Cryptozoology forums > Cryptids > Hominids > view thread
Subject: Culpeper Sasquatch Investigation
From: Road Less Traveled posted Thu, Jun 14 2007, 2:12am 
I’ve been out to the Culpeper, Virginia site investigated on this site. I’ve posted my results a couple of times before (link and link). I’m just not seeing any of the things they have posted over on the North American Bigfoot Forums.

First, a brief background. This area was brought to my attention by a Sesquoc post linking to this supposed BF area (thanks Sesquoc). Originally, the North American Bigfoot Forums posted a section of a topographical map and I was able to find the exact site using this information (they took it down later, but I had already saved it to my computer). I had my reservations, due to my skeptical nature and the fact that there seemed to be inconsistencies. However, I was hopeful, since this site is only 22 miles by road from my house (about 17 miles as a crow flies).

I now believe this whole story is a hoax for the following reasons:

1. The first inconsistency I noticed was the footprint on page 1 of the thread on the other site is in at least an inch of snow. Our first significant snow fell on the night of Feb. 13 and continued into the morning of Feb. 14. The pictures were posted on the morning of Feb. 14, when the snow was still falling and the tread says the picture of the print in the snow was taken on Jan. 28. Also, on Jan. 27 (one day before the photo), the high temperature was 62 degrees F., which should have melted any snow, if there was any to begin with. After I posted my doubts in our forum on Feb. 19, dbdonlion posted this later on the 19th in the other forum:
I've seen it mentioned on another forum that there was no snow on the ground in our research area until Monday the 12th. That's incorrect. Our research area received snow on Friday February 2nd, and also the 6th and 7th. It has been cold enough that areas that do not receive sunshine kept their snow. As we've mentioned in the narrative, there were places that had no snow in evidence at all.
First off, this is not true. As I said, I live about 17 miles in a straight line from this area. Whatever weather the site gets is the same as I get and we did NOT get significant snow until the night of Feb. 13. But even more incriminating is the dates he lists are AFTER the date he originally says the photo was taken. If you’re trying to cover your hoax, at least make up some dates BEFORE you say you took the photos.

2. I didn’t find any of the twist-offs shown on page 2 of the other forum and I explored a large portion of the area.

3. I found no evidence of plaster casts being made, even though I located the area they claim to have made the casts. There should have been some casting residue.

4. I didn’t see any evidence of the camping area originally described and marked on the map. After I pointed this out in our forum, a campsite was made later at the approximate position shown on the map, as I documented in my second report.

5. Neither they nor I have been able to locate the exact spot of the thermal image, even though the spot is clearly marked on the original map. If you look closely at the original thermal image that was posted (page 1 of the other forum), then look at the second image they posted (page 6 of the other forum), they are not the same tree. The tree in the second photo branches just above the damaged area, while the tree in the thermal photo doesn’t. The trees in the background are not the same in the photos either. I don’t believe the image was taken in this area.

6. On page 6 of the other forum, he posts a recording, which leaves no doubt in my mind is a canine (most likely a dog, but possibly a coyote). As I mentioned in my first thread, there are houses with dogs within a half mile of the site. Also, coyotes have been confirmed in Virginia since the early 1980s and a few have been hit by cars in Culpeper county in the past year. For some reason, he says it couldn’t possibly be a coyote, but never says why. Finally, I saw numerous dog tracks each time I visited the site. I assumed these belonged to dogs accompanying the other researchers or hikers, but they could have been feral. Compare his recording to these: Dog and Coyote. He’s now saying it could have been somebody call blasting, but who would do that? As far as I know, the only people who know the location are the ones he told and me (OK, I did reveal the location to one other BF researcher from this site whom I trust and have coordinated research in the past, but he lives over a thousand miles away). I don’t call blast and don’t even have the equipment to do so if I wanted to, so if call blasting occurred (which I doubt) it would have to be one of the people he told.

7. Finally, he says the main witness (OS aka Olaf) has had 2 daylight sightings of the “creature,” but on page 7 of the other thread, he’s saying the whole thing could possibly be a hoax. Now there’s a third “class A” sighting from last week (page 7) from another poster (Olaf?). Uh, does that mean the main witness is perpetuating a hoax? You can’t have it both ways. Either the main witness is lying and hoaxing or it’s not a hoax at all (or the whole thing is a hoax). I believe it’s a hoax alright, but who is doing the hoaxing?

As I said in my second thread, I did hear very loud tree banging, but it turned out to be trees banging together in the wind. This is something that should be investigated in all cases of tree banging in my opinion. I’ve never seen anyone consider trees banging in the wind as a possible explanation of tree banging. I also found a tree break and a fallen tree, but they were not twisted and could have been made by natural processes.

At this point, I don’t think there’s any reason to conceal the exact location of the site. I was able to locate the site using the small section of map they posted, because it contained key information. First, the river north of the area is a county boundary. Second, the area to the left of the map is a powerline cut. So with these clues (a river that forms the north Culpeper county line and a powerline cut), it was easy to find the area in Topozone, just follow the river to the powerline.

The site is part of the C.F. Phelps Wildlife Management Area. It is the only part that falls within Culpeper county. If you look at the map, it’s that section in the upper left part of the map. The coordinates of the bend in the road near where everything supposedly happened are: 38° 29' 12"N, 77° 47' 26"W, or 38° 29.21'N, 77° 47.44'W, or 38.4868°N, 77.7906°W, or UTM 18 256597E 4263317N, depending on your preferred grid coordinates.

As you know, I’ve never been big on keeping research areas secret and I encourage anyone in the Virginia area to check this out for them self. I feel the more information we share, the quicker we will solve this mystery.

The original map that was pulled down later.
Subject: Re: Culpeper Sasquatch Investigation
From: Road Less Traveled posted Thu, Jun 14 2007, 2:22am 
The original thermal image.

Subject: Re: Culpeper Sasquatch Investigation
From: Road Less Traveled posted Thu, Jun 14 2007, 2:23am 
The comparison from the other forum.

Subject: Re: Culpeper Sasquatch Investigation
From: Road Less Traveled posted Thu, Jun 14 2007, 2:27am 
Park here.

This is the "billboard" mentioned from last week's sighting.
Subject: Re: Culpeper Sasquatch Investigation
From: Road Less Traveled posted Thu, Jun 14 2007, 2:30am 
This marker to a fallen CSA Major is just around the bend on the map.

Subject: Re: Culpeper Sasquatch Investigation
From: lowredx posted Thu, Jun 14 2007, 5:21am 
Excellent report. I still think bigfoot might be out there somewhere and I am trying hard not to let this current crop of flaky "researchers" spoil the fun.
Subject: Re: Culpeper Sasquatch Investigation
From: Road Less Traveled posted Thu, Jun 14 2007, 6:31am 
Hey lowredx-

There are many better researchers than I. Mr. Marlowe comes to mind. I approach this as a skeptic, but I try to keep an open mind and look at the evidence for both sides. In this case, it just doesn't add up. I hope you conduct your own field work and post your results here for everyone to learn.
Subject: Re: Culpeper Sasquatch Investigation
From: lowredx posted Thu, Jun 14 2007, 6:48am 
I agree that there are good researcher's. But the bad ones seem to get all the press. Mr. Marlowe is a good example. Don't do field research, but have worked as an outdoor guide, hiked, mountain biked and rock hounded all over Oregon and ever since I was a teen have had an interest in bigfoot and always kept an eye out for any trace. Nothing so far. I have seen a lot of cool things in the forest and desert though and have a good eye for nature. Strangely enough people like BFRO, April Williams and Biscardi all spend a heck of a lot less time than me in the woods here in Oregon and always seem to get "something".
Either I am EXTREMELY unlucky or ............?????? Keep up the good work. I live in the foothills or the Cascade range, a long way from the city and sleep with my window open during the summer. If I hear anything I will let you know.
Subject: Re: Culpeper Sasquatch Investigation
From: Road Less Traveled posted Thu, Jun 14 2007, 7:03am 
Cool. I'll be out your way in a little over a week and again in July. My daughter lives in Medford and just had a baby girl last month. I'm flying out to see my first grand child next week and my wife and I will be out in Washington next month for 9 days as part of a combination sasquatch hunt and (2 day) family reunion. As part of that trip, we will be down in Medford again, so my wife can see the grand daughter.
Subject: Re: Culpeper Sasquatch Investigation
From: Rangoon posted Thu, Jun 14 2007, 2:41am 
Road,

Just looking at the alleged foot print one can observe that the individual wore shoes for their entire life. The dimensions themselves are well within a human norm, around a size 10.5 wide in shoe size. From what I observe it's simply a human print.

goon- nice report!
Subject: Re: Culpeper Sasquatch Investigation
From: Road Less Traveled posted Thu, Jun 14 2007, 6:27am 
Thanks 'goon. I thought the print looked human as well, but since I'm so close, I was able to do a thorough investigation over many days.
Subject: Re: Culpeper Sasquatch Investigation
From: Hawkwolf posted Thu, Jun 14 2007, 4:25am 
If only more amateur field researchers were this thorough about checking the facts as presented ...

There's nothing wrong with being skeptical, as long as you're willing to keep an open mind and see where the facts take you. In this case, they seem to lead to a hoax.

Just as a point of information, the last I heard, there were only two US states that have no confirmed coyote sightings, and presumably breeding populations: Hawaii and Rhode Island. Coyotes are marvelously adaptable, and the spread of civilization seems to have done nothing more than reduce their competition and increase their potential food supply. They're wonderful survivors, and it's no wonder they were held in high esteem by many native cultures. So, pretty much anywhere in the US, if it sounds like a coyote, it probably is.
Subject: Re: Culpeper Sasquatch Investigation
From: Road Less Traveled posted Thu, Jun 14 2007, 6:25am 
Thanks Hawkwolf. You have to be skeptical these days, until you convince yourself there is something there. Unfortunately, I didn't find anything in this area.
Subject: Re: Culpeper Sasquatch Investigation
From: Brad posted Thu, Jun 14 2007, 6:56am 
Although you have a disinformation campaign here, I'm not too surprised by your findings, if they are indeed factual.

I'm sure a good number of internet "researchers" have broken trees, faked footprints, etc, to get some attention. A lot of Bigfoot "evidence" can be be created by a "researcher", posted on the internet, and subsequently accepted by a lot of people as legit.
Subject: Re: Culpeper Sasquatch Investigation
From: Road Less Traveled posted Thu, Jun 14 2007, 7:05am 
Crawl back in your hole Brad.
Subject: Re: Culpeper Sasquatch Investigation
From: Brad posted Thu, Jun 14 2007, 9:58am 
You gonna make me? I don't think so.


I can see what you are.
Subject: Re: Culpeper Sasquatch Investigation
From: Road Less Traveled posted Thu, Jun 14 2007, 10:18am 
I take it you weren’t one of the people who recommended this thread. So Brad, what exactly have YOU contributed to the search for sasquatch? It seems like your only contribution to this forum is personal attacks against those you don’t agree with. Oh yeah, you did start a blog, with a single article. You plotted NY sasquatch sightings, then drew circles on a map, then said sasquatch may migrate! Or maybe not. You can’t say for sure. Way to step up to the plate, Brad. Where is your other evidence that sasquatch migrate? I’m thinking if it is as cold and barren in parts of NY in the winter as you say, perhaps there aren’t any people out in that weather to make sasquatch sightings. That might explain a lack of winter sightings. Why are you spending time in the forums, don’t you have more ambiguous blog articles to write?
Subject: Re: Culpeper Sasquatch Investigation
From: Brad posted Thu, Jun 14 2007, 11:05am 
So Brad, what exactly have YOU contributed to the search for sasquatch? It seems like your only contribution to this forum is personal attacks against those you don’t agree with.

In typical misinformationist form, you change the subject. When did I say I contributed anything to sasquatch research? Tell me when I said that. If you don't it just further proves what you are.


don’t you have more ambiguous blog articles to write?

You change the subject even further, now you go on and on about my blog. What does my blog have to do with this? Anyway, go to my blog's forum. A lot of people enjoyed it. Not one bad comment. Sour grapes perhaps?


Why don't you go on some more leisurely strolls through the woods, not see anything "bigfoot" related, and come back to tell us, like you always do. *rolls eyes*.
Subject: Re: Culpeper Sasquatch Investigation
From: Road Less Traveled posted Thu, Jun 14 2007, 11:22am 
What subject was I changing? You essentially agreed with me in your original post (a first for you). I was pointing out that you have never posted any field research that you participated in. I think it's hypocritical to criticize those who conduct field research, when you do not perform any yourself.

I see you didn't answer any of my questions.

Since I don't like you, I didn't bother to post anything in your blog forum. Had I posted, it would not be 100% positive. If you would like, I can post my comments on any articles you write in the future.
Subject: Re: Culpeper Sasquatch Investigation
From: Brad posted Fri, Jun 15 2007, 4:33am 
What subject was I changing?

You started talking about my contributions and my blog. I have no idea what my blog had to do with anything, but thats expected. Anyway...



I was pointing out that you have never posted any field research that you participated in.

I never said I did!!! *rolls eyes*



I think it's hypocritical to criticize those who conduct field research, when you do not perform any yourself.

Have you ever heard of peer review?
So people who conduct "field research" if thats what you want to call what you do, are immune to criticism, regardless of what they do in the field? Thats ridiculous logic. This calls for another: *rolls eyes*



If you would like, I can post my comments on any articles you write in the future.

I don't care about your opinion as you've made a habit of basing your arguments on only one side of the coin, by selectively choosing what evidence fits you. You rarely look at both sides. So it doesn't matter to me if you comment or not. You don't have the knowledge to critique my next blog anyway.
Subject: Re: Culpeper Sasquatch Investigation
From: Road Less Traveled posted Fri, Jun 15 2007, 7:00am 
If you think so little of me, why did you even bother posting a response to my original post? I think you have more respect for me than you let on.
Subject: Re: Culpeper Sasquatch Investigation
From: Brad posted Fri, Jun 15 2007, 11:59am 
I think you have more respect for me than you let on.


I never said I didn't respect you (or anyone else here). From reading your posts I think you are well-spoken. I just don't agree with some things.
Subject: Re: Culpeper Sasquatch Investigation
From: behindthescenes posted Wed, Jul 25 2007, 9:35am 
I think you should ask yourself that question. What the heck have you contributed besides trying to prove something a hoax or not. That doesn't help anyone learn ANYTHING at all about Bigfoot. You just do it for the brownie points. The only thing you are accomplishing in your so-called efforts is to destroy someone elses research area.
Subject: Re: Culpeper Sasquatch Investigation
From: Ghost of TC posted Thu, Jun 14 2007, 7:37am 
I'd venture to think that quite a few surefire bigfoot cases would similarly wilt under intense scrutiny. Not only does this report prove this to be a hoax, but also further proves why you should have a blog.
Subject: Re: Culpeper Sasquatch Investigation
From: Road Less Traveled posted Thu, Jun 14 2007, 8:00am 
Hehehe... Why would anyone read a blog from someone who Brad says is perpetuating a disinformation campaign? Of course, he has no proof to back up his claim and if I really didn't investigate this, where did the pictures I posted in all 3 threads come from? But I digress... I'll consider a blog. You're the second person who has posted that I should start one.
Subject: Re: Culpeper Sasquatch Investigation
From: hojoo posted Thu, Jun 14 2007, 8:40am 
"...I'll consider a blog. You're the second person who has posted that I should start one. "

I'll 3rd that notion. It would be a pleasure to read.
Subject: Re: Culpeper Sasquatch Investigation
From: Unofficial_cryptid_disclaimer posted Thu, Jun 14 2007, 7:03pm 
Dear RLT,

I've said it once and I'll say it again. I always look forward to your reports and your research projects. It's people like you that keep the focus on what this website is about. i myself enjoy reading both the skeptics point of view and the die hard believers point of view. you really do go above and beyond the call before you even post your threads.

i myself would also encourage you to think about starting up a blog on this site as at least we would know that it would be something cryptid related as opposed to a very select view who don't.

~Corey aka Unofficial Cryptid Disclaimer
Subject: Re: Culpeper Sasquatch Investigation
From: /PJ posted Fri, Jun 15 2007, 12:17am 
Hi Corey, and RLT.

I have to agree with you 100% Corey, and I have nothing to add. You took the words right outta my mouth as they say...

And RLT: You know who mentioned the blog the first time, and I still stand behind the nomination. You actually DO the fieldwork, and present it in a straightforward, intelegent, and non-judgemental fashion. We may not agree all of the time, but I'd I'd love to read about other investigations you have done, and what conclusions you have reached. Please keep up the good work. You are one of the people that make this forum worth reading.
Subject: Re: Culpeper Sasquatch Investigation
From: Road Less Traveled posted Fri, Jun 15 2007, 6:59am 
Thanks Corey and PJ. I'll be flying out to the West Coast next week for a week. I'll consider a blog when I get back.
Subject: Re: Culpeper Sasquatch Investigation
From: Stu posted Sun, Jun 17 2007, 1:17pm 
Just read your post Road. Again, a vicarious pleasure to read about your digging & sniffing & subsequent findings, nice one.

I'll fourth the motion that you should have a blog on here. I'd rather read & comment separately on your investigations, which seem to apply not only a practical, layman's logic to a situation but also pretty straightforward methodology. Your view seems to be - if it's not there, don't suppose it is. Those who hoax are often too lazy or arrogant to properly cover their tracks & you seem pretty good at picking them up on that.

Have a think about it & ask yourself - intermittent blog of detailed on-site search, or regular blog of 'peer reviewing' past theories? I know what I prefer to read about, & it's not supposition or religion.

Hope it's good on the West Coast.

Stu
Subject: Re: Culpeper Sasquatch Investigation
From: William Dranginis posted Fri, Jun 15 2007, 4:28am 
Road Less Traveled,

Congratulations, you're right on target with the information as I see it. I spent time in Phelps between 1998 to 2002 and also had access to private property across the river. Phelps is just a couple miles from my 1995 sighting, so I do believe the area should still be active. I have also heard tree knocks and assumed they were from Bigfoot, but I investigated further only to find out the noise was being generated by two Pine trees rubbing together near their tops. Even from 10 to 20 feet away it sounded like someone was tree knocking at the base of the tree, but when I got within 3-4 feet, the direction of the sound changed and my attention was directed upward. It seems the sound was initially generated in the upper portion of the tree, but the energy was transferred to the base and then broadcast out. I could easily see where the two Pines were rubbing together. I also believe that researchers who hear tree knocks should investigate the sounds to rule out other possible sources. Your investigation into the Phelps claims is very professional. Thanks for posting all your hard work.

William Dranginis
Manassas, VA.
Subject: Re: Culpeper Sasquatch Investigation
From: MisterMannix posted Sat, Jun 16 2007, 1:34am 
I gotta say, Road, that is a well executed investigation.

I am very skeptical about unknown apes in the mid-Atlantic. While there are plenty of reports to indicate that such creatures might be sulking about in the wild parts of Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania, et c., I am very incredulous.

There is something uniquely creepy about night time in Virginia, however, which I have never been able to explain. I've lived in D.C. most of my life, traveled up and down to east coast from Key West to Glouster Bay, and there is definately something odd about Virginia. I won't go so far as to imply a paranormal cause, but I do not believe that it is imaginary.

If you feel like you are being watched out in the woods, it is usually a fox, or a deer, or possibly another person. When I was younger, & I had more free time, I would often go out in the woods with a sketch pad and just sit somewhere. It was amazing to observe how many passers-by would be totally oblivious to my pressence. It is much easier than people think to become invisable in the forest.

There are places high up in the mountains where it is possible to be sure that there are not other people around for miles, but there are very few such places on the East Coast. The population density is too high.

I would be thrilled for there to be a credible investigation area within 100 miles of my home, but I just don't see it as plausable.
Subject: Re: Culpeper Sasquatch Investigation
From: Brad posted Sat, Jun 16 2007, 2:31am 
While there are plenty of reports to indicate that such creatures might be sulking about in the wild parts of Virginia, Maryland, and Pennsylvania, et c., I am very incredulous.


Why?
Subject: Re: Culpeper Sasquatch Investigation
From: MisterMannix posted Sat, Jun 16 2007, 5:19am 
I believe that the majority of sightings in the east are hoax/mis-ID's.

If there were populations of giant apes living east of the Blueridge I would expect there to be more significant proof. At best I could allow for migratory populations which pass through the region seasonally, but even that is a stretch for me.

The higher the human population density, the less likely there are to be undiscovered apes living near by.
Subject: Re: Culpeper Sasquatch Investigation
From: Brad posted Sat, Jun 16 2007, 11:27am 
If there were populations of giant apes living east of the Blueridge I would expect there to be more significant proof.


Not to sound redundant, but once again, why?

Do you think there is not enough forested land? Too many people? Other factors?
Subject: Re: Culpeper Sasquatch Investigation
From: MisterMannix posted Sat, Jun 16 2007, 11:10pm 
In short, yes.

There is not enough untouched wilderness. There are far too many people. Too many cities, too many suburbs, too many farms, too many dogs, too many men with guns, and not nearly enough "Class A" reports.

Issolated individuals, or small groups, might pass through but I see no evidence of stable populations. If there are stable populations of these apes still living in N. America, it seems most likely that they are in the N.W. corner of the continent which is 90% uninhabited. It strikes me as very unlikely that they would be lingering undiscovered on the edge of the most densely populated region on the continent.

Unknown apes residing in some high mountain pass 200 miles from the nearest small town, perhaps.

Unknown apes residing in a wildlife reserve 20 minutes from several large towns, and less than 100 miles from U.V.A., Richmond, and Washington D.C., very unlikely.

I've lived in this region most of my life, and I have been interrested in this subject since I was a child. While I grew up in the city, I also spent a good deal of time on a farm in Catlett, Va, just a few miles up Rt 28 from Culpepper. I can say, based on time spent on the ground, the terrain is less than ideal for a species of giant apes to pass undetected over an extended period of time.

Now, there have been only six (6) "Class A" sightings reported to the BFRO in the Commonwealth of Virginia over the last thirty (30) years. These sort of numbers, along with simularly low numbers for Western Maryland and Southern PA, strongly support my opinion. By contrast, there have been well more than seventy-five (75) "Class A" sightings reported in Washington State since 1977. That is a stark difference in numbers, enough said.

I suspect that the majority of ape sightings in the mid-Atlantic are more likely to be pranks, hoaxes, or mis-ID's. That's what the numbers say, that is what my own time in the feild tells me, so that is what I believe.
Subject: Re: Culpeper Sasquatch Investigation
From: Brad posted Sun, Jun 17 2007, 2:35am 
Good post, thanks.

I'm not sure if I agree with you on everything, but I also can't say I disagree. I agree that populations to the east of the blueridge mountains may be unlikely. I think there are populations throughout the appalachian ranges, however. Populations to the east or west of the appalachians? I'm not sure. You make some good points as to why there may not be.

Although you mention that Maryland and Virginia have low sightings numbers, the mid-atlantic is not a hotbed for sightings like the northeast is. Upper PA, Ohio, and NY all have good sightings histories. Why? Thats the question for now.
Subject: Re: Culpeper Sasquatch Investigation
From: MisterMannix posted Sun, Jun 17 2007, 3:48am 
Upper PA, Ohio, West VA, NY, all have one thing in common. Mountains.

The Appalachian and Catskill mountain ranges contain likely habitats where apes could be avoiding human contact. The piedmont and coastal plains have been settled and civilized to the point that it is safe to call it unfriendly territory for the apes.

If there ever were apes in N. America, I'm sure that they were all over the east coast at one time. I am certain that after 1605 the life span of those apes dropped dramatically and the populations in the eastern forrests collapsed. I have little doubt that around the bicential of Jamestown and the departure of the Lewis and Clark expedition, the apes were practically extinct east of the Cumberland gap.

There is evidence to suggest that sustainable populations of apes may still survive in the U.S. and Canada. It is also possible that ape populations have stablized since the decline of the shoot-em-up hunting ethics of the 19th c. As of this date, we do not know the answer to these musings.

We don't even have a valid specimen to confirm that the apes exist. Why?
Subject: Re: Culpeper Sasquatch Investigation
From: William Dranginis posted Mon, Jun 18 2007, 4:34am 
MisterMannix,

You mentioned that there has only been six class A reports reported to the BFRO from Virginia. Since my 1995 sighting in Culpeper VA., I have cataloged about 150 reports from Virginia alone. I personally visited about 50% of those eyewitnesses and from my interviews, these people saw a Bigfoot creature. My 1995 sighting never made it into the BFRO database even though I was once a curator with them. I have not been with the BFRO since early 2000. My Culpeper sighting was also witnessed by two “Special Agents” that work for one of those three letter Government groups. Both Agents carried handguns and drew them when the creature was spotted. Drawing their weapons was just an instinctual reaction from their training. Just because a website only lists six sightings, it shouldn’t be taken as fact, a more complete assessment must be taken. That assessment should be taken from local Virginia researchers who only investigate Virginia reports.

I started conducting research right after my 1995 sighting and can conclude that these creatures don’t need to be away far away from civilization to survive. I am presently working two sighting locations within 20 minutes of downtown Richmond, Billy Willard, also a Bigfoot researcher from Virginia is conducting research in the Prince William County Forest Park, this is the same location where I have had people tell me they witnessed a Bigfoot creature.

It is my thought that as civilization continues to push outward it doesn’t necessarily mean the Bigfoot creatures get pushed further out. I think they live in areas where people just don’t go. Maryland is a good example of this, many counties that have had a long history of sightings still have them today even though the populations have already pushed through the areas. I spent a number of years investigating Maryland Bigfoot sighting reports and can honestly say I spent many sleepless nights driving the roads of Maryland searching for the creatures in my research vehicle. If the creatures are being pushed out by “progress”, I would assume that there would be many sightings in lesser populated areas, as I see it, this is not the case.

Just my thoughts.

VA-Bigfoot
Subject: Re: Culpeper Sasquatch Investigation
From: MisterMannix posted Mon, Jun 18 2007, 10:19pm 
Mr Dranginis,

That is a freash and interresting prospective. Please note, I am not convinced that these apes do not still live in the East. I just think it is signifcantly less likely than in the Pacific Northwest.

BRFO numbers only reflect the reports that they have investigated, so it is a limmited sample. Still, 6 reports in Va. compared to 75 in Wa. in the same number of years does indicate a significant difference in populations.

I take your point that eastern apes might just be more adept at avoiding detection. It is a very interresting point to consider. Allow me, if you don't mind, to raise one or two questions.

Why do you think efforts at proving the apes exist continue to fail?

Do you think it is possible to obtain proof without killing at least one ape?

How do the apes live so close to urban centres without being detected?
Subject: Re: Culpeper Sasquatch Investigation
From: William Dranginis posted Tue, Jun 19 2007, 12:19am 
MisterMannix,

I would be glad to answer your questions.


Why do you think efforts at proving the apes exist continue to fail?

The most significant information I have learned over the last 12 years of research is animals have developed an early warning system when predators enter their domain. It starts with the birds which are usually high in the trees. They see or hear some type of movement, then they locate and identify what is approaching. Once they identify the predator, they signal others in their group to warn them of the approaching individual.
This is relatively simple, the birds identify the predator and then take steps to (depending on the predator call) stay in the trees, or fly down to the brush and take cover.

What I have learned from reading textbooks and science journals is that many primates can recognize bird and other animal predator calls and also take the appropriate action.
Here is one example. A raptor flying above a trees is spotted by another type of bird, this bird broadcasts a warning call to the other birds that a predator is flying above them. Not only do the other birds take evasive action, the monkeys also take evasive action without even looking up. They can identify and associate the birds warning call with a raptor flying in the area. So it seems that many animals can associate calls made by other species and use them to their advantage.

While conducting research alone in the woods one day I heard some crows making all kinds of calls. It seemed the crows were mad at something so I decided to investigate it. I moved forward in advance of whatever they were following and concealed myself in some brush. Within a couple minutes two men walked by carrying shovels and metal detectors, I could tell they were checking the local streams for gold. I’m not sure why but the crows were still following them making a racket. I stayed still and let them and the crows pass.

If the Bigfoot creatures can associate bird and animal predator calls then they can anticipate trouble, just like I did and take evasive action. I know I am out on a limb saying this but if other creatures can do this why not Bigfoot. If you’re interested, I can forward the book that contains the information I am referencing. Another interesting point was made in this book. Primates usually send warning calls to other primates only when family members or offspring are nearby. If they are alone when a predator approaches, they stay sill and quiet. It is possible the Bigfoot creatures do the same.

Do you think it is possible to obtain proof without killing at least one ape?


Defiantly so, it will take someone that can outsmart the most intelligent creature out there. I spoke with Rick Berry (Bigfoot on the East Coast) a few years ago. He was preparing to take a group of former associates "Special Forces" to Arkansas to find and kill one of the creatures, as far as I know they could not accomplish the task. I have heard of other groups/individuals that have tried to shoot to kill a Bigfoot creature but they still come up empty. So people have been trying to kill one, but they have not succeeded.


How do the apes live so close to urban centres without being detected?

I'm still working on that one. I do believe these creatures live below ground in burrows they dig. The temperature is always a cool 56 degrees Fahrenheit and the burrow can provide needed cover when raising their young. It also provides an “out of sight, out of mind thinking”. I have tested tree knocking while recording audio in a mine shaft. The tree knocking provides sound above ground, but also transfers the energy below ground into the root system where it continues on through the soil, rock and water table. If you spend enough time in the mine shaft, you can hear the controlled tree knocking and actually tell the direction in which it originated. This testing was very basic in nature and would require more accurate documentation before it could be presented in a scientific paper, but it does prove tree knocking could provide a early audio alarm both above and below ground.

I think people are spending less time in the woods these days so sightings are low. The other aspect is the creatures are more mobile when people are sleeping, this make sense to me. Not many people are up and about in the late evening and early mornings.

I hope I answered your questions.

Va-Bigfoot
William Dranginis
Manassas, VA.
Subject: Re: Culpeper Sasquatch Investigation
From: MisterMannix posted Tue, Jun 19 2007, 11:46pm 
Mr. Dranginis,

You sure did answer my questions. Quite well, in fact.

Early warnings systems do explain a great deal. I have had experiences like the one you wrote about with the crows. It is really quite amazing how many things people fail to observe when they are in the forrest. In that respect, I can see how the apes might still be living nearer than I think.

The controversial Mr. Standing claims that the apes use scouts, or what he calls "day watchers", to alert the rest of their group when humans are approaching. Tactically, that would make them tricky beasties to get close to.

I don't happen to see your point on the kill question.

I say this because the failures of pro-kill hunts, based on my research, are almost always inherant from the inception. To put it another way, you can't catch a fox with a mouse trap. I have a whole heap of ideas and opinions about the methods employed by of the majority of N. American ape hunters and researchers, but that is another topic.

I am firmly of the opinion that the only way the existance of these apes will be proven is with an incontravertable biological specimen. Ideally, a whole body or at least a head. I don't believe that anyother evidence is worth a tinker's cuss until the demands of scientific classification have been met.

Moving right along, the subterranean theory has been bouncing around for a few years now. I am of two minds about it. On one hand, it would solve many problems for these animals. On the other, them's is gonna have to be some big holes. Apes that are larger than the average human would require large burrows. Now, if bears can find dens for the winter, I suppose that apes can as well. Stranger things have happened. It does make the hunt for them all the more frustrating.

Much to consider.

Thanks for answering my questions. I had not considered the likelihood for apes in the Mid Atlantic to be very high. I'm going to have to give this some serrious thought.
Subject: Re: Culpeper Sasquatch Investigation
From: William Dranginis posted Wed, Jun 20 2007, 10:21am 
MinsterManix,

Mr. Standings claims concerning the day watchers makes me think he has something really going on up there. My 1997 investigations in Culpeper Virginia also made me aware of the scouts or day watchers as Mr. Standing calls them, I like to call them Guardians. I didn't make a big fuss about it then because I didn't have any physical evidence to back it up, but I do think we came within 20 feet of one of these scouts on two separate occasions. I tried to coordinate a seven man team to "corral" the creature, but the team made too much noise upon entry to the area the creature most likely hid or left the area.

Unless Mr. Standing has solid evidence on the social structure of these creatures, I think he is really going out on a limb with his claims. The larger the claims, the more scientific evidence he will need to back them up. I didn’t have the concrete evidence to back up my thoughts of the Guardians so I kept it to myself. I just hope he can support his claims when the time comes.

I do believe once you find the Guardians, you are very close to where the Bigfoot creatures call home. But this is where things may get ugly. So far the creatures have not harmed anyone that I know of, but if someone gets close enough to Bigfoot’s front door, the creatures may protect their families as many animals do, this is where people may get hurt. I guess we’ll see how Mr. Standing makes out when he is ready to ring Bigfoot’s doorbell.

William Dranginis
Manassas, VA.
Subject: Re: Culpeper Sasquatch Investigation
From: MisterMannix posted Fri, Jun 22 2007, 12:43am 
Mr. Draginis,

Todd Standing is an interresting fellow. Some claim he is full of crap, and he may well be, but if he is for real... golly is he on to something.

He claims to have solid proof, but so far that's as much as we have gotten out of him. Just have to wait and see.

I am very interrested in learning more about your Culpepper investigations. If there is N. American ape activity in this region, I want to know all I can about it.

Getting close enough to these apes to obtain proof of their existance could be a very dangerous game. It seems like observing them from a safe distance is the wisest option for the non-kill researcher. Unfortunately, I can not figure out how to get independantly verifiable evidence of the apes from a safe distance. On the other hand, the pro-kill researcher must deal with a whole range of concerns. Chief among them, just how many of these apes are in a group and how many of them would have to be killed to obtain even one specimen? I think it is very likely that a pro-kill expedition could wind up in a very ugly mess.

Todd Standing was infavor of using a dart gun to immobilize an ape, but abandoned that avenue after a mysterious incident in which some hunters were apparently killed by apes. There is no verifying this story, I have tried, but it does make sense. The ape is the master of his habitat, and we know very little else about the matter. The slightest miscalculation could produce ghastly results, given that the apes have the homefeild advantage.
Subject: Re: Culpeper Sasquatch Investigation
From: Xalos posted Sun, Jun 24 2007, 4:34am 
Just a thought here, but it seems like the type of person you need to get a confirmed sighting and untainted photographic evidence would be someone trained as a scout/sniper. A team of people is to high profile to be effective given the elusive nature of the beast in question.
As you may know scout/snipers are trained to blend in with their environment, and can spend days in a single position without drawing much if any attention to themselves. This would allow for a period of acclimation to take place therfore increasing the chance for a true confirmation. For purposes of this exercise one would arm such an individual with a camera and high powered lens rather than a rifle, deploy them to an area with a high amount of activity related to the creature. There of course would be the option of bringing back physical evidence as previously noted as a body or head, and if that is the necessity then send our hunter out with his normal gear.
Subject: Re: Culpeper Sasquatch Investigation
From: Brad posted Wed, Jun 20 2007, 3:50am 
I just think it is signifcantly less likely than in the Pacific Northwest.


WHY?
Subject: Re: Culpeper Sasquatch Investigation
From: MisterMannix posted Wed, Jun 20 2007, 4:04am 
We've had this discussion before, Brad.
Subject: Re: Culpeper Sasquatch Investigation
From: Brad posted Wed, Jun 20 2007, 4:13am 
You think gthe Eastern BF its less likely because than the PNW bigfoot, b/c the PNW has more forest? Thats absolutely false.
Subject: Re: Culpeper Sasquatch Investigation
From: Brad posted Wed, Jun 20 2007, 5:08am 
Sorry for the typos. Should have read:

You think the Eastern BF is less likely than the PNW bigfoot, b/c the PNW has more forest? Thats absolutely false.
Subject: Re: Culpeper Sasquatch Investigation
From: MisterMannix posted Thu, Jun 21 2007, 1:24am 
Yes, that is absolutely fasle. I don't believe that at all. The extent of deforestation in the East is only a small factor which supports my opinion, but does not inform it directly. There are still enough forests & wildlands in the East to theoretically support a population of unknown apes.

Virginia has been supporting healthy populations of a common species of hairless Indo-European forest ape for hundreds of years now, as has most of the eastern U.S. These hairless Indo-European forest apes are the dominate species in that region, and have probably driven off any other species of apes living near by. Or, such is my opinion.

I am basing my opinion on the huge gap in the numbers. Mr. D & I have discussed reasons why the numbers for Maryland and Virginia are so low, and he has made some good points. Never the less, if place "A" has very few reports of a given phenominon and place "B" has over ten times as many reports, then which place is likely to have more activity "A" or "B"?

I am not saying that it is impossible for apes to live in the East. Their pressence may just be underreported. Mr. D. claims to have investigated many more reports in Virginia than what have made it into the BFRO database, I have no reason to call the man a liar. He has clearly been out in the feild conducting research, so his information is useful and worthy of consideration.

Brad, I want to put a question to you:

Why does it offend you that I don't believe there are still apes living in rural/suburban Va/Md?
Subject: Re: Culpeper Sasquatch Investigation
From: Brad posted Thu, Jun 21 2007, 5:45am 
These hairless Indo-European forest apes are the dominate species in that region, and have probably driven off any other species of apes living near by. Or, such is my opinion.

Many reseachers will tell you that sasquatch can, and do, live within close proximity to humans. As long as they have sufficient forest, which is the case in the East.


I am basing my opinion on the huge gap in the numbers. Mr. D & I have discussed reasons why the numbers for Maryland and Virginia are so low, and he has made some good points.

You answered yourself later in your post: Their pressence may just be underreported. Mr. D. claims to have investigated many more reports in Virginia than what have made it into the BFRO database, I have no reason to call the man a liar.



Never the less, if place "A" has very few reports of a given phenominon and place "B" has over ten times as many reports, then which place is likely to have more activity "A" or "B"?

Just because place A has more reports than place B, doesn't preclude the existence of an animal at B. Bad logic. Besides, there probably is not as a big a discrepancy as you make it out to be.



Why does it offend you that I don't believe there are still apes living in rural/suburban Va/Md?

Because your reasons for doing so are poor.



p.s. Your "wordiness" makes your posts somewhat annoying to read. I know you want to sound intelligent, but this is a forum, not english class. Just my opinion.
Subject: Re: Culpeper Sasquatch Investigation
From: MisterMannix posted Thu, Jun 21 2007, 9:14am 
p.s. Your "wordiness" makes your posts somewhat annoying to read. I know you want to sound intelligent, but this is a forum, not english class. Just my opinion.


I'm not going to dumb down my posts for you, Brad.

You are clearly not really thinking about what I am writing. I guess not being willing to read at college level makes it difficult for you to understand. Sorry, I'm not going to devalue what little education I have by trying to simplify my posts for stupid people. There is enough of that going on already.

Your consistant efforts to prove me wrong are starting to become annoying. You can't prove me wrong because you can't even prove that these apes exist.

I am prepared to accept that they do, but I try to be realistic about the probablities.

Are you able to deny that Washington State has the highest number of reported sightings?

Are you able to deny that Virginia has one of the lowest?

Those are solid facts which influence my opinion about the distribution of ape populations.

I have never said that the apes do not live in the mid-Atlantic, but it is my opinion that it is very unlikely that they live in central Virginia. Perhaps you were not reading closely? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt, since my verbosity can be baffeling to the lackadaisical mind.

Having lived in Maryland and Virginia most of my life, and have been studying this phenomina most of my life as well. I find it very difficult to believe there are any permenant populations of apes in this region. Transient populations could explain the majority of sightings, but so could pranks/hoaxes.

Do you have any proof to sway my opinion, no. You only tell me I'm wrong. This is not going to get you anywhere good with me.

I've spent my time in the feild, and done my research. Based on the habitats I have observed both in the piedmont and on the Chesapeake, it is possible that the apes could easily survive in the area. However, I think it is very unlikely that they could pass undetected. I've gone out into the wilderness to look for these animals, and I have examined the sightings reports for the region, and I have studied the local folklore; I do not think these apes have been common on the ground this far east since before the building of the Interstate Highway System.

That is my opinion as a researcher.

WARNING: If you ask me "why?" again I am going to give you link to dictionary.com and tell you to re-read my previous posts.
Subject: Re: Culpeper Sasquatch Investigation
From: Brad posted Wed, Jun 20 2007, 3:49am 
You mentioned that there has only been six class A reports reported to the BFRO from Virginia. Since my 1995 sighting in Culpeper VA., I have cataloged about 150 reports from Virginia alone.

There are many sightings that go either un-reported or are reported, but not to a big internet site. It is very presumptuous to think there are only X number of reports from a certain area, just b/c the BFRO says so. Thats shoddy logic, IMO.


and can conclude that these creatures don’t need to be away far away from civilization to survive

This has been known for sometime now amongst serious researchers.
Subject: Re: Culpeper Sasquatch Investigation
From: MisterMannix posted Thu, Jun 21 2007, 3:44am 
There are many sightings that go either un-reported or are reported, but not to a big internet site. It is very presumptuous to think there are only X number of reports from a certain area, just b/c the BFRO says so. Thats shoddy logic, IMO.


Okay, speaking of shady logic, how do you propose that we calculate the uncataloged reports, Brad? By what method would you recommend we tabulate the unreported sightings?

The BFRO database may not be the most complete, but it is not particularly controversial. I consider BFRO to be a fairly conservative outfit who use reasonable methodology. They have an accessable database, with very useful information. I see no reason not to trust their statistics.

You seem to be proporting that we should not trust the information on BFRO. Why?

In order to take Mr. D's # of 150 reports, we must determine 1st how many of those 150 are "Class A" sightings. Then, we can take that number, compare that to the BFRO number.

For the sake of rhetoric, let's suppose 75/150 are "Class A" sightings, which is generous. So, if there's >/= 12 times as many sightings in Va. as there are reports to BFRO, then how many times more sightings in Wa. aren't reported to BFRO? Those are just made up numbers, but the formula will arrive at the same basic conclusion.

Are you presuming that all sightings in Washington State are reported to BFRO, but only >/= 1/12 sightings in Virgina are reported to BFRO?

I would think that clear lucid logic would dictate that if 1 out of every (X) sightings is reported to BFRO in Va, then we should presume 1/(X) sightings are reported to BFRO elsewhere. Therefore, if we want to mulitply the number of BFRO reports by (X) to determine the actual number of sightings, we must apply that multiplication across the board.

You can not escape from the fact that the highest numbers of reported sightings occur year after year in the Pacific North West. There is also no getting around the fact that the numbers of reported sightings in the Mid Atlantic are among the lowest in the continental U.S. Stop trying to duck the truth, it is counterproductive.
Subject: Re: Culpeper Sasquatch Investigation
From: Brad posted Thu, Jun 21 2007, 6:02am 
Okay, speaking of shady logic, how do you propose that we calculate the uncataloged reports, Brad? By what method would you recommend we tabulate the unreported sightings?

Many sasquatch research groups keep their information closed, so its hard to say.



Are you presuming that all sightings in Washington State are reported to BFRO, but only >/= 1/12 sightings in Virgina are reported to BFRO?

I would think that clear lucid logic would dictate that if 1 out of every (X) sightings is reported to BFRO in Va, then we should presume 1/(X) sightings are reported to BFRO elsewhere. Therefore, if we want to mulitply the number of BFRO reports by (X) to determine the actual number of sightings, we must apply that multiplication across the board.

