Leaderboard

I recently purchased a thermal monocular for use when I go sasquatching. Almost all of my sasquatching work is done during times and at places I backpack into. The thermal will be used for two purposes. Hopefully, to get a video of a sasquatch and also for camp security. It was very difficult to buy a thermal because there was no place within a 4-hour drive (one way) from me that carried them. I spent a lot of time reading information on forums and looking at videos. I also solicited advice from users. In the end, I bought a Pulsar Helion XQ28F. I thought I would post up some videos so others can see what a particular manufacturer and model can do in a wooded environment. Most of the videos I saw involved shooting hogs, fox, or rabbits in open fields. That didn't help me because I would be using it in the forest where the challenges are different than with an open field. The thermal you choose might also be different then you would get as a scanner for hunting. Here are two recent videos I shot. They each captured what I think is a chipmunk and were shot in red hot mode in total darkness. The good news is I could pick them out, as small as they were, pretty quickly when I scanned the woods. Now, I am more confident that something large, like a sasquatch, that is skulking around will be much easier to detect than I thought. I will post up other videos as I make them and hopefully it can help others who are looking to buy a thermal for use in the woods. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZLtaIbiS9qM - The is video is 40 seconds long and the chipmunk is in it almost the entire time. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pbca0qjPIFY - This video is 1 minute 42 seconds long. The chipmunks are in the first 33 seconds and one is also caught at 1:04. The rest of the video is me scanning the forest, which is very dense. p.s. Thanks to Gigantor for his help in figuring out how to get videos on BFF.

So was the whole day as foggy as what you see in that pic? If so, I understand why they felt comfortable shadowing you, one of my earliest class B encounters which happened months before a class A was of clear cut "monkey chatter" above a small ridge above a logging road in a similar weather inversion with heavy fog after a thunderstorm. At the time I felt such chatter was directed at me. It was no other known animal, I know that. I was trying to sneak in and was busted somehow. It was a very creepy experience and of course I was not recording or forgot my recorder that day. Suffice it to say I did not linger given the very poor visibility. To stay on point, the totality of class B experiences in my infestation were enornous prior to my class A but in no way would the B's have sufficed for my own determination of existence without the A despite that. Later such things as recorded sumarai chatter, bipedal footfalls and imitated whistles and bird calls just put the icing on the cake for me.

I noticed that Utah Sasquatch pulled the plug on his Youtube Channel. https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCqlKNveuz3dXli8H1blit3w He claims he got bored with BF research and is moving on to something else (natural health improvement methods). Not sure if this is a sign of general decline of interest in sasquatch (and less revenue for him) or just his own personal growth. What I find baffling is if somebody claims to have overwhelming evidence for the existence of this creature (multiple videos, audios, footprints, etc.), why pull the plug (and all his public videos appear to have been removed) instead of just summarizing everything he got into a well organized presentation and then exit. I liked some of his early videos (that focused on sound, footprints, and alleged images of the creature), but got bored with him claiming evidence of BF in every stick formation he found. Maybe, he also got bored with stick formation research going nowhere.

Without getting into a metaphysical debate, we have five senses. Those five senses give us sensory information about our environment. If something creates a response in one of those five senses, then it is real. Beyond that comes higher reasoning. A single atom will not cause a sensory response in us by themselves. We have to get creative and use higher reasoning and ingenuity to gain knowledge of those things that we cannot sense naturally. It all moves from direct observation to indirect observation. We interpret indirect observations by inference and deduction. We often draw the wrong conclusions from indirect observation, at least for the first few attempts. We accept that atoms are real (unless you are a field physicist) based on indirect observation. Fortunately, Bigfoot is rumored to be bigger than an atom (or even a breadbox full of atoms), so indirect methods of observation should not be required if it exists. The question that remains is how much sensory input do you personally require satisfy yourself that it is real? It's different for everyone. Some people won't be satisfied unless all five of their senses can interact with one. Some people accept that Bigfoot exists with only one out of five senses being triggered. Personally, three or four out of five is good enough for me. I'll pass on the taste test and I'm not sure a Bigfoot will adhere to the human concept of "good vs. bad" touching. LOL

For me, believing and knowing are two separate things. I have seen huge hand, naked butt and foot prints, saw tree tops twisted and hanging more than twelve feet high, and a "nest". I have heard wood knocks at close range, screams, howls, roars, growls, and samurai chatter and smelled a horrible stench along with some "mind" stuff. Twice during these encounters the person I was with saw what they described as a Sasquatch. So, I believe they exist and yet, with out a clear visual where no misidentification is possible, I cannot bring myself to say I know they exist. I can't explain any of what I have experienced with anything that makes sense until you say Sasquatch and then it makes perfect sense.

Personally, I am very convinced that Bigfoot Exists, especially after the experience gigantor and myself had a few years ago. No other explanation. But, seeing one would be the difference between believing and knowing.

Hello Folks, I finally decided to publish my first book that is a first person collection of my early field experiences that had a profound effect on my way of thinking about who and what these elusive subjects of the forest are. I'm not offering proof of their existence, just sharing some of my material with interested folks. I have been blessed with many close encounters and I feel it is the result of my respectful attitude towards them and the fact that I do not intend any harm upon them. The book's title is how I personally feel about them. The preview link to it is listed below: https://www.amazon.com/dp/1719996768?ref_=pe_870760_150889320

Yes. Which surprised me. I thought they would stay sheltered because of the weather. So I agree. Class B encounters take me 90% of the way there. But I need to see one to be 100% sure.

No wrong! Of course science doesn't accept giant butt prints of cryptid animals.... But if a real creature is out there? As a researcher? You had better be chasing every giant butt print in the forest!

The pic below was taken that day on the trail it happened. It was June, 2014 about 3pm, but the tree canopy made it seem like dusk. WVFooter and I were going to place trail cameras at the bottom of a canyon in our research area. It happened on the way out. We got followed for about 1.5 miles. I got concerned near the end when it got closer and started crashing through the brush. Never saw it. You're a Premium member... we wrote about it in our journal. I don't know that a thermal would've made a difference because of all the leaves. Maybe.

No. Under the right circumstances, you can know without seeing one, that they exist & are currently in your back yard.

I have seen them. I did not believe they truly existed prior, it was more of an academic/field exercise.

What you just said is why it is more likely they do not exist. It is hard to believe that many large creatures could avoid discovery. When I was a child I thought they were only in the PNW and Canada . Meanwhile much smaller animals are documented on a regular basis. I would think they would be very rare and seen less often . Residing in dark forests with enough of them to be a viable breeding population. I completely agree with Norse . Killing one specimen and documenting them is the only way they will receive documentation and protection.