This is a report that I filed with the BFRO following an independent investigation into the report of an encounter with a group of sasquatch at the Vigo County Conservation Club outside of Seelyville, IN. I thought some of you all might enjoy reading this:

FOLLOW-UP REPORT FOR BFRO INCIDENT #3186
Two early-morning sightings at the Lost Creek Conservation Club(1330 North Main Street; technically location has Terre Haute address, but is located just south of Seelyville, IN). -Vigo County, IN

An initial delayed follow-up to this sighting with survey of location was conducted on the afternoon of Thursday 22 April 2004 by Stephen L. Richey and his fiancée, Jennifer Ann Christian. Due to limited access (site is on private property with restricted access) and poor weather conditions (heavy rains, as is common during the spring and summer in this area) this report is of a limited nature at this time. However a return visit will be carried on Wednesday 27 April 2004 when the property will be open for a shooting match at the gun range.

REPORT AS POSTED ON THE BIGFOOT FIELD RESEARCHERS ORGANIZATION WEBSITE (http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=3186)

Report # 3186 (Class A)
Submitted by witness on Sunday, October 07, 2001.

Early morning fisherman observes family of creatures

YEAR: 1999&2001
SEASON: Summer
MONTH: August
DATE: 8/99&10/2001
STATE: Indiana
COUNTY: Vigo County
LOCATION DETAILS: edited.
NEAREST TOWN: Seeleyville, Indiana
NEAREST ROAD: It was highway 40
OBSERVED: To whom it may concern; My first sighting was in the summer of 1999. I was having trouble sleeping at night, and I found that fishing helped me get tired enough to sleep. The prime fishing hours for large mouth bass are at dusk and dawn. About four o'clock in the morning I headed for my favorite fishing spot on a gun range on a private semi-rural area; that I frequented daily. There was thick fog and I was not having much luck with the bass. It was almost dawn and the fog had started to lift. I noticed a bush shaking and I thought it was a deer eating berrys from it. I did not pay any attention to it and kept on casting. My casting spot is a small peninsula of dirt. From where I was standing this pond bottlenecks to about ten feet across. I kept noticing the bush was shaking and as the fog cleared I kept trying to see if was deer, or other critters. This thing has blended in with the shadows until I saw it move. It was eating flowers from the top of this bush. I noticed it was reaching straight across to retrieve the flowers. I saw it putting them in it's mouth. It paid absolutely no attention to me. I have been a hunter for many years. I would recognize any animal day or night, rain or shine. This is nothing I have ever seen before. It's shoulders were close to five feet wide. It looked out of proportion. I was overwhelmed with fear but I kept on casting. I wanted to get it to move again so I could be sure if I needed to run or not. I cast one more time and my lure landed about a foot from it with a loud plop, and it startled it. It looked directly at me. That is when I saw it's eyes. Our faces were only fifteen feet apart. It stopped chewing for a second and looked at me...and I kept reeling my line in; and kept casting. I turned my head in the direction I was casting but kept looking out of the corner of my eye. I noticed directly behind me twigs were snapping and leaves rustling. They would rustle a little bit and then stop. I thought....now these behind me are coons or opossoms. I still had not even gotton a nibble. I was beginning to feel very tired and it was probably 5 a.m. by now. My car was parked thirty yards up a very steep embankment. I knew it was time for me to go. I do not spook easily but the rustling behind me stopped as I headed up towards the direction of my car. I stopped halfway up the trail and looked in the direction of the rustling. That is when I saw four of them, all different sizes. This whole time they had been standing right behind me until I heard the rustling of their moving around. I saw one of the four extend it's arm as if to couple a child. That is when I noticed this was a group. Five in all...I saw with my own eyes. The youngest one ran to the one that had extended it's arm. As I was nearing the top of the bank I heard hoots, clicks, and low grumbling/growls. The one on the other side of the pond is the one making the hoots and clicks, and growls. The others started moving towards it. I was picking up speed and booking to my car and reached the crest of the hill. The average person would not have even seen the first one. I have spent so much time in the woods that my sight is pretty much tuned in to any unnatural movement. The only other person that I have told about this is my mother. It has been over two years and the other day I saw them again. So I know that they are still there. I would like to be able to prove this but I do not want to hurt them, and a picture is worthless. I am afraid people will start hunting them if I even report it. I now know for a fact that they do exist because I have seen them with my own eyes. Thank you.
ALSO NOTICED: I often thought of how to get them on film, but if anyone is interested I will take you there and we will camp out and at least get them on film.
OTHER WITNESSES: Me and God
OTHER STORIES: No one knows they are there.
TIME AND CONDITIONS: In 1999 it was 4:30a.m. and in 2001 it was about 6 in the morning.
ENVIRONMENT: Heavily wooded, thickets, marshy bottoms, lots of plantlife and undergrowth. Alot of berrys and natural fruits.

BACKGROUND INFORMATION
ENVIRONMENT:
Vigo County, Indiana is a largely rural area on the Illinois border roughly half way between Kentucky and Lake Michigan. The largest city and county seat is Terre Haute,
Approximately 6 miles west of the reported sightings, which occurred in August 1999 and October 2001 at a small lake in Lost Creek Township at the Lost Creek Conservation Club. The county and the surrounding area are collectively known as the Wabash Valley, for the Wabash River, which forms a large portion of the border between Indiana and Illinois.

The woodlands of this part of Indiana are non-continuous stands (varied density) of deciduous trees (oak, maple, hickory, and walnut mostly, with occasional groves of crabapple and persimmon trees). The fruit of both the persimmon and crabapple are edible, as are the nuts from the hickory, oak and walnut. Scattered evergreen trees are noted at irregular intervals.

Undergrowth in these areas varies wildly from one location to the next but if one knows what to look for there is an abundance of potential food sources. Morel mushrooms are common (considered a local delicacy) during the late part of March through April. Large impassible thickets made up of blackberry bushes and other thorn bearing “sticker bushes” (to use the local term) is not an uncommon finding.

Wildlife in the area includes whitetail deer (the largest wild animal known to inhabit the area), turkeys, bobwhite quail, raccoon, possum, squirrels and other animals in keeping with the ecology of the eastern woodlands. Numerous farms dot the area with horses and cows mostly. The heavy population of deer and an abundance of healthy fish stocks in local bodies of water could potentially be an excellence source of protein for a potential large omnivorous animal, particularly in light of reports of sasquatch hunting deer actively.

The pockets of forest are separate by open farm fields, roads, and housing developments. Approximately 1 mile north of the sighting location is US Hwy 40 (the Old National Road) and roughly 4 miles to the south is Interstate 70, both effectively providing barriers which any animal seeking transit through the area must cross (as evidenced by the large number of deer carcasses found alongside roads). It should be noted that corridors of forest do still exist connecting many of the larger pockets potentially providing, especially at night, an effective means of undetected travel for a large animal or animals. Most of the breaks in the continuity of the woods are rather short in distance (often no more than a few hundred feet to a few hundred yards). The only barrier that is not in some way overcome via these “corridors” are the roads.

It should be noted that, in contrast to the official opinion of the Indiana Department of Natural Resources, that reliable evidence (in the form of credible eyewitness testimony, tracks, and attacks on livestock (horses) during the 1980’s and early 1990’s (documented by local news reports) exists to support the existence of a large breed of feline, most often believed to be mountain lions (Felis concolour, a.k.a. panther, puma, catamount, etc; the common belief is that the animals are the progeny of animals escaped or released from captivity) in the west-central Indiana area.

OTHER OCCURRENCES IN AREA:
Sullivan County
The county immediately south of Vigo, Sullivan County is an even more rural area, with a scattered number of small farming communities. One report was found for this area (BFRO #2470- Summer 1978), a reported sighting by two individuals of a bipedal animal underneath a security light from a distance of 100 ft. The sighting allegedly occurred near the town of Glendora which is north east of the county seat of Sullivan and due east of the Sullivan Lake (a popular local camping, fishing and boat locale). A report the same night (unsure of the relationship other than time) of a rabbit hutch being completely torn apart during the same night in Hymera, which is located 7 miles as the crow flies to the north east (roughly the direction from which the animal came). Due to a lack of further corroborating evidence this sighting report and the possible theft of the rabbits by the animal sighted by the witnesses must be viewed with neither skepticism or with absolute certainty as to its basis in fact. They must be taken at face value, and in keeping with that, they are consistent with the behaviors and description attributed to sasquatch.

Vermillion County
Due north of Vigo County along the Wabash River is Vermillion County. It is very similar in terrain and features to the description provided for Sullivan and Vigo Counties. The most notable feature of this area is the presence of Newport Chemical Depot, home to the largest stockpile of VX nerve agent in the world. Two sightings were reported in the area. The first was a sighting, track find, recovery of hair and a strong smell reported along Broulette’s Creek (BFRO #2743; October 1988). The hair was not analyzed and no attempt was made to cast the tracks, therefore no determination can be made with certainty as to what exactly was seen by the witnesses. But, as with the above case, findings are consistent with encounters with sasquatch reported from more “traditional” locations (i.e. the Pacific Northwest, etc). As for the “diabolical screams” heard, no comparison of the noises heard to known sasquatch sounds (having the witness listen to the available recordings and compare that to what they have heard) was made to the knowledge of this investigator. No known animal in this area “screams”, although turkeys can produce a rather amazingly broad range of quite loud noises that can be quite unnerving to the inexperienced listener. If there is truly a large cat in the area as mentioned, perhaps it is responsible for the noises, as it would be highly unlikely that persons from this area would be familiar with the noises made by a mountain lion. But, taken in context with the definitively known wildlife, no animal can be with 100% certainty identified as the source of the noises.

The second sighting was a 4-5 second viewing by a motorist headed northbound on US Hwy. 41 near the Chemical Depot (#1790). Sighting was once again consistent with descriptions of sasquatch from other locales.

Other locations
Scattered reports have also come in from Knox County (~1 hr to the south of Terre Haute; BFRO Media Article #202); Fountain County (~45 minutes to the north; BFRO
#2464 and #2462); Owen County (~45 minutes to the southeast of Terre Haute; BFRO #2468); Monroe County (~1 hr and 15 minutes southeast; BFRO #354 and #1440). Scattered other sightings extending in a roughly southeasterly direction have been reported and are listed in the BFRO report archives

INTIAL OVERVIEW OF LOCATION- 22 April 2004
The property of the conservation club appears to be old growth hardwood forest, largely undisturbed with very little apparent attempt at clearing underbrush. The density of the woodlands around the lake are above average for the area and, as such, would provide more than adequate cover for large animals. It is private property as mentioned before and is rather frequently used by people (members of the club and those who have rented the use of the clubhouse located on the property; however exact statistics on the frequency of use were unavailable.).

The wood surrounding the lake where the sighting occurred contained numerous evergreen trees (which is rather unusual for this area). Undergrowth was quite dense at this location, with wild strawberry plants noted on the slope leading from the road (Main Street which forms the eastern border of the conservation club property). The assessment of the area as marshy terrain by the witness is on the whole fairly accurate. The lake has a very swamp-like feel to it, looking almost like the pictures you see in textbooks discussing Permian period of prehistory, enhanced by the rainy conditions.

The ground was obscured for the most part completely around the lake by this thick ground cover. No tracks were noted, but due to the heavy rain occurring in the area at the time and the lack of access to the property, only a very brief view of the lake was permitted from the northeastern end of the lake closest to Main Street. Photographs were taken to give an impression of what the scene is like. No abnormal sounds or smells were noted, but there was an absence of wildlife noted (other than the fish reported by the witness). This lack of wildlife is most likely due to inclement weather and not to the presence of a large animal.

The nearest houses are located just to the south of the lake approximately ¼ mile, and approximately 1/8 mile north of the lake on the properties immediately adjacent to the conservation club property. An attempt was made to contact the residents of the southern home, but no one answered the door. Two dogs (one a puppy) were noted at the property and were behaving appropriately.

Further assessment will be made, along with attempts at more accurate measurements for a map of the area (preferably with the assistance of the witness), at a later date to be determined based on ability to achieve access to the property for further assessment and better weather conditions.

But at this time nothing apparently contradictory of the witness’s testimony has been found. Further assessment of the area is desirable and necessary for the successful evaluation of this report in a thorough, complete, and accurate manner.


INITIAL CONCLUSIONS
At this time, insufficient assessment of the sighting location, along with the lack of a chance so far to interview the witness, precludes any attempt at this time to accurately gauge the validity of this sighting. Four basic questions must be answered before a conclusion can be reliably drawn:

Does the environmental factors exist to support a population, even transient, of large hominoid creatures?
Yes and no. From the standpoint of adequate food sources, there is more than an adequate supply of food available (both naturally and as a side benefit of the existence of human settlement (i.e. garbage, food stored in outside locations, and even small pet animals)) to support an ongoing population of sasquatch. The problem arises that the woodlands of the Wabash Valley are not the vast expanses such as occur in the Pacific Northwest or, to a lesser extent, Appalachia. The argument that if the animal exists in a given area would it not be seen, or signs of its existence be seen, is, at least on its face, a valid one in this area. The woods here (with a few exceptions, as mentioned above) are commonly visited by persons for various reasons (hunting, collecting mushrooms and ginseng, hiking, etc.). The signs of human presence are everywhere around here to the point were it is very unusual to walk through the wood in this area and not either encounter another person or to pass within a close distance of a house. There is basically nowhere here for a large animal, such as a sasquatch to hide. There are no known large caves in the Vigo County area (in the spirit of full disclosure and fairness, there are caves in the southern part of the Wabash Valley (from the Bloomington area southward towards Kentucky) It would be an outside chance that such an animal would chose to live here and would be able to do it successfully. .

Did the witness see something that he cannot explain?
Most likely. The reports are consistent with early morning encounters with a group of beings of undetermined type. There are no major inconsistencies noted in the report filed with the BFRO, but further investigation of the scene and a face-to-face interview (or at very least a telephone interview) should be arranged at the earliest possible convenience to attempt to elicit more details from the witness

Did he see a group of sasquatch?
Most likely not, based on the location of the sighting (Indiana). If this sighting had occurred in a more favorable environment (e.g. Washington state) or if there were trace evidence to examine, this investigator would rank sasquatch as a much higher possibility on the short list of possible explanations.

If he did not encounter sasquatch, then what did he encounter?
No immediately plausible explanation based on known local fauna can be offered to explain the possibility of misidentification of common animals. The existence of a smaller, apparently younger, member of the group adds to the mystery of what was seen and also lessens (albeit slightly) the chances of the witness having been the victim of a hoaxed event.

At this time there is no answer as to the, and this will most likely remain even after completion of an investigation to the fullest extent possible an unexplained event.

Recommendations for further investigation, at this time include:
1. Accurate, complete ground search of the area immediately surrounding the lake, with documentation through photographic and cartographic (mapping) means. Attempts should be made to garner the assistance of the witness, to assure the accuracy of the mapping and the determination of his location and the location of the animals he sighted and heard. This will be conducted on Wednesday 27 April 2004 and an addendum to this report will be created.
2. Interview of the witness to potentially elicit further information from him and to determine if there have been any other unusual occurrences since his last contact with BFRO.
3. Interview with the residents of property surrounding the sighting location to determine if any unusual occurrences have been noted that would be in keeping with the presence of sasquatch (screams and other noises, tracks, theft of food stuffs, unusual scat, strange odors, unusual behavior from pets, etc.).

Before anyone asks, the follow up investigation yielded no new information; at this time the case in my mind retains an indeterminate status, with my gut feeling being that the animals reported were not sasquatch.

The predominant reason I posted this is in hopes that some of the more experienced field investigators might critique my investigation style, etc. Any suggestions about things I need to do that I didn't, things that I did well, etc?

I'm just looking to become the best BF investigator that I can.......

Great job USAF Sounded pretty thorough and to the point to me

Thank you Heather. It's nice to know I didn't miss anything major or do something uncalled for. I tried to follow what I would do if I was investigating a crime scene (was kind of hard to do because of the initial restrictions on access).

By the way, we (Jennifer and I) have some pictures that we are waiting to get developed that were taken that day we went to the conservation club to investigate. We're taking them to be developed this weekend (sorry for the delay, they got misplaced in my recent moving and we just now relocated them). We'll post them on here once we get them backl

I am interested in why you derived at the conclusion of it not being the bug guy and family.I am clear on the reasons you stated but not the thought process that got you to the conclusion.I think you may be giving too much weight to the thought of the big guy needing a vast tract of forrest. I propose you only give weight to weather a food source is available and cover is available in the general area. The thought that the area dosent have vast tracts of forrest like the PNW is ,I think, a flaw in your reasoning.I sugest you take in to account the location of other sightings and the sightings area terrain as a baseline. If you do, I think you will see that any area within a few miles of a rural setting willl be suficient for cover.I also think a mistake we all make is assuming something. The major criteria for a real sighting is the evidence and the witness.With out a proper scene assessment the witness takes the lead in that weather they are credible have reason to hoax and how the tell the story. A good investigator asks many questions in an attempt to draw out inconsistancies. A good course for an investigator who needs to interview a witness would be the wicklander course of investigations. This is a course on how to conduct investigations and interviews. it is a must for any criminal investigator and would also be helpfull for anyone who interviews a sighting claim.

EXCERPT FROM THE RESPONSE I GOT FROM THE BFRO
"I finally found the time to go over your follow-up report to our Vigo County report. Your conclusions are interesting - especially your belief that the witness may not have seen what he claims to have seen. In examining the BFRO Investigator's internal notes for this report, I found some support for your claim. The Investigator states, in a 12/22/02 update, that "Several days ago the witness elected to post this report on a public forum. His reasons for doing so were very short sided and he may have provided a situation which suggests that some of his claims if not all are falsehoods. Its possible he saw something but he provides contrasting information."

Excellent follow-up report, by the way. Very nicely done.

Kevin Withers
BFRO



I took this to mean that they were questioning the validity of the witness's statements. Now I could be mistaken, but I am not sure of this as I have not had the chance to speak with the witness personally.


I am not saying that sasquatch need vast tracks of forest in which to live.....yes the food supply is potentially here, but the problem is still a matter of cover. A sustained population would be quite noticable in this area. The woodlands, even at the most dense are not the kind you would find sheltering large animals. I am of the belief that the range of sasquatch is greatly exaggerated by persons who wish to believe that this animal is in their backyard and they read the evidence to fit that assumption. My personal opinion is that there are established populations in the PNW and on down the Rocky and Sierra Nevada Mountains and in Appalachia, southward towards the Gulf Coast.


I approached this from a skeptical point of view, trying to exclude other potential explanations for the incident and to find evidence to support any conclusions which I voiced. Since I could do neither, that is why I have put this down as being indeterminate, but since it is bad form to state things for which I have no evidence (this would only serve to undermine my credibility if at a later date it was questioned over another case) and the evidence does not lend itself to the conclusion that this would even be likely territory for a large primate, let alone a group.

An aerial view of the area is available at:
http://www.terraserver.com/imagery/image_g...er_id=310&t=pan

The lake described by the witness is immediately to the north of the red dot (which indicates the intersection of the conservation club driveway with Main Street) on the west side of the road. The woods on the conservation club property are denser than the surrounding area, but there is not a single shred of physical evidence to support that this is the long term habitat of sasquatch.

I am not excluding the possibility that there are transient populations elsewhere, even potentially in southern Indiana. I am just being cautious about drawing conclusions before I have support for them. Does anyone have a problem with that? (note: that is meant without anger, sarcasm, or spite; it is a honest request for assessment of my point of view)

I think you are doing a good job. I only provided my opinion about the assumption of population as related to local cover.This is just my opinion and I do believe you provided excellent background and facts to support your statements.I do ,however ,disagree with your assumptions of the range of the animal.I think the range is a bit more extensive and may be closer to the actual reports than the areas you stated.
I have written many reports on investigations in my time with most of those being about criminal investigations crime reports and incident reports.[all jokeing aside about my lazy typing in other threads]There is said to be two thoughts on reporting styles. One is a very indepth kind of report with supporting info on all facts and possible relevent info related to the subject or the actions involved in the reports.The other is a very short report containing only the events and actions of those involved. I think on the bfro web site you will see both kinds in the remarks of various investigators at the end of the completed reports.I find that most people start at one end of the spectrum and find a middle ground depending on what their readers want as info or their supervisors expect in the form of content.I found that reports that go to court are best when they are of the short complete and factual kind without all the extra facts statistcts ect.It is much easier to defend a report with little room for interpertation than it is to defend the reason you included all the other stuff and your thinking process ect.This probably has little relevence here as most of us want all the info we can get.
Continue the good work and take classes on interviews and investigations. While most of these classes are geared to the law enforcement or buisness type of investigation ,they will provide invalueable skills in determining the clarity and truthfullness of any witness

Thank you for your suggestions. They are greatly appreciated.

I still stand by my assessment of the range of the animal. The reason for this is that I am hesitant to rely solely on witness testimony (which is notoriously unreliable; look at what happens across racial lines- and we're talking across species lines here) without corroborating physical evidence to back it up to determine distribution. Like I said, there is always the chance of aberrant animals (or a migratory population) occuring "where they're not supposed to be". But at this point it is all speculatory.

I mean I had an encounter in Oregon near Mt. Hood (don't ask exactly where because I have no idea- it was my first trip out there and I didn't pay attention to how we got there) while I was camping and I still have reservations about whether it was sasquatch or not (which is why I never submitted it to the BFRO or anyone else). Rocks were thrown (following a curving (upward and then downward) trajectory) into the campsite at 11:30 (approx.) in the night. We (me and a college friend of mine with whom I have sense lost touch with) were on top of the ridge. We did not see, hear, or smell anything out of the ordinary. Thinking back on it later, I remember having the distinct sense of being followed (not so much a literal hearing of something following us) but more like a uneasy feeling of being watched that day.

I never thought any of it until Josh (my friend) told his grandfather about it and he said "Ah, sounds like you two had a run-in with the man of the mountain." Of course I looked at him like he had lost his mind and asked what he meant. "Sasquatch"; once again this drew a blank for me (pardon me I was a died in the wool skeptic who grew up in the midwest). "Bigfoot" he said and I immediately started laughing. I remember replying that those don't really exist, it's just a myth.

I never gave it a second thought until my next semester in college when I took a intro wildlife biology class and the professor decided (I had pissed him off I guess) to make me do my term paper on the debunking of the sasquatch myth. I started doing research on this and the more I researched, the more I realized that "OMG, the old man was right, we may have been the target of a sasquatch." And so here I am. I don't know exactly what happened that night in 1999, but I have a pretty strong feeling of what it probably was. I still don't give any more weight to that than I do anything else.


-Steve

Steve, it sounds like you did a good job of following up on this. The first thing in the report that made me go hummmm was, he seemed to be able to describe things that would be next to impossible to see at 4:30 a.m. without the use of some sort of light. Since he doesn't mention having one or using one, that got my skeptics up.

Very excellent point.....especially as this lake is about 20 feet below road level and is not exactly well lit during the day. The first day we went out there it was raining and foggy. That area would be pitch black at night.

Excellent follow-up Steve!
I like all the details.
This is one of the best follow-ups I think I've ever read. Your attention to details of the area, other reports in the neighboring counties with references is outstanding. It is much easier for the reader to get the "big picture."
I give it

One of the things that stood out to me and didn't seem to make much sense was the witness' comment:


and then he goes on to say:


Common sense tells me that if you are fishing that early, it's still dark outside and you notice a bush shaking that close, by an animal that large, you are going to pay attention. Having your face "fifteen feet apart" from an alleged bigfoot that is staring at you is probably going to cause a reaction from a witness, and casting your line isn't one of them I would think.

It could be possible, I suppose.. but then there's that instinctive fear factor that comes into play with us simple humans.
Doesn't seem to make sense.
JMO

I was hoping to get to talk to the witness about that; it should be noted that the deer around here are remarkably comfortable with people, so the assumption that it was a deer initially would not be so suspect; now once you realized that it wasn't I think I would have to changed my pants personally. That area would not be fun (or easy) to try to get out of quickly in the dark.....As you said, this is just my opinion

I finally have the pics back from the investigation. They reveal nothing new, as expected, but they will give those of you who are not from Indiana a feel for what the woods here are like (bear in mind, that the woods in this small area (a few acres) are denser than is the normal for this far north and west in Indiana).

Pic #1: Driveway of the conservation club with the clubhouse in the distance; picture taken from the road (Main Street) facing due west)- the sighting occured just to the north (right) of this driveway approximately 60 yds (rough guess).

Picture #2: this is the lake where the supposed sighting occured. Picture was taken from the shore line on the eastern side looking west-south-west. The witness was somewhere near the south end of the pond on the west side facing east when the sighting occured according to the statement he filed with the BFRO. Exact location could not be determined due to the lack of a chance to interview the witness.

Picture #3: Taken from same location as #2; but this time the view is to the west north west. Note the density of the underbrush in this area which is thicker than what is usual for this part of Indiana.

Picture #4: Taken from the same position as #2 and #3; view is to the south-west; my honest opinion if I had to choose, based on what I know of the report, would be that the witness was probably near the shoreline at the base of the large pine tree just to the right of center of this picture at the time of his encounter (or at least he claims). This corresponds with the point of the "peninsula' in this pond. According to one person from the conservation I spoke with on my return visit to the site, the water level is normally 2 feet lower than what is seen in this photo.

Picture #5- Taken from the same location as #2, #3, and #4, but this time looking back towards the east. This demonstrates the hillside that runs the length of the east side of the pond. This is covered in very slick mud (I fell down this hill so I should know). At the bottom is a ledge of approximately 2'-4' width. This is the side of the pond where the first alleged sasquatch was said to be standing feed on berries which were later determined *(based on samples collected on our return visit) to be red chokeberry (Aronia arbutifolia) which are (according to the textbook I used) are toxic and foul tasting. The person at the top of the hill is my fiancee and partner in the investigation Jennifer (for scale she is 4'11")

This is the last photo of the sequence. It is approximately the same view as what is shown in #2 and #3 but from the top of the hill at the east edge of the pond.

Nice pics Steve, especially that last one. Makes me wish I was standing there with a fishing pole and some night crawlers!

edit