Leaderboard

My odds of observing a BF were very remote? No joke! I wish I'd never seen the thing. It ruined the remaining weeks on the mountain, and I didn't get another night's sleep the rest of the time I was there. Until then, my life was pretty much settled and the impossible was - impossible. I've seen maybe two-score bears in the wild - Browns and Blacks. Because of the possibility of shooting a friendly in my misspent youth, I not only identify my target with specific characteristics, I pick my exact shot. It's too bad. For your own edification, you may want to get to a zoo or something so you can see what an actual bear looks like - not just a picture. Just in case. Only someone who's never seen a bear could confuse them with something else from 20-30 feet away - in the open. And a bear doesn't run about a 5.5 second forty on two legs, skating. And more - a bear doesn't have the face of a man - though butt ugly. Fear? Yeah, I thought I was up against a big cat that was sick, injured, or rabid. My plan? Work the problem, consider the options. Choose the best option. Hold steady, and wait for that one shot at the last millisecond - in the maw - less chance of missing that instant disconnect when it really counts. Banging away at at distance with a handgun just wastes ammo and will cause the animal to react, throwing off your timing. When there's only one choice, I'll bet my life on that one shot. It's really not fear - you make the decision, go cold - which is very calming, and wait for the merge. My imagination? I'm not very creative - can't sing. Can't compose. Can't paint. Can't sculpt. I guess I just don't have much imagination. Mis-identification may be a frequent experience for you, but I find if you don't get overly excited, and simply observe, if you can't quickly find three distinct characteristics identifying what you're looking at, it will soon enough become known and thus identified. So maybe that might help you with your apparent experiences mis-identifying critters. I just never had that problem - myself. The power of a complex mind is not all that amazing, except its ability to slow down time. Now that is a real experience, and while it's only happened a couple times, when everything slows to quarter-speed, and you still have your normal, full speed, that truly is a rush. I wasn't, nor am I a wildlife photographer - I just happened to be working on another task - and since I saw the same scenery every day, never needed a camera. By never needing a camera, oddly, I never needed a "quality film." When I'd give a guy a ride, I just never thought of a camera or even a video camera as part of the equation. This just proves how dumb I am. Some of you guys think of everything, all the time. Stuff that while working - just never crossed my mind. Why if I was really serious, had the gift of peering forward into the future, and realized what I would run into, I should have taken a camera with me everywhere. In the tent. Drive the ATV with one hand, camera in the other. I could hold my 1911 in both hands and use my other hand for a camera. Keep it rolling while cutting wood for the evening fire, and especially important - not to overlook any possibility - the outhouse. With a directional microphone. That would be covering it. Did I have a camera, or quality film? Man, I feel like a dummy for not thinking of that. With such insight, I assume you have lots of photos and videos of these things. Unlike me, who was so unprepared. I for one would love to see some of these if you don't mind posting them.

I'm glad you enjoyed my response. I hope to continue that warm feeling, but it's hard to talk about fishing to anyone who's never fished nor seen a fish. Since you suggest such a creature/critter doesn't exist, I think it's safe to assume you've never had a close encounter - by intent or by accident. Picture yourself in a very remote area, on a mountain, 8,000' elevation, on a narrow mountain cut (like a primitive road), and there's a small, thick cluster of trees - so thick that if there had been an eight foot diameter tree there - it would conceal whatever was behind it exactly the same. You're getting growled at in a very voluminous, very deep growl, and you are experiencing sympathetic resonance in your own chest. Got it? You can't see what's in the cluster as the sun is starting to set, and the cluster is so thick. What do you do? In this case, it's a matter of deductive situational reasoning. What large animal can growl, that can possibly be found at 8,000 foot altitude, in the middle of nowhere? You quickly eliminate a cow, gator, Nile croc, African lion, etc. Now we're down to three choices: black bear, wolf, or mountain lion. Those are the only possibilities. I used to have a grey wolf - just over 7' long, and his weight varied seasonally between 170-175 pounds. I know what a wolf growl sounds like, so a wolf is excluded. That leaves a bear or mountain lion. A bear makes some bear noises, but nothing like this growl, and besides, a bear will be moving - not staying in one place while growling. So I can eliminate the bear. That leaves a big cat. As I never considered a "mythical beast" as an option. Now a big cat is an ambush animal. A mountain lion doesn't go around growling, instead electing to take their prey by surprise, from behind, and normally from above. This is the only animal left in this entire region that can really growl - but they don't use growling as a warning - which means something is wrong with this big cat. What could possibly be wrong with him to cause this unusual warning growling? He's either injured (and doesn't want to be approached), or he's sick (and doesn't want to be approached) or he's rabid - in which case he's likely out of his mind. If you can offer any other possibilities for my assumption - please feel free to share. When the Big Boy I did see began entering into that cluster of trees where (what I still assumed to be a big cat) was in concealment, I began backing up much faster, as I've seen animals fight, and one will usually "squirt" out to get away - and it's a bad feeling when they "squirt" out in your direction. But when Big Boy got into the cluster, the growling noise stopped. No noise at all. No fighting. Nothing ran out. Nothing but total silence. Only later did I use INDUCTIVE situational reasoning to assume that likely there was NOT a big cat in the cluster of trees, but another critter of like kind. Didn't see it, but the Big Boy did, and there was no fuss upon his arrival. Could have been a juvenile, could have been a female - who knows? Of course, the BF could have entered the small cluster, used a Ninja strike, instantly broke the cat's neck, and did so without a sound. Do you prefer this scenario? I mean, if the idea of one mythical creature somehow troubles someone, the idea of TWO could be catastrophic. I fogged it back to camp. I didn't look for footprints - why would I? I just saw something up close that didn't exist! Footprints are for determining direction - and I already knew which direction he came from - I'd been watching him! Tracks. Like there's not enough track castings - enough to make an artificial reef.

Let me bottom line this, if you really want to prove to yourself these creatures exist, do not wait for some video, or something to pop up that is going to convince you. I suggest getting out into an area with a sighting history, spend some time in those areas, perhaps a day here and there. If you are determined, you will eventually discover that the evidence you are looking for is out there, perhaps a print, a vocalization, or if you happen to be so lucky, or unlucky, a sighting. Some of us have had that thrust upon us in one form or another, and really all we are doing is trying to understand them, and how they do exist. I for one am in the camp of pro science, if a body is required to prove they exist, then I support the harvesting of one creature to possibly save the rest. That may be a bit harsh sounding, but if it takes one to be sacrificed in order to prove to the world the rest should be protected, that is what I would choose.

Great response. I enjoyed it very much. I don't need to go to the zoo. We have bears in Florida. Certainly, not the size of the bears found in the PNW where I have also spent time. My daughter lives near the PFG site. I will concede I have not observed very many bears in the wild either and I certainly did not mistake them for a creature that most likely does not exist. Of course I would love to be proven wrong. So, you can't tell a big cat from a mythical beast ,but you can tell the difference between a bear and such a creature. That is most interesting. As far as the misidentifications I have not had that experience . I don't claim as you do to see large unidentified creatures I am sorry I don't have any photos for you to view. I pretty sure they don't make cameras that take imaginary photographs. You so eloquently covered the camera portion of my question. You did not address the footprints portion or others sharing your experience I am not trying to make light of Your experience . If you are telling the truth ,apparently it still haunts you as it is obvious by your rude posts. Have a great evening.

I have to wonder if a person knew they had to go through some of the above mentioned interrogations whether they would even come forward with their sightings.

hiflier, how do you know bears and sasquatches are equally smart ? Why would a bear have a primate body ? I have read hundreds and hundreds of sightings and encounters. There were no bears traits. They rock clack like chimps, they throw rocks and sticks like chimps. They hoot like chimps. They are omnivores like chimps. They build nests on the ground like gorilla's, they grunt like gorilla's {which I encountered myself }, they bend trees like gorilla's, they bluff charge like gorillas, many have the sagittal crest as a gorilla, and some have the same hair coloring as orangutans. So why again are they more like bears ?

Saw something? Yeah, I saw something. About eight feet high - I've lived in houses all my life with eight foot ceilings - and only watched it run toward me for about 60 yard, coming within 20-30 feet. I was close enough to tell his thighs were as thick as my waist, that his eyes were much larger than mine, his eyes were much higher up on his face than mine, that his hair was a flat black - no sheen whatsoever - and that something is wrong with his ankle and probably his knee - he didn't run like we do - more like cross country skiiing - but he was covering ground so fast with such ease it was ridiculous. So if this is not one of those Sasquatch critters - what in Hades would you call it? I'm really looking forward to the identifying term you come up with.

The human mind wants answers to questions that do not come easy.....its our nature. But we must guard against ever more fanciful notions to explain away our unknowns. The Bear family is on a similar evolutionary path with Apes to an extent. They are omnivores, they climb well, they are intelligent. But there are vast vast differences as well. They are not bipedal, they lack opposable thumbs, and they do not possess hominid sized brains. Dedicated feet gave rise to fully opposable thumbs, thumbs gave rise to.bigger and bigger brains. One feeds the other. We see none of this...no inkling what so ever of any bear species moving that direction at any time in history. If sasquatch truly is a bear....its because of misidentification. And not because there is a bipedal human looking bear out there completely evolved in isolation for tens of millions of years. Quite frankly another great ape species is much closer to giving rise to a Sasquatch like species than any bear that ever lived. And mag is right....dolphin dna does not look like shark dna despite both species resembling each other on the surface.

While it doesn't hurt to keep an open mind, there's no credible evidence that points more strongly toward bear than primate. Think it through. Every DNA sample that comes back bear comes back KNOWN bear. Every hair sample that comes back bear comes back KNOWN bear. Even Sykes' bear turned out to be known. The evidence isn't there to support the idea of an unknown bear. There are, however, DNA samples that came back unknown primate, there are tracks that point toward unknown primate, and there are hair samples that point towards unknown primate. Consider also the dentition evidence from BTW's bone finds: primate, not bear. There are no known bears with opposable thumbs, that walk upright, with nails instead of claws, and so on. No bears I know of have hooded noses, none have truly flat faces .. even the giant flat faced bear had a substantial snout, just smaller. However, while bigfoot is unproven, all of those characteristics are proven characteristics of primates. What I saw ... was primate, not bear. So, while there is a slight possibility of an unknown bear out there, if one exists, it is in addition to, not a replacement for, the unknown primate Patty represents. This is one of those situations where I think Occam's Razor applies. There is no evidence I know of for bigfoot being a bear that isn't even more supportive of it being a primate. MIB No, it most absolutely certainly does not. MIB