Leaderboard

My favorite point to bring up about mis-identification is that in my opinion there are FAR more BF's misidentified as a normal person from a far distance and are then just ignored as being a hiker, a prowler, a hunter or someone just out for a walk. We'll never know how many BF's have actually been seen but are unrecognized as anything unusual. This could be an answer to why we don't see more of them if there's really so many out there. Or do we? "reverse-misidentification"

Here's one of my plans I've been thinking about for this summer. I'm going to go back to the last place I had possible bigfoot activity (power knocks and calls). This spot has a history of bigfoot activity, a water source, big timber, and plenty of food. Its elevation is around 4000ft, so it will be at least July or August for the huckleberries to ripen. Then I'll wait for clear/mostly clear and calm weather to go. On clear, calm, no moon nights I'll focus more on hearing calls. On clear, moonlit nights I'll focus more on possible camp visitations. Either way I'll still have my FLIR, parabolic mic and recorder set up at night only. My plan is when I arrive at the camp site. I'll get out and walk around the camp site, lake, road, and trails looking and listening to see what is and what was around. When I get back to the camp site I'll change my clothes to camo or earthtone colors. Then I'll clean up the camp site if it needs it and then work on getting a curiosity bait. When I'm at the camp site I'll do a short single tone whistle around every 30 minutes or so and write in my field notes/journal ever so often. I won't have a campfire and I don't put food bait out. IMO the bigfoots don't need our food and are better without it. Around dusk I'll set up the FLIR, parabolic mic, and recorder in a blind or tent and face them towards the area I heard the power knocks come from. Hopefully by now I'll have my curiosity bait and I'll set it up 6ft on a tree about 20 yards or less away in front of the FLIR. I'll put a trail camera on the opposite side of camp where I don't want a bigfoot to approach. Then I'll do one last check of the equipment to make sure everything is working well and in place. Before I crawl in the back of my truck, I'll do three tree knocks, wait then do one single tree knock only loud enough for something around 100 yards or less to hear it. Then I'll listen for about 10 minutes for a return knock or footfalls, hopefully coming my direction. If I hear something or not, I'll get in the back of my truck and get out of sight and have the canopy windows open so I can listen until I fall asleep. In the morning I'll turn off all the equipment and check everything out. If I get anything good I'll adjust my plans accordingly. If I don't get anything it's no big deal. Then I'll repeat everything for the duration of my stay. Now I just have to wait several more months to try this plan out at this location.

Ok, because so many people seem to completely misunderstand what I am saying, I'll break down the original post keeping only the useful information and throwing out the stuff that simply obscures the issue. We know there are 723,000 bears in North America We assume there are 5,000 Sasquatch in North America Therefore Sasquatch are 723,000/5,000 = 144.7 times rarer than bears. Therefore we shouldn't expect one to have be found. I contend that put like this, it becomes much clear that point 3 is wholly dependent on the assumption in point 2. We have one known figure and one unknown. The original post introduced a lot of other known figures to try and make the figure arrived at in point 3 look like it was dependent on a lot of known information and only one unknown. it was not.. it was wholly dependent on the one unknown, and therefore completely subject to the accuracy of that unknown, which as we see, is highly disputed. it may be accurate and it may not, I have no idea. The point is that the post was flawed because it used so much information that did not affect the outcome. This is often done deliberately in order to give statistics more apparent validity, although I do not suggest it was deliberate in this case. I also contend that point 4 is not an accurate conclusion BASED ON THE NUMBERS. If the argument is that finding sasquatch and finding a bear are two things that are not comparable numerically then I cannot see the point of drawing the comparison in the first place. I hope that this is clear now to at least some of you.

I'd have to agree with your strict view of the probabilities, yes. They would increase, however small the rise, surely. I'm just coming at it from the point of view that, like with mostly solitary mammals, the statistical increase in probabilities is not enough to have any real significance. More than one BF researcher has made the point that to go chasing the latest sighting report is a fool's errand (and no, not for the reason you would propose). It is another way of stating your chances are just about as good, or better, if you spend your time to learn a particular habitat that has the predicted requirements for a BF population. (You also save a considerable amount on gasoline and meals out!) Granted, it is not as exciting as racing from one "hot spot" to another. I refer to this as The Keg Strategy. At the parties of my youth, I noticed some of my buddies would chase after the desirable females all over the house....with limited results. Instead, I always chose to stand by the beer keg and let all of them come to me. Plus, there is, you know, more beer there.

Bob, Did you think the film would solve the mystery and gain public acceptance? And do you regret not shooting Patty which would have assured species recognition almost 50 years ago? And are you pro kill now? Thanks, Wade

I am a little confused by the controversy here. If you are a knower, you know they are very large creatures that are capable of generating a huge amount of sound pressure (also called volume or loudness). It should not be surprising that the frequencies of their sounds pressure is above and below the human hearing range. We have all probably seen Ella Fizgerald or some other singer breaking glass with their voice. Multiply this by an order of so of magnatude and you probably have the capability of a BF. I can easily see how this would create a headache or nausia. Sonic weapons have been used to disperse crowds or attacks for years. Why is this any different?