SRN- The Sasquatch Research Network

[masterbarber]

bump

[hiflier]

Thank you, for reopening this topic for me, masterbarber! The reason I requested this is because I wanted this idea back on the table BEFORE wildfire season was upon us, which basically is from now on. For those of you not familiar with what this thread is about and anyone who needs a "refresher course" then read or do some reading to get up to speed and we can take things from there.

 

In a nutshell the subject concerns having groups of researchers and trusted people that researchers may know, to include perhaps family members. to create groups that might respond to a sighting. It could be a road crossing, a sighting by campers or other outdoors people, and for this season, even wildfire situation. The idea would be to create a Human perimeter around the sighting or fire in order to possibly capture good photos or videos of a creature moving away from an encounter or a fire area. The floor is open. Thanks again, MB.  

[SWWASAS]

Good concept but it has issues.     The main problem with BF research is finding an active area and hoping that it stays active.  A sighting report, no matter what generated it, is an indicator that an area may be active.    The problem with using fires is that it potentially dangerous, may get you in trouble with the law, because the first thing they do is restrict access by non-fire fighting personnel.    Additionally,   I have no idea other than word of mouth how you get current sighting reports.    Certainly not from BFRO unless you are a chosen member with real time access.   Even that, may not be good enough because some camper is not going to submit a report,most likely for days when they come out of the back country.   I have been told by people who purport to be BFRO members,   that choice sighting reports are held back and not dumped into the public access data base.    If that is true,  then it would take the cooperation of the BFRO to carry out this research method.   Any members want to chime in?   Or do we have any members that are members of the forum?  

[hiflier]

For one thing something like this cannot, and would not, happen overnight. I proposed this concept back in December of 2017. Had it been seen as something better than not having a network of any kind then planning would have been in the works for the last 7 months instead of the status quo remaining the same as it is now. Can it not be seen that the current methods of research could be enhanced by connecting everyone with a plan of some sort to encircle an event? Can it not be seen that if the word of such a plan in place got circulated then we COULD get closer to realtime information? Thomas Steenburg in BC gets calls from witnesses when sightings occur and goes out to interviews and then locations. I am proposing that if the location of an event is known quickly then the first thing is to surround the event's location while someone is in route to interview the witness.  So the responses would all happen at the same time. The public just needs to know that a phone call will get a prompt response. It would be the Sasquatch version of "Storm Chasers". An "EEEEHAAAH!" , moment for BF researchers or like the call of "Ghost Busters":...."WE GOT ONE!" And everyone who can jumps on it.

 

As far as wildfires are concerned no one, especially me is saying to approach the fire or get near any fire line restrictions. As long as researchers are prepared to at least deploy a semicircle downwind of a fire and well away then it is better than nothing. Knowing the roads, the terrain, wind direction, and other factors in the region may help in determining which direction a BF or its clan would head. Granted this is assuming that BF would vacate the area of the fire when smoke is detected on the wind coming its way. Earlier in this thread I gave some options for riding out a fire and there are some pretty risky ways to survive beyond simply vacating the fire area. The balance between being reclusive and surviving a fire weigh heavily in surviving the fire. This idea depends on how that plays out in the mind of a Sasquatch- or any other animal for that matter. Forest fire agencies do have animal management teams that I would think would monitor and understand possible animal escape routes just to keep watch on bears heading toward any populated neighborhoods?

 

 

Edited July 2, 2018 by hiflier

[MIB]

The network exists and has for a long time.   Look around.   Think about which researchers are NOT here.   It's not forum based, predates the internet.   The real giants in the bigfoot world rely on a thing called a telephone.  Most don't have time or interest in the bickering here.   The forum guidelines say BFF is here for the discussion of bigfoot, not to help prove they exist.   You have to think about the implications of that, ALL of the implications, especially the ones you don't like, to understand why BFF isn't relevant to solving the puzzle.   If that's all you're after here, you're in the wrong place.

