Questions From A New Enthusiast!

[Cotter]

Hi 16!

 

All good questions and ones many folks struggle with.

 

All I can say is to keep digging into it and make your own decision.  Here on the BFF you will find a huge diversity of opinions on the creatures existence, abilities, and origins.  Something for everybody really.

 

Regarding your whoops.  I cannot stress enough to familiarize yourself with the owls in your area, along with other 'critters' that may make similar noises (fox comes to mind).

 

My interest in the subject really exploded when, over the years, I met several folks whom I now know very well that had up close, prolonged encounters. 

 

In the end, the phenomena interests me to no end.  Be it a social construct or a real creature.

 

Enjoy, have fun, and don't let anyone rain on your parade!
 

:-)

Edited September 30, 2015 by Cotter

[Terry]

Well as a new enthusiast how many BFRO reports have you read online?

 

If you haven't read this one,  you are missing something:

 

http://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_report.asp?id=33257

 

Yes, I checked the weather records and it was at least -37 below F in one of the local reporting stations about this date.

 

Three feet of snow, it's dragging a bull elk and no one thought of tracks or tracking?  Sounds funny to me.

 

t.

[ExTrumpet]

1) yes...... Patty is the best single piece of evidence. Reports vary to the point that some claim multiple species.

2) Not necessarily..... see answer 1

3) completely unknown. Must be heaps if you believe all of the reports.

4) a camera

 

LOL at #4!!  I was thinking the same thing!

Also, to the OP...never assume nobody else could possibly out in the woods as far as you are.  After all, you made it out there.  

 

The whoop?  Could be a bird--or another person that saw/heard you and thought they just saw a squatch.

 

To prove a new species, one must first eliminate the known species!

[Guest]

I have read a lot of BFRO and NAWAC reports but I tend to read only about the ones in Texas. I havent branched out to other states yet. Obviously i am interested in anything that goes on in my area especially and have read every single report probably more than once.

 

As far as that day when I heard it my first thoughts were bigfoot researchers and I never gave it a second thought.  Because I never gave it a second thought until a few months later I wasnt aware of my surroundings and if the forest was quiet or not.  Bigfoot wasnt even a thought back then so I didnt react at all to it other than thinking that it was weird that the researchers only made one whoop and that was it. And how in the heck did they get all the way back here where I was at. I was really expecting to hear knocks and whistles and more whoops but never did.  I sat in that location for a few more hours I believe. No cars were present anywhere on any roads when I left so if there were people there they left before I did. I had watched a few bigfoot show like everyone else but I hadnt really given it a serious thought of its existence nor did I give it a second thought that day of it being a possible BF. 

 

 

I am very familiar with the TexLa site since that is where the researcher I have talked to is associated with and yes the Texas and LA whoops are very similar to what I heard.  Except those sounds are way off in the distance and the whoop I heard was not very far from me. It is hard to judge distance but within a few hundred yards for sure because it was clear and distinct. I was near the end of Forest trail 208A in the SHNF by Stubblefield REc Area and the sound came from the direction of West Sandy Creek which was about 100 yards away from my ground blind at the time. There are  dozens of reports from this exact area.

 

Last year I found this tree structure while exploring new areas for pigs.  My reason for being out in these woods is to hunt pigs so I am constantly looking for tracks.  So far I have not seen any BF tracks but then again I have been looking for pig tracks and not even thinking about BF tracks. When I saw this tree structure everything changed for me. This is when in my mind I started thinking "WTF".  That day when I found that tree structure I was very creeped out and was very uncomfortable in those woods. I can remember telling myself this place is creepy and I dont want to be here. I said this long before I found this structure. After I found this I went straight back to the truck and never went back to that area.

 

The camera probably is the best defense against bigfoot for sure.  LOL

 

Now my thoughts are in how do I want to approach it this year.  Am I going to hunt both pigs with a rifle and BF with a camera?  Should I think about making a distinctive call everytime I go in those woods and leave an apple or something?

 

I am a few months away still but I need to figure this all out and have a game plan come February when I do most of my pig/BF hunting.

 

Thanks to everyone for their input I hope to learn a lot from all of you in the months to come

 

 

 

[Guest WesT]

Nice double arch. I like how they come in from opposite directions. In the 3rd pic down I see another arch closer to the ground and pinned in a different direction than the main double arch.

Anyway, we have a thread here dedicated to the subject of tree and wood manipulation. If you'd post the pics there we can all post our thoughts and you can add to the pile.

[FarArcher]

 

Well as a new enthusiast how many BFRO reports have you read online?

 

If you haven't read this one,  you are missing something:

 

http://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_report.asp?id=33257

 

Yes, I checked the weather records and it was at least -37 below F in one of the local reporting stations about this date.

 

Three feet of snow, it's dragging a bull elk and no one thought of tracks or tracking?  Sounds funny to me.

 

t.

 

The guy was just a tow truck driver, and it was dark and cold with a bit of snow on the ground.  He saw enough to know he didn't want any part of it.

 

I wouldn't go after it, track it, or take the time to document the drag marks either.  Especially at night.  Besides, it was long gone in minutes.

 

The State Trooper didn't give two hoots either.

 

When we had our ongoing exposures, we certainly weren't in the mood for seeing where they went as we were suddenly preoccupied with heading the other way.

 

I understand, sorta, that some folks are mighty enthusiastic about these things - but a few of us who've been there - aren't.

 

I'm not going after one unless there's a paycheck in it.  Saw all I needed to.

[Incorrigible1]

 

The guy was just a tow truck driver, and it was dark and cold with a bit of snow on the ground.  He saw enough to know he didn't want any part of it.

 

I wouldn't go after it, track it, or take the time to document the drag marks either.  Especially at night.  Besides, it was long gone in minutes.

 

The drag marks in the snow weren't there, the next day?

Edited October 2, 2015 by Incorrigible1

[Guest DWA]

 

Well as a new enthusiast how many BFRO reports have you read online?

 

If you haven't read this one,  you are missing something:

 

http://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_report.asp?id=33257

 

Yes, I checked the weather records and it was at least -37 below F in one of the local reporting stations about this date.

 

Three feet of snow, it's dragging a bull elk and no one thought of tracks or tracking?  Sounds funny to me.

 

t.

 

"It was about 40 below zero I was cold and scared so i loaded up and got back to town."

 

Two reasons, bam bam, rapid fire, one sentence.  Besides which the elk probably rubbed out the sasquatch's tracks.

 

When people have seen something that they flat know isn't real, they don't all of a sudden go tracker.  That's an armchair luxury that frequently fails to occur to laymen in the field.

[bipedalist]

I will say it sounded like conditions were fairly brutal, yet elk were crossing roads, same old same old to those used to such weather.   When you are on your own in that weather and dependent on an internal combustion engine you don't make excuses to stay out longer than you have to at night.  I do not remember the wind conditions but my idea was there was drifting snow and couloirs or canyons about, tracking something like that  even in daylight could be fraught with hazards if you were not expert in snowshoes and such.   Plus, where does something surviving 40 below zero conditions that can drag a bull elk by one arm, hole up during the daytime?   I'm not sure I would want to venture out to find out. 

Edited October 2, 2015 by bipedalist

[OkieFoot]

I think another big reason for no tracking is called "three feet of snow". To follow the drag line would mean trying to walk through 3' of snow. Imagine sinking almost to your hips, or deeper with each step; even the creature's feet didn't clear the snow. Imagine how long it would take a person to go even a short distance and how exhausting it would be.

[Guest JiggyPotamus]

-No fossils found.  

 

This is not necessarily true. You have to recognize the fact that we have no idea "what" bigfoot actually are. They could easily be an already-recognized species of extinct primate for which we have fossils, which would mean that every time a bigfoot fossil is discovered it is not recognized as a bigfoot fossil. A distinction must be made between a fossil and a bone however. We should be looking for more modern evidence of bigfoot, or bones. Fossils are formed in a handful of different ways, but usually it takes quite a long time for any of them to occur. I think the basic fossils that most people think of when they hear the word are those in which a mineral-rich slush replaces the bone itself. These minerals may not actually replace the bone in some cases, instead filling up any voids within the substance it is permeating. What are the odds of finding bones or fossils of bigfoot if bigfoot are different from any known species of primate, thus ruling out misidentification of finds?

 

First we must remember the habitat of sasquatch. The soil is relatively acidic, the weather is harsh, especially where rain is concerned, and rain tends to set the outer layer of the earth moving; the climate shifts dramatically depending on the season, etc... All of these things, as well as many others, are going to have an effect on the level of preservation. For a fossil to form, the specimen usually must be covered up by earth, and over time a fossil forms. The soil within sasquatch habitat is simply not conducive to fossilization. There is a reason why fossil hunts are usually conducted in certain regions with certain climates, and there are no large-scale fossil hunts taking place in the habitat in which sasquatch live. So that is one reason.

 

We can just set aside the idea of finding fossils, and instead focus on bones, as these are more likely to be found where bigfoot are concerned, at least in my opinion. Why are we not picking up bigfoot bones throughout the forests where sasquatch resides? The main reason is the nature of forestland itself. Aside from those factors I've already mentioned that make fossils hard to find, bones are also hard to find. They theoretically should be easier than fossils, simply because fossil formation requires more steps, while bones need only be deposited and then discovered. The greatest hurdle is probably the lack of visibility. The majority of the forest floor is covered in some type of plant, tree, leaf, or grass- both alive and dead. In the bigfoot habitat here in Texas where I live, pine needles often litter the spots that otherwise would have exposed soil. It is simply hard to spot something when covered so thoroughly, especially considering that bones are probably going to be buried relatively quickly. This means that the only real chance of finding sasquatch bones comes immediately after they are deposited. Considering the sheer square mileage versus the number of sasquatch, probability is not on our side. I believe this is the main explanation for the lack of bones where bigfoot is concerned, although there are others as well, but I need to move on.

 

-Not much in photographic evidence that is convincing other than the PGF. And that was 50 plus years ago.

 

I wholeheartedly disagree with you here. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of bigfoot images and videos. Who is to say whether they look convincing? I have seen a sasquatch in the flesh, and half of the time I cannot tell whether a video or picture actually depicts an authentic bigfoot. Therefore I believe that others have the same difficulty. The truth is that there is absolutely no way an image or video can be definitive, mainly because they are subjective. What looks convincing to one person may not look very convincing to another. There are those who think the PGF subject looks fake, although you say it is convincing. So you can see the problem. Anyway, this is not really a good argument against the existence of bigfoot for these reasons.

 

-No body.

This goes along with the lack of bones. I did not mention that scavengers will scatter bones inadvertently when they descend on a food source like a dead bigfoot body. This same action will cause the body itself to disappear extremely quickly, leaving only bones. Given that sasquatch tend to stick to thickly forested areas that are not well-frequented by humans, it stands to reason that they will also tend to die in such remote areas. Scavengers can find them much more easily than humans. It is unlikely for a sasquatch to just keel over. If it is sickly to the point of death, it is going to be holed up somewhere in my opinion. Many animals do this instinctively, and I have witnessed it more than once in different animals. The best place for a sasquatch body to be discovered is on the highway. Why we have no evidence of this sort I do not know. I would guess that the police get involved, and that they do not receive permission to go public with the evidence. They would probably attempt to move up the chain of command, going up to the governmental level, in an effort to report their find, and the order to remain silent would most definitely come from a higher level of this nature. Then again, they may keep it under wraps simply because they believe people will panic if they knew such massive primates were patrolling the woods of North America. I could be wrong, but knowing bigfoot exists, there MUST be an explanation for the lack of bodies.

 

-Lots of tracks

 

Not only lots of tracks, but lots of unique tracks that depict characteristics that a hoaxer would not be familiar with, especially decades ago. There have also been indications of biological modifications suited to the sasquatch foot itself, and which are not only unique to sasquatch, but which make sense from a biological point of view. Something a hoaxer would not include.

 

-thousands of eyewitnesses and reports (They cant all be hoaxes or misidentifications can they?)

 

The odds of all sighting reports being hoaxes is astronomical. There was a mathematical analysis performed some time ago which supplied a mathematical proof of this concept. It is more likely for sasquatch to exist than for all reports to be hoaxes or misidentifications.

 

-lots of hoaxers.

 

We don't really know how many hoaxes have been pulled off, but something I've learned is that the majority of hoaxes are obvious, at least where video and imagery is concerned. They are just so obviously fake as to expose themselves as hoaxes immediately. But again, the hoaxes do not even matter considering the near mathematical certainty that all reports cannot be hoaxes.

 

-some people think I am crazy when I talk about it

 

This is because such people do not have a scientific mind, and are closed-minded not only to the facts, but to the possibility itself. No one should be closed-minded where the possibility of bigfoot is concerned, even if they do not believe that the animals exist. So know you are on the logical side of the argument.

 

- I have talked to a few people with experiences and they are dead serious about it and have no doubt what they saw. (Could all of them being lying? No way and why would they?)

 

Again, probability says that this is highly unlikely. Having seen a bigfoot, I have no doubt myself.

[Patterson-Gimlin]

↑ Great detailed explanation. I always enjoy your posts. They are long but, not rambling on. I may not agree with all of it, but you are a thinker and polite about it. So, thanks.

[OkieFoot]

 

 

The guy was just a tow truck driver, and it was dark and cold with a bit of snow on the ground.  He saw enough to know he didn't want any part of it.

 

I wouldn't go after it, track it, or take the time to document the drag marks either.  Especially at night.  Besides, it was long gone in minutes.

 

The drag marks in the snow weren't there, the next day?

 

 

I think he was referring to the creature was gone and out of sight in minutes.

[Guest insanity42]

To add to JiggyPotamus's post, soil pH does have a major impact on bone preservation. Bones are mostly calcium phosphate and undergo dissolution in low pH environments.
Any soil with a pH 6 or less starts to reduce the chances of finding complete bones. A pH <5 seems to be a threshold where at a pH 5, about 40% of the bone may be absent, at a pH 4.5, it is closer to 90%.  At a pH 4, virtually no bones will be complete.  How long this takes is the question I've been looking into.

 

If you look at a soil map of the Washington area, specifically the North Pacific region, which includes Seattle, the Olympic Peninsula, about even portions of the soil is pH 5-6, with some small areas being pH 4.  It really is not a good environment for long-time bone preservation.

 

Decomposition can occur fairly quickly, even for a creature the size of a black bear.  During the summer months, a black bear can go from a fresh carcass to virtually just the skin and bones and some dried flesh within 2 months.  Overall it is still intact, but once the majority of the flesh is gone, the bones may start to dissolve.

[Incorrigible1]

 

 

 

The guy was just a tow truck driver, and it was dark and cold with a bit of snow on the ground.  He saw enough to know he didn't want any part of it.

 

I wouldn't go after it, track it, or take the time to document the drag marks either.  Especially at night.  Besides, it was long gone in minutes.

 

The drag marks in the snow weren't there, the next day?

 

 

I think he was referring to the creature was gone and out of sight in minutes.

 

Maybe so. Wouldn't it be wonderful to daylight track the path of supposed bf? Gee, what a novel idear (deliberately misspelled). But no, no followup on a fresh trail.