Debunk The Debunking

[Guest]

Just want to take a moment and express my thanks to the participants so far for making posts that are mostly focused on the points/counterpoints, not the point makers, and which are reasonably respectful of differing opinions and viewpoints - kinda refreshing and very much appreciated.

I am hopeful that we can continue this tone - and encourage everyone to keep on going, I for one am enjoying the exchange.

I have my own opinion/explanation for the 'lack of roadkill' based on a combination of what has been reported, where it has been reported, and then the overall concept of statistics/probability - but I am still working up the habitat answer.

[Guest RayG]

Yes, but they are horizontal, bigfoot is vertical. Ever watch gymnastics? There is a thing called center of gravity that needs to be considered.

Not sure how their center of gravity makes any difference when comparing moose with bigfoot. Two legs or four, if you get hit in those legs by a vehicle traveling at sufficient speed you're going down.

I don't think they are smarter but may have certain advantages that we do not have to enable them to survive in environments that will kill us in three days unless we take everything but the kitchen sink with us out in the woods. I've heard of bigfoot being seen on the side of the road,or crossing the road, but never one about a drunk walking or running bigfoot .

Yeah, but it's been speculated that bigfoot is not only woods-smart, he's technology-smart. He avoids trail cams for example. And what do bigfoot/human drunks have to do with it?

You obviously missed the fact that when a human goes missing in the wilderness we usually have a general idea of where they are and search and rescue is called. Yet, still many are not found despite our best efforts. I don't think I can recall ever seeing or hearing about anyone but a handful of investigators going out to look for bigfoot, and unfortunately, he didn't tell them where he was going or where he would be...gee,do you think that might make a difference?

I'm not sure where you're going with your argument, we originally started off talking about road kill, and should continue to focus on that.

Unless you allow for a combination of factors such as rare, strong, fast, and cognizant of the potential danger of being hit.

Yes, like I said, unless bigfoot is some sort of super-ninja-ape-like-creature, or night-ninja-wood-ape, we should have had a road kill instance by now. I cannot think of a single North American mammal seen crossing roads that doesn't eventually get hit crossing roads. Can you?

But statistically there's fewer fatalities for bigger/stronger animals.

In Alaska alone there are over 800 moose killed each year by vehicles and trains. One could argue that being bigger just makes you a larger target. I've had a raccoon pass under my vehicle and come out completely unscathed. That's not going to happen with a moose.

They are elusive, live in remote areas, have low numbers and most of the sightings are inaccurate, of course. That's the only way they could exist without us having found fossils, remains, etc. But that's not special pleading, that's their MO.

You just made a very good argument for why we don't see many Wolverines -- they are elusive, generally prefer remote areas far away from humans, and their population density is much lower than that of other solitary carnivores. Yet we not only have Wolverine road kill, we have skeletons, remains, etc.

What % of sasquatches do you figure are dodging the traffic these days versus the number of mistaken witnesses?

I have no idea. What percentage of Wolverines are dodging traffic? They seem to lead a similar lifestyle as bigfoot, both elusive, prefer remote areas, and have low population densities, yet the Wolverine occasionally ends up as road kill while bigfoot does not.

We should see a proportionate number of animals becoming roadkill relative to their population density. Or are other factors involved? Is it the fate of every animal on earth to eventually become car meat?

And we do. There are certainly fewer Wolverines picked off by vehicles/trains than moose, but even the Wolverine's time runs out eventually. In all the 100+ years that trains have been whipping through the Western provinces/states, and in all the years that all sorts and sizes of vehicles have been doing the same, nary a bigfoot has ended up in the wrong place at the wrong time.

RayG

[Guest]

I'm not sure where you're going with your argument, we originally started off talking about road kill, and should continue to focus on that.

We were talking about the fossil record which led to roadkill.

Yeah, but it's been speculated that bigfoot is not only woods-smart, he's technology-smart. He avoids trail cams for example. And what do bigfoot/human drunks have to do with it?

The fact that humans are hit by cars is probably related to drinking or the use of some other illegal substance if they are out late wandering around on foot on rural roads. The variable that they were judgmentally impaired was what I was getting at....And there are many reasons humans are impaired such as MP3 players, cell phones, that prevent hearing or deflect attention from hearing or seeing oncoming cars. Bigfoot would not have the same distractions. As for game cams, avoidance doesn't indicate they understand it, bears eat game cams sometimes, do you think they know what a gamecam is? It's probably related to the smell.

Not sure how their center of gravity makes any difference when comparing moose with bigfoot. Two legs or four, if you get hit in those legs by a vehicle traveling at sufficient speed you're going down.

This is basic stuff you learn in gymnastics and would be intuitive for any creature or person that grew up outdoors and lived in all kinds of terrains. These ninja moves, as you call them, are simply a matter of basic physics. You use your momentum and spin away or over an object to deflect injury from an impact assuming you have the intellect to learn that or figure it out growing up in that kind of environment. Your center of gravity determines how well you would be able to compensate. A moose couldn't do either because it doesn't have the intellect to think through the physics and it's center of gravity is located lower than the majority of it's body.

Edited December 14, 2010 by Jodie

[BobbyO]

In all the 100+ years that trains have been whipping through the Western provinces/states, and in all the years that all sorts and sizes of vehicles have been doing the same, nary a bigfoot has ended up in the wrong place at the wrong time.

RayG

I'm not so sure Ray.

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?ID=1719&PrinterFriendly=True

[Guest]

I found this: http://www.thetoque.com/science-fiction/watch-for-sasquatch-on-road/. it does two things.. talks about not wanting to work over or underpasses in areas where they are known to occur..

It also lists the article as sciencefiction. Another reason to anticipate they are not or never were here. It is interesting that there are so many roadsigns in areas where they are reported.. CA, COL, and I am sure more...

[Guest RayG]

We were talking about the fossil record which led to roadkill.

Which somehow led us to talking about missing people, and I didn't see how that had anything to do with people being struck by vehicles on the highway.

The fact that humans are hit by cars is probably related to drinking or the use of some other illegal substance if they are out late wandering around on foot on rural roads.

What is your source for this speculation/assumption?

This is basic stuff you learn in gymnastics and would be intuitive for any creature or person that grew up outdoors and lived in all kinds of terrains.

So while we humans would have to train to be gymnasts, bigfoot comes by this ninja stuff naturally? I'm not buying it.

I'm not so sure Ray.

I was hoping for something a little better than someone having a weird feeling about something they didn't witness themselves, and then reporting it 30 years later.

It also lists the article as sciencefiction.

It also says it has been 'Spinning yarns and pulling the wool over your eyes Since 2001 or so', and is 'The World Leader in Canadian Humour, Parody, & Satire'. British Columbia doesn't have a Ministry of Highways either.

RayG

Edited December 14, 2010 by RayG

[Guest]

Yep I noted that Ray, so according to that.. we have had the wool pulled over our eyes and its all fiction. Trouble with that is I do not buy it.. so what is the next step ? We wait ? Or kick around more stuff lol

[Guest]

One request, can we tone down the 'ninja' rhetoric please. It was funny once or twice but the more it is used the more demeaning it sounds to me. Surely it is possible to make the skeptical point without deriding the other side.

Thanks

[BobbyO]

I was hoping for something a little better than someone having a weird feeling about something they didn't witness themselves, and then reporting it 30 years later.

Pssst Ray, i'll tell you a secret, i didn't discover the Internet or the BFRO, BFF etc until 2001, same as those people..

Edit : In fact, thinking about it, i didn't find the BFF until a Year or two after 2001..

Edited December 14, 2010 by BobbyO

[BobbyO]

I believe we can have a great discussion here.

I agree with Splash, this Thread has the potential to be great, truly..

But we've gone back & forth with the Road stuff now with decent points on both sides of the Fence so how about we switch a litte to mix things up & keep it fresh ??

Ray, hope you don't mind, i've c&p one of your earlier Posts with options for conversation..

How's abotu we go for the below ??

•dogs won't track bf

[Guest]

Then you need to educate yourself about the realities of fossilization. The fossil record, despite what some would have you believe, is NOT the exhaustive, comprehensive account of past life on earth that the lay person has been given the impression it is.

Really? Thank goodness we have Mulder to educate naive lay people like me about the "realities of fossilization." I guess that means that there really are bigfoots out there - cool!

So . . . new topic: Dogs don't track bigfoot, huh? If true, that could be interesting. I'm unsure about how likely "dogs" are to track other potentially dangerous creatures. For example, how likely is it that a generic dog will track a bear, cougar, or moose? Is it only those trained for the purpose that'll do that? If so, the lack of being trained to track bigfoot could explain the phenomenon. Of course my default explanation is that dogs are lousy at tracking human folklore . . .

[Guest]

Not sure how their center of gravity makes any difference when comparing moose with bigfoot. Two legs or four, if you get hit in those legs by a vehicle traveling at sufficient speed you're going down.

No one is denying that. It's the manner of the "going down" that is different

Yeah, but it's been speculated that bigfoot is not only woods-smart, he's technology-smart. He avoids trail cams for example.

No special intelligence is required to smell the plastic or the ozone of the electronics or to hear any sounds the circuits and equipment might make.

Yes, like I said, unless bigfoot is some sort of super-ninja-ape-like-creature, or night-ninja-wood-ape, we should have had a road kill instance by now. I cannot think of a single North American mammal seen crossing roads that doesn't eventually get hit crossing roads. Can you?

People have it BF with cars before. We just have not (yet) been lucky enough for followup to turn up a corpse.

In Alaska alone there are over 800 moose killed each year by vehicles and trains. One could argue that being bigger just makes you a larger target. I've had a raccoon pass under my vehicle and come out completely unscathed. That's not going to happen with a moose.

BF is not a moose. Nor is he a raccoon.

[BobbyO]

Really? Thank goodness we have Mulder to educate naive lay people like me about the "realities of fossilization." I guess that means that there really are bigfoots out there - cool!

So . . . new topic: Dogs don't track bigfoot, huh? If true, that could be interesting. I'm unsure about how likely "dogs" are to track other potentially dangerous creatures. For example, how likely is it that a generic dog will track a bear, cougar, or moose? Is it only those trained for the purpose that'll do that? If so, the lack of being trained to track bigfoot could explain the phenomenon. Of course my default explanation is that dogs are lousy at tracking human folklore . . .

If it's so cut & dry for you personally Sas, why do you persist with it i just don't get it ??

Feel free to PM me if you don't mind explaining for me & didn't want to say publically..

I'm just intrigued that's all..

But anyway, Dog Tracking..

I can't see how a Dog could be trained to Track a BF, professional Trackers wouldn't have anythign to base the Training on.

But i don't think that's the point or all of why Ray added that specific line ( correct me if i'm wrong Ray ).

I think Ray was talking abotu the fact that Dogs are alleged not to want to Track a BF when they are being " told " to IE The alleged fear ??

[BobbyO]

Found some recent stuff where Dr M has some info on the Dog issue..

====

As far as research here in the U.S., Meldrum said they are working on training search and recovery dogs to track Sasquatch.

He said one of the biggest criticisms of Sasquatch is there is no body, and the only way to get a body would be to track one down and kill it or for someone to stumble upon a body.

“Given their intelligence, this is probably going to be a very unlikely scenario,†Meldrum said.

“The next best thing would be to have a trace of that organism with DNA, and that would come from hair or feces,†he continued.

Meldrum said the dogs are generally used to identify humans and human remains, but can be trained to identify almost anything.

He said they had one of these dogs check what was suspected being Sasquatch feces, based on circumstantial evidence.

Meldrum said, “They get wind of this feces which would either be from bear or Sasquatch, because it was filled with black ants, and the dogs had a fear response to it.

“This is a very unusual response because those same dogs would walk by bear feces with no response.â€

“This enthused one of the handlers, and she has agreed to train a dog to great ape hair and tissue with the presumption that Sasquatch falls close to the variation of gorillas, chimps and apes,†Meldrum continued.

“Once we have a dog that is at hand, if fresh footprints are found within about 12 hours, we can take the dogs to the site and imprint them with the scent, presuming the tracks are authentic.â€

Meldrum said, “I’m not just about collecting footprints; we’re also approaching this as a question of wildlife biology. What is this creature’s role in the biological community?â€

========

I wonder why those Dogs would have a fear response to a feces that, if it was a Bear, they would normally walk by it ??

It obviously was an impressive enough reaction by the Dog given the fact that the reaction made one of the Handlers agree to Train one of the Dogs, or attempt to anyway, to Great Ape Hair..

[Guest]

Not sure how their center of gravity makes any difference when comparing moose with bigfoot. Two legs or four, if you get hit in those legs by a vehicle traveling at sufficient speed you're going down.

No one is denying that. It's the manner of the "going down" that is different

Yeah, but it's been speculated that bigfoot is not only woods-smart, he's technology-smart. He avoids trail cams for example.

No special intelligence is required to smell the plastic or the ozone of the electronics or to hear any sounds the circuits and equipment might make.

Yes, like I said, unless bigfoot is some sort of super-ninja-ape-like-creature, or night-ninja-wood-ape, we should have had a road kill instance by now. I cannot think of a single North American mammal seen crossing roads that doesn't eventually get hit crossing roads. Can you?

People have it BF with cars before. We just have not (yet) been lucky enough for followup to turn up a corpse.

In Alaska alone there are over 800 moose killed each year by vehicles and trains. One could argue that being bigger just makes you a larger target. I've had a raccoon pass under my vehicle and come out completely unscathed. That's not going to happen with a moose.

BF is not a moose. Nor is he a raccoon.