Leaderboard

Certainly. This: Do you have any idea how inhumanly cold blooded that sounds? That answers your own question better than I ever could. I choose not to participate in murder. If a body is required for proof, and I think it likely is, then proving oversteps my ethical boundaries. The ends do not justify the means. MIB

Interesting comment - forested acres by state. I put the number of BFRO listings by state into a spreadsheet with BobbyO's forested acres by state, added state populations (2010 census), and generated a graph showing BFRO listings normalized for forested acres and population. Here are four graphs: 1 Number of BFRO Listings by State 2 Number of Forested Acres by State 3 Residents per Forested Acre by State 4 BFRO Listings by State Normalized for Forested Acres and Population. The last graph, while still being the result of some fairly sloppy data, to me represents a more likely sasquatch population distribution. If data for the Canadian Yukon, Northwest Territories, British Columbia, and Alberta (and perhaps Ontario) could be added, I think we could better flesh out what appears to me to be approaching a log-normal population distribution (common in nature). 1 BFRO Listings by State.pdf 2 Forested Acres by State.pdf 3 Residents per Forested Acre by State.pdf 4 BFRO Listings Normalized for People_Forested Acre by State.pdf

The PGf is inarguably the most important evidence for the existence of Bigfoot to date for the vast majority of all people interested in the subject, by far. So, I really don't get the idea that the PGf doesn't really matter. It is 102 feet of 1967 film showing an apparently very powerful animal in fairly decent resolution that matches many described characteristics of Bigfoot and which walks very naturally in an inhuman fashion. The more qualified and honest study is applied to the PGf subject, the more undeniable it becomes. It would be great to have seen one but, stories without supporting, concrete evidence (such as the PGf includes) are frankly, to the general public, just stories .

First, there's only one film reel confirmed, a second one widely rumored but not confirmed, and no evidence of a third reel. Lab technicians do examine film after they process it, but they are looking for three things: 1. Scratches on the film, because if there are scratches, the customer will likely blame the labs equipment for the scratch, when it can be from the camera. So the lab technician checks to protect the lab from a complaint. 2. The lab technician looks for any footage that is sexually explicit, because back in 1967, there were still many obscenity laws and a lab could be held criminally liable for processing such. 3. The lab looks for film that may be noticeably out of focus or over-under exposed, or other flaws in the camerawork so they can advise the customer. I had Spectra labs process some 16mm footage used in PGF research in 2008, and the camera used had a weak hinge on the pressure plate, so the film partially pulled down during the exposure, causing pulldown motion blur. Spectra labs called us as soon as they saw that, to let us know, so we'd have time to re-shoot if possible. Aside from those three situations, they are not really looking at the content of the pictures, and the PGF (when glancing at the footage itself, not projected), just looks like some footage in a forest. Nothing to arouse suspicion or inspire a closer look.

Consider this: If these creatures exist, it would be difficult to accept that government hasn't known it for a long time. The Indian Wars ended in the early 1890's, so by that time, the federal government had a really good handle on the legal and cultural difficulties of negotiating with aboriginal peoples, and almost all Indian peoples recognize sasquatches as a race of wild people. The behavior (or, more accurately, the absolute absence of any and all behavior) of both California and federal governments after the filming of the PG event, even unto today, goes so beyond suspicion as to virtually scream out guilt. Both the California and federal government bully their way into every issue imaginable from the amount of water a urinal uses to the inspection of mattresses, yet we are to believe that they care so incompletely about the PG film that neither has ever so much as uttered a peep? Sorry. I lived a full life within government, and I can't accept that possibility. Therefore, I'm forced to believe that not only do they know that they exist, but they have conducted some study, or have closely monitored certain scientists or other appropriate people who have gathered intelligence on these creatures. There's no way they'd simply ignore them without gathering intelligence on them. Thus, if somebody is making headway with these creatures, and if government wants to keep these creatures low key, the researchers might be enticed to conduct their work quietly. A bit of funding and counseling might be proffered. It wouldn't take much to convince capable researchers to keep quiet about their knowledge. Simply reminding what "discovery" might mean to these creatures could be enough for researchers to continue their work quietly. I believe it's very possible that people might be doing the Goodall/Fossey thing with sasquatches as we discuss this, and it might not become public knowledge for another few decades.

A co-conspirator and I just made our third trip out to Skinwalker Ridge. The first account is in here somewhere, the second was back in January, across a snow blanketed mesa top under foggy sun which added some interest. And zooming in on the above photo afterwards i saw this "critter" peering over the rocks ( i added eyes to illustrate!): And then made our way down to just above the ranch: No anomalies experienced on that snowy trip, just a nice day out on the ridge. Yesterday's venture had the ridge under sun and whipped by wind. Quite a few desert flowers in bloom too. If familiar with the goings on or the "went ons" at the ranch, you'll know the Gorman's experience of the 4.5' tall bulletproof black wolf. With that in mind, we were quite surprised to see this thing staring at us from 120 yards away as we dropped down below the 2nd tier of ridge. I've found size hard to gauge when in canyon country, distance can be deceiving and boulders that seem similar in size to a car have often turned out to be closer to that of a house. This guy looked every bit the 4.5' at the shoulder from where we stood.(This with a 70-200mm at 260mm equivalent with aps-h.) Convinced we were seeing the invincible yee naaldlooshii, we were frozen with sheer terror and did the only rational thing-- unfroze and walked over to investigate. It had disappeared in the interim of getting there. As we stood on the "rim" looking across to the point where it was last seen we debated how to approach. If not a murderous guardian of the in-between worlds then maybe it was a guard dog from the ranch trained to shred interlopers. Regardless, we didn't want to meet it on the rocky slope below us so we whistled for it, surely skinwalkers answer to whistles...at least this one did: As he drew closer we watched him shapeshift down into less formidable size right in front of us! He ambled over, let us pet him and promptly rolled over for a belly rub. He had us fooled and knew it. He stayed with us all afternoon leading us off into the wilds down along the ridge as their kind are wont to do....(most who follow are never heard from again)....finally leading us back to the car, he knew where it was, a mile and a half away, just after sun down. He made a great companion, never uttered a peep. He would take some of our sandwitches but would have no part of water, seemed afraid of it really, probably characteristic of yee naaldlooshii. A beautiful day on the Path of the Skinwalker. And down at the ranch with the heli-pad and the trailer where Tom Gorman's prized bulls were "corralled": One of the 3 watchtowers:

Actually....some years ago, I was able to get a picture of the suit, in Al's home... What baffles me, though, about the "Patty suit being on display in Al's home"....is why Al only thinks the film is a hoax...but doesn't really know it, for sure. Maybe he just hasn't noticed the danged thing, as of yet.

Thank you. I must admit to being dumbfounded that a purely technical and factual answer of laboratory procedures is somehow "disapproved". It reminds me of our dear departed court jester, Squatchy, who voted down a posting of mine that was pure fact and technical reference. Maybe some people are offended that i actually have some knowledge to contribute to the discussion. Oh well. I'll just continue to dwell in the land of facts, knowledge, and truth. Nice place to live. Bill

.........His dream quest continued in the modern world. He became a big game hunter, salmon slayer, and became infatuated with finding himself a sasquatch bride. He frequented an internet forum on Bigfoot and became known as the Huntster. He ended up married to a human female who was more than he could handle. He never did find the sasquatch love of his life, and ended up digging a hole in the Knik Glacier in Alaska, jumping in, and pulling the ice shavings in over himself.

This deserved an encore.

I am not convinced that Standings photo's of a creature are real since I have tried very hard to even capture a picture of one. The only thing I was able to get was its eyes and I was not even trying to get a picture of these creatures. I was just trying to get pictures of deer coming to my bait pile.. When I had my encounter up north in Michigan I tried very hard to get a picture of these things and had no luck. We tried every thing with those trail cams. I even used my camper where I placed my video cam in my camper. It was placed on a table overlooking our camp site while we all went to town for a few hours. What was going on was is that these creatures would come into our camp site when we would all leave and take food or what ever other things that would be use full to them.. We would find their prints in places where they would come into our camp site so we would place the trail cams there. Well they would change on how they would come in and rummage through our stuff. But they did not take our expensive stuff like what a human would do like cameras, blankets and other stuff that some one would steel and pond. But food was their interest and salmon was the favorite. So we used salmon as a attractant and placed the cameras facing at each other across form each other so that they could not sneak up on the salmon. No luck. The one thing that worked at that time was a thermo and having us as bait. This is back in 2001 with a guy that came out with us with a call sign as thermos. I have video of this creature leaving our camp site running back into the woods for a split second. But that video I have not been able to find and feel bad that I have lost it. But I will scan that picture and post it and see if anyone here can work with that scanned photo. I am hoping I can find the negative to that picture which would be much better.

I have a picture of one that was taken on 06/27/08 on a trail cam on a bait pile. I scanned it on my scanner and tried to play around with it on photo shop to see if I could get a clear picture of the creature. The reason was all I had was the eyes since I had a flashing trail cam and it captured was these glowing blue eyes. A reflection from the flash of my trail cam that was at least 30 yards from where the creature was standing. What I can say is that the creature was at least 8' tall and I believe that the eyes were spread apart about 6" - 8" . When I tried to change the photo to a xray type of photo I could see a type of bearded human face with heavy eye brows and hair brushed back with a type of flat nose. There was no cone to it's head and it had a long mustache with the hair coming down to it's neck. I have not be able to find the negatives or else I would have an even clearer picture of this creature and would have posted these negatives on this forum. What I can do is post a scanned picture of what I do have and see if some one else can play with it and see what they can do with it. All I can say is what he has posted is not what I have seen and that is all I can say about Tod Standing . Maybe he has had an encounter and lost those encounters and had to fake what he has now. I am just saying that the pictures he is showing is not what I have seen. All I can say is that I have no reason to lie and I really have nothing to gain. If anything I have lost more by telling people that I have seen these creature then if I have not seen them at all. I would have done better to have kept my mouth shut then to have spoken about what I have encountered. I will try to post that picture so that you can judge it your self. For my self it was just a very lucky shot or was it. In my opinion they followed me from when I had my very first encounter in Foley Swamp, Huron National Forest, Michigan. The word chosen is real and I am now testing that theory by going to other parts of Michigan to see if they find me. I have cameras around my house just for this reason ever since I had a plum tree last year with plums on it have all the plums taken off the tree in a single night.But this is not the info you want.

My first attempt to interview Albert E. DeAtley of Yakima was in 1998. I know he received my letter but I received no response. His lack of response was consistent with the reactions I have received from all the witnesses to the making of the PGF; each witness seemed to be very tired of going over the events of 50 years ago. It has always been my opinion DeAtley likely knows the backstory to the film better than any other witness. Certainly, if there were monetary costs to making the film, DeAtley likely paid for it. If anyone picked up a vibe off Patterson as to the reality of the claimed encounter, DeAtley, who spent considerable time on the road with Patterson showing the film, likely formed an opinion based on something Patterson said or did during those early days. In my view, to be of any investigative value, DeAtley would have to agree to a substantial interview (in person). Just showing up on his doorstep without prior arrangement would likely produce little. Even a cold call would not likely get into the depth of the subject. Numbers of people have questioned DeAtley’s credibility. Gaining corroborative details would be necessary to support his responses to broader questions. In my most recent attempt at arranging an interview, I chose to send a letter that spelled out to Mr. DeAtley reasons why his cooperation would actually be to his benefit. I listed what I thought to be the best reasons for DeAtley to speak with me. From my letter: Your cooperation could lead to several personal benefits. Firstly, your legacy would be enhanced. A simple internet search currently shows your name inextricably tied to Roger Patterson’s film. So long as the provenance of the film remains hidden or undocumented the film will generally be considered a hoax and your name will remain key to any unresolved doubts about the film. Secondly, while both you and I likely agree Roger had intentions of hoaxing a film, he may have had, as unlikely as it seems, a legitimate encounter with something never before filmed. Modern analytical techniques have been applied to the film and do reveal details that indicate the film is genuine. Failure to document the details of the film only guarantees the loss of potentially important evidence. Lastly, your cooperation would likely supply important facts surrounding the provenance of the film. No matter whether the film captures a real event or not, the original film is a highly collectible item of significant value. Establishing the provenance is an important step in the assessment of any collectible item. I mailed the letter on October 8th, 2017. On October 13th I received a call from Al DeAtley. He was cordial, business-like and asked what he could do for me. I reiterated the primary points in my letter, that I had a means of documenting the missing details about the film while also protecting any sources, that documenting the details would ultimately be to his benefit. I offered to meet with him and demonstrate the process. DeAtley said he has always thought the film was a fake, that he has no proof of the hoax but that he still believes the film to be a fake. I said there were arguments that the film might be real but no one will know for sure unless we look at the details. I explained I had interviewed most of the witnesses to the making of the film, that I understood there were sensitivities that needed to be protected. I said I wanted to meet with him to demonstrate how I document facts while also protecting the sources of those facts. He seemed to think for a moment and then said, “John, I’m 84 years old now and I just don’t want to open that thing up.” I asked DeAtley to take some time to think about it and to call me if he has a change of mind. I made clear he stood to gain benefits by cooperating in the process. He said he would call if things changed. Our conversation ended. On November 13th I wrote another letter updating DeAtley on certain developments and indicated there was new reason to believe the film to be genuine. I suggested he call me and that we talk further. I received no response to my letter.

Hunster….I just think you might want to reconsider the idea of a BF population being "trapped" or "hemmed in" by encroaching development. Not even some of the more canny predators like coyotes and cats are inhibited much by those boundaries. Sighting reports of BF all over the continent support a much more nuanced survival strategy, perfectly concordant with the area we are looking at. What the evidence shows is BF are very well adapted to exploit greenways, utility right of ways, creek and river fringes and even pedestrian/bike paths going back and forth at night. If you zoom in on your Google map, thousands of such connections to the wilder areas are in plain view. They apparently cover lots of ground in search of food sources, many of which are human provided. The idea that they are ever bottled up in what is likely only their daylight base of operations for night foraging is not something I'm considering to be likely. It is not lost on them, I'm sure, that when the sun goes down and the A/C units start to hum, they pretty much have the place to themselves. On occasion they are wrong, and somebody walking a dog or sitting on the deck with a cigarette has a sighting, but they are not sticking around to let anyone have a second look , that much is clear.

Shadowborn: Just to clarify a few things: The verified first reel has 76 feet (3/4th of the reel) showing various segments of either Roger or Bob riding a horse and pulling a smaller white pack horse through the woodland country. The remaining 23.8 feet is the PGF encounter. This is the first reel. The trackway footage is generally described as second reel, but we only know of about 25 feet of footage attributed to that reel, so we can't say what was on the other 3/4ths of that reel. Also, we have never seen an intact copy of the three assumed segments (the trackway, Roger casting a footprint, and Roger standing by a tree holding two plaster footprint casts) which shows their order or even verifies those three segments were on the second reel. So the second reel footage is problematic in ways that limits it's analysis potential. Finally, back to the lab inspection of processed footage, I have some footage of an experiment Eric Beckjord did in 1982, with a guy in a gorilla suit trying to replicate the PGF. The way a lab technician usually examines processed film, a tech would not be able to tell the difference between the PGf and footage like Beckjord shot. So you should not assume that if a lab tech examined the film, he could immediately recognize it was a true entity and not a costumed human. A documentary filmmaker might reasonably film segments of a human in a fur costume even if he's making a legitimate documentary on the subject of Bigfoot. It was common then to "recreate" or "dramatize" a described incident to show the audience what is described as having occurred. So in that context, a lab technician would not likely be surprised or astonished by the footage. Only rigorous analysis (far beyond the capabilities of a lab) can determine the authenticity of the footage. Finally, labs do see a lot of footage that may be curious, or noteworthy in some positive or negative respect, but the technicians who examine the processed film as generally expected to exercise discretion and not take any entitlement or authority to tell people other than the customer what they saw on the footage. If they did, they'd soon lose all their business. There isn't any formal "code of silence" but informally, the lab is expected to always defer to the customer as to who and how the content of the footage is brought to the attention of other people. The only exception is "obscene" material, (especially if it involved children) which the lab was required to report to law enforcement authorities. Bill

Actually, Mort....you asked that question in a response to a post of norseman's, less than an hour after his post....(not in a direct response to one of my posts)... Old Mort wrote: In that post, you wrote...."My point is". Now, you're saying... "I haven't proposed anything". So, to try to understand what you have been "proposing"/"not proposing".....I'll ask you again, to clarify... You would agree that the date of the filming....if it were earlier than the 20th, and Al DeAtley revealed such a detail....that it would not tarnish Al's reputation? Yes...or....no?

Sorta' like 90% of "modern medicine"? Or maybe "pharmaceutical medicine" just have a fancier name, higher cost, a bigger cabal pushing it, and nicer dolls, chicken legs, and offices to dispense it from?

Balls too big, hands too soft, what did Peter build? 😂

I am in the must have gun camp. Here in Florida lots of snakes, bears etc. The worst of the lot is bad humans.

Moose are more dangerous than Bears. I’ve had buddies that couldn’t get out of a tree for hours. Joggers get attacked in Spokane. I know Michigan has Moose, and Bears. Ive never needed fire insurance for my house but I’m damn glad I have it. Knives are fine, but be prepared to dance with the devil and loose body essentials. I prefer bringing down the thunder at a distance if at all possible.

I keep the pictures with animals, say deer or elk, in various locations in the field of view. Comparisons can be done with these as well.

Heat. They're built with fat and fur between their muscle and the elements. Like all larger mammals in temperate to sub-arctic environments, they bed down in shade during the daytime, and mostly move around during cooler hours.

They will not allow logging, so they do not get timber revenue, so don't have the money to maintain roads, so block them off because they become unsafe, so they cannot get in to fight fires, so declare fires part of nature and want to let them burn. Mean while during fire season people like me cannot go outdoors because it is too unhealthy. There needs to be a class action suit against the Forest Service.

I hiked with my wife and two daughters throughout NC Mtns and all throughout Rockies and Sierras. My youngest had to be in front and usually 100-600 yards ahead. She was/is relentless about being in front. After I read and listened to these stories I would no let her leave my eyesite when we hiked. Especially Yosemite when on simple 7 mile guided hike which had me especially freaked if you read the books. I never could explain why at 7-11 should could venture ahead and at 12+ she had to stay with us,

I never could get it why we always had to have to hunt them at night. This was never necessary since they hunt through out the day. But their best times in my opinion was when deer were on the move and they would be in those good spots just like bow hunters. their night time movement I think is just their way of not being seen. But day they are just as active in day time as night time . I do know that at night they do use trails or places of that have the least resistance which makes it easier for them to move at night. I have found prints on trails of juveniles in the night in the middle of winter with a big heel to heel spread bare footed. During my hunting scouting I have been growled at in some good prime deer area where I have come home sick. Have gone back to the area of where I was growled at and have found the spot where the creature was crouching down waiting to ambush deer. The growling came from me disturbing their hunting of a bottle neck where deer were strolling to their bedding..I had no idea that the creature was on a ledge of a hill where it was crouch down . When we went back to investigate where I was growled at we learned how these creatures were ambushing deer as they were leaving their bedding. It was the perfect place to ambush a deer and the deer did not have a chance. If it wanted a human like me It could have just taken me out and no one would have known. Instead it warned me and I listen to it's warning while I still payed a price for that warning. So now when I in valleys where there are ridges around me I look hard up around me. I look hard up on those ridges when I am in those valleys when I see a lot of deer tracks on the ground. That for me is my warning to start climbing on top of the ridge and start looking down or just sit down and start scoping.