• 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


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by hiflier

  1. WAIT. WAIT. Pick me! I'm a legend in my own mind..... coolest of the cool.......does that count?
  2. From that last angle I would have to agree.
  3. Thank you for a very nice post and for clarifying things for me. I understand better now the BFRO's position as well as other folks in the field as well so I do indeed appreciate you taking the time. Of course I am of the opinion that more resources coming to bear in a focused effort to disclose this phenomenon will be much more effective. There are some knowers here who don't care about proof in the public/scientific realm. They are satisfied with their own knowledge of the creature's existence. And even though they see others who have not had the experience, like me, struggle to pry that knowledge out. Other knowers are working to expose the mystery. I am a proponent but I also have my suspicions and doubts about methodology when it comes the apparent pattern of purposely NOT solving the riddle. It's a glaring issue in my book.
  4. Oh good. Then we can be here forever . And they are doing it wrong. And I can say that because there is nothing. Physical evidence gathering has been done for 60+years and where in science has that been enough where this creature is concerned? So for those people that are serious about solving the mystery? They have to realize that something needs to change and why they cannot seem to figure out what that something is? Is beyond me. And I completely disagree that everything that can be done has been done. No, it hasn't. How do I know this? Because I'm composing this post. Sure, maybe most of "us" don't care about this mystery getting solved which to me makes no sense whatsoever. And that's because I don't think it's being truthful. Safe yes, but not truthful.
  5. Everyone is doing their "own expeditions". Fracture city. The way I've always thought about it is this: If this is such a big whoop-tee-doo, upsetting established Human constructs, Turning anthropology on it's ear, shutting down logging, striking fear in the public and all that- PLUS dealing with a creature that no one can seem to flush out of the forest enough to get anything beyond a blobsquatch photo? Then someone's "own expedition" isn't going to cut it. It just isn't. History has proved that. Don't Humans ever learn their lessons? Example: What makes Cliff Barackman any better than anyone else on their "own expedition"? We have members doing that now. Nope. The lesson says it doesn't work. So a little deductive reasoning is all it takes to determine what would. If individual little pockets of individuals doing their "own expeditions" have failed then the opposite method must be true. Big mystery= big team, pooled resources, pooled finances, pooled technology, pooled time, pooled effort. IMHO there is absolutely NOTHING wrong with that approach. In truth it's the ONLY proper approach to even be considering right now, especially since we are coming out of the winter real, real soon. Now would be the time to get that different approach off the ground.
  6. Me too. But it would be interesting to know if there are any plans for them to strike out on their own expedition privately and go for all the marbles
  7. Nothing says, with the money they have made that they cannot go out on their own, the way they want, and with all the equipment that they need. They could even put a pro team together, pay anthropologists, and whatever in order to conduct the "find" in a manner of their choosing. Does anyone know or think that they are doing that? Matt, Cliff, Boboand Renae all out there calling the shots as they see them? I don't think so. So grousing about the format they have to work under doesn't wash. Sure, sounds a bit hardcore on my part but I think it's time to call the kettle black. They have the money, they are involved in the subject, they have the respect (I think) so go do the deed. My guess though is if they do it will never air and if it does the editing will destroy anything solid that they may discover. There are people and groups out there they could support or link up with. I have to wonder what they really want.
  8. A fine idea actually. But I get the sense that the content and format of the show is not only controlled by the TV people if you get my drift. In other words it's not ALLOWED to go beyond entertainment.
  9. Yes, BTW, I think contact would be good. He does seem to be meticulous and thorough in the collection of evidence. He also mentiond an anthropologist as well as a Forestry Service person present during some evidence collection procedures. His questions regarding what would appear to be a strong influence toward holding back results from lab testing seem valid as well judging from what he has sent out and where. And also where it ended up. It makes me wonder how much of that kind of pressure Matt Moneymaker is under as well. It would mean the BFRO isn't organically at fault for what appears to be an organization dragging its feet and holding back info from the public. I've said it before. With so much widespread high tech surveillance then if the creature exists which apparently it does then the case is even stronger for the blacking out of information. It begs the question of what can be done about it? Why wouldn't the anthropology department of the UNM itself submit a FOIA at either the state ofr federal level? Loss of funding? Accreditation? That's my first guess
  10. I agree Norseman. It is worth the risk and I think it safe to say that Yuchi1 thought it was as well or he wouldn't have been out there- in ANY capacity. Evidently though what transpired had a profound effect on him and I can respect that- but he still goes out into the woods and does research looking for bones. So at least he's still out there. There are stories of hunters that after an encounter absolutely WILL NOT go back into the woods. I think what also happened is that the party instinctively knew they had lost their tactical edge and that even in the daytime the element of surprise had shifted in favor of the Sasquatch. And THAT couldn't have been a good feeling within the team. Sure, I may be assuming a bit too much here but then I am a Human after all. And being Human I can imagine the scenario and don't think my sensibilities are that far off when looking at this.
  11. The page means nothing except that the creature has a name. The naming is what the zoo bank does. Zoo bank has nothing to do with proof of existence, taxonomy, or anything else. It's only a naming organization. From this website: http://www.ghosttheory.com/2013/10/23/ketchum-bigfoot-dna-results-accepted-at-zoobank I suggest going to this site and reading the entire article. "From ZooBank: "Currently, ZooBank accomodates the registration of four different kinds of data objects: Nomenclatural Acts: Published usages of scientific names for animals, which represent nomenclatural acts as governed by the ICZN Code of Nomenclature. Most of these acts are ‘original descriptions’ of new scientific names for animals, but other acts may include emendations, lectotypifications, and other acts as governed by the ICZN Code. Publications: Publications that contain Nomenclatural Acts, as defined above. Authors: Anyone who is an author of one or more Publications (as defined above), or who is a contributor to ZooBank content. Type Specimens: Type specimens for scientific names of animals. The registration of Type Specimens is considered provisional and is not yet fully implemented in ZooBank. Dr. Ketchum’s current registry for Homo Sapiens Cognatus falls into the Nomenclature Acts. Bigfoot now has a name. What does that mean? Again, From ZooBank. For each new species-group name, include the original spelling of the specific name (i.e., the species epithet), the original genus in which the new species was placed, information on the type specimen(s) of the new species-group name (Collection acronym and catalog number, if available), type locality (as originally published), and page number on which the description of the new species begins (if available). If the new species-group name is established within a pre-existing genus, then full citation details (including full author names, as above) of the publication in which the genus-group name was originally described are also required (so the genus-group name can be registered itself). This should be referenced in the paper describing the new species, though ideally it should be checked in its original version if possible. As ZooBank increases in content, it is increasingly likely that the genus in question may be registered already. We appreciate any efforts you make to check current content and provide feedback on its accuracy."
  12. Gotta Know, indeed it was hard to read. And Yuchi1 I can tell from your tone in relating the account that you are not all that proud of the way things went down. I can also understand better your soul searching after the fact that brought you into the no-kill camp. You may be different today had you and the team been successful? Just the sense of wonderment and awe of being able to see the creature up close and delivering the body to science would have changed everything although deep down you may have still harbored regrets. Thankfully you seem the type of person that would. Needless to say it was a sad tale. Gotta Know is right on point as is anyone else in saying that there are "ugly realities" in this pursuit. People have said it many times here that so much needs to be in place far ahead of trying to bring one of these creatures in. One being the knowledge that history has showed that Sasquatch can take a bullet and get away even if it dies later. And that's almost too harsh of a thing to say. Tough critter. Very tough critter. It actually makes me wonder how the party got out of that situation alive. I also wonder what the shooter is thinking today. I think such an event would change anyone. It's still unfathomable to me that there is this very large, very strong, bipedal creature out there. Heck of an account, thank you. I plussed you for again having the courage in relating it
  13. Rob Kryder: http://www.kryderexploration.com/ Watching this was interesting. Most of what he said was as if he had read my mind. I have been suspicious of Sykes ever since Mike Ruggs, proprietor of the "Bigfoot Discovery Museum in California told me in an email that Dr. Sykes has still not returned a piece of the large tooth that he had sent to him for DNA analysis. Not returned even after Dr. Meldrum contacted Dr. Sykes for Mr. Ruggs asking for it's return. Also my suspicions of things here in the U.S. which stem from the high level of surveillance capabilities that U.S.agencies here have at their disposal. This video well supported those considerations. In a way it turned the subject into something quite a bit larger and more serious but certainly in keeping with my line of thinking. And I'm not the only one. Somethings simply haven't added up for a couple of years now. BTW, is Mr. Kryder aware of your own studies? I would be curious to know if he is finding the same evidence as what you've been looking at. He may not even be thinking along those lines. DNA from saliva of a fresh bite mark might be something to think about seeing as the creatures seem so active in his research areas. Interesting about the forested area he mentioned being permanently sealed off what....seasonally?
  14. Hello All, Humor me. I think it's time to pick my cave idea to pieces. I can give you my thoughts and you can give me yours. It'll be fun. Unless you're all tired of hearing me bring them up. We could set it up in two categories: "Caves Good" vs. "Caves Bad". There is actually a lot to say about them regarding Sasquatch. I'll start it off....They live in them
  15. Thank you Branco. Your post is anything but off topic and I appreciate the supporting comments. May I ask you a question that may be a bit sensitive in nature? Might you have an opinion as to why any us of caves has been generally marginalized over the years to the point that the subject is rarely if ever brought up? And when it has been the response in the past was that Sasquatch doesn't use them. The next question then would be, other than the safety of bat colonies, do "mainstream Sasquatch proponents" have an agenda for steering folks away from the thinking about Sasquatch cave use? Thank you again for your input here.
  16. JDL, Thanks, good point. Lots of feedback against this idea but, hey that's why we are here. Sometimes it's good to get this kind of stuff out for consideration by the community. Might be good if the two graphs could be enlarged? If so would it separate out the definition a bit more? A counterpoint might be that Human activity cycles bring the creature around as well. Even with Humans present there will be no sightings without a Sasquatch- unless we get into the age old mis-identification discussion. But you are ultimately right, it's a combination of the two.
  17. For bears it's two years or so. For a male Sasquatch? best guess (oh boy, here we go LOL) a young male could be not too filled out yet but might be 6 feet tall at say three years? Maybe old enough to roam and fend for itself on everything but meat perhaps? Or finds small animals instead of say deer? Still invited to the table on a large kill perhaps. Maybe does the "driving" of game to ambushes. Yep, all speculation. But even though the graph is showing artifacts because lines are close together they may be close together for a reason. @ Norseman, that would still make sense because even though all young aren't born at the same time areas where females are could still have generational cycles. Even young females would get kicked out until they found their own place by the time they reached an age for mating. Without breasts formed all younger Sasquatches may be mistaken for males.
  18. I went to Ytube and found one in the queue down the right side where the thumbnails are that worked.
  19. OK. Starting from the left. Check out the second yellow indicator that you placed. To the right of that, over the "2" in "2002. Do you see the thicker light blue line? There's another just to the right of that over the "2" of "2003" then there's one at the beginning of 2006 and between 2009 and 2010. Then another between 2013 and 2014. At the left of the graph at the end of 1980 and again at the start of 1984. Then see 1987, 1990-1991, 1995, and 1998,1999. The pattern jumped out as soon as I saw the first two graphs that you posted along with the more obvious logging push in the 1970's.
  20. In the yearly chart you just posted there is a three year line that I attribute to the software. But in the first graph of WA and the other states it appears there's a definitely thicker blue shaded area about every three to four years. I'm curious, speculating of course, that it may be showing a generational kicking out of the "nest" of juveniles? Yep, big speculation but something is causing the repetition. I also thing that the sort of mid seventies to early-mid 80's shows the accelerated logging trend begun in what? 1973?
  21. Looks to be a three or four year cycle of some kind.
  22. There's something there in the two graphs, gigantor. Do you or any one see it? Looks to be a three or four year cycle of some kind.
  23. Not a bad idea, Norseman. This is the thread for it so yeah, I'd be more than happy to look around.
  24. Oh it's certainly close and if they're out there then there may be a female that looks just like the model. I've also looked at artist's renditions like Sybilla Irwin's and other's. A bit idealistic sometimes but she would have been a good consult as well. As a side note, it still amazes me that at a distance of three miles from camp the boys got all that in only one take. I mean, dang, if it was Bob Heironimus in the suit I shouldn't be fawning all over the babe like I have been?