How Much Would You Invest To Prove Or Disprove The Existence Of Sasquatch

[Guest]

My chuckle for the day, thanks! I can respond zero, now.

The better question for me would be: "How much did you spend trying to prove Bigfoot for no profit?"

Too much to share here, in time and money.

I sought no profit and anticipated none. I just tried to hand over the info to anyone I thought better qualified...from the University to "impo'tant"" BFers....turned out at the time (or for lack of other's interest) I was the best qualified.....too funny! A BS Bio-Ag Science is not qualified, nor my many years of amateur interest in the natural world, nor my legal training which illuminates the burden of proofs our laws require. That all just made my investigations more informed, but did not change the fact that this subject is Taboo within professional mainstream circles and I not in a position to prove, given both my amateur staus and my limited resources (I think I did a bang up job, but I am a bit partial to the effort). None would take up my cause (which focused on this one vulnerable area). I still have the data, and waiting for the efforts of others to elevate the issue to the academics...and then, another coorespondance to those same...and then .....nothing perhaps! I could only point those I thought might make a meaningful contribution to proof and understanding in that direction. They didn't want to go that way....oh well.

What I have found interesting though, is the amount of BF data available to the few who are qualified and involved in BF research. There is no lack of data...it is a very curious situation and one that shall be interesting to see unpacked...and the truths emerge. Perhaps it is time...

Edited April 26, 2012 by apehuman

[Guest DWA]

I've proven the animal to my satisfaction, the same way the scientific proponents have.  I'm good.  Given what the efforts to bag one tend to look like,why chase bad money with good?

[MIB]

Yeah, precisely ... invest to prove to whom?   Myself?   Close friend?  Someone I care nothing about?  Varies.   In some cases I might pay something NOT to prove even with proof in hand.  

 

I already **know**, I don't need proof.   The only value I see of proof, now, is to maybe give some closure to people who are troubled by their experiences. 

 

MIB

[Patterson-Gimlin]

I am a man of means and would not pay a dime. I am convinced they do not exist .Torn between wanting a body on a slab and remaining unsolved .

 

[Guest Cricket]

I would consider contributing to efforts to conduct certain kinds of well designed observations and data gathering.  I think there are definitely some issues that are under-examined, or could benefit from rethinking the approaches currently being employed.  Before I started looking over the anecdotal information I had absolutely no idea about the tree trunk/branch assemblages, for instance.  As I posted in the methods forum, I think there could be a way to systematically look into that.  Some forest types are likely better for such an investigation than others.  I was at Mesa Verde in Colorado recently and noticed that essentially all the trees (pinon and juniper) had shreddy and fibrous wood, they all had twisted and turned busted branches, so it would be really impossible to do any kind of investigation into proposed tree assemblages in that kind of forest.  Everything there looks like 'manipulation,' which is highly unlikely.  But other types of forests might be much better for such an inquiry, and I think much more could be done in addition to the film documentation.  I also think that a more passive, 'observational' approach consistent with how those studying any animal in the wild conduct their observations might generate something useful.  I recall watching a PBS program about the efforts of Korean cameraman Sooyong Park who spent 6 years in bunker in the wild to film Siberian tigers.  He claimed the tigers could smell guns and that influenced their behavior.  His was a very patient and passive way of observing, and eventually he was successful. 

[hiflier]

21 hours ago, DWA said:

I've proven the animal to my satisfaction, the same way the scientific proponents have.

 

20 hours ago, MIB said:

I already **know**, I don't need proof.

 

This is why the chain gets yanked when anyone comes along to move the subject in a serious way. Folks, meet two of the 'yankers'. There are others, but you already know who they are. OK, ready for my face slapping session, because I know it's coming. Let 'er rip Heh, heh. Let the stall tactics begin. Let the stumbling blocks be thrown, and the character assignation run full throttle. It's pretty pathetic really.

 

I put my head on the chopping block for proponents and skeptics alike and you know what? BOTH sides take their turns swinging the axe. Ain't it great?

Edited June 16, 2017 by hiflier

[FarArcher]

I don't think it's a question of how much one is willing to invest to prove or disprove.

 

I think it's a question of how much investment is actually required to prove?

[hiflier]

BINGO!!

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

Proving it on a personal level doesn't necessarily require spending any money. On a national level, it'll require a type specimen, and I don't believe any amount of money would be enough for that. Without sounding delusional, I'll just say that there are some things money can't buy. 

 

 

 

 

 

[hiflier]

I would like to counter if I may that there is certainly enough money to find a large, hairy, flesh and blood creature. Uh, I did say flesh and blood creature, right?  

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

I agree that they're in fact flesh and blood, and that you can even get close to them with the right type of effort.

[hiflier]

As I see it defining the type of effort needed is something that has been discussed before. The issue is the failure to launch that defined effort. Something I simply don't understand. 50 years is plenty of time so the plan, the money, the manpower, and ergo the task, should have succeeded way before now. IMHO of course. Especially in this day and age. I see no one pushing beyond soloing in the field though. Even though development and the natural resource industries have been supposedly driving the creature ever deeper into it's most remote places? A person looking here and a person looking there can look 'til the creature is extinct and will never even know when there's none left. They'll just keep looking for it. It makes no sense to me whatsoever. No sense at all. I mean why depend on chance when in this day and age there should be no such thing as chance? I cannot help but wonder along the lines of true intent.

Edited June 16, 2017 by hiflier

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

Chance/probability is always in play when we lack required knowledge. As I see it, the NAWAC is about as good of a research group as we're going to get for a very long time. It's surprising that this group even exists, and that they're operating in what may be the most active area in the world in terms of Sasquatch population density.

[Guest DWA]

^^^That.  And given what must be extremely tight and limiting rules of engagement, there should be no surprise they don't have the world's proof yet.  I know a few of those guys, and nothing of what they've reported - particularly that practically everyone working with them in the Ouachitas has seen at least one - should be discounted.

[Yuchi1]

NAWAC started out with a purity of purpose (camera traps) in the effort to gather evidence which (after several years) proved to be totally futile.

 

Next, they apparently decided, "if we can't photograph one, let's shoot/kill one"

 

Several shooting incidents have rendered the same verdict as the camera trap M.O..

 

IMO, the typical cottage industry mindset crept into the mission function and expectations generated more expectations with frustrations generating desperation especially as the time/cash investment vs. return, became more real.

 

Claims began to be made that should have been easily substantiated via forensic evidence yet were not and when the incumbent questioning of such began, a reactionary response was (predictably) generated.

 

Now, they are apparently operating in yet a third locale (Kiamichi Mountains) and rumors are surfacing of factional fractures appearing within the group as dissention mounts.

 

What their experience seems to "prove" is a group can only be held together for so long once expectations begin to crumble and the inevitable "war in the camp" scenario manifestation occurs.

 

Maybe, they'll get a cable TV contract and thereby a degree of redemption.

 

 

 

 

Edited June 17, 2017 by Yuchi1
typo