Guest DWA Posted May 30, 2017 Share Posted May 30, 2017 (edited) It's not the numbers. It's: how are they looking? Most of them: Some, on weekends, with their own funds, using one or two or three methods. Not cutting it. (Yet many of them report encounters, and no one seems to have come up with a good reason to doubt them.) A specimen - unless somebody gets real real lucky - is going to require a full-court press with a number of techniques, supplied to remain in the field for a long time. That's how scientists do it. Over and out. On 1/24/2017 at 4:27 PM, WesT said: I've never had a sighting either. But it didn't stop me from putting some of the pieces of the puzzle together. What I learned was was way more interesting than a sighting of the legend. One thing that keeps the field stagnant is the apparently widespread belief that, well, here's the most economical way to put it: you can't prove it 'til it's proven. Great. How do you prove it, so you can, you know, prove it? Most people appear very unaware that the evidence is of way more than sufficient depth and breadth to easily assemble the pieces and think: what is the likelihood that this comes from anything other than an animal fitting this description? (spoiler alert: pretty much zero; none of your species would bet it) Edited May 30, 2017 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted May 30, 2017 Share Posted May 30, 2017 (edited) Science isn't about what you know. It's instead based on the concept of what you can prove. Especially in biology, quantum physics uses other in direct methods. But still has been proven correct with X-ray machines, micro wave ovens and lasers...... Edited May 30, 2017 by norseman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted May 30, 2017 Share Posted May 30, 2017 That would be like trying to predict how many bikers are riding motorcycles on a given day based on how many bike clubs there are. The only question that matters is how many hours are all those people "searching" for BF spending in actual BF habitat, doing that. "Not a whole lot", I expect will be the answer. If all it took was a keyboard, we'd have had confirmation decades ago. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted May 30, 2017 Share Posted May 30, 2017 Bigfoot habitat? Based on reports, that is pretty much any place with trees. Are these groups not in wooded areas? What makes you assume such a thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted May 30, 2017 SSR Team Share Posted May 30, 2017 28 minutes ago, dmaker said: Bigfoot habitat? Based on reports, that is pretty much any place with trees. No it's not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 (edited) 22 hours ago, BobbyO said: No it's not. Really. But we know he's not really paying attention. He says he reads them. The "think about them" part appears missing. As John Green put it, people's imaginations appear to dry up in areas with less than 17" annual rainfall. Edited May 31, 2017 by DWA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted May 31, 2017 Share Posted May 31, 2017 I agree that it doesn't matter how many are in the field right now. Only a large sustained contingent in a program set up specifically for this will do. What is apparent is that the methodology being used in the field isn't set up for 'proof'. It's set up for evidence. Evidence that we already have in spades. It's time to move past the evidence stage. That's what a scientist does. I don't say this to open up another round of "science isn't doing their job". All I'm saying is that for us- including those in the field- it's time to move past the gathering of evidence and see what needs to be done to set up for the 'proof' phase of the operation. And that includes pushing out on every front where this subject is concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WesT Posted June 12, 2017 Share Posted June 12, 2017 On 5/30/2017 at 2:10 PM, DWA said: One thing that keeps the field stagnant is the apparently widespread belief that, well, here's the most economical way to put it: you can't prove it 'til it's proven. Great. How do you prove it, so you can, you know, prove it? It's gonna take a body to prove it exists yes. My point is, even the average person, like myself, can go have a look for themselves and learn something new, without having to prove said creature. On 5/30/2017 at 2:10 PM, DWA said: Most people appear very unaware that the evidence is of way more than sufficient depth and breadth to easily assemble the pieces and think: what is the likelihood that this comes from anything other than an animal fitting this description? (spoiler alert: pretty much zero; none of your species would bet it) Yeah, the shoe fits but I can't say for sure...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted June 12, 2017 Share Posted June 12, 2017 On 2017-01-23 at 9:35 PM, Trogluddite said: Bulls-eye and recc'd. I'm fairly unlikely to have an encounter and am still skeptically hopeful, but the putting together of the puzzle is a challenge worth doing for those who have not had an encounter of their own. It's like you have a giant circular puzzle and all the pieces are squares... Having a close encounter with one wouldn't necessarily make things more clear. In fact, most eyewitnesses are left with nearly all the same questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottv Posted June 12, 2017 Share Posted June 12, 2017 Of the few academic "scientists" who have taken an interest in bigfoot, how many have done field studies? Like Jeff Meldrum, has he done anything in the field? Over the years, some of these people have been able to access funding for bigfoot research, correct? how much of that has been spent on field work? By which I mean specific work with the goal to prove the existence of bigfoot? Just wondering. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted June 12, 2017 Share Posted June 12, 2017 (edited) 42 minutes ago, OntarioSquatch said: most eyewitnesses are left with nearly all the same questions. (my bold) Yes, NEARLY all the same questions. But the biggest question got answered. YA THINK? 17 minutes ago, scottv said: Like Jeff Meldrum, has he done anything in the field? Yes, he has but there are areas and times upon which I wish he would focus more. Like searching the areas after the large wildfires in Washington state. Now there are those here that will say, "hiflier, you want that done then go do it yourself and if you don't it's because you are lazy and cheap". So thinks, and says, some here on this very Forum. Well, the wildfires were 3,000 mile away from Maine. It probably would have cost about a dollar a mile to fly there, rent a vehicle, outfit myself. find a place to stay or set myself up with camping equipment, an out of state permit for a firearm, BUY the firearm..........but hey, I'm lazy and cheap and because of being lazy I'm not able to think things through on a more practical level when it comes to doing my own follow ups on my own ideas. Nor am I able to consider that the cost would be better spent in my own back yard. Nope. Lazy and cheap. That's me. Love it. Oh yes, I almost forgot. I'm now being called a plagiarist. How nice. Edited June 12, 2017 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trogluddite Posted June 13, 2017 Share Posted June 13, 2017 2 hours ago, OntarioSquatch said: Having a close encounter with one wouldn't necessarily make things more clear. In fact, most eyewitnesses are left with nearly all the same questions. Assuming an encounter that I'm reasonably confident in what I unequivocally saw, that would be just an immense check mark on the list of things to no longer wonder about. Of course, having read countless reports, I realize that there are hundreds of possibilities where there's an encounter that's more aggravating than enlightening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Branco Posted June 13, 2017 Share Posted June 13, 2017 Spoiler In the flat land of the South/Southeast their "migration" simply consist of moving to areas with good cover - pine and/or cedar thickets - or deep rocky ravines/hollows on the south sides of mountains during the winter as the leaves fall. Their foraging patterns change when they move; typically they forage closer to human's residences during the winter, and often prey on livestock and poultry. (That's when the garbage cans on the fringes of new housing developments come up missing more often.) Side note: Noticeable stick structures will show up more in really hot, dry weather around small, remote fresh water springs, both in the mountains and the flat lands. Very few prey animals will drink at springs frequented by Boogers. **Could someone explain to an old phart what that "Spoiler" icon that I just accidentally hit does???? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted June 13, 2017 Share Posted June 13, 2017 8 minutes ago, Branco said: **Could someone explain to an old phart what that "Spoiler" icon that I just accidentally hit does???? Sorry, bud, can't help ya there. But doing a bit of extra work to read what you write is always worth it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Branco Posted June 13, 2017 Share Posted June 13, 2017 1 hour ago, hiflier said: Sorry, bud, can't help ya there. But doing a bit of extra work to read what you write is always worth it. Thanks, think I see what it does; just can't figure out why? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts