We lost a good man from the forums just recently, a casualty of the I just got to hang on and believe mentality that many of us have faced in the past. And whose numbers are increasing rapidly.
One or two other great intellects have threatened to pull out of social intercourse which is the backbones of forums. And a goodly number of us can feel their pain.

Why is this happening? In my opinion it is happening because it is hard to get excited over nothing. Years ago a researcher might have thought they had something...or that someone else had something..so that kept them going.
But with the internet came a reality check! We actually found out by way of being able to talk to hundreds of our peers and by swapping notes with them...that neither of us had anything!
Of course the I just got to hang on and believe crowd were and are, not very accepting of this. So people in the past have been accused of holding out. Being secretive! And the latest one...being shifty

Getting back to that good man which we lost. He wasn't around very long on these boards compared to dozens of others...but boy did he ever make an impact! Needless to say if you know the beast which is the research community..a number of his ideas did not go over very well. But people, by and large, hailed him as an honorable researcher.(Only because they could not pooh pooh his observations?) But it does not matter..he is lost to us now.

And one of the reasons for this, and other sad occasions, on the BF/Sas boards is the fact the many times people [researchers] come of as being very needy. So much so that if it were a member of the opposite sex who displayed those traits and qualities..you would run for your life! In spite of having nothing..they have to hang on and believe. Whether this is to recompense them for time and effort put forth, or money laid out...who knows. Maybe they just do not have a life...or are trying to escape the one that they do have. But maybe, just maybe, these self serving needs can become something productive?

As someone pointed out in another forum, and as many others have said before (and probably will again.) Nothing is ever going to happen here until the day arrives when all serious researchers are operating off the same page. Whether it be handling of evidence, or the taking of reports..or plain and simple..what has been tried before...does it work..or does it not work. While it is very laudable that two new groups have sprung up out of the ashes of an old group...folks, that just ain't going to get it done! That is clear now!

If standardization of report taking and evidence handling was implemented on a national level ( Yes, that includes Canada. ) by every serious researcher then this mystery would have been put to bed..one way or another...perhaps as long as 25 years ago.


[ Chris Murphy said in his latest newsletter that there are something like hundreds of Sasquatch sightings a year.] Many people think that is a great thing. That will show those scientist and skeptics a thing or two!!
Well..actually no! With so many annual sightings it makes it very suspect when there is no solid evidence found to prove the existence of these creature. As Murphy pointed out..[it would be better for the cause if only three or four reports came in a year...and preferably from some remote region.] That would give the creature more credence as a real but elusive entity.

I think that this is a problem which only standardization can address. This is what has to be conquered in order to make the scientific community sit up and take notice. More reports are not a good thing....just a few high quality reports would have much more of an impact on people and the scientific community in general.Don't think that the scientist cannot see how needy the community is also!

If this had been done from the begining..then this mystery would have been wrapped up decades ago. It would either be put to bed as a real creature..or proven to be a hoax.

So what say you SRI?" What say you AIBR?

Heaven forbid that you both should merge for the good of the cause ...but how about at least setting the groundwork for standardizing your field work applications.At least that way data is transferable and readily of use to either group.

Getting back to that good guy who is no longer around. What has this got to do with him? Well...maybe nothing..maybe everything. I just want to say "We're going to miss ya Matt." You were a breath of fresh air around these clingy, unchanging..destined to repeat all of our old mistakes...parts!

Alright, start naming names mister! :wink:

Good food for thought GC ...



Did you hear where Matt got a mention in the new LMS companion book...

He was hailed as : " Amateur investigator , Matt Crowley .... "

This was perceived by some, as some kind of honor...


I'm still trying to find out who the professional, alleged Bigfoot track casting artifact, investigators are..

Why does that bother you so much? Of course he's an amateur investigator! Didn't you get the memo? There are no experts in bigfoot, cause he hasn't been proven to exist.

The bigfoot community can't have it both ways...if a Ph.D. in primate anatomy can't be an expert in bigfoot tracks, then Matt, by default, can't be a professional investigator (and knowing Matt like I do, I believe he would argue that he wasn't a casting artifact professional).

Not that it really matter to me, but he could have just simply been called an "investigator." One could see the use of the word "amateur" as a way to remove some credibility from the research that Matt has done. I'm not saying that I believe this, and I am not saying this was an intentional thing. How others will perceive it, I don't know. But there is potential for it to reflect poorly on Matt's research.

I talked to Matt about why he was leaving bigfoot research (not just the BFF, but all of the bigfoot kingdom). He did not list any "pooh pooh" as his reason for feeling burned out. I believe it was more on the line of he just felt there was no evidence to support bigfoot being a living, breathing creature.

No one more than me was more sad to see him go. I had just shipped him some boxes of soil from Onion Mountain so he could test the casting artifact hypothesis with the soil from the actual site.... :-(



Standardization is a huge part of what the AIBR is. We have already made a stab at some protocols (evidence collection, archaeological methods for recording/measuring sites, call blasting, expedition reports, etc.) but there is a huge amount of work that needs to be done. I think it would greatly benefit all of us to standardize our report/field work, but we would need to include other groups besides SRI and the AIBR. We would need your group, Bobbi Short, Georgia Bigfoot, Sasquatch detective, NESRA, the new Ontario group, etc. to participate and commit to implementing what is produced. That's the only way it's going to work.

Also, we would have to be very open on who was included...outside of one major group who doesn't play well with others and another that is nameless, we need to be as inclusive as possible, regardless of past differences or concerns of "lack of science." We should probably start small, and work up to bigger things, but as we have discussed before, I think a standardized database that includes ALL our data and is easily updated/data transferred is critical as well.

What we probably need is a committee made up of a representative of each group to discuss this further (we call those "Roundtables" in these parts).

All of us have our reasons for being here. If one no longer believes or feels there is a reason to be here I understand that. To use an analogy(if I may), why would one go to a house of worship if one has decided they are an agnostic or a non-believer. what's the point? In a field like this there is fortunately/unfortunately a factor of faith involved(belief in things seen/unseen). It will stay that way until indisputable evidence is found. JMO

That term is used everyday in the anthropology/archaeology/paleo world...but I agree, investigator would have been just fine.

I guess I shoulda been clever enough to read into the title of the thread. :wink: Anyway, I can certianly empathize with him on that sentiment (above). In my opinion, and only possibly 'excepting' the PGF, which is also 'suspect' by many, there really is no evidence whatsover to support the hypothesis. Maybe this board's creators will eventually fund a Bigfoot™ DeTox Center® for all the 'former believers' to reconcile all the wasted time spent here arguing about pictures of hats and paintballs.

"Harry"

I think a lot of people are feeling burned out, but not so much due to their belief in bigfoot’s existence, but the bickering and fighting over the evidence. I have no doubt bigfoot exists...but outside the P/G film, I too have my days where I doubt all the rest of the evidence (but then I have a beer and I have doubts about my doubts). Is it worth arguing over? Sometimes. But most the time I just want the time back spent reading a thread so I can go out into the field instead. If bigfoot exists, he’s out there…not in here.

First off, without knowing specifically which things GC's talking about, I think casting those who disagree with Matt's conclusions as those who just want to "hang on and believe" is demeaning and subtracts from the remainder of his post. It suggests that Matt's findings were so persuasive that not accepting them is synonymous with belief in the tooth fairy. Maybe that wasn't his intention, but that's how it sounds to me.

Second, I applaud the dedication and thoroughness Matt demonstrated in his investigation. I don't think, as some do, that he's nailed the coffin shut on dermal evidence, but I think he's put a pretty good hole in purported dermals collected in very specific situations. But then again, I've never been very good at letting go, so...

Third, while I have not had any conversations with Matt regarding his decision, I have also heard that he has dropped out of bigfoot-related research in general and not just the BFF. If so, then he's followed the burn-out path taken by hundreds of others over the years. It is not easy being a public person and having an interest in this subject. Hell, it's not even easy being a non-public person and believing in bigfoot. Some folks can't let it be a part of them. I'm not making a judgment call or anything, but apparently Matt's in a place that does not allow him to accept what we're supposed to be here to discuss. Maybe he'll be back. I hope so, because I like him very much.

Who here, except for those convinced they've seen one, haven't had a moment (or an hour or a day or a year) of disillusionment? It's far, far easier to let the tree of evidence collapse in your mind than it is to expend the effort necessary to keep it standing, especially if a certain branch of that tree gets called into doubt or real life presses in.

Even if it was the BFF that drove him off, that's happened before, too. I've been there. GC's been there. As has DDA, Hairy Man, and dozens of others. Some never come back and some do. I believe this is the nature of this kind of community. The ties that bind us to this place are not especially strong. After a while, I think it's harder to come here than not. Spend a week away, and you may never come back.

I do think this forum has gotten too big. I think it's outgrown it's effectiveness. There simply isn't enough new material for several hundred people with divergent points of view to discuss for five years. There are occasional injections of new matter, but not enough. Just look at the MDF threads. Good lord, but when have so many words been written about something so inconclusive? The debate isn't even about the video any more, it's about the debate of the debate of the video and those doing the debating. And everywhere else, the membership has Balkanized into cliques and subgroups all silently (and not so silently) advancing their political agendas that have nothing at all to do with sasquatch.

But has it ever been otherwise in the world of bigfoot enthusiasm? Nope. Which means all this is par for the course.

I think it could be better, though. I think the general tone of some of the threads I'm following is very bad. I think too many people are too militant in their approach to be able to coexist peacefully with others who aren't as strident or who, heaven forfend, have an opposite opinion.

Regarding the suggestion that research approaches should be standardized, I am in total agreement. Regarding the idea that the SRI and AIBR (and others) merge at least their efforts and perhaps even their acronyms, I also agree. I think Hairy Man's post regarding what will be needed is perfectly sensible. But man, you think Middle East peace is a PITA to pull off!?! Just you wait! :laugh:

I don't think it a burned out thing as much as it is a ..running into brick walls thing. You should have seen the exchanges on another board about what I got started on..if you kill a Bigfoot or find one dead.. what next? Who you gonna call? What will you do with it?
Well after many comments about these there was never a definite answer. Some said they had a plan..but didn't share what the plan was. I asked these questions after someone had said something to the order that researchers need to start sharing information better.

I have come to this conclusion..as for info being openly shared between research organizations and fellow researchers..IT WON"T HAPPEN!

The reasons are many and I can really understand these reasons when fellow researchers jump in on someone elses on-going research area and ruins the whole thing.

I also see the "I want to be the one" that gets all the answers. They run on the old..knownledge is power and I know something you don't and I'm not sharing.

I don't know if anyone will ever refer to me as a Bigfoot investigator..amateur or pro.

I think I like just being a fellow researcher and being associated with other researchers out there.

We are all looking for the same answers but we all have different ways in looking for them and we should try to help those that are new to this research. Without help from an "old researcher" I would not know a thing about these creatures. He opened my eyes to see the things I did not see and hear.
If everyone shared the info about these creatures the way he does ..we would have the answers by now.

Just my 2cents worth.

Mike (watch1)

IMO it would be nice if we had some new evidence to work with. There are only so many times you can disect the same old cat.

Bipto wrote:



That was not my intent. Although I can see now how it might have been taken that way. I think it would be very presumptive and a tad arrogant for anyone to believe that thoughts and opinions ,or trends, expressed in forums could effect an individual's resolution in this field. Either you are in, or you are not , for your own reasons..and not that of others. In Matt's case, he just could not ascribe so much time and energy to a creature whose existence has so little basis in fact. So I wondered why is it that others can...what makes the difference?

No. What I was trying to get at was... we are awash with reports and all manner of dubious evidence and the drains are clogged. And I think this has to do with the I just got to hang on and believe mentality.We are slowly drowning in unverified sasquatch trivia and fighting the prevailing current is a tiring endeavor. Maybe the more clever among us can come to the conclusion.."Why bother? What is to be gained by continuing to reassess the same bits and bobs that we have been assessing for decades?
Well, maybe on an individual basis such assessing is a lost cause. Maybe what it will take is this united front that everyone talks about, but no one makes a move to do.There has to be a way to break the deadlock and more forward.

Bipto also wrote:



Got to agree with that one!
You can't force someone to share if they do not want to. But sharing is essential!
We are our only enemy in this.

Yeah, I understand how someone can grow tired of waiting for results...

But what if everyone gave up?

The big monkeys would be a lot happier! :laugh:




Yes, yes, I know. They're not monkeys. I get it. Monkeys are funny, though, so monkeys I will call them.

It's bigfooting. No matter what someone says, someone else will no doubt read more into it than necessary! :laugh:

I remember the days when one didn't have to clarify things like that. :laugh:

Tube seemed to change after he had Michael Dennett to dinner. You know, Dennett who made up an identity for the Indiana hoaxer? Suppose he slipped something into the drinks? :new_weirdsmiley:

What bipto and Hairyman said - I am in total agreement... I have nothing to add.

How about a way in how all of this can be negotiated?

Everybody is in agreement with someone or other, but nothing gets done.

*Not picking on you Mel...but there has been much agreement over the past two years and yet..things are exactly the same as ever!*

I know your not GC - but I just wont have this conversation anymore. No one listens. Its incredibly frustrating to those of us (like you) who want the fighting to stop - but others seem to know better. Information sharing is important - but how much information is enough to make people happy.

This thread comes at an interesting time for me.. I will let others worry about this, I dont have the patience anymore to try and discuss why getting along is important.. I give up. Maybe I will care in a couple months.

People need to decide whats more important - and why are we doing this. Then, maybe we can move ahead.

JMO.

It just isn't going to happen. No way, no how. It's a nice idea, but bigfooting is more akin to religion than scientific research. It is one thing to get scientists to follow procedures and standards, but trying to do the same with the zealots in the bigfoot field is a whole different ballgame. It isn't about the evidence. It never has been. All it is about is getting as many people to accept, and hopefully follow, one's beliefs and/or ideals. Getting the bigfoot community to unite and follow the same standards of research is like trying to get all religions to to obey the Bible. Bigfooting is a science of faith. The people involved are too emotionally attached to their beliefs. Facts do not matter. Truth doesn't matter. It isn't about proving this animal's existence. It is about getting non-believers to believe.

There are people who have been involved in this for decades, and it has become far too personal for them. Too many believe that their way is the right way. Too many are unwilling to truly share information and experience. Everybody has their little secret methods they won't divulge. Some have contacts they want to keep to themselves, or gameplans they don't want leaked. Some withhold info just because it gives them a leg up. Everyone sems to have a little Moneymaker in them. The "He who dies with the most secrets wins" school of thinking. In most cases, those guilty of this behavior probably don't even realize it.

Cooperation just cannot happen on a large scale in this field of study. Too many belief systems and too many egos. If people could emotionally remove themselves from the subject, then there may be a chance. Otherwise, the only way to pull it off is if a real scientific organization took control of it all. An organization with no personal stakes in the matter.

To true....wake me up when we get there! :laugh:

Wow! We have crested a hill and now see before us a wasteland!

So what do we do?

It has now been established that the idea of Bigfoot/Sasquatch research is little more then an in-joke among its participants!. That there is no real sasquatch research.. on any kind of a scale ..just individuals who try to amass whatever information that they can in order to be the first ones to shout "Eureka!"
That is sad! But it does not come as a big surprise!

After studying the community for near onto an intensive three years ...it fits in with what I have observed.

Those who have toiled for decades are just as foolish as those who have jumped onto the research bandwagon just last week. Neither will ever have the edge over the other..except in their own minds.

It is all a joke! Get out of it what you can. But do not ever think that you will make any difference in how the dice roll. No one ever has....!

Not Dahinden..not Green..not J.W.Burns..not Titmus..not Byrnes..not Noll..not Steenburg..nor any of the crypto book selling hucksters who turn up at conventions. You know their names.

Nor the Native Indians..nor the settlers...nor the explorers

Not a single one of them has ever produced even a kernel of proof of the existence of a North American hominid!

Yet! Here we are....

You know, I gotta tell ya. I find us pretty sad..and kinda pathetic, whatever our stance on the subject.

Such a waste of effort and will. We are failures at this!
We should be spending more time tending to those less fortunate then ourselves and make someone's lot in this life easier.

Yeah! Like that is gonna happen! This is too addictive for those who think they have something going.

I might start sticking closer to home among good friends in the future. Not because they think like me..because none of them do..but there is a helluva lot less drama and politics. And we genuinely care about the critter and each other.

Are we fools? Maybe! But at least with our way of going about things, we have a future.

I really fear that the BFF and the research community,on any kind of a structures scale, does not!

But that is just my findings!

I am sure you each have your own!;)

You seem very disheartened Grand Cherokee...

I must admit, from an outside point of view & from someone who has never seen one, never seen any evidence or who has never even set foot in a N American Forest, i do see your frustrations completely.

This subject is massively taboo anyway & anyway who takes an interest ( including myself but more so the Guys in the Field ) must be prepared for ridicule..

It also seems that there are many people who are interested in the subject but who, unfortunately as you say, want to shout " Eureka " for themselves without any though of the bigger picture IE sharing information which could possibly lead to discovery..

& you're right, it is sad really...

But keep the faith...

I will... :wink:

You just don't get it, do you?

There are none.

Professionals get paid. Amateurs don't.

Regardless how good the amateurs are.

Not me. I haven't been in the fight yet.

And I have no reason to get into it, either.



Beer is good. It doesn't bring me any doubt, though, even about my doubts.

I'm pretty sure sasquatches exist, or existed lately. Beer, skeptics, or fads won't change that much.

I saw some evidence. Saw it good. I'm convinced enough.



Yup. Sometimes.



I'll never "catch" a sasquatch. If I did, it would likely end up as another "sighting."

At this point, that'll be good enough for me.

I'm not the guy who will "save the world from itself."

I hear you brother, but don't be defeated....every great idea has its distracters; every revolution has its rebellions.... If someone thinks it’s not going to work, then it won’t. But the rest of us aren’t ready to be defeated. We, despite them, need to forge ahead.

Well one thing would be nice....Hard evidence! :laugh:

Regrets?

Have you created a monster?

I don't think so.



Humanity. It's actually quite predictable.

It just has a habit of outliving us as individuals.



I don't get that impression. Maybe I'm dumb, but I think I'm learning things here (does that work?)

Even if I don't learn about sasquatchery (which I do) I learn about people.

It's still an education.



Me, too.

But it will never happen.



Me, too.

That might happen.

Hi bipto. I promise I won't make this suggestion again until next halloween, because maybe I've made it too often already. (Your comment above Made Me Do It.)

I think the value of this site now lies in its archives--that those are now, after years of accumulation, its center of gravity. The bulk of the "food for thought" here, which used to be obtained primarily by live exchanges, is located there. But they can't be browsed in any systematic fashion unless they are indexed by topic. If Search is all that is available, threads will either be missed, or duplicate-viewed, or inappropriate threads that merely mention a search term will be Found.

Maybe Invision will someday come out with some sort of index feature that won't interfere with the unsystematic, casual, forum-by-forum browsing that most visitors are used to and find easy to master. Or maybe Invision will offer user-selectable "views" that would enable sub-forumization to be turned off for people who don't like it. But I suspect those features are five years away.

I therefore suggest that you take a step in the direction of site-indexing by further sub-forumizing the Media forum. It already has subforums devoted to specific Bigfoot videos such as the PGF. I think those subforums have enhanced the site, and therefore that more of them would enhance it further. The downside seems small to me: users would have to get in the habit of browsing a larger number of forums to catch up on What's New, or learn to use the View New Posts feature. It took me four months before I caught onto VNP, back in 2003, but when I did I wished I'd been pointed in its direction from the start. It's not really an imposition to make that the primary method of site-browsing.

(Hmm ... maybe Invision could allow users to filter the result of VNP, so that particular forums of interest or lack-of-same could be included / excluded. That would mean that today's casual forum-browsers wouldn't be innundated by New Posts located in forums they don't care about. Or maybe Invision could simply color-code each forum differently in the VNP results page, so users could skip the blue and gray (say) items. That would be an easy feature to add, programming-wise. (Maybe you'd like to visit their site and post a suggestion to that effect?))

Anyway, here's a list of the 25 subforums I suggest, based on a thorough analysis and categorization of the Media forum's threads about 18 months ago. A grouping of this nature would really help people and new visitors zero in on topics, and enable them to read-up thoroughly on them. (Because of the high turnover rate here, new visitors will always be a large percentage of active members.) Such a grouping would also be a tremendous time-saver for mainstream journalists trying to quickly bone up on a topic of interest, and to mainstream scientists dipping their toes into the topic. BFF would become the site-of-record as far as they were concerned, if this were done site-wide:

Artwork
Audiotapes of BF
Books: “The Making of Bigfoot”
Books: Mary Green’s
Books: Other
Expeditions
Footage: PG Film
Footage: Manitoba
Footage: Other (This would consolidate a few of the existing subforums)
Hoaxes (?)
Humorous or Lightweight
Magazine articles
Meetings, Museums, & Membership Organizations
Movies (fictional) (some on DVD)
Newsletters
Newspaper stories
Overseas Homins
Photos
Primates in the news
Radio
Science-type articles & news items
Skeptics & Skeptical arguments
TV news stories
TV & DVD documentaries (Including “Sasquatch: Legend Meets Science”)
Websites

PS: I found only a dozen threads (out of thousands) that irreducably spanned two subforums, so the inability to file a thread under multiple subforums is a minor worry. The other bit of trickiness is that the categories above are not orthogonal--i.e., the indexer must rely on certain priorities when a thread could be placed in either of two subforums. These priorities would have to be made explicit, such as "'Magazine articles' and 'Newspaper Stories' and 'TV news stories' and 'Books: Other' and 'Documentaries' are 'catchall' or 'wastebasket' categories that are 'trumped' if a thread focuses on one of the specific topics in the list, such as 'Primates' or 'Skeptics' or 'Hoaxes'." (This heirarchy most-benefits time-pressed mainstream researchers and reporters, who are topic-focused, not medium-focused.)

