http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=11496

Bears can raid traps, and I assume sasquatch can too, but is she assuming the bigfoot MADE this trap?

hi chronic & sujan i agree these 2 ca sasquatch sightings are great. they definetly need a follow up done from ca sasquatch researchers from this forum. just a idea. bill

Fish Trap made by Bigfoot...........uh no. 50 yds and a person with her could not see it. It all sounds like a made up story. Sorry Just my opinion.

Hey, if bigfoot can knit tiny little bark balls, they can make big old fish traps!


Sorry. Couldn't resist...

:willynilly: :willynilly: :willynilly: :willynilly: :willynilly: :willynilly: :willynilly:

Maybe the bigfoot had seen a person checking the fish trap and taking out fish, so he just decided to raid it and get the fish before whoever put it there had the chance to check it.

No where in the report does it say that she thought the bigfoot built the trap. That's way too "Janice Coy" to even consider.

In the investigator's summary - the following statement sure sounds like that is what she is implying.

Summary: I ask Penny "What do you think about the creatures you had witnessed since you had two sightings over a period of years, and you had several minutes to observe them?" Her answer was, “I think these creatures are more human-like than they are like animals, because of their mannerisms, and some of the different facial expressions that I observed on the little ones face. Also, the way they moved when they walked, and while using there arms, and body. Plus, the big one who was using something like a fishing trap to obtain its food has got to tell you something.” Penny observed several facial expressions on the little ones face, from extreme interest while watching what was going on, to fear when she told her boy friend to turn around.

So, I guess if she had said "checking" a fish trap instead of "using" a fish trap it would have sounded less sinister.

Using that quote to imply that the woman meant the creature built the fish trap is a bit of a stretch don't you think?

Makes more sense to me, IMHO, for a sasquatch to take advantage of a human's fish trap.

Wouldn't be the first animal to associate a human's actions and objects with food. Coyotes, bears, and wolves have been known to associate humans and what they do with easy food. Chimps and orangs do, too.

As to the sasquatch making/using a fish trap... There are limited reports on sasquatches making "tools." And, most, if not all, of the reports are debatable.

.....my animals ring the doorbell if we're late feeding them LOL I'm just glad at this point none of them have thought of a 2 a.m. feeding.

This sounds very fishy.

Very detailed disdescription..for something which was very hard to see.....except for her..of course!

Perhaps her husband's eyesight was not optimal?

thats a point!

Another Bigfoot walked up a steep incline story. Makes you wonder how many Bigfoot walked down a steep hill stories you have read?


I don't give this story much credibility, not because of the hill, (water is surrounded by hills), but there is a few holes in the story. He couldn't see it at 50 yards being one.

Her friend did not see the first sighting either and he was beside her and it was for several minutes as well.
Definite pattern.

Jaylee - it is still my opinion that she is implying that the fishtrap was of the creature's invention.
She states quite clearly that the "big one" "was using something like a fishing trap to obtain its food..."
If she thought that the trap was man-made she would have used different wording such as robbing, stealing, sharing etc., instead of "using".
Also, she would have called it a fishtrap if she thought it was man-made - not "something like a fishing trap".
IMHO - the investigator should have asked such an obvious question directly.

The point about the eyesight should have been asked in both cases as well. Good point ARsquatch.

Ever see a deer in the forest and spend the next 10 minutes trying to point it out to a friend? I don't find it suprizing that one person could see a sasquatch and the person sitting right next to them can't.

Nope.
It may take a few seconds or so at the most if it is standing still and that close.
If the deer is moving at a distance of 75 yards with no obstructions in front of it like in this case - there is no reason not to spot it in seconds.
Plus - in the sighting at the lake - the creature was described as being 8 ft tall and well over 375lbs. Hard to miss.
I think this story should be ignored just like the ex-husband obviously thought because he kept the boat moving.

I guess we'll never know what the witness really meant about the fish trap, or the something like a fish trap, or how good or bad her partner's eyesight was. That is unless the investigator would agree to call the witness again and ask the questions.

IMHO, this story is totally fictional. Also, Rockint, I'm going to agree with you. If the subject (BF, deer, whatever) is moving against a stationary background it will stick out like a sore thumb.

This story get a :bs: from me.

agreed. It just seemed too convenient that no one but herself could see this thing.

If a bigfoot can make a fishtrap and I can't put together a bbq that comes in a box with (supposedly) all the bolts and hardware what does that say about "human intelligence"?


If the word gets out your co-workers will be replaced with hairy wookies.

While you're putting a cap on sasquatch's cognitive capabilities, keep in mind the BFRO now believes sasquatch has language capabilities.

To me, the thing that kills this story is not the fact that the husband didn't see the BF 50 yards away, but that the BF didn't see the boatload of people 50 yards away.

In speaking with the investigator who interviewed the witness the woman never intimated to him that she believed the animal constructed or fashioned the trap in any way. History of wooden fish traps stretch back many many years. Not everyone goes to wally world and buys their equipment. If a chimp can pick up a twig and stick it into a termite mound to get termites out of it it is not beyond the realm of possibilities that a BF could pick up a fish trap and look into it. It's no different than looking in a freezer for venison or into a barn for grain in my opinion. The phrase "monkey see, monkey do" was coined from somewhere. I have heard reports of sasquatch robbing fish stringers or just swimming away with the fish stringers. I've also heard of them walking away with deer after a hunter shot one.

There are a lot of reasons that the husband may not have seen the animal. She said it was almost camoflaged in that it blended very well with the background. There is a whole host of eye maladies that can affect the vision up to and including color blindness. While the witness didn't offer any eye physiology, she merely said the animal blended in so well with its background that her husband never saw the animal. I've had my husband point out things that I have not seen before as well. I cannot say with any certainty that since the husband did not see the animal that this report is bogus. The realm of possibilities is large on why the husband didn't see the animal. Maybe he wasn't looking where the animal was. Perhaps the boat was sitting partially in and partially out of the shade making it difficult for him to see where the wife saw clearly. Before unloading a report as pure crap at least entertain the possibilities.

Last I checked two people did not constitute a boatload unless you're in a small boat. I don't think she gave the dimensions of the boat either.

As far as the BF goes...maybe it did see the people in the boat and didn't think them a threat. It wouldn't be the first report I've heard of a BF disregarding the fact that people were 50 yards or so away. It had a good escape route back into woods the way it came. This would not be the first report a BF was observed for a time by people 50 yards or so away.

I'll be happy to either call the witness myself or have the investigator call and ask about the man's eyesight and ask him if he is available why he was not able to see the animal. :doh:

I cannot see where in the paragraph bolded the woman says the animal MADE the trap. It says USES, not MADE Many many witnesses have said the animals are human-like both in looks and mannerisms. I don't see that as a problem. The woman drew her own conclusions about sasquatch animals. That's nothing different than any of us do every day here on the BFF. It would also appear to me by the several facial expressions she observed and mannerisms she may not have alerted her boyfriend to look right away and perhaps the animal was about to leave or was in the process of leaving by the time he turned around to look.

I think she's getting a raw deal from you guys.

I apologize, but still...it's a boat floating 50 yards away with two people and a barking dog.



I'm sorry, I just can't put much faith in this.



Aren't you being a little overly sensitive. Nobody's calling...well, let me rephrase that...I'm not calling her a liar. I just think Kiamichi's pun summed it up quite well.



For many reasons...

You know I don't agree with your opinion, but you have every right to have one. We don't agree on this report. I still don't see anything outside the realm of possibilities. To people who don't believe that the animal exists at all this entire board is fishy. It's all in the perception I guess.

As for me being sensitive, you might be right there. I think it has to do with the three BFRO threads going on right now.

I think your sig line and not Kiamichi's line has more to do with this report, and bigfoot research in general than anything else. The more we learn the more we realize we don't know much.

That's very reasonable, and you're right...it's not beyond the realm of possibilities.

The important thing about any investigative report is that meanings are clear and inferences are eliminated by basic questions and answers.
You bring up some interesting possiblities. They also should have been dealt with during the interview.
Please do not be condescending about where food comes from. I have put meat on the table since I was six and my ancestors have been harvesting salmon with fishtraps since time for them began.
If you feel the need to be a teacher - teach the "investigator" you talked to about some very basic investigative rules.
Try starting with why it is essential that basic questions about the eyesite of the witness and any others involved be asked.
(hint: EYEwitness)

Rather than scrap my entire post - I will let it stand because I think it has some advice for "investigators".

I do want to say that I do not mean any disrespect to ARsquatch.
She is an asset to the BFRO and - more importantly - to the entire field of the study of this phenomenon.
I have made unkind cuts directed at the BFRO and they have no doubt caused collateral damage.
I respect the effort that ARsquatch puts forward and must congratulate her for not personally hunting me down and strangling me with her bare hands even though she could get away with it because no jury in their right minds would convict her.


edited for spelling

ARsquatch,
You make some really great points and your right it is all in the real of possibility. I am not saying she lying. Investigative thoughts do raise major questions in my mind. I just find it hard to fathom that the other person could not see it at 50 yrds. why?

1. 8ft tall 500 lbs?
2. 50 yrds?
3. In the late 1990 shasta lake in the summer time would have to have been about 20 to 50ft below the high water mark. (drought conditions were severe)
meaning the bank would have been pretty bare for about 35 0r 40 and she says her partner could not see it. My seven year old daughter can easily see deer on the bank from my boat at this distance. Like I said I find this very hard to imagine.
However your right its possible

I've read plenty of sighting reports that end with "it just blended in with the trees and I could no longer see it." Heck, I recall one where the person said he could no longer see the sasquatch when it hugged the tree it was standing next to.

You can sort of see how that could happen watching the Paul Freeman footage (which is certainly closer than 150 feet) when sasquatch walks between some trees and literally appears to dissappear.

Are you guys still here??

Don't forget to turn out the light ..last one out!

Hey - who invited you???
This thread was reserved for the exclusive use of the chosen few. Other seekers of knowledge and truth - seeing the great intellectual powers of our arguments - obviously fled in terror believing that their opinions would be hurled to the ground and dashed to pieces like sour wine in clumsy clay vessels.
You mere riff-raff can clear off too.

Yeah! What the Rock said.... and we like the light on.