Leaderboard

An animal that can't get classified, does not going around tearing up tents. If BF made a habit out of threatening people, or children it would have been killed and hung on a wall years ago.

Back to the threads question. It would be difficult to tell if a BF was just following you out of curiosity, trying to escort you out of the woods, or stalking you. But logic says that if a BF is close enough for you to hear it moving in the woods near you, it is close enough to grab you in a few steps and kill you. So stalking for the purpose of attacking seems unlikely to me. They can run us down any time they choose and can move fast enough to circle ahead without you continuing to hear them and ambush us at some point up ahead. If they are moving and following you they are quiet as they can be but nothing that big can move without making sound if you are moving at any rate at all. The faster you move the more noise they will make. If you are in camp or in a static situation, they are frequently reported to approach with absolute stealth without any sound. Human snipers can to the same thing but it requires a very slow and careful approach. But even their stealth approaches can be perceived if you listen for nearly inaudible low frequency sounds. The soft thudding sounds their feet make can still be audible on a stealth approach. I noticed that the last time one was moving in on me. I was hearing sets of two or three very low frequency thuds that seemed like I was hearing their footsteps as they moved from one tree to the next as it approached. It sounded similar to very distant thunder. I did the unpredictable and moved towards the soft thuds I was hearing. I did that until I heard an answering growl and backed out. Yes skeptics, it could have been a bear so I will save you the effort of a response. So the frequent reports, where someone hears something following in the woods, that stops when you stop, and moves when you moves, is in my opinion most likely a BF that either wants you to know or does not care if you know it is there. I guess you could call it escorting. In these situations, I have started talking to the BF. I have no idea if they understand but I want them to know that I know they are there. In reality when you stop and listen that says the same thing. But my purpose, if one is that close, is to try to establish some level of communication. I think it likely from reports that they have some level speech of speech ability even it is very primitive. By talking to them I am trying to convey that I put them on an equal level as I would with another human I encountered in the woods. And by talking to them I am indicating I want to communicate. Even if they cannot understand, what do I have to loose? If one knows me well enough to step out and try to talk back at some point, all the better. I can always hope. Randy

Can we at least acknowledge the irony inherent in using the Arundel Mills Mall report as evidence in this thread considering the fact that the officer who investigated saw the creature and stated in his official report that it was a bear? Can I also get an ironic round of applause for DWA who has written over 18% of the posts in this thread even though he denies that police officers will investigate any call involving sassy? DWA Posted 18 April 2014 - 01:01 PM ohiobill, on 11 Apr 2014 - 6:57 PM, said: Got proof of that? If I called the cops and told them a bigfoot was right in front of me eating two of my children 1) I'll never see a cop, because 2) they're too busy laughing. Period.

Show an invisible fish or beetle? And your argument has merit. Shooting silk or chemicals out yer butt is not the same thing as being biological and visually undetectable at the same time. It's just not.

In SW Washington, that's probably a grouse. They lead people off trail and the other grouse sneak in behind them. MIB

We can, so long as for clarity's sake we also understand that 1) The Office never witnessed the animal ( other than eye shine ) as the Construction workers did IE extremely tall and moving on two legs as opposed to four 2) The Officer found huge human shaped tracks and not regular Black Bear sized Bear shaped tracks and 3) The references to Bear in the report are referencing other dates etc of Bear sightings in an area that Bears habitat.I'm not saying this that day was a Sasquatch but it most certainly can't be determined, as per the witnesses observations, that it was as straightforward as being a Bear, especially when you add the Officer in questions track find and acknowledge ten rest of his Bear talks it within the report doesn't have a great deal to do with what happened that day as this is a place where Bears frequent anyway it seems. Here's part 2 of the report for clarity's sake, so people can see the entire report and make their own minds up of they can, which I can't. And before you say " Well why are you offering it as evidence then ? " I'm not. I'm showing it in reply to dmaker so request because it's a Police Report that gives description of it more in line to a Sasquatch than a Bear, but was said to be a Bear officially by a Police Officer who didn't see it. The reason why skeptics would say its a Bear is because they don't know that Sasquatches exist. The reason why some would say Sasquatch is because they are desperate for Sasquatches to exist. The reason why I say I don't know is because even though I know Sasquatches exist, it could have been one or it could have been a Bear. So long as we have complete clarity and aren't influenced completely either way because it suits our bias, everything's good. Edit : Please excuse the spelling at times, it's the **** iPad, my sausage fingers and predictive text which isn't that great at predicting anything.