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

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!

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 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..

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.

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.

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.

Stay safe!

Great video—I really appreciate it telling why so many samples are taken. I was privileged to go with a group from Mass. Herpetological Society to see the back storage rooms of reptiles and amphibians at Harvard University’s Zoology Museum. Understanding that scientists and students still use them is fascinating.

Not to mention up and over mountains from one drainage to another. But I've witnessed wild animals (specifically bears and caribou) do that, both at a trot and full run.

'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..'

If the Washington DOT has caught it on FLIR cameras? The Feds have certainly caught it on all their surveillance.

What isn't so obvious to me is this: Why let their incalcitrant demands dictate my beliefs and activities? Why must I drag them kicking and screaming into what I believe is true? Why not let them rest smugly in their offices and classrooms in proud denial? I'm not responsible to update biology or anthropology. My hope is simply to see a sasquatch in the wild before I die (which is becoming pretty unlikely to occur now).

This is a very good point. We assume the 1,000 of miles of border are so secured they could see easily anything from a lost dog to bigfoot (and clearly identify it). Is that assumption correct? Assuming that is the case, it's a strong point. Are all areas of the northern border protected equally? I don't know how good the tech is and if that tech is universally that good along the entire border. Could good tech still so limited it looks like a blob on a scan resembling a hunter in the woods? I don't know Are there enough eyes to see? How good are those eyes? Finally, if Bigfoot is near extinct there are few encounter opportunities. Patty probably lived her entire life in Bluff Creek and the surrounding area. Unless she felt the need to travel, she may have never traveled more than X miles from home here entire life. If so, that might be she never was near the Canadian border. Granted that only might account for one specimin- Patty. Security cam from a store robbery: Cheap cell phone: Could be. For an event to be covered up the event first has to occur in the first place. Then, assuming it does, there has to be a motivation for those coving up to cover up. I can dream up scenarios for or against this idea. I will keep an open mind for now.

No, but the original "discovery" of lowland gorillas (a process during the years 1847-1859) came (part and parcel) with a world ideology/struggle that continues to this day: Darwinism.

Until they fall into one category or the other, they don't fall into either. And, if they are never classified, they will never fall into either category. So, I think you are putting the cart before the horse. I read your post (and certainly not trying to call you out, especially since you graciously run the show here and participate intelligently, probably more than anyone else.) But, I still have not seen any indication that a full skeleton of both a male and a female Bigfoot would be required by Science.

.........AND there are millions more people out there to see them, AND actually looking for them. The human population of this planet has quadrupled in just the last century: 10,000 BCE: About 4 million people lived on Earth after the shift toward agriculture. 1 CE: Around 170 million to 300 million people. 1804: Reached 1 billion for the first time, taking all of human history. 1927: Reached 2 billion (123 years later). 1960: Reached 3 billion (33 years later). 1974: Reached 4 billion (14 years later). 1987: Reached 5 billion (13 years later). 1999: Reached 6 billion (12 years later). 2011: Reached 7 billion (12 years later). 2022: Reached 8 billion on November 15, 2022 (11 years later)

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.

Lake Shelbyville Illinois:

Stellar thought the lights were off and the party over

That is an insightful question. I saw what I saw, I know what I know. Though convincing to me, because I was there observing, not merely hearing the account afterwards, I would be disappointed if anyone looked at my sighting accounts as anything other than "just another anecdote" so far as "proof" goes. I don't even have a picture to back them up with. That makes them, frankly, pretty weak sauce so far as proving anything at all. I hope that for someone already convinced by some other body of evidence, they are interesting and maybe educational, maybe fill in some gaps. At least for a couple of the tracks I do have pictures. They are open to interpretation. For interested individuals, they might well be interesting / educational, but I have no delusions that those constitute proof either. They'd barely make the grade as serious evidence. Same for the audio. All are most useful as interesting data points for those who are interested. They should never be thought of as proof or even as strong evidence. Does this make sense? I hope so, hope it gives some context for how I see my own meager "offerings."

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.

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!

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.

Excellent interview, Daniel!

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.

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.

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.

Take care / stay safe!!

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!

We are on the Kaiser Canyon Fire. Doing reclaim. We came across the Keller Ferry. Staging at Keller Wa.

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

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 Oregon

^Those behaviors are commonly reported. Random find, interesting full report. https://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=414

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.

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.

The "Public" involved in the world "Public opinion" would include a large groups of millions of people containing many sub groups. These groups would be expected to have various complicated thoughts on Bigfoot. Bigfoot is the concern here. I would have thought the Bigfoot issue as it relates to anyone in the public is a binary choice. You either believe in Bigfoot or you don't. Yet it is more complicated than that. My first thought might be the 3 "Public" camps. 1) Bigfoot doesn't exist 2) Bigfoot might/could exist 3) Bigfoot exists! If we consider group #3 Bigfoot Exists your post shows me there are further groups in just that group. That is, some might believe: -Bigfoot is an Alien riding on space ships. -Bigfoot is an animal known by the government and actively kept hidden from the public for scary reasons. - Bigfoot is real and the government is keeping it quiet until it captures one and can understand it. Until then they don't want hunters shooting at each other. -Bigfoot is a form of undiscovered ape man out there in the wilderness more human than ape and more or less human. -Bigfoot is some human like man Ape running around in the wilderness. -And so on and so on. If someone thinks the government knows and is actively involved in a secret Bigfoot conspiracy I would contend that is probably a very small number of people. I say this because it requires not just the belief in bigfoot but a government who can actively cooperate with Bigfoot and work to keep it quiet. When I say the Jury of Public opinion to me it means group 1 and group 2 can be moved to be more open-minded. Put another way its moving group 1 to group 2 or 3 to the extent you can. Does the government know or care? That is a sub discussion for those in Group 3. My guess would be only a minority of those in group 3 think that. Still, such an opinion could very well be true. I just don't happen to be one of them. I am open to the idea our government would want to keep important things from the public. Does Bigfoot reach that level? Not for me but I am in Group 2 at this time. Until I moved to group 3, I cannot seriously consider this at the same level as those already in group 3, with all due respect to those who do.

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.

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.