MIB Posted March 2, 2015 Moderator Share Posted March 2, 2015 True ... but that only matters if you're upwind of them. Any good hunter approaches from downwind given an opportunity. Even if you don't do that deliberately you've still got a 50/50 chance of getting it right so not knowing any better only cuts your chances in half, not enough to account for the lack of results by itself. MIB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted March 2, 2015 Share Posted March 2, 2015 Susiq,WSA MIB in many ways the situation has not changed at all. Susiq seasoned researchers are sometimes going into the field purposefully not adding scent to themselves and adding natural cover scents and camouflage. P&G did it in cowboy clothes. Bigfoot if it has learned any one thing it is to avoid game cameras. That is a problematic issue in and of itself. As far as bigfoot's actions go it is doing the same thing it ever did and perhaps has been somewhat emboldened to travel into direct human habitat. I simply cannot endorse the idea that bigfoot has upped it's means of avoidance in a way that outstrips our ability to penetrate it's realm. This would imply that it knows more about us than we do of it and we didn't get where we are as a species by being second guessed by primates and or other humanoids. The argument always seems to go back to bigfoot special dispensation. Whether it be it's senses, brain or any combination of either. If it did possess all that special dispensation it would be the Apex biped on planet earth and not us. We are not too stupid to find it. We're not to clumsy or untimely. The thing get's reportedly seen which means it is not perfect in it's stealth. Far from it on occasion. Consider that we know where it gets reported and we know where to look for it. Time and time again researchers are brought to exact places and sometimes stakeouts are even done. I can't accept that bigfoot being anywhere is just a fluke. If it crossed a given road or meadow at a given time it had a reason for being there. No animal given the dispensation for stealth can be allowed the luxury by us that there was a mistake by the creature being at that given place in time where it was seen. It either has purpose to it's movements or it does not. If it does not than it's stupid and an easy target. Consider Skookum Meadow. There was the famous bigfoot/elk cast made. A lure was put out and the bait taken. So there was an animal. Did they ever recreate the experiment? Has anyone? Five will get you ten the bait will be taken again and by the same thing that took it the first time. This means one of two things. Bigfoot is around to enjoy the treat or something else is. If bigfoot took the fruit then it already knows it beat the humans to the draw and it slipped away. So it would have every reason to to try again if the opportunity presented itself. But there are no random meanderings in the natural world. To give bigfoot that would be yet another special dispensation of which it is afforded too many already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 MIB and Crow: Gentlemen, Thank you for your kind and very thoughtful responses to my posting, and plus 1's with love to both of you.. I keep trying to understand how P and G managed to obtain the best ever recorded BF evidence. Did either of them smoke? There has to have been something unique that allowed them to get that close to a living female sasquatch. Of course, one major thing has changed, we have many more people hiking and camping than we had back then, plus we now have BF researchers actively searching for BF, hanging up camera's that smell and possibly makes some sort of sound that the BF can hear, there is something that helped P+G to film Patty that we do not have today, or we are all too noisy. I wonder if our cell phones emit some type of sound or emit some type of ultrasonic waves that the BF can hear? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Crow wrote: So it would have every reason to to try again if the opportunity presented itself. But there are no random meanderings in the natural world. Susie asks: I have never thought about whether BF wandered around within their own habitat, or if they followed the annual food sources that do migrate. What do you think they do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 True ... but that only matters if you're upwind of them. Any good hunter approaches from downwind given an opportunity. Even if you don't do that deliberately you've still got a 50/50 chance of getting it right so not knowing any better only cuts your chances in half, not enough to account for the lack of results by itself. MIB Are there any BF researchers who essentially live in the woods, covered in dirt and smelling of leaves like in the Predator films that Arnold Schwarzenegger starred in and made 2 or 3 of them without Arnold but other men against the Predator? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted March 3, 2015 BFF Patron Share Posted March 3, 2015 (edited) Then we have the double standard problem... If it's there, a few months by a dedicated enthusiast in the field should produce some kind of results. and Well, Patterson himself was suspect because he had spent years looking for bigfoot, imagine, actually looking, bwaaahaa, and "just happened" to be prepared with a movie camera when one came by, yeah right. Yes, damned if you do damned if you don't. I literally had a sighitng within five months of informing a BFRO SE tracking team that I was hot on the trail. To many, having that kind of success when the team is telling you, "no evidence of anything as big as an elephant" having been through here, but steady as you go, instantly causes the tables to be turned on your veracity whether you have documentation or not. It could have been P&G luck that they were hot on the trail, had some smelly horses and some windage that caused them to get it right. I'm reminded of the elk hunter's sighting in the Montana mtns who was horse back at dusk and: http://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_report.asp?id=13383 (note the root ball) Edited March 3, 2015 by bipedalist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 Are there any BF researchers who essentially live in the woods, covered in dirt and smelling of leaves like in the Predator films that Arnold Schwarzenegger starred in and made 2 or 3 of them without Arnold but other men against the Predator? Patterson and Gimlin did the deed as just cowboys perhaps a bit ripe from two weeks in the woods. The super stealth deal seems overkill although it can't hurt the effort. Crow wrote: So it would have every reason to to try again if the opportunity presented itself. But there are no random meanderings in the natural world. Susie asks: I have never thought about whether BF wandered around within their own habitat, or if they followed the annual food sources that do migrate. What do you think they do? Animals will stay in a given location to partake in a crop of something they eat or crave. For instance deer like apples and in apple season you'll find them in the orchards eating ground fall apples. You won't find them nearly as likely there once apple season ends. So bigfoot is likely to hover for periods of time near favored foods when those foods are in season. It is said bigfoot prey on deer so follow the deer and you'll be more likely to find bigfoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 3, 2015 Share Posted March 3, 2015 In 1967 there were perhaps 10 human beings actively looking for bigfoot. Patterson got the money shot. But today we have perhaps a 50 fold increase in the number of human beings actively engaged in looking for bigfoot. So 10 human beings looking from 1960 to 1967 yielded the PGF with none of the researchers being in the field full time and basically only in the PNW. The 500+ human beings actively looking over a much broader range with better equipment and a deeper knowledge base should have scored another huge video as good as or better than the PGF. I'd say we haven't got more than 10 of Patterson level dedication at the moment, lots of weekenders, maybe their time added up would get to about an additional 50 total, not times. Though, I would not be sure myself, that barring a lot of luck the short lookaround trips are additive, they might be more like pushing the big ball a quarter or half way up the slope, in other words, let go and it rolls back down again. Then there's the art of being "one" with the woods, not really in a mystical sense, but just causing least disturbance and clues to your presence, sinking into the background... that can take a while every time, couple of hours, so if you're only out for an afternoon, you lose half the time to sticking out like the relative sore thumb. And BTW, I think I've seen thermals that for thermals are as good as the PGF, but given unfamiliarity with thermal videos, I think a lot of primatolagists or others who have academic background to say, "That, that's new" are nervous of sticking their neck out over them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 10, 2015 Share Posted March 10, 2015 Patterson and Gimlin did the deed as just cowboys perhaps a bit ripe from two weeks in the woods. The super stealth deal seems overkill although it can't hurt the effort. Animals will stay in a given location to partake in a crop of something they eat or crave. For instance deer like apples and in apple season you'll find them in the orchards eating ground fall apples. You won't find them nearly as likely there once apple season ends. So bigfoot is likely to hover for periods of time near favored foods when those foods are in season. It is said bigfoot prey on deer so follow the deer and you'll be more likely to find bigfoot. Thanks Crowlogic for explaining this to me, and a plus 1 to you with appreciation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 It's well known that riding a horse confuses animals when you encounter them, as opposed to being a boot hunter on the ground. You don't look like a human, or sound like one or smell like one......you are absorbed by the 1200 lbs critter your riding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 I'd sat that Patterson's outcome was not proportionate to how long or how well he was looking. Really and truly, the guy just hit the number is all. Sure, he had to be in the woods with a working camera, but after that he was just rolling dice like everyone else. Time has shown it was an extremely rare event and we shouldn't count on it to be repeated, or draw any conclusions because it hasn't been yet. That sounds extremely pessimistic, I realize, but there it is. Maybe it was even a one-off for all time. None of us can say for sure, but it certainly hasn't been repeated that we know of. It might be so rare that the efforts of a multitude greater than those now being expended are going to be required to even have a chance of it being duplicated. Some confuse this lack of duplication to be evidence of fraud, supernatural abilities or even the extinction of the species. To feel that way, I think, is to overlook the nature of the event itself as informed by the collective experience since the film was shot. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigTreeWalker Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 WSA, plus one. I think RP increased his odds by being on horseback, as previously mentioned by Norseman and others. I'm curious how many researchers use horses today? I don't, it's boots on the ground for me. Also the fact that he used a manual camera increased the amount of footage he was able to get. Someone in one of the threads mentioned how long it takes to get a digital camera to come online, which I can attest to (don't remember who, sorry). But, you're right, he still beat the odds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 (edited) ^^^Well, yeah, this, with one reservation. Patterson's outcome was made significantly more likely by two things: (1) hellyeah how long and how well he was looking. Subsequent investigators found his and Gimlin's horse tracks on every single schmingle side branch, and they spent over three weeks in the field on horseback specifically to shoot a film of one and primed for that event. Has anyone else?** and (2) a large and consistent volume of evidence, found before their visit, precisely where they were planning to go which is why they went there. The collective experience since that film includes nothing like the Patterson-Gimlin expedtion. Mystery solved. Nothing is easier to explain, in real world terms, than why no one has replicated their success. No one has tried. NAWAC is kinda getting close to starting to. **That answer is variably given no, nope, no way, not close, naaaaahhhhh, fugedabadit Edited March 11, 2015 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 Interesting point to ponder DWA...what is "good enough?" We know that the NWAC boys and girls have spent considerably longer looking in one place than Patterson or Gimlin did, with lots of great evidence resulting, but not someting similar to the PG film. Of course, just knocking around in the woods for even decades (Guilty!) without any predisposition to notice BF related evidence (Again!) is not calculated to bring back the goods either, except by dumb luck. I guess we just have to say "more is better than less", but I don't think we should say a failure to document at a PGF level is really all that significant, or even that it means we are not looking as intensively as we might (although we certainly aren't). I'm right on board with advocating for more time and money getting thrown at this, you know that, but I also think quite possibly the next PGF-level footage might be from a kid biking down a trail with his GoPro running, who was only trying to film the really gnarly air he was catching. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted March 11, 2015 Share Posted March 11, 2015 Oh, no argument with any of that. I do think it's noteworthy though that NAWAC isn't really that big on the filmic aspect, going more toward ape-on-a-slab, whereas Patterson and Gimlin both took full advantage of the mobility and screening provided by horses and dedicated themselves to a different kind of shot, in a way no one has since. Even given the copious evidence that preceded P and G's visit, wild animals that don't want to be seen generally aren't, to a degree many more people would appreciate if more of them got out, um, more. There's some serendipity involved; look at sightings. And I can't tell you how many more GoPro I personally would like to see out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts