Jump to content

Leaderboard

  1. Incorrigible1

    Incorrigible1

    Steering Committee


    • Points

      3,019

    • Content Count

      10,941


  2. norseman

    norseman

    Steering Committee


    • Points

      2,845

    • Content Count

      13,497


  3. Huntster

    Huntster

    Sésquac


    • Points

      2,487

    • Content Count

      19,534


  4. PBeaton

    PBeaton

    Members


    • Points

      2,242

    • Content Count

      8,081



Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 08/30/2010 in all areas

  1. 22 points
    BFFers, I'd like to address the "tracks" reported to Cliff Barackman and the BFRO near Elbe, WA. I afforded the individual involved a lengthy period of time (five months) to do the right thing, and fully disclose his involvement with the event. That hasn't happened yet. Moreover, the individual involved has continued to insist (privately) that he had absolutely no involvement with the event in question. His denial of involvement has driven people to question my initial statements and assertions. Initially, I granted the person involved a chance to admit his involvement privately to the people who were the most affected by his actions; the people who invested personal time and resources to his claims. The guilty party never did so, and still continues to insinuate that I had no real evidence against him. Here's the deal, folks: The first report regarding the track line was submitted in email form to Cliff Barackman, which was forwarded to the BFRO six hours later by the same source. The email address was "davepmorrison@...", but curiously the name signed to the email was "David Morris"; a small (but interesting) discrepancy. I immediately started "sleuthing" this individual in an effort to find out more about them via their online presence. Essentially, the vast majority of the people who submit reports, emails, and phone calls to the organization have an online presence. Some people have left huge amounts of information online, and some very little; but in the vast majority of instances it's very easy to verify who a person is, where they live, their means of employment, etc. I quickly found that the email address provided wasn't linked to any social media or website whatsoever; no Facebook, LinkedIn, Twitter, MySpace, etc., etc. Moreover, there were no "Dave Morrison", "Dave P Morrison", "David Morrison", "Dave Morris", "David Morris" matches which in any way "fit the bill" (geographically and otherwise) for this individual. Hitting that dead end was fairly concerning, because I can almost always find corroborating information about a person in a short amount of time. When I couldn't locate any information about this person, a huge red flag was raised. A few days later, I logged into FLATS (the internal BFRO reports database) and saw that the individual had also submitted a report via the BFRO Report Form. He included that his name was "Dave Morrison" (as opposed to "Morris" and included the same email address. Luckily for us, FLATS records the IP address of every report submission. That gave me a new clue to go on, and I immediately cross-referenced it with the IP address that the original email to Cliff was sent from. It was a match, which means that the same person submitted the initial email and the report three days later. Cliff also sent me another email that the reporting party had sent him, and it came from the same IP address as well. Unfortunately, you can't just Google the owner of an IP address. Various places online will display user's IP addresses (like certain forums, online email lists, etc.), but you'd really have to know where to look, and who you're looking for. Luckily, one of the places that I looked into displayed the IP addresses of the posters. It provided me with the poster's real name and username, and gave me a whole new lead to follow. A few minutes on Google revealed that this person was very involved in the online bigfoot community, and was an ardent skeptic. I recognized his username immediately, and knew that if he was the one who submitted the first reports that something was VERY wrong with the track line. I immediately called Cliff and Scott to fill them in. Derek called within minutes, and I brought him up to speed as well. I enlisted the help of a BFRO member that I work with often with locating information online and asked him to help me find more instances online of this same IP connected to the same individual (username/real name, etc.). Within a few hours, we had collected multiple examples of this person's IP address from various locations on the web. I also contacted veteran researcher Daniel Perez, who had corresponded with this individual before, and asked him if he would forward me the raw source data from the emails that the individual had sent him. He did, and the source data of the two emails matched the IP address. Daniel helped me tremendously by sending me those emails, and I am very thankful that he did. In other words, we now had irrefutable proof that the original email and FLATS report were sent in by a guy who is a borderline fanatical skeptic, and who is a very active member of the online bigfoot community. That, and the guy only lives 47 miles from Elbe. An exhaustive reading of his online posts revealed more information. This guy has been working on creating a life-sized Patty replica in his workshop in an effort to demonstrate that the PGF is fake. He describes (in detail) multiple pairs of fake feet that he has fabricated as part of this experiment. Here are a few quotes from him: June 2012 - "By the way, footprints are easy to fake, require little commitment in time and materials and effort. Which might account for their continued popularity, who knows. Footprints are an easy hoax." August 2012 - "Why spend hours looking for online videos when any one of us can test it simply and easily. It does mean going outside for a while, but it's summer and not too hostile out doors right now. Make a set of fake feet, 14-15 inches long, strap them on so that the toes stick out a ways in the front, and then walk around a bit, walk fast, see how well you adapt and lift your feet. To match the challenge, I'll do the same thing here in a few minutes. Again. Reason I say "again" is because I have already done this experiment. I'm not just sitting here at the keyboard speculating about how people walk barefoot, or with big shoes on or any of that. I like to have fun, play a bit, and enjoy experimentation to test out various ideas. Which is why I say that people lift their feet higher with big shoes on, because that's just what they (we) (I) do." And the most incriminating quote of all: March 2012 - "So how would one explain spayed toes in some faked bigfoot prints? Non-wooden stompers. I'm not going to say right now that there are no bigfoots, or that all prints are fake. However, I will say that making pliable, naturally behaving fake feet is not some rocket science... I have a pair of bigfoot feet I made from dock flotation foam, a sort of shiny plastic closed cell foam that is flexible, firm, easily carved with a knife and shaped with a scraper. Paint them with latex or acrylic paint, and they do everything a real foot would do in terms of print making." Once I had all of that information, it was undeniable that this individual was responsible for the Elbe tracks. After numerous attempts to get the perpetrator to cooperate, I sent him this email on October 3rd: "Axxxx, I've tried to avoid writing you this email, but given your last few posts on the BFF and JREF, I suppose it's time that I contact you about your claims. Here's the bottom line: I have irrefutable proof that you sent the first email to Cliff Barackman, the secondary email to the BFRO, and also submitted a report to the BFRO database. Myself and others compiled this proof and shared it with several researchers (12 to be exact, including Derek) on September 26th. I know that you're very worried about people finding out that you were involved (in any capacity), and you'd prefer not to have your name associated with this. Truthfully, it was never my intention to publicly "out" you. If I had wanted to, I could've done that immediately on the BFRO website and the BFF. It would've looked something like this: 'The investigation of the initial report led us to irrefutable proof that Axxxx Sxxxxxxx AKA "Tontar" was responsible for using a pseudonym and submitting the initial reports regarding the trackway. That evidence has cast doubt over the entire event, and as such, we can't endorse its legitimacy." There would be nothing ethically wrong with releasing that statement either, as it is completely true (unlike the majority of the things you've been posting since the "tracks" were discovered). Obviously, I don't know if you were responsible for faking the tracks themselves, or if you had help from other individuals, etc. What I do know is that you were behind those emails and the BFRO report. Anyone who researches your public claims would also be convinced that you fabricated those tracks. Whether you faked those tracks, or merely reported them for someone else, people will see those statements and assume with certainty that you did it, and that you've been experimenting with fake tracks since March of this year. Many people will also interpret the act as malicious. Maybe you were conducting a legitimate experiment with stompers for your PG recreation. Perhaps you took those things out on a test drive and realized that they looked pretty good. Whatever the reason, things certainly changed when you created an email address and a pseudonym and sent reports and emails to Cliff and the BFRO. That's the part that people will undoubtedly get the most upset with; your desire to deceive others. You lied, plain and simple. You are continuing to lie. You are trying to insinuate that others are responsible, when you know exactly who is truly responsible. Derek Randles is a friend of mine, and I refrained from handing over information to others about your involvement because Derek thought that you would cooperate with him based on good faith. He told me that the two of you had communicated, and had intended to meet. Meanwhile, I continue to see the things that you post in public venues about the researchers' "inabilities" to identify who "did the deed". We've known who "did the deed" for over a week. Every day that we have kept your name confidential should be viewed as a gift. Every day that we haven't done our due diligence and released that information has been an opportunity for you to be honest with the people who deserve to know the truth about this. Derek thought you would. For a moment, I thought you would, too. Instead, you're continuing to lie about the incident, and constantly trying to shift the focus (and the blame) back on to the "researchers"; the very people whom you had hoped to fool. I gave you the chance to admit it on the BFF when I insinuated that you knew exactly where those tracks were before anyone else found them. Instead, you tried to divert attention away from you by concocting a sarcastic response, and then followed it up with a response implying that it was probably a bigfoot proponent who did it! I am tired of giving you opportunities to do the right thing. I am pretty sure the other researchers and investigators are, too. Matt Pruitt" After sending that email, I had a lengthy phone conversation with Tontar about "doing the right thing" and working directly with the people that were affected. It was a nice conversation, and one that left me feeling that Tontar would do the responsible thing and be honest. That still hasn't happened, and since then, many people have questioned my investigative integrity for pointing a finger at Tontar. I have many, many screenshots of all of this information. I can release all of that information if need be. I am hoping (once again) that Tontar will fully disclose the extent of his involvement with this event. His posts about Bill Munns' recent violation of trust related to a different event were what prompted me to finally post this. Tontar's words were the proverbial straw that broke the camel's back. It's pretty clear that he never intended to disclose the truth to anyone. Disclosing the truth was always my intention. I only delayed it because I truly felt that I was doing the right thing by allowing him to divulge his side of the story in a way that allowed him some sort of control over the way his story was presented. He sent the emails and the initial report. Do the math, folks. Tontar is responsible for the fabricated tracks at Elbe.
  2. 16 points
    During the past few decades of investigating reports and conducting research concerning the presence of Bigfoot in the Southern and Southeastern states, I routinely receive information and see evidence that clearly indicates that the primates relish fruits, berries and vegetables from any source. A recent contact with an older gentleman who lives in Southern Missouri who is aware that a group of Bigfoot have foraged on his and a neighbor’s property for years, told me about Bigfoot taking his entire grape crop. The man was not as upset about the overnight theft of his crop of fruit as he was about the Bigfoot’s antics with his two-piece, concrete bird bath. During the hot weather the man filled the birdbath with cold water each afternoon. Every few mornings he would discover the concrete bowl had been removed from its pedestal and brought and set down on the ground near the home’s back door. The first time that occurred he was not sure that someone was not “playing a prank” on him. The man stated the act was not funny to him because he had to carry the heavy bowl and re-install on the pedestal. He complained the he was, “Too danged old to be lifting and carrying the thing and set it back in place every few days.” He had known a group of Bigfoot came onto to his property every few night because he had heard them “hollering, whooping and beating on trees after dark”. He had no problem with them doing that, and had left apples out for them in the back yard in the area of the bird bath. When he continued to find the birdbath bowl on the ground by the back door for a “refill” he became frustrated by the animals’ antics. He didn’t discuss the situation with anyone until his whole crop of grapes – he said a few bushel – disappeared overnight and he found wide, 18” long bare foot prints in the vineyard. At that time he decided to talk to a neighbor who lived about one-quarter mile away. He approached the man by asking him if he had heard any strange animals sound at night. The man told him he had not only heard them many times at night but at times they were close enough to his home that he had determined there were at least five in the group. He told the man that the animals were those called MO-Mo in that state and Bigfoot in other place. During their discussion the neighbor also told him that he had a peach tree that had such an abundance of fruit this season he cut small forked trees from his property to prop up the heavy loads of fruit on the