Leaderboard

My approach is a little different, a little more open-minded in both directions. I don't want to jump on the kool aid bandwagon but I don't want to throw out babies hidden in the bathwater, either, so I try to avoid both confirmation bias and "anti-confirmation" bias with equal care. That just means examining everything with equal effort to avoid ALL premature conclusions. (edit to add: of course, to some, this attempt at balance, rather than sharing their biased bandwagon, is itself a form of bias.) I've found a total of two suspicious tree twists ... ever. I'm still on the fence about them looking for REASONABLE alternate explanations, not just convenient dismissal. I've heard 3 wood knocks ... ever. The rest rest of a lifetime worth of clicks, pops, bangs, thumps, etc ... bettin' against. Only once have I found deliberately braided stuff. That was weird, it was strung for at least a quarter, maybe even a half mile down a ridge I've hunted hundreds of times. There, one day, out of the blue, a lot of viney stuff seemed braided yet overhead, there was no sign of significant wind. I went back the next day. Everything was normal, the same yet subtly different, nothing braided or abnormally arranged. It's hard to convey just how subtle, and yet for someone really familiar with the location, how unmistakable, that change was. Hmmm ... one thing, I think we are using the term "squatchy" different. Among my friends that's not a term that's used but the concept exists. The idea, among "us", is that the location has characteristics that suggest it has greater than background probability of sasquatch being there or evidence being found, not that anything has actually been found. In other words, it describes a place that is similar to past places evidence has been found. You seem (to me) to be suggesting it means that a concentration of subtle evidence or sign is being seen. Is that what you mean or did I misunderstand? MIB