Why can't we find and study Bigfoot?

[georgerm]

11 hours ago, georgerm said:

Bigfoot is simply a difficult animal to find and film and the question is why? My theory is their senses are so keen, and their dislike for humans is so great that avoiding humans is what they do best. They are  also not stupid and some how know that being seen by humans leads to more human intrusion into 'their forest'. The bigfoot probably sees humans in their forest as you would see an intruder in your back yard. It pisses them off that sometimes leads to bluff charges, rock throwing, and out right attacks where humans disappear. Now add the rarity factor. They might be the rarest animal in the states, yet they can maintain a breeding population. 

 

 

There are logical reason why sassy is not being filmed, captured, or brought in to a primatologist. Once we know these reasons then searching for bigfoot will yield some results. When I created this thread, I was hoping that we could establish some theories then discuss facts to back up the theory. Those in the field might utilize what we come up with.

 

Our forum implies bigfoot discussion. This thread that was my brain child was disappointing since the derailments were over the top. Minor derailments are fine. There are probably forum guidelines that address derailing.  However,  getting to know Foxhill was necessary and interesting along with some rifle talk.  Conjecture or forming theories in regards to the topic can be a challenge. The beginning statement put forth does require conjecture and theorizing and this is crystal clear science. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[SWWASAS]

4 hours ago, Huntster said:

 

The admission of any hominid before the Holy Land Bridge, regardless of how primitive, is a milestone. This very find is an example: do you hear the 130K year figure touted as our arrival? You can find an entire human skeleton dating 100K years and all it would produce is a fight. 

They don't fight, they ignore anachronisms.       How about that anatomically modern human skeleton encased in Carboniferous Epoch coal that was found in the Midwest someplace.     I cannot even begin to explain that other than everything we think we know about human evolution is wrong.    Every time you turn around dates get pushed back.     Bigfoot is just part of the unknown story of mankind's evolution.  

Edited January 15, 2020 by SWWASAS

[hiflier]

Because most everything we do amounts to only a protracted approach. Things have changed on many levels in the last 60 years, including habitat encroachment and intrusion. But our methodologies have remained static. We're not doing much of anything different than what was done in the 50's. Yes, we have some new high-tech eyes and ears now, but we use them in the same old way. It is my opinion of course, but we need to step back and look at what we are doing and how we are doing it. If we do that then it will become clear that we need to step into the 2020's with a fresh outlook onto the problem of remoteness. We need to learn how to "look" for Sasquatch from a distance.

 

We discuss how sensitive this creature is to its environment, and yet we still step into its environment like it's a stupid animal. Someday we'll go out JUST to enjoy the experience of being in the wild. But, I hope that we also include what modern technology has available for the longer reach into suspected Sasquatch habitat. A reach that can cover hundreds if not thousands of acres at a whack. And do it precisely. 

 

NAWAC is probably the closest thing we have as far as a dedicated team right now. And it's been this way for a decade or more. But even they have to not just go at this "old school". Thy need the science to back them up. They need the science to SHOW them where the creatures are. And we do too! It would be great if the move in 2020 would be more toward modern scientific methods gradually becoming more and more a part of our boots on the ground. Is there anything to lose? Certainly there's no more to lose than we've lost in the last 65 years.

 

My opinion..... 

[SWWASAS]

20 hours ago, Catmandoo said:

 

Our terrain has been modified by many glacial lake outbursts.  Wash---rinse--repeat.  Most of our history has been washed out to sea.

If you are talking about the Missoula Floods most of the Cascades were well above the flood level.     I think the height of the flood in the Portland area was around 400 feet.   It sloshed around Mt Tabor without topping it.     That only affected the Columbia River basin drainage and large areas in Central Washington and the Willamette River drainage in Oregon,   that are not BF habitat because they are grasslands.     Most of Western Washington was not affected by the flooding.      Flood waters actually have contributed to finds in  areas as far South as Eugene in Oregon.      Mastodons apparently killed in the flood have been found buried by flood debris.     Volcanism has likely been more destructive to BF habitat in the Cascades.      BF caught in pyroclastic flows and heavy ash falls were likely killed in large numbers but at the same time that would have preserved them as it did humans in Pompeii.      I walk the stream banks in volcanic areas hoping to find a BF skeleton washing out of a stream bank.  Mt St Helens is the most active volcano in the Cascades.    It has erupted every couple of hundred years for millions of years.   Lewis and Clark saw it erupting on their journey West before the 1980 eruption.  

[BobbyO]

On 1/11/2020 at 6:05 PM, georgerm said:

This question is very simple, but there are many answers that begin to create a complicated picture. There are many researchers looking for Sasquatch, and the use of technology is becoming more complex yet the results are still poor. The quality of researchers is improving with some having advanced degrees in primatology. The question is simple, “Why have we not been able to find Bigfoot, film, and study this creature in its natural habitat?” Are bigfoots too rare?  Do bigfoots have super keen senses and brain power? Do they hide in steep mountain hide outs? Do they detest humans which motivates them to hide better? Are they dying out? Are they migrating north to Canada?  

 

Because "we" aren't smart enough, especially in the domain that they call home.

[hiflier]

BobbyO, yes "we" are smart enough! What's holding us back now though is our stubbornness in how "we" go about the kinds of "research" that we do, or should I say have been more comfortable doing. Change is hard, but changing how we approach this subject is what we must do. And we can't be afraid of academia or F&W in order to make that move. In fact, my opinion is, if we do and start reaching out it will give us credibility just by saying we need help. And in seeking that help we are turning to science for it. The reason? The reason is that science KNOWS that it CAN where all else has failed. Scientists have egos too! And us knowing that, we can make them feel good about taking up the challenge. What have we got to lose? 

Edited January 15, 2020 by hiflier

[georgerm]

 

  On 1/11/2020 at 10:05 AM, georgerm said:

This question is very simple, but there are many answers that begin to create a complicated picture. There are many researchers looking for Sasquatch, and the use of technology is becoming more complex yet the results are still poor. The quality of researchers is improving with some having advanced degrees in primatology. The question is simple, “Why have we not been able to find Bigfoot, film, and study this creature in its natural habitat?” Are bigfoots too rare?  Do bigfoots have super keen senses and brain power? Do they hide in steep mountain hide outs? Do they detest humans which motivates them to hide better? Are they dying out? Are they migrating north to Canada?  

 

Pick anyone of the reasons and explain why we are not finding bigfoot. What's the biggest factor? Establish a theory and then we can add evidence. Science is demanding but can be enjoyable once the hard shell is broken so we can see the moving parts. Some reasons are more powerful than others. You could list the reasons for not finding bigfoot in order from the most likely to the least likely, then expound on the most likely. 

 

Oh, another reason why we can't fine BF is some of us don't want to go alone in the deep dark woods and camp out. We don't want to spend a few nights looking for bigfoot since we don't have a reliable partners to camp out. Yeah, a partner like a combat Marine. My theory is bigfoot knows that if it picks off and eats one lone camper, that it will get off 'scot free' or nothing will happen. If it tries this while a group that's camping, then it's going to die in a barrage of gun fire.

[georgerm]

11 minutes ago, hiflier said:

BobbyO, yes "we" are smart enough! What's holding us back now though is our stubbornness in how "we" go about the kinds of "research" that we do, or should I say have been more comfortable doing. Change is hard, but changing how we approach this subject is what we must do. And we can't be afraid of academia or F&W in order to make that move. In fact, my opinion is, if we do and start reaching out it will give us credibility just by saying we need help. And in seeking that help we are turning to science for it. The reason? The reason is that science KNOWS that it CAN where all else has failed. Scientists have egos too! And us knowing that, we can make them feel good about taking up the challenge. What have we got to lose? 

 

16 minutes ago, hiflier said:

 

Hiflier your point is well taken. We need to identify why we are not finding bigfoot, then adjust our research methods. Tromping through the woods and call blasting is not getting it. Bigfoot is probably not fooled and heads away from us.

[7.62]

You keep saying finding but many people have had encounters with these things. I f you mean by finding bigfoot meaning track them down to the place they sleep?

 

I don't think that's going to happen.

[hiflier]

12 minutes ago, georgerm said:

We need to identify why we are not finding bigfoot, then adjust our research methods

 

But we already know why. It's been stated numerous times. We are a fractured group/community. There is no group effort. NAWAC is okay but they need MORE people. The Olympic Project is okay but they nee more people. And I'm talking about more people at one time in one place. But even that probably will end up short because of being on foot with the sheer amount of physical ground to cover. Terrain that has numerous avenues for escape. How does one or a group hope to get more than a glimpse at best? Not going to happen. The problem is we're on foot trying to find something that is much better on foot. Go to the source of the howl, go to the place where the wood knock occurred. There won't be anything there. Find the nest, there won't be anything in it.

 

So then, how does one beat such a quarry? Historically? Obviously we haven't. Mainly for the reasons I give. We are the creature's ONLY predator. It doesn't need a skill set beyond simply staying away from us. It's why I harp on e-DNA. I cannot get away from that. We finally have a method for proof. The sooner we act on it, the better. I'm meeting with someone next week. Just got the confirmation email today. If I can do it, believe me, anyone can.

[vinchyfoot]

12 hours ago, hiflier said:

 

But we already know why. It's been stated numerous times. We are a fractured group/community. There is no group effort. NAWAC is okay but they need MORE people. The Olympic Project is okay but they nee more people. And I'm talking about more people at one time in one place. But even that probably will end up short because of being on foot with the sheer amount of physical ground to cover. Terrain that has numerous avenues for escape. How does one or a group hope to get more than a glimpse at best? Not going to happen. The problem is we're on foot trying to find something that is much better on foot. Go to the source of the howl, go to the place where the wood knock occurred. There won't be anything there. Find the nest, there won't be anything in it.

 

So then, how does one beat such a quarry? Historically? Obviously we haven't. Mainly for the reasons I give. We are the creature's ONLY predator. It doesn't need a skill set beyond simply staying away from us. It's why I harp on e-DNA. I cannot get away from that. We finally have a method for proof. The sooner we act on it, the better. I'm meeting with someone next week. Just got the confirmation email today. If I can do it, believe me, anyone can.

 

The Olympic Project is OK, the NAWAC is too far down the pro-kill path and as such have lost objectivity, as is led to by statements that we are its only predator. we dont even know what the thing is, so we don't know that much. we will never advance the subject with people stating opinion as fact.

[hiflier]

1 hour ago, vinchyfoot said:

 

The Olympic Project is OK, the NAWAC is too far down the pro-kill path and as such have lost objectivity, as is led to by statements that we are its only predator. we dont even know what the thing is, so we don't know that much. we will never advance the subject with people stating opinion as fact.

 

Gave you an upvote because you're right we speculate much here. IF the thing exists, what would be it's other predators? I could see surprise skirmishes with bears perhaps, or mountain lions, but not death?

[wiiawiwb]

16 hours ago, BobbyO said:

 

Because "we" aren't smart enough, especially in the domain that they call home.

 

Dr Mayor, in one of the episodes of Expedition Bigfoot, mentioned how she was 2' away from a 450lb silverback gorilla and didn't know it was there. They are masters of their universe and survive by being stealthy and hidden.

[wiiawiwb]

15 hours ago, georgerm said:

 

 

Oh, another reason why we can't fine BF is some of us don't want to go alone in the deep dark woods and camp out. We don't want to spend a few nights looking for bigfoot since we don't have a reliable partners to camp out. Yeah, a partner like a combat Marine. My theory is bigfoot knows that if it picks off and eats one lone camper, that it will get off 'scot free' or nothing will happen. If it tries this while a group that's camping, then it's going to die in a barrage of gun fire.

 

I agree there is a reluctance of people to go off-trail, by themselves, and stay overnight in remote areas.  You have to be on top of your game and have ample experience with a variety of outdoor and/or survival techniques.

 

I don't agree that sasquatch pick off people who are alone or if it does happen it is exceedingly rare.  If that were the case they'd also look longingly at a lone hiker who would also be an easy target.  Let's face it, they can take any one of us any time they want and there is nothing we can do about it.

 

A sasquatch has likely seen what happens when a human goes missing. Hundreds of humans immediately arrive along with their dogs, big machinery, helicopters, and they tear up the area looking for the missing person.  I bet that is a reminder to leave a human alone lest their life be turned upside down.

 

I'd also bet the incidence of a camper/hiker/backpacker/investigator having a firearm while alone overnight in the deep woods is staggeringly high and they'd know it.

 

[hiflier]

1 hour ago, wiiawiwb said:

Let's face it, they can take any one of us any time they want and there is nothing we can do about it.

 

That's what that space between their eyes is for  And although I only carry a short machete It's all about knowing where and how to direct it   Regardless, it will probably end up being my last not-so-great defiant act.....

Edited January 16, 2020 by hiflier