Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 08/05/2026 in all areas

  1. I think the best circumstantial evidence was obtained by the Olympic Project.
    5 points
  2. One of our own forum members!👏🏻
    3 points
  3. I don't think that's automatically a strange question. It is something we should be thinking about .. society-wise, not just bigfooters. I think the best answer is "it depends." There are some really bad assumptions built into the question, assumptions that should be examined. First thing .. what we consider "normal" is not historical normal. (1) Transpiration creates a downwind moisture plume which allows forest to grow in places it naturally could not. Fire destroys not just what it burns, but the downwind moisture plume which "artificially" supports forest in places that would naturally be desert if there were no forest upwind to provide the atmospheric moisture. (2) We have 100 years and more of fire fighting / fire prevention which has altered the natural landscape. Though it is familiar to us, it is not the long term norm and it is not "natural." Complicating things further, the Native Americans / First Nations people deliberately altered the environment / landscape with large scale fire. Because they seem to have arrived before deglaciation, there probably has not been a "natural" environment, one not altered by human activity, since before the last glacial maximum. Data suggest we are in a period of rapid climate change. Second thing .. forest regrowth is though a progression of stages. Once forest is lost, we get grasslands / brush, smaller trees, etc before big trees return. This can take centuries, not decades, not years, and given changing climate conditions, I'm not sure we will have periods between fires long enough for the cycle to complete, we seem to be looking at forest -> burn -> brush -> burn -> brush -> burn -> brush .. etc. We .. in my area .. are getting much more frequent dry lighting and large fires than we have ever had in recorded history. The opportunities for mature forest to re-form under these conditions seem nil. In fact it seems the only chance of restoration is via human intervention, not via natural processes. This situation seems likely to last for centuries, maybe tens of centuries, and the new equilibrium, if there is one, won't be the one we're used to. I suspect much of North America, if humans just vanished, would turn into a land of brush and grasses with very little "reclamation" by forest as we know it because of the increased rate of lightning fires driven by global warming. Once turned to brush and grasses, it is very difficult to return to forest because conditions don't last enough years in a row for that to happen. IMHO of course! MIB
    3 points
  4. Talked to the last land owner we worked for in Nespelem. He is of the Moses clan. I had rodeo’d in Nespelem in 89, and was asking about a kid that beat me chute dogging. He was first and I was second. The conversation somehow got to him asking me if I believed in Bigfoot. I told him the snow track story at our ranch. He told me that they were afraid after dark. And that one time they had found a Colt that had been ripped in half. Something had grabbed the hind legs and had just wishbone it in half. He always got ansy hunting and shot something and while tracking it, it got dark. The Bigfoot cutout on top of Disautel pass survived the fire. Amazing to me how people there have Bigfoot at the fore front of their minds much more so than a cross section of the white population. Other than the tracks I observed? I was raised with both Colville and Spokane Indians and I am sure they have rubbed off on me.
    2 points
  5. That hits the nail on the head. (And, thank-you for summarizing the affects that your encounters have had for you. Much appreciated.) Something funny is going on! Of that, I am 99.9% sure. There is just no way that an otherwise 'normal' biological creature of the reported sizes can exist and, remain unclassified after all these years, without something(s) 'funny' going on. This is a good thread, in my opinion. We can be civil here and honestly explore what may be the cause(s) for the lack of Scientific acceptance/classification. When I joined the BFF, it was stated that the official stance of the BBF was basically that Bigfoot are a biological animal, similar to Gorillas, Humans, etc. except in perhaps their size and elusiveness. And, as time went by, I never really understood why so many people categorically reject the idea that there may be (and most likely are) characteristics of Bigfoot that are beyond the current Scientific paradigms. In fact, if you accept that many witnesses are seeing something(s) matching the criteria, it seems undeniable that they must defy our current understandings. As a side note: I live in the middle of a big city, on a busy road. Yet, my backyard is interesting because it becomes almost rural when you step out the back door. And (not to imply too much into how this may affect this current discussion), I have seen unusual wildlife out there. One night about 15 years ago when it was just about to get fully dark, I saw the silhouette of some kind of gigantic bird fly by. We have barred owls and some hawks and a few eagles, but this thing had like a 6-7 foot wing-span and it flew right by me! I imagine that any Ornithologist would probably say 'No, you must be mistaken, there are no birds of that size anywhere around there' but, I know what I saw. Point being: no one really knows anything, until they know.
    2 points
  6. 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.
    2 points
  7. Just wondering if its still the seething hotbed of opinions and contention it was always rumored to be.....also I'm still curious about the purple glow.........lol
    2 points
  8. I think you have to ask some followup questions. 1) WHEN did the encounter occur, because I think media attention has changed the answer over time, at least in terms of averages. 2) WHO are you? Because I think different demographics have different propensities to report. I take a LOT of local reports via word of mouth that are never formally submitted .. truly, I've heard many accounts even from BFRO and Olympic Project members around the campfire that I do not think are part of any public database. I think we have to be very careful, in the context of your question, about assuming any uniformity of answer. Then there's the question of what constitutes a report? Formal submission? Sharing with other bigfooters informally? Sharing with family .. who may not be proponents? Those will vary for each of us depending on something which may vary from trust of those we're sharing with to deliberately, abrasively jamming it down their throats and daring them to voice doubt.
    2 points
  9. I was visiting my cousin (who grew up and currently lives on the northern coast of Oregon) 2 years ago and she revealed to me that she had a sighting in her backyard in the 80's. She has known of my interest in squatching for the last 15 years, but never said a thing. She finally opened up and told everyone after 40 years.
    2 points
  10. ^^^ Absolutely. That's one reason why old reports may be less reliable. Numerous (probably most) encounter reports give only the year, then at best the month and date. However, the inability to remember a date doesn't necessarily taint a witness's report. I can recount in painful detail a jump I made somewhere between '85 and '86 (maybe '87) where the 'chute wrapped around my leg. The fact that I don't remember the date without pulling out my (very short) jump log book doesn't make my recollection of the events any less credible.
    2 points
  11. Fauna bone pile as a result of Glacial Lake Outburst Flood washing animals downstream until the wall of water dissipates and the dead animals 'pile up'. Muck piles have yielded bones of ancient animals to miners for many years. Many bones were washed out to sea in the Arctic and Bering Sea. Glacial Lake Outburst Floods were massive and repetitive.
    2 points
  12. The distinction I am trying to make? Is that a Bear is not self aware. It doesn’t recognize itself in a mirror, it attacks the mirror. It doesn’t understand that it’s leaving tracks that others can follow either. It itself tracks like a bloodhound, on scent. It has poor eyesight, but most importantly it’s not self aware. Knuckle walking great apes are self aware. They may react like a Bear at first. But they quickly figure out they are seeing their own reflection. Jeff Meldrum talks about making Chimp casts and observing the chimps be self aware of their own footprints in the sand. So if knuckle walking great apes are self aware? Surely a bipedal Sasquatch is more self aware than they are. This is the cognition part that most animals lack. So back to tracks. If you live in the woods and are hunting and foraging in the woods? You’re gonna leave sign. It’s inescapable. The key difference is having the cognitive ability to understand this. And if you don’t want to be found? Then you’re going to mitigate the risk as much as feesably possible. But you cannot erase it entirely. But if you understand this concept you can also use it as a WEAPON against the trackers. You could leave a short track way in the opposite direction of your families intended travel. You could stage a track in an area where you can easily observe your trackers from concealment. A false trail buys you time while the tracker has to sort it out. There are lots of counter tactics in the game of tracker and being tracked. This leaves the territory of a hunter tracking a deer through the woods. This is military and law enforcement territory. Where a tracked human could be leading you into an ambush. Now you’re asking yourself things like? Why is this track left in such an obvious way? Is it a misdirection? Are we being observed? Is it a stall for time? You may be a city slicker but if you’re honestly interested in this subject? There are lots of good books to read and you can practice some of it in your own backyard or a park. I observed a trackway in snow with my father. I have zero doubt that a Sasquatch knows it’s leaving tracks. IT KNOWS. So the question then becomes did it care? Or could it not be helped? If it doesn’t care then it probably has an ulterior motive. Which should send a cold shiver up your spine. But in our case hunting for a Xmas tree in an area we normally would not be in that time of year? And in deep snow? It probably just couldn’t be helped. In that case it’s probably betting on the fact that a human on snowshoes just cannot keep up in deep snow in mountainous terrain. And it is impossible to erase a snow trackway anyhow. So make haste. I have mulled this concept over in my head many times. Even when I am out in the woods looking for tracks. A quarry that understands that you could be tracking it? Is a paradigm shift for most hunters, hikers and lay people. Tracks will never be the smoking gun. Dental resin casts are great conversation pieces but nothing more. But tracks will lead you to the creature…. That’s a certainty. IF we are good enough to follow them and the weather holds.🤷‍♂️ The ultimate game of hide and seek.
    2 points
  13. For those who doubt the usefulness of DNA in identifying Bigfoot as a new species or a Homo sapiens hybrid, please read this paper on the Likweli monkey, which has extensive DNA results to demonstrate its place in monkey phylogeny as a distinct species. A similar paper on the Lesula monkey, another recent discovery, can be found in PLOS ONE.
    2 points
  14. Not only is interesting I would have thought it would have provoked 50 posts by now
    1 point
  15. .........AND there are millions more people out there to see them, AND actually looking for them. The human population of this planet has quadrupled in just the last century: 10,000 BCE: About 4 million people lived on Earth after the shift toward agriculture. 1 CE: Around 170 million to 300 million people. 1804: Reached 1 billion for the first time, taking all of human history. 1927: Reached 2 billion (123 years later). 1960: Reached 3 billion (33 years later). 1974: Reached 4 billion (14 years later). 1987: Reached 5 billion (13 years later). 1999: Reached 6 billion (12 years later). 2011: Reached 7 billion (12 years later). 2022: Reached 8 billion on November 15, 2022 (11 years later)
    1 point
  16. 1 point
  17. Stellar thought the lights were off and the party over
    1 point
  18. 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.
    1 point
  19. I try to avoid big groups, but I'd love to find someone to partner up with for some remote, dispersed camping in east TX soon. Going into my fifth year of research. I have a Jeep, a thermal monocular, audio recorder and some good camping gear.
    1 point
  20. Well definitely the discussions are a big part of it, as its always great to bounce ideas and get opinions and critiques, asking questions, even if sasquatch don't look like a shaved bear. I like the paranormal section, and I've yet to access the tarpit, but heck I couldn't even say how many years I've been coming here posting my own crazy ideas, hypothesesiz, answers/solutions, approach, long winded replies that might seem nearly rational at the outset, but then kinda veer off to something about generalist omnivores in the Pleistocene, and how wood tools work just fine when you can bench press a tractor, and sometimes even try my hand at Bigfoot humor, sometimes to make or illustrate a point, other times not so much. But gosh, you guys, after all these years we're nearly family! Sure some of has might be that grumpy uncle we seat at the other table, but still! Hey anybody here from Aunt Sasfooty lately?
    1 point
  21. Excellent interview, Daniel!
    1 point
  22. Thanks for the info about the eclipse tonight!
    1 point
  23. As a bigfoot investigator, I've taken a number of Bigfoot sighting reports in and around the KC area in the past few years. Most have been near the Missouri River near Sugar Creek, Independence, and east at the Burr Oak woods conservation area. There was also a mothman sighting at Burr Oak Woods. The most recent Bigfoot sighting occured in the city in Independence when a large grey bigfoot was seen near 23rd and Pearl street at dusk. If you have had a sighting in this region, please let me know, as I would like to include it in an upcoming book on the subject.
    1 point
  24. Hello! I'm a new person. I'm an avid lover and a believer in Bigfoot.
    1 point
  25. Agreed this is a great interview. Very timely considering the upcoming supposed release of the Capturing Bigfoot piece. Mr Perez’ book, Bigfoot at Bluff Creek, is excellent. I consider it a must read for those of us who want a complete breakdown of the Patterson Gimlin Film and all its history. Mr Perez was able to tie all the loosely connected dangling threads (people, places, things) into a cohesive explanation of the timeline of events and evidence surrounding the film.
    1 point
  26. We do not have proof of bigfoot. We have evidence for the existence of bigfoot. The difference matters greatly. The absolute and unavoidable "math" is this: we will not have PROOF of bigfoot until modern science accepts the existence of bigfoot. These are exactly identical. We have some pretty cool evidence. Some is easy enough to dismiss even if it is incorrect to do so, some is pretty hard to rationally dismiss even if a scoftic would do so.
    1 point
  27. Greetings from Southern Ontario. I've always been fascinated by cryptozoology and Sasquatch/Bigfoot. Nearing retirement and I'm forward to deep-diving into the subject more.
    1 point
  28. Hi, My name is Jack and I'm from Massachusetts, I'm new(ish) to the subject and look forward to learning more. Thank you for having me. Can't wait to dive right in!
    1 point
  29. Hey been casual but skeptical bigfoot fan since childhood. working on screenplay and investigating the pnw has made me full believer.
    1 point
  30. Beyond this, i've found some some truly amazing things where the larger, three year data set is concerned, AND i'm still looking to get a fourth consecutive year cleaned up and analysed this year/next year. I'll of course share it when applicable, right here on the forums first..;)
    1 point
  31. ^Those behaviors are commonly reported. Random find, interesting full report. https://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=414
    1 point
  32. Hello, my interest in bigfoot started years ago as a kid. It went away until I decided to embrace it for real a couple of years ago! I went on a BFRO expedition in New Mexico, and might possibly have had an experience... not exactly sure, but have some great pics. Now I'm in Florida and would love to get in with folks and learn all that I can.
    1 point
  33. Can you dig into the 2000s more specifically? I'm curious whether the increase came before or after Mysterious Encounters. It may have prompted an increase in reporting / knowledge of where to report in a manner similar to Finding Bigfoot.
    1 point
  34. It's no secret that the BFF is struggling. It's no one's fault, and some good folks have worked hard to keep the lights on. I'm very grateful to them. The Tar Pit has dwindled, in conjunction with the forum's struggles. I would certainly welcome anyone seeking to dip a toe into its murky depths. Long live BFF!
    1 point
  35. I agree with you on this. To me Bigfoot is near extinction which explains a lot.
    1 point
  36. In. Terms of objective cognition, the mirror test presents a basic dividing line, finding the spot on your forehead, fine. But realizing you're the one leaving those prints, not to mention even noticing them is a different (higher) level of cognitive awareness. Then there's the awareness you're being tracked/hunted, which is something all sorts of animals display. They know when something's after them if not simply taken by surprise in a direct assault. I would doubt, however, that most realize their tracks contribute to their trail. But those that do make that connection are acting on a higher level. And to actively hide their tracks higher still. However, its akin to a quantum leap of intelligence/cognition to use ones tracks to manipulate your persuer's perception by means of strategic misdirection. That's some crafty forest ninja level of avoidance behavior. That's a being capable of envisioning its hunters mindset and setting "traps" based on what it perceives as your expectational/interpretational set. And THAT is pretty dang clever! Almost frighteningly so.....
    1 point
  37. Hi. My Username is FieldAnomaly, you can call me Scott. I've always been interested in Bigfoot type stories since high school (a long time ago) but it hasn't been a primary interest up until the last 6-8 months. I am a paranormal investigator with 20+ years experience in science-based investigations. I wrote a White Paper on the environmental events sometimes associated with Bigfoot encounters. I've recently applied my paranormal techniques on 2 solo backpacking trips, one on the Superior Hiking Trail, and one on the TN/KY border. I believe that if Bigfoot encounter stories are accurate, I can measure and quantify environmental changes. I'll be posting more in the main body, I'm just introducing myself for now.
    1 point
  38. Koko clearly had a chance to reach her potential because he IQ max (70-90) came into an environment where she got the attention, training, and so on at her zoo. If Koko was left the the wild Koko doesn't learn sign language and so on or at least at the impressive level we see on this videos. Its still spooky and impressive at the same time. I do think in our guts people naturally need to emotionally dismiss the things Apes do because it is hard to accept how close they are to us as 'normal people' I am guessing Bigfoot has at least a Koko level IQ. I consider that more potential of Bigfoot. I have to think Bigfoot uses whatever brains achieve its day to day working needs. If its day to day needs are a struggle it almost doesn't have the time for higher thought. If Bigfoot lived in Koko's zoo my guess is Bigfoot would be smarter on many levels vs. Koko. I would also guess Bigfoot would be able to achieve levels of learning Koko couldn't. None of this would happen though if Bigfoot didn't end up in an environment like Koko's zoo where this potential can become realized. Bigfoot is probably pretty smart and obviously good at hiding. I still say it doesn't mean Bigfoot has some really high level of smarts and understanding some suggest. I hope we never find out because to do so would be some rate animal was caged to do so.
    1 point
  39. There have been several sightings of Bigfoot in the past few years near the Missouri River at La Benite Park in Sugar Creek, at the conservation area in Sugar Creek, and in Independence, in that same general area. The Missouri River is 3.66 miles from the recent sighting, and .48 miles from the railroad line, which passes right by the Missouri River. Several people (including me) have heard things that could have been Bigfoot (heavy footsteps on the gravel late at night, loud grunts, and on two occasions, rails being banged against each other, which I doubt a human could do) along the railroad cut that goes directly behind my house, which is 2 miles from the most recent location. The cuts are heavily overgrown with bushes and trees. I need to write an article about these reports.
