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

[Guest thermalman]

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-e...n_stdele_en.pdf

IMPOSSIBLE to know exact numbers of animals on the land. Most animals are transient making the "known" numbers unattainable!

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.

For thermal accuracy, one would have to be on the ground, under the canopy of the trees.

[Guest]

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

Originally, both helicopters and fixed winged aircraft were used for these surveys. But pilots and researchers would later discover that loud chopping noises inherent with helicopters would spook their subjects. Helicopters also made for poorer platforms for FLIR cameras as the vibrations would introduce noise with everything that was recorded.

Several of the FLIR reports I read indicated that using slow single engine fixed wing aircraft at an altitude of 1000 ft were best suited for animals that spooked easily such as deer. The FLIR camera below is just behind the rear landing gear.

[Guest]

Fascinating to find that biologists are debating blobcats...

It was also fascinating to see many of the same fallacies and dirty debate tactics applied to Michigan cougars as is routinely employed to BF by the Skeptics.

[Crittergetter]

And so we are back to this.

A lot of my compatriots here will have already cleared up many of the issues I had with the original post, and I actually wasn't going to post at all since things seemed to be well in hand. However...

I don't know why people keep posting about how there is no evidence. Honestly I am unsure if they are deliberately misrepresenting the issue or if they are just arrogant enough to casually dismiss everything that does indeed exist. Though to be fair, I suppose it could be a mispeaking of what was meant, but a mistake that is so oft repeated just seems to get the air of deliberation after a while.

There is evidence. There are mounds of evidence. There is so much evidence I could probably spend the better part of a year going through it, not even sleeping, and still have only scatched the surface. Just because we do not have absolute evidence, or even evidence that persuades you, does not mean that none of it even exists.

As far as proponents describing Bigfoot as elusive, shy of humans, etc., etc., well, you'd be surprised to realize that it's actually a pretty logical way to reason at things. The only difference really between you and I on this is that I begin with the assumption that Bigfoot exists. We're trying to figure out how it can work, and you're trying to get us to admit it can't. Of course, sometimes peoples held assumptions about Bigfoot get mixed up and they accidentally flip flop on an issue. Or maybe it isn't accidental, and after some thought they decided to change their ideas. These things happen.

As to why we start with the assumption that Bigfoot exists, that varies from person to person. I know that I've heard a few things in the night that didn't sound like any sort of animal I've ever heard before, and I find the overwhelming amount of circumstantial evidence rather persuading. No, apparently, do not. That's just fine. In the end we are on the same side, trying to find out whats at the bottom of this mystery. And that is something that would do us all some good to remember from time to time.

[Guest Crowlogic]

I more or less agree with the OP. Evidence as it exists today is barely worth following in the hope of hitting it just right. By just right I do mean bullet proof video/photos and or a type specimen. Everything else while interesting is still a whole bunch of nothing. Heck they've managed to locate dark matter and Hicks Bozon which is far mar difficult to pin down that a big hairy biped. I'm always mindful that the UFO community invented the Men In Black to cover their backs when certain key players were about to be found out as hucksters. Yes there is a lot of inventing going on in Bigfoot and IMO it's a very troubling sign.

[Guest BFSleuth]

I would think that if 1/100th the money spent to find the Higgs Boson were spent on BF research we might already have solved this mystery 20 years ago. While the OP does make a point that as yet we don't have proof, the fact is we have substantial evidence that ought to be of interest to open minded scientists to put some serious research effort into conclusively establishing the new species. Lack of effort from the science community and lack of major funding are issues that have been hindering the effort.

How many amateur self taught researcher hobbiests were involved with the Higgs Boson effort in the face of overwhelming scientific inertia? None that I know of, it was the purview of established scientists and enough funding from governments to pay of the national debt of small nations. While the field of BF research has been the purview of weekend warriors whose day jobs are less ... recognized, shall we say?

[Guest]

^+1

[Guest FuriousGeorge]

That's a great point, Sleuth. So far, attempting to unlock the secrets of the universe with the Large Hadron Collider has cost 10 billion. Over a half billion are from US tax dollars. Folks across the pond have paid way more than that. Most of it to look for something that might not exist. I wonder what the results would look like if they tried to find the Higgs Boson using gizmos from Radio Shack.

[Drew]

Why should anyone need huge amounts of money, to go out and find verifiable evidence that a HUGE animal has been wandering around North America for the last several thousand (or million) years? That didn't stop people from discovering every other large land mammal in North America.

It would seem that Bigfootry has painted itself into a corner with the idea that Bigfoot is a human, by attributing all of these amazing abilities, that can only belong to a human(or a being of higher intelligence).

[Ronnie Bass]

I just noticed five posters gave a "thumbs up" to the OP's very condescending and rude post starting this thread, but why am I not surprised? I would like to think they agreed with his points but his boorish attitude towards those who believe I suspect played a big part.

Edited August 24, 2012 by Ronnie Bass

[Guest]

Both the knowledge to have the idea to attempt to look for something like the Higgs Boson and the technology required to potentially reveal it are very recent. In contrast, the organized search for and classification of life on earth dates back at least to Aristotle, and the technology to collect a large, terrestrial mammal dates back much further.

Sleuth writes that if we only had some money for bigfoot research " . . . we might already have solved this mystery 20 years ago." I understand the frustration, but what I never see from proponents of flesh and blood bigfoots is a description of how they would determine if the "mystery" were solved in the negative. The sentiment presumes that the only way the so-called mystery can be solved is if bigfoot is proven to be real. How would we know if the mystery were solved and the answer was that bigfoot wasn't real? If we can't prove a negative (and we can't), then how do we ever come to a consensus that something does not exist?

There are mountains of alleged bigfoot evidence. If bigfoots were ever proven to exist, some of that would have been evidence. If bigfoot does not exist, then none of it is evidence for bigfoot.

I've written many times over the years that I can understand why people get caught up in the world of bigfoot. It is, above all, fun! I spend time here to try to interject a skeptical interpretation of alleged evidence because I am an educator dedicated to increasing the use of critical thinking, but there is no real harm in the bigfoot phenomenon the way there might be among people engaged in other belief systems. The one thing that does bother me though, is that I wish we could get people as excited about known, critically endangered species in our world as they are about bigfoot. What if we could take all the effort expended toward bigfoot - the books, DVDs, television specials, festivals, etc., - and direct it to Sumatran Rhinos? Amur Leopards? Lesser Prairie-Chickens? Let's save those species that we know about and we know are in trouble. If there are such things as bigfoots, they'll still be there after we're done saving those other species that really need our help.

[Cotter]

But Saskeptic, historical documents and accounts of these creatures by explorers (of many different ethnicities) are dismissed b/c they didn't keep and preserve an animal like this for 19th, 20th or 21st century scientists to examine or have their exploration journals vetted by a peer reviewed journal (which of course didn't exist when these folks were reporting it).

In many cases, hairy wild men have indeed been identified and accepted as real by many. Not just modern science.

This new concerted effort to prove the existence is only 60-70 years old.

@Drew - your quote.

"That didn't stop people from discovering every other large land mammal in North America."

How is this even possible to know?

It's like claiming to know what the worst movie in the world is.

Also, 'huge'? IF there is a breeding population of BF, I would think the majority of them are not full grown adult males. So, now we're probably dealing with an 80th percentile that is about 6' tall and a few hundred pounds or smaller. Smaller than an adult black bear, or buck whitetail, smaller than a full grown elk, horse, mule deer, bison, bighorn sheep, wild boar.....

I think the term 'huge' is relative and perhaps misapplied when speaking of large land based mammals in North America.

Just my 2 cents.

Edited August 24, 2012 by Cotter

[Guest]

But Saskeptic, historical documents and accounts of these creatures by explorers (of many different ethnicities) are dismissed b/c they didn't keep and preserve an animal like this for 19th, 20th or 21st century scientists to examine or have their exploration journals vetted by a peer reviewed journal (which of course didn't exist when these folks were reporting it).

Systema Naturae - first edition, 1735. There were many attempts to collect and describe biological specimens between Aristotle and Linneaus, of course. The basic system in use today (e.g., establishing a binomial for every species based on a description in the scientific literature), however, dates back at least 277 years.

[Cotter]

Thx for the info Saskeptic. Do you by chance have any info/knowledge on how far outreaching Aristotle's views and systemic (naming) practices (Linneaus's as well) were?

I ask, b/c they (Aristotle/Linneaus) were mediterannean based (please correct me if i'm wrong), curious as to if this started as more of a regional system, or was accepted more globally or rather, WHEN was it accepted globally.

Surely Aristotle and Linneaus took reports seriously, but the gathering of specimens I'm sure was always a challenge. (I wonder how long they went looking for the Cinnamon Bird).

[salubrious]

Why should anyone need huge amounts of money, to go out and find verifiable evidence that a HUGE animal has been wandering around North America for the last several thousand (or million) years? That didn't stop people from discovering every other large land mammal in North America.

Most other mammals are not that smart. Imagine a human that does not want to be discovered and you have a much better model. Its only the ones screwing up, or the ones that want to mess with you that get seen.

What I want to know, is why does a skeptic come to a Bigfoot site of all places, to try and convince someone that they don't exist?? Whatever is the point?