Leaderboard

One of our own forum members!👏🏻

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

Regarding the Cerruti site mastadon bones purportedly dated to 130,000 years ago .. mainstream science has the ability to determine whether the scratches / notches in the bone were made 130K years ago when the bone was fresh vs recently when they were being dug up. This is the study of taphonomy. Those markings / scraping / etc are NOT recent effects of the earth moving machinery, those markings were made while the bones were still fresh. That does not settle the question of who / what did them but it does settle the question of when the markings were made. Maybe, or maybe lacking technology, they saw solutions that our reliance on technology trips over?

Wow, xspider1 and Norseman. What a debate that has been civil and neither party has backed down even during the most intense language at proving bigfoot is a real monster. It seems both of you have proved bigfoot is a monster. Seems like most of the audience has backed off while you two have carried on a debate that would heat metal to the bending point. One of the main points that is still not clear is does it take a deceased bigfoot male and female body to prove the existence of bigfoot? Do we agree bigfoot is a real living animal and a new species? Does DNA make the distinction between myth and real living monster? Presently what is the status of bigfoot ............................. myth or monster? Has enough evidence been brought forth for proof of the bigfoot with its own species name? What is the present status of bigfoot? Some claim bigfoot is a myth that can disappear and is abducted by aliens and delivered to Earth's forest.

I've never watched a bear drag anything away, but have run across lots of their buried treasures (I really don't like that.........). But one of the most impressive things I've seen (more than once) is a grizzly running for its life as I entered the valley or area (they heard or smelled me/us coming).........especially in the fall when they're fat and their fur is thickening for winter, and their hide moves like Patty's in the PGF. Bears can really cover territory!

I had to dig real deep for this bad boy, nearly 15 years deep in fact but i found it. I'm still adamant that he got his locations mixed up too, and i'm gonna send this to Aleks..

Not so sure. Many whistleblowers have been threatened. And some scientists have disappeared. Is this a grassroots movement to get the truth to the public? Or some red flag event where the government is purposely leaking stuff while acting tough? Dunno. 1) No it wouldn’t. You can point to the child sized pilot chairs but mainstream Science will still want proof. The military is using scientists too. But they are not allowed to publish findings to peer reviewed publications. Part of science is now dark. And has been since the bomb. What else are they hiding in there? 2) Any scientist that can get their work published and accepted in a peer reviewed publication. But if your work happens to pertain with above top secret research? We know who the real boss is. Dr. Gary Nolan has stated they are building a retrieval team to beat the military out to these crash sites. All I can say is? Good Luck! 👀 You and I both agree something funky is going on with Bigfoot as well. Someone doesn’t want them discovered for what ever the reason.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I think the best circumstantial evidence was obtained by the Olympic Project.

Homo sapiens are primates, too. There is evidence that they do, and if so, that would pretty much narrow them into the genus Homo.

Dr. Meldrum is greatly missed. Here's an interview providing the point. The doctor's expertise in analyzing footprint evidence is amazing and compelling. RIP, Dr. Meldrum.

It seems pretty clear to me that the genetic evidence found in populations in the Amazon basin indicate the route to the populating of the Americas was both through Beringia and by seafaring Pacific Islanders who most likely made landfall on the western coast a long time before them. There is no reason to believe it had to be one or the other. Really, there may have been even more migrations we only speculate about now. This idea that a whole continent of land and resources was just laying open and unexploited until only 13k years ago is a quaint one. Anatomically modern humans at least 200,000 years ago were probably exploring the planet by any means available, and they had technologies we don’t give them credit for. We look at the vastness of the Pacific and we can’t wrap our head around people being able to make those jumps over the vast distances required. People do surprising and amazing things and we don’t give them the same credit we give ourselves.

I believe 90%-95%+ of the Bigfoot eyewitness reports are seeing something real with only about 1-5% being outright liars and hoaxers. What I struggle with is not being sure what they saw. Is it a bear? Is it some other misidentification? That part of my brain I will call the BAD COP Then the GOOD COP part of my brain tells me, "Do you really think ALL of these people- every single one is wrong? Are they all mistaken?!" The GOOD COP part of me understands there only needs to be one of these reports to be real for Bigfoot to be real. Just one single report. For those who have had an encounter please forgive my struggle between the GOOD COP and BAD COP. I have never had such an encounter and honestly would never want to until Bigfoot in the public is a well-establish universal fact.

Thank you. Whenever I start doubting the existence of Sasquatch I remember these stories. They can't easily be explained by known phenomena

Great video—I really appreciate it telling why so many samples are taken. I was privileged to go with a group from Mass. Herpetological Society to see the back storage rooms of reptiles and amphibians at Harvard University’s Zoology Museum. Understanding that scientists and students still use them is fascinating.

GO TAKE A BIOLOGY CLASS! You’re talking out your donkey…. Type Specimens 1) Holotype (Species anchor) 2) Allotype (The opposite sex of the Holotype) 3) Paratypes (extra specimens of the same species) 4) Syntypes (when no Holotype was chosen by error) Nothing I have told you is some personal version. It’s what I have read and what I have asked from scientists. If you would like to educate yourself in basic biology and discuss? I will be right here! As far as majestic? Yah I think Bigfoot absolutely belongs with Elephants, Giraffes and Mountain Gorillas with their own scientific classification. They DO NOT belong with Pixies, Gnomes and Hobgoblins in the mythological section at Barnes and Noble.🤷‍♂️

I'm talking in circles?? That's ripe. One minute you say it doesn't matter as long as Science gets a complete male and a complete female Sasquatch, then you say Science just needs a type specimen? Again, a type specimen can be (and often is) a body part recovered post-mortem. Only your personal version of Science requires two complete Sasquatch skeletons. "As far as semantics? I guess I have a Bigfoot hypothesis then…..no feelings anywhere." That takes the cake because 1.) you are trying to reduce Science to semantics which is basically the opposite, and 2.) no feelings anywhere? geez Why is it always Bigfoot ripping my arms off? I'm not advocating hunting down a potentially breeding pair, you are. "You on the other hand LOTS OF FEELINGS when it comes to killing “majestic animals” in the name of science!" Correct. When you quote "majestic animals" do you feel as though Bigfoot are not majestic? They're just another every day 10 foot tall human-like Ape I guess.. No big deal.

BTW the Disautel pass Sasquatch survived the fire! https://okanogancountry.com/poi/sasquatch-disautel-pass

I have been in the woods with Nathan in north Idaho. He is a very respectful, knowledgeable young man.👍

Of course you should! Right now as I eat my morning granola and type on this laptop I'm watching Nathan (a former, and perhaps still present poster here) on his Study Sasquach channel. He just casted yet another footprint. Now, I'm not so impressed with yet another sasquatch footprint cast. There must be thousands of them now in various collections, including the PGF casts that came with a film of the creature actually making the footprints. They "prove" nothing. What I'm interested with in Nathan's videos are: 1) He's honest, no BS, and is as down to Earth as they get 2) He's active and tenacious, and I can always expect him to provide an excellent video of his experiences 3) And he uses incredibly wonderful gear, which is a science in and of itself, and even at my age, I'm still interested in such stuff for hunting (which my tyrannical wife and decreasing health seems to increasingly prevent me from enjoying)

No, but the original "discovery" of lowland gorillas (a process during the years 1847-1859) came (part and parcel) with a world ideology/struggle that continues to this day: Darwinism.

Until they fall into one category or the other, they don't fall into either. And, if they are never classified, they will never fall into either category. So, I think you are putting the cart before the horse. I read your post (and certainly not trying to call you out, especially since you graciously run the show here and participate intelligently, probably more than anyone else.) But, I still have not seen any indication that a full skeleton of both a male and a female Bigfoot would be required by Science.

...or there are no agenda or actions required by anybody. If there are very few of something and the terrain is hard to find those very few that accounts for very few legitimate sightings or reports. I say legit as some of those sightings could be a false storytelling, well-intentioned misidentification, and others. Even if all were legit sightings, those are still few in numbers vs the task to finding bigfoot. 1 needle in a large haystack is hard to find. 5,000 in that same haystack would be expected to be easy to find one. How many needles are out there? What size is the haystack? That may be enough to explain it.

Those are totally valid points/questions. I think we can only speak for ourselves and, as for me: Success at looking for Bigfoot would be seeing one or more in a situation that provided undeniable confidence that I was seeing the creature(s) that have already been described thousands of times. The sighting would need to be unambiguous and, it would be great if there was at least one other person present so that, if nothing else, we could talk about it. (I had such an experience with a 'UFO' decades ago, but I was alone in my truck. I have always been grateful for that experience because it broadened my horizons, even though I can't say if it was an Alien spacecraft, or not. It was definitely an unidentifiable flying object, beyond the scope of anything that I can imagine to be man-made.) For others, perhaps the majority of the BFF membership, success only means one thing: Scientific Acceptance and Classification. I get that, but if a Bigfoot body on a slab is required and one cannot be obtained without deliberately killing one then, it would not be worth it, in my opinion. And, if I see a Thylacine, I'm not going to shoot that either. I would tell my story, just as I did with the UFO and as I would with Bigfoot then, whoever didn't believe me or, thought I was crazy, could take a long walk off a short bridge. lol

I think of Anna Nikaris discovery of an unknown animal. The interest isn’t that it looked like bigfoot. The issue is the animal existed but was undiscovered until recently. To me the animal doesn’t have to be impressive. The principal of discovery makes it impressive. Dr Nikaris even had a lecture with the possibility of Bigfoot existing.

So Hiflier would be proud of me. I just emailed George Knapp asking him if he had any contacts for anomalous footage from government agencies that could be related to cryptids. I will let you know if he responds!👍

This is a bit rhetorical, not looking for an answer, rather, suggesting a question we should each ask ourselves. In light of others' responses, I want to look at this question again from a different angle. Success at what? Personal experience or scientific acceptance .. or something else (if so, what)? These are not the same thing. A lot of people continue having personal experiences that I strongly suspect are legitimate. Documented .. in a sense .. in that they are shared here and other places. Not rigorously enough for scientific use, but documented. I don't think these personal experiences are moving the needle toward acceptance. Maybe they silence a few hecklers but there are plenty of those remaining. So .. what is the goal? What is your goal, my goal, "our goal", "community goal"? If they are not the same, which are moving forward and which have stalled? MIB

I want to throw out a random thought, a question I ponder now and then. Are there a) lots of bigfoots but they are super sneaky or b) only a few bigfoots but they are fairly clumsy, inept at hiding, so those few are seen fairly frequently? I mean, pretty simple logic .. either option produces a similar number of reports. Since many reports occur in clusters / flurries, then there's nothing in that area again for years, maybe bigfoot is not so uncatchable after all, they're just even more rare than we give them credit for? If they are traveling pretty fast that might account for the "report chasers" always being late, never finding a bigfoot when they arrive. Dunno, just one of those mental tin cans I kick around when I have nothing useful to think about.

The following account of the event came mainly from two visits I had with Peter: first in early May of 2003 when I stayed with him for three days, and in September of that year when he put me up again for two days. We also talked about the shooting incident several times by phone, before and since my visits. The word-for-word questions and Peter’s answers presented here were mostly from the May visit; we sat together in his home where he lives alone now. I taped our conversation. The reader will note a leading tendency in my questions. The prior discussions, I bel ............................read on BFRO Report 9552- Moose hunter shoots -bigfoot- to death.url This BFRO account describes a young 17 year old Canadian moose hunter who shot and killed a bigfoot. This report is plausible enough to be published in the BFRO reports so there is a chance it could be true. Is this a myth or monster event that came about in a small Canadian village? Why is Bigfoot so hard to track, stalk, and capture? Some on the forum now throw the creature into the myth category. If bigfoot is a thousand times more intelligent and wary than a jungle monkey, it becomes a thousand times as difficult to stalk and capture live or deceased. Some animals are just too smart or wary and have incredible hearing and sense of smell. Some seem to fit into the myth category much like Michael Jordan , Joe Namath or a Roswell alien to name a few super individuals. Every now and then bigfoot will slip up and will be captured like Patty was captured on film. The lucky Canadian hunter will repeat itself and a body will be produced to cause bigfoot to be identified as a monster. BFRO Report 9552- Moose hunter shoots -bigfoot- to death.url

Lake Shelbyville Illinois:

Could be. I’d say the older I get the longer I go without seeing a debunking of the PGF. Could be a hoax. But the longer I go without seeing a strong hoax case being made the more it suggests Roger and Bob may have really “got the sucker” One can be real but the Government involvement is not required.

That is an insightful question. I saw what I saw, I know what I know. Though convincing to me, because I was there observing, not merely hearing the account afterwards, I would be disappointed if anyone looked at my sighting accounts as anything other than "just another anecdote" so far as "proof" goes. I don't even have a picture to back them up with. That makes them, frankly, pretty weak sauce so far as proving anything at all. I hope that for someone already convinced by some other body of evidence, they are interesting and maybe educational, maybe fill in some gaps. At least for a couple of the tracks I do have pictures. They are open to interpretation. For interested individuals, they might well be interesting / educational, but I have no delusions that those constitute proof either. They'd barely make the grade as serious evidence. Same for the audio. All are most useful as interesting data points for those who are interested. They should never be thought of as proof or even as strong evidence. Does this make sense? I hope so, hope it gives some context for how I see my own meager "offerings."

Daniel's recollection of dates and events regarding Bigfoot is amazing. I was getting his newsletter for awhile and enjoyed it. He's one of those researchers who has a great ability to speak truth, direct and to the point. Nice interview, thanks for posting, Norse.

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?

In the folklore of the Caucasus, Pamir, and Altai mountains, an almas (also called an almasty) is a legendary hominid cryptid. Stories describe it as a human-like creature covered in reddish-brown hair, standing 5 to 6.5 feet tall, and resembling modern reconstructions of Neanderthals rather than large apes. Zana fit that physical description perfectly. She was called an Almas during and after her lifetime. Recently, Science dug her body up along with that of her son and analyzed the DNA of other descendants. She has been scientifically identified as Homo sapiens. She was both, and there is no reason why she could not be both.

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.

Hello! I'm a new person. I'm an avid lover and a believer in Bigfoot.

Hey how are yall from Louisiana

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.

Excellent interview with Daniel. I'll be sending off payment for his newsletter forthwith. The comments are gold, the folks buying the caca that the PGF has been "debunked," and disproven are (to me) hilarious.

We are on the Kaiser Canyon Fire. Doing reclaim. We came across the Keller Ferry. Staging at Keller Wa.

Hey been casual but skeptical bigfoot fan since childhood. working on screenplay and investigating the pnw has made me full believer.

Hello everyone. My name is Hope. I live in the middle of Michigan's thumb. I've been intrigued by Bigfoot since I was very young.

Totally shocked. Had the honor to eat supper with him in Gardner, Montana one night during a tracking course he presented with Jim Halfpenny. He was such a gracious and humble man. May he rest in peace.

Two copies of Delorme Gazetteer for Oregon. One is 'coffee table' mode for planning and it stays clean. The 2nd Gazetteer is the working copy for field use = dog eared, tattered, and stained from beverages. They used to be about $20 but I noticed that they are about $26 or more now. Garmin bought Delorme in 2015--2016. A small audio recorder operating in your vehicle day and night could be revealing. Campsites translate to human(s) with food and animals will be curious. Check your local regulations for bear proof food storage containers even if your food is in your vehicle. Bear spray has vegetable oil as the carrier for the irritant. No practice shots. You will get a bear due to the small residue on the nozzle. A small amount of vegetable oil goes a long way. No need for camo clothes because the birds will give your location away. Small steps.