Leaderboard

A local young family contacted me recently, after seeing the latest episode (#3) of Small Town Monsters - Sasquatch Quest, about getting to some of the sighting locations, so Thomas, MagniAesir, and I are taking them on a road trip to several of the sites along the west side of Harrison Lake tomorrow. They seem pretty excited about getting out there, so I hope we don't dissapoint them. Bill (MagniAseir) and I are in the planning stages of an epic late summer road trip from our homes near the southern border of BC all the way to the Arctic Ocean, at Tuktoyaktuk, NWT. We don't expect to encounter Sasquatch there, but we should see just about every other type of northern critter, moose, caribou, grizzly, maybe even muskox or polar bear. It's a bucket list trip for Bill, and I'm excited to come along!

Got back from the woods and was skunked by Bigfoot and morels. Didn't find either one, lol. I was in one area up on a ridge and there was a ton of elk sign. Found one spot where something big and heavy lay down about 4' in diameter. I assume it was an elk. Then I came across a couple of young healthy trees that were just pushed over. The first one I thought was odd. Then another 100yds or so, I found another one. Same species, same size. Same damage just above the roots. Very odd. The third one, on the same ridge, and about another 100yds down the ridge from the last one caused me to take a photo of it to study later. Then this in the same area... Ironic since my first and last names start with "T". Other than that, nothing "squatchy". No prints, no wood knocks, no whoops, tree structures, or anything else. But, I did find a couple of great camping spots for my ambulance later this summer, and saw some beautiful country. Carried my latest 10mm to see how I liked it...

Credit where credit is due to Sircalum (for posting the link) and to Matt Moneymaker (for offering an alternative explanation for this film). Everyone here seems to be accepting, at face value, that this new film was shot before the P-G film and was a rehearsal for it. For those who can't (or haven't) read MM's Facebook post, he posits that the new film was shot after the P-G film and was an attempt to recreate the encounter. Why? One reason suggested by MM is that Al DeAtley wanted to have a longer film to show and - let's face it - the P-G film as originally shot is not all that good. So perhaps Al DeAtley and Roger Patterson (and Bob Gimlin, if that's him in this film) wanted to have more film to show on the movie circuit and experimented with a quickly bought (or made) costume to see if they could get something useful. If so, this would have been done within weeks of the P-G film while Roger still had the rented (and misappropriated) camera. Alternatively, Al DeAtley could have been trying to prove to himself that the P-G film wasn't a hoax by trying to recreate it. Only pointing this out because at this time, we don't know when the film was shot. We know when the film was manufactured, but we know nothing else about when it was used, or when it was processed. So if the film Capturing Bigfoot is labeling this as a "trial run" they have not, at this point, laid an adequate foundation for doing so.

I'm confident it is and that those skeptics have another hole in their feet.

@Madison5716 I don't get here very often, so just seeing that I was tagged now. To answer your question, my study is the place to send any potential physical samples. Jeff was sending samples to me before he passed, and every biological sample he still had in his lab that folks had previously sent to him is coming to me at NC State. The link to offer samples is the first button/link on this page: https://sites.google.com/ncsu.edu/darbyorcutt/home Unfortunately, Henner passed very soon after Jeff. He was a big supporter of my work too, and both he and Jeff were eager to see what my findings would be.

What do you think about his analysis?

Fascinating. In particular, the 40 consistent behavioral similarities that Grok found in reported Bigfoot sightings is mind-bending. I really, really don't think that so many different people (eye-witnesses) would even be capable of making all that up. "Neither group (skeptics or believers) is comfortable with findings that suggest the phenomenon is real, but incomprehensible within current paradigms." That has been my take on the subject now for several years. Thanks for posting that video, Norseman. It is excellent.

Not only is it not the pre-Patty Bigfoot, that exact still image appears to come from National Wildlife Magazine's 1970 October/November issue, which carried an article called "On the Trail of Bigfoot." That article includes a photo montage; this exact picture is at the center of the montage. The overblown green in this photo triggered a memory; upon review, the photo matches down to the "notch" in Patty's left (trail) leg. Trust but verify - the entire article is in the P-G Film reference library at

Definitely looks like a bait site to me. Maybe Bear? We used to use boughs to cover bait so it makes it harder for the birds to pack it off. Its amazing once they find it how ravenous camp robbers, crows, ravens, etc are.

Went scouting for morels today on my "new" ATV (traded my evil posessed 2022 KLR650 for a 2018 Honda Foreman 500 Rubicon EPS straight across). Found a bunch of mushrooms but had to do some hiking deep off the trail. Still too small for my liking, so left them alone. Woods were again, strangely quiet and my Belgian Malinois mix, who normally ranges out around 30 to 50 yards from me, but keeps me in sight, came in close and wouldn't stray more than a few feet away. I soon found a really odd area. On a hillside, with no draw or creek nearby, there was an area trampled and completely devoid of vegetation, behind a log. It looked like an area had been dug down into, like an animal was trying to reach something in the earth. My dog was very curious about the hole and also started sniffing and pawing at it... The area reminded me of where we set a salt block on our property at the lake. When the salt block is gone, the deer will paw at the ground and lick it to get the salt. But this spot had tree limbs and sticks clearly organized next to it, which was really strange. Again, middle of nowhere and area was completely inaccessible by vehicle just a week or so before due to the wind damage to all the roads and trails. http://blob:https://www.facebook.com/8e94a9a9-7391-4fad-bfac-1b647b9524d0

No chance at all according to Munn's who examined the new film and determined it to be Kodachrome II stock manufactured in 1966. I despise AI and have stopped trusting anything...

I've learned that I don't care to ever watch another minute of the smug Hairy Man Road. His 15 seconds of fame were more than enough.

No, the footprint casts can't be used as evidence to support the PGF because there is no continuous film showing that those footprints were made by Patty. Even if those footprints were genuine(made by an actual bigfoot), that doesn't necessarily mean that they were made by Patty. It could be that Patty was actually just a person in a costume, but those tracks were made by an actual bigfoot. It could be that Patterson and Gimlin faked those tracks, but Patty was real. The point is, those tracks can't be used as evidence for Patty being a real Bigfoot because there's no film footage to show that they're connected. And any reasons can be given as to why there's no footage of Patty being the one that actually made those footprints, but they're all irrelevant. It doesn't matter whether you like this or not, that's just how evidence works. However, the footprints CAN be used against some claims, regarding Patty. I posted a link in the PGF section of this forum that demonstrates how it can be used to do that.

Headed into the Idaho woods Saturday to look for morel mushrooms and BF sign.

Just got back from a hike. My left arch is killing me. Old is dumb. Got up to Priest lake yesterday.

#6 is a huge issue, there's just no reason for Johnson to have the original if he was asked by Roger (or DeAtley) to develop some footage. Giving back a copy rather than the original makes no sense - the other way around does make sense if he felt the need to keep a copy. You may not be aware, but the Den of Geeks podcast on YT interviewed Evans and his partner. Evans (perhaps unwittingly) drops a bombshell: Norm's brother Dave worked with Roger on hoaxes, and wore Bigfoot costumes !. Yes, Evans is accusing Roger of being a serial hoaxer from 1965 to 1972 in Yakima. Ignoring that insult, there's an obvious take from that: Dave did a post-PGF reenactment with his brother Norm in order to mimic what his friend Roger had done. And that's why Norm has the original, because its 'their' work and has nothing to do with Roger. Dave could have sensed a challenge to do what Roger did, or was jealous and thought Roger was hoaxing (and a hoaxer would love to match another hoaxer). That explains why the new footage has so much in common with the PGF. Munns feels it is just too similar to be a coincidence. So either Roger did a rehearsal and then waited 5 months to put into play all the things done in the rehearsal, or Dave Johnson studied the PGF and the following Spring tried to mimic the PGF as best he could. That explains the 'thinner' bigfoot (no ability to convincingly make a massive Bigfoot) and the head that is different than Patty (couldnt match it, did the best he could). If Gimlin is in the new footage, maybe he was so upset with Roger not taking him on tour and cutting him out of the proceeds that he went along with this reenactment. Not a wise decision in retrospect, but perfectly understandable. And if its not Gimlin (doubtful to me), then it further distances Roger from having anything to do with this new footage.

^^ Old Mort, I agree with you on the source of the still - it's from the P-G film. For some reason, the 1970 article which used that frame jazzed the green up to St. Patrick's Day levels of green. So what the Capturing Bigfoot film is using is a print made specifically for publication in a magazine rather than a still from the original P-G film.

That image is a PGF frame that comes right after 352. It captures some actual greenery which confuses the viewer into thinking that it is a different location and season. Full frame is below.

Catching up after two months of overwhelming activity caused by a move to West Virginia .... I had not given adequate attention to this little snippet before. The quote from a Reddit user (on p.1 of this thread) that "This [Roger's Ahtanum Valley film] would later be re-filmed and released as Sasquatch: The Legend of Bigfoot in 1976" implies that someone involved in the P-G film - whether it be Patricia Patterson (since Roger had passed away), Al DeAtley, or Bob Gimlin - with knowledge of the Ahtanum Valley film had helped create the movie to support the reality of the P-G film. In other words, Bob Gimlin and others were involved in an ongoing "conspiracy" to hide the fact that the P-G film was fake. Ronald D. Olson, aka Ron Olson, was an early Bigfoot researcher in Oregon who had planned in 1973 to capture Bigfoot in a steel cage and then in 1976 was using a computer to predict where Bigfoot could be found. See https://bigfootforums.com/topic/124725-oregon-1973-a-steel-cage-for-bigfoot/, https://bigfootforums.com/topic/127168-oregon-1976-a-computer-and-tranquilizer-guns-for-bigfoot/, and https://bigfootforums.com/topic/130473-oregon-1976-ron-olsen-defends-idea-of-bigfoot/#comment-1216088. Ron Olson was also the producer and one of the writers for Sasquatch: The Legend of Bigfoot. No one in the cast of the Ahtanum Valley film is mentioned in the list of actors or crew for Sasquatch: The Legend of Bigfoot on IMDb, which was filmed in Oregon, not Washington. Ron Olson likely would have had enough knowledge about Bigfoot and Sasquatch sightings and the Pacific northwest to come up with a script for a Bigfoot film without updating Roger Patterson's Ahtanum Valley film. Is it possible to prove, that Ron Olson didn't merely update Roger's film? No. But the bare assertion that Roger's film was "re-filmed and released" under a different name is wholly unsupported as well and seems to be a leap by those who want to discredit the P-G film. EDIT: I just added two newspaper articles about the film in the Historical Archive section; they can be read at

I use a variety of mapping softwares with Cal Topo being my favorite. There is a feature in Cal Topo that allows you to draw bearing lines on the map. You can also print any map to a PDF, using whichever mapping software you prefer, then draw parallel lines on that PDF using a protractor if you have Adobe Acrobat or similar software. Then you can print copies from there. I'll do that when I go out with several friends so each of us has the same map with identical magnetic-north lines on it. For fun, I enjoy using just a topo map and terrain association to guide me to my destination. I'm typically under the canopy of trees so you can't see peaks, saddles, or other easily-identifiable terrain features. You have to rely on more subtle items to guide you. Very difficult at first but easy to pick up with practice. When I plan to go to a new location, I carefully study the topo map in advance and try to visualize the hike in 3D before I set foot at the trailhead. That way, you use your mind's eye to help guide you. It is particularly helpful when you're bushwhacking as you will instinctly know if you're not on course based on what you are seeing, or not seeing, as the case may be.

Little ravenous Dinosaurs! They can make quick work of a well baited bear stand.

I had to clean up in and around a storage shed the other day so the wife can use it for a chicken coop. There was a garbage can behind the shed with dog food in it that I use for bear bait, and the food had gotten wet. I was going to drag it out to a local spot just to lay it out with a camera on it as a scouting event, but multiple disasters still regularly happen here at the house, and I've been denied the time to do anything but wipe asses here. So I dumped it in the swale on the property. The magpies were on it within minutes. Their noses are as good as that of a bear, and the speed of their arrival is much quicker. One would think that they knew that food was in the can, but I never saw them hanging out on the can. But once it was poured out, there they were, almost immediately.

That totally makes sense! Thanks for the insight!

I'm already sick of this film, and I've never even seen it. It's somewhat fascinating though. Just pops out of nowhere with zero context. Nobody saw the Norm Johnson angle coming. If, as described, this newly discovered footage is taken in late '66 or early '67, at a completely different location, different season, different environmental conditions, different lighting, different subject, different actor, different camera angle, different subject behaviour, different filming style - then what the heck is he supposed to be testing, exactly - that he can successfully film someone walking in the woods? 1) We're told by Munns and others that there are specific Patty-esque movements on the found footage. That means they have the exact intricate movements planned many months before, then they wait, and wait - for many months. Given that he took a loan to finish his doc that was due for repayment in early June 67, they apparently had the suit and the camera and everything rehearsed down to the movements way before then - and they wait for something? Until late October, 500 miles away when they've already tested what it looks like, filmed relatively speaking on their doorstep, presumably in Bigfoot HQ in Washington, judging by what is described. 2) I think the earliest we have a record of a K100 and Kodachrome II in Patterson's hands is May 13th 1967. That's not to say he couldn't have had another sometime earlier, just that there is no record or other footage known to have been filmed on a K100 prior to May, as far as I know. 3) If, as the Director asserts, it is Al DeAtley in the suit based on his movements, then they have the suit and the actor. It may have been made to measure for Al, as Bob H certainly does not mention being measured up. Why would you want to risk exposing your hoax by dragging some car crash like Bob Heironimus into the inner circle, if you already had someone? That makes no sense from a risk perspective. 4) They have specific movements of the actor all planned and rehearsed in late 66/early 67, then in August they put Bob H in the suit and let him "walk up and down 3 times" in Patterson's back yard (from Long's interview). They never train him on specific movements or show him the film they shot. Then magically, the next time Bob H meets them in October, he dons the suit and out come all the specific moves again that he's never been coached how to do. Doesn't make sense. 5) Where are the other takes? They do one take for 40 seconds almost a year earlier, and then.....? 6) They film a rehearsal of a hoax. They then either don't bother to take possession of the developed film, or they let Norm Johnson keep the original, while he palms them off with A COPY. A copy that could be a smoking gun for their hoax, because they can tell it's not the original from the copy markings? Also - zero sense. If Norm is pulling a fast one, then why keep the original? Just give the original back, as they have no way of knowing the original has been copied. 7) Norm Johnson's wife is so worried about him being implicated in a hoax, she requests that he 'put the film away' in a safe. If you are that worried, you would just destroy it. To me, many of the above points don't make any sense if the footage was a rehearsal, but they make much more sense if it was a recreation.

I don't need to waste time with the found footage. I am wondering what is written on the leader / trailer?

This is the best example I can think of to explain these "smoking gun" claims. It could be a suit in a glass case. It could be claims of multiple confessions that are said to be recorded. Same thing. I don't know the content of tihs new smoking gun video. Yet, I will suspect this time next year we will have long moved off it it as one more nothing burger in the long line of notihng burgers. Funny thing Morris and Kitkaze being mentioned in the same post. Kit has mention many times about the Morris suit as an attempt to throw hair in the soup. The idea was if he could poison the meal with one thing we wouldn't want to eat it. He would promote Morris and even gladly posted a still pic to prove the fact he had in fact interviewed Morris personally. Years ago on the forums I asked him words to this effect: Do you beleive any suit used at bluff creek was in any way a Morris suit? You intereviewed the guy. Tell us, what do you think? Like so many isuses, when you ask Kit a direct Q he flops aournd and changed the subject often. Then finally he did admit any Patty suit was not a Morris suit. He had posted words to this effect as I recall: I think Morris is really good person who is just mistaken No, I dont think the PGF suit is any morris suit. As far as the Morris recration (walking ewok Bob Heironimus) If you have to hide it there is probably a reason.

Kitakaze supposedly nailed down the where about of the suit years ago….. and then nothing.🤷‍♂️ I know that the Morris recreation suit was an abomination. If the skeptics had something? They would produce it by now.

Nice bunker! PNW, the trees sound like what some would say is BF sign.

Found this in the woods today!

They can in my opinion, which is impervious to yours. Yours is fully valid for you, but it cannot control mine.

Here is an example of what DNA analysis can do. It is solving questions regarding the Anasazi in the Four Corners area of the Southwest. This is a dark story, and it has been going on for a while. I've been paying attention. As expected, authors of previous theories fight until the end..........but it appears that the end is here. This is a huge story:

Thats awesome!❤️

We started out with this paragraph below and have diverged with good discussions with writers such as Norseman, Backdoc, Hunster and a few others. "Later footprints are cast which puts the creature on higher steps then a top trusted scientist observes the creature and its level is boosted higher on that path to discovery. Later hair, more scientist observe it, and then motion picture evidence is brought in and the creature reaches higher up on the ladder of discovery which is now more difficult due to artificial intelligence or AI. Does artificial intelligence which raised the bar on photographic evidence. Possibly some creatures have reached step 9, yet a body or living speciment has not been brought in so it stays on step 9. When we put bigfoot on this ladder, a huge percentage of scientist with higher degrees in zoology agree that bigfoot is on what step? What's your opinion? What step do most credited biologist place bigfoot? What step do you place bigfoot and why?" original post" As Norseman stated, Canada's border is filmed and evidence of bigfoot is probably kept, but we don't know the results unless one country or the other offers this evidence to the public. However, proof of bigfoot has been mounting for years with several films of bigfoot being produced such as the "Snow Walker" or the distant view of bigfoot chasing a herd of deer like animals along open grassland. The Patterson Gimlin film is the icing on the cake since AI was not a factor then. Backdoc and Hunster seem to agree that there is some evidence that could be rated on the 1 to 10 scale of proof. However, as Norseman stated we have not reached a 10 when it comes to proof and a bigfoot on a slab is required. I did read a report and saw a sketch from Canada of a bigfoot that was shot and killed by a hunter. So far, we have fallen short of rating bigfoot proof as a 10 or absolute proof. However, there is great disagreement when it comes to how far proof has risen on a 1 to 10 scale. I venture to say we are on step 9 but the Forest Service seems to indicate we are on -1 and claims bigfoot is a mythical creature along with Daffy Duck. I bet the Forest Service has a few biologist who disagree but keep their jobs by remaining silent after monitoring this forum site. A few of them probably monitor this site but stay in the shadows.

I agree that the PGF wins the Oscar as the best sasquatch film of the century, and that is due to two witnesses to the event, excellent exposure of the creature in the open and good lighting, excellent casted prints from the site, visits from independent people fairly soon after the event who also took pictures of the prints, an area featuring numerous reports over the previous 12 years as well as long afterwards, those same casted footprints casted elsewhere in the area, and the fact that the film was film, not digital. #2: The Freeman film. This film features poor visual quality and was filmed by a single witness, but is accompanied with good casted prints. There was poor evidence documentation and no followup with independent investigators, but the original witness featured a long history of sasquatch investigation that exhibited good knowledge of the creatures of that locale. #3: No Further Comment: There are plenty of other films of note (Independence Day Film, Marble Mountain Film, Provo Mountain film, Mission BC film), but none also feature casted prints or film quality even to the Freeman film quality. I now consider digital video useless as evidence. It's too easily manipulated.

I can think of many other films besides the PGF. The Freeman footage, the Memorial day footage, Myakka ape photos, heck what about all of Todd Standings footage? There is a mountain of footage out there by amateurs with a camera or now a phone. We are not lacking on footage concerning this subject. Whats fake? Whats not? Thats a different question. But logic dictates that if Bigfoot exists? Then a viable breeding population exists to support these sightings. So then logic also dictates that there is absolutely no way our government doesn’t know about this viable breeding population. We spend 1 trillion dollars a year alone just on defense. Plus every ABC agency that is capable of surveillance on our borders and coastlines. Border Patrol for example. And they are trained to target bipedal figures crossing our borders illegally. They are not going to notice a 8’ Sasquatch crossing the border at night? No way. There has to be sealed vaults of stacks of footage or they are simply destroyed or erased. And then the black hole at the Smithsonian? Any physical evidence found is shipped back there to be never seen again. Look at the Lovelock cave giant’s skeletons. Gone. I am the biggest pro kill proponent you will ever meet. But I am full aware the system is completely rigged against this discovery. For whatever the reason? The federal government has placed a giant thumbs down for disclosure about this subject. Otherwise we would already know about it.

If we had such a population, we should expect to have a new PGF-level film on a regular basis. These would occur often (more than 1 time in 50 years) by regular people out there with cell phones. Assuming Bigfoot is real, I account for this lack of Patterson-level video by the small number of Bigfoot out there. Bigfoot country makes it harder as well but even in a thick wilderness we can find about anything and film it if there is enough of them. Lack of many new PGF-level films simply supports/reinforces the notion by the scientific community Bigfoot is not likely out there. Deer, Bob Cats, or even the rare Wolverine are caught on video. The more common the animal, the increased ease of capturing it on video. Some parts of our government involved in an area of expertise are generally sitting on their hands until such time they are forced to become reactionary. They are not likely to be pre-emptive. Probably about the same reason about anyone else doesn't know they exist. I was confident- prior to AI fake stuff- if we had a home run clear PGF 2.0 it would prove to most people Bigfoot exists. Now if we had such a film there would be a big "It's got to be fake" feeling out there about Bigfoot or anything else extraordinary. Yet, if we truly had a new, Provable, Home-Run level PGF video or better (and esp. a Body on a slab) Government, non-government and so on would all respond on their own level to these new circumstances. They would react then. Not until then. BTW most people care very little about much outside their own reality until it comes into their life and affects them directly. If CNN, Fox, and so on had 50 reporters with cameras interviewing a hunter who shot a Bigfoot the public would react. Government would react. The public would pressure the government to further act. Science skeptics would react. Some might even apologize to Jeff Meldrum, and so on. Sure, the tree huggers would want Bigfoot protected and some hunter might want to shoot one for their wall but shoot their neighbor by accident. But.... The first thing- Provable Bigfoot-has to occur for any and all those things and more to occur. IF PROOF then REACTION.

Dead horse at the ready. Allow the beating to commence...

Seems to me that if DNA can ascertain what it is not, it can ascertain that something else is out there. But, as usual, and like everything else, DNA is used for what the powerful want it to be used...........and not to be used for what they don't want it used for.....................

I will definitely be looking into that asap! I really wanna get this off the ground and am curious to see for my self what is going on!

Try Darby Orcutt's study at NCSU, maybe won't have to use your dime

All arguments in regards to the PG film being a hoax are just smoke with no fire in my humble opinion. I will never accept any argument that the PG film was faked since filming a real bigfoot walking will show muscle movement under dirty fur and faking this is not possible today except with AI clever tricks. These clever tricks were not possible during the time the film was shot. Sorry to be a kill joy...........................AI has changed the way that factual videos will be seen and trusted for real. We are at an age where videos can't be trusted and AI generated videos is a clever way to trick a segment of the population. How do well tell real videos from the AI fakes?

Patty's height is only an issue for two reasons: 1) If the height was so extreme as to be out of human range no human could fit in any suit. Say Patty is 8 foot tall (she isn't), Patty would NOT be a man in a suit. 2) If some person of a known height such as Bob Heironimus claimed to be Patty, they must match Patt's height. If Patty was 6'6" and Bob H was 6'1'' it's pretty hard for Bob H to be Patty. Jim McClarin could be tall enough at 6'5''. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ HEIGHT: We must put 1960's heights in perspective: NBA Heightrs Form the 1960s to Today The height of NBA players has evolved significantly from the 1960s to the present day. Here's a brief overview of the trends: 1960s: The average NBA player was around 6'3" tall, with guards being shorter and forwards taller. Sure Bill Russell was tall (6'10") but people in general were NOT as tall in the 1960's as they are now. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ WEIGHT: Patty's issue is not so much the height as being massive in size. You can still be average height for a tall guy and still be really big: [ A ] Animals Gorillas are the largest primates, and their size and weight can vary significantly by species and gender. Western Lowland Gorillas: Adult males typically weigh between 300 to 500 pounds (136 to 227 kg) and stand about 4 to 5 feet tall (1.2 to 1.5 meters). Eastern Lowland Gorillas: Adult males can weigh up to 484 pounds (217 kg) and stand about 5 feet 7 inches tall (1.7 meters). Mountain Gorillas: Adult males can weigh up to 220 kg (484 lbs) and stand about 5 feet 7 inches tall (1.7 meters). [ B ] People Football player size. 6'4'' 315lbs The "Blind Side" is one inch shorter than Jim McClarin ! Here is HOF defensive player John Randle. He looks Massive at just 6'1' 290. Compare this man just 6'1'' tall to the taller 1960's Jim McClarin. One seems massive wouldn't you say? ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- In summary, the issue with the PGF walking subject of Patty is not the height measured by a tape measure but the MASSIVE nature of Patty. Just like the Gorilla under 6 feet tall, the massive body speaks for itself: Give people a chance and they will show you who they are. Sad.

They are doing a fantastic job collectively and Nathan in particular. Excellent commentary and advice throughout by everyone. They really have it dialed in. Keep up the great work you're doing!!

Merged the Capturing Bigfoot by Sircalum with this one. Please try to keep this topic to a minimum number of threads. We have this topic here and one over in the PGF section for specifically the Capturing Bigfoot documentary. And any number of other very topic specific threads in the PGF section for everything under the sun regarding PGF. Thanks!

Is that not just after frame 352? That is the exact rock/stick formations from Bluff Creek, the 66 footage isn’t in Bluff Creek from what I’ve read. Just looks like a filter over the Patterson footage.

The only thing that's been proven in this thread is that you are a fool.

I don't understand your concern about someone "gutting" the PGF. It stood the test of time here on BFF under an electron-microscope type analysis and it is entirely irrelevant who Patterson and Gimlin were personally. Go ahead and try to destroy their reputation. It doesn't change the fact that a video is out there every aspect of which has been analyzed here at BFF over the many years. In my opinion, anyone who wishes to claim the PGF was a hoax has to specifically disprove Gigantofootecus' ASH ratio calculations and Patty's forearm ratio. Not knowing those two issues intimately, much less at all, tells me everything I need to know about someone's ability to intelligently discuss the PGF. Moreover, have they read Bill's Munn's works, which, in my opinion, are a veritable treatise on the PGF, or even know who he is? There are many people who have opinions about a lot of things they possess little or no knowledge. Let them come here and debate both critical, and tangential, issues of the PGF itself.

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