Jump to content

Winter - Where Do They Go


Guest
 Share

Recommended Posts

I have no doubt there are hundreds of un reported accounts in Alaska.  sasquatchtracker.com (AK BF sight reports 272 cases - of reports).  Might be only 22 on BFRO web site, but thats not even the tip of the iceberg.   I'm sure most states can say the same.    I don't think most folks say anything if they have an encounter.  Some folks may have experienced BF close to them and not even realized whats going on, and shrug if off to a bear or moose.  You know how to gain 30 years of knowledge real fast?   Talk to a trapper that has worked and area for that long, or someone that has spent their life in a village and listen to them.   Some folks you talk with have amazing stuff to say......if you can listen.   You won't find it on the internet either.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Cryptic Megafauna

 

 

 

 

There are reports summer/fall of BF sightings here.  But very little in the winter, there are some, but the vast majority is when snow is gone.  Where do BF go?   They go somewhere.  I would think mountain pass routes would be used and not climbing over the Alaska Range from the interior would be prudent.   Around 2800 feet is tree line in the central Alaska Range, if I was a BF I would not go above tree line you would be seen in very short order.   That leaves traveling in along rivers in riparian habitat south, or staying in the boreal forest for cover.  Checking the map, (thanks Google Earth) the Alaska Hwy does that very thing.   That could mean there should be more sightings on that route than others.   Ha, this BF stuff is easy.  I checked reported sightings along the Alaska Hwy vrs the rest of the state.   All I can report here is there is a conglomeration of web sites and reports and my head was spinning by the time I looked at two web sites.   I suspect, that theory doesn’t hold true.  

 

When you play the game of connect the dots at some point things should start to make sense and straight lines should appear.   Not the case here.

I understand where you're coming from no doubt but for me, as there are reports from winter, that goes to show that they don't necessarily go nowhere.

We have to go back to the old "For a Sighting, you need a person".

Admittedly I have no experience of an Alaskan winter but I can't imagine there are too many people out in winter there as there would be in summer or at other times of the year anyway.

Flying, yeah ok tracks can be spotted from the air, trackways can, but I wouldn't personally bank on a lack of reports by pilots leading me to believe that Sasquatches aren't there, especially not when we are talking about an Alaska with 129 million forested acres.

David Badorf (sp??) of the squatchers lounge podcast had a nice map of migratory patterns for the suspected prey animals for sasquatches (for PNW area).

It seemed at least plausible that, if they are corporeal animals, they might shadow those migratory routes.

I'm not in snow country but would that offer any sort of solution to the lack of discernible prints?

Supposing that they are moving with or just a bit in front of the animals as they migrate to winter grazing? I think that would take care of food, I'm curious about whether that might mask prints. Shelter is another matter altogether though, no idea at all how that would work if they were moving along the routes.

 

I think they're mythological, just to be clear, but I did think that Badorf (?) had an interesting idea.

I tried to look for that map but with no joy, do you know where he posted it or have you got a link please ?

It's Batdorf by the way.

Hey Bobby,

It was during one of the squatchers lounge podcast shows. I don't recall the season and Kelley loves using clickbait for his episode titles so trying to go back is tricky. I think it was season 2 and they were discussing migration and or sasquatch moving ranges seasonally.

 

 

So noted. But come on, you wouldn't be here unless you held a little bit of hope that they just might be real, right? ;)

 

Just playin'. Carry on.

I think they're mythological, just to be clear, but I did think that Badorf (?) had an interesting idea.

I'm really into the sound recordings. The audio is just cool. The idea of a giant that hasn't left a trace in say, 50,000 years of residing in, seemingly, all of north america is sorta silly when you look at it logically.

 

It would be very very cool to be completely wrong about that though. In the meantime the audio is great campfire creepy pasta type fodder

I dont think its any more silly than the idea of little hobbits running around the jungles of Micronesia. At least until they found bones very recently....no one is laughing anymore.

Just read that study in France has confirmed the skulls of the hobbit were healthy and not modern human.

The day someone finds a giant primate bone/fossil in a cave somewhere in North America sasquatch will be plausible. Until then it's supposition based special pleading. IMO Special pleading because of all the excuses which have to be made to explain why the things never leave traces, avoid detection by game cameras, etc, etc, etc....

 

That said, IF someone digs up a fossil....whole new ballgame.

Maybe.

A couple of thoughts.... were there local legends of little people in the jungle? Yes. When did we find these bones? About five to ten years ago. How old are the bones? 15000 years old.

