Debunk The Debunking

[BobbyO]

It never ceases to amaze me that people who DON'T KNOW, will do their "best" to get those that DO KNOW to fold and admit some mistake, or doubt in what they saw. READ; Saw, CLEARLY, over and over. Smelled over and over. Interacted with over and over. Not a fleeting glimpse of "something dark". Not a chance unusual sound. Not a vague wiff of a strange odor.

Those that KNOW, are trying here to relate what they KNOW. Some of those that do NOT KNOW, can't stand to be on the outside looking in. So they attempt to cloud the issue, and keep anyone who doesn't KNOW from putting one iota of belief in what's being told. Oh forbid there to be ONE MORE beleiver!

Skeptics/scoftics/non believers, when will you people understand that those that KNOW, don't give a rat's patoot whether you believe or not. Like it was said earlier, WE have our PROOF! GET YOUR OWN.

Why should we argue with you people about something you have no intention to give an open mind to. Until you are standing in front of one, see it clearly, smell it's body odor and breath, and experience it's reasoning and physical abilities, you are not going to believe. You must convince yourself of reality. Arguing,("debating") WILL NOT enlighten ANYONE HERE. JMHO-KNUCK

Amen.

[GuyInIndiana]

And the problem with THAT argument, is that game cams capture whatever animal wanders past it, regardless of whether the camera was placed there to capture that specific species or not.

RayG

Then you've come full circle once again, to a creature INTELLIGENT enough to simply avoid them for what ever reason they have.

You don't have to like it. It doesn't have to make sense to skeptics. IT'S JUST the way it is.

[Guest RayG]

Yes, we seem to have gone full circle.

It's pretty hard to debunk supposed super intelligence, so that's a good fall back position.

I still ain't buying it.

RayG

[Guest Spazmo]

ShadoAngel just posted this in another thread, and I thought it would do well in this one:

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1227&context=icwdm_usdanwrc

It's a study of how and why coyotes avoid trail cams. It answers a few questions asked in this thread. It does not fully explain why we have zero reliable trail cam pics of BF, but it does show the methods used by common coyotes to avoid camera traps.

Thanks Shado!

[Sunflower]

Jodie,

I'm just as amazed as you are about the pencil. The scenario is one that has been repeated several times. Things are taken and returned, but not always. Pencils, kids toys, garden tools, 5 gallon buckets (which according to one person just go missing) and even clothes pins rearranged on a clothesline. How about lawn chairs and garden ornaments being arranged or moved. And one of my favorites, leaving canned cat food taken from someone else's house and deposited in the yard where the pencil pics were taken.

[Guest]

Jodie,

I'm just as amazed as you are about the pencil. The scenario is one that has been repeated several times. Things are taken and returned, but not always. Pencils, kids toys, garden tools, 5 gallon buckets (which according to one person just go missing) and even clothes pins rearranged on a clothesline. How about lawn chairs and garden ornaments being arranged or moved. And one of my favorites, leaving canned cat food taken from someone else's house and deposited in the yard where the pencil pics were taken.

Sunflower.. ever any clothes ? I know someone who finds tennis shoes Taken and brought from other places. Pretty nice pair once in while too.. and repeatedly this happens..

Edited December 19, 2010 by treeknocker

[Guest]

xspider1, on 19 December 2010 - 01:54 AM, said:

I certainly don't think that a clear picture of every land animal in the world has already been captured on a game cam which is what has been implied.

Have a particular one in mind? Even the elusive wolverine and cougar have fallen victim to game cams.

What I see so far, is more special pleading/excuses for why bigfoot is never clearly captured on a game cam.

The cameras are put in places they never go, they recognize the camera (smell, sight, sound, take your pick) and avoid it, there aren't millions of games cams out there running 24/7, they will sometimes destroy the camera, skeptics will twist and bend every rule of debate to dismiss any possible photos, etc. etc.

So even though clear photos of other animals end up on game cams, ones of bigfoot never do.

RayG

--------------

Ray.. he said in the world.. so starting there.. new discoveries of new spp all the time. I mean ALL the time.

Regarding NA I get your point. But its only one point on a wide array of them.

As mentioned before I have a contact who knows a thing or two about mt lion.. I asked him about roadkills there..(Montana).. he said he was unaware of any recently.. have NOT checked the stats on that. But in Iowa of all places I have read there have been three so far. So universal expectations across the board are with exceptions.. how does this work? Many factors.. and apparently apply to what we are talking about. You would think given the numbers of cougar in the Rocky Mts that there would be incredible numbers of roadkill.. but apparently not. Are there roadkilled cougar in So Dakota? Apparently their numbers of cougar are up as well. I am not comparing cougar to squatch though.. not at all. Just trying to help shed some light on the complexities at hand.. so many variables we do not understand with the animals researched let alone the big ones

Edited December 19, 2010 by treeknocker

[Guest]

Jodie,

I'm just as amazed as you are about the pencil. The scenario is one that has been repeated several times. Things are taken and returned, but not always. Pencils, kids toys, garden tools, 5 gallon buckets (which according to one person just go missing) and even clothes pins rearranged on a clothesline. How about lawn chairs and garden ornaments being arranged or moved. And one of my favorites, leaving canned cat food taken from someone else's house and deposited in the yard where the pencil pics were taken.

Yep, I can relate to that. I keep my little piece of yard and deck clear and picked up. I'm sitting on the edge of a bluff that overlooks a river. I'm not 100% sure anything I have going on can't be explained by something else but, either way, I don't want to encourage whatever it is that may be passing through. It would be my luck to attract the attention of a mean one or some other critter in a bad mood.

[southernyahoo]

On the question of road kill, my point is this.

1. Animals get hit by cars because they don't have the good sense to stay away from roads , the judgement to allow enough time to cross safely, or the understanding that they could die if hit.

2. Bigfoot would have an unknown quantity of good sense , judgement , or understanding ,but it would be a prime creature to have more than any other known animal or cryptid.

Thats not special pleading, it's common sense, though it is not to discount the possibility of being hit, ( it may have), it would just be more rare than for any other animal.

[southernyahoo]

Just found this article on this book. It appears that it has been observed that chimpanzees will wait longer to cross a wide road than to cross a narrow foot path. So, it would appear that the ape brain does exercise judgement and wait for safe times to cross.

http://books.google.com/books?id=vT_1958Jk1MC&pg=PA24&lpg=PA24&dq=roadkill+great+apes&source=bl&ots=QYrbKYnNr5&sig=u7ouEd5XV6RmoAuj8UFoz6uRWl8&hl=en&ei=2KQOTdGvC4eglAezs439Cw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CE0Q6AEwBw#v=onepage&q&f=false

[Guest]

I want to discuss the coyote study mentioned by spazmo in the link below.

http://digitalcommon...=icwdm_usdanwrc

Here is the link by splash7 which is not a coyote study but discusses the results of the coyote study in spazmo's link and how it may relate to bf.

http://www.texasbigf...ews/48-news/190

The study done here has some great info with regards to coyotes and also has lots of flaws with how that info applies today and can be applied to BF. First, the report was published in 2003. Film camera's were used exclusively. Film camera's are inferior in every way to digitals which make up almost the entire trail cam industry today. They potentially give off more smell, they are loud, and they only hold 24 pics. The camera had a delay of 1 minute between pics. Today's digitals can take pics as short as 1 second. (Alphas could potentially be walking behind a beta and not have his pic taken). Also in this study the camera's were checked every week. Today a typical deer hunter may check his cams once a week during the hunting season but may not check them for three to six months when out of season. Also a camera/transmitter/receiver unit was used. This unit has a transmitter with a infrarred beam, then a reciever 1.5 to 5 meters away. The camera was connected to the reciever by cords which were covered by aluminum foil and dirt, rocks, etc... were used to camoflauge the cords. What this means is there were three separate units attached to vegetation or stakes at each camera site. This method is used to avoid triggering small rodents, etc with the camera but is much more obtrusive and harder to hide. Most trail cams in use today are single housing units. Also, the land they conducted the study in was open plains territory. The alphas along with a number of others wore radio collars.

The study determined that when the researchers would enter the field the alpha (and rarely any other coyote) would follow the movements of the researchers. The alpha was able to observe the researchers from as far as 1.5 km away (open plains). The researchers did successfully get photos of the alphas, just not in the alpha's own territory. Also the study determined their was no correlation between the age of coyote and the likelyhood of the coyote getting pictured. All coyotes regardless of age that were not alphas were successfully recorded (being old and experienced does not make you an alpha).

The study also split the alpha's territory in two. One half had cameras and one half did not. They determined that alphas would spend just as much time in the half with cameras as without. They were just able to avoid walking between the transmitter unit and the receiver unit.

It would be interesting to see the results of a restudy done in wooded areas with single housing cameras which are much easier to hide.

Edited December 20, 2010 by alduflux

[Guest]

I read that article too, wonder why the alpha feels compelled to avoid the cameras? I am assuming what ever they do is for the benefit of the pack, wonder what it is they think the cameras will do to them and not to another coyote in the pack? Of course we are talking about a really smart canine here.

[Guest]

Have a particular one in mind? Even the elusive wolverine and cougar have fallen victim to game cams.

What I see so far, is more special pleading/excuses for why bigfoot is never clearly captured on a game cam.

The cameras are put in places they never go, they recognize the camera (smell, sight, sound, take your pick) and avoid it, there aren't millions of games cams out there running 24/7, they will sometimes destroy the camera, skeptics will twist and bend every rule of debate to dismiss any possible photos, etc. etc.

So even though clear photos of other animals end up on game cams, ones of bigfoot never do.

RayG

Then why even consider responding to a veridically worthless question? That's your straw man fallacy, not ours.

[Guest]

I read that article too, wonder why the alpha feels compelled to avoid the cameras? I am assuming what ever they do is for the benefit of the pack, wonder what it is they think the cameras will do to them and not to another coyote in the pack? Of course we are talking about a really smart canine here.

The study suggests the alpha seeing the humans in the area was able to identify the cam with human in his territory. Once the alpha left his own territory he was unable to associate the cam setup with human because he did not see a human set it up outside his territory.

The study just mentions the cams being set up on "vegetation and stakes". With three units at each location I'm thinking two or three stakes were used at each site in this type of geography (open plains). It would be interesting in a wooded area if the alpha could follow human activity as well and identify a single housing unit hanging on a tree.

Also the use of the word "alpha" refers to one male and one female in each territory.

My links don't work in the above post...for some reason I can't edit my post. These should work.

http://www.texasbigfoot.org/index.php/news/news/48-news/190

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1227&context=icwdm_usdanwrc

[Guest]

The study suggests the alpha seeing the humans in the area was able to identify the cam with human in his territory. Once the alpha left his own territory he was unable to associate the cam setup with human because he did not see a human set it up outside his territory.

The study just mentions the cams being set up on "vegetation and stakes". With three units at each location I'm thinking two or three stakes were used at each site in this type of geography (open plains). It would be interesting in a wooded area if the alpha could follow human activity as well and identify a single housing unit hanging on a tree.

Also the use of the word "alpha" refers to one male and one female in each territory.

My links don't work in the above post...for some reason I can't edit my post. These should work.

http://www.texasbigfoot.org/index.php/news/news/48-news/190

http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1227&context=icwdm_usdanwrc

As far as I know, coyotes are pretty much everywhere. I doubt I could ID who the alphas are without spending a considerable amount of time watching the pack. However if you could, that ought to be pretty easy to figure out for the lay person with game cams in the woods just by going back and looking at what pics they already have of coyotes in their areas.