hiflier Posted June 11, 2018 Share Posted June 11, 2018 I've started a campaign to confront zoologists and anthropologists WRT our Hairy Friend. It is time. It is also Summer and so maybe even with Summer semesters and vacations some of them may have more time and so be in better moods? As I am writing to them I am also making them aware that I fully understand the risks they may be taking in even responding to questions. But I gotta tell ya folks, it was either start making professional contact of continue around in circles here. In the back of my mind I have always wanted to do this but also realized that I needed to be able to formulate questions in a way that showed that I had done my homework. And because I have done my research and homework I understand better how to be specific those questions word wise. I honestly think most of academia have had little or no exposure to this subject in a way that might cause them to take a second look. My goal is to succeed in have that second look at least sound interesting to them- even if only on a private level long after they have dismissed me as a nut case. I assure you though I have not been writing the dialogue of a nutcase; keeping instead with the science parameters they would feel more comfortable with. And I always start off with giving them the respect and recognition that they deserve but maybe rarely get. I will say that the first email I wrote was tough. I debated long and hard before I hit the "Send" button. Double checked everything for spelling, grammar, clarity, and readability. I also checked to make sure I carried a neutral tone throughout the text. I am not a scientists but did my best to promote myself as having a scientific interest. In other words, the truth. And I always mention that that is all I'm after- The truth. And I won't give up until I find an open ear and mind. We will see............... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted June 11, 2018 Admin Share Posted June 11, 2018 Without physical proof? All I can do is wish you luck! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted June 11, 2018 Author Share Posted June 11, 2018 Thanks! There is no question that one needs to be very careful when undertaking this kind of thing. I've thought long and hard about what I would present as well as how to present it. The BF community struggles enough against the media and everything else to screw this up and risk making things worse. A scientific conundrum is the best conundrum but it still has to show a sound supporting argument for WHY there is a conundrum to begin with. Solving for the equation is their job but there first needs to be an equation for them to solve. In other words, Norseman, I am not asking for their opinions. I don't WANT their opinions. But at the same time I do not want to be dismissed either. It is a tightrope that I have finally decided to tackle. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wolfjewel Posted June 11, 2018 Share Posted June 11, 2018 Right on, Highflier, I so believe in what you are doing. There is everything to gain from trying to reach out to academics. And hopefully little to lose except the time it takes. And even that time will be instructive to let us know how professors and researchers view the sasquatch conundrum, or how they view the people who show an interest or have had a sighting. Psychologists and related researchers who study human perception and memory should be contacted as well as the physical scientists who do bones and mammals. If the general population (woman/man on the street) thinks all sightings are hoaxes or misidentification, or part of popular folklore -- then ok, I would like to find academics who would study how the individuals who had sightings fall into those categories. (But treat them respectfully in all cases.) In other words, no matter how the attitudes go, something is worth researching. If you get into this work I would like to keep up with your results and might be able to help. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ioyza Posted June 11, 2018 Share Posted June 11, 2018 When I was in the midst of looking at grad school, I had this (I thought at the time) brilliant idea to get into the Bioacoustics department at Cornell and work on sasquatch vocals. I got in touch with Jeff Meldrum and he gave me a really nice reply with advice on who to contact and how to approach it and how to not get my hopes up. I sent the department head a great long email with some images of spectral analysis and all this and that - what do you suppose his response was? I'll be interested in hearing what percentage actually respond to you with an email as opposed to a delete button. But don't let me dissuade you, by all means, good luck! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted June 11, 2018 Share Posted June 11, 2018 Quixotic, to say the least, but you got to do what your heart tells you to do, and aside from the time, the outlay is minimal. Like it or not, most professionals seem to live in a binary world when it comes to matters like these. It is either a ball or a strike to them, no gray areas. BF loves the gray areas, literally and figuratively. Let us know what you hear back. You never know. You may just happen to dangle the bait just when a big fish wants to eat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted June 11, 2018 Author Share Posted June 11, 2018 Thank you wolfjewel and ioyza, I will first say I had responses across the board to all of the few correspondences I had sent out about a year ago. I would rather not open that dialogue right now up until I can get some things firmed up. I've already had two responses in the last several days but, again, the discussions were not about Sasquatch existence. All discussions so far have adhered close to science as I have been corresponding with scientists along their particular fields of discipline. This is the time to build confidence and credibility concerning who I am and what my interests are. Those interests present obstacles that only the well educated in a given field can answer. It is why I am seeking them out. After reading your posts something crossed my mind and it may be true. Academics may WANT to have the public engage them. I am finding them to be forthcoming, knowledgeable, and articulate. The whole idea that folks might be afraid of academic and their opinions is the sense I get from folks but I'm actually finding the opposite to be true. I think academics like being able to answer questions. Heck, they may even be afraid of US LOL. WSA, I have real questions along the lines of real science. "dangling the carrot" sounds a bit harsh but in a sense I guess that is what I am doing? But where else is one going to go? Where else SHOULD one go? And I am being careful to not get into gray areas. Scientists appreciate logic but they do not appreciate funny logic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted June 11, 2018 Author Share Posted June 11, 2018 (edited) As an added thought, science specializes more so today than ever before as knowledge increases. Before anyone embarks on something like this those specialties need to be carefully considered in order to know in which direction questions need to be channeled. In other words I'm not focusing on Sasquatch. I'm focusing on the details and then choosing as tight a field of study as I can find that targets a specific detail. So I am not working on Sasquatch as a whole but working instead on only small parts. Edited June 11, 2018 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PBeaton Posted June 12, 2018 Share Posted June 12, 2018 Good luck hiflier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twist Posted June 12, 2018 Share Posted June 12, 2018 Nothing ventured, nothing gained. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NatFoot Posted June 12, 2018 Share Posted June 12, 2018 Share some of your emails. We are curious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted June 12, 2018 Author Share Posted June 12, 2018 Thanks everyone. There is probably never going to be a good time to do this sort of thing so why wait? Might find out something important that I.....er.....didn't know was important. NatFoot, I cannot at this time as they concern subjects not on the General Forum. Other subjects are still active as far as email correspondences go. Try to also understand that this subject as a rule puts off science, so being at all successful means that scientists will not be blabbed all over a paranormal Forum. I only began in the last few days and the few from a year ago I do not have permission to print. So far I do not have enough depth to firmly state a sort of official point of view but bits and pieces of info are trickling in slowly I can now at least say that the fossil tooth does not appear to be linked to a 130,000 year old hominid so any connection to the San Diego Mastodon finds does not look good. I am still waiting for the first correspondence that I sent out which was to the actual director of the San Diego site's dig. At the same time, from the photos I had posted here, there was another correspondence that did come back from someone but nothing was mentioned about it being an overly large size. They did say it is a molar, Human, and several thousand years old with a large cavity maybe stemming from the sugars of corn, maybe Maize? I did a follow up on that one just yesterday and waiting to hear back. This does take time because most of it requires waiting. But it is rewarding to communicate with people on stuff and have replies come back. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dmaker Posted June 12, 2018 Share Posted June 12, 2018 (edited) 16 hours ago, hiflier said: In other words, the truth. And I always mention that that is all I'm after- The truth. And I won't give up until I find an open ear and mind. This is what I was getting at in a different thread recently. The word "truth" is thrown around, but not really meant. What is meant is something more bigfoot friendly. Because what if the "truth" simply is that scientists consider bigfoot an answered question until, or if, more verifiable evidence is provided? As your own statement implies, you will not accept that. You are not interested in the truth unless it includes some sort of confirmation that bigfoot should be more closely examined. But that is not being interested in the truth, that is looking for someone with a degree to agree with you. You expose your lack of scientific interest when you put your own conclusion up front and center as the only acceptable outcome. Edited June 12, 2018 by dmaker Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cotter Posted June 12, 2018 Share Posted June 12, 2018 1 hour ago, dmaker said: You expose your lack of scientific interest when you put your own conclusion up front and center as the only acceptable outcome. With all due respect, I feel this is kind of a pot/kettle situation here. Though I'm not entirely disagreeing with your statement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted June 12, 2018 Share Posted June 12, 2018 Hiflier, I'm sure you've probably thought through your objectives here, and I'd love to hear them. As in most things, it pays to define what "success" looks like ahead of time, don't you agree?. What would be your benchmark for that? The range of outcomes is so broad in this endeavor, along a scale of "Deleted my email without reading", up to,"Issued a press release proclaiming existence of BF is probable". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts