Why can't we find and study Bigfoot?

[Lam90]

On 1/23/2020 at 7:50 PM, Crtclthnkr said:

Many animals are rare and elusive. Way fewer people report seeing a grey wolf or wolverine than report a Bigfoot encounter. Yet we still have clear, crisp photos of wild wolves and wolverines.     So for me,  things just add up...yet...but I will say I do believe many of the reports of Something being seen, heard, etc.. ..Maybe a person, or a bear...I think I might prefer a bigfoot to these other options! 

I agree. I’m 99% believer, but there’s that 1% of me that’s skeptical due to these types of things. It makes so little sense. I have no explanation. 

[SWWASAS]

23 minutes ago, Redbone said:

Sorry to be 'that guy' but the news story you linked was from Oct 2, 2013, when they showed the breathing rug and the wookie mask.

I heard about some new video on the radio and this came up.   I did not check it out very carefully.    Thanks for setting me straight.     Maybe something new is out there.    They must be referencing a newly digitized picture of the P/G film.     Old ground.  

Edited January 28, 2020 by SWWASAS

[SWWASAS]

20 minutes ago, Lam90 said:

I agree. I’m 99% believer, but there’s that 1% of me that’s skeptical due to these types of things. It makes so little sense. I have no explanation. 

I have had personal contact but lately I am thinking that BF is even more rare than most people think.    Some numbers thrown around would have BF being seen far more often than it is.    My contacts were with a small family group that when logging displaced them from my former research area,   I cannot figure out where they moved to.   I did not think they would move very far but it must be scores of miles.      So far away that I have yet to reestablish contact.   I have been stumped for 3 years now.    Maybe they moved in with the mother in law?  

[Lam90]

Just now, SWWASAS said:

I have had personal contact but lately I am thinking that BF is even more rare than most people think.    Some numbers thrown around would have BF being seen far more often than it is.    My contacts were with a small family group that when logging displaced them from my former research area,   I cannot figure out where they moved to.   I did not think they would move very far but it must be scores of miles.      So far away that I have yet to reestablish contact.   I have been stumped for 3 years now.    Maybe they moved in with the mother in law?  

 I find the numerous sightings/experiences to be incredibly compelling. Even if 50% are misidentifications/hoaxes that still leaves A LOT of experiences, and I have no way of factoring in unreported experiences which are probably even more common than reported ones. My experience (not a sighting) was easily explainable as a bear or cougar, yet I told nobody but family for 34 years because I knew I’d be mocked (someone tried to convince me it was a deer when I shared it online last year, which shut me up till I discovered this forum). I can imagine an actual sighting would be far more difficult to share. 
 

I'm imagining the mother-in-law sighing with resignation. What can she do?? Family is family! Seriously, is your experience posted somewhere? I’ll look for it. 

[SWWASAS]

My stuff is so old it is probably archived by now.    Long time members are likely tired of hearing about it.    If you cannot find it let me know and I can PM the details.    I hear you about telling people.      I told a neighbor when I found my first footprint.    He went into a rant and basically told me that since bigfoot did not exist,  my footprint must be something else or I was nuts.     While misidentification of a footprint can always happen,   the only thing anywhere near the size would be a double polar bear print.     He did not even lower himself to look at the picture of the print.   I would not speak to the guy for over 6 months and things are never going to be the same.  

[Huntster]

On 1/23/2020 at 10:46 AM, bipedalist said:

I still think the overpass/underpass cameras should have produced some viable images from WDOT by now........

 

Agreed......to an extent. My reasoning on why they haven't:

 

1) Here in Alaska, where there are plenty of wolverines (as that species density is compared worldwide), the only wolverine cam pic taken by government that I personally know of in North America was one at a live wolf trap on Ft. Richardson, and that pic was never released to the public for their enjoyment.

 

2) See #1 above. The fact that no image of a sasquatch from a WDOT cam has been released doesn't necessarily mean that one or more don't exist.......somewhere.

 

3) As rare as wolverines are (and there are no comprehensive density estimates for North America), my own guesstimate is that there are probably 5-10 wolverines per sasquatch on this continent......and maybe more. 

 

4) In 45 years of living in rural Alaska and working and playing extensively in the outdoors there (including bear baiting with the use of a game cam since @ 2001), I have only seen 1 confirmed wolverine in the wild, another that might have been a wolverine (also possibly a fox), personally know just a few people who have caught wolverines in traps or shot them, and only caught a wolverine on my game cam at my bear bait once.

[CaveMan]

We can’t find and study bigfoot because we’re trying to find and study Bigfoot. The approach has to change. If you get teams dedicated to shoot and kill a Bigfoot rather than seek to have a sighting then you become a lot more tactical. Think how much stealth and planning goes into hunting big game. Meanwhile we expect to waltz into the woods and just find a Sasquatch. They’re playing chess while we’re playing checkers. 

[Huntster]

One of the things that Lyle Laverty says to this very day about the PG film is that he was suspicious that a pair of Washington cowboys came and got the film after others lived and worked in those woods for over a decade and found footprints and trace evidence galore, but never had a sighting.

 

I know lifelong moose hunters who have never busted the 60" antler milestone, and yet my brother got a 67"er on the second moose hunt of his life.

 

I've fished southcentral Alaska waters for halibut for nearly 40 years and never caught a confirmed >100 lb halibut. My high school buddy comes up and goes halibut fishing for the first time in his life. I catch two in the 90 lb class, he catches one over a hundred, and a 215 lb monster (weighed at the harbor).

 

It really boils down to luck..........

[Doug]

SWWASAS, I tend to agree that Sasquatch is on a down trend in my area anyway. Other than one "encounter" in the mid 70s on some timber company land about 20 miles from my parents homestead, which is just outside of Dallas Oregon, the late 70s through the mid 90s regular summer and fall in our "back yard", which other than two or three houses reached almost to the coast without any other houses or settlements until the town of Siletz, "encounters"  were regular with one clear sighting by my brother. Throughout most of the 90s two of our hunting areas that were within 20 miles of each other near Valsetz Oregon, "encounters" happened regularly with one sighting by my hunting partner. Now all those places a dead as far as Sasquatch goes.

[7.62]

5 hours ago, CaveMan said:

We can’t find and study bigfoot because we’re trying to find and study Bigfoot. The approach has to change. If you get teams dedicated to shoot and kill a Bigfoot rather than seek to have a sighting then you become a lot more tactical. Think how much stealth and planning goes into hunting big game. Meanwhile we expect to waltz into the woods and just find a Sasquatch. They’re playing chess while we’re playing checkers. 

The NAWAC have been trying for years doing exactly what you posted . They set up ground blinds with thermal and night vision , try to walk and stalk , still hunt them during the day with no success .  I don't think it's that easy because you really really have to be sure before you fire that round. There's no do overs once you send that lead down range .

[georgerm]

12 hours ago, Doug said:

SWWASAS, I tend to agree that Sasquatch is on a down trend in my area anyway. Other than one "encounter" in the mid 70s on some timber company land about 20 miles from my parents homestead, which is just outside of Dallas Oregon, the late 70s through the mid 90s regular summer and fall in our "back yard", which other than two or three houses reached almost to the coast without any other houses or settlements until the town of Siletz, "encounters"  were regular with one clear sighting by my brother. Throughout most of the 90s two of our hunting areas that were within 20 miles of each other near Valsetz Oregon, "encounters" happened regularly with one sighting by my hunting partner. Now all those places a dead as far as Sasquatch goes.

 

There are many reason why we are not readily finding bigfoot. One big reason is they are rare, and smart. Smart by knowing how to detect humans and how to evade us. 

 

We are here in Coos Bay that is SW Oregon. and it's difficult to know how the bigfoot populations are holding up. There are supposed to be up to 40,000 Black Bears in Oregon, and they seem to like the same habitat as Sasquatch. I never see Black Bears either, and I assume Sasquatch is much more rare. Maybe for every 100 bears there is 1 sasquatch. That leave 400 sasquatches for the whole state or Oregon. 

[georgerm]

10 hours ago, 7.62 said:

The NAWAC have been trying for years doing exactly what you posted . They set up ground blinds with thermal and night vision , try to walk and stalk , still hunt them during the day with no success .  I don't think it's that easy because you really really have to be sure before you fire that round. There's no do overs once you send that lead down range .

 

The method used by the NAWAC are tried and true for other big game, so it just a matter of time before they have success. My guess is bigfoot knows they are being hunted with guns so they evacuate the area, then remain in their nocturnal mode. The fact that humans are clumsy during the night and bigfoots are very skilled navigating night forest, bigfoots have a tremendous advantage. Being rare and great nocturnal skills for not finding bigfoots  As night vision gets better, the odd of finding bigfoot increase greatly.

 

In 1977, during the night while sleeping out, my sketch shows what I saw for about 5 minutes. I was not looking for bigfoot, but it found me. The forest was partially lit by the moon. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Madison5716]

1 hour ago, georgerm said:

There are supposed to be up to 40,000 Black Bears in Oregon, and they seem to like the same habitat as Sasquatch. I never see Black Bears either, and I assume Sasquatch is much more rare. Maybe for every 100 bears there is 1 sasquatch. That leave 400 sasquatches for the whole state or Oregon.

 

Interesting. 

 

There are 36 counties in Oregon, which averages to less than a dozen in each county. Some counties will have better habitat than others, which might mean more, and some less. I also assume they are migratory to some degree - either having winter habitat and summer habitat, and more migrations through longer distances for other reasons, like finding mates that are unrelated. That's sn interesting idea to consider. Looking for patterns in the PNW, specifically WA, BC and OR.

[SWWASAS]

12 hours ago, 7.62 said:

The NAWAC have been trying for years doing exactly what you posted . They set up ground blinds with thermal and night vision , try to walk and stalk , still hunt them during the day with no success .  I don't think it's that easy because you really really have to be sure before you fire that round. There's no do overs once you send that lead down range .

I know nothing about NAWAC but the tactics you mention might work with deer and bear but when you set up a blind in BF territory they probably watch you do it and avoid it as long as it is there.   Certainly stalking something that moves several times faster is not likely to work either.     As a former military aviator I equate tactics like that to getting in a Korean war era fighter like an F-86 and hunting for people flying F-16s.   You might get a lucky shot but you will never close and achieve a kill on an enemy that is that much faster if they know you are there.    An analogue example of lucky and clever tactics is that when the ME 262 German jets appeared over Germany,  they were so much faster than the best Allied Fighters,    that none were shot down until someone followed one back to their home base and shot it down when it slowed down to land.     We need to find bigfoots home base and nail or learn about it there.   

[7.62]

52 minutes ago, SWWASAS said:

I know nothing about NAWAC but the tactics you mention might work with deer and bear but when you set up a blind in BF territory they probably watch you do it and avoid it as long as it is there.   Certainly stalking something that moves several times faster is not likely to work either.     As a former military aviator I equate tactics like that to getting in a Korean war era fighter like an F-86 and hunting for people flying F-16s.   You might get a lucky shot but you will never close and achieve a kill on an enemy that is that much faster if they know you are there.    An analogue example of lucky and clever tactics is that when the ME 262 German jets appeared over Germany,  they were so much faster than the best Allied Fighters,    that none were shot down until someone followed one back to their home base and shot it down when it slowed down to land.     We need to find bigfoots home base and nail or learn about it there.   

There's no easy answer but thermal does even the playing field a bit. If you are to believe the accounts of researchers seeing them on thermal ( including ones here)

Then it's possible but who takes the shot is the question