kitakaze

Cascades Carnivore Project - How Do They Miss The Bigfoots?

1,281 posts in this topic

But it IS highly significant. And the more correlations we can demonstrate, the stronger the evidentiary case for BF becomes.

Natural correlations with natural behaviors and traits indicates a natural creature.

Unless it's a bigfoot..............

Seriously, this is a point Dr. Bindernagle drives home; the behavior reported, from feeding to throwing things is typical of other Great Apes.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, here are my thoughts on this subject:

1) In a many of the instances (not all), when the game camera goes off the animal being captured on camera turns and looks at the camera. So this would imply that the animal could somehow sense the camera.

Maybe when BF is walking along and "flash" goes the camera, they see, hear, sense it going off and react....game cam gets ripped off the tree, never to be seen again.

There would have to be an extensive study of:

"how many game cameras disappear every year, and are there a large number gone from areas of increased BF activity?"

This study would be near to impossible to get accurate info because it would be hard to get people to participate. I know the numbers are high because of just researchers that have had them vanish.

2) Government and Wildlife Agencies think of one major thing......"FUNDING" If a government agency, park ranger, or wildlife biologist found a huge unknown bipedial creature on their game cam, that picture would probably never see the light of day to the public......because of fear of losing funding.

One time, back here in Maryland we were investigating a couple of sightings at a local Park/Fishing lake. We decided to just try and see what would happen if we called the park office. A young lady answered the phone and I bluntly asked "have you gotten any reports of a bigfoot "creature" at the park" she proceeds to say "yes, just happens to be we had someone come in and....." right as she was talking I heard another person interrup in the background "shushing" her, phone went muffled then she came back telling she could not talk about it, and hung up. I believe she was summer help and did not know the ramifications of giving out the information, and she was quickly silenced.

Just because we capture known animals on game cams, does not mean there are no pictures being taken of Bigfoot.

Humans being caught on game cams is a bad excuse also because we do not have the higher "senses" like the woodland critters.

Also remember, once you set foot in the woods, you are totally out of your "human" element. Most of the time they probably know you are there, unless they are caught napping!

Just some of my thoughts,

Have a nice day!!!!!!

MDBigfoot

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love to know how many MISSING GAME CAMS were removed by;

someone in the Bigfoot hunting group, they accidentally got nabbed by the camera while out and about, when they shouldn't have been.

or

by a local trickster who accidentally trips one while sneaking within wood knocking range of the Bigfoot group.

If a government agency, park ranger, or wildlife biologist found a huge unknown bipedial creature on their game cam, that picture would probably never see the light of day to the public......because of fear of losing funding

WHAT?? LOSING FUNDING?!?!

This would be the single greatest natural discovery of the last 50 years, the guy would be in no need of funding if he got a legit pic of a hairy upright giant primate on his camera. Plus, if you look in most of those game cam photos, there are hair catchers there as well. (see the mesh wire in the Wolverine pictures)

Edited by Drew
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would love to know how many MISSING GAME CAMS were removed by; <snip>

My employer lost two; one to a bear and the other to someone armed with a screwdriver. It happens.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to broad-brush, but the bottom-line is with an unclassified species, there are often more questions than answers. Our current understanding of them isn't sufficient enough to achieve repeatable results, or make accurate predictions on what makes prime habitat, or prime trail cam spots. We might be looking in the wrong places. Low population within such spacious terrain is what enables the wolverine to remain hidden. We know where they live, they are classified as a species, but we rarely have encounters.

It might be boiling down to happenstance and preparation. Coincidences defy patterns.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it possible to have a single thread on this forum where monkees can be discussed without turning into a skeptic driven "prove it" debacle?...

From the first page of just this section...

Bigfoot (Smallpox) Epidemic In 1500's

Harsh Winter: Record Wildlife Die-Off

Bigfoot - Ferocious And Invincible?

Not How Many People Have Seen Bigfoot But, How Many Bigfoot Have Seen People?

What Is A Bigfoot?

Bigfoot Mating

BF Table Manners

Why Clear Photos/video Are Not Posted With Media?

Fear Of Sasquatch! Profiling Or Justified?

Bigfoot, The Numbers Game! Excell Spreadsheet Project.

Puzzler To Me; Camping Encounters

Ape Canyon

Bigfoot In Trees

Congratulations? Orang Pendek

Dogs Tracking BF

Aged And Crippled Bigfoot

Evolution Of Human 'super-Brain' Tied To Development Of Bipedalism, Tool-Making

What If Everyone Who Saw Bf Reported It?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kitkaze, I applaud your interest in our wilderness heritage. It's awesome. Stay beautiful.

I have seen two Sasquatch up close. They are people.

I have never seen a Swamp ape, Bigfoot , Yeti or Yowie.

The reason Sasquatches are not often caught on camera is that they do not need to do risk behaviour at this time. A Sasquatch crew may, in this day and age, never visit a human owned area. Animal numbers are up in Canada. There is more than one wolverine hare. In fact, we could have herds of wolverines roaming around doing they wolverine shyte and no one would ever know. There are certainly enough quadruped protien packs walking around to satisfy needs.

I don't know about bigfoot, or any other variants, but how many transient humans have been attracted by the bait at these cams?

I suggest to you, that an extremely (to the point of psychosis) wary human, with excellent eyesight, could detect the bait wrap, or recognize the unlikley situation.

A rascal in Canada, lived in the woods for two years, raiding cabins and camping out. He was avidly sought by police (with trackers, dogs, helicopters)because he did property damage and embarrassed them in the press. They found his camps. They found his gear. They never found him. He turned himself in to police in a different area.

I urge you to consider a paradigm shift. Does it make sense to you that a sort of upright chimp could evade human contact? No, I am sure you would answer. It does not make sense, at all. If you cease to project expectations onto evidence, you will soon realize that the existing evidence is of a thinking, communicating species. Not like man. Actually man! A tremendous man, that doesn't drink or smoke and has never tasted a food additive! Could this man avoid civilization if he chose to?

Also, I would point out the tremendous cultural bias we humans have against ackowleging stuff that might be unpleasant. Do you suppose, a bakery owner, faced with clear images on his back door cam, would report it to CNN? I think most people would leave out pies, instead of becoming whistle blowers, knowing they'd be put in the position of defending themselves in the media. I talked myself out of a good job just by admitting I'd seen Sasquatches. Guess what happened to my credit score.

I think the Bigfoot population is becoming bolder, though. I cite problem bears as evidence. Why are healthy bears rummaging in garbage so much lately? There is ample food in the woods. Unless the woods aren't safe for bears any more. If bear eating predators move in to my nieghbourhood and I'm a bear, I might go elsewhere. I might go someplace the predators avoid.

I don't think we have long to wait. I think the truth is known and is waiting for government strategies to be in place. Once legal defintion can be established, governance can be enacted. As it stands now, arguements could be made for ownership of the uncatalogued DNA. Someone might actually be able to copyright. This is a significant value. What would businesses pay for unfettered research platforms? Got a drug you want to test? A vaccine? A virus? Test here! That's assuming there can be some difference demonstrated, seperating them from us. I doubt any distinction exists, personally.

Bigfoot isn't an unknown. That assumption can be thrown out, I am sure. Bigfoot is a known and understood phenomena by someone. This agency might be benevolantly sheltering them, or us. I feel certain the Sasquatch have human friends. Not just habituates, either. The Sasquatch may well be a footnote in the business of running the world, but I am sure they have been examined. Again, because it doesn't make sense to consider otherwise.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll just repost this one.

*****A better example would be: How many cams would it take to "completely cover" "1 full acre". I'm no Einstein, lol, but would be really curious if someone could do the math to figure that one out!!!

Yes, it's all a numbers game. For example, if the average game cam covered 2000 square feet, and there were 1 million game cams out there running 24/7, the total area they would cover is represented by the red dot on the map below (mid-Ontario). But I doubt there's a million game cams out there nor are they running round the clock. In which case, why is anyone surprised that BF has never walked in front of a game cam?

1millionGamecams.gif

Just to add..Kit, since you believe that 100% of reported sightings are bogus, then you can't use dumpster diving BF in your argument. You are using a false premise that all sightings were legit. IMO, the only scenario that would keep BF away from game cams is that most sightings must not be true. And if only a tiny % of all sightings were the real deal, then their low numbers and the vastness of their habitat are the answer. Refute that. ;)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'll just repost this one.

Just to add..Kit, since you believe that 100% of reported sightings are bogus, then you can't use dumpster diving BF in your argument. You are using a false premise that all sightings were legit. IMO, the only scenario that would keep BF away from game cams is that most sightings must not be true. And if only a tiny % of all sightings were the real deal, then their low numbers and the vastness of their habitat are the answer. Refute that. ;)

Lol

The giganto rule...He can't use it?

Well, until you take over the world of debate, debaters will always hold up the oppositions arguments to show them to be wrong or even ridiculous by one method or another. Sometimes that is done by making logical extensions of the argument to see where it would lead if true. Sometimes sarcasm is employed.

Well it is good that you concede that an overwhelming majority of reports are not occasioned by an encounter with an uncatalogued primate. Your partners in debate will not appreciate it however, because now Kaze can say " even giganto admits ...".

But it is confusing and difficult to carry on a three sided debate.

So lets just discuss the area where you think a breeding population exists. Let me ask you if you have ever been exposed to the idea of random sampling and the role that it plays in scientific research or even quality control.... we don't have to surveil every square meter of North America to get a darned good idea of what is going on. Can it prove the absence of something? Of course not. Nothing can. But it can estimate population density and confidence interval and images.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol

The giganto rule...He can't use it?

Why would he use it if he doesn't believe it? It's a false premise.

Well, until you take over the world of debate, debaters will always hold up the oppositions arguments to show them to be wrong or even ridiculous by one method or another. Sometimes that is done by making logical extensions of the argument to see where it would lead if true. Sometimes sarcasm is employed.

Assuming that all reported sightings are legit it's a strange argument to make if you are a skeptic. No?

Well it is good that you concede that an overwhelming majority of reports are not occasioned by an encounter with an uncatalogued primate. Your partners in debate will not appreciate it however, because now Kaze can say " even giganto admits ...".

What are you talking about? If even 1 report is true then bigfoot exists. Get it?

But it is confusing and difficult to carry on a three sided debate.

So lets just discuss the area where you think a breeding population exists. Let me ask you if you have ever been exposed to the idea of random sampling and the role that it plays in scientific research or even quality control.... we don't have to surveil every square meter of North America to get a darned good idea of what is going on. Can it prove the absence of something? Of course not. Nothing can. But it can estimate population density and confidence interval and images.

Bull. :D Show me where population density estimates have ever determined whether BF exists.

Edited by Gigantofootecus
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The laughing will be loud and heard from long distances!!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let me ask you if you have ever been exposed to the idea of random sampling and the role that it plays in scientific research or even quality control.... we don't have to surveil every square meter of North America to get a darned good idea of what is going on. Can it prove the absence of something? Of course not. Nothing can. But it can estimate population density and confidence interval and images.

Random sampling is one method of ecological sampling.

Here is an interesting study done to video tape and take hair samples specifically for bear as a method of taking a count. The samples were taken from two crossing points (culverts) under a major road, like some hanging mesh to capture hair and a video camera in operation to show which bear contributed which specimen...

http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss1/art7/

Counting nests of gorillas is another way of sampling.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm glad to see this thread shaping up, some really good responses here. I'm not the first to talk about vastness, but I mention it a lot as I constantly search for places in WA state to put trail cams where there is little to no other foot traffic likely.

Research in terms of area size, location, encroachment and human population density are things that are knowns, are stable and we can use as measuring sticks. Unknown and not measurable would be factors such as diet, migration, habituation and habit. To me this is all unfounded speculation that is warrantless unless it is from a direct eye witness experience.

Anyone ever lose a kid at a large super market, WalMart, Krogers, Fred Meyers, Home Depot, or at the mall? If you can't find your own kid in these confined areas of civilization, how would we expect that we can just "go out on the woods" and find something that we suspect is elusive, wants to remain hidden, likely has far better agility and senses than we do and knows their turf far better than we ever will?

Even if we play Hand Across America by placing trail cams in a straight line across a huge geography, we still might not ever get anything decent enough as proof.

So in response to the question posed "Cascades Carnivore Project - How Do They Miss The Bigfoots?" my take is, you can't be everywhere all the time and it makes perfect sense to me that there haven't been any conclusive images captured. YET.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I point out again that maybe BF is not a carnivore. Gigantopithecus is not believed to have been a carnivore (from what I've read), so it makes sense that if BF is gigantopethicus blacki...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I point out again that maybe BF is not a carnivore. Gigantopithecus is not believed to have been a carnivore (from what I've read), so it makes sense that if BF is gigantopethicus blacki...

The tooth wear pattern of Gigantopithecus blacki suggests it was an eclectic omnivore like chimpanzees.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites