Simple question for Bigfoot enthusiasts: Why no unambiguous photos/videos?

[EHocking]

...Why are you continuing Caddy's poo-poo? It's an anecdote, Lu. get it? An anecdote. An anecdote about an unconfirmed situation. Why? Really, why? We're talking about a population of huge mammals across North America. Why is this ball so hard to catch for you?

Actually listening to him was quite amusing for an outsider, his anecdote came across as typical footer excuses.

He *claimed* to have an indepth knowledge of these chimps and attributes all sorts of intelligence and mental attitude for them. He claims that he an his fellow wardens worked out their odd foraging and travelling behavior and tracked them even at night.

He says this was important to the wardens as their wage is practically dependent on wildlife safari/tour income organised withing their park.

Yet, when a film crew turns up armed to the teeth with the best gear, "technology nuts, you know the type", is how he describes them, so even though the warden's income is quite dependent on income that could be generated by the film crew's advertising the game in the park, Caddy blames *them* on not being able to film a chimpanzee - thus the inability for anyone to film a bf.

Typical.

Huge boasts as being these marvellous trackers and men of the woods, but when it comes to crunch time, can't produce a single photo opportunity.

 

[kitakaze]

The PNW is full of nutrition for a not-too-picky omnivore.

If I only had a brain:



The argument is not that the nutrition isn't available. And why are you mentioning only the PNW? The argument is that a beast of that size would biologically have to devote such an amount of time to feeding that doing so in viable breeding numbers across the North American continent would without a doubt produce a type specimen and obviously unambiguous video and photos.

 

[Aepervius]

My metal instructor used to go "siwash" when cross-country skiing with a friend of his. They'd be down to pine needle soup at timberline but they were able to maintain themselves even with a fair amount of exertion. The PNW is full of nutrition for a not-too-picky omnivore.

I've seen areas in the Pisgah that were so much like western Oregon and Washington I felt like I was back there. The Pisgah is larger than the Gifford Pinchot and is likewise temperate rainforest. It actually gets more rainfall on the average than the west slope of the Cascades.

That famous compliant gait might be extremely energy-efficient. I think Meldrum went into a fair amount of detail on this in his book, but since it's class time here in the Easter time zone, I have to go.

Yeah sure he can go "siwash" for a day maybe, and lower his calory intake below the average, but on 365 day a year ? Get real, that is what "average" calory intake are, not for a trip in countryside.

Secondly you don't seem to realize we have a good relation between calory intake and size of the beast. A *BIG* bigfoot (bigger than human) would need more calory intake for a similar metabolism. That was the point of sizing and comparing to guorilla or bears. And that is the WHOLE point. If you pretend that BF has only 2.5 or less year average calory intake for such a size, then it must have an EXTREMNLY slow metaboloism, or even be cold blooded. That does not jive with it being mamals or even "moving" so quickly as per witness.

Afterward , once calory intake are estimated AND since 12000 is a good estimate for something that big, you look at how much game or vegetal matter it would require. And that is where you come to the inescapable conclusion you have a problem, because that would generate a certain amount of ****, or traces, which are obviously not found. And like Kitakaze said, that would also take TIME.

I think you are really arguying against the argument because you dislike the conclusion, not because you have a valid point.

 

[Biscuit]

Them. There were apparently two somethings.

I hadn't heard the "ten years" before.

They did go back the next day and found hair. According to Herriott (who's probably the most cynical of any "researcher") the analysis came back human/gorilla/chimpanzee group, but none of the above.

I met Peter Byrne in in Hood River at an Audubon Society meeting. He was very down to earth.

The "ten years" part was stated by the guys filming if I recall correctly. While one was crying he blubbered about how they have been looking for ten years and now it was right in front of them.

I am glad they went back but to what end? Bigfoot was right there and they ran away.

Kit,

I have your answer. There are no unambiguous bigfoot photos because bigfoot hunters run away when ever they find bigfoot. Hard to take photos when you run as soon as a branch snap. Not even image stability software can steady the shake of a bigfoot hunter on the run.

 

[Drewbot]

Them. There were apparently two somethings.

I hadn't heard the "ten years" before.

They did go back the next day and found hair. According to Herriott (who's probably the most cynical of any "researcher") the analysis came back human/gorilla/chimpanzee group, but none of the above.

Are you sure that is what Scott Herriott said? Because when I asked him about the hair samples he said the following:

I don't have a hair sample. Daryl had them and gave them to one "Sterling Bunnell" from the Bay area of Calif. He was the guy who made the basic claim (in a
report that was used on A&E's "Bigfoot) that the hairs were similar but distinguishable from chimp hair samples he had. I have no idea if Bunnell is legit or a crackpot or somewhere in between.
I'm pretty sure they show a bit of the report in that A&E show.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=17885&view=findpost&p=526966

A Bigfoot quote citing Sterling Bunnell:
http://books.google.com/books?id=gg...18H4Bw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1

Sterling Bunnell the Psychiatrist from Berkeley,CA:
http://www.wellness.com/dir/2045002/psychiatrist/ca/berkeley/sterling-bunnell-md

Sterling Bunnell the famous hand surgeon? http://www.ejbjs.org/cgi/reprint/39/6/1409.pdf

Which one is it?

 

[LAL]

The argument is not that the nutrition isn't available. And why are you mentioning only the PNW? The argument is that a beast of that size would biologically have to devote such an amount of time to feeding that doing so in viable breeding numbers across the North American continent would without a doubt produce a type specimen and obviously unambiguous video and photos.

I mentioned North Carolina, too.

I don't know where I got the caloric figure. We could go with Fahrenbach's 5000 figure -

"Increased size also implies high mobility and a correspondingly large home range. A rare, individually identifiable Sasquatch was reported over a span of 8 years in several locales in Washington and Oregon, the most distant sites having a linear separation of more than 150 miles (240 kin). If we take this distance as a lifetime radius of activity, we get an area (πr2) of more than 70,0002 miles (180,0002 km) of mainly forested terrain. This value encompasses a substantial portion of, for example, Washington State, and cannot be considered indicative of any particular home range. Also, it emphasizes the difficulty of any contemplated scheme of organized field study of the species other than to concentrate on regions of recent sightings.

Secondly, according to Kiciber’s Law (McMahon and Bonner 1973), which states that the basal metabolic rate scales as the 3/4 power of mass, a massive animal needs less energy input per gram of body weight than a small one does. This means that a Sasquatch can get by with a relatively smaller amount of food than a smaller animal. Nonetheless, if we use the calculated weight (W) of a Sasquatch at the population average (299 kg) and apply the scaling formula



(Kleiber 1961),



a basal caloric consumption of about 5,000 calories per day is found. With exercise and inclement weather, this value may double or triple. Hence, a diet that is minimally omnivorous, if not slanted toward carnivory for the sake of calories—especially during the winter—is required to fulfill that demand. Bipedal gait, seemingly as efficient as a quadrupedal gait (Rose 1984), can be viewed as an adaptation to becoming an endurance hunter in the very demanding terrain inhabited by the Sasquatch."

http://home.clara.net/rfthomas/papers/size2.html

- unless you think he's always been dotty, even when he was published in PubMed (on snails).

My argument is the nutrition is easily available and such an animal wouldn't have to spend all its time foraging. Protein provides a quick and plentiful source of most of those calories no matter how many are required. Did you know cougars eat grasshoppers in season when they can't make a kill?

Haven't we been over this before? Most of those beautiful NatGeo quality wildlife photographs are staged due to limitations of time and money.

Someone I've met apparently saw two bipedal primatelike somethings in a wilderness area in Georgia from a distance of about 30' last year. He had NV viewers, but these guys are on a shoestring and don't have an NV camera yet. This was the best they could do in 4 years of visiting this area. Most of the "teams" are weekenders. A "hot" area may have a number of sighting reports, but they're apt to be years or even decades apart.

I can get shots of elk at Cataloochee (NC) because they're imported and acclimated and don't mind the tourists.

When I lived downhill from a wild herd in Washington I saw two cows once and wouldn't have been able to get a shot from the truck if I'd had the camera. Everytime I went mushrooming they were somewhere else.

In my experience, most wild animals don't hang around waiting for the photographers. I'd be hard pressed to get a picture of a squirrel in broad daylight. I have Southern Flying Squirrels on my property now but they're nocturnal and the only way I've seen them was when they got down the chimney into the house.

Given the kind of funding L.S.B Leakey's women got there might be some results, but read Gorillas In the Mist for how easy a time Fosse had finding them even with an expert tracker.

Why are you so hard on Caddy? The man has his credentials.

I only dropped in to post a photo last night when I was bored and had nothing to do. I didn't really intend to get sucked into another discussion.

Back to class. I have to assemble some silver.

 

[LAL]

Are you sure that is what Scott Herriott said?

I'll check it out when I get home if I can find the right DVD, but I'm really more interested in Queen Elizabeth's suits against Edward de Vere, Earl of Oxford, when he was her ward in order to benefit Robert Dudley, Earl of Leicester.

Incidentally, Aepervius, the siwash trips were longer than a few days. They trekked through the North Cascades and when they were down to pine needle soup Dexter would wake his friend by saying, "Bacon and eggs". Peter Byrne went siwash at times too and said he never had a problem satisfying the "inner man". (That may be in his book if you need a source.)

 

[clayflingythingy]

I can get shots of elk at Cataloochee (NC) because they're imported and acclimated and don't mind the tourists.

When I lived downhill from a wild herd in Washington I saw two cows once and wouldn't have been able to get a shot from the truck if I'd had the camera. Everytime I went mushrooming they were somewhere else.

In my experience, most wild animals don't hang around waiting for the photographers. I'd be hard pressed to get a picture of a squirrel in broad daylight. I have Southern Flying Squirrels on my property now but they're nocturnal and the only way I've seen them was when they got down the chimney into the house.

How many elk are shot by hunters each year LAL? Yet, you can't even get a photo of a squirrel in broad daylight!

Just because you are a lousy woodswoman please don't assume that everyone on earth is a lousy woodsperson.

 

[xblade]

How many elk are shot by hunters each year LAL? Yet, you can't even get a photo of a squirrel in broad daylight!

Just because you are a lousy woodswoman please don't assume that everyone on earth is a lousy woodsperson.

Well, to be fair, she said flying squirrel. They're a little tougher to photograph. But we do have unambiguous photographs:

And video:



Still no bigfoot though....

 

[LTC8K6]

They are easier to photograph when they have died in the woods, if a bit out of focus.

 

[RayG]

Well, to be fair, she said flying squirrel. They're a little tougher to photograph. But we do have unambiguous photographs:

Still no bigfoot though....

That's not a REAL flying squirrel. Why does it have a button for an eye, and where are its wings?

RayG

 

[Biscuit]

This notion that wild animals are hard to find is really silly. My family has a cabin in Nutrioso, AZ in the white mountains nearly on the NM border.

-We have seen hundreds of elk at almost all time of the year. I stopped taking photos of them because they were always there. Not more than 20 feet from the house. These are not imported or domestic elk. They are very wild and beautiful animals.

- I have seen bald eagles (estimated to be around 100 in our area) and a nesting pair of golden eagles (numbered far fewer) in our little valley. No photos of the golden eagle because I don't have enough zoom on my little cameras and never saw them land. I can post bald eagle photos if you wish.

- Our neighbors claim to have seen mexican grey wolves from the galleros mountain population and Game and Fish believe we have our own pack in AZ now. These were extinct in N. America until recently.

- More squirrels than I can count. I have never bothered to photograph one as the dogs chase them trees as soon as we see one.

- I took a photo of a fox a few years back but it was with a APS camera and my scanner is on the fritz. (Yea you guys remember the short sad life of the APS?)

- I have seen beavers but have never took a photo as they are quick and shy creatures.

The idea that you can not take photos of wild animals, that actually exist, is just silly. Search for any animal and I certain you will find a picture.

Why is every photo of bigfoot fraught with doubt and obscurities?

 

[LAL]

How many elk are shot by hunters each year LAL? Yet, you can't even get a photo of a squirrel in broad daylight!

Just because you are a lousy woodswoman please don't assume that everyone on earth is a lousy woodsperson.

I don't. What was that elk hunting success rate I found, Ray? 7-8%?

My point is that most encounters with possible sasquatches are by people who are not out to photograph a sasquatch and are no more prepared to photograph one than I am when I catch a fleeting glimpse of a squirrel in the yard while I'm intent on doing something else. If I set out trail cams or spent days lurking with the camera I probably could photograph a squirrel. If I had NV equipment I might be able to photograph a flying squirrel before it falls down the chimney, but like most people, I'm on a schedule with a job and school and no time to set out on a journey to photograph an animal that may have been somewhere along eight miles of a trail in the Pisgah about five years ago. I did get some nice pictures along that trail. There are white squirrels in that area. Didn't see one.

One of the dingier members of a group photographed something in that area that he claimed was a female 'squatch, but it really looked more like a dog. Nevertheless, last heard of he was investing $75,000 into a DVD (he claimed). He said the sasquatches go up and down Pisgah Mountain at 4:00 PM every afternoon. I'm still waiting for a plethora of reports from campers at Sunrise and hikers on the Mountains-to-the-Sea trail. Sad to say, I haven't gone out there to see them myself (sarcasm).

I kept my camera on the dash for a while in an experiment to see if I could photograph a rabbitt that crossed the drive nearly every time I came home. There was no time to stop the car and get the camera before it was gone. If it had been an 8' hominid primate I'd still be gnashing my teeth. I saw a young doe in my driveway last April and it was gone before I could think of getting the camera. I had to blink three times before I realized it wasn't a dog or a goat. I had no idea there were still deer in this area at all - I'm on the edge of town. Large animals can conceal themselves quite easily if there's cover.

 

[kitakaze]

My point is that most encounters with possible sasquatches are by people who are not out to photograph a sasquatch and are no more prepared to photograph one than I am when I catch a fleeting glimpse of a squirrel in the yard while I'm intent on doing something else.

How do you know this?

Also, this is not a realistic appraisal of the situation. Why can some of the game cameras that are set up all over Northern California capture what is most likely the only wolverine in the wild there but they can't find a breeding population of massive mammals responsible for more than at least 400 alleged encounters that would require around 12,000 calories a day?

Please don't quote me any Bigfoot quacks.

If I set out trail cams or spent days lurking with the camera I probably could photograph a squirrel. If I had NV equipment I might be able to photograph a flying squirrel before it falls down the chimney, but like most people, I'm on a schedule with a job and school and no time to set out on a journey to photograph an animal that may have been somewhere along eight miles of a trail in the Pisgah about five years ago. I did get some nice pictures along that trail. There are white squirrels in that area. Didn't see one.

You're own personal circumstances are irrelevant to the question of unambiguous images of a supposed species of massive mammal living all over the continent.

One of the dingier members of a group photographed something in that area that he claimed was a female 'squatch, but it really looked more like a dog. Nevertheless, last heard of he was investing $75,000 into a DVD (he claimed). He said the sasquatches go up and down Pisgah Mountain at 4:00 PM every afternoon. I'm still waiting for a plethora of reports from campers at Sunrise and hikers on the Mountains-to-the-Sea trail. Sad to say, I haven't gone out there to see them myself (sarcasm).

We can agree, then, that this photo of something that looked more like a dog wouldn't qualify as unambiguous, would it?

I kept my camera on the dash for a while in an experiment to see if I could photograph a rabbitt that crossed the drive nearly every time I came home. There was no time to stop the car and get the camera before it was gone. If it had been an 8' hominid primate I'd still be gnashing my teeth. I saw a young doe in my driveway last April and it was gone before I could think of getting the camera. I had to blink three times before I realized it wasn't a dog or a goat. I had no idea there were still deer in this area at all - I'm on the edge of town. Large animals can conceal themselves quite easily if there's cover.

What a silly story, Lu. You could have tried baiting the rabbit and be done with it.

 

[LAL]

This notion that wild animals are hard to find is really silly. My family has a cabin in Nutrioso, AZ in the white mountains nearly on the NM border.

Not in deep forest then? I saw both Bald and Golden Eagles in the Columbia Gorge. A friend saw wolves when they were thought to be extinct in the area. I saw a bear twice (probably the same bear). I knew people who knew people who'd seen sasquatches but none were equipped with a camera at the time.

 

[LAL]

Are you sure that is what Scott Herriott said? Because when I asked him about the hair samples he said the following:

In Todd Partain's Eyes in the Dark he gives a full account. He was in Willow Creek when he was told there'd been a quite recent sighting of a light colored individual by two young boys. They were the ones who ran.

He mentions the area was on private property and when they checked with the owners for permission before going out, they said, oh yeah, they knew they were there - very matter-of-fact.

Scott saw a dark low something up the hill when he and Daryl went to the area. They saw eyes and watched it watch them for about ten minutes. Scott said it didn't blink. Then the pupils apparently dilated and he saw a red glow. He remembered reports about red, glowing eyes. At this point he and Daryl decided to "spread out" in hopes the animal would stand up thinking it was being surrounded and they could get a better view, videotaping. Scott was about 10' away when Daryl saw the light colored arm and shoulder and started losing it, according to Scott's account in Eyes in the Dark. He says they went down considerably faster than they went up (1 1/2-2 hours going up) but he doesn't say they ran.

When they went back the next day they found a "nest" 15'x25' and the hair.

He says in the DVD the hair examined by Dr. Sterling Brunell resembled Mountain Gorilla and Chimpanzee hair he had but was distinguishable from both.

http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=17885&view=findpost&p=526966

A Bigfoot quote citing Sterling Bunnell:
http://books.google.com/books?id=gg...18H4Bw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1

Sterling Bunnell the Psychiatrist from Berkeley,CA:
http://www.wellness.com/dir/2045002/psychiatrist/ca/berkeley/sterling-bunnell-md

Sterling Bunnell the famous hand surgeon? http://www.ejbjs.org/cgi/reprint/39/6/1409.pdf

Which one is it?

Burnell as in Jeff's book, the one with the California Academy of Sciences. I don't know any more about him than that.

The report is on A&E's Bigfoot with Leonard Limoy. It says essentially the same thing the book says - related to the human/chimpanzee/gorilla group but distinguishable from each.

Scott and Daryl are both on the DVD, and this is where Scott said he didn't want to see what Daryl was seeing (a 7-8' light colored thing from the waist up). Daryl had the videos professionally enhanced and points out the eyes, knees and toes on the reclining figure. Ancient Mysteries had the film analyzed at Fleet and they found there is an object there.

This wasn't a case of someone randomly pointing a camera and later seeing blobsquatches in the shadows.

In Squatching, Scott goes back to the area and points out where all these things happened.

 

[LAL]

How do you know this?

Read some reports.

Also, this is not a realistic appraisal of the situation. Why can some of the game cameras that are set up all over Northern California capture what is most likely the only wolverine in the wild there but they can't find a breeding population of massive mammals responsible for more than at least 400 alleged encounters that would require around 12,000 calories a day?

Please don't quote me any Bigfoot quacks.

First, I don't agree Northern California is that well covered. Have you been there?

Secondly, I sincerely doubt that was the only wolverine in the wild there. It's just the one that got its picture taken. Has this happened again?

Thirdly, I don't think sasquatches need 12,000 calories a day.

The encounters tend to be on the fringes of terrain where people are. To find the home range, if there is one, you'd have to go very deeply in for extended periods of time, and then, somehow, get a picture. If you know of an easy way to do this, let Richard Noll know. I'm sure he'd be grateful for any advice you can give him.

You're own personal circumstances are irrelevant to the question of unambiguous images of a supposed species of massive mammal living all over the continent.

That may be, but I'm trying to keep it simple enough for you to understand. I lived in the county with the highest number of sighting reports in the country but other than the ones from the spring of '69 they're still very few and far between. Even living in such an area is no guarantee of being able to see something unusual, let alone photograph it.

We can agree, then, that this photo of something that looked more like a dog wouldn't qualify as unambiguous, would it?

No. Some though it looked more like a bear or a jogger in a hoodie with headphones.

What a silly story, Lu. You could have tried baiting the rabbit and be done with it.

The experiment was not to see if I could photograph the rabbit, it was to see if I could stop the car, grab the camera and get a picture of it running in front of me. Most motorists don't keep cameras on the dash, but even so the chances of photographing a road-crossing sas, even in daylight, aren't especially good.

 

[William Parcher]

This wasn't a case of someone randomly pointing a camera and later seeing blobsquatches in the shadows.

Bob Zenor (BFF) stabilized the Herriott film. Here you see the "creature", and also the red dots are added to indicate where the eyes are located.

Lu, are you saying that this is not a blobsquatch?

 

[LAL]

Bob Zenor (BFF) stabilized the Herriott film. Here you see the "creature", and also the red dots are added to indicate where the eyes are located.

Lu, are you saying that this is not a blobsquatch?


[qimg]http://www.bigfootforums.com/uploads//monthly_12_2008/post-1285-1228278514.gif[/qimg] [qimg]http://www.bigfootforums.com/uploads//monthly_04_2009/post-1285-1239170593.gif[/qimg]

You need to see the whole shot. You can't really tell much from that.

Whatever it was moved. So did the big whatever-it-was as though to get a better look, then moved back. Scott said there was no wind, no leaves stirring.

I'm saying it wasn't a case of someone randomly pointing a camera and then finding images.

 

[William Parcher]

The Herriott story is just like all the others. I'm sorry that our video is ambiguous, but you can take our word that it is a Bigfoot. We were there. It was Bigfoot. They exist.