hiflier

SRN- The Sasquatch Research Network

211 posts in this topic

One researcher per square mile cannot begin to cover the ground.   For one thing I suspect they can move twice as fast as us walking.and even faster relative to us in heavy woods.     I have tried to get one to break cover and they move away faster than I could move towards them. I heard it moving away but never so much as got a glimpse of it.  That tells me any visual sighting is pure chance with a BF caught unaware you are there.  That seems to be reinforced by most witness accounts. 

 

 

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, hiflier said:

 

But is the BFRO itself expedient? In all of its 20 plus years of existence what has it accomplished? Anyone (or two, or three) could go out after the fact, interview a witness, look around for evidence, take a few photos, and write that they think the witness sounded credible. I honestly do not think that any one is going to step in and change anything in that organization.

 

 

I doubt anything will be accomplished as long as people think it is just me trying to accomplish it. Only a consensus could begin a program like this. Even just starting off in one small area known to be active- even if just seasonally- would be a positive step in the right direction.

 

 

But he is local and you know him. Maybe he knows someone a little further away who is a researcher. And then that researcher knows someone further still. That is how it would start. it might not take all that long to have four researchers that will eventually know who each other is. You may know only one researcher, and maybe at some point you will meet the person he knows. One doesn't have to be pro-kill to be in this unless one wants to be but four researchers could cover a 50 mile square area.

 

This is all about information, how fast one gets it and how fast one can respond to it. I look at it this way, if an encounter occurs information is taken in, mainly to see which direction the creature was spotted going in. If it was 50 miles away from me a researcher closest to the encounter would handle the interview. If the creature was seen going East and I was East of it I would be involved. If the creature was going West and I was East I might no be involved but the researchers to the West would be. The whole point is having a plan to hopefully intercept the creature and be at least camera ready should one be seen crossing a road West of the point of initial encounter.

 

The BFRO doesn't do this sort of thing. It never will do this sort of thing. For if it had then what we would know and have today might be be quite different.      

 

I’m suffering from vertigo right now. I dont drive. I have a appointment with the neurologist on the 19th. I think I have stenosis in my neck from my football career. My arms are numb as well. So for the foreseeable future Im out.....maybe forever, I just dont know.

 

But from the outside looking in? The BFRO is expedient and in 20 years it has accomplished one major goal that you have. A large network of researchers across north America. And these local chapters are fed intel from the parent organization, to act on. The BFRO website is on the first page if you google “Bigfoot”. The reason I think they are unsuccessful in 20 years has nothing to do with how big and organized they are. It has to do with their philosophy and approach on the ground.

 

Im no fan as you know, but I think if your serious about this, there are some nuggets for you to look at.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

10 minutes ago, norseman said:

The reason I think they are unsuccessful in 20 years has nothing to do with how big and organized they are. It has to do with their philosophy and approach on the ground.

 

BINGO! The BFRO has the wrong approach on the ground. And what is more, they don't care that they do. But then EVERY publicly well know research with a website has the same approach. Contact the website if one has a sighting. Then maybe they set up an interview and then go to the sighting location and investigate the area. The pattern is universal.

 

So what is the difference between business as usual and the SRN? The SRN would have vehicles going out to get ahead of the possible direction a Sasquatch might be heading from an encounter. Those vehicles are not to put people into the woods. They are just for driving the roads as quickly after a report is submitted as possible.

 

But no one thinks this could ever work and no input anywhere has ever suggested ways that might help it to work. Five pages of me thinking positive and five pages of everyone else thinking otherwise. I get it- and it makes me sorry I ever brought the idea up. I still think the concept has merit but since the high success rate of clear photos and videos in the last 50 years is working so well for everyone then why change anything. You all do remember that this approach isn't about running around the woods on foot don't you? 

 

However, I am weary of the constant beating down of the idea so I have to walk away. Good luck to everyone in the field.

            

0

Share this post


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

 

 

BINGO! The BFRO has the wrong approach on the ground. And what is more, they don't care that they do. But then EVERY publicly well know research with a website has the same approach. Contact the website if one has a sighting. Then maybe they set up an interview and then go to the sighting location and investigate the area. The pattern is universal.

 

So what is the difference between business as usual and the SRN? The SRN would have vehicles going out to get ahead of the possible direction a Sasquatch might be heading from an encounter. Those vehicles are not to put people into the woods. They are just for driving the roads as quickly after a report is submitted as possible.

 

But no one thinks this could ever work and no input anywhere has ever suggested ways that might help it to work. Five pages of me thinking positive and five pages of everyone else thinking otherwise. I get it- and it makes me sorry I ever brought the idea up. I still think the concept has merit but since the high success rate of clear photos and videos in the last 50 years is working so well for everyone then why change anything. You all do remember that this approach isn't about running around the woods on foot don't you? 

 

However, I am weary of the constant beating down of the idea so I have to walk away. Good luck to everyone in the field.

            

 

I fully understand that your concept is different. I was just suggesting a quicker way of networking with other researchers. 

 

Im sorry if you felt I was belittling your idea.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you actually want to discuss your plan or just have everyone pat you on the back and agree with you?  

4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, norseman said:

 

I fully understand that your concept is different. I was just suggesting a quicker way of networking with other researchers. 

 

Im sorry if you felt I was belittling your idea.

 

Thanks, Norseman, I know your intentions are good and you are dealing fairly. I just don't think networking with the BFRO will change how the BFRO conducts its program.

 

21 minutes ago, Twist said:

Do you actually want to discuss your plan or just have everyone pat you on the back and agree with you?  

 

I honestly do not care if anyone pats me on the back or not. And I HAVE discussed the plan. I have explained it for five pages. Would there be room to improve on it? Of course. Is it perfect as presented? Nope. Would the terrain everywhere be perfect? Nope. So is there another better plan that anyone is suggesting? Nope. The best plan is having enough people in an encounter's locale showing up and canvassing the roads around a sighting as quickly as possible. So what if a Sasquatch slips through the net. People see them crossing roads day and night just by chance! There is nothing wrong with being pro active and upping those chances.

 

Want to discuss something? Then discuss that by answering this.....Would such a plan increase one's odds in favor of getting a photo or video as opposed to doing nothing? It is the sole purpose of the SRN after all.    

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

The BFRO is a commercial adventure camping company.    Their objectives are to make that work safely and keep paying people coming back for more.    Do you know for example that firearms are not allowed on one of their expeditions.    Liability issue most likely.    While I think what most would carry would only make a BF angry,  there are bears and cougars out there too.    So from the outset the BFRO may tout itself as "the" organization for BF research,  it's true objectives are something else.  Ever read a paper of findings from BFRO research?   Papers are how science communicate findings to other researchers.    They do not even keep up their public data base.  Other priorities.    Things were even more cloudy when the "Finding Bigfoot" show was being aired.   Witness reports where the prime avenue for getting material for show content.     Those town halls were full of people who had submitted witness reports. I should know because I was invited to attend.  But that witness report is not in the data base years after it was submitted.    

 

Hiflier you may feel beaten down but what you propose has to be practical.    How do you get ahead of a BF after an encounter?   The most current report would already be a day old.   How do you get ahead of that BF?   

 

I am not the first to propose the following tactics.    But I think it has a chance for success.    A BF is unlikely to be more intelligent that a human.    So field tactics that work on humans in counter insurgency operations are likely to work with BF.     Have fit military trained researchers insert into an active area,   Small groups of two or three.    Well equipped with night vision goggles and communication.     They move in quietly,  honker down, full ghilley suits, and await contact.  It might take weeks in the field.   It would not be comfortable or pleasant.   Many areas they would be eaten alive by mosquitoes.  Overweight,  old, out of shape,  or someone that cannot tolerate discomfort need not apply.    For sure I am not capable of this nor have I had such training.     When they establish contact they can follow movement and start to learn what BF do.   Just as they would with a group of bad guys.    I think it highly likely BF family groups have camps.  Perhaps those can be observed and we can learn.      Part of the process would be to capture or kill a BF.   Only that will get the attention of science.   My point is that the weekend warrior type stuff just is not going to work because it has not worked in the past.      And this type of project takes funding to support those in the field for extended times.   .Those that are young, fit and trained are going to need to be paid to take the time it will take to achieve anything.   

