hiflier

SRN- The Sasquatch Research Network

163 posts in this topic

15 hours ago, hiflier said:

Fast response Bigfoot Chasers. Don't like it? Then be a part of the solution by coming up with something better.     

 

 

How about one of these:

 

Giganto Search Team

 

Crypto Discovery Team

 

Crypto Busters

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Good positive input G, thanks. Love 'em all LOL. Now let me see.......GST,CDT, or CB's. They all have a nice ring to 'em. By the way, been looking at two databases for  as of a coupla hours ago to find examples of a locations to bring here as good candidates for the GST, CDT, CB's, or the SRN (cannot for some reason get past my personal affinity for the "SRN" :) ). Been looking at the BFF'S own SSR (hmmm, methinks that we may have become our own alphabet agency?) as well as John Green's.

 

In John Green's I have been sorting the database for Lummi and Marietta in Whatcom County, WA. Right next to each other and each have the most reports in the database for Washington. Where listed Marietta's sightings have mostly occurred less that two miles West, Southwest, and South of the town. About 20 reports. Same for Lummi which is a Native American reservation on a peninsula West, and adjacent to, Marietta. Here is a GE satellite map of the area because if there ever was an area where a GST/CDT/CB/SRN  set up might be effective it would be here.:

Marietta WA.PNG

Edited by hiflier
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ummm.....isn't there already an organization currently doing this?

 How would this new organization render different results other than maybe getting someone killed mucking around wildfires?

 Maybe name it NFBFRO (Not Finding Bigfoot Field Research Organization) at least it would be truth in advertising, the results will most likley be the same. 

The surrounding wildfires concept is perhaps the most ignorant/irresponsible suggestion I've heard recently, with the exception of let's go hunting things walking on two feet.

 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, NessieRider said:

Ummm.....isn't there already an organization currently doing this?

 How would this new organization render different results other than maybe getting someone killed mucking around wildfires?

 Maybe name it NFBFRO (Not Finding Bigfoot Field Research Organization) at least it would be truth in advertising, the results will most likley be the same. 

The surrounding wildfires concept is perhaps the most ignorant/irresponsible suggestion I've heard recently, with the exception of let's go hunting things walking on two feet.

 

 

You put down new ideas and defend the “organization” thats been at it for 30 years and has produced no results!???

 

Sure.....we should all just stick to whacking trees and howling and whooping. That will get it done! The icing on the cake will be taking a grainy photo at the end! Complete with red circles!

 

Pffffttt.....

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, NessieRider said:

Ummm.....isn't there already an organization currently doing this?

 

Name it, please?

 

17 minutes ago, NessieRider said:

How would this new organization render different results other than maybe getting someone killed mucking around wildfires?

 

Have you been reading this thread at all? No one is going to be 'mucking around wildfires' and to even think that is degrading to common sense and flies in the face of those who respect firefighters and their goal of protecting life and property. Anything that has a body covered in hair isn't going to be 'mucking around' either. So I do not know where you are even getting this notion.

 

28 minutes ago, NessieRider said:

Maybe name it NFBFRO (Not Finding Bigfoot Field Research Organization) at least it would be truth in advertising, the results will most likley be the same.

 

Good attitude. Really helps a lot with this ;) 

 

29 minutes ago, NessieRider said:

The surrounding wildfires concept is perhaps the most ignorant/irresponsible suggestion I've heard recently, with the exception of let's go hunting things walking on two feet.

 

So basically you are not in favor of checking a road when it is safe to do so. Because someone checking along a road that is NOT safe is what is ignorant /irresponsible. How come YOU didn't think of that? Shouldn't have to tell you something that is so obvious. But evidently I do. You are new and I welcomed you here along with a few others. And if you have ideas that might help with something like this? then even better :) 

 

Again, welcome to the Forum.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, hiflier said:

Name it, please?

Forest Ape Response Team..... F A R T

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

HAH! Best yet, keep 'em coming :lol:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting that you put that map up, hiflier, as I have often flown my r/c model aircraft at a site that is just off the upper centre of that photo, on the banks of the Red River. Over the 10 years that I frequented that flying club, I never heard any mention of Sasquatch/Bigfoot sightings in the area, but it is largely rural farms with numerous woodlots to the N and W of there, so could be good habitat. Lots of deer in that area, so much so, that driving at night can be tricky.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

Hi, BC witness, most of the Lummi and Marietta 1st person reports were from gill netters working the Nooksack River and its delta and spoke of Sasquatch activity both in the water and on shore. Sounds like the fish in the river may have been what attracted Sasquatch to the river? Could be a primary food supply for them. There were also sightings along Marine Drive (Lummi) as well as Lummi River Road. Both sides of the river have reports actually, but since John Green's database only goes up to the year 2000 one would have to dig a bit to see if there are still encounters around there. R/C aircraft you say? Sounds like fun.

Edited by hiflier
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would bet that the foothills overlooking SW WA area was lined with BF watchng the naked apes trying to blow themselves up.    I wonder if they ohh and ahh like we do?    Vancouver WA has banned fireworks and apparently it moved things North into the county where I live.      Honestly it sounded like a major offensive must have sounded in World War II.   I  went outside and wet my roof down when the guy on 5 acres behind me started shooting stuff up into the trees. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 04/07/2018 at 7:13 AM, hiflier said:

Hi, MagniAesir, in your area I would have to agree. Other areas that have sightings though do have more roads in and around them. Maybe what I should do...or someone ;) is grab some reports that are in areas that do have roads surrounding the encounter? People do see them on roads, next to roads and crossing roads- day or night- so maybe some examples would be good to put up?

 

I know there are reports where LEO's get called and then show up fairly quickly to investigate. Really doubt that in those instances an "all-points-be-on-the-lookout-for....." bulletin would get issued but how would we know whether or not such a bulletin didn't get issued? You know. Something over the radio like, "The witness described the individual as threatening and possibly dangerous. Keep a lookout for the suspect in the vicinity of "X" and believed to be moving toward "Y". The witnesses reported that the suspect appeared to be barefoot. Report any suspicious looking individuals coming out of the woods around "X" to dispatch".

 

From my imaginary dialogue above you might notice the words Sasquatch or Bigfoot were not used? Could that be a way for witnesses aware of the BF stigma to say what they saw? Would it then elicit the same response of canvassing around an area as it would if the suspect was Human? In the case of a Sasquatch does LE have a code word? 

Another issue is resource fatigue, what I mean by that is the false alarms.

An example Thomas Steenburg received a report, where the woman claimed that she had a sasquatch sighting that morning.

BCWITNESS and Thomas arrived at the site 24 1/2 hours after the sighting

They were able to duplicate her photos,, which showed that the creature photo was shorter the Thomas. The distance of the creature was beyond the distance where the described features could be seen.

Despite the evidence the woman maintained that what she saw was a sasquatch.

Of course months later Finding Bigfoot, confirmed that her sighing was real.

 

So how do you determine when and how to dispatch your resources

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MagniAesir said:

Another issue is resource fatigue, what I mean by that is the false alarms........So how do you determine when and how to dispatch your resources

 

Good questions, M. I think it would depend on the area and the number of reports that come in. That could be determined by how many annual reports there are in say, Idaho. Or NorCal. Weigh that against the number of researchers involved in the program and their locations. Four sightings a year would be a lot? And they probably won't occur all in the same place so it could be a hundred miles between sighting "A" and sighting "B". Also the two sightings could be months apart as well. If the network is fairly well populated then only researchers closest to sighting "A" would go to sighting "A"'s area.

 

If Mr. Steenburg is covering all of British Columbia then of course it will be a lot of time and effort on his part to do so and one might experience fatigue during a rash of reports.  But if there were trusted researchers already closer to any witnesses they could handle the investigation once they were notified of the event. Nothing is perfect but if there is one successful outcome where a good clear photo or video results then the network would be a success. No one should expect a positive result from every dispatch. One home run in fifty at bats is way better than no home runs in fifty years. It is why a long view is necessary because as said, a network won't be spring up overnight. It could take ten years to have enough researchers to cover any decent amount of territory.

 

If the network could have people in it no more than say, 80 miles from each other that any two could meet in less than an hour. In a year's time a report  occurring between those two researchers may only happen once- or, more than likely, never. Other locations where other researchers live may be more frequent. And too there will be years where nothing will happen. People are trying to find ways to predict an encounter by looking at patterns but it is still a work in progress..   

 

  

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, hiflier said:

 

Good questions, M. I think it would depend on the area and the number of reports that come in. That could be determined by how many annual reports there are in say, Idaho. Or NorCal. Weigh that against the number of researchers involved in the program and their locations. Four sightings a year would be a lot? And they probably won't occur all in the same place so it could be a hundred miles between sighting "A" and sighting "B". Also the two sightings could be months apart as well. If the network is fairly well populated then only researchers closest to sighting "A" would go to sighting "A"'s area.

 

If Mr. Steenburg is covering all of British Columbia then of course it will be a lot of time and effort on his part to do so and one might experience fatigue during a rash of reports.  But if there were trusted researchers already closer to any witnesses they could handle the investigation once they were notified of the event. Nothing is perfect but if there is one successful outcome where a good clear photo or video results then the network would be a success. No one should expect a positive result from every dispatch. One home run in fifty at bats is way better than no home runs in fifty years. It is why a long view is necessary because as said, a network won't be spring up overnight. It could take ten years to have enough researchers to cover any decent amount of territory.

 

If the network could have people in it no more than say, 80 miles from each other that any two could meet in less than an hour. In a year's time a report  occurring between those two researchers may only happen once- or, more than likely, never. Other locations where other researchers live may be more frequent. And too there will be years where nothing will happen. People are trying to find ways to predict an encounter by looking at patterns but it is still a work in progress..   

 

  

 

As much as I hate to say this? It may be more expedient for you to join a BFRO chapter and try to implement some changes there that may increase the odds.

 

A decade is a long time to reinvent the wheel, meaning that the framework is already in place for what your mainly trying to accomplish. 

 

Project Grendel never had more than 10-15 active guys nationwide actually packing a firearm with intent to kill. And we were just a loose organization of like minded guys. Locally I know one researcher, but he is not pro kill, so we do not go out together, although he does pack a pistol.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, norseman said:

As much as I hate to say this? It may be more expedient for you to join a BFRO chapter and try to implement some changes there that may increase the odds.

 

 

But is the BFRO itself expedient? In all of its 20 plus years of existence what has it accomplished? Anyone (or two, or three) could go out after the fact, interview a witness, look around for evidence, take a few photos, and write that they think the witness sounded credible. I honestly do not think that any one is going to step in and change anything in that organization.

 

7 hours ago, norseman said:

A decade is a long time to reinvent the wheel, meaning that the framework is already in place for what your mainly trying to accomplish.

 

I doubt anything will be accomplished as long as people think it is just me trying to accomplish it. Only a consensus could begin a program like this. Even just starting off in one small area known to be active- even if just seasonally- would be a positive step in the right direction.

 

7 hours ago, norseman said:

Locally I know one researcher, but he is not pro kill, so we do not go out together, although he does pack a pistol.

 

But he is local and you know him. Maybe he knows someone a little further away who is a researcher. And then that researcher knows someone further still. That is how it would start. it might not take all that long to have four researchers that will eventually know who each other is. You may know only one researcher, and maybe at some point you will meet the person he knows. One doesn't have to be pro-kill to be in this unless one wants to be but four researchers could cover a 50 mile square area.

 

This is all about information, how fast one gets it and how fast one can respond to it. I look at it this way, if an encounter occurs information is taken in, mainly to see which direction the creature was spotted going in. If it was 50 miles away from me a researcher closest to the encounter would handle the interview. If the creature was seen going East and I was East of it I would be involved. If the creature was going West and I was East I might no be involved but the researchers to the West would be. The whole point is having a plan to hopefully intercept the creature and be at least camera ready should one be seen crossing a road West of the point of initial encounter.

 

The BFRO doesn't do this sort of thing. It never will do this sort of thing. For if it had then what we would know and have today might be be quite different.      

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

50 square miles by 4 researchers, IMO is a needle in a massive haystack.   I think bf would skate thru unseen if you had 4 researchers in 1 square mile.  

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites