bipedalist Posted August 24, 2015 BFF Patron Share Posted August 24, 2015 Which brings up the question in my mind, would we have better success if more searches were done by horseback? This guy had good luck on horseback: http://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_report.asp?id=13383 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Patterson-Gimlin Posted August 24, 2015 Share Posted August 24, 2015 Frankly I believe that the theory, yes theory, that there is little to no evidence of BF on trail cam is not attributable to the intelligence/ superior senses of BF but the lack of BF Well, your beliefs are wrong. No smiley or nothing. Who decides who is wrong or right ? Your assumption and belief is your own . No more right than a cat soldier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted August 24, 2015 Share Posted August 24, 2015 (edited) Homo Elusus - Elusive Man From Wiktionary: "ēlūsus m ‎(feminine ēlūsa, neuter ēlūsum); first/second declension deceived, tricked, fooled, having been deceived escaped, avoided, evaded, eluded, having been evaded mocked, jeered, ridiculed, having been ridiculed" Bigfoot, by definition, are hominids. Hominids are intelligent. Logically, an extant hominid coexisting with mankind must have coexisted with mankind throughout our mutual development. Logically, an extant hominid that has coexisted with mankind for millennia, must develop survival strategies that enable it to either compete with or avoid us. Lack of success in doing so = extinction. If one were to define what characteristics a surviving megafauna hominid (assume a descendant of Homo Erectus/Homo Heidelbergensis) would require in order to successfully coexist with mankind, one would come close to building a bigfoot from scratch. Elusiveness would be essential. Technology would be a liability; providing hard, lasting, indisputable forensic evidence/artifacts of their presence. Physical power and prowess would be required to offset a lack of technology. Intelligence, applied within these boundary conditions, would be a prerequisite. Sticking with documented characteristics that are exhibited by known creatures in nature, including ourselves (such as the skills possessed by the best special operations soldiers, but applied full time to the point that they are innate, reflexive, and define the creature), one could assemble a set of natural skills that, collectively, are not supernatural, but do add up to a sum that is effectively preternatural. By this logic, a creature such as bigfoot can exist, and is less improbable than one might want to believe. Still, such a creature would inevitably come into contact with mankind, resulting in both modern reports and a body of folklore extending back into antiquity. These exist. Yet, as a species, we must also somehow prevent our species from collectively pursuing evidence and reports of bigfoot in order for bigfoot to coexist with us without interference and genocidal conflict. Enter the Subjective Skeptic: An objective skeptic analyzes facts without prejudice, leaving open the possibility of existence - a subjective skeptic acts upon prejudice, insisting that something cannot be, devoting himself primarily to the refutation of evidence and fact. Subjective skeptics, confronted with a mounting body of evidence, default to a Hear no Evil, See no Evil, Speak no Evil strategy. This is the role that subjective skeptics within our species fulfill. They enable bigfoot to survive in a world otherwise dominated by mankind by forestalling our species. Oddly, subjective skepticism, considered today by subjective skeptics to be based in the (mis)application of the scientific method, has its origins in religion over the millennia covering the mutual existence of mankind and bigfoot (I'm going to try to stay within the forum rules here by staying as objective and general as possible). In the competition between ideologies, if a deity (considered to be good) were to create mankind (perhaps in its own image), then a competing extant hominid must have been created by something else, something competing with and different from the accepted deity. Something evil. Dogmatically, acceptance of the existence of a competing hominid inherently confers the power of creation on the competing entity (defined as evil), potentially placing it on a equal footing with the accepted deity. Therefore, the acceptance of the existence of the competing hominid, and the competing hominid itself would, by necessity, be considered evil. So Hear no Evil, See no Evil, Speak no Evil, becomes the doctrine of Hear no Bigfoot, See no Bigfoot, Speak no Bigfoot that we observe over the centuries, and today (cloaked by dogma misrepresented as science) in subjective skeptics. This also explains the motivation of some subjective skeptics. To preserve their own belief systems by striving against others. Edited August 24, 2015 by JDL 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Faenor Posted August 24, 2015 Share Posted August 24, 2015 Cool story bro Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 24, 2015 Share Posted August 24, 2015 Ah, nice strawman from hyperbole. Well done. Sounds like you don't have much outdoor experience. Some of the answers are obvious to me but I'll point them out for your benefit. 1) Running water generates a lot of white noise which masks the sounds made around it. FWIW, that's why I don't camp creek-side, I back away a few hundred yards. I like to be able to hear. Still, I have to go to the creek for water so there is a period of vulnerability. 2) There is generally a breeze up or down canyons. Depending on which way the wind was blowing, all scent from the guys, horses, and gear may have been moving away from Patty. It is hard to smell that which is downwind of you. This factors into a debate I had with Henner Fahrenbach. It also factors into a puzzle in my own research area where 'whatever it is' remains upwind even when the wind changes. 3) Horses have a quadrupedal gait, they don't sound like humans moving, so it is very possible Patty knew they were there but mistook them for deer or elk until they rode out of the brush. There are probably more but that gives you a general idea how naive your assumptions are. Y' know, I've seen two at different times and probably a third. Whether they exist or not is a moot question for me .. duh, of course they exist. Discussion of whether they exist is like sitting around Monday morning rehashing how the football games should have gone. Should, shouldn't ... absolutely irrelevant. Even if I agreed, the score from Sunday stands. What matters to me is HOW. I'm not entirely convinced they have any special abilities. It is at least equally possible we vastly overestimate our own abilities. If you insist on underestimating your ... foe, enemy, competition, or whatever you choose to call them ... the chances of us achieving our goals (official discovery) rather than them achieving theirs (non-discovery) drops to nil. We are doing that by insisting we can only be chasing a dumb ape. MIB if BF is so smart then why doesn't the creature associate horses with humans and hide? I have not spoken to one person that claimed having an encounter, yet you have had three? BTW, How in hell can anyone achieve a goal of non-discovery? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockape Posted August 24, 2015 Share Posted August 24, 2015 <if BF is so smart then why doesn't the creature associate horses with humans and hide? I have not spoken to one person that claimed having an encounter, yet you have had three? BTW, How in hell can anyone achieve a goal of non-discovery?> ================= And what does any of that have to do with Loggers and Bigfoot? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 24, 2015 Share Posted August 24, 2015 Which brings up the question in my mind, would we have better success if more searches were done by horseback? This guy had good luck on horseback: http://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_report.asp?id=13383 yet...... most of the reported sightings are while driving, around their home , hiking, hunting, fishing . Seems to me an encounter is nothing more than happenstance. Why go to BF, let BF come to you. <if BF is so smart then why doesn't the creature associate horses with humans and hide? I have not spoken to one person that claimed having an encounter, yet you have had three? BTW, How in hell can anyone achieve a goal of non-discovery?> ================= And what does any of that have to do with Loggers and Bigfoot? why not ask others the same question? btw I was replying to someone that quoted me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockape Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 <why not ask others the same question?> Because you started it all here by quoting a three year old post that was in direct relation to loggers and game cams. http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/30966-loggers-and-bigfoot/?p=921164 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VAfooter Posted August 25, 2015 Admin Share Posted August 25, 2015 My personal belief is that while it does not know what a camera is, it does know that it was put there by humans and that is reason enough to steer clear of it. Would that include roads, cars, houses, logging sites, barrels, construction equipment, and all the other things put there by humans? Or just specifically those man made things that happen to collect evidence? Reason I ask is because I hear this a lot, but in the grand scheme of Bigfoot encounters it just makes no sense. Those items mentioned are generally not placed with the intention of being discrete and are often in the presence of other man-made items or areas of presence. Trail cams tend to be singular, remote, concealed, and away from other man-made objects. I think that if you place a common AM/FM radio (if they still exist...LOL),or computer keyboard, CD player, or toaster, etc., tied eight feet up a tree in BF's backyard, you would get the same reaction from BF. Just my uneducated opinion.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguefooter Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 ^So Bigfoot only avoids manmade objects that are discrete? If people put game cams on their truck or areas of presence like a campsite will he not avoid them? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 (edited) Hello roguefooter, I still say it's more than what everyone thinks about this. Sure folks talk about IR and all that but it has to be more than IR, smell, mounting them on the side of a cabin or on a truck or anywhere else. Regardless of the shape of the housing, the factory camo coating , the disguising of the camera itself, or even deodorizing the plastic. There's simply more going on here. Or less going on depending on one's viewpoint. The **** lens looks like an eye. no matter what one does. change the shape of the lens opening to anything but round. I think it's that simple. My last thought on the matter is that if an animal sees anything in the infra red range the camera is going to be prominent because it will never be the same temperature as the thing it's attached to like a tree. It will be warmer or cooler than the ambient surrounding structures is my guess. It will either be warmer because of sunlight on the plastic or cooler in the shade than the tree it's mounted on. in the infra red range it will stick out either like a lighter square on a dark background or a darker square against a lighter background....with an EYE! To a BF it may just make that tree look like a huge one-eyed monster. For a wood-dwelling intelligent creature it might look pretty scary. If it glows then scarier still. Edited August 25, 2015 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VAfooter Posted August 25, 2015 Admin Share Posted August 25, 2015 ^So Bigfoot only avoids manmade objects that are discrete? If people put game cams on their truck or areas of presence like a campsite will he not avoid them? And showing up in BFs living area. I tend to agree with the reasoning that if you do place a trailcam, they probably watched you do it or at least aware you were in the area. Not any evidence or data with putting a game cam on a vehicle at a campsite that I am aware of. You might have hit upon something there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 I think that we have no clue about the cognitive abilities of BF. To speculate is simply that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockape Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 (edited) Well, I think it is self evident that they would have to be smarter than your average bear, else they could easily be trapped with a pick-i-nik basket. Edited August 25, 2015 by Rockape Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted August 25, 2015 Share Posted August 25, 2015 Hello Rockape, I don't know. The Ranger might not like it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts