Leaderboard

While the weather this weekend was forbidding and outright ignorant (it rained incessantly Saturday and the temperatures barely made it to the 40's until Sunday afternoon), we had a good time and met some awesome people! Friday was decent until dinner time when those menacing black clouds came and drenched us but not before Alex and I got a pic with the cast from Mountain Monsters. The boys stepped out of the rain into our vendor tent to meet two of our actors and talk to us about our movie project. Takes more than crappy weather to ruin a good squatchy weekend!!

Didn't realize at first that this thread goes back to 2014, but since it got bumped, and I just read through the entire thing, there's a glaring omission in the discussion about whether a biologist's witness account holds more credibility. Let's look at it this way.... "Joe Six-pack" a local mill worker and known member of his community, goes into the woods and has what he believes is a Sasquatch siting. "Holly Troutnetter" a state fisheries biologist is working near a creek, and observes a Bigfoot sipping water from the creek a hundred yards downstream, until it sees her and bolts off into the woods. Aside from their knowledge (or lack ) of local fauna, and considering their difference in education, is there really any reason to find Holly's report more credible than Joe's? In my opinion no, there is not..... not at least based on their knowledge of what they believe they've seen. The difference of Holly being in a science oriented profession, does not make her a more credible witness- unless she's willing to stick her neck out and make a claim in a public setting. Joe can do so, and if he's not taken seriously, he'll get some strange looks from people for a while, and take some ribbing from co-workers, but if Holly does so- she's jeopardizing her career, her reputation, and has alot more at stake than Joe does. Now, the main reason i don't attribute any higher level of credibility, is that the report cited from the OP in this case, is from a biologist who made a report on an anonymous reporting site, and although the veracity of the biologist's profession may have been followed through on, this biologist is still playing it very safe by making a report of this kind. Did he go to his boss, or on the local news, or include his name and credentials while making his report ? No, he did not, and so therefore it's (as several others have already stated) its just another anecdotal story, from a person who happens to be a biologist at the local zoo/animal park. I get it... the fear of ridicule is powerful enough to keep some witness's quiet. Adding the fear of professional/career suicide is a whole other rationale for not coming forward in a more public way.

The wait and see strategy with the Solutrean Hypothesis is probably best at this point. Scant evidence(a few points) and controversial dating are hardly definitive. That ancient projectile points found in Europe would be a historical curiosity and make their way to the Americas carried by more recent Europeans is probably more likely than an early migration by the Solutrean's themselves. More findings may change that equation however. Certainly it needs to be studied. I think the copper mines in the UP of Michigan needs to be looked at too. No one can explain where all the copper for the bronze age in Europe and the Mediterranean came from but there are those ancient copper mines in North America whose copper seems to have gone someplace. .

Yeah, there was a filming around Willow Creek last weekend. One of the local weather sites has a facebook presence and the owner posted he'd been invited down by one of the four cast members that he knew. It sounded like it was a pretty big deal locally. Since it's on that weather site I don't think there's anything too secret now. If you go to BFRO's web page there's a sign-up for some future town hall meetings that are planned. There is one not too far away. I haven't decided yet. MIB

Solutrean hypothesis ... I would not jump on board too quickly but I would not laugh either. It is gaining traction in some academic circles despite ongoing resistance. Think about how long it took Wegener's theory of continental drift to be accepted. It took new developments, not just reassessing existing information, to swing the balance. In the end, the Solutrean hypothesis may win out over Clovis-first, it may fade back into the background, or both may be replaced by something else entirely. We've become used to, and insistent on, instant gratification, but science does not work at the pace of our ever-shrinking attention spans. MIB

I value what I collect. Two perspectives. 1) I have no interest in proving existence. I may be interested in education efforts after proof occurs. A single piece of evidence that may have no value in the context of proving existence may have a lot of value in education efforts after proof is accepted. Your recordings, while not proof, might have the same value later. 2) Even inconclusive "evidence" can be a memento of a fun trip. An analogy .. I have a half dozen or so sets of deer antlers in my garage. I don't plan to put them on the wall. The deer were eaten (by me) years ago. The only value they have is as a reminder to myself of the experience. In that same spirit I have some track photos and short vids and audio recordings of ... something. They're not for validation, they just remind me of steps along my personal journey. MIB