There has been a bit of a flap going on in the Bigfoot hunting community regarding a research opening fire on a Sasquatch during a field investigation. While I want to come back to the particular incident later, this event has served to cast a spotlight on an issue that divides the Bigfoot research community. On one side, you have the no-kill researchers who are completely opposed to any attempt to kill a Sasquatch. Other researchers, however, feel that a specimen must be taken to further the study of the creature. Looking at this one issue, the two groups couldn’t seem to be any more different in their goals, but they both want the same thing. Both pro-kill and no-kill researchers ultimately want to protect the Sasquatch and their habitat.

While no-kill research is important to understanding Sasquatch and how it lives, ultimately a specimen will have to be taken to have the species formally classified and accepted by the mainstream scientific community. While unfortunate, this is the process by which new species are identified. Without formal identification there is no way that Sasquatch or its habitat will have any hope of receiving protection under the law. Especially considering that protecting Bigfoot, in its natural habitat, will have a significant impact on the multi-billion dollar lumber industry. There can be no controversy regarding the existence of Sasquatch that could be leveraged by the lumber industry to limit or prevent habitat preservation efforts. As saddening as the unnatural death of a Bigfoot would be, the simple fact is that its sacrifice would benefit the rest of its species.

That being said, I hardly think that every Sasquatch researcher that sets foot in the woods should head out looking to bag a Bigfoot. If a Bigfoot is taken, it needs to be done humanely as possible AND in a way that allows the scientific community a viable sample to be used for classification. Ideally, a team looking to collect a Sasquatch specimen should include an experienced marksman/hunter armed with a weapon that will allow a clean kill with minimal tissue damage. The last thing Bigfoot and the Bigfoot research community needs is an animal being taken in a way that makes its remains useless. That would be a horrific waste and is inexcusable. Additionally, if an expedition intends to take a sample for classification they need to be very clear of their intentions with whomever is granting them access to the property they are hunting on. If a landowner does not want a Sasquatch killed on their property for whatever reason, that is well within their rights. Ignoring this would endanger all Bigfoot research as private land owners may become less likely to allow any researcher on their land for fear of it being turned into a shooting gallery in spite of their wishes.

photo by Ed Siasoco

This brings us back to the incident in question. This past July a team member performing an investigation with Texas Bigfoot Research Conservancy opened fire on a Sasquatch while on the land of one Charles Branson. While this particular event has become somewhat of a black-eye for the Bigfoot community, there is quite a bit that can be taken away from it for future expeditions. Foremost, it would seem that Mr. Branson was unaware of the groups intent to take a specimen for analysis. Had the group been upfront about their intentions, Mr. Branson could have easily either rescinded his permission to access his property or made clear that agreeing to not harm any Sasquatch was required to access his property. Secondly, according to the account released by TBRC the individual who opened fire on the Bigfoot with a shotgun, “firing all the rounds in rapid succession”. The landowner’s nephew was on the property at the time of the shooting and he believed the gunfire he heard to have been from a “machine gun”. Ignoring any other issues (including possible safety implications), witness reports like this paint Bigfoot hunters who would like to collect a specimen in a bad light, making them out to be crazed Yosemite Sam types who would shoot down a whole forest in the hopes of hitting a bigfoot. Hopefully the community as a whole can learn from the mistakes made by the TBRC team and move forward better prepared to secure the future of the Sasquatch species.

Ultimately, it is up to each individual Bigfoot researcher to decide whether they want to be involved with the potential killing of a Sasquatch. It is perfectly fine for a researcher to decide that they want to focus their research on observing Bigfoot in their natural habitat without doing any harm to the creatures. Hopefully researchers who make this choice will acknowledge the benefit collecting a Sasquatch specimen will bring to the field and not attempt to prevent that from happening. Ultimately, this misguided “protection” could end up hurting the entire Bigfoot population. On the same token, researchers who choose to attempt collecting a Sasquatch specimen need to ensure they conduct themselves in the most professional manor and are beyond reproach in their methods or they risk damaging no only their own reputation, but the reputation of the entire community as well.

Major Update: TBRC Admits To Shooting

It would seem that the bat-like Chicago Mothman that we have been following for the last week has made yet another appearance. Here we have a report submitted to the UFO Clearinghouse (unedited):

“I am currently attending university in Chicago , Illinois and I wanted to respond to the informational flyers about recent events involving the large bat-like creatures. I was enjoying an evening with my girlfriend and taking a well deserved break from my studies. We decided to go out and enjoy the unusually warm weather that we were having and go for a walk. As we walked toward a community park near the campus, we were talking about our classes when a commotion amongst a group of people caught our attention. As we looked toward the group of about 4-5 people, something caught my eye and I looked up to see this thing fly overhead.

I at first thought of ringing someone, but I didn’t want them to think I had gone crazy. To say that I was Gobsmacked would have been an understatement”

As one commenter on UFO Clearinghouse stated, the report seems a little “overwritten”, but I am not as quick to immediately write it off as a hoax as the commenter is (though I am not about to accept it as gospel either). There are some people who just happen write/talk in an overly flowery manner for a number of reasons. It is troubling that the report while so full of “detail” seems to lack any real detail of the encounter like where or when it occurred. It is possible that those details are missing because the encounter never happened. I also think that it is possible, especially if more cowardice was involved in the encounter that the witness is willing to admit, that he may not be sure where or when the encounter happened and the extra fluff is an attempt to compensate for the details he is to proud to admit. If the Chicago Mothman is becoming a “thing” we do need to become more mindful of hoaxes as the awareness of the phenomena grows. Unfortunately, we will see false reports from skeptics poking fun at investigators and from everyday people who just want to be a part of the excitement. Hopefully more witnesses will come forward and help to corroborate these Mothman sightings.

Another sighting report of the Chicago/UIC Mothman

Earlier this week we reported on possible Mothman/bat-like creature sighting in the University Park area of Chicago. Yesterday, photo evidence of a similar type creature was submitted to the MUFON database. Taken September 22, 2011 on the corner of 63rd St. and Pulaski Rd. by an individual using a HTC Sensation 4G to photograph the large indian statue that sits on the building at the northwest corner of the intersection (apparently, when viewed from this particular angle the statue’s left thumb sticks out giving the illusion that his “totem pole” is showing). At home, the photographer reviewed the images and noticed a black object in one of the photos just to the left of the indian (enhanced with 4x magnification to the left). Upon enlarging the image, he noticed that the object appeared to be some sort of large bat like creature.

Examining what appears to be the original image, there does not appear to be any obvious fakery/photoshopping (though I will be the first to admit that I am no expert in image forensics). This leads me to believe that the bat-like object was in fact present when the photo was taken. This leaves us to consider where the object was in relation to the camera. Was it closer than the cars in the foreground, making is relatively small, or was it beyond the indian statue (which would make it quite large)? Unfortunately, there is no good frame of reference for us to really judge size by. However, in the original image, the “creature” appears sharp and focused, as does the indian, satellite dish and street lamp. Most likely since the photo’s true subject (the indian) was so far away, the camera was set to infinite focus. This means that anything over a certain distance from the lens should appear, more or less, in focus. Since the object is more or less in focus, I am led to believe that it is in fact positioned at a equal or greater distance from the camera as the foreground cars and is quite large. The fact that the witness did not notice the creature at the time the photo was taken would seem to support this hypothesis.

Could then, if this photo is not a hoax, the creature in this photo be the the same one spotted by multiple witnesses eight days later in Miller Park? The two locations are only separated by approximately 7 miles and in the photo the creature seems to be flying away from the camera (assuming a bat-like anatomy), which was facing North Northeast, which happens to in the direction of the second sighting. If neither report is a hoax, then it seems it would be safe to assume that the creature in this photo is at least the same type of creature (if not the same one) that was later spotted in the University Park area. This only leaves one question, what exactly has taken to the skies above Chicago? Is the windy city the latest host of a Mothman or is the bat-like creature something else entirely?

Photo: 2nd Mothman / Bat-Like Object Witnessed Over Chicago