Cascades Carnivore Project - How Do They Miss The Bigfoots?

[WSA]

No, they really aren't, are they?  Still, I'm believing they have any number of hand-held recording devices around to at least make it a possibility. Some I'm sure have equipped their gats with optics of one kind or another (Though recoil plays hell with sensitive digitized optics).  I have about as much anticipation of that footage happening as I do of reasonable campaign finance reform, admittedly. That is no judgment at all of the population of WA's that exist there in X.  

[Guest DWA]

Walking around hunting up something elusive is not the best way to get footage of that something, the problem being that when the lairs habits etc. of that something are not known, one is left with few alternatives...one being the setting up of passive-capture devices in places that may work, and may not, and no one knows.

 

(And so far appear not to be working, unless some really cool stuff is not getting shared, for reasons that would be totally understandable to me.)

 

Patterson and Gimlin succeeded for reasons that are, again, totally understandable to me:  the presence of copious evidence in the area they searched; the use of horses, with the mobility and human-presence screening they offer; significant coverage of pretty much every drainage; and the pure dumb luck thing.

 

I also wonder:  this was in October.  On two separate occasions - once in deep November, once the first blush of spring - I have had a pair of huge black bears cross my trail, right in front of me, paying not the slightest bit of attention to me.  It was like they were already entering - or just exiting - their winter sleep.  We don't know for sure what sasquatch do in the winter; but if the activity level and alertness go down, or are shifted to feeding up, that might have helped P and G.

[WSA]

As we often note as well, we have generations going back millenia that have hunted all the know/usual quarry, and that knowledge is taken advantage of by every hunter who has ever read a copy of Field and Stream (Which is to say, every guy who has ever sat in a barbershop). When you can't even say if your intended prey hibernates, or not, you are severly handicapped in your efforts, no?

 

The deliberate agency of P & G might be a bit overrated (and I hesitate to quibble, given the outcome they had) because I think they were just going on what techniques worked for the other game they had hunted in their lives, not knowing any other way. Who could blame them, and it seems logical to assume it would work, but did it really contribute to the result? The record (of lack of) since that day seems to indicate it didn't have that much to do with it. If you could hunt BF like you could a bear or a mulie, we'd have a cumulative body of knowledge to match it, and more bodies than you could shake a fasces at. 

[Guest DWA]

Well, I'd say that their application of what had worked for other game, for a significant consecutive period of days, to something to which virtually no one else has contributed such effort since, might have contributed something to the result.

 

I'd like to see what we'd have if a P/G-style expedition went to every bigfoot hotspot in the country to do what they did during one calendar year.  I'd be willing to bet a small amount on, if not proof, evidence drawing in a critical mass likely to get the proof, by the end of that year.

[WSA]

I'd like to know the answer to that one too, and it of course has to be the first question one should ask, but...

 

I don't want to confuse that with anything like a probability of succeeding.

 

You know I'm starting to lean more and more towards this thing being a human-like animal, rather than ape-like. If I'm right, and some others are right, that presents a particularly tough quarry to predict or get ahead of. In truth, there are (some) efforts made every year, regularly, that fail miserably at that. So either this is a case of extraordinary bad luck, on an epic scale not seen typically, or it is explained by our own inability to understand the quarry. I think it is obviously the latter, more so than the former.  It is the classic Joseph Heller moment....we don't know how to do it because we haven't learned from doing it.  To succeed, a hunter will need to anticipate an animal who not only is, apparently, an avoiding machine when it wants to be, but he will have very little cumulative experience to up his chances as he goes. Dumb luck might be the best (only?) hope. 

Edited March 12, 2015 by WSA

[Guest DWA]

^^^My only problem with that?  We know a lot about humans.  We don't know a lot about this animal.  Because we don't have an accumulation of knowledge, because everyone puts his 'knowledge' above everyone else's.  We are getting in our own way (what humans do better than anything else, almost).

 

These guys are gorillas and chimps, is what they are, and what reading about the research in the bush on those primates indicates.  Researchers see them; but they are tough to photograph and film.  We accept that the researchers are having their experiences because we a priori accept the animals as real.  We know hunters kill them because the hunters bring them out (frequently for bushmeat, souvenirs, etc.)...and that those hunters are working on long accumulated experience (and dogs trained against that experience).  Maybe sasquatch are smarter; maybe bipedality (only to a degree, as chimps and gorillas are significantly bipedal) gives them an edge.  But their biggest edge?  Our ignorance.

And before someone mentions this, let me mention the rules of engagement in X.  A bushmeat hunter in Guinea doesn't hold off shooting thinking "man in suit"?

