• Announcements

    • masterbarber

      Help Support the BFF   09/08/2016

      Help Support the BFF by purchasing a premium membership. Premium members are directly supporting our forum and our ability to keep it up and running. Without this vital resource and our all volunteer staff, we would not be able to sustain a web presence. The annual access fee allows us to maintain server space, renew software subscriptions, purchase new apps that benefit our members or ease efforts for staff and so forth.   The cost is $20.00 (US) per year- per membership, about $1.66 per month. In the future, an alternative may be a members only forum, as a way to continue the forum's funding source. I'm sure most of us would prefer that not be the case. If you are currently enjoying the content you read here then I urge you to Thank the Premium Members and to consider joining in support of the BFF. It's the only way we will continue to provide the current level of content access.    Please follow the below link for all the details: http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/30015-important-news-premium-access-memberships-are-now-available/   Best Regards, masterbarber Director, BFF

Trogluddite

Sésquac
  • Content count

    904
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

197 Outstanding!

About Trogluddite

  • Rank
    Chiye-tanka

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    psu72521@aol.com
  • Have you ever had an encounter with a sasquatch-like creature?
    No

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Interests
    Varied; one of them is now Bigfoot. I knew about him in the 70's from "In Search Of," The 6 Million Dollar Man," and other TV shows. I completely forgot about him from the 1980s until about 2009 or 2010, when I saw Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science, Monster Quest, and similar shows. My current descent into madness (my wife's words) followed.

    Also, I adopted my screen name circa 2001 and before I had any interest in Bigfoot. It is a political commentary, as is my e-mail address.

