Leaderboard

Here is how we should be looking at this... 1) Physical evidence Hair, Scat, EDna, Dna, bones, flesh, teeth, etc 2) Trace evidence Footprints, teeth marks, audio recordings, video recordings, tree structures, slide marks, body casts, etc 3) Witness reports sightings, observed trackways, heard unexplained sounds, etc 4) Hoaxing trackways, video recordings, audio recording, etc Basically we are stuck with 2, 3 and unfortunately 4? And we are trying to get to number1! 3 has little value. 2 has some value in getting us to number 1. And as of yet no one has produced number 1 in an acceptable way to science. Number 4 plagues us because some people think it’s funny, some people thinks it will strengthen their cause and some people want to cash in. In the end? It’s number 4 that hurts us the most and why science doesn’t take the subject seriously. There may be another category. 5) Conspiracy Some people feel like the government is covering it up. Not unlike UFO’s.... which now seems to be the case after the Navy admitted that UFO’s are real. After debunking them for 60 years. Will at some point in the future will we see the government admit Bigfoot is real? That secretly they have been studying them all along? Is this an avenue we should pursue? And the last category that has to be addressed is this. 6) Non existence Either it went extinct or never existed at all. We are all wrong. The tracks I saw where caused by x,y or z. Witnesses are seeing bears while intoxicated. Etc, Etc, etc. Not a pleasant proposition to consider. And yet we seem to have serious problems getting to 1. Logically should it be this hard? If there is truly a healthy breeding population of large primates living in our forests? All species get sick, wounded, die. All species leave behind feces, blood, saliva. It cannot be helped. So we need to self examine WHY we are not succeeding. Is it because we are seeking something that isn’t truly there? Or are we incompetent? Are we focused on the smoke and not the fire? Is the government torpedoing our efforts? Maybe Zimmer’s categories can play a role here. Disseminating different classes of information. But in biology this takes a back seat to physical evidence. Just like in a court of law? DNA trumps a contradiction by a eye witness account.

Hiflier, All I’m hearing is you playing the victim. Shadowborn made a comment about why he gets smirk emojis and you get downvotes. I gave him my opinion on why that happens. It turned into this. I’m done discussing it because all I see are wall of texts that always move goal posts and somehow circle back to you harping on E-DNA. Good day sir.

By definition no. Lifestyle yes.

Another option is to send a text, once or twice a day, using your Inreach, that contains your UTM coordinates. That way you know the person you want to receive location information is receiving it. That or sending the coordinates to a second person as a form of insurance.

I went with hominid. It is not necessarily the right answer but it is most consistent with the body of evidence currently available. MIB

You never discuss the science of e-DNA, don't study it, don't discuss it, but instead you keep coming after me because you think you're somehow right in doing that. Well, you're not.. And you're the ONLY ONE. Think about that.

I take offense to having someone being singularly critical of me when I mention e-DNA as often as I do as a method, but not critical of others who mention their methodology even more often than I do. Norseman has been talking about his method in all of the 7 years I've been here. I've been talking about my method for 8 months. I don't see you coming out of the woodwork every time he mentions "body on a slab". But you seem to like doing that to me as if it was personal or something. You always show up with some negative remark. Sure, I bring e-DNA up across threads but how often does "body on a slab" get mentioned all over the General Forum and beyond? What your issue is, is that I pressure members for help. Norseman doesn't. But then it's a different kettle of fish altogether. He's one man against one Sasquatch. I'm one man against the scientific establishment. I also am simply trying to get an answer to a scientific genetics question and could use some support in that and I've not been able to understand people's fear in doing so. So. It's not your lack of hunting, Twist. It's your apparent need to somehow for keeping me in a corner. I mean, I don't hunt either, so why would I be critical of you or anyone else for what I don't do myself? Think about it. Also, there are plenty of members who are no-kill here. How come you can't promote e-DNA as a method instead of killing a Bigfoot? I mean if folks really don't want the thing shot, and they know people are out there trying to shoot one, then where are they when it comes to the e-DNA subject? One is no-kill but doesn't support a method guaranteed NOT to kill? That makes no sense to me. Example: People have been very vocal and adamant at conferences in the past when NAWAC was the speaker. It sometimes got physical. But if those folks are that passionate and dead set against killing a Bigfoot then where are they when it comes to supporting a program meant to keep Bigfoot from getting killed? So yes, I get pushy, but only because things people sometimes say and do, or don't do, don't make sense to me. I simply don't do well with certain levels of hypocrisy and am unabashedly and unapologetically vocal about it.