Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2008 13:10:24 GMT -5
Makes me wonder who out there is inclined to believe the albert ostman story. I conviced its fairly plasible unless he was mentally ill or with ill intent. Are there enough large open caves in wild to realistically house our projected sasquatch population? Ideal habitats to support a clan or extended family? Someone once told me off here that one of the postulations ? is that right spelling - lol - is that quite possibly there are clans and extended family units that are living in one place - and probably some nomadic individuals or groupings as well? In a perfect world where would be the most ideal location to look within pacific northwest? More specific than mabey Chehalious or Harrison lake. Ideally would the most likely place to locate it be a fairly to completely isolated land area with a fresh moving water source and adequate shelter via dense trees and or mountainous terrain? To bad not more money for well funded scientific expeditions where they are dropped in. How many areas such as this would we be talking about? hundreds at least? hey sorry novicebutbeliever but the thread totally didnt go in the direction of your question about where and what ie caves or forested areas and numbers.. as per some native american legends and some kooky people out there I'd have to say cave systems! but i've done some caving in the past and dont think these cave systems really exist. I'd say heavily forested areas are a better bet! And your guess in numbers in certain areas are as good as anyone elses I'd think. well my laundry is done, time to get my camping gear out of storage and ready for next weekend! Max.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2008 15:51:09 GMT -5
Hey Thomas, Do you not see the ape head in the pictures? When I first showed it to my brother he was seing a bear head where I can see a baby and he said WOW when I told him to look higher against the trees. Once you spot that, compare it to picture 2 and see how the head has moved. A branch partially obscures the eyes in both pictures. Because of the smother texture of the baby (no hair that I can see), more detail can be seen in it than the mother. I tried to get London Drugs to print an 8x10 of the picture 2 crop but their software refused to print such a small file at that size. I guess I will have to crop out just the baby and get it printed as large as I can. I have already brightened the picture up to the point where other detail is lost, the original is alot darker with just a vague dark shape and face if you know where to look for it. I have given foreststealth the goahead to put up his enhancements directly of forewarded thru me and look forward to seeing his results. This site is not in the vacinity of the activity 2 years ago. Can you update me (us) on what you and Bill are finding? I didn't make it into those spots last year as the gates were always locked when I tried. Earlier this year snow kept me out. I will get up there eventually.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 3, 2008 16:41:49 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on May 5, 2008 10:21:33 GMT -5
Went to put my trail cameras back, one in this same spot. It has raised some serious questions as to whether these pictures are of anything at all. What I thought was the head is probably only a hemlock branch.
|
|
vilnoori
Really into this!
Bone Collector
Posts: 547
|
Post by vilnoori on May 5, 2008 15:44:00 GMT -5
I think there probably have been habituations happening, but the type of people that live by choice in lonely, remote forested places tend to be not as "chatty." I agree, word is just not getting out there.
|
|
|
Post by yukonred on May 5, 2008 16:44:49 GMT -5
I was looking at those photos and it would appear that a face is somewhat visible.
In the upper 3/4 part of the larger photos, on the R/H side of the clear larger tree in the photos, as we look at it, where a brither inverted sort of "Y" branch is going down. Between that branch and the main larger tree, one could actually see what appears to be a set of eyes, a nose, a mouth, a chin and sort of a set of eye brows. No hair, but maybe a left ear in the upsidedown "V" of the branch in question.
Now at the same level, but on the other side of that same tree, L/H as we look at it, another sort of facial shape is also sort of visible, not sure what that may be though ?
I could not see the "baby face" mentioned by Bear Hunter. But then again those photos are not very clear.
In what general location were those taken, if I may ask ?
Yukon Red
|
|
|
Post by Gerry on May 15, 2008 23:14:19 GMT -5
All I see is shadows...and they can look like anything you want them to be......at first I thought it was snot....then tree sap...now..who knows???
|
|