A Plan For Presenting Sasquatch To Science

[hiflier]

Hi, Pat. Absolutely, I remember you doing that This why I am giving those PhD's all of the credit for presenting the issue in the first place. It was just at the time I began to push the idea I was not aware of previous scientific statements on the matter. I stopped taking credit when I first read Dr. Krantz' comments from back in the mid 1990's and subsequently Dr. Fahrenback's and Dr. Bindenagel's comments as well. But they are no longer here to promote the subject and I don not see anyone else currently raising their hands trying to promote it now. I bring Patty's shoulder width up as often as I do because it is a point that has scientific dialogue behind it. The more people that become aware of it the more important the issue will become. And rightfully so. And you were good to inform me of previous research on that. I needed to hear it and your timing couldn't have been better.

[bipedalist]

Quote

 

I could be persuaded to take a second look. Why? Because the "thing" just looks too much like Todd Standing, that's why.

 

 

 

 

As well it should hiflier since his sister was a professional make-up artist!    Lest we forget!

 

If Standing ever coughs up a legit pic I will eat the weasel's hairball, electrons his announcement page contains along with the cellulose from the printout!

Edited June 18, 2018 by bipedalist

[hiflier]

13 minutes ago, bipedalist said:

If Standing ever coughs up a legit pic I will eat the weasel's hairball, electrons his announcement page contains along with the cellulose from the printout!

 

Could you express yourself a little stronger, please  

[SWWASAS]

1 hour ago, hiflier said:

Hi, Pat. Absolutely, I remember you doing that This why I am giving those PhD's all of the credit for presenting the issue in the first place. It was just at the time I began to push the idea I was not aware of previous scientific statements on the matter. I stopped taking credit when I first read Dr. Krantz' comments from back in the mid 1990's and subsequently Dr. Fahrenback's and Dr. Bindenagel's comments as well. But they are no longer here to promote the subject and I don not see anyone else currently raising their hands trying to promote it now. I bring Patty's shoulder width up as often as I do because it is a point that has scientific dialogue behind it. The more people that become aware of it the more important the issue will become. And rightfully so. And you were good to inform me of previous research on that. I needed to hear it and your timing couldn't have been better.

It occurred to me that to further the purpose and intent of this thread we need new material/ evidence.    What we have,  a 50 year old 16MM film and blurry obscured more recent ones,  several hundred plaster footprint casts,   has not done the trick getting science interested.    Footprints and films can be faked.   A very clever individual who does their research and has craft talents can produce either one that are equal to what we have already.   A talented person who does the research could make a footprint cast with very convincing dermal ridges.   I am surprised that someone has not attempted that.    Of course the fleeting fame that would produce, would only last until the next hoaxer tries to match that or a real footprint find shows different dermal ridges.   Then all of them would be in question, even the real one.    

 

  Whatever gets the interest of science has to be pretty good and very compelling.    Of course a BF body on a lab table would do that after an initial round of skepticism.   Baring that, something needs to be very good to gob smack science and get them looking into this.   That can only be achieved by much more field work by people willing to spend the sweat equity or a million in one encounter like Patterson and Gimlin.  Since million in one encounters are hard to come by, the only sure way is grinding away in the field.    BF are likely very rare and elusive but effort can overcome that.  Anyone going that route needs to be prepared.   My first encounter was a disaster in that I was not prepared for it.  I have related that several times in hope that other field researchers learn from my experience.  It is not an easy thing to admit you screw up, but if it helps someone else, I am willing to look stupid.  The bottom line is,  have the gear in the field,  know how to used it,  don't let fear control the event.   The first two are the easy part you can control.  the fear thing is not so easy.  

[PBeaton]

SWWASAS,

 

I'm reminded of a interview in a documentary, I believe he was a Nat Geo photographer, had a sightin' of a orang-pendek, an never raised his camera...looked on in awe. 

 

Pat...

[hiflier]

On the subject of 'evidence'? Here is what the most high profile person in the Bigfoot subject, Matt Moneymaker, had to say when asked about evidence: http://www.animalplanet.com/tv-shows/finding-bigfoot/lists/bigfoot-evidence/

 

"Most researchers who study the bigfoot subject will point to the abundance of witnesses as the factor they found most compelling about the mystery when first becoming acquainted with it. Over the course of time, bigfoot researchers meet enough eyewitnesses to realize there are indeed many, many eyewitness across the continent who are indeed very credible. Often there are multiple witnesses to a given sighting or encounter.

 

"There are, in fact, way too many eyewitnesses for this phenomenon to be purely imaginary, as skeptics assert. With such an abundance of eyewitnesses, who are so dispersed across the continent, and dispersed across the decades, the alternate skeptical explanation that the sightings are the result of hoaxers, in whole or even in large part, becomes much less likely.

 

"Researchers eventually come to realize that if there are indeed so many credible eyewitnesses across the land, then the species they so consistently and emphatically describe probably exists also."- Content courtesy of the BFRO

 

This statement is followed by six more installments containing absolutely nothing but filler. So the public is being given nothing but completely nebulous, non-definitive, junk.

[norseman]

33 minutes ago, hiflier said:

On the subject of 'evidence'? Here is what the most high profile person in the Bigfoot subject, Matt Moneymaker, had to say when asked about evidence: http://www.animalplanet.com/tv-shows/finding-bigfoot/lists/bigfoot-evidence/

 

"Most researchers who study the bigfoot subject will point to the abundance of witnesses as the factor they found most compelling about the mystery when first becoming acquainted with it. Over the course of time, bigfoot researchers meet enough eyewitnesses to realize there are indeed many, many eyewitness across the continent who are indeed very credible. Often there are multiple witnesses to a given sighting or encounter.

 

"There are, in fact, way too many eyewitnesses for this phenomenon to be purely imaginary, as skeptics assert. With such an abundance of eyewitnesses, who are so dispersed across the continent, and dispersed across the decades, the alternate skeptical explanation that the sightings are the result of hoaxers, in whole or even in large part, becomes much less likely.

 

"Researchers eventually come to realize that if there are indeed so many credible eyewitnesses across the land, then the species they so consistently and emphatically describe probably exists also."- Content courtesy of the BFRO

 

This statement is followed by six more installments containing absolutely nothing but filler. So the public is being given nothing but completely nebulous, non-definitive, junk.

 

I do not agree with Moneymakers assessment.

 

Either we are dealing with a small population of a very rare species thats just beamed via satellite across the country into every American’s imagination? Or? Its some mass delusion......

 

Because there is no way that Bigfoot is as widespread as Racoons, Whitetail deer or Coyotes.... I dont care if they are hide and seek champions or not. A wild creature has injuries, it has sickness, old age, child birth.....starvation and death. A 48 state plus Canada population dispersion? Would be millions of animals...... 

 

I do not accept that as anywhere close to realistic. We would have our proof if that was the case.

[SWWASAS]

20 minutes ago, PBeaton said:

SWWASAS,

 

I'm reminded of a interview in a documentary, I believe he was a Nat Geo photographer, had a sightin' of a orang-pendek, an never raised his camera...looked on in awe. 

 

Pat...

I have been fighting a long term, yet to be diagnosed illness and feel the need to reveal or reinforce what I have already learned when appropriate even when it might make me look stupid.      

 

I missed incredible sound evidence of an approaching BF  because the recorder was buried in my pack and I had not played with it enough to quickly get it in record.    This was 5 minutes of two BF whooping back and forth at each other as they approached me,   then the footsteps and crashing through the underbrush as it came to my position, a huge thud when the nearest saw or smelled me and went into a crouch, then that one whacking a tree with a big branch within yards of me.    When this event started,    I hit the record button, did not see it in record because of direct sunlight,  and hit the button again, turning off the record function. The event was over before I figured out it was not in record.    Most of that was because of unfamiliarity with the recorder.   I did manage to get a picture when I ventured into the brush towards the thud.      Now the recorder is mounted on my pack and recording continually when I am in the field.    Nothing to mess up under the excitement of a field encounter.      However even after this event,  and the lesson learned,  I had an event that was not recorded because I had gotten into the routine of getting out of my truck at the trail head, walking around to the passenger side, turning on the pack mounted recorder, and putting on the pack.   What I had no inkling of when I parked,  was that a BF was near my truck where I parked.      When I got to the passenger side and started to urinate,  it infuriated the watching BF.    Another missed opportunity.           The lesson here is that an encounter in an active area can happen at any moment.  Opportunity can happen if you insert yourself into an active area and do not get complacent.   Even in an active area, you might spend a very long time (years)  between events.     Complacency can creep in.   If it does,  opportunities can be lost.   The other lesson learned, and that has been confirmed by other researchers, that urination in the presence of BF can evoke a response.      I suspect they interpret that as marking their territory.    Hear something in the woods moving around that might be BF?   Give marking a try and hope it is not a human watching.    

[norseman]

2 hours ago, bipedalist said:

 

As well it should hiflier since his sister was a professional make-up artist!    Lest we forget!

 

If Standing ever coughs up a legit pic I will eat the weasel's hairball, electrons his announcement page contains along with the cellulose from the printout!

 

Thats my point. We will never KNOW if any Squatch pic is legit until one is drug in feet first. 

 

Todd Standing could own Universal studios.....and still posess a REAL Squatch pic. It doesnt matter..... We dont accept pictures...... Only physical evidence. Its just dumb that some skeptics claim they could tell the difference if they just had a “clear” picture. In daytime. With no foilage. While picking its nose. With no shadows. While tap dancing on one foot. And. And. And......

 

We have clear photos. We have camera trap photos. We have photos from reputable human beings. We have photos that clearly show a hairy humanoid that could not be anything else like a Bear or a stump. Are they a dude in a suit!? Well thats the million dollar question isnt it?

 

But lets get something straight. Unless Bigfoot sleeps and eats on a Alien moonbase? Or is a robot? Or a Indian totem spirit? Its a living creature...... As a living creature it must leave tangible evidence behind. So where is it? Why cant we find it? 

[SWWASAS]

7 minutes ago, norseman said:

 

Todd Standing could own Universal studios.....and still posess a REAL Squatch pic. It doesnt matter..... We dont accept pictures...... Only physical evidence. Its just dumb that some skeptics claim they could tell the difference if they just had a “clear” picture. In daytime. With no foilage. While picking its nose. With no shadows. While tap dancing on one foot. And. And. And......

 

We have clear photos. We have camera trap photos. We have photos from reputable human beings. We have photos that clearly show a hairy humanoid that could not be anything else like a Bear or a stump. Are they a dude in a suit!? Well thats the million dollar question isnt it?

 

But lets get something straight. Unless Bigfoot sleeps and eats on a Alien moonbase? Or is a robot? Or a Indian totem spirit? Its a living creature...... As a living creature it must leave tangible evidence behind. So where is it? Why cant we find it? 

You are correct.   While BF proponents may tout the P/G film as evidence,   I find it ironic that unlike some new species of monkey in the jungles of South America,  where a picture has sufficed to establish a new species,   the limitations of quality,  . layman involvement, and reputation of those involved in the P/G film are the primary reasons for disinterest by the scientific community.     The P/G film is part of the problem convincing science.  Had it been made more recently and of better quality by some graduate level biologist,  the story could be very different evoking interest of the scientific community.    That would have led to the acquisition of a body and ended the existence debate.   

[Twist]

^^ very true.   The lack of replication in 50 yrs. is a detriment to BF gaining traction in the scientific community, imo.   

 

When and IF a body hits the slab, at best, scientist will look back to the PGF (given the assumption it’s real) and say, “huh, I whiffed on that one!” Lol

 

 

[Patterson-Gimlin]

5 hours ago, SWWASAS said:

You are correct.   While BF proponents may tout the P/G film as evidence,   I find it ironic that unlike some new species of monkey in the jungles of South America,  where a picture has sufficed to establish a new species,   the limitations of quality,  . layman involvement, and reputation of those involved in the P/G film are the primary reasons for disinterest by the scientific community.     The P/G film is part of the problem convincing science.  Had it been made more recently and of better quality by some graduate level biologist,  the story could be very different evoking interest of the scientific community.    That would have led to the acquisition of a body and ended the existence debate.   

I agree with you. The film is awesome ,but  nothing to be gained by in the way of proof. 

[Explorer]

5 hours ago, norseman said:

 

I do not agree with Moneymakers assessment.

 

Either we are dealing with a small population of a very rare species thats just beamed via satellite across the country into every American’s imagination? Or? Its some mass delusion......

 

Because there is no way that Bigfoot is as widespread as Racoons, Whitetail deer or Coyotes.... I dont care if they are hide and seek champions or not. A wild creature has injuries, it has sickness, old age, child birth.....starvation and death. A 48 state plus Canada population dispersion? Would be millions of animals...... 

 

I do not accept that as anywhere close to realistic. We would have our proof if that was the case.

 

Norseman,

 

You don't have to agree with MM to accept or consider that claim as possible. 

The claim that BF are seen in almost every state of the Union is based on anecdotal reports collected from all those states (not just by BFRO, but also by other investigators and groups).

These reports are very similar in quality and description.

You can pick a report at random and describe the general incident without telling the State of origin - and many of them will sound very similar and not particularly location centric.

If you want to only accept the reports from PNW (WA, OR, CA) and reject those from OK, TX, FL, GA, SC, etc. then you are not being consistent on your acceptance of reports as evidence.

 

BTW, I don't like this observation either.  

But, I won't reject it just because I don't like it.

 

I also do not like the fact that there is no physical evidence after more than 50 years of people searching for it; specially if you believe that these creatures are all over the US and Canada.

 

It is hard to believe that such a large primate or hominid could get away with living among us and not leave physical trace evidence or be already detected and documented by the hundreds of thousands wildlife biologists studying our fauna.

I don't put much evidentiary weight on footprints, stick structures, photos, sound recordings, or even DNA samples that were not taken directly from the animal itself (blood sample, tissue sample, hair sample).

 

So what do we get after 50 years of research?  Not much but stories.

 

It is a mystery and it is not zoology or biology as many of you will like it to be.  It is cryptozoology and the collective sum of the anecdotal reports don't make a lot of sense if the animal behaved as expected for a big ape roaming all 49 states + Canada.

Granted, you can discount the anecdotal reports, and then we got nothing.

I agree with others that the PGF film is not the key driver for the claim, but a side show.

 

IMHO, NAWAC is the only organization that is taking seriously the idea of collecting a specimen and are intelligently putting resources to that end.  If they don't succeed with all those resources, then the nut must be very difficult to crack.

 

 

 

[norseman]

2 hours ago, Explorer said:

 

Norseman,

 

You don't have to agree with MM to accept or consider that claim as possible. 

The claim that BF are seen in almost every state of the Union is based on anecdotal reports collected from all those states (not just by BFRO, but also by other investigators and groups).

These reports are very similar in quality and description.

You can pick a report at random and describe the general incident without telling the State of origin - and many of them will sound very similar and not particularly location centric.

If you want to only accept the reports from PNW (WA, OR, CA) and reject those from OK, TX, FL, GA, SC, etc. then you are not being consistent on your acceptance of reports as evidence.

 

BTW, I don't like this observation either.  

But, I won't reject it just because I don't like it.

 

I also do not like the fact that there is no physical evidence after more than 50 years of people searching for it; specially if you believe that these creatures are all over the US and Canada.

 

It is hard to believe that such a large primate or hominid could get away with living among us and not leave physical trace evidence or be already detected and documented by the hundreds of thousands wildlife biologists studying our fauna.

I don't put much evidentiary weight on footprints, stick structures, photos, sound recordings, or even DNA samples that were not taken directly from the animal itself (blood sample, tissue sample, hair sample).

 

So what do we get after 50 years of research?  Not much but stories.

 

It is a mystery and it is not zoology or biology as many of you will like it to be.  It is cryptozoology and the collective sum of the anecdotal reports don't make a lot of sense if the animal behaved as expected for a big ape roaming all 49 states + Canada.

Granted, you can discount the anecdotal reports, and then we got nothing.

I agree with others that the PGF film is not the key driver for the claim, but a side show.

 

IMHO, NAWAC is the only organization that is taking seriously the idea of collecting a specimen and are intelligently putting resources to that end.  If they don't succeed with all those resources, then the nut must be very difficult to crack.

 

 

 

  

 

Im not going to say one area of the US and Canada is better than another. Im not out scouting back east...... I do find it bizarre tho that I have access to some of the most pristine wilderness left in the lower 48. And I can routinely go find evidence of Grizzly bears in the Selkirks? We are talking 1500 animals left in the lower 48. But I cannot find Bigfoot evidence? But some researcher in Chicago is tripping over Bigfoot evidence..... something is wrong with that picture.

 

I dont care if Bigfoot is smarter than Ray Mears, Bear Grylls and Cody Lundin all put together in the woods. You could not hide the presence of thousands and thousands of 800 lbs supermen all living off the land. You just cannot. Not realistic. Especially in areas that dont even have Bears to blame it on.

 

I did a caloric intake thread before. I based my equation on 2x a Gorilla’s diet. Plus 2x foraging and cacheing for winter. Its alot.

 

 

[Patterson-Gimlin]

What you just said is exactly one of the reasons the creature most likely does not exist. Either that or they are so rare and likely endangered. 

May be near  the extinction or that has  already happened. Obviously, They are not everywhere as so often reported. I never thought they did,but if  the area was  more restricted  such as  the PNW and Canada it would be more believable. I have been in the woods  and swamps of Florida all my life.  Never any sign of man apes . There have been escaped primates displaced by hurricanes and zoos, Most of the skunk apes sightings I have heard about are from tourists.