Bigfoot Research--Still No Evidence (Continued)

[Guest DWA]

Well, most temperate zone animals don't leave excessive evidence of their presence most of the time, at least not any that anyone would recognize who doesn't specialize in tracking that animal.

 

Except - when the substrate allows - footprints.

 

And if those continue not to be taken seriously, not sure what to say about that except, no, we won't be likely to confirm anything.

 

When land managers get reports like that - I've seen a number of examples - they generally don't take them seriously, which means their personnel don't collect information, which means there's nothing to use to establish presence.  Now I have heard of an instance or two in which personnel kept clandestine report files.  But I don't think that's really gonna do much, unless it is combined with some serious luck. 

 

Land managers don't have to become bigfooters; they can share info with groups like BFRO and NAWAC that are working on this.  Unfortunately, they don't.  They have cooperated with these groups in setting up field efforts but that's the extent of their involvement.  Being eyes and ears on the ground when the researchers aren't there could be a much bigger boost to the field than people seem to think.

[Drew]

What about these footprints?  Should we take them seriously?

 

 

You think a creature is walking around the woods with these things for feet?  And you expect science to take it seriously?

[norseman]

 

 

Take that into account and one begins to see how scanty the fossil record is.  Fossillization is an extremely rare process.  That's why it's inadvisable to try to explain away things people are seeing now by referring to fossils.

 

 

Fossillization is rare, but it happens, look at the Burgess Shale, now that is rare!

 

As nice as a fossil would be, what about all the other sign large mammals leave. If you can find sign that a grizzly went through an area days or even weeks before, why doesn't BF leave the same type of sign? Sure you hear of the odd track way and the odd footprint, but if these things are as widespread and 'right under our noses' as proponents claim, photo and video evidence aside, we'd still have found some darn compelling evidence by now.

 

 

They do leave the same type of sign, albeit even more rare than a Griz.

 

Which tells me............they are more rare than a Griz!

 

There are about 55,000 Grizzlies in N. America. Most of which reside in Canada and Alaska.

What about these footprints?  Should we take them seriously?

 

 

You think a creature is walking around the woods with these things for feet?  And you expect science to take it seriously?

 

 

What about these tracks?

 

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/sbs/keller-WA09.htm

 

 

A five toed bipedal trackway, length of foot print 23.5 inches, 9 inches deep and 8 feet apart.............very close to what I saw except mine was in much deeper snow.

 

You'll notice that these tracks are not running down a road or a snowmobile trail where somebody could pull someone along with a rope to get that 8 foot separation between tracks. So if it's a hoax? How was it done?

[Guest Darrell]

^But given the limited range of a Grizzley, if a BF is so much more rare, then why are we seeing so many more sightings all over the country in every state than a Grizzley?

[norseman]

^But given the limited range of a Grizzley, if a BF is so much more rare, then why are we seeing so many more sightings all over the country in every state than a Grizzley?

 

Because:

 

A ) People are impressionable.

B ) The Grizzly bear still has a very large range..........from Alaska to Wyoming. Which we can only guess as to which states truly are Squatch habitat. And what the population density is.

C ) If Sasquatch was truly in everyone's back yard? How long could they stay undiscovered? I understand it's even hard to argue it from a wilderness talking point. But a Suburban one?

D ) See "A" again...........people see or read something and can easily become convinced it is what they are experiencing even if what they see or read is happening on the other side of the world.

[Guest DWA]

Did we include:  most people don't report an animal sighting to authorities if they think they're seeing something that belongs there?

[Drew]

 

What about these tracks?

 

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/sbs/keller-WA09.htm

 

 

A five toed bipedal trackway, length of foot print 23.5 inches, 9 inches deep and 8 feet apart.............very close to what I saw except mine was in much deeper snow.

 

You'll notice that these tracks are not running down a road or a snowmobile trail where somebody could pull someone along with a rope to get that 8 foot separation between tracks. So if it's a hoax? How was it done?

 

 

I think those tracks are epic Bigfoot track fails.

Watch how bipeds walk in snow, and then tell me they could leave those tracks so pristine.

[Guest DWA]

Wow.  That converted me.  That's all the bipeds on the plan...whoops, missed one.

 

So.

 

How'd some guy do it, particularly since that's what you got there?

[norseman]

 

 

What about these tracks?

 

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/sbs/keller-WA09.htm

 

 

A five toed bipedal trackway, length of foot print 23.5 inches, 9 inches deep and 8 feet apart.............very close to what I saw except mine was in much deeper snow.

 

You'll notice that these tracks are not running down a road or a snowmobile trail where somebody could pull someone along with a rope to get that 8 foot separation between tracks. So if it's a hoax? How was it done?

 

 

I think those tracks are epic Bigfoot track fails.

Watch how bipeds walk in snow, and then tell me they could leave those tracks so pristine.

 

 

Well Drew? Something made them? Is a bounding Mule deer or Coyote going to do a better job? Maybe for 2-3 bounds.

 

And do you want to know something even crazier? The tracks I saw were in much deeper snow and the creature wasn't dragging it's feet either.

 

It was reported here as well:

 

http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2012/03/video-of-three-mile-trackway-in.html

[Cotter]

^Drew - can you work something up with a mid-tarsal break as well? 

 

And I'm convinced that 85% of sightings are not of real BF's, so that, along with the fact (as DWA pointed out) people don't call into authorities when they see a Griz in Griz country, the numbers may fall well within an expected range.

Edit:

Thought I'd post a pic of real footprints in snow.  I don't see the debris off the toes that has been suggested.

 

[norseman]

I can attest to the fact that you walk differently in deep snow. But it's a matter of scale, if the snow is too deep I cannot pick my foot up high enough to not drag it to the next step. But someone taller than me might be able to.

 

Trackways are not anecdotal........something made them, it's right there in the snow. If it's a hoax? I'd like to know how.

[Cotter]

I think it may be hallucinations manifesting in photographs.

[Drew]

I already know how I could fake those snow tracks.

[norseman]

I already know how I could fake those snow tracks.

 

I'm listening...

[Guest]

The snow tracks are more interesting to me than the others. It would seem harder to hoax tracks in deep snow, with long strides. I would think a bounding four-legged animal might be a better possibility.

But what do we really know about such tracks? Here is an interesting picture: http://www.bfro.net/news/snow_track_season.asp

The problem with this interesting picture is that we don't know what the tracks look like, up close.

Here are other tracks that are not generally impressive. They appear to be hoaxed or of known animals, and the distribution by state is, to me, typical of lore, not biology.

http://www.bfro.net/news/SnowTracks/index.asp

I'm interested in Drew's response.

Edited June 22, 2013 by jerrywayne