    1 point
  40. The "Public" involved in the world "Public opinion" would include a large groups of millions of people containing many sub groups. These groups would be expected to have various complicated thoughts on Bigfoot. Bigfoot is the concern here. I would have thought the Bigfoot issue as it relates to anyone in the public is a binary choice. You either believe in Bigfoot or you don't. Yet it is more complicated than that. My first thought might be the 3 "Public" camps. 1) Bigfoot doesn't exist 2) Bigfoot might/could exist 3) Bigfoot exists! If we consider group #3 Bigfoot Exists your post shows me there are further groups in just that group. That is, some might believe: -Bigfoot is an Alien riding on space ships. -Bigfoot is an animal known by the government and actively kept hidden from the public for scary reasons. - Bigfoot is real and the government is keeping it quiet until it captures one and can understand it. Until then they don't want hunters shooting at each other. -Bigfoot is a form of undiscovered ape man out there in the wilderness more human than ape and more or less human. -Bigfoot is some human like man Ape running around in the wilderness. -And so on and so on. If someone thinks the government knows and is actively involved in a secret Bigfoot conspiracy I would contend that is probably a very small number of people. I say this because it requires not just the belief in bigfoot but a government who can actively cooperate with Bigfoot and work to keep it quiet. When I say the Jury of Public opinion to me it means group 1 and group 2 can be moved to be more open-minded. Put another way its moving group 1 to group 2 or 3 to the extent you can. Does the government know or care? That is a sub discussion for those in Group 3. My guess would be only a minority of those in group 3 think that. Still, such an opinion could very well be true. I just don't happen to be one of them. I am open to the idea our government would want to keep important things from the public. Does Bigfoot reach that level? Not for me but I am in Group 2 at this time. Until I moved to group 3, I cannot seriously consider this at the same level as those already in group 3, with all due respect to those who do.
    1 point
  41. 1 point
  42. It’s amazing to think that 80s - 90s era camcorders took much worse footage than a 16mm camera in the late 60s.
    1 point
  43. I was under the impression that the book was closed on this terrible footage long ago. What I mean is mostly likely human, but not discernible because of the awful quality. Apparent removal of the head of the costume doesn't help.
    1 point
  44. Xspider1 its going to have to be a pretty extreme and extensive mutation for an individual to be deemed a unique species. The mutations would have have to be extensive enough to disguise the markers used to differentiate the original species, and I have hard time envisioning that occurring in anything but like bacteria, or fruit flies at best with their four chromasomes...maybe.... I'd think most mutations that would cause drastic morphological changes will prove lethal from the get go or shortly there after, unless, of course its the result of direct genetic manipulation recombining the genes of disparate species in a plotted out effort, but even then the original species involved could be identified. Were it by just a single inheritable trait that sasquatch is set apart from modern humans then it might well be attributed to an aberrant mutation, but there's clearly more involved in the differentiation between us.
    1 point
  45. Well, that's interesting and does open up some potentials. If the track ways are indicating a larger size, do they also imply the degree of "upright-ness"? And how would this impact their capacity for longer distance mobility. Is it possible they or some member of Paranthropus were able to take part in the ongoing exodus from Africa along with other hominids of the time, such as erectus? If this occurred when sea levels had dropped we would have little chance of finding evidence of such range expansions, but if H.erectus was on the move, whats to say Paranthropus wouldn't as well, perhaps even following or joining H.e for increased safety and foraging.its a stretch to be sure, but it does illustrate potential pathways for the simultaneous expansion of multiple species outside of Africa, which could then result in multiple derived forms further out rather than just our own hominid line.
    1 point
  46. Yes. But no elk hoof tracks in the cast area. So did it levitate out of its bed? The last act of a bedded elk getting up is standing on its hooves, right? Ive posted video of elk in the act of getting up before. So we should guard against blanket statements like this or the Jacobs creature was a bear because bear cubs where recently in the bait stand. My own personal experience is that I get a wide variety of species into my bait stand when i was doing it. And something with padded feet like a bear or a Bigfoot is harder to track.
    1 point
  47. I have consolidated the three Capturing Bigfoot threads under Skinwalker13 original posting. It has been moved to the PGF section. Thank you for your patience!
    1 point
  48. ^^^ This is a point Anna Nikaris has made about Bigfoot. She discovered some similar primate in Asia herself a few years ago. Never know what is out there.
    1 point
This leaderboard is set to New York/GMT-04:00
×
×
  • Create New...