Leaderboard

I too love the feeling of believing I might be the lone visitor to some areas in a long, long time, if ever. Of course, the skeptic would rebut that with, "Well, YOU are there. How can you believe others have not been there?" One reason is of course my experience, like yours. If you are a frequent visitor to an area, and never or very rarely encounter anyone, that is pretty persuasive. You also have to look at possible or probably reasons for anyone to go there. Hunters cover a lot of ground, we think, but do they really? Most, like the majority of forest visitors, stick close to trails or roads. The obvious reasons is, if you are hunting bigger game: You're going to have to get your kill out of there somehow. Why create work if you think you have an equal chance of getting lucky close to a transportation corridor? Too, most people, hunters included, are easily spooked when alone in remote areas. Some like that feeling. I sure do. But I realize I'm one of the sick unfortunate few. I worry it might someday get me in over my head... but so far so good! And the reason I seek out areas like that is because you tend to see the coolest stuff, and you have the thrill of an experience very few are likely to share with you. What is interesting to me is that many of the areas surrounding populated areas have reverted to a no-man's land just because there is no plausible reason for anyone to seek them out and travel through them. They are often swampy, littered and ugly, full of abandoned structures and vehicles, construction trash and illegal dumps. They are cut-off by boundaries like railroad tracks, or highways, or utility right of ways, or just secondary brush so dense you'd have to have a good reason for even attempting it. If BF has some tolerance to human proximity (and the sighting reports confirm for me they do) these areas are a huge swath of their habitat and they are as likely to go as undetected as they would in the interior of British Columbia. I would wager you would find multitudes of structures in those areas, and they would probably go unremarked by anyone if found and attributed to vagrants or other transient peoples.

I've found many interesting things in the forest. Some I can explain, some I can't. Made my share of WAGs as well. I try to document everything of a questionable nature. What gives me a headache is sharing some of what I document here. But then I constantly have to remind myself that some of what I have shared is in the research section and not everyone here has access to that. I do admit that tree manipulation in regards to bigfoot has been way down on my list of possibilities until some of what we have found lately brings that way of thinking into question. For those that want to know the context of what I do; I use old roads or trails as access. Then I head into the forest away from them. I can tell you this, the amount of other individuals I have met out there away from the roads and trails, I can count them on one hand. My experience, around here (PNW), is that people just don't get very far out of their comfort zones. Our trail cams support this observation. When placed on the old walkable roads in the area you get about 50/50 elk and people. I have one area well covered away from these roads where we have recorded audio activity. In 5 months I've gotten the two unknowns I mentioned above and a lone mushroom picker. And bears, coyotes, and of course lots of elk and deer.

"Interesting" is a perfectly fine response MIB, I couldn't agree more. This is just one piece of the puzzle, or it might even be a piece of a different puzzle altogether. For now, those who profess to know which it is are destined to fall short. All we can do is document and give our best guesses. Those who stand in opposition to this idea aren't even guessing if they bring nothing more than hand-waving and statements of the obvious.

That's all we can do, keep our eyes open now that we know there's something to keep them open for, then carefully analyze what we see, assess the indicators we find including whether the components are chopped, sawed, twisted, etc and for those not done with tools, how much strength is required. Look at the size of the components and what means people might have for accomplishing the thing. Unless we see a thing being built and used, we can't be absolutely certain, but we can certainly take a SWAG at the probability of what made it. I've never personally found a shelter of any sort with the maybe exception of that pile of large broken, not cut or chopped, branches heaped over the very large stump. The negatives for it being bigfoot are proximity to the road and it didn't really offer any strategic ambush opportunities or clear views of anything I will not go so far as to say it wasn't, can't say for sure that it was, so what is left is "hmmm, that's interesting." Y' know ... that's an answer I'm very comfortable with. I prefer acknowledging that I don't know to latching onto an answer I'm not certain of. MIB

ShadowBorn, as I said I have not posted any other structures other than those X 's and possibly one twist. I have posted some naturally occurring shelters under trees and rootballs that could provide shelter. Fields have nothing to do with it. Those areas in themselves are feeding spots for elk if you have followed my posts. I would not trade my lifetime of experience in the outdoors with any change in attitude Crowlogic has had over the years about how he sees the subject of bigfoot. That is simply trolling and has nothing to do with anyone else's personal experience. I suggested what the Xs could be used for, which makes the most sense. As I said, if they are no trespassing signs then they are too subtle for me. I've never gotten any reaction from passing them. Also placing trailcams after the fact is an effort in futility. Placing them in any likely place is a crapshoot when it comes to bigfoot anyway. And yes I do have some pictures of unknowns in this area but that is the most I or anyone else can discern from them. Just as an aside. Elk are herd animals and do behave differently from deer. In a way it actually makes them an easier target for any predator as long as that predator is big enough to handle their size. They rely on herd instincts rather than stealth as deer do. I personally find them easier to hunt than deer. Because I can usually get closer to them.

While I am intrigued by all kinds of structures, or those that appear to be the result of manipulation, it is the larger ones that really get my attention. If you find one of those, which appears to be outside of the probabilities of random chance, and which required strength and ability beyond that of a non-assisted human...well, those defy glib explanations. And there are plenty of those out there, we've seen. Shouting ever louder about how this is or that is impossible, while looking at it, is what fools do.

I think Roger and Bob believed they filmed a real bigfoot. Their actions follow the logical coarse of someone who had encountered a real bigfoot. There is always the exact opposite of confirmation bias, (disconfirmation bias), where all information is regarded as a contaminant and infects and ruins all consistent repeating evidence to the point that nothing is legit.

Don’t take it personally – we are all prone to confirmation bias (myself included). There is no reason to question your sincerity but there is every reason to question the accuracy of your claims. How, for instance, do you hear sounds below what is humanly audible let alone determine its source? Perhaps you are attributing particular feelings/sensations to infrasound and then attributing that to Bigfoot which is a fine example of a double-barrelled confirmation bias… But perhaps not. The bias, in this example, may be all mine. After all, you do also claim to have objective evidence to support your position in the form of a picture of Bigfoot taken after it had been whooping for several minutes. So, yes, I would like to see your picture. May I, please? I am confronting my bias head-on by requesting to see your evidence – it could be a game-changer for me… The question is: Would the picture support your position (ie Bigfoot is real – here it is!) or mine (ie that you sincerely but inaccurately believe that your picture shows Bigfoot but without actually doing so)? If the picture is not as you claim then would it not be fair to question the accuracy of your other claims (ie those claims without any supporting evidence whatsoever)? If you are not ready to confront your own bias or to challenge the accuracy of your own perceptions/cognitions/memories then perhaps it would be best for you NOT to share your Bigfoot picture. The mystery of Bigfoot is always better than the reality…

Yep, off your personal the deep end again. The answer is simple: they were there all along but we never "noticed" until enough people got together talking (internet), someone mentioned it, someone else said "huh, I've seen that, too", someone finally connected the dots, and the snowball started to roll. I realize such a conclusion contradicts your dogma so I won't take it personally when you again pretend to miss the point. MIB

Norse the "bomb program" existed as math and physics. The nuts and bolts of it didn't begin until the Manhattan Project and they were as often as not in uncharted territory. Now by master bigfoot cinematographer Roger Patterson's estimation we'd have bigfoot in the bag within 10 years of his film. How do you think that's all working out time wise? No. The Germans begin working on the nuts and bolts of it in 38. Hungarian physicists had to convince the US government it was even a reality. Its a bad analogy.... Roger Patterson claimed that in 10 years we would have a Sasquatch in the BAG!? Who is doing the bagging???? Certainly not Roger..... A game bag requires a bullet, and trust you me.....being pro kill is akin to leprosy. Roger had his shot, and he shot film. In the Bag as in confirmation as in success. We've got it in the bag is often referring to success in a given matter. You know that or perhaps you don't? The German atomic bomb project was in a conventional two story house such was it's scale. They never even came close to a bomb, they were entirely on the worng track. We didn't need what the German's did, we didn't have access to what they did during the war anyway. You are wrong about what we needed from the German's and the moon landing resulted (von Braun, Saturn IVB to V) as a consequence, friend. Jet aircraft aside of course. As to your knowledge of contemporary Sasquatch and what it might be and what might be evidence, I might say you are on a parallel track of obfuscation.

Of course you don't, we all knew that before you wrote it.