211 replies to this topic

[keninsc]

In recent years, we've seen the use of trail cams, FLIR technology, and what seems like more and more people actively looking for the hair bugger. So, the question is, what do you think? Are we getting closer? Yes? No?

This of course assumes by default that there is something to discover at all, but this is straight up speculation, so let's don't start splitting hairs.

[kampz]

In my opinion, yes we are. How much further can you take this? Barrack Obama or someone(s) from government(s) saying they say saw one like old Teddy Roosevelt(Bigfoot/Unknown howl) and George Washington talking to a spirit/ghost? What if we find a skeleton of a giant hominid or ape? What about a full skeletal remain of a Gigantopithecus Blacki? After all, you could just b.s. it accept the teeth to make it resemble a Bigfoot.

To add in, I'm not sure what to make of those giant skeletal remains found in North America or Turkey I think yet. They seem to mean nothing.

Edited by kampz, 10 December 2012 - 09:55 AM.

[kampz]

They could probably make another movie too like the Patterson film.

[Rafterman]

Of course we're closing in - the multi-million dollar a year Bigfoot industry will always keep us just "another expedition" away from finding him.

But keep in mind, Leonard Nimoy wrapped up the Bigfoot episode of In Search Of by saying that a significant breakthrough was "right around the corner".

[QuiteContrary]

If I were a believer, I might see two possibilitlies. (But as a nonbeliever, neither make the creature any more probable or plausible for me)

One, as we encroach and spy on bf's habitat more and more, this super secretive creature may opt to fight. So, yes, we'd have more of a chance for some real evidence if bigfoot decided to push back.

Or Two, as we encroach and spy on bf's habitat more and more, this super secretive creature may opt for flight. So, no, we'd have less chance for an encounter if bigfoot becomes stressed and numbers dwindle toward extinction.

Edited by QuiteContrary, 10 December 2012 - 11:52 AM.

[Rafterman]

kampz, on 10 December 2012 - 09:50 AM, said:

In my opinion, yes we are. How much further can you take this? Barrack Obama or someone(s) from government(s) saying they say saw one like old Teddy Roosevelt(Bigfoot/Unknown howl) and George Washington talking to a spirit/ghost? What if we find a skeleton of a giant hominid or ape? What about a full skeletal remain of a Gigantopithecus Blacki? After all, you could just b.s. it accept the teeth to make it resemble a Bigfoot.

To add in, I'm not sure what to make of those giant skeletal remains found in North America or Turkey I think yet. They seem to mean nothing.

I really don't consider "what if" as closing in, do you?  Closing in is "we found the Bigfoot village last season, but the communal group had moved on.  We're going to track them during next season's expedition."

BTW, what giant skeletal remains are you referring to?

[keninsc]

Rafterman, on 10 December 2012 - 11:48 AM, said:

Of course we're closing in - the multi-million dollar a year Bigfoot industry will always keep us just "another expedition" away from finding him.

But keep in mind, Leonard Nimoy wrapped up the Bigfoot episode of In Search Of by saying that a significant breakthrough was "right around the corner".

That's a valid point, what with the potential money to be made from TV and the media in general, expeditions, training seminars, lectures, books, tee shirts and all other like mannered things, actually finding a Bigfoot might well shut down the cash cow. Although, I can't help but wonder if you could do full time investigation with proper equipment and a good group of people with a fair amount of woodsman skills, if that wouldn't make a difference?

[TwilightSilver]

With the amount of media so far alerting the public to the so called bigfoot phenomenon I have a feeling someone could get hurt. If these giant apes do exist (which I think is plausible) the interest in the subject to such a degree by popularized shows such as "Finding Bigfoot" could cause misinformed people to shoot or harm not only people, but wildlife in the pursuit of Sasquatch.  It's a scary thought. I've always entertained the thought of it existing and hope that it's real but I personally think this media firestorm over what could or could not exist is not doing well for people other than trying to make money off of a legend.

[FinnYellow]

Well, what if this "Bigfoot" just didnt want to be found. Do we really think we could find it/them if they/it didnt want us to? and who is to say that there isn't an entire population of  these things? I think that they would obviously be smart enough to evade such creatures as us. I mean how many other things have successfully evaded the human race for any length of time? Obviously they are intelligent beings. So I say no, i dont think that we are getting much closer to finding Bigfoot if Bigfoot doesn't want to be found.

[orangepeaceful79]

My personal feeling is that since the Bigfoot industry has become a significant cash-cow in the past few years we are going to see more and more shows like "Finding Bigfoot" getting airtime and more and more research projects like Doc Meldrum's Bigfoot blimp getting major funding.  I think however that we should not confuse the increased interest and amount of people looking with a correlating increase in something real being found.  

How many species have been discovered with very little money outlay and very little public interest?  With no mythology?  Bigfoot is huge with regards to the amount of people interested in it.  Yet still we have nada, zip, zero real actual evidence.  We have visual and audio pareidolic eyewitness accounts influenced by confirmation bias, we have blurry, indistince photos and video, we have alleged footprints made by bigfoots.  We have nothing solid, nothing definitive.  

At some point we have to ask ourselves the question - How likely is it that a real life animal can do all the things that Bigfoot supposedly does and leave NO EVIDENCE?  Its just not very likely at all.  I think actually that we are getting FURTHER away from finding anything if you look at the ratio of resources that are being brought to bear to the amount of results achieved.  

The amount of financial and cultural input being thrown at Bigfoot keeps going up, but the actual EVIDENCE stays exactly the same - nothing.  

The simplest explanation is that you can't find something that was never there to begin with.

Edited by orangepeaceful79, 10 December 2012 - 03:05 PM.

[Jeff Albertson]

That a hard one to answer with in cryptozoology method it is to prove or diprove a cryptid. Ok but that not the quetion, No I don't think we are. If we look at technique we see camera traps, flirs ect. If there was ever a clear picture like the patterson film do you honest would think that it would be proff of a bigfoot. Of course not such anatodale evidence will remain antodale evidence. Look at the method that are being used to either prove or disprove that bigfoot is a biological animal.  Resarchers usally run around in the woods claiming that they heard something it a bigfoot (reminds me of a snipe hunt). Then half of the resarcher or no kill making gathering evidence that much harder. But of course there is the alternatve of DNA but wait Dr. Ketchum  ruing that one, I don't think any repotale scientist will look at DNA evidence now (still waitng for the real DNA study to be relased Oxford's  Lausanne collateral Hominid Project headed by Bryan skes) But there is some hope there is true academic freedom Jeff Meldrums Falcon project should give some intresting results to bad there is no real cash cow (the real cash cow is in UFO AND ghost) or that private donnar project would be far underway.

   Ok with that in mind skeptics can play a bigger role in diproving the existence of bigfoot, don't see to many of them only on chat boards doing any resarch into bigfoot, most not all lack basic knowledge of the overall history and basic arguments on bigfoot. There are some exllenct skeptics out there  Ben Radford being my favorite skeptic does some great work. On the oppisite side People can stop playing snipe hunt and start looking for bigfoot. They should start with a basic ecology suvey, Can this habitat support a large great ape?  There is a exllent article writting in the journal of cryptozoology "A digital seach assistant for cryptozoology field expeditions." This would be usefull method to apply to the seach for bigfoot. Also people who are intrested in bigfoot and cryptozoology should take the time and learn the basic deffintions and how to apply them. Such terms are coined so that they can be used with certain meaning not how people would like to use them.The paranormal as no place in cryptozoology that has a seperated citizen science field altogether, this further use from finding or disproving the existence of bigfoot. There is once again a journal that is peered revied that deals with cryptozoology we should take full advantage of this resorce both to prove the existence or disprove the existence of bigfoot. Only then do I see getting to proving bigfoot exist (If there is a bigfoot to be found)

[keninsc]

Unless you believe that Bigfoot is a paranormal entity of some sort, assuming they exist at all. My own thought are that with the advent of more and more digital equipment and FLIR technology, if the creature does exist then we'll finally be able to put the whole issue to rest. Of course, the best single way to do that is to take one and allow real scientist to do real scientific study on it, including DNA. The down side is that it's not a real creature and you can't prove a negative, so failure to produce the proper proof will be seen as proof of existence by the believers who will continue to do what they're doing.

An interesting little causality loop, huh?

[Jeff Albertson]

keninsc, on 10 December 2012 - 05:27 PM, said:

Unless you believe that Bigfoot is a paranormal entity of some sort, assuming they exist at all. My own thought are that with the advent of more and more digital equipment and FLIR technology, if the creature does exist then we'll finally be able to put the whole issue to rest. Of course, the best single way to do that is to take one and allow real scientist to do real scientific study on it, including DNA. The down side is that it's not a real creature and you can't prove a negative, so failure to produce the proper proof will be seen as proof of existence by the believers who will continue to do what they're doing.

An interesting little causality loop, huh?

  With respect i am new to this form it seems that you do take the skeptics postion. If this is true I am curiouse on your take how could a photo help prove that Bigfoot is a real animal. Photos are antedoltale evidence won't most skeptics just claim a hoax? With improvement in technology comes improvement on being able to fake a bigfoot suit. If patty failed with technology back then how can a photo prove that they exist now? (There is some intresting things for patty and against) It would be intresting to here from the oppisete side (I am not a true beleiver in Bigfoot but I think there might be some intresting evidence that needs further looking in to) .We can apply the Null hypothesis (HO) to best determine if it doesn't exist. With lack of funding to science it will remain in the hands of citizen science so we should apply scientific methods in the search, so if we come up with imperical evidence it will be look at (Hopefully such stunts like Dr. Melba ketchums DNA and Tom Bissacrides bigfoot hoaxes science will still look at any possible impericale evidence presented.)

[scowl]

Rafterman, on 10 December 2012 - 11:48 AM, said:

But keep in mind, Leonard Nimoy wrapped up the Bigfoot episode of In Search Of by saying that a significant breakthrough was "right around the corner".

Oh how I loved the 70's! You couldn't live here in the Northwest without knowing someone who knew someone who had seen Bigfoot. It was only a matter of time before someone hauled in a Bigfoot body and the mystery would be solved.

There was a theatrically released "documentary" about Bigfoot back then but I've been unable to find the title. It had dramatizations of Bigfoot encounters mixed in with interviews much like a typical Alan Landsberg "In Search Of" production. Some kids in school were confused by the format and thought the excellent footage and closeups of Bigfoot were real, not actors in suits. I wonder how many still think that!

[supervike]

scowl, on 10 December 2012 - 08:51 PM, said:

Oh how I loved the 70's! You couldn't live here in the Northwest without knowing someone who knew someone who had seen Bigfoot. It was only a matter of time before someone hauled in a Bigfoot body and the mystery would be solved.

There was a theatrically released "documentary" about Bigfoot back then but I've been unable to find the title. It had dramatizations of Bigfoot encounters mixed in with interviews much like a typical Alan Landsberg "In Search Of" production. Some kids in school were confused by the format and thought the excellent footage and closeups of Bigfoot were real, not actors in suits. I wonder how many still think that!

Was it this one?

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0078203/