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

[Guest]

To me DWA has hit it. Science may be so called perfect but thoose conducting are far from perfect and have their own preconceived nottions aand beliefs with unfortuntely cloud theif judgement with this subject

"have their own preconceived notions and beliefs with unfortuntely cloud their judgement with this subject"

Do you the IRONY of this statement?

[Guest]

I've never sighted a BF, but I for sure have had an ASMR experience, two of them in fact.

In all my time years of hiking, often alone and in remote areas for multiple days, I've only had this experience once: On Hogback Mtn, Augusta County, VA, a place I know well, and where I feel very comfortable, and there was no objective source or cause for it. One minute you are hiking along, lost in a daydream of whatever, and suddenly ever nerve in you body is on red alert. The only prudent course is to retreat out of there, as fast as you can, and I did.

The second time I had sent my young children off on their bikes to play at the local playground. I have a reputation of being very nonchalant about those kinds of things, and I didn't think twice about it. I was on the tractor mowing, wearing ear pro, when it hit my like a bolt that they were in trouble and I needed to get to them NOW! Again, the only prudent course was to get to them fast, and I did. I heard the sirens for the first time as I was peddaling on my bike to get them. I caught up to them about a 1/4 mile away where they were both sitting on the sidewalk crying after participating in a rather large bike/scooter crack up at the playground. (The sirens were for others, not them, but everyone came out fine). My son asked me as soon as he saw me, "Dad, how did you know we needed you?" Indeed. I have never, ever had that feeling before or since, let alone acted on it.

Oh yeah, it is real.

While these experiences are quite interesting, this not what I'm referring to. ASMR is almost unheard of outside of its community. Not because it's so rare (though it is), but because those who feel it feel isolated and alone in their experience. It's like synesthesia in that respect. In fact, there's no official name for it as far as I know. Some people theorize that it's the feeling that primates get from grooming.

Not to derail the thread further, but if interested you should search ASMR on YouTube and just watch a video without reading anything first. You'll probably be baffled.

Edited January 4, 2013 by hunt

[Guest]

Wow, this thread is good, but

I still don't see the MONKEY!

[Oonjerah]

Re sitings in "deforested" Illinois.

See Theagenes' post #1831, comparing 3 maps.

How big is the Bald Cypress Swamp in southern Illinois? & Indiana?

Is that where the sitings were?

[Guest Nalajr]

in dismissing the lack of trail cam evidence, it's important to put things in perspective. take the province of BC for example, where deer populations can run in the range of 300,000 specimens. add in another 150,000 bears - both black and grizzly. and wolves, foxes, coyotes may reach another 100,000. and then there are the moose, 170,000 of them. and these are species, save the grizzly, that can be found anywhere in the province - the same range of the reputed sasquatch as well.

of course, we don't know the population of the alleged sasquatch, but certain researchers have pegged a North American population of between 3,000 to 15,000. how many of them might be in BC, noted hotbed for the squatch? let's say one tenth for the sake of argument.

so in BC, we might have 300 to 1,500 of these exceedingly rare, allegedly shy, mostly nocturnal creatures ranging across a wilderness that is comparable in size to Washington, Oregon and Northern California while competing for camera time with 700,000 real creatures of some size who are generally not camera shy in the least. yes, there are plenty of game cam photos of these real creatures, but are there hundreds and hundreds of thousands of them? because when they are, there might finally be one of the elusive, nocturnal beast that has captured all your imaginations, whether believer or skeptic.

Take any one of the critters you named, ANY ONE and I will guarantee you that I could give a hunter in that area a dozen trail cams and tell him to come back with some pics of your chosen one and you and I, as well as every other person reading this, KNOWS beyond a doubt that they would come back with it. Heck if you give them a week they could probably come back with pics of every one.

Sassy is going to follow the same game trails as other animals. Why would they waste and expel energy moving through that kind of terrain when they could move about much better and with much less noise on established game trails? Not to mention a lot of those game trails lead to water and food sources.

Nalajr

[Guest DWA]

"have their own preconceived notions and beliefs with unfortuntely cloud their judgement with this subject"

Do you the IRONY of this statement?

No, it describes "bigfoot skeptics" to a T. Then there are others of us, who approach this with an open mind, and let only the evidence tell us what to think.

I agree with that. That's why no one outside of the Vu Quang knew what a saola was until the Clinton Administration.

Where you go off the rails is with your steadfast clinging to the ridiculous notion that no one has looked.

It is not a ridiculous notion that no one should expect proof with the minuscule amount of looking that has gone on.

Weekends don't cut it. P and G got lucky, and they were in country continuously, on horseback, for almost a month. The TBRC hasn't needed much longer than that to get lots of evidence.

Proof? Well, Jane Goodall had this advantage: we accepted the chimpanzee.

I didn't even realize after all these years that the bears hear are black. Sure there's the odd brown black bear, I don't discount that. It just makes me wonder how many other people may have misidentified sasquatch as a bear.

Count on this: if there is misidentification going on, it is sasquatch being passed off as moose (the Manitoba shooting) or bear...and most definitely not the other way around.

Simple logic; simple human nature. When we see something we plug it into the template of what we know. We don't instantly create new categories for it. We try - often irrationally hard - to make the sighting fit what we know.

[Guest]

No, it describes "bigfoot skeptics" to a T. Then there are others of us, who approach this with an open mind, and let only the evidence tell us what to think.

LOL..ok...

I see,

"who approach this with an open mind"..

actually I do have an *open mind*...show me this creature actually walks on this planet of ours and I will then celebrate it's existance! Ask yourself..Why are people like Ketchum trying to use DNA to CONFIRM BF exists? If all this so called *evidence of yours* (that science is ignoring) was sufficient, then why bother with the DNA? Answer..we don't have the *clincher* yet.

[Guest]

No, it describes "bigfoot skeptics" to a T. Then there are others of us, who approach this with an open mind, and let only the evidence tell us what to think.

Everyone has their own way of looking at things, it makes us human

It is not a ridiculous notion that no one should expect proof with the minuscule amount of looking that has gone on.

People have been "looking" for decades, still nada

Weekends don't cut it. P and G got lucky, and they were in country continuously, on horseback, for almost a month. The TBRC hasn't needed much longer than that to get lots of evidence.

Lucky? The only ones in 40+ years?

Proof? Well, Jane Goodall had this advantage: we accepted the chimpanzee.

we also see chimps

Count on this: if there is misidentification going on, it is sasquatch being passed off as moose (the Manitoba shooting) or bear...and most definitely not the other way around.

Simple logic; simple human nature. When we see something we plug it into the template of what we know. We don't instantly create new categories for it. We try - often irrationally hard - to make the sighting fit what we know.

but we don't know BF yet

Edited January 4, 2013 by wickie

[Guest DWA]

Not enough people looking to expect proof.

P and G. Luck is where preparation meets opportunity. in all that time, they're the only ones who put in the prep. Surprising? Not to me. Most people don't approach this right, starting with enough time in country. Other than P and G, it's TBRC, over and out.

Thousands of more Americans have seen sasquatch than had seen a wild chimp when Goodall went to Tanzania.

We don't know BF yet...which is why we should never expect a person to say they saw a BF when they saw something else, which was my point.

[Guest]

Lets compare the bigfoot sightings map to a map of wilderness (areas that are largely untouched by human influence)

In other words, the majority of sasquatch sightings (at least in the lower 48) occur outside pristine wild areas. Yes there are lots of forested areas in the US but that doesn't mean they are all isolated and untouched. And even wilderness areas are monitored with numerous trail cameras. Its silly to talk out how people don't have the money to find bigfoot. How much money do you need to confirm a giant ape that roams the forests of Ohio or Kentucky? A animal that should get unambiguous photos or become roadkill or get shot by a hunter (they can be mistaken for bear or moose right?). Were not talking about some critically endangered animal in an isolated jungle or the depths of the ocean. Once you understand this, you'll understand why most scientists don't place much faith in finding bigfoot.

Edited January 4, 2013 by Jerrymanderer

[Guest]

I consider my mind pretty open, being a California boy. If you think the evidence good enough for your belief, then great, but human beings are a complex group. We tend to believe the unbelievable,but also not execpt what's right infront of our eyes. Some of the closest people to me have beliefs that I find rediculous,and me with them. Doesn't make us open/closed minded just different. It would be a pretty boring place if we all had the same beliefs.

Now I'm off my box..........anyone seen the MONKEY?

[Guest]

I still don't see the MONKEY!

It should be inside the red ellipse/circle.

[Egump]

Take any one of the critters you named, ANY ONE and I will guarantee you that I could give a hunter in that area a dozen trail cams and tell him to come back with some pics of your chosen one and you and I, as well as every other person reading this, KNOWS beyond a doubt that they would come back with it. Heck if you give them a week they could probably come back with pics of every one.

Sassy is going to follow the same game trails as other animals. Why would they waste and expel energy moving through that kind of terrain when they could move about much better and with much less noise on established game trails? Not to mention a lot of those game trails lead to water and food sources.

Nalajr

yes, of course, a hunter could produce a trail cam of these other beings easily. no argument there. all these other critters outnumber the sasquatch though, if it does exist, by magnitudes of thousands or tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands, depending on the species. and that was the point. on that basis alone, it's 'possible' one hasn't been captured in trail cams. yet.

Edited January 4, 2013 by Egump

[Guest toejam]

Lets compare the bigfoot sightings map to a map of wilderness (areas that are largely untouched by human influence)

DUPLICATE IMAGES REMOVED.......

In other words, the majority of sasquatch sightings (at least in the lower 48) occur outside pristine wild areas. Yes there are lots of forested areas in the US but that doesn't mean they are all isolated and untouched. And even wilderness areas are monitored with numerous trail cameras. Its silly to talk out how people don't have the money to find bigfoot. How much money do you need to confirm a giant ape that roams the forests of Ohio or Kentucky? A animal that should get unambiguous photos or become roadkill or get shot by a hunter (they can be mistaken for bear or moose right?). Were not talking about some critically endangered animal in an isolated jungle or the depths of the ocean. Once you understand this, you'll understand why most scientists don't place much faith in finding bigfoot.

It takes time to get close to this species. That's the part you guys don't get. You think it's just waltz in, set up trail cams everywhere and bingo, sas pic. Don't think so.

You think it's cheap? Not when you add in the amount of time it takes.

Trail cams are for the most part useless in this game. They are smarter than us in their domain. We stumble around blind in comparison. Naysayers and skeptics don't give sas enough credit for their abilities. The ignorance of the human race is the barrier here.

Edited January 4, 2013 by toejam
to remove duplicate images from earlier post.

[Guest]

yes, of course, a hunter could produce a trail cam of these other beings easily. no argument there. all these other critters outnumber the sasquatch though, if it does exist, by magnitudes of thousands or tens of thousands or even hundreds of thousands, depending on the species. and that was the point. on that basis alone, it's 'possible' one hasn't been captured in trail cams. yet.

A single wolverine that wandered in California was caught by a game cam. So was a wolf in Oregon.

http://www.redding.c...-shasta-county/

Edited January 4, 2013 by Jerrymanderer