Leaderboard

I'll disagree with you. As you've worded this, proof must be provided before investigation is allowed. That ain't how science works. MIB

I don't think you'll find consensus. Opinions vary and are strongly held. I don't think there's evidence for BF being merely a myth, the only support that has is lack of proof to the contrary, and lack of proof is not proof of lack. My research approach is looking for a F&B "critter", yes, a bipedal primate, but that's a weak term, it glosses over how truly close to us I think they are genetically. I'm looking at them being the robustus to our gracile .. more or less. Like darwin's finches evolving specializations to avoid competition for resources. Genetically, we run hot, open savannah in bright daylight, they walk cold, snowy mountains in the dark. Each specialization we have, they seem to have the opposite. I suspect they have brain capabilities similar to ours but oriented differently because their physical advantages resolve needs we had to develop tools and fire to compensate for. At the same time, in my past as a report investigator I had access to the raw reports almost nobody sees and there was an incredible amount of high strangeness that got "sanitized" out of the raw reports prior to publication. For me it is necessary to leave the possibility of some of the woo explanations on the table at least for now because, as I said before, lack of proof is not proof of lack, we just discard the uncomfortable so we don't have to deal with it. My approach in the field focuses on F&B. I keep an eye out for the "woo" and for ways to try to apply science to studying that when I encounter it. I can't take skepticism seriously. I've had two clear sightings. Non-existence is off of the table for me. MIB

None first hand that I know of, but several second hand native American accounts of woman and child stealing (although there are also accounts of man kidnapping, too). I know of one documented account of an Alaskan Koyukon man who claimed to kill a female sasquatch with a knife after she followed him for days and finally rushed him. He thought that she "wanted to make love" with him. I also believe that some sasquatch or "wildman" reports are feral humans.

Research into the sasquatch phenomenon for the past 50+ years has been dispersed, non-standardized, unorganized, and without any gate keeping organizations. Diversity of strategies, methodologies and groups is generally good in the initial stages of discovery because nobody knows anything with certainty about the subject and a wide-net diverse approach could yield more evidence. Nonetheless, as the years pass, we keep getting the same old pieces of evidence (anecdotal stories, casts of footprints, blurry photos (now in thermal), sound recordings, hairs (which analysis leads nowhere)) that are not conducive to scientific acceptance for the existence of this creature. Meanwhile, the community of field researchers have grown significantly since the mid 1990’s thanks to the internet, new organizations that made it possible to connect researchers, and TV shows treating the subject seriously. As a result, there are probably thousands of people in North America going into the field each year with similar ineffective tactics (placing game cameras, screaming BF like howls, sound blasting recordings of sasquatch, wood-knocking in the forests, walking at night with thermal imagers or night vision, looking for tracks and casting them, etc.). Many of these people just want to get the thrill of an experience and are not necessarily interested in the collection of evidence to prove the existence of this creature to the scientific community. There is nothing wrong with that. There are no accepted research protocols or standards, and every person is out there for get her/his own personal experience and contribution to the field. Stan Courtney tried to list all the sasquatch research organizations on his website, but the flux in and out is so high that many of the links do not work and he is probably missing many new organizations that pop in every year. http://www.stancourtney.com/squatchmarks.html One of the interesting aspects of the sasquatch research community is that not everyone has the same objectives. Some organizations and individuals would like to get a specimen and settle the mystery once and for all. While others just want to document their presence for themselves via audio, video, or photos, and don’t care what the scientific community thinks of this personal evidence. Others just want to experience their presence without documentation. Others (the habituators) want to establish communication and interaction with them without the collection of any evidence. Some might just want to set up YouTube videos of their walks in the forest, pointing out every tepee or glyph that they think a bigfoot created. Juxtaposed to the personal objectives of independent researchers are those of the national and statewide organizations. Sometimes these objectives align, and the groups grow, and sometimes they diverge and the groups break-up or shrink. Of interest are the mission statements and objectives of some of the best-known sasquatch organizations: BFRO: The overall mission of the BFRO is multifaceted, but the organization essentially seeks to resolve the mystery surrounding the bigfoot phenomenon, that is, to derive conclusive documentation of the species' existence. This goal is pursued through the proactive collection of empirical data and physical evidence from the field and by means of activities designed to promote an awareness and understanding of the nature and origin of the evidence. Olympic Project: The OP is an association of dedicated researchers, investigators, biologists, and trackers committed to documenting the existence of Sasquatch through science and education. Through comprehensive habitat study, DNA analysis and game camera deployment, our goal is to obtain as much information and empirical evidence as we can, with hopes of being as prepared as possible when and if species verification comes to fruition. Our studies are conducted in a non-invasive manner with respect and sensitivity to probable habitat we believe this amazing species inhabits. NAWAC: To investigate and conduct research regarding the existence of the unlisted primate species we refer to as the wood ape, also known as the sasquatch or bigfoot; to facilitate scientific, official, and governmental recognition, conservation, and protection of the species and its habitat; and to help further factual education and understanding to the public regarding the species, with a focus on the continent of North America. Our members are investigating one of the greatest natural enigmas of our time, and our main goal is to ultimately have the wood ape species documented, protected, and the land they inhabit protected. AIBR: The Alliance of Independent Bigfoot Researchers: The main thrust of AIBR research is dedicated to the scientific study of the creatures popularly known as bigfoot. The objective of AIBR is to collect, collate and document evidence using forensically sound, scientific procedures, and present the resulting evidence to mainstream scientists as part of an effort to prove the creature’s existence. A significant effort is made into documenting Native American references to these creatures. Of these 4 organizations, it seems that the AIBR was the one that could have helped the large diverse and disperse group of independent researchers across the US and Canada. Unfortunately, their website is no longer working. I don’t know if they are still active. I believe that Kathy Strain was one of the founders and might let us know what their situation is. If AIBR failed to get traction across North America, maybe it was because of the rugged individualism of the independent researchers and their lack of desire to join a group, share their findings, or be told how to conduct research properly. While the Olympic Project is making in-roads into the study of nests and implementation of e-DNA studies, we still have not seen any published papers from that effort. NAWAC published a monograph on their findings in the Ouachita Mountains, but they have not been able to capture a specimen or gotten video or photographs after 15 years in the target area. I am not sure if BFRO publishes any findings from their efforts. I have never seen a monograph published by BFRO on the evidence found to date from all their collective research efforts (but maybe it is out there buried in their website). As of 2022, I don’t see any changes coming afoot on the research methods and practices that will change the game and increase the odds of better evidence coming forward. Technology will continue to improve (drones, thermal imagers, game cameras, e-DNA testing, etc.) but I doubt they will change the outcome. Despite all the smart people that have contributed to the field and are continuously and creatively looking for new ways to get better evidence (from Washington to Florida and from Canada to Texas and all places in between), the community at large has not been able to crack the code. The odds are low that some new method or technique will arise that will change the game’s outcome, or the types of available evidence so far collected. I don’t think the problem is a lack of technology available to the researchers. The problem probably lies on flawed field research practices and methods. We could be making some wrong assumptions about the target’s capabilities, or the assumed hypothesis could be wrong. I don’t have the answers and just wanted to share my observations and misgivings.

It happens a lot. If you read through the new members introduction thread, you'll see that many of them mention becoming interested when they watched a show on cable.

Exactly. And Facebook will attract a crowd with a more casual interest. Most of it won’t appeal to those of us with a more serious interest in the subject. The best that we can hope for is that some of those people start off listening to the podcasts and debating the red circles…and will eventually want to do more with looking into the phenomenon. Maybe they won’t. But, at the end of the day…it doesn’t matter to me. Their actions (especially online) don’t affect me or my efforts. To me, the more people with an interest in the subject moves the needle on the right direction.

And who is the arbitor of what is inappropriate, and thereby making a mockery as you call it, and what is not?

Exactly. UFOs, Atlantis, other dimensions. I swear, some of these people would think moose are interdimensional beings if they were currently an unclassified species lol.

Much of what is occurring today in Bigfoot research is mindless charlatanism. Appealing to the lowest common denominator aka Matt Moneymaker, Small Town Monsters etc… None of which is any better than the influx of paranormal BS which has all but ensured that Bigfoot research will never be taken seriously by the scientific community.

Many of the newspaper articles in the U.S. from the early 1800's and 1950 about wild men read like feral humans, and the genetic testing done on Zana and Khwit appear to prove that a sasquatch-like female can be Homo sapien. That said, I here write that I have great suspicion of much "science", including DNA "proofs", and anybody who tries to tell me that the Patterson film subject is a Homo sapien woman is going to be met with laughter. Even skeptics call her a MAN in a suit, yet the description of Zana is a spitting image of Patty. But my reading about feral children was nothing short of incredible. The evolution of a human who is reared by wild animals from infancy is almost beyond belief, yet it is undeniably, widely, and repeatedly documented. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Feral_child Alas, all I have is a single footprint trackway find, but it was a good one. Unfortunately, it is very poorly documented. No photos or casts. Thanks! I'll take it to my local barista and see if I can trade it for a cup of espresso!

Of the "big Four" in research today, my take is as follows: BFRO: is a business, plain and simple, hiding behind a citizen scientist wrapper. Some of them are quality researchers, others are...... I'll just leave that there. What they are not, is the only Scientific Organization pusruing Bigfoot. Their leadership their credibility's biggest liability as well. Olympic Project: Best group out there imo, would like to see them get results for their extensive efforts. The NAWAC: Are well funded and well organized and blinded by their pro kill mentality, which is a shame. The AIBR: I'm baffled why they would even be included here. They are defunct and were never more than an umbrella website online. They never to my knowledge had a single outting in the Field, and most of their leadership seemed to have migrated to the NAWAC. In overall research: Much of what is holding Research back is the garbage being slung on social media, and does nothing to help and only gives a platform for those pretenders who exploit the subject for $$$$; specifically but not limited to the Zorth Cult, Isdahl, Paulides, and others. The bulk of the BFRO barely ranks above these guys. May not be positive, but without addressing the negatives, the boat anchor remains.

Hi, new forum member from SE Oklahoma

I like the Lloyd Pye postulate. Sas are the original hominid species on Terra, Homo-notso-sapiens are a genetic cross between them and an off world species, wiser than we, who perform there genetic manipulations outside the reach of their native populace.

I tend to believe that sasquatches are what they are and nothing I can think or say will change what they are, so I tend to not put them in a box. Having said that, I lean towards a flesh and blood creature with special talents and attributes. Bioluminescent eyes and infrasound being a couple of them. There is a lot of wooy things that one encounters that turn out to be more natural and normal than what it seemed. Then on the other hand some really unexplained bizarre things happen that just freaks a person out. I also tend to believe that anecdotal evidence wether mundane or wooish should be looked at when trying to understand the whole of the phenomenon.

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.

Tobe has a new camera he showed at the SUFON Skywatch campout we hosted July 9-11 north of Rainier. Sionix. Turns night into day pretty well, and in color. Susan and I plan to host one more this year, but in a place easier for people to reach. The last one required a 12-mile off road excursion out of Greenwater, WA. Don't pick on us too much. We've been in Social Security territory for a while now.

I think it’s a great idea. Can’t think of any natural threats BF may watch out for from overhead so it may be the least scouted area as they move. I would start off by avoiding excess technology at first and see what results you get. Just good ol human eyes and ears.

Native Americans also had legends surrounding bears, ravens, beavers, deer, salmon etc… No one denies those are real animals on that basis. And I have yet to hear of any eyewitness reports of unicorns or fairies for that matter. There is no comparison. Regarding the Footprints, they have been examined by physical anthropologists (Grover Krantz and Jeff Meldrum) who were easily able to distinguish between the obvious fakes and those that could not be so easily dismissed. Analysis of the PGF is beyond merely the height of the film subject. It doesn’t matter whether the figure was 6ft tall or 7ft tall, the gait and shoulder width clearly mitigate against the film subject being a man in a costume.

My wife and I saw the Freeman Footage on a Bigfoot documentary, and I swear the film subject looks like Homer Simpson in a gorilla suit LOL. I want to believe it’s genuine, but I don’t think Sasquatches have big beer guts…

I’m thinking another FOIA request may be in order here….

It’s the local name for Sasquatch type creatures from my adopted state of Tennessee and other areas down south. I thought it was an appropriate username for me.

And I thought I was the only one who noticed that line from Billy Joel’s song lol

And this is why Bigfoot research has made very little progress in more than half a century. Lazy and unimaginative “researchers” using the same old tired methods that are doomed to failure. The Bigfoot community has become stagnant and complacent and your comment is a reflection of that.

@wiiawiwb I apologize if I came across as excessively harsh in my last reply. I guess my coffee hadn’t kicked in yet LOL But it is somewhat frustrating that we have been able to make significant progress on the subject of discovery for more than half a century. I do think new methods are needed.

If it were me I think I’d make friends with them and invite them in for a cup of hot chocolate.

That must feel really good, cathartic, to finally post that which those of us paying attention knew would be your ultimate confession.

Pass the ranch dressing.