Bigfoot Evidence or Propaganda

Written by Randy "Rebelistic" Savig, MABRC Missouri State Director

What are we doing in the woods?  Are we out there trying to collect possible evidence of Bigfoot?  Are we following where the evidence sends us?  Or are we seeing what we want to see?  These are questions that I think every field researcher needs to ask themselves every time they go into the woods. 

With the internet being the super highway of information all we have to do is click and read, all the knowledge is there right?  We can gloriously see everything we want about bigfoot and form an educated understanding of what bigfoot is, what they do, how they look, how they hunt, eat, and if you read the right article how they make babies.  But is this "knowledge" we've gain from evidence or propaganda? 

The bigfoot community today is made up from all sorts of people and personalities.  We have average Joes, wanna-be computer experts, self proclaimed experts, perceived experts, newbies, the old guard, the skeptics, and the want to believers to the scientific types.  And each of those could be broken into more sub-groups.  There is an unbelievable amount of people that since bigfoot mania has happened has added to the mix.  Each with preconceived ideas that we have gain from past life experiences and what they have seen or read about bigfoot.  We see everyday when we open Facebook, YouTube or Google with sensational titles like "The best bigfoot audio ever recorded" or "Definitive Video of a Bigfoot" or "Proof Bigfoot Exists".  Most in my opinion are good folks that have either misidentified something or let their imaginations run away with them.  Mark "Sawdustt" Newbill did a great video showing some of this recently that is worth looking at. 

Even though it can be frustrating for the researcher, most of these folks are just over enthusiastic.

The ones that seem to be more damaging to the community is the ones that seem to push an agenda.  Some paranormal folks turn them into spirits, apparitions, and ghosts to further prove what they are researching to be real.  Some of the UFO folks explain the rare sightings that happen in the same areas as "must be aliens".  They just don't seem to be able to be willing to think that there may be two different phenomena happening.  Unfortunately these folks seem to be taking credibility from both types of research.  I have spoken with researchers in both those fields and they too wish that folks would stop trying to combine the two.  It is hard enough to get science to look at possible evidence of any field of research that is not mainstream and when they are mixed together it makes it even harder.

Then you have the ones that seem to be way out there.  The shape-shifting, cloaking, portal jumping, mind speaking, I am chosen types that seem to get a lot of attention from the I wanna believe types to where there is an almost cult-like following that has happened.  Heaven help anyone if they should ask for some possible proof behind those claims.  Some have went down that road and it ain't pretty.  That is when the name calling and fights begin.  Personally I stay away from that.  I have better things to with my time.  But needless to say these are a real problem in the Bigfoot community.  Why you ask?  If we as researchers are wanting to help prove the existence of a species to science and find one open-minded enough to look.  After a day or two on Google looking at what these folks are saying the scientist will run from it so they don't get branded and lose their standing in the scientific community.  They never even get time to look at the real possible evidence out there as they are bombarded with so much of the propaganda as it is so popular.

The next thing we hear is that the old guard or old timers won't let anything new come out as they want to control the knowledge of bigfoot.  When I read this on the social media I couldn't help but laugh!  I hate to tell you newbies that are calling foul on the old guard, they will listen and change their standing on things.  But they will look into it with a skeptical eye.  If you post a picture saying this is a bigfoot just know that they will look at it from all angles.  With the software that is available things can be zoomed into more and detail brought out like never before.  After seeing hundreds if not thousands of pictures they know what to look for.  Same goes with audio.  I've been down that road before myself.  I had folks send me audio on many occasions of what they say is bigfoot that turns out to be a common critter.  Even when confronted with audio that proves it is a known critter you get all kinds of flack from them as they "Know" it was a bigfoot.  So any more unless someone does their due diligence and run comparisons for themselves I decline listening to it.  So what does it take to get the old guard to look at things?  First, is what you want them to review something, whether picture, video, or audio have you, do your homework with it.  What, where, and when are the first details that will be asked by them.  If you can't answer it most likely they will not continue to look at it.  Best advise for anyone is if you aren't ready for their honest opinion, don't ask and definitely don't make it out to be the best evidence that proves bigfoot is real.  You may not be really smart as you think you are.  They have see more misidentifications, enough blurry pictures, shaky video or two second audio clips than you can imagine.  Second, is it testable or re-creatable.  Getting one anomalous audio clip doesn't make it a bigfoot sound.  One blurry picture doesn't make it a bigfoot picture even if your mind thinks it is.  The latest one to come back out is the plywood cutout.  Amazing of how may of those come out in so many areas of the country.

The sad fact is once we go into the woods looking for bigfoot we actually expect to find it and our minds programs itself to see it/hear it.  That is just how it works.  Our minds are geared that way.  Even the old timers had to grow as a researcher to get over that.  It's the way it works folks.  Being the worst skeptic of our own evidence is what has to be done.  Even now after doing audio for a few years, I still regularly  find myself mis-identifying sounds I hear in the woods.  Last Memorial Day weekend during an expedition is one example.  We heard and recorded at camp what I originally thought was a bigfoot vocal.  During that weekend Superdave listened to the audio and put it on a spectrogram and said it was just a coyote.  Even though I thought he was incorrect at the time, when I put it up on a spectrogram to review it did match 80% with a coyote vocalization except a bit off tone to it.  To me it did sound different that night than it did on review.  That is why I need to see what I hear.  And NO it wasn't something paranormal with it, it wasn't an ET, nothing was speaking to my mind, it was just my mind/ears playing tricks on me.  After all we were in a hotspot looking for bigfoot weren't we?  I would of really looked like a fool if I would of posted that as absolute proof of bigfoot wouldn't I.  ALWAYS do your homework before you post ANY possible bigfoot evidence.

One time that I know of that the old guard did change the way they thought was the Silent Hills Project.  We all knew knocks were long distant vocals.  Until a happenstance situation came up I was also of that mind set.  After I recorded what to me is proof of mimicking by a probable bigfoot, I decided to play their own game and started trying to mimic them with howls and knocks.  One night which was especially dead in the woods (which happens more often than anything) I decided as the night ended I would knock with my new shiny pick-ax handle on three different types of trees to see which sounded more like a knock that we hear out there.  I had a recorder set up about a half mile as the crow flies from camp.  I did three howls, and knocked three times on three different trees.  That way I could see which tree had a better sound. I mean I needed to know what tree made the best sound, right?  Upon doing the audio review the howls came in great, but none of the knocks were heard at all!  I shared my findings with the MABRC folks and an experiment was put together to see what the data showed.  The data can be seen here: Project Silent Hills as well as on the MABRC forums.  It proved that knocks in the woods does not travel as far as once was thought.  It is possible that in different terrains like out west it may travel further but as of now I don't think any group out there has followed the experiment to have the data to that.  It is possible to teach old dogs new tricks if you can prove that what you are saying is true.  Again, testable and repeatable.  And with the new data from the experiment some have changed research methods.

So the same questions remain.  What are we/you doing in the woods?  Are we/you out there trying to collect possible evidence of Bigfoot?  Are we/you following where the evidence sends us/you?  Or are we/you seeing what we want to see?  Evidence or more properly put, possible evidence is difficult to collect as these critters aren't there all the time so you have to spend a lot of time out there without results.  Otherwise all you have is what you think, or have read, or heard some guy talk about on a blog radiocast.  That is how misinformation is spread.  Anybody can tell a story, but without some possible evidence to back it up it's still just a story.  Propaganda is used to gain notoriety and attention, trying to get others to think your way.  The sad fact is that less people want to listen to the real stuff because it isn’t entertaining.  Monster!  Spooky Scary stories!  And the Way Too Far Out Fantasyland is where the action is.

But is that Bigfoot Evidence or Propaganda?   

Hoaxer busted!!

With the aid of Bruce Kelley, a hoaxer was busted on YouTube.  A YouTube video was posted by a user named Paul Howard with the following comments:

"Published on Mar 3, 2017
I have put together a compilation of my grandfathers Bigfoot pics that my family found in his farmhouse and barn after his passing.

This includes 5 photos that were already posted plus 2 more that were recently found and not yet posted.

My grandfather lived in the house in New York state all his life and never mentioned he was having sightings of a Bigfoot. We believe he was afraid of what people would think of him if he talked about it. He was the local postmaster and everybody knew him and respected him.

My grandfather was a very serious man, not the type to pull a bigfoot hoax. I don't believe he even knew what a bigfoot was. He took these pictures in the early to mid 60's before bigfoot was popular.

I am planning a weekend backing-packing trip in April into the area where my grandfather used to hike and camp. I will have my video camera and hopefully will be able to tape somthing (foot prints,or enclosures) that will prove his Bigfoot pictures are real."

And with some reservations that by posting the video here, it just gives him more hits, I do it so people can see what we are talking about.


So what is the hoaxing part?

As soon as I seen the video, I recognized that it was a well known Bigfoot costume that is available for sale, in fact, it was the same type of suit used in the Georgia Bigfoot Hoax.

The screen capture of the "supposed" first photo stuck out like a sore thumb.  Why you ask?  Check out the photo below of that costume.  Notice anything?

The guy didn't even use the costume for the picture, he copied and paste the picture above into his photo and put it in the video.  Want to see all the matches to confirm this?

Thanks to Bruce Kelley for making the above graphic, if you take the costume and move it over to cover the "Bigfoot" in the video, guess what, it matches 110%.

The second photo then pops up in the video, and guess what?

It matches the same costume, just flipped over horizontal.

Points match the costume to the figure in the video.

Once again, thanks to Bruce Kelley for his graphic above.  Just moving an overlay of the costume over shows it's a perfect match.  Hmmm, two different pictures showing a Bigfoot in the same stance as a picture of a Bigfoot costume.

While there are three other pictures in this video, one also resembles a photo found on the Internet, complete with stance and easily matched up.

The YouTuber has hoaxed the entire thing.

2017 Arkansas Bigfoot Conference

Join the Arkansas Primate Evidence Society (APES) next month for the Arkansas Bigfoot Conference in Vilonia, Arkansas.

So far, speakers have been announced as Lyle Blackburn, noted Bigfoot author who will talk about his new book, Beyond Boggy Creek, and show the documentary The Boggy Creek Monster by Small Town Monsters.  Randy Savig discussing audio recordings from the woods.  Jim Whitehead will speak about what to look for in the woods.

Mark Newbill will talk about being a relative new comer and how to get involved, and myself, Darren Lee, speaking about finding a research group to belong to.

This has become a very nice event to attend, and of course, you can also get a copy of Laughsquatch Robert Swain's books too.

Come join the fun on April 22, 2017.

Animal Eyeshine

One of the more interesting discussions that appears to pop up in discussing Bigfoot is the eyeshine that many researchers encounter while out in the woods at night.  There is a lot of debate about what color of eyeshine Bigfoot displays, or if Bigfoot even has eyeshine at night.

Let's discuss eyeshine first, and it's so much easier for me to refer to an article posted on the Texas Parks and Wildlife website about it.

"Until primitive man discovered fire, making it possible for him to light up the night, he probably was unaware that certain animals have eyes that seem to glow in the dark. Imagine how frightened he must have been the first time he looked beyond the comforting circle of his campfire light to see a pair of shining eyes watching him from the darkness. With his limited knowledge, he didn’t know the glowing eyes were the result of reflected light—not the work of demons or supernatural creatures.

Perhaps you shared his twinge of fear the first time you saw glowing eyes in the woods, especially if you were sitting around a campfire telling ghost stories or listening to those strange night noises that stir the imagination. Even though some of you may not have had the opportunity to see a wild animal’s eyes shine, you probably have caught a glimpse of this reflected glow in the eyes of a pet dog or cat.

Animals that display the brightest eyeshine, such as the bobcat, have more rods (light receptors) and fewer cones (color receptors) in their retinas than animals with no eyeshine. As a result, they have excellent night vision, but most are color-blind.

Eyeshine occurs when light enters the eye, passes through the rods (light receptors) and cones (color receptors) of the retina (image surface), strikes a special membrane behind the retina, and is reflected back through the eye to the light source. This special mirrorlike membrane, called the tapetum (ta-PEA-tum), is not present in the human eye. We have dark-colored cells behind our retinas, which absorb light rather than reflect it.

The majority of animals displaying eyeshine also are nocturnal animals.

Most of the animals with eyeshine are night hunters, and their ability to use the available light twice, once on the way in and again on the way out, gives these nocturnal animals additional light to see by. The majority of these glowing eyes belong to mammals, but spiders, alligators, and bullfrogs are a few other creatures with reflecting eyes. Some night birds also have eyes that glow in the dark, but their eyes do not have a tapetum layer. Scientists are still trying to solve the mystery of their source of eyeshine.

An interesting sidelight is that animals with the brightest eyeshine generally have more rods and fewer cones in their retinas. As a result they have excellent night vision, but most are color-blind.

Eyeshine coloration varies from the glowing reddish orange of the alligator to the yellows and greens of the deer and cat families. Just what causes these color differences has not been documented.

Although eyes with eyeshine are said to glow in the dark, they actually do not glow – they reflect available light. Light enters the eye, passes through the retina, and strikes a mirrorlike membrane called the tapetum. The tapetum reflects the light back through the eye to the light source. Eyeshine coloration varies with the species, amount of light, and the direction from which the light strikes the eye. Alligator eyeshine may vary from a bright reddish orange to an iridescent pink.

Because eyeshine is directed back to the light source, you must be in the right spot to be able to see it, usually directly behind the light. To increase your chances for seeing eyeshine, watch the roadsides carefully when riding in a car at night. The headlights often are reflected in the eyes of animals by the sides of the road. While walking at night with a flashlight, shine it in an arc around you and try to catch its reflection in the eyes of night creatures just beyond its circle of light. At times dozens of spiders’ eyes will reflect from patches of tall grass. Notice the eyes of your pet dog or cat as it approaches a lighted patio area, and you may be at the right angle to see its eyes reflect.

Those of you who have a cooperative cat might like to try this experiment. On the back of a small hand mirror draw a one-quarter-inch circle. Remove the silver from the circle to form a peephole. Get as close to your cat’s eye as possible while looking through the peephole. The reflective side of the mirror should face the cat. Turn off all lights except for one small lamp located across the room from you or let a friend shine a small flashlight in your direction. Tilt and adjust the mirror until the light from the lamp or flashlight is reflected into the cat’s eye. Since the light striking the eye comes from the mirror, rays from the tapetum will be reflected back to the mirror. Through your peephole you should be able to see the red blood vessels of the retina against the sparkling surface of the tapetum.

Cat eyes vary from yellowish gold to bright green.

Information on eyeshine is very sketchy, but perhaps one day further research into the subject will reveal some of its secrets. In the meantime we can but wonder about eyeshine, another mystery of nature.


Additional Information:
Ilo Hiller
1983 Eyeshine. Young Naturalist. The Louise Lindsey Merrick Texas Environment Series, No. 6, pp. 40-42. Texas A&M University Press, College Station."


So now that you have read up about eyeshine in animals, let's talk about how it affects Bigfoot research.

One of the most spoken comments I hear from people who report seeing eyeshine is that "it had red eyeshine and it was 10 feet up in the air, no animal can be that high and have red eyeshine."

Most people will adamantly stand their ground and claim that it was Bigfoot, even when you try to get them to understand, that it could possibly be a small animal sitting on a branch of a tree at that height.  I personally have nearly gotten my head knocked off by people who were completely believing that what they saw was a Bigfoot standing in the dark, and all they could see was it's red eyeshine.

Well, let's take a look at the following chart about what color certain animals have when the light hits there eyes.

From the chart, we see that the following animals have red eyeshine, Owls, Whip-poor-will, Black Bears, Opossums, Porcupine and even domestic cats sometimes have red eyeshine.

Now let's step back for a second, and think about each of these animals, they all tend to either be in trees, or climb in trees.

See, animals that reflect red eyeshine do indeed climb up in trees and go out on branches, even the porcupine climbs into trees.

