Leaderboard

Of course, I do. That sounds harsh, but given the current state of lack of evidence, I don't think bigfoot exists as a live animal. So, the only answer I can possibly have for you, is yes. It's not meant to be an insult. Just my objective opinion. Biology is not a science that must rely on observation or prediction, alone. It is one of the simplest of the sciences when it comes to species confirmation. You either have proof of the animal, or you do not. Bigfoot exists, or it does not. If it exists, it will be proven with physical evidence. If it does not exist, our grandchildren will be having this same conversation. The only thing that will prove this animal is DNA or a piece of one, or a body on a slab. No amount of psychoanlysis or anecdote trumping up, or anything else will make one whit of difference. Biology is clear. Produce the animal, or a piece of one, or nothing else matters. With my own personal provision that I think that if anyone were to provide clear, HD footage of one, that would move the needle in favor of belief. While not proof, it would stimulate some serious conversation. And I mean crystal clear video, not the usual blurry, far away, crappy bigfoot videos.

I just want to show you what a Journal rejection sounds like when it's not even accepted for review: I fully realize that the point of your thread here is to say "There's no scientific bias against bigfoot, you're just not submitting papers to Nature!" This rejection letter above was from a publication with a much lower impact factor than Nature. There's nothing particularly wrong with the paper - they said as much - it's just their prerogative to take one precursory glance at what the study is actually about and decide they don't even want to look at it. Do you honestly think anyone submitting bigfoot evidence would get their paper reviewed, regardless of what the study entails? Do you actually think no one (Meldrum, Ketchum) has tried? Meldrum has gotten rejections that amounted to "Bigfoot doesn't exist, therefore we won't review your paper." I mean, convince yourself of whatever you want, but my response to the original intent of this thread here is OF COURSE THEY WON'T REVIEW YOUR BIGFOOT PAPER! You'd be lucky to get an email response about not letting the revolving door hit you on the way out. The only exception will come from someone with a huge reputation and publication track record, like Bryan Sykes.

You mean, acquiring proof that BF exists? That is a loaded question because what is proof to one, is not enough for another. I'll just say that I've tried everything within my limited resources mostly to find an answer for myself, one way or another. The day I reach a solid conclusion, is the day I retire from bigfootery to use the time and energy for other things. Things I've tried so far: Website, sightings database for data mining/analysis, trail cams, audio recorders. Haven't been able to do any to the scale and quality that I'd like, but it's better than nothing. The real answer though is: I'm waiting for a "professional" to go out and take care of business. Second hope is for a trucker to get "lucky" and runover one.

Have one sign an affidavit.

Heh, heh, OK, if you say so. Now lemme see.......that makes me not only a plagiarist according to MIB, but now a bigot too, according to you. Hey, I think I'm doing just fine here on the beautiful BFF. Now, remind me again, OS, about the part of the OP that you didn't read.

I would characterize everything FarArcher posted as axiomatic, bordering on "Duh". That of course is just my opinion though!

What exactly did Disotell say to "dis" Bigfoot? If his opinions compromised his judgments then it would show up in his work. Are there any specific incidences when Disotell has not been spot on with his DNA work? DNA is convincing evidence to someone like Disotell. He is on a win-win here: if sample is mundane he gets to promote good science; if sample is a new species - he is on a major discovery... This "SASQUATCH NESTS eDNA STUDY" is a great idea - much better than the usual "Fund me to find Bigfoot" crowdsourcing campaigns on offer. Disotell is exactly the right person for the job. Everyone with an interest in the subject should be pitching in a buck or two. At the very least, this data will enable us to evaluate our own individual Bigfoot hypotheses. Will it reveal some ancient Homo relative? Giganto? Or just mundane species and modern human DNA: Which hypothesis will the data support? If it is not as expected will it change anyone's mind?

Starling, no. When someone "catches something out of the corner of their eye . . ." there is NOT a psychological disposition towards folklore. In fact, quite the opposite. One tends to identify something they know, something familiar. There's a built-in reason that we tend to first "go with what we know." In my former misguided activities - we depended a lot on going undetected. Which meant doing everything possible to blend in and not stand out - including, but not limited to using camoflage. You see, when a human looks at something - a bright color unlike the background will jump out at you, then movement, then shape. That's why a flagman will wear a bright vest - though he may not be moving - it really jumps out at your at a glance. If you're not brightly colored in the field - and you're not moving and see someone enter the area that may and probably will see you, the very best thing you can do in the immediate term is to change your shape. Change your shape from a human into something else. You can usually go unnoticed if you quickly bend at the waist and don't move. Make sure your head faces them and doesn't show the normal profile. It even works against recon aircraft - where you may be casting a shadow. They will quickly see a human shaped shadow, but it's confusing if you're bent at the waist. Why? Because you don't look like something your opponent immediately recognizes. You really don't look like anything - maybe a stump, maybe a moss covered stump - but you certainly don't meet the anticipated height, width, or shape of a human - and they human eye goes right over you. People who see something tend to immediately identify those things they're very familiar with - see frequently. Shape is everything - and shape in of itself is an instant type-identifier. That's why lots of money is spent on 3-D camo - which breaks up the human shape. A car instantly is differentiated from a truck - not by color, not by movement - but by shape. A bird in a tree is instantly differentiated from a squirrel - by shape. A dog running across a yard, or through the bushes is instantly differentiated from a cat by shape. That argument is absolutely unscientific, and every military in the world knows that's all BS.

The link provided by DWA regarding NAWAC's "operation" IMO, furnishes another catalog of what not to do in such an endeavor. For instance, if you want to kill one of these entities wouldn't the time of year where visibility was optimum and a dearth of food resources dictating more movement by the subject be (on it's face) a better option? Well, it could be only if you had access to ~6200 acres of private land instead of 10 acres and held to that spot and did not commit trespass on adjoining land. Additionally, there are a couple of inaccuracies contained within it such as the statement there were no permanent residences in the area. Within a 1.5 mile radius of the Branson 10 acre plot, there are five (5) residences in existence with two (2) of those having the second/third generation of habitation by family members. I wouldn't describe access as rugged since your basic Honda Civic could easily drive to the front gate of Area "X". However, in deference to their apparent urbanite mindset, the area may have appeared as something out of darkest Africa.

I think some of these "expeditions" is a reason for a bunch of guys to go out and drink, get out of the house, and away from the wife. Then you'll have those who are enthusiasts who have a total lack of good, solid field practices - and they nullify their own efforts. Then you'll have less than a handful of interested, real scientists, but again, they go looking and lacking light, movement, or noise discipline - they too, nullify their own efforts. Others go out with preconceived notions of how best to get good evidence of these things, and if they think for a moment they're up against an animal - well - if you don't know what you're seeking - you'll never find it as you'll use the wrong practices. A deer hunt is much different from a bear hunt, which is different from a rabbit hunt, which is much different from a lion hunt, which is different from a Cape Buffalo hunt. Same with fishing. You fish for bream in the Gulf of Mexico - your luck will positively suck. But I credit those who are serious, who take care to take the time to go and try to get any kind of evidence. One day. One day, we'll have good, solid evidence. Because they're out there. As many here know.

We still do have mods, we're just a little short handed right now. So the correct course of action would be to ignore this thread and carry on with the pinned one, instead of complaining about it. I've asked DWA to use existing threads instead of digging up old ones. Now I'm asking you guys to ignore irrelevant, old threads so as to not encourage the behavior. Thank You.

That's why you can't find one.