Leaderboard

We have scientists here. In addition, there are no paranormal discussions here in the main forums. @Wooly Booger instead of being negative and complaining about what everybody else is doing or not doing, why don't YOU contribute to the field? Why don't you find a way to advance the field? I'm sure you have some useful skills. This forum is here to support our community. If all you have is negativity, you don't belong here and I will act accordingly. Up to you.

I have been testing four thermal units and thought I would share some of my thoughts. This is by no means a truly technical review. I am just sharing my thoughts on these units. Thermal units are a significant investment so if this helps someone to make a choice that is right for them great. My personal favorites of the group are the Trijicon units. They seem to have better image control and presentation. Even if you 2x digital zoom to get roughly the same resolution as the Pulsar the image seems better. The image in my opinion is also better then the Flir Scout with the same 640 resolution. From top to bottom: Flir Scout 640 35mm 1X Trijicon IR-Patrol 640 19mm 1X Trijicon IR-Hunter 640 60mm 4.5X Pulsar Trail XW30 384 30mm 1.6X Flir Scout 640: The GOOD: Lightweight Simple to operate The image is pretty decent. Video output to record to a DVR You do not need to manually cover the lens during calibration Red hot option. The BAD: Close focus sucks no digital recording on board The automatic calibration doesn’t happen often enough for me and the image suffers for it The UGLY: I fear for the long term serviceability of this unit as it has no user replaceable battery. It must be sent back the factory when it needs to be replaced. Trijicon IR-Patrol: The GOOD: Great image Incredible build quality Easily replaceable battery Can take still images The front element has a focus ring which allows for a fairly close focus range. You can add a battery extension tube that allows you to add an additional battery to extend battery life. The BAD: Battery life Expensive to replace the download cable. You have to manually cover the lens for calibration No internal video The UGLY: A little on the expensive side Trijicon IR-Hunter: The GOOD: Great image Incredible build quality Easily replaceable battery. The 4.5X and 60mm objective is fantastic for things that are further away Can take still images You can add a battery extension tube that allows you to add an additional battery to extend battery life. The BAD: Expensive to replace the download cable You have to manually cover the lens for calibration No internal video The UGLY: The price Pulsar Trail XW30: The GOOD: Decent Image Incredible build quality. Optional AA battery pack available. An available app Internal video and stills The ability to record directly to your iPhone using the app and screen recording. The BAD: Standard lithium battery pack is proprietary The UGLY: nothing really

This is one of the best footprints I've ever seen. It was found in northeastern Iowa a couple of years ago by a friend of mine. The cast was shown to both Cliff and Dr. Meldrum and they were really impressed to the point where Cliff had a copy made for this museum. What makes this so impressive is the dermal ridges can be seen and shows up in the cast. First question, can we rule out this is a human track? Based on the size, it is obviously a juvenile print. It was found after a rainy night approximately 1 1/2 miles from the nearest dwelling. It was in the 50's overnight so I would conclude that a child wouldn't be wandering the Iowa countryside barefoot in those temperatures so far from any type of house. The dimensions of the print are also outside of human ratios. The heel to ball ratio in humans is approximately 1:1.5 whereas this one is closer to 1:1 based on my research. Caveat that I'm definitely no expert on human foot morphology so I would welcome those with more knowledge on the topic. There were other prints of this size but this was the best one of the bunch. No larger footprints were found in the area. Fun stuff.

So assuming of course that Sasquatches exist, what would their actual range be? Looking at sighting data on the BFRO, which I'm highly skeptical of, there are hundreds of sightings coming from states like Illinois and Pennsylvania. It's hard for me to believe Sasquatches could exist in an area that couldn't also support elk, wolves, bears, etc. The PNW and mountainous West seem like the most plausible habitat, based on both sightings and undisturbed habitat, followed by Appalachia, parts of the upper Great Lakes, Ozarks, Ouachita, and Southeast. I was bored so I put together a very rough guesstimate of what an approximate range map could look like (I think I'm being very generous in terms of potential habitat). What areas do you think I'm missing? Any I should take away? What do you make of sightings in places like Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, and Florida?

Sasquatch has not been proven to exist. So, it is an unknown. You have no first hand knowledge of this creature, so anything you believe of it, comes from people who claim they know something about it, but can not definitively back up their claims, so another unknown. It would be difficult for me to speak in absolutes about an unknown using no first hand knowledge, but that of others who cannot back up their claim with proof. I, on the other hand, have many years of first hand knowledge of this creature and I will tell you now that it is an unknown. I have no proof, just experiences. There are several on here that have had many first hand experiences that include visual encounters. Some are not willing to rule out wooish things because the have experienced it first hand and cannot explain it away with infrasound.

Ha Ha Ha Ha!!!! 🤣🤣🤣🤣 Science will show up when you plop a dead corpse on their desk. And they will still be looking for a zipper! I absolutely love it when we tear at each other’s throats. Wooly Booger? Bigfoot IS a paranormal subject as far as main stream science is concerned. Your belief in a flesh and blood 800 lbs ape man roaming the hinterlands of North America is on par with inter dimensional Leprechauns hiding their pot of gold under a rainbow. I commend your woo dar and your willingness to stay away from it. But you are in the paranormal hot tub with the rest of us….. dead skin and all. You might as well get cozy.

Trying to get a handle on the general consensus of the community. I'm open minded about most explanations (including skepticism). Is it fair to say that generally people are looking for an undiscovered bipedal primate? Or, is there a lot of support for the 'mythical creature' explanations?

Hello everyone. I've been following this site for a while, and I'm interested in all things Cryptid. I'm also a writer, with 20 books published and I've sold over 100 short stories, all in the supernatural/horror genres, and an epic fantasy book series. All are from traditional publishers, not self-published. I'm not sure that I've experienced any actual encounters, but have had a few weird episodes on our own property in Pa. We live on a mountain, heavily wooded, that lies within a long chain of foothills that goes through several counties. We're also less than an hour from parts of the Appalachian Trail and have hiked around there a number of times. I do have a friend that has had at least 2 or 3 encounters, and he was interviewed by a BF research group, with the video posted on YouTube. I'm looking forward to reading the opinions and encounters. Paul.

As someone who has a ton of time and experience in the woods, your videos do not look like anything other than windfall/stormfall. We were out in the woods this past Saturday and could've video'd what you've shown for 8 hours solid. Nests look like they are made, woven, piled and shaped into nests. Here is a nest from Canada: Another view: Different Nest:

Was extremely passionate about cryptozoology in high school. Currently looking to find out more about the history of the field.

well, for starters i dig the map and your assumed territory ranges. what some folks dont realize though is that there is wilderness in the southwest Illinois and southern Indiana maps. i know of 2 credible researchers in those areas and have helped them evaluate evidence from those areas. however, much of both of those states are largely questionable, maybe a migratory route at best? i would add the glades though, lots of interesting stuff has come from the everglades, i would also expand the GA line down to horse creek mills or cypress creek WMAs. ive been in those parts before and they are vastly uninhabited and have TONS of wildlife, biodiverse habitats, and plenty of clean water.

I’m Jay, live in Alabama. I’ve been interested in Bigfoot for several years and I’ve had strange experiences on my property. I’m currently doing long term recording

Agree

Hi. Was on original Bigfoot Forums. Live in Oregon. Have been called a "researcher", but not sure that term fits, more of an enthusiast. Have camped out MANY times with hope of encountering a Sasquatch. Have heard knocks and "whoops", but no sighting (yet).

You are developing a reputation for making definitive statements, then dodging when called out on them. You made the statement that SMT presented themselves as serious research. When I asked you to back that statement up, you said that you and your wife found a bunch of his videos on YouTube as your reasoning. You have made this statement several times. Please back it up. Explain how and why the scientific community is avoiding the Bigfoot phenomenon solely due to weird Facebook groups. Be specific. Don’t dodge.

Can you explain, then, why they didn't show up in 1967 when Patterson and Gimlin shot their film? There were no alien/Bigfoot theories then. They won't show up until somebody drags a dead sasquatch in for them, then they'll be all over it like maggots, pontificating about it like they knew all about it all along.

Annie Nore: I haven't had time to check on videos lately. I did bookmark them, but if there is silliness I won't watch. I don't really watch videos for entertainment, I watch/read/listen for information. Trying to find similar experiences to mine. The typical interactions are easy to accept when many people report the same. The high strangeness happenings are a bit more difficult to understand and that is why I would like more people to start seriously considering the odd stuff. You don't have many people to turn to when you need to discuss it. No outstandingly odd things here. Only the interesting 'pile of sticks' photo I posted not too long ago. : ) Nothing is predictable with Forest people, in my opinion. To be honest, I really don't want any more freaky odd things to happen. Not pleasant to experience.

Like a tourist tripping over the top of a pyramid while walking. Yeah, the discovery can be by any means. What happens after that discovery could be crazy. I still wouldn't mind being that bumbling fool, for what it's worth.

I unfortunately do not have a copy. Though it has been on my to read list for some time. Bernard Heuvelmanns was a pioneer in scientific cryptozoology. More researchers like him are desperately needed today. Jeff Meldrum is probably the most well known of the current scientific researchers. Dr. Bindernagel sadly passed away in 2018. And as far as Nick Redfern, his argument is essentially that Bigfoot has to be an otherworldly entity simply because it hasn’t been scientifically documented. Talk about a cop out. I’d steer clear of such foolishness.

There has been another thread going where I am seeking information on any genetic studies that have been done: "Looking for any DNA studies related to Sasquatch" If you are able to please provide any *specific* information on the "DNA and hair evidence" that you mention here, it would be MUCH appreciated. So far, studies with findings of "unknown primate" nearly all appear to be rumors only; in fact, I have verified only one at this point. Thank you!

Being prepared to shoot one in the name of science? I would welcome a freak accident and skip all the hate mail.

Thousands of reports by delusional people that some, who may or may not be reliable, say are reliable, castings of fake prints, thermal images of hoaxes, Native American legends speak of Mount Hood and Mt. St. Helens as people who turned into mountains, DNA and hair that comes back as contaminated, degraded, human and normal animals, a film of a man in a suit presented by people who are probably not reliable, that mainstream science claim are kooks. This is what the evidence speaks of to MOST of the world's humans. This is why you are a scientist. You make absolute claims on things you cannot prove or disprove with the evidence you have.

Although I agree there are only a handful or two of scientifically motivated research groups out there, I think the quoted member in your post is in fact correct as well. There are thousands of researchers in the field every year with their own idea of how to obtain evidence, or at least some type of personal validation for the existence of the species commonly referred to as Sasquatch. Personally, I believe that research needs to be conducted within the parameters of the normal scientific world following their procedures to validate the existence of the species. The (unpopular) elephant in the room is the need for real physical evidence (type specimen). Obtaining this evidence could be as simple as one lucky (unlucky) vehicle strike, or perhaps a near-sighted bear hunter. Short of a bizarre circumstance, the only way the existence of Bigfoot will ever be proven is through diligent research, and painstaking collection of uncontaminated physical evidence. I absolutely agree though... IMO we need more science and less conjecture/speculation in the field of cryptozoology. It's the only way we will ever reach the point of scientifically recognizing the species. Unproven theories without solid evidence just erode the credibility of research, and tends make this field of study a running joke to the majority of the public. [Disclaimer- I am not pro kill, but I do think one way or another the only undeniable proof that will lead to complete acknowledgment of this new species is in fact a corpse. That said, I would never actively attempt to collect specimen myself].

I'm more physically different from a Mtubi tribesman as a gorilla is from a chimp, but I can readily interbreed with his female family members while gorillas and chimps cannot. That is the primary genetic reality that makes all the uniquely different people on this planet Homo sapiens. Thus, if we could interbreed with Neanderthals, Denisovans, and sasquatches, what makes them different species?

To me if it exist I see it as a bipedal primate.

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 don't know that we could work this puzzle much if any further without more information about the analyses and precise findings themselves. Prior to the above, we would have to confirm that: 1) The lab result itself is correct, and 2) That the quotes given in this and other articles are a correct representation of what Dr. Mayor and others actually said (I'm a bit concerned about this, as some of the media reports seem muddled.) The Wayne Lab at UCLA's web site notes their work of interpreting sequence results. IDK if this means that they are relying on other labs, even commercial labs, to do the actual analyses of samples. Especially if the chimpanzee sequences were found in only one sample, then accidental contamination at the lab needs to be ruled out too. I reached out to the individual you noted as running the lab, but she left UCLA in June. I will hope to hear from Dr. Mayor at some point (privately or publicly). As I write this, I see Foxhill's question about chain of custody - which would be very helpful to know when considering the possibility of contamination and/or hoax. The upshot as I see it: more information is needed, and almost entirely only information that the folks directly involved could provide. Regardless, thanks, all, for what you've shared!

That my friend is why you are not a lawyer or a scientist.

No they couldn’t have….

Ok, well, I posted 3 or 4 videos, which I believe clearly shows what I'm talking about. And you don't have to watch very long, before you see exactly what I'm talking about. So I could get some screen captures and very gently bring them up to your eyes, but I don't think that even that would help. You either want to know or you don't. Going out alone into the forest, unarmed is hard enough, but you want me to wave a magic wand, so you don't have to take the time to watch the evidence? At a loss.