Why Is Bf So Hard To Find And Document?

[Guest]

This doesn't help, be specific.

What exactly have you learned? What has your research turned up?

Actually ME was quite specific. He has written extensively in older threads regarding his encounters & methods. Hope this isn't out of line, but exactly how much fieldwork have you done recently? I could be completely off the mark but a lot of your knowledge to date seems to come from reading others work, and reading BF books.

Had you asked me the same question I would be hesitent to answer as anything I have observed thru hours of bushwacking isn't something I'd be likely to share with someone who hasn't demonstrated the same level of physical effort.

[Guest RedRatSnake]

RRS there are several reports out of Mass. One good one I can think of was from leominster.

Hi

We have reports of BF but the thing is there just sightings with no evidence of any kind, you know the prints, broken trees, hair, vocals, pictures, etc, some reports are from areas that are so populated a BF would have to be 6 inches tall not to be noticed, the areas look good on Google maps but when your at ground level there packed with houses, now i understand animals have a way of hiding but an 8' gorilla like creature just don't have the cover around here to do that, we have reports of BF in Cape Cod MA, Now i would love to be able to go down there and check things out but the only way for a BF to get there is over one of three long and busy bridges he could swim across the canal or take a boat but that's hard to fathom for me, Cape Cod is extremely populated and i just don't see how one would be able to survive there, i think BF is for the most part a wilderness animal not a rural animal.

Tim

[georgerm]

Here is a story of a young BF that was captured. This BF was vunerable, so why haven't we found young helpless BFs in their dens? We find baby cougars, bears, and other wild animals. Why not BF babies in dens? Do they build dens on rock cliffs that only climbers can access?

In the immediate vicinity of No. 4 tunnel, situated some twenty miles above this village, are bluffs of rock which have hitherto been unsurmountable, but on Monday morning last were successfully scaled by Mr. Onderdonk's employees on the regular train from Lytton. Assisted by Mr. Costerton, the British Columbia Express Company's messenger, and a number of gentlemen from Lytton and points east of that place who, after considerable trouble and perilous climbing, succeeded in capturing a creature which may truly be called half man and half beast. "Jacko" as the creature has been called by his capturers, is something of the gorilla type standing four feet seven inches in height and weighing 127 pounds. He has long, black, strong hair and resembles a human being with one exception, his entire body, excepting his hands, (or paws) and feet are covered with glossy hair about an inch long. His fore arm is much longer than a man's fore arm, and he possesses extraordinary strength, as he will take hold of a stick and break it by wrenching or twisting it, which no man living could break in the same way.

Since his capture he is very reticent, only occasionally uttering a noise which is half bark and half growl. He is, however, becoming daily more attached to his keeper, Mr. George Telbury, of this place, who proposes shortly starting for London, England, to exhibit him. His favorite food so far is berries, and he drinks fresh milk with evident relish. By advice of Dr. Hannington raw meats have been withheld from Jacko, as the doctor thinks it would have a tendency to make him savage. The mode of his capture was as follows :

Ned Austin, the engineer, on coming in sight of the bluff at the eastern end of the No. 4 tunnel saw what he supposed to be a man lying asleep in close proximity to the track, and as quick as thought blew the signal to apply the brakes. The brakes were instantly applied, and in a few seconds the train was brought to a standstill. At this moment the supposed man sprang up, and uttering a sharp quick bark began to climb the steep bluff. Conductor R.J. Craig and Express Messenger Costerton, followed by the baggage man and brakemen, jumped from the train and knowing they were some twenty minutes ahead of time immediately gave chase. After five minutes of perilous climbing the then supposed demented Indian was corralled on a projecting shelf of rock where he could neither ascend nor descend. The query now was how to capture him alive, which was quickly decided by Mr. Craig, who crawled on his hands and knees until he was about forty feet above the creature. Taking a small piece of loose rock he let it fall and it had the desired effect of rendering poor Jacko incapable of resistance for a time at least.

The bell rope was then brought up and Jacko was now lowered to terra firma. After firmly binding him and placing him in the baggage car "off brakes" was sounded and the train started for Yale. At the station a large crowd who had heard of the capture by telephone from Spuzzum Flat were assembled, each one anxious to have the first look at the monstrosity, but they were disappointed, as Jacko had been taken off at the machine shops and placed in charge of his present keeper.

The question naturally arises, how came the creature where it was first seen by Mr. Austin ? From bruises about its head and body, and apparent soreness since its capture, it is supposed that Jacko ventured too near the edge of the bluff, slipped, fell and lay where found until the sound of the rushing train aroused him. Mr. Thos. white and Mr. Gouin, C.E., as well as Mr. Major, who kept a small store about half a mile west of the tunnel during the past two years, have mentioned having seen a curious creature at different points between Camps 13 and 17, but no attention was paid to their remarks as people came to the conclusion that they had either seen a bear or stray Indian dog. Who can unravel the mystery that now surrounds Jacko! Does he belong to a species hitherto unknown in this part of the continent, or is he really what the train men first thought he was, a crazy Indian!

Edited September 11, 2011 by georgerm

[Guest]

So is it your position that no Bigfoots exist outside of a few inaccessible areas of the pacific northwest where no humans go, and that they have always lived only there?

No one is suggesting that, parn, except for deresion-flinging Skeptics, and then only in sarcasm.

Why is it so hard for Skeptics to accept that animals are more at home in the woods than we are, and are perfectly capable of keeping us from seeing them if they don't want to be seen and are aware of our presence?

They will of course, sometimes suffer bad luck, or simply not know we're there. They may also CHOOSE to be seen for some reason (such as territorial display). Those three factors explain why we see SOME BF, but almost certainly not all the BF that are potentially present.

[Guest]

No one is suggesting that, parn, except for deresion-flinging Skeptics, and then only in sarcasm.

Why is it so hard for Skeptics to accept that animals are more at home in the woods than we are, and are perfectly capable of keeping us from seeing them if they don't want to be seen and are aware of our presence?

They will of course, sometimes suffer bad luck, or simply not know we're there. They may also CHOOSE to be seen for some reason (such as territorial display). Those three factors explain why we see SOME BF, but almost certainly not all the BF that are potentially present.

Seems like Parn asked a reasonable question. There are true believers and advocates who think sasquatch exist only in the Pacific Northwest, especially given the fact that most sighting reports elsewhere in the country arose after the Patterson film became well known and viewed by potentially millions of folks in areas not known as Bigfoot country (but where subsequent Bigfoot reports followed).

The question of being seen is not the only issue. Even in forested areas where a single human may hide out undetected, we would still have to know if such areas could sustain a breeding population of large, very large, ape-like primates.

And it would seem reasonable, not sarcastic - mind you, to wonder why a continent wide population of large mammals has never been definitively verified if, "they will of course, sometimes suffer bad luck, or simply not know we're there" and "may also CHOOSE to be seen for some reason (such as territorial display)." (BTW, animals do seem to linger longer than prudent during "territorial display" ... many a gorilla has been shot performing their territorial displays).

[Guest]

So is it your position that no Bigfoots exist outside of a few inaccessible areas of the pacific northwest where no humans go, and that they have always lived only there?

Nah...Not my official position. My 'official' position is that I have no idea where they live, or what their methods are for remaining undetected for so long. With that being said, I definitely 'believe' that once they have been proven to exist, and science has put in it's due diligence, that I'll find out that I was right about quite a few of the things that I theorize. As of now it's speculation, Parn. Purely hypotheticals. But you already knew that, right? The only things that I can say with absolute fact is that they ARE real, they DO knock, they DO grunt, they DO have some sort of language, they DO freeze and appear like stumps until they walk off, and they DO operate within a group sometimes. All of which I have witnessed first hand, with witnesses, and can tell anyone if they say to the contrary, that they are absolutely wrong! Other than that, I can't say with any certainty that they do anything else. At one time I was a skeptic, so I get where you guys are coming from, but sorry fellas...You are all just selling lip service, and playing devil's advocate for the sheer joy of having an oppositional point of view.

While some people commenting on bigfoot forums may have never stepped foot in the woods, I'm not one of them. Throughout my military career I've had military bush survival training, was taught to traverse unknown forests at night with a map and compass, have personal experience in night-time offensive and defensive maneuvers with regards to attacking and defending a field headquarters unit, have personal experience at deploying camo-netting for a communications vehicle in forested locations, have eaten from a mess tent or out of a cardboard box more times than I care to remember, and I was trained to kill humans. Never had to mind you, but I assure you, I'm very very good at hitting what I'm aiming for.

And prior to joining the military I spent more time in the woods than I did at my friends. I explored, followed trails, made forts, climbed trees, hunted, fished, hiked, observed nature, and thoroughly enjoyed my wooded playground.

In short, I'm not afraid of the woods, feel comfortable in the woods, and I've been trained to adequately defend myself in unfavorable situations while in the woods.

So, what type of woods experience/survival/night-time/combat/weapons training do you think is adequate?

RayG

Cool story, bro! I like sandwiches! I get paid to go into the woods, and research animals, and have hunted since I was a little kid. I don't really get what you're implying? Does it have anything to do with BF being real? And duly noted on the shooting prowess, Annie Oakley. Maybe you can start traveling the country and show off your shooting skills with other skeptics, instead of taking pot shots on message board forums. Hitting plaster casts with open sights from 500 yards would be pretty impressive! I wonder if you could throw up your .02 in the air, and hit 'em both?

Edited September 11, 2011 by PacNWSquatcher

[Guest RayG]

I don't really get what you're implying?

I thought I had made it fairly clear to most people. I was pointing out the error of your potshot about my 'woods' experience, and went so far as to share some of those experiences. Guess I was implying you shouldn't assume.

And duly noted on the shooting prowess, Annie Oakley.

Jealous?

Maybe you can start traveling the country and show off your shooting skills with other skeptics, instead of taking pot shots on message board forums.

Pointing out your faulty logic is hardly taking potshots. I suggest you grow some thicker skin. Like I have.

RayG

[georgerm]

Let's settle down men........it is Sunday after all. Let's not rip at each other so we need to lug around tough rhino skin.........hot and heavy stuff out the African sun.............all of you guys are cool and smart.........why don't we have BF?

Where the heck are the BF mamas with up to 4 kids unless they practive birth control? They are the most vunerable by accidental human discovery. I guess mama can carry a 1 month and a two year old on her shoulder while the 4 and 6 year old scurry behind to eacape the exploring human. Where are their **** dens or do they make one each night on the run? Soon in Oregon we will be getting really hard rains so does mama BF sleep out in the rain with her kids like bears do? I don't think young BF would survive. Bears become independent around 2 while if BF are close to humans the kids might be on their own around 8 years old.

My theory is BF scours the landscape and out of hundereds of square miles picks areas do build dens where humans will never find in a hundred years. So where are these areas in the mountains of the PNW, the swamps of Florida, or the flat lands in the midwest? Can we search smarter or should we keep doing the dumb thing we know best and wander around like forest bozoes banging on trees, setting up big obvious cameras on trees, or hiking on easy ground.

[BobbyO]

Wait, is this an apex predator or a 9 foot tall monarch butterfly??? Do you see the problem there?

No, i don't, i don't see any problem with what i wrote at all..

[BobbyO]

No, I don't understand.

I question whether or not bigfoot is in COMPLETE control of their environment, if they can be scared off so easily by a puny hairless human wielding a camera. Time after time we hear about how fast bigfoot retreats at the mere glimpse of a camera. I truly don't see how that constitutes being in COMPLETE control of your environment, when you hand that environment over to the hairless human.

Unless we're using different definitions of 'environment' and 'complete'. To me environment means physical surroundings/terrain/territory/turf/domain/habitat/neck of the woods, and complete means absolute/entire/all/whole/total.

Also not sure how that says anything about me other than I'm a stickler for words and their meanings.

No no Ray, i am an Englishman & English is my native tongue so no need to define the meaning of words to me, i know exactly the meaning of what i wrote, hence me writing it..

You can question it as much as you like Ray, still doesn't make you right i'm afraid & in fact, you ARE actually wrong, i just can't & have no real desire to prove it..

If you can't understand something being in complete control of something else specifically in regards to what we're talking about, with this Animal going virtually undetected by the wonderful Human Race in North America since seemingly day dot & don't think that because you don't/can't/won't understand it, it doesn't say anything about you, then fine, i have no problem with it, i just KNOW something that you don't happen to, that's all.

A yes or no answer to the question " Do you KNOW that they exist ? " would simply make ME understand your questioning of what i'm saying Ray..

If you're answer is " yes ", then i wouldn't understand why on Earth you'd be questioning it, as that would make no sense at all to me..

But if your answer to the question would be " no " then i'd understand completely your way of thinking & your questioning of what i'm saying.

I'm not in this to change anyone's way of thinking Ray, i don't really care what anyone thinks about this subject to be honest as i see the KNOWERS as being in an extremely privileged situation & i see those who don't KNOW, that are continually on this Forum, as being in what must be the most frustrating place i could imagine, mentally..

But i can't change the World, i just want to try & learn more about something i KNOW exists, that's all..

Hope you can understand now..

[Guest]

Nah, Ray...Wasn't taking pot shots at your woods experience, which would seem better than most. I was just simply stating that naysayers weren't on your list. Who's better/more qualified at everything out in the woods is a pretty arbitrary argument. I guess if you spend enough time out there with the mindset that they ARE out there, and apply some of your tactics, and experience, then maybe you'll see one, and understand the difficulty of being a 'knower' and trying to find proof, while never being able to figure out how to do it. That would be what drives some to great lengths to theorize, and share information. Trust me, and many of the other people on this forum....They're absolutely real! They WILL be proven to exist! I guess once someone figures out their methodology in the woods, we'll have it. There will be a lot of people left scratching their heads once it happens. It's just too bad, based on your abilities, that you aren't out there trying to find them.

Edited September 12, 2011 by PacNWSquatcher

[GuyInIndiana]

Well, this may be one of the most mundane answers out there, but I really think the most reasonable reason is that most research is conducted on a level where 'they' don't really live, or it's conducted in such a way that no sasquatch worth his name would come near to it.

And again, while a lot of people claim to be having activity, it may be something more attributable to other known animals other than sasquatch, so they really aren't having activity at all. Snapping sounds and creepy feelings don't a sasquatch encounter make.

I suspect based on personal experience that those having good luck simply aren't sharing it.

[Guest wild eyed willy]

Actually ME was quite specific. He has written extensively in older threads regarding his encounters & methods. Hope this isn't out of line, but exactly how much fieldwork have you done recently? I could be completely off the mark but a lot of your knowledge to date seems to come from reading others work, and reading BF books.

Had you asked me the same question I would be hesitent to answer as anything I have observed thru hours of bushwacking isn't something I'd be likely to share with someone who hasn't demonstrated the same level of physical effort.

Since I only started field research for the big guy last summer, I am sure there are many people who have spent many more hours in the field than I.

I started the end of last summer looking but quickly discovered how enormus the search area is. Even though Connecticut is a small state compaired to most, it is still vastly more area than I could possibly cover.

Once I figured out The area was too big, I began researching online old reports to see if I could narrow down the area to someting managable.

I managed to pick three reports close enough for me to be able to spend some time there, I studied them well and managed to figure out where the houses were that made the reports. I plotted the three points on a map and drew a circle around them about 20. min. drive. This is my search area. I have looked in my search area for places I can access. ( not private property) I also look for water sources and food sources, as well as cover.

The only areas in my grid that allow public access are on the outer edge of my search area. I have spent several weekends wandering trails and wood lots concentraiting around water, looking for tracks in the soft soil.

Now also this summer we have had three tornados, and a hurricain, and I have spent the last 4 weekends building a chicken coop for my honey. So I have not gone out every single weekend of this season, but I have spent time in the woods, I have wood knocked, and set out recording equiptment( that I built myself).

So far I have turned up nothing of interest.

I do look at others posts for ideas, as I said before I am just beginning my quest.

Now you can easily let me stumble along as I have and maybe I'll get lucky and maybe I won't or you could offer the new guy some help. Totaly your call.

PS: I even whooped a few times. Also I have never read a BF book

Edited September 12, 2011 by wild eyed willy

[Guest wild eyed willy]

Hi

We have reports of BF but the thing is there just sightings with no evidence of any kind, you know the prints, broken trees, hair, vocals, pictures, etc, some reports are from areas that are so populated a BF would have to be 6 inches tall not to be noticed, the areas look good on Google maps but when your at ground level there packed with houses, now i understand animals have a way of hiding but an 8' gorilla like creature just don't have the cover around here to do that, we have reports of BF in Cape Cod MA, Now i would love to be able to go down there and check things out but the only way for a BF to get there is over one of three long and busy bridges he could swim across the canal or take a boat but that's hard to fathom for me, Cape Cod is extremely populated and i just don't see how one would be able to survive there, i think BF is for the most part a wilderness animal not a rural animal.

Tim

Yea, I have been to the cape and it is very populated as is most of eastern mass. NE CT is also very populated yet reports persist.

[Guest RedRatSnake]

Hi

I think maybe western MA might make an occasional BF hangout but down this way there is no place to live, one place you really would think of hearing a lot of activity is Maine yet there is not really a lot that comes from there, sure there are reports but not in big numbers, i have always had the feeling BF are basically a western US type animal and only rouge males might make there way this far east.

Tim