A Plan For Presenting Sasquatch To Science

[Cotter]

Hiflier.  Good stuff here the past couple pages.

 

SSWASS.  You too.  Very interesting!

 

Thank you!

[ShadowBorn]

Hiflier

The problem I see with the study of Bigfoot is that there is no expert on this subject. So what ever is out there has to be started fresh and has to be learned just like it would be done with a new species. So approaching some one with a PHD would have to re-event a new study on this species. So how would could this be approached so that we can get a PHD to re-event a new study on a creature that we know so little about. So far we have about four PHD's who have enough knowledge to get it started. What we really need is a PHD who deals in behavior of species who do not want to be found. And I am not sure if there are any out there who are efficient enough who really would want to deal with a creature that is said to be a myth.  Two things can happen to the PHD who happens to take on this task:

1. They become famous for finally getting to the truth that these creatures are not a myth and come out with proof

2. They go out and fail and wreck their reputation and become a laughing stock in front of their peers where they will never be given a chance to work in a university of their choice .

 

These are not the type of choices that careers are made off. All except for the first choice that will take their career further then they will ever dream off. 

[SWWASAS]

I know some Masters degree grad students that are very much into BF research.  The interesting thing is they are both women.    They keep their hobby/ true interest very close to them.   They dare not tell their departments what they do on weekends.    I don't know if it is the Jane Goodall thing going on or a way to really break out of the pack with a discovery.   Either way it could be that there is a generation of scientists coming up that can take over for those pioneers that have passed and left us.   Amateur or scientist,   BF is a more difficult nut to crack than mountain gorillas.   I have seen high priced expedition ads that will take you to mountain gorilla country to observe them in their habitat.   If certain protocols are followed, you can get close enough to observe them.   That is made easier by the fact that mountain gorillas live in a relatively small area, are vegetarians and not predators. .   I cannot imagine that, accepted by science or not,   BF would tolerate that.   They fade back into the forest before you have the chance to get a glimpse of them.    There may be protocols that can be discovered.    For all we know someone has cracked that nut but for whatever reason does not want to share it with the rest of us.    Many field researchers are very secretive about methods and locations.   

[Incorrigible1]

3 hours ago, Rockape said:

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?

 

It's okay, Rocky. It's the thought that counts. No need to upvote me. ;-)

 

I did upvote SWAS for his infrasound posting.

[norseman]

2 hours ago, hiflier said:

 

"With considerations of body and tooth size, the relative enamel thickness of Gigantopithecus blacki (20.41) is no longer the thickest one. This relative measurement indicates that Gigantopithecus blacki belongs to a category of "thick-enamel" primate along with modern humans, Australopithecus......"

 

So the relative tooth size is 20.41. A large first molar in a Human male is 11.9. The tooth from Santa Cruz compared to a 3/4" U.S. penny is 15.8. This is whay I thought it a good candidate to present to and target a forensic odontologist. Still waiting for a reply.

 

 

Here is Rugg’s tooth for comparison.

[hiflier]

Thank you, Norseman, and everyone else for that matter  As you can see again, the tooth images, which were posted earlier in this thread, have a U'S' penny for size comparison. What I did was carefully work with the images to get the penny itself to its proper scale of 3/4 of an inch. Once that was done I could then work with the tooth size relative to the penny. That's where I gut the 5/8" measurement across the widest point section the crown. In actuality, as mentioned, it came out to be close to 15.8mm. But even it came out to be only 14mm, which is a considerable difference from 15.8mm, it still would put the tooth larger than a Human male's first molar by over 2mm. In other words, it is a big tooth. And that was what the dentists that saw it said: It looks Human but is much bigger.

 

So what am I or anyone else supposed to think about this? It is like the shoulder span ratio in that it too is outside the Human range- by far. I am not making this stuff up folks. The tooth is way oversize, the shoulder span is way off the scale, and As far as the Elk bones go? All of that in in the Premium section in the private researchers Forum so ethically, and by Forum protocols, that data has to stay there. I had asked and received permission from the researcher to contact people in academia about the subject. In truth I wasn't going to specifically bring up that subject but now that it is more public maybe some members who are not Premium members will consider the option to become one. Even so, I think even a Premium has to have permission to enter the researchers area if comments or discussion is desired.

 

ICBW about that but that is how I had understood things to be. Someone please correct me if I am wrong on that.

 

P.S. There are no updates on any correspondences at this time. In a little while I will do more research on who's who and perhaps generate a few more emails to some additional academics. Folks doing this approach on their own can PM me if they wish just so we do not send to the same people? It is early enough in this that I am sure that hasn't happened yet but would certainly like to avoid any overlaps if possible. One contact per academic would be preferred? Pretty easy to see why.

 

5 hours ago, Cotter said:

Hiflier.  Good stuff here the past couple pages.

 

SSWASS.  You too.  Very interesting!

 

Thank you!

 

Thank you, too, Cotter  

Edited June 28, 2018 by hiflier

[SWWASAS]

Any sort of study of tree fall directions is much more complicated than using weather data.    Many tree falls are result of thunderstorm downdrafts that radiate all directions from the storm.   As it moves overhead the wind direction can shift as much as 180 degrees.   Thunderstorms are local events and while regional activity may be recorded,   plots of the storms themselves are not done and would take constant review of the radar weather data to make any sense of it.  Making it more complicated is that in mountainous areas,   storms build over the mountains and dissipate on the down wind side.    That sort of thing can stack up trees into tepee structures totally naturally.   Regional blow downs happen in the PNW.   Strong low pressure systems off the coast can stack up the isobars and cause hurricane strength winds inland.    The Columbus Day storm  of 1962 was a major hurricane like event that blew down millions of trees.    The event was equivalent to a Category 3 hurricane in wind force.    Now and then we get events that are similar but not as strong.    More recent events have blown down many acres of trees.   WIth these events the trees all fall in more or less the same directions. One would not guess that the events were anything but natural blow down.    The only way to conclude anything would be to continually monitor an area of forest and look for changes.    If most supposed structures are natural blow down, then some sort of study could be more misleading than helpful.    Personally I think footprints are a better indicator of activity than any BF construction which I think very rare if it happens at all.  I know many see BF behind every bent tree or broken limb.   Snow and wind can do most of that. 

Edited July 2, 2018 by SWWASAS

[hiflier]

First of all, dmannock, welcome to the BFF

 

I would say you have put a lot of thought into this just by the questions you have posed. You and SWWASAS both have good points to consider. As far as stick structures go, and more so with heavier components it shows activity that should be able to be determined by the ground around the area. Granted the substrate should be of a type that would allow imprints to be left. In the case of the heavier structures that have been determined to not be from the immediate vicinity( and even if they were) it would be safe to say that who or whatever moved heavier timber and then placed the wood in any kind of notable structure then they must be either quite strong of have help.

 

What I am getting at is that ASSUMING the structures consisting of heavier pieces were intentional created then if it was one individual that individual must be very strong. If it was a Sasquatch then not only was it strong it was more than likely tall enough to the work or thick enough to have the strength to not only carry but to build as well. In either case its weight could be seen as great. Add that weight to the weight of the wood being carried and then lifted into place then one could expect the weight on the foot, per square inch, would be also be great. If the substrate is such that it would give under the combined weight of body and wood then the imprint may be sufficiently deep enough that it may be beyond what researchers are normally looking for. A very deep impression may even go unnoticed if one is expecting what we all normally see in images. The imprint from such activity in soft soils may look more like holes than footprints.

 

One could think that such deep impressions would have a natural propensity to puddle water and then fill over and in with perhaps mud or other lighter debris and appear more like a dent in the ground as opposed to a distinct footprint. And depending on how much area is soft there may be dents all over as the work is being done as opposed to say just a line of tracks? You both are right about deeper investigations of local weather events but even if not done then simply imagining one's own foot activity creating larger structures it an be reasoned that one would be walking all over the place in the effort of raising a heavy structure consisting of even one member 10 or 12 feet off the ground. If these bigger structures are in fact manufactured then the combined carry weight and movement during construction should be fairly evident. Think 300-500 lbs. plus 100-200 lbs. of wood carried over soft ground. Yes the strata is not always soft but in woods it often is. If so a researcher should see dozens of impressions fairly close by to each other and not looking at all like an expected track way but instead probably much more random.

 

   

Edited July 2, 2018 by hiflier

[norseman]

On 6/30/2018 at 10:14 PM, dmannock said:

OK, I'm not a skeptic, I think that BF is real, BUT there is very little primary evidence, mostly secondary evidence. The videos are taken by people who are in the middle of shaking a martini. Buy a decent monopod $20 on sale at Best Buy. The Ketchum paper on BF DNA is of exceedingly poor quality written by supposedly 'qualified' scientists, but that aspect has been discredited and the results have been shown to be very flawed. New work presented post-2014 seems credible. Too many fur samples from bears, dogs, ferrets, etc have done little to support a presentation of BF to science. I've given details of technology that needs to be used on YT and here to Hiflier, the scientific method I have covered in 2 threads on YT, but here's a practical plan which you can modify if you wish.

 

"Structures" = BF activity. Wicki-ups (Wigwams are one type) are of aboriginal origin. Yes, BF may also make them, but real proof (perhaps a program on the H&G network is upcoming, to be followed by an interview on late night TV!) is non-existent. Let's take a seemingly more logical approach here that is often expressed in BF forums/threads. Scenario 1) No fallen trees = no BF activity. 2) All trees in an area are fallen and some meet at an apex = BF Woodstock. 3) Some trees standing some fallen, some crossed at an apex = some BF activity. So, Q1. What species of tree are the fallen trees and what species remain standing? What diameters and heights remain standing?  Q2. Measure the length and base diameter of each trunk and what is the direction (degrees) of fall with a compass? Q3. What winter conditions (temperatures/snow pack, etc.) have existed in the past 5 winters (freezing damage)? What are the typical strengths and directions of storms at your plot location? Q4. Plot out every fallen tree on a plan of your plot. What are the directions of fall relative to the daily wind measurements from your local weather office? Q5. How many of the fallen trees follow the direction(s) of the prevailing winds? Q6. What is the statistical significance of the  direction of tree fall and wind direction? From this calculation, you should be estimate the proportion of trees that have fallen in other directions, perhaps indicating BF intervention. Q7. What  other factors can affect the direction of tree fall? Plot aspect/slope/drainage/precipitation/secondary impacts? Lastly, dismantle each wicki-up structure, leave the logs stacked on the ground close by and monitor the plot monthly to see if they are reconstructed.

 

Doing BF research should not be about a long weekend fishing trip with the 'good ole boys' in which you take steaks, baked potatoes, beans and 50 cases of beer, but forget the toilet paper! REAL scientific research is damned hard work! I know!

 

 

 

I disagree.

 

Alot more rednecks out fishing than serious researchers measuring tree breaks. The law of averages are on the side of the fisherman, hunters, berry pickers, loggers, miners, hikers, etc.

 

We simply need to convince the avg joe to shoot one instead of grabbing their cell phone.

 

Nobody.....promotes that. Nobody. Except a few of us.

 

But this is the fastest way from MYTH>>>>>>>>DISCOVERY. How many visual sightings happen each year in north America? Hundreds? Each one is a failed discovery! Let that sink in.....

 

 

[Guest NessieRider]

The suggestion that a study of fallen trees and snags is going to sway any scientists would be a waste of time.

 Some on this site claim repeatable contact with Bigfoot on a regular basis, others basically make the same claim as Matt Moneymaker, they have a skill set that brings them into regular contact regardless of the location.

 I'd suggest gaining the confidence of these individuals and either harvest one or gather some high quality photo  and physical evidence (poop, hair, ect).

 After you've gathered the evidence that will survive the most basic scrutiny, you'll have the scientific community beating a path to your door.

[dmaker]

Or each one never happened. Let that really sink in.

[SWWASAS]

Nessie:    If Moneymaker could draw in BF like he claims, they would have videos filmed during the several seasons of shows.  I personally think his methodology is illogical.   If BF knows where you are, you will never see them.  Their human avoidance protocol is very strong.   The only way to get a sighting is be very lucky or have them not know exactly where you are and hope they blunder into you.     Moneymaker and anyone using knocks and howls is making sure that BF knows exactly where they and reducing the chance for a blunder on the part of BF.    After all those seasons of the Finding Bigfoot show,  I think it very likely that most responses to calls and tree knocks are other humans at this point.    BF most likely leaves the area when that stuff is going on.   The show seemed to be evidence of just that.  

 

     Some people may have a relationship with BF living on their property,   being able to draw them in close enough to see and photograph is very unlikely without that trusting relationship.    BF may be curious, but they hide and peek around trees, even a night.  Some of us think that that is because they see better than us at night, and assume that we see as well as they do at night.   For the most part we are pretty blind at night and BF seems to move easily very fast through woods in near total darkness.  

[Guest NessieRider]

3 hours ago, SWWASAS said:

Nessie:    If Moneymaker could draw in BF like he claims, they would have videos filmed during the several seasons of shows.  I personally think his methodology is illogical.   If BF knows where you are, you will never see them.  Their human avoidance protocol is very strong.   The only way to get a sighting is be very lucky or have them not know exactly where you are and hope they blunder into you.     Moneymaker and anyone using knocks and howls is making sure that BF knows exactly where they and reducing the chance for a blunder on the part of BF.    After all those seasons of the Finding Bigfoot show,  I think it very likely that most responses to calls and tree knocks are other humans at this point.    BF most likely leaves the area when that stuff is going on.   The show seemed to be evidence of just that.  

 

     Some people may have a relationship with BF living on their property,   being able to draw them in close enough to see and photograph is very unlikely without that trusting relationship.    BF may be curious, but they hide and peek around trees, even a night.  Some of us think that that is because they see better than us at night, and assume that we see as well as they do at night.   For the most part we are pretty blind at night and BF seems to move easily very fast through woods in near total darkness.  

 

I don't disagree at all, I find the vast majority of any Bigfoot research techniques laughable at best, displaying a ignorance of all accepted scientific research or hunting  practices. 

 Your assertion of behaviour to an undocumented hominid with continent wide distribution as a reason for failure to produce any evidence that could survive the most basic scrutiny is quite a reach.

 I'm merely suggestion what I've always done on a successful hunting or fishing trip, go where the quarry is.

 If one is to believe the reports then I don't care if Bigfoot is the Champion of hide and seek, his confirmation should take about 48 hrs. 

 So like I said if you've got people out there that are having repeatable experiences for whatever reason, I'd hangout with them and within a short time you should be able to gather something that would interest the scientific community.

 It's always begun with locals and continues today on a pretty regular basis.

1) Locals report (got lotsa that)

2) Repeatedly/Irefutetably evidence gathered

3) Discovery made

 

 

 

  

  

 

Edited July 3, 2018 by NessieRider

[Cotter]

On ‎7‎/‎3‎/‎2018 at 3:24 PM, NessieRider said:

 

 If one is to believe the reports then I don't care if Bigfoot is the Champion of hide and seek, his confirmation should take about 48 hrs. 

  

 

 

Hmmmm......what are you basing that assertion on?

 

Are you claiming that BF's elusiveness is comparable to say, a deer?  A bear? 

 

 

[hiflier]

On ‎7‎/‎3‎/‎2018 at 4:24 PM, NessieRider said:

I'm merely suggestion what I've always done on a successful hunting or fishing trip, go where the quarry is

 

Well said, NessieRider, and that of course makes sense and is the goal.

 

Reading reports to determine a certain level of sightings frequency for an area, seasonal activity, signs of possible territorial habitation, distinguishing those possible signs from bears, trying to determine travel or migration routes depending on food sources such as fish, berries, or nuts, Seasonal snow elevations in certain habitats, looking for prints, signs of supposed tree manipulation, recording odd sounds, using NV and thermal imaging devices, looking for prints, , understanding current surveillance technologies and where they might be deployed- such as the fairly recent NEON habitat monitoring installations, and too, trying to find ways to get science more interested. And, of course, ALWAYS looking for a dead body or skeletal remains. These are just some of the things researchers both in the field and not in the field do on many fronts to close in on that quarry.