Why can't we find and study Bigfoot?

[7.62]

53 minutes ago, vinchyfoot said:

 

 

Just as well as those trying to shoot one and coming up empty as well, so all this "Hunter posturing" is kind of amusing at this point. The prize goes to the one who brings in one in whatever form, and the pro killers are no further along than any.

Just my personal views I wouldn't shoot one unless I feel an attack is imminent  to my self or anyone I'm with but at this point I won't disparage a view of people or groups who seek to kill one in the purpose of science . But if one or a group was causing havoc on my property including killing one of my dogs I would kill them, no question

[norseman]

2 hours ago, NatFoot said:

 

I hope you know I was completely joking on "calling you out".

 

I'm not in a position to do that to 90% of the people here and it's not like you're taking pictures of leaves or trying to gain a following by manipulating people by saying you are so special you can talk to groups of Sasquatches across the country telepathically. You also don't see Sasquatch in every single thing you find while you're outdoors.

 

Of course! Love ya bud!

3 hours ago, vinchyfoot said:

 

Excuse me for not giving every effort blind acceptance, fact  is , yes they're well funded, and have been doing this for some time and haven't gotten one. Maybe it's time to more closely scrutinize their efforts. Because, yes, I think they've lost objectivity. SHooting one isn't the only way. It is a way, but hardly the only one.

 

Blind acceptance? More like you need to educate yourself before spouting off! They are as multi faceted as anyone else.

 

And yes..... they havent gotten one. Neither has anyone else right? Is the BFRO well funded? Yes. So why single out NAWAC? Because they are pro kill thats why.

 

Your bias is showing.

[Huntster]

4 hours ago, vinchyfoot said:

.......Ah... the Youtuber/Paredolia method.......

 

Yes. No shortage of that kind of sasquatch research, IMHO. Do you suggest more? How many who profess an aggressive pro-kill approach are out there? 

[vinchyfoot]

1 hour ago, norseman said:

 

Of course! Love ya bud!

 

Blind acceptance? More like you need to educate yourself before spouting off! They are as multi faceted as anyone else.

 

And yes..... they havent gotten one. Neither has anyone else right? Is the BFRO well funded? Yes. So why single out NAWAC? Because they are pro kill thats why.

 

Your bias is showing.

 

I'm not singling them out, the Top Level of the BFRO is nothing but a business and with profit as their chief motive everything they say and do should be scrutinized

1 hour ago, Huntster said:

 

Yes. No shortage of that kind of sasquatch research, IMHO. Do you suggest more? How many who profess an aggressive pro-kill approach are out there? 

 

If you're talking about the Youtube arena, I think the Howtohunt guy is likely the closet contender that sort of thing. He at least definitely looks at things through a Hunter's scope so to speak.

[Huntster]

4 minutes ago, vinchyfoot said:

.......If you're talking about the Youtube arena, I think the Howtohunt guy is likely the closet contender that sort of thing. He at least definitely looks at things through a Hunter's scope so to speak.

 

Actually, I'm talking about actual hunters hunting sasquatches with the intent of killing one and extracting. body or parts and surrendering them to "science", whoever that is. The "HowToHunt" guy ain't hunting them. He's as much said so, hasn't he? 

 

Hours/days/nights in the field. Not a hunter or guide talking for hours/days/nights in front of a camera.

 

Please give me an idea of the number of pro-kill hunters that are out there hunting compared to YouTube narrators, tree photographers, game cam trappers, etc. I'd like to know if there are too many killers out there. After all, a complete, thorough program is essential, no?

[SWWASAS]

On 1/16/2020 at 5:54 AM, wiiawiwb said:

 

 

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.

 

Most people carry visible firearms so if BF knows much at all about them, they well know who is armed and who is not.    A researcher who frequents an area has probably been evaluated as to their intent if they carry.    In spite of a couple of not so friendly encounters,   I never drew a weapon.  I wonder what would have happened had I done that. I assumed because I was not confrontationally attacked,  that I did not need to draw the weapon.   You need to see the threat to shoot it.   We have to assign bigfoot quite a bit of intelligence to assume intent made any difference to them.   I honestly cannot say I know if it did.   

[Foxhill]

On 1/16/2020 at 3:06 PM, NathanFooter said:

 

 I apologize for my pointed replies, I have become a very blunt person these days as I am not exactly a new comer to this subject.  I am open to self reflection or considering a point of perspective from other angles but I am also very experienced for my age.   Some would suggest I know something and others may say that my level of bias has made things less than clear. ( make of that what you will )

 

  I continue to stand by my points, in short it is most likely an issue of very smart, very few and very little search.  I asked you to back up your position that discovery should have happened with all the boots and eyes out over the years, you have not effectively done so.  I pointed out that Jane was entirely outfitted for years to specifically study chimps, not that she was any kind of expert at the time, it was simply a perfect storm at a time that nobody was.  She did have local guides who set her up very well, she consulted those with encounters/sightings.

 

 My point is that no serious level of education/expertise has been conducting investigation into this subject.  The direction of effort matters when examining something specific, to find creatures with intelligence you need to apply intelligence.  If you wanted to find an 8 foot ninja living in an wilderness area would you call a biologist or a psychologist, LOL.

 

 I am very aware of the level of forest/environmental impact humans had in the early construction of North America, effectively we laid wast to the majority of old growth forests by way of logging and river diversion. Many forms of wildlife numbered within 10% of their original population due to over-hunting, exposure and reduced breeding habitat. 

 

 The truth is that science has been phobic of Sasquatch since the beginning for a variety of reasons ranging from religion to industry and as of now a top down position on academic interest in conducting investigation of topic ( several biologists come to mind who can tell you it is more than a perspective ). Science has not investigated this topic,  if you disagree then can you provide some evidence of this position that can render the point ?

 

 This creature has been here for a very long time and the behaviors have not changed, the body of evidence remains consistent and does not illustrate the hallmarks of simple human story telling as the data is clearly not fictitious, the patterns we can note closely mirror standards within biology ( outside of misidentification ).   This particular section of discussion is very wide and would need a new thread.  

 

 

No need to apologize, blunts ok!  I don't think you've said anything you would not say to me face to face and the same goes for me. We might have a spirited discussion and it may even include a few bad words but I think we'd do it with a smile on our faces and could agree to disagree then go look for Bigfoot. A lot gets lost when discussing stuff on the internet LOL.

 

 Science is driven by where the evidence takes it in regards to any new discovery, its not phobic about Bigfoot or any new discovery. It's just that they have reached the same conclusion most people have.

  There's nothing to indicate further study. 

 

 Just as with the OP and your point,  how do you explain a near continent wide destruction/exploitation of flora and fauna over 300yrs and an 8' tall ninja has avoid providing even one shred of scientifically verifiable evidence? 

Yet eyewitness reports indicate its increasing population continent wide to this day, there my be a scientific study of the Bigfoot phenomenon, some day but I doubt it will involve a biologist. 

 

I would suggest that the majority of discoveries of new creatures above 1lb where made by people just like you and me, because they were either eating them or being eaten by them.  Then the scientist came along and "discovered" them.

 

Unfortunately the only evidence that will survive any scientific scrutiny has not been produced, the only thing we've got is, stories, some obvious fake footprint cast and a cowboys Bigfoot movie at this point. 

 

 

[Huntster]

22 hours ago, hiflier said:

........if a Sasquatch falls out of a tree and no one is there to see it, do they bounce?

They don't fall out of trees.

 

They fly..........

 

 

[ShadowBorn]

On 1/16/2020 at 6:30 PM, hiflier said:

It would be more convenient if the Bigfoots would simply fall out of them once in a while. Unless no one's there. I mean if a Sasquatch falls out of a tree and no one is there to see it, do they bounce?

Hiflier

Really! how will anyone see a SaS fall out of tree if no one is there to see it bounce if.  But I can honestly say that I did get a picture of maybe one materialize out of no where if you look in to this picture closely. 

 

 

Just look to the left with in the teepee and you can see the figure right below that light. It seems to be staring at me with in that teepee. Very strange figure and well camo'ed or in predator mode. Not the first time that I have seen them in this predator mode since they are very stealthy and can hunt you down when they want too. But what the heck do I know right.

Edited January 17, 2020 by ShadowBorn

[SWWASAS]

Must really be in predator mode because I don't see it.    

[wiiawiwb]

2 hours ago, Foxhill said:

Just as with the OP and your point,  how do you explain a near continent wide destruction/exploitation of flora and fauna over 300yrs and an 8' tall ninja has avoid providing even one shred of scientifically verifiable evidence? 

Yet eyewitness reports indicate its increasing population continent wide to this day, there my be a scientific study of the Bigfoot phenomenon, some day but I doubt it will involve a biologist. 

 

I would suggest that the majority of discoveries of new creatures above 1lb where made by people just like you and me, because they were either eating them or being eaten by them.  Then the scientist came along and "discovered" them.

 

Unfortunately the only evidence that will survive any scientific scrutiny has not been produced, the only thing we've got is, stories, some obvious fake footprint cast and a cowboys Bigfoot movie at this point. 

 

 

1) Can you define what "scientifically verifiable evidence" is? 

2) "Obvious fake footprint cast" - obvious to whom? If you, what are you're credentials?

3) Hair samples. You  haven't included them. Why?

[Huntster]

4 hours ago, Foxhill said:

 

No need to apologize, blunts ok!  I don't think you've said anything you would not say to me face to face and the same goes for me. We might have a spirited discussion and it may even include a few bad words but I think we'd do it with a smile on our faces and could agree to disagree then go look for Bigfoot. A lot gets lost when discussing stuff on the internet LOL.

 

 Science is driven by where the evidence takes it in regards to any new discovery, its not phobic about Bigfoot or any new discovery. It's just that they have reached the same conclusion most people have.

  There's nothing to indicate further study. 

 

 Just as with the OP and your point,  how do you explain a near continent wide destruction/exploitation of flora and fauna over 300yrs and an 8' tall ninja has avoid providing even one shred of scientifically verifiable evidence? 

Yet eyewitness reports indicate its increasing population continent wide to this day, there my be a scientific study of the Bigfoot phenomenon, some day but I doubt it will involve a biologist. 

 

I would suggest that the majority of discoveries of new creatures above 1lb where made by people just like you and me, because they were either eating them or being eaten by them.  Then the scientist came along and "discovered" them.

 

Unfortunately the only evidence that will survive any scientific scrutiny has not been produced, the only thing we've got is, stories, some obvious fake footprint cast and a cowboys Bigfoot movie at this point. 

 

The "cowboy film" is as good as photographic evidence is going to get, so that's out.

 

Footprint casts, especially cast at the same site as the film was shot, is as good as trace evidence is going to get, so that's out too.

 

So why don't you just come out and say it?:

 

It has to be carcass. Nothing else will satisfy you.

[Patterson-Gimlin]

11 hours ago, Huntster said:

 

The "cowboy film" is as good as photographic evidence is going to get, so that's out.

 

Footprint casts, especially cast at the same site as the film was shot, is as good as trace evidence is going to get, so that's out too.

 

So why don't you just come out and say it?:

 

It has to be carcass. Nothing else will satisfy you.

Great post. You described my feelings exactly.  No body= No proof. 

[hiflier]

59 minutes ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

No body= No proof. 

 

Thanks for the reminder. I'm sure that in all the confusion no one has remembered. But I know you well enough that what you are really saying is "No body= No Bigfoot".

Edited January 18, 2020 by hiflier

[Foxhill]

20 hours ago, wiiawiwb said:

 

1) Can you define what "scientifically verifiable evidence" is? 

2) "Obvious fake footprint cast" - obvious to whom? If you, what are you're credentials?

3) Hair samples. You  haven't included them. Why?

 

1) Bigfoot will need to conform to the same scientific scrutiny that every other remarkable discovery has, say like the gorilla. This isn't like were talking about a sub-species of the gob-stopper snail darter.

2) By me I'm an expert in imaginary creature footprints LOL,  just a cursory internet inquiry will yield the answer, unless of course your suggesting that Bigfoot wears shoes.

3) Unless the hair sample is attached to a body, its never going to happen, you will never prove Bigfoot real with DNA until you have a sample from a confirmed body to compare it to. 

18 hours ago, Huntster said:

 

The "cowboy film" is as good as photographic evidence is going to get, so that's out.

 

Footprint casts, especially cast at the same site as the film was shot, is as good as trace evidence is going to get, so that's out too.

 

So why don't you just come out and say it?:

 

It has to be carcass. Nothing else will satisfy you.

 

Well that's not necessarily the case, if friendly relations are established with the Bigfoot nation, I certainly could be convinced by a meet and greet just let me know when and where.