Possible reason why there are no good photos of Bigfoot.

for people using the :

" new species are discovered every year " argument

please list the 5 largest native terrestrial fauna discovered in the CONUS [ lower 48 states ] in the last 50 years

originally posted by: MysterX
a reply to: mcx1942
The difference though, is these new species are often closely related to existing and known species.

there's nothing else like the description of a bigfoot out there, for it to be overlooked by thinking it was an ape for example.

When sasquatches are scientifically recognized, I'm almost positive we will realize that they're a human relative.
You're wrong when you say there's nothing else like the description though... Take neanderthals, for example. For all we know, neanderthals could have looked like slightly shorter versions of sasquatches. Not to mention all the other human ancestors, like australopithecus. History is full of bipedal ape-people.

originally posted by: ExSmokerYes
a reply to: qmantoo

Here is the information you seek.

If you want to know why we have no good bigfoot photos.

Here we go.....

Because they..don't want to be recorded.

I guess it will take another 100 years for you blokes to figure out these hairy creatures have brains.

Exactly. Go into the woods and take a picture of a bobcat. You'd need to be very stealthy and silent to even have a chance. Now give the bobcat human intelligence and an avoid-humans-at-all-costs mentality and it'd be near impossible to get one on camera. How do you sneak up on something that can see, hear and smell you long before you even know it's there?

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: ExSmokerYes

for your claim to have validity - you would have to establish that :

1 - bigfoot exists

2 - bigfoot knows what a camera is

They don't need to know what a camera is or does; if they can see the light that cameras give off, which they probably can, then they will know that the camera is an unnatural object that is foreign to their environment and treat it with absolute suspicion. It would probably even smell unnatural.

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: qmantoo
They avoid natural disasters, car accidents, falling trees, illness, bacterial infections and 100s of 'hunters.' Wild chimps get tooth decay and flu tears through populations. Whatever 'squatch may be, it isn't gonna be a flesh n blood country cousin of ours.

I've read of a sasquatch that was killed in a forest fire, and a few that were hit by vehicles.
An interesting thing to point out is that in the original Patterson-Gimlin footage, "Patty" shows what appears to be a leg injury indicating a previously-torn muscle.

Because there is no such thing as a bigfoot. If there was, you would have seen one. The concrete jungle steadily expands exponentially. I seen one in an ally in Detroit once. Oh, that was some homeless person who didn't wash and grew out his beard.

a reply to: LOSTinAMERICA

I know mountain lions are out there but I've never seen one in person.
Bears are numerous but have you ever seen a bear carcass in nature? Most hunters haven't either but I'm pretty sure they die. Why is that? Do they not really exist?

some night vision devices can give off a high pitch squeal that would be audible to animals,
and so do some game trail cams as well. I own 3rd gen pvs-7s that do not have the high pitch.
I would think an extremely intelligent animal would avoid high freq sounds and IR lights.

"I think Bigfoot is blurry. That's the problem. It's not the photographer's fault."

-Mitch Hedberg

Still baffles me why anyone would want to kill a Bigfoot! Very interesting hypothesis on ir sight!! Although If they exist the I think they might have a few survival secrets up their sleeves!

I was pretty excited to see Les Stroud's Survivorman: Bigfoot a while back.

I'm sure there was probably an epic thread on it, but anyway--

Some intriguing environmental anomalies with the bent trees and whatnot, but I was really hoping for something more substantive in terms of findings.

originally posted by: trollz

originally posted by: ExSmokerYes
a reply to: qmantoo

Here is the information you seek.

If you want to know why we have no good bigfoot photos.

Here we go.....

Because they..don't want to be recorded.

I guess it will take another 100 years for you blokes to figure out these hairy creatures have brains.

Exactly. Go into the woods and take a picture of a bobcat. You'd need to be very stealthy and silent to even have a chance. Now give the bobcat human intelligence and an avoid-humans-at-all-costs mentality and it'd be near impossible to get one on camera. How do you sneak up on something that can see, hear and smell you long before you even know it's there?

That's a lot of "Special Pleading", unless you can show us what scientific data that is based on.

originally posted by: TheLieWeLive
a reply to: LOSTinAMERICA

I know mountain lions are out there but I've never seen one in person.
Bears are numerous but have you ever seen a bear carcass in nature? Most hunters haven't either but I'm pretty sure they die. Why is that? Do they not really exist?

Most hunters don't need to find one. In fact, only on person does. In the case of bears, it was done centuries ago. Only one bigfoot carcass needs to be found and this whole argument is over.

originally posted by: ColeYounger
If you do the research, you almost have to come away with the belief that bigfoot exists. I'm a skeptic by nature, but
I'm convinced bigfoot is out there.
Biologists and zoologists have gone to remote locales and captured photos of the rarest creatures on Earth by using
trail cams placed on game trails and such. Why no pics of bigfoot? Researchers have placed trail cams all over
bigfoot hotspots in Washington, California, Oregon and Colorado. No photos. If he was just an as-yet undiscovered ape, as some claim, he could not be that elusive.


As crazy as it sounds, I'm forced to entertain the idea that bigfoot has a supernatural component going for him.
Many native Americans talk about it like it's common knowledge. Even weirder is that people who have encounters
report that bigfoot emits a horrible stench. What the hell?

Either you are a skeptic or you are convinced bigfoot is real, not both. Claiming to be a skeptic doesn't add more validity to your claim.

originally posted by: trollz

originally posted by: ExSmokerYes
a reply to: qmantoo

Here is the information you seek.

If you want to know why we have no good bigfoot photos.

Here we go.....

Because they..don't want to be recorded.

I guess it will take another 100 years for you blokes to figure out these hairy creatures have brains.

Exactly. Go into the woods and take a picture of a bobcat. You'd need to be very stealthy and silent to even have a chance. Now give the bobcat human intelligence and an avoid-humans-at-all-costs mentality and it'd be near impossible to get one on camera. How do you sneak up on something that can see, hear and smell you long before you even know it's there?

I live in an area where there are plenty of bobcats. I have caught a brief glimpse of one.
I have seen tracks and had chickens go missing, but you rarely see one.
I've seen more UFO's than bobcats.

Professor Jeff Meldrum has loads and loads of footprint and some handprint casts from all over the world. This is evidence of Bigfoot for those who are claiming 'no evidence'. There are hair samples found and analysed for DNA and there is no match for anything already known. That is also evidence.

In spite of what some say on here, there IS evidence, but some folks just dont want to hear about it or acknowledge it. Almost as if we have shills on here who are instructed to deny anything to do with Bigfoot. I wonder why that would be? There is more physical evidence for Bigfoot than there is is for aliens or ghosts yet so many more people probably believe in ghosts and aliens than do sasquatch.

If you look down a microscope you see what is at the other end of the scope. Doesn't science work this way?
So what is Science strength is its ability to focus in on something narrowly and investigate it. The possibility of forms on life living outside the visible spectrum of light to me is a possibility worthy of investigation. Some thought into what specialised detection tech could be used?

originally posted by: qmantoo
Almost as if we have shills on here who are instructed to deny anything to do with Bigfoot. I wonder why that would be?

The FBI at least has apparently been known to attempt to cover up incidents involving certain bigfoot encounters, especially involving people who go missing. For example, look into the well-documented Dennis Martin disappearance from the Smoky Mountains national park. I won't get into details, but a family saw something that may have been a bigfoot carrying the boy, and an FBI agent hushed them up and prevented them from speaking to the media about it. Apparently that agent later committed suicide... Or someone made it look like he did.
I've read of other reports also where a bigfoot had been killed, and agents came in and confiscated the body.

"Why" is anyone's guess, but there are some theories.

what I was thinking needs to happen is that we need to get behind Bigfoot and film him and the way we can do that is to set up one of the low-light cameras pointing towards a campsite. Often Bigfoot get attracted to campsites and come in and throw rocks and growl so maybe rather than filming them head-on, we can create an "attraction" and then film them from the rear, approaching the campsite interacting with that attraction. May work, who knows?

a reply to: qmantoo

I don't really know much yet of the Bigfoot phenomenon, but you said they found and analysed hairs of it. What did they see? Did it have DNA, could they trace or see a link with any existing known species such as apes, bears, etc?