New research ideas and methods Options

[JohnCartwright]

Hi Everyone,

I wanted to to open a discussion as to why we seem to be no closer to solving this mystery. Why do we place so much
emphasis on things like track casting? Can this really be worthwhile in proving this creature exists to the scientific community?
Is the best piece of evidence we have the PG film, that is now 40 YEARS OLD? I do not want this thread to be critical of the
research that is ongoing, but what are some of the new techniques being used? New Ideas? I think we really need the new field researchers to try new things because what has been going on for the last 40 years has not yielded very much hard evidence.

THOUGHTS?

[bigfootmorf]

Alot of people think that new technology is going to pave the way to solving this mystery.I certainly believe its going to help,no questions about it.Things like heat sensors,thermal,digital,cameras,sound blasters,etc. theres so many things coming out to make it easier to get to the truth,but....

Call me OLD SCHOOL,but I think good old patience,persistance,and a little luck is what it's going to take. I personally approach it from a huntingaspect. When I go for Deer,I have to know where they most likely Bed down and sleep,where they can find food,and when they move,day or night,and water sources. When I scout a deer area,I look for signs.Buck Rubs,scrapes,tracks,etc. Guess what-if I dont see any of that,I dont hunt that area. I think the same is true with Bigfoot.I believe you have to approach it as if you are deer hunting. Lots of scouting and lots of patience. Deer are shy but curious creatures. I believe the same is true of Bigfoot.If I go out with a small group of guys,and am reasonably quiet,deer wont get spooked.The more chaos,the more they spook. I cant tell you how many times I hunted an area where I saw big deer tracks,and rubs,and never saw the deer. Sitting up in a tree stand for hours, day after day. Well the same may be true of Bigfoot,and we know there are less Bigfoot than deer,so this is where patience will come in.Expect lots of days of NOTHING.But be in a spot with signs,tracks,sighting reports,etc. If I you go fishing in a pond with no fish-you wont catch anything. As far as all the modern equipment,as I said,they are great tools but it comes down to the knowledge,skills,and patience of the researcher using them.Its like this-If you give the worlds best sharp shooting rifle to someone,and tell them to hit something 3/4 of a mile away-unless they have trained,studied,and learned,with the gun,they probably wont hit anything!


In the end,I think someone is going to get the best evidence by using OLD SCHOOL techniques

[JohnCartwright]

Alot of people think that new technology is going to pave the way to solving this mystery.I certainly believe its going to help,no questions about it.Things like heat sensors,thermal,digital,cameras,sound blasters,etc. theres so many things coming out to make it easier to get to the truth,but....

Call me OLD SCHOOL,but I think good old patience,persistance,and a little luck is what it's going to take. I personally approach it from a huntingaspect. When I go for Deer,I have to know where they most likely Bed down and sleep,where they can find food,and when they move,day or night,and water sources. When I scout a deer area,I look for signs.Buck Rubs,scrapes,tracks,etc. Guess what-if I dont see any of that,I dont hunt that area. I think the same is true with Bigfoot.I believe you have to approach it as if you are deer hunting. Lots of scouting and lots of patience. Deer are shy but curious creatures. I believe the same is true of Bigfoot.If I go out with a small group of guys,and am reasonably quiet,deer wont get spooked.The more chaos,the more they spook. I cant tell you how many times I hunted an area where I saw big deer tracks,and rubs,and never saw the deer. Sitting up in a tree stand for hours, day after day. Well the same may be true of Bigfoot,and we know there are less Bigfoot than deer,so this is where patience will come in.Expect lots of days of NOTHING.But be in a spot with signs,tracks,sighting reports,etc. If I you go fishing in a pond with no fish-you wont catch anything. As far as all the modern equipment,as I said,they are great tools but it comes down to the knowledge,skills,and patience of the researcher using them.Its like this-If you give the worlds best sharp shooting rifle to someone,and tell them to hit something 3/4 of a mile away-unless they have trained,studied,and learned,with the gun,they probably wont hit anything!
In the end,I think someone is going to get the best evidence by using OLD SCHOOL techniques

Bigfootmorph,

You bring up some good points. My sighting occured by accident from a Deerstand way up in a tree. Has anyone tried this?
Maybe even at night with night vision? I hope you are right about using old techniques, but Im not holding my breath.
I think new things need to be tried.

[RB]

Hey JC... yo dude... I feel your pain...

While casting prints and such may not prove a great deal right now, we must continue to collect every piece of potiental evidence we encounter as we go...

If what we collect prior to discovery is of no use post discovery, then what is the harm?

But... if we pass on what we may think is nothing... and then it turns out to be something... well... I'd rather toss stuff out than listen to a million stories about the one that got away... what the heck good is that?

Oh yeah... almost forgot... I used to watch your show every Sunday night... right before Walt Disney... it's possibly the finest western show ever produced for television... you should be very proud...

[jimf]

Bigfootmorph,

You bring up some good points. My sighting occured by accident from a Deerstand way up in a tree. Has anyone tried this?
Maybe even at night with night vision?

Yes. The tree stand regularly employed by us, sits about 30 feet above a river. One of us usually sit in three to four hour shifts on any given night with night vision, 1 mil or more candlepower spotlight and a camera or some other type of recording device.

This post has been edited by jimf: Sep 28 2007, 06:46 AM

[JohnCartwright]

Hey JC... yo dude... I feel your pain...

While casting prints and such may not prove a great deal right now, we must continue to collect every piece of potiental evidence we encounter as we go...

If what we collect prior to discovery is of no use post discovery, then what is the harm?

But... if we pass on what we may think is nothing... and then it turns out to be something... well... I'd rather toss stuff out than listen to a million stories about the one that got away... what the heck good is that?

Oh yeah... almost forgot... I used to watch your show every Sunday night... right before Walt Disney... it's possibly the finest western show ever produced for television... you should be very proud...

Yes, there is no harm in collecting casts but what can possibly be proven by them?

oh Yeah, I have never heard a Bonanza joke before....lol

Yes. The tree stand regularly employed by us, sits about 30 feet above a river. One of us usually sit in three to four hour shifts on any given night with night vision, 1 mil or more candlepower spotlight and a camera or some other type of recording device.

Has there been any luck? Do you have any other ideas?

[Sac-squatch]

Well I don't know if my research method is new or not, but myself and my 3 year old human cadaver dog specifically hunt for dead sasquatch (on our down time). My dog Roscoe is a 2000+ hour trained cadaver dog. We drive roads where there have been sightings in and around CA. I am armed with high power binoculars and search for circling buzzards. When they are located, Roscoe and I (more Roscoe than I) find the decomposing animal. Although he is only trained to find human cadavers, he just loves rotting flesh of all kinds. So, that is my method in a nutshell, the condensed version of course. Oh yeah, in case you were curious of the how many bear carcasses have people found in the woods. I have found none, but my dog has found multiple bear, mountain lion, ringtail, bobcat, marmot.

This post has been edited by Sac-squatch: Sep 28 2007, 04:55 PM

[JohnCartwright]

Well I don't know if my research method is new or not, but myself and my 3 year old human cadaver dog specifically hunt for dead sasquatch (on our down time). My dog Roscoe is a 2000+ hour trained cadaver dog. We drive roads where there have been sightings in and around CA. I am armed with high power binoculars and search for circling buzzards. When they are located, Roscoe and I (more Roscoe than I) find the decomposing animal. Although he is only trained to find human cadavers, he just loves rotting flesh of all kinds. So, that is my method in a nutshell, the condensed version of course. Oh yeah, in case you were curious of the how many bear carcasses have people found in the woods. I have found none, but my dog has found multiple bear, mountain lion, ringtail, bobcat, marmot.

Wow..that is a really good idea! How long do you think a carcass can last in the wild? Days? Hours?

[Sac-squatch]

It really all depends, from minutes to weeks. depending on size and conditions

[jimf]

Yes, there is no harm in collecting casts but what can possibly be proven by them?

oh Yeah, I have never heard a Bonanza joke before....lol
Has there been any luck? Do you have any other ideas?

Whether or not it's been 'lucky" is pretty subjective, and nothing that I'd be willing to call evidence. I did though , possibly see the cougar from last year through my night-vision.


One other idea we've tried is extremely low tech but may be an effective "alarm" system if nothing else. Cost's about $4 and takes about an hour or so to set up.

Get a spool of fishing line 6 lb or less and stretch it covering different directions of where something could possibly move through ( Bear, person,deer, BF or whatever) and tie it off. Take the other end back to whatever area you call "base camp" and attach a bell/cat toy/ or some other device to that end and wait. If something breaks the strand the object at your end falls. It may end up being nothing, but at least you'll know which direction to grab the camera and run toward.

[RB]

Yes, there is no harm in collecting casts but what can possibly be proven by them?

Gee... what on Earth could footprints from an undiscovered species possibly tell us?

How about reading this book first and then maybe we can discuss it...:

Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science - by: Dr. Jeff Meldrum

[manofthesea]

How about panning for bigfoot? I believe that it's been stated that 'fossilised' remains can be found in caves and streambanks. Teeth, especially side molars, would be a perfect discovery. But, by watching that gold panning show, you would have to have necessary knowledge to find stream patterns from a specific time period. And then again, just panning any stream would at least allow the opportunity to receive a little 'payoff'.

[bigfootmorf]

Heres the thing. Some people think BIGFOOT is related to GIGANTO and some people do not. That is besides the point. We all agree GIGANTO existed,do we not? Well if it existed,how many bones/fossils have they found from it? A couple pieces. This is why it is so hard to find Bigfoot remains. GIGANTO was proven to exist but people still cant find its remains,imagine how hard it is for BIGFOOT,as it too is limited in its population,and its quite possible that thousands or millions of years from now(if EARTH is still in one piece) that scientists will find a Jawbone in the pacific northwest of USA,and realize that they have found an undiscovered primate remains-BIGFOOT!

[JohnCartwright]

Gee... what on Earth could footprints from an undiscovered species possibly tell us?

How about reading this book first and then maybe we can discuss it...:

Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science - by: Dr. Jeff Meldrum

OK smarty...I have read that book. My point is not that tracks are a waste of time. The point is that it is not PROOF
to the scientific community. We have been using these same methods for 40 years and they have not yielded squat!
I was just hoping for constructive new ideas.

[JohnCartwright]

How about panning for bigfoot? I believe that it's been stated that 'fossilised' remains can be found in caves and streambanks. Teeth, especially side molars, would be a perfect discovery. But, by watching that gold panning show, you would have to have necessary knowledge to find stream patterns from a specific time period. And then again, just panning any stream would at least allow the opportunity to receive a little 'payoff'.

That is a good idea for finding fossils. But a fossil is not really proof of the animal living today.

Whether or not it's been 'lucky" is pretty subjective, and nothing that I'd be willing to call evidence. I did though , possibly see the cougar from last year through my night-vision.
One other idea we've tried is extremely low tech but may be an effective "alarm" system if nothing else. Cost's about $4 and takes about an hour or so to set up.

Get a spool of fishing line 6 lb or less and stretch it covering different directions of where something could possibly move through ( Bear, person,deer, BF or whatever) and tie it off. Take the other end back to whatever area you call "base camp" and attach a bell/cat toy/ or some other device to that end and wait. If something breaks the strand the object at your end falls. It may end up being nothing, but at least you'll know which direction to grab the camera and run toward.

I saw something simular to that using wires and a electric grid, in the old mockumentary Sasquatch. I always thought it was a good idea though. Has there been any results?

[FanofSquatch]

It's a needle in a haystack. I tend to think that the old school sitting in a tree stand equiped with hitech video and a steady hand will eventually prevail. A trail cam shot will provide tons of discussion but in the end will be labled fake. Just being prepared for that chance encounter is the best bet.

[manofthesea]

That is a good idea for finding fossils. But a fossil is not really proof of the animal living today.

Uh.. ...But wouldn't that end up being a better candidate than giganto, or even be giganto?

[bigfootmorf]

Hey-worst case in PANNING for fossils,maybe you find GOLD!

[JohnCartwright]

Uh.. ...But wouldn't that end up being a better candidate than giganto, or even be giganto?

Sorry, I dont get what you mean.

This post has been edited by JohnCartwright: Sep 29 2007, 06:36 PM

[manofthesea]

Sorry, I dont get what you mean.

[hopeful]

If I ever have the means to do so, I would like to slowly boat around the edge of a lake from dusk til dawn. (Preferrably a lake where the banks would yield footprints.)

I'd carry whatever research technology was available but especially employ thermal and/or night vision to observe the shore line at all times.

I feel like sas are curious so while floating around the lake I'd try to appeal to BF's senses to attract their attention. Maybe cook some bacon for them to smell, play guitar or harmonica (or radio - whatever) for them to hear (or simply take a pontoon boat with a few people - talking and laughing would probably attract them as well.)

When I think of this scenario, I imagine a curious BF maybe following the boat along the lake for a bit. They would probably remain hidden behind brush and trees, BUT they don't know about thermal imaging. I only know a small amount more about it than they do, but I am willing to bet that you could eventually detect a large bipedal primate lurking along the shore line if one were there!

[JohnCartwright]

If I ever have the means to do so, I would like to slowly boat around the edge of a lake from dusk til dawn. (Preferrably a lake where the banks would yield footprints.)

I'd carry whatever research technology was available but especially employ thermal and/or night vision to observe the shore line at all times.

I feel like sas are curious so while floating around the lake I'd try to appeal to BF's senses to attract their attention. Maybe cook some bacon for them to smell, play guitar or harmonica (or radio - whatever) for them to hear (or simply take a pontoon boat with a few people - talking and laughing would probably attract them as well.)

When I think of this scenario, I imagine a curious BF maybe following the boat along the lake for a bit. They would probably remain hidden behind brush and trees, BUT they don't know about thermal imaging. I only know a small amount more about it than they do, but I am willing to bet that you could eventually detect a large bipedal primate lurking along the shore line if one were there!

Good idea, I have heard alot of stories about the animals being curious to strange sights and sounds. But I think more people may spook them.

[FredSneakers/Dav...]

OK smarty...I have read that book. My point is not that tracks are a waste of time. The point is that it is not PROOF
to the scientific community. We have been using these same methods for 40 years and they have not yielded squat!
I was just hoping for constructive new ideas.

Footprint casts are not proof, but that doesn't mean what's learned from them won't lead to a bigger collection of knowledge that can help find proof. Plus, a bigger collection of knowledge would inspire more interest from the scientific community, which would increase the liklihood of proof.

And I wouldn't say these methods have haven't yielded "squat," just not any sort of type specimen.

That is a good idea for finding fossils. But a fossil is not really proof of the animal living today.

Can you imagine the impact a tooth of a large ape found in the Pacific Northwest would have on the scientific community?

It is not proof of an animal living today, but it would be proof of an animal that once existed in a place where people say they see similar animals today. It would generate more interest in the subject for sure.


What I think needs to be done for "proof" would be the collection of tissue that could have it's DNA sequenced. I cannot think of any method to do this (other than collecting it while in sight of the subject, which is unlikely), however, that would not carry the significant risk of harming other wildlife.

[JohnCartwright]

Footprint casts are not proof, but that doesn't mean what's learned from them won't lead to a bigger collection of knowledge that can help find proof. Plus, a bigger collection of knowledge would inspire more interest from the scientific community, which would increase the liklihood of proof.

And I wouldn't say these methods have haven't yielded "squat," just not any sort of type specimen.
Can you imagine the impact a tooth of a large ape found in the Pacific Northwest would have on the scientific community?

It is not proof of an animal living today, but it would be proof of an animal that once existed in a place where people say they see similar animals today. It would generate more interest in the subject for sure.
What I think needs to be done for "proof" would be the collection of tissue that could have it's DNA sequenced. I cannot think of any method to do this (other than collecting it while in sight of the subject, which is unlikely), however, that would not carry the significant risk of harming other wildlife.

I agree

[Sac-squatch]

Footprints....Schmootprints......Photos...... Schmotos!!!! Lets all find a body.... Nothing else will satisfy, and in our heart of hearts, we all know it. Sorry for copious usage of punctuation. To see the method I use, read my previous posts in this thread. I know it is still a needle in a haystack. But If I find the needle, there really will be no debate on whether it is a needle or it isn't.... then again there was PILTDOWN!!!

This post has been edited by Sac-squatch: Sep 30 2007, 04:21 AM

[StacyInMI]

I saw something simular to that using wires and a electric grid, in the old mockumentary Sasquatch. I always thought it was a good idea though. Has there been any results?

The line we ran across the river from camp (we kept it WAY high off the water) was 6-7 feet high going through the tree line, and it did get bumped or pulled hard enough to jingle the bells a couple of times, but the line never broke. Problem is that when you run a line that long, and this was probably close to a hundred yards, you just can't pull the line tight enough that it'll snap easily. It'd have to practically be plowed through at a fairly rapid rate for it to break before whatever hits it has time to think "Whoa, what is this?" and stop moving. Still, when the little bells jingle, it does put you on high alert!

[bigfootmorf]

I would think a similar thing could be made with motion sensors so you wouldnt need wires.Not the real wide angle sensors that will go off everytime a bird flys by,but a more accute and defined senor pattern,pretty much setting anything off in a straight line of it.Sort of on the same line of a trail cam or motion light

This post has been edited by bigfootmorf: Sep 30 2007, 07:15 AM

[StacyInMI]

One of our guys has something like that... I don't like it myself for two reasons. One, the sound it makes is loud and obnoxious and two, anything can set it off. With the line suspended 6-7 feet off the ground, not much is going to trip it unless it flies into it, tries to weasel across it, or is actually 7 feet tall.

I'd love to try the seismic sensors though, but don't know enough about them to even know what to look for.

[bigfootmorf]

How about a laser beam? I dont mean as fancy as NASA or anything like that,I mean like the little handheld lasers/laserlights that shoot out the red beam-that would be a VERY SMALL beam for anything small to break,but a large creature could go thru at 6 ft off the ground and set it off?






You could setup a perimiter around an area with 4 of these,forming a square,and anything tall enough moving in or out would set it off.

This post has been edited by bigfootmorf: Sep 30 2007, 07:34 AM

[JohnCartwright]

How about a laser beam? I dont mean as fancy as NASA or anything like that,I mean like the little handheld lasers/laserlights that shoot out the red beam-that would be a VERY SMALL beam for anything small to break,but a large creature could go thru at 6 ft off the ground and set it off?

You could setup a perimiter around an area with 4 of these,forming a square,and anything tall enough moving in or out would set it off.

Good idea, but would'nt they be able to see the red laser beam?

[FredSneakers/Dav...]

Good idea, but would'nt they be able to see the red laser beam?

I can't imagine how they would?

Lets all find a body.... Nothing else will satisfy, and in our heart of hearts, we all know it.

Nah, a molar or a DNA sample would do just fine I think.

[Wyomingite]

The problem with DNA extracted from tissue samples, unless the samples come directly from an identifiable portion of a cadaver, is that there is no type specimen for the species to which the results can be compared. Even if the tissue was collected within sight of a BF, there will still be the camp that will argue invalidity for this reason. It's the same argument TimMcmanus made in the Ohio Talker thread, about the UFO on the White House lawn.

Sorry, couldn't figure out how to link to the post. It was posted by TimMcManus, 9-29-07 at 12:34 AM.

"Say something that appears to be the classic "flying saucer" materializes on the lawn of the White House, proceeds to demonstrate what the world's most respected physicists agree to be heretofore-thought impossible aeronautic maneuvers, then rockets upward at a speed that would liquify a human passenger, all before disappearing into the sky. Whatever security cams surround the White House catch the incident on video, and hundreds, including the President, witness the whole thing. There are scorch marks in the White-House lawn's grass and heavy radiation readings there as well. Yet that's all we have (relatively speaking). Wouldn't science still have to admit that the only reasonable explanation was an extraterrestrial craft? Or would the event just fall into the "Unknown" category because there was no opportunity to test any other hypotheses such as, say, a man-made hologram of unprecedented realism (but that wouldn't explain the scorch marks or the rads), regardless of whether or not THAT explanation is a square peg being forced into a round hole when compared to simply conceding that alien intelligence exists?"

Seeing may be believing, but it will not satisfy mainstream science, and therefore it won't satisfy the vast majority of the public. Witness testimony and residual evidence will be questioned and this will allow for a square peg to be forced into a round hole, as such. IMHO, a body or a significant portion of such will be the only thing that will actually prove that the critter exists. Not downplaying the value of tracks, scat and other data, mind you. Applied to research in a critical manner, such data could provide critical information in tracking the truth.

That said, assuming this is a flesh and blood critter, any technique that a researcher can ably and adeptly employ that improves his chances to come closer to achieving his or her goal is valid. I want to emphasize "ably and adeptly", as not every researcher has the same skill set, financial resources or available time. Every researcher has his or her own tricks, I'm sure. Some of these methods have become "standardized" among researchers. I believe good "old-fashioned" hunting techniques will ultimately make the difference. Random chance and patience are the factors which will enlighten the enquiring minds that want to know.

[BlueGenes]

Your analysis of the problem with DNA types is in error Wyomingite. There is not a phylogeneticist in the world who would agree with you. You don't did a type specimen to compare anything with! Search other posts concerning DNA to read see the reasoning. I'm tired of explaining it again and again and again.