Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 08/18/2019 in all areas

  1. 3 points
    Bought a smittybuilt roof top tent. Could not find a Silverado bed rack anywhere so I had one built. Go to the cardiologist tomorrow. And then to Post Falls Idaho to 4 wheel drive parts to get the tent installed.... Driving down to New Mexico to see new grand baby and wanna spend some time in the Colorado Rockies along the way!
  2. 2 points
    Exactly this /\ The trackway I came across 40 odd years ago was all alone along the old logging road, nothing else had made any tracks there. When I went back with John Green the next day, the only additional tracks were my own, paralleling the large tracks for the first 20 yards into the snow; the rest of the tracks continued up the road for as far as we could see, probably 400 yards till they disappeared around a curve in the slight uphill grade. Who the heck would fake that, not knowing if anyone would see them before all the snow melted?
  3. 2 points
    I watched the sequence trying to see more details of the baby. What has not been mentioned is that the first part of the video Mom does not seem to be carrying anything. She makes a beeline for some large rocks then raises up holding the baby after a few seconds staring at the person doing the video. Then the baby is visible most of the time. She does not withdraw away from the camera but at about 90 degrees to the camera holder. Most likely because of the huge boulders directly away from the camera. Which she could not navigate holding a baby. I have always contended that Patty was on a mission. She could have withdrawn directly away from Roger and Bob but proceeded along the creek in the direction Roger and Bob were traveling. That and her prominent breasts suggests to me Patty was lactating and had a baby stashed someplace. Her mission was to get to baby before Roger and Bob did. Just like this Mom single mindedly proceeded to her baby, and retrieved it, when it could have just gone into a crouch and not been seen at all. In both cases getting to baby first was priority.
  4. 2 points
    Good summary below on the scientific view of bigfoot research today and the unlikely presence of a conspiracy. The article has several good quotes from Dr. Sykes, Dr. Disotell, and Dr. McLeod. Although, for those who have followed the field for the last 10 years, there is nothing new in this article. https://hotalien.com/theres-no-sasquatch-conspiracy-afoot-scientists-say/
  5. 2 points
    I was a voracious reader in the 60's. I got interested in cryptozoology. Then Roger Paterson presented his film in the Columbia theater in Longview WA. I was hooked. Then I read everything I could get my hands on about sasquatch. An experience on the east side of Mt St Helens when some large rocks were thrown at us out of the old growth forest kind of topped it off in the early 70's.
  6. 2 points
    Did you know that the National Park Service has a Special Forces Unit including a SWAT team?: https://www.nps.gov/subjects/uspp/special-forces-office.htm I found out when some very interesting folks I know ended up on the wrong side of a national park superintendent. The NPS SWAT team was flown up here, complete with full military hardware, to put the extreme hurt on this family.And that was just one such dust up: https://www.adn.com/projects/article/pilgrim-family-battles-national-park-service-mccarthy/2013/07/12/ https://www.adn.com/uncategorized/article/remote-alaska-park-service-wields-too-much-power/2011/04/14/ You don't think the resource management agencies have secrets? No dark ops? No coverups? Science has absolutely nothing to do with this subject to the administrators, except if it defines what they will have to deal with if it becomes public knowledge and the lawyers show up to tell them what they have to do..........
  7. 2 points
    They may have been nighthawks in the recording. Then again, who knows? I slept in the back of my pickup. It has a hard canopy. I also had a 10x10 pop-up over the back part of the truck, so I would have a dry place to get out in the middle of the night. I lost my entire colon fifteen years or so ago to ulcerative colitis and I have to get up several times a night to take care of business, so I need it to be as easy as possible. TMI, I know. The funny part is that the rain would collect on the roof part of the pop up. Of course, while I was lying in the back of the truck listening, and imagining a 9 foot tall creature outside, it decided to dump that water load on top of the canopy in one large whoosh! Scared the bejeepers out of me. LOL Then it would wait until I was almost asleep and do it again, and again. I have had better nights' sleep, believe me. Still, it was fun, and always nice to get out in the woods.
  8. 2 points
    I think if a researcher goes to the paranormal side from the purely flesh and blood side, it's more than likely he or she experienced something that has no other explanation. They get drug into the rabbit hole by their own perception. Of coarse, their perception could still be fallible, but it depends on how repeatable the experience is in order to solidify as fact in their mind.
