Folks,

I am Sgt Dan, known to you all as Squatchcommando, todays lecture will be in animal Camouflage, Stealth, and Field Craft of Big Hairy Ape thingies . Or how big Apes stay undetected. I will be useing the Marine Corps flipchart method of instruction for todays lesson Ladies and Getlemen. So if you get sleepy stand up in back of class room and if the guy next to you nods of slap the back of his head.




Here we have a human homo sapian thingie, partially clad in Cammo in front of a outdoor scene yet she stands way out due to much exposed skin which is why I chose this picture to show how much we stand out it trees.



now if she is 5'3'' she may weight what 115, 120lbs and stands out way to much. here hairless skin and light color( and trust me dark skin human thingies don't blend in much better,skin shines)


now we have here a 600lbs to 1000lbs antler Elk Deer thingie, much much bigger than the human and yet look how much more it blends into the tree background. its fur its color help it just blend right end also under observation Elk, Deer, moose thingies move around much less than humans. The look around slowly and then move just enough to get were they are going.




Now here is a couple of big cat tiger watchamacll its, now notice how they blend in in the daylight.





Pretty good for a 400 to 600 pound kitty cat.

Now here is a little cat doomabobber still in the grass looking at the camera, a wildcat of somekind.



Animals are much better equipted to be hidden, even a 1000 elk deer moose thingie blends in nicely. 600 pound cats no problems. humans suck so we think that a 1000lbs animal walking around even at night mostly should be easy to spot wrong, At night animals are stealthy as all get out.


In my opinion as a trained tracker , field observer and Recon Marine A 1000lbs plus Sas would have no problem staying hidden Rick Noll and others said it well, when we see one its cause it messed up or got too curious, I agree, Sas's have natural built in Gillie suits and except maybe for screaming when feeling randy they are quiet. And it is easy if intellegent and experienced in living in the woods to leave little sign.

I'm sorry, but I didn't really follow anything you said after that first photo...

there are NO trees in that first pic. I have been staring at it and just dont see any trees.


dav

About that first pic,

You could paint (or tattoo) camo all over her stomach, and dye her hair camo, and... oh never mind.

A Bigfoot could be standing right behind her chances are and no one would see it lol.

A creative presentation.

It seems to me that some of your attached images make a good point.

However, your larger message is likely to be lost on the majority of BFF participants due to your "colorful" introduction.

Some research suggests strongly that people (read: Men) can't use rational judgement in periods following observation of an attractive woman.

The behavior of patrons in stripper bars is consistent with this claim.

There are colorful methods of presentation, and then there are effective methods of presentation. "Colorful" is not necessarily "effective."

Thanks for the relevant pics.

I apologize in advance in the event that my feedback has come across as offensive.

Thanks again,

EZ Chair

I agree, 300-400 pound deer and 1500 pound Moose could be standing 30 feet away from you and you would never know. Most of Maine is heavy brush, you can't see more than 30-70 yards in front of you, which is why the .30-30 is so popular here. My uncle turned around once hunting and had a bull moose standing about 30 feet away looking straight at him.

LOL !! I am a fellow former Devil Dog and I know the importance of grabbing a Marine's attention right off the bat !! You did a fine job in that department !!

Sincerly my intent was not to offend or to titilate but just to demenstrate, did a search for people in Como and that was the first picture, it was the exposed skin and shine of said skin that demenstrated my point. the partially expossed skin standing in front of trees made my point

The human woman takes up about same space as the Tigers and yet the Tigers blend way more into the background of the human female. Even if the woman did not have blond hair and was a black or brown woman or man that person would still stand out way more that the animals.


My speech was done just as when I would giving classes on camo or other things when instructing Marines in RIP(Recon Indoctranation Period), except many words were not used that I would have usually used .

Sign me up for your Bigfoot Research Camping Trip Sarge!

Oh, and the Elk was hard to see also...

Well I didn't set out looking for a bikini picture but that one worked for my point. I knew it would get peoples attention though.

I must say Sarge, those big thingies are barely hidden. Now where are those pesky Bigfoot's?

For those of you that are familiar with my account you have no need but here is mine for those that are not.

Its a Marine not a Soldier


Anyway when we sat it in one thing has to be remembered one of two things, it was already there,, 30 feet away ,lying there or squated. or it creeped in in the thirty minutes while i was on watch,

30 minutes sitting there remaning very still while 5 or so other primates(remember we are as strange to it as it is to us) set in next to you, or creeping up on us and not making one sound,it really scares the crap out of me to think it can creep in that close.

Either way these things have to be steath quiet, i didn't hear it snort, breath, grunt ,scratch or what ever. Not until one of our guys made a sound , then it growled and roard and made its display.

How many times do we walk by these things and not see it and its withing room distance.


Another creepy thing, when it took of for about a minute maybe we heard it breaking brush but it stopped that means it probably only went so far out to make sure we wasnt following ,that is good field tactics


Have fun Camping folks.

And in addition to the cammo, you've got to add to the list...leaps of how far? Muscle strength at what level? i.e. Potential physical abilities. It gets interesting to hypothesize in my opinion...based on anecdotal evidence of course! Which then leads to the level of psychological intimidation they seem to cause...

tirademan

edit - well of course SC just added info about what I just mentioned above...I tend to think we have no clue!

SQComm, where was the animal in relation to your team? (i.e., 1 o'clock position, 9 o'clock, ect...?) Also, which direction did you come from? What I'm trying ask is how close were you to the animal as you walked, crawled into your position? Do you think it really didn't hear or smell your team as you came in?

Wow. That deer elk moose thingie picture really got me. You can barely see it.

Being bipedal, sasquatch have a greater ability to quickly take cover and hide.

Consider a deer and it's ability to hide behind a tree. Unless it assumes one specific posture relative to the observer it's body will not be completely hidden and thus could possibly be spotted.

A sasquatch has a greater ability to be quickly hidden behind said tree, if only because of it's anatomy and physical capabilities. A deer could not crouch or easily alter its position as quickly and effectively as a bipedal creature could. A sasquatch could crouch, stand sideways or take some other position behind the tree which would successfully conceal it's presence. This is simply a result of its physical nature and an advantage of being bipedal.

Adding to its stealthiness would be it's presumed level of intelligence and awareness of the importance of concealment from a human observer.

Map is not to scale
We button hooked backover looking our patrol route which is proper field craft and got on slight hill (which was what all elevation was and sat in) the Sas was 30 feet from our Pos.

If it was set in already it probably knew we was there. When the guy moaned in his sleep it growled, so if it may hqave thought the moan a challenge, he made it mad If it came in near are position it knew we were there and was being quiet , it would not be quiet for the heck of it. from the map it could have even been trailing us or came in from the side

Also it came up to a standing Positon real quick when I stood up and took a couple steps to it. probably was kneeling by that time,






I think they squat when approuched that makes a 8 to 9 foot Sas real small(relativly), also why we do deep knee bends to do this for a period of time in patrols. when approched squat slowly in the dark dropping to the deck will make a crap load of noise squatting is very quiet, if this thing did that they have to have some strong legs try squating and sitting still for three minutes let alone for 30 this thing if there already was squatting for up to 30 minutes if not it had to get into that position quietly after we settled in.

This thing was quiet not enough sound to make me think a Raccon was near us.

having something that big and that sneaky in the woods, kinda rattles you, after than I always carried a magizine of 30 rounds.

Oh I don't know... can anybody see up her nose?

Thanks for the diagram Sargent, when I asked the question I was thinking about what might happen if you walked right up on one. I'm sure they would warn you off before that happened, but everyone(thing) has to sleep sometime. I'm of the opinion that we see them either when they want us to, or when they make a mistake. As you know, even well trained SF's screw up occassionally, and a Sas might also.

He was probably waiting for you to move off, as that is what humans do most of the time, and got tired of waiting. If he thought he was being challenged that would only add to his, um, discomfort.

I agree but large animals, or any animal for that matter, aren't always in the quiet/hide/stalking mode. They also have to make a living. Getting a drink, chasing prey, travelling, fighting, mating...these are all activities that cause an animal to be seen and observed. This is when a lot of wildlife photography is taken and a lot of game animals shot. If there was such an animal as bf, he should have been photographed or filmed by now by a fairly large number of people. Just like every single animal out there has been. Folks would have us believe a bf has an almost super intelligence for hiding, knowing trail cameras are hidden, that there is a camera around your neck, that people are armed and that people are within miles of it's location. I don't buy any of that. No other animal in existence is like that that I'm aware of and it's virtually impossible to remain hidden and undetected throughout the entire lifespan of an animal let alone a whole population...especially in the areas that bf animals are reported.

t.

It is really amazing how much difference just a little camoflauge can do... well a bit more than the lady at the beginning of this thread, can do to conceal anything including people. Years ago I went duck/goose hunting along the shores of a well known pond not too far from here. Because the pond I was going to hunt along had little in the way of cover along it's shores I decided to wear the camos I normally did for bowhunting deer which included boots, pants, jacket, face mesh, hat and gloves, as well as camo makeup on my face and hands for those times I might remove the mesh and gloves. I found a spot maybe 25 feet from the shore next to a brush pile in some tall grass and sat down to wait. About 20 minutes later I hear some noise off to my right, look and here comes a dog, lady and her boyfriend/husband walking along the shore. All three of them came to within about 10 feet of where I was sitting before the dog finally noticed I was there, which alerted his owners.

I often wonder if a bigfoot's hair is not a solid color, but rather a somewhat muted but mottled pattern of various shades of the overall color. This would definately help in it's ability to hide in areas where there's dense foliage and sunlight permeates the canopy in a variety of levels. Under these conditions shadows are not all solid blacks, but you have a graduated variation from deep black to light gray.

Sas's are reported and a few times photographed, know what mainstream people aint buying it. If we see twisted trees or footprints its fake or natural accuring if we report sightings its a bear or whatever, if we report hair the test are "inonclusive" but then people say we find no evidence

Bili ape was boo hooed, its real, a breed of buffulo in canada was found once thought extinct, panthers in Illinois when for decades we were told they were not here, well someone shot one. The woods are huge and we are small even with satalite infrared and scopes.

I agree SQComm. If you don't think we still have huge areas where a Sas could live, just fly across country and look out of the window.

As for their understanding of cameras, I doubt it. But to a primitive being, when a human raises a gun or a camera, it could look the same. The consequenses are such that it's probably better for them to err on the safe side. Same with trail cams. They aren't natural, and therefore should be avoided They are afraid of the unknown. I guess we have that in common.

Yeah, I was thinking the same thing. Hair that's been bleached on the ends by weather and sun would probably give that type of variation.

also often here that hair is sparse in some parts of body on some Sa's and they often have dark skin, Black in any good Camoflauge is the background color.

Your arguments are the typical responses but that's okay.

Sure folks don't buy it. Do you buy ufo's, dinausors (sp?), little people, ghosts, etc. etc., all those creatures that lots of people report? By your logic you should and consequently all those things exist.

Of course "the woods are huge", we all know that. And there are hundreds of thousands of acres in N. A. where anything could hide. You should see it where I live! I'm talking about the bf animals reported near and within civilized areas. Do you actually think those bf animals that look in windows, raid dumpsters, hide in old houses, pound on mobile homes, throw rocks at people and escort folks out of the bush could never have been properly photographed dozens of times by now? That they're just to smart and woods savy to have never, I mean never to have been properly documented or photographed? I know you believe all those storys to be true because you think we should all believe twisted trees are evidence of bf. I'm glad you have such an open mind and it must be hell trying to get to sleep knowing all that stuff is out there.

Don't get me wrong Commando, I'm not trying to disrespect what you tell us. Not at all. Call me crazy but I'm just trying to find some common sense in all of this.

t.

I always have a hard time disagreeing with what you say Terry.

And I appreciate SC being consistently humble and level-headed when confronted with opposing points of view.

You make good points Terry
I understand your point I used to not beleive in them at all, so I really do undertand your point of view. I had it till I saw one of these things. I thought the whole bigfoot bussiness was a joke.

I still am skeptical of UFOs absalutly do not bleive dinosaurs exist any more except for modern birds.

I beleive the loch ness monster is a Sturgeon or a huge eel.


So I understand you points I am just telling you I saw one of these bad boys.




I don't beleive all the bigfoot storys, some are bunk some are questionable and many are absolutly true and some are true with facts mistaken, like hieght wieght speed ect


Again Saskeptic will tell you I respect your beleif and can disagree and be freinds. I don't expect you to beleive it till you see it because I didn't.

t.

I emphatically agree with SQC and I think a bit of it has to do with the very human trait of relying on our most valued trait, vision . It's our consistent belief among all seeing humans, that our visual pereceptions are very accute. Objective comparative studies on this have shown repeatedly, no matter what the viewer's actual acuity was, that we have really poor vision especially in dusk and darkness. Hiding in plain sight and using darkness for cover all but guarantees any creature anonymity around humans.

When I was guiding visitors in bear country, a common belief that visitors would want to have verified was that "bears have fairly poor vision." Not wanting to loose the learnable moment I would agree and let 'em know that the bear's vision was so bad it was almost as bad as us humans, which would usually elicit a response that begged to be informed as to what sensory perception was all about, especially vision.

This is one of the higher resolution versions of Patty(you might have to click it because it is an animation). I have noticed how the hair is patchy and darkest at the top of the animal. That is classical countershading that animals use as camouflage. It seems to me that a normal suit made from a single type of fur would have the fake fur look much lighter in color on top from the sun. That is a curiosity that I cannot resolve.

I agree completely with everything your've postulated. However there is one little piece of detail missing which is no matter how stealthy and well camoflaged tigers, moose, elk and deer may be they are known animals. Which means that their methods of escaping detection are far from perfect. If they were perfect they would still be unknown animals. Sasquatch does not appear to posess any form of natural coloration or patterning that would allow it to hide by blending in with its environment. A large dark brown, silver, reddish or black creature moving through a green forest, tawny field or white snowpack is going to be easy to spot if said creature is active at all during anything but nearly nightime conditions.

Try painting a tank dark rddish brown and stick it in a grove of green trees. It'll show just sitting there and if it moves its going to draw fire in its directon pretty quicly.

I did observe a yowie a few months a ago that had 3 diffrent coloured hairs over its entire body, had this animal been in smongst some trees I would probably have missed it.

Again good points, again if I may counter,


But Sasquatches are not totally unknown Teacher s Cops Top military people ( people who a jury would beleive in court) have seen these things most are not beleive, so no explorers or scientist or government agenciies are funded to go find it like the Bili Ape or woodpeckers or a Somatria Rat.


With no real effort to find this thing a nocturnal animal with a disposition to stay away from humans could remain hidden.

For sure there are legions of Sasquatch/Bigfoot reports. But that is what they are reports, and we are left with precious little more than the reports.

It is/was a lot easier for me to consider Sasquatch as potentially being real when the reports were isolated and from geographic locations that made sense by their remoteness and unspoiled character. That almost all of the lower 48 states has reports makes the creature too numerous and common to have escaped bonified detection or capture. FOr instance it would be like Mountain Gorillia reports turning up in Central Park during the days before the actual animal was discovered for certain and was still only a legend eminating from a specific geographic region.

If one is to play the numbers game then there are several thousand of these creatures scattered over the lower 48 states. As such the chance opportunity to get proof positive is not nearly as remote as the results would seem to suggest. Yet the results are very thin indeed.

One way to approach rariety and the odds potential of getting a proof heavy sighting is to look at the classic car community. As an example I'll use a certain variety of early Jaguar called the SS 100. The SS 100 was made during the 1930's and only about 300 were made. World wide today there are around 200 surviving examples and they are highly sought after collector cars. YOur chances of seeing an SS 100 driving down the road or in the parking lot of the local Walmart are virtually non existant. However. If you travel in the right automotive environment you can come face to face with a genuine SS 100. But you won't find one at the local hot rod cruise night or at 99% of the car show venues that take place across the country ever year. But had Jaguar made 500,000 SS 100 cars they would be as common as old Corvettes and Thunderbirds and yes you'd see them frequently.

So I tend to believe that Sasquatch dosen't hide any better or any worse than any other primate and we don't find them because they aren't there. So just as you have to get out of the Walmart parking lot to see certain rare gems of automotive art you have to trek what's left the real hinterland just like Patterson and Gimlin did in 1967. The creature they filmed was anything but stealthy or color blending into the area where it was filmed.

Hey...thats good crow logic.

Patty was walking in the middle of an opening. Of course she was easy to see. A tiger in the open is also very easy to see. It remains an open question how easy she would be to see if she was crouched behind some foliage and not moving.

Yes a crouching Tiger is tough to see. But Tigers don't crouch in the grass all day long and when they're not we see them. Patty was caught with her nikkers down so to speak and was availabe in broad daylight to get captured on film. For whatever reason Patty was out in the open. It makes sense that her actions are typical of her species and that Sasquatch does venture into open areas from time to time to seen unobstructed. Curious that there aren't more open sightings though.

No animal can remain unseen 100% of the time. From the few decent photos availabe Bigfoot dosen't blend well at all into its surroundings. Its worth remembering that the woods of North America are well hunted. Any seasoned hunter develops an eye for game. It would be one thing if everyone going into the woods was a neophyte but that's not the case at all. I don't hunt but I am a hiker and camper whose done scientific field work requiring a trained eye for certain things. As part of my field research it was important to catalogue flora and fauna. I got pretty good at spotting game in the woods and even camoflagued garbed hunters when the season was open.

I doubt very much that they commonly wander through open fields where people are likely to be in daylight. Where Patty was is very isolated. She had access to woods for a quick escape and a steep forested hill that a person would not climb. The odds of a human surprising her there was probably not very good and they were likely the first to do it. There was apparently a recent flood that opened a new path for a human to enter into. That is why I think she made the mistake.


I found a very green scene and she seems to blend right in. If she was laying down, it would be very easy to not notice her.

