hiflier

Sésquac
  • Content count

    4,489
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by hiflier

  1. You know, this is very fortuitous. Who is going to fork over the money to mount up a search for the creature to prove she was lying? Think about it. Will the insurance company? If they dig out the vehicle's equivalent to the airplane's "black box" what will it show? It should show speed, breaking, and evasive actions. Most people aren't even aware that vehicles are even equipped with such technology and have been since the prototypes in some were installed back on 200 or 2002. Some European imports have still not install it though. The "device" should give all the info of what happened seconds before the crash. If a private individual wanted to get that info it would cost about $2000. I know all this because of an accident my son was in in a new truck and it was deemed not his fault. Now if the electronics says that's the driver in that story is telling the truth about an avoidance maneuver then the vehicle's recorder will show it. Let's see if they believe her and if they do it would HAVE to get some folks thinking. Folks with plenty of money like the insurance companies.
  2. Thanks, That would make more sense for the number of bears.
  3. West side of what? I-5? Mount St Helens, Adams? West of the Southern Cascades in General? West of the peaks in the Gifford Pinchot? You might be talking about somewhere around 20,000 bears?
  4. Hi SWWASAS. Two things after reading your post. They stem from how wild animals respond to Humans: For the most part they run away or otherwise vacate an area. This is GENERALLY true although some circumstances will result in something other than that general response to our presence. So, that said one response by animals including BF is to disappear somehow when we come onto the scene. The second may or may not be thought of as relevant. And that is that Sasquatch, like us, is also bipedal. So would the animal reaction to them be the same as the animal response to Humans? In other words, beyond more familiarity with Sasquatch, would animals in the wild respond to a BF's presence in the same manner as they respond to Humans? If so then it is quite reasonable to say that a BF would have a place to themselves if animals scatter they same way in which they do when we walk onto the scene. If that's the case then what does it do for say a population of bears in a given locale. Do you think they wouldn't care one way or another or would they leave. Have you or anyone else noticed any differences in that regard in an area you frequent? Is it even worth considering as a clue to whether or not there is a Sasquatch presence where and when you go to your respective research areas?
  5. Looking at southernyahoo's "equation" and the results I came up with? Average BF area is one for every two hundred square miles. Don't know how to factor for a family unit. Bears apparently only need 15-30% of that area so multiply 70 or 180 by 3-6 bears. So competition may average 200 to 400 per 70 Sasquatch for the Olympic Park or around 500 to 1,000 for 180 Sasquatch just for the Olympic Peninsula. It was difficult to find a bear population figure for the Olympic Peninsula alone. In fact I never found the number of bears there in all my digging. Someone else may know where to look.
  6. WAG or not here goes: Olympic National Park- 1,442 sq. mi. gives around 70 for a Sasquatch number. The entire Olympic Peninsula at 3,600 sq. mi. results in a figure of 180 creatures.
  7. I'll bet you would too Inc1 my man! Been trying to persuade my spouse to get on the road earlier than planned to maybe see the eclipse in Oregon but it doesn't look like we'll be heading out that early. The plan is a northern summer=style route through Canada to the Dakotas and on thru the Teton Range and end up in Port Angeles, WA to see an old friend. Then head down to Tahoe to see more friends and hang out for a while around the lake and mountains looking for you-know who After that trek then we plan meander back this way on a more mid-country route so a blast through NE is certainly not out of the question as far as I'm concerned. Prolly be tired of the road so the quicker home the better. All in all, a month, or a bit more, round trip. Tenting most of the way with our dog, Eddie
  8. Nope, not too far off at all. A beautiful thing......well, that's what my Bigfoot said anyway. All kidding aside, and kinda on the recent few posts, any Black Bears in good ol' NE? Or are they all mistaken for Bigfoots Figured there might be some left over in your back yard from their making it down to the eastern OK/AR forests?
  9. I knew you were going to say that Inc1, my BF pal psyche-linked me and told me
  10. Time to get serious folks. It is my contention that with this animal there is no such thing as territory. Regions is more like it but as far as range of travel? I'm pushing for the entire North American continent. That means a Sasquatch in Alberta, Canada is just as likely to be the same one as the one seen in Northern California. It's a big creature. Tough enough to take a bullet, fast, strong, smart, hair-covered, and in my opinion walks, runs, and swims. I considered things like breeding grounds, how far it might be able to go in one year, and whether or not the male hangs around a mate only until she can fend for herself and then leaves. This idea should include things stick structures along a 1,000 mile journey. Probably most of those structures never get seen. This is all about breeding and so probably should be joined with the Sasquatch Breeding thread but for now I want to see if, and how many, questions we have regarding the creature fit this concept. That being that Sasquatch does indeed travel over great distances and that the male is only territorial for a short time during the year. The female and offspring would only reside in the remotest of locations as long as there is a good food supply. I've also considered the idea that only the females hibernate? But in any case I also hold to the notion that the creature, though viable is very rare. This opens a quagmire of sorts that involves many things but as Norseman has been doing the tough questions will show up here. Everyone is welcome on this thread but I especially invite Norseman and gigantor as their hinking and comments as of late might be able to shed some light on some of the finer points of this topic. It will be interesting to see how much of the Sasquatch subject fits with this line of thinking. So far the best fit does seem to be wrapped around a breeding season so perhaps that's a good place to begin? Be forewarned, the questions will get tougher as the thread grows. And some of those questions will probably NOT be well received. The floor is open......
  11. There surely is an interesting connection there. Marine travel may have been more of an activity than one thought. Ocean currents do seem to favor that kind of migration even if it was initially accidental. One could imaging groups with a rich experience eating fish along seacoasts would be well equipped to handle such voyages although fresh water other than rain would be against such excursions. Just another fascinating subject to invest some time into
  12. That impact event was also a bit more widespread as studies have strongly suggested the comet or meteor had issued fragments that hit in a number of places. One could certainly thing there was death in and closer to those smaller impacts as well not to mention the dust and fires that choked out life in a more immediate localized cataclysms. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Younger_Dryas_impact_hypothesis "The current impact hypothesis states that the air burst(s) or impact(s) of a swarm of carbonaceous chondrites or comet fragments set areas of the North American continent on fire, causing the extinction of most of the megafauna in North America and the demise of the North American Clovis culture after the last glacial period.[9] The Younger Dryas ice age lasted for about 1,200 years before the climate warmed again. This swarm is hypothesized to have exploded above or possibly on the Laurentide Ice Sheet in the region of the Great Lakes, though no impact crater has been yet identified and no physical model by which a such a swarm could form or explode in the air has been proposed. Nevertheless, the proponents suggest that it would be physically possible for such an air burst to have been similar to, but orders of magnitude larger, than the Tunguska event of 1908. The hypothesis proposed that animal and human life in North America not directly killed by the blast or the resulting coast-to-coast wildfires would have likely starved on the burned surface of the continent. "The evidence claimed for an impact event includes a charred carbon-rich layers of soil that have been found at some 50 Clovis sites across the continent. The proponents report that layers contain unusual materials (nanodiamonds, metallic microspherules, carbon spherules, magnetic spherules, iridium, platinum, charcoal, soot, and fullerenes enriched in helium-3) that they interpret as evidence of an impact event, at the very bottom of black mats of organic material that they say marks the beginning of the Younger Dryas, and is claimed that it cannot be explained by volcanic, anthropogenic, and other natural processes."
  13. Hmmm. Been thinking about this some thanks you Norseman (or no thanks depending on the amount of time I spend with it ). If the Sasquatch population is closer to ten thousand (one tenth of your 100,000 figure) across North America and they are only carnivores half the time then that 2.4 million deer drops significantly to around 5% which would reduce the predation to about 120,000 deer. That's a large reduction from 2.4 million. Scatter that 120,000 across even only half the North American continent and place it in mostly remote habitat or places Humans don't frequent or think to look for Sasquatch at all and I can see where evidence of their presence being somewhat scant.
  14. Hi g, I thought it was this frame from the third video at around 2:15
  15. Hi Everyone. Is this the year to put the Sasquatch question to rest? We have the tools, the technology, the researchers, the databases, and the knowledge. We have people in the field, a professor at Idaho State University, DNA labs, and just about everything we need to verify this creature. So is this the year for success? Spring is just around the corner now and we know what to look for, how to kook for it, and what is needed should we find something in the way of remains. We know how to avoid losing the specimen, in whatever capacity it is collected, and we know each other. We are dispersed all over the U.S. and Canada, know the hot spots, understand the creature's requirements, it's methods of hiding, and what attracts it. Is all of that enough to produce something solid for verification of existence? And would such a goal be motivating enough to mobilize everyone toward the task of finally bringing Sasquatch into the realm of science? In this, the 50th year anniversary of the PGF, is it time for everyone to push all out for discovery?
  16. This could be somewhat misleading if the truth is that we don't see much mass foraging because population are low. I think this is a point Norseman has been trying to make for some time now and I am inclined to think the same. He has cited numerous reasons for thinking along this line. Even if BF foraged on have the percentage- more like 5%- a 600 pounder would still be leaving about 30 lbs. of waste behind (see what I did there? ) Add to that all the other foragers and there should be a lot of sign from nibbling fauna....and scat. And/or a lot of odd carcass kill sites where animals like deer have been mangled. It doesn't seem to be the case even in the Olympics of Washington state where populations are thought to be thriving. Or in the Ouichitas, or in the Ocala National Forest, or in Salt Fork, or in the Smokey Mountains...........you get the idea. Dead animals, lots of foraging, lots of scat, lots of sightings, tons of footprints, hair everywhere, running from a fire........IDK. Sure doesn't look like tens of thousands to me- at all.
  17. That kind of detail in your description of the burial hints at an air of reverence. One can only imagine what led the individual to the conflict. Being a Native American burial area the uniform also may have been a trophy of sorts? This reminds me of the group of women who organized the intensive search using whatever writings and records they could find to locate Confederate soldier's gravesites- some only marked or found by the natural landmarks written in diaries and other papers, like letters etc. I'm way off topic now here so I'll stop.
  18. Yes, I was mistaken in saying the Mayans were that early. The impact wasn't like the K/T boundary 65.000,000 ago. It was only somewhere around 14-15 thousand years ago. New studies have shown too that the land bridge wasn't viable then because it couldn't support life- it was barren even if ice free. The populating of North America is now thought to have been by boat. https://indiancountrymedianetwork.com/history/genealogy/the-death-of-the-bering-strait-theory/ And no, agreed, the Clovis Culture was not the oldest but the quest for the discovery of their demise along with North American mega fauna has found strong evidence to support a North American fragmented impact as the cause of the extinctions. The chief signature of that impact is the residue of platinum in a layer at the dig sites and elsewhere suggesting the culprit came from space. http://popular-archaeology.com/issue/spring-2017/article/discovery-of-widespread-platinum-may-help-solve-clovis-people-mystery Your experiences in archeology are interesting to read, too. That revolutionary burial? Yeah, that would be a strange one to find in the middle of everything else that was Native American and so much older . Thanks for straightening out the Mayan/Olmec thing too. I've had a fascination with the Olmecs for some time and even spent some time with the Cascajal Block and the Tuxtla Statuette. It's cool stuff. Also pretty taken with Caral in Peru but there's so much in my own back yard that has more recently caught my attention in the last few years.
  19. Not only all of that SWWASAS, but the whole idea of north American mega fauna and the Clovis Culture being wiped out by a meteor that had broken apart before impact has been all but stalled by science as well. Digs at sites in Florida have revealed not only the antiquity of the Clovis Culture in the southeastern U.S. preceding the Bering land bridge migration hypothesis but also showed residue of that impact. And that residue has been found at a number of sites across the Southern and Southwestern U.S. as well as elsewhere. If there was a Mayan invasion then the impact halted it- and everything else. If the invasion was after the fact then there weren't many Humans OR Bf's left to fight them off. What the heck! I really get sick and tired of the whole hidden history thing. Yuch1 mentioned finding a whistleblower to settle the BF question but it would seem that there is a lot more to reveal than just BF history and existence, eh? Can't help but think the longer this is allowed to go on the more difficult or impossible it will be to pry out the truth. You have a lot of excellent questions and thoughts about this. It makes me wonder how many scientists and anthropologists have thee same questions but know better than to pursue them. I also wonder if any would ever get on a bandwagon to get at the bottom of things.
  20. I am curious to know what you are seeing, BobbyO. A member a while back mentioned generally heightened BF activity around that time with some evidence of a bit more aggression. Is there any indication of that in what you are noticing? Maybe in specific regions?
  21. I assume you or someone in your group knows about black plastic being able to hide the thermals display and whatever it lights up- like someone's face who is looking at the display? The NAWAC team utilized black plastic as a blind to hide any light emanating from the thermal. The black plastic does NOT interfere with what the thermal device sees at all so it's like having a one way view of any heat signatures. The operator can "see" without being seen. I don't know if being in such an enclosure doesn't get warm enough to create a strong thermal itself though. But from what I understand evidently whoever is inside the blind using a thermal can read heat signatures while being virtually invisible to anything outside that can see in infrared. Here is a link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermography#/media/File:Human-Infrared.jpg https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermography#/media/File:Human-Visible.jpg
  22. Excellent points SWWASAS. What is interesting too is that the two battlers left in separate directions. So was it a turf a skirmish? If it was then evidently it wasn't a serious one, at least serious enough to distract them from what I assume was the scent of a Human in the area? Of course walking off in different directions could also be a method of confusing a potential tracker into wondering which one to follow. I saw ducks do this on a lake when my dog was swimming toward them. He didn't know which one to pursue and swam around looking at both before swimming back to shore. His indecision was quite evident. Also the report didn't go on to say that the battlers resumed their tussle somewhere else in the woods. That would be something I would think would have been heard a few minutes later deeper into the trees? Sort of like a BF vendetta to pursue unfinished business. Kinda makes me thing it was a sibling or similar family matter or just older juveniles flexing their muscles in a natural confrontation of sorts. All speculation of course and mostly based on typical animal behavior say for kittens and puppies. Can't say this might not have been any different but who knows really.
  23. Thanks T. for your thoughts on things. I ran a thread a while back that discussed what I called the defensive freeze. We Humans do it to when surprised by something unless we've had some kind of training. It also covered the tactic of swaying when out in the open. Several things came out of that dialogue. One was it was deployed to distract someone from something else like in an ambush perhaps. Another was to attract attention so a family could sneak to safety. Another, which led to an interesting conclusion, was the technique was used as a range finding move by adjusting the relationship of the background to the foreground to judge distance. Something which could indicate daytime eyesight that, while good, isn't as good as a creature that doesn't sway. Humans do both- look straight on and sometimes bob slightly side to side to get a better distance perspective. I also agree that Sasquatch doesn't know we don't have good night vision. Other wise why hide behind a tree like it was daylight? They more than likely learned that as a night time maneuver to avoid each other and as a leaned tool when night hunting as prey would be spooked if they remained in the open even when pitch black conditions are present?
  24. Hey, Branco my friend, no worries. In fact I would very much like to read any links you may have that are along these same lines. I saw the video of two young ones shoving each other back and forth before a larger one stepped in and read an older report from 1944 I think regarding a couple of BF's fighting over a deer carcass. I think these kinds of encounters are good for folks to read up on. In another thread I had some thoughts on BF's being vocal and stomping around when they are mostly thought of as being stealthy and quite the recluse. Seems the two worlds are counter to each other. Any thoughts on that seeming dichotomy would be appreciated. I think being smack in the middle of their normal "routine" may have something to do with it?
  25. Thank you for the videos T, What an active locale. There has been a little conundrum going on in my head and watching and listening your videos helped to identify it better. And it is this: It concerns the subject of stealth. In the videos, other than visual, there is none. Vocalizations galore, rock throwing, footsteps, and more than one creature present and doing those things. So where's the stealth? remaining out of sight while still creating such a racket isn't really stealth. And this kind of activity has been reported in daytime locations elsewhere as well. For something to consciously want to stay hidden this doesn't make much sense. So could it be looked at as a weakness rather than a strength? If a weakness then there's obviously overriding factors that come into the arena that cause the creatures to more or less give themselves away and make their presence known. It seems you and your group's presence (in numbers perhaps) brought them beyond the typical mannerism of complete reclusiveness. Something which is held to be the chief reason more aren't seen of found when looked for. The question would seem to be then that they approached because Humans weren't themselves on the move through their habitat. Does this seem like a reasonable conclusion? Granted it was dark but in general is this your take on it as well? Is it only when Humans are on the move that Sasquatch goes into complete 100% stealth mode? I've read where they have been known to turn, hunker down, remain motionless and get looked over because they appear to look like a large tree stump. That's also would be logical as a daytime evasion tactic when caught off guard and need to "disappear" quickly. It may be that they use the same tactic at night when confronted by groups like yours? Toss a stone and then fold up into a stump shape? Now, if they do I wouldn't think that they are purposefully aware that they are imitating a stump as much as the technique is deployed because archetypically it has worked and so is taught to, and learned by, following generations. My apologies but I can't help needing to pick this stuff apart and so ask for opinions to get others' perspectives.