Why Don't We Have a Bigfoot Body Yet?

[Quazimoto]

47 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.

 

Why would the government snag bodies and keep the existence of Bigfoot a secret?  Simply because acknowledging their existence is a mess they don't want to deal with.

 

First and foremost, what are Bigfoot?  Human?  Ape?  Something in between?  Maybe a type of alien?  A missing link in evolution?  That question alone throws a monkey wrench into what we "know" about life, history, and our world.  That path is not one the government is prepared or willing to venture down because there's far too many variables that they can not control right now, so it's just easier to hide it and keep the secret.  

 

And logging or mining not being effected?  Again, it comes down to what a Sasquatch is determined to be.  There's simply no way to know how it would effect either industry until that is determined.  I'll be perfectly honest in that I don't follow all the rules and regulations in regards to logging or mining, but you really don't have to follow that to know that the acknowledge existence of some sort of intelligent being who lives in the forests of North America could very well have massive implications of both mining and logging.  There's absolutely every reason for the government to care about "an ape in the woods" and that's assuming that the Sasquatch are just a type of ape.  We don't know THAT they exist and thus we can't possibly know WHERE they exist, so to say that they areas the live in are already protected just isn't known.  Again, it's just a mess and a headache that they don't want, so the secret is kept.

 

I absolutely agree with your base logic IF you assume that Bigfoot is just some type of ape species.  The thing is that... well... they're not.  I don't know exactly what they are, but from all the research I've done and encounters I've heard, they seem far more human/people than animal to me.  I suspect that the government organizations that do know about Sasquatch's existence simply don't know how to explain to the public what they are and how they fit into our world, so it's easier to keep them hidden for now.

 

One thing I absolutely do agree with you on is that they probably do have some sort of ritual of burial or disposal for their dead and that, for the most part, is why we don't find bodies.  Nature is amazing at cleaning up after herself as well, so most of the stragglers that don't get buried for some reason, get returned to the earth in quick fashion.  I'm not saying that government officials swoop in and whisk away all dead Bigfoot bodies.  Just that in extreme cases like natural disasters or something of the sort, where bodies may be exposed to the public because they can't be taken care of naturally fast enough, there's government agents there to make sure they're not.

 

 

15 minutes ago, gigantor said:

 

 

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

 

 

 

Can't argue with this in most cases where they don't get ritually buried or disposed of. 

Edited September 19, 2019 by Quazimoto

[Franco]

7 minutes ago, hiflier said:

 

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  )

I am a believer, Don't ever think otherwise. But I do Strongly believe they are Flesh and Blood. I do Believe the Numbers are small. Their habit is shirking.  Unfortunately, We need a body, or a live one   

[hiflier]

1 minute ago, Franco said:

I am a believer, Don't ever think otherwise. But I do Strongly believe they are Flesh and Blood. I do Believe the Numbers are small. Their habit is shirking.  Unfortunately, We need a body, or a live one   

 

Agreed. Is there another way though? I had high hopes with the environmental DNA testing that was done on the Olympic Peninsula nesting sight but IMHO that went off the rails for reasons I have covered many times. I still think it's a good viable option however and more needs to be done and researched on it as a method for discovery. The caveat seems to be that if Sasquatch is so close to us genetically then more needs to be done with whatever genomes are collected. I'm firm in the idea that e-DNA could be the easiest and strongest method available to science or us. But I also think WHERE samples are taken is highly critical to the outcome. One wouldn't take samples from a campground. One WOULD take samples at say the area around a headwaters deep in the environment that is unlikely to see Human activity.

 

In any case someone who looks at the genomes from the sample MUST look for more than just the usual Human genetic markers. That's where the expense is which is why I started a thread about what those markers might be and if they could be determined ahead of time to help defray costs so more samples could be tested.  I'm convinced that eventually something will be found. E-DNA certainly has the potential to canvass more area than someone walking trails hoping to see some kind of sign or the creature itself?

[Franco]

9 minutes ago, Quazimoto said:

First and foremost, what are Bigfoot?  Human?  Ape?  Something in between?  Maybe a type of alien?  A missing link in evolution?  That question alone throws a monkey wrench into what we "know" about life, history, and our world.  That path is not one the government is prepared or willing to venture down because there's far too many variables that they can not control right now, so it's just easier to hide it and keep the secret.  

A Monkey wrench, If you research the the first nation accounts, There accounts are more along the lines of Forrest people, and many of FN accounts said they would regularly interact with them. That they were there to Protect the woods, as far as aliens... as far as I know There were no FN accounts of craft dropping them off.  

I find that end of the Spectrum, A little out there.

 

If the government is now willing to to admit that we have something in skies that they are looking at.  I think BF wouldn't be a big deal. But that's me. But our government is so ****** up, Now. You just never Know. The bigger security threat would be something traveling through our skies that we cant stop.  And as far as what would happen to belief system. 

I think we are intelligent enough to understand that this world, is stranger than we think... I think the fear is on the governments side - Why they spend all this time lying to us...

 

The problem is easliy solved - "Power" - 

How do you keep people in line - Fear and Need. 

 

10 minutes ago, hiflier said:

 

Agreed. Is there another way though? I had high hopes with the environmental DNA testing that was done on the Olympic Peninsula nesting sight but IMHO that went off the rails for reasons I have covered many times. I still think it's a good viable option however and more needs to be done and researched on it as a method for discovery. The caveat seems to be that if Sasquatch is so close to us genetically then more needs to be done with whatever genomes are collected. I'm firm in the idea that e-DNA could be the easiest and strongest method available to science or us. But I also think WHERE samples are taken is highly critical to the outcome. One wouldn't take samples from a campground. One WOULD take samples at say the area around a headwaters deep in the environment that is unlikely to see Human activity.

 

In any case someone who looks at the genomes from the sample MUST look for more than just the usual Human genetic markers. That's where the expense is which is why I started a thread about what those markers might be and if they could be determined ahead of time to help defray costs so more samples could be tested.  I'm convinced that eventually something will be found. E-DNA certainly has the potential to canvass more area than someone walking trails hoping to see some kind of sign or the creature itself?

Here, here I agree with u 190%. 

Oh I forgot to say, Hello, to all you great thinking People Here

[hiflier]

LOL, an hello to you too, Franco. Nice to have you and everyone around, especially the new members who have all shown a fine capacity for thought. The irony in all of this is that it shouldn't be all that complicated really. I don't think beyond time and money that it is at all complicated actually. At this point w all pretty much what has to happen to secure knowledge of existence. Now if a BF would just cooperate everything would be simple......uh......except for the fallout  

[starchunk]

12 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.

 

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. 

 

Are we offering up the GCBRO as an ideal example?

[Franco]

1 hour ago, hiflier said:

LOL, an hello to you too, Franco. Nice to have you and everyone around, especially the new members who have all shown a fine capacity for thought. The irony in all of this is that it shouldn't be all that complicated really. I don't think beyond time and money that it is at all complicated actually. At this point w all pretty much what has to happen to secure knowledge of existence. Now if a BF would just cooperate everything would be simple......uh......except for the fallout  

Thats the Problem, we set up nice inviting campsites, They dont come. Probably cuz we bang on tress and Hollar at them. I dumped to wifes because all they did was Hollar and complain...... LOL 

 

[hiflier]

1 hour ago, starchunk said:

 

Are we offering up the GCBRO as an ideal example?

 

 

O-O-O, O-O-O, pick me, pick me!! (raises hand and waves frantically) A conspiracy theorist would guess that being so much in the public eye the GCBRO would be carefully watched. Therefore they just might make sure that they never got anything worth 2 cents. NAWAC might be in the same boat. It's a given that Finding Bigfoot wasn't ever going to find anything. I think all of those groups pretty much know what the outcome would be?

 

47 minutes ago, Franco said:

I dumped to wifes because all they did was Hollar and complain...... LOL 

 

 

Edited September 19, 2019 by hiflier

[17x7]

I'm sure we have killed bunches of them.  Even in recent times.  There are plenty of reports of people shooting at them, only to have them disappear into the woods.  So far, nobody seems to have had the required balance of large reproductive rocks and/or low IQ to chase a wounded squatch into the brush it ran off into.  If such a person has had those basic requirements, we've not found their body either.  What I know is that if such an animal (or whatever it is) gets gut shot, or even a 'pass through' deep wound without any follow up medical treatment, it's almost guaranteed to succumb to blood loss or infection.  The problem is just how far and deep it ran before it died.  Maybe the ticket to finding a body is a tracker and cadaver dog on retainer and ready to fly off in a moments notice.

 

I have always believed that the first body found would be as a result of road kill.  There are reports of sightings along roads all the time.  Some narrowly missed and some reported being hit.  No real way to plan or do an expedition.  I think that hunting them poses issues as I believe that they do remove/defend their dead when possible.  Road kill would be problematic for that because of the human activity at a crash site.  Police, ambulance, good Samaritans, etc.  With all that going on, the rest might flee and leave their comrade.  That would leave it for somebody to find and report.  A problem is that they are a big, tough, critter.  That means they are not likely to just drop on the roadway.  In fact, none have so far.  I think they run off as far as they can and then succumb to their injuries.  We just haven't looked to find them. 

 

17x7

[MIB]

19 hours ago, hiflier said:

There must be something that convinces a creature to expose itself because of a natural response to a natural threat of some kind that it understands because it is a natural response to a natural stimulus?

 

Maybe, maybe not.    The more human-like they are, the less that may be true.   We don't have very many truly biologically hard-wired reflexes we can't override.   There are some things we do that are deeply ingrained culturally, but other human cultures do not have the same reaction.    I read something a few years back, forget where, about cultures which didn't even give children names 'til 18-24 months old because infant mortality was so high that there was no real point in getting too attached.    So even a threat to a child, which seems knee-jerk automatic to us today, was not always so and cannot correctly be assumed to be so.

 

So what stimuli trigger responses so biologically rooted, so powerful, YOU can't override them?    Look in the mirror, figure out your own weakness of that sort.   Then figure out whether you can find a way to apply that to sasquatch.    Otherwise, you're really stuck ... there may be culturally ingrained responses in sasquatch but we have almost no chance of determining what those are without knowing the culture, a definite cart-before-the-horse problem.

 

MIB

 

 

 

[norseman]

3 hours ago, starchunk said:

 

Are we offering up the GCBRO as an ideal example?

 

He asked and I provided an answer? Not sure its ideal....

 

Why? are you starting the oscar awards for pro kill Bigfoot clubs?

[starchunk]

14 hours ago, norseman said:

 

He asked and I provided an answer? Not sure its ideal....

 

Why? are you starting the oscar awards for pro kill Bigfoot clubs?

 

No I just think "being on TV" isn't really anything that sets the bar very high. 

[Huntster]

23 hours 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.......

 

But what if that "ape" is human, like a Neanderthal, Denisovan, or Hobbit? We're now talking about legal human rights.

 

Ask yourself what that means and where it could lead.........

[starchunk]

3 hours ago, starchunk said:

 

No I just think "being on TV" isn't really anything that sets the bar very high. 

 

Adding to my answer, Like Huntster said, if it's on the Human side of things there would be a poo-storm about the murder-esque implications of killing one, as well as the reality the Government is quite likley going to confiscate the body for any one of a number of reasons. As for TV factor, it's not a basis for credibility that anyone is on TV, and in regard to the GCBRO, the fanclub of MK Davis, that doesn't help my perceptions of them either. They're little better than Mountain Monsters chasing down Sheepsquatch.

[NatFoot]

51 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

But what if that "ape" is human, like a Neanderthal, Denisovan, or Hobbit? We're now talking about legal human rights.

 

Ask yourself what that means and where it could lead.........

 

Even if homo, the majority of the world would not see them as humans.