• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,235 Mythical

About MIB

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Interests
    Hunting, fishing, camping, hiking.

Contact Methods

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

Recent Profile Visitors

6,604 profile views
  1. I'm not quite under the totality path but not far off, either. I may try to take that day off ... might be a good day to have some audio recorders out. MIB
  2. Hmmm ... politics ... forum rules. I have to be careful here. Some of my favorite activities on public lands are under attack by special interest groups who want those public lands shut to all activities except their own. They've successfully used presence of endangered species to close some of those lands already. Many of those funding the efforts don't even live in our area, it just sounds good, tugs at ignorant heart strings, etc. I don't plan to motivate them even further and give them even more ammo to use against the needs of the people who reside in the affected areas. MIB
  3. That's a good question. We're all here for different reasons, different paths, different goals. Some are simply curious. Others have "lost face", been ridiculed, and perceive a need to restore their reputations and "show" the people who ridiculed them via proving existence. And so on. It is difficult sometimes to empathize with others' perspectives and needs, especially when they're in outward, or sometimes even inward, denial about the underlying causes of the motives. For myself, proof isn't useful. I know what I know. I don't need validation. I don't need approval. Any motivation to provide proof will have to come from some other source. For instance, if, in my research, I find that there is a real danger to the public, that may override other considerations. Evidence for that is, for now, both debatable and controversial, far from "proven" even to this bigfoot knower. For me, for now, the factors against proving weigh more heavily. For now. I'm not closed to changing my mind if the situation warrants a change. You have to do what's right for you for your own reasons. MIB
  4. hiflier - I don't count on any one approach, I try to keep an eye out for any possibility. I think pondering, and examining, potential burial sites is a useful addition but not a replacement. I say this because some people seem to go all-in for one thing or another to the exclusion of all other possibilities they could be doing simultaneously. As I hike in to attend to cameras or walk creeks fishing or back canyons hunting, just as I watch the ground for tracks and run audio for vocalizations, I also keep an eye out for disturbances around the talus slopes and such. They're the most obvious burial places in my area that nobody could mess with because many of the rocks are too big to move by human hands. BobbyO - Luring them ... the only bait that has worked so far is myself. That adds a bit of .. spice .. to the mix. Couple years ago I hiked in on an overnighter to "refuel" some remote cameras before winter set in and set one up overlooking my tent that night. There was something out there for a while one night and it wasn't very happy. I don't know for sure what it was, no pictures, didn't come clear in, just hung on the fringes. It was ambiguous but certainly interesting. MIB
  5. On Oct 20, 2017, I will be drinking from a creek and be startled by the unexpected appearance of two bigfoots. I will walk away into the woods, into the mists of time, into myth in the bigfoot culture. The rest will call them hoaxers because my tracks are not deep enough. MIB
  6. It's not the center of the clearcut that matters, it's the borders where it butts up against uncut forest. This is referred to as "edge". The cleared area allows light to hit the ground and power new growth where animals can reach it, the adjacent forest provides the cover. Good clear cut hunters don't watch the middle of a young cut, they watch the border right at dusk and dawn. They will sometimes appear out in the middle but usually not older, wiser animals. An exception .. a cut that's been slash-burned will sometimes have deer visit the ash because they can roll in it to relieve themselves of some of the ticks, fleas, and sometimes flies. Another exception ... once the fall rains start, deer will spend more time out in the open. Think they can shake dry better out there. Once it gets up shoulder high on us, then deer will sometimes hide right out in the middle. Elk are funny ... less predictable in this sense. Rocky Mountain elk and Roosevelt elk don't behave quite the same regarding cover. MIB
  7. This is a very important point. The "territory" model is based on species of essentially solitary animals. It might be interesting to reconsider the same question from the perspective of pack predators like wolves. There's a good body of anecdotal evidence regarding bigfoot hunting in teams, sometimes only pairs, sometimes larger. If they are doing this, then the percentage of predatory attempts that "miss" is probably lower than expected for solo efforts reducing the calorie expenditure balance of hunting. It also points to a less than territorial lifestyle ... or if territorial, it is tribal-territorial, not individual-territorial else the cooperation wouldn't happen. Again, follow the model for stone age or pre stone age humans, it appears much more applicable, based on the reports to date, than assumptions based on grizzly bear behavior. MIB
  8. SWWASAS - LIkely it's a food issue. Forest fires open space for new growth which, a few years after the fire, has a lot more nutrients available to grazers ... deer, elk, etc. That, in turn, draws the predators. Clearcuts do indeed have the same result. I've had this discussion in other places in a different context: elk herd management. Until about 1900 or so, fires just burned. The Cascades contained a lot of open "parks" which were habitat for elk. In the early 1900s we began suppressing forest fires, however, roughly the same time we expanded logging which replaced the fire-opened acres with clearcut-opened acres. The difference is aesthetic, an elk's belly can't tell the difference what made the clearing it feeds in. In the 1980s we mostly stopped logging in the Cascades but we continue to stop wildfires. The amount of meadow acreage available to provide elk habitat is dropping drastically and along with it, elk populations. I believe this is a much more significant factor than the change in cougar hunting (no dogs or bait now) increasing their numbers so far as elk herd size. MIB
  9. Not necessarily. It depends on how thoroughly they use the resources before they move on. If it is something other than food pressures like weather which causes them to move, the food chain might not be substantially impacted by their temporary presence. Moreover, if they tend to forage farther from "home" and return with food, in order to keep their core living area unnoticed, for instance, the actual sign of their presence might occur some distance from the core they're occupying. Ummm ... no, not so much. Those other animals are far more likely to be part of the food supply than to be competition for food supply. There's little evidence supporting the idea that bigfoot is primarily herbivorous, much more evidence supporting the idea they are toward the carnivore end of the omnivore scale. MIB
  10. Yep, but unless it learned to levitate, that's not an elk 'cause it didn't leave tracks. Elk do that, y' know ... leave tracks. You, personally, might not know enough about elk, so perhaps you are positioned to honestly make a plea from ignorance, but anyone who knows anything at all about elk should be looking for the missing tracks and, not finding them, extremely skeptical of elkish claims. I can't tell you with certainty whether it's bigfoot or not. I see the logic "they" tried to use. Might be right, might not. But whatever it is, it's not an elk. When elk stand up from horizontal, their feet go under them. After the body rises, the feet will leave tracks where the elk was laying. There would be large, clear, cloven-hoofed tracks, inside the "lay boundaries", unsmudged, not muted, unmistakeable, and they're not there. Go look at the picture skookum cast pre-picture. Find them. They will be sharp tracks like below because they were made AFTER the elk got up, they won't be blurry or smudged by being laid on. That's all that is necessary to prove me wrong. Should be easy if you're right and I'm wrong. MIB
  11. My approach is a little different, a little more open-minded in both directions. I don't want to jump on the kool aid bandwagon but I don't want to throw out babies hidden in the bathwater, either, so I try to avoid both confirmation bias and "anti-confirmation" bias with equal care. That just means examining everything with equal effort to avoid ALL premature conclusions. (edit to add: of course, to some, this attempt at balance, rather than sharing their biased bandwagon, is itself a form of bias.) I've found a total of two suspicious tree twists ... ever. I'm still on the fence about them looking for REASONABLE alternate explanations, not just convenient dismissal. I've heard 3 wood knocks ... ever. The rest rest of a lifetime worth of clicks, pops, bangs, thumps, etc ... bettin' against. Only once have I found deliberately braided stuff. That was weird, it was strung for at least a quarter, maybe even a half mile down a ridge I've hunted hundreds of times. There, one day, out of the blue, a lot of viney stuff seemed braided yet overhead, there was no sign of significant wind. I went back the next day. Everything was normal, the same yet subtly different, nothing braided or abnormally arranged. It's hard to convey just how subtle, and yet for someone really familiar with the location, how unmistakable, that change was. Hmmm ... one thing, I think we are using the term "squatchy" different. Among my friends that's not a term that's used but the concept exists. The idea, among "us", is that the location has characteristics that suggest it has greater than background probability of sasquatch being there or evidence being found, not that anything has actually been found. In other words, it describes a place that is similar to past places evidence has been found. You seem (to me) to be suggesting it means that a concentration of subtle evidence or sign is being seen. Is that what you mean or did I misunderstand? MIB
  12. Perspective on that, if I may? I don't think the bigfoots are evenly distributed. There are places I go where there seemingly should be activity but so far as I can tell, there isn't, and other places where activity is way beyond statistical average. So, Finding Bigfoot ... is a bigfoot show, right? So ... would they deliberately go to a bad place or even an average place when, via Matt, they have the full resources of the BFRO to draw from? Following so far? Think about what "squatchy" means ... has the characteristics of places sasquatch have been found before ... right? So ... thinking this through ... why would the spots they'd go to find a "squatch" not be "squatchy"? Seems kind of stupid to look in any other sort of spot, doesn't it? MIB
  13. Most reports that are relevant (in other words, reports of multiple individuals, mixed genders, etc) are pretty rare but seem fairly consistently in favor of established pairings. That doesn't necessarily mean monogamy in any particular direction. The best model we have is the behavior of stone age or pre stone age humans. Look back to the records of explorers making first contact with tribal people .. what did they find, what did they record? And yet, not all of those were the same ... how much difference seems driven by latitude ... weather? MIB
  14. Or, just for the sake of argument, you're not nearly as skilled at recognizing sign as you give yourself credit for and it's been right under your nose all along. There's a learning curve. Nobody starts at the top. People who assume they do never get there at all. Rather than learn to see for themselves they dismiss what others have learned to see. MIB
  15. Naked? Where I research? Bigfoot females would not be my first concern. In the Cascades, it is something like ...