Jump to content
norseman

What if the PGF did not exist?

Recommended Posts

Twist

We all have our secrets....🤫

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Incorrigible1

Now revealed to the bigfooting world!

 

Hey, what happens in the privacy of a zippered tent, after vespers, is fine with me......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Twist

^^^ I did just come back from a week long camping trip but I swear Sweaty was no where to be found.  Nor BF for that matter lol.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Patterson-Gimlin
Posted (edited)
On 5/11/2019 at 12:21 PM, Huntster said:

 

Me, too. As far as I'm concerned, I don't care if "science" as an industry, ideology, or religion ever recognizes or accepts sasquatch existence as we know it today. They recognize it ideologically in paleo-anthropology even if they fiercely deny them in the New World. I don't care if they demand to remain ignorant for ideological reasons.

 

But I love football, even if I don't "win". As long as I knocked the Hell out of people, I was having a great time. I love the sound of helmets popping. I still love watching great hitters like Ronnie Lott on YouTube, even though I hate the 49ers. We're on the 1 yard line forever or until we score, repeatedly pounding the line or attempting short passes into the end zone. 

 

The same is true of sasquatchery. The denialists can never kill the phenomenon, and they can never score. They're on eternal defense. They can't even steal the ball and score. There's no such thing as a turnover. They'd better just love the fight (and most of them do, because they're just ideologues), or they're in for a long, painful game where they are forever destined to lose. 😄

 

 

 

I like the football analogy. I am a big time Pittsburgh Steelers fan.  I watch you tube videos of Jack Lambert and the Steel curtain defense of the 1970s. 

I played in high school on defense and the hitting was my favorite part. 

 

I respect your opinion on the acceptance of Sasquatch and lack there of by people like me. I see it as an overtime tie.  Neither team has won.

For now .

 

I completely agree with you about the phenomenon aspect of it. It continues to survive. 

Edited by Patterson-Gimlin
  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
2 hours ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

........ I am a big time Pittsburgh Steelers fan.  I watch you tube videos of Jack Lambert and the Steel curtain defense of the 1970s. 

I played in high school on defense and the hitting was my favorite part.........

 

Lambert was the ultimate animal. He was one of my heroes. I was a linebacker, and there were lots of great ones.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
23 hours ago, norseman said:

 

I stand by what I said. It’s the mindset that leaves the species a cryptid while feigning kindness is the quickest way to extinction.

 

Get the animal recognized, protected, and habitat saved. That’s how you preserve it.

 

 

I still think the best way to prove their existence....(besides via the PGF ;) )….is by way of drones. If they can't be located, and caught on video that way....then we should all just 'give it up'. 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
28 minutes ago, SweatyYeti said:

 

 

I still think the best way to prove their existence....(besides via the PGF ;) )….is by way of drones. If they can't be located, and caught on video that way....then we should all just 'give it up'. 

 

Great idea! Then you can spend another 50 years trying to prove that the drone videos are not a man in a suit! Brilliant!

 

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc

MIT Drones:

 

 

Should Bigfoot exist and not go extinct any time soon, Tech will eventually get him.

 

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
1 minute ago, Backdoc said:

MIT Drones:

 

 

Should Bigfoot exist and not go extinct any time soon, Tech will eventually get him.

 

 

And us.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
Posted (edited)
18 minutes ago, norseman said:

 

Great idea! Then you can spend another 50 years trying to prove that the drone videos are not a man in a suit! Brilliant!

 

 

 

 

I should have followed the idea through, for you, norse….drones can be guided, to follow the creatures...or, just close-in on an individual....to within a very close range. They can provide definitive, and repeatable information...regarding where the creatures are located.

 

They are extremely versatile devices.  I will even make a prediction, that someday they will be what leads to a resolution to the controversy at hand….one way, or the other.

 

(Edited to add....thanks for posting the video, Backdoc. I wasn't aware of that level of technology being used in drones....but, it doesn't surprise me. 'High Tech' is developing more and more quickly, as time goes on....at an 'exponential rate'.)

 

In the meantime, norse....why don't you go shoot a squirrel??  :prankster:

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
1 hour ago, SweatyYeti said:

I still think the best way to prove their existence....(besides via the PGF ;) )….is by way of drones. If they can't be located, and caught on video that way....then we should all just 'give it up'. 

 

29 minutes ago, norseman said:

Great idea! Then you can spend another 50 years trying to prove that the drone videos are not a man in a suit! Brilliant!

 

Predicating my agreement with Norse, but yielding to the rather foolish virtue of hope Sweaty advocates, I would agree that drones have potential But:

 

1) Their use, at least at first in the pre-discovery stage and when "science" has yet to be dragged kicking and screaming to the study phase, must be focused on finding and following a ranging sasquatch to a family unit at their lair.

 

2) The drones would likely have to be utilizing heat sensing equipment at night to find creatures under the forest canopy.

 

3) There would have to be multiple units ready to take over for each other so that fading batteries won't result in a lost creature. Fresh drones could take over for drones following a creature that have batteries about to die. Lots of fresh batteries would have to be ready.

 

4) The drone operating team would have to be mobile, because their acquired target could easily just walk or run out of drone operating range.

 

5) A team of rapidly deployed assault personnel operating from a helicopter would have to be available upon notification to tranquilize an acquired target and inject a satellite beacon under the skin for continued research. ADFG currently uses such satellite transmitters in fish. Only a small antenna, which looks like a fat hair, sticks out above the skin.

 

Anything less would be just what Norse predicts; another bit of technical evidence that would be pooh-poohed by the pseudo-scientists, and would never be followed up on.

 

Of course, it would be imminently easier to simply shoot a sasquatch and kill it, use body parts to prove its existence, then stand out of the way while the chicken-manure "scientists" clamor for "research money", but I'm certainly not going to be the DuChalliu who does it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Backdoc
25 minutes ago, SweatyYeti said:

 

 

 I wasn't aware of that level of technology being used in drones....but, it doesn't surprise me. 'High Tech' is developing more and more quickly, as time goes on....at an 'exponential rate'.)

 

 

 

Absolutely right. Think where we will be in 10 years.    Think if Roger and Bob could have grabbed a drone like the one in that MIT video at Al's store that night instead of cardboard boxes.  They could have done a drone search of bluff creek right after the encounter.

 

It seems this MIT level of tech is early, but will eventually be mainstream.   If Bigfoot exists and hasn't died off by then, I would think we will have a groundbreaking Bigfoot drone footage which will speak for itself.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SweatyYeti
Posted (edited)

^

 

Drones will be much more effective than what you are predicting, Huntster.  :popcorn:

 

A drone flying slowly...only several feet away from a Sasquatch....can, and would be, quite definitive. 

 

 

Edited by SweatyYeti

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
norseman
1 hour ago, SweatyYeti said:

 

 

I should have followed the idea through, for you, norse….drones can be guided, to follow the creatures...or, just close-in on an individual....to within a very close range. They can provide definitive, and repeatable information...regarding where the creatures are located.

 

They are extremely versatile devices.  I will even make a prediction, that someday they will be what leads to a resolution to the controversy at hand….one way, or the other.

 

(Edited to add....thanks for posting the video, Backdoc. I wasn't aware of that level of technology being used in drones....but, it doesn't surprise me. 'High Tech' is developing more and more quickly, as time goes on....at an 'exponential rate'.)

 

In the meantime, norse....why don't you go shoot a squirrel??  :prankster:

 

We shot ground squirrels last night and currently cleaning out a Pack rat infestation in the horse barn. A momma and 7 babies.

 

Im a killer. I kill things all the time. You have to be to live on a ranch. The sick, the old, the pests and the food. Its a cycle. Someday it will be my turn.

 

On to the drone. I have a DJI phantom 4 falcon edition. It has the ability to track targets within a 1.5 mile range by line of sight for about 45 minutes to 1 hour of flight time. It cannot see through forest canopy. Its just a video camera. It cost about 3k. And you would be sorely disappointed with the video it takes.

 

If we are talking about a predator drone with FLIR and hellfire missiles? Your plan is workable. If we are talking about a civilian drone your plan is unworkable. Not without mounting a machine gun to it or a biopsy dart or a tranq dart. And even then in dark timber?  

 

Good luck.

 

I use mine as a scouting tool. Its worthless as a answer to the mystery. If it could stay up for 6 hours at a whack? It could provide enough overwatch to guide a team in to shoot one or extract dna, whatever.

 

Here is a video my machine took of my cattle.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Huntster
24 minutes ago, SweatyYeti said:

.........A drone flying slowly...only several feet away from a Sasquatch....can, and would be, quite definitive. 

 

A drone COULD BE completely definitive, but not necessarily "would be". If the drone caught the right sasquatch over open terrain, and if that sasquatch's behavior during the filming was just right, even today's mealy-mouthed scientists could be forced to admit the obvious and commit to dealing with the issue. 

 

But, then. the PG film could have been definitive. Imagine if Patterson and Gimlin had caught that sasquatch with the 16.5" footprints, likely a big male exceeding 8' in height, instead of Patty. And imagine the sasquatch, instead of retreating at a walking pace with irritation, had screamed disapproval, picked up a log, and hurled it at the men and horses. Or ran instead of walked. Or any number of other behaviors that could have sealed the deal. Even as it was, D.W. Grieve pretty much admitted that his reluctance to accept the film as authentic was mostly based on emotion rather than science, simply because he had difficulty accepting the reality of what he was seeing.

 

Anybody investing heavily in drone searches for sasquatch could easily be as disappointed as Patterson and Gimlin if they don't cross all their T's and dot all their I's. If anything has been proven with regard to this phenomenon it is that there are very powerful forces opposed to discovery. Success will require running over those forces like a D-10 dozer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...