Leaderboard

I think the best circumstantial evidence was obtained by the Olympic Project.

One of our own forum members!👏🏻

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! MIB

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.

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.

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.

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.........lol

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.

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.

^^^ 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.

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.

The distinction I am trying to make? Is that a Bear is not self aware. It doesn’t recognize itself in a mirror, it attacks the mirror. It doesn’t understand that it’s leaving tracks that others can follow either. It itself tracks like a bloodhound, on scent. It has poor eyesight, but most importantly it’s not self aware. Knuckle walking great apes are self aware. They may react like a Bear at first. But they quickly figure out they are seeing their own reflection. Jeff Meldrum talks about making Chimp casts and observing the chimps be self aware of their own footprints in the sand. So if knuckle walking great apes are self aware? Surely a bipedal Sasquatch is more self aware than they are. This is the cognition part that most animals lack. So back to tracks. If you live in the woods and are hunting and foraging in the woods? You’re gonna leave sign. It’s inescapable. The key difference is having the cognitive ability to understand this. And if you don’t want to be found? Then you’re going to mitigate the risk as much as feesably possible. But you cannot erase it entirely. But if you understand this concept you can also use it as a WEAPON against the trackers. You could leave a short track way in the opposite direction of your families intended travel. You could stage a track in an area where you can easily observe your trackers from concealment. A false trail buys you time while the tracker has to sort it out. There are lots of counter tactics in the game of tracker and being tracked. This leaves the territory of a hunter tracking a deer through the woods. This is military and law enforcement territory. Where a tracked human could be leading you into an ambush. Now you’re asking yourself things like? Why is this track left in such an obvious way? Is it a misdirection? Are we being observed? Is it a stall for time? You may be a city slicker but if you’re honestly interested in this subject? There are lots of good books to read and you can practice some of it in your own backyard or a park. I observed a trackway in snow with my father. I have zero doubt that a Sasquatch knows it’s leaving tracks. IT KNOWS. So the question then becomes did it care? Or could it not be helped? If it doesn’t care then it probably has an ulterior motive. Which should send a cold shiver up your spine. But in our case hunting for a Xmas tree in an area we normally would not be in that time of year? And in deep snow? It probably just couldn’t be helped. In that case it’s probably betting on the fact that a human on snowshoes just cannot keep up in deep snow in mountainous terrain. And it is impossible to erase a snow trackway anyhow. So make haste. I have mulled this concept over in my head many times. Even when I am out in the woods looking for tracks. A quarry that understands that you could be tracking it? Is a paradigm shift for most hunters, hikers and lay people. Tracks will never be the smoking gun. Dental resin casts are great conversation pieces but nothing more. But tracks will lead you to the creature…. That’s a certainty. IF we are good enough to follow them and the weather holds.🤷‍♂️ The ultimate game of hide and seek.

Hi, i'm exited to join.

Not only is interesting I would have thought it would have provoked 50 posts by now

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.

The following account of the event came mainly from two visits I had with Peter: first in early May of 2003 when I stayed with him for three days, and in September of that year when he put me up again for two days. We also talked about the shooting incident several times by phone, before and since my visits. The word-for-word questions and Peter’s answers presented here were mostly from the May visit; we sat together in his home where he lives alone now. I taped our conversation. The reader will note a leading tendency in my questions. The prior discussions, I bel ............................read on BFRO Report 9552- Moose hunter shoots -bigfoot- to death.url This BFRO account describes a young 17 year old Canadian moose hunter who shot and killed a bigfoot. This report is plausible enough to be published in the BFRO reports so there is a chance it could be true. Is this a myth or monster event that came about in a small Canadian village? Why is Bigfoot so hard to track, stalk, and capture? Some on the forum now throw the creature into the myth category. If bigfoot is a thousand times more intelligent and wary than a jungle monkey, it becomes a thousand times as difficult to stalk and capture live or deceased. Some animals are just too smart or wary and have incredible hearing and sense of smell. Some seem to fit into the myth category much like Michael Jordan , Joe Namath or a Roswell alien to name a few super individuals. Every now and then bigfoot will slip up and will be captured like Patty was captured on film. The lucky Canadian hunter will repeat itself and a body will be produced to cause bigfoot to be identified as a monster. BFRO Report 9552- Moose hunter shoots -bigfoot- to death.url

Lake Shelbyville Illinois:

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.

