" I Saw Bigfoot " A Proposal

[TedSallis]

I'd have to disagree. Once the proof is shown then it's no longer going to hold the same fascination and as a result to TV rating are going to drop.

 

Totally disagree.  How could there not be a HUGE outpouring of interest in the subject once it is proven they exist?  This discovery might shake the foundations of many disciplines, including biology and religion.  I seriously doubt that once it's proven, everyone is going to shrug their shoulders and just say "next'!

 

Besides, think of the outpouring of acclaim for the stars.  They FOUND Bigfoot!  Can you seriously imagine they wouldn't go onto something like "Finding Nessie" or the like?  No, this thing would be HUGE and wouldn't dissipate interest one iota.

[MIB]

I think you're right.  The "FB" format would have to change but there's enough interest now that following proof, there'd be a big market for further exploitation.

 

MIB

[georgerm]

A TV series featuring BF witnesses would be interesting. Some witness stories would be hard if not impossible to have been a hoax so these stories could be gathered. Youtube has a fair number of these witness stories, and I find them interesting.

 

Once BF is 'proven' to the general public, interest in the topic will increase and last for 5 years in my opinion. For example, look back and remember how the White Shark captured our interest for years. It has run its course so we are ready for another big wildlife story.

 

 

One thing you have to remember on all these TV shows, once they find Bigfoot or whatever it is they're looking for then guess what? The show is over. That's why whenever one of them gets a little close they suddenly leave and go somewhere else where they just missed them. That's why the camera shot are from those selfie-cams looking up their nose. "Was that a Bigfoot?" 

"No, Dude's got a booger in chute number two."

 

As far as how seeing a Bigfoot has changed someone's life? How does it do that? Granted, I know two guys who will never go into the woods again because of seeing a Bigfoot. But I've seen bears and they seem to be more dangerous that any old smelly Bigfoot. However, for some unknown reason it's like they have experienced some Earth shattering revelation which borders on a religious experience.

 

Let talk and more looking without the TV crew in tow please. 

 

 

I would like to know about the two guys who won't go into the woods.

[MIB]

As far as how seeing a Bigfoot has changed someone's life? How does it do that? Granted, I know two guys who will never go into the woods again because of seeing a Bigfoot. But I've seen bears and they seem to be more dangerous that any old smelly Bigfoot. However, for some unknown reason it's like they have experienced some Earth shattering revelation which borders on a religious experience.. 

 

I take it you've never seen one up close.   Imagine you're alone, it's dusk turning to dark, you're 10 miles back in the woods, you're a bit spooked 'cause you've had something, maybe a couple of somethings, shadowing and circling you for an hour.  You turn round, and there, 4 feet from you is this "guy" who starts growling so deep it vibrates your chest, grunting, and huffing like a really angry bull.  Other than a lot of hair he's buck naked, kinda dirty, smells bad, he looks to be about 1100 pounds, 4-1/2 feet across the shoulders, and he's so tall your chin is level with his "privates" when you're standing flat footed.  His features are different and there's no white to his eyes so you can't read his face to get a sense of his mood but you can tell he is measuring you.  

 

As you stand there, wondering if you're going to live, die, ... or maybe worse, then you hear footfalls and breathing from two directions less than 10 feet from you.

 

Y' got it?  Are you there with me?  

 

Ready to talk about "religious experiences?" 

 

MIB

Edited May 3, 2014 by MIB

[Guest JiggyPotamus]

I have always maintained the best evidence to be the sighting record. To me the idea that 1/2 or even 1/3 of reports are hoaxes is preposterous. I am not talking about fake bigfoot videos on Youtube, but rather detailed, written sighting reports with contact information. There are literally thousands of them in North America alone. It takes a different type of hoaxer to fill in a sighting report, as they get virtually no exposure. They would instead create fake videos, as it is likely to be seen by more people.

Hoaxers, on average, want some type of recognition or are playing some type of joke, at least in their minds.

 

There is little of either of these in detailing a personal sighting, and in fact many witnesses go in the opposite direction...They want virtually zero attention. I can think of absolutely no phenomenon where it has been proven that thousands of witnesses with detailed accounts of something have all been wrong. It is unheard of. To say that this many people are hoaxing or have misidentified a known animal is simply ridiculous, and it insults human intelligence in my opinion.

 

Despite popular opinion among skeptics, it is not that easy to mistake a known animal for a bigfoot, unless you have bigfoot on the brain, which in the bulk of sighting cases does not appear to be the case at all, considering many witnesses never even gave bigfoot the time of day. So how is it that a person who does not believe bigfoot exists can mistake a known animal for a bigfoot in so many instances? Again, popular to what some say, a bear looks nothing like a bigfoot. The only two things they have in common are their coloration and bulk. A bear walking on two legs does not look like a naturally bipedal animal either. It is awkward to say the least, the complete opposite of what most witnesses report. And last time I checked, bears, even when walking on two legs for short distances, have such short legs that their stride length is miniscule in comparison with both what has been reported by eyewitnesses and from trackways that have been discovered.

 

A person who does not get a good look at an animal like a bear, say they see the fur through the trees or something, is not generally going to assume it is a bigfoot. As a matter of fact, eyewitness testimony often indicates that when viewing a bigfoot the witness FIRST thought it was a bear or other known animal. But some claim that people automatically jump to the bigfoot conclusion, and I am saying that it is not a widespread occurrence. Such a thing will only happen to those who are involved with the topic of bigfoot, or invested in it, in some way.

 

Regarding how encounters change people's lives, there have been some incredibly outrageous outcomes. I can understand this. Imagine having your entire world view turned upside down in a matter of seconds. I know that many witnesses probably WISHED they had seen a bear or something instead of a bigfoot, but they are that positive about what they saw, and it has negative effects on them. That's just another reason why most people are more likely to be telling the truth. There are hunters, men who've grown up in the woods, who refused to ever set foot there again after an encounter. That says a lot in my opinion.

 

I think we have only a fraction of such stories available to us in the public domain. I would be willing to bet that there are many people out there who have never reported their sightings, and who have suffered mentally because of a chance encounter with bigfoot. I mean when something as crazy as bigfoot is suddenly proven real before your eyes you wonder what other things in your belief system could be wrong. That can weigh on some people.

[salubrious]

I'd be down with a show like that...

[Guest keninsc]

I see a lot of people make that claim, but I don't understand why it would mean the end to a show. It's not like interest in BF would end if a specimen is found, instead the interest would skyrocket in my opinion. They might have to change the name of their show, depending on which one you are talking about, but it wouldn't neccessarily end the show, just open up new avenues.

I think that's more due to there not being a BF there to begin with.

Well, the whole concept of the show is, supposedly, to find Bigfoot. Now once Bigfoot is found that's pretty much ended it. As it happens I agree that the show will have to undergo some sort of change. The thing is that now they can't just go out and pretend to be real scientists. The show will have to have real scientists, who went to real colleges and have real advanced degrees, who will be doing real research and following real scientific methods. Why, you ask? Simple because now Bigfoot are real, verified creatures that have to be properly studied. Walking out in the woods screaming, banging on trees and all that other stuff just doesn't really show up any scientific methodology text that I'm aware of, granted I could be wrong on that point, but for now I'll go with it.

I strongly disagree. Wildlife shows that actually include wildlife are far more interesting than watching people bumble around in the dark.

As it happens you're comparing apples to oranges. A true nature show on them is hardly the same as a group of people stumbling around in the dark.

Totally disagree. How could there not be a HUGE outpouring of interest in the subject once it is proven they exist? This discovery might shake the foundations of many disciplines, including biology and religion. I seriously doubt that once it's proven, everyone is going to shrug their shoulders and just say "next'!

Besides, think of the outpouring of acclaim for the stars. They FOUND Bigfoot! Can you seriously imagine they wouldn't go onto something like "Finding Nessie" or the like? No, this thing would be HUGE and wouldn't dissipate interest one iota.

Well, on that we will have to disagree. It's been my observation that most are only interested in the subject because of the mystique and elusivness of the creatures.

Personally, I would have no interest in a show devoted to lake and river monsters. That's not to say I'm the last word on the subject but I'm pretty much an average guy and just don't find this sort of thing to have any serious viability.

A TV series featuring BF witnesses would be interesting. Some witness stories would be hard if not impossible to have been a hoax so these stories could be gathered. Youtube has a fair number of these witness stories, and I find them interesting.

Once BF is 'proven' to the general public, interest in the topic will increase and last for 5 years in my opinion. For example, look back and remember how the White Shark captured our interest for years. It has run its course so we are ready for another big wildlife story.

I would like to know about the two guys who won't go into the woods.

The two guys were and are friends of mine. They lived in two different states and nether knew the other both confided in me about their experience. One was a Army Ranger, the other a police officer. I knknew both these men personally and can attest that they were not playing a joke or just having a bit of fun at my expense.

It's been my sincerest desire to find the proof so they can feel vindicated. One is dead now, but he is still my friend and he deserves vindication regardless of which side of life he's on.

Edited May 3, 2014 by keninsc

[TedSallis]

Well, on that we will have to disagree. It's been my observation that most are only interested in the subject because of the mystique and elusivness of the creatures.

Personally, I would have no interest in a show devoted to lake and river monsters. That's not to say I'm the last word on the subject but I'm pretty much an average guy and just don't find this sort of thing to have any serious viability.

 

 

There are plenty of folks who find no viability to the concept of Bigfoot as well.  And yet, there's the show.

 

And again, I don't think the entire mystique of the creatures lies only with their elusiveness.  Surely once discovered a multitude of mysteries would still be out there and would hardly be solved overnight.  Yes, the 'do they or don't they exist?' question would be over, but so much more would still be in question. 

 

And I think the discovery of Bigfoot might lead other skeptics to think twice about OTHER things they were sure didn't exist, don't you?  That would open up possibilities for other shows.  I'm not saying they would be good, or that they would find anything.  I'm just saying it doesn't make sense that every ounce of interest in the subject would be drained once Bobo or whoever found positive evidence.

[Guest keninsc]

There are plenty of folks who find no viability to the concept of Bigfoot as well. And yet, there's the show.

And again, I don't think the entire mystique of the creatures lies only with their elusiveness. Surely once discovered a multitude of mysteries would still be out there and would hardly be solved overnight. Yes, the 'do they or don't they exist?' question would be over, but so much more would still be in question.

And I think the discovery of Bigfoot might lead other skeptics to think twice about OTHER things they were sure didn't exist, don't you? That would open up possibilities for other shows. I'm not saying they would be good, or that they would find anything. I'm just saying it doesn't make sense that every ounce of interest in the subject would be drained once Bobo or whoever found positive evidence.

I seriously doubt it. However I can only speak from my own point of view and Bigfoot is my only interest and that's due to the personal connection via my friends.

[MIB]

I've bumped into other mysteries as I looked for bigfoot.   Sometimes it's in the woods, sometimes its in the minds and experiences of others I've met on the journey.   You can be absolutely sure I have enough curiosity to go around.  What I lack is .. time.

 

MIB

[SWWASAS]

When BF is accepted by science,  I don't think it will be the end of bigfoot shows.    They will probably get better ratings and watched by the same people that watch nature shows instead of kook fringe believers like most of us are believed to be.      The first shows with be like "Finding Bigfoot" with the same or a different title.    Mat and crew are not going away with better ratings.    Then there be those about why it took science so long to discover it.    Then because of their elusive nature and the difficulty filming them in the wild, there will be shows about all the witness reports that nobody believed before.   There is so much material there available when people can talk about it on camera without others thinking they are nuts.      Meanwhile film crews will be spending big bucks trying to film them in the wild, probably not very successfully.   There will be shows about how difficult that is.    Then there will be shows about the Government cover up and the government trying to hide existence.   Then someone will contact some habitation situation and get lots of video.     That just takes cooperative property owners coordinating with people with the money to successfully hide cameras.    Then the nature show types will want to know about the BF daily life and the quest for good video of that will occupy a lot of people.    The Jane Goodall's of the world will flock to understand and protect them and that will be filmed.      The problem with all of this is nothing about it benefits bigfoot.    Perhaps it will lead to habitat protection but powerful forces are already at work trying to prevent that on the Federal as well as state level.     The State of Washington is logging State Owned forest lands like crazy right now. The State needs the money.    Mostly away from the Puget Sound area where environmentalists would notice and try to stop it.   The amount of logging in the last two years in my research area is incredible.    I have never seen anything like it.  I am very sad for the BF I know that live in the area.   I think that while they accepted me 2 years ago, now they are less than happy with humans because of all the logging and have started being nasty with me.        RR

[hiflier]

Hello SWASASQUATCHPROJECT,

 

I would appear then that the utilization of a current Pro-Kill group and supporting them in getting a type specimen to science is just about the only answer to such a desperate situation. No one WANTS to kill one. Even the NAWAC, Norseman, and others don't. Doing nothing makes no sense any more. I never thought I'd be hearing myself say this but, in spite of the fairly laughable nature of "Finding Bigfoot", Matt Moneymaker could be somewhat lauded for bringing the subject to surface on a wider public level.

 

If someone would step up and connect the dots then a bigfoot documentary on the destruction of habitat and, if existing, what such a creature needs in order to thrive and commune with others of it's species. Personally? I think it time to see and fully understand that there is a point of no return for an animal living in such small populations which could be being cut off one from another and slowly strangled. It's almost as if there are those that are using Sasquatch's own reclusive nature against it. And I don't see it stopping without a body taken to science. Don't want to kill one? Then EVERYBODY needs to get out there and FIND A DEAD ONE. And do it soon.    

Edited May 3, 2014 by hiflier

[SWWASAS]

It does not even take a full body.    I discussed this with Dr Meldrum.     I asked him what would define the species if one should find a BF skeleton washing out of a snow bank or lahar someplace and one had to grab and go.     I have one research area where I go that this would be necessary and the likelihood of finding a skeleton in such a situation is very high.    The species would  be defined with the skull, and thigh bones.   He would like the whole thing but said the skull and thigh would tell a great deal.    The skull would not be human and the thigh would show it to be bipedal.      DNA extraction would then type the species with respect to the bones.    It would be a dirty job but after any large forest fire in suitable BF habitat, go in and survey as much burn area as possible before the forestry department people get in there and have the chance to remove any interesting skeletons.   Over the years there have been unsubstantiated reports of BF bodies being removed by government agencies.    If a fire is large enough, BF may get trapped just like humans do.   Not sure how much time you would have to get that done but you would have to beat the government and scavengers.    No killing involved and a skeleton would be easier to transport than a 600 lb BF with ticked off relatives chasing you out of the forest.  RR  

[hiflier]

Hello SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT,

Everything, and I mean EVERYTHING, you just said is exactly what I'm getting at. The huge California Rim Fire was a case in point. My thinking is that Dr. Meldrum and the National Interagency Fire Cebter both being in Idaho is a very convenient set-up should one be found after such a conflagration as that one was. I have yet to start my project of contacting that agency along with others but it's soon to be in the works. As far as skeletons washing out of snowbanks it's been my sort of push to look for cadavers very early in the spring before Nature gets started on them.

Thanks for your post. It's always good to read something aligned with one's own thinking

[SWWASAS]

Hiflier:  If one believes the lore, and I think it worth considering,   I know several reports that Forest Service and other federal agencies have been seen after fires and the Mt St Helens eruption gathering up BF bodies so they are not discovered by civilians.      If any of these reports are true,  then the motives of any government agency like the National Interagency Fire Center should be questioned.   I think you will find any agency stone walling if you ask for information.    Others have tried.    As a matter of fact I do not know if anyone working for a public university like Meldrum is unfettered and capable of reporting anything that might be contrary to government policies.     Much of any public university research funding comes from government sources.     Some guy in a suit could pretty much shut down anything unpopular to the government with veiled and unveiled threats to a university researcher.    For all I know Meldrum is on their payroll.    Just try to contact him sometime.  I had to catch him at breakfast last time we talked about this.  

 

Like you I see merit in your methods and continue similar activities.    But like I said, it is pretty much a grab and go operation with some risk if you get discovered, at least where I am working.    I compensate by going to really remote places where some Ranger in a vehicle is going to take hours to get to me.   Who knows I might get lucky.   It might be worth the $500 dollar fine as long as I can stash what I find before the Ranger finds me.       RR

Edited May 4, 2014 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT