Leaderboard

Each and everyone on the fence that wants to know for themselves do not have to wait for science. Get out in the field in an active area and look for yourself. No guarantees but most that spend the time and sweat equity eventually will have enough experience to make up their own mind. You could spend decades and never have an experience but might just be one of those lucky ones that have it right out of the gate. If anything, you will be out in nature, getting good healthy exercise, and see things you have never seen before. The answer to your personal question about existence is not in any movie, data base or thousands of reports; it is out in the field waiting to be found. Go out and try to find out for yourself.

It reveals you are wrong to the point that it appears either your gaming these conversations or just completely unable to comprehend even the most basic points of simple facts. You asked so there it is....

I couldn't say that better. I've always accepted that if I wanted evidence that would convince me, badgering others to bring it to me wasn't the way. The hands on approach is far more empirical.

Right. It was very likely an idea in THEIR heads. And it's very unlikely it was BF who were responsible for the majority of those disappearances. Some, maybe; even undoubtedly. But who you encounter in the woods, and in your life, has a lot to do with the energy YOU put out. There is still a relationship between YOU and your thoughts and what "happens" to you. For all y'all number freaks who like to say that the "truth" of who the BF are is somewhere "in between" monster and normal, nice people, pleeeeeeeeze consider this: There is no "in between". Every BF is an individual, just as every person is an individual, with their own unique personalities. There is no "in-between personality" that can be attributed to every BF. So what you end up having to acknowledge (if you're a numbers person) is that evaluating your "true" level of safety in these matters is a matter of statistics, not a matter of determining the "truth" of who the BF are. Now, "true" statistics are hard to pull together, if you don't know how many BF there are in the world, versus how many people go missing in unknown circumstances (note the "unknown"). But if you accept, as I do, that they are all over this nation and all over this planet, you have to see that the number of people who have encounters and/or "disappear" must be a tiny number, compared to the number who could disappear, if every BF were a rotten monster, just jones-in' for a taste of hairless person flesh. And how do I know that BF are all over this nation and all over this planet? Because of all those experienced woods people who never encounter them -- who have sooooooo much knowledge of the woods that they "know" there are no BF in the woods. All those "experienced" woods people have either been getting signs of BF presence the entire time, and ignoring it, or have been just plain oblivious. And how do I know this? How do I know how little value the "testimony" of experienced woods people actually has? Because of people like Mike Woolsey. Mike Woolsey said, when he saw, with his own eyes, one BF whistle to another BF (and I'm quoting from memory here): "I had heard that sound hundreds of times in my life, but thought it was a bird." So much for "experienced woods people" who know "all about" the woods and "know" there are no BF out there!!!!! Looks like it's the EXACT OPPOSITE. "Experienced woods people" don't have a clue. BF are all over the place, and WE are oblivious. So if there are that many BF around that "experienced woods people" don't even know they're there, even when they're whistling to each other all the time and making whatever OTHER noises those woods people choose to disregard and ignore, and basically carrying on all around us and having a fine old time, then I would say that statistics would indicate that the vast majority of BF people must be completely uninterested in harming you. In other words, the vast majority of BF people are either kind, or at the very least, respectful. Statistically speaking, it appears you have as much chance of getting harmed by a BF person as you do getting hit by lightning. And if you go into the woods with no desire to harm a BF person in any way, I'm willing to bet your odds drop down even further. But there are people on this planet who love to be afraid. I will never take that away from anybody. Roller coasters can be fun! Horror movies are a blast! If that's what you floats your boat, by all means, be afraid of someone who evidently has as much interest in hurting you as they do poking themselves in the eye with a sharp stick. Knock yourself out!!!! But if you're genuinely interested in being out in the woods and living your life and enjoying those woods as much as you can, take some comfort from the knowledge that the vast majority of BF are reasonable people and won't interfere with you in any way. And for the even smaller number of people who have a genuine interest in connecting with a BF person out in the woods -- not exploiting them, but connecting -- you have some great and wonderful adventures in front of you. I'm excited for those people, and can't wait to hear their stories.

Here it is: Skookum Cast Mis-Identification: This opinion is shared by myself and several other veteran researchers, but in a less advertised way. The famous Skookum Cast. To the possible peril of reputations, let me state that this was not a hoax in the general sense of the word. It was more an opportunity handed to the BFRO, a simple probable Elk wallow turned into a major production. Here is the alleged imprint of a Sasquatch reclining on the ground to reach, and bite into a piece of fruit. As stated by Matt Moneymaker at the time, “we need to have something to show Animal Xâ€. A film crew for Animal X was with the team in hopes of catching something on video/audio for the show. At the Elk wallow, there were no Sasquatch footprints found. This begs the question; did the big hairy guy fly there? In an analysis written by Richard Noll he states, “Three out of the 56 collected [hair samples] at the site and from the cast have been identified as unknown primate. Humans are considered primate in this analysis.†I spoke to Dr. Henner Fahrenbach about the primate hairs; he stated to me that only “1†hair was primate. Dr. Fahrenbach also stated that the primate hair was just a fragment of hair. Basically, it did not have a root, but was determined primate because the hair did not have a medulla. Usually, animal hairs have a very distinct medulla. Noll’s analysis continues with “The major difference between Human hair and the samples collected (as far as I can tell) are the scale features, and the fact that the ends are tapered, not cut. All human hair would be cut at the ends.†Well, those comments made me think. I’m not a hair expert, so, I contacted Carrie Oien at the FBI Hair and Fiber Analysis Office in Quantico. I read this information to Mr. Oien over the phone and received a chuckle and blunt “Horse hockey†from him. Mr. Oien politely explained to me that human hair, amongst other reasons, breaks off, falls out, and is yanked out. All human hair does not have cut ends. Carrie Oien then laughingly expressed that human and primate hairs don’t have Spinous, or Coronal scales. Elk, rodents, and Bovine do, but primates do not. So, when Mr. Noll states that one of the differences between human hair and the samples collected are the scale features, this simply shows that none of the collected hairs are Sasquatch hair. There should not be any difference between the hair scales if the hairs are from a Sasquatch. The entire Skookum incident was filled was contradictions, and unanswered questions. By using principles such as Occam’s Razor (“All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one.â€) researchers would have investigations that are much more precise in the evaluations. With Skookum , not one Sasquatch footprint was found. Logic has us asking; why would a Sasquatch walk up, lie down, and reach for food? Wouldn’t it make more sense for the Sasquatch to simply walk up, bend down to retrieve the food, and walk away? Of course, they probably hide their tracts, as suggested by Matt Moneymaker. So, here’s the Skookum scenario. Sasquatch walks up to the Elk wallow, backwards, brushing it’s tracks away. It stops, and LIES DOWN, making a very large imprint in the mud. Now, it reaches for an apple, takes a bite or two and drops it on the ground. The Sasquatch wasn’t very hungry, so, it rises up and continues walking, backwards, to the tree line covering it’s track as it leaves the area. But what about the alleged Sasquatch heel and tendon imprint? Elk use their legs to lie down and stand up. Could this imprint be nothing more than an Elk bending at the “knee†in an effort to recline in the mud to wallow in it? This was supposed proof of a Sasquatch, thrown out to the public. Mega hype and notoriety over nothing more than a probable Elk wallow. This type of sensationalistic hype is detrimental to Sasquatch research. Devoted researchers must have integrity, and use common sense when it comes to investigations involving Sasquatch. In the decades that have past, why is it that science doesn’t take this subject more seriously? Why should they, when our own researchers don’t.

One thing I find interesting is what the BFRO decided to do here: They wrote: "It's not a stretch to think this rather intelligent primate species would not want to leave its distinctive tracks at a spot where hunters would likely pass by. If these animals have been avoiding confrontations with humans for thousands of years, might this behavior -- avoidance of leaving distinctive footprints -- be an ancient survival strategy?" Since when did Bigfoot start caring about leaving footprints? So now Bigfoot has an "ancient survival strategy" where it deliberately tries not to leave footprints- yet the history of Bigfoot is littered with giant footprints. That's why it's friggin nickname is Bigfoot, remember? Not much of a strategy is it? No, in order for this impression to be from a Bigfoot, they had to rewrite the Bigfoot story to fit it. They wanted so bad for this to be a Bigfoot impression that they sat there and created this new image of Bigfoot that's super stealthy and uncomfortable about leaving footprints anywhere. How else would they explain away the absence of tracks? It doesn't matter that the history of Bigfoot has always been focused around the giant footprints, or that Meldrum has hundreds of foot castings in his office. This is the birth of the new and improved Bigfoot that people would start using from this point forward - Ninja Warrior Bigfoot.

Lucy is always aiming to please, and she sees me spending plenty of time looking at BF tracks.......they have sent, seen her sniffing them pretty good, often trotting off in the direction they headed......she knows I'm looking. I never ever woulda seen the one back in December if not for her.......she found & flushed him out of hiding, but DID NOT give chase.......more of a "look daddy" yelp, she knew exactly what she was doing.

I've waited 25+ years to tell of some things that happened to me - so yeah I believe someone else could.

I think one needs to prove they actually exist and what their intentions are before using "enemy" labels on them. There are far more dangers in the woods and forests than the animals.