Leaderboard

I get my information from numerous sources. Those sources include my own experiences (3-1/2 years of ongoing interactions with BF); the experiences of friends and acquaintances who have had many more years of positive, rewarding experiences with the BF people than I've had; and the report record. There are more than 46,000 reports of encounters in the BFRO database. That means 46,000 people had encounters and lived to report them. (If the BF were aggressive, dangerous beings, we would have 46,000 dead people, instead of 46,000 reports.) There are many more reports that the BFRO has not published, for whatever reason, which would bump that number even higher. We also know that many people do not file reports when they have sightings. So again, the number is still higher. And finally, the presence of a BF is extremely difficult to detect, if the BF does not want you to know he or she is present. (I – and many others -- have personal experience of this.) So the likelihood that your average hiker/walker has unknowingly been shadowed by one or more BF on their jaunt through the woods is extremely high, again adding to the numbers of encounters that have resulted in zero harm to anybody. That’s a loooooooot of people who were not killed or hurt in any way while in the presence of a BF. So that's a lot of BF who were not "mean". (This includes the BF who shake trees, scream, and run at you. They're not "mean", either. They could squash you like a bug, but they don't. They just want you out of there, away from their families or their hunting spots or their bedding spots.) The "large number" of reports of BF who "aren't nice" is as a drop in the bucket, compared to the many thousands of reports that say, "He looked at me, then turned and walked away." And finally, there are the many studies that show that the observer changes the thing he’s observing – meaning, perception is everything. If you find yourself in a face-to-face encounter with a BF and you decide to be afraid, you will burn into your own soul the impression (very likely false) that you were in danger in that moment. If, however, you decide that you are NOT in danger – that you are in the presence of another thinking, reasonable being like yourself – and you therefore treat that being with the respect he or she deserves, you will have a very different experience. And just as a side note, many people have encounters that are traumatic to them at the time, but then over time, these people come to understand they were never in any danger. These formerly traumatized people become really interested in learning more about the BF and often dedicate considerable amounts of time and money to that effort. These strange reversals would not occur if it were not true that the BF are, in essence, reasonable, kind, decent people. It is the growing awareness of their true nature that piques our curiosity and leads us (or most of us, anyway) to want to know more. So, good luck to you in your investigations. I'm glad you're not afraid. That's 90% of it. Be respectful of these people (which it sounds like you are), and have fun!

Anyone else think the "multi-quote" feature is getting abused in some of these recent posts? It's tough to read what amounts to a whole page worth of quotes in every post. Just sayin'...

I have to defend the GoPro type camera even though it is wide angle. It is nearly instant on, unlike conventional cameras. One of my field cameras is a Contour Roam, similar to GoPro but not boxy. I have it mounted on my hiking pole and keep it covered with a sock. The sock serves two purposes, hiding the camera if BF is indeed camera shy, and some level of protection from scratches when I am forging through the bush. Mounting on the pole provides a tripod like base to stabilize the camera and reduce camera movement. Additionally I can start the camera, point it even behind me, and look another direction. A BF might not even be aware that I am running it since I am not holding it up to my eyes. A conventional camera cannot be removed from a case, powered up, and start taking pictures in the time you have for most BF encounters. Then there is the autofocus issue. Intervening brush or trees and the camera will be focusing on the vegetation rather than the subject BF you want to get. We see that in most BF videos. The fixed focus, nearly instant on, GoPro, or knockoff camera has the best chance to get video. The P/G film should be used as the technical challenge standard. You will likely have less time to get video than they had. You don't want to waste that time, getting the camera out, running, and focused. Most of the sports cameras allow rapid stills. As far as I am concerned that just wastes opportunity for video frames. Nearly every frame of the P/G film has been argued in detail. If someone gets the same opportunity they had, you want every frame you can get. That way muscle groups, gait, face expressions, all can be studied in detail. Of course a commercial grade video camera would be ideal. But do you want to carry 10 lbs of camera, then have the challenge of getting it on and focused, on the unlikely chance that you encounter a BF? I don't. On the unlikely chance that I see a BF from some distance that is not aware I am present, and that does happen, I carry another small conventional high res camera that has a 30X optical zoom then 10X more digital zoom on top of that. Either way I feel like if I get the chance, I can get good video. Whatever distortion the wide angle GoPro type camera introduces can be compensated for if you get the golden ring video. The important thing is getting it somehow. Just my two cents for what it is worth.

^^^^^^ By your logic then? The hobbit should have failed the sniff test as well. They were completely unexpected. And the west had known about the legends as long as we have known about Sasquatch roughly.

I understand where you're coming from no doubt but for me, as there are reports from winter, that goes to show that they don't necessarily go nowhere. We have to go back to the old "For a Sighting, you need a person". Admittedly I have no experience of an Alaskan winter but I can't imagine there are too many people out in winter there as there would be in summer or at other times of the year anyway. Flying, yeah ok tracks can be spotted from the air, trackways can, but I wouldn't personally bank on a lack of reports by pilots leading me to believe that Sasquatches aren't there, especially not when we are talking about an Alaska with 129 million forested acres. I tried to look for that map but with no joy, do you know where he posted it or have you got a link please ? It's Batdorf by the way. Hey Bobby,It was during one of the squatchers lounge podcast shows. I don't recall the season and Kelley loves using clickbait for his episode titles so trying to go back is tricky. I think it was season 2 and they were discussing migration and or sasquatch moving ranges seasonally. I'm really into the sound recordings. The audio is just cool. The idea of a giant that hasn't left a trace in say, 50,000 years of residing in, seemingly, all of north america is sorta silly when you look at it logically. It would be very very cool to be completely wrong about that though. In the meantime the audio is great campfire creepy pasta type fodder I dont think its any more silly than the idea of little hobbits running around the jungles of Micronesia. At least until they found bones very recently....no one is laughing anymore. Just read that study in France has confirmed the skulls of the hobbit were healthy and not modern human. The day someone finds a giant primate bone/fossil in a cave somewhere in North America sasquatch will be plausible. Until then it's supposition based special pleading. IMO Special pleading because of all the excuses which have to be made to explain why the things never leave traces, avoid detection by game cameras, etc, etc, etc.... That said, IF someone digs up a fossil....whole new ballgame. Maybe. A couple of thoughts.... were there local legends of little people in the jungle? Yes. When did we find these bones? About five to ten years ago. How old are the bones? 15000 years old. But Science scoffed at this 30 years ago. Nothing was taken seriously. And if you were looking for this creature 20 years ago you were a cryptozoologist. But now? Thats all changed. I said maybe earlier because the question about the hobbit being extinct vs extant is still open to interpretation and searching..... It seems odd to me that whatever archiac homonid the hobbit is? And looking at the distribution of archiac bipedal homonids worldwide? We supposedly are the only ones to make it to the new world? And keep in mind that science says the hobbit had to boat to Flores island. I truly believe we have a lot left to learn about human origins.