Leaderboard

I had a slightly different #4 in mind, but yeah, there is another factor at play: intelligence. Many animals are "intelligent." Not many can think in abstract, imagine rather than observe, consider how choices might play out, and then strategically choose that which seems most beneficial. So of your choices, Norseman, I believe #2 / #3 are both on target an off. I think there are concentrations of bigfoots in some places but I think many large areas don't have a resident population. I think a small number of individuals pass through some areas occasionally. I suspect that they do deliberately hide their sign when they spend extended amounts of time near people, but I think when they are on the move, they do not try to hide their tracks, etc. They aren't going to be around long enough for that sign to lead to being "found." I think the Bossberg tracks are an example .. straight line beatin' feet from here to there, no concern about hiding "sign." But also not vulnerable to be discovered. We are up against an unfamiliar paradigm. We can describe it but we don't know how to act on it. Imagine something with characteristics of Ishi, an Amazon tribe, and a wolverine. By this I mean something quite rare, with essentially zero technology to detect, including fire, yet adapted to the environment, and having the ability to reason. Our assumptions for tracking / locating people fail. Our assumptions for tracking / locating animals fails. I'm sure there is a methodology but I do not know what it is .. yet. Our thinking is trapped between 2 boxes, 2 paradigms, and we have to break free enough to learn a third. We are not doing it. There's an old song by Dire Straights with a line "two men think they're Jesus, one of them must be wrong." We fail to consider the possibility that NEITHER is Jesus. Same thing with bigfoot. We have a set of preconceived ideas about "people" and a preconceived set of ideas about "animals". I think stiffly clinging to those sets of assumptions forces us to fail. The truth, I suspect, has components of both, but also new things, things outside our current experience. We need to be open to learning something new rather than just fighting over which of the old things they have to be. Just my view, of course. And I'll be the first to admit that whatever is needed, it is a whole lot easier to say a new things is needed than it is to find that thing and do it. MIB

I know exactly what you're talking about. Lots of evidence that's highly suggestive to those that are well acquainted with what they're looking at, though not conclusive in a "beat you over the head with a club of quantifiable data" sort of way. We've been through this. I am a scientist, as in, by profession. But if you mean do I want to be a bigfoot scientist? Nope. Science is not the way to learn anything in this field. Never will be. At least not "science" in the way the word is implicitly defined in these circles, which mostly boils down to "forensic science." That's merely one proposed path of least resistance through the obstacle of others' incredulity. On this point Mr. Isdahl and I are in complete agreement I'm sure.

I don't think multiple encounters is a deal breaker. It might be if it were YOU and you were finding them everywhere you go, but if a person is fortunate (?) enough to spend a lot of time in one specific location and it is near enough where the BFs spend time for whatever reason, then multiple encounter over time is as probable for that person as it is improbable for the person who only goes camping a couple times a year, each in a different spot, and yet seems to run into bigfoot everywhere. In other words, if you are expecting constant identical results for everyone, you're off-target. Just as species' sizes, weights, etc vary along a bell curve, so do their concentrations. If you are where they are, there can seem to be many, if you are where they are not, they can seem to be imaginary. So ... expect variation .. in everything .. if you're dealing with something real. Rather than immediately dismissing such people, take a very hard look at the locations their reported encounters come from and see if the locations are "reasonable." (Expect to have to learn in the process because we don't actually know what reasonable is, we only have stereotypes which can mislead.) I guess I'm saying caution in everything ... caution in acceptance, but also caution in dismissal. MIB

It has been resurrected from posts that are several years old by an individual who is already famed for such pot stirring. If you refuse to feed the pest, maybe it will migrate?

The hang up is he wants it declared by science or we are just chasing ghosts and shadows . We have people posting in this thread that say they are 100% sure they have seen one in the flesh. Not some shadow behind a tree but they looked right at it. I'm not going to believe everyone who claims to have seen one is crazy or lying . I can say I've never seen one but I've seen some strange animal I can't explain. As to tracks I believe it is evidence of something out there unless every track in the last 60 or so years has been hoaxed across North America . That seems very unlikely to me. It proves something is walking making them. I see a deer track or a bear track even though I might not see them that day I know they passed through my back yard.

Yup. If this happens again tomorrow and gets captured on a cell phone, things could change very quickly: http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=933 Bigfoot tracks are found all the time, and most such finds are never recorded. I myself found a trackway at the age of 16, and it is not recorded in any database. The first day Dr. Meldrum met Paul Freeman he was taken to a trackway that Freeman found that very morning. Meldrum couldn't believe it.......until he examined the prints. Freeman had no plans whatsoever to report those prints to anybody. The evidence is overwhelming. No proof for the denialists, but I've come to believe there are numerous reasons for that, and I am at peace with it.

I've never been a gun guy so my experience is limited..I never owned a firearm till I was about 41..As far as a pistol.. I started out carrying a Sig Sauer P210 9mm, I've never liked a large caliber pistol. I have a .357 but I feel like the joker pulling his revolver out in the first Batman movie, when I carry it. When I captured proof of my trespassers on my property, I new I needed something other than the 9mm..wanting to stick with a small compact, carry anywhere pistol, I went with the Kimber Crimson .45 Ultra CDP II Still not powerful enough but at least I'll die shooting a comfortable easy to handle gun.

He probably has to pay the guy he stole the research area from an honorarium along with attorney fees. This is the same guy that copied a film scene from a movie then cut and pasted said scene into a faux reality video at night using flares as he's spinning around pretending he's being attacked by a BF. Don't go into the woods with fools--even though some well known BF researcher dupes have, no matter what the chance of encountering the target species, it just ain't worth the risk!

This field has a lot of blinkered observations, and evidence just doesn't reveal itself that way. Norseman, if after all you've read and observed you seriously are still wondering where the evidence is? I got nothin'. All this stuff fits together...but yeah, you could start with footprints. Something that leaves footprints does a lot of other stuff besides. We've got plenty of evidence of what that other stuff is, but no, it won't come summarized, notarized, and in a certified letter written on National Geographic Association bond letterhead with a signet ring wax seal and signed by Sir David Attenborough. If that is what you need (or its biological equivalent) I'm just sayin', you're going to be disappointed, plenty.

You forgot #4 Norseman: There is ample, congruent, independently confirmed, historically consistent, biologically predictable evidence already. The only fault of this evidence is it happens to argue for the existence of something that mankind as a whole doesn't want to face, and it is therefore shunned, ignored and met with actual hostility. This would not be the fault of the evidence. The evidence can't be blamed if mankind is not interested in following it towards iron-clad proof. If and when mankind decides in sufficient numbers that this evidence can be faced head-on, it will be proven, but not before that. We ain't there yet though. While we are here we'll have to count on dumb luck... the kind of luck that helped a couple of cowboys wahooing through the woods to film one. It could be another fifty of 75 years until that happens again though. If a body is of an impatient temperament, Sasquatch theory is probably the last thing they want to be thinking about.

Sasquatch. We're talking about sasquatch. Which is completely novel in terms of intelligence and behavior. Correct. As has been pretty thoroughly demonstrated by now.

MIB, no doubt that each case is different and Im not surprised if a particular area has repeat events. In general though there are certainly ppl that claim activity no matter when or where they are and this dilutes both the quality of reporting and expectations of BF research. By no means do I have particular individuals in mind, just as a whole. BF activity or not I prefer to camp in different locations, see different scenes.

Oh, look. Said individual discovered the downvote tool.

Very true. Me however, I stopped worrying about what others think about anything long, long ago..;)

Don't go getting funny with me just because your personal belief is grossly waning Mr Hiflier, because "we" haven't got to the bottom of this all in the years "you" have been interested in it ok ? Keep the faith, become a witness..;) Cowlitz County Conference or something like that it was called. I was due to go in Jan so decided i'd work it around one of the conferences out there, glad I did, I enjoyed it and met some good people that I've been tapping to for years. Then went up and stayed at Shane's, then a little Quinault Lodge for 3 nights R&R..;) I'll be out again soon, for sure.

I have been researching infrasound detection gear. I was hoping to find something off the shelf that was not really expensive. Rion has a hand held infrasound detector that is capable of recording wave forms down to 5 HZ. I contacted the company and got a quite for the device. The device, with recording SD card, software to analyze what is found, costs $11,000 dollars. Calibration to meet some standard costs another $1000. While 5 HZ is well into infrasound, it is above what I detected with my digital recorder. I did find a microphone that can record infrasound down below 1 HZ. That is $1400 including a preamp, but the specs do not spell out what you hook it up to. I suspect it is an oscilloscope but the manufacturer has not confirmed that. Pocket oscilloscopes are available for under $100 that can record waveforms down below 1 HZ. The two would be reasonably portable, and light enough to carry in the field. So good gear, is available for around $1500. Many many sound meters are available for under $100 but looking at the specs most have a 20 or 30 HZ low end cutoff. If you do an amazon search for infrasound detector, you get dozens but none are capable of detection down into the below 20 HZ range of infrasound. I do have an Intec infrasound detector. It is barely portable, weighs a couple of pounds, requires an array several feet long, and it drives a computer that needs to be a laptop to be portable at all. Campground type of gear and not something that anyone would want to pack around. It uses barometric principals to sense the infrasound waves. Its designed purpose was detection of infrasound pressure waves created by earthquakes, thunderstorms, and tornados. The software is that used by geologists for recording earthquakes. While the barometric concept could be used on a more partable device I have not found an off he shelf device that uses it. Those that I have found, have a cutoff on the low end above infrasound (30HZ). So it looks like to get something below a couple of hundred dollars something has to be developed from scratch using a microphone concept or barometric device. I think that possible but have doubts about how portable it would be. I don't want anything that weighs more than a couple of pounds that I cannot carry in my pack. Some low tech devices might detect infrasound but are not going to record it. I mentioned some smart phone aps that claim to detect and even record infrasound but have not played with them. One for android devices seems like it is designed to spy on the user. Anyway I will continue to work the problem. It is both an engineering and cost challenge. The most likely route to both detect, and record wave forms is probably using a pocket oscilloscope being fed by a barometric or microphone device. To get the cost down the barometric or microphone device will have to be fabricated. I have no desire to produce products to sell, because of licensing and other factors, but will be very open about how to construct whatever I come up with. Stay tuned for that.

I would do a web search to see if there are Bigfoot groups in your area other than BFRO. If there are, the good thing is you can probably get out on several expeditions and be shown areas of local interest. You can do also check FB as there are groups that do not have a website but have an active BF page. I'd prefer to go to a BRFO than sit home but I'd rather go to a local BF group than BRFO. I would not sit home alone as I would be out backpacking into the special areas of interest and activity.

Amazing how much wishful thinking there is after all this time. It was an elk.....

calling something not bigfoot, is not pot stirring...