"Squatchers"

Rick Marchand said:
Joe.... that's it, bud. Me... you... your dog... a rucksack of brews, kibbles and jerky..... 2weeks in the bush! We'll find that sucker and talk him into giving us all a piggyback out!
Click to expand...

Rick I have a feeling we would do an excellent job :)

My dogs can catch anything :)
 
Its amazing how people can be presented with the exact same evidence and view it differently.
 
5.56 is right, the town even has a "Bigfoot Museum". Even in there the evidence is only track casts, newspaper clippings, first person accounts and grainy photos.
 
dipbait said:
Its amazing how people can be presented with the exact same evidence and view it differently.
Click to expand...


Not really. If one is predisposed to believe something, even questionable evidence that supports their view is acceptable. If a person is predisposed to disbelieve something, their standard of acceptable proof to the contrary is naturally higher.
 
Codger_64 said:
Not really. If one is predisposed to believe something, even questionable evidence that supports their view is acceptable. If a person is predisposed to disbelieve something, their standard of acceptable proof to the contrary is naturally higher.
Click to expand...

Oh ya, prove it!:p
 
jill jackson said:
And who better to actually film one than a man that is, interested and looking for them in an area where there's been many footprints and sightings? Patterson's interest in the subject, or his wanting to gain financially, does not mean he couldn't have got lucky and really rode upon the creature.
Click to expand...


Jill believe me I so want him to be real and if I ever saw one I would not hurt a hair on its head.

I have spent many hours watching animal thru spotting scopes and binoculars

Sitting on sides of mountains glassing I have watched many amazing things thru the world of Leica and Swarovski

I have watched wolves hunt , rams butt heads and bears play with there cubs

The point is I have done this all over the world from Asia to every remote mountain range you can think of with people that have done it there whole lives and certainly more than me

Not once have any of these outdoorsman ever acknowledged seeing anything that they would call a Sasquatch

Understand glassing with high powered optics you can find things miles out and judge a rams horns by inches if you know what you are doing

Point is with distance and optics you can study . A chance encounter in the dark with a moving object is always going to be subject to the human minds imagination .

Most of he encounters with Bigfoots are usually from people with out much credibility or motivated by money

Like I said I am routing for him but the places that I've been and the people I have talked to tell me It just ain't so :(
 
Last edited:
Imagine the inbreeding that must occur in an elusive species this small in numbers.

They couldnt be that intelligent if this is the case. Surely a "special" one would have wondered into a town by now.:D
 
Maybe they're smart enough to hide the "special ones". Just like they apparently do with all of their dead.
 
I've already stated the reason I do think there is something unknown, is because of what I've heard and seen and I know many people that did see the creature that was sighted on and off in this area since 1962. I was not "predisposed" to believe anything. I was at one time just as much a skeptic as anyone. If any of you ever have an experience then your mind will be changed as well. What more can be said, it's not believable without reason and the fact remains, bigfoot has not been, either proven or dis-proven. (also the not having seen one so, it can't be is hardly proof something does not exist)
 
Last edited:
I can see both perspectives (believer & nonbeliever) as the evidence, sightings, footage and so on indicate that something is being seen, heard and leaving its mark in the wilderness however that evidence is not conclusive enough to have the creature identified and acknowledged by mainstream science. Do I think that the federal government has evidence of Bigfoot's existence and is not sharing it with the general public? No, I do not. Why would any branch of the government use both human and financial resources to prove the existence of a new species of animal and then cover it up? There is no gain or benefit to such activity. The discovery and scientific acknowledgement of a north american primate is not a game changer from a societal/governmental perspective. Financial markets will not be affected, military spending will not be increased or reduced and it won't factor in to where parents want there children to go to school. Where it will (if it ever does occur) impact lives is for the scientific field researcher who finds it and documents it (think Jane Goodall) or the hunter that kills one while out hunting elk or the tired over-the-road truck driver who smokes one crossing the road at 3:00a.m. These are the folks that will benefit the greatest (professionally/financially) from the event and then everyone will have the proof. The one great thing about a mystery like Bigfoot is that it not only generates entertaining discourse but it can also create motivation in folks who might otherwise never leave the couch and keyboard to get out in the woods and walk around and that's not a bad thing. Personally I hope that Bigfoot continues to remain a blur in photo, a knock in the silent woods or something you catch out of the corner of your eye while driving on a dark country road. Life is much richer with mysteries to be investigated.
 
This has been one of the most fascinating threads I've ever read on BF and I've enjoyed reading everyone's posts.

I figured I'd share a story too.

Back in the mid 70's my father and me were hunting on the site of the old Catskill Mountain House in Palenville NY. Back in those days we would hike in about an hour before dawn, pick a spot and post for deer. Our eyes had adjusted to the dark, so we weren't using flashlights and it was just starting to get light. I was already in my spot , but my father was still walking up the trail. He heard something bolt in front of him, almost like a spooked deer. When he looked up he saw something running straight towards him and it ran right past him. He swears to this day that something taller than him ( 6'2") ran past him on two legs. He always said it was probably just a spooked deer and his eyes playing tricks, but to this day he says it looked like a giant ran past him.

We hunted up there for quite a few years and never saw or heard anything else like that.
 
A lot of birds have cones in their eyes so they can see into the UV portion of the spectrum. I think pigeon's right eyes are able to "see" the earth's magnetic field, so they can navigate.

From wikipedia, on ""Night Vision among animals:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_vision

"Night-useful spectral range techniques can sense radiation that is invisible to a human observer. Human vision is confined to a small portion of the electromagnetic spectrum called visible light. Enhanced spectral range allows the viewer to take advantage of non-visible sources of electromagnetic radiation (such as near-infrared or ultraviolet radiation). Some animals can see using much more of the infrared and/or ultraviolet spectrum than humans."

Further, "many animals have better night vision than humans do, the result of one or more differences in the morphology and anatomy of their eyes. These include having a larger eyeball, a larger lens, a larger optical aperture (the pupils may expand to the physical limit of the eyelids), more rods than cones (or rods exclusively) in the retina, and a tapetum lucidum."

"
In fact, an animal's ability to see in low light levels may be similar to what humans see when using first- or perhaps second-generation image intensifiers."

"A larger size of pupil relative to the rest of the eye, also aids night vision."

Q: How are we to know definitively what sort of sensor package he [bigfoot] comes factory equipped with?

A:We simply won't know for sure till we capture one. Wild, agenda driven guesses (from either side of this) are worth what you pay for them.

We literally have no way to know what part of the electromagnetic spectrum he can see. Some birds can see the earth's magnetic field, for God's sake. What do witnesses claim? Big eyes. What is one possible perequisite for night vision? Big eyes.

I haven't looked up animal hearing. I'm continually astonished at the faint noises my chesadors take notice of.

In terms of the Patterson film, here's an easier to watch stabilized version:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4IORdWpu5KM
Honestly, it looks real to me. It walks with the sort of smooth momentum heavy things have, if it weighed a quarter ton.


Alright, this thread needs fresh anecdotes from scared hikers! If you've got something, spill it!
 
This has been a most entertaining thread to read. I personally don't believe in BF, and I don't mean any disrespect to those who've posted personal experiences, but I think your minds just played tricks on you. I also know how these kinds of things (sightings) can feed off one another. For example, someone goes out into the woods hiking and they know a bunch of people that they hold in high regard that have supposedly seen a BF in that area...well, anything weird or eerie that happens to them and their mind is going to go straight to Bigfoot. Next thing you know they're telling people about their sighting and those people are saying "well I know such and such really well. They wouldn't lie..." , and it goes on and on.

Basically I'm saying don't underestimate the power of suggestion.

I also find it laughable that the believers keep changing the beasts abilities to explain away reasons no one has found one without a shadow of a doubt. They have psychic powers. Seriously?? They can see in the IR spectrum, etc.

And as to the Patterson film. I think it is fake and so are the tracks. Don't underestimate a highly motivated group of men. Remember, just two years later we put a guy on the moon! You don't think a bunch of guys with lots of time on their hands could build a good suit and fake some tracks? If you don't, then I've got a bridge I'd like to sell ya...

My 2 pesos.
 
Last edited:
Jill it was a dvd copy of the Bill Munns scan that I saw.
I was fortunate that Sasquatch researcher Thomas Steenburg showed it to me
jill jackson said:
And what do you find wrong with what this shows?
[video=youtube;MKUwdHex1Zs]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKUwdHex1Zs[/video]
Click to expand...
 
If you would like to ask Bill Munns any questions he does post on bigfoot forums under the name Bill, he is a pretty friendly person there.
 
I saw what I saw. Nobody "told" me to see it. I turned around, and saw it, with 20/10 vision, at well under 100 yards, on a brightly lit winter's day, for almost 10 seconds. I saw just a little more height on it sticking up over the log, than you'd see on a military "F" target.

Denial is when you fabricate acceptable sounding reasons to explain away what you've seen, i.e. "This can't be happening to me" so that you don't have to deal with the reality of the situation.

Well, what if it is happening, as advertised?

I think what we're really saying around here is, "Well I've been out in the bush lots of times, and I haven't seen anything, so therefore you haven't seen anything." Well, that doesn't logically follow and is irrational. We've had somewhat different outdoor experiences. For 20 years, I was in your shoes. Until I changed shoes one morning. There are supposed to be 6,000 mountain lions in the Sierra Nevadas, but I've never happened upon even one footprint or sighting in 3 decades of hunting. Therefore, they don't exist! wrong


I had too good a look at this creature to be mistaken. This leaves only 2 possibilities: I'm either lieing like hell, or I really saw a fur covered "person". I simply don't believe it could have been a hoaxer.


It isn't impossible for some animals to see IR and UV light. It is established, scientific fact:
Taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_vision
[I took this info about birds, because as a bird hunter, how my potential quarry is able to perceive me, is interesting and useful for me to know. Speaking as a mammal, I can myself see into the near infrared. It looks like a dull, dim red ro me. This from the IR illuminator on a Russian 1st gen. night vision device.]

Magnetic fields
"The perception of magnetic fields by migratory birds has been suggested to be light dependent. Birds move their head to detect the orientation of the magnetic field, and studies on the neural pathways have suggested that birds may be able to "see" the magnetic fields. The right eye of a migratory bird contains photoreceptive proteins called cryptochromes. Light excites these molecules to produce unpaired electrons that interact with the Earth's magnetic field, thus providing directional information."


"Migratory songbirds use the Earth’s magnetic field, stars, the Sun, and polarised light patterns to determine their migratory direction. An American study showed that migratory Savannah Sparrows used polarised light from an area of sky near the horizon to recalibrate their magnetic navigation system at both sunrise and sunset. This suggested that skylight polarisation patterns are the primary calibration reference for all migratory songbirds. However, it appears that birds may be responding to secondary indicators of the angle of polarisation, and may not be actually capable of directly detecting polarisation direction in the absence of these cues."

Ultraviolet
"The Common Kestrel can detect the ultraviolet trail of its vole prey.Some birds can perceive ultraviolet light, which is involved in courtship. Many birds show plumage patterns in ultraviolet that are invisible to the human eye; some birds whose sexes appear similar to the naked eye are distinguished by the presence of ultraviolet reflective patches on their feathers. Male Blue Tits have an ultraviolet reflective crown patch which is displayed in courtship by posturing and raising of their nape feathers. Male Blue Grosbeaks with the brightest and most UV-shifted blue in their plumage are larger, hold the most extensive territories with abundant prey, and feed their offspring more frequently than other males do.

"The bill’s appearance is important in the interactions of the Blackbird. Although the UV component seems unimportant in interactions between territory-holding males, where the degree of orange is the main factor, the female responds more strongly to males with bills with good UV-reflectiveness.

"A UV receptor may give an animal an advantage in foraging for food. The waxy surfaces of many fruits and berries reflect UV light that might advertise their presence. Common Kestrels are able to locate the trails of voles visually. These small rodents lay scent trails of urine and faeces that reflect UV light, making them visible to the kestrels, particularly in the spring before the scent marks are covered by vegetation."


