Leaderboard

The second trip was this weekend, Sep. 21/22, a little further afield, to the Placer Mt area, east of Manning Park and south of Hwy 3. My friend Murphy had arrived Friday, but I wasn't able to get away till early Sat morning, so I arrived at the campsite on the banks of Copper Creek at 9 AM. It was a beautiful sunny day in the high country, and we spent most of the day exploring a few of the 100+ km of logging roads and fire trails in the mountain valleys, hiking several of the more overgrown ones. This was not just a research trip, as hunting season is now open, so we both had tags for deer and bear, and shotguns for game birds. We returned to camp for lunch at about 2PM, and I had a very interesting chat with a young man at the campsite. It started with my admiring his very large dog, a Great Dane/Ridgeback cross. The dog seemed to like me, after I gently put my hand out for him to sniff, and he soon was leaning against my leg for ear scratching and neck rubbing, which I happily provided while talking to his owner. During our chat about the areas roads and trails, Mike noticed my sasquatch pin on my outdoor vest, and broached the subject of sightings. After I told him of my sighting 40 years ago, he confided to me that he had seen one in 2007, along with another witness. His sighting turned out to have been in an area that I know well, near Harrison Lake, and near several other sighting reports that I'm familiar with. After lunch, Murphy and I went for another hike on a seldom travelled branch of one of the roads about 10 km from our camp. There we came across abundant game sign, both tracks and droppings, and bagged a couple of grouse. In one of my photos, you'll see a boot print , deer track, coyote track, and 2 bear prints, all in one small area of about 30"x30". We saw no evidence of Sasquatch activity at all. We shared a pleasant evening at the campfire, along with adult beverages, and got a good nights rest in the camper, but awoke at 7AM to rain, and called it done, packed up, and drove home. Another shot of the game tracks:

I've done 2 field trips in the last week. The first was to an area in the mountains NE of Mission, B.C., last Sunday afternoon, Sep.15th. It had rained heavily for the previous few days, and into that morning, but by noon it let up, so I took the opportunity to head out to look for possible tracks in the wet areas near the numerous old logging roads. There are sightings reported over many years in the vicinity, including one that our group investigated 2 years ago. We found the witnesses reported location, and found a game trail crossing the road, along with 1 large print in the soft shoulder of the road, but definition was poor due to rain between the sighting and our trip to the site. On my solo trip this time, I found no sign of any sort, but had a nice outing in the forested valley.

Yours a Yours and previous posts got me thinking. What if BF made the Bearing crossing not in the last ice age but the previous one. Since ice ages last about 100,000 years with 15,000 between that would mean BF could have been genetically isolated from the human ancestor family for 215,000 years. That is long enough for a great deal of diversity in morphology. Perhaps they had begun the traverse north out of Asia at the beginning of the previous ice age getting more hair and more robust as they moved into northern latitudes and getting more different than their South Asian cousins. At the end of the previous ice age they had about 15,000 years in North America before the next ice age, our last one. During that, lacking fire, their hairy bodies and bulk would be promoted by the cold conditions. When modern humans arrived at the end of the last ice age humans would have much different morphology than the BF whose adaptations were environmentally driven and genetically isolated. Their human cousins had discovered fire, winter clothing, and use of more advanced tools during the isolation and had no need for hairy bodies and bulk. So hybridization might be possible but we see little evidence of it in the way of progeny other than reports than some BF look more human than others. With the NA legends of abduction, progeny would be rare, Have to have attributes of BF to survive, since those naked and more human like would not survive the winters. That could explain pockets oF BF that look more human if some hybrid progeny survive and are blended into a tribes genetic pool. Those BF may be virtually indistinguishable from human DNA since hybrids would fill in the genetic isolation gap. That alone could explain the DNA paradox.

I don't think that law would stop someone determined to kill one though . If need be I guess drag it over the county line

BC You always have some great places that you travel too. Those are some great pictures that you take. I wish we had mountains here in Michigan. Some of you people are lucky to be able to live in some of he most beautiful places on earth. I am not saying that there are not some great places here in Michigan. It is just that I have not found them yet. I think that this is what is great about looking for this creature. We get to see some of the greatest places on earth.

I think she's beautiful.

And a substantial number more have publication delayed if the group they are reported to do due diligence in investigating reports rather than just spewing them out there ala Ray Crowe leaving it to the reader to do their own investigation if they want the report investigated. That can take weeks, months, even years depending on how busy the investigators in an area are, whether they want to stop at a phone interview vs traveling to the site to investigate, and whether or not the investigator thinks the report is such that they want to do long term followup (habituation, etc) prior to publication. The really "good" reports may well be the slowest to come out. MIB

One standard reply I give to people who ask this question is, "So, what you are saying is IF somebody HAD killed a Sasquatch, you think you'd necessarily know about it"? The reply is usually, "No, I'm not saying that". To which the only logical response is: "Then how do you know somebody hasn't"? End of discussion. It is a conceit of the digital age to think that somehow EVERYTHING important is flashed out over the web as soon as it happens, to all points. You can see why we think that, but thankfully a whole lot of what occurs in our world is out of view, and shared only locally. For instance, we'll never know how many Class A sighting occur each year, only the numbers that show up in the BFRO's and similar databases. I'd be willing to estimate that as high as 60% go unreported and undocumented.

I think any future DNA testing should go to Dr. Scott Moody at Ohio State University. As of 2013 he thought the PGF showed a real creature. That says a lot.

Yes, but we walk bipedally because we started manufacturing and using tools with our hands. EXCLUSIVELY. Our cousins the great apes use tools very limited and are still quadrupeds. They don’t need their hands enough to warrant becoming bipedal. So if Sasquatch truly is a biped as his tracks (no divergent big toe) and reported behavior seem to indicate? We are missing something here. I have come to think that Sasquatch is neither a human or an ape. Albeit they are related to both. How they will be classified is anyone’s guess. They may very well use fire and tools but hide it very well. But more likely they are a isolated bunch of archaic hominids cut off from the old world that is devolved back into an upright ape. Like the hobbit of Homo Naledi. A creature of various conflicting morphology and behaviors that seem to be dumped out from some spare parts bin. And does not fit the narrative of science. A freak, a outcast, a North American giant man ape. I know this. I would never cross the dance floor and ask Patty out on a date. I would be calling the animal control board. She is bipedal, yes. But that’s where the similarities end in my book.

Every other ape has been discovered in places more remote than North America, bigfoot hasn't. It more than just an ape. Or a damn lucky one. I suspect the former.

Not necessarily. First, there has to be a need for the tool. Some "critter" sufficiently adapted to its environment won't need to develop a tool. Second, creation of tools requires investment of time and calories. This has to have a pay-back via making obtaining replacement calories easier. That is why WE make tools. If sasquatch is as well adapted to the environment as they seem to be, what would the point of a tool be? Then we must remember that there are reports of sasquatch using tools. Not complex tools. Typically made of wood, not stone or metal, but tools none the less. That means the tools, such as they are, are not likely to be preserved more than 15-20 years maximum exposed to the environment. And, being simple / crude tools, they might not be noticed or understood to be tools even if found. While we're being careful, we should consider some of the X-s, tipis, asterisks, whatever you want to call them. Just because we don't understand the purpose doesn't make them a non-tool. What is important, then, is that WE DON'T KNOW. MIB

The regular returns of "human" and "contaminated" ding the bell each time it occurs now. If identifiable dna floating or laying on the bottom in Loch Ness isn't contaminated, contamination doesn't occur.

I read up a little bit on the DNA search up there in Loch Ness and it's quite fascinating and surprising how much information they have been able to squeeze out of what little genetic information is contained in the water samples. When you think about how peat rich the waters are it's really fascinating they can pull information out about the various species and even land based animals. Makes it even more puzzling with regards to the regular reports back of contaminated or mysterious results from the supposedly sasquatch hair DNA tests. As we progress every year and the relative costs and complexity goes down in line with our technology I'm pretty sure there'll be a DNA App out for your iPhone 21 😀

I look at it this way. I have little to no skin in the game so far as obtaining a specimen. I have no intention of ever shooting one for any reason. Yes, science would probably prefer a darn good piece of a real creature to capitulate towards acknowledgement of the species, which probably means a full body, or obvious part, like a hand, foot or head. Obtaining it and presenting it in any manner is problematic. I am not interested in that dog and pony show at all. The ethical considerations seem to be six of one, and half a dozen of the other. There's as many pros as cons. However, if the obtainee was someone from here, I would donate what meager funds I could, because we should stand together and support one another, and show solidarity as a community, as researchers, the curious and experiencers.

My research shows it uses symbolic representations and improvisations, graphic (visual/kinesthetic/tactile/motor) and auditory. Sure it could be one of any number of things. It probably buries its dead and thinks symbolically. Can't explain the tool and maybe the fire thing. It is probably an offshoot around or before Neanderthal in my thinking.

What stood out for me in this article: https://www.sciencealert.com/there-s-a-bunch-of-eel-dna-in-loch-ness-raising-questions-about-nessie-s-identity is the fact that soooo much DNA was found that belonged to land mammals. Needless to say, no Nessie: "There was - and this may or may not be a surprise, depending on your feelings about the Loch Ness Monster - absolutely no evidence of any Jurassic-era animal DNA, including plesiosaurs, in any of the samples tested.......We find a large amount of eel DNA. Eels are very plentiful in Loch Ness, with eel DNA found at pretty much every location sampled - there are a lot of them," the researchers wrote on the project's website. "Researchers had earlier suggested that a giant eel might explain some sightings. That idea then lost popularity as theories about extinct reptiles became more common. But there have been ongoing reports of very large eels by a number of witnesses." Specifically, the DNA is from European eels (Anguilla anguilla), which does present another problem. As far as biologists know, these fish don't grow any larger than about 1.5 metres (4 feet, 11 inches). To be consistent with Nessie reports, an eel would have to be quite a bit bigger. The data doesn't reveal the size of the eels shedding their DNA into the loch, but the whole idea is not without precedent. Another strange beast sighted in a highland loch could have been an eel. In 1865, a huge "sea serpent" was reported in a loch in Leurbost, eel-like in appearance - leading to the conclusion that it was, probably, an eel. More research will need to be undertaken to understand how an eel fits in with Monster sightings, if it does at all, but the team's findings revealed more about the loch than just ruling out Nessie candidates." What this really means for us Sasquatch researchers is that soil samples needn't be the ONLY place to search for Sasquatch DNA: "One of the more intriguing findings was the large amount of DNA from land-based species in the Loch system," the researchers wrote. "These included high levels of DNA from humans and a variety of species associated with us, such as dogs, sheep and cattle. We also detected wild species local to the area e.g. deer, badgers, foxes, rabbits, voles and multiple bird species. These findings show eDNA surveys of major waterways may be useful for rapidly surveying the biological diversity at a regional level." There has been a lot of water sampling done everywhere at minimum in the last five years. I think some deeper research needs to be done by folks here into just what F&W and academia is finding for land mammal DNA in their local ponds and lakes. It's something we never really hear about. Just stick with the science and all will be well. https://labs.wsu.edu/edna/documents/2015/05/field-protocol.pdf/

Hey BFF, I'm...back! The PC police suspended 5 years ago for using the word "scoftic", which was (is?) VERBOTEN, so I never returned. When my account got shut down I could no longer access the PGF section of the forum so I gave up on the BFF. On a lark, I recently Googled something bigfoot related and lo and behold, some of my old BFF posts popped up. My name was Guest but there was "edited by Gigantofootecus" at the bottom of some of the posts. The BFF had opened up access to the PGF forums so I started looking thru the old threads and decided to re-join. I doubt I'll post much but I do have some old stuff that I had teed up before my hiatus. Cheers to all!

Well there was a Bigfoot meeting in West Branch ,Michigan so my son and myself went up there to listen. I picked him up right after school and to off from Detroit to Northern Michigan. It took a while to get up there since we ran into a lot of traffic So when we finally made there it was Dark. So we drove up to Mio and went out to Foley Swamp where I had my first couple of sightings and set up our tent. It was raining when we arrived just like the first time back in 2000 when I had my very first sighting and the woods were very silent. We were the only ones camping out there and that made it great. My son enjoyed that as well as I did. We set up camp and the rained stopped and started our fire. We both sat around the fire as I drank my beer which was one M-43 beer and IPA beer which has an abv 6.8% which is brewed in Michigan. Our night was un eventfull even though we were hearing movement around us. We just blew it off as deer and thought nothing of it . We also heard the owls going off and that was cool to hear. every so often the woods would go silent but we were ok with that. Here are the few pictures I took. I am not a big picture dude unless it is related with these creatures. Campsite Here is where we heard the movement : Now this is early in the morning and it looked spectacular: Here is the swamp : Real picture perfect is it not and here is the a creek where it looks very squachy: Very spooky and looks like where Black bears might be. Here is when I wish small game was going on. We spotted this Grouse just staying motionless. Can you spot it. Here is a valley that I would like to hunt: Off course you have to place a picture of the road:

In John Green's database there are variables that cover different characteristics. I know you are requesting any particulars from folks here who are knowers but thought I'd help you get the ball rolling The variables in the database include Human-like nose/ape-like nose, small nose/large flat nose. Human-like face/ape-like face and other distinguishing features such as eye shape, teeth, hair on the face, ears that show and facial skin color. These are but a few of the descriptive terms in the database that witnesses have reported. There's much, much more. I know because from 2013-2016 I worked on the database revising it. The revision involved breaking out many of the original variables into separate fields in order to do more specific searches when sorting for certain data groups. I also worked on getting it into chronological order which was my main goal.. And yes, it took three years on and off (mostly on) to do the work. I had emailed the late John Green in 2014 (I think) and told him what I was doing and he wrote back that he was delighted that someone had finally taken an interest in it after 12 years laying idle. In the summer of 2015 I wrote to him again and asked if he would sign an original copy of his 1978 Hancock House "Sasquatch: The Apes Among Us" which he graciously agreed to do. He was 86 at the time. I sent him the copy along with $20 to pay for its return mailing and he sent the book back signed with a $10 bill in change. A year and a half later, in May of 2016, he passed away. He was quite a guy.