I capture the voices of the forest people knocking over a tree in response to me in their area.

[FelixTheCat]

5 hours ago, Trogluddite said:

 

So this appears to be Cowee Pond, a reservoir for Gardner, Mass.  It's about 1/2 mile north of Green Street/Rte. 140 and about 2.5 miles north of Gardner proper (distances based on a rough Google Earth measurement.  This is a much better potential location for an encounter, given that less of the wooded hills in the area have been paved over and that some reasonable green space exists up to and through New Hampshire.  However, it still has been a Bigfoot desert.  BFRO report #8717 took place close by, but in 1977.  There were a cluster of reports near Ipswich, NH, but these took place in 1895 - these were reported in the Boston Globe as a gorilla.  I originally ran across the stories on the Cryptomundo website, but can't tell you much more than that/

Listen, the 1977 event is not the only sighting.  That was a description of a Bigfoot, and I know a person who in the last ten years, had two separate sightings in the same woods, but you won't find the reports online because she never reported them.  I think most people don't report their sightings.  What is to be gained by reporting a sighting?  Potential ridicule is not worth the risk for most people.  If they are spooked by it, they just won't go back.  I myself had a sighting in the same area, and again I did not report it.  Why would I report it, I already know they are there.  Should I start sending in reports to the BFRO so that people researching from their computers will have something to click on? 

[Trogluddite]

Okay, a better statement is that there are limited documented or reported sightings.  If a sighting occurs in the woods and it isn't reported to a research group, then it doesn't add to the base of knowledge about Bigfoot.

 

Why would a research group, such as the BFRO, the Forums, or whatever group exists in Massachusetts ridicule witnesses?  Numerous people have given detailed accounts of their sightings here on the Forums; I don't recall any of them being ridiculed.  In fact, the Forums management has banished members who ridicule other members and/or their reported accounts.  I'm sure that the Forums' membership would welcome a description of these encounters (usually in the sightings Forum, Massachusetts reports would go in the northeast sightings subforum).  If the report was detailed enough, they would likely be added to the SSR (the Forums' database) so that other researchers, who may be more reserved about posting, can use them in their research.

 

I post about things I research online because despite quite a bit of hiking in the Daks, Catskills, Canada, out west, and several grid searches in remote woods in New York, I haven't had an encounter, seen a track, heard a knock, or found any wood structure/manipulation that's attributable to anything other than nature or humans.  Since I don't have the good fortune of knowing they exist through a first hand encounter (the only real way to know until someone puts a body (or two?) on a slab for dissection), the only thing that will persuade me one way or the other is research.

 

I haven't questioned your claims, merely added context to assist others to make their own decisions about them.  Look forward to hearing more reports from your research.  As noted above, it seems to be a potential example of the halibut effect (which I note for newcomers is described on the BFRO website, in Cliff Barackman's podcasts, and probably somewhere here in the forums). 

[CryptidTalk]

7 hours ago, FelixTheCat said:

Listen, the 1977 event is not the only sighting.  That was a description of a Bigfoot, and I know a person who in the last ten years, had two separate sightings in the same woods, but you won't find the reports online because she never reported them.  I think most people don't report their sightings.  What is to be gained by reporting a sighting?  Potential ridicule is not worth the risk for most people.  If they are spooked by it, they just won't go back.  I myself had a sighting in the same area, and again I did not report it.  Why would I report it, I already know they are there.  Should I start sending in reports to the BFRO so that people researching from their computers will have something to click on? 

More reports = more data to potentially understand where they live, their patterns of movement, etc. if you have an area with a high number of sightings, but none of them are ever reported, researchers aren’t going to know this is a hot spot to collect evidence of existence. 
 

Ultimately, we want proof of existence so we can ensure their protection as a species. Don’t let fear of some pseudo intellectual who couldn’t pass a high school biology course laughing at you keep you from helping the forest people. It’s obvious you care, or you wouldn’t be here. 

[NorCalWitness]

6 hours ago, Trogluddite said:

Okay, a better statement is that there are limited documented or reported sightings.  If a sighting occurs in the woods and it isn't reported to a research group, then it doesn't add to the base of knowledge about Bigfoot.

 

Why would a research group, such as the BFRO, the Forums, or whatever group exists in Massachusetts ridicule witnesses?  Numerous people have given detailed accounts of their sightings here on the Forums; I don't recall any of them being ridiculed.  In fact, the Forums management has banished members who ridicule other members and/or their reported accounts.  I'm sure that the Forums' membership would welcome a description of these encounters (usually in the sightings Forum, Massachusetts reports would go in the northeast sightings subforum).  If the report was detailed enough, they would likely be added to the SSR (the Forums' database) so that other researchers, who may be more reserved about posting, can use them in their research.

 

I post about things I research online because despite quite a bit of hiking in the Daks, Catskills, Canada, out west, and several grid searches in remote woods in New York, I haven't had an encounter, seen a track, heard a knock, or found any wood structure/manipulation that's attributable to anything other than nature or humans.  Since I don't have the good fortune of knowing they exist through a first hand encounter (the only real way to know until someone puts a body (or two?) on a slab for dissection), the only thing that will persuade me one way or the other is research.

 

I haven't questioned your claims, merely added context to assist others to make their own decisions about them.  Look forward to hearing more reports from your research.  As noted above, it seems to be a potential example of the halibut effect (which I note for newcomers is described on the BFRO website, in Cliff Barackman's podcasts, and probably somewhere here in the forums). 

what percentage of sightings get reported? of those that get reported, what percentage get posted on any website? I'd say probably 1-5% get reported, max. of those reports, probably half or less make it to a website. 

[Trogluddite]

^^^

 

NorCal, I would think that after the popularity of Finding Bigfoot and other, less scientifically leaning shows (yes, I'm throwing that line out to the dire wolves), that the reporting percentage is higher - 15 to 20%.  I don't doubt that its less than 50%.  And its also clear that various organizations curate what's shown on their websites - whether to protect a study area, or because the report isn't credible even to them, or because the report doesn't fit their preferred narrative (killer Sasquatch that get from point to point in flying saucers, for example).  The Forums are actually pretty good in that regard in that anyone can post (almost anything) that they claim to be a Bigfoot encounter. 

 

Definitely not saying that dredging through reports is the be-all, end-all, but I do believe its one leg for the stool of Bigfoot research.

[FelixTheCat]

2 hours ago, NorCalWitness said:

what percentage of sightings get reported? of those that get reported, what percentage get posted on any website? I'd say probably 1-5% get reported, max. of those reports, probably half or less make it to a website. 

 

Very few sightings get reported in my opinion, because most people are either traumatized, or don't want to be ridiculed.  It is much easier to just forget it ever happened.  And the BFRO obviously would not ridicule the person, but by following a path of reporting and honestly admitting what they say to others, their friends and immediately family could ridicule them.  That's the driver for not reporting.

[FelixTheCat]

5 hours ago, CryptidTalk said:

More reports = more data to potentially understand where they live, their patterns of movement, etc. if you have an area with a high number of sightings, but none of them are ever reported, researchers aren’t going to know this is a hot spot to collect evidence of existence. 
 

Ultimately, we want proof of existence so we can ensure their protection as a species. Don’t let fear of some pseudo intellectual who couldn’t pass a high school biology course laughing at you keep you from helping the forest people. It’s obvious you care, or you wouldn’t be here. 

 

You make some good points here. 

 

What I wish people understood is that these beings are literally everywhere there is a sufficient sized forested area to conceal them and to hunt, in my opinion.  For people that want to kill one to get a body for science, I think they will have a better chance of knocking out God.  There is a reason, the natives called them the great spirits of the forest.  Do you believe that somebody on this forum will finally figure out what the Sasquatch is all about?  After thousands of years, JOHN DOE, came along and solved the mystery, yeah, OK.

 

Humanity is not there yet, at least I'm not.  I only express what I see and experience.  I have not experienced mind speak, or marbles dropping out of the air, or orbs or a UFO connection or anything like that, but I won't rule it out. 

 

We have to be open to all experiences as they occur, or we will miss much.

 

All the large forests above 100acres perhaps, will have them, in my opinion.

 

Their nature and the details are yet to be discovered.  Maybe, it can only be discovered on a personal level,

but I keep trying.

[CryptidTalk]

7 minutes ago, FelixTheCat said:

Do you believe that somebody on this forum will finally figure out what the Sasquatch is all about?  After thousands of years, JOHN DOE, came along and solved the mystery, yeah, OK. 

Maybe, yeah. We have Darby Orcutt on the forum. It’s completely plausible that his current DNA study will reveal something about them. 
 

But, whether it’s someone on this forum or not, I’m confident science will eventually answer the question of what Bigfoot is. 

[guyzonthropus]

I'm with Cryptid on that last point, at least to some extent. As for at this point we can't even be certain if what's being seen as "large hairy hominid" even represents a single species, or a spectrum of diverse species created by successive waves of migration, or speciation through isolation or selective factors within a habitat....as relatively closely related forms, hybridization may be ongoing, unless inhibited by their own cultural norms. But I do believe that eventually, or maybe tomorrow, proof/evidence of definite nature will be had. Of course the governmemt may finally choose disclosure of what they know as well..

 

As for the percentage of sightings that get reported to various record keeping groups, I d personally guess its no more than 5-10% at the very best, and probably well below that. Figure Joe Average may not even be aware of Bigfoot groups prior to a sighting, this their first recourse would be to call the police, or perhaps the forest service, which would usually result in mirthful dismissal, which could well make them all the more reluctant to pursue further efforts to report. Most nigfoot groups on say Facebook that I've seen run rampant with harshly critical elements that offer up more than enough critique, criticism, and questions of personal sobriety to turn anyone's thought away from reporting anything ever again!

Edited 15 hours ago by guyzonthropus

[FelixTheCat]

4 hours ago, guyzonthropus said:

I'm with Cryptid on that last point, at least to some extent. As for at this point we can't even be certain if what's being seen as "large hairy hominid" even represents a single species, or a spectrum of diverse species created by successive waves of migration, or speciation through isolation or selective factors within a habitat....as relatively closely related forms, hybridization may be ongoing, unless inhibited by their own cultural norms. But I do believe that eventually, or maybe tomorrow, proof/evidence of definite nature will be had. Of course the governmemt may finally choose disclosure of what they know as well..

 

 

We absolutely don't yet know what we're dealing with, and there may well be many unknown entities in the forest.  Most of the time you can't see them.  Stick breaks, wood knocks, rock clacks and rock throwing could be initiated by anything including ghosts.  For the sake of convenience we call it bigfoot.  It could be gnomes or elves or spirits or aliens or anything.  Need more proof.