Losing The Faith....

[Guest shelley7950]

Well, first of all let me say that I desperately want to believe in Bigfoot, and of all the cryptids I think BF is the most likely to turn out to be a real animal...

But...the more I lurk on various forums and watch various reality TV shows, the more I find my belief wavering. Last night, for example, I watched a PBS show on wolverines, called "Woverines: Chasing Phantoms"...it was fascinating and showed how a tiny group of dedicated researchers were able to track this relatively small (30-40#) carnivore through some of the most remote and challenging wilderness in the world...these animals are spread thin in the landscape (with territories of 500 miles or more) and are constantly on the move, travelling miles every day. One researcher admitted that in 20 years of study she'd actually only seen living wolverines 4 times...And yet, there was still plenty of evidence to base studies on---there were footprints, scat and hair samples for DNA, kill/scavenge sites, game cam photos, den sites, etc. etc.

So why is it that a tiny group of researchers are able to find plenty of evidence for such a small, scarce, and elusive animal in thousands of miles of remote and difficult terrain, and yet no one seems to be able to come up with a shred of solid physical evidence (DNA, confirmed hair or scat sample, clear photo)of a huge North American ape that, according to reports, is spread across most of the lower 48 States and is allegedly frequently seen strolling through people's back yards and along the roadside??? Anyone? Seriously, I'm getting depressed...

And thanks for any response...enjoy this site.

[Guest River]

This is an excellent post. Thank you for sharing it. I think critical thinking skills should come into play and make people think. Why is there none of these types of evidence, nor a cataloged specimen of such a large reported animal? It is reportedly seen often enough, and in conditions that are less than remote even.

I think folks should ask why there is so much proof of such a small and elusive, rare animal and not the same for a reportedly very large hairy primate 7-12 feet tall. Surely an animal of this reported size would leave traces of its existence. (something viable, and verifiable as to the source)

Edited November 17, 2010 by River

[southernyahoo]

I think there are a few good reasons why the evidence hasn't been confirmed.

1. Research in the states is very focused , evidence of anything other than the target species of a study could easily be ignored.

2. When inconclusive test results occur, incorrest assumptions can be made.

3. Our skepticism doesn't allow us to accept something we can't experience first hand, which places a very high bar on the evidence.

[Huntster]

...I watched a PBS show on wolverines, called "Woverines: Chasing Phantoms"...it was fascinating and showed how a tiny group of dedicated researchers were able to track this relatively small (30-40#) carnivore through some of the most remote and challenging wilderness in the world...these animals are spread thin in the landscape (with territories of 500 miles or more) and are constantly on the move, travelling miles every day. One researcher admitted that in 20 years of study she'd actually only seen living wolverines 4 times...And yet, there was still plenty of evidence to base studies on---there were footprints, scat and hair samples for DNA, kill/scavenge sites, game cam photos, den sites, etc. etc.

So why is it that a tiny group of researchers are able to find plenty of evidence for such a small, scarce, and elusive animal in thousands of miles of remote and difficult terrain, and yet no one seems to be able to come up with a shred of solid physical evidence (DNA, confirmed hair or scat sample, clear photo)of a huge North American ape that, according to reports, is spread across most of the lower 48 States and is allegedly frequently seen strolling through people's back yards and along the roadside???

1) There are even fewer sasquatches than there are wolverines

2) There are fewer sasquatch researchers than there are wolverine researchers

3) Wolverine researchers are better funded than sasquatch researchers

4) Very few of the few sasquatch researchers ever even spend much time in the field, and even fewer spend "20 years of study", and fewer yet in prime habitat

5) More is confirmed regarding wolverine habitat, so the researchers are actually searching in the best habitat

6) Wolverine habitat is easier to conduct research in than sasquatch habitat

[Guest Lesmore]

Shelley I share your views on Bigfoot.

I would like to believe in it and at one time...back in the late 60's, early 70's..did....but as you say there is little, if any evidence to confirm belief.

In my province...Grizzly Bears, Cougars are extremely rare. Cougars are elusive. But there have been sightings and actual bodies of both animals, as a result of being shot.

Wolverines aren't as rare up here in the Northern Boreal Forests...but still very uncommon and seldom sighted...but there are sightings, there are Wolverines caught in trappers' traps.

At this point after more than 40 years...I want to believe....I think there's a very slim possibility...but I have to admit, it doesn't look too likely, does it.

Les

Edited November 17, 2010 by Lesmore

[indiefoot]

We have wolverines in captivity to compare evidence found in the field to. That's a pretty big advantage. Lots of suspected Sasquatch evidence has been recovered, it just can't be verified.

[masterbarber]

So why is it that a tiny group of researchers are able to find plenty of evidence for such a small, scarce, and elusive animal in thousands of miles of remote and difficult terrain, and yet no one seems to be able to come up with a shred of solid physical evidence (DNA, confirmed hair or scat sample, clear photo)of a huge North American ape that, according to reports, is spread across most of the lower 48 States and is allegedly frequently seen strolling through people's back yards and along the roadside??? Anyone? Seriously, I'm getting depressed...

And thanks for any response...enjoy this site.

Because Bigfoot defies conventional wisdom.

[Guest]

Seriously, I'm getting depressed...

Don't let it get you down, concentrate instead on how much you've grown by learning all that cool stuff about wolverines!

[Huntster]

Because Bigfoot defies conventional wisdom.

Conventional:

–adjective

1. conforming or adhering to accepted standards, as of conduct or taste: conventional behavior.

2. pertaining to convention or general agreement; established by general consent or accepted usage; arbitrarily determined: conventional symbols.

3. ordinary rather than different or original: conventional phraseology.

4. not using, making, or involving nuclear weapons or energy; nonnuclear: conventional warfare.

Wisdom:

–noun

1. the quality or state of being wise; knowledge of what is true or right coupled with just judgment as to action; sagacity, discernment, or insight.

2. scholarly knowledge or learning: the wisdom of the schools.

3. wise sayings or teachings; precepts.

4. a wise act or saying.

Actually, I think bigfoot defies the conventional convenience of the elite among science who consider themselves as wise, because the wise thing to do would actually be to look into the matter, not ignore it.

[masterbarber]

Well heck, maybe we can get Sask and Meldrum together to go on a hunt. Two scientists are better than one.

Edited November 17, 2010 by masterbarber

[Guest River]

Well heck, maybe we can get Sask and Meldrum together to go on a hunt.

If it's a funded hunt - don't leave out River and Huntster.

[masterbarber]

He sent me a text, he's only coming out for Sask and Meldrum

[Guest shelley7950]

Thanks for trying to cheer me up guys....

Huntster, I would have to take issue with a couple of your points..

#2) There are fewer BF researchers...It would depend on how you define "researcher"...if you define it as "people out in the habitat specifically looking for a particular species" then I would have to disagree--there are way more people looking for BF than looking for wolverines...on the other hand, if you define it as "accredited biologists with university connections" then you're correct, there are fewer researchers looking for BF...

#3)More funding...According to the program this particular project lost funding, but the individuals involved continued working on their own...I don't know if that means they lost State or Federal funding but kept university funding or not....but the point is, wolverines are not "sexy" and funding is hard to find and keep...I'm unaware of any funding for BF--but I think you probably need to have an animal that's proven to exist before you get funding to study it..

And Indiefoot...I'm not clear how having an animal in captivity is helpful...it can verify DNA, but I would think a clear "unknown primate" finding would work just fine, even with nothing to compare it to...and obviously if we had a BF in captivity, all the other evidence would just be icing on cake---we'd have the clearest proof possible of the animal's existence

[Guest shelley7950]

And thanks----I DID learn cool stuff about wolverines...not the least of which is their scientific name is Gulo gulo (literally "glutton glutton")....HA!

[Guest]

Just 5 days ago I was in the mountains of NE Oregon on my annual elk hunt. On the last day of the trip, I was down in 'the hole', a decent valley that is pretty **** thick once you are within its perimeter. Sylvanic it is not however. lol We hadn't seen any elk for several days, then I was able to confirm why when I tracked a cougar for the last quarter mile. I had my handgun at the ready too and got one whiff of musk that set me on alert. Oh and when there is a cougar in an area, the elk move out. Interestingly deer tend to stick around more, but they take less chances. A reality proven and tested for me through many years of hunting the same area. Was within a hundred yards of a cat bust open a heard of deer two years ago. Talk about chaos. Oh and I have had one visual and two non visual sasquatch encounters over the last decade and a half in the same area. The last few sentences aren't the main focus of my post.

I'll never know what it is like to 'lose faith' in sasquatch' existence. Seen too many for that to EVER happen. I once had a person try to talk me out of their existence in another forum, and many in the old bff weren't much more open minded. So far I don't feel the new bff is as detrimentally vexatious to shoot down those who share their experiences. That is a good thing. Unfortunately the back-n-forth debating prevents some forward movement, but in some ways that's a good thing as it demonstrates where the paradigm rests. But paradigms move and that can't be stopped. The old school 'giant ape' thinking is slowly evolving away. Krantz was wrong about Giganto, and I've even had the pleasure of speaking with him in the past. The paradigm is changing. It was also very unwise to share an encounter in the old bff, and that WAS harmful to progress. Even talking about it is a good thing. Many in the field had chosen to not be part of forums because forums became something less than investigative of a mystery. Why subject oneself to the onslaught from those who have never had an encounter themselves and wanted to only 'disprove' their existence because the witness didn't have a piece of bigfoot's finger to prove his story? That doesn't make people's claims false. No doubt many here will never know what its like to see one too. Those truly interested attempt to live vicariously through those who demonstrate their sincerity in retelling of their encounters. Many live in big cities and can't experience what its like any more then that. Everyone should be patient with those on opposite sides of the paradigm. This is a large paradigmnal mass were slowly moving forward with respect to bigfoot's existence. (OK, 'paradigmnal' may not be an actual word, but it should be. I wish you could share every aspect I've seen/felt in vivid lifelike detail, but I can't. Few can and thus the world isn't yet sold on their existence, but much of the world is and they should be the focus too.

Shelley, the main point I wanted to make about the cougar tracks is that those tracks are good enough evidence to know there was a cougar present and that cougar are real. So with all these REAL bigfoot tracks (and sightings) that have been documented over the decades, why aren't they good enough to validate that there IS something out there? No maybe they won't convince the majority of people who have never even seen a track close up, but for those who have, well it should at least provide the needed lay person his/her validation. Anyone here should also be able to see a good cast if you want to. There are plenty in existence in your area and most people will show you if asked. Oh and I've yet to watch the wolverine episode myself. Taped it and just waiting for time. Did see where the guy was playing with the two wolverines, that was great.

Edited November 17, 2010 by PragmaticTheorist