Leaderboard

I don't think it is possible to deduce anything based on report numbers. There are simply too many moving parts. Social media has fostered the formation of MANY small, local groups and individuals so you don't have to go to the big names that publish reports anymore to talk to someone and you don't have to face the interrogation that was characteristic of BFRO when I made my report. It is more socially acceptable now, too, to talk about bigfoot so there are likely fewer people who report just to have a sanity check. Moreover ... go to BFRO's site and look at the recently published reports list, look at the dates. Now, think about that chart previously shown. It simply takes some amount of time for reports to be investigated and published, so the recent gap may show nothing about reports, only about investigation and publication. We have to wait 10 years to see what has been published about now to know about the number of reports now. May not be what you want to hear, but it is truth. Deal with truth or deal with wishful thinking. It's up to you. MIB

As one who believes that sasquatches are on the road to extinction, and have been for at least the past 500 years, I also believe that their numbers might be increasing in some regions. For example, I am fully convinced that their numbers have decreased dramatically over the past 175 years in what was likely their best habitat (northwest California, western Oregon, and western Washington), but have been more stable or maybe even grown in British Columbia, Alberta, and Yukon, and Ontario.

I could be wrong... @BobbyO says that reports take a few years to get posted on the BFRO site, I don't know.

Thank you! Can’t wait to read through your post that you referenced. The episode with Rick Reles will be available on Monday, June 8th. Thanks for listening! 😄👣👣👣

Hello all! My name is Jeremiah or “Bigfoot Society”. I was excited to find this forum as I found traffic coming to my YouTube channel from this website and was immediately intrigued! I am based out of central Iowa and love to get the stories behind the people that make up the Bigfoot community. I’ve always been extremely into Bigfoot ever since I saw The “In Search Of” episode when I was a young child and saw the PG film footage for the first time. Thank you again for allowing me into your community. 😄👣👣👣

Why the big bump from 95-15? Shouldn’t the graph just slowly drop in numbers as it comes forward in time if we were watching an extinction?

As part of my volunteer work for the Montana Military Museum over the last decade, I spend a lot of time looking at and restoring historical photographs, some dating back to the 1880's. In April I began experimenting with a colorization program called DeOldify licensed by MyHeritage. It can bring the subject of an old photo to life, in a manner of speaking. I've used it on a number of the museum's photos of Montana infantry units taken from the 1890's through the 1930's. We know the actual colors of uniforms, pennants and flags, etc., shown in the photos and the program does a remarkable job of rendering them accurately. I was primarily interested in the photo of Khwit as it is the best preserved as well as generationally closest to Zana. My goal was to adjust exposure to try and give more depth to the face, allowing a possibly more accurate assessment of the underlying bone structure (I also found it interesting that the hair was rendered in the auburn shade fitting the "long, reddish-brown hair" described in "The Nature of the Beast" quoted above). Based on the neutral background I suspect the photo was exposed with artificial light, i.e. flash powder in that era, which would explain the high contrast exhibited. Khwit's nose appears wide considering the otherwise long, narrow face, and while the original photo suggests a high forehead, reflection of light to the camera lens is similar from the bridge of the nose and the forehead above the brow which indicates a similar sloping plane to both surfaces. As hiflier pointed out, the ears definitely seem low and it's easy to see that if that thick hair was allowed to grow out it could cover them entirely which fits with the many sasquatch witness descriptions that ears were not seen. If I saw that photo with no knowledge of the provenance it would appear to be or a fairly well proportioned, rangy human male. If his body was proportioned with the skull pictured above however, he must have been extraordinarilly tall and powerfully built. The heading over the photos doesn't provide the identity of the "leading genetecist" who suggests Zana may have been a yeti, but all of the purported yeti tracks I'm aware of show an ape like foot rather than human like. While I understand the genetic basis for the current primate designations (and ignoring the persistent suspicion that some scientists delight in obfuscation), the lexicon of Ivan Sanderson's day dividing the branches as Hominid or Pongid strikes me as much more descriptive from the standpoint of physical characteristics.

A recent Shane Corson interview which clarifies some stuff about the old nests and tells about new nest finds, and a "something happened" when found.

The 2010's? Impotent mainstream science and sequestering knowledge while monetizing the subject. In other words, serious growth in the business of Bigfoot and offering carrots of no value to a jaded public and community.

I believe that a few years or never in some cases is more accurate. Because of my experience I would not even call what BFRO has a data base.