Parachuting In_Setting Compass Out

[norseman]

I'm not getting the whole "so they can't hear you thing." Hiking or riding in, setting up camp, getting firewood, talking, laughing, the noise you make around a camp, to me that would be like a magnet to draw in a curious critter...

That holds the initiative........

[BobbyO]

Why don't just drive to the cabin that NAWAC uses if you want to see a BF (or shoot one).

Based on the analysis of SSR database for WA, my recollection is that in the Olympic Peninsula (a hot spot), most BF sightings (~19%) took place from a car on the road.

Not sure you need to go deep into the wilderness, unless you know where they sleep.

I've got 39% of Olympic Peninsula actual visual sightings being when the witness is driving Explorer.

That number drops to 36% statewide.

The majority of those, normally around the 60%-70% mark, are in daylight hours too.

Monster numbers IMO.

Edited April 6, 2015 by BobbyO

[southernyahoo]

This is something that I personally have considered doing, but as age has caught up with a bit, it is likely that I wouldn't survive all the dangers that would be encountered. Using this technique as a means to get proof of bf existence would be very unlikely, but for me, their are many more reasons to consider it. The area that appeals to me is SE Alaska and gold prospecting, bf, and personal challenge are the things that would drive me. A general outline of what the costs, time, experience, training, and planning to give myself a decent chance of surviving simply are too steep at this point in my life.

To consider doing this as only a way of getting proof of bf seems a bit over the top and there are much less costly and dangerous ways of getting to remote areas. UPs

 

You could maybe get Bear Grylls to go with you for another survival style bigfoot quest series. He likes to drop in like this. The funding and training would likely be covered by the network carrier.

[norseman]

^^^^^^^^^

i busted him on his own forum for his fraud in the idaho backcountry "drop in".

just so happened that his film and mine were shot about 20 feet from each other, while we were standing on a forest service road at the stoddard creek trailhead.

[Explorer]

Why don't just drive to the cabin that NAWAC uses if you want to see a BF (or shoot one).

 

Based on the analysis of SSR database for WA, my recollection is that in the Olympic Peninsula (a hot spot), most BF sightings (~19%) took place from a car on the road. 

Not sure you need to go deep into the wilderness, unless you know where they sleep.

 

 

I've got 39% of Olympic Peninsula actual visual sightings being when the witness is driving Explorer.

That number drops to 36% statewide.

The majority of those, normally around the 60%-70% mark, are in daylight hours too.

Monster numbers IMO.

 

BobbyO,

 

I got the 19% from the analysis I did last December on the 140 cases from OP whereas the activity of the witness was broken down per table below (using the codes from SSR).

 

Maybe the 39% number you are getting adds up the "Normal Activity at Home" or other items? 

 

We should be getting the same number, since we are using same source.

 

If we add driving + normal activity at home + playing children we get 40.8%, which is a large number as you state and comes to show that people don't need to be in the middle of the wilderness to see a BF in the OP.

[NathanFooter]

So just become a super outdoors person,lol. No joke, it can be cheaper living that sort of life style anyway if you know what you are doing, it is simply having the physical and mental ability to take it on.

[SWWASAS]

I'm not getting the whole "so they can't hear you thing." Hiking or riding in, setting up camp, getting firewood, talking, laughing, the noise you make around a camp, to me that would be like a magnet to draw in a curious critter...

I think most weekend campers are not in a place long enough to really draw BF in. Those researchers that frequent the same camping situations and have interaction with BF say that it takes a couple of days before the BF will approach very close at all. If you think about it the BF need to know the people and trust that if they approach they will not be shot. They probably observe from a safe distance for a couple of days before approaching camp. There are some camp situations dangerous for even nearby humans if liquor and firearms are involved.

[Trogluddite]

....The main point of it would be so they have less a chance of hearing you coming, if any are there. Jump then hike a little instead of hiking a ton would equal less noise.

 

Except the crashing through the forest canopy part, or the cutting yourself loose and having to get out of the tree part, both of which could be rather noisy. And since 'chutes are expensive, you now have the added weight of your 'chutes and jump gear to pack out. 

 

I've got 39% of Olympic Peninsula actual visual sightings being when the witness is driving Explorer.

That number drops to 36% statewide.

The majority of those, normally around the 60%-70% mark, are in daylight hours too.

Monster numbers IMO.

 

 

BobbyO,

 

I got the 19% from the analysis I did last December on the 140 cases from OP whereas the activity of the witness was broken down per table below (using the codes from SSR).

 

If we add driving + normal activity at home + playing children we get 40.8%, which is a large number as you state and comes to show that people don't need to be in the middle of the wilderness to see a BF in the OP.

 

BobbyO and Explorer, 

 

Out of 424 NY/WV/PA & "states that don't really count" encounters where I have information on the witness's activity, 

 

100 (23.6%) were driving or walking on a road.  Of these 26 were daytime encounters. This number rises to 42 if you include dusk and dawn encounters.

 

An additional 100 encounters involved people engaged in normal activities in or around their home or farm.  43 of these encounters occurred during the day; this number rises to 54 if you include dusk and dawn encounters.

[BobbyO]

Just to clarify on the board, my numbers are from just Class A reports whereas Explorer's are from Class A and B reports, hence the different numbers.

Good stuff as always Trog..

If I add the "normal activity at home" and "playing - children" to the Class A reports ( actual visual sightings ) the number rises to 63%.

63% of all actual visual sighting on the Olympic Peninsula are either when the witness is driving, doing a normal activity at home or are just regular children playing.

[Trogluddite]

Of 424 encounters where a Bigfoot has been seen and I've classified the witness (or witnesses) activity, 149 are driving (and a few walking) on a road or are engaged in normal activities at home.  That's 35% of my encounters that I've classified. 

 

You don't have to be deep in the woods to have an encounter, although, the odds of having an encounters are still in line with the odds of winning the lottery whilst simultaneously being hit by a fatal bolt of lightning.   

[Guest]

I think most weekend campers are not in a place long enough to really draw BF in. Those researchers that frequent the same camping situations and have interaction with BF say that it takes a couple of days before the BF will approach very close at all. If you think about it the BF need to know the people and trust that if they approach they will not be shot. They probably observe from a safe distance for a couple of days before approaching camp. There are some camp situations dangerous for even nearby humans if liquor and firearms are involved.

 

I don't believe but 1 of every 10 persons on this forum has a snowballs chance of sneaking up on this, or any elusive critter.

 

If you believe in the PG film, which I believe is authentic, take a look at what they did. They were on horseback. Mountain horses travel quieter than humans. Patterson and Gimlen were both cowboys. Well worn saddles and equipment. I doubt any of their equipment was squeaking, jingling, or making noise. Being that they were hunting, so to speak, they were probably not speaking either, being very quiet in their approach. It looked like a lot of sand and dirt had been moved in the previous flood of Bluff Creek, so their horses were probably walking in sand or dirt when they startled Patty with their stealthy approach. The way they did it is probably the best way. It just so happened it basically was the only way, and they most familiar way they had of covering ground looking for a bigfoot.

 

Riding up and surprising an elusive nocturnal rare creature is a 1 in a million shot, and not only did they pull it off, they had a film camera.

 

Your average researcher probably doesn't have this ability to pull this off.

[norseman]

i dont think horses are quieter I think humans are. BUT, the noise they make is that of a quadraped and not a biped......and I think that is key. Its noise camouflage.

[Guest]

Well broke trail horses are quiet. The key is how much ground they can cover. You can come up on something or someone fairly quietly, and quickly. 2 or more humans walking together in the mountains always have to talk. Do you know how far a human voice carries in the wilderness? I do, and I think you do as well. I can promise you P&G were riding quietly, not talking. Patty heard the horses approach, but by then it was too late....

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

The creek would have also drowned out the sound of footsteps. Coming around the bend of a creek like that will catch any animal by surprise.

[BobbyO]

I don't believe there would have been much surprise Ontario, as Norseman pointed out they were quadruped foot steps and not bipedal anyway.

That is key.

If she heard the horse's coming, or at least the quadruple steps which I believe she would have done, the only surprise to her was for what was sitting on top of them.