Leaderboard

Hi folks sorry for your concern. As the big male BF told me once in a dream, rumors of my extinction are very much exaggerated. Or maybe that was Mark Twain. I lost access (password) to the yahoo account that I use for the forum and due to that and a fussy password here have been unable to sign in. Just now figuring out how to get back in although logging in here was confusing and it took me several trys to get in. I did have a bad case of COVID in 2020 that took me out of field work. Have not fully recovered yet. In the mean time I have had a lot of time to think about field work in general. My encounter experience progressed from playful interaction at first and got more and more ounfriendly as time went on. I was dealing with a family group in a fairly small area who were apparently not nomadic in that they were there year round. Then clear cut logging started at the North end of their area and worked south wiping out most lanes of travel cover for them. I was present in the daytime three or more times a week. I had to have been a major problem for their food gathering and hunting. As you may remeber I cornered one against a ridgeline and advanced on it as fast as I could move through difficult down wood, trying to get it to break cover. That got me growled at and a tree broken off behind me. The final contact resulted in an infrasound attack from a very close distance. I cannot understand how I did not see the administrator of that attack because it was less than 10 feet away as evidenced by a large depression in the veggetation. It was painful, frightening, and kept me out of the woods for a couple of months. As I recovered from Covid I had a lot of time to think. The combination of my frequent presence and the clear cutting process had to put a lot of stress on that family group. I did not see or understand that I was a big part of their problem. They may have even thought I was part of the clear cut crew. I stopped seeing any footprints after a few months and stopped having any contact. Anyway I feel a lot of guilt for my part in disrupting their life and being part of the forces that made them move. The final concern I have about continuing with field work in some form is that along with the infrasound event, I had several instances where I heard something moving close by and should have seen it because of lack of cover, but did not see a thing. In one case something ran past behind me and hit my pack. I was in the middle of a logging road with no cover with ten yards or so. I cannot help but shake the feeling that they are capable of masking or going invisible somehow. Are we dealing with some predator type creature? tha Anyway that is were I am with regard to field work. I do not plan on staying out of the woods but my primary purpose for being there will be for some other reason. Maybe that is the best route to take anyway?

I'm happy to announce that we may be seeing some bold new PGF research, because Doug Hajicek (of MonsterQuest fame) is launching a new funding campaign for "Legend Meets Science 2" as seen here: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/hajicek/legend-meets-science-ii-film-sequel-a-bigfoot-documentary?ref=3icq5m&token=6ab15f4a Doug did an incredible job on LMS 1, providing researchers with some of the best frame scans and video renders of the PGF for many years, and he and I have been in talks for some time now about taking PGF research to the next level in this new LMS 2 project. So please support it, or share the info with friends, and if it is successful, we can look forward to some bold and exciting new research. Mods: I hope this notice is appropriately placed. If not, move at your discretion. Thank you.

Dear BFF Members, I want to take a moment to share some personal news with all of you. As many of you know, managing the forum and ensuring its continued growth and vibrancy has been a true labor of love for me. However, as my schedule and commitments have changed, I find that I no longer have the time and energy that this community truly deserves. It is with both a sense of pride and gratitude that I announce I am stepping aside as director of the Bigfoot Forums. But fear not, as I’m excited to introduce the new director who will be taking the reins – Norseman! Norseman has been an active and thoughtful member of this community for a long time. He brings a wealth of knowledge, a deep passion for Bigfoot, and a strong commitment to maintaining the welcoming and respectful atmosphere that has made this forum a special place for all of us. I am confident that under his leadership, the Bigfoot Forums will continue to thrive and grow, providing a platform for all of us to share our stories, theories, and experiences. I want to extend my heartfelt thanks to each and every one of you for making this community what it is today. It has been an honor to serve as your director, and I look forward to continuing to be a part of this journey, just in a different capacity. Please join me in welcoming Norseman to his new role. I know you’ll all offer him the same support and camaraderie that you’ve always shown me. Warm regards, Gigantor Outgoing Director, Bigfoot Forums

typical word play in the original post. not blaming the OP, but I am blaming his sources for fear mongering. opening 112M acres for logging doesn't mean that 112M acres will be logged. Today, we log anywhere from 2M to 10M acres a year in the US. The directive from President Trump is to increase logging by 25% domestically. That means 500K to 2.5M acres will be logged out of the 112M acres. We are talking about .45% to 2.23% of the 112M acres being logged. We have 823M acres of forest in the US. When you look at the amount of total forest impact, we are talking about to .06% to .30% of the forest being logged annually under this new rule. Is this really a sky is falling moment? NOT EVEN CLOSE. It is more whipped up hysteria from the true enemy of the people, the media.

While this is "old" news, attached is the obituary and remembrance photograph. These can be copied and forwarded to responsible parties at will by Forum members. Joe here Peter Cyril Byrne WWII Veteran, Conservationist, Explorer, Author: 1925–2023 Peter was born August 22, 1925 in Dublin, Ireland. He was raised with three siblings on their family estate in Ireland. In 1943 he enlisted in the Royal Air Force and was stationed in the East Indian Ocean on the Coco’s Islands off of Australia where he served with distinction until the war ended. When the war ended Peter became a tea planter in northeast India. After a serendipitous encounter in Bombay, he became friends with the King of Nepal’s brother and was granted property in Nepal where Peter conducted hunting safaris in the White Grass Plains of western Nepal. More details of Peter’s early days can be viewed at www.peterCbyrne.com. In 1968, after 18 years of big game hunting, he turned to conservation in Nepal where he convinced the government to create a wildlife preserve, and eventually establish the Sukila Phanta National Park. He said, “I showed them that taking a photograph of a rhinoceros was worth 1,000 times more than shooting it once.” He also pioneered Nepal river rafting, and trekking expeditions on many of his trips to the country. During the Nepal years, Peter also established the non-profit International Wildlife Conservation Society. In the interests of the Society, he traveled globally and through his magnetic personality, established many friends and gained honors, among them a Fellow of the Royal Geographic Society and membership in the Explorers Club of New York. But, spiritually, he was forever drawn to Nepal and the Himalayas, with his last trip to Nepal thought to be in 2012. In Nepal, Peter was sought after by Texas oil man Tom Slick. Slick financed a two year Byrne Himalayan expedition to find the fabled yeti. After few results were found of the yeti, in 1960 Slick brought Peter to northern California and the Pacific Northwest USA to track Bigfoot. That search unfortunately ended with Slick’s sudden death in an airplane crash in 1962. Thereafter, Peter conducted two other, long and well-funded northern Oregon Bigfoot projects. Again, with no physical evidence of Bigfoot, those projects ended in the late 1990s. Peter then moved to Los Angeles, but after never really feeling at home in the overcrowded city, he retired to a home on the banks of the Nestucca River in Pacific City, Oregon. In Pacific City, Peter continued to write the remainder of his 20 books. He also wandered the mountains of the Coastal Range with friends in his continuing quest for sightings of Bigfoot. Peter Cyril Byrne passed away peacefully on July 28, 2023 in Tillamook, Oregon. He is survived by his daughter Rara Byrne now living in Perth, Australia, his sister Beryl Greene of Maidenhead, England, and his life partner of more than 25 years - Cathy Griffin is now living in Pacific City, Oregon in the cabin they shared. Remembrances: A journalism scholarship is being established in Peter’s honor. For information on the fund, and a celebration of life for Peter, please see the website at peterCbyrne.com.

