I have a question(many actually), how close do you guys think we are to actually discovering a bigfoot in the wild, 1-5 yrs 5-10yrs, 10-20yrs ect., or maybe never? I have been wondering if the field of bigfoot research is moving forward or is it just spinning its wheels? Are there evidences and search areas that show great promise in this field that may lead to more fruitful investigation?

I think a start might be to take only the most credible sightings, ones where people can pinpoint the location and start plotting them on topographic maps to develop a sighting density to see if there is correlation to topography, elevation, or vegetation(has somebody done this already?). But again, would this even be useful?

I just wanted to know what others thought about some of the stuff I have been thinking about.

Frank

I would give it up to ten years before it is officialy discovered. The BFRO hunts are promising, but i think it is the independent researcher that will make the ultimate find.

At the rate things are going...10years-NEVER.
"We've" been waiting 50 years plus, and what definitive, absolutely concrete evidence has been collected? Nothing, really...if we're all honest and admit that all of what's presented so far has been V-E-R-Y tantilizing, but (and here's that dreaded word again...I apologize in advance) inconclusive.
There has not yet been a solid, confirmed, well-documented film series, video, digital movie, or irrefutable physical evidence brought to bear on the existence of Sasquatch. Fifty years and waiting...so...what's another 50?

I say probably never. I think BF research is just spinning its wheels. (but I am a cynic at heart)




That is what I have done to areas I checked out. I also hunted down maps of the areas from the time the sighting took place up until now. That way I can look for any possible travel routes and or places where one may be trapped by development. (have a place here that I checked a couple ot times for remains)

When the Tom Slick hunt in the Bluff creek area the member's were saying we will have a Bigfoot very soon. After the Patterson film it was said that they were very close. We are only a lottery chance of being close, it could happen any minute. Most people that see Bigfoot aren't looking for it. I hope it happen's before I die.

[QUOTE=SkunkHunter,Sep 20 2004, 09:08 AM][/QUOTE]

That is what I have done to areas I checked out. I also hunted down maps of the areas from the time the sighting took place up until now. That way I can look for any possible travel routes and or places where one may be trapped by development. (have a place here that I checked a couple ot times for remains)[/QUOTE]
SkunkHunter,

When you plot your data, do you see any correlation or are the encounters just random? I have long wondered if sightings are just random events or when they occur are they in a bigfoot ecological niche, so to speak.

Judging from the two reported ones on the BFRO and a few I gathered from other sources I would say it seems as if one or a few hung around the area for some time. It seems as if these creatures were living on the periphery of civilization.

Also a possibility of one becomming trapped by the development. I checked the area I suspected for remains but alot of development has come about in the area. A bulldozer probably smashed and scattered any if they werent where I looked.

One of the members here also has a husband who had a sighting inthe area in the 70's. I would love to get more details on that. But she told me pretty much where the sighting was.


From what I can gather is , either they died out, or they escaped to the glades. The second possibility is doubtful but not impossible. There were 2 more sightings in just about the exact location where I figured would be the only way into the glades but the reports are hard to find and not from a large source.

If the last two reports are related and I feel they could be, then I presume the animals are still living as they were, close to yet far enough away from mankind. Bear in mind the everglades are a very inhospitable environment. Maybe not for a skunkape/bigfoot but certainly for a guy like me who just doesnt find the time to look anymore.

Every damn day I log onto this forum in hopes of a new pic.......or google for one..., but it's been a long wait since 1967!!!!
I can't help but think that there has GOT to be SOMEONE out there with more footage, or some clear close-up pics, that is scared to death of ridicule or whatever, and is keeping it in a dresser drawer until they croak, either to just get thrown out, or their next of kin finding it, and finally letting the cat out of the bag.
With more and more development in forested areas, you would think it would be just any day now before a Kenworth pancaked one on the interstate, which would be sad, but BANG! Instant proof. Our luck it would get flung undiscovered into a wooded ditch, and get covered with dirt over time, and become a fossil. So I give the time limit from now, until that fossil is discovered.

I want to say never, but then again I wouldn't be surprised to read a farmer has one hanging in the barn, shot it because it kept comming onto his porch.

