Leaderboard

Do you believe chimpanzees really do exist? If yes, did you believe that chimpanzees really existed before 2004? If yes again, that would impossible to believe if fossilized remains are the benchmark by which existence is measured. The first fossilized remains of a chimpanzee was not found until September 2004 by Dr. Nina Jablonski in the Rift Valley of Africa. Let's compare the two "creatures". It's estimated that ~250,000 chimpanzees live in Africa, their average lifespan is about 35 years, and they have been in existence ~5-8 million years. Let's be conservative, use 5 million years, and if these estimates are correct, let's do the math. (5,000,000yrs x 250,000 chimps)/40 yr lifespan= 31,250,000,000 billion chimps. So, ~31 billion chimpanzees have lived in Africa yet not one fossilized remain was found until late 2004. Moreover, we all suspect that sasquatches are far more rare than chimpanzees don't we? Armed with this information, in my opinion, that leaves us with the real question which is, "What clear-thinking person would ever expect fossilized remains of a sasquatch to be found?"

Conditions that preserve fossils are extremely rare. It is commonly agreed by professional and academic biologists that less than 1% of the species which have ever lived have left fossils that we have found. Never mind individuals, we're talking about 99% of all species did not leave fossils for us to discover. Contemplate that. Contemplate the implications. Many of those fossils we do have which were land-based lived in flash flood country, they did not live in forests. Flash floods occur in dry climates with infrequent but catastrophic rainfall and cover dead animals then dry them, maybe for decades, in soil that absorbs the deal animal's moisture when the flood ends. Forests have regular rainfall so that fallen dead things don't dry adequately for preservation and have acidic soils that dissolve bones rather than preserving them. The main exception would be in volcanic ash beds .. we can see that in the John Day / Clarno fossil beds in eastern Oregon for instance. So while we might find recent bigfoot remains, given what we know about where bigfoot reports come from, few are in places that are likely to create fossils to discover later. Edit to add .. so if I were looking for fossils, I'd look in the ash beds near the Cascade volcanoes or in the dry washes on the east slope of the Cascades, maybe east slope of the Rockies. I think most other places in the continental US get too much rainfall for preservation needed to produce fossils. MIB

You must be aware of which videos you click on. Otherwise your suggested videos will look like this

You know what I realized yesterday? My YouTube always suggests wildlife content, and every time its polar bears, these bears are being duped by walrus or seals and they almost NEVER get the kill. The media is anti polar bear and I am sick of it. Just show me the King of the North getting some kills already!!!

I think unless you fall into a habituation setting the math is always against you. Both were accidents / surprises, but the more time you spend in good spots at the right times the less unlikely fortunate accidents become. That, combined with being willing to accept what you see. I'll share a story as an example of what I mean by that. My father is a scoftic though he tells one story which suggests he is also a witness. As an early teen, dad accompanied his father who was working as a construction engineer when the ski lift at White Pass in Washington was first built. (I'm not personally familiar with the location.) Apparently dad was in the back of the crummy with the crew and as they drove up the highway, there was a break in a line of trees separating the highway from a field. Through that gap, dad says he saw something out in the field that looked like what he imagines a bigfoot would look like "if bigfoot existed" and that something was not there when they came back at the end of the day. Hmmm. You have to not be so afraid of ridicule that you deny / distance yourself from your own experiences. I doubt most people here would do that but I have to wonder how many people have experiences they just don't want to invite ridicule for. If you separate positive ID sightings from process of elimination sightings, then I've had 2 others. I think both were the same year, 2013, but I can't swear to it, and they were along the same ridge system, within 10 miles or so, of the second of the positive ID sightings. Again, it is being in the right place the right season presenting an opportunity for blind dumb luck to help .. and then not being in denial about what is going on, just matter of fact about pros and cons of what seems to be happening. I hope you have a sighting. Hope it is long enough to satisfy any doubts. My main tool, even though it is only through 2015 or so, is mangani's bigfoot overlay for Google Earth. By messing with the time sliders, if there are enough reports in an area, it suggests seasonal movement. So .. figure out when that's going to be most likely to happen and try to be in place ahead of time. It really helps to have some other reason to be there so boredom doesn't interfere. For me, hunting, fishing, exploring off-trail, a little bit of feeble photography really help the effort. And yet, at the same time, at the moment I can't think of any fairly certain activity I've experienced in several years .. it's been pretty quiet. MIB

^^^ Giant skeletons found and newspaper stories written about them, although good luck tracking down the remains.

Yes. But that does leave out non fossilized remains. What you say is true we had no fossilized remains until 2004. But we had complete specimens dating back to 1641 and the Dutch East Indies company. If an extant species exists in our forests? It would be expected to find non fossilized remains of said species. My personal belief? We have found non fossilized remains before. And they are most likely at the Smithsonian that is strangely exempts from the Indian graves act. They don’t have to cough up the goods. If a Sasquatch skeleton was mistaken for a human giant.

Unfortunately, Bob Gimlin is an unreliable witness (which does not mean I think he's lying). With regards to this issue, he has said that the film site was: two miles from the campsite - see Webster's interview of Roger & Bob in 1967 four miles from the campsite - see John Green's interview of Bob in 1992 and a CBS47 2019 interview of Bob Roger Patterson gave both those estimates and added 3 miles in an interview by Stan Peters Interview of Roger Patterson As to the time they left camp, Bob has said: midday (which could be 1:30 during the summer, I suppose, but not in October) - see Robert Morgan's interview of Bob "right after lunch" (which could be anywhere from 11:00 AM if they were up early to 1:00ish) - Les Stroud's interview with Bob and this 1:30 time, which I believe came from a CBS47 2019 interview of Bob - If I understand correctly, The Lazy Cowboy is using other people's interviews, not his own. And leaving camp about 1:30 contradicts times Bob Gimlin has given for the encounter itself, which include: “about midday, perhaps a little bit after noon time” - again from John Green's interview of Bob in 1992 "Early afternoon" - attributed to John Green's questionnaire in Bigfoot at Bluff Creek by Danny (Daniel) Perez (2003) about 2:00 PM - Finding Bigfoot Legend (2018) All of this because early interviewers asked both Roger and Bob to tell them a story, but did not conduct the kind of interview necessary to determine as precisely as possible the facts. Also, I don't believe that The Lazy Cowboy (or anyone else) cherry-picked a certain interview because it better fits a narrative; instead, it seems a lot of of people are unfamiliar with (or unwilling to admit) the inconsistencies surrounding the P-G film.

Thanks for posting all the articles and that was really a great effort. It was quite interesting to know that some of the reports that I posted were, of value and that the Indians did have a problem with bigfoots that kept bothering them. Your writings are always very detailed and thank-you for participating on this topic. You always do a good job of answering and replying to topics that helps keep the entire forum membership informed.

LOL! I believe it's part of the climate propaganda. Polar bears have become the poster victim, so they show how difficult life is for them. However, it's true that the climate ideology has exploded research into the Arctic, including polar bears. There have been lots of "discoveries" (which, really, are nothing new to the natives). Before all of this, I was well educated on how I never want to encounter one of these "cute" monsters in real life. I don't spend time north of the Arctic Circle, and there are numerous reasons for that. Polar bears are one of them. Brown and black bears are dangerous enough. I want nothing to do with the white guys..............

He lives and operates in top shelf sasquatch habitat. It's sorta' like running into polar bears in Honduras or around Hudson Bay. The Hudson Bay adventures will have the greatest odds of polar bear encounters.........if you're crazy enough to want one........

^^^ Don't disagree with any of this. And based on Bill Munns' work, I have a pretty high degree of confidence that Roger Patterson did indeed film a Bigfoot, not a man in a suit. However, "curing" the timeline issues would have the benefit of taking that topic away from those who argue that Roger and Bob were two hoaxers and part of the proof that they are lying about everything is that they can't keep they're story straight. At least, that's why I puzzle over it.

I think that is true, however, judging the shadows is tricky because slight differences in position of the observer can change the perception of angle a great deal with no real way to remove the error that introduces. An analogy from algebra .. this is a situation of two variables, one equation. To get a precise answer you have to nail one of the variables down so it's a constant. To do that, you have to locate the observer's position precisely, within inches, else the ground slope, etc create uncertainty which means you cannot nail the time down precisely even if you know where the shadow is and what direction, relative to the observer (photo) it seems to be pointing. The timing does matter .. an hour and a half difference matters regarding whether all of the things reported could have occurred in daylight vs dark, how much time was available to get the film to wherever it was flown out of, and so on. BUT .. and "but" matters a lot, none of that changes what is on the film. What matters ultimately is whether or not the PGF shows a living creature, some sort of phantasm, or a man in a suit. The accuracy of the timeline is totally irrelevant to that. The timeline is merely something for people to talk about when they can't address the content in any meaningful way.

The most objective timecard HAS TO BE the shadows. The sun is the sun each day every Oct 20th. If he can match the lay of the land and tree shadows accurately to his model, then we know the time give or take. If it is 3 pm then it is. The Q comes down to how much they could accomplish with a 3 pm encounter vs a 1:30 pm encounter. Finally, it comes down to how accurately the estimate of Lazy Cowboy is. If his model is right AND if his model can measure the shadow length accurately then it must be pretty close.

Gimlin stated in a "Coast to Coast" interview a few years back, that they were planning to "go in" about 35 or 40 miles that day and stay overnight. Seems like a bit of a late start if they didn't leave till sometime after lunch and (according to Gimlin) it starts getting dark around 4 there.

Very good learning tool but I disagree with his approach toward declination. "East is least and west is best" sounds simple but it adds an element of work in the field that, in my opinion, is totally unnecessary. Moreover, if a person is trouble, because they are injured or suffering from hypothermia, and not thinking correctly, they may add the declination rather than subtract it. Now, they will be far off course and that error may needlessly cost them their life. I always draw declination lines on my map in the confort of my home and before I ever go into the woods. That way, I can take readings on the fly without ever having to orient the map. The declination lines drawn in advance cure that problem. A few other issues can rear their ugly head in the field that cause taking a reading a challenge. How do you easily orient the map so when there is a torrential downpour? When you took a reading, were you sure there wasn't metallic substance in a rock just below the surface you laid the map that could affect the magnetic needle? With my approach, I can lay the map on an electromagnet and it doesn't matter. I'm no longer using the magnetic needle to take a reading. My approach allows you to take a reading the fly, in rain or snow. It doesn't matter, it is quick, and there is no stopping to orient the map. Here is the best information I've ever found that talks about navigation skills and terrain association and it demonstrates the map-marking technique I mentioned above: https://www.adkhighpeaksfoundation.org/adkhpf/navagation.php Here are two video that show the technique of drawing magnetic north lines on a map. The bottom one discsusses declination at length if you are so inclined: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpXibF_yK2c https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=peu7uMp0cVU Edited because I wanted to link a 2nd video by the same individual

Just to continue the prior (as I didn't know how long it would be), there were no mentions of "Sacred Baby Mountain" in newspapers.com. Nor are there any when doing a general web search apart from those tied to websites reporting this specific story. Searching for "Captain Joshua LeFlore" draws a blank in newspapers.com; omitting his supposed rank brings up mostly wedding announcements, obituaries, a sale of land, and a murder case in Atoka, Oklahoma where a Joshua LeFlore pled guilty to manslaughter in 1899. The so-called professor is an author who has a bunch of sensationalist books listed on Amazon, etc., but most of them appear to be out of print. I will say that the Choctaw Lighthorsemen sound like an interesting bunch, breaking up political impasses (by forcing one side out of the assembly hall) in 1897 and enforcing bans on alcohol in their territory (after a sort) in 1902. One of their early leaders was indicted for introducing liquor into the Indian Territory (that's a legal term that is still used in court cases today) in 1914 and arresting some businessmen who circumvented the law to get a railroad run through the reservation in 1920.