All Activity

This stream auto-updates   

  1. Today
  2. And folks wonder why I discount paleoanthropology. It used to be 10,000 years ago. Then it moved to 15,000 years ago as they got with paleoclimatologists. But in South America, they found ruins and evidence that pushed it to 30,000 years ago - kicking and screaming the whole way. And I would draw criticism when I'd mention the Native Americans/American Indians had pushed off those before them. Now? A hundred thousand years ago? Next thing, the crappy "Out of Africa" narrative will be blown out of the water.
  3. No fire. Maybe they know an old trick to keep a baby happy and stop crying. You simply put a cantankerous baby lengthwise on your arm, kind of like you were going to let the little feller "fly" like Superman. They'll shut up immediately - and start taking in everything in front of them. Spread your hand across their chest, angle them up about 15-30 degrees, and that's how you can keep one quiet. Amazed at the number of parents who don't know that trick.
  4. Here is another site, although they don't have a sooty grouse recording. http://www.enature.com/birding/audio.asp
  5. Sooty Grouse are entertaining until they call back and forth across a watershed................all night. Not to be outdone by the Barred Owls.....all night long. Those who need help identifying a 'wildlife noise' can go online to The Cornell Lab of Ornithology & Macaulay Library.
  6. Yesterday
  7. I had some familiarity with these grouse in the Colonel Bob Wilderness a few years back, it was extremely difficult to localize the ridges and such where the sounds were coming from but they communicated across river valleys there quite easily. Quite entertaining but so frequent they began to get on my nerves after awhile. Carlos was the King of Percussion for sure
  8. The SSR’s Ohio color data (1st column) with my NH/ME/eastern Canada color data (2nd column) Ohio NH/ME/Can (east) Total 141 Total 126 White/Grey/Yellow 18 (13%) 7 (5.5%)(Gray only) Black 21 (15%) 18 (14%) Brown 35 (25%) 10 (8%) Dark Brown 14 (10%) 7 (5.5%) “Dark” 19 (13%) 8 (6.5%) Cinnamon 3 ( 2%) 3 (2.5%) No color provided 31 (22%) 73 (58%)
  9. Hi Bobby, Thought I’d read through this thread and see how data from New Hampshire, Maine, and eastern Canada (126 possible encounters reported) stacked up against some of the SSR stats. Of course, the SSR and my database use different things, so there are some “apples-to-oranges” comparisons here. I first looked at moon phase data. 32 encounters, or roughly 25% of the total, provided either a definite description of the moon phase or enough information to determine same. I’ve now divided up each lunar cycle into 10 periods three days in length (for those who need to visualize this, see a lunar calendar for October 2016, which started and ended on a new moon). These 32 encounters occurred: 3 - the night of the new moon, + 2 nights after the new moon 7 - waxing crescent moon (3-5 nights after the new moon) 2 - waxing gibbous moon (9-11 nights after the new moon) 4 - the last three days before the full moon 4 - the night of the full moon and two nights afterwards 3 - Nights 3-5 after the full moon 3 - Two nights before, and the night of, the quarter moon 4 - three nights after the waning quarter moon 2 - the last three nights before the next new moon. I did not realize this until just now, but fully 50% of encounters where the moon phase can be identified occurred on the darkest 12 nights of the lunar cycle. 42 encounters involved some type of vocalization; of these, 22 (or just over ½) involved an encounter where the witness heard something, but did not see anything. Of those 22 encounters, only 6 are from the fall; the easy majority (9) are from the summer months. However, 18 of 22, or 82%, are during dusk through dawn. Just going across the board for this area (not breaking it out seasonally), 36 (or 29%) of the encounters occurred when the witness was traveling (driving, walking, biking) in some way along a road. These encounters are split 50/50 between daylight hours and dusk-dawn. I’ll look at, and add, some more stats later.
