Leaderboard

I dont really care one way or the other Sasfooty.......ask away. And no we are not here guessing Sasfooty, we are planning. We may not be able to control one side of the equation. But if you dont put your line in the water? You dont catch fish.

For a problem as thorny as this one, the more people you can throw at it the better...especially if those people are credentialed biologists. Training does matter... no sleight to all of the amateur researchers out there... but it does. Biologists, like the animals they study, all have niches. If you have expertise in say, packrat middens, you might have some expertise to bring to the investigation, who knows? Look at BigTreeWalker's work for a prime example of this. I mean, gnawed bones? How intriguing is that ? And who is to say a climatologist or an expert in pre-Columbian civilizations would have nothing to contribute? Looking at this issue narrowly, gives you narrow results, if you get any at all. There is a huge knowledge vacuum here that results in lots and lots of speculations, some of which are frankly off-the-charts bizarre, and only serve to alienate more serious minded professionals. You close that knowledge gap you pull more legitimate researchers in, and synergistic results will follow. This nut will be cracked. ("Cracked", defined by me as: We can classify this animal, accurately estimate its population, reproductive rate and territorial range, and predict its diet), most likely by those not even born yet, who see this problem as the scientific challenge of their lives, who have the education, vision and leadership to enlist others, and who also have the essential , "I MUST see this through..!" compulsion that fuels all worthwhile scientific endeavors. (If some are bound to try and preempt this work with discouraging words, let me just say I find no inspiration in that worldview, nor would they, I'm betting)

I aways travel with a great evidence kit and well armed. I work every day in the South Lake Tahoe area CA side and Truckee

Is that what the voices in your head say Sasfooty? Or is that a guess on your part?

I think the BLM is set up differently than the National Forest. But there are mining claims...

Hit your pack .. yeah. I had a little piece of stick about 5-6 inches long and about 3/4 to 1 inch thick hit me in the back last fall. Not hard, not hard at all. Couldn't have traveled more than a couple feet or it would have hit a lot harder. I didn't know what it was. I spun around in time to see it hit the ground and bounce a little. I looked up ... no trees overhead. The nearby trees' trunks weren't big enough for anyone / anything to hide behind. So ... where DID it come from? I don't know, but it hit traveling horizontally, not vertically. "Hmmm." Some people dismiss what they don't immediately understand. Not me. Stuff like that makes me curious. I put up a trail cam about 25-30 feet away on a small tree ... can't get to it now because of snow. Wonder if I got anything interesting? Waiting for melt-out is like waiting for Christmas. MIB

There is no Bigfoot science. There is objective evidence, science, and the repeating result therein. False belief brings false negatives and or positives.

Quote Norseman, 25 Jan 2016 - 5:51 p.m. "But your Gorillas comparison has shot you in the foot. "Because the poor hapless Gorillas are still being slaughtered like cattle 150 years later! "But a Sasquatch skull would stick a fork in skeptics once and for all." I beg your pardon, Norseman; I wasn't clear. But you've made my point for me. Gorillas started bein' shot by men with guns 150 years ago. They're still bein' shot with guns today. ... They didn't learn to hide from men with guns. According to stories that I've read, fiction or fact, Bigfoot was shot by men with guns more than 150 years ago and even up until the early 20th century. ... But not lately? Instead nowadays, they're more likely to be shot with cameras. But I keep reading that Bf, most of them, are camera-wise and avoid those too. My point is that Bigfoot learned what the Gorillas have been unable to learn. This may show that Bigfoot reasons and learns from experience. But if Bigfoot can reason-learn-adapt, why doesn't he make tools? That one's easy, assuming his brain is similar to ours but not identical. In us, left & right brain functions are different. To greatly over-simplify, the left brain is analytical; the right brain is intuitive. I suggest that Bigfoot is as intelligent as we are in right brain functions. But he never got around to developing much left brain function. Or perhaps his left brain developed differently than ours. He may see us as an unwelcome guest in the woods or even a serious enemy. That didn't motivate him to invent the spear. He's well able to throw rocks and large chunks of wood. As for sticking a fork in skeptics, I suspect they're a bit too right-brained to get it. (edited by Oonjerah for spacing.)

Oh, I agree. I spent hundreds of hours a few years back on another project, and had to understand what in the Wide, Wide World of Sports the scientific community was proposing as "science." I was stunned at what they accept as "science" when even their own duplicated results were all over the map. Some dating techniques actually overlap each other in their abilities to age - and yet not any two can give the same results. In fact, the same, exact tests of identical matrixes or samples that are tested are frequently out of the park and all over the map. They'll test volcanic material that we know for a fact is just two hundred years old, and it will give results of millions of years old. I fail to understand how they can contrive an entire lifestyle, method of locomotion, dietary specifics, size, weight, territorial preferences, height, and behavior characteristics of something they can only find a few teeth of, and yet when it comes to the volumes of narratives over the millennia, backed up by footprints and thousands of witnesses - the "scientifically minded" skeptics deny the existence of the bigfoot. I've been around some really interesting developments, and the pattern of behavior among "scientists," is that if they don't personally see it, experience it, and understand it, they'll deny everything. And for researchers, they can't do the same, identical experiments all day long, day after day - just to meet the personal requirements of individuals. And the group will not accept the results of a selected group of scientists. I've seen engineers, forensic engineers do weeks of testing, and then refuse to provide their results - because the results they verified and verified again and again do not meet current understandings of classical physics - and they just go home. Even when they were paid to do their testing and just provide the results. Won't do it. I guess as a result, I'm a bit jaded when "scientific" evidence seems to stretch reasonable assumptions. And I have good reason to be jaded.