Leaderboard

Now these things are entertainment? That's a really impressive take. I think you've enlightened all of us with that most astute concept! I never knew . . . Perceptions of mine somewhat questionable? Unless you're talking about women - Nah. The US government used to spend a minimum of a half million - often enough some fifteen million dollars - and on occasion - more - in one day - entirely on my perceptions. Since these actions got the desired results from my reports, I never heard a complaint. Then again, they spent (at least we were told this) a half million just training me. Five of us was a walking, talking, two-and-a-half million dollar investment. What you perceive as "dubious accounts," I examine with a much different eye. What you perceive as reliable approaches - I find they much too frequently jump to erroneous conclusions, conceal part of their findings, and in some cases - conceal findings, and even misrepresent what they found and where. Some people have no agenda whatsoever, as they have nothing to gain by describing their experience and observations. Others have nothing but agendas to support - as they have everything to gain by tilting the table to reach predetermined conclusions. Or risk ostracizing if they report exactly what their findings were - and in what order. Of "professionals," pick one - and they're just as uninformed and tainted as can be. Pharmaceuticals falsify and perform incomplete testing all the time - and pay out big law suits all the time - but they manage to stay ahead of the financial curve pushing new, high dollar dangerous products. Pick another - physicians? I've personally seen them operate on a man who was dead for ten minutes before they noticed - quickly closed and rushed him to Recovery, where he "passed." Those prescriptions they write? Pharmaceutical salesmen handed them the selling literature, and often paid them to prescribe those items. Which create more problems than they solve. Anthropologists? Why's everyone familiar with "Lucy," but not with Reck's skeleton? It's because it's ignored, as it blows up the sanitized and approved narrative. Dating artifacts is supposed to be relatively certain - but nothing could be further from the truth. Lots and lots of assumptions in any testing method, and so many variable that can alter the results - it's hilarious. Doesn't matter if it's Carbon 14 dating, Uranium Content, Fluoride Content, or Amino Acid Racemization dating. Three different methods on the same bone can give dates from one method as 26,000 years, another dates it at 23,600 years, and the third method dates the identical same bone at 3,560-5,100 +/- 500 years. That's not science. It's Grade Your Own Paper. Pick the test results you want it to be. Sound to me like the scientific community is the party guilty of telling someone what they want to hear. Your science is like a religion. You have your high priests who defend at all costs the dogma of the discipline. They are the ones infallible, the ones alone that have the authority and power to approve any additional revelations, and if one lowly priest should ever defy the process and present something counter to the generally accepted holy text - they are found to be anathema and ostracized. The laymen? They're automatically discarded out of hand. Farmers were telling astronomers a century and a half ago that rocks fell from the sky - and they were laughed at and derided as everyone knew that rocks don't fall from the sky. Even though folks saw them fall to earth in real time. I'll stick to folks who at least know that they don't know.

I'm glad you brought this up, Explorer! My brother and I both read the book "The Last Season" (excellent read) quite a few years ago and it stirred us to research whether or not the events described there were related in any way to what we had experienced. We were able to positively conclude that our journey took place in late August of 1995. So it was a full year prior to Morgenson going missing. We even spent one night at Bench Lake in '95 and walked right past the unoccupied camp of the ranger who was stationed there, who undoubtedly at that time was Morgenson. We had chatted with him a time or two in previous years as he had patrolled that particular area for many years As a side note, our stay at Bench Lake was rather unusual. We had set up camp and hunkered down in our tents that mid afternoon to avoid being eaten alive by the massive mosquito population there. As we looked out through the mosquito netting we saw a procession of perhaps twenty people dressed in immaculate flowing white robes, carrying flowers etc, marching purposefully down the trail to the eastern shore of the lake, this at over 10,500 ft. and a very difficult day and a half hike in! We concluded that it was perhaps some kind of new age wedding or retreat trip for some odd cult. Who knows? Getting back on track here, Yes the NPS does indeed use helicopters in the wilderness area but it is their policy to keep that to an absolute minimum so as not to spoil the wilderness experience for others. In all the time I have spent in Kings Canyon I can recall seeing just two of them, the one I described in my piece was an unmarked military type chopper. I observed it at very close quarters and it was certainly not one of the much smaller rescue evac type helicopters I had seen previously. The chopper also landed at a barren out of the way area that made no sense whatsoever as a re-supply drop-off or staging area for a possible rescue attempt. For many years I was close personal friends with one of the summer Rangers who patrolled the Mount Whitney area, just south of Kings Canyon. We never discussed the topic of bigfoot specifically, but I did notice that he would often shut down the conversation if it drifted to anything of a paranormal nature. He would clearly become uncomfortable, tight lipped, and sullen. This would happen even when he was far away from work, visiting at my home. So yes, I believe there is specific training and policy regarding these types of issues and the avoidance thereof. In my honest opinion though, I don't believe that the wide open expanses of Kings Canyon's high country would offer the best habitat for sasquatch. Most of it is well above timberline which in this area is around 10,600 ft or so. The highest peaks are 13 to 14 thousand.ft. There is little or no cover and most activity can be spotted from as far as a mile away. Its not the best elevation for abundant food sources either. Could they have adapted to life scraping out an existence on the scree slopes and boulder fields? Possibly... but the lush green valleys just west of this area would provide a far more lucrative alternative. .

FA - I have been surprised multiple times by the volumn of the noise they can make. It cannot be described unless you hear it first hand and even then words do not due justice. Their tree knocks are louder than humans can make, their howls travel for miles, and the one pure scream at me left me without words. Its echo from across a lake was so loud I thought at first it was a friend. Simply put, they just scale beyond anything we understand as a mammal.

Considerably. Several thoughts here in no particular order: The first night of camp visits in Aug 2011 included two apparent wood knocks. The first was slightly "mushy" as if punky wood rather than solid wood were hit. The second was a more "ringing" rap as from solid wood on solid wood. There are also rock clacks to consider. One of my friends, the guy who took me on that camping trip, says that he's heard a lot more anomalous rock clacks than wood knocks over the years out there. Some wood knocks may be hand claps, not wood on wood. Some of the rock clacks may be "tongue pops" ... I can make them. MIB

Well, yeah. You can't have an informed opinion unless you've made the effort to read to inform yourself. Even if the state of the art is somehow wrong, you need to know what it is. Education and understanding are never rooted in ignorance. MIB

I recall one sighting report where a person blundered into a bear with a cub. The person expected to be charged but the bear was looking in another direction. When the person looked where the bear was looking, he saw a BF. That pretty well tells me what the pecking order in the woods is with humans, bears and BF.

I don't think comparing population density to bigfoot sightings can really be a solid measure. You have too many sightings by people who are not local to a geographic area (tourists, hunters, etc.) and unless you know the identity of the sightee, you could have one person with multiple reports skewing results at the county level. Consider Wyoming - the state population is about 584,000, but Yellowstone gets 4 million visitors a year. Other examples are Wisconsin Dells, which has a native population of about 5000, but gets 4 million visitors a year. How do you factor in those influxes? In my opinion, you have to pick something more static to make comparisons. Land area to sightings reports would be static, but doesn't take into account whether there are witnesses present to make a sighting. A tough one with no solid answer.

I've been an amateur researcher since 2005. I've had many a good adventure. I can remember everything about every one except the exact time. The season and weather is easy, but not the time of day. My precious time off work I prefer NOT to watch the clock. My first thought never has been OMG NOTE THE TIME! My attention has been what my eyes, ears , and adrenaline were telling me.

Don't let it freak you out too much. I think respect and caution ("as if they're a primitive tribe with different values, ethics, etc") in your assumptions will take you a long way without much danger. Proceed slowly and be willing to back out if things start to seem over your head. Save being an idiot and pushing forward despite the warnings for me. I don't know if it is relevant, but one of my plans is, if things get too crazy, to just sit down. From sitting you can't flee and you can't attack. It shows a willingness to accept the situation as-is. MIB