Leaderboard

Some of the speakers in the March conference are what I call experiencers. They are satisfied to have contact experience and either not interested in collecting evidence or refuse to do so for their own reasons. I think most have no interest in scientific acceptance of BF. I tend to agree that it may not be in BF best interest to be accepted by science. The experiencers have ditched the gadgets or nearly done so and might have more contact because of that. The problem is that does not do much to further what we know about and accept about BF. Gadgets are modern humans accepted way of documenting things of a scientific nature. I guess it is all about what a person wants to result from BF contact. While many of the experiencers ditch the gadgets that might support their observations, doing so certainly does not prevent them from writing books and expecting people to believe them. That seems entirely too convenient to me and might be a big part of the problem with the public at large accepting BF research.

I was having a PM conversation with another forum member the last few days. He mentioned something that I think needs to be put out on the open forum. I will talk about my own contact experience and his is similar. His point was those who go out 10 times or less a year and expect to have BF contact are likely to be disappointed. Certainly you could have an encounter your first time out, but if you do, run right down and buy a lottery ticket because you are having a very lucky day. In my own case, in an active BF area in SW Washington, I found I had definable contact in about 1 in 20 trips into the field. By that I mean footprint finds and that sort of thing in a very active area. That was after I found the area that was active at the time. Now that the area has gone inactive, no contact in nearly two years now. The field researchers that I know who have good contact history, go out very often. Nearly every week in the summer, often several days a week. Those who have tried and given up, or still hope, need to know that even in an active BF area, it takes a lot of time in the field to have much chance of contact. That does not rule out someone with kids and families who do not have the time available, but you have to understand that less field time reduces your chance of contact considerably. If you can incorporate family time with time in the field by family hikes or camping, that can only increase your chance for contact.

There is so much misinformation and misunderstanding on this forum about how DNA works. Having done the human DNA genome tests to determine my ancestry I learned a lot I did not know. Even though there is no question I am human, there are certain designated markers that are evident if your ancestry was at a specific time and place in human history. Those markers went back to before my ancestors were homo Sapiens. I have Neanderthal DNA. I was able to compare the ancestry of my paternal and maternal lines. In only a few cases were the markers the same. In other words in only a few cases were my paternal and maternal ancestors at the same place at the same time. Certainly they had to be same place same time for me to be conceived in modern times. Some here seem to think that human and animal DNA is significantly different. "The chimpanzee and human genomes are more than 98% identical, but there are a few short DNA sequences that have changed significantly in humans since the two species diverged about 5 million years ago (see Pollard et al., http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.0020168).These 'Human Accelerated Regions' (HARs) provide clues into our evolution. (Photograph: Image by Owen Booth.) " So there are only a few short DNA sequences that have changed since our species diverged. These things are called Human Accelerated Regions, and those are located to differentiate humans from other animals with common ancestry. What people seem to be missing here is that an unknown bipedal mammal with common ancestry at any point, the DNA is going to look very similar to human. Without an accepted BF DNA type, DNA labs are not going to know where to look for markers that differentiate BF from other species with common ancestors. They can tell you it is not a chimpanzee or not a human because they know where to look for markers that define the chimpanzee and human. That is why we get so many unknown species results or suggestions of human DNA contamination. It looks sort of human but is missing some modern human markers but yet contains strange ones. I think some here expect some kind of red light and alarm to go off to alert a lab they have found an unknown species. Does not work that way. Most labs would likely assume contamination when something strange is sequenced.

Just a few things as we seemed to have strayed off the topic of whether the science has stalled. I believe the whole left brain/right brain thing has been shown to be mostly incorrect (sort of like that "we only use 10% of our brain capacity trope"). Accepting your premise that sasquatches were hunted by man and have thus learned to hide from man; Why then are the majority of reports found civilization-adjacent? Why does sasquatch seem to have a propensity for walking near roads, hiking trails, campgrounds (as per geotherm in this thread). I see not internal logic in sasquatch reports, does it avoid man but not understand what a campsite is, or a road, or vehicles? This inconsistency is yet another reason I feel this is a cultural phenomenon rather than a physical animal. Gorilla, in the vast majority, have consistent behavior within it's species, as does every other physical animal. Why doesn't sasquatch, if it's flesh and blood. (no woo please. this is a science thread). Now, this is a great science question that needs an answer along with many others before sasquatch science is unstalled. We don't have these answers and we can only suppose or theorize. 1. What comes to mind is some bigfoots need easy prey such as chickens, cows, or dogs in order to survive. 2. Some bigfoots such as juveniles or out casts have been pushed out of remote habitats by more dominant clans. 3. Bigfoots can't avoid roads and other human elements in order to keep up their migration pattern. This leads to question 3. a. Does bigfoot migrate? It becomes obvious we have more questions than answers. One documentary on TV showed a credentialed biologist studying Snow Leopard in Asia, and he made a great blind. He spent months and months in the cold until he got great videos of the creature. The highlighted question above has been discussed here in various threads going back several years. Summarizing the hypothetical source of the conflict and resultant evolution of interspecies attitudes: 1. Bigfoot and hunter-gatherer/early agricultural humans competed for the best and most supportive terrain for food. 2. Early on, bigfoot would have had an advantage as small groups of each encountered each other during competition. Bigfoot had the advantage during confrontations. 3. As humans developed more effective hunting weapons and as human communities grew larger, humans were more effective during confrontations. 4. Bigfoot, in response grew more stealthy in order to take advantage of shared food sources without being driven off, and more active at night. 5. Over the centuries/millennia, there were times, climatically that made survival more difficult, so humans became more efficient at gathering large amounts of food available, processing it, and storing it for long winters, etc. 6. Bigfoot, faced with efficient human collection of prime food sources, were subsequently drawn to human livestock, food stores, and eventually human crops, particularly during harsh winters. They may even have preyed on humans at times. 7. Humans would have responded by attempting to hunt down and drive off bigfoot clans because preservation of their food stores equaled survival. The oral tradition of Jack the Giant Killer stories probably had their genesis in these times. 8. As a result, bigfoot became progressively more stealthy, and likely more judicious in how often and how much they took advantage of human food sources, finding the human toleration level, at which humans did not bother to pursue bigfoot to drive them off. 9. Bigfoot were likely a known and acknowledged species among the Celtic cultures (much as they are by Native American tribes today), but belief in such things was discouraged as a new and dominant culture moved into Europe. Anything humanoid would have been viewed as demonic in origin because it was a perversion of man's aspect and because man was believed to be made in a certain image. Generation by generation, as the nexus of human culture gravitated toward progressively larger cities, the view that wild men were myth began to dominate, and still does today. Consider also that many place names with an oral tradition of Wildman encounters include the term devil or something similar in their names. So the history and interspecies evolution is more a result of competition for food than a matter of active conflict. Bigfoot are still drawn to us because we are an easy source of foodstuffs, but do so with as much stealth as possible to avoid confrontation.

Imagine a discovery of a creature that is able to illuminate its eyes at night. A creature that can see in total darkness with no light at all. A creature that can tap some one on the shoulder and when they turn around never see who did it. Who knows about their hearing and all the other stuff that goes with them. Yes I can see science doing exactly this:" requiring a secret log-in to access " files on this creatures existence. We do not need science to stall since science has done it on it's own already. Ay yi yi yi yi. The pain.