norseman Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 I want to know why its important that the CCP has not snapped a Bigfoot photo or video. Because if they did how would it be recieved differently than the mountain of photos and video we already have? I think that is a fair question and comparison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 I believe I have already answered your question. It is important due to its absence. Also, it's not just photos that CCP failed to obtain. They responded to an email where they stated that they had never seen any evidence for bigfoot in the area, at all. You can predict all you want how people might react to a photo of an alleged bigfoot to come out of CCP, but without any such photo, it's speculation on your part. Who knows? Maybe they could provide that clear and undeniable piece of photographic evidence that would be enough to get mainstream science involved? Or maybe it would be just another blobsquatch. But again, that is not the point of this thread, is it? I will say it one more time: It is important that the CCP did not obtain any potential bigfoot pictures or video because the project managed to capture similar evidence for every other large mammal in the area. The absence of anything resembling a bigfoot is conspicuous. It is the absence that matters, not any potential impact of any photo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 (edited) Your saying they managed to get all mammals larger than a house cat on camera? Ok lets talk about the lack there of.... Why then do they say this? ------------------------- We set two cameras, facing different directions, at a site along a meandering stream near a large, mid-elevation meadow system on the Gifford Pinchot National Forest to target grey wolves. There are no confirmed grey wolf detections on the GPNF yet though we regularly receive anecdotal sightings. We anticipate the grey wolf will re-inhabit the southern Washington Cascades one day if it has not returned to the area already. At the station, we had regular coyote visitors as well as a herd of elk, and our first owl detections. Over the past seven years, we have documented almost every wildlife species in the Cascades. ------------------------ They admit that Gray wolves COULD be in the Gifford Pinchot NF, with out their cameras detecting them, yes? Edited October 22, 2015 by norseman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 (edited) They say they anticipate the grey wolf will return one day. If not already. How many bigfoot reports come out of that area vs how many grey wolf reports? People are claiming to see an animal in that area that went undetected by the CCP. CCP is not claiming to have any evidence of grey wolves, nor are they mentioning anecdotal reports. If people are, however, reporting a 9ft rampaging primate in the area, I would expect it to show up on the cameras. Edited October 22, 2015 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 (edited) They claim recieving anecdotal reports of Gray wolves. if people are reporting gray wolves in the area but none are captured on camera traps? How is that different than people reporting a Ape in the area but none are captured on their camera traps? LOL, 9 ft rampaging ape.......ok. Drama much? Edited October 22, 2015 by norseman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 Copy and pasted from the provided source: "They also occur in small numbers in Snowdonia and mid-Wales. The species can be very mobile, easily travelling 20 km in a day. They are also highly territorial, which means they are naturally quite dispersive[/size]. It seems likely the Shropshire individual could have come from Wales." For myself, this is detrimental to your case. To me this shows that they have NOT not been un-noticed, but recently introduced to the area. What this actually shows is that one relatively small mammal in an area is prone to show up on a trail cam. Makes me wonder why a large bipedal ape could not show up on one cam given the amount of cams out there. We have a lot of "reports" that state these things are walking up to campsites, campers, dumpsters, and even houses to investigate without fear, yet in the woods, they fear a small minuscule camera. There is more to be said and inferred by this but I leave it up to a different topic to discuss that. And for the record this is what I was making my rebuttal against. People always bring up the strawman that Bigfoot fears the camera. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 These gang didn't put any sasquatch pictures in what they showed us, for obvious reasons. There, explained. I mean, this is getting silly. It's like my saying Walt Disney wasn't real because I never met him and have no pictures of him. Never mind what I *KNOW* would happen to my little funding if I included the 25 bigfoot that got caught. Come ON with this nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 ^^^^ DWA, by watching the virtal **** show of the reintroduction of wolves in states that didnt want them, Im starting to slide off the fence. Wildlife can and do become politicized. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 These gang didn't put any sasquatch pictures in what they showed us, for obvious reasons. There, explained. I mean, this is getting silly. It's like my saying Walt Disney wasn't real because I never met him and have no pictures of him. Never mind what I *KNOW* would happen to my little funding if I included the 25 bigfoot that got caught. Come ON with this nonsense. In addition to an absolute bumbling of scientific concepts, you're now adding conspiracy theory to your repetoire? Sure. Why not? It must be difficult to maintain your position on simply being wrong. It's handy to have something else to shift the blame to. Darned scientists suppressing bigfoot evidence. Yeah...excuse me while I snicker.. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 (edited) Norse: "DWA, by watching the virtal **** show of the reintroduction of wolves in states that didnt want them, Im starting to slide off the fence. Wildlife can and do become politicized." [edited to show what I was replying to as dmaker's comment got in between while mine was going up] No kidding, they do (and NM needs to step aside; allow the Feds to reintroduce the wolves; and *private ranchers* engaged in *private enterprise* need to accept the risks of their living and stop getting all socialist and telling the nanny state it cannot reintroduce wolves where they belong).. I just think that any reasonable person of scientific bent approaching sasquatch with an open mind will come away ...where everyone such I have observed has: the evidence says they're real. For my personal part I consider additional efforts to convince the ignant to be pounding sand. But I think you are doing what you are doing out of personal curiosity and yes, scientific bent, and Godspeed. Edited October 22, 2015 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 They claim recieving anecdotal reports of Gray wolves. if people are reporting gray wolves in the area but none are captured on camera traps? I guess that means there are as many grey wolves in the area as there are bigfeets. Again the reliability of anecdotal reports vs actual evidence is demonstrated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 BTW, I think we've kind of exhausted the usefulness of this thread. The premise really shouldn't have gotten beyond page 2. Anyone who has a proper understanding of the evidence for sasquatch knows that either the bigfoot shots were withheld for political reasons, or - more likely - that one organization not getting photos on its time schedule is not an atom, against the evidence that the cameras are missing an unlisted animal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 They claim recieving anecdotal reports of Gray wolves. if people are reporting gray wolves in the area but none are captured on camera traps? I guess that means there are as many grey wolves in the area as there are bigfeets. Again the reliability of anecdotal reports vs actual evidence is demonstrated. Accept for one giant difference........ they accept the plausibility of the wolf being there without their knowing about it. Bigfoot? Not so much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 People constantly underrate this fact: Most "scientists" only know what they know for sure...which is frequently just what another scientist told them. It's only the exceptional ones that truly make advances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted October 22, 2015 Share Posted October 22, 2015 One other giant difference? Grey wolves have been proven to exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts