MIB

Sésquac
  • Content count

    1,836
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,269 Mythical

About MIB

  • Rank
    Yowie

Profile Information

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

Contact Methods

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

Recent Profile Visitors

6,697 profile views
  1. No, not even that. The dates for S. America appear to be equally controversial. The older dates appear to be a result of contamination. Someone posted a link a recording of a lecture / presentation explaining how / why on youtube here not too long back. It addressed a lot of my long-standing concerns very well ... well enough for me to, at least for now, accept their findings because they do work, they do make better sense from a science standpoint than the alternatives. (I looked ... I couldn't find the link. I have an idea it was norseman who posted it though that may be wrong.) MIB
  2. ^^^^ No, just wrong. Not only do you apparently know nothing about bigfoot, you apparently don't know anything about wolverines or about biologists. The biologists knew where to look so far as a region and where to look so far as searching within the habitat. We do not have trained biologists specializing in bigfoot and funded by gov't grants the way we have trained biologists specializing in wolverines funded by gov't grants. What we have looking for bigfoot are, even in the case of those with a background in biology, amateurs making guesses about bigfoot habitat and behavior. There are wolverine experts. There are NO bigfoot experts. Not even yourself, no matter how much you like to get up and pontificate about how things SHOULD be. MIB
  3. One does not reasonably expect ample evidence of bigfoot. That expectation is rooted in ignorance. Even where evidence is comparatively ample, unless a person accepts that bigfoot is a possibility, that evidence is such that it will be dismissed as an oddity of some more normal type. Denial is self-reinforcing, it's not until you accept the real possibility of something to find and examine what you do find in detail that you develop the sophistication to separate one thing from another instead of lumping it all into (the wrong) one. This truth is obvious to the honest skeptic and inconceivable to the scoftic. MIB
  4. It may be the result of ... I don't like the term sensationalism in this context but I lack a better word ... the thought pattern may be that, recognizing these things are happening, people may not need as much help processing their experience or may not think their experience is unique and interesting enough to be worth reporting. In other words, it may reflect sightings seeming more commonplace, less noteworthy, thus less report-worthy as well. The other thing, if you rely on BFRO reports, is that they never publish without investigating. It's possible they're having problems getting enough investigators to look into the reports in those areas. That has been suggested as the case for south-central Washington, for instance. It may be that the reports are coming in as fast as ever, they're just not published because nobody is doing the followup. MIB
  5. I suspect that is true for them, too, we simply fail to adequately account for anatomical differences that affect what is easy and what is not. We also fail to consider differences in visibility because of height. One of my very good friends is 10. We've been buds since she was 4. Think about size .. as I am to her, bigfoot is to me. Just as there are places I stepped up easily without much thought which she struggled greatly with, there must be places bigfoot steps up easily that I would struggle with. Things that are obstacles to me that I might assume would squeeze a bigfoot into a camera trap might actually be things they'd step over without ever knowing there was a trap to avoid. At the same time, there may be things they'd have to stoop to go under, and so might go around because it's easier, that I'd just walk under ... same as I find true of things my friend walks under than I struggle with. In other words, so far as placement of cameras, we may be missing the boat in both directions. First, we may inadvertently assume they have to go around the same things we do but they do not, second, we may be walking around things that are not obstacles to us that are obstacles to them which we could otherwise use. And then there's visibility because of eye height ... which could work out the same way. Certainly I approach areas that might conceal something in such a way as to minimize my disadvantages and maximize my advantages. It's hard to mentally walk in their shoes but we must if we are to count on anything but luck. I don't know about you, but I ponder the possibility there's some bigfoot out there having the mirror image of the same thoughts about me, figuring out what I'm up to, figuring out how my limits might be different than theirs and how the differences might affect my behavior differently than theirs, and so on. MIB
  6. ^^^^ That is likely partially true. I think it overlooks a couple things. One may just be specific to my location, the other to trail cams in general. 1) The concept of home range does not apply here, it's not a tiny little space. The area where I have the most activity in late summer is under 7 - 10 feet of snow right now, maybe more. There are no deer, no bear, no elk. Nothing really for a bigfoot to eat, not on an appropriate scale. There are likely a few coyotes and bobcats, cougar, and wolves passing through and there may be enough small mammals like rabbits for snacks to tide them over. They're not living there but the snow has settled enough now to be dense enough to support their weight. Not a bigfoot. Probably not a person quite yet, not without snow shoes, but as spring progresses, the snow pack will settle, get denser, ice up, and eventually we'll be able to walk on top of it. If I'm correct calculating that bigfoot has about 4x the weight per square inch of foot, it may never support a bigfoot's weight, they have to step clear through to the ground. Anyway, home range varies seasonally and likely is 30 or more miles across. That's how far you have to go to reach valley bottom where the food critters spend the winter. 2) Regarding trail cameras, I've been pondering what I've observed so far. I don't think most of those cameras out there have any benefit to the search for bigfoot. The bigfoot tracks I've found are not precisely where I'd aim the cameras intending to get pictures of normal game animals like deer, bear, cougar, and elk. This suggests to me that the more skilled the camera operator is regarding hunting normal critters, the less likely that person is to get a bigfoot on camera on accident, such a person has a better chance of getting a bigfoot picture but only if that's specifically what they're trying to do. How many of the millions of trail cams out there are actually targeting bigfoot? MIB
  7. For me, this invokes images of the Dennis Martin abduction as well where special forces were involved in a nearby but separate search. MIB
  8. Beautiful country. Your wife going along ... that put a smile on my face. "That's a thing." Thanks much for sharing the pictures. MIB
  9. They appear to have died of old age related things. The specific area I found most of them in was fairly open, essentially a grass / oak savannah / hillside. Skull and skeletal remains were out in the open. Each seemed to have found a place where it could see around itself, not be approached undetected. That seems to be their "mode" when sick or dying. What you described of going somewhere very private to die is typical of bears but not cougars, at least not where I lived. Regarding "protection" ... not precisely, not here. They're managed as a game species just like deer, bear, elk, pronghorn, etc. Properly cooked, they're supposed to be excellent table fare. MIB
  10. Incorrect. Safety is secondary. It is because of water availability in the dry season and the effects of snow level in winter. The predators come into town with the deer, they're no safer, maybe less safe, in town. Assumptions will trip you up. MIB
  11. Depends on when your hunting season is. Certainly we don't have hunters in enough numbers to push the deer out in the road, however, the end of regular rifle deer season roughly coincides with the start of the rut. In the high country, the downward migration from areas that will be under deep snow towards areas which will at least have LESS snow begins a few weeks before that. There are two reasons, besides hunters, for a fall migration of deer that far precedes the presence of man. I have also run into an upward migration back towards the high country in spring a couple times though it is often less pronounced (here). At that time I sometimes see large bachelor herds of bucks with antlers still in velvet, less than fully formed. In these cases, it is driven by weather and availability of food. MIB
  12. No, there were no bullet holes, neither in skeletal remains nor in any soft tissue I examined. It would be highly unlikely, well less than 1% given the location and other circumstances. Could possibly be different in some other location. MIB
  13. Yes, half dozen or more cougars, 2 dozen or more bobcats, yet I lived in a bear preserve with many more bear than either kind of cat and never found a dead bear without a bullet hole in it. Conclusion: it is important to consider the behavior of each species as they near natural death. Some are reclusive hiding in the deepest thickets for what they perceive as security, some find elevated places with a view around them since that caters to THEIR sense of security. It should be fairly obvious that bigfoot, if they are not deliberately burying their dead, behave more like a bear than a cat when old or terminally ill finding inaccessible, private places to die rather than out in the open. MIB
  14. Wow, did you learn that all by yourself? Geez. MIB
  15. Monument ... National Monument? Which agency administers it, BLM, USFS, National Park Service, or other? If you really want to go investigate, don't take rumor or threatening signs as final word. Go to the managing office and talk to the supervisor. Tell them where you want to go, give them a reasonable reason, and ask if there's a legal way to get there. They have their own regulations from above they have to follow. If you're reasonable in your dealings with them, they'll usually help rather than hinder so long as they can do it without violating rules and putting their own jobs at risk. You have to figure out THEIR big picture, not just your own. They don't bite. I've done this with USFS and BLM here. I've had pretty positive responses from National Park Service as well. MIB