Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 08/13/2019 in Posts

  1. 4 points
    I was 8 years old. It was 1968 and my family lived in southern Oregon, near Grants Pass. We lived in a very secluded and wooded area and had been having unusual and suspicious activity at night. My dad was convinced it was a bear breaking into our tack shed and stealing grain we fed to our horses. One morning we woke up to find about 2 inches of snow had fallen overnight and in that fresh snow were huge footprints that came out of the woods, circled our house, and went back into the woods. That was about the time when the P/G Film of Patty was in the news. I was hooked! I wish I'd been older at the time and would have given the event a more serious investigation, but at 8 years old you don't think of those things.
  2. 4 points
    Except when I'm on an actual expedition, most of my squatching and a great deal of my recreational camping (which is really just an excuse to go squatching) is done alone. I understand the risks associated with going it solo, but I also understand that it is not for everyone. In my case, I started solo backpacking in the redwoods of California when I was 17. Later, I spent 22 years as an Alaska State Trooper, often working alone far from any assistance. I often went on solo canoe trips in Alaska. I'm a wilderness survival instructor, a tracking instructor, and a bushcraft instructor. I don't mean to sound like a braggart, but I state these things to explain that I have experiences and qualifications that others might not. So, I often go on solo squatching trips that range in duration from an afternoon to three or four days. Sometimes by horseback, sometimes on foot, sometimes in my jeep. Can it be dangerous in the woods? Of course. But, I can honestly say I am much more cautious when I'm by myself in the woods, rather than with other people. When I'm solo I KNOW if I get hurt there's no one to help me. So, there are many times when I opt to avoid certain behaviors that I might have otherwise done if I were with other people. Have I ever felt threatened by the presence of sasquatches? No. Do I believe they could be dangerous if they felt threatened or were protecting their family? Yes, of course. Luckily, I believe sasquatches are generally not interested in harming humans. Sometimes they engage in territorial displays and bluff tactics, but I believe it is a rare sasquatch that might actually cause harm to a human. If they were a serious threat to humans, they would have had many an opportunity to do harm to me while I'm by myself deep in the woods. None of this should be construed as an endorsement for everyone to go into the woods solo. As I mentioned above, I have a unique set of experiences and background. Others, with similar experiences might be well-suited for solo trips. Those who have a lesser amount of experience and training are probably better off going with other people. In my mind, it depends on the individual.
  3. 4 points
    If anything, I started out more toward the woo .. more open to it, anyway .. than I am today. The first group of bigfooters I fell in with leaned heavily that way. After a number of years, I started a) noticing there was no evidence presented to the group and b) those leaning most woo-ward seemed to be showing signs of mental illness in other ways. There were 2-3 exceptions. I noticed a couple people did not engage in the "look at me" attention-seeking pattern. They told their same story, a story that didn't shift to draw more attention away from those competing for attention. I believe SOMETHING happened to those 2-3 people that isn't readily explained. I believe the rest of the bunch are full of crap. The important thing .. though inconvenient, it is not the frauds and liars that matter, it is the 1-2 people who may be accurately recounting the truth. The challenge is separating the two. But if 1-2 people are telling the truth, then there is a truth to tell. Just like bigfoot in general. No matter if 99 out of 100 were hoaxing, if that 1 person is telling the truth, then it is indeed truth and the hoaxes are just a distraction. It is very important for a serious investigator not to throw out the baby with the bathwater. That's more damaging .. to the topic if not to the investigator .. than accepting one hoax as real. MIB
  4. 3 points
    Date & time - Sunday, August 18, 2019, 8am -1pm Location - southern Lane Couty, Oregon Weather- Spectacular, 85 degrees and sunshine What Happened- My friend C. and I went up the forest road where she found the statue hands and which is up the road from where I've found barefoot prints all winter. We didn't find anything squatchy, but we did find a dead bear carcass. It was skinned, the meat gone and the rest dumped. Gross. Then we continued on to a nearby lake where NorthWind and I found deep, big impressions in the beach sand/clay/gravel (with obvious hair striations) earlier this year, and found a teepee structure that we could not get to across the deep creek. The way down to it is through a broken forest, wicked summer blackberry brambles and as 5-foot jump. Neither of us wanted to do that, so i may return next week with my kayak and go to explore it that way. Then we went swimming at Wildwood Falls and meandered up Sharps Creek and watched a guy panning for gold near the Bohemia Mines area. Didn't find anything suspicious besides the teepee, but it was as great day outside in the woods! The new-to-me truck did well!
  5. 3 points
    After a lifetime of interest in the subject, and about 10 years as a BFRO investigator, I have developed only three conclusions that I feel strongly about... 1. There are more sasquatches in North America than most people think. 2. They are more wide-spread across our continent than most people think. 3. They are super, super smart. When it comes to sasquatches, I am definitely in the "flesh and blood" camp. I'm not denying there are unexplained paranormal mysteries in the world, but I don't believe sasquatches are one of them. I do believe they are perfectly adapted to their environment, they are masters of moving through their environment stealthily, and they are smart enough to be cautious about leaving clues such as footprints and scat. Even though I've written a small book about tracking sasquatches, I don't believe anyone will ever "track down and capture" a sasquatch. They are simply too well-adapted to their world and can move through the woods too fast for us puny humans to catch up to one. The fact that sasquatches sometimes seem to "disappear into thin air" tells me they are better at eluding us than we are at following them. I'm not trying to discredit anyone's personal beliefs on this matter, it's just that I've not yet seen any evidence that saquatches are paranormal or supernatural. In my opinion, they have to follow all the same rules of physics that the rest of us do.
  6. 3 points
    I had a very closeup encounter in 1990 on the Dallas Divide in Colorado in good lighting. No mistaking what I saw. I was headed to Telluride at the time, when I got there I asked a friend of mine that lived there if there were any Bigfood sightings in the area. He gave me a funny look and I really got the feeling that I shouldn't talk about it and didn't for a good 15 years. People tend to think you're nuts.
  7. 3 points
    Well ratty-tat, wish I could have that experience......and as an older guy, I'm getting out of that darn tent a few times a night now........your humble narrator below:)
  8. 2 points
    Thanks for sharing Madison. Selecting a ghillie suit is like tying a fly in fly fishing. You must "match the hatch". The video above is in tall grass. Where I am it is dense and coniferous. No doubt a ghillie suit can make you nearly invisible. One of these days I will make one. Until then I use the ASAT Vanish Leafy Suit which slips over your existing clothes. Note in the two turkey pictures below the suit on the right looks to have more green. It doesn't. There is no green in the suit at all. Just light tan, brown, and black. The suit is the same in all 4 pictures. The light tan reflects the colors it is near.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 2 points
    Paulides sometimes talks at bigfoot conferences but never comes right out and claims BF is involved. He cannot really know. However common sense tells one that in areas with bigfoot activity BF should be a suspect and would be in disappearances if BF were thought to exist by law enforcement. With lost children and women, I myself would suspect cougars before bigfoot. Cougar numbers in the wild are increasing and since they have exclusionary territory and will not tolerate other cougars it has to be putting tremendous pressures on them for survival. In Oregon and Washington aggressive cougars are getting to be very problematic. Experienced and well armed hunters might be a different situation.
  12. 2 points
  13. 2 points
    I regret not having stuck around a bit longer. I knew at the time that I would also regret not at least trying to go for my camera. OTOH this experience also allows me to sound like a nutbag if I reveal it to someone and I really don't like that. I feel like I have enough issues being credible without that hanging over my head. So most of the time I keep silent about it. It would be a whole lot easier to have no opinion on the subject; ironically I still don't have an opinion; since I know for a fact they exist (or did) and there's nothing anyone (including myself) can say or do to change that.
  14. 1 point
    LOL.......my "car seat" was the folding armrest in the center of the front bench seat in Daddy's '58 Impala. The government would go crazy if they saw that today. Daddy would still be in prison.
  15. 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?
  16. 1 point
    Agreed. But still, I dislike the term "woo" and prefer such terms as "telepathy", "dimensional travel", and "cloaking", even though I don't accept sasquatches doing any of them. "Woo" is the kind of term that the radical skeptic community came up with to discredit sasquatchery.
  17. 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.
  18. 1 point
  19. 1 point
    What people need the dogs for is to 1) find the bear using their keen sense of smell, then 2) chase it down using the speed and endurance that the humans don't have, then 3) alert the humans where they and the bear are using their obnoxious barking and baying, which also keeps the bear rather confused and upset. The dogs need us for our guns and dog food.
  20. 1 point
    I am not a tracker. But I do wonder how it is possible to track and find something that consistently moves likely twice as fast as we do. You can certainly follow a trail but then what? They leave you in the dust and probably give you the slip at some point, when they figure out they are being followed. Best you can hope is catch a BF taking a nap or sleeping. Putting it in aviation terms which I know something about, when the Allies encountered German jets, the ME 262. They were helpless against them. The jets straight and level were far faster than the Allieds best, the P-51 and Spitfire. It was not until someone followed the jets back to their home fields, that they managed to catch them as they slowed down for landing and shot some down. I can see where a helicopter could be used to locate, follow, and down a BF. Because it is capable of moving as fast or faster than BF. If we are to believe the lore about military involvement, that has already happened. Since I think you are a tracker Huntster, care to share your thoughts on how a tracker could catch one?
  21. 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).
  22. 1 point
    Finally had a chance to finish listening to the latest coast to coast with Paulides. Someone on here suggested that he provided his theories for once but that turned out to not be the case. He is the same old story with being the champion investigator for missing persons in the woods, holding the NPS to account, dancing around answering all questions directly. I've had it with him and won't fall into the trap of wasting research efforts involving his work again. What i find most pathetic of all is he has consistently rewards himself for ingratiating himself to NPS people, even "special agents" and using that as an excuse to attack the NPS having a lack of integrity. Paulides spins yarns and bases his book career on unidentified people buddying up to him and feeding him sensitive info.
  23. 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.
  24. 1 point
    Keeping lawyers out of sasquatchery should be everybody's first priority. Indeed, that is precisely what I think the government biologists are trying to do.
  25. 1 point
    More like 60 yards. Remember Lyle Laverty driving by with his crew in the jeep?
  26. 1 point
    Nope. They entered the country illegally and so they are eligible for all kinds of public assistance.
  27. 1 point
    Well.. They took Santa Clause, the Easter Bunny, and the Tooth Fairy away from me, so I had to have something to believe in... 🤓 Cheers!
  28. 1 point
    I grew up back East and vaguely thought it was a west coast phenomenon. Moved to WA state in 2000. Bought "The Locals" one foggy summer week on the Olympic Park coast, great reading for the surroundings. Became aware of the BFRO, etc., thought it was interesting. Family brought the tv show to my attention about 2012, then I studied up. Began amateur audio recording in 2014 with many interesting results. That's the short story.
  29. 1 point
    I was thinking the same thing. A few years ago it seemed impossible to find. Now, there are lots of copies available from sellers on Amazon and Abe's Books for reasonable prices. I just bought the cheapest in good condition (or so it says) at $4 😁
  30. 1 point
    I was about 5 miles from my NJ house on a solo bike ride in 1996 when I heard what I later learned was the "Ohio Moan". Shortly there after partially eaten dead deer started showing up in the woods around my house. The next summer my neighbor tell me he listened to the NJ devil kill and eat a deer between our houses. Over time I started looking for answers resulting in years of research. I moved to NC and shortly had a few encounters including a short distance sighting, very clear wood knocks directed at me, and the most terrifying scream and tree shacking that words just cannot describe. Sadly not much has happened in the last 3 years.
  31. 1 point
    "Shady Neighbors" is fiction, but fiction based on reports he investigated or events he experienced, woven together as the experiences of one fictional person. "The Locals" is non-fiction, it is straight from the reports / observations. "Edges of Science" .. I would characterize as speculative science, in other words, a half step beyond the known boundaries. Not necessarily right, not necessarily wrong, certainly not proven, but absolutely not intended to deceive. All are interesting books, good "reads." The events regarding the freezer are from a bigfoot report / site that he investigated personally and related in "The Locals." No intent toward fiction. MIB
  32. 1 point
    Growing up in Vancouver Washington back in the late 60's, early 70's, I remember hearing stories of sightings over in the Stevenson area. I was fascinated by the thought that a large, hairy, 2 legged primate could be living in the woods just a few short miles from me. I then remember seeing the Patterson Gimlin film at the Kiggins theater in Vancouver in the early 70's and being totally freaked out by the footage. At age 14 in 1978 me and 2 friends were fishing on the Washougal river and found large footprints embedded in moss. That sealed it for me...
  33. 1 point
    You could message the staff person "Hairy Man" and ask.
  34. 1 point
    With a “Bigfoot” braided mane!
  35. 1 point
    Friend said they had been at his cabin from spring into fall for the last 5 years.
  36. 1 point
    No judgments here. If you are willing to share, I am certain the researchers here are curious what it said to you. It's not easy to understand this aspect to the species. Some people distance themselves from it but no matter what, it keeps coming up because it is legit. We may as well confront it and try to figure it out. I was not as thorough as I could have been. I stop myself from rambling sometimes and this topic can go on forever. Point: when it comes to the brain, telepathy cannot be accurately monitored any more than sleep patterns. If you want answers then you have to learn how to use your brain in the same way telepaths do. Some people take whatever drugs to induce such a state. Some people learn how to meditate. There are many avenues to try but for the sober BF researcher trying to explore metaphysical themes with no metaphysical context, all you will get is your own ignorance staring back at you. All you will see on your health app monitor will be normal bio electric activity. Understanding our own human consciousness is up to each individual to figure out. To science it is guesswork on its best day no matter what fancy helmet they have test subjects wearing. But of course, they still want to build artificial brains. Science doesn't care about telepathy. They care about faster processing speeds for decision making. This will get scary soon when AI confronts this very topic. A brain with no consciousness. Wow is all I can say. That hasn't stopped research into how to control the brain. MK Ultra is a good example and there is a lot more on this topic going on to the present day. Remote viewing is just what has been revealed on the public record (perhaps as deliberate disinformation) but there is a lot more. Check it out and see you at yoga class. Is that in one of his novels? I know he likes to blend truths into his fiction books. I would not doubt it if that was an actual experience of his.
  37. 1 point
    What would be the method to test and validate telepathy, even without BF involved? Are we going down the rabbit hole with mk ultra, etc? Plenty of militaries have had remote viewing programs. That is verifiable and they train people who don't even believe in anything paranormal. To them, it's just another mental tactic to separate your consciousness and have it float around to wherever they target it to. What have shamans dome throughout history? Talk to plants? Or are they doing something we can't test? t's just a form of socio-religious communication with something only they can perceive. What would be the giant leap to one mammal communicating with another mammal telepathically? You can't prove what's in someone's head. You can draw it out, write it out, put it on a cave wall, same thing, different ways of communicating the experience.
  38. 1 point
    I had to pleasure of meeting Charles on one of the BFRO expeditions that I co organized here in WA, he is as legitimate as they come and on all accounts is a good man with the background to prove it. I have yet to go over the entirety of his book but I have briefly gone over some of the information and can say that it is very much worth buying and keeping in the day-pack.
  39. 1 point
    I hate to say it but I do not have any secrets for you to keep ( well, perhaps my research areas are secret ), my name and background has always been public as I have no reason to hide what I do from anyone. Some members here have met me in person and walked the forest with me a time or two. I will say that before I got all test tube/audio recorder nuts I leaned full on into the paranormal and reached out over my projected mind waves to make contact and all I received was silence, I continued to get your generic yells, knocks, rock rain and the occasional print. This went on for a while and then the logging began, everything fell quiet and the deer population spiked back up.
  40. 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.
  41. 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
  42. 1 point
    No need to be, my friend, no one here is perfect. And believe me, one little leaf blowing in the wind at the end of a small branch rewarded me with hundreds of frames of virtually nothing. It happens.
  43. 1 point
    It is kind of funny and scary at the same time what a small pond Bigfootery is. The longer I am on here the more I think i recognize people from other places (no worries NathanFooter, your secret is safe with me or maybe I think you are a different Nathan bigfooter). Your point on the 1 way conversation is the magic key that is overlooked by scientific investigation of the paranormal. You don't get it by testing. It has to come to you and if you aren't open to it in a way that agrees with the BF (most people understandably are not open to it) then you won't experience it. It's a good ledge to stay off of. If you look at the track record of people who step over that line, it doesn't end well. No offense to the many paranormal folks on this forum. It changes you in ways you cannot predict. I'll take a rock throwing experience over mindspeak any day.
  44. 1 point
    You can easily tell if it's a human or a Bigfoot. That's the easy part. Even the best human callers can't match a real Bigfoot vocal in no shape or form. Can tell the difference just by listening.
  45. 1 point
    Copyright is a topic near and dear to my heart. I have a photo club that I lead in my area with 520 members. I frequently get asked about copyright issues and I hear a lot of Internet BS getting tossed around as gospel. The first rule of copyright is that it begins with the shutter click. The second rule is that copyright is only enforceable if the photo has been registered with the U.S. Copyright Office. The copyright attaches to the original author of the work unless the work is created under contract to another person where the copyright is expressly transferred to the second party. The 3rd rule of copyright is that it is only enforceable in Federal Court. It is the only expressed right in the unamended Constitution (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 8 ), ahead of free speech or the right to bear arms or any of the rest of the amendments. An unregistered work that is infringed upon must be registered with the Copyright Office prior to any lawsuit being filed. If an unregistered infringement occurs, statutory awards may not be available. Infringements of registered works are subject to up to $150,000 in penalties plus court costs and attorney fees. I always recommend my photographers register their works at least once a year as a collection. Registration fees are cheap enough, $55 standard fee, $35 for a single work. I've registered 100,000 photos in my life. Doesn't matter if the photos are crap or not. Registered is registered and it protects your butt from all sorts of industry douchebaggery. Pay $35 and electronically register you photo. Now. I also warn my students to NEVER post anything on social media unless they have READ the TOS for that site. If you post to FaceBook, it's theirs. Period. Their TOS gives them a license to use anything you post for their own use, including their affiliates. Most of the other social media places have the same or similar TOS. So, register your work and be extremely careful about who and how you grant publication rights to your work. If you are going to write a book and publish it, get an attorney first. Secure your rights! I've had more than one person in my group that has taken a very nice photo, posted it on FB, then seen their work on a billboard or on an airport wall and they didn't get anything from the Court for damages because the work wasn't registered prior to the infringement. A good question to ask a potential copyright attorney is, "Where will you file my claim if someone steals my work?" If the answer is anything other than Federal Court, walk away from them fast. They don't know anything about copyright law and you are being hustled. That kind of attorney will bleed you dry pursuing all sorts of local Court Tort complaints and get you nothing in the end. No to small claims court! No to District Court! No to out-of-court settlements or deals. Don't settle for tens of thousands when you are entitled to potentially hundreds of thousands of dollars in statutory and compensatory damages.
  46. 1 point
    What a great selection of answers. Thank you, everyone! Yeah, boots on the ground - getting out there with NorthWind and his friend - is truly the best learning curve there is. Nevertheless, it helps to know WHAT you're looking FOR, else you're just wandering in the forest (itself a fine goal, and a favorite). A next step I'd like to take would be short overnight expeditions with nearby researchers, other folks who regularly get OUT there. Get their views, exchange information. There's two I'd like to talk with and pick their brains, one near Portland and one in NorCal. I'd also love to find something awesome and invite Ciff down to check it out and hear his thoughts (I don't think I made it thru an episode of Finding Bigfoot, lol, but the guy is interesting). NorthWind and I got to hear him speak earlier this year, and it was good stuff. I'm supposed to be meeting up with Autumn Williams for coffee, she's local, but our schedules haven't worked out. I hate summer, and my truck is dead, so I'm looking for quality time fillers! Need to order some books, looks like. I have the Meldrum book and the Robert Morgan book. Both are excellent.
  47. 1 point
    The day somebody makes a suit close to what we see in the PGF film, I'll start doubting again.
  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
    He hasn't been on the forum since June and it does look like the Munns site is down. If you are in contact with him, let him know that we can host his research pages, if he's interested.
  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...