The Squatch Watchers New Web Series Promises To Be Different From Finding Bigfoot

If you're one of those people frustrated with "Finding Bigfoot" not ever finding anything, perhaps these newcomers may be able to satisfy your hunger for Bigfoot evidence. The Squatch Watchers is a web series about a team of Bigfoot believers searching for the elusive beast -- hoping they'll be the first to provide proof. According producers of the show, "no rock will be left undisturbed" until they declare an area is free of any Bigfoot. They're currently running a Kickstarter campaign and if you want to be included in the credits, check out their page here:

The trailers are below:

So, wait? Is this fictional?

No! The Squatch Watchers are comprised of real people and the series will document our search for Bigfoot. The first season will comprise of five episodes with a running time of around ten minutes each. Each episode begins with the team arriving in a new area of California and extensively searching it for any sign of Sasquatch. Local residents will be interviewed; scientists will be consulted to ensure the validity of this search. No rock will be left undisturbed until we declare an area is free of any Bigfoot.

Why are you looking for Bigfoot? Aren’t there TV Shows that do that?

We’re all big believers in Bigfoot. Sadly, television is doing a poor job of actually performing a real search. Most “monster” shows will show up in an area, and then leave that area without finding anything or even making any determination at all! WE WILL NEVER DO THAT.

We’re not a television show that wants to keep the mystery going. We want to solve it. Now, this doesn’t mean that the show will be boring. No sir! We are internet comedians after all. Each episode will be the perfect 50/50 mixture of comedy and actual Bigfoot hunting.

[via KickStarter]


  1. Replies
    1. You don't have it. Therefore, that is proof positive that bigfoot exists.


    2. You not having THE or A or any remotely close Patty suit and skeptards flunking their asses all the way from 1967 to 2013 in trying to replicate Patty means there is some good evidence in the film.

      It doesn't instantly mean bigfoot exists or doesn't exist. It means there is some good evidence in the film in favor of Patty not being a human in costume.

      It also means there is some good evidence in the film that it isn't a hoax.

      Now that I've explained that to you, you maybe will stop twisting Joe's words, right?

      Or do I need to explain it Yeti again?

      Flunking your asses all over hell's creation for four and a half decades isn't exactly helping your cause or doing much for your reputation.

    3. The PGF is a guy in a costume.

      If you can't see that I can't help you.

    4. You think your bothering Joe, your not. He enjoys tearing into the anonymous skeptards and has free time and computer access to achieve his goal.

      The people posting here trying to start arguments are doing it for themselves. Its anonymous bullying and they think they feel better after, sad thing is youll never stop trolling. And We know that. You can make all your empty claims like "monkey in suit" "if you cant see its fake i cant help you" come one now. If you werent posting anonymously we know you wouldnt say half the dumb ignorant comments you make. Its easy to post without being held accountable for your words. If that gets you off, it truly is sad.

      Deep down you all have some passion for Bigfoot, or you wouldnt be here at all or know this site exists.

    5. "Charles Bronson" is code for Dr. Johnson.

    6. You're an idiot.

      Google Charles Bronson you fool. Its obviously not my real name. The Dr has his own name and opinions. You however are an anonymous loser with nothing to do but troll.

    7. yo anon 827
      u ignant daw

    8. Chuck, I'll ask it one more time:

      You said countless linguistics experts have listened to the Sierra Sounds.

      Then you claim you saw them all on bigfoot documentaries and movies.

      I've searched for days and I can't find a shred of evidence that verify your claim. I've seen most of the documentaries and movies about the subject as well and I still can't find a shred of what you claim.

      It's not about ruffling feathers or anything like that, all I want is you to either admit you made the claim up or to back up your claim.

      It's simple.

      Not the Nelson isn't qualified in his field or is lying, it's the fact that even the #1 person in their respective field needs their claims, especially something as big as Nelson's claim, checked and rechecked.

      So, please, back up your claims with proof or admit you fabricated it all.

    9. I replied in another post, said I must have misspoke.

      What else do you want from me? Just cause I have a name you can call out you are trying to make some useless point.

      I didnt mean "countless" I should have carefully selected my words, next time I will care more for anons who nit pick my words and try to make a mountain out of a molehill. I can't respect an argument about a sentence I wrote that I have already retracted. That is the end of it. I misspoke and do not care.

      I still think highly of Nelson regardless of Joe Rogan or anyone else.

      Good day sir

    10. Mountain out of a molehill? I don't think claiming the Sierra Sounds is Sasquatch language and saying countless experts have verified such is a molehill. Joe himself has said how profound the subject is.

      You misspoke or you just rattled off a huge claim to be on Joe's side?

      I don't have a side between you footers and the JREF posters, I'm my own man.

      It's not because you have an account either, I call out crap whether its anon or an account.

      Forgive me for missing your last post, I didn't see it. Your poss get lost in the fray when Joe is putting words in my mouth in his every post.

      It's not that you're a bad guy. You just said something that wasn't true and passed it off as fact. That garbage doesn't fly with me.

      I don't have a problem with Nelson or his claims, I just don't believe something, no matter how great the expert is, until his own work is peer reviewed and proven true.

    11. I said GOOD DAY SIR!

      Seriously there is nothing to argue about. I know what I said and I said it is not what I meant. The End.

      You are not going around calling out every dumb comment an anon makes nor are you even using a signature for anyone to identify you. at least MMG and ALL CAPS GUY have some way to be identified. You can go around picking arguments but it will be treated with little to no respect unless someone can actually respond to someone besides Anon#? I got called out because you were heated and I am a target by having a name. I didnt mean what I said exactly so I said sorry I misspoke. Not good enough you insist I am rattling off huge claims. Accept what I said or dont, I dont give a flying fuck.
      Sometimes when I am posting I am not even sober or even remember what article it is in. I really could care less. I have a life, career and hobbies. The only reason I got a first post the other night is because I am up with my newborn baby. So find a real argument worth debating with me and I will be happy to respond, but that wont happen you'll just keep stirring your pot till your satisfied and move on to another persona of anonymity.

    12. You've been arguing with The Rodfather. It's just too much of a feat when posting from a mobile to phrase everything in the third.

      You sure do have your panties in a bunch, Chuck.

    13. My panties are fine, this dude or you or whoever has their panties so far up their ass its ridiculous. Get over it whoever you are. I have moved on.

    14. Rodfather would move on too if he got caught fabricating historic claims too.

    15. Ok now your the Rodfather, sure all of a sudden you are someone identifiable. Believable...

      fabricating historic claims? Thats quite a claim there yourself bud. I have an idea:
      Go back and look at what I wrote, shine it up reeeaaaal nice and stick it strait up your candy ass.

    16. I've always been the Rodfather, always. How about this -- Shawn, is my IP address consistent with the posts The Rodfather makes? I can assure you that I am the myth himself.

      Which post would that be? The one where you said 'countless experts' have listened to the Sierra Sounds, the one where you said you drinking and misspoke, or the one where you said you were up with a newborn?

    17. Its easy to read my posts, whoever you are. I have a name to identify me and a picture that isnt a grey head on a blue background. So finding yours might be a little bit more difficult cause it gets lost in the shuffle.

      How about this -- Shawn, check all the anonymous IP address in this site! YeaH! he is totally going to go through a bunch of nonsense in the comments to prove YOUR nonsense point. Get real troll.

      You can be the Rodfather when you choose and be serious anonymous guy whos out to prove nothing on your off time nobody cares, not Shawn, not me, nobody. You are hiding behind not being the Rodfather and now your out to prove it? You have an identity crisis going on it seems, or maybe some serious self esteem issues. Either way man, none of this seems healthy. You are a troll, call yourself what you want but that is what you are to the rest of us.

      Now I will say it the final time because my baby just ate and fell asleep finally. GOOD DAY SIR!

    18. i liked you better rodfather wen you spoke in 3rd person not as good at the big boy talk

    19. He doesn't have to check them all, you dunce, all it takes is one glance at a prior post to see that I ain't lying.

      I proved that you lied and not one 'expert' outside of Scott Nelson has analyzed the Sierra Sounds.

      I'm an instigator, and a damn good one at that, it's a key factor in digging for the truth.

      This just accepts the claims of one retired man as fact with absolutely no peer reviews! ...nah just playin'! That'd be the day!

    20. Anon12:26, you liked it when the Rodfather spoke in the third and was picking out flaws in the JREF buttpluggers arguments about PGF along with Joe.

      Now he picks out something in the bleever side and stopped using the third person phrasing.

      Honestly, if I didn't post 95% from my iPhone then I'd do it more. It's difficult to be on the go and phrase stuff that way.

    21. Charles Bronson needs a nap. By the way, most of your movies suck and so does your acting ability.

    22. To the clown who calls himself the 'rodfather'...

      Don't make me laugh... I think we have established that the only thing you want to rod is a ex-UFC commentator. Man up and shut up you little pussy, it's easy to abuse some anonymously you scared little girl.

      Anon 12:35...

      Like I have stated above; laughably, you do not have to be a linguistics expert to listen to what is in front, you do however have to be a cryptolinguist to have the necessary tools to transcribe it. Out of the tens of thousands, MAYBE MILLIONS of people to have heard these sounds, it would have taken someone with the equivalent expertise as Scott, seconds to come to a counter claim if it was the case. Though I agree that in an ideal world all sources of Bigfoot evidence should be peer reviewed and backed up with a second opinion, it is not realistic to the few people willing to put their reputations on the line; hence the reason why so many researchers apply their expertise after their retirements. With the dogma surrounding this subject, along with the wider negative agendas (like you have sir) you cannot perceive Scott as a pioneer as opposed to a loan theorist. You obviously have not listened to his work, but I don't expect you to and even if you did, I wouldn't expect you to deliver an honest evaluation of it because you are more concerned with having the last work with me.

      I say bollocks to your peer reviewing. We have seen the 'peer review' of Melba's work and seen how far that got her. No mainstream science would give this subject the first bit of legitimate time so keep your peer reviews to yourself. It's a clever attempt at keeping honest research in check; you know this subject can't get recognition from dogmatic science yet you question why it is not peer reviewed? Cheap and obvious. I would rather stay in the realms of 'pseudo-science' until Sykes delivers and sticks two finger up to your dogmatic, ignorant view of the subject.

      You snaked in and out of calling Scott a hack and then avoided me schooling you until you could do no more and now sir; I have schooled you again. Please, please, please respond... I can go all year and really enjoy outlining how much of a typical contradictive, desperate skeptic you are.


    23. daaaaaang joe dropped da beat on dat nicca!

  2. ...They found someone more retarded looking than BOBO..(sigh...)

  3. This show will be different than Finding Bigfoot. Does that mean they will actually find a bigfoot.

    1. It must mean they're going to find nothing... and like it

  4. This line taken from the article pretty much says all that you need to know:

    "We are internet comedians after all. Each episode will be the perfect 50/50 mixture of comedy and actual Bigfoot hunting."

    1. Dam it! I was hoping for a 60/40 mixture. Forget this ass clown show now.

  5. THEY need A SHOW THAT STARS MELISSA H,OR H MAY, that would be awsome ..

    1. And Emmanuel "Webster" Lewis. That would be so awesome.

  6. That DWA is a real douchebag.

  7. they may not find bigfoot but that one guy really needs to find a barber !

    1. Looks like he did, just not a good one haha

  8. i think i could watch it believe it or not haha

  9. Now you guy's have really done it... you chased away little Charlie Bronson, shame on you... hehehe

    1. Shawn, is this the Rodfather? ^^ I wouldnt be surprised if it were haha

    2. Shawn can you go through all my posts to prove that I AM THE REAL SHAWN OF BFE!?! I SWEAR I AM

  10. F'n Idiots, don't you have anything better to do? You make us all look bad, grow the F up! Can't you have a decent talk instead these stupid circle jerks?

  11. Oh, so it's going to be credible?

  12. Seriously, look at the idiot, and he thinks he's so fucking cool


Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Samurai Chatter: Have you used it in the field?

Bigfoot injured by a forest fire was taken away and hidden by the authorities, not even Robert Lindsay can top this story