67 replies to this topic

[Kasey2601]

Though Bigfoot remains elusive, enthusiasts still prowl the forests in search of proof of its existence.

Der Spiegel said:

Amateur researchers in the United States continue to eagerly search for the mysterious creature known as Bigfoot, staking out California's redwood forests at night in their hunt for the elusive beast. Despite many claimed sightings, the existence of Sasquatch has never been proven. Yet that hasn't stopped the obsessed from pursuing his giant footprints.

Read more...

[Rafterman]

Yeah but if it doesn't look Squatchy, they're just wasting their itme.  

On a serious note, I was recently listenting to an interview with a Cornell biologist who spends a good deal of time researching in the forests of the Northwest.  One of the audience questions was "had he ever seen any evidence of bigfoot?"  Interestingly he didn't laugh off the question, but he did answer no.  Then he brought up an interesting point that I think gets lost in the whole Bigfoot discussion - on an annual basis, there are thousands of trained biologists, zoologists, entomologists, botonists, etc. going all through the forets of the Northwestern US and Canada conducting research.  Why do none of these people ever report sightings or evidence?  Why is it always amateurs?

And before anyone claims that it's some kind of scientific conspiracy, just think about what it would mean to a scientist to discover proof of Bigfoot's existence.  We're talking Nobel Prize level stuff here and millions upon millions in research funding.  No scientist in their right mind would walk away from that.

[Myles]

Rafterman, on 23 November 2011 - 01:58 PM, said:

Yeah but if it doesn't look Squatchy, they're just wasting their itme.  

On a serious note, I was recently listenting to an interview with a Cornell biologist who spends a good deal of time researching in the forests of the Northwest.  One of the audience questions was "had he ever seen any evidence of bigfoot?"  Interestingly he didn't laugh off the question, but he did answer no.  Then he brought up an interesting point that I think gets lost in the whole Bigfoot discussion - on an annual basis, there are thousands of trained biologists, zoologists, entomologists, botonists, etc. going all through the forets of the Northwestern US and Canada conducting research.  Why do none of these people ever report sightings or evidence?  Why is it always amateurs?

And before anyone claims that it's some kind of scientific conspiracy, just think about what it would mean to a scientist to discover proof of Bigfoot's existence.  We're talking Nobel Prize level stuff here and millions upon millions in research funding.  No scientist in their right mind would walk away from that.

Excellent points.   It is clear that bigfoot does not exist.

[HMS Dreadnought]

I'm more on the side of Bigfoot being legendary as well, surely as Rafterman said, with all the scientists, biologists etc that would be in that part of the world doing research, they would have found some evidence by now.

[RingFenceTheCity]

Offeiriad, on 23 November 2011 - 10:01 AM, said:

Though Bigfoot remains elusive, enthusiasts still prowl the forests in search of proof of its existence.

Thanks for posting! It's nice to hear the fellas keeping one step ahead of the interploopers..

[Gaden]

Rafterman, on 23 November 2011 - 01:58 PM, said:

Yeah but if it doesn't look Squatchy, they're just wasting their itme.  

On a serious note, I was recently listenting to an interview with a Cornell biologist who spends a good deal of time researching in the forests of the Northwest.  One of the audience questions was "had he ever seen any evidence of bigfoot?"  Interestingly he didn't laugh off the question, but he did answer no.  Then he brought up an interesting point that I think gets lost in the whole Bigfoot discussion - on an annual basis, there are thousands of trained biologists, zoologists, entomologists, botonists, etc. going all through the forets of the Northwestern US and Canada conducting research.  Why do none of these people ever report sightings or evidence?  Why is it always amateurs?

And before anyone claims that it's some kind of scientific conspiracy, just think about what it would mean to a scientist to discover proof of Bigfoot's existence.  We're talking Nobel Prize level stuff here and millions upon millions in research funding.  No scientist in their right mind would walk away from that.

If you think you can win this argument using common sense and logical reasoning, think again. It's been tried, time and time again, to no avail.

[DieChecker]

I'm of the opinion that Bigfoot is possible. The fact that few people see him, and almost no scientists, is telling. And the lack of evidence is more so. But, I feel that prooving the the Swamp Ape is not real does not detract from bigfoot being in Oregon and vice versa. I do think there is a lot of poorly researched land, and land that only very rarely sees a human stop by, expecially in Canada.

Being mostly a skeptic, I do not hold out a lot of Hope, but I do acknowledge the possibility.

I do think you have to watch out for anything said by a "Squatcher", going out "Squatching". It is more a hobby for those guys then a science. They clamber around the woods at night making a crazy noise and they wonder why they can't find one.

Edited by DieChecker, 23 November 2011 - 08:53 PM.

[Myles]

DieChecker, on 23 November 2011 - 08:42 PM, said:

I'm of the opinion that Bigfoot is possible. The fact that few people see him, and almost no scientists, is telling. And the lack of evidence is more so. But, I feel that prooving the the Swamp Ape is not real does not detract from bigfoot being in Oregon and vice versa. I do think there is a lot of poorly researched land, and land that only very rarely sees a human stop by, expecially in Canada.

Being mostly a skeptic, I do not hold out a lot of Hope, but I do acknowledge the possibility.

I do think you have to watch out for anything said by a "Squatcher", going out "Squatching". It is more a hobby for those guys then a science. They clamber around the woods at night making a crazy noise and they wonder why they can't find one.

I find it almost amusing that bigfoot is always limited to spots that have not been "totaly" explored yet.   Now it is Canada.   Next it will be bigfoot who lives in the bottom of a deep cravasse at the bottom of an ocean.

Only TV shows do their research at night.

[psyche101]

Rafterman, on 23 November 2011 - 01:58 PM, said:

Yeah but if it doesn't look Squatchy, they're just wasting their itme.  

On a serious note, I was recently listenting to an interview with a Cornell biologist who spends a good deal of time researching in the forests of the Northwest.  One of the audience questions was "had he ever seen any evidence of bigfoot?"  Interestingly he didn't laugh off the question, but he did answer no.  Then he brought up an interesting point that I think gets lost in the whole Bigfoot discussion - on an annual basis, there are thousands of trained biologists, zoologists, entomologists, botonists, etc. going all through the forets of the Northwestern US and Canada conducting research.  Why do none of these people ever report sightings or evidence?  Why is it always amateurs?

And before anyone claims that it's some kind of scientific conspiracy, just think about what it would mean to a scientist to discover proof of Bigfoot's existence.  We're talking Nobel Prize level stuff here and millions upon millions in research funding.  No scientist in their right mind would walk away from that.

Well said, I believe the same, I have even offered reports of many expeditions led into this very area, right down to people counting snails and slugs. I figure if people meticulously crawling throughout the woods is not detailed enough, what is?
Then you have UNi's learning how to do all this stuff.
Then you have private enterprise, campers loggers, etc ets. I do not think the area is quite as mysterious as is made out.

[DieChecker]

Myles, on 23 November 2011 - 09:27 PM, said:

I find it almost amusing that bigfoot is always limited to spots that have not been "totaly" explored yet.   Now it is Canada.   Next it will be bigfoot who lives in the bottom of a deep cravasse at the bottom of an ocean.

Only TV shows do their research at night.

What is amusing about it? It is only logical that if such a creature existed, then there would have to more then a few and the only place they could hide would be large areas of undeveloped land, such as is found in central Canada.

How would I explain the sightings in the lower 48? Mostly with hallucinations, hobos, and other misidentifications, but.... also by lone rogues, or wanderers, driven out of the home territory and wandering around. A cougar wandered from Montana to Conneticut last year, so clearly animals can wander through the length and breadth of the US.

I don't think you are going to get much milage out of that "Bigfoot at the bottom of the sea." theory of yours.  

[DieChecker]

psyche101, on 23 November 2011 - 11:41 PM, said:

Well said, I believe the same, I have even offered reports of many expeditions led into this very area, right down to people counting snails and slugs. I figure if people meticulously crawling throughout the woods is not detailed enough, what is?
Then you have UNi's learning how to do all this stuff.
Then you have private enterprise, campers loggers, etc ets. I do not think the area is quite as mysterious as is made out.

What I remember is that the loggers, uni's, campers and others that see bigfoot are always called, "inexpert witnesses", or "untrained observers", and then their report/story is dismissed.

While it is true that many biologists and other trained wildlife personnel move through the forests and wild areas regularly, the numbers of campers, loggers, hunters, hikers and other people using the forests outnumbers them by like fifty to one. At least. Thus, you would expect that the vast majority of reports would come from the laypeople of the forests, not the experts. There are several bigfoot proponents that are trained biologists, but usually due to their belief in BF, they are regarded as obviously kooks and thus are also dismissed.

Another thing I usually try to point out is that if someone is out counting wild horses, they probably don't care how many deer they see, or even bother recording that they saw any. People have told me though, that this is not the way biologists think and that if they are out counting wild horses, they also will record the number of rabbits, owls, ground squirrels, deer, coyotes and people that they see go by. This may very well be true, as I am an Engineer so I focus on what I am doing and don't worry about that other thing next to me... until I am done and then I can turn and work on that other project. It could very well be that most people that focus on biology would record everything...?

[psyche101]

DieChecker, on 24 November 2011 - 12:28 AM, said:

What I remember is that the loggers, uni's, campers and others that see bigfoot are always called, "inexpert witnesses", or "untrained observers", and then their report/story is dismissed.

On the information supplied, or on their conclusions?

DieChecker, on 24 November 2011 - 12:28 AM, said:

While it is true that many biologists and other trained wildlife personnel move through the forests and wild areas regularly, the numbers of campers, loggers, hunters, hikers and other people using the forests outnumbers them by like fifty to one. At least. Thus, you would expect that the vast majority of reports would come from the laypeople of the forests, not the experts. There are several bigfoot proponents that are trained biologists, but usually due to their belief in BF, they are regarded as obviously kooks and thus are also dismissed.

And that is how the statistic lies, the average sighting is not by an official, which is why when an official makes a public statement, it makes the papers.
Have any Bigfoot proponents given face to face encounter tales? I thought the best the professional contingent had was some foot casts, a few hairs and swags of hypotheticals.

DieChecker, on 24 November 2011 - 12:28 AM, said:

Another thing I usually try to point out is that if someone is out counting wild horses, they probably don't care how many deer they see, or even bother recording that they saw any. People have told me though, that this is not the way biologists think and that if they are out counting wild horses, they also will record the number of rabbits, owls, ground squirrels, deer, coyotes and people that they see go by. This may very well be true, as I am an Engineer so I focus on what I am doing and don't worry about that other thing next to me... until I am done and then I can turn and work on that other project. It could very well be that most people that focus on biology would record everything...?

I think being trained to observe nature, that they would be the first ones to spot something "out of place" and recognise it as different. I would expect fewer Bear/Biff reports and blobsqatches from this corner.

Edited by psyche101, 24 November 2011 - 04:54 AM.

[Damian Bâthory]

Recently i was hunting with a friend, when i came uppon strange tracks in the snow, i followed them and came uppon a spot were something had releived itself (no2 i mean), and that "pile of sh.." looked very weird so i called my friend over on the radio, when he came over i showed him the tracks and the Sh.. and i told him "it looks weird i think it's a Bigfoot who did this", he looked at me and said "how dare you calling me a Bigfoot"......from now on, i quit searching for a bigfoot....and this is a true story....i never felt so stupid in my life.....

[psyche101]

Damian Bâthory, on 24 November 2011 - 06:02 AM, said:

Recently i was hunting with a friend, when i came uppon strange tracks in the snow, i followed them and came uppon a spot were something had releived itself (no2 i mean), and that "pile of sh.." looked very weird so i called my friend over on the radio, when he came over i showed him the tracks and the Sh.. and i told him "it looks weird i think it's a Bigfoot who did this", he looked at me and said "how dare you calling me a Bigfoot"......from now on, i quit searching for a bigfoot....and this is a true story....i never felt so stupid in my life.....

Thanks for sharing, that, I got a real chuckle, that was an awesome tale

[Sundew]

The most interesting "evidence" of Bigfoot for me it the Patterson film. It seems like a lot of trouble to make a costume of that quality, especially for that time period, and to make it female as well. That is a lot of expense just to pull of a hoax, and recreations of the event by costumed humans don't have the same look or feel.

But having said that it would seem that after many decades of searches, after virtually every other species North American animal having been found dead on our highways, with growing human population and with legions of amateur naturalists, hunters and filmmakers armed with ever increasing better technology, something would have turned up by now.

Still the Giant Panda was thought to be myth by westerners and so have other beasts, so there is a slight possibility that this animal may yet show up and surprise everyone.