Leaderboard
Popular Content
Showing content with the highest reputation since 12/10/2023 in all areas
-
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.7 points
-
6 points
-
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.6 points
-
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 4o6 points
-
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.6 points
-
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.6 points
-
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.6 points
-
6 points
-
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.6 points
-
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.6 points
-
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...?6 points
-
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.5 points
-
I got out for the day with my daughter and some of the local sasquatch crew today. MagniAesir, Thomas, alohacop and his wife convoyed down to the Canadian end of Ross Lake, where we found the lake level so low that there's no water at all on the Canadian side of the border; you'd have to drag your boat about a km across weeds and logs on the US side to reach the actual lake right now. We turned back north to an old standby rough campsite that we've used in the past, and spent the afternoon in our camp chairs in the sunshine, shooting the breeze for a few hours before heading home. We saw a fair number of grouse, fishermen on the Skagit, and mushroom pickers, but that was it for excitement. Still, it was my first outing in months, after a couple of medical adventures/hospital stays, so I was delighted to just make it out there! In the first 2 photos, I'm standing on the International Boundary, looking south.5 points
-
Found a relatively local spot with a sighting report and ongoing 'activity.' It's about 2 hours N of me at the S end of the North Maine Woods, timber co land with little access to campsites outside this one, which is on a small lake. First camp was back in May, had the recorder out, find on returning home, at 1:15am something tried my door handle on the Rover, I was sleeping in it and didn't wake, but the sound is distinct. No one else around, it was a Thursday night and I drove all the logging spurs in the vicinity to scope them out. The following week, Hiflier was at the same spot, he picked up 7 distinct percussive knocks on his recorder. I went back 3 more nights through the Summer, only staying in the lakeside camp one of those. Another was across the main logging road from lakeside camp and about 1/2 mile down a finger of land out into a bog, the location of a reported sighting. There was a cell trail cam there, which I was suspect of--as it seems the BF are too, given the lack of footage. No oddities picked up on the recorder there but did see a buck chased out of the woods, opposite side of the bog by a moose on its tail. Standard M.O. for these nights is a walkabout for a couple of miles down the spurs near camp from dusk til after dark, announcing a presence, as if needed, then back to camp for a sit and listen. No fire, to keep the night vision intact. Last weekend, camped about 3/4 mile from lake site, at the end of a logging spur in slash and near the 'beauty strip' of another small lake without access other than a bushwhack. Recorder out and picked up 11 knocks of varying intensity over a 2 hr period from about 10:30pm to 12:30am ish. Didn't know about them til home listening to the 8 hrs of recordings. I did hear one distinct knock, following morning about 6:45 am as I was strolling from camp with coffee. Originated from an unlogged, older stand of Hemlock and Birch, I crossed the slash field to investigate, if it was a Sasquatch, it disappeared like one. If all goes as planned I'll head back up this week for an all night vigil posted up by the above 'bushwhack' lake. Bogside camp: Misty morning: Bushwhacking the stream feeding the lake: Last weekend's 'Slash camp': Heard 2 loud snaps back in the treeline, cow and calf strolled out within 5 min and gave me a stare: Checking the nearby stream for prints, only moose: I'd upload audio files to Soundcloud to post but the planned obsolescence has afflicted my machine, can no longer update nor access those things, nor even check UPS tracking on a perfectly serviceable unit, thanks Apple!5 points
-
So, as a hunter's safety instructor, I find this most disturbing. You DO NOT use your rifle scope to examine / evaluate targets .. for any reason .. EVER. That is what binoculars and spotting scopes are for. I would auto-fail you from my class for such a foolish stunt. You cannot take back a bullet. There is no "oops" and no "do over". MIB5 points
-
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.5 points
-
There is a .. pattern. I apologize if I get snippy but I've been down this same path so many times .. it is tiring. Noobs to the subject come in, find something THEY have not seen before, and present it as if it were brand new to an audience who has seen that same thing a dozen times or more, presented by previous noobs who were just as excited thinking that they'd found the answer .. and .. it wears. I want to see new stuff but I don't want to see the same old garbage dug back up, polished slightly, and presented as if it were new .. 'cause it isn't. I do not want to discourage you or dampen your enthusiasm. Just .. don't be shocked if what you think is new has been recycled a half dozen times and everyone but you knows it. Take time .. curb enthusiasm long enough to investigate. It's like .. there are a number of clearly, and "proven-ly", hoaxed pictures that crop up over and over every few years as people who have not taken time to do due diligence get suckered by them and in turn try to sucker others in the same way. It has been a long time since anything truly new has been presented. There are a lot of repetitions, re-occurrences of old patterns, but nothing groundbreaking. The "nests" seemed promising but seemingly nothing has come of them. Ketchum's DNA project turned out to be a bust at best, hoax at worst, but in either case, invalid. And so on. I tell you as honestly as I can, if I were an outsider and if I had not seen 2 myself over the years, I'd think the BF community was bat "guano" crazy, the whole thing was a farce, and I'd stay as far from it as I could. But .. things happen in the woods that don't add up to conventional explanations so the search continues.5 points
-
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..;)5 points
-
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.5 points
-
I like, and respect Dr. Meldrum. I have had several conversations with him over the last five years. His mind is razor sharp, and his ability to evaluate evidence and apply what he knows rivals the best detectives I ever worked with. That said...as some are asserting that he "sounds like a broken record" on the various podcasts he is invited to appear on...remember he is being asked the same questions over and over and over again. The fact that his answers remain the same is consistency in testimony. It also must be considered that new, or revolutionary evidence is extremely slow in coming, so what does he really have to comment on other than a relatively few new footprints that have come to him that are of a high enough quality to actually examine forensically? He is one of the very, very few researchers of any real high profile who remains committed to common sense, logic, reason, and the scientific method in his approach to the subject. He sticks to what he knows, and is the first to admit what he doesn't know. I give him a lot of credit for that.5 points
-
4 points
-
I found it much easier to accept the opinion that they're hominids. A different human species, like Neanderthal, Denisovans, feral humans, etc. Once I did, everything "opened up", including DNA evidence. I just can't accept extra terrestrial origin until some proof of interstellar or inter-dimensional travel is revealed.4 points
-
Yeah, not Joe Rogan the theorist, but Joe Rogan the media platform that the corporate media refuses to provide? Can you imagine a corporate media model giving Bob Gymlan hours of time on their platform? Did they give Roger Patterson any coverage beyond a couple minutes of "reporting" accompanied with thev standard accusations of hoaxing, corruption, and grifting needed to condemn the film?4 points
-
Neanderthal differs from human in this 220 base region by one mutation, chimp by 10 mutations. So chimp is definitely distantly related, but Neanderthal and my samples (with one mutation each) are closely related to the modern reference sequence.4 points
-
4 points
-
Yes, with an Espar Airtronic Thanks BC! I only made it to 11:10 with my "all night vigil" last eve. Skipped out of work earlier than usual, ran around getting things together, made the 2 hr drive. Brought the chainsaw to clear a good sized Hemlock and Birch from across the 2 track spur that goes up to the ridge above "Bushwhack Lake," which is where I wanted to be. Finished clearing those out of the way just after dusk. Once up on the ridge, heard 1 distinct, loud knock as I was getting my 'dinner' of cheese and crackers together. Too dark to do a good survey of the ground around camp which was a bit unfortunate-- I had set an oil lantern out about 50' from the Rover on top of a white granite boulder, put there by an excavator by the looks of it, just in front of it was another, still buried in the ground but up about a foot and sloping to the former. I put the recorder on this one. Checking this am I see the buried boulder has 2 white marbles and 2 blue glass beads on it. I gather these were left by the ME BF crew that at times operates in the area and not a gift from the Sasquatch because I left a light on for them. I don't know if that crew comes up here but that makes most sense. Just in front of this set boulder was an old track that could be our quarry, looks good but too old to tell, possibly bear double step, IDK. See pic, next to my size 12 shoe. Also much fresher and right by this same boulder is what appears to be a bear scrape, heavy claw marks in the gravel, dust kicked up on plants, difficult to tell from pics but given the alignment of 'claws,' don't think it's turkey scratch. May have happened last night, will have to check recordings. Booty: To old to tell Track and only 1: Bear? scrape: Bushwhack lake and shoreline: On the way back:4 points
-
4 points
-
@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 University4 points
-
He or she isn’t doing it to gain access to an account, they are doing it to lock your account for the prescribed amount of time. Its just harassment.4 points
-
Hey Foxhill, thanks for the re[ply....yeah they really don't like the game cams, busted 2 up pretty good, and they didn't touch any treats for about 2 years at the place I always leave them. Hey JKH, always good to hear from you! October 7th is the big 70, but I'm fit, healthy, goofy as ever, and no health issues......running these woods works magic:) I would have to look back, but don't think I've ever posted a pic of myself on here, always wanted to remain anonymous so here you go.4 points
-
I know of 2 stages of 'old fart'. Initial stage is 'old fart' and then one progresses to 'older than dirt'. When you think about it, dirt is really old. Always go to the silver hairs because we know stuff.4 points
-
I'm not a hunting 'expert'. I'm just an experienced hunter, and an experienced bench and competitive shooter, and an experienced reloader. Phil Shoemaker is a hunting 'expert'. I found time to be on the internet over the past 40 years because I was on it before Al Gore invented it. I can also perform multiple tasks simultaneously. You can learn to do so as well. I suggest starting your education with a pack of chewing gum and a nice, long dock............4 points
-
Don't go doing this anymore . You are not safe enough to be out with a firearm .4 points
-
4 points
-
Well, I for one, am firmly convinced that Sasquatch Ontario belongs in the same pantheon of hoaxers along with Rick Dyer and Todd Standing. I watched most of the videos years ago and at the very beginning of the first one, my eyes rolled so far into the back of my head I could watch my hair grow. I couldn't believe the number of rubes and suckers who bought into Mike's line of horse crap acting like this was some great cosmic breakthrough or the connection between the species was finally forged and all shall be revealed. I seem to recall this being discussed on the forums a while back at length and my opinion hasn't changed.4 points
-
4 points
-
……….or shoot him with more rubber bullets………4 points
-
Getting started as an adult can be difficult. You need some friends, a mentor. Consider taking some .. I hesitate to call them "classes", maybe seminars is a better word .. from someone like REI to get you roughly familiarized with camping. Then when you are comfortable enough, try going out with a group like BFRO. It is not for everyone but .. y' gotta start somewhere. I know some people who go on such trips who "camp" inside their cars which reduces the amount of gear needed.4 points
-
I await the, "I was going to post my amazing, incontrovertible video proof but due to the hostility expressed in this forum... I deem you all unworthy." post coming soon. I don't think there is hostility as much as healthy skepticism considering the amount of jokesters with too much time on their hands who've made such claims before. And if the attitudes on this forum bother Lokee so much, heaven help him if he ever tries displaying his "proof" to the wider world.4 points
-
There are a couple things to consider. 1) None of the current trail cameras use a "trip beam" to trigger the camera, so there is no projected light, IR or otherwise, for a sasquatch to see EXCEPT when the flash is happening. That is an assumption based on decades old, decades-abandoned, technology. The only chance they'd have to see light, IR or otherwise, from the camera is when something else is getting its picture taken. 2) Cameras have plastic bodies .. probably out-gas. 3) Cameras have batteries and capacitors. a) Capacitors make noise .. some humans hear them, some do not .. when they charge. b) Some people speculate BF can detect electrical fields. 4) I've done some experimenting .. as seen by an IR camera by IR flash, our "camouflaged" cameras are plain / bland square, artificial-looking boxes on the sides of trees, not camouflaged at all, so if BF sees in IR, our cameras are probably glaringly obvious and out of place. 5) I'm a hunter. When I hunt, I don't walk down the game trails, I walk 25 - 200 yards off to the side so I can see without being seen. Most all of those bajillions of trail cameras are set watching the game trails, not watching the woods for things watching the game trails. 6) BFs are tall. This, too, would lead them to walk in different places than short critters like deer walk. 7) Most hunters do not leave their trail cameras out year around, they're only out seasonally. 8) Cameras require visits to change batteries, swap SD cards, plus putting them out and picking them up. I usually only visit mine 1-2 times a year but hunters often go back every week or two. That's a lot of tracks going to an otherwise nondescript place for no apparent reason and even if a human maybe doesn't notice them, a sasquatch might well. Plus scent. I think the odds of a picture taken by cameras set up for deer / elk / etc instead of specifically set up for sasquatch don't have a lot of chance. Groups who are using trail cameras specifically for bigfoot research have a better chance but IMHO they need to do a better job of hiding their stuff and they need to leave it absolutely alone for longer periods of time rather than having their curiosity draw them to the camera too frequently. People think that numbers are the answer. Numbers don't matter if ineptly or inappropriately used. Those cameras are just clutter. So how many are really useful of all those millions? A few hundred? Maybe 1000? The rest are relying on luck.4 points
-
4 points
-
Well, it might not have been a bigfoot track they were casting per this source: https://www.alamy.com/foresters-at-work-california-photographs-relating-to-national-forests-resource-management-practices-personnel-and-cultural-and-economic-history-image501826762.html?utm_source=77643&utm_campaign=Shop%20Royalty%20Free%20at%20Alamy&utm_medium=impact&irgwc=1 and another picture from the investigation: https://www.ebay.com/itm/3551646369674 points
-
4 points
-
Any of us who have an interest in this topic from the UK know the idea that Sasquatch resides in the UK is nonsense. As a Scotsman I've been lucky enough to hike and camp some of the remotest parts of my beautiful country. There simply is no inkling or indicators that there is anything which may remotely be thought to be anything like a hominid wandering these lands. Not to say we don't have anomalies. I was lucky to have a big cat sighting just over 10 years ago now. The UK is certainly home to these beasts but these are more of the displaced variety rather than the undiscovered type that floats our boat on this forum. Good luck to young Dan. It's pretty heartwarming to read about his interest and his search. I'm sure the subject will bring him much joy and wonder in the years to come.4 points
-
We've experienced 'similar' sounds under different circumstances. Here's a couple I could find that I knew where to find in my archives. I'll look thru and see what else I can find that's like that. clip-1-june-10-2012-224am.mp3 550068422_may-30-2012-200am-5302012DVRaudio.mp3 short-clip-of-paul-chased.mp34 points
-
3 points
-
3 points
-
Yes, lots of film. Film never went away. Kodak is working 24/7. Kodak stumbled and fell and the remnants are making products. The purchase of used film cameras is popular with persons who don't want a 'digital' look. Polaroid, the original selfie, went away and has returned. Why use film? Simply because film use avoids the accusations of images created / modified by artificial intelligence. In camera image capture locks the image into the film via 'chemical memory'. Done deal. The film has to be scanned into a digital format. Accusations of AI will fly regarding the digital scanning but the film is the master record and will trump the whiners. There are a lot of comments about electronic devices and the sensitivities of animals & humans. Mechanical cameras eliminate the 'electronic' factor. Worked for a couple cowboys in 1967. There is very little red light under the forest canopy. Use black & white film stocks. Easier archival preservation and one must play grey scales like stops on an organ. Yes, the size of the organ is everything. Film is truth at 24 frames per second.3 points
-
Actually no. China has had government funded Yeren hunts. The Soviets did too but in secret (of course). And the Nepal government actually sold a permit to search for the Yeti. So not all governments have given it such a cold shoulder as the US….. https://sino-platonic.org/complete/spp309_chinese_wildman.pdf https://www.vice.com/en/article/qjk3jm/bigfoot-believers-uncovered-a-lost-manuscript-about-the-soviet-sasquatch https://www.historyextra.com/period/general-history/yeti-real-history-legend-abominable-snowman/3 points
This leaderboard is set to New York/GMT-05:00