Jump to content
Backdoc

Searching: What Is Required?

Recommended Posts

Backdoc
BFF Donor

I have noticed many claims of skeptics who will claim, "With all the people looking for Bigfoot, he would have been found by now."  I think it is time we explored this.  What is this based on.  Assuming Bigfoot could be real lets look at the undertaking to find him let alone photograph or film him save those few random encounters we have from time to time.

 

I would like to offer the closest example of what I feel is needed in such a search.  In this example the boy who cannot speak. Thus, even though he is motivated to be found, those searching would not hear him yell the word 'help' no different than Bigfoot.  Look at the effort needed to find this boy:

 

"DOSWELL, Va. -- An 8-year-old boy with autism was found alive Friday, nearly six days after he wandered away from his family while walking in a wooded park.

Robert Wood Jr. was found in a fetal position in a creek bed at a quarry about 20 miles north of Richmond around 2 p.m., Hanover County Sheriff David Hines said. Wood was in good condition, but was taken to a Richmond hospital where he was reunited with his family.

The boy was found about one mile from North Anna Battlefield Park, where he disappeared while on a walk with family on Sunday.

Wood had been the focus of an intense search attracting more than 1,000 volunteers some days and assisted by professional search-and-rescue teams.

Woods' parents thanked the community and searchers.

.Hines said search teams also never gave up.

"I'm not a medical person, but I will say that he was serious but in good shape," he said.

Crews had searched the area before, but Hines said he believed Wood must have moved around. The boy's parents said he could not speak.

"It's been a challenge dealing with a child with special needs who was lost," he said. "... I don't think we walked past him. We're just thankful he was located."

Gov. Bob McDonnell called the boy's discovery "the best possible result to a very difficult situation."

"As a father of five, I can only imagine the fear, uncertainty and sadness that Robert's family endured during this difficult time," the governor said in a prepared statement.

Virginia State Police Sgt. Thomas Molnar said search crews maintained a positive outlook even as the days added up, and that helped keep volunteers returning day after day to continue searching.

"I've been in law enforcement for 13 years and I've not seen a community response as large as this," Molnar said.

So many volunteered, some had to be turned away, Hines said.

"This week we were all together. We all had the same mission," said Capt. Michael Trice of the Sheriff's Department. "It was an awesome experience to be a part of because he was found."

The boy was found at a quarry about a mile from North Anna Battlefield Park, where he disappeared while on a walk with family on Sunday.

Wood was the focus of an intense search involving thousands of volunteers around the park."

 

 

There you have it.  This is a real world example of what was needed to find something lost in the woods.   Let's have an honest discussion about this instead of being so dismissive.  Skeptics, I would love to hear what you think about this as well.  6 days and so many volunteers they had to turn people away!

 

So what is needed to find a bigfoot?

 

Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I have a prediction...skeptics will have their usual responses to this line of inquiry:

We don't have to prove anything or explain what would be required. We don't believe anyway. You do it and we will criticize your ideas.

Or

Crickets

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bipedalist
BFF Donor

Well since he was found at a quarry and couldn't speak, I say BF took him and left him in a good position to be found.  End result everything turned out hunky dory.  Guess the thermal imaging didn't help much huh? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Terry

What is needed?  Snow!  Sign in snow is very revealing and difficult to hoax.  Many seem to dismiss the fact that there is very little sign of bf in snow country during the winter.  Sure the odd trackway is reported.  Either it ends or it's not followed far enough.  If bf can't be discovered where it supposedly resides in snow country, there is something wrong.  (You can believe the um, folks who say they can disappear into their other dimension if you wish but I really haven't any time for that stuff...)

 

There are only about 350 siberian tigers left in a small area in eastern Russia.  They are elusive, mostly nocturnal and some researchers spend their whole career never seeing one in the wild.  Their main tools for research are camera traps and snow which they use to great success.   

 

t.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
BFF Donor

  It has been contended there are all of these people searching for Bigfoot and. "In nearly 50 years since the PGF where is the next PGF if it were real?"

 

I would ask, "How many people are actively searching for bigfoot?"  They may assume it is 500,000 a year. I would submit a very low number are even searching. When I try to illustrate the undertaking needed to find the lost boy, there is just no way such an undertaking has occurred for Bigfoot, That is, there has not been some concentrated area where massive efforts of equipment and 1,000's of highly motivated people where looking. There may be some area in some Bluff Creek where 20 people are searching over a 3 day weekend. Apart from that, it is not happening in spite of what some contend.

 

If there was a search conducted where there would be recent activity reported (footprints, recent sightings, and so on) that would greatly increase the odds.

 

Hey Skeptics, tell me your numbers?

 

Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
BFF Donor

Terry,

 

Love the Tigers example because it is something we can actually "test" in the real world.  It is better evidence than a guess.

 

I have heard skeptics dismiss the idea of lost planes. That is, when a lost plane goes down in the woods it may not been found for years if ever.  So the response from the skeptics is "Well Planes actually exist" and so on.  Wow so clever on their part. 

 

I am not saying a person has to believe in bigfoot or not. But if your basis of disbelief is some idea finding patty in the woods would be as easy as finding easter eggs in your yard in town, then you are mistaken.  The wilderness is vast.  I just am tired of hearing this "well bigfoot would have been found by now" thing.

 

Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DWA

No one is looking for bigfoot.  No one.

 

Know who says that?  The people who are doing, by so very far it's not worth even talking about, THE MOST SERIOUS LOOKING.

 

They know.  They are like two people looking for the boy in the OP, both of them old and overweight...and blind.

 

They are hoping they'll get lucky; doing everything humanly possible to get lucky; and it looks like in one of the better places on the continent to get lucky.

 

But they know.  No one is looking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
BFF Donor

I expect the skeptics who stumble across this thread to offer no estimation of what it would take to look for Patty when they realize the extent needed in real life to look for stuff.

 

How many news stories are out there where it takes 2-3 days to look for lost boyscouts.  Usually you have 50-100 people looking.

 

I just don't think it has dawned on most skeptics just what might be needed.  

 

Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
salubrious
Moderator

I have heard skeptics dismiss the idea of lost planes. That is, when a lost plane goes down in the woods it may not been found for years if ever.  So the response from the skeptics is "Well Planes actually exist" and so on.  Wow so clever on their part. 

 

Lost planes sort of prove the point. A WW2 military craft that went missing about 65 years ago was found in the last few month in the Sierra Nevadas. Thing is, it was not trying to avoid anyone- it was just sitting there. There was a search for it, which concluded decades ago; it took that long to turn up. How long would it have been if it was smaller, much more mobile and didn't want to be found??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
BFF Donor

They say when they were looking for downed Billionaire and adventurer Steve Fossett when he crashed his plane  it took weeks to find him. At one point they had Google satellites helping and thousands of people looking.  In the search they found several crashes never before found decades old before they found him weeks later dead.

 

It helps to be a Billionaire to generate the search effort needed.

 

A plane hides from no one. Yet, 65 years hiding in the open does prove the point.

 

 

I quote another Skeptic on the BFF  "yea they haven't found Bigfoot because they are not searching hard enough. yea that's it" 

 

Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
roguefooter

No one is looking for bigfoot.  No one.

 

Know who says that?  The people who are doing, by so very far it's not worth even talking about, THE MOST SERIOUS LOOKING.

 

They know.  They are like two people looking for the boy in the OP, both of them old and overweight...and blind.

 

They are hoping they'll get lucky; doing everything humanly possible to get lucky; and it looks like in one of the better places on the continent to get lucky.

 

But they know.  No one is looking.

 

Just because only a handful are looking for bigfoot doesn't mean other people aren't out there doing their own thing. We get wildlife footage all the time from people looking for wildlife, bird watchers, motorcyclists filming themselves, hikers filming, loggers with phone cams, forest workers, boy scouts, etc. The list goes on and on. The amount of people that own and use a GoPro camera out in the wild I'd be willing to bet are in the hundreds of thousands.

 

There is nothing that says you have to be a Bigfoot researcher in order to see and film a Bigfoot.

Edited by roguefooter

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Incorrigible1
BFF Donor

Skeptics are to blame for the lack of bigfoot proof? What?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DWA

Just because only a handful are looking for bigfoot doesn't mean other people aren't out there doing their own thing. We get wildlife footage all the time from people looking for wildlife, bird watchers, motorcyclists filming themselves, hikers filming, loggers with phone cams, forest workers, boy scouts, etc. The list goes on and on. The amount of people that own and use a GoPro camera out in the wild I'd be willing to bet are in the hundreds of thousands.

 

There is nothing that says you have to be a Bigfoot researcher in order to see and film a Bigfoot.

Maybe not, but not relevant to my point:  Unless one looks for something the way scientists look when they expect to find something, which the evidence says should have started long ago...well, the OP suggests that it will take nothing but sheer blind luck to find it.

 

Skeptics are to blame for the lack of bigfoot proof? What?

Of course they are!  Who do you think pays scientists and gives them jobs?  People who think bigfoot is nonsense and that people who think it isn't shouldn't have jobs as scientists.

 

Sorry about the real world.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
BFF Donor

A bird watcher in Central Park might have less of a chance than a bird watcher deep in the woods of the great NW USA.

Obviously it is harder to get into deep wooded areas and other remote areas. There is probably less bird watching going on in bluff creek than Central Park It depends on the needs of the bird watcher. You don't look for California condors in Nebraska.

Just because there are a lot of bird watchers or whatever in all of the USA does not mean they are in high concentrations in the remote ares of bigfoot country. Yes you have the lumberjack or camper or boys scouts have such an occasional encounter. They are called Crazy or Liars by the skeptics when they do.

Backdoc

Edited by Backdoc

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Incorrigible1
BFF Donor

Of course they are!  Who do you think pays scientists and gives them jobs?  People who think bigfoot is nonsense and that people who think it isn't shouldn't have jobs as scientists.

 

Sorry about the real world.

Boy, those skeptics. They employ scientists, now. Thank goodness they can't prevent self-proclaimed scientists from reading any number of reports on the internets and posting beau coups opinions that said reports prove bigfoot existence, beyond a shadow of a doubt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×