Leaderboard

So, as a hunter's safety instructor, I find this most disturbing. You DO NOT use your rifle scope to examine / evaluate targets .. for any reason .. EVER. That is what binoculars and spotting scopes are for. I would auto-fail you from my class for such a foolish stunt. You cannot take back a bullet. There is no "oops" and no "do over". MIB

Off topic here slightly - please forgive.. There are so many ways to look at an event or an action. For instance, while it might damage Roger's reputation with some, I actually think that the overdue camera is a vote for the authenticity of the film and a definite strike against the idea of a hoax. You can't pull off a hoax as intricate as this would have had to be, and be dumb at the same time. He's carried out insane level research into hominid physiology, foot morphology, primatology and bio-mechanics beyond the reach of science at that time. He's mastered better-than-cutting-edge costume, prosthetic and make up techniques on little budget. He's pulled all the logistics together for this one shoot. No way on earth is he allowing it to be filmed with a camera that was so overdue. If you're planning a hoax for October, you don't hire the camera from May to July (or whenever it was due back). You hire it just for the time you need it, and take it back early. You want to be as invisible as possible. You definitely don't let an arrest warrant be issued for you 3 days before filming your hoax.

There is a .. pattern. I apologize if I get snippy but I've been down this same path so many times .. it is tiring. Noobs to the subject come in, find something THEY have not seen before, and present it as if it were brand new to an audience who has seen that same thing a dozen times or more, presented by previous noobs who were just as excited thinking that they'd found the answer .. and .. it wears. I want to see new stuff but I don't want to see the same old garbage dug back up, polished slightly, and presented as if it were new .. 'cause it isn't. I do not want to discourage you or dampen your enthusiasm. Just .. don't be shocked if what you think is new has been recycled a half dozen times and everyone but you knows it. Take time .. curb enthusiasm long enough to investigate. It's like .. there are a number of clearly, and "proven-ly", hoaxed pictures that crop up over and over every few years as people who have not taken time to do due diligence get suckered by them and in turn try to sucker others in the same way. It has been a long time since anything truly new has been presented. There are a lot of repetitions, re-occurrences of old patterns, but nothing groundbreaking. The "nests" seemed promising but seemingly nothing has come of them. Ketchum's DNA project turned out to be a bust at best, hoax at worst, but in either case, invalid. And so on. I tell you as honestly as I can, if I were an outsider and if I had not seen 2 myself over the years, I'd think the BF community was bat "guano" crazy, the whole thing was a farce, and I'd stay as far from it as I could. But .. things happen in the woods that don't add up to conventional explanations so the search continues.

Hey Foxhill, thanks for the re[ply....yeah they really don't like the game cams, busted 2 up pretty good, and they didn't touch any treats for about 2 years at the place I always leave them. Hey JKH, always good to hear from you! October 7th is the big 70, but I'm fit, healthy, goofy as ever, and no health issues......running these woods works magic:) I would have to look back, but don't think I've ever posted a pic of myself on here, always wanted to remain anonymous so here you go.

I know of 2 stages of 'old fart'. Initial stage is 'old fart' and then one progresses to 'older than dirt'. When you think about it, dirt is really old. Always go to the silver hairs because we know stuff.

Don't go doing this anymore . You are not safe enough to be out with a firearm .

Those people are from Missouri. ::rimshot::

Tribute to @xspider1 for an excellent thread topic: "Different Circumstances" must include all the various habitats and differing potential threats or hunted quarry which might cause you to consider a different weapon. It must also consider even within your dwelling or camp, since that might be invaded by any manner of dangerous entity. I'll start the thread off with one of the most significant events of late which has both affected my own behavior and reinforced past beliefs: The Phil Shoemaker 9mm Peninsula brown bear shooting:

I for one am glad your back on the regular forum. Your knowledge and expertise is valued by me. We don’t always agree on everything and thats OK. I hope people on here understand what a privilege it is to have access to “been there, done that” forum members like you, BC Witness, Incorrigible, MIB, Airdale and countless others on here. In light of the constant trolling and cyber attacks on accounts here? No matter how you fall on the subject of Bigfoot? The wilderness knowledge here is just amazing and people should at least honor that. And sorry for your troubles!

My choice even though I haven't bought one yet would be a mini 14 for just about every thing for a long gun and a Glock 29 on my belt or chest depending on holster

While down in the Lower 48 (primarily the Southwest), and for defensive purposes, I felt very confident with a 9mm or 45acp, even to defend against black bear and lion. In the city I would have the magazine loaded with 124 grain Remington Golden Sabers, but I knew that when in the outdoors outside of cities I needed +P, higher velocities and a full metal jacket or similar design for greater penetration through large predators. That's how I carried. Then the Shoemaker 9mm shooting rocked the defensive handgun world. Phil was carrying the 9mm for the same reason why most guys want to: it's small, lightweight, unobtrusive, yet has 10 or more rounds ready to go. You feel underarmed, but feel better carrying it than not. His shooting against an 800-900 lb bear proved that +P 9mm solid rounds can be effective big bear defense. I now feel fine with my Sig P-365 daily carry under most circumstances, even in Alaska. It is loaded with an Underwood 147 grain +P FMJ in the pipe, and ten 124 grain Golden Sabers in the magazines, one mag in the gun and another in my pocket. The fully loaded gun, in a pocket holster, weighs a total of 26 ounces. I can consistently hit a salad plate @ 25 yards with three rapidly fired rounds. I carry two more 10 round mags in a tiny camera case in my car loaded with the Underwoods in case I'm going to walk into the woods away from my car. If I'm on a hunting/fishing/exploring trip, I'll keep the Sig on me in camp, but will carry holstered Glock 20 10mm loaded with Underwood 200 grain FMJs into the field as a sidearm. Admittedly, I would not want to shoot any bear with a 9mm, but I also don't want to carry 4 lbs of handgun and holster around with me in camp or on the side of the road, either.........or leave it behind because I'm tired of wearing it. Of course, if hunting, I'll use a rifle suited for the game sought. In my case here in Alaska, that can range from a 243, 30-06, 300 WinMag, to a 338 WinMag, depending on the game and expected field conditions. In open country above tree line, I bring the 300 WinMag (200 grain Accubonds) If in the forest, I'll pack the 338 WinMag (225 Swift A-Frames). If not hunting but in the woods, I carry a Marlin 450 loaded with handloaded 350 grain jacketed flatnosed bullets of three possible manufactures (Hornady Interlocks, Swift A- Frames, or Hawks). The 243 is Mrs. Huntster's caribou getter, or my snowmobile rifle. I consider my knives to be tools, not weapons. I also had a Colt 38 Special revolver that I kept in the Lower 48 that I liked to carry with snake shot in it, but it was stolen. I'm considering acquiring another pocket revolver for that, especially since Mrs. Huntster is whining about trips south in the spring and fall, which is when I want to be here. Since it will be exclusively for viper killing duty, the smaller and lighter, the better. But, really, I should just carry the Remington 11-87 12 gauge loaded up with quail shot for both bird and viper, so I just don't need another revolver. I'm hoping to carry the shotgun around in the Arizona desert this coming winter. It has been a few years since I've hunted birds.

I'm not a hunting 'expert'. I'm just an experienced hunter, and an experienced bench and competitive shooter, and an experienced reloader. Phil Shoemaker is a hunting 'expert'. I found time to be on the internet over the past 40 years because I was on it before Al Gore invented it. I can also perform multiple tasks simultaneously. You can learn to do so as well. I suggest starting your education with a pack of chewing gum and a nice, long dock............

