Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4
Child of Bast

Searching for bigfoot among the redwoods

68 posts in this topic

I understand the whole scent thing but dogs have been used in search lines for along time and they dont start with a scent. If you got a group of hunters together with a group of dogs and just marched them through the woods you would chase out every mammal in the place. I'm sorry but if you were serious about finding him set up a dog hunt with a good prize and you'd have more hunters there then you could handle.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In Saltville Va. the hunters there say there's a bear in the surrounding mountains they nicknamed ole cobblefoot. They never could bag it because it always outran thier dogs.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wow to out run a hound is a hell of a feet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

wow to out run a hound is a hell of a feet

Heck of a big-feet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could have all the people and dogs you want!Bigfoot is way too smart to even be in the vicinity.He probably has a good sense of smell and hearing and can detect a presence from miles away so why bother looking for him when he knows there are people running around in the forest...dogs or no dogs!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You could have all the people and dogs you want!Bigfoot is way too smart to even be in the vicinity.He probably has a good sense of smell and hearing and can detect a presence from miles away so why bother looking for him when he knows there are people running around in the forest...dogs or no dogs!

And besides, all of the real evidence is being suppressed by NASA.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nope. I tried keeping links for a while and then when it got over a hundred, my organizational skills began to crumble and I ditched the lot of 'em.

From what I remember these people collected hair and scat they found in the woods that they thought was from a BF and then trained the dogs off it. Clearly what they were using could have been from a selection of animals.

I remember reading about some people who found footprints and then set their scent hound off after the trail. The dog ran off and eventually entered a large thicket some distance ahead of the trackers/bigfoot hunters. The dog supposedly came running back out yelping and scared and refused to again go after the scent trail. Supposedly these were honest people, but you never do know. I've seen about a half dozen stories/reports where dogs were involved and I think in all of them the dog ran away, some immediately, some after attacking the BF.

I even read a report of a BF that had a pack of dogs traveling with it.

I'd go back and google check through all those old UM bigfoot posts, but my workday is almost over (7 to 7) and so I have to go now. A good search might find those links.

Not much seems to have happened since. The link goes to some dodgy info page unrelated, and there is no comments still. I think the project has come to a standstill by the looks of it.

LINK - Sasquatch Watch of Virginia

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not much seems to have happened since. The link goes to some dodgy info page unrelated, and there is no comments still. I think the project has come to a standstill by the looks of it.

LINK - Sasquatch Watch of Virginia

People hunt for BF, don't find him and then give up. What are you going to do? I need these people to keep going so I can have stuff to talk about online... dang it. :w00t::wacko:

Get back to work you BF tracking beagle trainers!!!! :devil::devil:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

it's kinda the point to get bf to run you set up a watch line a couple of miles down from the dogs then just run everything to them. there is ofcourse a much less green salution

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hello again. I was watching special on bigfoot last night were they were gonna try to use dogs, but I fell asleep anyone catch it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No dog has ever cornered or treed a bigfoot, because they don't exist, of course.

But pro-bigfoot people like to conveniently claim that dogs are too scared of bigfoots and won't track them.

This is, of course, absolutely ridiculous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No dog has ever cornered or treed a bigfoot, because they don't exist, of course.

But pro-bigfoot people like to conveniently claim that dogs are too scared of bigfoots and won't track them.

This is, of course, absolutely ridiculous.

http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=1063

People have reported hunting bigfoot with dogs, and they have reported dogs running from Bigfoot. I'm not claiming anything. I'm just saying that multiple people have reported the same phenomena/experiences independantly with no cross communication. If people were talking about badgers or some other well known animal, you would not be dismissing the reports, but wondering when researchers were going to follow up on them.

You probably would not believe in bigfoot, if someone shot one and dropped it on your lawn. :P:lol: "Ha ha guys. Very funny. What is this foam rubber? A mis-shapen cow? A mutilated bear? Guess I'll just roll it into the street." :innocent:

Edited by DieChecker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm just saying that multiple people have reported the same phenomena/experiences independantly with no cross communication.

1- I doubt that they never heard similar stories. Nobody goes in search of bigfoot without first reading some books or hearing some stories from others who search or look for the foot.

2- I don't believe the stories anyway, or at the very least, suspect that they are exaggerated and refabricated with each retelling.

If people were talking about badgers or some other well known animal, you would not be dismissing the reports,

I would be skeptical of a report of a badger that was reported to give out wishes and could speak english. Because, like bigfoot, we know that is not possible.

You probably would not believe in bigfoot, if someone shot one and dropped it on your lawn.

I don't believe in things that break the established laws of biology on this planet and that don't have any evidence.

This "you wouldn't believe blah blah blah" nonsense is another frequently used diversionary tactic by 'footers, who would like you to believe that those open minded enough to understand that there is no bigfoot are simply going to deny everything, instead of the truth, which is that we deny things that we know are not possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would be skeptical of a report of a badger that was reported to give out wishes and could speak english. Because, like bigfoot, we know that is not possible.

Have you or have you not, in the past said that there is odds of bigfoot being real. Odds that are so small as to approach zero, but positive odds none the less. Impossible means exactly zero.

A talking badger would be fun, and if it gave wishes even funner. Is it just that you think bigfoot should have been found by now? If not then BF is not magical, and thus is possible, but just appears simply to not there.

I can imagine an animal that would function just fine, like say a dog that jumps like a kangaroo, but that does not make it real, correct? But, if people saw this kanga-dog all over, then would it not be reasonable to have scientists look for it? You are dismissing BF because you have a pre-conceived belief that BF can't have enough population and not enough food is available. Of which both are not true. It has been shown over and over that there is plenty of land, plenty of food to sustain a BF population and plenty of witnesses also. All that is really lacking is a body.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The odds are miniscule, so small as to be virtually impossible. I only allow those odds because we can not prove a negative. But it is virtually nonexistant. THe odds that an animal would exist that defies most of the natural laws we observe all animals abide by would be astronomically small.

s it just that you think bigfoot should have been found by now?

It is that to exist and not leave any evidence behind, bigfoot would have to break too many natural laws.

But, if people saw this kanga-dog all over, then would it not be reasonable to have scientists look for it?

That's not really how science works. Biologists don't go looking for creatures based on rumors.

ou are dismissing BF because you have a pre-conceived belief that BF can't have enough population and not enough food is available. Of which both are not true.

first, both have NOT been proven true. Second, I intelligently and logically dismiss "bigfoot" for many reasons, the first few that come to mind are:

1- No mark on the ecosystem. A giant ape would simply leave an observable impact on our ecosystem. What do they eat? What eats them? Biologists quantify all these things, and there is no observation of anything unaccounted for. We know the puzzle pieces, and we are not missing any giant gaps that a species of giant ape would entail.

2- Zero remains. Ever. None. Not one single bit of ramains

3- we are able to observe much smaller, very rare animals in very remote areas, the wolverine, for instance, which ranges wide and doesn't stay in one small area for very long, making it harder to locate. Yet we film them, find remains, see their eco-footprint, tag them, trap them, etc. etc. Never once for bigfoot. Not one time. Ever.

4- All that is really lacking is... EVERYTHING. There is NOTHING substantial to warrant any chance that this creature could exist.

Not to mention the incredible leap of faith and abandonment of logic to claim that "it must be real because so many people have seen it...." yet also for there to be ZERO evidence. None. At all. How many people have seen a live wolverine in the wild? VERY FEW. Yet, we have evidence, abundant evidence, that they exist. Yet we have all these supposed sightings of bigfoot, and NO evidence?

How do you reconcile the above with your imagination?

Feel free to pick any of the 4. there are many more, but it's late, my daughter needs attention, and those 4 jump to mind immediately.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The odds are miniscule, so small as to be virtually impossible. I only allow those odds because we can not prove a negative. But it is virtually nonexistant. THe odds that an animal would exist that defies most of the natural laws we observe all animals abide by would be astronomically small.

:tu:

That's not really how science works. Biologists don't go looking for creatures based on rumors.

So scientists don't go and never have gone to south east asian meat markets and asked questions and followed rumors? Or done the same in New Guinea, or Indonesia? I think it happens all the time. Some Researcher stops in the Choo Choo Train market, and sees a weird bit of dead animal, he inquires of the shopkeeper who says it is bushmeat from the Klicky-Klicky-bang-bang that lives in the mountains. The researcher on a hunch buys the bit of meat and sends it off for analysis, then gets the OK from his office/university and heads out to look for the Klicky. You read about this stuff every year. Biologist field researchers follow rumors.

first, both have NOT been proven true. Second, I intelligently and logically dismiss "bigfoot" for many reasons, the first few that come to mind are:

1- No mark on the ecosystem. A giant ape would simply leave an observable impact on our ecosystem. What do they eat? What eats them? Biologists quantify all these things, and there is no observation of anything unaccounted for. We know the puzzle pieces, and we are not missing any giant gaps that a species of giant ape would entail.

Ah, but that is just arrogance. We don't know all the pieces. I've shown it time and again. What about the survey in Michigan, I think it was, that they underestimated the number of the bear population by like 50%? The ecology is like a mosaic, not a jigsaw puzzle, we can get a general picture, but there are few clean connections between pieces. Bigfoot falls into the cracks of the mosaic. Possibly.... :yes:

2- Zero remains. Ever. None. Not one single bit of ramains

No public confirmed remains anyway. There is a hair DNA study underway though.

3- we are able to observe much smaller, very rare animals in very remote areas, the wolverine, for instance, which ranges wide and doesn't stay in one small area for very long, making it harder to locate. Yet we film them, find remains, see their eco-footprint, tag them, trap them, etc. etc. Never once for bigfoot. Not one time. Ever.

Indicates intellegence. The ability to recognize a trap. The ability to know that a car is coming down the road. The ability to plan and stay away from people. There are people trying to excape the law that hide out in the woods for decades and no one finds them.

4- All that is really lacking is... EVERYTHING. There is NOTHING substantial to warrant any chance that this creature could exist.

Not to mention the incredible leap of faith and abandonment of logic to claim that "it must be real because so many people have seen it...." yet also for there to be ZERO evidence. None. At all. How many people have seen a live wolverine in the wild? VERY FEW. Yet, we have evidence, abundant evidence, that they exist. Yet we have all these supposed sightings of bigfoot, and NO evidence?

So... by Everything, you mean really only "evidence". Because the only evidence you have presented is the lack of physical DNA retrievable evidence.

I've presented facts in the past that show food is there, room (environment) is there, that our knowledge of the wilderness areas is spotty in many cases, that researchers are not everywhere all at once, that at a minimum population level there might be only a handful of bigfoot in any one one US state, and that dispite a bigfoot never being killed by a car (There are several stories of BF being hit.), statistically it is possible that it might just not have happened yet. (I'll have to find that old post and save it.) If there are only a few the odds of any one event happening are greatly reduced.

I've also speculated in the past that bigfoot tests in hair samples as human, because he is human, a genetic defect. Thus all testing would only show as human.

Plus, I will admit that a great number of "Squatch" sightings and videos and sound recordings are contrived by people seeking attention. Anyone purposefully trying to put their video, picture or story out on the internet should be highly suspect.

How do you reconcile the above with your imagination?

Feel free to pick any of the 4. there are many more, but it's late, my daughter needs attention, and those 4 jump to mind immediately.

Family time is more important then crazy internet forums. :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

:tu:

So scientists don't go and never have gone to south east asian meat markets and asked questions and followed rumors? Or done the same in New Guinea, or Indonesia? I think it happens all the time. Some Researcher stops in the Choo Choo Train market, and sees a weird bit of dead animal, he inquires of the shopkeeper who says it is bushmeat from the Klicky-Klicky-bang-bang that lives in the mountains. The researcher on a hunch buys the bit of meat and sends it off for analysis, then gets the OK from his office/university and heads out to look for the Klicky. You read about this stuff every year. Biologist field researchers follow rumors.

Ah, but that is just arrogance. We don't know all the pieces. I've shown it time and again. What about the survey in Michigan, I think it was, that they underestimated the number of the bear population by like 50%? The ecology is like a mosaic, not a jigsaw puzzle, we can get a general picture, but there are few clean connections between pieces. Bigfoot falls into the cracks of the mosaic. Possibly.... :yes:

No public confirmed remains anyway. There is a hair DNA study underway though.

Indicates intellegence. The ability to recognize a trap. The ability to know that a car is coming down the road. The ability to plan and stay away from people. There are people trying to excape the law that hide out in the woods for decades and no one finds them.

So... by Everything, you mean really only "evidence". Because the only evidence you have presented is the lack of physical DNA retrievable evidence.

I've presented facts in the past that show food is there, room (environment) is there, that our knowledge of the wilderness areas is spotty in many cases, that researchers are not everywhere all at once, that at a minimum population level there might be only a handful of bigfoot in any one one US state, and that dispite a bigfoot never being killed by a car (There are several stories of BF being hit.), statistically it is possible that it might just not have happened yet. (I'll have to find that old post and save it.) If there are only a few the odds of any one event happening are greatly reduced.

I've also speculated in the past that bigfoot tests in hair samples as human, because he is human, a genetic defect. Thus all testing would only show as human.

Plus, I will admit that a great number of "Squatch" sightings and videos and sound recordings are contrived by people seeking attention. Anyone purposefully trying to put their video, picture or story out on the internet should be highly suspect.

Family time is more important then crazy internet forums. :tu:

It sounds like you have an excuse for everything.

Bigfoot is too smart to be seen. Bigfoot is too close to humans for the DNA tests to show anything but human. There is lots of land in Oregon. No real scientists try to find it.

At least you are not one of the believers who claim bigfoot has the power to turn itself invisible. :w00t:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Some Researcher stops in the Choo Choo Train market, and sees a weird bit of dead animal, he inquires of the shopkeeper who says it is bushmeat from the Klicky-Klicky-bang-bang that lives in the mountains. The researcher on a hunch buys the bit of meat and sends it off for analysis, then gets the OK from his office/university and heads out to look for the Klicky.

Note what you wrote. This researcher first did a few things.

1- the researcher made a decision that the species is plausible. Bigfoot is not plausible

2- the researcher got funding from his office/university, and this doesn't happen based on rumors of something that is not plausible. If a biologist heard a story about a flying horse with a dragon's head that landed in a village and flew off with a cow, they would likely not start an expedition, because they would have reason to suspect that the story is not true. This is how it is with bigfoot, except for those who are looking to make money or participate in the bigfoot carnival.

Ah, but that is just arrogance. We don't know all the pieces. I've shown it time and again. What about the survey in Michigan, I think it was, that they underestimated the number of the bear population by like 50%? The ecology is like a mosaic, not a jigsaw puzzle, we can get a general picture, but there are few clean connections between pieces. Bigfoot falls into the cracks of the mosaic. Possibly....

I'm sorry, but that is just not true. And tell us, how did they realize that they had made a bad estimate on the bear population? You have backed yourself into another catch-22.

There is not enough food in our ecosystem for another giant species... because there is always (with some lag in time) enough food for the animals that occupy that ecosystem. When there is more food, there are more animals. when there is less food, there are fewer animals. Nature keeps a balance. I'm not sure how to explain it to you without asking you to sit through a year of zoology and botany like I did, but there is simply no way that a large species would not leave an ecological footprint.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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 I were a professional scientist, I would be hesitant to report a cryptid encounter of any kind for fear of being ridiculed by my peers or possibly losing my career. Kind of like air pilots who don't report UFO's for the same reason.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It sounds like you have an excuse for everything.

Bigfoot is too smart to be seen. Bigfoot is too close to humans for the DNA tests to show anything but human. There is lots of land in Oregon. No real scientists try to find it.

At least you are not one of the believers who claim bigfoot has the power to turn itself invisible. :w00t:

Mostly for point of discussion. I'm perfectly able to say that Bigfoot has like only a 0.00000000001% of being real. Actually probably smaller, but I did not want to type 20 or 30 zeros.

IMHO people are too quick to say "Impossible" when what they really mean is highly improbable. I guess they are just being lazy and trying to cut off discussion so they don't have to respond to endless discussions of minutia.

And each of those points could be true, right? Bigfoot might be smart. Bigfoot might have human DNA. Bigfoot does have lots of open land. Bigfoot is not really pursued by science.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Note what you wrote. This researcher first did a few things.

1- the researcher made a decision that the species is plausible. Bigfoot is not plausible

2- the researcher got funding from his office/university, and this doesn't happen based on rumors of something that is not plausible. If a biologist heard a story about a flying horse with a dragon's head that landed in a village and flew off with a cow, they would likely not start an expedition, because they would have reason to suspect that the story is not true. This is how it is with bigfoot, except for those who are looking to make money or participate in the bigfoot carnival.

1. So what if we said there was a 500 pound badger living in the Oregon High Country, and the researcher met someone who had a cast of a gigantic badger track. Would the researcher follow up, or dismiss it because a 500 pound badger does not fit into his "Well established ecosystem"?

Is Bigfoot dismissed only due to its size? What if bigfoot was two feet tall, but was still reported as frequently and tiny little tracks were found and made into casts? Would you dismiss such a creature also as impossible?

2. The researcher was doing what he was paid to do... researching. He found a lead and followed it. I've never heard of someone finding out that some critter lives in the next valley over and then waits two years for his Grant to go through. Researchers follow up rumors.

I'm going to watch the news this coming year and whenever a new species is announced, I'm going to see if it was found due to random, or methodical, exploration or if it was found due to following a rumor. If even one is based on rumor, will you admit to being wrong? If not then at what point would you conceed? 25%, 50% ... 100%?

If I'm wrong, I grovel and beg your forgiveness, publically, in as many threads as you like...

I'm sorry, but that is just not true. And tell us, how did they realize that they had made a bad estimate on the bear population? You have backed yourself into another catch-22.

They did a new study. Which is just as likely to be wrong as the original. They don't count every bear, now do they? They count a representative population, or at least what they hope is a representative population, and then use computer models to figure out a best estimate. Estimates that at best are like off by 1 or 2 percent, and at worst 10% or much higher. So... then how do we know which of these population estimates or the food estimates are good and which are bad? You assume them to be all good. All of them. I'm just saying that not all of these pieces of the puzzle are well known, there is a lot of margin of error in these numbers.

Even one percent of ten thousand bears is one hundred bears. And you want me to believe that even a dozen bigfoots living in Michigan with a +/- 100 bear estimate are going to leave a graphic and quite obvious environmental impact? I just don't beleive that.

There is not enough food in our ecosystem for another giant species... because there is always (with some lag in time) enough food for the animals that occupy that ecosystem. When there is more food, there are more animals. when there is less food, there are fewer animals. Nature keeps a balance. I'm not sure how to explain it to you without asking you to sit through a year of zoology and botany like I did, but there is simply no way that a large species would not leave an ecological footprint.

So if a dozen horses are released into BLM or Federal forest land. They can be tracked by their impact of the environment? Or, more in tune with what you are trying to say (Seemingly) they will immediately die off, because there will not be enough food for them to survive. Because with only a handful of bigfoots needed in any one place, that is what they would need, the equivanent to like 20 bears.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

...And each of those points could be true, right? Bigfoot might be smart. Bigfoot might have human DNA. Bigfoot does have lots of open land. Bigfoot is not really pursued by science.

With human DNA comes human intelligence, with that kind of intelligence comes communities, shelter from the elements, tool usage, clothing and footwear. There is one very good reason why scientists do not pursue bigfoot.

We can find ancient human dwellings, campsites, hunting grounds, implements, dung, and bones from all ages of man, all over the world, but not one thing from bigfoot?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

With human DNA comes human intelligence, with that kind of intelligence comes communities, shelter from the elements, tool usage, clothing and footwear. There is one very good reason why scientists do not pursue bigfoot.

We can find ancient human dwellings, campsites, hunting grounds, implements, dung, and bones from all ages of man, all over the world, but not one thing from bigfoot?

People that go feral are not any less intellegent, but they don't automatically wear clothing, or build structures, or form communities. The opposite usually seems to be true of feral humans. They are loners, stay away from civilization, don't wear clothing, don't use fire and don't build anything structurally significant. They hunt with their hands and generally forage like a bear or ape might.

Finding nothing from Bigfoot certainly is a big drop in the probability, but it is not a game killer IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People that go feral are not any less intellegent, but they don't automatically wear clothing, or build structures, or form communities. The opposite usually seems to be true of feral humans. They are loners, stay away from civilization, don't wear clothing, don't use fire and don't build anything structurally significant. They hunt with their hands and generally forage like a bear or ape might.

Finding nothing from Bigfoot certainly is a big drop in the probability, but it is not a game killer IMO.

Feral humans (of which I would think would be very few) are anomolies, not indicative of normal behaviour and therefore can not be used as examples of how a group of primates would act. Unless you are suggesting that all bigfoot are feral humans, in which case dwellings of some type would still be found, not to mention would not have the physical capacity to survive continuously in the elements. There is the not so small matter of retaining body heat. What about sustaining a population? That takes intermingling. All primates that we have studied maintain a community.

Finding no evidence after this much time is a game killer IMO. White man has been in the NW U.S. since around 1790. No hard evidence in 230 years?The first to visit were trappers and hunters who would have shot on site, with no qualms and no worries of scorn or ridicule, any creature and brought it back to civilisation to make money from it.

Edited by Gaden

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People that go feral are not any less intellegent, but they don't automatically wear clothing, or build structures, or form communities. The opposite usually seems to be true of feral humans. They are loners, stay away from civilization, don't wear clothing, don't use fire and don't build anything structurally significant. They hunt with their hands and generally forage like a bear or ape might.

Finding nothing from Bigfoot certainly is a big drop in the probability, but it is not a game killer IMO.

DieChecker - Personally appreciate your various contributions, so please let us address some of these matters in a rather clinical (and matter of debate) manner.

The above may not be your strongest argument. In your research you have likely found that most (all?) of the "wild" feral human references concern children. Of these, there would appear to be a rather consistent lack of sound verification. Basically, quite a volume of lore. One should also take into account the regions/climates of the world from which a number of these reported incidences emanate.

The archaeological/biological/ethnographic research in regards to a large bipedal primate surviving to reproductive age without some degree of communal support and some degree of technological advantage in the more northern environments associated with this "phenomenon" is notably silent. Keep in mind that even amongst H.s.s., one of the worst cultural punishments to be incurred was "shunning", as this was essentially a passive death penalty.

Again, no offense. We could consider this an opportunity to flesh out some of the questions that are often posed in regards to this topic.

.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 4

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.