If they are in trees, that could mean that they can get up over 10 feet from the ground, and the smaller animals can get out on branches away from the trees to appear as if they are in mid-air.

As researchers, we have to debunk everything we can, before we can even say it's "possibly" or "probably" a Bigfoot making the eyeshine, or whatever else we encounter.

Unless you can shine your flashlight on the animal making the eyeshine and confirm that it is a Bigfoot standing there, all you can do is assume what is making the eyeshine.  And we all know what assume means, "When you ASSUME means that you make an ass out of you and me".

The skeptics will and do tear you apart when you ASSUME anything in this field of research, you literally have to take the scientific approach, investigate your claim, try to debunk your claim, and when you have exhausted all avenues, then, and only then, say "possibly" or "probably".  Being absolutely definitive about anything will come back to bite you.

Anomalist's Books & Brews Bigfoot Speakers Feb. 25

As members of the MABRC, I know both Jim and Carl really well, they both know their stuff.  This will surely be a good event to attend.  

For tickets, go to https://www.eventbrite.com/e/presentations-by-jim-whitehead-and-carl-hartline-regarding-bigfoot-tickets-31575967569 

Starting your own Bigfoot Research Group.....Part 3

Wow, a lot of time has elapsed since part 2 of this series, and I apologize for the delay.

I was going to discuss how to find research areas, but I will hold off on that as it's own separate article.

Randy Savig wrote an excellent article last week about why you should go on an expedition, I would recommend you read that article too.

Let's discuss how to plan for an expedition for your group now.  For the MABRC, it's a lengthy process that begins with setting a date for the expedition and the location.  This is usually done several months in advance so that people can begin making plans to attend and begin putting the resources together to be used on an expedition.  There is also two different types of expeditions that the MABRC holds, one is the general expedition, where everyone that wants to attend may.  The other is the specialized expedition, in which, those members with special skill-sets are asked to go along and not opened to the general membership.

Always remember the following!!

MABRC expeditions on the whole, usually consist of from 10 to 25 people, and the detail that goes into planning an expedition ensures that the expedition goes smoothly, and that anyone can step up and take the lead knowing what the overall plan is.

Let's walk through the process.

A MABRC member wants to have an expedition in one of their research sites.  By default, they are now the expedition leader unless they ask someone else to be the leader.  They then post on the MABRC Message boards in the Expedition Planning area that they want to hold an expedition along with the preferred date for it.

Other MABRC members then post whether they can attend or not, and an idea is put together how many will be attending.

Now the planning can be done, based on perspective numbers of attendees.  

An Expedition Briefing Summary is then put together to distribute to all who will be attending, including those independent researchers and members of other groups who are invited to attend.

What does the Expedition Briefing Summary contain?

• Summary of the area
• Summary of the objective
• Sunrise/set data
• Moonrise/set data
• Moon phase data
• Weather outlook, must be updated starting 10 days prior to the expedition from weather.com and must be posted on the forum thread for the expedition planning.
• Site selection
• Background information for area, including any suspected Bigfoot activity.
• Topo maps/aerial photos of the target area.
• Primary objectives
• Secondary objectives
• Standby objectives
• Personnel requirements/skill sets needed along with role determinations for participants.
• Equipment requirements
• Expedition rules/land-owner rules.

Shown below is an expedition summary from Memorial Day 2013, as an example.

As you can see, it's better to contain too much information than not enough.  With this information, anyone in the group can step up and lead the expedition should the expedition leader get injured or is unavailable for whatever reason.

Within 10 days of the expedition, weather updates begin to be posted on the expedition planning thread, this gives the members of the expedition enough advance warning to pack the type of gear they will need.  For example, if rain is in the forecast, members can pack rain gear, bring tarps to hang up over the common areas where people will be sitting, and also to bring protective coverings for their equipment.

If the expedition is going to be a large one, with people coming in from different states, the MABRC will have an online meeting where they will discuss the expedition.  Some of the slides below show parts of a meeting.

As some will note, we cover over in more detail about the Briefing Summary, and discuss between all the attendees.  This is a good time for attendees to also bring forward anything they would like to try while on the expedition.

