Clark County, Nevada Bfro Report Options

[Hairy Man]

Oh...this is just too much! You want to talk about not doing ANY investigation! Read this: Clark County, Nevada report.

Carpenter Canyon is part of the Spring Mountains National Recreation Area (SMNRA), H-T National Forest. I was their archaeologist for 4 years and walked every inch of the Carpenter Canyon (I held National level projects in Pahrump and the nearby Charcoal Kilns as well). I can assure you, 100%, there are NO bigfoots anywhere at all in the SMNRA. There is barely enough water or food to keep the native animals, transplanted elk, wild horses, and burros alive, let alone a bigfoot population.

The SMNRA is known as a "Sky Island" because all the animal/plant species are cut off from others of their kind. There are only 365,000 acres to the entire mountain range, with only about 20,000 of that having pine/fir trees. The range is completely surrounded by hundreds of miles of desert. If there was a bigfoot there, he would have been seen hundreds of times by now. There are NO sightings that have ever come from this area, nor any Native stories describing a bigfoot type creature.

I don't know the investigator, but at a minimum, she should have at least looked at a map before publishing this report and seen for herself that it wasn’t possible or plausible that this print was related to bigfoot (not to mention that Carpenter Canyon has a housing tract in it). I have noticed however that the quality of reports have gone down hill. Nearly every investigator note has typos, misspellings, run on sentences, etc.

[chrisandclauida2]

yepper not to mention the whole area is too rocky to leave any thing that deep. the vegetation in the so called print is way less than surrounding ground. you would expect the surrounding dry litter to be pressed into the bottom of the print. looks like a rock was moved from that spot or even an old quad tire scour spot but there isn't any dirt behind to support this. bunk i say. i haven't been to the area but i will take your word for vegetation. that so called print is 3 to 4 inches deem. with the rocky soil i don't even know is a 1000 object could go that deep. even if the soil was moist from the snow melts the dry litter would keep prints from going that deep and you would expect slide marks in the mud.

pic of supposed print below



and of the creek and adjacent area



so any other comments. i think HM is dead on about this being an excellent example of poor investigatory technique.

This post has been edited by chrisandclauida2: Mar 12 2006, 02:35 AM

[Silva]

Astounding timing, HM! I hadn't visited the BFRO site in months until just last night and read that very report, among others. I'm not near as familiar with the area as you are, but I do have family in Pahrump and sensed the location was peculiar.

If I may take your sentiment and run with it, I was reading BFRO reports to try to determine if there is any credibility remaining; to determine if they are investigating reports to anywhere near the high standard expected of us in the past; to determine if they can be believed anymore.

This because I'm trying to finish a statistical analysis but I can't finish until I collect a statistically sound sample size of a very specific type of report. I began the project long ago, using very few sources that I considered "credible" at the time. I fear one of my few sources, the BFRO, is no longer credible and I wish I knew when that transition occurred.

By the way, if anybody would like to suggest "credible sources" for Colorado bigfoot reports, I'd be happy to receive them. If my former Colorado colleagues would like to weigh in on this, not for me but for the sake of science, please please please do!

The same analysis can be conducted in other states, provinces & countries (Colorado first,) so all "credible sources" are appreciated.

What I observed about the bulk of recent BFRO reports is that they generally are not investigated to any great degree... at least not according to the public comments. In my mind, "I spoke with the witness for 15 minutes..." doesn't lend itself to a believably well-investigated report.

That's what you get when experience is tossed out in favor of people whose main qualification is money to blow. Some of us could barely afford film & developing, but you're darn tootin our reports were well investigated!

BTW, the aforementioned Nevada report : http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=13895

This post has been edited by Silva: Mar 12 2006, 04:15 AM

[califb]

Does the report below refer to the same area of Nevada?

http://user.bahnhof.se/~wizard/GUSTeng03/o...ot_injured.html

This post has been edited by califb: Mar 12 2006, 03:45 AM

[Silva]

No. Not close - good thinking, though. Battle Mtn is North-Central, NV. Here: http://terraserver-usa.com/image.aspx?t=2&...untain%7cNevada

The actual Battle Mtn is just north of its namesake town, north of I-80, which actually appears on any roadmap-quality map.

As a sidenote, at least one of the photos in the "Nevada fire-injured bigfoot" link was not photographed in Nevada at all. The deer standing in the creek was photographed in Montana. Maybe "neat-o" fire pix were selected to accompany the story... a little misleading but it doesn't matter here.

The BFRO website MAP for Clark County, NV and adjacent counties (for whatever its worth): http://www.bfro.net/GDB/state_listing.asp?state=nv (map at the bottom of the page.)

The 1 report over 60 miles North of there in NV's adjacent Nye County is actually only a short media article with no indication of BFRO investigation whatsoever: http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_article.asp?id=9 . A 1980 sighting on the Yucca Nuclear Test Site.

Looked at California reports (San Bernardino and Inyo counties.) Interestingly, the coloration of San Bernardino County indicates nearly 20 reports when there are actually only 7. Inyo has 2. All 9 are on the opposite side of the Mojave Desert from this latest NV report and occur very near one another in a mountainous area. Only 3 CA reports occurred more recently than 1976.

I think it's safe to say the Clark County, NV report is dubious at best.

This post has been edited by Silva: Mar 12 2006, 05:23 AM

[Hairy Man]

Does the report below refer to the same area of Nevada?

http://user.bahnhof.se/~wizard/GUSTeng03/o...ot_injured.html

That report has long been debunked. I was the original investigator of that report. It's discussed at greater length elsewhere on the BFF, but in short, the witness was NOT an employee of the US Forest Service as he claimed, nor a Government employee at all (he claimed to be a wildland firefighter). No vet was called (I called all the local vets), etc. The witness was lying as there isn't one shred of evidence to support this report. As noted by Thom Powell, it was original dismissed by the BFRO but Thom choice to use it in his book. Thom is a wonderful person and I have always been fond of him, why he believes the witness, I do not know.

edited for the flagrant misuse of the English language.

This post has been edited by Hairy Man: Mar 12 2006, 12:48 PM

[Mangani]

I am not saying you are incorrect Kathy. You know the locale and I do not, and your arguments seem valid, but I would like to comment.

Since I converted my compiliation of mapped reports to Google Earth BFF Topic 14228, this tool has provided me with a new perspective, as it is extremely easy to zoom around the continent and visually assess the report locations. One thing that is clear is that there are very few reports from Nevada east of the Sierras. However, it might be worth noting that there is one from approximately 70 miles north of the subject, BFRO 9 in an area that looks a lot less hospitable.

But what stands out to me about the reports in surrounding southwestern states is that they generally tend to be clustered in other "sky islands", also surrounded by significant expanses of desert and would seemingly be difficult to migrate over. In NM, for example, there are the Chuska and Ruidosa clusters, and in Arizona there is a cluster around Mount Graham. Of course, just because there are reports, does not make them correct, and the geographical isolaton may not be quite as extreme as in this case. I just think it is worth noting that if there were any bigfoot in southern Nevada, the locale in question appears to be about the most likely place they would be. Please understand that I am not trying to be argumentative, just supplying a different perspective.

A final comment. There are also plenty of previous southwestern reports from areas that seem even more unlikely.
See: Utah desert BFRO 2115 and the very similar TBRC Utah1. Kingman AZ BFRO 1853 approx. 118 miles southeast of subject. City of Phoenix BFRO 573.
So either the investigators were just as "open minded" then, or just maybe these creatures are better adapted to the desert than we might expect.

This post has been edited by Mangani: Mar 13 2006, 02:10 PM

[Hairy Man]

The newspaper article about a sighting from the Nevada Test site is from the 1980s and I doubt was ever investigated, so I don't think its a good example of other reports from the desert. The reports that I am aware of on the east side of the Sierra were mostly investigated by me. The locaitons were indeed drier, but were far from being "desert."

I know folks have debate what is suitable "habitat" for a bigfoot, and I do not believe that because it is a desert that it is automatically ruled out as habitat. However, one thing I do know is that all living creatures have to have water to survive. There are three creeks in the Spring Mountains...Carpenter, Cold, and Deer...guess where the houses are? There are about a dozen springs throughout the range, but output per minute is very limited. Every horse, burro, and elk hang at those sources because that's all there is. The Forest Service has to do routine horse gathers to keep the animals from dying. That tells me a whole lot.

Of course, Native Americans survived in the desert, but they were able to modify their environment, open springs, and store water.

The print is also clearly not a print. It appears, as was noted by chrisandclauida2, to be a rut, probably from one of the dozens of motorcycles that go up and down that area daily (which is easily verified by call the SMNRA office).

I don't think this is a matter of open mindedness...I think it is just a very poor investigation.

[Mangani]

I don't think this is a matter of open mindedness...I think it is just a very poor investigation.

OK. Thanks, I certainly respect your opinion.

[Hairy Man]

No problem!!!

[Fishbone35]

I wouldn't trust any recent reports on the BFRO site now for any amount of money.

The folks doing these investigations apparently have more money than brains. Attend an "expedition" and you're qualified to be an investigator!

Here's another from one of the new Florida "investigators". :new_whistle:

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=13298

ALSO NOTICED: A SEEN A SQUIERRL A COUPLE DAYS LATER WITH HAIR MISSING AND WHAT LOKKED LIKE BLOOD SPOTS

Well by God! Had to have been bigfoot that done that! :doh:

[MountainLady]

:icon_really_happy_guy: :icon_really_happy_guy: <gasping for air>

Hey... it could happen.... :eek7:

(Needed it for a toupee maybe or for patchin up the troublesome, embarrassing bald spot on his hiney) :closedeyes:









Edit.. had to add "gasping for air"... too dang funny! HA!
Dear Gawd.. what a visual! BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHA :icon_really_happy_guy:
:rolling:

This post has been edited by MountainLady: Mar 13 2006, 06:18 PM

[Volsquatch]

ALSO NOTICED: A SEEN A SQUIERRL A COUPLE DAYS LATER WITH HAIR MISSING AND WHAT LOKKED LIKE BLOOD SPOTS

Well by God! Had to have been bigfoot that done that! :doh:

OMG :icon_really_happy_guy: :icon_really_happy_guy: :icon_really_happy_guy: :rolling:

[Fishbone35]

(Needed it for a toupee maybe or for patchin up the troublesome, embarrassing bald spot on his hiney)

I'm afraid it might be much more insidious than that, ML. It could have actually been...gasp!...revenge! The evidence for my speculation comes directly from Bigfoot himself:

You Think I Want Live in Bushes?

"Oooh wood so pretty" they say.
"Live Walden Pond."
"Nuts and berry in abundance."
Bigfoot's ass abundance. Should no have moved from condo. Sure commuting no so good but damn sight better than listen to squirrels playing slide whistles all day. What I wouldn't give to whack them with badminton racquet. They shave bad word in Bigfoot back fur. I mean come on. Why they be trippin' on me? Bigfoot gots to reprazent.

[Hairy Man]

I love that book!!! There's a sequel you know....

There are so many reports that I could point to that are just jokes...but I won't, because unless the BFRO plans on cleaning up their act, why bother?

[Fishbone35]

Very good point, HM.

(And yeah, we got that sequel in the mail just about four days ago. I don't think it's as funny as the original, but it's still damn funny.)

[MountainLady]

Yep, good points and very true, HM. Some reports may disappear mysteriously.... or.. not. :new_whistle:
Seems credibility isn't an issue for them any more...

Still.. sho' is funny.

hehehe!!!!
LMAO Fishy!

This post has been edited by MountainLady: Mar 13 2006, 06:54 PM

[JayleeD]

ALSO NOTICED: A SEEN A SQUIERRL A COUPLE DAYS LATER WITH HAIR MISSING AND WHAT LOKKED LIKE BLOOD SPOTS

Monitor cleaning time!

[Silva]

[font=Arial]

A final comment. There are also plenty of previous southwestern reports from areas that seem even more unlikely.
See: Utah desert BFRO 2115 and the very similar TBRC Utah1. Kingman AZ BFRO 1853 approx. 118 miles southeast of subject. City of Phoenix BFRO 573.
So either the investigators were just as "open minded" then, or just maybe these creatures are better adapted to the desert than we might expect.

A-ha! I don't know about these "sky islands" or isolated clusters, etc BUT I was the investigator of Utah desert BFRO 2115 (when you part ways with the BFRO, your name comes off your reports.) But I saved paper copies of everything and that one's mine. Frankly, I stand firmly by it even though the location seems so incredibly inhospitable. (Notable exceptions: nearby Deer Creek animal-magnet feeding into Escalante River feeding eventually into Lake Powell, and dirt road potential travel routes.) The witness and I spoke long and often. Together we studied the ecosystem (OK, he's actually a wilderness guide/survivalist instructor in the area so it was I who did the studying.) The animal was white in the desert (makes sense - bedouins wear white and live in the desert too, right?) Things just added up. He also passed all the "tests" more times than he knows exactly because the location seemed so unlikely. I just couldn't debunk it.

By the way, Mangani, I never gave you the exact coordinates for this one. They are 37.8058 degrees N, -111.3481 degrees W, datum: NAD 27, UTM 12 469097E, 4184198N. Also, I wasn't aware of the TBRC when I investigated BFRO 2115. What I learned just now is that BFRO 2115 is the SAME event as TBRC Utah1. That's why they're so similar, so give both the same coordinates. And dates. I'm going to take a cue from Sam Farris here ( :wink: ) and openly admit when I am wrong. During my investigation of 2115, I got a copy of the witness' journal pages which include the account. Mangani, both the TBRC and I missed the discrepancy between the journal date and the report date. It occurred in May 1994, not BFRO's "6/1/1996" nor TBRC's "May 1996." Exactly what day in May is unclear, but it was no later than the journal's May 21 entry. So go ahead and make those changes to your database. I'll alert both groups myself. Mmmm, crow... tasty.

Yes, I do now think these creatures are better adapted to the desert than given credit for and there's even more examples than you cite. But things can add up the other way too: for the Clark Cty, NV report, it's the lack of geographic or temporal corraboration in an area where there should be some, the area just not "seeming" right, the blob-track photos, and the investigator's stated qualifications. Works in IT w/ an MBA but cites no outdoor experience, rather probably bought her way in. All these things kill that particular report for me.

edited to say: the BFRO 2115 witness told me he submitted his report to 2 different groups. I just didn't care what the other one was then. Reading TBRC's report... oh ya, that's it. They're one and the same.

This post has been edited by Silva: Mar 14 2006, 02:07 AM

[Mangani]

I'm going to take a cue from Sam Farris here ( :wink: ) and openly admit when I am wrong.

That's OK Silva. Don't beat yourself up. I was wrong once myself. :wink: Thanks for clarifying the situation and precisely locating the sighting. Allows me to get it right and still feel OK that the actual location was within my stated margins of error for both reports.

Since this thread, as with so many others here, is essentially a critique of the "new" BFRO and it's standards of investigation, I might as well add my own observations. I have been plotting these reports for about six years, and I have had regular opportunities to provide feedback to the BFRO, when I noticed inconsistencies within the reports. My experience over the last year or so is, that instead of receiving a polite response from the investigator to answer my question or clarify the matter, as I used to, I now get no response whatsoever.

If the BFRO investigators are not filtering out the bad reports, or bothering to respond to reasonable questions to improve reports, of course it calls to question the value of the data the organization publishes.

[micahn]

That report has long been debunked. I was the original investigator of that report. It's discussed at greater length elsewhere on the BFF, but in short, the witness was NOT an employee of the US Forest Service as he claimed, nor a Government employee at all (he claimed to be a wildland firefighter). No vet was called (I called all the local vets), etc. The witness was lying as there isn't one shred of evidence to support this report. As noted by Thom Powell, it was original dismissed by the BFRO but Thom choice to use it in his book. Thom is a wonderful person and I have always been fond of him, why he believes the witness, I do not know.

edited for the flagrant misuse of the English language.

I wonder why anyone would believe that a local vet would admit that they was involved in a case like this. If one was involved and was warned by some sort of official not to talk about it to anyone, I can see them not admittting to being involved at all.
And saying that someone is not who they say they are just because they will not risk their job by going back to the area does not seem right to be also. From what I read on it he said right from the start that he was not going to do anything to risk being found out by his bosses. By going back into the are and looking for hair and blood he would have done just that. If fires was still burning in the area then chances are he would have been seen by someone. If it is a known area by the people there then they will damn sure know what he is doing there.
Plus to me if they was covering something up going over the are with a bull dozer would be a smart thing to do to cover anything left up. I am sure if a fire is burning in the are many of themn would have been around so it would be no big deal to run one over the area.

I am not in any way saying that this case is all true. All I have to go on is what was said on that other site and was said here. But to just discount it by what was said just seems silly to me. A lot of people in the Bigfoot would have a very hard time believing that any Goverment would cover up stuff about Bigfoot or any other animals. Personally I can think of some very good reasons for them to want it covered up and have no problem at all saying that I think they have and do cover things up like this. What I find funny is must times these same people will believe that the Gov would cover up anything doing with UFO's but then can not believe a Bigfoot cover up. Just read some of the reasons that other site show for cover ups. I could add a few good ones to that also as I know they like covering things up. I worked for a few years with a local gov and know for a fact that they covered many things up that they did not want the public knowing about. And these things was not near as touchy of a subject as a Bigfoot or something would be. I know damn well that most people who work for some sort of gov job would not do anything to risk loosing their jobs. It shocks the hell out of me when ever I read a report from someone with a gov type job as even nonymously they are taking a very big risk. As if they are found out at all they will loose their jobs almost 100% of the time. The job I was at they even helped in making me hard for people to find at all. They took care of things like making sure that my phone was unlisted and that my name never came up on any junk mailing type things. And my job was not soemthing that I needed that sort of stuff from. I even had to sign a paper saying I would not do anything to raise Attention to myself like getting in the papers for something or anything like that. So to say that back then I would not have reported a sighting is a easy thing to say.

Anyway maybe some times when goverment type people make reports things like that should be added into how things are thought about.

[Silva]

I know damn well that most people who work for some sort of gov job would not do anything to risk loosing their jobs. It shocks the hell out of me when ever I read a report from someone with a gov type job as even nonymously they are taking a very big risk. As if they are found out at all they will loose their jobs almost 100% of the time.....
Anyway maybe some times when goverment type people make reports things like that should be added into how things are thought about.

I don't know diddly about the report yourself & HM refer to, although I did read it (snore.) But I'd like to respond to micahn's statements about losing a govt job. First, HM surely already knows all there is to know about the topic, things that may cause job loss, its impact on the remainder of your natural life, etc. My own govt employment is "seasonal" or "term" so I never qualify for benefits of any kind unless you count unnecessary meetings that involve donuts or wheels on the legs of my chair. If it's a Forest Service job that requires wearing the green "pickle suit", then another benefit is not having to decide what to wear to work. But if I had the benefits package that comes with permanent employment (just 10 more classes!) then even I

yes, I

would strongly entertain the idea of covering up bigfoot evidence if the alternative was that I might lose my retirement, investment & health insurance packages, paid leave, flex schedule, donuts...

The suggestion that anyone involved in an active fire area could possibly go ANYWHERE in secrecy is ludicrous. Everybody is accounted for at all times. Vehicles leave the area, but no one enters anonymously or secretly.

Besides, even if someone was willing to lose his job & benefits, there's still the safety issue. Refer to the old firefighter credo:

YOU may know where you are, and GOD may know where you are, but if DISPATCH doesn't know where you are, then you and God better be very good friends.

This post has been edited by Silva: Mar 15 2006, 02:07 AM

[AZNATIVE]

Speaking of Utah sightings, I am suprised at the lack of any sightings in Uintah county. Vernal has a rather large (as far as Utah goes) population.

[peregrine]

I have noticed however that the quality of reports have gone down hill.

Yes, unfortunately, it's become quite obvious.

The BFRO's sightings database is still an unparalleled resource, but anyone doing some kind of sasquatch-related study based on data derived from published reports would be well-advised to tread carefully when it comes to the recent (last year or so?) material.

JMO

[Silva]

Speaking of Utah sightings, I am suprised at the lack of any sightings in Uintah county. Vernal has a rather large (as far as Utah goes) population.

AH! Uintah County, Utah! Between Jan 2001 and Nov 2004, I was the primary investigator for Utah reports. I suspect there are more than the BFRO database shows. And I believe at least 2 of the Class C's would've been Class A or B if the witnesses hadn't been offended by having been contacted by a woman of all things. Besides those:

There was a report by a guy who, on a 50 mile backpacking trip in 1988, reported being watched for nearly 2 hours in his camp in the High Uintahs. As usual, much research is done on reports before any attempt is ever made to contact the witness. The details of the report were intriguing, certain specific details checked out, I was tending to believe already... however my email was never responded to and he left no further contact information. By rule I was forced to classify Assumed Hoax. On retrospect, that should've been classed Unreachable. Maybe I changed that. Don't remember.

Published report 3022 Timber Canyon (adjacent Duschesne county), you'll note mention of the locals being well aware of much bigfoot activity in their region.

A friend of mine, also former BFRO, happens to be visiting parents outside Vernal even as I write this. Her father confirms that "everybody knows" this is a major bigfoot hotspot. Why the lack of reports is beyond me. And she. And he.

A local independent researcher I tried to associate with there relayed many stories he'd collected in his decades of Utah bigfoot research. Some were in or near Uintah County. Those reports are in his personal files.

Published report 2965, Class C, I got a brief connection with him on the telephone long enough to make an appointment for a better time for him to talk. After that his, lets say, "crabby" girlfriend refused to let me talk to him anymore. By rule, I was forced to classify it as Unreachable or Class C. This was near Payson. Again, the pre-work checked out.

In the end and all-in-all, I'm left to agree that that corner of Utah is crawlin with bigfoots.

BTW, thanks Peregrine, for that assessment of when reports started going sour. I needed that information. Bird is the Word.

[Hairy Man]

I wonder why anyone would believe that a local vet would admit that they was involved in a case like this. If one was involved and was warned by some sort of official not to talk about it to anyone, I can see them not admittting to being involved at all.
And saying that someone is not who they say they are just because they will not risk their job by going back to the area does not seem right to be also. From what I read on it he said right from the start that he was not going to do anything to risk being found out by his bosses. By going back into the are and looking for hair and blood he would have done just that. If fires was still burning in the area then chances are he would have been seen by someone. If it is a known area by the people there then they will damn sure know what he is doing there.
Plus to me if they was covering something up going over the are with a bull dozer would be a smart thing to do to cover anything left up. I am sure if a fire is burning in the are many of themn would have been around so it would be no big deal to run one over the area.

I am not in any way saying that this case is all true. All I have to go on is what was said on that other site and was said here. But to just discount it by what was said just seems silly to me. A lot of people in the Bigfoot would have a very hard time believing that any Goverment would cover up stuff about Bigfoot or any other animals. Personally I can think of some very good reasons for them to want it covered up and have no problem at all saying that I think they have and do cover things up like this. What I find funny is must times these same people will believe that the Gov would cover up anything doing with UFO's but then can not believe a Bigfoot cover up. Just read some of the reasons that other site show for cover ups. I could add a few good ones to that also as I know they like covering things up. I worked for a few years with a local gov and know for a fact that they covered many things up that they did not want the public knowing about. And these things was not near as touchy of a subject as a Bigfoot or something would be. I know damn well that most people who work for some sort of gov job would not do anything to risk loosing their jobs. It shocks the hell out of me when ever I read a report from someone with a gov type job as even nonymously they are taking a very big risk. As if they are found out at all they will loose their jobs almost 100% of the time. The job I was at they even helped in making me hard for people to find at all. They took care of things like making sure that my phone was unlisted and that my name never came up on any junk mailing type things. And my job was not soemthing that I needed that sort of stuff from. I even had to sign a paper saying I would not do anything to raise Attention to myself like getting in the papers for something or anything like that. So to say that back then I would not have reported a sighting is a easy thing to say.

Anyway maybe some times when goverment type people make reports things like that should be added into how things are thought about.

I know I have said this a thousand times already, but I'll say it again. The government is not reading your minds, spiking your water, or hiding bigfoot in their closet. They don't have the time or the interest to do so.

As a government employee, yes, I signed an agreement that stated that if I become a serial killer or dealt drugs, and embarrass the government, I could indeed lose my job. However, since 99% of the government is unionized, as a permanent employee, I am in NO DANGER of losing my job...none-what-so-ever. We have had employees be with hookers on government time, in a government office, paid for with government funds and were NOT FIRED! (and I'm not talking about Clinton either). The only person I have ever seen outright fired was an employee who tried to forcibly rape another employee on a federal compound. One of these days I'll forward you the monthly list of what folks are caught doing (porn, gambling, etc.) and their punishments (slap on the hand, a 3 day suspension). You think bigfoot is going to get you fired? I don't think so. However, a temporary employee would be in danger of losing their jobs for revealing information they shouldn't. But most of us are permanent, including firefighters and the ones involved in the story from Battle Mountain, and we're not the least bit worried.

Could the government keep a secret? Are you kidding? We have National Defense secrets revealed nearly daily. If we can't keep the fact that phones are being tapped for Homeland Security, what makes you think having a bigfoot body would be kept secret? That isn't even logical.

And why would the local vet lie? They weren't government employees. Have you ever meet anyone from that part of Nevada? They HATE the U.S. Government (Sage Brush Rebellion). They'd sell out the government for a Dr. Pepper. The witness for the Battle Mountain case claimed dozen, if not more, saw the event, but not one shred of evidence backs it up and no one else ever came forward (not to mention that the witness lied about being a federal employee).

I guess what I am saying that just because someone says they saw a bigfoot body and the government is covering it up, doesn't mean it's true. People lie. That is why it has to be investigated. In THIS case, it was investigated and the witness was lying. However, no one should ever say that the government is behind a bigfoot cover up, or that all bigfoot reports are true or a hoax without proof.

[AZNATIVE]

Speaking of light colored BF's, I hope I'm not talking too much out of turn here, but I'm gonna say this much anyways..................

Back when I was in HS, a couple of boys, brothers, that were a year or two older than I recounted the following tale to me. Their father was present, and he is now a local judge for the area I grew up in. I've known these two my whole life, and never had any reason to doubt them. The family they come from is a respectable one, all eight of the kids except for the two youngest still at home, have gone off and either became respectable professionals themselves, or in the case of the girls, married the same.

They were out in the desert north and east of HWY 77, between Hayden, AZ and Dudleyville, AZ, where there was a local "rifle range" of sorts. They were done blowing off their rounds, and got into the 1977ish Chevy 1/2 ton PU they were in, and decided to follow the dirt road up and out aways, just for the hell of it. The area they are in, is kind of a no-mans land that is bordered by the San Carlos Indian reservation, & the Aravaipa Wilderness Area. They got up about as far as they could go, and then turned the truck around to head on back home.

As they were heading back, they noticed a large, they estimated 7 to 8 foot tall, human like figure walking up a ridge. They guessed the height in relation to a Saguaro that the figure passed by. Now , yes, I hear, cacti, but this area goes very rapidly from Sonoran Desert of about 2,00 feet to mountains of 4,000 feet or more. The area they were at is relatively close (within 3 or so miles either way) to the San Pedro or Gila River. There is an abundance of wildlife all through this area.

As they saw the figure making it's way up the ridge, they came to a stop in the vehicle, and honked the horn. As they recount, the figure turned it's head, and made a kind of nodding gesture with it's head. As it did this, it made "a growling noise". The figure then proceeded walking up the ridge, until it crested up and off the other side. They described the figure as haing a light brown coat of fur, almost with some blonde streaks throughout, stockily built. They observed the figure from about 75 or so yards away.

This report is as best as I can remember at this time. I may have left some stuff out. As I read it on the forum, or as some of you read it and ask questions, it may jog my memory. Mind you, I was not present. Oh, yeah, the time would have been late afternoon, between 4 and 6 pm, during March or April of 1992.

This post has been edited by AZNATIVE: Mar 15 2006, 12:07 PM

[Teresa]

I don't even read the BFRO reports anymore.

[Sea Bass]

That report has long been debunked. I was the original investigator of that report. It's discussed at greater length elsewhere on the BFF, but in short, the witness was NOT an employee of the US Forest Service as he claimed, nor a Government employee at all (he claimed to be a wildland firefighter). No vet was called (I called all the local vets), etc. The witness was lying as there isn't one shred of evidence to support this report. As noted by Thom Powell, it was original dismissed by the BFRO but Thom choice to use it in his book. Thom is a wonderful person and I have always been fond of him, why he believes the witness, I do not know.

edited for the flagrant misuse of the English language.

Hairy man, did this guy claim to work for the forest service or the BLM? I don't know if that makes a difference, but don't both agencies have wildland firefighters? Regardless, I don't see how the report holds much water. How many vets are there in Battle Mountain, anyway? One? The whole county has a population of only just over 5000 people.

I've never given much consideration for BF activity in most of the ranges that run up and down Nevada. Seems like there'd be a water and cover problem. Buuuuuuut...

The northern and central ranges have a lot more water and cover than the mountains down south toward Vegas. Most of them are covered with white and pinion pines (not the biggest conifers in the world, but at least they're trees). And, many canyons throughout the ranges have full time creeks (at least when there isn't a drought in full swing) that even support trout. Certianly the region by Jarbidge could support activity, but I'm thinking a lot of the ground between Austin and as far east as the Utah border would work as well. The state is vast and has one component I would think that BF would like: very few people. The population density of Lander County alone is only 1.1 per square mile.

And, while I'm pretty skeptical of both the Battle Mountain story and the alleged prints found down by Pahrump, a friend mentioned an interesting story that happened to him a couple of years ago. He was camping in a canyon up on one of those remote ridges between Fallon and Battle Mountain. During the evening he and his partner heard loud vocalizations and then a big dent was pounded into the side of the Bronco he was sleeping in early in the morning hours. He refuses to spend the night up there again, but has given me directions. I'll be checking it out as soon as the snow clears there.

[Hairy Man]

Hairy man, did this guy claim to work for the forest service or the BLM? I don't know if that makes a difference, but don't both agencies have wildland firefighters? Regardless, I don't see how the report holds much water. How many vets are there in Battle Mountain, anyway? One? The whole county has a population of only just over 5000 people.

I've never given much consideration for BF activity in most of the ranges that run up and down Nevada. Seems like there'd be a water and cover problem. Buuuuuuut...

The northern and central ranges have a lot more water and cover than the mountains down south toward Vegas. Most of them are covered with white and pinion pines (not the biggest conifers in the world, but at least they're trees). And, many canyons throughout the ranges have full time creeks (at least when there isn't a drought in full swing) that even support trout. Certianly the region by Jarbidge could support activity, but I'm thinking a lot of the ground between Austin and as far east as the Utah border would work as well. The state is vast and has one component I would think that BF would like: very few people. The population density of Lander County alone is only 1.1 per square mile.

And, while I'm pretty skeptical of both the Battle Mountain story and the alleged prints found down by Pahrump, a friend mentioned an interesting story that happened to him a couple of years ago. He was camping in a canyon up on one of those remote ridges between Fallon and Battle Mountain. During the evening he and his partner heard loud vocalizations and then a big dent was pounded into the side of the Bronco he was sleeping in early in the morning hours. He refuses to spend the night up there again, but has given me directions. I'll be checking it out as soon as the snow clears there.

He claimed Forest Circus. And there were no vets in Battle Mountain at the time, nearest was Elko (as I recall) and they were mostly horse vets. There are some great places in Nevada; Jarbridge, Tonopah and around Reno/Carson City area for sure!

[sassfoot]

Oh...this is just too much! You want to talk about not doing ANY investigation! Read this: Clark County, Nevada report.

Carpenter Canyon is part of the Spring Mountains National Recreation Area (SMNRA), H-T National Forest. I was their archaeologist for 4 years and walked every inch of the Carpenter Canyon (I held National level projects in Pahrump and the nearby Charcoal Kilns as well). I can assure you, 100%, there are NO bigfoots anywhere at all in the SMNRA. There is barely enough water or food to keep the native animals, transplanted elk, wild horses, and burros alive, let alone a bigfoot population.

The SMNRA is known as a "Sky Island" because all the animal/plant species are cut off from others of their kind. There are only 365,000 acres to the entire mountain range, with only about 20,000 of that having pine/fir trees. The range is completely surrounded by hundreds of miles of desert. If there was a bigfoot there, he would have been seen hundreds of times by now. There are NO sightings that have ever come from this area, nor any Native stories describing a bigfoot type creature.

I don't know the investigator, but at a minimum, she should have at least looked at a map before publishing this report and seen for herself that it wasn’t possible or plausible that this print was related to bigfoot (not to mention that Carpenter Canyon has a housing tract in it). I have noticed however that the quality of reports have gone down hill. Nearly every investigator note has typos, misspellings, run on sentences, etc.

Hairyman things may have changed since you were there last maybe one or more have taken up residence there. You think or is it really that bad.there are reports of BFs in and around deserts.Maybe a rouge male passing thru or bred female looking for a nursery.I don't know just me speculating again.
And please disregard my poor writing skills. :wink:

This post has been edited by sassfoot: Jun 13 2006, 08:38 PM