This Is Why We Can't Find A Body Here In Wa. State...

[Guest TooRisky]

I can not speak for others and other areas in the US, but when it comes to one of the best sites that Bigfoot seem to like, it is going to be the Northern Cascades in Washington State... This is an explanation to anyone wondering why we cant just trip upon a body in our every day ventures into the wilds... This is why a body has never been found, and most likely to never be found by just the location of where they live and die... And it is not on roads or picnic areas.

..

This was taken last year on an extended visit and scout trip into the deep North Cascades, North of Mt. Rainier in WA. State...

Edited September 22, 2010 by TooRisky

[Guest River]

I can not speak for others and other areas in the US, but when it comes to one of the best sites that Bigfoot seem to like, it is going to be the Northern Cascades in Washington State... This is an explanation to anyone wondering why we cant just trip upon a body in our every day ventures into the wilds... This is why a body has never been found, and most likely to never be found by just the location of where they live and die... And it is not on roads or picnic areas.

..

This was taken last year on an extended visit and scout trip into the deep North Cascades, North of Mt. Rainier in WA. State...

Didnt you say in another thread that a relative of yours was a pilot in a chopper than "flew out" bigfoot bodies from that same area? I'm very interested in interviewing them if they are open to it.

[BobbyO]

Glorious video of natural beauty, i could sit there all day long, all through the night & all of tomorrow too..

[Guest]

That is some rugged terrain. If there are no trails through that area it would take a long time to make your way through that area.

Thanks for sharing the video. I'm jealous to backpack there.

[georgerm]

I can not speak for others and other areas in the US, but when it comes to one of the best sites that Bigfoot seem to like, it is going to be the Northern Cascades in Washington State... This is an explanation to anyone wondering why we cant just trip upon a body in our every day ventures into the wilds... This is why a body has never been found, and most likely to never be found by just the location of where they live and die... And it is not on roads or picnic areas.

..

This was taken last year on an extended visit and scout trip into the deep North Cascades, North of Mt. Rainier in WA. State...

Really nice video of the Cascade Mountains.

[Guest rockinkt]

Great video! Thanks for sharing.

Seemed to me that there are quite a lot of logged areas in the video. That means timber cruisers, professional foresters and engineers spent a lot of time on the ground in that area before the roads were built.

Gives one a perspective of the desolate and isolated areas that those people make a living in every day.

Edited September 22, 2010 by rockinkt

[Guest Kerchak]

Beautiful.

I wonder just how many people go traipsing through that forest far from trails?

Every single mile is explored and traipsed over?

Too Risky,

Can you hazard even a rough guess at how many humans you think were possibly in the area your camera viewfinder covered?

[Guest rockinkt]

Beautiful.

I wonder just how many people go traipsing through that forest far from trails?

Every single mile is explored and traipsed over?

<snip>

Are you referring to my post?

I think you must be because your lack of knowledge about timber cruising and road building is evident in another thread where you are making the same errors.

I said nothing about every single mile being explored. Get your facts straight!

Lets try a basic knowledge test so you can discover where your deficiencies and strengths lay.

Do you know how a forested area is cruised for timber from the ground? Do you think somebody just wanders around on the trails counting and measuring trees?

Do you know what a baseline is?

How about a cruise plot?

Do you know anything about laying out a road?

Before airplanes and helicopters were invented - how do you think railroads, roads, and borders came into physical existence. Was it magic or surveying?

Do you think that surveyors only follow trails?

Do you think that timber cruisers only follow trails?

Do you know how to use a compass for land navigation?

Good luck!

Edited September 22, 2010 by rockinkt

[Guest Kerchak]

rockinkt,

Do YOU know what musings and questions are?

Writing things like "I wonder just how many people go traipsing through that forest far from trails" would be a musing and writing things like "Can you hazard even a rough guess at how many humans you think were possibly in the area your camera viewfinder covered?" would be a question (please note the QUESTION MARK at the end).

You seem to be knowledgable so please, make a flying guess at the question I posed to Too Risky.

I didn't see you even attempt to bother to do that. Instead you reply "do you know how to use a compass".

???????

Trying to act like a smarty pants isn't going to impress me.

Edited September 22, 2010 by Kerchak

[Guest]

Yes the Cascades are rugged and beautiful. How does this, however, affect our chances of recovering a bigfoot from Ohio or Florida or Oklahoma or . . ?

[Guest]

Lets try a basic knowledge test so you can discover where your deficiencies and strengths lay.

Basic knowledge?

And Too Risky, if I may, the answer to the question directed at you is, "On a typical day, no one." At least that same camera pan here in the Sierras would yield that answer. You spend enough time in the woods, and you realise that there aren't very many people that spend much time in the woods.

[indiefoot]

Yes the Cascades are rugged and beautiful. How does this, however, affect our chances of recovering a bigfoot from Ohio or Florida or Oklahoma or . . ?

I am trying to learn the different logical fallacies used as tools to dilute arguments. The OP pointed out an area that they believe can hide a population of Bigfoots and you bring up another area that you believe can't rather than address his point. Is this a strawman or a red herring?

[Huntster]

Yes the Cascades are rugged and beautiful. How does this, however, affect our chances of recovering a bigfoot from Ohio or Florida or Oklahoma or . . ?

Maybe similar to the odds of us getting a signal from extraterrestrial intelligence from West Virginia:

In 1992, the U.S. government funded an operational SETI program, in the form of the NASA Microwave Observing Program (MOP). MOP was planned as a long-term effort to conduct a general survey of the sky and also carry out targeted searches of 800 specific nearby stars. MOP was to be performed by radio antennas associated with the NASA Deep Space Network, as well as the 140-foot (43 m) radio telescope of the National Radio Astronomy Observatory at Green Bank, West Virginia and the 1,000-foot (300 m) radio telescope at the Arecibo Observatory in Puerto Rico.. The signals were to be analyzed by spectrum analyzers, each with a capacity of 15 million channels. These spectrum analyzers could be grouped together to obtain greater capacity. Those used in the targeted search had a bandwidth of 1 hertz per channel, while those used in the sky survey had a bandwidth of 30 hertz per channel.

Edited September 22, 2010 by Huntster

[Huntster]

Saskeptic, on 22 September 2010 - 04:20 AM, said:

Yes the Cascades are rugged and beautiful. How does this, however, affect our chances of recovering a bigfoot from Ohio or Florida or Oklahoma or . . ?

I am trying to learn the different logical fallacies used as tools to dilute arguments. The OP pointed out an area that they believe can hide a population of Bigfoots and you bring up another area that you believe can't rather than address his point. Is this a strawman or a red herring?

Thank you, indiefoot. Since I love such appropriate questions, I'd like to take a stab at answering yours (especially since I doubt Saskeptic will do so):

Strawman:

A straw man argument is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.[1] To "attack a straw man" is to create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by substituting a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and refuting it, without ever having actually refuted the original position.

Clearly, Saskeptic's response is a strawman. It specifically misrepresents the point of the Cascade's by substituting it with the open prairie.

However, it might also be a red herring:

Red herring fallacies

A red herring is an argument, given in response to another argument, which does not address the original issue. See also irrelevant conclusion.

With regard to the many varieties of red herring fallacies, specifically Saskeptic's response can be compared to an association fallacy:

An association fallacy is an inductive informal fallacy of the type hasty generalization or red herring which asserts that qualities of one thing are inherently qualities of another, merely by an irrelevant association. The two types are sometimes referred to as guilt by association and honor by association. Association fallacies are a special case of red herring, and can be based on an appeal to emotion.

Now, I doubt the kind professor utilized a strawman statement that also qualifies as a red herring intentionally. It was just natural for him. Tools of the trade, so to speak. Peer review.

All's fair in science, love, and war.

[indiefoot]

Thank you Huntster, it is important to keep the conversation honest. There are those who watch these discussions from the sidelines that might not be aware of the ways a debate can be shaped by the use of "tricks".