georgerm Posted April 20, 2016 Author Posted April 20, 2016 (edited) And you are probably right Randy. What does that say about the burden of proof that keeps getting piled higher and higher? Sure, many of these wounds are self-inflicted, but c'mon. At times I consider the question of the closing of the human mind to be an open one, and then there are other times, like now. One thing I never understood is how anyone who ostensibly should be pulling for the advancement of human knowledge and an increased understanding of the globe's natural history ('kay...that should be ALL of us, right?) doesn't feel the lack of scientific progress signals a personal failing on the part of ALL of us. Instead, there is perverse glee when evidence falls short. Triumphalism is never an attractive quality in a person, and it is especially inappropriate to this topic. But, I suppose, some come to the races to see how fast the cars can go, and to see who wins, and some come to just see the wrecks. These are different kinds of people. Is there more to this? Edited April 20, 2016 by georgerm
georgerm Posted April 20, 2016 Author Posted April 20, 2016 Well I can take a head count of suspected individuals in the three county area where we do most of our research. We concluded there were four individuals from the bone evidence east of Mt St Helens. From tracks, audio, and possible video in two areas west of Mt St Helens there are possibly 4 more individuals. Then if I add SWWSP experiences in Clark County, we may have 3 or four more individuals. So add that up we get a dozen individuals in that three county area. Some of this evidence was collected simultaneously so even if a few moved around the majority were in separate locations. How many other places in these areas we haven't been into might they also be? Since they've outlawed hound hunting in both Washington and Oregon the bear and cougar populations have increased. These animals can be used as indicator species which live in the same habitats as bigfoot. Old growth forest and second growth doesn't seem to make any difference to them either. Near extinction is simply another excuse as to why we can't prove their existence. Bigfoots seem to be healthy in our area and extinction is not an issue. We have a few areas in Coos County, Oregon, where Bigfoot reports trickle in and many are not reported to BFRO. They come to my attention one way or another. My guess is these areas are territories claimed by BF families The area might encompass 100 square miles. One area is near Dora east of Myrtle Point, another is up Middle Creek north of Coquille. Then northeast of Coos Bay the area around Gold and Silver Falls has several reports not in BFRO. I spoke with an eye witness that saw the BF in this area.
Guest WesT Posted April 20, 2016 Posted April 20, 2016 Well I can take a head count of suspected individuals in the three county area where we do most of our research. We concluded there were four individuals from the bone evidence east of Mt St Helens. From tracks, audio, and possible video in two areas west of Mt St Helens there are possibly 4 more individuals. Then if I add SWWSP experiences in Clark County, we may have 3 or four more individuals. So add that up we get a dozen individuals in that three county area. Some of this evidence was collected simultaneously so even if a few moved around the majority were in separate locations. How many other places in these areas we haven't been into might they also be? Since they've outlawed hound hunting in both Washington and Oregon the bear and cougar populations have increased. These animals can be used as indicator species which live in the same habitats as bigfoot. Old growth forest and second growth doesn't seem to make any difference to them either. Near extinction is simply another excuse as to why we can't prove their existence. 4 here also. My best guess is 2 females, 1 male, 1 male child. They seem to occupy a certain territory. I speculate that If they know you're on to them, that they'll lay low so you'll think they've moved on, and you'll do so as well.
SWWASAS Posted April 20, 2016 BFF Patron Posted April 20, 2016 (edited) I just cannot see how we can make a population estimate based on a couple of decades of people trying to make that determination. If we had good data from 100 years ago and good data from the present we might be able to extrapolate trends but we have neither. Something just came out a couple of days ago about a new study about the dinosaur extinction. While the asteroid 65 million years ago hurried up the extinction process, it seems that the population was in decline for several hundred thousand years before the asteroid impact. Species were going extinct at a greater rate than new species were being evolved more adapted to the climate changes. Climate change and continental drift were thought to be the major factors. Lets say that a small BF clan does require a 100 square miles. What happened when the clan I was involved with moved? They do not seem to be there any more. If they moved did they intrude into another clans 100 square miles of territory? Somehow I think if territory is important to them they will defend it with the possibility of injury or death. That cannot be good for perpetuation of a species. Any mortality from any cause drags down the population. Throw mankind and clear cut logging into the mix and we have tribes of BF forced to move when trees mature and are logged. Deer may like clear cuts because of the growth of grass but BF needs cover to avoid us. Edited April 20, 2016 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT
Guest Cryptic Megafauna Posted April 20, 2016 Posted April 20, 2016 I still don't understand why some people think bigfoot are going extinct. Probably because the odds of humans going extinct is so high. Many other higher species might likely follow, Although it could also be what saves those species. Depends on if the cause is radiological, I suppose.
BigTreeWalker Posted April 20, 2016 Posted April 20, 2016 SWWSP, I agree our current forest practices leave a lot to be desired. When we manage the habitat in ways that are detrimental to herbivores we are probably hurting bigfoot also. I was doing the head count just to show BF may not be as rare as people like to say. As I said black bears being omnivores can be an indicator species for bigfoot. I found this about population estimates for black bears in Washington. http://wdfw.wa.gov/living/bears.html "The statewide black bear population in Washington likely ranges between 25,000 and 30,000 animals. As human populations encroach on bear habitat, people and bears have greater chances of encountering each other. Bears usually avoid people, but when they do come into close proximity of each other, the bear’s strength and surprising speed make it potentially dangerous. Most confrontations with bears are the result of a surprise encounter at close range. All bears should be given plenty of respect and room to retreat without feeling threatened." The warning they give should also be common sense for any other large animals. The point is regardless of how poorly we manage the habitat. There is still enough there to sustain a large black bear population. Besides, if bigfoot are killing each other over habitat it might be a good way to find a body. It's doubtful they would go to any effort to hide an intruders' body.
SWWASAS Posted April 20, 2016 BFF Patron Posted April 20, 2016 I cannot really argue with any of that. Let me throw out a question on the table here rather than in a PM because I would like others to weigh in. GIven your present field work and the presence of elk in one area, what would be your opinion on insertion into an area and simply use the elk present, who seem to be a food source, as a way to have contact with the BF that are preying on them. In other words monitor the elk as best you can from the distance. I doubt that could be done without the local BF knowing you are around, but it might stress them to try to drive you out of the area. My experience correlates directly to BF revealing themselves when I seem to get in the way of their normal daily activities. It seems that if they do not want you around they let you know. Another option is, that although you cannot hunt elk out of season, I do not think the DNR could fault you if you helped the local BF, who they claim not to exist, to hunt. For example, if the elk were between you and the BF on the other side of the of the valley, the BF might appreciate you driving the elk towards them. Just more outside the box thinking on my part.
norseman Posted April 20, 2016 Admin Posted April 20, 2016 I still don't understand why some people think bigfoot are going extinct. We have not been able to shoot one, find a dead one or even a fossilized tooth that can be attributed to Bigfoot. I have spent a life time outdoors and have never seen one. I've seen tracks just once and that was a long time ago. I've seen supposed evidence like saplings twisted off and a broken femur bone.....nothing conclusive. What would you have me think? That they are abundant? I've seen a grizzly once in NE Washington, plus tracks and scat.......supposedly less than 100 Bear in this area. So my guesstimation is pretty darn rare or non existent in my area.
BigTreeWalker Posted April 20, 2016 Posted April 20, 2016 Norse, I have had the same experiences in the field with a lifetime of fishing and hunting. I have considered some of the reasons why. I've come to one conclusion in that their sign it so unobtrusive and obscure in most cases we just don't pay much attention to it. Once I realized what to look for a few years ago I started noticing things I hadn't before. I happen to think they are more intelligent than bears. Which I find few tracks of and only an occasional sighting. SWWSP, Good ideas all. Interactions leading to a personal sighting would be great to experience but it does no one but me any good. Honestly, I don't need that for personal confirmation. This time of the year is a poor time to be chasing elk around with calving season in about a month. Being an elk hunter their welfare is important to me. Besides, with all the elk kills we've been finding in the area either they or the cougars are doing quite well. Our goal is to find a fresh kill and stake it out with a camera. We've been making good headway on hiding and camouflaging game cams. We're getting some interesting results. When the valley floor opens up at the end of the month we'll be able to expand our research to there. I'm thinking we may find a few calf elk kills and be able to investigate the predators responsible.
Explorer Posted April 21, 2016 Posted April 21, 2016 There is an interview with Keith Bearden in the link below, where he goes over one of his experiences in Georgia with BF glowing eyes. If you go to 1:49:20, you will hear him go over a BF encounter at night whereas he (and another eyewitness) saw a BF with eyes shining as bright as a flashlight. Then the BF changed the color of its shining eyes from white to bright deep red (like brake lights of a car) and back to white. http://www.blogtalkradio.com/nitecallers/2016/04/08/nite-callers-bigfoot-radio-presents-keith-bearden-of-Georgia His description does not sound like eye-shine to me (even tough he uses that term). If it is glowing red eyes, then it belongs in the paranormal bucket. Paranormal does not mean that it is BS (although some paranormal claims might be); it just means that the claim is not understandable (or explainable) in terms of known existing scientific laws and phenomena (the scientific consensus of reality and nature).
FarArcher Posted April 21, 2016 Posted April 21, 2016 I just cannot see how we can make a population estimate based on a couple of decades of people trying to make that determination. If we had good data from 100 years ago and good data from the present we might be able to extrapolate trends but we have neither. Something just came out a couple of days ago about a new study about the dinosaur extinction. While the asteroid 65 million years ago hurried up the extinction process, it seems that the population was in decline for several hundred thousand years before the asteroid impact. Species were going extinct at a greater rate than new species were being evolved more adapted to the climate changes. Climate change and continental drift were thought to be the major factors. Lets say that a small BF clan does require a 100 square miles. What happened when the clan I was involved with moved? They do not seem to be there any more. If they moved did they intrude into another clans 100 square miles of territory? Somehow I think if territory is important to them they will defend it with the possibility of injury or death. That cannot be good for perpetuation of a species. Any mortality from any cause drags down the population. Throw mankind and clear cut logging into the mix and we have tribes of BF forced to move when trees mature and are logged. Deer may like clear cuts because of the growth of grass but BF needs cover to avoid us. SWWA, what we see, and what is there have nothing to do with each other. Long range recon teams of five to six members are accustomed to ingressing to a well used line of approach and identifying and counting vehicles and personnel - without any of the five or six ever being detected. For days. Hundreds and on occasion thousands pass by in close proximity - and never see a thing. Folks assume since they're smarter, they'll automatically see anything in their area - but they're also assuming a dumb animal not having enough sense to actually hide from them. Throw in a built-in ghillie suit, and these things can look like a rock, blend with a tree, and even lay low in grass and low shrubbery. Everyone expecting to see something over six feet tall, likely in a semi-open area is going to be mighty disappointed. I just don't think these are dumb animals. 1
Guest Cryptic Megafauna Posted April 21, 2016 Posted April 21, 2016 Reminds me of when I saw a large hawk over a sidewalk about a foot over peoples heads, hundreds walked under, not one looked up. The difference is in looking where others aren't.
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted April 21, 2016 Posted April 21, 2016 The difference is in looking where others aren't. This is true in more ways than one.
georgerm Posted April 21, 2016 Author Posted April 21, 2016 I just cannot see how we can make a population estimate based on a couple of decades of people trying to make that determination. If we had good data from 100 years ago and good data from the present we might be able to extrapolate trends but we have neither. Something just came out a couple of days ago about a new study about the dinosaur extinction. While the asteroid 65 million years ago hurried up the extinction process, it seems that the population was in decline for several hundred thousand years before the asteroid impact. Species were going extinct at a greater rate than new species were being evolved more adapted to the climate changes. Climate change and continental drift were thought to be the major factors. Lets say that a small BF clan does require a 100 square miles. What happened when the clan I was involved with moved? They do not seem to be there any more. If they moved did they intrude into another clans 100 square miles of territory? Somehow I think if territory is important to them they will defend it with the possibility of injury or death. That cannot be good for perpetuation of a species. Any mortality from any cause drags down the population. Throw mankind and clear cut logging into the mix and we have tribes of BF forced to move when trees mature and are logged. Deer may like clear cuts because of the growth of grass but BF needs cover to avoid us. SWWA, what we see, and what is there have nothing to do with each other. Long range recon teams of five to six members are accustomed to ingressing to a well used line of approach and identifying and counting vehicles and personnel - without any of the five or six ever being detected. For days. Hundreds and on occasion thousands pass by in close proximity - and never see a thing. Folks assume since they're smarter, they'll automatically see anything in their area - but they're also assuming a dumb animal not having enough sense to actually hide from them. Throw in a built-in ghillie suit, and these things can look like a rock, blend with a tree, and even lay low in grass and low shrubbery. Everyone expecting to see something over six feet tall, likely in a semi-open area is going to be mighty disappointed. I just don't think these are dumb animals. Sorry, but I really don't understand your point .................... I need more coffee. I like the idea of trained recon teams living in the bush for weeks. They need to be trained in 'bigfoot friendly' tactics and not aggressive methods that may upset BF family units causing them to move and build more weather proof dens.
Recommended Posts