Cascades Carnivore Project - How Do They Miss The Bigfoots?

[Guest]

If they do hide evidence of bigfoit, kit, why would they admit to you that they do? They wouldnt. Theyd give exactly the response that you got.

By the way kit, what ever happened to that 'bombshell' ? .. Oh yeah... Thats what i thought..

[Guest Stan Norton]

I would very much doubt if any biologist would hide evidence of such a monumental discovery, but there may very well be a big time lag between evidence collected and public dissemination... Could anyone be blamed for keeping shtum about it?

Anyway, the issue I have with this is the premise that 'it just stands to reason' that this project would find a sasquatch. Here in the UK we have a very patchy knowledge of population size and distribution for many familiar organisms. Again, there is a deal of wishful thinking and over-exuberance in the reliance on field studies to give us a perfect picture...it ain't often so. This is where good old stats come in, and we can make nice maps based on predicted habitat preferences. There IS a gap between what it says in your book and the reality on the ground. Who was it who said 'believe the bird not the book'?

[Guest]

Because they dont want to lose their jobs, , Stan.

Do you think the government wants the public to know that there are giant primates in the forests of our country? How could that possibly benefit the government at all? It wouldnt. Other countries treat the subject differently. The vietnamese have land set aside as preserves for their version of bigfoot, the Wild man.

[dmaker]

Stan, does a "gap" equate to a coast to coast breeding population of giant, bipedal ape-men?   

 

That seems like quite a "gap", as you say...

 

You say it's wishful thinking for this project to be expected to find a Bigfoot, but what about all of these projects combined? None of them have produced a picture of a Bigfoot. Now if you take the conspiracy theories out of it ( as I believe most rational people should do), then is it still wishful thinking for the combined effort to produce at least one photo of a Bigfoot?  Or is a clear photo of a Bigfoot just wishful thinking in general?

Edited January 6, 2014 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

I would very much doubt if any biologist would hide evidence of such a monumental discovery, but there may very well be a big time lag between evidence collected and public dissemination... Could anyone be blamed for keeping shtum about it?

 

No, particularly if what they find wouldn't convince someone else looking at it.  I don't put much faith in the weight that "test this, it might be sasquatch" carries in the community at large.  Tests are expensive and time-consuming.  If there tends to be a belief that one won't get that result...well, it's why Sykes sort of stands out for his willingness to do it.

Anyway, the issue I have with this is the premise that 'it just stands to reason' that this project would find a sasquatch. Here in the UK we have a very patchy knowledge of population size and distribution for many familiar organisms. Again, there is a deal of wishful thinking and over-exuberance in the reliance on field studies to give us a perfect picture...it ain't often so. This is where good old stats come in, and we can make nice maps based on predicted habitat preferences. There IS a gap between what it says in your book and the reality on the ground. Who was it who said 'believe the bird not the book'?

 

I've gotten to the point where I don't even bring a bird book into the field anymore; the old "it's small [leafleafleaf]; it's gray [leafleafleaf]; it's...gone" thing.  I memorize the bird.  If it isn't in that book when I get home, well, birds have wings and they do things.  YMMV.

 

I think it's always wise to presume research bias as a reason to at least take results as not necessarily displaying the totality of the situation.  They were looking for what they found.  One would hope that anomalies get in there; but one can't bet on it.  All the reasons the average Joe Citizen might keep something to himself apply with scientists, too.  If that thing one saw isn't directly related to the research effort, there's no reason to expect its getting recorded.

 

 

[norseman]

Looks like it could easily be a hunter in a ghillie suit. Why would anyone think it to be anything else?

Fred Eichler has hunted the world and is well aware of ghillie suits. Maybe the freaky feeling he got while bear hunting affected his vision?

I dunno, but he was compelled to post that video.

[dmaker]

"  If that thing one saw isn't directly related to the research effort, there's no reason to expect its getting recorded." DWA

 

 

Riiiiiight.... Because most people out there doing a bird survey are going to go " oh look at that giant, ape-man. Naw, this here bird is more interesting and I don't want to waste my film..."

 

Yeah, that's believable...

[norseman]

^^^^^^^^

Would you tell somebody dmaker? Would you become a proponent?

Cuz it's great over here explaining your self over and over again and getting nowhere.

[Guest Stan Norton]

I just can't place any credence on a government-led conspiracy... Just sounds mad to me. A team-based hush-hush, waiting to find out more, I can totally get...indeed I think this would be the rational approach rather than run hollering to the media or bf blogs (topical!).

Anyway, the premise of the op is really quite alluring...one would quite reasonably expect projects using large numbers of trail cams to photograph a full sample of all animals in the study area, or at least to not miss something sizeable...all I am saying is that this is quite an assumption and such 'it just stands to reason' arguments are often unsound and not actually very sceptical. I have deployed many trail cams for work and have yet to capture an image of a deer...we are overrun with them in southern England. They are certainly there in their thousands but they can elude cameras.

I agree fully that the lack of sasquatch images is superficially problematical but the reason may be somewhat more subtle than the inherent premise of the op.

Would expand on the argument but phone keyboard is poo...

[Cotter]

Regarding conspiracies and the gov't...

 

I see it this way.  If BF exists, the gov't already knows about it.  So that leaves 2 options.

 

1- BF is real and is being covered up.

2 - BF is not real and nothing is being covered up.

 

Now, when you start looking at the anecdotal evidence supporting BF and compare it to the actual HARD evidence that governments and institutions DO INDEED cover up 'sensitive' information.  I don't think one can simply dismiss the potential for a cover up.

 

The Smithsonian was doing this in the 1800's, as has been documented.

[Guest DWA]

Other countries treat the subject differently. The vietnamese have land set aside as preserves for their version of bigfoot, the Wild man.

I didn't know about the Vietnamese, but Bhutan most definitely did:

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sakteng_Wildlife_Sanctuary

 

This is an eminently sound, 100%-science-backed idea.  (One underestimates the scientific capabilities of native people; but they have established their living on the land employing powers of observation and testing that are virtually indistinguishable from what Westerners call science.)

 

Protecting land for an "umbrella species" - even an unconfirmed one - protects, de facto, everything living on that land.  One can't employ or imagine a more biodiversity-friendly approach than that.

[Guest]

I didn't know about the Vietnamese, but Bhutan most definitely did:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sakteng_Wildlife_Sanctuary

This is an eminently sound, 100%-science-backed idea. (One underestimates the scientific capabilities of native people; but they have established their living on the land employing powers of observation and testing that are virtually indistinguishable from what Westerners call science.)

Protecting land for an "umbrella species" - even an unconfirmed one - protects, de facto, everything living on that land. One can't employ or imagine a more biodiversity-friendly approach than that.

Dwa, it was mentioned by cliff in the FB vietnam episode.

[dmaker]

^^^^^^^^

Would you tell somebody dmaker? Would you become a proponent?

Cuz it's great over here explaining your self over and over again and getting nowhere.

 

My comment wasn't about seeing and telling, it was about DWAs assertion that someone would willingly not bother to record one if it was there and they saw it simply because it wasn't what they were out there to study. 

"Dwa, it was mentioned by cliff in the FB vietnam episode. "

 

 

This may or may not be true, but I would caution against repeating things said on that show as fact. After all, according to Bobo, it's a scientific fact that squatches like the same food that he does. 

Regarding conspiracies and the gov't...

 

I see it this way.  If BF exists, the gov't already knows about it.  So that leaves 2 options.

 

1- BF is real and is being covered up.

2 - BF is not real and nothing is being covered up.

 

Now, when you start looking at the anecdotal evidence supporting BF and compare it to the actual HARD evidence that governments and institutions DO INDEED cover up 'sensitive' information.  I don't think one can simply dismiss the potential for a cover up.

 

The Smithsonian was doing this in the 1800's, as has been documented.

For Pete's Sake, why is BF assumed to be "sensitive information"? There are local organizations found in practically every state that charge money for BF expeditions and/or are dedicated to the task of proving the alleged creature; there are at least two broadcast tv shows that deploy teams of people out there looking for Bigfoot; there are, obviously, blogs and forums dotting the internet landscape dedicated to this topic; there is at least one high profile on going DNA study dedicated to testing alleged BF evidence.  WHERE IS THE COVER-UP?  Why does the gubmint not interfere with the above mentioned efforts if it was truly dedicated to keeping BF a big secret?

 

Please, the idea is absurd. 

Edited January 6, 2014 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

I simply don't place the faith in scientists' fealty to science that some folks do.  There's too much evidence telling me not to.

 

Evidence like this:  http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/44591-possible-sasquatch-anomalies/

 

From which one culls this insert:  "My personal life was effected in two ways by the above findings 1.) I was threatened with my job as a result of speaking openly about these findings and 2.) I spent the rest of my career covertly investigating every sighting I could in the Rocky Mountain states and surrounding areas."

 

Well, it's pretty openly obvious what that quote represents.

 

Dissenting views need to come - as all such must in any informed discussion - with evidence.

 

When one's continued employment and working relationships might be impacted by what one reports, this can be expected to have an effect on what is reported.

 

 

[dmaker]

^^ And after a career spent investigating sightings, how many Sasquatch were confirmed and cataloged? 

 

 

Well it's pretty openly obvious what the answer to the above is:  ZERO

Edited January 6, 2014 by dmaker