211 replies to this topic

[QuiteContrary]

evancj, on 15 December 2012 - 11:10 PM, said:

I think the point is; that we know that these bears are real. After all we are the ones who hunted them to the brink of extinction. We know they are still out there because we have samples of their DNA, from very recent hair snags. We also have recent photographs of one taken in 2011.

http://seattletimes....grizzly02m.html

For as rare as these bears are, and for how rarely they are reported being seen we do have real evidence they exist. Bigfoot on the other hand is seen thousands of time a year but no one has ever killed or captured one, found one dead, or managed a good photo of one.

That is what I was wondering. Did there used to be a known healthy grizzly population in the Cascades or is their total historical to present day existence strictly based on an ecological study, a bit of hair, scat, tracks, some eye-witness reports and one photo (taken by a hiker not a researcher, btw, not "a bunch of crazy bear researchers running around the woods")?

Edited by QuiteContrary, 15 December 2012 - 11:52 PM.

[Jeff Albertson]

evancj, on 15 December 2012 - 11:10 PM, said:

I think the point is; that we know that these bears are real. After all we are the ones who hunted them to the brink of extinction. We know they are still out there because we have samples of their DNA, from very recent hair snags. We also have recent photographs of one taken in 2011.

http://seattletimes....grizzly02m.html

For as rare as these bears are, and for how rarely they are reported being seen we do have real evidence they exist. Bigfoot on the other hand is seen thousands of time a year but no one has ever killed or captured one, found one dead, or managed a good photo of one.

Good point I think personal that it show how do to lack of ecology and natural history how hard it is to find a animal. We know bears are real at least you know what I am talking about. But it shows when trained biologist go looking for evidence how hard it is with a five year field study. Which he said is not enough time. I do beleive if we conpare to see if bigfoot to this bears it a good example of how a large animal can hide. how many known bigfoot hunters do ecology study or apply other tecniques to  prove or disprove bigfoot? To me it seems like the majority are running around on a snipe hunt claiming I heared a noise it bigfoot, or bigfoot can sound like other animal noise. How are we ever going to prove or disprove that bigfoot is a real animal when we conpare it to this known large animal how hard it is to find using sound scientific teniques cobared to the advarge bigfoot hunter?
It shows how a large animal can remane elusive from detecion. Know what happen if grizzy bears where not proving to be real then the picture taken by a ametur would be treaded as anadotal evidence or as a fake. There is more observation of this large bears but being made from ametuers of a real animal the grizzy bears it is not enough evidence to grant them protection.

  My point was it shows how large animal can stay elusive from scientific studys as in regards to the original question "How can a animal be both smart enough to avoid detection and still be seen by man". Which I do beleive is a good example unless there is a resable claim how this population of large animals does not represent that question.

[QuiteContrary]

I found an answer to my question. Grizzly were known to exist here in healthy populations before the question of "Do they [still] exist here?"


http://lakechelanmir...&ArticleID=2871


"Fact is, Grizzlies were nearly hunted to extinction in the North Cascades by the late 1800s, and have been a struggling population ever since."

"Even though the Grizzlies have been protected in Canada and United State for decades, the population has not seemed to recover. Only 25 to 30 Grizzlies are thought remain in the Cascades.

This is a listed species and this is an effort to recover them," Gaines said."


From what I can gather, science is not relying solely on ecology (good bear habitat) and anecdotal evidence alone to surmise "Are there any grizzly bears living here?"

Scientists may be looking for a needle in a haystack and having a very difficult time finding any needles, but the area was once known as a "sewing basket" with no shortage of needles.

I personally, cannot  offer any of this "ghost bear" research as some possible explanation or proof for bigfoots ellusiveness and lack of a body.

Edited by QuiteContrary, 16 December 2012 - 12:17 AM.

[Jeff Albertson]

QuiteContrary, on 16 December 2012 - 12:14 AM, said:

I found an answer to my question. Grizzly were known to exist here in healthy populations before the question of "Do they [still] exist here?"


http://lakechelanmir...&ArticleID=2871


"Fact is, Grizzlies were nearly hunted to extinction in the North Cascades by the late 1800s, and have been a struggling population ever since."

"Even though the Grizzlies have been protected in Canada and United State for decades, the population has not seemed to recover. Only 25 to 30 Grizzlies are thought remain in the Cascades.

This is a listed species and this is an effort to recover them," Gaines said."


From what I can gather, science is not relying solely on ecology (good bear habitat) and anecdotal evidence alone to surmise "Are there any grizzly bears living here?"

Scientists may be looking for a needle in a haystack and having a very difficult time finding any needles, but the area was once known as a "sewing basket" with no shortage of needles.

I personally, cannot  offer any of this "ghost bear" research as some possible explanation or proof for bigfoots ellusiveness and lack of a body.

It not ment to be shown as proof. The study done by Jon Almack was done in 1986, the picture was takin in 2011. It show how a large animal can stay hidden as was the origional context of the question. If bigfoot is a real animal it would be a needle in a hay stack trying to find one, as explaned. We can't know the population size and how heathy the gentic diversity if they have gone throw gentic bootlenecking ect. The conparsion would match if bigfoot is a real animal so far this as not been proving either way for or against. It does show how a large animal can stay heading.

[QuiteContrary]

I said for me personally, I can't use the "Ghost Bears" of the Cascades as somehow "proof" of bigfoot's elusiveness, that is it's capability of evading us.

The Cascades are a large remote area where a few biologists with limited funding try to catch a sighting or body of a documented animal known to have lived there.

We see bigfoot (a completely undocumented animal not known by science to live anywhere) where we live and work and recreate and drive.

And unlike a bear, bigfoot is a stand alone animal:
How many other hikers might have clear grizzly photos from the Cascades science doesn't know about? It was pure accident that this hiker's photo was shown to the right person.
How many lay people may have come across a bear or bear carcass and not known they had stumbled upon an elusive grizzly of interest to science?

(I find these scenarios much more likely than someone getting a clear photo of bigfoot or stumbling upon a live one or carcass and not finding the body or photo unusual enough to show others.)

For me, Ghost bears do not offer a possibility of how bigfoot may remain hidden from man. Until studied side by side they are apples and oranges.

[scowl]

To summarize, unlike the grizzly bear, Bigfoot was never hunted to near extinction. In fact none are known to have been killed. It took a long time and a lot of gunpowder to drive the grizzly into near extinction. If Bigfoot is that smart and elusive it should be king of the forest and prospering. If there really are small numbers of Bigfoot out there, there is no explanation as to why there have always been small numbers.

Also, biologists are able to study very small populations of species and even take sharp pictures of them. Large creatures do not stay hidden and leave traces of their existence everywhere they go.

[CuriousGreek]

I don't know, if Bigfoot really exists, but there's only one thing for sure. If he does exist, he won't get any frostbites with the fur, he has.  

Edited by CuriousGreek, 16 December 2012 - 06:39 PM.

[Jeff Albertson]

QuiteContrary, on 16 December 2012 - 01:34 AM, said:

I said for me personally, I can't use the "Ghost Bears" of the Cascades as somehow "proof" of bigfoot's elusiveness, that is it's capability of evading us.

The Cascades are a large remote area where a few biologists with limited funding try to catch a sighting or body of a documented animal known to have lived there.

We see bigfoot (a completely undocumented animal not known by science to live anywhere) where we live and work and recreate and drive.

And unlike a bear, bigfoot is a stand alone animal:
How many other hikers might have clear grizzly photos from the Cascades science doesn't know about? It was pure accident that this hiker's photo was shown to the right person.
How many lay people may have come across a bear or bear carcass and not known they had stumbled upon an elusive grizzly of interest to science?

(I find these scenarios much more likely than someone getting a clear photo of bigfoot or stumbling upon a live one or carcass and not finding the body or photo unusual enough to show others.)

For me, Ghost bears do not offer a possibility of how bigfoot may remain hidden from man. Until studied side by side they are apples and oranges.

I can respect your oppion, it shows how a large animal can remain elusive, from people trying to find it. There is a lot of clear photo that can not be proving to be real og bigfoot, do to the fact we have not proving it to be a real animal. If they have stompled upon a bear carcass the same can be said about how many lay people might of stumbled upon a bigfoot carcuss (if bigfoot was real)? We have not determine if bigfoot is real where bigfoot lives Dr. Gover Krantz said He has not seen any clear evidence for bigfoot east of the Rockies, with only one print that look intresting. I was refering to a study that lasted five years from a trained biologist looking for Ursus arctas horribilies and had no sightings of a live bear. This is my oppion on the fact presented I respect your oppion and agree to disagree.

[Jeff Albertson]

scowl, on 16 December 2012 - 06:35 PM, said:

To summarize, unlike the grizzly bear, Bigfoot was never hunted to near extinction. In fact none are known to have been killed. It took a long time and a lot of gunpowder to drive the grizzly into near extinction. If Bigfoot is that smart and elusive it should be king of the forest and prospering. If there really are small numbers of Bigfoot out there, there is no explanation as to why there have always been small numbers.

Also, biologists are able to study very small populations of species and even take sharp pictures of them. Large creatures do not stay hidden and leave traces of their existence everywhere they go.

Once again a biologist in a five year study on a animal could not find a sighting of a bear let alone a picture. The only known pictures are from hikers not trained biologist. What is the population size of bigfoot if they were real? There is no way of knowing how many sightings are real conbared to misidentification if bigfoot is real? There is no way of knowing. Making claim such as if bigfoot it would be king of the forest with out knowing it ecology. Biology is full of examples beshids animals been hunted for small populations size.

[evancj]

Ahh, but the photos where reviewed by a panel of trained biologists and determined to be real.

Quote

http://www.fws.gov/w...hting7_1_11.pdf

"An inter-agency panel of grizzly bear experts has identified a bear photographed last October in Washington’s North Cascades Mountains as a grizzly bear. This is the first Class 1 report of a grizzly bear in the North Cascades ecosystem since 1996. Class 1 reports are considered verified sightings of a species that include physical evidence such as tracks or a photograph of the animal with a geographically-verifiable background."

What is the population size of bigfoot vs the north cascade grizzly (NC grizzly)?

In the case of the NC grizzly it is estimated to be fewer than 20 individuals on the US side of the border. How do we know this without ever seeing them? Because we can find traces of there existence, we know what they eat and their their limited ecological range and requirements, we can find real DNA, real footprints, real hair snags, real poop, all of which can be verified as real because we have real samples to compare them against.  

Bigfoot on the other hand does not seem to have any specific ecological limitations or requirements. Unlike the NC grizzly bigfoot is literally reported everywhere in the U.S., so that would mean the bigfoot population would have to be in the thousands (by my estimation), which means (at least to me) we should have at least a thousand times the real evidence for bigfoot as we do the NC grizzly.

Edited by evancj, 16 December 2012 - 07:38 PM.

[Jeff Albertson]

evancj, on 16 December 2012 - 07:36 PM, said:

Ahh, but the photos where reviewed by a panel of trained biologists and determined to be real.



What is the population size of bigfoot vs the north cascade grizzly (NC grizzly)?

In the case of the NC grizzly it is estimated to be fewer than 20 individuals on the US side of the border. How do we know this without ever seeing them? Because we can find traces of there existence, we know what they eat and their their limited ecological range and requirements, we can find real DNA, real footprints, real hair snags, real poop, all of which can be verified as real because we have real samples to compare them against.  

Bigfoot on the other hand does not seem to have any specific ecological limitations or requirements. Unlike the NC grizzly bigfoot is literally reported everywhere in the U.S., so that would mean the bigfoot population would have to be in the thousands (by my estimation), which means (at least to me) we should have at least a thousand times the real evidence for bigfoot as we do the NC grizzly.

That would be the thing if bigfoot was real adetodal reports are just that anadotal I don't beleive that every report is real and there is no reason to suggest that they are.. I do suggest ecology study would help to first determine where bigfoot would be able to live, this would elimate areas within sigtings and population size. I have never in any post suggest that bigfoot is real but just a possability, that is in need of scientific method appled to it .I don't believe all the anadotal information for bigfoot is real. I do beleive the method of ctyptozoology is to either disprove a cryptid or prove a cryptid with scientific method. The only way we could determine a population size is first we need to prove the existence of bigfoot with imperical evidence. We can actively seek evidence to disprove the reports but we can not prove the reports how many are real. All I  have suggested is that a large animal can remaned elesive, as with a comparison between the population of a known real animal conpared to one that might be.That by applying sound scientic techniques, and having known biological samples to conpare to how a large animal can remain elusive.  Since conbaring bigfoot to the flying spaggitie monster would get us no information of any use.

In regards to the Ursus arctas horribilis photo if U. arsus horribillis was not to be proven to be a real biological animal the photo then would be considered anadoltale.

[Left-Field]

Considering there is a show dedicated to finding bigfoot which is actually entitled "Finding Bigfoot" and the fact of the matter is they do just about everyhthing BUT find bigfoot, I would have to say we aren't close to closing in on the creature at all.

With all the technology available today and the fact that there is still no evidence of the creature I would have to say we are actually trending more in the direction of realizing bigfoot simply doesn't exist.

It's a cool myth and I liked it growing up as a kid and all that, but right now if I had to give a definitive response I'd have to say I don't believe bigfoots are really out there.

[QuiteContrary]

I don't know, there is another new episode of Finding Bigfoot on tonight. Maybe tonight is THE night.  
My fingers are crossed.


I wonder when Melba will make an appearance or get a mention on the show?

[Night Walker]

orangepeaceful79, on 15 December 2012 - 03:05 PM, said:

Its my opinion personally that ALL bigfoot sightings fall into these categories:
1. Misidentifications of known fauna.
2. Hoaxes
3. Hallucinations.

Let me say clearly that I don't think all bigfoot sightings are lies.  A person can easily be telling the truth but simply incorrect.

How do you define "hoaxes" and "hallucinations"? Were do "lies" fit in? Are they the same as "stories"?

How would you categorize Roosevelt's Bigfoot story or the Ape canyon incident?

[keninsc]

I think those can rule out some 95% of claims, but there is still just that very small percentage that makes me wonder at times. Understand that isn't an endorsement of Bigfoot being real just that every now and then I can't just write off a report as one of the above.