All Activity

I represent that remark!

I had forgotten that this was a two-part story. While looking for old reports from Ohio that Tirademan had found (which I never found), I came across the first half of the story, printed in the Cleveland (OH) Evening Post on June 23, 1868. As everyone probably guessed, a four-year-old child who wandered off while visiting the islands years ago had since grown to an 8-foot tall, hair-covered man.

Such BS! Yes you are a victim of theft.

Fifty years of lawyers have changed everything. Now police reports are like classified information. I had some firearms stolen in California a few years ago, and after recovering yet another gun, one police department is refusing to give me the police report on the recovery incident......and this after paying for the report. They say that I "have to be a victim" in order to get the report.........as if getting my firearms stolen doesn't make me a "victim".

^^^ I wonder what LEOs would do if those same reports came in today. Probably arrest the witness for making a false emergency call, or explain that they just misidentified a nine-foot tall plume of swamp gas or Venus low on the horizon.

Exactly, and perfectly explained. This is true today, but back in the '70's and 80's, county sheriffs and deputies (particularly in southern Washington counties) who responded to calls dutifully filed police reports on their findings. http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=2599 http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=1620 https://www.facebook.com/groups/BFRO.group/posts/10159438079950169/ https://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=13653 http://www.bigfootencounters.com/interviews/graysharbor.htm

Nothing that dramatic. Employee X, you are reminded that you are not permitted to speak as to the official government position. You may talk all you want about Bigfoot, Bigfoot, Bigfoot, but you must make clear that all opinions expressed in this interview, podcast, blog, etc., represent your personal views and do not represent the official view of the U.S. Forest Service, the U.S government, or any U.S. government agency. These are standard instructions for federal employees engaging in outside employment or volunteer work or outside speaking engagements (e.g., acting as an adjunct professor at a local college). Failure to follow those instructions may result in a wide range of disciplinary actions, ranging from an oral or written reprimand to being fired, depending on the nature of the violation. So Employee X is not fired because he says "Bigfoot is real," he's fired for ignoring the instructions or directions given him by his supervisor. I don't know of any case directly on point, but law enforcement personnel would want to remain silent to avoid being impaired during future testimony. For example, if FBI investigator Y states on live TV, "I saw Bigfoot run across the road in front of my official vehicle," that statement will be used to impeach that investigator every time she testifies. So, at most a smart investigator would say, "Well, something ran in front of my vehicle, but I was not able to identify the animal." Not saying that either of the above is fair, but that's what would happen. +++++++++++++++++++++++ Norse, okay, thanks, I see what you were getting at now.

I find parallels with the push back on your post of a Virginia forest ranger or employee and science in general in my post. Look at this.

If you high up in the federal forest service in Washington DDC and a forest service biologist starts reporting on his bigfoot experiences while on the job, what do you think is going to be the standard reaction? "The US Forest Service's official stance on Bigfoot is that it's a creature of folklore and urban legend, though they have engaged in some playful acknowledgements of the creature." Your fired or you may have a deadly accident.

The Forest Service's own opinion as of this year is as follows: "The US Forest Service's official stance on Bigfoot is that it's a creature of folklore and urban legend, though they have engaged in some playful acknowledgements of the creature."

Bob Gimlin Interview by Brian Christopher (KLOA radio) October 31, 1991 Archived by Todd Prescott YouTube Auto-Transcription edited by Trogluddite August 2025 Honestly, I'm not sure if this qualifies as an interview; it almost sounds like KLOA did outtakes from some other audiotape. That being said, I'm not trying to run that down. Almost 20 years went by between the last interview of Roger Patterson and the next interview of Bob Gimlin. Transcript 1991 Gimlin Christopher Interview.docx [1] www.youtube.com/watch?v=piPtJW29eqU&list=PLjFAlQsZxKf-SoBk_Vn7mVqs0i07Y9Osl&index=1&t=12s

If the federal government calls bigfoot a mythical creature how long do you think some Joe Blow is going to be showing off his real bigfoot until the feds show up, take his computer, replace the body with a fake bigfoot and fine or imprison Joe? The feds know all about bigfoot.

^^ I'm thinking that you quoted the wrong thing or put in the wrong reply in response to my post. I'm very confused.

You should listen to Meldrum’s take on the Sykes study! Dishonest at best! And Meldrum offered help in vetting samples. Nope. They published all the misidentifications, and didn’t publish the inconclusive ones. Meldrum already told Sykes the problem with Bigfoot hairs. They lack a medulla. So basically the Sykes study side steps the hard question. And published the low hanging fruit. Gee thanks!🤔

The firsthand account, as written by Roger in one of his newsletters for the Northwest Research Association. Additional copies of this newsletter, as well as other research, can be found in the Bigfoot Forum Library at https://bigfootforums.com/forum/154-bff-library/.

George Haas (RIP) was one of the founders of what may have been the very first Bigfoot research organization or group in the United States, the Bay Area Group. Haas's research notes were saved from obscurity by Daniel Perez, who now possesses many of the Bay Area Group's original documents. Haas and several others visited the Patterson-Gimlin film site in June, 1968. Prepared less than a year after the original encounter, Haas's notes are an invaluable source of information on the general conditions at the site as it existed reasonably close to the time of the encounter. His notes are included in Bigfoot at Bluff Creek: A Pictorial Discussion by Daniel Perez at pp. 6-18. For information on George Haas and the Bay area group, see https://bigfootforums.com/forum/200-the-bay-area-group-bigfoot-bulletin/. To see where you can buy the book, visit the Bigfoot Forums Marketplace at https://bigfootforums.com/forum/50-the-bff-marketplace/.

I was just listening to episode 180 of Bigfoot & Beyond. Can't give you a time mark as I was otherwise engaged, but the guest, Joe Perdue, discusses being an employee of a West Virginia government agency (probably state parks or DEC) and discusses his supervisors' reaction too, and limitations on, Bigfooting on the job. Basically, he could not initiate any Bigfoot discussions and if sightings were reported to him, he could take the reports for his own personal use, but they didn't want them as official records, such as injury reports at the park, bear sightings, etc.

If we had that home-run video footage it still might not be the earthquake shift I would hope it to be. I fit into the category of "undecided lean real" Bigfoot status. I call it addition by subtraction. That is, I do not know if Bigfoot exists or not. But those who are skeptics have done such a poor job proving the PGF is a hoax it makes me lean toward it being real. If Roger Patterson was on trial for the PGF being a hoax, I would say there is not any evidence offered to convict him. This suggests the PGF must be real. Yet, IF there was some home-run recreation I would go where the facts take me and say, "Yep, it's probably fake" Absent that, it suggests the opposite. If I can't be 100% convinced (!) and I have a big intertest in the PGF, I don't expect this skeptic to be. I just want to know the truth. Then, I can move on to the next mystery.

^^ I hope everyone reads the article. I played "journalist" with that one and used a provocative statement out of context. But one has to read most of the article to see actually who said it and why. That being said, after listening to Mr. Gimlin during several interviews, I have little to no doubt about his integrity but some doubt about the accuracy of his recollection. I thought someone gave me an atta'boy for finding a hard to find article; now I wonder if they gave it to me for shading Mr. Gimlin.

I sat across a table from Bob for several hours a few years ago, along with a number of local researchers, at the Sasquatch Inn, near Harrison, B.C. My take on him is that he is the real deal, an honest to God cowboy, who tells the truth with no embellishment. I'd ride into the mountains with him any day.

Addendum: I contend that the above is precisely what most in authority or even individual power believe, even within the private sasquatch movement. With government, I believe they have come to recognize that the best policy is to keep sasquatchery in the realm of myth. It is certainly best for the sasquatches, it is the easiest and least expensive policy for government, and it's even easiest and best for the public. Those sasquatch research groups supposedly having regular contact with sasquatches maintain a marvelous level of informational security for the same reasons.

The goal isn't to convince more people on the street that sasquatches exist. The goal is to convince more scientists and authorities that they need to get with the program to study/confirm the phenomenon. I suppose the argument that "better footage" can accomplish that, but I again posit that if the PGF, combined with the events in Six Rivers National Forest circa 1955-1967 couldn't do it (or even elicit a single official statement from the USFS), more video isn't likely to get it done. We can all bandy beliefs on this and other such forums until the proverbial logging truck (an increasingly rare critter itself these days) provides a carcass, or the community can cooperate in obtaining a carcass itself. And I again posit that the very first act in acquiring said carcass is to apply for a hunting license and harvest permit with both a (or some) state wildlife management agencies and with the USFS, who owns the huge parcels most likely to be the hunting grounds. And, again, just the act of applying for such a permit from said agencies in itself would be a significant enlightenment for the community. How will said agencies react? They will almost certainly refuse such a permit, but what will their reason(s) be? As a sidenote, we've had about 25 years of a growing game cam presence in the woods, and from that has come quite a few supposed sasquatch pics. None have moved the meter (even though several have provided fodder for internet discussion). I've used a game cam myself in my bear baiting hunts for every bit of those 25 years, and have captured many pics of bears, moose, birds, people,........and even a wolverine. But not a hint of a sasquatch (no wolves yet, either............hmmmmmm........I wonder if wolves exist in Alaska?)

Surprisingly, I didn't find any topics on the Jersey Devil although he regularly pops up, then disappears, in different threads. This article was published in The Capital (Annapolis, MD) on June 24, 1987.