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

[Guest thermalman]

I've never seriously looked for one, as of yet, thus never seen one. So, I must be maximizing my potential and doing something right to not see one.

[Guest]

If this animal is so rare that we don't have pics, videos, fossils, specimens, etc., then how is it they are plentiful enough that thousands of reports fill the database?

So is it possible the vast majority of the database submissions are simply incorrect for one reason or another?

My excuse/premise was if BF exists and hasn't been classified it's because they are rare. The implication is that most reports must be false, for whatever reason.

Here's the punchline: An animal so incredibly rare that only ONE is estimated to exist in all of California, was caught in just such a manner, and later confirmed by a photo taken by a hiker. This animal is no hulking giant, and is so shy and elusive that in the past few years there have only been THREE instances of it being captured on game-cam. No hundreds of reported sightings by people in cars, loggers, hunters, hikers, wildlife biologists, surveyors, or park employees. ONE hiker spots one and promptly captures an image of one on his cell phone camera. Watch the video. He even mentions bigfoot.

They est that only one wolverine exists because of the frequency of sightings? I see a problem with that. And just because a rare animal gets caught on a game cam doesn't tell us how many BF we should have captured. Were the game cams in the deep woods? Are wolverines consciously avoiding humans and their territory? And how many other rare animals are game cams NOT capturing? This example can't tell us anything about BF.

It isn't, but surely if bigfoot exists in areas like Pennsylvania, Eastern Kentucky, or the southwestern United States, these night-time fly-overs should increase the possibility of nabbing an unsuspecting bigfoot, not decrease it.

Sure, if enough BF are out there to detect, and they make themselves visible to whatever kind of camera you are using. Even FLIR can't penetrate thick canopies. But fly-overs only capture a snapshot in time over a given location. And not simultaneously. They accumulate data very slowly and it must be analysed much later. Long after a BF has moved.

Otherwise, real-time analysis, on the fly, requires extremely low flight paths and so little area gets covered that it's probably an expensive waste of time. But it's better than nothing I suppose. However, not finding BF using these methods is not surprising, let alone an excuse why a BF has not been detected.

You mean like the area that represents white-tailed deer, black bear, or moose?

Density Ray. Game cams don't tend to get placed in remote areas. And still, the area they collectively cover is tiny.

One-hundred years? Whaaaa? You're not going to include the exploration by the English, French, Spanish, and Russians over the past four centuries? Where are the sasquatch pelts, teeth, skulls, and other accoutrements these intrepid explorers should have been dangling in front of their fellow explorers to demonstrate their badassery? Where are the written accounts of these explorers encountering and driving off rock-hurling monster beasts of the forest?

Do you really think it is likely that BF remains would have survived 4 centuries to wind up in the Smithsonian? We'd be lucky if P.T. Barnum's "Ape-Monster" display would have made it to present day. I'm going by accounts of BF in late 19th century newspapers, when sightings 1st got recorded. But add another 100 years if you like. It's still a drop in the time bucket.

Like it or not, until the day someone drags in a dead squatch (or part of one), all we have is an ever growing list of excuses for why we can't produce that body.

Excuses or reasons. Potato Patoto.

[Guest toejam]

Most tend to think rarity is the reason for so little evidence, no body, fossil record etc.

From what I've experienced, they're NOT that rare. It's their abilities at evading us and their intelligence that minimize evidence but most can't grasp that. Remote and rare are the general consensus.

I'd put money on it that they have a healthy population and frequent areas that border areas inhabited by humans all over.

To create a fossil is no easy task. Several factors have to fall into place and it just doesn't happen that easy. They only have what, 3 mandibles and a handful of teeth to prove the existence of Gigantopithecus? Not much of a record. For all we know, squatch bury their dead and we just haven't stumbled upon any remains. It's like looking for a needle in planet sized haystack. Good luck.

It would also help if someone was looking for a fossil record in the first place!

Fact is they're in rural areas all over the U.S. and I would think Canada as well. I believe Canadians tend to be a little more reserved about bringing up the topic. John Bindernagel mentioned to me south of the border residents are crazy about BF. It's just not the same up here. We're much more reserved about the subject (minus me of course, heh) I'll talk about it till I'm blue in the face. An encounter tends to have that effect on people.

Ontario IMO has a healthy population. Experiences in multiple locations as well as speaking with other independents lead me to this conclusion. Can I prove it? Hell no. Can I experience it? Hell yeah!

Flying over a forest with a thermal or other camera apparatus is a waste of time IMO. Where do you start? A giant haystack from hell.

Gaining their trust to invoke an approach is your best bet IMO. Get them close and you might have one shot at a photo. If you miss, you're probably best to pack it up and leave cause when it's over, it's over.

[Guest RayG]

Again though it's just talk. You don't know me and neither to most on here.

Exactly. Lots of times folks in your position get upset with us skeptics because we just don't accept what we're being told at face value. You tend to forget the other fifty or so times we were told something so promising, so tantalyzing, that bigfoot just HAD to be at the end of the rainbow. Like I said, it's nothing against you personally, I just refuse to get my hopes up when someone makes yet another unsupported claim about bigfoot.

You're having these amazing interactions with bigfoot over a prolonged period? Good for you. Prove it.

Can't prove it? Then don't be surprised when you're met with a big spoonful of skepticism from me. It's the way I roll in this Shire.

As far as getting a clear shot. First off there's a huge difference between a wolverine and a sasquatch. One is believed to be sentient with cognizant thinking. The other just a tough little mofo that can take down a moose. As smart as it may be, there's no comparison to a BF.

That's only applicable at close range. Certainly the hiker who snapped the shot of the wolverine was in the right place at the right time, to capture an image of the critter as it merrily went from one location to another. This wasn't a confrontation between hiker and wolverine. Wasn't something where both were aware of the other. This was just a smart, elusive, rarely seen creature that decided to cross an open area and a hiker happened to be close enough to observe and capture it on film. Never happens with bigfoot though.

You've been at it for 40 years? Maybe a change of approach is in order. I'd even take you out if you were in my neck of the woods. I love to give that big fat "I told you they were real" and see the look on your face when the truth is revealed.

I did go through a change of approach. I stopped accepting everything and anything people dished up in front of me, and became a much more discerning diner. No requirement for me to attend your neck of the woods, where my skepticism may inhibit activity. No wasted mileage, vacation time, money, or food. Got bigfoot? Prove it.

RayG

[Guest FuriousGeorge]

I have a question about the usage of the word elusive in this example, Ray.

There are a few assumptions in this question, but for the sake of argument;

As far as the wolverine, do you consider low population densities (in the respect of the evolutionary process of avoidance after their predecessors were hunted), the same as a potential large primate?

I do not. No way. The wolverine tears around it's habitat without fear and with far less intelligence (I'm guessing). I don't think correlating low population densities with being elusive in this context is correct.

[Guest]

I would agree. If you put yourself on the same hill as a wolverine, I don't know how much it will do to stealthily give you the slip. It may break into a run to get out of range, but you'd see it leaving. According to many reports, a bigfoot may doing a number of things to blend into the environment, and I'm not so sure you'd see one even if he was in pretty close range.

[Guest thermalman]

Wolverines more elusive than bf? Judging by the thousands of bf reports, it sounds like it. So if wolverines are more elusive than bf, what's the excuse for the lack of photos? Oh yeah, bf can detect/avoid cameras, even at great distances. It's the most effective way to NOT see a bigfoot -- bring a camera.

And wolverines are probably the only animal that wouldn't back down from a bf. They is just plain nasty.

RayG

There is no lack of photos or vids of BF. Just do a search online or on this forum. I will be the first to admit that 98% of them are blobsquatches or other misidentified evidence. And, I agree with you on the wolverine likely not to back down from BF.

But, until the wolverine was captured on camera, the PGF vid had provided the newer evidence of the two.

Edited September 8, 2012 by thermalman

[Guest MikeG]

Curious they don't seem to win that lottery when it comes to the wolverine either, yet they managed to get game-gam pics of the only one that lives in California.

This is such a curious statement.

How can you know there is only one? Just say, for the sake of a thought experiment, that someone captured this one known wolverine temporarily. They have then exactly the same impossibility as sceptics are always challenged with.........prove the negative. Prove that there are A: no other wolverines in California

.........is intellectually exactly the same as B: "Prove there are no Bigfoots"

You rightly proclaim the impossibility of B. And yet you implicitly accept the exact polar opposite scenario in A.

Curious.

Mike

[Guest RayG]

I have a question about the usage of the word elusive in this example, Ray.

There are a few assumptions in this question, but for the sake of argument;

As far as the wolverine, do you consider low population densities (in the respect of the evolutionary process of avoidance after their predecessors were hunted), the same as a potential large primate?

I do not. No way. The wolverine tears around it's habitat without fear and with far less intelligence (I'm guessing). I don't think correlating low population densities with being elusive in this context is correct.

I'm using 'elusive' the same way the dictionary does:

]elusive[/b]

adjective

- cleverly or skillfully evasive: a fish too elusive to catch

The wolverine is described as elusive in the link I gave a few posts ago.

From that link:

But almost no one has ever seen him.

"He's gone before you even have a clue he's there," said Amanda Shufelberger, a wildlife biologist with Sierra Pacific Industries who has tracked the animal across the Sierra Nevada since 2008. "He does not want to see you."

Three years after the discovery of a wolverine in the Tahoe National Forest north of Truckee, the elusive creature continues to roam the region, defying expectations, delighting many and stirring calls to find him a mate.

Where he came from is a mystery, although his DNA closely matches that of wolverines in the Sawtooth Range of Idaho. While other wolverines have reportedly been spotted over the years, he is the first confirmed in California since 1922, when a trapper killed one...

..."Wolverines are found in extreme, high alpine habitats that are hard to survey. They avoid people, and they are very good at it."

As for his intelligence:

He is exceedingly clever, as well. Other wild animals simply tug at the bait as it sits inside a wire cage nailed to a tree -- but not this wolverine.

He takes the cage itself apart, not by force but with cunning. "He gets into the back where the two seams (of wire) meet and pulls out a couple of horseshoe nails and pulls out the meat gingerly," said Shufelberger.

The context in which I'm using 'elusive' has to do with an animal that is rarely seen, described as elusive and cunning, yet is captured on film. And from what I've read, it is a rare occurrence indeed if a hiker or anyone else in the woods spots a wolverine.

BF, on the other hand, is spotted hundreds, if not thousands of times, crossing roads, in backyards, etc. yet somehow manages to avoid having his image preserved by any type of camera. It just doesn't seem logical, and it seems that special excuses are tossed out as explanations for this lack of success.

Bigfoot can detect cameras, and thus avoids them.

Bigfoot knows every inch of the forest, and is completely aware when humans are in their territory.

Bigfoot are too elusive/intelligent, etc. etc.

You know, just like the thread topic.

MikeG, they don't ~know~ that there's only one, but the evidence seems to point in that direction. It's all in that link I gave.

"A male and a female would be real exciting," said Chris Stermer, a wildlife biologist with the California Department of Fish and Game who along with other researchers has collected strands of wolverine hair for DNA analysis in recent years.

All were positive for the same male. "If it's one animal, it's not a population," Stermer said. "That's really what we would like."

Scientists have traced the animal's DNA to wolverines in the northern Rockies and believe he may have wandered down solo from Idaho -- a journey of more than 500 miles across rivers, deserts, highways and railroads.

Still, they don't rule out the possibility that a handful of homegrown California wolverines, including females, could be hiding out, undetected, in the remote Sierra backcountry.

RayG

[Guest]

Lynx are rare and elusive:

Sumatran rhinos are rare and elusive: http://news.mongabay.com/2012/0812-hance-rhinos-leuser.html

Cross River gorillas are rare and elusive: http://news.discovery.com/animals/first-camera-trap-video-footage-taken-of-worlds-rarest-gorilla-120508.html

Y'all can beat on the wolverine in California example all you want, but there are many other great examples of really rare species caught on trail cams. These are species that, if we are to accept the hypothetical continental range of bigfoots in North America, must be far more rare than bigfoots. For those who accept the reality of bigfoot but don't accept the enormous distribution, can you please explain to me how I can determine which BFRO accounts are the true ones so I can develop a more accurate idea of their distribution and habitat? Thanks!

[Guest FuriousGeorge]

Yes, but you guys are talking about present day elusiveness through only about 200 years of evolved behavior as a result of hunting and trapping with animals of possible lessor brains. Do you acknowledge the possibility of a difference? I think the problem lies in the fact that you are using the word elusive as it is defined, but in the wrong context. The numbers compare, but many other qualifiers do not. You are lining up the ones that bolster your point. I'm lining up the ones that don't. The ones that don't (of course) are the only ones that matter in this example.

I'm assuming bf was almost obliterated almost ten times the distance in the past. This assumption is weak and only based on the disappearance of Giganto, as we attempted to cultivate our society. And the assumption that we didn't take kindly to other bipeds roaming around for reasons of competition long ago. These combined factors (bigger brain included) would develop into a more stealthy animal than one with a lessor brain that only started to get it's foot caught in a snare in significant numbers only 2 centuries ago.

I do realize I'm using variations of the word assumption often.

[Guest RayG]

I'm talking about one of the excuses proponents use for why there are no clear pictures of bigfoot -- bf is too elusive to be captured on film.

Other elusive animals don't seem to be spared, why bigfoot? -- bf is too intelligent to be captured on film.

Other intelligent animals don't seem to be spared, why bigfoot? -- bf can detect and thereby avoid cameras.

Other elusive and intelligent animals don't seem to be spared, why bigfoot? -- bf doesn't exist in the same population densities.

See how it works? No matter what question is posed, or how illogical the lack of evidence appears, bf always has an escape clause, an excuse if you will.

RayG

[roguefooter]

There are several examples of bigfoot being captured on film- they're just not accepted as being real or good enough. From 16mm to modern camcorders to game cams, of course nothing absolutely clear but that's not really relevant to the question of being captured on film.

Whenever presented they're automatically rejected, and then the next challenge gets thrown into the equation- "Show me a body.".

Edited September 9, 2012 by roguefooter

[Guest]

I'm talking about one of the excuses proponents use for why there are no clear pictures of bigfoot -- bf is too elusive to be captured on film.

Other elusive animals don't seem to be spared, why bigfoot? -- bf is too intelligent to be captured on film.

Other intelligent animals don't seem to be spared, why bigfoot? -- bf can detect and thereby avoid cameras.

Other elusive and intelligent animals don't seem to be spared, why bigfoot? -- bf doesn't exist in the same population densities.

See how it works? No matter what question is posed, or how illogical the lack of evidence appears, bf always has an escape clause, an excuse if you will.

RayG

Nah, your premise is flawed. You are claiming that if BF existed, it would have been captured on a game cam by now. So then are all rare and elusive animals that have ever existed caught on a game cam? That's right, there is no way to know. Sorry but that's not an excuse.

[Guest RayG]

No, given the tremendous advances in technology, I'm asking why, if other rare and elusive animals have been captured on game-cams or cameras, hasn't bf been captured on a game cam by now?

What other rare and elusive animal are you referring to?

RayG