peach tree limbs to keep the limbs from breaking. The neighbor stated that when the fruit ripened he discover that all of the peaches were picked or shaken loose from the tree and carried off during one night. There was no evidence that a human or wild animal had climbed the tree. Both men realized that typical wild animals would eat their fill at the site, and evidence of that would have been obvious on the ground under the tree. There have been numerous reports of Bigfoot sightings from that county in Missouri that have been submitted to well known Bigfoot research groups. The writer has conducted field work in that area, and recorded reports from several respected area residents. This man’s report is typical of many others that I have investigated in various states– except for the birdbath aspect - that is a new wrinkle for me. The other slight differences in the other reports were that the cultivated fruits stolen were usually apples, pears, plums and, in one instance, figs. The most well known case of a Bigfoot foraging on cultivated fruit occurred in a large peach orchard in Chilton near Clanton, Alabama in the 1960s. The orchard’s owner called the county sheriff’s office and reported the routine theft of peaches on the back side of the orchard near the wood line.. An investigator from that office went to the scene. He saw and photographed very large, human-like tracks in the sandy soil. He followed the tracks into the woods and was convinced it was not a human that stole the peaches and left the tracks. The investigator did not mince words. He told the local newspaper reporters what he saw and gave them his opinions. The story was widely covered by TV stations and other newspapers. There have been several cases that I’ve investigated that involve the theft of garden produce by one or more Bigfoot. During the summer months reports of Bigfoot swiping tomatoes, corn in the roasting ear stage, water melons and cantaloupes from gardens in rural areas of the S & SE are fairly common. During the winter they often take turnips and winter onions. In a majority of such cases, the evidence that it was Bigfoot that raided the gardens was their footprints left in the tilled ground. The primary reason for this post is to alert younger Bigfoot “hunters” that their quarry routinely forages on wild fruits and berries, and very often leaves distinctive evidence of the act. Many years ago I first heard one of the animals vocalize about eleven PM on a very cold night in December. For five years I devoted my spare time to try to determine for sure what made that sound. Although I had seen unusual sign and smelled odd and rank odors that I now know were Bigfoot related, it was not until I saw their huge tracks in the thick grass around the perimeter of an “island” of fruit laden blackberry vines that disclosed their identity. In closely examining that blackberry thicket it was obvious the thicket of vines were undisturbed and that for a distance of over three feet inside the perimeter of the thicket nearly all of the ripe berries had been picked. The tracks in the grass closely adjoining the perimeter showed the Bigfoot had taken steps of about four feet, stopped, brought both feet together and reached over the six to seven feet high vines to gather the ripest berries. His tracks showed that the animal approached the exposed blackberry patch from a nearby creek bottom, and returned to the creek bottom when he had eaten the berries within his reach around the edge of the patch. As a point of fact, had it been a black bear that found the berry thicket first, the thicket of vines would have looked as if an ATV had been driven through the entire patch. I have found many good blackberry patches and kept track of the berries’ growth with the intention of harvesting them to make jelly when they were ripe. The black bears beat me to them most of the time. One large patch I was watching was growing in an old clear-cut area near the top of a mountain. The road up the mountain was rough, rutted and in places covered with silt washed off the mountainside. When I knew the berries would be ripe I made rough drive up the mountain. Just before I reached the berry thicket I passed over a layer of red clay. I knew I was wasting my time. I stopped to look at the tracks of a sow bear and her two cubs that were headed toward the patch. I drove to the berry patch as that was the nearest place to turn around. The pristine berry patch looked as if a tornado had flattened it. Many times I have seen medium to large size black cherry trees with the limbs broken off when the fruit was ripe. I always stop to see for sure if it had been a bear, as is usually the case, did the damage. If so, the limbs will have been pulled across the ground to form somewhat of a circle, with the center of the circle showing a large impression of the bear’s butt. A bear will sit on the ground and gorge itself on the fruit. There always seems to be enough berries left for the coyotes. The cherries are a laxative of sorts because the animal trails, roads or open woods near the site are speckled with runny coyote and bear scat. A bear will always leave the marks of its claws on any tree it climbs; but a Bigfoot seldom leaves toe or fingernail marks when they do that. When a Bigfoot climbs a large wild fruit tree they will seat themselves and bend the fruit bearing limbs close enough to strip the fruit from the limbs and branches with their mouth. The evidence on the ground will be a sprinkling of mashed cherries, fruit stems and lacerated leaves. When smaller cherry trees are found with fruit, and they want it, they will break the tree several feet from the ground. Usually the tree top is drug to a more concealed spot if it was growing in an open area. Many animals forage on the several varieties of wild grapes that grow in this part of the country. Muscadine grapes will mature and bear fruit when the small vines grow along the ground without support. The fruit from such vines is easy pickings for all animals, including humans. (The fruit makes excellent jelly and wine.) Large muscadine vines that grow up alongside or wrapped around the sides of large trees may reach a height of a hundred feet or more, with multiple branches from the ground upwards. Coyote, fox, raccoon, opossum, black bear, and feral hogs forage heavily on the fruit. Bigfoot does as well, although because of the relatively small population of these animals and the vast and widespread growth of the vines it is rare to find compelling evidence of those animals foraging on muscadine fruit. It is not unusual to find a muscadine vine when the fruit is ripening and see that the vine has been manipulated to cause a lot of both the ripe and green fruit to fall to the ground. Several times I have noticed this situation and spent time determining the cause, Most of the time I could plainly see teeth marks on the lower parts of the vines. Tracks and scat in the area confirmed that a coyote had actually jumped off the ground to grasp the vines with its teeth, and no doubt shook its body to cause fruit to fall. The mature fruit was obviously eaten, but the green, hard fruit was left on the ground. Their teeth marks showed they had grasped the vine, shook it and simply turned loose of it; in other words the teeth did not slip down the vine. In other such cases it was obvious that bear had pulled and shook the vines with both their teeth and paws. In one case a bear had clawed, chewed and pulled on a huge vine for some time without dislodging much fruit because the vine was tightly wrapped around a huge pine tree. Only once have I seen a wild grape vine from which appeared a Bigfoot had removed the fruit, and the fruit was summer grapes. The vine was growing up a small maple tree (about six or eight inches in diameter) near the top of steep ridge which was capped by a sheer sandstone cliff. Below the face of the cliff was a small natural clearing covered by rocks and boulders with some grass and small brush. The tree had been near the center of the small clearing, and was covered by the vines of a summer grape. When I found it in September a few years ago, it had been broken off about five feet from the ground. The top part, with the vine and its roots attached, had been taken about twenty yards and placed against the base of the cliff. At that location there was a flat, protruding ledge that was about five or six feet above the cliff base. It was obvious the tree and vine had been moved fairly recently as there were still some dried leaves attached to both the tree and vine. There were a few dried grapes still attached to the vine, and some on the ground rocks below the ledge. Below the ledge was also a localized mixture of grape stems, leaves small broken limbs from both the maple tree and the summer grape vine. Along the base and sides of that cliff, which extends nearly one half mile, there are numerous ledges that are similar to the one described. All of those ledges are covered by the duff from northern red oak and pine trees that grow in broken gaps along the top of the cliff. It was noted that most of the accumulated duff on the ledge near which the tree top was placed was nearly gone, and what was left had been disturbed. The ironic thing to me was in this very area, nearly fifty years ago, I walked the length of the top of that cliff for the first time, at times having to walk on tree limbs to get across the gaps. It was only a few hundred yards from this natural clearing that I climbed down to the base of the cliff and on my way to the base of the ridge. When I reached the base of the cliff I immediately smelled the most disgusting and obnoxious odor I had ever encountered in the woods at that time. I thought the smell might have originated from a coyote den, but when I began looking around for one, the odor became fainter and fainter until it was gone. Just memories and observation I wanted to share while I still can. Kindest regards to all.
  3. 16 points
    I know that this has been discussed ad nauseam here, but I wanted to give my thoughts on the subject... For quite some time now I've been considering if I truly have a place here and whether I should end my participation on the BFF. My two main sticking points are the fanatical "Bigfoot exists", "No they don't", "Yuh-huh!", "Nuh-uh!" echo chamber and the insistence by both sides that the issue must be proven one way or another. There has been much debate recently about the participation of the skeptic/scofftic/denialist (referred to hereafter as SSD's) on the forum. Often quoted is this paragraph from the intro to the forum's Rules & Guidelines: None of this is given as a binding rule, but the principle that if one comes here with "preconceived and immovable notions about bigfoot" then there can be no expectation of "thought-provoking debate" is quite clear. The two viewpoints are mutually exclusive. Without conceding the possibility, no matter how small, that bigfoot might, might exist, then any "discussion" will inevitability devolve into a grade school ***-for-tat that stifles discussion and frustrates a significant portion of the membership who simply want to talk about bigfoot.What is also vital to the debate is the idea that the above principle applies not only to the SSD, but to the True Believer (TB), those who are 100% certain of bigfoot's existence without a sighting of their own. If the TB's cannot bring themselves to admit that someone might have a legitimate reason for not believing that bigfoot exists, we are at loggerheads again. That leaves us with the Knowers, those who claim clear, unambiguous, unmistakable sightings of an unknown large hairy biped. There is no respectable way to deny these claims, and not being present at the time of their encounter, I am happy to accept their claim barring other facts which come to light to contradict it. For the sake of argument, the Knowers exist as an entity unto themselves, and have no real bearing on the endless SSD/TB vicious circle. It seems to me that the FMT, the other administrators, and the Steering Committee here need to decide if we can allow those on both sides of the debate (who staunchly refuse to give any quarter to the other side) to continue their blind-arguing-the-blind antics. The fact we must all face (Knowers excluded. They have their personal proof) is that there is no proof either way. I am a proponent who tries to remain skeptical in the truest sense, and respect those who have thoughtfully reached a different conclusion. What I can't abide is the disrespectful and dismissive dogmatism of both the SSD and the TB, as well as their ongoing feud which serves only to derail many otherwise reasonable discussions, and poison the well here on the BFF. I understand that more rules here would further burden the good folks who volunteer their time as moderators, but unfortunately see no other alternative. Please understand that I am not advocating a stifling of debate. The behavior I am describing, and arguing for the banning of such, is not debate or discussion in any reasonable sense, but is instead merely a peeing contest between two immovable and closed-minded factions who refuse to give one inch to the other side. I am interested in any respectful discussion or views on the subject.
  4. 15 points
    Give it a rest Crow, you're becoming real nauseating and that's not a good thing. You don't think they exist, we get that, and that's cool. There is NOTHING you can ever say or do however that can ever change what many of us have seen. Hopefully you can accept that one of these days and go and enjoy your life.
  5. 14 points
    Yowie as above stated several have been shot and a lot have been "drawn down" on and the people decided not to shoot. A hunter here in my state was in that position. He was a State trooper out hunting and never even pointed the gun at the Sasquatch and stated that it was to human looking. You have already figured out the gun ownership is a touchy subject. If you get your info from mainstream media in the US then there probably is nothing to talk about because you have fallen for the propaganda. They keep trying to ban what they call "assault" weapons. The semiautomatic "assault weapon" (fully auto is illegal without the right permit and very few are given) is classed as a rifle in the FBI tracking of shootings. Rifles are second up from the bottom (above shotguns) for number of people killed. On average there are almost 2 times the people killed with knives, 2 times the number of people killed with blunt objects (hammer, ballbat), almost 3 times the number of people killed each year using no weapon other than hands, feet, pushing. now the most people in at almost 30 times the number killed with rifles are killed with handguns! Why is the government trying to get rid of the "assault" weapon because if you had one of them it would not be near as easy to take you in a tactical assault type of situation. They should be going after what kills almost 16 times as many Americans every year than all murders combined and that is medical malpractice at 225,000 per year. I would feel less afraid of running into gun owner than I am going to the doctor.
