Bigfoot DNA

[AlaskaBushPilot]

I'll consider it at least partial 'vindication by proxy' when Wally Hersom doesn't go after her in any civil or criminal action despite the $450,000 or the principle of it.

A couple things about that - these rich old guys have the liesure and cash to throw at pet hair-brained ideas. Plus they get groupies of sorts. So the money means nothing to them and a different kind of utility is derived from it. Legacy. Business mogul turns bigfoot sleuth.

There is an embarassment factor in going to court, plus the rule caveat emptor - if you buy a unicorn study then you have earned the unicorn study that is given to you. Suing and losing is playing the worst kind of fool.

So no, Wally won't sue.

 

[dmaker]

I don't see how a clever fake could be ruled out. A high resolution picture of a real Sasquatch would at best be inconclusive in my opinion. The fact that these things are reported to have body proportions that are nearly identical to that of human beings adds a whole new dimension of difficulty in ruling out a fake. This has actually been demonstrated with the PGF.

Show me a high resolution picture of a real Sasquatch, and then let's talk.

 

[ScottV]

ABP, I was thinking along the lines of people that get paid to track down other people (prisoners, lost hikers etc) but point well taken. It’s not like the want ads are full of “tracker” positions. I’ve got a book by one of these guys (I don’t have it handy and the name escapes me, but he was asked to look at bigfoot tracks once and pronounced them fakes) I've known a few biologists and hunters who did not get paid for that but nonetheless were very good at it. Someone with good tracking skills should be able to track a ~500lb animal, but it never seems to happen with bigfoot tracks. of course like you said, they tend to suddenly start in perfect substrate then vanish just as suddenly.

I’m a wildlife enumerator (love the way that sounds LOL), by the way, and could do quite a bit with a 435k budget. Jodie, that’s exactly the point. All this time spent in a localized area and they cannot come up with scat or tracks? Not sure what their budget was in Oklahoma but if a real bigfoot population was there they should be able to document it. Have they ever released photos of other animals that their cameras photographed? Just wondering.

 

[dmaker]

There are some phots of cracked hickory nuts and the rock supposedly used to crack them. Of course, no reason other than Bigfoot or hoaxers can be offered, and hoaxers are instantly ruled out because all the No Wood Apes Currently boys are loaded for bear and no hoaxer is dumb enough to step foot in their "research" area. Ergo, it's Bigfoot.

 

[OntarioSquatch]

Show me a high resolution picture of a real Sasquatch, and then let's talk.

http://oi42.tinypic.com/3460z6f.jpg

 

[ScottV]

for a population of animals in the ~500lb range there should ALOT of nuts laying around. I'm guessing no tracks in the vicinity of the nuts and rock?

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

Someone with good tracking skills should be able to track a ~500lb animal,

Well yeah the archaeologists are sifting through 12,000 year old native campsites of family bands up here and telling us what they ate, what implements they fashioned, etc. With bigfoot they can't even follow tracks that are an hour old.

Real science always blows cryptozoology out of the water.

I’m a wildlife enumerator (love the way that sounds LOL), by the way, and could do quite a bit with a 435k budget.

Oh hey, cool. I failed the test. Got up to 14 and got too nervous. Lost my cool and forgot 15-18. You have to make it all the way to 50 on the Alaska test. I had 20-50 down cold too.

OMG $435K. Ten years in the Golden Triangle living like a Sultan. Vegas for four or five years. A lot of socially productive ways to spend that money.

 

[Apology]

They tried to use tracking dogs, but the dogs kept turning around and pointing at the guy who found the trackway. Silly dogs.

 

[Castro]

...Have they ever released photos of other animals that their cameras photographed? Just wondering.

They have:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgtV2AhDrkU

 

[Resume]

There are some photos of cracked hickory nuts and the rock supposedly used to crack them. .

for a population of animals in the ~500lb range there should ALOT of nuts laying around. I'm guessing no tracks in the vicinity of the nuts and rock?

Yes, this animal, said to bully grizzlies, snap trees in half, run down deer, and toss pigs, cracked himself one (1) hickory nut, which apparently he didn't like.

Maybe that's what they're flinging at those cabins in area x, hickory nuts, which they don't like.

What a farce.

 

[tsig]

Yes, this animal, said to bully grizzlies, snap trees in half, run down deer, and toss pigs, cracked himself one (1) hickory nut, which apparently he didn't like.

Maybe that's what they're flinging at those cabins in area x, hickory nuts, which they don't like.

What a farce.

Shame they didn't fling the pig at the cabin.

 

[Resume]

Shame they didn't fling the pig at the cabin.

As rife as Okie is with hog, you'd think that rather than a lone hickory nut atop a boulder, these NAWAC folks would be looking for (and finding) pig kill sights. But no, it's nutcracking and rock throwing they're reporting.

 

[Correa Neto]

I don't see how a clever fake could be ruled out. A high resolution picture of a real Sasquatch would at best be inconclusive in my opinion. The fact that these things are reported to have body proportions that are nearly identical to that of human beings adds a whole new dimension of difficulty in ruling out a fake. This has actually been demonstrated with the PGF.

Think about what you wrote. Its just another footer lame excuse you are buying. If you believe this, you are being duped - again. Like you've been before by Melba, Meldrum, Patterson, Gimlin and others. Hey, some are still fooling you. There's no other way to say it, even if its blunt.

Do you really think high quality bigfoot imagery would be dismissed? Do you really think it would not at least trigger interest for a more serious look?

Do you really think wildlife photographers, professional and amateurs, would miss something as spetacular as bigfoot?

 

[LTC8K6]

Shame they didn't fling the pig at the cabin.

Stop teasing me...

 

[LTC8K6]

I don't see how a clever fake could be ruled out. A high resolution picture of a real Sasquatch would at best be inconclusive in my opinion. The fact that these things are reported to have body proportions that are nearly identical to that of human beings adds a whole new dimension of difficulty in ruling out a fake. This has actually been demonstrated with the PGF.

What!

I have sat through years of talk from believers and experts about the IM index of Patty ruling out a human being...

Are you telling me that the IM index of an actual sasquatch in much better pics will now be useless?

 

[Correa Neto]

Bigfootery has its own Ministry of Truth...

 

[The Shrike]

Bigfoot anatomy is at once impossible to distinguish from human and impossible to be human.

@Correa - thanks for mentioning something that we gloss over a lot in bigfoot discussions: wildlife photography. This is yet another facet of wildlife exploration for which bigfooters are woefully ignorant. They seem oblivious to the fact that there is an entire industry (and has been for quite some time now) of people whose livelihoods depend on filming animals in the wild. They're really, really good at this, and the rarer and more spectacular a film subject is, the more money they make. If "Patty" was real, every wildlife photographer worth his aperture would've converged on Bluff Creek in 1967 to get their career-making cover photo for National Geographic, Life, etc. Why didn't they do that? Because those professionals saw in the PGF a guy in a furry suit. They recognized the silly hoax for what it was.

Today it's the same thing. Wildlife photographers have heard of bigfoot. They might have watched Finding Bigfoot. They might even know about "Area X". But none of them seem to be interested in trying to obtain bigfoot photos, and none of them seem to have encountered anything on their own to spur them to try to get bigfoot photos, this despite the endless hours they spend in bigfooty wilderness areas every year.

What's more, for every actual professional wildlife photographer out there, there must be at least 100 amateur folks who are pretty handy with a camera and nearly as committed to getting something rare or unusual on "film".

This whole "we can't photograph bigfoot" thing is complete poppycock. If bigfoots were real, there'd be lavish coffee-table books of them complete with jaw-dropping photos, kinda like this.

 

[William Parcher]

A couple things about that - these rich old guys have the liesure and cash to throw at pet hair-brained ideas. Plus they get groupies of sorts. So the money means nothing to them and a different kind of utility is derived from it. Legacy. Business mogul turns bigfoot sleuth.

There is an embarassment factor in going to court, plus the rule caveat emptor - if you buy a unicorn study then you have earned the unicorn study that is given to you. Suing and losing is playing the worst kind of fool.

So no, Wally won't sue.

Maybe the hoax is bigger than presumed. Maybe the $450K payout is a hoax too.

 

[Correa Neto]

NP, The Shike, but I'm sure it'll fall on deaf ears - again.

Its not the first time we raise this here at JREF at some thread. I remember saying this years ago to LAL, for no good use, as an example. Her reply was something like "do you know most wildlife scenes are staged?".

In other words - wildlife photgraphers are just studio rats, stuck at their ivory towers, never venture too much far from common trails and roads... Sounds familiar, right?

Aniways, thanks for the Jaguars link. The Pantanal is a place I must know better down here in Brazil. Been there just passing through, its on the "to go" list. Probably next year if I don't spend all our our family's travel budget at Galapagos... And a new tele lens.

 

[Resume]

Bigfoot anatomy is at once impossible to distinguish from human and impossible to be human.

@Correa - thanks for mentioning something that we gloss over a lot in bigfoot discussions: wildlife photography. This is yet another facet of wildlife exploration for which bigfooters are woefully ignorant. They seem oblivious to the fact that there is an entire industry (and has been for quite some time now) of people whose livelihoods depend on filming animals in the wild. They're really, really good at this, and the rarer and more spectacular a film subject is, the more money they make. If "Patty" was real, every wildlife photographer worth his aperture would've converged on Bluff Creek in 1967 to get their career-making cover photo for National Geographic, Life, etc. Why didn't they do that? Because those professionals saw in the PGF a guy in a furry suit. They recognized the silly hoax for what it was.

Today it's the same thing. Wildlife photographers have heard of bigfoot. They might have watched Finding Bigfoot. They might even know about "Area X". But none of them seem to be interested in trying to obtain bigfoot photos, and none of them seem to have encountered anything on their own to spur them to try to get bigfoot photos, this despite the endless hours they spend in bigfooty wilderness areas every year.

What's more, for every actual professional wildlife photographer out there, there must be at least 100 amateur folks who are pretty handy with a camera and nearly as committed to getting something rare or unusual on "film".

What about outdoor magazines like Outside or Field & Stream or Outdoor Life? Shouldn't they have monthly "This Happened to Me" stories featuring encounters with the elusive wood ape? Shouldn't there be a staffer permanently on the bigfoot beat trying for the big scoop?

And talk about trophies. Couldn't top a full body bigfoot mount.