Leaderboard

Thank you, Branco. Good of you to take the time

Think you about covered everything.

Creating the best report database that there is that will allow us to analyse a whole host of different search parameters regarding various different comparables, in a way that this subject has never seen. I will self fund various analysis techniques including specific, geo spatial mapping software plus fund Geeks who i feel benefit the subject and my vision hugely once i nail some more direction. Aside from that however, one needs to be popped. PS : I wrote the above without reading any of the other posts in the thread, just for the record.

Hoaxes are nothing new in the BF world. I think proponents & non-proponents alike could agree hoaxing hurts the BF case. Seems to be an integral part of the BF scene & IMO, makes it that much harder for this to be taken seriously by the general public. So , i thought i'd throw this out there for discussion. ive already got a few ideas of my own, but figured it might be interesting to see what is said concerning this. is it for attention,to undermine credibilty of researchers,or do some just feel the need to try & screw with your head? IOW, why do hoaxers hoax? what motivates them? & any thoughts on how could they be exposed /stopped?

A guy in New Hampshire wrote two books on forest forensics which helps 'read' the history of woods and fields. His Name is Tom Wessels and I have found the books interesting in determining the 'lay of the land' so to speak. Especially around areas that have had sightings so I know what you mean. This isn't about looking for sign it's more about reading the trees and the land itself and what they say about an areas history of activity such as Pasteur along with the types of rocks in walls and piles and what they say, what kind of cultivation, and whether logging or fire was a thinning factor along with the difference between wind damage and ice/snow events. Good reading really.

The above gif is old. We have added automatic color coding and links to the original reports when you click on a marker. To use it for field work, all you have to do is have a website with the documentation. The SSR would link to each report/field note/etc. All Premium members can access the SSR.

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.