Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 10/14/2018 in all areas

  1. 2 points
    Hiflier, I’m new here and I’ve been slowly making my way through this thread for a while. That your vision includes driving only I only just now understood, and, although not as exciting and sexy of an idea as going backpacking in the wilderness, it really makes it more accessible to those who are willing, but don’t have the skills for those kind of adventures. I’m not a researcher. I got interested in this subject as a young mom. I’m an older mom now and just don’t have the time or knowledge to spend lots of time camping. We camp ad a family but I don’t know how to use a map and compass. In another 10 years I’ll be out of this stage of life, and may have been able to read a library of books by then, but still won’t have the skills to be a “researcher” as I see the term used here. But what you’re describing I might actually be able to do. I’m in Arizona, so out of your area and no help to you really now or in the future. But props for moving forward with your vision.
  2. 2 points
    The other explanation is "counting coup" young and old, it is a revered skill or accomplishment. Not age related. I was a victim, not a thrown item but a held item touched me or one of them touched me in sneaking in behind. Sasquatch 1 : Bipedalist 0 http://aktalakota.stjo.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=8666 Though not in Lakota territory but Cherokee/Shawnee/Catawba interface there is not a direct correlation here. The best estimate is that it felt like a stick was dragged across the nylon hood I had cinched up over my head that night (could have been fingernails) to protect from mosquitoes which fits with the description of the Plains indian tribes.
  3. 1 point
    uh...no Apes are not comparable to BF. Different species. And...the range of different experiences people have had with BF and stench covers far more than simply a deterrent as an animal would use. Incorrect.
  4. 1 point
    Apes have scent glands that secrete a foul odor when they are distraught. https://seaworld.org/animal-info/animal-infobooks/gorilla/physical-characteristics So they may not go around stinking their whole life. Its only when they bump into screeching humans or honking cars that they emit a foul odor. Presumably of course.
  5. 1 point
    Welcome. Best squatching in the country a bit south of you at the Mogollon. People do not recognize that yet, but they will!
  6. 1 point
    Hi southwestjess, welcome to the Forum and I am certainly happy enough that you get the SRN's vision. Yep, only driving is involved. Throw the kids in the back seat and give 'em the cameras while you drive LOL. I say that to emphasize that you are correct in understanding that this really is a low keyed concept. No one goes or does anything until a report comes in. Could take years but if group members stay in touch with each other once in a while then when a call does come in there will be people who could be there to go and drive around the area. Anyone can do this. ANYONE. Stick a video cam on the dash and go. Spend an one hour in maybe THREE YEARS just driving up and down your one road. The other members will take the other roads. This is a follow up on only a visual sighting and no more needs to be done other than whichever person in the group is handling the witness interview. That interview will be conducted by whichever member of the group is the closest to the witness. The rest will hit the streets so to speak with cameras rolling. As far as you helping me in Maine? Don't have to. Think about starting an SRN in the Sou'west to do follow ups on your Mogollon Monster. And that's the other point about the SRN. Anyone who wants to can get one going wherever they are.Thank you for your input here, SWJ, and I'll catch you around the Forum
  7. 1 point
    Your right in theory. And I have used Ranger beads and taken nav courses. The problem in the PacNW is obstacles. If your crawling through vine maple its hard to keep a pace count. You start guessing.... And its ridiculously hard just to shoot an azimuth and follow it. Its not as easy as hitting an obstacle turn 90 degrees East walk 100 steps, turn north walk how may steps it is to clear the obstacle and then turn 90 degrees West and walk another 100 steps and wallah your back on your route of march. The shit is just thick and steep and you squeeze through where you can and hope for the best. Its hard to keep track. Supposedly lots of patrols got lost in the Nam for this very reason, and paid a hefty price when they tried to call in arty shields against the enemy. The best one to know in the PacNW is trianglation. If you know your declination and you know the local peaks. Climb to a overlook and shoot two azimuths to each known peak from your position. Draw the same degree lines on your map off of each peak and where the two lines intersect on the map is where you are standing. Caenus, I think you should start a thread just on land navigation. Maybe it will help save a Bigfoot researchers life someday.
  8. 1 point
    Uh, I beg to differ. If you have ever taken a basic land nav course, you would know that you can reach a specific destination with compass and map. With a proper compass and a known stride distance you can walk within feet of a specific location. More accurate than gps. Have you ever heard of Ranger Beads? I once participated in a course in the military that gave you a map and compass. To pass you had to walk miles through a forest in order to find a field full of pickets. On each one of those pickets was a number. If your navigation with that compas and map took you to the wrong picket...you fail...within meters. Terrain orientation will tell you where you are (if you have a map). Find your location, shoot an azimuth and walk. A known starting position and a compass with known or estimated distance of travel ups the likelihood of finding your position and getting you where you need to go. Look, I feel like I am saying this a lot, but I’m sorry If I’m perceived as a jerk. If you are going to be in the field with these things, know your basic field craft. Otherwise, you have zero chance of finding anything, even your own fourth point of contact, google earth will not find it for you.
  9. 1 point
    I carry both GPS and map/compass, but for the most part, both are secondary to dead-reckoning. My chunk of the Cascades is often heavily timbered for miles with no view of the horizon, just a never-ending wall of tree trunks. That means no opportunity to be sure of where you are. Without that, finding a direction is only useful for not going in circles, it doesn't help you reach a specific destination. I've spent a great deal of time with 3-D imagery via Google Earth so that I have a pretty good feel for the lay of the land, at least on a macro scale. I still find the GPS handy for locating things like trail cameras. A lot can change in a year, different leaves, different amounts of water in creeks, new blow-down. MIB
  10. 1 point
    I thought this was pretty interesting! http://www.theblackvault.com/casefiles/sasquatch-carving/
  11. 1 point
    We just got Rick Rolled. Ugh. LOL.
  12. 1 point
    I too was unable answer the last three questions as they did not exist when I participated. Now that Charcoal and Gas are deadlocked, I feel I must speak up. 8 - Charcoal 9 - Rock (in a very slight edge over country) 10 - Windows PC
  13. 1 point
    In the works. Started it a couple of days ago,
  14. 1 point
    I have had a terrible suspicion that much cancer might be treatable or preventable but cancer treatment is such a huge industry that there is not a lot of incentive to do anything about it. Infusing poisons into human bodies and hoping that poison kills the cancer before the human dies seems pretty much as barbaric as bleeding for a treatment. When even more expensive gene manipulation therapy replaces chemo we might start to see real results.
  15. 1 point
    I think you misread Caenus' post. He says: Which suggests he's not accusing BFRO of sitting on the evidence, he's talking about witnesses who sit on their own evidence and never report it. But even if not .. I've mentioned doing followup work for bigfoot groups, investigating reports and the like. There simply are not enough people to do the work. Opening the floodgates would be even worse because without vetting the vetters, you will have many more reports but no consistency at all in the data. You'll have one person happily certifying all the woo reports, another who won't certify anything without a body to test, and many more across the spectrum. With no filter, no matter what you put in it will be garbage out. Moneymaker, love him or hate him, runs the BFRO with standards that would be impossible to replicate without a fair bit of control which a loose-nit group is not going to have. I'm not a fan by any means but he's earned a grudging respect from me despite some issues. I've spent a little time in the field with some of the BFRO researchers for the OR/WA/CA area. They're pretty good folks. Volunteers, just like our SSR volunteers. You seem to expect a lot from those BFRO volunteers yet you're not contributing anything of comparable value. Perhaps you should get off your butt and go on a few of their expeditions, then maybe they'll invite you to join in the effort and you can do something of real value towards getting the information you want. You would also likely learn just what it is BFRO knows, what their motives are, and who has access to what. Rather than whining and innuendo, you might actually learn something and be able to speak truth. ... just a thought, though. MIB
  16. 1 point
    Hello hiflier-- I was able to attend the conference, and heard Dr. Disotell's talk. I did a post about the first day of the conference on my Strange Maine blog, and will hopefully get the 2nd day typed up and posted this weekend. Basically, what he had to say was tremendously exciting. I'll cut and paste that part of the post and tweak it a little for all you guys here (and add a few details that I know you'll be interested in too): His talk focused on the potential for researchers to utilize the recent advances in DNA technology to accomplish species surveys. Using environmental DNA drawn from topsoil, local bodies of water, etc, labs can now determine what species are in a given area, and how long ago they were there in the case of past or transient populations. Of course we leave traces of our DNA everywhere we go, and so does every other species on earth. This new methodology, environmental DNA metabarcoding, is transforming how we survey animal and plant communities. With this and other tools, Disotell urges us: "Those of us in the cryptozoology field need to do way better than we have done up to now." Up until now, he states, he has seen "zero data to convince [him] of the existence of legendary cryptids," but he is hopeful that access to new DNA technology will advance efforts, especially as the cost has plummeted now. (in answer to your question, hiflier, it sounds like either they haven't crunched the samples you refer to yet, or the data turned out not to be anything indicating an unknown hominid. He was aware of why people were asking about his results up to now.) In other words -- work hard, learn well, and use new tools -- and always keep in mind that DNA is the keystone of species identification. The process involves utilizing either local water samples or local dirt samples, and filtering them to separate all the trace DNA types present or having passed through a given area. In the case of dirt or physical debris from the topsoil, etc, the material is pulverized for analysis. He mentioned that rather than doing footprint casts, it would be more useful to cull the topsoil from the area of the print and submit that for testing, as it would undoubtedly contain trace DNA from whatever had left the print. He said that he is willing to do analysis for people, but "don't just mail me material." Initiating contact with him (his lab) to find out parameters and costs in advance would be the way to go. He said that the process costs a couple grand, but out of that you get hundreds of results, whereas the old systems cost even more and then only gave you results for a single physical specimen sample. You get a full picture of all wildlife, etc, that traverses or inhabits that region now and in the past (depending on how deep the sample digs). I hope that's helpful! I had a chance to give my own talk about what I've learned about Bigfoot in Maine from the eyewitnesses I've spoken to for the first time, which was an interesting exercise in summarizing a diverse quantity of reports in a wide range of eras into a digestible whole. Cheers from Portland, Michelle Souliere
  17. 1 point
    Great questions James. I've been a wildlife biologist for 30 years. The one thing that can be stated with a very high degree of confidence is that nature takes perverse pleasure in making fools of human understanding. With that in mind, every species archetype requires a specific number of individuals for a healthy population. The more complex the organism, the greater number of individuals are needed to avoid species collapse at the genetic level. The smaller the gene pool, the harder long-term survival becomes. There are a large number of factors that have to be considered when calculating the minimum viable population for a species. In humans, the MVP can be as low as 15 individuals or as high as 4000 individuals depending on the variables used, conditions considered and potential morbidity and fecundity rates. We simply don't have enough information regarding bigfoot to make any realistic guesses as to whether the species is growing, stable or in collapse. What they eat will depend on what they are and that hasn't been answered yet. There is a lot of anecdotal information that indicates it's a largish mammal. Popular conjecture is that it is a primate. A strict vegetarian mammal requires a long gut to break down the plant materials consumed. In primates, this normally results in a pot belly physique. Lowland Gorillas are a good example. As protein intake increases, the body shape changes and gets slimmer in the middle. Most reports indicate bigfoot has a high protein diet based on general body description. Another indication of a high protein diet is intelligence. Bigfoot is reported to be very intelligent. If true, then protein is likely present in their diet. There are a number of primate studies that conclude that primates with diets containing 20-50% protein exhibit higher intelligence than strict vegetarian primates. Lowland Gorillas vs. Chimpanzees. You also have to consider brain size. Elephants are fairly intelligent for being herbivores, but their brains are 11-13 pounds compared to humans that have 3 pound brains. However, these musings are all guesses based on what "should" happen. It's inductive reasoning and suffers a few ad ignorantiam fallacies, but fun to consider. That brings us to how much a bigfoot eats. That depends on diet, metabolism, activity, and standard environmental conditions. That requires subjects for study and they seem to be difficult to locate reliably. Until someone figures out how to observe bigfoot for days at a time without them knowing, speculation will be the only information you will find. The same goes for where they sleep. It might be in caves, ground nests, up in trees, in abandoned mines, abandoned structures, or gullies. There is no consensus on this subject, but bigfoot seems to be as opportunistic about its sleeping arrangements. It if is as intelligent as the pundits believe, then it will take whatever the most advantageous accommodations are at the time.
  18. 1 point
    I have never seen the perp at this location and we really tried. Last year we were all gung-ho with bright flashlights, night vision and FLIR thermal. This year we backed off a little bit, although we still had the tools with us. There was supposedly a Class B level sighting at this place in earlier this year. Almost more disturbing to me is that we never HEAR what is sending rocks our way. No footsteps, no crashing through brush...nothing. I know skeptics would wonder if anybody in our group could be doing this. While not everybody can always be accounted for for every thrown item, all have been accounted for during more that one incident. It took us two days to figure out how to make a rock as warm as the ones that were thrown our way (armpit). Trying to hold them in your hands cannot do it. Here's something interesting. Last year we could not figure out where the rocks were being obtained. All seemed different than those we found in and around the river. THIS YEAR, all rocks seem to come from piles of rocks left on the road for future road maintenance. The warmth of the rock tells me they are carrying them (hopefully not in armpits) and tossing them when the time is right. In our situation they were not just picking them up on the spot. They are armed and ready.
  19. 1 point
    Hiflier, I personally don't think your idea has merit at least in the area that I live. Generally speaking the terrain is rough with dense vegetation. And inow many areas we simply do not have the road network to surround a sighting. Also if sasquatch exist and they are as elusive as most people think they are, then even the smallest gap in your ring will give them an escape route
  20. 1 point
    Never want to be down wind of a fire....or up hill. I can tell you that your plan for cordoning off a forest fire with researchers is unworkable. The USFS will shut down roads that access the area in which the fire is in. And they will man checkpoints. Your only getting in or out with a red card, nomex and a shake and bake. And even if you were granted access? The sheer man power involved would be greater than the fire crews. Fire crews dig fire lines from anchor points around the heel of the fire. They are not encircling the fire hand in hand. I think your best bet? Would be to get a press pass and interview fire crews back at base camp. You might be able to score hot leads that way. Or you could patrol outside of the fire no go zone on USFS roads with a thermal camera? But this will be a huge area in rough terrain. Might want to identify things like saddles and game trails and set up on them? Of course its dangerous too. Winds can shift direction, or increase in intensity, flying embers, spot fires, etc..... what is safe now becomes unsafe in a matter of hours. I would certainly go get red card training and buy nomex clothing and a shake and bake (fire shelter) if I was seriously considering something like this. Posted picture is to kinda show what your up against. Keep the wind in your face and run downhill to escape a fire. Or get to big water. With the Debbie Downer stuff outta the way? I do think that fire changes everything in animal behavior. You will see them do things that are not normal. Like bowling you over while your running a chainsaw in the open. They dont care. Fire is scary for all of us. A fast moving forest fire can crown over the top of you faster than you or they can run......40-50 mph. 1400 degrees F, 120 feet over your head in the crown of the forest. So animals are fleeing the fire and they are usually easy to observe because they could csre less about man.
  21. 1 point
    The network exists and has for a long time. Look around. Think about which researchers are NOT here. It's not forum based, predates the internet. The real giants in the bigfoot world rely on a thing called a telephone. Most don't have time or interest in the bickering here. The forum guidelines say BFF is here for the discussion of bigfoot, not to help prove they exist. You have to think about the implications of that, ALL of the implications, especially the ones you don't like, to understand why BFF isn't relevant to solving the puzzle. If that's all you're after here, you're in the wrong place. MIB
  22. 1 point
    I can quantify WSA’s question about delays in reporting encounters. I’ve added 393 BFRO reports to my database. For those 393 reports 106 (27%) were reported within one month, 51 (13%) were reported more than one month but within one year of the encounter, and 235 (60%) were reported over one year after the encounter. Since I essentially have a random sample of BFRO reports, I would expect the overall numbers to look similar. Hiflier, good questionnaire. I’ve noted in several different threads that there is no Uniform Bigfoot Encounter Report as there are Uniform Traffic Accident Reports or Uniform Criminal Investigation Reports. This is a problem as at least some groups post woefully inadequate factual information in their published reports. I would imagine that the SSR wrestles with the same problems of having missing or vague information on reports.
  23. 1 point
    The problem is getting fresh reports to work with. Newspapers and TV media are pretty much the only way to get current reports not filtered through the BFRO apparatus. No one has really explained to me satisfactorily what their process is but it seems to take a very long time. I think it is a good idea to get Forum contacts in your local area, and if something comes up, grab the forum member and head out. I did that when I felt as if I had been chased out of one area and did not want to go back in alone. We worked out sharing finds and location secret protocols to our satisfaction before going into the field. That has evolved into a two way exchange of information even though we only were in the field together that one time. Honestly if you trust someone with research area locations, it avoids the likelihood of stumbling into each other in the field and not knowing what is going on or messing up some game camera traps they might have set. I have preferred solo field work but at times would certainly have preferred to have someone out there for mutual support. If you take a vehicle by yourself into some areas you are pretty much at the mercy of vehicle reliability once you are out of cell phone range. I have been in that situation for most of my field work. Probably not a prudent thing to do. There are clusters of us in certain areas and there is little reason I can come up with for being isolationist field researchers. I guess some people think they are going to catch the golden ring and don't want to share the prize. A better way to look at it is if there are two of you, and you have an encounter, it just becomes twice as believable.
  24. 1 point
    Right. And failure to control via inadequate vetting likely comes with liability. When those issues have been addressed, the result looks just like every other bigfoot research group's web site and investigation "team". Rather than reinventing the wheel and starting with zero reports, it's more productive to join one of the groups and assist them. They've likely got mounds of reports needing investigating, mounds of raw data you may access as an investigator for deriving trends, and so on, plus having access to people with experience investigating and probably subject matter experts in various investigation / documentation techniques like track casting, finger printing, tracking, and so on. MIB
  25. 1 point
    Right, it could most definitely bring something to the effort, or at least, as they say in Jersey: Couldn't hoit. BUUUUT... here's the obstacle: I haven't done any kind of review of the BFRO database to quantify this, but my experience is that usually you have many days (Weeks? Months? YEARS?!!) between the sighting and the report. That is just how it is with people who see something this astounding and unexpected. They typically need a long, long time to process it. OTOH, the guy who sees one and says, "Oh, look at that. A Sasquatch" probably already has all the tools he needs to do a competent follow-up and probably wouldn't avail himself of resources that might let his personal cat out of the bag either.
This leaderboard is set to New York/GMT-04:00
×