...that got me thinking.

"We must surmise that BF is essentially in control of who sees him, what they see, and when they see him -- and this is a product of superior senses, superior camoflage, and superior intuition to go along with a highly developed strategy of concealment. I'm not sure how else you can explain the undiscovered status of the creature at this point, unless you are willing to walk off the deep end and start talking about UFOs and different dimensions. The alternative to this is, as some have chosen, to rationalize additional doubts about the evidence and wash your hands of the whole affair."

I was watching the making of Planet Earth on the Discovery channel last night, and was marveling at how long it took for them to get some of the shots they got of these animals. Almost three years for an amazing three minutes of a snow lepard hunting a mountain goat, two months for a 30 second dance by a six-plumed bird of paradise, etc.

These cameramen were wearing camo, using remote cameras, well hidden, patiently waiting.

Of course, we all think the same thing. Why don't they do this to try and get some bigfoot film footage? Would it work? Could they pull it off?

I tend to think "no". Why? Because as well hidden as they were, and as perceptive as these animals are to anything foreign in thier enviroment, a bigfoot would be ten, twenty times more perceptive, more in tune with any change in his environment, and a bigfoot knows what a human is, and what a human can do.

I'm not ready to place bigfoot alongside the paranormal, but I do think we have no idea how intuitive and crafty he is. It is because of this that I cannot say that this creature is just a highly evolved ape. This creature is smarter than any ape, and has over the centuries developed a highly refined and successful strategy for hiding from us. They are fast, and they are quiet, and they are masters of invisibility in their natural environment. Think of all the stories you have read where a bigfoot was laying flat on the forest floor, was discovered, sprang up and ran away with a speed that seemed unbelievable for a creature that size, or how about stories where an accidental meeting on a road occured, and how surprised a bf was whenever he was seen by a human.

I think they work around the clock at two things, finding enough to eat, and hiding from humans.

I agree with your sentiments on the hiding abilities of Bigfoot. Though I'm fairly sure bigfoot doesn't exist, I think that "because nobody has captured one or gotten a clear photo" is about the lamest reason ever to deny it's existence.

How do we know that a BF is 10 to 20 times more perceptive than other animals? Also, if they are migratory as some have suggested, it stands to reason that the migratory paths they take will change from time to time making them less familiar with their surroundings. I would readily concede the fact that trying to get an image or capture a BF in their home turf would be next to impossible without some top of the line technology, but I still find it hard to believe that in a situation like the "50 yrs. w/BF" in which a BF is purported to frequently be living in a basement or in other scenarios in which people say their lands are habituated to some degree that some type of surveillance system can't be set up to capture images of these creatures.
I, honestly believe, that the reason no creatures are able to be documented with film or capture/kill is because there are too few of them in too large an area and they don't stay in one place too long. I think the only real chance of getting some real convincing footage or even capturing one is for someone or some group to have the financial ability to have a large food supply that can be replenished daily that will attract the BF to stay in one area instead of moving on in search of food. I'm no expert on the matter, but I would imagine that the reason other creatures that weren't believed to exist but were found and proven to exist is because they didn't have a large enough range to escape detection. If BF is indeed a reality and is proven to exist, I think it's going to be because someone was able to habituate it to their land, and in order to do that, I think that person will need plenty of space between his home and "civilization" and also need a large bank roll.

Funny, boggycreek, I was just thinking of something similar to your suggested strategy of habituation and feeding.

I am making an assumption about their intelligence of course.

I agree that they are most likely migratory. Using food to make them stay put is an excellent suggestion. The first step is to locate a population, then the second step is to get the food that they like to that locale, and keep the chow wagon coming.

If some rich guy has the interest, then you need a film crew like the one used to make the Planet Earth documentary. It would have to be privately funded because no big scientific/conservationist organization would be willing to risk their credibility on such a project.

Obviously, they're not hunting sasquatches.

They might not even recognize that sasquatches exist. If they did, it would take a long time before they'd get good footage.



Yup.



Sasquatches aren't "superhuman". They might be infinately more aware in the wilderness than today's humans, but they aren't invisible.



I've got an idea.

I might have been within yards of one and never known it.



I think they're animals, not supermen.

The Planet Earth series is absolutely phenomenal and I highly recommend it for anyone with a brainwave.

What amazed me most, and got ME thinking about filming sasquatch, is the tool that enabled them to get some of the most amazing footage: super duper duper super zoom capability. They shot some segments from ridiculous distances like 1/4 mile away (I can't easily find exact distances). It wasn't so much that they were hiding, they were often so far away they didn't need to hide. That combined with helicopters and HD images and super slow-mo...

Anyway, regardless of how much more or less perceptive sasquatches might be, the technology and resources would surely help, but I'm not sure going from 1 in a 100,000,000 to 1 in 1,000,000 would make enough of a difference. But I'd still love to be behind that camera, flying around in a helicopter scanning the edges of fields, ponds, streams, etc. in some hotspots.

Unfortunately it seems our hairy friends tend to inhabit places where the underbrush is thick, thereby eliminating the advantage of such a camera. Of course if you caught one in the open for a minute or so.......

PS there was a girl in high school we called "super duper duper duper zoom"......

Agree. The stigma with BF has most likely prevented well funded researchers from going after BF. Look at the money spent on extravgent trips after other rare animals.




With enough money, then BF will be found and captured on film again. BF has already been adequately captured on film, and the Patterson film has been passed off as a hoax. With modern costume design and digital alterations, films will be claimed to be hoaxes more readily. We probably will need BF in person to prove it exists.

You realize, of course, that some of us have been doing this for many years, but not with wildlife?

All of this technology has come from the military, including the chopper chases with stabilized cameras.

And, of course, you realize little of this will work in a rainforest.

It was tried in Vietnam, with limited success..........

Did you catch the Macaques swimming underwater?
Absolutely stunning. I will order it as soon as I can figure-out how to purchase the one with the american narrator, as thats the one I'm used to.

I tend to think along the lines of Hunster and boggycreek here. People interested in this subject tend to forget that the vast majority of people think that the entire idea is ridiculous, and that it took alot of intense funding and research to film other great apes, and camels and birds and cats, as Planet Earth pointed out.

I think that we tend to overestimate how easy it would be to find one of these animals without the proper time, equipment, and funding to make the latter two available, and instead attribute the animals elusiveness to them somehow having superior senses or intelligence.

It should be remembered that these animals aren't elusive enough not to be seen, people see them all the time, Coleman estimated over 400 sightings each year, many of which the animals were not even aware they were being viewed (albeit we have devices to make our eyesight super-human!).

Areas such as our temperate rainforests might be able to be viewed via helicopter if the animals was first viewed on the ground and the helicopter knew where to look.

In the end, I think that popular support would be needed to aquire the funding for such expeditions. I have heard many complain about how the rest of the public wasn't interested, but I doubt they were taking steps towards positive media coverage and may even be hiding evidence with the thought that it doesn't make a difference until a body is found. But I doubt that will happen if people can't be interested enough to look.

I mostly agree. 'Superior' in this aspect seems relative. Owning a 'superior' sense or senses over us isn't all that unlikely. And I'm not sure 'intuition' is the only relevant mental process.

Thinking outloud: It's not really a stretch to think that they could/would possess the same abilities of most any other animal that lives in the same type environment. It's also not a stretch to attribute them with either instinctually possessing, or acquiring the knowledge that 'those clothes wearing creatures who drive around in cars' are the one-and-only top o' the food chain. I'm assuming most animals that encounter humans either already 'know' it, learn it, or sense it. But in most animals, such knowledge would be used basically for self preservation (offspring notwithstanding). As I know it, essentially all known animals have no true discernable 'self awareness'. And thus they have not any true sense of what they are in relation to others of their kind, nor would they have a concept of 'the future'. Also, what animals learn and 'know' about the world at 2 years of age is probably about the same as what they'll 'know' at 20 years of age. But, what if BF actually possesses some degree of self awareness? Maybe even enough that they actually have a form of 'communication' we're just unaware of also...being that we're mostly unaware of their actual existence...and all. They would have the ability to create a 'reasoned sense' that not only would we kill one of them, but all of them - if we were allowed to. A theoretical 'collective consciousness' amongst BF could, given their seeming well adapted physical form and function, make 'us' all but successful in truly 'finding' even one of them, alive or dead. Of course such a trait requires 'actual' intelligence, but it surely doesn't require one akin to Stephen Hawking. Just more than, say, a chimpanzee?! It seems a righteous way a 'small population' of anything could survive amongst 'us' and the world in general. For their continued existence, they wouldn't have to rely on strength-in-numbers to survive, just deliberate and thoughtful evasion. And I'm not saying I believe any of this, but it would explain many things. Given their obvious 'similarities' to humans, it is absolutely a possibility.

Oh no, get the BBC version! Not only is it $20 cheaper, it's got David Attenborough as the narrator (who actually knows a thing or two about wildlife) as opposed to Sigourney Weaver who I'm sure is a very nice person, but is no Sir David Attenborough...

And yeah, the swimming monkeys were amazing.

the BBC version is also supposed to have more footage than the U.S. version.


dav

Weaver played Diane Fossey!!!

If the BBC one has more footage I will definetly get it. Are the narrations the same but for the voice?

Good Robert, very, very good.

To parallel the snow leopard you mentioned, and how it took three years to catch him on film, and then for but three minutes at that…

The Beast is much smarter than the snow leopard, (way more than three years to get one possibly one real clip of him and then at that but a scrap, no?) but by how much, who knows, but no doubt a much more than sizeable amount, and so one must multiply that sizeable amount by three concentrated years to expect any real footage, which basically extends into the impossible.

As for working around the clock, I expect they are quite relaxed concerning the humans, and that humans are easy for them, but child’s play, as if you were trying to play hide and seek with a snail, sea cucumber or abalone.

If that snow leopard they filmed wanted just one tiny bite from the videographer’s leg, it certainly would not have taken him three years to gain his snack. Naturally he most likely knew better.

The nail on the head you’ve hit, and very nice to read your worthy post which points to the natural question as to the ratio, the ratio of how many times the Beast has seen you when you’ve sought (or even not sought) to see him. What might that ratio be? 2:1, 3:1, 4:1 – would you argue against 200:1 or 1,000: 1?

Sometimes pure excellence in what one does is badly confused with what might be deemed paranormal.

the BBC has 90 more minutes not shown on the Disc channel.

dav

Oh then I just might. 90 more minutes of what per se?

it didnt say what the footage was of, just that there was 90 more minutes. Maybe its the Yeti footage !
gotta bring it back to the sports page.


dav

Yeah, FredSneakers, the underwater swimming macaques were extraordinary. Startling. They seemed quite comfortable doing it, eyes wide open in the brakish water.

And I also agree with you (and Hunster and a few others) that many Sasquatch characteristics are exaggerated (intelligence, ability to hide, etc.). There has been a significant minority of sightings where a human has observed a Sasq. unaware of the human, as you noted. An acquaintance of mine had an encounter with a probable Sasq. stumling into his camp, apparently unaware of the human until the last moment.

In another thread I mentioned that Colorado has had 84 Sasquatch sightings (BFRO database) over the last few decades, while the number of grizzly bears sightings has been 2 over roughly the same time. Sasquatch are seen on a fairly regular basis here despite their presumed rarity. They may be more common than CO grizzly bear, but probably not by much, yet we do see them.

I think the tendency to overemphasize their abilities is the need to explain why they haven't been officially documented yet. I understand this need for some kind of explanation, and no combination of what's been offered is entirely sastisfactory in my gut, so I catch myself exagerrating too at times to make up for that.

I think that the two best directions for Sasquatch documentation (photography, hair snags, etc.) are:

1.)An habituation situation, as mentioned before, and. . .

2.)Enticing curiosity visits to a temporary camp thru call blasting, cooking smells or other attractents.

Number 2 has been successful just often enough to be encouraging.

Number 1 may be recquired for a long term, scientific study.

Hiding in your animal hide seems like a long shot, unless you can find a single, heavily used area, like a watering hole, say.

Your time estimate for capturing BF on film sound realistic when compared to the Snow Leopard operation unless the leopards are more rare than BF. So to capture BF on film, we need a larger, and better equipped group of researchers who will live in an area for three years. The key is the funding. With enough money, BF could be captured within 6 months. How much money? 100 million? Imagine having flooding areas with well equipped researchers who intend to live capture.

Maybe we need another Tom Slick?

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

My friend, do you recall long ago in the schoolyard, how there was always one guy who ran so fast you knew you’d never catch him – and God forbid if he were ever “It?”

It’s the same here – you want to catch a BF, you got to be BF. As in military, you want to catch guerillas, you got to use or be like guerillas.

The smaller the group the better, but still if you don’t have a BF working for you, you won’t catch one – on film or any other way.

Maybe you go out in the forest, he wants you to see him for whatever reason, and then you do, OK.

Maybe you’re out in the forest, you see him, and he’s surprised you saw him, well, why didn’t you shoot him or film or catch him yet?

Why?

Is there always supposed to be an answer?

Fund, fund, fund and fund away, the difference will be little. Lots of dollars ahve been thrown at things, lucky are those to catch them.

I envy this kind of eloquence... good post.

Yes, BF might be hard to catch, but he is catchable. Yes, there are researchers, then there are good, well funded researchers who think like BF. They need funds or no catching will happen.

Of course, anything real could be caught. But let’s say we took a chimp and sat him down to a game of chess. Probably he would not win, if he could begin to play. Then let’s go and give him some countless zillion funds in whatever currency he would need to operate in his very best way – do you think with said funds he’d be able to find you in your town and catch you?

There are all different kinds of games of chess in this world, and to play BF at his game of hide and seek amounts to the chimp playing one of us on the ranks and files.

You have a good point and the only way to find out is to dump $100 million into the catch BF campaign.

I'd do it for half that.

With all that $ or half of it, what's the first thing you'd do?

I don't believe this is a "money" problem. We don't need to build a skyscraper, create a corporation, or cure a disease to find bigfoot. I can't think of any significant capital asset that any well prepared camper or photographer wouldn't already have. There is plenty of capital equipment, and many people do have the free time necessary to hike the App. trail, Pacific Crest, etc. I can't think of what money would enable that hasn't already been tried through self-funding.

I've done some bio-teck field observation work before so if I were realistically tasked with a launching a field project I guess I guess it'd be something like this:
My proposal would be to set-up a comfortable array of blinds/small huts from which to observe at a significant distance a large area using sophisticated optical and electronic imaging processing technology, focusing on the behavior patterns of a population of elk and their associated community of animals in a relatively remote area known for BF evidence, and to do this continuously for a long time (over several years if need be for un-interupted weeks at a time,) living on supplies helicoptered-in along with equipment, presuming that BF predation is periodic but not necessarily frequent.
I wouldn't necessarily be trying to get a good photo but rather to document the context of what I think is the probable behaviour of the animal as it's described in the mounainous west. Regardless of what else they eat, the likelihood of their periodically taking elk seems like a sure thing.
I would specifically propose selecting a study area for good weather and visibility from a high aspect overlooking natural grazing areas and distant open areas and where one would be able to observe the migrating elk, especially where they yard-up in high meadows and/or water sources.
When predation is observed, or implied(suspected), those areas would be identified and if the predator could not be positively identified, researcher(s) would bushwhack if possible or helicoptered if necessary, to the site (taking care not to disturb the setting),and document the scene, sampling, distributions,etc.
I'm thinkin' 5 years at 250K per year with add'l biotechs at 100K/yr.
Let's round it up to a nice firm 2million so theres a little left over for extra gadgets and production of the documentary, and then double it.

Now guys and gals, we have discussed all this before. What we need is someone to contact an interested party who has that kind of disposable income with a credible plan (like dogu4's) and get this show on the road.

Personally, I can't think of anyone with this kind of extra cash with the interest.

Do you know of anyone?

I'm really curious about what the fuss is over these cats and how does it relate to sasquatch?
Snow leopards have been trapped and collared for study since 1996. There are over 600 in zoos around the world.
They have been killed for their fur for thousands of years. They are still poached for their bones.
They have been filmed hunting, courting and even mating.
The difficulty is more in the remoteness of the terrain - not some unique ability of the cat.
Again - why the fuss and comparison to sasquatch?

Rockinkt,

Maybe they picked the one location where they are the rarest, and therefore hardest to capture on film. Maybe it was like a challange!

"We know there are only two in a five hundred mile square area, so we determined to find them... JUST TO SHOW HOW DAMNED PERSISTANT WE ARE!"

(You have to read this with a Scottish accent.)

The point is - no-one bothered to look up any info on the snow leopard.
Assumptions were made because those assumptions bolstered one's belief systems about sasquatch.

Robert offered the worthy point that though it’s not impossible to film a snow leopard, it’s by no means an easy feat, even if largely as you say due to the remoteness of the terrain. So you might say filming a grey squirrel is easier than filming a snow leopard, and filming a snow leopard might be easier than filming BF.

Mentioning filming a grey squirrel is easier than filming a snow leopard would not be something that had to do with your belief system, unless you believed otherwise.

Why would it be easier to film a grey squirrel than it would be to film a snow leopard?
Why would it be easier to film a snow leopard than it would be to film BF?

Robert was making us wonder why.

If there are no grey squirrels on your continent - then they would be much more difficult to film than a snow leopard that lived on your mountain.
If your belief system tells you that something exists and you use non-factual references to bolster your belief as to why it hasn't been caught, filmed, or scientifically recognized - then it is all about your belief system.
A number of people were doing exactly that in this thread.

Good point Rockinkt,

However, this is not about snow leopards. I could have used another (better) example, but the point I was trying to make is that there are some very experienced and sophisticated wildlife photographers out there who might could get a good film of bigfoot, if there was the interest and the $$ available to do so.

I like Doug's proposal, and if we had about 100 of these guys out there, someone would turn up BF in vivid color and sound.

Then what makes you fairly sure they don't exist?

What about night-vision optics, parabolic microphones, digital audio recording devices, night vision cameras & camcorders? Even 1st generation night vision equipment is expensive & one really should have 3rd generation to capture any really convincing evidence.

Money is the problem. For instance. The scene of the lions taking down a juvi elephant at night was filmed with infrared lighting and a special infrared camera. Not cheap from what I understand. Not to mention the teams being out on the savannah with said expensive equipment night after night. Elevated senses and physical abilities are their advantage, technology is ours. Neither comes cheap.

FWIW, Sir Richard Attenborough IS the gold standard when it comes to nature film narration.

If it's just about money...and if money appears and the demands of research are for a quick resolution one could take a tip from our pre-industrial ancestors (as recently as the last century in parts of the world) and try applying the concept of "hunting" to what it typically meant to humans...the entire community, as many ambulatory members as possible would drive the game across a landscape chosen to funnel the game into a killing zone. I think this was a fairly common practice from what I've read in my history.
I read one interesting description of a hunt like this which took place in Southeastern Pennsylvania back in the early pioneer days. The article itself was somewhat focused on the wolves which were killed this way, and commented on what to the writer appeared to be a number of different "races" of wolves which seemed to be determined by their size and color, but mentioned also collecting a number of "gluttons" (wolverines) and something called "mountain devils"...who knows what they might have been. I wonder still what species of animals were taken then which no longer exist. I think there's a widely held belief that if a relatively common animal existed in any sort of abundance that there'd be some old bones or maybe a preserved specimen, though there are no skeletons of seamink, which at one time were so common they supported a commercial fur market in europe.