Jerry Nemeth wrote:
Bigfoot was accidentally caught on an Eagle cam in northern Michigan.
I'm going to put up a trail cam on my property which is not far away.

http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/m … /91561872/

Eagles aren't nesting this time of year.  For a large bipedal primate to live, there would have to be a minimum breeding population.  That includes animals of different age ranges living grouped together in some type of societal structure, with sufficient food, water, resting areas, and habitat range.  They would be quite easy to find with heat sensing equipment.  If you put out your trail cam, you might capture something interesting, like an animal that actually exists, or maybe even a prankster in a gorilla suit.

Tropic Light wrote:
Eagles aren't nesting this time of year.  For a large bipedal primate to live, there would have to be a minimum breeding population.  That includes animals of different age ranges living grouped together in some type of societal structure, with sufficient food, water, resting areas, and habitat range.  They would be quite easy to find with heat sensing equipment.  If you put out your trail cam, you might capture something interesting, like an animal that actually exists, or maybe even a prankster in a gorilla suit.

The video is from May!
We have this habitat in northern Michigan.  There are many animals including turkey, deer and bear.  The land is heavily wooded as is my land.  I had to cut many trees just to create a clearing.
I am planning to also use the trail cam to observe trespassing.

FIFTYONE PHOTOGRAPHY wrote:
eyewitness sketch from a Fayette County PA sighting.

in nyc thats what all the police sketches look like. seen them posted in the post office too.

The F-Stop wrote:
and why hasnt anyone ever found skelital remains of these creatures?

They cremate their dead.

The F-Stop wrote:
and why hasnt anyone ever found skelital remains of these creatures? as a bushwhacker most of my life, why havent i ever found their encampments or traces of them in the backcountry? why are the only pictures of them always so lousey with all the high tech equipment we have today? with all the hunters setting up trail cameras, why hasnt anyone gotten a decent pix of them?

all alot of bull!

oh ive also noticed ufo sightings are down now that we have so many satalites up watching over us.

I haven't found skeletal remains of deer or bear in the woods either.
When bigfoot has been sighted it has always been unexpected.  People were not ready to take photos .

I have had fighter jets fly over very low over me in northern Michigan and I wasn't ready to shoot photos.
It happened so fast that I didn't get photos!  This has happened twice.

Eros Fine Art Photo wrote:
Well, there you go; definitive proof Bigfoot exists.  You can clearly see by this super sharp, high definition video that is an actual Sasquatch and not a man in a store-bought gorilla suit.  Did you see the expressions on his face?  Did you see his fine hair blowing in the breeze?  You can't fake that stuff, even with CGI.  Yes, this video will finally make all those non-believer eat their words. 

Such a majestic creature. 

The video camera was focused on the eagles nest not the ground below.
They found this by accident at the edge of the video.,

Risen Phoenix Photo wrote:
I was certain that Jerry would have told us he shot a female big foot.😄

I haven't seen any bigfoot myself!

Jerry Nemeth wrote:
I haven't found skeletal remains of deer or bear in the woods either.
When bigfoot has been sighted it has always been unexpected.  People were not ready to take photos .

I have had fighter jets fly over very low over me in northern Michigan and I wasn't ready to shoot photos.
It happened so fast that I didn't get photos!  This has happened twice.

well fighter jets are gone by the time you hear them.

interesting. ive found carcases n remains of deer n bear in the woods. its not often but there there if you spend enough time roaming the backcountry.


besides, today there are so many survalence cameras everywhere. hunters bait trail cameras n still no big foot coming in for an apple?

there is only one answer.....

Mark Salo wrote:

They cremate their dead.

this is it!

The F-Stop wrote:

well fighter jets are gone by the time you hear them.

interesting. ive found carcases n remains of deer n bear in the woods. its not often but there there if you spend enough time roaming the backcountry.


besides, today there are so many survalence cameras everywhere. hunters bait trail cameras n still no big foot coming in for an apple?

there is only one answer.....

They are smart and don't want the apple.
My land is in the backcountry.

Jerry Nemeth wrote:
The video camera was focused on the eagles nest not the ground below.
They found this by accident at the edge of the video.,

Hmmmm...I think you might be onto something here. 

The F-Stop wrote:
why are the only pictures of them always so lousey with all the high tech equipment we have today? with all the hunters setting up trail cameras, why hasnt anyone gotten a decent pix of them?

a comic genius already figured this out:



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eMm1YTd8lHM

The F-Stop wrote:
and why hasnt anyone ever found skelital remains of these creatures? as a bushwhacker most of my life, why havent i ever found their encampments or traces of them in the backcountry? why are the only pictures of them always so lousey with all the high tech equipment we have today? with all the hunters setting up trail cameras, why hasnt anyone gotten a decent pix of them?

all alot of bull!

oh ive also noticed ufo sightings are down now that we have so many satalites up watching over us.

Encampments?  What do you perceive their life style is like?  Do you envision them as having settlements, campfires, religious ceremonies?  As opposed to being solitary creatures?  I am not trying to offend you.  I am curious how you perceive them.

I spend a lot of time in the woods as well.  I find lots of dead deer after hunting season and in areas that aren't too far from highways.  Deer are plentiful here.  Even then, I rarely find a shed antler.  The last one was four or five years ago, in a wheat field just before Spring,  Nice one.  I saw it glimmer in the sun from the woods about 400 yards away.

I occasionally see bear.  They want nothing to do with people and they leave the area as soon as they know a human is around.  I have never run into the dangerous situation of being between a mother and her cub.  Bear are plentiful some of the places I go.  I have never found a dead one or skeletal remains.  I have only found a couple of bear rubs on trees and those I found because I investigated what my dog was so interested in.

I have never seen a Bobcat in Pennsylvania in the wild.  Yet they are plentiful enough that there is limited trapping permits for them.

I saw a Barred Owl one day this past spring.  I have seen lots of Great Horned Owls and a few Barn and Screech Owls, but the Barred Owl was a first for me. 

Yes, Pennsylvania has had sightings of Bigfoot.  No, I do not get to explore or examine every square meter of Penn's woods.  Some of the forests are big.  Darn tooting big.

A few years ago there was a series of stories about a humanoid in the Philippines that occasionally showed up in a remote village.  I was googling for that story (haven't found it yet snd I am not interested in continuing the search) and I came across this article:  http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/27 … ved-in-phl  which included this statement:
"They found, to their puzzlement, that Native Americans and people in East Asia have more Neanderthal DNA than do people whose ancestors are from Europe, where most Neanderthals lived," the LA Times report said.

Other creatures have been thought to be extinct and have been rediscovered. 

The article and this film could easily be a hoax.  The location of the Eagle's nest is probably known to several people.  Only one has to be creative enough to pull off a stunt like this.  Just walk under a camera in a costume.  If there is a Great Ape type creature that could be a less successful evolutionary branch of Primates to humans, I don't know.  I don't care either.  But not finding evidence of a rare creature is not evidence that it doesn't exist.  We want to use all our reasoning ability to come to a conclusion.  We need conclusions.  That's fine.  That is who we are as a species. 

Most of the time when I find dead deer, it is because I am looking for them.  I go to places where I am likely to find them and I work the woods in a way to increase the chances of finding them.  I find some by happenstance when I am not looking, but, again, deer are plentiful.  I know where deer live and I know what they like to do when they are injured.  Where would one go to look for the habitat of a creature whose habitats and habits are unknown and when that creature may be nearly extinct?  Or extinct? 

There is no guarantee that every species has left behind a fossil record.  A lot of conditions have to be met for a critter to become a fossil and many more have to align for that fossils to be found intact.  If the logic is sound, that a creature hasn't been found, therefore. we should stop looking because it never existed; there are still a lot of people looking and finding things not found before by modern humans.  Maybe, someday, someone will find one like the guy they found in the receding glacier in the Alps.


I use to have a long Tamron lens that I bought specifically for photographing migrating Hawks.  That damn thing would not focus on a bird in the sky.  I have lots of pictures of fuzzy Vultures, though!  I saw a Cooper's Hawk in the woods on Friday.  I was working so I didn't have a camera with me.  Even if I had, it came across in front of me and in a second and a half, maybe two, it was gone in the woods on the other side.  I couldn't have reached for a camera on a shoulder strap, turned it on, sighted, focused and shot.  I have had bucks stand up within yards of me in heavy brush and couldn't put a bead on them.  I don't know if I still am, probably not, but I use to be a damn good shot, but the last time that happened, I had a scope on the gun, and the field of view was too small.  Iron sights, I would have had a deer.   And a very long drag home.  Taking a picture of Bigfoot still means that you have to be in the right place at the right time and be able to overcome all the other conditions.  Plus, a good picture would be challenged just as much as a bad one.  A good picture of Bigfoot will still be some guy with really good makeup to most people.  Especially if it smiled.   Or waved.  We need a dead one.  That still wouldn't be convincing.  We are cynical, too.

I am going dancing now,  Maybe there will be a big foot there.  Ya'll have a nice evening!

Jerry Nemeth wrote:

I haven't found skeletal remains of deer or bear in the woods either.
When bigfoot has been sighted it has always been unexpected.  People were not ready to take photos .

I have had fighter jets fly over very low over me in northern Michigan and I wasn't ready to shoot photos.
It happened so fast that I didn't get photos!  This has happened twice.

Kind of lame, no?  I mean, yes, maybe you missed the jets but hope in, I'll drive you over to the airport and you can see them there on the ground.  You can even touch them if you get permission.   We KNOW they ARE real.  They REALLY do exist. 

Now, show me where these so called Bigfoots live.  Why do they seem to be the only animal no one can really get a good photo of?    We have photos of just about every animal known to man.  We can hide and or use camouflage and get real close to some of them.  But not Bigfoot.  Hell show me their homes or nests or caves or something.  All these years and STILL nothing.  Just fuzzy or shots like this from far away.  That's kind of odd don't you think?  With ALL the technology we have today?  Please.

highStrangeness wrote:
To the best of my knowledge, about Bigfoot/Sasquatch lore, the creature is supposed to be found over most of North America, wherever there's adequate habitat.  There are regional names as well, such as Skunk Ape, as in the southern states.

Someone mentioned why no one ever finds bones (or bodies).  However, how often do people find bones of more common animals? As far as I know, in forest conditions, carcasses of dead animals decompose rapidly, and the bones are quickly scattered by rodents and other small mammals.  Some suggest that Sasquatches actually bury (or even eat) their dead, as well.

The flippant responses in this thread show how little most know of the phenomenon.  Real or not, there is more to the story than what is usually told.  Skepticism is appropriate, of course, but not looking deeper into the issue because you take a hardline skeptical approach is essentially ignorance.

I'm sure Jerry would agree.

I don't think it's flippant to simply point out facts.  Fifty years ago, the possibility of the existence of a species of large bipedal primate, not described by scientific evidence, and living in North America would have been much higher.  There were more wild places, very little electronic surveillance capability, fewer roads, less travel, no GPS, no thermal imaging, no trail cams, no cell phones, no DNA sampling, and a much more limited understanding of how biological populations survive.

I think that it's entirely possible that such creatures may have existed in the past, and that Native American legends to that effect might be legitimate.

There is still the Minimum Viable Population to consider, which is the size necessary to ensure between 90 and 95% probability of survival between 100 and 1,000 years into the future.  That will vary considerably from species to species due to their differing biological needs.  The range of such a primate species for procreation purposes would be limited to it's ability to migrate and find conditions to sustain the population through the different seasons and habitat changes across that range, while caring for young, and sick or injured members, and finding suitable feeding and nesting sites, while not leaving a trace of their activities.  If they were to avoid inbreeding depression within the group(s), there would either need to be a substantial localized population, or they would need to engage in migratory travel for mating.  If there were localized population groups such as with gorillas, chimps, baboons and orangutans, then they would have been found by now.  If they were migratory, then they would sooner or later ended up getting shot, trapped, road-killed and/or seen on dash-cams, trail-cams, and surveillance-cams.  Aircraft with heat sensing capability would spot their signatures.  The existing video of purported sightings, such as the 1967 Patterson footage is known to have been pranks.  Hair samples have tested out to be bear.  Whether it was a hunter, trapper, hiker, driver, pilot, photographer, biologist, lumberjack or firefighter who found definitive scientific evidence that such a creature exists in the wild, they would make a lot of money, and so far no one has come forward to claim the prize, though many have tried.

I did enjoy "Harry and the Hendersons" though.

Tropic Light wrote:
I don't think it's flippant to simply point out facts.  Fifty years ago, the possibility of the existence of a species of large bipedal primate, not described by scientific evidence, and living in North America would have been much higher.  There were more wild places, very little electronic surveillance capability, fewer roads, less travel, no GPS, no thermal imaging, no trail cams, no cell phones, no DNA sampling, and a much more limited understanding of how biological populations survive.

I think that it's entirely possible that such creatures may have existed in the past, and that Native American legends to that effect might be legitimate.

There is still the Minimum Viable Population to consider, which is the size necessary to ensure between 90 and 95% probability of survival between 100 and 1,000 years into the future.  That will vary considerably from species to species due to their differing biological needs.  The range of such a primate species for procreation purposes would be limited to it's ability to migrate and find conditions to sustain the population through the different seasons and habitat changes across that range, while caring for young, and sick or injured members, and finding suitable feeding and nesting sites, while not leaving a trace of their activities.  If they were to avoid inbreeding depression within the group(s), there would either need to be a substantial localized population, or they would need to engage in migratory travel for mating.  If there were localized population groups such as with gorillas, chimps, baboons and orangutans, then they would have been found by now.  If they were migratory, then they would sooner or later ended up getting shot, trapped, road-killed and/or seen on dash-cams, trail-cams, and surveillance-cams.  Aircraft with heat sensing capability would spot their signatures.  The existing video of purported sightings, such as the 1967 Patterson footage is known to have been pranks.  Hair samples have tested out to be bear.  Whether it was a hunter, trapper, hiker, driver, pilot, photographer, biologist, lumberjack or firefighter who found definitive scientific evidence that such a creature exists in the wild, they would make a lot of money, and so far no one has come forward to claim the prize, though many have tried.

I did enjoy "Harry and the Hendersons" though.

Oh, I know... my comment about flippant comments wasn't really directed at you. 

Though, for the other comments you've made, you might want to check out the BFRO's FAQ section.  They answer a lot of the frequently made arguments and questions, regarding Bigfoot... though, of course, Bigfoot being controversial, not everyone is going to take their answers seriously.  But the arguments they make are at least interesting.

The F-Stop wrote:
what do you suppose they eat?

Poultry?

MN Photography wrote:
In the film, Bigfoot seems to be stumbling awkwardly while walking through normal brush and undergrowth in a not particularly thickly wooded area.  Almost like a guy in a gorilla suit trying to walk in the woods.  A guy in a gorilla suit who has been drinking.

That was exactly my impression after watching the video.  Woodland creatures tend to be more graceful, not clumsy like that.

I have done a lot of deer hunting over the years in part of the Huron National Forest.  I've never seen or heard any sign of Bigfoot, although there was a store in a small town up there we used to pass through that had a sign out front advertising  "Bigfoot feed".  I believe it was a joke in response to some alleged Bigfoot sightings that were probably baloney.

Mark Salo wrote:

They cremate their dead.

Yes, but only after beaming the bodies back to their cloaked ship in orbit.  Then they launch the the body in a torpedo tube into the sun for cremation.

I hope this clears up all the confusion.

StromePhoto wrote:
That was exactly my impression after watching the video.  Woodland creatures tend to be more graceful, not clumsy like that.

I have done a lot of deer hunting over the years in part of the Huron National Forest.  I've never seen or heard any sign of Bigfoot, although there was a store in a small town up there we used to pass through that had a sign out front advertising  "Bigfoot feed".  I believe it was a joke in response to some alleged Bigfoot sightings that were probably baloney.

The "Bigfoot feed" sign attracts attention!

I have wooded land that is next to the Huron National Forest.  I have often been in the area for 39 years.  I have never seen a bigfoot or a bear.  I know there are bears in the area.  Just because I have not seen one does not mean it's not possible.

The are reports I saw of hunters experiencing intimidation behavior but not seeing anything. (Near Glennie and Barton City)  It was enough to cause them to bring out their rifles.  The source however moved away deeper into the forest.  The next morning they found 4 inch diameter trees broken 5 feet from the ground.  This was reported and investigated.  The reports were in 1985 and 2006.  There have been no other reports.

MN Photography wrote:
In the film, Bigfoot seems to be stumbling awkwardly while walking through normal brush and undergrowth in a not particularly thickly wooded area.  Almost like a guy in a gorilla suit trying to walk in the woods.  A guy in a gorilla suit who has been drinking.

actually its typical for big foot to stumble around in the day time because he's nocturnal and he's got like different rods or cones or something reflective in his eyeballs and he has a hard time with depth perception in the day light, and also he'd been eating some berries that have an intoxicating affect.
big foot loves a morning buzz.

lol ... im just mocking how people that believe in him always make excuses.

I think youre right on, he does look really uncoordinated.