Anyone know about the unreleased Midwest bigfoot video

[xblade]

Heard yesterday that there is a video of bigfoot taken somewhere in the Midwest that is supposed to be the most compelling bigfoot footage since the Patterson flick. It hasn't been released yet, and is currently being studied by "experts". Does anyone have any details on this video? They were keeping it hush hush on the talk show.

[William Parcher]

Here. (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=24654)

[xblade]

Cool. Thanks WP. Can't wait to see how this one pans out. Wonder if there will be any possum guts involved? :)

[LTC8K6]

The BFRO?

Their powder is always wet...

[LONGTABBER PE]

Heard yesterday that there is a video of bigfoot taken somewhere in the Midwest that is supposed to be the most compelling bigfoot footage since the Patterson flick. It hasn't been released yet, and is currently being studied by "experts". Does anyone have any details on this video? They were keeping it hush hush on the talk show.

A film studied by experts?

Probably as some believe- the "Kentucky" project et al with Bindernagel and times to coincide with this new "show".

It doesnt take a "year' to analyze anything- that should tell thinking minds something

[makaya325]

well longtabber, it took 2 years to peer review the findings of a new species, so its not unreasonable to suggest its possible. however, i believe, if bf exists, it exists in the remote regions of tibet, bc, himalayas, not kentucky!

[Skeptical Greg]

Medved said it is the most compelling piece of footage since the PG film.

Sort of like saying " The Little Mermaid " was the most compelling mermaid footage since " Splash " ...

[makaya325]

dio, its useless comparing mermaids, whos existence is ruled out, to the slim possibility of a large animal living on the fringes of civilization. i see where ur coming from though

[LONGTABBER PE]

well longtabber, it took 2 years to peer review the findings of a new species, so its not unreasonable to suggest its possible. however, i believe, if bf exists, it exists in the remote regions of tibet, bc, himalayas, not kentucky!

Thats a whole lot different than what we are talking about here- to review what they have shouldnt take much more than 30 minutes.

But that wont happen because of the shroud of secrecy that will surround all the first hand evidence from legitimate 3rd party analysis in a transparent mode.

Also, the reports as written will never be released for authentication- you will just be "told' what they said.

All information will remain secret and the location and such so nobody can go back there and validate anything. ( with NDA's, uncooperative landowners and the whole bit)

BUT, there will be something for SALE ( you can be sure of that) and Bindernagel will believe, Meldrum will confirm and Fahrenbach will preach it from the pulpit for Vanity fair in Texas next year.

This "new find" BS is always the same theme always with the same non answers leading to the same woo conclusion.

This is easier to predict than a pro wrestling match because in sports entertainment, every once in a while, Vince will throw the audience a curve ( just to keep them interested)

[makaya325]

well, i dont think meldrum and fahrenbach are woos nor is bindernagel. in fact, theyre the 3 who bring it to the field. i have known henner for over 2 yrs, and his info is very interesting.

[LONGTABBER PE]

well, i dont think meldrum and fahrenbach are woos nor is bindernagel. in fact, theyre the 3 who bring it to the field. i have known henner for over 2 yrs, and his info is very interesting.

Technically, they are worse than woos. They are pathetic examples of scientists. Their methods are crap, their deductions are the worst kind of tripe, their datasets are cherrypicked fantasy, their investigative methodologies would make the keystone Cops look like CSI and none of them have produced the first scientifically valid recognized evidence of anything.

You know Henner? Ask him about bigfoot orgies, 30 ft steps, habituation, toting goats and how he used the scientific method to validate those claims.

Then we can get to peacocks and other things.

[makaya325]

well i wouldnt say their worse than woos. if thats true, then daegling, radford are cherry pickers and arent good researchers, who lack in geography, zoology, paleontology

[LONGTABBER PE]

well i wouldnt say their worse than woos. if thats true, then daegling, radford are cherry pickers and arent good researchers, who lack in geography, zoology, paleontology

Prehaps but that doesnt alter the fact that the 3 "premier" scientists in BFdom combined equate to 3 flat tires on a 71 VW minibus with a blown engine.

[makaya325]

so who are good researchers?

matt crowley

katy moskowitz

bobbie short?

[LONGTABBER PE]

so who are good researchers?

matt crowley

katy moskowitz

bobbie short?

Define "good'

I have had no dealings with Bobbie Short but from what I've read of her work, she's right there with the 3 flat tires.

I have however had dealings ( personally and off the boards) with Mr Crowley and Mrs Strain and I would consider their work and opinions of the HIGHEST quality and professionalism and both of them have earned my personal and professional respect. ( even tho Hairy and I often find ourselves at opposite ends of the discussion)

[UncaYimmy]

dio, its useless comparing mermaids, whos existence is ruled out, to the slim possibility of a large animal living on the fringes of civilization. i see where ur coming from though

When did mermaids get ruled out but bigfoot beasts were left on the table? I must have missed that meeting. Can you provide a link?

[makaya325]

its a useless analogy. i try to avoid those to not come out as a wise guy. its kind of like insulting the subject itself. mermaids do exist, they are simply manatees, so they exist as something.

[UncaYimmy]

its a useless analogy. i try to avoid those to not come out as a wise guy. its kind of like insulting the subject itself. mermaids do exist, they are simply manatees, so they exist as something.

Some would argue that discussing bigfoot beasts is insulting to real science.

I dispute your contention that mermaids are really just manatees, which are slow-moving creatures that feed in shallow water. The parallel to BF is that mermaids were also invented and perpetuated by culture. Only instead of artist depictions and campfire stories we have alleged videos and websites.

If you don't want to sound like a wiseguy, I can respect that. But you're not a wiseguy because science understates BF - it's that BFers overstate their evidence.

[makaya325]

well, we know giganto existed, so is that proof a bigfoot-like creature did exist in the past?

[makaya325]

unca, bigfoot was created by the media, but sasquatch was told by native americans like my elders, and no one pays attention to that any more

[imjohn]

well, we know giganto existed, so is that proof a bigfoot-like creature did exist in the past?
No.

It's proof that an ape that was larger than current apes lived in the past. The distant past.

[makaya325]

well, john, if it were alive today, people would say "bigfoot!". thats jsut my opinion. millions of them must existed recently, and all we have is a few jaws and teeth. damning, isnt it?

[dr pepper]

I once saw the end of a bigfoot movie. The humans ran to their vehicles blasting away with machine guns, then fled. Roll credits. But i would have liked to the the next few hours, during which the surviving sasquatches would have to gather up their dead, dispose of the bodies so no traces were left, wipe away most of the footprints, vacuum up all the fallen hair, or substitute bear fur, and set off the emp bomb to fuzz all the photos. And then they have to travel a long distance to use their secret outhouses.

[makaya325]

well pepper, if squatch exists, its just like any other animal, and ive hiked and backpacked for years now, and never, i mean never, have found the remains of a cougar or bear. so i can understand why it hasnt been found, but therre r reasons why im skeptical about it.

peter byrne once said:

The Pacific Northwest here, to give you an example of it’s size and it’s ability to hide things hides 73 aircraft lost from Northern California to Alaska since World War 2! That’s an official FAA figure, it’s not just a myth, it’s not just a newspaper story."

[xblade]

well pepper, if squatch exists, its just like any other animal, and ive hiked and backpacked for years now, and never, i mean never, have found the remains of a cougar or bear. so i can understand why it hasnt been found, but therre r reasons why im skeptical about it.



I bet you never found the remains of Giganto on any of your hikes either, did you? "YOU" have never found the remains of a cougar or bear....key focus being "you". Plenty of others have found the remains of bear and cougar, not to mention live specimens of both. No one anywhere has ever found the remains of bigfoot(or a live specimen), unless they're keeping it themselves.

By the way, I have seen the remains of a bear...hit by a car, something that never happens to bigfoot, despite many sightings occurring on/near roads.

its a useless analogy.

It's not a useless analogy, it's an uncomfortable one....for bigfoot believers.

mermaids do exist, they are simply manatees, so they exist as something.

Bigfoots do exist too, they are simply bears, trees, men in suits, or strange rock formations, so they exist as something.

sasquatch was told by native americans like my elders, and no one pays attention to that any more

Sasquatch isn't even a Native American word, is it?

well, john, if it were alive today, people would say "bigfoot!". thats jsut my opinion. millions of them must existed recently, and all we have is a few jaws and teeth. damning, isnt it?

That's a few more jaws and teeth than we have of bigfoot, a creature that is supposedly still roaming the entire planet even as I type this. No one can find one bone from a recent death, or one from hundreds of years ago, but we managed to find the remains of Giganto, who died out a million or so years ago. It is damning...for bigfoot. ;)

[UncaYimmy]

Bigfoots do exist too, they are simply bears, trees, men in suits, or strange rock formations, so they exist as something.


I've posted this before, but you appear to be relatively new here.

The reason they remain hidden has to do with the fact that bigfoot beasts lay eggs and carry their young in pouches.

Why don't we see more them? Because they spend so much time squatting on their eggs. So, while they are tall, they spend lots of time squatting (hence the name saSQUATch.

Why are the footprints goofy? Fallen arches from squatting.

Why are they so big? They have dinosaur DNA. Some posit that dinosaurs were warm blooded. Clearly they laid eggs. We already have marsupials. Bigfoot as an egg-laying giant marsupial is not without precedent.

Why don't we ever catch one? Their very survival depends on hiding extremely well during their long periods of squatting. Fits right in with evolution, or don't you believe in that?

Why don't we ever see a baby bigfoot? Two words: Pouches.

Why the strange way of walking? Again, pouches, sometimes with their young in them.

Why do they look like they are wearing suits? Pouches.

Why do the mournful howls? Wouldn't you if you had to spend so much time squatting on fallen arches?

Why the foul smell? No time for bathing with all the squatting. Reproduction trumps cleanliness every time.

Why no hair samples? They collect fallen hair for warming the eggs and creating soft places in the pouches.

Moccam's Razor, baby!

[GT/CS]

I've posted this before, but you appear to be relatively new here.

The reason they remain hidden has to do with the fact that bigfoot beasts lay eggs and carry their young in pouches.

Why don't we see more them? Because they spend so much time squatting on their eggs. So, while they are tall, they spend lots of time squatting (hence the name saSQUATch.

Why are the footprints goofy? Fallen arches from squatting.

Why are they so big? They have dinosaur DNA. Some posit that dinosaurs were warm blooded. Clearly they laid eggs. We already have marsupials. Bigfoot as an egg-laying giant marsupial is not without precedent.

Why don't we ever catch one? Their very survival depends on hiding extremely well during their long periods of squatting. Fits right in with evolution, or don't you believe in that?

Why don't we ever see a baby bigfoot? Two words: Pouches.

Why the strange way of walking? Again, pouches, sometimes with their young in them.

Why do they look like they are wearing suits? Pouches.

Why do the mournful howls? Wouldn't you if you had to spend so much time squatting on fallen arches?

Why the foul smell? No time for bathing with all the squatting. Reproduction trumps cleanliness every time.

Why no hair samples? They collect fallen hair for warming the eggs and creating soft places in the pouches.

Moccam's Razor, baby!


One point of clarification; The dinosaur DNA is not natural to them. The aliens added it so bigfeets could lift and move heavy loads.

[Bikewer]

Midwest, eh? Folks here may not remember "Momo", the "Missouri Monster" which appeared in reaction to a spate of West-coast bigfoot reports.
Unfortunately, Momo was a couple of college lads taking advantage of a boring Summer and a monkey suit.....

[kitakaze]

well, john, if it were alive today, people would say "bigfoot!". thats jsut my opinion. millions of them must existed recently, and all we have is a few jaws and teeth. damning, isnt it?

Yes, that's just your opinion. Without being able to say with confidence what Gigantopithecus looked like or being able to say whether it walked on four limbs or two, we don't know how people would interpret it.

Also saying millions of them must have existed recently is a major misconception. Probably a number in the low thousands existed at any one time in their southeast asian habitat until there extinction roughly 300,000 years ago. The fact that they lived in a wet, humid subtropical environment means we can expect very little of their remains to ever have become fossilized. Yet even so we still have a great many of their teeth and a few mandibles to examine. That is for a species that disappeared 300,000 years ago. Also we know by examining those jaws that while they may have eaten some fruit, they had dentition and anatomy adapted to eating bamboo.

Here is a Giganto jaw for you to examine:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ae/Gigantopithecusjaw.jpg

You seem to have picked up quite a few fallacies regularly encouraged by Bigfoot enthusiast. I'm guessing that either you are now a Bigfoot enthusiast or have spent considerable time interacting with them. Are you coming to us from a Bigfoot forum, perhaps?

[makaya325]

kitz, no, i just have a general interest in the phenomona. nothing more.

there are problems with finding remains and these arent woos

1.tibetan blue bear- a couple 1000 6ft bears living in the open himalayas that has been scanned to death, yet no one has ever found a complete dead carcass of one. so if science cant find a 6ft beast in open territory, then the chances of finding an ape in dense brush is less likely. also, the pacific northwest soil is generally not useful for fossilization

The evolutionist Richard Dawkins, in his book "An Ancestor's Tale", estimates that 90% of all species that ever existed are not represented in the fossil record, and any one currently living mammal has probably much less than one in a million chance of becoming a fossil.

so IF bigfoot exists, and thats what im unsure of, its an incredibly rare animal that is found once in a life time. science has been looking very recent, so i would suggest to give the subject more time and sway away from some of the crazy bf advocates, and approach it with an open mind. one example of a solid researcher is esteban sarmiento

[makaya325]

the fact that we only have a few teeth and 2 jaws from a 10ft giant that numbered in the 10000's only 300k yrs ago in china, which is a fossilization haven

[William Parcher]

1.tibetan blue bear- a couple 1000 6ft bears living in the open himalayas that has been scanned to death, yet no one has ever found a complete dead carcass of one. so if science cant find a 6ft beast in open territory...


How would you or anyone know if a Tibetan found a carcass and kept on walking and then never reported it to whatever authorities are keeping track of this thing?

Same for American black bears. Bigfooters say they are rarely or never found dead. But nobody knows how many are seen dead and never get entered into any database.

[Skeptic Guy]

kitz, no, i just have a general interest in the phenomona. nothing more.

there are problems with finding remains and these arent woos

1.tibetan blue bear- a couple 1000 6ft bears living in the open himalayas that has been scanned to death, yet no one has ever found a complete dead carcass of one. so if science cant find a 6ft beast in open territory, then the chances of finding an ape in dense brush is less likely. also, the pacific northwest soil is generally not useful for fossilization

The evolutionist Richard Dawkins, in his book "An Ancestor's Tale", estimates that 90% of all species that ever existed are not represented in the fossil record, and any one currently living mammal has probably much less than one in a million chance of becoming a fossil.

so IF bigfoot exists, and thats what im unsure of, its an incredibly rare animal that is found once in a life time. science has been looking very recent, so i would suggest to give the subject more time and sway away from some of the crazy bf advocates, and approach it with an open mind. one example of a solid researcher is esteban sarmiento

From Wikipedia:


A 1960 expedition to search for evidence of the yeti, led by Sir Edmund Hillary (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sir_Edmund_Hillary), returned with two scraps of fur that had been identified by locals as 'yeti fur' that were later scientifically identified as being portions of the pelt of a Blue Bear.


It seems like people have found Tibetan Blue Bear remains.

And Dawkins was referring to extinct animals and not current, live animals. We are not concerned about not being able to locate fossilized remains of the BF but rather fresh, recently deceased remains...droppings...nesting sites...etc.

[Skeptic Guy]

From Wikipedia:



It seems like people have found Tibetan Blue Bear remains.

And Dawkins was referring to extinct animals and not current, live animals. We are not concerned about not being able to locate fossilized remains of the BF but rather fresh, recently deceased remains...droppings...nesting sites...etc.

ETA: And further on the Blue Bear, the reason it is endangered because it has been over-hunted for its bile, which is used in traditional Chinese "medicine". I believe we have sufficient evidence it exists.

[kitakaze]

kitz, no, i just have a general interest in the phenomona. nothing more.

there are problems with finding remains and these arent woos

1.tibetan blue bear- a couple 1000 6ft bears living in the open himalayas that has been scanned to death, yet no one has ever found a complete dead carcass of one. so if science cant find a 6ft beast in open territory, then the chances of finding an ape in dense brush is less likely. also, the pacific northwest soil is generally not useful for fossilization

How do you know there a couple thousand Tibetan blue bears living in the open Himalayas? They would not be living way up in the mountains but rather the lower elevations. They are one of the rarest subspecies of bears in the world. The Gobi bear is thought to be a relict population. We have their remains and they have been catalogued by science. Again, here are Tibetan blue bears:

http://www.ecotibet.org/gallery/photo/album/poster/slides/2%20Tibetan%20Bear.html

http://www.ojizoo.jp/zukan/pic/0107016.jpg

The main problem with your argument is that your appealing to a hypothetical that doesn't exist. Bigfoot is not reported consistently in a few remote areas. It is reported all over the continent in all shapes, sizes, characteristics, and abilities. No matter how rare you think the beast is, if it has a breeding population in North America and is encountered by humans, we will have a type specimen.

The evolutionist Richard Dawkins, in his book "An Ancestor's Tale", estimates that 90% of all species that ever existed are not represented in the fossil record, and any one currently living mammal has probably much less than one in a million chance of becoming a fossil.

Richard Dawkins is an evolutionary biologist and you are misinterpreting him. It is highly unlikely that I will be fossilized but that does not mean species alive today likely will not have fossil representation. We can reasonably expect Bigfoot to be represented by a fossil specimen at some point from its alleged existence all over the globe. Certainly we can expect to have a specimen of one in North America.

so IF bigfoot exists, and thats what im unsure of, its an incredibly rare animal that is found once in a life time. science has been looking very recent, so i would suggest to give the subject more time and sway away from some of the crazy bf advocates, and approach it with an open mind. one example of a solid researcher is esteban sarmiento

See, now I'm quite sure you're a Bigfoot enthusiast because you're bring up Esteban Sarmiento. Sarmiento may appear in various Doug Hajicek productions but has gone on the record as being skeptical of Bigfoot. There is no reason to think Bigfoot is incredibly rare.

Try and give me one good reason why I should consider Bigfoot is a very rare animal.

[makaya325]

skeptic guy, but why no more than skin and pellets? why no bodies by the truck loads? generally, animals are not found more often than found, but it demostrates that a large animal can avoid detection. theres no impact on the ecosystem from it. a body would only do, and its amazing why theirs only 1 found? even wolverines are found way more often

[makaya325]

and not all reports over the continent are true. do you know that over 50 percent of sightings come from the pacific northwest?

[makaya325]

sarmiento is generally considered open minded on the topic. he talks about consistencies all over certain areas.

generally, if bigfoot exists, it would occur in more remote areas like british columbia, canada,

[Skeptic Guy]

skeptic guy, but why no more than skin and pellets? why no bodies by the truck loads? generally, animals are not found more often than found, but it demostrates that a large animal can avoid detection. theres no impact on the ecosystem from it. a body would only do, and its amazing why theirs only 1 found? even wolverines are found way more often

I don't have (and I question whether you do either) have any information that suggests there have been no discoveries of their remains. I would imagine that the locals come across their remains on occasion, as do people living in the Pacific Northwest come across the remains of other types of bears and large animals.

I would be open to the suggestion that the instances are fewer than in the US given the scarcity of the animal and the remoteness of their habitat, but I would still imagine they find the remains.

[kitakaze]

the fact that we only have a few teeth and 2 jaws from a 10ft giant that numbered in the 10000's only 300k yrs ago in china, which is a fossilization haven

You don't know what Gigantopithecus numbered in when living. The 10,000's is a number pulled out of a hat. China is the third largest nation on Earth. It has areas that are conducive to fossilization and areas that are not. We know by what Giganto remain available that they ate bamboo and lived in southeast Asia. The remains we have were not pulled out of the dirt on the side of a hill somewhere. They were retrieved from apothecaries which in turn payed peasants to retrieve dragon teeth from caves. Many of those teeth were likely brought to those caves by porcupines.

[makaya325]

kit, i admit, its only an estimate.

im not one of those cranks or woos. i dont believe in ufo's, god, most cryptids, psychics, astrology etc. but sasquatch is something that is hard to dismiss.

[kitakaze]

and not all reports over the continent are true. do you know that over 50 percent of sightings come from the pacific northwest?

You're talking to a skeptic so I doubt any report is true. I know more more about Bigfoot sightings than any normal person really should. There's no doubt that Bigfoot has been traditionally associated with the PNW but I would like you to tell me where you are getting your over 50% number from. What is that statement based on?

[kitakaze]

kit, i admit, its only an estimate.

im not one of those cranks or woos. i dont believe in ufo's, god, most cryptids, psychics, astrology etc. but sasquatch is something that is hard to dismiss.

Mayaka, I won't assume you're a woo or crank. Entertaining BF's existence doesn't gaurantee being one. It's all in what you do with facts and speculation. It comes down to accepting as fact what has been put out by people who have an investment in one manner or another in believing in Bigfoot. Bigfoot is very cool but what it comes down to is that it's a very cool myth. There is not persuasive reason to consider otherwise. I would very much like there to be but there isn't. Please feel free to share one that is persuasive for you and we'll have a good look at it.

[William Parcher]

skeptic guy, but why no more than skin and pellets? why no bodies by the truck loads? generally, animals are not found more often than found, but it demostrates that a large animal can avoid detection. theres no impact on the ecosystem from it. a body would only do, and its amazing why theirs only 1 found? even wolverines are found way more often


We got skin from the rare blue bear, but nobody seems to be able to get it from Bigfoot. Maybe you should not use the bear as an example or analogy.

[makaya325]

i use it as an example for how large animals can go centuries without being found. i know everyone has an opinion. the mountain gorilla reports from africa were taken to be myths, but turned out to be true.

[makaya325]

and im surprised: why no dead hoaxers, no bones, no hair, no sightings of these alleged hoaxers. if this is all a hoax, i think someone should have found a dead body of some idiot running around in a costume. unlike most cryptids, sasquatch resembles no other animal we know of. nessie can be mistaken for tons of things, but bigfoot seems to be alone. the mundane explanations are just as silly as the species explanation

[kitakaze]

Tibetan blue bears:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8961496281db02e9b.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=14775)http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8961496281f29bc1d.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=14776)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/89614962821bee6c7.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=14777)http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_896149628277711eb.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=14778)

Know them. Found Them. Put them in a zoo.

[William Parcher]

i use it as an example for how large animals can go centuries without being found. i know everyone has an opinion. the mountain gorilla reports from africa were taken to be myths, but turned out to be true.


The circumstances are entirely different and those circumstances matter. The blue bear and the mountain gorilla didn't go centuries before being "found". The difference between those and BF is that the locals had no "Western science" within their culture seeking to acquire and catalog animals. If you came across a carcass, you didn't send it to an institution or hold a press conference. You probably just kept on walking.

Now fast forward to modern North America and Bigfoot. We don't expect that people would see a dead Bigfoot and keep on walking (or at least not report it to authorities). We expect that over the past 400 years in NA - people would pay extreme attention to any dead Bigfoot and quickly bring it to the attention of others... with the rapid transfer of the remains to scientific entities.

[makaya325]

but the scientists dismissing the natives reports of the gorilla was the same

[makaya325]

i also dont think people are looking at all. i think if we looked more, we would find out whats behind all of this

[kitakaze]

but the scientists dismissing the natives reports of the gorilla was the same

i also dont think people are looking at all. i think if we looked more, we would find out whats behind all of this

Mayaka, come now. Gorilla dismissal and no searching? This is really grade "A" Bigfoot enthusiast stuff here. Where've you been picking this up, BFF?

Here's an excellent documentary I just recently recommended to everbody:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i3rRL3XWE0s&feature=PlayList&p=885F51D5BD2CF18B&index=0&playnext=1

That will give you an idead about how much effort some people have put in to searching for Bigfoot.

The gorilla line is just terrible. Immediately after we set out to find a specimen we found it and that was that.

[makaya325]

im correct bout the no searching. neither side has gave a damn to put effort to search, and no, the bfro is a joke when it comes to searching. the remote areas of na are rarely visited by man, and im stating this as a fact, that theyre RARELY visited.

the gorilla took a couple weeks to find it in areas where we know they exist. it did not take a day or 2.

but you ignore the fact that scientists laughed at the natives accounts of the gorilla, sorry mate, but just accept that science has been wrong countless times

[kitakaze]

im correct bout the no searching. neither side has gave a damn to put effort to search, and no, the bfro is a joke when it comes to searching. the remote areas of na are rarely visited by man, and im stating this as a fact, that theyre RARELY visited.

Have a look at that documentary I linked for you when you have some time. That showcases a highly organized and well funded longterm effort to find sasquatches. I often am in communication with many people who devote serious amounts of time searching for Bigfoot. I really can't stress enough that it doesn't matter whether or not anyone is out there looking for Bigfoot. If Bigfoot is out there and maintaining a breeding population all this time, we would find it. What remote areas are getting consistent Bigfoot reports that we aren't looking at?

the gorilla took a couple weeks to find it in areas where we know they exist. it did not take a day or 2.

Of course it did not take a day or two. The point is that when we went to the places where we were told the gorillas were, we came back with specimens.

but you ignore the fact that scientists laughed at the natives accounts of the gorilla, sorry mate, but just accept that science has been wrong countless times

Tell me, what crucial information, specifically, are scientists ignoring about Bigfoot now?

[makaya325]

accounts, kitz. science ignored the gorilla reports, then went to look and found it after a while, so why doesnt any scientist actually get off their comfy armchair and look.

[makaya325]

it would take a monstrous expedition to settle it once and for all, kitz.

didnt the byrnes expedition reveal some circumstantial evidence. did you also pick up on the 73 missing aircraft that were never found in the pnw?

[makaya325]

how would we find it if some slobs are too busy in the armchair. ive spent my fair share of traveling out doors, so now its time for not the skeptics, but for the armchaired debunkers to see what its likes to hike and travel those places before they ridicule people for doing it

[GT/CS]

how would we find it if some slobs are too busy in the armchair. ive spent my fair share of traveling out doors, so now its time for not the skeptics, but for the armchaired debunkers to see what its likes to hike and travel those places before they ridicule people for doing it

Will you please capitalize the 1st letter of your sentences? You're coming across as a 13-year old with a cell phone, instead of as an intelligent adult who may be worth taking seriously.

[kitakaze]

accounts, kitz. science ignored the gorilla reports, then went to look and found it after a while, so why doesnt any scientist actually get off their comfy armchair and look.

I have some advice that might help. I can see that your passionate about Bigfoot and that's great. It doesn't make you a woo to be interested in Bigfoot. The best thing you can do is try and get as much factual information as you can. I noticed that you joined the BFF under the handle blue bear. One of our members here who is also a member there, RayG, has put together a thread detailing all the scientists who are now or ever have involved themselves actively in the search for Bigfoot. That would be a great place to start. The first example you will get of a scientist who is actively involved in searching for Bigfoot is Idaho State University professor Jeff Meldrum.

There are lots of smart people at the BFF who can help you with lots of questions. I see that Saskeptic has given you some excellent answers about Bigfoot and fossils:

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=24601&view=findpost&p=510240

I would also recommend when you start communicating with others about Bigfoot to try and figure out what it is that attracts you and what it is you want to acheive. Think scientists are ignoring Bigfoot? Saskeptic is a scientist and a person who enjoys Bigfootery. He'll be a great person to ask about that. Just keep in mind that when you come here, there is not a single argument you could bring forward that we haven't examined in great detail countless times. We enjoy Bigfoot too, it's just we enjoy it as a myth.

[rockinkt]

Makaya - you are forgetting a very crucial point when you continously argue that "scientists" are doing nothing about going out and looking for sasquatch. It does not have to be a "scientist" that obtains the evidence.

Your lack of knowledge about the huge amount of natural resource exploration and extraction - not to mention reclamation and replanting - and the number of people who spend a great deal of their professional lives in the wilderness doing such things, is obvious.

There are thousands of people every day in the wilderness areas of British Columbia engaged in forestry, mining, or other activities. These people would not ignore a dead sasquatch - or part thereof.

[makaya325]

Rockin, i doubt their are 1000's of people out their daily. Im sorry, but maybe a few doing some logging, wildlife studies etc. but not 1000's. Why dont we just say billions of people are doing that for a matter. Why is it that people say you can go years without seeing other signs of man? Also with increased logging in the 50's, bigfoot sightings skyrocketed. maybe its a possible connection, but its pointless to bring up as any form of evidence

[UncaYimmy]

im correct bout the no searching. neither side has gave a damn to put effort to search, and no, the bfro is a joke when it comes to searching. the remote areas of na are rarely visited by man, and im stating this as a fact, that theyre RARELY visited.

No searching? You're kidding, right?

http://www.bigfootexpedition.com/

the gorilla took a couple weeks to find it in areas where we know they exist. it did not take a day or 2.
They looked for it and they found it, long before you had radios, GPS, helicopters and battery operated motion sensor cameras. Back then they didn't have incredibly powerful zoom lenses and portable video cameras.

but you ignore the fact that scientists laughed at the natives accounts of the gorilla,
Could that be because of all the myths people have perpetuated over the years? And while you say they "laughed" they really just said, "show me the evidence." And, as best as I can determine, the natives didn't provide the evidence. Scientists and explorers came up with it.

sorry mate, but just accept that science has been wrong countless times

How do you know science has been wrong countless times? Could it be, I dunno, because science corrected itself? The animal sciences are pretty easy compared to theoretical physics. Any mope with rifle can prove the existence of BF.

But BF has not been proven to exist. That is without question. The only question is whether the "evidence" provided warrants further investigation. In my opinion, it would be a waste of time.

By the way, you seem to have a contradictory argument. You believe that this is a rare and elusive beast. Fine. Then how do you know you're supposed to look for it? I mean, if there's a mountain of reliable evidence warranting further investigation, then it's really not a rare and elusive beast, now is it?

[CORed]

I don't have (and I question whether you do either) have any information that suggests there have been no discoveries of their remains. I would imagine that the locals come across their remains on occasion, as do people living in the Pacific Northwest come across the remains of other types of bears and large animals.

I would be open to the suggestion that the instances are fewer than in the US given the scarcity of the animal and the remoteness of their habitat, but I would still imagine they find the remains.

All over the country, I can see stuffed and mounted bears, bearskin rugs, etc. Yet nowhere do I find bigfoot skin rugs or stuffed and mounted bigfoots.

I will concede there is a remote possibility that there are bigfoots living in some remote wilderness area. However, until somebody shows me unequivocal remains (or captures a live bigfoot), I will have to say that it is highly unlikely that there is any such animal. Videos, movies, footprints and still photos are all just too easy to fake.

[LTC8K6]

A gorilla staying hidden in say, 1810, is a far cry fom a gorilla staying hidden today.

[rockinkt]

Rockin, i doubt their are 1000's of people out their daily. Im sorry, but maybe a few doing some logging, wildlife studies etc. but not 1000's. Why dont we just say billions of people are doing that for a matter. Why is it that people say you can go years without seeing other signs of man? Also with increased logging in the 50's, bigfoot sightings skyrocketed. maybe its a possible connection, but its pointless to bring up as any form of evidence

How many people do you think are involved in the logging industry in British Columbia that spend every working day in the bush? (here's a hint - there are less than in the 1990's when about 40,000 people were involved in the logging industry with about 12,000 employed directly in the tree to mill harvesting process).
Now add the number of people involved in the mining/oil/gas industry.
Still think we are talking just a few?

How many people do you think are involved in tree planting during the periods of March to October in British Columbia? (Another hint: around 200 million seedlings will be planted in BC in 2009 - a twenty year low.)

How many hunters are there in British Columbia in any given year?

You obviously do not have any idea of how many people are actually in the bush due to their employment/recreation or you would not be trying to make the arguments that you are.

[UncaYimmy]

A gorilla staying hidden in say, 1810, is a far cry fom a gorilla staying hidden today.

Man, I gotta take a break from this board. For a second there it looked like you were talking about time travel. With the BF people, you never know.

I made essentially the same point. There are numerous gadgets available that make it so much easier to obtain visual evidence. This article talks about a motion sensor camera accidentally getting a picture of a small, rare wolverine that was thought to no longer even exist in California since there had been only a few sightings over the years.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080306144240.htm

Considering the number of BF sightings and the number of people searching for them, it makes you wonder. Of course, a BF believer will use this as evidence about how hard it is to see a BF.

After all, a small animal rarely reported to be seen is the same thing as a giant animal reportedly seen thousands of times (http://www.bfro.net/GDB/).

[Skeptic Guy]

All over the country, I can see stuffed and mounted bears, bearskin rugs, etc. Yet nowhere do I find bigfoot skin rugs or stuffed and mounted bigfoots.

I will concede there is a remote possibility that there are bigfoots living in some remote wilderness area. However, until somebody shows me unequivocal remains (or captures a live bigfoot), I will have to say that it is highly unlikely that there is any such animal. Videos, movies, footprints and still photos are all just too easy to fake.

That's correct, and where I was trying to get to, but really didn't have time for a lengthy post.

To suggest that there isn't anyone out there looking around the Pacific Northwest is naive. Whether they are scientists actively pursuing BF or biologists looking for Elk, bears, deer, wolves, Spotted Owls, Bald Eagles, natural resources, UFOs....skunks...oh, you get the idea...they're out there. And it is very telling that no one has found one thing, zip, nada, zero...indicating a yet to be discovered large creature of some significant intelligence.

[William Parcher]

If this "new" video really is the "pancake" video then it's worthless and sucky. I saw it on BFF (or it was linked from there) before a lawsuit caused it to be removed.

There must be a bunch of people who still have this video on their hard drive.

[clayflingythingy]

Getting back to the OP, Makaya, this thread is about a Midwestern BF film. BF is not limited to the PNW but is found all over the U.S.

They are even found here in my home state of KY. That footers believe that BF can exist undiscovered in my home state shows how much footers engage in wishful thinking. There is no area in the state that can be considered "remote wilderness". You can leave a trail and be walking thru an area that you "just know" hasn't seen a man in decades when you will stumble over a fresh beer can, tampon, or other sign of mankind.

If BF existed in Ky he would have been discovered years ago.

[makaya325]

I agree clay. I feel that bf would easily be found in Kentucky. If your talking about the remote regions of canada and the pnw, then it gets harder and harder.

Did you know there was an 80 year span between sightings of the wolverine? Perhaps most people who see bf are mistaken, and the other few are true, So we end up with a possible animal that is seen a couple 100 times, which is incredibly incredibly low for sightings in the animal kingdom.

[makaya325]

Skeptic Guy, I dont think any park surveyor would report bigfoot because of the possibility of losing their job and reputation

[makaya325]

Uncle, why would people report wolverines. Most likely was that tons of people saw them, but wouldnt care to report it

[makaya325]

Tracks arent exactly easy to fake. They definitely can be faked, but its definitely not easy. I myself did an experiment when i carved out wooden feet to make imprints in my backyard soil. im 155, and these stompers didnt even make a noticable imprint.

[kitakaze]

So mayaka, I take it you dismiss reports from the state of Ohio?

BTW, I submit that a person who claims not to be a Bigfoot enthusiast yet is stomping around his backyard with wooden feet on is maybe not being frank.

I wonder, have you ever posted on any Bigfoot forum before registering at BFF as blue bear? Not that it's any business of mine, of course. It's just you've accumulated far, far to many footerisms to have only had a minor passing interest, wouldn't you say?

[makaya325]

I love the whole Bigfoot phenomona, especially the commercials, merchandise, books, etc its all very cool.

I tend to focus on the few reports that i feel are worth taking a look at. I used the wooden feet as an experiment to see how easy or hard it is to fake tracks.

I dont like when people of different views label other peoples views in a deragotory way. Im a little tired of the name callings, such as the skeptoids, woos, cranks, etc.

[kitakaze]

I love the whole Bigfoot phenomona, especially the commercials, merchandise, books, etc its all very cool.

Well, it is pretty interesting. I find Bigfootery and its enthusiasts more interesting than any prospective creature. I was hoping you might tell me if you've been on a Bigfoot forum before, though. You've picked up a lot of blurbs and "factoids" that Bigfoot enthusiasts pass around to eachother particularly in forums.

I tend to focus on the few reports that i feel are worth taking a look at. I used the wooden feet as an experiment to see how easy or hard it is to fake tracks.

Could you tell me your criteria as to what makes you feel something is worth taking a look at? Also, I would still like to know if you dismiss a report because it comes from Ohio.

I dont like when people of different views label other peoples views in a deragotory way. Im a little tired of the name callings, such as the skeptoids, woos, cranks, etc.

I can understand that. Have you been called lots of names? Because I haven't seen anyone do that to you here. Well... I mean, I saw you do it:

I can think of a few tools who are for and against the big guys existence

Physician, heal thyself, right?

Anyway, I think when you said...

kitz, no, i just have a general interest in the phenomona. nothing more.

...what you meant was that you have a passionate interest and are an enthusiast of the subject. That's great. I also noticed on the BFF that you spoke of being a native. I have a thread on researching alleged native myths and traditions regarding Bigfoot and your input would be more than welcome.

[makaya325]

That is correct, Kit, i am a native. I would rather not discuss my culture's beliefs here because i dont like being laughed at, which happened in my study hall because i was telling stories of bigfoot. I am a member of the Hoopa's, However, my family and I recently moved to long island, New york from california. I do know that my people regard bigfoot as just another animal, like a bear or moose, and that message is the strongest evidence for me to remain open.

btw, Kitz, do you like Native artifacts, because my family has masks of the native wildlife on my wall:D

[makaya325]

About the criteria, Kitz:

1. Does the area have enough food, how isolated is it, are there any trace signs, such as in the form of tracks, scat, hair etc. I also look at the history of the area regarding sightings of the big man

[kitakaze]

That is correct, Kit, i am a native. I would rather not discuss my culture's beliefs here because i dont like being laughed at, which happened in my study hall because i was telling stories of bigfoot. I am a member of the Hoopa's, However, my family and I recently moved to long island, New york from california.

I respect your reluctance but I have to tell you I can't help but take some exception to that worry. Have you examined the thread? A number of native people have been involved including those who are both believers and skeptics. You have mentioned Kathy Strain who has both participated and been discussed. I have very different views on the subject with Kathy but respect her and enjoy a friendly rapport. I have taken great care to ensure that the subject is dealt with in a respectful and considerate manner. Not one apect of native traditions and heritage has been mocked or laughed at and the first person to do so in that thread would get rained on by me. If you are not comfortable to discuss the issue here as you do at a Bigfoot site I will certainly not pirsue you to do so but I encourage you to try reading the first page of that thread. I think you'll be surprised.

I do know that my people regard bigfoot as just another animal, like a bear or moose, and that message is the strongest evidence for me to remain open.

That's interesting and if you change your mind, I'd like to hear more about it in that thread. Legends and traditions of the Hoopa and Yurok have been discussed in great detail. We've had testimony from Hoopa who emphatically state that there is absolutely no sasquatch entity in their traditions and that it was a creation of those of European descent.

btw, Kitz, do you like Native artifacts, because my family has masks of the native wildlife on my wall:D

Yes, I do like native artefacts, including masks. We've discussed them many many times in great detail in my thread. Have a look when you have time. Also, if you ever feel you've seen a mask depicting sasquatches, then please share.

[kitakaze]

About the criteria, Kitz:

1. Does the area have enough food, how isolated is it, are there any trace signs, such as in the form of tracks, scat, hair etc. I also look at the history of the area regarding sightings of the big man

All such things have been described in reports from Ohio, Texas, New York, Florida, and many other places.

Please show me a report from Canada or the American PNW that you feel satisfies your criteria. Then I will show you another from one of the above areas I listed.

I look forward to that report.

[makaya325]

Kitz, there are Hoopas who dont believe due to the fact that none of them ever heard from the 1st generation. I had the opportunity to listen to stories told by 1st generation hoopas, and it argues that sasquatch is a real animal. That doesnt mean i claim it as a fact.

[makaya325]

Kitz, for every indian that says it cant possibly be real, there are 100's who think otherwise

[kitakaze]

Kitz, there are Hoopas who dont believe due to the fact that none of them ever heard from the 1st generation. I had the opportunity to listen to stories told by 1st generation hoopas, and it argues that sasquatch is a real animal. That doesnt mean i claim it as a fact.

If you check the thread, you will see the people I am referring to are elder Hoopa. Mayaka, we must take care not to carelessly derail thread topics as we are doing here and elsewhere. I will post in the native myths/traditions thread to allow us a venue to continue the discussion.

[JcR]

Well I managed to come across some good pancake recipes
looking for this video.
They should try adding Valium and Ketamine to the recipe
Kinda like an anesthetic pancake. :)

[UncaYimmy]

Uncle, why would people report wolverines. Most likely was that tons of people saw them, but wouldnt care to report it

Because it is a highly unusual animal. Have you ever spent time out the wilderness? I have. When you spot an unusual animal, it's very exciting and disconcerting at the same time (is it friend or foe?). When you go to the national parks, they usually give you mini field guides about the local wildlife, which people use to *look* for animals.

Believe me, people report unusual animals.

And the wolverine was known to be rare because field researchers take surveys of all sorts of animals all the time. Rangers are out there all the time. They would know. Besides, if the animal were common, the motion cameras would find it all the time.

Few sightings usually means rare. Lots of sightings means not rare. There are lots of BF sightings, but not motion sensor pics.

Hmmm....

[LTC8K6]

I had the opportunity to listen to stories told by 1st generation hoopas, and it argues that sasquatch is a real animal.

Are you sure the stories argue? Don't they just make the claim as if it were a fact?

If they do in fact argue, what is the substance of the argument?

[makaya325]

Unca, not all reports are true IMO. Debunk most, and you come up with a couple 100, paling in comparision to the 10000000's of bears seen in the last decade

[makaya325]

Unca, yes i have spent over 7 years hiking, backpacking, camping. I love going off the trails to

Btw, Unca, your avatar is creeping me out a bit!

[kitakaze]

Mayaka, please give me a PNW or Canadian report of Bigfoot that passes your criteria. Also if you could explain why it passes your criteria. I will have a report after that from Ohio, New York, Texas etc that is quite the same.

[UncaYimmy]

Unca, not all reports are true IMO. Debunk most, and you come up with a couple 100, paling in comparision to the 10000000's of bears seen in the last decade

I actually have no idea what you're trying to say. Please use the Quote function. Just use square brackets to QUOTE and /QUOTE the sections or hit the Quote button to reply.

My point is simple. There is no proof of BF. Period. The only question is whether there is enough data to justify continued searches. As one indicator I offer that even animals believed to have gone extinct in an area (forget the right word) can accidentally be photographed despite only a few sightings reported.

BF, by contrast, has been allegedly sighted thousands of times, but has never once set of a field researches automated camera equipment.

That's one strike against. How many more strikes do YOU need before you give up?

[xblade]

Kitz, for every indian that says it cant possibly be real, there are 100's who think otherwise

Can any of those 100's lead someone to a bigfoot? Just one?

By the way, has anyone ever noticed there never seem to be any baby bigfoot footprints, or multiple prints from a herd of bigfeets as they migrate within the country? I mean, are baby bigfeets conceived immaculately, delivered by the mama bigfoot who then leaves the baby to raise itself so that no two bigfeets are ever in the same place together?

Things that make you go hmmm.....

[makaya325]

Xblade, there have been some baby bf casts found. Just look it up. I also believe this thing would leave its young on its back or in secluded places. There have been sightings of small and large bf together. Did you ever notice how babies of great apes travel? They cling to the mothers body until their old enough to survive on their own?

[LONGTABBER PE]

Xblade, there have been some baby bf casts found. Just look it up. I also believe this thing would leave its young on its back or in secluded places. There have been sightings of small and large bf together. Did you ever notice how babies of great apes travel? They cling to the mothers body until their old enough to survive on their own?

Actually there have been "purported' baby BF casts found. They have never been shown to be authentic BF ( for that matter they havent been shown to not be from a normal human and most of those claims were investigated by "investigators" ( I cringe when I use that word associated to BF dom) whose only standard of proof is saying "the witness sounded credible"

[Skeptic Guy]

Skeptic Guy, I dont think any park surveyor would report bigfoot because of the possibility of losing their job and reputation

Why would they lose their jobs if they reported a bigtoot?

[UncaYimmy]

Can any of those 100's lead someone to a bigfoot? Just one?

By the way, has anyone ever noticed there never seem to be any baby bigfoot footprints, or multiple prints from a herd of bigfeets as they migrate within the country? I mean, are baby bigfeets conceived immaculately, delivered by the mama bigfoot who then leaves the baby to raise itself so that no two bigfeets are ever in the same place together?

Things that make you go hmmm.....

They are egg-laying marsupials. I've already explained this before. They squat on their eggs a lot (hence sasquatch. That explains the big feet and strange footprints as well as the mournful howls (fallen arches, leg cramps). It also explains why you don't see their young.

Please try to keep up with the latest research.

[Skeptical Greg]

Why would they lose their jobs if they reported a bigtoot?Well Skeptic Guy, that's a whole nother' legend altogether .. Maybe worthy of it's own thread..

[Skeptical Greg]

....
By the way, has anyone ever noticed there never seem to be any baby bigfoot footprints, or multiple prints from a herd of bigfeets as they migrate within the country? I mean, are baby bigfeets conceived immaculately, delivered by the mama bigfoot who then leaves the baby to raise itself so that no two bigfeets are ever in the same place together?

Things that make you go hmmm.....Mr. Blade,
Our very own LTC8K6 has made this observation more than once ..

Yes. Never drowns or has an accident or plays, etc.

I've said this before. Bigfoot never does anything but walk straight from nowhere to nowhere.

He never does anything like stand around and contemplate the view, or kick pine cones, or skip and hop, or dance with happiness, or anything that would leave anything other than a line of tracks.

He's never walking along, and then runs like crazy for 20 feet just to be running on a nice summer day.

Two of them never race each other to the river to see who is fastest.

He never gets mad and stomps around in a circle in frustration.

He never gets in a fist fight with the guy in the next valley.

He never does a left-face.

His kids never run around in circles in the mud getting filthy.

They never climb a tree and fall out, or get stuck up there and holler for mama.

They never hang around in unruly groups and misbehave, or draw things in the dirt.

Bigfoot proponents get upset, and ban people from their discussions when people suggest the hairy guy might be trans-dimensional, or para normal; but it doesn't seem far fetched when you consider so many print sets begin suddenly and end suddenly.
Not to mention they sometimes lay down, leaving the impression of an elk, with nary a footprint coming or going.

( Why do people always mention something, after they say " Not to mention. " ?:confused:

[JcR]

Nah Bigfoot's life is boring and straight.
He really hasn't much to do in the woods except to walk from point A to B
Unless he finds some pancakes then he will just sit with his back to you.
Maybe he'll come across a angry 1200 pound Bear someday or a rutting moose.
Then we'll see some action.

[Skeptical Greg]

We just want to see him throw a pig .. ( ... or a goat )

[JcR]

If he does encounter a Rutting moose he might wish to
have a goat or pig to throw.

[rockinkt]

Yep - rutting moose make grizzlies drizzle...

[LONGTABBER PE]

Why would they lose their jobs if they reported a bigtoot?

This is another woo excuse to try to "reason away" why theres no "official" action,position or effort to do anything bigfoot.

( I'm going to impose on Rock[ my "former' chief lackey] to back me up as another LEO)

ANY ( all) branches of service, be they LE, military,"whatever" have what we in the groups call "war stories" ( define that any way you wish)

Those are time honored tales- some based in fact, others based in fantasy and some inbetween. So and so saw/heard/investigated_____________ and then__________ happened and i heard it from _______________ . ( fill it in any way you wish)

Now lets talk OFFICIAL. It is these peoples SWORN responsibility and JOB to "REPORT" anything that falls within the parameter of possible danger to public safety, complaints from citizens etc. ( when its REAL)

No officer/NCO in any field i have ever heard of was disciplined in any way for filing an OFFICIAL report ( regardless of the subject matter or how strange) it may appear.

Pilots ( civilian and military) have reported strange things ( UFO's if you will defined as UNIDENTIFIED flying objects that may not default to alien craft), guards have reported bumps and noises near their posts and the list goes on.

None of these people had their careers ended for doing their JOB.

BUT, people are NOT going to sign their name on an official incident report for a "war story". ( that action can and normally WILL have adverse career impact)

The reason you see so few "official reports" isnt because theres some grand BF "cover up" that goes to the highest level of the Illuminati and enforced by the MIB but because they are mainly jokes or stories.

[Skeptic Guy]

Well Skeptic Guy, that's a whole nother' legend altogether .. Maybe worthy of it's own thread..

Doh! My son would claim that there is plenty of evidence of Bigtoots. His father being one.

This is another woo excuse to try to "reason away" why theres no "official" action,position or effort to do anything bigfoot.

( I'm going to impose on Rock[ my "former' chief lackey] to back me up as another LEO)

ANY ( all) branches of service, be they LE, military,"whatever" have what we in the groups call "war stories" ( define that any way you wish)

Those are time honored tales- some based in fact, others based in fantasy and some inbetween. So and so saw/heard/investigated_____________ and then__________ happened and i heard it from _______________ . ( fill it in any way you wish)

Now lets talk OFFICIAL. It is these peoples SWORN responsibility and JOB to "REPORT" anything that falls within the parameter of possible danger to public safety, complaints from citizens etc. ( when its REAL)

No officer/NCO in any field i have ever heard of was disciplined in any way for filing an OFFICIAL report ( regardless of the subject matter or how strange) it may appear.

Pilots ( civilian and military) have reported strange things ( UFO's if you will defined as UNIDENTIFIED flying objects that may not default to alien craft), guards have reported bumps and noises near their posts and the list goes on.

None of these people had their careers ended for doing their JOB.

BUT, people are NOT going to sign their name on an official incident report for a "war story". ( that action can and normally WILL have adverse career impact)

The reason you see so few "official reports" isnt because theres some grand BF "cover up" that goes to the highest level of the Illuminati and enforced by the MIB but because they are mainly jokes or stories.

I would agree. If a park ranger (offiically) reported that he saw a new species of animal, I don't think he would be fired. Further evidence would be required but he would be a hero if it all panned out.

[William Parcher]

I wonder if any NAs lost their social status within the tribe for claiming an Otter Man (or whatever) encounter.

[LONGTABBER PE]

I would agree. If a park ranger (offiically) reported that he saw a new species of animal, I don't think he would be fired. Further evidence would be required but he would be a hero if it all panned out.


It wouldnt even have to be that grand. These Rangers have a duty to protect people, protect the land, protect the animals etc. Its their job. Even if it wasnt a new species or a "confirmed" BF sighting- its pretty simple to say

Report :xxxxxxxxxx

I experienced what appeared to be a large animal at area X. It had somewhat of a pungent odor. It also made some low gutteral noises and high pitched shrills.

The area contains matted grasses, impressions in the ground that may be prints and other evidence of a large animal moving thru the brush.

Given the number of hikers ( hunters, fishermen,nature lovers or whatever) that frequent area X, I feel it prudent in the interests of public safety and for the animal should it be a straggler or somehow diseased to be investigated by biologists/agents from the state DNR as a precautionary measure.

Signed: Ranger Rick

Now, who is going to be fired,ostracised, disciplined for that report? What higher agency ( with that report on file) isnt going to respond out of the interest of public safety? ( just in case some hiker did come up missing and became some bears lunch?)

Now, take that same report and make it LE, military, fire department, EMT or girl scout.

Thats how it would happen in the REAL world.

[makaya325]

They would be fired if they didnt provide evidence

[LONGTABBER PE]

They would be fired if they didnt provide evidence

I can assure you from personal experience ( being the first responder making the report and later the NCOIC taking the report then later the investigator sent out) thats not correct.

Contrary to popular belief, officers "of the line" are not trained CSI types or qualified to investigate anything. ( certain exceptions apply for smaller departments) their primary job is to enforce the law, ensure immediate security and only the most basic of evidence collection.

Thats why there is the position of "detective/investigator" and criminalist- those positions take special and advanced training from a line officer.

[makaya325]

Long, but if the claim they made was incredible and not reliable, wouldnt they get the boot? Or would it be ok if people make mistakes?

[rockinkt]

They would be fired if they didnt provide evidence

Complete nonsense.

Did you read Longtabber's post? As a former LEO - I can tell you that what he posted is true.
(it's also true that I was referred to as his lackey by one of the marvelous mods on the BFF - but that that is another story.:D)

Fer cryin' out loud - I formally investigated two sasquatch reports when I was a police officer.

During my career - at no time would anybody have been reprimanded for dutifully reporting anything out of the ordinary that came to their attention.
I can also tell you that writing a report and signing your name to it is a very serious action in the world of LE. If people seriously question your report - they are questioning your integrity as a police officer. That is not something that anyone takes lightly.

As recently as last year - I checked with two very high ranking Officers of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police who assured me that that nothing had changed and if there was reason to believe that a report of a sasquatch sighting had merit - it would be dealt with formally (i.e. a case would be assigned to a member for investigation).

[kitakaze]

Long, but if the claim they made was incredible and not reliable, wouldnt they get the boot? Or would it be ok if people make mistakes?

That is just silly.

"I think I saw something like a bear running on two feet."

"Did you get evidence?"

"No. It whizzed by real fast"

"You're fired."

Someone please explain to me why the JREF doesn't have a good forehead slap smiley.

[makaya325]

They would laugh at you, and you would be labeled "Mr.woo"

[LONGTABBER PE]

Long, but if the claim they made was incredible and not reliable, wouldnt they get the boot? Or would it be ok if people make mistakes?

let me try to guide you here with legitimate facts and attempt to undo some of the BIGFOOT science aspect.

In the real world

There are 2 types of reports- initial and follow up ( or responding officer/CSI or however the department is set up)

A "responding" officer is generally a "patrol officer" and as such is there to provide more "site security" until the experts can be dispatched.

Field reports from those situations are often ( to a layman) viewed as 'incredible","unreliable" and mistakes happen.

Heres why ( excluding a violent or life threatening incident- thats a whole different ballgame) a responding officer first has to get back to his patrol route ( only X number of patrol officers in a given area) so his job is to record what he sees, hears,observes etc.

He may ( or may not) have the expertise,equipment, time or even opportunity to follow up on what his senses are telling him. ( much less validate it) Thats not his FIRST responsibility. His first responsibility is to secure the scene and protect evidence- then depending on circumstances he may have the time etc to go looking. Then theres the threat factor.

Lets say you got a BF report at night in a rural area. Might be a BF, might be a bear. No officer is going to walk in the dark with his sidearm and a maglite and risk a close encounter of the worst kind with a large animal. He will call for back up ( with appropriate firepower/massed firepower) and or the hounds. ( or call the DNR)

Hes not going to get in trouble for that. he's not going to get in trouble for saying he saw something that might be a bigfoot. He's not going to get fragged for reporting "animal like" noises.

"Reliability" is determined in the investigation phase ( where the right people have the time/training/experience and reduced threat level) not the first response phase.

[LONGTABBER PE]

They would laugh at you, and you would be labeled "Mr.woo"

( dude, shhhhhhh but heres a secret- that happens for some reason on just about every shift. Someones always having "one of those calls" and wind up getting ragged about it)

[William Parcher]

I know of some people who would lose their job for not encountering Bigfoot. :D

[makaya325]

William, come on. If someone said they encountered bigfoot, the officials would roll their eyes

[makaya325]

Kitz, i find this encounter pretty cool

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=6486

[LONGTABBER PE]

Kitz, i find this encounter pretty cool

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=6486

To bad that story is a bogus line of crap

[makaya325]

Long, then what do you consider a good sighting?

[kitakaze]

Kitz, i find this encounter pretty cool

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=6486

It's fantastic for sure. Fantastic. So why does it meet your criteria?

[kitakaze]

To bad that story is a bogus line of crap

This one is a stinker, no doubt. Hearts and minds, hearts and minds...

Happy Birthday, LT.

[kitakaze]

Long, then what do you consider a good sighting?

That is not a bad question.

[Old man]

William, come on. If someone said they encountered bigfoot, the officials would roll their eyes Of course they would. But, as Longtabber pointed out, then they would investigate the report, even if it was only to find out if the officer in question could be trusted.

[makaya325]

Old man, havent any park rangers registered a report? Im just curious to see the reaction

[LONGTABBER PE]

Long, then what do you consider a good sighting?

One that provides clear concise detail, makes logical sense and has some form of evidenciary support.

[LONGTABBER PE]

This one is a stinker, no doubt. Hearts and minds, hearts and minds...

Happy Birthday, LT.

Thanks

I wish I knew what ODA that was.

[William Parcher]

I know of some people who would lose their job for not encountering Bigfoot. :D


William, come on. If someone said they encountered bigfoot, the officials would roll their eyes


Examples of people who would lose their jobs for not encountering Bigfoot:

Matt Moneymaker
Tom Biscardi
Bob Titmus in the old days under the employment of Tom Slick

[Old man]

Old man, havent any park rangers registered a report? Im just curious to see the reaction Beats the cr*p outa me. I haven't been much of a 'footer since I was your age (and we hadn't even killed off all of the horses and camels, then). :D

[kitakaze]

Examples of people who would lose their jobs for not encountering Bigfoot:

Matt Moneymaker
Tom Biscardi
Bob Titmus in the old days under the employment of Tom Slick

Every single person that works for Doug Hajicek.

[kitakaze]

Old man, havent any park rangers registered a report? Im just curious to see the reaction

Mayaka, when you're enjoying some BFF frolick time you should really find someone who lives in Washington state to call Gifford Pinchot National Forest and ask if any of the rangers have been logging sasquatch activity.

[makaya325]

Ok, kitz?