Our knowledge of these animals is primarily based on their day watchers (Sentinels). We found what we consider to be a weakness in a very strategically placed day watcher we called Jane. Jane watched from a high point on top of a prominent peak. She remained virtually hidden by remaining in the shadow of an enormous boulder on top of this peak. As the sun rotated around this rock, she moved to remain in its shadow. In the afternoon when she moved to the east side of the rock, there was a blind spot in her line of sight that we exploited. By positioning ourselves based on this knowledge it allowed us to get in behind her. Our intention was to capture her on video as she returned to the main group later that night. Although we did manage to get in behind her undetected, it became apparent that although she was not initially alerted to our presence, the group was. This was likely due to the close proximity of the day watcher to the main group, and we did not compensate for thas variable.
It is not Jane that you see in video 2; it was a much larger animal, likely from the main group that had come back to ensure Jane was safe and we were not a threat. I believe it was Jane’s movement that we were hearing. After an analysis of precisely what transpired over those few minutes when we captured video 2, it seems very likely that the large animal we see on video 2 was diverting our attention away from Jane to ensure she safely escaped back to the main group.
Now what is very, very important for any Bigfoot hunter/researcher to know is what we discovered the following day. But before I get into that, it is crucial that people understand what our motivations were on this expedition.
The three of us had been promised, by a veteran wildlife officer, that if we could prove to him that we could repeatedly get close enough to these animals, he would accompany us on our next expedition. Our plan was to tranquilize one of these animals, then take blood, hair, skin, and tooth samples (just as he had done in the past with bears, wolves, deer etc.) as well as photographs and video evidence. So one would conclude that since we had shot two pieces of video evidence of us within 20 to 40 yards of these animals, our expedition was a total success. But that is not the case.
When I showed video 2 to a First Nations elder, he laughed at me and said something in his native language I did not understand. When I asked him what that meant, he told me to read my own chronicles and figure it out for myself. Later that year I found out the closest translation for what he had said to me was, “Take your last breath”. He was right.
If I would have had a gun (either tranquilizer or bullet projectile) we were well within range of successfully taking a shot. Therefore, one might conclude that the animal you see in video 2 is vulnerable. You could not be more mistaken. The day after we shot video 2 we found definitive evidence that there had been another animal standing no more than 10 feet away from us.
The animal in video 2 is almost directly east of our position (approximately 30-40 yards). There was only one large conifer, almost directly south of our position that partially blocked our view of the falls. We believe there was an animal directly behind that tree watching our every move. If we would have made any kind of aggressive move towards the animal you see in video 2 (as in point a gun at him) it is likely we would have “Taken our last breath”.
How do we know there was an animal standing there? The next day while walking along the river just west of where we shot video 2, Michael noticed a broken piece of rock that was not from the river and seemed to be in a very unnatural position. He immediately told us and we began looking for the other half of this rock. When we found the other piece, we discovered it weighed approximately 60 pounds. The day before, just seconds after we shot video 2 and were about to climb up after the animal, we heard a tremendous crashing sound in the exact opposite direction of the animal we'd just filmed (which is precisely where we found the broken rock). That sound made us all take a moment to pause and re-evaluate our circumstance.
Why is this significant? After shooting video 2, Trevor and Todd made their way up the mountain where they had seen the animal, while Michael waited below. He remained watchful for any signs of movement west of their position, where we had heard the loud crash. When a gust of wind from south of his position blew past Michael, it elicited an unfamiliar odour. He abandoned his watch to investigate the area but found nothing other than a spot of freshly disturbed earth. It was no more than five feet behind the large conifer mentioned earlier. To our astonishment, upon further investigation, the broken rock we found down by the river fit precisely into that spot of disturbed earth.
Conclusion: The sound we heard just after shooting video 2 was the rock crashing to the ground. That sound was a diversion. The animal that was standing behind the tree ripped the rock out of the earth and threw it precisely when the animal in video 2 required a diversion. This would have required an unfathomable feet of strength to throw such a large rock that distance. More importantly, the timing indicates a level of intelligence that would put this species into a category of intelligence that would exceed that of any other primate (excluding humans).
Although these statements could be debated, We believe this incident illustrates these possibilities:
The animal put itself in a position where we would have been overwhelmed. It chose not to attack us, most likely because we showed no aggressive tendencies. These animals demonstrated they had understanding enough not only to cause a diversion, but more importantly, precisely when to do so.