Time To Capture Bf

[Guest Hairyboys]

1. Just don't use cinnamon as bait because sasquatch hates cinnamon
   

[Incorrigible1]

It makes them sneeze.

[Guest Peter O.]

What about snuff? Didn't Albert Ostman use that? Would that make them sneeze? It might be enough of a distraction to shoot the rocket-propelled nets.

[Guest drtracr]

Does Rosetta Stone have a course in BF

[Guest bobali]

drtracr;

Unfortunately no. It is a private dialect like the many in Asia. It is my guess that it is an exact dialect that can't be almost learned. I was trying to say that when I wrote about my experience with Chinese. BF will have to try to speak English since we try to understand pigeon English. etc. Didn't you have a new method about ready to try? The sooner you tryn it, the sooner you will be able to modify it to work better. I hope you will be able to place enough automatic cameras to make your odds better.

[Guest bobali]

I have read many other topics now and have decided that it is no longer difficulut to determine if it is a BF, a human, an ape, etc. as long as we have a photo. It has repeatedly shown that bone lengths in those likely to be BF were always the same percent of the major measurements. It is unnecessary to determine the standard measurement relative to photo size to label a BF. It also seems that with a little research it is easy to find locations where they return. If facts like this were used more often, a capture and the obtaining of blood and resulting DNA wouldn't be that far away. Unfortunately there are too many that slow themselves down by using their untested hunches. Consider my words as you examine facts that we have found by using scientific methods.

[Bonehead74]

Bobali,

First, we'd need a large sample of pictures.

Second, we'd need to determine conclusively that the subjects in the pictures are, in fact, genuine bigfoot.

Lastly, we could interpolate average limb/bone lengths and ratios from these known bigfoot images.

We need to work on 1 & 2 long before we can even think about #3. Basing your model on images that are, in your words, "likely to be BF", is just asking for trouble, in my opinion.

[Guest bobali]

Bonehead74;

You didn't read my post clearly. 1,2,& 3 has already been done in another section of BF forum. More than several sites claim multi-return of BF has been posted in yet another section. If I were not disabled and had a team, a method, and finances; I would follow up on my previous post. It appears that you are not of that persuasion and satisfied with poo pooing anything not of your design. If you continue down this road you will not be helping with furthering of BF knowledge. I am sorry that I feel so strongly as to criticise strongly.

bobali

[Bonehead74]

Bobali,

If I didn't read your post clearly, it was most likely because of the disjointed nature of your prose. Please point me to the collection of "known" bigfoot photos. I don't poo-poo an idea because it's not mine, but because it isn't logically rigorous. If you have a database containing numerous photos of "known" BF based on limb/bone measurements, that means you must already have a sample of actual bigfoot measurements to use as a standard. You'd need actual physical metrics taken from a bigfoot body to create that standard. If you have a physical body, bigfoot is already proved, no? Catch-22.

[Guest bobali]

Bonehead74;

I didn't copy them down because they are on this forum with an obvious heading. Some claimed in their back yard some at other locations. With the measurements, they were taken from photos where bone length could be accurately enough measured. If you stay in the same photo a scale is not necessary. When the same proportions are repeated over a wide spread of locations and can be determined not human, and not known ape a ependable pattern can be established. Your over doubting is much like those who don't believe in UFO and their crews. Pictures have been around since stone age when concepts of rockets much less more hightech modes of propultion were centuries away. The indian tribes have legends of BF running back nearly as far. If you had lived around KittyHawk in the early 1900s we wouldn't have had progress like Orvile and Wilbur. Encouragement is needed not doubt.

[Guest BFSleuth]

I think we might be losing the intent of this particular thread. We should be discussing how one might capture BF and related issues. While discussion of photographic evidence is interesting, it belongs in another thread.

[Cotter]

drtracr - are you planning on pulling this off this year yet? (of course, assuming you can find the finances)

[Guest Peter O.]

Your over doubting is much like those who don't believe in UFO and their crews. Pictures have been around since stone age when concepts of rockets much less more hightech modes of propultion were centuries away.

Um, those are not drawings of alien spacecraft. They are imaginative portrayals of the ancient gods. Please don't underestimate human imagination, it's what gave us those UFOs in the first place ;-)

[Guest bobali]

BFSleuth;

I disagree. I didn't bring anything here but the conclusions that need to be known here. If you can hold a BF still while measurements are taken without killing one, the heck with pictures. Much of our

"military intelligence" ( an oxymoron) is done with pictures today and has been for more than 75 years. All that I ask is to use the data that we already have so we can get on with the Jane Goodall type observation. One of the posters here suggested that I read other specific areas of this forum. I did, and found the data that I speak of.

bobali

[Guest BFSleuth]

Okay, I'll allow that your discussion is referencing the issue of capture. By the way, how are you suggesting to get the BF to hold still for measurements?