Has Bigfoot Science Stalled?

[Guest DWA]

What got us to the moon...is demonstrably the very thing that most scientists are NOT applying here.  Thank you.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

Scientists are used to working with hard data and the Bigfoot phenomenon doesn't provide much of it. If a group of biologists were to go out into the PNW for a year to look for Sasquatch, chances are they will be disappointed and will feel like they wasted their time. 

 

IMO, Sasquatch are real, but there is still a critical question that remains unanswered: what exactly are they? If someone can figure that out the answer to that one question, I think everything else will make sense. 

Edited January 21, 2016 by OntarioSquatch

[xspider1]

^  ^^  very good points  (we should be allowed to give more +'s daily: |, i'll try later!  : D

 

 What got us to the moon science or general consensus? 

 

Having both really helps because Science needs "funding" and all that, you know?  You did, of course, miss the point entirely.  </strong the irony is with this one>

Edited January 21, 2016 by xspider1

[Guest DWA]

Scientists are used to working with hard data and the Bigfoot phenomenon doesn't provide much of it. If a group of biologists were to go out into the PNW for a year to look for Sasquatch, chances are they will be disappointed and will feel like they wasted their time. 

 

I'd be willing to bet that if that group went into an area of numerous recent encounter reports and spent an actual year, before a couple months were done they'd either have proof or they'd be committed to staying on the hunt until they got it.  Too many think that proof adequate for the ignorant is necessary.  The only thing necessary is inconclusive evidence that nonetheless compels mainstreamers to jump sides.

 

IMO, Sasquatch are real, but there is still a critical question that remains unanswered: what exactly are they? If someone can figure that out the answer to that one question, I think everything else will make sense. 

 

That's got it backward.  Taxonomy is the answer to the what exactly are they? question and it requires a specimen.  There is an unrecognized animal out there.  That's enough to go for the proof...long after which we may have an answer to the question.  Remember:  we aren't near conclusive yet on what *we* are.

[ShadowBorn]

I guess that depends on what you consider 'science'.  The 'Science' that has been taught by 'Science Teachers' throughout the ages generally mimics the average consensus of "fact" (which has been wrong more times than right).

 

Xspider1

Science cannot be the average consensus, otherwise it would not be science. Science is the ability to explore ,to venture into new ideas. I am always learning new things from my 12 year old son about science. To hear how he thinks about science really ups it for me as his Dad. We might have thought that Bigfoot science has stalled but there are still youngster who have great interest like us . 

 

Maybe they are meant to stay a mystery for reason, has anyone ever thought of that?

[Incorrigible1]

Science is not something approvable by bigfoot knowers, enthusiasts, nor believers. Science is a means to understand the world around us. Science strives to be self-correcting, in that any new data is considered and new conclusions made.

 

Science is not reminisced what could have beens.

[georgerm]

The biggest problem with this area of science - in which we proponents are at the very cutting edge - is that too many calling themselves 'scientists' demonstrably don't understand what science is.  They treat it as a belief system rather than as a process through which one puts evidence.

 

Many 'smart people' and a few PHD biologist say bigfoot is a joke without looking at the evidence. They are disgustingly arrogant. Looking at evidence with a neutral point of view is critical for good science. I wonder how many PHDs in the biological sciences have actually studied bigfoot evidence with a neutral point of view?

Scientists are used to working with hard data and the Bigfoot phenomenon doesn't provide much of it. If a group of biologists were to go out into the PNW for a year to look for Sasquatch, chances are they will be disappointed and will feel like they wasted their time. .....................................

 

 

If two good PHD biologist teamed up with an habituation site, they may observe. However bigfoot is so timid and aware getting hard evidence is near impossible.

^  ^^  very good points  (we should be allowed to give more +'s daily: |, i'll try later!  : D

 

 What got us to the moon science or general consensus? 

 

Having both really helps because Science needs "funding" and all that, you know? ...................................................

 

Funding is critical for the Jane Goodall kinds of Primatologist. When we talk about bigfoot science, we are really speaking of primatology. "Primatology is the scientific study of primates. It is a diverse discipline and researchers can be found in academic departments of anatomy, anthropology, biology, medicine, psychology, veterinary sciences and zoology, as well as in animal sanctuaries, biomedical research facilities, museums and zoos."

[hiflier]

Hello All,

Let's take this to a "real-world" example. In 1878 two astronomers in New South Wales, Australia reported a large dark area on a daytime Moon that was a couple of days past it's three-quarter phase. They observed the "shadow" which didn't move for three hours. There's a lot more to the story but fr this thread I only want to mention my experiences in contacting astronomers. From a top guy in Australia: Probably a smudge on the lens, I wouldn't take the report seriously". From the department that studies lunar impacts at the University of Arizona: "I am not aware of that report, good luck in your investigations". From NASA- a boilerplate response: "Thank you for your interest in NASA. To learn more about NASA just click on the links provided".

Now tell me how a private citizen gets answers to things when one gets summarily dismissed at every turn. Needless to say I still sit here with questions regarding that report. Substitute Sasquatch and the problem is much, much worse. The only answer is to get out into the field and find the bones. Chasing this enigma around the forests as a live creature is a useless exercise in futility. Find the bones.

[SWWASAS]

Scientists are used to working with hard data and the Bigfoot phenomenon doesn't provide much of it. If a group of biologists were to go out into the PNW for a year to look for Sasquatch, chances are they will be disappointed and will feel like they wasted their time. 

 

IMO, Sasquatch are real, but there is still a critical question that remains unanswered: what exactly are they? If someone can figure that out the answer to that one question, I think everything else will make sense.

You might be right about biologists in the field not having contact in a year and giving up. Many researchers have only had one encounter, usually the one that got them started. Peter Byrne has been a researcher much of his adult life and never had an encounter. He stated once that someone who has had more than one is a liar. I would not go that far but a sighting is a truly rare event for someone looking for one. I was having contact for a couple of years and now am nearing two years since the last contact or even footprint find. If two biologists wanted me to take them out, I would not even know where to go at this time.

Some feel the problem is that not enough time or money is being thrown at it by researchers. I tend to disagree with that with qualifications. While that may be true for a lot of researchers, especially those with jobs and the need to produce income to live, I feel in my case I am as well self funded as some university graduate student with a grant would be and devote the same level of time in the field. So what Ontario says may be true for one or two biologists in the field. Because of luck and funding they very well may spend a year and not have contact. But if that level of funding was increased to a certain trigger point, probably well beyond what some university grant would be, and we had 10s of millions thrown at the project, with people and high tech equipment, the results could very well be different. I find that much of the difficulties with BF research are series of technical issues waiting to be solved. Locating, establishing contact, getting hard evidence, HD photographs and videos, DNA samples, are all technical issues to be solved because of the elusive and reclusive nature of the creature. In my case because I do not have access to that level of funding, I have to deal with technical issues as they present themselves, come of with less than optimum solutions because of funding, and spend time on that, which could be better utilized in the field.

Our major problem is just locating the creatures. Let me address what could be done with just that with adequate funding. Doppler radar like that used for military security on installations on some ridge in BF country would detect movement. Dispatch a helicopter with the best FLIR money can buy to the location and see if it is a BF or elk. Tag the thing from the helicopter with a GPS dart. Track it and put feet on the ground and tranquilizer dart it or kill it which will pretty much eliminate a lot of other technical issues on one shot. But this type of program requires big money up front. The kind of money a graduate student with a grant or a private researcher is not going to get his hands on. Without that, significant evidence capable of establishing existence, is about as likely to be found or obtained as getting hit by satellite falling out of space.

[Guest Crowlogic]

^^^There are habituators right here on this forum what's the problem?  Habbers have the things at their feet they are buddy's with them.  Or are Habbers all crackpots?  You tell me.  There are some serious things wrong with the picture.

[hiflier]

Hello SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT,

 

Two years? Now why do you think that is? It's because if the creature exists it has moved on. Why would that be? A number of reasons. a history of fires in the region? Too much Human intrusion driving animals away? In as little six months shoots of new plants can begin sprouting. But woody stemmed plants won't bear flowers and therefore fruits until their second year. Trim back a forsythia and see what happens the first blooming season. Depending on the timing of the fire there may be no berries for three seasons so animals will move on and Sasquatch will move on as well.

 

Sometimes animals will move because of the very predators that depend on them and so need to follow that movement. Two years I would thing would be a normal cycle for things. Sometimes longer if one studies the report maps concerning the few Sasquatch that do get seen. It's the whole picture that we need. Not just a certain locale. Folks here are hard at work on that very concept. Wildlife itself isn't complicated but the ebb and flow of micro cycles require knowledge outside the creatures themselves. The whole region surrounding them has history and that's a good thing to investigate.

[georgerm]

Maybe we should back up for a minute and look at the road signs back at the junction or fork. Now what, I’m going to say is an ‘aa ha moment’ and demonstrates something about bigfoot science. We have many bright people on the forum. Sassyfoot is one of them.  I think this person wonders how healthy bigfoot will remain once ‘bigfoot is proven’. Will bigfoot be better off if not proven?  A valid theory or hypothesis. Do humans harm, mame, and drive to extinction what we study? Many wonderful animals and plants go extinct due to environmental alteration and are we next? 

 

A science code: “Refusal to realize or understand someone’s thoughts about bigfoot science helps stall the science. The amateur bigfoot scientist should remain neutral until certain. Not comprehending their thoughts is ok if you stand back and listen. Once you understand, agreeing or disagreeing is where the game gets rough. Evidence is presented. Disagree with a padded glove but never use a fighting stick. The truth will be found. “Seek the truth and the truth will set us free.â€
 

 

Edited January 21, 2016 by georgerm

[Bodhi]

Scientists are used to working with hard data and the Bigfoot phenomenon doesn't provide much of it. If a group of biologists were to go out into the PNW for a year to look for Sasquatch, chances are they will be disappointed and will feel like they wasted their time. 

 

IMO, Sasquatch are real, but there is still a critical question that remains unanswered: what exactly are they? If someone can figure that out the answer to that one question, I think everything else will make sense. 

If some consistent patterns of behavior were readily evident I feel science might be more open to the idea. Sadly, it's all over the map....literally. In terms of range, diet, sensitivity to humans/civiliztion, diet, etc...  Not to mention reports of behavior that would be described as supernatural or inconsistent with other known animals and the acceptance of those reports also hurts.

 

It feels like "we" bear a good portion of the culpability for general attitude of science and the general public toward the subject of sasquatch. The good news is that we can also be the prime movers of change, if we choose to be.

[SWWASAS]

Hello SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT,

 

Two years? Now why do you think that is? It's because if the creature exists it has moved on. Why would that be? A number of reasons. a history of fires in the region? Too much Human intrusion driving animals away?

To answer your question, I found the area from historical sighting reports. Several were clustered in that area and I started by trying to figure out what the BF was doing when it was sighted. The area centers on the East Side of a named mountain in Cascades, not one of the big volcanoes but a good sized mountain by East Coast standards. When I started there was no logging on the mountain. It is state forest land. Footprint finds led me to others that expanded the hunt to the nearby drainage pattern of a year round creek. I had an encounter with 3 BF within 1/2 mile of a previous footprint find. That led to more footprint finds. Just after the encounter, the state issued logging permits for the mountain and as I watched, most of the mountain was clear cut. Starting on the North end and working down and to the South, towards the location of the encounter. I had more unseen encounters, got things thrown at me, and got growled at when I tried to flush what I heard moving back in the woods. Did not see what growled but simultaneously with that, a tree got broken off right behind me. I was being warned. Logging started in the creek area, moving South from the North towards my encounter and growl location which are only a half mile apart. Since I was getting contact in that area I kept going back. The logging ran right up to the area which had been designated by the State with signage "Critical Habitat". I have never seen so much as a deer in that area but something growled. I have never seen that sign anyplace else. Then the loggers skipped around the "Critical Habitat" and clear cut an area just South of that. I just happened to get there a day or two later because it standing timber two days before. I walked through the "Critical Habitat" labeled area on an existing trail, not hearing a thing moving around, was nearly out, and got zapped 4 times. I stayed a few minutes but had an overpowering feeling I needed to leave. Left the area, and found a footprint on a trail margin a half mile away. That was the last contact I have had in the area. Been back many times in the two years since.

I have to blame logging for driving BF off and away from the mountain. The "Critical Habitat" timber is like an island surrounded by clear cut now. There is no way to ingress or exit with any kind of forest cover. Something in that area had to have been a traditional hangout for BF. Why I do not know other than the year round creek. Why it was designated "Critical Habitat" I do not know. The state seemed to care less that they destroyed a popular hiking trail by logging. My presence may have been part of the problem. BF there had to know I was hunting them because I was there 2 or 3 times a week. Since the logging seemed to follow my explorations around, perhaps they thought I was behind the logging, and the zapping was my final payoff for destroying their favorite woods. They seem to have moved off someplace else but I cannot figure out where they went.

Edited January 21, 2016 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[hiflier]

Hello SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT,

 

Can't thank you enough for you candid response. I understand now of course and agree there must have been an attraction- a strong one perhaps considering the logging upheavals- like as you say the creek but it has to be something more. Maybe young that were to young to move? And elderly one who was dying? wrong season? Not hungry enough yet? IDK but if it was important then the reason (or what now passes for a reason) might still be there in that Critical Area. Without them there it might be the best time to go in? It there was a good reason to stay with all the commotion then they should be back. Even if no reason can be found the terrain will soon provide food for fauna again in which case grazers and predators alike will follow. The berries will be back.

 

You sound like someone who keeps notes so the time of day, the time of year, weather, etc. will help you too when thing begin to fill if they haven't already started. Still in all, could be a fine time for careful research.