Guest Posted November 14, 2012 Posted November 14, 2012 Let's say that some scientific organizations decided to give a shot at documating bigfoot. With enough funding they cumbed through key bigfoot areas like the forests of the PNW. After say 5 years they came up empty. Would that make you doubt bigfoot's existance?
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted November 14, 2012 Posted November 14, 2012 It's hard to doubt it when you already know they exist.
kbhunter Posted November 14, 2012 Posted November 14, 2012 Yea, me too OS. When you have experienced them and know they are for real, there is nothing to doubt. KB
TD-40 Posted November 14, 2012 Posted November 14, 2012 They wouldn't know what to look for. With their urban noises they would recklessly drive any sasquatch into hiding until they passed by. The organization would be out looking for sasquatch the same way it would be looking for moose, deer, or elk--hoping they just run into one by chance somewhere down by the river. Sasquatch can hide and move pretty darn well. I'm 100% positive that scouring an area would turn up empty.
Guest sprayanpray Posted November 14, 2012 Posted November 14, 2012 Let's say that some scientific organizations decided to give a shot at documating bigfoot. With enough funding they cumbed through key bigfoot areas like the forests of the PNW. After say 5 years they came up empty. Would that make you doubt bigfoot's existance? That is a loaded question it has a lot of avenues to explore. 1. Who was running the program 2. Was it for profit advancement of science or just basic knowledge 3. Was the crew knowledgeable of the woods or just a bunch of boners 4. Are they knowledgeable of they equipment they plan on using 5. Can they withstand not being employed for the 5 years because this would be a full time job. 6. Can the family members handle the separation for months at a time and how are they to travel in the woods ATV/Horse/Foot/ boat so being in shape is another issue All of these questions have answers for the people that are looking for the truth but with the truth must come a high payment and the people that answer the call must be willing to give the payment.
Guest Posted November 14, 2012 Posted November 14, 2012 (edited) That is a loaded question it has a lot of avenues to explore. 1. Who was running the program 2. Was it for profit advancement of science or just basic knowledge 3. Was the crew knowledgeable of the woods or just a bunch of boners 4. Are they knowledgeable of they equipment they plan on using 5. Can they withstand not being employed for the 5 years because this would be a full time job. 6. Can the family members handle the separation for months at a time and how are they to travel in the woods ATV/Horse/Foot/ boat so being in shape is another issue All of these questions have answers for the people that are looking for the truth but with the truth must come a high payment and the people that answer the call must be willing to give the payment. I define the searchers as a scientific organization so that should give you a clue. They wouldn't know what to look for. With their urban noises they would recklessly drive any sasquatch into hiding until they passed by. The organization would be out looking for sasquatch the same way it would be looking for moose, deer, or elk--hoping they just run into one by chance somewhere down by the river. Sasquatch can hide and move pretty darn well. I'm 100% positive that scouring an area would turn up empty. And this is the heart of my skepticism of bigfoot. Believers describe it as though it is a supernatural being or like batman. He's always one side ahead of people so he'll never be caught. Nothing that applies to other animals applies to bigfoot. He's special. If wild apes were this clever it's a wonder that gorillas or orangutans were found. Edited November 14, 2012 by Jerrymanderer
Guest Posted November 14, 2012 Posted November 14, 2012 Batman??? Pffft...he's just a rich boy with his own gym... puhlease... now if you crossbred ninjas and pirates, that would come close, only close, to the badassery that is squatch. ;-)
Guest Posted November 14, 2012 Posted November 14, 2012 (edited) Unless they were apprenticing here and listening to folks with actual ongoing experiences with them, playing a guessing game as to where they might be would be pretty much fruitless searching. A sensible approach would be to do a research project like I just did this past two weeks (if I do say so myself, lol) and go to each website that has reports, write them into a database, map out the most recent sightings and encounters within the last year or two, and focus their research on those specific areas. That might gain more data. Going out there just wandering around would be a waste of time. Dang, I did that (research) and came up with several likely different troops in my county, based on exactly those sightings and reports. It wasn't rocket science. With all the chatter on these bigfoot websites, anyone with half a brain could log these supposed sites and come up with dozens of likely spots. If after 5 years these theoretical researchers came up empty, then they'd either be blind idiots or posers camping to get paid. Believers describe it as though it is a supernatural being or like batman. He's always one side ahead of people so he'll never be caught. Nothing that applies to other animals applies to bigfoot. He's special. Nah, it's more like expecting a casual camper to find a Green Beret who is ultra familiar with the terrain, who doesn't want to be found, is incredibly strong, has amazing night vision and who is camoflaged perfectly.. Edited November 14, 2012 by madison5716
Guest Posted November 14, 2012 Posted November 14, 2012 (edited) That's why I said, "key bigfoot areas". The PNW is one. Also you could apply your green beret analogy to finding gorillas, tigers, snow leopards or orangutans. From that prespective, can't you see the special pleading you are doing? Edited November 14, 2012 by Jerrymanderer
norseman Posted November 14, 2012 Admin Posted November 14, 2012 Let's say that some scientific organizations decided to give a shot at documating bigfoot. With enough funding they cumbed through key bigfoot areas like the forests of the PNW. After say 5 years they came up empty. Would that make you doubt bigfoot's existance? It certainly would not do it any favors. Not that it would be a "end all be all", because as seen in this thread there are many people who have seen them, or in my case seen sign of their passing. But for the general public? Yes.The Smithsonian or other well established scientific entity searches for five years in a regional "hotbed" and they find zilch, zero, nada? How could it not be damaging to believers?
Guest Posted November 14, 2012 Posted November 14, 2012 From that prespective, can't you see the special pleading you are doing? And it's not special pleading to insist that a suspected hominid should be a pushover?
Guest Posted November 14, 2012 Posted November 14, 2012 And it's not special pleading to insist that a suspected hominid should be a pushover? So gorillas and tigers are "pushovers".
Guest ajciani Posted November 14, 2012 Posted November 14, 2012 Let's say that some scientific organizations decided to give a shot at documenting bigfoot. With enough funding they combed through key bigfoot areas like the forests of the PNW. After say 5 years they came up empty. Would that make you doubt bigfoot's existence? ed: sp Five years and nothing? That would make me doubt the competency of the researchers, not the existence of bigfoot. Why? For the following reasons: There have been a few, brief scientific surveys that looked for bigfoots. While none actually found bigfoot, some of them did find indications that more research was warranted. To rephrase that for the laymen; they found physical evidence that would be best explained by bigfoots, but which could have (unlikely) explanations other than bigfoots, or more questions than answers. I have been exploring for bigfoots off-and-on since 2007, with maybe a total of 140 hours in the field, all but 30 of them daylight (20 inside the cabin, so not really "in" the field). In those 140 hours, I have had 2 highly probable daylight encounters, 2 nighttime encounters, 2 nighttime visitations, and have found 5 trackways and about 30 examples of bigfoot sign. I know some wild cat experts who spend hundreds of hours in the field and maybe find the remains of a kill or a paw print. Implication: bigfoots are easier to find than mountain lions. Bigfoots are in a lot more places than the PNW. I have never looked for bigfoots in the PNW, and have only ever been in the West three times since I started researching bigfoots, and all of those were on vacation; just a few, short day hikes. Around Lake Tahoe, CA and Breckenridge, CO I saw very little that might have been bigfoot related. In Jackson, WY I saw some stuff that might have been bigfoot, but could possibly have been human. Around Chicago and in eastern Maryland, I find a lot of sign, even on just casual walks. The only problem with Illinois and Maryland is that most of the good stuff is inside State parks or County preserves; closed at dusk, but the two daylight encounters were in those places, so who needs dusk. As to why all of those biologists already out in the field have failed to notice the bigfoot sign; it is probably because they are blind to it. It might even be more accurate to say that they filter it out. Bigfoot sign can look a lot like natural falls and weather damage, and it can look like human sign. Biologists tune it out. If they find a bent over tree, they just conclude that it was bent by the weight of snow. If they look closer and see that the "tree" is actually a branch that was stuck into the ground and bent over by pinning the top down, then it was a bunch of kids goofing off. If the biologists don't know what they are looking for, then they may as well be blind. 1
Recommended Posts