Has Bigfoot Science Stalled? (2)

[hiflier]

1 hour ago, SWWASAS said:

Then again, they seem to play the same hide behind tree tricks, day or night.    They apparently have no idea we are as blind as we are at night.

 

On 7/22 TritonTR196 said:

 

"I've stated on here several times in the past and have known this for years now that it's fully apparent that they don't know we can't see them in the dark. The crouching and hiding/concealment behaviors in the darkness fully shows this. I've observed this behavior with both infrared and thermal cameras. They like to stay hidden with both mediums. I used to think that since it's widely believed they can detect infrared light, that they stay hidden because they saw the infrared light beaming at them from the night vision. But since thermal gives off absolutely no light at all, they still exhibit this behavior when observed with a thermal camera. So they simply don't know we can't see them in the dark and they stay hidden because they think we can see them"

 

So yes, there is support for that line of thinking.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

Not everyone's experience has been the same. The experiences of some field researchers (e.g. NAWAC) indicate that Sasquatch can learn that we can't see well at night, and as a result, often end up coming closer.

 

Given their level of paranoia, I'd imagine that some of them would still keep the same distance that they do during the day, even if they believe that we probably can't see as well as they do. 

 

Individuals that have had less exposure to regular people are more likely to keep the same distance at night.

 

 

[Faenor]

I think it's been established that the NAWAC was a mostly fraudulent orginization.  Taking handouts and reaping tax benefits in the guise of a non profit.  

 

We can safely assume any of their findings are equally fradulent.

[Patterson-Gimlin]

↑

Really now. I always thought  they were as legitimate as possible when searching for creatures that most likely don't exist.

I have actually spoken to a prominent member . We had interesting conversations .

[norseman]

4 hours ago, Faenor said:

I think it's been established that the NAWAC was a mostly fraudulent orginization.  Taking handouts and reaping tax benefits in the guise of a non profit.  

 

We can safely assume any of their findings are equally fradulent.

 

How are they profiting from the search for Bigfoot?

 

And taking donations is exactly how a non profit works.

[dmaker]

Fraudulent may seem harsh, but they are supposed to be a non profit organization with the purpose of preserving and protecting habitat for an animal that, after ten years of effort, they have not even managed to snap a photograph of. 

 

At some point, at a minimum, I would think their mission objective should be compared to its success and perhaps their non profit designation revoked. In my opinion, anyway.

 

Look at it this way. What if I was taking donations for an organization to feed hungry children and after ten years not so much a single cracker had made its way to a hungry child? Eye brows would be raised to say the least.

 

 

 

Edited July 27, 2017 by dmaker

[SWWASAS]

 Many non profits are not charities.      They do not give anything to anyone.    So your hungry children thing is not the same situation.     And I find it very ironic that the organization that can probably solve the BF existence question from stuff they have in storage is a  Non Profit.    I am talking about the Smithsonian.   They seem to have lost big skeletons they were sent.   If being inept is a reason to revoke a non profit designation I would nominate them.  

Edited July 27, 2017 by SWWASAS

[dmaker]

I don't put any stock in conspiracy theories.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

14 hours ago, Faenor said:

I think it's been established that the NAWAC was a mostly fraudulent orginization.

 

That was on the ISF, right after one of their messiahs (Sharon Hill) expressed her opinion that the group isn't hoaxing. 

 

 

[norseman]

2 hours ago, dmaker said:

Fraudulent may seem harsh, but they are supposed to be a non profit organization with the purpose of preserving and protecting habitat for an animal that, after ten years of effort, they have not even managed to snap a photograph of. 

 

At some point, at a minimum, I would think their mission objective should be compared to its success and perhaps their non profit designation revoked. In my opinion, anyway.

 

Look at it this way. What if I was taking donations for an organization to feed hungry children and after ten years not so much a single cracker had made its way to a hungry child? Eye brows would be raised to say the least.

 

 

 

 

I think people who donate to a Bigfoot seeking organization? Probably understand it's a long shot.

 

Besides......there are non profits in the US that have failed to deliver the goods after 2000 years, and nobody would dare suggest revoking their status. 

[dmaker]

1 minute ago, norseman said:

Besides......there are non profits in the US that have failed to deliver the goods after 2000 years,

Such as?

[norseman]

PM sent.