Search Box

Tuesday, May 31, 2016

Nathan Reo and "Utah Sasquatch"

I was recently alerted by Sasquatch Footnotes, Atticus Chamber's excellent site which reviews various happenings in that field, to the existence of Nathan Reo a young, new researcher in the field.

Reo has a series of videos available on Youtube

This one shows him on a Utah mountaintop, and you can hear the vocalizations and wood knocking he describes. He is also flanked, and has small stones thrown at him (though we don't see those):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TPvosP1lY0I

I don't expect anyone to actually watch the entire hour plus episode, but even if you're a skeptic -- like 99% of the population -- you'll at least find the scenery Edenic.

Here's one which describes his journey from skeptic to believer to actual field researcher who's had encounters with the creature. I particularly liked this one because he describes so well how he'd been unthinkingly dismissive at first, just like most people, but then, as he did more and more research on it, how it gradually dawned on him that the creature is real:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gh5MMD_ONq4

One of the reasons I find Reo credible is that he's so self-deprecating. He freely admits to having ADD, he's honest about his own (fearful) reactions upon encountering them, he admits he might be wrong about various things, he says his own brother is a far better tracker, and he even admits that he may eventually lose enthusiasm for the hunt.

But in the meantime, he's obviously got a passion for the subject, and there's something very appealing about his boyish enthusiasm.

These videos, by the way, are far, far better than that TV show Finding Bigfoot, which has become an embarrassment. Reo's explanation for why the show doesn't work: they expect the sasquatch to come to them, despite all of their TV lights and camera crews and yelling and banging about. Reo shows how to go to them. Reo also explains why direct line of vision sightings are hard to obtain.

You're welcome to laugh at me for being a believer, but at least give the videos a try before you do.

Update, 6/12/16: Unfortunately, Reo has just taken down most of his videos. Evidently some of his viewers had followed his trails, found his locations, and even posted routes to get there on the internet, and a few people had even stalked him. He briefly put up a video up explaining all of this, and now has  even taken that one down. 

36 comments:

Anonymous said...

I live in Utah, and (for what it's worth) I have heard good bigfoot stories from people who are not seeking attention. At the very least, there are more stories than you hear in the media, that is just A PLAIN FACT.

There is also a certain amount of weird hundred-plus-year-old Mormon testimony about bigfoot as well...if I recall correctly, bigfoot got identified with Cain in early Mormon folk culture, a Cain who never died, he was marked by being bigfoot-ized, and made to walk the earth where the pioneer folk then saw him...my point being not that bigfoot equals Cain, but that saying "oh that thing you saw is Cain" means they DID SEE SOME WEIRD THING...I'm sure you take my point...

John Craig said...

Anon --
Generally, the more people look into the subject, the more likely they are to believe it's real. There are just too many ways the Patterson-gimlin film from 1967 could NOT have been faked, the evidence of detailed footprints being found in remote places is overwhelming, and there are over 400 sightings a year from reputable people in places where the creature could actually exist (in the deep woods, with fresh water and a plentiful supply of ungulates around) And those are just the reported sightings. It's just that people are unwilling to accept that there is a creature out there which is so tactically aware and can outmaneuver us. roe explains the entire phenomenon very well.

Anonymous said...

I'm not passionate about the subject, but I definitely believe in Sasquatch. Like all creatures, I prefer that they exist in their own natural habitats (I dislike zoos), man letting them live freely.

-birdie

Luqman said...

John you managed to convince me with the post you linked in this entry that Bigfoot isnt just nothing. Do you have any recommendations for where I can find more information about them? I dont want to trawl through raw data, rather I was looking for write ups like yours which also contain the human perspective of your own conviction.

John Craig said...

Birdie --
I'll have to confess to being passionate about the subject. I don't write about it often, but I try to read (or watch shows) about Bigfoot as often as I can.

John Craig said...

Luqman --
Thank you of your open-mindedness. One of the best sources is the BFRO website:

http://bfro.net

If you look at the FAQ's and 'Pre-Columbian; Early American" (both linked on the front page of the site)it shouldn't take you too long, and there's a lot of useful (and convincing) information there.

I'd also say just watching the two Reo videos I've linked in the post are quite worthwhile. One is over an hour, the other roughly half an hour, but both are quite convincing. (Reo has something like 20 Youtube videos, I've seen around six so far, and I find them all worthwhile. He has a great way of describing the creature and also the way most non-believers (most of the population) think about them.

This analysis of the Patterson-Gimlin film explains how it couldn't have been faked:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MKUwdHex1Zs

(This is a 12 minute video.)

Let me know what you think.

Steven said...

thanks John. He seems really credible because of how skeptical he was at first and the arguments he came up with off the top of his head to argue against it, which were about as good as anyone else could argue off the top of theirs.

Your original article made the best argument I've read for it.

Anonymous said...

I have watched the Finding Bigfoot show in the past. It's a bit cheesy at times. My favorite part of the show is when the stars of the show hear the public give eyewitness accounts of their own encounters with Sasquatch.
That's the part of the show that's the most interesting.

-birdie

John Craig said...

Thank you Steven.

Reo really is incredible the way he has in a sense "solved" the mystery of being able to find them, which he has successfully. He's had direct line of vision sightings a couple of times, and in the video I linked it's pretty clear that he's having an encounter, even if not a visual one. And he delves into the mystique of the creature, what its strengths are, how it evades humans, and so on better than anyone else. Plus he's analyzed how most people think about it very well, and talked about how he used to be one of those people.

John Craig said...

Birdie --
The BFRO people have done a lot of good work, and their website is by far the best compilation of evidence and logic arguing for the creature. But the show has gotten to the pint where it's doing a disservice; it's hokey and always the same thing: a squirrel makes a noise, they cut to commercial, you come back expecting something, and nothing has happened.

Steven said...

Yeah I'm really enjoying his videos. I watched the two you linked and now I'm watching others. I like him and he's really insightful.

It makes perfect sense that the sasquatch would be so fundamentally elusive and evasive when sharing a world with a species like us, whether it is through a long process of natural selection for the shy and evasive ones or a transmission of information about the need to give us a very wide berth (probably both). Knowing how we are, I'm not sure its really the benevolent thing to do to try to make their existence public knowledge since the whole world will suddenly want a piece of them. I have this romantic idea that if I could catch one or prove their existence, I'd just wave them off and keep it to myself as a service to them. But if they are officially discovered, they ought to be fully protected by the law or they'll be hunted by every idiot who wants to make a name for himself and their population will be pushed back to more and more remote areas. You can imagine how capturing one alive would become the holy grail and you are talking about billions of people suddenly interested. Anyway, that is all assuming they exist which I'm not willing to say I believe 100%!

John Craig said...

Steven --
Thanks for watching; I've really enjoyed every single one I've seen too, even the ones where it's just him talking to the camera at his home. I would think it's almost impossible to look at all those videos (especially the ones which show encounters) and come away unconvinced. (They're nothing compared to the Patterson-Gimlin film, but still…..)

I understand what your'e saying about how the creatures would be better off with mythical status as opposed to people knowing that they're real. But I have a personal, selfish reason for wanting their existence to be proved: I want to shove that in the face of every person who's told me I'm crazy.

Steven said...

I was far more impressed by the structures than the so called encounters. I loved the long fence that meant they only had to look out in one direction and blocked the animal traffic and I love the idea of them having all these methods and stratergies and being so highly cautious and, in a way, respectful of us. In a way, they are hiding in plain sight and its clever how they know what we'll notice and what we wont.

I say so called encounters because he seemed pretty convinced of their presence and while he seems to have good judgement I didn't see or really or hear anything that clear or compelling.

This guy, at least, has made the subject far more interesting than anyone else.

John Craig said...

Steven --
I agree about the tree structures (he's analyzed them in far more depth and with far more insight tan anyone else that I know of in the field) but I disagree about the encounters. You could hear their voices clearly at several times, their whoops and mini-screams, and the tree knocking was distinct as well. (No other animal does wood knocking and it was too loud and spaced too far apart to be a woodpecker). Plus he had small rocks thrown at him, though we couldn't see those.

Steven said...

