salubrious Posted September 30, 2014 Moderator Posted September 30, 2014 Until these critters are proven to exist and can be studied, there are no answers as to what they eat or the calories needed to sustain them. There will be no answers even after they are 'proven'. But FWIW, the PGF stands as an example of one being photographed. Others have been photographed as well, but all those photos including the PGF are subject to the usual hoax debate. This is what has swayed me into the non existence camp. Although my stand is that they went extinct in the 80's or thereabouts. Nothing is 100% perfect in remaining unobserved. I saw two of them close up (unambiguous) on the top of the Dallas Divide in Colorado, in 1990 or 91 (September). So they have been observed, and apparently were not extinct by the early 90s. Much more recently I have had several experiences that suggest they are alive and well in the Minnesota-Wisconsin area, the most recent being this last spring. We humans tend to exercise a certain amount of hubris- we think that with our technology anything is possible (and maybe it is, you never know...). But one problem I don't think was very well thought out with game cams is that they make sound and emit infrared light, which is likely visible to nocturnal creatures. Now if you are smart, and you want to stay out of sight in the forest, and you have good night vision, a device like that is going to be avoided like the plague as you know exactly who put it there, and maybe even watched them do it. Going near it is likely not going to end well- sooner or later some more of the humans are going to show up and tromp all over the place, really putting your stealth skills to the test. Generally speaking, a pain in the rear. Avoid at all cost.
Guest Crowlogic Posted September 30, 2014 Posted September 30, 2014 Curious Crow about your above post about believing they went extinct in the 80's or thereabouts, care to elaborate? Based on what "viable" information being that we actually know squat about these creatures. Sure. Roger Patterson shot his film and BF was on the map. Many researchers primed to find it set out without luck. More people looking, more people in those habitats, less to show for it. Patterson got film of a member of a dying species that hand only a decade or so to go into oblivion. A trainload of mythology has emerged since but nothing to sink one's teeth into so to speak.
BobbyO Posted October 1, 2014 SSR Team Posted October 1, 2014 You forgot the words " amateur, unqualified, and non-financed " before researchers Crow.
Guest Divergent1 Posted October 1, 2014 Posted October 1, 2014 And we know that BF's behave like cattle and have similar nutrient requirements how? I would proffer that, due to BF's intelligence and opposable thumb, their range would not need to be as large as described. Let's take White tail deer for example. A doe's seasonal home range can be as small as 40 acres. A buck's is larger at about 1.5 square miles. I think you would agree that a BF's diet would be more versatile than a deer's, no? (BF have been seen catching fish, digging roots, chasing deer, eating leaves, just to name a few) So why is it that BF need a larger range? Because the mammalian metabolic rate doesn't vary much between species. http://www.uvm.edu/~pdodds/teaching/courses/2009-08UVM-300/docs/others/2003/white2003a.pdf
Guest DWA Posted October 1, 2014 Posted October 1, 2014 I guess the general argument is that, all your points not withstanding, if bigfoot are just big, North American wild primates ("wood apes", if you would), then we should be getting some pictures of them just as we get pictures of all the other indigenous wildlife of the area. If not, we are faced with the possibilities that either bigfoot do not exist, or that they are something more/different than simply another big ape running around. Personally I can't make any assumptions based on - this is what it is - the absence of images in the public domain. Particularly since we don't acknowledge any habits that might assist placement of cameras (and already know that some animals do purposely avoid game cams). Edited to add- All this assumes that no such legitimate and/or definitive images exist in the public domain. We can not be certain what photos (if any) are held by private parties or by the government. There are a number of photos I am aware of for which no other explanation seems at all likely, particularly these: http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=23160 http://woodape.org/index.php/about-bigfoot/articles/220-oklahoma-prairie-photos Blobsquatch them away as you will; backstory and the images themselves make these very very hard to simply explain away. Be that as it may: there could be a LOT of these that aren't being brought forward because the photographer simply doesn't consider them adequate for proof. Doesn't mean the photographer didn't photograph an animal. These do, however, point up quite well how unreasonable it is to pin nonexistence on lack of photo evidence.
Branco Posted October 1, 2014 Posted October 1, 2014 JMO, the lack of pics from cams should not be used as an excuse of no existence. I believe these are animals, smarter maybe than most critters but still animals. I do not believe that they know what camera's are but "do believe" that the flash, IR or trigger sound can be heard. The majority of my night pics, both still shots and video, have animals looking directly at the cam. One yotee hid behind a tree after the initial first pic. Animals have a sense that we don't, or at least that we no longer have. They know when something is different, either by scent or by visual. But either way, cams are #1 not fool proof and #2 to think that cams can cover the expanse of forest needed is absurd. Painthorse: The subject came up for about the 100th time on a thread I started about five years ago.on a hunting forum here. A few days ago I did some reasonable calculations about the number of game cams that would be needed to "cover" the Ouachita NF in AR & OK. It came out to about 13 million.
TD-40 Posted October 1, 2014 Posted October 1, 2014 I tend to agree that there's a chance they can see or sense the infrared. I am planning on buying a Plotwatcher and am hoping it is quiet. There is a large river where I saw a footprint last year that I want to install it and hope I get lucky. Maybe the river will mask any electronic noises?
Guest DWA Posted October 1, 2014 Posted October 1, 2014 Not only is it unlikely that electronic noises are loud enough to be a problem: http://woodape.org/index.php/about-bigfoot/articles/229-camera-test ...but it is unlikely that an animal seen as close to human activity as often as this one is will be affected one way or the other by such noise. Much more likely - and the apparent case with alpha coyotes on their territories - is that you'll be noticed putting it in, and the spot will be avoided for that reason, if any.
Guest thermalman Posted October 1, 2014 Posted October 1, 2014 (edited) A thermal camera is the only choice. Cow vs cow Edited October 1, 2014 by thermalman
roguefooter Posted October 2, 2014 Posted October 2, 2014 (edited) Much more likely - and the apparent case with alpha coyotes on their territories - is that you'll be noticed putting it in, and the spot will be avoided for that reason, if any. That's not likely at all considering we're talking about an entire species and not just alpha males. Newborns, juveniles, males, females, young, old, deaf, blind, disabled, etc, etc, etc... Edited October 2, 2014 by roguefooter 1
Guest WesT Posted October 2, 2014 Posted October 2, 2014 There is no pic that will ever be proven and accepted as conclusive, even if said pic was indeed genuine. the end
Sunflower Posted October 2, 2014 Posted October 2, 2014 A thermal camera is the only choice. Cow image.jpg vs cowimage.jpg Pic on the right side is not a cow. Cows do not have heads or shoulders shaped like that........ Are you still interested in visiting my friend's place if the invitation is being offered?????
Guest DWA Posted October 2, 2014 Posted October 2, 2014 There is no pic that will ever be proven and accepted as conclusive, even if said pic was indeed genuine. the end As it should be. But the discussion here is about using the absence of a photo in the public domain as some sort of 'evidence against' ...which it isn't.
dmaker Posted October 2, 2014 Posted October 2, 2014 (edited) ^^ Correct. But I have yet to see a response that includes a reasonable explanation for why there are no public domain pics of bigfoot. Such pics exist for all other megafauna that lives in alleged bigfoot habitat, indeed in some cases in bigfoot report hot spots. Why no bigfoot then? Pointing out that alpha members of other species avoid it does not fully address the question, as noted above. Also, hinting at some secret photos that are not in the public domain is irrelevant. We cannot count something for which there is no evidence to examine. Edited October 2, 2014 by dmaker
Recommended Posts