WI Hunters take Caution

Cougar caught on cam WI-  Hunters beware!

                                           Rusk County WI  November 8 2011

                                          Jackson County WI October 20th 2011

                                          Juneau County WI  October 16 2011
http://lacrossetribune.com/news/local/dnr-warns-hunters-to-watch-for-cougar/article_2f716434-104c-11e1-a87d-001cc4c03286.html

My Rant against Radford!

      This morning while searching for recent bigfoot news I happened upon an article which provided a link to Discovery.com news with the following article by Sarah Goforth.   “ 10 reasons why bigfoot’s a bust

        What bothers me is that Benjamin Radford is a known skeptic but his skepticism seems to be based on personal belief rather than science and what science does not have seems to be proof to him that bigfoot does not exist.  He also seems to ignore more compelling evidence and only focuses on weak or fake evidence.  I’ve watched him on television as well and he reminds me of that person who stands there arguing his point but when something is brought up that he can’t refute he closes his eyes and covers his ears.  

         In science, lack of evidence does not mean that it is proof of its non-existence nor does it prove its existence.  Until a body is found, skeptics and believers will be going round and round arguing their points and after reading Radford’s 10 reasons why bigfoot’s a bust…. I had to chime in and join the merry go round!

If you care to check it out yourself here is the link. http://news.discovery.com/animals/bigfoot-bust-reasons-photos-111012.html          

Below is the article with my thoughts.  (Following Bradford’s quotes are my thoughts.  (These are only my thoughts and opinions.  I am not a scientist or for that matter an experienced researcher.)

Discovery news contacted Benjamin Radford who lists his top 10 reasons why bigfoot is bogus.  After reading what he had to say I felt compelled to respond to some of his reasons which in my book hold no water.   

Here is Benjamin’s first reason:

Quote:

"There's no fossil record of anything fitting the description" of Bigfoot, said Radford. "There's simply nothing there."------------------------------

     Okay Benjamin that is a valid point but it does not prove bigfoot’s non existence.   I’d like to respond to this by asking, How many paleontologists set up dig sites deep within the purposed habitat of bigfoots?  In what is now China and Southeast Asia  Professor Gustav von Koenigswald had purchased some fossilized teeth being sold by a druggist stating they were dragons teeth which held a medicinal purpose. Had the teeth and jaw bones of Gigantopithecus not been found one can only assume that the stories associated with Gigantopithecus would have fallen in beside stories and tales of bigfoot and passed on as just that..stories because prior to discovering the fossils they did not exist.

Radford’s Next Reason:

Quote:

“Putting aside paleontology, Radford points out that today, if Bigfoot exists, it must disappear when it dies. "There's no hard evidence in the form of bones. There are no hair samples, there are no live or dead specimens," he said.

       Now I haven’t heard believers of bigfoot discuss acidic soil as to the reason why bones are not found.  I have heard that bigfoots bury their dead.  Now I am not certain of this because truth be told no one knows for fact that they do this.  I do know that there is an estimated 600,000 black bears in North America  which is about 100x the estimated bigfoot population in North America.  Now with that in mind how many people run across bear remains while out hiking deep in the forest.  There is an estimated 23-40 million deer in North America… and just like bear remains, it’s difficult to find the remains of deer while in the forest.  I’m not saying it doesn’t happen but you have to take in consideration of population numbers and also the fact that both the deer and the bear are hunted by humans.  Let’s not forget that deer are also prey to other wild animals.  The chances of finding deer remains in the woods should be 100x greater if not more.  As long as I am on the subject.. How many wolf or coyote remains are found?   And I’m not including road kills. 

Radford’s third reason:

Quote:

" it takes a decent population size to maintain a species. "If Bigfoot is a zoological reality," said Radford, "there has to be a breeding population."

For that population to be big enough to account for even a fraction of the sightings, there would need to be tens of thousands of the creatures in North America alone.

          Okay.. I thought about it and I think a person needs to step out of the box a little on this one.   Let’s say for a moment that what bigfoot researchers are saying is correct, that bigfoots are capable of critical thinking.  If this is true this would explain why they don’t get hit by cars.  Crossing the road would not be like that of other animals who run or walk across without the ability to connect the road to the presence of cars and that crossing it could be dangerous.

Now if they do have critical thinking abilities then I’m sure they are smart enough to avoid humans.  Now if you view them in a zoological stand point I believe that the questions asked are indeed worth pondering and have validity.  Once you view them in a more humanistic standpoint it kind of changes how those questions are answered.  A “good” researcher is going to ask these very questions and I’m sure that a lot of the information out there on bigfoots has been compiled with careful thought and consideration which is the best that can be done at this time.  For those that believe, theory is all they have but foundation of the majority of discoveries are based on theory.  You have to start somewhere right?

          Okay back to the question “Where are they?”  Well for hundreds of years people have been reporting sightings all over the world, the Natives and indigenous people have drawings and tell of stories.  There are thousands of reported sightings going back hundreds of years and probably hundreds and thousands of sightings that go unreported.  So in response to that question… Besides Hawaii, “Where aren’t they?” 

Keep in mind that stories and sightings of the mountain gorilla were considered a mythical tale by people until their “scientific” discovery in 1902. 

Radford’s reason four:

Quote:

“The majority of "evidence" for Bigfoot, says Radford, consists of eyewitness accounts. Yet as psychologists and schooled juries know, such accounts are famously inaccurate.

What's more, says Radford, "the problem is, that's not evidence, it's an anecdote...

        Yes, I agree that eyewitness accounts are inaccurate especially when fear is added to the equation.  As humans we tend to exaggerate when faced with fear because our senses are heightened and our response is fight or flight and not to gather exact details.  If out in the woods you come across a bear our memory of it is fear based so of course it’s going to be huge with large snarling teeth… but we do know it’s a bear and we don’t have to be expert hunters to know this.  We are also able to process “normal” bear behavior like standing up on two legs and being able to stiffly walk about but when it runs it will drop down to all fours.   A good majority of the sightings reported don’t add up to your typical wild life. And you’re right… it shouldn’t be dismissed.

Though I agree it’s not evidence it does give us reason to consider the possibilities.  The absence of evidence is not evidence of their non existence.

 Radford’s fifth reason:

Quote:

Aside from eyewitness reports, blurry images like this are what most Bigfoot believers rely on.”

But it's no proof, said Radford: "These photos show something that is probably alive, it's probably dark, it's not a cat, it's not a camel. It could be a Bigfoot, or it could be a deer or it could be a guy in a suit."

         To view the picture that Radford talks about you can follow the link provided at the top of this page.  I am choosing not to display it as it’s a very poor picture and I feel unfairly used to prove a point.   I find it insulting that anyone believes that we rely on pictures like this.  Radford has created so many tiny boxes for himself that he can’t seem to take in the bigger picture.   I’m sure he doesn’t realize that it takes much much more than this to drive those of us who believe in the possibility of its existence.  I mean come on, seriously??  I can’t imagine one single person spending so much time, energy and money to discover the truth from a photograph like this.   What I will agree with is that it’s a two dimensional image… pixels as Radford puts it. 

Radford’s sixth reason:

Quote:

“For Radford and other skeptics, the only acceptable standard of proof is the scientific one. Why, when there are countless researchers probing the far corners of every continent, is there no rigorous, documented, peer-reviewed evidence for Bigfoot? Only one answer makes sense, says Radford: Bigfoot isn't real.

      Scientific evidence!   This is the problem.  In order to have scientific evidence there needs to be a body according to scientists.  Without a body we cannot compare DNA or hair and tissue samples.  There is nothing at this time to compare what has been collected.  To say for certain that DNA found is that of a bigfoot you MUST have bigfoot DNA to reference it to.  I myself am not for killing one just to prove that they exist.

       To say there is no rigorous documented peer reviewed evidence and that the reason for such is because bigfoot does not exist to me seems a bit closed minded refusing to see what is actually out there as far as research.   There are some academic scientists researching the possible existence but not without a cost to their scientific reputations.  Those that do research openly do so at great cost.     The problem with most scientists is that everything has to be black or white or should be able to be proven by the scientific method.  The problem with using the scientific method on something that is living and has thought processes is that you cannot control the variables.   If not for scientists who were able to see beyond the realm of what was/is known (thinking outside the box so to speak) would we have space travel or even flight for that matter?  How about electricity, phones, computers?  Do I even need to mention Einstein and what he brought to science?   Every invention and a majority of discoveries begin with just a theory and no proof.

       The majority of evidence collected is yes, quite frankly anecdotal.   Which reminds me of what Thom Powell stated in his book “The Locals”, Quote; “There is so much secondary or anecdotal bigfoot evidence that if a bigfoot were being tried for a capital crime, he would get the electric chair.”

Radford’s seventh reason:

Quote:

“Speaking of science, Bigfoot believers sometimes complain that funding for Sasquatch Studies is hard to find. But scientists are notoriously good note-takers

Consider this league of biologists scouting for the elusive ivory-billed woodbecker in Arkansas'

"They were well-equipped, well-funded and made a sustained search," noted Radford. "What I found interesting was, what didn't they find? They didn't find Bigfoot."-------------

         Bigfoot research funding comes mostly if not entirely from private sources so yes, funding for sasquatch studies is hard to come by. 

         What “I” find interesting is that Radford finds it interesting that a well equipped, well funded hardcore investigation didn’t find bigfoot.   What kind of statement is that and what does it prove?           Does it mean that if that investigating team didn’t see any bears that it somehow proves bears don’t exist?   If you use that as an argument then one could use Native Americans as an argument to prove that they exist.  They have lived on the land for hundreds and thousands of years…. I’m pretty sure that would make them more of an expert as far as research goes.  They were more familiar with the land and knew what animals existed.  The difference is that their evidence was passed on as stories and through rock paintings only to become more of a mythical being/creature as time passed.  Which I believe was due to how they described them.  Their descriptions of bigfoot were other worldly…. Or paranormal if you will making it easier for others to view it as just story telling. 

Radford’s eighth reason:

Quote:

Dozens of new species, previously unknown to science, are discovered each year. But for the most part, they are tiny. Could Bigfoot really hide in such a peopled world?

"The last large animal to be found was probably the giant panda, and that was 100 years ago," said Radford.

       Again, what does this prove?  Absolutely nothing and to use this as proof that they don’t exist seems a bit childish and unscientific. 

 Radford’s ninth reason: Hoaxes

           Again the photo being discussed can be viewed through the link at the top of page.   Yes, Mr. Radford!  Something is wrong and I am so glad you brought up hoaxing.   I think of hoaxing as a virus which poisons the ability of intelligent people who take their research serious to be viewed as serious researchers.  I truly believe that it’s skeptics like you who spread that viral poison making you no better than the hoaxer.  You add fuel to the fire.  Now I believe that everyone should have some skepticism especially when it comes to research because it keeps the research honest.  One cannot assume that every hair sample, scat sample, or noise in the forest is bigfoot related.  One cannot simply believe every photo, video or personal account is genuine or true.  If you approach your research this way you’re going to be in for a rude awakening.   I truly believe that in this field you have to look at any evidence you gather and rationally explain it.  In the case of the blobsquatch photo… it’s too dark, too pixilated to prove or disprove. It has too many variables and should be tossed out.   Your so called hair sample… tossed out because it was proven to be a fiber.  Now had it been a hair sample that could not be matched with another species or comparable DNA.. that’s a keeper.  Why? Because it’s unknown.  It’s “potential” bigfoot evidence.  Notice I did not say it WAS bigfoot evidence.  Big difference.

           The damage one hoax does to the field cannot be measured.  For example:  Someone says they found tracks and has made a plaster cast to a large number of people. Now a majority of those people will recall the story of Ray Wallace, roll their eyes and say someone put on fake feet.  To those people every print found and casted will be hoaxes.  Do I even need to mention all the hub bub about the Patterson Gimlin film?   People are afraid to report sightings or experiences out of fear becoming a laughing stock.  When news hits the television you can’t help but notice the tongue and cheek attitude the news anchors take.  When everyday people with normal typical jobs will not discuss bigfoot for fear of ridicule, how do you expect anyone in the scientific community to come forward with their theories or beliefs?  They have a lot more at stake.  I give huge props to Jeff Meldrum and Grover Krantz  for their research contributions.  In my mind they are "REAL" scientists because they have an ability to see the possibilities, that the world we live in is neither black nor white.  There is a lot of grey area……… it is in this grey area that discoveries are made.

         What about your ruddy hair sample example?  What about it?  It’s one sample!  Did you talk to other scientists about other samples that have been collected?  Actual hair samples… not synthetic fibers?  I am wondering if you just choose to discuss evidence that can be explained away as proof that is not bigfoot related.  Why not discuss the things that can’t be explained or disproven?  What about those samples that have been analyzed for DNA but have no match?  Of course you can’t discuss these because it would mean that it’s something other than DNA profiles that we know exist and that would mean the possibility that there is another undiscovered species.  

So what do we have left for evidence?  Hoaxes or inconclusiveness and like I stated above, without a body there is no conclusive evidence.   Isn’t science the study and discovery of things?  Prior to discovery of anything there is either no evidence or inconclusive evidence.  Does that mean there is something wrong with science or the scientists?  Or does it mean there is nothing at all to discover?

And finally Radford’s tenth reason:

Foot prints meaningless scientifically.....Authentic or not???  No standard to measure them by?

            Okay, let me get this straight.  So you’re saying that an authentic bigfoot print or cast is meaningless scientifically because there is no standard to measure them by?  True there is no standard to measure them by but that does not make them scientifically meaningless.   I am sure Meldrum would have something to say about that and his opinion would greatly differ.   In matter of fact… I’m quite sure he has and he does have a differing opinion.   I also want to say that through the hundreds of plaster casts made AND studied, a “standard” has been made.   I really think that every skeptic should have to educate his or herself on the subject before using that subject to prove a point.   Again science was not founded on the already discovered.   Before discovery there is no “standard” to measure whatever they are trying to discover by.  When the first atom was discovered did it not exist because there was no standard to measure it by?   Imagine having heard the theory of an atom back in the late 1700’s?  I can just hear what the skeptics thought... In your words… “At best, a shot in the dark.”  

Bigfoot photos from Russia?

Courtesy of Cryptomundo.    Comments are welcome.

http://www.cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/russian-bigfoot-photographed/

Jacob's creature vs Bear Comparison

       The bottom picture was taken from a youtube video titled Bigfoot and Bear @ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n6sVp7HdybI   courtesy of susanfarns

Correlation between bigfoot structures and those of Apes

This link really give some insight into nest building and shelters that exist in the Ape world.  Some of these structures look very familiar to those of who have seen them out in the wild where Apes do not inhabit. 
http://home.worldcom.ch/negenter/00AA2_Apes_NestsFig_Lg01.html

Leaping into the world of bigfoot research

              When I was a child I remember watching television with my siblings, and as the tv channel was flipped from station to station I recall a moment where it was paused on the now famous video that was taken by Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin in 1967. At the time I was too young to know the significance of that video.  It obviously impacted me in small way but I was really too young to understand.  I was curious but that’s as far as it went.

                In 2007 that would change.  I was shown a website which had posted pictures taken from a game cam out in Pennsylvania of a creature that I felt didn’t really fit my personal view of what a bear should look like.  To me, it had more of primate quality to its’ appearance.  I became hooked, almost obsessed as I scoured the internet for images of bears and primates.  I tried to find images that were comparable in the posture just so I could sort the differences.   I also took on the task of trying to learn more about bigfoot.  As I delved deeper and deeper into the history of this creature, the more fascinated I had become. 

                In 2008 my boyfriend and I ventured out with the BFRO on few expeditions which only served to fuel my need to learn more, discover more.   Although we currently do not attend BFRO expeditions we do get out and do our own field research.  At this point I would like to say that our short time with the BFRO was a great experience and we met some pretty wonderful and knowledgeable people. 

                We are currently researching an area in Wisconsin which has had some sighting in the past.  Do I feel as if we will find tangible proof?  Probably not but the research might uncover other clues.  Who knows what we might find.  Science and research have to start somewhere, right?  Without research… there is no science. 

Which brings me to Thom Powell.   I am not mentioning him just because he is at the top of my list for people I want to interview, but because I loved the approach he took in his book “The Locals”.   Great read by the way and I would recommend it for anyone who believes and even those who do not believe!   With him being a science teacher I believe he is able to view reports and do research from a scientific standpoint.  One might say, “Well, you don’t have to be a scientist to prove anything.”  Very true, but a scientist will work within scientific constraints.  The down side to this is that scientific constraints would do nothing to assist us in the discovery of this creature if it was something other than flesh and blood and more of an interdimensional being.  Science could explain an undiscovered primate, but we need more technological advances to discover something that is more paranormal.

It is my belief when out in the field that you cannot simply state that every howl, tree structure, hair sample, pile of scat, or sounds of limbs breaking is bigfoot related.  Forests are full of wild animals and one must take this into consideration and use it to try and rule out known creatures.  I really think that a good researcher should look at everything skeptically, analyze their findings and only until it cannot be explained should it be considered “possible” evidence.

Evidence, what does constitute as evidence?  The definition of evidence is simple:  Something or things that is/are helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment.    This seems like a great time to share with you a quote from Thom Powell taken from “The Locals”  “there is so much secondary or anecdotal bigfoot evidence that if a bigfoot were being tried for a capital crime, he would get the electric chair.”  -Thom Powell, The Locals 2003

There are some in the bigfoot research community that do not put much stock into tree structures being evidence.  My colleague (boyfriend) is one of them.  He does not dismiss the idea, but does feel that there are too many other variables that could explain the presence of them.  He does have a point and I do try to look at them from the “skeptical” standpoint until I find one that defies any explanation other than bigfoot or possible human.   I have one such find that shared on here entitled “Somewhere in WI 2010” that even defies (at least I think so) being built by human unless of course that human was  strong enough to bend a 12-14” diameter trees over which cracked under the pressure and able break off and  place a huge tree top over them to form a shelter.  Not all the trees were 12-14” in diameter, many were smaller but all were pulled in towards the center to create a natural cover from the elements.   The area under this “shelter” had to measure no less than 7’ wide and no less than 10-12’ feet long.  The tree top that sat upon this “shelter” looked as if it had come from a tree that was about 20+ feet away and stood about just as high.   Feel free to look at the pictures and tell me your thoughts… whether skeptical or not, I would love to hear what you have to say.  There are two others that are titled “Somewhere in WI part 2 and part 3 which I feel do not fit my “structures as evidence criteria” but they are interesting.  I am fascinated with structures because of the behavioral aspect of them.  They show thought process and possible communication.  I hope to be able to share more photos as I continue my research.

The bigfoot research community- I am not an expert researcher, nor do I claim to be.  I am at best still an amateur in this field, but I do know that to state this is a bigfoot research community that it should be treated as a community.  Every organization is going to have opposing thoughts.  Which I believe is actually good thing.  For research to be fruitful you need to have different views and ideas… the more you have, the more researchers can learn about what works and what doesn’t.  I do not however agree with groups pitting against one another because of their opposing views.  I don’t feel this is beneficial to the community.  The truth of the matter is that no one truly knows what works or even the truth about what bigfoot/s really are.  All the information out there regarding these creatures are in fact only theories.

In closing I would like to thank all of you researchers out there who have contributed their time, money and patience!  I do not think that people who do not pursue the answers to the age old question "Do they exist?" can appreciate the vast amount of time, money and patience it takes to acquire even the smallest amount of evidence.  I hope you all know that your work has not gone unnoticed and unappreciated by those of us working beside you to find the answers.

You can find me here at facebook   http://www.facebook.com/pages/Wisconsin-Sasquatch/187913024609417   Twitter: @WiscSquatch  and blogger: http://wisconsinsasquatch.blogspot.com/  

Erickson project: Possible Female Sasquatch

 Taken from Cryptomundo:  Photo of possible female sasquatch lying under a tree.   Follow the link below.  Tell me what you think!

http://networkedblogs.com/m1Igo?a=share&ref=nf