Leaderboard

We never had any issue with 'em stealing our produce that I know of. We had minor issues with raccoons, skunks, once a bear, twice deer, and even once a possum in the garden but they left clear tracks. We had some issues with fruit but again, deer, bear, and even elk were pretty common on the lawn around the fruit trees. We didn't have any issue with disappearance of "wet cob" horse feed or meat from the freezer as are sometimes reported. I recall one thing my father told us was a cougar scream. Might have been. FWIW, their scream is a mating call, not a hunting call. Despite it being 2:00 or 3:00 in the morning, we all heard it. (Maybe there was an earlier one that woke us up?) He was very insistent we not go outside to check on the woman screaming. While the likeness was there, it was merely a likeness, I don't think any of us thought it was a woman in distress. Then again, I've never heard any of the classing bigfoot yells either. I've heard low whoops as "a group of somethings" moved through the woods nearby and within that was at least one non-whoop, multi-syllable sound. I've heard other yells and responses that were no language I know, but they were language, not merely screams, roars, or howls. Puzzles. That's all I've got .. puzzles I'm not mentally wired to rationalize away. I'm after real answers, not comfortable dismissal via sweeping questions under the carpet. MIB

There seems to be a common theme among researchers that any circumstantial evidence they present will be "torn to shreds" by skeptics and made fun of. I think this is incorrect. It happens when people present their findings as a fact that it was BF related. I think the presentation has a lot to do with how it is received by the community. For example. When people say: "We got a recording of BF howling and we've eliminated every other possibility" and take it personally when somebody objects, it won't go well. On the other hand, if one presents the same recording as "we recorded something interesting, it could be a BF, but we're not sure", it will get a much better reception and respect. Objectivity in your own data is key. Frankly, you should be the harshest critic of your data, because you collected it and know more about it than anyone else. You should be looking to poke holes into it and look for holes other people identify instead of trying to defend it. You may end up dismissing the objections, but they are valuable feedback. You want the greatest number of eyeballs on it. If you're straight up about it, people will recognize you are just presenting what you got. Instead of making claims about it, just lay it out there, it is what it is. Everyone benefits by learning from it. It's certainly been the case in my experience.