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

[Guest rockinkt]

Thank you norcallogger. I didn't make any claims like "there are no people there". All I did was ask a question and ponder something. I have no idea why the reaction was like it was.

Well I thought it was too. I even asked the question again relatively nicely.

Exactly. And fewer still go very far off the beaten track. So, a road building or logging crew might have crashed their way through the area years before. That doesn't mean they are there today and engaging in much activity deep in the brush far from trail/road access. In that end portion Too Risky is in his car on the track on the mountain side. I can't imagine too many humans would be messing about going off trail and yomping away down to the left on that slope.

The implication in the video and OP was that the visual was some sort of untouched wilderness area that humans would not be able to penetrate - therefore the discovery of a giant bi-pedal critter would be an almost impossible task.

The fact that there was a fair amount of obviously logged areas in the video proved that people did go there in the past and in fairly large numbers. The forest and terrain did not stop humans at all from exploring, mapping, surveying, and logging that area.

What was once untouched wilderness off the beaten track became a veritable beehive of activity.

The fact that someone is taking a video of previously logged areas while on a logging road and then - by implication - stating that they are in the untamed wilderness is pretty interesting.

Does anybody know if there is more logging planned in the area?

[Guest Kerchak]

The implication of the question was there based on the posts of mine previous to his

Well just to correct you and to clarify the situation it was actually based on what somebody else (parnassus) posted, not you. He wrote ""If you are referring to the United States every square mile is charted and explored and has been for many years"".

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/243-sasquatch-native-americans/page__st__60

I then linked to the story of the crashed Curtiss Helldiver plane that remained unnoticed in the forest near the Oregon coast for over 60 years, and that's a big metal thing that would stand out like a sore thumb and doesn't exactly blend in with the terrain, move around or jump behind a tree.

http://tdn.com/news/article_266a9e96-386c-11df-ab64-001cc4c03286.html

Hence my pondering of "Every single mile is explored and traipsed over?". The news story of the missing plane doesn't suggest that.

Since I don't recal YOU actually insinuating what parnassus wrote, my initial post wasn't in reference to anything you yourself posted and nor did I quote you. You just decided to take it that way for whatever reason.

Regardless of all that, how about making a flying guess at how many humans (not including Too Risky) would be in the area the camera covered. You seem to be knowledgeable about these kind of things. What is your opinion?

Edited September 26, 2010 by Kerchak

[Guest]

And why only 7 reports in Iowa, none in Hawaii, and nearly 500 in Washington state? And why dozens of reports from Prince of Wales Island and absolutely none from Kodiak Island? And why only 2 reports from Benton County, Washington, and 52 from Skamania County?

These data you've just provided support my contention that there is spatial variability in familiarity with and acceptance of bigfoot mythology. There are differences at both broad scales (e.g., Iowa vs Washington) and finer scales (e.g., counties within Washington). That spatial pattern in the degree to which people engage in the mythology would result in a spatial pattern of reports indistinguishable from encounters with a real animal. This is the primary flaw in Glickman's analysis.

The bigger flaw, however, concerns the data used in the analysis in the first place. What is the assurance that the database represents an unbiased and thorough sample of reports? For example, how do we know there are no reports from Kodiak? It could be an interesting fine-scale, cultural transmission that results in no bigfoot from Kodiak, but it also simply be that no one from Kodiak (for any number of reasons) has reported their bigfoot sightings. You say there are no reports from Hawaii, but what about the Aikanaka, Nawao, and Menehune? You might argue that those are not "bigfoot", but they are three different types of wild people reported by Hawaiians, and I bet absolutely believed to be real by at least a small percentage of the population.

It is clear that if you even read Glickmans cluster theory, you certainly didn't think about it.

Read it. Unimpressed. Surprised that you're so moved by it. (Well, not really surprised, I guess.)

[Guest RayG]

"If you are referring to the United States every square mile is charted and explored and has been for many years".

Well, one can apparently find topographical maps of any area in the USA, so that would tend to lend credence to the statement.

I then linked to the story of the crashed Curtiss Helldiver plane that remained unnoticed in the forest near the Oregon coast for over 60 years, and that's a big metal thing that would stand out like a sore thumb and doesn't exactly blend in with the terrain, move around or jump behind a tree.

Hence my pondering of "Every single mile is explored and traipsed over?". The news story of the missing plane doesn't suggest that.

Your example does nothing to show that the area wasn't been fully charted/explored at some point in history. Do your maps have huge blank spots on them or something?

RayG

[Guest]

These data you've just provided support my contention that there is spatial variability in familiarity with and acceptance of bigfoot mythology. There are differences at both broad scales (e.g., Iowa vs Washington) and finer scales (e.g., counties within Washington). That spatial pattern in the degree to which people engage in the mythology would result in a spatial pattern of reports indistinguishable from encounters with a real animal. This is the primary flaw in Glickman's analysis.

That makes no sense, that there are more reports from, for example, Washington than Iowa because people in Washington believe in the myth more?

[Guest]

I think more people are likely to believe there is a bigfoot in Ore/Washington. People outside of the PNW believe bigfoot's prime habitat is Ore/Washington. So, why wouldn't people see bigfoot more if in their own mind they are more accepting of bigfoot in those areas? I think they are more likely to "see" bigfoot where there is none (or mis-id).

[Huntster]

Thank you Huntster. I have the book Raincoast Sasquatch which as you know goes into detail about this area and it is all very interesting and I share your conclusion that the higher densities of brown bears seem to have a very good correlation to fewer or no sasquatch reports.

I guess the brown bears in eastern BC/western Alberta are less of a problem population and density wise.

Yes, the brown bears of eastern BC/western Alberta occur at a much lower density than the ABC islands of SE Alaska and Kodiak.

The average lay feller can see the obvious trend here, but I'm afraid scientists and pseudo-scientists can't. They're busy discussing sasquatches in metro Oklahoma City..................

I know. Gets very old and tiresome doesn't it. Lets stick to what might make sense before we concentrate on what doesn't make sense. I have no desire to try and account for sasquatch waiting at a bus stop in downtown Philadelphia.

But skeptics feel that such debate tactics bring an aura of ridiculous to the subject, thus making it easier to pooh-pooh. We get the same kind of BS in our daily discourse about social and political issues from our social and political leaders. Essentially, they believe we're stupid enough to let that decide the issue for us, and I believe that it works on some, or maybe even many.

But it damned sure doesn't work on me.

There's plenty of good ground for me to explore right here, and a several month tour/hunt of Revillagigedo and Prince of Wales Islands are in the plans for the spring/summer/fall of 2013. I'm less than three years away from it........

Cool. Sounds great. Make room in your backpack for a good camera and some casting material.

I'll definitely have some casting material. I'm not sure about the camera thing. I'll have an Olympus digital camera (it's even waterproof, a big plus in SE Alaska), but I won't bother with expensive camera equipment. Of course, I'll also have my rifle. I don't know if I'd shoot such a creature if I saw it. Hopefully I'll find out.............

[Huntster]

Huntster, on 25 September 2010 - 12:44 PM, said:

And why only 7 reports in Iowa, none in Hawaii, and nearly 500 in Washington state? And why dozens of reports from Prince of Wales Island and absolutely none from Kodiak Island? And why only 2 reports from Benton County, Washington, and 52 from Skamania County?

These data you've just provided support my contention that there is spatial variability in familiarity with and acceptance of bigfoot mythology.

Sorry. "Spatial variability" does not account for expected higher report densities in proper habitat and expected lower report densities in unsuitable habitat, it certainly doesn't account for the Kodiak/Prince of Wales differences, especially since both areas are primarily inhabited by aboriginal peoples, and it does not take into account the flood of sasquatch report that have occurred since the Jerry Crew event of the late 1950's and the media circus that was created by that event and which has grown since then.

Glickman's theory accounts for all of that perfectly.

There are differences at both broad scales (e.g., Iowa vs Washington) and finer scales (e.g., counties within Washington). That spatial pattern in the degree to which people engage in the mythology would result in a spatial pattern of reports indistinguishable from encounters with a real animal. This is the primary flaw in Glickman's analysis.

1) Excuse me, but you have not identified the "pattern". I have.

2) Please explain to us the "pattern" that you refer to that fits like the biological, habitat, and historical patterns that I'm referring to that didn't change with the media pattern from 1955 to today

The bigger flaw, however, concerns the data used in the analysis in the first place.

Oh, the private database that you refuse to admit that official wildlife managers should be assembling for their own "scientific" research?

What is the assurance that the database represents an unbiased and thorough sample of reports?

None. Indeed, Green's database was assembled by a single, interested newspaperman (in the complete absence of the proper officials assembling a "scientific" database). Surely, you can't condemn the database that you refuse to assemble yourself, can you?

For example, how do we know there are no reports from Kodiak?

Because there aren't any? How do we know there aren't little green men living on Planet X? We don't. So we invest millions of dollars to shoot radio waves at Planet X to see if we get a response.

If that is incorrect, please show otherwise.

It could be an interesting fine-scale, cultural transmission that results in no bigfoot from Kodiak, but it also simply be that no one from Kodiak (for any number of reasons) has reported their bigfoot sightings. You say there are no reports from Hawaii, but what about the Aikanaka, Nawao, and Menehune? You might argue that those are not "bigfoot", but they are three different types of wild people reported by Hawaiians, and I bet absolutely believed to be real by at least a small percentage of the population.

1) That's right, I will argue: they are not bigfoot

2) Remarkably, "little wild men" are reported in other Oceanic/East Asian cultures

3) And (Lo!), what did they recently find in a Southeast Asian cave? The fossils of little wild men, and aged only 12,000 years ago

4) Whatta' ya' know!

5) And what did Henry Gee, senior editor at Nature magazine, write after the Homo floresiensis find?:

The discovery that Homo floresiensis survived until so very recently, in geological terms, makes it more likely that stories of other mythical, human-like creatures such as yetis are founded on grains of truth.

In the light of the Flores skeleton, a recent initiative to scour central Sumatra for 'orang pendek' can be viewed in a more serious light. This small, hairy, manlike creature has hitherto been known only from Malay folklore, a debatable strand of hair and a footprint. Now, cryptozoology, the study of such fabulous creatures, can come in from the cold.

Another argument in favour of such searches comes from the recent discovery of several new species of large mammal, notably in Southeast Asia.

For example, Pseudoryx nghetinhensis, a species of ox from the remote Vu Qiang nature reserve on the border between Vietnam and Laos, was first described from hunting trophies in only 1992. Another species of bovid, the kouprey (Bos sauveli), was discovered in Indochina in 1937.

Neither of these creatures is as exotic as a yeti or orang pendek, but the point is made. If animals as large as oxen can remain hidden into an era when we would expect that scientists had rustled every tree and bush in search of new forms of life, there is no reason why the same should not apply to new species of large primate, including members of the human family.

[Guest alex]

These data you've just provided support my contention that there is spatial variability in familiarity with and acceptance of bigfoot mythology. There are differences at both broad scales (e.g., Iowa vs Washington) and finer scales (e.g., counties within Washington). That spatial pattern in the degree to which people engage in the mythology would result in a spatial pattern of reports indistinguishable from encounters with a real animal. This is the primary flaw in Glickman's analysis.

The bigger flaw, however, concerns the data used in the analysis in the first place. What is the assurance that the database represents an unbiased and thorough sample of reports? For example, how do we know there are no reports from Kodiak? It could be an interesting fine-scale, cultural transmission that results in no bigfoot from Kodiak, but it also simply be that no one from Kodiak (for any number of reasons) has reported their bigfoot sightings. You say there are no reports from Hawaii, but what about the Aikanaka, Nawao, and Menehune? You might argue that those are not "bigfoot", but they are three different types of wild people reported by Hawaiians, and I bet absolutely believed to be real by at least a small percentage of the population.

Read it. Unimpressed. Surprised that you're so moved by it. (Well, not really surprised, I guess.)

Saskeptic, why do Sasquatch sightings correspond with high rainfall? Perhaps its an ecological niche, rather than a master plan made by people, not everyone who camps has sasquatch on their mind, most don't

[Guest TooRisky]

I said Gigantopithecus bodies/skeletons, why can't we find them, yet we can find tiny dinosaurs that existed long before them?

Alex this is a very good question and one that really needs to be answered, thanks for bringing it up....

In order for fossils to form, there must be a way to preserve the dead remains of animals and plants for a time so that they do not decay completely. The most common way that this occurs is on the bottom of bodies of water. When an animal or plant dies and falls into the water, the remains are sometimes covered up quickly by sediments. The layers of sediment form a protective covering to slow the process of decay.

Over thousands of years, the sediments around the remains harden into rock. The dead animal or plant remains eventually decay leaving an empty space inside the sedimentary rock. Minerals filter down into this space and harden into rock forming a shape just like the animal or plant. This process is called fossilization. The mineral remains are called fossils.

Sometimes there are no minerals that filter down into the empty space in the rock. The space that is left is called an imprint. Some common fossil imprints are dinosaur tracks which are formed when the large animals left their tracks on the bottom of shallow seas or rivers.

There are other ways that fossils can be preserved. Many animals have been found preserved in ice in Siberia. Other fossils, especially Insects, are found embedded in amber and of course the abundance of fossils found in the tar pits like at the La Brea Tar Pits in California. http://www.tarpits.org/

The mountains are not at all conducive to fossil making like the jungles due to the high acidity of the soil and the abundance of creatures great and small that will devourer a carcass in a matter of days rather than weeks... As for dinosaurs, man how many lived and walked the Earth, and how many became fossils...

So as ya see this argument can not be applied to this subject because the odds are extremely rare and their are not many fossil hunters in the mountains, heck they are enjoying research time paid in far off exotic lands... LOL

And who is not to say there are fossils of BF, they may just be waiting to be discovered, time will tell...

Edited September 27, 2010 by TooRisky

[Guest Kerchak]

Well, one can apparently find topographical maps of any area in the USA, so that would tend to lend credence to the statement.

Mount Everest's height was mapped almost 100 years BEFORE anyone had actually been on the top of it. The published 1856 mapping was only 27ft out.

You don't have to actually have been in a place to have it topographically mapped.

Your example does nothing to show that the area wasn't been fully charted/explored at some point in history.

A big shiny metal thing that stood out like a sore thumb was left undiscovered and unseen for over 60 years in a forest by the Oregon coast and the reply is "well somebody might have been there before".

So what about the following 60 years then? Do you agree that obviously nobody went to that spot at least since that plane went down there in the late 1940s?

Do your maps have huge blank spots on them or something?

RayG

No but I do know that you don't have to physically stand on and explore every single square mile (not to mention every single inch) of ground for it to be mapped.

Ask Huntster if he thinks the folks who mapped Alaska physically stood on every single square mile of ground.

The assertion was not that some hairy assed trapper once walked through there 80 years ago but that every square mile IS explored. This is the point I'm making. I do not accept that every single square mile of the US is explored and traipsed over to this day. Because somebody might have been passing through an area of square mile territory some 100 years ago is irrelevent to today.

Edited September 27, 2010 by Kerchak

[Guest Kerchak]

But skeptics feel that such debate tactics bring an aura of ridiculous to the subject, thus making it easier to pooh-pooh.

I guess that's part of the game they are here to play. Concentrate on the ridiculous and ignore the persuasive. Then again even the persuasive is almost relegated down to the ridiculous in the eyes of some of them.

We get the same kind of BS in our daily discourse about social and political issues from our social and political leaders. Essentially, they believe we're stupid enough to let that decide the issue for us, and I believe that it works on some, or maybe even many.

But it damned sure doesn't work on me.

That's why I don't vote any of them into power. Oooops politics is forbidden here so that's all I say.

I'll definitely have some casting material. I'm not sure about the camera thing. I'll have an Olympus digital camera (it's even waterproof, a big plus in SE Alaska), but I won't bother with expensive camera equipment. Of course, I'll also have my rifle. I don't know if I'd shoot such a creature if I saw it. Hopefully I'll find out.............

I have an Olympus too. With digital cameras they make today a lot of them are good enough for the job (providing you are quick enough or close enough) so no you don't need a very expensive one. My girlfriend's camera is three times as expensive as mine but it doesn't take pictures that are three times as good. Nowhere near. Of course where it is superior is in the additional zoom lenses but quite honestly it's such a pain to carry around with the zoom lens fixed when you are hiking in rugged terrain or passing through trees and bushes and the risk of damaging such an expensive camera is so much higher that it's mostly carried in the case until it's needed. Too late for a bigfoot. My much smaller Olympus is more practical and closer to hand.

Glad to hear you'll be taking casting material....just in case.

As for the rifle, hmmmmmmmm I lean towards bagging one just to end this ballyhoo but then I'm not going to be the one to have to pull the trigger. I think it would be hard enough to shoot a gorilla nevermind something even more manlike.

[Guest]

Saskeptic, why do Sasquatch sightings correspond with high rainfall?

Because that's where trees grow best. "Bigfoot" is, in the eyes of most people, a creature of the deepest, darkest, primeval forests. If it's a real animal, that is the habitat we expect for them. If it is a cultural phenomenon, then most people will attach their stories to such places, if for no other reason than to enhance credibility. The big problem with trying to make the case for a real animal from the pattern of anecdotal accounts is that the pattern is indistinguishable from the pattern you could get from stories about a non-real animal.

Leprechauns. I'm sure if you plotted the distribution of leprechaun sightings in Ireland (you might need to go back a few generations to find a lot of people reporting them as real beings) you'd find some spatial pattern to the reports. Belief in such beings would probably be most prevalent in the wilder, less populated regions of the island, thus creating similar disproportionality with human population like we see with bigfoot reports from the PNW. If you then looked at the environmental features of those areas, it would be easy to find correlations between high densities of leprechaun sightings and things like elevation, slope, aspect, forest cover, waterfall density, etc.

The result would be an analysis that seems suggestive of real biological entities: the density of reports would have nothing to do the number of people traipsing though those areas. For example, we might expect a lot of reports from the Wicklow Mountains because they're wild and lots of folks from Dublin go there on day trips, but the vastly larger number of eyes to potentially see such creatures does not translate into a lot of reports. Conversely, you might head to the MacGillycuddy's Reeks in the Southwest and find a much higher number of reports even though the area gets relatively few visitors. Boom - there's your pattern. The "real" leprechauns are clearly in the Southwest; those reported outside of that region are either spurious or represent migrants. The number of reports from a geographic region will be related to the proportion of people who ascribe to the mythology in that region. Once you've got that pattern established, it's easy to find an ecological correlate.

Oh, and if there's a little range in the Reeks where people didn't report leprechauns, that could be as simple as the people who settled there not believing in the first place. I call it a cultural founder effect, to borrow a term from population genetics.

Of course, nothing in this explanation can establish that there aren't leprechauns in Ireland. It only illustrates that anecdotal accounts stemming from cultural participation in a mythology can develop a spatial pattern that cannot be distinguished from the pattern of accounts that could develop from encounters with real beings.

[Drew]

Reports of Bigfoot in Urban areas are probably thrown out anyway, so the reports of course are skewed towards areas where the investigators believe the habitat could support bigfoot.

[Huntster]

Ask Huntster if he thinks the folks who mapped Alaska physically stood on every single square mile of ground.

USGS topo mapping of the west was conducted aerially, mostly during the 1950's and 1960's. Nobody was walking around on those icefields and mountaintops surveying with transit like George Washington did in the mid-eighteenth century.

(Of course, the next obvious dumb question is, "Then why didn't the aircraft crew see a bigfoot?....................)