Simple question for Bigfoot enthusiasts: Why no unambiguous photos/videos?

[kitakaze]

To all those who believe in Bigfoot, please watch the following videos.

The elusive and rare white kermode/spirit bear (in prime BF habitat):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vspuhFs5lZE

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VjvpOU349zY&feature=related

Rare white deer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_TvkB1-XeE&feature=related

Florida panthers:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6szikcgOW1E

Rare elusive Javan rhinos:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QTELuPmncGM

Wolverine images:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmG7mEXqdcA

Ultra-rare venomous mammal, solenodon:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lWjyLIZr26Y

First ever footage of ultra-rare bulbous-headed snub fin dolphin:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zakPeyXCUNk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dzF-DvNkt9s&NR=1

Ultra-rare and elusive Pakistan snow leopard:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPHxlqjNQhY

Tibetan blue bear in the wild and captivity:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8961496281db02e9b.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=14775)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/8961496281f29bc1d.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=14776)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/89614962821bee6c7.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=14777)

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_896149628277711eb.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=14778)

OK, footers. What's the deal? Why are there no unambiguous photos or videos of Bigfoot? Why can't I see an unambiguous video of Bigfoot on youtube. You would have us believe these creatures live all over North America (as well as other continents like Asia and Australia) and that there are over 400+ sightings a year. If you try to argue just for a specific area, show how you were able to dismiss others areas.

What is the precedent for a massive land mammal living across major industrialized nations with a viable breeding population and no reliable evidence, unambiguous photos or videos, or type specimen. It is ludicrous and insane. Will you please try and honestly confront this problem? Don't talk to me about remote wilderness. That's not the way Bigfoot is reported. Don't talk to me about only the PNW. Over 2/3 of reports come from outside it. Don't talk to me about eastern cougars. I linked videos of Florida panthers.

Any excuses or apologism will be dismantled. Can you handle this question?

[manofthesea]

OK, footers. What's the deal? Why are there no unambiguous photos or videos of Bigfoot? Why can't I see an unambiguous video of Bigfoot on youtube.
?

Did you know the average American never figured how to set their VCR clocks? Do you know the average intelligence of bigfoot hunters and their corresponding capabilities of properly operating a camcorder? The few who have are worthy of Monsterquest and other shows.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cL9Wu2kWwSY

[kitakaze]

Did you know the average American never figured how to set their VCR clocks? Do you know the average intelligence of bigfoot hunters and their corresponding capabilities of properly operating a camcorder? The few who have are worthy of Monsterquest and other shows.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cL9Wu2kWwSY

That is not a valid argument of why there are no unambiguous photos or images of this supposed giant mammal living, eating, sleeping, pooping, finding each other, mating, and dying all across the continent. Name any of the large mammals of North America currently existing and I can immediately show you that animal on youtube. Why can I not do this with Bigfoot? Insulting the intelligence of your fellow Americans and Bigfoot enthusiasts doesn't help you at all. An animal that you claim will chase people, scream as loud as a jet plane, cause all the woodland creatures to flee before it á la The Smurfs, and level the forest to get at you, and living across NA with viable breeding numbers that have been sustained for tens of thousands of years would have been filmed many, many times by now.

To argue otherwise is just mind-numbingly ridiculous.

[manofthesea]

Insulting the intelligence of your fellow Americans and Bigfoot enthusiasts doesn't help you at all.



But you don't deny it. The truth may be politically incorrect, but it must be brought up in defense of inaccurate comparisons. Like my point in the "why no bigfoot roadkill" thread. I asked for the number of other apes roadkilled in their native habitat. All I got was obfuscation.

It's a valid point. Considering that the prefered method of hunting bigfoot is banging trees with a stick and packing an audio recorder. While pistol hunting from their car. On the outskirts of some yahoo town.

[rjh01]

Here is a youtube of bigfoot. It has had 168,991 views, rating of 4.5 and shows a figure that is very clear. I do not think there will be much discussion on what it is. What more do you want?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OkFsvs_uKr0

[manofthesea]

Insulting the intelligence of ... Bigfoot enthusiasts doesn't help you at all.
.

Do you ever read what you type?

[Vortigern99]

Well, this is the billion-dollar question, isn't it? If I had a few hours to spare, I might put together as thoughtful and well-researched a response as it deserves. Failing that, here are a few thoughts:

If I accept some reported sightings as possibly being true, that does not mean all reported sightings must be equally true. I personally am less inclined to credit reports of a sighting anywhere near civilization, or the more extreme reports of chase or violence -- leveling forests and the like -- than I am those of a reclusive resident of deep wilderness that manages to keep itself hidden most of the time. That it is sometimes spotted is a testament, perhaps, to its objective reality, not that its avoidance skills "suck" as one commentator recently put it.

I cannot speak to bigfoot's presence or absence in any region of the US or Canada other than those I've studied, the PNW and Texas. East Texas contains vast tracts of wet woodland, which according to a chimpanzee rehabilitation center in Louisiana could support and protect wild chimpanzees. (links later; tired) Canada contains over one billion acres of unspoiled woodlands, much of it national preserve, which could conceivably provide nutrition and cover for a small population of wild primates. I've heard a number as low as 200 put forward as necessary for a breeding population to continue for eons.

If these conjectured creatures share ancestry with orangs (which as descendants of Gigantopithecus they might), then it makes sense they might have a similar social structure as orangs -- namely, solitary males and family-group females, who occasionally come together to mate. If food is abundant in the woods of the PNW, from bugs and slugs to roots and nuts and perhaps some foliage and grass shoots, and predation by mountain lions is unlikely based on average size, then this kind of social grouping would make sense, since large social groups, normative to most primate species, are designed to protect food sources and keep predators away.

Why are there no better films than those we have, which are admittedly ambiguous and arguable, when rare bears, deer, rhinos, panthers and the like have clear and unambiguous film and video snapped and shot of them on a regular basis? My guess would be that if bigfoot (plural) exist, then they must have learned to be cautious of human beings, perhaps helping one another avoid humans by means of an "enemy!" call or a similar enculturated response, known among some primate species.

All questions of trace evidence -- bones, fossils, stool -- might be explained as the result of the species residing in montane forest, in which ground erosion, frost, rainfall and soil acidity conspire to wash away or destroy most biologic residue.

These are just opinions and guesses, mind you, not substantiated fact. This is the kind of question that merits entire books being written, as opposed to slim, late-night discussion-board messages based on sheer conjecture.

[Correa Neto]

...snip...All questions of trace evidence -- bones, fossils, stool -- might be explained as the result of the species residing in montane forest, in which ground erosion, frost, rainfall and soil acidity conspire to wash away or destroy most biologic residue...snip...
Sorry, not enough of a reason. I suggest you -again- to use the advanced search function. Try fossils+bigfoot, or something like that, looking for my posts.

The "acid soil & mountain forest" excuses are nothing but footer misinformation.

[tsig]

Well, this is the billion-dollar question, isn't it? If I had a few hours to spare, I might put together as thoughtful and well-researched a response as it deserves. Failing that, here are a few thoughts:

If I accept some reported sightings as possibly being true, that does not mean all reported sightings must be equally true. I personally am less inclined to credit reports of a sighting anywhere near civilization, or the more extreme reports of chase or violence -- leveling forests and the like -- than I am those of a reclusive resident of deep wilderness that manages to keep itself hidden most of the time. That it is sometimes spotted is a testament, perhaps, to its objective reality, not that its avoidance skills "suck" as one commentator recently put it.

I cannot speak to bigfoot's presence or absence in any region of the US or Canada other than those I've studied, the PNW and Texas. East Texas contains vast tracts of wet woodland, which according to a chimpanzee rehabilitation center in Louisiana could support and protect wild chimpanzees. (links later; tired) Canada contains over one billion acres of unspoiled woodlands, much of it national preserve, which could conceivably provide nutrition and cover for a small population of wild primates. I've heard a number as low as 200 put forward as necessary for a breeding population to continue for eons.

If these conjectured creatures share ancestry with orangs (which as descendants of Gigantopithecus they might), then it makes sense they might have a similar social structure as orangs -- namely, solitary males and family-group females, who occasionally come together to mate. If food is abundant in the woods of the PNW, from bugs and slugs to roots and nuts and perhaps some foliage and grass shoots, and predation by mountain lions is unlikely based on average size, then this kind of social grouping would make sense, since large social groups, normative to most primate species, are designed to protect food sources and keep predators away.

Why are there no better films than those we have, which are admittedly ambiguous and arguable, when rare bears, deer, rhinos, panthers and the like have clear and unambiguous film and video snapped and shot of them on a regular basis? My guess would be that if bigfoot (plural) exist, then they must have learned to be cautious of human beings, perhaps helping one another avoid humans by means of an "enemy!" call or a similar enculturated response, known among some primate species.

All questions of trace evidence -- bones, fossils, stool -- might be explained as the result of the species residing in montane forest, in which ground erosion, frost, rainfall and soil acidity conspire to wash away or destroy most biologic residue.

These are just opinions and guesses, mind you, not substantiated fact. This is the kind of question that merits entire books being written, as opposed to slim, late-night discussion-board messages based on sheer conjecture.

I like how you can read BF's mind and know aspects of their culture. Did you gain this knowledge by living among them or did some Indian tracker tell you?

How does the "enemy" call differ from the "friend" call? If we knew this we could go in the forest and call them in.

[kitakaze]

I cannot speak to bigfoot's presence or absence in any region of the US or Canada other than those I've studied, the PNW and Texas. East Texas contains vast tracts of wet woodland, which according to a chimpanzee rehabilitation center in Louisiana could support and protect wild chimpanzees. (links later; tired) Canada contains over one billion acres of unspoiled woodlands, much of it national preserve, which could conceivably provide nutrition and cover for a small population of wild primates. I've heard a number as low as 200 put forward as necessary for a breeding population to continue for eons.

A population of 200 individuals would be a genetic bottleneck, be teetering on extinction, and could not account for the sightings as reported. Look at this BFRO Texas report map:

http://bfro.net/GDB/state_listing.asp?state=tx#map

A giant beast living in vialble breeding numbers so close to Dallas is not going to escape being filmed. People live and work in those areas. The TBRC has had cameras in those areas like Big Thicket for years and no Bigfoot.

If these conjectured creatures share ancestry with orangs (which as descendants of Gigantopithecus they might), then it makes sense they might have a similar social structure as orangs -- namely, solitary males and family-group females, who occasionally come together to mate.

If Patty was a Bigfoot, she wasn't a Gigantopithecus. Her jaw is no match for Giganto. We have Giganto jaws to look at and they're huge. Patty doesn't compare in that regard. Also Giganto most likely ate largely bamboo with some fruits like jackfruit and durian. This is going to greatly affect their behaviour.

If food is abundant in the woods of the PNW, from bugs and slugs to roots and nuts and perhaps some foliage and grass shoots, and predation by mountain lions is unlikely based on average size, then this kind of social grouping would make sense, since large social groups, normative to most primate species, are designed to protect food sources and keep predators away.

Remember, gorillas need around 9000 calories a day. Where is a viable breeding population of sasquatches getting the well over 9000 calories it needs in a day in Big Thicket, Texas, while never appearing on one of the many game trails in the area?

Why are there no better films than those we have, which are admittedly ambiguous and arguable, when rare bears, deer, rhinos, panthers and the like have clear and unambiguous film and video snapped and shot of them on a regular basis? My guess would be that if bigfoot (plural) exist, then they must have learned to be cautious of human beings, perhaps helping one another avoid humans by means of an "enemy!" call or a similar enculturated response, known among some primate species.

But if they're like orangutans like you mention, they're going to be found. From orangs to the newly described Bili apes, apes are inquisitive animals. Orangs will often approach humans. Young orang males are notorious for their bad behaviour and the way in which they will harrass female orangs. If they're living in numbers enough to be making danger calls to one another when humans approach, it wouldn't matter if they learned to mimic "I've got a gun and I'll shoot!" They're still going to be found.

All questions of trace evidence -- bones, fossils, stool -- might be explained as the result of the species residing in montane forest, in which ground erosion, frost, rainfall and soil acidity conspire to wash away or destroy most biologic residue.

No, this part doesn't work. I mentioned this in another thread. That's not the way Bigfoot is reported. 2/3 outside the PNW and plenty of archaeology in the PNW with fossil finds. We have bones for everything else currently maintaining breeding populations there, why not one of the biggest. You should definitely read Correa's posts on this. Did Bigfoot learn with the assistance of the Shaman of the Whills the Jedi art of becoming force ghosts upon death? That would make more sense almost!;)

These are just opinions and guesses, mind you, not substantiated fact. This is the kind of question that merits entire books being written, as opposed to slim, late-night discussion-board messages based on sheer conjecture.

Yes, Bill Munns said something similar to that, I believe...

[Correa Neto]

Before some enthusiast pops out claiming there are clear images, here's my updated collage of bigfoot imagery.
http://i34.photobucket.com/albums/d150/AVCN/bigfootimages200903.jpg
Veredict options (more than one may apply to each image)- Hoaxes, suspected of being hoaxes, too blurry to be of any use, misidentifications.
Unless, of course, you wish to believe bigfeet are blurry and/or people who take pics of bigfeet can't operate cameras...

[kitakaze]

How does the "enemy" call differ from the "friend" call? If we knew this we could go in the forest and call them in.

Simple...

1 knock for enemy.

2 for friend.

3 for garlic and beans.

4 and a plaintive moan for Bigfoot orgy.

[CurtisP]

Here is a youtube of bigfoot. It has had 168,991 views, rating of 4.5 and shows a figure that is very clear. I do not think there will be much discussion on what it is. What more do you want?

Best bigfoot ever.

[Biscuit]

Why are there no better films than those we have, which are admittedly ambiguous and arguable, when rare bears, deer, rhinos, panthers and the like have clear and unambiguous film and video snapped and shot of them on a regular basis? My guess would be that if bigfoot (plural) exist, then they must have learned to be cautious of human beings, perhaps helping one another avoid humans by means of an "enemy!" call or a similar enculturated response, known among some primate species.

What experiences has bigfoot had with mankind that caused it to be cautious of us? Is it equally cautious of all other animals?

This is starting to sound like the bigfoot legend of it being a protector of the woodlands and having a supernatural origin and purpose. How could a reclusive and rare animal that lives in the most remote sections of the world have all learned to be cautious of humans?

[GT/CS]

Wasn't there a really clear photo of a huge bigfoot in Florida?

If I remember correctly a forest fire forced it out of the woods and it was seen by some helicopter pilots who were afraid of losing their jobs so the didn't report it. Luckily, a local resident, who was taking a photo of the helicopter found it in the photo.

I know the photo is around here somewhere.

[desertgal]

Why are there no better films than those we have, which are admittedly ambiguous and arguable, when rare bears, deer, rhinos, panthers and the like have clear and unambiguous film and video snapped and shot of them on a regular basis? My guess would be that if bigfoot (plural) exist, then they must have learned to be cautious of human beings, perhaps helping one another avoid humans by means of an "enemy!" call or a similar enculturated response, known among some primate species.


But, if we presume that BF exist, and that at least some of the reported sightings are genuine, then BF aren't avoiding humans. They're simply, somehow, avoiding being photographed clearly-which, unless they are just naturally blurry, would be impossible on their part.

Which takes us back to the original question: if BF does exist, why isn't there, at least, one example of a clear photograph or film footage?

And it is absurd to suggest that it is because many Americans can't program the clocks on their VCR's. My dad never figured out how to program the clock on his VCR, and he still managed to get pictures of deer and bear in Yosemite and Denali. He also stuck a double piece of masking tape over that darn VCR clock so he wouldn't have to see it flashing. Humans may have blind spots, but they can also think outside the box. If BF did exist, a determined human surely should have been able to get a clear picture by now.

[Correa Neto]

GT, you are talking about Creekfreak. The "bigfoot" of his picture can be seen in my collage just below Patty, to the left of the GAboys' bigfoot corpse. It was shown to be a doctored picture.

[kitakaze]

GT, you are talking about Creekfreak. The "bigfoot" of his picture can be seen in my collage just below Patty, to the left of the GAboys' bigfoot corpse. It was shown to be a doctored picture.

Actually, I think GT is almost certainly referring to the Myakka skunk ape photo. It was featured prominently in the MQ skunk ape episode. Some think it is a fake while others are sure it is an orangutan.

ETA: Here are the images:

http://www.lorencoleman.com/images/SkunkApe-OrangComparison2.jpg

http://www.itsnature.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/03/myakka_skunk_ape_1.png

http://www.lorencoleman.com/images/Myakka_ape2_closeup.jpg

And a separate myakka ape video. Typical guys in the trees vid:

57Ofm6xajw4

Again ETA: *properly reads GT's post* :mgduh

[drapier]

You guys are too serious. GT was having a little bit of fun at Creakfreak's expense.

[desertgal]

Actually, I think GT is almost certainly referring to the Myakka skunk ape photo. It's was featured prominently in the MQ skunk ape episode. Some think it is a fake while others are sure it is an orangutan.

No, I think he's referring to Creekfreak's photo, as well. Creek stated that the creature came out of the woods because of a forest fire, in front of a fire helicopter, and he claimed the pilots didn't report it because they were afraid of losing their jobs. If you remember, the focus of the full picture was the helicopter itself.

[kitakaze]

But, if we presume that BF exist, and that at least some of the reported sightings are genuine, then BF aren't avoiding humans. They're simply, somehow, avoiding being photographed clearly-which, unless they are just naturally blurry, would be impossible on their part.

Which takes us back to the original question: if BF does exist, why isn't there, at least, one example of a clear photograph or film footage?

And it is absurd to suggest that it is because many Americans can't program the clocks on their VCR's. My dad never figured out how to program the clock on his VCR, and he still managed to get pictures of deer and bear in Yosemite and Denali. He also stuck a double piece of masking tape over that darn VCR clock so he wouldn't have to see it flashing. Humans may have blind spots, but they can also think outside the box. If BF did exist, a determined human surely should have been able to get a clear picture by now.

Think outside the box? Aren't avoiding humans? What does that remind me of?

Oh yes! The MABRC trip out the sasquatches and get ambushed by four of them video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktXRRkawM9s

YIKES! :yikes:

Darkwing takes flight and No Mercy finds mercy.:D

[Drewbot]

Actually, I think GT is almost certainly referring to the Myakka skunk ape photo. It was featured prominently in the MQ skunk ape episode. Some think it is a fake while others are sure it is an orangutan.


ERR. Wrong, obviously referring to the Creekfreak photo of the blobstump, the uncropped photo of which, included a forest service helicopter. Even a little blackmail on the part of creek to reveal the photo to the press didn't land him a job with Florida Wildlife.

http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w178/Ty426/Big-foot-001.jpg

[kitakaze]

Wasn't there a really clear photo of a huge bigfoot in Florida?

If I remember correctly a forest fire forced it out of the woods and it was seen by some helicopter pilots who were afraid of losing their jobs so the didn't report it. Luckily, a local resident, who was taking a photo of the helicopter found it in the photo.
I
know the photo is around here somewhere.

Wow, I messed up. Sorry, guys. Late night sleepy eyes. Totally missed the middle. Nevermind me.

[kitakaze]

ERR. Wrong, obviously referring to the Creekfreak photo of the blobstump, the uncropped photo of which, included a forest service helicopter. Even a little blackmail on the part of creek to reveal the photo to the press didn't land him a job with Florida Wildlife.

http://i176.photobucket.com/albums/w178/Ty426/Big-foot-001.jpg

Quite right. My bad. I don't know how I missed that middle part. I don't drink coffee but maybe I should.:o

[kitakaze]

I am glad I made that mistake in a way because I think you actually might get the odd Bigfoot enthusiast that would point to the Myakka skunk ape photo and claim it to be a good, clear image of Bigfoot.

[Correa Neto]

Just a reminder- Makaya, I mean Myakka, is at the right upper corner of my collage; its the orang-utangish thing with the white "beard".

[JcR]

I am glad I made that mistake in a way because I think you actually might get the odd Bigfoot enthusiast that would point to the Myakka skunk ape photo and claim it to be a good, clear image of Bigfoot.

I'm glad you posted the skunk ape Youtube link.
Led me to another cool video. I enjoyed it for some reason. :)
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/upoV_K7OgGY&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/upoV_K7OgGY&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
At 2:22
Bigfoot Rocks Knocks to Bach

[kitakaze]

Correa, what is the one under the Minnesota Ice Man and also the one second from the left on the bottom? Don't think I recognize those.

[sanguine]

What experiences has bigfoot had with mankind that caused it to be cautious of us? Is it equally cautious of all other animals?

This is starting to sound like the bigfoot legend of it being a protector of the woodlands and having a supernatural origin and purpose. How could a reclusive and rare animal that lives in the most remote sections of the world have all learned to be cautious of humans?

Notably, the animals that co-evolved with us in Africa that /are/ intrinsically cautious about humans can still be caught on camera. After all, there's actually nothing intrinsically risky for the animal's health about being caught on camera. A chimpanzee doesn't care that you've got a telephoto lens trained on it.

[Correa Neto]

The reddish stuff under the Minesota Icedummy was initially presented as an alien (captured by gametrail, but I may be mistaken); some people who think outside of the boxe proposed it could be a bigfoot. As for the other one, the green bigfoot, is said to be from Skamania... Just another hoax. There are some three or two threads about it at BFF.

[Vortigern99]

Sorry, not enough of a reason. I suggest you -again- to use the advanced search function. Try fossils+bigfoot, or something like that, looking for my posts.

The "acid soil & mountain forest" excuses are nothing but footer misinformation.

I don't pretend to be an expert in this area. I derived my information on montane forest fossil decomposition from the NASI report, which of course has been shown to be incorrect in other areas and which is not immune to criticism. Nonetheless, in the report, author Glickman quotes British paleontologist Richard Fortey (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Fortey), a non-bigfooter who has written nothing about bigfoot, regarding rapid biological decomposition in montane forest (italicized section, below; the rest is Glickman).

Please point out the errors in Fortey's description and/or in Glickman's observations about them.

From http://www.rfthomas.clara.net/papers/nasi3.html:

Some species leave behind records in the form of fossils, although few individual animals are converted to fossils. There are several possible reasons why fossils of Bigfoot have not been found:

* Non-existence. The phenomenon does not originate from an uncataloged animal.
* Environment. Certain environments are more likely to support fossil formation than others.
* Misclassification. Existing fossils attributed to an inappropriate genus or species.
* Undiscovered. Fossils exist but have not been unearthed.

The process of fossilization does not convert all deceased animals to fossils — most decompose before they can be fossilized because specific environmental conditions are required to create a fossil. Fortey explains fossil formation:

All fossils are found in rocks that were originally unconsolidated sediments... Certain environments which today support a rich and varied plant and animal life have no sediments forming in them, and the organisms living there have virtually no chance of being preserved in the fossil record. Mountainous regions, for example, are dominated by the erosion of the rock forming the ranges, and therefore no permanent sediment is formed there. Torrential rain and rapid weathering, aided in some climates by the action of frost, rapidly destroys much of the organic material: the chances of any preservable remains reaching a lowland river where permanent sediment is accumulating are remote. The faunas and floras of mountainous regions of the past are most unlikely to be represented in the fossil record. The fossilization potential of a mountainous environment is low. [Fortey 1991]

Thus, where the deposition of undisturbed sediment dominates, fossils may form. Where erosion dominates, such as the montane, fossils rarely form. Suspending disbelief momentarily, of the sightings deemed credible by TBRP, most are in the montane environment. Asian reports, such as the so-called Yeti of the Himalayas, are from a similar environment. If these are sightings of an uncataloged animal, then such an environment would rarely produce a fossil.

When the environment of an animal is restricted to a sufficiently small region, and if this region does not support fossil formation, a gap in the fossil record of an animal may form.

The fossil record of ape evolution is confined almost entirely to the Miocene epoch, from 23 million to 5 million years ago... Ape lineages did persist into the Plio-Pleistocene, although some subsequently became extinct. All these surviving lineages were probably more widespread than they were today. However, their record after about 8 million years ago includes only scanty remains of a recently extinct giant ape (Gigantopithecus) and Pliocene fossils of uncertain affinity, all from southeastern Asia. There is no fossil record of chimpanzees or gorillas at all. [Jones 1992]

Science accepts the existence of the gorilla and chimpanzee through the observation of type specimens even though there is no fossil record. As a single dimension, the lack of fossil evidence does not constitute conclusive proof of an animal's non-existence.

[William Parcher]

Correa, what is the one under the Minnesota Ice Man...


I remember that one being discussed on BFF. If I recall, it's a thermal image and the subject is much brighter than shown in that collage. I can't find the specific thread about it, but it may be one from Stan Courtney (http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=17872&st=0).

[Vortigern99]

I like how you can read BF's mind and know aspects of their culture. Did you gain this knowledge by living among them or did some Indian tracker tell you?

How does the "enemy" call differ from the "friend" call? If we knew this we could go in the forest and call them in.

What...? I routinely use the words "might" and "may" and "guess" and "conjecture" to avoid exactly this kind of overreaching criticism. I conjectured that if such creatures exist, one possible explanation for their avoidance of human beings might be calls or "warning" behavior similar to known and documented primate calls and behaviors, which alert other members of its social group to an enemy presence or approach.

I don't "know" anything about them, and I've never met an Indian tracker. Does that answer your question?

[Ashles]

If I remember correctly a forest fire forced it out of the woods and it was seen by some helicopter pilots who were afraid of losing their jobs so the didn't report it.
But if they didn't report it due to fear how would we possibly know...

Oh it's all so pointless to pretend there is any logic to any of it.

[Correa Neto]

Vort, don't worry, I will not use an argument on authority. But before writing anything, I must ask-

Have you checked my posts on this issue as I suggested?

You should know that many of the questions you presented are answered there.

[desertgal]

Think outside the box? Aren't avoiding humans? What does that remind me of?

Oh yes! The MABRC trip out the sasquatches and get ambushed by four of them video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ktXRRkawM9s

YIKES! :yikes:

Darkwing takes flight and No Mercy finds mercy.:D

ROFL! I've never seen that video before. I'm guessing the BF's mistook the plastic toy sound as a plaintive moan calling them to an orgy? :D

[Vortigern99]

A population of 200 individuals would be a genetic bottleneck, be teetering on extinction, and could not account for the sightings as reported. Look at this BFRO Texas report map:

http://bfro.net/GDB/state_listing.asp?state=tx#map

A giant beast living in vialble breeding numbers so close to Dallas is not going to escape being filmed. People live and work in those areas. The TBRC has had cameras in those areas like Big Thicket for years and no Bigfoot.

I'll repeat my earlier observation that not all reported sightings need to be true in order for some to be possibly true, or to inspire investigation into the origins of the phenomenon. I have serious doubts about the Lake Worth creature and indeed, all other sightings in Texas. The gray-haired anthropologist lady with glasses (whose name I've forgotten) who did the "Ask Science" presentation threw out the "200" number when I've routinely heard 2000 from other sources.


If Patty was a Bigfoot, she wasn't a Gigantopithecus. Her jaw is no match for Giganto. We have Giganto jaws to look at and they're huge. Patty doesn't compare in that regard. Also Giganto most likely ate largely bamboo with some fruits like jackfruit and durian. This is going to greatly affect their behaviour.

The last known Giganto. fossil dates from about 300,000 ya. Natural selection would of course have continued during that time, perhaps producing a "Patty"-like animal with morphology adapted to bipedal locomotion and a smaller jaw than that formerly necessary for a foliovorous diet. I'm not suggesting that "Patty" is definitely one such animal (you know my reservations about "her"), simply that such an animal as I've described might conjecturally exist.


Remember, gorillas need around 9000 calories a day. Where is a viable breeding population of sasquatches getting the well over 9000 calories it needs in a day in Big Thicket, Texas, while never appearing on one of the many game trails in the area?

That's a damn good question. The question in my mind isn't the "9000 calorie" question -- bears and wolves used to live in this exact same location, somehow finding enough nutrition to sustain their populations -- but rather how a conjectured large primate would go about (mostly) avoiding detection after decades of human activity in their conjectured habitat. It's a damn good question.


But if they're like orangutans like you mention, they're going to be found. From orangs to the newly described Bili apes, apes are inquisitive animals. Orangs will often approach humans. Young orang males are notorious for their bad behaviour and the way in which they will harrass female orangs. If they're living in numbers enough to be making danger calls to one another when humans approach, it wouldn't matter if they learned to mimic "I've got a gun and I'll shoot!" They're still going to be found.

They might be related to orangs, but that does not perforce mean that all of their behaviors are going to be exactly like orangs. Humans and chimps have very different sets of behaviors, despite our close kinship. I propose the danger call as one possible means of human avoidance; perhaps it's used among the single-female-with-young groups, of whom there are fewer reported sightings, while the solitary males have no such warning system, leading to their more frequent reported sightings. This is all conjecture on my part, a kind of educated guessing game.


No, this part doesn't work. I mentioned this in another thread. That's not the way Bigfoot is reported. 2/3 outside the PNW and plenty of archaeology in the PNW with fossil finds. We have bones for everything else currently maintaining breeding populations there, why not one of the biggest. You should definitely read Correa's posts on this.

Will do. I don't understand how British paleontologist Richard Fortey could be so ignorant and mistaken in his own field, but apparently the question merits closer examination on my part.

Did Bigfoot learn with the assistance of the Shaman of the Whills the Jedi art of becoming force ghosts upon death? That would make more sense almost!;)

"Abuse the Farce, Fluke!" If there are Jedi bigfoot, I wonder if there are Sith bigfoot as well? This could be the next area ripe for study! Darth Sasquatch: Misunderstood Misanthrope, or Tragic Hero of the Bigfoot Wars? YOU be the judge.

[Vortigern99]

Vort, don't worry, I will not use an argument on authority. But before writing anything, I must ask-

Have you checked my posts on this issue as I suggested?

You should know that many of the questions you presented are answered there.

I'll look into your posts on the subject today. Thank you for the suggestion!

[Ashles]

I think I'm starting to see the obsession/addiction to Bigfoot threads.

It's like being a moth and encountering a fearsomely bright light of stupidity.
You know it will burn, but how can you stay away?

[Biscuit]

That's a damn good question. The question in my mind isn't the "9000 calorie" question -- bears and wolves used to live in this exact same location, somehow finding enough nutrition to sustain their populations -- but rather how a conjectured large primate would go about (mostly) avoiding detection after decades of human activity in their conjectured habitat. It's a damn good question.

You are so close!!! Bears, wolves, and bigfoot all need to eat a lot of food everyday in order to survive. Bears and wolves are seen, photographed, captured, studied, tracked, have their carcasses found, and hunted on a regular basis. Why isn't bigfoot even photographed once?

Bigfoot does not exist

[kitakaze]

I'll repeat my earlier observation that not all reported sightings need to be true in order for some to be possibly true, or to inspire investigation into the origins of the phenomenon.

That of course brings us to the problem of deciding what's good and what's bad. This is not a process that Bigfoot enthusiasts seem to be able to agree upon.

I have serious doubts about the Lake Worth creature and indeed, all other sightings in Texas. The gray-haired anthropologist lady with glasses (whose name I've forgotten) who did the "Ask Science" presentation threw out the "200" number when I've routinely heard 2000 from other sources.

Most Bigfooters with a lick of sense know they need to be talking about numbers in the thousands. Two thousand still, I think, would not be enough to account for the reports. Krantz was of the mind that they were doing quite fine and that there were at least several thousand. I think Eugenie Scott was referencing some footer arguing 200. I can't stress enough how excellent I thought her lecture was. I think any problems like mentioning west rather than east Texas were superficial.

The last known Giganto. fossil dates from about 300,000 ya. Natural selection would of course have continued during that time, perhaps producing a "Patty"-like animal with morphology adapted to bipedal locomotion and a smaller jaw than that formerly necessary for a foliovorous diet. I'm not suggesting that "Patty" is definitely one such animal (you know my reservations about "her"), simply that such an animal as I've described might conjecturally exist.

Remember, such an evolution to an omnivorous diet would bring Giganto in direct competition with human ancestors. And that would bring us to the fall down odds of Patty as Giganto descendant evolving the exact same limb proportions as the only guy to ever claim to be her. But we know what we think about that.


That's a damn good question. The question in my mind isn't the "9000 calorie" question -- bears and wolves used to live in this exact same location, somehow finding enough nutrition to sustain their populations -- but rather how a conjectured large primate would go about (mostly) avoiding detection after decades of human activity in their conjectured habitat. It's a damn good question.

Thank you. I haven't seen an answer from Texas' TBRC but Oklahoma's MABRC has cracked out enough to suggest that Bigfoot is intrinsically intelligent enough to understand the concept of game cams and the inherent threat they pose to their eluding humans. They suggest the sasquatches will throw an object in front of the game cam and after it takes a shot, scuttle by unsnapped while the camera recovers.

They might be related to orangs, but that does not perforce mean that all of their behaviors are going to be exactly like orangs. Humans and chimps have very different sets of behaviors, despite our close kinship. I propose the danger call as one possible means of human avoidance; perhaps it's used among the single-female-with-young groups, of whom there are fewer reported sightings, while the solitary males have no such warning system, leading to their more frequent reported sightings. This is all conjecture on my part, a kind of educated guessing game.

The other alternative being that the average person making up Bigfoot fantasies, while being imaginative, is not imaginative enough to break the beast man mold and throw in some kids or females.

"Abuse the Farce, Fluke!" If there are Jedi bigfoot, I wonder if there are Sith bigfoot as well? This could be the next area ripe for study! Darth Sasquatch: Misunderstood Misanthrope, or Tragic Hero of the Bigfoot Wars? YOU be the judge.

If Jedi Bigfoots are like wookie Bigfoots, there may be very few. Burgstahlian Bigfoots do employ Sith-like abilities, including stealth and affect mind techniques.

Whoever completely understood that can join me in the Hall of the Sad.

[kitakaze]

I think I'm starting to see the obsession/addiction to Bigfoot threads.

It's like being a moth and encountering a fearsomely bright light of stupidity.
You know it will burn, but how can you stay away?

Slowly we are turning you. Soon your transformation will be complete.

...muWAHAHAHA!!!

http://i369.photobucket.com/albums/oo140/cpttripps/thestupiditburns.jpg

fell teh bern, mang... kthxbai

[Ashles]

Slowly we are turning you. Soon your transformation will be complete.
Do you know if there anywhere I can find out more about something called 'the Patterson Gimlin film'? :)

[kitakaze]

ROTFLMAO! :D

That was good.

[JcR]

Can I add that Bigfoot is nothing more than conjecture. may be nothing more than conjecture.
Or will hairy tree stumps suffice. (My Evidence)
I guess I could assign certain living habits of Gorillas, Chimps, and Orangutans to my Tree stump. And once you find my Hairy Tree stump, it will be an easy study (no more conjecture) it doesn't move much.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/2839649bebe8244a80.jpg
Dark Stump.

[Bill Munns]

"Quote (by somebody else):
These are just opinions and guesses, mind you, not substantiated fact. This is the kind of question that merits entire books being written, as opposed to slim, late-night discussion-board messages based on sheer conjecture."

(Quote from Kit): "Yes, Bill Munns said something similar to that, I believe... "

I did??? Care to jog my memory?

[GT/CS]

Can I add that Bigfoot is nothing more than conjecture. may be nothing more than conjecture.
Or will hairy tree stumps suffice. (My Evidence)
I guess I could assign certain living habits of Gorillas, Chimps, and Orangutans to my Tree stump. And once you find my Hairy Tree stump, it will be an easy study (no more conjecture) it doesn't move much.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/2839649beb905e30d2.jpg
Dark Stump.

Track down someone named Creekfreak. He can do wonders with that stump!

[Correa Neto]

Must... Not... Make... Joke...
Must... Not... Make... Joke...
Must... Not... Make... Joke...

[xblade]

Did you know the average American never figured how to set their VCR clocks? Do you know the average intelligence of bigfoot hunters and their corresponding capabilities of properly operating a camcorder? The few who have are worthy of Monsterquest and other shows.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cL9Wu2kWwSY

So, basically, you're arguing that bigfoot believers aren't very smart, lol. Not much of a defense on the issue if you ask me.


Quote:
That's a damn good question. The question in my mind isn't the "9000 calorie" question -- bears and wolves used to live in this exact same location, somehow finding enough nutrition to sustain their populations -- but rather how a conjectured large primate would go about (mostly) avoiding detection after decades of human activity in their conjectured habitat. It's a damn good question.


It wouldn't....that's the point.

My guess would be that if bigfoot (plural) exist, then they must have learned to be cautious of human beings, perhaps helping one another avoid humans by means of an "enemy!" call or a similar enculturated response, known among some primate species.

I guess Patty skipped class the day that lesson was taught. Instead of avoiding humans, she did everything she could to be seen, and videotaped no less, by two humans.

Do they also call out to warn one another of all the camera traps spread out all across this country...the same camera traps that catch clear photos of other elusive creatures that DO exist?

If we can get a pic of a raccoon riding a wild boar, I think we should have a decent pic of a bigfoot by now.

http://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/game-cam-coon.jpg

[Spektator]

(snip)

If we can get a pic of a raccoon riding a wild boar, I think we should have a decent pic of a bigfoot by now.

http://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/game-cam-coon.jpg
Hakuna matata!

[LTC8K6]

Do you know if there anywhere I can find out more about something called 'the Patterson Gimlin film'?

No, the information is not obtainable. There is no information about this film, save mention of the name and the creators.

[kitakaze]

If we can get a pic of a raccoon riding a wild boar, I think we should have a decent pic of a bigfoot by now.

http://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/game-cam-coon.jpg

I will never, ever get tired of seeing that. Best game cam shot ever.

JcR, what can we have you do with this?

[EHocking]

So, basically, you're arguing that bigfoot believers aren't very smart, lol. Not much of a defense on the issue if you ask me.And not true. Have another look at the video at Post18 by Kitakaze.
And a separate myakka ape video. Typical guys in the trees vid:


57Ofm6xajw4

Notice that the figure being tracked is always in focus? There is no hunting by the camcorders autofocus as they zoom in and out or track across contrasting foreground and background - unlike most blobsquatch and ufo video.

Also no flaring when the camera pans from relatively dark forest to zoomed in on a (by contrast) bright "clearing" where the subject is.

I have a particularly good digital camcorder, and to have achieved this sort of exposure and focus control I would have had to preset the focus and aperture/exposure manually in order for this video not to be a flaring, blurry mess.

So to claim that bf proponents can't capture a non-blurry image due to incompetence with imaging equipment is patently false.

Of course the subject of the video is completely obscured, so a non-blurry video of an alleged bf is still useless as evidence.

How convenient.:rolleyes:

[Hitch]

If we can get a pic of a raccoon riding a wild boar, I think we should have a decent pic of a bigfoot by now.

http://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/game-cam-coon.jpg

:clap: Well done. A near perfect Chewbacca defense. I am impressed.

[William Parcher]

JcR, what can we have you do with this?

A little Photoshop action can have a Bigfoot hoisting that coon on a hog.

[Drewbot]

Personally I think all the videos I've seen are unambiguous (obviously fake). So I don't know what you are referring to.

A little Photoshop action can have a Bigfoot hoisting that coon on a hog.

Imagine the implications of Bigfoot Tossing a 200 lb hog, with a Raccoon hanging on for dear life.

[Hitch]

Imagine the implications of Bigfoot Tossing a 200 lb hog, with a Raccoon hanging on for dear life.

All because the raccoon laughed at him for trying to open a can of baked beans with a screwdriver.

[Skeptical Greg]

All because the raccoon laughed at him for trying to open a can of baked beans with a screwdriver.
When pancakes could be had, just for the taking..

[kitakaze]

Here is the Bigfoot needed for the throw...

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/2839649baba79d0cf4.jpg

Here is the pig and rider...

http://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/game-cam-coon.jpg

And can Money fit in the mix?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_89614804c128c4113.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=11763)

At the very least we could have a JREF Bigfoot skeptic mascot. There could possibly be a coat of arms, even.

[Ashles]

That cheeky little critter gets around.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_107849bffa9d96b24.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=15711)

[GT/CS]

Here is the Bigfoot needed for the throw...

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/2839649baba79d0cf4.jpg

Here is the pig and rider...

http://mainehuntingtoday.com/bbb/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/game-cam-coon.jpg

And can Money fit in the mix?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_89614804c128c4113.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=11763)

At the very least we could have a JREF Bigfoot skeptic mascot. There could possibly be a coat of arms, even.

So MMM annoys a bigfoot with his calls and gets a 'coon-pig thrown at his head? I like it!

[xblade]

That cheeky little critter gets around.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_107849bffa9d96b24.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=15711)

lol. This has to be real too. You can even see the muscles flexing due to the weight of the raccoon. At any rate, we must view this photo neutrally. It could be a natural animal carrying another natural animal.

[xblade]

:clap: Well done. A near perfect Chewbacca defense. I am impressed.

:D

http://www.teamteabag.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/0330chewbacca.jpg

[Vortigern99]

lol. This has to be real too. You can even see the muscles flexing due to the weight of the raccoon. At any rate, we must view this photo neutrally. It could be a natural animal carrying another natural animal.

Nice impression. Do you do Walken too? ;)

[JohnG]

Canada contains over one billion acres of unspoiled woodlands


Seriously? I'm not even being snarky. That's amazing, if true.


If we can get a pic of a raccoon riding a wild boar, I think we should have a decent pic of a bigfoot by now.


Coon and Boar: They fight crime.

[EHocking]

Originally Posted by Vortigern99 http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4520402#post4520402)
Canada contains over one billion acres of unspoiled woodlands

Seriously? I'm not even being snarky. That's amazing, if true.
Weellll, close enough for government work, I guess.


From Natural Resources Canada (http://canadaforests.nrcan.gc.ca/quickfacts)

Canada has 402.1 million hectares of forest and other wooded land...
(thats 996 million acres)

About 8% of Canada's forest area is protected by legislation. About 40% of the total forest landbase is subject to varying degrees of protection such as integrated land-use planning or defined management areas such as certified forests.
Annually, less than 1% of Canada's forests are harvested.
I guess, from that you could say that 99% are "unspoiled", but this quick fact:

By June 2008, almost 138 million hectares of Canada's forests were certified as being sustainably managed by one or more of three globally recognized certification standards.
.. gives the impression that over 1/3 of Canada's forests are managed - not what I would call unspoiled, but that may be merely semantics.

But I guess the point that was being made was that there is a billion acres of forest that bf can hide in, whereas, from the above facts, 1/3 of that area is managed by various forestry interests - which involves people travelling and working in the area.

Still, a nice little get out for bf searchers and researchers - "Theres over 650 million acres that bf can hide in!"

[JcR]

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/2839649c17845d6c54.jpg
David Hobbs would make a great commentator for this.

[kitakaze]

OMFG... I just laughed so, so, so very hard for, like, 10 minutes. I can't wipe the smile off my face. I dare not look at that again while trying to type. There must be some more recognition I can give this than a post of praise. Can I nominate an image? We should have a poll for JcR's best or maybe a JcR appreciation thread in Humour or Community. It's gold, Jerry! GOLD!!!

:clap::clap::clap:

:bounce2

[kitakaze]

"Quote (by somebody else):
These are just opinions and guesses, mind you, not substantiated fact. This is the kind of question that merits entire books being written, as opposed to slim, late-night discussion-board messages based on sheer conjecture."

(Quote from Kit): "Yes, Bill Munns said something similar to that, I believe... "

I did??? Care to jog my memory?

Sorry, Bill. Just saw you there and remembered I hadn't answered that. Just acknowledging the importance of similar discussions. Here's that post:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4465014&postcount=975

[xblade]

Nice impression. Do you do Walken too? ;)

No, just footer. Sorry.

[Vortigern99]

Ah, good. Well, I'm not a footer, so the imitation doesn't flatter me. But thanks for tryin'!

[patchbunny]

Wolverine filmed near Truckee, California. Until first photographed last year, it's the first confirmation wolverines are in the state since 1922.

Most recent video can be found here. (http://http://www.kcra.com/news/18966905/detail.html#)

Love the clarity of the footage.

[Drewbot]

PatchBunny- Link Broke Kthanxbai

[LTC8K6]

http://www.kcra.com/news/18966905/detail.html#

[Bill Munns]

Kit:

Thank you for the link reference.

JcR:

Loved it!

Bill

[xblade]

Ah, good. Well, I'm not a footer, so the imitation doesn't flatter me.

It wasn't meant to.

[EHocking]

http://www.kcra.com/news/18966905/detail.html#I couldn't get the video quoted upthread to display, but, based on this frame only (and disregarding the fact that the animal actually does exist), I, personally couldn't that your quoted frame as proof of existences. It is for the same reason that I have a number of doubts about the confidence in the evidence for the rediscovery of the Ivory Billed Woodpecker (as a case in point of "poor" supporting evidence). This countered by the fact that I'm an avid birdwatcher, a closet conservationist and an eternal romantic that would dearly wish that the bird was indeed still extant.

Not picking on you personally, but that particular frame is about as good as any blobsqatch shot. If you disregard the fact that the animal does indeed exist, analyse what you can discern from the quality of the photo as a purely intellectual exercise (call it Devil's Advocate if you wish to get formal).

[CORed]

Until somebody comes up with indisputable physical (not photos, movies of videos, they can easily be faked), I' going to go with, "There ain't no such animal."

[patchbunny]

The still shot isn't the greatest, but the video link is quite clear. Don't know why the link is giving folks troubles. It worked on my PC at home and work. :confused:

I look at the video not as much as "this is indisputable proof", but as "if a game camera can capture in excellent clarity a creature that's not been seen in the state for 86 years, where the hell are all the bigfoot videos that show a clear, unambiguous image"?

With that, I'm away from the computer for a while. Enjoy the thread without me. :(

[Orthoptera]

The California wolverine case is a perfect example of why the Bigfoot thing is so ludicrous. On Feb. 28, 2008, a photo trap (one of a large array set out for a marten study) snaps a picture of a wolverine. Within a few days:
Dogs trained to identify wolverine scat were used to search the area. A large grid (approximately 150 square miles) with remote cameras and hair snares was established and monitored. Ground searches were made looking for wolverine tracks. Flights were conducted to detect possible radio telemetry signals from wolverines previously fitted with radio transmitters in studies in Montana.

These combined efforts yielded a search of 155 miles. Approximately 50 scat and hair samples were found and sent to the Forest Service Rocky Mountain Research Station's Genetic Laboratory for analysis.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080327093622.htm

Within a month, DNA analysis had determined the animal's sex and geographic origin.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080403125451.htm

Bigfoot hunters should consider the above referenced articles carefully-- this is how real biologists operate every day.

[JcR]

OMFG... I just laughed so, so, so very hard for, like, 10 minutes. I can't wipe the smile off my face. I dare not look at that again while trying to type. There must be some more recognition I can give this than a post of praise. Can I nominate an image? We should have a poll for JcR's best or maybe a JcR appreciation thread in Humour or Community. It's gold, Jerry! GOLD!!!

:clap::clap::clap:

:bounce2

Thank You... Kitakaze. I am glad I could take part.
Thanks again, it really is appreciated. :)

[LTC8K6]

It's a flash video. Make sure you have the latest Adobe Flash player update.

The video is definitely of a wolverine.

The still has him with the bait sticking out of his mouth, making him look a bit like an anteater.

[JcR]

Kit:

Thank you for the link reference.

JcR:

Loved it!

Bill

Glad you liked it Bill. Many thanks, Thank you for your great model. :)

[bob the analyst]

Do you know why bigfoot may be the smartest and wiliest animal/mammal/creature on earth? It's the one single species or animal/mammal/creature that hasn't been caught or killed yet

[kitakaze]

Do you know why unicorns may be the smartest and wiliest animal/mammal/creature on earth? It's the one single species or animal/mammal/creature that hasn't been caught or killed yet.

Slight alteration.

[JohnG]

You're both wrong:


Do you know why The Loch Ness Monster may be the smartest and wiliest animal/mammal/creature on earth? It's the one single species or animal/mammal/creature that hasn't been caught or killed yet

[Ashles]

Do you know why bigfoot may be the smartest and wiliest animal/mammal/creature on earth? It's the one single species or animal/mammal/creature that hasn't been caught or killed yet
Oh no. So we've already discovered every new species we're ever going to find?

They should have had a little party when they discovered the last one.

[Drewbot]

Do you know why Moon Extron13Delta4 may be the smartest and wiliest Satellite orbiting earth? It's the one Earth's moon that hasn't been discovered yet.

[kitakaze]

You're both wrong:

Do you know why chupacabras may be the smartest and wiliest animal/mammal/creature on earth? It's the one single species or animal/mammal/creature that hasn't been caught or killed yet.

Absolutely. What he said

[quarky]

Let's not forget man-bear-pig.

[WildBackdunesMan]

I couldn't get the video quoted upthread to display, but, based on this frame only (and disregarding the fact that the animal actually does exist), I, personally couldn't that your quoted frame as proof of existences. It is for the same reason that I have a number of doubts about the confidence in the evidence for the rediscovery of the Ivory Billed Woodpecker (as a case in point of "poor" supporting evidence). This countered by the fact that I'm an avid birdwatcher, a closet conservationist and an eternal romantic that would dearly wish that the bird was indeed still extant.

Not picking on you personally, but that particular frame is about as good as any blobsqatch shot. If you disregard the fact that the animal does indeed exist, analyse what you can discern from the quality of the photo as a purely intellectual exercise (call it Devil's Advocate if you wish to get formal).

I am not sure if you have ever seen a Wolverine before, but that picture is not comparable to a blobsquatch... The second I looked at I knew it was clearly a wolverine. Look at the markings on the animal... Also you can perfectly make out a wolverine shape. I covered up the wolverine word, called in a coworker and asked what it was and they instantly said "wolverine, look at the markings that is sweet where was it taken."

[EHocking]

I am not sure if you have ever seen a Wolverine before, but that picture is not comparable to a blobsquatch... The second I looked at I knew it was clearly a wolverine. Look at the markings on the animal... Also you can perfectly make out a wolverine shape. I covered up the wolverine word, called in a coworker and asked what it was and they instantly said "wolverine, look at the markings that is sweet where was it taken."I should have noted, "If this was the only documentary proof of the animal."

I was comparing it's quality - if taken in total isolation from every other evidence for the critter's existence - to the quality of bf (and indeed IBWP) photographic evidence, as an example of why we need to treat such low resolution photographic evidence with caution.

Even if I had thought I'd seen a wolverine before, even if it was known to exist but there was no physical evidence gathered, if this were the only evidence available to prove it's existence I'd still have to leave it in the Wolverine (?) basket. As a birdwatcher who's honest with himself, I have a number of hopeful, wonderous sighting with the disappointing (?) marker next to it's name, because I could not assure myself of a positive ID.

[beachnut]

Do you know why bigfoot may be the smartest and wiliest animal/mammal/creature on earth? It's the one single species or animal/mammal/creature that hasn't been caught or killed yet
He is also the only creature on earth with eternal constipation.

[xblade]

Let's not forget man-bear-pig.

Or Scuzzlebutt.

http://www.leelefever.com/archives/scuzzlebutt.jpg

http://www.leelefever.com/archives/000787.html

[kitakaze]

The California wolverine case is a perfect example of why the Bigfoot thing is so ludicrous. On Feb. 28, 2008, a photo trap (one of a large array set out for a marten study) snaps a picture of a wolverine. Within a few days:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080327093622.htm

Within a month, DNA analysis had determined the animal's sex and geographic origin.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080403125451.htm

Bigfoot hunters should consider the above referenced articles carefully-- this is how real biologists operate every day.

I can't stress enough how fantastic this example is. Here you have an array of gamecams set throughout Northern California, Bigfoot's absolute #1 traditional stomping grounds á la PGF, in a wildlife study intended to increase field data on martens. Now look at the BFRO reports for California. Bada bing bada boom - that's 405:

http://bfro.net/GDB/

What do those cameras capture, other than martens? Something far, far rarer than the allegedly oft-encountered Bigfoot - we got a wolverine in California! That is massive! That's the kind of thing that blows your mind when you head is not in Bigfoot La La Land. That animal may be the only wolverine in the wild in all of California. Scat and hair is collected and DNA analysis made to ascertain the animal's origins. This animal is in Tahoe National Forest in Northern California. Note its position on the map:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tahoe_National_Forest

Now the PGF was filmed a hop, skip, and a jump away in the Six Rivers National Forest. Check the location here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Rivers_National_Forest

Now Bigfoot enthusiasts are going to tell me that there is a viable breeding population of massive mammals many, many times the size of this one wolverine living in Northern California. These animals are obtaining the roughly 12-13,000 calories they will need each day to survive, which would require basically their entire waking life looking for, finding mates, breeding, having young which they teach to survive, and having enough time on the side to throw rocks at humans, learn to mimic other animals, and walk in front of automobiles? All this without ever having relinquished a type specimen to science??

Facepalm. Total, utter facepalm.

[RayG]

Facepalm. Total, utter facepalm.

Bigfootery is filled with facepalms. If people listen to or look at a lot of the outrageous claims, nutjob investigators, wacky organizations, credulous scientists, pseudo-scientific techniques, and flimsy evidence being presented, without doing this:

http://www3.sympatico.ca/raygavel/facepalm.jpg

then I have to question their reasoning abilities. Seriously.

RayG

[kitakaze]

Thank you, Ray. That almost conveys the level of facepalm we are talking about. Almost.

[kitakaze]

One aspect of the question of having proof or reliable evidence for Bigfoot such as an unambiguous video or photo with clear provenance revolves around detecting the alleged animals based on their feeding habits. One point that I often stress is the ludicrous nature of the idea that we could miss massive land mammals maintaining a breeding population across the North American continent, especially considering the massive caloric needs such creatures would have.

This may belong in the Eugenie Scott lecture thread where she discussed gorillas and their 9500 calories per day needed and comparison with hypothetical Bigfoot species but I think the question is not OT here as it relates to their detection (and we avoid resurrecting another BF thread). The subject recently came up at the BFF and one member, ResplendentYeti (like some kind of anti-SweatyYeti), made the following post which I found to be excellent (edited to remove punctuation text error):

The caloric intake of an adult bigfoot is one of the primary reasons I doubt their existence. For the sake of this discussion, I feel it is safe to make the following assumptions:

- Bigfoot is a primate
- A large male Bigfoot would weigh more than a large male gorilla
- The majority of eyewitness accounts describe Bigfoot as being muscular, I don't think I've read many accounts of an obese Bigfoot

According to a recent report by The Federation of Zoos of Britain and Ireland, an average adult male gorilla weighs about 330.6 pounds, and requires between 6000 and 9500 calories per day. I think a large male Bigfoot would weigh considerably more than a gorilla. I believe some estimates on the Patterson-Gimlin subject's weight were in the 600 pound range. So if we assume a conservative weight of an average male Bigfoot at 600 pounds, and had nutritional requirements similar to other primates, we’re looking at 12,000 to over 18,000 calories per day. That is a lot of bugs and roots.

A pound of muscle on average burns twice as many calories as a pound of fat, even at rest. As I mentioned earlier, there are not a lot of fat Bigfoot sightings, so most of the creatures great bulk must be muscle mass.

To eat 12,000+ calories per day, every day, year round in the forests Western Washington, a Bigfoot would have to be actively foraging 24 hours a day, assuming they don't regularly hunt and kill deer, elk and other large animals. This kind of hunting and foraging would be noticed by even the most casual hikers, hunters, etc.
How many reports is there of a witness observing Bigfoot hunting, gathering, or eating? Most reports I have read describe the creature as either standing still and observing, walking somewhere, or some other activity besides eating or looking for food.

So either the species as a whole keeps a well stocked, well hidden network of underground larders, pantries, walk-ins and freezers, along with clandestine Sysco deliveries, or they defy the most basic tenants of biology and primate physiology.

I do not believe it is possible for a 600+ pound primate to sustain itself in North America on a diet of worms, bugs, berries and small rodents, with an occasional deer kill or bit a scavenging for variety. They would expend far more energy hunting and gathering than their meager meals than such food could supply. The constant hunt for life sustaining calories and fats would make them vulnerable to detection and oftentimes drive them to acts of desperation, killing livestock, breaking into homes, etc. Reports of this nature are certainly the exception.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=21578&st=33

Very well said, indeed. An excellent debate follows in which no Bigfoot enthusiast is able to present any working counter-argument to this fatal flaw for footers. They try their best and get destroyed with lame arguments about humans and bears surviving. A couple of pages later member WillinYC makes an excellent follow up and response to RY's above post:

Agree in totality, with the exception that I think it wouldn't be impossible, but highly improbable. It seems as if whenever this issue pops up, the bigfoot community dismisses this as a virtual non-issue. I do agree that there is a valid reason why this is so often brought up by skeptics.

To add some fuel to the proverbial caloric fire:

1- The caloric issue becomes even more pronounced during the colder months when thermal maintenance jacks the caloric requirements of something like the purported bigfoot even higher.

2- Early native american cultures all had the ability to preserve and most importantly store food to tide them over for the leaner winter months. Factors that were absolutely key in being able to keep infant/juvenile mortality low enough to where maintaining sustainable population abundance wasn't pushing populations to extirpation or extinction. Comparison to humans becomes somewhat invalid IMO.

3- The only subarctic, larger omnivore that even approaches the mass of the purported sasquatch (black bear) bridges the harsh, catch-22 situation of attempting to forage/hunt during the winter, when caloric requirements skyrocket, and bioavailability of potential food sources become less abundant, by hibernating. An adaptation that I think would be a major stretch for something like the sasquatch.

4- Elk and moose may approach the purported mass of BF but are herbivorous, and leave obvious, large scale evidence of their foraging activities. There's all kinds of very questionable evidence on BF's passing in the ecosystem (tree breaks, et. al.) but I can't remember ever seeing a report which discusses evidence of wide scale, herbivorous foraging above the vertical range of elk, deer, et. al. From a metabolic feasibility standpoint, this should be expected, if we're lead to believe that BF is obtaining any significant portion of it's caloric requirements via this route.

I really think the BF community is doing itself a major disservice by dismissing this fact as a non-issue. The BF community seems rigid in it's assumption that if real, the sasquatch, occupies an ecological niche similar to the black bear. The problem with that train of thought IMO is simply that there are no known omnivores that even come close to approaching the mass of the supposed BF that don't bridge the caloric gap, via the hibernation route that are known to exist.

I think the BF community would at least salvage some credibility if it were to stop attempting to dismiss this issue out of hand with arguements that most field bios find to be ridiculous and would maybe also rethink what ecological niche the BF most likely occupies if real. I don't think it's a coincidence that most of the wildlife bios I've had this conversation with independently conclude that if real the BF is likely a wide ranging, solitary scavenger, employing survival strategies similar to that of the wolverine. I really think a rethinking of "what BF likely is" by the proponents of it's existence would have some basis of bearing, and could be supported by the purported observed behaviors and physical characteristics of the supposed BF. It's very difficult for even a bucket biologist to see something as massive and frequently as pungent as BF is reported to be, to be an efficient enough pursuit or ambush predator to maintain it's massive caloric requirements. Yet, it's reported massive size would be an asset when it comes to driving off smaller scavengers/ omnivores from carcasses that expired naturally. The scavenging survival strategy would also be more consistent IMO with the reported nocturnal nature of BF. Scavenging efficiency likely wouldn't present much of a drop-off if done at night, and would provide the scientific types a somewhat more feasible explanation on why the BF is nocturnal (attempting to cover enough ground to find sufficient forage during daytime summer temps for something that is an 800+ pound moving heat sink is simply not feasible).

All that said, the way I'm seeing it, even a scavenging sasquatch is more than likely, very improbable, but is a much more viable arguement than what's being offered up here IMO.


The poor shell-shocked Bigfoot enthusiasts don't really even know how to begin dealing with this excellent, straightforward scientific argument against Bigfoot as they describe it. I think this is a great expansion on the argument that Eugenie Scott discussed and the old question of Bigfoot sustenance.

Bigfoot, as described by Bigfoot enthusiasts like SweatyYeti, is completely and irrevocably ludicrous. A big fat poop at the front door of biology.

Shall we say...

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/896148b97b9030035.bmp (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13605)

Inconceivable!!!

[kitakaze]

BTW, in that post quoted above of RespendantYeti he said:

- The majority of eyewitness accounts describe Bigfoot as being muscular, I don't think I've read many accounts of an obese Bigfoot.

He has a good point. I would however like to point out an account of an obese Bigfoot. Starting at around the 5:00 mark of this video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAX5DEJ3hBI) we have the MABRC's Bullet Maker recounting his close encounter with a similarly bodied obese Bigfoot with a smoker's cough on his property in Oklahoma. Not only is this Bigfoot getting its daily 12,000 calories, it's getting an excess enough to be a lardass! Surely this Bigfoot with its massive gut and hacking cough is no type of predator, so how is it becoming the mirror image of Bullet Maker?

Apparently this is no kind of problem for the MABRC.

[JohnG]

You missed the most important point: where is Bigfoot getting his cigarettes?

[Hitch]

You missed the most important point: where is Bigfoot getting his cigarettes?

Baked beans and pancakes and you're gonna worry about cigarettes? As if there's a late night convenience store clerk in the country who'd try to card a sasquatch.

[Vortigern99]

As a non-footer/non-believer who is interested in investigating the possibility of bigfoot's existence, the question of caloric intake intrigues me. Is this question something of a nail in the supposed creature's coffin, as kitakaze and others appear to believe? After some relevant research into the diet and other behaviors of the American black bear (via wikipedia, Yellowstone's site and other wildlife sites), I'm not so sure the stated 8000 - 9000 calorie/day requirement constitutes the damning counter-evidence the cryptid's critics (cryp-tics?) seem to think it is. But it is a damn good question.

American black bear males grow up to 7 feet tall on average, weighing upwards of 600 pounds. The largest Amer. black bear on record was 95" long (that's 1" shy of 8 feet) and weighed 881 pounds. This is close to or in excess of most reported estimates of BF's size, and is certainly in excess of the supposed height and mass of the P-G figure (assuming that figure is a non-human animal, which I'm disinclined to accept).

It's estimated that there are 20,000 - 24,000 ABBs (Amer. black bears) in the state of California alone. This number is something like 10 times the number that is usually posited as the minimum population requirement for BF to be considered a viable species. Somehow 22,000 ABBs in that state alone manage to find enough food to sustain their nutritional needs.

ABB's need about 6000 - 8000 calories a day in spring and summer; in the fall, owing to a metabolism change called hyperphagia, that requirement spikes to about 20,000 calories/day. This, of course, is so that the bears will survive the lean winter months, during which they undergo a semi-dormant state that is akin to hibernation. While ABBs do not truly hibernate (they are somewhat alert and active, periodically arousing and exiting their dens, and females give birth during this time), they do not eat, drink, or excrete throughout this semi-dormant period. In spring they typically emerge with half of the body weight with which they began the winter.

At various times throughout the feeding year, ABBs derive their daily 6000 - 20000 calories from the following foods: herbs, grasses, acorns, nuts, berries, skunk cabbage, horsetail, treebark, honey, ants, bees, wasps, insect larvae, rodents, salmon, trout, crayfish, alligator eggs, deer, elk & moose (usually young or carrion), and dumpster & campsite raids. With regard to live prey, ABBs usually drag their kills to cover and feed in seclusion.

So, my question for the thinkers who devised this excellent question is: If American Black Bears can do it, why not a supposed bigfoot population? If 22,000 ABBs in California alone can do it, why not 2,000 BFs spread across Washington, California, Oregon, Wyoming and the billion acres of Canadian forest preserve?

DISCLAIMER: Of course, there might not be any bigfoot (pl.) at all. Sightings could be willfully invented, hallucinations based on regional expectations, or misidentifications of the very animal which appears to share its diet and habitat, the American black bear.

I'm just here to ask questions.

[drapier]

Now Bigfoot enthusiasts are going to tell me that there is a viable breeding population of massive mammals many, many times the size of this one wolverine living in Northern California. These animals are obtaining the roughly 12-13,000 calories they will need each day to survive, which would require basically their entire waking life looking for, finding mates, breeding, having young which they teach to survive, and having enough time on the side to throw rocks at humans, learn to mimic other animals, and walk in front of automobiles? All this without ever having relinquished a type specimen to science??

Facepalm. Total, utter facepalm.


Looks like more evidence to support Crowlogic's theory that Bigfoot went extinct in the early 20th century. Oh, well.

[LONGTABBER PE]

As a non-footer/non-believer who is interested in investigating the possibility of bigfoot's existence, the question of caloric intake intrigues me.




So, my question for the thinkers who devised this excellent question is: If American Black Bears can do it, why not a supposed bigfoot population? If 22,000 ABBs in California alone can do it, why not 2,000 BFs spread across Washington, California, Oregon, Wyoming and the billion acres of Canadian forest preserve?
DISCLAIMER: Of course, there might not be any bigfoot (pl.) at all. Sightings could be willfully invented, hallucinations based on regional expectations, or misidentifications of the very animal which appears to share its diet and habitat, the American black bear.

I'm just here to ask questions.

Let me help you once again.

Its not that a BF "couldnt" other than a POPULATION of BF "couldnt" without leaving TRACES as the ABB and others do. ( sightings, raids on livestock,etc)

Thats the argument. Sure, BF "eats" if he exists but he cannot "eat" without leaving signs and being exposed.

Its the domino thing again.

If BF lives then he has a breeding population.

If he is as big as reported, he eats a LOT.

"THEY" then must gather that energy 24/7/365

"They" are allegedly primates and as such dont fall under the ways of the bear.

You cant realistically have that many eating that much in total "secrecy" and never leaving a single solitary trace. Forensic or otherwise.

Explain that if you can and why after hundreds of years ( if BF is real, he existed long before the PGF) hasnt he been found dead, tracked,etc and RECORDED like EVERY animal known to exist?

[Drewbot]

Two questions.

1. Where is Bigfoot always going TO? I mean he is seen crossing roads, and crossing cemeteries, but what is his destination?

2. Maybe all the American Black Bears ATE the Bigfeet. Although I think footer concensus is that in Bigfoot v. Bear, Bigfoot wins and eats bear's liver with fava beans and a bottle of Chianti.

[Vortigern99]

Before I continue this discussion, I want to make it clear once more that I am not a "believer" and am arguing for the sake of separating possibility from impossibility, plausibility from implausibility. If I can find a hypothetical response to a question posed, or pose a question myself, I will... but I am not arguing that BF definitely exists or even that it probably exists. I'm trying to look at all the angles, consider all sides.

Its not that a BF "couldnt" other than a POPULATION of BF "couldnt" without leaving TRACES as the ABB and others do. ( sightings, raids on livestock,etc)

Thats the argument. Sure, BF "eats" if he exists but he cannot "eat" without leaving signs and being exposed.

If we take even some of the sightings -- let's say 1% of all total sightings, just for the sake of argument -- as indicative of the animal's existence, then that constitutes "exposure" of the kind you're asking for. If we accept even 1% of all the millions of footprints, OR, failing the reliability of even that percentage, we postulate that some signs of passage that have been logged as black bear activity, are actually bigfoot activity, then that constitutes the "signs" you're asking for. Considering the small number of the estimated viable population of these conjectured animals (about 2000), and the extreme remoteness of their supposed habitat, a few dozen sightings and a few hundred misidentified foliage breaks, tracks or other signs of passage would seem a reasonable number. Would it not?

Its the domino thing again.

If BF lives then he has a breeding population.

If he is as big as reported, he eats a LOT.

"THEY" then must gather that energy 24/7/365

Well, American black bears, whose size and estimated caloric requirements are similar to a conjectured bigfoot's, don't have to eat 24/7/365. The Yellowstone NP website notes that in the fall, Amer. black bears spend 20 hours a day ingesting the 20,000 calories required by the onset of hyperphagia. Neither that site nor any other I could find noted the amount of hours needed in spring or summer, but if we take the 1 hour/1000 calories estimate suggested by the Yellowstone article, then the acquisition of 9000 calories would take about 9 hours.

"They" are allegedly primates and as such dont fall under the ways of the bear.

I'm not certain what you mean specifically by this. Both black bears and primates are of course mammals, and the diet of the Amer. black bear is pretty close in terms of kinds of foods (carbo, protein and veg) we find in chimpanzees. If you mean hibernation, you would certainly have a point if Amer. black bears were true hibernators, but they aren't, despite the post that kitakaze quoted above. If we postulate that bigfoot has a similar strategy of hyperphagia followed by winter dormancy, neither of which behaviors is limited to bears but is pursued by several other mammalian species, then we begin to at least allow the possibility that these animals (bigfoot) exist.

You cant realistically have that many eating that much in total "secrecy" and never leaving a single solitary trace. Forensic or otherwise.

Perhaps not. You may be absolutely correct and there is no possible way the animal could exist without leaving a trace. However, if we postulate that some of the signs that black and other bears are documented to leave are actually signs that bigfoot (pl.) have left, and have been misidentified by wildlife experts owing to expectations and the absence of known or studied bigfoot signs, coupled with the relatively small number of the proposed bigfoot population (around 2000, compared to 20,000 black bears in CA alone), then once more the possibility once more rears its furry head.

Explain that if you can and why after hundreds of years ( if BF is real, he existed long before the PGF) hasnt he been found dead, tracked,etc and RECORDED like EVERY animal known to exist?

There are a number of possibilities that spring to mind. I don't pretend to offer "explanations", but I can offer hyoptheticals, suggestions and conjecture:

1. Bigfoot are extremely intelligent, and are cautious of/actively avoid human beings.

2. The PNW (which is the only place I personally think BF could exist) is montane forest, which according to paleontologist Richard Fortey is an unlikely terrain from which to harvest fossil remains, and which by logical induction is also an unlikely terrain from which to harvest stool samples or recently deceased remains. (I'm aware that a member of this forum, who is a geologist, disagrees with this assessment, but apart from stating that he has argued against it, I have not been availed of his line of reasoning, and a search of this forum for bigfoot + fossil revealed nothing.)

3. Stool samples, signs of passage and signs of feeding believed to be bears' have been misidentified and are actually bigfoot's.

I'm sure there are more possibilities, but those are all that are occurring to me at the moment.

[kitakaze]

Thanks for your questions, Vort. I know I can depend on you for a good swing at counterpoint. Again, to be clear, the argument is not that black bears can do it but Bigfoot can't. It's that black bears, humans, Bigfoots, or any other large mammal can't do it without us knowing about it. Also keep in mind, black bears and humans in northern montane regions have often succumbed to starvation.

As a non-footer/non-believer who is interested in investigating the possibility of bigfoot's existence, the question of caloric intake intrigues me. Is this question something of a nail in the supposed creature's coffin, as kitakaze and others appear to believe? After some relevant research into the diet and other behaviors of the American black bear (via wikipedia, Yellowstone's site and other wildlife sites), I'm not so sure the stated 8000 - 9000 calorie/day requirement constitutes the damning counter-evidence the cryptid's critics (cryp-tics?) seem to think it is. But it is a damn good question.

That figure is appropriate more for gorillas (6000 - 9500 per day). By basically universal agreement Bigfoot is significantly larger than a male gorilla (around 300-450 lbs and eats 50 lbs of folivorous food per day).

American black bear males grow up to 7 feet tall on average, weighing upwards of 600 pounds. The largest Amer. black bear on record was 95" long (that's 1" shy of 8 feet) and weighed 881 pounds. This is close to or in excess of most reported estimates of BF's size, and is certainly in excess of the supposed height and mass of the P-G figure (assuming that figure is a non-human animal, which I'm disinclined to accept).

Aren't you now doing exactly what Euegenie Scott was criticized for? She spoke about some of the upper size estimates of Bigfoot (9-12ft). Your figures are somewhat misleading. The average adult male black bear weighs 250 lbs and is 5-6ft tall when standing on hind legs. When standing in the regular quadrapedal fashion the average adult male is between 2½ and 3 feet tall 4 and 6ft in length.

http://www.americanbear.org/Size.htm

Let's be very conservative with Patty and take her as 6½ft and about 350 lbs. That makes her definitely bigger than the average male black bear. This doesn't even begin to account for Patty being female and pronounced sexual dimorphism in large apes. Adult male Bigfoots as reported far, far exceed the average size black bear.

It's estimated that there are 20,000 - 24,000 ABBs (Amer. black bears) in the state of California alone. This number is something like 10 times the number that is usually posited as the minimum population requirement for BF to be considered a viable species. Somehow 22,000 ABBs in that state alone manage to find enough food to sustain their nutritional needs.

That figure seems about right. I get 17,000 - 23,000 bears in 1998:

http://www.sdnhm.org/fieldguide/mammals/ursu-ame.html

2000 Bigfoots would be the very minimum. It would not account for Bigfoot as reported across North America. The BFRO lists between 2000 - 6000 animals (http://bfro.net/gdb/show_FAQ.asp?id=415). This is just a quote from the hat of an organization notoriously bad at understanding science. There may be only one wolverine in California and we have itd DNA.

Now, instead of using black bears, why don't we use a mammal with a population that might be closer to that of Bigfoot in California. Let's look at this extensive survey of martens (Martes americana) in California:

http://www.sierraforestlegacy.org/Resources/Conservation/SierraNevadaWildlife/AmericanMarten/AM-Zielinski97.pdf

The take home message with this report is that painstaking effort is taken to detect these animals in the wild across California and no Bigfoots turn up during such a survey as did possibly the only wolverine in California.

ABB's need about 6000 - 8000 calories a day in spring and summer; in the fall, owing to a metabolism change called hyperphagia, that requirement spikes to about 20,000 calories/day. This, of course, is so that the bears will survive the lean winter months, during which they undergo a semi-dormant state that is akin to hibernation. While ABBs do not truly hibernate (they are somewhat alert and active, periodically arousing and exiting their dens, and females give birth during this time), they do not eat, drink, or excrete throughout this semi-dormant period. In spring they typically emerge with half of the body weight with which they began the winter.

"Black bears increase their caloric intake from 8000 kcal/day in the summer to between 15,000 and 20,000 kcal/day in the fall to build up a large enough fat store to survive the the winter (Nelson, 1980)."

http://www.bio.davidson.edu/people/midorcas/animalphysiology/websites/2006/mineri/page%205.htm

Yes, black bears den in the winter and enter a state of torpor. So are we arguing for Bigfoots going into torpor? Finding a giant stinky massive ape in a state of torpor is definitely going to have occurred if they do in fact do this. Huge stinky animal in one spot. Pretty simple.

At various times throughout the feeding year, ABBs derive their daily 6000 - 20000 calories from the following foods: herbs, grasses, acorns, nuts, berries, skunk cabbage, horsetail, treebark, honey, ants, bees, wasps, insect larvae, rodents, salmon, trout, crayfish, alligator eggs, deer, elk & moose (usually young or carrion), and dumpster & campsite raids. With regard to live prey, ABBs usually drag their kills to cover and feed in seclusion.

Note that we know what any large mammal in North America eats, regardless of its population. We should know exactly what Bigfoots eat because they should be spending most of their time trying to eat. Let's take salmon runs. Are Bigfoots fall-down stupid? Every animal in the forest that eats meat and has access to salmon runs will pig out on dead and dying fish. Why not Bigfoot? Is Bigfoot a herbivore? That would be a problem.

So, my question for the thinkers who devised this excellent question is: If American Black Bears can do it, why not a supposed bigfoot population? If 22,000 ABBs in California alone can do it, why not 2,000 BFs spread across Washington, California, Oregon, Wyoming and the billion acres of Canadian forest preserve?

Again, 2000 is too low for NA and it's not that they can't. They just can't do it an not be known to science.

DISCLAIMER: Of course, there might not be any bigfoot (pl.) at all. Sightings could be willfully invented, hallucinations based on regional expectations, or misidentifications of the very animal which appears to share its diet and habitat, the American black bear.

I'm just here to ask questions.

Here's the problem. Bigfoot doesn't appear to share a diet with black bears or any other large mammal in North America. Reports of seeing a Bigfoot eating are the exception. Reports like these are often of the thrown pig variety. Bigfoots should be seen eating all the time. I should be able to go on youtube and see clear video of a Bigfoot on the side of the road working on a blackberry bush or in someone's yard rummaging through garbage. Why don't we see this even just once?

[LTC8K6]

American black bear males grow up to 7 feet tall on average, weighing upwards of 600 pounds.

Got a link to that average? That'd be a big black bear around here...

Also the black bear population has exploded, so why hasn't the bigfoot population exploded? Black bear range has also grown a lot.

[LTC8K6]

What's amazing to me when I start looking at wildlife info is the number of people out in the woods gathering data on wildlife for each state. There are all sorts of surveys going on all the time. Wildlife biologists are all over the woods gathering all sorts of data all the time.

[LONGTABBER PE]

Before I continue this discussion, I want to make it clear once more that I am not a "believer" and am arguing for the sake of separating possibility from impossibility, plausibility from implausibility. If I can find a hypothetical response to a question posed, or pose a question myself, I will... but I am not arguing that BF definitely exists or even that it probably exists. I'm trying to look at all the angles, consider all sides.



If we take even some of the sightings -- let's say 1% of all total sightings, just for the sake of argument -- as indicative of the animal's existence, then that constitutes "exposure" of the kind you're asking for. If we accept even 1% of all the millions of footprints, OR, failing the reliability of even that percentage, we postulate that some signs of passage that have been logged as black bear activity, are actually bigfoot activity, then that constitutes the "signs" you're asking for. Considering the small number of the estimated viable population of these conjectured animals (about 2000), and the extreme remoteness of their supposed habitat, a few dozen sightings and a few hundred misidentified foliage breaks, tracks or other signs of passage would seem a reasonable number. Would it not?



Well, American black bears, whose size and estimated caloric requirements are similar to a conjectured bigfoot's, don't have to eat 24/7/365. The Yellowstone NP website notes that in the fall, Amer. black bears spend 20 hours a day ingesting the 20,000 calories required by the onset of hyperphagia. Neither that site nor any other I could find noted the amount of hours needed in spring or summer, but if we take the 1 hour/1000 calories estimate suggested by the Yellowstone article, then the acquisition of 9000 calories would take about 9 hours.



I'm not certain what you mean specifically by this. Both black bears and primates are of course mammals, and the diet of the Amer. black bear is pretty close in terms of kinds of foods (carbo, protein and veg) we find in chimpanzees. If you mean hibernation, you would certainly have a point if Amer. black bears were true hibernators, but they aren't, despite the post that kitakaze quoted above. If we postulate that bigfoot has a similar strategy of hyperphagia followed by winter dormancy, neither of which behaviors is limited to bears but is pursued by several other mammalian species, then we begin to at least allow the possibility that these animals (bigfoot) exist.



Perhaps not. You may be absolutely correct and there is no possible way the animal could exist without leaving a trace. However, if we postulate that some of the signs that black and other bears are documented to leave are actually signs that bigfoot (pl.) have left, and have been misidentified by wildlife experts owing to expectations and the absence of known or studied bigfoot signs, coupled with the relatively small number of the proposed bigfoot population (around 2000, compared to 20,000 black bears in CA alone), then once more the possibility once more rears its furry head.



There are a number of possibilities that spring to mind. I don't pretend to offer "explanations", but I can offer hyoptheticals, suggestions and conjecture:

1. Bigfoot are extremely intelligent, and are cautious of/actively avoid human beings.

2. The PNW (which is the only place I personally think BF could exist) is montane forest, which according to paleontologist Richard Fortey is an unlikely terrain from which to harvest fossil remains, and which by logical induction is also an unlikely terrain from which to harvest stool samples or recently deceased remains. (I'm aware that a member of this forum, who is a geologist, disagrees with this assessment, but apart from stating that he has argued against it, I have not been availed of his line of reasoning, and a search of this forum for bigfoot + fossil revealed nothing.)

3. Stool samples, signs of passage and signs of feeding believed to be bears' have been misidentified and are actually bigfoot's.

I'm sure there are more possibilities, but those are all that are occurring to me at the moment.

>>>If we take even some of the sightings -- let's say 1% of all total sightings, just for the sake of argument -- as indicative of the animal's existence, then that constitutes "exposure" of the kind you're asking for. If we accept even 1% of all the millions of footprints, OR, failing the reliability of even that percentage, we postulate that some signs of passage that have been logged as black bear activity, are actually bigfoot activity, then that constitutes the "signs" you're asking for. Considering the small number of the estimated viable population of these conjectured animals (about 2000), and the extreme remoteness of their supposed habitat, a few dozen sightings and a few hundred misidentified foliage breaks, tracks or other signs of passage would seem a reasonable number. Would it not?

Not at all, thats a standard footers numbers argument. See, a "report" regardless of who makes it or believes it is 100% worthless for anything scientific UNLESS it is inestigated peoperly and has eidenciary support. Also, there arent "millions" of anything surrounding BF. There are "things" that people give BF credit for doing with no basis in fact whatsoever. ( wood knocking,stone throwing etc)

>>>Well, American black bears, whose size and estimated caloric requirements are similar to a conjectured bigfoot's, don't have to eat 24/7/365. The Yellowstone NP website notes that in the fall, Amer. black bears spend 20 hours a day ingesting the 20,000 calories required by the onset of hyperphagia. Neither that site nor any other I could find noted the amount of hours needed in spring or summer, but if we take the 1 hour/1000 calories estimate suggested by the Yellowstone article, then the acquisition of 9000 calories would take about 9 hours.



I'm not certain what you mean specifically by this. Both black bears and primates are of course mammals, and the diet of the Amer. black bear is pretty close in terms of kinds of foods (carbo, protein and veg) we find in chimpanzees. If you mean hibernation, you would certainly have a point if Amer. black bears were true hibernators, but they aren't, despite the post that kitakaze quoted above. If we postulate that bigfoot has a similar strategy of hyperphagia followed by winter dormancy, neither of which behaviors is limited to bears but is pursued by several other mammalian species, then we begin to at least allow the possibility that these animals (bigfoot) exist.

Come on, stay on course and no straw. The point is and always was that a population of BF ( who would have had to be here for centuries- it didnt just drop by) would have left signs. "Everybody" would be seeing them including people in small towns, store cameras etc. Hell, bear, deer and such have landed in swimming pools, been in stores etc, but no BF?

>>Perhaps not. You may be absolutely correct and there is no possible way the animal could exist without leaving a trace. However, if we postulate that some of the signs that black and other bears are documented to leave are actually signs that bigfoot (pl.) have left, and have been misidentified by wildlife experts owing to expectations and the absence of known or studied bigfoot signs, coupled with the relatively small number of the proposed bigfoot population (around 2000, compared to 20,000 black bears in CA alone), then once more the possibility once more rears its furry head

Another non argument-Postulate this: what are the odds of EVERY SINGLE SOLITARY "wildlife expert', hunter, hiker etc misidentifying EVERY SINGLE SOLITARY "alleged" sign for ALL TIME? Yeah, "possible" but highly improbable

>>>There are a number of possibilities that spring to mind. I don't pretend to offer "explanations", but I can offer hyoptheticals, suggestions and conjecture:

which dont go or get very far

>>>1. Bigfoot are extremely intelligent, and are cautious of/actively avoid human beings.

false argument that contradicts itself that footers selectively ignore the opposite. They are trying to imply that a BF has some textbook perfect infallible sense and intelligence above all else in the animal kingdom. BF doesnt. And if he did, conversely, you wouldnt have ANY sightings because BF is so "smart". They cant both be true.

>>>2. The PNW (which is the only place I personally think BF could exist) is montane forest, which according to paleontologist Richard Fortey is an unlikely terrain from which to harvest fossil remains, and which by logical induction is also an unlikely terrain from which to harvest stool samples or recently deceased remains. (I'm aware that a member of this forum, who is a geologist, disagrees with this assessment, but apart from stating that he has argued against it, I have not been availed of his line of reasoning, and a search of this forum for bigfoot + fossil revealed nothing.)

You need to check the BFRO and TBRC reports. BF is "everywhere" ( yet no where)

>>>3. Stool samples, signs of passage and signs of feeding believed to be bears' have been misidentified and are actually bigfoot's.

Yeah, every single solitary one- the ninja BF hides from us by wearing his bear suit. Absolutely brilliant.

[kitakaze]

If we take even some of the sightings -- let's say 1% of all total sightings, just for the sake of argument -- as indicative of the animal's existence, then that constitutes "exposure" of the kind you're asking for. If we accept even 1% of all the millions of footprints, OR, failing the reliability of even that percentage, we postulate that some signs of passage that have been logged as black bear activity, are actually bigfoot activity, then that constitutes the "signs" you're asking for. Considering the small number of the estimated viable population of these conjectured animals (about 2000), and the extreme remoteness of their supposed habitat, a few dozen sightings and a few hundred misidentified foliage breaks, tracks or other signs of passage would seem a reasonable number. Would it not?

1) Seems like you've accepted millions of Bigfoot footprints. I'll spot you and take it to mean that you meant "a whole lot." I'm skeptical about this. I know there have been many claims of tracks. I know Meldrum has received and inherited lots of track casts. Many of them he knows are fakes. But I want to see evidence. Bigfoot enthusiasts always talk about all these tracks (not calling you a footer, Vort). From all my knowledge of Bigfootery I'll be willing to meet you at maybe low hundreds for documented prints. And I'm not even talking about after some attempt to verify them. I'm talking about photographed, measured, cast. I don't think there's nearly as many documented prints out there as footers claim and this is before dealing with some nothing in the dirt cast by MABRC guys.

2) You really think wildlife biologists couldn't tell the difference between black bear activity and Bigfoot activity in the field? To me I can't accept that. There are far to many painstaking studies going on in alleged Bigfoot territory and I think it's a big slap in the face the enthusiasts who have the gall to claim the field researchers would miss it or be hush hush about it. And the supposed remoteness is something that just doesn't apply to examining Bigfoot reports. You can't get into dismissing certain claims based on their proximity to civilization or remoteness without getting into glaring pseudoscience. Besides, that's not what black bears do. If Bigfoot needs around 12,000 calories a day to get by, they can in no way afford to be picky and keep a population going. They're going to be no less picky than bears. Bears leave bones, poop, hair, and other sign. Bigfoot? Not so much.



Well, American black bears, whose size and estimated caloric requirements are similar to a conjectured bigfoot's, don't have to eat 24/7/365. The Yellowstone NP website notes that in the fall, Amer. black bears spend 20 hours a day ingesting the 20,000 calories required by the onset of hyperphagia. Neither that site nor any other I could find noted the amount of hours needed in spring or summer, but if we take the 1 hour/1000 calories estimate suggested by the Yellowstone article, then the acquisition of 9000 calories would take about 9 hours.

1) Bigfoots and black bears can not in any way be said fairly to be of similar size. The range of sizes attributed to Bigfoot is more on par with brown bears.

2) Either Bigfoot dens in the winter, going into torpor after somehow spending at least 12 hours a day in the fall to fatten up without a single type specimen to be had. Or, it has to face brutal northern winters and face certain death from starvation and freezing at least a good percentage of the time without any type specimen. Either way, completely ridiculous even if there were only ever 2000 animals around, which makes no sense whatsoever.

I think that if you really look at this objectively, Vort, you can see what in all likelihood is a manmade myth.

I'm not certain what you mean specifically by this. Both black bears and primates are of course mammals, and the diet of the Amer. black bear is pretty close in terms of kinds of foods (carbo, protein and veg) we find in chimpanzees. If you mean hibernation, you would certainly have a point if Amer. black bears were true hibernators, but they aren't, despite the post that kitakaze quoted above. If we postulate that bigfoot has a similar strategy of hyperphagia followed by winter dormancy, neither of which behaviors is limited to bears but is pursued by several other mammalian species, then we begin to at least allow the possibility that these animals (bigfoot) exist.

The physiology and dietary adaptions of bears and apes are very different. Let's look at brown bears. In Yellowstone will eat massive amount of moths in the summer to get their caloric intake. Up to 40,000 a day! Not to mention the spawning salmon. Why doesn't Bigfoot do this? Have any Bigfoot eating moth reports?

And what about other primates? Do any primates den in the winter and go into torpor? We're not talking about tropical pygmy mouse lemurs. We have macaques in Japan in places like Jigokudani Moneky Park. The depend in large part on the activity of humans to survive. No torpor. And if Bigfoot doesn't do torpor, isn't it supposed to be nocturnal? Wow. Then it's double screwed.

Perhaps not. You may be absolutely correct and there is no possible way the animal could exist without leaving a trace. However, if we postulate that some of the signs that black and other bears are documented to leave are actually signs that bigfoot (pl.) have left, and have been misidentified by wildlife experts owing to expectations and the absence of known or studied bigfoot signs, coupled with the relatively small number of the proposed bigfoot population (around 2000, compared to 20,000 black bears in CA alone), then once more the possibility once more rears its furry head.

Give me one good reason to postulate that there are only 2000 Bigfoots and that wildlife experts can't tell apart the sign of a giant bipedal ape from a bear. One that is more likely than Bigfoot not existing would be great.

There are a number of possibilities that spring to mind. I don't pretend to offer "explanations", but I can offer hyoptheticals, suggestions and conjecture:

1. Bigfoot are extremely intelligent, and are cautious of/actively avoid human beings.

1) Why should Bigfoots be cautious of humans? We don't see humans killing any Bigfoots. Did they co-evolve with us in Africa? Did Homo Erectus hunt Gigantos?

2) While generally cautious, apes often become curious of humans.

3) Bears become attracted to human-created food sources. They raid dumpsters, farms, and yards. This often gets them dead but never Bigfoots. Saying it is because the Bigfoots look human is no excuse as this doesn't stop trespassing humans from being shot. The MABRC thinks Bigfoot works the latches on chicken coops and puts the lids back on garbage cans. How are those guys doing?

2. The PNW (which is the only place I personally think BF could exist) is montane forest, which according to paleontologist Richard Fortey is an unlikely terrain from which to harvest fossil remains, and which by logical induction is also an unlikely terrain from which to harvest stool samples or recently deceased remains.

By what criteria did you keep the PNW reports and dismiss the over 2/3 outside it?

(I'm aware that a member of this forum, who is a geologist, disagrees with this assessment, but apart from stating that he has argued against it, I have not been availed of his line of reasoning, and a search of this forum for bigfoot + fossil revealed nothing.)

Advanced search with Bigfoot and fossil specifying user Correa Neto works fine for me.

3. Stool samples, signs of passage and signs of feeding believed to be bears' have been misidentified and are actually bigfoot's.

That is remarkably unfair to all the people that work and study in the forest.

Wildlife experts no what bear scat looks like:

http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/living/graphics/bear5a.jpg

http://wdfw.wa.gov/wlm/living/graphics/bear5b.jpg

What does Bigfoot poo look like? Is it gold? That's what it would worth!:D

[LONGTABBER PE]

3) Bears become attracted to human-created food sources. They raid dumpsters, farms, and yards. This often gets them dead but never Bigfoots. Saying it is because the Bigfoots look human is no excuse as this doesn't stop trespassing humans from being shot. The MABRC thinks Bigfoot works the latches on chicken coops and puts the lids back on garbage cans. How are those guys doing?

The BF or the MABRC?

Personally, I think its the MABRC and their "orig 6" and or senior cadre that are doing all the raiding

[Vortigern99]

Good discussion, guys, and some excellent points as usual. You may be on your way to making me a full-fledged non-believer. However, a few niggling points remain.

Kitakaze, thank you for pointing out that Amer. black bears are on average smaller than the size I indicated. Though 7 and 8-foot long individuals weighing 800+ pounds have been measured, they are not the norm. But it is at least worth noting that such massive sizes are on record, showing that the caloric intake necessary to sustain an 800-pound animal is achievable. Also, the website you linked notes:

Adolph Murie, the famous naturalist, once said, "A bear a long distance from a scale always weighs more." The general public often misjudges the weights of black bears. While they are large, they are not the 4,000-pound beasts that some visitors to the Great Smoky Mountains National Park describe.

If we apply this typical exaggeration of size and mass to BF sightings, it's possible we may be dealing with a smaller animal, say 5 or 6 feet tall and weighing some 4 - 500 pounds, rather than the gargantuan beast so often reported. This would put BF's daily caloric requirements only slightly above that of ABBs, which at face value (without the question of sight avoidance) seems plausible.

As to sight avoidance, and the study of martens and fishers using track plates and game-cameras, that certainly seems to be a damning point. The only counter-arguments I can postulate are that 1. BFs are intelligent enough to be aware of these human technological insertions into their habitat, and to avoid them, and 2. There are no longer BFs in CA, or else their numbers are so small the marten/fisher track plates and game-cams failed to capture them. It's worth noting that only 40% of the aforementioned surveys detected one species (martens or fishers); only 3.6% detected both. If there is a tiny population of BF in CA, owing to habitat loss and other factors, then it is at least possible that remote-dwelling, small-population, highly intelligent, human-cautious BFs have so far managed to avoid visual capture and scientific classification. Not likely or probably, perhaps, but it’s at least possible.

So are we arguing for Bigfoots going into torpor? Finding a giant stinky massive ape in a state of torpor is definitely going to have occurred if they do in fact do this. Huge stinky animal in one spot. Pretty simple.

Yes, that’s an excellent point. The improbabilities appear to stack up at this point to the point of near impossibility: A remote-dwelling, small-population, highly intelligent, human-cautious, winter-dormant species of North American primate that somehow avoids scientific detection year after year is beginning to sound pretty damn unlikely. Why don’t hunters, biologists or wildlife experts, all of whom conduct their woodland activities in deep winter, stumble across these huge, stinky, torpid animals? The only possibility I can devise is that, if they aren’t in true hibernation, the semi-dormant BFs get wind of the humans’ approach, and stumble away (usually) before they can be spotted. Admittedly this is something of a stretch.

We should know exactly what Bigfoots eat because they should be spending most of their time trying to eat. Let's take salmon runs. Are Bigfoots fall-down stupid? Every animal in the forest that eats meat and has access to salmon runs will pig out on dead and dying fish. Why not Bigfoot? Is Bigfoot a herbivore? That would be a problem.

Two possibilities are: 1. BFs don’t eat fish. This would of course deprive them of much-needed calories, but since Amer. black bears don’t eat fish every day, it is at least possible for such a massive animal to survive without fish, OR 2. BFs don’t feed within sight of humans, avoiding visible-to-humans salmon runs. Again, the probability factors here are stacking to the point of nigh impossibility.

Again, 2000 is too low for NA and it's not that they can't [obtain their required caloric intake]. They just can't do it and not be known to science.

2000 is only too low for NA if we include the 2/3 of sightings outside the PNW. (More on this below, in my response to your second message.) They could do it and not be known to science if they are remote-dwelling, small-population, highly intelligent, human-cautious, winter-dormant, private-feeding animals, which is beginning to sound pretty damn unlikely.

[Vortigern99]

LONGTABBER PE:

Not at all, thats a standard footers numbers argument. See, a "report" regardless of who makes it or believes it is 100% worthless for anything scientific UNLESS it is inestigated peoperly and has eidenciary support. Also, there arent "millions" of anything surrounding BF. There are "things" that people give BF credit for doing with no basis in fact whatsoever. ( wood knocking,stone throwing etc)

I understand that the thousands of reports and millions of footprints (this is the number I’ve read or heard: I don’t pretend to personally verify its accuracy) do not qualify as scientific evidence based on the ease of manufacture of the latter and the unreliability of eyewitness testimony as invented, misidentified, hallucinatory, etc. I’m responding conjecturally to conjectural questions, putting forth possible explanations in response to theoretical questions posed by kitakaze. Furthermore, forgive me, but your reasoning on this point appears to be circular: “We know that BFs have never exposed themselves to human sight because we cannot accept the thousands of sightings reported as evidence that they have been sighted.” I apologize if that seems like a straw man, and I’m certain you’ll correct me if it is, but while the phrasing is my own the line of reasoning appears to be yours.

Come on, stay on course and no straw. The point is and always was that a population of BF ( who would have had to be here for centuries- it didnt just drop by) would have left signs. "Everybody" would be seeing them including people in small towns, store cameras etc. Hell, bear, deer and such have landed in swimming pools, been in stores etc, but no BF?

You say “no straw” but I was responding to specific points brought up by kitakaze and the BFF member whom he quoted. If BF is a remote-dwelling, highly-intelligent, human-cautious, winter-dormant, private-feeding species (admittedly a lot of “ifs” that when stacked begin to defy probability), that would explain your above objections. It’s not likely, certainly, but it is at least possible that such a species could exist.

Another non argument-Postulate this: what are the odds of EVERY SINGLE SOLITARY "wildlife expert', hunter, hiker etc misidentifying EVERY SINGLE SOLITARY "alleged" sign for ALL TIME? Yeah, "possible" but highly improbable

Actually, many hikers and hunters have reported BF signs. Kranz in his 1992 book describes how some BF hunters have methods of identifying what they believe to be signs of BF passing, distinct from that of bears. Beyond that what I’m suggesting is that biologists and wildlife experts (not sure why this term garners the use of quotations), largely professions of the 19th and 20th centuries (as distinct from the all-caps “ALL TIME” which you prefer), could be mistaken in their identification of the signs of a large mammal passing. Expectation and a lack of a model to distinguish a BF’s passing from a bear’s could lead to their ascribing “bear” to evidence of a BF passing. I don’t understand how this is a “non-argument”, but you’re free to ignore it or mock it as you like.

>>>There are a number of possibilities that spring to mind. I don't pretend to offer "explanations", but I can offer hypotheticals, suggestions and conjecture:

which dont go or get very far

Wow, thanks for the rude comment! It sure is a pleasure having a dispassionate, contemplative discussion with you.

>>>1. Bigfoot are extremely intelligent, and are cautious of/actively avoid human beings.

false argument that contradicts itself that footers selectively ignore the opposite. They are trying to imply that a BF has some textbook perfect infallible sense and intelligence above all else in the animal kingdom. BF doesnt. And if he did, conversely, you wouldnt have ANY sightings because BF is so "smart". They cant both be true.

Please don’t lump me in with the theories and imaginings of others with whom you have had similar discussions. I’m just conjecturing here, as I’ve stated many times, and I have no stake in the outcome of this debate one way or the other. I do not suggest that BFs, if they exist, have “some textbook perfect infallible sense and intelligence above all else in the animal kingdom”. If they exist, one possible explanation for their avoidance of detection is that it is willful, based on high intelligence relative to other animals. This does not mean perforce that BFs are impervious to error or that their senses and intelligence are so high they could never possibly be spotted. You are creating a false dilemma here: “Either BFs are so smart they cannot be detected ever, OR they should be spotted all the time and easily detected and classified.” IF the animals exist (which I willingly admit is improbable), it’s possible their senses, intelligence and remote habitat are sufficient to avoid detection some or even most of the time, but not all of the time.

>>>2. The PNW (which is the only place I personally think BF could exist) is montane forest, which according to paleontologist Richard Fortey is an unlikely terrain from which to harvest fossil remains, and which by logical induction is also an unlikely terrain from which to harvest stool samples or recently deceased remains. (I'm aware that a member of this forum, who is a geologist, disagrees with this assessment, but apart from stating that he has argued against it, I have not been availed of his line of reasoning, and a search of this forum for bigfoot + fossil revealed nothing.)

You need to check the BFRO and TBRC reports. BF is "everywhere" ( yet no where)

I don’t need to accept all sightings everywhere in NA as definitely true and accurate in order to allow the possibility that some sightings in some places might be true. Another false dilemma!

>>>3. Stool samples, signs of passage and signs of feeding believed to be bears' have been misidentified and are actually bigfoot's.

Yeah, every single solitary one- the ninja BF hides from us by wearing his bear suit. Absolutely brilliant.

I see that you, too, are fond of straw men. I never suggested anything so ridiculous as a bear suit. I said “signs of passage and of feeding”, as in after-the-fact traces of their presence and/or activities. See above for my reasoning as to how biologists and the mysteriously quotation-garnering “wildlife experts” might have misidentified some of these traces.

[Vortigern99]

Kitakaze:

1) Seems like you've accepted millions of Bigfoot footprints. I'll spot you and take it to mean that you meant "a whole lot." I'm skeptical about this. I know there have been many claims of tracks. I know Meldrum has received and inherited lots of track casts. Many of them he knows are fakes. But I want to see evidence. Bigfoot enthusiasts always talk about all these tracks (not calling you a footer, Vort). From all my knowledge of Bigfootery I'll be willing to meet you at maybe low hundreds for documented prints. And I'm not even talking about after some attempt to verify them. I'm talking about photographed, measured, cast. I don't think there's nearly as many documented prints out there as footers claim and this is before dealing with some nothing in the dirt cast by MABRC guys.

Meldrum says he as 350 prints; Kranz in his 1992 book Big Footprints claimed to have 81 plaster casts; also in 1992 Kranz stated that Green had “reports of almost one thousand footprint events in his files from North America”. On page 19, Kranz does some fast and loose math and comes up with “something like 100 million potentially visible track events that have occurred within the last 40 years in areas where people coexist with sasquatches.” Some of these “events” are actually multi-thousand track events that go on for miles at a time.

I am not stating that any of these tracks constitute valid, scientific evidence of BF’s existence. They could have been faked by a variety of known methods, which is why I ultimately discounted even the 1% possibility and moved on to my next point in the passage under discussion.

2) You really think wildlife biologists couldn't tell the difference between black bear activity and Bigfoot activity in the field? To me I can't accept that. There are far to many painstaking studies going on in alleged Bigfoot territory and I think it's a big slap in the face the enthusiasts who have the gall to claim the field researchers would miss it or be hush hush about it. And the supposed remoteness is something that just doesn't apply to examining Bigfoot reports. You can't get into dismissing certain claims based on their proximity to civilization or remoteness without getting into glaring pseudoscience. Besides, that's not what black bears do. If Bigfoot needs around 12,000 calories a day to get by, they can in no way afford to be picky and keep a population going. They're going to be no less picky than bears. Bears leave bones, poop, hair, and other sign. Bigfoot? Not so much.

In my above response to LONGTABBER, I suggested that confirmation of expectation, and a lack of a model to distinguish a BF’s passing from a bear’s could lead to biologists’ and experts’ ascribing “bear” to evidence of a BF passing. I don’t mean to suggest that biologists or anyone is “hush hush” about BF signs, as if there’s some kind of conspiracy to hide its existence. (Maybe some “footers” advance this notion, but I see it as kinda silly.) The other points I think I addressed in my previous response to you, above; in brief, a remote-dwelling, human-cautious, privately-feeding animal could explain your objections, if such an animal is even possible, which is looking pretty unlikely at this point.

1) Bigfoots and black bears can not in any way be said fairly to be of similar size. The range of sizes attributed to Bigfoot is more on par with brown bears.

2) Either Bigfoot dens in the winter, going into torpor after somehow spending at least 12 hours a day in the fall to fatten up without a single type specimen to be had. Or, it has to face brutal northern winters and face certain death from starvation and freezing at least a good percentage of the time without any type specimen. Either way, completely ridiculous even if there were only ever 2000 animals around, which makes no sense whatsoever.

I think that if you really look at this objectively, Vort, you can see what in all likelihood is a manmade myth.

The number of improbabilities certainly appears to be stacking up against its existence.

The physiology and dietary adaptions of bears and apes are very different. Let's look at brown bears. In Yellowstone will eat massive amount of moths in the summer to get their caloric intake. Up to 40,000 a day! Not to mention the spawning salmon. Why doesn't Bigfoot do this? Have any Bigfoot eating moth reports?

See my privately-feeding, human-cautious hypothesis. Unlikely, though not impossible.

And what about other primates? Do any primates den in the winter and go into torpor? We're not talking about tropical pygmy mouse lemurs. We have macaques in Japan in places like Jigokudani Moneky Park. The depend in large part on the activity of humans to survive. No torpor. And if Bigfoot doesn't do torpor, isn't it supposed to be nocturnal? Wow. Then it's double screwed.

That known and catalogued large primates are not winter-dormant or torpid is not evidence that this one conjectural, uncatalogued species cannot be winter-dormant or torpid. All I’m saying is that it’s possible. As you note, some small primates (lemurs) hibernate, and of course some large bears also hibernate, but many or even most mammalian species do not. IOW, that most mammals do neither is not evidence that some don’t or can’t.

Give me one good reason to postulate that there are only 2000 Bigfoots and that wildlife experts can't tell apart the sign of a giant bipedal ape from a bear. One that is more likely than Bigfoot not existing would be great. … That is remarkably unfair to all the people that work and study in the forest.

I have nothing here beyond what I’ve already suggested.

1) Why should Bigfoots be cautious of humans? We don't see humans killing any Bigfoots. Did they co-evolve with us in Africa? Did Homo Erectus hunt Gigantos?

Since Gigantopithecus was an exclusively Asian species, and shares no ancestry with African apes before about 10 mya, the answer to your second and third questions here must be “no”, IF and only if G. is the ancestor of the modern conjectured BF. As to the first question, once more I have no answers beyond the purely conjectural. BF might be cautious of humans because of 1. Instinctual, genetically-ingrained fear; 2. Some past calamity with Native Americans that caused the mime of “fear humans” to enter into BF enculturation; or 3. A combination of 1 and 2.

2) While generally cautious, apes often become curious of humans.

Often is not always, and there is the possibility that BFs are distinct from apes in this regard.

3) Bears become attracted to human-created food sources. They raid dumpsters, farms, and yards. This often gets them dead but never Bigfoots. Saying it is because the Bigfoots look human is no excuse as this doesn't stop trespassing humans from being shot. The MABRC thinks Bigfoot works the latches on chicken coops and puts the lids back on garbage cans. How are those guys doing?

Forgive me, but this is illogical. “BFs cannot exist because other animals of the same probable size, mass and diet do A; therefore BFs must also do A, and if they are not seen doing A then they must not exist.” It’s circular reasoning and discounts the “remote-dwelling, human-cautious, private-feeding” characteristics which I’ve suggested must apply to the species in order to explain these questions. Also, I personally don’t give any credence to the MABRC.

By what criteria did you keep the PNW reports and dismiss the over 2/3 outside it?

By the sheer unlikelihood that such animals could remain undiscovered, by trace evidence or remains, or sustain themselves anywhere in NA except in the vast forests of the PNW and Canada. If you reject all sightings everywhere of BF, why can I not reject most sightings based on the same criteria, and postulate that only PNW and Canadian sightings are sufficiently plausible to earn my interest?

Advanced search with Bigfoot and fossil specifying user Correa Neto works fine for me.

This is my next task. I’ll get back to ya on this question, which is important to me.

Wildlife experts know what bear scat looks like….

What does Bigfoot poo look like? Is it gold? That's what it would worth!:D

Another damning point in your favor. Is it possible, however, that BFs are intelligent enough to bury or cover their excreta? Is it possible that their population is so small (once again, 2000 spread over a billion + acres), and that they dwell in such remote places that their excreta is never discovered? I certainly don’t pretend to know the answers to these questions, but they’re worth raising nonetheless.

To sum up, I agree with both LONGTABBER and kitakaze that 1. There is no inarguable scientific evidence of these animals’ existence, and 2. the probability of their existence is so low as to be negligible. That said, there is at least a tiny possibility that they could exist. I have yet to discover absolute proof that they cannot exist, and until I do, I will continue to suggest the possibility that maybe they do

[LONGTABBER PE]

LONGTABBER PE:

Not at all, thats a standard footers numbers argument. See, a "report" regardless of who makes it or believes it is 100% worthless for anything scientific UNLESS it is inestigated peoperly and has eidenciary support. Also, there arent "millions" of anything surrounding BF. There are "things" that people give BF credit for doing with no basis in fact whatsoever. ( wood knocking,stone throwing etc)

I understand that the thousands of reports and millions of footprints (this is the number I’ve read or heard: I don’t pretend to personally verify its accuracy) do not qualify as scientific evidence based on the ease of manufacture of the latter and the unreliability of eyewitness testimony as invented, misidentified, hallucinatory, etc. I’m responding conjecturally to conjectural questions, putting forth possible explanations in response to theoretical questions posed by kitakaze. Furthermore, forgive me, but your reasoning on this point appears to be circular: “We know that BFs have never exposed themselves to human sight because we cannot accept the thousands of sightings reported as evidence that they have been sighted.” I apologize if that seems like a straw man, and I’m certain you’ll correct me if it is, but while the phrasing is my own the line of reasoning appears to be yours.

Come on, stay on course and no straw. The point is and always was that a population of BF ( who would have had to be here for centuries- it didnt just drop by) would have left signs. "Everybody" would be seeing them including people in small towns, store cameras etc. Hell, bear, deer and such have landed in swimming pools, been in stores etc, but no BF?

You say “no straw” but I was responding to specific points brought up by kitakaze and the BFF member whom he quoted. If BF is a remote-dwelling, highly-intelligent, human-cautious, winter-dormant, private-feeding species (admittedly a lot of “ifs” that when stacked begin to defy probability), that would explain your above objections. It’s not likely, certainly, but it is at least possible that such a species could exist.

Another non argument-Postulate this: what are the odds of EVERY SINGLE SOLITARY "wildlife expert', hunter, hiker etc misidentifying EVERY SINGLE SOLITARY "alleged" sign for ALL TIME? Yeah, "possible" but highly improbable

Actually, many hikers and hunters have reported BF signs. Kranz in his 1992 book describes how some BF hunters have methods of identifying what they believe to be signs of BF passing, distinct from that of bears. Beyond that what I’m suggesting is that biologists and wildlife experts (not sure why this term garners the use of quotations), largely professions of the 19th and 20th centuries (as distinct from the all-caps “ALL TIME” which you prefer), could be mistaken in their identification of the signs of a large mammal passing. Expectation and a lack of a model to distinguish a BF’s passing from a bear’s could lead to their ascribing “bear” to evidence of a BF passing. I don’t understand how this is a “non-argument”, but you’re free to ignore it or mock it as you like.

>>>There are a number of possibilities that spring to mind. I don't pretend to offer "explanations", but I can offer hypotheticals, suggestions and conjecture:

which dont go or get very far

Wow, thanks for the rude comment! It sure is a pleasure having a dispassionate, contemplative discussion with you.

>>>1. Bigfoot are extremely intelligent, and are cautious of/actively avoid human beings.

false argument that contradicts itself that footers selectively ignore the opposite. They are trying to imply that a BF has some textbook perfect infallible sense and intelligence above all else in the animal kingdom. BF doesnt. And if he did, conversely, you wouldnt have ANY sightings because BF is so "smart". They cant both be true.

Please don’t lump me in with the theories and imaginings of others with whom you have had similar discussions. I’m just conjecturing here, as I’ve stated many times, and I have no stake in the outcome of this debate one way or the other. I do not suggest that BFs, if they exist, have “some textbook perfect infallible sense and intelligence above all else in the animal kingdom”. If they exist, one possible explanation for their avoidance of detection is that it is willful, based on high intelligence relative to other animals. This does not mean perforce that BFs are impervious to error or that their senses and intelligence are so high they could never possibly be spotted. You are creating a false dilemma here: “Either BFs are so smart they cannot be detected ever, OR they should be spotted all the time and easily detected and classified.” IF the animals exist (which I willingly admit is improbable), it’s possible their senses, intelligence and remote habitat are sufficient to avoid detection some or even most of the time, but not all of the time.

>>>2. The PNW (which is the only place I personally think BF could exist) is montane forest, which according to paleontologist Richard Fortey is an unlikely terrain from which to harvest fossil remains, and which by logical induction is also an unlikely terrain from which to harvest stool samples or recently deceased remains. (I'm aware that a member of this forum, who is a geologist, disagrees with this assessment, but apart from stating that he has argued against it, I have not been availed of his line of reasoning, and a search of this forum for bigfoot + fossil revealed nothing.)

You need to check the BFRO and TBRC reports. BF is "everywhere" ( yet no where)

I don’t need to accept all sightings everywhere in NA as definitely true and accurate in order to allow the possibility that some sightings in some places might be true. Another false dilemma!

>>>3. Stool samples, signs of passage and signs of feeding believed to be bears' have been misidentified and are actually bigfoot's.

Yeah, every single solitary one- the ninja BF hides from us by wearing his bear suit. Absolutely brilliant.

I see that you, too, are fond of straw men. I never suggested anything so ridiculous as a bear suit. I said “signs of passage and of feeding”, as in after-the-fact traces of their presence and/or activities. See above for my reasoning as to how biologists and the mysteriously quotation-garnering “wildlife experts” might have misidentified some of these traces.


By the numbers and lets stick to the basics

>>>I understand that the thousands of reports and millions of footprints (this is the number I’ve read or heard: I don’t pretend to personally verify its accuracy) do not qualify as scientific evidence based on the ease of manufacture of the latter and the unreliability of eyewitness testimony as invented, misidentified, hallucinatory, etc.

Then why use "stories" with no substance as the basis of a point?

>>>I’m responding conjecturally to conjectural questions, putting forth possible explanations in response to theoretical questions posed by kitakaze. Furthermore, forgive me, but your reasoning on this point appears to be circular: “We know that BFs have never exposed themselves to human sight because we cannot accept the thousands of sightings reported as evidence that they have been sighted.” I apologize if that seems like a straw man, and I’m certain you’ll correct me if it is, but while the phrasing is my own the line of reasoning appears to be yours.


Yes, I'll correct you now and my reasoning is quite linear and precise. People ( maybe not you specifically but you are dancing on the line) in the pro BF camp generally

1) point to the "vast" ( thats open to interpretation LOL) number of sightings as "proof" BF must be real because if 1 teeny weenie sighting is true, BF is real. ( argument to numbers)

2) BF is so hard to ( get picture,bones,DNA,whatever) because BF has an intelligence,ability, inborn sense to avoid humans at every turn. ( even the ability to recognize game cams as cameras and avoid them)

Problem is they both cancel themselves out. Those arent explanations for a point, they are EXCUSES for FAILURE to PRODUCE. Nothing is "perfect" including BF and ONCE in its existence he would have been hit by a car, a clear photograph, some real hair or SOMETHING.

>>>You say “no straw” but I was responding to specific points brought up by kitakaze and the BFF member whom he quoted. If BF is a remote-dwelling, highly-intelligent, human-cautious, winter-dormant, private-feeding species (admittedly a lot of “ifs” that when stacked begin to defy probability), that would explain your above objections. It’s not likely, certainly, but it is at least possible that such a species could exist.


I dont argue the possibility- just the probability

>>>Actually, many hikers and hunters have reported BF signs.

How many is many? What proportion to the whole? An appeal to numbers. Were they sober? mistaken? lying? What exactly is a "bigfoot sign"? ( defined as something uniquely a BF and nothing else?)

A report that has not been investigated and is accompanied by legitimate EVIDENCIARY support is MEANINGLESS

>>>Kranz in his 1992 book describes how some BF hunters have methods of identifying what they believe to be signs of BF passing, distinct from that of bears. Beyond that what I’m suggesting is that biologists and wildlife experts (not sure why this term garners the use of quotations), largely professions of the 19th and 20th centuries (as distinct from the all-caps “ALL TIME” which you prefer), could be mistaken in their identification of the signs of a large mammal passing.

Dont quote a "bigfoot hunter" as something legitimate. Heres an easy task. Show ONE ( thats all) "method" or result that shows BF.

>>>Expectation and a lack of a model to distinguish a BF’s passing from a bear’s could lead to their ascribing “bear” to evidence of a BF passing. I don’t understand how this is a “non-argument”, but you’re free to ignore it or mock it as you like.

It is a non argument and means absolutely nothing because its neither qualifiable or quantifiable. Its just empty words to explain away failure to produce.

>>>Wow, thanks for the rude comment! It sure is a pleasure having a dispassionate, contemplative discussion with you.

Nothing rude to it- it is a statement of fact.

>>>Please don’t lump me in with the theories and imaginings of others with whom you have had similar discussions.

a rose by any other name

>>>I’m just conjecturing here, as I’ve stated many times, and I have no stake in the outcome of this debate one way or the other. I do not suggest that BFs, if they exist, have “some textbook perfect infallible sense and intelligence above all else in the animal kingdom”.

You have implied that

>>>If they exist, one possible explanation for their avoidance of detection is that it is willful, based on high intelligence relative to other animals. This does not mean perforce that BFs are impervious to error or that their senses and intelligence are so high they could never possibly be spotted. You are creating a false dilemma here: “Either BFs are so smart they cannot be detected ever, OR they should be spotted all the time and easily detected and classified.” IF the animals exist (which I willingly admit is improbable), it’s possible their senses, intelligence and remote habitat are sufficient to avoid detection some or even most of the time, but not all of the time.

I'm not creating anything.

>>>I don’t need to accept all sightings everywhere in NA as definitely true and accurate in order to allow the possibility that some sightings in some places might be true. Another false dilemma!

Its called cherry picking

>>>I see that you, too, are fond of straw men. I never suggested anything so ridiculous as a bear suit. I said “signs of passage and of feeding”, as in after-the-fact traces of their presence and/or activities. See above for my reasoning as to how biologists and the mysteriously quotation-garnering “wildlife experts” might have misidentified some of these traces

Sorry, I only use straw in the flower beds. Show me "signs of passage" that point to a BF

[Biscuit]

The California wolverine case is a perfect example of why the Bigfoot thing is so ludicrous. On Feb. 28, 2008, a photo trap (one of a large array set out for a marten study) snaps a picture of a wolverine. Within a few days:

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/03/080327093622.htm

Within a month, DNA analysis had determined the animal's sex and geographic origin.
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/04/080403125451.htm

Bigfoot hunters should consider the above referenced articles carefully-- this is how real biologists operate every day.

Thats just silly. If I was looking for wolverines I would go out side and holler like a cat in the middle of the night. When the wolverines responded I would leave the area as quickly as possible, declaring success the next day via youtube.com

[kitakaze]

Good discussion, guys, and some excellent points as usual. You may be on your way to making me a full-fledged non-believer. However, a few niggling points remain.

I will state for the record that I have no desire to make you like me in terms of becoming a fellow Bigfoot skeptic. You yourself have made clear many times that you are not a believer but rather allowing yourself to be open to the possibilities. I think you will find in that regard that we make a point of being open to the possibilities. The difference, I think, comes into what degree of openess the facts at hand dictate as appropriate. Let say for the time being that you are on the fence teetering heavily in the direction where most of us here find ourselves. In that regard your beginning at the JREF will be exactly the same as mine. I think there is no intellectual achievement to be recognized in blindy jumping off that fence at somebody elses urging so with that in mind, let's niggle away.

If we apply this typical exaggeration of size and mass to BF sightings, it's possible we may be dealing with a smaller animal, say 5 or 6 feet tall and weighing some 4 - 500 pounds, rather than the gargantuan beast so often reported. This would put BF's daily caloric requirements only slightly above that of ABBs, which at face value (without the question of sight avoidance) seems plausible.

Would real Bigfoots most likely turn out not to be the 12ft goliaths of so many tales? I would certainly have to think so. It just wouldn't make any sense. A 12ft bipedal ape is going to have a type of physiology that we have never seen before. I will fully agree that people tend to exaggerate size. Does that bring Bigfoot into the closer to the caloric ranges of black bears? Well, I think the size consistently reported is big enough to say that Bigfoots are apparently much, much bigger than black bears but for the sake of argument let's spot that point. Let's say Bigfoot's caloric needs are not many several thousands above that of black bears. Let's say it is only a few.

Remember, though, the argument is not about whether or not Bigfoot can sustain itself and survive. It is about whether or not such a large mammal could do it and be unidentified in North America even with a population in the thousands. I am saying most certainly not.

As to sight avoidance, and the study of martens and fishers using track plates and game-cameras, that certainly seems to be a damning point. The only counter-arguments I can postulate are that 1. BFs are intelligent enough to be aware of these human technological insertions into their habitat, and to avoid them, and 2. There are no longer BFs in CA, or else their numbers are so small the marten/fisher track plates and game-cams failed to capture them.

OK, let's start with one - Bigfoot being intelligent enough to recognize gamecams and track plates. What are these things to Bigfoot? Why should they cause Bigfoot any alarm? What history does Bigfoot have with having their survival threatened by our doodads? They certainly haven't seen the wrong ends of our guns. Nor our spears or arrows judging by the complete lack of Bigfoot native artifacts (remains, not amorphous maybe boogeymen tales). Bears have gotten all of these things to the point of extinction of many populations yet they are still intelligent recognize that often it is those human-created doodads that lead to food. That reminds me of the recent "Swamp Stalker" episode where a bear started chewing on on of the gamecams because it smelt of petroleum and plastic.

And hey, wait. That brings me to another excellent point about bears. Along with sharp teeth and jaw adaptions that black bears have, they have that other feature of bears that make them so good at getting all those food items you listed from the wiki entry. They have that wonderful bear nose and front limbs so very adapted for digging. Bears are diggers and sniffers. That's how they come up with so much of the food they find. Bigfoot, as a giant ape, certainly could not have evolved these essential traits in its limited time in North America. No great sniffer, no limbs and claws for digging, and no big sharp teeth to aid in predation.

Another thing to consider also when trying to compare a Bigfoot to a black bear is that black bears evolved in North America. They are much better adapted to life in North America than say brown bears, which are of Eurasian origins. How is it that Bigfoot is having the success better even than black bears in turning up all across North America? But that brings us to your second option.

That being that either Bigfoots have disappeared from their once most traditional territory of California or the numbers have become so low as to be imperceptible to the many ongoing wildlife studies. First, let me point out again that even with apparently only one wolverine in California, the studies were able to detect it. So that doesn't bode well for arguing low numbers. Nor does having numbers so low work when trying to stay fed and maintain a poulation. So maybe they are gone? Maybe log was right and the Bigfoots went extinct? And yet there is no sign of it. Not a trace. And yet why are we even considering it? California has a whopping 405 reports at the BFRO. So you tell me, what is most likely at play here? A real species of animal or a social construct that once you take it out of the hyper media and exposure of North American culture, you can see everywhere around the world - the wild man.

It's worth noting that only 40% of the aforementioned surveys detected one species (martens or fishers); only 3.6% detected both. If there is a tiny population of BF in CA, owing to habitat loss and other factors, then it is at least possible that remote-dwelling, small-population, highly intelligent, human-cautious BFs have so far managed to avoid visual capture and scientific classification. Not likely or probably, perhaps, but it’s at least possible.

1) If you check the studies again, you'll note that what you are talking about in that first sentence is due to the fact that it is the martens that are in trouble. The fishers are doing fine and so exhaustive studies all across the range of habitats are need to figure out the discrepancy. That's real wildlife biology problems and not Bigfoot gobbledy-gook.

2) At least possible. OK, then. But do you see where that's left us? We are now in the realm of the pathetic. We are on the shelf beside the chupacabras and the alien visitation. We are flittering around in the realm of possible. Why are we here? Why do we need to muck about in such a silly place? There's a really neat place over there called "reality" and it's far more interesting. In reality I can explain Bigfoot easily as a social construct. In reality I can show that much of this so-called "mystery" has been invented by people who want to present a mystery. Millions of footprints? Oh crap! That sounds like a genuine anomaly that we should really check out. Wait, what? Oh, those Bigfoot enthusiasts just made that up and there are maybe a couple hundred, all of which can be explained by hoaxing and misidentification? OK, nevermind.

See the only "mystery", I think, is the social one and how the myth perpetuates itself. That's a valid question to me and the one I'm way more interested in than whether or not Bigfoot is really out there.

So are we arguing for Bigfoots going into torpor? Finding a giant stinky massive ape in a state of torpor is definitely going to have occurred if they do in fact do this. Huge stinky animal in one spot. Pretty simple.

Yes, that’s an excellent point. The improbabilities appear to stack up at this point to the point of near impossibility: A remote-dwelling, small-population, highly intelligent, human-cautious, winter-dormant species of North American primate that somehow avoids scientific detection year after year is beginning to sound pretty damn unlikely. Why don’t hunters, biologists or wildlife experts, all of whom conduct their woodland activities in deep winter, stumble across these huge, stinky, torpid animals? The only possibility I can devise is that, if they aren’t in true hibernation, the semi-dormant BFs get wind of the humans’ approach, and stumble away (usually) before they can be spotted. Admittedly this is something of a stretch.

Something of a stretch, to say the least! The Bigfoots have to be dormant enough to preserve the low metabolism but be ready to take flight should any humans approach? And why? What are they worried about? This is all firmly gone into the realm of the ludicrous. We are at the point where we're just trying to throw Bigfoot anything that will float but all we're chucking is the kitchen sink. Bigfoot may be able to do this and may be able to do that. Maybe they do have infrared vision or infra-sound. The point is why are we making this crap up when we can just acknowledge the elephant (or Bigfoot) in the room and call it myth?

We should know exactly what Bigfoots eat because they should be spending most of their time trying to eat. Let's take salmon runs. Are Bigfoots fall-down stupid? Every animal in the forest that eats meat and has access to salmon runs will pig out on dead and dying fish. Why not Bigfoot? Is Bigfoot a herbivore? That would be a problem.

Two possibilities are: 1. BFs don’t eat fish. This would of course deprive them of much-needed calories, but since Amer. black bears don’t eat fish every day, it is at least possible for such a massive animal to survive without fish, OR 2. BFs don’t feed within sight of humans, avoiding visible-to-humans salmon runs. Again, the probability factors here are stacking to the point of nigh impossibility.

1) No, black bears don't eat fish everyday but they do when it's around. When it's not around they have those great sniffers, claws, and teeth, and torpor to help them. What does Bigfoot have? Better not be just better than average ape intelligence because that doesn't even help humans with vast problem solving skills, abstract thought, future planning, and tools when things get scarce and they starve.

2) Yes, you're right. #2 is just silly. Bigfoot sacrifices desperately needed calories in salmon runs that no other forest omnivore/carnivore will avoid and they somehow know which ones are monitored by humans when even bears with their world class noses and hearing do not. Coo coo!:D

Again, 2000 is too low for NA and it's not that they can't [obtain their required caloric intake]. They just can't do it and not be known to science.

2000 is only too low for NA if we include the 2/3 of sightings outside the PNW. (More on this below, in my response to your second message.) They could do it and not be known to science if they are remote-dwelling, small-population, highly intelligent, human-cautious, winter-dormant, private-feeding animals, which is beginning to sound pretty damn unlikely.

I'm thinking one-eyed, one-horned, flying purple people eater:

sJN1Bl52Nhg

[kitakaze]

thats just silly. If i was looking for wolverines i would go out side and holler like a cat in the middle of the night. When the wolverines responded i would leave the area as quickly as possible, declaring success the next day via youtube.com

rofl! :D

[kitakaze]

(snip)

To sum up, I agree with both LONGTABBER and kitakaze that 1. There is no inarguable scientific evidence of these animals’ existence, and 2. the probability of their existence is so low as to be negligible. That said, there is at least a tiny possibility that they could exist. I have yet to discover absolute proof that they cannot exist, and until I do, I will continue to suggest the possibility that maybe they do

There is much more in your post that merits discussion that I would like to get to. I think much of it has been addressed in my previous post to you but there are still key things.

By what's quoted above we basically agree on everything in principle. Yes, maybe Bigfoots exist. Yes, the the chances are so low as to be negligible. So where do we differ in this regard? I don't think very much. In many ways (though there are also significant differences) I think we have much in common with how we came to the JREF. I came a few years ago with a very similar stance. I was growing evermore skeptical but I still had points to niggle. I niggled away and I did so in a manner that was respectful to those I was conversing with and open to their wisdom and experience.

I remember one lady by the name of UrsulaV that was ever patient with me as I niggled away and she was always open to looking at claims of compelling evidence. She would wear on her sleeve that she hoped they would pan out but made it clear the past has not been so kind. There were people I felt were close-minded, too, that I would butt heads with when they would imply that only the frightfully stupid would seriously consider Bigfoot. All in all, many things have changed in those three short years that I've been here but many others have stayed the same. UrsulaV is gone now but I like to think I can pass on some of what I got from her in terms of how we approach skepticism on Bigfoot and other things in general.

I think if you stick around things might be similar for you.

[Vortigern99]

Excellent, vigorous discussion with some difficult-if-not-impossible arguments to surmount from both kitakaze and LONGTABBER. What we're left with is a species of animal which, if it exists:

1. Dwells in such remote areas and in such tiny numbers that a. it is unlikely that anyone would ever see it, effectively discounting all reported sightings, and b. it would lose biological viability within a generation.

2. Manages to acquire some 8000 - 12000 calories a day, without the olfactory sense, manual-claw dexterity, and pointed dentition which ursine species require to obtain such vast quantities of per diem nutrition.

3. Has developed the ability, unique among large primates, to become torpid or dormant during winter months, and furthermore to extract itself from said torpor within moments of sensing human approach.

4. Has an instinctual or enculturated fear of humans, when no known event or encounter would have reasonably engendered such fear.

5. Has senses and intelligence so acute it is able to avoid detection either by live humans or by human technological devices such as track plates and video cameras, routinely used by biologists even in remote wilderness.

6. Has left no traces of passage that can be either a. verified as belonging to an unknown, uncatalogued large mammal, or b. distinguished from the traces left by known, catalogued large mammals.

7. Is remarkably similar to accounts of demonstrably fictional animals in areas worldwide, such as Britain and the Himalayas, where no such animal could possibly sustain itself and/or avoid detection.

8. Given all the above factors, has such a thin margin of probability that its possibility of existence is roughly equivalent to that of chupacabras, alien visitation and modern aquatic dinosaurs.

Mark the page number and post number: This is the point at which, instead of saying "Bigfoot possibly could exist", I say instead: "Bigfoot very probably doesn't exist."

[LONGTABBER PE]

Excellent, vigorous discussion with some difficult-if-not-impossible arguments to surmount from both kitakaze and LONGTABBER. What we're left with is a species of animal which, if it exists:

1. Dwells in such remote areas and in such tiny numbers that a. it is unlikely that anyone would ever see it, effectively discounting all reported sightings, and b. it would lose biological viability within a generation.

2. Manages to acquire some 8000 - 12000 calories a day, without the olfactory sense, manual-claw dexterity, and pointed dentition which ursine species require to obtain such vast quantities of per diem nutrition.

3. Has developed the ability, unique among large primates, to become torpid or dormant during winter months, and furthermore to extract itself from said torpor within moments of sensing human approach.

4. Has an instinctual or enculturated fear of humans, when no known event or encounter would have reasonably engendered such fear.

5. Has senses and intelligence so acute it is able to avoid detection either by live humans or by human technological devices such as track plates and video cameras, routinely used by biologists even in remote wilderness.

6. Has left no traces of passage that can be either a. verified as belonging to an unknown, uncatalogued large mammal, or b. distinguished from the traces left by known, catalogued large mammals.

7. Is remarkably similar to accounts of demonstrably fictional animals in areas worldwide, such as Britain and the Himalayas, where no such animal could possibly sustain itself and/or avoid detection.

8. Given all the above factors, has such a thin margin of probability that its possibility of existence is roughly equivalent to that of chupacabras, alien visitation and modern aquatic dinosaurs.

Mark the page number and post number: This is the point at which, instead of saying "Bigfoot possibly could exist", I say instead: "Bigfoot very probably doesn't exist."

Outstanding I think if you combine the 2, you will be right there with me.

It possibly does but probably doesnt.

[Vortigern99]

I would like to be able to add a word about a lack of fossil evidence, but I still find compelling Fortey's assessment of montane forest as an unlikelihood terrain to yield fossil remains. I cannot seem to find anything about correa neto's counter-arguments on this score, though both that member and kitakaze have assured me those posts exist. Am I using the search function incorrectly? It's very frustrating, as this is an important area of interest for me.

[kitakaze]

Excellent, vigorous discussion with some difficult-if-not-impossible arguments to surmount from both kitakaze and LONGTABBER. What we're left with is a species of animal which, if it exists:

(snip)

Mark the page number and post number: This is the point at which, instead of saying "Bigfoot possibly could exist", I say instead: "Bigfoot very probably doesn't exist."

Eeeeexcellent!

-tW5CPtV3XU

Welcome to the Dark Side!

31qpW9K7ALs

:jedi:

A powerful skeptic, you will become...

Henceforth you shall be known as... Darth... Vortigern.

Rise...

[kitakaze]

I would like to be able to add a word about a lack of fossil evidence, but I still find compelling Fortey's assessment of montane forest as an unlikelihood terrain to yield fossil remains. I cannot seem to find anything about correa neto's counter-arguments on this score, though both that member and kitakaze have assured me those posts exist. Am I using the search function incorrectly? It's very frustrating, as this is an important area of interest for me.

You must not be using it correctly. Did you do the search as specified?

Search>Advanced Search>Keyword(s) Bigfoot fossil>Specified User Correa Neto> Show results as>posts

I got a pile of stuff. Here's one to start:

http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=4042404&postcount=16016

LAL used to try contending this all the time and Correa would naturally being a geologist just own the situation. Try mostly for results in the 411 PGF.

[Vortigern99]

Kitakaze, thanks for welcoming me to the dark side... though I must say I prefer to think of skepticism as the light side, per Sagan's use of the term "Science as a Candle in the Dark" as a sub-title for his indescribably awesome and informative 1996 book, The Demon-Haunted World. :cool:

As to the fossil thing, using the recommended criteria yields me five threads, some of which have posts numbering in the thousands, and all of which are impossible to penetrate in search of the specified posts. The link you offered, sadly, has no information on the viability of montane forest for producing fossil remains of local fauna.

What I'm looking for is a specific rebuttal to renowned British paleontologist Richard Fortey's assessment that montane forest is a poor producer of fossil remains of any kind, so:

All fossils are found in rocks that were originally unconsolidated sediments... Certain environments which today support a rich and varied plant and animal life have no sediments forming in them, and the organisms living there have virtually no chance of being preserved in the fossil record. Mountainous regions, for example, are dominated by the erosion of the rock forming the ranges, and therefore no permanent sediment is formed there. Torrential rain and rapid weathering, aided in some climates by the action of frost, rapidly destroys much of the organic material: the chances of any preservable remains reaching a lowland river where permanent sediment is accumulating are remote. The faunas and floras of mountainous regions of the past are most unlikely to be represented in the fossil record. The fossilization potential of a mountainous environment is low. [Fortey 1991]

How is it that Correa Neto is in direct opposition to this acclaimed paleontologist in this matter? If we can solve this discrepancy, we can add another point to the list of improbabilities associated with BF's existence.

[JcR]

Whatever you choose to call it. All bears can enter a "winter lethargy"
Torpor, semi sleep, Winter naps, or the denning period and Winter rest.
Though Bears can have different levels of sleep mode. In late December it can be more like that of
a deep hibernation. Whatever way it's defined
all bears can do this, just in a different fashion compared to smaller animals.
It all depends on the region and food availability.
I like to just call it denning. Female Grizzly bears, Polar bears and Black bears
give birth during this denning period, having a deep sleep while the young cubs feed.
Usually they can be awoken easily. Depends on how deep the lethargy is, but they can be brought out of it
if they are too disturbed.
You could even say bears have a more efficient way of adaptation to changes.
That enable them to go into the appropriate sleep state mode, when food supplies are low.
Bears do not urinate or defecate during "winter sleep" another difference
compared to other animals that need to dispose of this waste during hibernation.

Maybe a Bigfoot has a plug in the digestive tract (similar to bears during Denning)...Why these
plugs form in bears. Long periods without food, feces will still form in the intestines, and things that
hang around in the intestines for too long tend to dry and harden.
All sorts of matter is found in bear fecal plugs.
Probably from waking up from time to time from a "Winter slumber" to groom.
And these plugs smell worse than a unhygienic and unkept Bigfoot.
(Just a guess, I really don't know how bad BF'S can smell)

No! My Bigfoot plug is actually a little different. One that actually does prohibit dung from exiting the body.
A 24/7, 365 days a year fecal Plug.
All the waste that accumulates inside them, is broken down and is reused as protein.
The Dumpyfoot kind of waste disposal. (The plug is just in place to keep spillage from happening)
I guess I'm saying a piece of moss, lichen or garlic will go a long way.
Enabling them to go for extended periods of time without Pooping. On the other hand
I have given consideration, that the Bigfoot may go into a deep hibernation, like a squirrel.
Occasionally arises to do the business of Peeing and Pooping. A Bigfoot with nitrogenous waste in the blood, I'm sure is not a happy camper.
Also, this is a good time to refresh the system to help ward off pathogens to.
Though this scenario has the species defecating and urinating, and is more than likely
a more realistic scenario for Bigfoot. Having natural movements like other animals, and eating
like most other animals do, be it herbivore or a Omnivore.
Of course Bigfoots could just keep on migrating like nomadic fluff balls in search for food and good breeders.
Avoiding hibernation altogether.
Bears can be extremely elusive just like a Bigfoot can be, but a hungry gut can get bears into trouble.
Guess a Bigfoot doesn't let itself get into any trouble, even when some go searching for it.
When we go looking for bears and other animals this can happen (http://www.strimoo.com/video/14068704/Easton-Bowhunting-TV-Bear-Attack-MySpaceVideos.html). When we go looking for Bigfoot...(insert your favorite BF video here)?
Joking aside...And enough of me babbling here.
We truly will not know the BF'S living habits. Until we get a rather Dumb Dumbfoot that crosses the road at the wrong time.
A real specimen, dead or alive (in my mind anyways) is much needed.
I think at this point more than just photo blobs, poor video, bent tree branches, hoots
in the woods, and Questionable foot casts Will be needed, in order to define this creature as real. Then we can get on with some intensive field research.
Though some intensive searching could eventually lead us to...?

[xblade]

I have given consideration, that the Bigfoot may go into a deep hibernation, like a squirrel.

Naaah, it's much simpler than all that. Bigfoot just jumps to a warmer dimension during the winter months. Yeah, I know, it sounds hard to believe, but it is POSSIBLE. And until someone proves that bigfoot does not have the ability to travel to other dimensions, I have no choice but to entertain that possibility.

[JcR]

Of course. Interesting! This might explain the flying V blobs that I see in the Fall. An old friend of mine used to call them Blowhards.

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/2839649c724631334a.jpg

[JcR]

It is true that bones and very acidic soils don't really agree with one another.
Nature has a way of disposing and preserving. I am omitting a lot of factors here.
Microbial decay,Insects (Entomological activity)
Activity of the local scavengers (that also help disperse the bones)
Precipitation and soil pH, all come to mind.
Micro-environments (just like micro-zones that may be present in one's own garden) can
have interesting affects on decay.
I do agree that Carcasses of larger predatory animals are not something one stumbles across everyday.
They usually meet this fate because of - us killing them, diseases, accidents, and old age.
I did find a dead deer last year. I was following some coyote tracks that led me to a
gutted deer. It is pretty much gone now, I'm sure animal activity was the main reason for this.
I'm sitting here thinking, we see all these animals alive and kicking...But no BF.
If Bigfoot is reported to be all over North America, I would think somewhere along the line it would
Get itself trapped in some natural disaster.like a Mount Saint.Helens. (That would help preserve a BF)
or a big flood that may have washed BF's remains into a cave, or buried it in sediments somewhere.
Naturally mummified on some mountain, anything... Ok! That was a little extreme.
How about simply "kicking off" as it walks by your tent at night.
Something tells me we might stumble upon some kind of bone evidence of recently past Bigfoots,
or find much older remains that may reside in caves. Swampy area full of peat moss. Trapped in sediments
in some river delta. I'm just trying to imagine where a BF might croak, or a place
that water may have carried a dead BF off to. I guess we could be missing all the good BF evidence.
I don't think we have proof either way.
Though lack of evidence that would support such an animal.Suggest to me
that it is more than likely just folklore. Believe me, I am always trying to think of
scenarios how a BF could sustain itself and live pretty much undetected by us. Eat, Breed, and die
without a positive trace for us to discover. (Don't always express them) Don't want to admit I may be nuts.
But I soon forget it all when I see all the wonderful creatures we have present with us today.
Totally unrelated?
You know, when I was a lot younger I was sent out to hunt for snipe with a burlap sack.
They wouldn't even tell me what a snipe was. All they would tell me was "it will fit in a
bread box." I can't remember at what point it finally dawned on me. But I remember running
back to the farm house as mad as hell.

[Drewbot]

A few responses to Vortigern's list.

1. What if Bigfoot Migrates (i.e. Caribou) to avoid cold weather, to obtain better forage?
2. What if Bigfoot is Magic? i.e. what if they are born as Mage Level 3, and say full grown female would have the powers of say a Mage Level 7? Dimension door anyone?
3. Why in the two most famous Bigfoot videos, does bigfoot not take the shortest route towards cover? (MDF/ PGF)

[Correa Neto]

...snip...How is it that Correa Neto is in direct opposition to this acclaimed paleontologist in this matter? If we can solve this discrepancy, we can add another point to the list of improbabilities associated with BF's existence.

I made some searches and it seems there’s a gap in the post records; I think they are no indexed yet. Anyway, here it goes, written as clearly and simple as I can, trying not to get too technical.

Sorry Vort, but there’s a lot of footerlore at that work and it derived even more. Yes, I’m pretty aware some footers will want to kick my balls for saying this, so be it. The errors are not exactly within Fortey’s words; they are actually on the way Glickman tries to use them to explain the absence of remains. And this is nothing but the standard footer information cherry-picking.

Glickman asks us to “suspend disbelief for a moment”. Here’s the clue, here’s the special pleading, here’s where the problems starts. If the reasoning and evidence were solid, there would be no need to suspend our disbelief.

We’ll need first to venture outside geology to start checking the argument; you`ll see that the core of the problem has already been touched my more than a poster here. He claims most sightings are from mountainous regions. Note that this is far from being well-established and the criteria to deduce this are debatable at best, but let’s skip this part.

Let’s restrain ourselves to Glickman’s proposal of mountainous terrain. Well, for sure bigfeet have not evolved at some remote PNW corner and remained there, right? So, let’s side with conventional bigfootery and suppose they evolved from gigantopithecus. Now we have a problem, since these animals were not from mountainous terrain or from an environment similar to bigfoot country (check Ciochon’s site and works for more data).

OK, they could adapt and evolve, right? Yes, it is possible. But here's where Glickman’s reasoning starts to show its holes. Between gigantopithecus known range (South Asia) and bigfoot country there is a vast stretch of land, with huge ecological and geological diversity. Its not an isolated mountain range we are talking about here.

These giant apes could not board the Mayflower and move to North America; they would rather gradually expand their habitats by changing strategies and/or evolving in to new species until reaching North America. They would have to be able to adapt themselves to several types of climates, terrain and vegetation types. It is not just a matter of crossing the space between Southern Asia and North America- it’s a matter of living and breeding across all this space. And here enters the geodiversity of this vast area- plenty of opportunities for remains preservation. Despite this fact, not a single trace of similar animals was found so far. Yes, you might propose a small group of giant apes slowly increasing its habitat along narrow corridors, such as forests along rivers, until they reach North America and stay there, isolated at some distant mountain range. But it’s a huge stretch for me.

And it gets worse. Bigfeet, even according to Glickman, should not be restricted to mountainous terrains. He admits there are reports from other areas. Actually the sightings distribution is scattered across most of North America. Thus, the remains preservation odds are higher than what Glickman tries to make you believe. Despite this fact, not a single trace.

But wait, there’s more! Current bigfoot distribution (even if isolated at some remote mountain range) is the result of centuries of environmental pressures created by European settlers; the original population numbers may have been higher and maybe even more widespread before the settlers. Despite this fact, not a single trace. Note that if you follow the idea that some Native American legends are about bigfoot it is hard to disagree with this conclusion regarding the species’ range(*). Again, to figure out a way out of this results in quite a stretch, don’t you think?

Migration with the first human settlers, as proposed by footers is unlikely. A more complex history, like the “migrations” of big cats and megafauna would be more likely.

Now the fossils in mountain ranges question. It is not impossible, it is only a bit harder. Sediments do accumulate in mountains (they just have a hard time staying there for millions of years) and there may be sedimentary basins at or flanking mountain ranges. Note that most fossils are not found where the animals died; they are transported, say, by rivers, dumped at some river bar and later covered by new sediment layers. Flash floods are responsible for many a wonderful fossil site, for example. Remember also some australopithecines and the gigantopithecus remains were found in caves; bigfoot country has fossil deposits in caves. Some say they record open environments, but remember that this changes with geological time and the faunal records of these caves are not consistent with just open field environments. To this, add lakes, peat bogs and the infamous tar pits. Googling for Pleistocene fossil deposits Pacific Northwest will give you a glimpse of the record; try using Academic Google for better details.

When this discussion appears, the proponents says something like no gorilla fossils, no okapi fossils, no mountain goats fossils… Well, there are indeed fossils of these animals (or of their close relatives). But not a single remain (fossil or not) of a bigfoot-like creature in an area between South Asia and North America…

I’m not saying that the absence of fossils is a nail in bigfoot’s coffin. All I’m saying is that it is a serious problem. It’s one more nail. It narrows even more the gap where bigfeet could hide. Individually, the arguments against bigfoot’s existence as a real animal can be contested, with different degrees of success. The problem is that together these arguments make a very strong case against bigfeet being real- the odds of fulfilling whats requested for all these arguments require a very unlikely combination. Bigfeet should try the lotto! If these critters were real, it is expected that evidence other than specimens would also be available, such as good quality footage or stills not suspected of being a hoax, DNA samples from blood, poop, hair, tissue, etc. Nothing of this type is available.

(*)Actually bigfoot population distribution - assuming they are real - when Europeans arrived should have been the result of interactions with humans for thousands of years. If they arrived before humans, forest management practices by Native Americans may have restricted their habitats.

A note- I will be very liberal with the use of the term “fossil”; I may be talking about material which has not suffered any noticeable amount of mineralization.

[desertyeti]

A note- I will be very liberal with the use of the term “fossil”; I may be talking about material which has not suffered any noticeable amount of mineralization.

No worries Correa.
In actuality, a fossil is ANY naturally preserved remnant of past life.
Including: imprints, complete replacement, permineralization, freezing, and desiccation.
point of fact, becoming "fossilized" does not necessarily mean "turned to stone" contrary to what many non-specialists believe.
Frozen wooly mammoths are by definition a fossil just as much as a permineralized T. rex.

Back to your regularly scheduled program....

[Drewbot]

I'd like to thank Vort for the intellectual honesty he has shown, Correa for adding the fossil problem, DY for the clarification of what qualifies as a fossil

[Correa Neto]

"I will be"... Crap! Cut-and-paste got me!

Well, someone once said my understanding of evolution is limited because I wrote something like "evolution chooses"... Ah, the delicate ballance between informal language and accuracy! Oh! The limitations of language

[desertyeti]

Just wanted to point out what a fossil really is in case someone tries to jump down your throat for being "too liberal" when in fact your definition is perfectly accurate.
Carry on!:D

[Correa Neto]

Carrion?
Now my heart is broken and my self esteem shattered!

I will jump in to the bigfeet pit!

[SweatyYeti]

Correa Neto wrote:
I’m not saying that the absence of fossils is a nail in bigfoot’s coffin.

All I’m saying is that it is a serious problem.


Is the lack of fossil remains of Giganto (a Bigfoot-type creature), a serious problem for it's existence...in ye days of old?

[desertyeti]

I will jump in to the bigfeet pit!
As well you should.
Beg forgiveness from his mighty greatness "The Boss of the Woods."
Say 100, no, 1000 "Hail Gimlins" and perhaps you too will be saved by the writings of Krantz.
I will pray to the Pork'n'Beans can on my nightstand for you.

[kitakaze]

Is the lack of fossil remains of Giganto (a Bigfoot-type creature), a serious problem for it's existence...in ye days of old?

You mean before 1935? Not really. Nobody was arguing over Gigantopithecus before the fossils turned up. Nobody was thinking anything about it at all. But luckily with over a thousand fossil teeth specimens including some mandibles, we can say Gigantos are no slouches in the fossil record. And you can call Giganto a Bigfoot-type creature if all you need is big and ape but that would make gorillas and orangutans Bigfoot-type creatures as well.

Sweaty wants another trip through the ringer, I see.

ETA: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/d6/Gigantopithecus_model.JPG

[Vortigern99]

Thanks for the clarifications, Correa Neto and all. I think I've got what I need to start writing a detailed rebuttal/follow-up to my first AnomaylMag article.

May I request permission from the contributors to this thread to paraphrase your various points and questions? Particularly if I list either your real names or your internet aliases (your choice)?

I'll post a similar question in the P/G thread Part 3.

[kitakaze]

Thanks for the clarifications, Correa Neto and all. I think I've got what I need to start writing a detailed rebuttal/follow-up to my first AnomaylMag article.

May I request permission from the contributors to this thread to paraphrase your various points and questions? Particularly if I list either your real names or your internet aliases (your choice)?

I'll post a similar question in the P/G thread Part 3.

I trust your engagement and attention to detail in this discussion will result in a fine article.

You certainly have my permisson.

Kitakaze at the NSA JREF will be fine.

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:
And you can call Giganto a Bigfoot-type creature if ALL you need is big and ape but...


That's not true, kitty.

"Big" and "Ape" are not all there is to Giganto's fossils.

There is also the shape of the lower jaw, which, as Grover Krantz explains in his book, 'Bigfoot Evidence', indicates an upright posture, due to it's widening at the back.


Just that indication alone....even though it doesn't rise to the level of 'proof'.....creates a certain 'degree of probability' that Giganto walked upright.

Giganto's true posture is not known, so there is a chance it may have been bipedal.
A 'chance'....with a reason behind it.

[kitakaze]

There is also the shape of the lower jaw, which, as Grover Krantz explains in his book, 'Bigfoot Evidence', indicates an upright posture, due to it's widening at the back.

You gotta learn some new moves, old boy.

:rolleyes:

Sorry, who said what in his what book? Give me a source that didn't get fooled with hoaxes and play Bigfoot science.

:nope: All you got is big and ape. I'll stick with the experts, thanks:

Locomotion

Ciochon et al., (1990) speculate that given its size Gigantopithecus blacki was a ground dwelling ape, probably a knuckle walker, though it could just as easily been a fist walker, the exact nature of its locomotion is impossible to ascertain from mandibles. Given its mass it could not have been a gibbon-like brachiator.


http://www.wynja.com/arch/gigantopithecus.html

*flush*

Bye-bye, stinky.

[kitakaze]

Here's a Giganto jawbone next to a human:

http://www.uiowa.edu/~bioanth/jaw.jpg

Doesn't look like the jaw of a biped to me. I know a lot about anthropology but I'm no scientist, only an enthusiast. I know I'll need better than the opinion of a guy we knew to be blinded by a pursuit of Bigfoot to make me think otherwise.

But wait a second. How come that jawbone looks like nothing we see on Patty if Patty is supposed to be a real Bigfoot and thus a Giganto descendant?

ETA: BTW, Sweaty, why no unambiguous photos/videos of Bigfoot? You actually believe Bigfoot is in New York state so what's the deal?

[SweatyYeti]

kitakaze wrote:
ETA: BTW, Sweaty, why no unambiguous photos/videos of Bigfoot?
You actually believe Bigfoot is in New York state so what's the deal?


That would be because of one of 2 basic reasons....either there is no Bigfoot in NY, or, because there is a small population of Bigfoot, but it's very rarely seen, in an area consisting of millions of acres of forests.


You say that I "believe" Bigfoot is in NY....but it's not a matter of simple "belief".

I think that there is a 'high probability' of Bigfoot's existence in NY.....but despite the odds, or probability.....it may not exist in that area.

In neither case ('pro' or 'con') is Bigfoot's existence a known 'quantity'.

[kitakaze]

That would be because of one of 2 basic reasons....either there is no Bigfoot in NY, or, because there is a small population of Bigfoot, but it's very rarely seen, in an area consisting of millions of acres of forests.


You say that I "believe" Bigfoot is in NY....but it's not a matter of simple "belief".

I think that there is a 'high probability' of Bigfoot's existence in NY.....but despite the odds, or probability.....it may not exist in that area.

In neither case ('pro' or 'con') is Bigfoot's existence a known 'quantity'.

You must have some bizarre idea of what dictates a high probability. But I knew that. Tell us, what is your rationalization for giving Bigfoot a high probability of existence in New York? These creatures need to maintain a viable breeding population, seek out and obtain the many thousands of calories they need in a day, survive New York winters, and do it all without ever having yielded a type specimen to science. How can you explain that?

Also, many more people in New York claim alien encounters so which is more probable?

[rockinkt]

Just wanted to point out what a fossil really is in case someone tries to jump down your throat for being "too liberal" when in fact your definition is perfectly accurate.
Carry on!:D

Sometimes fossils are found in groups...

http://img267.imagevenue.com/loc10/th_80168_Mick-Jagger-vi03_122_10lo.jpg (http://img267.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=80168_Mick-Jagger-vi03_122_10lo.jpg)

[Correa Neto]

Ah, but would those be sedimentary stones?

[Correa Neto]

Correa Neto wrote:



Is the lack of fossil remains of Giganto (a Bigfoot-type creature), a serious problem for it's existence...in ye days of old?
I guess you mean back in time when they were not extinct. Oh, its a philosophical "what if" question! I'll answer with three questions!

Who was there back then to experience the qualia created by gigantopithecus' existence?

Are these qualia independent of the experiencer?

An observer, there back then would be able to obtain reliable evidence of gigantopithecus' existence?

Now, lets discuss P-zombies P-zoobies.

[Correa Neto]

Vort, you may use the material I wrote. Note that I'm dumb enough to use my real name here...

[xblade]

I think that there is a 'high probability' of Bigfoot's existence in NY.....but despite the odds, or probability.....it may not exist in that area.

Because of the odds, or probability, bigfoot probably doesn't exist in NY...or anywhere else for that matter.

In neither case ('pro' or 'con') is Bigfoot's existence a known 'quantity'.

It is as known as mermaids, leprechauns, Santa Claus, and unicorns. How known that is depends on who you ask I guess.

[kitakaze]

I guess you mean back in time when they were not extinct. Oh, its a philosophical "what if" question! I'll answer with three questions!

And in typical Sweaty fashion we should see him prancing about singing that you failed to answer his question and that only a "yes" or "no" is required.

I really hope he does this. I'll be waiting. I don't think he will, though. Sweaty has begun to learn those tactics blow up in his face. He will more likely just back away real quiet like.

[kitakaze]

You say that I "believe" Bigfoot is in NY....but it's not a matter of simple "belief".

It is belief with you, Sweaty. I can absolutely show that. It's not about reliable evidence. It's not about facts. Joyce is not reliable evidence. You believe her. You believe the people who say they've seen Bigfoot. I dare you to bring up Joyce again. Try proving that is not about belief with you and we'll explain it carefully once again. Will you be able to deal with it or just run away again?

I think that there is a 'high probability' of Bigfoot's existence in NY.....but despite the odds, or probability.....it may not exist in that area.

Yes, let's hear these odds.

[JcR]

David Paulides, at 7:10 talks about Bigfoot and game cams (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrwV3XfwUZs&feature=related)

[sanguine]

David Paulides, at 7:10 talks about Bigfoot and game cams (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrwV3XfwUZs&feature=related)

It's too bad that audiologist didn't just bag the game cam and put a plain old web cam out watching his back yard. I mean, if bigfoot is visiting your back yard, you don't really need a game cam, right?

[JcR]

It's too bad that audiologist didn't just bag the game cam and put a plain old web cam out watching his back yard. I mean, if bigfoot is visiting your back yard, you don't really need a game cam, right?

Some Garlic stuffed with some extra strength laxatives. Set up your web cam
and your good to go.
http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/2839649cb0ad4527b3.jpg
To add-Follow up pictures are too graphic.

[marlborough]

Why Are All BF Photos Of The Blobsquatch Variety?

Consider the following scenario, a person is walking through the woods and hears twigs snapping and leaves rustling. They can't see what's generating the noise, but the pro-squatch side of the brain just aching to see Bigfoot manipulates all the dark shadows, abstract shapes and other canopy distortions into a 900 pound lump of bi-pedal primate flesh.

Unfortunately, a camera doesn't have the benefit of an over active imagination, paranoia or the ability to exaggerate details. It can't succumb to a child-like obsession of wanting to see our overweight ape. So what the camera photographs, is exactly what the eyewitness actually saw. Just a bunch of odd looking shapes and shadows. We now have yet another blobsquatch photo to add to the album.

Perhaps this is why so many sighting are not reported until decades after the encounter. Certain details at the time of the sighting that suggested it was not a BF sighting are forgotten and the sub-conscious obsession of Sasquatch is permitted to fill in the blanks. Viola, an undisputable BF sighting is born and it can be added to the database.

[Biscuit]

I think there are no photos of bigfoot because it is very very hard to get close to large apes in the wild. Look closely in the right foreground of this picture and if you use an open mind and tilt your head and squint you will see a large mountain ape. There is a second in the background to the left but it could just be trees and branches looking like an ape.

http://web.me.com/ilkawallace/Site/Our_Albums/Pages/Rwanda.html#122


These were taken by my sister-in-law while in rwanda on a recent trip. She has assured me she used only the "enhance" feature in preview and no other photoshopping. I am certain she would not mind me sharing them. Lots of great ape pics.:D

[kitakaze]

I like the old Scott Herriott video (starts around 4:00):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jcl3wx27XC4

Blobsquatch made me cry!:cry1

[Biscuit]

I like the old Scott Herriott video (starts around 4:00):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jcl3wx27XC4

Blobsquatch made me cry!:cry1

I love that!!! Typical bigfoot researchers, they spend ten years looking for bigfoot and when they find him they decide to leave the area as quickly as they can. It makes my head hurt.

[kitakaze]

I love that!!! Typical bigfoot researchers, they spend ten years looking for bigfoot and when they find him they decide to leave the area as quickly as they can. It makes my head hurt.

Classic footer formula. Not enough squatch in your blob? Turn up the self-emasculating blubbering and flee. He really should have just thrown his purse in the bushes and make something happen.

[Vortigern99]

I think there are no photos of bigfoot because it is very very hard to get close to large apes in the wild. Look closely in the right foreground of this picture and if you use an open mind and tilt your head and squint you will see a large mountain ape. There is a second in the background to the left but it could just be trees and branches looking like an ape.

http://web.me.com/ilkawallace/Site/Our_Albums/Pages/Rwanda.html#122


These were taken by my sister-in-law while in rwanda on a recent trip. She has assured me she used only the "enhance" feature in preview and no other photoshopping. I am certain she would not mind me sharing them. Lots of great ape pics.:D

If it's "very very hard to get close to large apes in the wild", why are there literally millions of pictures of apes in the wild? Have you perhaps heard of Jane Goodall, Diane Fossey, or anyone working in primatology over the last 45 years?

I find it extraordinarily myopic of you to base your belief in bigfoot on your sister's failure to capture a clear photo of an African ape in its natural habitat.

EDIT: Forgive me if I misunderstood your post. Were you being sarcastic?

[kitakaze]

If it's "very very hard to get close to large apes in the wild", why are there literally millions of pictures of apes in the wild? Have you perhaps heard of Jane Goodall, Diane Fossey, or anyone working in primatology over the last 45 years?

I find it extraordinarily myopic of you to base your belief in bigfoot on your sister's failure to capture a clear photo of an African ape in its natural habitat.

EDIT: Forgive me if I misunderstood your post. Were you being sarcastic?

*kitakaze leans over to Vort*

:mgduh

Too late. He caught it, though.

So new Darth Vortigern is to the ways of the Dark Side of the Farce.;)

[Vortigern99]

My sarcast-o-meter was a little late kicking in. Maybe next time Biscuit could place around his post for the benefit of the uninitiated? ;)

[Biscuit]

My sarcast-o-meter was a little late kicking in. Maybe next time Biscuit could place around his post for the benefit of the uninitiated? ;)

I figured the disparity between my description of the photo and the actual photo would be a dead give away. It is good to know my dry sense of humor translates to the internet well. I hope you can laugh at yourself because that was funny.

I am so confused by the bigfooters search-and-flee hunting tactic. Its not like gorillas are know as gentle and cuddly creatures yet a group of about 8 were able to track, find, photograph, and sit next to them for nearly an hour.

The only time I have known someone to run from an animal in the wild was when my sister encountered a mountain lion while jogging near our old cabin. I have never heard of anyone, bigfooters aside, that actively stalks a creature so they can run away when they find it. To me it feels like the hunt for bigfoot is what they really want, bigfoot itself is largely irrelevant.

[Vortigern99]

I must confess, I fell for it hook line and sinker. Nice job! :D

[kitakaze]

I am so confused by the bigfooters search-and-flee hunting tactic.

I bring deliciousness. True footer jackass search-and-flee brilliance.

Dudes looking for Bigfoot in Utah. Near the end of the first video the sun is going down and they think they hear something in the bushes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=In9TTrudmoI

Part 2 quickly devolves into fleeing in terror:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uXezIDLZyMk&feature=related

[Drewbot]

Personally, I think a gun is the best way to disprove bigfoot. And I have suggested this to many of the "Camp and Listen and Forget the Film" methodologists of bigfoot hunting.

The suggestion is, that when everyone is sitting around the campfire, someone stands up, displays his firearm, and proclaims
" THIS IS MAH GUN, IF I HEAR SOMETHING WOOD KNOCKING, I AM OPENING FIRE, IF I HEAR SOMETHING WALKING AROUND MY TENT, I AM OPENING FIRE, IF ANY OF THE TRIP WIRES GO OFF, I AM OPENING FIRE, IF ANYTHING PRESSES ON MY CHEST, OR I CAN HEAR ITS BREATHING, I AM GOING TO OPEN FIRE, OR SHANK IT IN THE CAROTID ARTERY WITH MY K-BAR (Displays knife)."

Needless to say, any and all bigfoot Shenanigans stop shortly after that.


PROJECTED FOOTER RESPONSE TO THIS SUGGESTION: "Of Course it stops, Bigfoot knows when you have a gun, and what's more, he probably heard your speech."

[LAL]

No, I think he's referring to Creekfreak's photo, as well. Creek stated that the creature came out of the woods because of a forest fire, in front of a fire helicopter, and he claimed the pilots didn't report it because they were afraid of losing their jobs. If you remember, the focus of the full picture was the helicopter itself.

Not quite:

[kitakaze]

Freak's still rockin' on Melissa's board. He just got his boat stolen and was apparently going to bring his gun and take care of business:

http://searchforbigfoot.org/index.php?showtopic=1251

I couldn't help but note everyone in that thread is a Glenn Beck fan.

I apologize to any of my American who disagree but Glenn Beck makes me want to vomit in tinfoil and eat it.

[kitakaze]

BTW, Lu, you disappoint me as a Bigfoot enthusiast. Your youtube profile is covered in anti-creationism gobbledy-gook and not a single Bigfoot video. Boo. ;)

[LAL]

I love that!!! Typical bigfoot researchers, they spend ten years looking for bigfoot and when they find him they decide to leave the area as quickly as they can. It makes my head hurt.

Them. There were apparently two somethings.

I hadn't heard the "ten years" before.

They did go back the next day and found hair. According to Herriott (who's probably the most cynical of any "researcher") the analysis came back human/gorilla/chimpanzee group, but none of the above.

I met Peter Byrne in in Hood River at an Audubon Society meeting. He was very down to earth.

[kitakaze]

They did go back the next day and found hair. According to Herriott (who's probably the most cynical of any "researcher") the analysis came back human/gorilla/chimpanzee group, but none of the above.

Interesting anecdote. Came back from where?

ETA: Lu, can you think of any good reasons why there are no unambiguous videos or photos of Bigfoot?

[LAL]

BTW, Lu, you disappoint me as a Bigfoot enthusiast. Your youtube profile is covered in anti-creationism gobbledy-gook and not a single Bigfoot video. Boo. ;)

I don't consider myself an "enthusiast". I was debating creationists when I ran across the BFF. It's something I still do because it gets me into molecular genetics and other subjects I want to know more about. I don't consider that "goobledy-gook".

I have some sasquatch related playlists, but the MQ videos were removed when A&E complained. The channel they were on was closed.

I'm into the Shakespeare authorship question now.

[LTC8K6]

That's a crop, Lu. The full photo is below, but for some reason I only have my b&w copy online.

http://home.att.net/~ltc8k6/BW001.jpg

[LAL]

Interesting anecdote. Came back from where?

Dunno. Klamath Falls?

ETA: Lu, can you think of any good reasons why there are no unambiguous videos or photos of Bigfoot?

I think there are three or four that would be considered unambiguous for an identified species.

Most encounters are at night, most witnesses aren't carrying cameras and even if they are and have the presence of mind to aim and shoot the resulting picture may be just another blobsquatch (or in that case, two blobsquatches).

Owen Caddy tells a story on one of the podcasts about a professional crew that tried for six weeks, with trail cams and other high tech equipment, to get shots of chimpanzees. The troop was especially wary because they'd been hunted. In six weeks the pros didn't even see one.

[kitakaze]

Herriott (who's probably the most cynical of any "researcher")

Herriott presents himself well on TV. He should - he was a weatherman.

Here's Scott talking Bigfoot on CNN:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nq7_5DZ3Ik8

Still, he recycles a lot of silly footerisms and thinks he saw a big white Bigfoot based on pareidolia video play and his footer friend's blubbering.

[kitakaze]

I don't consider myself an "enthusiast". I was debating creationists when I ran across the BFF. It's something I still do because it gets me into molecular genetics and other subjects I want to know more about. I don't consider that "goobledy-gook".

Lu, you make a great straight woman. You're missing all my riffs. It's intentionally ironic for me to refer to anti-creationism information as gobbledy-gook because it is very important, particularly to skeptics. Bigfoot, of course, is what would actually be referred to as gobbledy-gook by most intelligent people.

I have some sasquatch related playlists, but the MQ videos were removed when A&E complained. The channel they were on was closed.

I think that stinks there was a complaint (History Channel)? Being in Japan, youtube was the only way I've ever been able to watch MQ.

[LAL]

That's a crop, Lu.

That's the shot as it was on the CD Creek sent DW after many requests for the original. I'd forgotten I'd captured it until I found it in one of my flash drives.

It's pre-Creek's Photoshopping. The area in question is on the far right. It's clear the "figures" are nothing but tree branches and nothing - not even a decent shadow.

[LAL]

Lu, you make a great straight woman. You're missing all my riffs.

No I'm not. I just don't feel like playing. I'm tired. I have a headache.


I think that stinks there was a complaint (History Channel)? Being in Japan, youtube was the only way I've ever been able to watch MQ.

I was inspired to buy the first season because of those vids. I have a dish now and I can record the shows (only one so far), but A&E made money off me thanks to YouTube. I'll bet they didn't think of that.

[LAL]

Herriott presents himself well on TV. He should - he was a weatherman.

Here's Scott talking Bigfoot on CNN:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nq7_5DZ3Ik8

Still, he recycles a lot of silly footerisms and thinks he saw a big white Bigfoot based on pareidolia video play and his footer friend's blubbering.

I'm no sure what he saw. On one of my DVDs he says he didn't want to see what his friend was seeing. Daryl saw a dark one lying down. When they went back they found a sort of nest with hair.

He's said on BFF the video is worthless.

He was a stand-up comic at one time. Have you seen his Squatchin' DVDs? I liked the one with the drive across the Bridge of the Gods. I lived about 1 1/2 miles from there. He interviewed Datus Perry (the name was spelled wrong) who didn't have long to live. Datus gave a talk at the Stevenson library and had me wondering where he got some of that stuff. There were quite a few characters in the county. That was one of the nice things about it.

[kitakaze]

Dunno. Klamath Falls?

No, no. I didn't mean where did they get the alleged hair samples. You said:

According to Herriott (who's probably the most cynical of any "researcher") the analysis came back human/gorilla/chimpanzee group, but none of the above.

So I was asking "came back from where?" about the analysis. You said the analysis came back as human/gorilla/chimpanzee group, but none of the above. Obviously, as a skeptic, I'm going to ask where the testing was conducted and who conducted it.

I think there are three or four that would be considered unambiguous for an identified species.

I don't know what you are referring to. I'm talking about Bigfoot of which there are a total of 0 unambiguous videos or photos.

Most encounters are at night,

Do you have some factual information to back that claim? I've been looking at reports for a long time and I know a heavy portion of them are in daytime (like the PGF).

most witnesses aren't carrying cameras and even if they are and have the presence of mind to aim and shoot the resulting picture may be just another blobsquatch (or in that case, two blobsquatches).

This is the standard argument and one that simply does not cut it. According to Bigfoot enthusiasts there is a species of massive upright mammal living across North America and we can't even get one decent unambiguous video or photo of it. I can show you video of every large mammal in North America no matter how rare or elusive they are.

Saying most witnesses don't carry cameras or will be swift enough to use them is just silly. There are allegedly 400 sightings a year and not one of these fools can work a camera? What is the precedent for a huge mammal living across at least two major industrialized nations often among human habititation and no type specimen or even a scrap of reliable evidence or unambiguous video?

Owen Caddy tells a story on one of the podcasts about a professional crew that tried for six weeks, with trail cams and other high tech equipment, to get shots of chimpanzees. The troop was especially wary because they'd been hunted. In six weeks the pros didn't even see one.

I'm sorry, I'm really not interested in the anecdotes of a footer with a will to believe in Bigfoot. We have endless miles of footage of great apes and there habitat is far removed. Gorillas were discovered immediately once searched for. Biscuit just posted his sister's great shot she got looking for gorillas.

That anecdote is really not helpful, you see?

[kitakaze]

I'm no sure what he saw.

He said he didn't see anything.

On one of my DVDs he says he didn't want to see what his friend was seeing.

He didn't want to see Bigfoot, the thing he was looking for?:boggled:

Daryl saw a dark one lying down. When they went back they found a sort of nest with hair.

Chimp nests yield DNA. You referred to this one doing the same. Where was the hair tested and by whom?

He's said on BFF the video is worthless.

Well, of course it is. Anderson Cooper and the other anchor scoffed at it rightfully. It is a blobsquatch video that doesn't even have a blob.

Have you seen his Squatchin' vids?

No, but I'd like to for entertainment. Do you know what he's up to now?

[Vortigern99]

[It is a blobsquatch video that doesn't even have a blob.

Does that mean it has a squatch? :D

[kitakaze]

[

Does that mean it has a squatch? :D

It doesn't even have squat.



...I'm sorry.

[LAL]

This is the area after Creek tweaked the blues, as he finally, finally admitted.

[kitakaze]

Lu, I'm flabbergasted a smart lady like yourself can accept excuses for the lack of even one unambiguous video or photo of a huge creature that allegedly lives across North America and does so in viable breeding numbers while able to get roughly 12,000 calories a day. Have you seen the OP?

In Northern California alone there is a massive network game cams looking for martens and fishers as well as track plates. Those game cams have photographed every wild mammal know in Northern California including what may be the only one of a species nobody expected, the wolverine. We can find what may have been the only wolverine in the wild in California but not a breeding population of Bigfoots?

[LAL]

Well, of course it is. Anderson Cooper and the other anchor scoffed at it rightfully. It is a blobsquatch video that doesn't even have a blob.

There's more to it. I may have a capture somewhere, but the reclining one seems to show eyes and toes.

I'll have to watch the DVD to get the name of the lab. I have class tomorrow and it's late here, so I'm not going to look it up now. I'm not sure which one it's on.

I thought you meant came back from where - as in campsite or motel.


No, but I'd like to for entertainment. Do you know what he's up to now?

No. There are couple left on Amazon.

Caddy worked with primates for years. I see no need to dismiss him as a "footer". It was a good show for a podcast. The link was posted here somewhere, wasn't it, during a Patty face discussion? That's where I got it.

[LAL]

Lu, I'm flabbergasted a smart lady like yourself can accept excuses for the lack of even one unambiguous video or photo of a huge creature that allegedly lives across North America and does so in viable breeding numbers while able to get roughly 12,000 calories a day. Have you seen the OP?

I lived in the PNW in a forest. I never even got a shot of a bird I was trying to identify. When a whole flock of them showed up on Blue Lake road we were in the truck and the camera was in the house. I never saw one again.

The sightings I knew about in the Gorge were at night and the witnesses were in cars.

Where do you get 12,000 calories? I thought it was 2-3000 and that's not difficult with meat in the diet.

Given a team of professionals and sufficient time (longer than six weeks) maybe, just maybe, they could get something.

Unambiguous? I doubt it. Skeptics would just dismiss it as more guys in suits.


In Northern California alone there is a massive network game cams looking for martens and fishers as well as track plates. Those game cams have photographed every wild mammal know in Northern California including what may be the only one of a species nobody expected, the wolverine. We can find what may have been the only wolverine in the wild in California but not a breeding population of Bigfoots?

Yep.

[kitakaze]

There's more to it. I may have a capture somewhere, but the reclining one seems to show eyes and toes.

I'll have to watch the DVD to get the name of the lab. I have class tomorrow and it's late here, so I'm not going to look it up now. I'm not sure which one it's on.

Take your time. I can guarantee it will not result in reliable evidence of Bigfoot. Besides, you're on the Easter Seaboard of North America where it's around bedtime for most.

Caddy worked with primates for years. I see no need to dismiss him as a "footer". It was a good show for a podcast. The link was posted here somewhere, wasn't it, during a Patty face discussion? That's where I got it.

I'm sorry, but I'm dismissing Caddy as a Bigfooter with a pronounced lack of objectionability. If he's actually going to sit there with a straight face and pass of a lame excuse about some chimps someone didn't get film of as a functioning analogy for why we don't have unambiguous video or photos of Bigfoot, then this is not a person who can be frank about the facts.

Owen is one of the people who couldn't recognize an elk wallow afterall.

Here's Owen Caddy and Rick Noll examining what they think is Bigfoot evidence including another body impression and regurgitated stomach contents:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c4U4WjTXOGM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KgVgCJq71c8&feature=related

What were these guys thinking?

[kitakaze]

I lived in the PNW in a forest. I never even got a shot of a bird I was trying to identify. When a whole flock of them showed up on Blue Lake road we were in the truck and the camera was in the house. I never saw one again.

No, this is not a helpful analogy at all, either. Lots of pictures of birds, right? You really should read the OP.

The sightings I knew about in the Gorge were at night and the witnesses were in cars.

But this is not the factual information supporting the claim that Bigfoot are mostly seen at night that I'm looking for.

Where do you get 12,000 calories? I thought it was 2-3000 and that's not difficult with meat in the diet.

Read Scott. No, listen to Eugenie Scott's excellent presentation. Look at the daily caloric intake of gorillas and black bears. We've recently been having an excellent conversation on this subject in this and the Eugenie Scott lecture thread. Check it out. I have no idea where you are getting 2000-3000 from.

Given a team of professionals and sufficient time (longer than six weeks) maybe, just maybe, they could get something.

I'm sorry, this is a failing suggestion, also. There are now and have been professionals studying a wide array of things in alleged Bigfoot habitat for a very long time. There are and have been countless opportunities for these people to get reliable evidence for Bigfoot yet it never happens.

Unambiguous? I doubt it. Skeptics would just dismiss it as more guys in suits.

Your cynicism is completely invalid. You portray the scenario as though there have been many unambiguous images submitted for Bigfoot which have unfairly been dismissed as men is suits. Please don't try polluting the question with talk of the PGF. The PGF could very easily be a man in a suit and therefore it is not unambiguous. Go look at the amazing videos in the OP. Check the mind-bogglingly rare and elusive animals there. Look at the kermode bears. Do that and come back and let's be frank about the fact that there are 0 unambiguous images of Bigfoot.

Yep.

This doesn't seem like a sincere answer to me or one that makes an effort to address the problem. I recently had an excellent conversation with Vortigern99 on the subject here that you should review. Please try giving me a straightup answer why with massive wildlife detection arrays all over Northern California that have been able to detect what may be the only wolverine in the wild in California but an entire population of huge apes can't be found.

[kitakaze]

Many Bigfooters bristle with offence at the idea that the PNW is the only habitat for Bigfoot. Making such a suggestion will inevitably lead to someone producing a Mangani or BFRO map show the North American continent riddled with Bigfoot sightings markers. The hundreds yearly, thousands of sightings are cited as evidence that Bigfoot seems to find a niche wherever there is sufficient cover and a water supply. Such a conversation is currently ongoing at the BFF. Here's a taste from mrmike1111 in "PNW ONLY HABITAT?":

A friend of mine said something to me the other day that was interesting. It's probably been mentioned before, I'm just unaware of it. They have the Yowie in Australia. Is it possible that they've existed since the earth's land mass was a supercontinent? That would involve hundreds of millions of years though right? Just a thought. It's not impossible.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showtopic=24431&pid=525561&st=66&#entry525561

Mmmmmm... I love the smell of fresh idiot, don't you?

The facepalm eludes them greater than Bigfoot is that such a situation of continent-wide Bigfoot is ludicrous without having a type specimen or at the very least a unambiguous video or photo to show for Bigfoot.

Enter this little youtube nugget, a trailer for the Bigfooters DVD "Southern Fried Bigfoot":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9bL5u3ugj4w&NR=1

This bit of cryptomumble features notable Bigfoot enthusiasts John Bindernagel, Loren Coleman, Craig Woolheater, the Butt Head clone from the NG "Is it Real?" Bigfoot special, and others. In the beginning of the trailer we see John Bindernagel fresh from telling us about eastern Bigfoots in the MQ "Bigfoot in New York" episode telling us about Bigfoot in the south. The next part I love. If any skeptic on Loren Coleman's book pimping, self-promoting, panhandling site, Cryptomundo, were to declare Bigfoot does not exist, Bigfoot geeks would be flipping out screaming bloody murder about close-minded scoftics having the gall to declare what doesn't exist. Yet here we have the "real deal" cryptofool Loren Coleman proclaiming straight up, straightfaced, straigh out "Bigfoot in the South does exist." Boom, just like that. Yes, it's true. By my book. Save the museum. Thanks, Cryptofool, mystery solved. Coleman then goes on to assure us that this is not something that people are lying about. Hey, thanks, Cryptofool! I guess we can just wipe Creekfreak, Bullet Maker, Mary Green, Janice Carter, and the entire MABRC off that list.:rolleyes:

We also see snippits of Woolheater recounting his Bigfoot tale and telling us about the compelling treebreak evidence. Yes, people. Bigfoot is alive and well in the South. Well is a subjective term because due to the variation in the numbers of toes we're finding, The Hills Have Eyes might be a better description.

[Aepervius]

LAL, the average human calorie intake for human vary depend on the resource you read on, but the average seem to be for sedentary life 2000 for women, 2500 for men, and a few additional thousand for athletic people.

Unless your BF is very human sized (BH-sized ;)), it will be way higher than that of a human for a sedentary Bigfoot, for the purported size. And that is not even counting that BF is NOT sedentary, will need even more than doubling that.

So 12000 don't seem too much knowing that athlete during training can need 6000 in average, and BF is purported to be quite a bit bigger and weightier than an average human.

BTW the average american eat far more than that :
United Nations FAO says the average American consumes 3770 calories for 2001-2003.

http://www.fao.org/statistics/yearbook/vol_1_2/pdf/United-States-of-America.pdf

[kitakaze]

Post #98 in this thread is a good place to start. Adult male gorillas require 6000-9500 kcal/day and black bears ranging fro 8000-20,000 kcal/day depending on the season. The average sized Bigfoot has been calculated as requiring between 12,000-18,000 kcal/day.

[LAL]

Post #98 in this thread is a good place to start. Adult male gorillas require 6000-9500 kcal/day and black bears ranging fro 8000-20,000 kcal/day depending on the season. The average sized Bigfoot has been calculated as requiring between 12,000-18,000 kcal/day.

And also at 2-3000. You can get that from a healthy dose of pot roast. Gorillas are vegetarians (hence the big gut). Bears will scavenge, but I don't think meat is a huge part of their diet.

Hominid primates made a living, probably, by scavenging kills from predators and later by, probably, some ambush hunting.

I disagree that much of Northern California is covered by trail cams. Didn't we have an estimate of about $10,000 to cover a mile? Northern California is huge. The trail cam caught one wolverine. It didn't catch the rest. ;)

If chimpanzees could avoid trail cams for six weeks, why not other primates? The human activity putting them up might be enough to cause the animals to discretely go elsewhere.

[kitakaze]

And also at 2-3000.

Lu, what scientific source has put a massive mammal like Bigfoot needing 2000-3000 kcal/day?

You can get that from a healthy dose of pot roast. Gorillas are vegetarians (hence the big gut). Bears will scavenge, but I don't think meat is a huge part of their diet.

Wha?? The matter of the nutrient is not important. It is the calories sustaining life we are discussing.

Hominid primates made a living, probably, by scavenging kills from predators and later by, probably, some ambush hunting.

And what relevance does this thought have to the lack of unambiguous videos or photos of Bigfoot?

I disagree that much of Northern California is covered by trail cams. Didn't we have an estimate of about $10,000 to cover a mile? Northern California is huge. The trail cam caught one wolverine. It didn't catch the rest. ;)

Please catch up. There are real wildlife issues in Northern California that don't concern Bigfoot but would readily yield reliable evidence of Bigfoot. The info is in the measely 5 pages of this thread.

If chimpanzees could avoid trail cams for six weeks, why not other primates? The human activity putting them up might be enough to cause the animals to discretely go elsewhere.

Why are you continuing Caddy's poo-poo? It's an anecdote, Lu. get it? An anecdote. An anecdote about an unconfirmed situation. Why? Really, why? We're talking about a population of huge mammals across North America. Why is this ball so hard to catch for you?

[LAL]

Mmmmmm... I love the smell of fresh idiot, don't you?

Blame the educational system for avoiding topics like evolution on Pangea for fear of offending parental Young Earthers.

Link to Caddy:

http://thebigfootshow.blogspot.com/2008/02/episode-3-owen-caddy.html

I'm sure you remember the vis ed for the audience. He explains exactly what he did with the digital microscope shots.

It seems that by your lights anyone who even takes an interest in this has a few screws loose. Have you seen a clear picture of the Skookum Cast?

I find this same attitude from traditionalists on the Shakespeare authorship question. Anyone doubting the Stratfordian view is a crackpot, no matter how good the evidence for another candidate.

It's an interesting phenomenon.

[LAL]

LAL, the average human calorie intake for human vary depend on the resource you read on, but the average seem to be for sedentary life 2000 for women, 2500 for men, and a few additional thousand for athletic people.


My metal instructor used to go "siwash" when cross-country skiing with a friend of his. They'd be down to pine needle soup at timberline but they were able to maintain themselves even with a fair amount of exertion. The PNW is full of nutrition for a not-too-picky omnivore.

I've seen areas in the Pisgah that were so much like western Oregon and Washington I felt like I was back there. The Pisgah is larger than the Gifford Pinchot and is likewise temperate rainforest. It actually gets more rainfall on the average than the west slope of the Cascades.

That famous compliant gait might be extremely energy-efficient. I think Meldrum went into a fair amount of detail on this in his book, but since it's class time here in the Easter time zone, I have to go.

[kitakaze]

Blame the educational system for avoiding topics like evolution on Pangea for fear of offending parental Young Earthers.

I have a better idea. Let's have a look at the thread titles of the first page of general discussion at the BFF. I see a problem. Do you?

"Is the 'Paranormal Theory' Coming in from the Cold?"

"intrest waning?"

"Groups protecting BF; hiding their existance"

"Do Sasquatch "hunt" deer into oncoming traffic?"

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?showforum=1

Link to Caddy:

http://thebigfootshow.blogspot.com/2008/02/episode-3-owen-caddy.html

I'm sure you remember the vis ed for the audience. He explains exactly what he did with the digital microscope shots.

Yes, Patty looks wonderful sucking a lemon. What was the scientific rigour behind Caddy's pareidolia flail, again?

It seems that by your lights anyone who even takes an interest in this has a few screws loose.

That would be a strawman. Wherever have I said such a thing? I find Bigfootery interesting. Far more than any question of Bigfoot's existence. Being interested in Bigfoot is fine. The idea is very interesting. The garbage that Bigfooters pass off as evidence is even more interesting.

Have you seen a clear picture of the Skookum Cast?

Oh, yes. After they removed all the elk hairs and disregarded the elk tracks, did it feel more like Bigfoot?

I find this same attitude from traditionalists on the Shakespeare authorship question. Anyone doubting the Stratfordian view is a crackpot, no matter how good the evidence for another candidate.

Terribly non sequitur.

It's an interesting phenomenon.[/QUOTE]

[EHocking]

...Why are you continuing Caddy's poo-poo? It's an anecdote, Lu. get it? An anecdote. An anecdote about an unconfirmed situation. Why? Really, why? We're talking about a population of huge mammals across North America. Why is this ball so hard to catch for you?Actually listening to him was quite amusing for an outsider, his anecdote came across as typical footer excuses.

He *claimed* to have an indepth knowledge of these chimps and attributes all sorts of intelligence and mental attitude for them. He claims that he an his fellow wardens worked out their odd foraging and travelling behavior and tracked them even at night.

He says this was important to the wardens as their wage is practically dependent on wildlife safari/tour income organised withing their park.

Yet, when a film crew turns up armed to the teeth with the best gear, "technology nuts, you know the type", is how he describes them, so even though the warden's income is quite dependent on income that could be generated by the film crew's advertising the game in the park, Caddy blames *them* on not being able to film a chimpanzee - thus the inability for anyone to film a bf.

Typical.

Huge boasts as being these marvellous trackers and men of the woods, but when it comes to crunch time, can't produce a single photo opportunity.

[kitakaze]

The PNW is full of nutrition for a not-too-picky omnivore.

If I only had a brain:

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/896148ab9e2ca5757.bmp (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=13469)

The argument is not that the nutrition isn't available. And why are you mentioning only the PNW? The argument is that a beast of that size would biologically have to devote such an amount of time to feeding that doing so in viable breeding numbers across the North American continent would without a doubt produce a type specimen and obviously unambiguous video and photos.

[Aepervius]

My metal instructor used to go "siwash" when cross-country skiing with a friend of his. They'd be down to pine needle soup at timberline but they were able to maintain themselves even with a fair amount of exertion. The PNW is full of nutrition for a not-too-picky omnivore.

I've seen areas in the Pisgah that were so much like western Oregon and Washington I felt like I was back there. The Pisgah is larger than the Gifford Pinchot and is likewise temperate rainforest. It actually gets more rainfall on the average than the west slope of the Cascades.

That famous compliant gait might be extremely energy-efficient. I think Meldrum went into a fair amount of detail on this in his book, but since it's class time here in the Easter time zone, I have to go.

Yeah sure he can go "siwash" for a day maybe, and lower his calory intake below the average, but on 365 day a year ? Get real, that is what "average" calory intake are, not for a trip in countryside.

Secondly you don't seem to realize we have a good relation between calory intake and size of the beast. A *BIG* bigfoot (bigger than human) would need more calory intake for a similar metabolism. That was the point of sizing and comparing to guorilla or bears. And that is the WHOLE point. If you pretend that BF has only 2.5 or less year average calory intake for such a size, then it must have an EXTREMNLY slow metaboloism, or even be cold blooded. That does not jive with it being mamals or even "moving" so quickly as per witness.

Afterward , once calory intake are estimated AND since 12000 is a good estimate for something that big, you look at how much game or vegetal matter it would require. And that is where you come to the inescapable conclusion you have a problem, because that would generate a certain amount of ****, or traces, which are obviously not found. And like Kitakaze said, that would also take TIME.

I think you are really arguying against the argument because you dislike the conclusion, not because you have a valid point.

[Biscuit]

Them. There were apparently two somethings.

I hadn't heard the "ten years" before.

They did go back the next day and found hair. According to Herriott (who's probably the most cynical of any "researcher") the analysis came back human/gorilla/chimpanzee group, but none of the above.

I met Peter Byrne in in Hood River at an Audubon Society meeting. He was very down to earth.

The "ten years" part was stated by the guys filming if I recall correctly. While one was crying he blubbered about how they have been looking for ten years and now it was right in front of them.

I am glad they went back but to what end? Bigfoot was right there and they ran away.

Kit,

I have your answer. There are no unambiguous bigfoot photos because bigfoot hunters run away when ever they find bigfoot. Hard to take photos when you run as soon as a branch snap. Not even image stability software can steady the shake of a bigfoot hunter on the run.

[Drewbot]

Them. There were apparently two somethings.

I hadn't heard the "ten years" before.

They did go back the next day and found hair. According to Herriott (who's probably the most cynical of any "researcher") the analysis came back human/gorilla/chimpanzee group, but none of the above.


Are you sure that is what Scott Herriott said? Because when I asked him about the hair samples he said the following:

I don't have a hair sample. Daryl had them and gave them to one "Sterling Bunnell" from the Bay area of Calif. He was the guy who made the basic claim (in a
report that was used on A&E's "Bigfoot) that the hairs were similar but distinguishable from chimp hair samples he had. I have no idea if Bunnell is legit or a crackpot or somewhere in between.
I'm pretty sure they show a bit of the report in that A&E show.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=17885&view=findpost&p=526966

A Bigfoot quote citing Sterling Bunnell:
http://books.google.com/books?id=ggeQHFa5E7AC&pg=PA262&lpg=PA262&dq=%22sterling+bunnell%22+bigfoot&source=bl&ots=CK_jzk52ro&sig=bPMaa7NpnKStvbER-3NsyTWsyxI&hl=en&ei=AIvbSaikKpeMtgfh18H4Bw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1

Sterling Bunnell the Psychiatrist from Berkeley,CA:
http://www.wellness.com/dir/2045002/psychiatrist/ca/berkeley/sterling-bunnell-md

Sterling Bunnell the famous hand surgeon? http://www.ejbjs.org/cgi/reprint/39/6/1409.pdf

Which one is it?

[LAL]

The argument is not that the nutrition isn't available. And why are you mentioning only the PNW? The argument is that a beast of that size would biologically have to devote such an amount of time to feeding that doing so in viable breeding numbers across the North American continent would without a doubt produce a type specimen and obviously unambiguous video and photos.

I mentioned North Carolina, too.

I don't know where I got the caloric figure. We could go with Fahrenbach's 5000 figure -

"Increased size also implies high mobility and a correspondingly large home range. A rare, individually identifiable Sasquatch was reported over a span of 8 years in several locales in Washington and Oregon, the most distant sites having a linear separation of more than 150 miles (240 kin). If we take this distance as a lifetime radius of activity, we get an area (πr2) of more than 70,0002 miles (180,0002 km) of mainly forested terrain. This value encompasses a substantial portion of, for example, Washington State, and cannot be considered indicative of any particular home range. Also, it emphasizes the difficulty of any contemplated scheme of organized field study of the species other than to concentrate on regions of recent sightings.

Secondly, according to Kiciber’s Law (McMahon and Bonner 1973), which states that the basal metabolic rate scales as the 3/4 power of mass, a massive animal needs less energy input per gram of body weight than a small one does. This means that a Sasquatch can get by with a relatively smaller amount of food than a smaller animal. Nonetheless, if we use the calculated weight (W) of a Sasquatch at the population average (299 kg) and apply the scaling formula



(Kleiber 1961),



a basal caloric consumption of about 5,000 calories per day is found. With exercise and inclement weather, this value may double or triple. Hence, a diet that is minimally omnivorous, if not slanted toward carnivory for the sake of calories—especially during the winter—is required to fulfill that demand. Bipedal gait, seemingly as efficient as a quadrupedal gait (Rose 1984), can be viewed as an adaptation to becoming an endurance hunter in the very demanding terrain inhabited by the Sasquatch."

http://home.clara.net/rfthomas/papers/size2.html

- unless you think he's always been dotty, even when he was published in PubMed (on snails).

My argument is the nutrition is easily available and such an animal wouldn't have to spend all its time foraging. Protein provides a quick and plentiful source of most of those calories no matter how many are required. Did you know cougars eat grasshoppers in season when they can't make a kill?

Haven't we been over this before? Most of those beautiful NatGeo quality wildlife photographs are staged due to limitations of time and money.

Someone I've met apparently saw two bipedal primatelike somethings in a wilderness area in Georgia from a distance of about 30' last year. He had NV viewers, but these guys are on a shoestring and don't have an NV camera yet. This was the best they could do in 4 years of visiting this area. Most of the "teams" are weekenders. A "hot" area may have a number of sighting reports, but they're apt to be years or even decades apart.

I can get shots of elk at Cataloochee (NC) because they're imported and acclimated and don't mind the tourists.

When I lived downhill from a wild herd in Washington I saw two cows once and wouldn't have been able to get a shot from the truck if I'd had the camera. Everytime I went mushrooming they were somewhere else.

In my experience, most wild animals don't hang around waiting for the photographers. I'd be hard pressed to get a picture of a squirrel in broad daylight. I have Southern Flying Squirrels on my property now but they're nocturnal and the only way I've seen them was when they got down the chimney into the house.

Given the kind of funding L.S.B Leakey's women got there might be some results, but read Gorillas In the Mist for how easy a time Fosse had finding them even with an expert tracker.

Why are you so hard on Caddy? The man has his credentials.

I only dropped in to post a photo last night when I was bored and had nothing to do. I didn't really intend to get sucked into another discussion.

Back to class. I have to assemble some silver.

[LAL]

Are you sure that is what Scott Herriott said?

I'll check it out when I get home if I can find the right DVD, but I'm really more interested in Queen Elizabeth's suits against Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford, when he was her ward in order to benefit Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester.

Incidentally, Aepervius, the siwash trips were longer than a few days. They trekked through the North Cascades and when they were down to pine needle soup Dexter would wake his friend by saying, "Bacon and eggs". Peter Byrne went siwash at times too and said he never had a problem satisfying the "inner man". (That may be in his book if you need a source.)

[clayflingythingy]

I can get shots of elk at Cataloochee (NC) because they're imported and acclimated and don't mind the tourists.

When I lived downhill from a wild herd in Washington I saw two cows once and wouldn't have been able to get a shot from the truck if I'd had the camera. Everytime I went mushrooming they were somewhere else.

In my experience, most wild animals don't hang around waiting for the photographers. I'd be hard pressed to get a picture of a squirrel in broad daylight. I have Southern Flying Squirrels on my property now but they're nocturnal and the only way I've seen them was when they got down the chimney into the house.



How many elk are shot by hunters each year LAL? Yet, you can't even get a photo of a squirrel in broad daylight!

Just because you are a lousy woodswoman please don't assume that everyone on earth is a lousy woodsperson.

[xblade]

How many elk are shot by hunters each year LAL? Yet, you can't even get a photo of a squirrel in broad daylight!

Just because you are a lousy woodswoman please don't assume that everyone on earth is a lousy woodsperson.

Well, to be fair, she said flying squirrel. They're a little tougher to photograph. But we do have unambiguous photographs:

http://tonypratt.com/wp-content/uploads/flying-squirrels-4-5-2008_040508_2224.jpg

And video:

hn3nzXcCGbc

Still no bigfoot though....

[LTC8K6]

They are easier to photograph when they have died in the woods, if a bit out of focus.

http://forums.randi.org/attachment.php?attachmentid=2154&d=1149400956

[RayG]

Well, to be fair, she said flying squirrel. They're a little tougher to photograph. But we do have unambiguous photographs:

http://tonypratt.com/wp-content/uploads/flying-squirrels-4-5-2008_040508_2224.jpg


Still no bigfoot though....

That's not a REAL flying squirrel. Why does it have a button for an eye, and where are its wings?

RayG

[Biscuit]

This notion that wild animals are hard to find is really silly. My family has a cabin in Nutrioso, AZ in the white mountains nearly on the NM border.

-We have seen hundreds of elk at almost all time of the year. I stopped taking photos of them because they were always there. Not more than 20 feet from the house. These are not imported or domestic elk. They are very wild and beautiful animals.

- I have seen bald eagles (estimated to be around 100 in our area) and a nesting pair of golden eagles (numbered far fewer) in our little valley. No photos of the golden eagle because I don't have enough zoom on my little cameras and never saw them land. I can post bald eagle photos if you wish.

- Our neighbors claim to have seen mexican grey wolves from the galleros mountain population and Game and Fish believe we have our own pack in AZ now. These were extinct in N. America until recently.

- More squirrels than I can count. I have never bothered to photograph one as the dogs chase them trees as soon as we see one.

- I took a photo of a fox a few years back but it was with a APS camera and my scanner is on the fritz. (Yea you guys remember the short sad life of the APS?)

- I have seen beavers but have never took a photo as they are quick and shy creatures.

The idea that you can not take photos of wild animals, that actually exist, is just silly. Search for any animal and I certain you will find a picture.

Why is every photo of bigfoot fraught with doubt and obscurities?

[LAL]

How many elk are shot by hunters each year LAL? Yet, you can't even get a photo of a squirrel in broad daylight!

Just because you are a lousy woodswoman please don't assume that everyone on earth is a lousy woodsperson.

I don't. What was that elk hunting success rate I found, Ray? 7-8%?

My point is that most encounters with possible sasquatches are by people who are not out to photograph a sasquatch and are no more prepared to photograph one than I am when I catch a fleeting glimpse of a squirrel in the yard while I'm intent on doing something else. If I set out trail cams or spent days lurking with the camera I probably could photograph a squirrel. If I had NV equipment I might be able to photograph a flying squirrel before it falls down the chimney, but like most people, I'm on a schedule with a job and school and no time to set out on a journey to photograph an animal that may have been somewhere along eight miles of a trail in the Pisgah about five years ago. I did get some nice pictures along that trail. There are white squirrels in that area. Didn't see one.

One of the dingier members of a group photographed something in that area that he claimed was a female 'squatch, but it really looked more like a dog. Nevertheless, last heard of he was investing $75,000 into a DVD (he claimed). He said the sasquatches go up and down Pisgah Mountain at 4:00 PM every afternoon. I'm still waiting for a plethora of reports from campers at Sunrise and hikers on the Mountains-to-the-Sea trail. Sad to say, I haven't gone out there to see them myself (sarcasm).

I kept my camera on the dash for a while in an experiment to see if I could photograph a rabbitt that crossed the drive nearly every time I came home. There was no time to stop the car and get the camera before it was gone. If it had been an 8' hominid primate I'd still be gnashing my teeth. I saw a young doe in my driveway last April and it was gone before I could think of getting the camera. I had to blink three times before I realized it wasn't a dog or a goat. I had no idea there were still deer in this area at all - I'm on the edge of town. Large animals can conceal themselves quite easily if there's cover.

[kitakaze]

My point is that most encounters with possible sasquatches are by people who are not out to photograph a sasquatch and are no more prepared to photograph one than I am when I catch a fleeting glimpse of a squirrel in the yard while I'm intent on doing something else.

How do you know this?

Also, this is not a realistic appraisal of the situation. Why can some of the game cameras that are set up all over Northern California capture what is most likely the only wolverine in the wild there but they can't find a breeding population of massive mammals responsible for more than at least 400 alleged encounters that would require around 12,000 calories a day?

Please don't quote me any Bigfoot quacks.

If I set out trail cams or spent days lurking with the camera I probably could photograph a squirrel. If I had NV equipment I might be able to photograph a flying squirrel before it falls down the chimney, but like most people, I'm on a schedule with a job and school and no time to set out on a journey to photograph an animal that may have been somewhere along eight miles of a trail in the Pisgah about five years ago. I did get some nice pictures along that trail. There are white squirrels in that area. Didn't see one.

You're own personal circumstances are irrelevant to the question of unambiguous images of a supposed species of massive mammal living all over the continent.

One of the dingier members of a group photographed something in that area that he claimed was a female 'squatch, but it really looked more like a dog. Nevertheless, last heard of he was investing $75,000 into a DVD (he claimed). He said the sasquatches go up and down Pisgah Mountain at 4:00 PM every afternoon. I'm still waiting for a plethora of reports from campers at Sunrise and hikers on the Mountains-to-the-Sea trail. Sad to say, I haven't gone out there to see them myself (sarcasm).

We can agree, then, that this photo of something that looked more like a dog wouldn't qualify as unambiguous, would it?

I kept my camera on the dash for a while in an experiment to see if I could photograph a rabbitt that crossed the drive nearly every time I came home. There was no time to stop the car and get the camera before it was gone. If it had been an 8' hominid primate I'd still be gnashing my teeth. I saw a young doe in my driveway last April and it was gone before I could think of getting the camera. I had to blink three times before I realized it wasn't a dog or a goat. I had no idea there were still deer in this area at all - I'm on the edge of town. Large animals can conceal themselves quite easily if there's cover.

What a silly story, Lu. You could have tried baiting the rabbit and be done with it.

[LAL]

This notion that wild animals are hard to find is really silly. My family has a cabin in Nutrioso, AZ in the white mountains nearly on the NM border.


Not in deep forest then? I saw both Bald and Golden Eagles in the Columbia Gorge. A friend saw wolves when they were thought to be extinct in the area. I saw a bear twice (probably the same bear). I knew people who knew people who'd seen sasquatches but none were equipped with a camera at the time.

[LAL]

Are you sure that is what Scott Herriott said? Because when I asked him about the hair samples he said the following:

In Todd Partain's Eyes in the Dark he gives a full account. He was in Willow Creek when he was told there'd been a quite recent sighting of a light colored individual by two young boys. They were the ones who ran.

He mentions the area was on private property and when they checked with the owners for permission before going out, they said, oh yeah, they knew they were there - very matter-of-fact.

Scott saw a dark low something up the hill when he and Daryl went to the area. They saw eyes and watched it watch them for about ten minutes. Scott said it didn't blink. Then the pupils apparently dilated and he saw a red glow. He remembered reports about red, glowing eyes. At this point he and Daryl decided to "spread out" in hopes the animal would stand up thinking it was being surrounded and they could get a better view, videotaping. Scott was about 10' away when Daryl saw the light colored arm and shoulder and started losing it, according to Scott's account in Eyes in the Dark. He says they went down considerably faster than they went up (1 1/2-2 hours going up) but he doesn't say they ran.

When they went back the next day they found a "nest" 15'x25' and the hair.

He says in the DVD the hair examined by Dr. Sterling Brunell resembled Mountain Gorilla and Chimpanzee hair he had but was distinguishable from both.


http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=17885&view=findpost&p=526966

A Bigfoot quote citing Sterling Bunnell:
http://books.google.com/books?id=ggeQHFa5E7AC&pg=PA262&lpg=PA262&dq=%22sterling+bunnell%22+bigfoot&source=bl&ots=CK_jzk52ro&sig=bPMaa7NpnKStvbER-3NsyTWsyxI&hl=en&ei=AIvbSaikKpeMtgfh18H4Bw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1

Sterling Bunnell the Psychiatrist from Berkeley,CA:
http://www.wellness.com/dir/2045002/psychiatrist/ca/berkeley/sterling-bunnell-md

Sterling Bunnell the famous hand surgeon? http://www.ejbjs.org/cgi/reprint/39/6/1409.pdf

Which one is it?

Burnell as in Jeff's book, the one with the California Academy of Sciences. I don't know any more about him than that.

The report is on A&E's Bigfoot with Leonard Limoy. It says essentially the same thing the book says - related to the human/chimpanzee/gorilla group but distinguishable from each.

Scott and Daryl are both on the DVD, and this is where Scott said he didn't want to see what Daryl was seeing (a 7-8' light colored thing from the waist up). Daryl had the videos professionally enhanced and points out the eyes, knees and toes on the reclining figure. Ancient Mysteries had the film analyzed at Fleet and they found there is an object there.

This wasn't a case of someone randomly pointing a camera and later seeing blobsquatches in the shadows.

In Squatching, Scott goes back to the area and points out where all these things happened.

[LAL]

How do you know this?

Read some reports.

Also, this is not a realistic appraisal of the situation. Why can some of the game cameras that are set up all over Northern California capture what is most likely the only wolverine in the wild there but they can't find a breeding population of massive mammals responsible for more than at least 400 alleged encounters that would require around 12,000 calories a day?

Please don't quote me any Bigfoot quacks.

First, I don't agree Northern California is that well covered. Have you been there?

Secondly, I sincerely doubt that was the only wolverine in the wild there. It's just the one that got its picture taken. Has this happened again?

Thirdly, I don't think sasquatches need 12,000 calories a day.

The encounters tend to be on the fringes of terrain where people are. To find the home range, if there is one, you'd have to go very deeply in for extended periods of time, and then, somehow, get a picture. If you know of an easy way to do this, let Richard Noll know. I'm sure he'd be grateful for any advice you can give him.


You're own personal circumstances are irrelevant to the question of unambiguous images of a supposed species of massive mammal living all over the continent.

That may be, but I'm trying to keep it simple enough for you to understand. I lived in the county with the highest number of sighting reports in the country but other than the ones from the spring of '69 they're still very few and far between. Even living in such an area is no guarantee of being able to see something unusual, let alone photograph it.



We can agree, then, that this photo of something that looked more like a dog wouldn't qualify as unambiguous, would it?

No. Some though it looked more like a bear or a jogger in a hoodie with headphones.


What a silly story, Lu. You could have tried baiting the rabbit and be done with it.

The experiment was not to see if I could photograph the rabbit, it was to see if I could stop the car, grab the camera and get a picture of it running in front of me. Most motorists don't keep cameras on the dash, but even so the chances of photographing a road-crossing sas, even in daylight, aren't especially good.

[William Parcher]

This wasn't a case of someone randomly pointing a camera and later seeing blobsquatches in the shadows.


Bob Zenor (BFF) stabilized the Herriott film. Here you see the "creature", and also the red dots are added to indicate where the eyes are located.

Lu, are you saying that this is not a blobsquatch?


http://www.bigfootforums.com/uploads//monthly_12_2008/post-1285-1228278514.gif http://www.bigfootforums.com/uploads//monthly_04_2009/post-1285-1239170593.gif

[LAL]

Bob Zenor (BFF) stabilized the Herriott film. Here you see the "creature", and also the red dots are added to indicate where the eyes are located.

Lu, are you saying that this is not a blobsquatch?


http://www.bigfootforums.com/uploads//monthly_12_2008/post-1285-1228278514.gif http://www.bigfootforums.com/uploads//monthly_04_2009/post-1285-1239170593.gif


You need to see the whole shot. You can't really tell much from that.

Whatever it was moved. So did the big whatever-it-was as though to get a better look, then moved back. Scott said there was no wind, no leaves stirring.

I'm saying it wasn't a case of someone randomly pointing a camera and then finding images.

[William Parcher]

The Herriott story is just like all the others. I'm sorry that our video is ambiguous, but you can take our word that it is a Bigfoot. We were there. It was Bigfoot. They exist.

[EHocking]

...
Haven't we been over this before? Most of those beautiful NatGeo quality wildlife photographs are staged due to limitations of time and money.Cite? Or are you trying to poison the well by inferring that NG photographers can't get a wildlife photo, just as you attempted with the Caddy anecdote?
...In my experience, most wild animals don't hang around waiting for the photographers. As has been noted by others, your lack of success is not indicative of other wildlife photographers, professional and amateur.I'd be hard pressed to get a picture of a squirrel in broad daylight. I have Southern Flying Squirrels on my property now but they're nocturnal and the only way I've seen them was when they got down the chimney into the house.Whereas *I've* taken photos of Roan Antelope (rare/endangered) on a one day trip to a park. It was the first time that the warden/guide had seen one - and he'd been there 15years+.

This proves what?
Given the kind of funding L.S.B Leakey's women got there might be some results, but read Gorillas In the Mist for how easy a time Fosse had finding them even with an expert tracker.Yet Caddy couldn't supply a sighting of chimpanzees that he and his team had tracked for months - even at night.....
Why are you so hard on Caddy? The man has his credentials.Because his anecdote smacks of biased retelling and exaggeration in order to support his claims of bf being difficult to photograph.

[LTC8K6]

What a silly story, Lu. You could have tried baiting the rabbit and be done with it.

Maybe Lu hasn't gotten the news about video cameras...

[Skeptical Greg]

....but even so the chances of photographing a road-crossing sas, even in daylight, aren't especially good. My guess, the chances would be about zero ...

[Drewbot]

They have been photographing Chimps, in the wilds of africa for a hundred years. And the thing is, it doesn't matter how elusive they were. They were much easier to photograph after one of these tools was used.

470 Nitro Express

[xblade]

Originally Posted by LAL View Post
My point is that most encounters with possible sasquatches are by people who are not out to photograph a sasquatch and are no more prepared to photograph one than I am when I catch a fleeting glimpse of a squirrel in the yard while I'm intent on doing something else.

And yet these same kind of people get pictures of animals, people, etc every day that they didn't set out to photograph. It's a bogus argument.

[LAL]

Maybe Lu hasn't gotten the news about video cameras...

Do you mean camcorders? I have one. It wouldn't be any quicker off the dashboard than the digital but it might blur things better.

[LAL]

This has been fun, folks, but I'd rather read lists where people say things like:

"While I respect your point of view, I have an idea I think better fits the circumstances. I'm presenting it in a paper I'm writing. I'd like to get your input on it when I'm finished."

I think even proponents agree there are there are hoaxes, misinterpretations and even misrepresentations, but even they don't agree on which are which.

If you want unambiguous pictures, send the professionals. I'm sure NatGeo will just jump at the chance. They could do a sequel to Is It Real? without the question mark.

[Skeptical Greg]

This has been fun, folks, but I'd rather read lists where people say things like:

"While I respect your point of view, I have an idea I think better fits the circumstances. I'm presenting it in a paper I'm writing. I'd like to get your input on it when I'm finished."
What lists would those be ? MABRC ?

Why should anyone here, respect your point of view ?

What do you think has changed since you gave up the last time ?



I think even proponents agree there are there are hoaxes, misinterpretations and even misrepresentations, but even they don't agree on which are which.
Could it be because there have been no reasonable alternatives offered ?
Like -- real evidence for a non-human North American primate ..


If you want unambiguous pictures, send the professionals. I'm sure NatGeo will just jump at the chance.
But, they haven't ..

Why's that ?


They could do a sequel to Is It Real? without the question mark.

That would make it :

" It Is Real ! "

And they would need actual evidence to make such a statement.

[EHocking]

If you want unambiguous pictures, send the professionals. I'm sure NatGeo will just jump at the chance. They could do a sequel to Is It Real? without the question mark.Make up your mind are NatGeo up to the task, or do they "stage all their quality wildlife photographs"?
Originally Posted by LAL http://forums.randi.org/helloworld2/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4595484#post4595484)
...
Haven't we been over this before? Most of those beautiful NatGeo quality wildlife photographs are staged due to limitations of time and money.

Cite? Or are you trying to poison the well by inferring that NG photographers can't get a wildlife photo, just as you attempted with the Caddy anecdote? I guess you can't back up this libel then...

Again, a typical footer ploy, continue spreading disinformation where the facts are too uncomfortable to face.

[LTC8K6]

I kept my camera on the dash for a while in an experiment to see if I could photograph a rabbitt that crossed the drive nearly every time I came home.

So, why wouldn't you have the video camera running on the dash when you come home then? Nearly every time means you will certainly catch the rabbit with a video camera, and a good video camera will give you good stills.

Same thing for a spot that bigfoot frequently crosses. Why try to time it? Why try to pick up the camera? Why not have a camera running already if the event happens nearly every time?

In fact, most digital still cameras can also be set to record quite a bit of 640X480 video with a large enough memory card. My cheapest camera can do this.

Your experiment seems odd to me. This is a regularly occuring event at a set area, which is very easy to catch on a camera, and is nothing like a typical bigfoot encounter.

In many bigfoot encounters, bigfoot doesn't run away at all. It either stays there and observes, or is unaware it is being watched, or it moseys away slowly, allowing anyone plenty of time to photograph it. Many encounters last plenty long enough to get out your camera and fire away.

Can this rabbit avoid a game cam?

[marlborough]

The argument is not that the nutrition isn't available. And why are you mentioning only the PNW? The argument is that a beast of that size would biologically have to devote such an amount of time to feeding that doing so in viable breeding numbers across the North American continent would without a doubt produce a type specimen and obviously unambiguous video and photos.



Of course, there's always the possiblity that BF's reproduce asexually and use a mammalian form of photosynthesis to minimize the need of feeding. I'm surprised the esteemed Dr. Fahrenbach hasn't thought of this.

[kitakaze]

If you want unambiguous pictures, send the professionals. I'm sure NatGeo will just jump at the chance. They could do a sequel to Is It Real? without the question mark.

If I wanted pictures of vampire squid, I'd look to National Geographic. If I wanted unambiguous images of Bigfoot, I'd take the fact that the advanced animal detection arrays in Northern California not finding any giant monkeys as a sign they aren't there.

BTW, Lu, the claim that National Geographic stages most of their shots due to restrictions on time and money smells like a footerism to me. Can you prove that claim?

[Correa Neto]

...snip...They saw eyes and watched it watch them for about ten minutes. Scott said it didn't blink. Then the pupils apparently dilated and he saw a red glow. He remembered reports about red, glowing eyes. ...snip...

LAL, bigfeet with cat-like eyes are more plausible than bigfeet with glowing eyes, be the glow red or green. Note that the report is not about the criter's eyes reflecting light.

I see no reason to take such reports seriously.

[EHocking]

If I wanted pictures of vampire squid, I'd look to National Geographic. If I wanted unambiguous images of Bigfoot, I'd take the fact that the advanced animal detection arrays in Northern California not finding any giant monkeys as a sign they aren't there.

BTW, Lu, the claim that National Geographic stages most of their shots due to restrictions on time and money smells like a footerism to me. Can you prove that claim?Here's National Geographic Magazine's Editor in Chief's picks for 2008 (http://ngm.nationalgeographic.com/video/player#/?titleID=6155377001&catID=1), with links to the photographer's story behind the shot.

Knock yourself out Lu

[Spektator]

I live in the foothills of the southern Appalachians, in an area that is not very wild at all--not quite suburban, but far from "open country." I regularly walk for exercise along a five-mile cleared path through woods (it crosses two highways in that distance) and don't carry a camera, but I do have a cell phone with camera. Over the years I've taken unambiguous photos of a whole bunch of wildlife: beavers, deer, a fox, rabbits, four or five snakes, a coyote, and what I thought was a humongous hawk--it turned out to be a Golden Eagle, one of several that were imported and released in the area some years back. One of the college biologists had no trouble at all in identifying it. And, oh, yes, a young bear once broke out of the underbrush in front of me and stopped to peer at me before crossing the trail and running away, and I got a good enough photo of it so that people had no trouble recognizing it.

[Drewbot]

And, oh, yes, a young bear once broke out of the underbrush in front of me and stopped to peer at me before crossing the trail and running away, and I got a good enough photo of it so that people had no trouble recognizing it.

Do you mean to say that Nobody, noone, saw your photo of the bear, and concluded it was a Giant Hairy, Unclassified Biped with a Jacked-up Flight Response?

[Spektator]

Do you mean to say that Nobody, noone, saw your photo of the bear, and concluded it was a Giant Hairy, Unclassified Biped with a Jacked-up Flight Response?
Nope not a one. I had lots of "My God, weren't you scared?" questions, but the bear wasn't very big--not a cub but not grown--and I wasn't all that close. By good luck I took the photo as he was turning his head and caught it in profile, otherwise it might have looked like an overweight dog. I wish I'd saved those--I didn't have any way to download them or print them, so I'd just show them around on my phone in the faculty dining room, then erase them.

[Correa Neto]

Hehehehehe!
Sounds like some bigfootery tales!

[RayG]

And, oh, yes, a young bear once broke out of the underbrush in front of me and stopped to peer at me before crossing the trail and running away...

How can you be certain it wasn't a giant hedgehog?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/23249de6b102db7d.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=15983)

RayG

[Vortigern99]

How can you be certain it wasn't a giant hedgehog?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/23249de6b102db7d.jpg (http://forums.randi.org/vbimghost.php?do=displayimg&imgid=15983)

RayG

Dimsdale? Dimsdale??

I find it revealing when a bigfoot proponent will take personal or second-hand anecdotes about the difficulty of photographing wildlife, and extrapolate that to bigfoot reserach -- "I had a hard time getting pics of a bald eagle" or "My friend couldn't get a single pic of a chimpanzee in chimpanzee country" -- while conveniently ignoring the fact that we have millions of photos already on-file in wildlife registries, many of them available for viewing on the Internet and elsewhere, attesting to those species' existence.

Bigfoot? Not so much. A few dozen photos, at most, of some unidentifiable shape in the woods, and/or a video or three of a guy in a suit.

This is a good example of the kind of unconscious self-deception I mentioned in the "incompetent researcher" thread. People such as LAL may not even realize they are deluding themselves, but the illogic of their arguments (and their inability to answer hard questions of the kind kitakaze keeps asking, over and over) exposes their baloney.

[Spektator]

Actually, Vort, I believe most authorities agree that Spiny Norman was searching for Dinsdale. Don't know if he got any photos, though.

[Vortigern99]

[Off-Topic]

Dinsdale? Dinsdale??

Fixed.

Incidentally, Dinsdale never nailed my head to the floor, but one time he did screw my pelvis to a cake stand.

[/Off-Topic]

[LAL]

LAL, bigfeet with cat-like eyes are more plausible than bigfeet with glowing eyes, be the glow red or green. Note that the report is not about the criter's eyes reflecting light.

I see no reason to take such reports seriously.

I was paraphrasing Herriott. The effect may be something like the red-eye cameras catch.

[LAL]

If I wanted pictures of vampire squid, I'd look to National Geographic. If I wanted unambiguous images of Bigfoot, I'd take the fact that the advanced animal detection arrays in Northern California not finding any giant monkeys as a sign they aren't there.

BTW, Lu, the claim that National Geographic stages most of their shots due to restrictions on time and money smells like a footerism to me. Can you prove that claim?

I did not say NatGeo. I said NatGeo quality. To my knowledge this photographer has no connection to bigfootery:

"there are no images of captive animals (other than of my dog!) on this website.

NONE of the wild animals or birds you'll see in my galleries are "rental" animals. A great many "wildlife" photographers make a career out of shooting tame critters at impoundments that cater to these photographers. Some of these places will even haul animals hundreds of miles and set up staged shots.

Wildlife photography, in my opinion, besides producing beautiful images, serves vital purposes. It portrays animals in their natural setting performing natural behaviors, which educates the public. And by extension, showing these creatures in the places they live doing the things they naturally do, real wildlife photography encourages conservation of the habitats in which they thrive.

There is no guarantee that rental animals are behaving in a natural manner, even when placed in a natural setting. While a stunning photo of a rent-a-wolf or some other animal may encourage the viewer to support conservation, there is also the risk that by making these photos so common (there are literally tens of thousands of images out there of wolves, mountain lions, and other animals whose habitat has shrunk) people may assume that because the images are numerous, the animals and their habitats are numerous and secure. Nothing is further from the truth.

If you are about to purchase a photo for your wall, or for your magazine, you owe it to yourself to find out if the animal was captive and the scene staged. I believe the portrayal of captive animals as wild animals is no different than passing off a work of fiction as non-fiction."

http://www.michaelfurtman.com/photos.htm

The only answer that would be acceptable to you would be there are no unambiguous photos because there are no sasquatches, right?

Greg, I'm not a member of MABRC and I don't read their board. I'm a member of several groups that have nothing to do with bigfoot. The one I referred to is sending me half a dozen e-mails a day and the site is almost nothing but documents. I doubt you've even heard of it. The list is by nomination and invitation only.

I just got over a dozen e-mails from a group I was approved for yesterday. The kind of ridicule that goes on here is not permitted there. The posts are informative and to the point.

Vortigern, you don't know me. I have over 3,000 posts on this board and many of them are about hard questions.

When I caught myself about to do a capture of Dr. Bunnell's report (he's a biologist - the California Academy of Sciences is one of the 10 largest natural history museums in the world, Wikipedia, citation needed) for Drew and contemplated uploading a section of the DVD (which has some glaring errors, BTW) to YouTube I realized I was getting too involved in this again. I have other interests and I prefer to spend time pursuing them. My habit of getting online and getting my morning coffee can continue without the BF boards or anything related to them.

I didn't have the camcorder when I was doing the driveway experiment. Given the condition of my driveway (not unlike a Forest Service road) any images produced by leaving it running on the dash would most likely be blurry, bouncy sequences of the windshield wipers. The point of the experiment was to see how easy it would be to get a shot of something popping out of the woods in front of me. I got the idea from Rick Noll. He mentioned somewhere that even though he keeps a camera on the dash he wouldn't have time to grab it and get a good shot. I'm rather sure that if I drove along with my arm and camera hanging out the window, my rabbit would chose that day to not run across the driveway.

The incident that got my interest in the first place was on Washington HWY 14 1/2 mile east of Beacon Rock. It occurred at about 3:00 AM. It was investigated by local law enforcement and they found track evidence that backed up the driver's story. I don't see how he could have taken a picture if he did have a camera with him.

I know of one camera phone shot of a possible sasquatch, namely Easterville. Think there's any agreement on what that shows?

[clayflingythingy]

LAL,

Wild animals that are running will often run a ways and stop and look back. So, the bunny that runs across the road may stop on the far bank and sit there allowing you to stop and take a photo.

But, since you can't take photos of wildlife then no one can, right?

Since you can't find bones in the woods then no one can, right?

Maybe I should read Krantz?

Or is it Meldrum today?

[SweatyYeti]

LAL wrote:
The only answer that would be acceptable to you would be there are no unambiguous photos because there are no sasquatches, right?


That's the deal, Lu! ;) You hit the nail on the head.


The purpose of this thread is for Footers to present their theories to 'The Great Kaze', so he can then sound the 'nasty buzzer', and tell them they've failed.


The bottom line to the appropriate response to the question....

Why no unambiguous photos/videos?


....is, simply....."we don't know why". (There is no proof either way.)

[Biscuit]

LAL wrote:



That's the deal, Lu! ;) You hit the nail on the head.


The purpose of this thread is for Footers to present their theories to 'The Great Kaze', so he can then sound the 'nasty buzzer', and tell them they've failed.


The bottom line to the appropriate response to the question....

Why no unambiguous photos/videos?


....is, simply....."we don't know why". (There is no proof either way.)


Who is the burden of proof on?

What is the most likely reason why there are no unambiguous photos of bigfoot?

[Skeptical Greg]

I was paraphrasing Herriott. The effect may be something like the red-eye cameras catch.

You were spouting Footer BS ..

You do know what causes the red-eye, cameras catch -- don't you ?

Or, do you ...

[xblade]

LAL wrote:



That's the deal, Lu! ;) You hit the nail on the head.


The purpose of this thread is for Footers to present their theories to 'The Great Kaze', so he can then sound the 'nasty buzzer', and tell them they've failed.


The bottom line to the appropriate response to the question....

Why no unambiguous photos/videos?


....is, simply....."we don't know why". (There is no proof either way.)

That's an appropriate response only if engaging in suspension of disbelief is one of your favorite things to do. Except for a few on the fringe, "we" know exactly why. It's the same reason we don't have unambiguous photos of unicorns, fire-breathing dragons, mermaids, or any other make-believe creature. The only ones who don't know why aren't interested in knowing why, they're only interested in believing.

[SweatyYeti]

xblade wrote:
"we" know exactly why.


Yes, xblade....you know Bigfoot doesn't exist....but I don't know that you truly know that.

Some people say they know that Bigfoot exists, because they've seen one....but I don't know that they truly have.


This situation is what as known as a "Mexican stand-off". :)


Perhaps you and the boys can win this battle by out-shouting and out-numbering the "believers".

But, regardless, you should enjoy your own beliefs.