Guest DWA Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 (edited) Um, no it's not obvious why, and anyone who thinks it is has simply not thought about this. HERE IS THE FACT: no matter what camera you have in your hand, no matter where you take it, I can make a bet, and would, for a million bucks, that you will not get a photo of a wolverine, a cougar, a wolf, or a bigfoot, in your entire life. I will retire on the money. Unless you are, or become, a professional photographer specializing in that specific animal. Done. (And for those who still don't get this: captive animals don't count, and if you don't know why we don't have a captive bigfoot yet I give up; habituated animals, e.g., Yellowstone wolves, don't count; wild un-habituated animals only.) Edited December 22, 2015 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 OK, we have - as always when dealing with people who have zero facts and zero argument - gotten off topic. When one can 3D-print a complete skeleton of the animal in question - that would fit perfectly inside the animal thousands of people have reported seeing, who never got to see this skeleton before they had their encounters - it is time to stop being unreasonable, and start advocating confirmation of what the evidence says is happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 Not many internet forums dedicated to discussion of wolverines, pine martins, foxes, and other rarely photographed species. The opposite is true of the ever-so-difficult-to-photograph bigfoot. And that's probably the skeptic's fault, too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 (edited) One can print a 3D model of whatever one can imagine. Edited December 22, 2015 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squatchy McSquatch Posted December 22, 2015 Share Posted December 22, 2015 Behold 3D printed skeletons of a unicorn and the easter bunny, respectively. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWWASAS Posted December 22, 2015 BFF Patron Share Posted December 22, 2015 (edited) Um, no it's not obvious why, and anyone who thinks it is has simply not thought about this. HERE IS THE FACT: no matter what camera you have in your hand, no matter where you take it, I can make a bet, and would, for a million bucks, that you will not get a photo of a wolverine, a cougar, a wolf, or a bigfoot, in your entire life. I will retire on the money. Unless you are, or become, a professional photographer specializing in that specific animal. Done. (And for those who still don't get this: captive animals don't count, and if you don't know why we don't have a captive bigfoot yet I give up; habituated animals, e.g., Yellowstone wolves, don't count; wild un-habituated animals only.) I think you maybe should reconsider that bet. I have taken a picture of one of your 4 animals (BF) and should have gotten a picture of the second animal on your list. The second one was a very close cougar and I had an instant on camera right in front of me. But the shock of a cougar jumping down right in front of me sort of made me worry more about if I was lunch than taking its picture. OK, I will admit I did teach a photography class in college as a teaching assistant but don't think that makes me a profession photographer. I would however bet that a single person getting a picture of all 4 creatures would be a million in one chance. I think a wolverine is actually more difficult than BF. We don't have many blurry wolverine pictures. The only thing I can credit for my luck with any encounter is a lot of time in the field, trying to be unpredictable, and solo field work. I think in both cases if I had been with anyone else I would not gotten close enough to have contact. Groups of humans in the woods have to be seen as very dangerous by most woodland creatures. Speaking of that, how many hunters hunt solo? How common is that? Does hunting solo make any difference in finding a deer? Not being a hunter, I really do not know. Edited December 22, 2015 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cryptic Megafauna Posted December 23, 2015 Share Posted December 23, 2015 I have a correspondence from Dr. Meldrum that has a relevant graphic that I can upload if anyone can tell me how Hopefully he wouldn't mind me sharing it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted December 23, 2015 Share Posted December 23, 2015 I find that photobucket works really well. If you want, you can pm with a dropbox location or something, and I can post it for you. I don't mind. Or maybe you can attach it to a PM? Not sure if we can pm files to one another here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cryptic Megafauna Posted December 23, 2015 Share Posted December 23, 2015 https://www.pinterest.com/pin/254946028883936646/ Should work, shared with me via email and created by Dr. Meldrum. Point by point comparison between P. Boisei and Patty. Please remove if you believe there is any conflict of interest. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BigTreeWalker Posted December 23, 2015 Share Posted December 23, 2015 If you can't attach it with the text editor's file attachment feature. You can take a fullscreen, screenshot. Those will post. That's an interesting comparison Cryptic Megafauna. SWWSP, I agree with the single person method of research. However, being a hunter, a team of two can be just as effective. From my experience the preferred method for hunting in the PNW is road hunting. Sure your going to chance upon things now and then, but the best way to experience what is going on out in the forest is to get out into it. Away from the roads and trails. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted December 23, 2015 Share Posted December 23, 2015 (edited) Hello Cryptic Megafauna, In your email right click on the graphic and choose save picture or "Save As". Once it's in your computer then you can compose a post using the "more reply options" at the bottom of the "Reply To This Topic" box. Click on that and you'll get another posting page with more options (of course LOL). You'll see "Manage Attachments" at the bottom. Click on it and then choose "Browse" Find the graphic where you saved it and click open and it will go into the "Browse" box. All you have to do after that is hit "Upload" and then one more click to place it where you want it in your post. It's an interesting graphic so I thought I'd show you a way to keep everything in your computer so you can go direct instead of uploading it to an image website. Just for any future images you would like to bring here. Edited December 23, 2015 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Holliday Posted December 23, 2015 Share Posted December 23, 2015 That looks like a very expensive skeleton project. If Dr. Melsrum didn't pat for it out of his own pocket how in the heck did he convince whoever it was that footed the bill? Was it the Idaho State University? I guess I don't understand how he accomplished the financing and where the money came from. It's obvious to me that someone else might be thinking Sasquatch is real? There has to be some story there and I sure would like to know what it is. i'd suspect the university and the good doctor have long known the potential value $$ of the BF gravy train in regards to publicity and reality TV........ if you build it , they will come . 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIB Posted December 23, 2015 Moderator Share Posted December 23, 2015 BTW - Personal opinion here .. small sample size, shouldn't draw too strong a conclusion, but I've had the most daytime activity when I was out alone and the most night time activity when I was camping with 1-2 other people. I think it's a matter of balance, the amount of ruckus we make to attract attention vs the number of eyeballs "witnesses out there" have to avoid being seen by. A group of 2-3 around a campfire seems to hit the "sweet spot" making enough noise through conversation, chopping wood, and firelight filtering through the forest, without seeming much of a threat. On the other hand when I'm hunting, alone, I don't have others chaos to distract me from noticing subtle things going on around me. Just thinking out loud. MIB 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twist Posted December 23, 2015 Share Posted December 23, 2015 I think there is definitely something to be said about that observation MIB. A small group out camping is less threatening and more appealing to a BF. Its enough to make noise and incite intrigue without being over bearing or threatening. I would assume or tend to believe that BF would be more active at night. If they are aware of how dangerous "man" is they are also aware we are more comfortable and capable in the daytime thus they would adjust to operating at night to avoid us and observe us in secrecy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted December 23, 2015 Share Posted December 23, 2015 I hang around these parts for the occasional posting such as MIB did, a couple above this one. Descriptive, pertinent, and compelling. Good stuff. Kudos, MIB. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts