If Bigfoot Were Real.

[JDL]

One can ionize a gas, resulting in a number of effects that befoul both organic and electronic optics.

 

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

9 hours ago, Lake County Bigfooot said:

I suspect they have a cloaking mechanism in such situations, especially after raiding a radish field. One can not be sure of exactly why the cloak, but substantial gas is my primary suspicion. On the other hand excessive gas might be a defense mechanism as well, gassing the area and leaving no alternative but to leave and not investigate. I have wished for a similar ability of both of the above at times. Imagine that you could simply vanish when an embarrassing moment is upon you,I'll be danged if they don't just disappear, on the other hand I have come close to the second option as my wife will testify.

It ain't a stink ape for naught.

[Lake County Bigfooot]

More seriously, the fact that these creatures are so elusive, even when you have them in close proximity to you, well that leads people into a lot of speculation. I know they are masters of blending in, staying still, or fleeing up a tree. You cannot be sure where they might hide. Eyewitnesses have seen them gliding through forest making very little or no sound when seeking to avoid detection, and then on the other hand when trying to drive out an unwanted individual from an area they might sound more like a semi-coming through the forest. The ninja like moves, easily seen in the stacy brown thermal, shows the catlike skills they deploy in evasion. This is true not only during daylight when they retreat to dense or remote areas, but even at night they are wary and hiding behind trees and bushes. If human avoidance is your evolutionary niche, and you perfect that art, well then you are certainly a difficult creature to prove reality.

Edited July 21, 2016 by Lake County Bigfooot

[Guest DWA]

But I can say, from personal experience, that deer bear and turkey are as accomplished.  And mountain lion far more accomplished still.

 

The difference:  we don't believe people who say they saw a bigfoot.  And the evidence has more than convinced me that's the only difference.

Edited July 21, 2016 by DWA

[Guest SquatchinNY]

2 hours ago, Lake County Bigfooot said:

More seriously, the fact that these creatures are so elusive, even when you have them in close proximity to you, well that leads people into a lot of speculation. I know they are masters of blending in, staying still, or fleeing up a tree. You cannot be sure where they might hide. Eyewitnesses have seen them gliding through forest making very little or no sound when seeking to avoid detection, and then on the other hand when trying to drive out an unwanted individual from an area they might sound more like a semi-coming through the forest. The ninja like moves, easily seen in the stacy brown thermal, shows the catlike skills they deploy in evasion. This is true not only during daylight when they retreat to dense or remote areas, but even at night they are wary and hiding behind trees and bushes. If human avoidance is your evolutionary niche, and you perfect that art, well then you are certainly a difficult creature to prove reality.

I've read several reports of the creatures imitading stationary objects such as stumps and rocks. I wonder if this behavior is widespread throughout the species or limited to groups in certain areas. For sure, sasquatches living closer to population centers must have different behaviors than those living far out in the middle of nowhere. Have you ever run accross that kind of correlation in your Urban BF research?

[Guest DWA]

I have read those reports from locations across the continent.  It seems fair to presume it a species characteristic, although there are behaviors in known apes - chimps in particular - that follow the "limited to these populations" pattern.

[Guest magnum peditum]

Occam's Razor. The more I must use complexity to infer, then the less possibility I am explaining the most likely.

[Lake County Bigfooot]

What is true is true whether one believes it or not, It is true because it is, not because some belief of what is. Sasquatch exist, that is true because they in fact do exist, no conversation concerning that reality matters to their existence. If you have trouble with that supposition, to argue here is a pointless endeavor. To disprove they exist one must undergo the same rigor of investigation that one might attempt to prove they do exist. We cannot simply discount the 1000s of eyewitness reports, footprints, vocalizations, and other evidence of their existence, by saying I do not believe this evidence proves they exist, no but we can say it proves we cannot deny they exist. It is the difference between saying I cannot prove they do not exist, just as simply as saying I cannot prove they do exist. You see none of us can prove anything conclusively in either direction, the only thing that is conclusive is the number of reports from eyewitnesses suggesting they might exist, corroborated by other evidence that suggest they probably in fact do exist. Beyond that it takes personal experience to know they exist.

Edited July 22, 2016 by Lake County Bigfooot

[Incorrigible1]

9 hours ago, magnum peditum said:

Occam's Razor. The more I must use complexity to infer, then the less possibility I am explaining the most likely.

One of our esteemed members would insist you've not read enough reports. He insists the reports offer proof. Your mileage may vary.

[hiflier]

Incorrigible1, that "esteemed member" has stated that the reports are NOT proof many times but rather that the pile of reports is enough to convince him that the creature is real. There's a difference there.

[Incorrigible1]

Thank you, in the interest of accuracy. He reads reports like the wind!

 

It's the jibes at anyone not convinced, as he is, that they don't possess a scientific mind.

Edited July 22, 2016 by Incorrigible1

[Guest DWA]

ALL THE COMPLEXITY IN THIS FIELD is being layered on by its fringes:  the woo-woo proponents and the denialists.

 

The people who keep saying Occam's Razor operates against the likelihood of this animal - and the likelihood of it being just that, an animal, no woo-woo saucer-pilot layering required - simply aren't acquainted with the information, like someone here who Incorrigibly refuses to read or think about it (if you're gonna be Incorrigible, aren't you supposed to be INTERESTING??), ...and they show it with every single pronouncement they make.  Occam's Razor, when one knows what is going on, says a simple primate is a lot more likely then either the most incredible mind trick man has ever played on himself, or the most incredible counterfeit man has ever perpetrated.

 

But doesn't it get tiresome talking to (really it's more *about*) people who (2,283!!!) miss out on 99% of being here.

Really, I mean, really.  Imagine saying to someone:  I know nothing about this...AND YOU ARE WRONG!!!

 

It's going on increasingly in America; ignorance is on the march.  But it's been going on here forever.

[Cisco]

After 9 years of intense interest in this topic, I still remain firmly entrenched in the "I want to believe camp." I am by no means a serious researcher, in the sense that I don't spend every weekend looking for them. However, I'm an avid outdoors-man and have been fortunate in that I've been able to travel in pursuit of my hobbies. I've spent significant time in Bigfoot areas and have never come close to finding any sign or evidence of their existence. I remain hopeful and will continue to keep my eyes open.

 

This article if very well written and author makes some very legitimate points and he appears to have a good sense of what's going on in Bigfoot culture.

 

The only reason I believe in the possibility of Bigfoot is simply because of the eye witness accounts. Some are so compelling that I can't discount them as being the result of an overactive imagination. However, its incredible we don't have DNA evidence and even more incredible that we don't have a ton of photos and/ or video by now.

 

I don't buy into the belief that BF are aware of game cameras and are able to avoid them. If BF were such shy creatures then we'd have no witness reports and certainly not in the quantity we've been seeing lately. We have no legitimate evidence and that's very odd, considering the quantity of witness reports that occur on a daily basis. This puts me in an uncomfortable position as a "would be believer" as my emotional desire for them to be real is becoming overshadowed by the simple reality that we have no real evidence.

 

So; where is the middle ground for those of us that have not had the privilege of seeing one in person?

 

My only logical conclusion, that allows me to keep my hope alive, is that Bigfoot are not only elusive, they are extremely rare. Otherwise, it's hard to explain the lack of hard evidence. However, the belief they are very rare, tends to negate the volume of witness testimony. In short, It's getting harder and harder to find hope of their existence. I'll hold out for as long as possible but the old arguments and ideas just don't hold up to scrutiny.

 

We either need an entire new approach or a body, by any means possible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Incorrigible1]

Great posting, Cisco.

[Guest DWA]

26 minutes ago, Cisco said:

 

The only reason I believe in the possibility of Bigfoot is simply because of the eye witness accounts. Some are so compelling that I can't discount them as being the result of an overactive imagination. However, its incredible we don't have DNA evidence and even more incredible that we don't have a ton of photos and/ or video by now.

It's hard enough to get those things from some animals we know about, let alone one that the people having the funding and the equipment to get the proof insist isn't real.

 

26 minutes ago, Cisco said:

 

I don't buy into the belief that BF are aware of game cameras and are able to avoid them. If BF were such shy creatures then we'd have no witness reports and certainly not in the quantity we've been seeing lately. We have no legitimate evidence and that's very odd, considering the quantity of witness reports that occur on a daily basis. This puts me in an uncomfortable position as a "would be believer" as my emotional desire for them to be real is becoming overshadowed by the simple reality that we have no real evidence.

I'd sort of agree with you on the first sentence, except that a study indicated that alpha coyotes do avoid them, probably because they avoid concentrations of human activity on their territories. 

As you noted, the eyewitness testimony still has you in this.  There is a reason for that:  it's "real evidence."  It is not proof sufficient to convince the ignorant (as of course it couldn't be; the ignorant haven't read it).  But its volume and consistency shouldn't be happening if everyone is lying or mistaken; and the consistency would be *least* likely were the skeptical thesis that there's all kinds of stuff causing it correct.

 

26 minutes ago, Cisco said:

 

So; where is the middle ground for those of us that have not had the privilege of seeing one in person?

My middle ground, personally, is that scrutiny of the eyewitness testimony and what has been said about the footprint finds by directly relevant experts have me ready to meet one wherever I am in what appears like habitat (another thing the eyewitness testimony reveals which it shouldn't if all this is a crock).

 

26 minutes ago, Cisco said:

 

My only logical conclusion, that allows me to keep my hope alive, is that Bigfoot are not only elusive, they are extremely rare. Otherwise, it's hard to explain the lack of hard evidence. However, the belief they are very rare, tends to negate the volume of witness testimony. In short, It's getting harder and harder to find hope of their existence. I'll hold out for as long as possible but the old arguments and ideas just don't hold up to scrutiny.

 

We either need an entire new approach or a body, by any means possible.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Well, the testimony says they aren't rare; for anything like this the reports should be only the tip of the iceberg, and they just keep coming in, something that doesn't happen with rare animals.  I think the 'new approach' needs to be increasing interest by the mainstream in something the evidence says they should be interested in.  Other than that, hope you see one, because you're trusting to luck and relying on people whose participation can only charitably be called part-time, as they have lives, and aren't getting paid for this.