Bowsite.com

He was hunting in Colorado, Owl.

=D

>>>>>----------------<>

Shoulda' used the "other Brand X" trail camera! I'm sure the trigger speed woulda' shown more. ;?)

I tried to provide you some information on the subject last year remember? You guys are around these creatures more then you can imagine. Fred got lucky and got a few clips which are now posted on his site.

I hope the mods come to realize that what he caught on video is something you should be able to talk about openly here. Some of you may encounter one just as I did 4 years ago while hunting. Some of you probably have as well, but don't feel safe talking about it here. I've seen these creatures in the field and I knew how to act when I had that scary encounter which turned out to be a peaceful encounter. Just bare in mind, to attempt to harm one, well you probably wouldn't make it out of the woods alive.

You talk about how you interact with bears, wolves, moose, etc here. As I also recall, there were a few members here who had even personally encountered the subject of the video. Well, being able to discuss the different ways to behave during an encounter with one of these creatures would only benefit everyone don't ya think? Sure for most of you it requires an open mind because you haven't seen one, but you never know, it could happen to you. Believe it or not, these yet to be classified creatures ARE out there with you in the woods. They are masters of camouflage and stealth. They generally avoid us but they are also curious. And believe it or not, most of you come across their sign often, but you don't know what to look for. Some of you have heard them but didn't know what you were listening to.

Well now one of your own has some fairly compelling footage if you all believe he is legitimate, which I suspect you do, then you can further question the reality of these unusual creatures known as bigfoot.

Dave

Nope Bx3, never wrote scripts for anything. I'm a hunter just like you, only I still use a rifle. Don't hold that against me though, I know plenty of bowhunters and I hunt like one too.

No question the vid isn't the final evidence but he probably has much better quality video then he posted too.

I don't think its all that unreasonable to think that something like this could be out in the woods. Its just another animal of some kind. It could happen.

I searched your user name in Bowsites database, and just like the elusive "bigfoot" it hardly appears, in fact it appears only twice. Yea, twice, and they are both on this thread. Now I'm not sure, but it seems that anyone could google "Bigfoot" and it could lead you to this site and this exact forum. And as you were honest enough to inform us that you're a hunter, but a gun hunter, which is great, at least you hunt, but I gotta wonder. What's a guy who doesn't bowhunt doing on a primarily bowhunting website and talking about a creature that humans, with all the technology and brain power available to us, has yet to actually prove exists? I see some plot holes here man. But i'm expecting some sever rebuttal from an intelligent "bigfoot" fanatic as to how vain I must be for thinking that we could possibly have discovered all the species that inhabit the world around us. Believe me, if I ever do have a "bigfoot" encounter while hunting, I will gladly eat crow! But I'll be doing it while posting Pictures and the story of the wierdest wall mount you guys have all ever seen!! LMAO!!!

Well, as I said, the thread where I came on last year was entirely removed, so it's no surprise you can't find anything from me here. I was disappointed to see an entire thread removed when so many were interested in the subject, and because the subject can affect hunters in the field. As a hunter, who knows plenty of bowhunters, one of which had an encounter of his own, I came here last year because there were questions about sasquatch. So I only tried to answer questions. I am sure there are a few here who will eventually chime in who remember.

But yes, it is amazing that there has been so few images with all the technology we have. I concur! But guess what, hunters of all types still run into them, it doesn't matter the type of hunter. But being bowhunters try to be extra quiet in their technique, it is relevant. There have been plenty of bowhunters who have had encounters.

Yes even I will say they are intelligent but I too find it uncanny that we can't seem to outsmart them as well. I put out cameras as well but still no luck.

Anyway, I'll check in periodically to respond to questions. I appreciate the opportunity.

Dave

I'm interested in what brother Multiple really does! No pics of BF, but you've had some close encounters?!

make your own decisions on what it was

rick

It would be too easy to prove a fake then.

Hoax to gain viewers? With the obvious lack of enthusiasm on the board, why would a reputable guide/hunter with sponser responsibility risk alienating his target audience just to gain some hits on his website from "crazy BF" chasers? Risk doesn't meet the rewards.

1) A trick agains't R.E.? Sure. If it was, he didn't know about it. So you got a guy, on his own running around guys with guns and hungary bears to pull a childish prank.

Kind of risky in my book.

2) Unknown bi-pedal creature. Does this mean BF? No. Just an unidentified walking creature. Interesting non the less.

(For clarification- Not only do I bow hunt/rifle hunt for 5-6 months out of the year, I also post on the same forum as Multiple in regards to BF).

However, Fred is in an area that has had "Bigfoot" sightings before.

The wife says its a Bear in the Tree, I say since Fred lives near Trinidad its one of those Pre -Op she'ms.

Bottom of main page left side. small video window with a title about unknown caught on stealth cam

I can't believe some of you guys actually believe in Big Foot. If a large, hairy ape-like creature is inhabiting North America, where is the fossil record? The DNA testing results of hair caught in a fence? I would personally like to know something like Big Foot does exist. I just don't believe it. Someone is pulling a prank on Senor Eichler and for good reason. We are talking about his show aren't we? How many of us visited his website for the first time to watch the video clip?

Next we will have a Stealth Cam clip taken in the NW Territories while scouting for polar bear "inadvertently" capturing a jolly, white-bearded man in a red suit...

The few times I've seen these things, I sure wasn't looking for them. The first time back in the mid 1970's about 2 AM just finishing up a 6 hour drive to Yosemite where I was lived. No camera, I don't even think I owned one.

Second sighting in mid '80's, deer hunting with a friend. No camera with me.

Third one the most scary of all. Had my German Shepherd with me. Was sitting inside a clearcut for the last hour of daylight. No camera, but if I had a camera, I would have been too scared to try and use it. You can't even comprehend the fear I experienced with this one after having to approach him in order to get back to my vehicle.

Fourth and most recent sighting this last November. Hunting elk solo in NE Oregon during 12 day hunt. Pulling gear out of trailer and saw something dark and upright in grassy area about 200' away. Did a double-take and it began walking sideways. Didn't get much of a look. Grabbed spotlight but it was gone. I sure wasn't going to go running after it with my digital camera with what little light there was. Let's see, I would have to get within 20 feet for a flash pic. I don't suspect he would like the flash either.

What I do? Well up until a few months ago I was working with a local taxidermist (and bowhunter) doing graphic work. Also sold a few items for him to Cabelas. Got to visit the Reno store before opening, which was cool. A few of the mounts there will partly be due to yours truly (not that I shot the animal, but coordinated the sale). Let's see, one of this taxidermist's clients is a very well known bowhunter to you all, but I will refrain from name dropping. I am also doing some graphics for a new client of mine, a guide I have known for a few decades. I also do some computer consulting (Mac) for a few other clients.

It is only in the last 2 years that I have decided to take up this bigfoot issue. Believe me, I tried avoiding it for the last 25 years prior due to 'what people would think' stigma. But you know what, screw em. For whatever reason, I have a knack for finding them, (or they find me). These creatures are real and they are by far the most fascinating mystery on this planet. Bar none! So now I spend lots of time in the woods when I can with cameras and audio gear in hand. If I had another face to face but in daylight conditions, would I raise a camera up and point it at him with the risk of a flash going off? I can't say I would, and until someone has been in the shoes of seeing one of these creatures, you can't imagine what it is like.

Re the video in question. No question that with the quality of vid we can view, we just can't tell enough. But if he has something like 640 X 480, then that needs a closer look. I don't know Mr. Eichler either just for clarification but I did email the program yesterday just to touch bases.

There are some filed reports to various organizations by bowhunters of their encounters with these creatures that some of you may be interested in. I will see if I can locate a few of these over the next few days. There are plenty of your peers who have encountered them.

Dave

Really, I believe Bigfoot exists. Of course, I believe one day I'll have 6 pack abs...I think we'll prove the existence of Bigfoot first:)

Hair. Yes they have found hair. They have done a DNA test. Results state that while it is similiar to both primate and man, it does not match either one.

There are also recorded sounds that experts in the field of North AMerican animals (And these experts are NOT BF enthusiasts) cannot match to any known animal. The standard MT. Gorilla was just discovered in the 50's. To say that it doesn't exist......

As told by late President Theodore Roosevelt http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/classics/bauman.html

There are others who have been attacked but it is usually because the people were aggressive first.

Still think Fred or someone else is having fun with this "footage"...

At first I thought they were too close to a meth lab. But the guy in the pic isn't skinny enough. Maybe the big coat makes him look fatter.

Kodiak, there is a fat guy that offices in my building. I am pretty sure he is Elvis. Dude even drives a Caddilac. No positive sighting of the peanut butter and banana sandwich, though. I think the CIA has him in some sort of witness protection program since he knows who the second shooter was in the grassy knoll and threatened to turn over his information to the Warren Commission.

hubba, hubba, hubba. Thank you, thank you very much.

This is One of the best pratical jokes you can play on the "believers". We have done the Chupa Cabra trick several times on trail cams of guys that "believe". The results are really cool...some do not want to go back into the brush. It is amazing what a little professional makeup can do.

RK

Not mine. I cut the legs off my bed so he couldn't get under there anymore. I sleep good now.

Rob

. . . Rob

Most probally there was a complete family group of them working their way through the area picking berries eating Jacklinks and performing breeding rituals, its a shame that Fred isn't sponsored by a better game camera with a better trigger speed or we could have seen a brief glimse into the fasinating world of the Bigfoot creature.

I hope ya'll get the sarcasim.

Guys, I realize this subject is difficult for some of you to come to grips with. But understand that there are things that not all of you are familiar with. Your lack of familiarity doesn't make these creatures a myth.

It is very odd that the camera 'begins' in mid frame. I suppose the air temperatures could of had something to do with it, thus resulting in slow activation of the camera? Some of you who got to see the better quality images on TIVO were able to see a whole lot more detail then what is posted on the site. I think it would really behoove Mr. Eichler to post a higher quality video at this point since he has elected to give a taste with a lesser quality version. This lesser quality one only adds questions and not enough detail can be analyzed.

Trust me when I say this fellow hunters, these creatures are real! Whether what they captured is legitimate needs further investigation. It needs to be thoroughly analyzed by those in the filed who know what they are doing, and not by those who are unfamiliar with the subject. Yes, there is a field of study into these creatures. There are serious scientists and other professionals involved who are deeply invested in trying to solve this ongoing mystery. Even Primatologist Jane Goodall has admitted her belief in these creatures existence. Believe me, there is a lot more serious research going on here then most of you guys are aware of. While I realize some of you already have an open mind, to the rest I ask that you try, and recognize there may be things you are not knowledgeable about.

To humble you guys a little bit in the field. These sasquatch are masters at concealment and stealth. Trust me, ya ain't gonna get the sneak on them! The woods are their living-room. If there are any in an area you hunt, they usually know of your approach as you pull up in your vehicle. Have any of you heard loud wood knocks at some time during a hunt? I don't mean something caused by a woodpecker either. But sounding like someone big was swinging hard at a hollow tree with an heavy axe handle. Of course you'd have to rule out other people too as the cause, but if you know the country and access points, it is worth consideration.

Here's another sign that many of you have seen but couldn't figure out. Recall the sapling you found that was broken or twisted off between 5'- 8' up in the air, but you couldn't figure out what caused it? We're talking 3"-5" diameter at the break and usually living when the break happened as evidenced by the tearing bark. Of course, one has to rule out that there were no claw or antler scrapes on it? Notice that there was also no bending of the tree as would be caused by heavy snow, or that no adjacent saplings were damaged, nor any trees fell on it? They also leave breaks on smaller saplings, which I know many of you HAVE seen, but you didn't realize what it was caused by. We haven't figured out what all these mean yet, but we are fairly certain it is a form of 'sign' these use.

Guys, I'm just asking that you have an open mind here. So just like you are more knowledgeable about your respective fields, some of us who have made the decision to venture into this field, have become much more knowledgeable about these creatures then you realize. I was reluctant to get into it for 20 years because of the stigma and ridicule that was often attached. But you know, all great discoveries throughout time were exactly the same. Still with all of our combined knowledge, they remain a mystery to us too.

I'm pretty sure it isn't Michelle.

There's been thousands of prints and casts of the prints taken. As for at the video site? We don't know. Did they look? Did they only examine the footage after getting home a few days later? This being the case, did they walk all over the area and disturb existing tracks? There's a couple of possibilities here.

In case your question is more broadly stated, here's a page from a Professor Meldrum at Idaho State University in regards to print and other skeletal morphology: http://www.isu.edu/~meldd/fxnlmorph.html

The other thing to realize is that sasquatch are soft soled like us and don't have claws that leave impression. The size of their foot also displaces the weight. So no question finding tracks is still rare. I have found tracks at my research site, but only a few shallow ones because the soil type is hard, rocky and with plenty of organic matter. Still tracks can be found if you look hard.

There is another factor with respect to tracks that gets into another level of discussion. One that lends to their intelligence. We in the field believe they are fully aware that they leave tracks and are very careful about it when humans are near so we don't find them. Still tracks are found often when you know where and what to look for.

They are THE apex predator out there but they are also mostly benevolent towards us, that is unless some yahoo attempts to harm one while deep in the field. They are much better predator then any of us, I guarantee it. They are also the most elusive and it seems built into their brains to stay away from humans.

Like I said everyone, I will do my best to try and answer questions. I don't know all the answers but I can still be of help here if you want to know more. That said, the subject of this thread is still what was caught on cam and so the jury is still out pending further investigation of both the video and the site. I also suspect that many of you here would like to know more if there is something to it, and to have a basic understanding of the issue in order to make a better decision on what is being viewed. I just wish we had higher resolution video to talk about.

As to 'risk'for a joke,ha,what risk?I know some guys that were going to rent the suit and do exactly this on a Canadian fishing video.Figured it would help sales,even get them on 'myth busters'and god knows whatother shows.Now they'll wish they had.Look at the press on this joke.

I know there will be jokes here and that's cool. Just have that open mind too because what we talk about could be of value to you guys some time in the future when you're out there and have that unexpected encounter of your own.

Hopefully Mercury will continue adding tidbits here and there as well. I don't know him but as he mentioned, we post on the same bigfoot forum, which I only joined a few months ago. Anyway, I will try not to overwhelm you with info but at the same time, don't be afraid to ask questions. Again, we don't know all the answers that for sure, but will try and provide what we do know to you guys. After all, you are in the field often and knowing what to look for may even advance our overall knowledge of this species.

Dave

Anyone ever heard of infrared?

The military does this periodically for some of our WMA's and trust me, you can see the animals heat signature.

How hard could it possibly be to find a creature that large if someone really wanted to and had the technology?

I'd say it would be impossible because these creatures do not exist.

153

RK

The guy who claimed he was in the ape suit was discounted long ago.

There is DNA evidence but it is not a complete sequence. Their hair lacks the Medulla, which is where the full DNA strand is normally located. However some blood analyses is still running.

No question we lack quality photographic evidence, but it does exist. There IS other video out there but has not yet been released for various reasons.

There is much more to the dermal ridges and they are not so easily faked especially when there are numerous prints in line where slight movements in the foot change the entire pattern based on the terrain. In fact, there is a Texas police officer and Fingerprint Expert who does work for the FBI and DEA named Jimmy Chilcutt, who used to not believe and set out to disprove the prints. He has changed his mind. Will you take him seriously? http://www.jhcforensicconsultant.com/ http://home.clara.net/rfthomas/papers/elkins.html

Remains, you are correct as far as I know or we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Fecal Evidence, there is plenty. The problem is, it usually also contains dna from other animals, so there is contamination.

Physical Evidence, there's actually been plenty of physical evidence, it just depends on type. If you know what to look for, it is out there.

As for Thermal Imagery, there is successful thermal imagery by a few organizations but no, it is not the best quality. If you are referring to government satellite, well I don't suspect the govt would be in any hurry to prove there is a large primitive bipedal species walking around the woods at night. Especially with the potential impacts they fear it will have to the logging industry and economy.

RK, you have no idea how massive these things are. I was only carrying a 30-30, plus it was dusk and I was on the defense being he was between me and my vehicle. I had to approach this creature to within 22' in order to pass. You have no idea of the true essence of fear for you to say otherwise. It's not like it was a familiar Grizzly. I also understood enough about ballistics but their strength to know that I would be dead had I shot at him, and knowing he may not have been alone. He could have reached me in one single jump. I'm not a fool.

I guess for those who don't want to accept the possibility of something like sasquatch, well you won't until you see one for yourself. But at least be mature enough to recognize that you may not be aware of everything on this planet either. Its easy to have fun with the subject and that's cool. But take the time to research the evidence and existing professional opinions objectively as well.

Above you have the name of a highly regarded crime scene investigator whose reputation is on the line daily in his field of forensic analysis. Do you really think someone with his reputation would become so involved in the subject if he didn't become convinced himself? Maybe someone here wants to call him a hoaxer?

DE DO DE DO DE DO DE DO ...

MultipleEncounters I thinks its great that you shared your experience here.Thank you I hope you continue to share more. I would like to learn more.

Probley 90% of the people on this site believe in something that science says can't or doesn't exist so dont let them get you down. :)

A few years ago I never thought I would even discuss this issue like I am now, but after what I have seen and experienced myself, its hard not to anymore.

I hope that everyone reads my above post where I addressed certain issues, that you review the fingerprint experts work and realize you can't say much negative about his work or that of some of the scientists involved.

Something else I realized about the stealthcam footage and lack of more frames. I wonder if the sunlight had an effect on triggering the infrared part of the system? Notice the beams of sunlight that shine downward.

Anyway, until we can review better quality footage, its hard to make too much of an opinion.

PM sent to you.

NH1

The only issue I can see with my going into detail is that it would significantly alter the intended focus of this thread more then we have. What has been posted thus far is one thing, and the intent was to encourage open-mindedness in order to fairly consider what Mr. Eichler may have caught on camera. But to get into details of my encounters would definitely stray the thread beyond that. I've been on quite a few forums over the years, and I understand the importance of not getting too off-track within a thread

However, if the Mods were open, I would be willing to begin a thread for that purpose. Heck, then some here could pile all over me again. lol But if I did, I wouldn't want to see it removed either afterwards because I am not a bow hunter. Oh wait, I do have two recurves in the closet. :) Anyway, the mods have seen how I have kept things on track despite all the fun some have had. So if they were open to a separate thread to discuss 'A Hunter's Sasquatch Encounter', then I would do so. Does that sound fair?

Dave

If so, I will work on it and post a little later.

Thanks,

Dave

I'd just prefer to follow the rules here and wait to see what they have to say beforehand.

Dave

Thanks for the laughs.

Sorry to hear you didn't gain anything positive from what was posted. I suppose it just comes with the territory that there are closed-minded people. But clearly there are some who have an interest and I appreciate their feedback..

Dave

Elders don't seem to want to share what they know because white man cannot be trusted. They probably have good reason to feel this way, look at how some here have treated what is really the most fascinating mystery on this planet.

Wild1, I've seen big cats in the wild only a few times. They don't use the same strategy in cunning or stealth. BF has em beat. BF appears to use rational thinking and communication with others in their decisions and movement. They are self aware.

you crack me up - lol. You had to go and do it..... now you brought the oompa loompas into this thing. - lol.

I laugh every time I come back to the thread. It makes me giggle and every now and then I launch something outta my mouth at the screen while trying to hold back the uncontrollable laughter that ensues.

I think MultipleEncounters has a point about keeping a open mind. Dont be so quick to judge.

I do think this video is incomplete like a lot of BF vids though. Its hard to tell. Ill say BF exists when I see it myself or one of us has it hanging up at camp.lol

Maybe BF was auditioning for the next hit sitcom or Geico commercial.

Maybe BF was auditioning for the next hit sitcom or Geico commercial.

Your hair that just happens to be missing the key DNA strand (you'd think they can get DNA from a single cell); the blood analysis you have still running (how long can that possibly take?); the "other" video evidence that is not yet released (of course with mysterious unnamed reasons for it being withheld); the fecal evidence of which you claim plenty (but yet again fails to prove anything).

Its darn near impossible to prove something does NOT exist, but its pretty clear that we have enough science and technology to have found real proof by now. And if bigfoot does really exist (and that would be cool) its up to you and your pals on the other forums, who obsess over every snippet of blurry video, to come up with that better proof. That proof may already exist, or may yet be found, but you can't try to force its acceptance with obscure science and tangential references. In other words, this Fred Eichler video clip is another swing and a miss... but that doesn't mean you should give up hope. Just start looking elsewhere.

But what worries me is how your response here will affect one of your own peers. Have you guys even given that a second thought? What if he actually had more footage but only revealed a few frames in order to gauge response? Well if the jokes made here are any indication...

People once laughed at the idea of man ever reaching the moon. People once laughed at there being another land that we call America. It was only in the last century that the Gorilla was proven to be real. New species are being found every day somewhere in the world. Maybe its the bowhunter who are stuck in their own world? But now its one of your own who has something to question your self being. What will you do when that world comes crashing down?

You know, there are plenty of bowhunters who have had encounters and they reported them. Like you, they didn't believe these creatures could exist beforehand but it changed their life afterwards. They were just like you!

Humans have known about the moon since there were humans. People were populating "America" before there was an America. New species are being found in the most remote stretches of the globe every year, but I would challenge you to find a bipedal 250-450 lb ape looking creature in any of those discovery disclosures.

Yes, most radical ideas come up against opposition. However, I find it very interesting that all Big Foot hunters/enthusiasts' evidence is tainted or fraudulent.

Bottom line is that you sir are a moron. I have a problem with someone who has a boat load of evidence, and claims that there is just one thing wrong with each piece of evidence.

As for gorillas, yes I should have been more careful, being there are two types and one WAS only formally documented in 1847. Before that, it was stories like you referenced. (Oh wait, kind of like the stories that exist of sasquatch, how ironic!) But of course the Mountain variety of gorilla was discovered much more recent too. And my point about America, I was referring to people in Europe who didn't believe there was another continent, oh yeah, that's when the world was flat, and yet, there were native people here all along. Whom as well, know these creatures have existed amongst them for millennia.

The bottom line is, you guys aren't thinking about what you say here can impact Mr. Eichler and what he has. But I guess closed minded people usually can't see the whole picture.

What will you do if Mr. Eichler comes forward and states without hesitation that "it would appear we have captured what people refer to as a sasquatch on film"? What will happen to the comfortable world you live in when it is turned upside down by one of your own?

For the record, I believe Horn Donkey's "moron" comment was out of line.

I am a BF skeptic but I will say no one has discredited the Patterson film, yet.

The one liners come with the territory and you know you should expect that. Bowsniper has some very valid points and all of us including you should read them again. Not to be critical but your keeping an open mind is as important as your accusing us of not doing the same.

Your analogy using the gorilla is baseless at best. The Phonecians documented the lowland gorilla 2000 years ago and in regard to the highland gorilla that was possibly discovered in and around 1902 by "white men", that beast was actually documented by german soldier in about 1833. In addition before that animal was seen alive there were skulls and parts that were displayed.

You may actually be right, and it may actually be proven one day that this mythological beast exists but the secretive nature of the "evidence" certainly is suspect at best as much of the information regarding BF is. If Eichler has film, pictures etc. that prove beyond a shadow of a doubt of the existence of BF he would be the first person in history to do so and they would be out in a heartbeat making him very very famous and bringing a positive beneficial spotlight on bowhunters (by him not killing it) and thus promoting the sport beyond any measurable amount.The goodwill to bowhunters would be greater than anything he could do now as a bow pro.

Keep an open mind and a tough skin and keep up your research and maybe you will be able to "prove" your point someday, dreams are a good thing. Until then expect the critisism and sarcasm. How could you expect anything else given the nature of the subject and the less than stellar evidence over the decades that has been presented.

Good luck on your adventure.

RK

"How many go to a building on Sundays to talk or worship to something that science says didnt happen or doesnt exist. There are alot of people that say thats crazy..." and as for this statement we at least have documentation from the first century about a man who was cruxified and then rose from the dead. When people drag bigfoot back to camp that is when I choose to believe. I have a lot more to gain by believing in God then I do believing in BF. There is no comparison masemaamed.

In regards to gorillas, the distinction being made should be looked at from two different levels. Knowledge by 'modern science', or before that 'knowledge by those who have seen them', which were the occasional explorer and the natives. Guess what, the latter is exactly what is happening with sasquatch and science is slowly catching up. Tales of gorillas BEGAN with nothing more then stories, and it evolved into science.

Today we see the early stories of gorillas as 'documentation' because they were since proven real. But before that, they were just stories nobody believed, again like the present subject.

Native Americans have tons of 'documentation' of these creatures in their stories and petroglyphs, but it's not yet seen as that because 'modern science' has not yet classified the species. Native Americans and First Nations people are the Phonecians here. Of course so are thousands of whites too from every walk of life.

Some of what Bowsniper raised has been addressed like the DNA. Try pulling the hairs out in your arms, they don't come out easy and they don't always come out with the complete root either. So it's not like they leave hairs to carpet the forest. But like I also said earlier, there is DNA being analyzed (from blood) but it takes time. Its not the same level of analyses you find on csi either. The problem is, what do they compare it to? It simply doesn't match any known animal, and that is what the results have been with previous DNA analyses.

So yeah, I have an open mind, but when some here make comparisons, well they need to realize they may not have all the information either. I'm just trying to help guys, not trying to force anything.

Unless Mr. Eichler has more footage, no the existing material probably won't solve the mystery, I never thought this. But maybe its enough to open everyone's eyes here a little bit?

I've got a very open mind on the subject. If real, its just another as of yet, undiscovered animal with a very small population. Not that hard at all for me to believe and I wouldn't be surprised at all. Its just an ape.

I don't remember the exact data but there was an ape in Asia that fit this description that is recently(by scientific terms) extint. So, its not all that hard to make the jump to some of those surviving here.

Anyway, I'll offer a little more science to the mix.

Based on existing fossil records, it wasn't that long ago (in geological time) that there were other hominid species on earth along the same family tree as us. Accepted by Modern Science if you will. If you look at the timeline, you can see that we and others weren't that far apart. There IS fossil evidence to support the existence of these early humans and some of them were rather large. Please notice how close the timelines of the various species truly are.

http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/species.htm

http://anthropology.si.edu/humanorigins/ha/a_tree.html

Interestingly, there is no proof that all of these other SUB-SPECIES of HUMANS actually died off. We really don't know what they were like. Some used tools, some didn't. Could a line of them still be with us? What if they are still here and have adapted to the night because us modern humans did not tolerate them because of their differences? Maybe because early Homo sapiens were continually in conflict with them in centuries past (that would be before the internet), they learned to survive where we can't and thus remain wild. Is there enough room in your world to consider this as a possibility?

Of course there is also the school of thought that sasquatch is a giant ape species known as Gigantopithecus. Again, fossil evidence has been found in China, and like is hypothesized about humans, maybe they crossed the land bridge to the Americas long ago as well. (I personally don't follow the Giganto theory because I have witnessed more intelligence from these creatures.) But, I remain open minded. In fact, the original scientist who discovered the first fossils originally ascribed them into the hominid tree, but this changed because of PRESSURE from his peers.

Anyway, here is a link, a find generally supported by a world of scientists. http://www.uiowa.edu/~bioanth/giganto.html

For those of you who have a religious upbringing, did you know that there are 80 references to Giants in the Bible? I'm not saying what is described there are sasquatch, but only that it should give you something to think about. I personally know a Pastor and prior 'bowhunter' who encountered one back in the 80's. He's afraid of them today and we have some interesting conversations.

There are even a number of fossilized very-large human footprints found around the world that look very similar to the topic of our conversation. Here is one site in Texas that are 18" long along side dinosaur tracks: http://www.grisda.org/origins/02064.htm

Ape prints and human prints look very different as well. So what could these be and why are they so similar to the prints being found throughout the continent today?

None of this PROVES it is sasquatch, but clearly it also allows for the possibility.

IF BF is all a hoax, why aren't there hundreds of hoaxes of unicorns or Santa Claus reported every year?

IF BF is a hoax, why is it that the vast majority of reports come from hunters (sneaking through the woods in camo) and not casual hikers?

IF BF is a hoax, why do credible people risk public humiliation (tons of examples on this thread) to tell their story for absolutely zero benefit to themsselves?

There was a guy who used to post on Bowsite years ago, K Foster, who had a lot of interesting information along with personal accounts. Darn intriguing reading.

I look at it this way. There are tons of cougars in the woods, yet I've never seen one. Something that is much rarer and with a lot more intelligence, perhaps exclusively nocturnal, would rarely be seen...

Thanks for the interesting info Multiple.

Bah humbug to many of you others for nothing but wise-crack comments.

Debate, counter-theories, yes, thanks. But name calling and rudeness I can live without.

Carl

I also remember the name KFoster and I think he have came into the thread last year (or was it the year before?) that was removed. A search brings up some of his threads. Interestingly, there does seem to be more people then admitting they heard or seen something. I wonder why the downward trend?

But I'm hangin in there. :)

"Some simply choose to believe what they want to. The fact there are those in our society who are willing to spend millions in research, man hours, and equipment for something that exists only in the imagination of men is truly pathetic. I guess we all need a cause, but what an empty and worthless one to cling to. That money would be so much better used to solve truly important issues that have a direct bearing on society and mankind. Yet some insist it is important we find the "truth." To what end? If it were ever proven that such lived, which it won't be, what have we gained? In reality, it would burst the bubble of intrigue and mystery and then there would be nothing to talk about on crazy, silly internet forums. Laughable!"

I'll finish by showing my cynicism and close mindedness...WHO CARES?

If you don't care, then why post something that seems only intended to demean what may actually be one of the most fantastic mysteries on this planet?

Razor, they aren't always seen alone. There are plenty of filed reports of multiple creatures and multiple witnesses. Just keep that little bit of open mindedness but even I'll say, be patient too. Proof could happen tomorrow or it could be a few more years.

The bottom line is, they are intelligent! More intelligent then all other animals in the woods. You can't expect them to behave like bears or big cats.

As for the poor quality photos you see, here's a quote that sums it up in a comical way:

"I think Bigfoot is naturally blurry, that's the problem. It's not the photographers fault. And that's extra scary to me, because there's a large out-of-focus monster roaming the countryside." ~ Mitch Hedberg ~ Comedian

I have also opened up another thread asking for members to provide me with cases where bowhunters (not bigfoot researchers) have encountered sasquatch. I hope you guys will be able to relate to them.

Its interesting how many then admitted to seeing or hearing screams or something in those threads.

On a separate note, here is the link I tried to post but didn't work due to the brackets I hope.

http://forums.bowsite.com/TF/bgforums/thread.cfm?threadid=313473&forum=5#1798233

If you spent as much time looking for me as you do at your computer, you'd have plenty of photos (some compromising) by now.

Those unidentifiable sounds you speak of are from Mrs. Big Foot when we are making Sasquach luv.

Actually, its Winter time and I'm pretty much snowed out of the mountains where I spend time. So yeah, I must sit here with a laptop on my lap.

Your favorite elk or mule deer hunting area just became Bigfoots sanctuary.

If they do exist it would be in our best interest as hunters and outdoorsman if it were never proven.

Seriously though, as many here realize, we need to wait for better quality images in order to judge what is there. And we should wait to see what further analyses reveals by those who know what they are doing too.

There are however a few groups out there trying to hunt them and a few have been injured, but the sas seems to have the edge in these confrontations even when guys use all their high tech gear.

The sad part is, IF they are some form of early human ancestor, we the human race, simply cannot begin hunting our predecessors in this modern age.

he like to jump on people scram. and do strange thigns to grosss them out

Sound like one of his Jokes.

They do not believe in something that has not been scientifically proven, but yet they believe in somthing that has been disproven by science (carbon regeneration in a home cloths dryer)!

WAA HAA HAA HAAA HAAAR ! ;^)

Tony

For the record I am new to this forum, but I will share w/ you what prompted me to sign on. First off let me explain to you, my fellow peers, my "qualifications". I'm 33 y/o and have been hunting for 18 years, bowhunting for the last 15 years. While I mostly hunt my home state of PA, I've also bowhunted Quebec, MD, NH, TX, SC, and CO. In fact, I go elk hunting almost every year in an area not far from the Eichler footage. Additionally, I was a Boy Scout for several years in my teens (spent many nights camping)and was an Environmental Studies major in college (Studied evolution, adaptation, etc...) So why am I "tooting my own horn"? Well, I suppose it's because I don't want to be called an "ignorant idiot that doesn't know what he's talking about" for what I'm about to say.

The Eichler footage is either a Bigfoot or a person. I think we can all agree on this, even if most of you believe it's the latter. That's fine. What's not fine w/ me is the close-mindedness on the whole Bigfoot issue. Folks, these creatures ARE REAL! Read that again if you need to, but I ask that you let go of your egos, not shrug me off and follow along w/ me for a few lines.

The Mountain Gorilla of Africa was the "Bigfoot" of the early 1900s so to speak. People ventured into the forests and some came out saying that there are large hairy creatures in there. While I'm positive that they were ridiculed just the same as many of you riducule others today, guess what? These large hairy creatures turned out to be real ("officially" discovered in the 50s I believe) and are very well documented today. Without going into numerous examples, there have been numerous creature in our history as humans that were thought to be extinct but turned out to actually still exist. I'm sure many of you, like me are fishermen as well. Do a search on the history of the Coelacanth. Anyway, w/ regards to Bigfoot, thousands of years ago there was a large ape that was thought to walk upright and stand 8-10' tall called Gigantopithecus. Does that description sound familiar? If there have been numerous creatures that we thought to have been extinct, but since discovered to still exist, is it not possible that the thousands and thousands of CREDIBLE reported sightings from all over N. America (And Asia) could possibly be some decendant of Gigantopithecus? Let us also consider that it's estimated that only about 10% of sightings ever get officially reported! Why? Because of the atmosphere that society has created w/ regards to Bigfoot and other cryptids (undiscovered creatures).

I'm willing to bet that many of you hecklers out there have fellow hunting buddies that have had sightings or incidents in the woods w/ these creatures but will not tell a soul about it because of the way they'll be treated by not just Joe Smoe on the street, but even their own friends and family! Does that answer your question of "Well, then why don't we see them more?"

Why do I have such conviction about this topic? Well, guess what........I've never seen one, nor have I ever heard one or had an interaction w/ one, BUT I have researched the topic extensively w/ an open mind and in doing so have come to the realization that while these creatures are extremely rare, they do actually exist! And I know this to be w/ ever fiber of my body. I'm as convinced of it as I am that the next time a bruiser walks under my stand, my heart will be trying to jump out of my chest. For those of you that riducule and make fun of anyone who has the bravery to say that they've seen one or believe they exist, I ask how convinced you are that they DON'T exist?! We're is your proof that these creatures aren't wandering our forests?

Were is my proof that they do exist? While DNA evidence is not enough to some, we have it. We have it from hair and scat samples. The Patterson-Gimlin footage is the definitive video footage of these creatures. I'm sure some of you have watched the show on Discovery that analysed the movement of the creature and then tried to recreate that movement w/ a human only to come to the conclusion that IT CAN'T BE RECREATED BECAUSE HUMANS DON'T MOVE THAT WAY! We don't have more footage of them because if you take the time to do your research you'll find that they are INCREDIBLY adept at avoiding humans and staying hidden. We don't have more footage because they are very rare for one thing! We don't have more footage because if you read the reports of sightings you'll learn that even for those that have a camera on them at the time of the sighting the last thing that goes through their mind is "Get a picture". No, it's usually "I can't believe I'm seeing this", or "I'm getting the hell out of here". Think about how you'd react to seeing one, and I direct this question especially towards the non-believers. Finally, we don't have more footage, because of people like many of you! Would your hunting buddies show you a fuzzy picture of a fleeting Bigfoot when they knew how much flack they'd take? My point is, don't be surprised that we don't have more footage.

All I'm asking is that for those of you that don't believe and continue to ridicule those that do, either back down to the position of "I don't know if they exist because I haven't really learned much about the topic" or go out and learn about the topic and THEN come back and tell us that "You're crazy". We'd be a lot more accepting of your ridicule after you educate yourself (w/ an open mind) to what you're commenting on instead of just brushing it off as "craziness".

In the meantime, I'd like to commend Fred Eichler for having the intestinal fortitude to put this footage on his show even though he probably knew he was opening himself up to a lot of verbal abuse.

I'm not saying that what we see on this footage is definitely a Bigfoot, but rather that it could be. At least be open to the possibility of that!

Well said. I appreciate your open-minded thoughtful comment.

And KaThunk - Amen brother!

I'm in the same boat as Pocono. I've read a lot on the subject, seen things like the Discover channel analysis of the Patterson film, etc. and come to the same conclusion as you. I have perhaps the advantage of a friend who saw BF first hand and have heard his story, which helps when you have an immediate person whom you trust/believe.

It should come as no surprise that this thread has a bunch of posts that frankly are of absolutely no value. Read any other Bowsite post and you'll see roughly the same amount of frivolous posts.

Guys, it's fine to not think BF is real. But please try to post information and rebuttals that are valid and relate to the topic.

It's getting to be a pain wading through the junk just to find the nuggets that relate to the original topic.

Based on what I saw of Fred's film on TV, it was worthless - I think the film was set up for wide format and my TV cut off the edge, where the only glimpse of the "thing" was. But when I watched on the computer, it seems obvious that this is either a person or something that isn't a bear...

It will be interesting to hear what Fred has to say in the future. Whether he comes out and says his buddy admitted to playing a prank or if he sticks to his original comments that it is something he can't explain.

Carl

Reasons not to be bigfoot? All of the so-called evidence for bigfoot (giant creature, longer arms than a person, cranial ridge, hunched posture, swinging gait, etc.) do not appear in this video. YOur own evidence to prove other bigfoot sightings DISPROVE this one.

Reasons to be just some hunter: It was hunting season at a hunting site with a trail cam set up. It was the right season for 3D cammo suits. Walking upright, human size, human arm length, pronounced human sized head, appear to be carrying something on its back, etc.

I think it clear, other than some REAL wishful thinking, that the vast majority of open minded people have determined that this particular video clip is just another hunter.

But that is not to say the whole idea of Bigfoot can't be real. Most people just find it unlikely. Like the Ron Paul presidential campaign. He still has many dedicated passioante supporters, but the other 95% of the country thinks he's just a bit nuts!

As for the other exciting bigfoot images:

I think alot of current hunters people saw the infamous Jacobs Creature, and the vast majority have again concluded that it was two bears in a strange posture. It just so happens that there were two little bears the same size at that same exact tree just 1/2 hour before the mysterious "baby bigfoot" pictures were taken. Hard to think that it wasn't those same two bears.

As for the most famous Patterson footage, it looks like a guy in a gorilla suit. More like a hollywood gorilla than an actual descendent of the human line. Some BF followers say it can;t be repeated, but I think that is silly. Hollywood did it in all the Planet of the Apes movies, and don;t forget Harry and the Hendersons. Or the Sasquatch in the 6-Million Dollar Man episodes!! Piece of cake. Here is an article that researched the costume makers in Hollywood.

http://www.strangemag.com/chambers17.html

Basically, nothing says it can't possibly be real. Some people doubt we ever landed on the moon. But at some point you have to balance reason and science. Its doubtful at best, but not impossible. I wish you the best in your quest, and let us know when you have something worth really getting excited about.

In the images, it can't be determined what position the arm is in, it could be angled slightly. Too hard to determine.

Giant Creature - we have absolutely no reference of scale at this time. We need measuring device placed in same spot with camera as well.

Cranial Ridge - Again, not enough detail. Not all bigfoot have this either. They are as individual in characteristics as we are. The Patterson subject is NOT the Absolute Mold for what all bigfoot look like in detail.

Hunched Posture - Same as above.

Swinging Gait - Not enough footage to verify this, but it could explain the odd arm position where we only see a shortened silhouette.

You forgot one: No neck - Many hold to the claim that bigfoot have no necks. Well those are the people who have never seen one and who rely on one piece of film. I've seen a few. The first one some 31 years ago that I almost ran into in my pickup truck, turned his head 90° and looked down at me, then looked BACK at me a second time. Lack of neck, like other features, is not a rule.

I've provided a link to the Jacobs Images taken by a hunter's trailcam, not a bowhunter. While the first image may be questionable as possible bear, the same cannot be said about the second. It does NOT fit a bear's profile. Compare it to the first few cubs in the images.

I'd address more but there's time.

Dave

It has been a lively and fun debate, and I hope there is some other new discovery available soon that will once and for all settle the bigfoot debate. You should perhaps start a separate thread for any other piece of "evidence" that is worth discussing.

BTW- I have a very open mind. On an almost daily basis species we thought to be extinct or did not know existed are being discovered.

A few years ago, an aging hippie (may have had a toke or two over the line) living in Cortez, CO made mention of an encounter with an animal he could not identify. The description he gave fit, of course, Bigfoot.

This guy is an addicted traditional bowhunter and turkey hunter and lives on the mountain. He is also a pretty good freelance writer. According to him, he was elk hunting, returning to his house at dusk and something crossed the logging road 30-40 yards in front of him. He saw it for 3-4 seconds in the wide open of the road. It walked upright, was not a bear and he claimed after crossing the road, he could hear it following him for some distance. he said his dog would not leave the house for several days.

Who knows? Maybe it was Fred?

They do multiply but they also die. But WE may be the greatest hindrance in any form of overpopulation risk. They are spread out and we fill in the gaps geographically with our cities. They may not be able to risk having 'communities' because of us. Whether it's an intended thing or simply because of their nature, they are fewer. But there are more of them out there then you can imagine.

I've gathered a few reports from some hunters who have had encounters. A few bowhunters, a few rifle hunters. The above Jacobs images were taken by a rifle hunter's gamecam who wasn't interested in bigfoot. The following (which will need to be pasted into your url location) can't be dismissed as from some crazy bigfoot guys. They are from savvy hunters just like everyone here. They weren't looking for an encounter. But it sure changed their outlook on things afterwards. They were forced to change their view on things after having these encounters. Sometimes it just takes being slapped in the face with truth before you believe.

These reports were made to the BFRO who ultimately investigated them. I know there are others out there, but these should provide a little reading for those who are interested. The first one is a pretty scary encounter. They are encounters from normal hunters just like everyone here.

http://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_report.asp?id=8547

http://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_report.asp?id=12959

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=3800

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=3786

Bowriter, nope, wasn't me.

BTW, I'm not here to promote the BFRO in case anybody wonders this. I only began posting there a few months ago. I have no affiliation other then that. I only 'reluctantly' began researching because I could no longer avoid the subject, especially having faced one of these creatures 4 yrs ago in VERY close quarters while out hunting myself. Believe me, I've always tried to avoid the topic except with close friends. Now after talking more freely about it, numerous hunters have admitted to me their encounters. I guess that's the nature of these things and few want to admit they've seen 'em until they feel it is safe to do so.

I did as I was told and have been researching the bigfoot information online most of the morning. How amazing. It seems that with the advent of the internet this amazing religion has taken hold and truly taken off. I am a skeptic, but still think there is a possibility there could be an unidentified humanoid populating North America.

However, I think what truly troubles me about the people who are Bigfoot Zealots is your insistence in recruiting other Zealots to the cause.

Site after site that I visited had proported "proof" of bigfoots exsistence. However, there was never anything conclusive in any of the sites that I visited. Person after person had really seen the big guy, but just like Multiple Encounters' sightings they were at dusk or from hundreds of feet away. Each piece of evidence was tainted in just one way. Each piece had almost solved the mystery.

Many an afternoon I have watched the sun fade through the tree tops waiting on the buck of a lifetime to step through the trees. Waiting until pitch dark, the sounds of the woods envelope me and envoke my innermost desire to see him. Somehow in those ghostly minutes between day and night, apparitions appear. I see fleeting glimpses, hear deer sounds, feel his presence.

My point here is that I think a large proportion of the Bigfoot followers want it to be so. Although each video clip that I watched shows a different looking animal. Although prints range widely in size and shape. This religion of Bigfoot followers wants it to be true so badly that they will try to recruit people to their way of thinking.

Best of luck in your search. Please contact me when there is real evidence, as I will be the first to congratulate you.

One of the reasons I posted in this thread was because one of your own captured 'something' on film. We do not yet know what it is because the material is still premature. The higher resolution images are not yet publicly available. On the HuntTv website, you get to see a lot of pixilation.

More to the point, yes, you guys are out there silently stalking the woods just like I do, but maybe you do so a little more stealthily. That being said, they are much more stealthy then anyone here, but they make mistakes too. I can say that without a doubt. My point is, if bowhunters knew what to look for, understood a little more about their behavior, and had an open mind while out there, some of you might actually be positioned to see one as well. Heck, you might even have a camera on you and not be so afraid to use it. This pursuit is not for everybody that's for sure. But it takes is an open mind and to know what kind of signs these creatures leave in the woods. Yes, they leave sign and they communicate with one another. Many of you have heard them but you didn't know what you were hearing. So I guess its all about knowledge too.

Exactly how would a person go about studying their behavior? That would mean someone actually found one to study? Or had some solid physical evidence they even exist? From all I've seen from looking at these sites, there is none.

Oops, I forgot. You have to use your open mind to study them. =D

Might as well study the behavior of Hobbits. At least there's a textbook for that.

Fred must be ROTFLHAO right about now...

- To be fair, what hasn't exploded since the advent of the internet?

"However, I think what truly troubles me about the people who are Bigfoot Zealots is your insistence in recruiting other Zealots to the cause."

- If ME's behavior is any indicator, they are merely asking to avail yourself to science. I think that is quite bold considering the science, thusfar, is specious at best. To me, that denotes confidence and fairness.

"Site after site that I visited had proported "proof" of bigfoots exsistence."

- Likewise, I read some of what could be presented as credible but that isn't nearly conclusive. However, I will admit, if I found myself in the situation of seeing one, I could not kill it for the sake of providing a specimen.

Again, to be fair, there is footage that cannot be discredited. For myself, I'd have to see one at high noon doing jumping jacks in an open meadow at 10 yards before I'll believe:) But my own skepticism doesn't prove anything.

I have a friend who has personally seen one, I was with him that day, before and after he saw it, and he's no greenhorn. And I know this, he believed that he saw a Bigfoot and would never return to the area. I never had any cause not to trust things he said prior to that day, and no cause not to believe him after that day.

I hunted for 22 years before I ever saw a Mountain lion in the woods, I know men who've hunted there whole lives and never seen one. I've never found a carcus of a dead Mountain lion either, doesn't mean they are not real. How many of you have hunted your whole lives in country a Wolverine inhabits? How many of you have ever seen one? Ever found a Wolverine carcus?

Do I believe in Bigfoot? I know I have a friend who most certainly does, and I have no reason to call him a liar. I'm also smart enough to know that just because I've never seen him doesn't mean he doesn't exist, doesn't mean that he does, but certainly doesn't mean he doesn't.

-I concur. As tangential evidence to the latter, I offer every subdivision that has been built on the VA Peninsula since the mid '90s:)

Big Foot, you really should be flattered. However, I'll caution not to ever stand still for a photo or, worse yet, get shot. That would ruin your mystique...

I consider myself an interested skeptic. I would like to think they are out there. I would like for there to be proof. That way, when I break wind in a tent at night, I can more credibly blame the stench on an approaching bigfoot!

I resent that!!!!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_regarding_Bigfoot

A decent place to start looking for yourselves.

That is one of the most astute comments on this thread. I bet God gets a good belly laugh at our egocentrism...

I'm curious, is your stick structure wired or do you need to stand in line to use one of these?

I won't try to trace your IP Address, I promise.

You pm'd me asking to hear my encounters but I also said that I'd rather wait for when more people were interested. Whether that happens or not, I don't know. I would hope you could appreciate this because believe it or not, these encounters had a major impact on me. You seemed like a very spiritual person based on your earlier post. I complimented you for this in my pm reply to you.

I also stated above in my reply to Horn Donkey why I was posting here. You guys are out there in the field. The issue has a lot to do with bowhunting because believe it or not, you guys get close to them but often you don't even know it. Sometimes you hear them but you can't explain what you heard. Sometimes you see their various sign but you don't even know what made it since nobody ever explained it to you. Some of you have even see them, but few DARE share what they've seen with their peers here.

Today I got to meet with a bowhunter I've known for a few decades. We talked for about 45 minutes. I never before shared with him my experiences because of the stigma factor. Today after I shared a few of my stories, then he opened up and shared two encounters he once had. He didn't know what it was he saw until we talked. He didn't know what caused some of the sign he has seen in the woods until today. He didn't know what once followed him out of the woods after dark while he was packing a quarter. He didn't know what the yellow eyes were that he once seen, or the bad feeling he got at the time to just get the hell out of there. The same feeling Fred Eichler described. The same feeling hundreds of bowhunters and rifle hunters have experienced. Maybe tis something that can be learned here that has impacted many a bowhunters hunt.

I posted here because if you guys come to understand some of what your peers have experienced, some of what is known about these creatures, you might even play an important role in someday solving this great mystery. And depending on what Fred Eichler ends up with in his footage after it is analyzed, he may have taken another step in that direction. But I've seen here how some can't take the subject seriously and I appreciate those who are sincerely interested. Still its difficult to discuss when you don't know what crack remark is next.

What if Fred Eichler ends up finding more compelling evidence? Could he even discuss it with his peers here without being laughed at? Right now, I doubt it. But you guys have so much potential in this matter that I feel its worth the effort.

Oh and I'm told that this month's issue of the Bugle has stories in there from people who have had some encounters. Oh yeah, they were bowhunter's experiences too.

David

And sorry you feel he was playing a joke. I'm sure he would appreciate hearing that too.

Peace

Under normal circumstances my explanation two posts up would have been enough. I'm not sure what you are after.

Dave

KaThunk asked what MultipleEncounters was doing here. I'll tell you what I think he was doing. He came here because he thought that this population might be a mature one. He thought that, maybe here, he could gather more evidence from CREDIBLE witnesses. He thought maybe some of YOU would have some stories to share. The majority of the responses he got for his trouble were one liners, people calling him a liar and calling BF enthusiast a bunch of lunatics.

It took a lot of guts for him to come into a new forum and express his opinions and ask for help. I have a lot of respect for Dave. He is a mature, well informed, nature lover who just happens to have seen Sasquatch.

To those of you who have called the evidence scarce. You obviously have not done your research. Because of your close-mindedness you have no idea:

1) DNA: There is DNA evidence from multiple independent witnesses and analyzed by multiple independent labs. In most cases DNA retrieved is positively identified as a known animal or human. In some cases it is contaminated and can't be positively identified. The smallest amount of DNA comes back positively as UNKNOW PRIMATE! There is your DNA evidence...there is just nothing to compare it too!

2) Footprints: The most compelling evidence comes from the thousands and thousands of Bigfoot tracks and casts. Some of these casts do have dermal ridges (fingerprints) These prints ARE NOT human or known primate. They run in patters not indicative of human or ANY primate dermal ridges. Jimmy Chilcutt is the leading authority on primate fingerprints. It would be very difficult to fool him. He is highly regarded by agents of the FBI, the Drug Enforcement Administration, and state and local law enforcement agencies for his innovative techniques and ability to find fingerprints where others fail. But in doing what comes naturally, being careful and thorough, he ended up rocking his own skepticism Sasquatch.

3) Video and Photographic Evidence: There are literally thousands of films and pictures of unknown bipedal primates. Some hoax, most blurry and inconclusive but one has pretty much stood the test of time. The best photographic evidence we have today is the 1967 patterson-Gimlin film. People have claimed they donned a suit for that film. Most of them have a history of pathological running cons or have been shown to be pathological liars. The suit was claimed to have been fabricated by Special Effects guru John Chambers. He emphatically denied that he had anything to do with it and that it would take someone much better than him to pull it off. It doesn’t make since that two broke cowboys who actually captured the creature on film had the money to commission the best costume maker to come up with something even better then what he designed for Planet of the Apes. Remember how “real” the movie apes looked with seams and stitches, by his own admission, hidden by clothing. If there was a suit of…where is it now? Why can’t the footage be duplicated using 1967 technology? The one high dollar attempt to duplicate the footage by BBC was a miserable failure.

4) Thousands of sighting all over the world: I know…I know…all liars, misidentified upright bears with broad shoulders and shadows in the night.

5) What the experts say: Every year more and more primotologist, biologist, locomotion experts, fingerprint experts, videographers, and countless other scientist and experts in their field concede that they are stumped by the amount of credible physical evidence.

On Friday, September 27, 2002, during National Public Radio's (NPR) Talk of the Nation: Science Friday with Ira Flatow, Dr. Jane Goodall made a striking comment on her strong beliefs that large "undiscovered" primates, such as the Yeti or Sasquatch, do indeed exist.

No matter what evidence is presented, there will always be non-believers out there. That’s ok! What is not ok is making fun of those that have different beliefs than your own. It takes a big man, (um) person, to admit with an open mind that the science is changing the way the world is viewed and a bigger person to approach the skeptics and take the abuse they are capable of dishing out. Personally…I’d rather face Sasquatch.

We hear your points, and then offer counter points. You ignore what anyone else says and roll ever forward on the great bigfoot train, looking at the world only through those red furry glasses.

So you know one FBI guy what believes in the footprints. But AGAIN would you not say there are hundred other scientists who do not??!? And its mroe than a bit disingenuous to throw all the weight of your arguments behind the 1% and happily ignore the 99%.

We are not saying it CAN'T be true, but rather that the video "evidence" you have presented so far is weak at best (silly to most). I can't say anything to counter the direct personal encounters you BF guys have had, other than to suggest that if you "see" the same things in these obvious fake/mistaken pictures, then your vision is subject as well as your reasoning.

Still, I am interested and open to the possiblities. If you really saw the beast up close and personal it would seem likely that a good verifiable photo isn't far behind. In fact, its quite strange that the personal proof FAR outweighs any real scientific proof. And thus we come full circle yet again!

If you wanted to know what other stories real bowhunters could add to bigfoot story, you could ask simply that, and then listen. But instead you push push push your pseudo science. As if saying it more often will somehow make it more true. There are other forums specifically created just for that purpose. Why here and in that manner?

I'm not here to 'gather' reports from bowhunters for any group. I'm not here to force anything on anybody. But I do know that many here don't know very much about these creatures that are out there with you that you are unaware of. Its also unfortunate that many here wouldn't dare share your experiences openly because you know how some here will react. Its really sad because so many bowhunters have had some kind of encounter but you don't want to share them because you are afraid what others will think.

KaThunk, I don't know much about those bearwolf claims, nor have I ever seen on, they may just be a subspecies of bigfoot? Those claims seem to mostly come from the east coast.

Everyone, above I provided some links to reports filed by bowhunters (ad a riflehunter) who had encounters. Except for one, they had no prior interest in bigfoot. They were just hunting and had something happen to them that they did not expect. Something that scared the hell out of them and they HAD to tell someone about. They probably couldn't tell of their account here though and that's unfortunate.

Finally, I don't WANT to share my encounter here. I OFFERED to share them. It's just another encounter like many encounters out there. But I was also trying to be considerate by not wanting to post it in this thread because it had already strayed far enough from Eichler's. But for you guys to be able to talk about Eichler's footage knowledgeably if detailed footage raises more questions, then increasing your basic understanding of sasquatch seemed a reasonable goal. I didn't begin posting here to try and convert anyone. However you guys are out there and you come across evidence and don't know it. It would seem you would like to know more? (I also can see that there are quite a few here who do from the pm's and posts here, and I appreciate your sincerity, but I am still hopeful we get beyond the atmosphere above instead.) Maybe then an intelligent conversation can take place that everyone can gain something from.

Fred Eichler, if you are reading this, I don't know what you caught on film either. I do know these creatures exist because I have seen them myself a few times in the last 31 years. I know numerous bowhunters who have also had encounters but few are willing to talk about it openly, like here. Bowhunting itself I suppose requires a sort of paradigm shift in realizing there is another animal out there to contend with. It will obviously take time and persistence to reach this stage. Please share the higher quality footage with the public because the present poor quality only fuels doubt and questions about the footage, and gets us nowhere. If you are reading, thank you for having the guts to share it in the first place with your peers.

Dave

- I believe this has been addressed very well. The vast majority of those that go afield can't manage a glimpse of a cougar, much less anything that is purportedly more elusive and much less populous. Furthermore, there is actually quite a lot of video footage. The Patterson video is quite clear (and studied to the nth degree). It is just many choose to doubt or not to believe.

"Bigfoot is all funny and laughable until you step into the track of one of them.

I ask you to read the full evaluations of tracks made my Docters Krantz, Meldrum, and Farenbach at the University of Washington, Idaho and the North America Primate Reseach Center (a medical research center) before deciding that sasquatch is all myth. I ask you to read evalutations by law enforcement officer Jimmy Chilcutt, one of America's premier authorities on primate dermal ridges, before deciding. It is easy to dismiss sasquatch as nothing but lore if you have not seen their track yourself. People who sit at city desks and type on city computers and think all native Americans are completely stupid should be thrown into a cage of hungry sasquatch.

I too have trouble believing that American sasquatch are real, but I have seen their tracks in person. Once accidently and a couple of times after they were found by someone else and I was called to investigate. I, several biologists and a handful of law officers in Colorado have no trouble believing that the tracks of sasquatch are real here from time to time after critical evaluation. It is the creature itself that we have trouble swallowing.

Not all sasquatch sightings are real, and I seriously doubt sightings where no tracks are left at the scene that fit known criterea. But that does not mean that all sasquatch sightings are false. It is easy to sit in a city office and say sasquatch is all bunk and hoax. It is less easy to deny sasquatch after spending a week in a sleeping bag under the stars in Canyon Diablo. If you want to meet a sasquatch, I can drop you off in a helicopter there if your legs or heart are too frail to hike there yourself, and pick you up a month later to ask you about sasquatch. Surely after a month in the wilderness a sasquatch will have wandered by to check you out in the Canyon. You will not find sasquatch in the city or on paper. You have walk a thousand miles with a bow in hand in sasquatch country to meet one, just like the natives that once bowhunted this land for a living once did. Jeez.

Just beecause you have never seen a lynx or wolverine doesn't mean they don't exist. I spent 300 days in tents in the South San Juan Wilderness of Colorado before finding a whole line of 17 inch long sasquatch tracks, only once. How may nights have you slept and hiked there? Don't tell me from some city office what exists in that there wilderness.

Be skeptical, be critical of sign, but put that sign through critical scientific analysis and then decide what you think about it. Discounting sasquatch because you think all historical native Americans were stupid or because you think that it is an impossibility is a mistake. Sasquatch still leaves tracks, in Colorado at least. I too am skeptical and don't trust sightings where tracks are not found, so I am with the skeptics in that regard. But skepticism based on preconception of what you believe to be true is not science, it is citified bull pucky. I think you guys need to leave your city jobs and get into the western wilderness more. I spent 4th of July weekend at a timberline lake and fished for trout measured in pounds instead of inches and never saw another human the whole time. Where did you spend that weekend? If you think every trail is paved in North America, you are going to the wrong places. It takes a day or two of hiking with a heavy pack to get to the real North America. Yes it still exists if you are willing to use a topo map and go to the places where a simple short mile on the map ends up to be a full days hike and you can not find the marked trails. That is where sasquatch still leaves tracks for you to find.

Instead of retiring to rot in an old folks home when I am too old to pull back my flatbow, I am going on a walkabout in some remote area of B.C. to answer some quetions I still have about sasquatch. It is fitting however that skeptical citified bowhunters rot in an old folks home when elderly and never experience such excitement as the old pine apes and their natural habits. You probably don't believe in God either, even though you can see his fingerprints on every natural thing around you. It's really easy to reject what you have never seen with your own eyes, or what you don't want to see. Easier for sure than carrying a 70 pound backpack uphill all day. Better visit those wilderness areas while you are young, because once you age the trails get longer and longer. Sasquatch usually spends it's time at the end of a very long trail. They hate human company." END QUOTE kfoster

http://forums.bowsite.com/TF/bgforums/thread.cfm?threadid=313473&forum=5#1798233

The above was written by one of your own kfoster a few years ago right here in this Bowsite forum. Hope he doesn't mind that I re-share his words. I don't think anybody could have stated the predicament some here are in with respect to open-mindedness, I didn't/don't know him but I surely would have liked to. Too bad somebody can't find him and tell him the topic is on. He might have some fascinating things to add after the last few years. Without knowing him, I can HONESTLY say I hope he has seen a sasquatch.

Reading some of his other posts, I also say too bad more of us can't more like him. But maybe now he is up in B.C. and knows the truth he was back-then open minded to. If he lived near me here in Oregon, he is someone I would be honored to have taken out into the woods to share what I have learned about these creatures, and I've never taken another person to where I do my research.

For those who can't open their minds to what I write, then at least do so for someone who was here before I suspect most of you. He was probably a pretty good bow hunter too.

Dave

My feelings are hurt.

GG

- No one really has an objectionable point of reference and, thusly, is not qualified to...oh, nevermind, you did say "Bowsite" didn't you? Yeah, BF, I'd be emotionally wounded, too.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/3730574.stm

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/04/0414_030314_strangeape.html

http://www.cnn.com/2003/TECH/science/08/08/coolsc.mysteryape/

Let's see? It's very elusive, walks upright like man, is over 6 feet tall. Sound familiar?

Then again these folks probably aren't very credible either? O yea and not many pictures or video too.

All three of your articles talk about a new ape found in Africa. Tropical Africa. Ya, know... where other wild apes have always been found. We have no similar climate in America, especially not the cold north west. There are no bone records or history of bones to ever show that ape-like creatures of any kind were ever in North America. If the links you provide are evidence FOR a bigfoot-type creature existing, it also works AGAINST the possibility of it existing anywhere around here.

The greatest big foot evidence for North America is the Patterson film. Looks like a guy in a suit to me. You can find articles about how "genuine" the Patterson video is on any BigFoot web site (imagine that ?!?!?).

Or you can do a wider search on the internet and find evidence of a giant hoax. Try here for example:

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_4_28/ai_n6145280/pg_1

Again ... not saying it can't be possible, but just that it defies logic. Also, the video/picture evidence presented so far has been terrible to the point of embarrassing. The Jacob's Creature claim is silly (with a little black bear the same size at the same tree just a half hour earlier!).

People can "hear" anything, and see the strangest things. We are talking about real "proof" of a giant mystery creature living among hundreds of millions of people in the most advanced nation on Earth. We have better photos from the surface of other planets than we are finding of bigfoot in our own backyard??!!?

And Tom Cruise is "sure" he can heal all man's problems if you just open your mind and listen to him.

I'm only pointing you out because you are the last post and I don't want to respond to them all individually. I have to say that like many of your colleagues you are misinformed about certain "facts." I'm sure you got your knowledge about the Jacobs Photos second hand. Like many of your peers here, you have come up with a false argument to support your personal conclusions based on hearsay. I'm not saying the Jabobs photos are those of a Sasquatch but they are definitely NOT the same size or shape as the cubs photographed half an hour earlier.

I wouldn't offer those photos as proof anyway. They are too inconclusive. They do however tip the scales in the favor of Sasquatch if only by a tiny amount. The same goes for Fred Eichleres video footage (which is why we are here) and several thousand other videos and pictures of blobsquatch. Individually they mean nothing...Collectively??? We are collecting pieces of a puzzle.

I got slammed for posting facts that can't be refuted. Irrefutable evidence doesn't make it so. It only makes it plausible that it COULD be so. I only posted facts because guys on this site ASKED where the evidence was and to correct some of the erroneous conclusions indicated by false (misinformed) statements.

Dave and I got accused of trying to convert people to a new religion. I assure you...We could care less if you believe in Sasquatch. I don't believe in Sasquatch. Belief infers Faith. I have Faith in GOD.

I find the evidence for a bipedal North American primate compelling and 99% conclusive. That same evidence you guys fail to seriously consider because what little you know is tabloid sensationalism. You, for whatever reason, refuse to follow up with real research.

Regardless of whether you want to do homework on the subject or not (and I don't blame you for not wanting to.) It is poor form to turn in a paper that isn't fully researched. At least have the courtesy of being informed about a subject you so hotly want to debate and debunk.

Dave came here looking for people that might have knowledge on the subject at hand. He posted in a thread that was ALREADY started in this forum by one of your own members. I know he accepted that he would get flack for his post but that doesn't make it right. When you ask a question about bow hunting do you expect someone with no experience chime in with one liners about how retarded bow hunting is or offer advice about which arrow you should use with your new bow when they haven't got a clue? Of course not!

At least the people with the one-liners, in most cases, are just being funny by playing to the majority crowd. They have an opinion but, being uninformed; they know better then to even try to support it with false information. They just go along with the flow like lemmings.

What Dave is looking for, are the people who have actual experiences. Thank you to all BOWHUNTERS who have pm'd him with useful information and experiences. I'm only sad you don't feel comfortable doing it in your own home here on these forums.

I think it is you and your pal Dave you are missing the entire argument against the bigfoot myth, and that perhaps it is you two guys who are not "open minded" to the truth. You have decided long ago that bigfoot is real, and no logical reasoning can show you the light. Its become a cult of fiction.

I did not get my info on the Jacob's pic second hand. Its easy enough to google the pics and see them anywhere, including the BFRO. Three pics. The first an obvious little black bear. The second two a strange looking animal the same size and color at the same exact tree. For 95% of the population, the same size, color, and location a mere half hour apart makes this an open and shut case. The second two pictures were just a black bear in a weird position we are not accustomed to seeing in a still photo. The PA game commission officially labeled it a skinny bear with mange. BF enthusiasts (and them alone) see the object of their imagination and desire.

Its like playing the lottery and believing you are going to win against the incredible odds. Somehow you think we can't understand how you are going to prove us all wrong and win the lottery, just look at Aunt Mable down the road who had a second cousin who won millions last year! For the rest of the world, the lottery is just a tax on people who are bad at math. Remember the movie "Dumb and Dumber" when the hot chick tells Jim Carrey that there is barely a one in a million chance she will date him, and he screams happily "YES, there is a chance!!" That is you guys.

The point I, and others, and trying to make is that all of the BF "evidence" is strikingly weak. You guys add up 100 reports that have 1% clarity, possiblity, or chance and you add them up to 100% certainty. The vast majority of the world looks at 1% evidence 100 times and knows that information still yields a 1% likelyhood and can understand you are just left with a bigger pile of 1% crap. Its night and day. Two different ways of looking at the same information and coming up with two TOTALLY different conclusions. Only one can be right in the end.

If you or Dave really saw a bigfoot, and want the truth to ever be believed, the best thing you can do is DISTANCE yourself from the nonsense evidence and stick to the absolutes. It makes your real sighting less believable if you also happen to see (with the same portrayed sincerity) bigfoot in every cloud and clump of mashed potatoes.

The guy who wore the bigfoot suit in the Patterson Video (claimed to be the best proof) already confessed AND passed a lie detector on national TV.

Finding apes in Africa is hardly an earth shaking discovery. Its about as shocking as finding a hunter walk by a hunting camera in full bug-net cammo in bear season.

All the bowhunters I know are good people with open minds and some with encounters of their own. When I feel comfortable with posting my own encounter here, then I guess it will be a sign that things have improved in this regard. I hope most of you scroll up and read a few posts I made, especially the quote of one of your own kfoster a few years ago. He knew.

BowSniper, 31 years ago I almost ran into one of these things while in my pickup truck with a roommate down in Yosemite National Park. We didn't tell a sole about it. Four years ago I was confronted by one of these creatures in VERY close quarters. I had my rifle on him the entire time and was more scared then you can EVER comprehend in your life. The term 'open minded' needs some redefinition here I think.

When I posted in the beginning of this thread, I did not just join and the mods will know this. The fact of the matter is, there are many amongst yourselves who have had encounters but don't DARE post them for their peers to read.

-Will you pass on any information that I can research? I was always under the impression the many different "ape suit" claimants were all discredited.

All the claimants have been discredited and none could produce a suit. If even one of them had been considered creditable then the Patterson-Gimlin film would no longer remain the strongest piece of video evidence STILL being studied by professionals across a broad spectrum of scientific and technical fields.

Bowsniper,

The Jacobs creature is much larger than he bear cubs. I suggest you, and anyone doubting that, look at the pictures again.

Also, I'm interested in the evidence you say you have concerning proof that the Patterson-Gimlin footage is fake. As far as I know, all people out there claiming to be the subject in the film were discredited beyond a doubt. To this day...No expert have not been able to prove that the film is fake and most that study it thoroughly can not see how it could be a fake.

If you want to continue this topic (evidence other then the Fred E video) then perhaps it would be best to do it through pm's or visit an appropriate forum. I feel that we have gotten this topic off track. While it is relevant to whether BF is real or not it is not relevant to what was actually caught on the Fred E video.

I apologize to all concerned for cluttering up this thread with off topic discussion.

Back on topic and so no one is confused. My stance on the Fred E video is that it is of an unknown bipedal primate (man is a bipedal primate.) The footage I have seen secondhand is too blurry to be conclusive. I understand the original footage is much better. It does not appear to be man in a ghillie suit but I’m sure Fred has seen many ghillie suits and would not put his reputation on the line if that is what he thought it was. (I also have military experience spotting snipers wear various ghillie suits during survival training as part of officer candidate school) It could be a hoax, but I think the odds of that are slim considering the source and the reputation of the man who came forward with the evidence in this instance. Again, he has more to lose than he has to gain.

Between you and me......well.......let's just say I love it when the black bear sows go into heat. I really love the cinnamon colored girls!

What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas!

I'd love to see a graph of when sightings occur during the calendar year. I have a feeling they drop off DRAMATICALLY during gun seasons. Which would be the opposite of what should really happenn. With all those hunters in the woods, they should be seen more often.

Do you all remember the guy that took the picture of the Loch Ness monster, which was shown more often than that footage of bigoot? He admitted on his deathbed it was all a hoax. Some miniature toy or something. That photo was analyzed more than that video, and many people believed it.

It is a hoax that PEOPLE are perpetrating. It is sad, because now I am seeing new TV shows about people devoting their lives to finding bigfoot. And guess what, they won't.

Think about this. If they exist and are primates like us, then they don't hibernate. Go out after a fresh snow and find tracks and FOLLOW them. It shouldn't be that hard to follow footprints and find one. Why has no one done this?

Sanctum and Owl... and for those of you reading along and keeping score, try these links regarding the Patterson footage.

Research into making the fake Patterson bigfoot suit

http://www.strangemag.com/chambers17.html

Resarch on the Patterson hoax in general

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_4_28/ai_n6145280/pg_1

Polygraph for guy who was in the bigfoot suit

http://www.accuratepolygraph.com/polygraphinthenews.html

General Patterson bigfoot summary

http://www.rense.com/general50/kr.htm

As for the Jacobs pictures, you can believe you see anything you want in the Jacobs pics, but just understand you are in the Tom Cruise minority on that one. The spokesman for the PA game association said it best, "There is no question it is a bear with a severe case of mange."

You tube comparison of bear pics

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uciBdRctcfY

So in conclusion, these forums are a great place to say what we saw or heard in the woods. Even if strange and hard to believe. But lets not confuse opinion with fact, or let passion overcome reason.

As I recall there is more then one person who claimed to be the Patterson Bigfoot. Gee, maybe they were both in the suit, that's why she was so much bigger then an average human.

HerdManager, you haven't done your research just as many others here haven't.

They have been shot and there are more sightings during hunting season. Most just can't pull the trigger because they look so human. Others who have shot at them, well when you understand just how powerful an animal they are, you will understand why they don't just go down. I will try to find an existing graph of sightings related to hunters and post it for you guys.

Also, I have a neighbor, today an avid bowhunter, maybe he is even a member of this forum, I don't know? Again, after I shared my interest and encounters with him over a year ago, he opened up to me. (This seems to be the common thread with being able to admit an encounter, you need to feel safe about doing so.) Anyway, the short version, apparently 25 years ago when he lived in Idaho, two guys were riding in the back of their pickup at night doing the rabbit hunting thing. Then the female driver sped ahead and the guys fell back into the bed. Yelling at her she responded she had to because they were being followed by something. Then they turned around and it comes walking up. So they opened fire on it. One had a 357 rifle and the other a 22 auto. They said it didn't even flinch but could have killed them anytime it wanted. They also seen a second one off to the side just standing there. This neighbor has a good job with the government as an electrician and as mentioned, an avid bowhunter. Apparently he hadn't even told his wife about it until after he was able to share it with me.

The big problem here I see, is you guys don't allow your own peers to talk about their encounters without feeling like they will be blasted here.

Re following tracks, until you understand a little more about them, I guess you can't know that you don't catch up to a sasquatch by following their tracks. Not only is their stride a good 6' but they move three times as fast as we do. Plus, they seem to move to lower elevations during heavy snows but don't seem to have a problem with bare feet either in snow. Not something many people I know can accomplish.

Also re tracks, they are soft soled just like us, and with larger feet to displace their heavier weight. In other words, no hooves to leave deep impressions on hard or debris laden surface. Finally, they are self aware and do not leave tracks often near humans.

Face it, there is a lot that many here are not knowledgeable about these creatures.

What I do know is that if Mr. Eichler did capture one on film and he realizes this because he has the higher quality footage, well can you guys even support a statement from him if that's what he admits it looks like it is?

I don't care if they have a 10' stride. Dogs could catch them. So why don't you just go out this winter and find one? You'd be famous forever.

At least you attempted to do some homework. I’ll give you a C+ because you showed a little effort. Even though they suck, I’ll only use the sources you supplied as reference since I don’t even have to go any further.

***************************

http://www.strangemag.com/chambers17.html

The whole article hangs on the assumption and belief in Hollywood that John Chambers made the suit. This article is filled with “I heard that John Chambers created the suite.” And “It is common knowledge that John Chambers created the suit.” John Chambers never told anyone he created the suit. No one saw the suit he supposedly created and the initial rumor appears to have started with Rick Baker.

John Chambers, by the way, is the guy who created the original Planet of the Apes costumes and the reason the rumor started was because Rick Baker said something like “If anyone can create a suit like that it would be John Chambers.” John Chambers denied that he made the suit and said it was beyond his capabilities. The seams and stitches in his creations were concealed by clothing. Furthermore the makeup required hours to put on in optimal conditions. You think two redneck cowboys could do that in the middle of the some of the harshest wilderness imaginable miles from any roads?

The first paragraph of the conclusion of your supporting link, had you bothered to read it, was that Rick Baker, who started the rumor and believe it at one time, no longer believes John Chambers designed the suit. That pretty much discredits the John Chambers created the suit theory.

***************************

Resarch on the Patterson hoax in general http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_4_28/ai_n6145280/pg_1

The second link hinges on the word of Bob Heironimus. Interesting enough…He says the suit was not made by John Chambers but was a homemade jobby made of horse hide. By the way a costume designer who Bob claims was paid $1,000 by Roger Patterson to make the suite said it was made of a synthetic material. Yeah…it looks like something cobbled together out of horsehide and synthetic fur to me. Which was it…horsehide or synthetic? This story contradicts itself. Did you notice that your supporting links contradict each other as to where the suit actually came from? That happens a lot when different people make the same claim. Oh about Bob…His story is so full of holes and contradictions that no-one takes him seriously except gullible journalist. His claims have been thoroughly debunked on so many sites I wouldn’t even know where to begin. This article covers so much ground that, like the other one, it contradicts itself so much you don’t know what to believe.

***************************

http://www.accuratepolygraph.com/polygraphinthenews.html

You have got to be kidding me. You are going by the TV show “Lie Detector” results. I have an uncle who administers polygraphs for law enforcement agencies. He won’t even watch the show. We already established that Bob Heironimus and his story have way too many inconsistencies to be considered credible. After 41 years though, he may actually believe his own story. Or stories…there are so many versions. I’d like to see the actual transcripts of the show. What questions were asked?

***************************

http://www.rense.com/general50/kr.htm

Some guys wrote a book and is trying to sell it. Great…I look forward to reading it. His argument is that you can’t PROVE that Bob Heironimus did NOT wear the suit. You can’t PROVE that Phillip Morris did not create the suit therefore they are telling a true story about Patterson and Gimlin perpetuating a great hoax. What kind of reverse logic is that. That is the same crap that people get onto the BF community for. It is a simple matter to prove if true…show us THE suit.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uciBdRctcfY

Let me get this clear…Earlier you said the Jacobs creature was proven to be the cubs because it was the exact same size and shape. When I told you to check again you provide a clip that shows just the opposite. Who’s side are you on?

The round thing the clip claims is a bear cub is actually a tree stump. I can provide links to daytime photos superimposed over the night time stills that clearly show this. Again…Just a matter of research. The bear head that was pasted into that clip is pretty funny. I can’ probably show you a hundred versions just like that with BF enhancements. It doesn’t make it real. The tail point is valid. I never liked that argument either. Hard to see a dark tail on a dark beast in a dark photo. Again…I never claimed the Jacobs photo was a young Sasquatch. I just told you were wrong in your conclusion that it was a bear cub from previous video. It could be another bear, a sasquatch or some practical joker. I am inconclusive about what it actually is but I did a lot of research before I came to that inconclusion. I didn’t accept or deny it on hearsay nor did I make false statements regarding said video as you did.

***************************

I realize that none of this proves a thing except that the world is full of stories. Some true…some false…some a combination of the two…but nothing you have shown to prove BF doesn’t exist is even remotely as conclusive as the evidence that shows that he is a definite possibility. Posting different stories to prove the same thing do not help your cause. I am aware of hoaxes but if even one photo or print is real then all the hoaxes in the world do not change the fact that an unknown bipedal primate still exists. I do not believe the Patterson/Gimlin film is a hoax. It has not been proven to be one yet. You will not be able to dig up any information on about this film that shows it to be a hoax that I have not already read, researched and dismissed.

I’ll refrain from answering any future posts on this thread not directly related to The Fred E film. It only leads to circular arguments that can’t be concluded and, while I enjoy the debate, this is not the forum to have it.

No not necessarily bullet-proof but extremely muscular. I shoot a .338 magnum, a very powerful round. One year I hit an elk broadside but high and in the backstrap from only about 200 yds. Maybe because of the tension of the back muscle combined with tightness of the skin there, but the bullet didn't even enter the spine. I suspect it may have something to do with muscle tension but also muscle mass? And if you have ever seen a sasquatch, you would know what I was talking about. But you don't and without your having a frame of reference here, its difficult to argue the point.

Big Foot, you never answered my question above about the kiosks? Inquiring minds want to know. :)

And if the mysterious bigfoot is so elusive, it is contrary to your logic to believe it would let itself be seen by two knuckleheads on horseback with a movie camera in broad daylight... and then walk away. No running away? Not even an urgent scamper? I guess that is hard to do with a heavy costume and helmet.

I am not saying there can't be a bigfoot, its just hard to believe. And none of the so-called evidence has yet impressed the scientific world in a meaningful way. The idea that there is bigfoot in America is still a National Enquirer story instead of National Geographic. Luckily Al Gore invented the internet so I can research this nonsense.

Here is an answer to the bigfoot hair samples: http://www.livescience.com/technology/050728_bigfoot.html

The bigfoot community is like the chiropracter. If you go looking for a chiropracter how much do you want to bet he finds some terrible problem with your back?? Its a self-fullfilling prophecy.

Amongst my Sasquatch "people", we often have Jeremiah Johnson sightings. I'm sad to report that no Sasquatch has succesfuly photgraphed "JJ", as we refer to him, yet.

We know he's out there!

The main reason for many not being able to shoot is that the person and the subject have looked one another in the eyes. Those are the ones who don't fire. Hunters who have had their deer carried off and seen it taking place have shot several times.

Patty (Patterson subject) headed for the brush. If she ran, you'd be saying the same thing only of how quickly she disappeared so we can't get a better look.

I've debated Radford a bit on one site and there was one question he wouldn't answer but I can't even recall what it was at the moment & would have to do a search for it. Anyway, he gets paid to write the debunking stuff. I don't get paid for being here to put up with a lot of denial.

Next time in the deep woods, have a good close look at those tree breaks and rule out all possible natural/animal causes. Keep your ears and eyes open too. Can't say you will ever see one but maybe after knowing what to look for you will.

That goes for all you bear humpers too.

What I do not really understand is this need to make fun of a person because they have seen something that you do not personally believe in. For instance Christians have a relationship with God,. You cannot see God so you not only express your disbelief in God but you count them inferior to you. Seems like a lot of the same people that disrespect Christians disrespect anyone that does not adhere to their own set of so called scientific dogma whether or not that dogma is a truth or a theory.

Scientist at OSU happen to have studied bigfoot quite extensively and they say that they have not reached a conclusion but that evidently something does exist that is neither bear or human that is leaving scat and tracks. HMMMMMMMM I have hunted in Bigfoot country for over 40 years and have run hounds for bear and couger. I have seen dogs quit a hot track suddenly for no obvious reason and come in with tail between legs. These same dogs would die fighting a bear or a couger. I have never seen a sign that I would call a bigfoot. I have seen over 20 cougers and inumerable bears without using the dogs but in over 40 years have only only found one dead bear and no dead cougers. I live in the Rogue Unit which has one of the highest populations of cougers in the USA and have never found a dead couger. Hmmmmmmm, So cougers do not exist?

I have to keep an open mind on this one because I know that as good a woodsman as I am and as many years as I have spent that I still do not know it all. I sure don't feel like I have to show how superior a human being I am by making fun of other people.

I resent that!

My girlfriend, Coco (Mrs. Big foot knows nothing about) is a cinnammon colored black bear.

But when people start stating all these facts about big foot it really makes me wonder how credible they are.

Bigfoot is self aware, they avoid humans, they know how to cover their tracks, they can take bullets with no effects, they don't leave tracks cause their feet are so big and so soft etc.

To say bigfoot doesn't leave tracks in the snow is the most absurd comment I ever heard. Go put on a pair of big snowshoes and see what happens.

How about you prove they're real before you make a bunch of riduculous claims about them. I mean common how in the world do you have any idea what their feet are like?

if bigfoot belivers keep making wild claims about how much they know about bigfoot then its just makes their stories less and less believable.

Hey I'm pulling for you guys though. I think it would be really cool if bigfoot was real. I think about the only way it will be proved is if a dead bigfoot is found or someone kills one. Untill then I say they're just a myth.

I've seen tracks, others here have. But they are careful about where they step if there are humans around. Its easy to walk around the woods and not leave tracks, if you don't know how, then well.. Please don't twist my words Jimbob!

Fact is that looks to me this thread is the largest and most active this site has seen at least in a long time if ever? So that expresses to me that no matter if just for fun or in all seriousness, there is indeed some interest in this overall subject?

Very Interesting...

Sixby, a very good post you made. Thank you for being open minded on the topic. Your dog behavior describes what others have also experienced, some have identified the reason however. If you would ever like me to come on down for a weekend this Summer, I can share a few things with you out in the field.

Jimbob, sorry I jumped on you too.

Dave

No one likes being talked down to, and that includes us hunters. Take a look at how these self righteous bigfoot experts talk about the hunters in this very forum when among themselves: (see multipleencounters on March 10th, 1:20pm for an example)

http://s2.excoboard.com/exco/thread.php?forumid=124725&threadid=1793090&page=7

There is as much proof for bigfoot as there is for elvis still running around, and as a matter of fact the sightings and people who see him sound very similar:

http://www.elvissightingbulletinboard.com/SightingLog.shtml

There is a crazy conspiracy for everything that ever happens. There are just as many people who claim that the twin towers were demo'ed on 9/11 as an inside job to start the war, or who think no plane ever hit the pentagon (try to find any photo of the pentagon tragedy with a single piece of an airplane in the picture!!) But we all know what really happened and chasing fairy tales takes time away from chasing the real enemy (or real animals) which is what we should really be doing instead.

Big Foot not happy right now!

Big Foot now happy!

All I see from ME on the link you posted is respect for bow hunters and hunters in general. He makes one comment about the frivolous posts in this thread cluttering up the intent but, you have to admit there is a lot of that going on in this thread. This is the longest thread in your formum and over half of it is name calling and junk posts. Since you link to our forum to point out Daves post, I'll quote it:

"As a few of you know, I have been posting over on Bowsite about sasquatch in general in order to enable them to have some basic knowledge of the subject as they discuss the footage. Last year I did the same, but that thread was completely wiped from existence. Even that time there were some members there who admitted to having encounters. This time the mods seem to have a slightly more open mind about it, but I suspect that is mainly because one of their peers has captured 'something' on camera.

A few there have contacted me privately with their accounts in the woods and I don't blame them for not daring to say so in the thread. I've seen immaturity in some bigfoot forums, but wow. Of course there are some there too who want to know more, but its like they are drowned out by a bunch of kids.

Sadly, while we recognize that hunters are on the front lines where sasquatch is found, if what I have seen over on that site is any indication of the field in general, they have a long ways to go. This is difficult for me to say being I know plenty of bowhunters and knowing how they hunt. While they see themselves as stealthy, frankly they cannot comprehend the true stealth of a sasquatch.

The other thing that concerns me now is how their general response will impact Fred Eichler, being he or his own members may follow the site too. They are his peers as well, but sadly the majority of their responses to the possibility of what his footage may be, won't be a positive influence upon him, at this stage anyhow I just hope he and his team recognizes that his peers are not knowledgeable about this issue, and therefore reaches out to those who have experience in the field. I just hope they make the right choice.

So Jimws, while most people on this site have an open mind, the majority in the bowhunting field may not. I however remain hopeful that the handful of individuals who want to learn more over there, will get a little angry with the majority who can only crack jokes. They literally can't fathom the possibility sasquatch are real, its quite amazing actually. I'll continue trying however, because there are still arguments to make and a handful who want to learn more. It all comes down to them, and I don't want to say too much to overwhelm an already, um somewhat 'clueless' group. But again, there are some there who are open minded, and a few with their own experiences, so hopefully they will come around."

The only negative things he says are about hunters in general is the lack of understanding you, as a group, have about BF. That's not a crime. In fact...he indicates he is trying to rectify that. Many BFRO forum members are hunters including ME. Why do you conntinue to paint Dave and other BF hunters as zealots? It isn't enough for you to stand by your position...you have to attack anyone that doesn't think like you. What are you afraid of?

I just find it very very weird that you guys no so much about bigfoot yet there is no proof it exists. You've seen "bigfoot" three times for a total of what a minute? Everything is just speculation yet you guys talk like you've been studying a specimen of this species for years. That's my problem with the bigfoot believers.

There is no way for me to discredit your encounters though. I have no way or right to tell you what you saw. But when you start making wild claims about bigfoot then that's a different story.

When the ground is covered with snow there is only one option leave prints, great big bigfoot prints. Unless they know how to leap from tree top to tree top then tracks in the snow are a gaurantee.

I just don't understand where you guys get all your info about bigfoot.

I just don't like our group being referred to as "clueless" when the exact opposite appears to be the case when debating with the BigFoot fanclub. I find your organized incursion from that forum to here, bringing along several of your bigfoot loving pals along to confirm each others pseudo-science, a bit offensive.

If you have your happy little dungeons and dragons fantasy club on the other bigfoot forums, why try to infect us here?

That said, the original thread is a good one. Fred Eichler is THE MAN, and his video clip is interesting and worth extensive debate at any level and on any forum. What I object to are the tangential and irrelevant references to unproven "evidence" (that only devout bigfoot followers are still peddling) as being in any way valid or relevant to this new piece of footage. You can't quote the boogeyman as an eyewitness.

I'll start by saying I'm on the fence, I think humans evolved over time, and the possibility that other species are still evolving is a possibility. I wonder though- why the BF foundation has not utilized thermal imagery technology to its fullest- fly night missions from high above. Once unknown images are located- close in the next day and find more evidence. Apparently they are aware of us- but a FEW of us are smarter than they are, we should be able to out wit one at some point and at the very least- find overwhelming evidence of their exsistance. With our satelitte technology, and tracking systems- there really is no place for hide. They must hunt- eat, move around etc- I doubt they live in tunnel systems. If they are topside- they must leave sign that someone can find. The pics of the snow capped mountain photos-why didn't anyone follow up immediately- fly in with a chopper to record the tracks? Our human fear factor would override common sense during a close encounter- but really, to the point of not being able to return to the area the next day with a group of individuals to do an exhaustive search? I think the Fred footage is someone in a bug suit yanking everyones chain, and Fred is running the meter up on hits to the website, but than again.... maybe not. And by the way- the Michigan DNR says there are NO COUGARS in our state- all the sightings and pictures etc, are manufactured, why would they want cougars to eat our over populated deer herd???

You're making a valiant effort representing the majority. Know that many believe exactly what you are saying. Your points are spot-on, logical, backed by science and cannot be countered other than through conjecture and opinion. Just don't let these others get under your skin. No matter how rationale your explanations or how logical your science, if it doesn't mesh with their skewed perception of reality, there is some far out explanation for how it happened. At this point I'd suggest letting it die, even if you don't like what's being said. This thread is already ridiculously long and has given these folks an audience that feeds their dillusions. They won't convince us and we won't convince them. It's time to agree to disagree and let this fade away.

Yes they do leave tracks in the snow, and many have found them. But they are often in the backcountry, how far can people follow tracks when you must have all the gear you need on your back, especially if you are alone? Or when nightfall comes? These creatures easily outpace us and there is NO way to catch up to one if they know you are there, and they usually know. I wish you could spend time with someone in the field who has a working knowledge of them, you would better understand the problem.

I offered to drive down I-5 this Summer to show Sixby some of their sign, and if you were closer, I'd do the same. Of course I could never promise anyone would see one. I wish it were that easy. But like with any subject there is, understanding only comes with being educated on a topic. Once you know what to look for, and what they sound like, you begin to understand more about them and HOW they are so elusive. You might even get a glimpse, but if you do, it may not be safe to share it here. Anyway, let's use the Cougar analogy here if you will. Those who understand a cat's behavior, have learned to exploit this knowledge and become successful in pursuing them. It's similar with this subject but yes they are much more cunning and you can't count on dogs to get one at bay. The dogs usually cower when they get close. Also leave room for an intelligence that maybe even equals ours, but in a more primal sense. The woods are THEIR living room not ours, and they can run circles around us while we stumble along looking at the forest floor trying to find tracks.

I've actually now seen them 4 times now. The last time was just this last November while on a 13 day solo elk hunt in NE Oregon. It was pre-dawn and I was pulling my gear out of my trailer. I was the only camp on that side of the mountain and on the only access road up there. The sighting was very brief and light was very poor, but a shadow caught my attention a few hundred feet away. I did a double take and then the shadow began walking to the left in an upright position. I only got to see it take a few steps. I ran inside to grab my spotlight but he was gone. For what it's worth, a spotlight will usually run them off. Well the ground was frozen so hard and the air was so dry, that on my way up I couldn't even find prints as there wasn't even any frost. A very uneventful sighting.

As I was saying, like with any subject, the more one becomes familiar with a subject the more one understands. Percentage wise, there are only a handful of the population who develop the knowledge about them. Some are also frauds, some even crazies. But many are real and credentialed researchers. Like with any group, one must differentiate those who tell the truth from those who make things up. Will you ever see one? No way to know. But I would put money that a few bowhunters here have, but in this environment, they can't share their experiences. Can you guys understand that you're not even leaving room for your own people to be truthful about this?

BowSniper, you didn't say much in regards to kfoster's quote I posted above. He summed it all up. Can you at least try to have an open mind? You might even discover something in the wild someday that changes your whole outlook on things. If you don't want to know that there is something bigger then you walking around the woods when you are alone, well maybe that's a healthy fear on your part? But they are out there.

For what it's worth, I will apologize for calling some of the group here clueless. It was posted with the perspective for the individuals over there because you guys were really pounding me while you were ill informed on the subject. So I said one thing that offended you, how many things were said about me here before that which should have offended me? But you know what, I allowed them to bounce off of me, and I stand here with the same conviction now as when I first entered the thread. I have also been as cordial as possible despite the personal attacks. But yes, some people here are extremely closed minded and that's never a good thing. For what it's also worth, once some attention was given to the discussion taking place over here at BFRO, I also previously requested that people there not just come over here and begin posting. I try to understand your perspective. There were a few however whom I knew had worthwhile knowledge that did post and I appreciate this fact. BowSniper, please re-read kfoster's quote. He had some good things to say about being open minded here.

In case everyone hadn't seen this, I've included a somewhat better quality version of Fred Eichler's footage. It's still not the best and a little pixellated, but better then the previous. You can go full frame on it and toggle back n forth a little.

I ask again, what are you guys going to do if Eichler eventually comes forward with further evidence and a statement that they may have caught a bigfoot on camera? What if they also have prints? I just think you guys need to come to terms with the fact that there is something out there in the woods that you don't understand.

Dave

BTW, Some posts that have quite a significant number of posts. Just in the elk forum. I can think of a couple more in recent months. But the fact that there is no big game bow hunting going on right now may play a bit of a role in this. Maybe.

http://forums.bowsite.com/tf/bgforums/thread.cfm?forum=5&threadid=344678&MESSAGES=354&FF=5

http://forums.bowsite.com/tf/bgforums/thread.cfm?forum=5&threadid=342010&MESSAGES=277&FF=5

For being "clueless" I think we have been pretty hospitable. But that's just some dumb hick talking. What tickles me about this whole forum is the idea of bringing an open mind to the subject. It would seem from your post on your own forum and the posts that you have made here, that the only truly closed minded thinking is coming from the Bigfoot crowd.

That bears saying again. YOU AND YOUR FRIENDS ARE THE ONLY PEOPLE WHO DO NOT ACCEPT THE IDEA THAT BIGFOOT MAY NOT EXSIST!

You asked for me to do some research...I complied. Results were inconclusive. Open minded of me to look yes? Could you be open minded enough to think for one second that what you saw was not bigfoot? Could you ever have one shred of doubt? You my friend are the one with the closed mind.

There's really nothing about it to merit serious debate IMO.

If "ifs" and "buts" where cans of nuts, we would all be rich at christmas!

It is not gonna happen and we should not even consider what we might do.

Dude, GET A JOB!

When you've seen something with your own eyes, heard it breath, smelled it, then you may have a little different outlook. Try telling your friends here what you've seen here and it may be tough. OF COURSE results are inclusive, what do you expect? Pictures of a body? That's why we are still discussing it and the mystery remains unresolved. Hey, there are even people on bigfoot forums who don't believe they exist. How 'bout that? Mizzoukispot, the point is, you guys are offending one of your own peers even before you know all the facts by not being open to the possibility of what he may have captured on film. Don't you see this? Several here have called it a joke. That maybe someone is performing a prank? But none of you here know all the facts of his footage or if he has over evidence, but you have already passed judgement on the possibility of what it is. You don't know how remote his camera was. You don't know if he captured other animals in subsequent shots which when put side by side, would offer scale as to the size of the upright figure. You haven't even seen the same high resolution footage he has and yet you've already made up your mind. Now tell me what Open Mindedness really is!

To lighten the mood, here is a clip of one of Big Foot's homies. :)

We all know they will take all the high-paying jobs once they come out of the woods.

Darn it. Going to have to go back to school and get my Doctorate. My master's degree won't mean squat once them bigfoots are in the workplace. I mean, they are out there right doing Calc and Dif-Eq's, just waiting to pounce on the lazy human workers.

Will they fit into a Hummer, or will the auto industry have to make larger vehicles?

Someone better start making Sasquatch clothing.

Those hair removal salons better get ready for a goldrush!!!!!

Doh!

They can get to work without us seeing them. We'll never figure out how they do it......

/:^)

Dave

"Yes they do leave tracks in the snow, and many have found them. But they are often in the backcountry, how far can people follow tracks when you must have all the gear you need on your back, especially if you are alone? Or when nightfall comes? These creatures easily outpace us and there is NO way to catch up to one if they know you are there, and they usually know."

Give me a break. You must know these tracks were found because someone said something, which must mean they have no problems talking about their "experiences", which should also mean they must buy into the theory of BF to admit they found tracks of one. Therefore, once such tracks were encountered, these same individuals could so easily have returned to civilization and then gone back to the area in a snowmobile, or even with an aircraft within a very short time frame.

I can already here your counter argument--well, they were in a wilderness where no motorized vehicles are allowed, or, a freak windstorm wiped out the tracks, or, it thawed overnight and removed all trace, or, they couldn't find the area again (despite their own tracks in the snow and the frequent use of GPS units by most outdoors people), or, they didn't tell anyone until months later. I'm sure you have some explanation. You always do, it's just that your explanations don't have a shred of logic to them.

Let's face it, until we all "surrender" and support your viewpoint, you will continue to spout your silly propanganda, cloaking it in the guise of meaningful discussion. I'd be better off talking to the wall.

MultE - I read everything you guys have written, and have argued only against the beliefs and opinions that were presented as if fact. There is nothing much to say about kfoster's message. Its his personal opinion, and he is not trying to convince me using blurry home movies from known con-artists as if it were real evidence. He was also not trying to support his personal opinion using junk science and stories from Africa. Foot prints are cool. I hope they lead to a real bigfoot one day and we get proof positive. I am just saying that has not happened yet. Not even a little. If the Patterson video is the best you guys have, with the story behind that mess, and nothing better in 50 years... well, every man has his own rationale for what he truly believes.

You can argue against the truth, or choose to ignore it, but that does not mean it isn't there. One important concept is breeding. To perpetuate the chain of animals for whatever thousands of years, there needs to be enough of a population to breed and reproduce in some reasonable proximity to each other. You can't just have an occasional bigfoot here and there to maintain a sustainable colony. You need a bunch together to perpetuate the species or they would become extinct. So its more than just believing the occasional smart bigfoot (like the one that posts here) is able to stay ahead of our technology with primative techniques... but that MANY cannot be found. Pehaps they all lie in the water on a special signal (wood knocking) breathing through straws when the helicopters with FLIR imaging come by. Believe what you want.

For a less exciting, but very much REAL mystery, I'll try and start a new thread with a picture I got on my own trailcam. Smaller animal, but nothing I can identify. Lets chat about that.

I wish I could take you out in the field to a spot I know and let you stay there overnight by yourself. THEN talk to me.

I see a gang mentality developing here with a vocal few trying to close out the discussion, but you really haven't done your homework with what is only on the net. Because yes, there is debate everywhere on the subject and the answers aren't all there. They are where many of you hunt but some here have no desire to look. I just wish more of your long time hunters here, who have experienced stuff would be willing to come forward. But they won't because several of you have made it something to scoff instead.

Will chat later...

Or...is this simply the place where you and your buddies take poor, unsuspecting non-believers for indoctrination. They spend the night while you prance through the woods in various costumes while making unatural sounds?

Now, I'd better take the advice I gave BowSniper and let this thread die. It certainly has, though, been a great source of entertainment!

"MultE - I read everything you guys have written, and have argued only against the beliefs and opinions that were presented as if fact."

I believe I called you out on this one already. You have presented misinformation as fact. We only corrected your misconceptions.

Bowstriker wrote: "You can argue against the truth, or choose to ignore it, but that does not mean it isn't there."

Who's truth? Yours?

Bowstriker wrote: "One important concept is breeding. To perpetuate the chain of animals for whatever thousands of years, there needs to be enough of a population to breed and reproduce in some reasonable proximity to each other. You can't just have an occasional bigfoot here and there to maintain a sustainable colony. You need a bunch together to perpetuate the species or they would become extinct. So its more than just believing the occasional smart bigfoot (like the one that posts here) is able to stay ahead of our technology with primative techniques... but that MANY cannot be found."

Well...you are right about a breeding population. What you fail to consider is the vast range these creatures probably have. They have been encountered in small groups and, most believe, they live in small family units. They may or may not be migratory. They may or may travel vast distances to breed. The loud vocalizations that have been reported make more sense of creatures that need a means to find one another in a vast wilderness.

Bowsniper wrote: "Pehaps they all lie in the water on a special signal (wood knocking) breathing through straws when the helicopters with FLIR imaging come by. Believe what you want."

There are many reports of BF swimming. But, I have to admit the breathing straw part is funny.

Bowsniper wrote: "For a less exciting, but very much REAL myst" Could be a porcupine: Here is a pic of one in the same position.

http://www.johnpiekos.com/wildlife/trail/porcupine2_sm.jpg

Could be a North American badger (which eats porcupines btw) but I cant find a rear view of one of those. We have them in our local zoo though so next time I go I'll take a pic if they are out.

Edited by me to remove long link messing up forum width.

I've read some of the Patterson debunking links and I really cannot believe some offer that as proof that there was a man in a suit. The stories read even more specious and circumstantial than a set of casts or eye witness BF accounts.

Still, my biggest issue with Patterson was that he set out to video a BF for a financial project and actually managed to pull it off when so many for decades have not. That coincidence flies in the face of reason. Having said that, if it is fake, it is the best falsification of anything on film.

Finally, ME, I appreciate your posting and everyone else who is willing to have a reasonable discourse without the ugliness. This thread and subject are intriquing enough without the grade school dramatics.

1. How can they (Bigfoot Believers) be so much more educated about a mythylogical creature than we are. Even after several of us have gone out and looked at the available information ourselves.

2. How can they claim that we are closed minded when their only retorts to our inquiries are "you people are closed minded?"

3. Wouldn't the fact that they are absolute believers in an unconfirmed animal make them the closed minded among us?

From ME--"I see a gang mentality developing here with a vocal few trying to close out the discussion, but you really haven't done your homework with what is only on the net. Because yes, there is debate everywhere on the subject and the answers aren't all there. They are where many of you hunt but some here have no desire to look. I just wish more of your long time hunters here, who have experienced stuff would be willing to come forward. But they won't because several of you have made it something to scoff instead. "

Having been a member of this community for many years, it would be my opinion that if someone had seen a bigfoot, they would have said something. The argument that someone wouldn't say they've seen a bigfoot because of social ridicule flies in the face of the individuality of the people on this site.

And ME, I apologize for calling you a moron.

Some of us have years of field research under our belts. There is no way you can even begin to canvas the available information in a couple of days. The closest comparison would be if we were to look at a couple of links from "fringe" hunting sites and offered proof that there is no such thing as scent cover or that it is impossible to bring a bear down with a bow. You would KNOW we were not fully educated on the subject you all are experts at.

Horn Donkey wrote: "2. How can they claim that we are closed minded when their only retorts to our inquiries are "you people are closed minded?"

I believe that has even been the main retort. The close-mindedness doesn't even matter to us. It is the arguments without solid representation that bothers us. Maybe you should go back and read the last 290+ posts again.

Horn Donkey wrote: "3. Wouldn't the fact that they are absolute believers in an unconfirmed animal My friend...there are several things that could explain BF sightings."

Fact...there is an abundance of sightings, footprints and physical evidence spanning centuries in North America.

Either:

A) There is something to these sightings, evidence and science and a large bipedal primate does exist.

OR

B) Thousands of people have been able to perpetuate, over centuries and with consistant data that stands up to scientific scrutiny by hundred of expert, a great hoax. (This implies a longstanding secret society of people who spend much more time creating and perpetuating the hoaxes than goes into researching them. The astronomical odds against the coincidental fit of the footprints into a proper bell curve alone make this improbable.)

C) Some form of psychological phenomena is causing people to experience these sightings. That alone might be subject for research but it doesn't explain the evidence. And how come these sightings go beck hundreds of years and include cultures that have never even seen an ape?

Ockham’s Razor states: " The least complicated and simplest reasoning is usually the right reasoning and the rest is offal to be sliced away."

Which choice would an open mind select?

Horn Donkey wrote: "Having been a member of this community for many years, it would be my opinion that if someone had seen a Bigfoot, they would have said something. The argument that someone wouldn't say they've seen a Bigfoot because of social ridicule flies in the face of the individuality of the people on this site."

Isn't that just what happened in the Fred E video? Also...everyone that has claimed to see an BF has been called a liar and harassed in other ways by members of this forum. I wouldn't be surprised at all if people kept their stories to themselves here. If there did want to share an encounter they would go to a forum more inclined to believe their encounter. Oh yeah!....BFRO has several reports from Bow Hunters. Duh!

-They offer differing opinions and, perhaps, different information. They refer their sources; however, that is not a claim of "more education".

2. How can they claim that we are closed minded when their only retorts to our inquiries are "you people are closed minded?"

- You folks are not making inquiries so much as personal judgements. The proponents have have been mostly fair and open to our cynacism. Frankly, personal judgements are the only viewpoints, thusfar. You are no more qualified or informed to disprove Bigfoot than they are in your mind to prove its existence.

3. Wouldn't the fact that they are absolute believers in an unconfirmed animal make them the closed minded among us?

- How resolute would believe if you saw one - or, at the least, convinced you saw one???

From ME--"I see a gang mentality developing here with a vocal few trying to close out the discussion, but you really haven't done your homework with what is only on the net. Because yes, there is debate everywhere on the subject and the answers aren't all there. They are where many of you hunt but some here have no desire to look. I just wish more of your long time hunters here, who have experienced stuff would be willing to come forward. But they won't because several of you have made it something to scoff instead. "

Having been a member of this community for "many years, it would be my opinion that if someone had seen a bigfoot, they would have said something. The argument that someone wouldn't say they've seen a bigfoot because of social ridicule flies in the face of the individuality of the people on this site. "

- Geez o' Pete, man why would they say anything in face of so much scrutiny. Frankly, if I saw one, I wouldn't say a thing for that very reason. I have been a member of this site for many years, as well. I know, at best, any meaningful report would be, at best, comically disputed.

If we are getting things so wrong with misinformation, please remedy that.

What would YOU say are the 3 absolute BEST images of an actual bigfoot that we can look at with open minds? Something the bigfoot community has already vetted, and that you are personally presenting as the best possible evidence of its existance. Not an anecdote or story... but images that have been reviewed by the scientific community, major newspapers, etc. and are accepted as the best possible evidence that bigfoot might really exist. Your best stuff.

Just give us enough background (location, source, date) so that we can look into its credibility. Let us know if anyone outside of the bigfoot fanclub has looked at the stuff and rendered an opinion in some offical capacity. Your BEST images. The proverbial "clue" so that we could become less clueless.

We have exhausted and long since given up on getting anything meaningful from the Eichler images. The crowd seems to be entertained and begging for more.

I'll stand by what I said before. I believe that there is a chance Bigfoot is out there. Until there is a body of this animal, assuming someone isn't too scared to pull the trigger (ME's words not mine) I don't buy it.

What you are implying is that if someone doesn't agree with your (or your sect's) opinion, they are closed minded.

And by the way, I will choose option C: "Some form of psychological phenomena is causing people to experience these sightings. That alone might be subject for research but it doesn't explain the evidence. And how come these sightings go beck hundreds of years and include cultures that have never even seen an ape?"

Owl: When someone refers to me as clueless, I guess I jump to the conclusion that they think they know more than me. Sorry man, that's right out of ME's words. I have read or looked at each piece of information that these guys has put up here, and it really amounts to a big question mark?

The question was simple, and you skirted around it. Because they absolutely believe in Bigfoot, does that make them closed minded?

Owl--it is a VIDEO. All conjecture of the subject is just an opinion, bottom line. Without a real specimen, this is all conjecture.

To keep it concise and to the point: What if nobody cared enough about archery, to dedicate their time to improving archery equipment, to the best of their cababilties, to prove wrong the once strong sentiment that archery tackle was not an effective way killing big game, and was illegal in most States? We wouldn't have ANY of the stuff we've come to love so much.

You can make that example with a million different things. Think about it.

The total number of people on this thread who claim to have seen a BF is ONE. Guess who, the guy who claims his .338 cannot penetrate a elk tenderlion. Maybe he grabbed his nerf bullets by accident......

Hello?

People on this site are not shy about stating their mind. If they saw something, they would say so. So where are they?

And no BF having a heart attack while on a logging road or trail. I'm not buying the "we don't find dead bear" argument. We kill tens of thousands of bears in North America every year.

It is a MYTH. Myths have a life of their own. Mermaids, sea monsters, Greek gods, etc. There are thousands of myths with a common theme. They are not factual or real.

End of story. Until I see a BF being interviewed by Dr. Phil...........

Actually, my papa taught me when I was young, to look both ways before crossing the road.

Heart attack? I watch what I eat, I excersise, and I keep my cholesterol level down by taking Lipitor.

Dr. Phil does indeed want to interview me, but I think the audience would think I'm just his good friend Oprah.

Kudos to Fred on one of the most brilliant and funny hunting show pranks ever perpetrated.

Have you developed CARPAL TUNNEL SYNDROME??????

Or maybe you're coming back tomorrow to write us more fictional BF dung.

Any truth to what they say or is it all just an urban legend? You know, what I hear about what having big feet usually means...

HCAshooter, had you read the second to last post of mine, you would know that I had to leave for the day. Been trying to catch up with the following for the last hour between other things.

I do feel we are going in circles however because the real evidence is in the field that you guys have an opportunity to see for yourself if you knew about it. And REALLY, the only way to understand what I am talking about is in the field, not here. And that is the value of being able to take someone into the field to see it there, not here with pictures that never reveal proper dimension or depth.

DDR324, you realize what your talking about in your above paragraph costs lots of money? There sure won't be any help from the government either. The position of agencies like the USFS is that they have no position. They don't say they don't exist. Similar with the USF&W and in fact they wrote a publication on the subject years ago on what they'd do if one day sasquatch were proven to exist. Any idea how much it is to rent satellite time, yet alone one with thermal capability? I believe that is military/homeland security level access only.

Anyway, a few of the organizations have invested in thermal imaging gear. A few have had results too that shows an upright human-looking silhouette of yellows, reds, greens, etc. But colors that don't match a normal human wearing clothes. Basically it was trying to hide behind a tree. One has to be willing to trust the reports. The footprints found afterwards. The ruling out of an unaccounted person in the vicinity. That nobody is out there playing a prank deep in the woods. Etc. These imagers also have their limits. They fog easy, they get hot fast, they have limited battery. They often emit a glow that can be seen. Then you have to hook it up to a camera too, which for many of the early versions, made simultaneous viewing almost impossible. The are improving them however as long as you have the $$. I don't. Same with helicopter time. I've rented a chopper a few times for non-related investigative work, but the pilot was a friend of mine so I only needed to pay for flying time for the copter itself. It was my own SLR cameras too. No FLIR, for that your talking Huey scale and Huey dollars. Few have the kind of funds needed for that. Heavily forested areas also provide lots of concealment from the air, so to hide isn't difficult, even using FLIR. Two hundred foot tall trees provide near complete coverage of the ground from the air.

They are indeed ahead of us in their backyard. Yes, in respect to the wilds, they are smarter then us. In reading a newspaper, no. Its different measurements of intelligence. And yes they may also have places underground to hide. I don't know. There are thousands of miles of caves (lava tubes) under the earth's surface that are unmapped. This could fit with the description made by many of them smelling like sulphur. I've never smelled that however. The only one I was close enough to smell was more like a wet elk.

They do leave sign, lots of sign. One thing I've been trying to say, and you guys would start seeing it too out in the woods if you knew what to look for. Its been there in front of you but you didn't know what caused it. They are called Tree Breaks or Tree Twists. They consist of young live saplings that are broken off somewhere between 5-8' up. The diameters are anywhere from 2" to 6". Were talking about clean breaks here. No evidence of antler rub from elk. No evidence of claw marks from bears. No snow load indicators like bending of a large segment of the tree. No trees having fallen on it. No similar damage to other closely adjacent saplings. Bark is torn, indicating tree was alive during assault. Dead tree bark simply cracks not tears. Deep in the woods to rule out human caused. Not wind because there was good protection by other trees. Bigfoot sign. There are also smaller saplings that are damaged similarly, but the bigger stuff is most impressive.

Generally if a sasquatch is seen by a human, it doesn't stick around to wait for a 'team' to show up. There is no way to catch up or surround one anyhow unless you maybe had a hundred men, and even then there are areas that couldn't be covered. Literally thousands of tracks have been found all over the country. Eighteen inch long footprints found deep in the woods is evidence. I have found a few prints myself but not the best quality. I didn't even cast them because they were pretty shallow in the soil.

A number of people here are open minded and I appreciate that. It is a mystery however that has not yet been solved. You guys know how difficult it can be stalking an already alert animal, well quadruple it with these guys. I mean that.

Herdmanager, you took the context of "its their livingroom' from my stating they are smarter. They know how to survive in the wild without guns, knives, fire, clothing, etc. They have an ability to evade we do not with strength we do no. Their 'taking over our jobs' is fodder not worthy a response. But we humans are not as adept as they are in the wild. I assume that you can understand that something born and raised in the wild with the description given may just have more physical capacity then by our measures?

No indoctrination desired here. Owl recognizes this. I was only trying to 'enable' people here to be able to recognize things in the field you have overlooked for so many years. And to be able to discuss it without being ridiculed.

Striker, most of the people who find tracks are just regular people who don't know what to do. They don't know who to contact. Some eventually contact the groups but this can be days later 'after' their backcountry trip is done. The few tracks I have found, I have only photographed. Besides, my research is mine except for what I choose to share. Expending vast financial resources trying to track it after someone makes a report is easier said than done. Maybe someday you will understand this. It's only after becoming more familiar with evidence in the field, and heard them near you, that you will understand how they move. But you can't know this yet because you don't have a basic understanding of their behavior. Something that probably isn't achievable in a forum either. They are FAR more elusive and evasive then you can imagine. I don't want you to surrender to anything Striker. However I'd like for you to be able to truly consider the possibility that there may be something out there. That way your peers who have seen em, can speak freely here. It is after dark that they move around more freely too. Pull out a spotlight and they are gone. An easy thing to do and I have done so myself.

And yes Striker, I know the general vicinity where a few of them live, during Summer/Fall months anyhow. Too much snow up there now and I don't have a snowmobile. However I do work the area with a few limited capability hidden cameras and audio recorders. No luck with vid yet but have gotten some audio. Looking forward to more this Spring after the thaw. I don't take anybody up to that spot so as to minimize impact to research by outside factors. I wouldn't take you there either, but there are other places. And while you may not see one, you would likely hear some stuff close to you that would scare the hell out of you. No spotlight allowed but a moonlit night.

Bowsniper, if you believe that the footprints are real, then obviously 'something' made them. Something BIG. For those who think someone is running around the wilderness faking different sizes and shapes of footprints, well then there must be a vast conspiracy out there. If they are wearing hairy outfits during hunting season, well they are some very foolish conspirators as well.

Re Breeding If a species has the ability to locate one another after dark using various methods of communication that can be heard over a few mile distance, then a male and female finding one another isn't that difficult to comprehend. Similar to a wolf that can hear another from several miles away. Sanctum covered it well.

Horn Donkey, to answer your questions. 1) Because we have researched in the field enough to know the sign they leave. Most here don't know what the sign even consists of. Other then Tree Breaks, that information is best viewed in the field not on the net. 2) More like reverse psychology. The request is to be open minded about the possibility of something that has been seen by the proposer of the theory. 3) Not if we have seen them and you haven't.

When people encounter something they don't understand, and they know their peers and others in society would only ridicule them for making such a claim, well who wants to be stigmatized in that way? So its easier to just keep it to oneself. Look at this thread.

Apology accepted and appreciated.

Bowsniper, this kid is tired, thread getting convoluted, but your latest questions won't be ignored, but maybe tomorrow, still it won't answer all your doubts either because all footage is being debated. And some of the posts here just aren't worth responding to.

Herdmanager, I said that round did not penetrate the spine. It went through the backstrap. So either a poor Super X round, not likely, or some other unknown factors. There was nothing in the way either.

NOW I have carpal tunnel. Dave

Yes! :) Why else do you think Mrs. Big Foot smiles all the time. Kinda like that ZZ Top song, "Every girl's crazy 'bout a Big Foot man"

I'm beginning to understand why none of you guys have asked the infamous Bowsite question "what will he score".........JEALOUSY!!!!

MultipleEncounters,

Sorry buddy, I don't pick the cast. I just help with the script. Right now the writers and producers are debating whether or not to have you catch me in the end. We are currently leaning towards a NO leaving the storyline open for a sequel.

Oh, and by the way, they did not find any BF in PA.

ME, those thermal images were probably youngsters naked in the woods. Of course they were trying to hide. I bet they were all hopping on one foot trying to get their jeans on too........You'd probably interpret that as a secret Yeti dance they do.

Here is the firm that did the survey in PA.

Really, what do comments like these accomplish when you weren't there to analyze the imagery or the site?

The proof is at your fingertips. Go get it, and become famous for the most amazing discovery in history.

Have you not noticed that I currently reside in Arizona?

As spring arrives, I will migrate north.....along with all of the Mexicans.

Native Americans and First Nations people have known of sasquatch for thousands of years. You find it in their cave paintings. In their totems. In their language. Even in carvings. They are the native Peruvian you speak of. An issue that has been covered earlier in thread.

http://home.clara.net/rfthomas/papers/sprague.html

Others, Here is the paper I was referring to from the USF&W. It is from the 1970's however. Some of it may seem in jest, but it is a formal document similar to others of their nature.

http://www.fws.gov/news/historic/1977/19771221.pdf

There are also many in government who will talk privately about sasquatch, and every once in a while some make public reference. There are private discussions going on with law enforcement & biologist. One thread was sent to me by someone in law enforcement but unfortunately I would betray their trust in posting it here.

http://alaska.fws.gov/nwr/kenai/overview/notebook/2000/jun/16jun00.htm

I've included a photo of a tree break from my research site. The break is only about 40 feet from where I had my major encounter 4 years ago. This particular break appears to be more territorial in nature. Most breaks (or twists), the top is still attached. This one has been broken clean off and there is a downward gouge at the top of the stalk, like from a finger nail. All the branches from the remaining stalk were also broken off downwards. There were what appear to be some antler rub marks but they were made years before. All possible natural causes were ruled out as referenced above. When I found the sapling, it was only a month old based on the green that was still evident on the broken off top. You can see it is well protected by other vegetation that exhibited no similar damage.

For those who are interested, I will post one of the more common type of tree breaks that are seen a little later.

Hard to argue that enough snow can pile up on top of a tree all at once and remain there long enough to bring down such pressure to twist a tree 90°.

They are caused by small micro-burts (miniature tornadoes if you will). They can rip/twist a 15" diameter tree in half like a toothpick. Pines are very soft so it wouldn't take much to do it.

See, I have an explanation for everything also...................

Here is another twist, this one of a Doug Fir. This one was only a few weeks if not days old. These type of twists can often be found right along logging roads but in back-country as well. This was a good 4" diameter at break. When found along logging roads, a corresponding twist can often be found on the exact opposite side of road, which is very interesting. Reading twists are still somewhat of a mystery itself, but are most suspected of being directional in nature.

Was it a giant bigfoot?

I can imagine how it would be hard to "read" a twist, since it is nothing other than mother nature at work.

Do you have any pictures of these micro-bursts?

The many breaks that can be found are NOT weak trees as you would like to believe in order to support your silly answers. Or maybe these microbursts break the tops off, leaving them undamaged otherwise, then focus on the stalks where they break off all the branches, then they focus all their energy and gouge out a piece just to leave a sort of signature, while leaving adjacent WEAKER trees alone. You have some intelligent blowhard winds there in PA ya know?

Like I said, these are NOT weak trees and Doug Fir is used for home construction. I suspect that some of you are now recalling seeing trees like these in the woods but couldn't figure out the cause. Well guess what they were caused by?

Anyway, this is a SOLID 5" (EMPHASIZE: SOLID) twist from LIVE Douglas Fir. They can be found deep in the woods. And anyone here who lives in the PNW knows just how difficult it would be to do this to a 3" tree yet alone a 5" one. That is, unless someone is running around the woods with some machinery too doing something that most of the population are aware of.

"It's a sign!"

Folks will see what the want to see.

You cannot tell which trees are weak by looking at them. Every piece of wood/steel/concrete has different strength. Anyone who has done load testing in a lab knows this.

It is not hard for wind to damage trees. The oak I was referring to earlier is about 15" in diamater. Absolutely sheared in half. Oak is MUCH stronger than fir. No comparison. Wind can rip small pines/fir trees with no problem. I hunt some Doug Fir stands here in PA, and there are dead/damaged firs littering the ground. They are not hardy or long-lasting trees.

Where are the photos of the broken lower limbs and "gouging"?

txhunter58, good question, sorry missed it amongst the . I don't know. :) Nobody really does for sure but we suspect there may be some limited migration depending on region of the country. Places like Oregon & Washington, they likely just move to lower elevations when snows get deep. We've got a lot of lower-elevation secluded forest here. Very low human population densities too. There is plenty of food in the forests that we don't fully appreciate like mushrooms, lichen, grubs, rodents, birds, etc. Not to mention the ungulates which are a reliable food source for them.

To those who understood this in the first place, I appreciate it.

We have big tree limbs break here all the time, often taking down power lines. Must be a giant bigfoot who also hates technology. Turning our lights out so we can't see him in the dark! He's not concerned about magnum rifles but hates those damn spot lights.

But seriously, what would you BF efficionados say are the 3 best images of the bigfoot ever captured on film. I am presuming that the Patterson video is one. And that was 50 years ago. With all this tree twisting and migrating and feeding on ungulates, there must have been some other pictures taken over the next 50 year period. What would you recommend as the best images of a bigfoot that we should all look at with open minds so that we may become less clueless?

BigFoot, please break open the family album if your fans can't come up with anything on their own.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6IPgANGdGKY

Sorry bigfoot, but your clever woodsman skills and tree twisting leave us no other choice.

If you want to hear my favorite 4 then I will gather some links.

FLIR has its limitations, especially when something or someone wants to hide behind large solid objects, like trees. Your video only proves that FLIR can see in the open well. Saw that vid previously too. A good one from that standpoint.

If it will help your cause by having a DNA sample, I can send you some poop.

Just gimme your address. Hurry though, I feel a good one brewing.

You are right. We don't know what we are talking about. We are talking about something that is fictional, so no one knows anything about it. We all know as much about unicorns and the tooth fairy (who came to my house last night) as we do BF.

Funny, that tooth fairy looked just like me............................

Imagine the BF tooth fairy!! Yikes. Wonder if even the BF tooth fairy can find BF?

So despite those few here who won't open their eyes, there may be three times as many who are following this thread intently.

I don't :(

But you can also see what I meant by having my camera at the wrong angle. It should have been closer to the ground from the side. But I was alone so that wouldn't have been easy and to keep my boot in there for perspective too.

HURRY and get to WI. bigfoot must be using the central migration corridor!

Bigfoot, you move fast. The cuddyback caught the tree going down but you weren't in the pic.

Over 300 posts and it's starting to read better than a Marvel comic book.

(aside: ME, the "excuses" for a bad photo are a hoot. You're the long-lived, experienced BF hunter and can't take a good pic.? The boot wouldn't come off your foot for a minute to take a pic.? This is the first time you've taken a pic and didn't know the "correct angle" to make it look more like a foot print? Also note: IF you know anything about anatomy you would know that the "thing" that left your print could hardly walk upright and in a straight line. The "print" is so narrow - vs.- length as to render the "individual" VERY wobbly.

But hey; whatever floats your boat :)

Another Bowsite classic in the making!

Maybe BF shops in town?

Very narrow. Why not go out AFTER the rain to find one with great detail?

I realize there may be some funding and technology limitations imposed on the BSI-O offices (Bigfoot Scene Investigations - Oregon), but would a few tape measures really break the budget?

He's posting on here! Contact Pat to get his e-mail address, have the cops track down the ISP, then hunt down his remote connection (assuming he is wireless).

Hello?

A couple of days in the clink and he'll give up all his buds. They always do.

I've included links for those who aren't familiar with the footage. When viewing any of these videos, it must be remembered that these are compressed for web viewing and therefore not high quality. Kind of like Fred Eichler's images are right now. There are actually two others that I wanted to post but am having trouble finding them on youtube now. Will keep looking. Again, they won't satisfy you HM, nor are they THE evidence to end all evidence you desire. They are just the ones I like and provide compelling evidence.

Of course the Patterson/Gimlin video of 1967 in California http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PT-R4Bus5Cs&feature=related

Freeman Footage taken in 1994 in Blue Mountains of Washington http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K8hObFzzC6Q

Here's a newly posted one that I hadn't seen before. Interesting. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8dmHObf3OY

Here's an interesting interview of a BC Scientist about hunters and sasquatch. Of course a few here will only pick up one thing from this vid, but the vid is balanced in that respect. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnMAv9kqpGI

Here's your measurement there Flatbow. Satisfied? But like I said, I didn't realize bad angle until I got home. I've only started researching two years ago and you learn as you go. A crime I realize. If you want to contribute to fund for some needed equipment, you are welcome to and I will buy a few new cameras too. ANYWAY, same print but even less visible in this image w/o shadow of my body. You could also have asked what size boot I had to determine length Flatbow, it is 10.5. I've got another track pic but trying to remember which file it is stored in.

Labdad, re this comment, you are the one who is ill-informed. : "IF you know anything about anatomy you would know that the "thing" that left your print could hardly walk upright and in a straight line. The "print" is so narrow - vs.- length as to render the "individual" VERY wobbly." What do you know about bipedal locomotion of a large muscular animal yet alone characteristic differences of individuals; ie, females or adolescents? Please elaborate.

Deadhorse, nope, not yax.

Buckeye, yes they do tend to be flatfooted. Guess that comes from going barefoot, which displaces weight throughout foot, whereas our shoes are designed to raise arch. There are differences too with age as a younger one or a female seem to have more narrow feet then big males. This print isn't all that big of one compared to prints found by others.

He has proof. We found a Pokemon footprint in the backyard yesterday. I will post. It has about as much detail as that "footprint" just posted.

I am also waiting for Pokemon research funding so I can prove to the world they exist. They are SO good at hiding, but they are there........

A clean break of healthy sapling. No antler marks. No bending. No trees fell on it. Adjacent trees untouched. etc. No sign of those dang micro-bursts that HerdManager has been tracking either.

Bring it on!!

Not to mention, he probably passed through there when hard soil was damp and therefore somewhat compacted. I came though when it was dried and loosened up.

HerdManager, why do you insist on ruining the discussion for others? Skepticism and asking legitimate questions is one thing, but its like you just can't deal with something that doesn't fit the mold of the way you view the world.

There are people here who want to discuss it without the continued mockery ya know.

MultipleEncounters,

Are you implying that there are smarta$$ on this forum?

HerdManager,

I like my secret lifestyle, please don't try getting the damn FBI,DEA,CIA,or any search and rescue unit ideas.......thank you very much.

Now if you will excuse me, I need to get these refried beans out of my a$$ fur.

I have an old college friend who went into forensic anthropology after grad. school.....here's some "IMPORTANT" information from a research project for 'ya: (ps it's posted on the web somewhere too) In short:

Methods/Materials A sample of 22 individuals (11 male, 11 female) was used to draw inferences about the general population. Measurements of foot length, height, and shoe size were evaluated. The "best-fit" line was drawn through the scatter plot (foot length versus height) to determine if a correlation between foot size and height was observed. Shoe impressions in the soil were made, and plaster of paris molds prepared.

Results: The predicted percent for the ratio between foot size and height was 15%. The actual range for the percent foot size/height was 13.9 to 16.7% (variation range of -1.1 to +1.7). The equation from the plot of foot length versus height (y = 60.424 + 4.246*x) found that the relationship was 15.2%. The equation from the plot of shoe size versus height (y = 137.096 + 3.761*x) found the relationship was 17.5%.

Conclusions/Discussion: The foot measurement yielded important predictive information about the individual's height. Valuable assistance in solving crimes is gained through comparing shoe impression casts with actual shoes. Identifying marks and wear patterns can be used to match the shoe with the print to the exclusion of all others. Bones, and impressions left by foot bones, are key in solving many crime cases.

FYI: Unless something has interrupted normal patterns of growth the length of the foot from heel to tip of the big toe is exactly the length of the forearm from inside of the elbow to the bend of the wrist. This has to do with how limb growth is genetically "balanced".

Limb growth is related to overall body length in a slightly more complicated fashion.

One always has to be careful about which sandbox you play in.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/gquery

Big Foot: You owe me a new keyboard! Refried beans in your...ROTFLMAO!! Gotta love it!!

I can understand sceptasism about the existence of a bigfoot. I have that too. What I cannot understand is the bad manners some of you have, especially those from Wisconsin. I think your water must be bad up there or something. You evidently were not raised to have respect for other people.

Something I do not understand at all and perhaps some of you could enlighten me. Why does this upset you that a man believes this when he claims to have actually seen a bigfoot. Even if he didn't and saw something else it should not upset you so badly. As for the broken trees , how about a real plausable explanation? Something besides non existant mini-tornados that only break one tree and leave the ones next to it. LOL

http://www.isu.edu/~meldd/fxnlmorph.html

coming from our in house "christian"

In this one, while not very visible in this photo, a 12' long live fir bough was run lengthwise through the middle of the structure, UNDER much older dead branches, then with a live one also weaved through the upper structure. Then on the outer edges there were these 3 single branches just hanging upright on small nubs and not even touching the ground. Somehow they were adhered to the structure branch with sap or something. I've included red arrows to two of them. There is no way this could have occurred naturally and yet these precarious branches withstood an entire Winter.

They were found not this Winter but last at a secondary site I found. At that time it was fresh. Now it has been abandoned and dilapidated. I had left a small bag of dog foot in the plastic bag. My interference on finding it likely scared them off. It may have been some form of shelter or even a blind. It was well in the woods on top of a very small ridgeline. Of course pictures don't allow any kind of proof here nor do I intend it for that purpose. While not everyone here would be willing to analyze such a structure objectively, I post it is simply so those here who are interested and can be on the lookout for similar ones when in the field.

I've included a link to a paper of two scientists and written by USFS Archeologist Kathy Moskowitz, who are all involved in the mystery. This is a slightly different type of stick structure. The weaving that took place cannot be fully appreciated with mere pictures however.

And if you disagree, you are just close-minded to the obvious.

Obviously.

You must have something better than that?

Oh did I mention I saw a lochness monster in the Mississippi river once. Had a buddy with me to verify it. We both saw the same thing and to this day cannot figure out what we saw. It was near St. Cloud and we were fishing walleyes below the dam. This huge serpent like creature broke the surface and went back down. Just like you see in the movies, first the back, followed by a long tail. Had triangle like plates on its back and tail. It was not a quick sighting as it broke surface a couple of times and we watched this blob makes its way down the river.

Real? Yes. Lochness? No. MississippiNess? Maybe.

I can't believe no one else noticed the obvious testicular disorder present in this male Mewtwo. It became inverted in one of his many Pokemon battles.

A big "duh" to all you others who failed to comment.

From his track I have determined he is 22 years old, enjoys swimming, reading, botany, and hopping on one foot while holding his breath. Some days he is just sad for no reason, yet he finds in the inner strength to get up every day and run through my yard.

He left a sign in my yard last week that read "only nimrods believe in bigfoot".

coming from our in house "christian"

Exactly: I do respect others unless they are spouting anti-Christ or Anti-America garbage. This subject is neither.

Its very obvious that some people in here are juveniles in either age or mind. A person that has actually spent years in the wilderness like elkherder and I have , have seen and heard things that are not explainable. Those things make our minds open to possibilities that neophites that cannot take a hunting trip without a guide to help them believe impossible., What I'm saying is that we know we don't know it all. Usually people that know it all aren't seasoned enough to know better.

I learn new stuff every day (mostly from my kids), so I don't purport to know it all. Far from it. But this goes so far beyond the realm of reality it is silly. Hence, my silly comments.

Yes Sixby, I think maybe the problem plaguing this discussion can be attributed to a few young kids. And if they aren't that, well I guess they just never grew up into adults in other ways.

Big Foot, would you mind scaring the crap out of them the next time they go into the backyard after dark?

Maybe there is hope for you yet.

A short statement from world renowned Primatologist Dr. Jane Goodall

At least most on here are open to the possibility BF exists.

Are you open to the possibility they don't exist?

Who are you to say that remnant populations of one proven species or another are not still amongst us?

I see you are evolving your position there HerdManager. Beginning to see the light or just realigning your position because the evidence is overwhelming you?

Have a good listen to Dr. Goodall on the link above. There is no primatologist in the world with a more solid reputation then her. She has a little more knowledge of the subject then you, don't you think? That is, if you have ever heard of her.

I AM FLATTERED!!!!!!

Santa Claus is going to be jealous!!!!

Finally real verifiable facts to discuss!!! MultipleE please direct us to the reports of fossils that would be appplicable to this subject ever found in North America.

To presume that they could be "still" among us you would have to know that they were EVER among us.

Its a big difference to say there are things we have seen that we cannot yet explain... to jumping the huge intellectual void to name that mystery and give it magical power and human characteristics. Its been that way since time immortal. Think of the terror after the first solar eclipse. Angry gods, the work of the mighty bigfoot, or just a natural phenomenon that took years to unravel??

There are actually numerous other captures on game cams, from various researchers and hunters alike, across the country. But I can understand why you wouldn't know that.

Here's the deal. Most of these trailcams, like your digital cameras, utilize an infrared beam to detect motion or distance for focusing purposes. The first thing to realize is that the red glow of the IR lens itself can be seen by even us. Remember, sasquatch are 'self aware', maybe like we are. Not that hard to understand if they are indeed a primitive hominid species right? Should make sense that a red glow might be very out of place in the woods, like in your home.

The beam itself however is merely measurable light along the spectrum. Just like you and I can see a laser when operating at the visible spectrum. Well, different animals can see different levels of light along the spectrum as well. We suspect that they are able to see much of the IR spectrum. The do after all see very well in complete darkness.

That is a big reason why we suspect more haven't been captured in this fashion. But, these creatures make mistakes also. Maybe if Eichler captured one, it is because the Sun was out and overwhelming the IR beam from the camera? Did you notice on the top of the frame, the rays of sunlight coming down? Combine that with an unaware approach, some brush, and hence they make the occasional mistake.

There is another plausible reason for the occasional mistake, although still not quality results. It is as I have mentioned early in the thread, they often know when humans are in the area. Our trucks can be heard approaching a mile or more away. Our smells permeate. When we are 'up to something', like putting up cameras, we make a little noise. Our scent lingers. Some of these cameras even make barely detectable noise. If an area seems suspicious, wouldn't you stay away?

Anyway yes, there are other captures on these cameras, but none have offered 100% proof.

Wild1, nice for you that you have met here. No I haven't, what does that prove? On the other point, she has done a lot more research into the subject in order to substantiate her short statement for a radio interview. Scientists don't admit to things like that without doing so. I assume you would give her enough credit for doing research on a matter as controversial as this? Scroll down the link.

Getting to you Bowsniper.

I guess if you can believe in bigfoot and deny the obvious science and credibility gaps within the "evidence", its just as easy to think they pop into life as giants and live for hundreds of years.

BIGFOOT - you are seriously funny, dude! If this thread goes on much longer, I see you getting an appearance on the Late Show!!

MYSTERY SOLVED !!!!

Bigfoot was writing a message :-)

The problem specific to your question Bowsniper, is that we don't yet know if sasquatch is hominid or pongid, because there is no body to examine. So a definite link to assert giant ape you cannot be provided other then the hotlink I offered here and one somewhere above.

There is however evidence of giants in North America. I previously linked a few sites of fossilized tracks. Here are a few others, but I haven't researched them thoroughly.

http://paleo.cc/paluxy/berea-ky.htm

http://www.grisda.org/origins/02064.htm

http://www.geocities.com/age_of_giants/ancient_giants/sitecah.html

http://www.geocities.com/saqatchr/page46.html

LOOK, once again, I'm not here to PROVE the existence of sasquatch to some of you who are unable to reach a basic plane of simple accepting it is possible and therefore maybe it would be worth looking for certain things when in the field. If you can't get there at least, well then you will simply be left behind.

To answer your follow up Q there Bowsniper. Do adult humans not keep their kids close in sight to keep them out of trouble? Don't mothers protect their young of many species? These aren't bears who run off to get into trouble. Mom also probably carries them around until they are old enough. The older they get however, I am sure the leash so-to-speak is lessened. But moms usually do this as they have taught their offspring about the dangers around them. In fact, adults are likely fiercely defensive of their young and keep them very close. To compare with Gorillas who do the same. Stop thinking of sasquatch as something with the mind equal to a coyote or deer. They aren't!

BTW, the Jabob's photos caught on game cam by a hunter are likely just what you are looking for. An adolescent bigfoot. Few can say that the final photo is a mangy bear either. What do you think Big Foot?

http://www.bfro.net/avevid/jacobs/jacobs_photos.asp

And I agree with you on this point, Big Foot is a welcome addition to this thread. :)

Dave

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8dmHObf3OY

C'mon now. You can't possibly be serious with this one!! What happened to the magnificent strides? That fluffy monkey suit at the end was so anticlimactic!!

So far the Patterson and Freeman films are the only things worth talking about unless you know of better, and you'd think that with 120 years of cameras out there, someone, ANYONE, would have something decent caught on film. That alone should be telling you something, if the pages and pages of ridicule above are not.

Note the little black bears in the first photo and the time/date stamp.

Then the appearance of a different looking animal in the next two pictures, at the same tree, only a half hour later.

1 vote for mangy bear.

There are more videos out there. Researching videos is not my interest by the way but many are worth watching. I'd rather spend my time in the field. I assume you can appreciate that?

AGAIN, I am not here to prove the existence of sasquatch to you guys, but I have held my ground against with a few very closed minded individuals here. Others I am sure would like to move on with some constructive discussion. Will you and a few other people here whose names I will refrain from mentioning, allow this in a 'mature' manner?

Dave

Not going to happen. Apparently Larry King is a major Sasquaphobe. Just out of spite, he's got Chewbacca slotted in as Friday's guest. Just goes to show that ewok blondes DO have more fun.

Sorry Biggie!

Now they are better parents than all of us? They are the most amazing (imaginary) creatures on the planet. They must be, to have never lost a young-un to a car accident. Never hit by a train. Never froze to death in the dead of winter where people go. Never drowned and popped up in a lake or river (they must take swimming lesson at the Y). Never died anywhere a human being goes. Maybe they bury their dead, since there is not a shred of evidence of a body. No fossils either. Amazing at hiding, they are. Almost sounds impossible......

And now we know the mothers carry the young around...yeah, right.

This is the most ludicrous thread ever. I cannot believe it is still going. It's been fun, but I must go the window now to look for MewTwo. I know I will see him tonight......................

And yes, they may even bury their dead too. If they are along the hominid line, with large brains and want to continue their elusive lives from modern humans, why not?

Sixby, I remember something about him but don't know him. However I recalled enough to come up with some results on him.

http://british-bigfoot.tripod.com/britishbigfootresearchcenter/id3.html

So he appears to still be active but it may be that he just does his research quietly like I do. OK, I guess I haven't been too quiet for the last week, but you know what I mean. :) Lots of people just find it is more productive to do their own thing instead of mess with the politics in the field. This thread is a good example. Still I feel it is worthwhile having this conversation despite the stuff we could have less of.

Dave

Anyway, I have to go to work this morning. Been out for the last few days......drunk......again. Yep, back to the grindstone, snapping trees in half, leaving one footprint at a time, scaring the Jesus out of campers, screwing with MultipleEncounters.......you know, typical Sasquatch stuff.

I'll see you boys later today, maybe we can top 500 posts! LOL

When you presented the Jacobs pictures you added that "Few" could say this is a mangy bear. Are you kidding? Everyone not sleeping in Bigfoot pajamas everynight says its just a mangy bear. The PA game commission offically ruled its a mangy bear. Its like arguing with a Hari-Krishna in the airport, and I want my damn flower !!

When you were happily throwing around the idea of "fossils" in North America that might be related to a bigfoot creature, I asked for the examples. You should at least read down to the "CONCLUSIONS" in your own articles you send. (I am sure you will try to slip out of this by saying you didn't research these thoroughly, but we have been asking for your BEST stuff.)

http://paleo.cc/paluxy/berea-ky.htm "Conclusions - Claims that human footprints occur in Paleozoic rocks of Kentucky are without foundation. The relatively few such prints documented with photos show very unnatural shapes and lack the usual features of authentic human prints. They were probably made by native Americas--not with their feet in soft mud, but with their hands and sharp tools."

http://www.grisda.org/origins/02064.htm "CONCLUSION - The Glen Rose region of the Paluxy River does not provide good evidence for the past existence of giant men. Nor does it provide evidence for the co-existence of such man (or other large mammals) and the giant dinosaurs. It seems likely in retrospect that the rumors of giant-man tracks had their origin in the discovery of tracks similar to the elongate tracks of Series 2."

At one time I thought you might have really seen some amazing creature in the forest, and were just desperate to find scientific validation. Now I gotta think you are just a kook.

IF BF is so secretive, why do so many supposed encounters involve a BF engaging humans with rock throwing. Granted these encounters always seem to happen at night. Still, that seems counterintuitive. Thanks

Nearing 500: This is now officially eligible for Bowsite History!!

Big Foot: HURRY HOME from snapping trees!! You've built a true fan club here on the Bowsite!!

"When you presented the Jacobs pictures you added that "Few" could say this is a mangy bear. Are you kidding? Everyone not sleeping in Bigfoot pajamas everynight says its just a mangy bear. The PA game commission offically ruled its a mangy bear. Its like arguing with a Hari-Krishna in the airport, and I want my damn flower !!"

I'm not in the camp that believes, without a doubt, that the Jacob's creature is a Bigfoot. Even Bigfoot enthusiast can't agree on that one. I do know you can't trust the word of the PA game commission on the subject though. They also, flat out, denied for years that Cougers/Mountain Lions lived in PA. Recently they have gotten so much flack on that "official" statement that they retracted it and started a study in 2007.

"Release #023-07

USFWS BEGINS REVIEW OF MOUNTAIN LION STATUS IN EAST

HARRISBURG - Pennsylvania Game Commission Executive Director Carl G. Roe today announced that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is beginning a review of scientific and commercial information to determine the status of the endangered eastern cougar, the first review the Service has done since publishing a recovery plan in 1982."

Maybe you should be asking the question: Why would the Pennsylvania Game Commission - State Wildlife Management Agency not want it known that an large endangered creature is roaming around in prime hunting areas? What stance would they have on an even more rare species? I have my own theory but I'll leave it up to you guys to speculate on that one.

Anyone bow hunters form PA have anything to add?

Fred Eichler has built his living off of his crediblity. His guide service is based off his credibility, his sponsors sponsor him based on his credibility. Why would Mr. Eichler go out of his way to play a joke on the public with the potential of being known for ever as the guy who faked out the hunting world with a stealthcam and an ape suit?

I don't feel he would jepoardize his reputation just to play a joke. I think he believes that the critter on his camera was not normal, and felt that he needed to share what he captured.

I think as hunter's, we should be well aware of how stealthy critters can be. How many people hear black bears coming? I called an 881 lb. (dressed) moose with a 51" spread this season. He slipped trhough a patch of Balsam fir and maple and made it to within 30 yds of us befor ehe gave away his presence with a grunt.

Now think about a small population of organisms that have soft feet, OBVIOUSLY PEOPLE DON'T SEE THEM but sporadically (If they do exist).

I imagine you would have to be pretty dense, to not even entertain the idea that there could be critters that we have not discovered yet. Even in the U.S. of A.

Mizzoukispot Wrote: "cougars and bf are two different subjects....what does PA think about alien life forms of game? You may as well compare cougars to that...... This thread is more about arguing logic vs logic than anything else."

And if they are willing to deny something as mundane as a cougar I think that says something about their creditablity in general. Of course they are going to deny Bigfoot. I don't know their stance on alien life forms of game? What might those be?

Photographic evidence is, by far, the weakest type of evidence. There are however, some compelling pieces. You can Google them but will probably not see anything of quality online. High definition versions of the original films are available if you know where to look. I have a copy of each of the below.

1) We have already discussed, at length, the world famous Patterson-Gimlin Film. That is the most studied piece of 16mm film on earth and has stood the test of time. No expert has ever been able to positively refute its authenticity and it has been put to the test by many. The few scientists that have dismissed it did so after a cursory glance at the film. The scientist that studied it at length were very impressed and offered that it either could not be faked or that someone with very specific knowledge in a variety of fields, to numerous to mention was involved.

2) The Memorial Day video is very compelling also. In that video a 6 and a half foot creature sprints at 7 miles an hour across several hundred yards of treacherous, rocky terrain. This creature appears to have been carrying a juvenile on its back. This was caught on film and also witnessed by several people who were vacationing in the area. The sight remains, largely, the same as the day the video was taken. Teams of experts with hi-tech scientific measuring equipment and 3-D modeling software have recreated that footage with a world class athlete tracing the exact path. The athlete is no where near the bulk of the creature in the film after comparing the frames side by side.

3) The Freeman film, while easily dismissed by skeptics, is considered a top pick among BF enthusiasts because it is taken by a researcher after who chased BF for many decades. I’m not as up to speed on the analysis of this video and only offer it because of it is an often used source.

There are literally thousands of other pieces of photographic evidence. A lot of them, (perhaps the majority) are hoaxes and can usually be ruled out right away. The character of the people taking the shot is always a subject of consideration as well as corroborating evidence and witnesses. That still leaves hundreds of creditable witnesses with pictures of blobsquatch and an incredible story that they get ridiculed for. I’m sure there are hundreds more pieces of video graphic evidence that never even get released to the public. As seen by the Fred E film…even the smallest piece of footage is looked at and debated within the community.

Interesting. Why do you accept it? are you the only person it has been PROVEN to?

On Bigfoot prints and casts.

I’ve already stated that footprints are the most compelling evidence we have for the existence of Bigfoot. To those that say that the footprints are the work of a couple of guys tromping through the woods in wood or plaster feet I would like to submit the following:

Dr. Grover Krantz (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover_Krantz ) changed his position from skeptic to supporter after studying suspected Bigfoot prints. Dr. Krantz specialized in primate evolution and especially primate locomotion, he was considered one of the top men in his area of academia. He was able to reconstruct from footprints the probable skeletal structure of whatever made the prints. Surprising to him, the reconstruction suggested the exact architecture needed to leverage a bulky bipedal Primate through harsh terrain. He stated that it would take a greater expert than him to know in advance what to include in a footprint to fool him. The consensus among his peers is that there is no greater expert.

Even if someone could create one footprint requiring counterfeiting skills of astronomical proportions how did they create hundreds of different individual footprints for the same creature and place them in wilderness areas miles apart. Not just one creature with a track line of individual footprints…but many creatures with similar track lines of individual appearing footprints. In a track line, the footprints show variability, which would be expected as a living foot encountered different obstacles and grades. The anatomy is not simply an exaggerated human foot, but there are significant differences (in length ratios of different parts, for example). Dr. Jeff Meldrum argues that the relatively flat (but not rigid) foot is similar to ape feet and to fossil human (but not homo sapiens) feet. It has also been claimed that individual Bigfoot can be recognized by their tracks.

Statistical analysis of these footprints further supports the evidence. If a statistical analysis of adult human heights was performed, a bell-shaped curve would appear. Most people would fall into the same somewhat central range, and then there would be fewer numbers that were very tall or especially short. This bell-shaped curve is common in nature. Bigfoot track-lengths also show this bell-shaped curve. It is also typical that animals tend to be taller as measurements are taken going North from the equator. It has been stated that Alaskan reports average out taller than Canadian reports which average out taller than California reports.

This is know as Bergmann’s rule.

Berg•mann's rule: The principle holding that in a warm-blooded, polytypic, wide-ranging animal species, the body size of the members of each geographic group varies with the average environmental temperature. According to this principle, warm-blooded animals living in cold climates tend to be larger than animals of the same species living in warm climates

******************************************************

Jeffrey Meldrum, also a scientist held in high regard by his peers also makes the case with Footprint evidence.

D. Jeffrey Meldrum (born 1958) is a tenured Associate Professor of Anatomy and Anthropology and Adjunct Associate Professor of the Department of Anthropology at Idaho State University. Meldrum is also Adjunct Professor of Occupational and Physical Therapy and Affiliate Curator of Vertebrate Paleontology at the Idaho Museum of Natural History. Meldrum is considered to be among the world's foremost experts on the Sasquatch.

Meldrum’s interest in the Sasquatch took off after being shown 15-inch footprints by Paul Freeman, in a plowed field near Walla Walla, Washington. Although initially believing the tracks to be forgeries, upon further examination noticed what he believes is evidence of a high degree of flexibility in the print and a mid-tarsal break, traits he has come to believe belong to Bigfoot. Meldrum has published several academic papers ranging from vertebrate evolutionary morphology, the emergence of bipedal locomotion in modern humans and Sasquatch and is a co-editor of a series of books on paleontology. Meldrum is the author of the 2006 book Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science (ISBN 0-7653-1216-6), a companion volume to the Discovery Channel documentary of the same name.

Here is a paper of academia written by Meldrum.

Midfoot Flexibility, Fossil Footprints, and Sasquatch Steps: New Perspectives on the Evolution of Bipedalism D. JEFFREY MELDRUM Dept. of Biological Sciences Idaho State University Pocatello, ID 83209-8007 [email protected]

http://www.scientificexploration.org/jse/articles/pdf/18.1_meldrum.pdf

And another:

EVALUATION OF ALLEGED SASQUATCH FOOTPRINTS AND THEIR INFERRED FUNCTIONAL MORPHOLOGY D. JEFFREY MELDRUM, Department of Biological Sciences, Idaho State University

http://www.isu.edu/~meldd/fxnlmorph.html

Notice the remarkable differences between human and sasquatch footprints in the Author’s reconstruction. This model supports Krantz’s discoveries.

******************************************************

I’ve already touched on Jimmy Chilcutt earlier in the thread. If you recall, Chilcutt is the worlds formost expert on primate fingerprints and Dermal Ridges. http://www.jhcforensicconsultant.com/

Chilcutt was never a believer in bigfoot, and after watching a tv program where Jeff Meldrum, associate professor of anatomy at Idaho State University, was displaying a bigfoot casting showing dermal ridges, Chilcutt decided that he wanted to examine these prints in order to prove they were fake. After getting a hold of Meldrum and examining his collection he was quit surprised. Not only could he not dubunk the casts but he found that the dermal ridge patterns were unlike humans or apes. The patterns were very consitent throughout Meldrum's collection even though they were made by different indivduals at different times and found at different locations. Officer Jimmy Chilcutt now believes that there is an animal in the Pacific Northwest that we have never documented.

I could go on and on…

Until the owner confessed it was a hoax.

Why did they do it? Same reason people are tromping around in hairy suits and walking in made-up big feet. It's a goof.

Can you imagine these hoaxsters watching all the serious tv shows about bigfoot? They must get quite a chuckle.

Since you brought up Lockness as a counter arguement however let's get our facts straight. Here is a fact:

The guy that took the photo " Ian Wetherell", never admitted it was a hoax. After Ians death, his stepbrother "Christian Spurling", then 90, claimed he was approached to make the fake Nessie out of a toy submarine which has never been recovered.

I'm inclined to believe that particular photo was a hoax but that doesn't invalidate the tons of solid evidence for Bigfoot.

I'm surprised you only had that weak argument! Are you running out of steam?

Since you are the expert on both Bigfoot and Lockness...perhaps you can explain away the physical expert testemonies given on the Bigfoot prints and contrast that with the physical evidence of Lockness?

My mind is open...

Multiple a couple of years ago there was a big thing in Grants Pass Or, about a doctor and his family that saw a bigfoot at Oregon CAves when they were hiking. Do you know anything about that and was that supposedly a real sighting or just a hoax? I know it was all over in the papers and on tv and then nothing . It just went away in one day.

Is this what you were looking for?

Oregon pyschologist, Dr. Matthew A. Johnson, observes a creature resembling Bigfoot about 60 feet away while hiking on a trail with his family.

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=678

That's it. Just 6. Then when looking into who Jimmy Chilcutt is and why he believes those 6 sets of prints are real, I found this as explanation on the "physical expert testemonies" regarding Bigfootprints.

http://csicop.org/sb/2006-09/bigfoot.html

and here

http://orgoneresearch.com/ridges_and_furrows.htm

Bowsniper, as Sanctum stated above, you are only looking at web versions of videos, you in all your uncompromising wisdom, are only looking at pixellated video and images. I made the point that I WAS NOT intending to provide you the proof you seek, but you are acting almost like HerdManager here, who himself has sufficiently demonstrated to his peers here how immature he can be. Others recognize this and have pointed it out. Don't you see this and that maybe you are the ones being unreasonable and literally OBSTINATE.

Does it not make sense to you why a DNR would not admit that the subject in the Jacob's photos was something as controversial as sasquatch. That is one of the major fronts under way within the field today, erasing the fear of stigma surrounding the subject and convincing other agencies to freely talk about it. A stigma most perpetrated by individuals like yourself. And yet, there are more and more officials within agencies who have come forward attesting to their belief that these creatures exist. Take for example the US Forest Service Archeologist Kathy Moskowitz Strain as referenced above. You both conveniently avoid recognizing the significance of when credentialed professionals put their reputation on the line. Maybe try accepting that it is YOU who DO NOT have the background knowledge here in the first place. Then accept that maybe there is room within your own self to grow and learn about it. That's what normal people do in life every day. I would not presume to know more about bow hunting then you. Can you offer the same courtesy with subjects well outside your area of expertise?

One stark reality within this thread is becoming strikingly clear. There ARE a small handful of individuals here who have been plain immature, whose intentions are to undermine a mature discussion no matter what. They ignore the fact that there are thousands of pieces of evidence to support existence of these creatures and sightings, experienced by people from all walks of life. They counter with little more then hyperbole. They conveniently ignore the fact that some highly respected scientists (most who entered the subject as skeptics) have changed their minds and put their reputation on the line after researching the evidence themselves. You Bowsniper and you HerdManager do NOT have the qualifications to accomplish any such arguable skepticism, yet alone be able to adequately investigate & analyze the evidence. Are you not concerned that maybe you are appearing foolish with your misinformed, often immature retorts, and doing so in front of a lot of peers who you want to take you seriously in other threads? The limelight appears to be shining upon you and HerdManager as much as the topic itself. There are members here who would like to be able to discuss the subject without your continued attempts to inflame the topic. You do not seem to understand the principle behind being 'open minded'. You cannot even realign your position when faced with the STARK fact that there are a number of expert scientists who themselves have put their reputations on the line after becoming convinced. Go on, ignore it, you've done a good job of it so far.

Hi Owl, there are probably a few reasons for that behavior that many have experienced. The two most reasonable ones, and depending on the size of rocks being thrown in the incidents you are referring to, are as follows. You see, some have had pebbles and small pinecones thrown at them, which does not indicate aggression, but may be play or teasing us instead. As for those who have had larger rocks, sticks, and even logs thrown 'towards' them, it is likely intended to scare off the human intruders. This could be because there are young in an area, it could be due to an injured or old bigfoot nearby, it could simply be territorial. I have not read one incident myself where anybody was actually hit by an object that could hurt them, but many have been hit by smaller pebbles and cones. It is believed that sasquatch have excellent throwing aim and the variety of reports support this. Last year I found a NEAT little pile of feathers from a Blue Jay on the ground. I know of no other animal in the forest who piles the feathers neatly. Others have found such piles as well as including picked bones. Anyway, there are many instances where sasquatch have seemingly intended to reveal themselves to humans. But they are often like a kid hiding behind a tree and peeking out. Some encounters happen in daylight too. Our behavior also seems to dictate their response many times. When we run scared, they often lose interest. But sometimes they will literally 'escort' a person or persons completely out of an area, and the humans do not argue with them or stick around for a photo op. They are literally scared for their lives and the only thing on their minds is safety. There are just a variety of responses and behavior to these encounters. Anyway, they are curious about us and that is a characteristic that some of us can attempt to use to try and understand them.

Thank you Sanctum for your input here because there are plenty of issues I have not investigated and you fill in some important gaps.

Please BowSniper and HerdManager, think about how others view some of your retorts.

Dave

You are relying on skeptics who themselves have published stuff that they twist to suit their needs. And the 6 prints Chilcutt examined are only pertaining to that story. Figure it out BowSniper and read between the lines. He has become an expert, that involves a little more then 6 casts don't ya think?

I've been following this thread for days and only now have felt like creating an account and posting. Some of the posts are amusing but most are just ignorant. I don't have the experience of seeing what you saw ME, but am 46 years old and have been traipsing through the Oregon wilderness since I was very young.

I haven't seen a sasquatch, but I am CONVINCED that I heard one bellowing one night a long time ago. Since I have lived in the Oregon woods my entire life, I'm pretty sure I can say unequivocally that I have spent more time in those woods than any person on here and can say with absolute certainty that it was no KNOWN animal making those utterances and I've heard them all.

Before you ask MultipleEncounters, I have spoken with Dr. Fahrenbach about those vocalizations and he agrees as to their origin. They were 150% primate.

As for HerdManager, if that's really your backyard might I suggest a few applications by TruGreen Chemlawn? That looks more like the fields my horses graze in.

I like the quality of the information and presentation by Sanctum much better. I thank you for your contributions and will try to look into them as time allows. No one is expecting you to suddenly prove what has never been proven, but rather I'd like to see what you guys think is credible evidence so we can take a gander at the best the BF community has to offer. Heck, we are on the front lines out there and I'd like to think a bowhunter will bring one in if there is such a thing. Maybe with those cool dynamite arrows from the Dukes of Hazard :-)

The patterson video is held as the irrefutable BF evidence and best video ever. It hard to say it has never been proven to be a hoax, depending on what level of proof you are looking for. Here is a good article from encyclopedia.com

http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-118955904.html

I think its significant that the guy who wore the suit confessed and passed two lie detector tests. While I would admit that those lie detector tests are hardly perfect, it is very telling that Gimlin (the only surviving member of the two guys who made the video) has refused to take the same lie detector test himself.

There is plenty to dispute in the Patterson story on both sides of the coin, but I think a truly open mind will find that the bulk of the evidence presents the greater liklihood of a hoax.

That isn't trying to make the argument that BigFoot can't be out there. Heck, he writes in all the time and is brilliant!! I just happen to think all of the "evidence" I have looked into so far doesn't even make a dent against sound reasoning and modern science.

Blaise, maybe she did not feel entirely comfortable speaking freely with you either? How many books did she say she has on the subject in that interview? It is only the outspoken few skeptics who consider Meldrum an embarrassment. Others are just fine with it.

Well, will check in later guys...

Dave

Bowsniper, the proof isn't here or even on the net. It's in the field if you are open minded enough to look at what we've been trying to point out. That is the point of being open minded if you are indeed an outdoorsman at heart.

I am also, as much, if not more of a hunter as you. And there seems to be a number of other hunters here, who being "kooky", have admitted to seeing and hearing things in the field that fit the descriptions of what is being discussed. It is hunters after all who comprise a great deal of encounters that you want to refuse accepting as possible.

I'll let Sanctum address Gimlin.

Believer, did those howls sound anything like these? It is important to listen to these using only quality headphones or good speakers. The stock speakers of your desktop or laptop will not allow you to differentiate the coyotes from the main vocalist. The coyotes actually start up after the loud one. Turn up the volume! I have also heard these howls, very large with massive lungs. Scary when you are near it.

http://www.stancourtney.com/sounds/05.18.2006IllinoisHowl.mp3

http://www.stancourtney.com/sounds/04.04.2006IllinoisHowl.mp3

There is a problem with my sound card which won't allow thos MP3 files to play on my computer. I will have to do some digging to see if I can rectify the problem.

If you've listened to the "Sierra Sounds" CDs recorded by Ron Morehead and Alan Berry, then you've got a pretty accurate discription of what I listened to for what seemed like hours one night, and yes I was scared. Whatever was outside my tent was a lot bigger than I, didn't sound real happy, and like I said, sounded 100% primate in origin.

For you skeptics out there, I suggest you get your hands on those CDs. They are often overlooked as evidence but in my mind are some of the best evidence out there, as they have been studied and no evidence of a hoax has ever been forwarded.

On the contrary, sound experts at the Univerity of Wyoming determined that using testing in pitch and vocal tract length, one of the creatures heard on the recordings was in the neighborhood of 8 feet tall.

These tapes were made in the early 1970's and Morehead and Berry have always made them available to any reputable scientific institution that wants to study them using today's advanced methods. So far there haven't been any takers. Hmmmm, I wonder why....

Because if they did study them and come to the same conclusion that the U. of Wyoming did, they might suffer some of the same ridicule that plagues guys like MultipleEncounters perhaps?

Just a thought, since they've been open for study for over 30 years now and only ONE university has had the balls to take a look at them...

That's it. Just 6. Then when looking into who Jimmy Chilcutt is and why he believes those 6 sets of prints are real, I found this as explanation on the "physical expert testemonies" regarding Bigfootprints."

It only takes 1 print with dermal ridges. Your physical “expert” is a pharmacist turned artist and I’ll name him later? Exactly what area of expertise does he have? He examined 1 cast. Just 1. And based his conclusion on 1 case under very ideal circumstances that do not hold true for all prints with dermal ridges. I do admit that Jeffrey Meldrum and Jimmy Chilcutt were impressed enough with is work to check their results again.

Bowsnipers Supporting link: http://csicop.org/sb/2006-09/bigfoot.html

This site (Skeptical Inquirer) is not known as the most um...reliable source for debunking and is often compared to the national magazine that with a similar name. The sole purpose of this organization is to debunk anything they consider fringe or paranormal and they often use preliminary and incomplete sources. I'm highly skeptical (Pardon the pun) of the statements they attribute to the parties involved. It's hard to believe that some artifact of casting will produce dermal ridges complete with sweat pores realistic enough to fool a fingerprint expert. After seeing this report Jimmy Chilcutt stands by his reputation.

and here

Bowsnipers Supporting Link: http://orgoneresearch.com/ridges_and_furrows.htm

Still sticking to your pattern, it is still a "Skeptical Inquirer" article" It references the same research done in the previous article. The person conducting the experiments is not named but I’ll supply that later. This guy does go to a lot of trouble to show artifacting in a somewhat dermal ridge pattern... It does fall short in a couple of areas though.

1) This guy has a specific gripe with the Onion Mountain print (the only print he examined). He claims that BF tracks do not show flexion creases but there are clearly a major flexion crease in that particular print. I've seen countless other casts that exhibit these same "nonexistent" flexion creases.

2) In addition to dermal ridges the BF prints Chilcutt examined showed sweat pores that could not be mistaken for air bubbles. These are present in all primates and break the dermal ridges in predictable patterns. There is no mention of sweat pores in the article.

3) Also present are indications of healed scars in many prints. Any primate with somewhat soft soles would naturally get cuts on the bottom of it's feet. These scars heal in predictable and consistant patterns that have been present in the prints. How does the author of this article account for that? No mention there but to be fair…I did find a response from the author of the article which I will put in print at the conclusion of this post!

4) Would the artifacting in left and right examples form the same creature produce mirror images of each other as they would be expected to do if they were dermal ridges? I think not! Benny Kling, Law Enforcement Academy Instructor, Douglas, Wyoming, has examined and inked latex lifts and original casts and drew the conclusion that "...breakdown and smoothing of the ridges under weight-bearing areas, as might be expected of a living foot, are near mirror images; some dysplasia is indicated where it could be expected, smoothing by wear shows on the weight-bearing areas."

5) A quote from Dr. Meldrums book (Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science)...Two consecutive paragraphs word for word with no breaks.

"Questions still remain concerning the possible occurrence of pouring artifact under hot, exceptionally dry conditions and further experimentation is needed. This challenge has been taken on by an amateur investigator, Matt Crowley, whose preliminary results raise questions specifically about interpretation of the Onion Mountain cast features as dermatoglyphics.

Chilcutt spent another couple of days scrutinizing the casts and comparing them with representative ape and human inked prints that he had brought along from his collection. During a break for lunch, Chilcutt broke a reflective moment of silence by turning to me and emphatically declaring, "Jeff, these animals REALLY exists! What do you plan to do about it?"

Yep…I verified that Crowley is our guy!

Chilcutt still stands by his analysis even after Crowleys preliminary results are made known to him.

*******************************

I later some posts by Crowley on a forum he frequents:

Question from a poster: "That is some awsome work, tube!

Have you noticed any casting artifacts that resembled scars? I remember Mr. Chilcutt mentioning scars found within some "dermal ridges" on track casts. He said the scars tend to turn inwards within the ridges. Anything like that?"

Crowley wrote: “Good question. As far as I know Mr. Chilcutt was refering to Paul Freeman's "Wrinkle Foot" cast. I'm not completely sure of this so please refer to Mr. Chilcutt's work directly. The ridge artifacts I am seeing on my tests are significantly different than the ridges on the Wrinkle Foot cast. First of all, the wrinkle foot cast was made in mud and so I believe this artifact process was not involved. Secondly, the ridges on Wrinkle Foot are much more "dendritic" or branched than those produced by the ridge artifact process. Dr. Meldrum agrees with the interpretation that the ridges are dendritic.

Beyond that I offer no opinion. Clearly this footprint cast is controversial as to whether it was made by a Sasquatch or was a hoax. Dahinden's position seemed to be that it was a hoax and therefore any surface features are irrelevant. I disagree. I believe that even if it was a hoax that it is worthwhile to try and figure out how the surface features got there. If one guy could engage in a profoundly subtle and sophisticated hoax, someone else could too.

It is certainly possible that Mr. Chilcutt is right on the money with this one and if so we all better listen up.

I'm not qualified to recognise what would constitute a scar on a footprint cast."

Straight from the horses mouth. He has examined exactly one cast…and does not believe the artifact process was involved in at least one other print showing dermal ridges.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8dmHObf3OY

BUT, I have talked with enough credible people that have seen the real deal and gathered what I THINK would be a fair knowledge of what to look for. I don't see any of it in this video. For one thing, if this primate exists and I believe it does, it has hair not fur. That looks like fur on the subject in the video to me, and that spells monkey suit.

-Yup.

That photo with Michael Waddel is my neighbor Frank. He lives two redwoods down from me with his "life partner", Danny. Yes, even us Sasquatches have those kind too.

Any photos of a Sasquatch with the "Getting Close" couple, Lee and Tiffany?

I tell ya, if I ever find them in the woods, I'm gonna snap that Lee's neck like a twig and take Tiffany back to the redwood with me.

Big Foot LIKE Tiffany.......rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

Are you guys watching Dancing With The Stars? A bunch of big burley outdoorsmen and you're watching that girly boy crap.

In all cases its either a hoax or simple misidentification, based on wishful thinking and fantasy, then wrapped in kooky hysteria and delusion. With a furry little bow on top.

Its entertaining for a while and then becomes redundant and annoying. Now I understand why these posts eventually get deleted, and why these bigfoot believers and self proclaimed experts are eventually shunned to their own little world of dedicated bigfoot forums and conspiracy chatrooms. Main stream science and education has long since given up on these people. I should as well.

Its all a big Zen riddle... if Bigfoot makes a tree fall in the forest, does anyone really believe it??

rrrrrrrrrrrrrr-o-o-o-o-rrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!!!

Hope I got the right one this time, supposed to be from a trail cam.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mHVFE02NTgU

30 years ago a found tracks in the bush and followed them to a cave type thing in a rock hill which was adjacent to a huge cedar bog.

The tracks lead me to a perfect, flattened out bed in the moss.

Never seen any creature.

There is no dought that something exicts that hunmans have not fully dicovered.

Actually that's Oliver the chimp. He was a fascinating chimpanzee who was very human-like and walked around like a human too. They just boosted a section of video from archived footage trying to get away with hoaxing a sasquatch.

Big Foot, I also want you to know you are welcome over at the place where we talk about you all the time. You are already well loved there and we know you are real. No talk of hunting you is even allowed there (even though many there are hunters). Maybe some day you will even be presented ambassadorship between those who know you exist and those who don't.

You might be asked to wear a suit to some dinner parties, and occasionally wash however. A bath might even turn Tiffany on.

Dave

She thinks I don't love her anymore and that there is no romance left in our marriage. But if the fat cow would just loose some weight and get a Brazalian. Oh my God! Does she ever need a Brazalian!

MultipleEncounters,

Yes, a bath might turn Tiffany on, but do you think my shoe size will, too?

Thanks for the compliment. I surely hope Bigfoot isn’t brought in by a bowhunter but it would, surely, solve the mystery once and for all. I’m of the live and let live persuasion when it comes to intelligent bipedal primates.

Bowsniper supporting link: http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1G1-118955904.html

We discussed most of that already but I give you credit for using a link not related to “Skeptical Inquirer” this time.

This article bases it’s conclusions on the findings of Seattle-based author Greg Long. Greg Long reveals details of the “hoax” also clandestinely involved author Kal Korff. They were promoting their book when this article was written. The details of the witnesses are convoluted, inconsistent and ever changing.

Star witness form this article: Bob Heironimus claims he was the man behind the mask. He has told an ever evolving story with many contradictions since 2004. He is looking for money…he states he is entitled to it. Sounds like a reason to make up a lie to me. “Heironimus claims that the Bigfoot costume was made of synthetic fur and bits of leather from a horse's hide. Patterson had added "breasts" to the chest of the Bigfoot creature. Heironimus also remembers that it contained football shoulder pads inside it to "bulk it up," and that the head piece was, in fact, a dressed-up football helmet that had a mask attached to the front of it with two slits to look through. "Because the eyeholes were a little more than an inch away from my face, it was hard to see in that mask."”

Originally…Bob claimed it was a horse hide costume. Later he changed it to mostly synthetic with bits of horse so his story would “fit” the next witness. How were natural looking breasts added to a synthetic costume? The Morris’ said they didn’t do it. Were two hick cowboys capable of including that believable detail? In the film the shoulders show natural muscle movement. I used to play football…I don’t remember anything natural about the movement of football shoulder pads. Also Bob says the head was a dressed up football helmet. It doesn’t look anything like a helmet to me. In fact…when Morris later produced a facsimile of the suit he says was used in the Patterson-Gimlin film it contained no helmet and no way to put a helmet inside it. Additionally, recent enhancements have revealed natural jaw movement in the subject. How is that accomplished in a helmet?

Supporting Witnesses: “Philip Morris, the man who actually made and sold a gorilla suit to Roger Patterson the one later used (with modifications) in his famous film.” Morris recalls, "So I took one of my gorilla suits and shipped it to him. Parcel post, if I remember, it was a standard suit we sold to all our customers. Then, not long after he would have received the suit, I got a call from him. He said he had received the suit, and that it seemed okay, but, he said, 'I can see the zipper in the back.' I told him, 'Just brush the fur down over the zipper.' The fur on the suit was a material called Dynel. It was a nylon fiber, a popular material back then. It was used on lots of things, like plush toys, bathroom rugs, toilet seats. I bought it from my supplier in only two colors, black and brown. Then Roger wanted to know how to make the arms longer. I said, 'Find a shovel handle or a stick and slip it in the sleeves. Then attach the gloves to the stick.' That's how to extend the arms in a costume. You screw the gloves onto the stick. Then he said he wanted to make the shoulders more massive. I told him to go down to a local high school and get some old football pads--the coaches would probably be happy to get rid of some old, cracked ones--and put them in the shoulders."

Hold on! The whole suit was Dynel? Have you ever seen Dynel? It is the most unnatural looking fur-like material imaginable. BBC used Brown Dynel in their pitiful recreation of the Patterson-Gimlin Film. It didn’t show wear patterns, the light shown through it and lit it up like a fire. The brown Dynel looks like a bright orange clown suit in natural lighting. There is no way a Dynel suit would even come close to fooling anyone. The whole episode was a high dollar disaster. Besides the material used, there were many other inconsistencies in the appearance of the suit…how it was donned and how many parts it had. These inconsistent storied between Morris and Heironimus are not mentioned.

BBC with a huge budget could not duplicate the costume, or make a reasonable recreation of the Patterson-Gimlin footage. Look for yourself!

Side by side comparison: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YktEWmLVTvM

Bowsniper Wrote: I think its significant that the guy who wore the suit confessed and passed two lie detector tests. While I would admit that those lie detector tests are hardly perfect, it is very telling that Gimlin (the only surviving member of the two guys who made the video) has refused to take the same lie detector test himself.

I don’t think it is significant at all that a known pathological liar can pass a lie detector test depending on who administers the test. This is significant however... Heironimus and Morris describing ape suits that are in many respects quite different:

• Heironimus says he was told by his brother Howard that the suit was manufactured by Patterson from a "real dark brown" horse hide (Long, 344). This point is repeated several times: "It stunk: Roger skinned out a dead, red horse" (ibid). • Morris reports that the suit was a rather expensive ($450) dark brown model with fur made of Dynel, a synthetic material. Long writes that Morris "used Dynel solely in the sixties--and was using brown Dynel in 1967".(Long, 449) • Heironimus described the suit as having no metal pieces and an upper "torso part" that he donned "like putting on a T-shirt" (Long, 344–45). At Bluff Creek he put on "the top" (Long, 349). Asked about the "bottom portion," he guessed it was cinched with a drawstring. • Morris made a one-piece union suit with a metal zipper up the back and into which one stepped (Long, 449). • Heironimus described the suit as having hands and feet that were attached to the arms and legs. • Morris made a suit whose hands and feet were separate pieces. Long speculates that Patterson riveted or glued these parts to the suit.

People that know Hieronymus characterize him as a huckster. Here is a statement from a former student of his:

“Bob Hieronymus taught me art at Rosedale elementary school back in the 1960's in Baltimore. Him and his wife are the biggest jokes in the world. He tried to get all us kids to give all our "old" comic books to him. He must have known they would be worth something one day. Thats nice trying to make money by stealing kids comic books. We called him Mr. Hippopotamus.”

But Tell you what…I’ll let you look at the best footage of Mr. Hieronymus in a suit. This is the best Morris could come up with after almost 40 years? He says this is an exact replica of the original suit. Nothing at all looks realistic in these clips. Nice try Mr. Morris.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMPmMJeEoqY

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYuSc-G2Tkw

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HCzRBzBmUjE

Here is a really good link that discusses various things about the Patterson-Gimlin including the many ways it has been “exposed”:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patterson-Gimlin_film

Anyway, it was only 6 months ago that this guide and I began having a few discussions about these creatures and some of the sign in the woods. He admitted he has seen some of this sign but like Sixby, he just never had an explanation for it. Now that we have talked, and he has read a little more on the subject, he is open minded, especially since he knows other woodsman who have claimed in the past of encountering some things.

Next time deep in the woods Idahobowhunter, look for the sign we have discussed throughout this thread. Examine it closely. Make sure some of those explanations above of possible causes, did not have an influence.

Eric, here is a short clip on Oliver the chimp. Many called him a Humanzee. A truly fascinating enigma. There are six parts for anyone truly interested. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-C6NkRUbI38

Chip, got to read your last comment before pushing the submit button. One thing this thread will accomplish is that bowhunters in general will be able to discuss the subject with a little more insight and open mindedness. Highly unlikely that the host of a show would perpetrate any such hoax as it would be seen as a betrayal by his viewers. More likely he was truly unaware of 'what' crossed his game-cam's path. Maybe they also found tracks there when they returned, maybe not? But at least if there is an evolution here and elsewhere on the subject, then Fred E. will find it easier to step forward and talk about it. It would really help us all however, if he would share his highest quality video with the public. Unless they have some absolutely amazing additional footage that hasn't been released, the existing frames won't conclude the mystery and aren't a source of financial gain, but better quality will help the public.

- That's hilarious.:)

And you didn't address why Gimlin won't take a similar lie detector test. If they both pass the test, I would be totally fine with ruling both lie detector tests as a draw.

The references to the BBC as having spent the "most money" put towards trying to duplicate this are weak. What did they spend... a few quid and sixpence?? Their efforts were worse than those highschool kids on the other Youtube video passed around here as "interesting". That other video would be better described as Laughable. Getting back to the Patterson video, Hollywood has pulled this off hundreds of times with far better success. King Kong movies go back to 1933, all the way up to Harry and the Hendersons.

If the BBC effort was such a professional job that pretends to show that the Patterson films cannot be duplicated, then why does your other video clips of Bob H. in his monkey suit trying to repeat the performance look so much better? Analysis of the Patterson film sets the creature to be a little over 6 feet (same as Bob H.). Hardly the 8 ft giant !!

I'd like to see decent images (video or still) that are not tied to someone in the business of making money off their story or having been caught previously trying to run around with fake footprints of bigfoot. That knocks off the Patterson film and the Freeman film, if you ask me.

The problem with the Jacob's pictures are that it looks like a mangy bear. The first picture a half hour earlier is clearly a bear. And the second two pics are taken moments apart, so they are both the same animal and either picture can be used to draw a conclusion. And #2 is a mangy bear! Now if this is supposed to be a young bigfoot, where are its big feet? They don't look like anything at all like anything ever presented as bigfoot prints. None of the pics even have it up on two legs. It is NOT doing anything that would match any other evidence ever presented for bigfoot, other than looking like a bear with long legs and bear feet. I'd like to agree that this is NOT a sasquatch so we can keep ruling out the bad evidence one after another until we can see what good evidence remains in the end.

PROFESSOR'S BIGFOOT RESEARCH CRITICIZED

By JESSE HARLAN ALDERMAN The Associated Press Saturday, November 4, 2006; 5:26 AM

POCATELLO, Idaho -- Jeffrey Meldrum holds a Ph.D. in anatomical sciences and is a tenured professor of anatomy at Idaho State University. He is also one of the world's foremost authorities on Bigfoot, the mythical smelly ape-man of the Northwest woods. And Meldrum firmly believes the lumbering, shaggy brute exists.

That makes him an outcast _ a solitary, Sasquatch-like figure himself _ on the 12,700-student campus, where many scientists are embarrassed by what they call Meldrum's "pseudo-academic" pursuits and have called on the university to review his work with an eye toward revoking his tenure. One physics professor, D.P. Wells, wonders whether Meldrum plans to research Santa Claus, too.

Jeffrey Meldrum displays what he describes as a casting of a footprint from a 'Bigfoot' creature, taken in the Blue Mountains of eastern Washington, in his laboratory at Idaho State University in Pocatello in a Sept. 19, 2006 file photo. Meldrum holds a Ph.D. in anatomical sciences and is a tenured professor of anatomy at the school, and also one of the world's foremost expert on Bigfoot,the mythical smelly ape-man of the Northwest woods. Many scientists at the school are embarrassed by what they call Meldrum's "pseudo-academic" pursuits and have called on the university to review his work with an eye toward revoking his tenure.

Meldrum, 48, spends most of his days in his laboratory in the Life Sciences Building, analyzing more than 200 jumbo plaster casts of what he contends are Bigfoot footprints.

For the past 10 years, he has added his scholarly sounding research to a field full of sham videos and supermarket tabloid exposes. And he is convinced he has produced a body of evidence that proves there is a Bigfoot.

"It used to be you went to a bookstore and asked for a book on Bigfoot and you'd be directed to the occult section, right between the Bermuda Triangle and UFOs," Meldrum said. "Now you can find some in the natural science section."

Martin Hackworth, a senior lecturer in the physics department, called Meldrum's research a "joke."

"Do I cringe when I see the Discovery Channel and I see Idaho State University, Jeff Meldrum? Yes, I do," Hackworth said. "He believes he's taken up the cause of people who have been shut out by the scientific community. He's lionized there. He's worshipped. He walks on water. It's embarrassing."

John Kijinski, dean of arts and sciences, said there have been "grumblings" about Meldrum's tenure, but no formal request for a review.

"He's a bona fide scientist," Kijinski said. "I think he helps this university. He provides a form of open discussion and dissenting viewpoints that may not be popular with the scientific community, but that's what academics all about."

On campus, Meldrum _ himself a hulking figure, with a mop of brown hair, a bristly silver mustache, and a black T-shirt with a silhouette of a hunchbacked, lurking Bigfoot _ gets funny looks and the silent treatment from other scientists, and is not invited to share coffee with the other science professors.

Over the summer, more than 30 professors signed a petition criticizing the university for hosting a Bigfoot symposium where Meldrum was the keynote speaker.

He pays for his research with a $30,000 donation from a Bigfoot believer.

Still, Meldrum has a distinguished supporter in Jane Goodall, the world-famous authority on African chimpanzees. Her blurb on the jacket of Meldrum's new book, "Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science," lauds him for bringing "a much-needed level of scientific analysis" to the Bigfoot debate.

"As a scientist, she's very curious and she keeps an open mind," said Goodall spokeswoman Nona Gandelman. "She's fascinated by it."

Bigfoot is sort of the Loch Ness Monster of the Pacific Northwest. The legend dates back centuries. Indian folklore includes murmurs of a man-ape that roams the hidden hollows. Sasquatch is a Salish Indian word meaning woodland wildman.

Newspapers began recording sightings of Bigfoot in the backwoods during the 1920s. But skeptics have challenged the accounts, and practical jokers have staged elaborate hoaxes, including grainy film footage of someone in a monkey suit and phony footprints stamped into the ground with giant molded feet.

Meldrum said it was a decade ago in Walla Walla, Wash., that he first discovered flat 15-inch footprints in the woods. He said he thought initially that they were a hoax, but noticed locked joints and a narrow arch _ traits he came to believe could only belong to Bigfoot.

"That's what set the hook," Meldrum said. "I resolved at this point, this was a question I'd get to the bottom of."

When not in the lab, he loads his Chevy Suburban with tents and forensic gear and heads for the woods of Washington state and Northern California, where he has collected what he says are footprints, hair and feces from the ape-man. He tests hair samples and uses physics to produce charts that purport to show how Bigfoot would walk.

Meldrum wonders aloud how much longer he will be on the faculty. But he said he also dreams of one day bringing back a bone or a tooth or some skin, and silencing the "stuffy academics."

"Is the theory of exploration dead?" he asked. "I'm not out to proselytize that Bigfoot exists. I place legend under scrutiny and my conclusion is, absolutely, Bigfoot exists."

I would put myself in the side of 'believers' in a North American Great Ape, and I have looked at both arguments by both camps. In the end in my mind it becomes a he-said/he-said argument that is going to be tough either way. Both sides have problems in their cases. So for me, it boils down to what do I see when I look at stills of the film.

As the film has been digitized, enhanced and enlarged using technologies that Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin would have had now way to fathom were coming, and I see the result of those techniques, I don't see a monkey mask over a football helmet.

When you look at this photo, do you?

Many of those same people's eyebrows raised when Dr. Daris Swindler from the University of Washington came down as saying there is a most definite possibility of the existence of sasquatch. Several said, "Daris said that???" and then just left it alone, because they know Dr. Swindler is EXTREMELY respected in his field, and is considered one of the world's foremost experts on primates. His opinion is a little tougher for them to criticize.

Yes, there are peers of Dr. Meldrum, who critizise him, all issues of controversy have skeptics. This is true throughout history with almost every great discovery there have been. From the solar system to gravity. Meldrum is also praised for having the guts to stick to his guns. All great discoveries are made in the face of doubters and their criticism. Happens time and time again. What is the point being made about receiving criticism? We all face it when we pursue something new and different. Good for Meldrum for bucking the stupid system of closed minded sheep which society has too many of in the first place. That's what the pursuit of knowledge is all about BowSniper!

The figure in the Jacob's photos is likely a juvenile, not an adult with mature physical characteristics like giant feet you seek to see. Baby bears are not born with feet the size of adults. Same with human children. What is the mystery there?

It is only the second photo that skeptics try to claim is a mangy bear. But then address the third photo with that question, they cannot do the same. No bear stands like that. Both photos must be viewed in context because of their timing, not what one discounts from one photo and then cannot be discounted from the second.

The tide is turning on this issue being discussed here. There are a few holdouts but it is becoming more possible to the rest that something is probably out there. I know there are many open minded people on this list because some have posted here and others have contacted me privately. Many of them have apologized for the behavior of a few and I appreciate their sentiments. There are a lot of good people here who know that our world is not so simple as what we learned about in school books growing up. These people are still expanding their minds and know that our wonderful planet is not just about us.

It is nice spar back and forth with someone that is willing to look stuff up for a change. You have some valid points but still some not so valid points.

Bowsniper Wrote: "Sanctum - My biggest issue with the defense of the Patterson film , is that the bigfoot supporters are pretending that only the "other" side of the story has inconsistencies. You've got to admit that the idea of a couple of guys forming a movie company and then going out with a camera to find bigfoot actually pull it off their first try is a cazier premise than Bob H saying he was the guy in the suit."

Patterson had the Bigfoot bug. He was making a documentary. He visited an out of the way area where his research showed BF sightings had often occurred, just as anyone making a documentary would do. He did not expect to see Bigfoot. He just happened to run into one. I presume he HOPED to film one. Still, it is a pretty big coincidence that one showed up after only two days in the field but not beyond the realm of possibilities. What is more improbable to me is that he had ability to pull off one of the greatest hoaxes of all time without having a clue about basic primate anatomy and locomotion. If Someone from BFRO...who is actually looking for Bigfoot finds him the world will say the same thing. It is a circular argument and one we can't win.

Bowsniper Wrote: "And you did not address at all the part of the story on Encyclopedia.com where they had witnesses saying Patterson was making mockups of bigfoot prints prior to their reported discovery. I'd like to see your same open-minded skeptical analysis put towards why the Patterson film could very well be a hoax. Don;t jsut pick and choose which side of the story and which parts of each story to agree with and defend. Its selective science for predetermined outcomes that hurts bigfoot credibility."

There is no proof Patterson was creating mockups. Why is it that a few people looking for money or fame come forward 40 years later to claim all this stuff rather than expose the hoax when they first found out about it? Even if Patterson was making mockup prints, that is not uncommon when creating a documentary. Bowsniper Wrote: "And you didn't address why Gimlin won't take a similar lie detector test. If they both pass the test, I would be totally fine with ruling both lie detector tests as a draw."

I haven't found any credible link saying that Gimlin wouldn't take a polygraph test. I might have missed something. Please provide your link and I'll look into it. I personally don't find polygraph tests credible and wouldn't want to take one either. I was interviewed for the "White House Communications Agency" back in the mid 90's and the stress alone from an interview like that can invalidate the results. I passed that polygraph but even if I hadn't those tests is not the sole basis for hiring anyone to work for the President. I know of several people who have claimed to have been abducted by aliens that HAVE passed a lie detector test though.

Bowsniper Wrote: "The references to the BBC as having spent the "most money" put towards trying to duplicate this are weak. What did they spend... a few quid and sixpence?? Their efforts were worse than those highschool kids on the other Youtube video passed around here as "interesting". That other video would be better described as Laughable."

I don't know the exact amount but BBC has a pretty good budget. Certainly more than Roger Patterson had. The suit was supposedly made of the same material that Morris said he made the "Patty" suit out of and created with 1967 technology. Also the recreation was in the exact spot that "Patty" was filmed.

Bowsniper Wrote: "Getting back to the Patterson video, Hollywood has pulled this off hundreds of times with far better success. King Kong movies go back to 1933, all the way up to Harry and the Hendersons."

I disagree entirely. The 1933 King Kong was a doll and did not look real at all. No one has implied that the Patterson Creature was a doll. It's height is measurable. The 1987 movie Harry and the Henderson’s, used animatronics and other technology that was ultimately more sophisticated than anything in 1967. Still...I doubt if anyone dressed up in that suit and tromped around in the woods it wouldn’t be recognized for what it is. Currently movies use CGI and other special effects to create much more realistic looking monsters. Today's technology only makes it that much more difficult to prove the creatures existence because any digital photo or film can be altered so easily.

Bowsniper Wrote: "If the BBC effort was such a professional job that pretends to show that the Patterson films cannot be duplicated, then why does your other video clips of Bob H. in his monkey suit trying to repeat the performance look so much better?"

I actually agree with part of this statement. The Morris Costume (made with today’s technology by a professional costume maker with 40+ years of experience) does more closely resemble the "Patty Creature." But it still is an obvious costume. Bob H. has trouble walking in it and it does not fit or piece like he says the original did. Also the proportions are all wrong. It doesn't do much for Bob's case.

Bowsniper Wrote: "Analysis of the Patterson film sets the creature to be a little over 6 feet (same as Bob H.). Hardly the 8 ft giant !!"

Correct again. The creature in the film is probably around 6'7". Even so she is still a giant. Experts estimate the creature’s weight to be between 450lbs and 800lbs. As a female of a species that exhibits gender dimorphism similar to great apes, that is a reasonable size for an adult creature. Those statistics are spot on for other sightings of Sasquatch in the 6' to 7' range.

Bob is 6'2" or 6'3"I believe. He certainly is a large man. It's not beyond the possibility that he could fit in the suit. That is...if his arms were 15% longer, his foot was 14 to 16 inches, his (graceful) stride over 3 long, and his body about 250% to 400% more massive. From what I see in those recreations he couldn’t pull it off.

Bowsniper Wrote: "I'd like to see decent images (video or still) that are not tied to someone in the business of making money off their story or having been caught previously trying to run around with fake footprints of bigfoot. That knocks off the Patterson film and the Freeman film, if you ask me."

I couldn't agree with you more. Even if we get that video from an impeccable witness (and there are many) and it is perfectly clear...with today’s technology, there will always be doubt.

Bowstriker Wrote: "The problem with the Jacob's pictures are that it looks like a mangy bear. The first picture a half hour earlier is clearly a bear. And the second two pics are taken moments apart, so they are both the same animal and either picture can be used to draw a conclusion." And #2 is a mangy bear!

There are several conclusions that can be drawn actually. You came to the conclusion that it is a bear. Others have come to the conclusion that it is a juvenile primate. Still, others have come to the conclusion that it is a hoax. I, personally, have not drawn a conclusion to the Jacobs Pictures.

Bowsniper Wrote: "Now if this is supposed to be a young bigfoot, where are its big feet? They don't look like anything at all like anything ever presented as bigfoot prints."

I already stated I am not convinced this particular photo is of a sasquatch but I can see why others do. In the daytime photos posted of this site you can see a lot of leaves on the ground. I don't know about you but when I walk in leaves you can't see my feet either. Also that would make the legs look shorter than they actually are.

Bowsniper Wrote: "None of the pics even have it up on two legs. It is NOT doing anything that would match any other evidence ever presented for bigfoot, other than looking like a bear with long legs and bear feet."

I don't think you have looked at all of the evidence so you probably are not qualified to make that statement. I have seen multiple reports stating that juvenile sasquatch use Quadra pedal locomotion. I've also seen reports that adult sasquatch use it from time to time and that they are quite fast on all fours. I've also seen reports about juvenile sasquatch being brachiates (swinging in trees). Oh...by the way...my 11 year old twin daughters move around on all fours once in a while.

Bowsniper Wrote: "I'd like to agree that this is NOT a sasquatch so we can keep ruling out the bad evidence one after another until we can see what good evidence remains in the end."

Why don't we just agree that you don't see a sasquatch and some others do. I'll agree that the Jacobs pictures are inconclusive.

Bowsniper Wrote: "Sanctum - along with full disclosure, here is a story I found from the Associated Press talking about one of the foremost experts in bigfoot 'science', Jeff Meldrum (often quoted or sourced above). This guy is clearly one of the bigfoot fan club, funded by the bigfoot fan club... and the reaction he gets from the other professors at the university where he holds his day job goes along with national sentiment and the bulk of the postings here."

Correction: Some uninformed faculty at the university think just like some of the uninformed people on this thread. Other peers that have taken the time to examine the evidence back him. Also...his peers that accredit him hold him high regard and his credentials in his areas of expertise are impeccable or he would have a hard time keeping his position don’t you think?

Sixby Wrote: "Hmmmmm So much for real science when scientist reject and shun a man for being open minded and actually researching instead of going with the flow. Sounds like this man is a real explorer and if bigfoot is real and found I hope someone like him is the one to do it and throw it in his critics scholerly faces/"

Sixby,

I'm on you with this one. Meldrum is getting the exact same kind of treatment from SOME of his peers Fred would get if he openly supported the Bigfoot Camp. From the comments made in the article I would say there is a bit of closet jealousy evident from those peers. He is a bit of celebrity on campus after all. If you are interested in Dr. Meldrums research on Sasquatch you should read the book "Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science." There is a companion CD that is also very good. It has higher quality pictures and video from several of the sources mentioned in this thread.

What about MudWhomps and Sidehill Gougers?

- BF hit and killed by car/truck

- BF hit and killed by train

- BF drowns in a flood or crossing a river and washes up near humanity

- BF gets very sick, disoriented, and wanders into humanity

- BF dies of natural causes and is found by a person

- BF accidentally shot by hunter (gun hunters accidentally shoot LOTS of stuff every year) and found

- BF killed by rockslide or mudslide and found by people

- BF killed by bear or mountain lion and remains found

- BF killed by another BF and remains found

- BF killed by lightning and remains found

- BF freezes to death and remains found

- BF slips and impales self on tree (or hits head on rock) and remains found

Wild animals live hard, short lives in an incredibly harsh and dangerous environment. What are the odds that NOT ONE of these has EVER happened? EVER! And they have never died anywhere and been fossilized?

It's almost as though they are not, and never have been, here.....................................

Butt, as far as I know, there could be Klingon's circling Uranus, as we speak.

Warp speed 9, Mr. Sulu!

Plus he is self aware, so knows to hide his dead so that we can't discover the secret subculture of giant apeas he has maintained for hundreds of thousands of years right under our noses. And there are no juvenille bigfeet doing stupid stuff and getting caught/killed like every other species because the BF are not just some other species. If they never get killed it totally PROVES there is a bigfoot because only he would be different enough to do what every animal and human has been unable to do in controllign juvenille behavior. They are so special as to have a reason we cannot possibly understand to explain away any reasonable challenge. Its the impenetrable "get-out-of-jail-free" card.

Here is the most appropriate video to explain the bigfoot phenomenon

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFBZ_uAbxS0

Listen close, listen loud, and substitute "bigfoot" where appropriate!! :-)

"If they exist and live close to people (as proposed here), what are the odds of these following things NEVER happening:

- BF hit and killed by car/truck

THEY ARE TOO INTELLIGENT FOR THIS. DO YOU RUN INTO A ROAD IF YOU HEAR A VEHICLE? THERE IS MUCH WILD COUNTRY WHERE THEY CAN AVOID US.

I ALSO KNOW THAT WHEN I CAME AROUND A CORNER AND ONE WAS CROSSING ROAD IN FRONT OF ME, I DID EVERYTHING TO SKID TO A STOP BEFORE HITTING HIM. HE WAS LARGE ENOUGH TO WHERE HE COULD HAVE PICKED THE FRONT OF MY TRUCK UP AND THREW IT OVER CLIFF. THAT WAS 31 YEARS AGO.

- BF hit and killed by train

SAME AS FIRST PART ABOVE.

- BF drowns in a flood or crossing a river and washes up near humanity

THEY ARE BELIEVED TO BE GOOD SWIMMERS, BUT NOT LIKELY DUMB ENOUGH TO SWIM INTO A FLOODED RIVER. WOULD YOU JUMP INTO A FLOODED RIVER?

- BF gets very sick, disoriented, and wanders into humanity

OTHER BF WILL TAKE CARE OF THEM. THEY KNOW HOW TO COMMUNICATE WITH ONE ANOTHER.

- BF dies of natural causes and is found by a person

SAME AND PROBABLY BURIED BY OTHER BF. THEY ARE NOT LIKE WILD MONKEYS IN INTELLIGENCE HM. THERE ARE REPORTS BY PEOPLE WHO HAVE CLAIMED TO HAVE SEEN THEM BURIED. THEY SAY NOTHING TO OTHERS BECAUSE THEY WANT TO PROTECT THEM, NOT END UP HAVING PEOPLE SHOW UP TO TRY AND HUNT THEM.

- BF accidentally shot by hunter (gun hunters accidentally shoot LOTS of stuff every year) and found

SOMETIMES THEY ARE INTENTIONALLY SHOT EVEN, BUT RARELY KILLED AND OFTEN GET AWAY. IF KILLED, OTHERS WILL TRY TO PROTECT BODY. THERE IS AN OLD MAN WHO CLAIMS TO HAVE KILLED TWO OF THEM IN TEXAS. HE IS AFRAID HE WILL BE CHARGED WITH MURDER SO ONLY AFTER HIS DEATH WILL HIS ATTORNEY RELEASE LOCATION TO SOMEONE HE TRUSTS.

THERE IS ALSO A STORY IN OKLAHOMA OF A MAN SHOOTING AND KILLING ONE. OTHER BF CAME AND CARRIED BODY AWAY, WHICH WAS LATER SEEN BY A TRUCKER CROSSING A HIGHWAY. THE PEOPLE DID NOT KNOW EACH OTHER UNTIL LATER HEARING EACH OTHER'S STORIES.

- BF killed by rockslide or mudslide and found by people

HOW MANY BEARS HAVE BEEN FOUND KILLED IN ROCKSLIDES? AND AGAIN, OTHER BF WOULD TAKE CARE OF THEM AND REMOVE BODY.

- BF killed by bear or mountain lion and remains found

BF IS THE APEX PREDATOR IN WOODS. MOUNTAIN LION IS NOT A FACTOR. ONLY GRIZ WOULD BE AN ISSUE AND THAT IS A TOSS UP, ESPECIALLY IF THERE WERE MORE THEN ONE BF IN AREA AS THERE USUALLY ARE.

- BF killed by another BF and remains found

THEY ARE MOSTLY PEACEFUL CREATURES. PROBABLY CAN'T ANSWER IF THEY EVER FIGHT ONE ANOTHER. BUT AGAIN, OTHERS WILL TAKE CARE OF REMAINS.

- BF killed by lightning and remains found

SAME AGAIN BUT HOW MANY BEARS OR MOUNTAIN LION HAVE BEEN FOUND THAT WERE KILLED BY LIGHTENING? KIND OF A ONE IN A MILLION EVENT.

- BF freezes to death and remains found

THEY CAN TAKE CARE OF THEMSELVES IN THE WILD. HOW OFTEN ARE BEAR FOUND FROZEN TO DEATH? IF IT GOT SO COLD, GOING UNDERGROUND WOULD PROVIDE COMFORTABLE CONSTANT TEMPERATURES.

- BF slips and impales self on tree (or hits head on rock) and remains found

WHAT HAPPENS WHEN A BEAR OR ELK SLIPS? WHICH THEY RARELY DO. BUT NOT LIKELY WHEN YOU ARE SURE FOOTED AS THEY ARE. HOW MANY TIMES HAVE YOU SLIPPED AND IMPALED YOURSELF?

Wild animals live hard, short lives in an incredibly harsh and dangerous environment. What are the odds that NOT ONE of these has EVER happened? EVER! And they have never died anywhere and been fossilized?

THE EVENTS YOU ASK IF EVER HAPPENED MAY HAVE AT ONE TIME OR ANOTHER, BUT THE ODDS OF A HUMAN BEING AT THE RIGHT PLACE OR TIME FINDING ONE IS ASTRONOMICAL. IN ADDITION, BONES DO NOT LAST VERY LONG IN THE WILDS. OTHER ANIMALS LIKE PORCUPINES, RATS, COYOTES, ETC, TAKE CARE OF THAT.

It's almost as though they are not, and never have been, here.....................................

IN MANY WAYS YOUR FINAL STATEMENT IS CORRECT HM, AND THAT SUMS MUCH OF IT UP. BUT THEY ARE THERE IF YOU KNOW WHAT TO LOOK FOR. BUT WITH THIS ALSO COMES RESPONSIBILITY LIKE WITH ANYTHING BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT JUST WILD UNTHINKING ANIMALS. THEY CARE FOR ONE ANOTHER. THEY PROTECT ONE ANOTHER. THEY RAISE THEIR YOUNG LIKE WE DO. THEY MEAN US NO HARM AND THEREFORE WE SHOULD GRANT THEM THE SAME. THEY ARE NOT A TROPHY ANIMAL TO BE HUNTED. THEY JUST WANT TO LIVE FREELY IN THE WILD. THEY ARE JUST ANOTHER OF GOD'S CREATURES AND WE SHOULD RESPECT THEM AND THEIR WILL TO LIVE THE WAY THEY DO.

THEY MAY EVEN BE OUR OWN ANCESTORS ON THIS EARTH FROM LONG AGO. AND AS LONG AS THEY HAVE LIVED THE WAY THEY DO, IT IS NO SURPRISE THAT WE MODERN HUMANS ARE NEVER ONE STEP AHEAD OF THEM IN 'THEIR' NATURAL WORLD.

I don't know if these answers will be enough for you HerdManager? There are a lot of variables in all your questions, and there is much you are not familiar with regarding them, but I hope it gives you something to think about.

I'm sure Sanctum will have more to add.

Thanks HerdManager,

David

I will continue to look at both sides of the issue, and keep my eyes open in the woods. Not sure if maryland has bigfeet but you never know. I am merely recognizing that the conjecture presented as fact is terribly weak and unconvincing thus far. Maybe we even have broken tree branches here, too!

I am fine with Dr. Meldrum sticking to his guns, and can appreciate that many great discoveries are made against skeptical adversity. But you love to jump the gun and rush to the happy bigfoot ending. He HAS NOT made any great discovery yet. When he proves something that mainstream science accepts (lets call national-geographic the "standard" for this topic) then we can talk. If the other scientists stop laughing at his work, you can have the podium for a huge "I told you so". But right now he is a joke among his own peers at his own university, so the "I told you so" still belongs to me. Accept that for now at least.

The second and third Jacobs pictures are 30 seconds apart. You are certifably nuts if you think its too different animals. To say that baby feet aren't like adult feet is silly. I am not talking about size, I am talking about shape. Human feet are the same baby to adult. And there is nothing in the jacob's picture that indicates these feet have ANYTHING in common with the footprints paraded around by bigfoot fans as real. Yeah, a mangy bear is a strange looking critter, but notice the arched back like in this picture of a mangy bear right off the bigfoot web pages. Furthermore, what would be the precedent for a primate in the wild in north america? In the history of the world there have never been primates in north america other than in a zoo. If you were to say its an ape escaped from the zoo, I would have more respect for your opinion. To actually believe its a sasquatch I have to say you've lost your grip on reality. And don't start with the Bearing Land Bridge stuff. Just because there was once a bridge doesn't mean ape creatures actually ever used it. If you could find one set of ape bones here, ONLY THEN could you suggest there might possibly have been more.

The "tide is not turning" on this forum for belief in bigfoot. You just have a greater number of your comrades from the dedicated bigfoot fan club forums coming here to agree with you. Regular hunters might say there is a chance, and that they have heard and seen things they cannot yet explain. But only you and your bigfoot pals take the blind running leap to decide that bigfoot is real and that bigfoot is that explanation they are going to find in the end.

You are the only one here that says you saw one in person. In fact, you wear the "multiple" encounters badge in such as way as to make people think you are desperately looking for attention riding the bigfoot bandwagon. Here you are totally willing to accept the chance that bigfoot is real, but not at all willing to accept the greater chance that you might just happen to be wrong. Personally, I think you are fishing for the Tom Cruise role in "Mission Impossible 4 - Bigfoot Lives".

I'm still worried about Little Foot Johnny. Is he still harassing Girl Scouts and generally out of control? Or have you and the missus been able to talk some sense into him?

I'm no Oprah or Dr. Phil, but perhaps he senses the conflict that you and his mama are going through at the moment.Maybe both of you can go on a Papa/son trip where you can break a few trees together, weave some branches, and whup some tree trunks with limbs while you tell him it's not his fault...

BowSniper you are correct: KOOK was the right descriptive!

Now, do you remember in Meldrum's page about MidTarsal Breaks in the foot? DId you do your homework?

Well, there are plenty of reports of sasquatch walking around on all fours, Sanctum also mentioned it above. There are even some of young ones seen in this posture. Could you possibly consider that when sasquatch are young, these Midtarsal Breaks may have implications to their anatomy? Maybe something to do with this particular bipedal movement? Is it possible for you to consider that if the Jacob's photos are indeed a young one, that is why you may not see the foot you want to see? Maybe there is actually an upward bend there of the foot? And if not, how big were your feet at the age of say 7 or so? Or as someone also mentioned, maybe the feet were partially covered by leaves? Aside from feet, look at the position of that final photo. Clearly it is one odd body posture for any man or ape. But if a child, then that is a lot of hair. If Ape, then the DNR there has some issues to resolve in Wildlife Management. And DEFINITELY NOT any bear based on the last photo.

Its too bad you must resort to innuendoes about one's mental state as a means of casting doubt. I guess I could say the same about you in some ways. I guess the fact is some people will always follow the status quo not matter what. Acting like sheep and only accepting what they grew up being taught. Few of them contribute much to humanity however in the end. I hope you are different in this respect BowSniper, but that is entirely up to you. If you will now be open minded while in the field, well good for you. If you ever find some of what I have said to be true, you are always welcome to contact me. That may not mean much to you now, but if one day you face one of these creatures, well I guess I could expect a call.

Dave

Did you actually READ what you posted above IN CAPS??

You give your BF more brain power, compassion and resourcefulness than humans. You "almost" started putting forth believable (although far-fetched) explanations. Now we have and un-killable, peaceful, "Apex-predators", with MD's in the fold (and morticians) with an IQ approaching 150. According to you on the other hand, humans approach blithering idiot status by being hit by cars, trains, drowning, freezing to death, etc.

You see; KOOK it must stay.

You certainly seem to be getting awfully touchy for somebody who's come to play in a bowhunting forum. I'm sure your 3 supporters will come to your defense, the rest of us are really here for the "hook line and sinker" BowSniper is laying out for you (and you haven't realized it yet) and the absolute hilarity of BIG FOOT himself!

Let me guess; You believe in UFO's and extraterrestrials too. If so, then there we may have common ground. Big Foot; sorry, NOPE!

kook (n) : someone regarded as eccentric or crazy and standing out from a group

Pretty broad brush you are painting with. Speak for yourself and let other people speak for themselves. Not all bowhunters are jerks.

Sticks and stones........

Do you argue this point Labdad? Here are a couple of timelines which show these early humans. Some were very large. Who is to say even one line does not live on today? Surely nobody here.

This timeline provides any doubter here with photos of skulls. I'm sure a few here can do with pictures. Oh and they've got other bones too. Some were very robust. All of modern science accepts that we had ancestors on this planet.

http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/dept/d10/asb/anthro2003/origins/hominid_journey/timeline.html

Oh look, and they even use the term Human Ancestry: http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/species.htm

Homo erectus. Homo heidelbergensis. Homo neanderthalensis. They are not really that far apart from us are they? Two of them, less than one hundred thousand years, a blink of the eye as far as time goes. The rest of them, nearly a dozen known so far, go back further. We also really don't know what they looked like beyond what the bones tell us as far as body mass. We (modern anthropology) do believe that many were covered in hair and that some were large. There are even a few renditions of what they were expected to look like for your viewing pleasure.

Come on guys, the world is not all wrapped up in a neat little bow where unknown species cannot live without our knowing everything.

Dave

Do you argue this point Labdad? Here are a couple of timelines which show these early humans. Some were very large. Who is to say even one line does not live on today? Surely nobody here.

This timeline provides any doubter here with photos of skulls. I'm sure a few here can do with pictures. Oh and they've got other bones too. Some were very robust. All of modern science accepts that we had ancestors on this planet.

http://www.mc.maricopa.edu/dept/d10/asb/anthro2003/origins/hominid_journey/timeline.html

Oh look, and they even use the term Human Ancestry: http://www.archaeologyinfo.com/species.htm

Homo erectus. Homo heidelbergensis. Homo neanderthalensis. They are not really that far apart from us are they? Two of them, less than one hundred thousand years, a blink of the eye as far as time goes. The rest of them, nearly a dozen known so far, go back further. We also really don't know what they looked like beyond what the bones tell us as far as body mass. We (modern anthropology) do believe that many were covered in hair and that some were large. There are even a few renditions of what they were expected to look like for your viewing pleasure.

Come on guys, the world is not all wrapped up in a neat little bow where unknown species cannot live without our knowing everything.

Dave

A neat little bow won't hide the fact that a creature, animal, being; whatever you chose to call it....cannot exist on the most highly populated continents on earth and NEVER leave even a spec trace evidence that can be scientifically verified.

Your evidence to date has not measured up to even high school biology standards (no offense intended, just a reference point). Then, you describe your being as "better than human". We've discovered fossil remains thousands and 10's of thousands of years old on every continent; man has killed the largest, mightiest and meanest animals on earth including the Woolly Mammoth, elephant and cape buffalo (all with spears and or archery equipment); scientists have fossil evidence of the tiniest of phytoplankton; yet there is NO evidence for a living, breathing, (car/train dodging, bulletproof) bigfoot? Where is the rational explanation for that?

"All of modern science accepts that we HAD ancestors on this planet."

They are gone. Long gone.

And you completely missed the point of my last post. The odds of NOT ONE of those things EVER happening is astronomical, to the point where it is beyond the realm of possibility.

Multiple when you say no one here would argue. You are borrowing LabDad's big brush. I am fairly confident that I am not the only person on this site that does not have a monkey for a relative. The rest of you seem to be Hell bent on proving that you are relatives of apes. Fine. That is your perogative. However remember that evolution is not a fact it is a theory. A theory without one more bit of evidence to back it up than some of you claim Bigfoot does not have. LOL In fact I am kind of laughing that you accept being a decendent of a monkey but vehemently deny the possibility of Bigfoot.

On the other hand I believe that God created man and that if Bigfoot exists that God created Bigfoot as an individual species. When you start tying Bigfoot into the human evolutionary chain then we part company.

However , whatever you believe it has nothing to do with whether such a creature actually exists or not. I do believe that it is possible.

The point of these ancestors once existing, only demonstrates that it is 'possible' that one of them could be the sasquatch of today. We don't know. We, nor you, can say without a doubt, that this is not possible.

And how do we know HerdManager that they are all gone? Because that is what our schools taught us? There could indeed be relic species. The late Dr. Grover Krantz, Professor of Anthropology at Washington State University, believed as much. However he believed that sasquatch was in the Pongid (ape) line of species. He never seen a sasquatch however, but his wife has. He never got to interact with one, but he knew they existed. He didn't just research in his lab, he went out into the field and found tracks and cast them himself. In fact, he cast some tracks not 15 miles from where I had an encounter four years ago. Guess it was the same guy walking around in a monkey suit making tracks in the wilderness during rifle season.

Labdad, this discussion has survived hundreds of immature comments that frankly they have ruined it for the rest. As long as there are immature comments, I will continue to point it out. I appreciate that other long time members here also recognize how immature some can be.

Anyway, some here keep saying that there is no proof, and yet they have DNA that continues to be analyzed. DNA that does not match any known human or primate DNA. How do you so easily ignore this? How are the literally 'thousands' of footprints and subsequent casts from all across the country written off so easily? Maybe Bob Heironimus' ghost is hitting every forest across the country? How are reports of sightings by people in every profession, who had no affiliation or interest in the subject previously, selectively ignored by you? How is the Skookum Cast ignored? Oh wait, we didn't cover that did we. Well, look it up if you have an open mind.

The problem is, a few here have very selective reasoning that chooses to ignore some of the evidence they claim doesn't exist. And some even call people names instead, yes, how immature that is LabDad.

There are also 80 references to Giants in the Bible and I too believe that God Created Man. But of course not everyone here will agree on which one was right. These predecessors are not believed to be Homo sapiens either. They are Hominid however in that they walked on two feet. How close their DNA is to ours, I don't know. I don't know how to come to terms with the fact that chimpanzee DNA is not too different from ours, but the answer may be something we do not expect.

What we do know is that bones of these predecessors existed because the bones exist. Their bones were similar to ours. Some larger, some smaller. How Bible and Evolution will come to terms with these conflicts, I don't know. I don't mean to paint only one view on this subject, but I have mentioned somewhere up up up in this thread, what the Bible stated about Giants.

Many scientists believe that we were here when some of the earlier members were also around. They speculate that we fought with them. I don't know?

Oops, meant to say: " What we do know is that these predecessors existed because the bones exist."

Even though I am on the other side of the fence from you and will only believe BF exists when I see one (or its remains), I applaud your passion,energy, and dignity in presenting the other side of this subject.

I feel very strongly about a couple of issues discussed on this site but my stamina is not nearly as great as yours....I usually wear down after the thread gets to a couple hundred posts or so.

Hang in there...

besides -bigfoot posted on this thread -so he must be real--

Unfortunately some cannot distinguish that I want nothing from anyone here other then for those who care to watch for various sign in the field. I guess I don't mind either if you want to share more with me off list, maybe i can help direct you to more information. I also appreciate those who have contacted me via PM's either wanting to know more or sharing experiences. It is unfortunate that such issues cannot be discussed openly on this forum, which is another point I was trying to make. Some refuse to even believe this possible though, but look at the thread above as proof.

deadhorse, I will ignore your comment because I doubt you have much of an open mind either.

Thank you for your concern of my Little Foot Johnny. I do know for a fact that he has been harrassing Girl Scouts, but not in a mean or harmful way.......he's just trying to "get some". Can't blame him for that.

This coming weekend we are going to go on a papa/son outing. We don't plan on snapping trees though, as you suggested. Instead, we are going bar hoping and maybe hit a few strip clubs.......yeah baby! That will turn him from a Little Foot to a Big Foot!

Speaking of Oprah, my wife actually resembles her. Except Oprah has more hair and uglier.

I hope I have answered all of your questions......it's awful hard to keep up with this thread. LOL.

Above, you alluded to the relative lack of physical evidence as, possibly, the result of BF's ability to communicate. To me, effective communication would require an implied population density - a density that would undermine the claim that BF is a very rare critter.

Regarding the Skookum cast, are the investigators "positioning" the body according to dermal ridges from the supposed heel prints?

In parting words I say to you, may the force be with you... live long and prosper... and Hare Krishna Hare Krishna Krishna Krishna Hare Hare Hare Rama Hare Rama Rama Rama Hare Hare.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W1czBcnX1Ww

Its a young bigfoot (obviously because its walking on all four legs). And it has to be a bigfoot because its making a sound like no other animal in the forest. NOTE - I called this one first guys. He's mine!! I shall now be called FirstEncounter !! :-)