Leaderboard

So if you've now decided they either didn't exist or don't anymore, why are you still here? What motivation remains? Your own bitterness is not enough, you've got to "whiz" in everyone else's Cheerios, too, so you can feel good about yourselves? That's something to be proud of ... NOT! Whatever was out there is out there still making tracks as of this past summer and my search continues. Do what you want, rationalized it how you will, but, as the saying goes, people who say it can't be done should get out of the way of the people doing it. Please ... get out of the way. MIB

Well, I haven't decided that yet. I said the failure to produce results point that way and instead of grabbing the paranormal crutch, we should face that fact. It's not an engineering project MIB, if the thing is not out there, no matter how hard you try, you can't get the job done. Anyway, who's standing in your way? @Hiflier: I don't use kindle, but bought a copy anyway...

I am sure many of you have been or are currently part of this debate, whether or not this is a flesh and blood creature. I am here to argue the point that it is simply that. When it comes down to deciphering all the information to the contrary, I cannot come to the conclusion that a creature that poops, sleeps, eats, makes its bed at night, and otherwise exhibits behavior consistent to a flesh and blood creature could be anything else. Now for those who contend otherwise I suggest that you begin such lines of questioning with the fundamental question of what truly exists. If you argue that this world is simply a product of other material processes, and no supernatural or spiritual realm exists, then you have no worries. On the other hand if you come to the conclusion that such forces do exist, and therefore might be in play, well then you have to except that in even this subject of Bigfoot, one must discern where the source of such activity is found. When I hear of some of the Dr. Johnson experiences, my mind is drawn to account for them in terms of spiritual forces that I believe to exist, ones that might be interested in those who dabble in conjuring them up...as a former LSD using teenager I dabbled in such things, which lead me to a series of "experiences" which I would term not flesh and blood, and I am concerned that those who dabble in the same fashion with Bigfoot might be unknowingly calling the wrong number and getting answered by another party, a party interested in manipulating the mind and thoughts of those vulnerable.

Hifler You are reading way to much in these reports and it's F***king you way up. This is the second time you have mention this book but yet have not collected a specimen. You are calling your book a manual for hunting Sasquatch. But yet have not gain the specimen to complete this manual. I am not sure if moon phases has anything to do with these creatures and if it does then where did they gain this knowledge. We just did not wake up on morning and said "today the moon is full might be a bad hunting day". If this is so then it might even be a bigger discovery. I understand the part of gaining money in this field. That money helps with gaining equipment just for discovery. Just like it takes funding to run this forum. I have no quarrels with you Hifler. But how can you write a book on hunting them and not have a specimen to prove your theories. Let's say if I was to bag me one, all those things that I have said about the paranormal would now be right. Why? I have the proof or the goodies to prove I was right. But what would happen to the beliefs of people after what others have been saying about these creatures. Where I sit in front of my computer screen I feel like it's a catch 22 for me. I can tell you one thing is that they are not extinct they ,just move a lot. I do agree with Fararcher though, they are sneaky B*st*rds. Get back on track Hifler. We still hunting them and it has never stopped. Some times adversary makes one stronger. Good luck with that book.

Far Archer I will not write him off until all the people that have associated with him do. And there are some heavy hitters out there. As far as honest people yes, there are honest people who know what they know. MIB asked why am I still here. Well it's because of the honest ones. They fall into my 51%. Can I be a cynic? Oh yeah I can. But not because of the subject of Sasquatch. It's because of those who would deceive the public....publicly. The person I mentioned is the reason I started the Bigfoot ethics thread a while ago. If the ones that people look up to for information and reassurance will not cull the deceivers in their ranks then what does that tell me? Anyway, thanks for posting.

hiflier, yeah, it's just wrong to lie about things like this as it's already a "touchy" subject to start with. Then when some yo-yo tells a lie, and it can be documented, it does NOTHING to help the cause - but certainly does damage to those who simply report the exact circumstances and events they saw or experienced. Even if he had a real experience that night - by fabricating that one detail - one is inclined to disregard every single claim he's ever made. For me - I won't let what someone else does, somehow diminish my own experience, and what things I do know for a fact. If everyone in the whole world suddenly confessed to lying about BF, it won't have one iota of impact on me whatsoever. I know what I know - and none of it relies on anyone else, nor their actions. Write him off as you wish, but know that there are some honest folks out there - I know of some right here on this site - and they too, know what they know. So. Screw this guy.

MIB, you want to quote me out of context that's your prerogative. As you can see I still hold out for existence. Slim perhaps but I've always held a skeptical 51% in favor of Sasquatch being out there. That's a far cry from Crowlogic so I reject your comparison of my supposed slide out of hand. The name of that person you seek is Don Keating, the Ohio Bigfoot conference guy for twenty years running. He supposedly retired from organizing the conference in 2012, handing it over to Marc DeWerth, but has still been active in keeping it going. On two radio shows back in 2008 (one being Kathy Strain's) he related his 1985 sighting that was at night under a Full Moon. In truth the Moon on that date was barely past NEW by a couple of days and therefore had set a couple of hours after the sun did. That means the night in question was pitch black. He lied. Look it up. If you cannot find the support for what I am saying I will give you three links, two to the radio shows and one to a Bigfoot Inquiry article back in 2010 exposing him, and a calendar showing the Moon's real position on Sept. 15th, 1985.

My thoughts exactly. It would seem that whether or not they exist is and has been in our court.

MIB, I;m a proponent and always have been and being a devil's advocate doesn't make me a stumbling block. I have worked for three and a half years on John Green's database ON MY OWN to get it into a shape that everyone can use. I finished it about two weeks ago and only have to remove a bit more redundant data now to streamline it. That is not being a stumbling block or whizzing in anyone's cheerios as you put it. I'm assuming you are talking to me here of course. There is nothing wrong for a proponent to bring up points that need proof beyond anecdotes. Speaking about BF's spiritual excursions cannot be proved so why should I accept it and not give my opinion on the subject. It neither makes me a denialist or a meany head.. It Sasquatch still exists then great let the hunt continue. But if it no longer does then there should be those whose feet should br held to the fire. Having a top gun in Bigfootdom lie about an encounter was not easy for me swallow and it did somewhat taint my trust in those that run the show. I'm still not over it and it still ticks me off to no end that there hasn't been a huge backlash about it as that person still is active and looked up to. What gives with that??? How come you're not attacking that guy? He's a lot more serious of a subject but all I ever see is it being downplayed to a point where when I last brought it up there was zero response from this community.Oh, but I don't accept spiritual Sasquatch and it deserves a swat from you? I don't get the what think is misplaced aggression. You want to lash out at someone? Lash out at the liars who still walk the halls of bigfootery while everyone who wants to make a buck ignores them.

I agree this thread might get more traction under the paranormal section. Simply, that there may be more leeway to talk about what it "might be" over there, and not just what it's not. Apologies if i wade into taboo areas. Personally, I don't know why BF can't be Flesh and Blood, while still having abilities that we don't yet understand with our own flesh and blood limitations. Really, our Human prejudice is what's holding most research back. For example, they have an incredible ability to hide and elude us. That's hardly up for argument. Some have put forward theories of "cloaking," but such notions are typically dismissed out of hand. Why? Because it makes us uncomfortable due to the fact that we (as Human flesh and blood) can't understand it. And that always cracks me up. We're talking about a completely unclassified animal, and yet we focus on what it CAN'T be for our own sense of security. Admittedly a weak analogy, but not so long ago we had no idea how bats did their bat thing at night. People (I'm assuming here) likely thought bats could see (optically) at night to find their insect prey. Or in ancient times, that they might be "magical." It was only through the advancement of science and (open minds) that their sonar was discovered. Yet it's a physical ability that we do not possess. This is all just a long-winded of saying that yes--I agree that the Big Fella is flesh and blood. But there may be numerous abilities they possess that we do not share. That does not mean those abilities are beyond the realm of possibility. I think this whole field is paralyzed by Human prejudice. To Hiflier, I think you nicely illustrate the Human prejudice I am referring to (not intended to be a barb, btw). You suggest that because their shape resembles ours, that they are somehow lesser because they don't exhibit technology. Last I checked, our technology is polluting the very air and water and total environment we depend on. No, I suspect their intelligence is extremely high. But in ways that we do not appreciate, or care to. Good topic! I just feel handcuffed trying to talk about it here. We're trying to put a very big Bigfoot into a very small box. Not gonna work...

