Bigfoot Research – Still No Evidence, But Plenty Of Excuses To Explain Why There’S No Evidence

[Guest DWA]

I hear you Noresman, but I can't help but wonder where is that funding going to come from. I heard this morning in another thread that the Falcon Project looks to be either dead or running into some serious funds issues with only hitting $11k of their targeted $355K I believe? If a University is not going to do it, or NatGeo or someone ( or at least haven't by now), then who will? I think this upcoming Spike TV thing will be a joke and I have zero faith in the Rick Dyer + Minnow films + the backlot of a Home Depot = a BF body. So that doesn't leave much other than private investors. I guess we need a BF enthusiast to win the lottery or something.

I have wondered, numerous times: where is Ted Turner when you really need him? This looks right up his alley. Maybe he's tapped out.

It's my belief that mainstream organizations that can't free up this much money - or at least bang the drum for well-heeled donors - aren't cognizant of how compelling the evidence is. NatGeo is close but no cigar. I think it's long past the solid-bet point, and will certainly do much more for the field than finding one more monkey or lemur or loris subspecies someplace.

But yeah, there has got to be more than enough money under the control of more than enough egos out there somewhere. I can't believe that, were I one of them, I wouldn't go "why the heck not?" and toss a couple million that way.

[dmaker]

Even if the allure of scientific discovery does not appeal, then certainly the potential monetary reward for producing a BF would attract someone with some means by now I would think. I cannot attest to the accuracy of the figures, but I often see members here stating that a BF body would be worth several hundred million dollars. That is a pretty heft return on investment. Even if it's a massive long shot, it must be attractive to someone with some cash at hand. And I'm not talking the bounty hunter types that are probably going to be featured on whatever Spike TV manages to produce. I'm talking a serious attempt well funded, well staffed and well placed. Surely, even if well done, that would cost a fraction of what the potential returns could be if the estimates I see on here are accurate?

[WSA]

dmaker, I think you've pointed right at the reason a deep pocket is not likely to gee/haw with the greater BF community. That much money doesn't come without strings attached, ever. With it comes conditions. We can all probably predict some of those (naming rights, licensing, confidentiality and ND, specimen ownership, staffing requests, etc., etc.) Research-for-the-sake-of-research comes with very few, if done properly. But, science costs money, like anything else. What we are looking at is the (so far) abject failure of our academic institutions to discharge their stated missions, nothing more, nothing less. At it is often said, science advances one death at a time. I wish all scientists, academics and researchers a long and prosperous life, but on this subject we obviously are going to require many more leaving the field before the subject gets the funding it deserves.

[Guest Stan Norton]

^Indeed. It does annoy me when a portrayal is given of 'the Scientific Community' as a brother/sisterhood of ever-so-worthy altruistic folks all beavering away hard and adding, bit by bit, to this grand edifice of 'Knowledge'. It's a farce. In my own experience (as someone who has flirted with an academic career, is married to an academic and whose in-laws are academics), scientists generally follow the money (i.e. what pays the bills and gets more funding) rather than the 'truth'. It's all about trends. A couple of years ago I was about to start a Doctorate (couldn't afford it in the end) and it was made quite clear that if my research proposal could shoehorn-in 'climate change' I'd stand a better chance than with a pure biological approach. Hey, maybe that's the answer! 'The likely impact of climate change on a boreal ape: a case study from the Pacific Northwest'....

[Guest DWA]

To anyone who tells me that science is primarily about the advancement of knowledge, I just smile and point to this topic.

[Guest RayG]

Yes, because it pales in comparison to the advancement of knowledge by bigfooters.

RayG

[WSA]

RayG, on the subject of this putative creature? Ummm, yeah. Demonstrably so. As my granny would say on reading some particularly unsavory account of a neighbor in the local press: "Uh-uh-huh....you'd a thought they'd a been ashamed."

[dmaker]

@WSA, Why exactly do you think science has taken the approach it has to BF? Surely, there must be some reason? Is it stigma? If so, then why is there a stigma? There must be a reason for that as well. Expeditions are launched for lots of other species, why not BF? There must be some sane reason why nothing much is being done. If organizations are willing to spend effort and money looking for toads and frogs in the Amazon for example, then why not BF? I can't imagine it's so that they can irritate people on a forum. There must be some sort of a good reason for it, like maybe they don't feel it's warranted.

If the approach is so horrible as to shame even your granny's sensibilities, then it must be grounded in something other than just randomly deciding that BF will be treated poorly?

[Guest DWA]

Yes, because it pales in comparison to the advancement of knowledge by bigfooters.

RayG

Which has been considerable. Can't help it if the mainstream doesn't particularly care; not my issue.

[Guest]

Expeditions are very rarely launched "for a species". There was no expedition to find either gorilla species, the coelocanth, or the saola. Expeditions are usually launched for an area and for the purpose of general biological inventory. Usually when we read of harrowing expeditions to find some species, the goal is not its initial discovery but rather to photograph it in the wild, capture a live one, etc.

One exception might be okapi, a species that was described from physical remains obtained in 1901. Johnston's efforts to find this strange creature known to the natives began in . . . you guessed it: 1901. Johnston was successful in the first year of his stated desire to collect the species, and all he did was ask the natives to bring him one. The American Museum of Natural History did not even begin its Congo Expedition until 1909. Thus, to put the okapi discovery on par with our discussions of bigfoot, this would be like a bigfoot collected from Oregon several years before Lewis and Clark got there.

What this means is that - if bigfoots are out there - they must be more rare, elusive, and difficult to obtain than gorillas, saolas, okapis, and coelocanths. There have been countless biological inventories - a bunch of them by me - conducted in places reported to support bigfoots, and not one of them has yielded a bigfoot. Our "natives" have been unable to produce one, and not in 1 year but rather throughout several centuries of exploitation, occupation, and settlement in what should be the range of these creatures. Scientific expeditions have been conducted - perhaps not to the satisfaction of some - but they have been conducted. Ketchum and Sykes are engaged in two prominent ones right now.

To date, the evidence suggests we're dealing with a non-physical bigfoot, i.e., folklore, and this is why we don't have more scientists actively engaging in the "hunt". We have no confidence in our ability to find a real, live bigfoot because clearly the methods we use to study all the other animals on earth don't apply to this one. Without the ability to convince even ourselves that we can get one, how can we make the case to, say, the NSF, that we need an investment of big dollars to fund our search? If I could figure that out, my lab would be much better funded than it is.

[Guest DWA]

@WSA, Why exactly do you think science has taken the approach it has to BF? Surely, there must be some reason? Is it stigma? If so, then why is there a stigma? There must be a reason for that as well. Expeditions are launched for lots of other species, why not BF? There must be some sane reason why nothing much is being done. If organizations are willing to spend effort and money looking for toads and frogs in the Amazon for example, then why not BF? I can't imagine it's so that they can irritate people on a forum. There must be some sort of a good reason for it, like maybe they don't feel it's warranted.

If the approach is so horrible as to shame even your granny's sensibilities, then it must be grounded in something other than just randomly deciding that BF will be treated poorly?

I don't think anyone can untangle how the European sensibility to bigfoot got started. (Encounter reports go back furtther than the Republic itself.)

That's really immaterial. Those of us who understand animals and the outdoors and who have thought a whole lot about this can't find a single good reason for this attitude, however it got started. We haven't heard a single objection to the evidence that seems to reflect a similar level of attention, no matter how many we read. The evidence stands, unsullied; the objections we have handled, over and over and over.

And scientists - specialists in fields that could not possibly be more relevant (I have lost count of how many times I have typed this) - vouch for the animal's reality.

Were I WSA's grandma, I'd wonder about the rest of the scientists, I would. I'd wonder what the heck they spend their time doing. I mean, when someone asks me about something I demonstrably know little to nothing about....well, that is what I tell them.

What this means is that - if bigfoots are out there - they must be more rare, elusive, and difficult to obtain than gorillas, saolas, okapis, and coelocanths.

No it doesn't. Joes and Janes of all walks of life - many of them requiring meticulous observation and attention to detail - are seeing this animal. There is no reason I have ever heard that satisfies me there is any reason to doubt them. Hunters have had the animal in their sights and, for reasons perfectly understandable, refused to shoot. At least two have killed one; one, describing the foot of the animal he shot, told Grover Krantz about just the structure Krantz had perceived necessary for a biped this size. Why one has not been collected? You tell me. But one cannot use that fact to discount the evidence. It is perfectly plausible to me that we haven't, with the level of sheer incredulity that surrounds mainstream reaction to this topic.

There have been countless biological inventories - a bunch of them by me - conducted in places reported to support bigfoots, and not one of them has yielded a bigfoot.

Most of those doing the inventory, I suspect, knew what would happen to them if they reported a bigfoot. Which wildlife biologists and other scientists have. Anonymously, to bigfoot websites, because they knew why that's how they had to do it. You? Either you just haven't gotten lucky, or you are approaching this with a prima facie 'it can't be real' attitude, which can cause even scientists to miss stuff.

[WSA]

dmaker....me-my-own-personal-self? I think it has much to do with the personalities attracted to academia and the requirements imposed on those selected. I suppose it is easy for me to rail against these academics (To quote J. Garcia: Nothing more exhilarating than pointing out the shortcomings of others) and generalizations are always ill-advised, but...I've never had to cover my family's nut on a researcher’s stipend. I imagine it will put a real crimp in your ambitions.

I think what we are seeing is the concept of the lay researcher coming full circle. Before every university had a well staffed department of archeology and biology, much of the grunt work in the field was undertaken by amateurs. They were looked down on considerably by the self-anointed "real" scientist, but it can't be denied they pushed the boundaries of the disciplines. Looks like we may once again be under those conditions, at least in the field of cryptozoology. History shows us there will be resistance to such practitioners, but they will enjoy some success in spite of that. The amount of BF evidence already collected by them in a few short decades argues for it.

[dmaker]

@WSA I understand what you are saying about the lay researcher. I seem to recall a gentleman who spent a lot of time in colonial America cataloging flora and fauna. But these are different times by far. The lands we live in ( and where BF is reported) are far from the unexplored wilderness that they once were when the amateur biologist was so active. But even if we go along with your proposal what are these lay researchers even providing to the "real" scientists for examination? Let's inventory it: tales, tracks and pixels. And quite, quite often these turn out to be fabricated hoaxes. But even if we take the deliberately false out of the equation we're still left with the difficult notion that a large ( very large) animal, with a breeding population of a size to support the number of sightings across virtually all of North America, is contstantly escaping capture and leaving behind next to nothing as far as physical evidence for either the lay researcher or the "true" scientist to examine.

Edited January 31, 2013 by dmaker

[dmaker]

Post removed as I posted in the wrong thread by accident.

Edited January 31, 2013 by dmaker

[WSA]

dmaker...I'd say the notion is difficult, but not unimaginable. It could be unprecedented, I agree. But then again, we may be dealing with an animal with extraordinary capabilities, which are further enhanced by our own bumbling methodology. We've gotten so enamored with our techno-prowess we've convinced ourselves we are all-seeing. Hardly. Not even close, as far as I can tell. The universe is just to ding-donged huge to cover at a glance, and you have to bring focus to bear selectively if you ever want to learn about something that wouldn't otherwise drop into your lap. I suspect when we are ready to get serious and focus, Sasquatch will be waiting for us. And we'll be astonished, like we always are, about how... HOW (!) we could have missed something so obvious. Then we'll move on to the next bit of obvious knowledge we'll overlook. So it goes with us man-monkeys.