Lake County Bigfooot Posted February 7, 2015 Author Posted February 7, 2015 (edited) Catmandoo, I would have agreed with you before I heard of the Don Wallace/Lori Simmons location in the Cascades. This is the location I was referring to earlier and where Adam Davies, Rhettman Mullis, Brian Sykes, and others all witnessed the situation and concluded that indeed a Sasquatch had a den that was under a large fir tree, and was certainly underground. How or why it was there is not known, mine shaft, root cavity, simply dug out, it is not known. I do think they would have the strength and ability to dig if they so choose, that is not at all hard to imagine. That situation might be purely unique and not reflective of the population in general, we see often how primates in different areas have different adaptions for survival based on what is available. In the same location they discovered several dens that were being built above ground. I just think these creatures discovered something and were taking advantage, gold mines dot the landscape so that is my leading contender for an entryway. Maybe they discovered some lava tubes and continued with a little excavation themselves, many possibilities exist. Edited February 7, 2015 by Lake County Bigfooot
Guest DWA Posted February 7, 2015 Posted February 7, 2015 (edited) G. blacki is a possibility. I don't have any particular reason to believe it is the CORRECT answer. 'til we know, we don't know. It's that simple. LOGIC isn't going to matter if the truth, once known, disproves it. Logic is a starting place to look for answers, not the answer itself. This whole "ancestry bit" seems one of many things to keep an open mind about rather than piling on a bandwagon. IMHO, of course. MIB There is a frequent presumption that something has to be the descendant of something for which we have already found remains. Not true at all. We are finding new fossils all the time. It's very possible we haven't found anything in the direct line of sasquatch ancestry yet. Edited February 7, 2015 by DWA
Guest Posted February 7, 2015 Posted February 7, 2015 ^ I am of that opinion. I don't think sasquatch is Giganto.
Catmandoo Posted February 7, 2015 Posted February 7, 2015 ^^ ^^ G. blacki is not in the running for Sasquatch ancestor at this time. We know it was a bamboo eater and it was big. Period. Knuckle dragger all the time? We need more fossil bones in the way of the pelvis and vertebrae to determine locomotion.
Guest Posted February 7, 2015 Posted February 7, 2015 (edited) I enjoy unanticipated opportunities to learn...yesterday I had another such encounter. A confirmation encounter, something I'd suspected for a long time. I was sitting in a doctor's waiting room awaiting my call to go get a post-op on my knee. I was reading a BF book, and a man in his late sixties saw it when I pulled it out and smiled at me, and said, "you are interested in that, eh?" "yes sir, I am". We were the only two in the room. The conversation went for about 20 minutes until they took me in. This gentleman told me he had a PhD in Anthropology and a second in Biology. He is a retired professor from a state university system. The one thing he said that about made me slap my head was in response to my "thinking out loud" about why there isn't a bigger push in "regular science" to work the BF question. His response was instant, simple, and interesting. "There isn't any money in it." He must have seen the face slap emoticon pop up next to my head. He expounded a bit. "No grant money, no money from institutions, no department chairs, no money from the university system at all that I am aware of or have ever heard of. And certainly no private financial backing of any amount. Professors and scientists follow the money trail, they have to have a place to sleep and food to eat, just like regular people, and they also have to feed something else...a scientists ego and resume'." I instantly thought of this thread. I guess that adds to the understanding of the state of BF science question. As to whether or not BF exists he told me he sees no reason that it cannot exist. I asked if he'd every looked at any evidence or followed any of the lay work being done on the subject and he told me that he hadn't, but had always been interested. I gave him this website. He may show up. He'll be an interesting addition to the clubhouse if he does. I never asked his name, they called me in and I hobbled away on my crutches. Edited February 7, 2015 by Northfork
JKH Posted February 7, 2015 Posted February 7, 2015 There you go, interesting story Northfork. I'm relatively convinced that unofficial scientific studies are ongoing. The most likely candidates are military R & D and/or private non-profit labs.
SWWASAS Posted February 7, 2015 BFF Patron Posted February 7, 2015 Probably the best way in this day and age to get funding, is for a researcher to put together a proposal that investigates whether global warming is having any impact on the endangered species, Sasquatch. Anything related to global warming gets money thrown at it. 1
Guest DWA Posted February 7, 2015 Posted February 7, 2015 I enjoy unanticipated opportunities to learn...yesterday I had another such encounter. A confirmation encounter, something I'd suspected for a long time. I was sitting in a doctor's waiting room awaiting my call to go get a post-op on my knee. I was reading a BF book, and a man in his late sixties saw it when I pulled it out and smiled at me, and said, "you are interested in that, eh?" "yes sir, I am". We were the only two in the room. The conversation went for about 20 minutes until they took me in. This gentleman told me he had a PhD in Anthropology and a second in Biology. He is a retired professor from a state university system. The one thing he said that about made me slap my head was in response to my "thinking out loud" about why there isn't a bigger push in "regular science" to work the BF question. His response was instant, simple, and interesting. "There isn't any money in it." He must have seen the face slap emoticon pop up next to my head. He expounded a bit. "No grant money, no money from institutions, no department chairs, no money from the university system at all that I am aware of or have ever heard of. And certainly no private financial backing of any amount. Professors and scientists follow the money trail, they have to have a place to sleep and food to eat, just like regular people, and they also have to feed something else...a scientists ego and resume'." ................................ Or as it has been put elsewhere: Science isn't about the search for truth; it is about the search for funding.
Lake County Bigfooot Posted February 7, 2015 Author Posted February 7, 2015 (edited) I enjoy unanticipated opportunities to learn...yesterday I had another such encounter. A confirmation encounter, something I'd suspected for a long time. I was sitting in a doctor's waiting room awaiting my call to go get a post-op on my knee. I was reading a BF book, and a man in his late sixties saw it when I pulled it out and smiled at me, and said, "you are interested in that, eh?" "yes sir, I am". We were the only two in the room. The conversation went for about 20 minutes until they took me in. This gentleman told me he had a PhD in Anthropology and a second in Biology. He is a retired professor from a state university system. The one thing he said that about made me slap my head was in response to my "thinking out loud" about why there isn't a bigger push in "regular science" to work the BF question. His response was instant, simple, and interesting. "There isn't any money in it." He must have seen the face slap emoticon pop up next to my head. He expounded a bit. "No grant money, no money from institutions, no department chairs, no money from the university system at all that I am aware of or have ever heard of. And certainly no private financial backing of any amount. Professors and scientists follow the money trail, they have to have a place to sleep and food to eat, just like regular people, and they also have to feed something else...a scientists ego and resume'." I instantly thought of this thread. I guess that adds to the understanding of the state of BF science question. As to whether or not BF exists he told me he sees no reason that it cannot exist. I asked if he'd every looked at any evidence or followed any of the lay work being done on the subject and he told me that he hadn't, but had always been interested. I gave him this website. He may show up. He'll be an interesting addition to the clubhouse if he does. I never asked his name, they called me in and I hobbled away on my crutches. Precisely why we need to support efforts like the Falcon Project, anything is better than nothing in this matter. We do not know how this will all end, but most of us believe discovery is inevitable and unavoidable. I support the NAWAC, and whatever organization will attempt to bring the matter to light in a responsible fashion. Mind you I would much rather see the matter resolved without harvesting a specimen, but that being said, I realize that it might be the only means by which the creature is accepted by mainstream science and properly studied. With the number of pro-kill groups growing this might become a reality sooner than some of you think. The NAWAC was only seconds from harvesting one last year, and the other groups, I guess they seem to be getting closer to success as well. I am just glad I am not isolated in those same woods when they face the wrath of those creatures, if ape canyon is any indication it will not be pretty. Edited February 7, 2015 by Lake County Bigfooot
Guest Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 I thought you folks would enjoy that little tidbit. While propped up here in the lounger I've been reading a bit. My, "professional cynicism" has always held the "follow the $" deal to be part of the foundation of my work, but to hear it come straight outta the guys pie hole was pretty amazing. I spent the rest of the afternoon pondering that exchange, wearing a silly grin on my face.
bipedalist Posted February 8, 2015 BFF Patron Posted February 8, 2015 (edited) NAWAC and responsible is an Oxymoron, pardon the sardonic analogy, and no offense to our own SC Chair, a member of such. Just recapitulating my view of the "state of the art", based on my personal expierence with the Sasquatch. Edited February 8, 2015 by bipedalist 1
Guest Posted February 8, 2015 Posted February 8, 2015 That anecdote was really nicely told, Northfolk! And of course it makes absolute sense for there to be a lack of funding; it's a prime example of a Catch 22 situation I suppose-- money is needed for proof but proof is needed for money. That's why, whatever your opinion may be on Jeff Meldrum, we must all surely admire the fact that he managed to raise enough for that massive airship...!
Lake County Bigfooot Posted February 8, 2015 Author Posted February 8, 2015 (edited) As far a pro-kill groups go, the NAWAC is at least attempting to be responsible, but I understand why anyone opposed to their stance would disagree. I argued against them on Bipto's thread in the past, but I have come to realize that there is no such thing as humane when it comes to shooting a creature of this magnificence, responsible here means they at least are using proper caliber and only shooting when they have a probable kill. I am not sure they had thought it through as well as they have now, or at least as well as they can explain it now, but it seems they have taken steps in the right direction. We could argue all day long about the morality of harvesting one of these creatures, but science has little to do with morality, ask all those monkeys in labs about that. Two wrongs do not make a right, it is just the cruel fact that without a body there is no science. At least that is what they tell us, I still hold out hope that DNA will prove the creature exists and is worth the funding and manpower to track down. Edited February 8, 2015 by Lake County Bigfooot
Recommended Posts