Jump to content

Anyone Care To Guess How Many People Search for Bigfoot?


Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

It's not the numbers.  It's:  how are they looking?  Most of them:  Some, on weekends, with their own funds, using one or two or three methods.  Not cutting it. 

 

(Yet many of them report encounters, and no one seems to have come up with a good reason to doubt them.)

 

A specimen - unless somebody gets real real lucky - is going to require a full-court press with a number of techniques, supplied to remain in the field for a long time.  That's how scientists do it.  Over and out.

  On 1/24/2017 at 9:27 PM, WesT said:

 

I've never had a sighting either. But it didn't stop me from putting some of the pieces of the puzzle together. What I learned was was way more interesting than a sighting of the legend.

Expand  

One thing that keeps the field stagnant is the apparently widespread belief that, well, here's the most economical way to put it:  you can't prove it 'til it's proven.

 

Great.  How do you prove it, so you can, you know, prove it?

 

Most people appear very unaware that the evidence is of way more than sufficient depth and breadth to easily assemble the pieces and think:  what is the likelihood that this comes from anything other than an animal fitting this description? (spoiler alert:  pretty much zero; none of your species would bet it)

Edited by DWA
Admin
Posted (edited)

Science isn't about what you know. It's instead based on the concept of what you can prove. Especially in biology, quantum physics uses other in direct methods. But still has been proven correct with X-ray machines, micro wave ovens and lasers......

 

Edited by norseman
Posted

That would be like trying to predict how many bikers are riding motorcycles on a given day based on how many bike clubs there are. 

 

The only question that matters is how many hours are all those people "searching" for BF spending in actual BF habitat, doing that. "Not a whole lot", I expect will be the answer.

 

If all it took was a keyboard, we'd have had confirmation decades ago.

Posted

Bigfoot habitat? Based on reports, that is pretty much any place with trees. Are these groups not in wooded areas? What makes you assume such a thing?

SSR Team
Posted
  On 5/30/2017 at 9:27 PM, dmaker said:

Bigfoot habitat? Based on reports, that is pretty much any place with trees. 

Expand  

 

No it's not.

Posted (edited)
  On 5/30/2017 at 9:55 PM, BobbyO said:

 

No it's not.

Expand  

Really.  But we know he's not really paying attention.  He says he reads them.  The "think about them" part appears missing.

 

As John Green put it, people's imaginations appear to dry up in areas with less than 17" annual rainfall.

Edited by DWA
Posted

I agree that it doesn't matter how many are in the field right now. Only a large sustained contingent in a program set up specifically for this will do. What is apparent is that the methodology being used in the field isn't set up for 'proof'. It's set up for evidence. Evidence that we already have in spades. It's time to move past the evidence stage. That's what a scientist does. I don't say this to open up another round of "science isn't doing their job". All I'm saying is that for us- including those in the field- it's time to move past the gathering of evidence and see what needs to be done to set up for the 'proof' phase of the operation. And that includes pushing out on every front where this subject is concerned.

  • 2 weeks later...
Posted
  On 5/30/2017 at 6:10 PM, DWA said:

One thing that keeps the field stagnant is the apparently widespread belief that, well, here's the most economical way to put it:  you can't prove it 'til it's proven.

 

Great.  How do you prove it, so you can, you know, prove it?

Expand  

It's gonna take a body to prove it exists yes. My point is, even the average person, like myself, can go have a look for themselves and learn something new, without having to prove said creature.

 

  On 5/30/2017 at 2:10 PM, DWA said:

 

Most people appear very unaware that the evidence is of way more than sufficient depth and breadth to easily assemble the pieces and think:  what is the likelihood that this comes from anything other than an animal fitting this description? (spoiler alert:  pretty much zero; none of your species would bet it)

Expand  

Yeah, the shoe fits but I can't say for sure......

 

Guest OntarioSquatch
Posted
  On 1/24/2017 at 2:35 AM, Trogluddite said:

 

Bulls-eye and recc'd.  I'm fairly unlikely to have an encounter and am still skeptically hopeful, but the putting together of the puzzle is a challenge worth doing for those who have not had an encounter of their own.  It's like you have a giant circular puzzle and all the pieces are squares...  

Expand  

 

Having a close encounter with one wouldn't necessarily make things more clear. In fact, most eyewitnesses are left with nearly all the same questions.

Posted

Of the few academic "scientists" who have taken an interest in bigfoot, how many have done field studies? Like Jeff Meldrum, has he done anything in the field? Over the years, some of these people have been able to access funding for bigfoot research, correct? how much of that has been spent on field work? By which I mean specific work with the goal to prove the existence of bigfoot? Just wondering.

Posted (edited)
  On 6/12/2017 at 9:27 PM, OntarioSquatch said:

most eyewitnesses are left with nearly all the same questions.

Expand  

 

(my bold) Yes, NEARLY all the same questions. But the biggest question got answered. YA THINK?

 

  On 6/12/2017 at 9:52 PM, scottv said:

Like Jeff Meldrum, has he done anything in the field?

Expand  

 

Yes, he has but there are areas and times upon which I wish he would focus more. Like searching the areas after the large wildfires in Washington state. Now there are those here that will say, "hiflier, you want that done then go do it yourself and if you don't it's because you are lazy and cheap". So thinks, and says, some here on this very Forum.

 

Well, the wildfires were 3,000 mile away from Maine. It probably would have cost about a dollar a mile to fly there, rent a vehicle, outfit myself. find a place to stay or set myself up with camping equipment, an out of state permit for a firearm, BUY the firearm..........but hey, I'm lazy and cheap and because of being lazy I'm not able to think things through on a more practical level when it comes to doing my own follow ups on my own ideas. Nor am I able to consider that the cost would be better spent in my own back yard. Nope. Lazy and cheap. That's me. Love it.

 

Oh yes, I almost forgot. I'm now being called a plagiarist. How nice.

Edited by hiflier
Posted
  On 6/12/2017 at 9:27 PM, OntarioSquatch said:

 

Having a close encounter with one wouldn't necessarily make things more clear. In fact, most eyewitnesses are left with nearly all the same questions.

Expand  

 Assuming an encounter that I'm reasonably confident in what I unequivocally saw, that would be just an immense check mark on the list of things to no longer wonder about.  Of course, having read countless reports, I realize that there are hundreds of possibilities where there's an encounter that's more aggravating than enlightening. 

Posted
  Reveal hidden contents

 

  • Upvote 1
Posted
  On 6/13/2017 at 12:48 AM, Branco said:

**Could someone explain to an old phart what that "Spoiler" icon that I just accidentally hit does????

Expand  

 

Sorry, bud, can't help ya there. But doing a bit of extra work to read what you write is always worth it.

Posted
  On 6/13/2017 at 12:59 AM, hiflier said:

 

Sorry, bud, can't help ya there. But doing a bit of extra work to read what you write is always worth it.

Expand  

Thanks, think I see what it does; just can't figure out why?:(

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...