georgerm

Has Bigfoot Science Stalled?

1,403 posts in this topic

 W

BTW has Meldrum seemed receptive to your work?     I say that because I tried to present my infrasound stuff to him and he basically said it was out of his area of expertise and did not even want to look at it.   One would think graphs etc would be interesting to a scientist no matter what your discipline if it supported your contention of a unknown primate existing in NA.   He even mentions infrasound in his book so I was pretty much taken aback when he basically blew me off and told me to show it to David Ellis.    I wonder if that is what is going on with Meldrum and your bone study?  That does sound rude depending on the amount of work and accuracy that you put into the study. Can we look at it?

 

  Ellis did not want to look at the data but wanted the raw recording.   Sorry to hear about the rebuffs. Call 'em up and go 'bigfoot on him'!

 

A super zoologist recently said we have plenty of proof. We need to focus on a specimen.  No one wants to take the time and pull what is there all together.   In some ways they don't seem to want to look at stuff outside their own specialties.  

 

What is needed is a panel of scientists and others that meet once a year and try to pull new things together.    They need to be able to park their egos and work together to solve this problem.   The problem is a specimen or HD video.  BF conferences are public events and not where problems can be solved with the public looking over your shoulder.        More science has been done arguing in university hallways and in private settings in accademia than in conference rooms after papers are presented.    .     

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW has Meldrum seemed receptive to your work?

In a word, no. But I think the reason being he is stuck on the main paper. I tried to get him to look at the original analysis which has more of the basic comparisons he's looking for but it seems the main paper has closed any doors of communication to him. I honestly don't know how to resolve the problem.

I have gotten a better reception from Dr Pyle, but I am still awaiting any further correspondence with him. I think we could really get somewhere if we could get a forensic anthropologist interested.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a 15 minute report of a bigfoot being captured in Kentucky in 1892. We've talked about getting a specimen and this one is for Norse. This capture took woods men skills, their animals, and a coordinated group of men.

 

If true, science has had BF and lost it. It will happen again hopefully in my life time. At 67 with health issues, I don't know how much longer the clock will tick.

 

During the commentary, for some reason they wander a swamp scanning the ground for prints.

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VQ-gUMRU9M#t=9.1205106

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Big Tree, where can we read about your BF work?

If you want to read about what I'm doing look at the What About the Bones thread here in the general discussion. There's more in the research area of the premium section. If you're asking about published material, we're still working on that. My background is in wildlife biology, so when I say if bigfoot is a F&B creature there will be evidence of it's passing through or living in an area. That is from a biologist point of view. Whether or not the evidence is acceptable to anyone has no bearing on the fact that it could be there to find. The term for the study of such traces is neoichnology. Until we get a body, there are other facets that can be researched. It will simply be a step up on the science of sasquatch. If the body comes in, what do we already know about them? They are upright bipedal, similar to us. They are illusive, yet curious. Usually in charge of the situation on their turf. They use forested areas. Although they don't seem too particular about the types of forests. They have rudimentary types of communication that are functional to them. They are not strictly nocturnal or diurnal. But they do get around well in the dark. So probably better night vision than we have. They are probably both predators and scavengers, as a lot of omnivores are. This is from a biological viewpoint.

I look at bones because it is hard, identifiable, repeatable physical evidence. Other types of evidence an omnivore may leave is harder to evaluate, i.e.: plants being feed on, roots dug up, or stumps ripped apart could be deer, bear or elk. We have to look at the things that can be reasonably evaluated.

Edited by BigTreeWalker
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here is a 15 minute report of a bigfoot being captured in Kentucky in 1892. We've talked about getting a specimen and this one is for Norse. This capture took woods men skills, their animals, and a coordinated group of men.

 

If true, science has had BF and lost it. It will happen again hopefully in my life time. At 67 with health issues, I don't know how much longer the clock will tick.

 

During the commentary, for some reason they wander a swamp scanning the ground for prints.

 

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VQ-gUMRU9M#t=9.1205106

I think lassoing Bigfoot from horse back is doable. Vaqueros in California used to do it with Brown bears in California. We just recently argued about this in some other thread. Some people thought that two horses and two riders would be jerked down by a Bigfoot. I think this is silly if you have ever seen a 800 lbs steer head and heeled.

And while I would not want to be the guy putting my rope on a Bear or a Bigfoot. I find the story plausible. Added kudos to the use of hounds.

Of course its just another story without physical evidence.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The lack of financing for credentialed bigfoot research is the real bottle neck. 

 

Even if public opinion remains skeptical, a significant influx of money ($5,000,000 of more) for bigfoot research offered to major university anthropology departments would spur active professional involvement.  No matter how much this class of researcher turns its nose up at bigfoot now, they still have to eat, and when it comes to grant applications, they are promiscuous. 

 

Once they go for the grant money they have to convince, first themselves, and then their peers, that the line of research is worthy.  And once main stream academia starts insisting that bigfoot research is worthy (because they took the grant money), the dominoes of public perception will begin to fall in the right direction, because they then have to publish, and if they seriously get out there and start looking, they will have something to publish.

 

It will take a private group of benefactors to get this going, though.  The government certainly won't sponsor it.

 

This statement is central to the bigfoot science question in my opinion. What say you?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the Yeti? Or for Bigfoot? And wasnt the funding from Tom Slick? And not a university?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

University grant for bigfoot.

Nothing, zero, ziltch.

Footers try to argue whether it was used effectively but it can't be argued that serious $$ were granted and spent.

Henri Franzoni became a para-squatcher due to the fact that they looked so hard and found nothing. He put heaps of faith in Indian lore.

Edited by Martin
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I read somewhere that the yeti expeditions were a front and Tom Slick was CIA.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Someone must have blown his cover and crashed his plane. ;)

Yes Peter Byrne was funded by Tom Slick originally, then later on by a consortium of business men.

If we are looking for grants, what are the suggestions for gaining the interest of grant organizations or universities? We have to have something to present that will pique their interest. It has to be different enough to show that you might have the ability to produce the goods so to speak. The most important tool in this endeavor is time. Being able to spend time in the field and still pay the bills (the mundane everyday things) is what is needed. If you are retired, can still get around well and pay the gasoline bills for transportation, you are a good candidate for this business. Or if you have an independent income that requires little of your time, you're another good candidate. If your desire is a body on the slab, then a good rifle would be worthwhile. If you are looking for biological evidence, the cost other than transportation is nil. (Unless you are working with DNA.) Recorders are useful for determining activity in a given area. All the flirs, trailcams, cameras, night vision, and whatnot have been questionable at best. They can be useful tools in assisting in whatever your other endeavors are to collect the evidence that is needed to get the interest of science.

What say you?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Byrne worked with Slick in the late 1950's.

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/bluff-creek1960.htm

The Bigfoot Research Project--a five-year endeavor funded by a consortium of businessmen. In the 1990's.

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/byrne.htm

The interesting thing is this is from the same site which mentions the grant. But that's the Internet for you. ;)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.