Leaderboard

I made an afternoon trip out to the location of the sighting from 2007, reported to me by Mike, which I mentioned in my post of Sep.22, on the previous page. He had said that the creature seen by himself and a companion that day in Oct of 2007 had crossed in front of their vehicle in daylight just at the Km 4 marker on the Harrison East FSR. It was seen to cross the road from the forested downhill side, and proceeded uphill through a recent clearcut, then cross the Slollicum FSR above the cut, and disappear into the old second growth timber above that road, a distance of about 250m (280yds). The Slollicum FSR had been gated for the last 3 years, but I was fortunate to find that the gate was now removed, as logging operations further uphill had been completed. This allowed access to that road, but with the challenge of newly cut drainage channels every few hundred meters, as the road was now considered "decommissioned" until needed for logging in the future. My newly lifted Outlander, with larger tires installed earlier this week, could just barely crawl through the trenches, and I did manage to scuff both the front and rear bumper skins in doing so. Oh well, it's 18 months old now, and over 80,000km, so not a new car to cry over a few scratches any more. I got a few shots of the sighting location, and a few of the fall colours for fun. Looking down the now 12 year old clearcut to HarrisonE FSR from Slollicum Rd The second growth timber above Slollicum FSR Parked on Slollicum Fall colours higher up the Slollicum road

In response to Georgerm's post about the '1894' image. This keeps getting regurgitated from time to time. I remembered seeing this image on this forum so I went looking. BFF member Caenus posed the questions about the image on Sept. 21, 2018. The following quote is the response from WSA: "posted September 21, 2018 Anything with the B name in the chain of custody? Run, don't walk away from it. But sure, I'll play. . The first suspicious detail is the existence of a glass plate photo in the first place. Given the year of the purported photo, it would have been a "dry" plate technology...an improvement over the earlier "wet" plate process (Think: Brady and Gardner c. 1860 American Civil War). Although the dry plate method required a much simpler method of preparing the glass plate "film", as compared to the wet process, the cameras were still large format and were large, heavy and required bulky and heavy tripods to hold a camera that still required long-ish exposure times. All this by way of saying it seems unlikely this equipment would have been present in the remote BC wilderness in the late 19th century. Another suspicious detail? The poor quality of the image. Silver gelatin dry plates take remarkably detailed and crisp photographs. This photo seems to have been deliberately manipulated to give an impression of age, or to disguise details. The shape of the snowshoes are what is typically known as the "Huron" (a/k/a "Michigan) teardrop style. Styles of snowshoes are very particular to certain geographic areas, terrain and typical snow conditions. Somebody with knowledge of the style preferred in B.C. during the alleged time of the photo could probably offer an opinion on that." That is a really good dissection. I remembered the details on the snowshoes.

In response to those eager to "exhume" putative bigfoot graves I will say this. I really think this is a disservice to the BF community to start this line of endeavor. I have personally witnessed settlers graves in the southern Appalachians marked by only field stones or in some case nothing more than daffodils growing near a quartz stone. I am sure Oregon trail unmarked graves are endemic too. I have had the uncomfortable experience of knowing that someone that knew my area attempted to dig up what seemed like a settlers grave in part. Thank God for a humongous red oak root that prevented total grave robbing. Please do a rethink on this.

My approach exactly and I think others take the softer approach as well. And I never do a follow up or bring up a government-hiding-Bigfoot dialogue. It's all about respecting the person one is speaking with and their situation. Thank you for your thoughts and describing your more candid methods of communication. I have a friend who is a 30 yr. fly fishing guide. He has seen many bears and knew I was interested in Sasquatch so he related this story to me. He was towing a small trailer that he stays in when guiding, followed by another friend in a pick up truck. This was only about a month ago. He came over a rise in the road and saw up ahead about 100yds an animal in the road. He described it as dark, on all fours, and no ears. He said it definitely wasn't an ungulate but that it also wasn't a bear as he has seen many. He said it was taller and leaner than a bear and had legs that were longer and lankier than a bear's legs. He said as he approached it walked off into the brush to his left and he pulled over to see if he could see it. He couldn't but asked his friend if he saw it to which his friend said "yes" and agreed that it wasn't a bear of a deer/moose (no elk here). I asked him if he got out to see if there were any footprints between the road shoulder and the woods and he said he didn't think to do so. Being an experienced woodsman and guide he said he thought I should know. It's nice to have such a fairly recent a first person account from someone who I know personally. He still doesn't know what kind of animal it was and guides in that same general area almost exclusively. He still insists that it wasn't a bear and that whatever it was had no visible ears. I hope to be getting up that way sometime this month or the next to have a look around. I told him if something like that ever happens again- even when he's guiding, to call me right away. He said he would as long as his phone has service.

I just knew somehow that genetic science is much further ahead than I am which is why I started this thread: To specifically address the topic of discussion. The OP lays out the basis for my thinking.And while I don't understand much of the article I think I'm headed in the right direction. https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(19)30954-7 That said: "Summary Denisovans are an extinct group of humans whose morphology remains unknown. Here, we present a method for reconstructing skeletal morphology using DNA methylation patterns. Our method is based on linking unidirectional methylation changes to loss-of-function phenotypes. We tested performance by reconstructing Neanderthal and chimpanzee skeletal morphologies and obtained >85% precision in identifying divergent traits. We then applied this method to the Denisovan and offer a putative morphological profile. We suggest that Denisovans likely shared with Neanderthals traits such as an elongated face and a wide pelvis. We also identify Denisovan-derived changes, such as an increased dental arch and lateral cranial expansion. Our predictions match the only morphologically informative Denisovan bone to date, as well as the Xuchang skull, which was suggested by some to be a Denisovan. We conclude that DNA methylation can be used to reconstruct anatomical features, including some that do not survive in the fossil record."

Here's some photos I took of the Glen Thomas Site from Oct. 2015. I did not see any golden-mantled ground squirrels, (maybe they were hibernating), but I did see pikas and timber tigers.