Leaderboard
Popular Content
Showing content with the highest reputation since 08/23/2026 in all areas
-
3 points
-
I don't think that's automatically a strange question. It is something we should be thinking about .. society-wise, not just bigfooters. I think the best answer is "it depends." There are some really bad assumptions built into the question, assumptions that should be examined. First thing .. what we consider "normal" is not historical normal. (1) Transpiration creates a downwind moisture plume which allows forest to grow in places it naturally could not. Fire destroys not just what it burns, but the downwind moisture plume which "artificially" supports forest in places that would naturally be desert if there were no forest upwind to provide the atmospheric moisture. (2) We have 100 years and more of fire fighting / fire prevention which has altered the natural landscape. Though it is familiar to us, it is not the long term norm and it is not "natural." Complicating things further, the Native Americans / First Nations people deliberately altered the environment / landscape with large scale fire. Because they seem to have arrived before deglaciation, there probably has not been a "natural" environment, one not altered by human activity, since before the last glacial maximum. Data suggest we are in a period of rapid climate change. Second thing .. forest regrowth is though a progression of stages. Once forest is lost, we get grasslands / brush, smaller trees, etc before big trees return. This can take centuries, not decades, not years, and given changing climate conditions, I'm not sure we will have periods between fires long enough for the cycle to complete, we seem to be looking at forest -> burn -> brush -> burn -> brush -> burn -> brush .. etc. We .. in my area .. are getting much more frequent dry lighting and large fires than we have ever had in recorded history. The opportunities for mature forest to re-form under these conditions seem nil. In fact it seems the only chance of restoration is via human intervention, not via natural processes. This situation seems likely to last for centuries, maybe tens of centuries, and the new equilibrium, if there is one, won't be the one we're used to. I suspect much of North America, if humans just vanished, would turn into a land of brush and grasses with very little "reclamation" by forest as we know it because of the increased rate of lightning fires driven by global warming. Once turned to brush and grasses, it is very difficult to return to forest because conditions don't last enough years in a row for that to happen. IMHO of course! MIB3 points
-
Yep. I would probably eat it if I had to. It's legal to eat road-kill here although, I usually just go to the store. Although, with the cuts in food-safety (including a 19% reduction to the FDA work-force) a squished squirrel or, a drowned rat doesn't sound too bad right now.. "No doubt, but Norse is correct that Science as an industry will simply not play ball until somebody delivers a carcass and essentially rubs their noses in it." I agree that Universities, most private companies, governments, etc. are not going to really get involved until Joe six-pack, wife and kids are convinced that they exist. 'Science' is often done by people who are unencumbered by those institutions. I don't know the best way to prove Bigfoot. I think one (or two, if Norse insists ) could be captured alive. I mean if we can capture elephants and whale sharks?? 🤷🏻♂️2 points
-
Regarding the Cerruti site mastadon bones purportedly dated to 130,000 years ago .. mainstream science has the ability to determine whether the scratches / notches in the bone were made 130K years ago when the bone was fresh vs recently when they were being dug up. This is the study of taphonomy. Those markings / scraping / etc are NOT recent effects of the earth moving machinery, those markings were made while the bones were still fresh. That does not settle the question of who / what did them but it does settle the question of when the markings were made. Maybe, or maybe lacking technology, they saw solutions that our reliance on technology trips over?2 points
-
Wow, xspider1 and Norseman. What a debate that has been civil and neither party has backed down even during the most intense language at proving bigfoot is a real monster. It seems both of you have proved bigfoot is a monster. Seems like most of the audience has backed off while you two have carried on a debate that would heat metal to the bending point. One of the main points that is still not clear is does it take a deceased bigfoot male and female body to prove the existence of bigfoot? Do we agree bigfoot is a real living animal and a new species? Does DNA make the distinction between myth and real living monster? Presently what is the status of bigfoot ............................. myth or monster? Has enough evidence been brought forth for proof of the bigfoot with its own species name? What is the present status of bigfoot? Some claim bigfoot is a myth that can disappear and is abducted by aliens and delivered to Earth's forest.2 points
-
I've never watched a bear drag anything away, but have run across lots of their buried treasures (I really don't like that.........). But one of the most impressive things I've seen (more than once) is a grizzly running for its life as I entered the valley or area (they heard or smelled me/us coming).........especially in the fall when they're fat and their fur is thickening for winter, and their hide moves like Patty's in the PGF. Bears can really cover territory!2 points
-
I had to dig real deep for this bad boy, nearly 15 years deep in fact but i found it. I'm still adamant that he got his locations mixed up too, and i'm gonna send this to Aleks..2 points
-
Not so sure. Many whistleblowers have been threatened. And some scientists have disappeared. Is this a grassroots movement to get the truth to the public? Or some red flag event where the government is purposely leaking stuff while acting tough? Dunno. 1) No it wouldn’t. You can point to the child sized pilot chairs but mainstream Science will still want proof. The military is using scientists too. But they are not allowed to publish findings to peer reviewed publications. Part of science is now dark. And has been since the bomb. What else are they hiding in there? 2) Any scientist that can get their work published and accepted in a peer reviewed publication. But if your work happens to pertain with above top secret research? We know who the real boss is. Dr. Gary Nolan has stated they are building a retrieval team to beat the military out to these crash sites. All I can say is? Good Luck! 👀 You and I both agree something funky is going on with Bigfoot as well. Someone doesn’t want them discovered for what ever the reason.2 points
-
Talked to the last land owner we worked for in Nespelem. He is of the Moses clan. I had rodeo’d in Nespelem in 89, and was asking about a kid that beat me chute dogging. He was first and I was second. The conversation somehow got to him asking me if I believed in Bigfoot. I told him the snow track story at our ranch. He told me that they were afraid after dark. And that one time they had found a Colt that had been ripped in half. Something had grabbed the hind legs and had just wishbone it in half. He always got ansy hunting and shot something and while tracking it, it got dark. The Bigfoot cutout on top of Disautel pass survived the fire. Amazing to me how people there have Bigfoot at the fore front of their minds much more so than a cross section of the white population. Other than the tracks I observed? I was raised with both Colville and Spokane Indians and I am sure they have rubbed off on me.2 points
-
That hits the nail on the head. (And, thank-you for summarizing the affects that your encounters have had for you. Much appreciated.) Something funny is going on! Of that, I am 99.9% sure. There is just no way that an otherwise 'normal' biological creature of the reported sizes can exist and, remain unclassified after all these years, without something(s) 'funny' going on. This is a good thread, in my opinion. We can be civil here and honestly explore what may be the cause(s) for the lack of Scientific acceptance/classification. When I joined the BFF, it was stated that the official stance of the BBF was basically that Bigfoot are a biological animal, similar to Gorillas, Humans, etc. except in perhaps their size and elusiveness. And, as time went by, I never really understood why so many people categorically reject the idea that there may be (and most likely are) characteristics of Bigfoot that are beyond the current Scientific paradigms. In fact, if you accept that many witnesses are seeing something(s) matching the criteria, it seems undeniable that they must defy our current understandings. As a side note: I live in the middle of a big city, on a busy road. Yet, my backyard is interesting because it becomes almost rural when you step out the back door. And (not to imply too much into how this may affect this current discussion), I have seen unusual wildlife out there. One night about 15 years ago when it was just about to get fully dark, I saw the silhouette of some kind of gigantic bird fly by. We have barred owls and some hawks and a few eagles, but this thing had like a 6-7 foot wing-span and it flew right by me! I imagine that any Ornithologist would probably say 'No, you must be mistaken, there are no birds of that size anywhere around there' but, I know what I saw. Point being: no one really knows anything, until they know.2 points
-
We can't honestly, with any integrity, call it proof until mainstream science accepts existence of bigfoot. That is what PROOF means. There is no real proof but scientific proof, any lesser proof is not proof, "proof" is the wrong word for that whether it is used from ignorance, illiteracy, or just stubborn malice. There is no way around this. You seem to not understand what "proof" means. You're trying to change the definition / refusing to use the existing definition. Best of luck convincing anyone but yourself with that.2 points
-
2 points
-
1) Support behaviors and beliefs that makes as many people as possible believe the species to be mythical. 2) Limit access to areas where the species has its densest populations. 3) Don't discuss the issue officially, and if it comes up, ridicule it and remember Point #1. 4) Do not fund any research into the existence of said species.1 point
-
If government will go to these lengths to protect certain trees (especially just maintaining the secrecy/remoteness strategies), would they do likewise to protect a rare human sub-species? I think so............1 point
-
No doubt, but Norse is correct that Science as an industry will simply not play ball until somebody delivers a carcass and essentially rubs their noses in it. And I submit that is just one of the reasons why government has decided that the best thing for them as a species is to remain a myth. And frankly, it's my opinion that aliens are science fiction, and Science (as an industry) is playing ball on that field because every base hit equals Big Money, government is managing game for spinoff technology, and the taxpayer plays because they have no choice.1 point
-
I know it’s not a joke prediction but, I predict I’ll find my first track!1 point
-
What if they know bigfoot are human? That would open a HUGE can of worms.1 point
-
Thank you. Whenever I start doubting the existence of Sasquatch I remember these stories. They can't easily be explained by known phenomena1 point
-
I'm talking in circles?? That's ripe. One minute you say it doesn't matter as long as Science gets a complete male and a complete female Sasquatch, then you say Science just needs a type specimen? Again, a type specimen can be (and often is) a body part recovered post-mortem. Only your personal version of Science requires two complete Sasquatch skeletons. "As far as semantics? I guess I have a Bigfoot hypothesis then…..no feelings anywhere." That takes the cake because 1.) you are trying to reduce Science to semantics which is basically the opposite, and 2.) no feelings anywhere? geez Why is it always Bigfoot ripping my arms off? I'm not advocating hunting down a potentially breeding pair, you are. "You on the other hand LOTS OF FEELINGS when it comes to killing “majestic animals” in the name of science!" Correct. When you quote "majestic animals" do you feel as though Bigfoot are not majestic? They're just another every day 10 foot tall human-like Ape I guess.. No big deal.1 point
-
You have suggested many times that they are prone to ripping people's arms off and then beating people to death with their own arms? In one sentence you equate them as just another animal, with the same habits, diet, etc. as other non-human apes and then in the next sentence you say we are not dealing with 'just another animal'. You know their temperament, their diet, the way they hunt and basically seem to consider them to be almost just like a giant chimp. You really don't know if they hibernate, or not, right? Science tends to avoid assumptions, Norse. It does matter to some of us how they die, just not to you. Many type specimens are parts of animals, definitely not complete skeletons of both male and female. Your mileage obviously varies, but invoking 'Science' as if those who disagree just don't get it, doesn't work.1 point
-
Not to mention up and over mountains from one drainage to another. But I've witnessed wild animals (specifically bears and caribou) do that, both at a trot and full run.1 point
-
BTW the Disautel pass Sasquatch survived the fire! https://okanogancountry.com/poi/sasquatch-disautel-pass1 point
-
If the Washington DOT has caught it on FLIR cameras? The Feds have certainly caught it on all their surveillance.1 point
-
I have been in the woods with Nathan in north Idaho. He is a very respectful, knowledgeable young man.👍1 point
-
This is a very good point. We assume the 1,000 of miles of border are so secured they could see easily anything from a lost dog to bigfoot (and clearly identify it). Is that assumption correct? Assuming that is the case, it's a strong point. Are all areas of the northern border protected equally? I don't know how good the tech is and if that tech is universally that good along the entire border. Could good tech still so limited it looks like a blob on a scan resembling a hunter in the woods? I don't know Are there enough eyes to see? How good are those eyes? Finally, if Bigfoot is near extinct there are few encounter opportunities. Patty probably lived her entire life in Bluff Creek and the surrounding area. Unless she felt the need to travel, she may have never traveled more than X miles from home here entire life. If so, that might be she never was near the Canadian border. Granted that only might account for one specimin- Patty. Security cam from a store robbery: Cheap cell phone: Could be. For an event to be covered up the event first has to occur in the first place. Then, assuming it does, there has to be a motivation for those coving up to cover up. I can dream up scenarios for or against this idea. I will keep an open mind for now.1 point
