Incorrigible1 Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 Not like either interested, active nor disinterested, non-active parties have produced much of anything tangible...... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 ^^^ It's not just about tramping about through the wilderness seeking the beast. It is as much about seeing the films, hearing the stories, reading the books and the reports and maintaining during each and every one the mindset of maybe, perhaps, it could be, seems reasonable. This can be done whether you're in NYC or British Columbia. Case in point Rocky Mountain Sasquatch Org is as empty handed as I am in spite of the boots on the ground efforts they are making. Sure if it makes a person feel better to tramp the forest looking for something that isn't there by all means carry on. But simply saying that a person's outlook will change as if to assume there will be an impending discovery/event to change that outlook is naive. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 I would just propose, if one has not tramped said forest, and is relying on others to bring the information to them, one is proposing to know something of which they are as unlikely to know as a fish to ride a bike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 What "info" is anyone providing? Precious little. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWWASAS Posted November 24, 2015 BFF Patron Share Posted November 24, 2015 So we have people who look for BF for 47 years or longer and never find it. Peter Bearn is one of them but he has not run around trying to tell everyone there is nothing to find. But rather accept that their self determination that there is nothing to find and move on, some feel driven to become a frequent poster on a website devoted to BF and constantly belittle those who have invested the sweat equity and time in the field looking for their own truth about what is or is not in the woods to find. What motivates that sort of destructive behavior? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 ........... and constantly belittle those who have invested the sweat equity and time in the field looking for their own truth about what is or is not in the woods to find. What motivates that sort of destructive behavior? I trust you report such behavior when it's encountered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 Enough for me was 47 years of no monkey. I'm reminded of the Toy Story scene where Buzz Lightyear is informed he's just a toy and he laments "You mean all that training was for nothing?" Preach it, I'm reminded of this... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottv Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 Hello everyone, I'm curious as to what methodology field researchers use to try and document bigfoot? Techniques that field biologist use for other species don't seem to work for bigfoot. Do you do systematic transects for sign, cruise roads, work when snow is on the ground to better see footprints? Do you focus your efforts to recent sighting areas or areas with historical activity? Trail cameras have not worked and, apparently, neither have hair snags. Both of these techniques have had profound impacts on predator research producing precise estimates of population density which were unheard of 20 years ago. On another thread I have pointed out that bigfoot should be easier to document on national parks due to lack of hunting. Bears act VERY differently on national parks as opposed to where they are hunted. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 I don't expect bigfoot believers to agree with me. I expect the one's dug in the deepest will complain the loudest. People used to call me "one of those tree huggers" because I did environmental research and it never bothered me because I was convinced of the legitimacy of the research. But getting back to the OP how's business? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Squatchy McSquatch Posted November 25, 2015 Author Share Posted November 25, 2015 Thank you all for the dialogue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWWASAS Posted November 25, 2015 BFF Patron Share Posted November 25, 2015 Hello everyone, I'm curious as to what methodology field researchers use to try and document bigfoot? Techniques that field biologist use for other species don't seem to work for bigfoot. Do you do systematic transects for sign, cruise roads, work when snow is on the ground to better see footprints? Do you focus your efforts to recent sighting areas or areas with historical activity? Trail cameras have not worked and, apparently, neither have hair snags. Both of these techniques have had profound impacts on predator research producing precise estimates of population density which were unheard of 20 years ago. On another thread I have pointed out that bigfoot should be easier to document on national parks due to lack of hunting. Bears act VERY differently on national parks as opposed to where they are hunted. Good questions. The problem I see with National Parks is the number of people. Perhaps in winter months when people are fewer that might be good place to look. I have not have an encounter when any other humans were even in the area. BF are hunter gatherers. You have to be where they are when they are hunting or foraging. Berry fields in that season, where elk and deer are common, and always where there is running water. They may catch fish like bears do in waterfalls because they seem interested in human fishing activities. Those that claim to have the most contact just go into an active area, set up camp, and wait for BF to get curious and come in to have a look. It may take several days so two days on a weekend might not be enough time for them to find you. The reality is that most people that do field work do not document it. A field biologist has a notebook along and takes notes. You think you will never forget something but in a few months you start forgetting details. The problem with the whole research thing right now is that there is very little exchange of information. Too many people sitting on their findings and methods. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FarArcher Posted November 26, 2015 Share Posted November 26, 2015 I think you'll find that members here are very close-lipped, as we subscribe to the informal program of catch and release. A good month can range between 3 to 9, working one weekend a month. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacemonkeymafia Posted November 26, 2015 Share Posted November 26, 2015 I was in the Cherokee National Forest today and had two loud wood knocks on the Ridgeline above me. Didn't bring one home.Sorry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 26, 2015 Share Posted November 26, 2015 I got me one that scored a 45 5/8 but Boone and Crockett wouldn't allow it, said I gave it too much of an egg with the baseball bat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts