At every location where I investigate I have found prints or impressions. Huge prints, large prints, some in the human size scale and a couple that were very small. Many by a water source but some where the Colorado soil wasn't too hard and I was lucky to find the print and in the forest litter. How have I been successful in finding prints? The answer is quite simple:
I use the signs they leave that point to their presence
and look where would they most likely travel.
All things that live in the forest leaves a sign of their presence. It is up to a person looking to learn what the signs are that are left by that particular species. This approach is used by many who are looking in the forest for a certain species. Hunters, guides, rangers and biologists all use these signs to help them pinpoint where to look when searching for a species they want to track, hunt or see. This also applies to looking for the bipedal primate we call Bigfoot/Sasquatch. They do leave signs of their presence. Sometimes apparent or sometimes subtle. It is a process of trial and error to figure out the "what and where" you need to look. Using reports of sightings are a good resource to help point you to a certain location but it should not be the only resource used. What about areas where there are no reports? Does that mean they are not in there? Reports need to be recognized for what they are. A person had some type of possible Bigfoot experience and had reported it. It does not mean that unless there is a report then they are not in a given location. What it means is that someone was lucky enough to experience this and had reported it. It is a good way to point you to a certain area. Nothing more, nothing less. You need to use several resources to be able to successfully find an active Bigfoot location. This includes the demographics of the environment and recognizing the signs they leave in the woods and forest. If you go into an area that has trees and expect they are in there without looking for the physical signs then the chances of them there is next to nothing.
This is a shy, wary, elusive and intelligent primate that can problem solve. There is nothing easy about finding locations they are in and using. Take the example of deer or elk and how hard they are to hunt. They are not even a primate. When you recognize how it is not a simple matter of just finding some trees and forest and you will find them is a major step forward to helping a person in their endeavor. If this was an easy process then they would have been officially found a long time ago.
So if these signs of their presence are not real or imagined then how do you explain the prints and impressions I have found using recognizable signs to find the locations? Finding one or two or even five may be considered lucky but I have found much more than that at several locations including different states. Some as big as 19 inches and in remote locations. These prints are the physical evidence and validation of me using the signs of their presence in a location. I am not talking about 1 or 2 locations but 5 locations.
Its not a coincident.
