When is the last time a well funded expedition when out for a few months looking ?

[7.62]

What would the cost factor be for something like this ? who's in

[Twist]

When I go in the woods for a week, I usually spend about 250 - 300 a week.  That is just to camp and enjoy.  No equipment to document or record other than an ipad or iphone.  Most of that is beer money btw.  I'm game !!! lol 

[Guest DWA]

A few months?  Solid field immersion?  IT HAS NEVER HAPPENED.

[Martin]

Peter Byrne got $5,000,000 for Bigfootin in 1993 from the  Academy of Applied Science.

 

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

 

Richard Greenwell in 1999 completed a well documented expedition into the Six Rivers National Forest.

 

http://sbwm.erols.com/bdwilner/.../cryptozoo/sixrivers.html

 

Regardless of newbie claims, serious money and expertise has been invested in the search for bigfoot.

Edited June 22, 2017 by Martin

[dmaker]

14 minutes ago, DWA said:

A few months?  Solid field immersion?  IT HAS NEVER HAPPENED.

Why do you need a few months of solid field immersion? You have thousands of reports of people coming across one when they aren't even trying. 

Edited June 22, 2017 by dmaker

[7.62]

2 minutes ago, dmaker said:

Why do you need a few months of solid field immersion? You have thousands of reports of people coming across one when they aren't even trying. 

 

17 minutes ago, DWA said:

A few months?  Solid field immersion?  IT HAS NEVER HAPPENED.

 

Yup

It would take a few people but everyone would have their position or job .

[Guest DWA]

Well, from that snippet up there we can presume dmaker has a stuffed specimen of every animal he has ever seen unless he has decided to spare them his badself.

 

That is IT, see one shoot one, why didn't all those old people and little kids and people out for a picnic or a stroll and people not carrying any weapons cages cats o nine tails or anything like that...I mean, shoot, we should be seeing a BAG A DAY

 

[facepalm]

[7.62]

15 minutes ago, dmaker said:

Why do you need a few months of solid field immersion? You have thousands of reports of people coming across one when they aren't even trying. 

And when it happens most are shocked , scared or start to doubt their eyes in what they just saw . That would be a common reaction from most people.

 

That's why it's mostly eye witness testimony . My friend said he froze and he was actively looking for what was causing the things near his home.

 

 

11 minutes ago, DWA said:

Well, from that snippet up there we can presume dmaker has a stuffed specimen of every animal he has ever seen unless he has decided to spare them his badself.

 

That is IT, see one shoot one, why didn't all those old people and little kids and people out for a picnic or a stroll and people not carrying any weapons cages cats o nine tails or anything like that...I mean, shoot, we should be seeing a BAG A DAY

 

[facepalm]

 

[Guest DWA]

It is far from irrelevant to this thread to note the most significant field stay since Patterson and Gimlin, which of course was the first significant field stay ever:

 

http://woodape.org/index.php/our-research/projects/206-oe

 

"While perhaps a foregone conclusion, spending more time in the field increased the quantity and quality of compelling observations. At this point, there should be little doubt that protracted field studies of weeks or months must be favored over much shorter and much less productive weekend events. There may be sufficient reason to postulate that these animals are likely conditioned that human forays into the remote wilderness habitats they favor usually only consist of a few days in length; all that is required is to simply wait out any human visitors and within a few short days or even hours, humans will leave. Operation Endurance ran contrary to such predictable human behavior."

[Patterson-Gimlin]

↑

Thanks for the link. I enjoyed reading it.

I wish there were more expeditions like this and documented on film. Serious research .Despite my stance on the subject. I do think serious research is warranted. Should be funded by the government and science unless they already know the answer. If that is the case they should make it known.  Instead of the one hour shows that are really just made for TV. I enjoy those as well . They are not to be taken seriously of course.

If you know of anymore that are recent I would appreciate you letting me know. I have read and viewed older information of such undertakings in search of the Yeti and Sasquatch.

Edited June 24, 2017 by Patterson-Gimlin

[Guest DWA]

The most I can expect from a skeptic is that the evidence is worthy of more research.  I just wish more scientists saw it that clearly.

[hiflier]

But wishing doesn't do anything, DWA. It takes getting involved and actively doing something to get beyond wishing. Not that hard really if one has the time and drive. 'Having the drive' being the key words here.

[FarArcher]

On 6/21/2017 at 9:11 PM, dmaker said:

Why do you need a few months of solid field immersion? You have thousands of reports of people coming across one when they aren't even trying. 

 

If you were to take an expedition out to find me - say - in a territory two miles by two miles - you wouldn't find me - ever.  

 

Field experience really comes in handy when discussing the subject.

[Guest DWA]

I think we're seeing a bit of out-of-depth here.  Field experience is indeed essential, and having more than enough of it to know I'd say that it seems to me he would actually have to see one to find out how useless seeing one is in terms of confirming it to the world.  As in, look where we, you know, are.

[hiflier]

11 minutes ago, DWA said:

I'd say that it seems to me he would actually have to see one to find out how useless seeing one is in terms of confirming it to the world.

 

It's only useless to the world if after that confirmation of existence one doesn't launch into the effort to somehow get mainstream science involved. Any ideas on that? Of course, if a witness doesn't want to then, yeah, it's pretty much useless to anyone and everyone outside of the witness- who now only has a story that will be debated as misidentification, hallucination, and anything else that says it didn't happen.