Leaderboard

I don't do the folklore stuff, but I can agree on one thing you touched upon. I've stated on here several times in the past and have known this for years now that it's fully apparent that they don't know we can't see them in the dark. The crouching and hiding/concealment behaviors in the darkness fully shows this. I've observed this behavior with both infrared and thermal cameras. They like to stay hidden with both mediums. I used to think that since it's widely believed they can detect infrared light, that they stay hidden because they saw the infrared light beaming at them from the night vision. But since thermal gives off absolutely no light at all, they still exhibit this behavior when observed with a thermal camera. So they simply don't know we can't see them in the dark and they stay hidden because they think we can see them.. Also, I'm sure they can tell if you're looking in their direction with any type of camera day or night, since you're looking their way they notice you looking towards them and will stay concealed more. But this only accounts for some encounters that people have, some Bigfoot are just brazen and doesn't care about staying hid.

You're most welcome 7.62. I stopped working at gathering most evidence several years ago and just watch, enjoy and take pictures to share when I can. I leave that very disappointing, convoluted, maddening effort to others to try and prove it.

The bioarchaeologist approach won't work. The first fossilized remains of chimpanzees weren't discovered until the Fall of 2004 in the Rift Valley by Dr. Nina Jablonsky. Given the numbers of chimps compared to sasquatch, if chimps remains weren't found until 2004, there is no hope that approach could ever work with BF. My efforts have not, for a second, been concerned with science, or the scientific community. My efforts are only concerned with proving it for me. I have little respect for the scientific community and worrying what they thought would be the last thing on my mind.

True, but I think the questions are "How are you working on proving the existence of Bigfoot to science? Are any of you just in the planning phase? Do you have some good ideas towards that goal?" I don't think the original post asked for a shootout of who's efforts are better or even if they will work, just what are YOU doing... just saying.

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.