Leaderboard

2015 The state of Sasquatch Research I honestly think that the current state is about the same as last year, and from what I can tell, it has been stagnant for sometime now. I see more back and forth arguing than I see any sharing of useful information. That is not to say there are no intelligent discussions, because there certainly has been. Sasquatch will not be proven on a forum, and that should be blatantly obvious. It's the researchers out in the field that have the best chance of success. There are larger more organized groups out there, but are basically the same as most others - A lot of talk and very little action and/or evidence. I do still hold a bit of faith that they will turn that around. What really aggravates me regarding a couple of these groups is that anything and everything that they say is automatically taken to be true by many of the members here. I mean shouldn't these groups be held to the same standards as the rest of us. Whatever happened to extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence or proof? When anyone else makes an extraordinary claim they get pounced on like free pizza at an anime convention! There is something wrong with that picture. I don't want it seem that I am bashing these groups, on the contrary I actually applaud their efforts. Although there is one group out there that when I hear or read their name - I instantly think Keystone Cops! This is mostly said in jest, but I do think they still need to be held to the same standards as the rest of us, I detest any use of double standards. Another thing, why is it so difficult for many members to understand what sightings reports really are! The simplest way to explain their place in BF research is that they are a means to an end! Think about it, if no reports had ever been submitted, we wouldn't know that BF are out there. Now are all reports hoaxed? of course not! and that is because I doubt there is anyone or any group out there smart enough to perpetrate a hoax of that magnitude! I'm sure there is a fair number of hoaxed reports out there, but not as many as some people think, but that is purely conjecture on my part. There seems to be this belief out there that if something has been hoaxed in the past, it therefore becomes unreliable or unbelievable, and tossed into the trash can.That negative belief seems to be applied to all of the evidence as well. For me It's Innocent until proven guilty! or in more relative terms - Reports are relevant until proven otherwise! You will never accomplish anything with a negative mindset. It's no wonder the state of affairs has become stagnant! I'm quite certain that we may well have overlooked reports and evidence that would have lead us to the promised land so to speak. It is such a simple process, Read and analyze the report, apply your knowledge to determine validity while weeding out inconsistencies, Use what you have found, if it makes sense to you at this point, then form your hypotheses and apply it to your research effort and move forward. You can then enjoy the satisfaction that due diligence has been done and then activate your plan. It really is simple. If you come to a report and read it only to dismiss it out of hand, and classify it as an interesting anecdote, you will get out of it what you put into it - Nothing! The statement that reports do not allow the scientific method to be applied comes up a lot, well no kidding Einstein! Reports are tools used to gather pertinent information for the research effort. What does a detective always do at a murder scene. He/She canvases the area for witnesses, take in every bit of information that is available, and then uses that information to identify suspects, build a case, ascertain motives, and mobilizes assets to search for and apprehend the suspect/s - Roughly the same process can be done on sightings reports, but for our purposes, just change the word suspect to Bigfoot Are sightings reports proof? of course not! If they were we would not be here on this forum, and this is where the USS Bigfoot ship runs aground! I think Dr. Meldrum said it best "The sheer amount of reports and the evidence certainly SUGGESTS that there is an undiscovered type of bi-pedal ape in our forest's and swamps! and I completely agree! Reports are an integral part of the research effort. Reports can be data mined for useful information and passed on to those in the field. A few examples of what can be gained - Trends, commonalities, behaviors, and here is the big one, Location, Location, Location! The credibility to a certain degree of the witness can be determined. It really does not take much to read a report and determine which pile to toss it on, the good pile or the trash pile. It also doesn't take much effort to differentiate the good reports from the BS reports. Here is an example - If you read a report that someone claims they saw a 25 ft. tall blue and yellow hairy creature knocking on their backdoor asking to borrow their checkerboard for family night back at the cave! Well it shouldn't be too hard to realize what pile to toss that one on. When will science becoming fully vested in the research? Not in our lifetime! and you are living in an alternate dimension if you think otherwise! Unfortunately much of the scientific community (at least some quarters of it) have made the distinction between the conduct of good science and the spirit of exploration. Anyone care to guess which of these two they practice these days Why won't the scientific community actively pursue the evidence to wherever it leads. The paragraph above certainly applies here, but for a more simple answer - They don't need to and why should they. They know there are plenty of lapdogs in the BF community that have heard their "Go Fetch" command. If you have Go-Fer's in your back pocket, you don't need to get your hands dirty! That way any failures will not fall in their laps, they will fall squarely in our laps. Until some of the geniuses in their own minds around here can find a way to change whose lap the crap falls in, we will continue to be the ones thrown under the bus. Exactly how that will happen is anybody's guess at this point. Here is another reason/example why BF research is not taken seriously - I was looking through the older threads and found a couple of them that almost made me spew my beer on my monitor! One thread was titled "Do Bigfoot's Kiss" No joke! another one asked "What do Bigfoot's think about us" I couldn't think of any reply other than - How the hell should I know, you'll need go ask a Bigfoot to get an answer for those questions! Come on, Really? And we wonder why people think we're all goofy. I am not going to bother addressing the Scofftic's and their wonderful demeanor, but I found a definition for Scofftic's that hit's the bullseye! Scofftics, which actually isn't a real word, but here is the the perfect definition by the Editor of a Skeptical website who is a P.G., EdM, and is also a geologist with a specialty in science and society and public outreach for science. A “Scofftic†is described as follows: “the programmed skeptic who is defined more by a pre-determined mindset than the results of any thoughtful probing of the evidenceâ€; “a cranky skepticâ€; one who displays “unhealthy skepticismâ€; “someone who…gives witness testimony no weight whatsoever, on ideological grounds, and who asserts numerous other bits of unreasonable dogma, such as that the quantity of reports is insignificantâ€; one who exhibits “fanaticism behind a pose of reasonableness†and who uses “fine print†and/or “qualifiers†when considering evidence. Sound like anyone you know? The position of Pro-Kill I do understand the reasoning behind it, but it just doesn't sit right with me. I definitely don't buy into the protection reasoning either. Why? well it should be obvious, they don't need it. Then what about protecting their habitat? Okay, does anyone really know what constitutes BF habitat with absolute certainty? didn't think so. When it comes to this topic we must deal with certainty, not speculation. For me personally, I have no desire for proof and would much rather see them left alone. Funny, they seem to want the same thing don't they. Why the big hurry? and no more tired old cliches either. That dog don't hunt no more! The terms ego and bragging rights come to mind during any discussion on Pro-Kill. It is a sad state of affairs to want to end the life of one these beings in order to satisfy one's curiosity under the guise of conservancy. I was curious if Dr. Meldrum's viewpoint on this issue had changed, so I emailed him my query and he replied the next day, and it hasn't changed at all. I do give credit to those that at least acknowledge their true motives. Although I don't agree with this mindset, I do respect your rights and beliefs on this issue. Here is his reply........ I have said that the conventions of zoological taxonomy require a type specimen as the basis of acknowledgement and naming of a new species. I have also been very clear that my objective in the field has been to secure tissue (hair, scat, blood, skin) for DNA analysis. While there is no precedent for recognizing a new species on the basis of DNA alone, there are those who advocate this in the case of rare and endangered species. Sasquatch would be an important test case in this regard. Jeff Meldrum, PhD Professor of Anatomy & Anthropology Dept. of Biological Sciences Idaho State University 921 S. 8th Ave., Stop 8007 Pocatello, ID 83209-8007 208-282-4379 I couldn't agree more! It is definitely time to set a new precedent for discovery through DNA. So in a nutshell for me, until there is some kind of monumental game changer found and implemented, and don't kid yourself because a game changer is exactly what is needed otherwise we will continue to chase our own tails until 2016. It will take nothing short of a miracle to solve this mystery and I doubt that most will live to see it happen. As for me, I am enjoying the chase because it is always better than the catch! Hey, did anybody see where I left my beer! Aha, never mind I found it. Hey Incorrigible, you may have already heard but the A-10 Warthog won't be going to bone yard after all. It was given the old last second reprieve by congress. I have a couple of videos of me in the Hog doing the engine start process and taxi, and I think I still have some gun camera footage as well. I just have to find where I put them. When I do, I'll shoot em over to you.

My goal is to kill one, but with that said if I was anti kill and I had giant primates coming around my house? I would be prepared for a worst case scenario, yes. That means heavily armed when I went to the wood shed or to the barn. And I would keep a close watch on my family.

It always has been a fearsome creature, it's our perceptions that change. Indians didn't name him Boss of the woods for nothing. This happens with the wolf as well, either demonized or set on a pedestal. Of course if all rural farms were being over run by roving bands of Sasquatch? We would have our evidence by now. The truth is always somewhere in the middle of it all.

Green Berets locked and loaded on a missing persons case is very strange. Even more strange that they do not participate or coordinate with the Park Service IC. And instead go off and do their own thing. The nail in the coffin is that another family a couple of miles away reports seeing a "bear" packing something over its shoulder. When the family gets home and hears the news of Dennis Martin missing they call the FBI. The FBI in turn sweeps it under the rug and never shares the information with the search. It was their best lead in the case. Years later the lead FBI agent on the Martin case and other similar missing children cases commits suicide. And lastly a park service ranger admits that there were "wild men" living in the park. Which I took to understand as feral humans and not Bigfoot. Despite thousands of searchers and special forces and air and ground assets, Dennis Martin vanishes into thin air. Something was not right with that case.......