2015 The State Of Sasquatch Science

[Lake County Bigfooot]

Crow your right about not having a specimen, it seems they are simply to smart to be caught or taken in. I recall a show I watched about a young man who

had escaped prison and was hiding out in rural Kentucky or Tennessee or a similar place. Law enforcement applied concerted effort to track him down, knowing

full well the area he was using, and attempting to surprise him. He became a bit of an folk hero to the local population and received help from time to time

with food being left out and the like. Having grown up in the woods he was quite comfortable with his surroundings and could survive without issue, and was

familiar enough with the surroundings to use them to his advantage and avoid the law.  It was only his need for human contact that brought him out and eventually

lead to him being caught.  The point is that this creature is far more adapted to its environment than we could imagine, and it has evolved within a niche that

required it to adapt traits to avoid detection by it's main competitor, that being us.  The fact that it remains a mystery is simply the result of a very refined set

of abilities and adaptions combined with at least near human intelligence, all being applied to one purpose, survival.

Edited April 19, 2015 by Lake County Bigfooot

[SWWASAS]

I live in the Northeast and most of that time in New York metro area.   But I was frequently an avid camper and have hiked and camped in most parts of the country.  Very specifically I was part of a field research project studying lake acidification in New York state.  I spent two seasons deep in the the forests and remote areas of New York in the early 80's were in place true wilderness.  I often spent a week or two in the field collecting data.   I am a trained observer and I was aware and mindful of the bigfoot possibilities of the times.  I observed nothing whatsoever of bigfoot but I did observe and encounter just about every animal that is found in the region.  So I had extended time in the field, reason to observe and tools to observe with.  

 

Most recently I have not been deep into the wilderness although the bigfoot situation has not change from when I was going into wilderness.  If I were to go to a hot spot where researchers claim to encounter them it would require evidence that leaves nothing to the imagination.  it would require far more than anything I have seen make it to the public at large.  Things that go bump in the night do not interest me, movements in the bushes do not interest me.  What interests me are the kinds of wildlife sightings I encountered on a daily basis when I was a field researcher which are the very same types of sightings that are as repeatable now as they were then.  This is how it is with real animals.  Real animals do not perpetually exist as a question mark open to interpretation.  Reality does not require special dispensation and endless speculation.  

 

My being a proponent came to an end with the realization of a half century had passed since the bigfoot issue came to the modern limelight.  It ended when the realization that the means to prove the existence of the creature had increased ten fold as did the number of people interested and searching for it and yet the only thing to come from it was a grander level of buffoonery and slight of hand.  The game is more sophisticated than ever before and yet it  fails to yield the results that it should have by now.

I see.     Has in occurred to you that your lack of contact is the result of being in the wrong location.      Looking up wilderness areas in New York state there is only one Federally designated wilderness area.    The others are part of the state park system.      Because of the humans present, I would never expect to have BF contact in a state park.    I avoid field work where there is a significant human presence.     It is a waste of time for my objectives.     

 

Having flown over New York state many times,  I know the Western part is surprisingly wooded,  but I also know that New York sighting report numbers are far less than Washington and Oregon and are probably not representative of BF demographics because of the greater number of humans in the woods to make reports.   More humans and less BF makes contact even more difficult.     You are at an extreme disadvantage there.    I think Finding BIgfoot is actually doing a disservice visiting all the various states with sightings.    They do it to gin up local interest and ratings but if Finding Bigfoot was their real goal, they would pick the state and region with most sightings and stay there.    Just a matter of numbers and probability.      Anyway I can understand your frustration especially if you started out as a believer of sorts.     I started out as a skeptic and field work changed my mind, so my journey has been different.    

Edited April 19, 2015 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[Guest DWA]

^^^Research changed his mind.  That, I can get.  Of course the bigfoot skeptic says, wait!  You looked at PG over and over and saw stuff?  THAT AIN'T RIGHT...you have to decide the first time, and done!  Research and study and thinking, not allowed!

 

Sitting on one's hands waiting for proof - even going out in the field looking for it - and changing one's mind in the face of the evidence?

 

That AIN'T right.  'Coz it ain't what scientists do.

Edited April 19, 2015 by DWA

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

People who are skeptical of the existence of this animal often have have high expectations that this animal won't meet. To continue assuming now (in 2015) that they would act like a known species of wildlife is a mistake. Based on the data that I've seen, these are animals that supposedly try to stay out of a person's line of sight at all times, making visual sightings hard to come by and shooting them with a camera or a firearm nearly impossible. This is possibly due to them having a high intelligence (not far from our own) combined with a paranoid nature that's similar to what's seen in some humans. Their genetic similarities to human beings strongly supports this notion. It's something that should be considered a possibility before making an assumption that they can't exist.

I'll admit though that based on its description, it's an animal that by many accounts shouldn't exist, yet there's a good amount of data to suggest that it does.

Edited April 19, 2015 by OntarioSquatch

[Guest Divergent1]

If skeptics aren't looking at the evidence for the PGF then what are all those PGF threads about?

[Squatchy McSquatch]

I love Crow's arguments, but truth be told 

 

The idea that Patty was the last living BF is just as absurd as the PGF itself.

 

Science has applied itself to this topic with zero results.

[Lake County Bigfooot]

Hmmm... still think there is one or two out there...

[Guest Crowlogic]

I love Crow's arguments, but truth be told 

 

The idea that Patty was the last living BF is just as absurd as the PGF itself.

 

Science has applied itself to this topic with zero results.

I never said Patty was the last bigfoot.  I said the species was near extinction at the time of the PGF and went out in the next decade.  That said lets consider the reality of what science has not accomplished with this,  It is 100% true that science has not brought in a body and it has not issued a definitive conclusion about the physical evidence of hair and DNA.  I don't consider the Ketchum project to be anything but an elaborate side show.

 

I've spent some time going through a series of videos of a group in Northern Utah that represents to me the best and worst of the laymen bigfoot research endeavor.  The group has a specific set of places they search and seem incredibly lucky in finding structures and tracks.  However in spite of them being escorted by the local bigfoot they like all the rest fail to get the camera on one or find a physical piece of one.  As I watched an episode where they came upon a large tee pee like structure the claim was that the materials would have been too heavy for humans.  Actually though they were long sapling trunks they were well within a human's ability to put up the structure especially if more than one person is involved.  The researchers are usually traveling in a group BTW.  So a case of interesting structure but nothing beyond humans.  Same with the tracks they cast.  

 

Since we're talking about science I noticed this Utah group being about as noisy as a subway train as they go along.  I wonder if they are not concerned with warding off bigfoot by being noisy because they are aware that they are not really looking for bogfoot?  If you want to find wildlife the cardinal rule is silence and stealth.  Even a fisherman will demand quiet.  So here is the layman researcher in the field approaching it as  holiday recreation coming as close as close gets and coming up effectively empty time after time.  Empty time after time yet having bigfoot leaving them gifts, empty time after time knowing a specific place to search and empty time after time in spite of persistence.  They say real science is needed in the field but I think a certain reality is missing from the field in question. 

Edited April 20, 2015 by Crowlogic

[Guest DWA]

I love Crow's arguments, but truth be told 

 

The idea that Patty was the last living BF is just as absurd as the PGF itself. let's just say none too likely, and someone with no evidence the film was faked who is constructing a Rugman should not use the word 'absurd' too too freely.

 

Science has applied itself to this topic with zero results virtually proving the animal, which doesn't satisfy some, and given the 'results' NOT of their application to the topic, who really cares about that.

There, fixed.  I love fixing stuff.

[WSA]

So, I get it Crow. You've concluded that these guys in Utah aren't really observing or documenting BF activity.  In the infamous words of my L1 Contracts Professor..."So what?"

 

We've got a few regulars around here who can't tell good evidence from bad, and it sounds as if you don't suffer from that handicap.  That is not nothing.

[Guest Crowlogic]

So, I get it Crow. You've concluded that these guys in Utah aren't really observing or documenting BF activity.  In the infamous words of my L1 Contracts Professor..."So what?"

 

We've got a few regulars around here who can't tell good evidence from bad, and it sounds as if you don't suffer from that handicap.  That is not nothing.

I think they're having a good time in beautiful wilderness.  I think they've carved out a niche that is helping to support the good time they're having.  But if it seems too good to be true it is too good to be true.  I'm reminded of Todd Standing's special Sylvanic and how he was getting his amazing photos and videos.  Well those other folks are in an equally special place and will tell you that every time they go there they find bigfoot evidence. Guess what, finding bigfoot evidence is always equal to not finding bigfoot.  Making bigfoot evidence up is a tried and true bigfoot researcher tradition.  It takes more than good golly gosh look at that track to impress me.

[Guest DWA]

It doesn't seem too good to be true.  It seems kinda garden variety.  Can't help but notice you mentioning over and over again the names of people we have long ago dismissed.  And the concern about what impresses you is, on our part, asymptotically approaching zero.  If it didn't get there already.

[Guest]

There are two schools of thought regarding stealth in the woods. One, that Crow seems to favor is maximum ninja type stealth, allowing one to sneak up on a sasquatch. The other is to walk like a group of campers/vacationers and let a sasquatch find you. The sightings database has many accounts of noisy family groups, many including very noisy children, being observed by a sasquatch. Unless a fresh tracking snow is present, I think the later approach is better.

[Guest Crowlogic]

It doesn't seem too good to be true.  It seems kinda garden variety.  Can't help but notice you mentioning over and over again the names of people we have long ago dismissed.  And the concern about what impresses you is, on our part, asymptotically approaching zero.  If it didn't get there already.

Dismissing a perpetrator does not dismiss perpetrating by others.  Once again it needs to be stressed that the entire bigfoot  universe is one of an unproven animal that has had far more bad evidence presented as real evidence than it has had of great or even good evidence.  Right there is reason enough to dismiss bigfoot culture.  The reality of bigfoot culture is that it is stunningly bad at delivering the real thing.  It is so stunningly bad that the chances of being killed in a plane crash are greater than the probability of bigfoot existing based on the evidence to date.  It is equally safe to say that it won't be proven now or ever.  I wonder if any bigfoot researcher would be willing to bet the farm that they will deliver bigfoot to the world by the end of the decade.  I'd love to know what the bookmaker's odds are of it?

[Guest DWA]

I can't count the number of ways that post exhibits just plain wrong thinking.

 

So I won't.  I can feel the heels-scrabbling-on-carborundum friction, and see the shower of sparks, all the way from here.  It just seems so hard.  Why?  You know?  Why?  It really is easier doing the science and coming to the logical conclusion.  Really.

Edited April 20, 2015 by DWA