• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Bigfoot / Sasquatch In North America

Mungoman said:
The photo's feet are still, so that part is in focus, from the knees up things are blurry with a streak in the photo that indicates motion. Isn't flash usually set at 125th of a second which usually does away with blur, and why does the sasquatch move toward the flash, rather than away. There is no indication of head either...

Why would the creature be standing almost still with its head tucked in but it's upper body moving as if it's lurching forward toward the flash, rather than away - did it sneeze?

Or is it a porcupine on its hind legs...
Click to expand...
North American porcupines can look very like monkeys when in trees from a distance. This thing seemed to be moving, hence the bluring.
 
Lord Lucan said:
I may, or may not have a picture of a Bigfoot that I took in June of this year. Or, it may just be a case of pareidolia.
To give a short back story to it...
My wife and I were travelling in the United States and were driving from Maine to Vermont through New Hampshire.
Google maps suggested a number of scenic stops along the way as we were heading to Franconia Notch National Park in New Hampshire, one being Lower Falls recreation area on the Swift River.
An area of vast natural beauty, supremely scenic, we stopped to stretch out legs, take advantage of the restrooms and snaps a few images.
There were people paddling in the river and sunbathing on the large rocks in it and alongside the river banks.
Below you'll see two images, the first being a complete picture of the scene that I took with my phone (Samsung Galaxy S9) and the second a closeup of the possible Sasquatch.
I was trying to capture the scene with as few people in it as possible, however you'll see in the closeup a family, the mother & father standing on the rocks and their three children paddling in the river far downstream from where I was standing. On the other side of the river bank is a vaguely large, apelike humanoid figure. Perhaps just shadows, perhaps bushes or trees, perhaps rocks or maybe just something unexplainable. I've circled the area in question in red.
Just for fun, I sent the image to the good folks who star on the t.v show 'Finding Bigfoot'. Cliff Barackman found it interesting. Matt Moneymaker liked it and we're now Facebook friends. Ranae the skeptic thought it pareidolia (I expected no less from her) and Bobo ignored me completely.
I'll leave the following for your enjoyment or derision. Me, I like to think I captured a picture of a Bigfoot.
Click to expand...

The scenery is beautiful. New Hampshire is an area I might want to move to, some day.

The family in the distance are rather sweet. If you look carefully at the man and woman embracing, you'll notice that the man seems to have his head turned away from the camera and could well be looking directly at the shadowsquatch. The woman seems to have her head against his chest but could be looking in the shadowsquatch's direction too.

Who knows, had they heard something in the bushes? Or just coincidence.

Don't suppose you went down there and asked them if they heard/saw anything? :)
 
markrkingston1 said:
The scenery is beautiful. New Hampshire is an area I might want to move to, some day.

The family in the distance are rather sweet. If you look carefully at the man and woman embracing, you'll notice that the man seems to have his head turned away from the camera and could well be looking directly at the shadowsquatch. The woman seems to have her head against his chest but could be looking in the shadowsquatch's direction too.

Who knows, had they heard something in the bushes? Or just coincidence.

Don't suppose you went down there and asked them if they heard/saw anything? :)
Click to expand...

No. It wasn't until I was back home in Australia & was reviewing the pictures I took whilst away that I first noticed the peculiarity.
 
Lord Lucan said:
No. It wasn't until I was back home in Australia & was reviewing the pictures I took whilst away that I first noticed the peculiarity.
Click to expand...

Ah yes I understand, thanks.

By the way, I see that someone has been stacking up the stones. See just left of the middle-bottom of the enlarged photo. :)
 
markrkingston1 said:
Ah yes I understand, thanks.

By the way, I see that someone has been stacking up the stones. See just left of the middle-bottom of the enlarged photo. :)
Click to expand...

I recall seeing a number of stacked stone towers (for lack of a better term) there. The river stones were large, flat and well rounded by the water. Perfect for stacking. I've read that there is some symbolism behind this, but have forgotten what that is. Can anyone enlighten me?
 
Lord Lucan said:
I recall seeing a number of stacked stone towers (for lack of a better term) there. The river stones were large, flat and well rounded by the water. Perfect for stacking. I've read that there is some symbolism behind this, but have forgotten what that is. Can anyone enlighten me?
Click to expand...
It could just be a site where Andy Goldsworthy spent some time.
 
Lord Lucan said:
I recall seeing a number of stacked stone towers (for lack of a better term) there. The river stones were large, flat and well rounded by the water. Perfect for stacking. I've read that there is some symbolism behind this, but have forgotten what that is. Can anyone enlighten me?
Click to expand...

Hadn't heard of it being symbolic. I did read somewhere that it was increasingly popular, merely as something to do with no deeper symbolism.
 
During the Christmas slow news period, an unimpressive bigfoot sighting story came out of Kentucky. It has since taken a more interesting turn. The woman who was the witness in this story is unhappy that her October report to BRFO "went to the press". The BRFO database is a public site and did not show her name. She thinks they may have called the local news, I don't suspect they did that directly as some reporter could have just come across it while searching for a local bit of clickbait. The first news story did not use her name but took the info right from BRFO who kept her anonymous. She is now both angry that her name is not attached in the press and at the same time is angry that it is public at all.

I'm listening to her "video" (is a recorded live stream youtube chat) and discovered how extremely naive she is on so many things - like how clickbait news works, that internet commenters are mean, who "Groot" is, what people sadly think of Kentuckians (and Bigfoot witnesses, in general), etc. But here is the twist. She is a paranormal youtuber for a while now - Paranormally Correct channel. She also is a member of a Dogman research group. Note that only SHE saw the creature in detail, not her husband who was with her. Strange. She's also seen ghosts, UFOs, and seems to believe in demons. Not exactly an unbiased witness. It's clear from her commentary so far (I don't think I can stand the giggling babble for all 3 hours) that she wants to have experiences and to build a core audience for her paranormal ideas. Now that this one has not played out personally as she wished, she's upset about it and doesn't know how to handle this - whether to own it or not. It's odd to listen to her conflict, it's a case study of modern paranormal culture sociology; I found it fascinating.
Here is where I discovered the continuing story. Kentucky woman takes issue with BRFO investigation
 
If only Bigfoot was as much of a publicity seeker as some of his aficionados, the mystery would have been solved decades ago.
 
Sharon Hill said:
During the Christmas slow news period, an unimpressive bigfoot sighting story came out of Kentucky. It has since taken a more interesting turn. The woman who was the witness in this story is unhappy that her October report to BRFO "went to the press". The BRFO database is a public site and did not show her name. She thinks they may have called the local news, I don't suspect they did that directly as some reporter could have just come across it while searching for a local bit of clickbait. The first news story did not use her name but took the info right from BRFO who kept her anonymous. She is now both angry that her name is not attached in the press and at the same time is angry that it is public at all.

I'm listening to her "video" (is a recorded live stream youtube chat) and discovered how extremely naive she is on so many things - like how clickbait news works, that internet commenters are mean, who "Groot" is, what people sadly think of Kentuckians (and Bigfoot witnesses, in general), etc. But here is the twist. She is a paranormal youtuber for a while now - Paranormally Correct channel. She also is a member of a Dogman research group. Note that only SHE saw the creature in detail, not her husband who was with her. Strange. She's also seen ghosts, UFOs, and seems to believe in demons. Not exactly an unbiased witness. It's clear from her commentary so far (I don't think I can stand the giggling babble for all 3 hours) that she wants to have experiences and to build a core audience for her paranormal ideas. Now that this one has not played out personally as she wished, she's upset about it and doesn't know how to handle this - whether to own it or not. It's odd to listen to her conflict, it's a case study of modern paranormal culture sociology; I found it fascinating.
Here is where I discovered the continuing story. Kentucky woman takes issue with BRFO investigation
Click to expand...
Hi Sharon,

I can fully understand and appreciate the healthy scepticism people have when they learn that someone who claims to have had a paranormal experience of one kind or another were already into reading about paranormal experiences. I've seen an unexplained flying object with a fellow witness, a shadow person that had already seen twice by someone else and had the misfortune of 'experiencing' demons although that was much more likely due to some heavy medication I was on at the time on a hospital ward.

Instead of trying to convince everyone and myself that these were paranormal events, I've spent years doing my best to find non paranormal reasons for these events and have managed to give more rational reasons (at a stretch sometimes though) for a lot of these events.

Out of the three, the only one I can be honest to myself about secretly always hoping to see was a ghost, I was never really interested in flying saucers, in fact what we saw wasn't saucer shaped and I've never had interest or belief in demons until I experienced what was most likely a vivid hallucination, six of the bastards standing around my bed!. Again, they were suspiciously in black shadow form which makes me wonder if an optician would be of more help than an exorcist. I'm not and have never been tested for or diagnosed with any kind of mental illness so hopefully I can rule that one out.

Maybe this woman's telling the truth in her mind but hasn't yet had time to (or have the tools to) work out what she actually experienced instead for herself.

As both a fellow sceptic and also someone who's had similar experiences as this woman, I'd be happy to answer any questions via pm if it's of any help to you.
 
Last edited:
Swifty said:
Hi Sharon,

I can fully understand and appreciate the healthy scepticism people have when they learn that someone who claims to have had a paranormal experience of one kind or another were already into reading about paranormal experiences. I've seen an unexplained flying object with a fellow witness, a shadow person that had already seen twice by someone else and had the misfortune of 'experiencing' demons although that was much more likely due to some heavy medication I was on at the time on a hospital ward.

Instead of trying to convince everyone and myself that these were paranormal events, I've spent years doing my best to find non paranormal reasons for these events and have managed to give more rational reasons (at a stretch sometimes though) for a lot of these events.
[...]
Maybe this woman's telling the truth in her mind but hasn't yet had time to (or have the tools to) work out what she actually experienced instead for herself.
Click to expand...

I agree that there are many various and complex reasons why people could have multiple paranormal experiences. I’d be the same in trying to find a mundane explanation for them too. Since I could never know all the possibilities, I could never admit it was ‘paranormal’ cause. (Unless they discover a Bigfoot body and that becomes a plausible explanation.) My surprise with this story mostly came from her conflict between wanting to share the experience and NOT wanting to share it. That is, she wanted to control the audience and reaction to it. She wanted it to remain her personal and special experience but once it was out there, she intended to own it for the world to see. I can hear her struggling with it in her livestream. If you claim to see Bigfoot, you may not talk at all or you may go to the press and shout it. As a paranormal investigator, she went to fellow investigators and it didn’t work out. In fact, she even suggests that her affiliation with the dogman investigation project could have been seen as “competition” to the BFRO. The paranormal scene these days is chock full of interesting nuances like this in how groups and individuals relate to each other, to the public, and to the press.
 
Sharon Hill said:
I agree that there are many various and complex reasons why people could have multiple paranormal experiences. I’d be the same in trying to find a mundane explanation for them too. Since I could never know all the possibilities, I could never admit it was ‘paranormal’ cause. (Unless they discover a Bigfoot body and that becomes a plausible explanation.) My surprise with this story mostly came from her conflict between wanting to share the experience and NOT wanting to share it. That is, she wanted to control the audience and reaction to it. She wanted it to remain her personal and special experience but once it was out there, she intended to own it for the world to see. I can hear her struggling with it in her livestream. If you claim to see Bigfoot, you may not talk at all or you may go to the press and shout it. As a paranormal investigator, she went to fellow investigators and it didn’t work out. In fact, she even suggests that her affiliation with the dogman investigation project could have been seen as “competition” to the BFRO. The paranormal scene these days is chock full of interesting nuances like this in how groups and individuals relate to each other, to the public, and to the press.
Click to expand...
I'm sure that if I saw a Bigfoot, I wouldn't stand around trying to film it .. I'd be out of there as fast as possible! (thanks for the reply). It is interesting how her experience has evolved from her not wanting to let the world know to then trying to attach her name to it once the cat's out of the bag although I don't think that's an unusual reaction, I'm currently in a paranormal documentary that might or might not be completed and might or not grow bigger than the filmmakers intend it to. The only thing that would bother me if their documentary becomes bigger than planned and the national media picked it up would be if a lazy journalist relabels it as 'Local man talks about his ghosts' or 'Local man convinced ghosts are real' or something similar. I've already had an Eastern Daily Press journalist do that to me once after my Mrs found the simulacra stone on our beach with a bearded face and I was chuckling with him that it could be interpreted as Jesus, Brian Blessed or Jim Morrison which became 'Her boyfriend thinks the face looks like Jesus': https://www.edp24.co.uk/news/face-o...-on-cromer-beach-or-is-it-karl-marx-1-4594649
Maybe a possible similar misrepresentation by the media is what she's concerned about now.
 
Last edited:
Sharon Hill said:
But here is the twist. She is a paranormal youtuber for a while now - Paranormally Correct channel. She also is a member of a Dogman research group. Note that only SHE saw the creature in detail, not her husband who was with her. Strange. She's also seen ghosts, UFOs, and seems to believe in demons. Not exactly an unbiased witness.
Click to expand...

I have to admit to feeling a certain level of existential Fortean guilt as I say the following: When I see reports from this type of person, it puts me right off.

There, I said it. I am a bad Fortean.
 
markrkingston1 said:
I have to admit to feeling a certain level of existential Fortean guilt as I say the following: When I see reports from this type of person, it puts me right off.

There, I said it. I am a bad Fortean.
Click to expand...
Nah .. it means you have an investigative mind .. does this woman have that or is she just another bullshitting attention seeker or has she not learned how to critically look at and re evaluate her experiences? (not Sharon obviously, the woman claiming multiple experiences).
 
markrkingston1 said:
This is all too common.

I seek never to fall into the trap of doing this.
Click to expand...
Well, it seems to have a lot to do with why you are interested in it in the first place. Some of us (like me) aren't happy just believing in fun things. I want to know what's going on. Many of these amateur investigators at least have "investigation" in the strict sense pretty far down on their to-do list. They want to have enlightening experiences, feel special, believe in something more that's "out there" - very much wishing for the re-enchantment idea because their lives aren't so exciting.

BTW, it's quite a bit less exciting to want to know stuff, because you don't get satisfying answers with paranormal subjects. Maybe you spend your whole life looking for Sasquatch and never get anything too satisfying, as so many of the now deceased Bigfoot hunters failed to do. And some see Sasquatch everywhere or when it's convenient. They can maintain this great worldview full of interesting creatures (though I don't know how they leave the house or go to sleep with those beliefs.) People, damn it - they are the messiest thing to study.
 
Sharon Hill said:
BTW, it's quite a bit less exciting to want to know stuff, because you don't get satisfying answers with paranormal subjects.
Click to expand...
There you go. And after 30 odd years of 'woo-woo' and berks telling me '**insert phenomena here**' "doesn't work like that", the insane belief that the plural of anecdote is data, and my near favourite, the perennial "that doesn't mean it can't be true", I'm forced to conclude the material world is surprisingly mundane, obeys the laws of probability perfectly well, and the only odd things that happen are inside people's heads.

Regret, therefore, have lost interest in any phenomena for which proper evidence is not available. Life genuinely is too short.

Sharon Hill said:
People, damn it - they are the messiest thing to study.
Click to expand...
But, at least you can study them. They're real.
 
Sharon Hill said:
Well, it seems to have a lot to do with why you are interested in it in the first place. Some of us (like me) aren't happy just believing in fun things. I want to know what's going on. Many of these amateur investigators at least have "investigation" in the strict sense pretty far down on their to-do list. They want to have enlightening experiences, feel special, believe in something more that's "out there" - very much wishing for the re-enchantment idea because their lives aren't so exciting.

BTW, it's quite a bit less exciting to want to know stuff, because you don't get satisfying answers with paranormal subjects. Maybe you spend your whole life looking for Sasquatch and never get anything too satisfying, as so many of the now deceased Bigfoot hunters failed to do. And some see Sasquatch everywhere or when it's convenient. They can maintain this great worldview full of interesting creatures (though I don't know how they leave the house or go to sleep with those beliefs.) People, damn it - they are the messiest thing to study.
Click to expand...

I wholeheartedly agree. I wrote something similar a short while ago[1].



Footnote:-
1: https://forums.forteana.org/index.p...tween-science-and-religion.65155/post-1805792
 
The latest "Sasquatch sighting" from a populated area of Provo, Utah is not impressive but it is curious in a cultural sense.

The Rocky Mountain Sasquatch Org investigated shortly after this video of an apparently large dark human-like thing appeared on Reddit on Jan 2. They found human boot prints as well as highly dubious "Sasquatch" prints. Not a trackway, which is almost ALWAYS a problem. They assumed early on this was a legit sighting. But their comparisons between a person and the video in question were unimpressive. Even though they determined the thing was much bigger. The investigation, while a good effort, was sloppy and showed nothing to conclude this was anything but a person.

NOTABLE is that the man who shot this is a video producer interested in "the evolving nature of new media and technology, and taking advantage of emerging platforms". This strongly suggests, as well as the lack of all other evidence to its reality, that this is a stunt for attention. You can find his website here: http://www.austinmcraig.com/about-1/

I'm seeing quite a few would be filmmakers and artists try their hand at manufacturing hoaxes for attention and to see what happens.
 
lordmongrove said:
Its just a large person, they even found boot prints. Utter waste of time.
Click to expand...
Most Bigfoot claims in the media today are utter wastes of time. Yet, they get the clicks and attention. That seems to be what it's mostly all about. In this case, it seems likely that was exactly what it was, an attempt at attention for Mr. Austin Craig, video producer.
 
Sharon Hill said:
Most Bigfoot claims in the media today are utter wastes of time. Yet, they get the clicks and attention. That seems to be what it's mostly all about. In this case, it seems likely that was exactly what it was, an attempt at attention for Mr. Austin Craig, video producer.
Click to expand...
One of the reasons i prefer to spend my time and money investigating in Asia.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top