  9. 2 points
    I am not a tracker. I am a hunter. Big difference, especially depending on the prey hunted. I employ spot and stalk in open terrain, baiting and calling for predators, and calling for ungulates. I prefer to get the prey to come to me in order to avoid spreading my scent as much as possible. I stay in a quiet, fire-less camp, and try to locate that camp in the ideal spot for the prey to migrate by close. I often see bear tracks on the trails I use to access the wilderness. It happened the other day. I went caribou hunting for a week in a high mountain pass above treeline. On the way up the 20 mile trail, just below treeline in altitude where the blueberriees are ripe and plentiful, and in the area where I see such sign annually, there were both the tracks and the occasional blueberry scat of a grizzly sow with at least one older cub. When I see such sign, I know they're in the area, and I can tell generally how old the sign is, but there is simply no way I'm going to try to track such a creature down. I have zero chance of success. If it was a big boar, and I wanted to harvest it, I might try to find a good overlook and spend time (days) setting there and glassing, especially mornings and evenings. Or, if legal, I'd dump some stinky bait for them and wait (days) for it to come. Or I might walk back on the trail (no motor vehicle) and call with a bleating calf moose call. I was impressed with Paul Freeman when I saw that he was maintaining a map of records on which he marked up the sasquatch trackways he'd found, complete with dates from which he could discern patterns in movements and locations. Of course, this was in an area of officially limited public access to which he had access for many years, which was an added plus. This enabled him to become extremely familiar with that area over a period of many years with no logging or interlopers to disrupt. He used his access and outdoorsmanship well. The day he filmed that sasquatch at Deduct Springs, he expected to find sign there, and he did. He even knew what time to get there, but was late due to circumstances, which might have been a benefit in disguise. The one thing that surprised me was his talking to the camera while filming. I suppose he felt that necessary for a video of the trackway find, but it's difficult to believe that the sasquatches didn't hear him and move off before he shot them on video. I believe that the best way of actually tracking a sasquatch down would be with dogs. These dogs would have to be specially trained to hunt sasquatches specifically, which would be a difficult training task, indeed. A breed used by the Russians might be a good type of dog to start with. Perhaps more practical would be to follow Freeman's modus operandi; find a large area of excellent habitat in a region of sasquatch history that has limited public and industrial use, gain legal access, and start putting in the years of finding tracks and building knowledge about their patterns........probably more difficult and time consuming than breeding and training dogs, but also without the legal hassle from the authorities and large land owners.
  10. 1 point
    Sorry, I realize this thread has been hijacked. Feel free to re-hijack it to its original purpose. I think the kook or level of kook has been identified as to who would break into people's homes and computers. My opinion is it has to be Jon-Erik Beckjord. Though the man had no friends and no money, he was resourceful. He managed to overcome a lot of hardship to launch those dumb cryptid museums. Somehow he paid rent until he couldn't. He could have come up with a few hundred to pay some kid to hack or break in to a residence to make his point. He was not above harassing BF researchers at home or their work, including their families. He was singular minded, focused on cryptid research so this was no ordinary criminal. This was an "inside" job. Beckjord was a hothead who did everything he could to intimidate BF researchers. You became an instant target if any of your research came within a hair's breath of an idea he claimed was his own.
  11. 1 point
    Keeping the stock mattress pad and adding optional extra pads gives a layer of isolation from the base plate. It might be easier to find several small memory foam mattresses that come with removable covers. Having a 'blue tarp' back up is essential. The annex? And your wife says..................? .Pop up shower / changing tents are handy and do not have a large footprint. Is that rear axle set up for dualies?
  12. 1 point
    I dunno, I think you're basically spot on with everything you're saying in this thread and I wish I had more to add, but I feel compelled to try and participate anyway. The only slight questioning I have with regards to your most recent line of thinking re: international cooperation of governments is the difference in approach to the topic by some of these nations, e.g. China's quasi-official recognition of the species in the establishment of Shenonngjia or Malaysia's official protection of the Orang Pendek (although I can't find reference to this fact now..). Still, these could be seen as mild concessions or "soft disclosures" in the same way the whole AATIP thing blew over with the general public hardly batting an eye, or even noticing. As for academic science and scientists, most of them approach the topic with the same flawed assumptions and ignorance of the basic facts as the general public. This boils down to ideology, the view of man conquering nature, the supremacy of science as authority on truth. The scientists who have taken a bit closer look at it, like Sykes and Mohawk, I'd wager haven't really taken a closer look, haven't left the bias of their ideology at the door and stuck their nose into every nook and cranny of detail available then stepped back and looked at the whole enchilada from 10,000 feet. Having been on one side of that fence and then the other, before even going out and encountering these beings, I remember what the mindset is. Your mind races around analyzing every detail for possibilities that it could be anything but what it seems to be on its surface. Any possibility is more likely than the most obvious one. Your points about the situation in Bluff Creek in PG days are great. Were scientists already primed to think this way? Must be. Not a conspiracy, just negligence. We're mostly on the same page here too, but I guess I would like the world to know about them, if only for the seismic shift in ideology it would cause. I have a hunch that the sasquatch want that too, why else do they show themselves or establish relationships at all? The key is in the way that awareness is transferred, that it can't be just another "thing" that we can understand by manipulating it and watching it squirm, or the message in all of this will be lost. That's why they so adamantly hide and deprive us of anything that would represent the sort of "gift" scientists would like for us to bring them. Study is a form of dominance; they refuse to be studied. Anyway, if you feel you want to try to force the issue with the govt, check out what Chris Noel's been getting up to this summer:
  13. 1 point
    It will be 5000x easier, but hopefully still very enjoyable. This caribou hunt last week really deflated my sails. It was more a spiritual journey than a hunt. I'm as reluctant to heed the message as it appears you are. We'll see. I'm pretty stubborn. I hope the Almighty forgives me and has mercy for my hard heart............ I hope you have a great trip, my Friend. You deserve it.
  14. 1 point
    Wow, thanks for the fantastic details! I very much appreciate all that typing! We were knocking around at the beginnings of those creeks, Brice and Sharps. Looks like GREAT squatching area. I've heard from Tobe Johnson that there's lots of sightings up thataway, too. I also want to try gold panning, which my kid woukd like. Thanks, MIB! Going to check out that structure on the lake this weekend in my new kayak. Can't wait, should be fun!
  15. 1 point
    Care to go into detail? I have become fascinated with Bigfoot of late and would love to know if anyone has actually gone out searching for Bigfoot with success? I am in Mass which isnt the best BF sighting territory, but ive been hiking a lot lately hoping in the back of my mind something happens. I am excited to be apart of this community and reading all these posts have only help confirm what I already believe.
  16. 1 point
    Welcome to the forum, Dr.! I hope you enjoy the ride!
  17. 1 point
    I've been hiking, hunting, camping, prospecting, and just hangin' out in the mountains of B.C for more than 60 years, and had 3 experiences in that time. My teenage son had a sighting about 40 years ago on a camping trip, but I only got a fleeting glimpse of what he saw. I found a trackway in snow a year or so later, and then had a sighting the year after that. Nothing since, and I get out in the woods every chance I can, probably 30 days per year nowadays. I still go hunting and prospecting, and get out a few times each year with other local researchers specifically looking for Sasquatch, but our best efforts so far have been a rock throwing incident, and follow ups to a number of local reports, only one of which produced a castable track.
  18. 1 point
    While within the national academic community Meldrum probably gets snickers of ridicule, I would venture to say that Meldrum is probably the most famous professor at Idaho State. Who else among them has had as much TV and media exposure. I think because of that the university has given him a lot of latitude to explore the BF phenomena. Certainly his BF interest has generated a lot of side income for his family. Some of the professional skepticism could well be based as much on jealousy as any other factor.
  19. 1 point
    Thanks for that OkieFoot, it sounds pretty interesting and well worth a read. If the find is genuine and the trackway is way out in the middle of nowhere then I'm reasonably confident it wouldn't be a hoaxer, but as you say, that relies on a single individual telling the truth. Then we are in the realm of trying to explain what animal made the track and ruling out the obvious ones until we have a prime suspect and as Sherlock Holmes says "when you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth." I'm actually from Wales, the tiny country next to England with all the mountains and castles!!!! It's been pretty nice here considering we normally get a lot of rain, had a few really hot days but it feels like autumn is on it's way here very soon. Climate is quite similar to Ireland actually but usually a bit colder in winter!
  20. 1 point
    All of the places I mentioned are up behind the "town" of Culp Creek where you turned off forest road 22 to go to Sharps Creek. If you go up Sharps Creek, the road is paved and follows the creek a long ways. I believe the pavement ends at Fairview Creek. There's a rec area, rest area, trail up fairview that goes past some old mining equipment. There's a private road to a mine or two in the creek. The main road turns to cobbles there and climbs steeply. This is Hardscrabble Grade. The top of Hardscrabble Grade is Bohemia Saddle. Alternatively, if you go past the turnoff to Sharps Creek and continue up Brice Creek on the 22 road, you'll pass some rec areas. Watch for Hobo Camp. Champion Creek is past Hobo Camp. After some miles, you'll see the turnoff, to the right, for forest road 2212. This is Champion Creek. The road numbering is misleading, it may have another number as well. That road is best driven from bottom to top because it's seriously skinny in places and by going this way, if you meet someone, you'll be against the rock wall instead of over the cliff if there's any backing up needed to get around each other. A short ways up Champion Creek there's a turnoff to Noonday Ridge. This is a moderate four wheel drive trail and probably should be avoided. It was written up in one of the national four wheeling magazines 20-ish years ago. Just a little farther is Smith (aka "Smitty") Falls ... definitely picture-worthy. Proceed CAREFULLY .. if you don't like what you're seeing there is only one more place to turn around, otherwise it's a long back-out with significant pucker. (Or at least that's how I remember it.) Once you get through the middle canyon and break into the headwaters of the creek, the road opens up, passes some mines, and eventually hits the ridge road about 2 miles east of Bohemia Saddle ... the top of Hardscrabble Grade. Yet more alternatively, if you don't like Champion Creek, stay along Brice Creek. Turn off road 22 onto road 2213. This is a good, pretty wide, USFS road. It loops around to the top of the ridge. Champion Creek connects to it at the top. Look for Musick Guard Station. No water, have to haul it in. There are BF reports there. Continue along the ridge. Somewhere 2213 becomes 2460 and goes to Bohemia Saddle where Hardscrabble Grade leads back to Sharps Creek. That's a great drive from top down if you have good reliable brakes. Along the way you'd pass a couple of mines. On one hairpin corner, there's a mine shaft (with a metal grate blocking it). I stopped there, got out to let my brakes cool and just generally take in the "vibe." I had one of the strongest senses of being watched that I can remember there. If you do drop down Hardscrabble, be careful not to go south on the 2358 road. It seemed to be the better road when I was there but it goes into the North Umpqua down Steamboat Creek or Canton Creek. Haven't driven it .. seems like a pretty drive but not one to do accidentally (in other words, being lost :)) . For even more adventure, one time I went through Oakridge, towards Hills Creek Reservoir, took Larison Creek / USFS 2106, then 5850, then either the 737 or 744 minor spur across to the 2213, then on to Bohemia Saddle. That took a good 4 hours and most of the time I was functionally lost and very happy to have left Oakridge with a full tank plus 2 5-gallon jerry cans of gas. Fun big country. Lot of places are not that far apart but the roads do not go from A to B without going through P, Q, and twice through Z to get there. MIB
  21. 1 point
    My first encounter the two adult BF were whooping at each other as they moved through the woods. That whoop could be construed as a bark I suppose but it was more like what a human could produce by vocalizing "whooop". The "P" was definitely pronounced.
  22. 1 point
    We have to be very careful on taking people at their word. I'll even add we are taking their word about the location if the photo or photos don't show landmarks to identify the area. If I have a pic of me smiling by an oak tree, I could claim it could be anywhere. No one would care if I am lying since it is not an issue anyone cares about. Taking their word is a bad idea. We could assume though we could draw some example of some bigfoot-like tracks found remotely: Lets say you are a skeptic. Lets say you go into remote woods where there is rarely another camper/ person. After much difficulty in hiking you come across a series of tracks or a few tracks or even (due to the ground conditions) a single track. You would have to admit it would be a lot of trouble for a hoaxer to hoax there as 1) the track like milk would go bad after some time 2) It would take an effortt for the hoaxer to even get there to make the track. 3) The hoaxer by definition needs someone to find these soon- to- be- vanishing tracks. Without that someone to be fooled there is no one to hoax. If a TREE falls in the Forrest and no one is around to hear it.... For that reason, the hoaxer would generally use an area not so remote the hoax disappears before it can be seen. I couldn't agree more. Yep. Now if they told the exact location and I could go there it could still be a hoax. However, by telling me exactly where (assuming it could be known) at least the person is not fearing I will see it as well and discover the hoax if it is one. All great point I would agree with. Again, just say it is your personal experience. You don't even take pics since your phone is dead. You just notice it. You would get back to the world and say, "Well, who put that track there" This is why it makes since when Bill Munns says in WRMP to mainly just look at the film and see what it tells us vs taking people's word for it. Helps eliminate that factor. The ideal situation would be something along the lines of a film crew, logging crew, bird watching group, or whomever being there with some other intent. While there, they stumble across something like some remote tracks. They could photograph the tracks and or film the tracks. Right might help. I doubt such situations exists too often. I can only hope. I think of the days before Charles Lindberg's flight across the ocean. Some French guys took a plane from France to America never to be seen again. Years later some people who were hunting in the USA/Canada area claimed they came across the engine block/ wreckage of that plane and other minor debris. Who really knows. IF it is true then they way the came across it is the same way I am talking about those Bigfoot tracks. A random encounter in an area hard to get to. Could be real, could be a hoax, could be a real misidentified track maker (Bear or whatever).
  23. 1 point
    Science states that BF does not exist. BF enthusiasts say that it does. The same enthusiasts point to report sightings throughout almost the entire US. There are ones that claim to have evidence but withhold it for various reasons. Some claim that in “inner circles” there are multiple clear and convincing photos. Maybe as a BF community we need to like within as to why this mystery is not solved. We can and should point fingers at the government on the issue but we also need to realize fingers need to be pointed at us as well. We keep yelling there is smoke that should lead to a fire but we can’t reliably produce said smoke and get upset that they won’t acknowledge the fire.
  24. 1 point
    Congrats! This is grandchild #3?
  25. 1 point
    I think it’s a pretty good article as well. I don’t believe in a scientific conspiracy against BF. It addresses accurately what I believe is bias among scientist but you can’t blame science as a whole for that. The problem(s), imo, is laziness or lack of interest.
  26. 1 point
    It's a younger generation lass, like 80 or 90 years younger than you, different values, different angle, different everything.
  27. 1 point
    Yes, society is so distracted BF easily blends in.
  28. 1 point
    That seems true of gorillas, too. They're big on bluffing and display. I've bluffed a few Egg McMuffins before. Bought 'em in the wee hours on my way out of town, took a bite while on the road, and it was so horrible, I threw it out the window for the ravens. I'm a slow learner; it happened at least twice.
  29. 1 point
    In our country the million dollar question is what happens during winter? How does a 800 lbs primate get enough groceries, without being detected when other 800 lbs omnivores are fast asleep?
  30. 1 point
    I see what you are saying. I'm not being clear. I consider woo to include things like BF telepathy, dimensional travel, cloaking, etc. In that, I agree with your provided definition. The point I'm making is that the bulk of the BF community hears a report about BF cloaking, or using telepathy or disappearing/appearing in a flash of light, they (almost pathologically) call it BS and classify it as Woo without a second thought. Everything that exists in the universe has an origin, but as far as I know, there is no rule in the universe that says a person's conclusions to what they saw be correct. It's perfectly acceptable to reject the conclusion drawn from an observation without rejecting the observation itself. I reject the observer's conclusion that the woo-ish things, like BF telepathy, Predator-style Cloaking, or interdimensional travel, are actually what the observer believes them to be. However, I accept that these people saw something that led them to the conclusion they formed about what they saw. I've observed enough similarities between separate "woo" reports to make me curious enough to investigate alternative explanations for what these people saw instead of rejecting the reports out of hand. Your gorilla analogy makes my point. The discovery of the gorilla did not require the men of science to believe in the mystic monster stories in order to become curious enough to look for the origin of the stories. In reality, it only took a few kooks to decide to waste their time chasing monster folklore to find them. I think that is the reason some of the classically "serious" BF investigators have decided to look in other directions to find the answers they seek. When you sift fact into one pile and fiction into the other pile and the pile of facts don't yield a satisfactory answer, then the pile of fiction must be reexamined for additional information that may have been overlooked.
  31. 1 point
    ADFG has published cases of wolves killing younger adult brown bears and eating them. It doesn't happen often, but it happens.
  32. 1 point
    You cannot kill what you cannot catch...
  33. 1 point
    I always had an interest in BF ever since watching "In Search of" as a kid. Then around 2000, a good friend of mine (after I specifically asked him if he ever had a BF sighting while hunting), hesitantly shared his experience and sighting on a tree stand in Northern Texas in the 80's. He and another hunter friend both saw it clearly. He shared a very detailed description right down to how it was walking and the look and color of its hair. (I say he was hesitant because he was not sure if I was serious with my question. He said he never talked to anyone about it, but if I were serious, he would tell me what he saw. He said he (like other hunters) NEVER talk about such things out of fear of ridicule).
  34. 1 point
  35. 1 point
    @CharlesLamica You cannot believe they are flesh and blood AND that no one will EVER track one down and capture one. Those two statements are mutually exclusive, IMO. They are either animals and someone will eventually do it, whether it's sick, old, young or hurt....or they aren't just animals. They can't be perfect for their entire lives.
  36. 1 point
    You'd have been just as well off staying at a Holiday Express Inn last night. I'm going to use the Denisovan case to illustrate my problem with this DNA shell game: First of all, before ever discovering any fossils whatsoever, the Denisovan markers in the human family have been there all along, if you believe what they're saying. It's supposedly high in people from southeast Asia, which is interesting since southeast Asians tend to be small people and Denisovan fossils regularly reveal "robust" critters. So why did they finally "discover" this species with the 2008 finger bone find? The 40,000 year old and uncontaminated finger bone, I might add. Adding to the confusion is the question: where is the rest of this supposedly young female? Why wasn't the marker identified as a mysterious hist, then the later bone find confirm it? Is it the chicken, or the egg? Why would it matter? The DNA should be the same, no? Secondly, if a fossil is contaminated, the DNA should tell us just who the contaminator is, right? If everybody within the chain of custody has DNA, and it doesn't match theirs, whose was it? Like everything else, their claims about what DNA tells them doesn't match their own line of claims. The bottom line is that if what they want to believe can be supported with DNA evidence, voila'! They will call it "compelling", "convincing", "conclusive", "immutable", or otherwise <adjective> evidence. But if it leads them to where they do not want to go, it was contaminated. It's as much an OJ trial as science. Perhaps more. The stakes are much, much higher. A 40,000 year old cave woman is cool stuff. An 800 lb. caveman running around the outskirts of Seattle or Portland is a bit unsettling. They really don't want to go there.
  37. 1 point
    Trading whistles with two of "somethings" in the woods, and two nights later trading knocks with one "something" while picking up my kid at summer camp (he couldn't handle the overnight part and i got called to pick him up late in the night). Beautiful summer night. Much strangeness. Did a google search "What whistles in the woods at night" and got lots of Native American legends of "the Whistling Woman", female bigfoots. Repeatedly returned to the same area over the next few weeks and had more strangeness - huffs and chuffs at dusk, shaken bushes and trees, gifts that disappeared overnight, and chest slaps in the dark ad we were escorted out. Then the activity petered out (they must have been there seasonally), and winter came and I was hooked.
  38. 1 point
    Depends on what that means. I was exposed to the topic starting around 1970, then in '74 I found a track line and in '76 I had an extended sighting. Didn't really do anything with it, I just knew they were there. For context, we also still had wolves though officially they'd been exterminated, completely removed from the area, in the early 1900s, and despite biologists' protests, we had very rare grizzly sightings reported. So the idea of unaccepted animals being around was never a hurdle to get over. Had some weird stuff happen over the following years. Some of it was most probably bigfoot in hindsight. Left the area, went to college, got a job, never gave it any more thought, just knew they were there and went on about my business. Jump forward to about 2000-2005. I'd moved to a new town in '96, had family conflict which lead me to decide to explore a new area to hunt rather than returning to the ol' familiar family "haunts", and in the process I ran into some weirdness. Best bet was bigfoot. I contacted a researcher to ask some questions and thing snowballed from there. At that point I truly got interested. Funny thing is I never saw the PGF 'til probably 2012 or 2013. Patty is a dead ringer for the female counterpart for the big male I saw in 1976 and for the mom of the juvenile I saw in 2013, not identical, "merely" "biologically right." MIB
  39. 1 point
    I vividly recall the 1967 television reporting of the Patterson/Gimlin sighting. I was 13, with my parents at my aunt and uncle's. The adults paid the report no mind, but it fascinated me. I remember photos in a magazine (Life, Look, I don't know) a few years previous, of footprints taken in the Himalayas, said to have been left by the abominable snowman. I'd checked out books written by Ivan T Sanderson from the library. I was ripe for lifelong interest at 13 when Patty burst onto the scene.
  40. 1 point
    Catmandoo... thanks for that. I didn’t know that was a thing with apes. I would just say to those who hypothesize how this could have been a tag on some other animal.....take the time to read this, in full. Many of the alternative explanations are discussed, in detail. No matter what your pet theory is about what the nature of BF might be, or how it will ultimately be confirmed or refuted, science needs to lead. This is field research in the best tradition...bold, clever, well documented and freely shared, and with a potential to move the needle just a little, or even a lot. If it can be done once, it is plausible it can be done again. Each time it is, if it is, it puts the confirmation bias explanation further off the table. We shall see, I guess. I for one give these folks huge props for dreaming this technique up, seeing it through and (especially) publishing it with this degree of thoroughness..
  41. 1 point
    BF have to be the same. It's the only way for them to breed...and I would say they are much more mobile and smarter/more aware than a Grizzly.
  42. 1 point
    Here is a map of a radio collared female Grizzly. 5000 miles in two years. Sometimes she was very close to civilization. But as a big omnivore she needs to keep moving, albeit she seemed to have been exceptional even for a Grizzly. https://www.boisestatepublicradio.org/post/grizzly-bear-traveled-5000-miles-across-idaho-montana-mystery-biologists#stream/0
  43. 1 point
    Your going to notice if a troupe of 800 lbs primates are living next to you. I had a thread of Caloric intake you can do a search on. Things can hide that are externally supported in 20 acres of woods. A sniper with a months worth of rations and a water supply could easily hide from you. But that is not the same thing as a breeding population of very large primates. You can look at Grizzly Bears (a large omnivore) as a comparison. A male Grizzly Bears home range is 600 square miles. A female? 150 square miles. 600 square miles equals 384000 acres. And this animal hibernates half the year. Apes do not hibernate.
  44. 1 point
    I apologize for my tardy response Hiflier. I have been thinking about how I might answer your questions (and whether or not I could). 1st a disclaimer: I was educated as a paleobiologist. I have studied fossil invertebrate populations with regard to their specific variations (variations within a species due to ontogeny - that is growth from infant to adolescent to adult), parasitism by competing organisms, and evolutionary considerations as they impact our understanding of the genus, family, and order classifications in a particular class of invertebrates. I have taken graduate level courses in genetics and evolution (but a long time ago - invertebrate zoology was one of my two minor subjects), BUT I AM NOT A GENETICIST! So take what I might say with some healthy skepticism - and I welcome discussion from real geneticists (and I am guessing from your questions that you already know most, if not all, of what I am going to say). Some good news: With regard to DNA, hair is amazingly stable in a variety of environments that would be considered risky in other respects. That is mainly due to the presence of cuticle, the outermost hard layer of a three-layered hair shaft (inner medulla, medial cortex, outer cuticle). The cuticle protects the medulla, and the medulla contains a lot of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA). Some bad news: Nuclear DNA (nDNA or nuDNA) is lost in the process of cornification - in which protein cells become hair. Although many people think that a follicle needs to be attached to a hair shaft for extraction of nDNA, nDNA has occasionally been extracted from the medulla of a hair shaft - sometimes months or even years after the hair has been pulled/shed from a human body - I guess this should be included under the "good news". In most cases the best that one can expect from hair in terms of DNA is mtDNA. mtDNA is not pertinent for ID'ing individuals, but works for ID'ing species (if that species' genome is included in an existing gene bank - and it should be useful as a match for higher classifications as well, such as genus, subfamily, and family). According to at least two hair experts, Sasquatch hair commonly lacks a medulla, and, when present, the Sasquatch medulla is discontinuous and not prominent. A number of mtDNA studies of purported Sasquatch hair have suggested Homo sapiens, and the natural conclusion is human contamination. There are a variety of methods for decontaminating DNA samples, and actually hair, again because of the protective cuticle, is especially prone to successful decontamination. As I have said in other threads, there exist in all know human DNA (ALL HUMAN DNA) genetic markers that are unique to Homo sapiens, so any DNA researcher looking to verify human contamination or to suggest the existence of other than human DNA, must look for one, or a few, of those markers, else he/she is falling short of performing adequate study (trying to be kind here to past researchers - I would rather say #*&@&%$*!). I think study of suspected Sasquatch hair is worth study, without regard to external environmental challenges and without regard to time in environment. I am not like the body of posters on this site (mainly inductive reasoners - some brilliant, some notsomuch) that can run through a myriad of explanations and possibilities addressing a single data point. I am admittedly not brilliant - I am a plodder. I try to gather a lot of data and methodically work through that data to try to understand it (that's a tough thing in this Sasquatch world containing a fair bit of purely anecdotal data). If I were confronted with testing old hair for DNA or making the determination no to do so because conclusive results might be unlikely, I would say do the analysis - one never knows what might turn up (my experience has been the more one learns, the more one realizes there is more to learn). I had planned to address your questions more directly, but I am running out of gas. The subject does interest me, however, and I look forward to more communication with you.
  45. 1 point
    This growth or trend that you have noted has only taken place due to a lack of mental discipline and the need to feel special/important. Many of the characters have been in it now for a decade or more and slowly ease into this way of thinking as there is no better way to explain their failures in their ( half a$$ ) search. Failure shows the faults of the human brain, it is that simple. There is not a drop of evidence for the paranormal Sasquatch and you can take that to the bank.
  46. 1 point
    Thanks for this post, Bill. Unlike several of you, I never met Gimlin and am unlikely to do so. But I've read much about him, and being somewhat of a sensitive guy (unlike popular belief), the embolded portion of your words are a big factor for me. I think yours and Sweaty's thoughts on "a final statement" are sound, but I don't think it will make a difference in sasquatchery.......unless, of course, he writes, "Surprise! It was all a gag!", which I don't believe he will write. More important to me is the effect the film had on him and his wife. All the years of him essentially hiding out from a hostile element of the public. All the horrible things said and written of him. How his friends and new acquaintances treated him upfront and behind his back. Beforehand, I'm quite sure he never had a clue. What a nasty series of surprises he was in for. Wouldn't it be great for him if he was vindicated within his lifetime?
  47. 1 point
    Meeting Bob is a joy. He's a fascinating guy. But the first time I actually had some quality private time with him, over dinner at a steakhouse in Yakima, back in 2009, I just wanted to get to know him, so we talked about horses. I don't think the PGF was even mentioned. Subsequently, I've talked to him at length about it, though, including doing about 4 hours of oral history of him, Roger, the film and the resulting effect on his life.
  48. 1 point
    It just blows me away every time I watch it- and always has. The whole idea that she was real is so incredible to think about. I have looked and studied that film clip nine ways to Sunday and my conclusions are always the same. I was a 51% for- 49% against Patty's existence (a real fence sitter) until I began to focus on her shoulder movements. Once I realized how natural her arm locations and arm swings were the thought crossed my mind to see if I could determine her shoulder span- following in Dr. Grover Krantz' footsteps without even knowing it. Once I saw the ratio of her shoulder width to her height her reality became cemented in my thinking. And let me tell you, that realization was a real shock.
  49. 1 point
    Let me paraphrase a point I heard you make once: You go out where no one really hikes in the middle of nowhere and find some tracks in some remote area which is hard to get to. The Q comes into why such tracks would be in such as hard area?. It assumes some hoaxer went all the way into the remote part of the some further remote part of some area just to makes some fake tracks. Then it assumes they would go to all that trouble knowing the hoaxing effort would quickly disappear in time due to weather conditions. That is a lot of effort to fake some tracks when there is a very remote chance a person will even see them. The point of hoaxing is some someone actually sees the hoax. This point is not easily explained by the skeptic. I will admit a hoaxer may go to great lengths to hoax. They may apply their intelligence to the effort to go to some extreme to deceive. I can see this being possible. We would have to assume most hoaxers are not likely to go to those efforts as most hoaxing seems pretty obvious on face value. BD
  50. 1 point
    I will add my 2 cents worth here. I have followed this thread and read the comments and there are those who have formed their opinions based on whatever it is that has helped it make sense to you. That is fine and opinions are opinions, all have a right to theirs. I only say here that I do know Alex very well and I have worked with him. I have been out with him when we had some very unique experiences together. We experienced along with many other people one night them moving through the woods and we had very clear eyes shine and other unique things that happened that was truly fascinating. I will vouch for him as a person and I can also tell you that Scott Nelson with who I very much trust as a linguistic specialist has done much work on his audio and has deemed it authentic language outside of the human vocal ranges. I also do help Alex with some of his shows as well as we share information and collaborate on many projects, the man is onto something. I very rarely back someone in the BF world 100% but Alex I do know very well and is one of about 10 people that I value as a partner in this. So, again, this is my 2 cents and whether or not others feel the same way is totally OK with me because it doesn't affect what I know. KB
This leaderboard is set to New York/GMT-04:00
  • Create New...