Leaderboard

You simply cannot have a creature that is a mixture of bear and primate DNA. That is vastly less believable than the idea that a primitive human is running around in the wild. Less believable to the tune of 1 followed by uncountable zeros tbh! It just isn't an option!!! The two can share more primitive DNA but any DNA that identifies them as either primate or family Ursidae (North American Bears) just can't happen... bears and primates cannot mate and have a viable offspring, not in the present, not in the future, not in the distant past... it can't happen. To try and imply that it's the only answer or even a potential answer is wrong... it's NOT AN OPTION. Unless you're going to go with genetic manipulation by aliens or some mad crazy human scientist ala Dr. Moreau... and I personally am not going to consider those as options either... Genetics isn't magic, there are rules to be followed by everything in nature.

Well if bears like Yogi and Boo Boo weren’t running around stealing picnic baskets......

I am a Christian who doesn't believe in the "paranormal" per se. There are only two types of spirits in my opinion, good and evil. Sometimes, even an evil spirit can do good things to deceive people. As to what happened to this boy? There are several reasons why I don't buy his being abducted by a human. 1) If it were a human, why would he risk coming back to the same area where the abduction occurred, knowing that everybody was looking for the kid? Conscience, yes. Stupid, no. 2) Why would he wade into the swamp in very cold water to put the boy in a thicket of briars to be found? Where did he park his vehicle, and why would he risk it being seen by neighbors in the area? 3) The boy insists he was with a friendly "bear" the whole time. It doesn't add up to human abduction to me.

I think this case has all of the hallmarks of the 411 books. In which I feel it is suggested something extraordinary happens. Point of fact. 1) Boy claims a bear took care of him for two days. (This exact claim has happened before in Montana 60 years ago, Except bears dont walk on two legs while they carry children in their arms, as reported in Montana, or in the Dennis Martin case in Appalachia) 2) The child should have died from exposure, but did not. Which adds validity to point 1. Somehow, someway the child is cared for and delivered relatively unscathed. 3) The child is found in an area that has been searched many times by hundreds of people. It would seem they just were just not present until later. 4) The child is found in a swamp. And its unsure how they navigated by themselves to such a hard to reach place in mud and muck. Again a classic repeatable fact we see in many cases. Bears do not care for small children......they eat them. And black bears are responsible for more attacks in north America than Brown/Grizzly bears. And its much more likely the black bear attack is based on predation. You fight back against a black bear. A small child stands zero chance. It wasnt a Bear. So what is taking children back East? Bigfeet? Feral Humans? And why? I do believe something abnormal is going on.

I look at this rather simplistically. If it was and alien abduction, then the alien looked similar to a bear and it abducted him not to a ship, but rather, into the woods. If it was a bear, it would have had to come out of hibernation and out of it's den so it would be visible in the day light and not in a dark den and it would also have to have a similar build and mannerism of an upright cartoon bear for the boy to recognize that it was a bear and act contrary to it's nature. If it was a person who abducted him, the person would have had to be wearing something similar to a bear and how did the boy escape? If it was a Sasquatch, then it would have to look similar enough to the cartoon bear and have similar mannerisms and be willing to take care of him or even lure or take him away in the first place. OR It was a miracle and the bear is the manifestation of something that the child could identify with or it could be just a figment of his imagination. Because it makes no sense that the child survived, with the information we have, I choose to believe the last two are the most likely, however, with more information, my opinion may change.

Back in the old days, there was a member here who claimed a sighting while training in the service. He died when hit by a car as he was leaving a concert if I remember correctly. Though he and I bunted heads here on the forum I sent a card and some funds to his widow. I don't remember his user name though? He claimed if I remember correctly to have seen it tear down a tree with one hand, that was the reason I didn't believe him and why we cracked skulls. I forget the size of the tree but it was large enough that I and many others just didn't buy it being possible, the laws of physics are hard to break. Anyways, there are stories out there from ex-military folks.

I offer you a laurel, and hearty handshake, Sir.

The real problem with DNA testing up to present is that we basically have nothing to connect DNA collected to what left it. Most of what is collected and tested is found and from an unknown source that turns out to be known animals. Tufts of fur on barb wire fences etc. Even the DNA under those nests cannot be directly tied to what left it. Recent advances in DNA testing pushes back detecting viable DNA tens of thousands of years. 14,000 year old fossil turds, 30,000 year old cave floors, reveal human DNA. The nest locations have to have been frequented by first peoples for probably as long as both BF and humans have been in NA. It is no wonder that human DNA is found and cannot be pinned on BF. The Smeja event was the only one I am aware of in which anyone claimed to have blood or tissue collected from something that looked like a BF and that requires the Smeja story to be believed. There are a few reports of BF shot and leaving blood trails but none have been tested. No wonder that stuff tested turns out to be bear or some other known animal. The only DNA main stream science is going to believe is that collected from a BF on a lab table that has been collected with accepted protocols and verified with testing in more than one lab.

You have to assign an extreme level of low intelligence to BF if you believe you can go into a specific area repeatedly and hunt it down. Deer seem to evaporate from an area when a hunting party is present. Put BF at near human intelligence (I think that is a good assumption) and BF would soon figure at that a specific group of humans is hunting them. They likely simply become more careful about moving around or leave the area and move to an area where things are safer. Contacts would drop off to nothing over a relatively short period of time. Based in my experience hunting with a camera, BF have different phases with a specific human. The discovery phase where they try to figure out what you are up to and how much of a threat you are. The next phase may include some interaction if juveniles are involved and curious. Then I would say you get into a barely tolerant phase where they get tired of you being around and interrupting their normal daily activities. Then finally I pushed them too hard and they got angry and intolerant. That for me was probably the most dangerous phase. Then due to logging and probably me pestering, they left. Hunters with guns would have some of these interaction phases skipped and find themselves wondering where the BF went. A hunting group probably has a limited period of time to find and make their kill in a given area with a given group of BF. Once BF figures out you are hunting them, it probably becomes nearly impossible to get close enough to make a kill.

Yes. We won a load of tops at a benefit for a injured logger. Usually I just pull logs off the ranch. There was some Birch in the load. Pretty straight. Ive also encountered Western red cedar and lodgepole pine. The load is suppose to be fir and larch. Here is the view from the other side. I have the mulching head for the excavator now. Excited. Now I just need to get the grousers welded on. Thats the project over the next couple of days. The thing is helpless right now. In snow.

Hello, everybody! I am from Texas, and I am a believer that bigfoot exists. Although I haven't actually seen one in real life, I do know people who say they have, and I will never question these people's character because I know them. I refuse to believe that thousands of people over many centuries are either lying or mistaken. That makes absolutely no sense to me as to why that many people would lie or be mistaken. I have my theories as to what this "animal" is and how he got here, but I am also a born-again Christian, if that tells you anything. I have had experiences that I can't explain over my lifetime, and when I think back, the best explanations are akin to what I have heard and read about this creature. Anyway, I just want to say I am a believer, and look forward to reading this forum.

Thanks. That's what I remembered. Jibes with the images of the spawning stream's slope. The 2 others i know of are probably at 400-500 feet above sea level. The tracks I found going into an area I suspect because of similarity to the O.P. site are below 1000 feet. This is low elevation stuff. Headwaters are interesting, stuff goes on there, but I think it is a different situation. Trying to meld the two into one leads to a picture that does not accurately predict either. MIB

Like I said sweet, saw that posted up on another thread and thought it was pretty cool.

No. Not a business. Just got our firewood in for the year. Both houses, my son and mine. Rented the processor for 1 day. Fed it with my excavator. And borrowed neighbors old dump truck.

Looks like a good way to make money, have no room for such an operation, very sweet though.

The Olympic Project had an update on the nest sites last weekend at the Squatchfest, in Longview/Kelso. Shane Corson and Derek Randles shared what they've been doing. The original nests are beginning to disappear back into the forest. The elevation in the area is less than a 1000'. (There seemed the be a little misunderstanding with the above posts about the Klamath area. The nests are on the Olympic Peninsula.) Derek and Shane decided to build a nest by hand to see how long it took and what it would actually take to build something similar. I think they said it took them under an hour. But one conclusion they came to is that it takes hands to do it. There were also support branches around the edges of the original nests to help them retain their shape. So there is some learned skill used in building them. In fact there was a small nest near the originals built off the ground in the huckleberry bushes. This is similar to what gorillas do to teach their young the process of nest building. It tends to rule out bears. For which there is evidence that they don't build nests anything like these. They simply rake together a pile of bark, sticks or leaves. I have seen bear beds myself. It doesn't rule out humans. But access is limited and it is trespassing without permission. They are continuing to search the area on other ridges for more nests. They are also making some creative camera traps that would play on bigfoot's documented curiosity toward humans.

This may be a bit silly but if they had larger nostrils proportionally than we are used to seeing on humans, could the angle of viewing or distance effect that description of hooded or not? Could posture, shoulder position or holding their heads upward may also factor in. Could both descriptions be "right" based on perspective?

Maybe this video will help.

Let me try another line here: First, it's becoming pretty clear that these creatures are human enough to justify these thoughts and conversations. If they are classified as not within the genus Homo, then pretty much all of paleo-anthropology will be in upheaval. The vast majority of the dug up ape man bones will be in danger of being reclassified. Secondly, being of the Homo genus and being aboriginal to the North American continent and United States in particular, our current government structure places their status not within the purview of our fish and wildlife departments (co-managed by state and federal governments), but purely within the authority of the federal government. This isn't wild speculation here. It's common sense based upon a broad view of government structure. It also pretty much explains the stand-offish attitude of our forestry, land management, and wildlife management agencies, and legally justifies their negligence toward this phenomenon to a certain extent. As a nation, we have not recognized the rights and status of this native peoples. These natural resource agencies have no boundaries, guidance, or authority to deal with these questions. Thirdly, that narrows us down to the appropriate authorities who must deal with this issue: the State Department and/or Bureau if Indian Affairs. Though I'm not completely certain about this, I believe that the State Department is required to negotiate a treaty with an aboriginal tribe, and that treaty ratified by Congress, before authority to administer that treaty is granted to the BIA. To our new forum participant (jsydor), DoD's legal authority is also limited by law, just like eveybody else's. They cannot run out willy-nilly and deal with the "wild Indians" until authorized by Congress in a declaration of war. Now, if an aboriginal hominid is shot dead on Ft. Lewis for trespassing and failing to respond to orders to halt, and the Army examined the carcass, realized that they needed legal guidance, and turned it over to "somebody else" (all of which I have every reason to believe has happened somewhere within the past century and a half), they've done their jobs and are absolved legally from further responsibility. This issue is a State Department issue, and to secondary extent, a responsibility of the FBI (our internal federal investigative agency, and who have likely recieved notification of sasquatchery from local and state law enforcement agencies). So, folks, there you have it. There is your legal reason why government has so fully failed to deal with this issue. It's a matter of law. Discuss......... That depends on your definition of the word "cooperation"........ I agree that we won't force anybody to talk without first producing a freshly dead sasquatch on a slab that they can't make disappear, or perhaps a significant skeletal fossil of recent life (within a thousand years or so). The trick is producing the proof in a way that they can't whisk away........

We know for a fact that Lyle Laverty was directly involved in the Patterson-Gimlin film event as a witness to trace evidence at the site, was among the first people in the scene after the filming event, took photos of the footprints himself, was a government official at the time, and eventually rose through the ranks of government to a near cabinet level position: http://jkagroup.com/about/lyle-laverty-bio.htm# There are also indications that Laverty had his own sighting near Hyampom, and found a nest near the PG film site at Scorpion Creek/Lonesome Ridge.

I disagree about transparency. I have issues with methodology of both the Olympic Project and the BFRO. With adventure tourism and herds of people involved with both, it certainly muddies the water too as to what their objectives are. . Derek knows me by sight. The main rub I have with both organizations, is that given the period of time they have both been in existence, myself and others like me have had more success with BF in a far shorter period of time. Both have ignored attempts on my part at contact. I attempted to show my infrasound findings to the Ellis, the sound guy at the Olympic project, at the suggestion of Jeff Meldrum, and Ellis basically brushed me off in person. Too many of these people are grandstanding, beating their own drum on the conference circuit, and ignoring science all around them. They apparently do not know or care if someone, doing things differently, has had success. Quite frankly I think the Conference Lecture circuit has done more damage than good by creating experts where there are none. Sour grapes I know, but they have created the environment not me.