The decline of interest in Sasquatch

[NCBFr]

On 9/13/2018 at 3:37 PM, Caenus said:

I have filed reports with the BFRO that never showed up on their website. How many of those are out there? Do they screen and select reports?

 

I filed one as well years ago with no followup.  Never bothered to sense.

On 9/14/2018 at 9:41 AM, Huntster said:

 

Frankly, I suspect that may be the attitude of government wildlife and wild lands managers, primatologists, BFRO, and an increasing number of enthusiasts as well. I’ve arrived in that camp myself. Killing one and dragging out into the open isn’t my focus anymore. I want to see co-habitational study.......the Goodall type. Personally, I just want to observe them as much as possible.

 

Yep.  I came to the same conclusion a few years ago.

[ShadowBorn]

I have always wanted this but it never worked out. Now I see them being destroyed by our own means and how our own Gov has begun to seek them out. With all the tech we have at our disposal there really is no chance for them to hide unless they go underground. and even then we have them out beaten. Our world today has changed as well as our technology that we still have no knowledge off but have just gained glimses off. With them being so primitive how hard is it for them to hide from the technology that we now have  in todays world. Our Gov already has what it needs and is taking from it what it needs to fulfill it's mission. One word is all is that is needed here and that is DARPA. 

[MIB]

7 hours ago, NCBFr said:

I filed one as well years ago with no followup.  Never bothered to sense.

 

I filed mine back in 2004.  I was contacted and spent about 1.5 hours being interrogated, not merely investigated or questioned.   It was .. unpleasant.   But my report was published and is on their site.   With a bit of familiarity with the area or some good sleuthing, that report has enough personal details to identify me, so I'm not telling which report it is and outing myself here.

 

BFRO, love 'em or hate 'em, "vet" every report they publish via thorough investigation and they do not publish the ones that don't pass muster.   If you've submitted a report and it's not published, there are only a few possibilities.   Among them, 1) the report appears bogus, 2) there's no contact info or it is obsolete/incorrect so they can't "vet" the report, 3) the report hasn't interested any of their overworked volunteer staff enough to have been looked into, 4) your report has piqued an investigator's curiosity and they're including it in a broader investigation of the area rather than just publishing it as an isolated report.    There might be others, but those seem the most likely.   

 

MIB

[Caenus]

7 minutes ago, MIB said:

 

I filed mine back in 2004.  I was contacted and spent about 1.5 hours being interrogated, not merely investigated or questioned.   It was .. unpleasant.   But my report was published and is on their site.   With a bit of familiarity with the area or some good sleuthing, that report has enough personal details to identify me, so I'm not telling which report it is and outing myself here.

 

BFRO, love 'em or hate 'em, "vet" every report they publish via thorough investigation and they do not publish the ones that don't pass muster.   If you've submitted a report and it's not published, there are only a few possibilities.   Among them, 1) the report appears bogus, 2) there's no contact info or it is obsolete/incorrect so they can't "vet" the report, 3) the report hasn't interested any of their overworked volunteer staff enough to have been looked into, 4) your report has piqued an investigator's curiosity and they're including it in a broader investigation of the area rather than just publishing it as an isolated report.    There might be others, but those seem the most likely.   

 

MIB

 

In my case, the investigator seemed to be out weekly and it was not news to him.  In fact there are no new reports since 2017 posted despite the incredibly heavy activity. He stated he has had 3 reports a week for the last year. I think he is trying to keep the squatching activity to a minimum so it does not cause them to relocate.

[PBeaton]

norseman

 

Wishin' ya the best with the neck surgery, hopefully it also gets rid of the vertigo.

 

 

[Huntster]

27 minutes ago, PBeaton said:

 

 

 

LOL! What a great line!

[PBeaton]

[norseman]

3 hours ago, PBeaton said:

norseman

 

Wishin' ya the best with the neck surgery, hopefully it also gets rid of the vertigo.

 

 

 

Thanks! Your meme is a hoot!

[Rockape]

Thanks PB, I needed that laugh.

[BlackRockBigfoot]

Strangely enough, I find more and more people who have a greater than passing interest in the subject.  

 

I think that some of the more popular podcasts have really attracted casual 'fans' of the subject into developing a deeper interest into the field.

[Cotter]

^Agreed.  Very similar to what Jurassic Park has done to the archaeology/dinosaur field.  When these kids grow up, we'll see more serious interest.

[Huntster]

.......or if/when a good pic/video gets shot, published, and investigated.

[Cotter]

^Right?  That too!  But it's gonna take some numbers and some luck to get that pic.  At that time, it won't prove a thing, but hopefully get some people to throw some resources at it.

[Huntster]

I think this is one of the better such photographic evidence of late. The problems with it were:

 

1) No follow up, unlike the PG film. After the PG film, numerous people checked the site out soon afterwards, including USFS personnel (Laverty). 

 

2) No corroborating footprint evidence, again like the PG event. And there are big patches of snow in the video. What were the chances of finding footprints in that snow in the area?

 

3) No pics of a man if known height/size in that spot. What if that furry subject was 9’ tall, and it could be proven with a subsequent man in that spot walking in the same pathway?

 

Yeah, the skeptic industry would attack it as if their lives depended on it, but it might attract interest, and maybe even the interest of the right people..........

 

 

[NatFoot]

We've been told 100 times that is a moose. However, I don't see it.