Do you have any proof of the existence of Bigfoots?
Why do people in this thread keep asking this question when you know the answer?
The answer is, of course, no. You don't have any proof, nor do you have any objective evvidence that any such creature exists.
While this won't endear me to you at all, I take the word of people I've known for a very long time and literally trust with my life in combination with what my own senses observed as sufficient for me to say I had a sighting. You can think whatever you like, of course.
Those people who also have absolutely no objective evidence for the existence of Bigfoot. So it's someone taking someone else's word passing it along and asking others to take their word. You do, of course, understand how it is not reasonable to accept anything any of your sources say about the issue as true, don't you?
As a group, we spend all our vacation time, significant resources, and much physical effort to do what we do. I apologize if you find our effort insufficient.
Interesting that you should use the term "insufficient" as a synonym for the term "nonexistent".
Obviously, because I have an outstanding imagination.
I wouldn't say outstanding. None of the Bigfoot tales told here so far and none of the alleged supporting arguments have been particularly imaginative.
Just because we haven't found evidence doesn't mean it isn't there.
Yes, the old "absence of evidence" saw. I guess when every efffort to obtain evidence has resulted in failure, platitudes are about all that's left.
We have seen rocks sailing down from the mountainside. We have collected them from the roof of the cabin and neighboring outbuildings. We have had them land close to us on the ground. Therefore, when we hear what sounds like a rock hitting a metal object, we assume it is just that.
Maybe part of the reason for the continued failure is that you're working from assumptions rather than objective reality.
I think the legal effort to protect their habitat would be enormous. Significantly more contentious than the spotted owl issue. To your point, there are a plethora of reports coming from some potentially dubious sources.
Since there is and never has been any objective evidence to support the notion that Bigfoot exists,
all reports come from dubious sources.
One of the things advocates of leaving them undiscovered argue is that, once they're proven, there will be a rash of big game hunters taking out swaths of unsuspecting wood apes for the walls of wealthy collectors. As you suggest, I doubt that will be an issue.
Indeed, since not even a single specimen has ever been taken, or even witnessed by a reliable source, the idea of anyone taking swaths of them is downright ludicrous.
Hunting is not the threat to this animal (or to most), [...]
Indeed, again. Hunting is not a threat to the Loch Ness Monster, leprechauns, ghosts, or the Chupacabra either. And all for the exact same reason.
We've been advised that print collection would be impossible, [...]
Advised? You might consider that no Bigfoot has ever been shown to exist, therefore any advice anyone might offer about the possibility of obtaining fingerprints is a work of fiction.
[...] but have very recently also been told that DNA could be obtained from them. No idea what the cost or procedure for that is, but I suspect that going forward we will bag and save the rocks instead of simply brushing them to the ground.
That's a good idea. At least you'll have some rocks.
Here's the thing about cameras. They have several limitations (even the most expensive ones).
1. Camera trigger problem (tested and proven to be a problem after cameras were pulled) - They're slower in practice than they are in the lab.
2. Small area covered by the sensors, in a great big forest (maybe 400sqft)
3. PIR relies on heat signatures, which isn't ideal in a hot humid environment with lots of sun heated rocks - We get a ton of pictures of trees moving in the wind.
4. The subject has to "cross the streams", or detection zones to trigger it, so walking straight at or away doesn't always trigger it. We've seen this ourselves in that *we* are not always recorded as we appriach the cameras for service.
5. There is probably some degree of avoidance, i.e. alpha male coyote study
Excuses in lieu of a substantive argument noted.
We have recently discussed the use of mechanical triggers, but haven't, er, "pulled the trigger" on any. Thing is, what's the value of an image? Would anyone here accept one we produced? I have advocated we focus on other forums of evidence collection and reduce the effort put into cameras because, at the end of the day, we all agree that pictures won't do it.
At the end of the day you'll have a bag of rocks.
I would suggest that fairies never chucked a softball sized rock onto Sir Aurthur's roof or charged him through the bush.
I would suggest that Bigfoot never did any such thing either. And all you've really got is a plethora of reports coming from some dubious sources.
They presumably didn't. We surmise they may be starting to recognize individuals or their vehicles. This behavior could be "left over" from the 2011 operation. This year's activity was markedly higher.
Your mistake here is surmising that something has certain characteristics when that thing has never been shown to even exist.
