Why Can't We Discover A Bf Body?

[Huntster]

Huntster, on 27 March 2011 - 11:08 AM, said:

It's actually a very rare "yes".

But rare isn't the same as none, which is what we presently have for bigfoot.

Which would support the contention that either sasquatches:

1) Do not exist, or

2) Are much more rare than wolverines.

Would it not?

Which is precisely the point. Again:

To me, that is clear circumstantial evidence that:

1) Sasquatches don't exist, or

2) They are exponentially more rare than wolverines.

Either-or fallacy. Maybe there are many more bigfoot than wolverines, but they are more secretive, more adept at hiding/concealing themselves.

Wait a minute, Ray. If there are many more bigfoot than wolverines, but they are more secretive, more adept at hiding/concealing themselves (quite a feat, indeed), then (back to the original question) why haven't we ever secured a carcass?

I'm giving you my answer options:

1) Sasquatches don't exist, or

2) They are exponentially more rare than wolverines.

Even if "they are more secretive, more adept at hiding/concealing themselves", there still must be very, very few of them in order for a carcass to never have been secured for science, right?

Or is it "science"?

Do you have any actual evidence they are exponentially more rare than wolverines?

No. But there is plenty of evidence that they exist, so if science has never secured a carcass, they either must be incredibly rare, science is inept, or they are so "more secretive, more adept at hiding/concealing themselves" that they are the most "secretive, most adept at hiding/concealing themselves" creature in recorded history.

What do you think, Ray?

If so, where did you get your numbers from?

I didn't offer any numbers, Ray, beyond the wolverine, deer, bear, hunter, etc numbers offered by DDA. They looked about right for me.

How can you be certain the number of bigfoot is fewer than the number of wolverines?

I'm not certain. I'm opining. For "certain", we'd need our official wildlife agencies to census the species.

I'd sure like to see that done.

If they are exponentially more rare than wolverines, how is it that we have so many bigfoot encounters, reports, and sightings that seem to occur each year?

Actually, we don't really have that many. Clearly fewer than wolverine reports.

For example (yet again), there are only 6,000 reports in all of the BFRO database. That spans the reporting period of 1811 to the current day.

And it is generally accepted that a certain number of those reports are manufactured. I'd estimate 98% (IAW previous BFRO investigators).

Do you have the data for how many wolverine encounters, reports, and sightings occur each year for comparison purposes?

No, but I do have official data on wolverine numbers in Alaska, which is the highest density of wolverines in the U.S., and perhaps in Canada, as well (density, Ray, not total populations). This is how ADFG presently accumulates wolverine data:

Every year the Alaska Department of Fish & Game (ADF&G) distributes a questionnaire to trappers across the state. The questionnaire asks trappers about their trapping practices, effort, and success, their target species, and the abundance of furbearers along their traplines. The questionnaire also solicits comments from trappers about trapping conditions and furbearer management in the state. This information is used by ADF&G biologists in managing furbearer populations and helps the Department of Fish and Game represent Alaskan trappers at state, national and international trap standards meetings. All information collected by the survey is kept strictly confidential and names of individuals and references to specific traplines are not included in the report.

We strongly encourage all trappers to participate in this survey. All trappers who return their questionnaires to ADF&G will receive a complimentary copy of the annual Trapper Questionnaire Statewide Report.

Here it is for management year 2008-2009, Ray:

http://www.adfg.alaska.gov/static/hunting/trapping/pdfs/trap2009.pdf

Funny, huh? No questionnaires to outdoors people on sasquatches, are there? Too expensive, ya' think? Too difficult? Just better to leave it to John Green (Canadian) and Matt Moneymaker?

[Huntster]

No matter how small the estimated number of bigfoot, it would still have to be large enough to maintain a healthy, breeding population

Not necessarily. They could be going extinct, Ray. The population does not have to be "healthy".

or logic would dictate an eventual and even significant drop off in the numbers of those encounters, reports, and sightings, would it not?

Not if human populations, densities, and infiltration into wilderness areas are increasing even greater than sasquatch extinction rates, Ray.

Or are you going to maintain one of those "either/or" fallacies?

Since I firmly believe that sasquatches exist (or existed recently), that would support my theory that they are exponentially more rare than wolverines.

I don't see how your firm belief supports your theory.

It doesn't. The lack of sasquatch carcasses supports my theory that there are exponentially fewer wolverines than there are sasquatches.

Can you elaborate?

See above.

Did you have a firm belief that no one had ever found a wolverine carcass?

Nope. Nor did I state that "no one had ever found a wolverine carcass". I asked a particular person (not you) if they had ever seen one.

Didn't you know that, Ray? Did you somehow lose track of what I actually wrote? Should I quote myself so we can review?

[Huntster]

Thus, all I can offer you is my testimony.

Do you believe me?

Only my testimony. There were three other men with me, but frankly, since this was in the early summer of 1978 (33 years ago), I don't know if any of those men are still alive. In fact, I don't even remember who one of those men were.

Do you believe me?

Why the continual need for belief?

There isn't. I was asking you if you believe me. Your options are belief, indifference (which you clearly don't have, due to your extensive typing regarding my belief, theories, and opinions), skepticism, or denial. There are no other options that I can think of.

Can you think of any more, Ray?

So do you believe me? Are you indifferent (how could that be after this cross examination?)? Are you skeptical of my claims? Or do you deny them?

I don't hang my hat on belief, and haven't for quite some time.

Ah, so if you do not believe, and are not indifferent, you are skeptical of my statements regarding my experiences with wolverines, or you deny them altogether? Are there any other options, Ray?

You are asking me to have faith (belief without evidence) in your anecdotes, and I'm content to suspend any conclusions until further evidence is presented.

Is that "skepticism"?

[OnlyASize12]

Why can't we discover a body?

A few years ago I saw a TV program where Grover Krantz was asked that question. He had an interesting answer. He related that decades ago he started asking hikers, hunters, outdoors people not about Bigfoot, but about whether they had ever found a dead bear in the woods. He had yet to find anyone who had found a dead bear. Since he felt that the Bigfoot population was far less than bears...the lack of bear corpses pointed toward the difficulty of finding a dead body in the vastness of the woods.

He quite correctly pointed out that wounded animals often hide themselves for protection...and that the eco-system is very quick to reduce a body back to hard-to-recognize components. You don't have a broad window of time to find a recognizable body.

Sasquatch is definitely reclusive. I would expect a wounded/sick one to hide itself well. When it dies...clearly the only things that find it are scavengers.

Tim

[Guest]

I think a thing that is missing from most of this discusson is that these creatures most likely die where they live And that is the deep swamp.

The timed deer experiment was very good but the decomposition rate of a big dead body would likely be much faster and more complete in a very wet and swampy area.

Most hunters and hikers do Not penetrate the very wet areas that BF likely live in.

If you compare a 800# plus horse that would compare to a male BF they should likely need to drink 20 to 30 gallons of water per day and so have to be near water.

Most of the books I have read do not adequately discuss this area either and it should be apparent these are swamp critters.

Wow, You are amazing! Thank you so very much for coming up with this spot on synopsis of BF and their necessary water needs and local water supplies. Major hugs to you, and thank you. I have just rearranged my thinking thanks to you.

[Guest Blackdog]

Nope. Nor did I state that "no one had ever found a wolverine carcass". I asked a particular person (not you) if they had ever seen one.

Didn't you know that, Ray? Did you somehow lose track of what I actually wrote? Should I quote myself so we can review?

I'll quote you.

Ever hear of anyone finding a wolverine carcass?

You didn't ask if she ever saw a wolverine carcass did you?

[Guest parnassus]

I think a thing that is missing from most of this discusson is that these creatures most likely die where they live And that is the deep swamp.

The timed deer experiment was very good but the decomposition rate of a big dead body would likely be much faster and more complete in a very wet and swampy area.

Most hunters and hikers do Not penetrate the very wet areas that BF likely live in.

If you compare a 800# plus horse that would compare to a male BF they should likely need to drink 20 to 30 gallons of water per day and so have to be near water.

Most of the books I have read do not adequately discuss this area either and it should be apparent these are swamp critters.

Phil

WADR I don't think you are even close on the water requirements of a primate. You may not be aware that humans need less than a gallon per day and that gorillas do not drink water at all. IMHO u r not in the right ballpark.

[Guest]

A few years ago I saw a TV program where Grover Krantz was asked that question. He had an interesting answer. He related that decades ago he started asking hikers, hunters, outdoors people not about Bigfoot, but about whether they had ever found a dead bear in the woods. He had yet to find anyone who had found a dead bear. Since he felt that the Bigfoot population was far less than bears...the lack of bear corpses pointed toward the difficulty of finding a dead body in the vastness of the woods.

He quite correctly pointed out that wounded animals often hide themselves for protection...and that the eco-system is very quick to reduce a body back to hard-to-recognize components. You don't have a broad window of time to find a recognizable body.

Sasquatch is definitely reclusive. I would expect a wounded/sick one to hide itself well. When it dies...clearly the only things that find it are scavengers.

Tim

Tim, Are you my friend Tim from the previous forum? Please let me know if you are my buddy, or not. I hope that you are my Tim...I miss my friends from the other forum..

[Guest RayG]

Which would support the contention that either sasquatches:

1) Do not exist, or

2) Are much more rare than wolverines.

Would it not?

No. You could say the same thing about unicorns.

Wait a minute, Ray. If there are many more bigfoot than wolverines, but they are more secretive, more adept at hiding/concealing themselves (quite a feat, indeed), then (back to the original question) why haven't we ever secured a carcass?

Which brings us back to your first option: maybe sasquatches don't exist. That is a possibility, is it not?

But there is plenty of evidence that they exist, so if science has never secured a carcass, they either must be incredibly rare, science is inept, or they are so "more secretive, more adept at hiding/concealing themselves" that they are the most "secretive, most adept at hiding/concealing themselves" creature in recorded history.

What do you think, Ray?

I think your disdain of science is clearly evident in your writings.

And it is generally accepted that a certain number of those reports are manufactured. I'd estimate 98% (IAW previous BFRO investigators).

It also appears to be generally accepted by proponents, that only a fraction of bigfoot sightings and encounters get reported to begin with.

Or are you going to maintain one of those "either/or" fallacies?

You got me there. Here's an either/or I'll fully support: Either bigfoot exists, or it does not.

The lack of sasquatch carcasses supports my theory that there are exponentially fewer wolverines than there are sasquatches.

I think you meant to say that the lack of sasquatch carcasses supports your theory that there are exponentially fewer sasquatches than there are wolverines, but it doesn't make it true.

One could also say the lack of unicorn carcasses supports the theory that there are exponentially fewer unicorns than there are wolverines, and it doesn't make that true either.

I asked a particular person (not you) if they had ever seen one.

Didn't you know that, Ray? Did you somehow lose track of what I actually wrote? Should I quote myself so we can review?

Maybe. Susiq2 seemed to be asking a general question, to which you seemed to be giving a general reply. Are you now suggesting that only wolverine carcasses found by Susiq2 count? That they didn't find a wolverine carcass in Michigan unless Susiq2 saw it personally? I mean, I've never personally seen and documented a polar bear carcass, a rhino carcass, a tiger carcass, or any number of animal carcasses, but I can usually find documented evidence of someone who has. Except for bigfoot of course.

As I've already said with regards to your anecdotes, I'm content to suspend any conclusions until further evidence is presented. I guess that makes me skeptical, though you can label me however or whatever you like.

RayG

[Guest]

No. You could say the same thing about unicorns.

Which brings us back to your first option: maybe sasquatches don't exist. That is a possibility, is it not?

I think your disdain of science is clearly evident in your writings.

It also appears to be generally accepted by proponents, that only a fraction of bigfoot sightings and encounters get reported to begin with.

You got me there. Here's an either/or I'll fully support: Either bigfoot exists, or it does not.

I think you meant to say that the lack of sasquatch carcasses supports your theory that there are exponentially fewer sasquatches than there are wolverines, but it doesn't make it true.

One could also say the lack of unicorn carcasses supports the theory that there are exponentially fewer unicorns than there are wolverines, and it doesn't make that true either.

Maybe. Susiq2 seemed to be asking a general question, to which you seemed to be giving a general reply. Are you now suggesting that only wolverine carcasses found by Susiq2 count? That they didn't find a wolverine carcass in Michigan unless Susiq2 saw it personally? I mean, I've never personally seen and documented a polar bear carcass, a rhino carcass, a tiger carcass, or any number of animal carcasses, but I can usually find documented evidence of someone who has. Except for bigfoot of course.

As I've already said with regards to your anecdotes, I'm content to suspend any conclusions until further evidence is presented. I guess that makes me skeptical, though you can label me however or whatever you like.

RayG

Yikes, Guys, Please don't bring me into this discussion between the two of you. I happen to believe in BF and wolverines, I've seen one species, but not the other. However, I believe in both. Too much smoke and reliable witness for the BF species not to exist, IMHO.

Have you guys heard some of the reports from Marines on maneuvers who ran into a couple of BF?

Army Soldiers out on bivouac (sp?)encountering them? Guns, but no bullets, except the MPs who were not there, and they encounter an angry BF?

Do *either* of you watch the BF programs where people tell their stories,especially one story where they told their stories, then they were polygraphed, and found to be telling the truth except for 1 young man whose story was ridiculous to begin with failed the polygraph.

Why would hard as nails Marines lie about something like that which would bring them embarrassment?

I'm NOT making these stories up. I saw them on TV, watched and listened to the people involved, and I believed them, especially the military men and the police officers.

[Guest RayG]

Sorry Susiq2, apparently Huntster was addressing you and only you.

Personally, yes, I've read a great many of the stories associated with bigfoot, I've been following this mystery for nearly 40 years now. I'm less convinced now than I was 40 years ago.

RayG

[Guest]

I wonder how we would differentiate between the carcass of a large hairy creature like a cow or a bear from a large hairy carcass of a BF, if they exist. Do we expect to see a skull attached? Hands? Feet? It seems that not only are we wondering why we don't see carcasses but why we don't see them looking like we expect them to look. I have seen a pretty good variety of dead animal carcasses in the wild and I usually identify them by what they seem like and not by any actual forensic evidence...like, if I see a large skeleton in the desert and it's about the size of a horse or a cow I presume that's what it is, and maybe I find a hoof or skull that supports one theory over another. I don't think I'd write off hunters and hikers not finding a carcass as a good reason to think BF don't exists since most hunters and hikers stay pretty much close to trails and areas of relatively frequent human visitation. Hikers stay on hiking trails mostly and hunters don't want to drag a large carcass more than a mile or so, leaving huge areas of wild land virtually unvisited despite the frequent uses by hikers and hunters and others, or so it seems to me. Cheers.

[Guest]

Sorry Susiq2, apparently Huntster was addressing you and only you.

Personally, yes, I've read a great many of the stories associated with bigfoot, I've been following this mystery for nearly 40 years now. I'm less convinced now than I was 40 years ago.

RayG

Oh, Ray, I'm so sorry to hear that. It is discouraging to search and hope for a discovery for years upon years and have nothing concrete to show for those years.

I understand how you feel.

I'm always thinking that one day a genuine body will be discovered, possibly by hunters, or due to death by car, soldiers on maneuvers, wood loggers, or police.

I still hold out hope. I am convinced that the species does exist. They are the supreme king of the forests, and have survival instincts that rival the best of us humans, IMHO. Being discouraged is understandable. However even tho I'm discouraged also, I still believe in the species, and believe that one day "they" will be definitely verified as a real species.

On that day of discovery we will loose a piece of the mystery and magic, and lore that helps to make our world a little more special, mysterious, and interesting. Hopefully laws will be instituted to protect the species.

[Guest Sallaranda]

Very low population in a very large heavily forested area. It's no wonder a body hasn't been found.

Besides, they very likely hide away in a secluded cave or den to die.

[Guest bsruther]

Maybe they eat their dead.