Leaderboard

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

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.

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.

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.

"Not a Jeep guy!?? Next you will tell us you hate Apple pie! Do better! 🇺🇸🫡" Jeep currently has one model. They are owned by Stellantis, which is European. Stellantis, like other companies, does not get along with the United Auto Workers union. I would bank on them to leave the US. Jeep owners should start hording parts. Older Jeeps have mixed reviews. Apple pie is over rated. Go for a berry pie. You forgot baseball. I forget baseball all the time because it is a legal monopoly. Back to the thread. The Rubicon has the optional extra wires on the front outboard positions to cut brush. Nice touch for those very off road bushy areas. I did not see any ducks on those Jeeps and I thought ducks are mandatory accessories.

Just a huge Bravo to @gigantor for keeping the Sas in the Squatch over some difficult times and some good times, much respect to your Herculean efforts bro! And you could not have passed the torch to a more deserving Director in @norseman ! I know he has a lot of experience in reining in the mules @Catmandoo

All (eventually) of my results will be made openly available. I have also reached out to investigate every case of alleged "human... or unknown primate results" that I have heard of, over many years. @MIB used above the word "lore" to describe these results - and that is overwhelmingly what such results appear to be. In most cases, I have found that the DNA tests that supposedly had these results were not even conducted. Todd Disotell did conduct many analyses, some with "human" results, but did not retain any data. IIRC, Sykes (at least, for what he published) did not receive any results of this nature. The one thing the Ketchum folks did correctly was finally share their data - which is why we know that their conclusions are completely wrong, as @hvhart did the Herculean task of reanalyzing everything (I independently reanalyzed much of their data and my analyses concur with Hart's species identifications 100%). I know of only two other DNA tests with such "odd" results that appear to have actually been completed on North American samples, but the sequences were never shared for either of them and have not been retained. If *anyone* has sequences or lab reports regarding the genetic analysis of alleged Sasquatch samples, please reach out to me - but I have come to think that we are indeed practically at square one not just for retaining sequences, but for even doing much generating of sequences to begin with (and I'm glad to be working to fill this gap).

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.

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.

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!

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". MIB

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.

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.

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 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.

This Channel regularly promotes false stories embellished to make them more frightening and proof of existence of cryptics. Several days ago I watched their video "The Vanishing of Thomas Burd The Alaskan Horror and Bigfoot Encounter" It, like this video provided details, photos and even a realistic video purported to have been found on the victims phone of some creature banging on a trailer and growling. I looked it up and found no missing Thomas Burd. But I did find his photo under a missing person report named THOMAS SEIBOLD. Who contrary to the video did not leave a journal detailing him being followed by some creature or a camera phone video. "Published: December 9, 2012 Weeks ago, winter locked the Brooks Range mountains of Alaska's far northwest in its long, cold embrace, and it's clear that out there somewhere near the Arctic edge of the North American continent lies the body of Thomas Seibold. A search by Alaska State Troopers, complicated by no clear idea of where exactly to look for the German-born adventurer, ended in November. Friends and coworkers of Seibold from the Teaching Drum Outdoor School in Three Lakes, Wisc., took up the hunt afterwards, but they have gone home after a last-ditch effort found no trace. ( Anchorage Daily News). The guy from the YT channel " The outdoor Gear Review" has related that he has found clips from his videos on other channels purporting to say him being attacked or disappearing because of Bigfoot. There's a lot of ******** out there

I have not watched the video posted above, but I did read the book about the disappearance of Jacob Gray and wrote a book review back in 2020 in BFF (see link below). I thought it was a good book, but there was nothing related to Sasquatch in this sad case.

Somehow I received a copy even though I was not an editor; so for now, just let me say this: This book is stunning in content, photographs, and production. Joe here

Redhawk is in my estimation correct, the majority of the content out there is fake or misrepresented and as you noted expanded to other realms to stay relevant. It makes people both here and in our circles sick as we then get slapped with being in the " community " and therefore guilty by association. I personally will state on record that Expedition Bigfoot is entirely fabricated, that is my opinion.

First off, it's interesting information, second it's a revolution in the understanding of human evolution and as far as it being sasquatch related, It's elementary. If there's evidence that neanderthal and or homoerectus lived in NA, it's evidence that hominids spread world wide far more than previously recorded. And, since we don't actually know what sasquatch is, and some of the leading theories are that sasquatch are relic hominids like these two species, just evolved for bigness by a million years of isolation on this hemisphere, it follows that evidence for these two species being here is evidence for sasquatch more likely being them or their descendants. Personally, and entirely unrelated to how these two being in the WH, I think we are being slow walked into realization that "human" is a very loose term at best and a dozen distinct but related animals are known as mankind today. Like dogs are a hundred different breeds but still cross fertile, so is mankind. But only time will tell.

Autism itself isn't a mental illness. It's a physical difference in the brain structure that manifests as different perceptions resulting in different behaviors. If those behaviors are sufficiently damaging to the life of the person exhibiting the behaviors, it can be called a disorder. But it's not an illness. I am autistic. I rock back and forth without thought because it brings the world in focus and eliminates random noise. I often do so to a beat at a half or quarter the tempo of the beat like a metronome. It gets super obvious when I'm a bit tipsy as my threshold for distractions decreases and the need to focus becomes more important. So what we call autistic in humans might be entirely neurotypical for sasquatches. It can't cause a disorder because it can't disrupt their lives (and they can't be diagnosed, they won't answer the diagnostic questions lol). Their apparent behavior certainly could be compared to the behavior of autistic humans, sharing some behaviors, but it's illogical to tie the two together because different animals have different senses and different neurological makeup. Calling them autistic is like saying a lion is broken for eating a zebra. No, that's just what lions do.

Already know there are things that can either cloak or walk into portals and disappear before your eyes because I watched it happen in daylight conditions on a dirt road . Not only me but the person I was with saw the exact same thing and described what he saw before I told him what I saw . Walking on all fours and dark gray in color . His words were when I asked him to describe what he saw he said it just seemed to melt away while it was walking towards us. Wasn't a Bigfoot but if these are real what ever it was I believe Bigfoot can be real also. That's what got me started in this because I thought the whole field was just filled with weirdos before this happened to me.

Good snow trackway in Bluff creek!

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.

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?

I got out for the day with MagniAesir on a deer hunting/sasquatch seeking adventure. It was a fine fall day, with sunshine most of the day, after the morning overcast and mist dissipated, but no critters of any kind were spotted. We did encounter snowy trails at the higher elevations in the valleys off the east side of Harrison Lake, where we saw some older deer and canid tracks, but nothing fresh at all.

My son’s steel head today! Clear water river Idaho.

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:

I spent last week on vacation in Rockaway Beach Oregon. I drove over from Eastern Washington and was blown away by just how thick the forest was there! There is no way you could spot a Bigfoot in the forest there. One could be 8' from you and you wouldn't see it.

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.

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.

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.

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............

Don't go doing this anymore . You are not safe enough to be out with a firearm .

Those people are from Missouri. ::rimshot::

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.

I have never seen the northern lights like this outside of Alaska. As a boy the northern lights looked like a white sheet over Canada. This time we could see all the colors and they were right above us.

……….or shoot him with more rubber bullets………

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.

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.mp3