Leaderboard

I don’t actually believe you're arguing in good faith here. Considering comparing videos of sasquatch with, say, security camera footage of a robbery is a false equivalence at best in this context. The Sasquatch community is associated with frauds, hoaxers, con artists, and nut cases that make any sort of video evidence questionable at best. That’s nice but we’re not really trying to discern what is a scientific fact and what isn’t. We’re simply making educated guesses on an unknown species based on what we already know about Anthropoid primates so it doesn’t actually matter what’s conclusive at that point. You can discount it all you’d like, as it is just speculation after all. But at that point why even bother having a conversation with me, or anyone for that matter on this subject? I mean if we are going to take this type of conceptual rigor and apply it to simple speculation and conjecture such as this then we must be forced to conclude there is no such thing as Sasquatch after all as there is no reliable evidence suggesting as such. Hence, why most scientists don’t take it seriously at all. Now to be clear, I do understand the point you are trying to make and I get that you’re trying to be clever, but it just doesn’t really apply here. Thank you! Most seem intimidated by it, so I'm glad that at least you appreciate it. All predators avoid injury if they can. They don’t have doctors after all so of course they will focus on smaller and weaker members of prey species. However my point is that a silver-back gorilla usually stands no chance against a leopard. In fact the tracks at Bai Hokou highly suggest that the family of gorillas were being chased by a single leopard. Moreover, the only thing gorillas have to defend themselves is their bite and their strength. While these may seem like formidable weapons, in reality, even toddlers have survived such attacks and the bite force of a gorilla is only about twice as strong as a humans. In fact in the only instance of a gorilla killing a leopard the gorilla died too, which buttresses my point. Even Human’s, which are predators, do not have a panniculus carnosus and as such we are far more likely to die from a brawl with another large predator. This seems disingenuous to me considering the whole point of me bringing it up was just to make a point about how vulnerable Primates actually are, even with enormous strength. Ok. I'm not really sure how this is relevant though.

The "evidence" is not "conclusive". If it was, it would be "proof". Law enforcement and the ciurts have a saying: "cameras convict." That's why cameras are now everywhere, including on police officers chests. But not for people like you, government biologists, and academics (at least with respect to sasquatchery). Not even good enough to initiate investigation, even though the several scientists who did investigate stated that camera speed was crucial in determining validity. It's that close. You are free to theorize, and I am free to discount your theories. Why? Because it was not "conclusive". See how easy that was? And I say that most black bears would leave the scene immediately upon smelling a sasquatch, unless it was a very young sasquatch that was alone. I commend your attempt to use references to discount my position, but I'm afraid you have only confirmed me when. state that leopards do indeed prey upon young and female gorillas and perhaps old, ill, and injured males. Your own link stated that the silverback at Mbeli Bai was "in very poor physical condition". The references to gorilla body parts in leopard scat does not identify whether those parts are from healthy males. And the description of the leopard attack at Bai Hokou that was heard and followed upon by the witnesses brings up a couple of additional points. Gorillas live in rather tight family groups. A leopard attacking a female or youth on the fringes of the group by a leopard is more than likely to be counter-attacked in return by the silverback. Also, in this specific case, the silverback was seen by the witnesses after the event with no injury seen. Moreover, the relationships between leopards and African primates has little to do with the relationship between bears and sasquatches in North America, although it might be something to consider with regard to pumas and sasquatches. I specifically wrote that inland grizzly bears bolted and ran from me upon me being scented, not black bears, although I've had black bears run from me, too. I've also had bears of both species lay down in front of me at my bear bait station, knowing full well I was there, and eat my bait. I've had black bears lay down in front of me and take a nap.

It's true, I meant it in a condescending manner. But not as name calling, more as a definition of the individual.

Cameras (worn by police or security cameras) aren't used in law to frame people. They're used to establish the truth in a field filled to the brim with liars. And their use has a H U G E effect on both convictions and negating false testimony. Photographic evidence is valid, even against "sasquatch deniers". And you tell me to leave politics out of the debate? Scientists justifying their intentional ignorance on the existence of kooks isn't science. It's cowardice. There was a film presented that remains, over 50 years later, as highly likely to have been the real thing, and "official government scientists" (California Dept. of Fish and Game and USFWS biologists) responsible for wildlife management STILL have not uttered a single words about the subject. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. Go ahead; prove me wrong. Reference their statements on either the PG film or sasquatch in general. Absolutely not, because there are quite a few scientists in several fields who show keen interest and involvement in sasquatchery. But absolutely none of them are employed in the specific careers that would be responsible for the management of such a creature if they did indeed exist. Just wait until after "discovery". I have only just begun to ask questions......... Funny you mention those folks. I consider sasquatch deniers to fit with them like a glove. What might that be? Yeah, you're new at this........ Almost purely herbivores, very peaceful, and yes, prey. But, then, so are moose, and they'll kill you, wolves, or bears in a heartbeat. Yeah, it seems like you see science as handed down from your elevated perch without retort. Neither do British tourists. As I wrote. I've had them sit and eat all my bait as I sat in disgust and watch WITH my rifle laying in my knees. Do you suppose they read the Alaska Hunting Regs and know that I can't shoot them over bait? Unlike gorillas, ungulates have high birth rates. In other words, They'll have enough young so that the loss of some won't kill off the generation. Yeah, you really are new to this, huh?

Now, that's downright funny. The sasquatch community is associated with frauds, hoaxers, con artists, and nut cases, but I suppose law enforcement and the courts are only "associated" with the most honorable of people? Why do you think cops are now required to wear cameras to go along with their guns, tazers, radios, batons, cuffs, et al? Well, I'm not, but weren't you the one aligning yourself with official government scientists with the excuse that the PG film wasn't "conclusive evidence"? Seems like you enjoy waffling between official science and theory on your own terms. Is that "scientific"? I'm afraid I make my educated guesses on more factors than that, such as common threads among sighting reports, densities of reports, areas with a lack of reports, aboriginal tradition, trace evidence, and more. Some people converse on the subject with a basis that I can relate to, and some don't. For example, when somebody tries to tell me that they mind-speak with sasquatches after giving them a cigarette and Bic lighter, I'm pretty much done conversing with them. You originally seemed to converse from a good foundation, but I will admit that I'm starting to see cracks in your slab. Ummm.......that's what leopards use to attack their prey, Dude, and their strength is much less than that of a silverback gorilla. Leopards use their claws primarily to climb and as defensive weapons. They do not claw their prey to death. They bite the trachea, crush it, and hold on in order to strangle their prey. You're kinda' new at this, huh? Actually, it does not buttress your point, and you indeed continue to miss the point. Gorillas have absolutely no desire or intent to kill leopards, even leopards that attack them. The female gorillas in a group will immediately scream like banshees while grabbing their young and running like Hell, just like your reference describes, and the silverback will counter-attack to distract the leopard until he, too, can make good his escape, following his family and protecting the rear from more attacks. Well, I consider your point weak, and as you continue to try to defend it, I will continue to attack it. And THAT is how "science" works. It is "evidence" that the most powerful and feared predator on this continent is actually smart enough to take off like a bat out of Hell upon discovering that I'm in the vicinity, even though I have no panniculus carnosus whatsoever. Well, I'm not a scientist, and unlike you, I don't need "conclusive" evidence to believe that sasquatches exist, and the subject in the PG film is a sasquatch. Actually, I wish your point was true. If it was, then the endangered status of gorillas (even though there are many thousands of them) would be due to the mighty leopard which somehow failed to render gorillas extinct before science finally recognized them as a species in 1854. But since the goal of the gorillas is to escape leopard attacks instead of proactively hunting them down and killing them (like their cousins homo sapiens do), gorillas actually stand a pretty good "chance".

howdy, looking to do some bf research. just recently got interested tbh.

MonkeMan, one thought might be to start a thread and turn your attention to the US/CAN border patrol? There is no way they are not tracking these creatures- OFTEN. They certainly have the capability.

Hello everyone. Newbie from southeast Georgia. I have been interested in the subject of Bigfoot since the mid 70’s when I read my first book on the subject. I look forward to improving my knowledge and interacting with people with similar interests on this forum.

I almost hit one of those on my way out of Packwood a few years back!

Good post, it's very probably more than just one singular reason and likely a few that cause this anomoly as you say. Just to add to the possible reasons and after watching the video regarding the great apes and cameras which is very enlightening; The stats seem to suggest that the apes with large and societal groups get caught more on camera as they are more bold and less cautious as they have the confidence of being in a group. All the apes seemed to notice the cameras so were aware of the changes in their environment. The least caught were the gorillas and they seem to be more cautious to approach and obviously move about less than the smaller apes. Older individuals seem to be less curious or less excited by the cameras. The cameras were approached from behind more than in front. So, if sasquatch is a real live flesh and blood creature and not being caught on camera traps we might be able to speculate they are aware or them as were the great apes but similar to orangutans they might be more solitary so very cautious. If they travelled in large groups they would likely be more bold and less afraid of new stimuli like the chimps and thus caught more. Maybe they don't travel all that much outside of their home areas like the gorilla and then wouldn't come across them as often. Maybe older individuals are the ones out hunter/gathering so they would be the ones most likely to come across cameras and were less excited or curious than young animals. The strange thing is that these factors could explain why they do not appear more on cameras but they are also kind of contradictory to some reports as well. Very interesting video though.

This is probably buried on this forum somewhere but I'll repost it. Not sure the original source, found it on another forum. From 2011. Those nutty Russians! "Dr. Jeff Meldrum, professor of anatomy and anthropologist at Idaho State University, has spoken out about his recent excursion to Siberia to examine the existence of the Russian Yeti. Dr. Meldrum was a featured speaker at the Pennsylvania Bigfoot Conference in Youngwood, PA on Sunday, October 23. His conclusion: the yeti evidence was poor and he and other researchers were brought to Russia to add credibility to the local claim that yetis live in the area.His presentation, entitled “The Russian Connection”, was not the listed topic on the schedule. He noted that he changed his topic upon advice from the conference organizers after the media storm that ensued regarding the announcement that “scientists were 95% convinced” that the Russian Yeti exists. Along with American scientist John Bindernagel, and researcher Ron Morehead, Meldrum was part of the team invited to Kemerovo region of Siberia to discuss the formation of a scientific commission to study the yeti. Led to believe there was significant scientific interest by the academic institutions in the area, Meldrum expressed his dismay when the press coverage was greater than the public and academic interactions."

It's the same story as it has been for a while with academics. Those that take a chance on the fringes get ostracised. It's a career killer. Some academics not named Krantz or Meldrum, dip their toe in the water, like John Napier did and a few others since. It's not worth the effort, especially for people seeking tenure. Meldrum was able to do it with a thick skin and support from his particular University with a particular set of circumstances. Can't do that in every school.

You are certain that Bart's thermal is Justin taking a leak? That wouldn't even qualify for a newbie commenter on FB. Is that seriously the best you can do? Of course you wouldn't have something to offer the thread that is legit. It's just more of your trolling. Carry on lamer.

"lamer"? Name calling now? Tsk, tsk.

Aw, c'mon, that's not gonna fly. Can't blame you for tryin' though.