Recent Profile Visitors

653 profile views
  1. I took out the photo to save space, but I believe that photo is misleading. I know we're not the idyllic open skies of out west, were you can walk (drive?) for days and not see another person, but there are plenty of places where you can go and get lots of space and darkness in the east. The other factor is human activity. My outdoor lights stay on all night, but at 3:00 AM, bigfoot could walk up to the front door, moon the house, and be gone without being seen. I'm willing to bet that I could (back in my younger years) infiltrate or exfiltrate 85 % of the suburbs and rural areas if I moved out during the late night.
  2. I'm glad you qualified that ... perhaps its unfair, but some of the people who have written books claiming to be habituators have given the group a bad name. I agree that there are inherent problems in trying to figure out movement patterns from just using the reports, but I think that there is some value in it. (I know that's self-serving.) For example, even with all the reports, you can find groups of encounters defined by area and time that just present themselves, without manipulation of the data to make them appear.
  3. Half (or 3/4s?) of the board may not have any idea of what you are talking about. Might as well make a poster describing these, mimeograph it, then have runners distribute them.
  4. On the subject of the tech guys on the forum, I appreciate the new staff POC block in the header. Now that it's there, I'll probably need it, but what the heck, it's a good improvement. Anything I cipher out with my spreadsheets and slide rules and stubby pencils, I post somewhere here. Someday I'll make an e-book of it all and charge a modest fee, but most of it will show up here first. Should I ever find clear and compelling evidence, or even "maybe-this-is-something" evidence, I'd likely share it here first before sending it in to someone with a tv show. This is a good group that will vet everything without having a pre-ordained conclusion.
  5. This takes into account reports from the BFF, BFRO, GCBRO, Bigfoot Evidence, Ontario Sasquatch, and a few other websites, as well as John Green's pre-internet database and the Bigfoot Case Book. If you find any additional useful resources that have accounts, pass them on to me.
  6. I would say that they have provide necessary jadedness. I stumbled onto the BFF quite late when I began looking into this topic and first found a few sites that laid out who all the interested parties were in Big-money-foot.com, and provided documented instances of some of these people faking photos, wood knocks, tracks, stone-throwing, and even the supposed finding of bodies. The traveling snake-oil salesmen of yore would be proud of their efforts to make bigfoot into a profit center. Yep. In addition to my database, I have a list of "researchers" who are reported to have been caught knowingly and purposefully hoaxing and known hoaxes. I use that information as a factor in evaluating the credibility of reports in my database - if the "researcher" is rotten one time, it's hard to trust anything from that researcher any other time. Also, if a series of reports just happen to occur in the vicinity of a known hoax, they may be tainted as well. However, that is something that each individual has to do on their own as there is no Better Bigfoot Bureau that objectively certifies researchers or reports. Agreed. Although passions can occasionally run high and sharp elbows get thrown, this place is pretty good at doing neutral, none-outcome-based, analysis. And to tie back to my comment above, this is why everyone has to have their own reference point for what researchers and evidence that they trust or don't trust. Assuming that you're describing a case where objective truth can't be known with certainty (i.e., you're the witness who has the evidence and knows the certainty of it's validity), people can legitimately disagree on whether something should or should not be accepted as valid evidence w/o either of them being wrong or mule-headed. One reasonable man sees it one way, another reasonable man sees it another. And to be fair, absent strong evidence that something is in fact a hoax or bad ID, then declaring something a conclusive hoax should be almost as rare as calling something conclusive evidence of bigfoot.
  7. NCBFr, Thanks for posting the clear photos taken with a different camera. When I look at the close-up, I noticed that there's a (mostly covered) rock about where the object would be in the trail cam. Is it possible that some trick of light, combined with the settings on the trail cam is causing this rock to look like a low-crawling bigfoot? Again, the comp pictures were appreciated and do a good job of capturing the area in question.
  8. Well, my first gut reaction is that the root bundle of the fallen tree has some naturally lighter rocks/soil in the middle. That may account for the image of the "face." I see the jumble in the upper right in both photos, so I would interpret it as a mash-up of vines, branches, or an old nest. I would appreciate, if possible, a few updated photos of non-game type, if it is reasonably easy to obtain them.
  9. This map shows the locations of (credible, according to me) bigfoot encounters south and east of the St. Lawrence River. The sole encounter missing is from 1657, a very vague description by a French explorer that probably occurred north of the present day Cornwall. In case the image is less readable than you'd like, here's a .pdf file. https://drive.google.com/open?id=0B_s-HfcER8FuVnhrNU9DMUlmTlU
  10. Deleted - operator headspace and timing error.
  11. I will explain, but I won't engage in a lengthy discussion. In the military, there is a phrase for the statements you're making, but repeating it here would likely get me suspended if not banned. You're making statements that are so obvious that they don't add value to the discussion. Everyone knows this information. Arguing it doesn't add to the conversation. If I'm at a staff meeting discussing the ways to defend Seoul from a Nork land invasion, along with executing other assigned missions, pointing out that we can't defend against a donkey-based nuclear missile is sort of, "No kidding, Sherlock." So adding statements that point out the obvious, regardless of the circumstances, is not a display of wit or knowledge, it's a display of lack of focus.
  12. I land on the "not much to see here" side. When I finally found the subject of the photo in the photo (was expecting something bigger), my first impression was "kid in a Halloween costume" or made up by a budding special effects artist. After looking at the video and comparing the night time blow-ups with the still day shots, I'm wondering if it might be a stuffed animal, a mounted animal, or some other prop placed there. Even if the comparison photos aren't at the exact same point on the road, you can see the ditch to the right which gives some perspective as to size. Are the date/time groups on cell phones unalterable? I have a digital camera and could set the date for 1776 if I cared to. Haven't pondered whether I can do that on my cell phone. My opinion, and 50 cents, will get you 10 seconds of drone time in that area.
  13. No.
  14. ^^^ Welcome back Art 1972!
  15. Say they travel through the woods in groups of 2-4, dispersed by up to two miles between individuals. You take out one in the middle; the others hear the shot and one last dying scream. How much time do you have before they zero in? Moving through the woods quickly, but still maintaining a little discipline so as to stay out of sight = 1 mile/12 minutes? So if you do put one down with a single shot from 200-300 yards, you have -- 20 minutes? -- to carve up the body. All theoretical of course. "You, sir, may be related to an ape and I may be related to an ape, but General Lee is not, not, related to any ape." Unknown Confederate officer.