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

[Guest DWA]

Ask the scientists who conducted the survey. I am not one of them.

But I don't just run around distrusting scientists because they say things I don't want to believe. The scientists doing this study were coyote researchers, not bigfoot researchers. They know. You and I don't.

[Guest Roberty-Bob]

I would love to read the study. I'd ask for a link for you to cite but I suppose I'll just Google it too. And I won't pooh-pooh anything I have no expertise in, but it appears we do get trail cam pics of coyotes. Bigfoot, not so much (and I see a bear in the Jacob's photo, for the record).

[Guest DWA]

Well, I think what's in the Jacobs photos cannot be determined. But I have seen many wild bears (including mangy ones) and the subject doesn't look like one to me. And some of the debunking efforts are laughable (editing in bones cropped from other sources, which even Meldrum did, in one of those see-I'm-skeptical moments). The front/hind leg ratios don't say bear to me.

But just like PG, I consider discussion of that one done as it'll never be proof.

Being much thicker on the ground than sasquatch appear to be, coyotes are going to be seen much more often on traps, There's a lot of inter-territory movement going on.

The only thing I can say about bigfoot and camera traps is that we generally put those where we know animals are going to be, and it doesn't seem to be a problem for the more common ones. Why they aren't getting bigfoot I couldn't tell you, but I'd suspect our lack of pinned-down knowledge of movement patterns has something to do with it.

[Guest]

Just because certain coyotes (territoral males) can avoid getting trail camera images doesn't mean every sasquatch can aviod trail camera images. If you believe the BFRO, then sasquatch are transient animals and hence may be more vulnerable to getting a trail cam pic. The coyote study stated that transient males are more likely to get snapped and even territoral males that have ventured outside of their base.

If a trail camera can catch a lone wolf in Oregon, a cougar in Michigan or a wolverine in California, it can get a sasquatch.

Edited January 8, 2013 by Jerrymanderer

[Guest]

. . . not something you are willing to risk.

Well risk is a funny word that implies a great payoff for those rare few who are brave or dedicated enough for the undertaking. It's not a word that I use with respect to my approach to bigfootery because I have no conviction that there is any payoff. So for me I consider active bigfoot searching more of a waste than a risk.

"Operation Persistence" . . . 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?

Other than claims that folks there have seen and shot at bigfoots, I am unfamiliar with what they might be "finding." With the caveat that I'm concerned that someone will be injured or killed at that location, I generally support their efforts to collect a bigfoot specimen, as a specimen is the only information worthy of being disseminated, at least through the primary literature. I have long-maintained, however, that killing a bigfoot isn't the only way to collect a specimen, and I would recommend that sampling arrays be deployed at the Operation Persistence location that involve hair-catchers (provide DNA), track plates (provide "fingerprint"-quality footprint images), and camera traps (provide clear photographs).* Surely folks by now have given up this silly notion that bigfoot is scared of trail cameras if they're still hanging around the OP site knowing full well that the people there are actively trying to kill them. . .

*I think that unique DNA signatures coupled with photographs and fingerprints of the thing that left the DNA would provide ample evidence for description of a type specimen without the need to kill one.

I'm of the opinion this animal is not only surviving, but thriving in the "between" areas where so many other generalists survive.

If bigfoots are real, then I don't think there's any way to escape this conclusion given the anecdotal accounts. This is why all notions of bigfoot as some kind of wilderness creature or some denizen of unexplored places need to be jettisoned. That means also that comparisons to gorillas, okapis, saolas, etc. are inappropriate.

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.

Accounts like these are what make me think bigfoot is fanciful, not just those accounts that don't stick to the "wilderness" script. Check out the history of animals in North America that steal livestock and raid chicken coops. They end up dead. Fast.

[WSA]

I think the most we can say about trail cams is BF PROBABLY should be showing up on them, we think. They, apparently, didn't get the memo though. Now, I realize this kind of convenient circular analysis is calculated to send some of us here into accusations of illogic, and I would agree such accusations might have merit, a least at this point. But this is a long quest, and we've only been pursuing it for a blip of time. I hope to live long enough to know why/how an animal could quite consistently avoid a trail cam, but all I can predict now is the fault is both in the placement of those cameras and the animal's superior mastery of the habitat. (And we of course have no way to know if the cameras themselves are being used properly, or even if their specifications are appropriate for the job) Put those two things together, and I think it describes a pretty good recipe for failure. But, as I said, the history is way too short to draw any conclusions about why the (non)results are what they are. They just are. If I was relying on camera evidence to be my sole source of confirmation of the presence of the animal, I would be very disappointed right now, but I don’t, and I’m not. What it tells me is the trail cam is probably not the right tool for the job.

[Guest Roberty-Bob]

The Jacob photo certainly has an awkward posture to it (I see it as a rear-view of the subject, personally), but we know animals aren't always so poised - we just don't like to see the hurpa-durp photos as opposed to the graceful ones ( I'll never forget while out walking one afternoon the doe that jumped out in front of me that skidded and went down, then popped up to trot off next another one - I like to imagine the ribbing it took for doing that in front of the humans).

As for BF not getting caught on trail cams, well, you know what I think. But - I'm here hoping to see it happen someday. I figure this is where I'll see it first if it ever does.

[Guest]

(And we of course have no way to know if the cameras themselves are being used properly, or even if their specifications are appropriate for the job)

If you believe that sasquatch is a critically endangered animal numbering only in the dozens and living in only the most remote wilderness, then you may have a point. But if you believe the BFRO sightings map that I post some pages back then this just seems like mental gymnastics to me.

[WSA]

Saskeptic, you wrote: "I think that unique DNA signatures coupled with photographs and fingerprints of the thing that left the DNA would provide ample evidence for description of a type specimen without the need to kill one."

If my take on the findings to date from the TBRC is correct, we may be close to hitting pay dirt in this regard.

I'm also glad to know where the bar is set for you, as I consider you my "challenge" juror. In every case I've tried to a jury, I've tried to identify the one hold-out juror who would likely find against my client. The theory being, of course, is that if I would tailor my argument and evidence to this juror, I would have a good chance of assuring my client a favorable verdict.

I'm also in agreement on the point of folks going armed, bent on inflicting harm in an environment with limited visibility. I'll just have to rely on the competency of the TBRC members in this regard, and the fact they are all consenting adults (assuming they have the ability to exclude any non-participants from the area). On another level, I'm just opposed to the idea of killing an animal we don't understand. It is just an entirely too human a thing to do, and we need to grow up as a species, I think.

I have no doubt a coyote, fox or dog who raids chicken coops is going to shorten its lifespan, if caught. I think any rancher or grower would be very hesitant to pull the trigger on any two-legged creature, for obvious reasons. Too, if such a killing would take place, my prediction is dirt would be kicked over the corpse pretty darn quickly. I can tell you as well, I used to lose a few lambs a year and never even spotted the culprit, let alone got a bead on it. I'm sure it was nothing more exotic than a wild dog (being in NW New Jersey). I'm not saying there are not those who could do better, but I'm sure I was not the MOST incompetent shepherd out there! It is tough to do and takes much time and skill.

Nope Jerrymander, I don't believe they are remote and endangered. It is just another piece in the puzzle to me, one of the "known unknowns" we have to sort out.

[Guest]

If my take on the findings to date from the TBRC is correct, we may be close to hitting pay dirt in this regard.

Well those of us who've been around awhile have lost track of the number of times something has sounded really promising before its inevitable fizzle. I'll be thrilled if they ever produce anything of substance but it won't affect me in the least if they don't.

. . . (assuming they have the ability to exclude any non-participants from the area).

There was apparently a close call at this location in 2010. Shots were fired close enough to a couple the shooter didn't know was there that the couple fled the scene in great haste and damaged their vehicle. This story didn't give me a lot of confidence that the OP team can really control access to their site, which makes sense because it's apparently surrounded by National Forest land with pretty good roads up to the top of the ridges there.

I think any rancher or grower would be very hesitant to pull the trigger on any two-legged creature, for obvious reasons.

That's not what I kept hearing from folks in the wake of the Sandy Hook Elementary School disaster. Several of my very "pro-gun" students explained to me clearly that growing up in really rural places these days means counting on yourself for defense because you can't wait around for the county sheriff to protect you. My kind-of-rural background meant that we did just fine protecting ourselves with a German Shepherd, but these days it's apparently more violent out there with all the meth-heads and other unsavories around, and superlative firepower is the name of the game. Now, of course, none of these big talkers have actually shot any people but they certainly said they would if need be.

More relevant to my point, however, is that our 21st Century sensibilities about killing things on two legs are not appropriate to apply to the folks who settled North America and could've put a bullet in a bigfoot pretty much at any point from 1600 on. Pioneers, settlers, homesteaders - whatever you want to call them, most of these people would not have been nearly so squeamish about shooting a 2-legged chicken thief than we might be today. If previous generations would shoot Native Americans, runaway slaves, hoboes - heck, well-heeled folks used to shoot each other for no greater infraction than a public disagreement - then I can't see them not shooting the bigfoot in the chicken coop.

[Cotter]

But if you believe the BFRO sightings map that I post some pages back then this just seems like mental gymnastics to me.

Depends on how much weight you put on the nomadic tendencies of these creatures.

A small population could be perceived as a much greater population if the nomadic ranges of the species is great as well.

But, I'm not aware of any North American Hominids that used nomadic practices to survive in North America.

;-)

Additionally, trail cams are great, but largely ineffective for wary game. (See Wolves in Wisconsin cocumentary to see Wolf behavior around trail cams - and the high dollar ones, not the $200 cabela specials).

Now, if we assume a BF is only as intelligent as a wolf, we would by now have dozens of blurry photos of BF as they instantly spring away from the noise of the camera triggering. This is assuming they have no idea that a camera is there in the first place. And assuming that the person that has the game cam can ID a blurry BF. And that BF stay in a home range similar to that of wolves (area wise). And assume that the person that gets a 'decent' photo is compelled to share it with the world to face the ridicule and unwanted attention it would bring.

Lots of assumptions in there. And even those assumptions provide only a scant chance of a 'clear' BF photo.

Now, if anyone can explain to me the migratory behaviors, home ranges, sensory abilities, and cognitive abilities of a BF, that would help determine the potential timeline for capturing the one that 'slips up'.

I

[Guest]

Which documentary would that be? I've found plently of clear trail camera pictures of wolves online in Wisconsin and other places. I've read a paper that showed that improperly placed cameras can scare off an animal but after the shot is taken.

[Guest toejam]

As of this morning we just documented ANOTHER print find. Sasquatch prints, not human. As much as naysayers and skeptics might think it's a human or hoax, it's not.

We heard him open the velcro flap on the snowmobile late last night. I filmed and documented the area in front of the cottage at 4am this morning showing prints made again by what I believe is a young adolescent male sas who's been hanging around every night we're there. He was there again after I went inside as this morning I found another clear print near the snowmobile that had stepped on our snowmobile boot prints.

That IS evidence. While it doesn't prove their existence, it's another piece of evidence to add to the mountain of evidence we have to date of this enigma.

[Guest]

Here's one. Man he's fast too!!

Edited January 9, 2013 by arizonabigfoot

[Guest]

Where was that pic taken? I have some idea what that may be.