Leaderboard

OK ohiobill, fair enough and thank you for the answer. Now, I must say I am a trained and have over 31 years in investigative work, root cause analysis and problem solving, I work for the corporate office of a large company and I travel the world doing such. I have a friend that is a trained Primatoligist and she has many years in her field of study. I also am an avid outdoorsman, hunter and fisherman. I have spent over 45 years outside doing those things I still do. Hunting and being outdoors, I learned a great deal from the animals I witnessed. I learned to track and read sign from my Dad. I have taught others and have guided hunts to many. I knew the area I hunted like my own home, because I spent more than 20 years on that property. It was gated, far off of the paved road and only 1 way in for miles. When I first started having experiences a few years ago, I applied logic and collected evidence for a few months. Although I never saw the subject, the evidence from what I collected told me it was an unknown and not an animal that I knew was not common to the area. So, I kept having experiences like BIG ape sounds, bi-pedal footsteps in the area around the edges of our camp. Then I began finding tracks. Big tracks, medium tracks and a few smaller ones. In the winter months it gets pretty cold here in GA, I know that huge barefoot people were not running through creeks making tracks. I heard many whoops, loud gutteral calls that would be so very loud, it hurt my ears at times. So, I started researching online and I heard the same sounds, saw the same tracks and heard stories of what I now know was BF or Sasquatch. At that point, I couldn't make myself believe it because the term mainly because it has for a very long time been linked to cartoons, movies, magazines and books turning the subject into a fairy tale like figure. In my opinion that entire notion is where people have this huge road block in believing it could be real. A subtle brainwashing effect in my opinion. Now, after a few more months of collecting data or "evidence", I began to be introduced to people to help me understand more of what my mind had a hard time believing. I found my friend that is the primatologist and she was trained for many years in the study of Apes and she had more than a few encounters. She spent many hours talking to me and helping me understand what she had learned. It finally began to really click with me as she was describe something to do from a science perspective to help me in data collection and fitting together things to help me. I began having sightings of glimpses of things moving from time to time through techniques she taught me. I have had some pretty good visuals now. The next few years up to now has been constant learning from many of the people here and others that are known as BF people by most. I have surrounded myself with people that have been having experiences and showed me how to open my mind to the possibilities. I now am totally amazed at what I know now. I have even took what I have been taught and shared it with my new wife. Not only does she now believe, she had her own sighting with me this year as one looked around a tree at us. She was extremely surprised at the size, but it was an awsome experience. I do consider myself an "expert" in what I trained and was educated to do for my company. I think my training helped me deduce what I now know after trying to disprove what I couldn't. So, ohiobill, do I or the Primatologist I know who has been studying these beings fit your definition? Oh, by the way I do stake my reputation and I share what I have learned with my friends and even my boss at work is now very interested. That is because he trusts my "expertise". KB

Nothing wrong with you having some contentions regarding the existence of these animals but your arguments seem based on many generalizations and frankly, misinformation, which may be perpetuating some of your frustration. Let me see if I can help you out a little as I'm not going to waste time on all of them but I think your mentioning of FLIR aerial surveys deserves a response because some might find it interesting and I've done prior research in this area out of interest, since FLIR handhelds are my primary field tool. First of all, average aerial surveys are conducted with camera-equipped craft at an altitude of 1,000-2,500 ft by transecting over selected land tracts and are primarily performed with respect to ungulate and cattle counts during specified hours. Right off the bat, we have a considerable parallel in the target species since both ungulates and especially cattle tend to congregate. Detection rates are close to 100% with FLIR aerial surveys on basic plains and with almost zero unobstructing foliage. For moderate and or hardwood cover that rate dips to 70-90%. Evergreen and dense cover, like majority of PNW which is covered with secondary is about 25-50%. Hence, FLIR aerial surveys are not done on animals like black bears and or other apex predators as an example, who mostly roam solitary and prefer dense habitat. In the past, some Southeastern/Eastern states have made unsuccessful attempts with bears in areas with moderate foliage. Coyotes are another example of an animal not surveyed because of the unreliability of dense ground cover they habituate much of the time. The target animals are distinguished by the FLIR scope operator (manually controlled) with a given GPS location. In most cases different animals possess different anticipated sizes as well as have distinct varying body heats. The most obvious ways of detection are in herding/congregation (as I already mentioned) combined with obvious location(s). Deer for example, are not usually solitary, so combined with size (most will be about the same) and specific heat signature, it's readily apparent what you are seeing. Improved resolution on equipment has many times helped to not only identify species, but development stage size within that target species. Once again, the predominant animals surveyed out of both interest and reliable identification are ungulates and cows. Realistically for a sasquatch to be noticed as such by say, a FLIR helicopter, which is always possible "under the right circumstances," the animal would have to be caught absolutely in the clear. Why? Depending on area covered it could easily be mistaken for a human or a large quadruped if covered by even partial vegetative cover. BTW, vegetation and various foliage is not the only problematic cover with respect to unveiling a discernible living subject like a sasquatch, snow, angles of rock, cliffs, narrow riparian areas with deep creeks and even sparse vegetation would make identification extremely difficult. Not to mention, a sasquatch would need to be "interesting" enough to warrant a second look or be in a place or at a time to create further investigation. You know like " hey Bob, did you see that, what the hell is that hiker or hunter doing out or up there at this time?" I'd be happy to work on some of your other misperceptions, but I'm packing to go participate in one of my biggest passions in life looking for more mythical monsters in a beautiful area. No worries, based on the substance of your arguments and the intelligence of many members here I'm sure you'll get a good education on actual habitat viability by the time I return.

Marlboro, as a skeptic, I have to tell you, you missed a bunch of excuses. In fact, your list is rather weak and you need to do some more reading to get the really good ones. You've shot your load before even aiming! Stick around a while, gather some info, reload and try again. But if you're a shallow drive-by skeptic, I recommend the JREF forums.