JavaScript is disabled
Our website requires JavaScript to function properly. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser settings before proceeding.
I think you mixing sasquatch with religion;) This reminds me of the anti-maskers lol God will keep us healthy... until it didnt. now I have friends and extended family in quarantine, including a 5 year old.

Either way, getting out in the woods, running game cameras and keeping a sharp eye out for the abnormal helps us identify other "new to us" species.

No, I am not "mixing" Sasquatch with religion. I made a comparison between belief in Sasquatch and belief in religion / god.
 
All you have to do is watch a bigfoot hunting show on television and it's pretty obvious which side is smarter.
I just watched "Shooting Bigfoot" on Amazon Prime last night, and laughed the whole way.

"I'm interviewing a witness, and we'll call him 'Dave'. Is that alright with you, Rocky?"
 
For all you Bigfoot deniers, did you even read the OP? For the love of God, there was a freaking weed in a road people!
Correct me if I am wrong but you directed your post to 'deniers' yet you emphasized the 'weed in the road' theory as though you are supporting it is evidence of bigfoot.

Personally I think I can speak for all 'deniers' in that the
weed in the road' isn't even a 'blip on the radar'.
 
I work in the world of EVIDENCE. Evidence can come in many forms such as tangible (a picture or video) or intangible (a witness statement), circumstantial (e.g. waking to see fresh snow on the ground, you can conclude it snowed even though you didn't see it snow). There's also different levels of proof to establish whether something occurred, such as preponderance (more likely than not, e.g. >50.01%), beyond a reasonable doubt (meaning all reasonable alternatives explored and rejected leaving no other reasonable explanation), no doubt, etc.

Having said that, I have followed various "best" evidence with interest and been uncompelled that anything rises to even the lowest standard of proof, e.g. "more likely than not." Most of the encounters are easily a case of a hoax or mistaken identity. Nearly every picture or video is clearly a man in a suit. The famous 1967 Patterson video is probably the most clear, close, and long-term sighting I think in existence. It was taken by a man with CUMBERSOME equipment. Remarkable, if true, for him to be in that exact location, waiting with his camera for no apparent reason.

Here's the famous Patterson video.

Look at Patterson's history. He first learned of bigfoot legends in 1959. He claims then he went scouting and found tracks a few years later, in 1962. And low-and-behold just 5 years later he quite remarkably takes the very best 53 second video ever captured of what clearly appears to be a bigfoot. That is a very suspicious account considering entire organizations have been actively scouting wide regions of the pacific forests and never produced anything near what Patterson produced in a short time...

Patterson also had significant financial interest, having dedicated his finances to his search and to his self published book in 1966. What better way to sell your book than to have a sighting... he was apparently also trying to get funding for a big foot movie.... it all seems very suspect and very financially motivated.

As for his scouting adventure that resulted in the famous "sighting," you can read all about it. The Wikipedia entry states that he used multiple actors for his filming out there, including Bob Heironimus (who is claimed to have been the big man in the suit I believe).

" In May/June 1967 Patterson began filming a docudrama or pseudo-documentary about cowboys being led by an old miner and a wise Indian tracker on a hunt for Bigfoot. The storyline called for Patterson, his Indian guide (Gimlin in a wig), and the cowboys to recall in flashbacks the stories of Fred Beck (of the 1924 Ape Canyon incident) and others as they tracked the beast on horseback. For actors and cameraman, Patterson used at least nine volunteer acquaintances, including Gimlin and Bob Heironimus, for three days of shooting, perhaps over the Memorial Day weekend.[23][24] Patterson would have needed a costume to represent Bigfoot, if the time came to shoot such climactic scenes. "

As for his account, it doesn't seem credible. I'm not a lie detector, but this account seems fabricated. Main problems:
* How do two men on horses "sneak up on and startle" a wild bigfoot? Horse are not quiet animals. Their equipment would be heard a mile away, and their distinct human/horse smell would easily alert a wild animal adept at hiding from humans. :rolleyes:
* Also, horses sense danger such as bears, mountain lions, etc. Yet these horse didn't sense or smell any danger until during the sighting when one horse reared up. :rolleyes: Apparently the horses did actually fear it, and they did run off and had to be collected. Weird how they had to actually see it first to fear it and they couldn't smell it since bigfoot are supposed to be really smelly. :rolleyes:
* They miraculously got within 25 feet of this "bigfoot.":rolleyes:
* Apparently the bigfoot wasn't too camera shy and waited around for TWENTY SECONDS Patterson to dismount and collect his camera and turn it on. :rolleyes:


Same Wiki article:

"Patterson and Gimlin were riding generally northeast (upstream) on horseback along the east bank of Bluff Creek. At sometime between 1:15 and 1:40 PM, they "came to an overturned tree with a large root system at a turn in the creek, almost as high as a room".[40][41]

When they rounded it, "there was a logjam—a 'crow's nest'—left over from the flood of '64," and then they spotted the figure behind it nearly simultaneously. It was either "crouching beside the creek to their left" or "standing" there, on the opposite bank. Gimlin later described himself as in a mild state of shock after first seeing the figure.[42][43][42]

Patterson initially estimated its height at 6 feet 6 inches (1.98 m) to 7 feet (2.1 m),[44] and later raised his estimate to about 7 feet 6 inches (2.29 m). Some later analysts, anthropologist Grover Krantz among them, have suggested Patterson's later estimate was about 1 foot (0.30 m) too tall. Gimlin's estimate was 6 feet (1.8 m).

The film shows what Patterson and Gimlin claimed was a large, hairy, bipedal, apelike figure with short, "silvery brown"[45] or "dark reddish-brown"[46] or "black"[47] hair covering most of its body, including its prominent breasts. The figure in the film generally matches the descriptions of Bigfoot offered by others who claim to have seen one.

Patterson estimated he was about 25 feet (7.6 m) away from the creature at his closest. Patterson said that his horse reared upon sensing the figure, and he spent about 20 seconds extricating himself from the saddle, controlling his horse, getting around to its other side,[48] and getting his camera from a saddlebag before he could run toward the figure while operating his camera. He yelled "Cover me" to Gimlin, "meaning to get the gun out".[49] Gimlin crossed the creek on horseback after Patterson had run well beyond it, riding on a path somewhat to the left of Patterson's and somewhat beyond his position. Perez estimates he came within 60–90 feet (18–27 m) of "Patty".[49] Then, rifle in hand, he dismounted, but did not point his rifle at the creature.[50]

The figure had walked away from them to a distance of about 120 feet (37 m) before Patterson began to run after it. The resulting film (about 59.5 seconds long at 16 fps) is initially quite shaky until Patterson got about 80 feet (24 m) from the figure. At that point, the figure glanced over its right shoulder at the men and Patterson fell to his knees; on Krantz's map this corresponds to frame 264.[51] To researcher John Green, Patterson would later characterize the creature's expression as one of "contempt and disgust ... you know how it is when the umpire tells you 'one more word and you're out of the game.' That's the way it felt."

Shortly after this point the steady, middle portion of the film begins, containing the famous look-back frame 352. Patterson said, "it turned a total of I think three times,"[52] the other times therefore being before the filming began and/or while he was running with his finger off the trigger. Shortly after glancing over its shoulder on film, the creature disappeared behind a grove of trees for 14 seconds, then reappeared in the film's final 15 seconds after Patterson moved 10 feet (3.0 m) to a better vantage point, fading into the trees again and being lost to view at a distance of 265 feet (81 m) as the reel of film ran out.[53]

Gimlin remounted and followed it on horseback, keeping his distance, until it disappeared around a bend in the road three hundred yards away. Patterson called him back at that point, feeling vulnerable on foot without a rifle, because he feared the creature's mate might approach. The entire encounter had lasted less than two minutes.

Next, Gimlin and Patterson rounded up Patterson's horses, which had run off in the opposite direction, downstream, before the filming began. Patterson got his second roll of film from his saddlebag and filmed the tracks.[54] Then the men tracked "Patty" for either one mile[51] or three miles (4.8 km),[55] but "lost it in the heavy undergrowth".[56] They went to their campsite three miles south, picked up plaster, returned to the initial site, measured the creature's step-length, and made two plaster casts, one each of the best-quality right and left prints."


Others have poked a LOT of holes in their statement inconsistencies, and you can read Wiki for a summary.

Was it a hoax? Well, let's apply logic.
* It could easily have been hoaxed, and a big man in a suit. Many experts have reviewed the video and point out it appears to be a costume with a zipper seam, and the stride and gate and movements appears to be that of a human in a suit and not of an organic animal with a natural stride.
* Dubious "confession" evidence exists about the alleged man in the suit.
* The entire account smells of, well, bigfoot droppings. From both parties being startled by the other (yet bigfoot and horses have great hearing and smell senses). And the fact bigfoot waiting around for Patterson to dismount, gather his camera, and start filming is malarkey.
* Never before or since has such a remarkably clear video of a bigfoot been captured. Particularly as more people actively hunt bigfoots and have a lot of sophisticated equipment and cameras. So the absolute rarity also raises serious questions.
These items alone raise sufficient doubt as to the authenticity.

I've watched a number of high resolution videos that raise interesting points. Possibly carrying something in her left hand, possibly having a rope/sling, pouch, with an object shielded on her left side. But we also know that female bears, with cubs, are aggressive.

At best it's a "maybe." Maybe does not rise to "more likely than not." Or a "probably not...".

For further viewing, this is the apparent current "BEST" video citing evidence as of 2020. They're interesting, at best. All could easily be hoaxes, e.g. men in suits. None offer a very clear image. Most portray a bigfoot acting counter to how a reclusive intelligent creature adept at hiding would behave (e.g. running out in the open, standing on ridge-lines in the clear, etc. easily observable, running across paths and roads when humans are near (rabbits and deer, for instance, often stay extremely still when danger is near).

I remember back before cameras were convenient and everywhere.. When someone makes a ridiculous claim of what they saw, wish I had a camera!
Seems technology has kept up, ruining any validity of those videos due to Photoshop..And the hoaxes begin in masses:s0103:
 
132-logo.jpg
Steel construction, arm swings in the wind

732699.JPG

Info on the artist

Disautel Sasquatch 18JA13.jpg
Location
 
Last Edited:
View attachment 722928
Steel construction, arm swings in the wind

View attachment 722929

Info on the artist

View attachment 722931
Location

Is that bigfoot sculpture doing the Hokey-Pokey?
 
People are quick to believe that angelic beings visited earth, created miracles, inspired the bible, and died for our sins... But when someone mentions a monkey in the woods everyone's a disbeliever. LMAO.
The difference being humans actually witnessed and documented those events. And based upon my experience, the majority of people doubt even that bit of reality.
 
The difference being humans actually witnessed and documented those events. And based upon my experience, the majority of people doubt even that bit of reality.

Humans have witnessed and documented sasquatch. Foot prints have been casted, certain videos have been proven not to be fake, audio has been recorded that's been proven to be "not human and no known animal".

I'm just pointing out that it's funny that people will believe in one thing because they've been socially conditioned to do so, but wont believe in another because they've been socially conditioned NOT to. The power of words and connotation!
 

Upcoming Events

Tillamook Gun & Knife Show
Tillamook, OR
"The Original" Kalispell Gun Show
Kalispell, MT
Teen Rifle 1 Class
Springfield, OR
Kids Firearm Safety 2 Class
Springfield, OR

New Resource Reviews

New Classified Ads

Back Top