper and TV network ran pieces proclaiming that “the truth can finally be told about Bigfoot” – namely, that a single jokester had started it all​.

What followed was a wave of arguably biased and oversimplified coverage. Many reports failed to clarify that Wallace’s antics (fake footprints in 1958) explained at best a small piece of the Bigfoot puzzle, not the myriad sightings and evidence reported over decades. Instead, press accounts that December blared that Bigfoot had been exposed as a fraud. For example, The New York Times ran a front-page story on January 3, 2003 titled “Search for Bigfoot Outlives the Man Who Created Him”, uncritically crediting Ray Wallace as the creator of the Sasquatch legend​. In that piece, reporter Timothy Egan painted Bigfoot believers as foolish and even misquoted scientists to bolster the narrative attributing to three researchers a statement that they “give Mr. Wallace credit for the hoax,” which those scientists flatly denied ever saying​. The Times story and others like it suggested that with Wallace’s confession, the “mystery of Bigfoot” had been solved once and for all.

This media frenzy largely ignored inconvenient facts. Wallace’s own family couldn’t keep their story straight – some even recanted the “deathbed confession” claim shortly after, admitting there was no literal confession yet that didn’t stop outlets from repeating it. Nor did most reporters bother to distinguish between Wallace’s fake loggers’ tracks in 1958 and things like the Patterson–Gimlin film of 1967 (which Wallace had nothing to do with)​.

Late-night comedians piled on: Jay Leno quipped about Bigfoot’s “death” and CNN’s Aaron Brown and Fox’s Shepard Smith treated the Wallace tale as virtual proof that “Bigfoot didn’t exist” all reinforcing the narrative that serious consideration of Sasquatch was laughable​. In the public mind, Bigfoot had been debunked. One Bigfoot researcher marveled at how “the media bought all of it… a rural family came forward with far-fetched, inconsistent claims…and that was nothing short of unquestionable proof to the mass media”​. The bias against Bigfoot research was now on full display: evidence and experts on one side were disregarded, while an unverified hoax story was swallowed whole because it fit the skeptical storyline.

Perhaps the most egregious example was a 2003 ABC News report (also circulated via AOL News online) that mistakenly mixed together the Wallace claims with the separate Patterson–Gimlin film and got the facts terribly wrong. ABC reported that the famous 1967 film was a hoax “because on his deathbed in 2002 [Ray Wallace] confessed to the film being fake.” This was completely false on multiple levels​. Roger Patterson (who filmed the Bigfoot in 1967) died back in 1972, and he never confessed any hoax. Ray Wallace, who died in 2002, had no connection to Patterson’s film, and even he never actually claimed to have faked that footage.

​The ABC piece was an astonishing error, essentially a fabrication, yet it aired, further spreading the myth that “the guy who got that famous footage admitted before he died that he faked it.” Bigfoot researchers immediately cried foul, and one contacted ABC News with documentation to request a retraction. The response? According to that researcher, ABC said if they found they were wrong they’d issue a correction, but they never did. The false story remained uncorrected, illustrating a worrying lack of accountability when it came to Bigfoot-related journalism.

The Ray Wallace episode revealed how eagerly many media outlets would embrace a debunking story, even a shaky one, and amplify it without much fact-checking. It cemented a template that would be seen again: skeptical claims get top billing, while rebuttals or nuances are barely mentioned. After 2002–2003, the default media position on Bigfoot was entrenched: the whole subject was viewed as, at best, a lighthearted myth, and at worst a fraud kept alive by the gullible. Any new evidence or pro-Bigfoot research would now face an uphill battle for fair coverage.

Picture
Another case study in media selectivity is the treatment of Bob Heironimus’s claims versus Roger Patterson’s own testimony. In 2004, a book by investigator Greg Long (The Making of Bigfoot) introduced Bob Heironimus – a Yakima, WA man – who alleged that he was the figure in the Patterson–Gimlin film, wearing a modified gorilla costume. This claim was one of several over the years by various individuals saying they had worn a Bigfoot suit in that film, but Heironimus’s story caught on in the press due to the book’s profile and some made-for-TV drama. Several media outlets gave considerable attention to Heironimus.

For example, in 2005 he was featured on a prime-time television special (PAX TV’s “Lie Detector”) where he took a polygraph test on-air to prove he was the Bigfoot in the 1967 film​. Heironimus passed the TV lie detector according to the show’s polygraph expert, and this was widely touted as a vindication of his story​. News headlines and segments at the time leaned into it: “Man Who Wore Bigfoot Suit Passes Lie Detector,” effectively suggesting the famous footage had finally been exposed as a hoax.

What these reports glossed over was the significant context and counter-evidence. Lie detectors, of course, are not admissible in court for good reason – people can pass polygraphs while lying (even serial killer Ted Bundy passed polygraphs, as one analyst dryly noted​). The TV show itself acknowledged this by mentioning other notorious liars who “proved” themselves via polygraph​. Yet many media discussions treated the polygraph result as a serious blow against the film’s authenticity, while downplaying the problems with Heironimus’s tale: he could not produce the alleged ape suit (supposedly he had kept it in a barn until it rotted away, convenient lack of evidence but he also has stated in the past, that Patterson had collected it also), nor could he or the book’s investigators recreate anything close to the film’s creature on camera​. Those critical details got far less attention. Instead, the narrative was set that “the guy in the suit has confessed.” It made for compelling TV and fit the prevailing bias, so it stuck in many viewers’ minds.

Contrast this with how the media have treated the original filmmakers’ accounts.

Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin always maintained that their encounter was genuine and the film shows a real animal. In the late 1960s, Patterson even agreed to take a professional polygraph test himself. In 1968 he was examined by a reputable New York City polygrapher – and Roger Patterson passed his lie detector test, never wavering in claiming he filmed a Bigfoot​. This fact was reported in some newspapers at the time, yet it is rarely, if ever, brought up in modern media coverage.

You’ll see Heironimus’s televised polygraph mentioned in articles or skeptical documentaries as a strike against the film, but not a peep about Patterson’s passed polygraph. The omission is telling. It exemplifies how evidence or testimony supporting the Bigfoot researchers’ side often gets buried, while anything casting doubt (no matter how thin) is amplified. Similarly, Bob Gimlin (Patterson’s partner) has told the same story consistently for fifty-plus years and even passed a polygraph of his own regarding the events, but those facts are usually only circulated within Bigfoot research circles, not in the pages of legacy newspapers or science magazines.

In short, the media showed a clear double standard: a dubious confession backed by a TV polygraph made headlines, whereas solid consistent testimony from the original witnesses (backed by a polygraph exam and decades of credibility) was largely ignored. This selective reporting further skewed public perception, reinforcing the notion that the film was a hoax and that anyone still convinced by it must be ignoring the “obvious truth.” The average person watching a news segment or reading a summary could easily come away thinking, “Didn’t someone admit to wearing a suit? Those guys who filmed it must have been in on a prank.” Meanwhile, they’d likely never hear that the filmmakers themselves underwent similar scrutiny and passed.

Picture
In recent years, the pattern has continued with a twist: media coverage now often seizes on academic-sounding studies that claim to explain away Bigfoot – sometimes overstating what the research actually concludes. A prime example occurred just in the past couple of years with a study by data scientist Floe Foxon that examined the geography of Bigfoot sightings.
​
A black bear standing on its hind legs can resemble a towering Bigfoot figure from a distance. Several modern studies suggest many Sasquatch reports may actually be misidentified wildlife​..

Foxon’s paper, titled “Bigfoot: If it’s there, could it be a bear?”, analyzed statistical correlations between reported Bigfoot sightings and populations of black bears across North America. It was a serious attempt to apply data science to the mystery, and it found a striking correlation: regions with more bears tend to also have more Bigfoot reports. Foxon suggested that many sightings of Bigfoot might be misidentified bears, especially black bears that occasionally stand upright and can appear uncannily human-like at a glance​. This is a reasonable hypothesis  indeed, as others had made similar arguments before,  but what’s important is how the media presented Foxon’s findings.

In early 2023 and again when the study was published in 2024, headline after headline declared Bigfoot essentially solved. Science news sites and mainstream outlets alike boiled it down to “Bigfoot? It’s probably just bears,” often implying that the enduring mystery had been neatly explained by one data analysis. For instance, Phys.org ran the headline “Data scientist suggests many Bigfoot sightings may be bear sightings,” and concluded in no uncertain terms that “the evidence strongly suggests that most if not all Bigfoot sightings are actually people catching a glimpse of a wild black bear”​. Other outlets echoed this conclusive tone. It made for great clickbait: science had debunked Bigfoot with statistics!

However, this was another case of portraying a study as more definitive than it really was. Floe Foxon himself was careful to state that his study “doesn’t prove Bigfoot doesn’t exist”, only that a significant number of reports could be cases of mistaken identity. The statistical correlation is intriguing, but by no means does it cover “all” Bigfoot reports as outliers and counterpoints exist (for example, sightings of something ape-like where black bear populations are essentially zero, and other sighting details that don’t fit a bear’s behavior). Moreover, correlation is not causation; bears and Bigfoot reports could both be plentiful in certain wilderness areas simply because those areas have lots of wilderness (something Foxon did try to account for with human population and forest cover variables​, but still). These nuances were mostly lost in the media coverage.

Instead, the takeaway served to the public was that scientists had basically proven Bigfoot to be a misidentification. The study’s methodological constraints like assuming all reports are honest mistakes rather than some other explanation – received little mention. And notably, when Bigfoot researchers pointed out flaws (for example, that eyewitnesses often describe details that don’t match a bear, or that the model can’t explain tracks and other physical evidence), those critiques didn’t get traction in mainstream venues. The legacy media preference was clear: a skeptical study, especially one with academic credentials, gets amplified and rarely scrutinized with the same vigor as any pro-Bigfoot evidence would be. In effect, a correlation study was treated as a debunking tool, much as Ray Wallace’s wooden feet were treated as a smoking gun, in both cases, the media arguably overcorrected toward the skeptical viewpoint, oversimplifying the story for the sake of closure.

Picture
From the 1960s to today, one constant has been the outsized role of legacy media outlets, major newspapers, wire services, and TV networks in shaping public opinion on Bigfoot. As we’ve seen, these outlets have often exhibited a strong skeptical bias, especially in the past two decades. When The New York Times proclaims that Bigfoot was “created” by a hoaxer, or when ABC News erroneously reports a fake confession, it carries enormous weight. Such stories get syndicated, repeated on talk shows, and enter the cultural zeitgeist. By contrast, when evidence emerges or hoax claims are debunked, those corrections rarely enjoy the same reach. After the 2002 Wallace media blitz, many people simply accepted as common knowledge that “Bigfoot was a proven hoax”, a misunderstanding directly traceable to how legacy media framed the story. Even today, you’ll hear folks confidently cite a “deathbed confession” by Roger Patterson (which never happened) as the reason they dismiss Bigfoot ,a classic case of misinformation propagated by poor reporting.

The media’s skeptical tone has not gone unnoticed by researchers. Veteran investigators have accused journalists of ignoring evidence and even common sense in their rush to ridicule. The BFRO (Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization) lambasted the 2002 coverage, noting how reporters kept insisting “there is no evidence” for Bigfoot while simultaneously hailing flimsy hoax claims as definitive proof against it. Indeed, it’s a telling irony: thousands of footprint casts, documented sightings, and even frame 352 of the Patterson film (arguably among the most studied pieces of footage in cryptozoology) are dismissed as “not evidence,” yet a pair of wooden stompers or an unverifiable tale gets treated as credible. This asymmetry in standards speaks to an underlying bias.

Another influence of legacy media is the cascade effect. Once a prestigious outlet or authority figure takes a stance, others often fall in line. The New York Times front-page story in 2003 not only misquoted scientists which in any other context would be a journalistic scandal, but it effectively gave permission to other news organizations to treat Bigfoot believers with open condescension​. If America’s “newspaper of record” was calling the Sasquatch search a bunch of foolishness, local papers and TV stations could comfortably adopt a similar tone without fear of seeming unfair, after all, they were echoing the Times. This top-down setting of narrative can be very powerful. It has contributed to what might be called the “snicker factor” any time Bigfoot is mentioned in mainstream newsrooms. Journalists, conscious of not wanting to appear gullible, err heavily on the side of disbelief often to the point of constructing a story that was never actually confirmed, as happened with ABC’s conflation of Ray Wallace with Patterson’s film.

None of this is to say that healthy skepticism is bad. On the contrary, it’s essential in journalism. The issue highlighted here is when skepticism mutates into bias, where one side of an issue consistently gets the benefit of the doubt (or unearned spotlight) while the other is reflexively marginalized. In the case of Bigfoot, legacy media have, through repeated missteps and slanted storytelling, fostered a public mindset that anything Sasquatch-related is unworthy of serious consideration. It’s a self-reinforcing loop: the more the media mocks Bigfoot, the more the topic becomes a joke, and the less incentive any serious journalist must treat it fairly.

Yet, despite decades of biased coverage, interest in Bigfoot persists among the public. In recent years, a proliferation of podcasts, YouTube channels, and independent documentaries – free from traditional editorial gatekeeping – have given Bigfoot researchers a platform to present their case without the usual media filter. And interestingly, even some mainstream outlets have begun to acknowledge past mistakes. Occasionally you’ll see a more balanced article or a news segment that admits, “Well, we don’t know everything, the legend continues.” But these are exceptions. By and large, the legacy of legacy media (pun intended) has been to engrain deep skepticism toward Bigfoot research.

Conclusion: Since the days of the Patterson–Gimlin film in 1967, U.S. media coverage of Bigfoot has journeyed from open-minded curiosity to near outright dismissal. The tone shift over the decades, fueled by episodes of misinformation, like the Ray Wallace saga, and one-sided reporting on hoax claims and studies has undeniably influenced public perception. Ask an average American why they think Bigfoot isn’t real, and you’ll likely hear one of the media-driven talking points in response (e.g., “someone admitted it was a hoax,” “scientists proved it was just bears,” or “there’s no evidence”). Each of those points has a kernel of truth wrapped in a cocoon of exaggeration or omission.

Bigfoot research, for its part, continues in the shadows of this media bias. Serious investigators still collect data, analyze footprints, and even publish papers, often to be met with a collective eyeroll from the press. But understanding this history of coverage is important. It reminds us that sometimes the narrative we’re fed is less about the facts on the ground and more about the framework through which those facts are filtered. In the case of Sasquatch, the framework has long been tilted against it. As consumers of media, recognizing that bias is the first step in approaching the topic with a genuinely open mind, whether one is ultimately a skeptic, a believer, or simply curious. The truth about Bigfoot, whatever it may be, deserves to be pursued with honesty and rigor. When conclusive evidence ever does emerge, one can only hope the media will rise to the occasion and report it fairly, no snickering soundtrack required.

Till Next Time,

​Squatch-D 
0 Comments

Another Weak Swing at the Truth: Why the Vimeo “Expose” Fails Like the Rest

3/29/2025

0 Comments

 
There’s a long-running pattern in this field — occasionally when I shine a light on inconvenient truths, someone tries to shut me up. The latest attempt comes in the form of a Vimeo video that cobbles together selectively edited footage and twisted narratives in a feeble effort to discredit me and my work. But just like the attempts that came before it, this one collapses under the weight of cold, hard facts.

I rarely take it personally when I expose hoaxers — it comes with the territory. I understand that when they lash out, it’s usually because they can’t refute the facts or produce receipts of their own.

But when there’s a clear pattern of attempts to discredit me using deception, misrepresentation, or manufactured claims of wrongdoing, that hits differently. That’s not just damage control; that’s character assassination.

​I don’t hold grudges lightly, but when someone lies about me, lies to me, and recruits others to help carry out that smear campaign, they earn a place on a very short list. And unfortunately, this individual  and those who enable him  are firmly on it.


Let’s be clear this isn’t the first time someone from the Tom Biscardi camp has tried to muzzle me. In 2015, I received a cease-and-desist letter from the late Dennis Kazubowski, former SFBI shareholder and attorney who was then acting as Biscardi’s legal enforcer. The letter accused me of violating a confidentiality agreement I signed in 2008 during a specific expedition with Biscardi’s organization, Searching for Bigfoot Inc.

Kazubowski or perhaps more likely, the man pulling the strings behind him, likely hoped I’d forgotten the fine print. I hadn’t. The agreement applied only to “any and all information, data, and evidence gathered from this expedition.” That’s it. Nothing more. It didn't cover later actions. It didn’t muzzle me from speaking the truth about what I witnessed. And it certainly didn’t erase Biscardi’s public behavior or his repeated failures to follow through on his own claims.

And let’s not forget, even if they’d had a case (they didn’t), they were years past the statute of limitations. My Hall of Shame page? Online since 2010. My book Fifty Large? Published in 2011. The letter? May 2015. Game over.
​

Everything I’ve published has been grounded in verifiable facts. The 2008 Bigfoot freezer hoax wasn’t speculation. The other two people involved confirmed Biscardi’s role, and Biscardi himself went on Fox News to claim he had “touched it, felt it, smelled it.” His words — not mine. That’s public record.
PictureExplosive isn't it?
Now let’s fast forward to the present, and the latest video trying to rewrite history. It attempts to paint me as a hypocrite by showing clips of me in the field with SFBI. Here’s the irony: those clips prove exactly what I’ve always said: I was there. I was boots on the ground. I was embedded with the team, observing, assessing, and trying to get to the bottom of what was really going on.

They claim it's “explosive.” What it really is, is confirmatory.

My critiques of SFBI have always been focused on Biscardi himself, not the team members in the field. I’ve never labeled the crew as liars — I’ve said, and still maintain, that they were being manipulated by a man whose actual agenda had nothing to do with live capture of a Sasquatch. His real focus? Media hype, promotional footage, and building a brand around  low selling films, non-existent museums,  and his own name. 

Why those museums never went up? We get nothing but excuses. A reminder of the famous anonymous quote, perhaps it sounds familiar to someone:

Picture
​SFBI sold itself as a serious investigative team, but what I witnessed was something very different: a roadshow aimed at producing dramatic footage for promotional use. They weren’t solving cases. They weren’t following leads to resolution. They were moving from one scene to the next without closure — always forward, never looking back — because the goal was content, not truth.

And when I called that out, the response wasn’t to provide evidence to the contrary. It was to attack me personally, take my words out of context, and attempt once again to shut me up. That’s the pattern. And just like in 2015, it didn’t work.
So let this be clear: I won’t stop speaking the truth because someone finds it inconvenient. I won’t be bullied into silence by a man building a Bigfoot empire out of half-truths and staged drama. And every time they try to come after me, they only prove my point further.
​

Expose away — because the real story has already been told, and I’ve got the receipts to back it up.

Till Next Time,
Squatch-D 

Picture
Picture
Picture
Picture
Your browser does not support viewing this document. Click here to download the document.
0 Comments

Independence Day Bigfoot Video... Result is in.

3/24/2025

0 Comments

 
       People continually ask me to review the Independence Day Bigfoot Video, you know the one carrying the "baby." So here's the skinny of it all. Let's break this down in two ways. The actions of the videographer and the film itself. Here's just the raw facts. 

1. Videographer Behaviors

🔍 1. Camera Movement and Framing✅ Observed:
  • Camera pans and zooms toward the subject, rather than away.
  • The subject is often centered or near-center in frame.
  • There is little panic, no signs of running or stumbling.
  • Camera holds on the figure for several seconds, with minimal shaking for an alleged high-adrenaline encounter.
⚠️ Psychological Inconsistency:In a legitimate, high-stress sighting of an unknown hominid:
  • Most people experience a fight-flight-freeze response.
  • Expect erratic movement, loss of framing, or even abandonment of the shot altogether.
  • This footage demonstrates a level of composure and technical handling inconsistent with a spontaneous reaction to a large, unknown animal.
📌 Interpretation: Behavior suggests the photographer either knew where the subject would appear or was acting under low stress, possibly staging or filming a planned scenario.

🔊 2. Absence of Audio ReactionsIf audio is present (which it is in some versions), it's often eerily quiet:
  • No gasp, shouted expletives, or startled verbal confirmation ("What is that?!" etc.)
  • No labored breathing, even during a supposed chase or follow
  • No vocal communication with others, even if multiple people were allegedly present
⚠️ Psychological Inconsistency:In a real sighting, most people speak without thinking—verbalizing shock, fear, or even profanity. The absence of this is highly suspect unless:
  • The audio was muted or replaced
  • The videographer is unusually disciplined or disassociated (which is rare in spontaneous events)

🚶 3. Pursuit BehaviorThe camera tracks the figure without hesitation:
  • No decision-making moment ("Should I follow it?")
  • No concern for personal safety
  • No attempt to gain higher ground or safer vantage point
⚠️ Psychological Inconsistency:In genuine wildlife or cryptid encounters:
  • Most witnesses retreat or maintain safe distance
  • Rarely do they move toward the unknown, unless emboldened by group presence or a weapon
📌 Interpretation: Either the photographer did not perceive danger, or the event was scripted, removing the uncertainty normally present.

⏱ 4. Duration of FilmingThe subject is filmed for a prolonged period, with:
  • Subject in-frame for a surprisingly long time
  • No scramble to grab the camera, stabilize it, or refocus
⚠️ Inconsistency:Legit sightings tend to be extremely brief—many under 10 seconds—because the creature moves quickly or the videographer panics.
📌 Long, clear, and stable framing is atypical, especially if the encounter is described as "sudden" or "unexpected."

🧠 5. Cognitive-Emotional DisconnectThere is no visible or audible emotional escalation:
  • No shift from confusion → awe → fear
  • No sign of shaking voice or hyperventilation
  • No attempt to narrate, flee, or signal others
This suggests the event was either:
  1. Filmed calmly by someone who already knew the subject wasn’t dangerous, or
  2. Staged, and therefore lacking authentic emotional markers.
Picture

2. The Film... Inconsistencies show "post-production work"

Picture
Picture
📌 1. Zoomed-In Rock Interaction (Frames 1–4)These show the region where the subject appears to interact with or pass in front of the rock:
  • You can clearly see in Frame 2 and 3, the upper body cuts in front of the rock.
  • However, the legs remain visibly behind it, with no natural transition.
  • There’s no anatomical continuity, which suggests a compositing mask error.

📌 2. Marked Full FramesThese highlight the analyzed region with a red bounding box:
  • Note how shadows and edges behave unnaturally around the interaction point.
  • The rock edge remains static, while the subject's interaction with it is inconsistent across frames.
What’s notable here is the high initial motion (Frame 1–2) where the upper body appears in front of the rock, followed by a drop in magnitude, even though you'd expect consistent stride flow if the figure were moving uniformly. This supports the idea of compositional discontinuity or layer mismatch during the rock crossing.

Conclusion:

The inconsistencies in depth occlusion, combined with edge behavior and inconsistent motion magnitude, suggest the video segment likely underwent manipulation. The interaction between the figure and the rock violates physical continuity.  

So folks, this one is not a winner!!! 

Till Next Time,
Squatch-D 

0 Comments

What the Whoop? A Scientific Look at the 2023 Bigfoot Vocalization

3/22/2025

0 Comments

 
PictureSpectrogram of the "Whoop."
      In the field of Bigfoot research, it’s rare that an investigation yields data worthy of deeper scientific analysis. But that’s exactly what happened during the 2023 expedition to “Research Area 1,” What started as a routine night surveillance operation turned into something far more intriguing—a single, clear, and oddly powerful vocalization that sparked questions no campfire story could answer.

      Let’s cut to the chase: we recorded a “whoop.” Not just any whoop, but one with acoustic properties that stand apart from typical human calls and bear strong similarities to vocalizations of large-bodied primates.

     We broke this down in a recent scientific paper, comparing the vocalization’s spectrogram and frequency analysis to known calls of humans, chimpanzees, gorillas, and howler monkeys. Here’s the kicker—the whoop was centered in a lower frequency range, averaging around 156 Hz. That’s significantly deeper than most human whoops, and well within the realm of some non-human primate vocalizations. We're talking frequency territory typically inhabited by gorillas or howler monkeys, not hikers or pranksters.

      And no, there are no known non-human primates in that area.

     To make things even more compelling, the context of the recording lends it additional weight. The whoop occurred shortly after I attempted to announce my presence, as I had for years prior, using vocal calls and whistles; methods also used in primate research to elicit response behavior.

​Coincidence? Possibly. But it’s one hell of a coincidence. 

Picture
​   The original archive entry  offers a boots-on-the-ground account of the event, but when paired with proper signal analysis and primate vocal studies, it becomes something more: an anomaly grounded in data. Not definitive proof, but evidence that demands attention and further study.

     What makes this case stand out isn’t just the quality of the audio, but the scientific rigor we applied afterward. This wasn’t brushed off as “just another sound in the woods.” It was analyzed, compared, and documented with transparent methodology.
​

     In a field often plagued by hoaxes and hyperbole, this instance stands as a model for how Bigfoot research should be conducted: evidence-based, technically analyzed, and open to peer review.
​

     Whether you’re a die-hard believer, an open-minded skeptic, or a hardcore primatologist, the 2023 whoop is worth a listen and more importantly, it’s worth a look through a scientific lens.

Want to hear it for yourself?

Check out the original post here: 
Expedition 2023 – The Best Vocal

Because sometimes, the woods talk back.

Till Next Time,
Squatch-D

Your browser does not support viewing this document. Click here to download the document.
0 Comments

Why Bigfoot Varies in Size Across North America

3/21/2025

0 Comments

 
A Look at Bergmann’s Rule, Allen’s Rule, and Regional Differences

      Why do Bigfoot seem to vary in size depending on where they’re reported? From towering giants in the Pacific Northwest to leaner, more agile variants in the South, this isn’t just a case of eyewitness inconsistency, there’s a biological explanation worth considering.
       Let’s break down what’s going on and how Bergmann’s Rule and Allen’s Rule might be the key.
Bergmann’s Rule: The Biology Behind the Beast   

      Bergmann’s Rule
is a principle from biology that applies to warm-blooded animals (endotherms). It states that animals in colder climates tend to be larger in body size than those in warmer climates.
      Why? Because larger animals retain heat better due to a lower surface-area-to-volume ratio, an evolutionary advantage in colder environments. It’s a law that holds true for bears, wolves, deer… and if Bigfoot is a real biological entity, it would make sense that the same rule applies.
Picture
Allen’s Rule: Shape Matters Too

      Allen’s Rule builds on this by looking at body proportions rather than just overall size. Animals in warmer climates tend to have longer limbs and appendages, while those in colder climates have shorter ones.
    Why? Because longer limbs radiate heat more effectively useful in hot environments. In cold climates, shorter limbs conserve heat. Again, this is a pattern we see in hares, birds, and even human populations.
​      So when we hear reports of long-limbed, lanky Sasquatches in the Deep South versus stockier, barrel-chested ones in Alaska or British Columbia it may not just be perception. It could be thermal adaptation in action.
Regional Differences in Bigfoot Size and Shape

      Across North America, reports and footprint evidence suggest distinct differences in size and build based on geography  which aligns remarkably well with both Bergmann’s and Allen’s Rules.
Picture
Final Thoughts: Nature Doesn’t Make Exceptions

       Sasquatch exists as a living, breathing creature, and  they are shaped by natural law like every other warm-blooded animal.
Bergmann’s Rule explains the massive builds in colder regions, while Allen’s Rule accounts for limb proportion differences across climates. Together, these biological principles help us make sense of the regional variation in Bigfoot reports, not as contradictions, but as
evidence of environmental adaptation.

      In short, it’s not that witnesses are inconsistent. It’s that Sasquatch may be evolving regionally, just like every other species.

Till Next Time,
​Squatch-D
0 Comments

The Flaws in the Patterson-Gimlin Film Hoax Claims: A Critical Examination

3/3/2025

0 Comments

 
      For decades, the 1967 Patterson-Gimlin Film has remained one of the most debated pieces of evidence in the study of Bigfoot. Many have sought to debunk it, but some of the loudest voices claiming it was a hoax, Bob Heironimus, Phillip Morris, Greg Long, and Kal Korff, have presented narratives riddled with inconsistencies, contradictions, and outright fabrications.
   
​     In my recent Critical Analysis of the Heironimus Claims, I dissect the claims made by these individuals and expose their glaring weaknesses. Here is a brief overview of the major points.
PictureBob Heironimus
Bob Heironimus: A Story That Keeps Changing 

    Heironimus claims he wore a Bigfoot costume in the film, yet his descriptions of the suit's material have changed drastically over time. At first, he described it as being made of a twenty-five-pound horsehide suit, then later changed his story to say it was a lightweight synthetic fur. He also gave conflicting details about its construction, the boots he wore, and even the filming location. Additionally, weather records contradict his claim that he was sweating profusely inside the suit on a hot day when the recorded temperature was just fifty-five degrees Fahrenheit. 
​    Perhaps most telling is Heironimus’ financial motive. He admitted publicly that his reason for coming forward was money, saying, "It’s my turn now." His claims only surfaced decades later, conveniently timed to align with a book deal.

PicturePhillip Morris
Phillip Morris: Where is the Proof?

     
Morris, a costume salesman, asserts he sold Roger Patterson the suit used in the film. Yet, he has provided no evidence, no receipts, no order records, and no surviving suit that matches the Patterson-Gimlin Film subject. His story also conveniently surfaced over thirty years after the film, once it was a recognized cultural phenomenon.
​
    Morris has a history of dubious business practices, including a lawsuit for selling unlicensed Barney the Dinosaur costumes and making opportunistic claims, such as falsely stating he inspired the character Dr. Evil from Austin Powers. His involvement suggests a profit-driven publicity stunt rather than a credible revelation.

Picture
Easy to tell which one is a costume!
Picture
The character assassination of a dead man.
PictureGreg Long
Greg Long’s The Making of Bigfoot: A Biased Attack Piece

      Long’s book, The Making of Bigfoot, set out to "prove" the Patterson-Gimlin Film was a hoax, but his research was deeply biased. He actively sought out negative testimonials against Patterson while ignoring key witnesses like Bob Gimlin. His portrayal of Patterson as a "liar and thief" is based on cherry-picked anecdotes, and his reliance on unverified hearsay further discredits his work.
     Most importantly, no physical proof of a Bigfoot costume was ever presented in Long’s book. Instead, his case rests on assumptions, contradictions, and biased storytelling.

PictureThe "Colonel" himself, Kal Korf (sitting between an American & Israeli Flag).
​Kal Korff: The Self-Proclaimed Intelligence Officer

     Korff, who played a key role in promoting the hoax claims and assisting Long lining up witnesses, has a well-documented history of fabricating credentials, including falsely claiming to be a Colonel in Israeli Intelligence.
​     His past is littered with publicity stunts and fraudulent statements, making him one of the least credible figures to support the hoax theory. Yet he writes the forward in Long's attack piece. 

​Conclusion: The Case Against the Patterson-Gimlin Film Falls Apart

     Despite their combined efforts, Heironimus, Morris, Long, and Korff have failed to present a consistent or convincing case that the Patterson-Gimlin Film was a hoax. Their testimonies contradict each other, rely on no physical evidence, and are financially and personally motivated. Meanwhile, the Patterson-Gimlin Film endures. Its subject displays biomechanics, proportions, and muscle movement that remain unmatched by any costume reproduction to this day.

     The hoax claims collapse under scrutiny. The film stands as a piece of evidence that has yet to be debunked and remains one of the most compelling pieces of footage in cryptozoology.

Below find the Critical Analysis in PDF form! 

Your browser does not support viewing this document. Click here to download the document.
0 Comments

​J. W. Burns – The Journalist Who Popularized “Sasquatch”

2/25/2025

0 Comments

 
PictureJ.W. Burns
     John W. Burns (1888–1962), was a Canadian schoolteacher and Indian Agent who worked with First Nations communities in British Columbia.

​     In the 1920s, while teaching at the Chehalis Indian Reserve east of Vancouver, Burns became fascinated by local Indigenous legends of “wild hairy giants” said to roam the forests.

    He earned the trust of Chehalis elders and collected their accounts of these creatures. Rather than keep these stories within the community, Burns wrote them up for a wider audience.
​

    His most famous contribution was bringing the Sasquatch legend to mainstream attention through articles and stories published in Canadian media. This work effectively introduced an obscure Indigenous oral tradition to non-Indigenous readers, making Burns a seminal figure in Sasquatch lore.

Picture
Coining the Term “Sasquatch”

      Burns is widely credited as the first to popularize the term “Sasquatch.” In fact, he effectively coined the word by anglicizing an Indigenous term. The word Sasquatch derives from “sasq’ets,” a word in the local Halkomelem (Coast Salish) language referring to a wild man or hairy giant. Burns heard various Indigenous names for the creature and decided to use a single term for his articles.

       In 1929, he introduced this new term to the public in Maclean’s magazine, in an article titled “Introducing B.C.’s Hairy Giants,” thereby putting “Sasquatch” into print. By compiling First Nations stories and giving the creature a memorable name, Burns ensured that the legend would stick in popular imagination.

        His 1929 article was the first modern account of the Sasquatch and is considered the origin point for all later “Bigfoot” lore in pop culture. Every subsequent mention of Sasquatch or Bigfoot can be traced back to Burns’s storytelling in that era.

Cultural Appropriation and Modern Critiques

     While Burns helped preserve and popularize Indigenous stories, modern perspectives often criticize his work as an example of cultural appropriation. Burns was a non-Native “Indian Agent” retelling sacred First Nations legends at a time when Indigenous peoples were oppressed and even legally barred from practicing elements of their culture.

       Critics note that Burns took Coast Salish stories and put his own name on them, repackaging communal oral traditions as his own discovery. According to one analysis, “J.W. Burns took the Sasquatch story from the Coast Salish people, put his name on it, and submitted it to Maclean’s.”

      Indigenous writers argue that Burns’s retelling distorted and commodified their traditions, presenting them as entertaining curiosities for non-Native readers. Over time, Burns became “obsessed” with the Sasquatch, embellishing the legends with each retelling. As a result, the authentic legend eventually became unrecognizable. This has been cited as a classic case of cultural misappropriation—an example of how Indigenous knowledge was taken and transformed by outsiders.

      At the same time, there is a nuanced view that the Sasquatch story has since been reclaimed by Indigenous communities. The Sts’ailes First Nation, for example, openly celebrate Sasquatch Days and share the Sasq’ets legend on their own terms, something that might not have been possible in the 1930s without Burns’s initial exposure of the legend. Nonetheless, the prevailing modern critique is that Burns’s role in Sasquatch lore came at the expense of Indigenous ownership of their own stories.
PictureCondensed captures of Burn's article.
The 1929 Maclean’s Article and April Fool’s Day

      Burns’s landmark article, “Introducing B.C.’s Hairy Giants,” appeared in the April 1, 1929, issue of Maclean’s magazine. Because it was published on April Fool’s Day, some readers at the time wondered if the wild tale was meant as a prank.

     In fact, the piece was a sincere collection of accounts, not a satirical hoax but the coincidence of the date caused confusion. Historically, Maclean’s did not have a tradition of April Fool’s hoaxes. At the time, it was a serious monthly periodical that was typically released on the first of each month as a matter of routine scheduling.
​

      The April 1929 issue happened to fall on the first, so Burns’s article ran that day by coincidence. Cryptozoology historians have noted that Burns did not intend to create a hoax or a joke creature; he was reporting legends he believed to be real.

Contemporary Reception and Legacy

        At the time of publication, Burns’s Sasquatch writings were received with a mix of intrigue and doubt. The sensational nature of the claims combined with the April 1 issue date led many in the public to view Sasquatch as a curious folk tale rather than a credible reality.

        Beyond local circles in British Columbia, the “hairy giants” were largely thought of as myth. Despite skepticism, the article did spark some interest, and in subsequent decades researchers occasionally cited Burns’s accounts as important early evidence for Sasquatch reports. Burns himself continued writing on the subject and helped organize Sasquatch-themed events in Harrison Hot Springs.

     In the years since, J.W. Burns has become known as the “father of Sasquatch.” Cryptozoologists revere his work as foundational, while mainstream scientists and the broader public often view Sasquatch as purely mythical.
Modern scholars also focus on the cultural cost of his writings, noting how he extracted Indigenous legends for a sensational magazine piece and thereby appropriated stories.
​
      Nonetheless, virtually all modern Sasquatch or Bigfoot lore traces back to Burns’s 1929 article and the term he introduced. His role in shaping the legend, despite controversies, remains profound.

      Below you will find both the original issue of MacLean's Magazine and a transcription of Burn's groundbreaking yet controversial article. 

Transcribed JW Burns' Article

Your browser does not support viewing this document. Click here to download the document.

MacLean's Magazine, April 1st, 1929

Your browser does not support viewing this document. Click here to download the document.

​References
  1. Burns, J. W. “Introducing B.C.’s Hairy Giants,” Maclean’s, April 1, 1929.
  2. The Canadian Encyclopedia – Sasquatch.
  3. Kook Science Archive – J. W. Burns.
  4. Outpost Magazine – “Of Myths and Legends in the Great Bear Rainforest” .
  5. Mysteries of Canada – “How the Sasquatch Got Its Name” .
  6. The Walrus – “On Cultural Appropriation, Canadians Are Hypocrites” 
  7. Canadaland – “How Sasquatch was Stolen.”
  8. Cryptomundo – “All-Time Best Cryptozoology April Fools’ Jokes.” 
0 Comments
<<Previous

    Archives

    June 2025
    May 2025
    April 2025
    March 2025
    February 2025

    RSS Feed

Picture


​Copyright 2006 - 2025

 Steve Kulls / Squatchdetective.com
Readers are free to use materials from this site provided that: 

the information is credited and the original intent, meaning or purpose is not altered.

This website is protected under :
The United States Copyright Act of Fair Use..

Section 107 U.S. Copyright Law: Limitations on exclusive rights:
​ Fair Use 
Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phone records or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.