Leaderboard

This. There are tons of people talk about it. Post about it on Facebook. Hang out at the local KOA and walk the perimeter of the campground at night banging on trees. Not that there is anything wrong with any of that… people should be able to enjoy the subject and involve themselves however they like. But, what I think would be considered ‘research’? Not many people are involved with that. There’s a reason why more people gravitate to ghost hunting than Bigfoot research. Because Bigfoot research is often difficult, dirty, time consuming often without much payoff, expensive, and often carries a bit of a social stigma. Not to mention the personality types that seem to be attracted to this sort of thing. Petty infighting and jealousy. Scarcity mentality. Lack of self awareness. All of those tend to keep the people from getting too involved as well. This is one of the most truthful comments ever made on this forum. Let’s be honest… witness reports, accounts, and evidence are often cherry-picked to conform with a person’s personal biases. A lot of people cry out for a purely scientific approach to the phenomenon, while basically twisting accepted science into knots trying to explain that which seems to elude explanation. Warm blooded animals seeing in infrared. Infrasound trotted out as a catch all explanation despite its established limitations. Mammals displaying bioluminescence in sensory organs that depend upon light themselves. Physical speed and stealth far in excess of any other primate. “These things are just undiscovered apes… apes that display physical abilities far in excess than any other animal found on earth”. Established science gets tied into knots… and then the knot tiers complain about why established scientists don’t take the subject seriously. A lot of people are not comfortable saying “I don’t know.” They need to build a narrative to explain things. I don’t know what these things are On the contrary… I think that you will find those independent weekend warriors to be more adaptable and willing to try new things than any established organization. Those independents are not so constrained by groupthink or required methodology. Those groups have their structure, beliefs, and methods… in order to be part of the group you will need to conform with those constraints. We see it all the time… people who are quick to attack others for having a different approach, all the while talking about their “20 years of experience”. No, man. You have one year’s experience repeated 20 times.

Out of the four groups mentioned? Only one is dedicated to taking a type specimen. And I just learned that actually a documented species needs TWO type specimens. One male and one female. No amount of DNA will replace sciences demand for two type specimens in order to recognize a new species. They require the morphology. I learned this from Dr. Mayor’s Lemur study in Madagascar. So this is a game changer. Anyone who is advocating DNA testing? Are ultimately advocating that two specimens be collected and dissected. Full stop. Dr. Mayor is against killing animals and provided two Lemurs to live out their lives in captivity only to become type specimens after death. Which is fine for a species of tiny Lemur. It’s not applicable to a 800 lbs forest giant. Unless remains can be found. I agree that the wood knock, whooping group with dental resin casts is a hobby. A hobby not taken seriously by science. They may have street cred, a long history and a really cool website? But this methodology is a dead end. DNA is cool, it’s still problematic for the average amateur researcher. Cost, accuracy, and reliability all seem to be big hurdles. I.e. Dr. Mayor got a DNA hit for Chimp DNA in Kentucky. Cool. But where does that lead? Well it’s not a smoking gun. It’s only a hint of being on the right track. So we are back to square one. A body is needed. Let’s push shooting one aside for a moment. What are other avenues we could explore? 1) Caves 2) Forest Fires 3) Rock slides 4) River banks Could we use cadaver dogs? Or search and rescue dogs? Homo Nadeli actively buried their dead. Denisovans, Homo Floresiensis and others? All bones found in caves. If we think Bigfoot is more human like? Caves are an excellent starting point. Another lead is trying to find old news articles of giant remains found by settlers and then attempting to trace those remains down. They may be on a dusty museum shelf somewhere sitting in a box. Scouting areas after forest fires or rock slides could yield fresh remains of a victim. In Siberia every year something gets sluffed out of a river bank eroding. Mammoths, cave lions, dire wolves and many other species are found sometimes well preserved. Any other thoughts? I think it’s more productive to talk about what can be done than pointing fingers.

Most everyone I have ever spoken directly with who has had a bigfoot sighting / encounter has never officially reported it. That would greatly change the data.

My dream. I haven't been able to pull it off simply due to responsibilities. The world simply will not release me from imprisonment. This is what our aboriginal cousins mean when they speak about worthiness. If you are able to leave the world of Man behind, you might be able to enter the world of primitive man. Maybe............

The rain that was forecast for today held off, so after lunch I grabbed the Hummer keys and headed out to a nearby mountain trail. I had recently heard, through a local 4x4 forum, that a branch road off a well known FSR was now open, after being gated for years. I got there about 2, and found the narrow road to be in pretty good condition, due to recent logging near the summit, but right from the start it was steep enough to be best climbed in low range. At about 2 km up, I saw a very scenic small waterfall, and stopped for the photo, of course. At km 3 the grade lessened to a more normal climb rate, and I continued all the way to the recent logging show at the end of a nice hanging valley at 800M el.(about 2500'). There were still patches of snow, but the road was bare, with a thin layer of mud from the snow melt, so I had my eyes peeled for tracks, but only saw lots of bear scat, probably from last fall, before the snows came. After a break to stretch my legs and have a snack, while glassing the clearcut, and a talus slope at the foot of an impressive rock bluff, I headed back down the trail, exploring a couple of older deactivated branches along the way, and taking a few more scenic pics. Since the start of this route is only 40 minutes from my home, I was back in time for dinner at 6.

There are times I paddle out in a canoe or kayak on a large pond fishing for a good-sized largemouth bass. There might be thousands in that pond but there is no guarantee of hooking one. There are times when I am completely skunked. Maybe it was an impending cold front, maybe there weren't where I thought they'd be...who knows. Instead of exploring 100 acres with thousands to catch when fishing, with sasquatching you may be exploring 1,000 square miles that hold only a handful...maybe. Those few have a developed brain and are purposely looking to avoid us. I am convinced that with a sasquatch there's more than meets the eye. That said, there is only so much one person, or even a few together, can do in expansive areas. I'm always willing to try new approaches so if someone has ideas, I'd love to hear them.

Fair enough. I have a different take-away though. My analogy is icebergs. 10% above the surface, 90% below .. give or take. I don't think it is our research practices or methods that are flawed, I think it is the assumptions that guide them .. a deeper, more fundamental flaw. We're not inept. I believe that if our assumptions were right, then our methods would have produced results. I don't know what the answer is but I am convinced that whatever it is, we're going to find that bigfoots aren't what we think they are. I think we need to step back and review the apparent crackpot theories. Apply some science to them looking for ways they could succeed, not just for ways to dismiss them. I think that because we are uncomfortable with aspects of them, we attempt to force failure so we don't have to face discomfort rather than looking into them to see how they might work thus suss out the answer to our mystery. You might even say we use "pure science" as a means to hide intellectual cowardice. MIB

I disagree with you there. I think you could count with two hands the number of committed groups who hit the field repeatedly and methodically and that is the problem.

One of our people made an interesting observation last summer. He would make random visits across the river to the area where we routinely hear vocals at different times. While over there, he observed a piece of rock that had a smaller sharp edge to it that had been wedged into a crack on the trunk of a tree a few feet up off the ground. Naturally, you see something like that and you just pull it out. He went back a day or two later and found the rock shoved back into the crack of the tree. IF I'm recalling correctly, he took it out again, but in the next couple of days before leaving he didn't find it put back in the tree crack. Maybe this Spring when we get settled back into camp we'll find it's been put back in. I'll contact him to have him check whenever he's back up there.

Not new, but simply not done. Go out to bigfoot country, make a temporary camp and stay there from April to September. No motor vehicles. Live there for 6 months, cook, chop wood, hunt, fish, etc and be ready for the moment.

Went over to where I had seen the creature with big eyes and found the first print below, it was within 30 yards from where i had seen it, and right where I had crossed the creek on the way back to my vehicle....guess it was following me. Weird print, and was maybe 10-12", looks like a narrow heal, appears to have 5 toes, and might have claws....it was a bit underwater so hard to tell. The Sotol is out, and discards of a mini snack on the trial, and a closeup of one of the leaves.

Live in northern MN on Leech Lake Reservation. Have many elders and close family members who have had encounters with Sabe (Hairy Man). Would like to read what others have to say about the subject.

Excellent points BRB. You hit the nail on the head. Great job!

Good points by BRB. What I have heard people say is that 'bigfooting' is snipe hunting for adults. I suspect 99.99% of the general public has that view. Getting past the snipe hunting opinion is difficult. Takes time, money and a lot of skin in the activity.

Hello Everyone, I haven't used a forum in any meaningful sense since the newsgroups of the 1990s. I hope I'm doing this right. I'm a lurker and a hermit by nature, and I haven't read even one post on this forum but was directed here when trying to determine the authenticity of the Jeane Hiebert photo. I have long believed Bigfoot was probably real, but I dismissed most of what came across my television screen as likely hoaxes. I did so without ever watching a single documentary, nor made any attempt to delve into the topic. I thought the famous Patterson-Gimlin footage that I grew up with in the 1970s was fake, until two months ago when people whose opinion I respect said that the film was not deemed a hoax, and it was quite the opposite. Since then, I've been hooked. It's a fascinating subject, and I look forward to diving into this forum.

Buy once, cry once.