Moneymakin'! The BFRO Bigfoot Expeditions Thread.

[LTC8K6]

I completely agree. That is why so much of the alleged bigfoot evidence is not testable. You cannot test a tree knock, or an anecdote, or a stick structure, or a suspected track, or out of focus and ambiguous photos or video. But you sure can insist that its bigfoot.

Testable evidence has always lead to egg on the face of footery.

You would think that if bigfoot made a stick structure, there would be a lot of his hair in the area.

If you could determine where the bigfoot grasped the logs when building the structure, there should be a wealth of bigfoot skin cells in those spots.

 

[dmaker]

^^ I couldn't agree more strongly. I have mentioned this many times in the past here and to enthusiasts at the BFF. They like to focus on the structure itself, since who, or what, built it is not a falsifiable hypothesis. So, in their mind (empty teapot), it's bigfoot until you prove otherwise.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

Of course television shows are obvious imposture. "Most" or "the bulk" of bigfoot believers, however, are not involved in television shows;.

lol. Fabricating the fallacy of drawing the false conclusion.

Your refusal to read the vast mountains of previous material on this is duly noted. It is demonstration you don't want to know.

'Footers are distinctive for not looking at all. Show us the evidence that they do, and by this we mean in comparison to people who really believe in the things they seek in the woods. These "expeditions" people are paying for are a very recent phenomenon - half a century after the larger game was underway.

We have a number of alleged field researchers on this forum, and it is astonishing really for how little they do. Nine months for one who has been looking for a habituation site and he hasn't gotten out even once. Another went out once since last spring and nearly keeled over on a walk that women were pushing baby strollers on. Another, a grand total of two car camping trips in the last year, if I am remembering right.

Show us the evidence, like I just did: days in the field looking by comparison to people who do things like wildlife viewing, or even just people who enjoy hiking, biking, or picnicking.


You won't.

 

[Checkmite]

These "expeditions" people are paying for are a very recent phenomenon - half a century after the larger game was underway.

And I suspect that out of all the people in America who would profess a belief in bigfoot, the number which go on these "expeditions" is so small as to be insignificant. And yet you seem to be willing to draw conclusions about the much larger former population based on the acts of the negligible latter.

We have a number of alleged field researchers on this forum, and it is astonishing really for how little they do. Nine months for one who has been looking for a habituation site and he hasn't gotten out even once. Another went out once since last spring and nearly keeled over on a walk that women were pushing baby strollers on. Another, a grand total of two car camping trips in the last year, if I am remembering right.

You're certainly right that it's very easy on the internet to claim to be a "field researcher" of something, without ever spending any time in any "field" as it were. But this is an internet phenomenon; hardly something unique to bigfoot fans.

Show us the evidence, like I just did: days in the field looking by comparison to people who do things like wildlife viewing, or even just people who enjoy hiking, biking, or picnicking.

You won't.

Well you've got me there - I don't have the slightest idea how I would even set about getting that kind of information. And even if I did - clarifying the concept of the ARG is something I'm interested in because I play and follow ARGs. Not quite AS interested in the daily habits of the bigfoot "researcher". Not enough to gather the kind of information you're (rhetorically, yes I know) demanding there, anyway.

 

[Checkmite]

You would think that if bigfoot made a stick structure, there would be a lot of his hair in the area.

If you could determine where the bigfoot grasped the logs when building the structure, there should be a wealth of bigfoot skin cells in those spots.

What are these "stick structures"?

 

[OntarioSquatch]

People here make strong assumptions about what this animal is like. A lot of the assumptions aren't true. One example is the assumption that Bigfoot makes stick structures. I've yet to see any credible researcher that I know of report seeing a stick structure that could be attributed to the animal.

Another issue here is the assumptions about possible biological evidence of Bigfoot. The collecting, identifying and testing of biological evidence presents hurdles that most people here don't seem to realize exist. It's much easier to get a successful DNA analysis done if you have a body.

 

[Resume]

Another issue here is the assumptions about possible biological evidence of Bigfoot. The collecting, identifying and testing of biological evidence presents hurdles that most people here don't seem to realize exists.

Like what hurdles? Don't forget that some of your audience are field biologists and others have spent decades, even lifetimes in the places bigfooters pretend they've been; hunting, angling, mushrooming, climbing, camping, orienteering, paying absolute attention to the environment where these activities take place. Don't take this personally OS, but posts like this make you sound incredibly naïve.

Assumptions? Bigfootery is all assumption, assertion, and unjustified excuse.

 

[LTC8K6]

What are these "stick structures"?

Tangles of trees blown over by the wind, mostly.

 

[Resume]

Like what hurdles? Don't forget that some of your audience are field biologists and others have spent decades, even lifetimes in the places bigfooters pretend they've been; hunting, angling, mushrooming, climbing, camping, orienteering, paying absolute attention to the environment where these activities take place. Don't take this personally OS, but posts like this make you sound incredibly naïve.

Assumptions? Bigfootery is all assumption, assertion, and unjustified excuse.

I guess I'd add that bigfootery is also in denial of reality; it's an inside joke that the insiders, the proponents, aren't even aware of.

 

[Northern Lights]

What are these "stick structures"?

Tangles of trees blown over by the wind, mostly.

Many times yes, they are naturally occurring, but there are other instances when they are not. As an example, this is most likely natural but it caught our eye because of how the long white log was on top of the top of the arched tree that was still alive with the others appearing placed.

I've always been dubious of the whole stick structure concept. I've had a hard time trying to figure out why they would take the time to do them. I have noticed that many of these structures do occur near game trails, so it's possible they are markers. Again, I'm dubious.

For the ones that are obviously not natural, there is always the explanation they were built by humans. Here is an example of one that is not natural along with the assessment.

http://sasquatchresearchers.org/minnesota-river-valley-tee-pee/

 

[Cervelo]

^^^^
Oh yes you will see "structures" next to game trails, mountains, lakes, rivers pretty much anywhere there are trees you'll find bigfoot sign if you just open your eyes to the possibility!

 

[carlitos]

People here make strong assumptions about what this animal is like. A lot of the assumptions aren't true. One example is the assumption that Bigfoot makes stick structures exists. ...

fixed!

Another issue here is the assumptions about possible biological evidence of Bigfoot. The collecting, identifying and testing of biological evidence presents hurdles that most people here don't seem to realize exist. It's much easier to get a successful DNA analysis done if you have a body.

You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. Please go learn something about this stuff.

 

[Cervelo]

People here make strong assumptions about what this animal is like. A lot of the assumptions aren't true. One example is the assumption that Bigfoot makes stick structures. I've yet to see any credible researcher that I know of report seeing a stick structure that could be attributed to the animal.

Another issue here is the assumptions about possible biological evidence of Bigfoot. The collecting, identifying and testing of biological evidence presents hurdles that most people here don't seem to realize exist. It's much easier to get a successful DNA analysis done if you have a body.

Your ignorant beyond comprehension on this issue.

 

[eerok]

It's much easier to get a successful DNA analysis done if you have a body the creature in question actually exists.

There's your hurdle.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

That tree fall is extremely simple to decipher.

There are a number of trees already bent over - common for the little ones that are racing to the sky for light, but are weak because of it, subject to snow load bending, wind, or whatever.

All four trees I have identified came down in the same event. Tree #1 comes down, pushing tree #2 on top of the bent-over tree. The top of the bent-over tree is beneath tree #1, as it should be. 1 on top of 2 on top of bendy-tree.

Tree #3 is entangled in the upper branches of tree #1 and bendy-tree. So we know he came down in the same event.

I've cut down thousands of trees. Doing about four a day right now. A big day is about 20, when I have my wife helping. One glance at this and it is easy to see what happened. Tree # 2 was hit much higher up than what you see as the ending, and there will have been damage along the trunk as tree #1 slid down along it.

To pose this as unexplainable is silly enough, but to pretend some animal had something to gain by erecting such a thing - lol.

A good example too of denying what you are doing while in the middle of doing it: I am dubious of stick structures, but I am posting a picture of a stick structure bigfoot is using as a marker. But I am dubious. That's why I am promoting what I claim to be dubious of.

 

[Checkmite]

For the ones that are obviously not natural, there is always the explanation they were built by humans. Here is an example of one that is not natural along with the assessment.

http://sasquatchresearchers.org/minnesota-river-valley-tee-pee/

It's called a debris shelter, possibly built by boy scouts as practice for their wilderness survival merit badge, or the local prepper nutjob as practice for that great Bad Thing that'll never actually happen. I must've built at least five or six of these in various locations as a kid, all by myself. FWIW, I got the badge.

The shelters are painfully easy to construct. You find a natural support - a fallen log sticking up off of the ground, or a living but bent tree - basically anything that's conveniently shaped and stable enough to hold up a bunch of sticks being lain against it. And then you scavenge for said sticks, and lay them against the support. The goal is a conical "hut" of sorts, with not much gap between sticks except for the open "door" area. Sometimes you luck out and find a fallen tree whose branches already form most of a shelter all by themselves. Finally, you need some insulation and rain protection - most of the books tell you to use leafy boughs; but armfuls of fallen leaves work just as well - dump them on the outside of the shelter and keep bringing more until it is completely covered. Job done.

Done correctly, the leafy covering will last two or three days before it begins collapsing through the stick walls, which is okay because two or three days is the longest you should ever need a shelter like this. Eventually all the leaves or whatever covering will fall or be knocked off, leaving the skeletal structure of sticks behind - which, depending on how stable the structure is, can actually stay "standing" relatively intact for quite a long time. Years, even. When I was 20, I personally observed the still identifiable remains of a shelter I had built as a scout at 14, still partially standing.

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

But the article says it is on a classic sasquatch trail.

It would have however taken a lot of very strong people to have built it. The structure was also built up a long hard climb from the part of the park where people went. There were many other locations that would have been far better for industrious kids to build a fort than up that hill. Furthermore, as the witness reported to me over the next several months, the structure kept changing, often at night when the park was closed. Both the structure and the trail were being maintained by something.

Those sticks - wow. Not sure how a man could lift them. Incredible. So I'll go back to lifting half-ton logs onto my skidding sled now and wonder at the strength of bigfoot in making stick structures.

 

[LTC8K6]

This trail had been cleared of all sticks and even leaves, with a bed of soft, packed dirt. I found no sign of deer prints nor any boot prints. All along this trail, branches had been broken down and back away from the trail to a height of about 10 feet. It appeared to be a classic sasquatch trail.

Seems ideal for sasquatch tracks. I guess they just make trails, and don't actually walk on them...

 

[tsig]

But the article says it is on a classic sasquatch trail.



Those sticks - wow. Not sure how a man could lift them. Incredible. So I'll go back to lifting half-ton logs onto my skidding sled now and wonder at the strength of bigfoot in making stick structures.

Furthermore, as the witness reported to me over the next several months, the structure kept changing, often at night when the park was closed. Both the structure and the trail were being maintained by something.Photos

Yet no use of game cams.

 

[OntarioSquatch]

Whether they are real or not, game cams don't work.