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

[Guest BartloJays]

You're right AZ bigfoot and the Sierras location is now my primary research area though it's summer/seasonal. Matter off fact, I got the footage unexpectedly on Aug 23rd (didn't even know I was going until two days prior) and I subsequently had to bail out of my annual Sep WA Cascades trip (site of my 2007 thermal sighting) I put on with Colonel Kevin Jones (he took over for me). Ranger Robert Leiterman and I anticipate that trip every year heading up together, but I had to put a team together and get back to the site to do appropriate analysis and re-creations which took 30+ hours over 8 days and involved 4-5 guys at once to re-create certain aspects of footage (much harder then you would think). It's amazing because the only two things that would cause me to cancel WA was either a sickness or death in the family and or....gee...getting thermal footage somewhere else LOL. Unfortunately, both happened as my now late nana was getting close at that time.

Scott, we'll have it out soon as I had already planned to but it's taken more time to document it. It's blurry and distant (105 yds) and not damning visually by any means, but has three tall subjects that are inconceivable to be human with circumstances...those circumstances include location (300 yds from killsite), measurements, activities like rock throwing behavior, real -time audio with intense dialogue, 6 witnesses etc...It's not the best footage but I promise it will be the best documented footage and the subjects loitering and negotiating the treegaps are 110% squatches without a doubt to either any of us there that night or those who participated n the subsequent return and re-creations weeks later.

[Guest]

Definitely sounds interesting, Bart, and I really look forward to seeing it. Can't even begin to tell you how heartening it is to hear about something coming down the pike first hand from the person who has it rather than from a guy in Russia, a PR person, someones blog or an affiliate of a group that is speaking for a group that no one ever heard of! LOL You're like an anomaly here.

[Guest]

It's not that people have ignored purported sightings/foot prints...but over the last 50yrs there has been NO FURTHER progress in finding one...even with enhanced modern technology for detection. Your argument that we aren't *LOOKING HARD ENOUGH* is really a *Red Herring* here..sure we can always look harder, but that's really not a primary issue. People ARE looking everyday..maybe not as hard as you would like..

but that's not why we haven't found one. Of course, for one like yourself that is convinced BF exist, no amount of searching will be enough.

I'd say that good progress has been made. Newer technologies have been applied to the search (DNA, acoustic analysis, etc).. New scientific methods have been applied to analyzing reports and other evidence (dermatoglyphic analysis, climate/habitat mapping, trait distribution curve analysis of tracks, forensic hair analysis, and so forth).

And let us not forget they (or at least evidence of them) ARE apparently being "found" if not regularly, then certainly often enough.

But then it's back on the old Skeptic merry-go-round circular argument: No BF because no "proof", dismiss all proffered evidence, and repeat claim. Round and round and round and round it goes.

Like it or not (and I take it you don't), there's PLENTY of evidence. It may not rise to the absolutist level of dispositive "proof", but (as has been said many times before) it is factually incorrect to say there is no evidence.

[Guest Theagenes]

@ arizonabigfoot

I won't suppose to know what believers feel is real or not because that could vary quite a bit depending on which flavor you choose of belief. Some feel that bigfoot has paranormal aspects, and glowing eyes and can move at speeds beyond almost all other animals. Others have a more simple mundane description of the legendary beast. What I can say I've noticed is the PGF seems to be the centerpiece of it all. I'm not sure outside of that who might consider what else as an authentic piece of evidence. Even some proponents that might consider the PGF to represent a hoax may feel some other evidence is authentic. To each is own?

While it's not evidence to anyone else, compelling and believable eye witness accounts like AZ Bigfoot's are fascinating to me and are what continue to make this possible for me. Not blobsquatch films, not dubious trackways.

As to the PGF, I find it telling that of the small regular group of folks here on the BFF that constantly defend the film with a passion bordering on religious fervor---to the point where even the slightest hint of less than 100% percent support is shouted down in a hail of scofftic accusations and flashing gifs with lots of squiggly lines and pixel counts---none of them are eye witnesses. If this film is so clearly a slam dunk for the existence of BF as these proponents would have you believe, then why are none of the numerous "knowers" on these boards not the ones championing it?

[Guest Kerchak]

It may not match any of the known stompers, but that doesn't mean it still wasn't Wallace using a stomper that's no longer extant.

It doesn't look like anything he ever made. There are plenty of Wallace examples, from stompers to casts. They don't look like the 1958 cast that Crew made.

The fact is you have tracks appearing at one of Wallace's sites, found by his employees. It's not like his family's exactly going out on a limb with this speculation.

Or you've got someone who decided to capitalize on real tracks that were found on his site.

And his brother was on site and claims Ray did it.

His brother claimed Wallace used those same wooden feet cited, beginning in '58. That is clearly not the case with the Crew cast, which started the 'bigfoot' thing.

Maybe I was too strong in my wording, but really does anyone still believe the Crew prints are real given all that we know now about Wallace?

Sure. They look much better and more persuasive than Wallace feet. They also look a lot like the Liard Meadow casts from '63 found by Pat Graves and the Hyampom casts in '62 and '63 found by Bob Titmus. It's about 50 miles between Liard Meadows and Hyampom. Ray Wallace was living in Toledo Washington from 1961. Don't forget as well, clear pictures of alleged bigfoot tracks in northern California go back to the 1940s, pre-dating Ray Wallace jumping on the bandwagon, because there was no bandwagon then.

Let me put you on the spot a little bit, Kerchak. In your opinion, do you think the Crew prints are real? Do you think the BCM tracks are real?

Crew prints real, yes. BCM casts doubtful to me now. Sometimes when I look at all the different photos I do see track variations in the 15 inch print, though there is that one pic that does look a match for the Wallace foot, which kind of kills it.

LOL, hey maybe someone used a Wallace stomper to lay tracks there but then a couple other bigfoots started checking out who made the tracks? LMAO.

As to the PGF, I find it telling that of the small regular group of folks here on the BFF that constantly defend the film with a passion bordering on religious fervor

Which is backed up by scientific analysis. And seeing as I am not religious in any way, shape or form I'll say poo to you!

Anyone who can't see Patty isn't a man in a suit just boggle my mind. Seriously. WTF are they looking at?

If this film is so clearly a slam dunk for the existence of BF as these proponents would have you believe, then why are none of the numerous "knowers" on these boards not the ones championing it?

Actually lots of them have done. They are just bored with doing so now because they've already said their bit and there is nothing new to add as far as they are concerned. If you'll note, the PGF section has a relatively small number of people active in it, both pro and con. The knowers want to look to the future. They are satisfied Patty is similar to what they saw so they don't care about convincing cynics and scoftics of this.

Edited January 8, 2013 by Kerchak

[Guest Theagenes]

^

Or you've got someone who decided to capitalize on real tracks that were found on his site.

That is a possibility, but you still have this:

His brother claimed Wallace used those same wooden feet cited, beginning in '58. That is clearly not the case with the Crew cast, which started the 'bigfoot' thing.

His brother, who was there at the site, claiming to be in on it, saying that Ray faked those original tracks with wooden stompers. And we have wooden stompers that Ray definitely used to fake tracks in the late 60's. So it seems to me the most likely suggestion is that Ray had a pair of wooden stompers that he used from 1958 through the early 60's that are now lost. They may have been used on these trackways:

They also look a lot like the Liard Meadow casts from '63 found by Pat Graves and the Hyampom casts in '62 and '63 found by Bob Titmus.

By the 60's he seems to have had at least three different sets, including the BCM ones. When the family came forward decades later, his brother simply assumed that the largest pair was the same as the original set used back in the late 50's.

Why would his brother, who was on site when the Crew tracks appeared and in a position to know, lie and say that Ray did it, when he easily could have said instead "We don't know where the first tracks came from, but Ray decided to capitalize on them and make fake ones everywhere else." It just doesn't make sense. And once the story took off, I don't think it's unreasonable that he would return to northern California every year or so to make some new tracks.

And if those first Crew tracks that started the BF golden age were fake then it calls into question much of the evidence from that period and that area. It doesn't negate all the pre-1958 legends and stories, but anything in northern California in the 1960's has to viewed with the real possibility that Wallace had something to do with it or it was a Wallace copycat trying to get in on the fad.

Which is backed up by scientific analysis. And seeing as I am not religious in any way, shape or form I'll say poo to you!

Well, you are one of the more rational ones.

But I don't mean that the PGF defenders are religious, only that they treat the subject like a religion. Any doubt is treated like a lack of faith. Any substantive criticism is heresy. Skeptics are infidels. Bob H. is a Judas. Any attempt to create a narrative about the events surrounding the creation of the film is apocryphal. There are even saints (Green) whose judgement can never be questioned and sacred texts (Legend Meets Science) which must be taken as literal and true.

Anyone who can't see Patty isn't a man in a suit just boggle my mind. Seriously. WTF are they looking at?

A tiny blurry figure that may a real creature or may be a man in a suit. I can't tell. But hey, I'm an agnostic with a "emotional dam" that prevents me from seeing the Truth.

[Guest]

The problem with quoting another source as an authority is that you are then bound to the information from that authority. To wit:

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

^{. . .} Anecdotal evidence is considered dubious support of a claim; it is accepted only in lieu of more solid evidence.

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

Bolding mine. Do you understand what the bolded part means?

[Drew]

The problem with quoting another source as an authority is that you are then bound to the information from that authority. To wit:

Bolding mine. Do you understand what the bolded part means?

Saskeptic, can you please show one species of animal, that has been described based solely on Anecdotal evidence?

Thanks

[Guest]

^The short answer is "no"; the IUCN has not recognized the description of any new species based solely on anecdotal evidence.

The longer answer is pretty cool in that Linnaeus did include some taxa in his writings based solely on stories he has heard. From New World Encyclopedia:

In addition, in Amoenitates academicae (1763), Linnaeus made a further extrapolation, defining Homo anthropomorpha as a catch-all race for a variety of human-like mythological creatures, including the troglodyte, satyr, hydra, and phoenix. He claimed that not only did these creatures actually exist, but were, in reality, inaccurate descriptions of real-world, ape-like creatures. Furthermore, in Systema Naturæ, Linnaeus defined Homo ferus as "four-footed, mute, hairy." It included the subraces Juvenis lupinus hessensis (wolf-boys), whom he thought were raised by animals, and Juvenis hannoveranus (Peter of Hanover) and Puella campanica (Wild-girl of Champaigne). He likewise defined Homo monstrosous as agile and fainthearted, and included in this race the Patagonian giant, the dwarf of the Alps, and the monorchid Hottentot.

Obviously, these taxa did not survive greater scrutiny from other authors, but we should all try to find occasion today to use the phrase "monorchid Hottentot."

[WSA]

@ Saskeptic, I think I do see your point of view , yes. For you, I think, further personal (psychic/mental?) investment in this quest is not something you are willing to risk. That is every man's right to choose, of course. I hope that you find a reason to rekindle the fire though. I think this quest needs all the keen minds it can find for the job.

Let me ask you another one too, if you don't mind. As you know, lots of us here are pretty jazzed over the reports coming out of OK in the "Operation Persistence" project undertaken by the TBRC, and you are not, if I recall correctly. Drawing on your own field research experience and methods... what would be the most advantageous way for them to get their results out so as to maximize their contributions to the field? In other words, if you had found the evidence they purport to have found/are finding, what would have been your plan to disseminate it, or would you have attempted it at all, given the lack of a specimen?

One last thought, in response to something you raised in your last post regarding how so many areas of the country are "settled", implying those kinds of lands wouldn't support a Sasquatch-like animal. If I've misunderstood you, please correct me. I'm of the opinion this animal is not only surviving, but thriving in the "between" areas where so many other generalists survive. Indeed, the spread of reports of sightings correspond quite handily with the distribution of the deer populations, as we've discussed already. As we all know too, deer do much better in the edge habitats propagated and sustained by humans. Put that together, and Sasquatch may actually be searching out habitat near humans, for that benefit and others. There are legions of accounts of raiding on chicken coops, and goats are also fairly frequent Squatch snacks, if the reports are to be believed. Yes, I know, you would view such a discussion as fanciful, but I couldn't help but comment.

[Drew]

...Because Central Africa, and South America, and Siberia are similar to the PNW when it comes to vast expanses of untouched land...

[Guest DWA]

The problem with quoting another source as an authority is that you are then bound to the information from that authority. To wit:

Bolding mine. Do you understand what the bolded part means?

As I have said more than once;

That you think I disagree with you on this is what's humorous to me.

Where we disagree is on what science can do with inconclusive but compelling evidence.

Actually lots of them have done. They are just bored with doing so now because they've already said their bit and there is nothing new to add as far as they are concerned. If you'll note, the PGF section has a relatively small number of people active in it, both pro and con. The knowers want to look to the future. They are satisfied Patty is similar to what they saw so they don't care about convincing cynics and scoftics of this.

Right.

Bindernagel almost wishes P/G would go away, it consumes so much of the oxygen in the room.

Those of us who are satisfied that all relevant analysys shows this to be probably non-human are...well, the word says it. We are satisfied with that and tired of arguing it with people who have no evidence to back up their claim that it's a hoax. It is never going to be proof, one way or another; we therefore consider fetishizing it to be pointless, particularly when our cogent points in favor of its authenticity generate the same old reactionary true belief in a hoax, as usual unburdened by facts.

We're over P/G. it's been ratified by the many people who say that what's on the film is essentially what they saw (even though almost all of them point out differences of the type one would expect among individuals in a species).

[Guest]

It's not that people have ignored purported sightings/foot prints...but over the last 50yrs there has been NO FURTHER progress in finding one...even with enhanced modern technology for detection. Your argument that we aren't *LOOKING HARD ENOUGH* is really a *Red Herring* here..sure we can always look harder, but that's really not a primary issue. People ARE looking everyday..maybe not as hard as you would like..

I would disagree with this claim because at no other point in the history of Squatchology has there been more resources being used simultaneously to search for BF. Instead of a few hundred people (perhaps a few thousand) searching for BF, we now have hundreds of thousands in the form of trail cameras. Again, these devices are not specifically looking for BF, but available for the task due to the financial windfall if the camera inadvertently snaps a BF mugshot.

These devices are on duty 24/7 365 and don't require sleep, food or water. And like their human counterparts, they too have failed miserably in the quest of recording a BF image.

I did not mention this in my OP, but I questioned why these motion and infrared imaging systems were unable to record BF's existence at the original BFF. This was several years ago when trail-cams were just starting to become popular. The explanation back then was there just wasn't enough of these cameras in the field to make any impact of documenting BF.

Asking the same question today when the number of these unmanned sentinels have grown exponentially. Not only has BF’s IQ grown exponentially, but his vision and hearing has also increased 10 fold to ensure he will never be recorded. And these traits will only continue to grow and improve so long as people believe in BF.

Edited January 8, 2013 by Marlboro

[Guest DWA]

Trail cams are not looking for sasquatch. They are bolted to trees.

Why aren't you guys read up? Even alpha coyotes avoid trail cams on their territories. Why do you think these are going to be any more effective than camera phones (which will never get a sasquatch, count on it, and if you don't know why, please think about it some), until we know - as we do for all game cam subjects - practically everything about them?

[Guest Roberty-Bob]

Doing a quick Google image search I found plenty of coyote trail cam pics - here's one battling with a buck:

http://wildnewjersey.tv/2011/11/16/deer-hunting-trail-cam-captures-coyotes-killing-buck.aspx

We know with a certainty that none of these coyotes captured on trail cams are "alphas"?