Leaderboard

Joe Beelart here from near Portland, Oregon. Wow. This discussion is still sliding down hill like a landslide. So, I decided to shovel a load of rock on it. BFRO Expeditions: As a speaking guest, I've been on a number of BFRO expeditions in the Gifford Pinchot and Mt. Hood National Forests, and in the Oregon Coast Range. {I can easily think of 7 BFRO expeditions, but I know there were more.} I have seen several return guests from the mid-west and east coast who I now consider friends. So, they must think they get their money's worth. {Think travel expenses from the east, or even from southern California.} Sure, the expeditions are “supply your own meals,” but I’ve found for at least one night’s supper it’s more of a shared board situation. And, I for one, every morning, make a Cabela’s pot of coffee and then at least one more. In the morning, generally, there are pastry boxes to share. I always have one. I’ve been on several “expeditions” where one BFRO member has always made a big pan breakfast to share. Of course, as it should be, lunch is to one’s preference. Another indicator of well-led expeditions is that some sell out very quickly, to repeat members. I know of one yearly BFRO expedition that is quite, and rightfully so, a virtual exclusive “club” with admittance by approved qualification only. It allegedly has a waiting list. Don’t get me wrong, while I feel some practices in BFRO expeditions could be much improved, but in general they fairly, properly, and safely introduce people to the land of Our Barefoot Friends; and are led by knowledgeable researchers. My Qualifications to write this: I feel I have some experience to speak on “expeditions.” My experience in very brief: My “Bigfoot Sasquatch Field Notes” go back to 1999. I wrote, with the encouragement and participation of my associate, Cliff Olson, “The Oregon Bigfoot Highway.” Another book, by me, primarily based on field research is on the way. Where do the foundation stones for the new book come from? Amongst other things, every year except for 2020, I’ve led pre-qualified, non-paying people on “expeditions,” including people from Australia, England, France, and Germany; plus people from across the USA and Canada. For an example, see “Tracking down Bigfoot” on YouTube. Going back many years, I’ve participated in at least 2 other organization’s expeditions. In 2018 I was out 19 nights. In 2019 the number was 21. Due to the coronoid virus, I only went out one night in 2020, but made several trips up the hill. 2021 looks very promising. Why do I spend so much time up the hill? Because with enough time afield there are results. If “you” are interested, I’ll write a note on the Hewkin—Sullivan Rule and Kiley’s Principles and Dictums. Personalities: HA ! As far as personality discussion in this thread: People have individual motivations, attitudes, social, and family drives, all of which change over time. Each person has a personality, with some being appealing, some not so; and, some just plain abrasive. Allow for that in what you read, see, and hear. Conflict in strong personalities goes back to earliest recorded human history, and will never end. Conflict, or underlying conflict, is the basis of every stage, screen, or TV drama, comedic or otherwise, and every song. It’s OK to discuss personality in a polite manner. In that regard, I really wish I could tell you a story, but I can’t. I guarantee you would laugh, it is better than a joke. Well, this is enough droning on. Thank you. Ps: Don’t even get me going on drones---- { Below is Mt. Jefferson before a storm. I managed to stay dry that night with only a tarp, but of course, I was alone. }

We could say that about ANY evidence of Bigfoot. But I challenge you to find me a Bigfoot suit that looks this bad..... Freeman’s “fat man in a suit” isn’t nearly that bad. Maybe Rick Dyer’s “Hank” is that bad....maybe. Actually looking at them side by side? No it isn’t.

Just my 2 cents more on BFRO's published reports. Notwithstanding any or all of the problems the published BFRO reports may have, they are far and away the most comprehensive, detailed, and useful reports. I'm doing my own database for the northeast US (and that part of Canada next to us). To get data, I read reports (1600+ so far) from BFRO, this forum, the original (old guard Excel) JG database, Bobbi Short's (RIP) Bigfoot encounters, books, and numerous bigfoot "research" websites, some with their own tv shows, etc., etc., etc. I note this simply to point out that I've had the opportunity to evaluate reports from multiple different sources and compare the quality of those source's reports. A lot collections of information are just that - collections with little to no additional information other than what was in a random newspaper clipping, a note from a witness, or what a guy told a guy who told a guy. In the modern internet and computer era, most other "research" website's are horrendous. Someone sends in a report that is essentially, "I was in Maine last year and saw a bigfoot at my friend's cabin in the woods." And that is what gets posted, along with a redacted e-mail address to show that the serious "researcher" had a bona fide witness who provided the information. Well rather than posting that silly report, why didn't the researcher e-mail back and get the 5 W's of the encounter and then post that information? Even if they had to muddle some of it up to protect the witness's privacy (i.e., the encounter happened about 5 miles west of Anytown rather than giving the witness's street address), the community as a whole would have more concrete information to deal with. And don't even get me going about the lack of concrete Bigfoot details in these le se reports - "my friend and I watched it walk across an open field from only 100 yards away for two minutes, then ran away." Really? then the report should provide how tall, how wide, hair color/length, mannerisms, vocalizations observed during that time, etc. Its understandable that someone typing out a quick e-mail not think of all those details as important, but a "researcher" posting an account certainly should run through a checklist of questions and be able to pull that information from the witness or be able to judge the explanation for why the witness can't provide the information. Short version of this rant - the BFRO published reports are likely the best we're going to get for a long time. Edited to do the proofreading I should have done before hitting "Publish"

Found this by chance on a page I was reading: http://www.bigfootproject.org/articles/bf_symp_2003_report.html. This is gold! If there is a Bigfoot Hall of Fame, then I'm making the call - Daniel Perez is IN. A Q&A session followed. The inimitable Daniel Perez rose to pose a tough question to Bob Gimlin: Perez: "Did you and Patterson stop to shower on the way from Bluff Creek to drop the film for shipment?" Gimlin: "Danny...I can’t remember." [drops mic]

I'm sure you say that in jest. 10 miles in either direction means at least 40 sq miles which is over 25,000 acres. So you're not in the woods unless you in more than 25,000 acres? There is always a bigger dog in the fight. By comparison, the unhabited forests of Alaska would make the sasquatch-dream states of Oregon or Washington State look like Central Park in NYC. I'll take those two "urban" states any day.

Hah, me skeptical of the subject, I have many recordings of gibberish, animalistic verbalization mashups and a 5 ft upclose nocturnal sighting with multiples (and about six years of intensive research in one area to go with it). Should have used my sardonic/ironic emoticon obviously. And yes I own the Sierra Sounds CD's have listened to Ron Morehead at conferences and have followed Scott Nelson since inception. I have recorded the same whistle as was picked up 100 miles east of me in NC so I have triangulated some of my research and correlated it regionally too.

I'd say lack of effort, if I have to guess, or maybe a lack of technical skills. Maybe they didn't know HOW to add a picture.. I read Carter's book. I enjoyed it, except now I've already forgotten most of what was in it. It's an easy read. They did not use any pictures from my report, but that's ok by me. I did my own follow up on the forum. We took a bunch of pictures when we were trying to get the height figured out. TK Bell is the investigator (pray for her - she's going through something horrific this week) She recorded the interview for mine and several other sightings on the Omaha Rez. Problem is that I don't think anybody else ever submitted the other sightings to get them published. Some day I will get my own interview of the other witness to my encounter, something I should have done that day. My head was not on straight though. I didn't even take a picture of the location until 20 minutes later, and should have bush-whacked in there to look for tracks or hair. I also had audio that was recorded the next morning, near the sighting location. They didn't use that in the report either, but I cannot be certain it was not people out squatching that made the yells.

I think it's just MM. Guys like Carter Buschart are publishing a lot of vetted reports. SOME of those reports that Matt is throwing out there, seem to be happening because they are fresh. Some have been only a day or two old. I think that was the problem with the Moose Report. He got excited and jumped the shark. In some reports, he also mentions that the witness info is on file, likely hoping for follow up from other investigators. NOW- I am frustrated by a few reports that mention they have pictures of tracks, and then don't share them... That is NOT MM, but I don't recall specifically which investigators did this. When one of my BFRO friends make a mistake, I tell them and hope for correction. We fixed county on one such report.

Rick Reles is one of the SC expedition leaders. He is among the best you will find at BFRO. He would know areas because of reports, but I don't believe he would go into someone else's area without cooperation and consent. If you ever get on any expeditions with Rick, make sure you take the opportunity to go on a night op with him. He has a good success rate, and it's my opinion that it's because he listened to what my Omaha Nation friends had to say, and took it to heart. Plus, he's just a good guy. BFRO (the organization) is filled with wonderful people, who (like all of us) are not perfect. Some are more "not perfect" then others

yeah, but there's a difference between individuals who make mistakes or errors in judgement, and regularly, as part of the normal operating procedure, declaring hings to be a facts without any evidence, and a big difference when they regularly double down on it after having their opinion challenged time and time again. As the guy in the video says, he's interested in the systematic failure that leads to conclusions like this. This isn't a kid who overthrew the basketball hoop and took out your garage window, this is the dad coming home from work and driving right through the garage door day after day. The leader is responsible for that system, and this time the leadership got called out. A sign of integrity is acknowledging the failure and adjusting the system to improve itself over time, not adjusting the data to fit the system.

Or mistakes are made. I'm confident I can't name a single organization I know whose employees/members have never made a mistake or error in judgment?

I've lived in Iowa and I absolutely despised it. I went deer hunting a couple of times. Once, at a state park that was literally 100 acres with 20 other hunters showing up to try and get a herd of about 8 deer. It was pathetic and dangerous. The other time was on a private church camp of about 500 acres. I could see houses the whole time I was there. If you can walk in literally any direction and hit a paved road within ten miles, you are not in the woods. Where I go a lot for berry picking and exploring, you can literally head East and not hit a paved road for nearly 100 miles. This is looking East from a lookout site in Idaho. The next paved road is over 100 miles away near Lolo, Montana. There are no towns, no civilization, no power, no nothing for 100 miles. Most city folks and others from populated areas have no concept of just how vast the wilderness is out here.

I think Standing is a hoaxer is why. While Justin is a honest man. That’s why you see the discrepancy in evidence. I would rather watch an honest man in the woods, than “exciting” dramatized hooey. After the muppet heads? Standing cannot be trusted in my book.

His experience in the woods is similar to mine. Sometimes I find suggestive evidence. But no smoking gun. What I do find interesting in MBM case? Is he is operating in the same area as Standing.... So the obvious question is? Why is Standing getting all the action when he steps one foot into the woods?

Such are the perils of gratuitous self-promotion without any previous forum participation in months.

The best part is that he spammed with a dead link and you had to come in with the assist. So, technically that makes you a co-spammer. I kid.

Evolution is ultimately about reproduction and bringing offspring to reproductive age. African sapiens vs. Neanderthals or Wolves vs. Dogs are reproductive examples. The history dogs is pretty clear.

You are right Norseman, you don't understand any of my posts and I just don't know why. The molecular clock dated dog separation from wolves. This is better than any fossil evidence since we do not know if fossil dog genes live today. There is no technical edge sapiens had over Neanderthal. Everything you can do in Aurignacian you and do in Mousterian. The difference is reproductive biology in my opinion. To put a fine point on it, this means sapiens women came into heat more times a year (12) than Neanderthal women who would have come into heat once a year following the pattern of northern mammals. I have cited examples of northern vs. southern species in that argument. Dogs come into heat twice a year, wolves once. That 50% edge led to dog populations exploding as compared to wolves. There is no "edge" sapiens had as depicted on TV. There is no "spark of humanity" that sapiens had that Neanderthals did not have. Dogs were domesticated in Asia 15,000 years ago and have no relationship with Neanderthal fitness or lack thereof because of the temporal gap between them. I

Huh. And what are they fundamentally? @Henry Stevens Are you the same Henry Stevens from Anthroscape and the defunct bonesandbehaviours boards? Or just an admirer who took his name as your handle? I thought that particular brand of pseudo-intellectual babble on the other Neanderthal thread looked familiar.

You have to read the whole paragraph. In the same way, during Upper Paleolithic times, humans, both sapiens and Neanderthals, were preserving food better and making survival a bit easier. With these relaxed conditions, this new environment, sapiens' reproductive ability actually meant that sometimes humans could breed and raise children any time of the year. But if you are only fertile once a year, this means nothing. So sapiens took advantage of better technology while Neanderthals could not. Sapiens was able to use improved cultural technology for improved reproduction and Neanderthals were not able to do this since (in my view) they were biologically limited to reproducing once a year.

No, they are not listed above. You made a statement which you cannot back up. Either back it up here and now or retract it.

Sub-Saharan Africans are "fundamentally" and forever Homo sapiens. Is that so complicated? I really don't remember Anthroscape. But yes to, BonesandBehavious. Do you have any qualifications?

Well if you are qualified to "pick out the several incorrect statements" that I have made, please list them.