Are We Going About This All Wrong?

[Bonehead74]

For as long as I can tell in modern (1958 - onward) bigfooting, the bigfoot "problem" has been mostly been seen through the lens of wildlife research. To my mind, this approach has produced very little in the way of hard data. There is an ongoing debate about whether sasquatch is an animal similar to the great apes, or is more closely related to the creature we call Homo sapiens. The Gigantopithecus/North American Great Ape theory dominated the landscape for many years, thanks mostly to Dr Grover Krantz. Krantz, along with John Green, Peter Byrne, and Rene Dahinden tailored their investigative efforts based on the assumption that bigfoot was sub-human, or at least possessing sub-human intelligence. If the "more human than ape" theory is closer to the truth, then why continue to use research techniques designed to study wildlife? Perhaps we need to look at the problem from the perspective of trying to catch a human who happens to have unparalleled bushcraft skills, is exceedingly wary, and who only chooses to interact with other people on their own terms. Should we be looking to law enforcement, man-tracking, and human intelligence gathering methods instead of driving on with the old wildlife model?

Of course, I realize that we don't know what sasquatch are, so my idea might sound a bit too presumptuous. Looking at it from a scientific perspective though, when your experiment(s) produce(s) unexpected results (or no results at all), at some point you need re-examine your hypothesis and/or change your experimental protocols (Although I admit to harboring some doubts about science's ability to analyze the bigfoot question, but that's for another thread...). Remember that old definition of insanity? "Insanity is doing the same thing over and over while each time expecting a different result." Could it be that we'll be chasing our own tails until we acknowledge that we are up against a comparable intelligence and modify our research methods accordingly? Food for thought.

*Edited to add that all of this takes for granted that sasquatch does indeed exist!

Edited March 22, 2012 by Bonehead74

[Guest BFSleuth]

Thank you for creating this thread. I've thought for a long time that trying to approach research with the idea that BF is a dumb animal makes no sense. I think we would be much further along if we consider that they at least approach if not surpass human intelligence. Please note that when I say this that intelligence expresses itself in a wide variety of ways in humans and I expect that their intelligence is expressed in ways that we may not yet be able to perceive or comprehend.

This is why I think that habituation or interactions that show a little respect for them will go a LOT farther with research than "going wackabout" in the woods (wacking on trees, call blasting, etc.). Think of it like this... if you suddenly had new neighbors that sometimes came uninvited into your house, blurting nonsense and banging on the walls, basically interrupting your life, then would you be inclined to lock yourself in the bathroom until they are gone or would you want to interact with them?

Treat them as neighbors, go quietly, be respectful. Consider that you are up against a special forces team (family group) that knows the area better than you ever will with inhuman strength and speed. I would say respect is really the first order of business.

Edited March 22, 2012 by BFSleuth

[Guest Particle Noun]

This is a good point, which I've been thinking about too. The other angle this can impact is the idea of kill/no kill. IF 'Bigfoot' is a relic homind or some such, the idea of 'bringin' in the body' is much more odious. For instance, if a lost tribe is sighted deep in the Amazon, no one would dare to suggest we need to go in and get a body in order to study them. The study would be much more anthropological and field research based.

If Dr. Ketchum's study indicates this more homind like nature, then we will have to think hard about how we approach scientific study. And I think the points you raise about how to locate them is very salient. A higher degree of intelligence, somewhere on the human scale, would go a long way toward offering an explanation as to how they have avoided being seen clearly for all of these years, and may even explain the lack of remains. That is all pure speculation, but in my mind, the relic homind theory makes a ton more sense.

Not to mention the fact that it is a far better answer to 'why there is nothing in the fossil record indicating a great north american ape'. However, we do have a growing number of examples of relic hominds scattered throughout the globe.

Would you think combining field researches with expert trackers?

[Guest tirademan]

I've found many posse stories from the past...they all seem to get nothing.

tirademan

[Guest Bipedal Ape]

also doing the same thing over and over again trying to find a creature that does not exist will get the same results.

people reportedly see these things all the time.

never when they have a camera though.

the real problem is this creature may not exist, that would certainly explain the lack of hard evidence.

this is all my opinion of course but I still expect a few of you to hit the report button

[Bonehead74]

Bipedal Ape, are you being purposefully ignoring the last line of my original post?

Edited March 23, 2012 by megatarsal

[Guest Bipedal Ape]

and i am taking for granted that it doesnt exist

[indiefoot]

If there are people out there who have ongoing interaction with BF, I would assume they will keep it to themselves. Why tell a hunter where to find someone you look at in a friendly way.

I don't mean to be overly critical, but I view much of the research that takes place as "playing army". I suspect the BF do also. When a modern day Goodall or Fossey comes along they might get somewhere, but it could take generations of dedication.

Edit for spelling

Edited March 22, 2012 by indiefoot

[Guest]

Bonehead74,

This discussion suffers from poor terminology. Per Wikipedia (http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae), man is a great ape and all great apes are classified as hominids.

There is a wide range of sophistication in how bigfoot hunters undertake their searches. One must admit that there are some who are cannot be accused of assuming their prey are simple dumb animals.

Pteronarcyd

[JDL]

You're directly on target, Bonehead. From personal experience, their intelligence is within the human range, and, given their specialization, they are smarter than we are in their own envronment.

I've put a lot of thought into how one might capture one alive. I'm former military and have always felt that it would require at least a dozen former special operations guys who understand that they are likely going up against a group of people who are even more formidable.

[AaronD]

Thanks Bonehead! For saying what I've believed all along. Of course, owing to the possibility that the entity in question may simply not exist, I say IF it exists, this is what I believe. Consider any animal out there, even in the comfort of its own environment, if a man (or woman) with moderate tactical skills wants to hunt it down it's only a matter of time and it's a done deal. So what's been the decades-old hang up? You're onto something! I can't site my sources due to forum rules, nor can I elaborate on what I know for the same reason; however, keep heading this direction. Maybe the direction of "Bigfootery" will change course.

[Guest]

Clearly, we are going about it wrong. The lack of satisfactory results tells us so.

I think of them as cousins. I cringe when I see folks tramping through a forest at night, yelping and howling, and stomping over nests, entering shelters, expecting immediate gratification, and generally acting rude, brash, and ignorant. How do they expect this to work at all? It's nuts!

Better to stay on a trail, go in the later day or early morning, and show a little respect! We make them a little nervous sometimes. Don't approach what might be hiding spots, stay out of brush and thickets, be careful when approaching trees, and try to feel cheerful--I really think on days I feel well, upbeat, and am really loving being out in nature are the days I get the best "reception."

Be patient. Wait. Be quiet. Listen. Stay still. Watch. And whistle a little bit.

You peek at them, they peek back, and maybe we will creep out into the open eventually.

Edited March 23, 2012 by Kings Canyon

[ShadowBorn]

Bonehead74

So this bothers? Or is this something that needs to be said. It has been bothering me since I had my first encounter. Whether they are human with animal in them does not matter. What matters is their intelligence and the way they live. What if they are us as our past living the way we once lived using the full capicity of their brain. We still do not know what our own brains are capable so how can we judge theirs. They live in the wild where their lives have not been corrupted by anything that man has made. So what if they have learned to use that part of the brain that we have not been able too.

Everyone has tried all these different ways to attract these creatures with no luck. Now maybe it is time to change to what does work. In some wired way they do not want to be studied but rather be left alone. I do not see them as a people but have been told. Also I have been told that they are tribal which to me explains their hunting groups. But there is way more that shows they have human/animal in them and that they do think for themselves. Their ability to evade is what makes them a perfect predator in their domain. Whether they are ape,homo Whatever ,or even human/animal they are out there and if you want to know what they are then, tactics need to change. Some times it is better to stay silent and it is not for the creatures sake, but for the sake of the witness. These creatures do not need protection if we go out and harm them it will be us that will need protection. Change tactics and you will know the truth.

[Bonehead74]

Bonehead74,

This discussion suffers from poor terminology. Per Wikipedia (http://en.m.wikipedi.../wiki/Hominidae), man is a great ape and all great apes are classified as hominids.

There is a wide range of sophistication in how bigfoot hunters undertake their searches. One must admit that there are some who are cannot be accused of assuming their prey are simple dumb animals.

Pteronarcyd

Pteronarcyd,

I'll happily amend my statement to say, "There is an ongoing debate about whether sasquatch is an animal similar to the other great apes, or is more closely related to the creature we call Homo sapiens." if it removes a semantic hurdle preventing anyone from participating in the debate.

Nowhere did I say that all BF researchers operate within the "North American Great Ape" paradigm (I'm well acquainted with several who do not), only that it dominated bigfootery for many years, thereby influencing generations of BF investigators and their research tactics. The problem is that many of those same researchers still use a wildlife model as the template for their investigations. I intended this to be a thread not about what we think bigfoot is, but about the techniques and underlying mindset we use to try to learn about them.

Edited March 23, 2012 by Bonehead74

[AaronD]

Yes! We definitely need to change the M.O., cuz what has been done for decades hasn't produced anything but blurry controversial photos, ambiguous "evidence", and hoards of he said/she said quality eye witness accounts. But, it's not surprising given our track record in other areas of "science"; still trying to cure cancer with poison, for instance...But then the next question is: How should we go about finding Bigfoot? Howling through the woods with a FLIR cam and whacking a tree with a stick make for great armchair entertainment, but how should we approach the subject?