Guest DWA Posted February 4, 2016 Posted February 4, 2016 ^ ^^ ^^^ that's very interesting (and some of it, scary) stuff ya'll said Has there ever been a single paper published in a major scientific journal that even tried to explain the truth about Bigfoot, as we know it? Because, as we know it; Bigfoot are large, hairy, elusive, perhaps scarce, bi-pedal primates that have not yet been fully explained by Science, right? A good, peer-reviewed paper that basically says: 'Bigfoot: denying that these animals exist, doesn't cut it anymore' might accelerate the search for proof. It would be a cool paper to write. But too many of the people that could write it would tell you - and they'd be right, for them - that they're too involved in work with animals we know to be real, and in many cases, disappearing. The work of Bindernagel and Meldrum, of Krantz and Alley and Mionczynski, says just that. But the mainstream isn't even addressing it.
norseman Posted February 4, 2016 Admin Author Posted February 4, 2016 ^ ^^ ^^^ that's very interesting (and some of it, scary) stuff ya'll said Has there ever been a single paper published in a major scientific journal that even tried to explain the truth about Bigfoot, as we know it? Because, as we know it; Bigfoot are large, hairy, elusive, perhaps scarce, bi-pedal primates that have not yet been fully explained by Science, right? A good, peer-reviewed paper that basically says: 'Bigfoot: denying that these animals exist, doesn't cut it anymore' might accelerate the search for proof. It would be a cool paper to write. But too many of the people that could write it would tell you - and they'd be right, for them - that they're too involved in work with animals we know to be real, and in many cases, disappearing. The work of Bindernagel and Meldrum, of Krantz and Alley and Mionczynski, says just that. But the mainstream isn't even addressing it. Thats because we need hard evidence. A tooth, a finger, a DNA sample from hair or saliva or blood. etc. This is why I started this thread. To get researchers thinking about something other than camera traps and dental resin.
Guest DWA Posted February 4, 2016 Posted February 4, 2016 (edited) Thats because we need hard evidence. A tooth, a finger, a DNA sample from hair or saliva or blood. etc. This is why I started this thread. To get researchers thinking about something other than camera traps and dental resin. I'd never argue that there is only one thing with, by itself, a chance of giving us documentation of that new species. Any other avenue requires lots of things to happen which haven't. Which is why you'll never get me to pull a trigger...but will never hear me arguing against it either. Edited February 4, 2016 by DWA
Guest Cryptic Megafauna Posted February 4, 2016 Posted February 4, 2016 Ill argue in favor of life but not against a person doing whatever they do, It's their choice. But on that note If you can take a position pro, there is no constraint against an opposing position. Just not rewarding to argue as most already have defined where they are at. Convincing others is beyond what I want to spend energy on, unless it's easy.
FarArcher Posted February 5, 2016 Posted February 5, 2016 (edited) A few hours ago, out of the blue, I got an email from a producer indicating he was meeting with other producers, and wanted to give me a heads up that he was going to pitch an expedition. That got my attention. Didn't say when they'd be meeting, but apparently, the other producers have a project in the works, and he feels they may bite on this. He's a sceptic - a serious sceptic - and I like that about him, as he doesn't let that get in the way of maintaining an open mind. Wish I'd never seen one, because if the funding is there, I'll not be able to turn down the opportunity to go back. As I've said before - these things are worrisome and unlike most things, I fear them. What you see isn't what's there. You'll see what they allow you to see. I know for a fact that they don't smell gun oil - and if they can smell it - they don't give a good * * * * * * *. Pretty sure they hate Lysol, but then again, that stuff stinks enough to run me off. There's a lot of "traits" or "characteristics" that have been suggested or attributed to them that have been widely debated, and it seems the tendency is to attribute some super powers to them they don't have. Yes, they're huge, some are unbelievably massive, they're very intelligent, I know for a fact that they're very, very fast, and just due to the mass alone, very, very powerful. I fear them because if there's a rogue, and he wants to do you harm, you'd probably have a better chance against a Bengal tiger, male lion, or a really irritated Brown bear. At night. I just know a few things. Where a clan lives and how bring them in close. Keeping my fingers crossed on this. I think. Edited February 5, 2016 by FarArcher
FarArcher Posted February 6, 2016 Posted February 6, 2016 Thanks, Norse, we'll see what they have in mind. May just be a shoot and scoot (video). Kiwakwe, if I go, I'll already be hurting some feelings turning down some folks, but if I do, I'll come here and give you a shout. Still don't know what their scope and objective envelope they'll have in mind, or agree to. We'll see.
Rockape Posted February 8, 2016 Posted February 8, 2016 I just know a few things. Where a clan lives and how bring them in close. I hear Luck's beans with onions work every time.
hiflier Posted February 8, 2016 Posted February 8, 2016 Hello Rockape, Prolly why they call 'em "Luck's".
hiflier Posted February 9, 2016 Posted February 9, 2016 (edited) Hello All, My plan? Yep. I've got one. Will it work? Who knows but if it doesn't then like a lot of you it won't be because of not trying. It's a fairly good plan I think that has some potential far beyond what I'm capable of at this moment. Some of you know I've now written a Sasquatch book. Seeing all the Sasquatch books that have come and gone and those that are still available I have noticed that they are generally the same with variations on the theme: Anecdotes, opinion, report breakdowns and discussions, and of the current ones many appear at the conferences along with their authors. There is also quite a crop available on Amazon both as hardcopy and as Ebooks. But of all those books written over the years I've written the one- and the ONLY one in the world- that covers a plan to actually hunt Sasquatch for the purposes of getting a specimen to science. It is NOT a game hunting book! This book is ADAMANT about finding a dead one or skeletal remains as the first priority and once found the hunt ceases IMMEDIATELY. But nonetheless it is a hunting book. It's short, a hundred pages. It's also treats the subject very seriously with plenty of cautions and warnings to any who ever think to attempt such an endeavor. It's a program that would take months to bring into an active pursuit of the creature. So. What's the plan then? Sell the book and use the proceeds for the search. I'm thinking an Ebook on Amazon for $1.99. I think true proponents of the need for a carcass, skeleton, or body will purchase it because of interest and the low price. I also thing there are more mainstream hunters out there who think seriously about Sasquatch and those who don't may simply buy it out of curiosity. Any monies generated will get rolled into two things: producing hardbound as well as small softcovers AND FUNDING RESEARCH. What the last point will entail remains to be seen but in an ideal world? Helping to fund scientific investigation by pooling monies from various sources including my own. Funding research and hunting expeditions. No one will get rich off of this. Lets say me and a fellow researcher need to take two weeks off WITH a couple of good thermal imagers and hit the Maine woods. I would like to think it could be funded by the sale of the Ebook. Or Yuchi1's search for skeletons, Norseman's Grendel project, Kiwakwe's Maine forays, or FarArcher's production potential. Not saying any of that would happen but it sure would be great if it could I'm truly hoping to have the Ebook up on Amazon by March- in time for the early Spring to early Summer bone pile searches. The short term bottom line is that for now at least We need to continue our end run around mainstream science in order to keep hammering away at gaining enough evidence to get science on board. And that's my plan for 2016. I ain't Tom Slick but I will do what I can to promote at least a better potential for acquiring proof of existence. Edited February 9, 2016 by hiflier
Recommended Posts