All Activity

Discuss away. No problem here. I will still await MIB's best evidence since he made the claim and I will consider it when or if presented. I don't think it is right for anyone else to feel the need to try to explain what they think he means or think he was getting at. He can do that if he wishes. If not, no biggie. When someone is lost in the woods: They died in the elements > They went tribal with Bigfoot. Wild man stories are true in some cases and sensationalism in others. Even then, they don't tell us a lot about bigfoot specially. I am not saying they don't tell us some amazing happenings sometimes challenging our assumptions. We need to be cautious. Anyone one of us can want something to be true so much we lose our objectivity. I have read where Roger Patterson was dumped in a couple of cases where others claimed they had Bigfoot in a cage in a cave or monastery in Tibet. Roger wasted his last money and time on earth trying to find that Bigfoot lead. We all have a viewpoint about Bigfoot. We need to be careful we don't read too much into what we wish to believe.

Looking For Real Answers To The Mysteries of UFOs High Strangeness and BeyondView the full article

The AP report, printed with screaming headline in The Cedar Rapids (IA) Gazette on July 29, 1884.

If sasquatches exist, the Patterson/Gimlin experience of a surprised sasquatch walking away is not going to be the only kind of sasquatch/man experience to occur. While you are free to limit your own interest in the subject to the PG experience, others might wish to discuss other testimony or evidence, which might be described as the "best evidence" we have, even if it is not proof of anything. Another thought on kidnapping is that there is PROOF (ie, better than "best evidence") that other species will actually raise baby humans to adulthood. The Zana story forced me to invest just a bit of thought into the phenomenon of feral humans, and the fact that such species as wolves, domestic dogs, monkeys, gazelles, bears, sheep, and goats blew my mind. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_child The feral human phenomenon is a huge part of this "wild man" field in many ways. That includes misidentification of wild Homo sapiens as another species, and sasquatches (or almastys) possibly kidnapping Homo sapiens for various reasons.

From legend to relative: Indigenous Oregonians share Bigfoot’s true spirit Oregon Public Broadcasting - OPBView the full article

Published in The Minneapolis (MN) Star on April 26, 1968.

’Round the Square: Bigfoot’s got boots in Bradford? The Bradford EraView the full article

Originally released as Episode 453. What happens when a young girl’s innocent day in the mud turns into a lifetime of terror? In this haunting episode, we meet Anne — a woman from North Idaho whose encounters with Bigfoot began at just four years old on the South Hill of Spokane. But this isn’t just another sighting. From mind speak, violent night terrors, and dreams of giants to mysterious voices calling her dog’s name in the woods — Anne’s story spirals into chilling high strangeness that only intensifies over time. We explore the terrifying morning when a screaming cow elk may have witnessed her calf being taken... and a shadowy upright figure appeared in the snow. You’ll hear about tree shakes, electronic sounds from the forest, dreams of protection, and an unsettling presence that never quite lets go. This is more than a cryptid tale. It’s the story of a life marked by something watching. And waiting. Stay with us. 🗣️ 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

I have had zero personal experience with a society of Bigfeet who bury their dead and have high order of human characteristics. Bob Gimlin didn’t either. Neither did Roger Patterson. They did both have one more experience than I have.

Wow. That is off the rails. I’ve made pretty clear where I’m coming from. This isn’t about any interest in anything further I have said or what I might have to say.

Gotcha. Sorry! I am not familiar with Harry’s account.

NASA Targets 3i ATLAS For Planetary Defense Drill: Ancient Alien Topics Back In News #UFO #aliensView the full article

Twelve miles up the Conuma River looks like Grand Central Station now. A road, clear cuts, the whole shebang.

He posted follow up videos with probable vocalization's. And also some thermal images.

That was the Ostman event. I believe FLY was referring to the Muchalat Harry event. It is believed that his camp was @ 12 miles up the Conuma River from its mouth in Tlupana Inlet on the west side of Vancouver Island. The sasquatch "camp" was believed to be within 2-3 miles from his camp.

I meant the rock overhang

E-DNA is changing Science in multiple ways:

The answer to your original question is YES. We talked about Timothy Treadwell and the old bear guarding his carcass when the Park Service showed up. A similar situation IMHO. I have no doubt a starving Bigfoot in the right setting would hunt and eat a human. It’s also well documented in Indian folklore. But now we are debating about do Bigfeet take care of the old or injured? Or if they have human characteristics at all. Do they live in a family group to facilitate care? My personal experience is that I have never seen evidence of family groups. The trackway we cut in snow was alone. Patty in the Patterson Gimlin Film was alone. Lots of singular trackways in reports, etc. BUT. We also have reports like Ostman and Ape Canyon that do have them living in family groups. And there is absolutely no way that a breeding population of a species doesn’t come together. Maybe that’s seasonally? Maybe that’s a rut? Or berry picking season? Dunno. I am not saying that 15 Bigfeet are all living in a cave together like Neanderthals. But certainly if procreation is happening? Which it must? They have to be able to find each other and be together at least for a time. The answer is most likely BOTH. And my best WAG is that the males especially young males are more solitary. And mothers and daughters probably hang closer together in small groups depending on the season, maternity status and food availability. The Olympic project nesting site certainly suggests that they were living in a group. But we have no idea what that group dynamic looks like. If memory serves it was close to the Toba inlet.

It would be a rough few days in the wet woods, but maybe. Byrne spent a few days looking for it. I don't think he found it, but the end of his account indicated that he enjoyed the time spent. I'm not going there because it's Canada, and they won't allow me to have my guns there. There's more than one way to skin a cat (or protect sasquatches).............

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.