2015 The State Of Sasquatch Science

[Guest DWA]

I have to go back to ^^^this.

 

Patterson and Gimlin were so close to a sasquatch their horses spooked...and this genius thinks *satellites* would have fixed this up for us by now?

 

Then Some Satellite Guy should be able to find me!  Go, Satellite Guy...!

 

Shee-yoosh.  These are *scientists* we are talking about?  Not as I define the term.

[norseman]

2015 The state of Sasquatch Research

I honestly think that the current state is about the same as last year, and from what I can tell, it has been stagnant for

sometime now. I see more back and forth arguing than I see any sharing of useful information. That is not to say

there are no intelligent discussions, because there certainly has been. Sasquatch will not be proven on a forum,

and that should be blatantly obvious. It's the researchers out in the field that have the best chance of success.

There are larger more organized groups out there, but are basically the same as most others - A lot of talk and

very little action and/or evidence. I do still hold a bit of faith that they will turn that around.

 

What really aggravates me regarding a couple of these groups is that anything and everything that they say is automatically

taken to be true by many of the members here. I mean shouldn't these groups be held to the same standards as the rest

of us. Whatever happened to extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence or proof? When anyone else makes an

extraordinary claim they get pounced on like free pizza at an anime convention! There is something wrong with that picture.

I don't want it seem that I am bashing these groups, on the contrary I actually applaud their efforts. Although there is one

group out there that when I hear or read their name - I instantly think Keystone Cops! This is mostly said in jest, but I do

think they still need to be held to the same standards as the rest of us, I detest any use of double standards.

 

Another thing, why is it so difficult for many members to understand what sightings reports really are! The simplest

way to explain their place in BF research is that they are a means to an end! Think about it, if no reports had ever

been submitted, we wouldn't know that BF are out there. Now are all reports hoaxed? of course not! and that is because I

doubt there is anyone or any group out there smart enough to perpetrate a hoax of that magnitude! I'm sure there is a

fair number of hoaxed reports out there, but not as many as some people think, but that is purely conjecture on my part.

 

There seems to be this belief out there that if something has been hoaxed in the past, it therefore becomes unreliable

or unbelievable, and tossed into the trash can.That negative belief seems to be applied to all of the evidence as well. For

me It's Innocent until proven guilty! or in more relative terms - Reports are relevant until proven otherwise! You will never

accomplish anything with a negative mindset. It's no wonder the state of affairs has become stagnant! I'm quite certain that we

may well have overlooked reports and evidence that would have lead us to the promised land so to speak. It is such a simple

process, Read and analyze the report, apply your knowledge to determine validity while weeding out inconsistencies, Use

what you have found, if it makes sense to you at this point, then form your hypotheses and apply it to your research effort

and move forward. You can then enjoy the satisfaction that due diligence has been done and then activate your plan. It really is

simple. If you come to a report and read it only to dismiss it out of hand, and classify it as an interesting anecdote, you will get

out of it what you put into it - Nothing!

 

The statement that reports do not allow the scientific method to be applied comes up a lot, well no kidding Einstein! Reports are

tools used to gather pertinent information for the research effort. What does a detective always do at a murder scene. He/She

canvases the area for witnesses, take in every bit of information that is available, and then uses that information to identify suspects,

build a case, ascertain motives, and mobilizes assets to search for and apprehend the suspect/s - Roughly the same process can

be done on sightings reports, but for our purposes, just change the word suspect to Bigfoot

 

Are sightings reports proof? of course not! If they were we would not be here on this forum, and this is where the USS Bigfoot

ship runs aground!

 

I think Dr. Meldrum said it best "The sheer amount of reports and the evidence certainly SUGGESTS that there is an undiscovered

type of bi-pedal ape in our forest's and swamps! and I completely agree! Reports are an integral part of the research effort. Reports

can be data mined for useful information and passed on to those in the field. A few examples of what can be gained - Trends,

commonalities, behaviors, and here is the big one, Location, Location, Location! The credibility to a certain degree of the witness can

be determined. It really does not take much to read a report and determine which pile to toss it on, the good pile or the trash pile.

It also doesn't take much effort to differentiate the good reports from the BS reports. Here is an example - If you read a report that

someone claims they saw a 25 ft. tall blue and yellow hairy creature knocking on their backdoor asking to borrow their checkerboard

for family night back at the cave! Well it shouldn't be too hard to realize what pile to toss that one on.

 

When will science becoming fully vested in the research? Not in our lifetime! and you are living in an alternate dimension

if you think otherwise! Unfortunately much of the scientific community (at least some quarters of it) have made the distinction

between the conduct of good science and the spirit of exploration. Anyone care to guess which of these two they practice these

days

 

Why won't the scientific community actively pursue the evidence to wherever it leads. The paragraph above certainly applies here, 

but for a more simple answer - They don't need to and why should they. They know there are plenty of lapdogs in the BF community

that have heard their "Go Fetch" command. If you have Go-Fer's in your back pocket, you don't need to get your hands dirty! That

way any failures will not fall in their laps, they will fall squarely in our laps. Until some of the geniuses in their own minds around here

can find a way to change whose lap the crap falls in, we will continue to be the ones thrown under the bus. Exactly how that will happen

is anybody's guess at this point.

 

Here is another reason/example why BF research is not taken seriously - I was looking through the older threads and found a couple

of them that almost made me spew my beer on my monitor! One thread was titled "Do Bigfoot's Kiss" No joke! another one asked "What

do Bigfoot's think about us" I couldn't think of any reply other than - How the hell should I know, you'll need go ask a Bigfoot to get an

answer for those questions! Come on, Really? And we wonder why people think we're all goofy.

 

I am not going to bother addressing the Scofftic's and their wonderful demeanor, but I found a definition for Scofftic's that hit's

the bullseye!

 

Scofftics, which actually isn't a real word, but here is the the perfect definition by the Editor of a Skeptical website who

is a P.G., EdM, and is also a geologist with a specialty in science and society and public outreach for science. A “Scoffticâ€

is described as follows: “the programmed skeptic who is defined more by a pre-determined mindset than the results

of any thoughtful probing of the evidenceâ€; “a cranky skepticâ€; one who displays “unhealthy skepticismâ€; “someone

who…gives witness testimony no weight whatsoever, on ideological grounds, and who asserts numerous other bits

of unreasonable dogma, such as that the quantity of reports is insignificantâ€; one who exhibits “fanaticism behind a

pose of reasonableness†and who uses “fine print†and/or “qualifiers†when considering evidence.

Sound like anyone you know?

 

The position of Pro-Kill

I do understand the reasoning behind it, but it just doesn't sit right with me. I definitely don't buy into the protection reasoning either. Why?

well it should be obvious, they don't need it. Then what about protecting their habitat? Okay, does anyone really know what constitutes

BF habitat with absolute certainty? didn't think so. When it comes to this topic we must deal with certainty, not speculation. For me

personally, I have no desire for proof and would much rather see them left alone. Funny, they seem to want the same thing don't they.

Why the big hurry? and no more tired old cliches either. That dog don't hunt no more! The terms ego and bragging rights come to mind

during any discussion on Pro-Kill. It is a sad state of affairs to want to end the life of one these beings in order to satisfy one's curiosity

under the guise of conservancy. I was curious if Dr. Meldrum's viewpoint on this issue had changed, so I emailed him my query and he

replied the next day, and it hasn't changed at all. I do give credit to those that at least acknowledge their true motives. Although I don't

agree with this mindset, I do respect your rights and beliefs on this issue.

 

Here is his reply........

I have said that the conventions of zoological taxonomy require a type specimen as the basis of acknowledgement and

naming of a new species. I have also been very clear that my objective in the field has been to secure tissue (hair, scat,

blood, skin) for DNA analysis. While there is no precedent for recognizing a new species on the basis of DNA alone, there

are those who advocate this in the case of rare and endangered species. Sasquatch would be an important test case in

this regard.

 

Jeff Meldrum, PhD

Professor of Anatomy & Anthropology

Dept. of Biological Sciences

Idaho State University

921 S. 8th Ave., Stop 8007

Pocatello, ID 83209-8007

208-282-4379

 

I couldn't agree more! It is definitely time to set a new precedent for discovery through DNA. So in a nutshell for me, until there is some

kind of monumental game changer found and implemented, and don't kid yourself because a game changer is exactly what is needed

otherwise we will continue to chase our own tails until 2016. It will take nothing short of a miracle to solve this mystery and I doubt that

most will live to see it happen. As for me, I am enjoying the chase because it is always better than the catch!

 

Hey, did anybody see where I left my beer!   Aha, never mind I found it.

 

Hey Incorrigible, you may have already heard but the A-10 Warthog won't be going to bone yard after all.

It was given the old last second reprieve by congress. I have a couple of videos of me in the Hog doing the

engine start process and taxi, and I think I still have some gun camera footage as well. I just have to find where

I put them. When I do, I'll shoot em over to you.

So by your logic? An animal that we have yet proved to exist to science is doing just great? On what data do you rest your opinion on?

Killing one is not based on our "curiosity"...........it's based on resource management of a planet we control. While I do believe that Sasquatch deals with negative impacts on their habitats caused by humans? I can not prove that, no more than you can prove the opposite. But my position is scientifically sound while yours is faith based. Your content to wave your hand and proclaim loudly "they are fine!"

We need hard data and the only way your going to get that data is to prove the creature really exists....... Cool stories and grainy photos do not cut the mustard.

Why the hurry? Putting environmental concerns aside for a moment......if you are going to buy a book about the subject at your Barnes and Noble book store? You are going to go to the paranormal section!!! If the creature in question was a mountain gorilla or a blue Whale? How sad would that be? Isn't it about time this species gets the recognition it deserves and moves to the biological section? If the mountain Gorilla was still a cryptid today it would be extinct, period, end of story. No preserve, no rangers patrolling, no government protections and no global fund to fight for their right to exist.

How different of a world would we live in today if Bob Gimlin had pulled the trigger roughly 50 years ago?

Instead of a tired old cliche the pro kill stance is a fresh look at a 50 year old decision to rely on a grainy film versus giving scientists what they have been asking for all along HARD EVIDENCE.

[Wingman1]

I had a feeling we bump heads over this post!

 

So by your logic? An animal that we have yet proved to exist to science is doing just great? On what data do you rest your opinion on?

Data? There is no real substantiated data available for either of our opinions! As for their well being? well, since bodies

of expired Sasquatches are not turning up in the forests, and there is only a small amount of reports describing emaciated

ones, I'd say they seem to be getting along just fine. You don't need logic to understand that, common sense works just fine.

I sense that you think you have this all figured out, or at least to a large degree. You don't, no one does!

 

Killing one is not based on our "curiosity"

I can't speak for everyone, but I think a majority of in this community wants to find out what they really are, and that sure

sounds like curiosity to me. Science was born out of man's innate curiosity!

 

But my position is scientifically sound

I am assuming that you are referring to the process of taxonomy. Science is continually evolving and is providing new

solutions to old problems like harvesting a specimen to prove it's existence. That worked fine in the years past, but just

like all other archaic processes there comes a time to retire them and find a better way. Patience is needed regardless

of how long it has been.

 

My position is faith based?

Well of course it is faith based, and there is nothing wrong at all with that, and I don't remember ever waving my hand around and

loudly proclaiming that they are fine. I simply made a statement that you don't agree with.

 

Why the hurry?

There is no real need to  As for the Gorillas in your bookstore analogy, how do you know that they would be extinct now if

not for their protection. That is nothing more than conjecture. Unless you are psychic, but I'm pretty sure you don't believe

in that nonsense.  Don't send me any of the Wiki or Google links you seem to be so fond of because I will never read them.

Look, I realize that you come to these conclusions based on your own logic and reasoning, which is fine, but it still does not

alter the fact that none of this can be proclaimed with absolute certainty. Frustrating as that may be, it is the hand that we were

dealt and it has placed one hell of a quandary in our laps.

 

No preserve, no rangers patrolling, no government protections and no global fund to fight for their right to exist.

They have none of that now but appear to doing fine.

 

How different of a world would we be living in today in today if Bob Gimlin had pulled the trigger roughly 50 years ago?

It would be pretty much the same as it stands now, with the exception that there is large bipedal ape in our forests. Nothing

earth shattering about that all. I think you'll find that their discovery (while important to you and many others on this forum)

It is not a big deal to the average John or Jane Doe out there. After a week or two it's back to business as usual with no residual

aftershocks.

 

Instead of a tired old cliche the pro kill stance is a fresh look at a 50 year old decision to rely on a grainy film versus giving scientists what

they have been asking for all along HARD EVIDENCE.

Fresh Look? People have been trying to harvest one for over now. Fresh Look, hardly. You are just putting forth your own opinion. 

If they want hard evidence, then they should make an effort to attain it themselves. After all, it is their job but if you want to see it

like that, I'll play along! Besides, I will be playing golf on Mars before you or someone manages to kill one, and you will never

convince me that they need our protection. Their habitat (whatever that turns out to be) is not going away any time soon, and

they already have the right to exist, just not in your field of view. I simply don't see the need nor have the desire to prove their

existence! If I get lucky and see one up close some day that, great! If I never see one, no big deal. As I have said in the past,

science is number 99 on my list of the 100 most important things in my life! I am pretty much done with this discussion and

have no inclination to continue any further. Norse, you seem to be an intelligent, all around good guy and I respect you and

your opinions, we just don't see eye to eye on this topic that's all. Best wishes and Good luck with your endeavor, you're going

to need it.

[norseman]

It's not conjecture.....from the mountain Gorilla to the reintroduction of the Wolf, the track record shows that conservation efforts work.

It's my experience living in Squatch country my whole life is that they are not plentiful. I've cut one track in my lifetime, but I've cut dozens of Grizzly Bear and Mtn Lion tracks. That's pretty rare.

So I think it's pretty important that we find out for sure what is going on with this species. As we sure don't leave their habitat alone.

[Lake County Bigfooot]

Trust me Jeff and everyone else out there who are studying this creature would relish the opportunity

to study a specimen dead or alive, and the hard cold fact is that you are not going to bring one of these

things in alive.  I like most do not want to see them being hunted for a specimen, and I wish it could be

proven without a specimen, but if you actually believe that I have something else I might want to sell

you.  What is wrong is the idea that the creature should be maligned for its natural activities, and demonized

and therefore hunted.  Groups like the NAWAC hold a high respect for the the creature, though they 

would not ascribe it to being human, which is really the underlying debate here is it not.  If you could 

prove that they were of a human origin then the no kill would be a no brainer, well at least I hope it 

would be...I do not think they will be discovered to be human in the end...at least no more than any other

great ape or chimp is human...but I do think they will be considered among the most intelligent of that

kind.  I am open to being wrong here, and if they are proven to be a people, then all means should be

put in place to have them treated as such, and the reasoning that we should error to that side falls short

because of the lack of evidence to suggest anything remotely close to what we see with our supposed

early ancestors concerning advanced tool making and use of fire.

Edited January 8, 2015 by Lake County Bigfooot

[norseman]

“It doesn't matter if I failed. At least I passed the concept on to others. Even if I don't succeed, someone will succeed.â€

-Jack Ma

[Yuchi1]

It's not conjecture.....from the mountain Gorilla to the reintroduction of the Wolf, the track record shows that conservation efforts work.

It's my experience living in Squatch country my whole life is that they are not plentiful. I've cut one track in my lifetime, but I've cut dozens of Grizzly Bear and Mtn Lion tracks. That's pretty rare.

So I think it's pretty important that we find out for sure what is going on with this species. As we sure don't leave their habitat alone.

Unless, they don't want to be tracked, which logically, would mean that except for a rare miscue, you won't be finding (tracks) them.

[norseman]

Unless, they don't want to be tracked, which logically, would mean that except for a rare miscue, you won't be finding (tracks) them.

How do they do that? Fly? In my neck of the woods the valleys get a solid 4 months of winter with the mountains up to 9 plus months.

[Guest Crowlogic]

How do they do that? Fly? In my neck of the woods the valleys get a solid 4 months of winter with the mountains up to 9 plus months.

They stay in their caves and use the food they canned over the summer.

[Guest]

How do they do that? Fly? In my neck of the woods the valleys get a solid 4 months of winter with the mountains up to 9 plus months.

 

If the snow is constantly coming down the it'll hide any tracks won't it? Dumb question I know.

[norseman]

^^^^^^

Yes, but you normally have a good search window with a BIG track like that. But it's still a race against time.

Crow, so I should be looking for a mine shaft with mason jars in it?

[Doc Holliday]

mason jars in the backwoods are probably better off left alone....'specially if "BF" didn't put 'em there

[Lake County Bigfooot]

^^^^^^

Yes, but you normally have a good search window with a BIG track like that. But it's still a race against time.

Crow, so I should be looking for a mine shaft with mason jars in it?

Hey, just a question as one researcher to another, what do you feel about the winter months? Do these creatures limit their travel do to leaving tracks in certain conditions, or do they move about without regard to leaving these obvious traces. While we live in totally different environments, I somehow think there will be some commonalities in behavior. I live in North East Illinois, and numerous winter track finds have been found in my general area, and I too have a claim to a possible winter track way. The majority of these finds seem to follow a weather event.

Edited January 9, 2015 by Lake County Bigfooot

[norseman]

Hey, just a question as one researcher to another, what do you feel about the winter months? Do these creatures limit their travel do to leaving tracks in certain conditions, or do they move about without regard to leaving these obvious traces. While we live in totally different environments, I somehow think there will be some commonalities in behavior. I live in North East Illinois, and numerous winter track finds have been found in my general area, and I too have a claim to a possible winter track way. The majority of these finds seem to follow a weather event.

The tracks I saw were in December in deep snow. If they are a large omnivorous primate, that means they do not hibernate. Which means they are forced to hunt and forage all winter long, as well as take shelter in bad weather. But they may become much less transient if they find an ideal location. IMO.

Winter time is ideal in the north woods because it's impossible for anything to move without revealing itself.

[Lake County Bigfooot]

Very interesting, I have seen them moving during a large winter event, maybe to protect their presence in the the future

days, or to capitalize on game that has to adjust as well, but in my area they are feeding on deer, coyotes, and smaller

mammals that proliferate these confines, elk on the other hand move in a larger area which would require predators to

keep on their trail.  I think my variety rely on a lot of small kills vs. a bigger kill.  I do not even feel certain that deer and

coyotes are much of the diet. Possums, raccoons, rabbits, and various rodents, these add up and leave the least traces.

Edited January 9, 2015 by Lake County Bigfooot