Guest Crowlogic Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 (edited) The modern Bigfoot era is now over a half century old. We've had every manner of research and non research pass through during this time. But the only common thread in all of this is that there still is no Bigfoot to show for it. I've lost count of the research groups or individuals but there have been many. I for one have grown to distrust secrecy in all manner of research and particularly secrecy in Bigfoot research. I can understand secrecy in defence and to a certain extant in science. It is a dangerous and competitive world and most things have the focus of many different elements and concerns. Bigfoot OTOH does not have a broad research and interest base. In spite of it's occasional mention in the mass media it remains a tiny community. I am troubled by the secrecy that is endemic of the issue. I don't see a good reason for it but I do see a number of insidious reasons for it. I'm reminded when the Ketchum affair was in full bloom the good Doctor saying that she was part of a group that was in regular contact with the creatures and protection of them was paramount. But let's step back and look at that statement. In the case of Dr Ketchum she was knee deep in analyzing tissue samples that she had no way of knowing exactly what and where they came from and in what manner they were obtained. Those samples effectively lead to one of the biggest dead ends in Bigfoot research BTW. Yet Dr Ketchum claimed to have an ongoing contact with the animal and as such it should have been ridiculously easy to obtain tissue samples. Those samples would/could have come from the secret population that she was linked with. So why didn't it? Why was her entire effort married to the now very questionable samples she worked on? Why didn't she and her scientific modality create a safe and benign way of sampling her population of regulars? There is not a single valid reason I can attach myself to that lends logic to her course of action during the analysis. That resource went unused and nothing not even a good video or photograph came from it. It remained in secrecy. At some point it is not a secrecy for protection but instead it is a secrecy of subterfuge. A subterfuge in that there is nothing there to protect. In this arena there has never been a shortage of those claiming to have the goods but there is a a woeful shortage of a sharing and delivering of said proof. When does the secrecy indicate the null set containing the items kept in secret? Given over a half century of non discovery this member now subscribes to the null set scenario. Edited July 21, 2014 by Crowlogic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuchi1 Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted July 21, 2014 SSR Team Share Posted July 21, 2014 For me it all points to the humans involved in the subject as opposed to the subject itself. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 21, 2014 Share Posted July 21, 2014 I'd say the reason why Bigfoot hasn't been proven to exist, is because Researchers haven't changed the tactics they use when looking for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 (edited) I'd say the reason why Bigfoot hasn't been proven to exist, is because Researchers haven't changed the tactics they use when looking for them. But the question begs an answer of why/how could a researcher not make use of what is in their back yard so to speak. The choice of following evidence that is of dubious quality as opposed to using what was said to be known and secure to the researcher is tantamount to an admission that that secure evidence does not exist. I used the Ketchum scenario since it was touted as a full fledged real science operation with supposed ties to a habituated population of what what being studied. If there is a smoking gun indicating that this age of Bigfoot research and perhaps earlier times are essentially smoke and mirrors. this is it. Edited July 22, 2014 by Crowlogic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 let's face it, the only acceptable research tactic would be to find a specimen and then contact all the cable news networks and then wait for the circus that follows. I just don't know how else it can be done ???? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
panzerschlep Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 The more and more I learn about efforts made to find the creature the more depressed I become. As the saying goes "I want to believe". That's becoming more and more diffcult. I've not had an experience of my own and do not know anyone that has. Habituation claims with no proof, failed DNA tests, and con men trying to seperate people from their hard earned cash have all made me disillusioned. I have become convinced that if you claim you have the evidence but it has to remain secret then you're part of the problem and not worth listening to. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted July 22, 2014 SSR Team Share Posted July 22, 2014 But the question begs an answer of why/how could a researcher not make use of what is in their back yard so to speak. The choice of following evidence that is of dubious quality as opposed to using what was said to be known and secure to the researcher is tantamount to an admission that that secure evidence does not exist. Look who's "researching" though, no disrespect. Volunteers who aren't funded and in the main, unqualified. It's tough for us as humans to accept but we aren't as wonderful as we think we are all of the time, and this is one of those times especially when we are relying on average Joe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 Half a century of no significant effort = no discovery, pretty much every single time. Sure, somebody could get lucky. (Sure, somebody who committed the only truly significant effort that has been made to document - prior to NAWAC, which is still only charitably called part time - got a movie of one.) But when the scientific mainstream commits zero effort, nothing of true note is happening. Nor has it. Period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted July 22, 2014 Share Posted July 22, 2014 (edited) Look who's "researching" though, no disrespect. Volunteers who aren't funded and in the main, unqualified. It's tough for us as humans to accept but we aren't as wonderful as we think we are all of the time, and this is one of those times especially when we are relying on average Joe. Yet we had a "somebody researcher" in the form of Dr Ketchum. Had she simply accepted the samples that were sent her way and did her best then we could say we had a reasonable effort by a real laboratory. But she went on to say she had seen these animals and that there was a inhabited area in which she was given her observation. As a scientist you simply don't ignore such stellar possibilities for your research and instead connect to the mystery meat she was studying. When does it sink in that even the so called real scientists in the effort are just another form of carnival barker. Look I know where the aliens have a space ship and a small operating unit. But I won't tell anybody where it is because the aliens have to be protected. But oh heres a piece of alien craft somebody sent me. I'm analyzing it and it'll be proven to be from outer space. Yet I can't get my alien friends to give me an extra piece of craft or even get me to take some real videos of it. Edited July 22, 2014 by Crowlogic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted July 22, 2014 SSR Team Share Posted July 22, 2014 Yet we had a "somebody researcher" in the form of Dr Ketchum. She wasn't a "somebody researcher" Crow, she's a Vetenairy Surgeon that believes in Angels and Fairies. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 I still say, even if by some stroke of luck, the average researcher managed to stumble upon a dead Squatch in the field, he'd be hard pressed to be able to accomplish all the things required to finally prove they exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 nonsense cryptic squatch. If I (not a scientist or anyone particularly special) can figure out how to get someone to pay attention to a dead animal body then a real scientist researcher should be able to do so. Cut off the hand and run for your car and drive to the police station. Throw bloody hand on the desk and say you found a body in the field/woods/wherever. The cops will go there and find the body or the evidence of the body (some people think squatches bury their deadso the body might not still be there) and of course you would sit in jail while they searched for evidence etc. Small price to pay for the truth yes? oh and never ever ever tell them you found bigfoot. We all know the cops will run you out of town without a search.All the movies say so. But the question begs an answer of why/how could a researcher not make use of what is in their back yard so to speak. The choice of following evidence that is of dubious quality as opposed to using what was said to be known and secure to the researcher is tantamount to an admission that that secure evidence does not exist. I used the Ketchum scenario since it was touted as a full fledged real science operation with supposed ties to a habituated population of what what being studied. If there is a smoking gun indicating that this age of Bigfoot research and perhaps earlier times are essentially smoke and mirrors. this is it. If there is anything I discount in reports is habituation and secrecy. I try to not judge the reports too harshly but find this sort of obstructionist behavior ... well... obstructing and completely useless. Such witnesses shouldn't really even speak if they're not going to reveal. Most just come off sounding like they're reaching for attention. They're just cluttering the conversation. Half a century of no significant effort = no discovery, pretty much every single time. Sure, somebody could get lucky. (Sure, somebody who committed the only truly significant effort that has been made to document - prior to NAWAC, which is still only charitably called part time - got a movie of one.) But when the scientific mainstream commits zero effort, nothing of true note is happening. Nor has it. Period. Not every scientific discovery was made by a professional with financial backing. Many students make discoveries every year without some consortium or scientific panel or government program financing what they do. Amateurs have and continue to make advances in science. I do believe that if bigfoot is real, it will be discovered by an amateur unless BIG science gets involved. I don't really see any way around this. I agree it would be nice to have some bigger financial aid and coordination among researchers though. Oh and good topic Crowlogic. This has bugged me for a long time now but I couldn't think of a good way to broach the subject without slamming someone on the forum. Assuming she's still here that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted July 23, 2014 Admin Share Posted July 23, 2014 Look if it's out there it's out there. As BobbyO stated the three ring circus surrounding it is the human side of the equation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gerrykleier Posted July 23, 2014 Share Posted July 23, 2014 I had forgotten Ketchum's claims about the BF 'habituation site' she went to! Not that I've thought much about the whole affair since it melted down. Is that element something she still talks about or did it get put out to pasture? GK Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts