Cascades Carnivore Project - How Do They Miss The Bigfoots?

[kitakaze]

Like this is going to wig out Bigfoot...

 

 

But this on the other hand is quite attractive...

http://bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=28743

 

[dmaker]

"However, I can tell you unequivocally that BF does exist and the reason they have not been captured on any trail cams (that we know of) is because they don't want to be captured on trail cams. There is nothing theoretical or non-conclusive about that reality."  LarryP

 

So, Larry, Bigfeets don't want to be captured on trail cams? So you are stating that a Bigfoot understands that a trail cam is an electronic device used to record an image of a subject? How, exactly, do you know this?  And how in the world would a Bigfoot understand what a camera is?

Edited January 8, 2014 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

 

 

 

 

Same song & dance...

 

"I" need to take various sightings on "faith/belief".

"I" am uninformed because I don't believe what you believe.

"Everyone" who has a differing view is unreasonable.

A 7-8 foot Bi-pedal creature who can weigh in excess of 7-800lbs, is seen by what is reported on BFF consistently in areas populated by human beings with technology.

Is some how only detectable by not paying attention and waving a camera around there by capturing his/her essence on happenstance or by bumping into this very stealthy creature while on a leisurely stroll through the backcountry/edge of the tree line on particular properties... 

Can communicate with people, can train animals to be pets, throws rocks, knocks on trees, and has impeccable sense of smell and can track human beings for up to 50 miles in an urban setting..

Can scream so loud it can fracture ice on a lake. 

Has eyes like a build a bear... According to the pictures..

Avoids still camera's, surveillance camera's and even thermal camera's ... BTW none of these things look anything alike, but some how, some way BF knows what they are and what they do..

 

Also likes to throw pebbles at night time at houses or RV's because "Its" bored...

Likes snickers, peanut butter, apples, train rides, shopping sprees at Macy's..

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

No see? what you're doing is collecting a bunch of fringe stuff that people serious about the topic don't think either and using that as your base.  And not applying yourself in any serious way to what the serious people are thinking about.

 

Kinda problem there, but that's bigfoot skeptics:  one fringe shooting at another - over the evidence which remains undisturbed by either.

[Guest Grifter9931]

"However, I can tell you unequivocally that BF does exist and the reason they have not been captured on any trail cams (that we know of) is because they don't want to be captured on trail cams. There is nothing theoretical or non-conclusive about that reality."  LarryP

 

So, Larry, Bigfeets don't want to be captured on trail cams? So you are stating that a Bigfoot understands that a trail cam is an electronic device used to record an image of a subject? How, exactly, do you know this?  And how in the world would a Bigfoot understand what a camera is?

 

Not only trail cams but hand held cameras, video recorders, surveillance and thermal imaging cameras...

I think BF goes to CES every year or reads a lot of engadget, BGR, DP review, or popular mechanics.  

[Guest DWA]

LOL, pretending you actually read and comprehended that. What particularly do you find to be wrong? What specifically do you think were wild guesses? What control factors were errantly applied? 

Got it.  Problem, you don't.

 

Where is all this accurate data for an animal you don't think exists coming from, hmmmmmmmmm?

 

(The simple stuff.  They never ever get the very simplest stuff.)

 

Edited January 8, 2014 by DWA

[dmaker]

But DWA how can you dismiss all the fringe stuff, as you say, and still adhere to true scientific principles? True science examines all the evidence for a claim, not just the evidence that fits a preconceived idea. You lecture constantly on how well you understand science and how poor the rest of us are at the same. Yet here you are ignoring testimony by Bigfoot witnesses because you find their claims to be "fringe".

[kitakaze]

Yes it does.

 

Explorer clearly stated that it was "theoretical" and therefore not "conclusive".

 

All that leaves is an exercise regarding how "wild" his "guesses" were.

 

You've obviously come to believe that because there have been no BF captured on trail cams (that we know of) that BF does not exist.

 

So can't actually find a specific flaw in the various probabilities considered.

 

However, I can tell you unequivocally that BF does exist and the reason they have not been captured on any trail cams (that we know of) is because they don't want to be captured on trail cams. There is nothing theoretical or non-conclusive about that reality.

 

 

 

 

[Guest DWA]

Not only trail cams but hand held cameras, video recorders, surveillance and thermal imaging cameras...

I think BF goes to CES every year or reads a lot of engadget, BGR, DP review, or popular mechanics.  

 

So you have examined every photograph or film or video taken over the past century...and know there is nothing of interest in any of them?

 

Impressive.

 

I lost a box of slides ten years ago.  Can you find it for me...?

(The simplest stuff.  They never ever get the very simplest stuff.)

[Guest Grifter9931]

So you have examined every photograph or film or video taken over the past century...and know there is nothing of interest in any of them?

 

Impressive.

 

I lost a box of slides ten years ago.  Can you find it for me...?

(The simplest stuff.  They never ever get the very simplest stuff.)

 

You didn't lose it BF "reclaimed" it, supposedly LarryP has "mind" powers he could help look for the lost slide treasures as well..

 

DWA it isn't that there is nothing of interest in any of the photos taken, but nothing is remotely clear in 99.9% of the photos I have seen or have been posted.

But if you can link any photos in which you believe are definitely a BF being photographed I will gladly look at it, and will keep looking for more stuff.

[Guest DWA]

"Nothing is conclusive given that I am using theoretical models and extrapolation of correlations generated with other mammal species" = wild guesses.

 

I hope that answers your question..

Really.  I mean, come on people!  this is not hard.

Really.

 

(We're not sure, but experience with kitakaze indicates bigfoot skeptics read really really colorful stuff.)

 

Science denies that a temperate-zone bipedal nonhuman primate exists.  Therefore, there is no data that can reasonably be used in a study like this.

 

One can't theorize or extrapolate regarding something about which one is in denial.  Model destroyed.

[WSA]

I'm feeling really graphically challenged here guys. If you got only words on this thread, it is a knife-to-a-gun- fight massacree scenario. Hate to bail before we come to the ultimate disagreement and lock-down. So, can't we push the divergence just a little further? I for one would like to see more salient, self-serving and pithy signature lines...those let me know just how formidable a person I'm dealing with. And, of course, more cowbe-...err, I mean...dots! Must have dots! Wait a minute...that's got to be my new signature line. Quake, ye!

[Guest DWA]

You didn't lose it BF "reclaimed" it, supposedly LarryP has "mind" powers he could help look for the lost slide treasures as well..

 

DWA it isn't that there is nothing of interest in any of the photos taken, but nothing is remotely clear in 99.9% of the photos I have seen or have been posted.

 

I find the explanation for that easy and substantiated by many reports:  people in general are not ready to photograph elusive wild animals.  Period.

 

P and G went in ready....and look what they got.  Nobody else, not even NAWAC, has put the effort into actively hunting for the animal that P and G did to get that film.  You could look it up.

[kitakaze]

Got it.  Problem, you don't.

 

Where is all this accurate data for an animal you don't think exists coming from, hmmmmmmmmm?

 

(The simple stuff.  They never ever get the very simplest stuff.)

 

 

The accurate data is from known mammals. The reasonable data is assuming Bigfoot to be somewhere in the neighbourhood of either 540, 660, or 800 pounds... 

 

To apply this theoretical model to Bigfoot we need to estimate its density. However, there is no data on BF density.

Thus, I estimated BF density by extrapolating from existing allometric scaling equations developed from known mammals.

The paper I referenced to get the equations is titled, “The Allometric Scaling of Density and Body Mass: A Non-Linear Relationship for Terrestrial Mammalsâ€, by Marina Silva and John Downing, The American Naturalist , May 1995

The paper is available at link below:

http://www.public.ia...... 704-727.pdf

 

Silva and Downing relate animal density (number per km2) to body mass (kilograms) using power function equations. However, they found that the equations are different depending on animal size and whether the animal is a herbivore, carnivore, insectivore, or secondary consumer.

These equations use mass (kilograms) of the animal as the input variable to estimate density. And as we all know, there is no agreement on what is the average weight of a BF since none has been captured (or confirmed to exist). Thus, I relied on published estimates.

 

The best analysis I have seen is by Dr. Wolf Fahrenbach titled “Sasquatch: Size, Scaling and Statisticsâ€, Cryptozoology, 13, 1997-1998 (see link below) where he estimated a weight range from 490 to 1,040 lbs and an average of about 660 lbs. Fahrenbach estimate of the weight of the PGF film creature was ~540 lbs.

http://www.bfro.net/...bacharticle.htm

Estimates by Titmus and Green placed the average BF size at 800 lbs. I will examine the density equations using 3 estimates: 540, 660, and 800 lbs in order to determine sensitivity of this uncertainty on the density.

 

 

Bigfoot doesn't need to be real to test the premise of it being real and a part of our natural world that behaves according to the same rules that apply to every other species. 

 

The simple stuff, that would be.

[Guest Grifter9931]

I find the explanation for that easy and substantiated by many reports:  people in general are not ready to photograph elusive wild animals.  Period.

 

That is a perfectly reasonable answer that makes absolute sense. And since that is the case why aren't the folks who go out don't simply mount a GoProHD on their back or front or something similar and set it to record? Sure you can't focus it on faraway objects, but are they sure BF is always far away from them, and since they haven't been able to get focused photo's so why not try video? 1080 video will be better than the typical blob squatch photos and has a better chance to be enhanced.

 

P and G went in ready....and look what they got.  Nobody else, not even NAWAC, has put the effort into actively hunting for the animal that P and G did to get that film.  You could look it up.

 

I have read about the mind set about the P&G crew and it makes sense why they were able to get the footage they got. 

[Guest DWA]

 

The simple stuff, that would be.

 

Yes.  And if you read it you see I'm right.

 

What were the temperate-zone bipedal hominoids from which they "extrapolated"?  This is like all those folks who say their models show there's not enough food for bigfoot when the models presume bigfoot doesn't exist.

 

 

I find the explanation for that easy and substantiated by many reports:  people in general are not ready to photograph elusive wild animals.  Period.

 

That is a perfectly reasonable answer that makes absolute sense. And since that is the case why aren't the folks who go out don't simply mount a GoProHD on their back or front or something similar and set it to record? Sure you can't focus it on faraway objects, but are they sure BF is always far away from them, and since they haven't been able to get focused photo's so why not try video? 1080 video will be better than the typical blob squatch photos and has a better chance to be enhanced.

 

And not arguing.  And I think that this idea is starting to build mass as more people start adopting technology and getting the feeling there might be something out there to use it on.  The dashcam approach, the Velcro-camera-mount approach, the fore-aft approach are starting to get talked about be early adopters and picked up by other researchers.  Tell the truth, if this started to be a truly widely adopted approach I think we'd see something sooner rather than later.  All depends on how quick it takes off; and the more Bigfoot TV there is the faster it might take off.  (Other aspects of the quality of Bigfoot TV notwithstanding.)

 

P and G went in ready....and look what they got.  Nobody else, not even NAWAC, has put the effort into actively hunting for the animal that P and G did to get that film.  You could look it up.

 

I have read about the mind set about the P&G crew and it makes sense why they were able to get the footage they got. 

 

There is the NAWAC approach, sit and wait, which has worked with other primates.  But staying mobile, and on an animal that can cover real ground, was the best choice for the gear and time P and G had.  And they went to a place where folks had been seeing a LOT of tracks.

 

Edited January 8, 2014 by DWA