Has Bigfoot Science Stalled?

[Yuchi1]

The Aporia, so endemic in Sasquatchery is largely self-inflicted and the principal catalyst for perpetuation of the current situation.  Oh, to once again, be able to see through the eyes of a child.

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

The Aporia, so endemic in Sasquatchery is largely self-inflicted and the principal catalyst for perpetuation of the current situation.  Oh, to once again, be able to see through the eyes of a child.

"the celebrated aporia whereby a Cretan declares all Cretans to be liars"

[georgerm]

Someone must have blown his cover and crashed his plane.

Yes Peter Byrne was funded by Tom Slick originally, then later on by a consortium of business men.

If we are looking for grants, what are the suggestions for gaining the interest of grant organizations or universities? We have to have something to present that will pique their interest. It has to be different enough to show that you might have the ability to produce the goods so to speak. The most important tool in this endeavor is time. Being able to spend time in the field and still pay the bills (the mundane everyday things) is what is needed. If you are retired, can still get around well and pay the gasoline bills for transportation, you are a good candidate for this business. Or if you have an independent income that requires little of your time, you're another good candidate. If your desire is a body on the slab, then a good rifle would be worthwhile. If you are looking for biological evidence, the cost other than transportation is nil. (Unless you are working with DNA.) Recorders are useful for determining activity in a given area. All the flirs, trailcams, cameras, night vision, and whatnot have been questionable at best. They can be useful tools in assisting in whatever your other endeavors are to collect the evidence that is needed to get the interest of science.

What say you?

 

Good field work is important which entails knowing how to collect evidence.

[SWWASAS]

 

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/interviews/franzoni.htm

$5,000,000 grant to Byrne in 1993. Slick was long gone.

What are helicopters and cameras going to give us that we dont already have!!!!??

Crazy. Thanks for sharing. I had no idea that sort of money was being thrown around. But aviation is expensive.

 

A helicopter could get you into places where you cannot get there without weeks of bushwacking.      There are remote places in Skamania county that there are no roads within 20 or 30 miles.    Dense forest where the only way to get in would be on foot and the going would be very difficult.     In most cases the helicopter could not land but you would have to rappel in and be resupplied from the air.    If I thought I could learn to fly one at my age I would sure like to have a helicopter.  

[Night Walker]

[BigTreeWalker]

Someone must have blown his cover and crashed his plane.

Yes Peter Byrne was funded by Tom Slick originally, then later on by a consortium of business men.

If we are looking for grants, what are the suggestions for gaining the interest of grant organizations or universities? We have to have something to present that will pique their interest. It has to be different enough to show that you might have the ability to produce the goods so to speak. The most important tool in this endeavor is time. Being able to spend time in the field and still pay the bills (the mundane everyday things) is what is needed. If you are retired, can still get around well and pay the gasoline bills for transportation, you are a good candidate for this business. Or if you have an independent income that requires little of your time, you're another good candidate. If your desire is a body on the slab, then a good rifle would be worthwhile. If you are looking for biological evidence, the cost other than transportation is nil. (Unless you are working with DNA.) Recorders are useful for determining activity in a given area. All the flirs, trailcams, cameras, night vision, and whatnot have been questionable at best. They can be useful tools in assisting in whatever your other endeavors are to collect the evidence that is needed to get the interest of science.

What say you?

 

Good field work is important which entails knowing how to collect evidence.

George, you are correct on good evidence collection. If a person has problems knowing how to do it there are many good articles on the internet, books, and even discussions here on how to best accomplish that. DNA evidence is the hardest to collect in order to not contaminate it. Good reporting and chain of custody is important. Here's a couple places to start:

http://www.amazon.com/Sasquatch-Research-Manual-Red-Grossinger-ebook/dp/B005CI5XRA

http://www.bigfootresearch.com/index.php?name=News&file=article&sid=173

The last one is the website Kathy Strain is associated with and very good for learning different methods of collection for different types of evidence.

[Guest Crowlogic]

"Hound hunters have tried tracking bigfoot, and they usually get their valuable dogs ripped apart. It takes a long time to train dogs. At one time we had lots of cougar and bear hound hunters in Oregon but the laws have changed."

 

This quote from post #883 is a perfect example of how bigfootism exists almost entirely upon baseless anecdotes.  I've heard the in  bold quote numerous times over the years.  However we have not a single shred of proof that bigfooot killed hunting dogs.  Not a single video or photo.  All there is are campfire stories about it.  It's this very matter of fact parroting of the anectodatal folklore as if it was  documented truth that helps dismantle bigfoot credibility.  In a carefully vetted carefully thought out subject the quote might read "It has been reported that hound hunters have tried tracking bigfoot and they said to have had their valuable dogs ripped apart."  

[BigTreeWalker]

Crow, you are right about that. The reason I mentioned dogs, in the post quoted in the one you talked about, is because I think with the right dogs and the correct training they could be used to locate and track bigfoot. At least they are another tool that could be used in the effort. Yes I have heard and read some of those anecdotal reports. But, don't use them to run sasquatch to ground or tree as with cougars and bears. Use them more like bloodhounds are used to track people. There are people knowledgeable with hounds, some here on the forums, that understand this use of dogs.

[georgerm]

"Hound hunters have tried tracking bigfoot, and they usually get their valuable dogs ripped apart. It takes a long time to train dogs. At one time we had lots of cougar and bear hound hunters in Oregon but the laws have changed."

 

This quote from post #883 is a perfect example of how bigfootism exists almost entirely upon baseless anecdotes.  I've heard the in  bold quote numerous times over the years.  However we have not a single shred of proof that bigfooot killed hunting dogs.  Not a single video or photo.  All there is are campfire stories about it.  It's this very matter of fact parroting of the anectodatal folklore as if it was  documented truth that helps dismantle bigfoot credibility.  In a carefully vetted carefully thought out subject the quote might read "It has been reported that hound hunters have tried tracking bigfoot and they said to have had their valuable dogs ripped apart."  

 

Eye witness testimony put people in prison. It is important for discovering the facts of a case.

 

Here is a BFRO eye witness report.   

 

OBSERVED: My son-in-law and I were hunting across from Clear Lake a few miles off Hwy 94 next to Green Lake. We were running our hounds on **** that night. There is a lot of country past Green Lake up into the Hickey Marsh and eventually the Seney. I had noticed partridge remains where we parked. I didn't think about. The hounds were gamey right out of the box. I cut a young hound and proven hound in. Both with a lot of grit. When they struck I had the feeling we weren't running **** but rather a bobcat. It took about twenty minutes and they treed. We proceeded into the dogs and right before the tree the critter bailed. Cats bail when they see lights like bear do at night when we run them.

 

The dogs pulled tree and gave chase again. Treeing deeper. Way deeper. My son-in-law went to the truck to holler me out if needed. I kept the the tracker with me. I'm now in marsh with a mixture of spruce, cedar, bog and popple. The dogs treed deep. I went to a high spot to vantage my hearing on them. A thick wooded ridge. My radio tracker could barely read them and barely read the extra collar at the truck. Its range in wooded areas is about 7 miles. I kept swinging it around slowly trying to gain a good reading. I could smell something foul but thought it was myself after falling in swamp muck on more than one occasion. Again while swinging my tracker my coonlight in the direction of the antenna I noticed in the spruce a set of eyes next to the deer run on this ridge. **** hunting you see a lot of different eye shine. I shrugged and swung the tracker, when I swung back into the trail toward the truck the trail was filled with animal twenty feet in front of me.

 

It was around 8 feet tall long arms with fingers, barrel chested and pot bellied. The eyes were close and deep set but aggressive in its gaze, the mouth was agap. My goodness the ears were small. I froze in my tracks, I lost my training of the hounds call. We just looked at each other frozen. It grabbed a very large spruce, wrapping its hand around it. Its hair was black to brown not long, not short, the nose flat, with a face not covered in hair like its body. I really don't remember how it left. I remember the smell followed me almost all the way to the truck just up a trail where my son-in-law met me. He commented I passed gas jokingly. I was very shaken. I had a hard time reading my tracking system on the way back, I doubted my compass. It wasn't the straightest path back. To this day I haven't ran the hounds up there for or or bear since. As well it was the only time I left my hounds in the woods. In the morning after sleeping a bit I rode up {nervous as hell } to try and find the hounds by myself as my son in law went to work. Thank the lord they were treed in the beechwoods 30 feet off the gravel road with the prettiest sleeping bobcat you ever seen in the tree.  http://www.bfro.net/gdb/show_report.asp?id=31025 

 

[Incorrigible1]

http://stories.avvo.com/crime/murder/8-people-who-were-executed-and-later-found-innocent.html

 

Ruben Cantu—Cantu was 17 at the time the crime he was alleged of committing took place. Cantu was convicted of capital murder, and in 1993, the Texas teen was executed. About 12 years after his death, investigations show that Cantu likely didn’t commit the murder. The lone eyewitness recanted his testimony, and Cantu’s co-defendant later admitted he allowed his friend to be falsely accused. He says Cantu wasn’t even there the night of the murder.

 

Larry Griffin—Griffin was put to death in 1995 for the 1981 murder of Quintin Moss, a Missouri drug dealer. Griffin always maintained his innocence, and now, evidence seems to indicate he was telling the truth. The first police officer on the scene now says the eyewitness account was false, even though the officer supported the claims during the trial.

 

Jesse Tafero—In 1976, Tafero was convicted of murdering a state trooper. He and Sonia Jacobs were both sentenced to death for the crime. The main evidence used to convict them was testimony by someone else who was involved in the crime, ex-convict Walter Rhodes. Rhodes gave this testimony in exchange for a life sentence. In 1990, Tafero was put to death. Two years later, his companion Jacobs was released due to a lack of evidence…the same evidence used to put Tafero to death.

 

Thomas Griffin and Meeks Griffin— The oldest case on this list dates back to 1915. The Griffin brothers, two black men, were convicted of the murder of a white man. The reason they were convicted is because Monk Stevenson, another black man suspected of committing the murder, pointed to the brothers as having been responsible. He later admitted the reason he blamed them is because they were wealthy, and he assumed they had the money to beat the charges. The Griffin brothers were completely innocent, but they were put to death nonetheless.

[BigTreeWalker]

Georgerm, That report doesn't mention anything happening to the dogs. But those are the kinds of dogs I was referring to not using.

Edited April 18, 2016 by BigTreeWalker

[georgerm]

Crow, while looking for hounds hunting bigfoot, I ran across this bizarre website. It has to be a disgusting joke.     Exciting Sasquatch Hunts with Trained Hounds

• The joyous bays and howls of our blue-tick hounds are music to the ears-it means a Sasquatch is nearby. Under the supervision of a master houndsman, they'll track your prey following each of his desperate steps. In an instant, these instinctive canines catch his scent and spend the next few hours working together, chasing, pushing and harassing the Sasquatch until he tires and seeks refuge high in the trees. It doesn't stop there, our hounds are bred climbers and stay right on his heels cornering him. After hours of pure hell for the Sasquatch... his final moments gasping for air as he sluggishly and clumsily swats at the fearless hounds, your blood pumps and adrenaline surges as you take aim.

  You want to see a real Bigfoot video or photograph? Would you like to have a recording of Sasquatch sounds? We're happy to record every minute of your hunt.

http://www.bigfootpreserve.com/hunts.html

[georgerm]

Georgerm, That report doesn't mention anything happening to the dogs. But those are the kinds of dogs I was referring to not using.

 

 

Blood hounds could surely track a bigfoot if someone had a BF skin sample for scent.

 

The problem is the BF could keep running for days. How would one catch up with the BF?

 

 

 

http://stories.avvo.com/crime/murder/8-people-who-were-executed-and-later-found-innocent.html

 

Ruben Cantu—Cantu was 17 at the time the crime he was alleged of committing took place. Cantu was convicted of capital murder, and in 1993, the Texas teen was executed. About 12 years after his death, investigations show that Cantu likely didn’t commit the murder. The lone eyewitness recanted his testimony, and Cantu’s co-defendant later admitted he allowed his friend to be falsely accused. He says Cantu wasn’t even there the night of the murder.

 

Larry Griffin—Griffin was put to death in 1995 for the 1981 murder of Quintin Moss, a Missouri drug dealer. Griffin always maintained his innocence, and now, evidence seems to indicate he was telling the truth. The first police officer on the scene now says the eyewitness account was false, even though the officer supported the claims during the trial.

 

Jesse Tafero—In 1976, Tafero was convicted of murdering a state trooper. He and Sonia Jacobs were both sentenced to death for the crime. The main evidence used to convict them was testimony by someone else who was involved in the crime, ex-convict Walter Rhodes. Rhodes gave this testimony in exchange for a life sentence. In 1990, Tafero was put to death. Two years later, his companion Jacobs was released due to a lack of evidence…the same evidence used to put Tafero to death.

 

Thomas Griffin and Meeks Griffin— The oldest case on this list dates back to 1915. The Griffin brothers, two black men, were convicted of the murder of a white man. The reason they were convicted is because Monk Stevenson, another black man suspected of committing the murder, pointed to the brothers as having been responsible. He later admitted the reason he blamed them is because they were wealthy, and he assumed they had the money to beat the charges. The Griffin brothers were completely innocent, but they were put to death nonetheless.

 

 

Thanks for looking up these examples. Sad stories and clearly makes the point, some eye witnesses are wrong or lie.

 

How do the courts qualify eye witnesses? What percent of eye witnesses are found to be truthful?

[BigTreeWalker]

As I said before use something your fairly sure is bigfoot. There seems to be enough assurance out there of samples for DNA testing. Think out of the box. Use them as locators not chasers.

It's interesting. First BF is killing dogs. Then it's running from dogs. I'm simply suggesting using them just as you would use any other tool at our disposal.

You know that eyewitness problem also plays against bigfoot reports. Some witnesses are simply better or worse than others.

Edited April 18, 2016 by BigTreeWalker

[Incorrigible1]

 

Thanks for looking up these examples. Sad stories and clearly makes the point, some eye witnesses are wrong or lie.

 

How do the courts qualify eye witnesses? What percent of eye witnesses are found to be truthful?

 

I think the bigger question here is how does BFRO validate their "eye-witness" reports? They can't.

 

Personally, and your mileage may vary, but I don't place any too much faith in anything on BFRO nor most anywhere else.