PPS: Maybe threads should be placed in a subforum only after two months have gone by without a post. That way, all the current threads could still be viewed in the current manner, and only the inactive or archival threads would get subforumized. That would be a reasonable compromise that would keep current users happy. (Delayed categorization would also avoid the problem of users starting a thread in the wrong subforum, which would often occur--sometimes inadvertently, as when the bulk of a thread goes off on a tangent that becomes the thread's main topic.)

PPPS: JREF would greatly benefit from subforumization. The parent forum for its PGF thread is (I think) "Paranormal," which has 3000-plus uncategorized threads under it, making it a chore to browse the threads on topics of interest. (But don't tell them I said so! "Let them wallow in their ignorance." (My sig line in my HS yearbook.))

SRIAIBR? AIBRSRI?

I think it's still a great forum. Seems something new turns up every time we discuss an old topic. I love how DDA jumps into the MD threads with his insider information. If nothing else, it shows the investigations were thorough and his posts are always interesting.

There are new people who haven't read untold numbers of words on the PGF, e.g., and those threads may enlighten someone who learned from the media that Patty was nothing but Mrs. Wallace in a gorilla suit. I don't think the threads I follow are either "good" or "bad". They're worthy of my attention and give me something to do first thing in the morning and last thing at night. It's still the best BF forum I've found. I about went through withdrawals when the board was hacked.

Bipto, your work is not in vain. Cheer up. :bffrules:

The whole thing is, it really isn't that great an idea. It is mainly just common sense. The more people working together, the more information you will have. The fact that it has taken this many years for some to use common sense in this venture to come to this conclusion or "idea" doesn't reflect highly.

The attempt is a noble one, and it needs to happen. I think many are in for a whole lot of frustration and disappointment, though.

I think the level of heartache that one will endure in this field originates from how it is approached. There are a couple of ways:

1) I have or have not ever seen one of these creatures. I also may know someone that I deem trustworthy whom tells me they have seen one, but I am a realist, and know that I(or they) could have been mistaken. Given the huge amount of statistics against the existence of these creatures, I cannot be 100% sure they exist, so therefore I must approach this subject without a preconcieved belief in their existence. I will weigh all of the information that is gathered objectively, not allowing for bias to sway my opinion one way or the other. I will try to gather as much evidence of this creature on my own, for my own benefit as well as others, and if anything does come along that shores up the existence or non-existence of this creature, I'll openly share that information with anyone who wishes to have it. If nothing does come along, and if after all the reports are sifted through and proven to be false/hoaxes/misidentifications/inclonclusive, and if a body or live specimen is not brought in, taking into account the constantly-mounting negative-statistics, then I can reasonably conclude that, more than likely, these creatures do not exist. I can move on, going on about life as usual before the subject of bigfoot came into it, without much of a heartache over the revelation. If sometime in my lifetime it is proven that these creatures exist, then it will be fascinating and exciting. I will have been wrong in my assessment, but that won't bother me much because being wrong isn't the end of the world.

or

2) I have either seen one of these creatures with my own eyes and absolutely do not believe I could have been mistaken, or I have not seen one with my own eyes but I know someone(or know of someone) which I deem very trustworthy who states that they have seen one and I absolutely do not believe that they could have been mistaken. I believe these creatures exist and I will do my best to prove that they do. I will sift through all of the reports, hanging on to every word and statement that might reasonably be in favor of the existence of this creature. I will take into account the huge amount of statistics against the existence of this creature, but I will file them away out of sight so I can trudge on in my quest unimpeded by facts of that nature. I am 100% sure they exist, so therefore I will approach this subject with a preconcieved belief in their existence. I will try to gather as much evidence of this creature on my own, for my own benefit as well as some others, but if anything does come along that shores up the non-existence of this creature, I might choose to quietly tuck that information away, out of sight, or just ignore it. I will be very selective in who I share my information with, after all, there are those out there who might use that information to argue against the existence of this creature. I will have a winning attitude when it comes to this search, I will not allow negative comments to be made against the existence of this creature, or against any of my similarly-minded brethren, I will meet those comments with whatever it takes to discredit them; after all, I believe this creature exist and the goal is to make others believe it too, and negative comments can only be detrimental toward that effort. I will eat, sleep, and breath knowing deep in my heart that bigfoot is real. I will state this belief unoquivicably when asked, but I will publicly allow for the alternative so I won't appear to be too biased and unobjective(or, I may feel that I'm so important and untouchable that I'll just come right out and admit my bias). I cannot allow my level of belief to drop, so therefore I must trudge on and do whatever it takes to stay in the game. It's a hard row to hoe, filled with politics, backstabbing, lost friendships and heartache, but it must be done(but If I'm important enough with the right crowd then those things won't matter anyway). If sometime in my lifetime it is proven that these creatures exist, then I can say that I was right all along, and the satisfaction of knowing that all the non-believers will have been proven wrong will be fantastic. If I'm the one that proves their existence, or good friends with the one who brings it in, then that's even better.

To me, these are the wisest words stated in this thread. There can be a happy medium between emotion and logic, but we seem to see either one or the other in this field. It is a field of extremists. We are polarized. We are political. Almost everyone thinks in black or white. Too many hold an all or nothing mentality.

Romantic/Skeptic
Kill/No Kill
Dermal Ridges/Casting Artifacts
Elk Lay/Bigfoot Imprint
PGF Real/PGF Fake

The list could go on and on.

There is something about the internet that brings out the worst in people. It seems to magnify people's flaws. A minor difference in opinion that means nothing in real life turns into a huge personal dispute on the internet. Which is the real person? The one you see on the internet or the one you meet face to face? It sometimes seems this whole thing serves no purpose outside a huge sociological experiment.

The truth is that there are a whole lot of unhealthy people in this field. When you put unhealthy people in a relationship, you're going to have an unhealthy relationship. When you add the internet to this mix, you magnify the problem ten fold.

The big question is...Is there a solution to this huge problem? If history is the judge...no. However, despite what some believe, we are not doomed to repeat history. These organizations, ventures, alliances, and cooperatives must treat the sociological aspect as serious as the investigative aspect. People talented in negotiation and peace making are as or more important than the researchers and investigators. In the end, if we can't get along, we will continue to fail and repeat our history.

So what am I rambling on about, you ask? If we hope to create standards of evidence, investigation, casting, etc., we first have to create standards of how we treat and interact with one another. To me, that is the next step. If you skip that step, all else is for not.

One way of going about this is for SRI, AIBR, and all the others to elect their most reasonable member to serve on a committee that will develop a set of standards on how people treat one another...rules of engagement...consequences for failure to comply...etc. It may sound a little out there, but I've come to believe that it may be the only way.

:new_thumbsupsmileyanim:


I prefer to be a member of this above tribe, with a stipulation.

People do not do anything on their own. We all rely on others at one point or another, we know this to be true.. And it is also true that one must sift through a lot of information to come to any worthwhile conclusions. Would it not be nice to know that your sources for this information and the information its self comes out of a tested formula? And not just because someone says that their cousin thinks that squatch might live underground communities. (There are probably plenty enough who will come to believe it as they read this. Such is the insane adaptability of many involved in discussing this creature. )

Many act like this is more of a treasure hunt then an inquiry. That would be fine if there was only one squatch in the world and there was a race to see who could find it first. But there are allegedly a number of them, vastly spread out. Therefor this by its nature should tell one that the best way to go about getting the goods on the creatures is by mutual sharing of resources and objectives. All this, in order to fact find on the largest scale possible. Standardized fact finding that is. Why? Because it makes reams of data instantly transferable, and enhances your own search greatly, no matter what your motives.

While Vol has the right idea spiritually..I like it a lot...not to mention it is probably the only way to keep your sanity in all of this!
....P.L. Pinkham ( or Ol' Plunk, as I call him. ) has the logistics of what this mission [standardization ] is up against down pat. The former Wild One is no fool!

But it really does all go back to Vols post....it is what you can live with, in the end. I for one can indeed live with the idea we have all been hoaxed..and I won't loose much sleep over it. But what does make many loose sleep is wondering why we have such distrust and non commitment to each other in this field.

Perhaps there should be a weeding out the unhealthy ones.
To standardize investigations..you first have to standardize the investigators.

Then what do we have to lose? Aren't we already frustrated and disappointed?



I completely and utterly agree. I'll go buy the weed-killer....

Amen !!!!!!!! We need more investigators who investigate in that "grey" area.

More people like tube, probably.

Well, I would say that the loss of ANYONE with an interest in this subject, is a loss. How many people have signed up for this message board - and could have been a great asset to this research - but after reading some of the fighting - decided this is not where they want to be??

Gotta say, it made me think.

Holy Moses, but those are some profound words. Bigfooting is a science of faith. Too true. Too bad, but all too often, too true.

:icon14: :icon14: :icon14:

What makes me sad is the number of people who think they have "done something" in this field claiming some sort of superiority to those who have "done nothing".
Since there is NO definitive proof - NOTHING of any real importance has been done by those claiming superiority except endless propping up of egos and back slapping amongst the initiated as they trash talk and spread malicious rumours about the unitiated.
By the way - the great washed and unwashed change as afffiliations change. Take the BFRO - what a bunch of fraudulent hucksters claiming "scientific" superiority for so long! Their refusal to look objectively at what they were a part of and what they allowed to happen is a shining example to all of what the importance of being a part of an EXCLUSIVE CLUB is to some. The fact that being part of the "In Crowd" was not left behind on the schoolyards for so many on this board is pathetic but very telling.
Too many people have staked too much personally on this will o' the wisp to look at the evidence or themselves objectively.
That will never change - so nothing will change in this field.
Hold it - do I hear "If you're not part of the solution - you're part of the problem?"
How about "If you're not with us - you're against us?"
Throw out the rhetoric and the touchy-feely "why can't we all just get along" as much as you want. It will not change reality one bit.
Of course - a lot of people on this board are not interested in reality.
That's why they get so peeved when someone points out that the emperor has no clothes.

Whats so wrong with everyone getting along in order to share information to help prove this mystery one way or the other?? I really dont understand why your so miffed by this thought? What do you have to lose if we all put aside our differences and actually work together?

Will you just miss all the fighting? I know I wont. And I hope that day comes - for all of us, I remain optimistic.

rockinkt wrote:




Amen to that, bruddah.

This talk of standardizing our research methods all started a couple of days ago, when Spe answered a request Nightowl and I made on BFD to please give us some feedback on what protocals scientists require in their data gathering. Spe is a biologist, and in an earlier thread he mentioned that there was a need for a team effort in this field.

Nightowl and I both asked him what specific information we all need to gather in order to satisfy the scientific community and perhaps gain some respect from them - some credibility - and be taken seriously by them, and also to help us to bring our investigations across the board in this field to a higher level of quality.

In my BFD post, I said we needed to start by creating a standardized witness question form, one that covered everything the scientific community would include in such a question list. It could, and should be used by everyone in this field, if we want to be taken seriously. I said that SRI and AIBR have worked hard to create very comprehensive witness questionaires and so have several other investigators who have their own websites. These existing question lists could be added to, and fleshed out more, to create a more comprehensive model that everyone could use in their investigations.

The basics are already there. Most of the work has already been done. This isn't out of reach, by any means.

Yesterday morning, I sent out emails to 9 people. Those people are either representatives of their groups or are independent investigators with their own websites. There are more people that I can and will contact, but I didn't have everyone's email addresses, so this was my starting point. The email was asking everyone if they would be willing to cooperate in creating a standardized witness question form. I also offered to be the go-between in any potential conflicts between people who don't get along or aren't willing to work together.

So far, I've gotten back 3 replies. I'm hoping everyone will agree to do this, because it's what's needed in this field. We've needed it for a long time.

Standardization isn't going to solve the mystery. But every tool helps. And if we start approaching the search in a systematic way, the way scientists do, so that our research and investigations can't be challenged for not following professional standards, maybe we'll be given some credibility by those who discount our methods because we're amateurs, or because we're not using scientific method.

Pat Barker
Ontario Sasquatch Researchers (OSR)

Can I ask who the offical spokesperson of SRI is? Are some of the folks that have been posting, spokespersons for any groups? I'm getting confuzzled about who is speaking for whom and who is in vs. out.

The person I contacted in SRI is in the field this weekend. There has been no one officially designated to represent SRI on this subject yet simply because it's just been started. My email went out yesterday morning. There really hasn't been time to discuss this amongst the membership.