Simple last word here.

1. Do you know Bigfoot exists? No, you have no proof

2. Do I know Bigfoot does not exist? Yes at this time Bigfoot has not been proven to exist by science.

3. Is it possible a Bigfoot type animal does exist? Yes, it is possible.

If you can’t understand this, then I can’t help you.

Just read your last post as I posted my last post.

Hmm, does the word hypocrite fit here?

You say “be nice to fellow Bigfooters”, well sir, did you not read any other posts? You, Matt Moneymaker, and this fellow Bigfoots, all used negative “know it all” language when posting to me.

Bigfoots called me a “joke” Moneymaker has called me worse on several posts, and now you some how think I need your advice on how to state my own opinion.

No Opalman, read everything I have ever posted on this site. I never lied or mislead anyone with any statement, I never directly used any bad words towards anyone, and I think what bothers you is I am ONLY TELLING THE TRUTH, and the truth hurts you Bigfoot fantasy types.

When others come here and say that was a, “squatch”, or I saw a “Bigfoot while fishing”, or this is typical “squatch behavior”, myself and others challenge these claims. That’s what makes a good site, not everyone agreeing that everything is a “squatch”.

Since the internet began and long before, I have been reading on Bigfoot. I challenge you to produce ANY evidence I have not seen. You have no idea how much time and effort I have put in to this little hobby of mine, so please keep your opinions about me to yourself. I know for fact I have researched more than you and I don’t even know you.

If you are some sort of expert on “discussion board” behavior, then that tells us more about you. Some of us leave the computer and see what is out there.

I promise you Opalman, I have studied every person, and every piece of evidence on Bigfoot so far. That is a fact! Every opinion I have is based on that fact.

You called me a “blow hard”, okay, then please do not reply to me anymore. I guess the truth is something you don’t want to hear Opalman, so you have fun with the other believers out there. I hope you all enjoy your little storytime

Me, I’ll keep watching for real evidence lol

I guess to be as simple a I can.

1. Check bigfoot sighting database to find all sighting by forest service personel, rangers, etc.

2. Determine a approx 50 mile search area from info gathered from said database.

3. Send in teams of searchers, at least 10 teams of 8 to 10 searchers each, to cover all of that 50 mile forest area.

4. Look for evidence of Bigfoot, including nesting areas, droppings, hair samples, tracks, and if animal is located then of course film, photos, even attempt to capture…not kill.

5. If NO EVIDENCE IS FOUND in an area that you have selected due to solid verifiable reports by solid eyewitnesses, then move on to another area 50 miles beyond.

6. If actual evedence is found, then set up a long term search team stationed in that area. This team can be smaller of up to 10 to 25 members to stay in that area gathering evidence until a animal is captured on film, or collected as specimen. Could be months.

Steve Fosset
Opalman, no one knew where Fosset had crashed. It was only after a hiker found his ID that they knew the exact area and pinpointed the search, even though a year later. I mean his the ID was the evidence needed to target a search, and with Bigfoot, you need some kind of solid evidence to target any search. Understand? The “hey look I saw Bigfoot” story is not enough.

Find the scientific evidence, then target your search. Your method Opalman is random target area, and it is pointless.

Next
A)The Tibetan Blue bear was put in the zoololigical record from pelts and scalps. It is a subspieces of Brown Bear and almost impossible to film.

B)The Snow Leopard was only filmed up close 4 years ago. They are so rare and live in such isolated areas, sightings are also very rare.

C)No fossils have ever been found of Chimpanzees, the forest areas they live in has soil that is not conducive for fossils

POINT IS, THESE ANIMAL ACTUALLY EXIST! If you are going to do a REAL search for a Bigfoot type animal, you have to believe the circumstances are just so, that with these other animals, Bigfoot are almost impossible to locate.

Opalman, if you get the best evidence you can, and put “ONE” sniper in the woods, that one sniper will “ONLY” be able to monitor 100 square yards. Miles and miles of forest, and you want to look in only a few yards of it? How can you even suggest that is a feasible idea? Who are you Matt Moneymaker?

I don’t want a marching band out looking for Bigfoot, just a large group spread out very far apart, making as little sound as possible. Simple. How can you continue to argue that?

You have some PlayStaion3 “Call to Duty” idea where you can sit in the forest like a sniper and Bigfoot will walk right up to you. Opalman, there are hundreds of hunters sitting in blinds all over the US as we post here, and none of them have shot a Bigfoot. Your sniper idea has been tested and tried before…it just don’t work!

My idea is feasible, and I am sure Matt Moneymaker has read this and next season on Finding Bigfoot he will use it.

Just admit to me Opalman, my ideas are sound, and let’s end this now.

he hates people who “know” bigfoot exists
but yet he goes on to say he “knows” it doesn’t exist..
mind you that prior to that he said it could exist..lol

I was going to go through and point out all his contradictions and pretzel logic but whats the point..

everyone (almost everyone) knows its WAY harder to prove something does NOT exist than to prove it does exist..so really not sure what his point is anyway?
Is that your point cdc? you gonna prove bigfoot does NOT exist?

please do tell how you “know” it doesn’t exist?

where is all this truth you keep talking about?

“I know every single piece of evidence…EVERY PIECE!”

“I spoke with Dr Melba Ketchum myself, have you ever done that?”

Wow that is really impressive BUT unfortunately that is also totally meaningless.

CDC Sir,
May I give you a friendly piece of advice (here it is anyhow!)
Your demeanor is that of an arrogant blowhard…and while I’m sure that you’re really a nice fellow who appreciates the sasquatch subject with honest curiosity—you should be cognizant of how you come across to people. If this discussion board teaches anything it may well be that self-important, grandiose people are not very well liked in the BF community. Why participate if you cant get along and play well with others who share your same interest? Claims made; that, “you know every piece of evidence”, are ridiculous or worse. Nobody enjoys complete knowledge on any topic. Why embarrass yourself.

Again…who you had an opportunity to speak with at some time means nothing…zero…squat!

If you were familiar with the laws of logic you would understand that it is impossible to prove a negative. Lack of evidence proves nothing. Goggle the topic of logic and try to understand that distinction before you make silly statements. Above all: be NICE to fellow bigfooters regardless of what you may believe about them or their opinions. Everybody is important.

Fosset was not moving after he dug into that hillside. He, aircraft, his wallet and other articles where found where he and they ceased movement. Bigfoot spends almost no time in one place, obviously. Whether one hiker found the crash site or 10 thousand SAR personnel, the circumstances did not change after the SAR mission was launched, (excepting weather).

“You will never catch an animal unless you are looking for it in the right place.”

Obviously!

“Anecdotal evidence? We have had anecdotal evidence for 50 years, what we need now is “scientific evidence”. One bone, one pelt, one skin, will put Bigfoot in the zoological record. We don’t need a body, just a bone.”

Anecdotal evidence is not necessarily un-scientific evidence. Without anecdotal evidence, scientific or otherwise, few new species would be found. Anecdotal evidence is sometimes all you get and by acting on that evidence we often are led to increasingly larger pieces of the puzzle culminating with incontrovertible scientific proof. The likelihood of finding a carcass are almost ZERO, for several reasons. I would be surprised if verifiable DNA wasn’t also somehow discounted by pier reviewed scientist, let alone pelts and bone.

“It is my opinion that wandering out in the woods howling at the moon is plain stupid. Listening to story after story from people off the street is a waste of time. And to use a 4 man team to cover hundreds of miles of remote forrest is about as stupid a method as ever dreamed of. Yet, that’s what we see every week on Finding Bigfoot.” [sic]

I couldn’t agree more.

Putting a sniper in the woods would mean the Bigfoot would have to come to you Opalman, if you put 200 snipers in those same woods, you have a better chance…

No—the sniper acting on good intelligence is deployed in an area KNOWN to contain the subject party (always as far as I know). Any sort of large party would destroy any chance of success.

“…but, you have to know the animal is in those woods, before you deploy.”

As I said. (Are you, for whatever reason, deliberately contradicting yourself?)

Seems like you went the long way around to agree with everything I said.

Search and Rescue.
The Eric Rudolph /Lost Hiker comparison was to point out to you that ANY search requires as many searchers as can be put on the groud, from my original point that Matt Moneymaker will never find anything with a 4 man team.

Finding a trace of Bigfoot.
I would have you compare the search for Bigfoot to the search for Steve Fosset, one you may assisted with. Hundreds of searchers searched for a month and found NOTHING! Almost one year later a lone hiker found Fosset’s ID cards. Then a couple of months after that, they found bones later identified as Steve Fosset’s. When I say any trace, I mean trace evidence the animal exists and is in the area you are searching. You will never catch an animal unless you are looking for it in the right place.

Anecdotal evidence? We have had anecdotal evidence for 50 years, what we need now is “scientific evidence”. One bone, one pelt, one skin, will put Bigfoot in the zoological record. We don’t need a body, just a bone.

It is my opinion that wandering out in the woods howling at the moon is plain stupid. Listening to story after story from people off the street is a waste of time. And to use a 4 man team to cover hundreds of miles of remote forrest is about as stupid a method as ever dreamed of. Yet, that’s what we see every week on Finding Bigfoot

Putting a sniper in the woods would mean the Bigfoot would have to come to you Opalman, if you put 200 snipers in those same woods, you have a better chance…but, you have to know the animal is in those woods, before you deploy.

I think we are both pretty much on the same side here, just a friendy little discussion on the best way to find something science says has not been proven to exist.

1] if the sniper with a camera method was used, in your estimation, how much area could each ’sniper’ cover on his own without alarming the local wildlife. (as in how many man per miles/metres squared)

My analogy may be being misunderstood regarding the sniper. Snipers are used because they are able to observe and act without being detected (as apposed to an infantry unit with a FOB etc.) As to how many etc., intelligence is relied upon to dictate those specifics and even then the sniper has to rewrite the game plan on short notice or no notice. My point is that the success in our case will depend on presenting a very, very soft footprint with the knowledge or belief that our subject already knows our approximate location. But because of the very light footprint the subject is far less intimidated and even perhaps curious regarding the party members whereabouts and activities. We can assume with confidence that the subject will not (can not) observe the party members continually, 24/7— but because the party represents a minor threat, will only keep intermittent “tabs” on the party. Any large group entering the woods either in groups or together as one team will send the quarry hightailing it to the next drainage, at least, if not further. (representing impossible logistics for the searchers) On a happier note there is always the “luck factor” of having a forward team exactly in the right place at the right time, this happens of course and it is the only thing that can be said for the “storm the woods” method.

“I notice you compared Bigfoot to Lemurs on several occasions. I find this intriguing. Do you think that Bigfoot is a proto-simian as opposed to an ape? I know Lemurs and Indri only really thrive in Madagascar but a large, bulky proto-simian could fit the picture as well.”

I believe, (WITHOUT SOUND SCIENTIFIC PROOF), That the sasquatch is an example of the evolutionary extension of the hominid (hominan) line. Most probable a result parallel evolution with the gigantopithecus line thereafter convergent as represented by sasquatch due to environmental (adaptive) specifics. This is but a hunch I entertain, I have no training in paleoanthropology or even biology. This is also why we must find and learn what we can about the sasquatch. (non destructively)
Instances of nocturnal eyesight and its mechanisms would necessarily be universally similar throughout the species timeline and that adaptation would not necessarily represent evolutionary relatedness. I find it fascinating that the lemur line and the sasquatch share similar traits probably due to similar environmental specifics in their evolutionary development. Interestingly and anecdotally:

Lemurs and sasquatches both possess remarkable night vision.
Lemurs and sasquatches both possess divergent digits on their hands and feet, and most Lemurs have nails instead of claws.
Lemur adaptations are in response to Madagascar’s highly seasonal environment as are sasquatches, (probably) in the case of the NW area of North America and southern Alaska.
Lemurs are generally the most social of the strepsirrhine primates and communicate more with scents and vocalizations than with visual signals *. (vocalization of Lemurs sound remarkably like some of the recordings of supposed sasquatches…I’ve heard them in person (lemurs—not sasquatches)…hmmmm!)

* Wikipedia

“Reality is, with Bigfoot you are not only looking for the animal, but any trace of the animal. “

Not my intention at all—were I ever in a position to mount a real search! We already have skeins of anecdotal evidence and sign. Until someone gets serious about the mission and employs tried and true methodology all we will ever have is anecdotal evidence; which apparently is not enough. We need incontrovertible video backed by forensic “proof”. Short of killing a creature, which would be a major crime against nature and the universe as far as I am concerned, this is all we can probably get. The question of live capture is premature at this time. Suggest: my post on the other Frozen Bigfoot thread.

“Apex predators like Tigers fear nothing”.

This is not true. Natural selection has inbred the fight /flight response into all creatures, including Tigers. I will go so far as to acknowledge that tigers are relatively fearless; but so are 1200 lb brown bears which I have personally observed run like hell from an unexpected human confrontation.

“If you doubt my idea Opalman, just call the California Search and Rescue and ask them if the wanted to find lost hikers would they send in a 4 man team, or as many as they could with helicopters. “

I am a licensed pilot (no longer current as per revoked medical) and was certified as search and rescue pilot with the CAP. I’ve been on many SAR missions as has my son. I fail to understand the comparison though: with lost hikers the situation is that the rescuee is assisting his discovery in any way possible—Not trying to evade the searchers at all costs.

“That is for hikers that want to be found, but if you use the example of Eric Rudolph, hundreds were used to search the woods for him, and he did not want to be found.”

Thank you—my point exactly.

“You do not need to find the animal here Opalman, just “EVIDENCE” it was there. So far, all the current methods have brought back no evidence, so how can anyone defend that track record? “

I fail to understand that statement. Seems we have all the anecdotal evidence we need to warrant a proper and successful expedition. What we need now is PROOF of the sasquatches existence to once and forever end the controversy, that—we might move on to protecting the creature and its habitat.. Agreed; the proper protocols have not been employed in searching correctly. In opposition to this common sense goal I fear we have a situation where big money (timber industry) and science related dogma is indirectly conspiring to prevent that discovery. I would be interested in knowing how many dollars the various “bastions of higher learning” receive from timber and timber related industries.