I don't agree. Like Rangoon said in another thread, the more taciturn nature of people on the East may keep many sightings from getting reported. Sasquatch is also a more well known phenomenon in the PNW, so the chances for hoaxes is higher out there. Also you have to factor in that mis-ids are more likely in the PNW with larger mammals like grizzly and elk being more prevalent.





You can not escape from the fact that the highest numbers of reported sightings occur year after year in the Pacific North West. There is also no getting around the fact that the numbers of reported sightings in the Mid Atlantic are among the lowest in the continental U.S. Stop trying to duck the truth, it is counterproductive.

According to John Green's data, up to until 2001 there were 526 reports in Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia combined. There were 856 reports in the PNW (Washington, Oregon, Idaho). Thats not a huge difference on the surface. But lets look at it more closely. The three mentioned PNW states combine for approximately 156 million total acres. PA, MD, and VA combine for 60 million total acres. There is much more land in the PNW than the Mid-Atlantic. Thats why the sightings numbers are higher. However, per acre, the Mid-Atlantic/East has MORE sightings. Combine this with the fact that Easterners are more taciturn, and the chances are greater for false reports in the PNW, and you are dead wrong. I'm not ducking the truth; you simply do not know the truth.
Subject: BRAVO SIERRA
From: MisterMannix posted Thu, Jun 21 2007, 4:57pm 
Okay, 1-2-3, simple for the apes.

1) You write:
Many sasquatch research groups keep their information closed, so its hard to say.


So you admit that it is impossible to determine the unknown. Good, that proves you are rational.

2) There are many flaws to be found in my use of statistics, but what you pointed out did not really hit on them.

the more taciturn nature of people on the East may keep many sightings from getting reported


This cultural stereotype may play as a factor, but that should not deminish the significance of other major factors. I would list them, but I don't feel it is worth my time.

The short answer is that if the apes are that close to us, why can't anyone kill one and take it's head? The hunter who brings the head of a N. American ape to the Smythsonian, or any other major eastern museum, never has to hunt for a living again. There is a posted bounty, but it somehow never gets collected. Why?

I contend that if the apes had any kind of sustainable population in the mid-Atlantic, then by now, some hick would have come walkin into a museam with a smelly feed-bag full of ape parts and asked for his money. The fact that it has not happened is the strongest support for my position.

3) It is far better to negate the opposition's statstics than generate your own:

The numbers you give from your source are only for reports, without noting if they are "Class A" or inferior. ONLY "Class A" reports have any validity in this discussion. I only count people who have seen an ape-like creature in motion as "Class A". What are Mr. Green's criterea for determining a "Class A" report? Does he have any?

You go on to attempt to us some very clever numbers, which are really a lead balloon.

To start with, I only mentioned one (1) P.N.W. state, Washington, so by using data from two (2) other states "The three mentioned PNW states combine..." you are cheating to inflate your numbers. You cheat again by inflating your Maryland and Virginia numbers with data from Pennsylvania.

You follow this with some half baked notions about acrege without even presenting a source and excluding the most basic control factors such as population density. Wiskey Tango Foxtrot? I can't even analyze the B.S. you are presenting as evidence.

Brad, you are just pulling things out of your ass. How dare you tell me I am wrong? You clearly don't know who you are messing with, fool.

That's right I called your sorry ass a fool.

I don't know everything. I am here to learn. I am receptive to discussing the search for N. American apes with other researchers. I have done my homework and spent time in the feild. I have found nothing worthy of publication pertaining to unknown apes in Maryland or Virginia.

Do you have any mud on your boots, Brad?

Tell me, where have you done your research?

How many of these supposed apes have you seen?

What qualifications make you an expert?

Publish your research resume, or do not respond at all.

So says Mister Mannix.
Subject: Re: BRAVO SIERRA
From: Gerry Bacon posted Thu, Jun 21 2007, 7:57pm 
Ease up MM. There's no room for the macho 'fool' term here, not at all.

Gerry
Subject: Re: BRAVO SIERRA
From: Brad posted Thu, Jun 21 2007, 8:45pm 
I'm a sorry ass, a fool, and a sorry ass fool?

I thought personal attacks were not allowed? People have been banned for less. Mister Mannix should be no different.
Subject: Re: BRAVO SIERRA
From: Gerry Bacon posted Thu, Jun 21 2007, 10:06pm 
You're none of the above Brad. I'll consider banning but if you want, write me and I'll explain my thinking.

Gerry
Subject: Re: BRAVO SIERRA
From: Brad posted Thu, Jun 21 2007, 10:57pm 
No ban. I don't mind getting called names. The name caller is the one who always looks bad anyway.
Subject: Re: BRAVO SIERRA
From: MisterMannix posted Fri, Jun 22 2007, 12:46am 
Point taken, Gerry. I could claim provocation, but I would preffer to admit when I've gotten carried away.

I got carried away, and I should have shown more restraint.
Subject: Re: BRAVO SIERRA
From: Brad posted Thu, Jun 21 2007, 8:44pm 
I'll combine points from your two responses to make it easier to follow.

By the way, you type a lot but say little.



This cultural stereotype may play as a factor, but that should not deminish the significance of other major factors. I would list them, but I don't feel it is worth my time.

Easterners being more taciturn, the bigfoot phenomenon being more 'popular' in the PNW and thus making it more likely for their to be hoaxes, and the PNW having more large mammals for mis-ids, all point to people in the East being less likely to report sightings with people in the PNW more likely to report bad sightings.




The numbers you give from your source are only for reports, without noting if they are "Class A" or inferior. ONLY "Class A" reports have any validity in this discussion. I only count people who have seen an ape-like creature in motion as "Class A". What are Mr. Green's criterea for determining a "Class A" report? Does he have any?

John Green's data is the most reliable there is. He is one of the grandfathers of sasquatch research. His data is without question more reliable than the data you use, the BFRO. Any unbiased person who is serious about Sasquatch research will tell you that.




You go on to attempt to us some very clever numbers, which are really a lead balloon.

To start with, I only mentioned one (1) P.N.W. state, Washington, so by using data from two (2) other states "The three mentioned PNW states combine..." you are cheating to inflate your numbers.

Using one state as a comparison is frivolous. Animals do not know state boundaries. Sasquatch do not know state boundaries. Comparing reports based on region is much more accurate than comparing reports based on states with invisible boundaries.



You cheat again by inflating your Maryland and Virginia numbers with data from Pennsylvania

Because I was doing the proper thing and going by region. But if you want to go by invisible state boundaries, lets (using John Green's data)...
Washington: 40 million total acres. 510 reports.
Maryland and Virginia: 31 million total acres. 300 reports.
MD and VA combined are smaller than Washington, so fewer reports. If we proportion them to be the same size, MD and VA have about 400 reports to WA's 510 reports. Not a big difference at all. Regardless, 300 reports from two states is a lot of reports from just one source.



You follow this with some half baked notions about acrege without even presenting a source and excluding the most basic control factors such as population density.

I'll include my sources at the end of this post. As for population density, researchers time and time again have said that sasquatch can and do live within close proximity to humans. Sorry, it is a known attribute. The forests are the real issue here, and Virginia is 62% forested. They have space.



Are you able to deny that Washington State has the highest number of reported sightings?

Are you able to deny that Virginia has one of the lowest?

State boundaries mean nothing. If a sasquatch is sighted on the border of VA and NC, being on the NC side, that report goes to NC when the animal(s) could easily spend as much time in VA. Regions are the important thing. Besides, you are comparing a state that is much larger in size. Of course it will have more sightings, ITS BIGGER! I'm not sure why you refuse to understand that simple, simple logic.



Having lived in Maryland and Virginia most of my life, and have been studying this phenomina most of my life as well. I find it very difficult to believe there are any permenant populations of apes in this region.

I guess you don't know your area very well.



Brad, you are just pulling things out of your ass. How dare you tell me I am wrong? You clearly don't know who you are messing with, fool.

That's right I called your sorry ass a fool.

So you get called out and you get angry? If you knew the facts maybe you wouldn't have gotten called out in the first place. You lower yourself to personal attacks. A fool? A sorry ass? Nice going.



Tell me, where have you done your research?

How many of these supposed apes have you seen?

What qualifications make you an expert?

Publish your research resume, or do not respond at all.

Coming from a guy who hides behind a screen name. LOL.


---

http://www.naturalresources.virginia.gov/Initiatives/LeadershipSumm
it2006/docs/landpaper.pdf
http://www.dnr.state.md.us/forests/aghistory.asp
http://www.dnr.wa.gov/htdocs/rp/forhealth/issues/2002issues.htm
http://www.mrsc.org/subjects/environment/forest/timber.aspx
Subject: Re: BRAVO SIERRA
From: MisterMannix posted Fri, Jun 22 2007, 1:50am 
Hmmm, where to begin?

I suppose that I should really start by appologising for getting carried away toward the end of my post. I did undermine my own efforts by stooping to personal attacks. That was foolish of me, and I made an ass out of myself by letting on how angry I had become.

Now, to the meat of this issue. I still think you are full of it, Brad. The fact that it has taken this much adversarial debate to get you to produce any verifiable evidence to support your position proves that you are being a jerk.

You attack my writing style, but don't really disprove my point. I can accept that you have a reasonable explanation for the differences in numbers between Washington State, and Virginia which is different from mine.

I find John Green's numbers very interresting, and I am going to enjoy analyzing the data. I find your decision to hide behind his raw numbers and his reputation unimpressive.

You claim that I write a lot without saying much, but that is just a way of ducking the fact that you only answered selected points. In effect, you only presented half a response. You sure did a lot of writing to only answer fewier than half of my points.

You wrote nothing about sighting classification, you only gave a total number of reports. You did not answer my point that only "Class A" sightings are worth counting. So, in that respect, all of your numbers are invalid.

Now, let me explain why I focused on two specific states. Washington State is a regional epicenter, a very hot spot on the warm side of the map. Viginia represents one of the cold spots on the same map.

There is a pattern to the sightings in Virginia which I find very interresting. The majority are to the West in the mountains, and on the Chesapeake, basically along the borders. The coastal plane has the lowest level of total reports for the state. It is my conclusion that this is because whatever ape activity there is in Virginia is part of a regional phenominon.

You keep falling back on this weird stereotype about the temperament of Easterners which is frankly absurd. There is far too much transcontinental migration these days for that statement to be even remotely true. The majority of people living in Northern Va. were born someplace other than Virginia, and that is generally the case throughout the Baltimore/Richmond metropolitan corridor.

You still have not given any resume. You apparently have no research credentials, then. You blow a lot of smoke, but you are the one hiding behind a screen name.

I'm not hinding at all. I am Mister Mannix. If you google my name you will find me. You'll also find my father, my uncles, some cousins, and some fan pages for the old Mike Conners show. Never the less, I will be there.

I take offense at being told I am wrong by someone who cannot prove that he is right. You still have not presented me with any proof that you are right.

You are basically inciting a fight. That is a weird thing to do.

I am not wrong, because I am not really making any certain statements.

I contend that it is unlikely, because my research suggests that it is not likely. I could be wrong, but you have not presented any proof that I am wrong.

You write about these apes like their existence has already been proven, which it has not. That kind of bias makes me think you are not a trustworthy source of information.

You are also using large amounts of raw data to obscure my methodically researched information. That is a smoke screen. You can't bluff your way out of this one at this point.

Finally, I return to my point about your credentials. You have presented none. You expect me to accept that you know what you are talking about, but you have can't even claim to have ever seen a N. American ape in the wild.

I'm calling B.S.
Subject: Re: BRAVO SIERRA
From: Brad posted Fri, Jun 22 2007, 2:25am 
You just wrote 18 little paragraphs, and only a couple actually have to do with the issue at hand. Paragraph 1- you apologize. paragraph 2- You say I'm full of it/jerk. Paragraph 3- You accept my reasonable explanation. Paragraph 4- You say Green's numbers are interesting, and say I'm hiding. Paragraph 5- You say that I also write a lot w/o saying much. Paragraph 6- You talk about class A encounters. Paragraph 7- you talk about WA being hot, and VA being cold. Paragraph 8- Virginia sightings patterns. Paragraph 9- People's termperament. Paragraph 10- My resume. Paragraph 11- You are Mister Mannix. Paragraph 12- You don't like being wrong. Paragraph 13- I'm starting a fight. Paragraph 14- You are not wrong. Paragraph 15- You might be wrong. Paragraph 16- Sasquatch is not proven. Paragraph 17- I'm a bluffer. Paragraph 18- You wany my resume again.

I'm only going to respond to things that are on topic, the vast majority of what you wrote has nothing to do with the initial topic. Anyone can see this. So lets get rid of the fluff, please. I don't have time for that.

I'll deal with paragraphs 4, 6, 7, 8, and 5. The only ones that are at least a little bit relevant.

---

4
I find John Green's numbers very interresting, and I am going to enjoy analyzing the data. I find your decision to hide behind his raw numbers and his reputation unimpressive.

John Green's numbers are the most accurate of any numbers out there. He has the most experience in this game. I'm not hiding behind his numbers, I'm using them as a reference, b/c they are reliable. I could EASILY have added Mr. Draginis' numbers, making your case even weaker.



6
You wrote nothing about sighting classification, you only gave a total number of reports. You did not answer my point that only "Class A" sightings are worth counting. So, in that respect, all of your numbers are invalid.

You contradict yourself. Later in your post you say Sasquatch is not even proven. If thats the case ALL numbers are invalid. Regardless, have you read any of John Green's literature? If you have, you will know the answer to your "Class A" reports question.



7
Now, let me explain why I focused on two specific states. Washington State is a regional epicenter, a very hot spot on the warm side of the map. Viginia represents one of the cold spots on the same map.

According to Mr. Draginis and other data, Virginia is not a cold spot. You only think it is, b/c you only are accepting the BFRO's numbers. Step outside the box. There is more out there than one criticized online database. The GCBRO online database has 22 sightings for Virginia. I didn't check them out thoroughly, however. There are many Virginia reports out there.



8
There is a pattern to the sightings in Virginia which I find very interresting. The majority are to the West in the mountains, and on the Chesapeake, basically along the borders. The coastal plane has the lowest level of total reports for the state. It is my conclusion that this is because whatever ape activity there is in Virginia is part of a regional phenominon.

Interesting. There may be a pattern there. There may not be also, b/c you need to look at more data. The bottom line is- Virginia has a lot of sasquatch sightings.



5
You claim that I write a lot without saying much, but that is just a way of ducking the fact that you only answered selected points. In effect, you only presented half a response. You sure did a lot of writing to only answer fewier than half of my points.

Now you're being hypocritical. You say I'm ducking points (which I'm not as I respond to everything you say, as anyone can see), when you are the one who's response was less than 25% relevant, as I plotted out above. You ducked my main points and numbers, that is obvious to anyone with eyes. You keep asking for my resume, telling me I'm a jerk, I'm causing fights, I'm full of it, blah blah. That has nothing to do with the topic. Since you want to change the topic, I'll take that as a verbal tap out. Thanks, and have a good day.
Subject: Re: BRAVO SIERRA
From: MisterMannix posted Fri, Jun 22 2007, 3:52am 
I'm seeing enough red flags that I should really just dismiss you as mentally ill, Brad. That much looks pretty obvious after re-reading this whole thread.

I have adopted a very conservative uncontroversial position in my arguements. If you choose not to read my arguements, there is no point in acknowleging your rebuttles. It is a waste of my time.

Any one who reads this thread will see that I have based my position on several strong and valid points. They will also see that I have built my arguements out of reasonable conditional statements and verifiable facts.

I do not believe there are permenant populations of N. American apes on the ground in Virginia. I will allow that there might be apes in the mountains, and they might migrate through Virginia. No number of sighting reports can change the fact that no one has produced a body.

That is why you are unable to prove me wrong, Brad. Accept that.

I don't have a problem with being proven wrong. I've been proven wrong many times, it is part of the learning process. I do have a problem with being being told that I am wrong by someone who can't even read and respond to what I have written in total. I demand more respect than that, it is just that simple.

If you can't show me the respect of reading my entire post, DO NOT RESPOND to my post. That is a perfectly fair thing for me to ask.

Now, I would like to point out just a few of the important points that you have failed to answer:

If the apes are living so close to one of the most populated centers of civilization on the continent, why don't we have a specimen yet?

The number of sighting reports in the Mid-Atlantic has been declining steadily since the 1990's, no matter whose numbers you look at.

The population density in the Mid-Atlantic is high enough that it is very difficult to exclude hoaxes/pranks when evaluating sighting reports.

Where have you conducted feild research?

How many N. American apes have you seen?

Can you answer any of those points directly?

If you can't prove that the apes exist, how can you prove that my opinion is wrong?
Subject: Re: BRAVO SIERRA
From: Brad posted Fri, Jun 22 2007, 5:27am 
I'm seeing enough red flags that I should really just dismiss you as mentally ill, Brad. That much looks pretty obvious after re-reading this whole thread.

I'm not mentally ill, but now you make fun of mental illness? You have no class. Only people losing an argument resort to personal attacks.



Any one who reads this thread will see that I have based my position on several strong and valid points. They will also see that I have built my arguements out of reasonable conditional statements and verifiable facts.

Thats not true. You based your opinion off of two basic things: 1.) The Mid-Atlantic doesn't have enough reports. This is OBVIOUSLY false, as has already been proven. 2.) The human density is too high. Again this is false. Researchers say sasquatch can and do live close to humans. The most densely populated state in the nation has plenty of habitat according to Seeker (Hank).




I do not believe there are permenant populations of N. American apes on the ground in Virginia. I will allow that there might be apes in the mountains, and they might migrate through Virginia. No number of sighting reports can change the fact that no one has produced a body.

Thats pretty much fair and reasonable. Others would disagree, however.





I don't have a problem with being proven wrong. I've been proven wrong many times, it is part of the learning process. I do have a problem with being being told that I am wrong by someone who can't even read and respond to what I have written in total. I demand more respect than that, it is just that simple.

I respond to every point you make. I specifically quote you in each of my responses. you don't quote, b/c its easier to skip over certain points that way.





If the apes are living so close to one of the most populated centers of civilization on the continent, why don't we have a specimen yet?

Thats the paradox of the sasquatch phenomena. No one has even been able to deliver a specimen to the proper authority. However, many researchers will tell they live close to human proximity. This is far removed from the main point anyway. When talking about Sasquatch, everything is essentially hypothetical, b/c there is no specimen. Am I supposed to put a DISCLAIMER ON EVERY POST??? *rolls eyes*



The number of sighting reports in the Mid-Atlantic has been declining steadily since the 1990's, no matter whose numbers you look at.

Prove it.



The population density in the Mid-Atlantic is high enough that it is very difficult to exclude hoaxes/pranks when evaluating sighting reports.

Hoaxes can be applied anywhere. You are neglecting to understand the point that many researchers say sasquatch live close to humans. Why you ignore that point, I don't know.



Where have you conducted feild research?

How many N. American apes have you seen?

Can you answer any of those points directly?

If you can't prove that the apes exist, how can you prove that my opinion is wrong?


Fluff. Not surprisingly you still have ducked my main points and numbers.
Subject: Re: BRAVO SIERRA
From: MisterMannix posted Fri, Jun 22 2007, 6:26am 
I'm not mentally ill, but now you make fun of mental illness? You have no class. Only people losing an argument resort to personal attacks.


I am not making fun, at all. Nor is it a personal attack. It is my girlfriend's assessment of what you have written. She is a Johns Hopkins trained nurse, currently working on the accute schytzophenia & compulsive behaviors ward at Johns Hopkins Hospital. With psych credentials such as her's I don't question her judgement. I'm not making fun of you, I'm just calling attention to something that seems increasingly obvious.

I don't care to prove anything else with statistics at this point. My point is logically sound enough that I don't need to bring in any more statistics.
Thats not true. You based your opinion off of two basic things: 1.) The Mid-Atlantic doesn't have enough reports. This is OBVIOUSLY false, as has already been proven. 2.) The human density is too high. Again this is false. Researchers say sasquatch can and do live close to humans. The most densely populated state in the nation has plenty of habitat according to Seeker (Hank).


You are entitled to believe whatever you want, but I don't think that either of those points have been conclusively proven.

Thats pretty much fair and reasonable. Others would disagree, however.


So you admit that my allowance for possible migartory populations is plausable, and at the same time you insist that I am wrong. What logic. I'm confounded to understand the purpose of your disagreement, Brad. I say it is highly unlikely that there are permenant populations, and I do not demand that anyone agree with me. I only demand that my opinion be accepted as logically sound, because it is.

I respond to every point you make. I specifically quote you in each of my responses. you don't quote, b/c its easier to skip over certain points that way.


That is a lie. You have avoided responding to several important points, and attempted to distract the readers away from the validity of my statements by misquoting my posts. That comes across very clear when looking at the development of this debate. You have now told an out right lie in order to thicken your smoke screen.

Thats the paradox of the sasquatch phenomena. No one has even been able to deliver a specimen to the proper authority. However, many researchers will tell they live close to human proximity. This is far removed from the main point anyway. When talking about Sasquatch, everything is essentially hypothetical, b/c there is no specimen. Am I supposed to put a DISCLAIMER ON EVERY POST??? *rolls eyes*


Okay, you claim this is far removed from the main point, and I claim that THIS IS THE MAIN POINT. No specimen, no proof. No proof, no apes. It is really a very conservative & conventional position to take.

This is an Ocham's Razor issue in my mind. There are no specimens from Virginia in spite of the large number of amature and professional hunters on the ground in the Commonwealth, a considerable reward for the specimen, and numerous univeristies, museums, zoos and ranger stations to which a specimen could be delivered within only a few hours of the kill. The simplest explanation is that there are very few apes living in Virginia year round. The Razor does not cut quite as cleanly on a nationwide level, but in central Virginia it slices perfectly.

Hoaxes can be applied anywhere. You are neglecting to understand the point that many researchers say sasquatch live close to humans. Why you ignore that point, I don't know.


Hoaxes occur most commonly in populated areas, again Ocham's Razor. No need to over think this one, really. I am not neglecting to understand the point about proximity, I understand the point pefectly well. I'm ignoring it because I disagree. For reasons I have explained many times, it over complicates the issue to give very much weight to theories about close proximity habitations.

Call me perjudgiced if you want, but ever since the Carter Farm case I have been very incredulous about reports of unknown apes living "inside the grid". I can accept that they may mirgrate through civilized areas, but I don't think a perminant population could go undetected this long. Ocham's Razor, one last time. Simplest explanation is usually correct.

Now, I will add that you did not answer four direct questions. That supports my position that you lied when you claimed to answer all of my points.

Fluff. Not surprisingly you still have ducked my main points and numbers.


Again, basically a lie. You are ducking the questions by accusing me of avoiding giving complete answers. That is just bunk. I have given you complete answers and you have ignored the contents in your rebuttles. I have used very precise logic to support my opinion, but I do not insist that anyone agree with me. I only insist that my position is sound.

I am demanding proof that you can not provide. If you can't provide the proof don't tell me I am wrong. I'm not going to continue to argue with someone who is unwilling to accept logical explanations for reasonable opinions. That would me foolish of me.
Subject: Re: BRAVO SIERRA
From: Brad posted Fri, Jun 22 2007, 6:57am 
I am not making fun, at all. Nor is it a personal attack. It is my girlfriend's assessment of what you have written.

Thats an obvious personal attack. Subtley disguised.






You are entitled to believe whatever you want, but I don't think that either of those points have been conclusively proven.

LOL. you just don't want to believe it. Its a fact that many researchers SAY sasquatch live near human populations. Its a fact that the Mid-Atlantic has over 450 sightings from just TWO sources. Thats a lot.




So you admit that my allowance for possible migartory populations is plausable, and at the same time you insist that I am wrong. What logic. I'm confounded to understand the purpose of your disagreement, Brad. I say it is highly unlikely that there are permenant populations, and I do not demand that anyone agree with me. I only demand that my opinion be accepted as logically sound, because it is.

I said its somewhat reasonable. I never said you were not wrong. I never said I agreed. I think it is likely there are permanent populations. Your reasons for thinking a population couldn't reside there are not, however, logically sound.





That is a lie. You have avoided responding to several important points, and attempted to distract the readers away from the validity of my statements by misquoting my posts. That comes across very clear when looking at the development of this debate. You have now told an out right lie in order to thicken your smoke screen.

I didn't respond to fluff. I responded to everything that was on topic. Stop spinning things. You just want me to meander off topic. I'm not falling for it. Anyone who has read this exchange can easily see that.



No specimen, no proof. No proof, no apes. It is really a very conservative & conventional position to take.

Because its all HYPOTHETICAL. EVERY thread here is. Is it that hard to understand? H-Y-P-O-T-H-E-T-I-C-A-L.



This is an Ocham's Razor issue in my mind. There are no specimens from Virginia ... The simplest explanation is that there are very few apes living in Virginia year round.

There are no specimens from anywhere. I guess that means there are very few sasquatch living everywhere? At least, according to your logic. Many PHDs disagree with that.




I'm ignoring it because I disagree. For reasons I have explained many times, it over complicates the issue to give very much weight to theories about close proximity habitations.

Well you disagree with a lot of established sasquatc researchers. I'll take their word over yours. Anybody with any sense would do the same.




Call me perjudgiced if you want, but ever since the Carter Farm case I have been very incredulous about reports of unknown apes living "inside the grid". I can accept that they may mirgrate through civilized areas, but I don't think a perminant population could go undetected this long. Ocham's Razor, one last time. Simplest explanation is usually correct.

Animals can and do go undetected easily in small areas. Hank's missing bovine is a great example. An animal doesn't need much room to remain hidden. Especially one so adept at evasion. Once again, many established researchers disagree with you.



Now, I will add that you did not answer four direct questions. That supports my position that you lied when you claimed to answer all of my points.

Four fluff questions. You asked if I have seen a sasquatch, or for my resume. What does that have to do with Mid-Atlantic sightings.





Again, basically a lie. You are ducking the questions by accusing me of avoiding giving complete answers. That is just bunk.

You have been avoiding my points, stats, and numbers since this exchange started. I will compile a list of all the points I've made which you have ignored. Anyone can see this is the case.



I am demanding proof that you can not provide. If you can't provide the proof don't tell me I am wrong.

I don't think you understand what 'hypothetical' means.
Subject: Re: BRAVO SIERRA
From: MisterMannix posted Fri, Jun 22 2007, 11:08am 
Wow, so you are really not going to let this go. Your starting to look pretty obsessive, Brad.

If you want to interpret my concerns about your mental health as a "subtley disguised" personal attack, there is not much I can do to stop you. I can only say that when I choose to make personal attacks, I do so in a direct and purposeful manner. I will add, that paranoia is another symptom of mental illness.

I admit that there is a perponderance of evidence for ape activity in the Mid-Atlantic. I just don't think that permenant populations could go undetected for so long.

I am willing to consider evidence from actual experts, when it is available. I have been enjoying a pleasant and informative dilogue with Mr. Dranginis on this same Culpepper thread. It was his data that gave me reason to consider that migartory populations might still venture into central Va. en route to the Chesapeake.

I like how when I write something that you don't care to answer you call it fluff, but when I refuse to answer the bunk you are passing off I'm ducking the issue. That is a very sneaky way of ducking the issue, Brad.

You lied, I caught you. You can dismiss my accusation as fluff, but that does not negate the fact that you lied in print.



Because its all HYPOTHETICAL. EVERY thread here is. Is it that hard to understand? H-Y-P-O-T-H-E-T-I-C-A-L.


So when you are caught, and proven wrong, it is all hypothetical. Well that sure works out well for you. Forgive me if I just laugh and guess at your age.

Four fluff questions. You asked if I have seen a sasquatch, or for my resume. What does that have to do with Mid-Atlantic sightings.


This is the sort of bunk that makes my fingers tighten down on the keyboard. I actually had to get up and walk away from the computer for a few minutes.

Your level of experience in the feild has everything to do with your qualifications to write like you are an expert. If you can't offer even a brief survey of your feild experience, I must assume you have no feild experience.

If you have no feild experience, then you have no right to tell anyone else that their research based opinions are wrong. So, that appears to have everything to do with the main topic.

What is more, I want to know if and when you have ever seen one of these apes. Insisting on the existance of an animal you have never is slightly delusional. If you are going to insist that these apes exist, having never seen one in the flesh... well, that is going to bring us back to the mental health question.

You must understand, I am sincerely concerned at this point. I'm not trying to damage your reputation by raising the mental health issue. I live with an exceptionally well credentialed mental health professional, I have a very compassionate understanding of mental illness.

If I believe that you are mentally ill, or a young person, it would be unethical of me to continue to debate this issue with you. If I conclude that is the case, I will simply have to stop responding to your posts.

In fairness I want to answer the following:
Animals can and do go undetected easily in small areas. Hank's missing bovine is a great example. An animal doesn't need much room to remain hidden. Especially one so adept at evasion. Once again, many established researchers disagree with you.

You have a good point there. Except that you are presuming that I think that the apes can't live here. They could, they probably once did. I just don't believe that they still do. It is my opinion that their populations in the east were decimated in the middle of the 20th c. around the time of the construction of the Interstate Highway System. While it is possible that more sensible envioromental policies may be leading to a "come-back" in populations, as we have seen with the cayote, I am very incredulous. I've seen too many sighting reports debunked to just believe everything I read. Jan Carter burned me, and many other people, with her far out stories about apes and humans living side by side.

I have been looking for these apes since I was a child. Trust me, I do want them to exist. I'm not going to let that desire cloud my judgement. If I were even remotely convinced that there were stable ape populations as near as Culpepper, Va. I would be down there conducting my own research. I am actually tempted to contact Road & Mr. Dranginis about how to go about doing just that. My time, however, is valuable enough that I don't intend to go looking for something that is not likely to be there.
Subject: Re: BRAVO SIERRA
From: Gerry Bacon posted Fri, Jun 22 2007, 9:07pm 
Since both of you gentlemen have written me privately about this debate...excuse me, argument, I'm tempted to answer each privately. But since both of you have made appeal to the readers in various posts, I'll answer here.

I have just reread this entire thread. Here's my take on it.

MM, you were the first to over step the lines of good taste. You continue to do so. Brad, in my opinion, has YET to make a personal attack. You've called him a 'sorry ass', a 'fool' and questioned his mental stability and his age. The closest thing I can find to an attack made by Brad was his observation that you are wordy.

As to your points, MM, there are a number of ongoing habituation cases involving Sasquatch, if one cares to believe these reports. If they are true, it is obvious that Sasquatch can, and does, live in close proximity to human population centers, the Carter case notwithstanding.

Incidentally, just to show that I'm not really caring Brad's water for him, he was quite critical of my involvement there, as is his right. Someone with thinner skin, yourself perhaps, would take that as a personal affront. I don't. As is almost always the case with Brad, there is at least some truth to his statements. He basically said that our investigation wasn't very scientific and he was correct in that. But then again, we weren't conducting a scientific investigation. The point is, if one is going to be involved in this crypto thing, one had better be able to take some heat. If not, one should remove one's ass from the Bigfoot kitchen.

Brad's point about state statistics vs regional statistics is not only correct, it is imperative if one is going to be honest in their assessments. Animals, even Bigfoot, will not recognize state boundaries. We can use state statistics to give a rough idea of a given population but we must always keep in mind that those individuals living in close proximity to abstract boundaries (i.e. state lines) won't recognize them and will cross over those boundaries. I believe there are somewhere around two million whitetail deer in Michigan but that number will fluctuate as deer along the Ohio/Indiana/Illinois/Wisconsin borders cross back and forth. A regional population assessment, based on criteria other than man made, abstract boundaries, would give a greater indication to actual population densities.

I will concede your point about Class A sightings as opposed to overall sightings. But even there, Brad is not wrong. He is simply stating that using BFRO and only BFRO for stats is severely limiting for statistical evaluation, especially in the poor light BFRO finds themselves in these days. They have lost quite a bit of credibility lately.

Brad is also correct when he points out that ANY DEBATE CONCERNING BIGFOOT IS HYPOTHETICAL. He does the same thing I do. When I speak of Bigfoot, I speak as though I believe them to exist. I don't know if they do or not but it saves having to type a disclaimer with every single post. Near as I can tell, I have somewhere around 15,000 posts to my credit. Many of them regard Bigfoot. I waste enough time talking about the big guy as it is. I don't have the time or inclination to increase the amount of non-productive time by typing a disclaimer every time I decide to partake in a Bigfoot discussion.

As for demanding Brad's resume, I don't recall yours. I'm not aware of your field work. Please feel free to enlighten us. I'm not saying, my friend that you haven't done any. For all I know, you may be out there every weekend. But it's a bit hypocritical to demand such information from someone without giving the same information in return.

Now to the nasty stuff.

Brad is abrupt. He is very blunt about stating his opinion. He always has been. If that bothers you, I'd like to point out that just a couple of years ago, he would have had your lunch. I've said it before and I'll say it again. This is the new improved Brad. I like to point this out because I feel I can take some credit for his evolution over the past couple of years, lol.

You took offense because he had the audacity to claim you were wrong in your assumptions. He never said you were incapable of logical thought. He simply pointed out why he thought you were wrong and his basic premise was that you didn't look at enough data.

You flat out attacked him MM. And it's not the first time you've done this to someone. If I'm not mistaken, you and I have had this discussion before with other members of this board. Does the name Todd Standing have any special significance? Am I wrong when I say you are willing to give Todd the benefit of the doubt when Mr. Standing has produced nothing but wild tales, claims of solid evidence without one shred of it being produced?

You tell Brad you demand respect. Here is where I really lose you. One does not DEMAND respect. Respect is not a given. You have to earn it. You have no more right to demand that Brad respect you than I have to demand a free meal ticket for the rest of my life. You want Brad's respect, you have to earn it, the same as I do. And if you can't understand that than I have to wonder who really has the mental issues here, your girlfriend's expertise notwithstanding.

Incidentally, to use her assessment of someone she hasn't met is a cheap shot. You're using her claimed yet unverified expertise (remember, we don't know who the hell she is) is a pathetic attempt to validate your slur regarding Brad's mental health. If you care to use her for this debate, I demand that we have her full name and her credentials so we can verify she is qualified to make an assessment of Brad's mental health. Care to provide those? Indeed, would you care to give us your full name and your credentials? It's not enough to claim you've lived in the D.C. area all your life. D.C. is nothing more than Disney on the Potomac anyway, in my opinion and I'm not so sure I would be so ready to hoist that as a flag of pride were I in your shoes.

All in all MM, you are once again out of line, way out of line in my view. Quite frankly, I'm a bit tired of your pettiness, your fragile ego, your childish tantrums when you get criticized. Grow up. Recognize that you have an interest in what is at best a fringe science and you're going to take some heat. No one owes you any respect. Your cattle are no more sacred than anyone else's. Your verbosity is not a badge of authority.

Brad has asked that you not be banned but he is correct that your tactics are unacceptable. I agree. Consider this a warning.

Gerry
Subject: Re: BRAVO SIERRA
From: MisterMannix posted Fri, Jun 22 2007, 11:58pm 
Gerry, I think I should reply to you off the board.

You raise some very good points, but there are several that you have either overlooked or are chosing to ignore. I would rather go over them man to man in a private exchange of emails than here on the forum, since we're already well off topic.

Also, you have asked me to post personal information in the forum. Not only my own personal information, but the personal information for my girlfriend. I know you have more common sense that to expect that. Again, I'll give you that information in an email because you demand it, but not in the forum. I have a right to privacy.

As far as my research resume, it is not all that significant. But I did give a brief summary in the "Culpepper" thread before I demanded the same information from Brad. To start with, there is a network of National Parks throughout the Washington/Baltimore metropolitan area, which could support a population of apes; based on having explored those forrests for my whole life, I do not believe there are any unknown apes there. Further from the city there are several wildlife reserves along the water where I have also failed to find anything to make me believe there are perminant populations of apes in the region.

Specifically in Virginia, I lived for extended periods on a large property in the City of Fairfax which belonged to my grandfather. When he first moved out there it was still very wild, and I was quite sure that there would be apes. Over the last 15 years I have watched suburban sprawl entirely devour that wilderness, the whole estate is now covered with Mac-mansions. In more recent years I have investigated the wilderness and farmland around Catlett, Va. This is only a few miles from Culpepper and Manassas. Again I have found no sign of unknown ape activity.

As an amature naturalist, I don't keep records of negative results. If there is nothing to report, I don't make a journal entery about it. I've wasted enough time at that point, right?

I am shocked by William Dranginis's body of research. I find it very interesting and I want to know more about his work. He is a credentialed researcher, so I am willing to take his information with an open mind.

I am still convinced that we are talking about a vary small transient population, at best. I don't think these things are like mice, it is not a case of every one you see there's a dozen that you don't. Dranginis told me that about half of his reports were "Class A", it does not require very many animals to produce those kinds of numbers. If the animals are on the move, different people could be seeing the same apes mulitple times.

That is the essential point I have been sticking to throughout the debate. Zero sum game, as I see it. Further debate is futile.

At the point where I started this "Bravo Sierra" thread, I felt like the responses I was getting from Brad were being written only because there was nothing to stop him from writing. Just because he could. That is weird, Gerry, but why I find it weird is for the e-mail. I'm not going to waste my time typing it out twice, nor does the public need to read it.

It was inapropriate of me to raise the mental health issue in the forum, but I did not expect it to be taken so serriously. I don't think is is appropriate to flag posts for being "crazy" either, so clearly there is a lack of protocols for dealing with that issue.

I need to walk away from this for a while. Some very serrious thought needs to go into this one.
Subject: Re: BRAVO SIERRA
From: Brad posted Sat, Jun 23 2007, 2:31am 
Thanks for the honest assessment, Gerry.


This is the new improved Brad. I like to point this out because I feel I can take some credit for his evolution over the past couple of years, lol.

Yes, it is mainly you who is responsible for the "kinder, gentler" Brad. lol.

And you're right that respect is earned, not given. You, Will, Rangoon, Ben, Seeker, and many others here have earned respect by being good people who always have something to add to a conversation. Demeaning people doesn't earn respect, however.
Subject: Re: BRAVO SIERRA
From: MisterMannix posted Sat, Jun 23 2007, 11:05am 
And you're right that respect is earned, not given... Demeaning people doesn't earn respect...


But, admitting when one is wrong ought to earn one respect, yes or no?
Subject: Re: BRAVO SIERRA
From: Brad posted Thu, Jun 21 2007, 8:49pm 
How dare you tell me I am wrong? You clearly don't know who you are messing with, fool.

Publish your research resume, or do not respond at all.


These statements are funny. I called him wrong so he gets very upset. I don't know I'm messing with? LOL. You have no chance against me, in any form.
And do not respond w/o a resume? LOL. Nice attempt at trying to get me to not respond.
Subject: Re: BRAVO SIERRA
From: MisterMannix posted Fri, Jun 22 2007, 1:59am 
You tell me I'm wrong, but you can't prove that you are right.

You claim to be some kind of expert but have no research credentials.

You put up long responses, but you don't produce anything valid.

Really, this is just pathetic.
Subject: Re: Culpeper Sasquatch Investigation
From: The65Watcher posted Mon, Jun 18 2007, 10:48pm 
Interesting write up? I have some questions for you and I am not trying to insult you or anyone else here.
Question; 1. In your report on this area, how did you come to these conclusions?
Question; 2. What are the bases on your report, not to be a hoax compared to Varge's?
Question; 3. What is your background, that makes you a better researcher than other individuals in this field?
Question; 4. Have you contacted these individuals who wrote these reports on this area, by e-mail?
The reason why I am asking these questions, is that I writting a book about Bigfoot researchers and would like to have your input.
Subject: Re: Culpeper Sasquatch Investigation
From: The65Watcher posted Wed, Jun 20 2007, 11:44pm 
I was hoping someone would answer these questions directly. I like too hear from RLT on this subject. And Thank you W.D. for your answer's.
Subject: Re: Culpeper Sasquatch Investigation
From: William Dranginis posted Tue, Mar 18 2008, 1:14pm 
I just wanted to let people know that some, and I repeat, some, of the so-called evidence was hoaxed at the Culpeper location. I was asked by Billy Willard to attend two of the night investigations at this location. The first night nothing happened, but the second night there was some activity. Because I brought a FLIR handheld thermal camera with me that night I was able to examine a small stick that was supposedly thrown at our group by a Bigfoot creature. I was constantly panning the perimeter of the research area with the thermal camera that night and I could say with 100 percent certainty, there was no Bigfoot creatures within 75 yards of our location otherwise the thermal camera would have detected it. I am a FLIR certified thermographer and know how to calibrate and operate the FLIR camera, so operator error was not a factor. When the call went out that a stick just landed a few feet from one of the researchers, I called out to the other researchers not to touch the stick. I used the FLIR thermal camera to quickly locate the stick and take a number of digital images using the FLIR's on-board camera. After the images were taken, the stick was put into an evidence bag using rubber gloves and was immediately sealed.

The following day I dusted the stick using my fingerprint kit. A human size fingerprint was found on the stick, it was no surprise that the fingerprint location matched one of four "hot" areas that were documented using the FLIR camera. The four hot areas represented four fingers that were placed around the stick before it was supposedly thrown. The person that threw the stick must have held onto the stick for some time because the thermal images showed a strong thermal signature. To me, this meant that the person in the group held the stick until I was facing away from him so I wouldn't capture him throwing the stick. During that night I was constantly scanning the perimeter and recording the thermal video on an Archos Digital Video recorder. When the stick landed, I was filming 180 degrees away from the "thrower". I should note that the finger patterns on the stick were human size, not Bigfoot size. The stick length was about eight inches long.

I had called Billy Willard to discuss my findings and agreed to meet with him and Tom Lancaster at a local Manassas restaurant. I provided them with the color thermal images from the FLIR camera as evidence. I also explained my reasoning and told them I thought they were being hoaxed. Tom was taken back at my conclusion and didn't want to think they were being hoaxed by another researcher they trusted. But the evidence doesn’t lie, so I left it at that. A few weeks later, Billy called me and said he thought there may be some hoaxing going on at that location. They finally confronted the suspected hoaxer and he admitted that he did hoax some of the evidence. I don't know exactly what evidence was hoaxed but I do believe the snow track was one of them. I would also like to mention that I think the thermal image taken of a supposed Bigfoot creature is actually a man relieving himself behind a tree. During my time in the woods there, I was able to capture some thermal images of someone doing just that behind a tree. I compared that earlier thermal image and the thermal image I took and they are very similar. If anyone is interested in seeing the images I can upload them. I can tell you the perpetrator was not Billy Willard, Tom Lancaster, DB Donlan or myself. I'm sure people can figure out the name if they try hard enough.

I hope I'm not stepping on anyone's toes writing this, but this information should have been posted after exposing the hoaxer, that way people would finally know the truth. Just because some hoaxing took place at this location doesn’t mean there is no Bigfoot activity there, or other researchers didn't witness anything Bigfoot related. This site is only two miles from where I witnessed a Bigfoot creature in 1995 while metal detecting with two FBI agents. I have also collected many eyewitness reports from just across the river from Phelps WMA, so there is some Bigfoot activity there.

William Dranginis
Manassas, VA.


Close Window