Leaderboard

Exactly. Unfortunately, Bigfooters are more comfortable in conformity than in pushing the envelope. It’s more of a social bonding exercise than a search for truth. Deep down inside, I think that a lot of Bigfooters don’t want the scientific community involved… because they themselves would be pushed to the side and lose something that defines themselves as unique. It’s more about feeling like they are in an exclusive club than actually finding answers. It’s the comfort of repetitious actions and habit. Bang on tree. Howl at moon. Cast the print. Repeat.

You mistake me. I don’t care if a researcher has Sasquatch slippers on getting ready for a Yeti bubble bath while sucking down a skunk ape IPA. Don’t care. Just don’t tell me that the subject isn’t popular enough and that’s why science won’t look into it. This is why science won’t look into it. A 800 lbs undiscovered primate… In North America? Preposterous. Apes live in tropical regions! Today? Ridiculous. We are the only bipedal ape left standing! Undiscovered? What? Do you think we are incompetent? We would have a body by now! (And maybe they do🤔) As far as fences? I was on the wrong side of the fence long before I got here. I naively preached the pro kill msg on the blue forum. Which is the BFRO forum. After posts and threads being scratched I got the hint and left Dodge. They are still selling expeditions though…20 years later?🙄 Boiled down to brass tacks. My message is simple. Physical evidence is everything. I don’t care if you kick him in the shin and yank a toe nail off of him and run like the dickens. Shoot it. Biopsy dart it. Whatever floats yer boat. Sit the camera down and put the dental resin away. We don’t need another Bigfoot picture or track cast. I can hear some gray haired scientists yawning from here.

It would just be another hoax…. Your chasing smoke and mirrors. Technology has come along way. In cameras AND in hoaxing. If Bigfoots popularity now isn’t enough to move the needle? It never will be. We have Bigfoot jerky commercials, team mascots, beer commercials, town centers, gift centers, postcards, beer, candy, events, documentaries, movies, cartoons, monster trucks all named after Bigfoot, Sasquatch, Mugwamps, Yeti, etc…. Has this prodded science to go look? No. We have a few rogue scientists, some of which have gone to their graves with nothing. Krantz, Bindenagle, etc. Nothing official or large scale. And yet every week, Bigfooters grab their tree knockers and dental resin and cameras for another camping trip in the woods.🤷‍♂️ We do know what the definition of idiocracy is right? Doing the same thing over and over and over again expecting different results.

How do you propose we capture a live Bigfoot?

Norse, science would probably not accept it forthright, but interest would grow and the public sure will accept it (that's been the number one question right? Why no good video?) and public pressure might actually be what we need. I'm with Backdoc here, a clear enough, extended video will get the needle to move, not as much as a corpse but enough where it'll raise a lot of eyebrows if it's damn good enough. The PGF is just clear enough to give us an impression but not clear enough to be concise to the public. If it was crystal clear, there's almost no doubt aside form the obvious it's CGI! Which would almost without a doubt be burned to the ground quickly. Despite what we may think, there are a lot of academics that are silently watching the progress, and waiting hopefully for a day where there is better evidence to get the ball finally moving. You don't need a body to do that, just something that is undeniable, which imho would be a crystal clear, closeup video of its face, torso, see it breathing and moving etc.

Here is the ebb and flow of ice ages. 125,000 years ago was a peak warming period. And almost 10 degrees warmer than today on avg.

In my last post, that was supposed to read Megafauana* (the giant mammals forms of the last period of glaciation) as opposed to megalania(the large, 7m, varanid lizard of australia, that went extinct a fair while back, though early aboriginals may well have encountered them)

Hi, everyone! It has been a while since I have posted, but I have an interesting (potentially) analysis I wanted to share. Although these data are not from the SSR, @Matrix and I thought this could be something of interest. Color is a field in the SSR though, so eyewitnesses do report it. ThinkerThunker recently did a color analysis on the Ontario Bigfoot footage. He collected color (RGB) data at various points in the footage subject, then drew a basic sketch of the subject using those colors. While that does not prove or disprove the subject's validity, it does raise an interesting qualitative analysis for footage subjects in the future. I looked at 2 subjects for this analysis: The PG Film (widely accepted as the real deal, but not proven/disproven) and the "Flash of Beauty" subject (admitted to be faked). I used photoshop and color picker tool, just like TT did, and collected 12 data points from each subject. I made sure to hit the major body parts (head, ankle, thigh, arm, chest, etc). Then, I entered those data into a spreadsheet and plotted them in 3D space to compare the spread of values. Hypothesis (We owe this one to Matrix) : A subject which is a real animal would most likely have more varying color in their pelage (hair/fur) than a costume. Results: Patty had more distribution in her coloration than the Flash of Beauty subject. Discussion: Making costumes is hard! Adding the variation of colors that we see in known mammals (take for example wolves and coyotes, which have patterned pelage) is difficult and time consuming. It would require tedious research and effort with dyes. Is it possible? Sure, if you put in the time and effort and money. Is it likely? Probably not. Most costumes you get for Halloween have monotypic coloration (e.g., most gorilla costumes are jet black. I'm sure all of us know that they have brown and greys mixed into their hair, depending on species and gender). What is your take on this? Is coloration a valid way to tell hoax from a likely real Sasquatch? Next step: FOB vs an Orangutan to see if there is a significant difference in RGB Thanks for reading and Happy Holidays!

I think the twigs and leaves are creating pareidolia. I think we're looking at the back of the head as the creature is moving away. Since we can see shoulder slope on the left, I don't think it's a bear.

I know this man, and his property. Have been on it a couple times, and several times just outside of it. He's the real deal. The evidence he has that isnt mentioned in the article is crazy. The activity in that general area is insane at times.