hiflier Posted March 22, 2016 Posted March 22, 2016 Who did I call a liar? Specifically by name who? Maybe the pain in Bob Gimlin's eyes is living a lie for so many years?
Terry Posted March 22, 2016 Posted March 22, 2016 Yuchi, seems like we will always have skeptics until bigfoot is captured or brought in life less. Skeptics need a good close encounter. Let's get back on track and discuss how bigfoot science can be rejuvenated. As technology improves, we should be able to capture BF on video more often. Presently, it's stated that BFs can hear trail cameras. In the future, we might have silent trail cameras as small as a dime with a lense. These cameras could be programmed to video a particular body type then turn off. Scanning hours of video will be a thing of the past. The camera will hold the video then beam it to a satellite. Bigfoot can be left in peace but studied by those that need to know. When night vision and thermal imaging cameras become better and cheaper, then researchers will bring in the goods. Research grants will equip researchers will everything they need to hike in to remote areas and camp out for weeks on end. As more evidence is produced then more and higher grants can be expected of $50k and on up. If you have a good research team with qualified primatologists then grants can be expected. I've always said that eventually improved technology will solve the mystery once and for all. And I bet there will always be a bunch out there who still won't believe there isn't a wild man happily peering in our windows and sending out mind speak. t.
Guest Crowlogic Posted March 22, 2016 Posted March 22, 2016 Who did I call a liar? Specifically by name who? Maybe the pain in Bob Gimlin's eyes is living a lie for so many years? I proposed it as a question notice the question mark. If I were to call anyone a liar it would be like... Well Bob Herinimous he's a liar, Rick Dyer he's a liar, Ray Wallace he's a liar. There bet it made you feel good hearing a non believer calling liars liars. Although Bob H is more like a fibber.
hiflier Posted March 22, 2016 Posted March 22, 2016 Who did I call a liar? Specifically by name who? Maybe the pain in Bob Gimlin's eyes is living a lie for so many years? I proposed it as a question notice the question mark. If I were to call anyone a liar it would be like... Well Bob Herinimous he's a liar, Rick Dyer he's a liar, Ray Wallace he's a liar. There bet it made you feel good hearing a non believer calling liars liars. Although Bob H is more like a fibber. Of course I noticed the question mark but such "safe" comments don't let you off the hook. How about we clarify things a bit then: Do you think Bob Gimlin has been lying? And if so, about what?
Guest Crowlogic Posted March 22, 2016 Posted March 22, 2016 ^I think Bob Gimlin has made a heroic effort to honor the memory of his dead friend Roger Patterson and he's made a heroic effort not to rock the boat that Roger's widow was left with. I believe Bob Gimlin understands that it's too late to change direction. There are too many people counting on him and counting on a continued belief in bigfoot. He would not be the first person in history to uphold something they knew otherwise about but stayed the course as the lesser of two evils so to speak. In reality his conscience would have been worse off had he outed Patterson and ruined the future of Roger's kids and widow. I like Bob Gimlin either way.
hiflier Posted March 22, 2016 Posted March 22, 2016 Fair enough. Accepted. And thank you for all that you've done for this thread. Same goes for the habituation thread.You've been able to bring out discussion that I have tried to encourage but to date have been unable to for some reason. An example would be when folks were discussing the predatory angle of the creature back and forth. I suggested that reports of canine teeth might be a clue to look at......no responses. I showed where well known and well connected Don Keating had lied about his encounter in back in Sept. of 19835 and continued the sham into radio interviews back in 2008. Response to that was.........zero. In all the discussion on which branch of hominid Patty belongs to I've seen no one bring up the Human evolutionary bottleneck that occurred about 75,000 years ago when Humans went down nearly to extinction with an estimation of only 1,000-10,000 human pairs left on the planet. There are other examples where the ostrich keeps its head in the sand too but I don't wish to derail this any further. And no, I'm not bitter. I've simply chosen not to engage this community at the level I used to. Thanks for the response Crowlogic.
georgerm Posted March 22, 2016 Author Posted March 22, 2016 (edited) Yuchi, seems like we will always have skeptics until bigfoot is captured or brought in life less. Skeptics need a good close encounter. Let's get back on track and discuss how bigfoot science can be rejuvenated. As technology improves, we should be able to capture BF on video more often. Presently, it's stated that BFs can hear trail cameras. In the future, we might have silent trail cameras as small as a dime with a lense. These cameras could be programmed to video a particular body type then turn off. Scanning hours of video will be a thing of the past. The camera will hold the video then beam it to a satellite. Bigfoot can be left in peace but studied by those that need to know. When night vision and thermal imaging cameras become better and cheaper, then researchers will bring in the goods. Research grants will equip researchers will everything they need to hike in to remote areas and camp out for weeks on end. As more evidence is produced then more and higher grants can be expected of $50k and on up. If you have a good research team with qualified primatologists then grants can be expected. I've always said that eventually improved technology will solve the mystery once and for all. And I bet there will always be a bunch out there who still won't believe there isn't a wild man happily peering in our windows and sending out mind speak. t. Crow, please take the discussion of Patterson else where. Start a thread. Let's focus on A, B, C, or D below. I'm sure you will have some comments. What kind of new technology or new methods do we need to help nail down facts about bigfoot? Think out of the box. A. Small wireless thermal cameras the size of marbles mounted on trees or bushes that make no noise would help. B. Grants to develop silent gliders to pass over forest with thermal cameras that have shape determination features. The cameras will hone in on bigfoot shapes and send GPS and thermal video wirelessly to temporary towers. C. Small groups of trained habituators will passively hang out in bigfoots territory. They will have grants to buy the best and latest camping gear, and they will spend 30 days in remote areas. D. Advances in DNA testing so BF DNA can be distinguished from human DNA. Lots of grants so the small researcher can afford some DNA tests. E. ????? What's do you think? Edited March 22, 2016 by georgerm
Guest Crowlogic Posted March 22, 2016 Posted March 22, 2016 ^I didn't bring up PGF in the first place but I did respond to a proponent about what I did post thank you. That said the new technology isn't going to produce anything more than better hoaxes with new talking points. If bigfoot hasn't been reeled in by now it's not going to happen. It could have been just as easily said back in the old days like "gee if only we had small easily wielded cameras or cameras we could place and leave to run for a long time. We need 1000x more imaging devices something everyone can have on them at a moments notice and does not need developing like film." Well we got all of that stuff and more. And what do we get with the newest toys? Oh thermals of bigfoot hiding behind trees and wood piles just as if it was out in broad daylight. Doesn't bigfoot understand we can't see in the dark so they don't have to hide as if it's daylight? Or do they knew we now have thermal vision? Just where does the jocularity end already? Sure newer and better toys are happening and newer and better hoaxes will follow bank on it.
FarArcher Posted March 22, 2016 Posted March 22, 2016 Crow, you seem a bit discouraged that one hasn't been brought in yet. All the things you have mentioned above, is a completely backwards approach. If I hypothetically asked you to capture a monkey in dense jungle, the type and size don't matter, how would you go about it? Many would be thinking of some kind of box trap. Snare. Baited trap. Some kind of net configuration. Maybe a trip to drop something on the monkey. None of which is really any good. Most inefficient, most troublesome, and most inconsistent. Now if one really did his homework, really studied the behaviors of the monkey - it would eventually become obvious - or maybe not so obvious, that there's a very simple method. But everyone wants to do the obvious. And that's the problem. It's not the technology. In fact, the technologies are little more than a distraction to solving the problem. 2
Guest Crowlogic Posted March 22, 2016 Posted March 22, 2016 ^No discouraged is believing and not having one been brought in. Once the threshold is crossed into no longer believing there is no more discouragement. The discouragement is replaced by a clarity as to it being a myth and a frustration that the myth goes on unabated in spite of the gargantuan holes in the matrix of the causes for belief. There may be 10,000 knowers but all 10,000 of them can do nothing but supply anecdotes which are the stuff myths exist on.
norseman Posted March 22, 2016 Admin Posted March 22, 2016 Crow, you seem a bit discouraged that one hasn't been brought in yet. All the things you have mentioned above, is a completely backwards approach. If I hypothetically asked you to capture a monkey in dense jungle, the type and size don't matter, how would you go about it? Many would be thinking of some kind of box trap. Snare. Baited trap. Some kind of net configuration. Maybe a trip to drop something on the monkey. None of which is really any good. Most inefficient, most troublesome, and most inconsistent. Now if one really did his homework, really studied the behaviors of the monkey - it would eventually become obvious - or maybe not so obvious, that there's a very simple method. But everyone wants to do the obvious. And that's the problem. It's not the technology. In fact, the technologies are little more than a distraction to solving the problem. Snaring? Is really really good at catching animals. Its so good in fact its one of the main enemies facing the mountain gorilla. A hunter can only be at one place at one time. But if he sets 30-40 snares on game trails in his area? He has upped his odds of catching something incredibly high. This video shows a young mountain gorilla caught in a snare. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vQIBGNXpcu4 Why would snaring be any different for your hypothetical monkey or for that matter Sasquatch? **Disclaimer snaring is illegal in some states**
JDL Posted March 22, 2016 Posted March 22, 2016 How can one be discouraged if one has encountered bigfoot and a skeptic doesn't believe him? Makes no sense to me. A bigfoot charging in your direction or standing in front of you has one heck of a more powerful presence and impact on a person than an internet heckler. 1
FarArcher Posted March 22, 2016 Posted March 22, 2016 Crow, you seem a bit discouraged that one hasn't been brought in yet. All the things you have mentioned above, is a completely backwards approach. If I hypothetically asked you to capture a monkey in dense jungle, the type and size don't matter, how would you go about it? Many would be thinking of some kind of box trap. Snare. Baited trap. Some kind of net configuration. Maybe a trip to drop something on the monkey. None of which is really any good. Most inefficient, most troublesome, and most inconsistent. Now if one really did his homework, really studied the behaviors of the monkey - it would eventually become obvious - or maybe not so obvious, that there's a very simple method. But everyone wants to do the obvious. And that's the problem. It's not the technology. In fact, the technologies are little more than a distraction to solving the problem. Snaring? Is really really good at catching animals. Its so good in fact its one of the main enemies facing the mountain gorilla. A hunter can only be at one place at one time. But if he sets 30-40 snares on game trails in his area? He has upped his odds of catching something incredibly high. This video shows a young mountain gorilla caught in a snare. Why would snaring be any different for your hypothetical monkey or for that matter Sasquatch? **Disclaimer snaring is illegal in some states** It was a bit of an analogy. It's how folks approach some things with only minor variations of the same approach. I'm saying that most every idea I've seen for obtaining good evidence or a body are just variations of the same, flawed mental approach. A collective approach that to date hasn't really worked, and will continue to fail. Regardless of tweaks or improvements in technology.
norseman Posted March 22, 2016 Admin Posted March 22, 2016 Ok, Ill bite, what is the unflawed approach? And no.....Im not dressing up like a woman.....call Bobo! 1
FarArcher Posted March 22, 2016 Posted March 22, 2016 If one questioned and spoke to 10,000 Bigfoot hunters, you'd see each one probably fits into one of maybe five categories of how they hunt Bigfoot. Some would pepper an area with trap cams, others would try to quietly stalk and find tracks, some would make noises and maybe try to record other knocks in the area, and others would maybe flood an area with multiples of people using one of the other four variations. Some of the five groups may include sound recording devices, or even carry thermals with them, but they still fit in just a few approaches. If you keep doing the same things in the same way, then it's quite a stretch to expect a different result. Of course, someone may get lucky and find one under a fallen tree. Or one got hit by a meteorite.
Recommended Posts