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

[Guest]

I have no idea. It was in Field and Streams' top trailcam pics contest.

[Guest]

It looks like....

[Guest DWA]

So much for the skeptical objection that primates can't live in the temperate zone....

[Guest]

It looks like....

Japanese Macaque..the ONLY known primate, other than humans, to live in colder snow like conditions.

This animal has a FUR like coat..This not been demonstrated for a BF.

From literature>>>

"It has a thick, furry coat ranging from gray to brown or mottled in color. In the winter the northern tribes of macaques will grow a heavy insulating coat to maintain their body temperature. During the summer they will have a lighter coat"

Edited January 9, 2013 by ronn1

[Guest DWA]

I think the most we can say about trail cams is BF PROBABLY should be showing up on them, we think. [...]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.

This is just one area of, well, you know, all areas in sasquatch research, which is manned almost exclusively by amateurs, Including, yes, the scientists. Science doesn't recognize apes in NA. So, search protocols can be approximated, but they're on the steep part of the learning curve too. As I like to say, one can't blame the animal's nonexistence on the ignorance or incompetence of the people searching for it. (Never mind that almost all people - including trail cam operators - aren't.)

I tend to consider this - along with livestock raiding - one of those "known unknowns" WSA talks about. But thinking about this like a scientist, the way I tend to, I am forbidden to shovel the evidence under a rock to make myself comfortable with what I don't know.

Besides which, it's not hard to figure that if a sasquatch is seen (or hit by a truck, car, etc.) on land worked by a farmer, or a timber operator, or a rancher, or anybody who is relying on the public dole or public laissez-faire, it might occur to those good people that sayonara gravy train would be the result should you have Bigfoot discovered on your income source. Shovel and shut up would, I expect, be the order of the day. Now they know; and they save their business to boot. Win-win!

(I doubt most people care who knows sasquatch is real as long as they do. The exceptions are the ones that post reports.)

I'd also think that people with guns are going to have the same problem as people with cameras when they see something that first, they aren't ready to shoot at and second, doesn't exist. They aren't just going to raise a gun, particularly those who think, looking at the gun, then at what they propose to take down with it, this isn't a gun, it's a peashooter. Then there are all the ones who line it up in their sights and go, I cannot do this to something like this. It's wrong.

Citing personal problems with aspects of the evidence is the argument from personal incredulity. I can understand it, but I can't let myself fall into that trap. We don't know what we don't know, let alone why we don't know it. The evidence is the evidence, as Napier would tell us, and can't be ignored because of gaps in our understanding.

Edited January 9, 2013 by DWA

[Guest]

So much for the skeptical objection that primates can't live in the temperate zone....

It has not been demonstrated that a BF has same type of HEAVY THICK FURRY coat as the Japanese Macaque

Edited January 9, 2013 by ronn1

[Guest DWA]

...and it clearly hasn't been demonstrated that it doesn't, n'est-ce pas?

The guy who shot one in Manitoba in 1941 said of Patty: she'd freeze to death up here. The one he shot had hair he compared to a musk ox's.

Anecdotal? Yep. But we can't discount sasquatch because something hasn't yet been demonstrated.

[Guest]

...and it clearly hasn't been demonstrated that it doesn't, n'est-ce pas?

The guy who shot one in Manitoba in 1941 said of Patty: she'd freeze to death up here. The one he shot had hair he compared to a musk ox's.

Anecdotal? Yep. But we can't discount sasquatch because something hasn't yet been demonstrated.

Burden of proof is in YOUR court...

We have only ONE primate in snow (other than us). If you look at Patty..it's NOT a thick furry coat. Looks more like a Monkey's hair. HAIR..NOT FUR.

[Guest]

There are probably 4 or 5 monkeys species that regularly experience seasonal temperatures below freezing. Among apes, it gets pretty cold on those high slopes in the Virungas.

I have no problem envisioning a hypothetical Bigfoot that is cold-adapted.

[Guest Kerchak]

That is a possibility, but you still have this:

His brother, who was there at the site, claiming to be in on it, saying that Ray faked those original tracks with wooden stompers....

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,

Well of course he's going to say that. What a hoot to get some fame and notoriety for your family and some nice publicity and some slaps on the back.

The wooden stompers Wallace had, as well as his plaster casts of 'tracks' that he used to sell, don't bare any resemblance to the 1958 Jerry Crew track. They are notably different almost everywhere.

Notice his family waited until after Ray Wallace died before coming forward with these revelations, thus preventing Ray Wallace from being questioned and pressed for details.

Ray Wallace himself claimed many things that were not true. For example, he claimed he had hours of footage of a bigfoot catching apples that were thrown to it. LOL. He was a teller of tall tales. It appears to have run in the family.

You simply cannot avoid the fact that Wilber Wallace specifically claimed it was THOSE EXACT STOMPERS that were used to kick off the whole 'bigfoot' thing. His brother didn't even know what the Crew cast looked like. LOL. Yet you want to take his word as gospel? Are you really being objective here?

And we have wooden stompers that Ray definitely used to fake tracks in the late 60's.

Which aren't anything like the Crew track.

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.

Oh how 'convenient'. Why lose the stompers that supposedly began it all? They would be the most treasured items in all of the Wallace 'arsenal' LMAO. Yet they were conveniently 'lost'. Oh, suuuuuuuuuuuuure they were.

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.

A nice 'convenient' neat little package for you to 'believe in'. Unfortunately it doesn't tally up with the truth. Ray Wallace did not begin the history of giant tracks being found in northern California. He simply jumped on the bandwagon.

And if those first Crew tracks that started the BF golden age were fake

They weren't.......and there are tracks going back before that too.

but anything in northern California in the 1960's has to viewed with the real possibility that Wallace had something to do with it

LOL, even Patty? The Oroville sightings? The Weaverville sightings? Etc?

If you have an emotional 'problem' in accepting bigfoot then of course you are going to think Wallace might have had something to do with everything bigfoot related in Northern California. If, on the other hand, you don't have an emotional 'problem' in accepting bigfoot (like me) then there is no reason to suspect Wallace might have been behind everything.

or it was a Wallace copycat trying to get in on the fad.

Well Wallace himself was the original copycat. He was the one who jumped on the bigfoot bandwagon in the first place.

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.

I'd say a lack of using one's eyes properly and having an emotional dam, preventing one from accepting what is actually on screen.

Any substantive criticism is heresy. Skeptics are infidels. Bob H. is a Judas.

No, Bob H simply isn't telling the truth. This is 100% proven. There is no argument here. It's beyond doubt.

A tiny blurry figure that may a real creature or may be a man in a suit. I can't tell.

Its not 'blurry'. You can even make out the toes in some stills and Kitakaze claimed to be able to see a glass eye. It's most certainly not a blobsquatch. I can make out fur lines and muscle groups, an expanding calf, cupped fingers etc etc.

[Guest DWA]

Just like Patterson, Wallace simply wasn't competent enough to fake significant sasquatch evidence. He's a non-issue as far as I'm concerned.

Patterson was serious about this topic; everything known about him says that. But he wasn't serious enough, or rich enough, or inclined enough to fake or lie, or well-connected enough to fake Patty.

Likewise, Wallace was able to make naively interesting stomps. But not nearly good enough to make a compelling sasquatch track.

Burden of proof is in YOUR court...

We have only ONE primate in snow (other than us). If you look at Patty..it's NOT a thick furry coat. Looks more like a Monkey's hair. HAIR..NOT FUR.

Yet Patty lives in a place that snows in the winter, and no evidence points to a fake.

Proof is not in my court at all. The scientific community has the burden of proof. When bigfoot is proven, whom do you think the public will believe screwed up? That's your answer.

Japanese Macaque..the ONLY known primate, other than humans, to live in colder snow like conditions.

This animal has a FUR like coat..This not been demonstrated for a BF.

From literature>>>

"It has a thick, furry coat ranging from gray to brown or mottled in color. In the winter the northern tribes of macaques will grow a heavy insulating coat to maintain their body temperature. During the summer they will have a lighter coat"

Not sure what the fallacy you are engaging in is called, but fallacy it is. (Not demonstrated = doesn't exist? Oh, OK.) And by the way, several other monkey species live in cold and snow. I'll let you google it. Hint: snub-nosed.

you're trying to say that sasquatch aren't cold adapted? On what, er, evidence, sir, do you base that claim?

Sounds like the monkey's got something the ape might have too, yepper.

Edited January 9, 2013 by DWA

[Cotter]

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.

Hi Jerry:

Documentary is called "Wolves in Wisconsin". It's a 2012 PBS documentary.

There is an interesting segment in it whereas the professional photographer tasked with gaining footage of the wolves describes the challenges in getting a good, clear pic or video - while using top of the line video.

Bottom line is that it took this professional photographer 4 years of dedication to get 14 minutes of usable footage.

I recall him talking about how sometimes the wolves would indeed get a pic snapped but would instantly run off, causing the photo to be blurred or movie to show a flash of a hindquarter - something I think everyone would agree would not pass the visual test to be considered a 'good' BF photo.

Now this is a wolf. Not a primate. Especially not a primate of the order that BF is described as.

These 'dumb' animals can foil trail cam attempts, imagine a 'smart' one.

[Guest DWA]

Then there's this: the dumb and dumber Bornean race of the Sumatran rhino evaded camera traps for ten years.

Take Borneo; green in the potential Sumatran rhino habitat; now put that on top of a map of North America, with potential sasquatch habitat there.

Right. And then take into account that more than 99% of camera traps in use were put where they are to capture animals other than sasquatch. In other words, they may or may not be placed right, but we can guess which.

The absence of good - oh, that's good confirmed, how do you know there are none? - trap photos of sasquatch means essentially nothing.

Edited January 9, 2013 by DWA

[WSA]

@ Saskeptic....I would agree the probabilities of plugging a hypothetical BF would have been greater in the 19th and early 20th centuries. My standard rejoinder to the idea this surely would have occurred though is: "You mean to say, if it had happened, you would have been sure to have known about it." I think that assumption fails to account for the thousands of ways modern life has accelerated information exchanges of all kinds. This has erased for many the actual cultural memory of just how isolated many thousands of people were, how distrustful they were of sharing information, the superstitions they had, and the default setting of keeping secrets to yourself if you knew what was good for you. My Scots-Irish ancestors of the intermountain East, and many like them, elevated self-sufficiency, obstinacy, and clannishness to the level of performance art, dating back to the Statute of Anne (So much so, that even to this day no female in my bloodline has ever borne the name with the "e" appended) In many places this is even still the way. You just plain DID NOT SHARE.

Which is to say I was raised around guns a plenty, and it sounds like you did too. To those who blithely predict the easy bagging of this hypothetical animal, I say "good luck with that."

[Drew]

If they exist in the U.P. of Michigan, as many claim they do, they would have most certainly been shot by now.

The locals there shoot for food, and they shoot for fun.

The biggest problem for wildlife managers in the U.P. in the 1990's is that the locals kept shooting the Moose and they kept shooting the Wolves. They shot the moose to eat, and the shot the wolves because the wolves ate the deer. The DNR actually put out flyers defining how to tell a wolf from a coyote for the locals. It didn't work. The locals knew what they were shooting. A Bigfoot in the UP would be considered competition, or something to tell the guys 'down at bar' that night. And in 6 foot of snow, it would be a clumsy, easy target.

Edited January 9, 2013 by Drew