Why can't we find and study Bigfoot?

[sheri]

That would be awesome if it were true !

[georgerm]

16 hours ago, hiflier said:

 

I think it comes down to what we truly think would be necessary to have a scientifically verified end result showing Bigfoot exists. So far we have done everything we think is necessary, but nothing has panned out. Time to move on? Or do we keep doing the same thing every chance we get? Knowing that our past efforts, which were sometimes promising early on, have yielded little if anything for the time and money spent over years or, in some cases, decades? Great to be out there. And though I can't deny the pleasure I get from it, I realize I need to modernize and use the best resources available if I want Sasquatch existence to become a publicly known fact.                                                                                                                     

 

Any other reasons for not finding them?  The pictures are blurry and the motion pictures are short. 

[hiflier]

Yes. Most say it's because they don't exist. We have boots on the ground, dental resin, foot print casts, drones, cameras, trail cams, thermal imagers, listening devices, recorders, night vision, and all kinds of other techy things, conferences, Forums, research groups, books galore, academia, F&W, Forestry Service, thousands of reports, databases, and.....blobsquatches.  The imbalance between what we have and what we get is pretty sobering. A new strategy is needed and there is one but it's in its infancy as far as Sasquatch goes. It will work. It has taken some time, posting, and dialogue to convince everyone though. Change is tough. A positive result is even tougher. And it will take some courage but I think people here are up to the challenge. It just takes getting the ball rolling. Like this email to Dr. Meldrum that I sent yesterday. Will he respond? I'll be surprised if he does:

 

"Dear Dr. Meldrum, I hope this email, which will be somewhat lengthy, finds you well and looking forward to what 2020 has is store. I'll get right to the point. The number of academic institutions, along with Fish & Wildlife biologists and citizen scientists, now incorporating e-DNA into their field programs is now widespread as you well know. The development of specifically targeted applications is ever growing as things like rare or invasive species becomes more actively monitored. You also are well aware that when it comes to looking at the results of samples from the field, sometimes they are rejected due to the presence of Human contamination.

 

While there are no doubt Human contaminated samples, I also am of the mind that some contamination, though deemed Human, may not in fact be Human. The Olympic Project's nest discovery might be such a case, though I do not think it to be the only one. You and Dr. Disotell announced in late 2018 that the DNA taken from the site was too degraded to determine for a novel primate, though did show Human results,. I can accept that. However, my point is that other institutions that experience Human contamination in their samples perhaps shouldn't be simply tossing out those samples. Is there a way to have such results more deeply studied since, after all, they have already been collected so cost would be greatly reduced?

 

Markers that show different markers of ancient Homo species do, obviously, have characteristics that delineate them from Homo Sapiens sapiens. Would not Sasquatch DNA, even though metabarcoding or a BLAST test would be impossible, at least show markers that wouldn't align with Homo Sapiens. One wouldn't have a reference in say, the GenBank, but would that matter? Human markers within a "Human-contaminated sample" that present different loci than what should be expected should be at least enough information to warrant a closer look.

 

Has such a closer look, to your knowledge, ever been done? I'm thinking "yes" it has depending on the interest of the person or people involved in the e_DNA samples' interpretation. Rare perhaps but I would be surprise of no one ever thought to look deeper into a Human-contaminated sample to see if the alignment of markers or loci do in fact say Human. Because, again, I do not think that Sasquatch DNA needs to be on record to raise interest.

Another point I would like to make regarding certain areas in the US and Canada where samples are extracted. Would there be a way to record the Human

 

DNA from different sources into a database in order to run comparison DNA studies for Homo Sapiens matches? In other words, save the sampling results that indicated Human contamination and run them against the Genbank or do BLAST testing on results that have been collected from the field samples. The way I see it, we have this incredible technology at our fingertips that could be used in the Sasquatch discovery process if only someone would initiate such a program. And that, sir, would be you.

 

I could see working with Dr. Mayor, the primatologist, as well as the Jane Goodall Institute, to work up a program throughout academia and beyond. For the find of the century I should think one would do no less. Thank you for your time. You don't need to respond. All I would ask is that you seriously consider such an approach if discovery of this creature called Sasquatch is of importance to you."

 

Edited January 12, 2020 by hiflier

[wiiawiwb]

14 hours ago, Redbone said:

My NA friends gave myself and my squatching buddies advice years ago, and success followed. I had a daytime sighting ON the reservation in 2018.

I certainly understand how easily dismissed such thing are, but I'm gonna stick with what works for me.

 

Sorry...already answered.

Edited January 12, 2020 by wiiawiwb

[hiflier]

To members: Feel free to copy my email to Dr. Meldrum and past it into an email of your own. Or part of it. Send to meldd@isu.edu. Because IMHO he needs to hear from this community on the e-DNA front. Not asking him or any other scientist to go out an take field samples specifically for Sasquatch discovery. Only asking that him to pass along that when field samples come in and show Human contamination that scientists take a closer, more precise look at them.

 

The difference between Human and Sasquatch could be as minute as this example of two different species of lemmings in Maine bogs. This may not seem all that exciting to most, but in the case for Sasquatch discovery it really could be:

 

Edited January 12, 2020 by hiflier

[SWWASAS]

14 hours ago, Redbone said:

Here's a few things. The first is most important.

 

Be respectful. You are in their home

Talk to them. Tell them why you're there and what you want.

That is excellent advice and I started doing that late in my research.    Their avoidance protocol tells me that in spite of their size and power they are afraid of us.  I got thinking that I because I talk to strange dogs I meet,    who seem to listen,    that I should at least respect bigfoot enough to communicate with them like I would a dog.    Like a dog,  they may or may not have any idea what we are saying,   but at least the act of communication shows respect.  (Recent scientific studies have shown some dogs have large vocabularies and may understand far more than we give them credit for)     If we ever hope to have a Jane Goodall moment and relationship with a bigfoot it has to start by attempting to converse.     As I was being zapped with infrasound,   I asked the one zapping me to stop because it hurt.   I told it that I thought it remarkable that it could do that but would prefer not to have it done to me.     It ceased immediately.   Probably coincidence but I will never know for sure.   Anyway since,   if I think they are around I talk to them.    

[Redbone]

1 hour ago, wiiawiwb said:

 

Sorry...already answered.

There's always more... it helps to speak in Native American languages. I am not fluent so I leave that to my friends.

We limit knocks, whoops, and howls, but we still try it when things are slow.

I've got one friend who ALWAYS wears the same jacket when he goes out and he's sure it helps.

They also tell me not to wear camo, so we are not mistaken for hunters.

 

I've heard of more paranormal experiences than you can shake a stick at.

[Huntster]

3 minutes ago, SWWASAS said:

That is excellent advice and I started doing that late in my research.    Their avoidance protocol tells me that in spite of their size and power they are afraid of us.  I got thinking that I because I talk to strange dogs I meet,    who seem to listen,    that I should at least respect bigfoot enough to communicate with them like I would a dog.    Like a dog,  they may or may not have any idea what we are saying,   but at least the act of communication shows respect........

 

A soothing voice, along with your body language, is a good thing, but it's the body language that is key. Reading books by dog whisperers, horse whisperers, and Goodall/Fossey would be an excellent elementary education. A bit of American Sign Language training won't hurt, just like time at a zoo practicing.

 

I took a 300 level photography course at the University of Alaska Anchorage on wildlife photography which focused on approaching wold animals. It was the best college course of my life. I have been able to practice what I learned on moose, Dall sheep, desert bighorn sheep, deer, wolves, and both black and brown bears. I've had wild wolves so close I could almost feed them from my hand, much like the wolf in "Dances with Wolves".

[NathanFooter]

 I think it has to do with a variety of factors.

 

  1 - Very low population and possibly even being on the brink of extinction.  * Note-  cougar number estimates are at about 30,000 in the US ( not including Canada ), has anyone here tried to film a cougar in an active pursuit ? ( I have )  It is difficult,  and this with the use of a complete list of known/predictable habits in a simple animal ( something with a small brain comparatively ).

 

  2 - Based on my interactions that they are naturally very shy  and intelligent ( near human ). These creatures in most cases want nothing to do with humans in most cases, the instances of calm/curious approach seem to be under the presumption of the people being a non threat ( sleeping, hiking, occupied with XYZ ).

 

  3 - The truth about the number of people in active pursuit.  Most people here, Facebook and even on the conference podium are NOT real researchers.  The majority of these people are simply Bigfoot enthusiasts who maybe spend 8 days a year out looking for tracks along popular hiking trails or near their favorite lake that looks " squatchy ".   This in truth is a hobby or small interest compared to the other throws of life. I would put money down that maybe 5% - 10% of those who claim the title actually put in any serious amount of effort, money and time into research.

 

  Not very many needles in the haystack and what few that exist are actively avoiding the very tiny number of people searching.

[Madison5716]

Idk, but could you study a group of Navy Seals who did not want to be found? 

 

I think that's a roughly parallel scenario. 

[Foxhill]

1 hour ago, NathanFooter said:

 

 

  3 - The truth about the number of people in active pursuit.  Most people here, Facebook and even on the conference podium are NOT real researchers.  The majority of these people are simply Bigfoot enthusiasts who maybe spend 8 days a year out looking for tracks along popular hiking trails or near their favorite lake that looks " squatchy ".   This in truth is a hobby or small interest compared to the other throws of life. I would put money down that maybe 5% - 10% of those who claim the title actually put in any serious amount of effort, money and time into research.

 

  

 

Are you discounting the hundreds if not thousands of professional and recreational participants out in the field on a daily basis?  There is and have been many boots on the ground for centuries on the U.S. continent. The "just not enough effort" kinda falls flat when one considers the history of the U.S. when it comes to the exploitation of flora and fauna.  

 

Edited January 12, 2020 by Foxhill

[Huntster]

25 minutes ago, Foxhill said:

Are you discounting the hundreds if not thousands of professional and recreational participants out in the field on a daily basis?  There is and have been many boots on the ground for centuries on the U.S. continent. The "just not enough effort" kinda falls flat when one considers the history of the U.S. when it comes to the exploitation of flora and fauna.  

 

I'll discount them. 

 

First of all, that's where most reports come from.........which are promptly "discounted" by science, the authorities, and the skeptic industry. If anybody is doing any "discounting", it's the folks who should br doing something about the phenomenon.

 

Secondly, there have been quite a few reports of such people shooting and killing sasquatches........then leaving them lay, often because they're afraid of the government, legal, and pompous class previously mentioned. And these folks weren't actually hunting sasquatches at all. An actual sasquatch hunter would have put some thought into what they would do with the film, body, casts, or whatever else that he's trying to acquire.

[Foxhill]

1 minute ago, Huntster said:

 

I'll discount them. 

 

First of all, that's where most reports come from.........which are promptly "discounted" by science, the authorities, and the skeptic industry. If anybody is doing any "discounting", it's the folks who should br doing something about the phenomenon.

 

Secondly, there have been quite a few reports of such people shooting and killing sasquatches........then leaving them lay, often because they're afraid of the government, legal, and pompous class previously mentioned. And these folks weren't actually hunting sasquatches at all. An actual sasquatch hunter would have put some thought into what they would do with the film, body, casts, or whatever else that he's trying to acquire.

  Reports are cool, great stories but yet here we are.

A Sasquatch Hunter?  Lay that out for me, what is a Sasquatch Hunter as opposed to any other hunter, other than the failure rate? 

[Huntster]

1 minute ago, Foxhill said:

........A Sasquatch Hunter?  Lay that out for me, what is a Sasquatch Hunter as opposed to any other hunter, other than the failure rate? 

 

The quarry. It's sorta' like the difference between a football player and a hockey player, or a marlin fisherman and a catfish fisherman.

 

Ever go catfishing and come home with a black marlin? 

[Foxhill]

4 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

The quarry. It's sorta' like the difference between a football player and a hockey player, or a marlin fisherman and a catfish fisherman.

 

Ever go catfishing and come home with a black marlin? 

 The quarry, so what special skill set does a bigfoot hunter have that lets say a deer hunter doesn't?

Edited January 12, 2020 by Foxhill