Steering Committee
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

301 Outstanding!

About BigTreeWalker

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Interests
    Camping (not in developed campsites), hunting, map reading, photography, exploring new territory, and of course sasquatch, since junior high (let's just say many many years). Saw P&G film when they first showed it in theaters! I also enjoy kayaking. I've built three of my own from scratch.

Contact Methods

  • Have you ever had an encounter with a sasquatch-like creature?
    Not sure

Recent Profile Visitors

1,091 profile views
  1. Thanks for sharing your investigations BC. That's a great view from the lookout.
  2. Since he gave the description of the chisel-like marks and the size, porcupine seems to be the best fit. The rest that happened may just be coincidental to this. I could take anyone that wants to similarly stripped trees in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest, with similar markings that is porcupine damage. In this case a photo would have been very useful. Or if you want to find some yourself look for the individual brown trees in a closeup view. They are interspersed throughout the forest.
  3. He stated that there were no claw or tooth marks. Then he goes on to describe marks that could very well have been left by a porcupine. I can attest to the fact that they are very good at stripping bark from the bases of trees. Since we don't have any photos to look at I would go with the most likely. He doesn't mention porcupine in his list of possible culprits. So I would assume that he hasn't seen what they can do, or he didn't consider that possibility.
  4. It's also the nature of a slower frame rate video when both the subject and the camera are in motion. If the camera is stationary, as with a trailcam, the background would be clear but the subject in motion would be blurry in a single frame capture.
  5. I recognize Cryptic's numbers as total automobile fatalities; of which car pedestrian accidents are only a smaller percentage of the total. In order to compare that to people being hit by cars and bigfoot not, you would need car/pedestrian fatality data for rural areas, not cities, in order to make a legitimate comparison. Good luck on finding those numbers.
  6. Oh, bigfoots' driving cars now!?
  7. It's funny I state some facts about your faulty numbers and animal car collisions in general and you call it arguing. The perpetual motion comes in when subjects that have been covered in this thread and many others keep coming up. You want hypotheses, many have been stated, and they are not all hocus pocus as you have insinuated in your previous post. You must have a crystal ball, because that's what the statement 'no Bigfoot will be produced' would take to be true.
  8. The red flags for Incorrigible1's 'story' to me are if this guy lived in Spokane and hiked and camped in the area, it's Mt St Helens, not Helen. There were no roads for years afterwards into the blowdown area. They wouldn't have been driving anywhere near where any bigfoot would have taken shelter. Last but not least either the doctor talked bigfoot or the bigfoot spoke some known language. Neither very likely. Let alone any kind of passive cooperation. Somebody has a good imagination. I know I will hear something from those that converse regularly with bigfoot.
  9. You make it sound like people get run down all the time... Millions, really, I think your numbers are a lot skewed. How many of those 'millions' were in the middle of town? You should think a little about animal collisions and the car being totaled. Which is the usual outcome when you hit something big, even deer. So if bigfoot are being hit by cars and mortally wounded then as others have stated above, there's something else going on. If it was a glancing blow then bigfoot probably just walked or limped off and no one bothered to stop and check it out.
  10. You don't have to be smarter or supernatural to watch out for cars. All you need is to be inattentive to get hit by one. We also invented cellphones and alcohol. People are notoriously unaware of their surroundings at times.
  11. It was a beautiful day yesterday and one of the warmer ones as of late. Wish I could have gotten out but chores got in the way. Thanks for sharing Dave. Great picture of the snow and the view. I noticed there was still fresh snow in the hills east of Vancouver WA yesterday. The day made up for the hail storms we had the day before.
  12. All the tooth impression research we have done is right around the edge of the blast zone. So as far as I'm concerned they are still there. We've been guesstimating bigfoot's home range in another thread. If it's around two hundred square miles the blast zone covered a lot of area but it was only 250 square miles. And a portion of that is covered by Spirit Lake. Pumice and ashfall covered a lot more than that but the forests and the animals survived and are still in those areas. The Gifford Pinchot National Forest covers three sides of the mountain. Some areas are gated in the winter but there is access to areas near the blast zone the rest of the year. There's also a lot of blast area east of the mountain (not easy to access) that wasn't included in the monument, but is in the GPNF.
  13. In western Washington, west of the Cascade crest, (see the map Norseman posted above) there are very few pine trees. Unless you are a squirrel, fir, hemlock and cedar cones wouldn't make a very substantial diet. Hiflier, you mentioned animal avoidance of humans above. I posted photo evidence of a bear waiting until I left an elk kill site in the research section. Within about a half hour of my leaving it was right back in there again. A thought crossed my mind a couple months ago that human avoidance my be the result of animals avoiding another biped in the woods. That other biped may be the real reason for their avoidance of us. Just to turn the thought around.
  14. Norse, can you say for sure that all those cougar kills are what they seem to be? And all the stumps are torn apart by bears? Do you find tracks identifying the animals at every location you find? Because I sure don't. One thing I have found in my studies is that cougar feeding sites and bigfoot feeding sites are very similar. More similar than any of the other animals.The point I was trying to make, at least in the area where we are going, is that there is enough evidence of foraging to include bigfoot. That IS what you were originally getting at. There are lots of smaller animals that no-one would even notice if they were being fed on. I know we don't find all the evidence of foraging that a cougar or a bear leave. The bones aren't piled all in one place (although I've heard it reported that such places have been found) and the ripped stumps are spread out over miles of territory. I've said it before, if bigfoot exists and has been living in the ecosystem for thousands of years then that same ecosystem would be able to sustain what you have decided has to be mass devastation just to stay fed. Their dietary requirements would not have changed in recent years. Other people have found similar evidence on bones as we have. I've contacted some. Sometimes I get a response, other times I'm still waiting. It may be a WAG but I think it's a reasonable one. Very similar to what I've calculated as well. For those that have a problem with those numbers, divide it by 200 instead. You still get some interesting numbers. Another thing I thought I would mention is that no, we are not tripping over bones everywhere. We walk through the forest spread out like a search and rescue team to see what we can find. Sometimes it works, most of the time we find very little. And no Finding Bigfoot wouldn't. We've never found any bones in the dark. That's a daylight process.
  15. Let's be honest here and look at some numbers for known animals. Cougars kill the same amount of deer per year as Norseman's estimate for a bigfoot requirement. In areas such as WA state were cougars are known to fill every available niche of habitat that fits their needs, how many cougar kills has anyone found to support those numbers? There are a lot more bear numbers in the state than cougars. Does anyone consistently find evidence of all those bears foraging for whatever it is they are finding to eat? Are we able to tell the difference between the above mentioned animals and bigfoot when evidence of feeding behavior is found? In the area we research we have found over two dozen elk and deer kills now. The age of these sites are within the last two or three years. Some show the evidence we are looking for in possible bigfoot feeding behavior. Elk are a lot bigger than deer so the requirement for animals killed is a lot less than would be required if deer were the only prey. This area is about 2 square miles. So if it's a cougar doing all this killing and feeding it's only about a 50th or less of a cougar's range. Makes me wonder how much we haven't found in a larger area. So with those numbers and considering a larger area, there is more than enough evidence to support a couple cougars (male and female, since only their ranges overlap), some scavenging black bears and a few bigfoot as well. So I beg to differ when it's said there is no evidence of feeding. I have no idea what the bigfoot population is but look at it this way; when researcher encounters, sightings and finding fresh evidence occur at the same time over large widespread areas it is not the same individuals we are seeing or experiencing. Unless portals are coming into play.