Leaderboard

@trapper Les Stroud did an exploratory trip in Utah in one of his BF videos from 2020. He was taken there by Kelly Shaw (of the Rocky Mountain Sasquatch Organization) to investigate a location where multiple 16-17 inch footprints were found the previous year. See video below; the Utah section starts at 20 min 35 sec. The exact location was not disclosed in the Les Stroud video but he says it is south of the Uintas. 'https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HvuXc2CNUN0 However, if you go to Kelly Shaw's original video (see link below) he says that it was in "Sasquatch" canyon at the mouth of the Rough Hollow. There are 3 Rough Hollows in Utah, but only one in Duchesne County which is south of the High Uintas. Rough Hollow is at ~7,000 ft, and is south of Red Creek Reservoir. It lies at the southern part to the high Uintas (about 52 miles driving distance from Kamas). From the video, you can tell that they are not in the High Uintas but in the drier lower canyons. Below is a map snip of the general area of that Rough Hollow area. While I don't know for sure that this is the same location of that video, it is worth a visit to check it out and compare to video. 'https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bsjp7t-5K6g My personal interest is to return to the High Uintas and backpack the full Weber River drainage from Pass Lake TH to Dry Fork TH, and loop back via Middle Fork of Weber River. That way, you get to explore both drainages. Numerous stories of BF encounters along that drainage over the years. All the best wishes.

Maybe they could all be captured and shipped to China

I revisited this photo. It certainly could simply be their eyes are bigger? Because their heads are bigger!

Maybe it's just me, but looking for a sasquatch underwater sounds like a search for Nessie in a forest. It might be fun, but it doesn't seem like the tactic that's going to win one the gold medal.

My apologies...I can get overly Socratic. I should know by now this group does that not so much. But the larger point I'm trying to make here... No sighting report (with the likely exception of the PGF) is proof of Bigfoot. They are not nothing though. Collectively they are a pretty big something. What you get out of them though is only what you put into reading them, and this is but one example. I was privileged enough as a young man to have the tutelage of a number of very talented legal practitioners who taught me this skill by example. (I've also had any number of juries double-down on that lesson and school me the hard way) Those lawyers could read the same deposition, expert witness report, medical chart or other bit of evidence, and while it would warrant only a shrug from me, they on the other hand could pull out any number of unassailable inferences and conclusions. While the sighting reports are not sworn, they are testimony and they are vulnerable to giving up their consistencies and inconsistencies in exactly the same way. So, you can read hundreds of these things and only get as far as, "He said he saw a BF, but that is not possible, so nothing else in the account is worth examining". This is where most of the public, most of the scientific community and many members of this Forum land. Then, you have geeks like me and a few others who are never going to be satisfied with such an unexamined conclusion. I'm not claiming to have some super acumen, I'm only emphasizing it is learned skill that won't just happen. You have to be intentional about it. The question I always want to ask is: Once you get past the obvious details that any hoaxing witness could provide (i.e. "I saw a huge bipedal hairy thing with white hair that stood and stared at me...) can you find other, much more subtle details which a hoaxing witness is very unlikely to either think of at all, or find the need to include if he did. The report in the OP fits that description for me. What the reports describing an albino creature should trigger, I believe, is some consideration of the congenital traits associated with albinism and some of the genetically related syndromes associated with the recessive gene inhibiting melanin in mammals. I mentioned only a few above. Things like deafness, poor vision, hypermobility of the joints, etc. All of which are subject to some conjecture, I grant you. Still, if you stop at "that's impossible", you wall yourself off to a huge trove of supporting observations.

Yes, I am, but only to a degree. I'm a bit apprehensive around any large animal, especially a wild one that so little is known about. What difference does it make if they know I'm peaceful if I don't know if they aren't? Any large creature could inflict misery and pain on someone, especially if we don't know what to do while in their presence. You may get too close to a den, make a gesture that they find threatening or they may just be bad, like some people. My opinion is that extreme caution - a healthy degree of fear - is only natural if ever in the presence of such a creature. Personally, I believe that anyone in their right mind should be.

Anything loud and noisy that they wouldn't expect. Air horns, handheld panic alarms. Even a device than can play very loud and discordant music at the touch of a button. Two are even better than one - toss one in one direction, and hold the other. The noise effectively attracts attention and also "blinds" their ability to hear other things coming. They'll probably scoot. Might rattle a cougar or a bear too.