Leaderboard

Bring a digital audio recorder. You'll be amazed what goes on while you're asleep. One thing, don't try to trick them. Walk a little distance from camp and put the recorder out in plain sight. I have recordings of them coming in to the recorder while my footsteps are fading out.

Couldn't agree more. And while I'm cautiously accepting of bigfoot's existence at this time, I'm confident that the greater harm to getting others to accept the credible evidence that exists comes not from the charlatans with dead bigfeet in their coolers, but from proponents holding out evidence that is, at best, ambiguous as if it was unequivocal evidence of bigfoot. Sort of the argument that the fake (or poor) evidence I have may be no good but the story I'm claiming is still true logic. (Or, as one of the FB team members said, "Even the fact that you didn't SEE a bigfoot is evidence that you encountered a bigfoot.") Good catch on the time stamps as well - anyone can confirm them by pausing the U-tube clip as each photo is shown. I'm shocked, shocked I say, to find that the producers of FB may be packaging events in a less than clear manner. As I recall this episode, even Bobo was noncommital on what the trailcam showed. I may be mistaken; he may be a firm vote in the bigfoot camp.

In one area in the river bottoms I can usually get a response - sometimes a PO'ed one - by playing back a recorded call of one of the three males that prowl around at night down there. Have never seen any one of the three in the daytime, just eye shine. A female walked out in the open late one afternoon in the mountains to watch me while I was playing the entire Sierra Sounds CD while I was sitting and eating on the tailgate of my truck. Called the young male in in the afternoon by short whoops, then some "rock cracking". He met me on the trail as I was leaving the hollow. Just consistently camping at the same spot in a group's area (alone), acting naturally, and leaving a bit of food worked for me. If you do it routinely, they will recognize your vehicle a mile away and be waiting if they are not foraging out of hearing. They'll catch up when they complete their rounds. They get real nosy when it's after midnight and they think you are asleep.

Exactly! Science in its purest form is unrestrained by agendas, or by those who control resources. It is collaborative, and all hypotheses are explored without prejudice. In real terms, however, science costs money. As a result, scientists must demonstrate the value of their research in order to continue it, and usually must convince funding sources of the value of their proposed research before they can gain funding to pursue it. This skews the scientific process, and promotes corrupt science. A scientist has to eat, so he has the following choices: 1. Find someone, somewhere who will fund their research without condition or constraint (very rare today - only those with the highest status may achieve this, and usually only if they have a demonstrated track record of producing results of value). 2. Find someone who perceives value in their proposed research and convince them that if they fund the research, the results will provide some form of return, either economic, social, or political. 3. Find someone who has an economic, social, or political agenda and perform research that supports their agenda at their direction. So, he who controls funding, controls what research is performed and scientist quickly learn that if they want to enjoy continued funding, they need to provide results that the funding entity considers valuable. So if I tell you I am looking for proof that field mice are turning green because butterflies are sneezing more often and offer to fund you while you prove this, most will attempt to gain as much funding as possible, for as long as possible, by demonstrating results that a) do not result in a loss of funding, and encourage further funding. Today when you read a study you have to also look at who funded the study and what that organization's agenda is. How does the funder benefit from the results of the study and how might this relationship have skewed the study? Powell, as a case in point, was in a position of influence and clearly had a prejudicial position, if not an agenda, and he used his influence in a corrupt manner to skew the course of research in the field over which he had influence. At the very least, for any who have been demanding proof that the Smithsonian has ever acted with prejudice, to suppress certain findings, they now have it.