Does this sound familiar? Bigfoot is sighted, by very credible witnesses, and reported to one of the 'Bigfoot Clubs' out there. Make no mistake, the 'Club' members are a dedicated bunch individuals, and mean well. Then they will descend on the location with their tour de force of technology and people. And nothing really comes of it. This scenario has been repeating itself for many years now, and still nothing. OK, maybe not nothing - a few recordings, fuzzy pictures, hair, and that Skocum cast. Hardly anything for the amount of time and effort, and certainly nothing tangible for science. I think all researchers need to seriously evaluate their research methods, and come up with a better plan. Why doesn't this approach work with Bigfoot, it works with other types of animals? Maybe it's the
'Dangerfield Effect', Bigfoot isn't getting any respect! Bottom line, he is way to smart for any of this current research folly to work. Just my opinion of course. And there you have it - the one thing that is a sure bet in Bigfoot research, and that is there are many more opinions than Bigfoot!
Full Version: Bigfoot Research Methods
hi apedog good afternoon i agree the best thing for all researchers to do is put cameras in their local wildernesses that has high sasquatch actvivity etc. or they should always have a camera etc with them at all times to photograph sasquatch related evidence. it should be kinda like a law for researchers. thanks bill green 
p.s. so any new sasquatch activity or evidence in your state lately..
p.s. so any new sasquatch activity or evidence in your state lately..
Keep the cameras & audio hidden. Forget the camo clothes, face paint, and stealthy behavior too, Bf is possibly amused, but not fooled. Try to imitate what the people were doing who had the sighting; wear regular clothes, no visible technology, and just having normal fun, without that purposeful look about you. Also, try clearing your mind of Bigfoot......he may be reading your thoughts.
QUOTE(Ape Dog @ Feb 17 2005, 12:04 PM)
.he may be reading your thoughts.
I wonder if he know what I'm thinking now?
Any research can be done better. It just takes time and effort on our parts to do it. Me, I just take a camera along. If I get something "Great" . If not well maybe next time.
LIke I said before Time And Chance that has a lot to do with it
Habituation.
It'll take a decade to accomplish, but the results will be cherry.
It'll take a decade to accomplish, but the results will be cherry.
Seeing a bf or finding bf evidence seems to be an equal opportunity experience for all, right place right time. We can still go to great pains to stake out an area and feel it's right for the pickins' and nothing happens. Your right Ape Dog, there is room for improvement in our field techniques. Anybody have some good ideas for improving our methods of operation in the field?
First principle when old approaches aren't working: look for and experiment with new approaches, and place less stress on whether an approach Ought To Work according to some standard or other. (That can just embed one in a rut.)
The cheapest new approach (of several new approaches or technologies I've suggested) is for investigators to bring a dog to a claimed sighting location, to strengthen or weaken the claim. (Dahinden put faith in animals' reactions at a site.) If the dog doesn't react unusually, then there's no strange scent; and if no strange scent, then maybe no Bigfoot. At a minimum, growing public awareness that investigators use this method should eventually cut down on false claims, reducing misuse of investigators' time.
(In other threads I've provided details on further ways dogs could be of use.)
The cheapest new approach (of several new approaches or technologies I've suggested) is for investigators to bring a dog to a claimed sighting location, to strengthen or weaken the claim. (Dahinden put faith in animals' reactions at a site.) If the dog doesn't react unusually, then there's no strange scent; and if no strange scent, then maybe no Bigfoot. At a minimum, growing public awareness that investigators use this method should eventually cut down on false claims, reducing misuse of investigators' time.
(In other threads I've provided details on further ways dogs could be of use.)
I think just hiking into known areas, with the right gear, is important, then just luck after that. I use 2 cameras and one quality mic, all hidden away in a cowboy hat. My main camera is a high resolution color mini video camera (the little hole in the front of the hat), for a normal panaramic view, then if I see something, I have a switch to go to the telephoto camera (mounted on top with the eagle feather hidding it. Both came from www.supercircuits.com. There is also a mic hidden in the hat as well. The lines go down my back, hidden underneath my clothes, and go into a waist pouch. I use two types of recording devices; a Sony EVO-250 or a mini DVR device from the Super Circuits place mentioned above, the 80 gig model is the best. The Sony is great, but requires more tape and battery change-outs. The mini DVR unit is amazing, and is capable of very long recording times, all day if necessary. But it is a digital format, and might be considered fake through editing, even though I don't know anything about that. The picture shows my rig, and it really works quite well. If you look at my waist pouch, you can see my switch that I use to go from one camera to the other. You have to look close to even see the rig, and it appears that I have nothing on me. If anyone wants to put on of these together, just let me know, and I will try an help.
Fabulous technique (I've been advocating head-mounted cameras for over a year here.) And a great comeback to those who claim a Bigfoot would somehow detect a camera in one's hand, or react with anger or fright if one were pointed at him.
Don't worry about digital images being suspect. It would be unbelievably difficult to fake the multiple frames in a video (as opposed to a single frame in a digital still camera). And even with a still camera, the fakery leaves digital traces that softisticated forensics software can sniff out.
Here are a couple of items that should be up your alley:
Don't worry about digital images being suspect. It would be unbelievably difficult to fake the multiple frames in a video (as opposed to a single frame in a digital still camera). And even with a still camera, the fakery leaves digital traces that softisticated forensics software can sniff out.
Here are a couple of items that should be up your alley:
QUOTE(RogerKni @ Jan 30 2005, 09:15 AM)
Here are a couple of items (mentioned in previous threads many months ago) in which only the lens is attached to the rifle, with a cable leading to the camcorder (HuntCam) or flash-memory recorder (Deja Vu). They're thus lighter in weight, but more expensive. ($300 & $400 respectively.)
Huntcam
Deja Vu
Huntcam
Deja Vu
Thanks Roger for the heads up on digital photography, I am very low tech, and don't know these things. The DVR recorder is truly the way to go then, very tiny, and with all of that recording time. You can put that one in a large pocket too. One thing that I forgot to mention about the hat, is aiming the telephoto, and this really took quite some time to master. I put the hat on in front of a mirror, so I can line everything up, and is pointed straight ahead. Then I get a pocket cam (wrong terminology), plug in to the tele-cable, and aim on a specific point 30 or 40 yards out. I use a pipe cleaner (easy to adjust, and fairly regid) that is attached and hangs down from the front rim, and I line that up with the pocket cam (single eye piece viewer) on the object that you are aiming at. Once you have the hat 'sighted in', you can't move the hat around at all, and heaven forbid that itch! If you move the hat or pipe cleaner around any, get the pocket cam out and re-aim the thing. I am probably confusing everyone now, but hopefully, you get the idea.....being able to aim properly is the key!
hi apedog have you found any resent sasquatch evidence lately in areas where you useally research. thanks bill green please keep me informed.
QUOTE(belleoftheball @ Feb 17 2005, 10:45 AM)
I wonder if he know what I'm thinking now?
If he does, then I agree with him... You should have the ribs, instead of Chinese.
Yes, I agree, tactics need to change.
Animals (including humans), act and give off a body language when they're looking for/hunting something. A lot of animals vamoose when they pick this up, as they should, it's a defensive reaction.
Some of the best sighting reports come from people going about camping, walking, etc.
Animals (including humans), act and give off a body language when they're looking for/hunting something. A lot of animals vamoose when they pick this up, as they should, it's a defensive reaction.
Some of the best sighting reports come from people going about camping, walking, etc.
Roger and Ape Dog, Thanks for the heads up on the new ideas you are using. You guys are like the James Bonds of bigfooting! If anybody deserves to catch the big guy on video, it's y'all! 
edited for spelling
edited for spelling
Roger,
I'm with you on the dog thing. We took our lab out last summer on one expedition and I have been having her smell a cast of a possible footprint we cast last summer. We've also played her alleged bf sounds so we'll see if anything happens this year!
I'm with you on the dog thing. We took our lab out last summer on one expedition and I have been having her smell a cast of a possible footprint we cast last summer. We've also played her alleged bf sounds so we'll see if anything happens this year!
First off I have to say I love the hat trick, very clever. As far as the techniques we are using, most commonly the researcher checks the area a few days/weeks after the sighting/prints and I feel that the creature has already fled the area. obviously they do not stay in an area for very long. One problem we have is that the people that find/notice the tracks/bigfoot are not persuing the research, clearly because they are not greatly interested or perhaps because of fear or uninformed on how to do it. The only thing I can think of is getting to these scenes sooner and being much quieter.
hi researchers please keep me updated on sasquatch findings please post your sasquatch photos & footprints photos etc on this thread if you all want too thanks bill green
Bigfoot sure helps sell some nice toys. You don't hear much talk of BF as an economic stimulus outside of Willow Creek, etc. I wish I had a super camera mountain bike like the BFRO's. It's the Tour de Squatch.
I had a long talk about the hardcore vs. laid back approach with a very woods and animal wise buddy of mine last night. We both felt that the "paramilitary/tech approach" might not be effective if you seek a close encounter. It seems to me that the BF, if inclined to interact on that day, know that the researchers are there and consistently enjoy the upper hand. Go figure, eh?
Higher animals know what stalking looks like, IMO. Dogs most certainly do.
On the other hand, it looks like well-planned expeditions are seeing some action. What concerns me are issues like conditioning from call blasting resulting in avoidance, plus the inherent sensitivity of animals towards being stalked.
Too bad there's no such thing as one-way tent fabric. You can see monkey, but monkey can't see you. A apparently sleeping campsite is one of the better BF draws, if the reports mean anything.
> hi researchers please keep me updated on sasquatch findings please post your sasquatch photos & footprints photos etc on this thread if you all want too thanks bill green
That's a great idea, Bill. Then the Sightings and Encounters forum could be deleted, thereby streamlining the site. Zoom!
I had a long talk about the hardcore vs. laid back approach with a very woods and animal wise buddy of mine last night. We both felt that the "paramilitary/tech approach" might not be effective if you seek a close encounter. It seems to me that the BF, if inclined to interact on that day, know that the researchers are there and consistently enjoy the upper hand. Go figure, eh?
Higher animals know what stalking looks like, IMO. Dogs most certainly do.
On the other hand, it looks like well-planned expeditions are seeing some action. What concerns me are issues like conditioning from call blasting resulting in avoidance, plus the inherent sensitivity of animals towards being stalked.
Too bad there's no such thing as one-way tent fabric. You can see monkey, but monkey can't see you. A apparently sleeping campsite is one of the better BF draws, if the reports mean anything.
> hi researchers please keep me updated on sasquatch findings please post your sasquatch photos & footprints photos etc on this thread if you all want too thanks bill green
That's a great idea, Bill. Then the Sightings and Encounters forum could be deleted, thereby streamlining the site. Zoom!
I still think the Bigfoot Safari's and call blasting is ridiculous. The call blasting sounds fake, or manufactured. The 'Safari's' that involve paying customers is suspect to me too, and not very scientific. There is little or no funding for Bigfoot research, so having the paying customer might just be a necessity though, but I just wouldn't trust the results.
QUOTE(MonkeyMan @ Feb 17 2005, 10:56 PM)
We both felt that the "paramilitary/tech approach" might not be effective if you seek a close encounter. inherent sensitivity of animals towards being stalked.
It seems to me that dolling up in camo and skulking through the woods hoping bigfoot doesn't notice you would be about like Bigfoot dressing up in a three piece suit and walking the aisle at church hoping I wouldn't notice. Well, maybe if it was a boring sermon and I had fell asleep I wouldn't.
The Mysterious Encounters approach seems counterproductive too.
I think there may be something to the laid back approach that draws Bigfoot in.
Well put Ouachita...............the ME show, however very entertaining, is how not to do research in my lowly opinion, but April sure is a hottie. The show is wonderful though with respect to the witnesses, the information given, and the way it's done.
Very professional for sure, and the best I've seen, just a little misguided in their hightech approach. They are so obviously looking for something, and Bigfoot knows it.
Very professional for sure, and the best I've seen, just a little misguided in their hightech approach. They are so obviously looking for something, and Bigfoot knows it.
QUOTE(Ape Dog @ Feb 17 2005, 10:04 AM)
Keep the cameras & audio hidden.... Try to imitate what the people were doing who had the sighting; wear regular clothes, no visible technology, and just having normal fun, without that purposeful look about you. Also, try clearing your mind of Bigfoot......he may be reading your thoughts.
Interesting concepts, Dog… but… how easily can someone clear their minds of bigfoot when they are strapped with cameras, microphones and cables while trying “to imitate what the people were doing who had the sighting”?
It just seems a bit of a contradiction…
If bigfoot can read your thoughts... he can read your intent as well, no?
Well......if you must know RB, I think about old girlfriends (serioulsy), and hope BF doesn't pick up on that to much. After all, don't wanna see myself on the cover of the National Equirer as "Bigfoot's Bitch". That was very unprofessional to say that,
and I appoligize to anyone affended, but figured I'd save someone else the trouble. Anyway, the hat is not heavy, and the rig is quite comfortable to wear. Happy Bigfoot Hunting all (with cameras of course)!
and I appoligize to anyone affended, but figured I'd save someone else the trouble. Anyway, the hat is not heavy, and the rig is quite comfortable to wear. Happy Bigfoot Hunting all (with cameras of course)!
QUOTE(RB @ Feb 18 2005, 02:56 PM)
If bigfoot can read your thoughts... he can read your intent as well, no?
Just for the record Ido not believe that Bigfoot can read minds or possesses any other paranormal powers.
I say don't imitate having fun, really do have fun!!
As MM alluded to, BF probably recognizes a hunt when he sees one. Change the face of the operation a little. Good food, good music, good wine, good company! Hell, BF might be hanging around the edges hoping for an invite! Put some of those $75 wireless battery operated infrared security cameras from Walmart hooked up to VCR's around the perimeter and party on!If Bigfoot shows up, GREAT! If he doesn't, well you had fun anyway!
Don't hunt harder, hunt smarter!
That is really a good idea.....really. After all, creatures of high intellect are all curious, and everyone wants to know where the party is. That's another thing to do in the field, think of things to drive him crazy with curiousity. I mentioned in another thread about playing a guitar, which I do, or other musical instruments.
I think everybody has some good ideas, whatever works,works! I'll personally try a bit of
d) all of the above
this summer!
Good Luck to all
I'll personally try a bit of d) all of the above
this summer!
Good Luck to all
I remember a report of a BFRO expedition where the best luck one of their search parties had was a group composed of all women. They didn't try to play "out-stalk the bigfoot." They just walked the trails/logging roads, sang, talked, and made normal noise and everything in the area knew they were there. They had some good success with "something" making itself known near them by deliberate branch snapping and other noises.
Devious Ape, I've heard a few grizzled bigfooters say they think bigfoot is more likely to come close if there are women or children around. The second part of this theory is they may come closer because traditionally women and children are not part of hunting parties. When my 11 year old and myself had what we believe was a night time encounter last summer, there were seven people present. Four were men, two were women and one was a child. This theory is just speculation as all things are at this point in time regarding our elusive friend!
You guys are abosolutle right, having women is very good, and makes BF very curious. I've always felt the ideal Bf team is a man & woman, and romatically involved helps too. Younger kids would be as good or better, but who wants to use your kids as bait. My wife was going with me, until I mentioned this theory, now she's pissed that I was using her as bait......oh well! The BFRO has some cool ladies as members, maybe they should take charge!
Since nothing of truly great importance has happened in the field since the Patterson/Gimlin filming in 1967, perhaps it's time to rethink our outdated Bigfoot/Sasquatch research methods?
Sounds like Autumn Williams is seriously considering a change in her methods of Bigfoot/Sasquatch research. Here's a quote from her January newsletter:
Sounds like Autumn Williams is seriously considering a change in her methods of Bigfoot/Sasquatch research. Here's a quote from her January newsletter:
QUOTE
This mystery has outlived many of the original researchers, and will likely outlive many more unless a NEW approach is taken.
Historically, women have had enormous success in the field study of primates. Jane Goodall, Dian Fossey and Birute Baldikes pioneered, respectively, interaction with chimps, mountain gorillas and orangutans. I believe their success is due, in large part, to the fact that all three were female. Before a roar of dissension rises from my male readers, hear me out.
Our social upbringing creates a vast discrepancy in the way males and females typically react to threatening situations. In general, men are taught to remain in control of a situation. Fear is often expressed as anger and in a threatening situation men are expected to REACT immediately in order to regain the upper hand. Women, on the other hand, are more likely to allow themselves to be vulnerable and expect a different outcome. I call it the "Disney syndrome". As children, Disney movies teach us that the big, scary creature is simply a gentle, misunderstood giant. Women are more likely to hold on to this belief... and to ACT on it.
Reports indicate that Bigfoot creatures are drawn to women and children, perhaps for this very reason.
In Dian Fossey's own words: "I scratched my scalp noisily to make a sound familiar to gorillas…Then I lay back in the foliage to appear as harmless as possible and slowly extended my hand…Finally [Peanuts] came a step closer and, extending his own hand, gently touched his fingers to mine.'" (Mowat 85) This was the first documented intentional physical human/gorilla interaction. Using a combination of assertiveness and submissiveness, Dian earned the creature's trust. What if Jane Goodall and Dian Fossey had left it to the men in their field to make the discovery?
Someone once told me, if you're going to bother to do something, DO IT RIGHT.
Trying to get a "picture" of a Bigfoot is a complete waste of time. There are many purported photos already... and even the Patterson/Gimlin film doesn't constitute "proof". While some advocate attempting to kill a creature and bring in a body, I don't. Not only do I have moral issues with the idea, I think it's impossible to do and dangerously foolhardy to try.
Dian Fossey and Jane Goodall didn't find it necessary to kill their quarry. They merely studied and observed.
Later this year, I will an conduct an extended field research endeavor in an attempt to document Bigfoot creatures in their natural habitat. The location will be undisclosed. Participants and technology will be kept to a minimum. Techniques designed to attract the creatures have been culled from my files and 15 years' worth of research - many of these techniques are unique and have not previously been used. The goal is to document these creatures... not merely a fleeting glimpse on a video camera, but a documented, voluntary interaction between myself and the creatures. A behavioral study will be conducted and all results will be documented and scientifically examined.
http://www.oregonbigfoot.com/
Autumn Williams
Oregonbigfoot.com
info@oregonbigfoot.com
Historically, women have had enormous success in the field study of primates. Jane Goodall, Dian Fossey and Birute Baldikes pioneered, respectively, interaction with chimps, mountain gorillas and orangutans. I believe their success is due, in large part, to the fact that all three were female. Before a roar of dissension rises from my male readers, hear me out.
Our social upbringing creates a vast discrepancy in the way males and females typically react to threatening situations. In general, men are taught to remain in control of a situation. Fear is often expressed as anger and in a threatening situation men are expected to REACT immediately in order to regain the upper hand. Women, on the other hand, are more likely to allow themselves to be vulnerable and expect a different outcome. I call it the "Disney syndrome". As children, Disney movies teach us that the big, scary creature is simply a gentle, misunderstood giant. Women are more likely to hold on to this belief... and to ACT on it.
Reports indicate that Bigfoot creatures are drawn to women and children, perhaps for this very reason.
In Dian Fossey's own words: "I scratched my scalp noisily to make a sound familiar to gorillas…Then I lay back in the foliage to appear as harmless as possible and slowly extended my hand…Finally [Peanuts] came a step closer and, extending his own hand, gently touched his fingers to mine.'" (Mowat 85) This was the first documented intentional physical human/gorilla interaction. Using a combination of assertiveness and submissiveness, Dian earned the creature's trust. What if Jane Goodall and Dian Fossey had left it to the men in their field to make the discovery?
Someone once told me, if you're going to bother to do something, DO IT RIGHT.
Trying to get a "picture" of a Bigfoot is a complete waste of time. There are many purported photos already... and even the Patterson/Gimlin film doesn't constitute "proof". While some advocate attempting to kill a creature and bring in a body, I don't. Not only do I have moral issues with the idea, I think it's impossible to do and dangerously foolhardy to try.
Dian Fossey and Jane Goodall didn't find it necessary to kill their quarry. They merely studied and observed.
Later this year, I will an conduct an extended field research endeavor in an attempt to document Bigfoot creatures in their natural habitat. The location will be undisclosed. Participants and technology will be kept to a minimum. Techniques designed to attract the creatures have been culled from my files and 15 years' worth of research - many of these techniques are unique and have not previously been used. The goal is to document these creatures... not merely a fleeting glimpse on a video camera, but a documented, voluntary interaction between myself and the creatures. A behavioral study will be conducted and all results will be documented and scientifically examined.
http://www.oregonbigfoot.com/
Autumn Williams
Oregonbigfoot.com
info@oregonbigfoot.com
Ape Dog,
Would never use my son as bigfoot bait. He is a young entusiastic bigfooter and has been well prepared for an encounter(had one we believe and he did great!) and is an avid outdoorsmen like myself!
Would never use my son as bigfoot bait. He is a young entusiastic bigfooter and has been well prepared for an encounter(had one we believe and he did great!) and is an avid outdoorsmen like myself!
Yeah,my dad COULD throw me out into the wilderness,but he doesn't, and i think that we make a good team
QUOTE(Bushman @ Feb 19 2005, 02:12 PM)
(most of the quote snipped to save space)
Sounds like Autumn Williams is seriously considering a change in her methods of Bigfoot/Sasquatch research.
Sounds like Autumn Williams is seriously considering a change in her methods of Bigfoot/Sasquatch research.
I think she's dead on right about this. The most successful comparisons with other primates have been with Goodall and Fossey. Their aclimation tactics take time and require reliable funding, but netted landmark results.
IMHO, this tactic is the way to go with sasquatch. I wish Ms. Williams a lot of luck.
QUOTE(Devious Ape @ Feb 20 2005, 07:57 AM)
I think she's dead on right about this. The most successful comparisons with other primates have been with Goodall and Fossey. Their aclimation tactics take time and require reliable funding, but netted landmark results.
IMHO, this tactic is the way to go with sasquatch. I wish Ms. Williams a lot of luck.
IMHO, this tactic is the way to go with sasquatch. I wish Ms. Williams a lot of luck.
While I wholeheartedly agree with Autumn William's change in Bigfoot/Sasquatch research tactics, I also firmly believe there may be a huge difference in the nature of the beast she wishes to study and hopefully interact with.
IMHO, there is a far safer and easier method available for researchers wishing to capitalize on the curiosity of Bigfoot/Sasquatch.
Although I honestly believe it to be dangerously foolhardy for any person to try and interact with a wild and capable predator like Bigfoot/Sasquatch, I will, however, certainly wish Ms. Williams the best of luck in her pursuits.
Not to be a wet blanket here, but would anyone mind pointing me to the statistical evidence that proves any one person's techniques are guaranteed to work better than anyone elses? It sure would save me a lot of time and effort. 
Or better yet, how about posting the evidence you've gathered that proves your technique works better than anyone elses. Not pointing this statement to anyone in particular but I find it rather presumptuous of anyone to claim that their techniques will work better than someone elses. After all, we're still looking for bigfoot, ain't we?
Or better yet, how about posting the evidence you've gathered that proves your technique works better than anyone elses. Not pointing this statement to anyone in particular but I find it rather presumptuous of anyone to claim that their techniques will work better than someone elses. After all, we're still looking for bigfoot, ain't we?
QUOTE(Devious Ape @ Feb 19 2005, 07:44 AM)
I remember a report of a BFRO expedition where the best luck one of their search parties had was a group composed of all women. They didn't try to play "out-stalk the bigfoot." They just walked the trails/logging roads, sang, talked, and made normal noise and everything in the area knew they were there. They had some good success with "something" making itself known near them by deliberate branch snapping and other noises.
Yep, that's true....I was the one involved in that. It worked wonders. I take my kids with me too.
Personally, I don't believe that secret squirrel stuff works....they know we're there. I'm not trying to sneak up on one, I just one to come in for a closer look at what I am doing.
Hey Fishy, can't do that, as my current method is fairly new. It is quite obvious that the old approach, as described above, is absolutely NOT working. Can't prove what new methods do work just yet, but can assume that the old methods don't......you have it backwards.
I hear ya', Fishy... them are some good points you make there!
Ok... after reading Ape Dog's posts...
...and after reading Autumn's recent newsletter...
... and except for her poor taste (IMHO) in sasquatch films...
...she also has a point...
I agree that squatchin' naked is the way to go...
I think that's what she said... maybe I imagined it... I forget now...
Ok... after reading Ape Dog's posts...
...and after reading Autumn's recent newsletter...
... and except for her poor taste (IMHO) in sasquatch films...
...she also has a point...
I agree that squatchin' naked is the way to go...
I think that's what she said... maybe I imagined it... I forget now...
QUOTE(RB @ Feb 23 2005, 03:33 PM)
I agree that squatchin' naked is the way to go...
Works for me!
QUOTE(Ape Dog @ Feb 23 2005, 03:29 PM)
Hey Fishy, can't do that, as my current method is fairly new. It is quite obvious that the old approach, as described above, is absolutely NOT working. Can't prove what new methods do work just yet, but can assume that the old methods don't......you have it backwards.
Uh...no, I don't. I make it a firm habit not to "assume" anything in this line of research.
QUOTE(RB @ Feb 23 2005, 12:33 PM)
I agree that squatchin' naked is the way to go...
Sqatchin' nekkid???
Sounds like a great idea!!!!!
You go ahead and get started. I'll be right behind you with the digital camera, video camera, night vision goggles, and that camera that detects heat....
Chris Murphy suggested in these boards just the other day that we use horses. P/G got the best evidence we have using horses. And there are a few other close encounters I've seen where horses are involved..
I wish I could nail this down, but I'll say again what I remember -- there is a condition you can get after a brain injury where you can no longer distinguish things that are combined. In other words, if you saw a horse with a man on it, you might just think it's a horse. So there is an "organ" (for want of a better word) in the brain which helps to distinguish one thing from another when two things are mixed up, as horse and rider, or car and driver..
I speculate that BF has not developed this organ. If it had, with the amount of intelligence it otherwise seems to possess, you would wonder why it hadn't expanded its use of tools after observing us. But if it cannot distinguish the tools from the person..
I recognize there are weak spots in this little theory, but it does help to think why horses might be a good "new" thing to try.
I wish I could nail this down, but I'll say again what I remember -- there is a condition you can get after a brain injury where you can no longer distinguish things that are combined. In other words, if you saw a horse with a man on it, you might just think it's a horse. So there is an "organ" (for want of a better word) in the brain which helps to distinguish one thing from another when two things are mixed up, as horse and rider, or car and driver..
I speculate that BF has not developed this organ. If it had, with the amount of intelligence it otherwise seems to possess, you would wonder why it hadn't expanded its use of tools after observing us. But if it cannot distinguish the tools from the person..
I recognize there are weak spots in this little theory, but it does help to think why horses might be a good "new" thing to try.
