CMBigfoot Posted November 2, 2012 Share Posted November 2, 2012 My friend shared this with me, so I thought I would share it with whoever is interested. http://www.ktvz.com/news/Cascades-search-set-for-elusive-wolverine/-/413192/17231862/-/ueaveqz/-/index.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted November 5, 2012 Admin Share Posted November 5, 2012 Well, I suppose we all keep hoping for something to materialize, eh? I hope one or more do pop up, and are found to be thriving and not falling into extinction. It'd be super cool if they were real, I think everyone here would agree with that. Ape people living wild in NA? How cool. But until that time, we still have to wait on all the other research projects to materialize and be finalized! More waiting! At least while waiting some of us get to do a lot of good forest hiking, and not a lot can beat that. :-) Very true. I've stated this before, and some agree or disagree. But 99 percent of my camera trap photos of deer and elk and bear do not look anything like the photos that Kit posts........ Most of my pics look like typical "blobsquatch" pics. A picture of a white tail ass........ a blurry photo of a elk torso with snow flakes in the fore front. There fore I do not feel there is ever going to be a very good photo of a Sasquatch coming from a camera trap.......nothing that is ever going to convince someone. AND there are camera trap photos of supposed Sasquatch.........the Jacobs creature comes to mind as well as the Easton bow hunting journal one. But I could be wrong, something may pop up that will convince most.......but I highly doubt it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 Yes, I think it's very logical and a prime example of critical thinking to insist that something hypothesised to be at least as big as an adult human will habitually crawl on it's hands and knees through a 3ft x18" brush tunnel specifically in order to be captured on a camera set up to find things of the size that made it and use it. Yes, I think it's very logical and a prime example of critical thinking to insist that every game cam photo ever taken is as clear and crisp as a studio shot, and would be perfectly capable of replacing a type specimen of a deer if were unknown to science. Yes, I think it's very logical and a prime example of critical thinking to insist that one good picture of an animal obtained with a game cam is representative of every photograph ever taken with a game cam, despite multiple layers of selections bias (Once when reviewing pics at the cam to delete the apparent blank shots, once when uploading to the computer, once when deciding which to post online, and again when searched for on the internet, it's the cherry, of the cherry of the cherry) Yes, I think it's very logical and a prime example of critical thinking to insist in the same post that all sightings are bunk, while arguing that if it were real there would be sightings. Yes, I think it's very logical and a prime example of critical thinking to insist that describing a situation where a putative BF was caught on camera, proves that they are possible to catch on camera, while not proving that they exist. Yes, I think it's very logical and a prime example of critical thinking to insist that that amount of evidence produced by a few thousand fixed objects of an apparently random occurrence, should exceed that of a few hundred million autonomous pairs of eyeballs, which are mobile, and can pan and focus, and have far greater fields of vision. Yes, I think it's very logical and a prime example of critical thinking to insist that a couple of hundred eyeball hours of recorded observation out of a potential 10 trillion or so in 50 years proves that the subject is not stealthy. Yes, I think it's very logical and a prime example of critical thinking to insist that gorillas are easy to find and photograph while denigrating the 50+ years of effort in (funded!) research and habituation that got us to that stage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 I'd rather not distract from the thread looking for squatching locations in Washington State, so I will move these posts here for discussion... So we have scientists and forestry experts making a long-term concerted effort at documenting rare and elusive PNW mammals right smack in the middle of what is supposed to be Bigfoot Central and Bigfoot is MIA. Why is this? maybe they did catch them on camera, and did not let it known to the public, just like many forest/ park rangers have said lately. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 (edited) Yes, I think it's very logical and a prime example of critical thinking to insist that something hypothesised to be at least as big as an adult human will habitually crawl on it's hands and knees through a 3ft x18" brush tunnel specifically in order to be captured on a camera set up to find things of the size that made it and use it. They get clear pictures of other large animals but apparently bigfoot is special. Yes, I think it's very logical and a prime example of critical thinking to insist that every game cam photo ever taken is as clear and crisp as a studio shot, and would be perfectly capable of replacing a type specimen of a deer if were unknown to science. Once again, every other large animal gets a good picture and once again we have to apply special pleading for bigfoot. Yes, I think it's very logical and a prime example of critical thinking to insist that one good picture of an animal obtained with a game cam is representative of every photograph ever taken with a game cam, despite multiple layers of selections bias (Once when reviewing pics at the cam to delete the apparent blank shots, once when uploading to the computer, once when deciding which to post online, and again when searched for on the internet, it's the cherry, of the cherry of the cherry) See above. Yes, I think it's very logical and a prime example of critical thinking to insist that describing a situation where a putative BF was caught on camera, proves that they are possible to catch on camera, while not proving that they exist. They don't prove that they exist because they are blurry or ambiguous. Yes, I think it's very logical and a prime example of critical thinking to insist that that amount of evidence produced by a few thousand fixed objects of an apparently random occurrence, should exceed that of a few hundred million autonomous pairs of eyeballs, which are mobile, and can pan and focus, and have far greater fields of vision. Its also very logical for an animal to be seen by "a few hundred million autonomous pairs of eyeballs" but not have a clear, unambiguous photo of it while the Javan rhino and saola (animals not sighted by that number of people) can. Yes, I think it's very logical and a prime example of critical thinking to insist that gorillas are easy to find and photograph while denigrating the 50+ years of effort in (funded!) research and habituation that got us to that stage. Timeline please. maybe they did catch them on camera, and did not let it known to the public, just like many forest/ park rangers have said lately. Conspriracy theories provide an easy answer to everything. Edited November 5, 2012 by Jerrymanderer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 Oh yes, the magical camera argument, I guess you can point yours up at the sky with the lens cap on and get a perfect picture of a dolphin. Other points, a general education is not my responsibility to provide. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 Oh yes, the magical camera argument, I guess you can point yours up at the sky with the lens cap on and get a perfect picture of a dolphin. Yep and thats exactly what wildlife photographers and cam trails do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cisco Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 To me, this is the million dollar question. I believe in the possibility of Bigfoot, although I've never seen one, simply because of the thousands of witness sighting reports and interviews. I just don't believe that everybody is making it up and it helps that there is other physical evidence such as footprints, hair, etc. However, I have yet to hear or read any realistic explanation as to why there are virtually no photos or videos of the big guy. I know that there are hundreds of blob squatch photos but there are no clear photos that have ever been released and verified as being a real but unknown animal. Actually, I take that back as the photo released by Melissa Hovey is very clear and looks **** real to me. In addition, nobody has matched it with any known costumes, models or special effects creations. That aside, why are there not hundreds of photos? We must have, on average, 15-30 reported sightings a month. Many of these take place in or close to areas with a lot of human habitation. In addition, there are literally tens of thousands of game cameras throughout public and private lands. However, nobody has been able to snap a clear photo of this being? I have read many opinions as to how Bigfoot is able to avoid being photographed and some sound pretty good, on the surface. However, none of them really make sense after giving them just a little more thought. Here are some of the more popular explanations as to why Bigfoot can't be photographed, not in any particular order. Bigfoot are very smart and know what cameras are and thus, they avoid them. Bigfoot can smell the cameras. Bigfoot can hear the cameras. Bigfoot observe the cameras being placed so they know where they are and can avoid them. Bigfoot are extremely rare and very wary so they operate in full time stealth mode. There are many other explanations but these seem to be the most common ones I've heard. However, if you really look at them, they don't really make a whole lot of sense, at least not to me. 1. If Bigfoot are smart enough to recognize a camera, why are there so many reports of people looking at Bigfoot through a rifle scope or binoculars? Cameras are very varied in their appearance. How does Bigfoot keep up with all of the different types of cameras? I don't think that I could recognize every type of camera; unless I was sitting in front of my computer. 2. If Bigfoot can smell the cameras then why do the smells of other human related items not bother them? Do cameras have a unique scent signature that's different from any other object? Even if they could smell them; what would that mean to them? Why would they specifically avoid cameras and not a toy left behind by a researcher? 3. If Bigfoot can hear a camera; what would that tell them? So what that Bigfoot can hear a camera? Why would that matter to Bigfoot? Bigfoot can hear trains yet there are dozens of reports involving trains. Bigfoot can hear trucks and cars yet there are thousands of reports involving them. What noise does a camera make that would make Bigfoot so afraid? 4. If Bigfoot observes every single game cam being placed in the forest; wouldn't that require a rather large population? Even if they did observe all of the game cameras being placed; what would that mean to Bigfoot? Why would they care? It should not matter that a game cameras was mounted by a human since they don't appear to avoid us all the time. Why would Bigfoot fear a camera but not a person? 5. I assume Bigfoot are very rare and they must be rather stealthy as well. However, if I put up a hundred cameras on 10 acres and then challenged a team of Navy Seals to cross that 10 acres without being photographed, I don't think they could do it. Simply because I can camouflage the cameras to appear like something else. I would think this explanation would be plausible if cameras were bright yellow and the size of car. However, there are many people that go to great lengths to hide and disguise their cameras. Nobody could avoid ALL camera traps that are well hidden. Again, I'm a believer in Bigfoot but this photograph issue really sticks in my throat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 1. Distance. Most point and shoots, cell cams and game cams have a fairly wide angle lens, that means you have to be right on top of something to get even a half frame sized shot. Binoculars and scopes allow the observer to be further away, thus it's no coincidence that some of the more prolonged observations have been through these. 3. well if ultrasonic deer whistlers are supposed to repel deer, ultrasonic bug repellers are supposed to repel bugs, ultrasonic rat, mouse, skunk repellers ditto ditto, then it's not too large a stretch to consider that some creatures consider high pitched sounds to be obnoxious and will avoid them for their own sake, rather than the fact of what they are. 5. 10 acres is nearly half a million square feet, each camera covers about a hundred square feet, the odds are **** good that Mr Doofus McCityslicker could walk straight through your 10 acres and NOT get himself on camera. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 3. well if ultrasonic deer whistlers are supposed to repel deer, ultrasonic bug repellers are supposed to repel bugs, ultrasonic rat, mouse, skunk repellers ditto ditto, then it's not too large a stretch to consider that some creatures consider high pitched sounds to be obnoxious and will avoid them for their own sake, rather than the fact of what they are. But again, cam trails don't seem to alert other animals, including apes. It would be a stretch to say that game cams emit an ultrasonic sound that only bigfoots can hear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 My trail cameras alert EVERYTHING that it takes a pic of. Deer, coyotes, racoons, turkeys. I've seen them react to the camera, be it running away, quizzically looking, or simply glancing at it. Bottom line - trail cams alert animals. And the Hovey pic, that was from a game cam. Was crisp, clear, up close, and yet proved nothing. So maybe they DO get their pics taken, but when those pics are released, they are dismissed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 5, 2012 Share Posted November 5, 2012 My trail cameras alert EVERYTHING that it takes a pic of. Deer, coyotes, racoons, turkeys. I've seen them react to the camera, be it running away, quizzically looking, or simply glancing at it. Bottom line - trail cams alert animals. Maybe amateur cams do but the subject of this thread is more professional. So are the photos of the Javan rhinos and Cross River gorillas. And the Hovey pic, that was from a game cam. Was crisp, clear, up close, and yet proved nothing. Because it was taken by an anonymous photographer who could easily have used a suit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted November 5, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted November 5, 2012 ...... 3. well if ultrasonic deer whistlers are supposed to repel deer, ultrasonic bug repellers are supposed to repel bugs, ultrasonic rat, mouse, skunk repellers ditto ditto, then it's not too large a stretch to consider that some creatures consider high pitched sounds to be obnoxious and will avoid them for their own sake, rather than the fact of what they are. ........ Re: ultrasonics Ultrasonic devices Although some animals can hear ultrasound, there is controversy around its efficacy for deterring mammals (Frings 1964; Bomford & O’Brien 1990; Koehler et al. 1990). The Yard Gard and the Usonic Sentry are ultrasonic devices that are marketed to repel pests from areas of concern. Both products are motionactivated and emit ultrasound for about 7–18 s. The Yard Gardwas ineffective at repelling deer from an area and from preferred foods (Curtis et al. 1997; Belant et al. 1998a). The Usonic Sentry, with and without a white strobe light, was ineffective in repelling deer from feeding stations for more than one week (Belant et al. 1998a). There is little evidence that rats and mice are repelled by ultrasound (Sprock et al. 1967; Timm 1994a,. Efficacy of ultrasonic devices for rodents depends on the frequency and intensity of the ultrasound, and pre-existing population levels (Sprock et al. 1967; Shumake et al. 1982). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 (edited) 7 years ago I saw a wolverine in the Sierras. When I reported what I had seen the reaction was the same as if I told the warden I saw a Bigfoot. Now 7 years later and we have proof of wolverines in California. I was flat out told that those animals are not in this area, not even in this state! So the animal does live here but only now that we have photographic evidence will the authorities admit it. How does a game warden not know what animals are in his forest? How does he pull out a real negative attitude and a lecture on something he is totally wrong about? He was a skeptic because it was information that he did not possess even though he was the authority. He had heard about the wolverine sightings and had predisposed himself to the negative. As an educated man he refused to accept what was out of his normal thinking box. Now I am gonna give him hell! Edited November 6, 2012 by Woodswalker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 6, 2012 Share Posted November 6, 2012 (edited) Conspriracy theories provide an easy answer to everything. and a skeptics answer to everything is a guy in a suit... that not even Hollywood replicated correctly. Edited November 6, 2012 by zigoapex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts