Leaderboard

Again with the personal stuff? Please give that a rest as it has nothing to do with your failed attempts to cast doubts on the authenticity of the PGf subject. In one post you tell us that Patty should not have been filmed because Bigfoot are supposed to be stealthier than that and now you are informing us that creatures cannot always be stealthy. Your arguments don't make any sense and it's fairly clear that you have nothing of substance to add to the discussion.

And I wonder why they have environmental impact laws? To protect endangered species and it's habitat, right? Examples, https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_spotted_owl https://www.worldwildlife.org/species/pacific-salmon You have now completely painted yourself into a corner....... The problem is? Is that here in the Pacific NW, we have mowed down some of the biggest old growth forests on the continent long before the endangered species act was ever a thought. Worse yet....they didn't replant in many areas. They paved it and put in 7/11's, housing tracts and golf courses. The second link specifically lists development as a main threat for salmon. The fight is far from over....and if Sasquatch was on The endangered species list? It would be a HUGE voice in this fight over natural resources. You bring up the NE US, if things are clicking along over there? Awesome! My experience comes from the PacNW.

I'm curious where you think you get the authority to purge anything. Sounds like delusions of grandeur ... unless you have something up your sleeve you haven't shared? MIB

I'm not worried about human development. It's progress is slow particularly because many states have environmental impact laws that do not allow significant deforestation. The forests are vast. The Pacific Northwest states of Washington and Oregon are about 39% forested. By comparison, the Northeast states of Maine, New Hampshire and Vermont are all more than 75% forested with Maine almost 90%. https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/38/Aboveground_Woody_Biomass_in_the_United_States_2011.jpg

I am new to this thread so I am commenting from page 1.... MM doesn't believe that bigfoot is a paranormal creature with metaphysical powers or whatever strange stuff that people get into. I am of the same mindset as he. They are flesh and blood creatures that seem to know how to communicate with one another using the same low frequency transmission as elephants and other animals known as infrasound. Maybe it is something that is transmitted through the ground or it is a low frequency using airwaves? Whatever it is, this is common in the animal kingdom and I believe is the future of bigfoot research. Let's pretend they do use infrasound and will know when a two legged creature such as a human are approaching. They will be able to prepare for it and take cover. If this is true, then it helps to explain why so much of the general population doesn't understand bigfoot or thinks they must have supernatural powers or came from aliens or whatever. None of that is true. It's just their highly advanced form of communication with one another that is no different than other intelligent animals.

Concrete and steel have already done what you fear the most.

I agree completely. I think that if BF exists, it is in very small numbers in very remote locations.

I'm not sure about all that. There are two kinds of "night vision": thermal imaging and light enhancement. I got to play with a high end therm a while back .. vehicle mounted, not hand held. For giggles one of the peeps went out about 20 feet and shined a flashlight at it. The flashlight was visible to our eyes, of course, but through the therm, we saw only his shape, no light from the flashlight at all. A little uncanny IMHO. Working from their avoidance of trail cams, I'm fairly sure bigfoot see in I.R. at least a little farther than we do. Thinking about that, I wonder what the heat of a campfire or gas lantern looks like to them compared to how it looks to us? Could be pretty wild, huh? I'm not sure they see better in the visible spectrum than we do at night. I was really surprised at the level of detail visible through the thermal imager at short to medium distance. I could see enough to identify specific people. I could see the cracks in the pine tree bark by the road. Pine cones hanging from the trees. Up close, I.R. may be enough, no need for more sensitivity than we have in the visible spectrum. They MAY have it, but I just got "schooled" on whether it was necessary or not and I thought I'd share that lesson. At the same time, yeah, they are sensitive to bright light at night. So are we. How do we measure how much more or less so? What responses of theirs are conditioned that we might misunderstand? What responses of our own are "taught" vs how much is truly instinctive? (Do Russian kids cuss in English like I do when I stub my toe? No. So ... some of response IS taught, not pure instinct. Flinching, hands to the face rather than just squinting, etc.) There's a cultural / learned relativity we don't have sufficient basis to measure .. yet. (Tangentially, by the time we do, they may have learned / changed responses just from watching us ... or even vice versa, the old quesiton about who is habituating whom?) Interesting stuff! MIB

Silly person ... of course you can ... and I do. Super stealth does not preclude mistakes, that requires super stealth and incredible diligence. Unintended convergences have happened (example: the PGF) and will continue to. Likewise, super stealth does not preclude **deliberate choice** which appears to happen as well. The fact that they haven't happened to YOU ... bad location, bad timing, ineptitude, or just haven't beaten the odds yet? Don't know. Look at it another way: I'm still waiting for a winning powerball ticket. We know SOMEONE wins sometimes. Me not winning doesn't prove powerball is a hoax. You not seeing bigfoot doesn't prove they're a hoax either. MIB

Sadly any sort of show about Sasquatch, or anything in a field like cryptozoology, the paranormal or UFO's, is going to be fraught with drama and have a over exaggerated hype element to it. It is just the nature of what people want to see these days. Very few people want to learn anything about the technical or educational elements of what it takes to actually do thorough and objective research into a field. They care little about the steak, all they want is the sizzle.