Howdy.......the point that I was trying to make is that the main stream methods being used now, and the ME show is a perfect example of the way things have been done for many, many years, is simply not working. The only logical conclusion to this fact is new approches must be considered. And right or wrong, new ideas must be proven unsuccessful, then on to new ideas.
My 'Bigfoot Cam' mentioned above is simply a new idea that warrants consideration. Might be wrong, but it does make more sense than what is being done now, with respect to video. As for Ms. Williams becoming the next Goddall or Fosey......well, she ain't dealing with monkies.....not even close, but it is certainly a step in the right direction. And I will close with my original closing statement; there are more opinions than there are Bigfoot.
My 'Bigfoot Cam' mentioned above is simply a new idea that warrants consideration. Might be wrong, but it does make more sense than what is being done now, with respect to video. As for Ms. Williams becoming the next Goddall or Fosey......well, she ain't dealing with monkies.....not even close, but it is certainly a step in the right direction. And I will close with my original closing statement; there are more opinions than there are Bigfoot.
Two things:
1) I really do like that hat cam idea you've come up with. Excellent!
2) As someone who was very involved with one of the ME episodes, I'm begging you, don't ever think what you saw on any of those shows was research in any way, shape, or form. It was a television show, plain and simple.
1) I really do like that hat cam idea you've come up with. Excellent!
2) As someone who was very involved with one of the ME episodes, I'm begging you, don't ever think what you saw on any of those shows was research in any way, shape, or form. It was a television show, plain and simple.
I hear you there Fishbone....and very smart on Ms. Williams part. I bet she and the BFRO people have raised tons of capital to further there BF research, and are probably the only ones that can properly fund their research. I haven't seen any grants out there for BF researchers, how else are we gonna raise the money?
The show is full of valuable information too. This is definitly a new frontier, having to raise your own funds for research, and they are on the cutting edge for that.
The show is full of valuable information too. This is definitly a new frontier, having to raise your own funds for research, and they are on the cutting edge for that.
QUOTE(Ape Dog @ Feb 23 2005, 04:05 PM)
I bet she and the BFRO people have raised tons of capital to further there BF research, and are probably the only ones that can properly fund their research.
Actually, no, that isn't what happened. Doug Hajicek and White Wolf productions made money. Autumn made whatever they paid her to be the "host" of the series (she actually had to audition for the part and she wasn't Doug's pick, she was OLN's pick).
As for me, I made a whole two hundred dollars as a "field unit producer" for the Florida episode and that almost covered my gas and food expenses.
But it was fun and it was a learning experience nonetheless.
Good for OLN with their choice.....she makes the show work, and is completely believable, professional, and not to bad to look at either. Doug is a little creepy to me. Who actually owns all of that fancy equipment on the show? BFRO must have something to do with it too....a lot of their members and logo everywhere, including M. Moneymaker (doesn't he run BFRO?).
QUOTE(Ape Dog @ Feb 23 2005, 04:32 PM)
Who actually owns all of that fancy equipment on the show? BFRO must have something to do with it too....a lot of their members and logo everywhere, including M. Moneymaker (doesn't he run BFRO?).
The bulk of the equipment came from corporate sponsorship. It was either on loan, or was given to White Wolf for advertising. Did you notice how the Bounder and the trailer that they used had as many stickers on them as any NASCAR racer?
And oh yeah, the BFRO had a lot to do with the show in that it was reports from the BFRO sighting database which were used in the show and most of the local "field unit producers" (like me) were/are BFRO members. That's why the BFRO figured so prominently in the shows.
QUOTE(Muktuk @ Feb 23 2005, 02:37 PM)
QUOTE(RB @ Feb 23 2005, 03:33 PM)
I agree that squatchin' naked is the way to go...
Works for me!
That doesn't work. I..........umm I mean that sound sounds interesting.
QUOTE(RB @ Feb 23 2005, 02:33 PM)
...I agree that squatchin' naked is the way to go...
Could work, all those full moons shining on one night might cause Bigfoot to die laughing...then we'd have a body for proof!
Who's bringing the beer?
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.