Why Don't We Have a Bigfoot Body Yet?

[Huntster]

2 hours ago, hiflier said:

.......What about tree shaking as a way to draw in a creature who thinks another is trying to dominate the immediate area? How about simulating chest thumping which is something that male Gorillas do to attract females or draw them away from another male? Or break dry sticks by levering them between larger trees? In other words, find a way or several ways to attract one with the sole purpose of dispatching one for science? It doesn't mean anyone will actually do any these things unless they are armed and ready to take one down but who's to say any one of these techniques would be better than just roaming around trying to find one? It seems to me trying drawing one in might be easier than trying to run one down or catch one by surprise.........

 

I doubt calling of any kind will fool these guys. Baiting might work, but the shooter would have to be positioned extremely well and at a range of at least 300 yards.

[norseman]

I’ve used predator calls. Just Bears and Coyotes show up. Some people have called in Cougars and Bobcats. Plus some turkey hunters get mauled by Cougars as they cluck and purr on a box.

[NatFoot]

11 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

I doubt calling of any kind will fool these guys. Baiting might work, but the shooter would have to be positioned extremely well and at a range of at least 300 yards.

 

Spec Ops.

[hiflier]

Like anything else something specific to the creature would be best? No calling because as mentioned other animals come in. How many bears does anyone thing will come around if a tree is shaking? Or for a simulated chest pounding? Or a tree/branch break? These things have been reported by witneses as being BF sourced. Cliff Barackman spoke of tree shaking in which he AND his spouse saw a light colored tall animal move from the tree into the brush. When Cliff got to the spot his head barely rose above the brush line when what they both saw was clearly head and shoulders above the same brush in the same spot. He said he was unable to shake the tree when he tried. I think sometimes reports do give clues as to what to try, which is to say something that shows dominance. I don't think tree knocking or howling honestly fits that category.

 

Tree shaking, chest thumping and breaking branches shows strength and power and that's why a dominant creature in an area might show up. Especially this time of year which I truly think is the general mating cycle for BF's. A little of my research showed reports of females, ten years apart, in the area north of Aberdeen between there and Matlock. There is an indication on Google Earth that a certain area isn't logged even though surrounding areas have been. I don't think it's the Capitol Forest region though. I'm also assuming that from there the regional birthing place is- or was- the nesting site in the Olympic Peninsula. Since it's been 4 1/2 years since anything occurred at the nesting site it probably means the females have gone elsewhere. If history is any indication then it must be a place that hasn't been disturbed by anyone for at least 30 years. 

Edited September 19, 2019 by hiflier

[WSA]

  Never throw out the evidence you have for the sake of evidence you wish you had. 

 

Besides, how many bipeds have the average person killed?  It takes that, and most don’t have that. 

[norseman]

14 hours ago, Celtic Raider said:

Even though I'm by nature a skeptic I would like to believe Bigfoot to be real. I've read and seen the breakdowns of the PGF and to be totally honest I just can't explain the film away as so many skeptics appear to be able to do. The animal looks real to me, acts realistically to me and Bill Munn's book is very persuasive too. However, I have a problem with some other evidence put forward, most notably the anecdotal - if the creature is really in peoples back yards and throwing rocks at cabins and we don't have good pictures or video or a body then that doesn't tally to me, it makes the alleged sightings less convincing. If there really is an 8ft tall 600lbs ape in the woods who makes itself known apparently quite frequently, acts aggressively by throwing rocks, communicates with people by gifting etc. I can't fathom how one hasn't been felled by now.

 

So my question is - assuming in this instance that the animal is extant - what are the reasons behind the absence of a bigfoot corpse?

 

Are all the 'hunters' incompetent? They seem to be quite able to kill bears, moose and so on almost as a matter of course.

Are the animals so rare as to be practically impossible to find? If so, what about the reports of them throwing rocks at cabins, being spotted near housing etc.which seem to contradict this?

Are there simply too few people attempting to bag a body?

Have there been any other larger scale attempts other than the NAWAC one?

Are the efforts all part time by amateurs that fall short for lack of resources?

Ultimately, what is the best scenario to try and take a body? 

 

Most hunters are out hunting game animals to put in a freezer. They have bought a license and a tag. The last thing on their minds is shooting something humanoid.

 

Great apes throw things. We know this. I’m not sure the correlation between throwing things and being not rare though. Throwing things to make people leave is a great strategy for staying hidden. Think of a sniper taking a spoiler shot like in old westerns. Nothing says “go away” more. It’s the Grizzly Bear tactic of bluff charges and in close and personal that can get you extinct quick. If the human feels trapped and cornered and they have a gun? Your in for a really bad day. Rocks flying out of thin air and maybe some scary noises makes the human simply want to leave.

 

But lets be real. I think many reports are either fabricated or misidentified animals. Doing my work up on caloric intake is a eye opener. Large omnivore like Grizzlies need hundreds if not thousands of square miles to survive. Bigfoot is not living on a 20 acre woodlot outside Chicago....

 

Not many of us are willing to shoot one. And I’ve been called every name in the book too for wanting to. Project Grendel was never anymore than 6-8 guys spread thin across the North American continent. We just shared ideas and notes.

 

The GCBRO is another large outfit down south. They have their own TV show.

 

Its a part time affair. Absolutely. I’m not aware of a professional dedicated team being bankrolled somewhere.

 

The most popular scenario with PG was to set up a camping trip with sniper over watch. Sasquatch seems to be curious of human activity. Spies on the camp and a sniper up in a tree takes the shot. My only issue with the scenario is I have got a lot of time sleeping in the woods. I have nothing strange to report. No rock throwing or strange noises coming from the timber. 

 

I say we appeal to its stomach. I don’t know how to pick a fight with a Sasquatch or what his mate swoons him with. But a fawn in distress is a call every predator understands completely.

 

There are basically three types of hunting calls. Each call is appealing to a certain behavior.

 

Prey

Sex

Sparring

 

Bigfoot may be too smart for this. Or he smells us or hears something he doesn’t like. Or maybe he is a like a bobcat. He comes in slower, takes longer, let’s the Bears take the bait first and observes what happens. When calling Bobcats you have to let Coyotes come and go. And you may let 3 coyotes go and never see a Bobcat. You have to have painstaking patience with cats unless you have hounds. 

 

The other obvious choice is to cut his tracks in snow. That’s my only experience with something out of the norm. But I was too young to act on it and my father wanted nothing to do with it. Which I understand. I wouldn’t risk my young son either. But with tracks to follow on a snowmobile? Or tracked ATV? Barring a snow storm you would be set.

 

My MO anymore is just to enjoy my activities outdoors but have the capability to do something proactive IF an encounter happens. A big game rifle or large caliber handgun, a light, a sharp cutting tool and a game bag or tarp. It should be in everyone’s pickup or SUV if they take this thing seriously. You don’t have to be vocal about it like I am. Shoot, take what you can feesably carry and get out. Go get help. 

[Oonjerah]

When my family moved to El Dorado Co, Calif. in about '55, there were 2 big industries in the area: fruit growing and logging.

But now I haven't had to dodge a logging truck on the road for at least 20 years. The woods are thick now. This would be a good

place for Bigfoot. I have never seen one; but I know a couple of people who say they have.

 

What if Bigfoot dies alone in the woods but near our homes? We report it to F&G; some guys arrive very soon & remove the body.

Those bodies are stored in Area 51.

 

Someone with a very high security clearance could tell us more. Maybe even let us tour the storage area if sworn to secrecy. ...

I am certain the Gov't knows plenty. Bodies on Mt. St. Helens, etc.

 

[Celtic Raider]

18 hours ago, Huntster said:

 

 

Not all hunters are incompetent, but I would venture to guess that most are, and the percentage of incompetent hunters has increased with social urbanization. Moreover, hunters aren't hunting for sasquatches, and they are fairly well versed with hunting laws and regs, which literally didn't exist a century ago. 

 

While hunters seem quite able to kill bears and moose in Alaska, you might be surprised to learn that the overall success rate in Alaska for moose is @ 20%, and that is for nearly 100,000 hunters hunting 200,000 moose, the success rate in most game management units is much lower (under 10% is common), and the success rate for bears (especially brown or grizzly bears) is significantly lower than that.

 

No doubt about it. As an example, I'm an experienced, accomplished, and frequent Alaskan big game hunter, I'm a strong believer in the existence of sasquatches, and not only do I not hunt for them, I have come to the reasoned conclusion that the only way I would shoot one is in self defense. Of all the people on this forum, there are just a few who regularly state that they are pro kill and they regularly go out looking for sasquatches. 

 

 

 

Good question. Everybody on this forum who is pro kill has proposed a number of scenarios. I'm confident that quite a few factors are important:

 

* Fresh reports in the area would be ideal

* A history of sightings in that area are important

* Funding, which isn't cheap; even a relatively local week long caribou hunt for me will cost a few hundred dollars just in fuel, communications subscriptions, spare parts, etc. That doesn't include food (I eat anyway at home) or license and tag (a sasquatch hunt might require some sort of license and tag, however, to legally justify the carry of firearms in the woods, depending on the politics of the area, but in Alaska, I already have a lifetime license), and I'm already all geared up

* The proper tactic is critical; baiting? Calling? Spot and stalk? Stalking upwind along a noisy creek like Patterson & Gimlin?

* Spending plenty of time on location........like weeks

* Complete access to the area, both legally and tactically

* A good plan for carcass preservation and extraction, including out of the woods as well as to a final destination, which would include a plan for interstate/international smuggling, all of which is illegal on the federal/international level (CITES)

* A good legal defense plan and funding in the possible event of criminal prosecution

 

 

 

 

Excellent post Huntster and I have to admit I didn't realise the success rates were so low on hunting Moose, Bears and so on. 

 

I've noticed a lot of people reference water sources as good places to start looking, seems logical to stake those out and maybe using horses like Patterson and Gimlin did might be a good way to mask human noises, smells etc. which may alert or act as warning signs to a creature like a bigfoot. The biggest hurdle seems likely to be the funding to find the right people, with the right equipment and to allow them to spend the requisite time needed.

 

[Celtic Raider]

7 hours ago, norseman said:

 

Most hunters are out hunting game animals to put in a freezer. They have bought a license and a tag. The last thing on their minds is shooting something humanoid.

 

Great apes throw things. We know this. I’m not sure the correlation between throwing things and being not rare though. Throwing things to make people leave is a great strategy for staying hidden. Think of a sniper taking a spoiler shot like in old westerns. Nothing says “go away” more. It’s the Grizzly Bear tactic of bluff charges and in close and personal that can get you extinct quick. If the human feels trapped and cornered and they have a gun? Your in for a really bad day. Rocks flying out of thin air and maybe some scary noises makes the human simply want to leave.

 

 

This is a really good point, and one I'd not considered in full. I just thought it seemed strange for an animal that is described as extremely elusive and possibly reclusive to approach an obvious human camp and make itself known, seems counter intuitive if the animal doesn't want to be found yet I can see how that is a way of sending a message without revealing itself and still remaining at least partially hidden.

 

My initial line of thinking was that if the creature has a large habitat area and moves around a lot anyway which I think most would be agreed on they would just move to some other location within that large area without the humans even knowing. I guess if they have a water source though they may be very protective of that at certain times when other sources are hard to find maybe.

[norseman]

2 hours ago, Celtic Raider said:

 

This is a really good point, and one I'd not considered in full. I just thought it seemed strange for an animal that is described as extremely elusive and possibly reclusive to approach an obvious human camp and make itself known, seems counter intuitive if the animal doesn't want to be found yet I can see how that is a way of sending a message without revealing itself and still remaining at least partially hidden.

 

My initial line of thinking was that if the creature has a large habitat area and moves around a lot anyway which I think most would be agreed on they would just move to some other location within that large area without the humans even knowing. I guess if they have a water source though they may be very protective of that at certain times when other sources are hard to find maybe.

 

Or a critical ripe berry patch, kill site or a nursery or the sick and elderly.

 

No telling what the humans are disrupting.

 

It could also be a rear guard action. Where the family is slowly moving away from the humans.

Edited September 19, 2019 by norseman

[Quazimoto]

I fully believe there are bodies that have been found, they just get swept away by government agencies whom, for a variety of reasons, feel the need to keep the existence of Sasquatch a joke to the vast majority of the public and even the vast majority of themselves.  I'm sure some of those bodies are hidden away in secret government storage areas or laboratories.  There almost certainly bones that have been found buried deep in the bowels of the Smithsonian's archives, purposefully not labeled and "lost" so as they never see the light of day.

 

You'd also have to factor in that there simply isn't anyone really out there looking for Bigfoot, alive or dead.  I mean, sure, it might seem like Sasquatch is a big deal and super important to discover here on the bigfootforums.  But the reality is that most people don't believe they're real.  Most of the people that do believe aren't out in the woods looking for them.  Most of the people that do venture into the woods looking for them don't have a clue what they're really looking for or how to really look for it (I'd venture to say that almost all the people who go out into the woods looking for Bigfoot do so because they watched a few episodes of Finding Bigfoot and thought it'd be fun to try it themselves).  Basically, the number of researchers who are actively out in the forests of North America seriously looking for proof of Sasquatch's existence is so tiny compared to the area they'd need to cover it's harder than finding a needle in a haystack.  I'm also willing to bet that at least half those serious researchers have techniques that are far more likely to drive a Sasquatch away than to attract them.

 

I'm guessing that given the obvious intelligence and purported family groups of Bigfoot, they also have some sort of death ritual that involves disposal of the body in some manner.  Sasquatch are NOT just any ole animals.  They're far closer to people than they are animals.  

 

As far as hunting or shooting one goes.  There just aren't many people out there trying to do that and the odd hunter than happens to get one in the crosshairs probably can't bring themselves to pull the trigger.  As previously mentioned, most hunters are looking for food, hides, or trophies.  They're after animals, not giant hairy people.  It's real easy to sit in front of a computer screen or around a campfire and boast how you would never pass up the chance to bag yourself a Bigfoot.  It's an entirely different thing to be in the moment, starring down the barrel of your gun at something that's "not supposed to exist" and looks far more human than animal.  99.9% of people wouldn't be able to take a shot like that.  To expect that you'd find anyone from that 0.1% of the population that could take a deliberate kill shot in a situation like that to actually have the chance to do so...  Well, you've got better odds when buying a Powerball ticket.  I'm sure there, indeed, has been some hunters to happened upon a Sasquatch and blasted a hurried or panicked shot or two at the big guy.  Maybe even hit them, but panicked or excited shots rarely land well enough to bring down a being the size of a Bigfoot.  And who's to say they don't have much thicker skin that any known animals?  It's entirely possible that a bullet simply wouldn't do as much damage to them as it would to a human.

 

Bottom line is that there are a number of reasons why we "don't have" a body.  At least not one known to the general public. 

[Franco]

29 minutes ago, Quazimoto said:

I fully believe there are bodies that have been found, they just get swept away by government agencies whom, for a variety of reasons, feel the need to keep the existence of Sasquatch a joke to the vast majority of the public and even the vast majority of themselves.  I

ask yourself, Why would the government care? They are not a threat to security, They arent a threat to Public safety? There is no reason for them to care about a ape in the woods. It would serve them better to actually find one. The tourism rate to those areas would make them Millions. So, i dont think the black coppers or special teams is out snagging dead BF Bodies. 

So them coming in snagging bodies, is to me a far fetch thought. There existence wouldn't  stop Logging, Mining.... The areas they exist in are already Protected.  

 

So, why do beat on the same old stuff.   They probably have a burial site or they bury there dead.  this could be Why we dont find them. I have never seen a dead dear in the Woods... I see live ones.  Never found a dead bear. I seen a bunch of live ones.  Nature is a amazing at cleaning up after herself.

Edited September 19, 2019 by Franco

[gigantor]

 

59 minutes ago, Quazimoto said:

I fully believe there are bodies that have been found, they just get swept away by government agencies

 

I think there is a simpler explanation as to why we don't find a Bigfoot body.

 

 

[norseman]

27 minutes ago, Franco said:

ask yourself, Why would the government care? They are not a threat to security, They arent a threat to Public safety? There is no reason for them to care about a ape in the woods. It would serve them better to actually find one. The tourism rate to those areas would make them Millions. So, i dont think the black coppers or special teams is out snagging dead BF Bodies. 

So them coming in snagging bodies, is to me a far fetch thought. There existence wouldn't  stop Logging, Mining.... The areas they exist in are already Protected.  

 

So, why do beat on the same old stuff.   They probably have a burial site or they bury there dead.  this could be Why we dont find them. I have never seen a dead dear in the Woods... I see live ones.  Never found a dead bear. I seen a bunch of live ones.  Nature is a amazing at cleaning up after herself.

 

Im not advocating that the government goes around cleaning up dead bodies....

 

But ask yourself this. If the 411 books truly show a problem in our national parks and forests? And that came out? Tourism would go to zero. And all of the families of the missing and dead? Would file lawsuits. The government warns you about everything. Cliffs, Bears, trails, roads, cougars, etc. 

 

But they failed to warn you about a potentially violent 800 lbs ape man running amok in their forest? I’d say there is plenty of reason for them to care.

[hiflier]

34 minutes ago, Franco said:

So, why do beat on the same old stuff.

 

Because giving up isn't an option if one thinks they truly are out there in whatever numbers. What it comes down to then is what techniques get deployed and that depends on getting into the mind of such a creature. The usual things will make it tick: shelter, mating, food, water, and protecting it's offspring. no different that we are in that regard or any other creature in the wild including insects. It all comes down to the same things. In that regard one could view those requirements as weakness to be exploited which is what hunters do.

 

The issues then revolve around location and whether or not Sasquatch has been driven by our very presence into the further reaches of wilderness areas. Even if our presence in its various forms and activities occur with or without any awareness of the creature. I'm sure resource harvesting of all manner is done with very few individuals even considering Bigfoot. I honestly don't think logging in the 80's was done with the knowledge of the impact on the spotted owl. It was only after the fact. But in either case the impact on animals in general  does get them on the move into areas already inhabited by other animals.

 

I agree with a lot of what you say but at the same time such a find would be enormous in it implications and ramifications. I see more and more members moving to the idea that the Sasquatch population is low. It's almost as if the earlier thinking of high populations everywhere was a thought brought in to downplay the low numbers and in doing so got folks to relax regarding operations that were/are intrusive in the environment. So what's to be done? We can do little to stop "progress" but to stand by and do nothing could mean the loss of the most incredible of finds. That being one of the most amazing creatures in the entire world. Nothing short of physical proof of its existence will serve to save it. It all comes down to how responsible do we feel that we are to secure wild habitat for this creature but perhaps more important, for ourselves and our generations to come if we are fortunate enough to have them.

 

The way forward seems to be a singular one that will save the Sasquatch and its habitat. How strongly one thinks that the creature is real will be demonstrated in what one will do to prove existence. Proving it to oneself will not save it of its environments. Only science and public knowledge will do that and that why we beat a seemingly dead horse. Mainly because for many that horse is far from dead but there is a real risk that eventually it will be.

 

(P.S. Sorry everyone, I've been a busy boy: I am now out of plusses  )

Edited September 19, 2019 by hiflier