Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
Old Dog

How widely do you share findings?

33 posts in this topic

On 2/7/2017 at 3:09 PM, Old Dog said:

I have been wondering how widely folks here share their findings with others.  Do you share universally? Within a formal research group?  Perhaps with only a select few?  Or possibly not at all.

 

I share but I'm careful about disclosing everything I've experienced and learned universally. I did tell the leader of the research group i recently joined everything and not surprisingly he already knew a lot of it through his own research and getting out in the field.  But to answer your question, I have to to trust you first before I sing like a canary and tell all. I'll share the basics universally but not the specifics.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Old Dog wrote:

I have been wondering how widely folks here share their findings with others.  Do you share universally? Within a formal research group?  Perhaps with only a select few?  Or possibly not at all.

 

 

I'm part of a small, very, very close knit group doing research on Sasquatch, among other things, and we have kept all of our findings within that group.  We start back up on the Sasquatch front this May, and are debating if we should share our findings more widely.  We have shown some things to Meldrum, but not publicly.   I'm wondering if anyone has shared their findings, how widely and with what results.  I have resisted releasing findings on forums because it always seems to devolve into chaos over theories and personalities.  Anything anyone would like to share about their experiences would be greatly appreciated.

==================================================================================

 

This is how I see it, take it for what you will.

 

I think there are hundreds of groups like yours across the USA. And they do not really communicate much. So in essence they are all insular groups all trying to reinvent the wheel. They are more like competing expeditions to be the first to reach the moon. Versus scientists working closely together to come up with a cure for cancer.

 

Boiled down to brass tacks, we could have some groups that could be in very good areas that simple do not have the man power or resources to capitalize on the DNA opportunities presented. And over here we could have a well funded group that's in a bad area beating a dead horse.

 

On top of all this almost all of these groups are not committed to taking a type specimen if the opportunity presents itself. Look at any group and count the number of witnesses who have had a sighting. Now chalk up each sighting as a missed opportunity no different than stepping over a hair, stool or blood sample.....

 

I think it's imperative that groups work together if we are ever going to solve this mystery. And I also think we need fresh eyes from different fields involved that might come up with different solutions to our problem. Todd Disotell comes to mind with his mosquito traps. Let's face it, if we are looking for answers? Whoops and wood  knocks at 2 am are not cutting it.

 

I try to share what I find, but unfortunately I haven't found super interesting stuff. But the femur I found went to big tree Walker for his bone study. If I had not been apart of this forum and shared my find? I would know nothing of BTW's bone study. We need to get the right stuff to the right people. 

 

The BFF research area is great because you are the moderator of your own sub forum. You control the content and the discussion of what is shared. No need to worry about non applicable theories or personalities taking over. It also gets your groups name out there which may present new opportunities for you from other research groups.

 

Its a great tool!

 

 

 

 

3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks to all for the input.  We don't share specifics of where the research is being done or who owns the land.  Some of it is federal land, so that's irrelevant really.  We do work with other groups, and some info is shared with them on a limited basis.  We aren't trying to be the first kids on the block to find this creature.  We recently did a trip to the MT. Adams area up here in Washington with some of our affiliated folks from Southern California.  When we did that trip, we had a film crew along doing a pilot for a possible Discovery Channel show.  After that "experience" we are up in the air as to if we want to participate in something like that.  It was a total PITA.  Besides, who knows if it will even see the light of day.  One reason is, we don't do re-enactments of things that happen, that is just fake presentation.  If you can't hear or see something the first time it's on tape or video, it's useless and dishonest to replicate it for a show.  That's just how we feel about it.  That is also where the reality hit us as to what you see on the screen is not always what actually happened.  Plus the fact that not everything you hear is a Squatch, not every pile of branches is a nest, and not every depression is a footprint, no matter how much you want us to say it may be.  Our field of interest varies, so we do go on radio shows from time to time, but hardly ever share BF info because it is so hard to relate the experiences over a blind medium where video and photos are actually needed.  

 

It looks like I may have to rejoin the Premium area again.  I discontinued premium membership a while back as I didn't come here too often, and my great dislike of the Tar Pit.   I have been a member here since the days of BFF 1.0, and still have barely over 400 posts, so not a prolific posting machine.  

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

On the subject of the tech guys on the forum, I appreciate the new staff POC block in the header.  Now that it's there, I'll probably need it, but what the heck, it's a good improvement.

 

Anything I cipher out with my spreadsheets and slide rules and stubby pencils, I post somewhere here.  Someday I'll make an e-book of it all and charge a modest fee, but most of it will show up here first.

 

Should I ever find clear and compelling evidence, or even "maybe-this-is-something" evidence, I'd likely share it here first before sending it in to someone with a tv show.  This is a good group that will vet everything without having a pre-ordained conclusion. 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Old Dog said:

Thanks to all for the input.  We don't share specifics of where the research is being done or who owns the land.  Some of it is federal land, so that's irrelevant really.  We do work with other groups, and some info is shared with them on a limited basis.  We aren't trying to be the first kids on the block to find this creature.  We recently did a trip to the MT. Adams area up here in Washington with some of our affiliated folks from Southern California.  When we did that trip, we had a film crew along doing a pilot for a possible Discovery Channel show.  After that "experience" we are up in the air as to if we want to participate in something like that.  It was a total PITA.  Besides, who knows if it will even see the light of day.  One reason is, we don't do re-enactments of things that happen, that is just fake presentation.  If you can't hear or see something the first time it's on tape or video, it's useless and dishonest to replicate it for a show.  That's just how we feel about it.  That is also where the reality hit us as to what you see on the screen is not always what actually happened.  Plus the fact that not everything you hear is a Squatch, not every pile of branches is a nest, and not every depression is a footprint, no matter how much you want us to say it may be.  Our field of interest varies, so we do go on radio shows from time to time, but hardly ever share BF info because it is so hard to relate the experiences over a blind medium where video and photos are actually needed.  

 

It looks like I may have to rejoin the Premium area again.  I discontinued premium membership a while back as I didn't come here too often, and my great dislike of the Tar Pit.   I have been a member here since the days of BFF 1.0, and still have barely over 400 posts, so not a prolific posting machine.  

 

I know exactly what you experienced.  Just not in the BF field.

 

The property owner we were working for wanted a TV show, and we were compelled to tolerate this film crew to shoot a sizzle reel, and none of the crew were very happy about it.  More overly emotional, pretentious, high-strung, demanding, and intrusive folks - I can't imagine.  Camera men, sound men, a producer, director, and all these assistants whose presence and purpose is solely to give the techs someone to yell at.

 

You're going about your business and "Stop!  Do that again!"  You're irritated and reply, "Do what?"  They'd come back with, "That thing you just did.  Do it again."  After a while, you'd play dumb, "What thing?  Whatever I did, I done - done it, and I've got work to do."  Dude made us sign with a talent agent - what a putz.

 

They showed us the sizzle reel, and every single one of us refused to shoot the program - and the replacement they came up with lasted three seasons, bur was so fake and cheesy - it was embarrassing to watch - even once.

 

Yeah.  There's nothing real about reality TV.  Nothing.  All contrived.

Edited by FarArcher
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that sharing experiences, techniques and results without sharing locations could be productive. The concern for some people, myself included, is that if a location(s) does get somehow get out into the public's domain, you run the risk of people overusing the area. That might serve to cause a sasquatch to move away from the area and then become counterproductive. 

 

I tend to go to certain areas frequently and have "put in the hours" just like many others here. Admittedly, there is a small, but nagging, worry that I did the heavy lifting so that someone else could waltz in and get all the glory.

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, wiiawiwb said:

I agree that sharing experiences, techniques and results without sharing locations could be productive. The concern for some people, myself included, is that if a location(s) does get somehow get out into the public's domain, you run the risk of people overusing the area. That might serve to cause a sasquatch to move away from the area and then become counterproductive. 

 

I tend to go to certain areas frequently and have "put in the hours" just like many others here. Admittedly, there is a small, but nagging, worry that I did the heavy lifting so that someone else could waltz in and get all the glory.

 

 

 

 

We keep the locations undisclosed for the privacy of the property owners.  We could care less if anyone wants to go where we go.  If they think they can find something in that area, go ahead.  We aren't in competition with anyone in this search, so we don't suppose ownership of any research area.  When we go into open lands such as National and State forests, one would have to be willing to hike at least 10 miles or so to get to the area, so we have little worry of it being over run.   Now I'm not saying that there haven't been sightings in campground areas, but we like to do topo surveys taking into consideration of what would be natural sources of food, water and shelter away from human habitation.  We are just guessing with this approach, but it has been much more productive than what we call "Campground Research".  

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I support open science, so I intend to share all of my work with no access limitations.  This forum seems to be ideal for that.

 

I tend to find peer review to be unnecessarily limiting, but at the same time I don't want to be guilty of what's been called "science by press release," where findings are presented in the most attention-seeking forum possible, with any rebuttals being dissociated from the original claim and generally getting far less attention (the attention given to rebuttal often being inversely proportional to the sensationalism surrounding the original claim).

 

I think of what I'm currently doing as "public review," in that my research is immediately made available for public consumption, but targeted at those members of the general public who are most capable of informed critique.  If enough significant flaws are found in the research, there should be a consensus that it belongs on the rubbish pile.

 

However, I do like to restrict what I release to only work that's fully "done.". I don't like posting "works in progress."

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/12/2017 at 8:59 PM, FarArcher said:

 

I know exactly what you experienced.  Just not in the BF field.

 

The property owner we were working for wanted a TV show, and we were compelled to tolerate this film crew to shoot a sizzle reel, and none of the crew were very happy about it.  More overly emotional, pretentious, high-strung, demanding, and intrusive folks - I can't imagine.  Camera men, sound men, a producer, director, and all these assistants whose presence and purpose is solely to give the techs someone to yell at.

 

You're going about your business and "Stop!  Do that again!"  You're irritated and reply, "Do what?"  They'd come back with, "That thing you just did.  Do it again."  After a while, you'd play dumb, "What thing?  Whatever I did, I done - done it, and I've got work to do."  Dude made us sign with a talent agent - what a putz.

 

They showed us the sizzle reel, and every single one of us refused to shoot the program - and the replacement they came up with lasted three seasons, bur was so fake and cheesy - it was embarrassing to watch - even once.

 

Yeah.  There's nothing real about reality TV.  Nothing.  All contrived.

 

I have no idea how you could effectively search for Bigfoot with all of that going on!

 

what a boat anchor....

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, norseman said:

 

I have no idea how you could effectively search for Bigfoot with all of that going on!

 

what a boat anchor....

 

 

I'm sorry, I didn't make that clear.  That had nothing to do with Bigfoot - nothing.  We were on another task, and the guy we were working for sprung this on us unannounced.  He and I almost came to blows over it - this was something we didn't sign up for.

 

I can't even imagine the crap these supposed Bigfoot TV shows have to put up with - but everything these film crews do - their very presence - is to run off every animal within a few hundred meters in another direction.  Guaranteed.  It's all formula - and they set up contrived "conflicts" at times to create tension.  Or injuries.  It's ridiculous.

 

To give an example - there's a group in Alaska.  Keep in mind - at least when I was there - during the Summer months (when most of the filming takes place), there's only a few hours of darkness.  But these guys have to wait for dark - to make it more "spooky," and difficult.  There are huge areas without any tree cover - and a serious crew could operate 18 hours a day - and cover scores of square miles a day - and not miss a thing.

 

Oh.  And those film crews are pampered.  They waste more money than the law allows - but those are the perks of being in that business.  I had to listen to a sound guy chew the butt of one of his two assistants for about two hours.  He wouldn't - couldn't - let it go that the assistant lost his batteries.  I was ready to take a shovel up side his head just to shut him up.

 

Two hours later, he found the missing batteries in his own cargo pants - he had them the whole time.

 

And they wanted us to work with these guys for an entire season? 

 

Not in this lifetime.

Edited by FarArcher
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To that ... film crews ... as I understand it, at least on some of the FB episodes' night investigation, it's just one of the 4 peeps in the woods with Tyler Bounds running camera.   Tyler is a BFRO bigfooter.   So .. things might not be so bad as they are with a full production crew.    That would be a good question for Cliff.  :) 

 

MIB

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, FarArcher said:

 

 

I'm sorry, I didn't make that clear.  That had nothing to do with Bigfoot - nothing.  We were on another task, and the guy we were working for sprung this on us unannounced.  He and I almost came to blows over it - this was something we didn't sign up for.

 

I can't even imagine the crap these supposed Bigfoot TV shows have to put up with - but everything these film crews do - their very presence - is to run off every animal within a few hundred meters in another direction.  Guaranteed.  It's all formula - and they set up contrived "conflicts" at times to create tension.  Or injuries.  It's ridiculous.

 

To give an example - there's a group in Alaska.  Keep in mind - at least when I was there - during the Summer months (when most of the filming takes place), there's only a few hours of darkness.  But these guys have to wait for dark - to make it more "spooky," and difficult.  There are huge areas without any tree cover - and a serious crew could operate 18 hours a day - and cover scores of square miles a day - and not miss a thing.

 

Oh.  And those film crews are pampered.  They waste more money than the law allows - but those are the perks of being in that business.  I had to listen to a sound guy chew the butt of one of his two assistants for about two hours.  He wouldn't - couldn't - let it go that the assistant lost his batteries.  I was ready to take a shovel up side his head just to shut him up.

 

Two hours later, he found the missing batteries in his own cargo pants - he had them the whole time.

 

And they wanted us to work with these guys for an entire season? 

 

Not in this lifetime.

No, I understood your experience had nothing to do with Bigfoot.

 

I'm just agreeing with you that IF you were going to include a camera crew to your BF research expedition...you would be better off pouring kerosene down yer britches, giving it a light and running around the woods screaming your bloody head off.....I think.

 

;)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, norseman said:

No, I understood your experience had nothing to do with Bigfoot.

 

I'm just agreeing with you that IF you were going to include a camera crew to your BF research expedition...you would be better off pouring kerosene down yer britches, giving it a light and running around the woods screaming your bloody head off.....I think.

 

;)

 

 

That approach would work much more effectively than having a film crew present.

 

At least while you're running around with your drawers on fire - nearby BF may have enough empathy or curiosity to come into the open to watch the entertainment.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bigfoot?! Heck with Bigfoot. I would pay good money myself to see that ;)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0