Can't discuss bigfoot with friends, and family.

[Redbone]

17 minutes ago, wiiawiwb said:

A few things. The BFRO did not get a stream of reports from 1970 to 1999. It wasn't founded until 1995. 

John Green carried the torch before 1995. Once the BFRO database was started, they began including MANY of the same incidents as John Green already noted, but until 2000 JG also started including BFRO reports. At present, there are 358 SSR entries that are in BOTH the John Green and BFRO database. There is an additional 20 SSR entries that are also shared with NAWAC. Only 1/4 of John Green's incidents are into the SSR so far so I expect JG/BFRO number to grow.

 

There are 5278 BFRO reports in SSR as of today, and 1066 John Green reports.

[norseman]

13 minutes ago, hiflier said:

Go ahead, Norseman, go ahead, just ignore everything else I said. If that's all you're going to comment on then get out there and shoot one and don't come back until you do. Or else just tell me all your gun threads and talk are less than worthless. You talk science but are really only about the crosshairs and how many grains it gonna take.

 

Sorry, bud, I don't like talking like this any more than anyone wants to see me talking like this. And I know that I tick people off with my "program" for discovery of Bigfoot's existence. I only hope you can understand my passion for saving this creature, AND the environment from any more pressure than they are already under. I get miffed when no one, not just you, but NO ONE does anything beyond thinking that proof of existence has to wait until one gets shot to death. It DOESN'T HAVE TO WAIT! Finding a dead one will do, of course, but in the mean time science needs to get on this issue. If no one's doing anything about trying to get science involved with the technology they have now? I have to wonder how much of what goes in here is virtually pointless.

 

I get pissed when no one gets back on me on emails. And I apologize for taking it out on the Forum but doesn't anyone think things could be different if more people reached out to the institutions and people in them who could really help the situation? We HAVE to get science involved. There is no good reason anymore not to.  

You have this knack for making enemies of friends. Dunno why?

 

Im definitely about the crosshairs, because I’m a hunter and that’s what I can bring to the table. 
 

Does a plumber or electrician only own one tool? As I’ve stated a million times before? We all have our own gifts. And that’s Ok.

 

The real cancer isn’t whether a dead body or DNA will solve the issue. I would rejoice if DNA beats me to it. Perfect. 

 

The real cancer is the mindset that everything is fine, and they should never be “discovered”. Which means there is a real chance the species just goes quietly into the night. A close second is that we should prove they exist but only by X method. Because we don’t agree with Y or Z method. 

I don’t ignore you. I’ve taken exception to something you have said. If you can make the government confess or find eDNA? Great!

 

As far as “not coming back until I find success”? The great thing about pointing the finger at someone? Is that four are pointing back at you.....

 

40 minutes ago, wiiawiwb said:

 

A few things. The BFRO did not get a stream of reports from 1970 to 1999. It wasn't founded until 1995.  Also,  who's to say that BFRO activity is a bell weather from which conclusions can be drawn?  Has Finding Bigfoot helped or hurt their reputation?

 

Garbage and trash will be taken by sasquatches even if proven to exist.  That issue hasn't stopped grizzly from marauding human sites.  If human contamination comes from garbage, it will be a problem after discovery as well. It's a non sequitur.

 

The less-than-five-toed argument I can't comment on as I have never seen statistics. Can you cite anything that shows that? In that regard, people years ago may not have thought to report such finds as the information out there about this subject was limited.

 

Your experience may very well indicate that the sasquatch(es) you interacted with had a bronchial issue. I don't think you can draw conclusions about them across the continent. Others have reported hearing incredibly loud and bellowing screams that shook them to their toes which would not be possible with a bronchial issue.

 

I may be wrong but I think they are doing just fine and will continue to say my little prayer they are never formally discovered and things continue just as they are.

A non sequitor? If science brings its full weight to bear on contamination issues? You think that’s the same thing as ignoring the problem?
 

The problem lies with a species considered a myth. Vaccinations are not available to ghosts and goblins.

 

Sorry. Your making no sense what so ever. It’s like your arguing that wild Indians are better off with a small pox epidemic because any modern solution makes them less wild. 
 

And people call me cruel.

[hiflier]

1 minute ago, norseman said:

I would rejoice if DNA beats me to it. Perfect. 

 

But you won't lift a finger to help make that rejoicing happen? That makes no sense.

 

4 minutes ago, norseman said:

The real cancer is the mindset that everything is fine, and they should never be “discovered”. Which means there is a real chance the species just goes quietly into the night. A close second is that we should prove they exist but only by X method. Because we don’t agree with Y or Z method.

 

I agree with ALL methods, Norseman. But e-DNA is a tool that is available now, along with guns, so why not incorporate it? It's the lack of interest in the use of e-DNA that keeps it in the realm of not being deployed in the field to look specifically for Bigfoot. Plenty of guns already out there doing just that. Need proof? People get shot and shot at because someone thinks they are Bigfoots. E-DNA doesn't kill or wound anyone. Hunters and non-hunters alike can take samples, and since hunters are already out there, why not get trained to collect samples? I don't get the "I'm a hunter and that's all I'll do" mentality.

 

You see, people won't take samples themselves, but they won't try and see if anyone in academia will take samples either. But boy, tote a gun around the forest hoping for a self-defense situation? Yep, no problem. Please explain to me what kind of logic that serves? Academia is best equipped to tackle this subject. Dr. Krantz was the perfect anthropologist: He was a scientist who did the work, AND he carried a rifle.

 

15 minutes ago, norseman said:

If you can make the government confess or find eDNA? Great!

 

LOL, government confess? Get the government to find DNA? Did you just seriously say that? Don't get me wrong here. This isn't about NOT killing the creature. If you, or anyone else, brings one in first? Great! It's not even about anyone actually taking samples from the field themselves. It's about writing a measly little email and asking someone in science to do and explaining why. Good grief, you'd think I was asking people to climb Mt. Everest for how the responses come across. It's an email for pete's sake!!!! I do it all the time, it's easy, and not one has anyone come knocking on my door for all the fear I see of that happening.

 

Ok, done with the rant. It probably won't be the last time. But then I think everyone pretty much knows that by now. The worrisome part of it is, you all know I'm right. Science needs to be on this. I saw where everyone was all excited recently over a new species of bird. A BIRD! http://www.sci-news.com/biology/alor-myzomela-07665.html I wonder how much money science spent on THAT? Gimme a break. What about a 700 lbs. North American primate??!!?  Science needs our voice.

[SWWASAS]

6 hours ago, NatFoot said:

 

Would love to see that video!

 

My friend actually hikes quite a bit in UT, OR and WA. Maybe he stays completely on trails...but you'd think he'd have an idea of how remote some areas can be.

I have gotten some of that here.     Since I avoid weekends and do field work during the week I am often the only human out in a section of woods.  No other cars at a trailhead is a good indicator that you will be alone.    And the likelihood of being messed with by another human is pretty low if there seem to be no other humans around.    The sad thing now is that after its use by finding bigfoot, I do not give much credence to hearing knocks or even howls.  But having heard a couple of howls I think authentic,    human attempts at the same thing are pathetic to say the least.    But two howls in 10 years sort of indicates how rare they are.   

[georgerm]

Hiflier I respect you passion and an organized effort to get science off its butt to study bigfoot is needed. What if some of us joined your coordinated effort. You give us email addresses, some facts to put in the letters, and we write to those in the universities and state wildlife departments. 

 

 

 

Norseman can can join in and continue to hunt and maybe get lucky and bring in a dead one.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

[wiiawiwb]

5 hours ago, Redbone said:

John Green carried the torch before 1995. Once the BFRO database was started, they began including MANY of the same incidents as John Green already noted, but until 2000 JG also started including BFRO reports. At present, there are 358 SSR entries that are in BOTH the John Green and BFRO database. There is an additional 20 SSR entries that are also shared with NAWAC. Only 1/4 of John Green's incidents are into the SSR so far so I expect JG/BFRO number to grow.

 

There are 5278 BFRO reports in SSR as of today, and 1066 John Green reports.

 

Redbone, I'm a tad confused so I could use your help. Was the total number of reports kept by John Green, regardless of who has them now,  1,066 reports?  If that's the case, up until the time BFRO started in 1995, was any other person or organization other than John Green maintaining a database or collection of sighting reports?

Edited January 5, 2020 by wiiawiwb

[wiiawiwb]

5 hours ago, norseman said:

A non sequitor? If science brings its full weight to bear on contamination issues? You think that’s the same thing as ignoring the problem?
 

The problem lies with a species considered a myth. Vaccinations are not available to ghosts and goblins.

 

Sorry. Your making no sense what so ever. It’s like your arguing that wild Indians are better off with a small pox epidemic because any modern solution makes them less wild. 
 

And people call me cruel.

 

I'm not so sure you want to use Indians as a sterling example of what government intervention can achieve.

 

Why would vaccinations need to be made currently? Are there any reasonably-scientific studies even amongst sasquatchers that shows there is an existing problem with sasquatches having disease from contamination from humans. If there is, and someone could link to it, I'm perfectly willing to change my mind.

Edited January 5, 2020 by wiiawiwb

[norseman]

7 minutes ago, wiiawiwb said:

 

I'm not so sure you want to use Indians as a sterling example of what government intervention can achieve.

 

Why would vaccinations need to be made currently? There is no scientific data I'm aware that shows there is an existing problem among sasquatches with disease from contamination from humans. If I'm wrong and you can link or cite to something authoritative, I'm perfectly willing to change my mind.

Why not? If you still think it’s 1880? Then we might as well hang it up. Are Indians vaccinated today? Absolutely. They receive free health care. Top to bottom. 2020. Hello?
 

There IS NO scientific data about Sasquatches on anything..... that’s my point!
 

And there never will be as long as they remain a MYTH.

[hiflier]

4 hours ago, georgerm said:

Hiflier I respect you passion and an organized effort to get science off its butt to study bigfoot is needed. What if some of us joined your coordinated effort. You give us email addresses, some facts to put in the letters, and we write to those in the universities and state wildlife departments. 

 

 

 

Norseman can can join in and continue to hunt and maybe get lucky and bring in a dead one.

 

Norseman may actually get lucky and grass one. Between he and others trying to get one to science, and a push to get e-DNA looking as well then our chances are at least better.

 

Norse, I appreciate YOUR passion and willingness to keep vigilant in case you have an encounter. I really do. And I agree with you, there cannot be only one way of doing this. It's like I have said, attack the problem on several fronts. However the truth gets delivered, even with e-DNA, will be by chance. A hunter being in the right place at the right time, or some citizen scientist, or a professional one, being in the right place when they draw that sample. We are after the same thing you and I. Not everyone hunts, but anyone can draft a letter or an email at any time without planning a weekend in the woods in a blind or whatever.

 

Thank you,  georgerm, everyone should be armed somehow. Many in the field are armed for protection. Many others are armed with keyboards, which can be just as powerful when used wisely- just like firearms. I'll get to work. Perhaps a special thread for brainstorming? It will also give me a place to post info. Maybe PM's are better? IDK. It's probably a good thing for everyone to see where I've been already email-wise. I'll get on it.

 

At least folks will be better equipped to make decisions about whether or not to support any efforts past or present. One good thing is I've already knocked on some doors, so any follow ups will be going to people who already know I was there and asking about things. If someone sees a second or even a third person doing similar inquiries it may help a lot. And it doesn't have to happen tomorrow either.

 

 

[Redbone]

9 hours ago, wiiawiwb said:

 

Redbone, I'm a tad confused so I could use your help. Was the total number of reports kept by John Green, regardless of who has them now,  1,066 reports?  If that's the case, up until the time BFRO started in 1995, was any other person or organization other than John Green maintaining a database or collection of sighting reports?

There are 4067 incidents in John Green's database, at least in the spreadsheet I have. According to Bobbie Short, there may have been 4207 by 2001.

Only 1066 of them are in our SSR database. It's a huge job to add them, so don't expect completion any time soon. See progress here.

 

Many people were keeping track of reports prior to BFRO. It's just that you find these incidents in books instead of websites.

Here is an example: Bigfoot Casebook, by Janet and Colin Bord, published in 1982.

 

Here are some more... (link)

 

Here is what's in the SSR today:

 

[hiflier]

John Green stopped populating his database in 2000 when he had all of his hand-written binders converted to MS Access and .csv formats. Here is the statement he posted on his website where he made both formats available for download along with setting up a page for doing cross-referenced research with boxes for picking out search criteria. Sorry for how the text looks:

 

"As the owner of a small-town paper in British Columbia it was back in 1957 that I began looking into local reports of encounters with giant, hair-covered, bipedal creatures, long known in Canada as “Sasquatch.” A year later “Bigfoot” broke into the news in the United States and I saw for myself, beside a creek in a California forest, enormous humanlike footprints sunk so deep into a solid sandbar that no one who saw them could come up with a way that humans could have made them. Ever since then I have been on a lifelong quest to establish what is behind the sighting reports and how those footprints come to be.  

In the early years it was an adventure, with considerable time spent on active searches in the woods and along ocean beaches as well as interviewing witnesses over a wide area of western North America. Eventually, however, I accepted the fact that the odds against any individual personally bringing this investigation to a successful conclusion are impossibly great, and I devoted more and more effort to exchanging and distributing information among the other investigators I had come to know, and to attempting to persuade qualified zoologists and anthropologists to take up the gauntlet. I also wrote  books on my findings, and they sold well enough to let me make researching and writing a full-time job. 

Back in 1970, having been financed by a film company to organize a project that went  beyond sticking pins in maps and coloring tabs on file cards, I composed  a standardized questionnaire from which it was hoped that a computer could find useful patterns in the accumulating information. The team effort went well, several hundred questionnaires were completed, the data was punched on cards, and a helpful professor arranged for them to be fed into a huge “main frame” at a major university, where I was told that minions in some distant catacomb had to seek out and mount big reels of tape each time any processing was scheduled. Compared to the hundreds of man-hours that it took to get to that stage it took only minutes to establish that there wasn’t enough data to produce anything of value.

Twenty years later I tried again, after having filled more than a dozen looseleaf binders, mostly fat ones, with pages of information from all over North America. By this time, I was told I could have a computer on my desk which could do things that huge main frame could not have attempted. Unfortunately I still had to devise a clumsy new questionnaire myself, without the expertise that wildlife biologists and computer programmers could have provided, and despite the best efforts of my daughter, Marian Ennis, who understands such things, my aging brain never really mastered the complications of constantly adjusting the entry screens to deal with information I hadn’t allowed for in the first place.

If I had had any idea of the amount of time and effort that would be involved in researching many of the individual reports for which information was available but not handily contained in the file cards and binders, I probably would never have started. As it was I persevered, and after more than 10 years and about 4,000 entries, a lot of them new reports that I learned of during those years, I reached the end of the last binder. Trouble was that about that time reports new and old, genuine and bogus, had started to pour in via the Internet at a rate I couldn’t hope to keep up with, so I stopped.

I did use the computer successfully to find answers, some of them surprising, to a number of long-debated questions, and reported on them in brief articles that will be displayed on this website, but I did not have enough know-how, in statistics or in zoology, to progress very far. As to sharing with people who may be better qualified to use the information, I was always happy to do that, but there was a major problem. I could, and did, develop information for a few other researchers, but the software I use, Advanced Revelation, while able to handle quite complex questions, runs in long-outdated MS-DOS. Almost no one nowadays can do anything with it on their own. 

Years have gone by while the database grows old, unused in my computer, and at least one other now surpasses it in the quantity of reports, but I do not know of any that are searchable to anything approaching the same degree. I have therefore gone to the expense of having the whole thing converted, in ways far beyond my understanding, to a form where everyone can use it, and perhaps expand it with information of their own. 
 I hope someone out there will make the effort and the cost worthwhile.

 

[SWWASAS]

11 hours ago, wiiawiwb said:

 

I'm not so sure you want to use Indians as a sterling example of what government intervention can achieve.

 

Why would vaccinations need to be made currently? Are there any reasonably-scientific studies even amongst sasquatchers that shows there is an existing problem with sasquatches having disease from contamination from humans. If there is, and someone could link to it, I'm perfectly willing to change my mind.

Now that would be a job I would turn down in a second.      Some government agency calling me and asking if I want a job vaccinating the local BF.    I don't think they would like being stuck with a needle.    If there is a coverup, it has to be because bigfoot has proven to be totally uncooperative.     Difficult to find,   impossible to follow because of their speed,    extremely dangerous,  capable of delivering debilitating infrasound to captors,   hard to restrain because of their strength,   hard to kill.    Perhaps it is easiest to just pretend they are not there rather than manage them as a indigenous species.      

Edited January 5, 2020 by SWWASAS

[wiiawiwb]

I just looked at the link to John Green's database as presented on bigfootencounters.com. One statistic on his database has me scratching my head.

 

There were more reports from Maryland than from Ohio and Maryland had 2/3 as many reports are Oregon. Huh??? That makes no sense whatsoever.  It can't be because it borders West Virginia as that state has less than 8% of the number of reports compared to Maryland.

 

Maryland's population density is 8 times that of Oregon, according to this map, and it is a not a place I would expect reports to be coming from. Moreover, Maryland is a pipsqueak of a state. It is tiny by comparison to Oregon. How does it have 2/3 the number of reports as that of Oregon, a mecca of bigfooting?

 

https://wywing.files.wordpress.com/2017/03/us_population_density.png

 

Edited January 5, 2020 by wiiawiwb

[NathanFooter]

18 hours ago, wiiawiwb said:

 

A few things. The BFRO did not get a stream of reports from 1970 to 1999. It wasn't founded until 1995.  Also,  who's to say that BFRO activity is a bell weather from which conclusions can be drawn?  Has Finding Bigfoot helped or hurt their reputation?

 

Garbage and trash will be taken by sasquatches even if proven to exist.  That issue hasn't stopped grizzly from marauding human sites.  If human contamination comes from garbage, it will be a problem after discovery as well. It's a non sequitur.

 

The less-than-five-toed argument I can't comment on as I have never seen statistics. Can you cite anything that shows that? In that regard, people years ago may not have thought to report such finds as the information out there about this subject was limited.

 

Your experience may very well indicate that the sasquatch(es) you interacted with had a bronchial issue. I don't think you can draw conclusions about them across the continent. Others have reported hearing incredibly loud and bellowing screams that shook them to their toes which would not be possible with a bronchial issue.

 

I may be wrong but I think they are doing just fine and will continue to say my little prayer they are never formally discovered and things continue just as they are.

 

 No, they STILL get a steady stream of reports that took place from 70 to 99.  The point was that the data comes in at a steady rate from folks that had experiences in that time range, not that they reported in the year of 76, 84 or 94. Legitimate reports are getting less common it would seem. I am an active member and look at our internal database on a weekly basis for several states. I they are doing well then we should see an increase in sightings as the subjects public comfort level is high, roads continue to expand, hiking/camping has increased and habitats shrink.   I see a lacking of volume in present day reports.

 

 Garbage and trash will always be within reach but changing a latch or handle could reduce the frequency of exposure, public awareness in general also could help.

 

  Dr. Jeff Meldrum has spoke of these examples of reduced digits at many of his lectures and  conferences, I personally have heard him in person speak of it on three separate occasions.  You should be able to locate some of this material on youtube as some of the videos up are from events I attended. I also personally have in some report file records with examples of tracks that demonstrate four digits when five should have clearly registered. 

 

 If there is any evidence that they are doing fine then it is not on my radar, do you have anything related that could explain why you hold this belief ?

[georgerm]

This thread has spun out in all directions and back to the topic.

 

One poster said his son told him he saw bigfoot, and his reply was it must have been a bear. This is the kind of response that friends and family give that can be irritating depending on the siting quality and the details observed. When you, the observer, tell family members or friends that you saw bigfoot, a flat denial or mistaken idenity can be aggravating. If you are an experienced hunter or out door's person, and your story is outright denied then ending the conversation is usually the right thing to do. I told my brother of my sighting, and he joked and denied it. I ended the conversation since I knew where it was headed. Next time this happens, what are 3 bigfoot facts that can be explained in a polite manner before changing conversation topics? 

 

How about stating that  x   state has  x  number of eye witness bigfoot sightings?