Guest Posted July 16, 2013 Posted July 16, 2013 (edited) 1) Is there an administrative reason that you could not obtain those "resources"? Aren't 501-©(3)s able to compete for some of the same pots of money as anyone else? Sure, and we've discussed going after grants, but we're stuck again dealing with the overhang of bigfoot's popular culture baggage. It's very hard to find serious people in these fields to give us the time of day let alone finding those who also happen to have money to hand out. 2) Doing field work on one's own time and one's own dime is actually quite common for wildlife ecologists like me. ... The difference is you're paid at all, even if it's not for a full year. None of our people are paid a dime for this work. It's all done at the expense of their families using (in many cases) all available vacation time. We don't do this in the down time between other paid bigfoot research gigs. We do it in the down time between going to meetings and wearing grown up clothes and talking to clients and customers. We are hardscrabble citizen naturalists with few resources other than those we choose to bring out of our own pocket. 3) With respect to costs, I'm sure you would like to have a budget that would help enormously to keep boots on the ground for longer periods of time, allow you to deploy more gadgets to track your quarry, etc., but the heart of what you're trying to do should be pretty cheap, right? I assume your marksmen are providing their services, weapons, and ammo gratis? Compensation would be terrific but you technically already have what you need to meet your objectives. It isn't like you're trying to study microtubules in animal cells but you lack an electron microscope. Absolutely. I'd say we'd like a few more pieces of equipment, but all we lack is time and opportunity. We now have, I believe, exactly what we need on the ground to collect a specimen. We've had a handful of opportunities in which it was down to which of us Artemis would favor with her blessing: us or the ape. In those opportunities, the ape got the better end of the deal and we were left with nothing. But we're very close. It's just a matter of time. 4) Has NAWAC applied for any grants or written letters to political/agency representatives to encourage the funding of the research? I couldn't get a grant to go collect a bigfoot either, because there's no call to do that from the agencies that fund my research. The only way I could leverage the advantages of my research institution to collect a bigfoot would be something like hitting one with my truck on the way to the field to be working on something else. The real key to mainstreaming bigfoot research would be to convince the NSF (for example) that there's a bigfoot out there to discover. Chicken and egg. I don't believe any group other than a television production company (who we have no interest in working with) would invest money into this effort for a group like ours. Ironically (and this is not lost on me in the slightest), once we are successful and the animal is proven, there will be a torrent of research money out there and all the same groups that ignore the prospect of the animal now will be the ones to get it, not groups like ours. At least in my opinion. And sure, the price of just putting a man in a blind with a weapon is not going to break the bank, but I know you know it is not that simple. That man has to be transported to/from that area, has to be fed while there, has to have other essential equipment to support his requirements for sleep, data collection, scouting, communication....the list is long. Ask any hunter how much that pound of deer meat REALLY cost him and I guarantee he/she will want to change the subject. It seems deer are a lot easier to kill than this animal, by a longshot. This. Edited July 16, 2013 by bipto
Guest Urkelbot Posted July 16, 2013 Posted July 16, 2013 You would think some rich nut like Paul Allen would put up some money for something like this. A long odds bet with a huge payoff if it works out.
WSA Posted July 16, 2013 Posted July 16, 2013 Getting money without stipulations of front-end control or back-end licensing deals is the rub. Thus it always is: People want something in return for the use of their capital. Funding for scientific research should, and largely does, remove these unpleasant strings.
Guest Posted July 16, 2013 Posted July 16, 2013 @Bipto - thanks for the reply. Not to split hairs, but I still don't see much difference in what your folks are attempting to do without financial support or compensation and what field biologists routinely do without financial support or compensation. Welcome to the party. Regardless, although you'd like to be better funded to increase the probability of success, it sounds like you understand that you have what you need to achieve your objective. Have fun; be safe.
Guest Posted July 16, 2013 Posted July 16, 2013 What silly thing have I said? I've said I cannot accept stories and rock-throwing as proof of a creature. What is silly is that in this thread? Nobody is asking you to accept stories and rock throwing as proof.... The proponents in this thread are very committed to getting you that proof. Is there some confusion here with this point? But there is a process involved with getting proof, it just doesn't happen out of thin air. True. I think we all want the truth. Enthusiasts and skeptics alike. Of course, we could all be supportive of NAWAC because they are working to provide the definitive evidence. I have not been supportive, though. I'll give you my reason. NAWAC has built up a catalog of events that it says indicate the existence of giant, bipedal apes in SE Oklahoma. This itself is a claim that may be supported or challenged. I challenge it. But why not wait until they have concluded their field work? Because, one, the field work may never be concluded, and two, NAWAC's adventures in Area X will be used as evidence for the existence of giant, native apes regardless of the final outcome, with or without a body. Best challenge it as it moves forward. If you care about the truth concerning Bigfoot, then you must stand were your heart and mind take you. It ought not be a deferred option. I for one do not believe that BF is real. Having said that, I will go a step further and state that if BF did exist, IMO there is no way it would be 'existing' in Oklahoma or anywhere near there. For instance, look at such report sites and you will find more and more reports of "wood knocking" of recent vintage, once that meme began spreading. Exactly! Gone is the meme of foul stench, only to be replaced by wood knocking and rock throwing, at least as must have in a BF sighting claim.
Guest Posted July 16, 2013 Posted July 16, 2013 you think so? Terrestrial Mammals are much easier to locate than other creatures. In North America, the abundance of roads makes this a simple matter of finding tracks and following them until they poop or leave hair. It is a simple fact. Unless you are applying magical abilities to the creature of course. Absolutely. There is no way a large, breeding, eating, pooping creature is living on the fringes of North America and remains uncatalogued. Especially anywhere other than the mountainous forests on the PNW and Alaska. IMO Oklahoma is a non starter, as is Texas and Pennsylvania. There is a lot of activity in all of these areas...but some people will believe what they WANT to believe I guess.
Guest Posted July 16, 2013 Posted July 16, 2013 Exactly! Gone is the meme of foul stench, only to be replaced by wood knocking and rock throwing, at least as must have in a BF sighting claim. We smell 'em, too. Just sayin'.
Guest Urkelbot Posted July 16, 2013 Posted July 16, 2013 Absolutely. There is no way a large, breeding, eating, pooping creature is living on the fringes of North America and remains uncatalogued. Especially anywhere other than the mountainous forests on the PNW and Alaska. IMO Oklahoma is a non starter, as is Texas and Pennsylvania. There is a lot of activity in all of these areas...but some people will believe what they WANT to believe I guess. This has always been one of my problems with bigfoot. Why would it have such a large range and yet be so rare? Are there any other species whos population is spread all across north america yet low enough populations to be endangered? When you add in the Yeti, Yowie, Yeren, Orang pendek, etc bipedal apes reports cover a good portion of the globe. It would be much more believable if bigfoot reports were restricted to a more specefic geographical location and habitat.
southernyahoo Posted July 17, 2013 Posted July 17, 2013 Does it not make sense that a larger animal would leave more sign behind? More waste, more hair, more saliva, more tracks, more signs of passage such as bent or broken foliage, etc? No doubt the Wood Ape is very ninja-like. But even forest ninjas must eat and poop? Absolutely not! Such things cannot be known to be left by a bigfoot, so you can't go around looking at that stuff as though bigfoot did it, and it would not ever lead to proof. Sarcasm Alert!
hiflier Posted July 17, 2013 Posted July 17, 2013 (edited) Hello WSA, ("Honey....before you get us all another round of drinks, show them your frozen Sasquatch turd, why dontcha?" ) LMAO!! Absolutely, hands down, the best line of humor in the entire thread. Might even be my new signature! Edited July 17, 2013 by hiflier
southernyahoo Posted July 17, 2013 Posted July 17, 2013 I don't mean to derail, but in that wiki article DWA posted, there was a citation from 4/7/2013 about unknown DNA found in a hair as reported by destination truth. If true, why aren't scientists clamoring over this? The analyst was Dr. Ketchum. She said it scored high on the human panel of markers, and thus concluded it was likely a large primate. The hair itself was according to her, more coarse than human or horse hair IIRC.
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted July 17, 2013 Posted July 17, 2013 The analyst was Dr. Ketchum. This is where the issue lies.
Guest DWA Posted July 17, 2013 Posted July 17, 2013 (edited) you think so? Terrestrial Mammals are much easier to locate than other creatures. In North America, the abundance of roads makes this a simple matter of finding tracks and following them until they poop or leave hair. It is a simple fact. Unless you are applying magical abilities to the creature of course. Absolutely. There is no way a large, breeding, eating, pooping creature is living on the fringes of North America and remains uncatalogued. Especially anywhere other than the mountainous forests on the PNW and Alaska. IMO Oklahoma is a non starter, as is Texas and Pennsylvania. There is a lot of activity in all of these areas...but some people will believe what they WANT to believe I guess. ...and isn't that last sentence the truth. Folks don't understand that in OK, TX and PA is a lot - a lot a lot - of superior habitat for a large omnivore to anything in the PNW or AK. Bears were shot out of the former two; and are coming back so fast that - well ten more just moved in while I was typing, each state. PA's black bears are not only among the largest populations but the largest bears in the country. http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/a-season-of-promise-for-pennsylvania-black-bear-hunters-69274777.html PNW and AK are viewed by many as Last Great Refuges. But they are by and large poor habitat compared to most of the country east of the Mississippi. It's just that they didn't get shot out and almost totally de-forested like the East did. (That's actually going on now.) But the East is back. There's more forest there now than there was at the start of the Revolution. It's also perceived that the animal has to be where "no one ever sees them." Well, lots of people are seeing them, so why would anyone think that? PA and OH - 334 sightings on the BFRO database. Sure, they're all nuts. Not 'til you prove that, they're not. Edited July 17, 2013 by DWA
Guest Urkelbot Posted July 17, 2013 Posted July 17, 2013 Pennsylvania and the northeast are heavily forested but Oklahoma and Texas don't have much at all. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forest_cover_by_state_in_the_United_States I would think if Bigfoot was anywhere these days your best bet would be in BC north of Vancouver. Lots of forest low human population density.
Recommended Posts