[WSA]

Or possibly humans behaving like great apes? The opposite is just as likely, I grant. As this unfolds it is going to raise not just fundamental issues of biology, but also sociologic ones. We do know a lot about how humans behave when they are burning fossil fuels and wearing bespoke clothing, but about squat when they are in a primitive immediate return hunter/gatherer troup (w/apologies to Margaret Meade).  Their evolutionary adaptations differed from ours, I believe. To what extent, and why, is an unknown at this point, of course.  I think to an extent this renders them unrecognizable to us now.

[Guest DWA]

Whatever they are or may be, the evidence continues to mount that when we find out what it - most basically - is, going from there will require taxonomy, not tarring, feathering, prosecution, pillory or electroshock treatments.

 

Going back to that OP topic:  we cannot count on The Cascades Carnivore Project to break this one open.  They're not 'missing the bigfoots.' More likely, they aren't sharing them with us.  We have gone too far down the road of "impossible" to expect people paid to avoid rocking boats to start enthusiastically rocking them.  

[WSA]

Plus.

[Guest Crowlogic]

W They're not 'missing the bigfoots.' More likely, they aren't sharing them with us.  We have gone too far down the road of "impossible" to expect people paid to avoid rocking boats to start enthusiastically rocking them.  

If it takes conspiracy to explain the absence of such a finding then there is something wrong with with the mindset  making the  conspiracy claims.  I find it odd that a system not designed to find bigfoot could be finding bigfoot and hiding it while those looking for bigfoot are not finding it.

[Guest DWA]

"Designed to find bigfoot" is a non sequitur.

 

The only person making a claim is the OP.  Irrelevant claim.

[ohiobill]

"Designed to find bigfoot" is only a non sequitur if you believe there is no sassy? Donn? You can design a device or design a study to find potential bigfoot. You can design a twin envelope airship to film potential bigfoot. You can design a study to sample potential bigfoot populations using game cameras. You can even ask for donations to fund an ongoing ten plus year study of a small 10 acre plot full of intelligent "forest people" and claim to have repeated contact with "wood apes". The question you should be asking is if it's really a well designed study if it can't produce evidence - photographic, video, scat, DNA, etc or is it more likely that no population exists in the study area? 

 

Science!

[Guest DWA]

No.  Come ON, people.  THINK about this some.  I get soooooooooo tired of the not thinking about this some.

 

Show me all the literature about this confirmed animal that tells us how to design something to find bigfoot, ohiobill.  Shoot.  I mean like, a mousetrap is designed to catch a mouse, or a turkey call to call in a turkey.

 

Post stands.  Stuff is being designed to do stuff that might work...only it hasn't yet because everybody who is designing something is designing it to meet what *they* *think* are the specs for finding bigfoot.

 

NAWAC?  Now they're thinking about this some.  I like people who think about this some.  They're doing what other primate studies have done and seeing if it works.  They just haven't found something that has gotten them evidence they can bring back and say, see?  Here's bigfoot.  But.  They're doing something that has always worked before, when scientists have devoted it.

 

They're spending time, so they can try more stuff and hopefully something will work.  They just haven't spent enough to find the thing that works, yet.

 

But when they've all seen one, and they're all getting the experiences in their monograph...their approach has worked better than anyone else's, and if this is an animal, it's only a matter of time.

 

You're calling them liars?  You're not calling them liars, are you?

 

They're out there trying to find what works, and so far, so good.  All they need is time and money...time and money that if they had 0.3% of a lick of sense, the mainstream would have devoted decades ago, like four, and solved this within, probably, two years max.  Using, you know, our historic track record with, you know, generic animals, not our design to find bigfoot.  Which, well, there isn't one.

Edited March 19, 2015 by DWA

[ohiobill]

non se·qui·tur

ˌnän ˈsekwədər/

noun

 

1. a conclusion or statement that does not logically follow from the previous argument or statement.

    

    

   Example - NAWAC's

    "approach has worked better than anyone else's" is a non sequitur if you believe that any of the numerous purported photos, videos or films of sassy brought forward up to now are real. 

    

    

    

[Guest DWA]

Not true.  

 

NAWAC's found something no one else has documented:  a refugium with a significant population concentration.  P/G is genuine...and that's all they got, and no one believed them.  And here we still are, after 47 years.

 

Barring something no one on the planet can foresee, NAWAC is confirming sasquatch.  That is, for those of us who don't know it's confirmed already.  (Like you.)  Their monograph is, essentially, proof (unless you are really - and no sane person could and back it up - asserting that they are lying or hallucinating).  No oher extant species can generate what NAWAC has encountered in X...including the species encountering what NAWAC has encountered in X.  Oh, they've found bigfoot.  All they need to do is prove it to the people who aren't paying attention.

Edited March 19, 2015 by DWA