But Science scoffed at this 30 years ago. Nothing was taken seriously. And if you were looking for this creature 20 years ago you were a cryptozoologist. But now? Thats all changed. I said maybe earlier because the question about the hobbit being extinct vs extant is still open to interpretation and searching.....

It seems odd to me that whatever archiac homonid the hobbit is? And looking at the distribution of archiac bipedal homonids worldwide? We supposedly are the only ones to make it to the new world? And keep in mind that science says the hobbit had to boat to Flores island.

I truly believe we have a lot left to learn about human origins.

 

Oh most certainly there's loads to learn. For me, if anything, the discovery of the hobbit is another nail in the coffin for sasquatch for the reasons below.

Science demands evidence and evidence was produced. The evidence was critically examined and so were the claims of the scientists who made the discovery. The claims withstood examination and were accepted.

 

Something to ponder:

The Smithsonian didn't "hide" the skeletons. Certainly this find unsettles the status-quo and yet, you don't read the conspiracy theories about the hobbits that I read here regarding "giants".

 

The dna results/bones weren't "lost" or "stolen", etc...

 

Suspicious that all these weird calamities with sasquatch evidence only seems to happen in the cryptid fields of research? Smells a lot like excuses and special pleadings to me. Anyway this is probably off topic. Sorry OP

 

They already have Bigfoot fossils, they are from Africa, same place we came from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't someone do an analysis of sightings in Colorado leaving one to believe there may have been a migration to lower territory in winter?  I am one of those people in the migration camp.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SSR Team

It was me wiia but it wasn't necessarily winter, it was to a different area 80 miles or so west of Colorado Springs, and bang in the middle of Elk and Deer migration paths that I purchased from various hunting websites.

The reports were thin in that specific area prior to the huge growth of Colorado Springs where there were sightings and clusters of them galore prior to the turn of the century, they still continue to this day in the "new" area to the west.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SSR Team

Thank Bodhi by the way, I'll get in touch with the Guy in question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Cryptic Megafauna

Didn't someone do an analysis of sightings in Colorado leaving one to believe there may have been a migration to lower territory in winter?  I am one of those people in the migration camp.

If you look at the spreadsheet I provide in the research section you can see that elevation sightings change by month.

Might have to do with the growing season of various plant and animal species.

You could do a formal analysis by factoring the data columns 

Edited by Cryptic Megafauna
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moderator

BobbyO -

 

Just curious .. have you spent time in Colorado Springs?   My daughter went to college there and she dragged me around the local trails when I'd visit.  (I think she was trying to kill me 6000-8000 feet vs 2000 is a bit of a shock.)   What you're saying makes sense.   The canyons, and especially micro side canyons, above Manitou Springs and on the slopes above the highway heading towards Woodland Park are deep yet small so they should provide pretty fair shelter from wind.   It would put "them" relatively close to wintering areas for game animals.   The cold is different there than the Pacific Coast .. maybe drier?   I could walk around in a tee shirt at 10 degrees F in C. Springs.   At 40 here I switch from light to heavy parka.    While many of those slopes and canyons have trails, many ice up and don't see much traffic in winter.  

 

I don't know if your idea is truly right or wrong but it is certainly reasonable and logical.

 

MIB

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

 

 

 

 

There are reports summer/fall of BF sightings here.  But very little in the winter, there are some, but the vast majority is when snow is gone.  Where do BF go?   They go somewhere.  I would think mountain pass routes would be used and not climbing over the Alaska Range from the interior would be prudent.   Around 2800 feet is tree line in the central Alaska Range, if I was a BF I would not go above tree line you would be seen in very short order.   That leaves traveling in along rivers in riparian habitat south, or staying in the boreal forest for cover.  Checking the map, (thanks Google Earth) the Alaska Hwy does that very thing.   That could mean there should be more sightings on that route than others.   Ha, this BF stuff is easy.  I checked reported sightings along the Alaska Hwy vrs the rest of the state.   All I can report here is there is a conglomeration of web sites and reports and my head was spinning by the time I looked at two web sites.   I suspect, that theory doesn’t hold true.  

 

When you play the game of connect the dots at some point things should start to make sense and straight lines should appear.   Not the case here.

I understand where you're coming from no doubt but for me, as there are reports from winter, that goes to show that they don't necessarily go nowhere.

We have to go back to the old "For a Sighting, you need a person".

Admittedly I have no experience of an Alaskan winter but I can't imagine there are too many people out in winter there as there would be in summer or at other times of the year anyway.

Flying, yeah ok tracks can be spotted from the air, trackways can, but I wouldn't personally bank on a lack of reports by pilots leading me to believe that Sasquatches aren't there, especially not when we are talking about an Alaska with 129 million forested acres.

David Badorf (sp??) of the squatchers lounge podcast had a nice map of migratory patterns for the suspected prey animals for sasquatches (for PNW area).

It seemed at least plausible that, if they are corporeal animals, they might shadow those migratory routes.

I'm not in snow country but would that offer any sort of solution to the lack of discernible prints?

Supposing that they are moving with or just a bit in front of the animals as they migrate to winter grazing? I think that would take care of food, I'm curious about whether that might mask prints. Shelter is another matter altogether though, no idea at all how that would work if they were moving along the routes.

 

I think they're mythological, just to be clear, but I did think that Badorf (?) had an interesting idea.

I tried to look for that map but with no joy, do you know where he posted it or have you got a link please ?

It's Batdorf by the way.

Hey Bobby,

It was during one of the squatchers lounge podcast shows. I don't recall the season and Kelley loves using clickbait for his episode titles so trying to go back is tricky. I think it was season 2 and they were discussing migration and or sasquatch moving ranges seasonally.

 

 

So noted. But come on, you wouldn't be here unless you held a little bit of hope that they just might be real, right? ;)

 

Just playin'. Carry on.

I think they're mythological, just to be clear, but I did think that Badorf (?) had an interesting idea.

I'm really into the sound recordings. The audio is just cool. The idea of a giant that hasn't left a trace in say, 50,000 years of residing in, seemingly, all of north america is sorta silly when you look at it logically.

 

It would be very very cool to be completely wrong about that though. In the meantime the audio is great campfire creepy pasta type fodder

I dont think its any more silly than the idea of little hobbits running around the jungles of Micronesia. At least until they found bones very recently....no one is laughing anymore.

Just read that study in France has confirmed the skulls of the hobbit were healthy and not modern human.

The day someone finds a giant primate bone/fossil in a cave somewhere in North America sasquatch will be plausible. Until then it's supposition based special pleading. IMO Special pleading because of all the excuses which have to be made to explain why the things never leave traces, avoid detection by game cameras, etc, etc, etc....

 

That said, IF someone digs up a fossil....whole new ballgame.

Maybe.

A couple of thoughts.... were there local legends of little people in the jungle? Yes. When did we find these bones? About five to ten years ago. How old are the bones? 15000 years old.

But Science scoffed at this 30 years ago. Nothing was taken seriously. And if you were looking for this creature 20 years ago you were a cryptozoologist. But now? Thats all changed. I said maybe earlier because the question about the hobbit being extinct vs extant is still open to interpretation and searching.....

It seems odd to me that whatever archiac homonid the hobbit is? And looking at the distribution of archiac bipedal homonids worldwide? We supposedly are the only ones to make it to the new world? And keep in mind that science says the hobbit had to boat to Flores island.

I truly believe we have a lot left to learn about human origins.

 

Oh most certainly there's loads to learn. For me, if anything, the discovery of the hobbit is another nail in the coffin for sasquatch for the reasons below.

Science demands evidence and evidence was produced. The evidence was critically examined and so were the claims of the scientists who made the discovery. The claims withstood examination and were accepted.

 

Something to ponder:

The Smithsonian didn't "hide" the skeletons. Certainly this find unsettles the status-quo and yet, you don't read the conspiracy theories about the hobbits that I read here regarding "giants".

 

The dna results/bones weren't "lost" or "stolen", etc...

 

Suspicious that all these weird calamities with sasquatch evidence only seems to happen in the cryptid fields of research? Smells a lot like excuses and special pleadings to me. Anyway this is probably off topic. Sorry OP

 

They already have Bigfoot fossils, they are from Africa, same place we came from.

 

You are saying that there are sasquatch fossils discovered in north america? Where are these items now? Where were they discovered?

Didn't someone do an analysis of sightings in Colorado leaving one to believe there may have been a migration to lower territory in winter?  I am one of those people in the migration camp.

I listened to an interview with meldrum on some sasquatch podcast/youtube thing (I recall off hand) recently. What really stuck with me was that meldrum stated his opinion that sasquatch live in the PNW area almost exlusively and that claims of sightings in tx, ohio, florida, etc are not sasquatches.

 

So migration into colorado according to meldrum is unlikely.

 

It's an interesting interview although meldrum is sort of monotone throughout.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bohdi, i know for a fact he thinks they reside in the rockies, how far down im not positive. But his buddy Myoncinski lives in southern Wyoming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Cryptic Megafauna

 

 

 

 

 

 

There are reports summer/fall of BF sightings here.  But very little in the winter, there are some, but the vast majority is when snow is gone.  Where do BF go?   They go somewhere.  I would think mountain pass routes would be used and not climbing over the Alaska Range from the interior would be prudent.   Around 2800 feet is tree line in the central Alaska Range, if I was a BF I would not go above tree line you would be seen in very short order.   That leaves traveling in along rivers in riparian habitat south, or staying in the boreal forest for cover.  Checking the map, (thanks Google Earth) the Alaska Hwy does that very thing.   That could mean there should be more sightings on that route than others.   Ha, this BF stuff is easy.  I checked reported sightings along the Alaska Hwy vrs the rest of the state.   All I can report here is there is a conglomeration of web sites and reports and my head was spinning by the time I looked at two web sites.   I suspect, that theory doesn’t hold true.  

 

When you play the game of connect the dots at some point things should start to make sense and straight lines should appear.   Not the case here.

I understand where you're coming from no doubt but for me, as there are reports from winter, that goes to show that they don't necessarily go nowhere.

We have to go back to the old "For a Sighting, you need a person".

Admittedly I have no experience of an Alaskan winter but I can't imagine there are too many people out in winter there as there would be in summer or at other times of the year anyway.

Flying, yeah ok tracks can be spotted from the air, trackways can, but I wouldn't personally bank on a lack of reports by pilots leading me to believe that Sasquatches aren't there, especially not when we are talking about an Alaska with 129 million forested acres.

David Badorf (sp??) of the squatchers lounge podcast had a nice map of migratory patterns for the suspected prey animals for sasquatches (for PNW area).

It seemed at least plausible that, if they are corporeal animals, they might shadow those migratory routes.

I'm not in snow country but would that offer any sort of solution to the lack of discernible prints?

Supposing that they are moving with or just a bit in front of the animals as they migrate to winter grazing? I think that would take care of food, I'm curious about whether that might mask prints. Shelter is another matter altogether though, no idea at all how that would work if they were moving along the routes.

 

I think they're mythological, just to be clear, but I did think that Badorf (?) had an interesting idea.

I tried to look for that map but with no joy, do you know where he posted it or have you got a link please ?

It's Batdorf by the way.

Hey Bobby,

It was during one of the squatchers lounge podcast shows. I don't recall the season and Kelley loves using clickbait for his episode titles so trying to go back is tricky. I think it was season 2 and they were discussing migration and or sasquatch moving ranges seasonally.

 

 

So noted. But come on, you wouldn't be here unless you held a little bit of hope that they just might be real, right? ;)

 

Just playin'. Carry on.

I think they're mythological, just to be clear, but I did think that Badorf (?) had an interesting idea.

I'm really into the sound recordings. The audio is just cool. The idea of a giant that hasn't left a trace in say, 50,000 years of residing in, seemingly, all of north america is sorta silly when you look at it logically.

 

It would be very very cool to be completely wrong about that though. In the meantime the audio is great campfire creepy pasta type fodder

I dont think its any more silly than the idea of little hobbits running around the jungles of Micronesia. At least until they found bones very recently....no one is laughing anymore.

Just read that study in France has confirmed the skulls of the hobbit were healthy and not modern human.

The day someone finds a giant primate bone/fossil in a cave somewhere in North America sasquatch will be plausible. Until then it's supposition based special pleading. IMO Special pleading because of all the excuses which have to be made to explain why the things never leave traces, avoid detection by game cameras, etc, etc, etc....

 

That said, IF someone digs up a fossil....whole new ballgame.

Maybe.

A couple of thoughts.... were there local legends of little people in the jungle? Yes. When did we find these bones? About five to ten years ago. How old are the bones? 15000 years old.

But Science scoffed at this 30 years ago. Nothing was taken seriously. And if you were looking for this creature 20 years ago you were a cryptozoologist. But now? Thats all changed. I said maybe earlier because the question about the hobbit being extinct vs extant is still open to interpretation and searching.....

It seems odd to me that whatever archiac homonid the hobbit is? And looking at the distribution of archiac bipedal homonids worldwide? We supposedly are the only ones to make it to the new world? And keep in mind that science says the hobbit had to boat to Flores island.

I truly believe we have a lot left to learn about human origins.

 

Oh most certainly there's loads to learn. For me, if anything, the discovery of the hobbit is another nail in the coffin for sasquatch for the reasons below.

Science demands evidence and evidence was produced. The evidence was critically examined and so were the claims of the scientists who made the discovery. The claims withstood examination and were accepted.

 

Something to ponder:

The Smithsonian didn't "hide" the skeletons. Certainly this find unsettles the status-quo and yet, you don't read the conspiracy theories about the hobbits that I read here regarding "giants".

 

The dna results/bones weren't "lost" or "stolen", etc...

 

Suspicious that all these weird calamities with sasquatch evidence only seems to happen in the cryptid fields of research? Smells a lot like excuses and special pleadings to me. Anyway this is probably off topic. Sorry OP

 

They already have Bigfoot fossils, they are from Africa, same place we came from.

 

You are saying that there are sasquatch fossils discovered in north america? Where are these items now? Where were they discovered?

Didn't someone do an analysis of sightings in Colorado leaving one to believe there may have been a migration to lower territory in winter?  I am one of those people in the migration camp.

I listened to an interview with meldrum on some sasquatch podcast/youtube thing (I recall off hand) recently. What really stuck with me was that meldrum stated his opinion that sasquatch live in the PNW area almost exlusively and that claims of sightings in tx, ohio, florida, etc are not sasquatches.

 

So migration into colorado according to meldrum is unlikely.

 

It's an interesting interview although meldrum is sort of monotone throughout.

 

Right below Africa, you state America.  There are no fossils of ancient hominids except man in the Americas (hint, hint) found so far.

A good point of discussion is where a possible location for searching for such fossils in Americas (or Africa ) I'm going to post a theory thread of my own soon.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Moderator

 

It seems obvious they would survive  just as the original Homo sapien settlers did. Make or take advantage of natural shelters, kill and store meat inside the shelters, and save their energy by kicking back on bed of moss or animal skins as long as necessary. BF hair (at least that from those southern states) is an excellent insulator; very little medulla. Stick close to home and restock the larder with local prey that burrow or travel nearby. Meat is the key; it generates the heat the body needs to survive.

 

Disclaimer: This opinion is based on absolutely no personal knowledge, or experiences in the State of Alaska nor does the writer have any desire or intention to conduct on-site investigations to validate or discount that opinion. After spending a few hours last night on the windswept banks  of the Saline River in central Arkansa when the temperature was ONLY 32 degrees while listening for Bigfoot vocals - and having the only vocal heard by my partner while I was in the van preparing the audio recording equipment - I have concluded that old age and daily aspirin intakes are no longer compatible with booger hunting in freezing weather, much less sub-freezing weather. :fie:

 

Great and plausible theory, but when the winter is over and they move on, why don't we find the shelters?  I suppose they could totally dismantle a structure, and clean up any sign of habitation for those few months, but that seems a stretch.

 

I took a wilderness survival course that taught how to make debris shelters that could keep you warm in winter. At the end of the class, they had to be taken apart leaving no sign of their existence.

 

The missing bit of information might be that BF sees it essential to its survival to stay out of sight (and IMO, this is likely quite true) and so leaves as little sign as possible.

 

 

The winter caloric intake requirements would require additional food gathering activity, and where are the telltale tracks of that activity?

 

It is a conundrum.

You can' make a living in the winter without leaving lots of sign.  Winter is the main reason I don't feel bf exists...at least in snow country.  Most excuses you read are from folks who don't understand the conditions and reality of a real winter.

 

t.

 

 

There was a trackway in Minnesota on the Canadian boarder during March... I live in Minnesota; I'm sure its no picnic!

 

A friend of mine who flies left seat for Delta saw a bipedal creature running up a snowfield on a ridge at 10,000 feet in western Canada one March years ago. He was flying a plane and knew right away it was not a human or a bear but the turbulence was too much for him to get any closer to the ridge. He said it looked like a human in the way it ran, but was obviously *not* a human...

 

 

Bohdi, i know for a fact he thinks they reside in the rockies, how far down im not positive. But his buddy Myoncinski lives in southern Wyoming.

 

The Colorado Rockies is where I had my encounter, so I can say I know they reside there for a fact.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Bohdi, i know for a fact he thinks they reside in the rockies, how far down im not positive. But his buddy Myoncinski lives in southern Wyoming.

I'll dig up the interview Norse. Maybe I'm misconstruing his meaning???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...