Todd Prescott Posted June 26, 2020 Posted June 26, 2020 There are quite a few old documentaries, magazine and newspaper articles, books, and radio interviews pertaining to Sasquatch. How do you think that the research has changed from the 1960s-70s-80s-90s to 2020? Here's a 1976 TV segment about Rene Dahinden's search for the Sasquatch. Of course he's widely considered one of the pioneers of Sasquatch research but what has really change from then until now?
BlackRockBigfoot Posted June 26, 2020 Posted June 26, 2020 Better and more readily available technology. A larger and easier to search body of research, reports, and accounts. A higher density of population in many areas to draw those accounts from. The internet and other communications that allow for a faster dissemination of information and reports. A larger segment of the population who believes in the existence of the creatures, which translates a larger number of people searching for that existence; as well as a larger more passive group of people who consume Bigfoot related media...which in turn fuels and finances the hunt in many ways. 1 1
norseman Posted June 26, 2020 Admin Posted June 26, 2020 I think you would be hard pressed to find a more dedicated researcher than Renee, then or now. I would say the difference between then and now? Pro kill has fallen out of favor. Even Renee had swapped on the issue in later life. Its possible that with modern technology we no longer need to take an animal. But I still say it’s the most direct expedient route. But quite frankly we are no closer to a discovery today than we were 50 years ago.
BlackRockBigfoot Posted June 26, 2020 Posted June 26, 2020 5 minutes ago, norseman said: I think you would be hard pressed to find a more dedicated researcher than Renee, then or now. I would say the difference between then and now? Pro kill has fallen out of favor. Even Renee had swapped on the issue in later life. Its possible that with modern technology we no longer need to take an animal. But I still say it’s the most direct expedient route. But quite frankly we are no closer to a discovery today than we were 50 years ago. Just like it was discussed in the e-DNA thread, even DNA evidence will be met with suspicion. Claims of tainted samples or outright fraud. Any evidence short of an actual body can still serve a purpose, but nothing will ever convince the masses like one on a slab. I think that there are more pro-kill people among those with serious interest in the subject than it appears. It's just that they want to avoid the avalanche of feigned indignity that always hits them after making a pro-kill comment.
Catmandoo Posted June 26, 2020 Posted June 26, 2020 14 hours ago, Todd Prescott said: but what has really change from then until now? The equipment that we use tends to drive them further away from us.
BlackRockBigfoot Posted June 26, 2020 Posted June 26, 2020 43 minutes ago, Catmandoo said: The equipment that we use tends to drive them further away from us. The equipment used by researchers? Cameras and FLIR and whatnot?
Catmandoo Posted June 27, 2020 Posted June 27, 2020 ^^^ Yes. We use plastic boxes that smell, emit EMF, ultrasonic noises, look out of place and emit various forms of light. Any guesses as to why animals look at Plotwatcher brand cameras when they activate? 1
gigantor Posted June 27, 2020 Admin Posted June 27, 2020 4 hours ago, Catmandoo said: Any guesses as to why animals look at Plotwatcher brand cameras when they activate? Yup
hiflier Posted June 27, 2020 Posted June 27, 2020 18 hours ago, BlackRockBigfoot said: Any evidence short of an actual body can still serve a purpose, but nothing will ever convince the masses like one on a slab. Totally with you and Norseman, among others on that! But in that regard I need to express the whole idea and intent for e-DNA. It's NOT for the masses. It's for us and the scientists. And even among us there will be doubters. But the scientists will have irrefutable scientific evidence of the creature's existence. That's the point of e-DNA. The masses will decide what they will decide. I don't care about that because science will end up being the entity that will do the studies, procure the body if need be, or do a serious investigation to support the evidence. The short, although extremely more dangerous, road is a bullet. And the risk of losing the evidence, along with one's inevitable encounter with the law, is very high. So much on the table to consider. As far as out little plastic boxes that we deploy in the field? Yes, I have one, but I prefer the more instantaneous handheld devices that, if I'm lucky, will only alert the quarry after it's too late for it to hide. 2
norseman Posted June 27, 2020 Admin Posted June 27, 2020 45 minutes ago, hiflier said: Totally with you and Norseman, among others on that! But in that regard I need to express the whole idea and intent for e-DNA. It's NOT for the masses. It's for us and the scientists. And even among us there will be doubters. But the scientists will have irrefutable scientific evidence of the creature's existence. That's the point of e-DNA. The masses will decide what they will decide. I don't care about that because science will end up being the entity that will do the studies, procure the body if need be, or do a serious investigation to support the evidence. The short, although extremely more dangerous, road is a bullet. And the risk of losing the evidence, along with one's inevitable encounter with the law, is very high. So much on the table to consider. As far as out little plastic boxes that we deploy in the field? Yes, I have one, but I prefer the more instantaneous handheld devices that, if I'm lucky, will only alert the quarry after it's too late for it to hide. Correct we don’t care what the masses think. We care what scientists think. I think there will be a fulcrum point. Right now science sees this subject as a joke. A world of hoaxers with plaster casts and fuzzy videos. If a bone was produced, or a E DNA sample, we are talking short of a body on a slab? Some sort of physical evidence? Science may flip its position. And then the torch would be passed forever. It would be within their wheelhouse to then study the species. It would be their worry to figure out how to do that and raise the funds necessary.
hiflier Posted June 27, 2020 Posted June 27, 2020 (edited) AND....it would be nice if they let us know what kind of progress they are making. Makes me wonder if we could strike a deal if we know a lab has given us a positive result? You know, tell 'em what we have along with a notarized statement from the lab and say we'll turn over the evidence if they keep us in the loop regarding their activities and progress. Pipe dream, I know, but it's fun to think about even if it is way ahead of where we are now. We can ask WSA to draw up the watertight contract and represent us Edited June 27, 2020 by hiflier
BlackRockBigfoot Posted June 27, 2020 Posted June 27, 2020 We better care about what the masses think, especially right now given the ability of public opinion to control pretty much everything. https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2016/11/03/university-paid-bigfoot-expedition The wrong press and the wrong public opinion can result in funds not being made available for research. The scientists don't control the purse strings.
Patterson-Gimlin Posted June 27, 2020 Posted June 27, 2020 On 6/26/2020 at 12:27 PM, BlackRockBigfoot said: Better and more readily available technology. A larger and easier to search body of research, reports, and accounts. A higher density of population in many areas to draw those accounts from. The internet and other communications that allow for a faster dissemination of information and reports. A larger segment of the population who believes in the existence of the creatures, which translates a larger number of people searching for that existence; as well as a larger more passive group of people who consume Bigfoot related media...which in turn fuels and finances the hunt in many ways. Outstanding answer. Have a trophy. 1
Patterson-Gimlin Posted June 27, 2020 Posted June 27, 2020 22 hours ago, norseman said: I think you would be hard pressed to find a more dedicated researcher than Renee, then or now. I would say the difference between then and now? Pro kill has fallen out of favor. Even Renee had swapped on the issue in later life. Its possible that with modern technology we no longer need to take an animal. But I still say it’s the most direct expedient route. But quite frankly we are no closer to a discovery today than we were 50 years ago. Of course there are reasons for lack of discovery . I have noticed even you have backed off somewhat when it comes to body on a slab. I have not. Everything else falls short. I know my stance is not the popular one. I have discussed it with some peers,family and friends who are believers,but not pro kill. Most concluded that since I don't share in their beliefs that the creature is flesh and blood that being pro kill is irrelevant.
norseman Posted June 27, 2020 Admin Posted June 27, 2020 49 minutes ago, Patterson-Gimlin said: Of course there are reasons for lack of discovery . I have noticed even you have backed off somewhat when it comes to body on a slab. I have not. Everything else falls short. I know my stance is not the popular one. I have discussed it with some peers,family and friends who are believers,but not pro kill. Most concluded that since I don't share in their beliefs that the creature is flesh and blood that being pro kill is irrelevant. I personally haven’t given an inch. My rifle goes with me. But for those that are not willing? There are other tools in the tool belt that may advance science. Skeptic or not? Being “pro kill” is fine. But unless your out there with a rifle? That is what is irrelevant.
Recommended Posts