Leaderboard

I think what you are seeing here is support for a young man many of us think is a dang good guy. Myself, I don't care if someone spends their time hunting for BF or the Loch Ness monster, whatever, as long as they're good folks; because in the end, that's what really matters.

Crowlogic brings up good points, even though I don't agree with most of them. Opposing opinions and view points are what challenges us to think "outside of the box" and examine things from different angles. If we all agreed on everything, this would be a very boring forum. Some people have questioned Crow's motives for posting, even though he's not a believer. I would question the same people for even responding to Crow's post. If you don't value his opinions, just ignore him.

Funny how easy it is to pick up books locally in just about any state that have newspaper accounts of hairy man encounters going back to the time they were first settled. Find these all the time. The PNW was, though, where bigfoot first captured the public's awareness, first in '59 with the widespread publication of track finds, then again in '67 with the Patterson video. The PNW isn't the origin of bigfoot, but it is the origin of modern bigfoot coverage. So the phenomenon you postulate is a function of media coverage, rather than origin of the species itself. People have been encountering them for centuries all around the country, and the Native Americans all over the country describe them in their history. Thing is, all of the history and reports were mostly local. Accounts simply didn't spread very far. When the BFRO was founded, it provided a means for people everywhere to report their experiences, and so, suddenly, bigfoot were everywhere. Again, it wasn't because they abruptly appeared all around the country, it was simply that people all around the country finally had a means to file reports. But to disprove the premise of the OP, all one needs to do is examine Native American reports of bigfoot around the country. This neatly eliminates the influence of modern media from the map.

OK, I trust Doc too, but the question is "If you could chose one person, who posts on the BFF, who has reported seeing a sasquatch."

Because they all think they are smarter than you and are trying to save you from yourself.

Our research will be sent to many of those referenced in our research for peer review. Both anthropologists and forensic scientists who specialize in this type of work. It is up to them individually to give us their feedback. The bones will be available for their review also while remaining in our custody. There are too many occurrences of things disappearing, whether unintentionally or otherwise. People can and do take the time to become knowledgeable in subjects they are interested in. No PhD required. Our research will contain all of the references we used in our study and comparisons. The impressions are the hard evidence that can be studied. The disarticulation and stacking are behaviors that help determine the type of predator responsible for the evidence. As I discussed with DWA and SWWSP our conclusions are unknown, uncategorized. We hope further study will take it to the level of known and categorised. A biologist and a forensic scientist in the state of Washington, when presented with the details have suggested human-like behavior. When the large tooth impressions, which at that time were not included in the details to them, we still have something human-like but very big. I guess we could suggest there are huge wild humans running around in the forests of the PNW, killing large animals with their bare hands and eating them raw. Don't forget the children with them either. Oh, but we already have accounts of something else that would fit the evidence very well without changing anything. But as I said before, that is just my opinion based on what I have seen. My question for you is at what point do we start considering the fact that something is real? I have never seen a live cougar. But I know they are real because I have seen their tracks, I have seen their kills, and I have seen cougar clawed trees. I don't need anyone including a scientist to tell me they are out there. Pictures help me know what they look like in case I ever do see one. I could take the skeptical attitude towards wolverines, I've never seen one. I have never seen any evidence in the wild that they even exist. I have to rely on others observations and experiences here, PhD or not! Or I could take the attitude, I don't want it to exist so it can't. If you're one of the ones that would like to consider the possibility that bigfoot exists, then why not go along for the ride and see what happens. You might learn something that doesn't fit in with your picture of how the world should work. But, then again maybe not. I do understand the idea of 'how can this be?' I have the same problem sometimes. But I don't shut out the possibilities, I look into them.

1) If he has been seen since the 1800's in some places does that mean he is immortal? 2) How can one animal get from Bluff Creek to Mount Everest? 3) Why do Canadians call it Sasquatch? Isn't that an American word? 4) Do you even have enough wild spaces in Canada for something like Sasquatch?

There are several reports of them diving into a pond, lake, etc., but then not surfacing in any reasonable amount of time. IMO they do have escape routes under water probably dug into the banks but under the water. Also, reports of small dugouts in the banks of rivers have been noticed and if I were a hairy person I would definitely use such a place to escape. How many of us dare to go into a place like that, some, but not many, I suspect. Beavers do it all the time, they build their dams, stay dry and do quite well. It's not rocket science that hairy guys have figured this out either.

I would make that same bet Crow. I have my doubts that they exist, but I can't explain away some of these clear daytime sightings by reliable witnesses with nothing to gain and everything to lose by sharing their experience. And while I am a skeptic, I'm not a denialist. Those people saw something. Something that you can't explain. Well, you can attempt to explain it using the tired old techniques...but, that's speculation. You, or no one else, can truly explain those cases. Those people saw something. I am not sure Bf exists, but I am sure that not ALL witnesses are wrong. Not every single one. To me that line of thought is absent of critical thinking and is ridiculous.

Thanks for having this dialogue with me, SWWASP. It's not that there's zero danger, when it comes to BF, but the danger is so small as to be effectively nonexistent. If you drive (or ride in) cars, you face death every time you climb in one. But every day, we put on our seatbelts (well, some of us do, anyway), cross our fingers, and start our engines. We're not crazy to do that; just realistic. Anyone who walks into the woods with his seatbelt on -- that is, an attitude of respect -- is 99.999999% likely to return from the woods that evening. Those are good odds, no? A BF is not a bear. Unlike bears, BF recognize you as very close kin. They're not going to kill you for any reason, if they can possibly help it. Yes, they will protect their young -- but they don't need to kill you to do that. They know they only need to shake you to your core, to get you away from a child, so they'll scare you. They might scare you by throwing something, and you might get hit a lot harder than feels comfortable; but you will be fine. And if you're concerned about something like that happening, the way to preempt its happening is to be very clear, with your words and your actions, from the very moment you step foot in the woods, what your intentions are. You can say out loud, "I am here to take a walk in your area, and to appreciate it with you. I am not here to cause you harm. I come as a friend." I also ask permission to walk into the woods. If someone were about to trespass on your property, would you not want the same courtesy? And the same opportunity to express your approval or disapproval? "I honestly think they respect someone that treats them with respect but is not so terrified that they run screaming out of the woods." I believe that's true. But if a BF asks you to leave their land, you can honor that request without losing your dignity. You don't have to run away screaming. You can say, "So sorry to have bothered you," and calmly walk out. That will earn you respect, for sure. It is not true that "there is so little direct BF/human we are only guessing what is going on when there is contact". Lots of people have ongoing contact and have documented it. Just read everything you can, and do your best not to read as a scientist. Read as a human being. See with something more than just your eyes -- use your heart and your understanding -- and you will suddenly find that you know everything you need to know to be a good neighbor to the BF.