Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
hiflier

A Plan For Discovery

107 posts in this topic

Hello All,

I actually wasn't going to put this up on the Forum until the end of the month but, by request from Bonehead74, I opted for sooner rather than later. Please patient, it's rather lengthy:

Many of you have read through some of the various thread topics that I've posted since last Fall 2013. One group of three was actually a series laid out in a kind of chapter format. The first being "How Would You Look For Sasquatch?" in with some ideas for what to take with you on hikes and some things to consider before going out into the field. It wasn't a great thread by me but the input was good. It did serve to help get folks thinking about some of the logistics involved in applying a search effort.

The second in the series titled "Dead Sasquatch" talked about the theory of finding an intact carcass in the Spring that hadn't yet been decimated by nature and it's predators. And also WHY it might be dead, such as age, disease, or injury. Mainly following the idea that if it was still frozen then a specimen might be had from the remains.

"So You Found Sasquatch Remains" then delved a bit into what to do or how to go about getting the specimen to science without losing it to "other parties" shall we say in the process. A bit cynical and bordered on the idea that there might be those that wouldn't wish one to succeed. It led to the "Is sasquatch a Secret?"....my finest hour LOLOL!!. I still appreciate the mods allowing the thread here on the GF and thank everyone again for their restraint so that the subject could be discussed in some depth.

It was shortly after that that I bagan thinking about the various ideas and methods currently, or soon to be current, in the field between investigators, trackers, hunters, and their ideologies. This is in itself a wide ranging subject but it all falls to this: Pro Kill vs. No-Kill. We're all familiar with that debate and there are pros and cons for both sides. Not an easy issue for some. Easy perhaps for others but fraught with unknowns.

In considering the landscape of the various topics of BF discussion on this Forum the realization of a dynamic began to take shape: There was a kind of lack of a vehicle(for want of a better word) for common ground. To clarify, it's not simply an issue of no common ground. It's an issue of not having a platform in which to determine what that common ground could be. No melting pot so to speak. No clearing house to sort of plug different philosophies into which would accept both sides of the issue regarding Kill or no Kill.

Can these two seeming opposites co-exist? It of course depends on how important it is to each camp that proof of existence is. AND, perhaps more importantly, whether or not small numbers of, or in some cases a sole individual, has the honest (and I mean HONEST) chance or confidence that they and they alone can get that proof. Doing what? Getting a trusted video? A vettable photo? DNA? A body on a slab? Even proponents of no-Kill would be happy to find one dead because most know that is the one sure-fire means of proof. So finding and recording a live one; or finding and taking a dead one could be that common ground?

Norseman of the Grendel Project and the North American WoodApe Conservancy (NAWAC) have both stated that if a dead one is found then the hunt for one to shoot would halt. This alone should be enough to spur on the no-Kill side of the fence to initiate some action in the effort that finding would result stopping hunters actively focused on placing a body on a slab through force. I realize this is coming across as perhaps a naive idealistic viewpoint but starting on the high side is at least a start. Once understood it can be pared down into a practical model one hopes most can live with.

So what? How? Is there a way out of a dichotomy like this that works for most if not all those who desire proof? Even those who's aim is proof at any cost? I think there is and folks, IT AIN'T GONNA HAPPEN OVERNIGHT. Just so you know. The initiation of the plan I'm thinking of involves this: Get everyone together first. "What is this, some kind of joke!?" you say? Nope, no joke. My focus for this part is to target the heavy hitters "in the field" (active investigators) and "on the page" (the writers). And tell them of the bigger plan that could unfold with their help. One of the goals of this thread, with your input and knowledge is to iron out just who those people are. It will be my job to keep the thread on track.

The overall plan is to put people into field of course but that in and of itself requires some careful thought. Searching for a live Bigfoot, or a body, has already been likened to a needle in a haystack so the first order of business is location. There is only ONE that IMO fills that criteria: the Olympic Penninsula. Why is that? I mean beyond it's historical reputation of having a healthy Sasquatch population there is a major factor coming to bear here. Geographical barriers. isolating the search area is critical. The OP is it's own limiting factor by nature. It's also a beautiful place to be. That to me is the target area. ALL resources should go there for the search.

The size of the search party needs to be at least 100 people who can be there for a week. How and where the search is conducted SHOULD be orcestrated by a central group. That group will get it's information beforehand from every source, report, and experienced investigator who is familiar with the area ahead of time. Databases will be combed, reports logged into agencies like police and sheriff, local watch groups etc. long BEFORE the operation ever gets to the field. Ongoing decisions after that will depend on what's brought back at the end of each day by the searchers. The daily log will be scrutinized and a plan for the next day will be presented at a meeting of EVERYONE each morning (with breakfast LOL) before heading out. So everyone gets fresh or ongoing data every day- with maps! This is going to mean a lot of work in order to adequately support the search teams

The searchers should be equipped with GOOD video and photographic equipment to include several thermal imagers and audio recorders. Casts of footprints can be a part of it but I don't think much time should be spent on them unless there is something remarkable about the prints. The strongest, most experienced hikers will start at the top of a given slope as drivers/noise makers, in groups of ten, and work their way down from a designated location. Those with lesser abilities or experience will position themselves toward the base of the slopes as receivers to record anything that comes their way. Minus the deer, elk, or other creatures unless some have an interest in getting photos/videos of them. Individually, the drivers will remain approximately 20 to 40ft apart as they are comfortable, and too, so will the receivers. All this will be based on data from previous examinations of data and evidence along with any information or results of each exercise which will be turned in at the end of each day. This info will be analysed with new maps created showing areas already covered along with routes to the next day's positions.

There will possibly be a need for clearances with any agency to do this no doubt if on public lands, National Parks, or State Parks but with a year to plan there shouldn't be an issue. Experienced folks from British Columbia should be invited also. I have not covered all aspects of this plan which is why I sharing the idea here. In light of 60 years of relative disappointment I think this to be an effort worth mentioning. Maybe this has been tried already? I know National Geographic did something similar a while back with no results. Some would say that is signficant.

Regardless, IMO, an opportunity to meet those active in Squatchdom is a good thing and Forum members who attend can even plan on meeting each other if they wish. It could be billed as National Sasquatch Day with an annual date or week to be picked either for the same time of year (best) or not. Either way 100+ folks VACATIONING on the western slopes of the Olympic Penninsula for the sole purpose of gaining proof of the existence of Sasquatch while camping, or just as a vacation, as a workshop, as a social event, or for all those reasons, to me anyway, would be a good organized effort to get closer to the truth of Bigfoot while at the same time enjoying the great out of doors. I know I'd for sure go!

Just lobbing in my two rocks into the mix, as usual. I thank Bonehead74 for giving me the push I needed to finish this :)

Edited by hiflier
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With 100 people, in over 2m acres of some of the densest, darkest, dampest forest on the continent, it's still needle in haystack stuff.

In my opinion, and I've said this before, if you send people into a forest to find these things you're going to fail and I say that based on the last x amount of years that have bore little to no positive results.

I love your thinking at times Hiflier but I think on this occasion you're underestimating both the Olympic Peninsula and Sasquatch, whilst over estimating human beings in that environment.

However, you're right, what an absolutely fantastic vacation it would be.;)

This coming weekend, the guys at the Olympic Project have an expedition and as per usual I wish them all the very best of luck.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello BobbyO,

What if the Olympic project had the 100 people? The OP wasn't based on starting at one end of the 2M acres of Penninsula and slogging to the other you know. There were parameters set in the plan contingent on data research beforehand. Your own database of WA and it's reports would be part of that preliminary work. Utilizing various resources is after all a big part of it. The names of investigators plays a part too. The ones already in that OP would be contacted for obvious reasons. The writers would be the ones getting the word out and updating results for the public with blogs and articles.

Taking a full year to get this off the ground should be an adequate amount of time. I wouldn't expect to draw researchers from their own back yards in say Minnesota or Michigan but one never knows.

Edited by hiflier
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They have a healthy number for their expeditions, I know that much, not sure exactly how many but it's a decent number of people.

I'm still adding data and although I glimpse at times at certain areas, I'm still adding data and this my sole focus currently as opposed to analysis.

When I'm satisfied I've added as many as I currently can, I'll start crunching the classi..... Errr " sightings I've added " seriously and get the right people involved too to add to the whole thing, no danger.

Get Trog involved too however, he's doing some fantastic work where the East Coast is concerned and the more options you have the better for everything.

It all depends on what your objectives were however doesn't it.

If you want scientific discovery, you'd need to point towards Norseman way of going about things.

If you want just an encounter and to hopefully become a knower, you'd spend a serious amount of time in the forest and hopefully get ones curiosity to come into play.

If you want just a walk in the woods though, I can't help thinking sending a 100 or so people into the woods with cameras and loads of gear would be the best way to achieve that.

Would still be a great vacation though.

Edited by BobbyO
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First I will say that I like how you think, lol. But like BobbyO said, it is still a needle in a haystack type of thing. I wonder how much a person's odds would improve by having 100 people instead of 1? Obviously they must improve somewhat, but it is possible that they wouldn't improve all that much. I don't know though. One more subtle problem that you could run into is a lack of an objective to focus on among your team.

 

If you're looking for both a body to take home and a live sasquatch to capture on film, I think these dual objectives could cause problems. Maybe not, but it is possible. It is just hard to keep an eye on the ground and the surrounding area. But maybe having people paired off to look in both places could work, although they you are going to be limiting the amount of ground you can see to a certain degree.

 

Getting as many people out into sasquatch habitat as possible definitely sounds good to me, no matter what your objective is. 200 eyes is better than 2 any way you slice it. Of course there are drawbacks, but do they outweigh the positives? I doubt it. Seeing as how it would be extremely difficult to capture a live sasquatch, that is probably the hardest method. The second hardest method would either be finding a corpse, or making a corpse, to put it bluntly. I don't know which of those would be more difficult though.

 

But more people would be apt to look for a body or look to catch something on film as opposed to trying to shoot a bigfoot. So I really like the idea of expending all the effort in looking for a body. I think your choice of location is a great one, although not necessarily the easiest to traverse. There are other good ones as well.

 

I'm pondering where the best chances of locating a cadaver would be. I have always said that if a sasquatch knows it is dying, it would be likely to hole up somewhere, possibly near a water source. Sometimes animals seem to go to water when they don't feel right. But if the reason for the sasquatch dying was something like starvation through the winter, then perhaps it will still be where it was sitting. And this is likely to be in some isolated canyon or cave, or somewhere like that. Not just right out in the open, at least I wouldn't think so. I've always liked the idea of searching isolated canyons, but I suppose getting to such places is the hardest part.

 

At the end of the day, I think an idea like the one you presented is the only real way of getting something done, as far as a planned expedition is concerned. It is either that, or wait for someone to get extremely lucky to the point of finding really good evidence, which is a body, and being able to have it examined and then subsequently presented to the world. Hopefully no one would attempt to interfere with such a process, like the wildlife agents coming in an confiscating the body once you go public or whatever. Because then you would be left with just visual evidence, and I don't think that is enough at the end of the day.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here in South Carolina, in the low country where I live we use dogs very often to drive deer toward a stand of hunters. The dogs press the deer forward and are taken. This sounds a lot like that, but who knows if it would work?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello keninsc,

That's exactly what it's like. The drivers coming down-slope though will have to understand the Topography if they are to be able to keep descending. It's why daily maps should be distrubuted. The meeting room itself can have a record map of the increasing areas already covered by shading in those areas. I have to say that with something like this acquiring preliminary data from local sources as well as G-Maps and G-Earth will take time but be so worth it- both topo and satellite versions.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am pro kill so there fore I think new video or whatever is a waste of time, but I do want to share a hunch.

I think Grendel sticks to high places. If your making a drive be sure to look up. Also look for places that have cliffs that could be access able from another way.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Norseman,

Thank you. I will add it to the pile for logistical data. One of the features of this plan is to start the drivers high and work low. How high depends on available recent data for a given area. Being pro-kill you've no doubt noticed the lack of anything in the way of firepower mentioned thus far. I think you can agree that even though I also am pro-kill (minus a dead find) the number of people in the plan ramps up the risk guns may impose on personal safety. Personal safety however could depend on those with proper permits issued by, or honored by, the State of Washington. The red flag goes up big time though. I would opt for looking into some kind of live feed maybe.

Edited by hiflier
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the problem with a Bigfoot, they don't do what you want them. Other animals seem to follow their instinct of fight or flight, as a result they very often follow a pattern you can sort of predict. A Bigfoot is intelligent and knows the lay of the land....oh and has psychic abilities and infrasoumd weaponry. Sorry, couldn't resist. But the darn things haven't managed to evade us this long without being pretty darn smart.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am pro kill so there fore I think new video or whatever is a waste of time, but I do want to share a hunch.

I think Grendel sticks to high places. If your making a drive be sure to look up. Also look for places that have cliffs that could be access able from another way.

I think the numbers suggest otherwise Norse, for certain areas anyway and certainly the area Hiflier is talking about.

Will have a look when I get home from work.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello Norseman,

Thank you. I will add it to the pile for logistical data. One of the features of this plan is to start the drivers high and work low. How high depends on available recent data for a given area. Being pro-kill you've no doubt noticed the lack of anything in the way of firepower mentioned thus far. I think you can agree that even though I also am pro-kill (minus a dead find) the number of people in the plan ramps up the risk guns may impose on personal safety. Personal safety however could depend on those with proper permits issued by, or honored by, the State of Washington. The red flag goes up big time though. I would opt for looking into some kind of live feed maybe.

Amy time you get people on a hunt with guns in close proximity to each other, it's loaded with danger. This is why I advocate the use of a short range weapon. A 12 ga pump action shotgun with a heavy slug. Maximum energy delivered on target and with the reduced range it will be safer for your crew. That's my choice, but you have to have people close enough to be killed by an errant round. My second choice would be the Marlim .444. Relatively short range, but highly accurate, excellent stopping power.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Norse, 90% of visuals are at elevations less than 1,000ft, and 91% of non visuals are under 1,000ft in the area that hiflier's taking about throughout the year.

Of course that doesn't mean that they don't frequent higher elevations because they do as is shown in the 10% and 9% respectively, but it does mean they most certainly aren't restricted to them in the area in question.

Interesting.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I like it, but I wouldn't tell anyone about it before hand.  I would simply secure permits at a few locations for group camping.  So no one knows you are Bigfoot hunting.

 

I would wait to select the location til everyone is in the general locality.

 

The idea is to reduce the possibility of locals trying to hoax the group.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0