This may all be well and fine, but the major variable is the value you put on the person investigating the case. Which in this field is undefinable, therefore all cases would still be subjective and worth the same weight as they are now. Don't you think? Maybe I'm wrong but...

The problem still comes from a person who is evaluating the encounter. A person who loves prints will value prints over something else etc. Your idea might not be too far off if you could get multiple people to investigate and evaluate an encounter. In that way, people may be able to pick apart the encounter and glean which evidence is worthwhile and which is not. It's a lot of footwork though.

Edited so you know I'm in agreement with Sac-squatch and Longtabber PE above. Not typing fast enough.

And who would you trust to be the Coordinator of this endeavor? Me?.....lol

My point exactly!

I think people may be misinterpreting the unfortunate term "fuzzy" in Fuzzy Logic. For a fairly good explanation of what I'm talking about, look up "fuzzy logic" in wikipedia.

No, actually, I'm with you as to what you meant.

The problem is that evidence/accounts cannot be viewed from a perspective ( such as 2/3 full- 1/3 empty being equal statements but from a different view). The minute they are categorized in that manner, all hope is lost regarding and possible credbility because they would now be colored by perception rather than fact.

The question of BF- isnt a logic problem its a true,false, therefore, any account or evidence supporting the primary question must be viewed in like manner

No misunderstanding on my end. I still contend that the system would be flawed by evaluator perceptions. If I assign a Zero to the trustworthiness of evaluator in the equation of every investigation, what would be the resulting benefit?

And any evidence supporting the possibility of a hoax or misinterpretation must be viewed in the same manner.

exactly

Suppose you had a report where you have a partial footprint that may, for the sake of argument, be that of a sasquatch. In another encounter in a different location, you have a physics professor who is positive he saw a sasquatch from 10 feet away. Which report do you give more weight to? And if, over time, you have areas with predominately high-scoring encounters, and other areas with predominately low-scoring encounters, where would you be more likely to focus a serious expedition?

Three 'experts' can look at the partial footprint and give you three different answers (ie overlapping bear prints, bigfoot, hoax). Likewise, three 'experts' can interview the physics professor and give you three different answers (ie he's telling the truth, he's lying, he misinterpreted what he saw). The Forum has mountains of this sort of stuff. So how do you score that? Which experts do you give more weight to? The heaviest? The smartest? The most educated?

I think we all realize that some reports are easily disregarded as hoaxes or misidentifications. These are thrown out.

The fact that different people would evaluate the evidence differently would be part of the process to come up with a quantifiable number. As to who the people are that evaluate and put a number on the evidence, that would be up to whatever particular group they are working with. The members of that group would have to set the standards, and hold the people who are responsible for evaluating the evidence to that standard.

windiego wrote:






Regarding prints, until an actual Bigfoot foot is found, everything regarding authenticity of a purported track is going to be speculative, at best.


People can lie, hallucinate and misperceive. What possible decent quantitative analysis can be done with so much subjectivity involved?


Now, speculative procedures could be developed (without any hard physical evidence) but that's all they'd be, speculative. Who knows, such
procedures could lead to hard physical evidence.

I'm glad you are throwing this out ( and the answers to it)

This is exactly why I harped so much upthread about having written standards and criteria too use to gauge 'whatever". You cant have a "group" standard ( you try that and the "group" immediately becomes suspect- thats a minefield best avoided)

Yetifan wrote: Now, speculative procedures could be developed (without any hard physical evidence) but that's all they'd be, speculative. Who knows, such procedures could lead to hard physical evidence.

Yup, that's what I'm getting at, thanks.


Longtabber wrote: This is exactly why I harped so much upthread about having written standards and criteria too use to gauge 'whatever". You cant have a "group" standard ( you try that and the "group" immediately becomes suspect- thats a minefield best avoided)

I agree...standards are necessary. All standards are group standards, although there are different sizes of groups, different numbers of sometimes competing groups in every field, and groups with more or less credibility than others.

Yetifan asks "What possible decent quantitative analysis can be done with so much subjectivity involved?"

I suck at algebra but am a whole lot better at geometry and so I naturally drift towards the geographical (and temporal) aspects of evidences' locations. Most people tend to think of geography in the descriptive sense as a way to characterize a location (Stein's famous "view of the US as envisioned by a New Yorker" is a hilarous example) but there is a quantitiative aspect to it as well and when put together appropriately there are sometimes interesting patterns that emerge. Perhaps a previously unrecognized constant particular to either probably hoaxers or probably authentic tracks would emerge but what would be of possible significance would be pattern. I sometimes think that if there was enough carefull plotting of locations where BF is seen crossing roads late at night only...or seen travelling in specific drainages...or at certain times of the year might indicate an exploitable pattern. The idea being that if we wish to get direct evidence it helps if we can be where it's going to be and not so much where it's already been.

This is where I go into qualified disagreement with some of you folks. I don't think that proving BF's existence is a feasible goal at this point. I think the focus ought to be on gathering more usable intelligence (as opposed to definitive proof) and formulating a plan of attack. About the only thing we can be pretty sure of is that what has been happening hasn't been effective. I personally don't think it is a problem of technique, since the basic approach is still the same and if it could work, we should have gotten lucky by now. I think habituation strategies and diversionary tactics have the most promise -- diversionary tactics should enable more suveillance (i.e., Bart's sighting repeated over and over again, I know this is already being tried), which will provide the information needed to create a viable habituation scenario (although there are rumors that this is occurring as well). I think the biggest risk is taking some small bit of progress and trying to translate that into a body on a slab. That kind of overreaching can only alert the quarry to new capabilities without creating a situation where they are brought in. So I think the main mission should be know thy enemy and know thyself.

I don't know that we're really saying we can gather definitive proof of the creature's existence using current methods. We are very much in agreement that leaning on the same basic approach isn't going to get very far. I think we're all hoping to gain usable intelligence, but the problem is sorting through the questionable intelligence to gather good solid information that can be used to make surveillance and continued contact not only possible, but likely. BTW my first thought after hearing Bart's sighting was that it could be used multiple times in order to gather a better understanding of activity.

FINALLY !!! 2 years - and I finally get a mention by Saskeptic... What a fine day this has turned out to be

But, why do I feel like I just stabbed bigfoot in the back?? lmao.

>>>This is where I go into qualified disagreement with some of you folks. I don't think that proving BF's existence is a feasible goal at this point. I think the focus ought to be on gathering more usable intelligence (as opposed to definitive proof) and formulating a plan of attack.

I agree ( anything short of a specimen aint gonna "prove" anything)--the focus should all be directed to building a legitimate scientific case based upon probability in hopes of getting funds for better searches and more research.

But by the same token, Longtabber has only been posting for a few weeks. Surely there's no simple linear relationship between time and endearment to the Saskeptic.

The difference? I referred to you as "the fair". . .

Y'all are making this way too complicated.

What did Roger Patterson do? According to the lore, he got wind of some recent sightings, he got himself out there, and he filmed bigfoot.

OK step 1 - any recent sightings? Pine Ridge? Oklahoma casino bigfoot? Northwestern PA?

Step 2 - go there. Certainly there are some researchers out there with the drive and the means to spend some time in the woods in the vicinity of one or more recent sightings areas. While most folks don't have Patterson's luxury of time in the field (3 weeks?), we do have the advantage of technology to compensate: Spend some time in the woods in what should be a hot area, and while there deploy technologies (camera traps, hair catchers, track plates, etc) that have the potential to reveal such a creature's presence.

Step 3 - objectively analyze what you've got, and publicize your findings.

If you get nothing after a few weeks/months of trying, then give it up and go someplace new. Going down this rabbit hole of 'bigfoot has this or that mysterious quality which lends it impossible to document' is (a) counterproductive and (2) counterintuitive to anyone who places stock in the authenticity of the PGF.

Researchers should use field methods that are tried and true regarding obtaining evidence of any number of rare or elusive creatures, but simply be prepared as well to interpret a lack of data as a lack of bigfoot.

Yes, I noticed that I just didnt want to create a scene



And like HairyMan - I agree too

Yes Snoopy was just a WWI Flying Ace. Now it is unfortunate that aour friend Sasquatch Commando suffered the untimely nature of his death. I have thought much about his sighting and didn't think he was a man to make up stories. But his sighting was similar to an expierence I had a number of years ago. It was not Sasquatch related but worth recounting.

I had been sitting on my livig room sofa on a summers afternoon relaxing and reading a book. At some point I dozed off briefly and during those moments I plainly saw a Jaguar Cat emerge from the treeline of my backyard and cross the yard and enter the tree line on the other side of the yard and enter what was my next door neighbor's yard. The sight of this jolted me back to being fully awake and I went over to the window and tried to see the animal. It took several minutes for me to conclude that there wasn't any Jaguar Cat. I lived in very developed Long Island and simply there was no way for such a beast to be skulking my neighborhood. I realized that I had briefly fallen asleep and had a vivid almost wakeing dream of seeing a Jaguar Cat in my back yard. I know that under stress, fatigue, and any number of other conditions we can see things that seem real yet are anything but.

MIO has your friend seen the PGF?

Jaguar Cat? Do you mean an ocelot, margay, or a literal jaguar?

Not to throw a wrench in the analysis of this partial dream-state thingie you experienced, but I would sooner expect to encounter an exotic feline in Nassau County than I would something native like a bobcat. As far as I'm concerned, any exotic that could show up in Miami, San Diego, or San Antonio could show up in New York.

Saskeptic WADR, if the P-G film is genuine, it is clearly the exception not the rule. Indeed if I'm not mistaken sightings of females are a relatively rare event. What is usually seen are often interpreted as "rogue" males. I think this could be a mistake to consider them solitary. They could be scouts / picketts for a social group, and this has a clear parallel to human tribal society.

I do think a military metaphor is apt in this case. Looking at chimps, they engage in a lot of similar behaviors to those I am speculating about. For instance, when patrolling the periphery of their territory (usually an all-male or heavily-male endeavor), chimps are known to move quietly (without the usual calls and with a minimum of noise) and stealthily in an attempt to approach the border areas without alerting any 'enemy' chimps from another troop (so that they can kill them). Female chimps are known to avoid these areas unless escorted by males capable of defending them. Of course, there is no direct analogy but the point is that other non-human great apes are known to protect the females and juveniles in the interior of their territory by males patrolling the periphery.

The point is not that BF is impossible to document; the point is that it is possible that the paradigm needs to shift away from an animal with no clear idea that it is being pursued in anything other than a normal predator, towards a hominid or primitive human that is able to understand the basic elements of the situation (i.e., that it is being hunted and is under threat) and actively avoid it -- possibly using its own hunting techniques. This doesn't mean that contact is not impossible, just that forcing contact is probably going to be highly problematic and very expensive. Put yourself in BF's shoes. Would you have an aversion to mankind or not, if you were able to comprehend what has been happening on this continent in the past 250+ years?

Jaguar Cat not Jaguar car. Jaguar Cat as in the Jaguars that prowl in South America. Clearly I dreamed the event although the event was in a boarderline sleep/wake condition. My point is if the conditions are right we can in fact see the improable as real. I suspect that our departed friend from this forum may have been in a twilight sleep/dream state when he saw his creature. Suffolk County not Nassau.

Lets assume for a moment the average BF is a scout or whatever

If thats the case, one would think theres at least one more then

Why wouldnt there be more sightings of pairs?

dunno, just thinking

longtabberPE wrote:







Krantz speculated that the majority of sightings, apparently of lone males, was due to, and consistent with other primate behavior, a rogue male leaving the nest, as it were, in search of a mate and/or the rogue being unwilling or unable to compete with a Papa Squatch back at home for the dominant position. It makes sense to me that if their numbers are relatively small, then running into a pair isn't all that unlikely.

And I can buy that- but there would also need to be mating rituals, conception, gestation, birth etc so at some point, there would have to be some sort of family unit or group in close proximity

longtabberPE wrote:




I guess, though, it would depend on how far they range. Are people more apt to see them at midway points? How far is the distance between social groups? My understanding is that orangs and gorilla groups (though orangs are more solitary) can be quite far apart. Studying those models, I think, are a great place to start since 1) we know orangs and gorillas exist and 2) based on the descriptions involved in the majority of alleged Bigfoot sightings, they're (orangs and gorillas) about the closest physical match to what is being seen. Perhaps, then, their living patterns are similar.

Well, sex is 99% of what we think about all the time...then there's another other 99% for food...multi-tasking, (did I forget professional sports? Another 99%) y'know, but seriously, mating instincts might drive their behavior in some ways we can only speculate about but certainly food (and water) must drive their behavior and we don't have to speculate nearly as much.
I know this topic of carnivore versus omnivore versus piscavore, etc..., like almost all the topics one can think of, have been covered before but if a general consesus on likely primary food sources were to be determined, one might be able to select those (as many as possible) from a determined research area that offer the best opportunity to monitor remotely.

Thats kinda been my take all along- we can speculate BF might be like a monkey, gorilla or even a mallard. ( some of that may even be correct)

But the "universal constant" for survival is food, water, procreation and shelter. Nomad or static, single or familial.

I still believe the smart money is plotting his "sightings" in relation to abundant food.

MOI wrote:





Good point. Also, I think there's the possibility that these beings may have an atavistic response to humans. When the home erectus bones and giganto bones were found virtually side by side about twenty years ago in a cave in Vietnam, the theory of Ciochon ("Other Origins") was that Homo Erectus may very well have hunted Giganto...thereby explaining the proximity of the bones in the cave. If that's true and, let's say, for thousands of years this possible hunter/prey relationship existed between Erectus and Giganto, it makes sense that an atavistic response in the "prey" would have developed in relation to the "hunter"...i.e. an innate fear of anything Homo Erectus-like. And, frankly, we're pretty damn close to Homo Erectus.

My understanding is that this "genetic memory" of sorts can continue on in a species, minus an actual persistent threat, through subsequent generations. A modern day example of an atavistic response used for practical purposes is that that viles of wolf urine are or were placed on trees in Maine to keep the moose off the roads....even though there hasn't been any wolves there for about a hundred years! The moose get a whiff and just react instinctively to get away from the source of the smell. Who knows, maybe when a squatch sees a human while peering through the underbrush or gets a whiff of our scent coming downstream, a feeling of "uh...maybe I shouldn't get involved with that" occurs.

An animal as capable of travel as the physical attributes of a BF suggests (and have been reported...I'm not countin' the mallards) might have a very large territory (hundreds of square miles? I've heard that barren ground brown bear up on the tundra might travel about 10 miles a day while foraging (and farther if seeking specific conditions)and will consider its territory to be up to 100 square miles). In an area that size, particularly if it includes significant variation in elevation and local climate would be an area in which different resources become abundant at different times of the year or even in different years. Being highly mobile allows a creature to diversify in taking advantage over the widest possible range of opportunities whether they occur cyclically (like tides) seasonally (annually), periodically or sporatically. Added to that as MOI's has brought-up; of the animal having near human ability to understand that humans are something to be cryptic about, one can begin to see how unlikely a band of even prepared humans in an area where BF had been reported would still have a small likelyhood of running across one.

I don't want to go back into my encounter and change course here because their's some great conversation going on by alot of intelligent people in this thread. But I hope people in this "community" do learn something from my experience, I know I have and as soon as these holidays are over, I'll be ready to move forward and continue the pursuit. Although I started doing this because it was always in my heart since I was very little (we are who we are, sure beats the golf course)and I think and admit, my first priority was knowing the truth for myself-and I do now. Now, that's not good enough, just like anything else in life, we always strive for more, as we absolutely are a spoiled species. Now the priority has changed and I do want to contribute and help prove the existence of these animals to others.

And Saskeptic great post! Your absolutely right, "we" are making this to complicated. That's two things I know for sure everybody, no matter what anyone tells you, "they" are very "real," and I can guarantee they're not going to film themselves- walk around a sharp turn at the wrong time and get crushed by a Semi?- maybe, but I'd rather be patient and instigate the encounter with people I care about in some of the most beautiful places on this continent, then sit home and wait to read a headline that somewhat surprisingly to me (because I know they are real), hasn't happened yet with an end result.
Go to the logical places, be PATIENT, work it. From my experience the old adage is true- "you don't find them, they find you." However, you can go to places where it's a hell of alot easier and more conducive to them finding you. What's logical? My guys and me don't have all the answers, we're wrong about 98-99% of the time, but if you believe we've been right those couple of times here and there- all we did was follow the direction of the food chain. Based on needs it would be reasonable to expect in a species of animal such as this- ask yourself, are you conducting your search where it's logical for all or most of those needs to be met? And at the appropriate time?
One thing I'd like to see more of from the skeptics (absolutely agree with some of the points Melissa's has made) is to help lead the way for us proponents and "field" personal by using and sharing your knowledge and understanding of scientific principles and accepted standards- frankly, many of us need that direction at times and I think if some of those methodologies and expectations are presented appropriately and with some respect, many of us in the field will be extremely receptive, learn more of them and practice them more. So far from what I've read on this thread and others, Saskeptic and Longtabber seem to do a good job of this and I'd like to see more of it from others who are on the skeptical side of the fence regarding this subject. In my view, their's two types of skeptics, their's the skeptic who enjoys arguing from what they perceive is a position of power, the mainstream point of view and deep down they hope, believe and enjoy they are forever right and happily challenge you to prove them wrong. The skeptics I believe we have here for the most part, argue based on logic, rational and knowledge and challenge you to prove them wrong because deep down they want you (us proponents) to be RIGHT- or what the hell would they be doing here on this forum in the first place? I honestly believe they want and think their could be this species of animal, but......... "you gotta show me something first." I respect and can always work with that latter group of skeptics.

Crowlogic- I understand where your coming from and believe your being candid and honest about your experience. However, to my knowledge I've never experienced sleep paralysis, dreams which I believe are real etc.. so please understand, in essence it's extremely hard for me to believe that's what happens in most of these sighting events, including my own. To me (and I'm a nerdy horror movie buff who's seen em all and at 33 has a subscription to Fangoria magazine) accepting that explanation for most or even some sightings is equivelant likely to you believing the explanation that these animals simply exist is what's really responsible for alot of the claimed sightings of these animals. Don't get me wrong, I've had dreams that've seemed extremely real and woke up in a cold sweat, but within seconds I knew it was just that- a dream. Even after a hard night out drinking with the boys, I've never had a problem mixing fantasy with reality, so personally I just can't relate to it on that level. And I'm certainly not trying to insult you by saying that, just giving you my perspective.

Just so you are clear regarding me, I'm neither skeptic or scoftic- technically I would be a "believer" since my "belief" is based on 2 incidences where I believe i witnessed a BF ( one similar to one upthread that was too close for comfort and involved weapons fire, a pursuit and "some" evidence after the fact)- that aside, I also have to adhere to the standards of my discipline. If i were a skeptic ( by the associated usage normally applied) I wouldnt be here in the first place.

yetifan; that point about the scent driven response (a pheremone) is a good one. Vis a vis the ongoing paralell thread on why BF scares us; I think it could be a two way street. Your experience?

Thanks for the info, hadn't seen that yet, my mistake.

funny thing is, had 'whatever" it was continued to charge straight rather than execute a sharp left when it did, me any my partner might have solved the question in the early 70's. We already hit it with #4 and had reloaded with 00B. That yell already proved ours wasnt an illusion or man in a suit, It was going to die if it came where we could get a clean unobstructed shot.

Bart, great post!

And I agree with 98.3% of it!

dogu4 wrote:





If your referring to what happened to me near the mouth of the Klamath in '92 I can honestly say that near the end of what happened, I was quite scared. But I've always attributed that to responding to Daryl's response...which was that he was reeallllyyyy frightened.

Gee, Thanks brat, lol!

I haven't read all the posts in this rather lengthy thread but I would like to add something to the mix. To my mind the phenomenon of BF is inseparable from the folklore, superstitions, and many accounts of the Native Americans that may themselves lie outside the realm of logic and reason. Folklore and science have always made for strange bedfellows but the lens of history still gives credence to these many unsubstantiated accounts inasmuch as they form a part of the historical record. Personally, I like to imagine that there are mysteries still out there, that man is just a small part of something larger. The modern scientific mind is oftentimes uncomfortable with this notion, wants to assert itself, and extinguish any sense of mystery at all costs. I feel it is something to do with man's perception of his place in the universe. The notion that there might be something out there, another creature, unknown and skulking beyond perception is frightening and a little humbling to our sophisicated ways. It should be noted that this fear of embracing a mystery can be as deep and insidious (and irrational) as a child who is simply afraid of the dark. As men we have the need to know (to prove), and yet such stubbornness can lead to a loss of understanding - understanding man's true place in the universe, that our intelligence is not the one ultimate intelligence, that man in his arrogance chooses, in many ways, to live in the dark. I'm not saying that science doesn't have its place, or that it shouldn't be applied to BF research, but at the end of the day we have to admit that there are still more things to learn of our external world, and an unwillingness to be confounded is a sure sign that our knowledge has gotten in the way of our understanding.

And I think that's where the big mistake comes in, this phoney baloney war between "Skeptics" and "Believers", some people seem to be engaged in soley to show off to everybody they believe to be their peers, when in truth some of those who are very skeptical of the evidence have had some sort of encounter or know people who have.

I've heard people say they don't "Believe" in sasquatch, they are convinced by the evidence for the existence of sasquatch.

I'm the opposite. I believe that sasquatch exists, but I am unconvinced by the evidence for sasquatch's existence.

I know quite a few people who have relayed their experiences to me, and I believe them, I have the upmost respect for them. I've experienced some pretty wild things. This is enough to convince me, and I don't need to tell or prove it to anybody else, so I don't. You'll never see me hounding people about their experiences.

But the more I look into what is presented as evidence, and I mean the physical evidence, the more it becomes apparent this field is PLAGUED wih hoaxes and misidentifications. I look ino what is presented and post what I find out.

To be honest, I don't really care about proving sasquatch's existence, in fact I hope they are never proven to exist. I think they will be a lot better off without us.

Saskeptic, Patterson was followign the Onion Mt. track finds when he filmed Patty, and those Onion Mt. tracks show ever trait of being hoaxed by Ray Wallace. So I guess using the past to aid you means a person should follow hoaxes to film their....

Okay,

I'm unfamiliar with "Yetifan's" sighting, anyone have a link to it?

Dug-mac, I don't think that BF is one of those things that we need to worry about knowledge getting in the way of our understanding. It's not a spiritual beast, it's flesh and blood.

Bart, I will not pretend to have near the personal knowledge that you do with this phenomenon, and heck, I think you're a great guy, but I disagree to an extent with some of your conclusions. I think BF can be as you observed and still be hominid. If you ever witness, for instance, professional dancers or acrobats and what they are capable of accomplishing, what you have described seems more feasible than at first blush. For instance, I have personally witnessed a professional dancer (male) balance himself on one leg on the ground and engage in about 10 minutes of carefully controlled contortions using his other leg and the rest of his body; in that entire time only his one leg ever touched the ground. The display of strength and body control that entailed was beyond belief to me. There are many other examples of humans with exceptional talent and training who are capable of amazing feats. I saw video of a guy doing pushups while only his knuckles touched the ground -- he was able to hold the rest of his body horizontally off the floor in balance for at least 30 seconds. If BF is doing what he is doing and is exceptionally adapted to it, the simple fact of his physical tools does not make him less intelligent. In fact it may make him more intelligent, because what animal is going to be as careful and as thorough with evasion, unless he knows what he is doing.

Some evidence:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6X5sxjcXdxc