I always thought that this is the way to run a field expedition and how to write up the report. Plus, it has pretty interesting behaviors noticed...


http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=1350

I agree. This is how an investigation should be conducted and reported. My feeling is that the behaviors were defensive. The only problem that I had with the report was the failure to record the various noises. They appeared to be very prepared. I would think that you would have a tape recorder ready at the first noise. In fact, how much trouble would it have to have one running all night and most of the day. (batteries?)

"Although no conclusive evidence was found that would support a claim that our campsite had been visited or probed by a sasquatch(es), the area warrants further, and careful, investigation which we intend to, systematically, accomplish."

There is no evidence of sasquatch in this report, period. Just some noises that they heard that could have been anything. Why not attribute the vocalizations to a dragon? They found just as much "evidence" that pointed to a dragon as they did a sasquatch.

Ummm..wonder why they felt that they needed to zip their fly closed when it became apparant that unzipping was alerting whatever they might have imagined was "probing" their camp?
Come to think of it - any soldier worth his salt knows that to confine yourself in a tent with extremely limited visability is NOT the way to detect and/or observe someone or something that is REPEATEDLY trying to sneak up on you. "OOOHH...something is trying to sneak up on us. Let's huddle in the tent and zip up the fly so we can be sure to catch sight of it".

Any person with bush knowledge knows that if you have a bear that is visiting your camp - you are a LOT safer outside of your tent because you can much easier see and take action (if necessary) against the bear. In areas that I knew had a lot of bears - I never used a tent.

I also question the fact that they heard numerous "primate-like calls" (whatever the hell that means) lasting for 5 minutes at a time and did not turn on thir recorder. What's up with that?
Furthermore - stating as a fact that what they heard could not have been made by a human - who are, funny enough, very much "primate-like" (with or without a megaphone) is beyond their capability to ascertain - or anyone else's for that matter. That goes for the claim that it could not have been produced by a recording as well.

As far as the speculation that the "rock clicking" was used as a devious form of communication because it has been shown that it does not alert mountain sheep or goats - the men and horses must have looked a lot like either one or both of those animals to confuse the creatures!
Think about it. "Rock clicking" certainly alerts humans, bears, deer, moose, elk, cats, dogs, horses, cows, beaver, cougars etc. - so the alleged creatures must have thought thy were only dealing with mountain sheep or goats - or why else use "rock clicking"?????
BTW - if the alleged interlopers were intelligent enough so as to use non-verbal codes - you would think that they would have been smart enough to have stopped making the noise after their targets alerted to the rock clicking a few times.

You can dress up a report to look great - but the devil is in the details and the details show a whole lot of major speculation and free flowing imagination based on nothing tangible. IMHO.

No overt threats to them or their live stock. Their imaginations got the best of them and they spooked themselves out of the woods. It is not all that hard to do.

This is the first time I can ever remember reading horses gradually accepting the presence of a squatch in the area.

The lack of recordings is disappointing.

As the previous poster noted, if you are expecting uninvited guest to your campsite, in the tent is possibly the worst place to be.

It is a well written and structured report, unfortunately, they gathered no evidence for their troubles.

Wish they'd do this again but have a remote researcher at some considerable distance from the camping area from which secondary observations could taken, preferrably from an elevated postion. Using radio or cell phones the two parties could then coordinate and/or confirm. This does seem like idea habitat with a high potential for gathering visual evidence with long views on open rangees in a high aspect landscape.

Keith Foster has some incredible insight on SAS. He quit the Beefro years ago because they would post every and anything.

Agreed, COGrizzley. I've read and re-read his long rambling dissertation and have to admit that it has the greatest insight as to the nature of the creature (I'll demure on his non-BF related musings) and the difficulties in our attempts to collect evidence, let alone a living creature. It's based in part on his understanding that I think it's best to attempt to observe it over a really large area at considerable distance. The southcentral Colorado region that he describes actually offers some pretty good opportunities for the techniques I'd favor.

My family and I did a full day Horse Treks Over a Mountain North of Leadville Beautiful Country. I can see why BF likes it up there. I wish I could say I experienced some BF activity. But other than the Horses acting up every time we got near a creek or watering hole that was the closest we got to excitement other that the Fantastic Views. But as remote as it is I dont think I would like to spend the night up there and see BF face to face. Im more of a distance sightings person myself