A Question(S) For Skeptics....

[Guest DWA]

No, I'm talking about somebody taking words, and, with no context, making presumptions that suit what he wants to think.  That's all.

 

I'd rather not do that.  That's all.

 

I'd rather not deal with straw men and red herrings, either.  That's all.

 

I just want to deal with the evidence.  That's all.

 

So.  Let's not talk about this anymore.  You mention Bindernagel's second book.  You read it, you say.

 

And...?

[dmaker]

Thanks for the response. I enjoyed the book, and am happy to discuss it in more detail, but this thread is probably not the place for it I don't think.

 

If you want to start a thread somewhere else on this board for that book or other serious books in this field that would be great. I'd be happy to participate. It might be fun. 

[Guest DWA]

Well, that's a possibility.  I have to decide whether I want to start general ("what book has been most useful to you in helping you form what you think of this?") or specific (ask about a book).

 

And yeah, it should be its own thread.  It'd get lost in here.

[WSA]

For sure Dmaker. Understand, I'm not saying any of us should dedicate large chunks of our lives towards wandering around in the woods hoping to have a Sasquatch encounter. (Although I have to say, when in my 20's, I spent quite a lot of time doing just that.....what a life!) I'm just recognizing that my inability to do that, for all the good reasons you've listed, undermines my credibility to be able to armchair those who are out there gathering information and putative Sasquatch evidence. On one basic level too, I'm envious of those able to do that. Aside from the idea of actually getting at least a personal confirmation, it would be a hell of a lot of fun in its own right. 

 

I'm just wanting to acknowledge the difference between those on the ground, and those who are not. I'm convinced too, some here have probably never spent a night alone in remote wilderness, or even with a companion.  It really should be an entry level requirement to bloviate on this topic as that experience will profoundly change your views on the mystery we inhabit.  It won't, in and of itself, convince you that Sasquatch walks, but it will attune anyone to just what a field researcher is up against, and why glib dismissals of evidence are not quite so easy for those who've spent significant time there.

 

I've come to recognize also that those who spend more time in the outdoors, either as recreation or as a job, have a much more open mind to the possibility. The more time you spend there, the more it just doesn't seem as far-fetched as it might otherwise. Very rarely, if ever, have I seen or heard accounts of individuals becoming more skeptical the more outside time they rack up. Time in the woods will increasingly convince you that what you thought you knew going in, was, A. Most likely wrong, and B. Only a fraction of what there is to know. I like to say the #1 attribute of any quester should be humility. Something about sitting indoors all day long seems to induce self-importance, as far as I can tell. Might just be the roof. Hard to be arrogant while being rained on, you know?

[Guest DWA]

^^^Right.

 

Not just walking (tons), and solo walking (much if not most of those tons).

 

Just driving around the continent and flying over it, if one has the kneejerk tendency to assess the passing terrain for wildness potential, reveals a hint that we greatly overstate the extent to which we have paved over and civilized it.  And even more greatly overestimate the eye coverage of that expanse.

 

Room for something like this to hide simply isn't part of the question.  If we're not really looking - and anyone who thinks we are has to give me data of time-on-ground - there is way more than too much of that.

[dmaker]

^^ I disagree, at least insofar as my personal experience with flying over terrain that I recognize. Back when I first started to think more about BF, I used to hike in some areas that, when you are in them, feel pretty dense and remote. And I would wonder, hmm, maybe this area could support some Sasquatches.  And then I'd be returning from a business trip and looking out the window of the jet and recognize, hey that's that stretch of the Bruce Trail I was on recently. And then I kinda looked at it and just how close it really was to farms and other small settlements and roads and, ultimately, larger towns and cities and thought to myself how silly the notion really was that a breeding population of 800 lb apes could thrive in some disconnected piece of forest surrounded by farm lands, roads and towns. The view from up high did quite the opposite for me, at least locally.  That is why I have such a problem with the large number of people that claim BF is living in just about any old clump of trees. And that includes many BFRO sightings as well. Some of the claims come from sparsely wooded farm lands that just don't add up for me. 

 

Now when flying over California or Washington or Nevada, I had quite the opposite experience. Looking down from there ( and much higher up at that than my Ontario views which are mostly from take off or approach), did provide a picture of a pretty wide wilderness.   At least large enough and dense enough that I don't chuckle and immediately dismiss the idea based solely on that reason alone. 

 

 

So actually, I guess I do agree with you, at least as far as remote areas go.  

Edited June 24, 2013 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

Well, that's where "eye coverage" comes in.

 

Huge stretches of agricultural land don't have eyes covering them a significant percentage of the time.

 

The more woods there are the greater the likelihood.  But from up there in that plane, I'm seeing large stretches of country that may not be forested, but that usually have covered travel corridors of some kind, or in the middle of which an eight-foot-tall ape might look to someone out on the edge like an oddly-large but not-writing-home-about guy.

 

That boots-on-the-ground factor WSA is talking about lends itself to judging this kind of stuff too.  And I'm not ruling this out based on what I see.

[WSA]

What I think is most compelling about airplane recon of N. America is how we truly have clustered  the way we have, and also how many corridors for wildlife there still are. I've come to expect BF reports from any area with deer and wooded river corridors, and that covers a lot of territory.

 

Suburban BF is a tough one to swallow, I admit. One thing though that really amuses me is when somebody responds to a report of a Sasquatch sighting in a residential, or otherwise popluated area by commenting about how a large bipedal animal couldn't hide there, etc....well, by definition, it wasn't hidden at all. Moreover, if this animal does exist, it would not be immune from habituation to us. When google mapping is possible, be sure to note if the area in quesiton could provide access to a larger habitat. It is only the most developed areas that lack that entirely. That is why, in one of the nearest suburbs to my metropolitan center, where I live, you can find beaver, fox, groundhogs, coyotes, deer, rabbits, racoons, possums, armadillos...all of which I've confirmed first-hand. I'm talking 1/2 acre lots here, mostly lawns. BUT, it has lots of water and steep wooded valleys.

[Guest DWA]

^^^...keeping in mind as well that when you say you saw those other things, people believe you.

 

Can't hide much more effectively than "you saw a guy in a hoodie."

[dmaker]

WSA, I live about less than half a mile from a river. I go out my door, down half a block, onto a crushed gravel trail that passes one more home and then immediately onto a trail that takes you to the river. Half a mile at most I would guess. I ride my mountain bike up and down this river corridor at least 3 or 4 times per week. I paddle down this river a few times a year as well, plus hundreds, if not thousands, of other recreational paddlers. I have seen all of the animals that you mentioned ( plus a couple others like cranes, herons and turtles). But I would have very great difficulty in imagining that a BF could ever live around here undetected. 

Edited June 24, 2013 by dmaker

[Drew]

FLIR surveying of Woodland Caribou in Ontario 

 

58 caribou at 46 locations on the Slate Islands; two groups of three individuals, eight groups of two and the remainder were singles. Individuals were not classified by age or sex but most groups of 

two were cow-calf pairs. The estimated density was 1.56 ± 0.50 caribou/km2 with a CV of 19.4%, producing a population estimate of 58 caribou (95% CI 40-85)

 

 

I don't see how this wouldn't work for Bigfoots.

 

http://septentrio.uit.no/index.php/rangifer/article/viewFile/2270/2111

Edited June 24, 2013 by Drew

[Guest DWA]

(edited to note:  replying to block below, not above post)

 

In some places that's true, no doubt.

 

I'm not putting much interest in any area that doesn't have a solid record of what appear to be reliable reports, or that doesn't sit on the edge of a large block of habitat, or at least a 'greenway' of significant length that ties together two or more such blocks.

 

Just saying that, given reports are all we have to go on and in-depth knowledge doesn't exist yet, I can't rule it out.

WSA, I live about less than half a mile from a river. I go out my door, down half a block, onto a crushed gravel trail that passes one more home and then immediately onto a trail that takes you to the river. Half a mile at most I would guess. I ride my mountain bike up and down this river corridor at least 3 or 4 times per week. I paddle down this river a few times a year as well, plus hundreds, if not thousands, of other recreational paddlers. I have seen all of the animals that you mentioned ( plus a couple others like cranes, herons and turtles). But I would have very great difficulty in imagining that a BF could ever live around here undetected. 

Edited June 24, 2013 by DWA

[dmaker]

Just for fun, here is a picture I took last week after work while riding. It looks pretty "Squatchy" by loose definitions I'm thinking.. This is about 13 km from my house along the river.

 

Edited June 24, 2013 by dmaker

[WSA]

Dmaker, oh, granted.  I'm just saying wildlife has some basic needs, but it is not to say every place those needs can be met you'll find the animal. It just only increases the chances, which may or may not get exploited. Who knows how they choose where they go, and why? For all of the obvious reasons such as food/water/mating, there are probably a thousand we don't know about that compel them to move about the landscape. Randomness is almost certainly a player as well. And is this animal just passing through, or is it at home? Most of all, given we're talking about a hypothetical animal anyway, we have about zilch knowledge about what this animal might find attractive, or not.

 

All I'm saying is you won't have much luck finding an animal in a habitat lacking these things, no matter what kind it is, and if you are looking to judge the truthfulness of a sighting, the basics are the first thing you should look at. 

 

LOL, reported today a black bear is wandering through neighborhoods in downtown Staunton, VA, and looking fairly relaxed about it too. My guess is "just passing through", but bears can find a lot of food and shelter in a town even of that size, so all bets are off.

Just saw your photo too....nice country, and how great you live in proximity to it. My first trip to Canada was to a small lake outside of Smith Falls, I think. Near the Rideau canal, I remember. I was thrilled to see beaver working on their dam when taking a day hike along some old railroad tracks. Very exotic, or so I thought.

 

I have to laugh at the whole idea of  "Squatchiness", but certain habitats do throw off vibes sometimes too subtle to articulate. Parts of our brains can pick up on things we don't even understand, and often don't acknowledge or act on. Is Sasquatch Radar part of that? Who the hell am I to say, you know?     

[dmaker]

^^ Fair enough WSA. 

 

Yeah, we get black bears once in a blue moon that stray as far south as London, Ontario. It's always quite an interesting time.