It's time

[Patterson-Gimlin]

7 hours ago, Huntster said:

 

Only once that I was confident about. In 1972, in the southern Sierra Nevada mountains immediately south of Sequoia National Park, I found a footprint trackway. I moved from California @ 2 years later, and ended up in Southcentral Alaska by late 1975. I don't think southcentral Alaska is their best habitat like areas south of there. I believe that their best habitat is between latitudes 39 degrees and 57 degrees within 100 miles of tidewater.

 

One other time I heard a very strange knocking sound that, at the time, I believed was a moose that was rapping his antlers against a tree instead of raking it. I'd never heard a moose do that before or since. It was in an extremely remote location in Alaska between the Alaska Range and the Arctic Circle, and we got there via a 700+ mile riverboat trip. My brother actually shot a huge moose in my eyesight while that rapping was going on to my left. I didn't pay attention to whether or not it continued, but a pack of wolves on Billy Hawk Hill, right in front of us, were intermittently howling, and they continued while we began skinning the moose. Night descended on us, and we left the bull laying there half skinned. I worried that the wolves or a bear would come and foul it (I wasn't worried about birds, because they rarely fly in the dark). We arrived back early the next morning before sunrise and found that the moose had not been disturbed. Years later, reading an excellent book on the Native tribe of that area, I found that they describe Billy Hawk Hill as a favored haunt of the woodsman, their name for sasquatches. Of course, I can't say that the knocking was a sasquatch, but it was certainly strange, and it fits with local aboriginal claims.

 

I am currently looking at various areas that have a strong history of sasquatch reports and legends. I would love to spend several months in such an area "hunting" for a sasquatch. I have no desire to kill one, but I plan to be armed, and will not hestitate for a moment to shoot one if I feel that I'm in danger. Nor do I plan to photograph one, since history shows that photographs prove nothing. I just want to see one. 

 

Many factors are narrowing my chosen location. Canada is out of the question due to their attitudes towards firearms. Southeast Alaska poses significant access difficulties. Even if I got my boat in proper shape for an extended adventure there, it's only 22' long, and it would be a rather tight fit for such a long trip. The Alaska ferry system has a maximun length limit that poses a problem for my truck/camper & trailer.

 

I'm liking Gifford Pinchot National Forest in Washington and Six Rivers National Forest in northern California. Of the two, California is edging out Washington in every important aspect. The deer hunting is better, and non-resident license and tags are cheaper and easier to get. The fishing is much, much better for steelhead. And there are fewer people to navigate around, especially after deer season ends. 

Thank you very much for the detailed information. I appreciate it more than I can put into words. 

You are obviously honest and sincere. I am honored you took the time to respond to me 

[OldMort]

8 hours ago, Huntster said:

Of the two, California is edging out Washington in every important aspect.

 

Of course it is...

 

Good! I hope you reconsider the information that I gave you recently. 

 

 Look for Pneumonia Gulch.

 

They are there...

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 20, 2019 by OldMort

[RedHawk454]

3 hours ago, norseman said:

 

But you wouldnt say a word. Which is your right to do so.

 

Most habituators love the lime light and notoriety of being "experts" right up until you ask for evidence and then they act like you punched them in the mouth.

 

 

^^^^^THIS^^^^^

[Huntster]

8 hours ago, OldMort said:

........I hope you reconsider the information that I gave you recently. 

 

 Look for Pneumonia Gulch.

 

They are there...

 

Remarkably, there are lots of places unofficially called Pneumonia Gulch. I couldn't find the actual canyon you might mean. But I think I found the area you refer to between the Feather River and Quincy. It certainly looks good, with several long creek drainages that appear unlogged, but I noticed how the area was so surrounded by human development. Any long travel into or out of the area by creatures like a bigfoot would be narrowed down to very few tight corridors in an eastward direction, and would still pass through fairly dense human habitats. The area of northwest California (Del Norte and Siskiyou counties) allow almost unfettered north-south movement to wildlife around both the Cascade and Coast Ranges. Anadromous food resources are exponentially greater there, too.

 

My own footprint find was in the southern Sierra Nevada mountains, but I think of the Sierras as the southermost extent of their primary range, and not as ideal a habitat as the coastal mountains for a few reasons, although the western side of the mountains beats the eastern side.

[Twist]

11 hours ago, norseman said:

 

But you wouldnt say a word. Which is your right to do so.

 

Most habituators love the lime light and notoriety of being "experts" right up until you ask for evidence and then they act like you punched them in the mouth.

 

Agreed.  

[Huntster]

Can rattlesnakes be attack trained?

[RedHawk454]

11 hours ago, Huntster said:

 

Remarkably, there are lots of places unofficially called Pneumonia Gulch. I couldn't find the actual canyon you might mean. But I think I found the area you refer to between the Feather River and Quincy. It certainly looks good, with several long creek drainages that appear unlogged, but I noticed how the area was so surrounded by human development. Any long travel into or out of the area by creatures like a bigfoot would be narrowed down to very few tight corridors in an eastward direction, and would still pass through fairly dense human habitats. The area of northwest California (Del Norte and Siskiyou counties) allow almost unfettered north-south movement to wildlife around both the Cascade and Coast Ranges. Anadromous food resources are exponentially greater there, too.

 

My own footprint find was in the southern Sierra Nevada mountains, but I think of the Sierras as the southermost extent of their primary range, and not as ideal a habitat as the coastal mountains for a few reasons, although the western side of the mountains beats the eastern side.

 

 

A lot of  the Missing 411 cases happened in Yosemite National Park

[ShadowBorn]

23 hours ago, norseman said:

Most habituators love the lime light and notoriety of being "experts" right up until you ask for evidence and then they act like you punched them in the mouth.

May I ask who are these habituators  that love the lime light and seek notoriety ? I have not yet met one yet in my life time and am not sure that I will. I can say that I have done my bringing proof of what I have found to be from these creatures to this forum. The one thing I have not brought is the holy grail of proof that we all seek.  The one thing that keeps me in a bind is the filming of Patty and I am still estray on that one. What I can tell you is that on one day I believe that she is real and on another day I honestly believe she is fake. Every time I stare at that film I catch some thing odd that just does not fit. Heck the stuff that I have found could have all been hoaxed on me with out me knowing it. 

 

But the one thing I do know that has not been hoaxed were my encounters when I hunted so that I could better understand the woods. What I encountered out there was real and there was no way in h*ll that it was faked. What I discovered after that was real and there was no way that people were hoaxing me.  Yetie9 I am not sure who you are and what proof you have and I really do not care. I can just tell you that the proof I have I found it on my own. If you want proof then you have to search that proof on your own terms just like I did. The truth is out there and if you have found it then you already know and understand. Like I have said many times before this just my opinion and you do not have to accept it.

[norseman]

1 hour ago, ShadowBorn said:

May I ask who are these habituators  that love the lime light and seek notoriety ? I have not yet met one yet in my life time and am not sure that I will. I can say that I have done my bringing proof of what I have found to be from these creatures to this forum. The one thing I have not brought is the holy grail of proof that we all seek.  The one thing that keeps me in a bind is the filming of Patty and I am still estray on that one. What I can tell you is that on one day I believe that she is real and on another day I honestly believe she is fake. Every time I stare at that film I catch some thing odd that just does not fit. Heck the stuff that I have found could have all been hoaxed on me with out me knowing it. 

 

But the one thing I do know that has not been hoaxed were my encounters when I hunted so that I could better understand the woods. What I encountered out there was real and there was no way in h*ll that it was faked. What I discovered after that was real and there was no way that people were hoaxing me.  Yetie9 I am not sure who you are and what proof you have and I really do not care. I can just tell you that the proof I have I found it on my own. If you want proof then you have to search that proof on your own terms just like I did. The truth is out there and if you have found it then you already know and understand. Like I have said many times before this just my opinion and you do not have to accept it.

 

Has anyone you have run across claiming that they come in contact with Bigfoot on a regular basis, but to take a picture of one would be rude?

 

Or a DNA sample from eaten fruit? Betrayal?

 

Or a hair sample? Horrifying?

 

But yet Bigfoot tells them telepathically X,Y or Z and you are to accept that as fact? And if you don't? They become irate?

 

No one comes to mind like that? If you cant think of anyone? I cannot help you...

[BobbyO]

On 1/20/2019 at 2:48 AM, Patterson-Gimlin said:

 

 

The eyewitness evidence not so much. 

 

 

Standing alone, yes it can be interpreted as that. 

 

Collectively however when finding regular patterns in over 5,000 reports, very different.

[Huntster]

1 hour ago, BobbyO said:

..........Collectively however when finding regular patterns in over 5,000 reports, very different.

 

And those 5000 reports aren't even the beginning of the testimony. There are many reports I can think of that aren't in, for example, the SSR, BFRO, Green, or any other database. An example of that are the two direct experiences mentioned by Bobbie Short of Lyle Laverty before his involvement in the PG film event (an individual sighting near Hyampom, CA, and a nest find in the Scorpion Creek/Lonesome Ridge area, which is immediately adjacent to the PG film site). One can find no details of those two events. Is that because Laverty wisely chose to keep his experiences (as an official, on-duty USFS employee) confidential? Was he ordered to do so?

 

The aboriginal experiences are another poorly recorded field of reports, and the quite literally go back at least 15,000 years in North America, and likely double that span of time. Bill Nelson reports several in his anthropology study of the Koyukon aboriginal group in his book "Make Prayers to the Raven", which is not a "Bigfoot book", but a study of the Koyukon peoples and their relationship with the natural world.

 

Do people lie? Do they make up stories? Do they embellish rel events? Yes, yes, and yes, but the lawyeresque reasoning that justifies complete disregard for human testimony with regard to sasquatchery is beyond foolish; it's denialism. Human testimony can result in conviction of a capital crine, and has done so throughout human history. It is evidence, not proof, plain and simple.

Edited January 21, 2019 by Huntster

[7.62]

9 hours ago, norseman said:

 

Has anyone you have run across claiming that they come in contact with Bigfoot on a regular basis, but to take a picture of one would be rude?

 

Or a DNA sample from eaten fruit? Betrayal?

 

Or a hair sample? Horrifying?

 

But yet Bigfoot tells them telepathically X,Y or Z and you are to accept that as fact? And if you don't? They become irate?

 

No one comes to mind like that? If you cant think of anyone? I cannot help you...

When someone says things like that I lump them in with story tellers . I listen to a lot of stories of encounters on youtube. Whether they are bigfoot or dogman ones.

Just recently they had a person saying he had multiple daytime visuals that lasted over minute at a time .The host never asks the person on his show Why didn't you take a photo?

He never asks his guests that question ever ...bugs the sh#t out of me . 

[NatFoot]

1 hour ago, Huntster said:

 

And those 5000 reports aren't even the beginning of the testimony. There are many reports I can think of that aren't in, for example, the SSR, BFRO, Green, or any other database. An example of that are the two direct experiences mentioned by Bobbie Short of Lyle Laverty before his involvement in the PG film event (an individual sighting near Hyampom, CA, and a nest find in the Scorpion Creek/Lonesome Ridge area, which is immediately adjacent to the PG film site). One can find no details of those two events. Is that because Laverty wisely chose to keep his experiences (as an official, on-duty USFS employee) confidential? Was he ordered to do so?

 

The aboriginal experiences are another poorly recorded field of reports, and the quite literally go back at least 15,000 years in North America, and likely double that span of time. Bill Nelson reports several in his anthropology study of the Koyukon aboriginal group in his book "Make Prayers to the Raven", which is not a "Bigfoot book", but a study of the Koyukon peoples and their relationship with the natural world.

 

Do people lie? Do they make up stories? Do they embellish rel events? Yes, yes, and yes, but the lawyeresque reasoning that justifies complete disregard for human testimony with regard to sasquatchery is beyond foolish; it's denialism. Human testimony can result in conviction of a capital crine, and has done so throughout human history. It is evidence, not proof, plain and simple.

 

Correct. There's also a sighting in my family history that is not recorded anywhere...and it was a very close, face to face, encounter.

[SWWASAS]

11 hours ago, norseman said:

 

Has anyone you have run across claiming that they come in contact with Bigfoot on a regular basis, but to take a picture of one would be rude?

 

Or a DNA sample from eaten fruit? Betrayal?

 

Or a hair sample? Horrifying?

 

But yet Bigfoot tells them telepathically X,Y or Z and you are to accept that as fact? And if you don't? They become irate?

 

No one comes to mind like that? If you cant think of anyone? I cannot help you...

You have a pretty good list of habituation answers.    There are probably more.     My take on it is that these people are suffering from something like the Stockholm syndrome if they are in a real situation.      Initially scared to death to discover they have BF neighbors then relief that their giant hairy neighbors let them live.  So they end up afraid to do something that would displease the BF.    The BF condition their behavior rather than the other way around.   Some habituation situations are likely mental illness and imagined.  

Edited January 21, 2019 by SWWASAS

[Huntster]

1 hour ago, 7.62 said:

When someone says things like that I lump them in with story tellers........

........Just recently they had a person saying he had multiple daytime visuals that lasted over minute at a time .The host never asks the person on his show Why didn't you take a photo?

He never asks his guests that question ever ...bugs the sh#t out of me . 

 

I read of a woman’s story that you will not find in any current sasquatch database. I believe it was told to Peter Byrne and he wrote of it in his book, which was published in the mid-1970’s.

 

This woman lived in a secluded, rural Oregon location. She either lived there alone, or would only see this saquatch when nobody else was around. She would see it and watched from, I believe, the kitchen window of her home. It was a female sasquatch, and it was noticably pregnant. It hung around her back yard for a number of days or weeks. Then one day the woman watched as this sasquatch gave birth just in the woods from the open area of her back yard. Some period of time later, both female sasquatch and baby stopped showing up.

 

Later in life, through personal experience (especially with moose), I came to realize that animals have specific types of environments, patterns, and behaviors that they prefer when they give birth, primarily because all infant creatures are potential prey, even those of apex predators like humans, bears, wolves, pumas, etc. This woman’s story sounded valid because it fit all traits common with the criteria, including a woman's intuition to let this creature bear its young in private and safety. 

 

That isn’t the only lesser known report of a pregnant sasquatch that has impressed me, either........