Thoughts As To Why Bigfoot Isn't Caught On Game Cams

[Guest Nalajr]

I don't think there are very many people who know what an Ivory Billed Woodpecker is. I can just about guarantee you that if a hunter put out a trailcam and then went to check his images if he did catch an image of that woodpecker he would simply go right on by it without even so much as slowing down. There could be hundreds of images of the Ivory Billed Woodpecker that have been captured, viewed and summarily deleted without the person even caring. Much different than someone capturing an image of a Sassy. They would know immediately what that was and it would be on national news within the day.

As for comparing the search for Sassy to the search for the Giant Squid, exploring the deep ocean waters is vastly more difficult than exploring the terrestrial environment. You have to have expensive equipment and gear to explore the ocean. To search for Sassy all one needs to do is walk out their door and drive to a location of purported sightings with a digital camera or video cam and start looking. Last time I checked there were no TV shows paying people to try and find a Giant Squid like there have been for Sassy. How many shows have been on about looking or searching for Sassy? I would wager that if you added up the money and manpower than has been expended over the last 45 years looking for Sassy it would dwarf what was spent on SUCCESSFULLY finding a Giant Squid. Wouldn't be too easy to get funding to go and look for a squid in the deep ocean. The people looking for Sassy would easily be 10,000 to 1 of those that looked for the Squid.

When you take all the people and gear involved in trying to prove Sassy is out there, for the length of time that they have been at it, it just doesn't add up that not a single decent image or verifiable bit of evidence has ever been produced, by ANYONE. With all the hunters and trailcams out there it just stands to reason that sooner or later one of them would get an image of a Sassy.

DOGS..DOGS...DOGS...

So dogs have been used for hundreds of years to track the meanest and nastiest critters on this planet, but they get one whiff of a Sassy track and they head for the dog box in the back of the truck? Maybe some dog did that or didn't want to track, but there are dogs out there that could and would easily track a Sassy if they were put on the track and were trained.

I want to believe in Sassy, I really do, but the longer this stuff goes on without anything PROVING it is real the less and less I am believing it will ever happen. If there is DNA evidence out there then the people who know about it should tell it. Forget about a useless piece of paper that is a Non-Disclosure agreement. Does Ketchum have the money to march into court, prove damages and litigate for a few years over Sassy? That NDA isn't worth the paper it's printed on. It's a joke. To think that there are responsible people that actually KNOW of definitive evidence and are refusing to say anything because of a threat from a veterinarian that is supposedly writing a paper that no one has ever seen or can't name the journal that it has been submitted to, is just insulting. If they cared so much about Sassy, as Ketchum claims to, why wouldn't they want Sassy protected by the states, the federal government? I know that would be my first destination if I had proof. I would go into the Dept. of the Interior and say "hey look what I have, here is material that you can test yourself, Sassy is REAL and measures have to be taken right now to protect these things before word gets out and the woods are swarmed with people trying to get a Sassy head on their wall." This whole Ketchum fiasco is nothing but a hoax on the Sassy community and people that love the idea that there is something out there, just a way to get money out of your wallet. Peer review paper...yeah whatever. How long have you all been hearing the paper is right around the corner or is in review? Way past time to move on and put this Ketchum hoax in the rear view mirror.

Nalajr

[Guest RedRatSnake]

Welcome to Bigfooting, Take a deep breath and a big swig of what ever you like to drink, sit down and take a moment to let it flow threw your veins.

Now ~ remember in life for every point there is a counter point, the same rule applies here and to some degree a bit more, the best you will be able to do is chip away one strike at a time and work your way along the maze of information and misinformation, if you can do that then at some point ( who knows how long ) you will reasonably understand that there is no way in hell what ever side you take will make any difference at any time.

Simple as that.

Tim

[gigantor]

I don't think there are very many people who know what an Ivory Billed Woodpecker is.

Hi Nalajr, welcome to the BFF rookie.

I know what an Ivory Billed Woodpecker is, and also know about the millions of dollars wasted trying to find one.

To search for Sassy all one needs to do is walk out their door and drive to a location of purported sightings with a digital camera or video cam and start looking.

So go at it!

Go out there and utilize your extraordinary mental/outdoor abilities and get us dummies a verifiable video, it's not that difficult... just "walk out your door and drive to a location of purported sightings with a digital camera or video cam and start looking".

I breathlessly await the unquestionable evidence you will surely acquire in short order, now that you are on the case.

Please let us know ASAP when you get the evidence, I will refresh this thread four times daily. I can't wait!!!

Edited December 16, 2011 by gigantor

[Guest]

I'm not sure how Dr. Ketchum protecting her contracts is threatening. That's some shakey ground 'fer sure.

Thanks,

Grayjay

[southernyahoo]

I don't think there are very many people who know what an Ivory Billed Woodpecker is. I can just about guarantee you that if a hunter put out a trailcam and then went to check his images if he did catch an image of that woodpecker he would simply go right on by it without even so much as slowing down. There could be hundreds of images of the Ivory Billed Woodpecker that have been captured, viewed and summarily deleted without the person even caring. Much different than someone capturing an image of a Sassy. They would know immediately what that was and it would be on national news within the day.

People don't believe in pictures of bigfoot. Case in point, Patterson goes looking for a bigfoot,sees a bigfoot, knows it's a bigfoot, and gets a film of it, but people see a guy in a suit.

As for comparing the search for Sassy to the search for the Giant Squid, exploring the deep ocean waters is vastly more difficult than exploring the terrestrial environment. You have to have expensive equipment and gear to explore the ocean. To search for Sassy all one needs to do is walk out their door and drive to a location of purported sightings with a digital camera or video cam and start looking.

Yep, thats what Patterson did.

Last time I checked there were no TV shows paying people to try and find a Giant Squid like there have been for Sassy.

Wait a minute, Monsterquest did episodes for both I think, did they not pay the Squid guys? How much did they pay the Sassy guys?

How many shows have been on about looking or searching for Sassy?

Many shows "about " looking, not so many actually funding a serious search. The "show" isn't a serious search.

I would wager that if you added up the money and manpower than has been expended over the last 45 years looking for Sassy it would dwarf what was spent on SUCCESSFULLY finding a Giant Squid. Wouldn't be too easy to get funding to go and look for a squid in the deep ocean.

I don't know about that, there seems to be lots of "funds" doing deep sea research, They aren't all about finding new creatures but there are some, which have found all sorts of strange fish and the like.

The people looking for Sassy would easily be 10,000 to 1 of those that looked for the Squid.

A squid isn't a hominid, apples and steak comparison.

When you take all the people and gear involved in trying to prove Sassy is out there, for the length of time that they have been at it, it just doesn't add up that not a single decent image or verifiable bit of evidence has ever been produced, by ANYONE.

You might want to qualify the word verifiable to describe evidence, evidence can be verified to be evidence even if it is not proof ....yet. Did you mean proof, or is this bait?

With all the hunters and trailcams out there it just stands to reason that sooner or later one of them would get an image of a Sassy.

Maybe some people have, but since other people can't just believe a picture, they are worthless without some kind of proof....... you know..... to verify them.

So dogs have been used for hundreds of years to track the meanest and nastiest critters on this planet, but they get one whiff of a Sassy track and they head for the dog box in the back of the truck? Maybe some dog did that or didn't want to track, but there are dogs out there that could and would easily track a Sassy if they were put on the track and were trained.

Dogs would just run them off, and make them harder to catch.

I want to believe in Sassy, I really do, but the longer this stuff goes on without anything PROVING it is real the less and less I am believing it will ever happen. If there is DNA evidence out there then the people who know about it should tell it.

They could tell it, but that would just be an anecdote, not proof.

Forget about a useless piece of paper that is a Non-Disclosure agreement. Does Ketchum have the money to march into court, prove damages and litigate for a few years over Sassy? That NDA isn't worth the paper it's printed on. It's a joke.

There is no purpose in violating the NDA without the DNA verified.

To think that there are responsible people that actually KNOW of definitive evidence and are refusing to say anything because of a threat from a veterinarian that is supposedly writing a paper that no one has ever seen or can't name the journal that it has been submitted to, is just insulting.

The Journal won't publish if there is no "exclusive" on the data.

If they cared so much about Sassy, as Ketchum claims to, why wouldn't they want Sassy protected by the states, the federal government? I know that would be my first destination if I had proof.

It's not proof until it is verfied as proof through peer review. You couldn't do the quote below with the cart in front of the horse.

I would go into the Dept. of the Interior and say "hey look what I have, here is material that you can test yourself, Sassy is REAL and measures have to be taken right now to protect these things before word gets out and the woods are swarmed with people trying to get a Sassy head on their wall.

Edited December 16, 2011 by southernyahoo

[Guest Nalajr]

I know that no minds are going to be changed by banter on an internet forum.

