BobbyO Posted February 1, 2014 SSR Team Share Posted February 1, 2014 I could go on but I am guessing you get my line of thinking. ] I love your line of thinking and will look to add a little to it soon as I'm currently working on Alaska for the SSR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hammer102492 Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 . Hi, just dropped into the thread from only reading the first post Good topic. I have been thinking about this too. What do SSQ do in the bitter cold? One night this month, we got down to -16 in mid-Ohio. A few weeks later our lowest was -21. I told a "talker" friend that they could use our 3 sided hog barn if they needed to get out of the wind, and she said that they don't really feel it, except for the young ones etc. We survived it with pipes freezing twice, but made it through unscathed. We set apples out for the BF at our back campsite and they weren't touched. I tried to bite one tonight and it was frozen solid. We did see a lot of deer and rabbit prints, so at least we know that food / animals are moving. We took the apples out of the plastic bag and left them out. Hoping at least the deer enjoy them. I'm just glad to hear on the news, that the lady bugs / beetles, stink bugs and box elder bugs were freezing to death at -20, Let's hope the tics are frozen too. I haven't had any perceived SSQ experiences since November. It doesn't feel like they are around, but I haven't spent as much time outside since it's been cold. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuyInIndiana Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 . Hi, just dropped into the thread from only reading the first post You and me both. Think about it. The North American continent survived an ice age 10,000 or more years ago and is thriving with life today. I have no clue how they survive bitterly cold temps, other than to speculate about it. I only know they must and they have, since I've clearly seen one. They clearly understand survival at it's most basic level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 (edited) BFRO has 21 reports from the state of Alaska across 10 counties all in the southern parts of Alaska broken down in the following way: 6 Class B encounters with 11 witnesses that can be discounted because they saw nothing but tracks and heard scary things at night. 15 Class A Encounters involving 40 witnesses meaning that think they actually think they saw a BF of these Range from as close to 10 feet to over 1,000 feet with the long range sightings using some form of high powered binoculars. 1, since 2010, 8 since 2000, 3 since 1990, 3 pre 1990 13 of the witnesses military at time, 1 ex military 9 seen from car, 1 from house, the rest outdoors either hunting, hiking, or snowmobiling 3 night encounters, rest day or late PM 2 encounters winter, 4 summer, 4 spring, 3 fall, 2 unknown My questions are as follows: Would 10 neutral biologist walk in to the Alaskan bush after speaking to these 40 folks unarmed? Would BF be convicted in a court for non-existence with the circumstancial evidence of these 40 or so folks? If there were 15 Class A encounters reported to BFRO, how many were not reported? 150+ If a BF can live in S. Alaska, can it live anywere in NA? I could go on but I am guessing you get my line of thinking. For the Lazy: Source material: http://www.bfro.net/GDB/state_listing.asp?state=AK Favorite Class B report (not included in my analysis) http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=6486 I'm sorry, but I will never understand why so many people here consider the BFRO reports to be an impressive source of evidence. ( especially when they fail to see the irony that the larger the pile grows, the less likely bigfoot is to be real.) I have read quite a few of these. The follow-up in many cases is laughable. You can almost see the witness being led by the nose. Things like prior bias stand out like a sore thumb. It's simply not objective to consider this source of evidence with as much weight as people do here. There is a business behind it for Pete's sake. It's like appointing Jack in the Box to be the voice of healthy eating in North America. Point to 45, 450, or 5,000 BFRO reports. In my opinion it does nothing to bolster your argument. In fact, as the number grows the absurdity of bigfoot being real becomes ever more clear. At what number does the whole idea get crushed under its own reporting weight? 100,000 reports? 200,000 reports? A million? At some point even ardent proponents must acknowledge that you cannot have a life and blood creature running around being seen by that many people yet leaving behind no verifiable evidence. It just doesn't happen. Ironically, proponents proudly point to the number of reports in the uber biased BFRO database as somehow impressive evidence. I can guarantee that I could lodge a Class A report today before leaving my house for lunch. This report would end up on the pile. Even more so because I would know what " compelling bits" to put in there to get passed the sniff test of those that consider themselves to be able to sniff out fakes. It would not be hard to do at all. Bear in mind, I am not advocating hoaxing, I am simply demonstrating how easy it would probably be to get false reports into that database. Given that, how can it be taken seriously by anyone? Yet somehow this is what is supposed to compel scientists to march into the woods en masse looking for bigfoot? Edited February 1, 2014 by dmaker 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 (edited) Hello dmaker, ^^ THAT was a great post. The concept of more being less is a good one. I do have this to say though, Your arguments are the reason I value the older reports. Not because all the newer ones stem from lying as some I'm sure are quite true for the witness as well as the investigator; it's more that IMO there was already ample evidence 45 years ago. I agree that ANY anectotal report will never be proof no matter the source but collectivly? There is no doubt SOMETHING out there that walks on two legs like a HUMAN that is not believed to BE a Human in the classic sense. It's that mystery that keeps me interested. For myself? I've stopped reading reports as of Dec. 2013. I think I've read enough of 'em. Edited February 1, 2014 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 Yes, it's the old "Second verse, same as the first!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 The cave/bat thing is interesting. Who says they're all dying of white-nose syndrome? Seriously, zoology - and I mean very very recent zoology - is chock full of stuff like this. Huge numbers of gorillas and orangutans that had just somehow escaped detection. Enormous game herds in a place nobody had bothered to look. Stuff.Like.That. Given that a number of sasquatch witnesses/proponents came about it by caving, it was only a matter of time I think before a suggestion like hiflier's came up. Somebody must - MUST - be doing this, don't you think? A trail cam in front of a cave seems as obvious as a trail cam along a trail. But of course you know what they say about genius. ;-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 Hello Incorrigible1, Yes, that's what I was getting at but you said it much more efficiently. The same situation presents itself in the UFO subject. The phenomenon is best studied from the experience in the 50's and 60's when scientists were actually looking much harder at it and the public as well as the media was not so removed from drama. Hello DWA, Thanks for the support reference I was thinking the exact same thing about the bat virus only yesterday. Sure the virus is not good for the bats but if Sasquatch populations are on the increase then the bats could be getting a double whammy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 I find personally that one of the main benefits of continuing to read reports is the way every one echoes practically every one before it. This is why they're the most potent evidence. I can't think of a single phenomenon with this volume and consistency of reportage that science hasn't proven. And no one has ever pointed one out to me. Which means the mainstream needs to get on the stick. Besides which: if one has my interest in wildlife and backcountry, the BFRO and NAWAC data is like an unlimited bag of candy. Krantz said that the footprints alone constitute virtual proof. I feel the same way about the encounter reports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 (edited) Hello DWA, ...I can't think of a single phenomenon with this volume and consistency of reportage that science hasn't proven. And no one has ever pointed one out to me... I thought I just did? BTW one would think that wildlife experts might have had trail cams already looking at cave openings for whatever reason? Now I don't think of this kind of stuff as a rule until someone comes along and triggers the ideas by posting a thread title. Then interesting things begin to kick in. Edited February 1, 2014 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 I find personally that one of the main benefits of continuing to read reports is the way every one echoes practically every one before it. This is why they're the most potent evidence. Frankly, I take a 180 degree view, and find repetitive reports damning. Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, and most the reports flatter themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Dog Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 This discussion is moot to a degree. You can't apply human needs for survival on something that we know nothing about physiologically. Apples and oranges at best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 ^^^Right; which is why we can't use assumptions to wholesale sweep away evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 (edited) Hello Old Dog, Yes, and to a degree I agree with you. It's why I don't stop turning the mystery over and over looking for different angles of approach. For instance I've been reading studies on the insulating properties of snow. Snow beds and snow caves, igloos etc. are a surprising warmth factor. For instance we all have seen sled dogs curled up in snow beds. Branco's post (#38) is a case in point. Edited February 1, 2014 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 Snow caves are major effort to construct. Backcountry travelers carry a shovel, instead of a tent, because with a cave, you don't need a tent. And it's "technology" displayed by just about every significant family of animals, from insects on up. Dig.A.Hole. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts