2015 The State Of Sasquatch Science

[Lake County Bigfooot]

This thread is created to discuss the future of Sasquatch research.  Since the 1950s and before,  this

subject has been broached by all types and manner of thinkers, some of which still walk among us.  It is a very well

beaten horse we ride, and I think that we have done little to further our knowledge of this creature since those early

days. 

 

While technology and it's availability are on the side of this research, the average researcher has found little

actual increase in the amount of physical evidence obtainable.  One might argue that Rene Da hinden and Bob

Titmus were able to procure more physical evidence in their watch than all the modern researchers combined.

Simple tracking skills and horses were their tools, and they in my opinion did well with what was available to them

 

Patterson captured the most convincing photographic evidence using a camera that would be truly considered an

antique in the hands of the modern researcher, and yet that film has stood the test of time.  So the question I have

here is what are we, the "MODERN RESEARCHERS", going to do with the tools we have today in order to actually

further the science of this creature.  Or is even using the term Science at this point an oxymoron when it comes to

what we term research.

[Old Dog]

In actuality, one would need to get their hands on new and compelling evidence to apply the technology to.  We have more modern cameras, but all they do is capture an image with better and  more efficient technology.  The end result is the same, it's just a picture open to interpretation.  Same goes with sound recording technology.  It is captured with better equipment than in the past, but it is still the same sounds, and again, open to interpretation.  The only game changer that I see in modern technology is DNA testing.  I would say that the old methods of discovery will not change, but if evidence is found, the method of identification will be where modern tech will make the difference.

Edited December 16, 2014 by Old Dog

[Guest JiggyPotamus]

I agree with Old Dog. Things are about the same, despite the technological advancements, when it comes to actually finding bigfoot. I would not say they are exactly the same, considering we do have more technology now to aid us, such as thermal cameras, scouting drones, trail cameras, etc., but these still require a researcher to get near a sasquatch. And that is the difficult part. Although a bit unrelated, I think that pieces of evidence like hair samples have done more to damage the subject than advance it, primarily because researchers are finding hair in the woods, not knowing where it came from, and the odds are that it will be from a known animal. Showing such testing on television, while presenting the finds as if they are special or important, has caused the casual viewer to scoff and put less faith in the subject. Such testing should be done, but people must realize that countless regular animal hairs are likely to be tested before a bigfoot sample is discovered, unless the person who collected the sample actually pulled the hair from the animal itself.

 

Anyway, I do think of sasquatch hunting as a scientific pursuit, but usually it is only a semi-scientific pursuit, because scientific procedures are followed only occasionally. Even though casting tracks, collecting anecdotal evidence, etc., is not going to do anything to prove the species exists, such measures are still scientifically valid in that they have been used in scientific pursuits in the past. If bigfoot were proven to be real then such evidence would be viewed in a slightly different manner. To be honest, I lack a certain amount of faith where DNA evidence is concerned. What I mean is that there is still too much room for one's personal beliefs to skew the results. For instance, what if any human markers were considered to be the result of contamination, and instead of carrying the testing to its conclusion, the researcher discards the samples and it turns out that certain markers would be identical? My knowledge of DNA is still highly limited, but from what I understand this is a valid concern. And I view the testing process as leaving room for error as well, considering that the science is not ingrained where newer methods are concerned. If there are cutting-edge testing methods that have not been widely dispersed throughout the scientific community, how can certain results be accepted when the process itself has not been accepted?

 

And then there is the fact that a lot of the identification process is making comparisons with documented animals. You will never be able to get a conclusive match with a known species when testing bigfoot DNA. All you can do is determine that the DNA is novel. That doesn't help to prove the existence of bigfoot, which is why I believe it will take a body. Despite the fact that both a body and a DNA sample are difficult to obtain, a body is going to be much more difficult to produce. Think about it like this: DNA is left behind in a variety of ways, and in countless numbers, yet we still have a hard time getting samples. There is only one body to be left behind from each bigfoot, and most of them will not be dying in high numbers at a fast rate. So it is a number's game. Despite the fact that animals leave DNA all over the place, the fact that we cannot see DNA therefore do not know where to collect samples from, coupled with the fact that the search area is so large, is why finding DNA of a bigfoot is so difficult. And those who are willing to test bigfoot DNA in an attempt to scientifically prove the species are not going to invest a lot of time on the matter. The odds are that a submitted sample will not be from a bigfoot. So a person could test hundreds of samples that turn out to be known animals, and then decide to give up. Look at the small number of studies that have been attempted. Labs that test DNA are not going to be the ones to make a scientific case for sasquatch, even if they got good results. That is not how it works. You don't just get a novel DNA sample and prove the species. You have to go through a long and tedious process, and put in the work of making an actual scientific case.

 

Despite all our scientific advancements, when you consider all of these points it becomes fairly obvious that technology only goes so far towards proving the existence of bigfoot, because proving the species takes more than technology, and technology is only a tool. So to answer your question about how can we use these tools to help us, it depends on the tool itself. The thermal cameras and other "in the field technology" can help the individual researcher, but will not really make a huge difference where proving the species is concerned. Advancements in DNA technology will not help us either, because most of us are amateur researchers, and that technology is used by professional scientists in a narrow field. What we need more of are those professional to have the same level of dedication that amateur researchers possess, who will use their knowledge tirelessly in the pursuit of an affirmative answer. Because you cannot get a negative result and think that you've solved the mystery. So the more I think about it, the more I start to believe that we are at the mercy of those who put no faith in our quest. The only answer is to find a body, and to get it to people who will analyze and study it, and who will actually publish their results. Because even with a body it will take tireless documentation and study, followed by a presentation of the results. That truly is the only way that amateur researchers can take matters into their own hands to a certain degree, but we will still be left in the cold when it comes to studying it and presenting it, because we cannot be the ones to do that. But we can get the specimen, and that should be the main goal of everyone wishing to prove the existence of bigfoot. One can focus on DNA evidence, but I still don't think that is likely to get us anywhere. Hopefully I am wrong on that point.

[norseman]

I'm betting old school......

Rifle and a horse.

[Guest]

I'm betting old school......

Rifle and a horse.

 

I don't think that will ever lose it's value. Critical skills will always be critical. Tracking, field craft, etc.

But you need the right person on the horse.

And that person needs a lot of skill, common sense, and a clear understanding of what is at stake, so that he or she proceeds in a professional manner when the "big event" happens, and then leverages the technology of today to gather and present evidence without any hoopla. There are plenty of examples out there of the wrong way to do it for us to learn from.

Character and integrity of the investigators are going to be absolutely critical if we want to bring the state of the art forward.

[GuyInIndiana]

This thread is created to discuss the future of Sasquatch research.  Since the 1950s and before,  this

subject has been broached by all types and manner of thinkers, some of which still walk among us.  It is a very well

beaten horse we ride, and I think that we have done little to further our knowledge of this creature since those early

days. 

 

While technology and it's availability are on the side of this research, the average researcher has found little

actual increase in the amount of physical evidence obtainable.  .... <snip>

 

You use the word "we" a lot.  The "we" I associate with are quite comfortable with the amount of evidence and data "we" have found. Anyone like myself, who has seen a BF, is, in my opinion, worlds ahead of some of those names you dropped there. Not only have I seen one, I've recorded them, seen their footprints in various soils, and obtained handprints.

 

I'm not worried about 2015 at all. :-)

[Guest Crowlogic]

As the saying goes garbage in garbage out.  If there is nothing of knockout quality to record/capture knockout results are never going to happen.   Other equally reclusive creatures have been proven to exist which IMO suggests there is something very wrong with the picture. 

[BobbyO]

So that means that before those equally elusive creatures were proven to exist, the picture had something very wrong with it too ?

Makes sense.

Gorillla's have only "existed" for 100 years, it's a drop in the Ocean.

Humans are arrogant yes and we think we know it all, no doubt, but we aren't as wonderful as many would like to think we are especially where the natural world is concerned as we are finding new species of all types of animals every year/decade/century and that won't stop anytime soon.

[Guest DWA]

Imagine for a minute that the red fox is not known to exist. Footprints and photos are laughed at as hoaxes.

Now. Go out in the woodlots of your neighborhood and bring back PROOF. You have three days.

Unless you kill one, you'll fail. Fox hunters trade on centuries of accepted and traded human experience with the animal. If you didn't rely, totally, on that information, you probably wouldn't even see one.

There's the situation with bigfoot research. Until it goes full time with the full-bore application of the money and talent of mainstream science, don't expect the results to change.

[Guest Crowlogic]

So that means that before those equally elusive creatures were proven to exist, the picture had something very wrong with it too ?

Makes sense.

Gorillla's have only "existed" for 100 years, it's a drop in the Ocean.

Humans are arrogant yes and we think we know it all, no doubt, but we aren't as wonderful as many would like to think we are especially where the natural world is concerned as we are finding new species of all types of animals every year/decade/century and that won't stop anytime soon.

It means the solution is long overdue!

Imagine for a minute that the red fox is not known to exist. Footprints and photos are laughed at as hoaxes.

Now. Go out in the woodlots of your neighborhood and bring back PROOF. You have three days.

Unless you kill one, you'll fail. Fox hunters trade on centuries of accepted and traded human experience with the animal. If you didn't rely, totally, on that information, you probably wouldn't even see one.

There's the situation with bigfoot research. Until it goes full time with the full-bore application of the money and talent of mainstream science, don't expect the results to change.

Imagine great photos and video of Bigfoot to go along with the seldom often great footprints.  I could deliver you a fox in 3 days if needed.  But Fox is too easy how about a Snow Leopard which is even rarer that Bigfoot.  We've got bullet proof proof of that.  Sorry real animals get cataloged even one's as rare as Snow Leopards.

[gigantor]

 Not only have I seen one, I've recorded them, seen their footprints in various soils, and obtained handprints.

 

Would the recordings be the Michigan Recording Project, with fireworks going off in the background?   

 

Can we look at the footprints and handprints?  or is that top secret stuff?

[Guest]

 how about a Snow Leopard which is even rarer that Bigfoot.  We've got bullet proof proof of that.  Sorry real animals get cataloged even one's as rare as Snow Leopards.

 

 

How do you know snow leopards are rarer than bigfoot? There are estimated to be up to 6,000 snow leopards and they mostly are found out in open in mountain terrain. With good apparatus they can be spotted and filmed over long distances due to their preference for these open areas of habitation. The BBC cameraman who spent 7 weeks trying to film one finally got his footage when one appeared out in the open on a scrub slope.

 

I don't buy there are as many bigfoot as snow leopards and obviously they would spend most of their time in the forests.

[BobbyO]

It means the solution is long overdue!

.

No it doesn't.

The gorilla for example was only "discovered" in the early1900's, we're now in the early 2000's, that's not a long time at all in the grand scheme of things.

[GuyInIndiana]

Would the recordings be the Michigan Recording Project, with fireworks going off in the background?   

 

Can we look at the footprints and handprints?  or is that top secret stuff?

 

Some of them are 'old material'. Plenty of newer stuff that's closer and more detailed.

 

Footprints? You see dozens of tracks posted around the net monthly. Mostly typical stuff. Handprints: no - we don't share those publicly with those we have no direct association with. Nothing top secret about it.

 

The point (seemingly) of the thread is that technology has gotten us no where closer. Well, technology itself isn't going to do that. It'll only happen when you're actually out where the creatures are. And Beckjord was right - You don't find Sasquatch. Sasquatch finds you.

Edited December 17, 2014 by GuyInIndiana

[norseman]

If we cannot find Sasquatch but it always finds us? Tells me that it's a figment of our imagination. No flesh and blood creature is all seeing and all knowing.

But of course we have incidents like the PGF that proves this is not the case.