2015 The State Of Sasquatch Science

[Lake County Bigfooot]

The Government could give a crap about the average researcher, but

if the whole nation came to the realization that Sasquatch are real,

and that they have eaten individuals on occasion, well that might be

a bit of a problem.

[SWWASAS]

The Government does a good job keeping me from divulging the classified information I was exposed to in the military and probably everyone else too.   Threat of 20 years in Ft Leavenworth breaking big rocks into little ones works for me.   Some things I did have done never been mentioned in the open press so other people are keeping the secrets too.   

 

We do an excellent job keeping knowledge of BF from the general public our self.    How many are afraid to tell neighbors, relatives, or a person in casual conversation what they have seen or are into?     Talking to John Bindernagel about this topic, he said that Canadians are far more conservative than Americans and far less likely to admit having seen a BF than people in the US.   He enjoys BF conventions in the US just because of the fact that witness tell their experiences. 

 

I don't know if there is a cover up by the government.   If I did, I probably would be prevented by law from disclosing it, just as I am prevented from disclosing other information.  

Edited January 2, 2015 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[Lake County Bigfooot]

Back to the topic, has anyone preordered the Sykes book coming out in April I believe?

"The Nature of the Beast: The First Scientific Evidence on the Survival of Apemen into Modern Times"

Paperback – 9 Apr 2015 Modern times might be more like the last 200,000 years in this discussion

but perhaps he is seeking to open the door to survival to the present. Pre orders available under

the search of Yeti Enigma will bring up the UK Amazon sight and the current title.

 

I guess it is not currently available for pre order in the USA, as the US Amazon site is

 

not even showing the older title.

Edited January 3, 2015 by Lake County Bigfooot

[Lake County Bigfooot]

Also has anyone already read Adam Davies book "ManBeasts: a personal investigation", just ordered that for my 

Kindle and will be trading off reading with "When Roger met Patty".  Any discussion about these books would be

welcomed, and particularly what they deliver in terms of real scientific data.  I think Bill Munns work is very credible

and worthy of reading.  It is most certainly written for the Bigfoot Researcher, but even a person simply open to the 

possibility might find it interesting.

[GuyInIndiana]

The Government could give a crap about the average researcher, but

if the whole nation came to the realization that Sasquatch are real,

and that they have eaten individuals on occasion, well that might be

a bit of a problem.

 

So, the beauty of a thread like this, with the title it has, somehow affords me the opportunity to play captain obvious, and say that statements like the bolded are why science seems to get nowhere with bigfooting. (and that's not hyperbole)

 

If, relying on science, that claim had to be backed up somehow, it simply couldn't. It simply doesn't have a leg to stand on.

[Guest DWA]

Well, it's only partially that.  One still has to wonder how, when I and several scientists in directly relevant fields who have published books on the topic see evidence virtually tantamount to proof, the mainstream can't even feign interest.  That has nothing to do with lack of credibility.  That has to do with lack of curiosity, or fear, or a liberal admixture of the two.  The evidence couldn't be more captain obvious, to anyone who knows how to sift through it.

Edited January 3, 2015 by DWA

[Incorrigible1]

.... virtually tantamount to proof....

 

Yet another oxymoron in the thread.

[Guest DWA]

^^^^^[Needs sifting assistance, B.T.]

[Lake County Bigfooot]

Yah the eating people thing is hyperbole....

excepting the centuries old oral history

of the such told by Native Americans.

My best guess is that we are not

the filet mignon on their menu, might

be the foie gras though, and I hear

that is catching on.

Edited January 3, 2015 by Lake County Bigfooot

[Guest]

Well, it's only partially that.  One still has to wonder how, when I and several scientists in directly relevant fields who have published books on the topic see evidence virtually tantamount to proof, the mainstream can't even feign interest.  That has nothing to do with lack of credibility.  That has to do with lack of curiosity, or fear, or a liberal admixture of the two.  The evidence couldn't be more captain obvious, to anyone who knows how to sift through it.

Give us your top five examples of ignored evidence

[Guest]

OK Bigfoot is real, though I could certainly think otherwise if I choose to ignore the evidence,

 

Truth is that most of us here are beyond this question, and are more interested in learning more about the creatures.

Thank you so much for posting this documentary on why and how the PGF is true and the creature is a real living breathing Sasquatch! Plus 1 to you from me:)

[MIB]

Give us your top five examples of ignored evidence

 

ALL of it.  Resounding "duh".   All photos, all track casts, all hair samples, all DNA, all reports.  (That's 5, right?)

 

When mainstream science pays attention to a topic it funds research grants, it creates departments to study and and catalog.  Show me a single university with a dedicated sasquatch biology lab or a sasquatch anthropology program.     Show me a the address for the federal office of sasquatch affairs.   Show me a museum of sasquatch "stuff" that is publicly, not privately, funded.   (I don't expect you to, really, it's a rhetorical question to point out that you cannot.)  Until that happens, even those qualified scientists who are interested are acting as individuals, not as part of the establishment.

 

You can get a grant to study zebra fish or the eye color of fruit flies or any number of silly things but you can't get a grant to study the big kids in the woods next door.  How much more disenfranchised and ignored can you get?   We can't even get an official enough acknowledgement to have an official department of debunking sasquatch.

 

MIB

Edited January 3, 2015 by MIB

[Incorrigible1]

ALL of it.  Resounding "duh".   All photos, all track casts, all hair samples, all DNA, all reports.  (That's 5, right?)

 

When mainstream science pays attention to a topic it funds research grants, it creates departments to study and and catalog.  Show me a single university with a dedicated sasquatch biology lab or a sasquatch anthropology program.     Show me a the address for the federal office of sasquatch affairs.   Show me a museum of sasquatch "stuff" that is publicly, not privately, funded.   (I don't expect you to, really, it's a rhetorical question to point out that you cannot.)  Until that happens, even those qualified scientists who are interested are acting as individuals, not as part of the establishment.

 

You can get a grant to study zebra fish or the eye color of fruit flies or any number of silly things but you can't get a grant to study the big kids in the woods next door.  How much more disenfranchised and ignored can you get?   We can't even get an official enough acknowledgement to have an official department of debunking sasquatch.

 

MIB

 

I agree that there is much government waste regarding the subjects and study you mention in your third paragraph. And as a tax-payer, am pleased there is not a "federal office of sasquatch affairs." Nor should there be, until proof is proffered.

 

I don't mean you, MIB (although with your handle, why not?), but am hoping my comment doesn't generate even more "government conspiracy" paranoia.

[Guest]

The whale bones were skrimshaw done in the 1800's and in the possession of the family whose ancestor made the collection.  I lived at the time in a former whaling town on the north shore of Long Island.  They had photos and other artifacts to support the collection.  Furthermore there was a whaling museum in town.  There is a huge difference between this kind of artifact and a random footprint cast or tuft of hair.  The whale skrimshaw was bone not a copy of itself.  Once again using a Blue Whale as an example was not a good example although i didn't bring whales into the conversation somebody else did.

 

As for bipedal bones sure there's us and our predecessors.  We are the only one's left though.  Again it takes very little to believe in Australopithecus when the fossil evidence is studied.  Non of which exists for bigfoot.  Bigfoot evidence is a kind of wishful thinking.  Look I'll let anybody see anything they thing they need or want to see but so far everything seen or perceived to have been seen has resulted in nothing.  

 

We've got hundreds of hours of bigfoot videos on youtube. We've got bigfoot making structures and leaving piles of stones and offerings to be seen and yet the being is always absent.  Doesn't that tell you anything?  Doesn't that seem a bit shall we say fabricated?  

You have read correctly and I maintain the PGF is real.  I also have stated more than once that the species went extinct.  So my argument is that there is no bigfoot out there any more than there is T-Rex.  If you need an extinction date 1978.

 

It's true that there is a lot of pranks concerning this subject.

But what I saw wasn't a prank.

Pranks can be pulled, but they are dangerous, plus costly. Most costumes look like costumes, it would take a lot of effort and money to make a decent costume.

 

Anyone with a rifle could take the shot of a lifetime and end up killing a hoaxer.

 

My sighting was not a hoax either, who would run around on a rutted dirt road dressed up as a Dogman, and hope someone comes by so they can be pranked?

[Guest]

ALL of it. Resounding "duh". All photos, all track casts, all hair samples, all DNA, all reports. (That's 5, right?)

When mainstream science pays attention to a topic it funds research grants, it creates departments to study and and catalog. Show me a single university with a dedicated sasquatch biology lab or a sasquatch anthropology program. Show me a the address for the federal office of sasquatch affairs. Show me a museum of sasquatch "stuff" that is publicly, not privately, funded. (I don't expect you to, really, it's a rhetorical question to point out that you cannot.) Until that happens, even those qualified scientists who are interested are acting as individuals, not as part of the establishment.

You can get a grant to study zebra fish or the eye color of fruit flies or any number of silly things but you can't get a grant to study the big kids in the woods next door. How much more disenfranchised and ignored can you get? We can't even get an official enough acknowledgement to have an official department of debunking sasquatch.

MIB

There's not a plague of zebrafish hoaxing. It's not too hard to figure out why the subject lacks legitimacy.

Top five with specifics please. And I'm unaware of any DNA evidence that has been compelling in any way.

Edited January 4, 2015 by mbh