Leaderboard

It was about 40 feet from me, when it went by me, It was daylight, Just in the tree line. Running from my right to my left. It was running as fast as my dog runs. if I hadn't looked up when I did I wouldn't have seen it. It was fall and more than half the leaves were off the trees, that's how I was able to see what it was. Even though there was leaves on the ground, it made no sound when it was running. Believe it or not is your choice. How it runs silently, I don't know, but I know that it does because I witnessed it. I can also tell you it was not huge or 600 pounds. It was about 6 feet tall and slender.

I'm not trying to discredit you or your story. I just have a hard time wrapping my mind around a creature moving this quickly thru a forest. If most the leaves were off then there should have been plenty of rustling leaves on the ground to kick and run on. Those certainly make noise and also hide sticks and debris on the forest floor.

You've convinced me. I suppose his mules are so familiar with the smell of Bigfoot it wouldn't bother them to back their butts up to one. Carry on.

Funny how hunters pull out 1200lbs moose on a regular basis, but an 800lbs sasquatch would present a problem

I'm not trying to ridicule you. Im just trying to wrap my head around this poll....no pun intended. The majority of people seem to think they are very numerous and virtually everywhere. That's not my observation as a hunter,rancher,mule packer and long haul truck driver. So if I'm wrong I want to understand why.

You're asking me to talk out my ... rear. I'm not going to give you a number because I don't have a basis for confidence in any particular number. I'm not setting myself up for ridicule based on numbers I don't have any way to defend. Each of the possible paradigms for what they are leads to a different population size to match the existing body of evidence. Figure out what they are, then we can start to make better guesses how many there are. Trying to work it the other way around is too error-prone. MIB

Good question ... and all answers are premature. It really boils down to our assumptions about what they are and how they behave, thus how many it takes to produce the body of evidence we have and the rate at which it continues to grow vs what our assumptions say about how many of that sort could stay mostly hidden most of the time. MIB

An interesting side to this is that there has been quite a stir involving DNA testing both by the Ketchum Genome Project and the Sykes Yeti project in the media since back in 2012. Other than the published results of the lab tests, and a couple of books out by Dr. Sykes, there has been nothing affirming, denying, or supporting, coming from any of the governments of the UK, US, or Canada. Not their anthropology departments, not their forestry, wildlife, or environmental agencies or anything of note that I have seen or read. It has all been private sector stuff along with private sector opinion. Is it because Sasquatch exists? Is it because it doesn't exist? I'm only mentioning this as a sort of an umbrella beneath all of what has been going on with this subject kind of lives. Do any of these entities really have the first and last say in what gets done or tested when it comes to Bigfoot samples? Would any results confirming the creature actually make it to science, namely anthropology, and the public-at-large? We've got people out in the field who have secured samples under strict scientific protocol. People who have sent these samples off to those who have the authority to tell a lab to test those samples. And some of the precautions that were taken to try and make sure that some labs didn't even know what they were testing for (blind test). All done with private money. And still what came back has either been not accepted, hotly debated, rejected outright, and been refused peer review. I truly find it hard to think that the stigma of Sasquatch is so big and so powerful that no one in science will touch it. That to me is unfathomable that something like that is so abhorred, and so dangerous to a reputation that it gets that kind of treatment- across the board. Extending even into the media and all of academia. Are people really THAT much afraid of this?!? I mean c'mon, put it in perspective. It's only a mythological North American Primate for pity sakes. If it isn't real then why not test anything and everything and take the poor sucker's money who is paying for the DNA test and be done with it. What's all the fuss about? It's a myth so what is the big deal that it's turned out to be with all of the DNA cat and mouse. Let's get real. Let the labs test, let the results be reviewed and when everything is found out to be something already known by the anthropologists, the biologists, the zoologists and everyone else then we can all say OK and go home. Why all the cloak and dagger? If it's a myth then there should be no harm whatsoever in taking samples to labs and paying those labs to see nothing but bear. RIGHT? HUH? YA THINK? I'm laying this out as simply as I know how, folks. That's why it sounds naïve and dumb. So dumb that academia down to fifth grade can even understand it. So what is all the fuss about. It makes no sense whatsoever to have such upheaval over something that supposedly doesn't exist.

hiflier - It's not "lucerne" .. that's a brand of yogurt and other milk products. It's Lausanne ... the full, real name of what we refer to as the Sykes study is the Oxford-Lausanne Collateral Hominid Project. That is University of Oxford in England where Bryan Sykes used to be faculty and University of Lausanne in Switzerland. I'm not saying there is or there is not, but frankly, if there is some kind of cover up, Sykes is one of the keystones. Your whole question of "doesn't he know" is entirely naive. MIB

here is a link to some Washington snow depths with elevations https://www.wunderground.com/StateSnowDepth.asp?state=WA

Well, one of us is mistaken. Your habit is to be disagreeable while disagreeing. Then when you get frustrated - you just can't let something go. We'll just chalk that up to "enthusiastic discussion" techniques, just for the pure **** of it. If like you've stated, this is an ape - then it's just a dumb animal and really should have been taken long ago. If I'm correct in that it's a form of primitive man - then they have tactical excellence, they have "family" groups, they hunt together, they've adapted to us by conceding the daylight world to us, and dominating the night time world to them. they're intelligent enough to avoid swollen headed hunters, they'll carry off and bury their dead (maybe a bit of cannibalism here and there - but so do humans) they have their own means of communicating warnings, intrusions, and coordinate hunting movements they're smart enough to note human behavior and reside in what would be difficult terrain for humans, they're smart enough to raid gardens, orchards, and feed for farm animals, and almost clean them out, they'll have one surrounded without him knowing it, especially at night, using misdirection and they'll take to the ground more often than not - enabling them to hide from the same swole-headed hunters who can only say, "none around here." I would never, ever go out with someone like you. When your opponent is clever, just one person on your own team who exhibits myopic, impetuous, reckless, and frankly, a too limited mindset - that's a working disaster.

And Yuchi - I'd bet a cup of good coffee that when he went in that night - he didn't expect to be traumatized. Not in his wildest guess. That's the thing. Talk is talk. No one for certain knows how they'll truly react in a serious, serious situation - until it's done. I was the opposite - my greatest fear was choking with fear and my hesitation getting someone else hurt. I had a hope I wouldn't choke, but until events rolled me into a shooting situation - no one, including me, knew how I would react. Expectation never seems to match up with reaction. Sounds like this M. K. Davis is someone to ride the river with.

Yeah. Control. A whole lot of our operations were at night - and only through repetition and maneuvering on flat land - in daylight - were we able to finally know by moving together where our guide-on was, and how fast each man tended to walk. Then, when we got into broken terrain, at night, we intuitively knew where the man to our left and right were located. Then, we'd sometimes operate in three groups - and especially during a fight - you can tell a whole lot by listening to the radio traffic - a whole lot. Who's in trouble, who's maybe cut off, and those who aren't sure of where they are in relation to other teams. That's always a disaster waiting to happen, especially during a meeting engagement. I never heard Lansdale's name mentioned - but if it were him - I'd say at some point, based on past experiences - he knew operational coordination and initiative was lost, and it was time to call off the dogs before someone got shot. That's the thing about experience - And did you not read some were drinking? Wanting to jump in? That's Loss of Control - something difficult to understand. It's not a matter of IF something can be pushed - it's a matter of SHOULD a matter be pushed. And this operation had shot it's bolt. I don't think much of GCBFRO's tactics - I think everytime I see them go out - they're severely impaired for what they appear to be after. They're hunters and have experience tracking - but that's not going to bring one in. Their tactics are inadequate. Their strategy is inadequate. But that doesn't mean that they didn't lose the initiative - and needed to be called in. After a firefight, we'd have a debriefing so we'd all understand the action. Then, we'd have new replacements who would tell us all the things they would have done - and how we could have done much better. But when they got into their first firefight - half the time - you'd have to burn the stump and sift the ashes to find hide nor hair of them. They were non-entities.

You made your post at 11:11, Branco! Too cool. And some of us have seen that thread on Arkansas Hunting and learned a lot from it. And it's always fun to hear about the fun you're having!