bipedalist Posted January 4, 2014 BFF Patron Posted January 4, 2014 (edited) Well Iam confused...... We have a scientist that specializes in bipedal locomotion and foot anatomy saying a real animal is out there based on cast and film analysis. But a Wolverine biologist with a camera trap snap shot is gonna blow the lid off of this thing! Riiiiight. Btw, has anyone called these organizations about strange photos? Or are we just assuming that they are just going to run to the press with a photo? As I remember we had some good threads here on trackpads and wildlife underpasses too. They came up empty but similarly does anybody explain the unexplained if asked? 4W1713_Executive_Summary.pdf Also http://itd.idaho.gov/enviro/TEspecies/425259_Final_Report.pdf http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/environment/biology/bio_esa.htm#Connectivity Edited January 4, 2014 by bipedalist
norseman Posted January 5, 2014 Admin Posted January 5, 2014 (edited) All I can tell you is that I've seen tracks in deep snow, something large and bipedal made them and it was no hoax. Norse, how can you say that with such certainty? This is still just your subjective analysis shaped by your life experiences. I'm not saying that I think life experiences bring nothing to the table, but even the most experienced and rational people can error. They can be fooled. We have seen it with Meldrum and others even. Faced with the stark reality of zero tangible, verifiable evidence for Bigfoot--and precisely where that evidence, by all rational thought, should be--one has to conclude that Bigfoot simply does not exist. Despite your experience and all the others. You realize this is my response to kit's 2014 comment? Iam not asking you to accept my experience as proof of anything.But it's what keeps the question open ended for me. Edited January 5, 2014 by norseman
kitakaze Posted January 5, 2014 Author Posted January 5, 2014 Well Iam confused...... We have a scientist that specializes in bipedal locomotion and foot anatomy saying a real animal is out there based on cast and film analysis. But a Wolverine biologist with a camera trap snap shot is gonna blow the lid off of this thing! Riiiiight. Btw, has anyone called these organizations about strange photos? Or are we just assuming that they are just going to run to the press with a photo? Who says not only did a real Bigfoot foot make this track, but that particular Bigfoot was Patty... This week I emailed the Gifford Pinchot Task Force, Cascades Carnivore Project, and Conservation Northwest inquiring if they have ever documented anything that could be considered evidence of Sasquatch and if not what they would do if they did get a clear image of Sasquatch on their cameras. I'll post any response that I receive. 1
norseman Posted January 5, 2014 Admin Posted January 5, 2014 (edited) And I respect you for that Kit, good job. Also kit, I recognize that track as a Ray Wallace stomper. I've seen your comparison before on here and I agree with your assessment. But obviously that does not explain all tracks. I think Meldrum can be wrong about a track, but that does not negate his entire assessment of all tracks. And in my opinion that entire assessment of Meldrum should be a stronger case of the existence of Sasquatch than a hypothetical camera trap photo. Edited January 5, 2014 by norseman
Guest DWA Posted January 5, 2014 Posted January 5, 2014 All I can tell you is that I've seen tracks in deep snow, something large and bipedal made them and it was no hoax. Norse, how can you say that with such certainty? This is still just your subjective analysis shaped by your life experiences. I'm not saying that I think life experiences bring nothing to the table, but even the most experienced and rational people can error. They can be fooled. We have seen it with Meldrum and others even. Faced with the stark reality of zero tangible, verifiable evidence for Bigfoot--and precisely where that evidence, by all rational thought, should be--one has to conclude that Bigfoot simply does not exist. Despite your experience and all the others. Faced with a statement that is demonstrably not true, one begins to understand someone else's problem. "To presume there are no photos, tracks, hair or other anomalous evidence turning up on these studies because we personally haven't seen any is naïve, to say the very least." DWA So, it's what then? Conspiracy theories? (yawn) If one is, you know, well read up on this and notices, you know, the evidence, one comes up with other alternatives. Conspiracy theory - you know, like 'P and G faked that film' - has no place in this discussion.
dmaker Posted January 5, 2014 Posted January 5, 2014 Please, by all means,demonstrate how it is not true. Please demonstrate for us some tangible, verifiable evidence for Bigfoot. That would be awesome.
kitakaze Posted January 6, 2014 Author Posted January 6, 2014 And I respect you for that Kit, good job. Also kit, I recognize that track as a Ray Wallace stomper. I've seen your comparison before on here and I agree with your assessment. But obviously that does not explain all tracks. I think Meldrum can be wrong about a track, but that does not negate his entire assessment of all tracks. And in my opinion that entire assessment of Meldrum should be a stronger case of the existence of Sasquatch than a hypothetical camera trap photo. First response has just come in tonight from Conservation Northwest, which out of all the PNW remote camera network monitoring groups I have showcased, has been at it the longest. Included are my first inquiry, their response, and my response in return... An interesting question for members of the Conservation Northwest. Have any of the researchers/members ever had sightings, encountered or even recorded anything that could be attributed as evidence of the alleged species of large bipedal primate known popularly as Sasquatch/Bigfoot? The Washington State is said to be a hotbed of activity by Bigfoot enthusiasts. Furthermore, whether or not any such experience has happened, what do you think of the notion that were an encounter to happen or evidence be collected, it would be withheld for fear of ridicule or suppressed in some fashion? Thank you for your wonderful efforts and all the best to all of you this Holiday Season! Barbara Hi *****, I've been at Conservation Northwest for more than a decade and in that time we've never seen evidence of Bigfoot in our hundreds of cameras. I can't speak to if someone else would want to withhold evidence that is scientifically feasible, if there were any, but good science reveals all evidence, not just the results you expect. Thanks for the thoughts--interesting. Barbara, thank you so much for your reply. That is as much as I expected. I write on various forums and blogs on the subject of Bigfoot/Sasquatch from a skeptical viewpoint, addressing claims of evidence made by Bigfoot enthusiasts and believers. One claim that keeps coming up when I ask why are not groups such as yours working so hard to document rare mammal species in the heart of Bigfoot country not finding this evidence, is that they think you do find it, but will sweep it under the rug for fear of losing your jobs, fear of ridicule to release it publicly, or that the government is somehow aware of Bigfoot existing and keeps it hidden. Bigfoot enthusiasts show maps showing thousands of alleged sightings all across North America, hundreds of them being in the areas that your groups have been monitoring for years. Strange that we can document on camera and with DNA a single wolverine covering a huge expanse of Washington territory, but a breeding population of massive bipedal forest dwelling primates gets no results at all. Thanks for sharing your thoughts and please keep up the wonderful work you do for the real animals that need it. 1
norseman Posted January 6, 2014 Admin Posted January 6, 2014 (edited) It's refreshing to hear her say that, thanks Kit. Also I contacted Fred Eichler about this video: Edited January 6, 2014 by norseman
WSA Posted January 6, 2014 Posted January 6, 2014 As you would be the first to point out Norseman, that snippet of video will never convince anyone predisposed to doubt. Its value is only as great as the willingness of somebody to f/u on this evidence, and obtain the proof we'd all like to see. I imagine that to be your interest in it. As somebody who is reasonably convinced ot the fact of BF, I'm still viewing this as very inconclusive. I could be tilted one way or the other by any backstory you might uncover. Thanks for posting it and let us know what you get from Fred.
norseman Posted January 6, 2014 Admin Posted January 6, 2014 Well, Fred Eichler is beyond reproach in his own field as a Easton pro bow hunter. He doesn't have any need for fame or fortune. He isn't a Todd Standing or a Roger Patterson, in which we can poke at their honesty. And yes the clip proves nothing but does demonstrate that strange things are indeed caught in camera traps. What they are is indeed up for debate. And in this case Fred wasn't looking for Bigfoot........he was Bear hunting.
Guest DWA Posted January 6, 2014 Posted January 6, 2014 Not sure what the clip is. Proportions give me an "ape suit" gestalt; it's an odd clip indeed to put on an ape suit for, however. Not even showing the whole suit? But it's too brief a clip to really say for sure. Plus one also has the apparent veracity of the claimant and no red-flag hoax markers. I've pretty much gotten to this on photos and video; unless there is immediate follow-up to procure more evidence they're essentially worthless. The only exception is PGF, the clarity of which has permitted considerable research that points to authenticity. This isn't one of the ones I'm putting "on the pile." I'm not sure enough what it is.
dmaker Posted January 6, 2014 Posted January 6, 2014 Looks like it could easily be a hunter in a ghillie suit. Why would anyone think it to be anything else?
Drew Posted January 6, 2014 Posted January 6, 2014 If the game cam didn't trigger until it did on that clip, then there is something wrong with the game cam, or they cut out the footage that makes it distinguishable.
Guest DWA Posted January 6, 2014 Posted January 6, 2014 Well, that's one of the problems I have with it. That just doesn't seem to be the way a game cam would record such an event.
WSA Posted January 6, 2014 Posted January 6, 2014 Looks like it could easily be a hunter in a ghillie suit. Why would anyone think it to be anything else? Well, as I said.
Recommended Posts