PawCRYPTID BOARDDocument the weird. Investigate the unknown.New
New Post
Sign inSign in

Down the rabbit hole

Bigfoot · Bluff Creek, California · 1967

5 documents · 4 independent accounts

5 documents tell this story. They trace back to 4 independent accounts.

The route

  1. One encounter the reported sighting this case is about
  2. 5 documents that tell it, as we collected them
  3. 4 independent accounts behind those documents
  4. 1 copy reprints or cross-posts of the same text: not extra witnesses

Copies are not confirmations: thirty papers printing one story is still one account.

Rabbit hole: Bigfoot · Bluff Creek, California · 19675 documents tell this story. They trace back to 4 independent accounts. Each independent account is one row; time runs left to right. The earliest document we hold in each account is ringed. A full list follows the picture.Account 1 of 41 documentAccount 2 of 42 documents · 1 reprintSeparate accountAccount 3 of 41 documentSeparate accountAccount 4 of 41 documentSeparate accountTIME (when each document was published) →Jan 1, 199828 yrsOct 2025Jan 2026AprJulOctUndatedEarliest found · Submitted on Thursday, January 1, 1998. Two men on horseback film a bigfoot as it retreats out of the creek bed and into the woods. The footage is referred to as the Patterson-Gimlin footage, named after the two men who obtained it · BFRO report, Jan 1, 1998EARLIEST FOUNDSubmitted on Thursday, Januar…Reprint · I am analyzing the 5 most realistic Bigfoot videos in history · Reddit post, Sep 7, 2025I am analyzing the 5 mo…Earliest found · I am analyzing the 5 most realistic Bigfoot videos in history. · Reddit post, Sep 7, 2025EARLIEST FOUNDI am analyzing the 5 most rea…Earliest found · On This Day in 1967: The Patterson–Gimlin Bigfoot Film — Nearly 60 Years Later, What Do You Think? · Reddit post, Oct 20, 2026EARLIEST FOUNDOn This Day in 1967: The Patt…Undated · The ISC Newsletter, Vol. 12, No. 2, 1993-1996 (p. n5) · ISC Newsletter, undatedUNDATEDThe ISC Newsletter, Vol. 12,…BFRO reportReddit postISC Newslettersame text (reprint)Earliest found

Each shape is one document; open it to go to where we found it. The same graph as a list is below.

Why these records are connected

  • 1 copy: the copy detector found the same words in a later document, so it sits in the same row as the account it copies.
  • Why these documents are one case. The case matcher joined them because:
    • I am analyzing the 5 most realistic Bigfoot videos in histo… & I am analyzing the 5 most realistic Bigfoot videos in histo…: the copy detector found the same text in both; their quoted passages are nearly identical; they describe the same details; they name the same witness; same place, same day
    • Submitted on Thursday, January 1, 1998. Two men on horsebac… & The ISC Newsletter, Vol. 12, No. 2, 1993-1996: a person reviewed them and joined them
    • Submitted on Thursday, January 1, 1998. Two men on horsebac… & I am analyzing the 5 most realistic Bigfoot videos in histo…: a person reviewed them and joined them
    • I am analyzing the 5 most realistic Bigfoot videos in histo… & On This Day in 1967: The Patterson–Gimlin Bigfoot Film — Ne…: they describe the same details; they name the same witness; same place, same day
    • I am analyzing the 5 most realistic Bigfoot videos in histo… & On This Day in 1967: The Patterson–Gimlin Bigfoot Film — Ne…: they describe the same details; they name the same witness; same place, same day
    • The ISC Newsletter, Vol. 12, No. 2, 1993-1996 & I am analyzing the 5 most realistic Bigfoot videos in histo…: they describe the same details; they name the same witness; same place, same month
    • The ISC Newsletter, Vol. 12, No. 2, 1993-1996 & I am analyzing the 5 most realistic Bigfoot videos in histo…: they describe the same details; they name the same witness; same place, same month
    • The ISC Newsletter, Vol. 12, No. 2, 1993-1996 & On This Day in 1967: The Patterson–Gimlin Bigfoot Film — Ne…: they describe the same details; they name the same witness; same place, same month

Every document, as a list

  1. Account 1 1 document
  2. Account 2 (Separate account) 2 documents
  3. Account 3 (Separate account) 1 document
  4. Account 4 (Separate account) 1 document

How to read this

  • Time runs left to right by publication date. Very long empty stretches are cut short (the axis shows how many years were skipped); undated documents sit in their own column.
  • One row per independent account. A reprint, re-upload or cross-post carries the same text, so it stays in its account's row and never counts as a second witness.
  • Earliest found (ringed) is the earliest document we hold for that account. It is not proof of the first telling: an earlier one may exist that we haven't collected.
  • Arrows run from a document to a source it names. A dashed shape is a source a document cites that we haven't found yet; its link searches a public archive for it, and a hit there is a lead, not a confirmation.

About the numbers

  • Only documents we've collected are counted; retellings elsewhere on the web aren't counted yet.
  • Documents are matched by shared text and by the sources they name, by plain rules with no model in the loop. A match can be wrong; tell us.

The deepest rabbit holes →

Where next

Every rabbit hole → · How we tell copies from independent accounts