Leaderboard

This. This is a world of difference between saying “I saw something large and dark moving through the brush “ and giving a detailed account of how its face looked, its build, how it moved, etc. As far as those people who see Sasquatch behind every tree…it’s simple Bigfoot economics. The supply of real evidence and sightings does not meet the demand…therefore the supply is artificially inflated to meet that demand.

Apes have shoulders. Bears do not. If your not simply observing a flash of fur in the forest. But getting a good look at the animal? Anyone experienced shouldn’t have any difficulties distinguishing the two different species.

Thanks Beans. Yes, I ended up speaking with Rob on the phone for 40 minutes or so after I posted this. As you mention, he confirmed that this is an updated version of that book, fixing minor errors, etc. but also adding information on behaviour. I believe he continues to work on his "big" Alaska book. I was interested to hear he lived and worked only about 40 miles from where I am in the late 70's. We had a great discussion and he had plenty of names and information specific to here, as well as where I grew up on southern Vancouver Island.

I think that he means actual researchers, not people who collect Bigfoot coffee mugs and film themselves on their phones banging t-ball bats on trees outside of a campground.

Someone who is familiar with the woods, and those creatures that inhabit it, particularly a hunter, will reserve judgment of what they've just seen until it can be identified. If a patch of dark-brown, or black, hair goes moving through the brush, or trees, there is no way to be able to identify it. It is simply unknown until it can be clearly seen. A responsible person would admit that. With that said, if you could see something upright and walking in the woods, there is no way a bear could be confused with a sasquatch, like Patty, that takes a 41" stride. Bears have tiny, little legs from the knee down. Moreover, their stride is small and choppy. Patty's walk is smooth and gliding. As you admit to above, those "hunters and outdoors men" were not sure what they saw. That is being responsible. They have not misidentified. They have simply not identified. The difference is profound.

Well it is wonderful that you are so confident ! But to counter your point. I have met many hunters and outdoors men who have seen things that they were not sure about! Including some researchers who have been in the field researching for quite some time.

The misidentification is likely to happen when a slender-fingered, Columbia law student toddles out of Manhattan for the first time and sets foot in the woods. He/she wouldn't know a racoon from a bear, a fox from a wolf, nor a bobcat from mountain lion. There have been numerous reports from people intimately familiar with the woods, such as hunters, biologists, rangers, and backpackers, who would easily identify a bear from a sasquatch. As I've said in a prior thread, there is zero chance I'd make that misidentification.

My son and I are also going to Dworshak this weekend. He and his girlfriend are coming over from Seattle with their kayaks on Saturday. We'll be heading down to the family cabin at Freeman Creek on Sunday to take his kayaks and my little pontoon raft out. Probably paddle back into where Freeman creek comes in. Or, dad might decide to launch his 26' Carver cabin cruiser. If you see this rig; that's us. That's also Freeman Creek boat launch at Dworshak.

Greetings all, I have been reading books, online and watching documentaries on the subject for some time now. I joined this forum to go to the next level and find like minded people and find more information on researching and get boots on the ground.

My son and I are gonna go hit Dworshak this weekend!

.......or shirt-legged Viet Cong. They had a unique duck walk they would use to advance while keeping their heads low. I'm rather short-legged, and I couldn't duck walk.

A hunter or hiker may not have any skin the game which, if true, lends credibility. It depends on the credibility researcher who has proffered the claim of a sighting. That researcher might also be an experienced hunter or hiker and might be in the woods for many weeks during the year making that person quite knowledgeable about the forest and things within it. It depends on their verascity.

Good luck, Stephen. Please keep us posted on your progress.

I actually put more credence when a hunter or hiker says he thinks he saw a bigfoot than when a bigfoot researcher claims they saw one . I might go as far as saying I might put more credence in the Columbia law student who never went camping before. I've watched 100's of videos of researchers if not 1000's and many not all but I'm going as far as saying most researchers everything is a bigfoot in the woods to them. Every sound , every stick break , every splash you name it.

There is a difference between seeing something you're not sure about and seeing something you are sure about and wrong. If I say I saw something, I saw that thing. If I'm not sure what I saw, I simply say so. MIB

The events of this last fish camp has cemented the new policy of dis-inviting Mrs. Huntster. I just don't have the time or patience to fool with her anymore. She can stay home. It isn't discrimination; she has fully incriminated herself, just like the hunting partners in my past. No more. I'll go alone.

I don't really like calling them weapons because the word isn't descriptive enough. Anything from a fist to a stick to a rope to a chemical to a nuclear bomb can be a weapon, and pretty much everything in between. In the most basic definition of "gun", rifles, shotguns, and handguns are indeed lumped with cannons, artillery pieces, and anything else with a barrel which launches a projectile that doesn't move under its own power as "guns". I tend to call my rifles "rifles", my shotguns "shotguns", and my handguns "sidearms". Those terms are almost always understood accurately.

On another site? Heresy!

They use that technique in the walking dead, except they use anything metal they can find. Cowbells are at a premium during the zombie apocalypse.

I noticed there was a Dr. Alley booth at the Metalline Falls event this past weekend selling this book. Yet, it is still not yet available to purchase online. Bummer. Edit: whoever down voted, explain yourself. It is disrespectful to the author's book. People in bigfootery put a lot of effort into their work. Often these small time publications do not make much money, if they break even at all.

While it is certainly possible, albeit difficult, for a liar to pass a lie detector test there is an alternative explanation. Though one that not all Bigfooters are willing to accept. The possibility of a government-scientific cover up. Government agents could have replaced the original hair samples with black bear samples.

No you are afraid to back up your words, that is all. You know it, I know it and now everyone knows it. It is you that have not kept up. Perhaps you would have time if you stopped looking for Atlantis in all the wrong places.

Excellent advice. Thank you. I am not familiar with the Adena mounds, but I will certainly look into them. There are many burial mounds, particularly in the Mid-West with legends of giant remains being discovered. Bigfoot area still reported from the area, particularly in Ohio with the Grassman reports. There may be a link between Bigfoot and the ancient burial mounds in the region. I do have archaeological training (two Masters Degrees and certified field school completion) and am poised to get into an archaeology PhD program. After I am fully certified I will certainly seek federal and tribal permission to excavate these burial mounds, and will also search for potential locations in the Mount St. Helens area. Caves will be a good place to search as well, as archaeological surveying techniques could prove useful there without a fully fledged excavation. That will be another promising place to investigate. I do. And will certainly take up the torch. Archaeology has great potential, and should be used in tandem with other methods such as tracking and DNA.