Leaderboard

I don't know of an answer that works equally well everywhere. Would I be correct in deducing from your post that you think they identify you, not just as a human, but as a *specific* human, one that returns to the area frequently? I'm fairly sure they know I know they know I know ... etc. It doesn't seem to bother them. Even when we're in the same area, even when they've done something seemingly to make sure I know they're there, the stay out of sight. It's "no surprises." What I'm trying is camping in remote places where I'm safer for them to approach. Coming or going, with less other human "traffic", there's some chance of an accidental meeting as well which seems greater than the chance in a similar but more traveled location. When I can manage it, I try to do those hike in and camp trips with 1-2 other people. I think the interaction between humans both creates a small disturbance that may draw their attention from distances a lone person might not be noticed at plus the chance to observe the interaction seems to pique their curiosity ... or at least has on occasion seemed to for me. I don't think the question has a well-mapped answer so all we really can do is try some stuff. I think the very best "bait" we have available to us is just being human. MIB

People make mistakes and fall victim to hoaxes all the time and scientists are people first and foremost. The Piltdown hoax worked because many English scientists desperately wanted evidence to support their ideas of English evolutionary superiority. It didn't fool scientists from, say, France or Germany at the time. LUCY was still reconstructed using just Australopithecus bones. You're aware that evidence of Gigantopithecus was first discovered in a shop selling traditional Chinese remedies, right? If even 0.1% of Bigfoot claims returned verifiably objective proof (which they don't) then the question would be: What is going on in all the other 99.99%? Technically, if Bigfoot is a real creature then we're still at point zero, you know... Testimony is not "discounted" - it just doesn't meet the basic objective standards to identify a new species. It really is that simple - its not a conspiracy to keep the International HairyMan of Mystery down... The apparent universality of the Bigfoot phenomenon is a big indicator that we are not dealing with a simple question of taxonomic classification but one of universal human experience. Perhaps Bigfoot is more akin to the "Night Hag" phenomenon - both the intensity of the experience and the complete lack of objectively verifiable evidence would seem to support that notion, wouldn't it? It took a folklorist to get to the bottom of the Night Hag-Sleep Paralysis connection - maybe a similar approach would yield tangible results for the Bigfoot experience... If you believe Bigfoot is a real creature rather than just a real experience then you are welcome to prove it like everyone else. No point in raging against the machine (eg those **** scientists!) - the rules are the same for Bigfoot as they are with any new species. Many people say they already have proof of Bigfoot but, while that may be good enough for you, it is not the same thing as actually having it. Would it really cost $14.5k to point a camera and go 'click'? Wouldn't clear photos of Bigfoot be worth way more than $14.5k? Why not get the photos first then reimburse yourself for the cost of research? Is it a conspiracy that funding is stuck at 2% after 16 months? I'm sure a lot of people here take your own Bigfoot narrative and plans as genuine but that doesn't exactly equate to tangible support, does it? Have you ever wondered why that is?

Bigfoots do share the same Habitat as Black Bears.

With regard to rock throwing, I've got an hypothesis. It's my impression that there are relatively few reports of bigfoot in conjunction with bears at the same time in the same space. I know that there is the romanticized image of a grizzly and a squatch locked in mortal combat, but I've always assumed that bears and squatch generally steer clear of each other and that when a squatch wants to encourage a bear to give it wide berth or stay out of an area entirely, it lobs a few well-aimed and painful rocks to encourage the bear to go elsewhere. It doesn't make sense that a squatch would go anywhere near an adult bear and it does make sense that a squatch would do anything to protect itself and its offspring. So the capability to throw rocks permits the squatch to both avoid direct contact with an adult bear and be able to drive one off.

I think a big part of their survival is noticing things in their environment. I have evidence (not great but we have to work with what we have) that they do spot cameras at a distance that is out of the usual game camera's range. They got within forty yards of my Plotwatcher, looked right at it, squated down and left the area. With a normal IR triggered game cam I would never have known this. Once they spotted it, it seems they avoid the area. Only had one chance. All I can do now is keep moving the cam and hope the same thing happens again.

If the creature does not exist now. Then most likely never did. The purported evidence continues to this day. In my honest opinion Nothing paranormal about it. Either flesh and blood or myth. Certainly, only one can be true