Story close to Harrison hot springs

[Backdoc]

3 hours ago, Duckman said:

Except for the fact that trail camera's are absolutely useless in the hunt for bigfoot. Even if you manage to get a good photo, the vast majority of people would day that it's a hoax.

People might dismiss it.   A trail camera with a Bigfoot sighting would at least identify a “hit” on the map or area.   That would be valuable to the searchers at some level I would think.    

[Huntster]

1 hour ago, Backdoc said:

........A trail camera with a Bigfoot sighting would at least identify a “hit” on the map or area.   That would be valuable to the searchers at some level I would think.    

 

If that location is shared and accessible. Increasingly, they are not shared, and many sightings are on private land.

[BC witness]

11 hours ago, Huntster said:

 

Are you sure? That's Canada. Everything is regulated even more than the U.S.

 

Access to Crown Land in Canada is not heavily restricted. There are a few areas that get closed for wildlife protection from hunters and traffic, but generally Canadians can go anywhere that isn't privately owned, so about 90% of the country is open to all. The problem is getting to a lot of it, as there are no roads through vast areas, unless someone is operating a logging, mining, or oil lease there. My access to the land around Harrison Lake is via logging roads built by private companies that pay stumpage fees to government for the right to log, and they only restrict access to the actual logging site, to protect their equipment while it's there. Gates are usually removed as soon as the specific resource road is not in active use. Mining and oil/gas drilling areas are similar, access is open except on active sites, for safety reasons.

[BC witness]

8 hours ago, Backdoc said:

 

 

I saw Bill Miller in Bigfoot's Reflection on Netflix and Lake Harrison looked pretty remote to me.   The points Bill made about the expansive nature of Lake Harrison and those woods were logical and powerful.   He said, "You could drive miles and miles all day long and see footprints of bears and so on and yet you don't see a single one"    Locals know bears are there by footprints but you might go all day and not even see one.  

 

 

 

 

His words are very true. There is a large black bear population in the Harrison area, as well as a few rare sightings of grizzlies, but actually seeing them is not frequent, though tracks and scat are very commonly seen. On the several dozens of atv tours I drove for him, I only encountered blacks twice, and had one possible grizzly sighting, too brief to be positive. On another occasion, scouting for new tour trails, Bill, Thomas, MagniAesir and I were in my 4x4. As we rounded a curve on a narrow road with heavy bush on both sides, I almost rear ended a large red coloured bear. Although both Bill and Thomas had cameras hanging on their chests, neither one could get a shot before the bear disappeared into the trees. We never could tell if it was a red phase black bear, or a grizzly.

[Backdoc]

On 11/8/2022 at 11:30 PM, JKH said:

Who do you keep referring to as "we"?

People do many forms of research there and other places, sometimes known as hot spots.

The people who do such have their own networks IRL, or typically other places online. Some folks share here, but it's not that often, IMO.

 

On 11/8/2022 at 10:53 PM, Backdoc said:

If Harrison Hot Springs is a hot spot for Bigfoot activity, shouldn’t we be looking there?

 

There could be all kinds of groups out there looking.  Fine by me.  

 

WE are PEOPLE who are Intentional Searchers.    I am saying intentional searchers of anything should go to where the thing they are looking for is reported to be.  Substitute 'we' for 'Intentional searchers' if that makes sense.

 

Now I could have been an Unintentional Searcher when I was in the Rocky Mountains over the summer.  I was not there to look for Bigfoot or snakes or anything else.   But, through no intention of my own, I could have saw Bigfoot had Bigfoot walked by during my hike.   That would have made me an unintentional searcher. 

 

I imagine there are Bigfoot groups and search groups who go to these places.  It's just my opinion but as much as I applaud those efforts, I have to think that is a drop in the ocean vs the amount of resources needed to effectively explore.   I'm not saying abandon these efforts.  Clearly if people have sightings as both Intentional and Unintentional searchers in time, I expect they will hit pay dirt.  

 

Edited November 10, 2022 by Backdoc

[norseman]

80 percent of the Canadian population lives with 100 miles of the US border. And its a country the size of the US with 1/6th the population. There is alot of wilderness out there!

[Backdoc]

11 hours ago, Huntster said:

 

If that location is shared and accessible. Increasingly, they are not shared, and many sightings are on private land.

 

That is a great point I had not considered.   I know a lot of guys who catch big fish.  When I asked them where they caught it, it's always some private farm pond or place I never have access to.   I imagine there is increased fear of liability issues allowing people on private property.   I had never given that any thought.  

 

Public lands probably have increased number of people.   Increased number of people = increased chance of driving shy animals away.    The public lands of Bluff Creek had the added advantage to Roger and Bob of being pretty expansive.

 

When I say 'Trail Cam', it could be any version of technology.  I'm meaning the same thing.    For instance, many people have a camera on their doorbell linked to the cell phone.  The FED EX guy shows up with a delivery and in real time they can see, hear, record, talk to the person.  If a trail cam was more like this in some form, there would be more instance Feeback to know where to dispatch searchers.   A standard trail cam capturing bigfoot in a still photo likely would be looked at as interesting but a hoax.   Even believers might say 'it's so good it has to be a guy in a suit messing with us"  A real time alert camera/drone/whatever could just alert even a small group of searchers to the trigger spot.  If not, then one might see an assumed bigfoot sighting still shot a month old when they go get the camera.   Missed opportunity. 

 

If bigfoot is real, will technology catch up to it before the undertaker? 

[Backdoc]

10 hours ago, BC witness said:

His words are very true. There is a large black bear population in the Harrison area, as well as a few rare sightings of grizzlies, but actually seeing them is not frequent, though tracks and scat are very commonly seen. On the several dozens of atv tours I drove for him, I only encountered blacks twice, and had one possible grizzly sighting, too brief to be positive. On another occasion, scouting for new tour trails, Bill, Thomas, MagniAesir and I were in my 4x4. As we rounded a curve on a narrow road with heavy bush on both sides, I almost rear ended a large red coloured bear. Although both Bill and Thomas had cameras hanging on their chests, neither one could get a shot before the bear disappeared into the trees. We never could tell if it was a red phase black bear, or a grizzly.

 

Real World experience teaches us how easy or difficult something actually is.   If you subsisted your bear encounter with Bigfoot instead of a bear, the same result would happen.  That is, you would not have been able to get a picture of it even though 2 people had cameras right there.  

[hiflier]

2 hours ago, Backdoc said:

There could be all kinds of groups out there looking.  Fine by me.

 

2 hours ago, Backdoc said:

I imagine there are Bigfoot groups and search groups who go to these places.  It's just my opinion but as much as I applaud those efforts, I have to think that is a drop in the ocean vs the amount of resources needed to effectively explore.

 

And every one of those groups or individuals are up against resources that have the manpower, the best surveillance equipment- both terrestrial and extraterrestrial, money to burn, and the best genetics labs in North America at their disposal....And it's all paid for by us. But do we try to tap into that? Nope. We don't. We pinch pennies to buy a thermal imager, or a trail cam, or put gas in as well as maintain our vehicles. Just so we can go out and do exactly what's been done for the last  60 years with zero for results. Meanwhile those that know the truth never get boo from us. I have harped on this a lot, but as long as the focus is always on the creature itself instead of those who know the truth then the bar for anything approaching discovery will remain extremely low.

 

Everybody gets that, of course, but no one seems to really WANT discovery. The amount of effort and resources needed to target the gatekeepers of Bigfoot truth where existence (or non existence) is concerned is a tiny, TINY fraction of the time, effort, and resources an "Intentional Searcher" invests- and HAS invested already. Considering the track record on those investments the time is way overdue to start getting seriously logical about this subject and stop playing games playing the public and the newbies that come onto this Forum. Target those up the ladder who know the truth of whether this creature is real or not.

 

See you in the Spring

 

 

Edited November 10, 2022 by hiflier

[Huntster]

49 minutes ago, Backdoc said:

......The public lands of Bluff Creek had the added advantage to Roger and Bob of being pretty expansive........

 

In addition to being a huge swath of land, it was as remote as it got up to about 11 years before the filming when the logging road network was built, which was when contact with the area sasquatches increased exponentially.

 

Quote

.......When I say 'Trail Cam', it could be any version of technology.  I'm meaning the same thing.    For instance, many people have a camera on their doorbell linked to the cell phone.  The FED EX guy shows up with a delivery and in real time they can see, hear, record, talk to the person.  If a trail cam was more like this in some form, there would be more instance Feeback to know where to dispatch searchers.........

 

There are currently numerous game cams with cellular phone notification and monitoring capabilities on the market, but no such cameras utilizing satellite communications outside DoD satellite networks that I know of. There are people currently trying to fabricate such systems, though. While a satellite capable cam would offer huge potential, it would be of little good unless the operators were similarly capable of quick locational response with similar capture/kill capabilities. More photos or video is likely to be just more money/effort down the drain. 

 

Quote

........If bigfoot is real, will technology catch up to it before the undertaker?

 

Technology has already caught up to and surpassed sasquatchery. The question is whether or not denial can or will be overcome before sasquatches disappear.

 

I believe that the answer is no, and that's because the denial is widespread, encouraged, and intentional.

[Patterson-Gimlin]

18 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

In addition to being a huge swath of land, it was as remote as it got up to about 11 years before the filming when the logging road network was built, which was when contact with the area sasquatches increased exponentially.

 

 

There are currently numerous game cams with cellular phone notification and monitoring capabilities on the market, but no such cameras utilizing satellite communications outside DoD satellite networks that I know of. There are people currently trying to fabricate such systems, though. While a satellite capable cam would offer huge potential, it would be of little good unless the operators were similarly capable of quick locational response with similar capture/kill capabilities. More photos or video is likely to be just more money/effort down the drain. 

 

 

Technology has already caught up to and surpassed sasquatchery. The question is whether or not denial can or will be overcome before sasquatches disappear.

 

I believe that the answer is no, and that's because the denial is widespread, encouraged, and intentional.

Please explain why you think technology has surpassed sasquatchery. 

If that is indeed the case,

then why is the Patterson-Gimlin film still the best evidence?

Other than denials by mainstream science If you would be so kind to elaborate. 

Shouldn't there be better films and maybe just one specimen at the very least. 

Perhaps there is and we just aren't privy to it 

Thank you in advance. 

[Huntster]

2 hours ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

Please explain why you think technology has surpassed sasquatchery..........

We have had film footage of a sasquatch for over 55 years now. In addition, human technology has gotten more and more incredible every year. If the resources used to kill people overseas over the past 25 years were used to catch a sasquatch, it would be successful in short order.
 

Quote

.......If that is indeed the case,

then why is the Patterson-Gimlin film still the best evidence?.......

Because subsequent films were simply not shot under as ideal conditions, and still photos are simply not going to overcome the denial the phenomenon suffers from.

 

Quote

.......Shouldn't there be better films and maybe just one specimen at the very least. 

Perhaps there is and we just aren't privy to it......,

Yes, one would think that more films of equal or better wuality dhould have surfaced by now, but I'm really not surprised that they haven't. For example, I see bears very regularly......on average, more than one per year. Guess how many pics and films I have of bears? How many bear footprint casts? None. Not one. I'm not running sround with a camera. Even though I have a dash cam in my dsaily driver, I still don't have one in my truck/camper. 
 

Early last spring I saw a fat black hear trying to crawl under the moose fence near the main gate of Ft. Richardson as I drove by, where I've seen bears a few times before. It was off to the side and not in view of my dash cam.

 

I have game cam pics of bear eyeballs as they sniffed my game cam at a bear bait station. If I said it was a sasquatch, only fools would believe me. When I say it's a bear, everybody agrees, even though you really can't tell what it is. That's just how it works. Photos really are meaningless, unless you're going to use the photos as the lead up for a capture/kill operation, but that brings with it a whole new level of problems.

[Patterson-Gimlin]

^^

Thanks for responding. 

Much appreciated.