I mean that for some reason many skeptics view Patterson's keeping the rental camera too long as some kind of indication of a hoax. I don't follow the logic here. I view it entirely the opposite, as a nod toward authenticity. You can't be a stupid, careless or risk-taking hoaxer and also have your hoax fool at least some of the global scientific community for nearly 60 years and counting. Those two don't mesh well. A careless hoax probably lasts about a day tops. Hypothetically, to pull off the PGF as a hoax you would have to be some kind of a time-travelling certified creative genius (sarcasm), and any self-respecting certified genius wouldn't forget or just not bother to take the rental camera back on time leading to an arrest warrant being issued - purely for the reason written in my first sentence. It casts suspicion and gives you unwanted attention. Plus - If you're hoaxing, you have complete control of when, where and what you shoot. So Patterson's sitting on the camera for 6 months and then only actually filming in October when the camera was past due makes no sense from a hypothetical control point of view. Of course, what likely happened is he had the camera since around May 16th. I don't see why he wouldn't have taken it with him and Gimlin to Mt St Hellens, as they went there specifically to look for evidence. Then as soon as they got back to Yakima, Patricia passed on the urgent message from Al Hodgson about the Blue Creek Mountain trackways and they would have immediately switched focus to packing everything up for California given the urgency. Patterson may have had to make the choice at this point to extend the rental at Sheppard's Camera Store or just keep it and take the consequences later - which intentionally or not, he obviously did. To go south without it would be pointless (although M K Davis is adamant he also took a Bolex to Bluff Creek) This kind of illustrates the logical tussle that Long has throughout his book - one which he does particularly poorly at. He has to make Patterson seem super-clever for readers to buy that the PGF is hoaxed. He repeats that phrase multiple times in summarizing every interview in almost every chapter. But Patterson's actions are frequently anything but clever and Long never manages to bridge that gap imo.

What helped Patterson's claim exponentially was what came back inside of that overdue rental camera, along with: * Gimlin's story * Footprint casts, both feet * Footprint photos, from said overdue rental camera as well as Laverty's camera snapped three days later in the presence of a forest cruiser crew * Yet more casts taken by Titmus several days later * A previous 12 years of reported sightings and footprint finds in the area from at least a dozen different people You are correct: Patterson (alone) was not *believable* because he could be easily discredited by the lawyer mentality. Doubt in his word could be easily instilled, a tactic so easily done to almost anybody that it is done everyday in courtrooms worldwide to everybody so unfortunate to find themselves there. Conversely, it would be impossible to tally up all the people executed worldwide solely based on the testimony of others. Testimony is critical evidence, as weak as it ultimately is. Its value lies not in proving anything, but in laying the foundation to obtain proof or support other evidence. Patterson and Gimlin were there at Bluff Creek precisely because of previous testimony. I review BFROs newly published reports every month or so. All are essentially testimony. Most I dismiss entirely. A few times per year I find real gems there. Frankly, they tend to be better because of the depth of the investigation and subsequent reporting. I tend to *believe* some, even not knowing the witnesses at all. http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=76973

Alberta actually just brought it back a couple days ago... sort of... after an 18 year hiatus. https://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/alberta-grizzly-bear-hunt-to-resume These siblings were on my road, a mile or two from home, a couple weeks ago. They're sometimes around, and I've seen some sign, but this is the first time I've actually ever seen them in this area.

Forgive me, I am a scientist by nature. If you need to show me the door, go ahead (but be polite, please, that is scientifically appropriate). Sasquatch is just as likely to exist as s/he or they are not likely to exist. What tips my mind in the direction of likely is that people I trust (with my own life and the life of my family members) have had direct sightings. They have no reason to lie about what they saw, they are not attention-seeking. Instead, they whisper, with goosebump-covered arms, periodically cranking their neck in a backwards direction as they talk about what they saw. They are forever impacted. I believe that reaction is real, and believe that it is not sensationalized or manufactured. I've tried (again, I am trained as a scientist) to manufacture goosebumps. My attempts were laughable. Could someone better/smarter/faster than me do that? Sure. I am confident that the people I am speaking of are not capable of that. (For pete's sake they can't make a decent gin and tonic, and all it takes to do that is gin and, well, tonic.) So, I started my own sasquatch journey as a skeptic, intrigued by all sorts of stories I had read (way back to my Scholastic book orders in elementary school). I drift into the believer category based on the experience of individuals I hold in very high regard. @Patterson-Gimlin, you are a scientist as well. I totally understand and respect the consistency of the position you have long taken (and the good humor you demonstrate when people around here kindly poke at you). I appreciate you raising this topic. I also recognize that when a family member has an experience, it is not all that dissimilar to what I have described here. I haven't seen this creature with my own eyes. But I have heard numerous times from trusted friends about what they saw, and the details they repeat to me over years are way more consistent than any lab notebook notes I compiled during my graduate student years. So....in spite of my statement that the scientific likelihood of sasquatch existing is a 50/50 proposition, I can't discount the details I have heard from people I trust. Sometimes that makes me feel like my brain is going to explode because it just doesn't make logical sense. But...it doesn't NOT make logical sense either.

I have for a long time tried to structure my thoughts on what makes a cryptid claim credible or not. I came up with a number of somewhat organized points and fed them into the the large language model (LLM) artificial intelligence program (AI) ChatGPT 4.o. It organized and expanded on my points with its mystery algorithm, drawing on its database of unclear provenance. I have long felt that many sightings and evidence presented a fairly unambiguous picture of the existence of a large world-wide cryptid primate species, maybe multiple species. I believe many of the posters here regarding their sightings. I also have met several people over the years who present a credible account of their sightings. I am highly persuade by the work of Bill Munns, So, the upshot is that I am pretty well convinced by various lines of evidence. Not all on this forum are. Some are here to troll, others are here for reasons I do not understand. I don't think discovering truth is necessarily one of them, but I can't read minds. There is nothing new here that has not been discussed in this forum many times over the decades, but for me, it is useful to see the points somewhat organized. I am sure that I have missed things, and perhaps some things are misstated; I show the AI output below. ChatGPT 4.o did a decent job of organizing my points, made no mistaken reinterpretations (it often does though) and saved me a lot of time and effort. I don't call it cheating, I call it using an AI ghostwriter and research assistant. So sue me if you don't like it. ;-) If this topic creates interest, and people make valuable additions or changes, I will amend the ChatGPT chat and republish at a later date. In any case, I have managed to scratch an old itch of mine; to think through what counts as unambiguous evidence and lay it out systematically. It has been done before I am sure, but I am old and have trouble remembering things some days: read a lot, retain far too little. On Seeing Cryptid Animals: Evaluating Credibility of Claims Logical Framework Existence Dichotomy: Current Existence: The cryptid either exists or does not exist currently. Non-Existence: If it does not exist, any sighting or evidence is inherently incorrect. Evaluation of Evidence: If the cryptid exists: True Sightings: Accounts may be correct. False Sightings: Accounts may still be incorrect due to errors or fabrications. Sources of Error in Claims Fabrication: By Claimant: The individual may be lying. Third-Party Hoax: Someone else may have created the hoax. Mistaken Claims: Mental Health Issues: Psychological factors affecting perception. Mistaken Perception: Errors in sensory input. Mistaken Interpretation: Misinterpretation of what is seen or experienced. Assessing Credibility of Claims Characteristics of Witnesses: Reputation: Credibility increases with the reliability of the witness. Number of Witnesses: Multiple independent witnesses add to credibility. Characteristics of Evidence: Clarity and Conditions: Clear lighting and viewing conditions. Proximity and duration of the sighting. Trace Evidence: Tracks, trackways, scat, sounds, and smells. Must be consistent and withstand alternative explanations. Criteria for Unambiguous Sightings Clear Lighting: Ensures visibility. Proximity: Close enough to see details. Sufficient Duration: Long enough to make a reliable observation. Clear Viewing Conditions: No obstructions or distortions. Indications of Existence Multiple Independent Sightings: Geographic Distribution: Reports from various locations and times that suggest a widespread presence. Consistent Descriptions: Similar physical descriptions and behaviors reported across different sightings. High-Quality Physical Evidence: Detailed Tracks: Tracks that show anatomical correctness, such as natural gait, foot structure, and depth that correspond to the weight and movement of a large, living creature. Biological Samples: Hair, tissue, or scat samples that are analyzed and found to be from an unknown or unclassified species, ruling out known animals. Expert Validation: Professional Analysis: Involvement of wildlife biologists, forensic experts, and other professionals who can provide objective assessments of the evidence. Video and Photographic Scrutiny: Evidence that has been validated by multiple experts, with analyses ruling out common hoax methods. Historical Records and Indigenous Knowledge: Cultural References: Long-standing cultural or historical references to the cryptid in indigenous stories, folklore, and art. Consistency with Modern Sightings: Alignment of historical records with modern reports, suggesting a long-term presence of the cryptid. Indications of a Hoax Lack of Supporting Evidence: Absence of Physical Evidence: No physical evidence (tracks, hair, scat) found at the sighting location despite claims. Inconsistent Details: Inconsistencies in the account details that cannot be reconciled with a genuine sighting. History of Hoaxes: Known Hoaxers: Individuals involved have a known history of fabrications or involvement in previous hoaxes. Evidence of Human Creation: Physical evidence, such as costumes or props, linked to known hoaxers. Technical Analysis: Digital Manipulation: Detection of digital artifacts in videos or photos that suggest manipulation or editing. Artificial Tracks: Tracks or physical evidence showing signs of human creation, such as identical footprints or marks made by tools. Motivations for Hoaxing: Financial Gain: Motivations such as selling stories, books, or footage for profit. Desire for Fame: Attempts to gain fame or media attention through sensational claims. Personal Amusement: Pranks or efforts to deceive others for personal amusement. Indications of Mistakes Environmental Factors: Poor Lighting Conditions: Sightings made under low light or at night, where visibility is poor. Visual Obstructions: Obstructions such as foliage, fog, or other visual disturbances that obscure clear observation. Human Factors: Witness Fatigue or Stress: Witnesses experiencing fatigue, stress, or panic, which can affect their judgment and perception. Influence of Substances: Effects of alcohol, drugs, or other substances that can impair sensory input and cognitive processing. Cognitive Biases: Psychological tendencies like pareidolia, where the brain sees patterns or familiar shapes where none exist. Misidentification of Known Animals: Unusual Animal Behavior: Known wildlife behaving in unusual ways or appearing in unexpected contexts, leading to misidentification. Animal Tracks and Sounds: Misinterpretation of animal tracks, sounds, or scat as those of a cryptid. Inaccurate Memory Recall: Memory Distortions: Over time, memory distortions can alter or exaggerate the details of the original sighting. Suggestive Questioning: Influence of suggestive questioning or leading narratives by others that can shape or distort witness testimony. Case Study: Sasquatch Evidence Multiple Observers: High-Reputation Witnesses: Sightings reported by law enforcement officers, scientists, or experienced outdoorsmen, who are considered reliable and knowledgeable. Independent Reports: Multiple independent sightings in the same area over time, adding to the body of credible evidence. Physical Evidence: Detailed Tracks and Casts: Tracks and trackway casts showing features like dermal ridges, consistent depth and stride, and anatomical correctness that are difficult to fake. Biological Samples: Hair or tissue samples subjected to DNA analysis and found to be from an unknown or unclassified species, ruling out known animals. Video and Photo Evidence: Patterson-Gimlin Footage: The Patterson-Gimlin film, analyzed by experts such as Bill Munns, highlighting the implausibility of a suit due to natural muscle movements and other anatomical details. Other Videos: Additional videos showing natural movements, muscle flexing, and other characteristics difficult to replicate with costumes or CGI, validated by multiple experts. Expert Analysis: Forensic Scrutiny: Detailed forensic analysis of tracks, scat, and other physical evidence by experts. Professional Validation: Involvement of costume experts, digital forensics experts, and wildlife biologists in validating the evidence, ruling out common hoax methods and misidentifications. Conclusion To evaluate the credibility of cryptid sightings and evidence, one must: Assess the reliability and number of witnesses: Prioritize accounts from reputable witnesses and multiple independent sources. Examine the clarity and conditions of the sighting: Ensure clear lighting, proximity, sufficient duration, and unobstructed viewing conditions. Scrutinize physical evidence and expert analyses: Look for detailed, anatomically correct physical evidence validated by experts. Consider alternative explanations rigorously: Differentiate between genuine evidence, hoaxes, and mistakes by considering environmental, human, and technical factors. Through this comprehensive evaluation, credible claims can be separated from mistaken or fabricated ones, contributing to a more accurate understanding of cryptid phen 4o

" Shall not be infringed "

The Old Guys! A great group to be in!

In many ways, as an Alaskan, I appreciate Canada's tough position in traveling through their country. I really don't want many Yankees coming here. Of course, they're free to do so.........by plane or cruise ship. Americans can bring firearms on domestic flights........per federal law and airline rules. Bringing contraband is risky. American shippers like UPS and FedEx are a big part of the problem in transporting guns. A police department in California shipped a stolen handgun that they recovered back to me (after lots of jumping through hoops). They sent it overnight air via FedEx to a local FFL I paid $50 to accept it. The bill from FedEx? $350. The combined bill for shipping and FFL acceptance was more than the value of the gun. The criminal who stole my stuff (most of which has not and never will be recovered) will be out of prison soon, and I'm still jumping through hoops trying to get two more recovered guns and loads of recovered ammo back from police. Over 87% of the guns used in crimes are stolen. One would think that they'd be "proactive" in prosecuting gun thieves, but I'm here to tell you that they're more busy prosecuting the owners of stolen guns than they are the thieves.

As I understand it, as I no longer have the necessary permits, Canadians can only have handguns if they hold an RPAL (Restricted Possession Acquisition License). Holders of these permits must undergo a criminal records check every 24-hours, and can only transport their weapons from their home to a certified shooting range, and back. They must do this without any stops along the way. This means that even stopping for gas is not permitted while your handgun is in your vehicle. It must be transported in an approved, locked case, and ammunition must be transported separate from the weapon in a manner that prevents them from easily being put together (ammo in the glove box, handgun in the trunk). If you are stopped by the cops for any reason, the fact that you have an RPAL will come up on the police computer and you will be asked if you have it with you. If you break ANY of the regulations regarding transporting your firearm, you CAN have it confiscated. This is what I've learned from talking to RPAL owners. As I don't have this permit, I'm not entirely 110% positive on any of this, but since quite a few handgun owners have given me the same information, I can be fairly positive that these are the laws.

Things I look for now in carry guns is weight , recoil , reloading and rate of accurate fire .I'm not hunting so I won't carry a big bore rifle or a heavy revolver anymore . Don't get me wrong I love wheel guns and own many but I fire semiautos faster and I am able to keep a smaller circle with a 10mm versus a .44 mag wheel gun . Lever guns I also like but again I go back to rate of fire . I'm not hunting so I don't need a bigbore to carry . If I get a jam with semi the drill to clear is pretty fast and smooth.Also I would say 99% of problems you might encounter in a jam is ammo or mag related for a semi . Mud and dirt in a gun can mess up any type of action so agree keep your gun as clean as you can when but it's not a big concern to me because I'm not low crawling through mud

Had my best friend and his son report back on a trip they just took. Got flown into Chamberlain basin airstrip. And then back packed out to the lookout at Arctic point. It’s a 72 foot lookout all galvanized overlooking the Salmon River. They saw Elk, some monster Whitetail bucks, heard Wolves one night and caught some nice 20” Trout. It froze on them one night, but over all was pretty hot and dry. Said the trail had only been partially cut out, and the Ranger station at Chamberlain no longer used mules (that’s progress for you I guess). The flew in and out on a Cessna 206. Cant wait to see the pictures!

No doubt. I was among the earliest participants of BFF 1.0 I can honestly say that BFF 2.0 is a huge improvement in every way. It is certainly the internet destination for sasquatch discussion.

I checked: it was 2002, but it sure seemed earlier..........

Actually, I forget when the Bigfoot Forum 1.0 opened it's doors, but I think it was back around the 1999-2000 time frame, so I've been playing here for @ 20 years.

77 mm?

Since Huntster has been a member here for 14 years, I'm sure even you can do that math.

Yeah, me, too. AFAIC, that's cause to take action. I dive for cover and prepare to return fire.

I probably need to immerse myself in the full timeline thread to get my head around the criticality of the issues to the robustness of the story - and this may be an unpopular opinion - but I currently find myself in the following camp (although this can and probably will change over time): The film comes first - in that if you attain the point where you realize to all intents and purposes it's practically impossible for the film to be hoaxed, the intricacies of the story points around it are somewhat secondary. It's clear that we would all have liked the right questions to have been asked at the time, and we may never get the whole story straight - but if it's virtually impossible that these question and gaps are anything to do with a hoax, they probably don't materially change the fact that Patty was real.

No one is the same mind as me.

I see I little streak of hypocrisy here. I would base nearly everything on the claim itself. Then, I would find what ancillary evidence support the claim. Even someone I might uphold as a hero can still get it wrong. All kinds of posters here on the BFF continue to say all the time: The fact Roger Patterson has cheated people, cheated Gimlin, had arrest warrants, and so on should have no bearing on if Bigfoot or the PGF is real. What they are really saying is Roger's character flaws should have no bearing on if the PGF claim is real. Just look at the film. Many of those same people are saying if the person is a hero (Wife, Brother, Sister and so on) then we should trust the claim. That would mean the opposite should be true. If the person of poor character than you should reject the claim. Again, those same people though will look the other way on roger's deficiencies. Base any bigfoot claims based on 1) The claim itself first 2) The ancillary facts supporting the claim then.... 3) The credibility of the person making the claim. It can't be the other way around.

Sell a kidney and get a Pulsar. $3k. Phenomenal, crystal clear night vision views. NorthWind has one and I'm terminally jealous and just glad that he lets me use it It's worth more than my truck, LOL! My FLIR pales in comparison. However, it's vastly better than nothing and thermal imaging at night gives you great peace of mind! We saw two sasquatch at night on the FLIR in 2020 and it was clear what we were seeing but not by much on the video. It would have been outstanding footage on the Pulsar (which he got after the fact). If I ever have money again, I'll get the thermal that @@BlackRockBigfoot suggested. You can see them use it on their site, Hellbent Holler, and it seems sufficient to the task.

If it came from her it is a lie. The rest is just .. details. My old research partner / sort of mentor in this bigfoot stuff lived fairly near where LNP lived .. and interacted with her much to my friend's displeasure. While I never met LNP myself, I learned enough and had opportunities to validate what I learned. I also independently investigated the Sru Lake "account" from LNP and, feet on the ground, found it to be pure, uncut, bull excrement. I would not waste my time on a single word she said. You can do whatever you want, of course, but IMHO life is too short to waste on her delusional drivel. If you want to look into researchers in that general area, Barbara Butler aka Barbara Wassam has proven pretty interesting. I have 2 books from her, one written under each name, and an unfinished manuscript of a book she was writing via her daughter. One of her sometimes-contributors / collaborators, Jack Woodruff, also contributed material to George Haas' "Bigfoot Bulletin" .. worth reading. Thinking of that, I 'spect there is a Ray Crowe connection .. you know, published everything that came to him but recommended "keep your skepticals on." Some of that early stuff from SW Oregon is pretty darn interesting and many of the places are still there to be viewed / reviewed to see if the accounts make sense. MIB

I've pointed out her inconsistencies here before, but I don't have the energy or desire to do it again. Instead, I'll let Steve Kulls take the lead... https://squatchdetective.weebly.com/hall-of-shame---bigfoot-ballyhoo--linda-newton-perry.html This is her new blog: https://bigfootpremise.blogspot.com/

Great list and thoughts. What about educational mindset as a factor? I watched a presentation with Jeff Meldrum on YouTube. Essentially, he said the school of thought in the 1960's was man and apes development would be linear. That is, science followed the idea mankind went from A-Z under one linear path to get from primitive man to now. Nearly everyone adopted this until post 1960's (Lucy) discoveries re-wrote the theory. After that, science was more open to multiple paths toward mankind. (this is my take on what Meldrum said but it is not my area). Meldrum emphasized science in the 1960's era essentially required the complete rejection there could even be something like Patty. Science view was essentially this (my paraphrasing): "if today there was some primitive ape to appear it would have to mean it was a hoax" based on the accepted parameters of the A-Z thinking. He mentioned this explained why those who looked at the PGF in the 1967 era were- as a group- largely still in the A-Z camp. This required they rejected ahead of time the even the possibility the PGF and Patty could be real. As you outline the steps in determine credibility, we need to take into consideration pre-emptive Educational Mindset. In the case of the 1960's, this led to a near certainty the PGF would be rejected. Great videos, witnesses, and so on might not be a match to the closed mind.

Good day today. 4x4 trails and ground squirrel hunting. Stopped by the snowmobile warming hut.

I think there is a subjective component such an approach will miss. The evaluation of evidence is .. relative to personal experience. A field observation either is, or is not, like what the person doing the evaluation believes is correct or incorrect based on possibly flawed assumption. I think the approach is interesting but it has built-in shortcomings I see no way to address with accuracy. Suppose, for example, Patterson-Gimlin, Sasfooty, and I are walking through the forest and find a track. Imagine the various evaluations of that track and the perspectives we each hold leading to that evaluation. Figure out what ChatGPT is going to do to somehow find a more correct answer than our individual, and each in our own context, expert, evaluations.

Screw them, too. I "know". The rest of humanity doesn't appear to care.

Being Liberals, they're all about ideas. But also being Liberals, they tend to be so wildly incompetent that they have zero clue on how to execute those ideas. At the moment this leaves us in limbo. After requesting tenders for various aspects of a confiscation in the last four years, they haven't even found somebody to design a program to accomplish said confiscation. So we wait. And hopefully the Conservatives, who have and enormous lead in polls, win a majority and reverse the legislation as they've said they would. An election is due by October 2025 at the latest. It really is an outdoorsman's paradise. Moose, elk, black bear, mule deer, and white tail are all literally in my yard.

Yeah we are not Canada and no one should have to ask permission to the state to carry a firearm . Constitutional carry should not stop at some state borders . It should be through the entire 50 states . It's bull crap some communists states think they can limit the 2nd . What would happen if a few decided only one religion will be practiced in our state . First Amendment: Freedom of religion, speech, press, assembly, and petition Second Amendment: Right to bear arms Third Amendment: Restricts housing soldiers in private homes Fourth Amendment: Protects against unreasonable search and seizure Fifth Amendment: Protects against self-testimony, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, and due process Sixth Amendment: Right to a speedy and public trial by an impartial jury, to be informed of the charges, to confront witnesses, to compel testimony, and to legal representation Seventh Amendment: Right to a jury trial in federal courts for civil cases where the claim exceeds a certain dollar value Eighth Amendment: Prohibits excessive bail, excessive fines, and cruel and unusual punishments Ninth Amendment: States that listing specific rights in the Constitution does not mean that people do not have other rights that have not been spelled out Tenth Amendment: States that the Federal Government only has those powers delegated in the Constitution

Thanks Norseman....we've been here a while, good to be part of the BFForum family, you guys ROCK!

Even recently I was testing various manufactured self defense loads in a certain semi auto handgun, and the load that I liked the most (velocity with proven bullet design) jammed regularly. Not the other loads, just that one. I sold the gun.

Was banned and came back . How many times now ? 3rd 4th time ?

Huh. Alaska Malemutes exist after all.

I agree.

This is essentially Evidence over Witnesses. A strong case was built based on tangible things where witnesses are helpful but not solely the determining factor. In fact, had the camera somehow been set up remotely (like a trial cam or security camera) we wouldn't even require witnesses. As your 5 points make clear, the PGF makes a pretty strong case. As bigfoot goes it is the strongest potential proof of Bigfoot out there. It is the gold standard of Bigfoot to the point people Q because there aren't more such encounters. But why is that? Is it because Roger's story as a witness was so compelling or unique? Was it because Roger himself was some unimpeachable witness? Isn't it because of the potential evidence it shows. I am not saying witnesses or the credibility of someone isn't important, just secondary. Don't tell me, show me. Roger showed me. We have debated since what it means.

I would believe that they believe they saw one. I have had enough class "B" encounters and my brother has seen one behind my parent's house and 3 in a field in the High Cascades of Oregon. So, I am fairly confident they do exist, however, until I see one in the wild long enough to identify it, I cannot say with 100% confidence they exist. There are people on here that have said they have seen one and I have no reason to doubt it. So, I am 98.99% sure it may exist. I still have to see one for it to be 100%.

HA! just got a Down Vote, that took 2 minutes! Kind of sad that this site doesn't require identity of the "voters"