How do you go about proving Bigfoot?

[norseman]

8 hours ago, wiiawiwb said:

 

The bioarchaeologist approach won't work. The first fossilized remains of chimpanzees weren't discovered until the Fall of 2004 in the Rift Valley by Dr. Nina Jablonsky.  Given the numbers of chimps compared to sasquatch, if chimps remains weren't found until 2004, there is no hope that approach could ever work with BF.

 

My efforts have not, for a second, been concerned with science, or the scientific community. My efforts are only concerned with proving it for me. I have little respect for the scientific community and worrying what they thought would be the last thing on my mind.

 

Im not understanding why that approach wouldn't work with Bigfoot. You must remember that while we did not find fossilized Chimpanzee ancestors until 2004? We were breeding them in captivity and even strapping them into capsules and shooting them into orbit long before that. We have even mapped their genome. We do not have any physical proof for Bigfoot...fossilized or not.

 

If a population of Sasquatch are living, breeding and dying in the lower 48? They are leaving behind remains. And if it's been going on for milenia? At some point? Somebody is going to get lucky.

 

And this gives me hope.

 

https://www.wired.com/2017/04/130000-year-old-mastodon-threatens-upend-human-history/

 

And as far as I'm concerned, if Bigfoot is a undiscovered species, their survival hinges on their discovery. We do not do EPA impact studies on Bigfoot habitat before we chop and pave our way into the last nooks and crannies of America. 

[wiiawiwb]

We'll disagree because I believe their survival depends entirely on not being discovered.

[Trogluddite]

On 7/22/2017 at 1:10 AM, gigantor said:

...I don't think the original post asked for a shootout of who's efforts are better or even if they will work, just what are YOU doing...  just saying. 

G, 

Oh yeah, I agree. I wasn't trying to have a database measuring contest, it's just that while doing the work on mine, I got a much better appreciation of the frequency (or infrequency) of encounters, the range of bigfoot, the limited duration of most encounters, etc., etc., etc.  I am still working on it, but with a realization that, at best, it may convince a few additional non-scientists of existence, and I suppose, hoping that some old Bigfoot is just a step slow when crossing the road one day.  

[gotafeeling]

Has this been talked about here? I know the nests have - but Meldrum's involvement and the fundraising for the eDNA research?

http://cliffbarackman.com/sasquatch-nest-edna-study/

[norseman]

11 hours ago, wiiawiwb said:

We'll disagree because I believe their survival depends entirely on not being discovered.

 

On what basis?

 

There is talk about taking Grizzlies off the endangered species list in the lower 48 because the population has recovered from the brink of extinction. Wolves? Already have been delisted in several states. The list goes on.....

 

I think your line of reasoning is illogical.

[Patterson-Gimlin]

I completely agree. If the creatures do exist then discovery is their only hope for survival .

That is also taking into consideration if it is not to late already.

[hiflier]

OK, on topic. I will restate what I've said before may times but this time I will put it in a nutshell: Take the evidence we already have and get it to the people that are educated to evaluate it. There is little else to do but since there is evidence and trace evidence available then determining who should look at it shouldn't be too hard. That's exactly what I've been doing just in case 'someone' might think I'm getting others to do 'my work' for me. There are many fields of study and those broader fields of study contain many sub-fields of more specific, targeted research. Narrowing down the people with the right credentials for a more focused assessment of the evidence is not a bad, or difficult thing to do. It takes a little thought, some research into who might be best suited for assessing a certain kind of evidence and then pursuing correspondence with them. Why not get some studied folks involved who are in a better position to assess the evidence currently available?

 

That's what I've been doing anyway for the past few months. No one of course is going to drop everything they are doing and jump on the evidence but there has been return emails and, surprisingly, some keen interest. These people are out there folks and they are accessible but I think hardly anyone is getting in touch either them. There's been a lot of damage done here on this Forum regarding how science ignores the evidence but from what I've seen, if the evidence is presented somewhat professionally then people do respond in like manner. 

Edited July 24, 2017 by hiflier

[wiiawiwb]

On 7/23/2017 at 10:30 PM, norseman said:

 

On what basis?

 

There is talk about taking Grizzlies off the endangered species list in the lower 48 because the population has recovered from the brink of extinction. Wolves? Already have been delisted in several states. The list goes on.....

 

I think your line of reasoning is illogical.

 

We've known since people first set foot on this continent that brown bear existed. The same can be said for wolves. They were adversaries of man competing for the same food such as deer and elk. We don't know if sasquatches even exist and if they do, they have successfully lived among us, unrecognized by science, for centuries. Comparing brown bear and wolves to sasquatches is like comparing bacon to jello.

 

The discovery of sasquatches as a living, breathing, and breeding creature will likely be greatest palaentologic/anthropologic discovery ever. Who knew they even existed? 

 

That revelation will change everything. "Protective measures" will commence immediately, forests will be shut down, and habitat paramaters studied.  Sasquatches will be subjected to "scientific study" where they will be poked with needles, injected with everything imaginable, all in the interest of "science".  Sasquatches will be put in cages in laboratories to study their intelligence levels. Tracked, trapped, extracted, monitored, poked, prodded, sliced and diced, and perhaps even a few are even euthanized so "science" can move forward to help our big friends of the woods.

 

In the process, disease will be introduced into the BF community that heretofore did not exist.  Poachers will have the chance of a lifetime to shoot and kill something so new, so important, so profound. The forests will be choked with poachers. The forests will also be thinned of the vast majority of humans who now recreate there.  Will parents will allow their teenage children to play, hike, or otherwise recreate in the woods where these monsters roam?  Of course not, at least not without armed guards all about.  You call that progress?

 

Sasquatches have existed quite nicely without any help or intrusion from mankind (or is that man-unkind?). Nothing good whatsoever will come from their discovery. I predict their ultimate demise will result therefrom.

 

I don't think we want to circle back to Norse's comparison to wolves and grizzly. Both species populated just about every state in this country when humans began to habitate here. That started the demise of just about every apex predator on this continent.  Grizzlies...slaughtered, wolves...slaughtered; both to near extinction. Both species roamed free on this continent and now we've delisted a few states. That's called progress?  I'd burst laughing except that it is not funny at all.

 

Every time humans try to study and manage nature, they end up mismanaging it. 

Edited July 25, 2017 by wiiawiwb

[hiflier]

My opinion only: I think Sasquatch communities are already being monitored. How can so much high tech surveillance be out there just about everywhere and Sasquatch NOT be detected? I think the reality is that they have been- and for a long time, too. Again, my opinion only but logis says if they exist then where they are, and how many there are in each region, absolutely known about. Yes, they are elusive but logic coming down on the side of today's Human's surveillance capabilities says that if they are extant then they are being watched. 

Edited July 25, 2017 by hiflier

[norseman]

wiiawiwb wrote:

Every time humans try to study and manage nature, they end up mismanaging it.

------------------------------

 

And that's where you are very very wrong.

 

Its when we do NOT study and manage it is when some other human activity paves species under!

 

Nothing is comparing bacon to jello here. Studying a endangered species tells biologists what that species needs to survive, and then managing natural resources to make sure it becomes a success story is how it's done in the modern world. Countries that do not have science programs like this? Are the ones paying the price of extinction.

 

All the same....mammals, reptiles, birds, fish, science works on all of them, if we humans allow it.

 

If Bigfoot is real? Then he fights an army of chainsaws, bulldozers, real estate agents and land developers....daily. Without targeting the things the species may need to survive for protection? We could be killing them quietly, never the wiser.

 

If the mountain Gorilla was a undiscovered species they would already be extinct.

 

Biology makes humans aware of their actions, and the costs involved, and has saved species through the endangered species act. That's just fact.

 

 

[wiiawiwb]

How has it worked out here in North America for wolves and grizzly? Free to roam until humans came around, then slaughtered to near extinction. They are now confined to a handful of "designated areas".

 

You call that progress and I call that humans mismanaging nature,

[norseman]

1 minute ago, wiiawiwb said:

How has it worked out here in North America for wolves and grizzly? Free to roam until humans came around, then slaughtered to near extinction. They are now confined to a handful of "designated areas".

 

You call that progress and I call that humans mismanaging nature,

 

Im not calling it progress. But I will call it a MUCH BETTER solution than to EXTINCTION. Hello!?

[wiiawiwb]

Can you name me one example of a species that was better off after humans were involved than before humans were involved?

Edited July 25, 2017 by wiiawiwb

[norseman]

What difference does it make? The human population of the Earth if 7.5 BILLION and GROWING. Land and natural resources are shrinking.......... this trend will continue.

 

The endangered species act PROTECTS animals. It gives them a voice. 

 

Explain to me how Bigfoot remaining a cryptid helps them or their habitat? 

[hiflier]

I would like to give an example. First of all a lot of the damage to wildlife populations was a result of ignorance coupled with greed. An example I would give is regarding salmon in the PacNW. Economic progress built bridges and culverts in the 1960's over streams and rivers mainly as a way to keep the roads and highways from flooding because everyone knew they couldn't just halt the flow of these waterways. But the vast majority of these culverts didn't allow salmon to freely navigate to their spawning grounds. These impacts are being changed to reverse that which is only one sample of correcting errors made in the past- of which there were many!

 

Yes, species have gone extinct but the number of biologists at work studying and understanding our mistakes is alive and well. Nothing is perfect and Rome wasn't built in a day so it is taking time to dismantle and rebuild in a way that helps wildlife to sustain itself. Many volunteers are involved in programs that promote a healthier environment too and much land has been set aside for the purposes of maintaining places for wildlife to flourish in spite of ourselves. These things don't happen overnight but the more we learn and understand about protecting flora AND fauna the better. 

Edited July 25, 2017 by hiflier