Jump to content

Have there been reports out of the Bluff Creek Area in the last few years?


starchunk
 Share

Recommended Posts

SSR Team

There's still a healthy amount of reports coming in to the BFRO from Humboldt and Del Norte Counties, with most falling in to the hands of Mr M, unfortunately not then seeing the light of day publicly.

 

**Edited : Grammar

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please, how many reports are actually made public by any entity according to any timetable? The answer is not many.

Regardless, I'm sure your account of regular reports is accurate. I recall hearing some ongoing Bluff Creek region data on podcasts and such from the usual west coast people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 10/2/2021 at 6:06 PM, Huntster said:

I think that when increasing human pressure comes, they disperse. They're still in the region, but in lower densities.

 

Where did they go? Good question. The entire PNW has exploded in human population since the 1950's, but northern BC still has huge swaths of pure wilderness along the coastal fiords. There have also been numerous areas protected from development and road building in the region. That's where I suspect they've retreated.

I don't think they disperse or retreat as much as reposition.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We expect with all the cameras everywhere, we should have more footage.  But, are there really cameras everywhere?   There is no doubt in cities and civilized/developed areas we have cameras everywhere.

 

-doorbell cameras

-motion detector cameras telling your cell phone someone is there

-security cameras

-parking lot cameras

-  and so on which could be a really long list.

 

These many cameras would be great and useful should Bigfoot walk down Times Square in NY.   People will say, "With all the cameras we have everywhere they should have captured a Bigfoot on camera by now if it existed."    This statement of all the cameras is true....in the cities.   It is not true in the wilderness.    Cameras in the remote areas don't exist other than the cameras we bring with us.   That requires a person have a line of sight and be ready. 

 

 

How do we know if any area has gone cold?  I suggest the metric is 1) Eye Witness reports and 2) Reports of footprints.  Those numbers go up = assumed increase activity.  Numbers go down = area likely going cold.   I am guessing what we are really asking is why there has not been another PGF-level event by now in general?   It is a great Q.

 

My best guess is the next PGF level sighting- should it ever occur- will be from a trail camera.  Put enough of them out there in enough areas for enough time and there should be a hit eventually.    I don't bet on a clear PGF type footage event anywhere any time soon should Bigfoot exist.   I assume Bigfoot must live in deep remote areas.    Even a camera in hand will not easily capture a subject due to cover.    Patterson happened to have 1) open creek bed which is not overgrown 2) daylight.   If Patterson was at Bluff Creek today, the natural growth alone would make it harder to capture bigfoot and a cell phone.   He might have 5 seconds vs 1 min.   

 

I would make a wild guess and assume most eyewitness reports indicate a typical bigfoot sighting is seconds only.  The Bluff Creek incident had a very long 1 minute sighting enough so Roger was able to move his later line of sight and film a long walk-away.


I don't know if Bluff Creek area has grown cold.   We can state it's been 50 years and there really hasn't been another Bluff Creek PGF level film since that interesting day in October 1967.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, JKH said:

I don't think they disperse or retreat as much as reposition.

 

Very possibly, but even a repositioning in an immediate area can be considered a retreat from new and increasing human activity.

 

I also think that natural population density swings as well as a longer term range habitation problem is occurring. As a hunter, I read a lot of ADFG publications on game species in Alaska, both prey and predator. Lots of stimuli affect the various species population densities, including human activity. Climate, berry crop productivity, snow depths, winter severities, etc all play roles, and things that affect prey animals eventually affect predators. Add human activities like timber harvest and encroaching cities, and long term changes are almost guaranteed.

 

The Bluff Creek region (bounded on the south by CA Hwy 96, on the east by I-5, on the west by the coast, and on the north by Hwy 199) was opened up by logging activity, and the human-sasquatch contact increased immediately, so much so that the sasquatches were quite literally hunted. It's actually remarkable that all we have to show for it is the PG film. From the 1958 Jerry Crews news exposure to the 1967 PG film is a full 9 years of regular reports. After Patterson chased Patty down the riverbed I can almost see her returning to her mate to angrily tell him that "a pair of those hairless bums actually filmed me in my birthday suit while I was minding my own business eating frogs, and it's time to move! These new new neighbors are rude and just aren't going away!" Gimlin even described her facial expression as disgust. 

 

Yes, they may have abandoned the Bluff Creek drainage for another drainage in the area that was more quiet, and have since repeated that type of movement as human activity has pushed them around, but in the half-century meantime the human population of the entire PNW has doubled. The logging roads now rarely or not used to log are used by hunters, campers, fishermen, berry pickers, and even pot growers. The most remote areas are now much smaller, and one of their more important food sources (salmon and other anadromous fish) are almost gone. 

 

They're probably still in the region, but I'm quite confident that their numbers are much lower there than the WWII era and earlier, and their best habitat is along the BC coast north of Vancouver and into the southeast Alaska panhandle south of the ABC Islands. There are still loads of anadromous fish, hundreds of miles of lonely beaches to comb for washed up food, shellfish, no roads, few people, and few to no grizzly bears. Even if the sasquatches from the south didn't relocate to this region, I believe that the ones that have always been here have thrived better and flourished.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 hours ago, JKH said:

Please, how many reports are actually made public by any entity according to any timetable? The answer is not many.

Regardless, I'm sure your account of regular reports is accurate. I recall hearing some ongoing Bluff Creek region data on podcasts and such from the usual west coast people.

 

From @ 1950-1975 the publication of sasquatchery was a one-man show, and the name of that programming was John Green. That man was, in my opinion, the last of the great journalists. Sasquatchery owes him A LOT. 

 

Mr. Moneymaker has come to the center of power with regard to sasquatch encounter reporting despite the rapid, continent-wide growth of regional sasquatch interest groups, all of which have websites seeking information on sasquatch encounters. He is not an educated, professional journalist like John Greene. He appears to have mastered a combination of journalist/scientific/carnival approach. Just like Green and the sasquatch hunters of the post WWII years, Moneymaker has the goal of being the guy who solves the mystery for all time, assuring himself a place in the history books. That goal is like gold fever. 

 

I'm pretty confident that if he "gets the goods", it will come out pronto, even if other people or organizations try to stop him. So enjoy what he does publish. It's free. 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

SSR Team
17 hours ago, JKH said:

Please, how many reports are actually made public by any entity according to any timetable? The answer is not many.

Regardless, I'm sure your account of regular reports is accurate. I recall hearing some ongoing Bluff Creek region data on podcasts and such from the usual west coast people.

 

So far, 2021 and up to this week (38) specifically, BFRO only, they have received 523 reports so far, with 268 of those not yet classified/released in to the public domain for whatever reason.

 

So that's nearly 2 reports per day, nearly 14 per week and nearly 60 per month incoming to them.

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Backdoc said:

We expect with all the cameras everywhere, we should have more footage.  But, are there really cameras everywhere?   There is no doubt in cities and civilized/developed areas we have cameras everywhere.

 

-doorbell cameras

-motion detector cameras telling your cell phone someone is there

-security cameras

-parking lot cameras

-  and so on which could be a really long list.

 

These many cameras would be great and useful should Bigfoot walk down Times Square in NY.   People will say, "With all the cameras we have everywhere they should have captured a Bigfoot on camera by now if it existed."    This statement of all the cameras is true....in the cities.   It is not true in the wilderness.    Cameras in the remote areas don't exist other than the cameras we bring with us.   That requires a person have a line of sight and be ready. 

 

 

How do we know if any area has gone cold?  I suggest the metric is 1) Eye Witness reports and 2) Reports of footprints.  Those numbers go up = assumed increase activity.  Numbers go down = area likely going cold.   I am guessing what we are really asking is why there has not been another PGF-level event by now in general?   It is a great Q.

 

My best guess is the next PGF level sighting- should it ever occur- will be from a trail camera.  Put enough of them out there in enough areas for enough time and there should be a hit eventually.    I don't bet on a clear PGF type footage event anywhere any time soon should Bigfoot exist.   I assume Bigfoot must live in deep remote areas.    Even a camera in hand will not easily capture a subject due to cover.    Patterson happened to have 1) open creek bed which is not overgrown 2) daylight.   If Patterson was at Bluff Creek today, the natural growth alone would make it harder to capture bigfoot and a cell phone.   He might have 5 seconds vs 1 min.   

 

I would make a wild guess and assume most eyewitness reports indicate a typical bigfoot sighting is seconds only.  The Bluff Creek incident had a very long 1 minute sighting enough so Roger was able to move his later line of sight and film a long walk-away.


I don't know if Bluff Creek area has grown cold.   We can state it's been 50 years and there really hasn't been another Bluff Creek PGF level film since that interesting day in October 1967.

 

 

Let's not forget that trailcams have inherent limitations. A typical one has a detection angle of 40 degrees and a range of 80'.  If my geometry is even close, that's roughly 2,200 sq ft. of detection area. Put that out in a research area of 50 sq miles (roughly 1.4 billion sq ft) and 2,200 sq ft is like a drop of water in a pool.  

 

We put trailcams out there because it gives us a chance, albeit very small, to catch one on video while we're at home. At best, we can hopefully narrow the odds a bit by selecting areas that might have a better chance of a sasquatch passing through.

 

Not having caught one clearly visible on trailcam, at least that has been publicly released, doesn't surprise me at all.

 

p.s. Feel free to correct my math if it is materially off.

 

 

Edited by wiiawiwb
  • Thanks 1
  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, wiiawiwb said:

 

 

At best, we can hopefully narrow the odds a bit by selecting areas that might have a better chance of a sasquatch passing through.

 

 



Years ago a poster wrote: Bigfoot is like the KGB in Russia, “you don’t find them, they find you.”

 


Here is my guess:    Setting out to find bigfoot is a long shot under the best circumstances.  What are those circumstances?   Persistence in an area where Recent Activity has been reported.    Other than that, I don’t think one finds Bigfoot by searching as much as one stumbles across Bigfoot in a random encounter.   To my mind then, we need to maximize having that random encounter if that’s even possible.    Reminds me of a Discovery Channel show where on one of the searchers was playing drums to try to make a potential Bigfoot curious enough to come near.  
 

Trail cams are limited and barely better than nothing.  This is based on my “ You don’t find Bigfoot, Bigfoot finds you” thinking.   But, it’s still a decent method which magnifies the number of eyes looking even if some of those eyes are a battery powered box.    Eyewitnesses I see on TV seem generally to become surprised by a unexpected encounter which I imagine would have a Bigfoot feeling the same way.

 

Consider what would have happened if Roger had a trail cam of 2021 at bluff creek at the filming site in 1967.  Even then, I imagine the odds would still be against the right line of sight to see much of Patty that day, if anything.  This depends on the capabilities of the camera I will admit.

 

1 or even 1,000 cameras saturating some area do nothing if a potential animal is outside the area in question.  It’s a big area out there.   

 

 

 

 

  • Upvote 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...