Leaderboard
Popular Content
Showing content with the highest reputation since 08/14/2026 in all areas
-
I think the best circumstantial evidence was obtained by the Olympic Project.5 points
-
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
-
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
-
Just wondering if its still the seething hotbed of opinions and contention it was always rumored to be.....also I'm still curious about the purple glow.........lol2 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
-
I think you have to ask some followup questions. 1) WHEN did the encounter occur, because I think media attention has changed the answer over time, at least in terms of averages. 2) WHO are you? Because I think different demographics have different propensities to report. I take a LOT of local reports via word of mouth that are never formally submitted .. truly, I've heard many accounts even from BFRO and Olympic Project members around the campfire that I do not think are part of any public database. I think we have to be very careful, in the context of your question, about assuming any uniformity of answer. Then there's the question of what constitutes a report? Formal submission? Sharing with other bigfooters informally? Sharing with family .. who may not be proponents? Those will vary for each of us depending on something which may vary from trust of those we're sharing with to deliberately, abrasively jamming it down their throats and daring them to voice doubt.2 points
-
I was visiting my cousin (who grew up and currently lives on the northern coast of Oregon) 2 years ago and she revealed to me that she had a sighting in her backyard in the 80's. She has known of my interest in squatching for the last 15 years, but never said a thing. She finally opened up and told everyone after 40 years.2 points
-
^^^ Absolutely. That's one reason why old reports may be less reliable. Numerous (probably most) encounter reports give only the year, then at best the month and date. However, the inability to remember a date doesn't necessarily taint a witness's report. I can recount in painful detail a jump I made somewhere between '85 and '86 (maybe '87) where the 'chute wrapped around my leg. The fact that I don't remember the date without pulling out my (very short) jump log book doesn't make my recollection of the events any less credible.2 points
-
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.2 points
-
1 point
-
1 point
-
'I personally think the Guy got his locations mixed up, but if he says he made his way up the Toba then we'd have to assume he did.. Assuming this is true however,, i don't believe that he could be sure of being taken 25 Miles North/North East of the Toba by a Sasquatch ( he actually said 10 Miles in what i read ), especially with, as you pointed out, him coming out down by the Sechelt Inlet. That would say to me that he got taken South/South East instead, it would also mean that Mt Baker would have been more likely with regards to visibility. Anyway's, he believed that he had made 10 Miles or so from the head of the Toba Inlet in a North/North East direction when he first noticed disturbances.. He said he was awake for around about 3 hours inside the Sleeping Bag until they reached their destination & was asleep when he was picked up, speed would be unknown but was " going at a trot for a long time ".. He actually said he was awakened when he was picked up but half aseep, then said he had " no idea when it started as i was asleep when he picked me up ".. On his " escape " he made 3 miles in " record time " & then headed West emerging 2 days later on the Salmon Arm of Sechelt Inlet.. He simply must have headed South/South East whilst in the Sleeping Bag, towards the Sechelt Inlet but on the East side of the Jervis Inlet.. The distance from Ostman's alleged Camp which is inclusive of the 10 Miles North East he thought he made from landing at the head of the Toba, to the middle of the Salmon Arm is around 60 Miles.. If we are to assume that Ostman was taken South by the Sasquatch, then in 3 hours the Sasquatch would need to have been going at a pace of around 15 Miles per hour on average for those 3 hours or so that he was aware he was being transported, to be there or thereabouts & within the time & distances..'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
-
Ok, how do we know they are extant? I don't really get what Science requires I guess.. A pinky bone for one, a male and a female type specimen for the other? That doesn't seem reasonable but, you will probably tell me that Science doesn't care what is reasonable, they just demand what they must have before they go out on a limb. It's public opinion, their tenure, potential ridicule, problems at home, etc. that hold most of them back, in my opinion. When our Government released the 'UFO files' did that prove the existence of extra-terrestrial space craft to Science? Too many people just don't care about anything that they perceive as not directly affecting them, especially if it requires them to think.1 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
-
Not only is interesting I would have thought it would have provoked 50 posts by now1 point
-
I think any hominid that is still eeking out an existence while sharing the planet with Homo Sapien cousins are gonna be dang good at avoidance. And part of that avoidance survival strategy will be being super sneaky. But it also ensures that they will be low in numbers. Too high of a population leads them into direct conflict with us. And when I mean “us”…. I mean Pleistocene Humans. A couple of hundred men armed with spears or bows and fire. Only humans organize in such high numbers for combat. I think long ago they learned to stay hidden. 21 species in the genus Homo. Officially we are all that’s left. I don’t think that’s by chance.1 point
-
I want to throw out a random thought, a question I ponder now and then. 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 mean, pretty simple logic .. either option produces a similar number of reports. Since many reports occur in clusters / flurries, then there's nothing in that area again for years, maybe bigfoot is not so uncatchable after all, they're just even more rare than we give them credit for? If they are traveling pretty fast that might account for the "report chasers" always being late, never finding a bigfoot when they arrive. Dunno, just one of those mental tin cans I kick around when I have nothing useful to think about.1 point
-
Could be. I’d say the older I get the longer I go without seeing a debunking of the PGF. Could be a hoax. But the longer I go without seeing a strong hoax case being made the more it suggests Roger and Bob may have really “got the sucker” One can be real but the Government involvement is not required.1 point
-
After some research, here is what I found out about Jacko, the juvenile bigfoot found in Canada. Nov 18 The story of Jacko The story of Jacko – that of a small, apelike, young Sasquatch said to have been captured alive in the 1800s – is a piece of folklore that refuses to die, despite a superb investigative article published in 1975, co-authored by John Green and Sabina W. Sanderson. The investigation into the Jacko story did not began until decades later. During the 1950s, a news reporter named Brian McKelvie became interested in the then-current stories of the Sasquatch being carried by his local British Columbian papers. McKelvie searched for older reports. What he found was the Daily British Colonist July 4, 1884, article about Jacko. The account detailed the sighting of a smallish hairy creature (“something of the gorilla type”) supposedly seen and captured near Yale, British Columbia, on June 30, 1884, and housed in a local jail. McKelvie shared the Jacko account with researchers John Green and René Dahinden. MeKelvie told them this was the only record of the event due to a fire that had destroyed other area newspapers of the time. In 1958 John Green found and interviewed a man (August Castle) who remembered the Jacko talk of the time, but he said his parents did not take him to the jail to see the beast. Other senior citizens remembered the talk of the creature, but no one could produce any truly good evidence for or eyewitness accounts (other than the British Colonist story) of Jacko. The story’s appearance in Ivan T. Sanderson’s 1961 Abominable Snowmen: Legend Come to Life propelled the Jacko incident into history. Other authors, including John Green, René Dahinden/Don Hunter, Grover Krantz, and John Napier, would follow. The story was repeated again and again.1 point
-
You make some very good points in regard to Jacko and if correct the story was repeated in some newspaper. I will do some research to find out what newspaper. If it was written about, there is a chance that the author created a fantastical story about a supposed ape. There is also a 50% chance that the story is true and some unidentified primate was found on the railroad tracks and captured. I will do some research to find more information on Jacko. Let's not throw the report in the trash can yet. Let's allow a chance that the story is true. By the way your post is very informative, well written, and an interesting read.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
-
1 point
-
As a bigfoot investigator, I've taken a number of Bigfoot sighting reports in and around the KC area in the past few years. Most have been near the Missouri River near Sugar Creek, Independence, and east at the Burr Oak woods conservation area. There was also a mothman sighting at Burr Oak Woods. The most recent Bigfoot sighting occured in the city in Independence when a large grey bigfoot was seen near 23rd and Pearl street at dusk. If you have had a sighting in this region, please let me know, as I would like to include it in an upcoming book on the subject.1 point
-
1 point
-
We do not have proof of bigfoot. We have evidence for the existence of bigfoot. The difference matters greatly. The absolute and unavoidable "math" is this: we will not have PROOF of bigfoot until modern science accepts the existence of bigfoot. These are exactly identical. We have some pretty cool evidence. Some is easy enough to dismiss even if it is incorrect to do so, some is pretty hard to rationally dismiss even if a scoftic would do so.1 point
-
1 point
-
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
-
Hello everyone. My name is Hope. I live in the middle of Michigan's thumb. I've been intrigued by Bigfoot since I was very young.1 point
-
Beyond this, i've found some some truly amazing things where the larger, three year data set is concerned, AND i'm still looking to get a fourth consecutive year cleaned up and analysed this year/next year. I'll of course share it when applicable, right here on the forums first..;)1 point
-
^Those behaviors are commonly reported. Random find, interesting full report. https://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=4141 point
-
Yep. A "side consideration" in this regard is that the chances that the date of the 'claimed encounter' is misremembered/misreported the more time passes between event and report submission. My own report to BFRO, for instance, was submitted nearly 30 years after the actual event so the best I could do was try to back in to the date based on events and seasons surrounding it, I didn't have a specific record of the date.1 point
-
^^^ Date of occurrence, to the degree of detail actually reported. Not all websites post date of reporting. A lot of reports from the 50s, 60s, and 70s are reported years or decades after the claimed encounter. For the 2000s, 36% were reported within 30 days of the claimed encounter. After 30 days, but within one year, 18%; after one year, 41%. 4% of the reports didn't provide enough information to draw a conclusion. Overall for 1340 reports, the numbers are 32% (w/in 30 days); 16% (> 30 days to 1 year); 46% (> 1 year); 4% (unknown).1 point
-
^^^ Well, that made me curious. While statistics often don't tell the whole picture, here's some data for the northeast US and eastern Canada (generally east of the St. Lawrence). * The number of possible encounters reported before the P-G film is likely low due to both a lack of human witnesses and a lack of places where a report could be made without the human being locked up as a lunatic. * The higher levels in the 70s, 80s, and 90s would have been driven primarily by "big" encounter reports (the P-G film, Fouke monster, etc.). * The really big spike in the 2000s is due to? Not [Edit to use complete sentences] sure - this would be before Finding Bigfoot, IIRC.1 point
-
It's no secret that the BFF is struggling. It's no one's fault, and some good folks have worked hard to keep the lights on. I'm very grateful to them. The Tar Pit has dwindled, in conjunction with the forum's struggles. I would certainly welcome anyone seeking to dip a toe into its murky depths. Long live BFF!1 point
-
I agree with you on this. To me Bigfoot is near extinction which explains a lot.1 point
-
In. Terms of objective cognition, the mirror test presents a basic dividing line, finding the spot on your forehead, fine. But realizing you're the one leaving those prints, not to mention even noticing them is a different (higher) level of cognitive awareness. Then there's the awareness you're being tracked/hunted, which is something all sorts of animals display. They know when something's after them if not simply taken by surprise in a direct assault. I would doubt, however, that most realize their tracks contribute to their trail. But those that do make that connection are acting on a higher level. And to actively hide their tracks higher still. However, its akin to a quantum leap of intelligence/cognition to use ones tracks to manipulate your persuer's perception by means of strategic misdirection. That's some crafty forest ninja level of avoidance behavior. That's a being capable of envisioning its hunters mindset and setting "traps" based on what it perceives as your expectational/interpretational set. And THAT is pretty dang clever! Almost frighteningly so.....1 point
-
Hi. My Username is FieldAnomaly, you can call me Scott. I've always been interested in Bigfoot type stories since high school (a long time ago) but it hasn't been a primary interest up until the last 6-8 months. I am a paranormal investigator with 20+ years experience in science-based investigations. I wrote a White Paper on the environmental events sometimes associated with Bigfoot encounters. I've recently applied my paranormal techniques on 2 solo backpacking trips, one on the Superior Hiking Trail, and one on the TN/KY border. I believe that if Bigfoot encounter stories are accurate, I can measure and quantify environmental changes. I'll be posting more in the main body, I'm just introducing myself for now.1 point
-
This is a great point - Bigfoot probably do leave signs, but ... 1) If they live in very remote areas, few people will go there to find those signs. 2) If they dine and dash (graze on plants or pick off animals and then move on), then the evidence won't accumulate in one neat pile. 3) As a large animal, they probably have a large home range, so the bread crumbs are scattered over a very wide area. 4) The largest (credible) group of Bigfoot I've seen reported is 4 at one time, two adults and two juvenile-sized Bigfoot. If they do congregate somewhere, its very far from where humans go. Not arguing with any of the points you made - just want to start fleshing out some common sense (I hope) explanations for when skofftics show up and start saying, "where's the poop, where's the bone piles?"1 point
-
Buy a compass that has an adjustable declination indicator. I use my Silva Ranger that I kept from the army. It is also graduated in mils, as oppossed to degrees. The NCEI Geomagnetic Calculator (https://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/geomag/calculators/magcalc.shtml ) can calculate your declination. Adjust the declination indicator on your compass. As long as you orient your map to north when taking your bearing, you're good to go. The declination itself will not noticeably change for a couple hundred miles (kms) in any direction, so the chances of you accidently walkiing off a cliff are slim ... unless you're in the habit of hiking with your eyes closed.1 point
-
Interesting. So far as the cases I've been able to dig into personally, the further I dig the more off-the-mark he is. I would like to believe what he has to say but it simply does not hold up to scrutiny. Most of the reports I've dug into have been in the Crater Lake cluster along with a couple in Idaho. I'll try to give him the benefit of the doubt in other places.1 point
This leaderboard is set to New York/GMT-04:00
