Why Is Bf So Hard To Find And Document?

[GuyInIndiana]

Also I have never read a BF book

Probably one of the smartest things you could do. There's so much contradictory, bad information out there it will only confuse you more.

[Guest RedRatSnake]

Hi

I agree cause it leads to what i call, ( Not today i am iffy syndrome ) some days you think BF is a real living breathing animal ready to run out in front of you and cause you to crash into a tree, and the next day you read something and think it is just another one of those myth's that belong with the folks that think Egyptians had Airplanes ~

Tim

[Guest wild eyed willy]

I think your right Snake, I don't think BF lives in new england. I think one may occasionally travel through the area, but I think habitation happens in more open states.

Edited September 12, 2011 by wild eyed willy

[Guest wild eyed willy]

Probably one of the smartest things you could do. There's so much contradictory, bad information out there it will only confuse you more.

Hi guy, My brother is moveing to indiana next week.

[Doc Holliday]

.........I suspect based on personal experience that those having good luck simply aren't sharing it.

and i suspect youre probably correct about this.

take a look at how anything BF that even smells promising gets swarmed over.

whether its a possible shooting, a foot ,toenail, whatever, it gets pounced on quickly & the "he said-she said " starts in high gear.

if i had proof ( and i do not ) , whether it was anything from a BF body or just a booger i doubt id say a word publicly.

and i can see why folks that may be really in the know & have good areas & evidence would never let it surface.

& that, imo, is part of why BF might be so hard to find & document..............

[Guest Kerchak]

Yes, like an unclassified, undiscovered, 8-foot bipedal human-like man-ape wood-devil,

I don't think sasquatch is a supernatural 'devil'?

that is stealthier than the best trained ninja,

I don't think sasquatch is stealthier than the best trained ninja. People have allegedly heard them crashing through the forest and screaming, haven't they?

is supposedly witnessed hundreds of times each year,

I don't think every report is genuine.

has a sufficient breeding population that they continue to proliferate our forested areas,

I don't think they are numerous and widespread.

yet they conveniently disappear if searched for,

I don't think many people are spending a lot of time seriously searching for them.

are impervious to bullets,

Um I thought one of the most recent claim was that 2 had been shot and killed?

and their only weakness is cameras.

Patty looks fine on camera.

Your thinking seems to be that every report and everything that has ever been credited to sasquatch has to be accepted, or none at all.

That's where you are going wrong, in my opinion. No wonder you are so overly cyncial.

[Guest Kerchak]

And did he film the leopard?

Yes he did film the leopard.... because he was paid to sit there for 7 weeks in the same spot day after day with a great field of view across an open tree less scree slope. He was ready to give up after a month, but seeing as the BBC were paying him he stayed on.

I don't know of anyone who is being paid to sit in the same spot for almost 2 months trying to film a sasquatch. What is one of the most often heard comment whenever there is a sasquatch documentary? I'll tell you what it is. It's "we don't have much time........"

[Guest]

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..

Great post Bobbyo.I think you hit the nail on the head.It only makes perfect sense.

[georgerm]

Yes he did film the leopard.... because he was paid to sit there for 7 weeks in the same spot day after day with a great field of view across an open tree less scree slope. He was ready to give up after a month, but seeing as the BBC were paying him he stayed on.

I don't know of anyone who is being paid to sit in the same spot for almost 2 months trying to film a sasquatch. What is one of the most often heard comment whenever there is a sasquatch documentary? I'll tell you what it is. It's "we don't have much time........"

Excellent point. This is exactely why we don't have good pictures of BF. If we paid hundreds of these wildlife videophotographers to stalk Bf then we would have good material to see. Once a good video is captured that brings in the frogskins then the floodgates will be opened and everyone will be out stalking BF. All we need is for someone to luck out with one hour of footage showing BF doing super human activities such as running down a deer and bang..............the move to capture BF on film will be in full gear.

Edited September 13, 2011 by georgerm

[Guest RayG]

[1]I don't think sasquatch is a supernatural 'devil'?

[2]I don't think sasquatch is stealthier than the best trained ninja. People have allegedly heard them crashing through the forest and screaming, haven't they?

[3]I don't think every report is genuine.

[4]I don't think they are numerous and widespread.

[5]I don't think many people are spending a lot of time seriously searching for them.

[6]Um I thought one of the most recent claim was that 2 had been shot and killed?

[7]Patty looks fine on camera.

[8]Your thinking seems to be that every report and everything that has ever been credited to sasquatch has to be accepted, or none at all.

[9]That's where you are going wrong, in my opinion. No wonder you are so overly cyncial.

[1] Never mentioned 'supernatural'. Wood-devils is an actual term used for bigfoot-like creatures.

[2] Funny that... bigfoot is so stealthy and elusive we still haven't identified/classified him, able to slip away with no more disturbance than a shadow, yet he sometimes makes more noise than a county fair when beating a hasty retreat. Maybe the noisy ones are the stupid ones. I mean they can't ALL be brainiacs, right? Every once in awhile there's gotta be one smart as a bag of hammers.

[3] I don't think every report is genuine either. In fact, when I took a closer look at some of the reports, I went from staunch believer to decidedly undecided.

[4] They must be numerous and widespread, or we wouldn't be getting dozens and dozens of reports each year from all across North America.

[5] Why does one have to be seriously looking for bigfoot to find one? The one that ARE seriously looking don't seem to have much, if any, success. Krantz and Dahinden died without ever seeing one, yet both were serious searchers. I suspect I'll die before bigfoot is ever officially discovered/identified/classified, and I accept that.

[6] Bigfoot claims are easy to make. Verification of bigfoot claims, not so easy.

[7] Patty looks fine to PGF proponents, not so fine to non-believers. For me there simply isn't enough evidence that Patty is a heretofore undiscovered/unidentified/unclassified animal, or that it's a man in a suit. Either show me a body (or sufficient part of one), or the suit.

[8] You would be incorrect in thinking I think that way. I go where the evidence leads. If the evidence leads nowhere, what should I conclude? That bigfoot was responsible anyway?

[9] Nah, I'm more of a pessimist. After 40 years of this, I don't have to dig through every huge mountain of poo to realize there's probably no bigfoot underneath. So far history is on my side, though I'd like nothing better than to be proven wrong.

RayG

[Guest Kerchak]

[1] Never mentioned 'supernatural'. Wood-devils is an actual term used for bigfoot-like creatures.

Why use an obscure terminology with obvious supernatural undertones though? The very name 'devil' suggests supernatural or spiritlike connection. You could have used any number of obscure regional name variations yet you chose a name that has supernatural meanings, thus making your point a bit more extreme.

Funny that... bigfoot is so stealthy and elusive we still haven't identified/classified him, able to slip away with no more disturbance than a shadow,

You missed all the casts and trackways? They may well be authentic. You can't say with any real assurance that they never leave any disturbance. It's not if it we don't have any alleged ground disturbances made by sasquatch.

If there were no alleged casts and tracks at all then I would be with you. But there are alleged casts and trackways.

yet he sometimes makes more noise than a county fair when beating a hasty retreat.

A crashing branch is "making more noise than a country fair"?

As I said before, some people are determined to try and pin extremes onto the subject and make out that it must be the case. That doesn't really help.

Maybe the noisy ones are the stupid ones. I mean they can't ALL be brainiacs, right? Every once in awhile there's gotta be one smart as a bag of hammers.

I don't think any are "brainiacs".

Again, your exaggerated extreme descriptions don't help.

I don't think every report is genuine either. In fact, when I took a closer look at some of the reports, I went from staunch believer to decidedly undecided.

Yet you seem to be arguing the case that there aren't any sasquatch more than you seem to be arguing the case that there might be sasquatch.

They must be numerous and widespread, or we wouldn't be getting dozens and dozens of reports each year from all across North America.

I'll say again. It's not the case that we have to accept everything or nothing. I personally don't believe that has to be the case.

[Guest Kerchak]

Why does one have to be seriously looking for bigfoot to find one?

Because I don't believe they are plentiful or are widespread over the entire continent. I don't believe they are behind every tree stump and every bush in every state of the USA.

The one that ARE seriously looking don't seem to have much, if any, success. Krantz and Dahinden died without ever seeing one, yet both were serious searchers.

How much time did Krantz really spend out there? I don't even believe he got his one man helicopter up and running.

And how much time did Dahinden spend doing (for example) what that BBC cameraman did when he was paid to film the snow leopard? I believe Dahinden spend more time chasing up reports and speaking to witnesses. Of course he did get out into the back country a lot too but did he ever set up a hide in an (alleged) known sasquatch hotspot and stay there for months?

Bigfoot claims are easy to make. Verification of bigfoot claims, not so easy.

Exactly. Which is why I don't automatically accept all reports, especially in the age of the internet where it's easy to garner attention. Within seconds you can reach a worldwide audience these days.

Patty looks fine to PGF proponents, not so fine to non-believers.

Actually she looks fine, or at least somewhat interesting, to many previously non 'believers' as well. In my circles of friends down the years I have personally known a fair number of people without much knowledge of bigfoot who have either thought "hmmmmmmmm interesting" or have actually become convinced when watching the PGF. I have come across many others on (non bigfoot related) internet forums who also have been swayed or thought "maybe". Of course there are out and out cynics who will just dismiss no matter what. However, thankfully the world is not crammed full of cynical JREFers.

For me there simply isn't enough evidence that Patty is a heretofore undiscovered/unidentified/unclassified animal, or that it's a man in a suit. Either show me a body (or sufficient part of one), or the suit.

So are you saying that Patty looks fine enough to you to not be obvious its a man in a suit at least? Well that's cool. So Patty remains an intriguing tantalising 'maybe'?

You are not a PGF proponent, yet you don't dismiss it either.

You would be incorrect in thinking I think that way.

But from what I am reading here you have just described bigfoot as a brainiac, impervious to bullets, numerous, stealthier than a Ninja wood devil so you seem to be collecting every extreme together and coming up with a cynical overall description of a creature which, going by your profile, even I would consider nonsense.

I go where the evidence leads. If the evidence leads nowhere, what should I conclude? That bigfoot was responsible anyway?

No. I certainly don't do that so I don't think you should either.

Nah, I'm more of a pessimist. After 40 years of this, I don't have to dig through every huge mountain of poo to realize there's probably no bigfoot underneath.

Well I don't dig through every huge mountain of poo either.

So far history is on my side, though I'd like nothing better than to be proven wrong.

History is full of animals rejected by science or the 'establishment' (whatever you want to call it) but later turning up for real.

[Guest]

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

That makes even less sense than usual, parn...

[Guest]

I don't believe they are behind every tree stump and every bush in every state of the USA.

No one I know of thinks that either, but there IS plenty of appropriate habitat in most states that could support such creatures.

Anywhere there are bears, there's no reason why you can't have BF.

History is full of animals rejected by science or the 'establishment' (whatever you want to call it) but later turning up for real.

A whole ark of animals, natural phenomina like ball lightning, meteorites, etc.

Science has a bad habit of arrogantly saying "If we don't say it's so, it isn't so..." and then being served up a nice serving of crow. Not that it ever learns from that fact...

[Guest wild eyed willy]

Ray, have you really been a BF researcher for 40 years?

Do you field research or study reports?

Was there one incident or report that got you interested in the subject?