Unless you've actually seen one of these critters - what they can and cannot do is all speculation. And even then it's all speculation. Watching a bear for 10 seconds doesn't tell you much about them.

I've not seen one Bigfoot dance.

I've not seen one Bigfoot interested at all of what we think of them.

Pretty sure they don't care.

You all can argue about dopey stuff till the cows come home. Doesn't help the research at all.

Guess it makes you all feel important though.

I'm sorry, I don't mean to offend anyone......................but there is so much nonsense here.

I bet if I could start a poll on how many posters actually have been in the woods - it would only be about 10 per cent.

Easy to do research from your laptop. Not always accurate though.

I can tell from reading who the 10 per cent of folks are. And who form their opinions from Internet research.

To those 10 per cent - I salute you.

To the other 90 per cent - your opinions are really not valid - since all your information comes from the Internet.

Just loads of dribble for everyone else to sort through.

Who am I you might ask?

No one really, just a seeker of the truth.

And trying to help solve a mystery.

Got any better ideas? Speculation is all we have until this is solved.



Now that would be a sighting I would love to have. Can you imagine re-enacting that for an investigator??



Thats cause they are animals. Just a guess.



Can someone spell check the word "De javu" for me - thanks



As opposed to where? Discussing Science is important to this field of research. The use of scientific methods is important, and people need to understand. I see nothing dopey about this conversation - unless your talking about the chocolate comments, and I don't think thats what you meant.



Could everyone wait till I get out of the way - I am small and I will be crushed in the dogpile. Thank you.

Oh boy!!! Bad Boy of Bigfoot Research VS Satan's Handmaiden!!!!

Hello Pywacket.

Question, do you replace spoons often, with all the pot stirring you do? Or, have you finally started using Stainless?

Just wondering.

Pot Stirring? Me?

Don't pull me into this spat!

A difference of opinion is not a "spat" - its a difference of opinion.

Its not a "spat" unless someone makes it one.

Well I've been in the woods. Spent the better part of two years in the wildest parts of upper NY State. My job was collecting environmental data pertaining to the the effects of acid rain on the watershed. For certain I was in areas where many Bigfoot researchers would have considered prime Bigfoot habitat. Is there Bigfoot in NY State? Fat chance!

The curious thing is that in over 50 years the enigma of Sasquatch has yet to produce a solid discovery regardless of whether one is searching in the woods or searching on the web. If 1000 researchers set off into the woods to find Sasquatch and 1000,000 researchers stay home and surf the web for information whats the difference? The end result is the same. Or to put it in mathamatical terms a set containing Sasquatch = the null set. But the ones in the woods are better off. Exercise, nature, and fresh air are doing a healthier thing than sitting at a keyboard.

I wouldn't waste much energy on this. There's really no reason for a "spat" here. We get people in here all the time who think they're some big kahuna of bigfoot research, just because they've took a dump in the woods and wiped on a leaf at some point. Truth is, they're not any further toward solving this mystery than anyone else is.




And you were sitting there typing your opinion for all to see on the......internet.

It would be a good idea to be fairly respectful of the opinions of other members here. Incorrectly singling out "90 percent" of the membership and painting them in a bad light isn't going to get you very far.

That's funny right there, I don't care who you are!

(emphasis mine)

But this is what troubles me with this line of reasoning Minister: when I read the accounts I don't always see creatures that "actively avoid" or display "an aversion to mankind". These things are just as likely to approach humans or human habitations as they are to run away at breakneck speed. There are so many reports of creatures nonchalantly crossing a road in front of cars that they must've been able to detect from miles away. I interpret their behavior like that of any other large mammal - sometimes it detects you and high tails it before you ever know it was there, sometimes it is caught off-guard by you, and sometimes it actually checks you out.

Ergo, like any other large mammal, it is entirely possible to photograph, shoot, or smack with a truck one of these creatures known as bigfoot, if they in fact exist. Just put yourself in a position to detect them and be patient.

Saskeptic, that is certainly a valid interpretation. My only reservation is that is has not proved fruitful. Again I return to the possibility -- sheer speculation here -- that the BF you see are often there to protect or provide a distraction for an unseen social group. That is simply a possible interpretation, and clearly not the only one. But it is one that does provide some explanation as to how a creature that is so elusive seems to be seen on a lot of occassions.

Just as a counterpoint- if the focus is on an "unseen" group- why not ALL of them avoiding contact?

If the bulk of alleged sightings were of a BF in active pursuit of food, water etc.- I could see that but the majority of them seem to be just random events. ( BF isnt doing anything- just there)

If he is there to protect- why not more reports of him acting in a threatening manner ( or even attacking)

Minister-

I concede you could be right and maybe I'm underestimating what hominids are capable of. It's just that I've always leaned hominid until that night and everything I saw besides the subject being predominantly bipedal, having relatively skinny lower extremities (certainly not upper) and a clear, open 5 digit-hand at one point, everything I witnessed points to ape-like animal, pongid etc... Everything just looked so fluid and natural. I guess a gymnastics type person would be capable of some of those manuevers, but I think the hominids we're thinking of here, wouldn't stretch often and wouldn't likely be very flexible, LOL. I'm also pretty positive that the acute hearing the subject appeared to possess is beyond the capabilities of any hominid in the fossil record or even out. But again, I could be underestimating.

Saskeptic, longtabber etc..- what I can tell you from my experience is that it did make a conscious effort not to be seen several times by re-positioning itself and also freezing, which it did the last 30 seconds in what it would've thought was in comfortable pitch-black area. Sas, you mentioned road crossings and myself and a few of my clan have a unsubstanciated theory about that and some of the other purported behavior we often hear about from witnesses. Here's the question-

What do most mammals have in common (even marine) besides screwing, eating and sleeping?

They play! Maybe road crossings, some intimidation displays, daytime sightings where the subject appears uncharacteristically oblivious to it's surroundings etc... are done on purpose as a form of entertainment. That's total speculation on my part, but it's logical and would make some sense out of it.

My friend's siting was of a charge, and although I have not studied it in any quantitative way, I have read a number of reports where BF seems to be either intimidating, deliberately scaring, or charging / bluff charging the human witnesses. Of course remaining unseen would be preferred, but when the group is mobile or under threat the use of scouts for screening is a practice that is well known in warfare. I suspect that BF also makes judgments about the risks of making his presence known -- BF seems more willing to scare / initimidate a small group or a solitary individual, but not in more dangerous situations like large well-armed parties. Of course you have to ask about the stakes. In the case of my friend, he and his buddy were shooting at a possum from the roadway at night (with a .22), using the floodlights on his truck for illumination, when apparently a large male BF came flying out of the bushes nearby. Who can say if they were firing in the vicinity of where female BF and young were hidden? It's nothing more than a guess at this point. I have heard reports of other similar type behavior -- a witness fires in a direction away from an approaching female BF as a warning, the BF reacts to the fire and runs towards the area where the shots went (perhaps to protect a juvenile BF). At this point we're all guessing. I'm just throwing ideas out there for people to react to.

>>>Saskeptic, longtabber etc..- what I can tell you from my experience is that it did make a conscious effort not to be seen several times by re-positioning itself and also freezing, which it did the last 30 seconds in what it would've thought was in comfortable pitch-black area.

Heres the thing tho- thats your interpretation of what you think it was doing, truth is, none of us actually know how to "read' these things. This is why I preach reporting data ONLY ( straight from the military SITREP and SPOT report- report what you OBSERVE and NOT what you think it means- for example, just report "it repositioned itself several times and stood in place several times for periods of seconds"- and leave it at that)

Not jumping on you or anyone- but when reporting incidents- report factual observations- dont try to color them with impressions- thats one of the ways false data gets started


>>>They play! Maybe road crossings, some intimidation displays, daytime sightings where the subject appears uncharacteristically oblivious to it's surroundings etc... are done on purpose as a form of entertainment. That's total speculation on my part, but it's logical and would make some sense out of it.

yeah, and that makes as much sense as anything else

Am I incorrect in my 90 per cent figure? My bad. It just seems that most folks with strong opinions about this critter - haven't ever been anywhere but a city park. I don't mean to lob everyone together - as this is a general statement.

I am not the big Kahuna of anything. You read way too much into what I wrote. I have been reading here for the last 5 years or so. And there has been a lot of dopeyness. From being connected to BF through dreams - to other silliness...LOL

There is a lot of bad information on the Internet..... so the 10,000 Internet researcher statement I think is incorrect. That would be the same as saying I could find my lost keys by searching the Internet. Well, I don't think that would work, now would it? I am not trying to "paint anyone in a bad light". But sometimes a little reality goes a long way.....

I have more questions than answers. And every time I think I find and answer, it just raises more questions.

There are no experts in this endeavor. Anyone who claims to be one is lying to you.

Nevermind.

I can respect that- my "first" encounter ( of an alleged BF) was a charge as well ( my personal opinion, an out and out attack but i cannot be certain of that- but thats how we interpreted it and thus opened fire) I can relate to his encounter ( he was "pahssum' hunting and we were duck hunting) and I can see where our first shot of the morning scared, startled, woke it up ( or whatever) so maybe it was scared- regardless- it made a clear and distinctive deliberate movement to our position

there was no mistaking that- it had a full 360 to escape in but it charged us.

Saskeptic suggests being quiet and patient. I certainly agree that a lot more of that would be beneficial, for peace of mind and for the prospects of seeing nature at its coolest. But the quiet observation will be a lot more fruitfull if the observer is in a good place and facing in the right direction and that has a lot to do with where you believe the creature is "watchable".
If it's believed that they can be anywhere out there in the woods then it doesn't make any difference where you stare or if you systematically look around but I suggest that the dense pristine old growth on the flanks of Mr Ranier and similar locations which seem to be selected because BF were sporadically seen there, hasn't been too good, and the sight selection could be made more conducive to observing at a distance (distant enough that they can't know we're observing) the kinds of locations that by necessity these creatures would have to frequent. No body seriously thinks that their behavior is random but it is hard to decipher if we're unclear about how it would have to behave to thrive in the environments in which we presume they live.
Fortunately there are habitats that offer exactly the kinds of criteria that would enhance the likelihood of observing: south central Colorado, for example. (a tip of the hat to Keith Foster) Accessible but still relatively un-visited especially off the road into the wilderness areas, good viewing weather for much of the year, long sightlines across slopes, restricted water sources, natural bottlenecks to constrict movement necessitating the integration of observable geophysical features like passes, saddles and sole avenues of transit, and sizeable meadows that support viable communities of big animals like elk, but also deer, sheep and even marmot.
Could one recognize a small speck several miles away as a BF? I encourage anyone to google up "limit telephotography" to see what is visible at approximately 18 miles using good but not exotic technology...there could be a lot of improvement.
And while I'm not against taking a specimen, I think it will be really difficult even if you get it into one's hunting ground, and as for confirming it's existence; a research endeavor that makes observing the living creature possible would be acceptible for most conservation purposes. When an animal is thought to be rare, biology can be patient. Since it's existence could be verfied by dependable observation the systematics folks would be happy with the evidence that would naturally be produced and found...again, once we can predictably observe the creatures' activity.

You know what, good point and your absolutely right. I guess it's just extremely difficult not to add your interpretations because being into it as long as I have (27yrs-4 as a researcher and field person) having friends, witnesses etc.. that've had sightings, you naturally develop these preconceived notions of what you think they are and what they look like and then bam! you see one, and your blown away by not only what you saw but (because of the length of my encounter) the deviations from what you always thought as well as the similiarities. You know I always thought if I was ever even lucky enough to see one in the field it would be a daylight fleeting glimpse, or a collected dead specimen by someone else (never in my wildest dreams through a thermal imager- 2 years ago I wouldn't guess I'd even have access to). Seeing one through these units, I can't explain, but it's very impersonal in a sense because it looks almost surreal. I just feel an obligation to share it with many others who are interested because of what a great long and definitve look I got. You got to remember, had I seen the subject in daylight in the exact same situation (if it would've been 50 yds away in daylight, highly doubt it) my view would've been obscured by the combination of light, vegetation and array of colors matching and surrounding the subject. With the imager, it's simply white on black baby! Nowhere to hide, it's exposed and doesn't even know it.
But, point well taken Longtabber

I agree definitely that you have to be careful to delineate what is a real observation and what is pure speculation. While Bart probably was able to observe a BF for a good period of time and gather some good 'real' observations, there has to be some room for speculation, such as 'the BF was curious, which is why it was watching everyone'. Perhaps the reality is that it was looking for where you store your food for later after everyone's asleep, but we all seem likely to take the speculation and lump it in with the observation. Without the speculation, everyone still sits around wondering how to recreate another similar encounter.

Actually, what you were doing is just human nature ( coloring with perceptions) you do it, I do it and everyone else here does it. ( thats why we have to constantly stress this point to forward observers, snipers, scouts and everyone in the intelligence community) Its a learned and practiced discipline to make a "fact" based report. It does NOT come naturally.

Its like we tell the soldiers- you tell me you saw them cooking a pig- you dont know whether they were celebrating a victory ( they are going to attack you tomorrow and expect to destroy you), having a holiday ( just an event but may have morale impact) or even having a last meal ( because they are going to attack in the morning and expect to die)- thats why its CRITICAL for a "front line" observer to reports FACTS in a "black and white" format- then WE ( the intel people in the rear) take ALL front line reports and develop theories based on the cumulative reports.

ETA- I cannot emphasise enough how critical and important it is to report facts only. Leave all opinions, views, speculation and personal comments out of it.

I understand where you are coming from but I must respectfully and vigorously disagree. ( as in my example in the post above)

We learned this the hard way in the military and its evident here.

Reporting "speculation", "opinion" etc is the main reason what we have now is nothing more than gobbeldygook.

BF sounds like this- no that ( even tho no one has actually heard HIM yell)

BF throws rocks, no he doesnt- oh, hes in a ROCK band ( yeah thats it)

BF knocks wood, BF knocks ON wood

BF is inquisitive, no he is elusive, no hes both, neither

when people start reporting speculation or opinion as a material fact then people see that- that leads to them coloring their perceptions based on those reports- the end result is a quagmire of contradictory data that is 100% meaningless. ( sound familiar?) The FIRST rule in questioning a witness or interrogating a suspect or examining evidence is to separate material fact from perception.

If we had black and white factual reports- we might have a database that might show ACCURATE trends.

I've been remotely trying to follow this thread, whatever it's about, but have mostly been skimming and sitting back disinterested. But I have a couple quick thoughts to add:

I think that even if some people are actually seeing these animals, should they exist, that supposed determinations of sex should be very suspect. Most people will identify any female great ape as male (unless it's holding an infant or next to a sexually dimorphic obvious male) simply because they are big('ish) and usually not very "feminine" by our standards (hairy, broad shouldered, big bellied, etc). This is actually probably true of most mammals, but I think we recognize it more easily with apes,

Saskeptic- I don't think you should be evaluating reported animal behavior with such an even stroke. From my experience with wild apes, I see no reason some individuals might not be very calm and curious, others shy and elusive, others aggressive, etc- even in the same contexts. Remember that primates, presumably because of their intelligence and social strcutures, can show wide ranges and extremes of individual personality (on top of the other complexities of behavior) in comparison to most other animals. I agree that more consistency might be expected, but just want to point out that it might not be as absolute as we might expect.

Wolftrax- I agree 100% with your feelings and all that you said, but I'm confused about Patterson and Gimlin following up directly on the (obviously fake) Blue Creek Road/Onion Mountain trackway??? I've always thaught they got word of a different trackway but a quick scan of Murphy seems to confirm that you are right. How have I missed this somewhat devastating relationship all these years?! And can someone familiar with the geography give me some idea how close the trackway site is to the film site? Maybe I should have paid more attention to the track "evidence" all these years. Don't want to sidetrack this thread so please steer me to one that discusses this a little more if there is one.

LT- I agree with the notion of reporting only the facts, but don't think that itself is even close to being objective, even by trained people. We know from countless experiences, tests, etc. that different people see different things when observing the exact same events all the time, even in the simplest context (see Jacob's bear, Haditha massacre, etc). Thats why many of us put zero confidence in any anecdotes, even if we find some of them interesting, compelling, or even believable. I know you know this, and I'm not trying to argue with you, but just want to point out that a supposedly factual anecdote is still an anecdote and nothing more. It will still mean different things to different people (statement of the obvious).

-Apeman

I see why you would disagree. I think my point is that as a person is taking a report the black and white facts are the most important thing, and the thing that should be placed first and foremost into the report. However, I have to disagree with the 'speculation' aspect. I don't think the idea should be to pull together facts and let others do the speculating. If it's up to me, I want the first-hand person's speculation, even though it may be wrong. I agree that I don't want it in the factual report, but if I'm going to sit down and speculate on BF activity, I'd sure like that first-hand person's speculation. In other words, yes I want the facts of your encounter, however, I also want your opinions of the BF activity as well. Separately, but I want them both. I may disagree with your opinions, but I still would believe you (the first-hand person) had a better opportunity to speculate.

I think the most important part of what you're saying is that you want a database of cold hard facts...and I completely agree with that, but I still believe that you have to have an avenue available for that person to report/post their speculations from their encounter.

Full agreement here - I would expect the same range of qualities reflected in alleged sasquatch encounters.

Sorry I didn't see this question yesterday but I was pressed for time. I do not know whether he has or not, Crow Logic, but I will ask him the next time I have a chance.

Apeman, that is a fair statement from a scientific point of view, but I think it is also a fair statement that this conversation would not be occurring if the P-G film had not been released. Therefore it seems like a reasonable starting point to presume that if anything is out there, it is probably consistent with what is seen on P-G. With that in mind, quite obviously Patty has breasts. Big hairy ones. I always found it interesting that some Bonobo females have more prominent breasts than their chimpanzee counterparts -- what do you think could be the cause? I have suspected that sexual selection pressures may be the cause; i.e., that where pressure from natural selection is attenuated in favor of pressure from sexual selection, traits that enhance sexual selection can become emphasized. Perhaps this is what happened to humans.

I should probably do some searching on breast size selection, I wonder if this has been discussed here, but now that I think about it it would seem to have some clear implications about BF social structure.

One other thing about male v. female primate traits, although female violence is known, I've not heard of female dominance displays, if that is indeed what BF is doing when he 'charges' people. Any thoughts on that?

First I'd want to know if was true... but my intuition agrees with yours (that some bonobos at least have more prominent breasts).

Who still, after millions of years of selection, show a great species diversity in this department...(hint, hint)

Make sure your "safe search" is ON.


You'd have to define dominance displays, but in general terms, yes, female gorillas and chimps do exhibit many of the same sorts of displays as males. BUT since they are not the dominant members of their groups (usually) they are muted at best. Bluff charges (as best exemplified by gorillas) are a different thing though than dominance displays- at least as most primatologist use the terms.

What does this have to do with the thread again?

Apeman

I'd have to do more research into exact measurements, but from what I understand Onion Mt. is actually a peak that overlooks Bluff Creek, and the tracks that Green and Dahinden were finding at that time were also on Bluff Creek, according to Green's book. It was this trackway that Hodgeson called Paterson and talked to his wife, Patterson being gone at the time, and Patterson followed up on after.

Onion Mountain overlooks Bluff Creek, and is about 1.5 miles from the Patterson site:

Click to view attachment

I can positively confirm that breast size has a definite impact on sexual selection, at least on human beings!

Sorry to respond so late, my point was that your earlier point about not putting much stock in reports of observed gender is a scientifically sound point of view, but that treating the question hypothetically (i.e., P-G is genuine, etc.) we might entertain the idea that eyewitness observation of BF gender could be somewhat meaningful. For instance, the "v-shape" that is so often mentioned is likely a male trait, as prominent breasts are also female trait. That and charging / bluffing seems to be much more of a male pursuit among the great apes.

Sure, but, if people are seeing real animals, surely some percentage (that we can't even estimate) of male reports are actually females. That was my only point.

Yes, true, but if we combine the behavior with the gender identifications (which are presumably more accurate than chance) and view it through the prism of the known great apes, I think we can be forgiven for doing a little speculating about possible BF social structures.

Go nuts.

No need......... already done...





Just to point out that many (females) selected aren't going to pass the 'displayed' trait on to their offspring............ that was determined in the 'ole' cutting the tails off the mice test so many years ago.........

Huh? Where did that come from?

Tnwoods, how many times have I told you....you can't drink Tequila when you are taking cold medicine.

I'm moving his post to the appropriate thead Pywacket. Please disregard and continue with the discussion.