Leaderboard

https://abcnews.go.com/International/jane-goodall-famed-primatologist-anthropologist-conservationist-dead-91/story?id=109868347 Back doc brought this to my attention. Rest in peace Jane!🙏🏻

For anyone interested in this idea of a Bigfoot metapopulation, I go deeper into the subject on Substack this week. I think this idea offers an answer to a few Bigfoot mysteries and debunker arguments. And, it may explain differences in Bigfoot morphology reported in different parts of North America (e.g., PNW vs east Texas region). https://thesocialbigfoot.substack.com/p/bigfoot-are-meta

I would suggest a home range model with a nomadic cycle of following resources completely every 2 to 3 weeks ( obviously deviating enough down from lasting snow ) along box-canyons and or benches that follow streams and smaller river pathways. This area would be chosen based on the ability to remain hidden, thermoregulation and browsing/hunting along the way. My data indicates constant movement cycle within a territory, they seem to hang in an area for not much longer than 3 or 4 days ( there have been certain months in certain areas that are exception ) and they basically travel for a day to another resource area along a known routine and hang out for a few days and so on, eventually they follow this general path all the way back around to the starting line and repeat but constantly flexing the path ( within 1 or 2 miles of bandwidth outside of direction of intended travel ) according to need or human activity. This model prevents patterning by prey and humans, prevents over browsing and resource devastation, explains the indifference and frequency of road crossing reports and provides a schedule that allows for gauging future resources to avoid scarcity periods. I plan on doing a thread thoroughly explaining it all in-depth in the near future.

Something like that crossed my mind briefly back in Aug 2011 when "he" came into camp. The first thought was ... "Ishi?" Yep, Native Americans wearing moccasins .. and using night vision goggles. Surrrrre, just like bears, "they do that all the time." Then the speed of travel vs speed of steps .. thus length of steps .. became obvious and such foolishness went out the window. And so ... we follow the evidence ...

We should be able to select more than one category. I visit the tar pit to see what humor Inc has dredged up.

I packed spray for my cook tent in remote hunts. Weight and bulk weren't concerns (I use a off-road rig to get out there), and the thought was that it might work on a young, curious bear, negating the need to kill it. The social jury here in Alaska is that it might work on such bears, but that, too, depends on the bear. One friend has a bee hive on his deck (insanity where he lives up Eagle River valley). Sure enough, he got a bear on his deck, but instead of a thousand pound brown bear, it was a small black bear. He stepped out and shooed it away. In a few minutes it came back. He stepped out with the shotgun and fired a round into the air. It ran off, and in a few minutes it came back. He loaded a bean bag round in it and shot the bear on the fanny. It takes off............and in a half hour, is back. Finally, he puts it down with a slug. He calls the Troopers to report a DLP, and a Trooper shows up, throws it into the back of his pickup, and drives off. Didn't make my friend skin it out or even fill out the DLP report. Would spray have worked better? Dunno. Maybe the bear would have been uncomfortable enough to learn something. Since it was a young, small bear, it might have educated him and saved his life for a decade or so. But, then, maybe not. But my friend had walls between him and the bear and daylight outside, which gave him plenty of safety to decide what to do. A bear in the night while you're wrapped up in a sleeping bag inside a tent? That's a whole different scenario. Like this guy: http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=15821 Sorry. AFAIC, that guy wasted too much ammo (ie, >1 round) on warning shots. I'd have shot that sasquatch as sure as sin, then sat with my back against a rock wall until daylight and ready to shoot more of them. There is absolutely, positively no way I'm going out into the wilderness without at least two firearms: a rifle and a sidearm.

Yeah, that is why the herbivore and even a plant dominant omnivore modeling is a tough pill to swallow for Sasquatch. I am of the mind that protein and fat are dominant in the diet. That would alleviate many of the problems regarding area devastation and energy expenditure. 1 pound of animal fat/ plant fat is around 3500. 1 pound of animal protein ranges from 500 to 900. 1 pound of huckle berries is about 170. If a Sasquatch wanted to eat well I think it would be fair to suggest that if they managed 2.5 pounds of fat, 5 pounds of protein and 3 pounds of fruit/leaves they would likely be in a surplus. That would indicate that you could meet the needs of one individual with just over 10 pounds of mass.

They hypothesis that we began burying our dead because it attracted predators. So it began as pragmatic and may have evolved into more of a ritual. Homo Naledi at Rising Star Cave just unceremoniously dumped their dead down a chute in the back of the cave. Whereas Neanderthals buried their dead with grave goods, ochre, flowers, etc. Interestingly enough? There are no stone tools associated with Homo Naledi. So I find it odd that they are included in the genus Homo. Which just shows that science has a very gray area defining what is included in our genus and what is not. So Sasquatch may be included in our genus or it may be excluded upon discovery. But I flat reject that they are apart of our species. Based on morphology alone. Great apes are exceptionally smart (excluding humans or Homo Sapiens), so our ancestors like Homo Erectus must of been terrifying. I would not want a pack of them hunting me in the forest with spears. (L-R) Australopithecus Afarensis, Homo Erectus, Homo Naledi

Bigfoot's needs and abilities are always stretched into whatever shape is needed to fit the narrative. <--- This almost always makes the narrative wrong. -Say Bigfoot is sick, suddenly there are more fellow Bigfeet out there bringing him food. -Say we can't find a body, Bigfoot bury their dead -Don't have sightings in decades of looking, Bigfoot has the ability to teleport. When Questions about Bigfoot arise, we need to look at the most likely scenario. Sure, shows like Finding Bigfoot seems to know what Bigfoot's favorite baseball team is, or his favorite color. Not bad considering they have never found Bigfoot let alone studied the actual issue in Queston. Yes, we can imagine various scenarios for Bigfoot. But if bigfoot is old or injured is just more likely to die or get eaten by another predator. Nothing extreme needs to explain it. If the food supply dries up for Bigfoot in one area, like most animals (or people) it would move on to an area where it needs are available. Billy the Kidd (of whomever) robbed banks because, "That is where the money is" Simplicity rules. Simplicity is the marketplace of nature. Brody: Now this guy, he... he keeps swimmin' around in a place where the feeding is good until the food supply is gone, right? Hooper: It's called "territoriality". It's just a theory that I happen to... agree with. It is easy to imagine elaborate scenarios to explain all things Bigfoot. When Bigfoot is not able to meet its needs, it dies. It will live so long as it can. We don't have to imagine much beyond that

Yes, would be helpful to list, say, your top three reasons, and add a few more.

That notion seems to lack imagination. Chasing down dinner is only one option. Ambush is another .. and doesn't take speed or endurance. Yet another is .. if you're somewhat nocturnal .. to wait for dinner to go to sleep, then sneak up on it. You should, if you want to get at the crux of the thing, think about all of the options, not just the stereotypical and obvious.

You are 100% correct. The NPS knew of his games over 13 years (not 8) in Kaflia Bay and allowed it to continue. So did the air taxi operator, who should have faced charges, AFAIC.

I'll add another layer of complexity to this. If Bigfoot are a real species, they could exist as a meta-population. As a meta-population they live in small, mostly isolated groups distributed over patches of forest areas. These groups are highly mobile, moving among these forest patches (across hundreds of miles) and occasionally running into other groups for breeding. In the case of Bigfoot, they may even exchange information in some way — for example, avoid that forest to the south because deer are sick or the water is bad or the BFRO is there or whatever. This isn't a new theory. I got the idea from a 2006 article on the Indian Gray Wolf, but the concept is frequently employed in ecology. Meta-population view of Bigfoot would explain: Sightings in non-remote places and roadsides Low inbreeding despite living in small groups Sightings in areas that may lack sufficient resources to survive over long periods Bigfoot sometimes reported taking farm animals (as they move between habitats) Overestimation of pop size, as the same animal is witnessed in widely different places near the same time Not seeing a Bigfoot when visiting a place where one or more were recently witnessed A meta-population of Bigfoot will likely be affected by the USDA removing 112 million acres of forests… which is equivalent to 175,000 sq miles, which is more than the size of California. Certainly this would not happen in one place, but it's likely that each forest management area will be reduced significantly enough to affect wildlife cover and food sources. I doubt this would be a thinning out of a forest, because that’s just not cost effective. It’ll be large swaths of biodiverse forest areas, and replanting will either not happen or will lack in plant diversity and become dead spots for wildlife. I’m not a hunter or camper but this is my main concern about this USDA initiative. Maybe someone with forest experience on BFF has a more optimistic assessment and can relieve my anxiety (or link me to a post in that other thread). Oh, and for any conspiracy theorists, perhaps the national forest system was created originally to support a meta-population of Bigfoot. An argument could be made, actually.

Served with borscht?🤣

If I ever heal up? I think a snow bike would be an amazing research tool. We obviously cannot keep up on foot. But a snow trackway being followed on a snow bike is sure to produce results. You cannot go straight up the mountain like a sled, but you can finesse your way through almost anything. They are dropping into creek bottoms I would never consider with a sled. Throw a drone in a backpack? I don’t think Sasquatch escapes without being seen, filmed, whatever. These things go any where.

I have seen no convincing data to suggest they as a population go all the way to the coast here in the PNW, I do find good data to suggest they come down in elevation. We have had activity in December, January, February, March and April here at various locations in WA. The below video is a fair example ( I personally went to this location a few years ago based on a number of winter reports including this track find, I was able to get in touch with the investigator who was on the scene at the time. ), the tracks came from up above ( small knobs and benches on the slope side at about 2200ft on the high end ) on the west side of Shannon Lake and Baker Lake that are both loaded with miles and miles of thick/marshy timber patches that are tough to hunt and penetrate. They came from the timber uphill and both jumped off a rock ledge over 12 feet up to get down to the edge of that community, they crossed the road and went up onto someone's porch and got into a charcoal grill likely out of desperation looking for food ( fat drippings ? ). I don't remember at the moment where they retreated to but it was generally back into timber up slope. Here is a side angle photo of the terrain and direction the prints came from, everything below the blue line would all be winter habitat under my theory. This would not encompass the entire space they use but rather a section of the loop or cycle they likely run along. The Gold pin in the back end of the photo is separate encounter report from years later in late November. For full context and accuracy I will note that this trackway from what we could gather is legitimate but after the investigation, word got around the community and someone got back in touch and with another trackway soon after and that trackway was clearly hoaxed and fabricated, the prints looked nothing like the original tracks and showed no dexterity of the foot or toes, lacked any of the athleticism and started in stopped at highly questionable places. They seem to hold up in very difficult and hard to access locations and move in changing weather conditions from one low human activity area to another.

Well it certainly doesn’t bode well for the person in Illinois claiming a family of Sasquatch live on his 50 acre wood lot all year long. But I don’t think they are that populous. And also that their activities probably fall through the cracks and are attributed to something else. Lastly? If they are as smart as say an Orangutan? Orangutans pick locks, know sign language and can paddle a boat. Surely Sasquatch could be rather cunning. And they probably know that sustained contact with humans is unhealthy. So they stay nocturnal, take only what they need and keep moving.

This is what bothers me. First, FWIW, I made a chart for my own edification comparing biological facts about common animals. As I got all of this information off the web, I am certain that it is highly accurate & not subject to question. Somewhere, I found an estimate that Cro-Magnon, Neaderthals, and paleo-Indians required 4,800 calories per day and moose required 9,700 calories per day. The data I found for other large animals is just in poundage - 10-20 pounds of food per day for elk, 30 pounds per day for grizzly bears, 35 pounds for black bears(?), and 30-45 pounds for gorillas. What bothers me is that if Bigfoot is an omnivore, and if Bigfoot is as populous in the eastern US as some believe, why aren't they eating farmers out of house and home? Deer do it, groundhogs do it, foxes and coyotes prey on chickens, and such ... why wouldn't a bigfoot settle down near a nice big corn or potato or squash field and simply strip mine it for a day or two, then move on. That problem occurs with other biological animals, why doesn't it occur with Bigfoot?

The mountains and inland plateaus of BC get heavy accumulations of snow, but the coastal valleys only get a few snow days a year, usually followed by enough rain to melt it away quickly. Most sightings in BC, Wa. and Ak. occur in those coastal valleys. The only Sasquatch trackway I ever found was in late spring snow, crossing a pass over a ridge between two river valleys. I believe they stay below the snowline as much as possible, just as the majority of big game does.

My take on this is that they use very similar resources as black bears do, and we have thousands of those here in BC. The only real difference from bears' needs is having to forage in winter, which bears avoid by hibernating. Sasquatch is supposed to be pretty intelligent, so presumably plans ahead by stockpiling food for the winter needs, such as nuts and tubers, which store well.

I think that is a part of the picture, maybe all of it depending on locale. My own area is very seasonal .. main time, late summer, with a couple data points in mid July which could be outliers or could represent a second, smaller, pass-through. Behavior is pretty different up there when it is "busy" and I suspect there is something "special" going on. That area spends winter under 5-10 feet of snow with nothing to eat but snow and tree bark. They are elsewhere. A friend works on a ranch at the bottom of a deep valley in the other direction. Off and on snow but nothing seasonal .. and no downhill for food to migrate way towards. He says they have low level activity year around with occasional flurries of greater activity. His explanation is that there is a very small permanent population (seemingly akin to what you describe) which act as a "rear guard" making sure that that spot is safe for the traveling groups to temporarily occupy as they pass through. I've followed up on a number of reports there and out maybe 10 miles in each way. I can't say that the explanation is right or wrong but I can say it certainly seems to fit the observations.

I have not read all the posts up to this point but I think it is difficult to calculate pounds of material because the caloric density per gram can vary greatly. We also can't measure metabolic rate with Sasquatches necessarily as what you eat at what time can change the rate itself. In mammals the metabolic rate is effected by sun exposure, temperature, stress and sleep. Sasquatches do not seem to be pot-bellied ( fermentation gut adapted ) and seem to consume a lot of direct protein when compared to gorillas. I would say that they focus on nutrient dense food heavily in the fall and again in the spring, sources heavily would lean toward insects, small critters, nuts, tubers, salmon, ungulates, fruits, lichens, mushrooms and softer plant leaf material. Just a side note, I am very convinced that omegas are likely the most important need to the Sasquatch, big brains demand them and this would explain the continued historic references in native cultures that sasquatch can become fairly confrontational in situations such as pulling salmon nets and invading smoke houses. I have also noted that Sasquatch reports do often happen on a regular basis close to large tracts of masting nut trees. I suspect they target certain foods at certain times and try to conserve energy, the few long trackways on record seem to indicate very focused directional travel as if they have a point B in mind. If I had to guess with what little I know from reading, behavior and looking for feeding sites I would say someplace between 7500 to 1000 calories split between 30% fat, 30% carbs, and 40% protein averaged across the year cycle. That is my 2 cents and again I don't have a whole lot of confidence yet in my view here but it is where I am at, critics are welcome. It would be interesting to see what the metabolic consumption of the Chinese snub nosed monkey is throughout the year as a comparison as they have a wide range diet and endure some fairly cold conditions following the snowline.

Back to the original question. NorthWind and I once investigated a sighting location at a lake camp. A (presumably) old sasquatch with a limp was seen dumpster diving numerous times. I'd guess scavenging, eating roadkill and pets kept outside would be much easier than taking a human. I would bet they have an idea, that if one of us goes missing, multitudes more will show up searching, which bodes ill for them. And, yes, I do think they are that intelligent.

Here's one time:

Well, then, the answer is clearly NO, and that has absolutely nothing to do whith critters. I'm proof of that. My many brushes with death were primarily the elements, not aggressive animals. Partners in the field can save your life.............but they can also shoot you accidentally, which happened to me as well. In fact, my trips into the Bush went primarily solo in the early 2000's because my partners became too dangerous, needy, or just plain intolerable, and I felt safer without them............until I damned near killed myself a few times. It's just dangerous out there, and sasquatches are the very least of my worries (except Alaska has no snakes, so I don't worry about them at all, and I'm very thankful).

I'm reducing travel, even to Anchorage, to only-if-necessary. Last winter, just hours after arriving in Vegas, I was in a situation where I had my hand on my weapon and was ready to shoot. The thugs drove away. Another very strange and suspicious character loitered nearby during and after this confrontation. Later, miles away in a rural area and right after bedding down in the motorhome, "somebody" started jiggling the door knob (turned out to be a cow licking the door knob). In both cases, I can't imagine feeling better about the situations with the equivalent of a bean bag round. Times are tense. I kinda' like it here. I think I'll just stay home until Mrs. Huntster forces the issue.

Those are a lot of questions to unpack. Any wild animal that is desperately trying to survive old age or serious injury would likely be dangerous to humans as without weapons we are the most helpless critters in the forest/jungle. (Except for pandas, of course. Seriously, google panda videos and ask yourself how these animals actually survive in the wild....) In going through old newspapers, I've run across several articles where tigers, elephants, bears, and wolves were said to hunt/injure humans out of "hate." As Silverback and Huntster state, yes, a wild animal (Bigfoot) is likely to act like other wild animals. As to the questions about whether certain national parks are dangerous and what specific cases involve, there is no end of information in threads such as the missing 411 thread at As to what kind of firearm (not necessarily a pistol) to carry in the backwoods, several members of the Forums who have extensive backwoods experience have offered opinions at this thread. Between the two threads, that's over 50 pages of discussion on most of the substance asked about. As to the "should people go out and do dumb things?" question, No. They shouldn't. But that didn't stop some guy from camping out with grizzlies because "they were used to him" or a New Jersey hiker from going up in the Adirondacks in shorts and a t-shirt without adequate food, warm clothing, and other survival stuff, and they both died even without help from Bigfoot.

I grew up spending 2 weeks every summer in that area. There was a small lake we could walk to, about 15 minutes away. I've never in my life had the creeped out being watched feeling that I had at that lake, and it happened many times there. I also saw a black mass running up stream as we drove past a creek and it was running up stream as fast as we were driving, but I was 11 or 12 years old and just chalked it up to being a bear. Not so sure now. There is massive open country up there. Thanks for sharing.

Academics like @hvhart or @Darby Orcutt might have a reference. Henner Fahrenbach?

I recall another story, again I think from Peter Byrne (therefore, in a book, not a researchable internet source) where a sasquatch was hanging out near a camp for disabled kids somewhere in south-central BC. Eventually, a camp administrator, counselor, or employee (I can't remember which) sat still by a campfire one night as the sasquatch approached to within a few feet. The guy wasn't even armed. I have no doubt whatsoever that these creatures could respond well to body language, especially the females.

Yeah, I could be quite satisfied with close up, intimate video and documented narrative from a researcher like Goodall or Fossey who lived with a family of sasquatches, but yeah, humanity can't stop there. Better to just leave them alone, just like my Daddy said so long ago.............

Everything old is new again. The Sacred Baby Mountain "legend" was discussed in 2011 and Forum member JDL noted that "It seems to me that further investigation would require discussion with Dr. Tuklo Nashoba, the author of the account, to determine his sources, and some digging into territorial and tribal records from the period. Dr. Nashoba titled the story as a Legend, and authorized its use by the TBRI, stating that the "ITS-BIG" site containing the Legend "was mostly for fun". Dr. Nashoba's site no longer appears to exist." (Emphasis mine.) JDL's comment is on page 5 of a thread on violent Bigfoot, here... According to a 1949 history in a local newspaper, the Choctaw Lighthorsemen weren't organized until the 1880s and while I'm no horseman, it doesn't look like those are draft horses (or 7-foot tall Indians). From the Enid (OK) Morning News on December 11, 1949. From the Atoka County Times (Atoka, OK) on July 02, 2003.

A kidnapping by a Sasquatch is truly a fantastic story, but none of the three stories that I've mentioned had a basis of origin in a small newspaper at all, which has now become widely believed in the story of Jocko. In the Ostman story, Ostman was a known personage who did report his story to his local newspaper (The Province) in 1957, 33 years after the kidnapping, but he had no motivation to "sell more papers". He remained alive for years after he told his story and was well interviewed, unlike the persons in the Jocko story. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Ostman The Muchalat Harry story was told to Bigfoot author and investigator Peter Byrne by Father Anthony Terhaar of Mt. Angel Abbey in Oregon, who was a missionary priest who traveled the west coast of Vancouver Island for many years, and was living at Nootka at the time of the story and who knew Muchalat Harry very well. http://www.bigfootencounters.com/classics/muchalat.htm The third story has never made the newspapers. I found it posted to an Internet forum of Alaskan outdoorsmen in 2010. It has all the hallmarks of a scary campfire story, but it has some very intestine features (poop smearing) that I've never heard or read of before (but which goes quite a ways toward explaining some of the stench reports involving sasquatches), and I've come to recognize that poster from later posts, and who appears to be a pretty cogent guy. https://bigfootforums.com/topic/28150-a-coast-range-bigfoot-story/#comment-544030

many cultures burned the dead instead of burying.

Albert Ostman. It was in the 1920's. Another similar story was Muchalat Harry, also in the 1930's: http://www.bigfootencounters.com/classics/muchalat.htm The third story of kidnapping was not widely known. It was posted by a rural guy from the Copper River Valley of Alaska on an Alaskan outdoorsman forum about an event he was involved with in the 1970's. Here's a link to it:

And chimp infants.

It’s always this time of year that I wonder what they do in winter. We get typically four feet of snow here in the valleys. Do they migrate to the coast? Do they stockpile and hunker down? Do they migrate south? Do they retreat down low in elevation and hunt? I saw tracks in December. Those tracks were heading south for whatever that means.

John Green's Data 1960-2000 BFRO Data 2000-2025

Just a crazy thought that jumped in my head when I was trimming my dog's nails. :-)

My husband and I drove to this event early on Friday morning, the first day of the festival. We walked through the buildings and vendor stands . Everyone there were friendly people and they were selling very nice items all Bigfoot / Sasquatch labeled , or handmade quality products. I enjoyed the scenery nestled within the beautiful Owachita mountains . The air was filled with the scents of smoked meats , Carmel popcorn and candles . I would have liked to stayed longer but we had another place to go and people waiting on us . Hopefully next year I can attend the festival and enjoy hearing some real stories from the people who had actual experiences or encounters. I wanted to say Thank You to all that helped make that festival happen and hope they can continue to be a success .

You answered your own question. You’re stuck in some feedback loop. We had a home run video in 1967. >You admit it didn’t help one bit concerning science. >But now you think another one will magically change that. This line of reasoning is folly. That’s my statement. If this belief gives you a warm feeling. Great. I very much enjoy watching Bigfoot videos. Some I find very compelling. But I don’t know if I spent more time debating scofftics than you did or what? But I have no illusions about what it’s gonna take to move the needle. And video isn’t it.

Consider yourself blessed. Few things are as elusive, rare, and consequential as sasquatches. LOL.............if you don't know of government secrets, that means they were successful, so are you saying that everything the government wants secret has been outed? This is a very reasonable position..........except for one thing: Their attitude. They absolutely refuse to keep records of reports (even on their lands which they manage with a fine toothed comb), and their almost complete silence about the issue, only speaking on terms of joking. Sorry. That literally screams of suspicion. Do you remember what happened to Les when he last ran afoul of the National Park Service in Alaska...............which also happened to be the trip which featured his first experience with a suspected sasquatch? Yup. I'd love to see such a video. It won't prove anything, but I'd love to see it.

I am shooting.

Oh, I can assure you that I (personally) am NOT going to have a "Sasquatches in the Mist" experience. My time in the mist for any reason is coming to a close. Yeah, that appears likely. So I'll just leave it alone. Heck, I can't even get Mrs. Huntster to go down to the PNW in winter anymore, and I'm certainly not going down there in summer, so I'll probably never even see one from the safety and comfort of a car. I remember a story from (I believe) Peter Byrne about a woman who lived in a house in a wooded area who had a pregnant sasquatch hanging around. She'd see it from the window on occasion. Then she saw it once with the baby, and didn't see it again. No pics makes it somewhat suspicious, but she might have had my attitude. This story was interesting. I wonder what this sasquatch wanted? http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=15821

We do not know. We can't prove or disprove anything. We don't have a confirmed Alma to test any more than we have a confirmed Bigfoot to test. We need to get away from this weird human quirk of preferring an unsupportable answer over an unanswered question. We can't have science when our personal dogma is stopping us from looking at answers. We need to be careful about investing ego in answers we really can't back up with facts. This aspect of the BF community, here and elsewhere, is wearing me out and truly tempting me to walk away.

I also did a one day 185-mileJeep trip through some very remote Idaho backcountry. No BF sign, but some beautiful country...

From the FBI contemporaneous files - internal memo July 1969 'Park Officials have noted the attitude of Williams Martin has undergone marked change from time when he was frantically searching for his child and appreciative of all help rendered. He has increasingly come under the influence of visionaries, is unwilling to accept fact his child is dead, and prefers to believe child has been kidnaped and might yet be found alive'. This statement strikes me as being very callous and heartless. It does however, suggest that Mr Martin didn't 'always' maintain that his son was kidnapped, but entirely understandably, hung on to any hope he could find, which, as time went on and it was clear that he couldn't have survived alone in the wilderness for such length, latching on to the idea of kidnap. Again, there's no judgement here, I would almost certainly have done the same. Even if he had always believed that there was kidnap involved, a desperate father in emotional turmoil and probably blind panic likely isn't the best, most objective assessor of the situation. Trying to imagine how I would feel in his shoes, I certainly wouldn't trust my objective assessment of anything. Even then, if you do accept that he could think about it rationally and always believed it was a kidnapping, a belief, however strongly held, does not make it a fact. The fact is that there was never any credible information regarding a kidnapping. From the NPS chronology 'He [Bill Martin] quickly went west on the AT as far as Little Bald (Approximately 1 mile) and returned thinking Dennis might be back to the others. He then went west again on the AT to Russell Field, 2.5 miles, and returned to Spence Field.' I have no idea how long this might have taken him, but clearly Dennis hadn't gone west along the trail or his father would have found him. As such, we don't know where he went. But we do know that in the immediate aftermath, only the westbound trail was searched by his father. It seems from the chronology that, at least until Rangers arrived (some time after being notified at 8:28pm) only trails were searched. The first mention of searching the immediate area around where he was last seen comes with Rangers involved. The mention also comes after the first mentions of the heavy rainfall and mention that 'All streams were high and turbulent.' We know Dennis was off trail and looping around when last seen. Unless he got back on to a trail, no one was looking off trail until at least 8:30 in pouring rain and coming darkness. It was followed up on and the FBI didn't 'do nothing'. They visited the site with the witness. The timeframe is everything here. I've shown you, with sources quoted, that the scream happened at the same time, up to an hour before and certainly no later than an hour after Dennis went missing 90 minutes away. The FBI, with the Rangers, did what was necessary to conclusively establish that the encounter was completely unrelated to Dennis' disappearance and therefore not credible evidence of a kidnapping and therefore outside of the FBI's authority. You've provided no evidence or sources to suggest otherwise. No they don't, but plenty of forest animals make noises that could potentially be mistaken for a scream. Men who don't want to be seen or approached also have the potential to scream. There's simply no reason to believe that the scream was Dennis given that it would be impossible for him to be there, and you've provided nothing to suggest why it should be considered him. I absolutely agree that people were evicted to establish the park. Where you lose me is the leap that some haven't left, that the NPS/FBI would leap to the conclusion that they were child abductors, certainly responsible for a kidnapping (for which there is no evidence of kidnap anyway) and in collusion with the military, send in the Green Berets to take them out. Again, you've provided nothing to back up those huge assumptions and leaps in logic. I don't know why. I have given you quotes and sources for why they were included in this particular search. I've also suggested a logical answer to your question - that is that they weren't previously training in the local area at a time when a massive public SAR was happening and required the exact skills that the Green Berets had experience of and were currently training for. The NPS documents suggest improvements that could be made to SAR procedures, including using fewer searchers and concentrating on ones with specific knowledge of the area and tracking skills. 'could this have precluded using Green Berets in future? Again, I'm not stating that I know for certain, but it sure seems more likely than sending them in to take out mountain men or 'feral' humans in front of hundreds of potential civilian witnesses based on no evidence of wrongdoing. You're the one making an assertion that the official line is false and that there was another reason for the use of Green Berets, but you haven't provided anything to back it up. The FBI and NPS documents show that the 'Search admittedly was not absolute. This is extremely rugged terrain covered with heavy brush and woods and contains many deep crevices and sink holes.' As I have shown, the search covered 56 square miles by the end of the 9th day, meaning a search radius of 4.22 miles, not covered absolutely. I've also shown that with a speed of 1mph, by the time the co-ordinated search started on the morning after he went missing, Dennis could have been anywhere within a 450 square mile area. With a speed of 1mph, by the time the first Rangers and family started searching off trail that night, Dennis would have been at the outer edges of what was searched, but not absolutely, by the end of the 9th day. Any bear/cougar could have dragged him into an area not accessible for human searching, or outside the outer edges of what was searched. Your point also doesn't deal with the potential for accident, being washed away in those streams that were 'high and turbulent' even on that first night, or those sink holes, crevices and any other areas that couldn't be searched within, let alone without the search radius. You are stating things as a certainty, when they are absolutely not certain, then using that as a launchpad for a vague conspiracy that has no supporting facts and without providing any evidence or sources to back it up. This seems disingenuous to me. You say you have no dog in the fight, but keep repeating that the Harold Key encounter indicates something nefarious, in particular a kidnapping. You mentioned a 'mangy' human carrying something through the woods. I asserted that that was incorrect and provided quotes and reasoning, as well as showing how the encounter couldn't be relevant unless you accepted 411's false timeline. You didn't dispute my assertions or provide anything to disprove them but rather repeated the description of a mangy man carrying something through the woods that seems to be a Paulides fabrication, and use that fabrication as a reason to doubt the FBI assessment and thereby suggest some further conspiracy. You also mentioned Paulides in your first post on this thread and asserted on the 411 thread that he wasn't lying. You say that the case is well known 'because of the oddities associated with it' but on the 411 thread state that 'the fact still remains that without Paulides I would have no clue about Dennis Martin' and many of the oddities that you have listed and repeated are based on Paulides' untruths. My distrust of Paulides is not bias, it is a rational assessment of his reliability, or lack thereof, to accurately present the facts, some of which I have demonstrated in this thread, and which distrust is widely shared and proven elsewhere regarding this and other cases. I truly do not have a dog in the fight, I have satisfied myself of Paulides' unreliability and would be more than happy to discuss the case without any reference to him whatsoever. However, that is not possible until his inaccuracies are removed from the discussion, and at present, some of your arguments seem based on them, and you have provided no evidence or other sources to back up those arguments.

MIB suggested that I chime in on this discussion. I've been busy with various pursuits for the last month or so. But I can now 'chime in'... Clarification on the bones is that yes we did find a single bone with both adult and juvenile teeth impressions on it. Other work we have done in the last year also supports the evidence of small family units. We have seen no evidence of large groups. What we have found also shows that when feeding on the meat of an animal, it is done in the location of the kill site. It has been suggested that there should be a swath showing their feeding behavior. In the case of this kind of feeding on meat, it is scattered and not necessarily easy to find. Just as the case is with any other animal kills. The thing is, if bigfoot exists, it has existed in the ecosystem for millenia. Most agree that it is an omnivore. So when we look for that so called swath of feeding behavior how do we know whether it was chipmunks, bears, coyotes or bigfoot that cleaned out that field of huckleberries. What turned all those rocks over looking for insects? Or tore apart those logs and stumps that you find throughout the forest? What browsed all the leaves off the salmonberries and blackberries along that forest edge? Elk, deer, rabbits or just maybe bigfoot? We have found evidence that they feed on larger animals. The argument here is not whether they killed them, although the possibility exists, because we have also found evidence of confiscation of cougar kills. It also appears to be seasonal, late winter and early spring; the lean times in the forest. Just as the aforementioned seasonal feeding of bears on moths. So their diet varies over the year. Some may think there are few animal kills in the forest. In one 30 acre clearcut we found 2 dead elk, a cow and later a calf, in one week's period of time. Both fresh kills. The cow was feed on by 2 bears and went from a whole elk to a pile of bones in three days. Nothing goes to waste in the wild. Within a mile of there was another fresh kill although I couldn't find that one. It was definitely there. The point is the evidence is there but are we able to differentiate and interpret what did it?