Some reptiles see infrared. This is a fun article on infrared sensing in snakes for our snake lovers:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infrared_sensing_in_snakes
Yes, it isn't particularly relevant, but just illustrates that some animals do indeed see in this portion of the electromagnetic spectrum.

This next one is just for fun. As a blurb, it mentions that some animals can see in "total darkness". Surely, that's a good trick:
http://www.eyes-and-vision.com/how-animals-see-the-world.html

This is from a guy who purports to be a biologist, directly addressing the question of mammal IR vision:
http://www.askabiologist.org.uk/answers/viewtopic.php?id=1979


From an online ecology site http://webecoist.momtastic.com/2009/01/14/animal-vision-color-detection-and-color-blindness/
"Old world monkeys and apes mainly see as humans do – they are trichomats, so they pick up red, green, and blue. But many new world monkeys do not. There is no real pattern among species. In fact, in the same family of monkeys there can be up to six different types of color blindness or vision. As with their human cousins, color blindness is more common in males than in females."


Mammall sensitivity to low light, taken from Animaleyecare.com:

Sensitivity to Light
"The canine and feline visual systems are adapted for performance under low light conditions. These animals have large corneas and pupils to collect more light in dim light conditions. They also have a reflective structure at the back of the eye called the tapetum which reflects light back out of the eye. This way, the retina gets two chances to capture each photon of light. A cat's tapetum reflects 130 times more light than the human eye. This is why we see the shiny dog and cat eyes in photographs and at night when headlights or other types of light enter the eyes. Cats can detect light that is 6 times dimmer than that which normal humans can detect. Dogs also detect much lower levels of light than humans (but not as low as cats).

"Dogs and cats are also very sensitive to motion, especially when compared to an object that is not moving. Some dogs were shown to recognize a moving object at 800-900 meters. If the same object was stationary they only recognized it at 500 meters. People are also more sensitive to motion than to objects that are standing still."

I guess we all knew about sensitivity to motion. I think it works because it is like more bites at the apple--as the object moves, its optical image in the perceiver's eye crosses multiple rods and cones, firing them off sequentially, yielding a much more successively sustained signal. Kind of like how a little kid gets your attention by tugging non-stop at your coat, saying, "Daddy Daddy Daddy Daddy Daddy.."


This thread is wild-- the Pro side has sketchy, unsatifying evidence which we seem to cling to, and the Anti side is just as emotional in clinging to its skepticism. In the light of this, and with little likelihood of any future change, I suggest we relax a little, and enjoy this thread. It has a ton of potential to provide interesting "ghost stories" which will at least have some entertainment value. I expected to google a law where Calif. made it illegal to shoot one. I couldn't find any such restriction, but don't think for one minute that you can drag in a body with your bullet holes in it, and escape beaurocratic prosecution. They'll say "no open season" or some such, and get you on that, if nothing else.

-------------------

For my next technical feat, I will attempt to partially explain the "bad feeling" some report. I think I've figured out the mechanism. If you yourself have a scientific theory, feel free to volunteer it. I'm engaging in guess work here.
 
Erasmus , is it even remotely possible that it was an animal that you did not correctly identify? For example, a black wolf standing on its hind legs looking at you. The height would be right. It would be hard to make out a muzzle if hes looking directly at you .If he senses you see him and hes ready to get the hell out of there ,his ears would be laid flat not erect. All you would see would be his upper body ,a round face, and his front legs would be hanging down like a pair of arms. I can picture something like this happening and have a what the hell is that moment.
 
I don't think you are going to convince anyone that they may not have seen what they "know" they saw. I once saw something that I can only explain as a "ghost". Nobody can tell me I did not see it. I don't believe in the supernatural. What I saw cannot be explained, so being intellectually honest to myself, I have to conclude that other factors contributed to a visual misinterpretation, though, I can still picture exactly what I saw. If I had experienced any other evidence that night, I may verywell believe in ghosts, today.

Rick
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top