The Four Categories of BF, Pongid, Hominid, Paranormal, Psychic / Imaginary Options

[Drew]

It would be interesting to see if anyone would like to continue or extend this comparison, particularly regarding where the available evidence fits in to all this.

Actually, it was Dr. Meldrum who said when asked if there are any trackways with two prints with matching dermals. I believe he replied 'Unfortunately, No.'

[Flashman]

Thats probably not the best example ( even tho i see your point) Science has acknowledged the factual probability of heavier than air flight ( which actually would be an invention rather than a discovery- like Franklin "discovered" electricity- he didnt invent it) even before Davinci. HTA flight was proven the first time an object was thrown and technology had already created applications of that technology ( balloons)- now it was simply a race to see when man and the application of technology could overcome known constants such as gravity, pressure etc. That was based in legitimate science and physics. Its always been agreed that if gravity could be overcome- you would fly, then its a matter of how high, far and long.

Well yes, the example was of neccessity simplististic. You seemed to be confused on the difference between ballistic trajectories, lighter than air flight, and heavier than air flight. We haven't overcome gravity yet of course, but we can locally compensate for it's undesirable effects.

[longtabber PE]

Well yes, the example was of neccessity simplististic. You seemed to be confused on the difference between ballistic trajectories, lighter than air flight, and heavier than air flight. We haven't overcome gravity yet of course, but we can locally compensate for it's undesirable effects.

I got what you were saying and apoligize for not keeping a better grasp on my inner "evil engineer"

But even then, he's creeping back in

We actually have "overcome gravity" ( by various propulsion systems) we just havent been able to negate it yet.

Now, excuse me while I go don my ghillie suit and hide while awaiting those rocks establishing that "ballistic trajectory" you spoke of

[Minister_of_Info...]

Actually, it was Dr. Meldrum who said when asked if there are any trackways with two prints with matching dermals. I believe he replied 'Unfortunately, No.'

Not sure what you're hoping to establish with that earlier quote.

In any case, this discussion does not hinge on dermals. Although a sample of matching dermals from a particular trackway would not convince a single skeptic, now would it.

[Drew]

Not sure what you're hoping to establish with that earlier quote.

In any case, this discussion does not hinge on dermals. Although a sample of matching dermals from a particular trackway would not convince a single skeptic, now would it.

Actually, it was Dr. Meldrum who said when asked if there are any trackways with two prints with matching dermals. I believe he replied 'Unfortunately, No.'

If you are referring to this quote, I was hoping to establish that RayG's quote from directly above my reply was understood correctly. RayG's quote is below.

To my knowledge no matching dermals that would identifty two tracks from the same trackway coming from the same individual.

[longtabber PE]

Not sure what you're hoping to establish with that earlier quote.

In any case, this discussion does not hinge on dermals. Although a sample of matching dermals from a particular trackway would not convince a single skeptic, now would it.

>>>In any case, this discussion does not hinge on dermals. Although a sample of matching dermals from a particular trackway would not convince a single skeptic, now would it.

I personally believe it would carry a great deal of weight if there were 20-30 sequential prints showing the exact same patterns, ridges and all.

I would also use a little better and more accurate technique in analyzing the print before I took the samples and I would make my own test data to compare it to by using controlled experiments- but thats another subject to make my proposal have a little more merit. ( it would still be inconclusive but i would have a modal analysis to back me up)

I believe i would take something that strong and apply for a grant

This post has been edited by longtabber PE: Nov 19 2007, 01:36 PM

[RayG]

Although a sample of matching dermals from a particular trackway would not convince a single skeptic, now would it.

No, it wouldn't fully convince me, but it would certainly be better than what we have now. (none)

RayG

[Minister_of_Info...]

No, it wouldn't fully convince me, but it would certainly be better than what we have now. (none)

RayG

Sure it would be better, but you'd have to admit that it is unlikely for such detail to be preserved in many prints along a particular trackway. Artifacts have clearly occurred and been misidentified, but that does not automatically justify throwing all of Chillicutt's work out with the bathwater.

[Former_Northwest...]

Setting aside of how relevant your post is to the underlying question, it seems to me that applying Heisenberg's uncertainty principle (that velocity and position cannot be measured simultaneously) is misguided here.

This is a fascinating debate, I wish I had more time to join in.

MOI, I'm not in agreement with many of your points, but I just had to chime in to say that you are correct that this has nothing to do with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. The HUP only has meaning at the quantum (sub-atomic) level, and is often mis-used by applying it at the macro-level. It's another of those concepts that has been distorted in the popular culture.

-FNW

[bartlojays]

Well it seems like their's an interesting debate going on here, but definitely a healthy one.
Minister when you make it down to Monterey for that beer, you better talk to me in a language I can understand, Capice? Just given you a hard time Minister and looking forward to meeting you in person.

I've got an interesting question mainly for the skeptics on this thread- Drew, RayG etc... I'm just interested to hear your opinions because we all have our standards of what constitutes proof and obviously acknowledgement by science in general will have theirs regarding these animals. But pretend for a minute that I was able to record what I witnessed the night of my encounter through the imager and everything I've said was exactly how I said it (if you don't trust or believe my experience, fine, this is just hypothetical), would seeing two minutes of thermal footage of everything I witnessed be enough for you to convince you these animals exist?

The reason I ask is because (from my point view) this almost happened had we been better prepared and I'm wondering what thermal footage would mean to you "evidentiary" speaking.

Remember, with thermal footage their would be evidence of a "naked" animal (no way to hide clothing) fitting the profile I described and that animal with those characteristics performing what I saw it perform for the amount of time I witnessed it. You'd be able to compare a clothed human subject from the exact distance (which we did but obviously since it was only through my eyes only I can judge from my encounter). And as far as I know, I don't think their is a way to hoax or manipulate thermal footage that's why I consider it so definitive- Although I've got alot of experience with those units-I could be wrong on this aspect, so please don't quote me on that.

But skeptical guys, please weigh in because several of us in the BFRO and maybe elsewhere have a good chance of this happening in the near future and I'm curious what your thoughts are if you wish to share them.

[Blackdog]

If my mother told me your story I would still have doubts. Sorry that's just the way it is. You didn't record anything so we can't pretend. That's just being honest Bart.

Unless I see something I can't possibly make an assessment and to be honest if Matt (you brought up the BFRO involvement not me) was involved I would have to take it with more than a grain of salt.

Am I prejudiced towards Moneymaker? Hell yes, it's his fault not mine, all I did was be honest with him and everyone involved at the time. In fact there are other people here who didn't treat me and others very well while they were fawning over FLATS and Matt.

One thing about those Yahoo lists is that you can get every post sent to you in email...and unless you delete them they are archived.

[Drew]

Bartlojays

I would be open-minded about a thermal image video. I don't really know what kind of detail you can get, and if it is possible to make out everything you are describing. But, I'm sure I'd look at it and make my conclusions based on what I see. (NOTE: If you throw a thermal imaged MDF-type video out there, I'm going to call it what it is!)

[longtabber PE]

Well it seems like their's an interesting debate going on here, but definitely a healthy one.
Minister when you make it down to Monterey for that beer, you better talk to me in a language I can understand, Capice? Just given you a hard time Minister and looking forward to meeting you in person.

I've got an interesting question mainly for the skeptics on this thread- Drew, RayG etc... I'm just interested to hear your opinions because we all have our standards of what constitutes proof and obviously acknowledgement by science in general will have theirs regarding these animals. But pretend for a minute that I was able to record what I witnessed the night of my encounter through the imager and everything I've said was exactly how I said it (if you don't trust or believe my experience, fine, this is just hypothetical), would seeing two minutes of thermal footage of everything I witnessed be enough for you to convince you these animals exist?

The reason I ask is because (from my point view) this almost happened had we been better prepared and I'm wondering what thermal footage would mean to you "evidentiary" speaking.

Remember, with thermal footage their would be evidence of a "naked" animal (no way to hide clothing) fitting the profile I described and that animal with those characteristics performing what I saw it perform for the amount of time I witnessed it. You'd be able to compare a clothed human subject from the exact distance (which we did but obviously since it was only through my eyes only I can judge from my encounter). And as far as I know, I don't think their is a way to hoax or manipulate thermal footage that's why I consider it so definitive- Although I've got alot of experience with those units-I could be wrong on this aspect, so please don't quote me on that.

But skeptical guys, please weigh in because several of us in the BFRO and maybe elsewhere have a good chance of this happening in the near future and I'm curious what your thoughts are if you wish to share them.

>>> But pretend for a minute that I was able to record what I witnessed the night of my encounter through the imager and everything I've said was exactly how I said it (if you don't trust or believe my experience, fine, this is just hypothetical), would seeing two minutes of thermal footage of everything I witnessed be enough for you to convince you these animals exist?

It would go a long way but here are the things I would look for and ask you dufing the evaluation of your film ( speaking as a level III thermographer and stamped PE who does thermal imaging almost every week for over 30 years)

1) the make.model of camera you are using ( that will tell me its range and sensitivity)

2) your credentials regarding thermography- do you carry ASNT level I,II or III certification ( that would tell me if you were qualified to take quality imaging)

3) i would also have to know ( related to 1 above) if you were using an actual thermal imaging device rather than just an IR camera ( sees in the dark)- often they are referred to as the same thing but the 2 are light years apart

4) I would need to know the ambient temp of the area you were shooting at ( to have a baseline to measure the subject matter against- you can set this in an imager as well as the color bands to reflect certain heat ranges)

So assuming the above is done and you have a thermal imager- heres what you could expect from a detailed analysis of a 2-3 minute film

1) it would immediately rule out any form of suit as a suit would have zero emmisivity as a living organism would

2) ( depending upon the range to target and the bandwidth of the imager)- it could show a warm body under a layer of hair ( you would need a high end camera for this level of detail and pretty close range- the problems affecting this would be wet hair and moisture in the air between you and the target ( thermal imagers dont see "thru" heat- its going to register the closest emitter)- it would also show the target emitter in relation to the background heat of any foliage.

3) the biggest thing it would do ( assuming you get face, hand or foot shots in your video) would show emitted heat from the skin in relation to the hair and depending on the ambient temp even the "coldness" of the eyes ( eyes and tear ducts are the only non heat emitters on a body- they are always 'white heat") and possibly even breath trails.

There are many variables and this post isnt a level I tutorial but a good quality thermal video of a specimen would make a solid scientific case ( not proof positive) that you shot a living organism rather than an illusion or man in a suit.

It would also preculde a lot of accusations that you "doctored" the footage as long as you kept the original download from the camera as this software ( that takes and interprets the heat) isnt a photo based package.

[RayG]

I've got an interesting question mainly for the skeptics on this thread- Drew, RayG etc... I'm just interested to hear your opinions because we all have our standards of what constitutes proof and obviously acknowledgement by science in general will have theirs regarding these animals. But pretend for a minute that I was able to record what I witnessed the night of my encounter through the imager and everything I've said was exactly how I said it (if you don't trust or believe my experience, fine, this is just hypothetical), would seeing two minutes of thermal footage of everything I witnessed be enough for you to convince you these animals exist?

In the immortal words of Michael Kyle, "Ah, nah." I'm open to the possibility you captured a bigfoot, but the PGF seems to show a possible bigfoot, and after 40 years the subject still hasn't been convincingly proven nor effectively debunked.

The reason I ask is because (from my point view) this almost happened had we been better prepared and I'm wondering what thermal footage would mean to you "evidentiary" speaking.

Unfortunately, not a whole lot. I'd echo the concerns that Blackdog, Drew and longtabber have already voiced, and then I'd add, how would it compare to the PGF? Were you convinced enough by what you saw that you would have fired at it with a rifle? Why or why not?

But skeptical guys, please weigh in because several of us in the BFRO and maybe elsewhere have a good chance of this happening in the near future and I'm curious what your thoughts are if you wish to share them.

Then I'd suggest you change equipment, shooting bullets instead of pictures. That should end the controversy about whether bigfoot is real or not. It's a win-win situation (except for the poor squatch), proponents get to point fingers at the scoftics/skeptics while chanting "neener, neener, we told you so", the scientists would have a body to fully examine, providing tremendous amounts of information and money for bigfoot research, and the scoftics/skeptics could crawl off and eat crow, which I will gladly do if and when that day ever happens.

RayG

[longtabber PE]

This is a fascinating debate, I wish I had more time to join in.

MOI, I'm not in agreement with many of your points, but I just had to chime in to say that you are correct that this has nothing to do with the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. The HUP only has meaning at the quantum (sub-atomic) level, and is often mis-used by applying it at the macro-level. It's another of those concepts that has been distorted in the popular culture.

-FNW

In the literal sense you are correct but we have our own "jargon" and thats used a lot in GDT altho its technically misapplied as to science.

Its no different than when we use engineering shorthand where 2/10 isnt 2/10 of an inch ( as a carpenter would read) but 2 ten thousandths of an inch as a machinist would.

I should have used better wording- sorry

[Drew]

I think you have misconstrued my intent here. It is not to say that anyone who has seen a Bigfoot is having a Hallucination or a Neurological symptom, I am simply trying to point out that the evidence or lack of evidence, does not point to it being a Pongid or Hominid.

The problem comes in when you say evidence shows that it is a Pongid or Hominid, and I say, I don't consider that to be evidence, my standard of evidence allows me only to consider them to be allegations.

The point I am trying to get across is, if you use my standard of evidence, then there is no possible way to choose a physical being, the lack of evidence in itself points only to some form of neurologica/psychic projection.

[Minister_of_Info...]

I think you have misconstrued my intent here. It is not to say that anyone who has seen a Bigfoot is having a Hallucination or a Neurological symptom, I am simply trying to point out that the evidence or lack of evidence, does not point to it being a Pongid or Hominid.

The problem comes in when you say evidence shows that it is a Pongid or Hominid, and I say, I don't consider that to be evidence, my standard of evidence allows me only to consider them to be allegations.

The point I am trying to get across is, if you use my standard of evidence, then there is no possible way to choose a physical being, the lack of evidence in itself points only to some form of neurologica/psychic projection.

You talkin' to me?

Drew, I have a quick question for you. When making everyday, common sense, walking down the street decisions, do you utilize the standard of peer review to form your opinions?

Think of this thread in the same way.

[dogu4]

Pardon my intrusion, but just as a point of clarity; I agree that a hologram would preserve the 3D detail and that the quality/quantity of data that it would preserve is dependent on the resolution of the holographic system's design, no? There are other details that one might wish to consider preserving aside from the 3D, not to presume that someone with this laser hologram system at their disposal wouldn't also want to preserve visual, molecular details too.

Am I correct is presuming that this testing is primarily directed at determining the weight/mass of the object that created the impression and not whether it was the result of the biodynamic process that interests us here?

That point about the thermal imaging equipment versus the purchase of laser holography equipment is an interesting one and I think that it reflects the basic bias that humans have towards visual illusion, which as we know, despite our preferrence for it, is subject to lots of interpretation, and so far has resulted in no identifiable images of BF.

The use of engineering equipment,techniques and standards, in contrast, seem detached, abstract and not intuitive to laymen but ultimately delivers the objective truth of the matter within the parameters of the design...and might get us somewhere.

How does one get this out into the field? This is fascinating.

[Drew]

Unfortunately, I have no life, I spend more than 10 minutes a day on this BF forum website, so when you say 'walking down the street' I don't understand...

Seriously, I don't do that in everyday life, it is only here, where I won't get jumped and pummeled by the general public.

[Minister_of_Info...]

Unfortunately, I have no life, I spend more than 10 minutes a day on this BF forum website, so when you say 'walking down the street' I don't understand...

Seriously, I don't do that in everyday life, it is only here, where I won't get jumped and pummeled by the general public.

That's pretty frickin' funny.

You can also think about it as a discussion of what seems probable, given what common sense tells you about the situation, versus what has been scientifically established (not much, although I would submit that the existence of a problem has been established at this point).

It takes common sense calculations and a lot of best guesses to get this kind of thing going. The scientific classification of every detail can wait until after discovery has occurred.

[Hairy Man]

That was funny Drew!!

I agree that a 3D model of a print captured from the ground itself would be cool, but it's clearly not practical (logistics, equipment, rarity, etc.). However, Meldrum's 3D scans of the casts are very interesting..

[Mon0705]

Am I correct is presuming that this testing is primarily directed at determining the weight/mass of the object that created the impression and not whether it was the result of the biodynamic process that interests us here?

How does one get this out into the field? This is fascinating.

Sorry to interrupt the discussions about personal habits and the such, but I agree this 3D thing sounds fascinating, and does seem like it could provide some possibly useful information as such. LongtabberPA, is it even feasible to move something like this into a setting where tracks were such that we could glean some information about size and movement of the 'thing' that made such a track? Has something like this been used before for animal prints? What kind of margin of error is there in something like this? In other words, if we put it to the test, would this be able to spit out an estimate that would be reasonable, or is it still best guess? It does seem like a very interesting idea that may be able to be used to somewhat validate whether a track is produced by a creature or by a hoaxer.

Sorry, I really liked this idea and didn't pick up on it until dogu4 hit on it a second ago. I was avoiding the thread with all the banter.

[Minister_of_Info...]

I'm guessing the hologram thing would take some sort of small laser array which was built into a miniature (knee-high) tent of some kind, where you could safely expose the film while lasing the imprint from a few different directions. Anybody know what kind of exposure time is required for most holograms?

[Flashman]

That point about the thermal imaging equipment versus the purchase of laser holography equipment is an interesting one and I think that it reflects the basic bias that humans have towards visual illusion, which as we know, despite our preferrence for it, is subject to lots of interpretation, and so far has resulted in no identifiable images of BF.

Yeah, I wasn't really saying that one would have better results than the other, it's just that thermal imaging equipment is man portable, but the holographic system would need half a dozen people portaging various parts, or a specially designed ATV trailer. I don't know even if you could run it off a man portable generator. The HV supplies for the lasers need some serious juice. Not to forget also that while there might be some compact "table top" holo systems around, they image small objects, not 18" footprints. We might be into lasers that need liquid cooling systems for that. Getting everything set up at the site and aligned and collimated could take all day, just to image the one print. Ergo if you've got 10G+ burning a hole in your pocket for "stuff to prove BF" the thermal imager might seem like a less logistically encumbered instrument.

[longtabber PE]

Pardon my intrusion, but just as a point of clarity; I agree that a hologram would preserve the 3D detail and that the quality/quantity of data that it would preserve is dependent on the resolution of the holographic system's design, no? There are other details that one might wish to consider preserving aside from the 3D, not to presume that someone with this laser hologram system at their disposal wouldn't also want to preserve visual, molecular details too.

Am I correct is presuming that this testing is primarily directed at determining the weight/mass of the object that created the impression and not whether it was the result of the biodynamic process that interests us here?

That point about the thermal imaging equipment versus the purchase of laser holography equipment is an interesting one and I think that it reflects the basic bias that humans have towards visual illusion, which as we know, despite our preferrence for it, is subject to lots of interpretation, and so far has resulted in no identifiable images of BF.

The use of engineering equipment,techniques and standards, in contrast, seem detached, abstract and not intuitive to laymen but ultimately delivers the objective truth of the matter within the parameters of the design...and might get us somewhere.

How does one get this out into the field? This is fascinating.

>>>Pardon my intrusion, but just as a point of clarity; I agree that a hologram would preserve the 3D detail and that the quality/quantity of data that it would preserve is dependent on the resolution of the holographic system's design, no? There are other details that one might wish to consider preserving aside from the 3D, not to presume that someone with this laser hologram system at their disposal wouldn't also want to preserve visual, molecular details too.

Lasers project the hologram- they are rarely used to make it

you take panorex pictures ( with GD&T capability) and load those images with their dimensons into CMS type software ( coordinate measuring software) and it creates 2D or 3D representations that can then be fed into the laser to create the hologram or into a CNC to cut a replica

>>>Am I correct is presuming that this testing is primarily directed at determining the weight/mass of the object that created the impression and not whether it was the result of the biodynamic process that interests us here?

actually neither ( regarding holograms)- those are for visual study

If you want to get accurate measurements of weight,mass,dispersion- you would need to take the test foot and use "pressure paper" ( which is what we use in textile and paper industries to measure roll pressure during squeezing, embossing etc- it turns different colors regarding weight as applied) and experiment with angles to build a good data set. Thats a little more complex but the technology and equipment is out there and proven with decades of experience

[Mon0705]

Yeah, I wasn't really saying that one would have better results than the other, it's just that thermal imaging equipment is man portable, but the holographic system would need half a dozen people portaging various parts, or a specially designed ATV trailer. I don't know even if you could run it off a man portable generator. The HV supplies for the lasers need some serious juice. Not to forget also that while there might be some compact "table top" holo systems around, they image small objects, not 18" footprints. We might be into lasers that need liquid cooling systems for that. Getting everything set up at the site and aligned and collimated could take all day, just to image the one print. Ergo if you've got 10G+ burning a hole in your pocket for "stuff to prove BF" the thermal imager might seem like a less logistically encumbered instrument.

Let me check my piggy bank and I'll get back to you on that...but don't wait up for me.

The argument for the thermal imager certainly makes financial and practical sense, but is it possible to make use of this sort of system to extrapolate the nature of the creature making the track? Even if we can't lug the thing into the forest. Anytime you can use multiple techniques to come to the same or similar conclusion it begins to develop a little more 'weight' (no pun intended).

Lasers project the hologram- they are rarely used to make it

you take panorex pictures ( with GD&T capability) and load those images with their dimensons into CMS type software ( coordinate measuring software) and it creates 2D or 3D representations that can then be fed into the laser to create the hologram or into a CNC to cut a replica

If you want to get accurate measurements of weight,mass,dispersion- you would need to take the test foot and use "pressure paper" ( which is what we use in textile and paper industries to measure roll pressure during squeezing, embossing etc- it turns different colors regarding weight as applied) and experiment with angles to build a good data set. Thats a little more complex but the technology and equipment is out there and proven with decades of experience

To make a long question short...could this technology be used in the field and be useful to the BF community?

[Minister_of_Info...]

Edit: just read Hairy Man's post.

This post has been edited by Minister_of_Information: Nov 20 2007, 11:50 AM

[Flashman]

Ah yeah, you can constuct a holographic record from stereoscopic pictures. However, I figure as soon as you get digital processing involved you'll have another argument about digital artifacting, moire fringes, etc etc. Equipment for that is as simple as a camera and tripod, and a method of locating the camera between 2 positions. (Which can be as simple as a home made slider that the camera bolts to, with known dimensions at the stops.) It's probably not really that useful to make a hologram from that so much as to view the stereo pairs or register the images into a computer model.

Stereoscopic imaging can reveal a lot more detail though, I am a beleiver in "doubling up" your low quality "hat cam" or whatever, such that if you do get something, you have confirmation that it's a 3D object, not a shadow, and additional enhancement, and measurements may be possible.

[bartlojays]

Drew, RayG and Longtabber PE- thanks for the feedback, I was just curious what your honest to god opinion was regarding thermal imaging and to how high of regard you would hold it.

RayG I know where you stand, my girlfriend's pro-kill as well but for even more selfish reasons than you-at least you have a genuine interest in the phenomenon, LOL.

[Minister_of_Info...]

Earlier...

I'll agree that I am a pompous ass if you will agree that you are a flaccid dolt.

rockinkt, the plain truth is that I would not have responded to your initial post at all except that it was an insulting mischaracterization of my argument with Drew. I'm not sure if you've read this thread thoroughly enough to be aware of it, but when I referred to Drew's "dim view" of mankind's reliability it was not intended to be pejorative of him personally in any way. So when you turned that adjective around on me, above ("Not recognizing... is a pretty 'dim' view"), yes I took some umbrage to it. And when you enumerated a list of self-evidenent truths with which I have never taken issue, topped off with a self-important and equally self-evident prescription about the need to investigate peoples' statements, I began to feel patronized. Then when you attempted to compare me to a manager at McDonalds -- a comparison which some might find insulting in itself -- and referenced a notorious event where a manager of a McDonalds may have been excessively credulous with a prank caller, as though I might be equally simpleminded -- yes, I began to feel insulted, and even a bit angry about it all.

Perhaps it is possible that you are a friend of Drew's and were attempting to defend him in some misguided way, I don't know and couldn't care less. The fact is I was having a perfectly civil debate with Drew in which you chose to intervene with a lot of invective. I have observed your contribution to this board in the short time that I have been here, and frankly I consider it to be a disgrace. I would prefer that we never had occassion to communicate, but when I have been so poory treated with so little cause, I am afraid I cannot let it pass. Personally, I am happy to return measure for measure but I doubt the moderators will appreciate such an exchange. So I urge you to say whatever you have to say and let it pass, because I hope with all that is in me that these are the last remarks I will be forced to address to you -- or about you.

I hereby rescind this statement, note that rockinkt's contribution to the board is most assuredly NOT a disgrace and is in fact quite valuable, and furthermore note that all this was the product of an unfortunate misunderstanding.

So mote it be.

[WHM]

I am new to the board and make no claims as to being an "expert". I have been interested in the subject for thirty years but never done any research so I can only offer opinions. I am an avid outdoorsman though so I do have intimate knowledge of wild places.

I would guess a mix of the first two, mostly in the intelligence category.

If they do exist they would have to be more"aware" than your average animal to be so elusive. Obviously they are not intelligent enough to use fire (at least not that I have heard ) so a mix would be my guess. I would think a small group of humans living in the wild could remain virtually undetected for a long time quite easily if they wanted to.

As far as witnesses go, I think that some are definately of questionable character while some are undeniably beyond reproach. Overly skeptical people tend to throw the baby out with the bath water. Some bad witnesses ruin it for the rest of them.

I have never seen one but I would never make any assumptions if I did see something strange, I would always assume the mundane FIRST and I think that most of the good witnessses are the same. We use people as witnesses to put people in jail and for just about every functioning aspect of our society but are willing discredit ALL witnesses when it comes to things like bigfoot. Doesn't make sense sometimes. I think it would be almost more interesting if it was proven BF didn't exist, why are these good witnesses seeing things?

I believe the mysterious (bigfoot, etc) are a possibility but I keep an open mind to any answer (even that some humans are "nut jobs" who have visions, etc and humans can be fooled by even the "best evidence" ) I would love BF to exist and would lean to the POSSIBLE side of the fence but not so far that my brains run out of my ears.

The field needs a millionaire to fund a 1 year project with a hundred people working in one area with loads of the best equipment. If after that time no better evidence is found then I think we could probably say we have interpreted the past evidence wrong and BF does not exist

This is a very tough subject to make any kind of definitive statements on, thats what makes it so interesting! All opinions have validity until proven wrong.

[dogu4]

Excellent thoughts, and much like myown. Welcome aboard. Look forward to your sharing your insights. As to your perspectives and suggestions: ...let's hope the creature being pursued either isn't as elusive as a dumpster diving Eric Rudolph or that the researchers selected are better than the sizeable quantity of guys the federal government had with their almost unlimited resources. I'm being facetious, but only a little.
Critical for success, I think, will be either and/or both of the following: a comprehensive and natuaralistc understanding of the creatures' instinctive behaviors/ intelligence(s) so that those searching can identify a research area that is likely populated and offering a good possibility for gathering evidence (not all habitats offer this) using a protocol designed to maximize potential to do so, and/or a considerable amount of luck, in my opinion. And a a whole lot of money would be helpfull too, if only to celebrate the capture or console our wounded egos afterwards. Wouldn't you agree? Got anything in mind?

This post has been edited by dogu4: Mar 10 2008, 01:02 PM

[WHM]

Sure, it would probably be more like a 1.5 to 2 year project, one half to one year for planning, another for field work. A detailed plan would be required and time consuming.

First get a project manager who would be just that, a manager of people and resources. You would not want someone with something to gain or lose from the results. The only success would be evidence, or complete lack of through extensive research.

That manager would need to gather the resources and knowledge of the top ten or so most respected researchers in the field (with a total skeptic or so thrown in to keep everyone honest).

As you said the location would have to be conducive to the widest range of research methods combined with supposed highest concentrations of populations. It would also have to possibly be in a state where they are not protected....a body really would be the best evidence. I know, controversy, but thats what it may take.

A set standard of applicable search methods would have to be established. Every method should be considered as it may be unconventional thinking that will lead to finding evidence.

And yes money is the key. I would say $6 million minimum to really do it right. Of course, the more the better.

I could envision 100 people working in the field for 1 full year. You will need camera setters, baiters, trackers, drivers, cooks,etc. Large animal hunting "drives" could be one method to try and capture pictures, etc. You will need lots of people to cover the acreage. Traps would need to be made/ dug. ETC, ETC

I would think 600 still cameras minimum. 30-50 FLIR's, 50-100 hovering balloon cameras. , helicoptors, Tranquilizer guns, etc.

I think some kind of digestable radio transmitter is one idea that has alot of possibilty, that could get expensive if the technology exists.


It would be huge logisitcal undertaking and potentially embarassing for either side of the controversy. It would take some people willing to lay it all on the line to make it work.

If it wasn't bungled, it would be the quickest way to prove BF is real, and the only real way to prove he isn't (for most reasonable people that is. there would still be some that wouldn't give up the ghost).

This post has been edited by WHM: Mar 10 2008, 08:42 PM