The Nonsense Continues a.k.a. A podcast is born…

This post will likely become more of a rant than anything informative. It’s been a while since I’ve written anything and I come to this page, today, at this moment, with a great deal of frustration (and an announcement).

So, in short, if you’re looking for usable information, witty banter, deep thought, or anything that resembles any of the above, go ahead and skip this post.

If you’re just looking for a way to pass 10-12 minutes, or your waiting for your carry out order to be ready, or whatever…you may find this a worthy post to accomplish your task of not dying of boredom. However, I make zero promises (aside from some fairly exciting news at the end of the rant…)

Seriously, though, what the heck is going on….

I had high hopes for 2017. I really did.

2016 was lackluster to say the least when it came to new revelations and discoveries in the world of bigfoot.

Some “nests”? Really?

A crowd-funded bigfoot “cruise” to allow a few guys to gallivant around on a boat drinking beer and pretending to research.

Has anyone seen any pictures of these nests? I haven’t (not that I’m a big deal and should be privy to such “exclusive” content, but surely someone has seen these things?)

Did one useful piece of evidence surface from the bigfoot booze cruise?

Here’s a recurring theme in the realm of sasquatch, and cryptozoology, as a whole.

A lot of people have ideas. Lot’s of people “have” things. Lot’s of people have proof. Lot’s of people have evidence.

Lot’s of people could “convince you beyond a shadow of a doubt” if you could only see what they have.

Ok. So…I have a novel suggestion…

Show me what you’ve “got”.

Heck, just show someone, anyone, it doesn’t even have to be me.

Here’s where we run aground in this little community we love so much.

We are all talk. Nothing else.

Big ideas.

Big, very poorly thought out, very poorly executed, ideas. 

Here’s an official “put your money where your mouth is” to the world of bigfoot. I’m sure everyone who’s anyone reads my blog so surely they’ll see this (insert sarcasm).

Put up or shut up.

Show your hand or apologize for being a fraud and leading innocent, gullible people, on a wild goose chase with you at the helm.

If you EVER want to be taken seriously, you have no choice.

It’s just like the kill versus no kill “debate” (as someone who considered themselves scientifically minded, I have such a hard time determining where the actual debate is here)

There are just hard facts that are going to need to be accepted in order to get the community on the same page.

If you have “proof”, then that proof needs to be opened up to scientific evaluation and criticism.

Remember, criticism isn’t bad…

It’s a necessary part of the scientific method. It needs to be done.

Those researchers (I can’t use that term loosely enough…) who refuse to open up their so-called evidence to scientific scrutiny are halting the scientific process in its tracks. The moment they refuse to allow their evidence to be scrutinized by the (legitimate) scientific community, they lose all credibility. Period.

The thing that really gets me…

Is that NO ONE ever calls these people on their nonsense.

They are given airtime to spout their ridiculousness and then praised by the half-loonies that follow them for “staying strong” and not divulging the very thing they say they are searching for.

No one calls them on it.

Until now.

Search The Woods Podcast

In the next few weeks, I’ll be unveiling the Search The Woods podcast.

This isn’t going to be your basic “encounter” show.

This will be (gasp), actual journalism.

Tough questions will be asked.

Feelings may be hurt.

Guests may leave.

Heck, guests may never agree to come on.

But those who do, I truly believe, will earn the respect of a great deal of the community that remains silently angry at the state of ridiculousness that we’ve all turned into.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m a nice guy. My mother raised me right.

I’ll be respectful but I won’t back down.

I’m taking my own advice and am ready to put up or shut up.

I’ve complained about the community long enough without putting my money (or a microphone) where my mouth is.

If you have someone who may be willing to be interviewed, or have an individual you’d like to hear on the show, please feel free to comment on this post and I’ll do my best to get in touch.


Exciting times, my friends. Exciting times.

Talk soon.




Convicting a Sasquatch



For quite some time I’ve wanted to write something, however short it may be, on the concept of courtroom convictions and the evidence required for such things versus the evidence required to prove the existence of Sasquatch.

If you’ve read my article Confessions of a Reluctant Skeptic, you’ll know that I find no joy in challenging specific arguments for the existence (and acceptance) of bigfoot as a flesh and blood creature.

I desperately want to turn on the news tomorrow morning and see “Sasquatch finally found…” (and not hear the name Rick Dyer in conjunction with aforementioned news segment.)

That being said, one of my main motivations for creating this site and the content to which it holds, is to look at things related to this subject with a critical eye. I want my reasoning and opinions to resonate just as well with the bigfoot community as it does with the scientific community.

This, of course, means no shapeshifting, cloaking, inter-dimensional Sasquatch.

It means no mind-speaking, 15 foot tall, laser beam eyeball shooting, bigfoot.

It also means being willing to look at oft repeated arguments for the creatures existence with a somewhat skeptical eye. Some things parroted by prominent members of the bigfoot community make total sense and I feel are valid arguments supporting the existence of the creature.

One of my favorites goes something like, “If every single documented encounter up to this point had been a fake, a hoax, the result of a drunken stooper, or a combination of all of the above EXCEPT one…then the creature is real.”

This is sound, solid, reasoning. It’s undoubtedly true. If one single encounter was, in fact, a Sasquatch, then they exist.

Plain and simple.

That simple statement gives allowances in regards to a great majority of sightings being likely, well, non-sightings. It also points out the fact that one-million hoaxes cannot discredit one single legitimate sighting.

However, if you spend any time at all on message boards, Facebook groups, or the bigfoot internetz in general, you’ll hear this next “argument” come up over and over again.

“People are convicted of crimes and locked away for life with less evidence to prove their guilt than we have for the existence of Sasquatch…”

In other words;  We will throw someone in jail and lock away the key with only eyewitness testimony as evidence of their guilt while refusing to accept eyewitness testimony regarding the existence of bigfoot.

On the surface, this is a valid sounding argument.

Why should someones life be ruined with nothing more than a “he said/she said” testimony while something as trivial as bigfoot be held to a higher standard of evidence.

The answer is actually quite simple.The idea of…


  1. an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances.

    Ahhh, now we’re cooking with fire.

    Most times, the Sasquatch community, in all of it’s excitement, forgets this one, incredibly vital, piece of the puzzle.

    In a traditional courtroom, there is inherent precedent.

    The things which a judge may convict someone have more than likely happened thousands of times before and often hundreds of times before that very judge.

    People have robbed other people. 

    Human beings have hurt other human beings.

    Man has killed man.

    The judge automatically has something to base his judgement on. He is aware of a human beings capability to be, well, terrible.

    He’s beginning his deliberation in regards to the guilt or innocence of those on trial with the knowledge that the subject in question does, in fact, have the capability to commit the crime they are being accused of. 

    Now, take that same judge and ask him to determine the validity of an eyewitness testimony in regards to whether or not they encountered a bigfoot.

    What precedent does the judge have?

    What “earlier event or action” definitively attributed to bigfoot can he use as an example to confirm or deny the witness testimony?

    Ah ha!

    There is none.

    There has (unfortunately) never been any definitive proof regarding the actual existence of these creatures.

    Footprints? Yes.

    Sounds? Sure.

    Thermal footage? Maybe.

    Have any of the above ever been 100% verified as bigfoot?


Again, and still unfortunately, no…

 No one has ever been convicted of a crime with less evidence than we have for Sasquatch. 

Without precedent, without definitive proof to as to the creatures existence, this argument holds no water.

And again, no one is more unhappy about that than I am.


You Don’t Know Fouke; STM Boggy Creek Monster Movie Review


As iconic and American as apple pie, the 4th of July, and political mud-slinging (sorry, that last one just happens to be fresh on my mind as of time of writing ), are the events surrounding a certain bipedal creature lurking the swamps of Fouke, Arkansas as documented in “The Legend of Boggy Creek” in 1972.

Perhaps one of the first movies to blur the line between documentary and dramatization,  The Legend of Boggy Creek (directed and produced by Charles B. Pierce) brought the countries attention to a small town in Arkansas and it’s legendary inhabitant.

For many movie-goers, this cult-classic film was their first, and only, exposure to the events involving the bigfoot-like creature sightings reported during the late 60’s along Boggy Creek.

However, as the crew at Small Town Monsters documents in their latest film Boggy Creek Monster this legendary tale goes much deeper than a simple early 70’s docu-drama.

Writing a critical, somewhat skeptical, blog about the already fringe subject of Sasquatch doesn’t necessarily come with a ton of perks…

However, there are exceptions, and being to able to view and review movies such as the Small Town Monsters collection (which is now a trilogy) is one of those exceptions.

You can check out my review of the companies other two films, Minerva Monster and Beast of Whitehall at the links below…

Minerva Monster Review

Beast of Whitehall Review

As I’ve stated in my previous movie reviews…a professional reviewer I am not…

I do my best to talk about what I like, what I don’t like, what I learned, and what caught my eye. If that’s your kind of movie review, then I think we’ll get along just fine…

The Review

STM = Small Town Monsters

For many (myself included), expectations for any given film are set in motion by what we see and hear in the first 2-5 minutes.

Foreshadowing the rest of the documentary, the introduction to Fouke, Arkansas winds through the swamps and bottoms that provide the backdrop for many of the creature sightings. Here, maybe more than in any other place in the documentary, the maturity of Seth Breedlove (director) as a filmmaker is put on display. The effects typically seen in bigger budget documentaries are subtly intertwined within the introduction. Film reel “shakes”, shadowing, and carefully placed “over-exposures” add a touch of sophistication early in the movie, as well as deeper into the film, that add a great deal to the viewing experience as a whole.

The musical score is subtle, yet effective. I found it somewhat “toned down” from the other movies in the STM collection, but believe it fit with the tone of the film as a whole. More so than any of the other tales documented by STM, I felt Boggy Creek Monster teetering a bit further on the “eerie” side. The musical undertone, though certainly not overpowering, contributed to the slight hint of creepiness throughout the film. Kudos to Brandon Dalo, once again, for the musical score. Good stuff there, man.

Perhaps the best part of any STM movie is the storytelling.



No dramatic recreations.

No hyperbole. 

Just honest recollection of the events surrounding an incident by the people who witnessed them firsthand.

Boggy Creek Monster stayed true to this tenant of STM through and through. I cannot reiterate how much I appreciate this. In the often ridiculous world of Sasquatch, sanity and honesty is an all too rare occurrence. Embellishment runs rampant. If you want “unbelievable” encounters, this movie isn’t for you. Thankfully, the more believable the better for me, so I’m cool with it.

I make it a point in these reviews to leave out the actual “content” of any given documentary because I don’t want to spoil the film for anyone. However, without giving anything away, I wanted to point out something I was very pleased with regarding what Boggy Creek Monster is not.

Boggy Creek Monster is NOT a re-telling of “The Beast of Boggy Creek”

When anything follows something as iconic (and well documented) as the Fouke sightings from the 70’s, there will always be the possibility of a “Tell me something I haven’t heard…” reaction.

Let me re-iterate, Boggy Creek Monster is MORE than a rehashing of what’s already been said, done, and filmed.

Sure, the doc dives into the original, and oft spoken of, well known sightings around Boggy Creek but (thankfully) goes into much more detail than has been traditionally divulged.

As someone who has a very deep interest (borderline obsession…I’ll admit it…) with all things Bigfoot, I’d by lying if I said I wasn’t at all concerned that  STM Boggy Creek Monster wouldn’t hold any new information for my (way too full) Sasquatch brain. That couldn’t have been further from the truth.

Boggy Creek Monster takes what you know about Boggy Creek and it’s bipedal inhabitant and adds layer upon layer to the story. You’ll hear new stories, new witnesses, and gain a much better understanding of the encounters as a whole.

I certainly did.

One (rather unexpected) piece of Boggy Creek Monster are the artist renderings (Matt Harris) depicting the Ford and Crabtree incidents throughout the documentary. These artist renderings were the perfect addition to the film and were able to convey pieces of the story in a way that mere words couldn’t. I don’t know if I can emphasize this point enough, I really think the addition of these drawings added a great deal to the “feel” of the movie as a whole. I’ve watched the films several times as of time of writing and I’ve paused it on the pictures each time. Very well done here and a great addition to the film.

Now, I would be remiss if I didn’t mention one Mr. Lyle Blackburn (Author Beast of Boggy Creek; The True Story of the Fouke Monster) and his role as narrator of Boggy Creek Monster. 

Honestly, I can’t imagine hearing anyone else as the voice of this movie. Blackburn is so intimately associated with Fouke and the creature that I’m almost certain anything less than his narration would have been slightly off-putting. Lending his unique tone and experience to the film made it feel all the more authentic.

Of course, the voice of Blackburn can only carry a film as far as the written narration allows, especially for films in the style of the STM movies to date.

As I mentioned earlier, STM relies on eyewitness accounts and interviewing to tell the tale. That being said, even the best editing requires some sort of “backbone”.  That backbone comes in the form of written narration, which is exceptional in Boggy Creek Monster, as it has been in the previous two Small Town Monster films. The films narration does just enough to guide the story and keep the viewer informed without attempting to sway belief one way or the other.


Like each of the previous STM movies I’ve had the great fortune to review, Boggy Creek Monster does not disappoint.

The film allows those closest to the event to tell their stories while allowing the viewer to draw their own conclusions.

Music is great, artwork is fantastic, narration more than carries the story, and the addition of Blackburn tops it off well.

You may think you know all there is to know about the infamous Fouke Monster

Let me assure you.

You don’t.

You can purchase each of STM first movies, Minerva Monster and Beast of Whitehall, as well as some awesome STM “swag” at




Talking NAWAC with Daryl Colyer

daryl colyer


I’m not going to lie, I’ve had some serious writers block as of late.

Sure, I could take the same ole’ Bigfoot topics that literally every writer in this field has written on and re-hash them a million times over. But, honestly, that doesn’t interest me.

Truthfully, I don’t plan on writing another article until I have something unique, interesting, and original to say…

However, I still want to put out content for those of you that relate to my point of view (surely, you guys are out there, right?).

With that being said, recently I had the absolute pleasure of speaking with Mr. Daryl Colyer of the North American Wood Ape Conservancy about…well…Wood Apes.

I had a fantastic time and have already expressed my interest in speaking with him again very soon.

He’s a grounded, well rounded individual, who looks at things the way (in my opinion) every legitimate Sasquatch researcher or even armchair enthusiast (like yours truly) should.

Critically. Scientifically. Honestly.

I hope you enjoy the interview…

and don’t make fun of my glasses.

But mainly, I hope you enjoy the interview.


Check out the NAWAC’s website at

Confessions of a Reluctant Skeptic

SearchTheWoods A

Me, searching the woods…see what I did there?


If you’ve read my blog for any amount of time it should be abundantly clear that I am , in fact, a skeptic when it comes to much of the banter that revolves around the subject of Sasquatch.

I certainly don’t think I am unreasonable when it comes to the specific topics fueling this less than trusting attitude.

If you’ve not read much of the (note; if you can’t say something nice don’t say anything at all...) ridiculousnessnonsenseconjecture surrounding the creature that is Sasquatch, you really are doing yourself a disservice.

This stuff gets good.

There’s no need for me to re-hash that here (I’ve written extensively about it here and here)

Let’s just say, nothing is surprising anymore.

However, with all of that being said, I don’t always like my skeptical nature…

This particular post is much less science in tone and much more personal, so please forgive the slight detour from my normal subject matter. As a side-note, it’s rather short so even if you don’t like it, your suffering will be short lived…


I want to believe…

Although this blog has a relatively small audience at this point, I’ve had my fair share of criticisms for, well, being too critical (You’d think they’d read the tag line and know what they were getting themselves into).

Most people are surprised at the response they receive when they do send something pointing out my skeptical nature.

“Contrary to popular belief I (and most other skeptics don’t want to be skeptical….”

Seriously. It’s true…

Having a skeptical lean is hard.

It can be downright annoying.

Among many things, certain parts of being skeptical are just downright unpleasant, such as…

It’s hard to make friends (insert frowney face emoji here…)

As someone who looks at the subject with a skeptical eye, friends become few and far between within the bigfoot community.

People want someone to exchange fantastical stories with. It’s the old “gather round the campfire” scenario. A constant game of “I’ll see your encounter story and raise you an alien abduction and a bigfoot habituation…”

If you’re not willing to play that game, friends are hard to come by round these parts.

To most, skepticism equals disbelief…

As soon as you start pointing out fallacies in a story, statistical improbabilities, or even impossibilities, you are are automatically thrown into the “non-believer” column.

Ironically, my skepticism has lead to me having to defend my belief in the possibility of the existence of Sasquatch more often than not.

To much of the community, if you do not accept everything as absolute fact, you don’t believe.

Baby, meet bathwater, you’re both going for a ride…

I’ll be the first to tell you that I simply cannot, in good conscious, accept the existence of bigfoot (as much as I want to) until a body surfaces (by natural or other means) and/or irrefutable DNA evidence is brought forth.

Having said that, nowhere have I ever said that I do not believe in the distinct possibility of the existence of these creatures.

Heck, I would even say probable existence.

Sadly, that’s not good enough.

I hate being labeled as “close minded”.

But, if accepting everything as truth with no questions asked is “open”…

Consider me closed.

I’ve got way less researchers to follow…

This could be looked at as a positive or negative, honestly.

Truth be told, most researchers look at bigfoot in a very critical, scientific way.

Unfortunately, those researchers don’t make a lot of noise.

The ones that do?

Those who claim to have habituation sites.

Those who claim to have seen hundreds of “Sas” over the course of their lifetime.

The ones who say they saw bigfoot appear out of thin air, or emerge from a UFO…

or a Mini Cooper…

Those with the fantastic stories tend to be the ones who are looking for attention.

They are the ones who will appear on podcast after podcast, television show after television show, pimping their “guided” bigfoot experience.

Recounting the first time they encountered a Sasquatch…

and the fourth time…

the eleventh time…

and the thirty sixth time…

They are the ones who have “all the evidence they need” to prove the existence of Sasquatch.

They just don’t want to share it.

You know, they don’t “do this” for the fame.

They don’t have any desire to make millions of dollars being the first to actually prove the existence of these creatures.

No way.

Their cause is a noble one.

Just podcast interviews and a fan page.

(Whew…there went a tangent if I’ve ever seen one…)

So sorry, I digress…

Legitimate researchers, who make themselves available in the public eye, are not easy to find. 

This means, of course, that my reading/listening material is extremely limited in regards to things that don’t make me want to pull my hair out and quit the internetz…

Alas…I cannot change…

Even with very few “bigfoot” friends, several rather scathing e-mails, and an ever shortening stack of non-ridiculous bigfoot books to read…

No, no matter the trials and tribulations that my skeptical nature brings upon me, I could never be anything but.

I am not a believer.

I am certainly not a “knower”

But I have been, am, and will always be a reluctant skeptic and most of all…

a “hoper“…

Thanks for reading,














“Small Town Monsters; Beast of Whitehall” Movie Review


It feels like just yesterday I was watching Small Town Monsters initial foray into the indie movie making scene with their documentary, “Minerva Monster”.

You can check out my review of Minerva here;

In case you don’t want to read my wonderfully written, Roger and Ebert-esque, review of MM, I’ll summarize it here…

It’s good. Really good. MM took the traditional overly dramatized bigfoot docu-drama and flipped it on it’s conical shaped head. Seth and company let the witnesses tell the story for themselves and that, my friends, was refreshing.

Needless to say, when I was offered the opportunity to see “Beast of Whitehall” before it’s official release, I was beyond excited.

I’m not going to give away anything in regards to the actual events that took place on and around Whitehall, New York during the late summer of 1976. However, I highly encourage you to invest in the movie for yourself because these events may be some of the most interesting, not to mention compelling, ever to be attributed to a Bigfoot like creature.

I’ll simply be reviewing the movie as an entity to itself apart from the actual story it tells.

The Review

The first thing that struck me was the noticeable maturation in the production value of the film itself.

The images are sharper (at least to my eyes) and the cinematography is stunning.

The use of drone footage sets the stage immediately as the movie opens with a flyover of Whitehall (which is much more beautiful than I would have imagined). The first scene seemed to set the tone for the rest of the movie, at least for me.

It’s an unusual combination of beauty and eeriness that seems to float just below the surface of the movie as it progress through various eyewitness accounts, both past and present.

I found it hard to fight the urge to squint my eyes during the opening scenes of the movie,  trying to pick out some sort of large, ape-like creature, lumbering through the fog laden trees.

“Beast of Whitehall”, like Minerva before it, depends on eyewitness testimony as well as those close to the original incident (in both location and familiarity) to tell the story as they remember it. This quality is, in my opinion, what truly sets STM films apart from others that try to explore this particular section of the indie movie scene.

Yet, where MM used only eyewitness testimony in recounting the tale, Beast of Whitehall adds a layer of outside narration from Clint Granberry (of OK Talk podcast fame) who does a fantastic job of telling the story in the way stories should be told. Simply, subtly, and without “fluff”. The narration as written and as spoken does nothing but add to the movie. Narration can easily “get in the way” but is certainly not the case in Beast of Whitehall.

As a bigfoot enthusiast, as well as a musician, I’m always interested in a movies score. Beast of Whitehall does not disappoint here. 

The music matches the movie seemingly scene to scene. Again, there’s an eeriness in much of the score that somehow avoids “creepy”. It’s not a “monster” movie, at least not a monster movie in the way most of us have become familiar. It’s a story. It’s a part of a town that is more interesting than anything Hollywood could dream up. The music reflects that. I would imagine that’s a hard, very thin line, to walk but Brandon Dalo (composer) did it very well.

Possibly most impressive about Whitehall, as was the case with Minerva, could be the pre-production work it must have taken to line up those that were most directly involved with the event itself.

When a movie decides that 99% of it’s content is going to come from those who lived the story you’d assume some concessions to actual storytelling would have to be made.

I mean, how do you get exactly what you need in regards to wording, verbage, and story continuity when you are going almost “hands off” as far as pre-planned sentences, dramatic pauses, etc.

However STM did it, they did it well. 

In conclusion, you can’t go wrong with “Beast of Whitehall”.

If you are a fan of Bigfoot. You’ll like it.

If you’re a fan of well made, creative, indie movies. You’ll dig it.

If you just like quality storytelling. You won’t be disappointed.

The second work in the STM portfolio not only picks up where Minerva Monster left off but grows in both storytelling acumen and cinematic presentation.

In short, I loved it (and have loved it all 4 times I’ve watched it).

To pre-order Beast of Whitehall or purchase Minerva Monster and some awesome STM swag, vist;


Do You Believe It #1; Seth Breedlove

A few months ago I had an idea.

Wouldn’t it be interesting to see what those in the world of Bigfoot thought about, well, Bigfoot…?

If you haven’t figured it out already, or maybe you’re very (very) new to the wide, wonderful world of Bigfoot….

People have opinions on this thing.

Those include, though are certainly not limited to (Unfortunately, the crazy really has no end…);

Sasquatch is merely an animal.

Sasquatch is an alien.

Sasquatch is an inter-dimensional being.

Sasquatch is something of a caveman.

Sasquatch eats people.

Sasquatch loves people.

Sasquatch lives in caves.

Sasquatch lives in trees.

There are very few Sasquatch.

Sasquatch exist in the hundreds of thousands.

I digress.

I’ve shared my opinion, and it is my intention to continue to do so on and to anyone else who dares ask for it.

However, this series isn’t about my opinion but those of much more prolific Bigfoot personalities, “experts”, researchers, and in this first edition, filmmakers.


Seth Breedlove is an independent film maker and founder of “Small Town Monsters”. STM goes against the grain of traditional Bigfoot media. There are no dramatic reenactments. No re-creations. STM acts as a storyteller of sorts, allowing local eyewitnesses and those most closely involved in small town encounters and legend tell the story as they experienced it.

Seth also hosts the Saswhat podcast where he and co-hosts delve into any number of Bigfoot related topics weekly along with interviews of those heavily involved in the subject.

You can check out my review of STM’s first film, “Minerva Monster” here…

As of the posting of this interview, STM just launched their newest Kickstarter to fund their next film, “Boggy Creek Monster”.

If you read my review of “Minerva Monster” you’ll know how strongly I feel about supporting this kind of Bigfoot media and STM themselves.

Kickstarter supporters receive (along with other STM swag) another film, “Beast of Whitehall” for supporting the production of “Boggy Creek Monster”.

Check out the Boggy Creek Kickstarter campaign here;


*Click the little “K” in the upper right corner of the above picture to be taken to the KickStarter page…

Ever wonder what Seth thinks about what Sasquatch actually is?

What about Seth’s take on “kill versus no kill”?

Look no further….

SB-Seth Breedlove

*Small caveat…I couldn’t help but let some of my own opinions “loose” in the questions. Let’s pretend they are intentionally “tongue in cheek” and not how I really feel…but they are…how I really feel….

STW; Some people claim that Sasquatch is simply a flesh and blood, large, yet to be documented, North American primate. What do you think? Is there anything more to this phenomenon than a large animal?

SB; I don’t simply discount the Native American legends that point toward a more spiritual being, nor do I ignore the bizarre correlation between Bigfoot and UFO reports that occur. However, I think that the evidence that we do have points toward an ape. I think the bulk of reports point toward an ape, I think that the behavior reported suggests an ape, and I believe that most of the non-ape reports tend to be highly questionable.

I’m in the primate camp. However, again, I’m not going to simply discount everything else. I think we just need to approach it all with a very questioning attitude.

STW; Some witnesses claim that they have seen Sasquatch reach heights of 10+ feet. I have my own thoughts about the maximum height a creature could reach while still remaining hidden, regardless of the area it chooses to hide. What are your thoughts? Do they reach the massive proportions some witnesses claim or do you believe they are very large, but not quite that large…
SB; I think the 10 foot Sasquatch is sort of believable depending on where the sightings take place. If I took a report from Ohio of a ten foot tall animal I think I’d find that hard to believe. When you’re dealing with a place like Alaska it sort of fits even within the parameters of Bergmann’s Rule.

Honestly, if we’re going to stretch ourselves to lend credence to the existence of such an animal why NOT a ten foot tall Bigfoot? It makes as much sense as an 8 foot tall one. I draw the line at 37 ½ feet.

STW; A lot of so called “experts” claim that Sasquatch is a blood thirsty, going to break into your home and eat your dog and your significant other, kind of creature. Do you lay awake at night clutching an elephant gun to your chest with one arm while the other is wrapped around your dog and wife, carefully listening for the guttural grunts of an ape outside of your bedroom window? Or are you a non-fear mongering, decent human being, who looks at this issue like a normal, sane person would?
SB; I think the idea of there being an 8 foot tall, hairy ape hiding in the bushes near my campsite terrifying enough without adding kidnapping and murder into the mix. If these things are really murdering everyone that wanders into the woods then this begs the question how have they managed to stay hidden? A bloody thirty, ultra-predator that has such an intense distaste for human-kind would certainly have engaged us in some sort of human/bigfoot civil war by now if this was the case.

Quit using Bigfoot as an excuse to not leave your homes and go for a hike. That’s what I say.

STW; Again, many so called “experts” claim that there are several “types” of Sasquatch with varying heights, weights, and dispositions. Do you believe there are various “species” of Sasquatch or maybe geographical adaptations that have led to inter-species variance? Or do you believe in Unicorn-Squatch?

SB; I believe SOLELY in Unicorn-Squatch. He is the light in our dark days.

No, I don’t think I subscribe to the multi-species idea. It’s a romantic one but it really stretches the imagination to consider such a thing, as far as I’m concerned. Could there be some weird deformed variations of Bigfoot out there? Sure, if a Bigfoot sleeps with his sister or something you’d expect there to be bizarre physical ramifications in the offspring of such a tryst. That’s an entirely different matter though.

The multiple-species concept reminds me of action figure variants. Like, maybe whoever came up with it was simply running out of ideas and decided “gee, y’know with a new coat of paint I bet I could sell another three thousand sasquatches”. I could be way off base…

STW; Many witnesses claim that they have seen Sasquatch with “glowing” eyes. In your opinion, is this eyeshine or do the creatures emit an actual light from their eyes?

SB; It’s not eyeshine, from what I’ve heard. I’ve been very skeptical of the “glowing eye” thing since the very beginning but in the last year I’ve given myself over to it. I mean, the major witnesses in both of my movies recounted it, and I’ve heard other, trustworthy folk mention it as well. I have no clue what it is or what causes it but it doesn’t seem to be typical eyeshine. By which I mean, it’s not reflecting a light.

STW; Many people claim that Sasquatch interact with humans by exchanging “gifts” in predetermined locations. What are your thoughts here? Did you draw Sasquatch for your Secret Santa this year?

SB; I guess it makes a certain amount of sense that someone who has Bigfoots on their property might leave trinkets as a means of testing the animal’s curiosity. And it also makes sense that the creature would leave something in return, perhaps out of curiosity, as well.

The idea of “gifting” though is something else entirely. Exchanging food, and recipes with a family of Sasquatch just sounds like you’re asking for trouble. Also, many times, those who claim this kind of activity are also trying to set themselves up as a sort of Bigfoot beacon or expert communicator.

STW; Many people will argue that the only way to truly prove the existence of Sasquatch is to bring one in, alive or dead, for scientific study. Pictures, videos, and other non-type specimen evidence just isn’t enough. Are you “Pro-Kill” or a hippie?
SB; The problem with this question in general is that you’re questioning the very notion of scientific study. The fact is that a specimen has to be collected to establish a species. Would it suck to see a Bigfoot shot and killed? Heck yes! I think it would. But does science still demand it to decide the subject’s very existence? Yep.

So kill, I guess. If they exist, kill one, prove the species, and protect the rest through conservation and by establishing laws that would protect them on the whole from hunting.

STW; Now, the big one….Many people believe Sasquatch is real. Do you believe it?
SB; I don’t believe it, because I haven’t seen it. This isn’t religion. We’re dealing with a real, flesh & blood animal or nothing, so I don’t have to choose to “believe” jack squat. Show me the dang thing so I can know for myself. The other option is the paranormal or supernatural Sasquatch in which case no one is going to prove anything about it either way so we might as well just pack it in and call it a day.

SB; I think there is no easy answer to this thing. We can’t write off century’s worth of accounts as hearsay or misidentifications or lies. Particularly when certain physical and behavioral aspects of these accounts points toward a real creature. But why don’t we have a body or blood or bone or something after centuries of being here in North America? No, I don’t believe, but I’m open to the possibility, and, like Mulder, I want to believe.


I want to thank Seth for taking the time out of his incredibly busy schedule to sit down and do this interview for me. 

I was incredibly considerate and sent him the questions with less than 2 weeks to go before the Boggy Creek Kickstarter campaign launched. 

Not like he had anything more important to do, right?

You can find, follow, and listen to Seth at…

Small Town Monsters;

Boggy Creek Kickstarter;

Saswhat Podcast; (or simply search for “Saswhat”)

Small Town Monsters FB Page;

Twitter; @SethBreedsLove



Circles, Red Circles, Everywhere…


Pareidolia (/pærɨˈdliə/ parr-i-doh-lee-ə) is a psychological phenomenon involving a stimulus (an image or a sound) wherein the mind perceives a familiar pattern of something where none actually exists.

bigfoot red circle

If you weren’t looking for bigfoot…would you still see “them”?

Picture from

If there’s anything worse than someone who claims multiple bigfoot encounters with ZERO evidence, it’s someone who claims to have multiple pictures of a bigfoot without having a picture of anything at all..

Unfortunately, this is an all too common occurrence, especially in a field when “researchers” are so desperate to be the first to come forward with actual photographic proof (Whether or not a photograph will EVER actually be enough to prove the existence of the creature is another argument entirely).

Even outside the world of bigfoot, the pareidolia phenomenon is a common occurrence. The human brain looks for familiar patterns, regardless of context.

Take a look at a few non-bigfoot examples…


Do you see what I see?


Yea, I’ll admit it. That would freak me out just a bit…


Unfortunately, some Bigfoot researchers would try to pass this off as evidence…

Sadly, many times it is more reasonable to believe that flower is an actual monkey than to believe there is a living, breathing, ape in most of these Sasquatch “pictures”.

The Science Behind Pareidolia

One of the main drivers of pareidolia is believed to be an evolutionary mechanism designed (like most evolutionary mechanisms) to keep us from harm.

Think about it this way;

A long time ago, one of your great great (x 1000) grandfathers woke up one morning from his nice warm cave and stepped out into the sunshine.

His cave was located in the middle of a dense forest which is, inevitably, filled with dangerous animals and situations that he must be aware of at all times.

Scanning the undergrowth of the forest, he see’s something peering back at him.

It’s large, has two gigantic eyes, and appears to be swaying back and forth, ready to spring from the foliage and tear him to pieces.

Immediately, great great (great great great) gramps turns and sprints back into the safety of his cave. No time to ask questions. No time to confirm what the creature lurking in the shadows actually was.

So what was this monstrosity preparing to tear him limb from limb?

Two large flowers swaying in the cool morning breeze.

What his brain thought was there was, in reality, nothing like what was actually there.

But what if it was a blood thirsty predator (like it often times was)?

 He was safe.

But here’s the kicker…

It goes even further than this…

Not only does pareidolia exist but is often influenced by things that we expect to see.

In other words, a Sasquatch researcher who is in an area he (or she) believes to be “hot” with activity inherently carries the predisposition to “see” a Sasquatch in  pictures and even hear supposed Sasquatch in recordings.

That’s right, not only does pareidolia exist visually but audibly as well.

Someone who doesn’t believe in Sasquatch will often hear a coyote, an owl, or a dog. These people will see any variance from a “normal” call made by these animals as something of a “one off” or merely an unusual call (though not beyond the realm of possibility).

Compare that to someone who believes in Sasquatch and is actively looking (and listening) for proof.

A coyote call that sounds remotely “off” is automatically cause to rule out a coyote and place the sound in the realm of possible Sasquatch.

Pareidolia means even a call that is well within the capability of another known creature can be heard as something completely different.

We all are guilty of succumbing to the phenomenon of pareidolia. When you want something to be real, even believe it to be real, everything begins looking (and sounding) different, and that’s not a bad thing. However, it is something that we need to be aware of and assess our feelings and findings accordingly.

Remember kids;

“It pays to keep an open mind, but not so open your brains fall out.”

Carl Sagan





Analyzing an Encounter

The history of Bigfoot is writhe with tall tales and terrifying encounters.

Almost every state in the U.S., along with many other countries, has dozens upon dozens of Sasquatch encounter stories.

Witnesses include everything from law enforcement to clergy, hunters to travelers, prominent citizens to highly respected politicians, and everything in-between.

Part of my fascination with Sasquatch is wrapped up in the stories.

Sure, I love the scientific side of studying this rare (if real) bipedal creature roaming the forests of the world. I find it infinitely interesting.

However, the thing that provides me the most satisfaction, on a personal level, is a good encounter story.

In fact, I would say that a well told encounter story from a credible witness does more for my “faith” in the existence of the creature than does a track, hair, or whatever other tangible piece of evidence (sans a body, of course) you could show me.

It’s hard to track down actual data relating to the total number of Bigfoot sightings in the U.S. but this graphic gives you an idea.


*Graph from

The total number of encounters from 1921-2013 were just over 3,300.

Now, I can’t speak to the credibility of many (if not all) of these encounters. Nor can I speak to the credibility of the man who gathered this data or for the source from which it was gathered (I understand it to be mainly of BFRO origins) but that’s not the point.

In 92 years there were more than 3k reported Sasquatch sightings in the U.S. alone. Remember, those are reported sightings. There is no way to accurately estimate the number of unreported encounters during that same 92 year time frame.

For arguments sake, let’s say that there are another 2k sightings over that time that went unreported (again…this is just a guess…)

That brings our total number to somewhere around 5000 encounters.

My point(s) being…

  1. There are A LOT of Sasquatch encounters in the U.S.
  2. There are inevitably more than are reported
  3. Most of those encounters are likely mistaken identity or plain old fabrication
  4. One genuine encounter is all it takes for everything else to become irrelevant. If only one encounter story is genuinely true…Bigfoot exists…

Most of you know (or maybe you don’t) that I’m hardly a “believer”.

Certainly not a knower..

I’m a gosh I hope they’re real but I’m not going to let my hopes get in the way of scientific fact…er….

Even with my very healthy level of skepticism, it’s hard to ignore the sheer number of encounters. Especially those from credible sources.

That brings us to the next question;

How do we determine a credible encounter from one that is, in all likelihood, a fabrication?

We need to establish a system to analyze encounters that, at the very least, points us in the right direction when it comes to the authenticity of a particular story.

I’m not saying that this method is 100% accurate. In any and all scientific measurements, even on the most accurate of levels, you’ll see a margin of error. Our margin (assuming that any single Sasquatch encounter story is true) would be those stories that fall outside of normal (that’s a relative term, eh?) or what could be expected given the techniques and/or parameters we choose when analyzing a witness story.

Let me preface this next section by saying that if you’re Bigfoot vernacular includes the following words;

Cloak(ed, ing, s)



forest people



or mind-speak…

Then we are likely coming from two, very different, directions and my standards for analyzing an encounter will likely upset you.

In which case, I’d like you to summon your BFF Bigfoot from the 5th dimension (preferably using mindspeak) and have him/her whisk you away to their giant forest mansion on their gumdrop and tootsie roll powered pet unicorn, Trixie.  You’ll be happier there. I promise.


Breaking down a Bigfoot Encounter

Bigfoot eyewitness stories are as frustrating as they are fascinating, especially when you want to approach the tale from an unbiased perspective.

It’s all too easy to give way to personal beliefs and bias in the realm of cryptids of any sort. I want Bigfoot to be real. I want to believe every encounter story I’ve ever read. Unfortunately, that kind of thinking doesn’t have a place in the scientific community and will often lead to the subject being taken less seriously by actual anthropologists and other scientists.

Encounter stories need to be tested and scrutinized against a rational set of beliefs to determine the probability and/or likelihood  that a given encounter actually happened in the manner the witness(es) describe. 

To make this “test” easier, I like to break encounters down to their very basic tenants. These are as follows;

  1. The Witness
    1. Credibility
      1. History of sightings/encounters
    2. Potential gain from sighting?
  2. The Encounter
    1. Possible/Unlikely/Impossible
      1. Location
      2. Creature traits and detail
  3. Story Recollection
    1. Consistency
    2. Detail

As I said previously, this “breakdown” is not all inclusive but I’ve found gives us a good outline to sift through even the most tedious of encounter stories.

Looking at each step individually, we can break it down further.


In my opinion, an encounter is only as good as the witness.

The most believable encounter story with a witness who lacks credibility means nothing.

If a witness has a history of hoaxing, lying, or anything inbetween, the story should not even be considered possibly true.

In a field where very few are willing to take a hard stand this “one strike and you’re out” mentality may be hard to swallow.

Oh well…

Does the witness claim multiple sightings over multiple years..

This is one that I look for immediately.

Common sense tells us that the odds of such an elusive creature being spotted multiple times over multiple years by the same person are astronomically low.

Impossible? No.

Unlikely? You betcha.

Of course, this is a bit of a sliding scale as well.

The more encounters claimed by a single person the less credible/believable it becomes.

The odds of two sightings are incredibly low (Especially over multiple years and locations)

Three sightings? Just about impossible.

More than three sightings over multiple years by the same person?

Now you’re just insulting my intelligence.

I’m not making up the near impossibility of this, either.

Just do the math…

Using the reporting numbers from earlier (3000 sightings from 1921-2013) means that, if someone claimed 10 sasquatch sightings…

They, a single person, accounted for 0.33% of ALL reported sightings in the past 92 years.

While that number may seem small, it’s not.

Statistically speaking, that’s a VERY large percentage considering it is coming from a single individual.

Pair that number with this;

That leaves roughly 300 million (approximation of US population) that will never…ever…see a single blurry track much less the creature itself.

And one person sees a creature multiple times?

The odds aren’t good.

In fact, they’re almost impossible.

Does the witness have anything to gain by sighting a sasquatch?

You can’t ignore this step.

You must always look for hidden agendas.

Cynical? Maybe.

Necessary? Yes.

Does the witness have any ties to a bigfoot research organization?

Is this witness looking for “funding” for further research?

Is the witness pitching a TV show?

You cannot ignore potential “gains” an individual might find if they somehow encounter a sasquatch.

These gains, in some cases, can be so extreme and valuable to the individual that they may (gasp) fabricate a sighting.

The Encounter

Of course, we can’t ignore the encounter tale itself.

This is where things can get a bit blurry depending on what side of the animal versus paranormal spectrum you tend to fall.

If you believe (as I do) that the creature is merely a large, intelligent, undiscovered primate then you can easily distinguish between things that are possible versus impossible in any given encounter story.

If you believe that bigfoot is some multi-dimensional, time traveling, psychic being…

A) You’ll believe darn near everything and everyone

B) You will attempt to justify every part of an encounter, no matter how bizarre, by using the “it’s paranormal” line of bull..I mean..thought

C) I’ve got some ocean front property in Kentucky I’d like you to take a look at.

Seriously. It’s a good deal.


If you’re of the former opinion regarding Sasquatch, you can easily make a a few columns to analyze an encounter.

I set up my columns like this (With some examples under each)

Possible                                    Unlikely                                   Impossible

Smelled terrible           Covered 200 yds in 5 seconds       Spoke English

Vocalized                         Picked up my camper                     Rode a Unicorn

Rock Throwing               Uprooted a large tree               Vanished into thin air

When you end up with lots of impossibles and few possibles, you can fairly safely surmise that a large part, if not all of the encounter, is fabricated.

Of course, the opposite is true. Lot’s of possibles? Very few unlikely’s and impossibles? A good chance that the story isn’t fabricated or simply that the storyteller knows how to lie.

The “unlikely” category is difficult. The things here are not technically impossible, just HIGHLY improbable.

The unlikely category is going to have a lot of personal opinion as to what is, in fact, unlikely.

Story Recollection

You’ll catch a fabricated story here more times than not.

Recounting a story that truly happened will always be more accurate than one which was purely born from imagination.

Something as dramatic, and often traumatic, as a sasquatch encounter undoubtedly leaves a lasting impression.

Specific details regarding date, time, moon phase (can’t let that one go), weather, creature size, location of sighting, etc. don’t just fall from memory, even decades after an encounter.

Check out this small snapshot that was published in 2008 regarding memories and traumatic events as studied by University of Queensland’s Dr. Louise Faber; (full article can be found here;

“In a scientific paper published in the Journal of Neuroscience, QBI’s Dr Louise Faber and her colleagues have demonstrated how noradrenaline, the brain’s equivalent of adrenaline, affects the amygdala by controlling chemical and electrical pathways in the brain responsible for memory formation.

“This is a new way of understanding how neurons form long term memories in the amygdala,” Dr Faber said.

Our strongest and most vivid human memories are usually associated with strong emotional events such as those associated with extreme fear, love and rage.”

For many of us, our deepest memories are mental snapshots taken during times of high emotional impact or involvement,” she said.

In other words, the more traumatic and/or dramatic the event, the more solidified the details should be.

Notice that “extreme fear” is also found to be a trigger for detailed memory/recollection of an event.

TLDR; Remembering an event should NEVER be an issue for someone who had a legitimate Sasquatch encounter.

The Wrap Up

In order to analyze a witness’ encounter, one must be prepared to dissect different aspects of the encounter using a repeatable method that focuses on key indicators relating to the credibility of the witness and their sighting/encounter.

How to Create Your Very Own Bigfoot Encounter in 9 Easy Steps

Have you ever wanted to have your very own Bigfoot encounter? Have you ever wanted to become a Bigfoot community pseudo celebrity? Lucky for you, you don’t actually have to have a real encounter to make a believable tale! I’ve put together these 8 easy steps to build an encounter story of your very own!

1) You must claim to be an avid outdoorsman, skilled in the ways of the forest. You must absolutely know and be 100% up-to-date with every known animal and each sound they make, regardless of region and time of year, and be able to identify it at a moments notice, even in the middle of the night in unfamiliar territory. You MUST have this skill so you can immediately determine without question that the animal you heard could be NOTHING other than a giant, 8 foot, 600 lb, undiscovered North American primate.

Example; “The sound I heard was definitely a bigfoot. No doubt about it. It couldn’t have been a coyote because I know what a coyote sounds like. There is no way it was an owl because I know every sound that an owl can possibly make.


2) You must claim to have been struck with some sort of low-frequency infrasound that renders you absolutely useless in any normal human capacity. This means, of course, that you cannot operate your firearm or your camera phone. You simply cannot. Nevermind that no primate in the history of mankind has actually shown the ability to produce infrasound. That doesn’t matter, because…you know…bigfoot.

Example; “I was frozen in my tree stand. I just stared at the creature and it just stared at me. I don’t know why but I had an overwhelming feeling that I needed to crush  my cellphone with my boot. Because of that, I couldn’t get a picture at all. I can’t believe it. Infrasound, man. Infrasound made me do it.”

3) You must claim that you knew that the creatures intent was something sinister. If the creature just stared at you without making a sound, obviously it was just sizing you up. If you the creature moved closer, of course it was coming to tear  you limb from limb. If the creature retreated, it was going for back up or simply luring you into an ambush. Never once has a Sasquatch had ANYTHING other than ill intent towards human beings. You don’t know how you know that…but you just do. Bigfoot is a bloodthirsty, murderous, savage. Period.

Example; “The bigfoot looked right at me. It gave me this look. You know the look I’m talking about. That one where it looks hungry. It was the same look my dog gives me when I dump the kibble into his bowl. Pure, ravenous, animal hunger. Except it wasn’t for kibble. No, it was hungry for human flesh.”

4) You must claim that this wasn’t a normal Sasquatch. Oh no, everyone sees “normal” Sasquatches. What’s the fun in that? You didn’t see any old Sasquatch. You saw a type 3.67. The more fantastic and unique you can make your encounter the better. Everyone knows there are at least 4 types of Bigfoot. The normal “Patty” type Bigfoot just isn’t good enough anymore. Patty is so lame. If you didn’t see a dogman-skunk ape-beaver-squatch, then you may as well have not seen anything at all.

Example; “Here in Southeast (insert state here) we have type 1’s, 2’s, and 3’s. Now, when you go across the county line, everyone sees a type 4. What I saw was some sort of cross between a 1 and 3. You know, a hybrid. Pretty scary. Oh, did I mention these type are the most violent? I didn’t? Well, they are. These things are super bloodthirsty. Like a great white and a Saber-toothed Tiger mixed into one.

5) You must remember that seeing just one Bigfoot in your lifetime is NOT good enough. If you haven’t had multiple encounters then you shouldn’t even report your sighting. If you know what you’re doing then you must at least know where 5-10 creatures are at any one time. That means you need to know when they are going up mountains and coming back down. You need to know when they mate and when they sleep. If someone asks you to take them to see the Bigfoot, you have to take them to your “area”. However, you must remember that when the Bigfoot sees that you’ve brought a visitor, it’s not going to show itself. Make sure your guest knows that as well. You don’t want them to think you are making this stuff up.

Example; “The Bigfoot clan is moving through my research area 4 tomorrow at 7:47 p.m. EST…I’ve been tracking this group since nineteen and seventy-five. They come through research area 4 every May 22nd between 7:45 and 8 p.m.

Except when they don’t.

Oh, you want to see them? Sure, I’ll take you.

Nevermind, this is a leap year. They won’t be back until next year. Sorry.”

6) If you really want a good story, you can even claim to “feel” a Bigfoot instead of seeing one. You thought an encounter required visual components? No way. Ever felt like someone was watching you? Even if you were just in your bathroom? That was a Sasquatch. Serious.

Example; “I was watching the sunset and then I felt something. It was so weird. Weird like a Squatch, that is…”

7) This one is simple. When someone questions your encounter ALWAYS blame the government. Those filthy government agencies that no one has ever heard of or has any proof of ever existing are without a doubt trying to ruin your reputation by covering up every last detail that could support your encounter story.

Example; “There were footprints everywhere, droppings, and Bigfoot hair hanging from every tree limb. Unfortunately, when I came back the next day to collect samples, the area had been totally cleaned and a Wal-Mart Superstore erected in its place. The “Men in Black” had obviously been here. The government is keeping Bigfoot existence under wraps. You know what would happen if the public learned that the creatures were real?! Me either…but it would be bad. America would crumble. For real…”


8) You must always claim fear of ridicule as your main reason for not sharing your encounter with anyone…ever. The only thing that can overcome that deep down fear of public shame is the opportunity to go on a television show, podcast, or YouTube channel and share your encounter. Yes, always be more willing to share your story with a  nationally broadcast Bigfoot podcast than with your own wife.

Example; “This is the first time I’ve ever told this story…so whatever you do don’t ask any of my friends or family if I’ve ever even mentioned it to them. They’ll tell you no. That’s, of course, not because I’m just making it up on the spot…I was afraid that they’d point at me and laugh. I’m sensitive. I’m only telling you now because I know the internetz is a safe place where no one will make fun of me…”

9) Last, but certainly not least, make sure you don’t overlook important facts surrounding your encounter. It is true that most people will blindly accept your story as fact and never question a word you say. Most will follow your story without second guessing a single word, allowing you to lead them to and fro in whatever way you see fit. When you say “jump” they’ll jump and when you say “pay” they’ll pay. However, there will be those who just won’t fall in line and be good little “Squatchers”. Because of this, make sure you remember things like the time of year your encounter took place, the geographical location, the time, and even the moon phase and position.

That last one can get you in trouble.

Have some more tips for creating your own encounter out of thin air? Post them in the comments below!