Leaderboard

I know, everything's a bear.

Welcome yeetus. Is the area in question remote enough to allow the person place or thing (PPT) to go undetected? Not all patches of woods are created equal. If the area of the woods is large but there are a lot of people or towns nearby then the odds greatly increase of spotting the PPT. For me, that means Bigfoot might be in the remote PNW but unlikely to be 20 miles for NY, NY. Someone can get lost in the desert in the Sahara where there may be Zero trees or cover and not be found for 50 years. Why did this WWII plane take so long to find in the desert? Because the area is mostly devoid of people. It's a given it is devoid of cover or any way shape or form to allow this plane to hide. Yet, it was only recently discovered. Based on that thinking I would view all of these things by that standard first: Is the area mostly devoid of people? If so, the odds increase something wanting to be unseen will remain unseen. If not, then the PPT is likely to be seen even if it is trying to avoid detection. To answer your Q, some area might be generically big enough for a brief hiding spot but not remote enough for any long-term hiding of a PPT. Finally, "habitat" indicates not just a stop, hide and move on scenario. That word seems to mean some longer residency in the region. Summary: When we cannot know the answer to a Q the best standard is to assume an area most devoid of people are the most likely capable of hiding something from people.

On AIBR, my username was silverback. The AIBR website has been down for a long time. They switched to a Facebook format and I never followed. I ended up on BFF. AIBR Facebook does not have much activity. How about up close and personal with exotic reptiles in Washington State? Years ago, an amphibious reptile related to alligators became an unwanted pet and ended up in Greenlake which is a small urban lake in Seattle. Caimen are smaller than alligators but still scared swimmers and people on air mattresses. Exotics are problems. We have a flock of green parrots in the Ballard neighborhood. They escaped from a pet store. Cats mess with them 1 time.

Amazing! Thank you for this norseman :-) Yikes! These people that have exotics and can't care for them should have their nuts cut off and stapled to their foreheads.

If we've ruled out a bear, then the fact bears were in the area is irrelevant. If squatches are known to be in the area, then the possibility it could be one moves up a level. To my way of thinking, the value of this photo is we've eliminated the probability (from what I've read so far in the thread) that it's a bear. Therefore, we need to eliminate the next plausible match, of which, a squatch is one, along with a primate, like a chimp, as you've suggested. If we isolate the chimp, it seems we'd want to figure out how it got there. This leads me to a question overall that might be known to the forum: how often do we catch animals in places they're not supposed to be on trail cameras, like when some idiot exotic animal owner lets them free or they escape? Do we get pictures of tigers roaming the woods in Michigan? Or Kangaroos in Washington? These are over the top examples to ask the question of do we actually get pictures of chimps in the woods, say in Ohio? Or do we say we know this happens, but we don't have any (or much) evidence?

I read some time back that there are several mystery markers. https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg24031992-600-traces-of-mystery-ancient-humans-found-lurking-in-our-genomes/ https://www.sciencealert.com/some-humans-are-carrying-dna-from-an-unknown-ancient-ancestor

The edge of that green patch is 20 miles from Central Park in New York City. At that distance, you can hear the cab drivers honking their horns. I'd go out on a limb here and suggest that looking for a sasquatch in that patch of woods would likely be a waste of time.

It seems a bit crowded for full time occupancy but it certainly seems big enough for a short stay passing through. It's about 1/3 of a mile to what seems to be a power line cut. Fairly heavy timber. For comparison, I've followed up on a couple of reports along the Columbia River waterfront in Portland, OR where BFs were reported in some steep, brushy draws. Less than a block offstreet but in a position where the car lights would go 20 feet over their heads. Not ideal but if they're going to get past the city without a 50-75 mile walk, there's not a lot of choice. From what I see, what you've showed is considerably better turf for them to pass through. Why? Following up on a report?

http://vimeo.com/6367515 Listen to the timeline above the creature wasn’t sharing anything it showed up long after the bear were gone. It was a deer hunter using deer bait not a bear feeding station. The camera was set on a 30 second delay then it was gone and nothing came back to the feeder. It seems more like it scared every animal out of the area.

Reasonable like a bear, because, it is one.

We HAVEN'T ruled out a bear because that is what is is. Placing a chimp at the scene is just silly..... Still a bear.