georgerm

Has Bigfoot Science Stalled?

1,402 posts in this topic

Look what we do to Humans and then tell me Sasquatch isn't in grave danger:

I don't understand how you can say that yet promote official discovery. They are people, whether human or not, or we'd have found them already. Considering our track record with the cultures of Native American cultures here and other indigenous peoples elsewhere in the world, how can you possibly rationalize promoting discovery? That's like putting a pedophile in charge of the day care center. I'm completely aghast at the level of obliviousness and denial necessary in that position.

MIB

Oh really? How has the reintroduction of the timber wolf gone in the west?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Look what we do to Humans and then tell me Sasquatch isn't in grave danger:

I don't understand how you can say that yet promote official discovery. They are people, whether human or not, or we'd have found them already. Considering our track record with the cultures of Native American cultures here and other indigenous peoples elsewhere in the world, how can you possibly rationalize promoting discovery? That's like putting a pedophile in charge of the day care center. I'm completely aghast at the level of obliviousness and denial necessary in that position.

MIB

Oh really? How has the reintroduction of the timber wolf gone in the west?

 

Or the wild turkey in a number of states.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you want a project that fits the bill. 

mini Zeppelin (most efficient design) with a FLIR, zoom. You need a 10 mile telecommunication link telecommunications and audio visual. There are other designs as well and I could tell you of the relative merits.

The other cheaper option is a passive hydrogen balloon.

The problem here with lighter than aircraft is flight restrictions would prevent you from flying on the USA. (unless again)>> You are a test vehicle, most likely a military one for research and development of surveillance in lighter than air craft.

The problem are money so (unless again) as a military project you get money and design assistance if approved: The problem here: as a military project, your inventions may be used to kill and you may not be able to use your intellectual property in civilian space and recon of BF areas might be outside of the testing parameter, so on the sly, so to speak.

     What doe this have to do with this thread?

You can have a great platform for remote observation of BF behavior and population dynamics and get visual, audio, and understand long term behaviors, habitats, reproduction, social organization, other. You can record the data but no need to reveal study area or means of obtaining it.

My guess is that reaper drones are operated over Cali and may already have good footage but the military would have no interest in releasing the information for several reasons, one of which is is is not the mission of the military and would create controversy with the public and other organizations and departments of the Government such as USGS, USDA, USFS. 

So this is a passive though proactive no kill approach for pure research.

You could organize right here on the BFF.

You need some aerospace engineering design talent, communications design, project design and organization, funding, organization.

Perhaps you are the right audience? I could probably help design the project goals.

Anyhoo, I'm out.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why is it that a thread like these come up and the word protection has to come up with in it. They do not need our protection nor will they ever need our protection. It seems ridiculous to even mention this , when we can not even prove their own existence. You have a thread that is about why " bigfoot science has stalled ?" yet here you have people talking about protecting a creature that does not need our protection.

 

You have a few threads here advocating this on how we did this or we did this to them and to our Native American Indians. Even how the corporate world wants to rule and control and how they use their power to do so. Let me just say that these creatures do not abide by any rules and they do not have too. They abide by their own rules and it seems to work very well for them. 

 

Bigfoot science has stalled for it's refusal to open it doors to new ways of thinking. It has closed their doors to explore what needs to be explored but flat out refuses to. Maybe science is scared to what it might find? Maybe science does not want to find that truth that hides behind that door? Maybe science is scared that if it opens that door it might not be able to shut it down?

 

Science can lead you in many directions and it all depends what direction science is willing to go. With these creatures there are no road maps and it really is exploration at a level that takes time. Does science have the patients to wait for discovery? or will it do what it is doing now and questioning if it is worth the effort?.  The effort to pursue this and know that there will never be a clear answer to what everyone is asking. 

 

I have said this before on BFF 1.0,2.0.3.0 and where are we now at what BFF 4.0 or 5.0 to find out that you have to go out and discover this out for your selves. Other wise you are going to be at a lost like most are here on this forum. Once science is willing to open their door to other possibilities then progression in this field will progress and a more understand will be had by all. JIMO :)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

Look what we do to Humans and then tell me Sasquatch isn't in grave danger:

I don't understand how you can say that yet promote official discovery. They are people, whether human or not, or we'd have found them already. Considering our track record with the cultures of Native American cultures here and other indigenous peoples elsewhere in the world, how can you possibly rationalize promoting discovery? That's like putting a pedophile in charge of the day care center. I'm completely aghast at the level of obliviousness and denial necessary in that position.

MIB

Oh really? How has the reintroduction of the timber wolf gone in the west?

 

 

That is entirely irrelevant to management of an indigenous people.    Bigfoot are not wildlife, they are people whether Homo sapiens or not.  Management will certainly not fall under USF&WS, it will most likely fall under the Bureau of Indian Affairs who have overseen the destruction of every native culture they've been in charge of managing so far.    

 

MIB

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See ! but this does not explain why" Bigfoot science has stalled ?" at all. This only explains why placing a zeppelin will not work in the air and how the forest will interfere with the flir. Now I do not own a flir and If I did it would be my greatest tool in the field. But from what I learned when we used one up in the northern part of Michigan, it does not take much for them to hide from them. Another problem that would need to be solved or addressed to how they know they are being watched. Same goes with those darn game trackers , every so often one does get caught . But that is on a very off chance that it happens, since they know when they are up.

 

What I am saying is that Bigfoot science has stalled cause there is no further evidence to be had. Science is not about to open a door that has no idea of what it could be getting into. If you people want to call these a people well it does not matter. But I am calling them what they are an entity that deserves to be studied. It might go against some people views on what they believe and it did mine. But sooner or later we all have to accept what cannot be accepted. Maybe science is scared of this ?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ShadowBorn, I agree with you that science may be afraid of BF. It goes against most anthropologists world view. However, I don't agree that there is no more evidence to be had. That is not a good mindset to fall into. It would result in missing what's around us.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anthropologists probably operate with the biggest bag of scientific dogma of any field. Their entire human history theory revolves around one continent (Africa) that has been relatively stable geologically for a very long time and not only that but centered in a fairly small area where most of the early finds have been discovered. Has discovery written the history of mankind or has the history been a creation to explain what little we know so far? The Pacific Ring of fire, mountain building and erosion, frequent ice ages and inter-ice age inland seas have frequently inundated vast portions of the North American continent. That and a extinction level event meteor strike in Mexico that pretty much wiped the slate clean 65 million years ago in much of North America. I quite frankly would not be at all surprised if the origins of mankinds ancestors was someplace other than Africa. Camels may not have been the only animal that migrated West into Eurasia.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Balderdash. There has been discovered a long fossil record of an enormous amount of North and South American flora and fauna, from prior to and ever since the Cretaceous-Paleogene extinction event.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I posed about 20 newspaper documents dating to the early 1800s where a bigfoot body was brought into a small community on a wagon, horse, or some other way. It didn't last too long with no refrigeration, and they buried the stinky corpse somewhere.  

 

I've seen the old articles on giant burial mounds, but not on bigfoot bodies. Can anyone point me toward a couple of these. Are there any scanned online?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ShadowBorn, I agree with you that science may be afraid of BF. It goes against most anthropologists world view. However, I don't agree that there is no more evidence to be had. That is not a good mindset to fall into. It would result in missing what's around us.

BigTreeWalker

What I meant about the evidence to had remark was this :

1:We have already collected tracks or footprints

2: Hairt samples and all except for a body has been collected with no results.

3: Tree formations and rock piles made by some thing wanting us to find them.

This is what i meant about that remark that they have the evidence , enough of it where they do not need to go futher. With the evidence that has been presented over the years should be enough.

 

Maybe bigfoot science should be looked at like a test pilot or test flight. Every flight you go up the farther the envelope you reach. The further you push that flight the farther over you are on the envelope. You keep pushing and pushing until you have reached it outer limits, thats when you bring it back. Bigfoot science should be the same way.

 

BTW

That was a good find since no one would never bother looking at bones that are on the ground and notice differences in teethe marks. But now I know what to look for. See science stalled because it kept recieving the same evidence and nothing new. Until this find but now the teethe have to match the subject.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bigfoot "science" has stalled in the sense that it's hard to do much more without, well, data.

 

I am impressed with the NAWAC group's monograph and Brian Browns 2013 presentation because at least here is an attempt to behave scientifically. Short of a body, some of their work has a "false positive" or Type 1 error feel in my opinion. This could be avoided (or tested) by sending teams into Sasquatch free "null" areas and see how many times many of the vocalizations, stone throws, etc. happen. Obviously this would be difficult to do and require some kind of deception (as in a placebo controlled trial), but it would be very VERY useful to establishing the statistical reliability of non-biological data and understanding the degree to which observer bias plays into their reports.

 

Then the data they collect could be effectively tested against something. And by testing I mean actual statistical analysis with a p-value.

 

I hope this isn't stepping on too many toes.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

ShadowBorn, I agree with you that science may be afraid of BF. It goes against most anthropologists world view. However, I don't agree that there is no more evidence to be had. That is not a good mindset to fall into. It would result in missing what's around us.

BigTreeWalker

What I meant about the evidence to had remark was this :

1:We have already collected tracks or footprints

2: Hairt samples and all except for a body has been collected with no results.

3: Tree formations and rock piles made by some thing wanting us to find them.

This is what i meant about that remark that they have the evidence , enough of it where they do not need to go futher. With the evidence that has been presented over the years should be enough.

 

 

 

Sadly the optimism required to pin bigfoot reality based on the evidence at hand does not exist in the mainstream scientific community.

Edited by Crowlogic
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The main factors that have always limited scientific advance where bigfoot is concerned are interest/belief among academic/professional scientists, and funding. I suspect that there are scientists out there who truly would take a shot at discovering bigfoot by doing real field work, but only if they were given the funding. And I do not mean just once. Scientific advancements have been made when there is only a single small team working on a problem, but more often than not the research and field work is being done by more than one group, and this is even more important where sasquatch research is concerned, since the odds are increased.

 

Take for example the Sykes DNA project. Some people would tout that as science giving bigfoot a chance, but they are not taking into account what I said above. Science does not work when a single search for something is made, and not being found, giving up on the idea altogether. Someone call CERN and tell them the elusive particle they're searching for does not exist, because they've already failed to find it. Not the best example I suppose, but you get my point, and I can't think of anything better at the moment.

 

Anyway, those multiple research groups will never happen without funding, plain and simple. But to get the funding in the first place you will need real scientists with the interest, and willingless to pursue, the topic of the existence of sasquatch. To answer the question as to why there seems to be a stall, I have to say that I do not believe there was ever a "start," thus there is not really a stall, but instead just more of the same. For me to accept that there has been a beginning to the actual scientific pursuit of sasquatch I would need to see mainstream funding and a mainstream effort, again not just on a single occasion, but on many occasions, because that is what it will take to prove the species. At least when viewing things logically from a probabilistic point of view. Sure, someone could get lucky and eliminate the need for a scientific search, but we cannot count on this in the immediate future. It will undoubtedly occur at some point, but it could be many decades from now. I think that we have just recently entered the technological age, where more people have access to technology that can aid in the search for sasquatch, so the odds of capturing better evidence will continue to improve in that regard.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites