All Activity

I will say I am skeptical of reports like Jacko and always have been. We do know there have been documented and proven cases of lost boys raised by wolves or apes. It doesn't happen every day but there are at least a few cases of this out there. Is Jacko some blurred story version of such a thing, a real creature, or a hoax? Stories used to appear in newspapers about Cowboys shooting, cooking, and eating flying dinosaurs. Stories like this would common back in the 1800s. Sir Arthur Connon Doyl believed in Fairies and photos of such which were seemingly groundbreaking at the time. Now we know they are proven to be hoaxes. We can identify today just looking at them they are obvious hoaxes to us but to the people at the time, not so much. Stories originating in the 1880s to me have a 1) a shaky witness pool and chain of custody of fact 2) a mood of willing to print sensationalism. We need to ask How do we know what we think we know. Often when we look at the source it can be suspect. More importantly when we investigate, we often find what we thought was proven fact might be based on some really weak foundation. The PGF and footprints are about the most solid evidence we have at this time for consideration. If they are not accepted by many, I doubt a story from the 1800's will carry any weight. Are we really to believe no one took Photos of Jacko if the story was real? If we asked that Q we might quickly avoid falling for a hoax. We know Civil war leaders have multiple pics available of them and the battlefield in very clear black and white images. Yet no one is Canada owned a camera it seems. Thus, no photo of Jacko. Asking for more solid evidence of Bigfoot is reasonable. Why is it in over 50 years there hasn't' been another PGF-level encounter. Why is it with millions of cameras and cell phones and so on there isn't another pic or video of Bigfoot to rival the PGF? That is a reasonable Q. Even though I think Bigfoot would be near extinct SOMEONE by now should have got as lucky as Roger and Bob and caught Bigfoot on a cell. There are some promising videos out there but just not on that same level. The internet tells me there are over 300 million people in America who use a cell phone. That is a pretty big search party or a lot of eyes for any accidental encounter.

VERY WELL PUT

I do not think you have any grasp of "proof" based on what you write over and over. If you do, you hide it very well. You're repeatedly saying false things and expecting them to be taken as fact. Scientific illiteracy, repeated endlessly, does not become fact. If you find that abrasive, maybe you need to be .. abraded .. a bit. How is it done? "Giant ballroom" .. is actually closer than you imagine. A virtual giant ballroom anyway. It is done the same way real science is always done. Gather evidence, analyze, write it up, and publish in an established journal. The journal is, in virtual terms, that ballroom. If your evidence is solid, if it is repeatable by other scientists, and if your analysis is correct, your claim will be substantiated. It will be scrutinized, probably painfully, in detail, questions will be asked probably via responses in other papers / journals, and you'll have to be able to address them. This is not for intellectual babies with easily hurt feelings, the processes are brutal .. ask Ketchum, ask J. Harlan Bretz, etc. Ketchum was refuted and ridiculed because her science was garbage. Bretz' work was rejected for decades but finally accepted and now is the mainstream understanding. If your work is good, it stands, if it is crap, it falls, and that is how it should be. There is no shortcut. If you're not going through the established processes you're not going to be accepted by the establishment. Until that happens, you do not have proof regardless of what you wish to believe.

XSPIDER ONE, a very comprehensive reply and totally agree with you. Thanks for addding to this topic and will reply to each of your discussion points. I WILL REPLY IN ALL CAPITALS. That is actually a very good question/point. Although I am not a witness to Bigfoot, I contend that there are many witnesses who have their own undeniable proof. It is a fantastical subject to convince anyone else of, but I would venture to say that there are Bigfoot witnesses who are more convinced by their own experience than they would otherwise be by any Scientific, peer-reviewed paper. They know what they saw and what they experienced! Most of us have probably read that a (personally) indisputable Bigfoot experience can be life changing. VERY WELL PUT AND WE NEED MORE SCIENTIST WHO HAVE ADVANCED DEGREES IN PRIMATE STUDIES WHO ARE ALSO EYEWITNESSES SO THE SUBJECT OF PROOF CAN BE MOVED FORWARD. However, and to the point, Google AI sums up the situation clearly, in my opinion: "Bigfoot could be scientifically proven only by providing a verifiable type specimen, such as an intact physical body or clear tissue sample, that undergoes independent, peer-reviewed analysis." I READ AN EYE WITNESS REPORT FROM A CANADIAN WHO LIVED IN A SMALL VILLAGE, AND WAS DEER OR ELK HUNTINS, SAW A BIGFOOT, AND ENDED ITS LIFE TRAGICALLY. HOW MANY CASES LIKE THIS THAT HAVE FAILED TO PROVIDE PROOF ? Unfortunately, testimony, video, footprints, structures, audio, etc. etc. will not suffice. In the warmer (hot) months, I see a bug almost every week that I have never seen before. My dad told me that it's the same where he lives, 900 miles away. It very well could be that some of those bugs are not yet scientifically classified and, I don't think that most people would deny that as a possibility. With Bigfoot, things are entirely different. It is a radical subject which probably 99.999% of people in the world have no personal experience. So, the easiest default opinion is to simply deny the possibility. THERE ARE PROBABLY MANY PRIMATE ADVANCED DEGREES BIOLOGIST WHO AGREE WITH BIGFOOT EVIDENCE BUT WILL NEVER COMMENT SINCE THE TOPIC IS A CAREER DETRACTOR. ONLY THE RISK TAKERS DARE SPEAK IN FAVOR OF BIGFOOTS EXISTENCE.

Can't agree with your abrasive comments but good scientific reasoning will do as a new challenge for you. I have a good gasp of proof. Can you tell us how 1000 advanced degreed primate biologist finally agree that bigfoot should be classified as a new species? Be to the point and don't be lowly and use sarcasm. How is this done? Do all of them meet in a giant ballroom and vote?

OK, thanks Doug. Even with DNA results I don't know if all primate biologist are in agreement that bigfoot should be classified as a new species. The DNA results should be enough to add bigfoot as a scientifically accepted new species much like other animals such as Grizzly Bears, Black Bears, Polar Bears and more.

Bigfoot believers and skeptics gather in Maine for quirky Sasquatch calling contest cbs19.tvView the full article

Bigfoot investigators baffled by 'inhuman' sighting Female FirstView the full article

A 2026 trip into the Lolo Pass and Mt. Hood area of Oregon produced one of Gary Allen’s most intense weekends yet. Gary returns to Bigfoot Society with firsthand details from a remote camp near what he calls Skookum Ridge, where several people reported activity over the same weekend. His skeptical brother watched multiple massive figures moving around camp before a reported 9-to-10-foot figure walked within feet of his SUV. Elsewhere in camp, a father and son reported an 8-foot figure crossing a strobe-lit meadow. Later, another witness described a towering black figure standing near the trees with bright yellow eye shine. The weekend also included strange vocalizations moving through the forest, powerful wood knocks, unusual horse reactions, possible trackways, missing camp equipment, food disappearing, and more. Then Saturday brought another massive silhouette across the river and things kept escalating. Multiple witnesses. Multiple encounters. One extraordinarily active weekend near Lolo Pass, Mt. Hood and the Sandy River in Oregon. Hear Gary Allen walk through the entire 2026 experience in Bigfoot Society Episode 1188. Resources: https://www.youtube.com/@bigfootresearchproject8081 Previous episodes with Gary: https://youtu.be/lAxlJaBuLPI https://youtu.be/FghpZx6GqSo https://youtu.be/NObu8QdQ31U 📖 Follow Jeremiah's cancer health updates here: https://www.caringbridge.org/site/569ef3d3-68be-11f1-8790-97fdfd2bbc64 🗣️ Share Your Story Had a Bigfoot encounter or strange experience? Send it to bigfootsociety@gmail.com – your story might be featured on the show! 🎥 Watch & Subscribe on YouTube 🔴 Subscribe here → Bigfoot Society YouTube 💬 Leave a comment & let us know your thoughts! 📞 Leave a voicemail with your story → Speakpipe (Use multiple voicemails if needed) 👥 Share this episode → Watch & Share 🎧 More episodes → Podcast Playlist 🌲 Recommended: New Jersey Bigfoot Encounters 💥 Support the Show & Get Perks ✅ Join the community on Supercast – Become a Member ✅ Listen ad-free & early on YouTube – Join Here 📱 Let’s Connect Instagram: @bigfootsocietyTwitter: @bigfoot_societyTikTok: @bigfoot.society🧰 Tools & Partners I Use (Affiliate Links) These help support the show at no extra cost to you: Beam (Better Sleep): Try BeamWildgrain (Better Bread): Join HereSeed (Probiotics): Get SeedMedi-Share (Healthcare): Learn MoreLMNT (Electrolytes) Free Sample Pack with your first purchase! : Get LMNTOrganic and non-GMO groceries delivered for less http://thrv.me/uarEhS🎙️ Podcasting Tools: Repurpose.io: Try ItDescript: Sign UpStreamyard: Start RecordingRiverside.fm: Try Riverside🎧 My Audio Interface: View on Amazon ☕ Buy Me a Coffee – Support Here 🛍️ Grab Some Merch – Shop on Etsy 📬 Mailing Address: Bigfoot Society 125 E 1st St. #233 Earlham, IA 50072Listen to the Podcast

Owensboro nurse turns Bigfoot sighting into books, Squatch Fest the-messenger.comView the full article

That is actually a very good question/point. Although I am not a witness to Bigfoot, I contend that there are many witnesses who have their own undeniable proof. It is a fantastical subject to convince anyone else of, but I would venture to say that there are Bigfoot witnesses who are more convinced by their own experience than they would otherwise be by any Scientific, peer-reviewed paper. They know what they saw and what they experienced! Most of us have probably read that a (personally) indisputable Bigfoot experience can be life changing. However, and to the point, Google AI sums up the situation clearly, in my opinion: "Bigfoot could be scientifically proven only by providing a verifiable type specimen, such as an intact physical body or clear tissue sample, that undergoes independent, peer-reviewed analysis." Unfortunately, testimony, video, footprints, structures, audio, etc. etc. will not suffice. In the warmer (hot) months, I see a bug almost every week that I have never seen before. My dad told me that it's the same where he lives, 900 miles away. It very well could be that some of those bugs are not yet scientifically classified and, I don't think that most people would deny that as a possibility. With Bigfoot, things are entirely different. It is a radical subject which probably 99.999% of people in the world have no personal experience. So, the easiest default opinion is to simply deny the possibility.

Calling all Sasquatch WZMQ 19 NewsView the full article

We can't honestly, with any integrity, call it proof until mainstream science accepts existence of bigfoot. That is what PROOF means. There is no real proof but scientific proof, any lesser proof is not proof, "proof" is the wrong word for that whether it is used from ignorance, illiteracy, or just stubborn malice. There is no way around this. You seem to not understand what "proof" means. You're trying to change the definition / refusing to use the existing definition. Best of luck convincing anyone but yourself with that.

The second expedition got off to a rocky start, as explained in the Winston-Salem (NC) Journal on January 9, 1957. The Peter Byrne mentioned in this article is THE Peter Byrne of Bigfoot fame. The second article is from The North Star News of Oklahoma City (OK) and was published January 24, 1957.

Published in the Henryetta (OK) Daily Free-Lance on August 18, 1977; this fills out some more of the stories found by former Forums member Tirademan (RIP) and posted elsewhere by Forums member Gigantor. The headline was probably meant to read "Bear" rather than "Dear."

Found on the Southern Oregon History website; published in The Butte Miner of Butte (MT) on August 28, 1889.

Found on the Southern Oregon History website; published in the San Francisco (CA) Chronicle on March 6, 1888.

Reported in the South Oregon History site, published in the Daily Los Angeles (CA) Herald on August 28, 1879. This appears to be a story that is distinctly different from the one Tirademan found.

Huntstir posted the DNA results. Homo sapien.

Hello there, I’m a long time believer since my uncle told me stories of the forest people and extra terrestrial life when I was growing up. Recently, I moved from San Francisco to Salem, Oregon and now have locations close enough to visit. Oh, my name is Brianne and I have an awesome K9-American that I bring on all my adventures with me. Can’t wait to chat!

"Zana was named by Russian researchers after her discovery and capture in the Ochamchir region of Abkhazia, south of Russia in the 1850’s. She was said to have been living in the wilderness, naked, but covered in a thick auburn fur, and appearing to be a cross between a human and primate." I think a DNA test was done on Zana's corpse and maybe someone can post what was discovered.

Could we conclude that for every bigfoot eyewitness plus 10, this would count as evidence and would simply be eyewitness proof for the observer? Now multiply by a 1000 an each eyewitness is a PHD biologist. Is this proof? What do we need for proof?

When will there be enough evidence before we call it proof?

Creature dubbed 'Syracuse Figure' spotted in New York: Is it Bigfoot or an elderly skinny-dipper? Fox NewsView the full article