There may be safety in numbers but I doubt that there is a great deal of success in that while investigating the sasquatch phenomenon. If one goes back through reports of sightings, it becomes apparent that the vast majority of sightings can almost always be attributed to single or small groups, one or two people or small family groups camping, fishing, hiking etc.

I propose that when making up an expiditionary force of investigators, the fewer, the better. And I doubt that I am wrong. Sasquatch like to have everything in thier favor, numbers included. These animals will respond to a small and efficient group with better results than any large "over-equipped" group of investigators. History appears to bear this out. Four persons, short stays, minimal equipment. No horses, dogs, 4-wheelers or game trail cameras(they can smell those)Just four good outdoorsmen who are equipped with what it will take to get photos, footage or a type specimen. Go in quietly, set-up and be nonchalant in what you are doing; let them find and investigate you.

That has always been incidental to sightings. Tracks can be found by any number of people who are inclined to go search for them. I am convinced that the small party approach is what will bring resolve to this question.

The thousands of reports indicate many things, but the most obvious of them is what I am discussing right now. Is this being done?

I feel that, the smaller number of people, the better.
Say, about one person for every quarter mile, spaced out, is a good number.
Teams of two are good for safety and hearing broadcast responses. So, post two people every half mile, and IMHO, it should be prosperous.
But it all depends on the terrain, dense terrain demands a higher concentration of people.

RobUstes,
To me that approach makes sense. It might be difficult to get people interested in this type of study since it would entail much solitary work. My idea is a four man team working in pairs. Less area covered, but that would depend upon the knowledge of the team initially don't you think?

Yes, a good knowledgeable team is worth more than a bus load of campers.
I still think a half dozen of so would be worth it. Cover more ground and be much more "blended in" to the enviroment. Much more productive than a 4 man team.
I would try to get a dozen or so for a weekend, simply for the coverage. But i think, for an ongoing (more than a weekend) a team of four or six fits the bill nicely.

RobUstes,
I have not been to Maryland. I suspect that our respective mountainous regions are not too similar. I certainly cannot say one way or the other what you are up against there. I will say that it sounds as though that you know what you are talking about and a 6 man team under the circumstance that you describe sounds efficient to me. Here, the cover is less dense for the majority of area until you reach a particular boundry and 4 man teams would be sufficient. I would not propose that such is the case in every region that these animals exist. I am assuming that since the majority of reports occur with fewer people involved, we may want to consider that as a viable option regardless where we are located.

i belive a three-man team is ideal. enough for security and small enough to move quickly through terrain of most sorts. ideal, outdoors-men and soldiers

If a highly trained military, law enforcement or operation specialized team were to embark on a reconnaissance mission for this type of quarry in applicable terrain, what would their mode of operation be as far as personnel allotment and logistics ? Any ideas ?

three teams of three. walking everywhere, carrying everything u need on ur back. spending at least on night with no fire, moving quietly and "normal" hiking. all armed, and NOD's. would this mean we are on a mission to kill??? not me, unless it is sasquatch or group. lots of details when military is on a mission...

I'll go with the "question authority" guy. Two's are best in my opinion. It's easier to keep down excess, talking, movements and odors. This could be done with a well-trained team of three, but it's much easier to get synchronized with two.

DTK

I would agree with the no fire thing if stealth is truly your goal. If you want to attract a curious squatch, then obviously not.

I would go with one patrol of four or two of eight. Even numbers mean you can move to your RON site and break off in groups of two. You can hump in plenty of gear with that many people. Always use buddy teams. If someone turns an ankle two can stay and two go for help or swap off on carrying a litter.

It may be that exhibiting stealth behavior gets you avoided though. It may be that camping and making noise creates a curiosity factor. Try it both ways!

my plan is to put a game-cam up SE of silver star mnt. i think i found a natural route in an area. move in fast put cam up and food. then move Wst of area to prior sighting and report. we are then setting up a hide that can be used in the summer. it will be between silver star mnt. and two other points, on some high ground. and, three is the best. as far as injuries u never leave anyone behind. everyone humps out, if someone is injured then u rotate helping him and humping his gear. two not enough, anything more than three too many.... of course what do i know, i'm just an infantrymen. and i know what its like snooping and pooping in mosul, Iraq at all hours.

I believe in spreading out to cover more areas,it depends on the size of the location,but i also like the safety in numbers approach,so maybe 3 people to a group splitting into as many groups as you can.This will also be helpful so that one can hold sound recording device,one digital camera,and one digital camcorder.

Good post Mike......2 or 3, and with at least one female bathed in perfume. I also think it's a very bad idea to go alone, both for safety sake and credibility if something 'cool' happens.

I agree with nighthunter that three is ideal. If something goes down, two is not enough. For safety and morale, and moving quickly about, you gotta have three. Bigger groups may bring in an inquisitive squatch, but he'll more than likely keep his distance.
klp ;-)

Royal hunting parties in India used thousands of beaters spread in a line.
So, anywhere from one person to five thousand seems reasonable.
I think luck is going to be the biggest factor. Period.

We try to have at least 4 with us when we go out. Sometimes we have more sometimes less. We also try to have at least 2 trucks with us. If one gets stuck or something else happens we still have backup. One of the areas we travel has roads or logging trails that we can travel. The main area we research alot has roads all around it but it is still a very wild and seldom traveled area. Hunters travel into the areas during hunting season but most of the time it has little activity except for timber business or farming.

We go out at night and have found that the best time seems to be right at 11:00pm. The traffic is down to almost nothing on the roads and it gets real quiet. We sometimes just listen and try to get a general location of any sounds out of the ordinary. Then we try to determine if we can get closer to that area by going in from a different location. We don't have access to all the roads but we have permission to go in alot of the area. We try to get into the area that we want to set-up in the next night or as soon as we can. We try to get into the area before dark if possible and get setup and the wait. If we don't hear anything while just waiting we will play a few (calls). We don't CALL BLAST. We do play a call and then listen. We knock 3 times, play a call at about the same volume of a coyote. Loud enough to be heard from a distance but not blasted at full volume. We start recording and then just wait it out. After an hour or so we do the same thing again.

This goes back to the old saying "you don't find Bigfoot, Bigfoot finds you". The one thing we have going for us is Bigfoots' curiousity.

We have tried different things but this seems to get the most reponse.

Mike (watch1)

There will be eight of us out from the 16th to the 19th of this month. I will let u know if the numbers worked out.... jacob

rockinkt Posted Jan 29 2006, 12:33 AM



:icon14:

All other successful primate investigation groups have consisted of how many people?

The Diane Fossey and Jane Goodhall expeditions come to mind.

Only a few of the total group will be in the actual "encounter" group. The others will have to perform existance chores at the camp site/base location.

what about getting everyone in every state that is interested in sasquathces getting on-line and walking forward. well, if terrain permits......haha, yeah like that will work, or will it?????????

My guess is a large group would spook them into taking cover in the deep thick woods. Unless you have a million people in a circle walking inward, somebody might get hurt by fleeing wild life! I would think maybe the smaller groups are less threating and may have better sucess. Also a long duration stay in an area maybe better. You would learn the terain and maybe they "bigfoot" maybe accept your presents a little more. Maybe bait an area for a month or two before staying. don't forget I have no idea other than reading post and reports looking for exploits.

Dillrod- AWESOME avatar............. :new_thumbsupsmileyanim:

Dillrod,

Your avatar is a classic. Its Great.

At last.....the search will be over soon, we now have Curley on our side! Even Bigfoot watches the Three Stooges. There is even one episode where Curley interacted with a bipedal monster, but it was more of a wolfman.

Less then 16 I would say... :wink: