Why Is Bf So Hard To Find And Document?

[Guest]

Might as well ask; "why was the massive effort to find and capture the abortion clinic bomber Eric Rudolf by what was probably the most sophisticated and expertly conducted search ever a failure, even though it was pretty well known he was in a relatively small area covering a couple of counties of mountain woodlands in the Appalachians?"

Here's an experiment: go hiking for a day or two with a fit teenager who is experienced at travelling in the woods and who knows the terrain, and tell them you'll give 'em a hundred dollars if they can avoid being clearly photographed by you over a day or two...give 'em 5 minutes head start...and you'll see why BF is so hard to document.

I think the reason we cannot easily and dependably document BF is because they are not just smart, but possess a kind of intelligence we ourselves have and few other animals do. It's the kind of intelligence that empowers them to realize that they're being followed and to second guess how it is that they are being followed and what their pursuers are thinking as a kind shared understanding of what is going on.

[BobbyO]

While some people commenting on bigfoot forums may have never stepped foot in the woods, I'm not one of them. Throughout my military career I've had military bush survival training, was taught to traverse unknown forests at night with a map and compass, have personal experience in night-time offensive and defensive maneuvers with regards to attacking and defending a field headquarters unit, have personal experience at deploying camo-netting for a communications vehicle in forested locations, have eaten from a mess tent or out of a cardboard box more times than I care to remember, and I was trained to kill humans. Never had to mind you, but I assure you, I'm very very good at hitting what I'm aiming for.

And prior to joining the military I spent more time in the woods than I did at my friends. I explored, followed trails, made forts, climbed trees, hunted, fished, hiked, observed nature, and thoroughly enjoyed my wooded playground.

In short, I'm not afraid of the woods, feel comfortable in the woods, and I've been trained to adequately defend myself in unfavorable situations while in the woods.

So, what type of woods experience/survival/night-time/combat/weapons training do you think is adequate?

RayG

& do you know what Ray, i've had none of that nor feel the need to have it nor have any interest in it, yet i've seen one..

Funny old World huh ??

[Guest Forbig]

Might as well ask; "why was the massive effort to find and capture the abortion clinic bomber Eric Rudolf by what was probably the most sophisticated and expertly conducted search ever a failure, even though it was pretty well known he was in a relatively small area covering a couple of counties of mountain woodlands in the Appalachians?"

Here's an experiment: go hiking for a day or two with a fit teenager who is experienced at travelling in the woods and who knows the terrain, and tell them you'll give 'em a hundred dollars if they can avoid being clearly photographed by you over a day or two...give 'em 5 minutes head start...and you'll see why BF is so hard to document.

I think the reason we cannot easily and dependably document BF is because they are not just smart, but possess a kind of intelligence we ourselves have and few other animals do. It's the kind of intelligence that empowers them to realize that they're being followed and to second guess how it is that they are being followed and what their pursuers are thinking as a kind shared understanding of what is going on.

Good point dogu4 there's plenty of places to hide out there and I know I'm not no Sasquatch but if they were looking for me out there they'd have to be hell bent to find me.

[Guest parnassus]

I'll bang the same Drum again & say that we massivley underestimate their capabilites in their own Environment..

It seems we evolved to be able to build Skyscrapers, go to the Moon & make Nucleaur Weapons, & they evolved by just mastering disguise, their stealth, their ability to remain concealed & their ability to be in COMPLETE control in their own Environment..

I can't really make it any simpler than that if i tried harder..

Wait, is this an apex predator or a 9 foot tall monarch butterfly??? Do you see the problem there?

[Guest RayG]

We can go back & forth with this & that Ray but if you don't think/believe/understand that they are in completel control in their own environment, then that says more about you than it does anything else..

No, I don't understand.

I question whether or not bigfoot is in COMPLETE control of their environment, if they can be scared off so easily by a puny hairless human wielding a camera. Time after time we hear about how fast bigfoot retreats at the mere glimpse of a camera. I truly don't see how that constitutes being in COMPLETE control of your environment, when you hand that environment over to the hairless human.

Unless we're using different definitions of 'environment' and 'complete'. To me environment means physical surroundings/terrain/territory/turf/domain/habitat/neck of the woods, and complete means absolute/entire/all/whole/total.

Also not sure how that says anything about me other than I'm a stickler for words and their meanings.

& do you know what Ray, i've had none of that nor feel the need to have it nor have any interest in it, yet i've seen one..

And I have no desire to demean or pigeon-hole your amount of woods knowledge, I was responding to the poster who seemed to imply I was just a naysayer with no woods experience whatsoever, and that my contribution was only worth .02 cents. That's simply not the case. It's worth at least a nickle.

The whole 'armchair enthusiast' vs 'goes out in woods every day' mentality gets rather tiresome after awhile.

RayG

[Guest parnassus]

Might as well ask; "why was the massive effort to find and capture the abortion clinic bomber Eric Rudolf by what was probably the most sophisticated and expertly conducted search ever a failure, even though it was pretty well known he was in a relatively small area covering a couple of counties of mountain woodlands in the Appalachians?"

Here's an experiment: go hiking for a day or two with a fit teenager who is experienced at travelling in the woods and who knows the terrain, and tell them you'll give 'em a hundred dollars if they can avoid being clearly photographed by you over a day or two...give 'em 5 minutes head start...and you'll see why BF is so hard to document.

I think the reason we cannot easily and dependably document BF is because they are not just smart, but possess a kind of intelligence we ourselves have and few other animals do. It's the kind of intelligence that empowers them to realize that they're being followed and to second guess how it is that they are being followed and what their pursuers are thinking as a kind shared understanding of what is going on.

Rudolph is a human being, a species whose proof of existence doesn't depend on whether a single human here or there can evade capture for a few months or even years.

[Guest Primate]

A monarch butterfly doesn't care about being seen,much less a 9 foot one.

[Guest parnassus]

All it takes is a ride over a wilderness area in a helicopter to truly appreciate what a difficult task it would be to find something that is probably one of the smartest creatures on earth(speculation, of course:) that doesn't want to be found. It wouldn't be hard at all to remain undetected by humans. We are one of the most unequipped species that roams the forests. We are slow, our hearing/eyesight isn't that good, our sense of smell is weak, and we generally always stick to roads, or trails, and rarely go off the beaten path.

Think about this. If you were to take 20 members of Seal Team 6, and break them up in 5 groups of 4, in a wilderness area of 1,000,000+ acres, and told them that if they remained undetected by anyone for a couple months, that they would receive a million bucks each, and then offer John Q. Public the same to find them, but only allowed a couple hundred people a day to look, do you think they'd ever find them? I seriously doubt it. What tactics would they implore to remain hidden? They would probably be similar to Squatches, IMO. They'd also have all their gear, with nightvision, etc, but have to hunt their food, and gather water.

So is it your position that no Bigfoots exist outside of a few inaccessible areas of the pacific northwest where no humans go, and that they have always lived only there?

[Guest RayG]

Doesn't care about being seen?

Nor, apparently, does bigfoot, given the number of times he's supposedly been spotted.

RayG

[georgerm]

It is cool that Ray and other poster talk of enjoying the woods and exploring. Exploring is what gets my heart going too. Well even if we don't find BF right away, at least Biggie gets us motivated to go out in the great outdoors, explore, and get a work out.

We just got a tent trailer and spent 5 days at Loon Lake, which is east of Reedsport, Oregon. The area is dense forest with these 70 foot high sandstone cliffs that run for long distances which makes climbing in some places impossible unless one is good with ropes and climbing gear. There are many recent reports from this area. If we try to get inside the mind of BF we might have better luck at finding BF. One factor is BF knows the best areas in a 5 square mile radius to hide from other predators and humans. BF probably laughs at hiding from us, and spends time devising ways to nest in hard to access areas with narrow paths across rock ledges. Mark these areas on maps of our research area.

However to find BF means we must explore and search in a smarter manner. We need to share our research areas with others who have specialized equipment. We need to study an areas terrain with topographic maps, then pick the most remote sites that we predict BF will build its nest? Now climb to these target sites with climbing gear and eliminate one area at a time until fresh evidence is found. Of course climbing with ropes eliminates most of us so this might be where inviting specialist in would be wise. However, we can do the next best thing and that is find paths in and out of these target areas, look for hair, and set up remote cameras. BF most likely travels down from its lair at dawn or dust so set up blinds or tree stands near these paths, use scents, know wind drifts and wait.

BF might pick remote areas and then digs out underground dens with disguised entrance holes which explains why we haven't found moma BF with yound toddlers. The may be like moles that come out at night. Our old enemy, the NVA or North Vietnemese dug miles of underground tunnels that we had a hard time finding. I read a report from Vancover Island of an underground den that some hikers found and were rudley escorted by Biggie from the area.

Edited September 10, 2011 by georgerm

[Guest]

i read sighting reports that the bigfoots sometimes travel the forest in groups and that they call out to each other with whooping sounds. This could make finding bigfoots harder because they work in groups.

[Guest wild eyed willy]

Come on Willy eat some more carrots, and come up with some theories on how we can be smarter when it comes to finding BF!

I could eat a truck load of carots and I wouldn't be any smarter. ( I might see better though).

I started out thinking I was dealing with just an animal which could easily be out smarted and tricked. Over time, I ending up very fraustrated with very little working for me. I then met and interacted with some folks who related things I just couldn't easily accept or wrap my mind around, for it sounded much too incredible and belong somewhere in a Hollywood movie or fiction story. I took a giant leap and changed some of my thinking and my past feelings have been blown to pieces over the past year.

From first hand experience, I have witnessed some truly amazing things and abilities that they possess. I don't fully understand how they do it, but I know they do and have documented some of it with night vision and video.

Some reading these words will know exactly from where I speak. Those who don't know will be in the same place I was over a year ago. Hunting for Bigfoot requires a particular knowledge, understanding and acceptance of them. It is not about being favored or chosen, it is about having respect and your attitude towards them. They are not game to be hunted or captured.

Trust me, the majority of the well established Bigfoot groups out there in mass, who treat the Forest People like they were some dumb animal, will be no closer to finding the Holy Grail of proof next month or next year.

If you keep doing the same things you have always done, you will get the sames results, plain and simple. They have and will continue to run established groups of people in circles out there, chasing the wood knocks, howls and bread crum trail of footprints.

Just my opinion folks. I hope it will be a help to someone back at a place I used to be......

This doesn't help, be specific.

What exactly have you learned? What has your research turned up?

[Guest RedRatSnake]

Hi

Is this question for the entire globe or just for the states cause if it's for the States i would like to throw in my two cents as too why they are are so hard to find and or document.

In Massachusetts there are No Bigfoot at all, ~ Zilch ~ None ~ Nada ~ Non existent not a one no wear to be found or smelled.

And don't anyone bring up that crazy Bridgewater Triangle thing cause it is a bunch of BS and i live within 5 miles of it, Giant snakes and Pterodactyls in Massachusetts with our winters ~ Huh !

Tim

[Guest]

In my opinion BF are swamp and night critters and we humans don't like or do well in either of those situations.

Until real scientists who have access to the money to do real research accept the possibility of BF it won't happen.

Of course most of them think it is just fiction anyway.

[Guest wild eyed willy]

Hi

Is this question for the entire globe or just for the states cause if it's for the States i would like to throw in my two cents as too why they are are so hard to find and or document.

In Massachusetts there are No Bigfoot at all, ~ Zilch ~ None ~ Nada ~ Non existent not a one no wear to be found or smelled.

And don't anyone bring up that crazy Bridgewater Triangle thing cause it is a bunch of BS and i live within 5 miles of it, Giant snakes and Pterodactyls in Massachusetts with our winters ~ Huh !

Tim

RRS there are several reports out of Mass. One good one I can think of was from leominster.