Four-year Bigfoot research project in Oklahoma yields intriguing and unexplained results

Here’s a strange beast – a comprehensive report of a research study intended to document the apparent presence of native “wood apes” (popularly known as Bigfoot) in the Ouachita mountains of Oklahoma. The North American Wood Ape Conservancy consists of serious researchers who carefully plan their approach and document their findings. They have published a detailed report of a four year research project.

The investigations, conducted over the course of four years, ranged from sixty to one hundred twenty days in duration, and produced experiences, evidence, and information thought to be significant, though not definitive to the point of validating the existence of a native North American anthropoid species. Some of the more notable thoughts and impressions recorded by scores of NAWAC team members are described and discussed in the Ouachita Project monograph

Read the entire report here: Ouachita Project Monograph (And you better read it before attempting to disparage it in the comments.) You’ll find that it’s well-written, intelligent and at times dramatic.

What was NAWAC able to document? Well, not a specimen, unfortunately, though they were prepared to take one down, and did shoot and apparently hit one. Photographs? No. They had problems with trail cameras ruined by bears and, when secured, the devices were noticeable on the trails and conspicuous around the cabins. You will find documented in the report accounts of the following:

  • Rock throwing incidents (over 1000)
  • Wood knocking (sometimes rhythmic, responsive or mimicking)
  • Metallic noise (use of rocks or hard objects on metallic objects)
  • Sounds of movement through vegetation and bipedal footfalls
  • Banging on the structure walls during the night
  • Footprints
  • Strong smell (musky, wet horse scent)
  • Damaged trees (felled dead trees, broken dead or green limbs beyond natural breakage)
  • Vocalizations (huffs, grunts, whistles, growls, screams and chattering)
  • Indeterminate hair and blood sample
  • Signatures from thermal cameras and reports of eyeshine
  • Brief sightings of reddish brown to black various sized animals
  • One occasion of physical intrusion into a window

The group suggests in their hypothesis that an undocumented anthropoid is native to this remote area they call “Area X” in order to not reveal its location (on private land). They surmise that the creature primarily is bipedal and exists in social groups. They have adapted to be stealthy and avoid being in a direct line of sight.

I strongly urge you to read the report and notice that there is no hoaxing evident. This project is the result of considerable time and effort (12,000 hours of investigation) by the dozens of participants. They did not appeared to fake or exaggerate the evidence, they admit where they made mistakes and where things did not work, and they understand that the evidence presented is not definitive. But, they hope that the documentation of their observations spurs a closer look by scientists.

What threw the rocks? What made a ruckus outside the cabins at night? Where was the wood knocking coming from? Why could they not SEE what causing the commotion? Regardless of your attitude about the idea of Bigfoot, these are questions that deserve an answer. I’m intrigued.

News of the release of this report was provided to DN by Brian Brown of the Bigfoot Show podcast and a member of the NAWAC. I contacted Brian for more on this project so watch for an update on this story coming soon. Bookmark it!

UPDATE (05-March 2015)

Brian Brown has filled in some details on the report. I asked him about the main issues in the report. Many who are dismissing the report out of hand assume that other people are doing the rock throwing. Brian responds: “As the reports states, the rocks are flying essentially *at all times* we’re there. We’ve been there for months on end over four years. If it’s people doing it, their commitment to hoaxing us is remarkable (and unrealistic). Also, though you can only take my word for it, the location makes other people being the source practically impossible. It is rugged and remote in the extreme.”

Regarding the blood samples, they are certain it is blood but unsure why the test results were not conclusive. There could be many reasons including degradation from the environment or that the lab didn’t take it seriously enough. “The last two rocks are being stored properly in the event we have another pass at someone willing to test them and/or advances in DNA tech.”

Blood stains on rocks where a creature was supposedly shot. Sample results were not conclusive.

Blood stains on rocks where a creature was supposedly shot. Sample results were not conclusive.

Brian states that this report was not written for the “Bigfoot community” – a name that carries a ton of baggage as is obvious in the reaction of several skeptics who automatically assume “hoax” (with good historical reasons). They use the term “wood ape” instead of Bigfoot because it is in line with their hypothesis. NAWAC will continue to conduct observations at the site and try new techniques. “We believe we’re close and come close several times. We will continue until we succeed.”

One technique I noticed they DIDN’T use was food baiting. Why? He says people always try that but it doesn’t work in an area that’s already full of abundant food sources. The bait gets stolen by opportunistic scavengers instead.

Finally, I noted that the stone throwing and banging sound very much like traditional poltergeist activity. It’s not the first time they’ve heard that. But it is curious, isn’t it.

Again, I encourage people to read the report before commenting. I’ve seen hundreds of hoaxed Bigfoot reports but this deserves a higher level of attention due to the duration and number of participants as well as the location and degree of careful record keeping. Could it be a hoax or are the NAWAC being hoaxed? Possible but not probable. We ask for careful research into a phenomenon so we when get it, it is only right to not assume fraud for no good reason but to take a measured look at what is presented. There are questions here to be answered. To dismiss it is to be a denialist. Practical skepticism is warranted. Pathological dismissal is not. I, for one, would like to know what is going on.

UPDATE (12-Mar-2015): You can read more on what shook out of this report here: Neutrality and the Wood Ape Report.

  204 comments for “Four-year Bigfoot research project in Oklahoma yields intriguing and unexplained results

  1. Massachusetts
    March 4, 2015 at 7:45 PM

    It does sound Interesting. I will read the report. One thing I wonder about but will reserve judgment on for now is why they couldn’t get photos or video if alleged creatures were banging on their structure, entering through a window, etc. but I hope that the report will clarify. Also why they didn’t hide their cameras better. But I’m not disparaging. I hope they did find something exciting. Time will tell.

  2. idoubtit
    March 4, 2015 at 8:27 PM

    The lack of visuals is one of their major frustrations, for sure. But, there are some explanations suggested which are referenced. The degree of intelligence and argument in this paper is HEADS AND SHOULDERS above, not even in comparison to what you would get from your typical ‘footers.

  3. terry the censor
    March 4, 2015 at 9:57 PM

    I have to disagree: This study is not intelligent, it is stupid. Hear me out.

    I read the sections about rock throwing. I can’t call them scientific in any way. All incident reports that mention the slope of the ground say the rocks came down the slope or down from the mountain; rocks never come up from lower down on the slope. Neither is it explicitly stated anywhere that rocks came from a flat area. It is not clear if any rocks hit the cabin walls that faced down the slope.

    From this, one would tentatively form the hypothesis that rocks were rolling down the mountain side. All incident reports could then be charted to determine if this was so. If it was found the reports tended to lack this specific information, making a finding problematic, steps could be taken to make sure future incident reports did have this data. If this new and improved data showed all rocks came from uphill — that is, rocks only struck the roof and the walls that faced uphill — the researchers could test the rolling rock theory by camping at the top of a hill or in a nearby wooded area surrounded by flat land.

    But we don’t see any thinking along these obvious lines. Not once do the researchers consider gravity as the cause of the rock falls. Instead, agency is always assumed. The incident reports state flatly that the rocks were thrown, sometimes saying explicitly that it was done by an animal, though no animal is reported to be seen in any of the incident reports quoted in the study. Researchers are “targeted,” rock throwers are “defiant” and have specific intentions. (Most troubling are these unsupported statements that impute very specific and personal motives to the phantom rock throwers.)

    Some interesting paragraphs from the study, demonstrating my complaints, with a few comments by me in brackets:

    NAWAC researchers actually exchanged rock-throws with unseen parties that were able to maneuver and throw rocks in total darkness while on the rocky, densely forested, steep mountain slope behind the cabin. Although the researchers used headlamps and flashlights just to find rocks to throw, the rock-throwers up on the mountain apparently needed no such augmentation.

    The team was perplexed as to how the rock-chuckers could remain unseen and virtually undetectable yet continually and defiantly throw rocks into camp that sometimes nearly hit the team members. [“sometimes nearly”?]

    McAndrews and Horstman were in disbelief when they realized that the object had been thrown over 100 yards (estimated) yards along the slope of the mountain. [That is one super-strong animal.]

    McAndrews wrote in the journal: “I am unnerved for the first time in the overwatch tent. Make no mistake: There is an animal out there that can throw powerfully and accurately in pitch darkness. Wow.” [Wow, indeed.]

    03:28 – Colyer and Lawrence heard a rock rip through vegetation, tree branches, and leaves from high up on the mountain before the rock soared into camp with considerable velocity and struck the ground hard between the overwatch tent and Higgins’s tent.
    Ten seconds later, the men heard a rock blast through vegetation and trees from the southwest, perhaps 60-70 yards behind Higgins’s tent, and soar through the air before it hit the roof of the base camp cabin like a grenade exploding (indicating that the total distance of the throw must have been approximately 90-100 yards). Higgins later remarked that it was the loudest rock impact that he had ever heard.
    Lawrence and Colyer were astonished.
    Colyer whispered to Lawrence, “Awesome…”

    03:45 – Still scanning and on alert, Cotter heard a sharp loud impact on the plywood of the OW tower on the west side over by his left foot. The object—very likely a rock—struck the plywood and then bounced onto the roof of the cabin. Cotter was certain that the OW tower was being purposely targeted. [“targeted”?]

    07:01 – As Helmer passed the open area of the west woods, he heard large movement at the base of the north mountain as well as large rocks displacing. He froze and scanned the mountain slope and surrounding woods. He saw nothing. [Gravity is invisible.]

    22:31 – A rock thrown from the mountainside struck the ground just beside the portable shower stall on the east side of the base camp cabin.
    22:32 – A rock hit the base camp cabin, thrown from the mountain.
    22:55 – Three rocks successively hit the base camp cabin, all launched from the
    Hayes and Hestand moved toward the mountain, using thermal optics, hoping to
    acquire a hint of visual contact. They saw nothing of significance. Another rock was defiantly launched from the mountainside and landed just east of them. [“defiantly”?]

    23:07 – The team was perplexed as to how the rock-chuckers could remain unseen and virtually undetectable yet continually and defiantly throw rocks into camp that sometimes nearly hit the team members. The throwers were so accurate that they very often connected with their intended targets (roof tops). [“intended”?]

    As soon as Hestand was in his new position, a rock shot out from the woods to the immediate north of the cabin and slammed the back wall of the cabin, missing him by two feet. He now felt certain the thrower had targeted him personally. [“targeted”?]

    ….perhaps, at least in the NAWAC study area, the behavior is intended for purposes of making noise. Oftentimes rocks were heard or seen to strike the roofs and walls of cabins and surrounding metal structures with the effect of creating loud bangs. [“intended”?]

    [And finally, the conclusion:]

    As with wood knocking, rock throwing may well be part of one of the layers of the wood ape’s defense-of-territory behavior, perhaps a form of ritualized aggression. The ability to hurl projectiles would enable a wood ape to display power or intimidation from a position of safety, with the intent of warding off interlopers while retaining territory without engaging in the risky act of direct, physical contact. Reports of encounters with wood apes that involved rock throwing inevitably end with the human(s) leaving the area (usually in a state of high anxiety or fear). If the wood ape has indeed resorted to this behavior since the earliest days of contact with humans, perhaps the species is “hard-wired” to engage in the behavior as a successful way to chase off humans.


    That is quite a conclusion. They determined all that “behaviour” without any evidence of a thrower who can be distinguished from gravity.

    Pseudoscience, pure and simple.

  4. March 4, 2015 at 10:33 PM

    What a load of bull! Maybe someone was throwing rocks, but if you can’t see who it is then it is a stretch to believe it is other than human. I find it hard to believe that in this day and age of high powered portable spotlights that can illuminate a large area several hundred yards, and well beyond stone throwing range, that they somehow didn’t have one.

  5. Kathy Strain
    March 4, 2015 at 11:33 PM

    The hillside slope comes down to a flat and there is a distance between that and the cabin. There are no rock slopes that overhang the cabin roof. There is no ability for a rock to tumble down the hill naturally then hit the roof. Gravity (nor geologic law) can’t cause a slide to go down and then up 12 feet dozens and dozens of time. The cabin isn’t sitting below a cliff. People walk up the slope behind the cabin – not climb it.

  6. March 4, 2015 at 11:53 PM

    I haven’t read the paper yet, but just from what I have read in this article:

    Rock throwing (Hey, we’re here)
    Wood knocking (Yoo hoo, we’re here)
    Metallic noise (Ahem, ahem)
    Sounds of movement through vegetation and footfalls (Oops, forgot to turn on stealth mode)
    Banging on structure walls (Hellooooooooo)
    Tree damage attributed to hairy giants (That’ll show ’em)
    Vocalizations (Bigfoot calling)
    Physical intrusion (May I borrow a cup of garlic?)

    Adapted to be stealthy, and avoid being seen (Really?)

    Forgive me, but I fail to see any logic here at all.

  7. Peter Robinson
    March 5, 2015 at 4:36 AM

    I am not going to read the report. Too many other things to do. However, surely the name of the organisation, North American Wood Ape Conservancy, suggests that the people involved are setting out with a pre-determined idea that these ‘Wood Apes’ exist, and are looking to support that hypothesis as opposed to disprove it. That alone must discredit their efforts.

  8. terry the censor
    March 5, 2015 at 4:42 AM

    No wonder some people think Bigfoot pilots the flying saucers!

  9. Dr Rob_W
    March 5, 2015 at 5:01 AM

    1) Went to NAWAC website. Surfed a bit.
    2) Downloaded monograph
    3) Read it.
    4) Made sandwich.
    ….. (cough)…
    Look, I totally agree that it’s written way superior than every other BF related ‘report’ I’ve ever read ; on the website there was little sensationalism , no attacks on the mainstream zoology community, and a refreshing lack of sentences written in CAPITAL LETTERS. The website is up there with some of the best animal focused sites on the net. The researchers seem knowledgeable , keen and downright genuine, I know I’ll be back to check it out again, I might even donate a few bucks so they can buy beer.
    Back to the report. It was intriguing. However, realistically,
    what have they observed?
    They’ve documented a stealthy, smelly , noisy, rock-chucker that may be black or red.
    Now, where does the “ape” evidence come into this? Dna? Simian footprints? Wood ape poo ? How does this become an unknown, undocumented anthropoid thats managed to escape detection for hundreds of years and not be a couple of stealthy, smelly hillbillies with night vision goggles and a slingshot? (I’ve seen ‘Mountain Monsters’; I know my hillbillies and ‘ Deliverance’ would make me secure MY window.) It’s a big leap.
    All said and done, if they’re not a bunch of cheeky hoaxers , NAWAC have documented something reasonably well ; personally I’d be extremely pleased if it were a ‘wood ape’, it would shut my big mouth for a start and it would make for some great science and feast of humble pie. ( Conversely it gives gives Rick Dyer , Rex Gilroy and , yes , Bobo some shred of vindication). But they need more physical evidence before they can use the description “ape”.
    Good luck to them.

  10. terry the censor
    March 5, 2015 at 5:03 AM


    Though I’ve trashed their study, I have no problem with their name. Think about it: what name could one devise to tell people the subject of their research without making them look like a partisan group? It’s not easy. That they avoided the terms “Bigfoot” and “sasquatch” suggests they want to avoid getting saddled with the baggage of past claims and hoaxes.

    In your mind, what would be a more credible name for the group?

    North American Undocumented Primate Preservation Unit
    Western Hemisphere Woodland Biped Research Group
    Sylvan America Bigsuit Haberdashery
    American Forest Cryptid Conservancy

    It’s hard.

  11. Dr Rob_W
    March 5, 2015 at 5:28 AM

    One other slight thing. In one part of Australia the term “wood ape”is an extremely offensive word that some of the more viler idiots use to describe the original inhabitants of the land. I heard it used in cape york by a policeman there some time ago. Hopefully the insult has now faded to oblivion but I still cringe a bit when I read it.

  12. Telison
    March 5, 2015 at 5:30 AM

    This strikes me as classical anomaly hunting. If you had put ghost hunters in the same situation they would have interpreted all these anomalies as ghosts. If you had put alien hunters in the same place, they would have found proof of rock throwing aliens.

    These people are not looking for explanations to the phenomena, they are looking to fit the phenomena to their preconceived notions.

  13. Dr Rob_W
    March 5, 2015 at 6:11 AM

    Ummm… that would be Wookies Terry, that would be Wookies.

  14. One Eyed Jack
    March 5, 2015 at 7:22 AM


    This study only appears scientific when contrasted against the incredibly low standards of Bigfoot “research”.

  15. Mr B
    March 5, 2015 at 8:27 AM

    Bigfoot et al has long been removed from my skepticism file and placed firmly in the “no way” file. I have not read this piece but have been on their website in the past and as the other comments here attest to, these people already have their minds made up. These research outings come off like old boy scout campouts I’ve been on where you just whip yourselves into a frenzy of fear, etc.

  16. Gary
    March 5, 2015 at 8:38 AM

    I’m astounded that any of this could be considered evidence. What’s a more likely cause of all these bumps, noises, thermals and eyeshine – some jokers in a monkey suit (like that hasn’t happened before) or an undiscovered humanoid species roaming rural Oklahoma? Sheesh.

  17. idoubtit
    March 5, 2015 at 8:40 AM

    For four years? Now we’re pushing skepticism to pathological cynicism.

  18. idoubtit
    March 5, 2015 at 8:46 AM

    I understand that many of you have sound reasoning for being dismissive of Bigfoot evidence. But I am EXTREMELY annoyed by the “I have not read this report, but…” cop-out.

    This is recorded observations. (It’s not Melba Ketchum, Rick Dyer, or BFRO-style crap.) There are problems that deserve an answer. What they don’t deserve is an offensive dismissal calling them stupid. It isn’t necessarily scientific but it is careful. All data must be interpreted in terms of a hypothesis or it means nothing. They have interpreted the data in terms of their wood ape hypothesis. Is it strong? No. But it’s worth pursuing. Perhaps further data will disprove the hypothesis and there will be an explanation for the rock throwing and noises. Until then, I’m willing to listen.

  19. March 5, 2015 at 8:58 AM

    I think it’s extremely well written, and it certainly is head and shoulders above any other report of its kind. I imagine the assumption of ‘ape’ was derived from primate like phenomena… wood knocking and rock throwing is an ape like behaviour. ..that along with the footprints and partial sightings probably brought them to an ape conclusion. I admit even in spite of the evidence the classification is premature since no body was found. That being said I think what they have documented was very interesting and compelling. Honestly some of the attempted rationalisations here in the comments are far more ridiculous than what the report suggests.

  20. Gary
    March 5, 2015 at 9:01 AM

    How long has the crop circle stuff gone on… It’s all great fun and you might get on one of those TV shows. Extraordinary claims require…

    Recorded knocks don’t cut it.

  21. March 5, 2015 at 9:41 AM

    Well said. I think the report was fantastic and enforces the need for further investigation. Thanks for posting.

  22. March 5, 2015 at 9:41 AM

    “From this, one would tentatively form the hypothesis that rocks were rolling down the mountain side.”

    I recall thinking something similar very early on prior to being on-site myself. It’s not a crazy to think that perhaps, with the rocky nature of the environment, that some rocks might have fallen down the slope or even landed on top of structures. However, the slope isn’t a cliff and it isn’t close enough to the roof even the closest cabin to be the source. Also, as the report says, many of us (myself included) have heard the rocks roar though tree foliage before landing on the ground before us. I have literally seen a rock bounce to the ground six feet from me. This over a distance of perhaps a fifty feet or more from the base of the slope. These rocks don’t tumble (in fact, we rarely hear that). They fly and then land with force. Also, the rocks sometimes come in from the direction of the creek and even from the woods. In addition, we find rocks on the roofs of structures hundreds of feet away from the slope. Whatever the source of the rocks, gravity isn’t it.

    It’s also not true that we’ve never seen them throw a rock. We have one account of that I had forgotten about when replying to Sharon’s questions. This is from page 74 of the paper:

    “Sometimes, individual people seemed to be targeted, and a couple were actually struck by rocks. Paul Bowman, Kathy Strain, Travis Lawrence, Jerry Hestand, Mark McClurkan, and Baron Meadows were all buzzed very closely by rocks (within inches or a few feet), or in the case of McClurkan and Meadows, were actually hit by rocks (on the ankle and foot, respectively). During a short two-day visit to the cabin after the 2013 summer survey had concluded, Meadows actually observed a long black hair-covered arm jut out from behind and up in a tree and launch a rock at him. He was hit by one rock on his boot after seven to ten rocks had been thrown at or near him in a span of a half minute. (B. Meadows, personal communication, September 22, 2012).”

  23. March 5, 2015 at 9:44 AM

    High-powered spotlights are actually pretty useless in an environment as thick as that one. Often, you illuminate the forest and only see a bright green wall of leaves and nothing behind them. IR and thermal imaging is far more useful and, as the report states, we’ve seen large animals using that technology.

  24. March 5, 2015 at 9:52 AM

    It’s not logical if you assume they’re magical stealthy forest ninjas, but they appear to be like a lot of other primates and, as such, all those activities have parallels in observed primate behavior.

  25. March 5, 2015 at 10:13 AM

    haven’t read the report … … but any chance it’s some survivalists or a family or group like the Lykov’s out in Siberia?

  26. Saskeptic
    March 5, 2015 at 10:18 AM

    I’ve read the report (not all 200+ pages though), and I’ve also been following developments there since before the NAWAC formed. The Ouachitas have been bigfoot-central in Oklahoma for many years. Other than being written (though not well edited) in comprehensible English, I’m not sure what has impressed you here, Sharon.

    The Ouachitas are lovely and wild but by no stretch wilderness as the authors attest. They are 2nd and in some places 3rd growth forest. Bears have only recently returned after being extirpated. Though some locals claim there are wolves there, wolves were extirpated. Ditto cougars. Ditto elk. The region is pretty, rugged, and forested but make no mistake there has been a destructive, armed human presence there for centuries. Today it’s “the mountains” for folks from Dallas/Fort Worth. Campers, hikers, loggers, hunters, and birders are all over those woods and yes, even in the vicinity of “Area X.”

    So what do they have? Stories of rocks being thrown and photos of rocks. The simplest explanation is the most likely: The team members are putting the rocks there themselves, just like it’s always been the footprint hoaxers who “find” the best footprints.

  27. Sean Reed
    March 5, 2015 at 10:33 AM

    I’m going to keep reviewing the report and looking for supporting evidence. I don’t think it’s a good idea to dismiss it out-of-hand simply because that isn’t good skepticism. And while I’m not going to off-handedly discount the events as hoaxing or pranking I’m not going to discount those possibilities either.

    The report does raise some questions regarding methodology and preconceived notions that I, for one, would like more clarification on. I wrote this out on another forum but I want to post it here as well on the chance that such clarifications will be forthcoming:

    “I don’t think I saw anything that would lead me to believe they were hoaxing but I did see a lot of preconceptions and flaws in their methodology, at least as far as the video and photographic capture are concerned.

    For instance, they installed a IR surveillance camera system on the cabin (a good idea) but then they removed it after only a few weeks because they came to the conclusion that the “woodland ape” could see the IR lights and this was leading to the creature not approaching the cabin anymore. This conclusion seems very premature when the break in approaches was only “a few weeks” and there was often a break of months between approaches. They say that the cameras were removed due to “internal debate.” I can’t see any way to conclude that this decision wasn’t based on a preconceived notion that the creature had an ability that the researchers had no rational way of concluding it has.

    There is also the problem with the trap cameras. I don’t know what the researchers might have captured in all of the years they were at the site because they offer no images of anything caught by the trap cameras. No deer, no bears, no researchers. They do discuss an encounter with a bear in the camp that lasted a good length of time but there are no pictures from the trap cameras and no explanation as to why that would be and no sign that they did anything to correct any problems with the cameras. They do say that they set the cameras to a longer time delay to save the batteries but I find this decision mind-boggling as the purpose of the cameras is to catch images not save batteries.

    They discuss approaches to the cabin of creatures and of various researchers watching the approaches using low-lite monocular devices but no one seems to have used a low-lite lens on a camera to image-capture.

    They find places they call “nut cracking stations” where they assume that a “woodland ape” might have used a rock to crack open black walnuts but no attempt to bait and camera trap these locations appears to have happened.

    On the whole it is a very frustrating report. The audible files are interesting and it would be hard to explain away the rocks without some active hoaxing either by one or more researchers or outsiders intent on pranking and I have no reason to conclude either of those. What it really comes down to is some anecdotal evidence, some weird night noises with rock-throwing (which would have been really spooky out in the woods,) And some odd decisions about methodology. I would commend them on the attempt, though, and I think with some better equipment and methodology they might be able to answer some of the questions the report raises. They certainly seem much more dedicated than the usual weekend Bigfoot hunters.”

  28. March 5, 2015 at 10:42 AM

    ” just like it’s always been the footprint hoaxers who “find” the best footprints.” – That’s not the case at all. Historically, by a large number in fact, the worst footprints are typically from hoaxers. They aren’t able to effectively match the weight distribution and dermal ridges seen on the better foot print samples. This report certainly does not offer a conclusion. No personal observation does, however, I think some of the evidence is compelling and it’s well written and certainly worthy of additional research. To claim that they placed the rocks themselves requires as much speculation as their claim they were thrown. Right now the people best equipped to form possible conclusions are the people who were there and took part in the research, not the people who read a report on the internet. Unfortunately they have not offered much outside of personal experience, but science is all about repetition and review.

  29. One Eyed Jack
    March 5, 2015 at 10:43 AM

    I think it’s more of an issue of unexplained events that do not specifically point to a “wood ape” (shades of Intelligent Designers redefinition game). The researchers string together a wide range of events that can have multiple, completely mundane explanations. There is nothing that points specifically to a “wood ape”. It stinks of starting with a conclusion and grasping to make your observations fit the conclusion.

    Comments like “Finally, I noted that the stone throwing and banging sound very much like traditional poltergeist activity. It’s not the first time they’ve heard that. But it is curious, isn’t it.” seem unusual and out of character. Why try to explain evidence of one fringe theory by substituting another fringe theory?

    I know you have a personal interest in cryptoids, and I wonder if your own desire to believe Bigfoot is real isn’t tempering your skepticism. You don’t seem to be exercising the same level of skepticism on this story as you have with past stories.

  30. Gary
    March 5, 2015 at 10:56 AM

    Yes, these are relatively well recorded observations, but then you say it’s not BFRO-style crap. Well, it is exactly BFRO-style, just well documented. When does a knock become evidence of a new primate species in the middle of one of the most developed countries in the world? When there is a huge culture of bigfoot fans who have decided that bigfeet (?) knock and have regionally distinctive howls.

    There is no ‘evidence’ here that can’t be explained or possibly created by humans. I have spent many nights camping in the Pacific Northwest (home of the Sasquatch) and the woods are full of knocking at night, falling branches, trees scrapping against tree, hooting owls, shiny-eyed deer and wildcats, and bipedal bears etc.

    I think if these people sincerely have a belief in this – fine, let them continue to fill the forest with their cameras and I wish them luck. They seem better funded then many conservation groups. But decades of bigfoot fans have only come up with anecdotal ‘evidence’ and I certainly don’t think this is worthy of taxpayer funded research.

    I also have serious concerns about these folks actually shooting at ‘bigfoot’ with rifles, hoping to bag one, it’s the best reason I’ve heard for shaving off my beard. I love a mystery, I am a big fan of doubtfulnews and the great work you do, but I am really surprised by this post.

  31. Richard
    March 5, 2015 at 11:27 AM

    I just find it impossible to believe that an undiscovered population of anthropoids/primates large enough to maintain genetic diversity & continue as a species can exist in North America: when North America has been surveyed, scouted, mapped, aerial & satellite photographed, hunted, fished, trapped, logged, mined, explored, back-packers & campers (not to mention all-terrain vehicles, snowmobiles, and private planes), settled with farms …..

    Living in Michigan, I can understand why no remains have been found: bear & deer (large mammals) as well as wolves & coyotes die of natural causes or predation every year, but the forests are not littered with bodies due to scavengers and decay. Deer shed their antlers every year, but one doesn’t find the forest floor littered with them because rodents & porcupines etc. gnaw them for the minerals. BUT you do find living bear, and deer, wolves, coyotes and other animals.

    It just stretches credulity that people would continue to spend time and effort on this pursuit.

  32. March 5, 2015 at 11:48 AM

    While I agree that this (and all other purported evidence) doesn’t present proof of a great ape in North America, I also think that a lack of identification thus far doesn’t support the possibility for non existence either. Each year, scientists discover an average of 15,000 new species, usually ones that are highly endangered. Lowland Gorillas weren’t discovered until 1860. Before that they were a legend only. Panda Bears were discovered for the first time in 1927 and were once as elusive as Bigfoot. I really don’t think ALL of the sightings and footprints are hoaxes… It’s gone on too long and in too many places to simply be a hoax. Komodo Dragon (1910) were legend before then, Platypus(1799), Okapi (1901), and the Coelacanth (1938) all were legendary creatures. The Arunchal Monkey was just discovered in the 21st Century, as was the blond Capuchin Monkey, The bornean clouded Leopard, The collared Pecarry, the Dingiso, the golden palace monkey, The highland Mangabey, The leaf deer, the Manicore Marmaset, the Prince Burnhard titi, the three toed sloth, the Saola and many more. Many of these are primates, discovered in the last 15 years alone.

  33. Richard
    March 5, 2015 at 11:57 AM

    But there is an important difference: most of the species discovered are beetles, spiders, small insects or microbes – rarely a larger animal. And we’re talking about North America, not remote jungles nor ocean depthes that have far less exploration and human investigation/occupancy.

  34. Bonnie
    March 5, 2015 at 12:00 PM

    From Terry: “Not once do the researchers consider gravity as the cause of the rock falls. Instead, agency is always assumed. The incident reports state flatly that the rocks were thrown, sometimes saying explicitly that it was done by an animal, though no animal is reported to be seen in any of the incident reports quoted in the study.”

    I noticed that, too. We often find good-sized rocks in our driveway. Took us a while to realize it’s the deer knocking them down from the up slope. Deer are very good at hiding. And from experience, rocks can bounce, especially off other rocks. Animals can be very noisy – bears, raccoons, even squirrels. We had a squirrel for several years that would sit in a fir tree near the door & throw cones at us. His aim was pretty good at times! We were grateful he didn’t choose a pine tree – those cones can hurt even when gravity brings them down.

    From the report: “Ten seconds later, the men heard a rock blast through vegetation and trees from the southwest, perhaps 60-70 yards behind Higgins’s tent, and soar through the air before it hit the roof of the base camp cabin like a grenade exploding (indicating that the total distance of the throw must have been approximately 90-100 yards).”

    If a large rock can be heard to “blast through vegetation and trees” it is NOT going to then “soar through the air.” Friction from the “vegetation and trees” will bring it down. Unless Mr. Bigfoot is using a high-powered slingshot or catapult.

  35. March 5, 2015 at 12:23 PM

    But it’s not just North America these creatures are seen… they are seen in the mountains of Tibet, and the wilderness of Australia, Siberia and even Brazil. The leopard discovered was a pretty large animal, as were a few of the other’s I had mentioned. I think a human could live in the wilderness of North America undetected, I think humans have enough intelligence to effectively avoid other humans….an undiscovered species with many human like qualities might also be able to do the same. People assume that this thing has to think at a basic animal level, but the bottom line is we know nothing, and assumption is a mistake from both perspectives.

  36. Sean Reed
    March 5, 2015 at 12:24 PM

    I have to argue against the Lowland gorilla explanation. It was not known to European scientists until the 1860’s but that was more from not looking than anything else. There was evidence of them existing found in the form of a skull purchased in a market. That spurred attempts to find the species and that was done relatively quickly despite the conditions that existed at that time. Now, the gorilla is all too easy to find, much to their detriment.

  37. March 5, 2015 at 12:50 PM

    “Unless Mr. Bigfoot is using a high-powered slingshot or catapult.”

    Or, like most large primates, is incredibly strong.

  38. Eric
    March 5, 2015 at 12:50 PM

    This is always my pushback on the “new animals are discovered every year”. Yes, but how many large new animals are discovered in America each year.

    I’ve often found it very curious that people have ALWAYS seemed to assumed that “it” is a primate?? Is it based on description etc? A primate just doesn’t make any sense for a variety of reasons. I find it interesting that most “activity” is reported to be at night yet primates are almost all inactive at night having very very poor night vision.

    Why not a new bear species etc. personally I believe the vast majority if sightings and sounds are misidentified bear. I like to believe that people are hearing and seeing things (not lying / hoaxing) but I think it is misidentified.

    Notice that Bigfoot has moved from just the Pacific Northwest to all sorts of areas of America. Seems to coincide with black bear populations reclaiming territories that they had been eradicated from. Just my 2 cents.

  39. March 5, 2015 at 12:52 PM

    I acknowledge your points. The Lowland Gorilla was searched for prior to 1860, by several different people and was considered a legend …described as a “hairy man” among the tribes people, but the search was not nearly as long as the search for Sasquatch. Intelligence could play a factor in greater elusive behavior, who knows. But my point is that we have not yet discovered every creature on the planet and reports of Sasquatch have been consistent and steady throughout the years, just as they were for the Lowland Gorilla and Mountain Gorilla. If a human could hide in a large wooded area undetected, then there is a possibility (even a slight one) that some other form of unknown primate could as well. All we know is that people are seeing something. What it is ..who knows.

  40. March 5, 2015 at 12:52 PM

    Interesting. I’ve never seen that reference. When we investigated the term’s usage, we found a few (not many) who called “bigfoot” a wood ape all the way back to the Sixties, but never that.

  41. March 5, 2015 at 12:53 PM

    You don’t know me (or anyone else involved) but I can assure you that’s not the case. As the paper states, there are quite a few behavioral attributes we now ascribe to apes that were not the case early on. We approach our work with a fair and reasonable amount of skepticism.

  42. March 5, 2015 at 12:55 PM

    I would hope that if you invested some time reading the paper you would be disabused of your incorrect assumption.

  43. March 5, 2015 at 12:56 PM

    Bears don’t walk on hind legs… they just aren’t built that way. The sightings also follow greatest annual rain fall and food sources…. I’m sure a ton of animals fit this pattern as well.

  44. Eric
    March 5, 2015 at 1:08 PM

    For a short period of time bears can stand and move on its hind legs. Matter of fact the bears natural reflex is to “rear up” when suprised / threatened. Again I think the vast majority of “sightings” are just misidentified bear sightings.

  45. March 5, 2015 at 1:08 PM

    It’s interesting that people claiming the report to bear too many assumptions respond by making assumptions about the team who created it. Hypocrisy in full swing. No one needs to believe what the report suggests, but not one person in this comment thread (aside from Brian Brown and those who did the research) are qualified to make any conclusions based on simply reading the report. You either believe it or you don’t, but if you weren’t there, you have no position to assume knowledge of the reasoning, methods or results of the research team. Do the research yourself… see if your results vary.

  46. March 5, 2015 at 1:16 PM

    It’s more of a shuffle than a walk, and there are many sightings by bear hunters. Sighting of the creature crossing the street, sightings by rangers, or people who know what a bear looks like. The face of a bear and the smell of a bear and how a bear moves just isn’t consistent with many of the sightings.

  47. Mr B
    March 5, 2015 at 1:59 PM

    Not going to waste any more time on that as it reads like it was written for the believers. There’s nothing there: no bigfoot, no strange creature, no unknown species, etc. Just hope. Sorry. There is no such thing as a bigfoot in Oklahoma or the Pacific Northwest (where it used to live before moving around the US and Canada a lot).

  48. March 5, 2015 at 2:36 PM

    From the report: “The throwers were so accurate that they very often connected with their intended targets (roof tops).”

    Hmm…cant see the throwers and YET they know their intended targets.” This is faux scientific and reminds me very much of the work that the UFO believer group, NARCAP, does. It looks scientific. It just isn’t.”

  49. Geoff
    March 5, 2015 at 2:53 PM

    “The team was perplexed as to how the rock-chuckers could remain unseen and virtually undetectable yet continually and defiantly throw rocks into camp that sometimes nearly hit the team members.”

    “There is an animal out there that can throw powerfully and accurately in pitch darkness.”

    That’s some low bar for accuracy. Thousands of rocks “thrown” and not a single hit. Give me a dozen rocks and I bet I can hit my target at least once.

    Oh, I can’t wait to read this!

  50. Geoff
    March 5, 2015 at 2:58 PM

    Until you actually see the critter throwing a rock, you must assume the null hypothesis. This is akin to, though not so poetic as, assuming the planets are pushed along their paths around the sun by angels.

  51. Sean Reed
    March 5, 2015 at 3:03 PM

    I’m not drawing any conclusions but it does happen:

  52. Geoff
    March 5, 2015 at 3:05 PM

    So peer review is a waste of time then?

  53. Geoff
    March 5, 2015 at 3:13 PM

    The proper question is: is the evidence sufficient to reject the null.

    I will read it and give you my opinion.

  54. Seth
    March 5, 2015 at 3:20 PM

    These are stories. They might be written up in an official looking paper, but they are just stories. These guys are just playing make-believe. Bigfoot by any other name never was & never will be.

  55. Richard
    March 5, 2015 at 4:53 PM

    But we’re not talking about Tibet. We’re talking about Oklahoma. The Sooner State. Right in the middle of Tornado Alley ….. Where FEMA, Storm Chasers, the Weather Channel, regularly appear …..

  56. Lagaya1
    March 5, 2015 at 5:00 PM

    The most likely explanation to this 4 years of occurances is that they were hoaxed by the man they borrowed the cabin from. He’s the one that told them about the rock throwing and other specifics. He would have known every time they went to his cabin, as I assume they let him know. He probably grabbed one of his buddies to help, and had a good laugh.

  57. spookyparadigm
    March 5, 2015 at 5:11 PM

    As evidenced by the discussion of all the metal junk lying about.

  58. Dr Rob_W
    March 5, 2015 at 5:14 PM

    That ones definitely smarter than the average bear, trying to blend in with peoples.

  59. Eric
    March 5, 2015 at 5:23 PM

    I think the problem that many people have with this report is that it starts with the conclusion – wood apes might exist.

    I ask anyone who has read the report to point to one single finding / piece of evidence that points to North American primate. Some stuff might be strange or unexplained etc, but what would possible lead one to believe that the “most likely” cause if anything mentioned is an unknown North American primate?? Could as likely been UFO, ghost, chupa or a million totally logical natural and explainable things.

  60. Dr Rob_W
    March 5, 2015 at 5:33 PM

    Heard it only in cape york and only by the police. This was back in the early ’90’s. Unfortunately the term “rock ape” is still being used. I doubt your term would cause offense nowadays as the people who used it would probably only use the Internet for porn and the people to whom the slur was directed at were unaware of the insult. However hearing the term repeatedly over some time left it’s mark on me , so reading it in the report sort of made me cringe.

  61. Olevrec
    March 5, 2015 at 6:00 PM

    Isn’t this the same group that was involved with shooting at or so close to a couple along a road that the police had to get involved?

  62. Geoff
    March 5, 2015 at 6:04 PM

    I’m about 30 pages in and annotating like mad. I’m about to hit the road to travel back to Atlanta so I peeked ahead at the pictures. Pretty lame. The tracks and nut-cracking “station” could be anything, even nothing.

    The rocks on the roof are odd. I’d like to get an explanation for that. Gonna go out on a limb and say probably not a gigantopithecus.

    I listened to the audio clips on the website. Not impressed.

    I will continue where I left off over the weekend. So far, the part I agree with most is the last part of the last line from the second paragraph of the introduction: no conclusive evidence.

  63. Geoff
    March 5, 2015 at 6:08 PM

    It’s the Texas sharpshooter fallacy…on a couple of levels.

  64. Ryan
    March 5, 2015 at 6:20 PM

    But as Gary states all of the phenomena they’ve recorded have multiple potential causes. For example the rock throwing, both squirrels and crows will do that (and have done that to me), particularly if you get near a nesting area. I’m not seeing any successful attempt to eliminate these other possibilities. Nor have I seen anything that indicates a single source for all the observed anomalies, none the less definitively ties them all to a single source. Nor is there any clear indication that that single source is a bipedal ape, or even an animal. Yet they assume a single source, that that source is a animal, that that animal is a bipedal ape. Then assume intentions behind these actions, and attempt to draw conclusions about the behavior of an animal that’s never been proven to exist, properly described, or properly observed based on those assumptions.

    This certainly seems better thought out, executed, and presented that typical Crypto investigations. But its still built around the same fundamental flaws, assumptions, and research approaches. All of which tend to psuedo-scientific at most, and inadequate to the task at hand at least.

    The flying rocks for example are kind of weird. Especially if it is as constant and persistent as described. The approach taken is effectively: Rocks are flying. Assume they are thrown. Assume intention about the thrown rocks. Develop interpretations and conclusions as to why something would be throwing rocks. Fit those interpretations to apes, and bipedal apes. Use as evidence for bipedal ape. Which is going about it backwards. The approach should look more like: Rocks are flying. Investigate and reliably prove a source for the flying rocks. Is the source a bipedal ape. If so draw conclusion and interpretations about the bipedal ape behavior of throwing rocks. Which conveniently involves actually finding a bipedal ape here, and connecting it to the behaviors ascribed to it.

    Another example of this is in hiding the locations. Yes it helps to keep private property from being swamped. But its major effect is to prevent other groups from investigating the area, confirming NAWAC’s findings, and advancing the work through other techniques. Which is incredibly important with things like this.

    So yeah better thought out, better presented, and all round less crazy than most of the work in this field. That should be commended as a step in the right direction. I see no reason to assume they were hoaxed, I see no reason to believe they’ve made this up. But I don’t necessarily see anything radical, interesting or new here. Overall I see to0 much of the basic errors in approach, too many of the same old assumptions, and too much that “sounds sciencey” (to steal Sharon’s phrase) to take it too seriously.

    Find some way to get other (preferably trained and non Crypto-tied) people in there without it getting swamped by footers. Track back some of these phenomena to a definitive source without assuming what that source is, or ascribing intention without cause, and then we can talk.

  65. Rich
    March 5, 2015 at 6:21 PM

    Yes, I must admit I was expecting more from the report from reading the DN post; it’s… well, is it any more than anything we’ve heard before?

    Like other posters I find the references to an “enigmatic anthropoid species” something of a leap. Okay, the apparent length of the study is interesting, but for something that begins by admitting the inadequacy of anecdotal evidence, it then presents a lot of well-documented, nicely time-stamped but anecdotal evidence (“19:10 – The team at base camp heard a wood knock from the bottleneck area”) and concludes “ape.”

    The photographs are of rocks. The photographs of ‘tracks’ are no better than any of the other ‘tracks’ photographs we’ve seen before. The amount of ‘evidence’ (sorry, I’m going to have to put it in inverted commas) is interesting but the quality of it is questionable. The report states at the outset that they believe there is an ape out there in the woods; it seems that all events are interpreted in this light. No-one sees the ‘ape.’ Tests on substances believed to be biological produce no results that say ‘ape.’ The hair sample sent to a lab apparently just disappears. From the report I have learned that the woods are full of noises – some sound like animals, some like wood – some animals smell bad and rotten trees fall down. I haven’t learned that there’s a new ape species.

    Look, I’m going to have egg all over my face if some day someone emerges from the woods with a “6.5 ft” ape in a cage, and even though I’ll have to put up with Rick Dyer gloating over the luckiest coincidence of his life I’ll still be prepared to admit I was wrong – but in the meantime I’m not sure why we should give this report more leeway than anything else produced by ghost hunters or EVP analysts or anything else that relies on subjective eye-witness testimony, simply because it’s better written and apparently gathered over a long period.

  66. Votre
    March 5, 2015 at 7:56 PM

    The report opens up with this statement:

    “The mission of the North American Wood Ape Conservancy is to facilitate official
    recognition, protection, and conservation of what it believes is a rare unlisted North
    American anthropoid species. The Ouachita Project is a long-term research initiative
    conducted by the NAWAC in the Ouachita Mountain Ecoregion dedicated to the definitive
    resolution of the NAWAC’s mission…”

    From the above, it sounds like they set out to prove a belief rather than to establish if such a belief is based in reality.

    That’s a rather remarkable bias to begin a “scientific investigation” with. Especially since the avowed purpose of the organization is to obtain “recognition” for what they believe.

    Sounds very much like one of those industry sponsored or politically motivated research projects to “prove” an already decided conclusion to me.

  67. Votre
    March 5, 2015 at 8:02 PM

    Same here. But if I turned out to be wrong, I’d also have no problem admitting I was wrong. Not that I’d mind being wrong about this particular subject. I think it would be rather cool if a bigfoot actually did exist and had remained unobserved as long as it did. However, I’d also make no apologies for my initial scepticism either.

  68. jerrywayne
    March 5, 2015 at 8:49 PM

    Just curious. Where does a wood ape keep seven to ten rocks on itself when up in a tree?

  69. Dubious f
    March 5, 2015 at 9:04 PM

    Let’s help this gang out and finish the whole thing. Let’s circle that hill/ mountain 300 yards around the cabin, holding hand and climb up! Dang it’s only a rock-flinging ape against doubtfuls… Even it’s 500 yards.. 4 years against a weekend. The way it’s going, it’ll end up one of this year’s top commented with no closure. 4 years, that’s the impressive part!

  70. jerrywayne
    March 5, 2015 at 9:17 PM

    Some monkeys and some lemurs, tarsiers, the aye aye, bushbabies, and lorises are nocturnal. The great apes are not. So “all those activities have parallels in observed primate behavior” relating to nocturnal behavior is accurate if you are comparing wood apes to lemurs, for instance, but fall short as descriptive of the activities of real, known apes. Of coarse, humans are known to stay up all night, night after night, and they are primates. Maybe you are dealing with wood humans, or maybe, just humans in the woods.

  71. River
    March 5, 2015 at 10:04 PM

    Sharon, normally your posts are well thought out and composed using good critical thinking skills. In this case however, I think you’ve been hoodwinked to give any credibility what-so-ever to this group, or any regarding a bigfoot claim. I hope in the end (and after any final disclosures are made regarding this project) you will come to your senses and realize anything regarding bigfoot is a sham. (replace the word bigfoot with faerie, vampire, or chupacabra at any time will yield the same results)

    Bigfoot is no longer a mystery. We know what it is. It’s one of these three things always. (feel free to prove otherwise!) Its 1) people, either hoaxing/lying, or 2) Deluded/mentally unstable and finally 3) very rarely mistaken identity.

    This has been proven many times over. Footers just like to ignore it.

  72. Gary B
    March 5, 2015 at 11:53 PM

    I have just finished reading the report and, for the life of me, cannot see why Sharon finds it at all compelling. It is simply a rehash of what has gone before, just written better. It has picture of devices that take pictures and stories about stories but nothing else. To say that four years is way too long for someone to sustain a hoax would seem to ignore the idea that the hoaxer(s) is also the writer. It also seems that the writer has co-opted the comments and is geting exactly what he wanted; exposure.

  73. knightofbob
    March 6, 2015 at 1:31 AM

    I also live in Michigan, and have most of my life. Deer remains do litter the forest floor. I had a junior high science teacher who picked up matched antler sheds so frequently that he started getting doe tags so that he could have a local taxidermist mock up “trophies.”

    Porcupine, raccoon, and fox carcasses are just lying around in the fall. I’ve even walked through the remains of red tail hawks and bald eagles. I’m going to assume you live in a relatively populated area, or at least somewhere that has a lot of trails you don’t generally deviate from. People with farmland around Midland or Lansing think they’re in some isolated rural area. Spend some time in the “urban” UP and see what real Michigan is like. You’ll not only be shocked, but probably trip over some large mammal remains. I’ve never run into a bear or moose carcass, but I’ve at least seen live bear and known enough hunters who have taken moose. And elk, for what it’s worth. And I’ve yelled at enough whitetail bucks trying to push through screens in “suburbia.” Iron Mountain or Marquette will probably challenge your perception of reality.

    That no one, ever, in centuries of hunting has ever found a fetid hunk of Sasquatch flesh is telling. Things like scat and remains don’t just disappear, especially if someone is looking for them. We’re not talking about some uninhabited stretch of Antarctica or Siberia. We’re talking about a well documented part of Oklahoma.

  74. eleggua
    March 6, 2015 at 4:36 AM

    “Dedicated to proving the existence of the animal commonly referred to as Bigfoot.”

    That^ is not a scientific approach.

    “It’s not Melba Ketchum, Rick Dyer, or BFRO-style crap.” – doubtfulnews

    “Like many people involved with this field of research, my interest in the sasquatch dates from childhood. I read everything I could find by Ivan T. Sanderson and was captivated by “The Legend of Boggy Creek” movie. My school chums and I even used to plan expeditions to the Pacific Northwest to trap a bigfoot.” –
    Alton Higgins, NAWAC Chairman; Educational Activities Coordinator

    “I teach in the General Education Department at Mid-America Christian University, an accredited four-year institution.
    My responsibilities there have varied, but mostly I’ve taught earth science, biology, and ecology, along with
    lower level math courses.

    Southeast of Mt. St. Helens, while on an outing with some cousins, we found, quite by accident, what appeared to be compelling sasquatch evidence. I couldn’t stop thinking about it after I returned home. That experience prompted my first search of the Internet for bigfoot information and my first contact with the BFRO. Shortly thereafter I signed up as a volunteer (as you could do at that time). Soon Matt Moneymaker started sending me a few submissions from Oklahoma to check out, and my involvement with the organization just sort of evolved.

    …a collaboration with BFRO Curator Dr. LeRoy Fish, with whom it was my pleasure to share ideas and information for
    about a year and a half or so.

    Probably the highlight of my years with the BFRO was the September 2003 International Bigfoot Symposium sponsored by the Willow Creek/China Flat Museum.
    It seemed like every living sasquatch researcher of note was there. All the scheduled speakers invited by the museum steering committee, with the exception of Dmitri Bayanov, were BFRO curators, so the symposium presented a once in a lifetime opportunity to talk to some outstanding researchers, most of whom I had communicated with for years but never met.”

    NAWAC Chairman Alton Higgins:
    “Assistant Professor
    Mid-America Christian University”

    Mid-America Christian University
    Mid-America Christian University prepares students through a Wesleyan perspective to create, collaborate, and innovate to solve local and global problems for the glory of God through Jesus Christ and the good of society.
    Vision Statement
    Mid-America Christian University is “Preparing People to do Greater Things for God and His Kingdom”

  75. Gridlock
    March 6, 2015 at 6:28 AM

    Two pieces of physical evidence – blood splatters and hair.

    The hair was sent to a lab, who apparently promptly went schtum and refused to discuss the matter, or return the sample.

    Isn’t this America, land of the lawyer? Don’t they want their Wood Ape hair back?

  76. idoubtit
    March 6, 2015 at 6:59 AM

    Read more carefully. Everyone assumed I concluded Bigfoot? Wrong. I said there were questions here to be answered. There is certainly no dispute about that.

    Most people’s dismissive assumptions have blinded them to relevant questions. I’m sticking to my openness on this one, like it or not.

  77. eleggua
    March 6, 2015 at 7:07 AM

    I’d posted a comment earlier with information regarding the backround of the Chairman of the NAWAC; don’t see it here.
    He’s former BFRO.

    Tbe NAWAC website clearly states:
    Dedicated to proving the existence of the animal commonly referred to as Bigfoot.

    That’s confirmation bias, not science.

  78. eleggua
    March 6, 2015 at 7:11 AM

    Now I see that earlier comment. I’d recommend a dig into the backrounds of the rest of the NAWAC crew.
    Where are they coming from? The guy running the show comes from BFRO and faith-based ‘education’.

  79. Telison
    March 6, 2015 at 7:44 AM

    So, to summarize their list of phenomena:

    1. They heard sounds at night in a forest where many animal species are known to live
    2. They found blood in a forest where many animal species are known to live
    3. They found tracks in a forest where many animal species are known to live
    4. Rocks were thrown into their camp and onto their cabin

    The dozens of pages devoted to 1,2 and 3 in the report should just have been completely torn out and thrown in the trash since it is completely useless information and only serves to make the report longer and duller. Its akin to standing next to a highway and saying, I hear engine noises, there must be alien spaceships nearby.

    Number 4 however _is_ mysterious, if the reporting is correct. Here are some tips for the researchers on how to actually examine this phenomenon with an open mind:

    1. Collect every rock that is thrown, if resources are available examine them for any biological substances or prints
    2. Hearing a bang on the cabin roof is not equal to “a rock was thrown”. Could it be branches from trees falling down? Cones from trees? Large birds landing on the roof?
    3. Think about weather conditions, are there more rocks thrown when its windy?
    4. Experiment with dropping rocks from the hill where you think they come from, how do they behave when tumbling down?
    5. Use video cameras, if rocks are being thrown with the frequency indicated in the report it should be easy to record it.

  80. Ronald H. Pine
    March 6, 2015 at 8:43 AM

    I find it odd that so much of the discussion above is about the claims of rock throwing. The section on all the claimed sightings of the supposed creature are, in my opinion, much more worthy of discussion, much more to the point, and also much more informative as to what we’re dealing with here. The claims in regard to the sightings go into sufficient detail, as to what was supposedly seen, that assuming the truthfulness of the claims as to what people said that they observed, and assuming the honesty of the people supposedly making the claims, and assuming no mental aberrations that could explain their making false claims in good faith, then there is either a large ape-like animal in those woods or…. You can supply the “or”…. Simple mistaken identity of known animals could not explain the detail and specificity of the claimed sightings. I do not understand how the claimed duration of these folks’ being out in the woods somehow shows that a sufficient number of its participants could not have been involved in hoaxing, to explain the contents of the “monograph.” Nor do I see how the fact that what was written may have been better written than what is usually written by bigfooters bears on its believability.

  81. votre
    March 6, 2015 at 8:56 AM

    Ok…I slogged through all 200+ pages of the report last night. And I didn’t find anything resembling compelling evidence in there. As was noted earlier, this report seems to be someone spinning a story about stories.

    I personally find it rather amazing that nobody has gathered a solid scrap of verifiable physical evidence – EVER. They haven’t even captured a convincing video or photo of this alleged creature despite all the resources that have been devoted to doing just that. Instead, we get cameras conveniently destroyed or knocked off trees; DVRs with battery packs that mysteriously failed; video footage with unaccounted for blackouts or mysterious distortions or unexplained “snow” masking the image; allegations of biological samples that suddenly went missing – or were never returned from testing labs (conspiracy! conspiracy! although they somehow never actually name the labs responsible…) – it just goes on and on.

    I can understand there are unexpected setbacks when conducting research. But every single time? And right at the moment when it matters most? I’m sorry. Occam’s Razor please: Is it more reasonable to give credence to an unprecedented series of experimental and observational mishaps – or is it more likely that some person( or persons) – with a vested interest in a particular outcome – are being, to say it politely, somewhat less than candid in what they’re reporting?

    I think the bigfoot crowd has been given the benefit of the doubt for far longer than they’ve deserved. So I have a simple suggestion to these ‘researchers’: PUT UP OR SHUT UP. Please stop sending us accounts of your process and work in progress. Wait until you have verifiable and juried *results* before wasting the reader’s time? That’s what real science papers do – as opposed to this “humanities essay with footnotes” your OPM paper is.

    For real science there’s the peer reviewed article. For everything else…there’s Discovery Channel! 😉

  82. Lynda
    March 6, 2015 at 9:13 AM

    So, as you start your campaign of character assassination from your arm chair, I would like to comment. Although I am not a member of this organization, I know several of it’s members. I would put my last dollar on their reputation, above yours. They, no doubt, stand head and shoulders above you. Therefore, dig baby, dig…..Better yet, invest your own time and money for an experience of your own. This group would probably welcome you.

  83. March 6, 2015 at 9:30 AM

    Certainly not, but assumptions are irresponsible and lazy. It’s pretty simple, either you agree, disagree or can’t evaluate with the information given. Assuming that people are planting rocks for fake photos, without having been there is irresponsible drama filled foolishness.

  84. March 6, 2015 at 9:39 AM

    Great review. I do agree.

  85. Joni
    March 6, 2015 at 10:23 AM

    “Vocalizations (Bigfoot calling)”


    Vocalizations (Candy-Gram!)

  86. Drewbot
    March 6, 2015 at 10:25 AM

    “but they appear to be like a lot of other primates and, as such, all those activities have parallels in observed primate behavior.”

    Except for the part where primates get HD Video taken of them, photographed, killed, leave scat, leave fur, build nests. Except for that little part there.

  87. Drewbot
    March 6, 2015 at 10:35 AM

    You are mis-using the Four years, and making it seem like the length of time makes it more likely that there are really Bigfoots out there.

    Four years tells me, clearly, that, there are no Bigfoots, four years is plenty of time to get evidence of a Giant, Hairy, Bipedal Primate, that has no problem getting within close proximity of humans, humans who are there for the specific purpose of killing one of those primates. Not only does it not have a problem getting close, but it has no problem intentionally ATTRACTING attention of the people who are there for the specific reason of killing the creature.

    One month to get HD video of a Snow Leopard, One month to get HD video of a nursing Mountain Gorilla infant in Virunga National Park, that is what we are talking about when you see contracts to find rare creatures. One month.

    Just because they write well, and published it in a fancy paper format, doesn’t mean it isn’t just another layer in the folk myth of Bigfoot. Brian is one of the most charismatic Bigfooters out there, his podcasts are great to listen to, and he sounds like a genuinely nice person, with a good set of pipes, and conversational ability. But he hasn’t found Bigfoot, he’s just added another layer to the Folk myth.

  88. Lynda
    March 6, 2015 at 12:21 PM

    No, it is not the same group.

  89. Russian Skeptic
    March 6, 2015 at 12:27 PM

    Sounds like genuine experience of simpletons duped by some pranksters. I do not see any problem with 4 years. There had been even longer hoaxes in history.

  90. Rich
    March 6, 2015 at 1:21 PM

    That’s not a tremendously helpful remark, not least because you’ve just done exactly what you criticise eleggua for doing.

  91. Drewbot
    March 6, 2015 at 1:52 PM

    For the sake of disclosure.

    Do you have any deal in the works regarding TV or Podcast team up with Brian Brown?

  92. Lynda
    March 6, 2015 at 1:57 PM

    Exactly…..A little kind human respect should be the order of the day.

  93. Gary B
    March 6, 2015 at 2:26 PM

    Yes, the dog ate the homework yet again. It seems a never ending problem in profesional bigfootery.

  94. Jerry
    March 6, 2015 at 3:34 PM

    Oh, I think the rock throwing is the thing to focus on. As we know from the recent blue dress/gold dress phenomenon the brain can make you see things that just aren’t there. I would submit that the sightings are misidentified bears – there’s bears on the property. But rock throwing is something bears don’t do.

  95. Jerry
    March 6, 2015 at 3:40 PM

    I agree. There’s something interesting going on here. I’m not sure what it is – but there is a discrete series of phenomena worth evaluating. Would this group be willing to host some skeptical researchers at their site? If something legit is going on, I think a solid team could get to the bottom of it.

  96. March 6, 2015 at 3:53 PM

    And yet those “parallels” completely fail in the methodology.

    I read the paper and saw nothing different from any other paper on the subject, save that everyone was careful not to color outside the lines.

    Occam’s Razor is all but ignored in favor attaching preconceived conclusions to evidence.

    All I saw in the paper was a group of researchers excusing themselves for failing, without calling it failure.

  97. Colonel Tom
    March 6, 2015 at 4:18 PM

    Actually, I would say that is how science works, a group has a hypothesis and they work to gather evidence to support their hypothesis. Good science requires if contrary details are found that the initial hypothesis be dropped or amended, but there is nothing wrong with a group postulating a theory and then proceeding.

    I’m also amused by the problem with the blood samples, most labs are rather cookie cutter, and us known markers and standard sequences to do an analysis. If presented with a new or novel DNA sequence most would likely dismiss it as a corrupted sample. You’d really need your sample to be handled by a research facility.

  98. Colonel Tom
    March 6, 2015 at 4:20 PM

    Rocks do not sound like cones or stick when they hit the roof. Anyone that can’t tell the difference likely shouldn’t be allowed to spend time alone in the woods.

  99. eleggua
    March 6, 2015 at 4:36 PM

    I respectfully disagree. I see nothing in my posts that’s disrepectful.
    Also, I’ve no reputation, so that’s moot. Put your money wherever you wish.
    I doubt you’d pony up for them over paying your mortage, however.

  100. eleggua
    March 6, 2015 at 4:57 PM

    Also, I’d no more hire Wiggins to research Bigfoot, given his backround, than I would hire Willie Sutton as a bankguard.
    No disrepect intended. That’s just sanity and common sense.

    Despite having nothing to show except falling rocks and unidentified blood and noises, NAWAC are asking for belief. I’m not giving it.
    It’s that simple.

  101. eleggua
    March 6, 2015 at 5:03 PM

    Dedicated to proving or disproving would be scientific.
    Dedication to the truth should be first-and-foremost and there’s no truth yet known to Bigfoot phenomena,
    so that mission statement screams confirmation bias.
    Well, no truth regarding Bigfoot other than exposed hoaxes and japes; it is true that those are phony.

    Bored with this topic already. Spent time reading their report and that was time wasted.
    Lurked here for several months and impressed with the quality of posts and comments.
    This topic, not impressive, though the comments were mostly worth some while.

    The fact of the chairman’s BFRO backround coupled with other belief-based backround rings alarm bells here. I’ll stand (on my own big feet) on that perspective.
    After checking out the ‘report’ and website, it’s time here to move on to subjects that do inspire interest.

    Thank you to the host for allowing my comments.

  102. jerrywayne
    March 6, 2015 at 5:32 PM

    It should be pointed out that Higgins claims to have seen a Bigfoot elsewhere and far away from Area X in another part of Oklahoma, a very unlikely part. His sighting occurred in 2002, before the excitement at the Valley of the Wood Apes.

    Daryl Colyer is another NAWAC member who has had the good fortune of finding Bigfoot in another unlikely place, prior to seeing two separate wood apes at Area X.

  103. Lagaya1
    March 6, 2015 at 7:05 PM

    Yes, “fantastic” is the appropriate word.

  104. Lynda
    March 6, 2015 at 8:47 PM

    Happy trails to you!

  105. Johnny Bigfoot
    March 6, 2015 at 8:57 PM

    Anyone can claim anything. These are all just stories. That’s all Bigfoot amounts too. I heard these guys on a podcast, and why would you use a shotgun to shoot a Bigfoot? If you’re getting close enough to shoot one with a shotgun, surely you can get a picture. I see they are taking donations and selling memberships, so I don’t see them as that much different than any other Bigfoot organization trying to make a buck.

  106. Jim Schwendinger
    March 6, 2015 at 8:58 PM

    Wow. Just wow. There is so much wrong with this “paper” and their methods.

    My favorite question, though, is what might be traipsing around the woods that looks hominid-like that you all decided to indiscriminately take shots at ? Oh, that’s right, PEOPLE.

    Definitely NOT among the methods I learned about in biology in college.

  107. Colonel Tom
    March 6, 2015 at 9:58 PM

    I have never known anyone in medical research that was detached from their hypothesis. People seeking the truth, develop a hypothesis and pursue evidence to prove, the good ones know when the facts refute. I’m aemotional towards this hypothesis, and people like me are not going to give years of our lives to pursue an unknown large mammal. Let the primary attempt to prove their hypothesis, and let the rest of scientific community be there to review their research.

  108. idoubtit
    March 6, 2015 at 11:49 PM

    Was that dickish comment directed at me?

  109. Jeff W.
    March 6, 2015 at 11:53 PM

    For all the skeptics out there consider how the evidence is stacking up against your side: 1. To Claim Bigfoot/Wood Ape doesn’t exist you have to dismiss the TENS OF THOUSANDS of sightings and encounters in the Global Historical record. 2. Professor Jeff Meldrum makes a incredible argument about the casting of tracks he has reviewed and say the vast majority are not hoaxes. 3. Wood Knocks/Clacks also occur with recognized Primate species around the world and this adds relevance to the existence of a North American Primate. 4. You can’t dismiss the obvious Ape like wood structures found in areas where encounters happen…some of it is deadfall, but some of it defies explanation and point to powerful large Primate roaming the swamps, forests and mountains throughout North America. 5. Both sightings of Black Bear and Wood Apes are increasing in Populated areas…Why? 6. As per the NAWAC research some species eat and consume bone in the woods and that is why many deceased species are never found or how do we know they don’t canabalize their own dead? 7. We have the BFRO and Navajo trackers in the Four Corners following 3 family groups of primates along the San Juan River which was tweeted a few months back.

  110. idoubtit
    March 6, 2015 at 11:53 PM

    Many of you have expressed dismay at my positive, possibly endorsing, tone in the NAWAC piece. Comments have included alternative anecdotes, speculation, ad hominems, and outright dismissals, sometimes at me, mostly at the researchers. Contributing your informed opinion is welcome but I’m not going to change the post. Please recognize the difference between asking “What is going on here?” and endorsing the claim. There seems quite adequate evidence that something is going on. However, what that could be is wide-ranging; I will not speculate. I do not have an invested belief. I am exploring the idea. By accusing me of being gullible, you have greatly misunderstood and underestimated me. If it turns out to be an elaborate ruse, that’s a sound answer I will accept. But I do not see the evidence for that at the present time. If you have such evidence, beyond speculation and accusations, document it. I hope that attention to Area X will help uncover the answer.

    Thank you for contributing your opinions. I read them and take them into account. My current stand is fairly neutral. I want to hear most sides (I’ll draw the line at delusional bullies and denialists skeptics). And if I choose not to dismiss but to entertain an event or claim for some inquiry, I will. I appreciate your visit to Doubtful News.

  111. Lagaya1
    March 6, 2015 at 11:54 PM

    I highly doubt that Sharon is a shill for Big Bigfoot.

  112. March 7, 2015 at 12:36 AM

    I’m not interested in jousting with the cynical comments about the study but I do want to raise one important point.

    “Four years tells me, clearly, that, there are no Bigfoots, four years is plenty of time to get evidence of a Giant, Hairy, Bipedal Primate, that has no problem getting within close proximity of humans, humans who are there for the specific purpose of killing one of those primate.”

    Not really. In 2008 scientists discovered an amazing previously uncounted “125,000 Western lowland gorillas are living in a swamp in equatorial Africa, researchers reported Tuesday, double the number of the endangered primates thought to survive worldwide.”


    Just because no one has found credible evidence of a possible large primate in North America before now doesn’t mean that they cannot exist. If scientists can miss 100,000+ gorillas for decades in a well-studied (but largely uninhabited) region in Africa, then it’s possible they have missed a much smaller population of large primates in North America.

    And as Daniel Loxton among others has pointed out, large apes have escaped human captivity into the wild since at least the 1800s. It’s conceivable, however improbable, that these “wood apes” are indeed real apes, either from a previously unknown species or from some group gone feral in decades past.

    I will leave it at that.

  113. Massachusetts
    March 7, 2015 at 12:39 AM

    If so, the author obviously hasn’t read your work before!

  114. Massachusetts
    March 7, 2015 at 1:04 AM

    One thing that surprises me: if I were surrounded by, what I believe to be, large super powerful creatures displaying physical aggression towards me, would I shoot one? Wouldn’t that make them angrier and more dangerous?

  115. Massachusetts
    March 7, 2015 at 1:06 AM

    Also, assuming the best of intentions, I think they may need a drone or two to help them search for rock throwers, who ever or what ever they may be, during this activity.

  116. RM
    March 7, 2015 at 2:27 AM

    The forest there is incredibly thick. With a drone looking down, you won’t see anything other than trees and creeks.

  117. Gary
    March 7, 2015 at 5:38 AM

    Sharon, Sharon, Sharon. Relax, we all have to be wrong sometimes (joking). if someone called you stupid, they’re a idiot. It just seems so out of character for you. We, your fans, are dependant on you for your usual good judgment and critical thinking. Most of us are here because, as skeptics, we feel lost in a world of insane fallacy, gullibility and extraordinary naivete. You are a breathe of fresh air and I think most off us find it unusual that you would be neutral about this anymore than you’d be neutral about wood fairies. What happened to the extraordinary claims mandate? I see no credible evidence anywhere in that report.

    I enjoy BFRO Bigfoot TV shows because they are so amusing, and i’m always interested to see if there is any credible evidence whatsoever. Days on end spent in the woods with the latest thermal imaging equipment and the highlight – a knock sound in the forest, zoom in on Bobo’s shocked face… “That’s a ‘squatch fur sure!”

    Seriously though, keep up the good work, we still luv ya.

  118. Olevrec
    March 7, 2015 at 9:10 AM

    Actually it is The Echo incident as its referred to…something to do with the land owners relative and some damage to a vehicle.. maybe Brian Brown could fill us in on the details.

  119. Olevrec
    March 7, 2015 at 9:16 AM

    I’m pretty sure it was and I for one think its a legitimate question….oh and is your response something you would approve of between members or is that behavior just reserved for you?

  120. idoubtit
    March 7, 2015 at 9:48 AM

    It’s offensive and unwarranted.

  121. idoubtit
    March 7, 2015 at 9:51 AM

    Oh dear. Anecdotes and speculation. Don’t go there. This is too complicated to unpack but it’s not very helpful.

  122. Gabriel
    March 7, 2015 at 10:46 AM

    In fact, most primate are really bad at rock throwing : they’re not really cut out for this.
    Anyway, what you describe can only be the work of gravity, which is the only phenomenon powerfull and random enough to throw big rocks from huge distances without pause and without really hitting anyone.

  123. Gabriel
    March 7, 2015 at 11:05 AM

    It’s not about you, it’s about how our brain work. We are all prone to biased interpretation.
    Which is why in scientific articles, results description and interpretation are in separate sections.
    You should try it.
    From my point of view, everything you have reported is pretty common. I mean, stranges noises, falling rocks etc… you’ll find those in every mountain forest.

    If the animal you chase leaves no poop, no fur, no clear prints, no bones, then it is probably fictional. You definitely need one of those things.

  124. Mark Richards
    March 7, 2015 at 11:20 AM

    Their next four years could well be spent investing in some better-camouflaged trail/FLIR cameras. They do seem to get easily discouraged by foreseeable equipment problems.

  125. Mark Richards
    March 7, 2015 at 11:24 AM

    I’d be very surprised if a FLIR-equipped drone couldn’t quickly find everything human/bear-sized in there.

    Of course, they’d get their definitive grape-ape footage then send it to a lab which would lose it.

  126. jerrywayne
    March 7, 2015 at 11:49 AM

    Sharon, I agree that we should keep a degree of open mindedness about the NAWAC report. However, what I don’t understand is your thinking on the report that appears closed to the possibility that the events in Area X, some or all, are the result of hoaxing. Certainly, a hoax explanation is not so far fetched as to be beyond consideration, especially contrasted to the NAWAC explanation of a troop of anomalous giant bipedal apes living in the hills of southeastern Oklahoma.

  127. Gabriel
    March 7, 2015 at 12:41 PM

    Not comparable.
    Finding gorillas where we don’t expect them, and not being able to find a bigfoot in 4 years while expecting to find one are two very different things.

  128. Gabriel
    March 7, 2015 at 12:58 PM

    Well, that’s the issue : they’re described as observations, in a style obviously copied from real scientific litterature, but most of them are interpretations. Not observations.

  129. Drewbot
    March 7, 2015 at 1:21 PM

    yes. And so you know, I’ve been to active an Bigfoot location, and discovered an ongoing hoax by the landowner. The Footers were either clueless or allowing it to happen. Nawac’s refusal to implement anti Hoaxing tactics tells me they are ok with continued Hoaxing as long as they can continue to call it Wood Apes. I hope you get final say on the script 🙂

  130. Johnny Bigfoot
    March 7, 2015 at 1:48 PM

    That about sums it up.. I went from believer to skeptic/cynic over the last couple of years. There just isn’t anything tangible to this whole thing.

  131. Dean
    March 7, 2015 at 1:59 PM

    I am a hopeful skeptic who does not discount the possibility of a large undocumented ape-like mammal existing in small populations in North America. However, as with most bigfoot evidence I have read or seen, this report contains two problems that other mammal researchers don’t seem to encounter:

    1. The inability to ever get a clear photo of the research subject. Even members of uncontacted tribes deep in the Amazon jungle have been photographed.
    2. Inconclusive DNA results from blood samples. In this day and age of advanced DNA diagnostic technology, I find it a bit hard to believe that a researcher could claim that “there could be many reasons including degradation from the environment or that the lab didn’t take it seriously enough” to excuse the lack of results from testing. Blood DNA is the holy grail for forensic scientists because even if it is degraded one only needs a small amount to identify its markers. And I doubt there is some sort of conspiracy by DNA labs to treat alleged bigfoot DNA as a joke, especially when they are being paid a good sum of money to analyze it.

  132. Saskeptic
    March 7, 2015 at 5:36 PM

    People claim to see, hear, and smell bigfoots from a wooded retreat in the mountains.
    People claim said bigfoots have been throwing rocks at them.

    Here’s where I’m at a loss to understand your comments, Sharon. What about these claims makes them any more compelling to you than dozens of similar claims? Even Ape Canyon from the 1920s had angry bigfoots throwing rocks. This is nothing new under the sun. What, specifically, is that “adequate evidence that something is going on?” If it’s the duration of the claims, then to me that works against NAWAC, not for them. There are plenty of fantastical bigfooty claims of longer duration than four years. In this case, four years of alleged survey time at their site has produced many interactions with the bigfoots, none of which has been accompanied by a decent photograph or DNA sample. That’s consistent with one or more people orchestrating things there. It’s not consistent with a population of monkey-men who want the humans to go away.

    Next, if you’re just asking questions, what specific questions do you think should be asked?

  133. Lagaya1
    March 7, 2015 at 6:43 PM

    Those “only”s are stated with a bit too much confidence to be taken seriously. It could be nothing but gravity you say? That’s going too far. You may think that’s the best explanation, but to say it’s the only one is not right.

  134. Ronald H. Pine
    March 7, 2015 at 6:53 PM

    Of course, all we have here is a collection of claims. There is no external and independent verification of any actual events having occurred as described or similar to what is described or having occurred at all, including the “rock throwing.” I find it impossible to explain all the claimed sightings, of which there were 49, “being conservative in what constitutes a true visual encounter,” according to the “monograph,” as simply being misinterpreted Black Bears. For one thing, in my experience, and that of other people who have spent much time in forests inhabited by Black Bears, they are wary of humans and very good at staying out of sight. These people were in the woods for a claimed possible minimum of 280 days and a claimed possible maximum of 360 days (they were cagy about the actual period of time involved and the number of person-hours or person-days involved). Forty-nine sightings of Black Bears, plus however many admitted sightings of Black Bears there were, plus sightings when no claimed determination as to identity was made, is an awful lot of sightings. Also, we read,”smoothly walking brown-colored figure approximately 6.5 feet tall or taller;” “clearly saw the animal from the knees up…instantly identified as a brown wood ape with a pointed head;” “large upright bipedal animal…gray with light-colored feet (possibly the soles), and some sort of light or white coloration in the buttocks area…around eight feet tall;” “very broad shoulders with a ‘V’ taper toward its waist;” “two upright animals…estimated the speed of the two animals to be over or near 20 miles per hour [!];” “well-defined muscles…leaning into its stride…;” “feet were splayed for traction;” “legs of one animal moving in a scissoring motion, like a human running;” “movement of the animals was ‘extremely smooth’;” “clear view of at least the waist up;” “huge gray ape arm…the right arm…it was gray and huge, probably a foot in diameter;” could see the right bicep [sic], the shoulder and part of the head;” “only 15 yards away…a huge gray wood ape standing there facing him and staring, its eyes reflecting the flashlight in a sort of green hue…calmly turned around and walked off…had seen the upper two-thirds of the animal, the head and face…best view was of the backside…as it strolled off into the darkness…saw the arms, the back, the buttocks, the upper legs, the back of its conical head, and where the head fused into the upper back…estimated its height to be in excesss of eight feet.” This is just a selection of the claimed sightings. Black Bears will stand up on their hind legs on occasion and may on occasion make a few steps while standing up, but the Black Bear shown in the video above is behaving in a unique and highly anomalous fashion. I believe that it must have had crippled front limbs and that that was why it was walking about on its hind legs. Oh, also, a “hairy arm” was reported as having been seen throwing a rock.

  135. Drewbot
    March 7, 2015 at 7:33 PM

    The 125,000 gorillas were not found. This was simply the first time they were scientifically counted, and a density calculated, which allowed them to include this group of gorillas in the count. It’s not like they all of a sudden realized there were gorillas there. By the way , a density survey of gorillas in African bush has no bearing on whether a group of hairy, giant apemen are living in an Oklahoma plot, with national forest trails on all sides.

  136. March 7, 2015 at 9:04 PM

    It’s completely the same thing. You’re arguing there cannot be any large creatures in the study area because after four years they haven’t been dragged out into the open. Science doesn’t work that way. You cannot throw cynicism and plausible explanations at a list of reports and say, “Well, this disproves everything”. That’s just pseudoscience.

    This report proves nothing but as Sharon said it does raise some interesting questions. It brings together a much more consistent picture of evidence of *something* that science can investigate. Science doesn’t care if you want to believe in Bigfoot or not. It doesn’t care if you want to make up plausible explanations. Science only demands facts.

    More investigation seems warranted, preferably by a different team or with different tools. It’s easy to be an armchair expert. It’s not so easy to be scientific. Real science involves a lot of trial and error and creatures living in the wild do not march to our expectations until we learn to set our expectations to their behavior.

    Whether it’s a bunch of drunken hillbillies, feral apes, or something else the reported behavior can be explained only by investigation, not by outright dismissal.

    I brought up the lowland gorilla report because one common objection among Bigfoot cynics is the assumption that we have thoroughly mapped all the wildlife in North America and that leaves no room for even small populations of large populations. The lowland gorilla study proves that is absolute nonsense. If 125,000 gorillas can be overlooked for decades then we can certainly overlook other creatures for decades or centuries.

    I don’t have an opinion on whether Bigfoot exists. I have never seen compelling, scientific evidence of any such creatures. But science does not confuse lack of evidence for proof that everything is a hoax.

  137. Ronald H. Pine
    March 7, 2015 at 9:51 PM

    “Footers” like to emphasize the supposed apelike characteristics of their favorite mythological beast but they started making reports of it being nocturnal and having reflective nocturnal eyeshine, before they realized how un-apelike this would be. Of the 130 or so species that make up the taxonomic group including the Old World monkeys, gibbons, apes, and humans, not one is nocturnal and no physiological adaptations for nocturnality have existed in any member of this group since the capabilities for that lifestyle were lost back in the mists of evolutionary antiquity. No member of that group has “eyeshine” any more than humans do. The “eyeshine” is caused by a special layer in the eye and called the tapetum lucidum. It is related to effective night vision. If I were hunting bigfoots, I’d use dogs. Has anyone tried this. Oh, yeah, I think I may have read that dogs are terrified of bigfoot scent and won’t follow it. Special problems, always special problems. How about following bigfoot trackways in the snow? I’d think that you could locate them that way, or at least learn a lot about them.The gold standard of bigfoot research would be physical evidence. If I were hunting bigfoots, I’d make every effort to find their hairs. Incredibly, the folks of the monograph claim to have had multiple hairs in their possession but then let them all out get out of their grasp. Instead of sending them all to a lab, I would have held onto a few. If the lab never got back to me, I would literally show up on their actual doorstep, threaten legal action, and generally raise holy hell with them in person. Whereas, the folks of the “monograph” seem be just saying, “oh well, too bad” Also, hairs do not need to be identified by means of DNA. It can be done with an old-fashioned microscope. Even a “layperson” should be able to do this effectively by means of published keys and illustrated books. The hairs could also be compared with hairs on hides of animals in natural history museums.. If I had some bigfoot hairs, I would use a microscope to see if they were those of a unknown apelike animal. If they proved to be, I’d take a lot of photos of them, using the microscope, before I’d let a lab get ahold of one. If I recall correctly, it is also possible to make identifiable impressions of animal hairs as well. Why aren’t these folks trying to collect bigfoot poop? The perpetrators of poop can be identified by DNA analysis–you don’t need blood. Why didn’t the “monograph” have even a single reference to the supposed investigators’ finding of presumptive bigfoot poop.

  138. March 7, 2015 at 9:52 PM

    Here is a video of a gorilla throwing a rock at visitors in a zoo.

    How good is his aim? Hard to say from the video, but at least one person stepped back to avoid being hit.

  139. Lagaya1
    March 7, 2015 at 9:52 PM

    I agree that the gorilla find is in no way comparable. The gorillas were in an area so remote, it took 3 days of hiking to reach it. It was 50 miles from any road. Not true of the Oklahoma area. Also, you said the gorillas were not previously found even though the area was “well-studied”. I don’t see that in the report you linked to at all. Perhaps it was well-studied after the gorillas were discovered, but not before.

  140. March 7, 2015 at 9:57 PM

    “Even members of uncontacted tribes deep in the Amazon jungle have been photographed.”

    After centuries or decades of people hearing about them without obtaining such evidence. There is no timeframe in science for collecting photographic evidence of anything.

    “Inconclusive DNA results from blood samples.”

    Happens all the time, even in the most recent murder trials. Take the case of Amanda Knox (accused of murdering Meredith Kercher in Italy), for example. DNA specialists were divided on the evidence presented at trial.

  141. March 7, 2015 at 10:08 PM

    Gorillas typically give birth at night, according to Dian Fossey. And this paper (Cf. documents frequent nocturnal activity by chimpanzees raiding human fields. The authors hypothesize that habitat destruction may contribute to changes in chimpanzee behavior.

  142. idoubtit
    March 7, 2015 at 10:51 PM

    Sorry Drew, your anecdote doesn’t really do anything for me either.

  143. idoubtit
    March 7, 2015 at 10:54 PM

    “no hoaxing evident”. If there is evidence that this is a hoax, someone can present it. I DID NOT say I was closed to the possibility of hoaxing.


  144. BobM
    March 7, 2015 at 11:16 PM

    Rock ape is RAF slang for a member of the RAF Regiment, tasked with guarding airfields. I thought it had something to do with Gibraltar, but apparently not. But never mind all the stone throwing – they shot one? Isn’t that going over the top just a little, considering they’re supposed to be rare et cetera et cetera.

  145. jerrywayne
    March 8, 2015 at 11:16 AM

    I must have misunderstood these comments you posted at Group of Fort: “This is not the work of hoaxers” and “Four years and multiple researchers experiencing multiple events. It’s absurd to conclude this is a hoax.”

  146. Lynda
    March 8, 2015 at 1:40 PM

    “It’s not so easy to be scientific.” … It’s also not so easy to be in the field under such harsh physical conditions. The temperatures soar into the upper 9o’s and 100 degrees, in that area during the summer months. The remote area would not have running water, or other utilities. There are multiple poisonous snakes, ticks, and mosquitoes, in a terrain that is so dense it is very difficult to enter.

    The report submitted by NAWAC was conducted over a four year period. It states that the number of days in the field ranged from 60 to 120 per year. That adds up to a total of one year, or less, of continued observation, over the four year course.

    Drunken hillbillies would have to be little more than brain dead to be hanging out in this very remote area, over a four year period, looking for an opportunity to throw rocks at investigators who are brandishing rifles.

    This isn’t an easy task for the men who are investing so much of their own time and money, in a non-profit organization. It’s too bad that they have to operate under such a cloud of “ethical suspicion”….. Not everyone is a hoaxer. Not everyone is looking for personal gain. More investigation is warranted. More questions do need to be answered.

  147. Ronald H. Pine
    March 8, 2015 at 2:09 PM

    This comment was primarily intended as a reply to Colonel Tom’s comment before his last one. Somehow I managed to displace it. You’ve got it backwards. The way that science is supposed to work is that you come up with a “favored hypothesis” and then you try to think of ways that you could disprove your hypothesis, not to support it. If you succeed in disproving it right away then you’re in a better position to come up with a new hypothesis that might turn out to be one that you can’t disprove. Also, you can make a lot more progress a lot faster by disproving (“falsifying”) your hypothesis, if it happens to be false, or series of false hypotheses, than by casting about for what you will happily regard as supporting evidence for your “favored hypothesis.” The latter approach frequently has led to people into self-delusion as to what they’re dealing with, with disastrous results. If they publish their, in effect, untested “favored hypothesis” as being the best one and then someone immediately disproves it by performing the obvious potentially falsifying experiment or looking in the obvious right place for falsifying observations, these folks can look pretty silly. The philosopher of science Karl Popper wrote that it is impossible to absolutely prove a propostion in science. All you can do is say that you’ve come up with every way you can think of to disprove it and tried them and failed to disprove it. This does not mean, of course, that for all practical purposes, and for the time being, a scientific hypothesis can’t eventually be accepted as true, and then one goes from there. Also, Popper said that “unfalsifiable hypotheseses” have no place in science. What he meant by that is a hypotheses for which, in principle, no one could ever come up with an experiment or obsevation that would have the potential to disprove it if, in fact, the hypothesis was wrong. An example would be that there is a conscious “god” that knows all and sees all but never interferes in the workings of the universe or human life.

  148. March 8, 2015 at 2:48 PM

    Actually you do not have to try to disprove a hypothesis in science. What this paper is doing is contributing to a theory, which explains the known facts. The theory may be inconsistent with what is actually going on or it could be quite close to the truth in spite of its flaws. Science is built on the process of collecting observations then propositions that attempt to explain the observations. You cannot put everything into simple experiments and hope for falsifiability. Take the search for gravity waves. Failure to prove Einstein’s theory so far doesn’t disprove the existence of gravity waves and we are going on a 100 years for that part of general relativity.

  149. Ronald H. Pine
    March 8, 2015 at 3:04 PM

    I also must have misunderstood what she said on Group of Fort, when she categorized the suspicion that a hoax was involved, as being “insanely cynical.” And just what are the “relevant questions” that those who suspect or are convinced of hoaxing have been “blinded to.” By the way, four full years, 4 times 365 days of operations, would not influence me to change my take on this matter, but the actual four claimed periods of operation were given as from 60 t0 100 days, with the lengths of two periods unspecified, meaning that the actual cumulative amount of time spent may have been no more than 280 days. All that the “four years” figure would mean to me is that someone or someones who might be a hoaxer, or two or more hoaxers, had an attention span that extended over four years. Haven’t there been plenty of hoaxers who maintained their inclination to perpetrate hoaxes for longer than that?

  150. Votre
    March 8, 2015 at 3:10 PM


    I think at this point it would be worthwhile to consider that there is no requirement that those who are doubtful need to prove bigfoot doesn’t exist. You can’t prove something isn’t. All you can hope to do is prove something is. So in the absence of concrete and incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, the default logical position must say: “it ain’t” – until such time as it can be shown to be otherwise.

    The burden of proof rests solely with the pro-bigfoot crowd. And so far, the evidence that has been presented is neither compelling nor concrete. So rather than take issue with those who openly question what has been presented – or question their motives – why not do something more useful? How about going out and bringing back something real? Like verifiable hair samples that won’t disappear. Or some DNA evidence…some extremely good photos or video footage…or better yet, how about temporarily capturing an actual live specimen? Then you won’t have to get into esoteric discussions about rock throwing, odd night noises, and psychic disturbances.

  151. Colonel Tom
    March 8, 2015 at 3:18 PM

    This was not my experience with medical researchers, nor do I content that they at all times were paragons of unbiased thought. In medicine, my observation is that most research was done to support a hypothesis and most attempts to countre were done by “competing” research teams. It takes a certain type of person to give four years or a life time, to their point of research, and most become fixated upon proving what they believe.

    I find it, ludicrous, that you’d expect anyone to spend four years in isolated and primitive circumstances and expect the primaries to be unattached to their hypothesis. Countre-point can be provided by other academics reviewing the field findings, countre-point can be provided by others in the community.

    Also, in biology, you can most certainly prove that an animal exists.

  152. Colonel Tom
    March 8, 2015 at 3:29 PM

    I have an idle hypothesis that our host is partaking of parlour experiment to discover if the commentators are swayed by her personal support (or even openness) of an unlikely hypothesis. Apparently, our hosts history of hyper-skepticism is not enough to win her unconditional support. The pity. I would have thought that common courtesy would have been enough to temper some of the tones, but I am a foolish optimist that expects better behavior than my history of observation would support.

  153. jerrywayne
    March 8, 2015 at 4:05 PM

    Thanks Michael. Very informative. Is it your contention then, that a small population wild ape colony in Oklahoma can exist nocturnally and diurnally?

    Is there any aspect of the NAWAC report on Oklahoma’s native great apes that makes you pause and think, “that’s surely atypical of ape behavior?”

  154. Bill Munns
    March 8, 2015 at 4:24 PM

    I would think that the appropriate, scientific and skeptical process for evaluating this activity described in the monograph would be to list the options and see if all but one can be eliminated for cause, (cause defined as a logical and rational explanation supported by evidence). I would list the options as:

    1. Events occurring simply by the element of nature, with no conscious deliberation.
    2. Events occurring by conscious deliberation of humans interacting with the researchers, with intent to deceive the researchers (as in hoaxing).
    3. Events occurring by the conscious deliberation of other biological entities interacting with the researchers.

    There is no default position or conclusion. Each option should be considered and where possible, tested to determine if that option is viable or can be dismissed.

    Example: In the matter of the rocks, the researchers might test the hypothesis of mere gravity accounting for the rock impacts on cabins by taking rocks to the higher elevations and setting them in motion to roll down the inclined slope in the direction of cabins, and record how many strike the cabin roofs.

    The researchers might also take rocks apparently having struck the roofs and test how far away the researchers themselves can get and still throw the rocks to strike the roofs. Once they establish a sampled human range for throwing rocks, then at night test if a human in that position is out of sight when lights are shined upon that direction.

    Such studies on subsequent research expeditions could strengthen one option as the viable conclusion by providing evidence to discount the other options for cause.

    Clearly something curious is occurring at that location, and the researchers are to be commended for devoting so much time and effort to finding an answer. Scientific exploration and discovery should always be encouraged.

  155. jerrywayne
    March 8, 2015 at 4:29 PM

    If we take the report’s eyewitness accounts at face value, then we have yeti/Patterson’s film subject cone headed bipedal giant apes AND red haired chimpanzees roaming around Oklahoma’s Valley of the Apes.

  156. jerrywayne
    March 8, 2015 at 4:41 PM

    One of the problems I have had with NAWAC’s research at Area X is that the researchers are mostly committed Bigfoot enthusiasts. That is a problem only because they have apparently had no interest in bringing aboard any skeptical observers. Perhaps now they will invite you and Ben Radford and other prominent skeptics to a visit at Area X. If so many legitimate sightings and curious phenomena are occurring there, they should welcome you and Ben and others to an open house.

  157. jerrywayne
    March 8, 2015 at 4:48 PM

    As to the use of dogs, I remember Brown saying they had used dogs once, but it caused the apes to become much more shy around NAWAC field researchers. Smart apes, those wood apes.

  158. March 8, 2015 at 4:56 PM

    My only contention with respect to this report is that I agree with Sharon. It is different in nature and scope from anything else I have seen (although I do not follow the Bigfoot story and had to look up some of the names being mentioned in these comments). Anthropological and primatological science depend in large part upon observational studies. So does archaeology. Scientists just announced the “discovery” of a probable entire “lost” civilization (multiple cities) in the jungles of Honduras. They went looking because people had been reporting sightings of ancient ruins for many years; the hope was to find some fabled “white city” (although they have not made that identification).

    As far as these supposed wood apes go, I can think of several hypotheses influenced by both documented human and ape behavior that might explain why it’s so hard to find something there. Look at how it took hundreds of police officers several weeks to track down cop killer Eric Frein in a relatively small wooded area last year (covering only a few square miles and it was surrounded by large population centers).

    Orangutans live alone most of their lives except when driven together by great need (such as loss of habitat is doing in Borneo). So if there is something other than people throwing rocks in the woods we have empirical evidence to show that A) a small breeding population of primates could exist across a large area; B) individuals and small family groups could elude positive identification for long periods of time given how few credible searchers are involved in looking for them; C) close proximity to human culture could “teach” such creatures to become more secretive and intentionally reclusive; and D) even well-studied (photographed) areas that have been explored for centuries can hide all sorts of things that were previously unknown to science.

    This study proves nothing but like Sharon said it raises some interesting questions. It’s the first study of its kind that I have heard of (with limited knowledge in Bigfoot lore) that spans multiple observational periods involving multiple observers and attempts to acquire irrefutable documentation.

    If there is a creature out there it will be found when it’s found and no one knows when that might be. Science cannot look at a claim and dismiss it on the basis of prior hoaxing activity. The science can be informed by prior hoaxing activity but each report has to be judged on its own merits.

    If the report authors have published a complete hoax it’s a very thorough and sophisticated hoax.

  159. spookyparadigm
    March 8, 2015 at 5:35 PM

    They recount in their report hanging fishhooks in the forest on fishing line (presumably at heights that would catch on a human though this isn’t described), launching sling stones at presumed entities making sounds and throwing stones from the forest, and firing buckshot, shotgun slugs, and bullets at figures not fully understood (and presumably not visible for long enough to photograph). Good luck to any visiting non-members.

  160. Dubious f
    March 8, 2015 at 10:43 PM

    Satisfactory conclusion: larger smart raccoons. I rather believe that after 160 comments of doubtfuls!. Btw, they throw and see in dark…

  161. Circlewalker
    March 8, 2015 at 10:53 PM

    I have debated for hours on whether or not to comment here.

    Several years ago I went hiking and stumbled across a population of these things. A better explanation is for some reason they let me know they were there.

    They have literally built a survival niche by being able to blend into their environment and by leaving no trace of themselves. They take animal and societal camouflage to a whole new level in terms of land based animals. I do have pictures of them, however the skeptics here wouldn’t believe it and would most likely say I have hoaxed the pictures.

    To say that no pictures or proof exist implies every picture and every piece of proof or evidence on earth for this subject has been seen… Some people are not putting what evidence they have out there. The notion really put forward by those that say that there is no evidence when they haven’t seen everything is this: these beings can not logically exist and no proof is adequate.

    Let’s be honest, no picture will prove these beings exist, no audio capture will prove they exist and no amount of foot casting will prove it to the skeptics. For the skeptic nothing short of a body will do. It makes little difference how well any observation is completed, how well it is written, how great a cast is, how much DNA is on a hair sample or anything else.

    From a moral point of view proving something exists by killing it is repugnant to me. It even sounds ridiculous… If someone doesn’t have any form of ID should I kill them to prove they exist? Should something that has been around for millennia have to die just to justify existence to a skeptic or for science just because logic suggests the impossibility of existence?

    I have heard and recorded some of their vocal articulations and I have pictures of them. I do not take foot casts since I think my time is better spent trying to get pictures of them. I take pictures so I can understand them. The pictures indicate a split second of time that shows behavior. People that take casts or look at the tree formations are literally not looking at and focusing on the rest of the environment around them. I generally do not share pictures or audio since it will certainly be the end of the way of life for them.

    What animals or humans on the planet have not been counted, tagged, tracked, birth rates monitored, anatomical features scrutinized (by killing them), range calculated and life expectancy calculated? Would killing one be enough or would they also have to kill the opposite gender for study and possibly different age ranges? Would they be put on animal refuges or reservations as my ancestors were? These are literally the last free beings on Earth…

    Human logic is flawed and humans making sense of the universe is also flawed since humans make mistakes. Human flaw is what the scientific method tries to limit. To think that human logic explains everything and everything that makes sense to humans is 100% accurate and true is the main arrogance of modern science and skeptics regarding this field. I do believe in the use of logic but closing off all possibilities limits what science can prove.

    Skeptics can analyze, tear apart, and misinterpret the nuances of whatever I say but will never refute to me what I have seen, taken pictures of or audio recorded.

    I have been to this location multiple times and they have been there EVERY time I have been there. These beings are real.


  162. Pterodactyl
    March 8, 2015 at 11:02 PM

    A person can sit at a computer and type up pages upon pages of accounts of alleged events whether they actually occurred or not. A person can also label such fiction a “monograph” if they choose to as well. Big deal.

    What, besides the usual claims, do we actually have to examine in terms of evidence?


    Four years of having the roof of your rental cabin peppered with stones is an interesting, and not altogether implausible phenomenon that by itself might seem worthy of an open-minded investigation, but let’s not overlook that sprinkled in among the mundane rock tossing and wood knock events are various alleged, clear visual encounters of upright walking 8-foot-tall ape men in Oklahoma. Those don’t exist. So, of what value are the rest of the claims? And what are we supposed to be keeping an open mind about?

  163. idoubtit
    March 8, 2015 at 11:24 PM

    That’s a very possible possibility.

    As you can tell, I’ve given up. Not worth the effort to argue this in such a fashion.

  164. Parcher
    March 8, 2015 at 11:46 PM

    Having read the monograph, the spelling, grammar and capitalization are indeed good. I’d say the content is a lot closer to Paul Blart’s activity log at a haunted house, than it is to “serious research”. Why would DN not see this?

    What is puzzling is Doubtful News’ referring to this as serious, and repeating a number of what amount to press release claims, as if DN knows them to be true. These claims have been extensively discussed on the internet, and many found wanting. It is one thing to say “take a look”; it’s another to adopt the claims, unexamined, like a site that “evaluates” products on contract from the manufacturer. Don’t get me wrong…this is not to impugn anyone’s integrity. But that is what it resembles.

    On a related note, what precisely does Doubtful News mean by “something is going on there?” We assume DN did not intend that statement to be meaningless… “Something” is going on everywhere on earth at all times….

    In summary, DN’s treatment of this story is credulous and completely out of character for this site, IMO, and certainly raises the eyebrows of many.

    And we would certainly hire Mr. Brown’s firm if we wanted to sell leg warmers in hell.

  165. Eli
    March 8, 2015 at 11:57 PM

    If rocks as are being thrown that hit or come very close to NAWAC members, then why not pick up the rocks while wearing exam gloves, to decrease the risk of contamination ,and keep them for examination. The rocks can then be examined for prints left by the throwers or for DNA, for as few as five to 20 skin cells can yield DNA, and sometimes residual fluids such as sweat or body oils can also contribute DNA.

    The rocks should yield something, for even if the “wood apes” hands are calloused and dry, one would doubt that the creatures wash after urinating/ defecating and before they chuck the rocks.

    And though primates may throw rocks and other items , they frequently throw something far more unpleasant; the fact that no one has had a handful of steaming feces thrown at them is very odd since that is far more in keeping with primate behavior.

  166. RM
    March 9, 2015 at 12:39 AM

    It’s obvious you made that up just now for attention.

  167. Gary
    March 9, 2015 at 12:49 AM

    Circlewalker, it’s very fortunate for you that a population of bigfeet chose to make you aware of them. It’s unfortunate you chose not to share any evidence – which begs the question as to the purpose of your post – to convince us without evidence?
    Or is your point that humans are flawed, about which we can all agree.

  168. Ronald H. Pine
    March 9, 2015 at 1:18 AM

    It would appear that for you the possibility of one or more of those who you call the researchers bringing about events through “conscious deliberation…with intent to deceive,” or with “conscious deliberation” claiming that events took place that, in fact, did not take place, “with intent to deceive…(as in hoaxing)” is literally unthinkable.

  169. Votre
    March 9, 2015 at 9:39 AM

    @Circlewalker –

    Coulda, shoulda, woulda? Seriously?

    What do we have so far:

    Odd incidents of rocks being thrown? OK let’s say for the sake of argument that rocks actually have been thrown.

    Odd noises heard in the night and recorded? Ok, lets grant that odd noises of some sort have been heard and recorded.

    Something oddly banging on trees? Ok, lets allow that too, for the sake of argument, without further question.

    So… rocks thrown + odd noises + banging sounds = proof positive bigfoot exists?

    Hardly. Because that assumes that a bigfoot is responsible. And that causal link has no basis in reality beyond the willingness of the person gathering such “evidence” to convince them bigfoot exists. Therein lies the difference between ‘evidence’ and ‘observed phenomena.’ Evidence establishes a causal relationship. Observed phenomena is…well…events that may or may not have a causal relationship to whatever is claimed to be responsible. Observations are easy. Establishing the link is a lot harder.

    To quote your earlier comment: “Skeptics can analyze, tear apart, and misinterpret the nuances of whatever I say but will never refute to me what I have seen, taken pictures of or audio recorded.”

    That is the voice of religion belief – not science. The term ‘never’ is not part of the scientific vocabulary. And nuance is not and acceptable substitute for precision, either in method or language, when it comes to science. If you find yourself tempted to nuance, it’s generally a good indication that more precision is called for.

    To further quote you: “I have been to this location multiple times and they have been there EVERY time I have been there. These beings are real.”

    Um-hmm. So *you* say.

    “Human logic is flawed and humans making sense of the universe is also flawed since humans make mistakes. Human flaw is what the scientific method tries to limit. To think that human logic explains everything and everything that makes sense to humans is 100% accurate and true is the main arrogance of modern science and skeptics regarding this field. I do believe in the use of logic but closing off all possibilities limits what science can prove.”

    Ok fine. Then please use logic. Don’t gather evidence, and then – when the final link between the phenomena and the cause can’t be established – resort to magical thinking and assertions.

    Believing in something doesn’t make it real. Repeating the same arguments over and over doesn’t make them truer.

    We skeptics aren’t saying that bigfoot doesn’t exist. We’re saying that those who *believe* in bigfoot have not adequately established that it does.

    All that’s needed is to clearly and unequivocally show the causal connection between the evidence claimed to have been gathered and it being due to the activity of bigfoots and us skeptics will get behind you 100%. Otherwise, it’s back to square one. Or at least back to taking long walks in the woods, groovin’ on nature and communing with the hidden beings of the forest, who have favored your higher state of evolution and spirituality by revealing themselves to you and your fellow bigfoot believers.

    FWIW, it seems like a nice enough church the bigfoot advocates have got going for themselves. I don’t have a problem with that. But at this point, bigfoot *is* very much a church. 😉

  170. Matt Crowley
    March 9, 2015 at 9:49 AM

    Headline: “Someone has been egging this 85-year-old’s home for a year. Police are baffled.” Looks like the Wood Apes have now infested Cleveland:

  171. Drewbot
    March 9, 2015 at 9:52 AM

    The part that is wrong here, is the part where we replace “Wood Ape” with any other imaginary animal, and write a Monograph about it.

    If we wrote a Monograph entitled ‘Into the Meadow of the Unicorn’ and told stories about unshod hoof prints, and mysterious rainbow colors appearing in the window, no one would take it seriously.

    If we wrote a Monograph entitled ‘Living in the Shadow of the Thunderbird’ and told stories of loud bird calls, and flying shadows darkening the cabin windows, no one would take it seriously.

    Why should we take the Wood Ape Monograph seriously? Because they have been keeping track of sounds and alleged sightings for 4 years (non-consecutively), and attributing them to Wood -Apes? What is it about the Wood Ape that would lead Doubtful News to ask us to take it seriously? Was a Wood Ape recently discovered somewhere, and we should apply that fact to this Monograph? Is it the Military Jargon that they use?

    I’m calling Bravo-Sierra (I can use Military Jargon as well) on the whole thing, I disagree with DN’s position that
    “…this deserves a higher level of attention due to the duration and number of participants as well as the location and degree of careful record keeping. Could it be a hoax or are the NAWAC being hoaxed? Possible but not probable. We ask for careful research into a phenomenon so we when get it, it is only right to not assume fraud for no good reason but to take a measured look at what is presented.”

    Yes, it is possible that they are being hoaxed. Far more possible than a Giant, Hairy, Bipedal, Apeman that has eluded discovery in a place where something of that size would have been considered a danger to the settler’s families, the Native American families, and an Obstacle to the big industrial logging that took place in the area, and far more possible than the idea that this Giant Apeman would be hucking dangerous rocks in the direction of people without hitting anyone. What would be the selective advantage, of being able to throw rocks a hundred yards with such poor results? It would simply attract attention to a creature that supposedly is elusive? Really?

  172. Gary
    March 9, 2015 at 10:00 AM

    that’s a ‘squatch fur sure!

  173. Drewbot
    March 9, 2015 at 10:11 AM

    Yep, Squatches.
    They are overpopulating the Cleveland National Forest and moving into residential neighborhoods.

  174. Stuart
    March 9, 2015 at 10:21 AM

    I have read most of the report, and it is well written and presented (much better than a lot of its ilk that can be found). I don’t see the problem with the hypothesis is “apeman” and the report attempts to support that. My issue is with the lack of objective evidence. I don’t remember seeing in the report, for example, that the area from where the rocks came from was examined to see if they could have rolled / bounced to where they landed, the logic (to me at least) seemed to go “rocks, therefore apeman”.
    At a time when high quality, easily portable cameras are ubiquitous; good, clearly taken photographic evidence does appear to be sadly lacking – the one of the woodpecker here:- had limited time to setup.
    The real clincher,of course, would be good old DNA – even if the report came back with “DNA not known”, it would be big a step in resolving the argument for once and all.

  175. Rich
    March 9, 2015 at 10:54 AM

    “To say that no pictures or proof exist implies every picture and every piece of proof or evidence on earth for this subject has been seen.”

    – No, it doesn’t. The position is that photographs have always been highly prone to misidentification and manipulation. It implies only that the photographs we have seen (what else would we judge? The ones we haven’t seen?) are therefore not enough to count as evidence by themselves. There are photographs of ghosts, fairies, Nessie and UFOs. Photographs on their own are like anecdotes; interesting, flawed, easily manipulated.

    “The notion really put forward by those that say that there is no evidence when they haven’t seen everything is this: these beings can not logically exist and no proof is adequate.”

    – No. That’s a faith-based presumption: “I believe/ do not believe therefore there is proof/ no proof.” The skeptical approach is that these beings – based on what we know of other allegedly similar beings – have a highly unlikely existence, AND the evidence so far is inadequate.

    “Let’s be honest, no picture will prove these beings exist, no audio capture will prove they exist and no amount of foot casting will prove it to the skeptics. For the skeptic nothing short of a body will do. It makes little difference how well any observation is completed, how well it is written, how great a cast is, how much DNA is on a hair sample or anything else.”

    – You’re right. An actual animal is proof of an actual animal. Although, DNA would do too. It’s not like we’re overwhelmed with DNA from Bigfoot hairs but, hell, we’re holding out for a dead ‘un just out of mulishness.

    “From a moral point of view proving something exists by killing it is repugnant to me. It even sounds ridiculous… If someone doesn’t have any form of ID should I kill them to prove they exist?”

    – I hear something rustling in the straw! It *does* sound ridiculous, you’re right. The deadness of the body is not the question; the reality of the body is the question. You’re creating a false philosophical dichotomy about having to kill something IN ORDER to prove it exists. This is not the issue: it’s about producing a real animal. The ‘ID’ point is not reasonable; if a human had no ID I would assume they were still a human being. If a unicorn had no ID I would be less inclined to assume it was a unicorn.

    “To think that human logic explains everything and everything that makes sense to humans is 100% accurate and true is the main arrogance of modern science and skeptics regarding this field. I do believe in the use of logic but closing off all possibilities limits what science can prove.”

    – The only answer to this is Dara O’Briain’s: if science thought it knew the answers to everything, it would stop. What you’re really saying is “science is arrogant because it doesn’t agree with me.” We come back to where we started from, the existence of evidence. Science hasn’t taken up a position on the absence of Bigfoot as some kind of article of faith: “I am a skeptic and a scientist, what we know now is all we can know, therefore I deny Bigfoot.” Science would be hugely interested in a new primate roaming the North American woods chucking rocks at people. Based on what we know of other, allegedly similar animals, its existence seems highly unlikely. The evidence for it is inadequate, untrustworthy, anecdotal, and vulnerable to manipulation.

  176. Ronald H. Pine
    March 9, 2015 at 1:56 PM

    I’m not sure sbout this, but I think that the feces-throwing behavior is something that happens with some captive animals in zoos but not in the wild.

  177. Ronald H. Pine
    March 9, 2015 at 2:26 PM

    There are “skeptics” who do say that bigfoots don’t exist. I am one of them. Millions of people with guns have been wandering the backwoods of the USA and Canada from colonial times to the present, but nobody’s ever brought back evidence of a shot bigfoot. Somehow bigfoots don’t get shot. Real animals leave dead carcasses and bones in the woods. Bigfoots don’t, and dead animals and isolated bones, complete skeletons, and skulls turn up all the time in the woods, in spite of what some people might try to tell you. Generations of thousands of professional field biologists have been scouring the wilderness, including areas that are supposed to be bigfoot prime habitat, looking for their favorite animals and plants, also since colonial times. I’m one of them. Our numerous professional societies have conventions. We gossip. The cumulative amount of time that all of us have spent in the wilderness adds up to thousands of years. Not one of us, so far as I know, has ever found a shred of evidence for the existence of bigfoots, not even a single footprint. Contrast this with the claims of the masses of “evidence” and “sightings” that a group of bigfoot believers and bigfoot existence promoters can come up with practically on demand.

  178. insanislupus
    March 9, 2015 at 2:34 PM

    “The NAWAC Board of Directors extends a challenge and invitation to academicians, scientists, and professionals within wildlife/conservation-oriented organizations and governmental agencies to contact the organization if you are interested in collaborating with the NAWAC and/or if you are willing to accompany a team to assist in efforts to document the kinds of incidents described in this paper.” (The Ouachita Project, Page 176, paragraph 5)

    If anyone in the comments section fits this criteria, they should put those critical thinking skills to work in the field and start explaining the observed phenomena, rather than giving “alternative anecdotes, speculation, ad hominems, and outright dismissals,” and especially the dickish comments aimed at our host.

  179. Ronald H. Pine
    March 9, 2015 at 2:47 PM

    Mere testimonials and claims should never be regarded as somehow constituting established facts. And why should we care at all about the rocks and the sounds, anyway. The people who reported them claim to have actually seen the actual creatures numerous times and seen them very, very well on occasion– so well that there can be no doubt that they were viewing bigfoots, that is, if you believe that they’re telling the truth. Don’t those reported sightings make all of the reported rocks thrown and sounds heard completely unimportant and immaterial? Why keep presenting indirect supposed evidence that something “must be out there” when you can actually see “what’s out there” and see it so well that its identity is without question, assuming that you believe the claimed witnesses?

  180. Ronald H' Pine
    March 9, 2015 at 3:04 PM

    There are many kinds of “real clinchers” that would be as good as or better than DNA. A skull, a hairy piece of skin, an entire creature strapped to the bumper of a trophy hunter’s car, etc. “Real clinchers” of all sorts are what has made us aware of the existence of the many kinds of animals we know about. DNA was not necessary to originally establish the existence of bears, mountain goats, and mountain lions, and, if bigfoots really existed, their existence would have, by this time, been established in the same ways.

  181. Ryan Cordova
    March 9, 2015 at 3:05 PM

    Thank you for taking this subject seriously and actually letting the results speak for themselves.

    Often times I’ve noticed that many of the “skeptical” people on these websites follow less scientific processes than the people they claim to be debunking. There are several examples in these posts for that side as well.

    Good science is letting the evidence speak for you, one way or the other, on a subject where evidence is naturally hard to obtain jumping to the conclusion that it “doesn’t exist” or “isn’t possible” or there’s “only one explanation” doesn’t seem very scientific to me, especially when the evidence that does exist is unclear at best.

  182. Ryan Cordova
    March 9, 2015 at 3:07 PM

    “and are looking to support that hypothesis as opposed to disprove it”

    So you mean they’re using the Scientific Method by developing a hypothesis and then setting out to prove it?

    Those bastards!

  183. Tron
    March 9, 2015 at 4:09 PM

    This makes absolutely no sense. Why do you think research scientists record behavioural observations? It’s called ecology. Check out the definition. Do you think Darwin just said ‘Cool, seen several types of tortoise. That’ll do me!’? How daft.

    The dogged hyper empiricism skit is just childish.

  184. Colonel Tom
    March 9, 2015 at 4:35 PM

    Pale one, speak only for yourselves, the kiwankansin:i were well known in the old stories, with no indication that they were “spirit” and anything other than a real creature.

    Not that I personally believe that they still exist, but it certainly would be a rib tickler if someone ever finds one still alive.

  185. Tron
    March 9, 2015 at 5:35 PM

    Yes, why on earth didn’t Darwin simply say “right, that’s some tortoises and finches seen. That’ll do me!”? The discipline of ecology requires researchers to observe, and note, behaviour and not just direct sightings. I thought this was a discussion board for thinkers?

    Pig-headed hyper empiricism is really very silly. Try conducting your own research project and see how you get on without documenting behavioural traits. That would be one dull paper.

  186. Eli
    March 9, 2015 at 6:41 PM

    ” Throwing in wild chimpanzees is seldom, if ever, observed for the purposes of obtaining food, but rather is almost always directed towards other chimpanzees or humans…. In short, what appears to be the main reward for throwing is the simple ability to control or manipulate the behaviour of the targeted individual (ape or human)” Hopkins, W. D., Russell, J. L., & Schaeffer, J. A. (2012). The neural and cognitive correlates of aimed throwing in chimpanzees: a magnetic resonance image and behavioural study on a unique form of social tool use. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 367(1585), 37-47.

    If NAWAC saying that there is rock throwing, then there would also be episodes in which feces is thrown which contains DNA. But even if that is not the case, the rocks alone might have sufficient DNA on the surface from the oils, sweat or skins cells of the throwers, to get DNA. So have they tested any of these rocks that are being thrown their way or do they now plan to do so?

  187. Fitz
    March 9, 2015 at 8:30 PM

    i find very unlikely that creatures reported in North America, Tibet, Australia, etc would all be the same species.

  188. Seneca
    March 9, 2015 at 8:51 PM

    One mans “bull” is another man
    ‘s fertilizer. I’ve never seen a Yeti either, but there is far too much circumstantial evidence for there to be “nothing to it”. Let the researchers research. You never know what they may find. An open mind is a beautiful thing; so long as it isn’t so open the brain falls out.

  189. Dave
    March 9, 2015 at 10:22 PM

    I do follow the happenings of your organization closely, however the rock throwing is simply absurd. With reportedly 1000’s of rock throwing incidences, I find it extremely hard to believe that the source can’t be located, filmed, photographed etc… If rocks are hitting the cabin and surrounding area, that means a wood ape would be 40-50 yards away max. If you all have not deployed an approach to surround the cabin at night from 100 yards in to locate the creature then I would call that foolish. I have to say, the lack of any documented sightings, “the Daryl gunshot incident,” and the 1000’s of rock throws… Something doesn’t add up here. I think there is some serious “squatch vision” from a few of your members, and the group assumptions that there are wood apes down there are quite presumputious. This is an extremely unscientific report, nothing more then a series of stories and odd noises. If you and your group are objective, you cannot disagree with this statement. I also know several people who have visited this area x location in the past three years and have reported nothing in terms of what your group reports. To be clear, I believe that a sasquatch type creature does exist, and I want it to exist, but putting together a professional looking report full of the same old info we have heard for the last 20 years does not make your group anymore credible than others. I wish you all the luck on your search.

  190. Dave
    March 9, 2015 at 10:35 PM

    There are no parallels to great ape behavior, because there are no documented behaviors of a bigfoot. I really get frustrated when people or groups dig for a correlation of “can’t rule it out” methodology. Then tactics your group uses are the same as all the others, and the reality is they all yield the same thing… No results. Until you employ something new you are always going to get the same results as the last 50 years.

  191. jerrywayne
    March 9, 2015 at 10:36 PM

    Well, they say they have seen the apes numerous times. A mostly overlooked aspect of the report.

  192. Dave
    March 9, 2015 at 10:38 PM


    No disrespect, but you certainly have “squatch eyes” in more ways then one. You cannot been viewed as credible at this point due to your history in this field.

  193. jerrywayne
    March 9, 2015 at 11:03 PM

    I hope they have some takers.

  194. Dean
    March 9, 2015 at 11:42 PM

    “After centuries or decades of people hearing about them without obtaining such evidence. There is no timeframe in science for collecting photographic evidence of anything.”

    No; lots of other tribes and even missionaries might know of an uncontested tribe’s existence (their existence is beyond a doubt). But researchers have no problem in obtaining clear photographs of these people, often aerial ones without ever having tom step foot in their territory. So why can’t researchers in close proximity to bigfoots in a habituation site figure out a way to photograph one?

    “Happens all the time, even in the most recent murder trials. Take the case of Amanda Knox (accused of murdering Meredith Kercher in Italy), for example. DNA specialists were divided on the evidence presented at trial.”

    Yes, they were divided about whose individual DNA it was, but not about whether or not it was human DNA. Even the most degraded alleged bigfoot blood DNA could be analyzed by a DNA specialist and the results very quickly eliminate all known species. Then one can start talking about individuals.

  195. March 10, 2015 at 12:00 AM

    “But researchers have no problem in obtaining clear photographs of these people, often aerial ones without ever having tom step foot in their territory.”

    That is absolute nonsense. As just one example, here is a Website devoted to first-ever footage of a tribe that was announced in 2011 (Cf. decades after people began flying over the jungles and taking pictures.

    “Yes, they were divided about whose individual DNA it was, but not about whether or not it was human DNA. ”

    DNA samples are not as easy to grab from random objects as some of the commenters on here make it out to be. Anything can contaminate the DNA, or destroy it. Whether you already know in advance that it comes from a cow or a human is irrelevant. If you have a bad DNA sample it’s bad.

  196. Stuart
    March 10, 2015 at 4:33 AM

    Agreed, any physical evidence such as skull, pelt,bone etc will support a newly discovered species. I find it surprising that the remnants of other animals can be found, but not the one for which there only seems to be anecdotal evidence for.

  197. Gary
    March 10, 2015 at 4:48 AM

    I could be wrong, but usually ‘behavourial traits’ are in reference to a known object or entity. Diligent recording of rocks landing on the roof or sounds in the forest do not comprise anything other than events with a long list of possible causes many of which are arguably more likely.

    I would suggest that once we have identified an entity, be it a prankster, wood ape, martian, or white-tailed deer, we could then record their actions as behaviourial traits. I’m sure Darwin wouldn’t record knocking sounds in the forest and present it as behaviourial traits of a previously unknown bidpedal ape in the absence of a modicum of real evidence of there being a woodape.

  198. Geoff
    March 10, 2015 at 8:56 AM

    “Science cannot look at a claim and dismiss it on the basis of prior hoaxing activity.”

    No need to. All we need to do is ask ourselves one question. Are the observations sufficient for us to reject the null and accept the alternative. In this case, the answer is unequivocally, no. Not even close.

  199. Geoff
    March 10, 2015 at 9:08 AM

    Of course. Any study stands or falls on the information provided. It’s the responsibility of the authors to make their case. In the end, we are left with the question whether the evidence presented is sufficient to reject the null in favor of the alternative. In this case, they haven’t succeeded on that score. Not by a long shot. Back to the drawing board.

    As far as assumptions go, I’d say the one’s that are guilty of that are the authors. This report is chock full of them. As far as the assumptions here of hoaxing, I agree with you. In fact, I’ll go further and say they are unnecessary. Rocks flying about? Weird, fer sure, but how does one go from that to small population of bipedal ape descended from extinct, and probably not bipedal, Asian population?

  200. Lynda
    March 10, 2015 at 9:31 AM

    It’s hard to say, but very possible. Through the evolutionary process, in different geographic locations, the gene expression could create significant changes in a species.

  201. Geoff
    March 10, 2015 at 9:51 AM

    “I have to argue against the Lowland gorilla explanation. It was not known to European scientists until the 1860’s but that was more from not looking than anything else.”

    Same thing for pandas, komodos, okapis, the Arunachal macaque, the platypus and probably most, if not all, the animals listed by Michael. All of these animals were known to humans, they just weren’t classified scientifically or or were undifferentiated from other classified species.

  202. Geoff
    March 10, 2015 at 10:03 AM

    Tried googling “kiwankansin” and was disappointed.

  203. Olevrec
    March 10, 2015 at 11:00 AM

    Your kidding right?
    To compare any legitimate research to this situation is absurd and insulting. Talk about having the cart before the horse.
    First prove it exist by acceptable scientific standards, so far they have failed from the get go.
    Now they want to jump the shark to behavior which reeks of social construct….not to mention being scientifically bass aackwards.
    It sure sounds all Sciencey and I’ve got a pretty good idea why…but hey we all gotta eat 🙂

  204. idoubtit
    March 10, 2015 at 11:28 AM

    I’m finding very little value in the comments at this point. Each has their sides. Sorry to disappoint the hardline Bigfoot skeptics but I still want to find out more about this report.

    If you have more gripes about how “off” this post was to the point where you feel I’m being paid to say it, feel free to email the editor because such utter ad hom SHIT does not belong here.

Comments are closed.