How Do You Plan On Proving Sasquatch In 2016?

[BobbyO]

I'm obviously not going to be doing anything to prove bigfoot exists in 2016.  But I would like to see a medium tech patrol style ground based search that can sweep the best documented hot spot/spots on a 24/7 basis.

My plan is, as always, to find those hotspots that Crow mentions via various statistical analysis methods within the SSR and then wait for her to pay for the funding of those patrols that she talks of, on a 24/7 basis.

I know I can keep to my side of the bargain.

[SWWASAS]

 

This is easy and probably perplexing to skeptics but I don't intend to prove existence of BF in 2016.    I am not equipped to do that.    Should I find skeletal remains, and I am always searching for that,  the best I can do is find someone I trust and turn the bones over to them.  That is more difficult than it sounds.  I do not know who I can trust.   At best I might get a mention in the paper they publish.   At worst, they could have the skeleton confiscated at any point by some alphabet agency who is watching them.  

 

 

If anyone finds a bone or bones from what appear to be a primate it would be very wise of you to report it to the law enforcement having jurisdiction for the pertinent area. If it is actually BF bones you found, it is highly unlikely you or the public will ever hear about the lab results. If the bones are from Homo sapiens and you keep all or part of them, you'll be in trouble.

 

The thing to do if you find bones of a primate is to pick out some of the complete, least damaged bone segment from any part of the skeleton. Lay them on bare ground close together and photograph them along size scale reference. (A quarter on top of any U.S. bill will be fine if no ruler is on hand.)

 

After notifying the authorities of the location, replace the bones and cover the bare spot. They'll ask you to hang around. You MIGHT not want to mention the photos until their lab has completed their work, and the results have been made public. (If made public, it will be a human.)

 

 If it is a named feral primate or human, any bone you've photographed can be identified by comparing it to those in the GREAT web site linked below.

 

Note: This awesome program is wholly devoted to primate skeletons; and if they have BF bones, they are not shown. If they are primate bones, their lab can confirm that.

 

http://www.eskeletons.org/

 

First of all I have studied the human skull and bones enough to know if a find is modern human.     If they are I will do as you suggest.   Report them and leave them alone.    But if they are evidently not human, it is like finding an other animal bone as far as I am concerned.    The same thing as Oregon State, my alma mater finding a mammouth bone in the football field recently.      Pictures of a bone find in the age of digital object printing are worthless as evidence.     Just look at Meldrums BF skeleton for example.   I could photograph bones and anyone, and probably half the skeptics on this forum would accuse me of fabrication of the bones just for the picture.    There are so many composite materials available now that not only could you fabricate bones that look authentic you could use actual bone material with a bonding resin and have something that  not only looks authentic but feels authentic and would only be evident as fabricated under microscopic examination.      So it other words,   when you loose custody of the bones you loose the evidence.      If the bones are in a stable environment,  with appropriate layering that might date them, and not in danger of eroding out into a river immediately, or something like that, I would cover them and go find myself a paleontologist with probably a Washington State connection (because of where I live)  to cover myself and the excavation with the mantle of state officialdom.    A PHD and a flock of grad students would make a bunch of very credible witnesses for a bone find and keep local authorities at bay hopefully.     I would not go to a federal agency, law enforcement,  the USFS,  the WA DNR, or anyone with some sort of agenda that may not want the find known.    I would probably have to take a bone that defines the BF skeleton as different than human to the PHD to get him interested enough to come with me to the site.   In other words, unless BF bones are indistinguishable from human bones,  and I think that not the case,   I am in no more trouble hauling around a BF bone than I am hauling around a fossilized dinosaur bone as far as I am concerned.     I have talked to Meldrum about just this scenario.   He lives in Idaho, is very public and visible with regard to BF,  and if there is some sort of government cover up,  he would be monitored.     We have joked about the find scenario, and how someone would just have to locate him and take him to the site or show up with "The Package" for fear that it might be confiscated.    He may have the same fears I do for all I know.   Certainly Washington Universities would not want an Idaho professor on their turf and just that might make things problematic and result in State intervention and confiscation. 

 

Those that are pro kill need to address these issues and more.    It is not like bagging an elk with a tag that makes it legal.         

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

The question is then could you shoot, say, a Neanderthal.

or a Homo Sapien as opposed to a Homo Sapein Sapien (fully modern human)

What if science classification in this regard has not evolved to satisfactorily provide an answer.

This would be the case since an actual Sasquatch would likely make reclassification of human relatives based on a new paradigm necessary.

Combined Homo Habilis (extinct human ancestor) and Australopithecus (extinct ape) for instance.

If they can interbreed with humans occasionally though not particularly successfully as a native historical account from the recent historical past suggests it would be hard to make the case for a separate species.

If you don't shoot a horse, would you shoot a mule, donkey, or zebra instead?

A modern morality play ; )

[Twist]

The question is then could you shoot, say, a Neanderthal.

or a Homo Sapien as opposed to a Homo Sapein Sapien (fully modern human)

What if science classification in this regard has not evolved to satisfactorily provide an answer.

This would be the case since an actual Sasquatch would likely make reclassification of human relatives based on a new paradigm necessary.

Combined Homo Habilis (extinct human ancestor) and Australopithecus (extinct ape) for instance.

If they can interbreed with humans occasionally though not particularly successfully as a native historical account from the recent historical past suggests it would be hard to make the case for a separate species.

If you don't shoot a horse, would you shoot a mule, donkey, or zebra instead?

A modern morality play ; )

 

Thats a tough question Mega and one that I cannot answer honestly, myself.  If I had to guess I would admit to being the biggest hypocrite out there in the sense that I believe science needs a body to properly classify and study BF( or a living specimen which I think is a more difficult matter )  but I do not believe I could personally shoot one.  I have no problem with hunting nor would I look down on someone that did shoot one, I'm just not sure if I'm the one that could pull the trigger, unless of course it is in self defense.  

[Gotta Know]

For me more pros than cons. I am signed up for my third BFRO outing this spring.

Pros:

1: Contacts - you get first hand interaction with actual witnesses who end up as regulars. They can gain a lot of credibility when you get the story face to face.

2: Hanging with BFRO Investigators with good stories and locations to share. I know of places that are not in any public database.

3: The people that go are great people to hang out with. Hopefully others enjoy my company as much as I enjoy theirs.

4: Facing and overcoming fear of the dark while in the creepiest, darkest places with people who are unafraid is very empowering.

5: It's a blast! The great outdoors is my happy place

6: Opportunities for private outings may come up from time to time.

7: My son gets to join me for no additional fees. He has also had remarkable experiences.

 

Cons:

1: It's Expensive for a Camping Trip. It does get considerably cheaper after your first expedition. I think of it as entertainment so the fee doesn't bother me. It's more like relatively cheap entertainment, costing less than a three night stay in most hotels. If hotels are your thing you could still stay in one and still participate in everything.

2: The group of people can be large and I think efforts become ineffective with too many people. We always split into smaller groups and head to different locations which helps. Last year I seemed to pick the wrong group each night but still had a blast and recorded a possible wood knock.

3: No booze

4: No dogs... I understand the reasoning for the rule but as a dog person I believe a good dog could be helpful.

Great feedback, Redbone--thank you! Yeah, given the amount of time I spend on this online, I think I owe it to myself to investigate in the field. Interesting that the price drops after the first visit. Purely from a business standpoint, I imagine it helps cull the curious (me) from the avid.

 

Camping without a fireside whiskey and my yellow lab at my side (and, presumably, no firearm at my side as well)? That will be tougher than any initiation fee.

 

There's a couple of Washington State outings I will be looking into. Fun!

[norseman]

No firearms allowed on BFRO expeditions.

[Rockape]

 

 

Would you like for me to ask the voices in my head what they think?

 

Tell sasquatch if he/she shows himself/herself to me, I swear I won't tell anyone.

[Sasfooty]

Sasquatch said "Yeah. That's what they all say."

[Explorer]

I actually agree and like the no booze, no firearms, and no dogs in BFRO trips.

 

These trips are not parties where you sit at the campfire, drink beer, and chat about BF all night.

If you allow alcohol (most people will behave) but there are always the exceptions that will ruin if for others.  Thus, you need to ban it for all.

 

The no firearms policy also makes sense.  You don't want a bunch of BF "hunters" carrying guns at night into the wilderness, being jumpy with the common saying  "what was that?" with every noise they hear but can't see or identifty.  You must recognize that most of the people who attend are new and strangers to others; so you have no idea who they are to trust them with guns.

 

I think I read in their rules, that if you are going alone in a long day hike where you are concerned about encountering cats or bears and want protection, then you are allowed to carry a gun. But not with the group.

 

Eventually BFRO cliques of friends and old-timers form, and they create their own private outings and bring guns and alcohol; but these are not official BFRO expeditions.

 

You don't want dogs barking or scaring the wildlife, since wildlife is what you are trying to see and detect.

 

Anyway, these are not so big of deal, and there are more pros and cons.

 

BTW, I am not BFRO but have attended a few of these trips. They are a mixed bag and success depends on the trip leader being organized, well informed, and being a good leader.

Success defined as learning something new and interesting about this odd field and meeting interesting/smart people.

[ShadowBorn]

Sasquatch said "Yeah. That's what they all say."

Sasfooty

 

Yes ,this is funny ! why? Because it is true.  <( in a serious tone )> 

[Explorer]

Norseman,

 

Just wanted to go back to the original posted topic, which is a good question and tells us something about how active in the field the BFF members are.

 

Based on the replies you got, it does not appear that anybody in BFF is out there trying to prove BF exists (besides you).

 

Kind of disappointing (but not surprising), given that without proof (a body), this field remains in the realm of mythology.

 

Those of us who are camping, hiking,  backpacking, or just hanging out in the wilderness on weekends are not going to get any proof.  Maybe get some glimpses of so called secondary evidence of the mythical creature. 

Videos are just for fun, but they will not prove anything.

Those who just want proof for themselves (their own experience) are no different  than the habituators or the thousands of stories already collected - they will not provide any proof.

 

I guess the burden falls on very few people (those in NAWAC, the few in Project Grendel who are serious, and those private/secret hunters who are not talking) among the whole population of Canada and USA. 

How many people are actively trying to get a specimen in 2016 amongst the millions of American and Canadians, maybe a few dozen or less than 50?

 

Like Hiflier said in another post, all we have are opinions and stories.

Thus, the thousands of pages of speculation and story telling in BFF will continue. 

At least we get to share anecdotes and learn from others; and that is fun.

 

I am not holding my breath for any proof (a collected specimen) in 2016 or in 2026 or in 2036.

 

 

 

 

[Twist]

Sorry to disappoint Explorer.  I am really only looking for my own satisfaction to put to rest what I think I experienced. That being said, if I was, say out on a camping trip and came across a way to prove BF to the general public I would.  I'm just not out there carrying an evidence kit or AK47 for that purpose.  Put simply, if I easily can, I will, if all I can do is prove to myself what I suspect, I will also do that and be satisfied.  That being said, I personally, when camping, currently do not carry with me although that may change as I plan on getting my carry permit soon, then I will always be armed when legal, people I camp with, at least 50% usually are always carrying so even if its not on me, a body may come forth.  That is if, what they carry can take one of the big guys down. lol.  

Edited January 30, 2016 by TWlST

[Rockape]

Sasquatch said "Yeah. That's what they all say."

Darn it! I bet it was that "run one over with my truck" thing.

[SWWASAS]

I was having a PM conversation with another forum member the last few days.    He mentioned something that I think needs to be put out on the open forum.      I will talk about my own contact experience and his is similar.      His point was those who go out 10 times or less a year and expect to have BF contact are likely to be disappointed.   Certainly you could have an encounter your first time out, but if you do,  run right down and buy a lottery ticket because you are having a very lucky day.   In my own case, in an active BF area in SW Washington,  I found I had definable contact in about 1 in 20 trips into the field.     By that I mean footprint finds and that sort of thing in a very active area.    That was after I found the area that was active at the time.      Now that the area has gone inactive, no contact in nearly two years now.   The field researchers that I know who have good contact history, go out very often.   Nearly every week in the summer, often several days a week. 

 

Those who have tried and given up,  or still hope,  need to know that even in an active BF area, it takes a lot of time in the field to have much chance of contact.    That does not rule out someone with kids and families who do not have the time available, but you have to understand that less field time reduces your chance of contact considerably.    If you can incorporate family time with time in the field by family hikes or camping,  that can only increase your chance for contact.          

[wiiawiwb]

I don't think it takes a genius to understand that with increased presence in an area there will be increased odds of an encounter.  My question is actually quite simple. Who, except the unemployed or retired, has a few days every week to be searching? How many married people, who wish to stay out of divorce court, are going to be out in the woods a few times every week?

 

Answer....nobody.