The decline of interest in Sasquatch

[Will]

Seems to me the obvious decline in interest is.....no proof!

 

I certainly thought after a decade of this, something would appear on a non shaky screen?

 

its very disappointing. 

Edited August 29, 2018 by Will

[hiflier]

Hi will, good to see you posting here. And you are right about the shaky screen stuff. Tired of it myself. The way I see it there needs to be numbers of people on the ground as soon after a sighting as Humanly possible with the goal of camera trapping the beast. It means the public needs to know about a program in their local area devised to do just that. But the first thing that must be in place are the people who would be available do even do a blitz follow up to a Class A encounter that gets reported to them.

 

I have started that process locally here in Maine with the aim of having something available to the public in which to contact should a sighting occur. So far I have five people interested in forming at least a gropu that could get together to at least discuss the idea and see where it could go. It has only been a month so with any luck I might have ten people or more by the first of the year? Maine is a big state with seemingly not much Sasquatch activity so even if a group got formed we may not mobilize more than once or twice in, who knows how long, ten years maybe?

 

The point of course is to get that non-shaky video if we can by canvassing the area around the sighting as best we can by patrolling the roads around the sighting to see if we can possible get a video or photo of a creature should it cross one of the surrounding roads trying to exit the area. Yep, it is Ghostbusters with Sasquatch as the subject of the scramble instead of ghosts. I'm in no hurry to get this off the ground as I think it will unfold into a decent program with time. At least hopefully enough to work the bugs out of it and learn better ways to implement the system. As far as I can tell it might even be a good enough outline that other potential group may use as a blueprint for running similar programs in their own locales. At least it is doing something in a pretty good direction for getting your non shaky video  

 

It also makes me thing that there IS interest out there by folks serious about the subject. And it may take an idea like this one in order to draw them out? They are not all on Sasquatch Forums after all.

Edited August 29, 2018 by hiflier

[xspider1]

^ And yet the pro-kill camp will say that no video, no matter how clear and convincing will ever suffice and that is part of the problem, imo.  Commercial TV shows and movies are almost always made for one purpose: to make money.  If Bigfoot were confirmed by mainstream Science then there would be no need for such sensationalism as 'Finding Bigfoot', 'Killing Bigfoot', etc. etc. which would be great.  But, I stand with what seems to be a general consensus here regarding this (very good) topic in that I think "proving" Bigfoot would not have a positive net effect for them, at all.  When we look at what has happened to other animals after they were officially discovered, we see that discovery has generally not been good for them.  

[wiiawiwb]

8 hours ago, Will said:

Seems to me the obvious decline in interest is.....no proof!

 

I certainly thought after a decade of this, something would appear on a non shaky screen?

 

its very disappointing. 

 

It does not surprise me at all for several reasons. First, in the old days people took a camera ( or movie camera) into the woods when they went. They knew how to use it. Today people bring their "smart phone" which, in my opinion, is an utter waste of time. If they see a sasquatch crossing a trail ahead, they have to retrieve their phone, which is tucked away so it won't get lost, enter their super secret code, then try to take a picture or movie. Needless to say the camera doesn't know whether to focus on the sasquatch, the tree limb 20' before it, the bush 40' before that, or the boulder on the stream 40' before that.

 

In the old days, I had my camera at the ready and I could point, focus, and shoot. In my opinion, smart phones are a giant step backward but is what almost everyone uses. It's also the achilles heel.

 

Having said this, I think thermals will revolutionize sasquatching once their cost aligns with something that most people will have. They're still very expensive so few people carry them. A thermal will be the equipment that produces the shaky screen results you seek, not a movie or photo camera. It's a game changer, IMO.

[Arvedis]

Even with the quality of camera in smart phones, trail cams, drones, it would take an extraordinary sequence of events to get the type of footage needed to provide proof positive.

 

Meanwhile, the pro kill camp will keep dreaming of success that never arrives.  No one will ever get a clear shot even by asking Santa. 

[norseman]

12 hours ago, xspider1 said:

^ And yet the pro-kill camp will say that no video, no matter how clear and convincing will ever suffice and that is part of the problem, imo.  Commercial TV shows and movies are almost always made for one purpose: to make money.  If Bigfoot were confirmed by mainstream Science then there would be no need for such sensationalism as 'Finding Bigfoot', 'Killing Bigfoot', etc. etc. which would be great.  But, I stand with what seems to be a general consensus here regarding this (very good) topic in that I think "proving" Bigfoot would not have a positive net effect for them, at all.  When we look at what has happened to other animals after they were officially discovered, we see that discovery has generally not been good for them.  

 

Your right.... science had told us exactly what they need from day one. It aint a cool video.....its a body, or a part there of.

 

As far as species being discovered? I think your dead wrong. Sasquatch habitat isnt on some remote island in the south Pacific devoid of humans. Humans utilize it for their own everyday along with the lands resources. We pave it into parking lots, and strip malls. We build dams and kill salmon runs. We strip the timber in clear cuts and build roads to get the logs out. The endangered species act protects species from these activities. Species like Grizzly Bear and Wolverine. It works.

 

Imagine the giant stands of timber and salmon runs that once stood where Seattle is now? Did NOT discovering Sasquatch save the lands from becoming a concrete jungle? Surely not. But we have laws on the books now to protect species and their habitat RIGHT NOW. Why not use them? Need proof and we could.

 

Lastly I have a question for you.... Your a huge PGF proponent, right? You argue against skeptics daily that Patty is real, right? WHY? If you dont want the species discovered? Then agree with the skeptics and tell em what they want to hear.... Its all a hoax folks....nothing to see here....just move along. Your position is a walking contradiction.

[Will]

20 hours ago, xspider1 said:

 When we look at what has happened to other animals after they were officially discovered, we see that discovery has generally not been good for them.  

 

Which animals exactly would those be? 

[Belpherion]

I don't lament the dwindling numbers of people interested in Bigfoot.  After 30 years of interacting with the BF community, it is hard to deny that most don't want BF to be a popular subject, just an accepted one.  Humans have a desire to be both unique and accepted in a societal setting.  Nobody in the BF community welcomes the thought of a complete novice, having watched 3 episodes of Finding Bigfoot, to be the one that cluelessly stumbles through the woods, then comes back with academically accepted proof that Bigfoot exists.  Each of us wants that distinction for themselves.  Some want the fame and notoriety of being the academically acknowledged discoverer.  Some desire to broker the discovery into wealth.  Others just want the vindication of being right when everyone around them called them a crackpot.  Many of us have spent countless hours, thousands of dollars, and endured endless ridicule in our search for BF.  The very idea of some noob grabbing the gold ring on a fluke?  It's enough to make a fair portion of the dedicated community go completely spare.

 

The BF "boom" spawned by the popularity of the TV shows was destined to decline.  The shows inspired thousands to dream and try mimicking what they saw on TV.  It takes a special kind of person to actually enjoy unraveling the BF mystery.  Being in the wild sucks.  The comforts of civilized living are left behind at home.  Every damned thing in the wild either runs away from you or tries to kill you.  After that reality sets in about 90% of the "BF curious" run home.  The heartier 10% then try to make inroads within the BF community and find that it isn't as welcoming to outsiders as TV led them to believe, especially if you have differing views from what you "should" if you are "serious."   The remaining 1% from the popularity surge usually find a tribe of like-minded people and stick with it for the long haul.  

 

The decline doesn't surprise me.  There will be another media boom on the subject and a new generation of eager faces will swarm the woods and wilds to both the delight and consternation of the BF veterans.         

[Twist]

If they are the ninjas of the woods as some portray, discovery is not going to make them any easier to hunt.   According to reports their range is essentially the entirety of N. America.  

 

If they are extremely rare and migratory, my personal belief, then if discovery aided in determining  their patterns and such I could see it being a bit more dangerous until protection is in place.  

 

That being said, poachers are going to poach.   

[ShadowBorn]

Belpherion

You make a great point. Everything was spawned off of T.V.  and when people were just bored of finding nothing  the interest was just lost. Either way it was a good thing that this spoof had and has happen.  People do not need to be out in these woods who have no idea of what they are looking for. Sure your last sentence does make total sense but I am not sure on how this media will approach this new Generation of approach. But I am sure that it will not be a Jane Goodall approach though where a camera man watches while a person sits with a clan of Bigfoots. No this decline was bound to happen and the way to bring back in the publics eye is with a body or a live capture..

Belpherion

You make a great point. Everything was spawned off of T.V.  and when people were just bored of finding nothing  the interest was just lost. Either way it was a good thing that this spoof had and has happen.  People do not need to be out in these woods who have no idea of what they are looking for. Sure your last sentence does make total sense but I am not sure on how this media will approach this new Generation of approach. But I am sure that it will not be a Jane Goodall approach though where a camera man watches while a person sits with a clan of Bigfoots. No this decline was bound to happen and the way to bring back in the publics eye is with a body or a live capture..

Belpherion

You make a great point. Everything was spawned off of T.V.  and when people were just bored of finding nothing  the interest was just lost. Either way it was a good thing that this spoof had and has happen.  People do not need to be out in these woods who have no idea of what they are looking for. Sure your last sentence does make total sense but I am not sure on how this media will approach this new Generation of approach. But I am sure that it will not be a Jane Goodall approach though where a camera man watches while a person sits with a clan of Bigfoots. No this decline was bound to happen and the way to bring back in the publics eye is with a body or a live capture..

[norseman]

19 hours ago, Belpherion said:

I don't lament the dwindling numbers of people interested in Bigfoot.  After 30 years of interacting with the BF community, it is hard to deny that most don't want BF to be a popular subject, just an accepted one.  Humans have a desire to be both unique and accepted in a societal setting.  Nobody in the BF community welcomes the thought of a complete novice, having watched 3 episodes of Finding Bigfoot, to be the one that cluelessly stumbles through the woods, then comes back with academically accepted proof that Bigfoot exists.  Each of us wants that distinction for themselves.  Some want the fame and notoriety of being the academically acknowledged discoverer.  Some desire to broker the discovery into wealth.  Others just want the vindication of being right when everyone around them called them a crackpot.  Many of us have spent countless hours, thousands of dollars, and endured endless ridicule in our search for BF.  The very idea of some noob grabbing the gold ring on a fluke?  It's enough to make a fair portion of the dedicated community go completely spare.

 

The BF "boom" spawned by the popularity of the TV shows was destined to decline.  The shows inspired thousands to dream and try mimicking what they saw on TV.  It takes a special kind of person to actually enjoy unraveling the BF mystery.  Being in the wild sucks.  The comforts of civilized living are left behind at home.  Every damned thing in the wild either runs away from you or tries to kill you.  After that reality sets in about 90% of the "BF curious" run home.  The heartier 10% then try to make inroads within the BF community and find that it isn't as welcoming to outsiders as TV led them to believe, especially if you have differing views from what you "should" if you are "serious."   The remaining 1% from the popularity surge usually find a tribe of like-minded people and stick with it for the long haul.  

 

The decline doesn't surprise me.  There will be another media boom on the subject and a new generation of eager faces will swarm the woods and wilds to both the delight and consternation of the BF veterans.         

 

I welcome the discovery coming from a complete noob bumbling along. A discovery is a discovery. And the sooner the better. Makes no difference.

 

Im also a pro kill advocate,  but welcome a hair or scat DNA discovery as well. Im not blood thirsty but feel the most expedient route is the best for all parties involved.

 

Egos and secrecy do nothing to advance us, and is simply harming the odds of discovery. And as Ive said before? More people want to cash in on perpetuating a myth, than making a scientific discovery.

[xspider1]

On 8/29/2018 at 1:18 PM, norseman said:

As far as species being discovered? I think your dead wrong. Sasquatch habitat isnt on some remote island in the south Pacific devoid of humans. Humans utilize it for their own everyday along with the lands resources. We pave it into parking lots, and strip malls. We build dams and kill salmon runs. We strip the timber in clear cuts and build roads to get the logs out. The endangered species act protects species from these activities. Species like Grizzly Bear and Wolverine. It works...

 

Lastly I have a question for you.... Your a huge PGF proponent, right? You argue against skeptics daily that Patty is real, right? WHY? If you dont want the species discovered? Then agree with the skeptics and tell em what they want to hear.... Its all a hoax folks....nothing to see here....just move along. Your position is a walking contradiction.

 

Are animal species in general not going extinct at an alarming rate, norseman?  Of course they are.  And, when I say that animals are generally adversely affected by being discovered (Will), I'm factoring in the fact that living in a zoo is almost never much of a life.  You want to kill one for the sake of scientific documentation and I do not, Norse and on that, we will probably never agree.  Is there no "animal" which should not be killed so that humans can dissect them in order to gain a better understanding?  Is there is no point at which a line can be drawn?  In my opinion, you are the one who is 'dead wrong' there, friend.  

 

It's great to think that people will do the right thing and not pave paradise to put up a parking lot, but please refer to what the current administration is doing right now!  I don't argue against PGf skofftics daily, Norse, just now and then.  Honest skeptics are entirely different from skofftics and I almost never argue with them.  I really don't care too much who thinks that Patty is real and who doesn't; I just very much dislike the spreading of misinformation and I do whatever I can (in a very limited way) to prevent that.  Thanks   

[Will]

7 hours ago, xspider1 said:

 

Are animal species in general not going extinct at an alarming rate, norseman?  Of course they are.  And, when I say that animals are generally adversely affected by being discovered (Will), I'm factoring in the fact that living in a zoo is almost never much of a life.  You want to kill one for the sake of scientific documentation and I do not, Norse and on that, we will probably never agree.  Is there no "animal" which should not be killed so that humans can dissect them in order to gain a better understanding?  Is there is no point at which a line can be drawn?  In my opinion, you are the one who is 'dead wrong' there, friend.  

 

It's great to think that people will do the right thing and not pave paradise to put up a parking lot, but please refer to what the current administration is doing right now!  I don't argue against PGf skofftics daily, Norse, just now and then.  Honest skeptics are entirely different from skofftics and I almost never argue with them.  I really don't care too much who thinks that Patty is real and who doesn't; I just very much dislike the spreading of misinformation and I do whatever I can (in a very limited way) to prevent that.  Thanks   

That’s very interesting. I constantly read thousands and thousands are going extinct, of course none are ever mentioned. Your opinion is, it’s better to not discover them? Seems that’s why they never mention which ones have gone extinct? 

 

 

[norseman]

7 hours ago, xspider1 said:

 

Are animal species in general not going extinct at an alarming rate, norseman?  Of course they are.  And, when I say that animals are generally adversely affected by being discovered (Will), I'm factoring in the fact that living in a zoo is almost never much of a life.  You want to kill one for the sake of scientific documentation and I do not, Norse and on that, we will probably never agree.  Is there no "animal" which should not be killed so that humans can dissect them in order to gain a better understanding?  Is there is no point at which a line can be drawn?  In my opinion, you are the one who is 'dead wrong' there, friend.  

 

It's great to think that people will do the right thing and not pave paradise to put up a parking lot, but please refer to what the current administration is doing right now!  I don't argue against PGf skofftics daily, Norse, just now and then.  Honest skeptics are entirely different from skofftics and I almost never argue with them.  I really don't care too much who thinks that Patty is real and who doesn't; I just very much dislike the spreading of misinformation and I do whatever I can (in a very limited way) to prevent that.  Thanks   

 

Without the World Wildlife Fund and tourism dollars? The Mountain Gorilla would already be extinct! So would the giant Panda.... So would Orangutans.

 

https://www.worldwildlife.org/species

 

Your ideas are outdated about as much as the Dodo birds extinction event in the mid 1800’s. We have laws and organizations now that combat habitat destruction and shine a light on the plight of the animals. How may WWF dollars go to saving Sasquatch habitat? ZERO. They dont exist remember?

 

And you cant have your cake and eat it too.... if you think Bigfoots “discovery” is detrimental to the species? Then quit arguing to the public that the PGF shows a REAL Bigfoot! You either shooting your own foot..... or you dont really believe what yer sellin. Thats darn simple logic.

 

 

And just for the record Xspider you ARE one of my favorite PGF proponents.... 

[Arvedis]

Extinct is the extreme end. Some animals are in severe danger due to poaching. A threat of extinction for a wide variety of species is changing habitats, especially the oceans. A pessimistic view of climate change is no joke. I don't think it will be fun to live as a human or animal on Earth within a few decades. Seems a reckoning is on its way.

Edited August 31, 2018 by Arvedis