I think the above reply exemplifies the problems that exist in today's education system - and we see it mocked with "man in the street" interviews - and folks give some of the dumbest, most unbelievable replies - when asked even basic, simple questions that clearly demonstrate their total ignorance of the subject. They'll hunt and hunt for exceptions - which generally apply to animals who don't wear clothing - and which have thick skins - and once the claws have penetrated, will tend to pull the skin back a bit to enable them to "generally" go first for the liver. But those who have recovered human remains from bear kills - believe it or not - know the tendencies, and the indicators of whether a person was killed or killed and eaten by bears. And if one doesn't understand, understand this: When a bear kills or consumes someone - there are claw, tooth marks - as bears tear into a body. They don't untie the shoes, remove the boots, socks, carefully undo the belt, unsnap the pants, slide down the drawers, remove the jacket, shirt, and t-shirt before feeding. It doesn't work that way. Period. We would on occasion find a helmet on a trail, then the AK maybe a few feet away, and then a blood smear with drag marks off in the jungle. Tigers have unique eating capabilities and habits, preferring to drag their prey off into a secluded spot to eat. They have a rasp for a tongue - and can literally "lick" the skin off their prey. They can rip and "lick" a uniform shirt off a man - shredding it to look like nothing you've ever seen before - and they too - go for the liver - first. Different predatory animals have different means and methods to consume their prey - and these methods and tendencies are well known. Except maybe, to you. Then, there's those who just want to tell part of a story - as the best lies - have just a bit of truth in them. Drew, I don't know why you have a weed up your kazoo, but for heaven's sake - don't just find exceptions and not realize where that exception fits in to a particular circumstance - and has nothing to do with the greater population of known samples. It's either extremely dishonest - or extremely inept. One or the other. You link showed one article from the Republican Journal. Let's see that you ignored. 1. You left out the fact that there were three tears in her flannel gown - that some believe may have been made while going OVER barbed wire. 2. You didn't post the Xenia Evening Gazette article that stated the girl died from a "blow to the head," 3. You left out the findings of the two physicians that initially indicated the girl died from a blow to the head. 4. You left out the second autopsy referred to in the Zanesville Signal that stated "Additional evidence revealed by physicians here who have performed a second autopsy, disclosing that three of the child's ribs had been broken prior to her death." 5. You also missed the October 14 article in the Findlay Morning Republican regarding "two footprints found near the body." Didn't say shoe prints, or boot prints. It specifically said, "footprints." 6. You also missed an October 15 article in the Chronicle Telegram that indicated "A third autopsy has revealed all of the ribs on the left side of her body were torn loose from the backbone." You seem to be a bit obtuse in your rush to criticize things I share. You seem to be extremely un-informed. Or dishonest. Just a friendly suggestion - if this is how you address a topic - superficially - you might want to try some men's fashion sites, or maybe some cooking sites - as they'll have the recipe attached to the proposed dishes. I mean, I'm sorry, but you're just not very good at this.

Any given isolated report may be a hoax, or subject to any number of sources of error. A basic rule of empirical science is that you never draw any firm conclusions based on a single experiment or observation. Scientists strive for repetition and replication of experimental or observational results. Large sighting databases are valuable to Bigfoot research because they provide data in necessary quantities for drawing conclusions. The unique weakness of Bigfoot sighting databases, and "paranormal" data in general, is that we don't know to what degree the body of data has been tainted by heading or systematic misperception. This is where mathematical methods come into play. The best mathematical analysis of a Bigfoot sighting database that I am aware of is the analysis published by Glickman in 1998. The basic thrust of the method is that any person, in any place, at any time, is capable of submitting a hoaxes report. For this reason, the rate of hoaxing should be proportional to the human population. Similarly, if a Bigfoot sighting report is prompted by an encounter with an actual animal, then the more densely packed the people are in a given area, the more likely one or more of those people would be to encounter an animal residing within that area. Consequently, the rate of sighting reports of an actual animal should be proportional to the human population density. Using these two principles, Glickman analyzed the distribution of reports at the state level. He used a hierarchical cluster analysis (a method used to determine the similarity of individual pieces of data within a dataset) to divide the report database into two groups. Group A covered Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Northern California, Idaho, and Montana. Group B covered everything else. He found that in Group A, the number of reports per state showed a correlation with both the population and population density. The conclusion is that reports in these states are a result of a combination of hoaxing and actual animal sightings. On the other hand, Group B showed only a correlation with population, the conclusion being that reports in the rest of the country are solely due to hoaxing. In 2005 and 2006 I extended Glickman's analysis to check for correlations between the number of Bigfoot reports per state and the black and brown bear population densities in those states. There was no correlation with black bears in either Group A or B, and actually a negative correlation with brown bears in Group A. My conclusion was that we could eliminate the only two animals that could reasonably be mistaken for Bigfoot, and speculate that Bigfoot sightings really are due to an uncataloged animal species. Moreover, I concluded based on the brown bear data that Bigfoot and grizzly bears are natural enemies. Recently I've been updating all of these analyses based on the BFRO database instead of the outdated Green data that both Glickman and I had previously used. The BFRO database also allowed me to use Canada in the analysis. I should be finished with the analysis and write up shortly.

Why don't you answer the question? I don't give assurances where there are variables - ever. Your dishonest attempt to attribute an "assurance coming" from me is characteristic of your replies - willfully inaccurate - so at least you're consistent. I was told that our time fuse burned at 130 seconds per meter, but I never "assured" my assistants that they could be "assured" of that burn rate when we were cutting things close to give us just enough time to clear an area. Oddly, due to storage time, storage conditions, exposure to atmospheric moisture, temperature variations, etc., sure enough - there were on occasion variations that almost got us killed, meaning we could never be "assured" of an accurate burn rate, and had to factor in a plus or minus 10%. I was also told that the .556 had an effective killing range of 600 meters. But my personal experience demonstrated that after 200 meters, the killing effectiveness of the round gets really mixed results, and certainly nothing "assuring." Way too much post-action clean up work. I carried a number of different firearms in sequence, but when an enemy soldier fell on top of me because someone was sleeping instead of being awake on guard, we locked up, and I was the only one that had a knife. I learned that relying on your firearm/automatic weapon could not always be "assured." Any man who shoots one of these things while alone is not considering the variables. David Brown and Mertley Johnson entered the forest with sidearms, and within moments rapid fire was heard - and they weren't found until the following Spring - and they weren't killed by a bear, mountain lion, or wolves. Carl Herrick was hunting, and ran into something yet unexplained. He apparently got off one shot, and died by being powerfully cuffed up against his head and then squeezed to death per the coroner - and bears were in deep hibernation at that time. Corey Fay was hunting, didn't meet back up with the group, and only some of his gear and some small bones were found ten months later - he'd been undressed and eaten by something. Sam Adams was hunting with buddies, had a rifle and pistol, got separated, and disappeared. Eight months later, they found his wallet, clothes, boots (with shoelaces removed), remnants of hair, and his rifle busted into three parts. The area of his "battle" was found in a fifty foot circle, and he'd expended his ammunition. He was consumed on the spot. Bart Schleyer was bow hunting, and didn't meet the seaplane. Bart was a bear and wildlife expert with extensive field credentials. Investigators found that Bart had been sitting on his gearbag, calling Moose, and was taken by surprise his second day on site. He too, was undressed and eaten. And not by a bear. All that was found was a skull and a few teeth. So, Incorrigible - by all means - you go out alone, and shoot one. I strongly encourage it. I don't recommend it - but that's a long way from any "assurance" of mine.

If I may comment? That hunter must have been extremely relieved when upon examining the body that it wasn't a man in a suit. Makes me wonder how he made that determination. There must have been some obvious indicator that something was different? Even if he was aiming at what he thought was a bear- but wasn't- tells me he simply didn't know, or only thought he knew, what he was shooting at. Funny how something like that could potentially have an extremely tragic backfire. It's why anyone going after there things needs to be 110% sure that what they are looking at says absolutely Sasquatch before they pull the trigger. Perhaps with only a second or two available to make that determination it may be best to hold one's fire? The risks are simply too, too great for one to be wrong. The courts probably won't let anyone off on the "I didn't know" defense since the courts more that likely don't think the creature exists. So it should have been obvious to the hunter that it was a guy in a suit just on that basis. Because if Sasquatch doesn't exist then OF COURSE it was a guy in a suit. Yes, science would prefer one on a slab for study but getting one on that slab is an extremely complex undertaking. A lot can go wrong between seeing one and taking it down. The stakes are high and the risks even higher. There is no room for error and only one chance to get it right.