  10. I do not pay attention to wood knock type sounds in the Western Washington areas where I research. I have books about animals and birds to assist me with my animal inventory. Several bird books have been very helpful. Years ago, I was hiking up a snow covered road to do a seasonal altitude check at a track way site. I was followed by 'wood knock type' sounds coming from behind and above me. A repetition rate of 5 'knocks' was repeated with a pause between sessions. The repetition was precise and seemed mechanical in the accuracy. This followed me up the road. I could not see the emitter. Too much snow for pursuit. This happened repeatedly. When all the snow had melted, I was at my relic track way and the 'emitter' visited me. A Sooty Grouse (then a Blue Grouse) dropped out of a pine tree like a dying 'Hail Mary' pass and landed several feet away from me. Interesting bird. A game bird that is very tame. The Sooty Grouse makes a series of deep 'hoots' that are loud and can be heard about 1/2 mile away. Older bird books describe the Sooty ( Blue ) Grouse as being 'ventriloqual'. However, ventriloquism is a human entertainment term and modern texts describe the vocalizations of the Sooty Grouse as 'difficult to locate'. The 'hoots' are loud and sound like wood on wood. If I heard he Dusky Grouse when I was in Eastern Washington I was not aware of the whoot. The Dusky Grouse makes single 'whoot' when they are displaying to a female. The whoot can be heard from a mile away. If you do not have eyes on the emitter, then you are guessing. My 'inventory' research book selection covers birds, mammals, reptiles, amphibians, fishes, insects and clouds. A lot of time can be consumed trying to identify a vocalization/noise. I have vocalizations that are older than 10 years that I can't identify. FYI: Santana is the Father of Wood Knocking
  11. Swaying back to Hiflier's topic (not that the other stuff isn't interesting), how far does Bigfoot travel? First observation – there have been possible encounters in the northeast United States and eastern Canada since at least 1650. However, when broken out by the time frames I use and map (pre-1900, 1900-1959, and then by decades) , the encounters always peter out going into New Hampshire, Maine, and eastern Canada. In other words, no matter how many encounters there are in that area, they are tailing off from the rest of New England and Pennsylvania to the south. Obviously, some of this has to do with the lower number of humans in this area. However, I would also suggest that the St. Lawrence River and Great Lakes provide a significant barrier to travel that affects the number of encounters. (NOTE f/those newcomers - in addition to my database, I independently plot each encounter on Google Earth.) Second observation, while agreeing w/Bobby O’s thoughts on the folly of trying to track “individual” Bigfoot based on reported height/hair color/etc., I believe (and I know Bobby does) that value remains in looking at this information. For example, out of 163 Bigfoot encounters reported from New Hampshire north into eastern Canada, nine (9) were described as gray, or with some gray. To me, the temporal distribution of these are interesting. It is: 1930s – 1951 – 1979 – 1987 – 1997 – 2004 – 2006 x2 – 2007 Is this indicative of older and weaker individuals being forced from the better feeding grounds? Last observation for now. While I haven’t started vetting the New Hampshire-Maine-eastern Canada data for patterns, I’ve noted in other threads that, at least in the northeast, there is a pattern of encounters in one area followed by a lull followed by a new group years later in a new, distant area. This is suggestive of checkerboard sustenance farming practice that I understand is used by aboriginal groups in the South American rain-forest and other areas. This would make sense if a family group used up an area, relocated outside of the northeast, and then moved back years later. Not sure if its instinct or planned at a rudimentary level, but I believe two things. First, it makes biological sense. Second, it is arguably not logical that hoaxers fabricating encounters or random miss-identifications of bear, elk, and moose would magically fall outside of a normal random distribution.
  12. I will defer to others as to your opinion on whether this is interesting or not. Out of 985 Bigfoot encounters in the northeast and eastern Canada, 42 involve encounters with a juvenile either alone or accompanied. There is a single encounter with what may have been a pregnant Bigfoot (shortest of three, belly visibly distended) which occurred in January. Beyond that, no juvenile Bigfoot has ever been encountered in the winter months (Dec - Feb). There are no credible reports of an infant Bigfoot being seen at any time. In the spring (Mar - May), juveniles are more likely to be encountered w/an adult (8 encounters) than on their own (4 encounters). In the summer (Jun - Aug), juveniles were accompanied by adults 7 times, and encountered on their own 11 times. In the fall (Sep - Nov), juveniles are again more likely to be encountered with an adult (9 encounters) than on their own (7 encounters). This strikes me as having a relatively straightforward biological explanation. (Edited to add paragraph breaks for clarity)
  13. Presumably, the legal team for Animal Planet dotted those t's and crossed those i's before letting the Finding Bigfoot crew step on a plane to wherever they were filming. I'm relatively confident that the in-house corporate lawyers or any entertainment law firms that Animal Planet hired would be familiar with all of the ins and outs of the permitting process. Now, this doesn't necessarily apply to BFRO expeditions but hopefully they know about this and comply. The issue wouldn't be whether the group was "research oriented," it would be whether the applicant was a for profit or not for profit entity, as defined by state and Federal law. So, if what I've heard is true about some organizations being incorporated or established as any for profit entity, it wouldn't matter if they were taking the money to do research. If they are properly organized, registered, and functioning as a not for profit entity, then they may get a break on the fees.
  14. Last week
  15. Yep. They would probably be amazed at how good the costume looks and remark on that to each other. Look at that, the costume maker must have knowledge of biology since the muscles show through. After all being men and women of science they appreciate technology.
  16. Welcome back LCB! If I wanted to make the drive North from Chicago to poke around some in June, where would you point me to? Or, do you have a sense of where they might be hanging around in May? I know I want to go check out the Starved Rock area in the near future, but I'm also torn about spending my squatching time in the Chicago vicinity, because it seems like Wisconsin and Michigan just have such better camping...
  17. Absolutely I just watched it!! I think it's probably a fake.....a very clear one at that! But that's just my opinion! It's not a blobsquatch, it's not a bear, it's not a human. It's a Bigfoot with a baby. There is absolutely NO clarity issue at all. I can immediately see that on the film. The PGF is the most documented and well known film site for a Bigfoot in the world....so what!!?? How does it's "authenticity" help Patty be real in the eyes of science!!?? It DOESNT. Dude I'm sooooooo not shifty, I have been beating the type specimen drum for so long and so loud on this forum....your way off mark. All ONE person has to do is pick up a rifle instead of a camera.....you want clarity? How does 600 lbs of DNA testable physical evidence sound to you? That's clear. That's stick a fork in it clear. And Lastly.....let's just say for a second a government agency gets really really clear photoage of a Bigfoot with a camera trap? How do they vouch for it's authenticity? I promise you the first thing the Biologists think if they ever encountered Bigfoot on their film? Is that they were being punked.
  18. What does LFTBM have to do with the mama Bigfoot video? I don't see any connection.
  19. I'm fully aware of memory retention and its limits too, i can assure you, i just completed the toughest memory retention geography test on the planet. Do/Did i write down info on every Sasquatch video i watch ? Absolutely not. Can anyone back me up on this ? I have no idea. Is there anything in the BFF Archives about this ? I don't know, have a look. Anyone willing to check ? Not me, i couldn't care less if anyone believes what i'm saying or not, i'm just telling you that the first time i saw that video it was purported, by whoever and wherever the video was being put out there, to be from the Olympic Peninsula and i know it was well before LFTBM came out for sure. I take an interest in all WA related Sasquatch bits and bobs and this one for some reason, stuck. If you're so interested in this for whatever reason, i'm surprised you're asking if there are others willing to spend their own time finding x and y for you. That's not really how it works. In the words of my great late Nan, "Get off your **** and do it yourself."..;)
  20. Aren't both clarity and authenticity important? I take it that your only research into this video is just watching it... I like it that the video is pretty clear but it is simply not as clear as you suggest. Please don't lecture me about shifting gears/goalposts/whatever when you are being plenty shifty yourself...
  21. Night Walker, Only a body will do, I don't care about video. But dont complain about clarity, and then shift gears to authenticity, when you don't like the fact the video is pretty clear. Your proving my point for me. But please continue on discussing the really really super duper crystal clear video in which the unknown creature acts in a really super duper correct way that you would expect an unknown creature to act like......so you will be really really convinced Bigfoot is real.
  22. Norse – I was simply demonstrating that your previous claim (ie “it sure in the heck is CLEAR enough to be on par with any trail camera video the CCP could manage to capture”) was not quite as accurate as you made out... Bigfoot being filmed anonymously and then posted on YouTube is not usually something to get excited about. However, if you are personally convinced by this video then what efforts have you made to confirm its authenticity? I’d hate to think that you set the bar for evidence that low or that this current discussion has thus far uncovered more than you… Dmaker – we are concerned with LFTBM only as a kind of date-stamp to try to work out when the Mama&BabyBigfoot video first surfaced… Airdale – the earliest internet chatter I can find about this video is Feb 5, 2013: Clear Video of Bigfoot Filmed During Independence Day? According to experts, the suit presented in this video is only 1 percent away from the Patterson-Gimlin creature. Looks real enough to pass the ole smello-meter in our opinion. Check out the part where it's walking around with a baby. Category: Entertainment Licence: Standard YouTube Licence www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8zv4WCCtrY The next day (Feb 6, 2013) the blog discussing the video claims that it originally surfaced in 2010. Leroy Blevins was blamed for hoax but he vehemently denied it and, in turn, blamed FBFB for creating the hoax… http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com.au/2013/02/who-really-filmed-this-clear-video.html Can anyone back you up on this? Did you write anything down about it at the time? Is there anything in the original BFF archives that mention it? Anyone willing and able to check? I know enough about how memory works to not trust it completely without more definite confirmation – not even my own memories. Confidence in the accuracy of one’s own particular memory is, unfortunately, not a good predictor of its actual accuracy… YouTube was created in Feb 2005 and Google bought it in Nov 2006… https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YouTube
  23. Just thought that the forums needed a bit of spicing up, looks pretty dead around here. I have been on a nice hiatus over the last few months, allowed me some time to put life issues in better perspective and order. Still in the hiatus mode, in regards to actively engaging bigfoot community, but I always am looking into things concerning the topic and listening to my favorite podcasts with eyewitness encounters. It does not have to be all consuming to be interesting and engaging. When I keep it at arms length I feel like I have a little say so over my life, well at least till June when I know they will most likely be back in my area for a time, and then I will be on high alert. If I don't check back in till fall don't be surprised, but I will catch up then, basically should be back in the recording mode come June. There are the naysayers to investigating these creatures, and those who will doubt your experiences, simply let that roll off you. I am taking a new approach to finding prints near my house, focusing on any elevated terrain, however so much. It was advice I received from someone I trust concerning the method of tracking them, I did not ever give that much thought, but even in a flatter place the terrain can lend itself to better vantage points and travel routes away from the softer lowland ground like my marsh. Higher ground in my case is about 20-30 foot changes, but soil types change with those elevation differences. Take care and squatch on....if anything breaks in June I will update....
  24. Maybe we don't need bones or a body. Just saw this today. Scientists say they've figured out a way to extract tiny traces of ancient human DNA from dirt in caves that lack skeletal remains. The technique could be valuable for reconstructing human evolutionary history, according to the study published Thursday in the journal Science. That's because fossilized bones, currently the main source of ancient DNA, are scarce even at sites where circumstantial evidence points to a prehistoric human presence. "There are many caves where stone tools are found but no bones," said Matthias Meyer, a geneticist at the Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, Germany, who co-authored the study. The researchers collected 85 sediment samples from seven caves in Europe and Russia that humans are known to have entered or even lived in between 14,000 and 550,000 years ago. By refining a method previously used to find plant and animal DNA, they were able to search specifically for genetic material belonging to ancient humans and other mammals. Scientists focused on mitochondrial DNA, which is passed down the maternal line, because it is particularly suited to telling apart closely related species. And by analyzing damaged molecules they were able to separate ancient genetic material from any contamination left behind by modern visitors The researchers found evidence of 12 mammal families including extinct species such as woolly mammoth, woolly rhinoceros, cave bear and cave hyena. By further enriching the samples for human-like DNA, however, the scientists were able to detect genetic traces of Denisovans — a mysterious lineage of ancient humans first discovered in a cave in Siberia — and Neanderthals from samples taken at four sites. Crucially, one of the sites where they discovered Neanderthal DNA was a cave in Belgium, known as Trou Al'Wesse, where no human bones had ever been found, though stone artefacts and animal bones with cut marks strongly suggested people had visited it. Eske Willerslev, who helped pioneer the search for DNA in sediment but wasn't involved in the latest research, said the new study was an interesting step, but cautioned that it's difficult to determine how old sediment samples found in caves are. "In general (it) is very disturbed and unless you can show that's not the case you have no idea of the date of the findings," said Willerslev, an evolutionary geneticist at the University of Copenhagen, Denmark. Meyer said the new method greatly increases the number of sites where archaeologists will be able to find genetic evidence to help fill gaps in the history of human evolution and migration, such as how widespread Neanderthal populations were and which stone tools they were able to make. Scientists may also be able to greatly expand their limited knowledge of the Denisovans, whose DNA can still be found in Melanesians and Aboriginal Australians today, by using the new procedure. "In principle, every cave where there's evidence of human activity now offers this possibility," Meyer told The Associated Press. ___ Follow Frank Jordans on Twitter at http://www.twitter.com/wirereporter YOU MIGHT LIKE Police: Captive Woman Found Crying In Pit In Neighbor's Shed 18 hours ago ESPN Laying Off 100 Broadcasters, Writers As Viewers Dwindle 16 hours ago Ex-Congresswoman Accused Of Living Large On Charity Funds 6 hours ago Trump Tax Plan Could Be Good News For Many, Bad For Deficit 18 hours ago California Dad Of Missing 5-Year-Old Boy Released From Jail 1 day ago Customer Support CenturyLink.com Privacy Policy Internet Terms and Conditions About Our Ads About CenturyLink Ad Choices Legal Notices Feedback Copyright ©2017 CenturyLink
  25. If you know there are Bigfoot in an area, would you not expect these large warm-blooded creatures to provide tangible evidence of their existence? Certainly, with this new type of testing, any Bigfoot frolicking in a river, porpoising for a tasty salmon lunch, is eventually going to be detected in a DNA sampling. Somewhere upstream a Bigfoot has waded in a river, having some skin flakes fall off on the gravel bottom, only to be collected downstream. http://e360.yale.edu/features/edna-rivers-fish-bull-trout-forest-service Just another study with no Bigfoot discovered
  26. Why are we concerned about LFTBM? The suit used in the mama bigfoot video does not look like the one used in LFTBM. The image that Night Walker posted does not claim to be from the mama bigfoot video. It also has a ufo in it. Note the lack of ufo in the mama bigfoot video. I don't see any connection between LFTBM and the mama bigfoot video.
  27. The "Mother and Baby Bigfoot" video was originally called the "4th of July" video and has been out for three or four years. I don't recall ever seeing any attribution or locale listed. I've been a member since February of '13 and it definitely showed up after that. I'm sure it has been analyzed at length elsewhere in the Forum though my search drew a blank, but YouTube has it, showing it was first published on 3\17\13 by thebigfootreport.com:
  28. Definitely NW, well it was definitely purported to be from the Olympic Peninsula when I first saw it. Can't be certain of the year's however but certainly before LFTBM came out, most definitely. I think it could most definitely be 10 years back I first saw that vid. I have a geeky, warped ability to remember certain things like this where this subject is concerned for some reason..;) The original video I saw had it titled as such if I remember right, or at least in the description of the video. Possibly YouTube but I can't recall for sure.
  1. Load more activity