If I had money to burn, I'd have a rented chopper, with heat sensor equipment like the police use to chase criminals at night, parked close to the BFRO's next expedition. I'd also have a partner participating in the excursion who was in radio contact with me. As soon as those folks started reporting bf activity, which seems to be pretty normal on those trips, I'd be in the air. I'd bet a year's pay that that equipment would not pick up some lumbering hulk hanging around the participants as they tramped around the roads and trails. Maybe I'd lose a year's pay but it would be worth it!

t.

It's an interesting question - and one I asked myself contstantly back in the good 'ol days of the mid-1970's when guys like Dahinden, Green and Byrne gave the impression they truly thought there was a Sasquatch round the next bend.

I think it was Byrne who in 1975 predicted "a definite find, possibly within two years and certainly within five". Nearly 30 years later we're still arguing over various inconclusive sightings, several reports of tracks of varying credibility and one single piece of film which, in my view anyway, just doesn't pass the smell test.

When I say I reckon the wait will go on forever, I guess you know what I'm driving at. Just before he died, Dahinden said: "You know, I spent all those years looking for it, and I never found it. I guess that says something."

Just last night I pulled out my copy of "Raincoast Sasquatch" and reviewed the history of sasquatch reports in the area of Revillagigedo Island where the city of Ketchikan is located.

Since 1950, there have been 48 sightings, vocalizations, footprint finds, nests, or other such reports that have come from that area. The penninsula on Revillagigedo where Ketchikan is located is approximately 150 square miles, but most of those reports were along the few roads and trails in the area.

What's more, the neighboring bays, inlets, and islands immediately adjacent to Revillagigedo boast many more such reports. Nearby Prince of Wales Island, the third largest island under the U.S. flag, is well penetrated with logging roads. POW Island itself boasts a significant number of sasquatch reports. Revillagigedo and Prince of Wales Islands are linked by 2 1/2 hour ferry ride, and transit between the two for a person and pickup truck is about $200 RT (during the summer season).

Seems like a great place for a hunt. My plan is to continue to review, collate, and analyze this data. I'm looking for date/seasonal patterns, migration trends, fish-run/sighting links, etc.

Yes, hotspots appear to exist.

When will bigfoot be " discovered"?......hmmmm......As soon as i shoot one.....or as soon as any of you shoot one.....or as soon as somebody shoots one................

"discovery" won't make some of our number happy......

the "skeptics" of the world won't be happy, either........'cause many of them weren't skeptics .....they were unbelievers from the beginning or became disenchanted as time passed.......when one is shot, hit by a car or whatever...they will be proven wrong....sorry, but....you choose your own "truths"..........

too many of us have seen them too many times to have any doubts about their existance......and fortunately we care very little what the skeptics think, or the unbelievers.......

it took me 17 years to see my first one.....16 more years to get to here.....it might take 17 more years for somebody to bag one.....who knows?

With the recent (<10yrs) proliferation of camcorders and now camera cell phones, a higher percentage of the reported sightings should include photo's and video's.

But they don't...hmmmmmmmm...wussupwiddat?

For years all there was only one, Patterson (besides hoaxes).

Now there's Memorial Day, Marble Mountains, Freeman and a few others all in the last ten years.

So we went from one from the years 1955? to maybe 1995 (1 video every 40 years), then 3-4 or more in the last ten years (one every 2-3 years), seems like a trend to me. Maybe it will be two to three a year pretty soon! Boy, wouldn't that be great!

Groovy baby...

I'm just hoping something comes in soon. After all, when you read most of the reports after BF encounters, the usual response was "I got the hell out of there", *NOT*- "I grabbed my camera and ran after it." I would probably run too. As amazing as they seem, to see one staring you down has to make your blood run cold. This is a good thread, very interesting thoughts. Scotto

iam going to go out on a line here and say with ten yrs. I saw my first one at 14, and I was NOT looking for him, In fact BF was the last thing I wanted to see that night, but it was not my choice. As for myself BF is real. If ever I am in a position, with the correct weapon , or cam I will bring him down, since I only carry semi auto, I will bring him down.... the street sweaper just became leagle, hot dog....
this will put him down....

I apoligez to all who are non kill, but today, I just feel like its the only way....

What caliber?

12 ga semi auto. I dont want to be shooting any BF too far away..., the ban was lifted on a lot of weapons a few days ago, it expired, very cool...

Cool unless you live in Kalifornia like I do! We have our own ban.

Better use slugs on a BF and place the shot well. One well placed shot is better than random spraying. I'd hate to be within 100 yards of an injured, pissed off bigfoot!

This skeptic would be overjoyed!

Discovery of a Bigfoot would send me into instant boyish enthusiam and curiousity. I would smile through every "I told you so". I would not be embarrased nor regretful of my previous skepticism and could still easily explain and justify why I was skeptical.

Possibly the most important scientific discovery in the history of mankind. What thinking person could be angry?

The objectionable skeptics are the ones who:

• Indulge in name-calling (e.g., saying or implying Patterson was a con man, and nothing but a con man, both of which are vast exaggerations),
• Oppose funding investigations,
• Sneer at or explain away all evidence,
• Place utter confidence in the most conventional bits of mainstream science's wisdom, its sacred rituals, and its curia and gatekeepers,
• Marginalize outsiders,
• Assume eyewitness or "anecdotal" testimony is ipso facto worthless,
• Twist and/or misconstrue the evidence,
• Protect their prejudices by avoiding intimate familiarity with cases while simultaneously posing as knowledgeable,
• Have a knee-jerk black/white psychology,
• Have no doubts.

They lack the humility to say, "Hmm, Maybe." Their personal inadequacies (nerdishness, etc.) make them crave "closure" and seek a one-up position vis-a-vis less mechanical-spirited people. This arrogance will bite them (and Science as a whole) bad one day, since their Denial has delayed some of the most important discoveries ever, and has violated the spirit of science. (Which is, "I dunno ... let's find out.")

It's starting to happen with cold fusion, which--if established--should put them on the defensive in a big way. Their sins there, too, weren't just being wrong, but the behaviors I've listed above (and more).

In terms of "social reality" it's beneficial for a skeptic to sneer at longshots, because in so doing he will "win" 9 time in ten and have a good social batting average. But in real reality, the downside of wasting a little time pursuing nine dead ends is minor compared to the millionfold payoff resulting from the one Big Find.

Just to clarrify...are you saying cold fusion is a reality?
I know it's off topic, but since you brought it up, I was just curious as to your thoughts. As far as I know, it was very decisively disproven several times by several labs over the years.
On another note...*whew*! Why so against science all of a sudden?

seems like you're juxtoposing science and religion...maybe on purpose...but either way, you're still doing the same kind of generalizing and off-hand dismissal that you're claiming us evil "scientists" do...
Well, back to my sinister supression of "the Truth"...

none.
but the nonthinkers will be both catatonic and threatened at the same time.
sorry saps, then the backpedaling begins.

I said, “it’s starting to happen.” And I said “if established.” I didn’t say “is a reality” (any more than I say Bigfoot is a reality). I say there’s enough there (and here) to be at least worthy of study, which Science has emphatically denied. (E.g., it refuses (among other things) to publish cold fusion findings, to publish references in bibliographies to cold fusion results, to read, or fund library subscriptions to, cold fusion journals, etc.) My mantra is “Extraordinary claims require investigation (sometimes)”—and when investigation is justified, it sometimes (as in the case of cold fusion) requires funding.

Here’s a long 1998 Cover Story from Wired that should have disabused you six years ago of the notion that cold fusion had been decisively disproven. Here are a couple of spring and summer 2004 articles on recent developments, to bring you up to speed: http://www.physicstoday.org/vol-57/iss-4/p27.html
http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/re...gerous_science/

I’ve looked at only the first four pages of a Google search on “cold fusion”. There’s lots more stuff there you could check out. (My files contain interesting articles I’ve collected from time to time in the past. But there’s no need for me to get too deep into this here.) I’ve been indignant about this topic for over ten years, and I consider Official Science’s malfeasance and misfeasance in this matter to be revolting.



Again, my actual words are a bit different from what you imagined me to say. I criticized not "science" but "Plac[ing] utter confidence in the most conventional bits of mainstream science's wisdom ..."

EDIT: This isn't "all of a sudden" on my part. RayG and I have butted heads on topics like this for almost a year on and off, and I've done so with others from further back.

I’m not anti-science, in the sense of opposing the scientific ideal of objectivity and the priority science gives to what can be empirically established, experimentally and rigorously. As with every profession, there’s an “ideal scientist” (objective and experimental), sometimes encountered in real life. Such ideal scientists' motivations are impeccable and their missteps both rare and unintentional (according to ideal-theory). I have no objections to these folks, even if they disbelieve in cold fusion, Bigfoot, etc.

Likewise, there’s an ideal lawyer, statesman, theologian, professor, poet, doctor, policeman, soldier, FBI-agent, etc. They don’t, however, in real life, live up to their images. There is quite a difference between their ideal behavior and their average behavior, not to mention their bad-apple behavior. And so it is in science. Conformity (or group-think), careerism, “correctness” (policed by scornful debunkers’ columns, etc.), and “reckless caution” are hallmarks of group behavior, not the bold, idealistic truth-speaking science groupies like Sagan would have us accept. Every group has its day in the sun, when it is over-idolized, and in which it implicitly (and unjustifiably) claims to be above criticism from, and oversight by, outsiders. Today it’s the scientists’ day, but it’s passing, thanks to their exhibiting the same vanity and group-defensiveness that the other groups have exhibited when they came under fire.

The strongest indicator (there are more, but I don’t want to get too deep into all this) of the primarily self-serving, social-game nature of science has been its long-standing unwillingness to confront and correct its bad habit of burying “negative findings,” although a few statesmen in the field have pointed out the gravity of the issue from time to time. Unless they undermine some important theory or practice, most unsuccessful experiments (and even unsuccessful medical treatments) don’t get published, because they make the experimenter, funder, and/or scientific field look bad. The result is that there is less light in the world, and other curious scientists unfortunately are thereby forced to repeat the failed experiment.

“You DARE to criticize SCIENCE?!” is a standard scoftical reply when scientists and their group-behavior is criticized, and should be avoided. My criticism focuses on the behavior of scientists in real-world terms, especially when group-dynamics come into play. Here’s a link to many pages of quotations I posted by a scientific insider, Henry Bauer, criticizing real-world Science’s sniffish, know-it-all attitude toward “anomalistics”: http://www.bigfootforums.com/index.php?sho...auer+quotations

(It’s true though that ultimately I’m an irrationalist. I.e., I don’t think that what can be proven gets to the root of things. Martin Gardiner used a less provocative term for himself, "fide-ist"--one willing to make a leap of faith on unprovable ultimate matters.)

O.k. then...

Thank you THANK YOU!!!

I actually think you're mistaken about "failed experiments" not being published. All of the conferences I've attended, journals I've read, and texts I've perused do mention experiments and hypotheses that either didn't pan out, or were flat wrong. And they even go on to explain why, specifically so others avoid the same pitfalls.
If everything was as abysmally bad as you make it out to be in the scientific community, we'd still be squatting around bison carcasses, poking them with sticks, and trying desperately to figure out how to butcher them...
I'm not sure what exactly your experience has been with research scientists, but I do know it's obviously been quite a bit different than mine.

At any rate, how about that ape!?

What an excellent post, Roger. Thank you.

I'm gonna say it'll be 10 years. That may be a bit optimistic unless all the Bigfoot groups get their act together and decide they want to make a discovery that's worthwhile instead of all the infighting and backstabbing.

Nothing in what you wrote rebuts what I said. In particular, I wasn't complaining about: "failed experiments" not being published, as though that never happened. You're attacking a straw man when you criticize that position. What I wrote was, "Unless they undermine some important theory or practice, most unsuccessful experiments (and even unsuccessful medical treatments) don’t get published ..." The experiments you've read about and cited as a refutation are the ones I allowed for in the words I boldfaced. My words were carefully chosen; yours were not.

I went to Google and searched for: negative (findings OR results) (unpublished OR "not published"). I got 528,000 hits. (Check it out.) Houston, we've got a problem.


Again, you haven't paid attention, and so you've triumphantly knocked down another straw man. I didn't imply that "everything [is] abysmally bad." I did imply that things could be somewhat better, maybe even notably better. But that wasn't the point I was arguing. I wasn't claiming that progress is being very significantly impeded by this "bad habit" of Science, but that, since it is obviously causing some damage, a scientific establishment that was as selfless and truth-oriented as it likes the public and its funders to think it is would have taken steps to correct it. Since it hasn't, it's reasonable to think that it is significantly motivated, like every other professional group, by a desire to "look good," to be "one up" vis-a-vis the laity, to not "rock the boat" about matters that would threaten the self-image and social position of big-shot scientists, etc.