  6. 14 points
    I think this thread is just another opportunity for you to tell us what folly the subject matter is. Maybe you should save us all the trouble and answer your own questions. To stay on topic... The Giants are in New York and San Francisco
  7. 13 points
    Truth? In the time I've been here I haven't seen you add anything to a conversation, all I see is your snarky one line quips and comments taking away, distracting and derailing topics ... ending discussions I would like to see continue because I might learn something. Are you here for any reason other than to stroke your ego by intellectually bullying others? That's a serious question, not the insult it probably looks like. I'm trying to solve the puzzle, not just talk about it as a form of entertainment. I don't care about your faux-intellectual wrangling. I want to hear from the witnesses. Y' know what? Some are indeed full of crap. My ego is not wrapped up in abusing people just because I don't believe them. I listen, I judge, I move on. Nowhere on that list is pronouncing my judgment. Maybe I don't belong here. Folks here have chased most of the witnesses off and gagged the rest. If you think about it, without the witnesses, a bigfoot discussion is pretty much a mental masturbation exercise. That's not what I came here for. People wonder why BF hasn't been proven. The conduct right here on BFF illustrates the answer. Ego ahead of understanding. MIB
  8. 13 points
    It seems to me that this “infamous†Matilda is causing a lot of confusion and frankly, I’m tired of confusion and really would like to see progress toward clarity and truths we can rely upon. So after considerable thought on the matter, I thought it’s time to try and make an effort to help clear up the confusion. The images I’m showing you are a few sample video frames I was given to analyze, and my conclusion was that the images shows a simple commercial Chewbacca mask with the hair modified to a different color and texture. The frames are each side-by-side with a picture of Chewie in about the same pose, for comparison. With this posting, I cordially suggest the following: 1. If anyone wishes to publicly acknowledge that this is their footage, I invite them to do so, and if they are correct, I’ll acknowledge it to be true. 2. If anyone feels the video frames show a real creature and not a Chewbacca mask, I welcome their analysis of why we should consider that to be so. 3. If anyone has seen the “Matilda†footage, I invite you to let us know if this is or is not the footage you call “Matildaâ€, because maybe what I’m looking at isn’t her, and I welcome being corrected if that is so. 4. If my display of this chart causes anyone to feel that they should file some type of civil action against me, please have your lawyer contact me at wmunns@gte.net so we can set an appointment for my receiving the service of papers, and we can discuss the matter on the public record, in a court. For the record, I will confidently and clearly offer an appraisal of evidence as being something real, if I truly find the evidence leads to that conclusion, and my appraisal of the PGF as being real supports that position. But as much as we must support what we find to be real or valid, we must also reject or discount what we find to be false or fake. Our obligation is to find the truth, and I think it’s time we all knew the truth about this “Matilda†thing. I finally decided it’s time I did my share to get the truth out. So hopefully, someone who has seen the “Matilda†footage will tell us the truth. Is this her (pictured below), and is she real? Bill
  9. 12 points
    He was my mentor. He was one of my best friends. I will miss him. Thomas Steenburg
  10. 12 points
    I was in the woods when I received a text telling me about Ray's hospitalization several days ago. I returned home last night, and today was the first opportunity I had to visit Ray. I just walked in the door from doing so. Ray is in good spirits, and for a dying man, he looks great. He is ready for the impending transition. We spent our hour and a half together talking about bigfoot, astronomy, interesting people, his rich and unique life, and other stuff. He told me about his books, some of which have yet to be published. He shared insights and stories. It was great. Back in 1997, I was road tripping with my soon-to-be (and now ex-) wife. I subscribed to the WBS newsletter, the Track Record, at the time, so I took a chance and called Ray Crowe when we were in Portland, OR. I was hoping to see the bookstore and some of his sasquatch artifacts kept in his bookstore's basement where the WBS met every month. Ray told me on the phone that all that stuff was over at Larry Lund's home because of a flood or something or other in the bookstore. Ray gave me Larry's number, which I called, and my ex and I spent four or five hours with Larry that night. The evening blew my mind. The thought that there were actually people into this stuff I guess hadn't really occurred to me at that point. I credit (or perhaps "blame" would be a better word) that night with accelerating me to wherever I find myself today. It started with that phone call. It started with Ray. Today, I thanked Ray for this. I'd be lying if I said I did this with dry eyes. I feel like we in the PNW all owe Ray a lot. He started the monthly meetings here in Portland, of which echoes can now be seen in HopsSquatch. He carried on the tradition of newsletters pioneered by the Bay Area Group and the Bigfoot Co-op (am I showing my age now?). He suggested to us that we always wear our "skepticals" while reading his newsletter, as it was raw data, no filters added, which is good advice for all bigfooters. He's not dead yet, but he is on his way to check out. He is/was not only a catalyst for my life path, I am happy to call him a friend. Think positive thoughts for friend of the 'squatch, Ray Crowe.
  11. 12 points
    The BFF is open to anyone who can follow the rules and conduct themselves in a respectful manner. If you feel a member(s) is personally annoying, use the ignore feature. If you feel someone is violating a rule, use the report feature at the bottom of each post. The staff on this forum do an outstanding job but they are not mind readers. And let me say this- If you are an individual who believes that Bigfoot does not and cannot exist, you log on for the sole purpose of reading the content and mocking the membership here and elsewhere....I can tell you that there is a growing intolerance to that mindset on this forum.
  12. 12 points
    I haven't been out of the business for 30 years. I'm still in it, although not working regularly full time. But Squatchy doesn't really care about facts, just fabricated talking points.
  13. 11 points
    No issue with honest skeptics here. I have an issue with dishonest scoffers who call themselves skeptics and masquerade outright abuse of witnesses as "honest questions." MIB
  14. 11 points
    Sasky: Thank you for sharing with us all the NDA's. As I recall, I signed three different versions at differnt times, and it would be fascinating to sort out which one prevails as the operative document. That aside, I will re-affirm that if anyone wants to serve me with a lawsuit, please email me at wmunns@gte.net and i will be pleased to arrange an appointment to receive service of papers, and I look forward to discussing this matter on the public record in a court. As to professionalism, or lack of same, is it professional to hide the truth or to find it? Is an NDA valid if it protects a lie, a fraud or a deception upon the public? I look forward to exploring these concepts with impartial judgment prevailing. Bill
  15. 10 points
    Technically, a scientist is anyone who applies the scientific method when investigating a hypothesis. There were scientists long before there were scientific organizations, degrees, and scientific awards. Is an amateur astronomer who discovers an asteroid barreling toward Earth any less an astronomer than someone with a PhD in the science? The amateur is probably using a better telescope than Galileo had. On the other hand, is Bill Nye, the "Science Guy", really a climate scientist? After all, he only has a bachelor's degree in mechanical engineering. The real question is: "What does society currently accept as reasonable qualifications for a "Scientist"? And the answer may vary from field to field, subject to subject, and political viewpoint to political viewpoint. Unfortunately; advanced degrees, experience, and resources are accompanied by a healthy portion of hubris.
  16. 10 points
    There seems to be a common theme among researchers that any circumstantial evidence they present will be "torn to shreds" by skeptics and made fun of. I think this is incorrect. It happens when people present their findings as a fact that it was BF related. I think the presentation has a lot to do with how it is received by the community. For example. When people say: "We got a recording of BF howling and we've eliminated every other possibility" and take it personally when somebody objects, it won't go well. On the other hand, if one presents the same recording as "we recorded something interesting, it could be a BF, but we're not sure", it will get a much better reception and respect. Objectivity in your own data is key. Frankly, you should be the harshest critic of your data, because you collected it and know more about it than anyone else. You should be looking to poke holes into it and look for holes other people identify instead of trying to defend it. You may end up dismissing the objections, but they are valuable feedback. You want the greatest number of eyeballs on it. If you're straight up about it, people will recognize you are just presenting what you got. Instead of making claims about it, just lay it out there, it is what it is. Everyone benefits by learning from it. It's certainly been the case in my experience.
  17. 10 points
    I've arrived at the conclusion that it isn't just the bigfoot proponents that "have it all figured out".
  18. 10 points
    Read it. I can't say I followed each of those imbedded links though...time does not allow. I get the reviewers issues with Bill inserting his opinions about the probability of it being hoaxed. I've no great urge to explain Bill's motivations for doing that, I must confess. If I had to suppose, I'd say that Bill wanted to put a little more meat on the bone than just a technical discussion of the film qualities alone. I'll leave it to him to say, or not. But look, Bill doesn't end with the back story discussion of who Roger Patterson was, or why he may/may not have wanted to hoax the film. It is only his point of departure for (and not a crucial part of) the more objective stuff. Granted, no matter Bill's level of expertise on special effects and film techniques, that will always be just one guy's opinion. (I think it is certainly reasonable that Bill wished to share his bona fides with the reader. How many words he takes to do that, on comparison to how many he chooses to spend on the film itself is not real crucial for me to know, I don't think) Your discussion seems to want to end there though. Bill has opinions PLUS an analysis that strikes me as pretty compelling. As an unanswered position, it still is out there to be rebutted, point by point. We still see no takers on that chore. One subjective point I can't let pass though. The reviewer takes the remarkable stance of proposing to say what a Sasquatch "should" do when confronted by two men on horses, one running toward him with a camera. When somebody tells me they know how an unlisted, unconfirmed animal is "supposed" to act/look/sound/behave, I just double over holding my sides. We've got plenty of KNOWN animals who apparently don't know how they are supposed to behave. I'm willing to bet Patty didn't get the memo either.
  19. 10 points
    I feel frustrated about the direction that the research aspect of the subject seems to have taken. People making outlandish claims, some researchers (term used loosely) presenting findings that cannot be substantiated, and the shows used to entertain do nothing for the seriously interested enthusiast. They all seem to discredit and make light of both the creature and the study of them. There's no shortage of serious research efforts, though. All you have to do is find that niche' among the muck and mire. Personally, I tend to shy away from outlandish claims like mind speak, telepathy, teleportation, association with orbs, and habituation claims with spiritual implications for the humans. It seems that if any of this stuff were true, these "knowers" would present proof of such claims, but, rather conveniently, they claim to choose not to do so because of their desire to protect the creature, or because they feel "special" to have been selected by the creature because of some purity or goodness that they themselves posses. To listen to some of these descriptions of the creature, you'd think they are bullet-proof and clad in a cape. Fortunately, there are more grounded claims and efforts to disseminate more logical and realistic information without all of the anthropomorphic and paranormal associations. These outlandish claims make the topic a target of ridicule and make anyone with a serious interest in the creature look like a lunatic to the majority of the populace. Personally, I think the warm, fuzzy, flute playing, supernatural, wise and benevolent forest hippy persona of the creature has done more to deflect from serious research by the scientific community than anything else.
  20. 9 points
    But you wouldnt say a word. Which is your right to do so. Most habituators love the lime light and notoriety of being "experts" right up until you ask for evidence and then they act like you punched them in the mouth.
  21. 9 points
    I missed this earlier. And I will give credit where credit is due. Dmaker is speaking the truth. As for the rest of it? I dont play Dungeons and Dragons. I dont hang out on Dungeons and Dragons forums and tell them how dumb they are wasting their lives playing it. And I dont belong to a anti Dungeons and Dragons forum where we talk about Dungeons and Dragons players and how dumb they are to waste their time playing the game..... Why? Because its an even dumber waste of time....... And I will say this. Anytime your in the back country for any reason? Its not role play.... No matter if I’m scouting for Elk tracks or Bigfoot tracks? The trails are just as narrow, the cliffs are just as tall, and the rivers are just as wide. I dont care if your scouting for pink unicorns and leprachauns? One slip may be the end. No joke. Its no game. I’ve had horses roll over me and crack ribs, Mules upside down in creeks, bucked off, hypothermia at 10,000 feet in the Bighorns of Idaho in late October. This isnt a “game” for pot smoking, cheetos munching, kids rolling fantasy dice in their parents basement. Bgfoot may be a myth. I dont know for myself. But the rest of it? Is stark reality. I dont even know if you dont live in western north America? If you really even comprehend it. And no that one summer trip to Yellowstone doesnt count. And I guess thats why I bristle at the notion that this is just a role playing game. It may be for some? Sitting around the campfire at some state park campsite in Ohio and tell spooky Bigfoot stories while eating smores, do some wood knocks and whoops, listen to forest sounds and get freaked out together and convince each other that Coyote howl isnt really a Coyote at all...... yah I get the comparison. Thats not me. Try rolling out of your bed roll at 2am in the morning 50 miles from the trail head because the Stock are going ape shit on the highline. You know Griz are in the area as well as Blacks, Wolves, Cougars......because you have seen their tracks, or them. Your out there in your long johns with a rifle and a flashlight...... by yourself. I dont care how skeptical you are..... in the back of your mind? Bigfoot may just be a myth to you sleeping in your warm bed. But out there in the vast wilderness, in the pitch black, when you know something is out there? He haunts the recesses of your mind. He does mine. And I dont have any problem admitting it. When I crawl out of that tent I am ready to face anything with a metallic taste in my dry mouth. I can control my fear but I will not lie and tell you its not there. Its always there. Maybe its because of some ancient artifact in my DNA. Maybe its the experience I had as a child. Maybe its because I too ate smores and listened to stories around the campfire as a kid. Illogical or not? Its there. I would be lying otherwise. And I bet you my bottom dollar? That these scofftic JREFers? Deep down, way down inside, in the pitch black on that camping trip when a heavy branch snaps close to camp? Its there as well. Its visceral. And its probably why they hang around here..... Its like a morbid fascination that they just cannot tear themselves away from. Or maybe its just because they like to make fun of us weak minded folks that cannot 86 it like they can!
  22. 9 points
    While looking through some newspaper microfilm for something unrelated, I ran across this. Sherman Democrat, in Sherman TX. For those unfamiliar, Sherman is in Grayson County. Lake Texoma, and the Red River is along it's northern border. The article refers to "Highway 82" which is present day "Highway 56". I made a copy, but it was hard to read, so I re-typed it. Looked on Mapquest and Blue Creek crosses the highway in a couple of places. Huge Ape Reported Seen At Blue Creek By WILLIE JACOBS Democrat Staff Writer (July 20, 1960) BLUE CREEK- Is there a gorilla loose near this small community? J.O. Conrad, his wife and son, who live here three miles east of Sherman on Highway 82, say they saw "a seven-foot gorilla or some kind of monster" Monday night near their home. His story came to light only Friday. The animal has been reported seen near Bells by one other person. Some people merely shake their heads and smile at the story while others stand behind Conrad's report. Gorilla or not the citizens of Blue Creek are keeping their doors locked tight and firearms handy. Conrad said he had just gone to bed Monday night about 10:30 or 11. "I was smoking a cigarette when the dog started barking," he said. " I looked out the east window and saw him, He looked to be seven feet tall and about three feet wide across the back. He stood upright but hunched over." At first glimpse Conrad said he thought it might be a man walking through his yard. "Then I saw it was too big to be a man," he explained. "I jumped out of bed and got my flashlight and gun." Mrs. Conrad and their son, James, 13, watched the creature from the bedroom window. Conrad said he stepped off his front porch toward the animal and fired three times. "I know I hit him at least once. but he didn't even flinch. That's when I went after my shotgun," Conrad said. Mrs. Conrad called the sheriff's office in Sherman. Deputies warned against shooting the animal, afraid a bullet wound would cause it to attack. "I fired the shotgun over his head, but he didn't run, just shuffled of to the east down the side of the highway," Conrad continued. "I jumped in my car and followed. I got a real good look at him in my headlights while I was following him. "He looked black as coal. He was real hairy except for his face," he said. "I was about 20 feet from him when I shot, and I didn't try to get closer. I was scared." All the way to the Blue Creek bottom, a few hundred yards east of the community, Conrad said the animal swayed and shuffled slowly along on his back legs. "His front legs were just hanging down and swinging around," he said. After the animal went into the underbrush at the creek, Conrad said he gave up the search, afraid to follow the beast in the brush. Mrs. Curtis Wilson, who lives about 100 yards east of Conrad across the highway, said she and her husband were awakened shortly before Conrad saw the animal. "We heard something rattling around in the shrubbery beside the house, and our two dogs were going crazy," Mrs. Wilson said. "Then we heard something thump against the house and the dogs hushed, just like they had been turned off." When her husband went outside, Mrs. Wilson said the dogs were cowering in a corner on the porch and "shaking just like somebody had whipped them." At the same time, Mrs. Wilson said the Wilson's cows hehind the house had begun an uproar. The Wilson's first thought of a wolf. "Then we heard Mr. Conrad shooting and my husband got his deer rifle. But by the time he got out to the highway, whatever it was had gone into the creek bottom brush," she said. Mrs. Wilson said most of the people living near the community had kept their dooors locked since. Conrad said his wife was so scared that she did not go to sleep the rest of the night and had to have medical treatment the next day. W.B. Thompson of 716 S. Burdette, Sherman was working the same night at an all-night station in the Star community between Bells and Denison. He said a man drove into the station for gas and told him he had just seen a large, strange-looking animal along the roadside near Bells. Thompson did not get the man's name. Conrad said that as he started to follow the beast in his car another car came down the highway approaching the animal from behind. "That fellow must have seen the gorilla because he threw on his brakes and almost stopped at the side of the animal. Then he stepped on it and got out of there. I thought he would stop and help me, but he must of been scared, too." Grayson Sheriff's Deputy James Spaugh answered Mrs. Conrad's call for help. He said that as far as he is concerned "Conrad definitely saw something and it wasn't a man." Next morning Conrad took his wife to the doctor. When he returned around noon, he could find no tracks on the hard dry ground. "Some men who work around here had drug a wrecked car over the spot where I saw that thing standing. There weren't any tracks left," he said. Conrad said he had never seen a gorilla before. "I looked in my dictionary the next morning and found one. I know I saw a gorilla," he said. At the suggestion of a possible hunt for the beast in the Blue Creek bottom, Conrad said: "With that gorilla down there? Not me, buddy. I'm scared."
  23. 9 points
    Crow . What does the Manhattan project and the Germans have to do with the title of this thread other than you are doing your usual trolling and arguing about everything, even the off topic stuff?.
  24. 9 points
    Where is the difference? We have hoaxers producing fake bigfoot which leave no real bigfoot in the wake of the hoax and we have said to be genuine bigfoot encounters that leave behind the same wake of no real bigfoot. The bottom line is no real bigfoot in the equation after the hoax has been outed and after the said to be genuine reportage has been made. If there is such a thing as a government shill, Crow, on this forum, I am convinced that you are not one. I perceive the government to be more competent.
  25. 9 points
    Some facts: 1. None of those who insist that the PGF is someone in a suit have been able to recreate a video like it using only materials (photographic equipment and costume creation) that were available in 1967. It has not been done because it cannot be done. If you're a skeptic and disagree with me, then do it and prove it. 2. Modern Forensic Analysis of the physical subject in the film by National Geographic has determined that the subject is not human. They're not the only ones to have reached this conclusion by actually analyzing the subject in the film rather than simply dismissing it out of hand based on the premise that "bigfoot cannot exist, therefore the film has to be faked". 3. No one has ever been able to provide any physical evidence that the film was faked. Several people have claimed to have made "the suit" and several people have claimed to have worn "the suit", but only one person could have made it and only one person could have worn it. Skeptics who point to any one of these "accounts" are the same people who claim that any eyewitness report of bigfoot has to be discarded for any variety of reasons. Note the double standard. Also note that the "fake suit" has never been produced. 4. Many people cannot accept the fact that something like bigfoot can exist. It is abhorrent and monstrous to us. I, myself, went through this process after my first face to face encounter. It shouldn't be, it mustn't be, it cannot be. The world, my world, cannot support the existence of such a creature, a bonafide, real life monster. But I was forced to accept it, and that was before I ever saw the PGF or had heard the name "bigfoot". Skeptics who have only viewed the PGF and other evidence second hand have never been in a situation where they have been "forced" to accept bigfoot as a reality, and they will quibble about it until the day they are, dismissing, denouncing, and even personally attacking those who offer personal accounts. 5. We have a particular world view regarding our position in the cosmos and our mastery thereof. For skeptics it does not support bigfoot, therefore bigfoot cannot be allowed to exist. It offends their beliefs, therefore any other belief must be eradicated. Proceed with the Inquisition!
  26. 9 points
    Hello all. There are a lot of things to reply to in this thread so far, so let me get to it. I'm not really fluent at forums, and this quoting thing is throwing me for a small loop (I've already erased a reply that I had previously started, so now I'm starting again). As I mentioned in the other Finding Bigfoot thread, I'm happy to address questions and concerns with the show. I can answer most questions because the NDA with the show is mostly about not giving away spoilers in upcoming episodes. We do not fake anything related to bigfoots on the show, so there is nothing to hide. Often what goes on behind the scenes is fascinating and worthy of its own show, but if the cameras aren't running, then nobody will ever see it. However, with the right question, perhaps I can tell you about it. It seems that there is the usual representation of people that are frustrated with the show, but for some reason continue to watch it. I would strongly encourage those folks to watch something else, or better yet, turn off the television and read something of value. Nobody should have to watch something that makes them upset, including Finding Bigfoot. My favorite channel on my television is accessed by the "off" button. OK, let me see if I can quote things without erasing stuff again... We have had parabolic dishes on previous expeditions, but they are cumbersome and they take an extra person to operate. We try to limit the number of people out on night investigations to the smallest number possible, which means about four. There are two cast members, a producer, and a camera operator. The other team would have the same four, but with our sound person too. That sound person (Andy) has a full time job monitoring the mixer, changing batteries in four devices, listening for sound issues with the cast (like my scruffy beard scratching against my jacket), and other stuff that is in his job description. He has no time to deal with parabolics. We have had people (like Tyler Bounds) out with us listening on parabolics, and indeed we have captured sounds on them that we could not hear with our own ears (the knock in the Indiana episode comes to mind). However, if you've used parabolics in the past, you know that they are amazing tools, as long as you know the direction from which the sound will come. They are devices that cripple you in every other way. They prohibit you hearing things in the 355 degrees around you, focusing your technological super power in a thin slice of direction in front of you. Also, one other person with us increases our noise dramatically. It's also hard to get the operator's attention to have them focus the parabolic in the direction we might have just heard something, and then there are the batteries, wires, and other electronic issues that come with them. Personally, I don't use parabolics in the field, and while it's nice to have someone along to operate them, it's a wash as far as their worth in the field with a small, highly mobile team. And this is the number one reason why I think Finding Bigfoot is valuable. Criticize us as you want, if that's the way you like to spend time, but like it or not we are inspiring the next generation of bigfooters. I do what I do largely because of the influence of the schlocky docu-drama stuff that was on television in the 1970's when I was growing up. In Search of... put me on this path, along with Boggy Creek and the others from that time period. Our main demographics are children and weird middle-aged people like myself, so to meet parents and their children who watch the show every Sunday night (despite it being a school night) for family time is very gratifying. Being a former professional educator, this responsibility weighs heavily on my shoulders. That is why we cast members try so hard to make the show not only entertaining (a wildly underrated aspect to education), but as real as it can possibly be. Putting a smile on a child's face is a very real and tangible way to make the world a better place (something we should all try to do on a regular basis). The show's ratings are pretty good. You can look them up yourself on the several online sites that document such things. They aren't sky-high, but we aren't on network television, so they wouldn't be. Honestly, I don't think much about the ratings, I just look for bigfoot within the confines of a television show and learn as much as I can about the hairy folks. Everyone watches the show for different reasons, but by far the most mentioned reasons are the witness interviews and town hall meetings. I've heard others watch it for the night investigations because they're spooky, or that they want to do that themselves. I even have people telling me that the main reason they watch is so they can see different parts of the country, particularly through those beautiful helicopter shots in the mountains. To each their own. My favorite part of the show is the video/photographic evidence and the occasional footprint casts that surface through witnesses. I like data more than anecdotal evidence, and many of the shows have featured evidence that has never been seen before, let alone analyzed. Now, the more hardened souls here would bark back at me that we don't analyze stuff very deeply on the show, and I would agree. That is why I do my best to post my field notes for each episode on my website with more in-depth analyses of the evidence (yeah, I know I'm a season behind on these, but they are very time consuming and time is something that I currently wish I had a lot more of). Television as a medium is fairly shallow and superficial. There just isn't time to go deeply into stuff that the audience might find boring, so we don't. That's a TV reality, not a preference of my own. If you want depth, I would encourage you to turn off the television and read. That's what I do... Thank you for acknowledging that the gig isn't easy. We work six days a week, usually for 8 to 18 hours a day. The conditions are not glamorous, and we spend a lot of time in crappy weather slogging through mud and cold. The tech that we sometimes get to use is pretty cool, and even the bizarre search techniques that we employ sometimes produce interesting results. I absolutely love the subject, and I am told that my enthusiasm for it comes through the screen and infects the viewers with some love for the subject as well. For that I am thankful. I am also thankful that we have gone bigfooting in more places than anyone else I have ever heard of, and therefore have been afforded a unique opportunity to learn about what all those locations have in common. I am NOT a bigfoot expert, though I play one on television. I am a bigfoot learner, just like everyone else. I just have an amazing classroom in which to learn. No, as far as I know I'm the only cast member who might look here. I usually have lurked around the BFF looking for something I might have missed that might be of interest, but recently decided to register to address some of the wild speculation about the show, and to offer some insight into what is really going on in my small slice of Bigfootland. (Now I have to figure out how to transfer quotes to a different page of the thread... Ugh... Ok, screw it. I'll just address the people by name and you can look at page two and figure it out...) Woodlore: Yeah, they had the whole peninsula, and we had the Sts'ailes Reserve ("reserve" is the Canadian term for "reservation"). We also didn't get points for cultural stuff, like that cool dance. By the way, that dance was not performed for something like 90 years because the original mask was taken off the reserve by JW Burns, the guy who coined the word "sasquatch." The Sts'ailes people tend to say he stole it. The mask was recently returned to the reserve, though. I was given the opportunity to see it in person and photograph it the day before it was to undergo a thorough cleaning and restoration. In the meantime, the tribe started doing the dance again with a new mask carved by a Sts'ailes tribe member around 2010 or so. It was very cool to see, though I had seen it one other time at the John Green tribute conference a few years ago in Harrison Hot Springs. The picture of the mask can be seen on my Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/CliffBarackman/photos/pb.264060103730189.-2207520000.1452211648./710199932449535/?type=3&theater Bodhi: That "something's on the hill" thing is the only time I actually might have seen a sasquatch. You can read about it here: http://cliffbarackman.com/finding-bigfoot/finding-bigfoot-episode-guide/finding-bigfoot-season-one/finding-bigfoot-season-one-caught-on-tape/ Don't feel too bad for Bobo. Those search techniques, including the hippy stuff and the dress and wig, are entirely his ideas. Most of what you see on our solo camping trips is left up to us. During that filming, Bobo was not feeling very well, so you saw some of that come through. However, he is doing very well now, and has dropped a bunch of weight and is taking good care of himself. When you see the upcoming OR and CA episodes, you'll notice a difference. He's still Bobo, though. Don't expect anything "normal" from him. He's just not normal, but's that also why he is so loved, right? I think that the majority of people who watch the show do not believe in bigfoot. They watch to see four weirdos run around the woods and talk to people who they think are lying or crazy. Apparently, that's good TV. I couldn't stomach that if I didn't think bigfoots were real, but I'm not really a television watcher. Matt would not use something if it was just a prop. He is a very proud man and often resists the most when we are asked to do something just for TV (like even speak to someone who we don't think is legit, or try some search technique that he doesn't think has a chance). You don't have to like Matt, but you can rest assured that whatever he says, he means. SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT: We sometimes butt heads with the producers, but the regular core of folks that go into the field with us has learned what we do and is totally good with it. We sometimes have trouble with new producers because they are used to working on other shows that are not as real as ours. In fact, many of the producers and crew comment that Finding Bigfoot is the most real reality show they have ever been on. Most shows are downright scripted (sorry, but it's true). Our main producer, Chad, goes out of his way to make sure we are happy with the bigfooting side of things, and honestly the show's success lies squarely on his shoulders. Not only could we not do the show without him, we wouldn't do the show without him. We know that if he's in charge, we have very little to worry about. I think that thing I said about Finding Bigfoot never finding a bigfoot should be clarified. I know that we will not PROVE bigfoot, because that will require a specimen and none of us are trying to acquire one. In fact, we all think that it is morally wrong to kill one. (Please do not turn this thread into a kill/no kill debate! This is not the place. I'm just explaining my words that were mentioned.) However, the problem with finding a bigfoot is how people define "finding." We have found bigfoots on quite a few occasions, and on a handful of them I honestly was surprised we didn't walk away with footage. We have been very close. Frankly, footage wouldn't count as finding a bigfoot anyway. I'd love to get it, but people would say we hoaxed it (we never would hoax), or it was a mistaken identity. What does "finding" really mean, then? Not proving, that's for sure. Perhaps the show should have been called something like "Bigfoot Investigations." Whatever, that wasn't my decision, and I wasn't asked. Gotta Know: While a quiet, less-invasive method might produce better results over the long run, it would make for some pretty lousy television. Especially when the viewers probably don't even think bigfoots are real. I have spoken to quite a few hunters that sell their hunting videos, and they all agree that real hunting is pretty boring and wouldn't make good screen fodder. They highlight their hunts and squeeze sometimes days worth of waiting into the 20 minute clips they produce. We have a very limited time in each area due to our rigorous production schedule. We shoot more than 100 hours of footage and edit it down to 43 minutes of entertaining stuff. The quiet, non-invasive techniques are what I tend to do on my own bigfooting time. They require longer stays, which we cannot do, and smaller groups (I prefer to go alone). Television is a different playing field, and we do the best we can given the limitations we are faced with. And, yes, we absolutely want to film a sasquatch. OK, I think that's all I've got in me right now. If you would like to shoot questions to me, you're always welcome to do so. I'll check the forum as I'm able to and offer what I can. Thank you for watching the show, even if you hate it (though this is puzzling to me). I appreciate the kind words and understanding that is offered about my bigfooting efforts, both on and off the show. This weekend's episode is the Maine expedition. We visited Loren Coleman's International Cryptozoology Museum, which was awesome, to say the least. Matt gets a really good recording, I get some good results, and there is a film that we think might be legit based on what we experienced there. I think it's a good episode, and I hope you enjoy it. Best, Cliff
  27. 9 points
    Bigfoot Ballyhoo, eh? Seems like a detective (among others) went and did some detecting: http://squatchdetective.weebly.com/hall-of-shame---bigfoot-ballyhoo--linda-newton-perry.html Putting forth "evidence" supplied by Linda Newton Perry is akin to endorsing the tales of Todd Standing or Rick Dyer, IMHO. It may or may not be true, but the source is so tainted that anything she says is suspect.
  28. 9 points
    It seems this argument will never end, but in a naive moment of wishful thinking, I will once again try to lay out the reality. If Patty is a suit, then she can be replicated. Anything built by one person can be replicated by another. If Patty's a cheap suit, then she can be replicated cheaply by any person of mediocare talent with modest expense. If Patty is real, then it may be that she cannot be replicated by any suit, regardless of expense or the talent of the artist, because there are simply some realities we cannot replicate perfectly with a human in a costume. The best example is gorilla costumes and the movie "Return to Me" (staring Minnie Driver and directed by Bonnie Hunt). In one of the last scenes, a zoo gorilla named Sidney is seen walking along a corridor to a doorway outside to a landscaped habitat. Sidney then goes outside and we see him walking along the terrain to a steel pipe structure maybe 20-25 feet high. He climbs that structure and then stands atop it, on his hind feet alone and he beats his chest with his arms. No big deal, in terms of action, but NO GORILLA SUIT EVER MADE can replicate that film sequence perfectly, or even close to perfectly. Only a real gorilla can do it. A human in a costume cannot. This isn't a maybe, or a likely, this is an absolute certainty. No human in costume can replicate that activity and convince anyone it is real. Why? Because there are some realities we cannot replicate. Patty is one such reality. I have not attempted to make a "Patty" suit because I explain in detail in my book exactly why such a costume cannot be made. So my position is that it cannot be done. So my not making one is because I have no desire to expend enormous effort doing the impossible. It is the people who caim it is possible, because they think Patty is a suit and thus it follows someone else can replicate it, they are the people who must prove their claim by doing one, since they argue it can be done. In so far as experts, once again, I will repeat the foundation concept for an "expert witness" and "expert testimony". To qualify, three basic criteria are needed. 1. Establish the expert's qualification. 2. Define in detail the evidence the expert has and used for the analysis. 3. Define in detail the methodology of analysis applied to the evidence so described in #2. Mr. Smith, Mr. Walas, and all the other makeup people quoted only satisfy Item #1, Their remarks exclude Items #2 and #3, thus eliminating the remarks as "Expert Analysis", and reducing thse remarks to simply "personal opinion." Any if anyone here does not know the difference between "expert analysis" and "personal opinion" then you are just shouting at the wind. Bill
  29. 9 points
    Seems like a whole lot of effort on Kit's part to avoid talking about what is actually shown on the film. As much as I may want to do it, I can't disown my driver's license photo by trolling through court records to see if the DMV photographer ever beat his wife. Suppose we all just humor Kit and admit that Roger Patterson was probably a liar, a cheat, a fraud, a con man, possibly a thief and an all-around not nice guy? Then maybe we can get around to the point of Bill's book? At the bottom of this is probably Bill's own diagnosis: The failure to know good evidence from bad. There is a hierarchy, and there is a common consensus in this world of ideas as to which is better, or worse, for objectively evaluating facts. Not all have this discernment. That makes it difficult indeed. If you don't like what you see on the PG, fine by me. Just say so and move on. From all I know about Bil'ls work to date, he stands for the idea that it is what the figure on the film appears to be, and how the camera was employed to film it, that matters only. The rest is just self-pleasuring.
  30. 9 points
  31. 9 points
    Seriously, if in posting that above info are ya'll trying to out the location of "X"? If it is indeed that location.............Shame on all of you!
  32. 9 points
    The real biology comparisons are pretty irrefutable (unless somebody wants to accuse me of photoshopping the real people comparisons), but we can always count on the denialists to run back to their "backstory" bucket list of circumstantial talking points to try and blow smoke and cloud the topic. Patty's the real thing (whatever that is, biologically) and isn't a suit. People who continue to see a suit are seeing what they wish to see, not what the facts determine. Bill
  33. 8 points
    I’m just back from 2 months or so out West. A month of that spent on Cedar Mesa in SE Utah, wandering down rarely traveled side canyons and up over mesas. It’s not exactly prime Sasquatch habitat but it was a trip afield and my eyes were always out for the anomalous. I saw no signs of our big footed quarry, not surprisingly, nor much sign of less cryptid critters, no rattlers, no cougar tracks, though I did see bobcat and coyote prints, and heard the latter sometimes at night. Bighorn sheep were seen a few times down those seldom visited canyons and Pronghorn and Mule deer up top but pleasantly, no indication of human presence. None of the ubiquitous bud lite cans and no trails, not even footprints, just wilderness **** near the way it was a thousand years ago. On setting out from coastal Maine, my intention was to camp somewhere each night along the way as travelers used to—finding a spot that looked good where one wouldn’t be harassed or attacked by marauding bands of any sort of law, out or otherwise and that was not atop asphalt or concrete. I knew this would be easier once I crossed the Mississippi but I didn't suspect Iowa and Nebraska would be so difficult to hide in. it sure is along the I-80 corridor. With the exception of being awoken one morning by tribal police down a heavily rutted and water-holed two-track just South of Lake Erie on the border of the Cattaraugus reservation (They were concerned I was dumping tires or some such.) and the asphalt that 2 of my tires were parked on outside of Moab, Ut, I managed that for 45 nights or so. It was a trip filled with amazing vistas and long eye stretches not to be had in the thickly forested geography of home. Many nights spent perched along canyon rims looking 1000’ down to the wash or river below and not another soul incarnate for miles around, just the ghosts of the ancestors and the mute yet intelligent silence of stone. Segments of that stone had interesting glyphs pecked into it, somewhat representative of a familiar figure. At the end of my journey, after a sojourn in SLC, UT and along with a fellow conspirator we made the trip out to Skinwalker Ranch, a place I’d heard of but not really known much about. After a wee bit of research we decided to check it out. It is still gated and surveilled by cameras with large no trespassing signs at the entrance to the property. It is also guarded by savage skinwalkers in the form of Owls ( we watched a Great Horned for 10 minutes as it hunted the pasture from telephone pole tops) and dogs, one of which attacked the front tire of the vehicle we were in then assumed such a friendly demeanor so as to lure us out of the car and most assuredly claw our hearts out. We weren’t fooled, though later that night we did return to feed him a blueberry muffin:) Skinwalker ridge, above the ranch was our chosen vantage point and is probably accessible had we been in the Rover but we weren’t at the time so we settled for walking across the sagebrush pasture to the South under cover of darkness. After covering maybe a third of the way, my companion began feeling a sense of dread over not what was ahead but what was behind and suggested we leave. I know to trust that intuition and put up no resistance, so back we headed through the scrub and over the barbed wire into town and a somewhat less dangerous venue--Taco Time for fried empenadas…And that’s about all folks.
  34. 8 points
    Oh of course. I'd be hard-pressed to come up with a reason for any person NOT to spend their time going to the woods making things like that. I guess that's why we see these things all over the country in the same basic archetypes and patterns, because everyone's bored of their iPhones and fidget spinners and everyone's into building tree structures. Kids these days.
  35. 8 points
    ^^^As a Nation (U.S. that is) we might be waking up to the factual vacuum created by the whole idea of false equivalency. This is the pernicious idea that any fact stated is balanced out by the mere statement to the contrary. There is no end to the mischief this creates and it sustains an atmosphere of "anything goes, and nothing matters." If I were to say, "The sun rises in the East, and sets in the West" and your reply is NUH-UHHH!!!, and both "views" are proposed as having equal legitimacy, we are four-square in the upside-down world of the false equivalency. So....to bring it around to the topic at hand...if I say to you , "Look, there are gigantic footprints that were obviously made by something big, with a lot of mass, and with a preternaturally long stride", and your reply on looking at them is: "No they weren't, because the animal you reference is mythical"? One of us has factual issues. It would not be me.
  36. 8 points
    As part of the agreements between myself and witnesses who have asked that I personally investigate their enigmatic animal encounters, the locations of the events are not publicly disclosed for all the reasons you have listed plus others. Those four BF research groups that have requested that I investigate reports they receive bind me by a confidentially agreement from releasing information about the name of the witnesses, their addresses and the locations of the encounters if they occurred on private property, primarily for the same reasons you so clearly described. In response to Gig's "easy to track them" question; yes, it would be easy if the witnesses actually wanted to do that quickly after the theft of the fruits/berries. Not so surprisingly, danged few of them that were aware of what had swiped the food stuff cared to follow fresh tracks and encounter a family group of big hairy primates and interrupt the their hard earned meal. In most cases the investigators don't reach the scene for weeks or more after the event, and the trail of tracks and dropped produce may be hard to find and follow. Most folks that have these experiences could care less about "providing evidence" of BF's existence to skeptics who like to pile and heap their meaningless opinions that BF is a myth all over the internet. Those "all knowing folks" with little or no experience with real. day-and night 'boots on the ground" fieldwork are simply like pesky gnats; not much you can do but listen and watch them buzz. Thanks for your spot on post NCBFr.
  37. 8 points
    The only people for whom Bigfoot is real are those who have witnessed one. The rest of us are voyeurs, and stand like the spear carriers on the back row of the chorus of the opera while the large lady out front in the horned helmet sings her aria....we know something is happening, we just don't know what it is, do we Mr. Jones? Most of us with half a brain understand it is rude to appear to know it all when we haven't done the homework. Naish appears to be of the other kind. That you could get a piece published by Scientific American by trotting out all the old tropes and bundling them up as authority because, you know, you are a SCIENTIST! is not too surprising at all. But, (As DWA would remind us all...) Science is as Science does. A million Naishes spouting that view is no more valuable to science than a million bee-lee-vers spouting the opposite. They are cut of the same cloth, and neither help get at the truth. And I'll say it again, if this all a social construct, THAT headline renders the idea of BF ho-hum. But let's play that game for a second, Mr. Science Man: You have your hypothesis, now tell me how you test it. I'll tell you how, and this where every one of these poseurs shirks their responsibility to their discipline: You make a serious effort to prove existence, pull no punches, take no prisoners. (Don't waste your breath telling me that has happened already...HA!) Failing to find it after that is done? Well, I'd switch my bet, I can tell you that. Until then, blog away.
  38. 8 points
    The problem is you are offering a story. We are knee deep in stories. Bear in mind I'm not personally asking anyone to show me anything. I'm requesting a certain segment of the question who are claiming a kind of special dispensation by having to kind of contacts they claim have and take it out of story telling and rendering something solid to science since everything else has failed. Surely that can't be asking too much. Long post warning! Not sure exactly where to go with this because I'm not exactly sure in which camp I reside. I asked Cliff Barackman what his definition of a habituator was. He collected himself and said, "a long term witness." I was trying to figure out if that's what I was. There was a discussion about collecting evidence, and that's when I decided to get an audio recorder. I was witness to lots of stuff in 2013 that freaked me out and I came here to try and find answers. I got a big education about the science, the woo, the believers and the doubters. I learned that there are rival groups, and posers. I had just found out that there were sightings close to me, and that bigfoots lived in Ohio? What? Others saw what I saw nearby. Then I went into a tailspin, much of which is documented here and in the tar pit. Music was my only escape and I irritated a lot of people by posting links to the music that could say more than I could at the time. After feeling burned out here, I closed my circle, and have my "core" crew helping me and advising me. I have the most respected people that are so dear to me now. The Woo part tugged at my soul because I felt through my experiences that there was a gray area there with these beings, that was beyond science, but the science is what kept me grounded and sane. So I started collecting sound on my Sony px333 recorder. It was wild listening to our property at night. Then I heard some weird stuff. I was always happy when a knock hit and it got recorded. Usually, the knock didn't sound as well on tape as it did live. I live in a valley surrounded 360 by, hills in the biggest blocks of Holmes County, Ohio. I backed off of the forums here, as the obsession about what it was, took up too much of my life and I felt overexposed, by my own trust. It's always easy to hide anonymously behind a post, but I wasn't shy about saying who I was and where I lived. I just felt free to put it all out there. Well, you know what happens to people that say they have seen a bigfoot. I don't need the **** attention, I need the **** answers. I heard strange footfalls approach my recorder on the second night that I put it out. To me, the newbie second time recording sounded like BIG HEAVY SLOW DELIBERATE steps coming toward the recorder. I'm pretty sure that I posted that sound here. I was just learning how to download it and use Audacity. Freaked me out hearing it on tape! Being new, I had to guess that it was deer, but I think not, and believe that more now, especially having since recorded many deer moving through. The point is, that I have shared knocks, and sounds that I have recorded, and it doesn't make a hill of beans difference. Like an investigator friend just told me, "Everything you are trying to do, has already been done." I shared my recordings with the best in the business, and to go with the good science guys, it's interesting, but unless it's unlike anything that anyone has ever heard, it's just a knock or something else that may not be a bigfoot. The only thing that matters, is having fun and being out there when it happens, if it ever does. Shadowborn is right in my opinion. If the Locals are around, I believe that they are comfortable with those that they know. Interaction usually happens when it's just me out here late at night when they may be roaming by. My greatest wish in the world is that my husband experiences something, but he's on sensible successful people's hours, and he works as an independent contractor from home. He is very disciplined. I like to stay up all night and watch the sun rise, then sleep for two days. We do not have children, just us having fun now for 23 years married. For better or worse, the bigfoot stuff hit me, and us 21 years into our union. He has been AWESOME! He tells me that, "not everything is a bigfoot" and "did you see the creature hit the tree with the big log?" He keeps me grounded, but I'm like, uh uh, stuff is going on. In 2013 I woke him up every time something did. He's just happy that things have calmed down and I'm not talking about selling the house. We have met a lot of great new people, have them camp here, and go to Ohio conferences. Our lives have changed because of my sighting. We're still having fun though, and my husband is building us a camper with lots of windows and we're going roaming like we did in our 20s. FUN! No recorders, just fun. If big friends show up, then I'll know more than I do now. Each experience is another clue. Then again, it just makes you think about more questions and you think about how vast the universe is with all its energy. I'm just here, playing tunes and enjoying nature. My idea of what is nature, had expanded now. Going into my 4th season aware of it, I'm going old school with no recorders. Taking the pressure off and just having fun like we always used to do. If you have experienced possible bigfoot encounters, you never forget it. After that comes the, "could it have been...do I have the fever?" Then something else happens, and you have no doubt. But you go back and forth a million times. It's like an onion. The more answers you look for, only result in more questions. I had to tune out a lot of noise, and listen to my own voice. I'm not on facebook, gave up Twitter, and haven't been back to the BFF for some time. The love and friendship and family that surrounded me, were, and are, awesome. I have learned a lot. I am grateful for a lot, most especially their slack. Thank you to the BFF for helping start this journey. Your kindness, frankness, and ideas / theories were so helpful. I want to help anyone that needs it or wants to know, if I can. Here's the deal. People that have stuff happening at home, on their property, learn to close it down, and only share things with the trusted and experienced. How can you say that anyone has had my experience? I have no idea what someone else is experiencing on their property. How can that possibly be the same? Maybe we could compare notes and could find similarities. That's always cool. It's always cool to talk to someone that has had similar experiences. I am no investigator. I'll listen and for me, I'll know it's true by the way they react and the look in their eyes. "Doctor calls me crazy, some says I am, some says I ain't." New Minglewood Blues, Grateful Dead (sorry couldn't resist, timing was perfect) But how can you prove any of it? Except for Roger and Bob, and the great prints, it's a hard thing to do for a newbie in her back yard. How can I document what has changed here? "It goes to show, that you never know." Recently, I was grateful to sit next to Thom Powell at a special dinner. He filled in, and confirmed for me, a line of thinking that I had been pondering. Disclaimer, I don't even go down the UFO path because I can't handle that, I have enough to think about with bf. I don't know what's going on underground. Just focused on what is here. I think Thom is on to the idea that they have telepathy. I have had some strange things that happened, that could be attributed to that. I look at it from a logical, scientific point of view from my German half, then the Irish half takes over, and I feel it in my gut. Thom is over trying to record it. He's moving on to the next thought about what they are and how they operate. I agree with him. We know they're there, just why do they do what they do? Whatever, it's a lot to explain to people that want evidence. I tried for over a year to record. I wanted that evidence. I chased it. I wanted everyone to hear and experience what I had in 2013. I begged people to camp out here when it was going on. People I know and love thought at the time that I had lost my mind one day on a back road May 14, 2013. Maybe I did lose my mind that day, and everything else that has happened since, has been a dream or whatever. And you want people like me, if I am in fact a habituator - not sure that I am, to tell you what I think about stuff and not expect me to be shy about getting shot down? At least in the tar pit I can swear for intensity. It's like training a puppy to come, then swatting it with a newspaper that he didn't come sooner. Good dog, whack. I don't know what is / was going on. I have my ideas. Everything dropped off here for activity in 2014 and 15 with a few exceptions. I wanted it to go away. Someone wise here on the BFF told me that I should speak to them, make my stand, because I was telling my husband for two weeks that we have to sell the house because it's not fun here anymore. I told "them" to stop scaring me, and that the word here was "Peace." They live as they wish, and so will we, with mutual respect. Maybe it is just what I needed to do for my own piece in quiet hours. "I'll do what I have to do to stay here in Johnny's Garden." And "Ill listen to my singing call" "And tell my brothers what I saw" Stephen Stills That seemed to work and everything died down. It slowed down so much that after I got over the stress of it all, was happy for the peace, I got thinking about it with some distance. There's a lot to think about. We have been here for 17 years, moved here from Cleveland. Our house is very old. The Indian artifacts found on this property and the neighbors, are many. We just learned from a reliable local source, that "The Knoll" less than a mile from here may be an Indian burial mound. Some educated people are interested in it. So we're just here now, where many others were before us. Coming from the city, we were at peace here, such a good feeling here, and it is our property, 18 acres, surrounded by hundreds and hundreds. My foolishness thinking that I owned this and and it was ours, came crashing down when I found that the Locals were here many many years before us. Let it be. No pressure. No recorders. A leap of faith. With risks. Not trying to prove it. Just want to live in peace. So I don't record the knock and send it to someone. Been there, done that. Got some good stuff though, but things have been quiet. I'm "Just moving right along" as Michael Stanley sings. What else is there? I think I can find it without recorders. I was getting into a repeating loop with the recordings. It was going nowhere. Talking about this stuff with anyone other than trusted people, can sometimes be a drag. What good comes from it? You don't want people to think that your nuts, or fantasizing about something, or needing attention, or having a mid-life crisis. I have a wonderful husband and great great support group of friends and investigators. I love them. I loved my life before bigfoot showed up. Now that I have had some distance, I do miss the action, as it were. I gave up the recorder this past week, and heard a power knock that night from an area where I hadn't heard a **** thing in 2015. It would have recorded. I may have made a mistake, or I may have made the connection. I have heard enough knocks here to feel VERY confident about that one. I was so excited for days, still am. I think that's the way to go. Just let it flow, no recordings, no pressure, be cool, don't be stupid, and if they're around, and you are interesting enough, and you have an open mind, and you are in a peaceful state, without a lot of clutter in your head, and no distractions...maybe you will hear or experience something. One thing I can say for sure, is when you least expect it! Maybe it's just best that I chill out, and listen, and enjoy like we always used to do, before all this happened. That's where I I have learned what is helpful in this situation, and what is not. I'm like Star Trek's VGer. I require the information. If I can pass some along too, then it works. You have to be smart about it. Maybe this is dumb telling you all this, but hey, you helped me, and eventually checked out the BFF, and saw this question. So I am unloading a couple years in one long post. There are good people involved with this phenomenon for reasons other than promoting true research and good theory. I have found it useful to stick with my core of experts who know me, and welcome me to speak freely. They give me a lot of great perspectives and approaches. Not recording is of concern to two of my core investigators, and welcome to two others. The unanimous thought is that I should do what feels right for me. I trust my gut. I test high for pattern recognition. As I approach season #4 of SSQ, thinking about where I'm at with it. It's going to be with no recorders, just free, like it has been for hundreds and thousands of years in this valley. I'm just a witness to it for our little time here. Saying all that, to get to your point about sharing things, I want to give back to this community that helped me when I was just learning about things. I agreed to help on a couple of media projects as a favor to the investigators who helped me. It takes guts to put the story out there, and if it wasn't for the people near here that posted their account on BFRO, and those investigators who answered my call, I would have still been wondering what the I saw that day. Sorry if this sounds self serving, all I can say is how it was / is for me. What other people experience, or believe, is theirs. This is mine. There is a lot of Idiot Wind out there, so I don't blame you for thinking whatever you think. There is no wrong answer except for hoaxers and lairs. Their idiot wind, as Bob Dylan sings, messes a lot of stuff up. Let me be one to buck the perception that habituators don't share, (yeah I didn't do that on this post). I would love to get answers, if you have a thought about it. I'll tell you what I know, if you tell me what you know. Together we should be able to figure something out, no? To move the ball forward, I will offer this theory I am embracing for the 2016 season, which is leaving the recorder behind. I'm taking pressure off the whole place. That's how it was when it all started. I'm just going to enjoy our place and not worry about the Boogie Man. Easier said than done. That first night without recorders, guess what happened? YEP, a power knock from the back field. I hadn't heard anything there at all in 2015. Coincidence or confirmation? Just back off and let it happen. In my opinion, if you try and play games with it, you will come up short. I also am entertaining the telepathy idea. See Minerva Monsters film. One of the witnesses had an interesting experience throwing a ball back and forth. I have had my own experiences. Maybe it can be explained like your dog that watches you and "knows" what you are thinking? The whole bigfoot thing is one big freaky jumbled up mess. Science is the foundation. There is a gray area after the visible science rainbow fades, where the unseen part is. That's what I want to figure out now. How does that all work. I have a clue, and an idea. That's what I'm going after this season. It doesn't involve recording them. I think it's within. It's personal to every person. No two experiences are alike. Hanging out with people that are interested, or who have had similar experiences, is very important to me now. Well, maybe not as important as it used to be since I closed it in with my core trusted close people. Where I am at this season, is that I know it exists, I'm past that. I'm past trying to catch it on tape. I want to know about the gray line that starts where science stops. I think there is more research to be done there. No recorders this year. Im a little naked and vulnerable, worried that my dream of the big howl coming back is going to happen and I don't have it on tape. Maybe it wouldn't come if there was a recorder going? It just doesn't matter. I'm just doing what I always used to do before, and at the time when the Locals showed up. When I set out the recorder, and I told them to chill out, it all went away. I'm just going back to what itway was like simply. I'm not going to worry about them, and if they come around when it's convenient and throw a knock, for me or for their buddies, I'll be here to hear it...just like I heard Tuesday morning when I cooked up this "no plan" plan. It's like chasing the Jack of Hearts on Highway 66. Like being "stuck inside of Mobile with the Memphis blues again." You could chase your tail and like Thom Powell told me that he knew someone that showed him 70+ pictures of stick structures. You can go around and around and around. That's why I liked this thread. If the habs have a clue, let's hear it! George Harrison sang, "And if you don't know where you're going, Any oad will take you there. It's a game, sometimes you're cool, sometimes you're lame. Oowee, just don't win, it's so far out, the way out, is in. Bow to God and call Him Sir, but if you don't know where you're going...any road will take you there." I am lucky that I have you all on BFF. After texting the crap out of my investigator's phone with questions, I found the BFF. It was a lifesaver for me. WOW. I soaked it all up at once, at the same time when stuff was happening here in in 2013, and I had to work myself up for two hours just to take the trash cans out that are 100 feet from our house. I laugh about that now, but it was real to me then. I didn't want to step foot off my porch, even with beer encouragement. That's no way to live. It had to stop. I needed to get a grip on the situation. It's way calmer now. I wonder where it all went. When I hear a rare knock it's a big deal. It's like seeing a tornado. You want to see it in it's glory, but don't want to see it's destruction up close. Be careful what you wish for. Sorry for the long post. I hope I can answer some questions about why people keep quiet, but I have always been enthusiastic about helping others that have helped me...and maybe together, we can figure some of this stuff out. Until then, I'll just be enjoying nature in the Mohican Valley, Ohio and happy that I have the time to stay up until the sun rises. It's so beautiful here. Thank you all. Hammer Just another tricky day - The Who ANyPxKqv8eKk_FTdx5kaq7HEPmBOHdoZBWctRy7lveZapEAxg1uu5n26JZaE5IVisKT3ViNLon9S1iuXiSwJH9z8JBfrp7jV9w
  39. 8 points
    Link to the paper: http://1drv.ms/1BnR9hm I am away from WiFi access until Saturday. I do hope you enjoy the research! Original thread. http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/50970-what-about-the-bones/
  40. 8 points
    The Jacobs photo is interesting. I don't know what it is. I grew up in a bear preserve. It does not look like any of the literally thousands of bears I've seen. I don't necessarily think it's a sasquatch either. I think it best to toss it in the "hmmmm" pile. Jumping to premature conclusions **of either sort** is .. premature. I don't understand why people can't leave puzzles as puzzles and instead latch onto answers that can't be defended with integrity. Recently an animated gif I'd never seen before surfaced. The first pic is new, the middle one seems to be the Jacobs photo we're all familar with, and the third is clearly a bear. That first picture puts the "bear-ness" of the Jacobs photo into greater doubt ... at least for me. It seems to be the same figure but turned a bit. Like I said, I grew up in a bear preserve. I also hunt them other places. Bears ears are cartilage. They don't grow much so as a bear ages and gets bigger, its ears appear progressively proportionally smaller and smaller. They also seemingly slowly relocate from right on top of the head down to the upper side of the head. As a hunter, if you're after a trophy bear, look for bears that have very small seeming ears mounted relatively low on the head. So, relative to the photos, if this is a baby bear, the ears should be quite prominent and mounted high. I don't see them. The pictures aren't clear but they are clear enough. Unless this is a very old bear, the lack of prominent ears is a giant red flag. The other thing that is missing is a rostrum ... a prominent, protruding snout. If the head is turned away so we can't see the snout, the ears should display clearly. If the head is turned to the side so the ears are hidden against the head, the snout should be prominently displayed. Neither case seems true. I think calling this a bear demonstrates no knowledge of bear anatomy whatsoever. None. That doesn't make it a sasquatch. However, putting your "weight" behind a shaky claim it's a bear just to prove it can't be a sasquatch reeks of a wizard-of-oz -style "pay no attention to the little man behind the curtain" ploy. It's a puzzle best left as a puzzle. MIB
  41. 8 points
    The place that I think Sasquatch does not and will never exist is in a closed mind.
  42. 8 points
    Just for the record, I'm not Sasquatch Ontario.
  43. 8 points
    If MIB leaves then the skeptics have scored another victory. One by one legitimate researchers get tired of the crap and leave. Is that the chronic skeptic tactic? Silence those that contribute evidence? Note to administrators: That sort of thing will kill this website. I can see that people are becoming reluctant to post experiences because they get pounced on by the skeptics. Much of what happens in the field does not lend itself to being provable. Provable or not I want to hear what others experience.
  44. 8 points
    Sorry you can't shoot it down. You've got nothing to shoot it down with. You cannot produce Bigfoot. But anyone can produce the empty promises and endless carrot on string that the field rotates on. If a rational person concludes there is nothing to it in spite of the carrot out of reach it's not the fault of the person's rational. Let me put it like this. I've decided there are not unicorns. Yet the unicorn community keeps telling me there is evidence they exist and I'm just not trying hard enough to believe. All you have to do is swap Bigfoot for unicorn and you've got my position.
  45. 8 points
    Nowhere, but I wasn't saying that they should substantiate their claims. All I was saying is that if protecting their privacy was of concern that they should not share any information. Privacy, if what's truly desired, isn't protected by "Hey, look at what's happening to me" in the day and age of computers. I believe they want to make claims to draw attention to themselves, which is the exact opposite of protecting their privacy.
  46. 8 points
    My change of perception eveolved fro curious but uncertain (initially around 1968 to the mid-to-late 90's) to almost certainly not a costume (around 2000), to uncertain again when I began a truly comprehensive evaluation of the evidence in 2008, to certain she's not a costume beyond any doubt by 2009-2010. My certainty is based entirely on 7 years of studying costume technology with specific reference to Patty, and studying human and ape anatomy in far greater detail than I had before. Added: A third factor in my certainty is 7 years of studying 16mm film technology, looking for anything in the film medium itself that may indicate a hoaxed filming, and finding that every fact of the filming and copying process (which the film proces can reveal) supports a real spontaneous incident and not a staged one.
  47. 8 points
    Beg pardon, but don't some of the posters you converse with claim to have near personal interaction with the creatures? If that were so, and if they were as concerned as you, wouldn't they feel compelled to offer whatever evidence they could? Yet, they don't . Hmm, Can't help wondering their evidence, or their concerns. Edit: A cold body upon an examining table will prove the point, eh? And those raising doubts and concerns should do their part, too, eh? Yet, they don't, or as I believe, are unable. Thus, the need for the cold, dead body upon a clinical slab. You might exhibit your concern, but realize, if you (or anyone else) chooses not to provide proof, then the need for those bent upon bringing evidence to the forefront.
  48. 8 points
    It reinforces my opinion that current research practices, unfortunately, just don't cut it and a complete overhaul with what is done in the field needs to be considered. And I have every respect for anyone who attempts to get dirty in the field looking for evidence of this animals existence, but current methods just aren't good enough. And I will bite on this one. Remember, what I saw was not a bear, not a Gorilla, not any known animal or not a man and all I'm left with is thousands of sightings describing the same thing that I saw. That's all I'm left with and the only conclusion I can personally make, what I saw is the same as what is written about in thousands of sighting reports in North America. Just because a Professor tested x amount of samples with no positive results in any doesn't change my personal opinion that this animal exists one little iota. If I had other options regarding what I saw that day I'd be all ears, but I don't have any.
  49. 8 points
    Ok, now remember that my investigation of this happened way back around Easter of 1988. That's 24 years ago and I don't remember some of the exact details. I used to keep a log book of my investigations back then, but that log book disappeared during the time that I divorced and moved several times during the late 90's/early 2000's. Here's the lead in: When I worked for a large NASA and Department of Defense contractor, I worked with a couple of other guys that had had encounters with BF. One of the guys was also one of my hunting buddies and he had family in New Mexico and friends in Colorado - and I'll call him Bob. The other guy was on TDY (Temporary Duty) with me for several months at White Sands Missile Range (WSMR) - and I'll call him Carl. Carl and I had been investigating sightings around central NM in our spare time and had encountered BF on the Mescalero/White Mountain Apache Indian Reservation east of WSMR and had even had one pretty harrowing rock throwing experience there. Bob and I had hunted elk and mule deer in the Rio Grand National Forest, northwest of Alamosa, CO, a few years earlier and we were planning on hunting them again that fall. One of his friends in CO had a friend that was attending classes at one of the gunsmithing schools in CO and this friend-of-a-friend guided hunters in the fall. Bob had talked to him on the phone a few times and then Bob and I talked and it was decided that I would take an extra day or two off on Easter weekend and drive up to CO from WSMR and meet him in Alamosa - about a six and a half to seven hour drive. Then we would drive up into the mountains and he would show me the areas he proposed for us to hunt that fall. Some places were better for mule deer and some places were better for elk. At the end of our conversation, Bob told me to ask the "guide" about his experience with BF a few years earlier - that he had quite a story that he had heard from his and the "guide's" mutual friend. On Good Friday, I drove to Alamosa and met the "guide" - and I'll call him Mike. That night, over supper, I told him that I investigated BF sightings and encounters and that Bob had told me that he had had an encounter and I asked him to tell me about it. Mike clammed up and said he didn't want to talk about it. I pulled out my log book and opened it up in front of him and let him look over a few of my reports so that he could see that I was legit. Now, keep in mind that I was only 32 years old at that time and Mike was only around 24 to 26 y/o, and he was still in college, so you've got to apply the term "guide" to him very loosely - and I found that out for sure later that fall. And at that point in my life, neither I nor my friends could afford the services of a REAL professional guide service. Anyway, at that point, he reluctantly started to slowly relate to me the story that I told on Blogtalk. As I showed serious interest in it, and showed no doubt, ridicule or criticism, and asked intelligent questions, he opened up more. The incident supposedly had happened 3 to 5 years earlier, and, if I remember correctly, I think it was supposed to have been in 1984, but I’ve forgotten for sure. Over the next two days, we rode around in my Blazer to different places that Mike had hunted in Rio Grande, Mineral, Archuleta, and Conejos Counties doing pre-season scouting. At one point we were on another fairly dim jeep trail/logging road and came into the downhill, southeast corner of a cutover (logged) area that was around 80 or so acres in size and was on the east slope of a mountain or foothill. The seedlings that had been replanted in there were around mid-chest to head high, a few taller, there were still brush and waste piles and lots of vegetation and weeds growing there, so I figured that area had been logged three to six years earlier (I'm not familiar with the re-growth rates of seedlings in that part of the country, so this is an educated guess). The cutover area was surrounded by fairly mature evergreen forest interspersed with areas of aspen - typical for that area. Mike said "this is where it happened." I don’t know which of those four counties we were in at that time. A couple of details of what he told me come to mind. The hunter was using a bolt-action .270 Winchester. I don’t know the brand of rifle, so I can’t judge how prone it might have been to jamming. He said that the rifle itself didn’t jam on its own, but that the hunter, in a panic as the second BF was charging, short-stroked the bolt at least once and somehow ended up with a live cartridge with the point of the bullet jammed into the rear face of the breech, missing the chamber, and the case head wedged down into the magazine. He said that that was the condition the rifle was found in when they came back later. I personally know that can happen when someone is excited, because I’ve seen it personally, and it even happened to me once. It’s primarily caused by a lack of realistic practice with a weapon. Realistic practice develops “muscle memory†that goes a long way towards preventing human error of this type. I asked him why he threw down his rifle when he ran. He said that he already knew that BF know when you have a weapon or not and that he didn’t want that charging BF to see him with a rifle and think that he had anything to do with shooting the other one. And he said plus he could run faster without it. That made sense to me then and it makes sense to me still. Plus he had to have been in his very early 20’s then, and that would have been a natural reaction. As far as finding any BF evidence there, I didn’t see any, but I didn’t have time to look around much. Mike didn’t like being there and wouldn’t walk four feet away from the truck. The place had a “boogery†feel to it, but that could have just been my reaction to his story. His story didn’t change from the time he told me at supper Friday night to the time he showed me the place where it supposedly happened. He also said that the story was in the local papers as a bear attack. But, I thought at the time that a bear attack, and especially a death, would have hit most of the papers in the state, plus northern New Mexico. We parted ways late Sunday afternoon and I spent the night in Alamosa. Next morning, I found the newspaper office there and tried to search their archives. They didn’t have ANYTHING computerized and there were no microfiches either, so it was paging through big bound volumes of old newspapers. I looked all through the papers for the fall of the year it was supposed to have happened, and I found at least one or two bear attacks and maulings, that might have been in that area, but I found no deaths due to bear attack in that south-central CO/north central NM area. Then I went to the Alamosa County Sheriff’s Office and tried to discreetly ask a few questions. One of the two guys in there said that he’d heard of some guy that was torn up pretty badly over around the Rio Grande National Forest somewhere a few years ago but he didn’t know about anybody being killed. Then he asked me why I wanted to know, and I told him that I was gonna hunt in there this fall and I didn’t want to hunt where there were killer bears. That got a good laugh out of them and I left. Based on that lack of info, I didn’t give the story much credence. Later that fall when several of us got together and hunted in CO and Mike was supposed to be our guide, I believed it a lot less. We were each supposed to take turns having him guide us one-on-one for the whole day. His idea of guiding was to take one of us out early in the morning, show us where we were on a topo map and give us an idea of the lay of the land and then point and say “hunt that park over there†or “hunt that canyon down there†or “stalk around that grove of aspensâ€, or some such, then he’d disappear and go hunting for himself and you wouldn’t see him till you got back to camp after dark. We each took turns coming back to camp after lunch and spending the afternoon helping him get supper together, chopping firewood, cleaning up, etc. On one of my days to be “camp monkey†I was hiking in and I heard rifle shots. It sounded like somebody target practicing. There was a big beaver pond just below the camp and when I got to camp, there was Mike up on top of a HUGE boulder that sat at the edge of the pond, shooting at trout in the pond with a .257 Weatherby Magnum. He killed or stunned about a dozen and a half nice trout with the hydrostatic shock from that rifle, and at the time I thought that that wasn’t really kosher doing what he did, but we ate like kings that night. I found out later that what he did was highly illegal. The best thing about that trip was that Mike was a fantastic cook and all meals were awesome. He kept a wonderful camp, but he didn’t know squat about being a good guide. Bob and I tried to get some more specific info out of him about the supposed victim’s name, exactly where the incident happened, month and year for sure, and so on. Even though I’d been there, I couldn’t point to it on a topo map, and we’d ridden so many back roads, logging roads and jeep trails, that I didn’t even know what county the place was in. Mike was evasive and reluctant to talk any further about it. Based on that and my previous lack of findings in the Alamosa newspaper archives, I rated the incident “Improbable/Unlikely†in my log book. My BF’n buddy Carl always talked about probability of truth, and so to satisfy him, I gave it less than 10 or 15% probability of being true. Now let’s fast forward to around 2000. My friend Jim “Bear†Grant was researching old news stories on the internet about “wild menâ€, “ape menâ€, “hairy menâ€, “boogersâ€, “yahoosâ€, and other such things that were probably referring to what we now call bigfoot or sasquatch. He came across a story in Antebellum 1800’s about a guy that specialized in hunting down escaped slaves. He was hired to hunt one down had tracked him into the Okefenokee Swamp area, if I remember correctly. Somewhere in there, they encountered a BF, somebody shot at it, it attacked them, several more opened fire on it, but it didn’t stop right then, and the first thing it did was yank off their heads. Bear then found other old stories, some of referenced here in this thread, where the same thing happened. It may have partially dismembered some of them further, but I can’t remember. Anyway, when I read that, I remembered Mike’s story, in CO. He said that the first thing the BF did to the hunter was yank off his head. Where did Mike get that idea, if he didn’t see it happen? Remember, this was in the pre-internet days and I believe it was extremely unlikely that he had read one of those old newspaper stories somewhere in a book at that time. Did he just make it up and just happened to exactly describe the killing method supposedly employed by other BF? I don’t know….. This has had me scratching my head ever since then. Also, back in the 1960’s, a family that lived just west of our farm had a harrowing incident with a BF. I went to school with their two sons, and graduated high school with the oldest one. They sent their two trained German Shepherd guard dogs after what they thought was a bear raiding their garbage cans. The bear stood up and they saw that it wasn’t a bear. My classmate described it as a “yetiâ€. We hadn’t heard the word “bigfoot†at that time, but National Geographic had just put out their first special about the “Abominable Snowman†or “yeti†a year or so earlier, so he used the only word he knew to describe it. Anyway, the BF grabbed the first Shepherd that arrived and twisted its head around backwards, snapping its neck and killing it instantly, then threw it on their roof. The second Shepherd, it grabbed and twisted it’s torso, snapping its spine and threw it into their side yard. It was found on the ground with the back half of its body pointed upwards. If the front legs were pointed down, the back legs were pointed up. I would say that the muscular/skeletal structure of a big German Shepherd’s head and neck is stronger than a human’s. That action would have probably beheaded a human. Very similar killing method that I had forgotten about until I read the old slave hunter story. In addition, the method of hunting and herding the deer towards a hidden accomplice that Mike described the BF were doing matches what I've, years later, heard described by others, and it makes perfect sense. The fact the the deer were being herded or driven uphill in the morning perfectly matches the method that you would use to employ the rising morning thermals to take the herder's or driver's scent up to the deer, causing them to move uphill away from the driver (that's downhill), to where the accomplice was hidden (uphill) and HIS scent would be also taken uphill, but AWAY from the deer, allowing him to remain hidden. Also, when I’ve since gone back and researched bear attack deaths in the US, there is a great difference in the numbers of deaths listed in different sources. And we all know that Wiki, and any other internet source, is NOT infallible. For instance see: http://en.wikipedia....n_North_America and then compare the numbers to: http://www.blackbear...-statistics.htm . And the list gets bigger with further digging. And I also know for a fact, from my years of working for the Government, that LOTS of things are either covered up completely or altered so much that there is no way of getting to the truth of some incidents. So, to cut a really long story short, I’m not so sure that ol’ Mike was telling a bald-faced big one anymore. But, I’m SURE NOT going to submit it somewhere as a bonafide incident. I think it’s somewhat more likely that it happened, but I still categorize it as “Needs Much More Hard Evidence for Verificationâ€.
  50. 8 points
    Posted again in the hope that Parn will eventually stop misrepresenting what Stubstad has said about the early DNA results from the Ketchum report.
This leaderboard is set to New York/GMT-04:00
×
×
  • Create New...