Leaderboard

Rob Lowe has quite the video collection as I understand it.

OK- I had a sighting back in 1990. It was really close up- about 8 feet. It was not from the corner of my eye. I was confronted with a creature so large that seated on its rear it effectivly blocked my lane on the road I was driving. It had no obvious snout like an elk, bison, bear, etc. I had a good view of it in the brights of my headlights. At first I thought a truck had lost its load of reddish dirt until I got closer. It turned out to be not only alive, but enormous and not any creature that I had ever seen before (and I've seen most of them in the lower 48). Does this encounter fit into your thumbnail above? What do you personally think I saw? It was pretty strong for me, but you kinda had to be there...

https://www.yahoo.com/news/rob-lowe-saw-bigfoot-thought-082451326.html

What am I doing to prove BF's existence to "SCIENCE" i.e. the popular conception of a loosely organized body of scientists who communicate with one another about a wide range of issues and form "scientific consensus" based on informed expert opinions? Nothing, the concept is a myth. What am I doing to prove BF's existence to scientists? To those of them that I can call my friends to an extent that I feel assured that telling them won't damage my career, I talk their ears off. I walk them through the evidence, hold their hand, and take them out into the woods. When we're hiking and they ask "Woah... Is that what you'd call a woodknock?" I smile and say "yep." I contribute to the snowballing of public opinion, which, in the case of the subject at hand, is no less informed nor less relevant than scientific opinion. I believe the evidence in favor of BF's existence is already painfully obvious if one takes the time to look at it thoroughly and logically (I know that's hardly a unique position around here), but it takes someone well-acquainted with the subject to walk you through that. That's why I'm here, and I fully intend to bring others around. If you were hoping for me to describe what caliber rifle I'm shopping for, don't hold your breath. As far as my personal investigations are concerned, right now I want to contribute to documenting locations and seasonal movements. Where, specifically, do we find structures? That tells you a location has been in use at some point, for some length of time, even if they're just passing through. When do structures appear, disappear, and change? When do you get actual encounters? That tells you a lot more, i.e. they're in that specific location at that specific time (well, duh). Think about the sightings map / BFRO Google Earth layer - it gives a pretty good sense of their range right? Is there any reason we shouldn't be able to produce something MUCH more extensive, and with a seasonal or temporal aspect to it? I want to understand the Chicagoland clans, and start to predict their movements. I've already found an area they use that's MUCH closer to the heart of Chicago than anything else I could find online. I want to try to help understand structures, their meanings. This aspect is absolutely brimming with possibilities. There are so many common archetypes found all over the place, how could that be random rather than symbolic? This is also an aspect of pushing the snowball, which if you spend any time on Youtube and #projectgoandsee you know is really taking off in the past year or two. Ultimately, I want to find myself a family of backyard BFs in the mountains of Colorado and work on getting to really know them, because that's what this study should really look like, but I think that's a ways off for now. At any rate, the way I see it there are two approaches: trying to "prove" it to "science," which is really no different than proving it to any lay person, they are equally uninformed and unqualified to opinion, a body on a slab will surely suffice (though I'm equally sure you won't get one, and for that we can be thankful); OR we can work to define what the study of bigfoot should actually look like, since there is no such discipline currently. As a scientist, the latter is the far more exciting, tantalizing option. And everything I've read and experienced leads me to believe that the study of bigfoot should much more closely resemble a type of cultural anthropology, or primate habituation, along with documented field observations, as opposed to this crime scene forensics approach that people seem to think is the way to "prove it to science." Let me rephrase the question and turn it around: what are you doing to prove the existence of BF to anthropologists and wildlife biologists? They are the only relevant scientists to this subject.

Needs more cow bell

It would be soooo much easier to understand the necessity of hedging against fraud -- and so much easier to forgive an action taken to prevent a fraud from occurring -- if one could just shake the feeling that a similar fraud had already been perpetrated by the very people seeking to protect themselves from one...........

You skeptics seem to picture the wild outdoors from the perspective of a walk in a nice, groomed, city park, walking along sidewalks and landscaped paths suitable for a leisure walk. Remote areas - it's just a bit different. There are three ways and only three ways for one to encounter either wildlife or enemy opponents in rough terrain. Overwatch, ambush, or meeting engagements. The first two are planned, the last is largely inadvertent. A meeting engagement is when two or more parties cross paths by chance. So. You are walking - say in your city park - and a rabid/crazy pit bull and you run into each other, and he bows up and starts growling. Are you that one that becomes a brief mention on the 6:00 local news that reports your tragic death? Because your first instinct was to start taking pictures? I'd bet money you'd have your ears laid back trying to clear the area, and your phone would stay right in your fanny pack - that's what you guys carry your "incidentals" in, right? There's a difference living at 8,000 feet on a very remote mountain for months - under very primitive conditions, among big cats, wolves, and bears - and your city park. SOME humans tell tales. Most are regular folks who would never make up something like seeing a large BF, as it even strains their belief. If your assumption were true, every year, we'd have thousands and thousands of sightings of vampires, dragons, gnomes, fairies - well in San Francisco that might be true - hundreds of Loch Ness sightings PER YEAR, lizard men, and a plethora of other critters. But we don't. Just lots of normal people, doing normal things, but witnessing an extraordinary sight.

Scientific proof may not be enough as legal proof would define this entity and lay out the metes and bounds of how the government and the public interact with them once official legal status is attained. Evidence comes in a variety of forms such as oral, written and the many types of forensic evidence. It is a collection of verifiable evidence that coalesces into proof. One of the apparent impediments to such is the competition among many of the various groups and their unwillingness to work together on a common goal. The ego factor and greed for fame and fortune not only facilitate devisive behavior but have even led to causes of action at the courthouse. BFRO reports are a resource to start developing a blueprint to begin patterning behavior and developing the common denominators that are sitting there in plain sight. We are using them to develop a basis for where to look (first) for skeletal remains. There can be more than one reason as to why humans are escorted out of certain areas. Above all, make sure the people you choose to associate with are like-minded as you will eventually find out the truth and it becomes a real source of frustration.