Once the whole plan is in place, we always refer back to Murphy's Law.

No matter the amount of planning will ever take into account every situation, but it will give you an edge and let you adapt and overcome most situations if you have a basic game plan in sight.

Most folks who have served in the real military, (Sorry Air Force :)  ) you know that most plans go out the window when the first shot is fired.  It's always safe to assume that this is true for Bigfoot Expeditions.  Just be able to adapt to the situations, but always try to stay true to the original plan.

One main rule that I have as the Executive Director of the MABRC, is that when I plan an expedition, I am always the first in, last out, sometimes there will be members who beat me there, or stay longer, but they know that it's on them when they are there without me.

Once the expedition is on-site, copies of the briefing summary are available for anyone who wants one, (usually most folks will print it out before arriving and bring it with them.) and maps of the overall area are where they can be viewed.

The MABRC also maintains a strict Zero-Trace policy where we make sure to pack out all of our trash, and return the camp area back to it's original state as much as possible.

I hope that this helps someone out on planning their own expeditions.  The MABRC has held over a hundred plus expeditions, not counting specialized expeditions, and this has worked for us many times over.

Why Is Going On Expeditions Important?

An article written by 

Randy "Rebelistic" Savig, MABRC Missouri State Director

I've been asked by a lot of folks why do you go on expeditions?  Don't you get enough activity in your own research area?  Why spend all that money and time to just sit around a campfire with other folks?

First lets talk about what an expedition is.  I've only attended expeditions that the MABRC (Mid-America Bigfoot Research Center) and APES (Arkansas Primate Evidence Society) put together so I can only talk about those experiences.  An Expedition is a gathering of new and seasoned researchers to compare methods, test hypothesis’s, and gather possible evidence of an unknown primate.  There is day hikes and deployment of equipment.  Night hikes are one that seems to be a favorite for a lot of researchers as there does appear to be more that activity after the sun goes down than when it is out.  There is a lot of knowledge shared about the different kinds of technology used in research, none of which is specifically designed for what we want them to do in the woods.  There is a big learning curve of how we can take off the shelf technology and adapt or modify it to withstand the weather and environmental conditions we use them in.  Being able to have a hands on experience with the different types of technology before spending money on it is worth the time in my opinion.  You can also learn a lot about what type is good and not so good and why.  What kind of evidence gathering technology can you add to what you already use?
   
We all know that evidence is hard to collect, let alone collaborate possible evidence with the different equipment to make the evidence stronger.  There are very few researchers out there that can afford ALL the different equipment and become proficient in its use.  One other thing is the review time needed to review for the possible evidence collected for each of the types of equipment.  And that is where expeditions can be so useful.  Most researchers seem to adopt and excel in the use of one or two types of technology and become proficient in it's use, limitations, and analyzing the data collected.   There are no experts in this field, but there are those who have taken the time to gain the knowledge to become somewhat of a "specialist" with the equipment they have to where they understand its use and to effectively analyze the data collected.  The first time I looked over the shoulder of someone with a thermal imager I thought we were surrounded by bigfoot as there were heat signatures everywhere.  Just to find out that they were rocks from being heated from the sun during the day.  With the small screens on them it is really hard for me to comprehend the sizes of the different heat signatures.  The same can be said for photograph and video cameras.  Without working with them a lot it is easy to see things in shadows that aren't really there.  With audio there is a whole lot of headphone time to try and identify possible sounds with the distortions that happen with audio in the woods. I know for me I've come away from a 3 day expedition with 36+ hours of audio from each of the 5 audio recorder setups I deployed that expedition to review.  It takes a lot of time to listen to it and compare notes of what happened on the other recorders for the same time periods.  The fun in the woods is always less than the time needed after the woods.

During expeditions you can bring together all the "specialists" that know the technology they are proficient with that can lead to some of the best evidence collection.  For me I think the ideal scenario would be to have several pieces of equipment recording the same event to collaborate each of the other's.  Lets take a hypothetic situation.  Lets say a possible bigfoot is moving to the northeast of camp.  Someone sees the movement.  A camp audio recorder is running and records the movement.  Someone with thermal experience sees a heat signature and records it.  Someone with night vision experience also sees it and is recording it's movement.   Then someone with video experience gets the camera ready.  Everyone else at camp gets their brightest flashlights ready.  When the thermal and night vison folks gives the go, all lights light up the subject so that you have four pieces of equipment recording it and what it does that is backed up with multiple eye witnesses.  That would be the ideal collaboration of evidence and make a very strong case to help prove it does exist to the scientific establishment.  This type of thing is not possible if you don't have the proper equipment and people in one place as no one piece of technology will ever prove the existence.

Expeditions are also a great place to expand your knowledge.  Take tracking for instance.  I am not a very good tracker, but there are those that are good at it that are always willing to share what they know with you so you can improve your research abilities.  The more eyes, ears, and knowledge you have the more likely you are to be able to collect evidence because you have a lot of ideas from folks with experience with the different equipment of where to set up for the best chances of evidence collection.  Experience counts a lot, but so does new ideas so nothing is off the table when it comes to expeditions.  Some of the recent experiments that has found to be beneficial that were tested during expeditions are The Silent Hills Project that showed how far knocks and vocals can be heard in woods, and The Ghost Post that was able to verify where a travel route when following people out of the woods at night in a researcher’s area.  None of this could be done without a group of people working together to try and figure out what is actually happening.  This is also a time where researchers can push the envelope they wouldn't normally do as they know there is others there that have their back.  If the expedition is at new place to be explored as to whether it would be a productive area of research or from a possible sighting, the more boots and equipment on the ground can give a better chance of getting possible evidence and answering that question.  Having an expedition in a researcher's area can give data to the researcher of where he/she can spend more of their time to better gather possible evidence with the time they have for researching. It is also a great way for a researcher to get a lot of data that would take them months to get if they researched it by themselves.

For myself, working with audio I find it very beneficial to compare possible vocals from other areas with what I collect in my own area.  That way I can try and figure out if vocals change with the seasons, better identify patterns, and try to figure out what the context of the vocals is and why they may be using them.  For me the more the data the better the understanding of them we can get.  Collaborating evidence with the different kinds of technology we use in the woods make it easier it is to verify that there is something in the woods!  We all like to hear the stories of the experiences a researcher or witness has in the woods.  That is a cool stuff to hear.  But if there is collected audio of the vocals they heard during the experience it puts more weight to the experience and is even better in proving the experience.  And if there is pictures, video, or a thermal with the audio and experience now it comes alive and there is less to dispute of the authenticity of the experience.  Even if the subject's vocals, video, and thermal turns out to be a known animal it does verify the experience and all the parties can learn from the collected evidence on what to listen or look for if it happens again at a later time.  And who knows it may help prove that a thought to be exterminated or extinct animal that is alive and well.  No that isn't the target species that we are looking for but real interesting data none the less.  It also helps a bunch to know what known critters are there as a way of knowing what resources in the area that might help sustain a bigfoot. 

If you are curious in an expedition with any group out there you should first do your homework.  Look at the groups procedures and protocols when it comes to expeditions.  I avoid expeditions that charges money when there a lots of groups who don't charge.  Don't be afraid to ask questions about how a group does expeditions.  It is our hard earned money getting us there and the expenses of being in the woods so I want as much of a bang for my buck as I can get.  I've heard horror stories of people being charged to go on expeditions and have it cancelled for whatever reason and losing their money or going to an expedition site to find it was empty and no one there.  Look for a group that has posted results of their past expeditions.  Was there new stuff being tried and what were the results?  What possible evidence have they found?  Is there more than one kind of evidence being collected?  Ask people that attended an expedition from the group you are interested in about their experiences when they attended.  Was it all hype or a spooky story telling session rather than boots on the ground and actual fieldwork?  Did attending the expedition help with their personal research?    Expeditions should be a learning experience for newbies and well as the old-timers.  If it isn't why spend the time and money to go?

I really enjoy participating in expeditions and go on them whenever I get a chance.  It can be a very fun and fulfilling time for you so I’d say give them a try.