Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 06/27/2022 in all areas

  1. Greetings, everyone! First-time poster here, but somewhat long-time lurker. I live in the Washington, DC area but recently had some personal business take me to NW Ohio. I chose a stopover point near Salt Fork State Park, both because it made sense travel-wise and because it gave the opportunity to do some hiking in an area where there'd been Bigfoot activity both in the past and present. I of course hiked around the "Bigfoot Ridge" area. Actually, a really nice park employee pointed me to an unmarked trail (meaning, not on the official trail map) that was nonetheless blazed with red markings and which paralleled below the Bigfoot Ridge area. It's located right behind the picnic area of the Stone House that's one of the sights to see within the park. The same employee also showed me a pic of a tree structure she'd seen herself, and recounted how she sometimes heard whoops and whatnot in the evenings. Anyway, it was a pretty cool trail that was somewhat overgrown and had some deadfall on it, but nothing too bad (it's no longer maintained, apparenty). I can neither confirm nor deny whether I went off-trail to investigate some squatchy-looking hollers. While I didn't observe anything on that trail, earlier I had hiked the Morgan's Knob trail, where I saw an interesting track in the mud (first pic below). A few things to note: 1) there was a squall that had some through in the morning the day before, so it was quite muddy, and I wonder if it could've affected the shape of an otherwise innocuous print or have been an artifact of the water flow itself; 2) the print was on the actual trail, on an incline; and 3) for size reference, the water bottle is 8", sorry it's at a slight angle, as I said, it was on an incline and was kinda hard to place something that'd stay still. I think you can see some good detail of what looks like the heel area and some toe impressions as well. This was from the first of my two trips to the park, in mid-May. I'm interested in others' thoughts on it. I didn't see an discernible prints near it...some indentations, sure, but nothing with detail. To me, while it looked like a pretty good track, I did find it odd that it was basically in the trail itself, where a rivulet had probably flowed the say prior during the torrential rain. The following four pics are from my second trip in mid-June. For this trip, I drove on some of the gravel park roads, and there were pull-offs on these that led to "unmarked" trails. On one of these, after hiking through the woods for a bit, I came to a large meadow with tall grass. I hiked across it to the next wooded area, and shortly after entering, noticed a curious looking tree structure. I took two pics, one close-up, and one further back to give a better sense of the surroundings (pics two and three, respectively). Interestingly, near the possible tree structure (was it perhaps a marker?), I noticed what I thought was really a good, natural "hunting blind" that looked out over the meadow (pic four). Right behind the "blind," there was also a well-flattened area where it looked like something had lain, but perhaps not very recently, as there was a small fallen branch in the middle of the "bedding" area (pic five). I called it a "hunting blind," but it really could be used by prey too, I guess. Anyway, I'm curious to know everyone's thoughts on these too. Look forward to the feedback!
    3 points
  2. It’s not. The strategy is to shoot yer buddy……then RUN!🤣
    2 points
  3. OK folks, getting really close to the the religion line as opposed to how it helps explain BF. Please step back or we will have to lock the thread. Good comments, just getting to close to the edge. You have been warned! Feel free to carry on. Thanks! VAFooter
    2 points
  4. The NAWAC has published detailed descriptions of their attempts to photograph "Wood Apes" with elaborate (and expensive) camera trap arrays. Here is a quote from the NAWAC website" "From 2006 to 2012, NAWAC field research included the long-term deployment and maintenance of camera trap arrays in remote areas. These are areas that have generated a number of reliable observer reports, both recently and historically, and produced trace evidence and/or facilitated direct NAWAC investigator field observations. While this may or may not be sufficient to officially classify or name the species, it would represent an important step in that direction. In 2020, the NAWAC started conducting a camera array trap known as Hadrian’s Wall." The NAWAC has among their members qualified experts in various fields germaine to Bigfoot research and they are known for meticulously documenting their research. I suggest you look into their failed attempts to use camera arrays for acquiring photos of Bigfoot. (BTW I have no relationship to NAWAC other than respect for many of their methods and their careful adhesion to scientific documentation)
    2 points
  5. The rig is looking sweet, norseman, I'm glad you're finally getting to test it out. I took a short run out to a local mountain yesterday afternoon that had been behind a locked gate for the last year. The logging operation is now finished, and the gate is open, so I had to check it out. It's a spot I posted about 2 years ago, with a hikers cabin near the peak and a great view over the central Fraser Valley. I was up there for 3 hours, and saw only 1 hiker coming down and 1 4x4 that arrived at the lookout about 20 minutes after I did. I saw 1 grouse, and several fresh bear scat piles on the drive up, so for the short hike to the cabin I strapped on my bear spray. Spring bear season ended on the 15th, so I wasn't carrying the 300 WSM. I sat at the table near the cabin for a sandwich, and a few pics of the view, then headed home for supper. It was the warmest day so far this year, 34 C, or about 86 F. The white peak on the horizon in the last photo is Mt. Baker, in Wa., reported to have the word's highest single years snowfall in 1999, 30m, or about 100'.
    2 points
  6. My first blobsquatch! I never understood them and even made fun of them until today. There I was faced with this moving creature that appears to be struggling? While I struggle trying to identify this animal so far away. I thought I can just zoom right in later and see what it was. This is my failure for not getting closer I’m now one of them. I have to admit it, I’m a blobsquatch person.
    1 point
  7. Hey everyone, USGS just published migration data for ungulates in the west! A lot of people hypothesize that Sasquatch follow migration routes for prey availability... but is that true? I've added a screengrab of a quick map I threw together. To really get the picture, we would need to subset out reports in certain seasons to match the data, but by and large, I do not think the data supports the hypothesis that Sasquatch follow ungulates. Only 1 area on the map shows a good overlay of reports and migration routes/corridors (Eastern CA). BTW- blue heat is more reports on this heatmap. I'll subset out by season later and get a real picture to match winter areas and seasonal migration times. But for now, here's a shotgun spread. Who knows, subsetting may bring out a better picture. Remember that correlation does not equal causation!
    1 point
  8. If I see a magician saw a lady in half on a magic show it is very impressive. yet, I have to start with the premise if he was really sawing her in half there would be screaming, blood everywhere, and the cops would show up to arrest the guy as he stood over an assistant who would not be able to just jump up and smile. Here we have a photo I have not looked at much and have not followed as a Bigfoot story. My impression is this: This photo is not impressive. I don't know what it could be. I really have no idea. In time, smarter minds than me will consider this -and probably already have- and will give me insight. It may be what we all would hope it is. In the end, right of the bat, it is just unlikely. With that as a starting point, I doubt it but am open- minded. I mention a bear not because I think it is a bear. I bear just generically means a 'normal' animal. I am not really offering any great theories. As I understand it, most Bigfoot reports of a standing bipedal ape-like thing. Even in the PGF she was stooped or squatted down. But she still stood up and walked away. Walked away. Stood up. Why is this thing on the camera playing a game of twister?
    1 point
  9. The book sounds interesting. Thanks for sharing. The lack of proof is certainly not unexpected. It is a very difficult task to prove the existence of creatures that most likely don't exist. The ape canyon story is a good one. A cool campfire yarn.
    1 point
  10. Wife and I also got out to the same area we were in a couple of weekends ago. This time we took a couple of local bigfooting friends along for the ride. We did manage to find a couple of promising prints, but they looked to me more like front and rear bear tracks joined together. They were about 10-12 inches long and tapered from about 6" wide at the "toes" to 3" at the "heel". It's a promising area and I definitely want to go back for a campout this summer. It will also be an excellent spot for my Skywatcher 8" telescope.
    1 point
  11. Makes ZERO Sense. ok so this guy tries to take some serious attempted study of a bigfoot. Great. Then, he injects what for me is a wild idea and applies it to Bigfoot. Not great. This to me is like the guys who think they know Bigfoot’s favorite color or what Bigfoot’s favorite baseball team is. That is bad enough and it’s done in this bigfoot world far two often where every snap of a twig is “a Squatch”. Then on top of this the man has to pull religion into this thing. Other than studying religion, what other format would the study of something else even need religion to be part of the conversation? Take the Stanford walking study: Can a man replicate the walk of the PGF? Study away. But at no time does any religious belief matter to that discussion. It shouldn’t. In the concepts of Bigfoot too often we see these type of straining to make things fit. In this case, it’s religion. Let’s discuss his concept let’s take a quick minute and just accept the idea offered by this guy as a purely historical reference and see if it makes sense. (Again, religion has no place in this as far as I am concerned) the source of the Bible where he gets this does mention these giants ( or various other translations which don’t even mean giants). They are thought to be the result of some offspring of fallen angles having relations with earth women. But the reference used makes no sense. Why? Because in that actual book as a point of the book’s chronology it is clear right after this nephilim reference is….a flood deluge. This deluge was said in the story to wipe out all the living things Noah did not bring on the ark. The goal of this divine flood was to wipe out the earth’s wickedness which included these very nephilim! Sorry. Even IF the religion factor was appropriate to the discussion of Bigfoot, his own idea falls flat from the same source he claims to get the idea from.
    1 point
  12. Beautiful areas Norse and BC. I'd want to be there, in nature, as often as possible. Thanks for sharing.
    1 point
  13. My point here is just to show one can assume the intention of an 'animal' but can't really know. That is all. We might say, "Bigfoot is a kind creature since it threw rocks at me and missed intentionally" I am saying we have no way to know if they were gunning for you and just missed. We assume it was missing by intention and that attributes many things to how they might think. I can equally say maybe the handful of people every year who get lost in the woods were attacked and killed by a sasquatch. I don't think so but my point is, how can we know? Again, we make assumptions and then fill in the blanks. 1) do we even know such a rock was thrown by a bigfoot 2) Do we know they are such a good aim their intention wasn't to hit or kill you? I think a lot of people read into many things and just attribute them to bigfoot. If they do this enough then a picture is drawn of what they think Bigfoot might be. How many times has Bobo or these others on TV talked about Bigfoot to the point they seem to know what Bigfoot's favorite color is and what Bigfoot's favorite baseball team is. <Snap twig> - "that must be a squatch!" Rocks are thrown and it is a promising sign that makes sense to me it could be a bigfoot to consider provided certain factors are met. When I say, "Maybe they were aiming at you and missed" I don't necessarily think that. I am trying to show we have no idea. We assume what is the truth. I could say, "These rocks are being hurled by a slingshot used by Bigfoot" Am I wrong? Why am I any more incorrect than if i said they were thrown by hand? Look we know under unusual circumstances in some of these cases people have experienced a rock or rocks thrown at them. Each situation is different. We need to try to figure out why. I would be more satisfied if someone had photographed some footprints like Bluff Creek 1967 and then hours later report something threw rocks at them.
    1 point
  14. Who/ What threw the rocks? Makes sense to me if a person is in some really deep wilderness, there are few if any people around to be the thrower. It is a given 'rocks' are normally thrown by people. Does this mean if a rock is thrown the assumption should be a human person was the thrower? I say yes unless proven otherwise. What animal can really throw a rock? Deer, racoons and so on are off the list of possible rock throwers. I'm not trying to say those who think Bigfoot threw the rock are wrong. When I was a kid I remember hikers walking below us in the woods. My friends and I quietly threw a few rocks down at these hikers taking great care not to throw too close as to hit them with the rock. Doing so could have injured or even killed them. That didn't stop us as we were kids. They couldn't see us but we could see them. After they left the area we moved on. They likely left saying, "Someone threw some rocks at us." They could have also said, "Some Bigfoot creature threw some rocks at us." How do you prove them wrong. What is really the difference? The main factor between the human thrower and any potential Bigfoot thrower is just how remote the area is. Put another way, Can those who think Bigfoot threw the rock admit they would be less likely to think this if the woods in question were a well-traveled area?
    1 point
This leaderboard is set to New York/GMT-05:00
×
×
  • Create New...