Jump to content
Madison5716

Searching For Bigfoot in Oregon - Take 2

Recommended Posts

Madison5716

Squatching is gonna be a bit dangerous and hazardous this summer with the storm damage to the woods.

0331191501.jpg

0331191456a.jpg

0331191502.jpg

0331191501a.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Madison5716

Brown Dwarf found a similar shelter in NorCal a few weeks ago. I wondered if the shelter i found was too complex. Maybe not after all.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Catmandoo
BFF Donor

^^The bungee cord is advanced Sasquatch technique. A  juvenile  Sasquatch was working on its shelter building merit badge.  The pine cone tied to bark is extra credit.

 

Does anyone consider veterans with PTSD hanging out in the forest when branch structures/nests are found?

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

Good point, Cantmandoo.         All you have to do it look around the major cities on the West Coast and you see all kinds of makeshift shelters made by human homeless people.    They spill out into the woods too.  Most of the so called BF shelter pictures I have seen would not shelter a BF as as well as just getting under a fir or pine tree that forces the rain to run off.         They are usually a bunch of sticks leaning against each other or trees providing no method of controlling falling precipitation.     As I learned in survival school,   pine or fur branches if laid out oriented properly can act as shingles and get water to run off.   But the pictures I see of supposed shelters are missing that aspect and only consist of the support structure.   The only way they would be shelter is if they were used in conjunction with snow during deep snow fall to support snow and make a snow cave or to support a tarp used like a tent.    Somehow I doubt that BF is into lugging tarps around for shelter and I don't think anyone has ever observed their use of snow caves.      They may use snow caves but in situations where they might be used,   human presence is minimal or non-existent.  

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Madison5716

I forgot about the bungee, lol! True, good point about this particular shelter.

 

i don't think they build to shelter themselves. They dont need shelter. They seem to build for other reasons, which are unknown to us.  Everything is speculation. I like some of Christopher Noel's theories, though, on bringing order to chaos, marking territory by imposing order and familiarity with built creations of all sorts - teepees, bends, d's stick stacks etc.

Edited by Madison5716

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

Madison, one reason I have thought about with some of their constructs is that they are simply mimicking human activity.    That would explain shelter constructs that look similar to tents but are not functional as a shelter.      My theory is that their brains do not have the ability to visualize something useful and construct it.      Humans have been creating spears, arrows and bows,  baskets etc for the better part of a million years now.     One would think with some sort of parallel development,   BF would have started creating those things too at some point just by what they have seen humans doing.     While BF are functionally similar to humans in form but not size,    it is almost as if someone took a giant human, and destroyed the creative part of their brain.    We will never know until a BF ends up on a lab table.   

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Madison5716

I've definitely considered that they mimic. Like the two structures i just found - one is complex and the other 50 feet away is primitive. I've also considered that they may build some of them FOR us to find, l like a "hello look what I did" calling card, imitating what we do.

Edited by Madison5716

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

Most likely the mimicry is done by the older juveniles.     When they were messing with me on a regular basis,  when I could tell by footprint finds, it was older juveniles that were involved.    I would guess that at some point in size development, food gathering becomes more important than playing with the naked ape humans.      Human kids are more interested in play at the same ages.   

Edited by SWWASAS

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Madison5716

SWWASAS, what did your juvenile prints look like? More human? Less? What made you think they were made by sasquatch juveniles vs humans? I've found numerous barefoot prints from 6" to 1 2" since November (in cold weather, in uncomfortable terrain, in beaches full of rocks, glass and fish hooks) , and I'd love to hear your thoughts on the subject. 

Edited by Madison5716

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS
14 hours ago, Madison5716 said:

SWWASAS, what did your juvenile prints look like? More human? Less? What made you think they were made by sasquatch juveniles vs humans? I've found numerous barefoot prints from 6" to 1 2" since November (in cold weather, in uncomfortable terrain, in beaches full of rocks, glass and fish hooks) , and I'd love to hear your thoughts on the subject. 

That is a good question.    The short answer is that the younger the BF the more their prints look like human.    One factor being that human kids spend more time without shoes than human adults do.   BF kids obviously spend no time in shoes.     So toe spread is more common in kids both human and BF than adult humans.    Most of my footprint finds are in really remote areas where it is unlikely a human was there and barefoot.    Call it a location factor.      The more remote the location the less likely that the print is a shoe-less human.    That applies until you get into prints larger than human norms.      For example I found one footprint that was 17.4 inches long.    It was put down in a mud flat on a lake shore.   What bothered me was even though it was large,  it was narrower than the classic large BF print we have seen casts of.     I showed Jeff Meldrum a picture of the print at a conference, expressed lack of confidence that it was even a BF print because of how narrow it was.     He smiled and gave me a short course on BF footprints.     The last person with a footprint that large in North America died in the 1940s.    So the print that large is at the top of the human norms and unlikely to be human.    Secondly he said,   you know of course that female BF,  like human females have narrower prints than males?      I had not thought of that.      As a male BF gets adult size and weight, it's footprint spreads out and becomes much wider as well as growing outside the human norms in length.    BF females are more likely to be in the human norm for length and width for far longer than BF males, making telling the different between them and humans more difficult. 

 

As you likely have guessed your footprints in the 6 to 12 inch range, because of the remote location and nasty conditions of the surface are more likely BF than humans.    But you can never be sure.   Some human may just like to walk in the mud.  I don't think Meldrum can tell the difference either for 6 to 12 inch prints unless the print leaves dermal ridges showing it not to be human.     So I evaluate the location based in the likeliness of barefoot humans.     If it unlikely humans were in the area barefoot,   I a more inclined to think it might be BF than human.      I also pay a lot of attention to what the print maker seemed to be doing when they left the print.     Many of the finds were an apparent BF stepping across a human trail, trying to avoid leaving a print at all.    Humans take the path of least work and may step on trail margins to avoid getting muddy boots,    but for the most part at least travel parallel to trails, and pay no attention to avoiding leaving prints.   

 

I do think footprints suspected of being BF by location and size the best indicator of BF activity in an area.    BF try not to leave them but sometimes do because of conditions.      My first find was so fresh I think I nearly saw the BF that put it down.   Small gravel was still falling off the sides into the 1/2 inch deep footprint depression.    When I stepped next to the print, putting all of my weight, on one foot,  I could not even make a depression in the rocky soil.  

  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
BFF Donor

Mrs. Huntster and I took a walk the other day, and instead of walking the paved path and neighborhood roads, we decided to walk the farm fields and forest. Like so often in the past, nice weather tricked us into believing spring was here in full. About 1/4 of the way we ran into the mudholes, and we were in sneakers. We navigated around it until we were @ 3/4 way through. Then I stepped into mud that didn't look so soft, and it sucked my shoes right off my feet.  walked garefoot the rest of the way..........in cold mud and mid-40s weather while carrying my shoes, leaving 12" bare footprints in the mud. 

 

I'm even hairy, ornery, and ugly as a sasquatch. But I did have some nasty clothes on..........

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Madison5716

Thank you, SWWASAS, awesomely descriptive answer. I need to read that a few times.

 

Hunter, I laughed out loud!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SWWASAS

Madison you have to just use your best guess, unless you saw the BF making the prints.  BF Muddy prints on a lake shore with lots of humans around a popular lake are most likely human.   What I did not mention is stride and the mid tarsal break.      However, with some recent studies of humans from Europe,   a fairly large percentage of humans (20 to 30%) have some sign of a mid tarsal break associated with flat feet.   I have the same flat feet issue,  perhaps because I am 3 percent neanderthal.     So even Meldrum has admitted mid tarsal break is not a sure sign of a suspect print being BF.    BF stride seems to be longer than human stride with prints of the same size.      BF also tend to walk with their footprints closer to a centerline between the prints,  rather than staggering prints further left and right of a centerline between them like humans do.     That is related to their compliant gate and the funny way they swing their legs with each step.  

 

So what it boils down for me to do, is make my best guess as to what is human and what is not, and if I think it fairly likely the prints were not human,   take that as a sign of recent BF activity.    Prints in the PNW do not last long in our rain.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Madison5716

I understand. 

 

I got a new phone - it better be worth it, lol. Seems to take nice pictures though!

 

Date & Time - Sunday,  April 7, 2019 from 930am - 1230pm

Weather - Rain, slight wind, 45 degrees.

Location - OR Cascades,  a new lake

What happened - It was too wet to hike, but I couldn't stand being inside. I took a drive and scouted a new lake and its river. Didn't find anything particularly interesting but it sure was pretty. I'm also posting the videos on my YouTube- Lane County Bigfooters.

 

With all the winter storm damage,  I'll never be able to determine leans or twists!

 

Oregon is gorgeous, even in the rain. 

 

I intend to explore some of these areas later on in the year. Looks like great places to camp, too, or do night walks.

 

20190407_112419.jpg

20190407_113218.jpg

20190407_112814.jpg

20190407_113550.jpg

20190407_113557.jpg

20190407_120410.jpg

20190407_122300.jpg

20190407_120335.jpg

It was wet. Very wet. 

 

One of these pix is a dam. It's  busy!

20190407_114130.jpg

20190407_112438.jpg

20190407_105250.jpg

20190407_124119.jpg

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Madison5716

Found this drone footage of where I went this morning.Spectacular! I love this YouTube channel!

 

 

Edited by Madison5716
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×