 

MIB

[norseman]

1 hour ago, hiflier said:

For one thing something like this cannot, and would not, happen overnight. I proposed this concept back in December of 2017. Had it been seen as something better than not having a network of any kind then planning would have been in the works for the last 7 months instead of the status quo remaining the same as it is now. Can it not be seen that the current methods of research could be enhanced by connecting everyone with a plan of some sort to encircle an event? Can it not be seen that if the word of such a plan in place got circulated then we COULD get closer to realtime information? Thomas Steenburg in BC gets calls from witnesses when sightings occur and goes out to interviews and then locations. I am proposing that if the location of an event is known quickly then the first thing is to surround the event's location while someone is in route to interview the witness.  So the responses would all happen at the same time. The public just needs to know that a phone call will get a prompt response. It would be the Sasquatch version of "Storm Chasers". An "EEEEHAAAH!" , moment for BF researchers or like the call of "Ghost Busters":...."WE GOT ONE!" And everyone who can jumps on it.

 

As far as wildfires are concerned no one, especially me is saying to approach the fire or get near any fire line restrictions. As long as researchers are prepared to at least deploy a semicircle downwind of a fire and well away then it is better than nothing. Knowing the roads, the terrain, wind direction, and other factors in the region may help in determining which direction a BF or its clan would head. Granted this is assuming that BF would vacate the area of the fire when smoke is detected on the wind coming its way. Earlier in this thread I gave some options for riding out a fire and there are some pretty risky ways to survive beyond simply vacating the fire area. The balance between being reclusive and surviving a fire weigh heavily in surviving the fire. This idea depends on how that plays out in the mind of a Sasquatch- or any other animal for that matter. Forest fire agencies do have animal management teams that I would think would monitor and understand possible animal escape routes just to keep watch on bears heading toward any populated neighborhoods?

 

 

 

Never want to be down wind of a fire....or up hill. I can tell you that your plan for cordoning off a forest fire with researchers is unworkable. 

 

The USFS will shut down roads that access the area in which the fire is in. And they will man checkpoints. Your only getting in or out with a red card, nomex and a shake and bake.

 

And even if you were granted access? The sheer man power involved would be greater than the fire crews. Fire crews dig fire lines from anchor points around the heel of the fire. They are not encircling the fire hand in hand. 

 

I think your best bet? Would be to get a press pass and interview fire crews back at base camp. You might be able to score hot leads that way. Or you could patrol outside of the fire no go zone on USFS roads with a thermal camera? But this will be a huge area in rough terrain. Might want to identify things like saddles and game trails and set up on them?

 

Of course its dangerous too. Winds can shift direction, or increase in intensity, flying embers, spot fires, etc..... what is safe now becomes unsafe in a matter of hours. I would certainly go get red card training and buy nomex clothing and a shake and bake (fire shelter) if I was seriously considering something like this.

 

Posted picture is to kinda show what your up against. Keep the wind in your face and run downhill to escape a fire. Or get to big water.

 

With the Debbie Downer stuff outta the way? I do think that fire changes everything in animal behavior. You will see them do things that are not normal. Like bowling you over while your running a chainsaw in the open. They dont care. Fire is scary for all of us. A fast moving forest fire can crown over the top of you faster than you or they can run......40-50 mph.  1400 degrees F, 120 feet over your head in the crown of the forest. So animals are fleeing the fire and they are usually easy to observe because they could csre less about man.

 

 

 

 

[hiflier]

All true, Norseman. But this is not all about fire as the topic started out being about a simple sighting though, as we all can guess if not downright know, sightings are not simple. There has been much in the way of wildfire discussion threads and rather than dredge them up or start a new one I thought I would add the dynamic in with this thread. And for the record? NO ONE is saying go into a fire area. NO ONE is saying risk life and limb for this. But let's face it, homes and neighborhoods can be destroyed by wildfire. I have seen photos of people hosing down their roofs and then the Fire authority shows up and hoses them down more before people are finally ordered to evacuate.

 

If a Sasquatch runs through a neighborhood ahead of a fire and someone sees it who do they call? 911? Probably. And then what? Nothing. But if there is a number to call that belongs to a known researcher then maybe something more can be done. Maybe nothing comes of that either but at least the chances for image or video capture are improved. But again, this is not just about wildfire. It about any sighting.

 

For MIB, you are probably right but where does that leave things? I am sure researchers phone numbers are not on everyone's fridge. But there could be a number on everyone's fridge. And that number is just what you said- a telephone number- but it isn't just so researchers can talk to each other. That would be through a private number. The number on the fridge would be public knowledge. If a sighting comes in THEN a researcher privately contact other researchers, like it probably is now. The only difference is the public will have something beside the BFRO for a 'hotline', and something beside just a website saying "if you see one contact us". That is a set up for failure as far as fast response goes. And this is about fast response. It is the reason this thread even exists.

[SWWASAS]

It was the anniversary of the death of 19 Hot Shot fire fighters a few days ago in a single event..    They were in a fire fighting role in communication with managers and got run over by a fire that changed directions.    They were trained and quipped to deal with that situation but all died.    Encouraging someone to be anywhere near a forest fire without being in communication is reckless.    I fought wild fire in my early 20s and an approaching fire is frightening.    Like Norseman says,  they can move faster than you can run.       That said,  I think there might be some merit to looking around a fire burn after it is out.   There is always the possibility of finding something killed the forest service missed.   Even that is hazardous because fire damaged trees can fall.    Even that likely requires entry that would be prohibited and subject to fines being there.    A fall fire quenched by fall rains might be a way to get in without encountering some forest ranger that writes a ticket for being there.   Once reclamation starts, then a BF killed would be quickly found and disposed of.    There are too many stories of that for it to not have happened.    

 

 

[hiflier]

OK, everyone. Once again. First of all,  NO ONE is saying get close to a fire! I many cases there are roads 20 or 30 miles away from a fire. If a fire perimeter has been set up the rule is simple, DON'T GO THERE. Second, use common sense and always check the current status of a fire. No one should have to be holding anyone's hand here on this very basic stuff. Third, this is primarily about a sightings report and how quickly the response might be to it. If I am at point 'X' then someone I know 30 miles to the North at point 'XX' gets a call. If the sighting isn't between points 'X' and 'XX' but further West then a contact to the West is notified. Points on a circle, the center of which is arbitrary depending on the encounter's location.

 

If the person to the West is actually closest to the sighting then THAT person's circle of contacts gets notified in which case I may not get a call at all. Especially if the report is not between 'X' and 'XX'. A lot of members here are in the PacNW. It has many large wild areas. But you PacNW researchers also know where you are located. If all of you connected, even though you still did your own private research, then you would be able to determine areas that are between all of you. And this is not a perfect world and so everyone's responsibilities for everyday life means only a few could drop everything and head out in a moment's notice. It is unrealistic for anyone to think it's going to be the same as what LEO's and firefighters do.

 

There may be 6 encounters in a year and only one may be timed in such a way that a few folks can scout roads around the encounter's locale. No one is going to be sitting around an office doing nothing until a report comes in. Put this idea into the real world and you will see that making it work will be FAR from perfect. But the complaints I have seen here in the past few years also include the fact that we her about encounters sometimes years after the fact. Months or weeks at best. So how would one work at getting info from a sighting firsthand? As in a few moments after an event. That kind of grassroots effort is going to take time and planning and trust.

 

So. A good place to start is by determining where the MOST encounters occur and at what time of year there is more frequency. That by itself may help someone to think about getting involved? If a lot of winter sightings occur say in the Grays Harbor area then why would anyone from Eastern Washington or Oregon be notified if an encounter happens there? In the Umatilla's, same thing. As a first response why call anyone from the Upper Cascades of the Olympic Peninsula? Same goes for Oregon or anywhere else. And the geographical geometry of coverage won't be perfect either:

    

[Twist]

Hiflier, I just don’t think it’s safe to encourage people to go into fire zone!   Lol 

 

For real though, 30 miles is a lot of ground to cover even for a couple ppl.  Hell, 1 square mile would be a tough area for a few guys to patrol the streets looking for a BF.  Reaction time and area coverage is going to be extremely difficult in most scenarios of trying to do real time report investigation.   That’s not even factoring potential trespassing and such.

[hiflier]

Your suggestion then is to do nothing? A report comes in and........what of it?

 

A vehicle traveling 30 mph will cover a mile in 2 minutes. Five miles in 10 minutes. Roads of course are not in perfect square where one driver takes each side of a 10 mile square and it is ridiculous for anyone to think it will be that simple. Doing nothing means one will get.....wait for it....nothing. But this is what happens with ides like this. People usually zero in on the negative of why it won't work. Why is that? Why does the majority of members come up with a dozen ways for why something will fail instead of working positively and seeing that one good chance at a great photo or video out weighs ALL of the arguments that say don't bother?

 

Trespassing? On public roads? Where do people think that this is about traipsing on private property, bushwhacking the deep woods, entering a fire area, or any other such nonsense?  Everyone here is pretty smart so how is it that no one seems to understand what is being proposed? And just because a network wouldn't be in place by tomorrow doesn't mean it couldn't be in place a year from now. We should all be taking the long view. The short view has failed for 50 years. Dragging people into a positive mindset is no fun believe me. And having to over-explain simple things isn't fun either. I mean why NOT try to put together a system that receives reports directly and then have people near an encounter go out and check the roads around the encounter to see if something crosses those roads. Especially if information about which direction the subject of a report was moving towards could be relayed to the drivers with the cameras?

 

 Local drivers will know the terrain and where the rivers, creek beds, and roads are, along with the larger culverts and bridges that go under and over those roads. In other words, the pinch points. But nope, lets all use the time and thought to torpedo the idea at every turn. I've been here 4 years. And this always happens. Hardly ever positive, nearly always negative. I seem to always be asking, why is that?

 

Fast response Bigfoot Chasers. Don't like it? Then be a part of the solution by coming up with something better.     

[Squatchy McSquatch]

Hiflier you’ve lost it, mate.

 

[hiflier]

And you, my friend, have just proved my point. And don't bother addressing the topic, just keep the focus on me and you will be true to form. Thank you   

Edited July 4, 2018 by hiflier

[MagniAesir]

Hiflier, I personally don't think your idea has merit at least in the area that I live.

Generally speaking the terrain is rough with dense vegetation.

And inow many areas we simply do not have the road network to surround a sighting.

 

Also if sasquatch exist and they are as elusive as most people think they are, then even the smallest gap in your ring will give them an escape route

[hiflier]

Hi, MagniAesir, in your area I would have to agree. Other areas that have sightings though do have more roads in and around them. Maybe what I should do...or someone  is grab some reports that are in areas that do have roads surrounding the encounter? People do see them on roads, next to roads and crossing roads- day or night- so maybe some examples would be good to put up?

 

I know there are reports where LEO's get called and then show up fairly quickly to investigate. Really doubt that in those instances an "all-points-be-on-the-lookout-for....." bulletin would get issued but how would we know whether or not such a bulletin didn't get issued? You know. Something over the radio like, "The witness described the individual as threatening and possibly dangerous. Keep a lookout for the suspect in the vicinity of "X" and believed to be moving toward "Y". The witnesses reported that the suspect appeared to be barefoot. Report any suspicious looking individuals coming out of the woods around "X" to dispatch".

 

From my imaginary dialogue above you might notice the words Sasquatch or Bigfoot were not used? Could that be a way for witnesses aware of the BF stigma to say what they saw? Would it then elicit the same response of canvassing around an area as it would if the suspect was Human? In the case of a Sasquatch does LE have a code word? 

Edited July 4, 2018 by hiflier