Losing The Faith....

[Guest]

Why do you believe they are dying out Huntster?

Is it just the long dark arc of species fade that's probably been going on for a few (or twenty) thousand years, or a more focused extinction that dates from the "modern" encroachment?.

I get curious about this kinda stuff.

I mean, genetic isolation can really be rough on long term survival. Is that what you are saying? Or like a habitat type deal? It's gotta be rough on any species that puts a lot of energy into long term care of young. Whales or dolphins don't come back from extreme events all that quickly....

I'm just wondering if you are thinking of that kind of extreme event, and if it is us.

[Huntster]

Why do you believe they are dying out Huntster?

First, because we don't have enough of them to be seen as frequently as, say, wolverines, brown bears, or wolves. All those animals are somewhat rarely seen by most, but they are seen regularly, have been harvested in abundance, and are established species. In order for sasquatches not to be seen regularly, been harvested in abundance, or be an established species, they would likely be much more rare than wolverines, brown bears, and wolves.

Secondly, if that rare all along (and still that rare, despite the fact that man has overwhelmed the planet like never before), they must be getting more and more rare.

Thirdly, there has to be a minimum population for the species to maintain its numbers. I believe this species has not maintained a breeding minimum, and has (is) gone extinct in most of it's original range.

Is it just the long dark arc of species fade that's probably been going on for a few (or twenty) thousand years, or a more focused extinction that dates from the "modern" encroachment?.

I think it's likely both.

[Guest]

And we can see that you lost yours. All that will do will be proof.

Now you can either go out and get it yourself (good luck), you can wait with the faithful, or you can blow with the wind.

How old were you then? Ten? Cause that's pretty naive. How can there be any "experts" in something that hasn't even been proven?

However, I'll give Dr. Meldrum more "authority" than the average Jose' off the street. Why? Because the man has studied the subject more than most, conducted his own searches, is a biologist, etc, etc, etc.

And we can see that you lost yours. All that will do will be proof.

Lost faith in Bigfoot? Nope. Fanboy Bigfooters? You bet.

Now you can either go out and get it yourself (good luck), you can wait with the faithful, or you can blow with the wind.

I tend to try to go out and get it myself. You can wait with the faithful and blow with the wind.

How old were you then? Ten? Cause that's pretty naive.

I was 42 and naive about Bigfootery yes.

How can there be any "experts" in something that hasn't even been proven?

My point exactly.

However, I'll give Dr. Meldrum more "authority" than the average Jose' off the street.

DUH

Why? Because the man has studied the subject more than most,

So has Bill Green.

conducted his own searches,

So has Bill Green in the woods behind his apartment and he has found the same amount of tangible evidence.

is a biologist, etc, etc, etc.

Well OK, Dr Meldrum has Bill beaten on the Biologist and etc's.

Edited November 23, 2010 by JohnCartwright

[Guest]

I don't know Huntster..I see both sides of the debate here.

On the one hand I agree, something that big should be seen with more frequency. However I also agree that the community as a whole only gets about 10% (if that) of the actual sightings of these creatures. With the increase of media throwing bias reporters at Bigfoot, (for example Jeannie Moos on CNN, saying the guy from SC sounded drunk. Perhaps he was, but years ago media would not allow that to be stated on the air, only if they had proof. So in essence they allowed an opinion in the report. Slurred speech is a sign of intoxication, but not proof. Please do not take that last statement as an endorsement of the SC sighting either. )

To me if sightings dramatically drop off to almost nil across the board, then its really time to worry. (I've seen no drop in sighting reports I get on a yearly basis, and actually it was a bit higher, this year, even with the baloney weeded out.)

For now, I think we have to keep on, keeping on!

Great topic.

[Huntster]

And we can see that you lost yours. All that will do will be proof.

Lost faith in Bigfoot? Nope. Fanboy Bigfooters? You bet.

What is a "fanboy"? Considering you are apparently a "member" of the Sasquatch Watch of Virginia, does that make you a "fan"?

Now you can either go out and get it yourself (good luck), you can wait with the faithful, or you can blow with the wind.

I tend to try to go out and get it myself. You can wait with the faithful and blow with the wind.

I'll wait with the faithful. I don't blow with the wind. I strongly believe that sasquatches exist or recently existed because I saw good sign myself.

I was 42 and naive about Bigfootery yes.

How can there be any "experts" in something that hasn't even been proven?

My point exactly.

Realized rather late.

[Huntster]

However, I'll give Dr. Meldrum more "authority" than the average Jose' off the street.

DUH

Why? Because the man has studied the subject more than most,

So has Bill Green.

And that means what? Now are you moving your derision from Meldrum to Bill Green?

conducted his own searches,

So has Bill Green in the woods behind his apartment and he has found the same amount of tangible evidence.

I see. You are simply including Bill in your derision.

is a biologist, etc, etc, etc.

Well OK, Dr Meldrum has Bill beaten on the Biologist and ect's.

I think I'll leave this alone now. You've made yourself abundantly clear.

[Huntster]

I don't know Huntster..I see both sides of the debate here.

On the one hand I agree, something that big should be seen with more frequency. However I also agree that the community as a whole only gets about 10% (if that) of the actual sightings of these creatures.

I'm not so sure of the 10% figure, but I'll agree that many sightings/evidence are likely never reported.

With the increase of media throwing bias reporters at Bigfoot, (for example Jeannie Moos on CNN, saying the guy from SC sounded drunk. Perhaps he was, but years ago media would not allow that to be stated on the air, only if they had proof. So in essence they allowed an opinion in the report. Slurred speech is a sign of intoxication, but not proof. Please do not take that last statement as an endorsement of the SC sighting either. )

I think it can also be argued that media exposure to sasquatch (Harry & the Hendersons, the beef jerky commercials, etc) also motivates manufactured reports as well as contributing to misidentifications.

To me if sightings dramatically drop off to almost nil across the board, then its really time to worry.

I say that then it is clearly too late.

For now, I think we have to keep on, keeping on!

Oh, definately. Indeed, now is the time to really get with it in case I'm correct, because soon it might very well be too late.

Edited November 23, 2010 by Huntster

[Guest]

Huntster,

I will say this, and by no means is this a knock to Dr. Meldrum. However he is an expert in a particular field. And while that gives him some academic accolades amongst the community, he has to rely on fact, on his findings. His particular study is that of anatomy. So if something needs anatomical analysis then he's the expert.

If the good Dr. gives his opinion on other matters, it weighs just as evenly with the rest of the playing field. TV specials like using skeptics with Ph.D's to "poo - poo" things, yet they have no field experience, never have been on an expedition looking for the animal. But are they really experts, because they're espousing opinion, from their academic background without scientific experimentation to coincide with said opinion?

As far as the semantics of the word expert:

Definition: Expert - An expert, more generally, is a person with extensive knowledge or ability based on research, experience, or occupation and in a particular area of study. An expert can be, by virtue of credential, training, education, profession, publication or experience, believed to have special knowledge of a subject beyond that of the average person.

Authority- an individual cited or appealed to as an expert

It's all just semantics.

Edited November 23, 2010 by Squatchdetective

[Guest]

What is a "fanboy"? Considering you are apparently a "member" of the Sasquatch Watch of Virginia, does that make you a "fan"?

I'll wait with the faithful. I don't blow with the wind. I strongly believe that sasquatches exist or recently existed because I saw good sign myself.

Realized rather late.

Absolutely not

I also saw a good sign.

I hate when that happens.

If you equate facts to derision, then there is really nothing I can do to soften the blows.

[Huntster]

It's all just semantics.

Words have meaning.

While I agree that there are no experts in sasquatchery, I'll also claim that some know much more than others, and Dr. Meldrum (IMHO) is one of those people. He has taken the Krantz position and strengthened it.

[Guest]

Huntster,

Have you ever met Dr. Meldrum or sat down and had lunch with him? Have you looked him in the eye and had a personal conversation with him? What type of a man do you think he is? He is a smart, honest man trying his best to solve a mystery. He does not care what we talk about here, and why should he? He does not care who agrees or disagrees with his theories. He did not come up with the name "the world's foremost authority on Bigfoot", the writer for that Nat geo program did. I have no personal animosity for him when I question his theories and research methods.

[Huntster]

Huntster,

Have you ever met Dr. Meldrum or sat down and had lunch with him? Have you looked him in the eye and had a personal conversation with him?

Nope. Never met the Pope or President, either.

What type of a man do you think he is?

He is a biologist and associate university professor. I have no idea what his character is like, nor do I know of his closet skeletons, or when he stopped beating his wife.

He is a smart, honest man trying his best to solve a mystery. He does not care what we talk about here, and why should he?

That was really close to my impression. He posted just a few times on the original BFF, and to my knowledge, has not bothered at all with the Forum of Extraordinary Intelligence, otherwise known as the JREF forum.

He does not care who agrees or disagrees with his theories.

In addition to being smart, he must be very wise, as well.

He did not come up with the name "the world's foremost authority on Bigfoot"

Nor did I describe him as such.

the writer for that Nat geo program did.

And that is an illustratiojn of why I distrust the mass media.

I have no personal animosity for him when I question his theories and research methods.

I believe you.

Edited November 23, 2010 by Huntster

[Guest]

First, because we don't have enough of them to be seen as frequently as, say, wolverines, brown bears, or wolves. All those animals are somewhat rarely seen by most, but they are seen regularly, have been harvested in abundance, and are established species. In order for sasquatches not to be seen regularly, been harvested in abundance, or be an established species, they would likely be much more rare than wolverines, brown bears, and wolves.

Secondly, if that rare all along (and still that rare, despite the fact that man has overwhelmed the planet like never before), they must be getting more and more rare.

Thirdly, there has to be a minimum population for the species to maintain its numbers. I believe this species has not maintained a breeding minimum, and has (is) gone extinct in most of it's original range.

Huntster, you do realize, they aren't just some randomly wandering animal like wolverines, brown bears, or wolves right? I mean, they ACTIVELY hide from us like no other species on earth does. So right there is a major factor in report numbers. If they were just some wild ape, then one would be able to more easily apply the happenstance sighting method to them, but that REALLY isn't the case.

Then there is the point that to have a sighting, you have to have people present to make them. Here's a slice of one part of the country to empathize just how slim those odds are. Here's a map of Oregon. http://geology.com/satellite/oregon-satellite-image.shtml You see that green strip one third from the left of the map? The consists of mostly forested area that extends from the northern to southern border of the state. That is the Cascade Range. A very sparsely populated section of the state extending 200 miles north/south and about 80 miles east/west. That area alone computes to about SIXTEEN THOUSAND SQUARE MILES. In this area are very few large communities, a few highways with homes & smaller communities along them, and countless logging roads that have very little human traffic. In a dense Oregon forest, you can generally see little more then 100' through corridors if you are lucky, but most of the time your vision is much much less. They can hide any time they want.

Within Oregon Wilderness totals 2.3 million acres too. That's a lot of land where no roads at all exist and where people mostly stay on very limited trail systems during nicer weather. During the Winter you have very few people there. Once again, very small arteries where we occasionally cross paths. Bottom line is, there is a hell of a lot of land for sasquatch to exist and RARELY be seen by us. It takes PEOPLE to SEE Sasquatch, and there are many similar safe havens across the country where few people spend time in.

In the eastern part of the State, there is equally remote forest lands. On the Coastal Range it is similar as well. We overestimate how dense our human populations really are.

As for their minimum populations and gene pool, once again I suspect that most people don't appreciate the volume of remote land base available to them. But I also made a related point responding to 'Vincent', about the possibility of their genetic makeup in the 'Does Patty Look Like A Real Bigfoot To You?' thread. Not that they are hiding behind every bush mind you, but there are more of them out there then most people can appreciate. We just need to accept that they are smarter than us in many ways when it comes to outdoor survival and existence.

[Huntster]

Huntster, you do realize, they aren't just some randomly wandering animal like wolverines, brown bears, or wolves right? I mean, they ACTIVELY hide from us like no other species on earth does.

Are you saying that wolverines, brown bears, and wolves don't hide from man?

If they were just some wild ape, then one would be able to more easily apply the happenstance sighting method to them, but that REALLY isn't the case.

That was the case for mountain gorillas. There are only several hundred of them today, and they live at very high altitude on the slopes of three dormant volcanoes well within the African interior. They avoided discovery until just a century ago.

Then there is the point that to have a sighting, you have to have people present to make them. Here's a slice of one part of the country to empathize just how slim those odds are. Here's a map of Oregon. http://geology.com/satellite/oregon-satellite-image.shtml You see that green strip one third from the left of the map? The consists of mostly forested area that extends from the northern to southern border of the state. That is the Cascade Range. A very sparsely populated section of the state extending 200 miles north/south and about 80 miles east/west. That area alone computes to about SIXTEEN THOUSAND SQUARE MILES. In this area are very few large communities, a few highways with homes & smaller communities along them, and countless logging roads that have very little human traffic. In a dense Oregon forest, you can generally see little more then 100' through corridors if you are lucky, but most of the time your vision is much much less. They can hide any time they want.

That is all true, and I agree that the American wilderness is much larger, deeper, and wild than most appreciate. However, I still believe that sasquatch numbers are low and declining.

[Guest River]

That is all true, and I agree that the American wilderness is much larger, deeper, and wild than most appreciate. However, I still believe that sasquatch numbers are low and declining.

Huntster: I'm curious why you feel this way. (my bolded) Sighting reports are going up each year are they not? Other animals in our wilderness areas are also increasing in numbers recently. Why would this not be true for sasquatch also? Certainly man hasn't been killing them or poaching them down. I'm curious what specific reasons you would list for this.