• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Moneymakin'! The BFRO Bigfoot Expeditions Thread.

OntarioSquatch said:
Whether they are real or not, game cams don't work.
Click to expand...

Hilarious. Also dogs won't bother with bigfoot, bigfoot "trackways" begin and end nowhere, no one who isn't looking for one can't see a 9-foot hairy monster crashing around in the bush, etc. One of my favorites is that bigfoot supposedly have super ninja skills that keep them from being discovered, yet they seem to hoot, slap wood, and huck stuff at any clown who happens by.

This is all typical mythmaking, though perhaps not so typical, due to it all being extra ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
OntarioSquatch said:
Whether they are real or not, game cams don't work.
Click to expand...

Not only are they real, game cams work on every large mammal in North America. Except footie. Cuz he knows where they all are, and when they're sleeping, and when they're awake.
 
OntarioSquatch said:
That's exactly what I meant.
Click to expand...
I'm pleased that you understand the ironic impossibility of an omniscient, omnipresent footie and all the necessary special pleadings that accompany these unjustifiable assertions.

Next up, denial.
 
DNA from hair follicles is becoming commonplace in wildlife studies. It has made it much easier to estimate populations using mark-recapture analyses for species that were formerly VERY difficult to assess. Such as small mammals, nocturnal predators etc. Researchers in Idaho systematically searched logging roads in the winter for cougar tracks. When tracks were found they were backtracked and hair samples collected. They also tracked cougars with trained dogs and collected tissue samples with biopsy darts. I don't have enough postings to put in a link but if interested put into google: "Estimating abundance of mountain lions from unstructured spatial sampling". DNA is also being collected from fecal material now. And it's not just this technique that does not work for bigfoot. Any method used by biologists that works great with secretive or rare animals never seems to work with bigfoot and there's always an excuse. Game cameras produce density estimates for Okapis and nocturnal cats, but can't seem to work for bigfoot because they're smarter than people, hear outside the normal primate range etc etc. Although I have not yet heard the excuses for why such a large species covered with long hair doesn't ever lose any, or leave fecal deposits, I assume there are.
 
OntarioSquatch said:
Whether they are real or not, game cams don't work.
Click to expand...


Nah, of course not.

20140920%20005302-L.jpg


My dad fed feral cats, and my mom's keeping up the tradition. I thought it would be fun to see what was eating the food. I was hoping for a fox, but no dice.

Yeah, the animal's pretty clearly aware of the camera; it's only about a meter away from it, and the shutter and flash do make noise.

Still, note that the kitty doesn't avoid it or knock it over from behind. And why should it? Real animals don't know what a camera is, and wouldn't mind being photographed if they did.
 
If they did find signs of an 8 foot bipedal ape, the didn't mention it in the paper. Which I guess leads into the conspiracy angle because if a biologist had incontrovertible proof of a bipedal ape in the U.S., it would be impossible to find a biology job ever again.

Trail cameras and dna extraction from hair and fecal matter are huge advances in wildlife biology. Deer have always been difficult to accurately count. Google, "deer density dna" and you'll get a bunch of hits on deer densities (various species) that were estimated with mark recapture methodology using dna extracted from fecal pellets. They don't just get the species from the dna they get the individual. Dogs are also trained to search for fecal material of whatever species needed. Has this ever been done or tried by bigfoot believers?
 
I guess so, ScottV. We've come to understand that bigfoot is really a game. It isn't that people really believe bigfoot exists. It is more a game we can play where we pretend to believe and just make up whatever is convenient at the moment to deal with whatever problem non-believers pose for us.

It doesn't have to be internally consistent. We are allowed to contradict ourselves from one sentence to the next.

The only rule in this game is that we must never deny belief in bigfoot. So, if we have game cam pictures of everything but bigfoot, then we must conclude game cams don't work for bigfoot. We know they do of course, but that's what we say. We say they can sense the cameras and stay away from them.

If you know bigfoot does not exist, but you must pretend so, then you know there is no bigfoot poop. But we need to pretend there is a reason we can't find any bigfoot poop. So they bury it. Or something.

That is how you play the bigfoot game. And we have come to call it Bigfoot Live Action Alternate Reality Gaming, or BLAARGing.
 
Bigfoot walk in our minds, using our feet. We press him into the soil of our dreams and remember his face when the morning comes. Hold onto that moment, pretend. We do not want to lose childhood.
 
ScottV said:
If they did find signs of an 8 foot bipedal ape, the didn't mention it in the paper. Which I guess leads into the conspiracy angle because if a biologist had incontrovertible proof of a bipedal ape in the U.S., it would be impossible to find a biology job ever again.

Trail cameras and dna extraction from hair and fecal matter are huge advances in wildlife biology. Deer have always been difficult to accurately count. Google, "deer density dna" and you'll get a bunch of hits on deer densities (various species) that were estimated with mark recapture methodology using dna extracted from fecal pellets. They don't just get the species from the dna they get the individual. Dogs are also trained to search for fecal material of whatever species needed. Has this ever been done or tried by bigfoot believers?
Click to expand...

Dogs are deathly afraid of bigfoot such that they won't follow the scent, or bigfoot rips them to shreds when they find one.

Depending on who you ask, you can and can't use dogs to search for bigfoot.
 
Donn said:
Bigfoot walk in our minds, using our feet. We press him into the soil of our dreams and remember his face when the morning comes. Hold onto that moment, pretend. We do not want to lose childhood.
Click to expand...

Well, I think there's something to this.

A couple years back I re-read Call of the Wild for the first time since about 6th grade. It occurred to me that Buck the domestic dog, and his being kidnapped to the Alaskan frontier where he goes feral, serves as a pretty decent allegory for man's frustration with modernity and his longing to return to his hunter/gatherer roots. Typically, people scratch this itch by going backpacking or taking a fishing trip somewhere, but I've been toying with the idea that some folks might actually project a vision of (themselves as?) primordial man into the wilderness, free, unencumbered by even clothing or tools, who remains the alpha like Buck the dog on strength and smarts alone. They see/imagine the call of the wild (as bigfoot) instead of hear it. I think people understand there's no such creature tangibly out there, but this fact might not make it any less important if it haunts the recesses of their minds as some sort of psychological defect. This could explain the relative similarity and ubiquity of wild man legends in varying cultures and populations, and the reason people cling to it in the face of quite convincing evidence to the contrary. I don't have any background in psychology, so Im probably wrong, but I like the hypothesis, maybe in addition to the BLAARG idea, because it allows a reason outside of simple, blatant dishonesty for people clinging to the myth the way they do. Or I just have a bad habit of wanting to give people the benefit of the doubt.
 
OntarioSquatch said:
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.
Click to expand...

I agree. Another example is that they eat but I've yet to see any credible researcher report anything that was eaten. Another is leaving waste behind but again no credible report of any bigfoot waste. And then there's the issue of footprints which many assume an animal with feet would have to make but no credible evidence of a footprint has ever been found. Finally, many assume that this creature actually exists but no credible evidence of that. Once you eliminate all these false assumptions, you reach the only sane conclusions, that bigfoot does not and never has existed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom