Cascades Carnivore Project - How Do They Miss The Bigfoots?

[Guest DWA]

My point is different items of evidence should cross-corroborate one another in any case. That gives strength to the case. The greater the cross-corroboration of evidence the stronger the case (and the more likely the case actually occurred). The last such case I have seen so much cross-corroboration is Patterson-Gimlin in 1967. As an investigator I would expect other cases with very substantial cross-corroboration to surface if the creatures were still around.

 

The amount of cross-corroboration of evidence in reported encounters since those days has been substantially less. With all the many claimed encounters you would think at least a few would rise to the level of corroboration seen in 1967, particularly since there are now so many people looking and so many cameras out there. This contraposition of reporting quality with sheer numbers of reports causes me to believe there are a number of things out of whack.  

 

I find there to be an easy explanation:  no one has done what Patterson and Gimlin did since they did it.

 

Most field efforts simply will require lottery luck to succeed; they don't cover enough habitat and don't spend enough time.   

 

I also do not believe that there are many people looking.  (Or that many cameras out there in places where they are likely to record anything.)  The number is far closer to zero (and no one is doing it full time); and almost no one who is looking spends the time that would be required to have a significant chance of coming back with anything substantial.

 

Simple as that.

 

I never let assumptions explain away evidence.

Edited March 1, 2015 by DWA

[Guest Crowlogic]

I find there to be an easy explanation:  no one has done what Patterson and Gimlin did since they did it.

 

Most field efforts simply will require lottery luck to succeed; they don't cover enough habitat and don't spend enough time.   

 

 

I recently have taken it upon myself to watch all the episodes of Finding Bigfoot.  So far I haven't seen anything surprising and don't expect to.  But it is entertaining in it's own way.  That said the idea that researchers don't get out to the field enough or long enough is not always the case it would seem.  The character Bobo is reported in one episode to have been in the field in a hot spot location for a good number of weeks, (eight)  I believe it said.  That's two months that a seasoned researcher is on the watch.  It comes up empty of course and it always will but the no boots on the ground and no eyes on the woods excuse is a hollow one.

 

Finding Bigfoot is not going willy nilly around at random they seem to be making honest efforts to go to reported hot spots and certainly are engaging the public.  Sure it's TV and it's science and research the way the WWF is true sport but it is going through all of the right motions and can't be faulted for lack of knowledge and outfitting.

Edited March 1, 2015 by Crowlogic

[Guest]

The character Bobo is reported in one episode to have been in the field in a hot spot location for a good number of weeks, (eight)  I believe it said.  That's two months that a seasoned researcher is on the watch.  It comes up empty of course and it always will but the no boots on the ground and no eyes on the woods excuse is a hollow one.

 

Well after experience with semi-habituated gorillas in Congo, and leaving due to civil war, when Fossey set up research operation in Rwanda, it took her several months to find the unhabituated gorillas there. 

[Guest DWA]

Yep.  And, um, Bobo.

 

I find the cherrypicking-researchers dodge a hollow one.  We did note our dissenter's own monicker, "character" Bobo, who allasudden became a world class primatologist when boots on ground needed to be counted.
 

Nobody in the field, for nowhere near the required time.

 

Repeatedly chanting otherwise does no more good than if I keep chanting "President Trump."  Doesn't change the reality.

Edited March 1, 2015 by DWA

[HOLDMYBEER]

 The contraposition of reporting quality with sheer numbers of reports still causes a problem, and the conflict is a fundamental characteristic in false reporting profiles.

 

Either people are seeing them or they are not. If they are, the dramatic increase in numbers of reported encounters since 1967 would likely generate a few high quality reports. Where are the high quality reports? The claimed encounters are increasing in frequency while the technology is also far better. Where are the high quality reports?  

Edited March 1, 2015 by HOLDMYBEER

[Guest DWA]

A high quality report = either one of two things:

 

1.  A researcher confronting one in the open, ready as in prepared for months to get the proof shot, and everything works:  or

 

2.  What we're getting, the experiences of thousands, consistent on very fine points of primate anatomy and behavior, bolstered by footprints the characteristics of which reflect the animal the reports describe...and a film that could not tie those two threads of evidence together more neatly than it does.

 

In other words, high quality virtually unto proof, lacking only the body for perfectly understandable reasons.

 

If you do not look you do not find.  We have the absolute highest quality of evidence that is possible with the state of affairs being what it is.  It says, and could not say it more clearly:

 

Should have been looking, decades ago.  It's out there.

[Guest DWA]

I should have said:  We have the absolute highest quality of evidence that is possible with the state of affairs being what it is, barring a lottery-luck stroke we haven't gotten yet and shouldn't expect. 

[Guest]

Then we have the double standard problem...

 

If it's there, a few months by a dedicated enthusiast in the field should produce some kind of results.

 

and

 

Well, Patterson himself was suspect because he had spent years looking for bigfoot, imagine, actually looking, bwaaahaa, and "just happened" to be prepared with a movie camera when one came by, yeah right.

[Guest DWA]

Patterson's feat is for all intents and purposes unparalleled in the field; only  NAWAC, in terms of time and resource commitment, is coming even close.

 

Yep, uh huh, he goes out there expecting to find one, and boom! there one is.  Shoooooooooooooooore.

 

That's how science works, people.  Amass the evidence; study it...and go where it leads, equipped and committed for as long as it takes.

 

Patterson's expedition was 100% successful.  The only thing he didn't plan for was how inflexible and stupid people can be when confronted by something for which their prejudices don't prepare them.

Edited March 2, 2015 by DWA

[Guest Crowlogic]

Patterson's feat is for all intents and purposes unparalleled in the field; only  NAWAC, in terms of time and resource commitment, is coming even close.

 

Yep, uh huh, he goes out there expecting to find one, and boom! there one is.  Shoooooooooooooooore.

 

That's how science works, people.  Amass the evidence; study it...and go where it leads, equipped and committed for as long as it takes.

 

Patterson's expedition was 100% successful.  The only thing he didn't plan for was how inflexible and stupid people can be when confronted by something for which their prejudices don't prepare them.

In 1967 there were perhaps 10 human beings actively looking for bigfoot.  Patterson got the money shot.  But today we have perhaps a 50 fold increase in the number of human beings actively engaged in looking for bigfoot.  So 10 human beings looking from 1960 to 1967 yielded the PGF with none of the researchers being in the field full time and basically only in the PNW.  The 500+ human beings actively looking over a much broader range with better equipment and a deeper knowledge base should have scored another huge video as good as or better than the PGF.  

 

Let's be real here no researcher has ever been in the field full time.  Not Patterson, not Green, not Krantz, not even Dahinden was full time in the field.  So we have now dozens of researchers blogging all over the internet with websites and you tube channels by the score.  These very same researchers are armed often with night vision thermal vision, game cams, conventional cams sound enhancement capturing devices and sound generating devices.  And what do we get from this 500 fold increase in eyes, ears, range, knowledge base  and technology?  We get crap out of it.  When compared to the gold standard of the PGF we get crap, 90% unusable and the other 10% minimally acceptable.  If the post PGF evidence was translated into a conventional form of substantiating fact or knowledge as in let's say a school course or exam it would receive a failing grade. 

[Guest DWA]

Way too many people spending much more time and $$$$ on stuff than on being outside will generate the impression of lots going on.  We have fewer people (0) doing what P and G did than there were in 1967 (2).  And the (2) got the shot.

 

Again:  either somebody proves to me what the evidence represents other than what it says it does...or we go looking for the primate the evidence says is there.  Seriously, as in the commitment scientists make when they want to find something.  No attempts to explain away the need to look at the evidence work in science.

 

Oh.  "mimimally acceptable" means "evidence that it's out there and we need to keep looking."

 

You oughtta read about the efforts to confirm the continued existence of the kouprey,  a big dumb cow living in an area criscrossed by almost more wars than people since WW II ended, not a decade after the kouprey's discovery.  You wouldn't believe it; and it dwarfs the effort spent on sasquatch since P and G, in fact, the all-time effort other than P and G.  And we still can't be sure the kouprey is still out there or not.

 

In short:  no one has yet given me a reason an open-minded scientist would buy that near the effort required to confirm sasquatch has been expended.

Edited March 2, 2015 by DWA

[Guest Crowlogic]

Way too many people spending much more time and $$$$ on stuff than on being outside will generate the impression of lots going on.  We have fewer people (0) doing what P and G did than there were in 1967 (2).  And the (2) got the shot.

 

Again:  either somebody proves to me what the evidence represents other than what it says it does...or we go looking for the primate the evidence says is there.  Seriously, as in the commitment scientists make when they want to find something.  No attempts to explain away the need to look at the evidence work in science.

 

Oh.  "mimimally acceptable" means "evidence that it's out there and we need to keep looking."

 

You oughtta read about the efforts to confirm the continued existence of the kouprey,  a big dumb cow living in an area criscrossed by almost more wars than people since WW II ended, not a decade after the kouprey's discovery.  You wouldn't believe it; and it dwarfs the effort spent on sasquatch since P and G, in fact, the all-time effort other than P and G.  And we still can't be sure the kouprey is still out there or not.

 

In short:  no one has yet given me a reason an open-minded scientist would buy that near the effort required to confirm sasquatch has been expended.

Minimally acceptable means with enough imagination it "could" be an unknown something.  None of it is a dead ringer for spot on sure thing.  Big dumb cows are not bigfoot and bigfoot is supposedly sharp as a tack upstairs.  If P&G are the gold standard in field effort then every researcher today is a sham.  I'm more than willing to accept the idea that the whole researcher thing is a dog and pony show but that isn't going to win hearts and minds of those researchers to the believers.  

 

The bottom line is that Patterson got that film footage regardless of whether you or anyone feels he spent enough time in the field.  The fact remains that the number of people in the search employing the methods they employed yielded that film.  A implies B meaning that the field hours, researchers in the field and field methodology resulted in what can be considered a positive result.  It flies in the face of logic and sense that 45+ years of additional knowledge, additional technology, more researchers etc. come up empty for nearly half a century.  It is not a time in the field issue.  If you could add up all the field time the original researchers spent in the field from 1960 to the PGF  I am certain that the number of field hours spent by every researcher since then would yield numbers a thousand times greater than the aforementioned. 

Edited March 2, 2015 by Crowlogic

[WSA]

I think your analysis overlooks one important possibility Crowlogic, and that is a consideration of BF's ability to learn about US as we are trying to learn about THEM.  That is a baseline assumption any field researcher must consider, when investigating any animal, especially one that is, as you say, sharp as a tack. This is a two-way avenue we are talking about here.

[MIB]

WSA's point is good .. if I read it right.

 

Because there weren't that many people deliberately searching, P&G may have gotten ahead of the BF's learning curve, did something unexpected, or maybe they just put out an unexpectedly focused effort, and it got results.  They've had nearly 50 years to study us and improve their avoidance techniques.  

 

1) We're still trying to outsmart the BF of 1967, not the bigfoot who has learned more about us in the years in between.

 

2) We're criticizing each other because those efforts aren't producing.    Not because the efforts have not progressed, but because the same ol' failed efforts continue to fail.

 

Where's the demonstration of our superior human intellect in either of those?

 

MIB

[Guest]

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^Plus They used horses:)^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

 

Use horses, their odor will overpower your human scent.

 

That is one major difference between how we do research today, and the way they did it 50+ years ago.

 

Plus, guys, how many different scents do you have on your body?

 

Deodorant, shaving cream, cologne? Did you brush your teeth with "Close Up" toothpaste?

 

Our odors, our noise, everything we are and have is totally "Out Of PLACE" in the BF's world, and they smell us; they hear us, and they leave for safer areas.

 

Go in dirty clothes that were washed only in water, ride horses, don't use soap, and don't talk, use sign language when needed, and I sincerely believe that you will get your money shot.

Edited March 2, 2015 by SweetSusiq