Has Technology Helped or Hindered Our Quest in Finding Bigfoot?

[Believer57]

Has too much technology ruined our quest for the discovery of unknown species or has it just been tainted by human natures  for attention or taking advantage of other's gullibility? Wooden feet, fake videos and viral hoaxes have made the truth more difficult than ever to understand. Unvetted reports fail to utilize today's technology, dividing consensus and favoring the loudest opinion. Movies or so-called documentaries twist half-truths into comic and chaos.

 

The overwhelming number of sightings and documented reports from people of integrity often seem to outweigh the number of hoaxers, yet the advantage of planting a seed of deceit can often taint the public eye. Even the Bigfoot community, which is often more educated on the subject, can disagree on some events.

 

There does seem to be new hope in our quest to discover Bigfoot. Technology, common sense, dedicated groups, a host of professionals, and open discussion are starting to prevail over hoaxing and cover-ups. We better understand what is at stake and what may hinder the efforts to discover this new species.

 

Please share your opinions, rants, and experiences on whether you think we are headed in the right direction or headed for another decade of status quo in our quest to find Bigfoot.

 

[BlackRockBigfoot]

Depends on how you look at it.

 

It hinders us with our chances of personal discovery sometimes... Many people report that they have activity in areas when they go in unequipped, but when they introduce technology to the equation that activity ceases.

 

But, it is a game changer as far as pursuing evidence which can be shared others and possibly advance the idea of these creatures' existence.  

 

Technology levels the playing field to a great extent.  It lets us see that which we could otherwise not see.  It lets us hear that which we could otherwise not hear.  It lets us record images and sound remotely.

 

Thermal scopes and digital sound recorders are great tools.

[hiflier]

Well, not a bad topic at all Believer57 Technology has definitely swung the pendulum in our favor and we've certainly been jerked around enough to ignore, ir at least disregard 95% of what comes at us. Researchers have done more than simply walk around the woods. They have educated themselves, not only in the value of technology, but also have outfitted them selves WITH technology to level the wilderness playing field. We KNOW what the best tools are and that alone has helped whittle down what we will accept as evidence we can hang our hats on.

 

We've also learned from each other's research into equipment and electronics, not to mention firepower for defense and what constitutes sound evidence of existence. Norseman mention how virtually impossible it is for any ground bound creature to not leave tracks in snow. And as simple as that may sound, because it would seem so obvious, it's a great point that is heads above finding a questionable print in soil. Especially if the season is amenable to Humans bieng barefoot. This is the kind of detailed thinking that has made us, or should have made us, more wary of what good evidence is. There's no question that our tools and technologies deployed in the field help keep the focus on  what constitutes solid evidence in as much as it can be determined.

[Believer57]

@hiflier

 

When I saw your post, I had realized that I omitted any mention of DNA or eDNA in my opening paragraphs. DNA seems like a technology that would be difficult to hoax yet we have dispute on some of the findings in the Sasquatch Genome Project. Any thoughts on this area or in the realm of eDNA?

 

Cheers!

 

Edited March 4, 2021 by Believer57

[hiflier]

As you and everyone knows, DNA has been a sort of holy grail for many researchers in the past. So much has gone under the bridge that has been attempted and failed. But I need to say this, and I certainly hope it sinks in on this Forum, it isn't the DNA technology that has failed. It has been the quality of the samples that have failed. Everything from hair, blood, tissue, and who knows what else. DNA technology is sound and reliable. Studies have been done using e-DNA and game cameras in the same areas to compare what gets caught visually on cams with what has been sampled- almost entirely from water sources. The comparison the two has shown that e-DNA for the most part is in alignment with what the camera traps pick up.

 

Neither, so far as we know, has detected a novel primate in North America. But then we have discussed rarity and remoteness of the creature so where and how samples are collected is the issue. Oh yes, and then there is the conundrum of where to take samples for testing because without securing that then there's no motivation to even collect samples. But don't worry too much about that because I have not given up on that particular angle and have not stopped in my quest of that very important goal. And while I have no updates to share in that regard at this time since things are moving slowly, the Forum should know that I am making headway. In truth, its a cautionary tale that has needed discretion.

 

 

[MIB]

1 hour ago, Believer57 said:

DNA seems like a technology that would be difficult to hoax yet we have dispute on some of the findings in the Sasquatch Genome Project.

 

The Sasquatch Genome Project is Melba Ketchum.     That was a very active topic here on BFF while it was happening.    There were a lot of sketchy things going on regarding that "study", a lot of scientific and procedural irregularity.    Though many labs apparently participated, none were allowed to independently release their results, rather, all had to pass their results to Dr Ketchum for release thus every single report of the results ultimately goes back to her.   If she's lying, there are no independent fact checkers to trip her up.    

 

I think DNA is a valuable tool but we need to do good science in the sense that we need truly independent verification (missing), independent reporting of results (missing), and repeatability (missing).   

 

MIB

[hiflier]

5 minutes ago, MIB said:

I think DNA is a valuable tool but we need to do good science in the sense that we need truly independent verification (missing), independent reporting of results (missing), and repeatability (missing).

 

When you say "independent" what do you mean? Independent of any connection to Bigfootdom?

[MIB]

44 minutes ago, hiflier said:

When you say "independent" what do you mean? Independent of any connection to Bigfootdom?

 

No, not that at all.     I mean exactly independent ... not all under the control of a single entity.  

 

 

[Believer57]

3 minutes ago, MIB said:

I mean exactly independent ... not all under the control of a single entity.

I agree with what you are saying. However, that could have been a result of the private funding. Perhaps a more publicly funded project is needed. An issue I see here is more powerful outside forces having even more control of the results.

 

Was that part of the disagreement by Dr. Haskell Hart? Are these DNA results open to interpretation or cynicism? I think of them more as procedural fact.

 

 

[MIB]

I mix up Dr Hart's contributions here with those of another member so I hesitate to identify one as the author when it was the other.    I'm not sure what you mean by "open to interpretation".   In a sense yes, but it's already been done over and over so in a way it's 5 years too late unless you find something that hasn't already been considered.

 

Private funding, yeah, that's part of the issue.   I think the motivation was to have ownership of credit for discovery.   I think the real answer is not a publicly funded project but rather many projects separately funded, privately or otherwise.     Any sort of centralization of control brings the possibility of corruption.   Only in absolute independence do we have some chance to avoid undue influence from a small number of people with a shared agenda.   

[hiflier]

Things may have to start out at the private level but then move to an independent peer phase in the second round. In other words, at this time I cannot comprehend any type of funding other than private where Sasquatch discovery is concerned. At least so far, the funding has been mostly private. Opening up peer review afterwards, though, should be a scientifically expected outcome. Once the hollerin' and laughin' stops

Edited March 4, 2021 by hiflier

[norseman]

3 hours ago, MIB said:

 

No, not that at all.     I mean exactly independent ... not all under the control of a single entity.  

 

 

What you mean is scientifically peer reviewed and independently verified.

 

I can publish a scientific paper about the black hole that resides in my living room? But unless it’s peer reviewed and verified it’s science fiction, not science fact.

 

And that’s where unfortunately Ketchum’s work resides in.....fiction.

[hiflier]

On this tack, may I comment? The Bigfoot bounty in Oklahoma for capturing a Bigfoot unharmed is now up to 2.1 million dollars thanks to a Hollywood movie studio (2 mil) and a private company (hunert thou). Now why wouldn't these contributors fund a scientific program of discovery instead? That would pay for a helluva lot of environmental DNA sampling and testing. But nope, isn't happening. Mainly because there is no belief that the BF exists outside of the big screen, so everyone must be thinking that there's no chance that the 2.1 million will never be collected.

Edited March 4, 2021 by hiflier

[hiflier]

Or...there could be some worried that it COULD be collected? Always a risk with the unknown, right?

[wiiawiwb]

Has technology helped or hindered? It's done both.

 

I'm a huge believer in using a thermal imager. It's better than seeing during the day because at night a sasquatch may let down its guard a bit. It feels safe because the little hairless ones have never been able to see in the dark before. It is transformative.

 

Technology can be a hindrance especially when you're humping power banks, smart phones, audio, and video equipment on your back. Uh oh, I forgot to recharge the batteries and the power bank is only at 25%!  Did I bring the USB to USB connector? They can be an enormous distraction.

 

Hopefully, we can stay focused on what's important by controlling it rather than the oppsite. In the end, we're not going to get that glimpse or hear that distant howl if we're fiddling with electronics.