All Activity

The Hairy Women of Klipnocky, New York, have been mentioned several times in the Forums. Back in 2013, a member related the story of the hairy women as posted on a New York DEC website for Klipnocky State Forest. That link no longer works, but the local legend, pre-WWII, goes as such: A family with two daughters that lived close by in a farmhouse, had an emergency plan .. if anything bad happened in the house, the two girls were instructed (by the parents) to run into the forest, at a certain spot and hide. A parent, would go to the spot and retrieve the girls, when everything was ok. The house caught fire, and the girls did just that. At the same time.. the parents were driving to Arkport and tragically died in a car crash. A family relative, that knew of the family emergency plan.. went to the forest, but never found the girls. The girls remains were never found in the house, that burned to the ground. Years later, a local man reported.. that a hairy scraggly women ran out of the forest, after he tossed a crust of bread out the window, while eating his lunch, and quickly disappeared with it. On August 20, 1926, the Ithaca (NY) Journal reported on a search for an animal killing livestock in the Klipnocky woods.

What happens when a Florida researcher spends every weekend in the swamps chasing legends — and ends up face-to-face with the Skunk Ape?In this gripping episode, we sit down with Marie Dumont, founder of the Mid Florida Bigfoot Research Group, who shares her most chilling encounters from across the Sunshine State. From the Green Swamp to the Ocala National Forest and even Jennings State Forest near Jacksonville, Marie has documented structures, footprints, and one unforgettable night when something heavy walked around her campsite — and even bumped her car.You’ll hear about the Skunk Ape’s strange behavior: unzipping backpacks to steal grapefruits, raiding coolers for raw hamburger patties, and turning teddy bears face-first against trees in bizarre “games.” Plus, we dive into the mystery of Florida’s four-toed tracks, why the Everglades may produce a more aggressive Skunk Ape, and how infrasound left one researcher doubled over and sick.More than just a Florida cryptid story, this episode uncovers how legends of the Skunk Ape connect to survival, adaptation, and the hidden wilderness of the South. 🗣️ 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 Patreon – 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 50072 📧 Business Inquiries: bigfootsociety@gmail.com Listen to the Podcast

I usually carry a judge with both 410 and 45 long colt. Mostly the 410 for snakes 45 long colt for anything else.

0 chance.

I think we have discussed the Dennis Martin case enough in this thread. Go back and reread the OP and go from there. 👍

Mohican Bigfoot Festival – Sept 20, 2025 on 09/20/2025 Knox PagesView the full article

Great post. Well constructed and patient explanation of what I've been saying for a while. Paulides is a con man. He has done a massive disservice to the memories of many unfortunate lost people and has done harm to their families. Nothing he says can be trusted.

From the FBI contemporaneous files - internal memo July 1969 'Park Officials have noted the attitude of Williams Martin has undergone marked change from time when he was frantically searching for his child and appreciative of all help rendered. He has increasingly come under the influence of visionaries, is unwilling to accept fact his child is dead, and prefers to believe child has been kidnaped and might yet be found alive'. This statement strikes me as being very callous and heartless. It does however, suggest that Mr Martin didn't 'always' maintain that his son was kidnapped, but entirely understandably, hung on to any hope he could find, which, as time went on and it was clear that he couldn't have survived alone in the wilderness for such length, latching on to the idea of kidnap. Again, there's no judgement here, I would almost certainly have done the same. Even if he had always believed that there was kidnap involved, a desperate father in emotional turmoil and probably blind panic likely isn't the best, most objective assessor of the situation. Trying to imagine how I would feel in his shoes, I certainly wouldn't trust my objective assessment of anything. Even then, if you do accept that he could think about it rationally and always believed it was a kidnapping, a belief, however strongly held, does not make it a fact. The fact is that there was never any credible information regarding a kidnapping. From the NPS chronology 'He [Bill Martin] quickly went west on the AT as far as Little Bald (Approximately 1 mile) and returned thinking Dennis might be back to the others. He then went west again on the AT to Russell Field, 2.5 miles, and returned to Spence Field.' I have no idea how long this might have taken him, but clearly Dennis hadn't gone west along the trail or his father would have found him. As such, we don't know where he went. But we do know that in the immediate aftermath, only the westbound trail was searched by his father. It seems from the chronology that, at least until Rangers arrived (some time after being notified at 8:28pm) only trails were searched. The first mention of searching the immediate area around where he was last seen comes with Rangers involved. The mention also comes after the first mentions of the heavy rainfall and mention that 'All streams were high and turbulent.' We know Dennis was off trail and looping around when last seen. Unless he got back on to a trail, no one was looking off trail until at least 8:30 in pouring rain and coming darkness. It was followed up on and the FBI didn't 'do nothing'. They visited the site with the witness. The timeframe is everything here. I've shown you, with sources quoted, that the scream happened at the same time, up to an hour before and certainly no later than an hour after Dennis went missing 90 minutes away. The FBI, with the Rangers, did what was necessary to conclusively establish that the encounter was completely unrelated to Dennis' disappearance and therefore not credible evidence of a kidnapping and therefore outside of the FBI's authority. You've provided no evidence or sources to suggest otherwise. No they don't, but plenty of forest animals make noises that could potentially be mistaken for a scream. Men who don't want to be seen or approached also have the potential to scream. There's simply no reason to believe that the scream was Dennis given that it would be impossible for him to be there, and you've provided nothing to suggest why it should be considered him. I absolutely agree that people were evicted to establish the park. Where you lose me is the leap that some haven't left, that the NPS/FBI would leap to the conclusion that they were child abductors, certainly responsible for a kidnapping (for which there is no evidence of kidnap anyway) and in collusion with the military, send in the Green Berets to take them out. Again, you've provided nothing to back up those huge assumptions and leaps in logic. I don't know why. I have given you quotes and sources for why they were included in this particular search. I've also suggested a logical answer to your question - that is that they weren't previously training in the local area at a time when a massive public SAR was happening and required the exact skills that the Green Berets had experience of and were currently training for. The NPS documents suggest improvements that could be made to SAR procedures, including using fewer searchers and concentrating on ones with specific knowledge of the area and tracking skills. 'could this have precluded using Green Berets in future? Again, I'm not stating that I know for certain, but it sure seems more likely than sending them in to take out mountain men or 'feral' humans in front of hundreds of potential civilian witnesses based on no evidence of wrongdoing. You're the one making an assertion that the official line is false and that there was another reason for the use of Green Berets, but you haven't provided anything to back it up. The FBI and NPS documents show that the 'Search admittedly was not absolute. This is extremely rugged terrain covered with heavy brush and woods and contains many deep crevices and sink holes.' As I have shown, the search covered 56 square miles by the end of the 9th day, meaning a search radius of 4.22 miles, not covered absolutely. I've also shown that with a speed of 1mph, by the time the co-ordinated search started on the morning after he went missing, Dennis could have been anywhere within a 450 square mile area. With a speed of 1mph, by the time the first Rangers and family started searching off trail that night, Dennis would have been at the outer edges of what was searched, but not absolutely, by the end of the 9th day. Any bear/cougar could have dragged him into an area not accessible for human searching, or outside the outer edges of what was searched. Your point also doesn't deal with the potential for accident, being washed away in those streams that were 'high and turbulent' even on that first night, or those sink holes, crevices and any other areas that couldn't be searched within, let alone without the search radius. You are stating things as a certainty, when they are absolutely not certain, then using that as a launchpad for a vague conspiracy that has no supporting facts and without providing any evidence or sources to back it up. This seems disingenuous to me. You say you have no dog in the fight, but keep repeating that the Harold Key encounter indicates something nefarious, in particular a kidnapping. You mentioned a 'mangy' human carrying something through the woods. I asserted that that was incorrect and provided quotes and reasoning, as well as showing how the encounter couldn't be relevant unless you accepted 411's false timeline. You didn't dispute my assertions or provide anything to disprove them but rather repeated the description of a mangy man carrying something through the woods that seems to be a Paulides fabrication, and use that fabrication as a reason to doubt the FBI assessment and thereby suggest some further conspiracy. You also mentioned Paulides in your first post on this thread and asserted on the 411 thread that he wasn't lying. You say that the case is well known 'because of the oddities associated with it' but on the 411 thread state that 'the fact still remains that without Paulides I would have no clue about Dennis Martin' and many of the oddities that you have listed and repeated are based on Paulides' untruths. My distrust of Paulides is not bias, it is a rational assessment of his reliability, or lack thereof, to accurately present the facts, some of which I have demonstrated in this thread, and which distrust is widely shared and proven elsewhere regarding this and other cases. I truly do not have a dog in the fight, I have satisfied myself of Paulides' unreliability and would be more than happy to discuss the case without any reference to him whatsoever. However, that is not possible until his inaccuracies are removed from the discussion, and at present, some of your arguments seem based on them, and you have provided no evidence or other sources to back up those arguments.

As Forums member Backdoc said in so many words, "It sure would be swell to have a place all the interviews about a given Bigfoot topic can be posted." Yes, yes it would. This brilliant effort by HOLDMYBEER to find and interview Frank Ishihara (RIP), an "expert witness" on film development and the availability of film development resources in the Pacific northwest, brings forth critical information relevant to the claimed processing timeline of the P-G film but was buried. Had Bacddoc not mentioned it, many newer members may not have even known about the existence of HOLDMYBEER's research. A link to that thread is posted here to ensure that the information is readily accessible in the future.

fair enough

Here are the facts. 1) The father always maintained his son had been kidnapped. 2) The father was searching for his son within 5 minutes. 3) The biggest lead they had, which is the Key testimony, was never followed up on. Timescale means nothing here. We can only speculate as to the meaning of the encounter because the FBI did nothing. 4) The last time I checked? Contraband moonshine or Ginseng does NOT scream. 5) I have established that families were removed from their homes to make a federal park. Did they all leave? Are there descendants still living inside the park? 6) The Green Berets have never been used in a missing persons case before or since. Why? 7) If Dennis had been attacked by a Bear or a Cougar? There would have been a struggle. And if there had been a kill? They would have found the kill site. Especially as long as they searched. Nothing was ever found of his personal effects. 8) You seem really tied up with David Paulides. But I am not. I have no dog in that fight at all. This case is well known. And why its well known is because of the oddities associated with it. But its perfectly OK that you want to dismiss it offhand based on your bias towards an author. 🤷🏻‍♂️

Video: Boy's Bigfoot Bellow Wins Sasquatch Calling Contest in Maine KFI AM 640View the full article

Video: Boy's Bigfoot Bellow Wins Sasquatch Calling Contest in Maine 720 the voiceView the full article

Video: Boy's Bigfoot Bellow Wins Sasquatch Calling Contest in Maine News Radio 570 WWNCView the full article

Video: Boy's Bigfoot Bellow Wins Sasquatch Calling Contest in Maine newsradio 1040 whoView the full article

Video: Boy's Bigfoot Bellow Wins Sasquatch Calling Contest in Maine NewsRadio WFLAView the full article

Video: Boy's Bigfoot Bellow Wins Sasquatch Calling Contest in Maine iHeartView the full article

Video: Boy's Bigfoot Bellow Wins Sasquatch Calling Contest in Maine iHeartView the full article

Attack the argument not the poster please.

Paulides is a con man. Norseman is a victim.

Published in the Weekly Santa Fe (NM) Gazette on July 18, 1868.

I tried to be clear on this but maybe I wasn't clear enough - it is entirely reasonable and expected for Bill Martin to de everything he possibly could to find his son and to get as many people and organisations as possible involved in helping him do that, in particular the FBI given their resources and their investigative powers and expertise involved, just as he did. I have a son of about the same age and would certainly do everything I could think of in those circumstances. Doug Martin (not the brother, the friend who was playing with Dennis just prior to his disappearance) said that his family had gone back some 3 years later and bumped into the grandfather Clyde, who said that he had been walking those trails every weekend for those years just because he couldn't give up. I suspect I would be the same. The pain must be unimaginable, made all the worse for not knowing. That's what makes distorting the facts to generate conspiracy in order to in turn profiteer off that pain and the almost certain death of a small boy all the worse. You seem to be still stuck in the false narrative of M411. The FBI didn't 'dismiss' the report. They met with Harold Key and Park officials on site to follow up. They accepted the Rangers' assessment that the scream was too far away to be relevant given the timeline. Harold Key, as far as I can find in newspaper reports and the NPS and FBI files, never called the man he saw 'mangy', 'hairy', 'dishevelled', 'unkempt' or anything else of that nature, just 'a man'. And no one was seen 'packing something through the woods'. This came out in Paulides' account some 50 years later. As I mentioned in my previous post, and as above, clearly Bill Martin was doing everything he could to get the FBI involved as was his right and duty. It's therefore all the more striking that he wasn't shouting from the rooftops to the FBI, the governor he wrote to and the newspapers about this man, if he was indeed carrying something. The only logical explanation is that Harold Key never actually said that that's what he saw. As much as Bill Martin (indeed anyone in that situation) might want to believe that their child was kidnapped so as to hold on to the hope that he might still be alive, and as much as he might wish to persuade the FBI that this was the kidnapper, the actual facts were that: Harold Key reported hearing a scream and seeing a man. This was most likely at the same time as Dennis went missing, possibly up to 60 minutes before, and no later than 60 minutes after. This was 90 minutes (fast hike, not carrying a struggling child) away. There's nothing odd about concluding that it wasn't relevant or credible evidence of any kidnapping of Dennis. In fact, by placing this man a minimum 90 minutes away within a max 60 mins of disappearance, it actually constitutes an alibi! I didn't say that the man was 'mangy' (see above for my thoughts on that) or that he was necessarily operating a still or picking ginseng. I offered those as examples given Harold Key's initial thought and the fact that there was an admitted illegal ginseng harvester in the area some years later, so that could be plausible. What I said was that he was probably up to no good, which was based on his making his way away from the Keys asap. it could be something else as I said, and it doesn't necessarily have to be illegal either. But it does seem that he didn't want to be approached. The one thing I do know beyond all reasonable doubt that he wasn't kidnapping Dennis Martin. If the Park Service believed there were unscrupulous bad actors in the Park, I'm quite sure they wouldn't immediately jump to 'I know this guy brews moonshine/picks ginseng, so with absolutely no evidence whatsoever, I'm going to assume he's also a child abductor'. I'm also pretty sure that the FBI wouldn't go along with it, assume authority and open up an investigation despite the fact that the timeline makes it impossible for this man to be involved anyway. I'm not sure what exactly you mean by 'feral people'. I'm assuming the 'more animal than man', cannibalistic, never touched by civilisation, type rumoured without verifiable evidence to live in the smoky mountains. But the video you posted doesn't show that kind of person - the first home shown belonged to a Mr Patterson who was Sheriff of the County, and a Mr Rust, a Warden, with a picture shown of him and his perfectly clean and well dressed children. A far cry from 'feral'. The Kari Swenson and Claude Dallas cases you previously mentioned dealt with people who wanted to live off grid in isolation but certainly not 'feral'. If dealing with the off grid isolation type person, why jump straight to the conclusion that they are child abductors and send the Green Berets after them without any evidence of wrongdoing? Note that as previously stated the Key testimony came over a month after the Green Berets had been deployed so it can't be that they were deployed because of that testimony, it would have to be a practically instant conclusion that it was abduction from within the Park. If dealing with the 'feral humans' why conduct a Green Beret take out mission in the middle of the most public, best attended SAR mission ever? The picture you give of a draconian Park Service that would certainly know of a single moonshining operation and who would never allow it to stand, also doesn't really tally for me with the idea of 'who and the heck knows what is inside that park' and the existence of people (whether feral or off grid types) who the park would instantly suspect in a child disappearance but who would also be either unknown or tolerated within the park. I'd also again make the point that if the NPS/FBI/Military had such a strong and instant belief that there were people living within the Park snatching children, they wouldn't be likely to send boy scout out looking for them. Not to mention the point I made about someone out of the thousands that took part in the SAR surely coming across some evidence of a dwelling for such Park dwellers if it existed. The Green Beret presence has been explained - nearby on training, able to continue the same type of training as would be necessary whilst also assisting in the search for a missing child in a case that caught the public attention, and at the request of the NPS. I know they don't get involved in SAR routinely, but how often would they be training for similar terrain in Vietnam, at the same time and next to an SAR mission that required exactly the skills they had and were training? On the flip side, if sending the Green Berets in is what the military does when it suspects foul play, does it follow that no other case could be considered as involving foul play given that the Green Berets weren't sent in? As I said, it's impossible to completely rule out kidnapping given that we don't know for certain what happened. But the obvious, probable answer is getting turned around, and some natural (weather or animal based) death befalling him. One of the SAR volunteers actually fell off a bridge and broke his arm and might well have been done for were he not surrounded by other SAR individuals, so the idea that it wouldn't be likely for a small boy in the dark, pouring rain and high winds doesn't stack. The case just doesn't need unfounded conspiracy heaped upon unfounded conspiracy to explain (unless of course there are books to sell).

Who among us hasn't gone insane, ran off to live in the woods, and lost the power of speech. Published in the Deseret News, Salt Lake City (UT) on December 11, 1883 and primary event mentioned in Bigfoot in New York and New England by Paul and Robert Bartholomew ; I don't recall them talking about the insane French soldier part.

'Sasquatch Calling Contest' held in Maine over the weekend kens5.comView the full article

This encounter is recounted in Bigfoot in New York and New England by Paul and Robert Bartholomew. It is unclear whether Tirademan posted in his original threadt; this account was published in the Deseret News, Salt Lake City (UT) on December 01, 1883.