 

In all likelyhood the government has already done exactly as I propose.   I cannot imagine the military ignoring BF intrusions into military installations without deploying people to figure out what is going on.   Once they figured out what BF are, and that they can be treated like other wild animals, then the matter was simply classified and dropped.   

 

 

 

Edited by SWWASAS
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, SWWASAS said:

The most current report would already be a day old.   How do you get ahead of that BF?

 

But for the sake of discussion and submitting ideas shouldn't you be the one answering that question? What is the solution to getting a report sooner than a day old? THOSE issues are what this thread has been created to discuss.

 

27 minutes ago, SWWASAS said:

I am not the first to propose the following tactics.    But I think it has a chance for success.    A BF is unlikely to be more intelligent that a human.    So field tactics that work on humans in counter insurgency operations are likely to work with BF.     Have fit military trained researchers insert into an active area,   Small groups of two or three.    Well equipped with night vision goggles and communication.     They move in quietly,  honker down, full ghilley suits, and await contact.  It might take weeks in the field.   It would not be comfortable or pleasant.   Many areas they would be eaten alive by mosquitoes.  Overweight,  old, out of shape,  or someone that cannot tolerate discomfort need not apply.

 

Yes, it might have a chance of success but the SRN is something anyone and everyone can do. It requires none of what you said and in fact runs counter to that kind of an operation both in manpower and cost. It will cost gas and time and if one thinks it will be too costly in gas just think of the gas that has been used up in the last 50 years by researchers to date.

 

No weekend warriors. The SRN would be composed of weeDAY warriors who can drive a car and handle a camera ON THE ROAD. Don't need guns, guillie suits, And as far as discomfort goes? There would be little if any. The trouble with the SRN is that it is so simple that folks for some reason want or need to complicate it when there is nothing at all complicated about it. A call comes in, those in and around the locale of the event get the word. The closest participant to the encounter interviews the witness and checks the immediate vicinity for signs while the rest of the participants check the roads around the encounter's location equipped with cameras or videos.

 

If a BF isn't spooked and literally running then how fast can it cover ground? We walk 2-3 miles an hour. If vehicle deployment is in an hour or less then roads five miles distant from a sighting should be adequate. Gauge the radius of the search from the site of the event according to the time it takes to access the roads. Think of it this way, if someone lost their dog would they be crashing through the woods? No, they would be scouting the roads around where their dog was last seen, maybe calling the police and maybe their friends who might join in on the search? And all the while just driving to see if they can spot it. So lets say someone does spot it and calls a number to report seeing the dog? What then. The owner would then drive to the reported area and again search roads. The SRN is no different. All it will take is a phone number people can call in on and a known protocol for handling the situation.

 

Again, not perfect. No guarantees of success can be made. But doing nothing gets nothing. I don't see a downside to this plan beyond returning home without seeing a Sasquatch on the road one was driving on. But at least the effort was made. Everyday people doing what they know how to do, drive vehicles and take photos. The caveat is that each participant should be trained in how to conduct an interview and keep a form containing a guideline of questions to ask.  

0

Share this post


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

I’m suffering from vertigo right now. I dont drive. I have a appointment with the neurologist on the 19th. I think I have stenosis in my neck from my football career. My arms are numb as well. So for the foreseeable future Im out.....maybe forever, I just dont know.

 

Hi Norseman, went back and read this. Sorry to again hear about your condition. You had mentioned it elsewhere a while back and so I am glad you are seeing someone about it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

It seems to me that you are advocating a revamped version of BFRO operations.  Taking sighting reports,  following up on sighting reports,  interviewing witnesses, and scouting around the area.    Certainly there could be many improvements on the BFRO as far as timely response.   But if they and their methods have not had success, why would something similar expect different results?   How do you expect be on your way to investigate a sighting in an hour?  The only way that could happen if the sighting was by one of the members of your organization.   Most of the active areas I have worked do not have cell phone coverage.     If I had a sighting it might take me hours to get out to report it.  Same for anyone else.   By the time the witness got out far enough for cell phone coverage, and the SRN got there,   it could be 6 hours for a day hiker situation.       With that length of time you might as well go the next day.    Asking a witness who had a bigfoot sighting to hang around that location for hours waiting for someone to show up, ignores the fact the most witnesses just had the daylights scared out of them and are totally uninterested in staying there for even a few minutes.    Certainly with a BF of unknown disposition, I would not want to chance an night encounter.  They own the night.  


 

.  

Edited by SWWASAS
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, SWWASAS said:

It seems to me that you are advocating a revamped version of BFRO operations.  Taking sighting reports,  following up on sighting reports,  interviewing witnesses, and scouting around the area.    Certainly there could be many improvements on the BFRO as far as timely response.

 

Yes, like the BFRO  but not revamped- RAMPED up with way more people. Because it would be all about the timely response. If that wasn't the case then there would be absolutely no reason in the world to even start this thread. As has been said, why reinvent the wheel?

 

1 hour ago, SWWASAS said:

But if they and their methods have not had success, why would something similar expect different results?   How do you expect be on your way to investigate a sighting in an hour?

 

First answer: Speed.

Second answer: Is there anyone who couldn't be turning the key in their vehicle inside 20 minutes?

 

1 hour ago, SWWASAS said:

 The only way that could happen if the sighting was by one of the members of your organization.

 

Not my organization. My proposal. There would be no organization. It would be small networks of people that only have to know people relatively close by. People in Adams County. WA wouldn't have to know the people in Jefferson County, WA. However someone in Adams County might know someone in Grant who might then know someone in Yakima and that is how the network would grow; a sort of leap-frog association. The dispatch would always have to have a current directory of all participants though.

 

1 hour ago, SWWASAS said:

Most of the active areas I have worked do not have cell phone coverage.     If I had a sighting it might take me hours to get out to report it.  Same for anyone else.   By the time the witness got out far enough for cell phone coverage, and the SRN got there,   it could be 6 hours for a day hiker situation.       With that length of time you might as well go the next day.    Asking a witness who had a bigfoot sighting to hang around that location for hours waiting for someone to show up, ignores the fact the most witnesses just had the daylights scared out of them and are totally uninterested in staying there for even a few minutes.    Certainly with a BF of unknown disposition, I would not want to chance an night encounter.  They own the night

 

Absolute worse case scenarios. The SRN is not a set up for deep woods bushwhacking. Depending on where cell phones service and people are close for a fast response then checking the safer easier to navigate forest roads might be possible. If there is no cell phone coverage then a dispatcher wouldn't even get a call so know one in the network would know to go anywhere. In that case, no response could or should be expected.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, hiflier said:

Want to discuss something? Then discuss that by answering this.....Would such a plan increase one's odds in favor of getting a photo or video as opposed to doing nothing? It is the sole purpose of the SRN after all.    

 

Sure, by a minuscule amount it may increase the chances of seeing a BF.   

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

This is the most recent report to the BFRO: http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=59279 It also had the fastest turnaround from the date of the incident to its public posting on the BFRO website.........2 months. Activity was reported to have occurred on April 6, 2018. I don't know when the witnesses actually called in the incident but a BFRO investigator contacted them by phone "only several days later after they filed the report". Because of the witnesses' and investigator's schedules they all finally met up a month later on May 5, 2018. The investigator then went to the location of the incident.

 

A program like the SRN should have a hotline and then the witness interviewed within 2 hours- preferably in under an hour. In other words, not days or a month, or months, after a sighting but rather as fast out of the house and as safely as humanly possible while observing all traffic laws. It is also designed to not just have a researcher interview the witness on site and investigate the area but at the same time have drivers with cameras patrolling roads around the event location at a distance corresponding to the time it takes to get the vehicles onto those roads.

 

If passes are open it might take 6 or 7 hours to go from Aberdeen to the Idaho state line. From Aberdeen through McCleary to Olympia? about 50 miles- or about an hour. The point being that WA could be covered by a network of around 50 people more or less. patterned after a sort of volunteer fire department but geared toward Class "A" type Sasquatch sightings. 

 

 

Edited by hiflier
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

1 hour ago, hiflier said:

This is the most recent report to the BFRO: http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=59279 It also had the fastest turnaround from the date of the incident to its public posting on the BFRO website.........2 months.

 

Are you only looking at Washington? That's not the latest BFRO report.

This report (link below) happened June 1st, was reported June 1st, and published on June 21 (20 days) and in the SSR database on June 26th (25 days)

BFRO reports go from investigators to Caroline to get 'approved' and published, which may take awhile. There's a good chance this one was done and submitted in a week.

 

 

Here's another one from Wisconsin in May, published this week (two months)

 

7 hours ago, hiflier said:

But for the sake of discussion and submitting ideas shouldn't you be the one answering that question? What is the solution to getting a report sooner than a day old? THOSE issues are what this thread has been created to discuss.

In order to get reports that are hours old, the person having the sighting needs to KNOW how to report it that fast. Your group not only needs to be large, it also needs tremendous Marketing so that people who are NOT Sasquatch enthusiasts know who to call. BFRO got exposure to the masses through Finding Bigfoot. How does F A R T become known to all?

Edited by Redbone
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

39 minutes ago, Redbone said:

Are you only looking at Washington?

 

Sorry for any confusion. Yes, Washington.

 

39 minutes ago, Redbone said:

In order to get reports that are hours old, the person having the sighting needs to KNOW how to report it that fast. Your group not only needs to be large, it also needs tremendous Marketing so that people who are NOT Sasquatch enthusiasts know who to call. BFRO got exposure to the masses through Finding Bigfoot.

 

Yes, a witness needs to know how to report it that fast and needs to know that they CAN. Again, not MY group, not MY organization. Only my proposal for one. But yes, the group does have to be populated with enough people to cover a county at least, or a state.

 

39 minutes ago, Redbone said:

How does F A R T become known to all?

 

 A good question. The floor is open to ideas for getting the word out through social media. print and/or other means. But it would do no good unless the SRN (FART, LOL) was already in place. That means having people agree that the system has value, understand its purpose and how it would function, and be willing to be an active participants. Can't have a hotline without having the necessary resources to back it up. It could happen that after a few fast responses and some witnesses happy with those fast responses that the word will get around pretty fast. Setting up a few TV interviews on a community TV channel might be beneficial as a start? Mainstream TV, never wanting to be the last to report anything new, just might jump on it too, snickering and all. Whomever a TV station interviews can just say this:

 

"The Sasquatch Research Network has a hotline (give number) A witness who calls in a report will be interviewed within 2 hours- probably in under an hour. Not days, weeks, or months after a sighting but as fast and as safely as humanly possible. It is designed to not just have a researcher interview a witness on site and investigate the area but also have drivers with cameras patrolling around the sighting location with the aim of getting a clear photo or video of the creature should it try to leave the area by crossing a road. The goal is to try to get science interested enough to take the matter seriously"

 

Which in truth is the only reason the SRN or its equivalent would be in existence. It comes to mind that a 'no weapons' clause could help PR to put the general public more at ease and accepting of the program. Witness might be more likely to report an incident and it would help relations with local Law Enforcement agencies too.

Edited by hiflier
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites