Cascades Carnivore Project - How Do They Miss The Bigfoots?

[kitakaze]

So we're back to this old subject again. Done to death right?

Objective achieved however Kit. We have skeptics crowing and high-fiving about this thread across several blogs.

Have we learned anything new? Not really, but that wasn't the point of this exercise was it?

 

There's much to learn for people open-minded enough to consider that Bigfoot not existing is why we have none on game cams as opposed to Fortean conspiracy theories about The Man holding the truth of Bigfoot from us, or Bigfoot having abilities that allow it to consistently remain hidden from those remote camera networks.

 

This is the monster Bigfootery created...

 

 

And this is reality...

 

 

 

Each one of those dots represents remote cameras throughout that study area of the Cascades, right smack in the middle of Bigfoot country. The blue dots are where Bobcats are recorded, red where they are not, elevation being the primary factor. The surveying has had years to record Bigfoots and nothing. 

 

The following is a similar project using a multitude of remote cameras to record carnivores and other species in the Rockies of British Columbia and Alberta...

 

Canadian Rockies Remote Camera Species Occupancy Project

The overall goal of this project is to develop a multi-species monitoring protocol for carnivores and their prey that can be applied to multi-carnivore systems across the globe. Most carnivores in the Canadian Rockies are not uniquely identifiable because they lack stripes and spots (e.g. wolves, cougars, grizzly and black bears). We are developing occupancy-modeling methods using data from remote cameras which will allow for the monitoring of multiple species simultaneously, at large scales, in remote areas, and cost-effectively. Occupancy models will be used to understand how large-mammal-community composition changes due to human activity and development across the study area. Data are being collected from 250+ cameras across the 22,000km2 study area in Southern British Columbia and Alberta that includes 5 national parks, 3 provincial parks and other provincial lands.

 

 

 

http://www.cfc.umt.edu/heblab/Projects/ParksCamera.php

 

That's over 250 game cams in place over years, not months, where Bigfoot is supposed to be, and no Bigfoots...

 

 

"The lack of any bit or piece of Bigfoot after so many hundreds of years is extremely powerful and meaningful evidence of its nonexistence. A kind of evidence that trumps. It's like a big hammer that pounds on all the stuff that the believers put forth." - William Parcher

[kitakaze]

It's just THIS government that does that; the other countries with populations of enigmatic primates are pretty open about the work their agencies have done in regards to their "BF" types.

 

It's really not a conspiracy; they just don't have an agency to manage BF. Closest thing they have is the Dept. of Health and Human Services, but they are all tied up in some  kind of insurance scam program right now.

 

Really?

 

And Canada?

 

http://www.cfc.umt.edu/heblab/Projects/Steenweg%20etal%202012%20PC%20Report%20remote%20camera%20occupancy.pdf

[kitakaze]

Kit,

The crux of the whole issue is would you believe a photo if you saw it? We have good photo evidence of Sasquatch, in the fact that it's not a bear or some other animal walking in the frame. But how do we know it's not a man in a suit? How will we ever know for sure?

Physical evidence is the only way.

Btw, welcome back.

 

Thank you, Norseman. Yes, physical evidence is the only way and should never be any other. Would you believe a photo if you saw it is not the issue. We do not have good photo evidence of Sasquatch. 

 

 

We can not take a film with zero provenance, said by its creator to be secretly developed, with an impossible timeline and hijack that into something the rational world outside of Bigfoot subculture accepts or thinks to be good. You can take a single frame and say oh that's the elbow, it can't be human, and the real world will rightfully meet you with no kind of acceptance. You want Bigfoot to be considered a reality, you don't come with scheister film. I won't derail into PGF discussion, but the simple fact is that however good you think that might be, the opinion is subjective and the source is like some kind of Rodney Dangerfield bit. For your FX artist supporting it, there are many more that denounce it. For your PhD supporting it, there are many more unconvinced. Only Bigfoot enthusiasts amongst themselves can nod and agree and think that their maverick thinkers are anywhere near being right.

If you want Bigfoot to be an accepted reality, you come with the same evidence as we have for every other large mammal in North America. If you come with less, you get shut out, and it should not be any other way. You don't put up an absurd map slathering North America in Bigfoot then have your hands in your pockets for reliable evidence and expect to be taken seriously. 

[gigantor]

Kit,

 

Bigfoot is likely an omnivore, so all the surveys you present as examples don't apply because they target carnivores and are baited in a way to attract them, not Bigfoot.

[Drew]

Right. Because omnivores are not attracted to meat. ? Huh?

 

or

 

Because the Grizzly Bear on the first page of the Cascade Connectivity site is not attracted to meat because, like Bigfoot, it is an Omnivore.

http://www.cascadesconnectivity.org/

 

 

More Omnivores at the bait stations http://www.cascadesconnectivity.org/photo-gallery/black-bears/

 

Even Herbivores are captured evidently http://www.cascadesconnectivity.org/photo-gallery/other-species/
 

I wonder if these Scat Detection Dogs have ever alerted on Sasquatch poo... http://www.cascadesconnectivity.org/photo-gallery/cast-and-crew/scat-detection-dogs/

Edited January 3, 2014 by Drew

[norseman]

Thank you, Norseman. Yes, physical evidence is the only way and should never be any other. Would you believe a photo if you saw it is not the issue. We do not have good photo evidence of Sasquatch. 

 

 

We can not take a film with zero provenance, said by its creator to be secretly developed, with an impossible timeline and hijack that into something the rational world outside of Bigfoot subculture accepts or thinks to be good. You can take a single frame and say oh that's the elbow, it can't be human, and the real world will rightfully meet you with no kind of acceptance. You want Bigfoot to be considered a reality, you don't come with scheister film. I won't derail into PGF discussion, but the simple fact is that however good you think that might be, the opinion is subjective and the source is like some kind of Rodney Dangerfield bit. For your FX artist supporting it, there are many more that denounce it. For your PhD supporting it, there are many more unconvinced. Only Bigfoot enthusiasts amongst themselves can nod and agree and think that their maverick thinkers are anywhere near being right.

If you want Bigfoot to be an accepted reality, you come with the same evidence as we have for every other large mammal in North America. If you come with less, you get shut out, and it should not be any other way. You don't put up an absurd map slathering North America in Bigfoot then have your hands in your pockets for reliable evidence and expect to be taken seriously.

To me "good" evidence is a film or photo that doesn't show a stump, a rock, a moose rump or a bear. It's upright has shoulders is hairy and is bipedal. In other words it can only be one thing, and not confused with another animal or forest object.

The only thing left is if it's a hoax or not.......and I say it is impossible to truly vet any media as real as opposed to a man in a monkey suit. In my opinion Munns has done a dang good job at testing suits and real test subjects to show that the PGF is the real deal. But that film will always be called into question.......and not because of Roger Patterson's reputation! If a Franciscan monk shot that footage it would still occupy the same place in science's mind......hoax.

[dmaker]

Norse, that is because the PGF is ambiguous. No one questions genuine wildlife footage. I don't watch documentaries and wonder if they are real or hoaxed animals. Do you think biologists watching Frozen Planet stop and wonder if the penguins are real? No. That is because of the simple fact that real animals when filmed look real. Fake ones when filmed, look fake. 

[Guest LarryP]

 That is because of the simple fact that real animals when filmed look real. Fake ones when filmed, look fake. 

 

That's an interesting claim. In light of the fact that I've seen footage of real animals that looked fake, and fake animals that looked real.

[Guest DWA]

Norse, that is because the PGF is ambiguous. No one questions genuine wildlife footage. I don't watch documentaries and wonder if they are real or hoaxed animals. Do you think biologists watching Frozen Planet stop and wonder if the penguins are real? No. That is because of the simple fact that real animals when filmed look real. Fake ones when filmed, look fake. 

And some people I am counting on not to know the difference.

 

You presume documentaries are OK because you unquestioningly trust the people making them.  Knowledge of what you are seeing doesn't for a second enter into it.

[dmaker]

Yes indeed Larry, but you also make arguments that include claims to hearing tree branches fall where there were no tree branches falling and then attribute this phenomenon to Bigfoot. So please excuse me if your perception of video footage does little to change my view. 

" You presume documentaries are OK because you unquestioningly trust the people making them.  Knowledge of what you are seeing doesn't for a second enter into it." DWA

 

Uhm....does it for you?  Do you actually question whether the animals you see in a documentary are real?

Edited January 3, 2014 by dmaker

[gigantor]

I'm surprised you guys (Kit, Dmaker, Drew) are trying to prove a negative, thought you'd know better...

[dmaker]

Supporting the null hypothesis is not "trying to prove a negative".

[Drew]

 

You presume documentaries are OK because you unquestioningly trust the people making them.  Knowledge of what you are seeing doesn't for a second enter into it.

 

Whut?

[Guest]

^^^^I guess they're saying that the PGF is of the same quality of filmmaking as those of the BBC or NatGeo.

[WSA]

And some people I am counting on not to know the difference.

 

You presume documentaries are OK because you unquestioningly trust the people making them.  Knowledge of what you are seeing doesn't for a second enter into it.

 

Please, allow me...

 

 

The point being, when a wildlife documentary maker offers up a glimpse of a species exotic to you, and never before seen "live in the wild" by you (and, when you think about it, that covers a large number of animals) you don't typically question the authenticity of what you are being shown (although, based on my knowledge of wildlife filming and Foley artist sound, maybe you should), regardless of how that animal "looks." I'd just posit this is due to the fact that these animals, no matter how bizarre and exotic they might be, come with the aura of authenticity and a tacit understanding by you of the existence of the species. But they could be stuffed, all that it would matter to most, and the only really hurdle the filmmaker must clear is to show you a form you recognize. And yes, yes, those forms have type specimens on file, etc, etc. But, you see the difference DWA was trying to draw?  If a BF comes with an aura at all, it is one of inauthenticity. Quite the distinction.

Edited January 3, 2014 by WSA