Has Bigfoot Science Stalled?

[Guest DWA]

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.

I watched an eagle take a fish from an osprey once at Cape Henlopen, DE; it took long enough that I kept glancing down at the hundreds and hundreds of people on the beach and in the surf to see if anyone else saw it.  I honestly do not think anyone else did.  Another time, right at the Metro station, an accipiter (Coopers or sharp-shinned hawk) dove into a tree planted right at the entrance and came out with a starling for breakfast.  I was the only witness among hundreds.  At least it looked that way.  The mass of humans just ain't that **** attentive.

Edited April 21, 2016 by DWA

[FarArcher]

 

 

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.

 

 

My bad, Geo.

 

My point is this.  A lot of outdoorsmen will say words to the effect that "I've spent my entire life outdoors, decades even, and I've never seen no Bigfoot.  They can't be that common, they can't be that many, or I'd have seen one."

 

Well I was in the same camp - definitely spent a lot of my life outdoors - and I never saw any either.  Until one day, in a very high, very remote area.  

 

The one that was growling at me was less than 30 feet away, and to this day, I never saw it among a small cluster of five or six trees only five to seven inches in diameter.  The one I saw was running at me across open ground.

 

The one I was closest to - I tried and tried to see what could only be a mountain lion growling at me - and it was right in front of me - but I couldn't see it.

 

Just because an outdoorsman hasn't seen one doesn't mean diddly squat.  It has nothing to do with BF population, it has nothing to do with BF concentrations - it means nothing.

 

If five and six men can hide successfully just off roads and trails - multiple times without being discovered - imagine a BF with his natural ghillie suit - how much harder to see him, especially if he's hiding.

[Guest DWA]

Anyone who uses "they can't be out there or else I'd have seen one" gets me to puzzling how he even gets around.  If you don't see it it doesn't exist?  Tell that to somebody who just got hit by a car they didn't see.

[SWWASAS]

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.

Staking out a recent kill solves the problem of having a camera at the right place and time.    You can have the camera a reasonable distance away because I think you mentioned a telephoto lens for your Plotwatcher.      I hear elk are most dangerous during calving season but perhaps that is for good reason as the calves are most vulnerable to BF and cougar attacks.       Be careful out there.       

Edited April 21, 2016 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[SWWASAS]

 

 

 

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.

 

 

My bad, Geo.

 

My point is this.  A lot of outdoorsmen will say words to the effect that "I've spent my entire life outdoors, decades even, and I've never seen no Bigfoot.  They can't be that common, they can't be that many, or I'd have seen one."

 

Well I was in the same camp - definitely spent a lot of my life outdoors - and I never saw any either.  Until one day, in a very high, very remote area.  

 

The one that was growling at me was less than 30 feet away, and to this day, I never saw it among a small cluster of five or six trees only five to seven inches in diameter.  The one I saw was running at me across open ground.

 

The one I was closest to - I tried and tried to see what could only be a mountain lion growling at me - and it was right in front of me - but I couldn't see it.T

 

A lot of what we see or do not see is related to how our brain works.     It takes the continuous stream of the data our eyes are getting and constantly evaluates it for threats by comparing it with the images of things we have observed.        Millions of years of avoiding predators has programmed us to making threat avoidance our highest visual priority.        A bus bearing down on us when we are crossing the street is instantly recognized as a threat and we react to get out of the way.    Most of us have seen a bear or at least pictures of bears.     There are dozens and dozens of BF reports where the witness at first thinks he is seeing a bear until it stands up and walks away on two feet.      That flips out the brain, who knows bears normally do not walk on two legs, and there is a second or two of reassessment where the brain is evaluating an unknown image.    Fear of the unknown, shock,   etc follow.       How many of us have seen a stationary BF standing still and our brain assumed it was just a big brown stump?.    Our brain would not assume a stump to be a threat and it would be ignored.    I suspect that is part of  the story of someone who has spent a lifetime in the woods and never seen BF.    They may have seen one but their brain did not recognize it as such.    Having experienced a stump that did not stay put has caused me to always do a double take.    The other thing we do not do is look up.    Most of our dangerous animals are on the ground so we do not spend much time looking upward.       

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

Another good quote.

[georgerm]

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.  

 

If we could track BF clans with GPS then we would understand their territories and possibly work logging around these areas.

[BigTreeWalker]

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.

 

If we could track BF clans with GPS then we would understand their territories and possibly work logging around these areas.

I wonder if we could talk them into wearing a parolee GPS ankle bracelet?

As far as population estimation goes, observation is a legitimate means to use. It's called hunter observation by biologists. Tracks, scat and feeding behavior can also be included in this. It's simply an attempt to quantify what's in an area in a given period of time. In this case it would be people in the field doing research about bigfoot specifically. I say specifically because they are the ones looking for the subtle signs that bigfoot leave. It's done over a specified period of time, usually with the most current information available. Post #929 above was a simple attempt to do just this. The areas I was using were quite small, less than 50 sq. miles all together. Compared to about 3400 sq miles in the three county area these places are located in, or less than 1/60 of this. If anything the number I arrived at is on the very low side for this same three county area.

Indicator species are also something to look at as I mentioned before. Black bears are a good one and on the increase over most of their range. Which by the way overlaps with all of the purported range of sasquatch.

Some of the other means of estimating population are not even usable on bigfoot and never will be. For instance: ariel tracking, and GPS capture, release, and recapture.

Another problem is we don't know if they are territorial. Whether they migrate or not. Some observations from the information we do have is they probably move to the areas of most abundant food supply. Which would be a seasonal movement in elevation most of the time. Or a movement caused by something we are doing, e.g., development, logging, mining, etc.

Rather than us trying to work our logging around them they probably simply move around us. Logging in the PNW has been going on for about a hundred and fifty years. You'd think in that amount of time they would find a means to cope with it. Logging would be a detriment if practices are affecting the herbivore food supply.

My impression is that rather than logging practices having a huge affect on them, we (humans) ourselves in the woods probably have the largest impact. Just in my lifetime the number of people in the woods at any given time has increased immensely. So if you're afraid that what we are doing is affecting them, I'd suggest staying out of the woods. It probably interrupts their daily routine more than anything else.

Other than us trying to destroy the planet in a general sense, if you think logging and development are hurting bigfoot. Then we should be working on ways to curtail such. Because, it would be a more effective use of time rather than trying to specifically manage bigfoot.

[georgerm]

 Here is a new twist to finding bigfoot bone evidence. This came up on another thread, and the topic relates to bigfoot science.

BFRO or another site has a report of someone witnessing bigfoots piling rocks on a dead BF. Can anyone find this report?

 

 

Here in the south where I live I've seen a lot of rock piles in all kinds of shapes. Some are really far out in the woods with nothing around that's visible. But at one time a 100 or more years ago there would have been a farm there that has grown back up into the forest and the majority of these piles was where they piled the rocks from clearing the fields and homestead. I know this because I've spent years metal detecting civil war and revolutionary war camp sites in way out places and I've found rusted metal and other old items that tells me it was a homestead at one time.

Now some are just plain weird with no metal and no signs of ever having habitation. I do not mess with these things as they are old and grown over. I'm not superstitious at all but I have absolutely no desire to dig up a body be it Bigfoot or something else. I just keep thinking about that movie pumpkinhead and that thing being buried in that rock pile lol.

 

 

Good points. When around 16, I worked on an Oregon wheat ranch, and we pulled rocks and piled them in places that could be mistaken for burial mounds.

 

The rock piles that could be bigfoot burial mounds due to their location and shape should be taken apart with the help of a Shaman. This may be how BF will be shown to exist to the science community. What say you?

[ShadowBorn]

 

My point is this.  A lot of outdoorsmen will say words to the effect that "I've spent my entire life outdoors, decades even, and I've never seen no Bigfoot.  They can't be that common, they can't be that many, or I'd have seen one."

Have there been deer hunters out there that have shot deer with their bow and have known they made a good shot.  Yet, have lost deer with no reason? or how about sitting over bait piles and wondered why no deer even though you knew you covered your scent right. Those odd behaviors that only hunters know after they have been sitting on stands in the woods, but chose to ignore them only that hunting deer was more important.

 

But they do seem to be common with hunters, and that is a advantage in studying behavior. But we have no idea of what they are capable of because no one has tested them yet. Like can they see us in the dark, or do they use noise to detect us when we enter their domain. We know that they like camp sites , this is a norm so this is an advantage.  By placing  camera traps on the perimeter of the camp site beyond the fire light. But where do they go to layis my ? and it should be ours.

 

Now lets say if they are a people then by the definition of people which is :

 

peo·ple

ˈpēpəl/

noun

plural noun: people; noun: people; plural noun: peoples

    1.

    human beings in general or considered collectively.

    "the earthquake killed 30,000 people"

    synonyms: human beings, persons, individuals, humans, mortals, (living) souls, personages, men, women, and children;

    informalfolks

    "crowds of people"

        the citizens of a country, especially when considered in relation to those who govern them.

        noun: the people

        "his economic reforms no longer have the support of the people"

        synonyms: citizens, subjects, electors, voters, taxpayers, residents, inhabitants, (general) public, citizenry, nation, population, populace

        "the American people"

        those without special rank or position in society; the populace.

        noun: the people

        "he is very much a man of the people"

        synonyms: common people, proletariat, masses, populace, rank and file, commonality, plebeians; More

        derogatoryhoi polloi, rabble, riffraff, (great) unwashed, (common) herd, proles, plebs;

        humoroussheeple;

        historicalthird estate

        "a man of the people"

        a person's parents or relatives.

        noun: one's people; plural noun: one's peoples

        "my people live in West Virginia"

        synonyms: family, parents, relatives, relations, folks, kinsmen, kin, kith and kin, kinsfolk, flesh and blood, nearest and dearest

        "her people don't live far away"

        the supporters or employees of a person in a position of power or authority.

        noun: one's people; plural noun: one's peoples

        "I've had my people watching the house for some time now"

        US

        the state prosecution in a trial.

        plural noun: People; noun: the People

        "pretrial statements made by the People's witnesses"

    2.

    the men, women, and children of a particular nation, community, or ethnic group.

    "the native peoples of Canada"

    synonyms: race, (ethnic) group, tribe, clan

    "the peoples of Africa"

verb

verb: people; 3rd person present: peoples; past tense: peopled; past participle: peopled; gerund or present participle: peopling

    1.

    (of a particular group of people) inhabit (an area or place).

    "an arid mountain region peopled by warring clans"

    synonyms: populate, settle (in), colonize, inhabit, live in, occupy; More

    formalreside in, be domiciled in, dwell in

    "the Beothuk who once peopled Newfoundland"

        fill or be present in (a place, environment, or domain).

        "the street is peopled with ragamuffin hippies"

        fill (an area or place) with a particular group of inhabitants.

        "it was his intention to people the town with English colonists"

Origin

Middle English: from Anglo-Norman French poeple, from Latin populus ‘populace.’

 

Then if this was so what I high lighted blue , we should be able to ( By that this definition ) see these large groups by air with flir over large amounts of wildernesses. If we have a general idea of where a family unit might be, then they should be found by flir in the air where ever they are in the open forest. If not then they have learned to use caves.

 

But we need to figure them out so that we can understand them better.

[FarArcher]

I have a FLIR camera that set me back a lot of money, and just let me say that even FLIR's have limitations.  

 

They just change infrared heat signatures, normally invisible, to visible images.  They have limitations.  If something is in the open against a background or substrate of different temperature, you'll get an image.

 

If they're under thicker foliage, behind thick brush, or behind a tree - you'll get nothing.  Ideally, in winter, or cold weather, the images will stand out much better - IF you catch them in an area unimpeded by foliage, brush, trees, or rocks that would block the image.

 

To do an aerial recon of an area, it would be expensive.  The costs of the plane, and then you'd need the high resolution, more temperature sensitive FLIR cameras.  Other options would be to include MWIR, SWIR and LWIR.  They all have strengths and weaknesses, as they measure different wavelengths.  

 

Most people make the mistake of using the full palettes of colors - and things are so busy - you can't see squat.  The best way to identify patterns is with the grey scale alone.  And you can reverse that where white is hot, black is cold.  Or black is hot, and white is cold.  You just get much better definition without all the distractions that the colors provide.

[ShadowBorn]

I have a FLIR camera that set me back a lot of money, and just let me say that even FLIR's have limitations.  

 

They just change infrared heat signatures, normally invisible, to visible images.  They have limitations.  If something is in the open against a background or substrate of different temperature, you'll get an image.

 

If they're under thicker foliage, behind thick brush, or behind a tree - you'll get nothing.  Ideally, in winter, or cold weather, the images will stand out much better - IF you catch them in an area unimpeded by foliage, brush, trees, or rocks that would block the image.

 

To do an aerial recon of an area, it would be expensive.  The costs of the plane, and then you'd need the high resolution, more temperature sensitive FLIR cameras.  Other options would be to include MWIR, SWIR and LWIR.  They all have strengths and weaknesses, as they measure different wavelengths.  

 

Most people make the mistake of using the full palettes of colors - and things are so busy - you can't see squat.  The best way to identify patterns is with the grey scale alone.  And you can reverse that where white is hot, black is cold.  Or black is hot, and white is cold.  You just get much better definition without all the distractions that the colors provide.

Gosh darn it Fararcher, every time I think you are BS'ing , I am wrong again: http://www.osa-opn.org/home/articles/volume_22/issue_4/features/seeing_in_the_dark_defense_applications_of_ir_ima/ I know not to bet my son since I will loose every time with him. But you have been right every time, and that's good.

 

The plane would be expensive but you would be only renting to fly it over an area that you suspect they are. These would work and have not checked out the price , but I bet would be expensive. But not until now have I ever heard of this, except for what we have what is sold as thermals or flirs..  I have only played with thermals once and this was in the fall and we had it in that black and white mode. You are right that these creatures can use their surroundings to hide their image among the foliage. If they see you pointing some thing at them I guess they are going to assume they are going to get hurt. Speculation. But the black and white mode you call it the gray scale which I assume is the proper term, correct.

 

We just need to learn more about them that we do not know now, like their hearing and seeing. Their strengths and weaknesses and why they evade us if they are not afraid of us. It's obvious that we are no closer then we were when Patty was first filmed.

[FarArcher]

No worries, Shadow.  

 

I'm underestimated quite frequently. 

 

You are an equal - a fellow student of .  .  .  things.

[ShadowBorn]

No worries, Shadow.  

 

I'm underestimated quite frequently. 

 

You are an equal - a fellow student of .  .  .  things.

You are right we are all equals as a fellow students are we not? but one thing is for sure we do need to push the envelope and busted it wide open.Hey, I love life and whats out there and I know you had first hand experience.You do your best, friend. Were all brothers and sisters no ifs. Yea, Students thats what we all are. You called it right. We need the info for science, it is science that requires it.

[TritonTr196]

Does anyone remember the episode of Finding Bigfoot where the flir company brought out that huge military looking vehicle with the huge screens. Could see perfectly for miles in every direction. I can't recall if the flir setup was from a satellite or what. That was really sweet.

I know somehow Bigfoot can see in the dark, but personally I don't think they know we can't see them in the dark. I remember someone that was watching one through his nightvision monocular and this Bigfoot was trying to hide behind a tree while swaying back and forth and peaking around this tree at him. I'm guessing the Bigfoot saw him looking straight at him in the dark and thought he was watching him.