hiflier Posted October 30, 2013 Author Posted October 30, 2013 (edited) Hello zenmonkey, I did see the toungue-in-cheek LOL. BTW I've been meaning to mention that your avatar cracks me up! It's a good one Edited October 30, 2013 by hiflier
indiefoot Posted October 30, 2013 Posted October 30, 2013 I'd like to rig up a vehicle with a four channel DVR and four really high quality, low light cameras. One forward, one back and one to each side. Then cruise around slow like, playing music through a sound system on the roof.
hiflier Posted October 31, 2013 Author Posted October 31, 2013 (edited) Hello indiefoot, Now that would be a fine way to enjoy a drive in the country. Keep a close watch though if you decide to play a recording of children playing though. I've read that Sasquatch are attracted to children's voices or their laughter. Harmonicas or recorders are another sound that reports say coincide with sightings. Do you have any road reports that you have read from your area? Edited October 31, 2013 by hiflier
indiefoot Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 This was a few miles north of me. http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=38440
Hammer102492 Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 Settin by the fire and all is quiet except for me listening to the Godspell record from the 70s. I think I am an old hippie. Not scared of Sqautch tonight and that's a good thing.
hiflier Posted October 31, 2013 Author Posted October 31, 2013 Hello All OK, I have followed BobbyO's lead and looked at the JWG database for "road" info. After breaking out the data into four columns: on road, near road, beside road, and crossing road, then adding them together, the percentage of "road" encounters amounts to about 2o% of the total sightings reports. 611- on the road, 166- beside the road, 16- crossing the road, 11- in the road, and 4- near the road for a total of 808 road encounters out of 4,068 reports. "on" and "in" the road to me is the same thing, as is "beside" and "near", but not being at the encounter locations means that distinguishing things like "beside" and "near" needs to be kept separate to maintain the integrity of the database IMO.
hiflier Posted October 31, 2013 Author Posted October 31, 2013 (edited) Hello indiefoot, This was a few miles north of me. http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=38440 Thank you, I appreciate you bringing tht into the thread, and Hammer 102492 you too, and you seem to be having quite an enjoyable evening for yourself there. Me? I'm just bangin' out numbers on the JWGD, WHOOP-DEE-DOO! Edited October 31, 2013 by hiflier
Guest zenmonkey Posted October 31, 2013 Posted October 31, 2013 I'd like to rig up a vehicle with a four channel DVR and four really high quality, low light cameras. One forward, one back and one to each side. Then cruise around slow like, playing music through a sound system on the roof. That'd be a good idea I've thought of that before. But you'd hafta jam black sabbath. I'd imagine they like that kinda stuff. Ok I dunno just being stupid. Lol. And thanks for the avatar compliment. Lol it's important not to take ourselves too seriously
hiflier Posted October 31, 2013 Author Posted October 31, 2013 (edited) Hello Hammer102492, ....The other people's sightiing was on SR39 near SR179, also near Nashville, Ohio. Hey thanks. Do me a favor if you would. Call up Google Earth and go to Nashville, OH. Then go to the intersection of SR39 and SR179. There are moments or elevations of viewing that will demonstrate quite clearly why researchers struggle for info. SR179 isn't a problem BUT SR39? Now that's another story. Depending on how one explores the countryside there the Road numbers will be different. Sometimes it's SR39 and sometimes it says the road is SR60? It took me a while to understand that until I zoomed once and saw the road number change; it never says both in the same viewing. Interesting. The change also doesn't seem to be elevation-oriented as I once thought. Edited October 31, 2013 by hiflier
hiflier Posted October 31, 2013 Author Posted October 31, 2013 (edited) Hello ItsAsquatch, Thank you very kindly and welcome to the madhouse LOL. Oh it can get interesting if one puts their mind to it in a way that more can get involved and take action for themselves. THAT'S when the fun begins. Hello Hammer102492, What is the JWGD? The John Willison Green Database. Edited October 31, 2013 by hiflier
Trogluddite Posted November 1, 2013 Posted November 1, 2013 Hello All OK, I have followed BobbyO's lead and looked at the JWG database for "road" info. After breaking out the data into four columns: on road, near road, beside road, and crossing road, then adding them together, the percentage of "road" encounters amounts to about 2o% of the total sightings reports. 611- on the road, 166- beside the road, 16- crossing the road, 11- in the road, and 4- near the road for a total of 808 road encounters out of 4,068 reports. "on" and "in" the road to me is the same thing, as is "beside" and "near", but not being at the encounter locations means that distinguishing things like "beside" and "near" needs to be kept separate to maintain the integrity of the database IMO. Hi, I've been using JWG to vet/cross-check reports more than as a source but I believe that he has columns for activity of the BF - its unlikely that a BF "on" or "in" the road is either directing traffic or standing there playing chicken w/oncoming traffic. Those latter columns might clarify whether the BF is moving across or along the road.
BobbyO Posted November 1, 2013 SSR Team Posted November 1, 2013 Hello AllOK, I have followed BobbyO's lead and looked at the JWG database for "road" info. After breaking out the data into four columns: on road, near road, beside road, and crossing road, then adding them together, the percentage of "road" encounters amounts to about 2o% of the total sightings reports.611- on the road, 166- beside the road, 16- crossing the road, 11- in the road, and 4- near the road for a total of 808 road encounters out of 4,068 reports."on" and "in" the road to me is the same thing, as is "beside" and "near", but not being at the encounter locations means that distinguishing things like "beside" and "near" needs to be kept separate to maintain the integrity of the database IMO. There's that 20% mark again.
Guest JiggyPotamus Posted November 1, 2013 Posted November 1, 2013 Well it should be noted that the large percentage of road sightings is not necessarily due to a larger number of sasquatch being near roads than anywhere else, but rather they are due to the larger percentage of potential observers on the road. I think it was to be expected that there would have been a flood of sightings when logging and road building really took off decades ago, and this is what seems to have occurred. Before that time, you didn't really have all that many people going out in those remote locations, at least not in large numbers. I am not certain as to whether your suggestion is correct, but it could be I suppose. Maybe the sasquatch begin using "trails" where roads are being built, before the asphalt is laid down. So when these roads truly are just dirt "trails." I have always maintained that sasquatch are not only to be found in extremely remote areas. Granted, the larger numbers of them will be found there, but they do venture out into areas near where people live. And even if they do prefer traversing forested regions that offer more cover, surely there are times when they would prefer a straight shot, without any impediments to their progress, and thus the actually travel on or near roads. And then there is the fact that there are many roads in sasquatch territory. It would be impossible for them to get to certain areas without crossing roads. Plus, they probably cross roads all the time, but I would bet they still haven't gotten used to vehicles. Some reports suggest that sasquatch have trouble judging the speed of these vehicles, or at least that is how I would interpret some of these reports. They just seem to behave strangely near roads, crossing near the most inopportune times. Of course the most inopportune time would be the time that got them hit, so I say "near" the most inopportune times. I mean people should not be seeing sasquatch crossing roads, if the sasquatch would just wait till the car was gone. So this is why I say there is something to be learned here about sasquatch.
Recommended Posts