Skeptics: Define Your Success For Us, Please.

[Guest Cervelo]

^^^^

That's Bigfoot but there are some with greater powers!

[WSA]

Captain Caveman....I hear you. The thrill of the perpetual unknown and unattainable, huh? Sort of like a perfect imagined love interest that never quite appears, and against whom no man/woman ever quite measures up. If BF is confirmed by science, it is defintely going to be a closing of the frontier moment. The last cattle drive. The shooting of the last buffalo. But then again...

 

Thanks for playing.

[Branco]

Cervelo: There were three things in that first video which were interesting to me. The bent cedar with the missing bark, the stomped area near that tree, and the limb you mentioned that was not from the immediate area. But dagnabit, the way you were swinging that camera around, and the fact you didn't follow up on your observations, just made it impossible for anyone to have a lucid opinion about what you found.

 

Seriously, I've changed the way I have been reading and interpreting your posts after seeing and listening to those two videos. I now think you are really interested in learning about these critters we talk about. Still being serious, and absolutely not berating you, your videos or your field observations, I would like to suggest some things you might have done to really make those videos more interesting and impressive. Bear in mind, I don't know as much as I would like to about BF, but I simply can't abide an unsolved mystery in the woods. I will spend as much time and effort as it takes to study unusual observations until I am reasonable sure I have found rational explanations for the conditions. Not everyone has that weird obsession; I think it was instilled in me by the different occupations I chose during my working career.

 

As for the videos, I just think you didn’t do a thorough job of investigating the significance of what you actually videoed. Believing that you really want to know, I would respectfully suggest what an old woods rat would have done and filmed at the location of that first video. (Just to let you know, I, and many times the folks with me, have found many similar conditions in the woods in several states. Probably more that 90% of them were proven to have been the work of high winds, snow and ice storms, flooding or humans.) The rest were the work of animals that "don't exist' in the view of most people.)

 

The cedar tree was interesting because of the sections of bark on its upper side that had been apparently abraded in spots just as are other softwood tree that have been bent over and hand-walked down by a BF until the tops are in contact with the ground where large rocks or another larger tree are placed on them to keep them in place. Sometimes those tops are wedged between the bases of two or more closely spaced live trees to hold them. When softwood trees are bent and "walked down" like that, the spots at which a BF's hands hold onto the tree exerts so much pressure and torque on the bark it will be pulled loose or noticeable abraded. Looking closely at those sections of bark it can be seen that each of the hands pulled the bark loose in opposite directions. The loosened bark will be near the size of the BF’s palms.

 

As for the gnawed surfaces on the top side of the trunk, a close examination would have disclosed whether that had been done by rodents, birds or a BF. Squirrels, mice, pack rats, chipmunks and various kinds of birds will strip the loose bark from cedar trees for bedding material. Rodents and other animals will gnaw and eat the cambium layers on a few types of trees for the mineral content. Bear and BF are known to do that. The size of the teeth marks on that cedar would have been compelling evidence of what had done that damage.

 

A close inspection of the ground surface below and beside the tree where you noticed the grass and/or the forest duff packed or stomped down, would have likely revealed impressions of the foot, toes or toenails of whatever flattened the duff/grass surface. If none of those marking were found in the underlying ground surface, the flattened surface would have likely been made by some animal that lay there. In that case, the size of the “bed†would indicate what size animal used it. If very large, it would indicate a bear or bigfoot. A REALY close examination for hair (or scent if fresh) might reveal the identity of the snoozer.

 

In the first video you showed a limb that you determined did not come from the immediate area. But there was no mention of where it actually came from, or if it was dragged or carried to the area. (It would have been very interesting to determine where it actually came from, whether the limb was broken while still green, and the height of stub left on the parent tree, If dragged to the video location, there should have been drag marks in the duff or ground surface back to the parent tree, even if it had been done before the last leaf fall

.

In the second video, my primary interest was in that large log blocking the trail. Unfortunately, the video did not show the base of the log or the stump from which it fell. (At least the stump was not pointed out in the video.) The large deadfall log likely came from a nearby stump, but it is not at all unusual for one or more BF to carry or drag such logs for fifty yards or more to block trails. In all such cases I’ve studied, the trails were through dense woods in rough terrain in bigfoot foraging areas. The old trails were blocked after hunters and sightseers began using ATVs on them both day and night.

 

There could have been other clues in the videos, although the movement of the camera was too erratic to detect them. One final suggestion about using video cameras in possible BF areas: Keep the camera stabilized – on top of a good hiking stick beats nothing - while panning an area and scan at a reasonably slow turning rate. That can be very useful if the filming is done in thickly wooded areas, especially when the unusual conditions or sign observed appears to be bigfoot related and fresh. In such situations, the odds are 50/50 that the observer himself is being observed. A slow scan with a video camera might catch a glimpse of a hairy head moving behind a tree or dropping below a boulder or brush pile.

 

Thanks for posting the videos. By gosh you were in the woods trying. I commend you for that.

Regards..

[Guest Darrell]

^^^^

That's Bigfoot but there are some with greater powers!

 

Sometimes I think this is exactly what the phenomena belongs, in a comic book.

Edited January 16, 2014 by Darrell
removed reposted image

[Guest DWA]

You know what the big win is?

 

Possibility.  The unimaginable (for some) enriching of every moment one spends connected to the outdoors.  (I mean, one does not understand how truncated one's experience of the world is if one really thinks there isn't anything out there that 99% of us would laugh at if we were told it's real.)  It's just funny how many times I have been told "there's enough wonder in the world without all this..." by someone who sounds tired of all the wonder and wants every moment of his life bounded by a straightedge.

 

Some of them call themselves scientists.  Please.  They're glorified mechanics, at best.  And they're taking up space and costing the world knowledge every moment they take up that space.  Sad, really.  The big win for me is I'll never ever be one of them.

[WSA]

Looks like this topic has morphed, but fine by me. Y'all place nice though, or I'm going to have to make you stay after school and clap erasers? (Boy, do I date myself, or what? What do they make kids do now? Stay behind and delete spam?)

 

Branco, always a privilege when you share your field techniques. Regardless of what one may think about BF, paying attention in the woods is a learned skill, and the the benefit of your experience always has value. 

[WSA]

DWA, yes. I do worry some that the politics of identity can go too far, and create divisions that can't be spanned. We'uns around here are real good at picking a team to play on. It can grind the joy out of the endeavor if we are not careful.

The BFF is a lot like the practice of trial law, and in that sense it is quite unique amongst ways to spend your time. What I mean is, how many activities are there outside of the sports arena to compare to this? You spend energy to accomplish something, and somebody else spends just as much energy trying to tear it down. It goes way beyond mere peer review, to a whole 'nother level. It is as if we might be a surgeon doing an operation, and across the table is another surgeon trying to kill the patient. The exercise certainly not in the best interest of the patient! I think this is probably why I don't have much of an appetite for this here...I get enough of it in my work.

[dmaker]

"  I think this is probably why I don't have much of an appetite for this here...I get enough of it in my work. "  WSA

 

 

Then why start a thread about it? Are there not enough opportunities in other threads for you to display your discontent with how we all approach this topic? 

 

I'm sorry, but if you find bigfoot skepticism to be such a buzz kill, why start this thread?

Edited January 16, 2014 by dmaker

[Guest Urkelbot]

I feel bad for the poor guys who have been telling themselves "any day now, we'll get that fantastic beast any day now"  everyday for the last 40-50 years.  But every day and every year brings more disappointment and pain.

Edited January 16, 2014 by Urkelbot

[WSA]

I was pointing out Dmaker... it takes two or more in opposition to participate in that kind of verbal slug-fest. When I said "here", I meant on the BFF in general, in other threads where we have all chased our tails for hundreds of posts. Nothing has been made clearer for anyone, for all that effort, I don't think.  I wanted this thread to be of a different kind and I have no interest in going there at all.

[dmaker]

Well you have been around here long enough to know that once you start a thread that solicits comments from skeptics that there is a larger than normal chance for opposing views to be posted. Especially if you are inviting comments from proponents and skeptics. This thread would have probably accomplished your stated goals if you had politely asked proponents not to weigh in. Nothing against the rules obviously for them to weigh in, not saying that. But there is a recent history here of starting threads and stating up front that you do not want skeptics arguing existence. I, for one, honor those requests and stay out of those threads. I imagine the same courtesy could be extended here by folks like DWA. You could have rounded up all of your skeptical opinions on success and would have achieved your stated goal.

[WSA]

Urkelbot..Sure, some are in this for vindication. With that comes a real dissatisfaction when it doesn't come on schedule. I would just propose that whenever a goal outside of your control becomes a question of personal identity (either pro or con) you are setting yourself up for an unhappy life. Believe me, as a resident of the most football-crazed state, in the most football-crazed region, of the most football-crazed country....I've seen this play out in a very large way each Fall! 

I would like the goals on both sides to be stated without the evidentiary briefs, yes. Both sides have been guilty of that here, yes. I wish all of that could be left at the door, for once.

[Guest Darrell]

I feel bad for the poor guys who have been telling themselves "any day now, we'll get that fantastic beast any day now"  everyday for the last 40-50 years.  But every day and every year brings more disappointment and pain.

Yep. Rene Dahinden, Grover Krantz, Ivan Santerson and Tom Slick to name just a couple of big ones who went to their graves without finding one. Soon it will be John Green and Peter Bryne.

[Guest DWA]

WSA:  you may have given me a new signature.

 

I sense a lot of pressure to make one's worldview real here.  I think it's best to just always consider one's worldview provisional and amend it as new evidence comes in.  That may have made this topic cooler for me than anything else about it.  The ability to do it separates science from dogma.

(I should note, Urkelbot, that to the perceptive, this topic gets richer and more exciting year by year.  Disappointment and pain are two things I can honestly say I have never experienced with relation to this topic.  But that may be because my rich experience with animals and the outdoors makes those foreign concepts to me.)

[norseman]

Yep. Rene Dahinden, Grover Krantz, Ivan Santerson and Tom Slick to name just a couple of big ones who went to their graves without finding one. Soon it will be John Green and Peter Bryne.

As a proponent I've never understood this, as a bad day of squatching beats a good day at the office anytime. Roll in some other outdoor hobbies like hunting, fishing, etc and it just becomes icing on the cake if you find something compelling out there.....