2015 The State Of Sasquatch Science

[Guest DWA]

It means the solution is long overdue!

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.

The solution isn't even due until the search begins.  Tell me when it does.

 

Ever see the snow leopard segment of Planet Earth?  That took more time than the entire history of field bigfoot research.

[WSA]

I will just double-up on DWA's comment. We are not even fixing to start to get ready to commence to be serious, directly. It is not even a discipline or a field of inquiry that rates more than a nudge-wink in any media outlet of large circulation you could mention.  Running around in the woods with an ever more sophisticated array of techonological gee-gaws just boosts the snicker factor for those who are disposed to dismiss the evidence and the geeks who wield those gadgets. The American public always, always, always must reach a point of "enough is enough" before they come unglued from the tee vee and consider it to be important enough to agitate for reform. As is typical, when that happens, events are way past the point where a truly aware and thinking person would want them addressed. We have much more serious political/social/economic/environmental issues to address that still aren't on many personal to-do lists. Those who think THIS subject will warrant a cry for action and resolution from Joe Q. Sixpack (and consequentially, mainstream science) anytime soon are seriously deluded.  

 

Or, as the song goes, "It is all to clear, we are on our own....on our own....on our own..."   (And this applies equally to the pro-kill faction, or anti)

Edited December 17, 2014 by WSA

[Guest DWA]

Yup.  There is no way any bigfoot hunt I am aware of had more than a lottery chance of coming back with proof.  "Average looksee:  three days" just ain't cuttin' it.

[Guest Crowlogic]

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.

There are estimates of between 30,000-100,000 Bigfoot depending on who you ask.  We make far too many excuses why Bigfoot remains unproven and eventually excuses are seen for what they are.

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.

The Gorilla was known by the indigenous people who pointed western researchers in the right direction.  Gorilla was only mystery to westerners.  The locals were well aware of them and aided in the western discovery.  Bigfoot and FNP has never pointed anybody in the right direction to actually locating one.  Indicating that they too were operating on myth.

The solution isn't even due until the search begins.  Tell me when it does.

 

Ever see the snow leopard segment of Planet Earth?  That took more time than the entire history of field bigfoot research.

What then are all these "researchers doing in organizations and on you tube? Knitting sweaters?

The solution isn't even due until the search begins.  Tell me when it does.

 

Ever see the snow leopard segment of Planet Earth?  That took more time than the entire history of field bigfoot research.

But they got one!

[Guest DWA]

There are estimates of between 30,000-100,000 Bigfoot depending on who you ask.  We make far too many excuses why Bigfoot remains unproven and eventually excuses are seen for what they are.

 

I tend not to focus on excuses but on common-sense *reasons.*  Foremost:  won't find what one denies exists and doesn't look for.

The Gorilla was known by the indigenous people who pointed western researchers in the right direction.  Gorilla was only mystery to westerners.  The locals were well aware of them and aided in the western discovery.  Bigfoot and FNP has never pointed anybody in the right direction to actually locating one.  Indicating that they too were operating on myth.

 

Nope.  Nobody's paying any attention to the people doing the pointing, that simple.  Acquaintance with the field works wonders.

What then are all these "researchers doing in organizations and on you tube? Knitting sweaters?

 

You tell me.  It's not field research.  It.Is.Not.  You just presume they're out there 24/7 doing science - wait for it - because they are on the internet?  Hey.  Wanna buy a bridge, Crow? NAWAC is the only organization doing this right...and doing it on their vacation time with their own money.  And you are honestly *surprised* they don't have proof?  Much to learn, Grasshopper.  Much to learn.

But they got one!  They.LOOKED.

[Guest Crowlogic]

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.

Technology is the pearl  that should be nailing this thing day and night.  But the pearl of technology is wasted on the swine of bigfoot reality.  In virtually every scientific endeavor technology betters the chances of success.  Except where bigfoot is concerned.  Where bigfoot is concerned there are mountains of excuses of why it remains at large.  Every possible excuse gets thrown into the pile except the most obvious one.  It's not out there.  Hoaxers, wishful thinkers, idealists, entertainers, entrepreneurs,  jokesters etc, etc are incapable of uttering those magic words "it's not out there".  They won't on some levels and can't on other levels.  But those magic words will bring the reality of the situation into a reasonable rational focus assuming you desire a reasonable and rational focus.

Edited December 17, 2014 by Crowlogic

[Guest DWA]

Nope nope.  Just accept that you are simply advancing an agenda and not addressing reality.

 

When the search begins let those of us actually paying attention know...although I'm betting we'll know before you because we're watching.

 

But your name is appropriate.  You're leaving yourself no wiggle here.  When this is confirmed...CrowDiet.

Edited December 17, 2014 by DWA

[Guest Crowlogic]

Nope nope.  Just accept that you are simply advancing an agenda and not addressing reality.

 

When the search begins let those of us actually paying attention know...although I'm betting we'll know before you because we're watching.

 

But your name is appropriate.  You're leaving yourself no wiggle here.  When this is confirmed...CrowDiet.

I am certain I will throw off my mortal coil in a decade or so and there will be no bigfoot.  We'll get to Mars and there will be no bigfoot.  

Edited December 17, 2014 by Crowlogic

[Guest dxm2]

DWA, does the entire history of all outdoors research count for nothing?   I agree there hasn't been a dedicated Bigfoot specific search, but there have been scientists, hunters, fishermen, campers, loggers, and others in the North American woods for a long time.  I cannot discount all of this activity in the grand scheme of bigfoot research.

 

Also, as to an earlier point, when the Gorilla  was discovered 100 years ago, exploration and technology were nothing like what we have now.  More and more, the "Gorilla" discovery argument is holding less and less water for me.

Edited December 17, 2014 by dxm2

[Guest DWA]

Count for nothing?  No.  I mean, we do have databases that wouldn't have happened without the dedication of field researchers.

 

But expected to provide proof, by now, with the actual field effort expended, on the level and for the duration that it has been?

 

No.

 

It is simply not reasonable to expect all that other searching, for other things, to have yielded proof, in fact to have yielded anything, when scientists *devoting themselves to the topic* aren't being listened to by the mainstream, and most people know that linking oneself to this topic is an invitation to ridicule and irreparable career damage.

 

I'd pay quite a bit to know for sure how many scientists doing research into other things have seen a bigfoot in the field.  (There are reports, so it appears it has happened.)  We will never know.

Edited December 17, 2014 by DWA

[Guest Crowlogic]

Count for nothing?  No.  I mean, we do have databases that wouldn't have happened without the dedication of field researchers.

 

But expected to provide proof, by now, with the actual field effort expended, on the level and for the duration that it has been?

 

No.

 

It is simply not reasonable to expect all that other searching, for other things, to have yielded proof, in fact to have yielded anything, when scientists *devoting themselves to the topic* aren't being listened to by the mainstream, and most people know that linking oneself to this topic is an invitation to ridicule and irreparable career damage.

Not a valid argument.  I know of scientists who have spent months in the forests of prime BF habitat that made observations of the flora and fauna that were outside of the scope of their reason for researching in that place.  I'm talking Six Rivers National Forest on a 9 month assignment.  I myself did a stint of field research in upper  New York State that equaled about 700 hours in the field.  Often for several weeks at a time.  Scientists and trained observers do indeed trek the outback.  I wasn't looking for bear I was studying lake water but I saw bear anyway.  I saw deer and everything in those forests.  Sometimes dead.  Many discoveries come from beyond the intent of the given purpose.

[Guest DWA]

Nope, totally valid argument.  Yours isn't.

 

You are talking about people who are reporting things they won't be laughed at for reporting.  Apples and Ganymede.

 

Not a reasonable expectation; end of discussion.  I'm not sure the point could be missed by a wider margin.

 

We would have confirmation by now; because a footprint find would be an all-hands summons to get proof.  Never happens.  There's a reason for that.  There is nothing more blazingly obvious, to more people, than this is.  The only people who cleave to this argument are people advancing an agenda.  Period.

 

Not a reasonable expectation.  No one who is doing research on something else will report bigfoot evidence; no one who does so report will be taken seriously.

 

Done.

Edited December 17, 2014 by DWA

[WSA]

I had about five face-to-palm moments reading the recent posts.  Can anyone really, REALLY refute the observation that you are very ulikely to find proof of something (even something inert and stationary) if you aren't looking for it, AND you don't believe it even exists to begin with? I mean...what is there about this point-beyond-elementary that gets so much denial around here?

 

And Crow, we are all likely to be dead before some kind of proof lands in our inboxes. To which I offer a great "So what?"  Wish the world operated on my personal timetable too. Crap, oh well.

[Guest DWA]

The continued emphasis on facepalm talking points by bigfoot skeptics is one of the most incredible things I am familiar with. I gotta join WSA in yet another "what is UP with that?" that will probably as usual get no response because there is no explanation that anyone who understands scientific method could live with.

 

Come on.  "Any scientist seeing something that we all know for sure isn't real and laugh at would report it!"

 

They'd be the least likely in the entire society to do that!  Shouldn't be that way.  But it is.  Science = money; and no one wants to shut off their tap.

 

C'mon Crow.  You gotta stop this.  You're living in Downtown Denial City here.

Edited December 17, 2014 by DWA

[Guest Crowlogic]

Nope, totally valid argument.  Yours isn't.

 

You are talking about people who are reporting things they won't be laughed at for reporting.  Apples and Ganymede.

 

Not a reasonable expectation; end of discussion.  I'm not sure the point could be missed by a wider margin.

 

We would have confirmation by now; because a footprint find would be an all-hands summons to get proof.  Never happens.  There's a reason for that.  There is nothing more blazingly obvious, to more people, than this is.  The only people who cleave to this argument are people advancing an agenda.  Period.

 

Not a reasonable expectation.  No one who is doing research on something else will report bigfoot evidence; no one who does so report will be taken seriously.

 

Done.

The scientist that was up in Six Rivers NF is a personal friend.  We are at ease about things.  We talked specifically about bigfoot and he knows the drill about it.  Once again the "will get laughed at" is a weak argument.  When a scientist that's been there says there is nothing there I'm inclined to believe them.  When people ask me about whether I encountered bigfoot in my field research I tell them no and it's the truth.  If people/scientists get laughed at it is because there is little reason to take it seriously at this point in time.  Perhaps less than ever.

Edited December 17, 2014 by Crowlogic