Leaderboard

Question to any and all bigfoot hunters on the board: How many bigfoot do you hunt/capture on a monthly basis? How do you gauge your successes and failures? Is there a monthly quota in bigfoothunting?

Hello everyone, I'm curious as to what methodology field researchers use to try and document bigfoot? Techniques that field biologist use for other species don't seem to work for bigfoot. Do you do systematic transects for sign, cruise roads, work when snow is on the ground to better see footprints? Do you focus your efforts to recent sighting areas or areas with historical activity? Trail cameras have not worked and, apparently, neither have hair snags. Both of these techniques have had profound impacts on predator research producing precise estimates of population density which were unheard of 20 years ago. On another thread I have pointed out that bigfoot should be easier to document on national parks due to lack of hunting. Bears act VERY differently on national parks as opposed to where they are hunted.

So we have people who look for BF for 47 years or longer and never find it. Peter Bearn is one of them but he has not run around trying to tell everyone there is nothing to find. But rather accept that their self determination that there is nothing to find and move on, some feel driven to become a frequent poster on a website devoted to BF and constantly belittle those who have invested the sweat equity and time in the field looking for their own truth about what is or is not in the woods to find. What motivates that sort of destructive behavior?

For those who lament an investment of time with no result...I'm inclined to just ask: Do you mean time waiting for others to deliver the goods to you, or time actively and actually frequenting those locales where activity is reported to occur? If some think it is their due to have "them" solve their mystery for them, I have no wonder they are disappointed. If some have done that, at least they might have the decency to not second guess those who are doing more than they, and give deference where and when it is due. To do otherwise, they run the risk of merely sounding bitter and malcontented. That those so described feel they have wasted their time seems inescapable to me, and completely predictable as well. How could it not be so ?

Kind of like when someone claims to have proof of a suit isn't it. Heh, that's what most topics are anymore. I've noticed this in the short time I've been a member. It seems to me that in the absence of tangible evidence or real excitement in the field people start to rehash old sightings, claims. As an interested skeptic, I find it remarkable that this lack of progress doesn't cause at least a percentage of believers to re-evaluate their positions. Instead, I see that folks some folks are ready to accept supernatural remedies (aka portals, cloaking, etc.) as a way of reducing what I suppose is their considerable cognitive dissonance regarding the state of the things. That's sad to me as a rationalist as it feels as though critical thinking is falling by the wayside as people, who have vested so much time/ energy and their identity into this field, struggle for anything that might justify their viewpoint. Thus the thread asking in a humorous way: When is enough, enough?

<yawn> Some just never seem to tire, I suppose.

Thread intended to start an existence debate. At the end of a given day that is all a denier has that he can ever prove: That science does not accept the existence of BF. Someday that will change and they will go argue at UFO or Nessie forums about existence. No matter how much they would like it, the dictates of logic will not allow anyone to prove something cannot exist.

I really don't understand these type of threads Squatchy. I know from reading your previous posts that you do not entertain the possibility that a creature such as Sasquatch exists, fair enough........there is no convincing evidence for you and a whole lot of bull and let downs for all. But I just cannot get the excessive barrage of what can only be described as mockery or ridicule, akin to bullying really that you and a few others - notably Crowlogic try to flood the forum with. It all smacks to me of a 'I'm smarter than you' type of insecure character flaw.......I am an atheist, but I don't go into religious forums and mock and ridicule others for having different points of view and I don't think I'm particularly cleverer, just that I have formed a different opinion. I'm not a believer by any means, I think there is a possibility this creature exists although the evidence is lacking at present for me to jump from the fence to probable. But I wouldn't continually mock those who have different opinions. I could understand if you asked the question "how do you guage successes and failures?" or "What do you think you're doing wrong?" or even "If you search for 10 years and then nothing will you still believe or will your belief ever be shaken?" that could be an interesting topic, even for those who point blank deny that Bigfoot or Sasquatch could exist................ I just don't understand how some of you guys can come hear and make almost a thousand posts basically all the same - it's not even witty or funny - I just don;t get it!?!?!?!?

Well, Squatchy, being in Canada, I'm actually a Sasquatch hunter, not a bigfoot hunter, as that term applies to those newcomers south of the 49th parallel, but I'll try to satisfy your curiosity anyway. 1. I hunt 4 or 5 every month, but I have yet to capture or kill any, though I have seen 1, and found a trackway in the same creek valley as that sighting. 2. I gauge my successes and failures by the amount of pleasure I get from the act of hunting, and the exercise burn I feel at the end of a great day out in the forest. 3. No quota (also known as "bag limit") in British Columbia, but I don't seem to be in danger of exceeding the daily or yearly bag limit if it did exist. I do feel sorry for all of those who have an interest in the existence of Sasquatch/Bigfoot who do not take the opportunity to get out in the wild country to actually hunt (as in search, not necessarily capture) this most elusive of creatures; they are missing a wonderful experience. Cheers from the "Squatchiest place on earth".

I'm sorry, but I do not find your background believable. There is a history of people that create elaborate and phony backgrounds in this community so that people may take their claims more seriously. I suspect you are one of those. Ultimately it does not matter as your background, real or not, adds nothing to your claim.

I've ignored it for a couple of reasons. Ultimately, though, it should never need to be done. Your background has no bearing on a bigfoot sighting you had as a child. You may feel differently, which is odd given your railing about objectivity, but I really don't care about your background insofar as your bigfoot claim. I've never really fully believed your background, but I really don't care until you start trying to leverage it into increased credibility as a alleged bigfoot witness. Pretend to be whoever and whatever you want, but don't think that makes any difference to your childhood bigfoot stories. I have not questioned your credibility as a witness. Were I to do that, I would say that I don't believe your bigfoot stories because of some personal detail about you or some perceived character flaw. I have not done that. I don't believe your bigfoot stories but that has nothing to do with any personal details about you.

Eh don't believe it. Surprisingly enough your bigfoot stories send off less red flags. I don't completely rule out bigfoot and I don't necessarily think everyone with a bigfoot story is a liar. I've been around the internet long enough and on lots of different forums your CEO story just raised lots of red flags.

If your constant appeal is to objectivity, why would your alleged background as a chemical engineer matter? I fail to see the point in bringing it up in the first place. You directly contradict your own constant mantra--objectivity. It makes me think, in this case, objectivity to you means don't question my anonymous, subjective details. Not terribly congruent. I have never questioned the credibility of a witness. I have always been one to maintain that those sort of details don't matter. Even in the PGF section of this forum, I have never been one to focus on Pattersons background. What matters is evidence to support the claim. A background in anything does not lend credence to a claim, in my opinion. Appealing to a background that cannot be verified and sounds rather questionable anyway, certainly adds nothing either. Anyway, I have a poker game to attend, so I have to exit this conversation for this evening.

I struggle to understand why you would offer anything even resembling personal details or credentials that might lead to further questioning when you have already claimed an issue with this in the past? Given your previous experience with EB, would you, especially you,not strive for absolute anonymity? But no, here you are again making statements that are bound to raise questions. It makes no sense. Sorry, but I don't believe you. You have investors lining up to give you more money than you need (so you say), and yet you only offer a CEO 275K? Your story does not add up to me. Now, you can continue to push what looks like a fantasy, or drop it and focus solely on your childhood bigfoot claims, minus fallacious support from your alleged career. Were I you, I know which choice I would make. But I know that I am not about to give your bigfoot claim any more credence due to an unverifiable background that sounds fishy to begin with.

JDL, I don't understand how you can keep waiving the objectivity flag after using your supposed career to support your bigfoot claims. All pretense to objectivity was lost at that point. Especially after claiming how busy you are and then continuing to participate in the discussion and even further offering to spend time with multiple moderators on a bigfoot forum to spend even more of your precious time confirming your identity. Added to which, a 275k salary is really not terribly impressive. It almost sounds like a figure that someone would make up who knows very little about how much CEOs actually make. Almost as if it came from someone living in their parents basement, I think was the term you used? Sorry, but it really doesn't add up. Arguments to authority are never going to be taken lightly. Imagine if I said, well I'm a phd in biology, so take what I say more seriously. And then accused anyone who questioned my anonymous credentials of "character assassination"? It's been my experience that people with actual credentials do not throw them around anonymously expecting extra support or respect. Unless you are prepared to verify those credentials, it's best to not mention them in the first place. And those that do mention them are often the ones who end up being exposed as elaborate role players. That has certainly happened here before. Were I you, I would stop playing the victim card and never mention my credentials or background ever again. At least not in an attempt to support a bigfoot claim. But we all can see how well you take "unsolicited advice".

Dude you dug your own hole. You assassinated yourself with this gem "I'm a busy guy. The CEO I and the rest of the Board hired to run the company I founded at 275k a year plus stock options starts today." JDL

JDL, it's very simple. If you don't want your background questioned or wondered at, then don't bring it up. Particularly in an attempt to use it to add support to your childhood bigfoot claims. You do that and then rail about objectivity, ironically, and then also question people for questioning you. That's ridiculous. I'm not about to take anything you say at face value. In fact, the more you rail about it, the less I believe you. No one who was truly as busy with those tasks as you claimed, would then continue to post and argue on a bigfoot board. And, seriously, who reveals the salary of their CEO on a bigfoot forum? That is beyond bizarre and makes your claims quite unbelievable, in my opinion.

Lake County Bigfoot: Don't throw in the towel yet. I hunted, fished, hiked, prospected, tracked, trapped and goofed off in the mountains, river bottoms, bayous and jungles for forty years before I heard one of these booger do a p---ed off vocalizations that was so loud, long and hair-raising that I and the other five men standing around the campfire ALL knew it was no typical animal. This was a continuous sound that started as bellowing holler, then an aggressive yelling sound and terminated in a high pitched scream and lasted about twenty seconds or more. At the time, I didn't know what made that sound, but I quit hunting with a gun and spent five years looking before I saw my first one. The next forty years, in 12 states, I learned a little more, heard a bunch of them, got glimpses of several and clearly saw two more. Don't every believe that these animals don't forage around the edges of big cities, small towns or rural communities. Every acre of ground that us "new comers" to this continent have logged, farmed or developed once belonged to them and the NA's. They have been forced to abide the presence of us. They probably don't believe in skeptics either.

This is how it happens, when you least expect it :

No need to try and discourage anyone out of anything. A Bigfoot head would do just fine to make it official. You can't expect to please everyone. If people want more then they can put forth the effort from there.