I have seen many sites dedicated to Big foot research and searching, BUT no one has actually found ANY real evidence..No big foot poop, food scaps, lairs etc.
Once and for all why don't these groups band togeather and just blanket search a known Big foot area ...that means search every hole in the ground, cave, rocky peak untill ones is found and documented.
IF they know them like they say they do..it should be easy to predict where they would locate their lairs , cave systems, thick woods, bracken.

It's not like they are hunting for BIN LADEN.

And with todays technology , cameras can be set up in remote areas and monitored 24/7 by satillite.
ARE these people really serious about finding BIG foot.

I like the idea of setting up hundreds of those infra-red tripped wildlife cameras. Find the three areas with the most activity in the last ten years and set up thirty cameras at each location. Those cameras cost what, less then a thousand dollars each?

I'm in.

Yes they have...poop, hair, footprints...there's quite a bit of physical evidence. As for food scraps...well, it's difficult to say if a decomposing corpse was killed by a bear of a gigantic ape. Corpses don't last long in the middle of a forest; the air is so humid, and there are so many insects and scavengers that anything resembling evidence would be picked clean, and the bones scattered all over the place in short order. You'd have to come across the corpse probably less than an hour after it was killed.

Anyway, the main reason you're not going to find anything (and the reason that no bigfoot expedition to date has found one) is because there's simply no way to cover the area you'd need to. Sasquatch sightings have occured along a collective hundreds, if not thousands, of square miles, and any given expedition can, at most, explore a few dozen linier miles. Take into account that experiences with other species of ape demonstrate that they display an uncanny ability to vanish into their surroundings. The only apes that are easy to find are apes that live in reserves that are at least moderately used to humans.



And who pays for it?

Do you have any idea how difficult it would be to get funding for a short term expedition, let alone a long term project for leaving cameras out in the forest (especially given, as I've stated, given how vast the area is, the chances of a sasquatch happening across one of your cameras would be almost nil)? Nobody would be willing to pay for it...one of the very reasons that no expedition has been successful is because nobody has ever been able to get funding for a long term, well equiped expedition. Most bigfoot investigators are self funded.

Seraphina said it better than I ever would of , just IMO left out one word bolded



Without a 'type specimen' their is nothing to compare too and so cant really say its from a Bigfoot.

ATM at best I think we can say their is something strange going on in them hills, until a body is found it is always a could be


EDIT damm spell check changing IMO to I'M

Ok good points...however If bigfoot is some Primate/homid he would most likely behave like one, IE: have somesort of home teritory where he nest's or reproduces.

Or is he nomadic?..I doupt anyone really understands this.
Your indepenant BF hunters should apply for govenment funding or why hasn't a zoo or organisation come forward and said ok lets kill the debate for good , lets find a big foot.???

As for the question of area to cover, well this again shows big foot experts lack of real knowledge, do they know the teritory of these creatures? , are they travelling intersate or just a 10's of miles a day...?

KNOW YOUR ENEMY... big foot searches clearly don't.

I'm not trying to knock them just wonder why no real effort has been made to answer the question..after all they suposedly have been around for decades.

Their is one group that has and got funding, the names on the tip of my tounge and I know that Meldrum heads it. But in large why should tax payers fund some "crazy people"




I think Seraphina's post summed it up




While im not knocking you in anyway, how about you step up to the plate and be the shining light and answer this one way or another

Everything is much easier said than done

...huh? Humans are one of the few primates that settle in a single area. Most other species of ape roam around a large territory, and settle down to sleep wherever they feel like. They construct a nest, sleep in it, and then move on in the morning. They do not have any 'living space'.

There is no known species of ape that keeps a lair or a cave.



Many independant Bigfoot enthusiasts make a career out of searching for funding...but they're very unlikely to get it. Nobody is going to pour the kind of money that would needed into a venture unless there's at least a reasonable chance that it would yeild results...and even the chances for a well funded expedition are slim indeed. The donations that have been provided are usually only token ones, good for a week or two.



I do think one of us is demonstrating a lack of knowledge, and an unrealistic veiw on going about finding Bigfoot, but I don't think it's me...



No. Which is exactly why an expedition is unlikely to succeed. Without knowing exactly where to search (bearing in mind that, even if we knew where a bigfoot's territory was, even that area might be incredibly large), you would have to cover an incredibly large area to have even the slightest hope of finding a sasquatch, or evidence of one. This is all assuming the sasquatch doesn't become aware of you beforehand, and simply slips away into the forest.



Decades? Don't be ridiculous, they've been around for as long as we have. Native American lore about them dates back as long as the culture does....it's the exact same situation as gorillas, in fact. Native Africans were telling white settlers for centuries...that's right, centuries, not decades, years, or months...that huge, hairy, man like creatures lived in the forests. These stories were dismissed until a gorrilla was eventually shot by a german officer during World War 2.

Bigfoot might end up with a similar fate a few hundred years from now.

Thank you Seraphina you answered my queries well, I would love to go on a big foot hunt, but I don't live where one resides.
You asume these creatures are primates, and behave as such..that is narrow minded
I live in a country where monkey's live and they are teritorial, yes they roam when looking for food, but they return to their "home" teritory.
If it takes a few hundred years to find these guys, then who is the intelligent species ?? us or them.

Well, I believe they're primates too, and behave as such...but using knowledge of monkey bahviour is the wrong direction to move in; a monkey is not a Hominidae ape, Bigfoot almost certainly is.

Better animals to draw a comparrison to would be chimps or gorillas. I've actually been quite interested in the many similarities I see between reported sasquatch bahaviour (especially when threatened) and that of chimps.

Primates you say... I think you better go out and run through the heather lassy...
They remain to this day unidentified. period.
Untill they are it is all purely speculation.

Speculation? Not at all...it's what you would call and extrapolation. I believe they're primates because that's what the evidence suggests. Based on their appearance, reports on their behaviour, as well as simply logic, an undiscovered species of ape is by far the most likely option for bigfoot's identity.

Tell me...if not a primate, what do you suggest they are?

So, in essence, what we're waiting for is someone(or a group of someone's) with unlimited funds, and unlimited enthusiasm, and unlimited amounts of time to waste......... .......GET ME THE PENTAGON!!!!!!!

The name gates springs to mind...rich loafer that he is.

Dear Seraphina, I suggest they may be a type of homoid , not ape or primate but a branch
from our own tree, perhaps an off shoot of erectus?.
If they are primates then they are highly evolved.
You cannot say they are one thing or another...you do not have DNA. or even a drop of blood or tissue...you CANNOT make that assumption.

That's a good name as well.....but the idea of 'Ol Billy-Bot up a tree with camouflage paint smeared all over his face is something that I have a hard time visualizing.

What about Richard Branson??

I cant imagine Donald Trump in a tree either.

Naw, I don't think he has the patience.....he'd probably be up a tree thinking of a way to parachute out of it or something.

Homoid? As in a bicurious male?

I assume you meant hominid...So...an ape then? Hominids include humans, chimps, gorillas and orangutans. You are aware that humans are a species of ape, right? If you're not, then I feel we need to take this conversation back to basics before we start discussing sasquatch.



And I'll say again...it's not an assumption, it's an extrapolation, based on existing evidence and testimony. Saying "I bet Bigfoot is an alien" is an assumption...saying that it is a species of greater ape is not.

I would consider myself an ape enthusiast...I know a great deal about, and have read a lot of material concerning, ape behaviour. The same could be said for sasquatch...in fact, I might be one of the most enthusiastic followers of sasquatch reports and activities on the forum. I am certainly not going to be patronised over the conclusions I have drawn about them.

Ok.. point taken, I bow to your wisdom .

I have to say this,Seraphina does appear to be very knowledgeable on this subject.It's unfortunate that not enough people understand things the way she does regarding this subject.

...

Now,regarding the "territory" of the Sasquatch,it ranges far and wide.Sasquatch sightings have been recorded in British Columbia and the local northwestern states such as Washington,Oregon and Idaho.There are also legends regarding a creature very similar to the Sasquatch in many other states,including Michigan (where I currently reside) and even in Louisiana (my original home state).In some of the South (Louisiana,Arkansas,Missouri),the creature is nicknamed "Mo-Mo",short for "Missouri Monster",and has been talked about since at least the Civil War era.And,if I remember correctly,there are even legends of a creature in many of the states that the Rockies run through.

Just in the northwestern states,there are many square miles of mountainous and forested area that has never been fully examined by modern man.It would take an extremely large effort to actually investigate all of these areas fully.Until then,the Sasquatch will continue to roam as free as it has previously.Notice,most of the sightings have been in the "fringe" areas...places that may still be forested...but close to towns and cities.It's possible that this creature is nomadic in nature,or tends to roam far from it's lair.We won't know until we stumble upon some hard evidence,which isn't likely anytime in the near future.

Remember too,that there are *still* new creatures being discovered all across the world.Who is to say that we have found every creature that lives within the continent of North America?

Your extrapolation is well founded.....with regards to apes...which you have obviously done your homework on, and I have no problem and give great respect to your conclusions.....however....the problem I have is the endless ASSUMPTION that the creature IS an a hominoid.....or a flying pig for that matter......until some SOLID evidence is discovered(I cannot take the word of those whom I know nothing about in terms of credibility, and from what I'm aware of, the "eyewitness accounts" happen to be the most "solid" form of evidence that is currently available), we cannot say for sure WHAT it is that people are seeing(and please don't mention the "plaster foot-casts"..I just ate breakfast), while it may be PLAUSABLE.....it is FAR from a done-deal IMHO....there is just SO MUCH MORE research and effort that needs to go into this "phenomenon" before ANYONE can say what is trudging-around North America, stands anywhere from 6-9ft tall, walks with a "loping-gate", is covered with hair and has to be the most elusive S.O.B. that has ever breathed God's air.

Right on..

If you insist in saying otherwise...might I have a few alternative suggestions? If Bigfoot is not, in fact, a primate...what other suggestions could you bring to the table to expand our possible culprits?

Forgive me, I may not have been clear with regards to my earlier post, I was never in dispute with your assessment of Bigfoot....the problem I had was with what started all this in the first place.....it's existence. If Bigfoot(or some other hominoid species that fit the bill) were to be captured tomorrow, and it turned-out to be some previously believed to be extinct primate...I wouldn't bat an eyelash.....I just don't believe it to exist......we found species of frogs that have previously never before been discovered to exist(just recently from what I believe), but all the "cryptozoologists" running around out there with their "night-vision" goggles, smeared in venison blood, with time-lapse and movement-sensitive video-cameras and equipment cannot find this elusive walking carpet.....but we can discover a frog in the amazon.....that must be the most incompetent frog on the planet....it should'a rented 'Ol Footy's "How to remain hidden and unproven for over 100 years" video.

I wholly and utterly respect your stance with regards to(if it existed) what the Bigfoot creature might be, please don't misunderstand me with regards to that fact.

Well, I could point out the obvious in that a frog is nowhere near as intelligent as an ape...but, to bring up a slightly fresher spin on the arguement, in some regards, small animals are easier to find, because there are likely to be far more of them in any given area.

One of the very basic tenants of biology is balance within an ecosystem...a prime example of this would be a food pyramid. By implication, there must be more prey items than there are predators to eat them. The higher up the food chain you go, the fewer of any given animal you're likely to find in an area.

Apes are usually not a prey item...if not at the absolute top of their personal food chain, they're certainly near it. Sasquatch, it can probably be guessed, would be at the top of the food chain in its own territory...it's only real physical rivals would be bears and mountain loins, but some reports of a sasquatch's sheer size makes this a moot point. Therefore there is perhaps one sasquatch occupying any given peice of territory...meanwhile, there are likely to be several hundred thousand frogs.

Size becomes less relevant when those kind of numbers come into play. If this frog was the last of its kind then yes...discovering it would be something of a miracle. But I somehow imagine it isn't.

I understand and agree with that assessment wholeheartedly....now, wouldn't you agree, armed with this knowledge(and I am tentatively......VERY tentatively....assuming that you and I are NOT the only ones on this wonderous Earth of ours that can come to this logical and ecological understanding) shouldn't it be just a matter on time before this "creature" would be "mapped" and cornered given the region, the availability of certain food sources(assuming the creature is carnivorous), and the volume of "sightings"....not to mention the given popularity of the legend and subsequent number of "hunters"...................and eventually caught and studied?......Intelligent or not.

The problem with this assessment lies in the fact, as I have stated, we are dealing with a limited number of creatures, occupying a very large space. If you go out looking for sasquatch, the chances of you actually coming across one as virtually nil...as I have cited already, Jane Goodall spent some six months in the Gombe Stream in Africa (an iscolated nature reserve, with limited borders in which a large group of chimps were known to live) going out looking for chimps every single day before she actually saw one.

To my knowledge, there have been no six month long 'sasquatch hunts' and, obviously, it is impossible to narrow sasquatch territory down in the same manner the gombe stream was. We simply do not 'know' where we're likely to find them. Even long term, well equiped hunts are unlikely to stray far from established game trails and paths - going out too far into the middle of nowhere is a danger humans observe, but sasquatch likely does not.

A hunter shooting one is, for this same reason, unlikely. Hunters also stick to accepted game trails and paths, and do not roam around exploring the depths of the forest as the romantic image may imply. Also, the gear they are carrying is limited to the time of year...hunters are not carrying around the sort of high powered rifle that would be needed to take down an animal the size of a sasquatch all year round. There have been several stories about hunters reporting to have shot at sasquatch...but unless you're walking around with an elephant gun, it's hardly surprising nobody has actually killed one (at least not at the point of shooting).

In one respect, you are correct however...it is just a matter of time. The forests are shrinking, human settlements are expanding, and sooner or later humans and sasquatch are likely to collide. I don't honestly think it's going to happen anytime soon though...statistically, the chances of an encounter are simply too remote at this time.

I hope they find one before I kick-off, I would love for 'Ol Footy to actually exist....I would....but the longer this endless speculation and assumption goes on, the more frustrated I get............I can't freakin believe that I'm actually ROOTING for industrialization.

lol, to be honest, I think not being discovered is the best thing that could happen to sasquatch. Every other ape is on the brink of extinction because of how desperate we seem to be to kill them, sell them as pets, or otherwise screw up our closest relatives. Sasquatch, if we ever did manage to localise wherabouts they live, would probably see the biggest influx of hillbilly hunters looking to mount one on their wall in history.

As much as I want sasquatch to be discovered...I kinda hope it never is.

I understand and sympathize with your reasoning..............but I'm a greeedy slob.

Dont worry.. the so called "scientific" expeditions that do make it to this part of the northwest dont even scratch the outer surface of this wilderness area. Not to mention their circus type approach to entering the cascade range, what a laugh! Bigfoot wont be found anytime soon in my opinion.

I wholeheartedly agree.

Besides...having an unsolved mystery such as this is actually a bit of fun.

I am very impressed with this conversational thread. You are all discussing issuses i have been dealing with for the past year and a half. Let me ask all of you a question.
Lets say with the help of the Cree, Chelan, Salish first nations people and a briliant biologist that is a second gereration bigfoot researcher i discover a domicile that is regularly visited by a the species commonly refered to as bigfoot. What evidence will it take to convince you these animals exist.
Hair samples- Dr. burnel of berkeley university had hair sample provide by the biologist of our crew. Dr Burnell said the came from a unknown species. So hair samples wont do.
Came back just last year with video evidence, hair and fecal samples and eye witness testemony from myself a well respected biolgist and a paramedic. We where laughed at. I posted a chronicle on this website about my 2005 expidition which is still there, written by todd standing, no one believes. Now the sylvanic area is closed off because men with guns are shooting at anything that moves. Or that is at least the story being told by forestry/fish and wildlife officers which i have recently learned is not entirely true.
You all seem to be genuinely interested in the discovery of these animals. Help us impliment protection for these animals throughout North America and we will answer all your questions.

So...when's the next outdoor shooting trip starts? I'll got my shotgun ready by then.

I'm talking about shooting those poachers, not bigfoot!

Body = Proof, nothing less.

Unknown hair is just that.
Eyewitness testimony from credible people is interesting in my book, but again is not proof of anything.
The 'video evidence' was far short of convincing to say the least.

Why the sylvanic threads where ripped to shreds here and on the BFF (Bigfoot forum) was bluntly because it has more holes in it than a flyscreen. I'm sure you can read back over the thread here and on the BFF and see them for yourself. Heck if you cant even get the bigfoot believers to even give it a second look, this should tell you your doing something wrong. You can hardly be surprised when a more main stream site goes the same way.

Now if everyone was wrong and things happened exactly as where claimed it means you went about presenting it the wrong way. Lift your game, cross the T's and dot the I's. Sylvanic came across as a fairytail and had too many holes in it..

Now this is coming from a believer in 'bigfoot' and believe that quite possible they are living in America/Canada

JMHO take it or leave it

Forgive me, but what "video" are you(Toddster) refering to that would be called "evidence"?

Seems the videos have been taken off their website which also has been changed

http://www.sylvanic.com/

The video was basicly an animal sound coming from a tree and it shaking, causing snow to fall off it.

Looks like "Big Brother" strikes AGAIN!!!!

Ok we are agreed that big foot is a little guy in a big country,(a bit like osama).
Lets say sometime within the next 10 years ,some trucker driving through washington state hits one with his rig, and kills it.
What will happen to it's body...will the spooks take it and hide it. or will it be turned over to a respected organisation for study.?

Seraphina....you can go first

Dont know why but some of the questions here I have thought about osama, with all the money and technology But I digress

That really depends on who hits it, doesn't it? There's a good chance that the terrified motorist would simply drive on as fast as he could and not look back. If that were the case, trying to find the exact location of the body again would be difficult (unless it was a familiar road), and the body wouldn't last long anyway (refer to previous posts for elaboration of why corpses are seldom found in woodland environments).

If, the other hand, the hit was reported, and the individual who struck the sasquatch stuck around long enough for authorities to arrive...I don't see any reason why they'd keep it secret. Sasquatch is, at the end of the day, an animal...it's not a state secret; in fact, proof posative of sasquatch's existance would be excellent for the tourist trade, it would be in the government's best interests to make it public.

As far as the body being examined...who honestly knows. It would probably be handed over to an expert on primate geneology to determine where exactly it fit into our family tree.

Hi Serraphina, Maybe you know the answer to this. Not more than a couple years ago I was sure I heard that in fact hairs were studied @ OSU or a similar reputible establishment and the hairs were determined to be: Definately primate, yet unknown to science! And definately not human. Now all I hear is "it was bear hair", it was elk hair or whatever. My real question is (Anyone answer please), Are these universities really that inept at identifying a hair? U of O is a decent school with high standards and a good rep. The results of such testing seem to be open to all kinds of scrutiny and called fake from all sorts of people. Some hairs are absolutely identified, yet others remain "undetermined".. just wondering how this can be that one hair can definately be identified and the next one has scientists stumped. What migh cause a hair to be "unidentified" besides the fact it may be of unknown origin?
Thanks for your input, I like your intelligent approach and it will be people with this sort of thinking who crack the case

The problem with hair is that it isn't very good for making a DNA comparrison. All that can really be done with it is make visual comparrisons with existing hair. You can put an alleged sasquatch hair next to a human hair, chimp hair, or bear hair, and say what it certainly isn't...but without a proper frame of reference you can't say for certain what it is.

Some experts say that the hair is very similar to that of existing primates...others say it isn't.



The most likely explanation for that would be that some of the sasquatch hairs brought before experts actually are bear or elk hairs However, without examining every individual hair, you can't rule all of them out...I'd actually be interested to see if matches could be drawn between the currently unidentified hairs.

Well, hair samples would do...a little. Droppings, skeletons and body evidence will do a lot more!!

Thanks for your input, its appreciated and I think I understand. I thought we (science) were further along with DNA evidence and could do more:(
I just read that up to 100 species (of all sorts) a day are going extinct, thats estimated of course. Also, an estimated 1,000,000 to 10,000,000 species (of all sizes and sorts) remain unknown. My reference could be bad (http://www.defenders.org/defendersmag/issues/winter02/biodiversity.html) but I do believe there is some validity to it. I'll say it again, the wilderness here could definately support an unknown species, large or small.

other than an ocassional cat or dog skeleton,of all the thousands of times i have walked thru the forest and woods,i have never seen the skeleton of any animal!has anybody else?
i can't tell you of anybody else i know that has either!