Well, I should add...I was talking about us going deer hunting in a very remote area, not metal detecting when I said "hunting". I don't buy into these ghost reality shows on TV. You'd think by now they'd have some solid proof of stuff with all those night hunts.
Bigfoot? There too I think the reports are just mis-identification in all the states (but one area, see below). Just not enough land in most states to hide a population of animals that big who have to eat and mate and all that, not to mention how big of droppings they'd be leaving and all the tracks you'd find. I've had locals in a rural area of a state I deer hunt swear up and down about seeing one. Usually these stories are relayed after they've got good and drunk around the camp fire and open up a little bit, but despite how real I think they believe the encounter was I know in the back of my mind there just isn't enough land to hide a breeding population in most states.
But, despite all that, I do see how a population might be undiscovered in the pacific northwest area, which has mountains that span from California all the way up into Canada. They say small planes go down in those mountains and valleys every year that are never found due to the remote ruggedness of it. That area on the west coast pretty much spans from California all the way well up into Canada. A huge vast place, and they say much of those valleys within those mountain ranges have never even had a human set foot in them because it's so remote and hard to get to many areas, lacking roads for one, and requiring weeks to hike into some spots.
The Indians in that area also have a rich history of legends and names for this supposed animal that goes back long before white man ever made it to America. I saw a show where a biologist said that surprisingly the Pacific Northwest is classified as a rain forest, and that many of the plants that thrive there also thrive in Asia. They said this animal exists in the fossil record in Asia, only dying out there thousands of years ago as apposed to millions (which is nothing in terms of time in relation to animals that come and go on this planet). They believe the animal crossed a land bridge that they know existed a few thousand years or so back into America, before sea levels rose and cut it off.
I go back and fourth on whether I believe such an animal could exist, but one of the reasons why they feel it might be so elusive is that all the non-elusive ones were killed by man in the past, so the genetic gene pool that was left were that of ones who were very shy at would do all things to avoid man, as those are the only ones that didn't get hunted down and killed. You can see the same thing with other animals such as coyotes or mountain lions. We hunted them down so bad and killed the dumb ones, that the only ones left are the smarter/more elusive ones that know to avoid man at all costs. Most people don't know that there are coyotes in virtually every big city in America, yet people never know they are there. Same deal. Not to mention this supposed Bigfoot thing is said to be smarter than your average animals, since it's closely related to us in some ways.
There was just a large population of a sub-species of large chimp discovered a year or two ago in some remote area. I think they said the estimated population is in the hundreds of thousands, yet they were so sly and elusive and in such a remote area that nobody knew they existed...That is, nobody but the local natives. It just took white man all these years to finally get them on film and prove they were real.
Still, I go back and fourth on whether I believe there might be a Bigfoot in even the remote area of the Pacific Northwest. One thing that really convinces me that it might be real is the famous Patterson Film shot in I think 1967. They've recently analyzed this film and enhanced it with computers and you can see muscles and bones moving under the fur. Some special effects modern day costume builders, the best in Hollywood, said that in this modern day and age they'd have a very hard time making such a good suit like that, showing muscles and bones moving under the fur, and that in 1967 it was impossible to do in their opinion, and even if they could do it today it would take many people, much equipment, and a boat load of money to even come close. That's why I think maybe there is something to this whole thing.
Here's one of the enhanced films. Notice the muscles moving in the thighs and especially around the shoulder blades. Now you tell me how that thing was faked in 1967? And, notice how when it turns it's head it turns it's whole upper body. Some gorilla expert says that's what primates due because the chin hangs too low and is blocked by the shoulder blade. How could somebody know to fake that back then? Also, notice the darn thing has breasts and they are swaying as it walks. If you are going to fake a costume why go through the extra trouble of making fake breasts that move with your walk?
Either way, just throwing it out there. I've seen supposed modern films of this thing and they are obvious fakes due to the lousy costumes. That's another reason why I think this might in fact be the real deal, but as said some times I think otherwise. It's a mystery, for sure...
This 1967 Patterson film was taken in California, I think right at the lower bottom range of mountains that some say are all included in what is called "The Pacific Northwest". One video is a black and white computer enhancement of the original film, shot one frame at a time via a computer and microscope. If you search on Youtube for "enhanced patterson film" you'll find more versions enhanced in different ways to bring out perspectives in other ways, as well as discussion by special effects experts on the subject. In fact, at least the black and white first link below was enhanced by MK Davis, a special effects guy, using a microscope linked to a computer that shot frame by frame on a first generation copy of the film so it hasn't been degraded. Many of the copies of this film on the net are several generations in and have lost detail. He wanted to get to the bottom of it so he gained special access to the first generation copy from Patterson's widow, and used high tech equipment to shoot each frame one at a time in the finest detail possible. He's convinced it's real now...
Don't let this initial shot full you. It's worth clicking on. He not only enhanced the film, but he also stabilized it so it's not jumping around as Patterson runs...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U5POiZrZdUA&feature=player_detailpage
Here is MK Davis showing sequences of color shots and such from the film, enhanced by him, and them remarking on how he feels the film is authentic based on his special effects expertise...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=hmCo7mfr_OM
This one is in color and has been enhanced too, but I don't think it was by MK Davis above. MK Davis also a color version of the film he's enhanced if you look for it on Youtube, and I remember his enhanced color version being more detailed and impressive than this one. The second link above might have his color/enhanced version I'm talking about.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=QxJSKwC1A88
So what's the verdict? Real or fake? Sometimes I think no way such an animal exists, but then I watch that film and think maybe it's real. I just can't see how something was faked that good with 1967 technology. Especially when I see modern fakes and the best of those costumes are so obvious that it's clownish looking.
Coming from a steep valley off the ridge spine he was hunting. I still chuckle about that one. Did he imagine it? Probably, but I guess some kids might have been playing somewhere off in the distance and the noise echoed through those valleys to him.