The wilderness sasquatch, Why we can't find them Options

[xenovolcano]

Exactly. And my partner got a good look at them. By her description and what I see in the film, I kinda think that they use the reflective qualities of their long oily hair. at 35 sec, to the left of the shot is the 'dissappearing' one.

I think maybe they bring their hair out in such a way that the surroundings are reflected against the vangage point of any observer they wish to hide from. The hair rises like the hair on a dogs back does when they feel threatened and this hides them. I think they can use their hair to camoflauge themselves in other ways as well, like standing in front of trees motionless as you drive by filming the wilderness.

I am convinced that the creatures in this film were waiting for us to go by so they could cross the street. By my partners account, she saw them on the other side of the road, so I think we drove through a group of them that were going somwhere.

And yes, there was a foul smell in that area - something between an armpit and a volcano.

This post has been edited by xenovolcano: Jul 17 2007, 02:44 PM

[jimf]

Hate to say it, but I was basing a Bigfoot being there on what you had replied to earlier. I can't honestly see anything there that I would remotely call one. There just isn't enough there to go on. Between what little is shown in the clip and the speed of the vehicle , most of it doesn't even qualify as "blobsquatch" status. I also think you're making a a lot of speculation regarding their abilities based on very little to go by.

But that's me and I'm very critical of my own eyes, let alone what others may or may not see.

[xenovolcano]

The Patterson footage clearly shows the light reflective qualities of Sasquatch hair, as do a couple of the other bigfoot films that I believe are (or might be) real.

It has also been put forth that Sasquatch hair has no medulla:

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/hair.htm

and the hair samples were too thick to be human. Human: another animal which often has no hair medulla.

Simply put, Bigfoot hair is a big mystery, and speculating that Bigfoot use their hair to camoflauge themselves is as viable as saying that Bigfoot hair even exists.

Also of note on the patterson film is a frame toward the end that shows rear-end fur wear (I'm sure you're familiar with this frame). To me this looks like reflecting light - and other parts of the film don't show much of a bald patch, so it could very well be reflected light.

[BC Cryptid]

or matted and mixed with dung. I personally believe they roll in their own dung to keep away insects, this also explains the smell.

I agree with Jimf, your jumping to some pretty wild conclusions based on basically no evidence.

I can accept that these creatures are extremely crafty and good at camoflage and hiding.

What I cannot at this time accept is that their hair is any more special than that of a mountain gorilla's, ie, thick and course and warm, ideal for an animal sleeping outside.

[yowiie]

Its hard enough and at times impossible to find someone that is lost in the bush and these people want to be found, whats the chances of finding something that doesn't want to be found.

[Smiles]

If you simply use logic, there is no doubt that there is a BIG possibility, if not evidence in itself to determine that BFs roam our woods. If you study how smart other animals are in N. America, you can only imagine how well a very well-adapted ape will do in thick pine swamps in the middle of nowhere in terms of hiding form people. People go to and fro every day, doing their business, and when someone sees one, it's least expected. IMO the statement that "you can't rely on human eyewitness reports for the BF phenomenon because humans tend to overspeculate" is totally ignorant, because first off everybody's different, some people are avid outdoorsmen, some are office dwellers. Most reports are by people who have experience in the woods, and know what they see. If I were to be driving along at 60 mph at midnight, with tunnel vision on a highway, and a BF were to cross the road 80 yards in front of me, Because of my experience with animals in the north woods, I would know that no wild animal walks upright 99%(random estimate) of the time. They are much smarter than we think or thought, there's evidence in the lack of evidence. If the BF phenomenon was a big hoaxing underground cult, then there would be more people coming with fake dead bodies, fake pictures, or fake footage, and there really is, but it doesn't look at all like the real deal, and people see that without any investigation, because it's hard to make it look real. That's was so great about the patterson/gimlin, becasue it hasn't been debunked, and with all the technology now, we can't come up with the same thing.

[RogerKni]

If the BF phenomenon was a big hoaxing underground cult, then there would be more people coming with fake dead bodies, fake pictures, or fake footage ...

And with real confessions (actually boasts), after they'd fooled investigators into swallowing their hoaxes. The paucity of such confessions, or anyway of believable confessions, is a subtle bit of indirect evidence on the "Real" side of the scales. Out of 4000 sighting reports, maybe twenty ape-suit hoaxers have claimed responsibility with a believable tale. And yet such after-the-fact boasting would be irresistible to 100 participants in them, if thousands of sightings had been hoaxed. There'd be no legal risk in confessing, a few years after the event (and the expiration of any statute of limitations), and very little social stigma.

This post has been edited by RogerKni: Aug 13 2007, 03:57 AM

[BC Cryptid]

I have a hunting recurve and hope to be hunting deer this fall.

As for the topic,

I recently got back from a trip from Victoria, BC, to Penticton, BC.

During the drive, you will cross a vast variety of territory, from urban, to coastal, islands, major urban, river delta flatlands/cornfields, then there's the IDEAL sasquatch territory, which I identify as very steep sided hills and mountains, heavily forested, completely deserted. This terrain is all around Harrison, BC. If you look at some hills and find yourself thinking 'Virunga Volcanoes - Congo' your in the right spot. Then there's fertile river valley, then alpine glacial mountain, then we get into desert scrubland as we approach Hedley, and finally urban lake front resort at Scaha and Okanagan lakes.

It struck me that in some of these areas, urban, and desert scrubland, I wouldn't waste 5 seconds sasquatch hunting, and in others, I could practically feel them watching and was itching to go tramping into the woods for weeks to find them.

So you have to include those factors into your calculations, namely:

remove all urban areas and desert areas from your area calculations.

Factor in that in most areas of Canada and the US, populations are clustered around dense urban centers that are located mainly on the coast, then up rivers, then around large lakes. In BC for example, I think 90% of us live in a very small area down on the coast and over on Vancouver island. The rest of the province, which is HUGE, is basically uninhabited, from a large overall population percentage.

[dogu4]

Excellent comparison of that BC landscape with the Virunga Volacano bio-geologic province. But looks can be decieving. Note that the tropical jungles of the congo are very ancient and their biodiversity reflects this with their high productivity as a result of intense solar radiation over very long time-spans in which species are able to increase the complexity of the system (and so it's effeciency) and adapt to niches as they do. The area we now call BC, like most of the northern zones of the super-continent of Pliesotcene Laurentia, mere 12,000 years ago was much different and the community of plants and animals we see now are relatively new and their diversity is actually very low and not very productive as forests go (unless you're only considering board feet of lumber) I don't doubt that the forests and mountains of BC are excellent places for BF to find refuge but it would seem the best way to for a large meat eating creature to get enough food might be to husband itself to grazing/browsing animals that, like the BF, use the forest as refuge but seek out meadows and forest edges or re-growing areas of disturbance to benefit from the diverse communities of plants which like the original pleistocene landscape is diverse and productive for herbivores and their dependent communities.
It's worth noting that where ever one is when in the mountains of the west, one is never really very far from small but significant bits of open lands if one thinks vertically. Those braided glacial streams and rivers are always generating meadows after floods and other disturbances scour the valleys...and a few thousand feet above them, the treeline gives way to alpine tundra; another great little pocket of diversity and productivity and the type of place that attract grazers and browsers.

[General Goya]

As BC Cryptid says, if you report a sighting you risk being ridiculed. In the TV documentary, Giganto: The Real King Kong, a scientist recalls how he came to believe in BF. He said while camping in a remote area of Colorado (?) he woke up during the night and saw the silouhette a large hand pass in front of his tent. He got out of his tent, lit a fire and he said something threw pine cones at him for the next 30 minutes. True story? Can't say, but it was believable. And I thought “Wow, this guy has a lot to lose in terms of credibility by going public with this story.” My point is: how may other intelligent people have had encounters with a BF, encounters that are so unbelievable that they prefer not to go public? A minor sighting or a vocalisation is one thing - an actual encounter is something different altogether. Albert Ostman’s story in 1924 is incredibly detailed (spent 6 days with a BF family) but I think one of relatives said it was a hoax. Was the family embarrased by his story? We will never know…

In any case, I hope that we find something in the next 10 years – if not in NA it could be in Asia – ‘would prefer not be here in 30 years’ time going over another dodgy video.

[BC Cryptid]

Albert Ostmann did speak about the ridicule, he didn't tell anyone for a while, actually. But he was the type of cantankerous anti-social redneck who really didn't give a damn what people thought of him, so eventually Green heard of the story and tracked him down.

As for statistical distributions of population in BC, here it is, hot off the presses:

"85 per cent of B.C.'s population now lives on 16 per cent of the land base in either the Lower Mainland, Okanagan or southern Vancouver Island."


Just released today after a study of electoral boundaries.

That leaves 84% of the province for the sasquatches. More than enough territory!

[General Goya]

Plenty indeed but I wonder how much is actually suitable habitat. I don't know if this is done in BC but in the eastern provinces, in Quebec anyway, logging companies usually leave a strip of forest on each side of the road so people think they are driving through pristine forests when in fact beyond the strip lies a wasteland. Now I know there still remain vast expanses of forest and a lot of trees are replanted but I wonder what % of forest has been cleared.

[BC Cryptid]

Yes, we do that too, we call it the 'scenic fringe'.

But if you fly BC by airplane, you will drone on for hours over miles and miles of unbroken dense forest, it's unreal just how big the place is and how uninhabited it is. Even where I live, on Vancouver island, you can drive for hours through backroads and never see anyone, through mile after mile of dense westcoast rainforest covered in moss. Some places you expect a T-rex to come lumbering from around a tree.

As for suitable terrain, I consider suitable terrain anywhere where there is dense forest and lots of hills/mountains, as well as sub-alpine mountainous regions. I'd roughly guess that makes up 3/4 of all terrain in BC.

[dogu4]

A google earth flyover from Tofino to Penticton at 25 thousand feet is about the best I can do right now and that is very beautiful and interesting. Most areas outside of the the provincial parks seem to have seen a bit of clear cutting and some places look heavily cut, but in the provincial parks you can see a bit of meadow at elevation and of course the river bottoms, old burn scars, landslide scars. In other words, despite what seems like "unbroken forest" there is a mosaic of habitats and the general ecological wisdom (and my contention) is that these areas are big contributors to the overall productive potential of the forests and that these areas are where grazing forest ungulates like elk yard-up to eat the young plants which are kinda scarce in the shaded forests. And even for browsing, it is the fringes of these areas where sunlight is adequate for an abundance of young growth which draws them in as well as provide cover for their predators as witnessed in the Yellowstone wolf reintroduction process. Maybe when field research becomes more atuned to the nocturnal activity of the presumed prey of the creature we're seeking, we'd see some interesting evidence.

[Smiles]

I have a hunting recurve and hope to be hunting deer this fall.

As for the topic,

I recently got back from a trip from Victoria, BC, to Penticton, BC.

During the drive, you will cross a vast variety of territory, from urban, to coastal, islands, major urban, river delta flatlands/cornfields, then there's the IDEAL sasquatch territory, which I identify as very steep sided hills and mountains, heavily forested, completely deserted. This terrain is all around Harrison, BC. If you look at some hills and find yourself thinking 'Virunga Volcanoes - Congo' your in the right spot. Then there's fertile river valley, then alpine glacial mountain, then we get into desert scrubland as we approach Hedley, and finally urban lake front resort at Scaha and Okanagan lakes.

It struck me that in some of these areas, urban, and desert scrubland, I wouldn't waste 5 seconds sasquatch hunting, and in others, I could practically feel them watching and was itching to go tramping into the woods for weeks to find them.

So you have to include those factors into your calculations, namely:

remove all urban areas and desert areas from your area calculations.

Factor in that in most areas of Canada and the US, populations are clustered around dense urban centers that are located mainly on the coast, then up rivers, then around large lakes. In BC for example, I think 90% of us live in a very small area down on the coast and over on Vancouver island. The rest of the province, which is HUGE, is basically uninhabited, from a large overall population percentage.

I am very pleased to see this thread take off, thank you all for your participation. As for those factors, I left some variance by not including all the "non-wilderness" habitats. So any territory that's not considered "wilderness," but is excellent habitat for BFs, I didn't include because of what you said about parts of the wildernesses that isn't habitable. So give or take a few dozen square miles per BF in my calculations, they are basically rough. I would really like this thread to produce good points supporting the BF phenomenon in a good light. Anyone, please feel free to post anything you think is vital to this topic, I believe the wilderness statistics holds great potential in the answer to the mystery.