Leaderboard

Answers to your questions in order: Which Bigfooters do you like, and why? John Green, Rene Daninden (deceased), Derek Randles, Tyler Huggins, Charlie Raymond, Thomas Steenburg, Cliff Barackman because they are all level headed and objective. Which books are worth reading? Sasquatch the Apes Among Us (Green), Big Footprints (Krantz), Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science (Meldrum) Which researchers should be avoided, and why? Matthew Johnson: seems like he makes things up and may be delusional Mike Paterson (aka Sasquatch Ontario): he's getting hoaxed by the cottage owner but won't accept it and he's for sure delusional Scott Carpenter: suffers from pareidolia Timbergiant Bigfoot: same as Johnson and Carpenter Tim Fasano: delusional Tom Biscardi: a known hoaxer In the absence of a mentor, who could I learn from? Who have you learned from?  From reading books and watching old documentaries you can learn a lot. My list of bigfooters I like answers who I've learned from.

I would not keep all of my eggs in one basket. (Id have body parts spread out and hidden) I’d call the press. I’d drive to the local university biology dept. and do a reveal there. It would need to be spontaneous and quick. Not something you planned for two months. The Denisovans genome was cracked with a single bone that resides in the finger. They do not need much material.

The lesson of1967 is that photography, even movie footage with associated footprints, and even those footprints documented by a government agent, is worth nothing but argument. It has to be a carcass. Nothing less will bring sasquatchery into official reality. That said, I still say that the killer will face criminal prosecution, social hatred, and probably both. ...........Mionczynski......check.

The definition of idiocy is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result. The Bigfoot community suffers badly from this and when you ask them why? They are not really interested in solving the mystery..... Ok. So why the high tech cameras, audio devices and speakers and the 40 lbs of dental resin? Maybe Roger and Bob get a free pass in 67. They had no idea that the scientific community was going to shun their film. After 50 years and numerous other videos? Nobody should be getting a free pass now. We should be holding our own feet to the fire. We should be sharing information and allowing the pieces of the puzzle to come together. Instead we have a bunch of competitive individuals all trying to secretly reinvent the wheel. It’s kinda dumb. I try to be transparent in my pursuit. I try to be accurate in my locations. I want people to follow in behind me. Or share insight with me. I certainly do not have all of the answers. But I think there is a lot of bias with the whole pro kill and anti kill debate. Not that the anti kill crowd isn’t clichish to begin with.

And yet we are really no further along than we were in 1967, if anything we’ve regressed or at least failed to meet the bar set in 67.

GOTTA toss John Green's "Sasquatch: The Apes Among Us" into the mix. A must read. May as well quite shamelessly add my own book in there too: "The Sasquatch Hunter's Field Manual". Only available through myself. PM me if interested.

I don't have much interest in any of the youtube bigfooters EXCEPT a seemingly new guy, howtohunt.com, is putting up some stories that ring as reasonable. I am skeptical of all of them for one reason or another. I think there's something to be learned from most but you have to learn to back-filter their personal biases out to get to the value. I'm not going to name names, some of the folks are personal friends and I'd have to bash them pretty hard to explain what to take away from each. I think I can answer that safely. There are 4 I suggest starting with. In no particular order, 1) The Locals by Thom Powell 2) Enoch by Autumn Williams 3) Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science by Jeff Meldrum 4) Abominable Snowmen: Legend Come to Live by Ivan Sanderson I think understanding each point of view is necessary to understand why we don't have proof yet. In addition, Sanderson gives a more worldwide view as well as an older view. Once you're grounded via those 4, then there's a ton more reading to do. What I do not find useful are more "bigfoot crossed the road ahead of me" accounts. There is nothing further to learn form those other than building a map of sightings in time / space to perhaps help focus on locations that increase the probability of having a (or another) sighting. The hoaxers on the sasquatch detective hall of shame. I would avoid anyone making absolute statements about what they are sure of. I would watch out for anyone posing as a sasquatch authority. I learned much from my research partner of past days .. who will remain nameless. I question much of what I learned .. needs to be verified and has not been. I think that's a solid theme. Get the ideas others are willing to share but don't accept them without doing your own verification. Too many people want to be spoon fed ... they need to examine what's in the spoon when that happens. Rather than looking to someone else for your truth, find others willing to go in search of truth with you. Have not met you or Northwind but I believe that working together you are potentially ahead of the talking heads you are looking for. Have faith in yourself / yourselves. In the end, as I found with my research partner, I'm all I've truly got, the rest is fleeting. MIB

Not completely. Like everything else, they have reaction plans. What they are most likely to do is send in NPS SWAT team members to seize the carcass, then start publishing lies to their media buddies to turn the crashed ufo into a weather balloon, to borrow a historical equivalent. C'mon, now. You aren't used to this by now? They do this with everything under the sun. With their confiscatory powers and powers over information dissemination, they really don't have to waste resources paying GS-11 scale or more to somebody to monitor BFRO. And frankly, nobody is going to jail unless they're successful in bringing a carcass into the national spotlight, or unless they're as stupid as Smeja. They'll just help you look as stupid as Smeja. Once they take your carcass, you're just another bigfoot story.

I agree that many young people have probably gotten interested in the phenomenon because of Finding Bigfoot who probably wouldn't have otherwise, and maybe so e of them might become future researchers, but I don't know if we need more people banging on trees or howling at the moon. We could use a few more Meldrums at the university level, though.

One of those eyes could be at the back of a rifle scope.

Hope you stay, NatFoot. But if you depart our fellowship, take our good wishes along. Do what you've gotta do, friend. Check in on us, occasionally.

I liked Robert Morgan's Bigfoot Observer's Field Manual: A practical and easy-to-follow step-by-step guide to your very own face-to-face encounter with a legend. It lays out a simple, sensible method that I found appealing, probably because it's basically what I do anyway. Guaranteed? Nope, but outside of happenstance it might be the best bet to be out there and quietly, but not obviously, paying attention.

I dont pretend to know his "brightness" or have any knowledge of his retirement. You must be close to someone to have knowledge of Moneymakers retirement plans. His ways are not my cup of tea either, just making my personal assumption of "what he got" from his career in bigfootery.

So little is known of bigfoot I’m often wary of anyone that claims to know for certain anything. The best people, imo, to learn from are knowledgeable hunters and out doors-man and what I try to take away from them is basic knowledge of the wilderness.

Kind of how I look at them as well. So much more could have been beneficially done beyond just keeping the plates spinning in the air on truth. It's hard to forgive any of them (FB team) for not rising above a circus act or a vendor selling bobble-headed Bigfoots at a conference. Yep, seems harsh but for a guy like me I find the whole charade inexcusable.

I’d disagree, it may have raised the general public awareness level but on a scientific level I’d guess it was detrimental. The practice of going in the woods and beating trees or howling does not seem very scientific to me. I believe scientists would look at them like a bunch of goofballs.

No kidding, friend. We miss Colorado.