• Announcements

    • masterbarber

      Help Support the BFF   09/08/2016

      Help Support the BFF by purchasing a premium membership. Premium members are directly supporting our forum and our ability to keep it up and running. Without this vital resource and our all volunteer staff, we would not be able to sustain a web presence. The annual access fee allows us to maintain server space, renew software subscriptions, purchase new apps that benefit our members or ease efforts for staff and so forth.   The cost is $20.00 (US) per year- per membership, about $1.66 per month. In the future, an alternative may be a members only forum, as a way to continue the forum's funding source. I'm sure most of us would prefer that not be the case. If you are currently enjoying the content you read here then I urge you to Thank the Premium Members and to consider joining in support of the BFF. It's the only way we will continue to provide the current level of content access.    Please follow the below link for all the details: http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/30015-important-news-premium-access-memberships-are-now-available/   Best Regards, masterbarber Director, BFF


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

113 Outstanding!

About Explorer

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Interests
    Hiking, backpacking, camping, reading, exploring new places - especially those with reported anomalies

Contact Methods

  • Have you ever had an encounter with a sasquatch-like creature?

Recent Profile Visitors

785 profile views
  1. My statement clearly referred to his website and it is a fact that there are no monographs or papers in there outlying/explaining all his evidence. Very few scientists will go thru YouTube videos to digest and evaluate his findings. In this day and age where it is so easy to upload a monograph or a paper into a website, and knowing full well that scientists prefer to read a cogent paper that lays out all the evidence than going to YouTube, there is no excuse for it lacking if they are available. If you want to put the burden on the reader instead of the claimant, that is your choice. Am I spreading doubt about Kryder’s work with my statement; only in your mind.
  2. Rob Kryder gets an, A for effort A for applying the scientific method/forensic protocols D for documentation I have looked into his website numerous times in the past, and find it hard to find good documentation of all the evidence he has collected. Youtube videos don’t cut it for me. I know he is not a degreed scientist and does not need to publish papers, but if you want the attention of the scientific community then we would expect at least some good papers laying out the methods, results, and findings (similar to the NAWAC monograph). A good paper with photographs of what he is finding and the analytical results would be much better than rushing thorough a video presentation. He could always get help from a scientist who is used to writing papers to summarize all his findings in a cogent way. It does not help his credibility to have (as part of his website) a section on research into living dinosaurs. But to be fair, he should be judged only on the quality of the evidence that he puts forth and nothing else. While I am not pursuing the collection of samples for DNA evidence, if I was going to pursue that route then I would have done all the research to select the proper laboratory/scientist to conduct the analysis (and get all the methods/procedures cleared up) way before samples are collected and not just send them to Meldrum or Sykes. I recall in the Sierra Shooting case (another example of trying to find a lab after the sample was collected), that Bart Cutino and his research partners, did a thorough job in finding reputable labs to do the work but it still took a lot of time and money. On the locations where Kryder conducts his research (Chuska Mountains, Ortiz Mountains, and Sandia Mountains), I was aware of Chuska Mountains being a BF hotspot from reports from past BFRO expeditions but I had no idea that BF evidence has been found in the Sandia Mountains (which are just east of Albuquerque and are very dry). I hiked in that area in years past and would never imagine that possibility!
  3. Hiflier, Wanted to add more clarification to my original post, since it appears that you got a different message that what I intended. My view is that folks going to the field and collecting more casts, audio, and video are doing it more to experience the reality of phenomena and not trying to solve the mystery. Moreover, most of these BFRO expeditions are about experiencing the mystery and if lucky getting audio/video/casts. It does not mean that we are not interested in solving the mystery. Obviously, what we have been doing for ~60 years is not solving the mystery because it is not focused on solving the mystery. To solve the mystery, you need serious organizations that are well focused on getting a specimen and are using established scientific methods and forensic protocols (NAWAC comes to mind, even with its flaws). And, I thought that is what you were proposing and trying to get energy/support around; which I agree with.
  4. You misquoted me. I did not say that most of us don't care about mystery getting solved. I said most of us just want to experience the mystery and are not pursuing a scientifically driven way of solving the mystery. I agree with what you are saying, just stating that what people are doing is not trying to solve the mystery (even if some believe they are doing it).
  5. Hiflier, When people say they are going on a BF "expedition", all they mean is that they are going camping or backpacking with maybe the potential to capture another footprint cast or blob-squatch photo/video or neat audio recording. A lot of it is thrill seeking and fun adventure (another hobby). My guess is that that is the majority (and it includes all BFRO expeditions). BTW, I see nothing wrong with that approach, since most of us are not out there to solve the mystery but to experience the mystery. Very few organizations and individual/independent researchers are truly seriously looking for a specimen or to solve the mystery using scientific protocols.
  6. Report posted in this Premium Section area, FYI.
  7. For some reason, that is the impression I got from you back then and why that Dec-2014 report was never posted in BFF. Glad to know I can post. I will post that report shortly in another section; might as well share the use of that analytical technique and the kind of findings it yields.
  8. ^^ Thanks for the explanation. I now understand what the columns mean! Yes, that is definitely a pattern. On the Dec-2014 report, I thought BobbyO sent you a copy back then? My apologies if you did not receive it. But back then I only sent a copy to BobbyO via email and he was going to forward to you. Then that Christmas season my dad passed away, and I moved on and did not follow up. I don't think I ever posted here (or anywhere), since I wanted BobbyO to give me clearance (since I used all his SSR data) and he never gave the me clearance. If you have not seen it, then it is only two of us who have seen it.
  9. Gigantor, thanks for sharing. Looks like it is a wash. About half of night sightings with no visible moon light and the other half with visible moonlight. The last time I looked at this for WA, I found some moon phases that increased the likelihood ratio of a reported sighting. But we were using a moon-phase scale of 0 to 29. The table below is a summary from Bayesian statistical analysis done back in 2014. The likelihood ratio was 1.3 for Olympic Peninsula for moon-phase range 19-25. The likelihood ratio was 1.6 for South Cascades for moon-phase range 11-18. The likelihood ratio was 2.3 for North Cascades for moon-phase range 13-19. In the previous study, we did not distinguish between moon-phases and visible moon light. Thus, maybe the higher likelihood ratios on moon-phases is not that informative. BTW, we want likelihood ratios above 1. Otherwise the information does not increase the odds. The moon phases that I listed on the table yielded the highest LR. Other phases had numbers < 1 or less selected max.
  10. Just wanted to share the feedback from a friend of mine who grew up in that part of the country and is very familiar with the Gila. He is a wildlife biologist and used to work for National and State parks in Northern CA. He has seen BF in CA and OR but not in NM. Below are quotes from his responses to my inquiry on the Gila, just FYI and another POV. -------------------------------------------------- I know of not many reports. At least not online. I think I heard a few when I was a teenager occurring around the Gila cliff dwellings and Lake Roberts campground. The Gila is huge and I know they have had a "let it burn" policy in regards to wildfires for all these years. That place has lots of fires and they let them cover large areas. There may be several reasons from a biological point of view. 1. In winter very few people go there. This is when the BF might come off the peaks of the mountains. In winter they can have lots of free range. 2. In summer it is hot and dry and the BF likely go up into the tops of mountains where most people don't go. I don't know of many people who have hiked and explored it. Just not easy to get to those trailheads. 3. With so many fires, the place to go is where it hasn't burned and not easy to access for people. When you look at those areas on google maps, you will see there is no habitation nearby, just scattered ranches. It is more open country from all the fires cleaning up the land, so hiding is more difficult.
  11. In the book Fire Season, by Philip Connors (a Fire lookout tower ranger who spent 8 summers in the eastern edge of the Gila/Aldo Leopold Wilderness), he writes that occasionally a pilot from Holloman AFB on training will fly low over the Wilderness (and close to his tower) for fun, but that they are not supposed to. He writes that the usual procedure is to radio headquarters and issue a complaint to Holloman AFB. Yet, these incidents appear to happen frequently. My understanding is that Air Force training flights are not supposed to fly low over designated Wilderness Areas or National Parks. BTW, the Sacramento Range, which is right next to Holloman AFB and White Sands Missile Range, still gets BF reports. Although, I doubt the AF pilots will fly low right next to their neighbors (in Ruidoso and Cloudcroft).
  12. Mendoza, The lack of any BF report from this huge Wilderness and Forest does suggest that there might be no BF presence in the Gila Wilderness despite it being good black bear habitat. I also believe that we might learn something by exploring why BF is not present there but is present next door in Arizona (in the Apache NF which is connected to Gila NF) or in the Sacramento range in NM (which is an island range separated by vast desert from the Gila and from other ranges to its north). Maybe BF needs a minimum amount of precipitation and available water (at all elevations) year-round that the Gila NF does not provide. It would be interesting to do a comparative analysis of the key ecosystem parameters to other ranges believed to have BF presence in NM and AZ. On the precipitation issue, I found heat maps (put together by WRCC using NOAA data) for Arizona and New Mexico showing the annual average precipitation (1961 to 1990 average). When you look at the Gila and compare it to the Sacramento range, you don’t see a lot of difference. The Mogollon rim in Arizona, on the other hand, does show more precipitation. But, as I mentioned earlier, the Mogollon range reaches into New Mexico into the Gila NF. Thus, if BF was roaming the Mogollon, then occasionally is should visit NM and be seen. Source: http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/precip.html I was surprised by the low population in Catron (~3,600) Sierra (~11,500) and Grant (~29,300) counties. So maybe the local ranchers and cowboys are not talking because it is considered weird stuff (it is a conservative community after all). I believe more tourists visit the Gila Cliff Dwellings and National Forest every year than the sum of the population of those 3 counties. I recall seeing a video of a ranger complaining that the visitors to Gila Cliff Dwellings went down from ~60,000/year to ~40,000/year. But most of these Cliff Dwelling tourists would not be hiking or backpacking deep into the forest. I found a 2002 study that estimated the number of visitors into the Gila National Forest (using samples and statistics) and it estimated wilderness visitors at 115,331 per year (with 65% error rate). This estimate looks too high. But maybe there is lots of hunting and fishing going on besides backpacking/hiking (I don’t know). https://www.fs.fed.us/recreation/programs/nvum/reports/year2/R3_F6_gila_report.htm Below is some interesting background information on Gila Wilderness Ecology, from the Gila Wilderness: A Hiking Guide by John A. Murray (1992). "The Gila Wilderness is probably best known and remembered for the vast forest of ponderosa pine; which form its most prominent vegetative type. The upper elevations (from 9,000 feet to 10,895), for the most part in the Mogollon Mountains, are dominated by dense, closed canopy forests, primarily of Douglas fir and Engelmann’s spruce, with aspen groves, wet meadows, and grass parks scattered through them. Mid-range altitudes (7,000 feet to 9,000 feet), associated with the mesa tops and their network of streams and canyons, support a more complex and heterogeneous pattern of vegetation: ponderosa pine forests, small aspen groves, oak woodland, grassland, pinon-juniper woodland, some deciduous woodlands (riparian), and some brush. Lower altitudes (well below 7,000 feet) confined to the river canyons, support a riparian community of moisture-loving deciduous trees, evergreen oaks, bushes, grasses, cacti, flowers, and herbs. The single most significant factor in determining the ecology of the Gila Wilderness is precipitation which varies depending on location but rarely exceeds more than 17 water inches of rain per year on average. Running water is conspicuously absent in the higher ridges, peaks, and saddles of the Gila country, and in some regions, near desert conditions prevail. Areas over 7,000 feet normally receive sufficient precipitations, as evidence by the presence of trees and plants that cannot cope with the harsher conditions of lower elevations."
  13. Thank you very much, Redbone! I had not realized that you finished entering the cases for AZ and NM. Just took a look at the Google Earth maps for those states and it was very helpful for the question I have been studying in NM. Also, it was very helpful to see the cases you got for CA. Looking forward for CA to be completed.
  14. My usage of the word plenty was meant relative to the region (which is the arid Southwest). I meant that it has sufficient water for the habitat that it is sustaining. Also, every time that I have been there, I have seen water flowing on the different forks of Gila. The Gila NF contains the headwaters of the Gila River that flows into Arizona. The 3 forks of the Gila River (west, east and middle fork) contain water year round, but the smaller creeks within the forest might run empty during drought periods. The area does not get a lot rain (nothing compared to PNW). I spot checked the annual average precipitation for one of the Ranger Stations (Beaverhead RS) within the forest (stats shown below). It look looks like they only get about 14 inches per year of precipitation. Further northwest, in Mogollon-NM but within the Gila NF, the precipitation is higher at ~20 inches. Apparently that low precipitation is enough to keep the Gila forks flowing and to sustain bear, deer and elk habitat. But maybe that is too dry for BF? It could be.
  15. Waggles, thanks for the tip. I sent Brenda an email this morning. If she replies, then I will share her comments/thoughts on this question. Yes, Apache county in Arizona overlaps with Catron county in NM and both counties are within the Mexican Wolf Experimental Area. Per the Arizona BFRO map below, Apache county in Arizona has about 10 BF reports. While Catron county in NM has zero reports. I did not check where the Apache county reports were located, but Apache county is large and covers a lot of land north to south along the border with NM. The Mogollon Rim in Arizona is well known for BF reports, so I would imagine that from the Mogollon rim in the Apache-Sitgreaves NF any BF could easily travel south and east into the Gila NF. Yet, no reports from the Gila.