Leaderboard

Quite honestly, I love his channel. Not only has he stepped on the toes of those who think that the Bigfoot community is their own personal fiefdom, he has been willing to weather a great deal of abuse from the hunting community as well. This has to have hurt his credibility in the hunting world, but he seems to be the sort of guy who doesn't shy away from conflict. It's kind of early to tell, but if he sticks to his stated purpose of trying to give a voice to those who have kind of felt put off by prominent figures in Bigfoot research...he is ok by me. One of the things that bother me about this field is the self aggrandizement that takes over. The focus becomes on those who take part in the subject, as opposed to the subject itself. The weird little Bigfoot cults of personality that crop up weird me out. If he is going to start slaughtering some sacred cows... I'm all for it. We have been debating the finer points of Bigfoot trivia ad nauseum for decades. If arguing over what color shirt John Green wore on case #43758 was going to solve this mystery, it would have happened years ago. Let's flip the table over and reset the game board. I think that Steve is going to do that to a small degree.

So much of the activity on this subject nowadays fall into the category of what I think of as Hoax Policing . I don't have the stamina for it, and I am constantly amazed at those who do. The premise for all this effort seems to be: WE know that BF is legitimate, and any attempt by others to fraudulently misrepresent what we know to be true diminishes the truthfulness of that reality. But does it really? (O.K., granted, the research into the nature of the animal needs truthful information, but most of the Hoax Policing is just making a case for or against the veracity of a single image or short video...not a whole lot of value in those, even if legitimate) I for one don't think it matters a tinker's dam. The only hoax analysis I think that matters is the analysis done on the PGF, which still stands as the gold standard. After that? Meh. Have you ever wondered that maybe the skepticism a lot of people hold about this topic is fed by the constant sniffing out of potential hoaxes? What if we were to just adopt this as the default reaction: Of course BigFoot exist, this (video, photo, track, sound recording) might be evidence of that fact, or it might not be, the ultimate conclusion making no difference as to the truth of their existence or not. What I'm saying is that all the hoax policing has bid up the value of all evidence way past the point of the usefulness of that evidence, even if proven to be true. Some guys on a YouTube channel faking Squatch videos (or possibly not)? Who cares? I am past that point, I can tell you. I am sure I am not alone in that feeling too.

I had a real interesting exchange of whistles a few years ago. They were not loud, did not carry far. "We" (never saw the other half of the conversation) were separated by 15 feet or so through some very thick high elevation firs. We were in a bottleneck, my back was to the lake, its back was to a cliff wall. It would whistle, various counts, 1-3 little whistles, then I would repeat that back. After a few cycles, it would stop, then I would lead with a series of small, quiet whistles, 1-3, and it would "play them back" to me. That went on for some number of cycles of cycles, changes of lead, perhaps 20, 25, was not counting, but "many." Eventually I got bored, moved out of the little thicket of trees we were in to a more open space, and returned to fishing. Something ... I assume whatever it was, rejoined me after a few hundred yards when I left the opening and moved into more open, larger trees on the shore. It would knock, quietly, but only when I was at a point in my cast where I could not turn and look behind me. It followed me from there on around the lake doing that 'til it was time for me to return to my truck and go find a place to camp. Odd. Decidedly odd. NOT troubling, not at all. I've had some other weird stuff happen at that one particular lake over the years but nothing quite like that. MIB

This. He pokes alot of fun at people with no evidence..... speaking of evidence?

I am kind of on the fence. He has a lot of charisma and is a great storyteller for sure. I've enjoyed what I've watched. But I would like to see evidence rather than just staring at his face for twenty minutes. Get out there, Steve. Start looking.

Before we push this off to "paranormal" let's not forget Richard has heard whoops and other vocalizations. Maybe the Dog incident is totally separate from what's visiting his property.

I do love Josh Gates' shows, he's genuinely funny, really does some insane stuff in unusual places and always digs up interesting vehicles. The four episode series he did on Yeti and the episode in Vietnam were better than anything else I've seen.

I missed the reference to Stan Gordon and had to actually look him up. I knew you were say maybe not bigfoot but not sure what you were alluding to as an alternative. Thanks for clarifying for me. I have some reading to do!

Hi all, My name is Chris. I joined this site awhile back and have lurked for a hot minute. I have interest in Bigfoot because of my dad's stories. I've always believed him because of his candor and the fact he is still, clearly, traumatized by his experiences. He was actually interviewed for that new show, Expedition Bigfoot, and was featured on the last episode. I'm an avid backpacker and camper myself, but have never seen the big guy. I've heard some weird whistles at night and had stuff that seemingly appeared to be thrown into my camp before, but I always just wrote it off as falling pine cones or other natural causes. After reading many books and listening/reading to a load of encounters... now I'm not so sure. Anyways, I just became a premium member and am hoping to contribute to the SSR database. I'm a GIS Analyst by trade and have a strong background in the sciences and spatiotemporal data analysis, so Sasquatch, and in particular, the SSR database, interests me on several levels. I dabble in R and Python, so if anyone has any cool analysis ideas, holler. I also put together some sighting reports from YouTube comments I've ran across... they're pasted into into a Google Slide Share. Give it a gander if you want. https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1WkvSoroUmeFCFl9ZZtGK2C0vhjtEIYt5eThI7-7A_w4/edit?usp=sharing Cheers.

Eh. It's not great, but it is a cut above most cryptozoology themed television. I am kind of watching it out of spite after the derogatory comments that the Finding Bigfoot crew made online. It will probably be like most of these shows. Maybe 20 minutes of action spread over 8 episodes. I will more than likely completely lose interest after the third or fourth episode, and tune out completely. It's on in the background as I do other stuff.

IF is a really huge word........and I'm sure it won't come into play in this circumstance. I certainly don't have the time to waste watching and waiting for any pleasant surprises. TV is wasted life.

Agreed... I watched the first episode and didn't see any reasons why I should bother watching the second. I'm sure somebody here will let us know if something NEEDS to be watched in future episodes.

I'm cherry picking what I think are the salient points: "We need some mature men or women (or a family) of substantial means who can back the project and appear on camera as part of the effort, ideally piloting their own $6,000 drones." "This project is expected to last for several years." "It will yield several fantastic clips of Bigfoots that will be seen and lauded around the world." So, let me get this straight, OTHER people will fund it for several years, buy the drones, fly them themselves, and it WILL yield "several fantastic clips" of Bigfoots. Even though everyone knows "clips" wouldn't be proof? And it would appear that not a penny will be spent by the BFRO, i.e., Moneymaker? Yeah, that sounds about right. The e-DNA part I can go with. The rest? nnnnnnnnnn-not so much.

It is not as simple as entertainment, this would imply that it is simply for amusement or " fun ". We put out wide range of material in the form of presentations, area history, noted behaviors, lessons on forest ecology, methods for identifying habitat, DNA collection, wildlife/man tracking, and exercises in critical thinking. We also get people hands on with new equipment, technology and introduce folks to ways of collecting information and data to get results. For instance, on my Olympics exped I gave a short lecture on spectrograms as a tool for finding and identifying species presence within a selected habitat, I also gave visual demos on how to use them and what to look for when going through collected data. . . . Does that sound like good ole' Joel Olsteen practice to you ? LOL The expeds can be as much or as little as the organizer makes them to be, the western chapter puts a great deal of their time and money into making the expeditions engaging and worth attending. I am aware of several organizers in OR and CA who feed the participants several nights also. I suppose if you just suck as a person you could do almost nothing and walk a couple groups down a few forest roads during the night to keep most of the organizers portion of the funds. We have had years ( the Finding Bigfoot era ) that we had loads of people want to attend, many these people wanted to treat it like an Alaskan cruise or fishing trip where anything goes. This did not serve the purpose of what the BFRO was looking to do, we are more angled to a form of education and awareness on the subject. You are correct that Matt gives the price hike as to dissuade the nuts, weirdos and less than serious. This is half true, you have to understand that the BFRO is trying to add technical/knowledgeable academics to the group, you have to attend a BFRO expedition before you are eligible to become a member. Smart people with a genuine interest and flexibility are what we are looking for to make ground on the topic, in my personal opinion there has been a slide back in this but I think that is about to change. Organizers come up with their own price points, are at 500$ and some are at 300$ per adult. We also set how many participants we are willing to have and if we wish to have additional investigators involved. We pay for all of our ( we being the investigators/organizers ) emergency gear, backup equipment, batteries, external hardware, presentation displays, audio equipment, media storage, gas and bathroom facilities. I probably made ( net ) around 750$ after all of my expenses related to the expeds, this does not account for my invested time. The BFRO pays for ZERO of what happens on the ground, the organization provides us with access to reports, some thermal imaging equipment and social media presence/platform. If you have more particular questions that are related I would be glad to respond over PM or by email nathanbronis@gmail.com , I am not looking to hijack the thread further.