Has Bigfoot Science Stalled?

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

 

 

The type that I enjoy is the person who has learned interesting facts and mastered a field of knowledge and is sharing that and synthesizing new knowledge that was previously unavailable to me.

CM

What if there are people out there who do have this knowledge but have no idea how to give this knowledge? We all do not know every thing, that would just be way to arrogant. But we do have experience and that is knowledge that is gain in the field. There is a difference between the two knowledges that I am talking about. Sure we have those book smart people and do not think that they are not important. There minds are nothing but data, filled with knowledge that you are not going to find on a computer.

 

Right now bigfoot is like big market as far as mechandize goes, books are writen that furthers research. People are coming out to meetings and listening about Bigfoot. Yet Bigfoot feels like it is in a stand still, I would call it a stall. You know the type where you have to push the nose of the plane forward and recover. That type of stall, where people are tired of the same ol bs. I am kinda of tired of the same ol ting as well. What we step in to the woods to find tracks and then what reported to be ragged on. Why ? because it is the same ol evidence that keeps getting found time after time. Nothing new Right ! Science Stall

 

You know I thought that it would up the game with the yeti evidence in science. But it did nothing but prove that bears do live high in the Hymyalayas. So again at square one.

 

Speaking of Yeti, I read a book about escapees from the Gulags going overland in Tibet and seeing two up close for a prolonged encounter (hours) at close distance on a snow field. Interestingly right before the encounter they had found high altitude caves in valleys so remote they were only used in summer by sheepherders, the caves were big enough that they kept the whole herd of sheep in them, even further into the passes and peaks there were valleys and caves that were never used by man. Bigfoot has to be sheltering somewhere. looks like prime habitat.

In keeping with  a myth of the Yeti that iy you see one someone from your group will die, they found the Yeti blocking the route and the Yeti would not move or even turn around and look at them when they yelled. The Yeti seemed to be tempting them to come closer. The had to seek an alternate and more dangerous route and very soon one of their party lost his footing and fell through a narrow pass many thousands of feet to his death, the body was never found. 

Great book, I posted the account in some previous thread.

Edited June 13, 2016 by Cryptic Megafauna

[BigTreeWalker]

I know, Bigfoot ! 

Can't tell if that's sarcasm or not but the possibility is very likely. With no easy access in an area that's within just a few miles of many sighting reports. With wood knocking experiences in the area. Tracks found and in the general area of two of the bone finds; yes the possibility is very likely. So sarcasm aside, a hard place to access but a good place to look. During the summer of course, because of inaccessibility in the winter. Food sources would also be at a lower elevation in the winter.

Hi Hiflier, didn't see your posts on hillsides or slopes. Yes we did find an ambush point on a steep slope. As for canines and predation. I would look for cougar, bear or wolf feeding behavior first before going to bigfoot or his relatives.

[hiflier]

georgerm: See what I mean?

@ CM: yes you did respond. I thought they were good solid topics. Evidently many disagreed. Since the science of Sasquatch is almost as elusive as the creature itself what is left is how WE put the picture together with what we have. Working more with databases helps greatly in helping to fine tune those details but the Forum isn't a work study environment- it's a discussion environment. Research isn't done here; it is brought here. If discussion works on the small details the bigger picture might fall into place. But detailed discussion is tedious.

Another thing is the younger generation is the get-information-now generation and so are less inclined perhaps to have the staying power that this kind of research requires. I get that and have no issues there and so don't expect them to slow down enough to work out those details. Much has come from "the old guard" but there is more to do. I've tried to elicit help on the late John Green's database in the past to do just that- no takers. The BFF these days for me therefore is only entertainment. Information comes in and I read it and say, "So?". BigTreeWalker is one of a couple of exceptions like SWWA to that which is why I check in.

It's even been quiet on the GF right now which is earlier in the summer than usual. It was probably inevitable that the subject would hit a wall every now and then even though some keep trying to push things forward. Gonna be a long summer on the BFF if this keeps up. Me? I'm almost out of new ways to look at the Sasquatch subject and need to go back to the databases for fresh ideas.

[hiflier]

BTW, Thanks and good observations coming from you I the field. Question if I may: I have suggested in the past that camera traps might be deployed looking down or along a stream or small creek bed that runs under a bridge of tall culvert. The thinking being it would keep the creature low and avoid having to cross a road. As far as slopes go, your experience may inform you better regarding good ambush set ups. I'm thinking not just slopes that go up from a trail or clearing but also slopes that go up to a trail from say a creek bed or pond. Strategically one would thing the steeper the better.

If Sasquatch has speed, size, and power on it's side then I would reason that running down game by forcing them to run up-slope would be more successful than the other way round. Ambushing by going down slope gives the prey too many advantages in speed and maneuverability. IMO the perfect ambush would be driving game uphill to a waiting member of the party.

My apologies georgerm, this is more logistics than science but it does seem like a sort of science regarding a methodology for discovery. I will try to do better.

Edited June 13, 2016 by hiflier

[BigTreeWalker]

Hiflier, the up slope idea makes sense. The spot we found was an ambush because we found the hair and later the bones. However, I don't know if the elk was going up or down. Any evidence of that was long gone.

Logistics is a big part of doing science. If something isn't working (there seems to be a lot of that in the bigfoot world), then we need to determine other ways to do things. I think the biggest problem is underestimating these creatures.

The idea with the bridges or culverts and cams is a good one. The places where I do my research are such low traffic areas that a road crossing would seldom be noticed. However, one huge possibility is the crossing from the Cascades to the Olympics. That is an Interstate 5 crossing. If they are doing that, and there is evidence that they are, what would be a strategic location for camera traps? Figuring that out and instituting it would be science at work.

[ShadowBorn]

 

If Sasquatch has speed, size, and power on it's side then I would reason that running down game by forcing them to run up-slope would be more successful than the other way round. Ambushing by going down slope gives the prey too many advantages in speed and maneuverability. IMO the perfect ambush would be driving game uphill to a waiting member of the party.

I have seen deer run up some good size slopes that there would be no way of myself catching them. If it was Bigfoot I would speculate that this deer would of been dropped at the top of the slope by another creature. I also have found spots where they might have waited for deer to come through and ambush them. Which by the way is also on a slope, but them looking down.

 

How I see this spot of them looking down is that it makes it perfect. The subject cannot be seen from the trail below. The sublect on top has all the advantage by seeing down ward and taking it's prey by surprise. What I never placed was the rocks that were being found along game trails. I never accepted that but have always heard of them throwing rocks. Sure my son has had little rocks thrown at him and this to me is harmless. I have had acorns thrown where there should not be no acorns. Then I have heard of others having been thrown big rocks at them but being missed by inches. Now this might be theory, but in my case I truely believe they walk around with a rock in there hand, and a nice size one too. It left one on a log next to my tent while i was sleeping. So do they ambush prey ? I think the evidence of them being able to throw large rocks , say's they do. IMHO

 

CM

The thing about Yeti is that they also learned about the people of Nepal. How they are able to live in that enviorment of lack of oxygen. Which brings up the question about these creatures, Do they need high altitudes to survive ?

[SWWASAS]

I think BF hunting may be based on at times on ambush.   Based on one of my experiences I think it likely that BF hunt in at least groups of two.   Maybe not all the time but perhaps some of the time  when more than one is present.   I was intent on flushing and getting a visual on a BF I heard moving around back in a creek draw and kept pressing forward to get it to move and break cover.   I would hear it making deep foot thuds as if it was moving tree to tree just keeping out of sight as I slowly advanced towards it.    As I played that game, one flanked me and got behind me.   I heard absolutely nothing from the side or behind.     I had no idea what was really going on or that one was behind me until the one in front gave me a big growl and the one behind me broke a large branch or tree with a huge crack.       I got the idea and backed out quickly.     Those tactics on the part of BF really scared me because I realized that the BF in front might have been making noise to draw me in so the other could get behind me.    I was just inside the tree line in the area and so maybe the one that flanked me needed cover to move behind.     I very well could have been set up for an ambush for all I know.      That tactics were so indicative of intelligence, that two trained humans, could not have done better.     I like to relate this experience to the pro kill people that sometimes think BF is always solitary.   You may be tracking a BF but one might be right behind you. 

Edited June 13, 2016 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[Guest WesT]

A common theme in the ambush is the directing of the herd. The open air type is probably the most commonly used. It would cost more in calories to operate the open air type, but the upside would be they're easier to construct and maintain, and they'd be less prone to discovery.  Ambush site #2 was open air and it took a while to figure out a possible theory of how it worked. I know the objective was to coral the deer and then spook them into running over the downed tree log and then step into the cinder block to break it's leg. A different method could be used to break the leg if a cinder block isn't around.

[aether-drift]

Considering the ungodly stench often associated with sasquatch has anybody considering the downside of this when hunting deer or elk?

 

Their sense of smell is 500-1,000 times more acute than humans.

 

Not sure of the consequences, but if bigfoot are half as malodorous as reported, then prey animals likely know to avoid sasquattle and would not have much difficulty in doing so.

 

Just an observation.

[hiflier]

Hiflier, the up slope idea makes sense. The spot we found was an ambush because we found the hair and later the bones. However, I don't know if the elk was going up or down. Any evidence of that was long gone.

Logistics is a big part of doing science. If something isn't working (there seems to be a lot of that in the bigfoot world), then we need to determine other ways to do things. I think the biggest problem is underestimating these creatures.

The idea with the bridges or culverts and cams is a good one. The places where I do my research are such low traffic areas that a road crossing would seldom be noticed. However, one huge possibility is the crossing from the Cascades to the Olympics. That is an Interstate 5 crossing. If they are doing that, and there is evidence that they are, what would be a strategic location for camera traps? Figuring that out and instituting it would be science at work.

Even if the evidence is long gone you have reinforced the point a bit by stating that there are slopes round the kill site?

And as far as I-5 goes I agree. There has been some discussion about frequency of sightings on Rt. 12 IIRC. My hunch is the East/West route would begin North of Mt St. Helens and then stay North of the Toutle River going West. It might take several weeks to research the actual cross under point at I-5 but I dare say it probably wouldn't be a cross over point. There a location maybe along the ten mile stretch between where the Toutle River moves under the highway and North to the Rogers Rd overpass. From there a river crossing and a west route to the pacific. I really think the way would be South of Toledo anyway and once on the West side simply follow the natural signs left from the last time?

 

I can see how sightings on Rt. 12 could have a higher count in that area between Aberdeen and Centralia to the West and South respectively and Olympia to the North. It's almost the only way through. to the Olympics. A lot more could be done to narrow this down but it might be a good starting point. I'm sure there are more places to cross under I-5 but it's what's on the other side after the crossing that matters. I'm saying that even in ancient times I think getting North of the Toutle River first would be key to going further West from the Mt. St. Helens area. I'd say to concentrate more on good crossing points along Rt. 12. I would also like to suggest summering in the Cascades and wintering in the more temperate Olympics. More on that aspect later. Just my two rocks worth.

Edited June 14, 2016 by hiflier

[BigTreeWalker]

With all the sightings on Rt 12 east of I5 between Randle and Packwood I would think the crossing of I5 would be north of the Cowlitz river. But I don't know if it would be north or south of the Centralia/Chehalis area. My bet is north considering all the Thurston County sightings. Another thing to consider are any sightings on the roads paralleling I5 to the west. Also my two rocks worth.

[BigTreeWalker]

Sorry double post.

Edited June 14, 2016 by BigTreeWalker

[BobbyO]

I've got some great heat maps to add to this general theme BTW and H and these routes in general.

I'll dig them out and add them to the thread when I get some time, which I'm afraid may not be in the next 48 hours.

[BobbyO]

Considering the ungodly stench often associated with sasquatch has anybody considering the downside of this when hunting deer or elk?

 

Their sense of smell is 500-1,000 times more acute than humans.

 

Not sure of the consequences, but if bigfoot are half as malodorous as reported, then prey animals likely know to avoid sasquattle and would not have much difficulty in doing so.

 

Just an observation.

They don't smell all the time.

There's a d cent argument out there that champions the bad smell coming from scent glands like gorillas.

If so, they would have on and off buttons.

[BobbyO]

I moan that my memory can be bad at times with what's currently being reatained in it, but there are times when a little something jigs it positively..

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/12358-wa-interstate-5/?hl=culvert#entry564491

I asked this because I started to find the correlations in movement that I did in the general area.

I also asked this before I found what I believe is to be an indication of Olympics/South Cascades area movement and a general area that has been said by local residents to be believed to be used as a kind of possible/potential breeding area due to some of the local activity there including, and I'd rather not think about this, some very disturbing vocalizations.

Edited June 14, 2016 by BobbyO