gigantor Posted May 3, 2011 Admin Posted May 3, 2011 Why not? Aren't there vague correlations between elk migratory routes and annual bigfoot sightings? If they weren't carnivorous, that would contradict a fair portion of reports. correlation is not necessarily causation.
Guest parnassus Posted May 3, 2011 Posted May 3, 2011 (edited) Black bears developed avoidance behavior because they were once prey for Cave Bears. The Cave Bears are gone but the behavior continues. If sasquatches are descendants of Gigantopithecus blacki (or some other really large primate) and the juveniles were hunted by Homo erectus they may have developed avoidance behavior that persists to this day. Well if that's the case we should have evidence of Bigfoot coexisting in the same sites with the remains/ evidence of the cave bear. But there isn't any. Ditto with fossil/ other evidence of man and all other predators: there is no evidence that any of these animals either killed Bigfoot or ate Bigfoot or were killed or eaten by Bigfoot. Edited May 3, 2011 by parnassus
Guest Carl Posted May 3, 2011 Posted May 3, 2011 (edited) Writ large, witness reports allude to them being a curious species. If as posted earlier, sasquatch watched humans construct peculiar devices in the forest, wouldn't curiosity lead them into being photographed? Edited May 3, 2011 by Carl
indiefoot Posted May 3, 2011 Posted May 3, 2011 Do they use language? Because if they do it's a complete game changer. It would allow them to pass information from group to group and build an oral history and knowledge base/oral encyclopedia to pass the information from generation to generation. Can they warn each other of things to watch out for with trail signs that we aren't aware of? How many ways are there to communicate information besides language. I think they learned about trail cams the same way I did, by looking at a Cabela's catalog. Only they pilfered theirs from some campsite..... Gotta be rough changing the page with those rough old stubby fingers.
Guest CaptainMorgan Posted May 3, 2011 Posted May 3, 2011 The vastness of it all and I are old friends... Yet you spend such a voracious amount of time on the computer. Do you have any proof of that friendship? Or is it more like a one night stand? Have you ever been caught on a trail cam? Why not? How do we know you didn't just download those pictures off the internet? And you assert that cognitive dissonance is also a rebuttal for the definition of vastness? Vastness as in, there's no way that any "extensive efforts to survey and document PNW mammals" can provide proof of every living thing in a forest. (which by the way isnt the goal) And the dates on the pics provided go back years as does this research, in order to show just ONE instance. And even if this creature was caught on camera by these efforts, there's no guarantee at all that they would surface. Therefore lack of publicizing a photo is not proof that they do not exist. We say vastness and you say dumpster, man that's weak. Can you also say "fundamental attribution error"? The only "cognitive dissonance" I see here is you living on a BF forum 24\7. .
kitakaze Posted May 3, 2011 Author Posted May 3, 2011 CM, the image I posted of the person on the beach in the wilderness is me in Port Renfrew. I am an avid outdoorsman and hiker. The cognitive dissonance I am referencing is talking about vastness and the remote areas that Bigfoots can potentially inhabit when they are reported right under our noses coming to where we are, not just the other way around. Could a private citizen get Bigfoot on a game cam and keep it to themselves? Certainly. I am not talking about game cams in general. I am talking about joint government/citizen groups working for habitat conservation that are spending years going to painstaking efforts to survey and document the presence of rare and elusive mammals in the Cascade and Olympic mountain ranges, right where the Bigfoots are supposed to be. Do you seriously prescribe to the notion that these scientists would not be flipping their wigs with shock and joy were they to discover a species of bipedal apes living in their research areas? These people are labouring for habitat conservation and Bigfoot being real for them would be a massive ticket to funding for what they are trying to do. That's why things that nobody thought were there, like solitary wolverines, get publicized by them so much. It's a boon for them and finding Bigfoot would do that for them exponentially. I can not prove to you that Bigfoot does not exist any more than I can prove to alien abduction believers that people are not being yoinked from their beds by grey aliens. What is an important question is to think about why these things are not turning up exactly where they are said to be. The reason I am bringing up Bigfoots at dumpsters in suburban neighbourhoods is because that is what is being reported. Do not take my word for it... http://bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=28743 Bigfoots reported at dumpsters are not an isloted incident either. Here's another... http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=28568 And another... http://www.alabamabigfoot.com/bigfoot/reports/Hair/HairLocation.html Is it weak to not ignore the reports just because they don't fit some pristine forest god image of Bigfoot? That is why an argument about vastness means nothing. That is not the way Bigfoot is reported - solely in deeply isolated locales in the endless reaches of mountains and valleys. Bigfoots often apparently have no fear of human objects and locations dominated by humans, so that is why it is all the more strange that when survey efforts right where they are supposed to be turn up nothing.
Guest BFSleuth Posted May 3, 2011 Posted May 3, 2011 Do they use language? Because if they do it's a complete game changer. It would allow them to pass information from group to group and build an oral history and knowledge base/oral encyclopedia to pass the information from generation to generation. Can they warn each other of things to watch out for with trail signs that we aren't aware of? How many ways are there to communicate information besides language. I think they learned about trail cams the same way I did, by looking at a Cabela's catalog. Only they pilfered theirs from some campsite..... Gotta be rough changing the page with those rough old stubby fingers. I have to think that the intelligence of BF is high, let's say at least as high as a crow. Crows recognize individual humans AND teach others if they think a particular human has treated them bad: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18429-if-you-think-a-crow-is-giving-you-the-evil-eye.html It is very reasonable to consider that BF closely watch humans whenever we are in their environment. It is also reasonable to consider that they may have language and pass on knowledge from generation to generation. When I look at most of the set ups that BF researchers are placing with their trail cams (when they do take pictures of their sets) it seems that very little attention is being paid to concealing the camera. The deep woods is full of vertical tree trunks and bark greys and browns and all of a sudden there is a SOLID BLACK HORIZONTAL NYLON STRAP and a SQUARE DARK BOX.... ... it does tend to stand out. I also suspect that current camera technology plays a role in this, the cameras just need to be a whole lot smaller with less noise and flash IMHO. Animals get caught in trail cam pictures regularly, but we don't really consider that they are putting 2+2 together to understand that trail cams are followed by hunters. With BF this is given consideration. Perhaps they observe more closely than we can imagine. For example, what do most people do when they check their trail cam? They sit right there and are checking for pictures. If BF is observing they might understand that something has been "captured" in the same way that they are using the other little boxes in their hands when they are hiking. Whatever it is, somehow they've figured out to stay out of the line of fire. Their senses don't necessarily correlate with how we experience the world. Our cameras smell, they give off light in wave lengths we can't see but they may, and they give off sound that we may not hear. If they have a reason to avoid contact with trail cams I'm sure they would want to pass on the new information about the trail cams to their family and friends, just as crows would but with a higher level communication ability IMHO.
Guest CaptainMorgan Posted May 3, 2011 Posted May 3, 2011 (edited) I honestly thought you were going to reply at 10:22 when you were "replying to topic". Nice back-peddling with the explanation. You did say that you "think Bigfoot is a social construct similar to the alien abduction phenomenon" In your reply to Ace your comment "It is a very weird cognitive dissonance that happens when confronted with extensive efforts to survey and document PNW mammals", this would seem to imply that we who think that vastness is a substantive element are the ones engaged in cognitive dissonance. The psycho babble and the second use of the dumpster pic with "The vastness of it all..." just restates your comment that it belongs in the dumpster. Do you seriously prescribe to the notion that these scientists would not be flipping their wigs with shock and joy were they to discover a species of bipedal apes living in their research areas? Based on the amount of $#@! you and others like you give Dr. Meldrum and other scientists, here and places like jref . . . oh hells no I do not think they would be quick to post anything on their website for fear of ridicule and having their reputations torn to shreds and their funding placed in jeopardy. Are YOU serious? "right where the Bigfoots are supposed to be" Uh-huh, isn't that the crux of it all. Right under our noses in hundreds upon hundreds of thousands of square miles of forests, woods, fields, marshes, swamps, and whatever the hell the rest of Texas is supposed to be. Yup, we know that BF hunts dumpsters and there are reports of it from WA to FLA. We also know it takes a human and a BF in the same location for a class A report. (I think) Most of us would agree that there is an equally high probably that there will be a suburban sighting based on the increase of human to BF ratio, instead of it being the other way around in the deep woods. What I will not agree with is that any logic other than yours belongs in the dumpster. . Edited May 3, 2011 by CaptainMorgan
Guest TooRisky Posted May 3, 2011 Posted May 3, 2011 Who says the species has not been photographed by these Govt. agencies...??? Maybe the question to ask is why these agencies don't release the photographs you are seeking...!!!... Ya see Kit you keep barking up the wrong tree with the wrong questions, this is why you never find the answer you are looking for... Instead of lurking BF forums, why not take on the Govt. agencies that do all the work, take the pictures and confront them with your questions and logic...
Guest Posted May 3, 2011 Posted May 3, 2011 Is it possible to have a single thread on this forum where monkees can be discussed without turning into a skeptic driven "prove it" debacle?...
Drew Posted May 3, 2011 Posted May 3, 2011 Couldn't it be possible that they posess an inherant, primitive type of superstition, that causes them to avoid everything human? This is the problem. If BF inherently avoids 'everything human', then why does it show up in parking lots, crossing interstates, peering in bedroom windows, or terrorize campgrounds? Why does it go out of it's way to alert us to it's presence? Why not stay quiet, and disappear from sight, the way it supposedly can do at ease? Why would it scream, or wood knock to alert us to it's presence if it is conditioned to avoid us? Why would it show up on our porch if it is conditioned to avoid us?
Guest LAL Posted May 3, 2011 Posted May 3, 2011 Well if that's the case we should have evidence of Bigfoot coexisting in the same sites with the remains/ evidence of the cave bear. But there isn't any. Ditto with fossil/ other evidence of man and all other predators: there is no evidence that any of these animals either killed Bigfoot or ate Bigfoot or were killed or eaten by Bigfoot. You must have misread my statement. Cave bears preyed on black bears; I said nothing about them preying on sasquatches. Apparently there's some fossil evidence that may suggests Homo erectus hunted Gigantopithecus rather than just inhabiting the same forests with them although I don't think any bamboo spears have been found protruding from a Giganto jaw. "They may have used bamboo to make spears for hunting and poles to knock animals down from the tall trees," says Professor Russell Ciochon of the University of Iowa. Homo erectus shared these bamboo forests with pigs, a type of elephant called Stegodon and the biggest primate that has ever lived: the giant vegetarian ape Gigantopithecus - a cousin of the earlier Ramapithecus. It's possible that Gigantopithecus may even have been hunted by early humans in Asia. "They probably wouldn't have taken on the big adults, but they may have targeted juveniles. If we look at people who live in forests today, they also eat apes," says Ciochon." http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/FeaturesAfrica/HominidChronology4.htm And sometimes apes eat people. Chimpanzees are efficient predators. Those "should be" arguments (there should be fossils, should be roadkill, should be one stuffed in a museum by now) don't impress me.Things happen when they happen. It's possible the ancestors of the First Nations peoples hunted everything large in the area in addition to mammoths but left no trace of most of their activities. Perhaps they developed some avoidance behavior themselves if they encountered many "Cannibal Giants".
Guest LAL Posted May 3, 2011 Posted May 3, 2011 This is the problem. If BF inherently avoids 'everything human', then why does it show up in parking lots, crossing interstates, peering in bedroom windows, or terrorize campgrounds? Why does it go out of it's way to alert us to it's presence? Why not stay quiet, and disappear from sight, the way it supposedly can do at ease? Why would it scream, or wood knock to alert us to it's presence if it is conditioned to avoid us? Why would it show up on our porch if it is conditioned to avoid us? Curiosity and hunger. Black bears show up at campsites. Screaming and knocking on wood (if they indeed do that) have to do with territoriality and communication. I doubt it has anything to do with alerting us to its presence.
Guest Posted May 3, 2011 Posted May 3, 2011 CM, the image I posted of the person on the beach in the wilderness is me in Port Renfrew. I am an avid outdoorsman and hiker. The cognitive dissonance I am referencing is talking about vastness and the remote areas that Bigfoots can potentially inhabit when they are reported right under our noses coming to where we are, not just the other way around. Could a private citizen get Bigfoot on a game cam and keep it to themselves? Certainly. I am not talking about game cams in general. I am talking about joint government/citizen groups working for habitat conservation that are spending years going to painstaking efforts to survey and document the presence of rare and elusive mammals in the Cascade and Olympic mountain ranges, right where the Bigfoots are supposed to be. A few hundred square feet total of game cam coverage in tens of THOUSANDS of square MILES of habitiat does not a foolproof photo setup make. I can not prove to you that Bigfoot does not exist any more than I can prove to alien abduction believers that people are not being yoinked from their beds by grey aliens. What is an important question is to think about why these things are not turning up exactly where they are said to be. Because you know EXACTLY where they are supposed to be... The reason I am bringing up Bigfoots at dumpsters in suburban neighbourhoods is because that is what is being reported. Do not take my word for it... http://bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=28743 A "suburban" area directly associated with wild lands. From the investigator's report: I did notice there were quite a few rolling hills and some fairly deep ditches that would provide excellent cover for an approach to the dumpsters, especially under cover of darkness. One of these ditches ran down the length of the property, all the way to the edge of a thickly wooded area that bordered the property. Study of topographical maps, as well as review of Google Earth for the surrounding area depicted several stretches of thickly wooded ravines and drainages that stretched from immediately adjacent to the property all the way to Puget Sound. This was especially intriguing to me as it appears these ravines and drainages would provide excellent cover for many types of animals to travel inland directly from Puget Sound and remain virtually undetected, especially if done late at night under cover of darkness. Below are photos (Exhibit #3 and Exhibit #4) depicting two of the thickly wooded ravines that are either adjacent to or within ½ mile of this property. Bigfoots reported at dumpsters are not an isloted incident either. Here's another...http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=28568 And another... http://www.alabamabigfoot.com/bigfoot/reports/Hair/HairLocation.html Bears dumpster dive, racoons do too. So do dogs, cats, etc. Why not BF? That is why an argument about vastness means nothing. That is not the way Bigfoot is reported - solely in deeply isolated locales in the endless reaches of mountains and valleys. Bigfoots often apparently have no fear of human objects and locations dominated by humans, so that is why it is all the more strange that when survey efforts right where they are supposed to be turn up nothing. Again, you know "right where they are supposed to be"...
Guest Posted May 3, 2011 Posted May 3, 2011 correlation is not necessarily causation. But it IS highly significant. And the more correlations we can demonstrate, the stronger the evidentiary case for BF becomes. Natural correlations with natural behaviors and traits indicates a natural creature.
Recommended Posts