the parkie Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Is it possible just to see the full pic that you cropped your avatar pic from please? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JiggyPotamus Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Of course I agree that, statistically speaking, some other form of wildlife is more likely to consume the meat. But that also does not mean a bigfoot couldn't get it, I just don't think it would happen very often. So maybe the problem is that this technique has not been attempted enough times to satisfy the probabilities. Maybe out of 1,000 attempts, a sasquatch will actually be the one to take the bait. Of course who knows the true probability though? Then there is the possibility that sasquatch are intelligent enough to realize that meat doesn't grow on trees. Surely their suspicions would be piqued if they encountered such a thing. I mean I have always thought that for sasquatch to evade us as they do, they must be relatively intelligent. They are intelligent enough to realize that their environment works in a certain way, and when things don't work in that way, something is amiss. But it could still work, maybe just not very much. But as I said, I highly doubt it has been tried enough times, in enough locations, to see any success. There are other variables as well, such as whether they can see the camera, which would probably be associated with humans... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunflower Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Unfortunately statistics are not an issue with the hairy guys...they don't care. The owner had a relationship with them. She would leave treats in buckets hanging from limbs that could NOT support the weight of anything larger than a mouse. Mice could not leave tracks that large lol. They are tall enough to just reach into the bucket and take what they wanted. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted February 13, 2014 SSR Team Share Posted February 13, 2014 Did she take any pictures of the tracks ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunflower Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 Yes, but if you have them around almost all the time tracks are not a big deal. She did not do any casting it wasn't necessary she has seen them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted February 13, 2014 Share Posted February 13, 2014 (edited) Well, this all depends on how concerned one is about providing evidence to those who disagree. One might not care about tracks or cast them; but that image wouldn't convince anyone of the reality of these animals; and barring other evidence it might be good that one knows, but one must expect being doubted. Edited February 13, 2014 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sunflower Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 I don't mind being doubted it comes with the territory, no big deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 Hello Sunflower, Not providing proof comes with the territory too? I wasn't aware of the blatantly callous side of Habituators until now. It speaks of a disturbing mean streak when weighed against the unfortunate ones still seeling the proof you so "cherishly" guard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 ^^^Well, now, let's not get too emotional about this. Given the way people who have seen one of these get treated by the larger society, I actually have no problem with them not caring who believes them. I might have a problem with people who actually did take a crow-in-your-face (or...ahem!...a sell-a-book-with-no-proof) stance on it. That is, I'd have a problem if I cared. But I don't. I know what the evidence tells me; I keep a weather eye out for evidence wherever I am; I scan the road whenever a place looks like habitat; and I just enjoy being in a world in which a mystery like this exists. Enjoy that! "callous"? "Mean streak"? Whoa. How do you even know they're telling the truth? Don't matter to me none. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 Hello DWA, Thanks for the reprimand. And I don't know. How could I when proof is never offered? I used to have a bit of a soft spot for the sweet little Habituators. It's pretty much gone now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TD-40 Posted February 14, 2014 Author Share Posted February 14, 2014 If anyone has a great shot at getting some hard evidence, it'd be the habituators. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 (edited) Hello TD-40, One would be led to think they already have it. Their thread is a good read but that's about as far as it goes. Sorry, I'm off-topic. Edited February 14, 2014 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 Well hifllier, not so much. I mean....why DON'T the habituators try bait and a trail cam? Right...I might have already laid out one reason: they don't care who knows if they do. And there it is. I guess the ones who are interested in resolving it for themselves and the society just need to soldier on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 I know a tiger's eye can see the infrared beam emitted from the camera that trips the shutter. Do we know if the same is true for the BFs eye? Can they see infrared? Would they know it is foreign to their natural environment and avoid it altogether? If so, I presume they would also know that bait is foreign too. Some humans can see into the infrared part of the spectrum. I have very good night vision myself. I don't know if I'm actually seeing infrared but I can see the light in the remote when I use it in the dark. I have friends who can't. If this is true then it wouldn't be a big jump to bigfoot being able to do so. If they're primates like us at least. I would imagine primates like us would be curious about small lights though. Primates are generally curious critters. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted February 14, 2014 Share Posted February 14, 2014 Hello antfoot, This is the way I see it. Prove Sasquatch, get a type specimen, get DNA, do an autopsy, and then trace mitochondria and y chromosomes for matches to known organisms. Way back when, the lemur which has the tapeta lucidum, and say, Gigantopithicus, may have had a common ancestor. the split may have kept the TL in both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts