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

[Guest toejam]

I believe as much as they avoid us, they're just as curious about us as we are of them. They're extremely shy, simple.

They're abilities at evading are unprecedented. The forest is their home and they know how to utilize it to their full extent.

It really isn't that difficult to blend in with the forest surroundings. They've just mastered it.

I understand some of my claims seem pretentious, but it's all truth. I don't exaggerate one bit. If anything I downplay incidents because of trying to stay as objective as possible.

I also believe that once you find a clan, family or whatever it might be, and you go back, they will remember who you are. I've been shown this being given a wood knock sequence only they knew one day after exiting my vehicle.

I've also gone months with nothing.

This year has been great so far and I hope for more experiences but still no visual. I've learned the truth about their proximity.

I believe their population to be healthy from personal experiences in multiple locations.

They know how to move in on you in silence. That little twig snap just might be them. They can also come in blatant, snapping tree limbs, pushing trees over, making all kinds of noise. That part so far in my experiences always happens when I'm least expecting it and I'm caught completely off guard.

As much as they don't want us to see them, they'll still interact and again in my experiences, stay out of sight while they do it. This is by far the most fascinating adventure I've ever experienced and I don't think it can be beat. I'd pass a trip to the moon to get a visual!

I also am willing to help out those who have a genuine interest. Skeptics are a dime a dozen which is understandable. An open mind is a must dealing with this species. They're unlike anything else out there.

[bipedalist]

So Bigfoot escapes detection by being in dense woods, far away from game cams?

Yet we know that environmental studies are taking place and have been running continously for decades in some of the most out-of-the-way places in forests that even hunters might not frequent. Some of these studies employ grids of cameras covering areas, they employ bait stations, fur traps, and pressure plates for footprints.

We also have a contradiction in that most sightings take place in relatively semi-rural areas. Farm fields, casino parking lots, near gatherings of dozens of Bigfooters camped out in relatively accessible places, trailer parks, people's front yards, across from Bill Green's apartment in Connecticut, rest areas, mountain roads, etc... So the deep deep forest conceals them, yet they are seen in relatively non-remote areas most of the time. It doesn't jibe.

I find it difficult to believe, that any animal, even one that can sense game cams, could avoid them 100% of the time. Hunger would force it to wander into a field, or the sounds of birds chirping, or the lights of a nearby casino parking lot, or the sound of farm implements would impair it's ability to be 100% immune to the game cam.

This doesn't even take into account, the fact that none have been creamed by a big-rig. They avoid cars, they are smart enough to evade commercial haulers, yet I just saw a sighting that said they were SITTING IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD AT NIGHT?!!

The opinion of the opening poster is legitimate, it is not overly critical, it is asking why does Bigfoot's abilities seem to mold and fluctuate to explain why it can not be proven to exist. The poster is not deserving of being labeled a Troll by forum management certainly. Any Bigfooter who can read the opening post, and not agree that some of the super-natural-applied attributes of Bigfoot are a bit silly, needs to step up and explain in detail, how every large mammal in North America has been nailed by a car/truck, or caught on a camera, but not the Bigfoot.

Drew you'd never believe if you were the driver of the big rig that plowed one over (esp. if you had highway hypnosis). I lose very little sleep knowing you have a hard time believing. As for the OP he came in loaded for bear, like many that have been banned from this forum (eventually). There is a way to work your way into the flow of posting on an internet forum (his was not the poster boy example). Heck, even the supersadsock of puppetdom fenris/MikeyX would put in his obligatory 60 posts or so before lighting his candle.

This guy earned the pie in the face.

As to BF research. You make it sound like a BF takes the quick path from point A to point B, I know this not to be the case. They have an ability to stay close yet use seldom used access corridors or make their own. It is also this factor that keeps many researchers from deploying game cams strategically. Plus game cams and audio recorders take a huge amount of time to deploy, monitor and post process, in some cases to access, etc. etc. There are technical failures and glitches, battery issues, etc.

So if BF likes to dumpster dive and play black jack and get caught on casino surveillance cameras who can blame them..... boredom has to be rampant in the rolling pastoral hills of Oklahoma, lol.

Also, maybe a few of them suffer from narcolepsy and stumble around until they bump into stuff and then there is a sighting; or more likely lay around like a bump on a log.

Edited August 22, 2012 by bipedalist

[BobbyO]

Mr/Mrs Marlboro just wrote the OP, and hasn't been seen since, incredible..

[southernyahoo]

So Bigfoot escapes detection by being in dense woods, far away from game cams?

Nope,apparently not, they get seen, and some cams have caught something.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7fjSXvM-l8

Yet we know that environmental studies are taking place and have been running continously for decades in some of the most out-of-the-way places in forests that even hunters might not frequent. Some of these studies employ grids of cameras covering areas, they employ bait stations, fur traps, and pressure plates for footprints.

The coverage is still a drop of water in lake Michigan.

We also have a contradiction in that most sightings take place in relatively semi-rural areas. Farm fields, casino parking lots, near gatherings of dozens of Bigfooters camped out in relatively accessible places, trailer parks, people's front yards, across from Bill Green's apartment in Connecticut, rest areas, mountain roads, etc... So the deep deep forest conceals them, yet they are seen in relatively non-remote areas most of the time. It doesn't jibe.

Actually it does jibe, they come out of the woods and they get seen. Sometimes they are seen in deep woods too.This doesn't necessarily mean they would fall dead on the spot for us or deliberately commit suicide by diving in front of a car.

I find it difficult to believe, that any animal, even one that can sense game cams, could avoid them 100% of the time.

Maybe they are not just an animal, and 100% of the time is debatable.

Hunger would force it to wander into a field, or the sounds of birds chirping, or the lights of a nearby casino parking lot, or the sound of farm implements would impair it's ability to be 100% immune to the game cam.

Again, we don't know all the game cam photos are not of a bigfoot, just that people won't be convinced by the photos.

This doesn't even take into account, the fact that none have been creamed by a big-rig. They avoid cars, they are smart enough to evade commercial haulers, yet I just saw a sighting that said they were SITTING IN THE MIDDLE OF THE ROAD AT NIGHT?!!

They are lucky aren't they?

The opinion of the opening poster is legitimate, it is not overly critical, it is asking why does Bigfoot's abilities seem to mold and fluctuate to explain why it can not be proven to exist. The poster is not deserving of being labeled a Troll by forum management certainly. Any Bigfooter who can read the opening post, and not agree that some of the super-natural-applied attributes of Bigfoot are a bit silly, needs to step up and explain in detail, how every large mammal in North America has been nailed by a car/truck, or caught on a camera, but not the Bigfoot.

This is still a matter of opinion, all the OP can say is that he is not convinced by the evidence. Dismissing all the evidence for the sake of claiming there is none, is denial.

[Guest]

The simple fact is that the OP (and Drew, and anyone else who makes these claims) is wrong.

Every time these "why isn't there [evidence type x] questions come up it comes back to the same tired old Skeptic trick:

1. Claim "no evidence".

2. Dismiss/ignore every proffered piece of evidence.

3. Repeat claim of "no evidence"

I would call it "high-school debating", but that would be an insult to high-school debaters. No one who has even a rudimentary knowledge of logic and/or debating falls for this chorus of psuedo-skepticism.

*ETA* The thing about cameras, surveys, etc is particularly annoying, but understandable in that the average person's knowledge of such capabilities by government agencies is "informed" by spy movies and police proceedurals where just a few clicks of the mouse gets every cruicial piece of evidence right to hand in a matter of a few seconds.

Edited August 23, 2012 by Particle Noun

[Guest]

Where can one see some of these Flir photos? I'd be very interested in seeing them.

Ultimately, you'd have to judge for yourselves if these surveys can distinguish between a quadruped weighing a few hundred lbs and something montrous like a 9ft tall 800 lbs Sasquatch. But like the guy who made some coin selling his Jacob blobsquatch, I don't think these FLIR analysts would mind earning the cash or the publicity that would accompany a FLIR image of BF.

[Drew]

Of course, a Bigfoot probably has hollow polar bear like hair that prevents FLIR imaging right? The heat is kept in, and the FLIR imager has no chance of spotting it.

Of course anyone with FLIR surveying experience would also know, that just because there is an % of animals in some environments that aren't seen, these can be factored-for with simple equations. Many of these are detailed in studies. A simplified version: If you are surveying a conifer forest with a 70% sighting rate on a FLIR survey, you know that if you see 100 animals then you can assume you have 142 actual animals in the survey range.

[Guest thermalman]

Ultimately, you'd have to judge for yourselves if these surveys can distinguish between a quadruped weighing a few hundred lbs and something montrous like a 9ft tall 800 lbs Sasquatch. But like the guy who made some coin selling his Jacob blobsquatch, I don't think these FLIR analysts would mind earning the cash or the publicity that would accompany a FLIR image of BF.

Thanks Marlboro. I'm always interested in new thermal images of different subjects. Just a way of expanding my knowledge base.

Of course, a Bigfoot probably has hollow polar bear like hair that prevents FLIR imaging right? The heat is kept in, and the FLIR imager has no chance of spotting it.

Of course anyone with FLIR surveying experience would also know, that just because there is an % of animals in some environments that aren't seen, these can be factored-for with simple equations. Many of these are detailed in studies. A simplified version: If you are surveying a conifer forest with a 70% sighting rate on a FLIR survey, you know that if you see 100 animals then you can assume you have 142 actual animals in the survey range.

Not likely Drew, about the hollow hair on BF. What are you basing your % on? There is absolutely no way of telling how much you're missing with the camera. The thermal cam can only register what it captures.

My training tells me.........assume nothing and only present the facts as you see them through the camera. If you look around on the forum, I posted thermal images of a polar bear and many other subjects.

Edited August 23, 2012 by thermalman

[slabdog]

Ultimately, you'd have to judge for yourselves if these surveys can distinguish between a quadruped weighing a few hundred lbs and something montrous like a 9ft tall 800 lbs Sasquatch. But like the guy who made some coin selling his Jacob blobsquatch, I don't think these FLIR analysts would mind earning the cash or the publicity that would accompany a FLIR image of BF.

I deleted the rest of the pictures to cut down on usage...

Marlboro:

Good point! And well illustrated with your aerial FLIR shots...

That said...

In the pictures you listed, the images were either taken in the fall / winter OR the tree canopy in that particular region is thin.

I happen to know a few things about FLIR and I can tell you that even in an area like mine, in which trees are hit or miss depending on where you are, when there are trees and the trees are in full "leafed out mode" - for lack of a better term - aerial FLIR has difficulties seeing through the canopy.

That said....I do think that there are regions of the US, regions that some researchers claim BF exist, that does exhibit the very same trees and lack of a canopy that you displayed in your images. I agree with you that, in those cases, any BF should stand out like a sore thumb for someone employing an aerial FLIR.

I don't think the same can be said for thickly, year round, canopied areas such as the PNW, certain areas of the south or any coniferous forested areas.

Long way around the bard....

I agree with you...

...and I disagree with you.

[masterbarber]

Nope,apparently not, they get seen, and some cams have caught something.

video removed

That was a joke played on him by some of the crew from the network, they admitted it. I'll try and find a link later.

[dopelyrics]

^{Yes I thought that video was a hoax.}

^Best.

^Lee

[Drew]

Not likely Drew, about the hollow hair on BF. What are you basing your % on? There is absolutely no way of telling how much you're missing with the camera. The thermal cam can only register what it captures.

The percentage I gave above doesn't matter, I was giving a simple example. There is ABSOLUTELY a way to tell how much you're missing with the camera. It involves study, and numbers. If you have a 1 square mile area, with a known number of animals, you can simply conduct a sampling of surveys over that 1 square mile area, the count you achieve on each sampling run, is compared to the actual number of animals in that space. If you have three different sample areas each representing a different terrain type, then you also have a way to get a % based on terrains.

Below is a simple example. Actual studies are far more detailed than I have done, they will give success rates for slopes, canyons, brush, and will use other statistical methods such as group sizes, and where the groups were located.

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

The methods have been used for many years, mine is a simple example only i scribbled down in 10 minutes, If you really want to know how to know how many animals are in a location, keep reading: Only in the last 20 with FLIR, but for decades counting game in other places around the world.

An excellent example of how an Elephant population count takes place is found here http://www.african-elephant.org/tools/pdfs/man_stdele_en.pdf

[Guest BFSleuth]

What kind of aircraft are used for these FLIR surveys? Do they make any noise and are they low flying?

[Guest UPs]

The percentage I gave above doesn't matter, I was giving a simple example. There is ABSOLUTELY a way to tell how much you're missing with the camera. It involves study, and numbers. If you have a 1 square mile area, with a known number of animals, you can simply conduct a sampling of surveys over that 1 square mile area, the count you achieve on each sampling run, is compared to the actual number of animals in that space. If you have three different sample areas each representing a different terrain type, then you also have a way to get a % based on terrains.

Below is a simple example. Actual studies are far more detailed than I have done, they will give success rates for slopes, canyons, brush, and will use other statistical methods such as group sizes, and where the groups were located.

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

The methods have been used for many years, mine is a simple example only i scribbled down in 10 minutes, If you really want to know how to know how many animals are in a location, keep reading: Only in the last 20 with FLIR, but for decades counting game in other places around the world.

An excellent example of how an Elephant population count takes place is found here http://www.african-elephant.org/tools/pdfs/man_stdele_en.pdf

I wonder why Mcihigan didn't use your formula in this case...........

http://michpics.wordpress.com/2012/07/19/photographic-proof-of-the-michigan-cougar/

So based on your formula, what's the cougar population in Michigan? According to the state, it's been zero for decades and we know know that certainly is not the case. Statistics can be used for many purposes, but identifying a species is not one of them and you know the rule, garbage in, garbage out. UPs

[Cotter]

I see blobthermals in those FLIR photos.

Can one definitely rule that what we see there are indeed all deer?