Leaderboard

If this was the case then this would make Bigfoot ape. We be beating on our chest and have one on a slab with no problem. So i have to disagree with this. When they came to our camp back in 2000 and back in 2001 they came because they wanted too. Not because they were drawn in by methods being used that we have no understanding of there meanings. Even when we did use these methods there was no aggressive behavior. The only time that there was aggressive behavior by them was when they were being shot at. This only happened after we had left our camp site. This has been posted on the BFF back on the BFF 1.0 but in the movement from server to server has been lost. I and others who have been with me do know what we have encountered. They are not some monkey roaming around in the forest but some highly intelligent being. Now whether we want to call the males as alphas that is a different story. They are most certainly the king of the forest. If you say that they do not climb trees then you should restudy what you know. Camping in a hot zone is the best way to get involve with these creatures. It takes time for them to adjust to your presence before you might even get a sighting. But once they know you , they will start to answer when you call. But it takes times. But the real deal is you might not even get a chance to see one in your life time and if you do. You have been very lucky. The bad thing about researchers is that they do not want to post what they have tried. They do not want to post what has worked. There results just stay hidden from the rest of the world. But why? Could it be that they do not want these results to come out to be true of what others have been saying all along. It is like that we are still stuck in the same place year after year and never seem to move forward with the research. What gives? The fear of being ridiculed should be over by now. We should be able to speak our minds. Not saying that we do not. But we should be able to be more open with out being afraid. If there is research being used out there to getting results then it should be shared. So that it can be proven to work else where. This way we can confirm that these creature are not all different. That they all do react the same. If they do not then we know that they are not all the same. When we camped and had these creatures visiting us . We tried everything to capture a picture of them . We used every technique that we could think of to capture a picture of them visiting. Yet no avail. We used apples, and salmon with the camera traps. We used our campsite as bait wit no avail. We used the glow sticks and peanut butter jars back in 2000. Thermo's and we caught one running way back into the woods. Again back in 2000. All i can say is that they do love salmon and I mean the smoked stuff. But would not come around the camera traps for that. But I will stop. We need to be more open to how we deal with these critters with each other. We just cannot keep going on year after year with nothing no more. It has to change. Deep woods exploration is what is needed.

Wooly Booger, that may attract bears as well? I also think time of year is a factor. And even though mating/birthing cycles may be assumption there is reason to consider them. In the Fall months between August and November- primarily September and October- when mating season is suggested, a more aggressive approach might be shaking a small tree or simulating some chest pounding? Personally I think such practices COULD attract a more than usual aggressive male which may not turn out well. But if well armed and prepared for such an outcome, then a "desperate" researcher might increase chances for an encounter. IMHO opinion, though, it could create a very dangerous situation with grave personal risk. A Human deploying dominate behavior in an active area sets the stage for being ambushed, maybe by more than one creature which has dealt for centuries with that sort of thing.

Over the years people have tried all sorts of techniques to attract BF to their campsite or camera trap. However, I have never seen or heard evidence that any of these techniques work. Most encounters are just random and not initiated by the witness (or researcher). Some techniques that field researchers have used include: 1) Playing recorded sounds: animals in distress, baby crying, children playing, whale sounds, Sierra sounds recordings, Tibetan chants, native American music, new age music, etc. 2) Making BF-like sounds: howling, hooting, wood-knocking 3) Placing lights around camp: glow sticks, strobe lights, flashing colored lights, laser lights, etc. 4) Gifting: food, toys, crystals, natural oils/herbs, etc. 5) Pursuing activities that might interest BF: children playing, playing musical instruments, singing, cooking foods with strong smells, hiking at night, etc. 6) Placing odorants: hunting scent attractants, used tampons, pigs blood, etc. I don’t think any of these techniques work, but the mythology of some of them working continues. If any of these techniques was effective and reproducible, we would be having more frequent reports from same researchers and camera traps providing photographing evidence. Nonetheless, the field researchers that I know that have more than one encounter do not have any BF attracting technique. While their sighting occurred in a hot-spot, it was random and unexpected (not induced by any trick) and they were engaged in normal activities (hiking, camping, fishing, moving around camp). Unfortunately, there is no formal database kept of research techniques tried and results. Even BFRO does not keep statistics on what worked well in their expeditions and what was the key to success (in those where a sighting took place). In addition, there are some protocols/rules that are recommended to increase likelihood of BF encounter in a hotspot: 1) No usage of white lights (red lights only) at night 2) No guns 3) No dogs 4) No night vision or IR emitting instruments It is also not clear if any of these rules increase the likelihood of an encounter or a BF moving closer to camp. Most BFRO trips, follow these 4 rules. BFRO leaders probably developed these rules over time based on their experience. The use of a campfire is not clear. There are cases where a BF approached the campfire (hiding behind trees) to check on the campers. On the other hand, some researchers say that the fire light bothers them and that they will get closer to camp without a fire (similar logic as the red light vs. white light). I was in a BFRO expedition in WA, where two guys used technique #5 above (playing harmonica and singing), and they got to see part of a BF (hand and glowing red eye) from a creature that approached them on the ground behind a log). But the technique has been tried again by others and was not reproducible. For an encounter, you certainly need BF presence but also the creature needs be curious and maybe inexperienced (testing their skills). Otherwise, why approach humans in a campground?

I've attached a file on a report done one West African Chimpanzee's and how different population pockets of them actually utilizing throwing rocks. This 'objects thrown' stuff is very interesting, as it would be a culturally learned behavior. The reports of it back that up too. Western WA - 1/14 reports describe 'objects thrown'. Eastern WA - 0 reports describe 'objects thrown' WA Olympics - 1/13 reports describe 'objects thrown' WA Cascades - 1/14 reports describe 'objects thrown' OR Cascades - 1/178 reports describe 'objects thrown' CA/OR Klamath Mountains - 1/106 reports describe 'objects thrown' CA Sierra's - 1/20 reports describe 'objects thrown' Elsewhere, there is a single 420sq miles county in Kentucky (Lawrence) that see's just as many 'objects thrown' reports as the entire Oregon Coastal Range Mountains, more 'objects thrown' reports than all of Idaho, more 'objects thrown' reports than all of Montana and more reports than all of the Oregon Cascades and Eastern Oregon combined. Chimp Rock Throwing.pdf

This can easily be done by pointing to one's own chest and shaking one's head back and forth vigorously in innocence, while at the same time, pointing frantically over to one's friend, like the example below. Problem solved

Excellent points you bring up. Such aggressive methods might prove useful, and I fully intend to enter the woods appropriately armed. However, my intention is not to take a type specimen and my firearms are strictly for defensive purposes. I will not open fire on a Bigfoot, even if I have a clear opportunity to do so, unless I feel that I am in danger. My goal is to collect either bones or a DNA sample. Taking a type specimen is an option on the table, but it is an absolute last resort after all non-lethal methods have been thoroughly exhausted.

My conclusion is similar to BobbyO's quote below, that the most important decision is selecting the hotspot and after that they control the when, who, and how. Once you select a target area, then it is up to the law of large numbers, attending the area frequently enough to either be there when the BFs are passing through or making them familiar enough with your routine that they are willing to approach you. The answer to the question of how do they know you are present in their area is not clear. While many attribute all sorts of enhanced abilities to BF (ability to hear, smell, see, and even sense your presence from afar), I don't really know how far they can be before they detect me. The technique that I use when I go to a hotspot is to spend my daytime hiking in several directions and exploring the area. The expectation (wishful thinking) is that if BFs are present, that they will detect your movements and maybe follow you to camp. Another technique that I have used at night (specially when I am alone and the camp is quiet), is to hang a multi-color strobe light on a tree close to camp. That just tells anybody where I am camping, but given BFs ability to see well at night they don't need that to find me. Just like the list above, one expectation from the strobe light is to create curiosity and maybe their approach to camp (but no success on that technique so far). I had these creatures walk by my camp at least on 3 occasions (based on my audio recordings), and I had no lights (no moon, no strobe lights, no camp lights, no campfires, and totally dark). It appears that they want total advantage of night vision. Besides that multi color strobe light item, I don't use any of the 6 techniques listed above. Maybe they choose the target based on perceived intent. You can do all the right things, but your heart and mind are in the wrong place and they can detect that. Who knows? These sightings do seem random to me. My own daylight sighting was totally unexpected and random. I was not even looking for or interested in this phenomena. Just backpacking in a wilderness area. 100% Agree. They decide if an encounter will occur and how much evidence they want to provide (how close they want to get to camp and how much noise to make). I am also interested where they go when humans are not present (specially winter). Even the hotspots that I visit do not show presence all the time. It seems that they are passing by on the way to some other place and luck comes in picking the correct day/week/month of they year. Thus, the importance of the law of large numbers, you need to be in location for a long time to really understand their movements. Something that I can't really do because of work and time constraints.

Good post Explorer, but i think you've left out the most important attractant, the researcher/human themselves. I think that's the key and that is the main attractant. Road crossings aside though (and even then i don't necessarily think all road crossings are random because i believe they have the ability to just not cross at that certain time, but do for some reason), i'm not sure of encounters are random and unexpected like you say. I think camping, hiking, encounters at home, hunting, all of those witness activity's are very much not random, but very much orchestrated by the animal more often than not. These things are the absolute boss in their own domain, make no mistake. I think they literally say when, who and how. The 'key statistic' to all that you mention, is actually kept though Explorer, and it's in the mirror, it's you, i'm 100% convinced of that. All the rest is just noise. What i'm more interested in now is what happens when there isn't a person present. We have a decent idea of what happens when a person is present now ( we know that they're highly likely not to show themselves in a camping situation for example), but when an area of known activity is abandoned by humans in the main, what happens then ? Long term recording techniques with today's and tomorrows technology applied within them over a 5 year (or more) length of time will hopefully give us an insight. And that's happening.

What is your conclusion? It sounds as though you are making the case that pure, unadulterated luck is the only contributing factor involved in a sasquatch sighting. Let's say for discussion purposes that you enter the forest in one area while the sasquatch is in another area. How is it going to know you are there? If we subscribe to the notion there is nothing we can do to improve our success, we have to hope that it wanders into the area we are in. If, however, there is something we can do to announce our presence, at least it knows we are there. Perhaps it chooses not to approach but that is its choice. The only rock-throwing incident I've been involved with was when a friend brought along his backpacker's guitar (a small one) and was playing it. The rock was thrown while he played. Is that why it was thrown? Obviously, I have no way to confirm that although it was the only time he's brought it so my friend has a batting average of a thousand. I'm not necessarily trying to trick a sasquatch but I want it to know I'm there and then use whatever technique I can to arouse its natural curiosity and elicit a response. Hopefully, that brings it closer so I can catch a glimpse or hear its approach, and record one or the other.

I treasure my copy of Sasquatch: Apes among us because it also has a good story behind it. When I first became a member here I got wind of John Green's database which used to be on the web. It was in .csv and the old Microsoft Access (2000) format which was difficult to open. I converted it to Excel and began the work of getting the database into chronological order. I thought letting John Green know what I was doing might be a good idea and so contacted a British Columbia Sasquatch group to see if anyone knew him. Of course they did and I asked if they would forward my email to him. John Green contacted me and said he was thrilled that someone was taking an interest in the data base. We corresponded a few more times during which I found my copy of his book. I asked if I could send it to him would he be kind enough to sign it and he agreed to. I sent the book along with 20 bucks inside to cover return postage and three weeks later I received the newly signed book back with 10 bucks in change. He was 86 at the time and that's just the kind of guy he was. Sadly, a year and a half later he passed away at age 88. So I treasure this book on many levels.

John Green, Sasquatch: Apes Among Us, 1978 Hancock House, first edition, first printing, hardcover with dust jacket, signed by the author.

I have nothing but my BFF membership. There are days I treasure it and days…..well not very day can be perfect!!

I concur that an audio recording of an aggressive male gorilla beating its chest will likely be one of the most effective ways of drawing a Bigfoot in during the mating season. Of course the Bigfoot that is drawn into camp using these methods will almost certainly be an aggressive territorial alpha male which could make quick work of any human being if it were so inclined. Being appropriately armed is essential in such an encounter since these animals are known to be dangerous on occasion. The encounter would be unpredictable and could range from anything from a bluff charge to a full on ambush with homicidal intent. If the animal can be dissuaded from attacking, a DNA or hair sample could likely be collected in this scenario. If the creature decides to attack, then the only recourse will be to kill or be killed. In which event, presuming the armed researcher prevails in the encounter, we will have our proof in the form of a type specimen and the mystery of the Sasquatch will be finally and conclusively resolved. But...lets hope it doesn't come to that for a variety of reasons. Not the least of which is this researcher wanting to go home to his wife...