Houston, British Columbia, Sept. 25 (UPI) -- Paranormal specialists say there have been three reported Sasquatch sightings in northern British Columbia in Canada within a month.

Brian Vike, director of (Houston, British Columbia, Canada) HBCC UFO Research, told The (Vancouver) Province he doesn't "know what to make of all this."

Delores Harrie of Houston said her dogs started barking July 28 and when she went outside to see what was what she saw some kind of hairy creature running into a wooded area.

"It was huge, about 7 to 8 feet tall, and hairy," she said. "He had long hair, shaggy."

She said it wasn't a grizzly bear because it was running on two legs.

She notified Vike, who investigated and said he found markings on the ground.

"There's some cow tracks, but this was something else -- someone with a good-sized foot," he said

The report said there was another sighting in the area in July and one in Moricetown, about 90 minutes away, Aug. 27 -- as well as a sighting Aug. 31 in Campbell River on Aug. 31.
go

Now that this has hit the media, expect several other sightings.

yet when they say there were mistaken, ur eyes light up in joy and you scream "yes!!!!!"

ignorance, ignorance. ur not a biologist or scientist, nor am i, and scientists tend to have a bias

Both have a bias actually.

Scientists are drawing up conclusions from evidence, and scientific fact; others are just getting "facts" from eye witness accounts. Scientists are always going to go with the solid evidence, and facts, and they will be against anything that barely or doesn't have any solid evidence whatsoever; others will just listen to their "gut" or their so called "open mind" when actually they are very close minded to any scientific fact that go against these creatures, and they'll believe almost anyone who say they saw a mythical animal. Yet some eye witness accounts could be true which some scientists disregard; it's hard to tell for sure.

RELATED ARTICLES:

Cops bust LSD lab, suspects drop something in water- Vancouver, B.C.


Im kidding.

Sightings will occur if people have seen it or not. But hopefully there will be some brand new fuzzy footage coming out. That IS exciting. I don't care who you are, that's exciting.

As usual no cameras or video of any kind? Sounds about right.

dude out of how many people carry cameras? how many looking for bf?

the recent sighting i viewed was from a berry picker. why would he bring a camera? most sightings happen when witnesses arent even focused on sasquatch. thats last on their mind if they even heard of it

True enough, but my point is why should we believe people who claim sightings and offer no proof. Countless sightings and no credible proof. Very frustrating.

never accept sightings as true proof. however use them as tools to lead to possible discovery

th

I live in SW british columbia and there are about...10 reported sightings about 20 KM from my residence...

I'll try to find some info on these and put them in here...

people really need to follow up sightings, instead of going "ohh, ahhh".

I don't think there is anyone to follow up on these sightings, other then some hobby groups like the BFRO, and a few individuals. Unless a crime is committed, no RCMP are going to be put on the job. The police do not have time to go looking for BF.

The best we can hope is some one who is writing a book or does BF as a hobby goes there and takes a look.

the best bet for bf to be found would be somewhere in bc forests

i view most of the state reports such as florida, ny, texas, as "copycats"

the true bigfoots exist in remote california woods, oregon washington, canada, and alaska.

What about all the people like me?
I am sure I am not the only one.
I have reasonable tracking skills. I have been looking for the big guy and cannot find a singe piece of evidence. Why? I have tracked many other animals very successfully. Some with unknown traits as one has no idea how a hybrid dog will react. I go to hotspots. No poop, no nests, not a suspiciusly broken branch.

Surely others do this. I cannot be the only person in the world. Why do people conducting research, backapckers or other people who have no interest in the creature not see it? Why do backpacks not get raided? Bears do it, why not Biff? Why don't we share waterholes?

Two tourists diving in the middle of nowhere found a 2 inch furry lobster on the bottom of the ocean, and I cannot find a Biff track?

Why?

The only thing more distressing than an "Ol Footy sighting, is an 'Ol Footy sighting with a rash. Awful things, rashes. Could you imagine the size of an 'Ol Footy rash? 'Ol Rashy?

That's why he cannot exist. People like Farhenbach and Meldrum should indeed be able to find him. It should be a snap with decades of research behind them.

It is inconceivebale that a person could put a lifetime into a subject an offer no more than justification for his dubious results.

Ah, you know why. You live in Oz and the Yowie walks lightly.

Since grizzlies are fairly nimble on two legs, this isn't exactly a good reason to disqualify one.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=MJpnQBDLYA8

Touche`

But can he not give someone, say even yourself the information to go find one? Shouldn't his data reveal the most likely spot to look? And why does he just say forget the naysayers, we know better. If he came in here and enlightened us plebs we would take his work far more seriously and crredibility would rise, but he just says if you don't believe you are wrong. Just not a sound approach to the subject.
It would be a good way to get his work noticed a little more I am sure.



One does not have to be following a trail to be exerting effort into a discovery.
Jeff Meldrum. John Napier. Loren Coleman. John Willison Green. René Dahinden. John Bindernagel. Jon-Erik Beckjord. Even Reinhold Messner could make this list, although I believe his Yeti sighting was a Bear. Many more could. but off the top of my head....
All people dedicating decades to the subject, chasing every story, every witness, every rubber suit. Their combined efforts have amounted to some speculation. Not much of an outcome there for all that effort.

coleman=armchair
john green=armchair
bindernagel=looking
beckjord=joke
napier=armchair

That video shows two bears fighting each other by leaping up on their hind legs. The reason why they each can stand and make a couple "shuffling footsteps" was because they were almost leaning against each other and holding on to one another while fighting, giving it some sort of support. Have you ever seen a grizzly running around on it's hindlegs, say, down a road with no support?

Armchair interest does not produce evidence. There are no funded sustained field projects by professional wildlife biologists or primatologists underway

also i found something

Well despite what people claim, there is 'some' observable effect in areas where Bigfoot are reported to live. For example, in 1992 throughout several counties and regions in Ohio. Locals and wildlife officials alike reported a rash of deer killings in the fall and winter months. Deer carcasses, young and old were found with either their legs completely snapped and broke, or their entire neck as such. The other shocking thing, were that the innards of the deer, namely the intestines and other organs were ripped out and set aside the carcass. If this weren't strange enough, the livers of all these deer were missing. No predatory animals native to North America would kill a deer in this manner. Bears, wolves, mountain lions and the like, would at the least have devoured certain sections of the carcass (And indeed it would be easy to tell if the deer were killed by a known animal). But the interesting thing is that the liver is usually the first target for predators (along with the heart, lungs and kidney) because is contains the most vitamins and nutrients predators need to survive. Aside from the deer carcasses, locals also reported hearing powerful screams, whoops and howls emanating from the forest at night along with wood knocking. All signs of primate behavior and communication.

(For more information on this and similar reports you can check out websites such as the BFRO Organization's website)

Now back to the observable effect critique. It doesn't actually stand up well to scrutiny. To start, I will address how the argument is first employed. Critics and skeptics generally say that if Bigfoot exist there would be an abundance of physical remains as well as observable effects on the environment in the manner Mountain Gorillas exist in Africa. First off, if the number of Bigfoot in existence measures some 2000-6000 animals with a breeding population of say, 300 or slightly more (most experts agree 500 is the ideal number) then there are exponentially more deer and elk sharing the same environment. Deer and elk, therefore, have an exponentially greater effect on the natural environment than Bigfoot. But that exponentially greater effect is ... not noticeable at all unless someone shows you what to look for. Bigfoot apparently target the same choice parts of plants and trees as deer. Calorie for calorie it's the most efficient use of their foraging energy in North American forests -- forests that don't have bamboo groves, or the fleshy tropical broad-leafed trees and plants that mountain gorillas tend to tear apart. The forage of North America consists of vegetation that are not very noticeable when they are gone. Bigfoots can reach higher than deer and elk, so there is always more than enough for them to choose from in the growing seasons, no matter have much deer and elk competition they have. Reports and other evidence suggest they are predatory also, and seem to become more predatory in the winter months when the forage options are reduced.

So combined with their omnivorous diet, ability to avoid detection, forage on material not readily noticeable unless you know what to look for and of which they can access more readily then their competition, they have an enormous amount of food to select from in North America -- more than enough for a breeding population, without having to tear apart trees or cause any other "observable effect on the environment."

Why are paranormal specialists and a UFO guy collecting reports on Bigfoot?

what?

The article? The one about the rash of Sasquatch sightings?

The people talking about this sudden rash are paranormal specialists and a UFO hunter. He comments on how B.C. is normally pretty good for UFO's, but he didn't know it was so good for Bigfoot too. I'm just wondering what the connecting is.

im not sure

Well, I'm currently vacationing in northern BC, so I'll keep my eyes peeled.

But I did have a strange encounter with some sort of creature I've never seen before. It was like a dog with hind legs higher than the front ones, and it ran really, really fast. The closest thing I can compare it to is the infamous El Cupacabra, but as I understand it, those are only native to Mexico.

It might have just been some species of rare animal I don't know about, but it was strange none the less.

That's funny, because here in the Adriondacks if you report a moose sighting or a wolf sighting, a biologist will meet with you and get a description of the time, place, sex of the animal, and the animal's behavior. Why? Because moose and wolves exist.

Bears often stand on their hind legs. especially when confused or trying to guage an unfamiliar sound or sight around them.

Likely, nobody's seen a bear walk 20 yards on hind legs in the wild. But you can be sure nobody has ever seen "bigfoot" doing that either.

Gee, with all these sightings in a relatively small area, we should have one caught any day now, the same way we track and catch every rogue bear, right?

Oh, I forgot, dogs can't track bigfoot and he's smart enough to only be seen when the person doesn't have a camera or gun.

thousands of hours of wolverine footage shot over months of hiding out in a blind.....thousands of hours of wildlife footage taken by professionals of beaver, ducks, loons, cougars, wolverines, bears, etc. etc. etc...yet NONE of them, NOT ONE SINGLE ONE, ever got any footage of a giant monster ape in north america. Nor a single bone, skull, body, NOTHING.

Believe what you want, but the evidence, and lack of evidence, are damning.

Nope, don't live in bear country. Used to see them do it at the zoo though.

However, right at the beginning of the video you can see one of the grizzlies standing on its hind legs and walking around fine without support, not even near the other bear.

What would those same biologists do if they were told a Bigfoot was in the area and needed tracking?

Most likely response? .... Nothing.

probably pick their noses and sit in their armchair saying "this and this cant exist bc i said so".

most of the people who encounter it are OUTSDOORSMAN

They probably would not get that description from an honest encounter. People who expect Biff to exist would say that, people who honestly don't know what they saw would say "a large hairy beast."

The media is mostly to blame, like the recent UFO spate here in the NT. The paper did not realise the witnesses were also going to be interviewed by media watch. They did not say UFO or Alien, but the reporter tried to get them to say it and strongly alluded they did say such a thing in the resulting article. The actual witnesses thought they were watching Military exersices, yet somehow the reporter of the headline found

UFOs invade NT town

in it. And posted this picture



There is quite some embellishement invloved in all UM report's. Generally ones with a not so honest motive know what they are seeing before proper investigation.

If a game warden had a report of a large hairy beastie, surely he would investigate?

Bears cannot walk far on their hind legs, generally they stand on their back legs to either get a better view of what they are inspecting or to intimidate the other creature so that they do not have to fight.


Anyway, there is a law in Canada that it is illegal to shoot a Sasquatch...

Praticcly everyone has a camera on thier phone?

You are probably right. It would depend on how you made your statement. If you were like, "I saw Sasquatch and he tossed rocks at me." They would likely consider you nutter, but if you said you had seen a large hairy animal that frightened you, they would go check on it.


Up till recently, I think most of those phone cameras were crap. The newer ones are getting much better at ranged pictures and moving objects.

most of the people i have met dont really have cameras( the group sometimes is specializing in berry collecting). they have no interest in bigfoot, and some describe an encounter with a large "mountain gorilla" in bc! most dont have cameras bc they arent nterested one bit in taking pictures of even wolverines!