MIB Posted September 10, 2015 Moderator Posted September 10, 2015 it is hard to make any sense of the Uzbek result Well, yes. What you've basically got is an observation vs interpretation parallel. Analysis of the hair so far is an observation. What you're looking for is a correct interpretation. In math it's like trying to define a line with only one point (and no slope) or solve with two variables and only one equation. We just don't have enough. MIB
Guest Posted September 11, 2015 Posted September 11, 2015 For the record Don Jeffery Meldrum has never physically held or examined a Wallace Stomper. He also declared the SnowWalker video to be umm... well... He also studied numerous primate trackways and even the laetoli trackway in tanzania. Can he be fooled? Sure. But is he light years ahead of us on whats a stomper and whats a living foot that left an impression in the ground? I'd say so.......... You mean like Todd Standing fooled him? Meldrum is naive and just because he is rare academic who studies BF does not mean he actually knows anything important . Even after Standing hoodwinked him he tried to compensate with a foolish essay on describing the eyes (which were Standing's puppet in the woods). Sorry if this is old news, hard to believe you could overlook Meldrum's remarkable face plant. Takes a while to load, apologies on that: http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x2wq2my
Lake County Bigfooot Posted September 14, 2015 Author Posted September 14, 2015 (edited) So the thread runs full circle to the point I originally made, that being that we have not advanced the science of bigfooting one iota, and that Patterson and Gimlin riding horseback with their rental 8mm was as good as is gets. I mean anything we have done since that moment is basically trying to emulate that moment. Glimpses have been had, and truly technology should be more reliable than then, suffice it to say few of us ride horseback, or have the knowledge of guiding that Gimlin brought. In this techno age we have to return to studying those ancient arts of those who mastered the forests before us, surely we can regain our sense of prowess in those wooded confines and begin to make some headway, Halfpenny I am signing up...and bring me a good horse. Horses and dogs together, that's the ticket... at least when they run away chickening out I know what I am up against, hey wait for me....Point is our senses our way too dulled to be reliable, but another animal who exists at the same wave length as the Sasquatch knows what they are about, and can sense the danger they pose, so maybe they are our best asset in determining when and where they are present, and studying behavior of say dogs in general may be a clue. In many of my best recording a dog is yapping away long before I get a vocal or something else. sirens coyotes tree knocks.mp3 Edited September 14, 2015 by Lake County Bigfooot 1
Guest Posted October 14, 2015 Posted October 14, 2015 Half of Sasquatch science has these creatures performing magic tricks. Science has been thrown to the wind.
Incorrigible1 Posted October 14, 2015 Posted October 14, 2015 How dare you question any report, no matter how outlandish and fantastic! ::sarcasm font:: 2
Guest Posted October 15, 2015 Posted October 15, 2015 Good to see you around, Psy! Hello... Glad to be around. Yeah, Im pretty fed up with the general lack of any filters in the minds of many Footers. As a person who saw ONLY two Sasquatch, and not by looking, either (I've looked hard for years), I know people think that I should feel somehow special, chosen. No. To me, the creature is as flesh and blood as you or I. I know what foxes sound like. I know what several species of owls sound like. I know what most of the forests of the oregon coastal mountain range sound like. What I cannot tell you is that I am sure what a sasquatch sounds like. I think I might have heard o couple of them, but, since I couldn't pin down the originator of the vocalizations, I cannot say that I did. There are many who do not have such a filter. To them, if they dont know what the sound is, the assumption is Sasquatch. I feel lucky to have even seen one, much less two. Not so bad, however, that I throw common sense and reasoning out the window.
SWWASAS Posted October 15, 2015 BFF Patron Posted October 15, 2015 ^^^^ for that very reason I do not think there is much future in sound analysis or footprints. The best you can hope for is science saying they do not know what that sound is, or what made the footprint. That does little to define a species. Seems like two dead ends to me. Either an HD video of better quality is needed to get science interested or a body on a lab table. The later being the best chance of defining the species.
chelefoot Posted October 15, 2015 Posted October 15, 2015 Good to see you around, Psy! Hello... Glad to be around. Yeah, Im pretty fed up with the general lack of any filters in the minds of many Footers. I feel your pain.
BigTreeWalker Posted October 16, 2015 Posted October 16, 2015 Plussed that one PsyShroom. I agree. Know your sounds in the woods. If you hear something you don't recognize it's best to store it away and just admit, "I don't know."
1980squatch Posted October 16, 2015 Posted October 16, 2015 Yep, that sentiment fourthed. I've complained before about the lack of scepticism in believers. Hope you hang around again psy.
Lake County Bigfooot Posted October 16, 2015 Author Posted October 16, 2015 (edited) Pinning them down is dammed frustrating, it would be easier to chase tornadoes around the south pole, and the results would be about the same. I persist only because I cannot let it go, but I should. That is more the case with most of us, we simply cannot let it go. I know they exist and maybe even pay my area visits from time to time, but to prove that is nearly impossible. Edited October 16, 2015 by Lake County Bigfooot 1
JDL Posted November 4, 2015 Posted November 4, 2015 With regard to the contributions of non-scientists, the following article is interesting. I would argue that intital discovery by non-scientists is more the rule than the exception, and that scientists are largely responsible for follow-on work, exploiting the initial discovery. This is how it will go with bigfoot. http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/offbeat/10-amazing-archaeological-finds-discovered-by-ordinary-people-and-one-badger/ar-BBmOvMp?ocid=spartandhp Many non-scientists should be credited with their initial work after the fact. 4
Lake County Bigfooot Posted November 8, 2015 Author Posted November 8, 2015 (edited) It will take a combination of luck and determination, coupled with skills yet to be determined to finally pin this creature down and to have science take a more serious look, part of my excitement about the Falcon Project idea was that if it could fly, pardon the pun, it would be cutting edge science working toward that end. In the end though I would not at all be surprised if dumb luck solves the mystery, a truck and an inopportune road crossing, or a hunter mistakenly shooting one, those are two scenarios that have almost or already have happened repeatedly, only the body was not recovered. I look at a group like the NAWAC as a potential player in the real attempts to collect a type specimen, but apart from them I have little faith in the efforts I have any knowledge of. Individuals may play a role, but it will take a larger team and tactical determination and knowledge to succeed. Some are gaining ground in that regard. I know that it will not be solved without controversy, and study may be disregarded by science even if they find a type specimen, or swept neatly under the rug. Edited November 8, 2015 by Lake County Bigfooot
Lake County Bigfooot Posted November 13, 2015 Author Posted November 13, 2015 (edited) http://www.isu.edu/rhi/pdf/WILDMEN-IN-MYANMAR.pdfRead the above research paper speaking of the Wildman of Myanmar, it is fascinating to me how so many of the moderndescriptions of Sasquatch behavior come up in these historical articles. To the skeptic I say, look at the consistencyof the reports and you have to acknowledge that it is too consistent to be hoaxing or imagination. Take for instance someof the small details, hair length, nostrils, hand size, arm length, brow ridge, mouth size, smoothness of movement, sagittalcrest, just to name a few. So many of these are repeated over and over in descriptions as well as in the historical accounts,it is beyond coincidence or hysteria or hoaxing. Most of the reports come from people with very little interest in the subject,and they just happen to be in the right place at the right time. If anything they wish they had not seen it or are reluctant to share the encounter till a later date, which is quite noticable reading through reports from the BFRO. Edited November 13, 2015 by Lake County Bigfooot
Recommended Posts