A Plan For Presenting Sasquatch To Science

[hiflier]

No worries Inc1, plus away. I see you even got a couple plusses yourself  

 

Any ideas for getting academia on board regarding taking a closer look at the Sasquatch issue? Would you consider starting a conversation with your Nebraska state biologist or an anthropologist at a state university? If things work out well then anecdotes may not be the only thing the future holds?

[SWWASAS]

Back to the original post and the last one,  I have advocated that BF researchers make contact with their state University anthropology or biology departments and establish a dialogue.   Too many expect to just give Meldrum or Disotell a call and expect them to show up should they find something significant.   There are problems with that.    They are busy and hard to get in contact with.     And there is such a thing as turf especially with state sponsored scientists.    Throw in Federal land and you have even more problems.   Meldrum in any state but Idaho might be a problem.    Lets say for example that I found a mostly intact BF skeleton in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest washing out a river bank in Washington State.  Ape looking skull, huge, no doubt at all what it is.   While I might notify Meldrum,  we know each other, I need to get a state sponsored scientist involved very early.       He/she would likely have federal contacts.   The skeleton would need to be examined in situ to give it a proper extraction.    If earth layers are involved, in that it washed out of a river bank, a geologist needs to be called in to try to establish the age of the strata it was embedded in.   Federal permits or permission would most likely be involved.    However,  I would want as many people as I could outside the Federal government to have seen the skeleton in case the government decides to confiscate it.     Turf and scientific credit for discovery is very much involved.   The best hope is getting a state and federal scientist who agree to share the discovery.      Me, I would get no more credit, than if I was a kid that discovered a dinosaur bone eroding out of a bank.    Would be thanked, patted on the head, and told that they would take care of it.

 

  Afraid to involve the feds?   Dig it out without their permission,  take it to whoever, get a lawyer, and expect to get some time in federal prison.     Look up the history of Sue the T-Rex in the Chicago Museum of Natural History and what happened to the discoverer of that.  He got two years in federal prison for violation of federal laws.  Throw into the mix that BF would likely be included in the Native American Antiquities act,  and you get into even more trouble.   .

 

A discovery on state or private land is cleaner.     As long as you involve someone associated with that state and have the blessing of a private land owner.  .    State associated biologists or anthropologists would know the protocols and can avoid stepping on government toes.    This whole thing is not easy other than how easy it would be to get in legal trouble.   If you have a dialogue going with a state university biologist or anthropologist established before a find, the whole process would be easier.   Expect them to get most of the credit unless you have scientific credentials of your own.   Chock that up as the price to pay.     If they have any ethics, they might at least share the credit.      It should be noted that Jane Goodall did most of her work, discovery and scientific recognition before she had any formal academic training.   Because of her previous work with chimpanzees as a lay person,  her sponsorship by Dr Leaky,   she was allowed to pursue a Doctorate without preexisting academic degrees.   The discoverer who leads to acceptance of BF, the great North American primate,  if they play their cards right, should be able to get similar recognition.  

 

 

[WSA]

Just to interject, a distinction between our putative BF skeleton looter and the case of Sue the T-Rex. If I'm not mistaken, the real bone of contention  was the for-profit motive of the defendant.  Greed makes all things more complicated, does it not? Otherwise, I agree with your comments SWASAS.    

[SWWASAS]

1 hour ago, WSA said:

Just to interject, a distinction between our putative BF skeleton looter and the case of Sue the T-Rex. If I'm not mistaken, the real bone of contention  was the for-profit motive of the defendant.  Greed makes all things more complicated, does it not? Otherwise, I agree with your comments SWASAS.    

Well I would strongly guess that one motivation of a lot of BF researchers would be to somehow make money from the discovery.   Certainly that is evident anytime you go to a BF conference,  the P/G film principals, and the actions of several alleged hoaxers.     But you are right that profit was the sharp stick riled the government in the case of Sue.  

 

To follow my own suggestions,  I spent the morning looking at Washington University faculty listings looking for professors who might have interest.    I have not done that process in years.    Some must have retired.   The process is more difficult than I thought it would be.  Most in biology, anthropology, and primatology,  have interests far removed from a primate living in Washington.    Washington State University, Vancouver,  my closest institution, seems primarily focused on marine biology.    I did find a grizzly bear expert, and sent out a feeler to him.   So for those active in BF research should likely send some time doing their homework before they make their big discovery.  

Edited June 26, 2018 by SWWASAS

[hiflier]

^^ Good stuff there. And that is what takes the time. Finding someone who is closest to best aligns with this subject. I have been on this off and on for about a year. Not always sending out emails though. More of doing the research when I think of it to dig in to find the specialists in a certain field. THAT'S where the most time gets eaten up.. Matching a narrow specialized field under a broad heading like zoology or anthropology take some thought. Then find a particular individual and looking at their background in education and determining if it is a good fit takes more time. Regarding the shoulder span, it took time to dig into the field of biomechanics and even then I hesitated because finding a specialist for a specific body area is something I am still looking for. 

 

Drafting emails also is tedious as they need to be worded correctly and rewrites can take weeks depending on how busy one's life gets. So ideas are welcome just like SWWASAS is doing. We can all learn a lot from this as well as some of the specialized fields that would be pertinent to the case. s far as the tooth goes, see if someone can find a forensic odontologist. Or better yet a PALEO-odontologist. Surprisingly they WILL show an interest.

 

Shoulder span is another story altogether. But bite marks, again, can go to a forensic odontologist.. And for a nice clue, hair doen not have to go to a DNA lab. It can go to someone who studies hair morphology. Any decisions after that can be theirs!

[dmaker]

Unless something has changed in recent years, hair morphology has not been terribly reliable or accurate. 

[hiflier]

You are somewhat correct about that; care to elaborate? I mean, questionable morphology could throw a curve into a lot of crime labs.  

[dmaker]

This abstract comment helps to illustrate the point I was making:

 

" Empirical testing demonstrates that, while not absolute positive identification, hair comparisons are good evidence of association. "

https://www.mccrone.com/mm/the-science-of-forensic-hair-comparisons-and-the-admissibility-of-hair-comparison-evidence-frye-and-daubert-considered/

 

For something as critical and important as you proclaim bigfoot to be, I would think you'd want to stick to more positive identification methods. 

Another example"

 

"https://www.researchgate.net/publication/263019037_An_assessment_of_the_accuracy_and_reliability_of_hair_identification_of_south-east_Australian_mammals

 

" In all, 23 taxa, including 19 species, were regarded as being reliably identified from hair analysis. Identification of the remaining 18 species involved at least some level of error. "

[hiflier]

3 hours ago, dmaker said:

For something as critical and important as you proclaim bigfoot to be, I would think you'd want to stick to more positive identification methods.

 

Indeed I would, sir, which is why I am in agreement with you on  hair forensics. Especially since the commission that was working on creating a more robust scientific analysis method was decommissioned as of just last year. The commission was first formed because there were indeed scientific gaps when it came to definitive hair morphology in criminal trials. In other words- it hair morphology forensics was so definitive as was claimed the commission would never have needed to be formed the first place.

 

Since there is no Sasquatch body anywhere that we know of there are no "more positive identification methods". Can't just grab this stuff out of thin air. So what is to be done? Nothing short of getting either a body or science involved in investigating the subject will do. We have no body, but we do have scientists. What I am trying to do is get them involved enough to have them raise their own questions regarding Sasquatch. If there is another way that you can think of then, dmaker, I am honestly all ears.

[norseman]

21 hours ago, Incorrigible1 said:

No offense intended to Hiflier, swas, and other proponents,  but just handed out several plusses to Twist, Dmaker, Squatchy, and their ilk.

 

If you don't like that, step up to the plate and deliver more than anecdotes and derision to anyone mentioning the king's lack of clothing.

 

Isn't that the whole purpose of this thread? Trying to step up to the plate? Despite the cat calls? 

 

Lets get some things straight people.

 

1) This is a Bigfoot Forum. We discuss things pertaining to Bigfoot...yes? 

 

2) Hiflier has the right as a tax payer to petition his government and his academia who recieves government funding to answer questions he has asked. No matter how ridiculous any person deems them to be.

 

3) Hiflier does not deserve to be called a “nutjob” or any other names on our forum, just because he is trying to share his findings with us, or defend himself from the caterwauling.

 

4) If you dont like Hiflier or what he is doing? Don't participate in his thread. Go start your own thread about “Dumb footies asking dumb questions to science” or “I got first place at the science fair in junior high, I am awesome!” Or whatever turns your crank.....

 

5) Please, please put scofftics on ignore if they bother you. They are trolling you! If it was up to them.....this forum would die a quick death because the Smithsonian says nothing is out there. We are just a bunch of dumb rubes....and they must continue to tell themselves this to inflate their egos. 

 

6) Just because we do not have dead body doesnt mean we cannot analyze and pursue the evidence we do have. I personally do not hold much hope. But I think its great someone is..... Some scientists such as Krantz, Bindernagel, Meldrum and Mionczynski believed the PGF showed a real animal. Maybe there are others....and maybe that scares some people.

 

 

 

 

[hiflier]

^^ right on all counts, Thank you Norseman. And you are on point: We SHOULD be able to feel comfortable in our efforts to bring scientists to the table. But we have a responsibility to also make danged sure that what we are using to do that contain questions that are grounded in logic. It is the least we can do and it shows that we took something on our own as far as we could and so now seek experts to fill in the rest. Which at this point is exactly what we need. Or at least it is what I need.  

[dmaker]

8 hours ago, norseman said:

3) Hiflier does not deserve to be called a “nutjob” or any other names on our forum, just because he is trying to share his findings with us, or defend himself from the caterwauling.

But I should be called "unhinged" for my comments? Comments that simply pointed out how long ongoing efforts have yielded no results, and what that may conclude. 

 

You don't seem compelled to call out hifliers lack of civility, Norse. 

 

8 hours ago, norseman said:

We are just a bunch of dumb rubes....and they must continue to tell themselves this to inflate their egos. 

You know what you can do with that comment. Pointing out the other side of the argument should not be taken as combative as it is here. 

Edited June 27, 2018 by dmaker

[WSA]

I half-way think it would be best if the Forum appended these disclaimers to the Rules. (At least it might somewhat render even more unnecessary the redundant comments from the trollers):

 

1. YES, we know to date there has been no widely accepted confirmation of a BF bone, tissue or body part. 

2. YES, we know that any photographic and/or film, and/or video depiction purporting to show a BF doesn't confirm the species.

3. YES, we know some people hoax BF evidence, including tracks.

4. YES, we realize that no matter how many people report an encounter with a BF, those never will confirm the species.

5. YES, we have access to a  calendar, and we know how many years have elapsed since the P/G film was made. 

6. YES, we know to date there is no widely accepted analysis of a unique DNA sequence tending to confirm the species. 

7. YES, we know our telling others about our own encounters will not confirm the species.

8. AND if you are not willing to let these axioms go unsaid, and you still find it necessary to repeat them at every opportunity, we will ignore you as you do not contribute anything substantive or new to the discussion.  

      

[norseman]

Giganto blacki teeth.

 

https://phys.org/news/2013-09-exploring-dental-enamel-thickness-giant.html

[Rockape]

Why do I keep getting a "You are not allowed to give reputation vote (upvote) to this user"?

Now I'm limited to 5 upvotes? What the hell?