Bigfoot Research – Still No Evidence, But Plenty Of Excuses To Explain Why There’S No Evidence

[Guest thermalman]

Is Bigfoot hair really hollow? Would that not do strange things under certain lighting conditions?

Caribou hair is hollow and is the warmest covering around for the Eskimos. Polar bear hair is also hollow.

For what it's worth, a thermal of a polar bear vs asian black bear..........

Edited December 23, 2012 by thermalman

[Guest toejam]

Since sasquatch tend to stay hidden in amongst the foliage in their approach, maybe you could spend time in the field gathering some natural habitat footage.

It's be much more pertinent to see something hidden in behind bushes to get a better picture of what a sasquatch may look like hiding behind something.

Edited December 23, 2012 by toejam
To remove aimed at a member

[Guest DWA]

You can have your poor quality 1960's film. I'll take these;

Know how many decades of work it took to get those clips?

Of animals much of whose natural history was known before the age of camera traps?

They don't even belong in this discussion. Pteranodon feathers would be as relevant.

(Oh, they're both blurrier than P/G. Just sayin'.)

I do share with [DWA] an aversion to walls and ceilings surrounding me. This raises an underappreciated point, I believe. That is: If you seriously want to address a natural history mystery, you have to put in time "out there." I'm not just talking about BF hunting. In fact, I think if the only time you spend out of doors is looking for BF, your natural vocabulary is probably going to be a little stunted. This is why I pay particular attention to the folks who DO spend inordinate amounts of time out of doors. I'm thinking mostly of the folks in the rural areas... hunters, farmers, ranchers, linemen, timber workers, etc. In my estimation, these people, especially locals with connections spanning multiple generations, deserve a large benefit of the doubt regarding what they are seeing, hearing, smelling and, yes, the second-sense impressions we are all so quick to discount. At a minimum, they deserve to not just have their accounts dismissed out of hand. My personal belief is what is underlying the typical attitude towards these people is the whole "country bumpkin" prejudices we've done a very good job of promoting in our entertainment and popular meme. Obviously, that goes way back. Also, as an American Southerner, I'm even more attuned to these attitudes. They really do get in the way.

One of the Plussable Posts of The Year, and so totally spot on about that DWA feller.

The objections to sasquatch are what I call "urban objections." They're lodged by people who don't know - or think - that much about animals, the outdoors and people who spend lots of time there. Urban objections sound like Marlboro's, bless his li'l heart. Yep, I've heard wildlife photographers say bigfoot, no way! so don't come on with that. Remember, I said you have to *think* about it; and what those types say shows they don't.

A perusal of the encounter literature reveals that those who encounter sasquatch are just the people one would expect to encounter a wild animal. The only cross-sectional types of encounters one sees are

• first, people living on the edges of large swatches of what appears to be excellent habitat - which includes lots of "suburbanites" and summer-homers these days - and
  
• second, motorists or travelers in vehicles or on trains going through such areas.
  

Other than that, it's: miners; loggers; hikers; climbers; cavers; backpackers; horsemen; rangers; construction and pipeline and phone-line and other workers in remote areas; and of course, hunters, gatherers and fishermen.

Just what one would expect. Yet another authenticity marker of many.

An urban objection makes one critical error other than misunderstanding the outdoors. It forgets that one has to consider the evidence. The only objections to the evidence that mean anything are objections that prove significant chunks of the evidence to be false positives. These objections are virtually nonexistent. Hoaxes don't count. Not only has pretty much every hoax debunk been done by the proponents, but the hoaxes have clear signs of human involvement that are conspicuously missing from the legitimate evidence. So they mean nothing, one way or the other.

Edited December 23, 2012 by DWA

[Guest]

Know how many decades of work it took to get those clips?

Probably quite a few, since snow leopards and Javan rhinos actually are rare and elusive and aren't sighted by the hundreds near human habitated areas nor do they live in Western countries.

Of animals much of whose natural history was known before the age of camera traps?

So? Given the number of sightings, its shouldn't be as hard for a sasquatch to have game pics as good as the ones I posted.

(Oh, they're both blurrier than P/G. Just sayin'.)

Nope

Edited December 24, 2012 by Jerrymanderer

[Guest thermalman]

Since sasquatch tend to stay hidden in amongst the foliage in their approach, maybe you could spend time in the field gathering some natural habitat footage.

It's be much more pertinent to see something hidden in behind bushes to get a better picture of what a sasquatch may look like hiding behind something.

Something like this?

Edited December 24, 2012 by thermalman

[Guest DWA]

Probably quite a few, since snow leopards and Javan rhinos actually are rare and elusive and aren't sighted by the hundreds near human habitated areas nor do they live in Western countries.

See? This is what I mean by "urban objections." Javan rhinos live cheek by jowl with some of the planet's largest human populations. They aren't sighted by the hundreds because there aren't that many. Know how we know that? Same way we know exactly where to put a camera trap so that, within a decade, it will get a film of an animal science has known about a couple centuries now.

So? Given the number of sightings, its shouldn't be as hard for a sasquatch to have game pics as good as the ones I posted.

See? This is what I mean by "urban objections." Game cameras are placed, pretty much without exception, by people who know, intimately, the habits of at least one of the animals they are trying to get. (The exceptions? They have seen the animals they are trying to get gathering, routinely, where they put the traps.) Until the sasquatch is confirmed, where to put camera traps for them is anyone's guess. (Never mind the study that shows that alpha coyotes religiously avoid camera traps on their territories.)

Nope

Um, yep.

[Guest]

See? This is what I mean by "urban objections." Javan rhinos live cheek by jowl with some of the planet's largest human populations. They aren't sighted by the hundreds because there aren't that many. Know how we know that? Same way we know exactly where to put a camera trap so that, within a decade, it will get a film of an animal science has known about a couple centuries now.

So does bigfoot. Oh and thanks for ignoring the snow leopard.

See? This is what I mean by "urban objections." Game cameras are placed, pretty much without exception, by people who know, intimately, the habits of at least one of the animals they are trying to get. (The exceptions? They have seen the animals they are trying to get gathering, routinely, where they put the traps.) Until the sasquatch is confirmed, where to put camera traps for them is anyone's guess.

Yes, one of the animals they are trying to get. They also get pictures of other animals.

(Never mind the study that shows that alpha coyotes religiously avoid camera traps on their territories.)

Nevermind, that territorially is the key.

Edited December 24, 2012 by Jerrymanderer

[Guest DWA]

So does bigfoot. Oh and thanks for ignoring the snow leopard.

Yeah, forgot that one. See "Planet Earth?" Did you see how long it took a cameraman, in known habitat, looking at what he knew to be a den site, to get video?

Much more time than it took Patterson. "He didn't have a horse." And now with the excuses. HE WAS SITTING ON ONE'S DOORSTEP.

Yeah, bigfoot does. Know the difference? Say you have seen one and no one will believe you. There could be as many snow leopards as people and they'd still be unconfirmed with that little problem.

Yes, one of the animals they are trying to get. They also get pictures of other animals.

Like wolves and wolverines, you mean?

Nevermind, that territorially is the key.

If I knew what that meant I'd say something.

Edited December 24, 2012 by DWA

[Guest]

Yeah, forgot that one. See "Planet Earth?" Did you see how long it took a cameraman, in known habitat, looking at what he knew to be a den site, to get video?

Much more time than it took Patterson. "He didn't have a horse." And now with the excuses. HE WAS SITTING ON ONE'S DOORSTEP.

Bigfoot is said to inhabit known habitat.

Edited December 24, 2012 by Jerrymanderer

[Guest DWA]

You don't have "known habitat" until you have longitudinal studies of a confirmed animal.

[Guest Cervelo]

Your suggesting this type of study?

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Longitudinal_study

[Guest DWA]

The PGF is very clear......and it's not just a photo. Same goes for the Memorial day footage. In other words in both of those film clips it's pretty easy to make out that they are not charred stumps, odd shaped rocks, black bears, etc, etc.

So then the next logical question is..........is it a hoax? Or is it a real animal?

And I do not think that this is a question that ANY photograph or film clip can solve. Nor should it.

All the cogent analysis of the P/G film has been not of film artifacts that the uninitiated harp on when they blow frames up too much, but of stuff clearly visible on the film.

If you knew me, and I were where Patty is relative to the camera, you would recognize me.

Edited December 24, 2012 by DWA

[WSA]

C'est bon Noël dans Dixie. Paix à tous.

[Guest]

It seems to me that it is all just a big complex snipe hunt:

[Guest]

The only explanation I can come up with no matter how bizarre, is that BF are at LEAST of the same intelligence as us. Suppose they are more intelligent than us?

I know, I know, most will say this is ridiculous, but if you're one of the people who know BF is real, what is the only other rationale for us not being able to document just ONE specimen?

They may not know the intricacies of the equipment, but then again maybe they know more than we suspect?

What if they are actually MORE intelligent than us? That would explain why we've never obtain proof or a body correct?

Not asking you to believe in this line of thinking, rather simply answer the question of would it indeed explain the situation?