Leaderboard

On a side note ( read that as thread drift) . It always comes up why has no bigfoot bodies or bones been found . Hominids are the only species who ritualistically bury their dead https://www.earth.com/news/homo-naledi-may-have-been-the-first-to-bury-their-dead-200000-years-ago/ You know typing that up. The thought occurred to me . Those mystery log structures that are being found? Has anyone ever searched the ground near them for possible burial sites?

That is correct. But I'm quite confident that there are conspiracies within government to ignore the existence of Sasquatches, and this position extends to active discouragement of discovery on occasion in certain circumstances.

This !! They don't have to run any more disinformation other than infer that witnesses are not mentally well. And that will have repercussions in your life. Personally and professionally. This would include persons in the government itself.

This seems to be a hot topic in the Bigfoot world. The answer depends on what people think of as "The Government" You can predict the answer to your Q when you know some other perspectives on what people think about other topics involving the government. The answer is: NO The government doesn't care. If they had proof of Bigfoot's existence parts of the government would awaken and care only to the extent of their boundaries and mission. For instance, the IRS would still care ZERO while the DNR might create parameters on forbidden hunting. Local sheriffs might have concerns of safety. Biology researchers might concern themselves about what makes a Bigfoot tick. Maybe military contractors try to lean how Bigfoot is so stealthy. Remember that old CIA saying: Two people can keep a secret if one of them is dead. There is no Bigfoot secret. Bigfoot either exist or it does not. if so, some parts of our government either know or don't know or care. If they know, why would that part of government keep it quiet or feel the need to?

That map of human migration has one element missing, and that is pathways made accessible by lowered sea levels during periods of glaciation. Drops of 200-400 feet have been reported for various ice ages, and these could result in significant expansions of habitable/traversable land. Its quite possible that much of man's prehistoric settlements could have taken advantage of these exposed coastal zones, and that untold habitations and artifacts, evidences of lost cultures could well be discovered within these now Oceanic sites.

From your own posts. In your Teepee structures post, you say in the first post that they are "created for another purpose ... [p]erhaps as a simple way of showing how many of their kind [the forest people] are in a particular location. You later stated that "the forest people" do not place these structures in there more secret living space, but use them at the boundaries of their living space. From roughly 0:45 to 1:00 minute of that video (discussing the 2013 teepee), you clearly stated your belief that the forest people were individually stacking sticks to provide a headcount of Bigfoot in a given area. In your Hilltop structure thread, you stated that the hilltop structure, "[l]ike the Teepee structure is a sign of where they [the forest people] live...." You labelled your next thread as a fact, stating that "you captured the voices of the forest people knocking over a tree" without qualification.

Actually, that's a misconception that a lot of people make. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence where the evidence should be there. An example of this is medical tests. If someone thinks that they have a disease or infection, then there should be evidence of it. But if the test results shows that there's no signs of the disease or infection, then they don't have the disease or infection.

If a Chimp found itself in a colder climate? Maybe? Or something else built it and the runaway Chimp simply utilized it somehow? Or the DNA lab accidentally put a unknown primate dna signature into the Chimp category? I have seen Oliver walk. He was creepy. I still say the Jacobs creature is a Chimp and not a Bear. I was a houndsman once and was on a houndsman forum and one guy swore up and down that him and his hounds encountered an African Lion on a hunt back east. It ran off and he gathered up his hounds and left. White as a ghost. The eastern woods I think have some strange things running around back there. A long history of zoos and plenty of thick woods to hide in. Lastly? I just thought of this? Maybe some of these stick structures are indeed shelters but the leaves or needles used as the final layer have decayed or blown away and all that remains is the rib supports? They would take a lot longer to rot away. Years. Just a thought.

And other members prompt her to communicate with "the forest people" for them.

For some strange reason it just happens to people . A lot of times it's mostly just geographical . When you don't live in a part of the country where they are you search the areas you have available . Thing is though once you convince yourself you have found bigfoot evidence Nothing and I mean Nothing will change your mind even though bigfoot are not there . If you think about it we have one member who thinks they telepathically communicate with them everyday . This thread is heading that way

1) If Sasquatches exist, reporting data alone demands they have existed on Fort Lewis, WA, at some point since the creation of Ft. Lewis as an Army post in 1917 (just 27 years after the end of the American Indian Wars). Reporting data strongly indicates that Ft. Lewis features an enduring population of these creatures passing through on a regular basis, and a century ago might well have had a decent resident population. There are documented reports of soldiers seeing them, and even shooting at them, as well as civilians on and around the post seeing them. Pierce County pretty much has the highest report counts in the BRFO database for the entire continent. The U.S. Army has every tool and asset necessary to "catch" the strongest physical evidence of these creatures, even back in the early days of the post, especially after a half century of chasing Indians around the continent. They also have the ability to do so secretly, both from the knowledge of the public, other government agencies, and even from the knowledge of most of the soldiers and officers on post. 2) The Army has a cultural attitude of superiority over their environment and informational security.......to the point of paranoia. It has been this way since even before the beginning of the U.S. Army's existence when it was still the British Army. If field commanders have Sasquatches running around their facilities, reports will reach people with authority, and some of them WILL utilize their assets to find out what is going on, then they WILL report their findings to their superiors. If told to stop their activities and keep their mouths shut, there is more than a fair chance that they will do as instructed. 3) Especially since the mid-1960's (50 years after Ft. Lewis was founded, and more than 50 years ago from today), the environmental movement is plenty of reason why a post commander would keep the existence of sasquatches downplayed, if not actively covering their existence up, especially on Army lands. There are also numerous other potential reasons, especially if they have determined that these creatures are primitive humans (as the Indians claim), having gone through Indian Wars for some 500 years now. If Sasquatches exist, some within the U.S. Army know about it. You can take that to the bank.

Welcome back bud!👍

Norseman, game cam pics much appreciated. Joe here

That's the mistake that a lot of people are doing. They don't know that those things are being done by Bigfoot, and yet, they will assume and claim that it is. They are chasing Bigfoot in an area where there could be no Bigfoot at all. The time wasted in an area where there's no Bigfoot could spent elsewhere.

Yeah, this was my initial thought. Though it’s not quite as rapid as I tend to hear.

Yeah, I’m fully on board with you. I believe a government coverup is essentially impossible. Especially a unified one across the world. Someone would have leveraged this knowledge for their own gain by now.

This is crazy! Ghosts, aliens, and ancient civilizations I get. But fortune tellers and telekinesis coming ahead of Bigfoot belief is absolutely wild.

I took it as the government doesn’t know because they don’t care. If they actually cared, they’d know about it. Then ended by saying they can either know, don’t know or don’t care. If they do know, it wouldn’t be hidden because it would be too important to varying agencies to do so. So there is no government conspiracy about hiding the existence of Bigfoot. it doesn’t come across as contradictory at all. It seems fair to make the distinction of people within the government, vs departments of government vs the government as an entire entity. Does John Doe with border patrol know due to his own encounter? Highly likely. Does John’s direct boss know? Probably. Does everyone within Congress know and actively choose to suppress the information to every single department unanimously with any dissenters at all? Not likely.

I'm with Cryptid on that last point, at least to some extent. As for at this point we can't even be certain if what's being seen as "large hairy hominid" even represents a single species, or a spectrum of diverse species created by successive waves of migration, or speciation through isolation or selective factors within a habitat....as relatively closely related forms, hybridization may be ongoing, unless inhibited by their own cultural norms. But I do believe that eventually, or maybe tomorrow, proof/evidence of definite nature will be had. Of course the governmemt may finally choose disclosure of what they know as well.. As for the percentage of sightings that get reported to various record keeping groups, I d personally guess its no more than 5-10% at the very best, and probably well below that. Figure Joe Average may not even be aware of Bigfoot groups prior to a sighting, this their first recourse would be to call the police, or perhaps the forest service, which would usually result in mirthful dismissal, which could well make them all the more reluctant to pursue further efforts to report. Most nigfoot groups on say Facebook that I've seen run rampant with harshly critical elements that offer up more than enough critique, criticism, and questions of personal sobriety to turn anyone's thought away from reporting anything ever again!

Yes, Trogluddite, the other side of the Rockies from me, about a 10 hour drive east from my home. It's a great area, you'll love it.

This is pretty much exactly what I took your agreement to mean.

Okay, a better statement is that there are limited documented or reported sightings. If a sighting occurs in the woods and it isn't reported to a research group, then it doesn't add to the base of knowledge about Bigfoot. Why would a research group, such as the BFRO, the Forums, or whatever group exists in Massachusetts ridicule witnesses? Numerous people have given detailed accounts of their sightings here on the Forums; I don't recall any of them being ridiculed. In fact, the Forums management has banished members who ridicule other members and/or their reported accounts. I'm sure that the Forums' membership would welcome a description of these encounters (usually in the sightings Forum, Massachusetts reports would go in the northeast sightings subforum). If the report was detailed enough, they would likely be added to the SSR (the Forums' database) so that other researchers, who may be more reserved about posting, can use them in their research. I post about things I research online because despite quite a bit of hiking in the Daks, Catskills, Canada, out west, and several grid searches in remote woods in New York, I haven't had an encounter, seen a track, heard a knock, or found any wood structure/manipulation that's attributable to anything other than nature or humans. Since I don't have the good fortune of knowing they exist through a first hand encounter (the only real way to know until someone puts a body (or two?) on a slab for dissection), the only thing that will persuade me one way or the other is research. I haven't questioned your claims, merely added context to assist others to make their own decisions about them. Look forward to hearing more reports from your research. As noted above, it seems to be a potential example of the halibut effect (which I note for newcomers is described on the BFRO website, in Cliff Barackman's podcasts, and probably somewhere here in the forums).

After another week of nasty wet weather, the weekend turned sunny and warm, so my son and I headed out to the mountains in search of sasquatch sign, as well as having bear and cougar tags for the spring season, just in case. We chose to check out the Hunter Creek watershed, SW of Hope, BC, which climbs very steeply from the floor of the Fraser Valley into a system of old logging roads that extend over 30km or so into the various branches of Hunter Creek. The scenery was great, but we couldn't reach the ends of any of the roads due to heavy wet snow drifts at the higher elevations wherever the track was shaded. There were lots of birds, but the only mammals spotted were a pair of marmots sunning on a rockpile at about 1500' elevation.

Actually you're using confirmation bias for the things you find . I won't call it evidence . Has anyone ever seen Bigfoot building a structure ? No but look at your posts ....Has to be a bigfoot in your other posts of the stick structures you found. N ...That's confirmation bias The structures that you have been told that kids and people build them ...a lot in the woods . Hell I passed one today while hiking with the dog in the woods. There's tons of people who will go out and practice bushcraft . When ever someone points something out you dismiss it and fall back to I know it's the forest people doing this. You are not doing this subject any good by always thinking everything is a bigfoot or what you like to call forest people but you can't see that .

I agree with this POV. I certainly believe Bigfoot is real, but is incredibly rare. I would say 90%+ of sightings are deliberate hoaxes or misidentifications. Most sounds in the woods can be explained by something else. And should be approached skeptically and assumed to be something else unless all other potential answers are eliminated.

Okay I guess there's probably a Bigfoot clan living in my back yard then . Don't become one of those where everything you see and hear is a Bigfoot . You can't research this subject with confirmation bias because it never works and you see plenty of yahoos on Bigfoot youtube channels thinking every noise and tree break is bigfoot That's all I'm saying man.

Felix if you not finding any tracks they are not there no matter how much you want to believe Bigfoot are in that area .. It's just not possible for them to be foraging and hunting in an area and not leave any tracks .

You make a good point. We all would like the Bigfoot topic to get the serious consideration and resources we feel it deserves. Yet, I would like to offer up this idea: PT Barnum (or someone like him) stated, "I don't care what they keep saying about me so long as they spell my name right" The idea is any press is good press. I don't see anything demeaning about a Messin' with Sasquatch commercial. In a way I think the more Bigfoot air fresheners in cars or mudflaps and beef jerky commercials put Bigfoot in the mind of the public. I see that as a good thing. This is having fun with the topic which I think softens the topic for the public. Attempting serious academic study of Bigfoot could be met with ridicule. Such serious people are lumped in with those people looking for unicorns. If a person claim they saw Bigfoot they probably don't have time to whip out their call phone This leaves them with a choice: Tell others what you saw or keep quit. As Gimlin found out, even having a film of a reported bigfoot is not enough to shied you from harassment and ridicule. If I saw what I thought was bigfoot in the woods, I might not tell anybody. Shows like Discovery and so on have done a decent job giving serious study to the Bigfoot concept. Really good shows have featured the kind of experts we want to present. These are people like Munns, Meldrum, john Bindernagal, Anna Nikaris, and so on. These people are a good face for the serious study of Bigfoot. Where we miss are shows like Finding Bigfoot where the bigfoot topic unintentionally becomes a joke. You have people talking about bigfoot like he exists as a proven. They brag about all these things they attribute as fact right down to bigfoot's diet, bigfoot's favorite color, and bigfoot's favorite baseball team. When you have Bobo running around saying every twig snap is a 'squatch' all the previous well- built credibility is lost. You can't underestimate the damage this has created. Anyone doing a serious study of Bigfoot is lumped in with the face of Bigfoot. That face is Bobo. For me, finding bigfoot has done more to harm the subject of bigfoot second only to Bob Heironimus unchallenged claims

This is a volume enhanced 2 to 3 minute .wav file from the original .mp3 file which was 2 hours long. This is just about the same size as the audio used in the video. Hope this helps. treefall.WAV

typical word play in the original post. not blaming the OP, but I am blaming his sources for fear mongering. opening 112M acres for logging doesn't mean that 112M acres will be logged. Today, we log anywhere from 2M to 10M acres a year in the US. The directive from President Trump is to increase logging by 25% domestically. That means 500K to 2.5M acres will be logged out of the 112M acres. We are talking about .45% to 2.23% of the 112M acres being logged. We have 823M acres of forest in the US. When you look at the amount of total forest impact, we are talking about to .06% to .30% of the forest being logged annually under this new rule. Is this really a sky is falling moment? NOT EVEN CLOSE. It is more whipped up hysteria from the true enemy of the people, the media.

Is that a clan or just a family? To me a clan is multiple families.

You make some good points here. What I wish people understood is that these beings are literally everywhere there is a sufficient sized forested area to conceal them and to hunt, in my opinion. For people that want to kill one to get a body for science, I think they will have a better chance of knocking out God. There is a reason, the natives called them the great spirits of the forest. Do you believe that somebody on this forum will finally figure out what the Sasquatch is all about? After thousands of years, JOHN DOE, came along and solved the mystery, yeah, OK. Humanity is not there yet, at least I'm not. I only express what I see and experience. I have not experienced mind speak, or marbles dropping out of the air, or orbs or a UFO connection or anything like that, but I won't rule it out. We have to be open to all experiences as they occur, or we will miss much. All the large forests above 100acres perhaps, will have them, in my opinion. Their nature and the details are yet to be discovered. Maybe, it can only be discovered on a personal level, but I keep trying.

I was looking for an expert in bird sounds, not a critique of my experiences. You claim bigfoot lives in clans, have you ever seen a clan? Has anyone on this site ever seen a clan? Pure conjecture. You also claim that bigfoot are migratory. Did you install ankle bracelets on them to figure this out? I have personal experience that says they stay put in the winter, only closer to their inner sanctum. I don't have confirmation bias, because I let the evidence speak for itself, and I ask others for their opinions. I don't just parrot what the rest of the so-called experts say, because actual factual evidence is rare, and too many assumptions are being made about it.

That's not a misconception, If there's a footprint in a 10,000 acre forest, and I don't see it, that does mean that the footprint does not exist.