Cascades Carnivore Project - How Do They Miss The Bigfoots?

[kitakaze]

So how do you hoax tracks like these?

Since Bigfoot does not exist because a specific study group has not gotten a photo of one? What's walking around in deep snow making five toed tracks with a gait beyond the capabilities of a human?

Kinda hard to drag your buddy down a road with stompers on without leaving a snowmobile trail to follow......so if they are hoaxed I would like to know how.

 

This one bores me. I think it's Mark Wahlberg voice twin.

 

This video of it is better, the FB/FB nonsense is insufferable to me...

 

There's so much wrong and non-Bigfoot about this video, but more than anything, the silliest thing about this is all the baby steps through this thick scraggly brush an *nowhere* do they come across any hair snags from our shaggy deep winter friend.

Let's look at yours instead...

 

 

I have seen with my father, one set of Sasquatch tracks in my entire life. It's a rare rare occurrence. Kit you seem to be playing the laws of probability here. And I cannot give you the whys or how's of how squatch can remain elusive in this century.

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.

 

You don't know what made the tracks or even if it was bipedal. Not only that, you were eight years old. Your memory can be greatly confabulated or distorted. Your dad told you he saw Bigfoot, yes? Your father could have made the tracks himself as a prank on you. You definitely changed the details of the story. You originally said the snow was 3 feet deep, up to your waist. You later said it was about four feet deep. What eight year old boy has a waist 4 ft high?

 

Even then your story makes no sense logistically even for Bigfoot. So Bigfoot is taking clean steps in four feet of snow and also taking 8 foot strides? Unless your Bigfoot was a true giant, your story doesn't work as Bigfoot. It should have been leaving a shuffled trail as well. Your dad impressed you with an apparent belief in Bigfoot. You saw something you no doubt wanted to think was Bigfoot when you were a small child. You have since altered the details of the story in your telling of it here. 

 

You say this most closely represents what you saw...

 

Five toes? Really? Where? 23.5 inch tracks eight feet apart? Really? And that's the only photo taken? Like we have to take Larry Battson and his secret source's word for it? No thanks.

[bigbear]

^ I would have to agree that report is suspect at least. 

 

I like to think that I have a very good memory and can recall extreme detail from experiences and have had people comment on my ability to recall detail but with that said on a few occasions I have had to write witness reports for a few things and have been generally surprised at things that I can not recall with 100% certainty. 

It could have been something as simple as, where was "X" sitting in the room?  I know for a fact I would have had to have seen "X" numerous times perhaps even touched "X" at one point but I can't remember where it was.  I can tell you word for word what was said, where "Z" and "Y" were, exactly which direction they were facing ect...  IMO you can never remember everything or get all the details right.  Police always say, the biggest clue that 2 people are lying about something is that their stories are exactly the same.  It just should not happen.

And to me a good report of any kind that is written purely from memory should always have at least 1 or 2 instances where the writer says  "I don't remember"  "I can not say for certain" 

 

And it has also been proven that the average person is terrible at guestimating size, distance and weight and any of such reported should be taken with a grain of salt. 

[Guest DWA]

See, my problem with all this (and my effort to keep this thread on some kind of track) is scientists badly misusing their expertise.

 

They are supposed to share with the society - and scientists have frequently called this an individual obligation incumbent on each scientist - what they find; they are supposed to illuminate the world to us, bringing a perspective we can't share to help us jointly share understanding.

 

That's not what's going on with all that so-fist-i-kated a-nal-o-sees up there.

 

Scientists are supposed to test, not assume.  They are supposed to analyze, not generalize.

 

Not one of those cyberpushpins and fun charts up there is telling me what I should think about the thousands of consistent experiences of people who sure don't seem crazy to me.  That requires evidence, not "you should just believe what I say about this."

 

No I shouldn't.  Prove it.

 

[Guest Darrell]

I think that if bigfoot is actually ever proven to exist, that what we now think we know may not match the actual creature. Behavior, habitat, range, diet can and probably will be different. We may find that the reason they dont show up on trail cams is because the habitat and range many were claiming isnt their actual habitat and range. I think thats much more plausible than bigfoot's superiour intelect and superhuman abilities.

[bigbear]

DWA

 

"No I shouldn't, Prove it"

 

I could not agree more

 

hence why we are waiting for all of this evidence you repeatedly speak of.

 

Again I anxiously await your review publication(s), I mean you have to write something, right?  To sit on such a "body of evidence" and do nothing with it just seems wrong on so many levels. 

 

Help me see the light that I am so blinded to using this real science you so commonly like to speak of.

 

 

 

Edited January 9, 2014 by bigbear

[Guest DWA]

You don't have to wait for it.  Read it, like I did.  Getting the difference between "evidence" and "proof" helps.  A lot.

I think that if bigfoot is actually ever proven to exist, that what we now think we know may not match the actual creature. Behavior, habitat, range, diet can and probably will be different. We may find that the reason they dont show up on trail cams is because the habitat and range many were claiming isnt their actual habitat and range. I think thats much more plausible than bigfoot's superiour intelect and superhuman abilities.

 

I'd agree.

 

Too much of this field is assumption piled on assumption, and both proponents and skeptics are guilty guilty guilty.

[bigbear]

read what?  I just want to know what you are reading so I can read the same thing.  Is it to much to ask for?  A small list of the things you have read and found to be the best evidence?  You can probably list them off the top of your head you seem so familiar with them.

 

And again, this is great, other peoples work but it seems like you have pieced together several studies and know the finer points of things, why not write a review paper and bring everything together in one piece of literature? Should not be very difficult for you based on your comments. 

[kitakaze]

Regardless of the nature of the PGF, I think these guys are to be highly commended for the work they did to document the wildlife at the film site from just over a year ago...

 

 

 

 

Great song, Paul Graves.

[norseman]

This one bores me. I think it's Mark Wahlberg voice twin.

This video of it is better, the FB/FB nonsense is insufferable to me...

There's so much wrong and non-Bigfoot about this video, but more than anything, the silliest thing about this is all the baby steps through this thick scraggly brush an *nowhere* do they come across any hair snags from our shaggy deep winter friend.

Let's look at yours instead...

You don't know what made the tracks or even if it was bipedal. Not only that, you were eight years old. Your memory can be greatly confabulated or distorted. Your dad told you he saw Bigfoot, yes? Your father could have made the tracks himself as a prank on you. You definitely changed the details of the story. You originally said the snow was 3 feet deep, up to your waist. You later said it was about four feet deep. What eight year old boy has a waist 4 ft high?

Even then your story makes no sense logistically even for Bigfoot. So Bigfoot is taking clean steps in four feet of snow and also taking 8 foot strides? Unless your Bigfoot was a true giant, your story doesn't work as Bigfoot. It should have been leaving a shuffled trail as well. Your dad impressed you with an apparent belief in Bigfoot. You saw something you no doubt wanted to think was Bigfoot when you were a small child. You have since altered the details of the story in your telling of it here.

You say this most closely represents what you saw...

Five toes? Really? Where? 23.5 inch tracks eight feet apart? Really? And that's the only photo taken? Like we have to take Larry Battson and his secret source's word for it? No thanks.

Kit,

Your melding all three encounters into one. I never measured anything. And the toes were filmed in Minnesota and not Keller.

Anyhow you play the odds kit, that's all your doing, you take something from each encounter that you feel is a ***** in the armor and you attack. All I can say is ill gladly film you trying to replicate the Minnesota trackway with stompers strapped to your feet. It should be easy to prove its a hoax right?

Something made those tracks kit, they are not a illusion or a false memory. So it's either a hoax or a squatch.

Deep snow seperates the wheat from the chaff real quick.

[kitakaze]

No, I was addressing each individually, Holy Buckets, then yours, then the Keller one. No, I don't think you measured anything when you were 8 out for an Xmas tree with your dad.

 

Look at Holy Buckets at 3:30, the scrabble crap he's in trying to follow what he thinks was Bigfoot. He himself could not get that brush out of his face. How did Bigfoot leave no hair snags?

 

Looks more like he was following a small animal trail, particularly in the brush and along the branches on the ground.

 

Either a hoax or a Squatch is a false dichotomy. Where's the hair?

 

Was it a shaved-foot?

[Cotter]

@Kit - did they cover every inch of every twig looking for hair?
 

If hair was removed that easily by walking through brush, all BF would be hairless.....

[Drew]

The bottom one looks like a bounding animal.  I think u can even see a rabbit foot sticking out at the lower left of the print.

[Cotter]

^At first blush I'd agree.  But personally, I'd like to have seen it up close.

[kitakaze]

These dudes heading to Bluff Creek do a great job of showing how something completely un-Squatch can make something in snow that looks Squatchy at first...

 

 

Doesn't explain Norse's examples, but illustrates how funky snow tracks can be.

[CMBigfoot]

Kit,

 

According to the Wolverine- Forest Carnivore Research in the Northern Cascades of Oregon link you provided in post #491. Of the six mammalian species recorded on digital images from Oct. 2012 to Feb. 2013 I did not see a wolverine.