Leaderboard

I'm sure a lot of you already know about Lazy Cowboy's Bigfoot YouTube videos. If not, they are a MUST SEE. Lazy Cowboy does an excellent job taking the data from the PGF and creating a CGI recreations better than anything I have ever seen. Specifically, I recommend: 1) Bigfoot- Recreating Bluff Creek 2) Bigfoot- Recreating Bluff Creek Part 2 The Patteson Gimlin Film Route. <--- This is the best one. Outstanding. We can see points of view from any angle, through Roger's camera, through Patty's POV and so on. The terrain comes to life. For some already aware of the Lazy Cowboy videos, this is not news. Still, I would like to hear your thoughts on it and anywhere you might think Lazy Cowboy might get it wrong here or there. If you haven't seen these, don't walk, RUN to your computer and watch these Especially . Bigfoot- Recreating Bluff Creek Part 2 The Patteson Gimlin Film Route. They are amazing. The PGF site makes sense so much more sense to me now. One area I am uncertain about is his use of the shadows indicating the PGF was filmed at 3pm timeline not the 1 or 1:30pm. Give these a view.

Unfortunately, Bob Gimlin is an unreliable witness (which does not mean I think he's lying). With regards to this issue, he has said that the film site was: two miles from the campsite - see Webster's interview of Roger & Bob in 1967 four miles from the campsite - see John Green's interview of Bob in 1992 and a CBS47 2019 interview of Bob Roger Patterson gave both those estimates and added 3 miles in an interview by Stan Peters Interview of Roger Patterson As to the time they left camp, Bob has said: midday (which could be 1:30 during the summer, I suppose, but not in October) - see Robert Morgan's interview of Bob "right after lunch" (which could be anywhere from 11:00 AM if they were up early to 1:00ish) - Les Stroud's interview with Bob and this 1:30 time, which I believe came from a CBS47 2019 interview of Bob - If I understand correctly, The Lazy Cowboy is using other people's interviews, not his own. And leaving camp about 1:30 contradicts times Bob Gimlin has given for the encounter itself, which include: “about midday, perhaps a little bit after noon time” - again from John Green's interview of Bob in 1992 "Early afternoon" - attributed to John Green's questionnaire in Bigfoot at Bluff Creek by Danny (Daniel) Perez (2003) about 2:00 PM - Finding Bigfoot Legend (2018) All of this because early interviewers asked both Roger and Bob to tell them a story, but did not conduct the kind of interview necessary to determine as precisely as possible the facts. Also, I don't believe that The Lazy Cowboy (or anyone else) cherry-picked a certain interview because it better fits a narrative; instead, it seems a lot of of people are unfamiliar with (or unwilling to admit) the inconsistencies surrounding the P-G film.

People who argue that are arguing from "religion", not report data. The report data, taken as a whole, is very clear. Taking the next step, the body shape reports are indicative of something that is primarily a predator. BF seldom if ever is described as having a big sloppy gorilla style gut needed for digesting masses of vegetation, they're described as having ripped abs .. ripped abs are not an herbivore characteristic. I think that just as black bears are omnivores that are primarily herbivorous but will opportunistically scavenge or even prey, bigfoot is technically an omnivore but primarily a predator, one that will not pass up a berry crop if handy. I suspect this is consistent .. maybe necessary .. for the large distances reportedly traveled. If you spend 16 hours a day chowing on weeds that's not much time left for walking, but if you can meet your nutritional needs in 15-30 minutes catching and consuming meat, there are many more hours available for travel .. or whatever else is available. Moreover, that reduced time spent foraging also means reduced time distracted and at risk of being seen. So we don't KNOW .. but like linear approximations in math, we can get within almost any distance from exact that we want to. And .. from those approximations we can devise tests, devise questions for study. Like .. science .. at least in a sort of loose hinged way. I think loose-hinged is fine, we have to remember we're still in discovery mode, not study mode.

Norse, can you give a general area (again, I know) as to where you saw those tracks? Nothing that would dox yourself, but some major landmark in the area? Any idea of what would be drawing a Bigfoot (or other large animal) south - farmland, elk migrating in that direction, getting to lower elevation? Just curious. Also, love your driveway (and the fact that I'm not the one who has to clear it in the winter!). Norse and Huntster, Is it safe to infer behavior from a limited number of trackways, no matter how long? Someone upthread mentioned meta-populations of animals that are well spread out and have wide home ranges (for lack of a better word). So even a long trackway of over a mile could be just a day trip to the grocery store for Bigfoot. It's not necessarily an indication that Bigfoot populations are making like snowbirds and heading south. In the northeast US and Canada, there are 51 reports from December, January, and February where the report either stated direction of travel or was detailed enough to allow a reasonable approximation of direction of travel.* Only 14 of those were traveling in some southerly direction; 25 were heading in a northerly direction. However, that doesn't tell the whole story. I crunched numbers that I had in 2017 and there was a visible southward movement (between 160 and 200 miles) in the number of reported encounters. * Normal disclaimers apply - small sample size, room for witness error, room for error in analysis, &c., &c., &c.

The most objective timecard HAS TO BE the shadows. The sun is the sun each day every Oct 20th. If he can match the lay of the land and tree shadows accurately to his model, then we know the time give or take. If it is 3 pm then it is. The Q comes down to how much they could accomplish with a 3 pm encounter vs a 1:30 pm encounter. Finally, it comes down to how accurately the estimate of Lazy Cowboy is. If his model is right AND if his model can measure the shadow length accurately then it must be pretty close.

The "why don't we find a body?" argument is deeply illogical, I believe, on two accords. 1) I was extremely fortunate to join with a wilderness S&R team for several years. In that time, I was on several searches that involved one missing human with limiting factors on their mobility (age, under the influence) whose last known point was well defined (e.g., a bar, an abandoned car in the woods, a small regional park). Even though most of our searches (in downstate New York) don't involve "wilderness," I was on two searches where people weren't recovered until months after they had disappeared despite extensive previous searches. The remains of a drunk teenager weren't recovered until months after he had disappeared in a search area less than 1 square mile, 75% of which was dense suburbs. In another case the remains of a man were recovered less than a quarter-mile from the State Park parking lot. In both cases, terrain and weather (snowfall) hid the body for months. Prior to my joining the team, they were involved in searches - again, in a relatively limited area - where remains have never been recovered. It's just not as easy to find what is at best a full human body in the woods. 2) What do wounded animals (including humans) do? My understanding of wildlife behavior is that wounded animals find the most secluded spot they can and attempt to burrow in. It took four days to find and rescue a man w/medical issues who had burrowed in (or just gotten weak and couldn't go any further) in a search that was covering less than 2 square miles in a suburban area of lower New York. I see no reason why Bigfoot would react any differently. Unless one is hit head on by a truck or a train, its going to limp as deep into the woods as it can. I agree that the lack of a body is a problem, I don't know if it rises to the level of suspicious.

In addition to predator/omnivore, don't forget scavenger. I'm not talking "roadkill" (although that's surely part of it), but similar to brown bears (whose eating behaviors and food preferences differ from black bears). Among the first spring meals they seek out are winter kills, which are more numerous than most folks think. An example, beyond starved ungulates, are sheep, goats, and deer killed by avalanches. I remember a snow avalanche that killed a small herd of sheep on the Kenai Peninsula that attracted lots of brown bears the following spring. As a hunter, I read a lot of ADFG Management Reports. They do pay attention and even conduct studies on predator effects on ungulates, and this has grown exponentially as the environmental movement has put political pressure on predator management. But the effect of so few sasquatches is more than minimal compared to humans (hunters, car drivers, trains, poachers, etc), bears, wolves, and lions, so sasquatch predation can easily be swallowed up by the rest of the predators. https://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/research/wildlife/speciesmanagementreports/pdfs/moose_2015_2025_smrp_gmu_14a.pdf I'm sure that the dead body/skeleton thing is primarily a thing regarding their rarity. For example, there are an estimated 30K-40K cougars and an estimated 60K-80K wolves in North America. Humans? 380 million in the US and Canada. Of those millions of people in North America, some 630K are reported as missing, although we know many of them are alive and want to be missing, or are held by others. Compare all that to an estimated 5K sasquatches. I've found skeletons in the woods. I Initially thought them as human (no skull) and called the Troopers. They turned out to be poached goat or sheep. I've found lots of moose and caribou skeletons or carcasses. Never bear or wolf...............or human. If someone found a sasquatch skeleton, including the skull, what are they most likely to do? My bet is that they'd either call the local police (thinking they're "human"), or they'd walk away. I doubt they'd call fish and feathers, the FBI, or another agency. And if the local police investigate, what are they likely to do if they come to realize that these remains are...............funny? My bet is that they'd contact................somebody else?

Agreed. If it’s primarily an herbivore then winter becomes a very hard sell. Yes. The coast of the Pacific NW is typically devoid of snow. But most of the northern U.S. and Canada where many reports come from have a real winter. That’s a problem for a primate herbivore IMHO. So unless they all migrate into a tiny area along the ocean, they must eat meat. But we don't know what we don’t know, but they don’t discover black holes by looking for them. You cannot observe a black hole. But what you can do is observe the effects of a black hole on the stars and planets around it. If Bigfoot is primarily a predator? Then its effects on ungulate populations that we track MUST be in the data. I really liked the bone study that BTW was doing. Hope all is well with him.

That’s why I am looking at it. 👍

You're probably going to start thinking I'm picking on you .. I'm not trying to. a) you have to ask "useless to whom?" b) who gets to define "encounter"? I absolutely look at food availability, location, season, type, effort to extract, etc. when I think about looking for bigfoot. It's far from the only factor but it does have to be consistent with the rest. Where there isn't food enough, then we're looking at travel rather than occupancy.

I believe that the limited like evidence can be safe food for inference, but not solid enough to establish behavior. In the two examples I used above (Sunnyslope and Bossburg), both were in mid-winter, both were in central or east Washington (on the east side of the Cascades, and thus not in the coast range), and both left a long trackway (miles). As Nathan correctly clarified about my post on sasquatches in the Coast Range moving towards beaches to utilize beach foods, this is not likely at all of sasquatches in mountain ranges east of the Coast Range, like the Rockies, Blues, Cascades (south of the Columbia River), Sierra Nevada, etc (although sightings and trackways found in California's Central Valley in winter even infers that they might migrate to the Coast Range from the Sierras, or vice versa, on occasion). Peter Byrne once found a trackway in snow. I forget where regionally. He followed them through difficult terrain for miles. I don't think he theorized a general direction or motivation for the travel. The most notable thing I remember about his account was, at one point, the tracks walked atop a large fallen log covered in snow, and then the track maker jumped several feet to another snow covered fallen log. He was impressed, writing that such a jump was not possible by a hoaxer. What I find disappointing about his account is that his report on it, from his personal experience, is recorded in one of his books, but otherwise is lost to a queryable database search so that it might be available to help alleviate one of your recognized disclaimers (small sample size).....................

I think the reason is because its pointless anyways and they know it but they have a reality TV show to film with a camera crew and make up artists included in tow . Thermal will never be enough because look at through all the 6 seasons how many times they filmed a blob of something then they say where did it go it's gone!! with scary music. If they could actually get some clear day time footage it would go a long way at least in filming something that would make national news . Would it be proof? maybe not but it would be a lot better than thermal blob spots which they always seem to have .

Unless the “Bigfoot Calorie intake “ issue is used to capture (in body or film) bigfoot the issue is useless. It only matters if it leads to an encounter. Otherwise it doesn’t matter.