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.

XSPIDER ONE, a very comprehensive reply and totally agree with you. Thanks for addding to this topic and will reply to each of your discussion points. I WILL REPLY IN ALL CAPITALS. That is actually a very good question/point. Although I am not a witness to Bigfoot, I contend that there are many witnesses who have their own undeniable proof. It is a fantastical subject to convince anyone else of, but I would venture to say that there are Bigfoot witnesses who are more convinced by their own experience than they would otherwise be by any Scientific, peer-reviewed paper. They know what they saw and what they experienced! Most of us have probably read that a (personally) indisputable Bigfoot experience can be life changing. VERY WELL PUT AND WE NEED MORE SCIENTIST WHO HAVE ADVANCED DEGREES IN PRIMATE STUDIES WHO ARE ALSO EYEWITNESSES SO THE SUBJECT OF PROOF CAN BE MOVED FORWARD. However, and to the point, Google AI sums up the situation clearly, in my opinion: "Bigfoot could be scientifically proven only by providing a verifiable type specimen, such as an intact physical body or clear tissue sample, that undergoes independent, peer-reviewed analysis." I READ AN EYE WITNESS REPORT FROM A CANADIAN WHO LIVED IN A SMALL VILLAGE, AND WAS DEER OR ELK HUNTINS, SAW A BIGFOOT, AND ENDED ITS LIFE TRAGICALLY. HOW MANY CASES LIKE THIS THAT HAVE FAILED TO PROVIDE PROOF ? Unfortunately, testimony, video, footprints, structures, audio, etc. etc. will not suffice. In the warmer (hot) months, I see a bug almost every week that I have never seen before. My dad told me that it's the same where he lives, 900 miles away. It very well could be that some of those bugs are not yet scientifically classified and, I don't think that most people would deny that as a possibility. With Bigfoot, things are entirely different. It is a radical subject which probably 99.999% of people in the world have no personal experience. So, the easiest default opinion is to simply deny the possibility. THERE ARE PROBABLY MANY PRIMATE ADVANCED DEGREES BIOLOGIST WHO AGREE WITH BIGFOOT EVIDENCE BUT WILL NEVER COMMENT SINCE THE TOPIC IS A CAREER DETRACTOR. ONLY THE RISK TAKERS DARE SPEAK IN FAVOR OF BIGFOOTS EXISTENCE.

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.

Well definitely the discussions are a big part of it, as its always great to bounce ideas and get opinions and critiques, asking questions, even if sasquatch don't look like a shaved bear. I like the paranormal section, and I've yet to access the tarpit, but heck I couldn't even say how many years I've been coming here posting my own crazy ideas, hypothesesiz, answers/solutions, approach, long winded replies that might seem nearly rational at the outset, but then kinda veer off to something about generalist omnivores in the Pleistocene, and how wood tools work just fine when you can bench press a tractor, and sometimes even try my hand at Bigfoot humor, sometimes to make or illustrate a point, other times not so much. But gosh, you guys, after all these years we're nearly family! Sure some of has might be that grumpy uncle we seat at the other table, but still! Hey anybody here from Aunt Sasfooty lately?

Thanks for the info about the eclipse tonight!

Hi everyone. I reside in Ontario, Canada. Been interested in Bigfoot and cryptozoology and have been reading up on them on and off for over 20 years.

Hello! I'm a new person. I'm an avid lover and a believer in Bigfoot.

Hey how are yall from Louisiana

Agreed this is a great interview. Very timely considering the upcoming supposed release of the Capturing Bigfoot piece. Mr Perez’ book, Bigfoot at Bluff Creek, is excellent. I consider it a must read for those of us who want a complete breakdown of the Patterson Gimlin Film and all its history. Mr Perez was able to tie all the loosely connected dangling threads (people, places, things) into a cohesive explanation of the timeline of events and evidence surrounding the film.

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.

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.

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.

Hi, My name is Jack and I'm from Massachusetts, I'm new(ish) to the subject and look forward to learning more. Thank you for having me. Can't wait to dive right in!

Hey been casual but skeptical bigfoot fan since childhood. working on screenplay and investigating the pnw has made me full believer.

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.

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..;)

^^^ 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).

Hello, my interest in bigfoot started years ago as a kid. It went away until I decided to embrace it for real a couple of years ago! I went on a BFRO expedition in New Mexico, and might possibly have had an experience... not exactly sure, but have some great pics. Now I'm in Florida and would love to get in with folks and learn all that I can.

^^^ 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.

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!

Tar pit is still there. I am in favor of just ending the Premium membership. We can ask for donations once a year to keep the forum going. And I am willing to pick up the slack if it’s short. And Gigantor has graciously allowed us his server to use. But it’s open to discussion for cadre.

Funny you mention the logging trucks! I remember as a kid my folks took us on summer trips in the 25' foot motor home in the late 60s/early 70s. Up through California, oregon, and Washington into BC and Alberta a couple times and there were always a ton of trucks hauling logs, crazy like! And speaking of arson, I heard just the other day that there's been people betting on brush fires, their occurrences, maybe durations, etc on those new "bet-on-anything" online gambling sites. Now that's just asking for arsonists!

Koko and her sign language is actually quite remarkable. She not only used words in proper context, indicating conceptual understanding, she also would combine two words to express something she didn't already have a word/sign for. She acquired a very substantial vocabulary/lexicon of signs, and could express herself with pretty amazing clarity, especially in her later years. She also taught her offspring. What this says to me is that the cognitive basis for language exists before the physical processes develop. Unless, of course, it was our evolution of grunts and simple name gestures within our social context combined with our ever more upright stance and neck configuration which allowed us more refined control of the sounds we make, leading to defined verbal language, vocabulary and syntax which overshadowed any gesturing except during hunting when silence was needed. Only later would a more comprehensive gestural language be developed. And in this paradigm we humans imparted language to primates long before they had symbolic gestural communications, and that it required us and our pathway to be able to introduce verbal language of any form to them. And in doing so we effectively "violated the prime directive" by altering the course of their natural development. I guess the next stage of the experiment, were it not for contagions, would be to release signing great apes back into wild populations to see if this spread through different groups, and if they would find it an adaptation that betters their chances of survival or expands their capacity for abstraction. It is of interest to note that not only gorillas have learned this, but also chimps and orangutans, so there's some underlying predisposition for language amongst all of us.

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.....

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.

A BF-related report of such a "find" of bones outside a cave was distributed by Ray Crowe ("keep your skepticals on"). report cited by Oregon Bigfoot. The actual location was clarified to me by Autumn Williams -- it is a few miles from Hemlock Lake. I suppose she either contacted the witness or got more information from Ray. I looked for the site but the mountain is very steep with slowly accumulating rubble below from cliffs / bluffs crumbling above such that the cave must have been covered over. There are other caves in the mountain but, looking uphill above them up the "slide chutes", I think it would be risky crossing to access them with the possibility of having a major rock fall occur while exposed on a very uneven surface with nowhere to take cover.

There have been several sightings of Bigfoot in the past few years near the Missouri River at La Benite Park in Sugar Creek, at the conservation area in Sugar Creek, and in Independence, in that same general area. The Missouri River is 3.66 miles from the recent sighting, and .48 miles from the railroad line, which passes right by the Missouri River. Several people (including me) have heard things that could have been Bigfoot (heavy footsteps on the gravel late at night, loud grunts, and on two occasions, rails being banged against each other, which I doubt a human could do) along the railroad cut that goes directly behind my house, which is 2 miles from the most recent location. The cuts are heavily overgrown with bushes and trees. I need to write an article about these reports.

I think so. I think there are mysteries still not understood by modern science. I won’t get into religious overtones here. But the Book of Enoch (which is not found in the Protestant or Catholic bible) holds some profound statements in it about our origins.

I was under the impression that the book was closed on this terrible footage long ago. What I mean is mostly likely human, but not discernible because of the awful quality. Apparent removal of the head of the costume doesn't help.

Xspider1 its going to have to be a pretty extreme and extensive mutation for an individual to be deemed a unique species. The mutations would have have to be extensive enough to disguise the markers used to differentiate the original species, and I have hard time envisioning that occurring in anything but like bacteria, or fruit flies at best with their four chromasomes...maybe.... I'd think most mutations that would cause drastic morphological changes will prove lethal from the get go or shortly there after, unless, of course its the result of direct genetic manipulation recombining the genes of disparate species in a plotted out effort, but even then the original species involved could be identified. Were it by just a single inheritable trait that sasquatch is set apart from modern humans then it might well be attributed to an aberrant mutation, but there's clearly more involved in the differentiation between us.