Here's why:
Look at the sightings. How many of these sightings are from people searching around in the field? 2% maybe? Probably even less.
A lot of the encounters, video, and pictures come from average joes, not some credentialed BF field investigator. Noll, Meldrum, Moskowitz, Green, etc...the so-called "experts", have less to tell than some other normal people do.
I'm not saying people out in the field are worthless, but the vast majority of the sighting reports are coming from normal people doing their regular activities than some guy camping out 3 weeks in the Pacific Northwest.
To those who say more people in the field is worse...how? The more people you have the greater the chance you have of seeing a BF. Common sense.
Discuss.
Full Version: More people in the field searching for BF = good
From reading some of the reports I think that a campaign directing motion activated cameras towards garbage cans around houses would be a good idea.
Put them on houses that have a history of "disturbances" (they are usually the ones that have already installed motion sensing lighting! clue #1 on whom to approach) even if the people living in the house insist it's nothing but raccoons.
Share the feed with the homeowners so they can look at all their cute raccoons.
I am sure many of you know tons of people who live on the edge or just outside of town who would volunteer for this.
More people in the field (!) automatically with this one. So many sightings are reported in or around towns that I am suprised at the lack of cameras that are out there placed like this.
Just my two not quite entirely off topic two cents
But really, if it is about the number of "eyes" looking at this then I think it's a go! Not going to work in the big cities, but tiny towns in the middle of the great big woods? Ya. You betcha.
Put them on houses that have a history of "disturbances" (they are usually the ones that have already installed motion sensing lighting! clue #1 on whom to approach) even if the people living in the house insist it's nothing but raccoons.
Share the feed with the homeowners so they can look at all their cute raccoons. I am sure many of you know tons of people who live on the edge or just outside of town who would volunteer for this.
More people in the field (!) automatically with this one. So many sightings are reported in or around towns that I am suprised at the lack of cameras that are out there placed like this.
Just my two not quite entirely off topic two cents
But really, if it is about the number of "eyes" looking at this then I think it's a go! Not going to work in the big cities, but tiny towns in the middle of the great big woods? Ya. You betcha.
QUOTE(SKM @ Sep 13 2008, 08:24 PM) 
Here's why:
Look at the sightings. How many of these sightings are from people searching around in the field? 2% maybe? Probably even less.
A lot of the encounters, video, and pictures come from average joes, not some credentialed BF field investigator. Noll, Meldrum, Moskowitz, Green, etc...the so-called "experts", have less to tell than some other normal people do.
I'm not saying people out in the field are worthless, but the vast majority of the sighting reports are coming from normal people doing their regular activities than some guy camping out 3 weeks in the Pacific Northwest.
To those who say more people in the field is worse...how? The more people you have the greater the chance you have of seeing a BF. Common sense.
Discuss.
Look at the sightings. How many of these sightings are from people searching around in the field? 2% maybe? Probably even less.
A lot of the encounters, video, and pictures come from average joes, not some credentialed BF field investigator. Noll, Meldrum, Moskowitz, Green, etc...the so-called "experts", have less to tell than some other normal people do.
I'm not saying people out in the field are worthless, but the vast majority of the sighting reports are coming from normal people doing their regular activities than some guy camping out 3 weeks in the Pacific Northwest.
To those who say more people in the field is worse...how? The more people you have the greater the chance you have of seeing a BF. Common sense.
Discuss.
Discuss?
OK
I don't agree with you mentioning names in your post.
The people you mentioned bust their ass, tell the truth, and are dedicated to this field.
I get the message.... but I don't like the letterhead.
QUOTE(SKM @ Sep 13 2008, 07:24 PM)
Here's why:
Look at the sightings. How many of these sightings are from people searching around in the field? 2% maybe? Probably even less.
A lot of the encounters, video, and pictures come from average joes, not some credentialed BF field investigator. Noll, Meldrum, Moskowitz, Green, etc...the so-called "experts", have less to tell than some other normal people do.
I'm not saying people out in the field are worthless, but the vast majority of the sighting reports are coming from normal people doing their regular activities than some guy camping out 3 weeks in the Pacific Northwest.
To those who say more people in the field is worse...how? The more people you have the greater the chance you have of seeing a BF. Common sense.
Discuss.
Look at the sightings. How many of these sightings are from people searching around in the field? 2% maybe? Probably even less.
A lot of the encounters, video, and pictures come from average joes, not some credentialed BF field investigator. Noll, Meldrum, Moskowitz, Green, etc...the so-called "experts", have less to tell than some other normal people do.
I'm not saying people out in the field are worthless, but the vast majority of the sighting reports are coming from normal people doing their regular activities than some guy camping out 3 weeks in the Pacific Northwest.
To those who say more people in the field is worse...how? The more people you have the greater the chance you have of seeing a BF. Common sense.
Discuss.
Start recruiting
QUOTE(SKM @ Sep 13 2008, 07:24 PM)
Here's why:
Look at the sightings. How many of these sightings are from people searching around in the field? 2% maybe? Probably even less.
A lot of the encounters, video, and pictures come from average joes, not some credentialed BF field investigator. Noll, Meldrum, Moskowitz, Green, etc...the so-called "experts", have less to tell than some other normal people do.
I'm not saying people out in the field are worthless, but the vast majority of the sighting reports are coming from normal people doing their regular activities than some guy camping out 3 weeks in the Pacific Northwest.
To those who say more people in the field is worse...how? The more people you have the greater the chance you have of seeing a BF. Common sense.
Discuss.
Look at the sightings. How many of these sightings are from people searching around in the field? 2% maybe? Probably even less.
A lot of the encounters, video, and pictures come from average joes, not some credentialed BF field investigator. Noll, Meldrum, Moskowitz, Green, etc...the so-called "experts", have less to tell than some other normal people do.
I'm not saying people out in the field are worthless, but the vast majority of the sighting reports are coming from normal people doing their regular activities than some guy camping out 3 weeks in the Pacific Northwest.
To those who say more people in the field is worse...how? The more people you have the greater the chance you have of seeing a BF. Common sense.
Discuss.
The researchers use their own methods with varying degrees of success. They make up a grain of sand on a beach in terms of the population of North America (for example) vs. bigfoot researchers. And you are absolutely correct. The BFRO, for example, has the vast majority of their reports from people not looking for or even thinking about Sasquatch. There are very few researchers around, some seem to be more credible than others. It doesn't pay, not on its own. Find one dead, kill one, etc. and you're set. But if they are in it for money they are panning for gold in mud. I think it would be absolutely wonderful to conduct research, and although it isn't about money for me, I can't just drop everything and go into the field despite - having most of the equipment needed. I have commitments just like everyone, I have a life that doesn't allow me to venture off for a month or so even during my "down time." One has to be very dedicated to this field and make sacrifices that the majority of people cannot make. That is also the same reason the vast majority of these reports come from non-researchers. There are plenty of people in the woods doing various activities, but only very few with bigfoot on their minds (except maybe for us folks on this forum).
I would be satisfied if just the general public was fully informed on the subject and not trained by the media to laugh on cue at the mention of BF. If people were more aware of their surroundings when camping and working in the wild and on the lookout they would see and hear them more often.
QUOTE(nightscream @ Sep 14 2008, 01:02 AM)
I would be satisfied if just the general public was fully informed on the subject and not trained by the media to laugh on cue at the mention of BF. If people were more aware of their surroundings when camping and working in the wild and on the lookout they would see and hear them more often.
Agreed..
I think that whenever researchers do a field investigation for BF, they don't stay out long enough. Most expeditions only last 2 weeks at the most. If they stayed out there a month or longer then I think they'd find one.
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.