To get down to cases, one such boat-rocker would be the existence of an immaterial plane of reality, as suggested by psi phenomena. If established, the long-term effect of conceding such a plane would be to raise the social status of theologians (and others allegedly conversant with the Realm of the Unseen and its Denizens) and (on the other end of the see-saw) to simultaneously lower scientists from their unchallenged top-dog perch as the ultimate experts on what's-what. Another boat-rocker would be acknowledgment of the reality of cold fusion effects, because that would mean the sacred rituals invoked by science groupies (peer review / gatekeepers / the scientific consensus / science's supposed openness (e.g., in its journals and conferences) to heretical data and opinions) are unreliable and can even function in a perverse (anti-scientific) manner. A third boat-rocker would be the discovery that what I call "the greatest ape" has gone undiscovered, primarily for egoistic reasons. (E.g., it seems to me that maintaining their one-up social status is the main reason scientists have been reluctant to follow up on reports (and films!) of sightings, as that would have put them in a "one-down" position relative to the hicks (as they subconsciously see them) who've been making the reports and films.)

PS regarding the ESP business: the effect on scientists' social status would take decades to percolate thoroughly into public consciousness, but would eventually have a very strong impact. Sorokin's Social and Cultural Dynamics (I think that's the title) talks about the long-wave social effects that follow when societies adopt new versions of What's Really Real. (Or what Kesey called "the current fantasy.")


Implying that my criticism was of individual scientists, and then "knocking down" that criticism as unjust, means only that you've skewered another straw man, because I didn't criticize such folk, or at least did so only glancingly. (In a post I made a day or two ago, I stated that since 30% of scientists favored funding BF investigations, I exempted them from my criticism.)

EDIT: A survey found that about 33% of everyday scientists believed in, or were open to the possibility of, psi effects, but that this percentage shrank as one moved step-by-step up the scientific pecking order, until one reached a famous 50-member group of top-level scientists (I forget the name), where only 6% were believers. I doubt that this is because they had studied the matter any more thoroughly than the grunts in the field, but mostly because psi belief (or anyway admission of belief) is less acceptable at the topmost level--and primarily for social reasons. It's also possible that the admissions committee disfavored believers and tended to filter them out, as potentially being an embarrassment to the group.

My criticism was instead primarily of establishments, gatekeepers, conventional-thinking's defenders, and group dynamics. E.g., I used the word "group" five times in my post; such as in "group behavior" and "group dynamics." There is such a thing as group psychology; it is an emergent property of a system-in-action. Hence, it can have a nature quite different from, and unpredictable by, that of its constituent basic parts (such as individual scientists or small groups of research scientists). E.g., the behavior of the NEA is not something that reflects the personality of the nice academics one may know personally, even though they are its constituent parts.

Also, I wasn't criticizing the everyday debates that science engages in. I'm sure it behaves better than any other social group. (Except us proofreaders.) But those tempests in a teapot aren't real character-testers. There are lots of people who behave in an OK fashion when a strong stick or carrot isn't in play. But, when some extraordinary threat or temptation comes along, they can really surprise you. That's when they are put to the test. And capital-S Science is failing its exam. When it comes to anomalistics, it freaks. And the social harm it is doing (not least, in the long run, to science's own reputation) is great.

It's like the roll of the dice. Much depends on chance, but I would like to think less than 5 years. Of course, discovery might not be all good, for them or us. We might find ourselves longing for the "good old days" when nobody but us believed they existed.
BSF

Edited to correct a spelling mistake.

Science does not stand between anyone and the delivery of Bigfoot. It is useless and false to blame or scapegoat any person, institution or mindset for the prevention of a Bigfoot confirmation. Every camera has a shutter release, every camcorder has a record button, every gun has a trigger, etc.

I don't understand the foundations for setting predictive timetables for the discovery of Bigfoot. Sasquatch will be confirmed the moment it is confirmed. No sooner, no later.

Indeed, science may very well stand in the way of discovery to itself and to those who depend on science to define reality for them.

Not everybody needs or relies on science to "deliver" a sasquatch for them to believe that they exist.



What defines that "moment"? Which scientist are you waiting for to say the magic words?

Many Native Americans have no doubt whatsoever regarding the existence of these creatures. Nor do I.

Some folks just don't need "officialdom" (whoever that is) to let us know what's real or not.

Hell, sometimes I wonder if they're real.

Whew! Finally got through your posts up there RK...succinct writing isn't one of your main goals in life, huh?

Relax man, wasn't trying to.


No attack.
And I didn't criticize.
I simply said my experience has obviously been different than yours.



I think you're reading WAY too much into what I said (which honestly wasn't much beyond...your experiences have clearly been different than mine and I disagree).
I'm honestly not looking to argue or debate (and I haven't). I've only stated that I disagree with some of your statements.
As for ESP, cold fusion, and all the other red herrings you brought in...well, they're very nice too, but not what I'm here to discuss.

Of course Science isn't "standing between" Bigfoot and Discovery. I.e., it isn't actively blocking amateur attempts at discovery. What Science IS doing is trying to forbid officially sanctioned and funded investigations, and to penalize scientists who investigate the matter (like Krantz), so it is very blamable.

For instance, a few weeks after the PG Film was shot, John Green had high hopes that the BC gov't would fund and sanction an investigation. I think some politicians he'd talked to were open to it. But the Official Science Guy who was commissioned by the gov't to write an advisory report gave the suggestion an emphatic thumbs-down, and the politicians weren't ready to go out on a limb unless they could cover their ass with his paper.

Likewise, the presentations of the pro-Bigfoot speakers (Bayanov, etc.) at the 1978 conference in Vancouver were deleted from the published collection of papers of the conference's proceedings (Manlike Monsters on Trial) at the behest of a peer-reviewer. (Contrary to what they had been promised, and contrary to ordinary practice when publishing a conference's proceedings.) He didn't feel the pro-Bigfoot side had proven its extraordinary claim, and so he felt it his bounden duty to protect Science from embarrassment and the public from being Led Into Error by excluding their presentations. (Funny, I don't recall reading about stuff like this in Sagan's starry-eyed encomiums to Science and its self-correcting procedures.)

But that sort of active misbehavior is rare. "Science's" main sin is one of omission. It is figuratively starving the BF field by saying that the matter isn't even worth investigating (see for instance the statements by the head of the Smithsonian, quoted in scoftic Ken Wylie's book), making it impossible to get public funding. (And making private funding hard to get by marginalizing the field.) Discovery would have occurred long ago if (say) Science had given politicians the green light, or even an orange light, and politicians had then:

• funded the installation of (say) 100 camera traps,
• posted a $50,000 bounty for the first BF specimen,
• offered a reward of up to $50,000 (how much depending on content, quality and provenance) for good BF video documentation,
• funded psychological studies of witnesses
• funded a fast-reaction team of trackers and dogs
• installed always-on (6-hour tape) dashboard video cameras in all rural squad cars
• etc., etc., etc.

Certain quests are not just matters that can be left to amateurs, because they are so socially important, and/or because they require resources, access, and expertise that amateurs lack. Amateurs' role in the hunt is to turn up enough suggestive evidence to justify Society in launching a Real Investigation, not to themselves engage in the sort of Junior G-Man effort that is all that uncoordinated amateurs can put together. Locating The Missing Link (or Kink, anyway) is as important to Society as--and maybe more important than--Landing on the moon, or measuring pollutant levels in the air and water.

If Science had refused to give politicians a green light to investigate pollution levels, and had dismissed concerns about them as unscientific alarmism (as it has done about concerns over fluoridation), it would be absurd for Science or its defenders to later wash its hands of responsibility for not discovering their hazards until thirty (say) years after the discovery could have been made by saying, "Look, no one stopped you from doing the work yourself."

The situation with Bigfoot doesn't seem quite analogous to the case above, because a single individual with a gun or camera theoretically could prove the Believers' case. But that's somewhat deceptive, because raising the odds enough that such an event would be likely to happen would take money (e.g., a bounty or reward, at a minimum). I.e., it's like saying that no group effort is needed to locate a lost hiker, because it only takes one individual to find him. The situation is a paradoxical one where an individual will find the quarry, but only (realistically speaking) if he is part of a team.

It also seems non-analogous because single individuals habituated chimps and gorillas in Africa and thereby made great discoveries about them. But what's not apparent is that those individuals were funded well enough to spend many months in the field before habituation, that the apes in question weren't very few in number, lived in large groups, and weren't nearly as shy of man as BF seems to be.

The sighting reports of Texas, using the published data bases of both the BFRO and the TBRC, indicate clear patterns of a living species. There are no patterns of a random nature. I will be making a presentation about this at the Texas Bigfoot Conference in Jefferson, Texas, October 23, called, "Patterns of Credible Bigfoot Sightings in Texas." The vast body of reports has definite correlations to annual rainfall totals, rivers, creeks, reservoirs and lakes, human population densities and environments that are evaluated as suitable black bear habitat.

I suspect that the rest of the sightings around the continent are much the same.

Regarding the question of the thread - I think we are very close. For some of us, it has been discovered - we now just have to make sure the rest of the world knows it. And I am spending every available moment to do just that. No - it's not an easy task when we are dealing with photographing or darting an animal that is nocturnal, agile and stealthy as a cougar, at least as intelligent as a a chimpanzee, at least as strong as a gorilla, very rare (maybe 5,000 - 6,000 in all of N. America?) and very shy. It is daunting. But, I still think we are very close.

But then again, I have always loved a good challenge.

I am very interested in hearing your presentation, Texas Tracker. This will be my first conference.
BSF

You're right. Many skeptics do make that assertion. Actually, many people who claim not to be skeptics also make that contention.

I believe that anecdotal accounts are crucial for behavioral study. A specimen will tell us nothing of sasquatch's behavior. Only through visually observing the animals will we gain insight into how they behave. That is why anecdotal or eyewitness accounts are valuable.

I too think we are closing in, and that discovery will come within a year. (Disclaimer I said that here a year ago--though that was the first time I'd said such a thing.) My main reason for this is that the scoftics have been increasingly Tempting Fate with their presumptuousness (e.g., the forthcoming Daegling book), and that therefore the Pranksters On Olympus are readying a nice fat custard pie-in-the-face for them.

BTW, some people (like Bobbie Short) estimate the BF population in the hundreds--the low hundreds.

I just don't see it. I think there are several hundred in the Ark-La-Tex-Oma region alone. With over 60 million acres of timber in which to roam (in Ark-La-Tex-Oma), Craig, the gang and I have a boatload of work to do.

Let's put it in perspective: We're looking for maybe 300-400 highly mobile needles in a 60 million acre haystack.

Once discovery occurs, watch Science scurry to collect witness's descriptions! All of a sudden Anecdotal will be OK. They'll have another name for it. (And, as I contended in a paper in a newsletter last year, those BF organizations that have a large videotaped collection of such testimony on hand will likely be able to license it to broadcasters at high rates in the frenzied weeks after Discovery.)

Gosh, I hope there aren't a lot of phony "witnesses," because if there are, their reports on the creature's behavior would be misleading. (Unless they're just repeating material from valid sightings that they've read on the web!)

OK, forget science, I want a seat at the poker game.

I'm offering a $60,000 cash bounty for a Bigfoot body. I'll throw in a custard-pie-in-the-face too if you want. I get full "ownership" of the body and all rights to it. You get $60,000, all rights to profits made as the discoverer of the body and can push a pie into my face in the County Square. Remember, I get all rights to the physical body itself.

It's not a joke!

I disagree completely with your first statement. Many of my colleagues are very interested in the subject, and willingly give their own time to investigate physical evidence. Again, not sure which scientists (specifically) you've interacted with, but they're quite different from the ones I know.
Incidentally, your continued raging against "Science" personalizes a methodology. Very odd since you're making it seem like a very personal battle between you and some faceless "Science."
Your second statement, and many following seem steeped in the 1960s and 1970s. Oh wait, Wylie's book from 1980 is also mentioned. Maybe this is part of the problem. Many of the primatologists, anthropologists, and taxonomists today are actually very interested in Sasquatch-related data.
Unfortunately, extremely biased anti-"Science" type people who have extremely bad attitudes and are often very openly hostile towards faceless "Scientists" seem to be common-place in the Bigfoot business and do much to alienate themselves based on their self-pitying, aggressively anti-establishment attitudes.
For example, here I am, a scientist, one of the many faceless drones who is a slave to "Science." Now's your chance to bring up your most convincing arguments in regards to the existence of Sasquatch...come on...lemme have 'em...convince me...that's been your major argument so far, namely "'Science' doesn't listen."
Well, I'm all ears...
Enough rambling on and on about Carl Sagan, politicians, sins, and other tangents.
You have my undivided attention...and...go...

I just dont get how one can come up with such a number. One needs to know the infant mortality rate , number of offspring each female produces and how often. Also the typical age of the creature lives and when it matures for breeding and a better estimate at its range.

Wow! Another great post, especially that quote.

Here in Alaska we currently have a political crisis with the predator control issue. Moose and caribou numbers have declined in some areas, and wolf & bear numbers have increased. Many hunters want the state to instigate government operated predator control. The environmental community along with non-hunting fence-sitters who don't like the idea of G-men flying around in helicopters shooting animals have presented a formidable political roadblock. ADFG wants some type of predator control started because IT WORKS, and some means of controlling predator numbers is key in efficient and overall wildlife management.

One of the positions I've repeatedly offered is to relax wolf and bear harvest requirements, seasons, restrictions, etc, in order for the average hunter to reduce predator numbers themselves. It's taken a while, but I've come to realize that this won't work either unless the returns are increased.

For example, the fur market has been depressed for quite a number of years now (primarily because of fad social views or outright terrorism toward those wearing fur as well as great, new synthetic fabrics now available), so harvesting wolves simply doesn't pay like it used to. Although that is changing quickly (much to the horror of the radical animalist), the addition of a small bounty by the state would result in the trapping industry growing and hunters more interested in actually hunting for predators instead of just taking them incidentally while moose hunting.

Bears are an even more difficult problem. State hunting regulations prohibit marketing any bear parts whatsoever (for fear of Asian sexual stimulant marketing, which is happening on the black market anyway, just like any other prohibited activity). So after a hunter shoots one bear for the wall, it's pretty much a done deal. Who wants to go through the hassle of skinning a bear, packing it out, paying $150 per sq. ft. for a taxidermist to tan and rug the hide, when you already have more bear on the wall than the wife wants to see anyway?

Wanna bet?

Once a body is found plenty will be learned from it.

The anatomy may reveal that Bigfoot is incapable of leaps of 45 feet from a crouch. The following anecdote is tossed in the trashcan.


BFRO report

If the anatomy reveals that Bigfoot is a herbivore then all anecdote of it being a predatory carnivore is thrown in the same trashcan, etc.

Actually,I don't think there was too many people who read that report and swallowed the account.

Good post...finally!

t.

BEH: The statement of mine "anecdotal will be OK" meant only (as I probably should have said more explicitly) that it will be OK to "collect" anecdotal reports. Right now, the attitude of peer reviewers, gatekeepers, and the maintainers of the skeptical paradigm (e.g., Shermer’s column in Scientific American) is that anecdotal reports have zero worth. An analogy commonly used is that sighting reports are equivalent to Elvis sightings or Santa/leprechaun sightings. Such analogies are used by influential scientists like Eugenie Scott (head of some national science educational institution and CSICOP board member) and the anonymous peer-reviewer (and rejecter) of the 1978 Bigfoot conference papers.

"Collecting" is several levels short of going to the other extreme and credulously accepting what witnesses have reported, or of giving priority to witness reports over hard evidence like that inferred from a body. (But still, don't chimps have the anatomy of a herbivore, but don't they sometimes hunt down and eat meat? Jane Goodall was surprised when she documented that.)

What I was envisioning would be "OK" is that scientists would do what John Green and other BFers have done: look for general trends in sighting reports for clues to the most productive lines of investigation, provisional basic evaluation, and further speculation. Reports with "outlier" characteristics (like large leaps, etc.) might be considered too, but with great caution, and listed with a "warning label." (E.g., strong swimming abilities, prominent hairy breasts, "gift-giving," tree-knocking, tree-twisting, etc.) The purpose of mentioning them at all would be to ensure that field workers didn't toss out similar "strange" reports if they were to encounter them in the future.