Bigfoot Research – Still No Evidence, But Plenty Of Excuses To Explain Why There’S No Evidence

[Rockape]

Hence, the reason why no one has ever successfully taken a BF photo and why no one ever will.

Really? I've seen plenty of photos and video. It's just a matter of if you believe it is the real thing or not. Doesn't really matter as no photo or video will ever be definative proof.

[Guest]

That's what I was going to say. There is plenty of evidence, but as of yet, there is not proof.

[Guest]

Sounds like Marlboro has spent WAY too many hours in the bush with no results and has thrown in the proverbial towel.....LOL

[Guest]

Sorry, not confrontational enough.

[bipedalist]

" That’s why his massive amount of body heat never betrays his presence. Unknown to many BF believers, wildlife agencies both governmental and commercial have conducted hundreds of aerial FLIR surveys on a variety of species as a means to obtain numbers and migration patterns. Moreover, these overflights can cover several thousand square km's in a single night. If BF distribution is as numerous and widespread as researchers claim, how is it that these surveys have never detected 800 lbs. of upright walking primate flesh? "

Maybe they have and they are not telling you.....

Or, maybe BF only sleeps on hot rocks!

Edited August 22, 2012 by bipedalist

[Guest]

Well thought out objections and logical arguments are well and good. And Moot, if even one person here or anywhere else has seen one of these creatures and truly know that it exists. Then everyone else becomes by definition, ignorant. Because they know and (I,we) dont.

[bipedalist]

Better be moot than mute, I always say!

And while I'm at it, better to be quashed than squashed!

Edited August 22, 2012 by bipedalist

[Guest thermalman]

" That’s why his massive amount of body heat never betrays his presence. Unknown to many BF believers, wildlife agencies both governmental and commercial have conducted hundreds of aerial FLIR surveys on a variety of species as a means to obtain numbers and migration patterns. Moreover, these overflights can cover several thousand square km's in a single night. If BF distribution is as numerous and widespread as researchers claim, how is it that these surveys have never detected 800 lbs. of upright walking primate flesh? "

Maybe they have and they are not telling you.....

Where can one see some of these Flir photos? I'd be very interested in seeing them.

[Guest COGrizzly]

Gigantor - Plus one!

I didn't know Kitakaze had a brother?

[Guest BartloJays]

Nothing wrong with you having some contentions regarding the existence of these animals but your arguments seem based on many generalizations and frankly, misinformation, which may be perpetuating some of your frustration. Let me see if I can help you out a little as I'm not going to waste time on all of them but I think your mentioning of FLIR aerial surveys deserves a response because some might find it interesting and I've done prior research in this area out of interest, since FLIR handhelds are my primary field tool.

First of all, average aerial surveys are conducted with camera-equipped craft at an altitude of 1,000-2,500 ft by transecting over selected land tracts and are primarily performed with respect to ungulate and cattle counts during specified hours. Right off the bat, we have a considerable parallel in the target species since both ungulates and especially cattle tend to congregate. Detection rates are close to 100% with FLIR aerial surveys on basic plains and with almost zero unobstructing foliage. For moderate and or hardwood cover that rate dips to 70-90%. Evergreen and dense cover, like majority of PNW which is covered with secondary is about 25-50%. Hence, FLIR aerial surveys are not done on animals like black bears and or other apex predators as an example, who mostly roam solitary and prefer dense habitat.

In the past, some Southeastern/Eastern states have made unsuccessful attempts with bears in areas with moderate foliage. Coyotes are another example of an animal not surveyed because of the unreliability of dense ground cover they habituate much of the time.

The target animals are distinguished by the FLIR scope operator (manually controlled) with a given GPS location. In most cases different animals possess different anticipated sizes as well as have distinct varying body heats. The most obvious ways of detection are in herding/congregation (as I already mentioned) combined with obvious location(s). Deer for example, are not usually solitary, so combined with size (most will be about the same) and specific heat signature, it's readily apparent what you are seeing. Improved resolution on equipment has many times helped to not only identify species, but development stage size within that target species. Once again, the predominant animals surveyed out of both interest and reliable identification are ungulates and cows.

Realistically for a sasquatch to be noticed as such by say, a FLIR helicopter, which is always possible "under the right circumstances," the animal would have to be caught absolutely in the clear. Why? Depending on area covered it could easily be mistaken for a human or a large quadruped if covered by even partial vegetative cover. BTW, vegetation and various foliage is not the only problematic cover with respect to unveiling a discernible living subject like a sasquatch, snow, angles of rock, cliffs, narrow riparian areas with deep creeks and even sparse vegetation would make identification extremely difficult. Not to mention, a sasquatch would need to be "interesting" enough to warrant a second look or be in a place or at a time to create further investigation. You know like " hey Bob, did you see that, what the hell is that hiker or hunter doing out or up there at this time?"

I'd be happy to work on some of your other misperceptions, but I'm packing to go participate in one of my biggest passions in life looking for more mythical monsters in a beautiful area. No worries, based on the substance of your arguments and the intelligence of many members here I'm sure you'll get a good education on actual habitat viability by the time I return.

[gigantor]

Tell 'em Bart!

[Guest]

I found during my days as a Bradley gunner and commander that trees medium and ground cover was the limiting factors in id'ing targets. Even the Bradleys of ten fifteen years ago had thermal sights which I considered Incredible. I have seen some beautiful images through the sight such as a monarch butterfly in pyschedelic red and black at probable seventy meters. I could see the veins in the wings. I have seen deer, goats, sheep, rabbits and mice as far away as a thousand meters. This was through unobstructed fields usually or open forest. These images were not misidentifiable. clear glowing shades of red or black. Even the mouse. The same night I saw the butterfly I sorta saw ......a special forces soldierwho was acting as opposing force for our training, low crawling toward my area of operation. I say sorta because I had a small heat signature, his boony cap and top of his shoulders when they werent completely obstructed by vegetation or other cover. I knew what I was looking at because I expected to be attacked and reconned from that direction (it was the swampiest, most difficult route to my position, which is what I thought he would take)so reasoning told me the small heat signature which kept popping in and out of visual was a soldier. Had I had to rely on only what i actually could see, I could not have id'ed it. just small ambiguous heat signature which from my viewpoint changed shapes and sizes slightly as he crawled from one hide to another. The visual equivalent of a

thermal blobsquatch I guess. But he did not wish to be seen. If I hadnt scanned the particular narrow zone I expected to see him I probably wouldnt have seen anything. Point I guess, I could easily id a butterfly at seventy meters but could only with luck even find a six foot man not that much farther away looking through the same patch of wilderness. And then I really couldnt id him if I didt already know.

[Guest]

I also think it is odd that even though bigfoot has the ability to detect trail cams or has some type of paranormal ability to not be captured on film, the Erickson project's "grooming" pics & video is from a trail cam.

Ummmm...you could not be more wrong if you set out in an effort to be wrong.

The *grooming video* is not at all associated with The Erickson Project and it was not taken from a trail cam.

Better to keep your mouth shut about something you obviously know nothing about than to open it and reveal the fact to all.

[Guest Darrell]

^My apologies. However, how can you answer the fact with all this "evidence" there is still no proof? If that video is the proof the world is waiting for, why isnt it everywhere? This time next year you are all still going to be making the same excuses as to why you cant find bigfoot. 5 years from now same story.

[dopelyrics]

Hello there,

Just as an aside, is it ok to tell someone to "keep their mouth shut" on here? I thought this was a place to respect each other and maybe even help educate people if they are wrong about something.

Best regards,

Lee

Edited August 22, 2012 by dopelyrics