-
I'm fascinated by Homo floresiensis, the "Hobbit" prehistoric human species discovered recently. I believe there's a strong possibility that reports of Orang pendak could have an association with perhaps a remnant population of "Hobbits." What we currently know about Homo floresiensis is that they have a really strange conglomerates of physical characteristics. Could they have been a dwarf species of Homo erectus? or could they be something even more strange? Gutsick Gibbon, her real name Erika, has the 2nd most popular paleo-anthropology channel on YouTube. Here, she digs deeper into the question of just what the Hobbit really was.1 point
-
Those are totally valid points/questions. I think we can only speak for ourselves and, as for me: Success at looking for Bigfoot would be seeing one or more in a situation that provided undeniable confidence that I was seeing the creature(s) that have already been described thousands of times. The sighting would need to be unambiguous and, it would be great if there was at least one other person present so that, if nothing else, we could talk about it. (I had such an experience with a 'UFO' decades ago, but I was alone in my truck. I have always been grateful for that experience because it broadened my horizons, even though I can't say if it was an Alien spacecraft, or not. It was definitely an unidentifiable flying object, beyond the scope of anything that I can imagine to be man-made.) For others, perhaps the majority of the BFF membership, success only means one thing: Scientific Acceptance and Classification. I get that, but if a Bigfoot body on a slab is required and one cannot be obtained without deliberately killing one then, it would not be worth it, in my opinion. And, if I see a Thylacine, I'm not going to shoot that either. I would tell my story, just as I did with the UFO and as I would with Bigfoot then, whoever didn't believe me or, thought I was crazy, could take a long walk off a short bridge. lol1 point
-
I think of Anna Nikaris discovery of an unknown animal. The interest isn’t that it looked like bigfoot. The issue is the animal existed but was undiscovered until recently. To me the animal doesn’t have to be impressive. The principal of discovery makes it impressive. Dr Nikaris even had a lecture with the possibility of Bigfoot existing.1 point
-
So Hiflier would be proud of me. I just emailed George Knapp asking him if he had any contacts for anomalous footage from government agencies that could be related to cryptids. I will let you know if he responds!👍1 point
-
This is a bit rhetorical, not looking for an answer, rather, suggesting a question we should each ask ourselves. In light of others' responses, I want to look at this question again from a different angle. Success at what? Personal experience or scientific acceptance .. or something else (if so, what)? These are not the same thing. A lot of people continue having personal experiences that I strongly suspect are legitimate. Documented .. in a sense .. in that they are shared here and other places. Not rigorously enough for scientific use, but documented. I don't think these personal experiences are moving the needle toward acceptance. Maybe they silence a few hecklers but there are plenty of those remaining. So .. what is the goal? What is your goal, my goal, "our goal", "community goal"? If they are not the same, which are moving forward and which have stalled? MIB1 point
-
Bigfoot like creatures have been reported from places around the world, and if we go back into world history, we will probably find reports of bigfoot like creatures being captured or killed. Evidence of these events was never presented to a group of primate biologist so proof of a bigfoot-like creature was never established and the topic became a myth and not a proven monster. Some of these reports describe human like monkeys while other ones describe bigfoot like creatures that became myths. Are these reports of bigfoot/human like apes just imagination or are they based on old reports from intelligent villagers? Research some of these reports and give your take on one or two. Go to Bigfoot - Wikipedia to find these reports. Click one of the reports below. Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org › wiki › Bigfoot Bigfoot - Wikipedia Similar alleged bigfoot-like creatures Almas – Central Asia Am Fear Liath Mòr – United Kingdom Amomongo – Philippines Barmanou – Afghanistan/Pakistan Bukit Timah Monkey Man – Singapore Ebu Gogo – Indonesia Fouke Monster – United States Hibagon – Japan Mande Barung – India Mistapew – Algonquinian cultures Momo the Monster – United States Nittaewo – Sri Lanka Orang Mawas – Malaysia Orang Pendek – Indonesia Sisimito - Central America Skunk ape – United States Urayuli – United States, Canada Wild Man of the Navidad Yeren – China Yeti – Asia Yowie – Australia1 point
-
.........AND there are millions more people out there to see them, AND actually looking for them. The human population of this planet has quadrupled in just the last century: 10,000 BCE: About 4 million people lived on Earth after the shift toward agriculture. 1 CE: Around 170 million to 300 million people. 1804: Reached 1 billion for the first time, taking all of human history. 1927: Reached 2 billion (123 years later). 1960: Reached 3 billion (33 years later). 1974: Reached 4 billion (14 years later). 1987: Reached 5 billion (13 years later). 1999: Reached 6 billion (12 years later). 2011: Reached 7 billion (12 years later). 2022: Reached 8 billion on November 15, 2022 (11 years later)1 point
-
I think the answer almost has to be a hybrid version of what MIB asked above: "Are there a) lots of bigfoots but they are super sneaky or b) only a few bigfoots but they are fairly clumsy, inept at hiding, so those few are seen fairly frequently?" I propose a possibility c) There are only a few hundred (or, maybe a few thousand) Bigfoot left AND they are super sneaky. How that plays into the sad possibility that they may be on the verge of extinction I don't know. But, I think it's either that, or we are dealing with critters far beyond our current Scientific paradigms. I'm currently about 50-50 between those two options. The only thing I'm 99.9% sure of is that Bigfoot exist and that they have, and probably still do, walk on planet Earth.1 point
-
1 point
-
1 point
-
That is an insightful question. I saw what I saw, I know what I know. Though convincing to me, because I was there observing, not merely hearing the account afterwards, I would be disappointed if anyone looked at my sighting accounts as anything other than "just another anecdote" so far as "proof" goes. I don't even have a picture to back them up with. That makes them, frankly, pretty weak sauce so far as proving anything at all. I hope that for someone already convinced by some other body of evidence, they are interesting and maybe educational, maybe fill in some gaps. At least for a couple of the tracks I do have pictures. They are open to interpretation. For interested individuals, they might well be interesting / educational, but I have no delusions that those constitute proof either. They'd barely make the grade as serious evidence. Same for the audio. All are most useful as interesting data points for those who are interested. They should never be thought of as proof or even as strong evidence. Does this make sense? I hope so, hope it gives some context for how I see my own meager "offerings."1 point
-
I do not think you have any grasp of "proof" based on what you write over and over. If you do, you hide it very well. You're repeatedly saying false things and expecting them to be taken as fact. Scientific illiteracy, repeated endlessly, does not become fact. If you find that abrasive, maybe you need to be .. abraded .. a bit. How is it done? "Giant ballroom" .. is actually closer than you imagine. A virtual giant ballroom anyway. It is done the same way real science is always done. Gather evidence, analyze, write it up, and publish in an established journal. The journal is, in virtual terms, that ballroom. If your evidence is solid, if it is repeatable by other scientists, and if your analysis is correct, your claim will be substantiated. It will be scrutinized, probably painfully, in detail, questions will be asked probably via responses in other papers / journals, and you'll have to be able to address them. This is not for intellectual babies with easily hurt feelings, the processes are brutal .. ask Ketchum, ask J. Harlan Bretz, etc. Ketchum was refuted and ridiculed because her science was garbage. Bretz' work was rejected for decades but finally accepted and now is the mainstream understanding. If your work is good, it stands, if it is crap, it falls, and that is how it should be. There is no shortcut. If you're not going through the established processes you're not going to be accepted by the establishment. Until that happens, you do not have proof regardless of what you wish to believe.1 point
-
Hello there, I’m a long time believer since my uncle told me stories of the forest people and extra terrestrial life when I was growing up. Recently, I moved from San Francisco to Salem, Oregon and now have locations close enough to visit. Oh, my name is Brianne and I have an awesome K9-American that I bring on all my adventures with me. Can’t wait to chat!1 point
-
Daniel's recollection of dates and events regarding Bigfoot is amazing. I was getting his newsletter for awhile and enjoyed it. He's one of those researchers who has a great ability to speak truth, direct and to the point. Nice interview, thanks for posting, Norse.1 point
-
I try to avoid big groups, but I'd love to find someone to partner up with for some remote, dispersed camping in east TX soon. Going into my fifth year of research. I have a Jeep, a thermal monocular, audio recorder and some good camping gear.1 point
-
In the folklore of the Caucasus, Pamir, and Altai mountains, an almas (also called an almasty) is a legendary hominid cryptid. Stories describe it as a human-like creature covered in reddish-brown hair, standing 5 to 6.5 feet tall, and resembling modern reconstructions of Neanderthals rather than large apes. Zana fit that physical description perfectly. She was called an Almas during and after her lifetime. Recently, Science dug her body up along with that of her son and analyzed the DNA of other descendants. She has been scientifically identified as Homo sapiens. She was both, and there is no reason why she could not be both.1 point
-
1 point
-
For a concrete example, the area near Hobson's Horn, a mountain in SW Oregon, burned in 2002. Prior to that, part was still old growth forest. I hunted it in 2014 and got a deer. It had regrown to clumps of brush about chest height with gaps between. There were many fire-hardened snags fallen into the brush. It was easy to see the ground in the gaps and watch animals walk through them. It's 2026 now. I was back there in 2025. The brush has not grown significantly taller since 2014. The clear spaces have closed in some. Another part of the same ridge which connects Hobson's Horn and Silver Peak "hosts" the Silver Peak trail. This burned in 1987's "Silver Fire". It has grown back a little more but from a distance it is still fairly bare with clumpy brush because there is not much water for most of the year and, being in designated federal wilderness, there is no reforestation activity at all. I don't see any natural re-growth of pre-fire species .. douglas fir .. yet. I wouldn't expect to see much improvement for the next 150-200 years. USFS / contractors have done some replanting. These are monoculture "super trees" meant to put on the most cellulose in the least amount of time to prepare for logging and they are not doing well because it is truly too dry for them. They're stunted, some are dying because they are too weak from lack of water to out-run disease and pests. I think something will come back, some portion of them, in maybe 100-125 years, if there is no fire forcing a restart, but they will not be the original trees with the original genetics. Another location, across the main divide toward the Rogue, burned in .. I think it was 1970 or 1971. It has grown back to alder (not the original species there) and heavy brush. The alder is 30-50 feet high in places. There are some cedar / spruce and a very tiny smattering of douglas fir returning but they are 20 feet tall or less. It will be another 25 years, minimum, and more likely 50+, before they are tall enough to begin to choke out the alder and return to pre-burn forest conditions. As long as there isn't another fire, it'll be roughly 100 years between the last fire there and a return to similar-ish conditions. It doesn't mean those areas won't support wildlife. As Norseman points out, that early/middle age forest supports animals .. in fact, it may provide more edibles per acre than mature forest. Much of the old growth left where I grew up .. well, there are 2 kinds. The increase in humidity has allowed some younger trees to reach proportions you'd expect only of pretty ancient forest. Cores of those trees sometimes show growth rings approaching 1 inch across. THen there are the truly old trees, mostly found in sheltered canyons which were surrounded by very dry ridges in older times, and some of those can run 400 - 500 years old or more. If you think about it, even under the most ideal conditions .. no intervening "resets" from fire, etc .. if the original trees took 400-500 years to grow, then their replacements are also going to take 400-500 years to grow.1 point
-
Greetings from Southern Ontario. I've always been fascinated by cryptozoology and Sasquatch/Bigfoot. Nearing retirement and I'm forward to deep-diving into the subject more.1 point
-
1 point
-
1 point
-
Hey been casual but skeptical bigfoot fan since childhood. working on screenplay and investigating the pnw has made me full believer.1 point
-
I’ve often heard about the legend of the The Grey Man in Britain. It’s seems to be seen in the foggy,rocky and rugged mountains. There a number of sightings in England. Ive seen them three times on the West Coast of California and Oregon1 point
-
Fauna bone pile as a result of Glacial Lake Outburst Flood washing animals downstream until the wall of water dissipates and the dead animals 'pile up'. Muck piles have yielded bones of ancient animals to miners for many years. Many bones were washed out to sea in the Arctic and Bering Sea. Glacial Lake Outburst Floods were massive and repetitive.1 point
-
Hello I'm Jim from Illinois. I've taken an interest in big foot after listening to the sasquatch chronicles podcast. My goal is to learn more and pass the time at work. Thanks to the community1 point
This leaderboard is set to New York/GMT-04:00