As for the woodpecker, I am speaking of hunters that are the vast majority of those that use trail cams in the first place. I have never once seen or heard of a hunter bragging about a bird or a woodpecker they caught on a trail cam or seen while out scouting or hunting. Not to say that there aren't many of them out there, but I think if they captured an Ivory Billed Woodpecker on their cam and KNEW what it was, why would they not go to the DNR of the state they were in and say "hey, I think I caught a pic of a rare, thought to be extinct woodpecker and I think you should take a look at it." The hunters that I know and am familiar with would immediately go and report such a tremendous find just like they would if they were in Ohio and caught a pic of a wild Eastern Cougar that is also said to be extinct from the eastern US since the 30's. A few DNR guys I talked to back home told me they get a couple of calls a week from people claiming that they spotted a cougar. The point is that if someone KNEW they captured a readily identifiable pic of a rare bird or mammal, they would tell about it and make sure the state knew what was going on.

Gigantor, maybe you misunderstood the point I was trying to make. Maybe my language was not specific or artful enough to get my meaning across. I was NOT saying that it would be easy to find a Sassy, obviously it isn't, I was making the point on how easy it is to search the terrestrial habitat compared to the ocean. You do not need to expend vast sums of money to explore the northern woods of California. Putting together an expedition to look for a sea creature that you have no idea where it is or when it will be there is a wholly different proposition entirely. That kind of project requires LOTS and LOTS of money and specially trained personnel both of which are NOT required to look for Sassy. I wish I could go out and bring back evidence. I would do it in a heartbeat and end all this speculation once and for all.

I believe that a reputable pic or video of a Sassy would convince some in the scientific community to take another look at what may be out there. The scientific world jumped on the Orang Pendak bandwagon pretty darn fast with much less. They are going on the sighting by one of their colleagues that claimed she seen it. No video, no pics, no nothing and a lot of scientists believe OP is out there. You gotta admit that despite the video, Patterson brought a lot of baggage to the table that lead a great many people to dismiss his video almost immediately. In the end a pic or video ain't gonna do it. There has to be a body or at the minimum DNA.

Ketchum is not just protecting her contacts. She has made people pull stuff from their websites, barred them from talking about anything, fired people that worked with her and so on. This is from people that CLAIM to be so interested in PROTECTING SASSY and yet they have the purported evidence that will prove the existence and they do nothing until their pockets are lined? All the stuff she has done is to protect the profitability of her "project," that's it. What is the purpose of having a paper in a journal anyway? What would that accomplish that some of the top wildlife DNA labs in the world couldn't do? Are you all saying that a published paper in a journal that NO ONE can even name would carry more weight with the scientific community than positive DNA results from someplace like Ohio State, UCLA, Stanford, Harvard or Texas A&M? If that is the claim, I am going to have to respectfully disagree.

nalajr

[Guest BFSleuth]

You do not need to expend vast sums of money to explore the northern woods of California. Putting together an expedition to look for a sea creature that you have no idea where it is or when it will be there is a wholly different proposition entirely. That kind of project requires LOTS and LOTS of money and specially trained personnel both of which are NOT required to look for Sassy.

Ketchum is not just protecting her contacts. She has made people pull stuff from their websites, barred them from talking about anything, fired people that worked with her and so on. This is from people that CLAIM to be so interested in PROTECTING SASSY and yet they have the purported evidence that will prove the existence and they do nothing until their pockets are lined? All the stuff she has done is to protect the profitability of her "project," that's it. What is the purpose of having a paper in a journal anyway? What would that accomplish that some of the top wildlife DNA labs in the world couldn't do? Are you all saying that a published paper in a journal that NO ONE can even name would carry more weight with the scientific community than positive DNA results from someplace like Ohio State, UCLA, Stanford, Harvard or Texas A&M? If that is the claim, I am going to have to respectfully disagree.

Re : Relative ease of searching for terrestrial creatures

Perhaps you need to get outdoors... go drive to a trailhead near Marblemount, then figure out how you are going to search thousands of square miles of VERY DIFFICULT terrain... no, not just the trails, go waaayyy back in to untracked areas, cliffs, etc. Now, sustain that effort for, what did you say it took that Japanese guy to find the giant squid, a month? Go ahead, go off trail for a month, then come back and tell us how easy that was. Oh, and carry all the research gear, food, etc. etc. Should be real cheap and easy, right?

Re : Ketchum, journal publication, etc.

Perhaps you need to do a little more reading about the requirements for journal publication and why they bar submissions from blasting their results to the world before publication. Are you saying that DNA results from a major university would be just as good or better, and if so how are they going to publish it (oh... right, publish it as in a JOURNAL).

Naj, do some reading first. It really helps.

[southernyahoo]

Ketchum is not just protecting her contacts. She has made people pull stuff from their websites, barred them from talking about anything, fired people that worked with her and so on. This is from people that CLAIM to be so interested in PROTECTING SASSY and yet they have the purported evidence that will prove the existence and they do nothing until their pockets are lined? All the stuff she has done is to protect the profitability of her "project," that's it. What is the purpose of having a paper in a journal anyway? What would that accomplish that some of the top wildlife DNA labs in the world couldn't do? Are you all saying that a published paper in a journal that NO ONE can even name would carry more weight with the scientific community than positive DNA results from someplace like Ohio State, UCLA, Stanford, Harvard or Texas A&M? If that is the claim, I am going to have to respectfully disagree.

nalajr

nalajr, Since Dr. Ketchum is the first scientist I've heard of to assemble such a comprehensive study of suspected BF biological samples from across the country, and has put her reputation on the line , along with the future viability of her DNA diagnostics lab, I intend to give this it's due benefit of the doubt. Oh, and you don't know that other University Lab/ DNA experts aren't involved, Dr. Ketchum has said their are other coauthors in the paper, so pinning all the Data on one person isn't going to happen.

[Guest RedRatSnake]

Since Dr. Ketchum is the first scientist I've heard of to assemble such a comprehensive study of suspected BF biological samples from across the country, and has put her reputation on the line

I don't think anything bad will happen to her or the lab if this falls through, who is going to know she was involved in BF research, the few thousand folks that follow it? DR Meldrum is doing ok after all his year's of research into it, she is just on a personal quest and if it taks a big dump then it's work as usual.

Tim

[Guest slimwitless]

Oh, and you don't know that other University Lab/ DNA experts aren't involved, Dr. Ketchum has said their are other coauthors in the paper, so pinning all the Data on one person isn't going to happen.

I think Paulides and others have suggested there are multiple PhDs on the project. What I find interesting is Ketchum's "we have assembled a renowned team" comment. The word "renown" suggests people famous in their respective fields. Hopefully that's not hyperbole.

[Guest]

Nalajr said:

"I would say that the reason there are no Ivory Billed Woodpeckers caught on trail cams is because the people that put trail cams up are not interested in capturing WOODPECKERS. They are positioned so that they capture creatures on the GROUND. I have never heard of someone pointing a trail cam up into the trees to capture a bird.

I would just about guarantee you that if there were a hunting season for the Ivory Billed Woodpecker or a reward placed on getting pics of one, hunters and outdoorsmen would find a way to get pics of one if they exist."

Many trail cams are positioned in trees aimed basically parallel the ground from chest height, to many feet up to avoid underbrush. Within the field of view of these cameras are often other tree trunks..........perfect places to photograph woodpeckers ( and squirrels, raccoons, possums, marten, etc) That people aren't producing evidence of a rare bird with those cams deployed in suitable habitat helps show the immensity of the task to photograph an extremely rare specimen. If that same specimen is smarter than a woodpecker, then the task gets tougher!

The ivory-billed woodpecker was a specialist feeder on insects that infested dead trees. Most camera traps aren't likely aimed at these sorts of tree trunks. The vast majority of tree trunks around today are quite alive. Probably the main reason the IBW went extinct was due to loss of habitat as the forests of the eastern US were cut down almost completely. If there are any still alive they would not likely be found on these cameras. I think the lack of bigfoot photos may be due to the cameras being in the wrong place. Perhaps they should be deeper in the forests and along waterways.

[Guest peter]

DOGS..DOGS...DOGS...

So dogs have been used for hundreds of years to track the meanest and nastiest critters on this planet, but they get one whiff of a Sassy track and they head for the dog box in the back of the truck?

Yeah that would be my thought also except that I had something similar happen to me while out hunting with my dog.

I only caught a glimpse of them leaving a brush pile because my dog (who was out in front of me about 40 yards working the cover) stopped in mid stride and sprinted back and hid behind me, it was when I looked into the woods about 100 yards away that I saw something moving away. I never considered what happened to be BF until I saw the Jacobs photos because what I saw was black shaggy and leggy moving on all fours about 3' high and 4' long.

I've never had a dog get spooked like that before or since but I can't say for sure what I really saw.

[Guest HucksterFoot]

Perhaps they should be deeper in the forests and along waterways.

Do sighting reports occur deep in the forests? Though, getting off the well trodden trails is not a bad idea.

http://texasbigfoot.com/index.php/our-research/projects/115-operation-forest-vigil

The ivory-billed woodpecker was a specialist feeder on insects that infested dead trees. Most camera traps aren't likely aimed at these sorts of tree trunks.

Then again, these birds wouldn't just be found on dead trees.

To add: If you do walk 2 miles into the forest and set up a cam in a small clearing; remember to turn it on. :]

[Guest WesT]

Maybe they have been and the owners just choose not to release them for public viewing.

I know this for a fact! And I don't feel right about posting someone else's pics on a public forum, copyrighted or not. Privately is another story.....

[Guest RedRatSnake]

I would love to see a good BF pic, please PM me.

Tim