All Activity

Shotguns have a little more forgiveness in terms of aim. I'd prefer a shotty for a close quarters fight because 1. slam firing 2. spray area difference 3. no need to aim down scope

The beginning reminded me a little of the Bauman story, where they're not finding any "fur-bearing varmits" and so go ever deeper into the remote forest, just as these guys went from valley to valley, ever deeper! I'm just glad this story had no gamboiling involved!

I'm with Cryptid on that last point, at least to some extent. As for at this point we can't even be certain if what's being seen as "large hairy hominid" even represents a single species, or a spectrum of diverse species created by successive waves of migration, or speciation through isolation or selective factors within a habitat....as relatively closely related forms, hybridization may be ongoing, unless inhibited by their own cultural norms. But I do believe that eventually, or maybe tomorrow, proof/evidence of definite nature will be had. Of course the governmemt may finally choose disclosure of what they know as well.. As for the percentage of sightings that get reported to various record keeping groups, I d personally guess its no more than 5-10% at the very best, and probably well below that. Figure Joe Average may not even be aware of Bigfoot groups prior to a sighting, this their first recourse would be to call the police, or perhaps the forest service, which would usually result in mirthful dismissal, which could well make them all the more reluctant to pursue further efforts to report. Most nigfoot groups on say Facebook that I've seen run rampant with harshly critical elements that offer up more than enough critique, criticism, and questions of personal sobriety to turn anyone's thought away from reporting anything ever again!

That map of human migration has one element missing, and that is pathways made accessible by lowered sea levels during periods of glaciation. Drops of 200-400 feet have been reported for various ice ages, and these could result in significant expansions of habitable/traversable land. Its quite possible that much of man's prehistoric settlements could have taken advantage of these exposed coastal zones, and that untold habitations and artifacts, evidences of lost cultures could well be discovered within these now Oceanic sites.

In my opinion, he did not prove the existence of bigfoot in this video, however, I have faith that he will continue to be Thinker Thunker.

Breaking news: Bigfoot to stand trial at EMU on April 16 The Eastern EchoView the full article

Maybe, yeah. We have Darby Orcutt on the forum. It’s completely plausible that his current DNA study will reveal something about them. But, whether it’s someone on this forum or not, I’m confident science will eventually answer the question of what Bigfoot is.

You make some good points here. What I wish people understood is that these beings are literally everywhere there is a sufficient sized forested area to conceal them and to hunt, in my opinion. For people that want to kill one to get a body for science, I think they will have a better chance of knocking out God. There is a reason, the natives called them the great spirits of the forest. Do you believe that somebody on this forum will finally figure out what the Sasquatch is all about? After thousands of years, JOHN DOE, came along and solved the mystery, yeah, OK. Humanity is not there yet, at least I'm not. I only express what I see and experience. I have not experienced mind speak, or marbles dropping out of the air, or orbs or a UFO connection or anything like that, but I won't rule it out. We have to be open to all experiences as they occur, or we will miss much. All the large forests above 100acres perhaps, will have them, in my opinion. Their nature and the details are yet to be discovered. Maybe, it can only be discovered on a personal level, but I keep trying.

Very few sightings get reported in my opinion, because most people are either traumatized, or don't want to be ridiculed. It is much easier to just forget it ever happened. And the BFRO obviously would not ridicule the person, but by following a path of reporting and honestly admitting what they say to others, their friends and immediately family could ridicule them. That's the driver for not reporting.

That's not a misconception, If there's a footprint in a 10,000 acre forest, and I don't see it, that does mean that the footprint does not exist.

Is that a clan or just a family? To me a clan is multiple families.

No. I second to MIB's position - the occasional park ranger, Border Patrol officer, or Soldier on maneuvers has seen one and knows that Bigfoot exists, but even if reported, that information doesn't go very far up the bureaucratic food chain.

Yeah, I knew Banff had been mentioned on here so I searched the Forums. Seems like bear like to eat hikers there.

^^^ NorCal, I would think that after the popularity of Finding Bigfoot and other, less scientifically leaning shows (yes, I'm throwing that line out to the dire wolves), that the reporting percentage is higher - 15 to 20%. I don't doubt that its less than 50%. And its also clear that various organizations curate what's shown on their websites - whether to protect a study area, or because the report isn't credible even to them, or because the report doesn't fit their preferred narrative (killer Sasquatch that get from point to point in flying saucers, for example). The Forums are actually pretty good in that regard in that anyone can post (almost anything) that they claim to be a Bigfoot encounter. Definitely not saying that dredging through reports is the be-all, end-all, but I do believe its one leg for the stool of Bigfoot research.

Yes, Trogluddite, the other side of the Rockies from me, about a 10 hour drive east from my home. It's a great area, you'll love it.

I appreciate what he tries to do. His science is bunk, but it's entertaining for me. It stokes the flames of curiosity for many.

what percentage of sightings get reported? of those that get reported, what percentage get posted on any website? I'd say probably 1-5% get reported, max. of those reports, probably half or less make it to a website.

This is pretty much exactly what I took your agreement to mean.

Interesting analysis. Like others, however, I question the overall alignment of the skeleton. Has his work been studied by any primatologists to verify its accuracy?

More reports = more data to potentially understand where they live, their patterns of movement, etc. if you have an area with a high number of sightings, but none of them are ever reported, researchers aren’t going to know this is a hot spot to collect evidence of existence. Ultimately, we want proof of existence so we can ensure their protection as a species. Don’t let fear of some pseudo intellectual who couldn’t pass a high school biology course laughing at you keep you from helping the forest people. It’s obvious you care, or you wouldn’t be here.

From your own posts. In your Teepee structures post, you say in the first post that they are "created for another purpose ... [p]erhaps as a simple way of showing how many of their kind [the forest people] are in a particular location. You later stated that "the forest people" do not place these structures in there more secret living space, but use them at the boundaries of their living space. From roughly 0:45 to 1:00 minute of that video (discussing the 2013 teepee), you clearly stated your belief that the forest people were individually stacking sticks to provide a headcount of Bigfoot in a given area. In your Hilltop structure thread, you stated that the hilltop structure, "[l]ike the Teepee structure is a sign of where they [the forest people] live...." You labelled your next thread as a fact, stating that "you captured the voices of the forest people knocking over a tree" without qualification.

I appreciate your detail in the numbers! I know how time consuming it is. I’m in the beginning concept development for a book and it is a lot of research and number crunching. Thanks for the work you do!

Surprisingly, the numbers are probably better than that. I have a database of over 1200 encounters in the northeast US and eastern Canada that comes from encounters reported to newspapers and research groups (BFRO, Gulf Coast Bigfoot, reports here) and numerous other sources. I wring as many details out of each report as I can and grade them. I am a harsh grader as most of my 37-year career involved detecting fraud in one way or the other. Right now I have 679 of these reports graded out. - Only 75 (11%) are clearly fraud, fabrication, or miss-identifications (whether admitted, outed by internet sleuths, or otherwise) - The vast majority of reports (400/almost 60%) are simply insufficient to establish that an encounter occurred based on factors that are well established for determining whether an individual is credible and has met their burden of persuasion (i.e., you don't believe that the person is lying about the claimed events, but even accepting their testimony as true, it doesn't establish what they are claiming). - A quarter of these reports (171/25%) are sufficiently detailed (and in some cases corroborated by contemporaneous and credible evidence) that a reasonable person could conclude that an encounter with Bigfoot occurred. However, the reasonable person standard is low - a different reasonable person could conclude that an encounter with Bigfoot did not occur. - Darn. That adds up to 95%, pretty much what you said. I am only comfortable in stating that in 33 (5%) of the 679 reported encounters I've looked at is it more likely than not that a Bigfoot was encountered. Note that "more likely than not" is only 50.0001%, not beyond a reasonable doubt. Didn't see that coming. Next time I'll run the numbers first. Although, most cases that I put in the "reasonable to believe" category would be "more likely than not" for a lot of people. Actually, in at least three reported and documented encounters in the northeast US and eastern Canada, groups of 3-4 Bigfoot were seen by witnesses and the description is always "1 really big, 1 large but not as big, and 1 or more juveniles or essentially toddlers." I wouldn't be surprised if there were similar reports from western Canada and the Pacific northwest.

Thank you! In hindsight, there were at least two other trips where we should have had an emergency locator. Although, if we had one on the first trip, I would have wimped out and pushed the button rather than set my broken arm and hike out two miles for my wife to drive me to the hospital.

Beautiful pics! Looking forward to our first trip to Banff (other side from you?) this fall.