Difficulties of photographing bigfoot pt.2

**This is a companion piece to The Difficulties of Photographing Bigfoot pt.1**

Auto focus on with subject at approx. 50 ft.

    As mentioned in part one of this post, the odds of getting a clear, concise photograph of a bigfoot in a forested environment are quite low. In this post I'll touch on another factor that makes the forest such a challenging place to capture pictures: autofocus.

    Nearly every camera on the market now comes equipped with a nifty little program called autofocus. When active, autofocus will approximate the subject you are trying to photograph and move the camera lens so that this subject is in focus. The feature was developed as a time saver, meant mainly for taking photos of stationary objects, groups of people, etc. For the vast majority of picture taking, autofocus works very well. However, attempting to use it in a forested environment creates several problems.

    Forests and wooded areas are filled with animals, plant life, swaying branches, and often drastic changes between deep shadows and bright light. All of these can hinder the performance of autofocus. Unless a clear line of sight is established between the camera and its subject, the subject is not moving too fast, and the light conditions are stable, autofocus will not successfully take a clear picture. For an example of this, look at the photo to the right. The subject is standing at approximately fifty feet from the camera. This photo was taken with a Canon EOS Rebel T2i, a top of the line SLR boasting 18megapixels. The subject was stationary, there are not many leaves on the trees, and the conditions are clear. However, the branches in front of the photo managed to turn what would otherwise be a clear picture into a blurry mess. Such is the downside of autofocus, it is easily confused by foliage and non-stationary objects. Every nature photographer captures a blurry photo of their subject from time to time. If they didn't delete them, there would be just as many blurry photos of birds and raccoons as there are of the big guy.

Same camera, same spot, manual focus.

    To avoid your otherwise perfect photo of the big guy becoming just another blobsquatch, I recommend learning how to use manual focus on your camera. Most high end cameras come with the option to turn off autofocus and engage manual focus. A photographer who is familiar with the manual focus option on their camera can return much better results, capturing clear and focused photos even in a challenging environment. A person operating the focus on a camera will almost always be quicker than the camera doing so automatically. We're just good like that. The photo to the left was taken from the exact same camera in the exact same spot as the first picture. The only difference? The photographer used manual focus.

    For years the presumed undiscovered great ape of North America has eluded clear photographs by fooling autofocus. But now, with masses of researchers armed with manually focused SLRs, those days are over. (I hope.)

    Thanks for reading!

 - A.Z.

 

Neil deGrasse Tyson of bigfooting

Ben McLeod - Flickr.com

    A short time ago, Bigfoot Evidence hosted a story about an interview with our favorite skeptic Ranae Holland. The interview was conducted by AfterEllen.com You can find the full story here.
 
    There are a few reasons we appreciate Ms. Holland so much here at Nagreatape, foremost of which being the way she conducts herself on Animal Planet's Finding Bigfoot. She manages to keep a cool head when reviewing possible bigfoot sightings and approaches the subject with a scientific touch. She is the ideal skeptic. Her mind is not entirely closed to the possibility of the existence of an undiscovered North American great ape, yet she also won't except circumstantial evidence as proof. Given we disagree on the Patterson-Gimlin film, Ms. Holland is an all around awesome person in my book.

    Being the only skeptic on a show that focuses on the search for sasquatches can be trying, but Ms. Holland never loses her temper or shows signs of aggravation. Furthermore, she regularly offers her scientific background and knowledge to help conduct investigations. The way she conducts herself should be a lesson to bigfooters and skeptics alike. Through being rational, cool-headed, and approaching investigations from an empirical standpoint, we can all contribute to the search for North America's great ape.

    Her viewpoint that she can use her television fame to inspire the interest of young people is another greatly admirable aspect of Ms. Holland. When she speaks about this idea in the interview, to me, she becomes the Dr. Neil deGrasee Tyson of bigfooting. It is truly refreshing to see someone who has found a way to help others while participating in the search for bigfoot. I have had the pleasure of speaking to Ms. Holland on a couple of occasions and can confirm that she is a genuinely polite person who puts others before herself. When this website was just starting, she accepted my invitation and took time out of her day to come by and give it a look over. She then went on to Tweet about the site to all of her followers.

    So here's to you, Ms. Holland, keep doing what you do. Let's inspire a new generation of scientists, researchers, and all around curious professionals!

Thanks for reading!

 - A.Z.

In response to Bigfoot Sightings in Hawaii

H. Floresiensis - IsaacMao - Flickr

    Not too long ago, Bigfoot Evidence ran a story on Bigfoot sightings in Hawaii:

"It is often said that there have been sightings of mysterious ape-men in every state exept Hawaii. Well, Hawaii may not foster the classic Sasquatch of the Pacific Northwest, but they may have something somewhat similar. Local folklore tells of hairy dwarfs who purportedly travel in large groups of up to twenty individuals."

     Reading this story about the menehune, I was reminded of the 2003 discovery of Homo Floresiensis. Native peoples of the Indonesian islands often told stories of “the old woman of the forest”, a small human who looked like a tiny, old lady, but ran off when approached. The islanders say these “little people” lived on the island up until the arrival of European settlers. Reports of other little peoples have trickled in from the deep jungles of Africa and South America. These stories were commonly discounted as folklore, until the discovery in 2003. A team of anthropologists uncovered the remains of what would come to be classified as Homo Floresiensis (or “Hobbit"). H. Floresiensis was not uncommon compared to other early hominins, except that it stood only three feet tall (see insular dwarfism) and may have lived up until twelve-thousand years ago (but the blink of an eye in evolutionary terms). This date range makes it possible that Hobbit could have existed -- even interacted  -- with modern man. 

    There have been many menehune sightings over the years and an 1820 census on Hawaii listed 65 inhabitants as "menehune." Natives of the islands believe these mythical hill people are the first settlers of Hawaii. 

    Is it possible that these "hairy dwarfs" in Hawaii may be something similar to H. Floresiensis? The Hobbits on Flores died of thousand off years ago, but perhaps the species continued to exist in other places? Or, maybe these menehune are a relative of Flores' little people? Whatever the case, I strongly feel the mystery hominids of Hawaii are deserving of more investigation.

    For additional reading on the menehune, click here.

    Thanks for reading!

 - A.Z.

PG Film stabilized and .gif'ed

    Reddit.com/Bigfoot  does it again! I found a link to this awesome .gif while checking up on new posts in Reddit's bigfoot discussion area. We've all seen the Patterson-Gimlin Film (If you haven't, I suggest fixing this terrible misfortune). But have you seen it stabilized and in .gif form? I was taken aback by how much easier it is watch the animal's movements with these effects applied.

    Mucho kudos to whoever created this. I was unable to locate the original creator. But I'm sending good vibes their way, honest.

    Certainly makes viewing easier, no? (Apologies for the odd formatting, I am not computer literate enough to fix it.) The original .gif can be found here where the formatting isn't shot to hell.

        If anyone has any information on who created this .gif, let me know. I would love to give them credit!

        Thanks for reading!

 - A.Z.

Huge online bigfoot discussion

Photo by Anirudh Koul - Flickr.com

    While browsing Reddit.com's archives I came across a very interesting post by username Mr_Bigfoot The author is conducting a Reddit event known as an "AMA", which is an abbreviation for "Ask Me Anything." Generally people who have interesting lives, jobs, etc, will participate in AMA sessions. This one turns out to be a particularly good read. The author claims to have "spoken on the existence of a species of bipedal ape living in North America on 60+ occasions for more than 5,500+ combined listeners." I found his arguments to be quite logical and his approach to the subject an appropriate mix of interest and lightheartedness. Even the behavior of the Redditors following the thread was rather civil. All in all, the discussion ended up being both educational and intriguing. It is a good example of how to present the idea of bigfoot to a group.

    Mr_Bigfoot, as with so many others, became interested in researching bigfoot after watching the famous television show "In Search Of..." 

    In the author's own words:

    "I began research, reasoning that if Bigfoot wasn't real, I didn't need to be afraid of the big guy. My research became a side hobby over the next several years. Six years later, I arrived at college. My friends wanted to know why I believed in such a thing, so I gradually developed a 45-minute multimedia presentation offering empirical support for the existence of Bigfeet. Over the following four years at college and in the three years since graduation, I've given my presentation many, many times (see title) and make biyearly camping expeditions into Eastern Oklahoma in search for physical evidence. It's a fun hobby." 

    The thread can be found here. Keep in mind it is is archived now, so current conversation is not ongoing. However, the discussion continued for quite a long time, reaching over an approximate four hundred posts. There is a lot to read. If any of you make it all the way to the bottom, you will become one of the few people to be able to claim having seen the bottom of a Reddit thread. (No mean feat!)

    Keep in mind that the thread was originally posted nine months ago, so some of the information and evidence the OP (original poster) presents and discusses in slightly out of date.

    Thanks for reading!

 - A.Z.

The difficulties of photographing bigfoot

Subject is approx. 80 ft. from photographer

    **This is part one of a multiple post project explaining the difficulties of photographing bigfoot. Part 2 can be found here.**  

    More often than not, alleged photos of sasquatches show nothing more than blurry, shadowy groupings of pixels that may, or may not, be an animal. Blobsquatches, they are called. The "Beast of Seven Chutes" is a good example. The picture, at first, appears to show an animal. However, the longer one looks, the more one begins to question if it isn't some trick of the light or a misidentified natural object. Many skeptics cite the multitudes of blobsquatch photos when arguing the case against the existence of a North American great ape. So why do most "bigfoot" photos show blurry, out-of-focus shapes and not clear, concise images?

    Top of the line SLR cameras are widely accessible and now come with up to 21.2 megapixels to ensure professional quality in every photo. Point-and-shoot cameras are boasting upwards of 10mp now-a-days. Even the iPhone 4s comes equipped with an 8 megapixel camera. In today's technology filled world, bigfoot believers should be capturing clear, definitive pictures of this alleged "bigfoot", right? Wrong. Photographing at your niece's Soccer game is one thing, taking your camera into the forest is entirely another.

    Take the picture above and to the right of this text for instance. There is a six foot tall person in a bright green shirt in the center of that photograph. Can you find him? The subject is standing approximately eighty feet from the photographer. The photograph was taken with a Sony Cybershot that has 10.1 megapixels. The conditions are clear, the terrain is flat, there is not a lot of ground cover, and even the leaves on the trees aren't blocking the subject much. Do you see him? The picture below and to the left of this text is a zoomed version of the above. Okay, so now we see the guy! But notice how blurry he is? This is the result of applying a zoom effect to the photograph. Almost looks a bit like a blobsquatch. Now imagine if the subject was not wearing a bright green shirt. Not standing straight up. Maybe even hiding from the photographer? It would be near impossible to see him.

Same photo as above, zoomed.

     The dense forests of North America, and particularly those of the Pacific Northwest, create a very unsuitable environment for photographing animals. Consequently, they make a very suitable environment for large animals to remain hidden. Assuming sasquatches are real and that they have no interest in approaching humans (who can blame them, we're not the nicest species to coexist with) I feel it would be very easy for them to remain hidden.

    I was the subject of the two photos seen here. From my position, approximately eighty feet from the photographer, I had an exceptional vantage point. Were I a large, intelligent animal that did not wish to be spotted, I would have had no trouble scoping out the photographer from further than eighty feet away and slipping off back into the forest.

Subject approx. 50 ft. from photographer

    The odds of getting a good photo of a sasquatch are stacked against researchers for a number of reasons: There are vast amounts of untamed wilderness in North America. If bigfoots do exist, they have a huge amount of land to occupy. In all of this wilderness finding one of these animals would be beyond difficult. If one was immensely lucky and did find a bigfoot they'd better hope they have a camera with them. They'd also have to have the camera at the ready, be able to focus it, and snap a photo of the animal. (When I say "focus it" I mean manually focus the camera. Auto-focusing is next to useless in dense foliage. I'll touch more on this in the next post.) Considering the difficulty of photographing in forests presented above, the odds of the photo being clear and concise are low. Very low. Also worth considering is the alleged nature of sasquatches. Researchers claim the cryptids tends to avoid humans. This would only further increase the difficulty of getting a good shot of the animal.
 
    Blobsquatches dominate the world of bigfoot pictures, and rightly so. The difficulty of photographing effectively in a forested environment is immense. Hopefully we can all keep this in mind as we move forward.

    Thanks for reading!

 - A.Z.

Native Americans and the big guy

Photo by SoulRider.222 - Flickr.com

    Lately, I've seen a lot of commentors around the internet using the argument that Native American folklore is solely myth thus none of it aids the case for the existence of bigfoot. It seems to me that this view comes from a lack of understanding of Native American culture and the purpose of their story telling.

    Native American myths are created to pass knowledge down from one generation to the next. In cultures without a written language, this is very common. From what I understand, there are two types of Native American myths:

1. Myths to explain that which is not understood.
    
2. Myths to pass on knowledge.

    So which of these do sasquatch myths fall under? I would like to believe they fall under the second category.

    Tribes from all across North America have a rich and diverse collection of myths, such as creation stories. Yet these stories vary from tribe to tribe. However, the same tribes' descriptions of a "wild tribe of men", or sasquatch, are generally consistent. Many of these tribes come from different parts of the country. They have different traditions, different ceremonies, even different languages. And yet, they all describe "our brother in the woods" in similar manners; a wild man who does not communicate with humans(cannot talk), is covered in hair, and stands taller than any normal man.

    Where the problem comes in, I believe, is discussing the spiritual side of the sasquatch. It appears to me that the Native Americans generally agree on the descriptions and behaviors of sasquatches, but disagree on the spiritual aspect. In most Native American cultures every animal consists of two aspects, the physical and the spiritual. The physical describes the creature and its habits, whereas the spiritual assigns the creature a set of characteristics, or traits. These traits help explain how the animal relates to the natural world. In a way, the spiritual aspect explains why the animal exists.

    Speculation as to what the spiritual traits of sasquatch are varies greatly between tribes. Some believe sasquatches were once men who became cannibals, other believe they are simply another "tribe" of man. This speculation, I think, is what leads to the modern day belief that Native American tales of the sasquatch are nothing more than myth and superstition. There is a clear line between knowing (and accepting) the creature exists and speculating as to the metaphysical traits of said animal. Unfortunately, this line is often overlooked.

    So what do you think? Bigfoot...victim of misinterpretation of Native American culture, or bunch of superstitious hoopla?
 
    While researching for this post I came across a very fascinating webpage on Native American spirituality. Definitely worth a read if you're interested.

    Thanks for reading!

 - A.Z.

Not saying this means anything, but...

Scholarly Journal Primates  

    I'm sure most of you reading this have been following the Dr. Melba Ketchum paper that is allegedly set for publication "soon." For those who haven't, I'll provide a brief summary: Dr. Melba Ketchum claims to have been writing a paper that will confirm (or strongly support) the existence of an undiscovered great ape living in North America. The paper, to be published in a yet unnamed scholarly journal, is said to contain analysis of bigfoot DNA. Dr. Ketchum has also hinted that multiple Ph.D's co-authored the paper. As of yet, nothing has been confirmed and as time drags on, it seems more and more likely that this "paper" is a bunch of hot air.

    Personally, the biggest factor that caused me to lose faith in Dr. Ketchum (aside from the length of time she has been working on this "paper") is the way she conducted herself on her public Facebook page. Her actions came off as childish and unprofessional. With each passing day her credibility sinks. Rock bottom, I fear, is not far off. But who knows, perhaps that is just who she is and there really is an awesome paper set to be published. I mean, a bigfooter can dream right? Should the doctor's paper prove everything she claims it will, it would drastically further the cause of gathering enough evidence to have bigfoot recognized as a species.

    With that being said, I came across this interesting link while browsing Reddit / Bigfoot. (Reddit, I know, not the most professional source for Bigfoot news, but still worth a look now and again.) The link leads to the website for the scholarly journal "Primates", a well recognized journal in the academic world. Notice, on the webpage, directly below "Open Access" there is a series of bullet points.

• Provides a forum for the investigation and elucidation of all aspects of primates

• Embraces work in all fields of investigation

• Editor-in-Chief: Juichi Yamagiwa, Kyoto University

    The second bullet point is the particular object of discussion here. Now, I'm not saying this proves anything about the Ketchum paper, but I did find it interesting. "Embraces work in all fields of investigation." Quite the odd wording, wouldn't you agree? Personally, I won't be vesting much faith in this publication, but it may be worth keeping an eye on.

    What do you think? Is the odd wording just a coincidence, or should we keep our eyes open for the next issue of Primates? Can we trust Dr. Ketchum? Will her alleged "paper" ever appear?

    Thanks for reading!

 - A.Z.

Could this be a Yeren-human hybrid?

**Update: I spoke with the poster of the video today. He had no additional information other than to say: "I found [the video] years ago and downloaded it. Recently I found it was no longer available online, so I put up a copy because I thought people could use it in bigfoot discussions."**   

    "Yeren" sightings have been reported in China since the days of prehistory. The name translates to "Wildman" and the creature is believed to be China's equivalent of the North American great ape. Typically reported as having red-hair and standing over six feet tall, the creature sounds like it could be a relative of bigfoot. However, sightings in modern times are less numerous than the elusive sasquatch.

As reported by Time: 

"More than 400 people have reported Yeren sightings over the years, and investigations in the 1970s and 1980s uncovered hair, excrement, footprints and a sleeping nest."

    But could this video show a Yeren-human hybrid? Reports of hybrids have surfaced in the past, though generally they aren't given much attention (it does seem pretty crazy). But recently, hybrids have caught the bigfoot world's eye due to Dr. Meldrum's conversations on the topic. The "hybrids" theory plays upon the fact that human DNA and sasquatch DNA are believed to be similar enough that copulation could result (at least some of the time) in functional offspring. 

    The following video was uploaded to Youtube by user "SamsBrainwaves" on July 9th, 2011. The user's channel does not have any other video of this kind on it. (I have messaged Samsbrainwaves in the hopes that he has more information.) The description accompanying the video reads:

"This person is the result of a supposed rape of his mother by a Yeren. His mother went missing for months. When she came back to the village, she hardly spoke, but claims she was raped by the yeren. She never spoke about it after that. Scientists have asked her if they could study him, but she always just asked them to go away and leave them alone.
The Yeren, variously referred to as the Yiren, Yeh Ren, Chinese Wildman or Wildman of China, Man-Monkey, or Man Bear, is said to be an as yet undiscovered hominid residing in the mountainous and forested regions of China's remote Hubei province.The Yeren is sometimes described as a large, hairy bipedal hominoid, and some believe that this animal, or its close relatives, may be found around the world under different regional names, such as Bigfoot of the United States and Canada, the Yeti of Tibet and Nepal, and the Yowie of Australia."

**Note: parts of the video are sped up. This is attributed to an error during conversion.** 

    Upon watching the video I was interested in the way the man moves. His arms are very active, reaching out for support as he walks. I have heard some researchers claim that bigfoots grab trees and other foliage as they move through the forest, almost pulling themselves along. Given, I'm not sure how credible this theory is (I've not seen any video to back it up), could this be what the "hybrid" is doing?

     As well, the man appears to be much taller than your usual human. At 0:18 into the video, scale is achieved with the man shown next to his mother. Either she is a short person, or this guy is quite tall. His limb proportions and musculature also seem out of whack to me. It is a shame the mother doesn't want scientists to study her child. There may be much we can learn from this man.

    Information on this video and its subject is scant, if anyone has heard anything else about this man, I would be very happy to include it in this blog post if you wouldn't mind sharing it. 

    So what do you think? Yeren-human hybrid? Growth disorder? Let us know!

    Thanks for reading!

 - A.Z.

The good Doctor's opinion

Photo by =mc2 - Flickr.com

 **This is a revisit of an older post. I figured it deserved a bit more attention.**   

    In general, main stream scientists and academics give bigfoot research a wide berth. Many fear that association with the subject will besmirch their reputation. Some just don't think the existence of a North American great ape is plausible. And then there's Dr. Jane Goodall.  In this audio clip the world renowned primatologist explains her views on the existence of an undiscovered species of great ape (spoiler alert, she's a believer!). The clip comes from a longer interview that originally aired Septermber 27, 2002, on Nation Public Radio's "Science Friday." (A very educational program, if I do say so myself.) 
    In researching for this article I came across a well written and interesting similar post on Cliff Barackman's blog, North American Bigfoot. The post details a personal encounter with the legendary Dr. Goodall and shows just how much of an all around awesome person she is. 

    The work Dr. Goodall has done around the world, both for the betterment of apes and humans alike, needs no introduction. Her years of experience in the field make her one of the most respected primatologists of all time. 

    Dr. Jane Goodall, similar to Dr. Jeff Meldrum, is a scientist who has dared to publicly voice her opinions on the possible existence of a North American great ape. A round of applause, if you will. Major props to you two, as well as all of the other scientists who dare to further the bounds of human understanding in the face of adversity.

    Thanks for reading!

    - A.Z. 

Naga's Mascot

Sassysquatch

    We had some fun today while taking photos for an upcoming blog post on the difficulties of photographing animals in dense forest. Here's Naga's mascot, Sassysquatch, reenacting the Myakka Skunk Ape photo. (Don't worry, we used a much bigger stand in for the photos that will be in the actual post.)

Myakka Skunk Ape ©2001 David Barkasy and Loren Coleman

The post, currently under the working title "The difficulties of photographing bigfoot", is in the early writing phases. I expect it will be finished sometime next week. Until then, we've got some interesting content planned. Look for it!

Thanks for your time!

 - A.Z.

How best to approach field research?

Photo by zen - Flickr.com

    The bigfoot community consists of a diverse group of people spread as far apart as the forests of the Pacific northwest, to the swamps of the southeast, to foreign shores the world over. Some are academics like Dr. Jane Goodall and Dr. Jeffrey Meldrum. Some are professionals who land television gigs like the cast of Finding Bigfoot and Monster Quest. And still, some (and by some, I mean most) are your everyday, average individuals who are fascinated by the prospect of the existence of an undiscovered great ape in North America.

    This diversity allows the bigfoot world to act as a sort of melting pot for ideas and research tactics. Every other person brings a new perspective to the table. The task the bigfooting world hopes to achieve is no mean feat. Discovering a new species is hard enough as is. Add to the mix a creature with great intelligence, natural elusiveness, and a habitat consisting of vast tracts of unexplored wilderness, and you have one extremely hard to locate animal. So, what are the best tactics to find this animal? What research methods return the best results?

    There are a ton of different strategies: call blasting, wood knocking, baiting, habituation, trail cams, gifting, the list goes on. In an attempt to keep this post at a readable length, I'll stick to a discussion of which is best, a stealthy approach, or a loud, interactive approach?

    The idea behind using a loud, interactive approach goes something like this: sasquatches, like most great apes, are curious creatures. By call blasting, wood knocking, and other attempts to communicate, we will draw them in and encourage interaction. The sasquatches will notice when humans are around, so trying to trick them with trail cams and the like is useless. (Some believe that sasquatches so excel in their natural environment that they are able to easily locate and avoid trail cams and other such photo / video traps.)

    Supporters of the stealth side of the issue argue by saying that alerting the sasquatches of our presence will only scare them away. They've shown in the past that they aren't particularly fond of human interactions. This leads to the decision that the best way to conduct research is to remain quiet and hope to capture photos, video, or audio of bigfoots being their usual squatchy selves. Proponents of the stealth side of the issue support using trail cams. (Some more recent theories involve mounting trail cams on parked cars, or around campsites. The thought here is that the sasquatches will recognize cars and campsites as man-made structures thus a trail cam mounted on one of these will, to them, seem less out of place than a camera in the middle of the forest. However, this does seem a little contradicting to the argument that a human presence scares away the creatures.)

    In the end, the choice of which method is best lies with the researcher. Many longtime field researchers have developed personal opinions of which methods work and which don't based on their personal experience. To me, this seems the best way to go. Get out in the field, test various methods, and go with your gut.

    Which methods do you feel work best? Why? Feel free to tell us about them in the comment section below.

    Thanks for reading!

    - A.Z.

Presenting the idea of bigfoot

    Got a long one for ya' guys. Brace yourselves.
 

Photo by pursurethepassion - Flickr.com

    Statements such as "You believe what?", or "there's no such thing", and sometimes even "You're crazy!" accompany the awkward and often embarrassing confession that one is a believer in the possibility of a North American great ape. Largely thanks to a combination of poor representation, hoaxes, and widespread disbelief, believers are commonly met with ridicule and belittlement. Even worse is the plight of those who have had an encounter with one of these animals. To reveal such an experience is to expose oneself to the scrutiny of an environment where the majority of people will tell you that you are "mistaken" and that "such a creature couldn't possibly exist."

    And yet, it is vital that we bigfoot believers not be driven from our beliefs by skeptics. Don't get me wrong now, I'm not advocating blind belief. I firmly support the idea that everyone should look at all of the evidence in a given scenario and draw their own conclusions. What I am advocating is that those who have come to the conclusion that an undiscovered great ape may exist in the wilderness of North America should not back down from their beliefs because of scrutiny from their peers, or a lack of belief on the behalf others. I mean, the first people to dare to say the world wasn't flat had a heck of a time as well.

    I am also not supporting the bashing of skeptics. In my experience, many bigfooters look at skeptics as their opponents. This is surely not the case, nor should it ever be. If anything, a skeptic is merely someone who has not yet seen enough evidence to come to the conclusion that bigfoots exist. Looking at all of the flak that believers take, who can blame them? I believe we should see skeptics as helpful to the cause of discovering North America's great ape. Skeptics continually challenge the evidence brought before them which helps us bigfooters to weed out the hoaxes and bloblsquatches and present a stronger case in the future. As well, skeptics help fuel the drive of bigfooters to capture ever more conclusive evidence that the big guy exists. After all, science is based on skepticism.

    For these reasons speaking to others about bigfoot is a daunting task. A task best approached, in my opinion, very carefully. The birth of this site makes for a very useful example in this discussion. I originally created Na-ga as a final project in my ENC1102 course at Florida State University. As part of that project I had to present this website before the class. Needless to say, the prospect was both exciting and nerve-racking. I've never been one to have a problem with speaking in public. But speaking about bigfoot in public is an entirely different matter.

    When I presented Na-ga to the class I took a slower approach, preferring to preface the presentation with a word of caution instead of just flat out saying: "I did a project on bigfoot guys!" I opened with: "Morning everyone, this may be one of your weirder presentations." Then, after a short pause, "I've been interested in this possibility for a long time and I feel there is more to it than what most people think. My project is on the possibility of the existence of an undiscovered great ape living in North America." Then, bombs away: "Or, as it is more commonly known, bigfoot."

    In the end, my presentation went over well with a lot of the class visibly interested in the idea of bigfoot (especially when I showed the photos and played some audio). As long as one approaches the situation carefully and fully explains their beliefs (along with any supporting evidence), I feel expressing belief in the big guy can be much easier than previously thought (and hopefully less awkward). However, not all experiences with expressing one's belief in bigfoot go so well.

    Last summer I was at a weekly meeting with my Boy Scout Troop. I don't recall how, but the conversation moved to the subject of bigfoot. The two guys I was talking to had only ever heard of bigfoot through Jack Link's commercials and other such pop-culture jokes. Needless to say, when I mentioned that I believed the big guy existed, they were dumbfounded. The part of their reactions that stood out most to me was their complete inexperience with the bigfooting world. One of the guys even asked if I thought there was just one bigfoot or many of them. (Obviously a breeding population is necessary for the survival of the species. However, this shows just how uninformed these two were on the subject.)

    In the end, the conversation consisted of me answering their half-serious questions and trying to convince them that there was more to the phenomenon than beef jerky commercials. I left the experience with a new outlook on how to talk to people who aren't yet believers. Don't look at these people as your opponents, or just some "uninformed morons", but as individuals who have yet to be exposed to the body of evidence that supports the existence of an undiscovered great ape. A conversation like this is an opportunity. Bigfooters should embrace such interactions. They are a chance to help another person on their way to examining the case for bigfoot and eventually, drawing their own conclusions. Worst case scenario, you get people thinking and discussing the possibility of this creature's existence. Discussion raises awareness.

    Have you ever talked to someone about your belief in a North American great ape? How did it go?

    Thanks for reading!

 - A.Z.

Update: Blog and Website

    Good evening everyone,

    If you're reading this, then you already know that North American Great Ape no longer hosts this blog. And that is the first update that needed to be covered in this post. I have moved the blog to .blogspot because the previous site I was using provided no way to back up my blog (other than manually saving a text document of every single post. This would not save comments, or links, or embedded photos).

    As well, I would like to give a big thank you to Shawn at Bigfoot Evidence for coming by and checking in on us here. He hosted a story on our previous blog post, "The problem with sound blasting." Shawn's blog is, in my mind, the best bigfoot blog on the internet. Looking for 24/7 updates on everything bigfoot? Bigfoot Evidence is your kind of place.

    Thanks for reading, now I'm off to write an actual blog.

 - A.Z.

The problem with soundblasting

**This was originally posted on 05 / 17 / 2012 on my old blog.**  

Photo by ashley.adcox - Flickr.com

    Practiced by the BFRO and popularized by Animal Planet's Finding Bigfoot, sound blasting, or "call blasting" is a research tactic that is now becoming more widely used. But does it work?

    The answer to the above question, as much as it pains me to say, is a blurry "we're not sure." Some researchers claim it returns results, saying the calls encourage  sasquatches to respond. Others are not so confident.


    To use a popular example, sound blasting was practiced in every episode of Finding Bigfoot and met with mixed results. Sometimes there was a response, sometimes there wasn't. But this doesn't prove or disprove the effectiveness of the tactic. In fact, it only serves to highlight exactly how unsure researchers are as to the effects of sound blasting.

    In my personal opinion, I think call blasting is a strategy best avoided. As mentioned in North American Great Apes' article on research methods the problem with it is three-fold:

1. We do not know for sure if the sounds being blasted are actual bigfoot recordings.      

2. Assuming the sound is from a bigfoot, we do not know what message each sound is supposed to convey. For all we know we could be telling them: “Run away!”      

3. It is possible that bigfoots can tell the difference between a real vocalization and an audio recording.

    If anything, I think it is most likely that sound blasting merely alerts any bigfoots in the area that humans are nearby. Generally, it appears sasquatches are excellent at detecting intruders in their environment, but just in case one of the daywatchers got lazy and didn't notice the group of human investigators tromping around in the woods, lets blast some recordings of what may or may not be bigfoot calls.

    On the flip side, perhaps alerting bigfoots that humans are around isn't a bad idea. As mentioned in the Vehicular Observation Blind blog post, playing on the curiosity of North America's great ape may be exactly what researchers need to do in order to have more successful expeditions.

    Until further study of these animals is conducted, solid evidence achieved, and behavioral patterns well documented, the bigfooters of the world will have to continue call blasting, or not, based on their personal opinions and experiences.

    Thanks for reading,

 - A.Z.

**Update: Username TKW posted the following comment on Bigfoot Evidence's article on this post. I found it insightful and worth adding.**

"I think a 4th reason would be having 2+ groups howling at each other and believing the other is the real thing.
This in turns could generate false reporting, hoaxers going out of their way to howl back, hyper-sense of reality and suddenly every thing becomes a Sasquatch as the night gets darker, hikers getting the crap scared out of them and reporting on forums of what they heard, etc."

"Armchair critics" and the necessity of research

**This was originally posted on 05 / 16 / 2012 on my old bog.**

Photo by mosoma - Flickr.com

    Throughout the internet most of those who are interested in bigfoot are "armchair critics" or "armchair enthusiasts" -- people who get all of their information from the internet and conduct no independent research of their own. And who can blame them? Some live in densely populated metropolitan areas, far from any wilderness. Others just don't have the time to commit to a field expedition.

    Field research requires not only a large time commitment, but a large monetary one as well. Thermal imagers, parabolic microphones, and HD video cameras are just some of the expensive equipment that is so often vital in conducting a successful field investigation. Not to mention fees associated with the research area, gas and travel expenses to get there, and any other annoying little costs that pop up. And, even if one is fully equipped, there is no guarantee that the area being investigated will render any results. The North American great ape is known to be quite elusive, after all.  For these reasons, among others, I truly respect the average researchers who are out in the forests of North America doing the "grunt work" for the rest of us.

    With that being said, I am proud to announce that if everything works out properly I will soon be joining a local research organization here in Florida. I will not publish any names yet, as nothing is final. However, I feel it is time for this "armchair enthusiast" to take Na-ga to the next level. Independent research, here we come.

    Thanks for reading, and wish me luck!

 - A.Z.

In response to "The Beast of Seven Chutes"

Chutes Beast - Bigfoot Evidence

    Bigfoot Evidence, one of the most active bigfoot blogs on the internet, ran a story today on a photograph taken in 2005  in Seven Chutes Park, Quebec. In the photo one can see what appears to be a humanoid figure standing upright and grasping a white...well, a white something (there is much debate as to what the figure is holding, dead animal? Small dog? We're really not sure). The story was quite informative and did a great job bringing this photo and subsequent comparison photos to light. However, I feel that I must disagree with the author on one specific point.

    The photo on the right is zoomed in on the "beast" (The original can be found here). The author of Bigfoot Evidence's story on this alleged creature proposes the theory that the figure has a snout, "This animal has a snout like a dog or wolf, leading some to call it a 'dogman' or a werewolf." The author continues to say that this figure does not "match up" with most descriptions by bigfoot eyewitnesses and lists a few reported sightings of a "dogman" creature from Michigan and Wisconsin. Now, I'm not here to shoot down evidence for other possible cryptids, but I highly doubt this photo shows any "werewolf" type creature.

    At first glance, the animal does appear to have a snout. However, the longer I look at it, the more I am inclined to believe that this "snout" is an illusion created by a combination of bald skin on a sasquatches face mixed with a low resolution photograph. Many researchers believe, and many eyewitnesses confirm, that sasquatches have bald faces. If this is indeed the case, lighter colored skin on the face would cause glare or light reflection (to a small degree) in the facial region. Viewed in a low resolution photograph this could cause light artifacts. I believe this "snout" is exactly that.

    So, if this figure isn't the wolfman, what is it? Some commenters on Bigfoot Evidence thought it could be a misidentified tree stump. However, the photographer knew what he was doing and returned to the location to take follow up photos. The follow up photos (also included in the Bigfoot Evidence article) clearly show there is no tree stump in the vicinity.

    (Note: If you are lucky enough to get a photo of an unidentified animal, always, always, always, return to the spot and take follow up photos. Or, contact an organization like the BFRO and have them do so. This helps in analyzing the photo immensely.)

    Although the figure does appear to have some typical saquatch features (oval shaped head, defined brow ridge, auburn-brown colored hair) I think we have another blobsquatch. Now, I'm not saying this isn't a bigfoot, I'm just saying the figure isn't clear enough to declare either way. As a bigfoot enthusiast I am coming into this situation with a bias. I want this photo to show a bigfoot. But it is important to try to minimize the effects of bias when considering evidence such as the above.

    Many thanks to Bigfoot Evidence for drawing attention to this story and author Vicki W for her work. For further reading, Phantoms And Monsters ran a story on this photo which can be found here. Their story included a bit more background on the photographer as well as the conditions in which the photos were taken. The photographer behind these photos has also created a website to explore possibilities of exactly what this animal could be. It can be found here.

    Thanks for reading!

- A.Z.

Vehicular Observation Blinds

**This was originally posted on 05 / 10 / 2012 on my old blog.**

    Veteran bigfoot researcher and BFRO member, Matt Pruitt, has been involved with the BFRO since 2007. His official position within the organization is listed as "field coordinator and investigator." Recently, his research blog hosted a story about a very interesting field research strategy: using a vehicle as an observation blind.

    Throughout the vast expanse of the internet I have personally heard many ideas on how best to conduct field research when searching for the big guy. Using your vehicle to your advantage is a new one for me, and yet, an idea I think could actually work. In short, the underlying concept is to play on the sasquatches' curiosity. As with most other intelligent animals, nearly all great apes are curious and will often come by to check out what us strange humans are doing. One can assume the same applies to sasquatches. As Pruitt points out, many nature lovers return with stories of late night campsite visits from North America's great ape. Could it be that our strange, man-made structures are subjects of interest for bigfoots? If this is the case, using one's vehicle to encourage a bigfoot encounter isn't a bad idea at all.

    Essentially, Pruitt suggests parking one's car in a "squatchy" area, setting up audio recording equipment, and spending the night inside your vehicle with a camera near at hand. When (and, I suppose, if) the big guy decides to come by and figure out what this new metal contraption is doing in the middle of his forest, a lucky researcher might just end up with some great video footage (assuming the researcher doesn't fall asleep waiting. I know this would be my problem!).

    Personally, I would love to try this idea. It seems to be a great way for a solo researcher (aka myself, if I can't convince any of my friends to waste their night with me in the middle of Ocala National Forest this summer) to conduct an effective investigation. Regretfully, my car's lack of tinted windows seems to be a disadvantage for this type of research, not to mention my ground clearance would most likely prevent traveling to any areas considered anything near "squatchy" (I'm working with a corolla here folks, give me a break).

    Pruitt's blog goes much more in-depth on this idea, giving examples of how to effectively assemble a vehicle observation blind, as well as recommending effective equipment for the task.

    This vehicle idea is just one of the very intriguing articles I found on Pruitt's blog. Be sure to drop by and check out what he has to say (I'm sure you won't regret it).


    Pruitt's blog can be found at: http://mattpruittonline.blogspot.com/

Thanks for reading,

- A.Z.

 

Pro-kill versus No-kill debate

**This was originally posted on 05 / 09 / 2012 on my old blog.**  

    A debate has been raging in the bigfoot world commonly referred to as the "Pro-kill vs. No-kill debate". Essentially, the pro-kill side believes that the best way to prove the existence of bigfoots or sasquatches is to kill one. The opposing side argues that, for many reasons, this is both unnecessary and brutish.
    Personally, I am a proponent of the no-kill stance. I will do my best to present both cases (in summary) herein.

    The pro-kill approach (assuming the successful killing of a bigfoot) would provide us with solid evidence of the existence of bigfoot. This would end the debate over the creatures' existence and allow groups who seek to protect them to do so with a larger support base from the public. As well, this would most likely result in attracting the interest of main stream science to the study of sasquatches. However, there are moral implications involved with killing one of these animals. From the evidence we have they appear to be extremely intelligent animals (perhaps even having a protolanguage). Is killing one of these animals akin to murder? Exactly how human are they? These questions aid the no-kill side of the debate in supporting their argument.

     The no-kill camp argues that killing a bigfoot is not only brutish, it is morally wrong. Generally, most no-kill supporters believe discovery of this animal should occur via photographs, video, and most importantly, DNA evidence in the form of flesh, hair, saliva, or nail samples (best case, all of the above). No-kill argues many points as to why we should not kill a bigfoot, the main points being: It is akin to murder; killing a bigfoot would reflect badly on us as a species; and bigfoots have proven time and again that they are not hostile to us, so why should we treat a peaceful animal with such fatal hostility?

     And still, even more argue that the pro-kill no-kill debate is putting the "cart before the horse" in that we have not yet proven the existence of sasquatches.

    What side of the debate are you on? Pro-kill? No-kill? Why?

Thanks for reading,

- A.Z.

Dr. Jane Goodall on Bigfoot

**This was originally posted on 04 / 18 / 2012 on my old blog.**

  In general, Scientists give bigfoot research a wide berth. Many fear that association with those who support bigfoot theories will besmirch their reputation. Some just don't think the existence of a North American great ape is plausible. And then there's Dr. Jane Goodall. In this audio clip the world renowned primatologist explains her views on the existence of an undiscovered species of great ape.

-A.Z.

Gorilla Clapping

**This was originally posted on 04 / 17 / 2012 on my old blog.**

    Another species of Gorilla has been found to clap to communicate.

    Does this further the possibility that tree knocking by bigfoots is actually clapping?

    Read the full article here or read Cliff Barackman's research on the subject here.

- A.Z.

Na-ga on Twitter

**This was originally posted on 04 / 16 / 2012 on my old blog.**

Na-ga now has an official twitter profile! Follow us for free cake? And all the Na-ga updates you could want, of course.


As well, I am very happy to give a special thanks to Cliff Barackman and Ranae Holland for coming by Na-ga and checking the site out! Both were very generous with their time and Ms. Holland even gave us a retweet through her official twitter!

Here's to a productive tomorrow!

 - A.Z.

Uno

**This was originally posted 4 / 10 / 2012 on my old blog.**

Good evening everyone!

I have been working on getting this site up and running for a while now and the idea of a blog for it has been fermenting in the back of my head so... 

I am happy to say that na-ga.weebly.com is nearing an acceptable condition for me to unleash it upon the world (aka my friends and family and whatever audience that somehow finds this buried in more popular webpages). As of now I have added two articles here and here and completed the photos, videos, and resources pages. I expect to have the site fully up and running by the end of the week. 

Please feel free to reach out with any questions, comments, or concerns via the contact page.

na-ga.weebly.com started as a final project I was assigned in my ENC1102 course at Florida State. When I began writing for the project I realized that I really enjoyed working on it. Furthermore, not many people on the vast realm of the interwebs seem to have websites dedicated to aggregating and relaying basic knowledge on bigfoot. So, this means that 1.) I have found a specific niche to fill, or 2.) All of the other similar sites failed horribly and left the creator writhing in despair. I'm hoping it's the first one!

I do not intend na-ga.weebly.com to be dedicated to reporting bigfoot news so much as relaying general information for those who are new to the bigfoot world. Think of it as a jumping off point (Your virtual diving board into the deep and murky pool that is the world of online bigfoot research. Did I mention it's probably a high dive?). Other sites such as Bigfoot Evidence and Cryptomundo are more dedicated to news and updates, so I'll leave the avid reporting to them. Of course, however, I will be blogging about events in the bigfooting world that catch my eye. (Take for instance, two well known Florida bigfooters teaming up. And I am sure I will link to Dr. Melba Ketchum's paper on the alleged analysis of bigfoot DNA by multiple scholarly, reliable sources when it is published.) 

If you are new: 

1.) Woo! I hit my target audience!

2.) I suggest browsing the resources list I have compiled for further information and more in depth articles on the North American Great Ape. There is a ton of information out there that I avoided in an attempt to keep my articles short and to the point. (Example: Sasquatches are not limited to just North America. There are sightings and reports of similar creatures from all around the world. However, the most active research community is in North America, thus I keep my focus there. I mean, ins't one continent is enough for a lowly college student?)

I have had a bit of confusion as to the naming of this website, so just to clarify, "na-ga" stands for North American Great Ape. Naga.weebly.com was already taken, so I was forced to get creative. (Yes, a dash is my version of getting creative.) But look at the upside, if you ignore the "http://" and take out the ".weebly" you are left with a short and simple webaddress: www.na-ga.com. (Disregarding that this won't actually get you to the site...)

Also, please note:

As spell check continues to remind me, the "proper" way to spell "bigfoot" is with a capital "B". However, I feel this does a disservice to the species, making it appear more as some individual mystical creature and not an actual animal. (Which I firmly believe it is.) Also, spell check annoys me with those little red squiggly lines, so bugger off spell check! I do what I want!   

Thanks for reading and stopping by,

Here's to a productive tomorrow! 

- A.Z.