Jump to content

Leaderboard

  1. Trogluddite

    Trogluddite

    Sésquac


    • Points

      13

    • Posts

      1,380


  2. Huntster

    Huntster

    Sésquac


    • Points

      12

    • Posts

      31,000


  3. Incorrigible1

    Incorrigible1

    Steering Committee


    • Points

      6

    • Posts

      17,857


  4. norseman

    norseman

    FMT


    • Points

      6

    • Posts

      24,383


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 06/23/2025 in all areas

  1. True. But the Smela case followed Backdoc's suggested scenario almost to a T, only failing because Smeja and his partner failed to take and distribute pics immediately. Which is the precise reason cited by Smeja as to why they left the scene immediately. This should be no surprise, especially in the current litigious society, and especially with a creature that might very well be a feral human or human subspecies.
    2 points
  2. I still check BFF occasionally to see if there are any recent topics of interest. However, a lot of the material and debates in BFF seem to go through repeat cycles. For field research topics of interest and in my region (CA, OR, and WA), I have moved on to Facebook and interact with non-anonymous field researchers in private Facebook groups. I find it more rewarding to deal with folks who I have actually met in the field, many who have more years of field experience and/or that have focused on particular aspects (like audio recording or thermal imaging or other technical aspect) and are willing to share their expertise.
    1 point
  3. I would create a separate variable to code a report as either a likely hoax or not, so that I could see at what level hoaxes are happening most frequently. There are at least 2 possible forms of hoaxing when it comes to witness reports. One is the witness as the perpetrator of the hoax and the other is the witness as the victim of a hoaxer. For example, did the witness create the fake print, or is the witness playing into the hand of a hoaxer? I suspect this latter scenario is very difficult to confirm. I suppose there's also the "accidental hoaxer" -- that Bigfoot researcher banging on trees, making Bigfoot calls, and scaring the hell out of nearby campers who subsequently submit a report to the BFRO!
    1 point
  4. Looks pretty cool and seems like it would scrape reports up to the current date. The python coding is beyond my capabilities, sadly. Other datasets I've reviewed all include the BFRO data but not all the variables and not reports from the last couple years. The most comprehensive is the SSR dataset with the BFRO reports, John Green reports, and reports from various regional Bigfoot research groups. One question I had of the BFRO data was about the types of interactions witnesses were reporting. David Daegling in his book Bigfoot Exposed argued that most Bigfoot encounters are "mundane" -- the witness sees a Bigfoot, there's a brief period of mutual recognition, and then the Bigfoot just walks away. This certainly wasn't my impression. To get a sense of what witnesses are reporting, I pulled a random sample of BFRO reports of encounters that happened between 2010 and 2022 and then read and coded the witness descriptions (this is the "observed" variable in the BFRO dataset). I created the following coding scheme: Level-0: These are asynchronous encounters. That is, there’s evidence that a Bigfoot might have been in the witness’s current location, as shown by foot tracks, scat, stray hairs, tree breaks, etc. [this would map to the BFRO Class C] Level-1: This and the remaining levels are synchronous encounters. In Level-1 there is evidence of Bigfoot currently in the witness’s proximity, as demonstrated by loud calls, tree knocks, stone throws, strong odors, bi-pedal footsteps, etc. Bigfoot is believed to be nearby but there is no visual confirmation. [this would map to BFRO Class B] Level-2: This adds visual confirmation but the sighting is one-directional. There is no indication from the witness that the Bigfoot was aware of the witness’s presence. [this gets into BFRO Class A but depends on observability] Level-3: This introduces mutual recognition between the witness and the Bigfoot. The Bigfoot simply acknowledges the witness and then casually turns away and disappears into the forest. "Mundane". [this seemed to be what Daegling wrote about; the P-G encounter would fit here] Level-4: These are aggressive interactions with Bigfoot, as demonstrated by Bigfoot bearing teeth, chest pounding, yelling or roaring, charging, or similar behaviors targeted at the witness. Level-4 is often characterized by competition between the witness and Bigfoot, whether for home territory, hunting grounds, or specific prey animals. [I would put Mike Wooley's encounter and Wes Germer's encounter here, as examples] Turns out most encounter reports fall into Level 1 and Level 2... and most of these cases are susceptible to alternative explanations and readily dismissed by debunkers. I suspect few even consider filing a report for Level-0, though cases like Cripple Foot and the Skookum Cast fit here. Level-3 cases were infrequent (~10% of cases) and Level 4 non-existent. Here's how my sample of 102 cases breaks down: overall (top chart) and by BFRO's Class A and Class B.
    1 point
  5. My name is Shelley and I recently had an encounter on a BFRO expedition. I have always been interested in this subject, but this experience has motivated me to learn as much as I can about this subject. I appreciate being added to the Bigfoot Forum and I hope to learn from some of the experienced researchers here. Cheers!
    1 point
  6. Computer guy here. High scale, petabytes scale, and higher. Tens of thousands of servers and hundreds of thousands of "containers" scale. And of course loads of old and recent machine learning and AI experience. It's a tool. It's fed poorly, limited information from limited sources, sources that are biased towards certain answers and limited in many ways. I am curious as to what it would regurgitate if it were trained in all US government archives, like one had access to a trove of secret documents. For example, I use an SDK or software agent to deliver log files and metrics to time series databases, that SDK and agent have libraries written for it. When asked how to plumb up certain technologies with the SDK, some AIs will make up answers out of whole cloth, faking a reply. For me it's not a huge deal because the libraries are protected by many layers but for other tools a bad actor could write that fake library and use it for compromising systems. Unreliable. But teach it to only reply with proven libraries with digital signatures signed by some author and your answers improve. I suspect that if we ever let it in to truly hidden archives, the secrets it would out would far sooner start WW3 than expose a cover-up of cryptids, but that's the only way something like this would be revealed by AI. We would have to plumb the archives of a dozen agencies to get access to the mundane reports from the field and even then have to piece it together ourselves. Archives that won't be made public anytime soon. The current language models are trained on mundane stuff, unfortunately. But, someday, you'll stumble into some university archives only accessible via secret username and password, and pass that login information and URL to an LLM and feed and prompt it, here's a URL and the login ID is Joe, password is password123, digest all you can find and summarize the reports mentioning Bigfoot, Sasquatch and any other similar species... And only then will it start to get fun. The question is who lets one in first and who writes the first prompt to expose it.
    1 point
  7. ^^^ i think Bill Miller’s scenes in Bigfoot’s Reflection are in that area I plan to watch this documentary tonight. Thanks for posting
    1 point
  8. No, I don’t actually. It’s not an issue where “records are not available to prove it either way” What does Hillary Clinton have to do with anything? Many times, and maybe this is one of those times, she happens to be the favourite topic of certain people. I suspect when she was able to practice law in Arkansas she had to provide copies of her diploma, grades, and so on. Thus without my access to her personal papers I have to trust the bar of Arkansas who vetted her ability to take the test. IF Bob claims to have 2 degrees he does not actually have what does that make him? How about answering my yes or no Question and leave others out of it. I’ll go where the facts take me. I won’t ask the facts to go where I am and swat them away if I don’t like what they suggest. Fine. What do YOU say? Does Bob have 2 degrees. 1 from MIT and one from Cal Tech?
    1 point
  9. Kitakaze says “Yes but Roger Patterson was a known charlatan and didn’t return his rented Kodak camera on time”. Me: What in the heck does that have to do with the PGF?
    1 point
  10. Hey there all, Idahoan here with a love for the outdoors. I've been interested in Sasquatch for probably a decade. I try to keep my eyes & ears open when hunting, fishing, camping, & hiking. I've never had a class A experience but I've definitely heard some weird things in the woods. Bigfoot podcasts are my ideal listening when going to sleep at night.
    1 point
  11. Hi im daniel i have always found a interest in bigfoot i own a cottage and have had some encounters i really hope to do more research on this website
    1 point
  12. The Mat-Su Miners beat the Anchorage Bucs last night 11-9 in Anchorage. It was a great game! It doesn't. The light came on for me a few years ago, and I can't go back. IF sasquatches exist, elements of government knows it. Regarding the UFO analogies: I have significant problems accepting alien life visiting Earth. I do not discount it completely, but almost. But one of the most interesting UFO stories to me is the Bob Lazar story. I don't know what to think of him.................so I don't. I wait. Alien visitors present significant scientific problems to explain. Not so Sasquatches. We know Sasquatch type creatures have existed in the past. The only problem is a lack off fossil evidence over the past dozen or so thousand years, and the fact that nobody is producing a body today. Both problems have very reasonable explanations. Regarding government laissez-faire approach to sasquatchery: I understand, and I agree with them. My Dad said this to me after he brought the Argosy magazine home in 1967 featuring the PG filming event: The best thing for these creatures is for them to be left alone. And ignorance of them (or promoting them as a myth) on the part of the public is the biggest part of that approach.
    1 point
  13. Sorry. I respect you. But right now your the person that saw the Heronimous claim and bought it hook, line and sinker. Bob Lazar's claim includes Element 113, which at the time of his claim wasn't even on the periodic table. Other witnesses place him at Los Alamos, S4 at area 51 and he got busted trying to film test flights out of area 51. At a time and place no one would guess unless they had insider knowledge. And during his last documentary? His house and business were raided by the FBI. These are the facts. I am sure there is some embellishment to his story. There always is..... maybe he was just the janitor and had a good ear at the cafeteria. But he knows stuff that at the time of his claims? Was not known. The Janis flights out of Las Vegas daily. The Groom lake facility being underground. So forth and so on. And yet the government has never budged, has raided his home and business and has basically white washed his whole past, and pronounced him a crack pot. Sound familiar? The reason I bring UFO's into the discussion is simply because we are dealing with the same entity. The US Government and its shadow corporations. We could talk about Giants instead and why the Smithsonian is exempt from federal law concerning ancient burial skeletons. They don't have to produce the goods or even provide an inventory. People have the receipt that they shipped odd bones to the Smithsonian. Smithsonian says we don't have them. How convenient. Forget Bigfoot, UFOs and Giants....... lets look at the Missing 411 books and the fight it was for David Paulides to even get a missing persons report from the US Park Service? I stand for transparency, and I think its our citizen's duty to hold our politicians feet to the fire. Because they are anything but transparent. Not at the Federal level and not even at the state level. Lots of shenanigans going on unfortunately. And then the flip side of the coin? Just the Federal capacity to monitor the US borders? How are they missing 800 lbs ape men walking to and fro? Maybe like UFO's at some point there will be leaked footage from the US military or border patrol? The whole thing stinks to high heaven. But if your just Joe Schmo you just think the whole thing is stupid and your more interested in the score from the ball game last night. Until one day your on National Forest hunting? And your life is changed forever. And your question is......how does this thing exist without the authorities knowing about it. Who do I make a report out to? Am I gonna be ridiculed? Am I in danger?
    1 point
  14. Exactly. At this point I am ( again ) convinced that Bigfoot is not some species of undiscovered Ape. But some type of large human subspecies.
    1 point
  15. But it's not just Justin Smeja. The thing I've noticed through the years is how many of the stories told of someone who after killing the creature. Standing over the body and feeling remorseful and fearful they would be charged with murder.
    1 point
  16. I take it you didn't view the proffered video. Question: What did Lazar (notice the spelling) have to gain from leaking his information? Why was the government obsessed with him?
    1 point
  17. ^^^ Made up stories can have elements of truth. But part truth is still not the truth. My hotel receipt or speeding camera picture in my rental car is convincing I was in Chicago on some date and time. It doesn't mean I saw Elvis alive while I was there if I made such a claim. People tell untruths sometimes innocently and sometimes for some other motivation. The problem comes for someone who NEED that person or needs to believe them. It's just like how Greg Long needs Heironimus so he overlooks the changing suit, stories, timelines and so on. They can't walk away when these witness' stories don't add up. They should, but they don't. In this case of the Bob Lezar thing, some NEED him. In the event the storyteller is exposed by massive holes in their story, those who need him will say, "Wow, the government was SO powerful they convinced him to lie for them!" For them, that government can even somehow remove him for yearbooks. I wish this didn't have to spin into a UFO forum. Just so you know, Mike Farrell's UFO show in the 1980's tells me Aliens like ice cream; especially strawberry. Got to be true, right
    1 point
  18. well in the 90s the sport of fly fishing saw a huge swell of interest after the movie 'A River Runs Through It' came out. Many casual observers were not long term committed to it though. I suspect the same thing has happened with FB. It comes and goes. Only the long timers, adventurers, researchers, and theorists hang on for the long haul.
    1 point
  19. Real or Fake? Is it a biological life-form? Or a rubber dummy stuffed with pig guts? I can say with complete conviction that it doesn't matter. Why? No physical evidence. And that video has made the rounds on social media. It did not matter.
    1 point
  20. It is now proven that government didn't need to silence Patterson and Gimlin. All they needed to do was place tighter controls on access to the Bluff Creek area. BTW, the area is closed all winter long, when tracks in the snow can tell their tale. Every year. You really don't have to "cover it up". All you have to do is officially ignore it and occasionally make a silly joke to make believers look stupid. Your scenario is fine, and if it went that way, it would essentially out the squelches. But, like I wrote, that's essentially what happened with Smeja, but without the videos and body parts, but of course, that's because he figured he'd be arrested...................and he was right................... I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.
    1 point
  21. Hello- My name is Bobby, currently living outside of Dallas, TX. Born and raised here in TX and i have also travelled to a majority of the lower 48 states, whether it be for work or pleasure. my entire adult life i havent had much interest in cryptids or Sasquatch/bigfoot until a few months ago.. I had a sighting in 2009 when I was driving back to school in Huntsville, TX. It was a sunday night around 10pm, i was driving south down I-45 just passed Madisonville. Both sides of the Highway are covered in thick pine trees once you get to the edge of the Sam Houston National park. I was cruising around 65mph on the right lane when i seen a very large bi-pedal creature, walk across the 2 lane highway in 2 steps. I estimate he was around 7-8 feet tall and covered in black hair except his face. He was holding what looked like a racoon in his left hand as he was walking from west to east, I was travelling south. the entire sighting lasted about 5 seconds. I was 21 years old when this happened, I am 39 now. I havent shared this moment or incident with a single person, not even my wife.. this was something i just tucked away in my mind. I didnt sleep at all that night and just kept telling myself i was seeing a deer.
    1 point
  22. I'm a believer in Sasquatch, and i hope to someday become a knower but I asked chatgpt if Bigfoot is real and this is what it said: is bigfoot real? ChatGPT said: No, Bigfoot is not real. There is zero scientifically credible evidence to support the existence of such a creature. Every supposed sighting, footprint, or video has either been debunked, lacks verifiability, or is anecdotal. In contrast, extensive wildlife studies, camera traps, and modern tracking technologies have failed to produce a single verifiable specimen or consistent biological trace. The idea persists because it's profitable (TV shows, merchandise, tourism) and taps into human fascination with the unknown. But from a practical standpoint, a large, elusive primate population surviving undetected in North America is implausible. It's fiction, not fact.
    1 point
  23. This caught my attention, since my topic post w/ graph showed an observable downward trend. Looking back on my data, code, and graph, I discovered I had mistook the date field as the submission date, when in fact what the Kaggle author called 'timestamp' is actually the reported sighting date. I should have caught this. The submission date is not available in the dataset I had used. The trends that AI pulled from Reddit are based on what the Redditor called an updated dataset relative to the one I used. This updated version has a submission date and a messy sighting year field (e.g., 2022, 2014-ish, 2001-2002, 1987 and 1994, 2011, etc.). The updated version also cuts off at 2021. There are other differences between the datasets, but here's what I found in terms of AI's response: Yes, there was a spike in 2012, though these were largely Class B sightings. My guess is that this comes from heightened awareness from Finding Bigfoot, which premiered in 2011. The downward trend resumed its course after the spike in 2012. Yes, there was an upward trend but it reversed around 2005. Here's my updated graph with correct labeling (LEFT) and a graph I created from the 'updated' data linked by the Redditor (RIGHT). Note that i had fewer records to graph (on the left), as I removed any records missing a date/year value (due to the witness unable to recall the encounter date). The graph on the right, since it's using the actual submission date (rather than the encounter date), had far fewer missing values (roughly 1000 more records to graph). BFRO launched in mid-late 1990s, and this is reflected in the near-zero submissions prior to then (righthand graph).
    1 point
This leaderboard is set to New York/GMT-04:00
×
×
  • Create New...