What is unsavory is Hiflier's longstanding "I know best" attitude, and his feeling that he is justified in demanding things from the community as a whole. The bigfoot "enthusiast" community, for lack of a better term, isn't monolithic, nor do all its members share motivations and desires. Many of us don't care a bit about proving anything. Not to science, to friends or family, or to society at large. We want to learn and to experience, not be scolded and dictated to.

To begin with, DNA has no amino acids, which are found in proteins. Nucleotide bases hold the DNA strands together through hydrogen bonding. Until I see the sequence and the primers used I do not believe Mayor's claim of chimpanzee DNA. Based on behavior and physical characteristics it's as unlikely that Sasquatch DNA is that close to a chimpanzee as it is to be very close to human. UNLESS hybridization is involved. Presumably we are talking about mitochondrial DNA, which is inherited from the mother only. So a hybridization event will not show anything about evolution of the male, or the female. It's a slice in time(of the mating) of the female. Nuclear eDNA is much more difficult (and expensive) to sequence, and was not likely the case in either the Mayor or the Disotell case. But, please, show me the data. If Mayor used a sequencer that had previously been used on chimpanzee DNA, there could be carry over. Protocol details, especially blanks and standards, would be helpful to know here. Comparisons of the Kentucky vs the Washington environment based only on rainfall neglect other important factors such as microbe species and populations, temperatures, and sample handling. There is plenty of opportunity for degradation. I am currently analyzing littoral eDNA sequences for signs of an unknown primate and have learned that sequencing errors can confuse the issue, as well as heteroplasmy, and the possibility of sperm mtDNA leaking (into the egg). The latter is fairly minute in humans but may not be so in Sasquatch. The community awaits a sample collected from an observed Sasquatch immediately after deposition, or a body part. Otherwise, as mentioned above, there are too many unknowns to base a case on subtle differences. In the mtDNA region of over 200 bases that I studied, Neanderthal differs from modern human by only ONE mutation, so there's "no room" to distinguish an intermediate Sasquatch there. Longer sequences in other regions are desirable. There's a lot of data to sort through in this work. The so called "mammalian" primers I used also sequenced birds, and fish, lots of them. Unfortunately I know of no readily available software to do this. Also, the NCBI BLAST results are not eDNA friendly, so relevant data must be extracted through character manipulation of large flat files. I wrote BASIC programs and also used Excel sorting. A goal of this work is to develop a simple procedure that can be used by our Community to analyze sequence data from commercial labs.

“Honey….. I wanna go to America and hang out in the woods with rednecks with guns and search for a mythic man ape”. 🫣🤣

Again, the 4 stages of a hoax. 1. Claim something extraordinary 2. Promise a reveal on a future date 3. As the date passes, promise another date which is also missed 4. Go dark How many times have we've seen this play out? 20, 30, 50, more? Guess we will see.

Getting to a point where I am happy with my field truck. I built a bunk in the back and added: 1 200 watts of Solar 2 Diesel heater with the exhaust routed through the bed and a CO sensor 3 Removable Propane shower unit 4 Roof rack 5 Side lighting 6 Interior Fan I am running deep cycle batteries and will eventually switch to lithium. Was able to do a shake down run this past weekend and all went well with it.

Wrong. From Nature: A 130,000-year-old archaeological site in southern California, USA " ..... Th/U radiometric analysis of multiple bone specimens using diffusion–adsorption–decay dating models indicates a burial date of 130.7 ± 9.4 thousand years ago. These findings confirm the presence of an unidentified species of Homo at the CM site during the last interglacial period (MIS 5e; early late Pleistocene), indicating that humans with manual dexterity and the experiential knowledge to use hammerstones and anvils processed mastodon limb bones for marrow extraction and/or raw material for tool production. "

If you have “discovery” then please post. Other than that, your rants about how everyone else should proceed in these inquiries are increasingly more and more annoying.

I am a long time poster and visited for several hours a week and that was at the height of the Finding Bigfoot show so volume of interest is drastically lower today as most other shows are completely faked and fabricated. I personally checked in to see what field research methods, techniques and ideas are being tossed around out in the woods. Couple other points to note. 1 - Forums are dying as human attention spans decrease due to overstimulation by social media. 2 - Video media as a format ( youtube, patreon, tiktok, live streaming ) is eating forums for breakfast, direct commentary and long format video scape covers most of the discussion points and theories. 3 - Field research efforts these days are ultra weak sauce compared to how " the community " use to address the subject, most now sit around and slip into " cant get them on camera, must be paranormal " or they simply do nothing of effort to get out and search for evidence. Bigfoot is a campfire hobby with very little actual pursuit these days. We do have a couple die-hard guys still here but the volume of activity has always been around PGF debate and field research and now post the lockdowns, people are preoccupied and distracted by seahawks games, vacations and what ever other primary hobbies people engage in these days. The vigor and thrill of walking around in the dark and looking for prints is gone for most or waved away by the embrace of weak minded woo " experiences " that are create insulated FaceBook groups for self worship. No red circles required to figure that out if you check in on all these media sites. I now check in like once every other month to see if anything is going on research related and it seems that the spring has dried up and personally, this drives me nuts because we have more tools today than any point in history. This concludes my rant, lol.

Thank you - although I was hoping to fly under the radar for a bit. Quite the big shoes to be following Tirademan's work in finding the old articles and Gigantor's work curating some of them.

Clear water river, Bull lake, Libby dam, Yaak river Great trip thus far!

https://strangereality.blog/2024/01/29/interview-with-jeff-meldrum/?fbclid=IwAR0aCXdKfEBtgu-pRlCPJBuHP2Lge5ztpEYCjtopcQlZ-1zoZyy3sdxUdGI

Another long weekend, another adventure. Sep. 30 is Truth and Reconciliation Day in Canada, in recognition of our indigenous peoples' struggles during our past colonial period. I invited cmknight and his lovely wife Sharon to join my daughter Andrea and I on a day trip into the Hunter Creek watershed, on the south side of the Fraser River near Hope. They had never been there before, so I hoped to find a spot for Sharon to hunt mushrooms, one of her hobbies. It was a nice mild fall day, mostly sunny until late afternoon, when some grey overcast rolled in from the ocean. After a few failed attempts to find the right turnoff, as I hadn't been there in a few years, I got my Gaia maps pulled up on the carplay screen, and we got to the right starting point. The road is very steep and loose gravel/rocks, so we shifted our rigs into low range, and kept them that way till we returned to pavement in the late afternoon. We explored all of the branches of the old road system, to the limits that our trucks would allow. The first branch, up the West Fork, was uneventful, ending at a small hydro dam and a view of the snow covered ridge to our west. The next branch, off the West Fork up a ridge to the south, was steep and loose, with some mild cross ditching, but blocked by a recent rockfall before the end, forcing a twelve point turnaround to get back down. Sharon found a few young puffball mushrooms along here, edible, but nothing to get excited about. Back down at the mainline trail we found a nice wide area to haul out the camp chairs and have some lunch, while Sharon scaled a steep bank to get into the pines above to hunt Chantrelles, but with no success. After snacks, we continued along the old mainline, which again rises steeply from the creek, up the ridge on the east side. We eventually reached the end of this route, where it became too narrow and overgrown to continue, so another multi-point turn around got us going back down, after a pause for some photos of the views of the peaks to the s/w and the West Fork valley, now far below. We tried one more branch off this road on the descent, heading up another ridge to the south, but cm, with a bit less clearance under his longer wheelbase Ram, was crunching his step bars in the deeper cross ditching, so we called it a day, and slowly worked our way back down the mountain to pavement, reaching there about 5PM. Although we saw no large wildlife, no tracks, and only a few old bear scat piles, we had a very nice day out there, and headed home happy.

@Backdoc Great questions, and it's not unusual for folks in this community to be confused about issues of DNA. For one, most of the info floating around the BF community is misinformation (most of it hopefully unintentionally so). It is also difficult for folks to understand (without actually knowing about DNA methods) why scientists can do some almost "magical" things with DNA in some areas and yet other areas of knowledge are not yet well fleshed out at all. I check in on the BFF only every few months to see what folks are asking/posting that's DNA-related. Not bragging, but stating a fact: I am the only one leading credible DNA study of potential Sasquatch samples: https://sites.google.com/ncsu.edu/darbyorcutt/ Please LMK what questions you may have, as I'm sure others have the same ones. Cliff Barackman wants me to come back on his podcast soon, and I want to address the things that things that folks in the BF community are wondering about. The *brief* answers to your questions are: 1) There has been very little credible testing of potential BF DNA, period. Cliff mentioned my work on tracking down prior testing during his last Q&A podcast. Most "results" are rumors, misunderstandings, or made-for-TV fictions or spin. 2) Yes, if Bigfoot is indeed an unknown species, we'd absolutely be able to tell that if we were presented with BF DNA samples. That said, depending on what a potential such species actually were, it might require a qualified team actually really looking for such to find it (which is one of the reasons I started this project). 3) Environmental DNA (eDNA) techniques are extremely powerful for looking for *known* DNA sequences, which is why the almost magical examples that you mention (Covid detection in wastewater, Grizzly detection in the wild). Generally speaking, eDNA is an exceedingly much harder path towards discovery of new species. Darby Orcutt NC State University

I have for a long time tried to structure my thoughts on what makes a cryptid claim credible or not. I came up with a number of somewhat organized points and fed them into the the large language model (LLM) artificial intelligence program (AI) ChatGPT 4.o. It organized and expanded on my points with its mystery algorithm, drawing on its database of unclear provenance. I have long felt that many sightings and evidence presented a fairly unambiguous picture of the existence of a large world-wide cryptid primate species, maybe multiple species. I believe many of the posters here regarding their sightings. I also have met several people over the years who present a credible account of their sightings. I am highly persuade by the work of Bill Munns, So, the upshot is that I am pretty well convinced by various lines of evidence. Not all on this forum are. Some are here to troll, others are here for reasons I do not understand. I don't think discovering truth is necessarily one of them, but I can't read minds. There is nothing new here that has not been discussed in this forum many times over the decades, but for me, it is useful to see the points somewhat organized. I am sure that I have missed things, and perhaps some things are misstated; I show the AI output below. ChatGPT 4.o did a decent job of organizing my points, made no mistaken reinterpretations (it often does though) and saved me a lot of time and effort. I don't call it cheating, I call it using an AI ghostwriter and research assistant. So sue me if you don't like it. ;-) If this topic creates interest, and people make valuable additions or changes, I will amend the ChatGPT chat and republish at a later date. In any case, I have managed to scratch an old itch of mine; to think through what counts as unambiguous evidence and lay it out systematically. It has been done before I am sure, but I am old and have trouble remembering things some days: read a lot, retain far too little. On Seeing Cryptid Animals: Evaluating Credibility of Claims Logical Framework Existence Dichotomy: Current Existence: The cryptid either exists or does not exist currently. Non-Existence: If it does not exist, any sighting or evidence is inherently incorrect. Evaluation of Evidence: If the cryptid exists: True Sightings: Accounts may be correct. False Sightings: Accounts may still be incorrect due to errors or fabrications. Sources of Error in Claims Fabrication: By Claimant: The individual may be lying. Third-Party Hoax: Someone else may have created the hoax. Mistaken Claims: Mental Health Issues: Psychological factors affecting perception. Mistaken Perception: Errors in sensory input. Mistaken Interpretation: Misinterpretation of what is seen or experienced. Assessing Credibility of Claims Characteristics of Witnesses: Reputation: Credibility increases with the reliability of the witness. Number of Witnesses: Multiple independent witnesses add to credibility. Characteristics of Evidence: Clarity and Conditions: Clear lighting and viewing conditions. Proximity and duration of the sighting. Trace Evidence: Tracks, trackways, scat, sounds, and smells. Must be consistent and withstand alternative explanations. Criteria for Unambiguous Sightings Clear Lighting: Ensures visibility. Proximity: Close enough to see details. Sufficient Duration: Long enough to make a reliable observation. Clear Viewing Conditions: No obstructions or distortions. Indications of Existence Multiple Independent Sightings: Geographic Distribution: Reports from various locations and times that suggest a widespread presence. Consistent Descriptions: Similar physical descriptions and behaviors reported across different sightings. High-Quality Physical Evidence: Detailed Tracks: Tracks that show anatomical correctness, such as natural gait, foot structure, and depth that correspond to the weight and movement of a large, living creature. Biological Samples: Hair, tissue, or scat samples that are analyzed and found to be from an unknown or unclassified species, ruling out known animals. Expert Validation: Professional Analysis: Involvement of wildlife biologists, forensic experts, and other professionals who can provide objective assessments of the evidence. Video and Photographic Scrutiny: Evidence that has been validated by multiple experts, with analyses ruling out common hoax methods. Historical Records and Indigenous Knowledge: Cultural References: Long-standing cultural or historical references to the cryptid in indigenous stories, folklore, and art. Consistency with Modern Sightings: Alignment of historical records with modern reports, suggesting a long-term presence of the cryptid. Indications of a Hoax Lack of Supporting Evidence: Absence of Physical Evidence: No physical evidence (tracks, hair, scat) found at the sighting location despite claims. Inconsistent Details: Inconsistencies in the account details that cannot be reconciled with a genuine sighting. History of Hoaxes: Known Hoaxers: Individuals involved have a known history of fabrications or involvement in previous hoaxes. Evidence of Human Creation: Physical evidence, such as costumes or props, linked to known hoaxers. Technical Analysis: Digital Manipulation: Detection of digital artifacts in videos or photos that suggest manipulation or editing. Artificial Tracks: Tracks or physical evidence showing signs of human creation, such as identical footprints or marks made by tools. Motivations for Hoaxing: Financial Gain: Motivations such as selling stories, books, or footage for profit. Desire for Fame: Attempts to gain fame or media attention through sensational claims. Personal Amusement: Pranks or efforts to deceive others for personal amusement. Indications of Mistakes Environmental Factors: Poor Lighting Conditions: Sightings made under low light or at night, where visibility is poor. Visual Obstructions: Obstructions such as foliage, fog, or other visual disturbances that obscure clear observation. Human Factors: Witness Fatigue or Stress: Witnesses experiencing fatigue, stress, or panic, which can affect their judgment and perception. Influence of Substances: Effects of alcohol, drugs, or other substances that can impair sensory input and cognitive processing. Cognitive Biases: Psychological tendencies like pareidolia, where the brain sees patterns or familiar shapes where none exist. Misidentification of Known Animals: Unusual Animal Behavior: Known wildlife behaving in unusual ways or appearing in unexpected contexts, leading to misidentification. Animal Tracks and Sounds: Misinterpretation of animal tracks, sounds, or scat as those of a cryptid. Inaccurate Memory Recall: Memory Distortions: Over time, memory distortions can alter or exaggerate the details of the original sighting. Suggestive Questioning: Influence of suggestive questioning or leading narratives by others that can shape or distort witness testimony. Case Study: Sasquatch Evidence Multiple Observers: High-Reputation Witnesses: Sightings reported by law enforcement officers, scientists, or experienced outdoorsmen, who are considered reliable and knowledgeable. Independent Reports: Multiple independent sightings in the same area over time, adding to the body of credible evidence. Physical Evidence: Detailed Tracks and Casts: Tracks and trackway casts showing features like dermal ridges, consistent depth and stride, and anatomical correctness that are difficult to fake. Biological Samples: Hair or tissue samples subjected to DNA analysis and found to be from an unknown or unclassified species, ruling out known animals. Video and Photo Evidence: Patterson-Gimlin Footage: The Patterson-Gimlin film, analyzed by experts such as Bill Munns, highlighting the implausibility of a suit due to natural muscle movements and other anatomical details. Other Videos: Additional videos showing natural movements, muscle flexing, and other characteristics difficult to replicate with costumes or CGI, validated by multiple experts. Expert Analysis: Forensic Scrutiny: Detailed forensic analysis of tracks, scat, and other physical evidence by experts. Professional Validation: Involvement of costume experts, digital forensics experts, and wildlife biologists in validating the evidence, ruling out common hoax methods and misidentifications. Conclusion To evaluate the credibility of cryptid sightings and evidence, one must: Assess the reliability and number of witnesses: Prioritize accounts from reputable witnesses and multiple independent sources. Examine the clarity and conditions of the sighting: Ensure clear lighting, proximity, sufficient duration, and unobstructed viewing conditions. Scrutinize physical evidence and expert analyses: Look for detailed, anatomically correct physical evidence validated by experts. Consider alternative explanations rigorously: Differentiate between genuine evidence, hoaxes, and mistakes by considering environmental, human, and technical factors. Through this comprehensive evaluation, credible claims can be separated from mistaken or fabricated ones, contributing to a more accurate understanding of cryptid phen 4o

I have an idea, that I am in the early stages of formulating into a plan. I want to do a three week-to-month-long stationary study in northern Idaho or Washington state. I'd like to invite a SMALL group of 2 or 3 experienced specialists to participate. NOTE: I plan to fund the endeavor out of my own pocket...food, fuel, associated fees, permits as needed, incidentals, et al. The experience I bring is being a VERY critical examiner of evidence from the perspective of a former police officer and homicide detective, and now attorney. I dig evidence, and can examine it from all sides, and try just as hard to DISprove it as I will to prove it. I am also a life long hunter and outdoorsman having been raised on a working cattle ranch in Arizona. My limitation, however, is that both my knees and right hip have been replaced due to a line of duty injury, so venturing too far afield is not in the cards for me. I would be the "in-camp" majordomo, and handle cooking, communications, physical security, and general monitoring of any gear that may need eyes on. The thought is that being in a camp, for an extended period of time with cooking, music, a TV playing movies (via satellite internet and DVD), the Sierra Sounds, recorded kids and women, and maybe even other primates would elicit curiosity or even a desire on the part of the Bigfoot in the area to want us gone from their territory and evoke harassment from them. In other words, some form of contact that could be documented via any technology available. My RV is an extended wheelbase FORD 3500 Diesel 4X4 that is capable of getting remote enough from other people that the chances of human harassment is mitigated to the greatest extent possible. It has a generator, solar, and satellite internet. I also have an 8 man, and 6 man, wall tents for sleeping and general usage. Other necessary camping gear is also part of my kit (mess and Chuck boxes and tables, chairs, cots, etc. I figure that if a group is going to be out there for an extended period of time, comfort, good food, warm beds, and a bit of personal space will be critical. GOAL: Gather, sustain, curate, and present evidence, both physical, and digital, of an extant relict hominem in North America. Obviously, gathering a specimen would be the ideal, but I am a "no kill just to prove it exists" type and would prefer to find the unicorn of a body, or significant part of a body...everyone can dream, right? Besides, I am NOT convinced that the chances of success in bringing out a specimen harvested via violence would be likely, let alone the chances of human survival after killing one would be likely either. Secondarily, I want to use whatever is found to publish a book on the study, and possibly, make any footage into documentary segments for my planned YouTube channel. Win or Lose, Succeed or Fail...I would like to bring this to fruition if for nothing more than the experience. SO....the question is: Am I nuts for thinking seriously about this? Don't hold back, I am asking for opinions.

I'm skeptical. I'm skeptical of Mike's claims. I'm skeptical of those claiming he's hoaxing. I'm skeptical of the guy claiming to hoax him. There's a fundamental principle we can apply if we are going to be rigorous instead of being knee jerk ... fools. Until we know, we don't know. Until we know what is, we don't know what can't be. Certainty of opinion does not equate to knowledge .. that's a form of narcissism. I think we need to allow this to be an unanswered question, something that may be uncomfortable to those who need an answer even if it is wrong more than they need the truth. We don't have the truth. So IMHO we need to let this stay a question, neither accepting nor rejecting, just watching .. then see what unfolds. Gotta remember how many people believed the so-called debunking of the PGF simply because they had an emotional need for it to be a hoax. Yet it has never been debunked. It has not been proven, either. Lack of a viable means of hoaxing does not eliminate a hoax any more than lack of proof of bigfoot is proof of lack of bigfoot. We need to let this be a question. As they say, 'just sit with it', and not try to force an answer where there isn't one.

While I take several trips into the dark forest each year, I have gone on only one bigfoot focused trip. Naturally, I was the new guy. But I did get to handle track castings by Bob Titmus and Bob Gimlin! We were on the East side of the Cascade Mountains in Washington State and intended to camp at a location where people have been frightened away by something throwing sticks from the woods. Forest service gates ruined that plan and we camped a few miles away. :( John Andrews showing a casting given to him by Bob Titmus.

Here are some photos from the post above: Chilliwack Lake looking North e

This is why I seldom "go bigfooting." Instead, I go fishing, hiking, hunting, exploring, taking pictures, whatever. Make those my first priority. Do it where there seems to be an elevated (comparatively speaking) chance of bigfoot activity, but make bigfoot .. secondary. The odds of success at those other things seems higher, high enough to keep the interest going, and "bigfoot country" is a great place to do them.

You can only get so much out of other people's accounts. The only cure for your current feelings is time in the deep woods. Experience it yourself rather than relying on people sharing their experiences for profit.

Here's the write up made by Chris Spencer RE the trackway found up in the Northern Olympics on the Olympic Project Property earlier in the year. 50++ pages and i think Chris does a good job of documenting this the best he can. It gets the heart pumping when i realised that i camped with my 16 year old daughter a matter of a few yards from where these were found the previous August.. Trackway-Find-Olympic-Project-Headquarters-compressed.pdf

Hello Friends, The attached photo made me laugh in a way; the U.S. Forestry Service tends to downplay (if not straight-out DENY) the existence of Bigfoot/Sasquatch, yet here they are in 1930 casting a footprint. It's hard to have physical proof of something that doesn't really exist! I guess we can never know the circumstances behind this photo, but it's definitely speculative, especially concerning the topic of U.S. government knowledge/involvement in the subject. What are your thoughts...?

I have never seen the work of Chris Noel (that he posts on his YouTube channel titled "Impossible Visits") until last week. The title of his 2-year old documentary video "How to See a Sasquatch" piqued my curiosity, so I watched the 1 hour 38 min video (see link below). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DlpssL94Gso&t=627s Unfortunately, what the video showed was how folks who have BF in their brain can be self-deceived by noises and animals that they can't identify and how random tree debris can become BF tree structures in their mind. IMHO, none of the evidence presented in this video was indicative of BF presence. Nonetheless, Chris gives the impression that these creatures live very close to his neighborhood and every odd noise or odd tree structure that he runs into is made by the sasquatches. I think this video is a good example of the dangers of wishful thinking when going out in the field looking for evidence. Even if folks are knowers, they need to slow down when it comes to alleged evidence. They should subject the evidence to some type of peer review before publishing/sharing it, and realize that their observations are truly biased by their beliefs. This documentary climaxes in what is supposed to be a sasquatch climbing a tree. However, other video reviewers have examined the creature and have determined that it was a porcupine. Despite the alternative hypothesis of a porcupine (which is very convincing and in my mind conclusive), Chris did not back down and revised his original claim, but instead created another video to support his claim. Below is link to Chris Noel's 2nd video, insisting that the creature is not a porcupine. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HB9a5H9sFP0 This looks really sad, and should be a warning for all those researchers out there publishing YouTube videos to slow down and get expert wildlife reviews before jumping to conclusions. Brent Dill, who runs "The Tall Ones" YouTube channel with a critical thinking hat on, reviewed this claim 2 years ago and posted 2 good critical videos. See links below. I think he makes a compelling and clear case that that video footage was of a porcupine. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ogj-W76-Xo4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cyhKTBZCFK0 In conclusion, wishful thinking and subjective biases are dangers that all long time researchers (who believe in the reality of sasquatch) have to deal with and be attentive to.

I'm in West Virginia on vacation. Cruised an old forest service road that leads to an abandoned fire watch tower. No bigfeet in sight. Had to cross three creeks. The main river is called Blackwater becsuse the tanin from all the trees seeps into the water, it looks like black cofee.

That was Kitakaze’s theory. The problem with that theory is there is no way a man could have made those tracks. The snow was too deep. And there is no way my dad could have got on the mountain without leaving tracks from the house. And lastly having spent a life in the woods? Ive never seen a set of tracks like them again. I made a set of feet in High School and spoofed my aunt down the hill. And at 6 feet tall? I could have not made those tracks in that much snow. And my dad was 5’10”. I spoofed my aunt in her freshly tilled garden. It was easy. Walk up to the garden, put feet on, walk a loop, take feet off and go home. I dont know if Sasquatch exists, but I am ready if he does….

It's been noticed that the "Events" list isn't often checked, so here goes this. Also, there are signs this gathering will be very well attended by numerous Bigfoot people. Make hotel reservations. A Memorial Celebration of A Fortunate Life will be held for Peter on Sunday, September 17th 2023 from 2-4 pm PST at the Kiawanda Community Center (34600 Cape Kiwanda Dr, Pacific City, OR 97135). Friends can record their remarks/wishes on their cell phone and send to lmprods@gmail.com in order to be part this celebration. Remembrances: A journalism scholarship has been established in Peter's honor: The Peter Byrne Endowed Scholarship Fund in Journalism for the Talent and Love of Writing. Checks or funds may be sent payable to the Nestucca High School, PO Box 38, Cloverdale, Oregon 97112. Contributions can also be made to the International Wildlife Conservation Society which was founded by Peter in 1968. Please send your tax-deductible contribution to International Wildlife, PO Box 703, Pacific City, Oregon, 97135. The photo by Joe Beelart was made in October 2007 after Peter invited Joe to the coast to investigate a Bigfoot sighting in which the Bigfoot was walking and eating clams on an estuary shore. The van is one made to order by Peter in the 1970s and was modified into a camper. It has seen service in Nepal, India, and throughout the Pacific Northwest.

My dream would be a Legend Meets Science Sequel involving a challenge for suit makers: make a Patty suit/ PGF recreation in a same or similar way limited to 1967 materials. That demonstrative evidence would be 'science' in that it would be testing the principle at issue in the PGF. Hope this project gets off the ground. My bigger hope would be Bigfoot TV productions moving toward this type of TV show/ documentary and away from the 'Finding Bigfoot' formula. The subject needs serious discussion. The spirit of the previous Legend Meets Science should be the guiding tenet.

Does anyone have any recent proof of the Sasquatch's existence that they could post? Does anyone have any opinions on what the creature, if extant, could be that wasn't already mentioned 50 years ago? Anything to move the stuck needle at all? Anything better than the PGF? Anything better than the 200 plus footprint casts that Dr. Jeffrey Meldrum has? Anything better than Cindy Dosen's hair sample collection? Anything better than the DNA studies that have been done to date? Sure would like to see it, any of it, if anyone would like to share what they have to help the Sasquatch community move its needle even a small fraction from where it is now. What about those nest structures in Washington State? Still there? Any new ones since the last find back in February 2020? Any fresh DNA samples taken from the area that won't get put onto the back burner for a year and a half? Or untested due to labs being too busy with Covid 19 research like back in 2020? Any new water samples taken from the salmon stream headwaters below the nest site's finger ridges to test? Or are these questions not as important or, depending on the level of interest, more important to discovery and proof than photos? I keep waiting for this Forum to get serious but have yet to see much beyond ignoring the things that could honestly solve the relative blankness within the subject. I do see new members come on board and question where this Forum is at and so this isn't just me. The only difference is someone new might posit such a question after being here a short time, while I've been here for nearly ten years and am asking the exact same thing. Yes! This is a discussion Forum but that isn't the point nor is it the issue. The issue is what gets discussed and most of it isn't about Sasquatch OR discovery. The sad part is everyone here, including the long-timers, know what will move the needle but for some odd reason stay with the things they know won't. Could someone perhaps please walk me through why that is? Because, personally, I think discussing methods that will move the needle are okay to discuss. Then again, maybe not? IDK. Any insights on the reason for the chronic stagnation here, believe me, would be appreciated,

Hello all. Jeremiah from the Bigfoot Society podcast here. I would love to do some interviews on the podcast with those that have had Sasquatch encounters during their research. Please feel free to send me a DM directly on this and I can provide more information. I have run this request by Gigantor first and he has approved this message.

My personal opinion isn't one people who ask such questions usually want to hear .. so .. you've been warned. I think Todd Standing is a straight-up hoaxer. I have not seen anything even vaguely legitimate with his stamp on it. My .. suspicion .. is that at some point long ago he had an authentic "thing" happen but was unable to substantiate it so he did the unthinkable: he tried to manufacture the evidence he could not otherwise produce and he got caught at it. It is too late for him. There is nothing he can do, ever, that won't tainted by his past hoaxes. Worse, any other researcher who is seen with him is tainted as well .. brings their judgement into doubt. MIB

A body part will suffice.

There is no mundane explanation for this phenomenon. You will hear people talk about bioluminescence, but that occurs only in marine life and terrestrial arthropods like fireflies. It also occurs in some fungi and microscopic organisms. It does not occur in mammals. Even if it did, it would be an odd evolutionary trait for a light gathering organ such the eye with its photoreceptors to also be a photo emitter. Like with other extraordinary attributes commonly associated with Sasquatch, someone looked around for the closest natural equivalent to explain it away. Tapetum lucidum is usually trotted out as an explanation, but many cases of these self illuminating eyes occur when there is no external light source. Even people who are firmly in the flesh and blood undiscovered ape camp like Moneymaker and the NAWAC folks have mentioned the self illuminating eyes phenomenon, regardless of the biological improbability of it. Long answer short… no one has an explanation. Even those of us who have witnessed it.

This set of posts exemplifies why these forums are awesome. A. request made B. request immediately acknowledged C. request addressed with multiple offers of specific assistance Amazing, thanks for being awesome humans whose first instinct is to help.

Hey everyone! First time back here in a long while. As someone who used to be a moderator and admin years ago (when HRPuffnstuff was the Chief), it certainly seems much slower on the forums these days, myself included. I don't believe it's from lack of interest, I think it's mostly because as mentioned, there's a ton of other places discussing the same topic. Facebook was a substantial "thing" when I joined the forums in 2016, but it was not even close to being the behemoth it is today. In my opinion the term "bottom feeders" used above is an apt description. There's little moderation, tons of smart aleck trolls, and skeptics and non believers are pretty vicious to anyone claiming anything. It's always been my belief that these forums offered more serious discussion (believer or non), more personal interaction between members, many of whom form friendships that transcend their interactions here. It probably wouldn't hurt if some of the members here made posts in some of the FB groups and pages talking up how great these forums are, and the immense amount of content they contain. It's good to be back. I look forward to catching up with some names I see are still active here, and some newer members I don't know much at all.

The federal forests around me need thinning badly. Fires get worse every year. I welcome this news.

There are lots of reports and recordings of sounds of great volume from some unknown creature with similarity over time and across places. Many times witnesses have reported hearing anomalous vocalizations. I look at the evidence. Introduction: The Principles of Common Sense Reasoning and Abduction Scientific and rational inquiry rely on multiple forms of reasoning, including deductive, inductive, and abductive reasoning. Of these, abduction, first articulated systematically by Charles Sanders Peirce, is the method of inferring to the best explanation based on available evidence. It is not about certainty, but rather plausibility, allowing for tentative conclusions based on patterns of consistency and the absence of disconfirming evidence. The Key Elements of Abductive Reasoning in Investigating Sasquatch Vocalizations Collecting and examining evidence for plausibility – Looking at available data and determining its reliability. Considering multiple "lines" or "threads" of evidence – Not relying on a single data point but seeing how different forms of evidence interrelate. Building a plausible hypothesis based on the evidence – Identifying the most reasonable explanation given the cumulative data. Examining competing hypotheses – Considering alternative explanations and determining if they better explain the data. Assessing where and how evidence supports a hypothesis – Identifying points of consistency that reinforce the working theory. Assessing where and how evidence contradicts a hypothesis – Seeking disconfirming data that may require modifying or rejecting a hypothesis. Resolving contradictions – Not just deductive contradictions, but inconsistencies in the coherence of competing explanations. Detecting formal and informal problems in reasoning – Identifying logical fallacies used in arguments both for and against the hypothesis. Following the lines of evidence to plausible, tentative conclusions – Recognizing that strong conclusions require multiple converging lines of support. These principles, though abstract, find direct application in real-world cases, including the study of unidentified vocalizations attributed to Sasquatch. Applying Abductive Reasoning: The Case of Sasquatch Vocalizations For decades, vocalizations attributed to Sasquatch have been recorded and reported. With the advent of cell phones and small digital recorders, the frequency and quality of recorded vocalizations have increased. Witnesses consistently describe the sounds as: Immense in volume, often shaking their bodies. Different from known animal calls. Occurring in remote areas, sometimes without human presence. Occasionally accompanied by other sounds, such as footsteps, tree knocks, or breaking branches. The question becomes: What best explains these sounds? There are three competing hypotheses: Fraudulent/Hoax Hypothesis – All reports and recordings are fabrications. Known Animal Hypothesis – The sounds come from a species already identified. Unknown Creature Hypothesis – The sounds originate from an unidentified biological source, possibly a large primate. Each hypothesis must be tested against the available evidence to determine which one provides the most reasonable and coherent explanation. 1. The Structure of the Cumulative Argument A cumulative argument is based on multiple, independent lines of evidence, which together strengthen the case for a given hypothesis. Unlike deductive arguments, which require absolute proof, cumulative arguments gain credibility through consistency, coherence, and absence of disconfirming evidence. The foundational premise is simple: Recordings of Sasquatch vocalizations exist. They are independently attested. They have undergone analysis showing unique, unexplained patterns. From this baseline, multiple independent lines of evidence add support. 1.1. Sonogram Analysis: Consistency Across Time and Distance Thinker Thunker, a researcher, compared recordings 2,300 miles apart and 50 years apart. The sonographic features are identical and do not match known human or animal vocal patterns. If genuine, this suggests a geographically widespread, persistent sound source. 1.2. Linguistic Evidence: "Samurai Chatter" R. Scott Nelson, a cryptologic linguist, studied Sasquatch vocalizations (notably Ron Moorhead’s Sierra Sounds). His analysis indicates: Some recordings exhibit linguistic properties, including syntax and morphology. The patterns are structured and non-random, unlike typical animal calls. These patterns suggest a potential unknown form of communication. If valid, this places Sasquatch vocalizations among a handful of species (humans, dolphins, some apes) capable of complex vocal exchange. 1.3. Reports of Multiple Communicating Entities Witnesses frequently report hearing multiple creatures interacting vocally. Recordings capture call-and-response exchanges. If these sounds are communicative, they indicate intentional vocal production. 1.4. The Sounds Do Not Match Any Known Animal Comparative studies against wolves, foxes, elk, bears, and primates have found no match. Some vocalizations include frequency ranges, duration, and volume beyond known species. If the sounds do not match an existing animal, then what is producing them? 1.5. The Volume and Physical Impact of the Sounds Witnesses consistently describe immense volume. Some sounds reportedly vibrate the human body, suggesting a massive lung capacity. This is physically beyond human capability, making hoaxing improbable. 1.6. Consistency Across Reports and Recordings Patterns of vocalization are consistent across: Time (decades apart) Geography (widespread locations) Witnesses (independent observers) This suggests the same biological source rather than random anomalies. 2. Evaluating the Competing Hypotheses 2.1. Fraudulent/Hoax Hypothesis Some hoaxes exist, but dismissing all vocalizations as hoaxes requires: A massive, long-term, coordinated deception. The ability to fake sonograms across decades. The ability to mimic structured linguistic elements. This stretches plausibility past reason. 2.2. Known Animal Hypothesis No known species consistently matches the recordings. No biologist has identified a definitive source. The sounds persist despite extensive wildlife research. If a known animal produced these calls, we should have identified it by now. 2.3. Unknown Creature Hypothesis The hypothesis that an unidentified primate is responsible is not inherently implausible. Uncharted regions exist, and new species continue to be discovered. This hypothesis best accounts for the data without introducing contradictions. 3. Examining Skeptical Counterarguments and Logical Fallacies 3.1. "Extraordinary Claims Require Extraordinary Evidence" The claim that all Sasquatch vocalizations are hoaxes is also extraordinary and requires proof. The recordings exist and are available for analysis. This argument shifts the burden of proof unfairly. 3.2. "Witnesses Are Unreliable" Human perception is fallible, but: Independent, consistent reports across time and geography indicate a real phenomenon. Dismissing all witness testimony is a sweeping generalization fallacy. 3.3. "Hoaxes Explain Everything" This assumes hoaxes without evidence. It fails to explain: Sonographic consistency. Linguistic structure. Immense vocal volume. 3.4. "It’s Just Another Animal" This fails to identify a species matching the sounds. If the sounds belonged to a known species, biologists should have recognized them by now. 4. Conclusions: The Need for Further Investigation The cumulative argument shows that: Skeptical dismissals often rely on flawed reasoning. The hoax hypothesis lacks credibility. The unknown species hypothesis best accounts for the data. Without direct counter-evidence, outright rejection of the Sasquatch vocalization hypothesis is unscientific. The most reasonable position is continued investigation based on the best available evidence. Videos 1 - Thinker Thunker: Ron Morehead's Legendary “Sierra Sounds Bigfoot Recordings” Has Finally Met Its Match Analysis of sonographic similarities between recordings 2,300 miles apart and 40 years apart, suggesting a persistent, widespread biological source. Watch on YouTube 2 - Sasquatch Sierra Sounds by Ron Morehead & Al Berry (HD) The original 1970s recordings from the Sierra Nevada mountains, regarded as some of the most compelling Sasquatch vocalizations ever captured. Watch on YouTube 3 - Bigfoot Language: Radical Translation of the Berry-Morehead Tapes - Scott Nelson A cryptologic linguist’s analysis of the Sierra Sounds, concluding that the vocalizations exhibit linguistic properties consistent with structured communication. Watch on YouTube 4 - The Best Bigfoot Sounds Recorded in Washington State | Salish Sasquatch A compilation of nearly 50 years of Sasquatch vocal recordings from Washington State, featuring some of the most compelling audio evidence to date. Watch on YouTube These videos provide direct audio evidence supporting the cumulative argument regarding Sasquatch vocalizations, analyzed through sonograms, linguistic structure, and geographic distribution.

I totally agree that results, if not samples, should be saved in raw data form. I have recently presented my eDNA results at the Texas Bigfoot Conference, and the slides are available to view on the FB Group Critical Thinking in Bigfoot Research. I am about to submit these results in more detail in a paper in Relict Hominoid Inquiry, Jeff Meldrum's online journal at: www.isu.edu\RHI.

Off topic here slightly - please forgive.. There are so many ways to look at an event or an action. For instance, while it might damage Roger's reputation with some, I actually think that the overdue camera is a vote for the authenticity of the film and a definite strike against the idea of a hoax. You can't pull off a hoax as intricate as this would have had to be, and be dumb at the same time. He's carried out insane level research into hominid physiology, foot morphology, primatology and bio-mechanics beyond the reach of science at that time. He's mastered better-than-cutting-edge costume, prosthetic and make up techniques on little budget. He's pulled all the logistics together for this one shoot. No way on earth is he allowing it to be filmed with a camera that was so overdue. If you're planning a hoax for October, you don't hire the camera from May to July (or whenever it was due back). You hire it just for the time you need it, and take it back early. You want to be as invisible as possible. You definitely don't let an arrest warrant be issued for you 3 days before filming your hoax.

I got sent this earlier in the week, what these Orangs are doing shouldn't come as any surprise to anyone. In the Olympic Project Nest Area, it's full all around with Evergreen/Wintergreen Huckleberry (Vaccinium Ovatum) which has various medicinal purposes, one being helping to facilitate strength after childbirth. Every one of the 20+ nests were made with this plant, with leaves found piled up next to specific nests, which had been stripped. I found some older correspondence regarding my thoughts on this kind of thing if anyone's interested, and i'll c&p it below. ---- Firstly, each and every nest is 'made' from Evergreen Huckleberry (Vaccinium Ovatum). Secondly regarding the Western Swordfern that is mentioned below. Bear in mind that when the guys walked in on the one making the nest back in Feb 2020 (just shout if you're not aware of that and i'll send the podcast/interview link) , a week later when back in the nest area, they found lots of leaves perfectly stripped from this Fern. It'll make more sense when reading further on so revert back to this for clarification when needed. Lastly, bear in mind that each and every nest both from 2016 and the recent 2020 nest, were all constructed/being constructed in the month of February. The Evergreen Huckleberry range makes up 21% of all Olympic and Kitsap Peninsula's land mass as per USGS. Broken down, we see the below. Spring - 40% of reports are from within or within 5 miles of the EH range (a 95% increase v the 21% of land mass). Summer - 55% of reports are from within or within 5 miles of the EH range (a 162% increase v the 21% of land mass). Fall - 53% of reports are from within or within 5 miles of the EH range (a 152% increase v the 21% of land mass) Winter - 59% of reports are from within or within 5 miles of the EH range (a 181% increase v the 21% of land mass) These numbers in my opinion are astonishingly high and i do not believe that it should be viewed as coincidence that winter leads the way with this data. ---- Evergreen Huck (Vaccinium Ovatum) which is the species of Huck at the nest site. There are 26 species of Huckleberry in North America with 3 that can be used as a 'birthing aid'. The Evergreen Huckleberry (Vaccinium Ovatum) is one of them as is the Oval-leaf Huckleberry (Vaccinium Ovalifolium, has a range in the Olympics but not the Kitsap Peninsula as per various sources and is generally found at higher elevations) and the Bog Bilberry (Vaccinium Uliginosum). Evergreen Huckleberry - The leaves are antiseptic, astringent, carminative and hypoglycaemic. An infusion of the leaves and sugar have been given to a mother after childbirth to help her regain her strength. A decoction of the leaves has been used in the treatment of diabetes. --- The Western Sword Fern, the fern that is the more common fern on the Kitsap Peninsula (geographically/technically separate from the Olympic Peninsula but combined within, within my numbers), and is at the nest site as per various pictures that have been matched up by three different, separate plant/flora ID tools and various flora/fauna experts at the site itself. There are around 40 different species of Fern in the PNW alone with only 2 that can be used as a 'birthing aid'. The Western Sword Fern is one of them. Western Swordfern - An infusion of the fronds has been used as a wash or poultice to treat boils and sores. The young shoots have been chewed and eaten as a treatment for cancer of the womb and to treat sore throats and tonsillitis. The leaves have been chewed by women to facilitate childbirth. The sporangia have been crushed and applied as a poultice to burns, sores and boils. A decoction of the rhizomes has been used in the treatment of dandruff. This is the Fern (again, confirmed within the three different plant ID apps) that the Guys found a few months back at the old nest site that had the leaves plucked/stripped off of the branches. --- As you'll notice from the above, both plants could potentially be used in a 'before (WSF) and after (EH)' type scenario if the nest areas are in fact used for the birthing process. It should also be noted where the Evergreen Huckleberry is also known as the 'Winter Huckleberry' among other things because they are the last fruit to be gathered and the berry's themselves are said to be most tastiest after freezing. Think nest construction months (February) and other general activity in that area. Both leaves and berries themselves are also high in Vitamin C. The fact that the specific species of both Huckleberry and Fern are what they are in the nest area is incredibly interesting to me, again, if in fact the nests are used a birthing area. On a side note, i recently looked at Gorilla Nest structure studies which led me to look for Gorilla Nests that were not just regular every-day type nests, but were being used within the Gorilla birthing process that had young present in the images. For these specific nests and using three separate plant/flora identification apps, i kept coming across a plant within the specific nests with young present called 'Guinean Henweed' which upon further research, yes, is a 'birthing aid' and i quote 'The roots are used as a remedy for toothache, and it has also been used to procure and abortion. A leaf maceration is applied to the belly to induce contractions in case of a difficult delivery.' end quote. I find it quite cool that a fully discovered and recorded Primate in Benin, West Africa, uses flora which can be used as a 'birthing aid' whilst 8,000 miles away in the Pacific Northwest of the United States of America, another albeit undiscovered Primate is potentially doing the exact same thing with the exact same type of localized flora that gives it the same advantages within a birthing area scenario..;)

Can't help you with books or movies, and can't tell you when i'll be finished, but i'm working on the long term Olympic Project Nest Area Recording Project which now has over 1,000 combined vocalization and percussive recordings from around 3 years now, that don't appear to belong to any known animal. I'm/We're also collecting localized actual visual sightings from that general area of which many aren't via the normal public ways that we gets reports for the SSR, and i truly believe that the general area there will soon enough provide something decent in way of a pic/video hopefully. Life and bills are right now slowing me down more than i want and that can't be helped, but imo and i appreciate i'm being a little vague here, this project and what it's appearing to yield, is keeping my head in the game, no doubt.

I don't either. But if that's where the evidence eventually leads, I'm not going to refuse to accept it. I'm perfectly comfortable looking at whatever the data says. Not without questioning it .. data must be interpreted by fallible humans with ulterior motives. We, as a culture, seem to put more value on validating our own views than we do on finding the truth, whatever it is. Given how much we do not know, it is as unscientific to reject her views out of hand as it is to accept them out of hand. There simply is not enough clear evidence for either. And yet we seem to do it anyway and we belittle others who do the same thing, just supporting a different view, as somehow being anti-science. Bigfoot is a mirror. We're guilty of the things we accuse others of and we can't set our egos aside long enough to see it. There are no special points for "i told you so" when Ketchum is proven right or when she is proven wrong. All the "gotcha" in the world is just our own egos on display.

Went for a hike today up at McCroskey State Park on the border of Idaho and Washington. I took my new dog with me, Arlo. I adopted him from my daughter last month as he grew too big for the house and drove the cat nuts. They got him during Covid, so he has never been in the woods, never been around people, and never been in public. Today was his first time in the woods and he loved it! I was going to go to a spot I found hunting for mushrooms last year that had what looked like a bed made from pine boughs, but, the road was snowed shut a couple of miles before that spot. Backtracked to an interesting trail that went up a mountain and hiked it a couple of miles until it hit the deep snow and was impassable on foot... Bunches of elk and deer sign in this area, along with lots of wolf sign. Biggest wolf scat I have run across... No BF sign, however. No weird tree structures or bedding, no tracks, no wood knocks, and no vocalizations. I did find a couple of tracks that were interesting. Pretty sure this is a bear hind footprint... But no idea what this is. If it's a wolf, it's massive and heavy. Wasn't defined enough to tell, but it was deep and big. No BF sign, but still a great hike.

Calm down people, he paid his Premium Membership last month. He's probably living it up in an island somewhere...

We live in some of the best real estate on the planet…