All Activity

Whenever we start discussing a topic it seems like we begin by creating a discussion that is on topic then as the discussion progresses, it begins to diverge from the original topic and becomes very obscure and difficult for others to follow. When this happens then we need to break the topic in two and start another one or stick with the original topic. Are Bigfoots that are Injured, or too old Hunt Dangerous? This category of Bigfoot would probably be a danger to others who come walking along a trail, and they don't realize that an injured Bigfoot is setting up an ambush. Ambushing a human and taking it back into the hills for a meal might be characteristic for injured or sick bigfoots. This type of Bigfoot being fairly cognizant knows that this type of behavior can bring in human search parties which is very bad for the overall population of the Bigfoot. Now someone brought up the fact that possibly the Bigfoots are more advanced than we think they are, and when there is an injured or sick Bigfoot they have the ability of feeling empathy for another of their own, and they help the handicapped individuals survive within Bigfoot clan structure. If a Bigfoot is sick or injured and has been banned from the tribe of Bigfoots, then it is more likely to use ambush measures of humans to survive. Within the clan structure, if one of the members dies then why would they bother to dig a grave and bury this Bigfoot? Yes, it could be an advanced norm where they honor their dead or they simply could be thinking more practically and avoid bringing in dangerous scavengers such as bears or bobcats. These scavengers could do damage to the clan of Bigfoots so they finally figured out it's better to bury them. My personal belief is that Bigfoots bury their dead so humans will not be able to locate the clans hiding area.

I wonder if this place could be found

Published in The Minneapolis Star on April 25, 1968.

And a total lack of personal experience.

My take on MIB's use of the phrase "best evidence" isn't meant to mean "the best evidence possible", which is often the game played by denialists, wordsmiths, scientists, and pseudo-scientists, but "the best evidence we have to go by". I hope MIB will correct me if I understood incorrectly. Yes, I do hereby challenge you to "define human", because if you don't, we'll be playing different games alongside each other, and this particular game goes way, way deep. No, it wouldn't. Some humans aren't capable of wiping their own backside after defecating, and some humans culturally don't do it on a social basis. Let's not expand the game, please. Just define "human". Like this: https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/human ^^^^^ That's a dictionary query. That's the "best evidence" we have for the definition of "human", but you can still play. There are several definitions on that dictionary entry. For example, you can choose this one: Or this one: There are other dictionaries, as well. Please choose your "best evidence", either in "best in quality" or the "best you have". Science (big "S") says that Homo rudolfensis (lived 2 million years ago) was "human" (of the genus homo). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_rudolfensis Their "best evidence" are a few bones. But they know nothing about their habits, "capabilities", or even if they were covered with feathers or scales. They can take educated guesses, but they can't prove it. They go on the "best evidence" they have, and they argue their positions amongst each other like lawyers. Like we do............... I think that the "best evidence" indicates that a sasquatch would likely "attack" a person by clubbing them to death with a stick instead of debating like a lawyer, but I can't prove it. Why is that the "best evidence"? Because there is no testimony whatsoever of any lawyer-like behavior exhibited by sasquatches, but there is plenty of testimony claiming violent behavior. Maybe you can define "attack" for me, please?

(When best evidence is claimed) instead of a discussion or presentation of this best evidence I get a "How about defining "Human" challenge. Not sure I understand the response really. Isn't the best response just to show be this best evidence. I could define human. I would suggest it is better to define the capabilities of humans. Some say bigfoot has many of those capabilities. I don't happen to be one of them for what I feel is good reason. One good reason is this Best Evidence is not being presented here. Somehow this turns into me being ask to define "humans". In what world is that a reasonable response? I would say if I was presented with the Best Evidence, I would gladly look at it. There is a quality of humans I hope bigfoot doesn't possess. That is the quality of holding a belief so dearly that anyone who has any disagreement with that belief- even in a small degree- is seen as attacking the belief if not the person who holds it. It's going to take time and a step back to understand that is not what I have done here. I will look forward to the best evidence.

Bryan is an avid kayaker and camper who lives in Central Iowa. Bryan spends as much of his free time as possible enjoying the great outdoors. Unfortunately, he had an experience, in May or June of 2016, that tarnished his love of being in the great outdoors. When he had that experience, he and 13 of his friends were kayaking down the Middle Racoon River. Some of them were very experienced at kayaking, others were novices. The group was approaching a place in the river that could be dangerous for novice kayakers, so Bryan and his good friend, Mark, decided to paddle ahead so they could stand on a sandbar that would allow them to watch the novices navigate that dangerous stretch of the river. Before Bryan and Mark made it to that sandbar, however, a rock the size of a softball hit the water inches from Mark’s kayak. What happened next forever changed how Bryan and his friends look at the great outdoors. We hope you’ll tune in and listen to Bryan chronicle what happened that day. If you do, you’ll understand why Bryan feels angst when he thinks about what happened. If you've had at least one Sasquatch sighting and would like to be a guest on the show, please go to BigfootEyewitness.com and let me know. I'd love to hear from you. If you’d like to help support the show, by buying your own Bigfoot Eyewitness t-shirt or sweatshirt, please visit the Bigfoot Eyewitness Show Store, by going to https://Dogman-Encounters.MyShopify.com I produce 4 other shows that are available on your favorite podcast app. If you haven't checked them out, here are links to all 4 channels on the Spreaker App... My Bigfoot Sighting https://www.spreaker.com/show/my-bigfoot-sighting Dogman Tales https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/dogman-tales--6640134 Dogman Encounters https://www.spreaker.com/show/dogman-encounters-radio_2 My Paranormal Experience https://www.spreaker.com/show/my-paranormal-experience Thanks, as always, for listening! Listen to the Podcast

great post. thanks

Howdy all, digging the cooler weather.....here is several weeks of interesting impressions, the last one is another of the odd large tracks that I find, Dogman?.

Ah , the old <adjective> evidence game! I know how to play! Got any <adjective> evidence to back up that definitive pronouncement? How about defining "human" for us, please?

Study Ranks States by Bigfoot Spotting Odds 94.5 WPTIView the full article

Study Ranks States by Bigfoot Spotting Odds | NewsRadio 1000 KTOK | Coast to Coast AM with George Noory NewsRadio 1000 KTOKView the full article

Study Ranks States by Bigfoot Spotting Odds News Radio 830 KHVHView the full article

Study Ranks States by Bigfoot Spotting Odds iHeartView the full article

Yes, it really is that bad and the details are graphic. Published in The Houston (TX) Post on January 30, 1884.

YEP

These are interesting points. The same science tends to say there is no such thing a Bigfoot. In fact, Meldrum has said only recently because of the discover of Lucy has science even considered a complicated tree of development vs a linear development. Whatever the concepts we have about these figures in your post, many of these things are still just theories. We can look at the recent human iceman Utzi and know what he wore with cloths, tools, weapons and so on. He is just a few 1000's years old and preserved. Assumptions about these ancient bones from eons ago we find in a dig may be pretty good guesses but some of it is still just guesses. Educated guesses, yes. Good thoughts.

The Density is unlikely to get cured any time soon as I am sure my condition is chronic or persistent. I really haven't missed any point. I feel I mostly understand the point. I am just not convinced by it. I should have ignored the title of the thread in my answers. What best evidence? Is there some kind of best evidence I have been missing here that strongly points to Bigfoot 1) being a very high order human/animal AND 2) Operating in organized societies who are so higher order they bury their dead? Evidence? In all due respect, it may be Bigfoot is all the things you say and more. I contend there is not some great evidence to show that. Your viewpoint assumes (or is very confident) Bigfoot is this higher order thing and operates in these organized societies. You are going to answer any question or theory on the BFF with this belief. I don't happen to share this belief Obviously this results in my answering the question differently based on my different viewpoint. My view is a range. My line is the bottom of the range open to the idea there could be a higher level I am not accounting for. Your view is a hardline level where you make no allowances for anything below the line you draw. That's fine. Just understand not everyone shares your view for reasons of their own. To someone convinced of the higher order Bigfoot, my more limited viewpoint doesn't seem reasonable. It might even seem Dense. The higher order bigfoot is fine with me. I have not moved that direction as I just don't see enough to move me there. It's nothing more than that. I do feel my view requires less need to stretch things to fit a viewpoint. But the title of the thread is different. I am going with the concept of the title of the thread and just trying to give a perspective about the question as I understand it. If we want to start a thread about [Is Bigfoot Tribal] or whatever it would seem that is a great place to have those or discussions. But the thread as I read it was under the consideration of what an old or injured bigfoot does. Since you have gone there let's assume this higher order Bigfoot society. Perhaps such a Bigfoot might compete to see who gets to do all the mating in the tribe. Maybe that injured bigfoot gives the young buck and chance to just kill off the competition. Maybe the young Bigfoot even murders him to get him out the way. Maybe he bulles the other Bigfoot in the triebe to keep help from the old or injured bigfoot to get him out of the way. The idea Bigfoot buries their dead (which has somehow appeared on the thread) is an interesting concept. We can assume reasons why a higher order Bigfoot might. It's just not based on any solid observation. I hate to make generalities as people tend to fight about anything they see as an exception about the point. It does seem to me most bigfoot reports out there (at least the ones presented on TV and shows like Bigfoot's Reflection) are a witness seeing one bigfoot. One can assume there are others out there are even an entire tribe of Ewoks. But if we just go by those reports at least in those circumstances, they report one bigfoot when reporting a Bigfoot sighting. Whatever our rituals are as humans the rituals are HUMAN. There are even variations in various other countries and regions of the world. Whatever these variations, they are all human. I see when the burial issue comes up it tends to be a response to the skeptic Q: "Why don't we find bigfoot bones in the woods" The higher order Bigfoot thinker would say "Because Bigfoot bury their dead" I would say the more reasonable assumption is what Meldrum, Grover, and others have said, That is essentially, "Nature quickly takes back the body and these same skeptics don't say the same things about bears." Because bigfoot is not a human. That's why. We don't know enough about the characteristics of bigfoot to say either way. We might look to apes to get at least a perspective. We would compare what apes do and maybe make the assumption that is what bigfoot might do. Nothing is certain but that makes more sense than comparing Bigfoot to what Cats do. It also makes more sense than comparing what humans do. Those who think like me don't look down on those who think Bigfoot is a high order being. Those who are certain Bigfoot is all of this or more should consider the perspective of those who just see Bigfoot as a more limited creature. It's just 2 perspectives. Since humans do about anything to survive when needed I assume Bigfoot would do so be it higher order or lower order. I would even say be it a human or higher order Bigfoot when starving they both actually BECOME animalistic. I just happen the think Bigfoot starts at that point in answering the question of the thread.

‘Sensing Sasquatch’ earns High Desert Museum major history prize Central Oregon DailyView the full article

From Bigfoot to Braxie: how monster sightings become local culture dangerousminds.netView the full article

A kidnapping by a Sasquatch is truly a fantastic story, but none of the three stories that I've mentioned had a basis of origin in a small newspaper at all, which has now become widely believed in the story of Jocko. In the Ostman story, Ostman was a known personage who did report his story to his local newspaper (The Province) in 1957, 33 years after the kidnapping, but he had no motivation to "sell more papers". He remained alive for years after he told his story and was well interviewed, unlike the persons in the Jocko story. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Ostman The Muchalat Harry story was told to Bigfoot author and investigator Peter Byrne by Father Anthony Terhaar of Mt. Angel Abbey in Oregon, who was a missionary priest who traveled the west coast of Vancouver Island for many years, and was living at Nootka at the time of the story and who knew Muchalat Harry very well. http://www.bigfootencounters.com/classics/muchalat.htm The third story has never made the newspapers. I found it posted to an Internet forum of Alaskan outdoorsmen in 2010. It has all the hallmarks of a scary campfire story, but it has some very intestine features (poop smearing) that I've never heard or read of before (but which goes quite a ways toward explaining some of the stench reports involving sasquatches), and I've come to recognize that poster from later posts, and who appears to be a pretty cogent guy. https://bigfootforums.com/topic/28150-a-coast-range-bigfoot-story/#comment-544030

Didn't see that coming. As published in the follow-up piece on July 22, 1875 in the Austin (TX) American-Statesman, he sounds decidedly more human than squatchy. But we'll never know.

Where in North America Are You Most Likely to Spot Bigfoot? 👣 107.5 Kool FMView the full article

Pa.’s a top 10 ‘Bigfoot hotspot,’ report claims PennLive.comView the full article

What you stated is the benchmark of civilization. Not tools or weapons or technology.