Two things. First, most "suits" have fur all over. It's all the same length and density. There may be some that have areas with no hair, on the chest and hands for example, but it is typically all the same. Patty has hair of different length, color and density all over her body. They may make suits like that now, but there was no suit like that in 1967.

Second, we are predators. Our eyesight is tuned to movement. If something moves, we'll see it. If that something knows not to move, we probably won't. There may not be many BF's, but that means there are some. If they exist, it is obvious they go to great lengths to stay hidden. If a tiger had that kind of awareness, we probably would only know of them through myth and tigersplotches. It's not the ability to hide that makes them hard to find, it's the fact that they are aware they need to hide.

Edited to remove any unneccessary US Open/Tiger references.

Well technically I'd have to agree. But the vast majority of folks I know have never stalked anything but a Big Mac. I have to believe at this point that spotting is a learned, trained and practiced type of skill that most folks these days lack. I've been out of the woods for a long time and I'm certain what skills I had have eroded to some degree.

In my experience the average group of folks bumbling around in the woods (or driving) are concentrating on BSing with others in the group and the trail or route immediately in front of them and not much else. They'll often only notice something if a more experienced member points it out or when something makes so much noise they can't help but notice and look. Just getting some to learn to keep their eyes up and mouths shut can be a challenge.

Oops double post.

Alot of reports I have recieved have described the animal as being jet black, like a Glad garbage bag. That does blend with the forest around my neck of the woods.

Crow


you are a hard man (or woman) to debate(a complement to your thinking). As I have said to others , it took me seeing one of these things to beleive it. But I did see it and I will debate you and other skeptics but I respect your right to disagree and your nonbeleif. For I too was a non beleiver.


I saw this thing slightly under thirty feet no bears in that area get that tall no bear anywhere has shoulders and chest that wide and nothing has a pointy head like that in our woods but Sas's. It had hands and made roaring sounds like nothing I heard since or before.

Again the day if in my life time one of these things is bagged or found dead it will not be I told you so (except to Greg Long) it will be "cool" so all you can see this animal also. For it is an impressive beast/

Yet she never attempted to make a quick escape into the woods, and Bob Titmus did climb that steep hill and found evidence that she had sat and watched the men from the higher vantage point less than 200 yards away. (though that seems to negate P&G's claim they followed Patty for 3.5 miles).



How was that determined?

RayG

SquatchCommando

I'm not a disbeliever. I'm a skeptic and I believe there is a difference between skeptisism and disbelief. The UFO enigma shows us a lot about folklore, myth making, and belief. In the beginning of the modern UFO era in 1947 the
genre of sightings were that of nocturnal lights and daytime objects described as nuts and bolts craft of some sort. Howrver as time passed the genre evoloved in ways that compensated for the lack hard physical evidence for the existance of UFO's. That is to say UFO's began to acquire traits that would explain why we never get the hard evidence such as the ability to dissolve physically or transmute. At some point I said to myself there is simply way too much going on here in terms of what these things do and also what they look like. There are thousands of UFO photos showing uniquely different objects. This is like saying that we have a fleet of Space Shuttles numbering in the hundreds and all of them are different. Of course there is the outright UFO hoaxes that don't help the situation for anyone.

In terms of Sasquatach my view is that an enigmia that remains simple and localized (like the Mountain Gorilla, Florida Skunk Ape) just may have the potential for being real. THis is why the origional Pacific Northwest sightings made the most sense to me and still do. But as the lore has expanded to include an aray of regions and potential sub species that leads me to think again that there's too much going on with it, its too complex, and too widespread for researchers to perpetually come up empty handed. With nearly 50 states reporting sightings a careless Sasquatach should have found itself in the sights of a weapon wielded by someone willing to pull the trigger, or a tractor trailer collision.

So in conclusion my position is

1 Sasquatch is rare and confined to the mountain regions of the remote Rockies, Pacific Northwest and Canada
2 A large primate may inhabit certain swampy regions of the deep south
3 Neither Skunk Ape or Sasquatch are as large as sometimes reported.

That's why I wouldn't invest resources in tramping around in OHIO or the NJ Pine Barrens.

My point was that if she saw them earlier, she could have slipped into the woods and easily escaped. Apparently they weren't aware of her watching them. That is actually better than escape because she would know if she was being pursued.

I have never heard anybody say Patterson and Gimlin claimed they followed Patty for 3.5 miles. I would remember that and I seem to remember something quite different. Do you have a reference for that?

I determined it by watching the video. There are patches all over her body where the hair density changes. As she moves, the sunlight reflects differently on different parts of her body, nature's camoflauge. If you watch the video and don't see that, then we are at an impasse.

whos watching who. dont always hide quick enough,Click to view attachment