Jump to content
BigTreeWalker

Update on Olympic Project nest sites

Recommended Posts

BobbyO
SSR Team

 

But it's this stuff that's the interesting part, and this runs pretty consistent through the entire Klamath Watershed, consistent enough anyway for me to spend a lot of time on it.

 

This screen shot is from the Lower Klamath Zone, our data.

 

 

 

 

BFF Sample.jpg

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MIB

Do you have anything from the upper Klamath, upriver (north) from Klamath Falls, perhaps the Chiloquin area?

Edited by MIB

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BobbyO
SSR Team

Yeah i'm doing the Upper Klamath section obviously within this, it's a very low data set however with just 5 Reports but all reports are within 1.5 miles of a stream/creek headwaters, with 3 even under a mile as the crow flies and the other 2 being within .5 mile of a main body of water whatever that may be (Fourmile Lake in this instance for both).

 

3 Fall

1 Winter

1 Summer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MIB

The area grossly under-reports.    Those reports that are filed often are such that they're very difficult to publish, often impossible to follow up on, so they die on the vine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

Thinking about my statement that food gathering has to be the primary reason for seasonal migration of BF,   given a list of relative importance for activities of any species,  reproduction has to be right up there in importance and could promote BF travel.  .    Theorizing that BF exists in small geographically isolated groups,  that requires some travel or interaction with other groups, for reproduction to happen without significant inbreeding and the resultant genetic defects that would result.    While there seems to be some deformity of footprints in some areas, those areas are not where large numbers of are suspected to exist.   Could it be that in regions like the PNW,  where malformed (3 or 4 toed) footprints suggesting genetic defects are not common,  proximity to other small groups allows travel for sole purpose of reproduction?   While one would hope that involved voluntary pairings,   given the NA experience with abduction of young women,   it would not surprise me that the methodology is for male BF to raid other BF tribes looking for suitable mates.  If done by force, I expect smaller female teenagers would be most at risk.    An 8 foot female like Patty is likely to put up a significant and potentially dangerous for the male fight if she rejects sexual advances or being hauled off.   Again, I don't think we need to look any further than the traditional NA human tribal interactions to get ideas about how all of this might work for BF.   All supposition on my part skeptics.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bipedalist
BFF Donor

Reporting at stream headwaters of watershed areas are important probably because Google maps stream visuals show known and visible parts of streams where headwaters are composed of multiple small springs too which is where BF is going to wannabe in dry weather if not interested in getting candid youtube vids taken of their adventures.  I think Richard Noll explored the watershed distributions in the PNW and prognosticated BF populations per watershed on that basis. There should be some old threads on watersheds and BF on the forum, not sure how/if that was ever cross-referenced with actual sighting databases, but I think not.  So great work BobbyO, reminds me of your Colorado Springs, CO mapping project.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BobbyO
SSR Team
On 4/4/2018 at 6:52 PM, MIB said:

The area grossly under-reports.    Those reports that are filed often are such that they're very difficult to publish, often impossible to follow up on, so they die on the vine.

 

Yeah and that's a real shame. We can only work with what we have our end..

On 4/4/2018 at 10:20 PM, bipedalist said:

Reporting at stream headwaters of watershed areas are important probably because Google maps stream visuals show known and visible parts of streams where headwaters are composed of multiple small springs too which is where BF is going to wannabe in dry weather if not interested in getting candid youtube vids taken of their adventures.  I think Richard Noll explored the watershed distributions in the PNW and prognosticated BF populations per watershed on that basis. There should be some old threads on watersheds and BF on the forum, not sure how/if that was ever cross-referenced with actual sighting databases, but I think not.  So great work BobbyO, reminds me of your Colorado Springs, CO mapping project.

 

I'll get looking immediately and even contact Rick if needs be, thanks for the heads up B..

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

I wonder if some active areas are under reported simply because the local humans who venture out in the wild often have encounters and just accept that BF is out there.   Some may have more than one encounter and simply not think it important to report it to anyone.   Certainly if anyone's report experience with BFRO was anything like mine, they would never report again.  

Edited by SWWASAS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wolfjewel

Were you disrespected or ignored when you reported to BFRO? Can you share your experience with them, and also your Bigfoot experience that you were going to report?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

I would guess ignore as far as data base collection best describes it.  My experiences are reported in several threads going back years so don't want to regurgitate them here.    While I was contacted by an associate producer of the Finding Bigfoot show,   I was never contacted by a BFRO investigator and my experience never got into the data base.   One would think when I said I  encountered three BF,  got a picture of one of the BF during the encounter,   that would have interested some investigator.     Months later when I wondered why I had not been contacted,   BFRO members on the forum started making excuses about how backed up their investigations were,   there were no investigators in my part of the state,  and that it might take a couple of years but someone would eventually get to me.      That was 8 years ago and I still have not heard anything from them.   Additionally I have been assured that my report is in the data base but when you look at the public data base,   it is not there.    So from my experience the data base is either private,  not complete, or solely exists for the purpose of supporting the Finding Bigfoot TV show.   If my experience is common,  then I have extreme doubts about complete nature of the data base,  and the BFRO organization itself.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bipedalist
BFF Donor

I think the database was public long before FB TV show.  There has always been access to that database by BFRO members as one of the perks of doing the footwork of investigations and such.  There has always been the suggestion that juicy reports were culled for BFRO use only and not for listing on the public database.  Since this is the OLYMPIC thread I will just choose to say that if you can't do a timely investigation then the effort is moot really except for historical purposes of documenting habitat and patterns in the geography and such.  

 

Never been a BFRO member and never invited but have had success in the southeast with conscientious investigators taking an interest in the area I was investigating back in the pre-2010 days.  This was also nonpublic investigation however.  Many reasons for that which I choose not to go into on the forum. 

 

Time is money and I suppose alot of these organizations staffed with volunteers don't have independently wealthy people able to move on the drop of a hat which is one reason Oly Project seems to be deferring the public expedition part of things so they can strike while the iron is hot as explained by them. 

 

Maybe when some of these philanthropists leave the space shots for the big hairy elder brother we may have something, maybe not. 

  • Upvote 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

If the BFRO had any integrity then they would simply hand what they have to BobbyO and let him manage the data base.   It is quite apparent that no one there is doing much.    He has a data base not a secret information mine for BFRO members.    It is telling to me that Thom Powell was thrown out for heresy.   The organization is run more like a religious cult with dogma that requires major tithing contributions to be a member than a scientific investigation organization. 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wolfjewel

Thank you, Southwest and Biped for your responses. I learned a lot about the BFRO from your comments. Sounds like they are a mixed bag, which I believed all along. I will check the older threads for SW's sightings -- might have to become a premium member to read them, lol. I'll check BobbyO too, to see more about his database. Wish that kind of cooperation you mention would happen in keeping files on ALL sightings in one place. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

Don't get me wrong.   I know some BFRO investigators and they seem to have their act together.   So the organization does have some good people.   I suspect that it's problems are attributable to Mat Moneymaker and infighting among members.  Washington State has been mentioned as a problem location.  After several years of wondering about my reports I started asking questions to known BFRO forum members.   After a couple of years of,   they will get to you soon,  I finally got some to admit to the infighting and lack of investigators.   At this point because I have been publicly critical of the organization, I suspect I am on some sort of black list and will never be contacted.     However everything I have experienced since those initial reports have not been reported.   One would think someone would contact me just to shut me up. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bipedalist
BFF Donor

SW, I would say, talk to the Olympic Project, they are not a government secret.  They are transparent, run  a good ship and Derek Randles is approachable,  and very local to you.

 

That said,  Thom Powell has contributed much and knows how important it is to extend a hand of friendship to those who do not agree with your approach to research.  Case in point, so called professor of BFRO shared the same tent platform I did on Powell's property within 6 months of one another.  I didn't have the same appreciation as others of said person, but that said we are on a mission, take what you learn and run with it.   Don't burn bridges.  Essentially, we all know one another, strengths and weaknesses and all of that.  This is a small planet for the search and we must get along and roll with the Zeitgeist. Sure, roll with your opinion, no prisoners and all of that.   There is no need to shut one up, just a need to exposit your point of view to counter that of those that may be hoaxers,  have alternative views or  have not seen them up close and personal.  If you don't weigh=in you have no biped in this fight!

 

PS not taking anything away from handing it all over to BobbyO, if you only knew!;)

And,  big shout out to Thom Powell in his retirement from middle school science teaching! And,  his enouement into UFO phenoms!:startle:

My fave BF book is Shady Neighbors as I lived the plot years before its publication!

Edited by bipedalist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×