I guess I need to listen more closely though I'm not really acquainted with the whoops and screams other animals of the forest make so I wouldn't know.

The potential for hiking and going miles off the beaten track in America is pretty inspiring itself.

John Craig said...

Steven --
Yes, it is pretty cool how many wild areas there still are here. People don't realize how much there actually is, and how you're not really getting into the wild if you walk along well tended trails, even long ones that lead into national parks or wilderness areas. If you fly over the country and look out your window, you realize that the vast majority of it is green or brown, with relatively few densely populated areas.

Sasquatch used to exist in Europe (which is how the legend of the "werewolf" arose in practically every single European country), but eventually Europe just got too crowded and there weren't enough wild ares for them to live there anymore. There are still a fair number of reported sightings in Russia though, and even a few isolated sightings in Romania.

Anonymous said...

I've started watching some of Nathan Reo's videos. Thanks for letting your readers know about this man. His research, personal encounters with Sasquatch creatures is fascinating. This man is articulate, a teacher. He's used his wilderness skills to track and find actual creatures. His journey from being an unbeliever in Sasquatch's existence to being a believer is interesting.

-birdie

John Craig said...

Birdie --
Thank you, yes, Reo is great. He has no "credentials" in zoology or anything like that, but as an autodidact he thinks for himself and is far more creative, insightful, and open-minded than anyone with official credentials as a primatologist would be. All most degrees do is teach you to regurgitate a bunch of pap.

Luqman said...

Thanks a lot for the links John. I liked the BFRO website a lot. I managed to convince one other person with your coming out post as well and it occured to me, the key is the Patterson film. Once you know it cant be fake, it changes everything. It is only from that point that any other circumstantial evidence can be given serious appraisal. First my `bigfoot metaphysics` had to change and only then was I able to seriously reappraise the wealth of other evidence. Also, I really like the new vision I have of the world that contains these wonderful animals.

I wish people would realize that scientists are just people like them. They dont have any kind of advanced thinking available to them. It is one thing to read about bias and social pressure on thought and another thing to experience it in a new context. Until I was convinced I was probably a pretty nasty skeptic in that I would have likely tried to deconstruct (probably somewhat savagely) anyone who tried to convince me that the sasquatch is real. This realization also made the Reo stuff quite personal for me. Thanks again.

John Craig said...

Luqman --
Sure, glad you found them convincing, and thanks for passing along my post. Yes, the Patterson-Gimlin film is really the bat piece of evidence we have so far. it's amazing to think that nobody doubts the existence of Gigantopithecus, a giant ape many consider the ancestor of sasquatch, and the only evidence we have of that is a few teeth and a partial jawbone. Yet we actually have a legitimate film of sasquatch and anybody who believes in that gets laughed at.

Yes, scientists are, as you say, no better than the rest of humanity. Just look at where scientists come down when it comes to racial differences in IQ. The proof of differences is incontrovertible, and obvious to anyone who looks at the evidence with any common sense. But because of social pressures, there are very few people in the field who will discuss IQ differences openly and honestly. With sasquatch, it's a little different: most scientists simply haven't looked into the question seriously, and automatically dismiss it because its existence would seem unlikely. But the more people -- including scientists -- look into it, the more likely they are to agree that it could be real.

Anonymous said...

This is an interesting discussion - but mostly in how very different can conclusions can be reached by different people after being presented with essentially the same information.

Personally, I find nothing about these videos compelling at all. This content could be either be hoaxed or delusional thinking on the part of the video-maker. What it doesn't do is present ANY new evidence for sasquatch. It is the same tired indirect and inconclusive evidence we've seen literally thousands of times before.

Also, the evidence of Gigantopithecus being bipedal is extraordinarily weak - a minority of ONE opinion based on speculative interpretation of scant remains, as in, zero postcrania. Mostly a jaw and teeth actually. It is more likely that if there is such a thing as Sasquatch, it evolved from something like Dryopithecus or if we want to look to the australopithecine/homo line, perhaps an early paranthropous spur of some sort. If not there, I suppose a distant bipedal cousin from the pongidae could have been missed but it is notable that there is no fossil support for bipedalism evolving anywhere outside Africa. None. Not saying it did not happen, just that we see obligate bipedalism happening only once in mammals like homo and that it in Africa in the 5mya range.

Some have argued relict humans like heidelberensis, but these species really ARE us. They used fire, made tools, built shelters, lived in highly social groups with language. These skills are so advantageous to survival in any northern/Boreal context that it really makes no sense to imagine these behaviors being lost over the last 500kyr.

Finally, the Uinta and Wasatch ranges were extensively trapped during the Rocky Mountain beaver trade era and of course populated with Native Americans long before that. Some of these videos have the sounds of cars and even show roads. While I'm not suggesting Sasquatches have to live far from humans, it does seem odd that the density of "sasquatch wigwams" etc. would be so high near people. It is hard to make sense of these small constructions. If I came upon these forts I would think they were old hunting blinds, lean-tos from Boy Scouts, or even old tramp/homeless camps. Why doesn't the videomaker collect hair from these areas? His methodology in this respect is so unscientific as to be laughable.

Anyway, if I'm raining on anybody's belief system here, it's not because I'm skeptical to the point of completely resistant to the idea of sasquatches. It's more that I've been at this for years and there is so much BS and hoaxing in this field, you have to be very careful.

Science as a discipline requires that we make only necessary conclusions. Nothing in these video compels to conclude Sasquatch.

Anonymous said...

I think that Reo is THE unique person to make a BIG break-through on this. Really exciting to watch his stuff.

I am a scientist, from an elite Ivy university, working at an elite Ivy university who has been doing both physics and computation genetics/biology for a long time at Ivy universities. I am also from Colorado, grew up in the mountains, and I am an avid ultra-runner and mountain biker. I grew up spending weeks in the most remote areas of Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, Montana and British Columbia.

There is NO question in my mind that these creatures are real, that they are ancient hominids, and that they are very very smart! And it just boggles my mind why more paleo-geneticists are not working on this. Just last week, I was talking to another researcher at Rutgers who specializes in computational genetics. He is a skeptic. We were talking about the lastest Bigfoot DNA sequence paper being rejected from Nature. He felt that there were problems, which I wont go into here, however, he returned to the same comment that you hear over and over when talking to scientists, "we need a skeleton."

So, I think, as Reo often says, "let's be smart, we can't just keep doing the same things over and over. These things are better than us at a lot of things, and we need to do what we do best."

We need a skeleton. If photos and videos are "not scientific" then the question becomes, "what is scientific"? Well, the answer is, "a skeleton"!! I think Reo can find one.

Anonymous said...

Second part of my comments:

Bigfoot are ancient hominids and clearly manage the bodies of their dead. So, what DO they do with their dead. It seems reasonable that they don't bury them the way ancient humans did. They don't bury them the way we do now. Assuming they are a physical being, and are an organic species (no reason to assume they are not), we should be able to find remains, but ONLY if we study how they behave and figure out WHY skeletons are never found.

What you have to realize about Reo, and why he is special, is that he is NOT scared, he is VERY fit, he is open-minded, he has a lot of skills and comfort in the woods, he is perfectly located in a low population state (persistence and perfect location is KEY) and he does this alone (these animals understand humans and they understand that one human is manageable -- that's why they take risks around lone humans and not groups. There are VERY few people who will do this type of science by themselves. The fact is you need ALL the skills and criteria I list above to increase the probability of success to a point where you can repeat encounters to a scientific level. Remember, science is fundamentally about repeatability. He is showing that he can repeat his results. That is a BIG step forward. Also, he is empirical and scientifically minded. Remember that Jane Goodall and Dian Fossey got their degrees AFTER doing important field research. In fact, Dian Fossey didn't even have a college education. She got a PhD without a BS. He does NOT need an academic stamp on his forehead to make huge contributions.

Now, what does Bigfoot do with it's remains? That is the question that MUST be the sole focus of his field research! Bigfoot is most likely a related human species. So, their DNA is going to be close enough (if not almost totally -- 99.9%) like ours. You will not be able to remove the problem of "human DNA contamination" if you sequence hair, fecal, tissue samples. What you need is morphological proof.

Here are a few theories that Reo should think about.

First, ancient human's knew how to cash meat -- a form of natural refrigeration. They couldn't eat a mastodon in the time it would take to rot, so they prepared the meat and tied rocks to the carcass and sank it to the bottom of lakes. The ancient remains of pre-Ice-Age animals have been found in ancient lake beds at high altitude (e.g., the 2013 Snowmass, CO find). However, human remains have NEVER been found with these cashes of pre-Ice-Age creatures. Scientific consensus appears to be coming around to the idea that there were human's in North America before, or just at the end of the Ice-Age. So, why have we never found these skeletal remains? What were these early humans doing that left no skeletal remains -- might just be climate, no desert caves? What might the Bigfoot be doing as well? They don't appear to have fire, so they are not burning their dead. Could they eat their dead? Is there precedence for eating bone in early man? Or, is the historical climate such that bones just don't persist long enough for humans to find them. Probably unlikely, because we know Bigfoot exists and that they exist now. What they are doing with their dead?

Second, think about how we know what we know about early homo-sapiens and other hominids from ~250kya? We found skeletal remains in dry caves. No early hominid skeleton has ever been found in a cave in North America. So, that means we can't look at how we had "success" in the past because it clearly doesn't apply. BTW, there has been very very little "success" through human agency in terms of finding ancient human remains -- almost all great human skeletal remains we found by pure luck and only in the last ~150 years). We have not been at the study of human skeletal fragments for long. So, we can't think about this question by looking at what has happened in Europe, Asia and Africa.

Anonymous said...

Third part:

Third, is there any subtle indication that they dig, or use the ground, for any purpose? Anything?

Fourth, could their population be low enough (say, on the order of the Eastern African Silverback Gorilla or Panda Bear ~1000 animals), and could they be smart enough, as smart as early Alaskan tribes, such that they can survive in groups of ~50, but travel to common locations where burial takes place? They appear to be seasonally nomadic. Would they travel with their dead? Could they be smart enough or have a belief system to intelligently dispose of skeletal remains? Is there a cash somewhere?

Reo is the Neo of the Bigfoot Community. Go Reo!

The "Anonymous" before me is wrong about the "science" part of Nathan Reo's work. What Reo is doing, is EXACTLY how the best science in the history of western man gets done!

John Craig said...

Anon --
Thank you for that enthusiastic and knowledgeable comment. Your characterization of Reo is right on target. He is young, passionate about the subject, a skilled tracker, open-minded, and fearless. His military training has come in handy. And maybe most importantly, he is an original thinker. He IS the new Jane Goodall, though in a different sort of way, since Goodall never had to prove to a disbelieving world that chimpanzees actually existed. (BTW, it was Goodall, not Fossey, who got her PhD without having an undergrad degree.) I've written about her before on this blog:

http://justnotsaid.blogspot.com/2014/01/saint-alert-jane-goodall.html

Anyway, agreed, there's no question in my mind about the existence of these creatures either. Whenever someone tells me I'm crazy for believing in them, I usually just reply, you've never looked closely at the evidence, I have, and I'd stake my life on their existence (thus probably PROVING my insanity as far as they're concerned). But yes, we do need a skeleton, or even better, a corpse.

You're certainly asking the right question: what do bigfoot do with their dead? I've often wondered about this myself, and I think the most likely scenario is that they put them to rest deep in caves. They do have nocturnal vision, which means they can go more deeply into caves than humans can (without artificial light), and they must be familiar with more caves out in the wild than we are. I agree with you that they somehow take care of their dead, and don't just leave them out in the open to rot. And sasquatch don't seem to do much digging; while their stock formations are ubiquitous, there's no evidence in those sites or elsewhere that they dig into the earth much. Plus, another thing that has to be taken into account; nature itself -- in the form of coyotes, bear, and various lower life forms like maggots -- is generally very efficient at disposing of carcasses.

I"ve heard estimates of 6 to 8 thousand sasquatches in North America. That strikes me as a very minimal number for a breeding population given that they're so widely dispersed, and that there have been sightings of them in all 49 mainland states. But, obviously, any number anyone can come up with is just a guess.

Anyway, thanks for your enthusiasm, always good to hear from someone who's really delved into this question and come to the only conclusion you can if you're open-minded and well acquainted with all of the evidence.

Anonymous said...

I posted earlier. I am the east coast Ivy researcher. I need to do more reading on Clovis Man and their estimated numbers, however, all we know about early North American humans is through stone fragments and bones of ice age species with apparent human made marks. When you actually take the time to read the scientific papers, you realize just how minimal the evidence is and how much of what is taught is mostly conjecture -- conjecture which becomes canon when the experts agree. Experts are always invested in generally accepted canon. It can be very dangerous to a career to not go along. You really can't look to the university professors to work on this. It is way too dangerous for them to publish on this topic or to attend conferences. The history of scientific break throughs is a history of passionate people following their instincts to a conclusion while ignoring criticism.

It is very hard to find any skeletal remains. But we should be able to find skeletal remains of modern mammals. I think that the population is smaller than one assumes (~1000s) and that they are intelligent enough to migrate long distances to find mates (part of the reason no remains have been found).

I think that the biggest problem with why we have had very very few big break throughs is that they are far smarter than we give them credit. This is an important point. Reo gets this! You can't see or track them unless they let you. Also, it is critical to understand that people have killed them, but I think those who have were so scared once they realized that they killed a human-like creature that they didn't tell anyone and buried the bodies (I would suspect that the Army has done this). If the scientific community were smart, they would lobby the government (this has been done in Canada) to acknowledge that they exist and to establish an amnesty period so people can come forward and offer what they might have. It would not surprise me if a number of people could produce results as long as they were sure they would not be prosecuted. People are scared and they should be because they assume they have killed a human.

I would also like to say that Climate Change is probably having a migratory impact on them and it is changing their behavior. This could lead to results as they make mistakes adjusting.

Finally, I find it fascinating that people who have hit them with cars, always find the bodies disappear. Clearly these animals work in groups and they cover their tracks. They are very smart and have survived the last 200 years because they are so smart.

I feel like society is rapidly converging on acknowledging these things and that it will only be a few years before we figure this out.

Anonymous said...

One more comment. I don't think the skeptics really have any sense of how big the Rocky Mountain region is. If they do, I apologize, however, you have to really go into the wild of North America and spend some time hiking, skiing, camping to really get a sense of how easy it is for these things to hide. They are nocturnal which greatly increases their odds of not being noticed and they are mostly in areas where the communities are full of people who are not very well educated, are fearful of the unknown, and are often not interested in working hard outside of working harding. Most of these people are just barely surviving as it is and besides hunting, they are not into moving solo, on foot, and without motorized equipment. As smart as they creatures are, they know motorized equipment should be avoided. Also, a lot of these people, in these rural communities, have had sightings. They just don't talk about it. People don't like to talk about what they can't understand.

The amazing thing, from my academic science perspective, is: scientists are killing themselves to sequence DNA of ancient hominid species to learn more about the evolution of homo-sapiens and yet, there is a living one among us and nobody is funding serious research or getting the necessary government legislation in place so we can recover skeletons. Crazy how fearful humans can be of the unknown. Also, I can get any hair, blood, tissue sequenced cheap if anyone wants to contact me.

John Craig said...

Anonymous East Coast Ivy Researcher --
One big argument against the low population theory is that these creatures don't like to expose themselves, and to travel long distances would require not only leaving their forest cover, but also crossing highways and the like, and if they were constantly moving about, I'd think there would be more sightings. Also, sightings seem to occur in the same area year after year, which would tend to indicate more stasis.

Yes, these creatures are extremely smart, no question, especially tactically and strategically. They obviously weren't as smart as humans when it came to building any sort of technology; but they are extremely wily and have to be, in order to fool us into thinking that they're not there when they are. I like Reo's analogy: when you go into their territory, think of a 300 foot long pole, one end of which is attached to your chest, and the other of which is attached to theirs. when you go forward, they go backward, always keeping that strategic distance between you and them. And they are extremely mobile, and agile, and quick, with better vision, and, likely, better hearing and smell as well. They're also inhumanly strong (which may partly account for why some of them have been hit by cars and then just walk way).

And yes, you and Reo are right: the most amazing thing is that more people are not interested in this. Why is this not a subject of fascination for more people? The answer is probably simply that most people have been conditioned to think of it as a sort of joke, and it's become a metaphor for nonexistent figments of the imagination. And most people are afraid to look foolish, so would never even allow themselves to look into it, for fear of having people laugh at them. But, sooner or later, more definitive proof will be found: a skeleton, as you and your friend discussed, or maybe even a dead body. We already have a pretty good film, from 1967, which is obviously real, but more energy has been devoted to trying to debunk it than the other way around.

Anonymous said...

I disagree with great humility to the idea that the wooded habitat of these animals can't be connected together without coming in contact with humans. Someone could (if they were as passionate and frankly crazy as Thor Heyerdahl) walk/hike/run from El Paso to Calgary and never be seen. You could easily do this. It would take a skilled human a few months, but it could be done in the summer very easily. I think you could do it in the winter as well, but that would take even more skill -- skill that these animals clearly have.

John Craig said...

Anonymous Ivy Researcher (I'm assuming it's you) --
I agree with your earlier statement that there is much more wilderness in the US than most people realize. And when you fly across the country and look out the window, it becomes quite apparent that the vast majority of the country is unpopulated, and that cities are relatively few and far between. But to go long distances you have to cross an awful lot of highways, and also an awful lot of land that simply doesn't have tree cover, like the drier areas of California/Nevada/Arizona and Utah and the Great Plains. You've spent more time in the wilderness than I have, And a breeding population of only 1000 or so spread out over the entire continent is simply too small not to result in pretty significant inbreeding. Yes, they're nocturnal, and if they travel at night they're far less likely to be spotted, even crossing major highways; and yes, they're very intelligent, and would only cross those highways when they thought they would remain undetected.

As far as the winter, I've always been surprised that there are so few tracks discovered in the snow. I've sometimes wondered if they haven't somehow evolved to hibernate during the winter months, possibly in caves. That seems farfetched, I know, and that would make them the only primate that does so, but I can't think of any other explanation as to why so few wintertime tracks.

Anonymous said...

Nathan Reo has made his YouTube videos private. In one video, Nathan explains why he's taken this step - it has to do with protecting the bigfoot creature. I don't blame him. I would prefer that man leave the Sasquatch creatures alone, letting them exist peacefully.

-birdie

John Craig said...

Birdie --
I saw that, thank you, as a matter of fact I watched the video last night where he explained why he did that. All I can say after watching that video is, ugh, human beings really suck. I can't believe how much Reo got hassled and insulted. If you understand what sasquatches are and how they behave, it was obvious that Reo had done a lot of really interesting work, and had had a lot of good insights. But of course there's a lot of jealousy in that community, and so a lot of people accused him of all sorts of things, and some accused him of being a hoaxer. I'm pretty good at detecting hoaxers (witness all the sociopath alerts), and Reo struck me as genuine in every way. This is really unfortunate. I hadn't even finished watching all of the videos, either, had only seen about seven or eight of them.

Anonymous said...

Agree. I watched a few videos and was looking forward to seeing more. Apparently, some fans found the location of the bigfoots that he had located. Totally agreed with his decision.

-birdie

John Craig said...

Birdie --
And not only had they posted maps, but they'd posted maps with directions on how to get there. Unfortunate.

Jack said...

I don't understand the bromances going on about Utah Sasquatch.
I get a distinct disingenuous vibe.
His dog wagging its tail and running up to a bigfoot in one video was dubious.
Made me think it was a friend in a disguise of some sort.
He speaks with an air of authority that even seasoned bigfooters don't have and its very odd for a newbie like that.
Nope, not convinced this guy is legit at all.

Anonymous said...

My gut instinct tells me He's up to something...I DONT know what though. He Is almost sect like with his followers who literally breathes in every word He says like He's the elixir of life. If you don't agree with Him and your not one of the sheep that He so desprately needs hanging of his every word, your verbally stoned and in no uncertain terms Informed that you are NOT someone one with THEIR OWN opinion but a TROLL instead!?!