Leaderboard

Baldershash? Care to venture a guess at what percentage of the species on this planet that have left a fossil record here or anywhere else? I will not even humor you by giving you the answer. Hint! It is a lot closer to zero than 10% It is like walking into a library, picking out twelve books at random, and creating the entire history of humanity from those twelve books. Mostly guess and conjecture on the part of science.

Funding for academic research is very competitive. Such funding is grant-based and the grants are for specific research, they don't just give you a pile of money and tell you to go find something to study. Grants can be either federal or institutional but either sort generally requires approval of the academic department. Boiling it down to simplest terms, you're asking the very same academics who've already scoffed, who are unwilling to engage in the search, to approve your funding to search for bigfoot while turning down some other research (because they have a fixed budget) they think is of higher value. Its sort of a "fox guarding the henhouse" situation perpetuating the lack of action. I don't believe you're going to get academic funding to look for bigfoot. Ever. Academic funding for study of bigfoot won't come until AFTER they've been proven to exist. (Notice the difference, "search for" vs "study".) As to your second question, no, I don't believe so. Academics who search for bigfoot do so from their personal budget, it's not funded by their academic department or university. MIB

Having looked at aerial surveillance from a practical and experimental standpoint, I do not have the same confidence that it would be successful. In other words, I have put myself in an airplane with various cameral setups and run experiments. Even with a very long lens, you have to fly very low to get photographs with sufficient detail to be of any worth. The PNW forest canopy is your enemy. Most areas have nearly continuous canopy hiding the ground and anything on it, from being seen from the air. The best aerial views were obtained imagining down at about a 45 degree angle. At least that way, you have a chance to see the ground and what might be moving on it. FLIR cannot see through tree foliage any better than visible light. And what you get, even with expensive FLIR systems, is poor resolution. So poor that you could not tell the difference between a human and a BF with most images. You loose scale or size determination from aerial photographs. Night drone work is now specifically prohibited by FAA regulation. A hydrogen drone would be very dangerous. The tiniest leak and any kind of spark and you have an explosion and set the forest on fire. Explain that to the Forest Service. Lets say that you successfully image a BF from the air. Find a sufficiently remote place where BF is caught out in the open. I believe I have seen one from the air on a ridge line so I think it possible. Even with a HD image what do you have? A picture, no way to scale the image, and probably taken from such a distance that details such as hair or whatever cannot really be resolved. Hoax, man in a costume, etc will all be on the table with no way to get supporting evidence like footprints etc. Personally I think lower tech, habituation situations, or sweeps through active areas are more likely to result in meaningful contact evidence which might get main stream science interested. One more blurry picture taken from the air will not do much of anything to interest science.

^^^ This, with the operative word "use" versus "live".

I don't understand how you can say that yet promote official discovery. They are people, whether human or not, or we'd have found them already. Considering our track record with the cultures of Native American cultures here and other indigenous peoples elsewhere in the world, how can you possibly rationalize promoting discovery? That's like putting a pedophile in charge of the day care center. I'm completely aghast at the level of obliviousness and denial necessary in that position. MIB Oh really? How has the reintroduction of the timber wolf gone in the west? That is entirely irrelevant to management of an indigenous people. Bigfoot are not wildlife, they are people whether Homo sapiens or not. Management will certainly not fall under USF&WS, it will most likely fall under the Bureau of Indian Affairs who have overseen the destruction of every native culture they've been in charge of managing so far. MIB

In order to get academic science involved you have to present actual hard evidence. No matter how interesting sightings, wood manipulations, or sounds are, none of that is hard evidence. Tracks are, but alone they are not enough. Good pictures (multiple) would help. Bigfoot bones would be great. This past year we presented hard evidence acceptable to science, egos and denial aside. It's still our job to get it presented in an acceptable manner to science. However, I do hope that others in the field are looking and not ignoring this type of evidence. It can prove that something not known exists. What it can't do is prove what it is. But that is what it takes to get academic science involved. Those that love DNA, the truth is it won't do it until a verifiable sample from an actual individual is tested. That will take a body or verifiable part thereof.

Hello Crowlogic, Speaking of inflammatory how about losing the "strawman" dialogue and have a decent conversation?? Looks like Yuchi1 has his work cut out then doesn't it. And yet you say this: