I would really like to see a well equipped, well funded, scientifically trained group get put down in an area with a lot of reported activity and have as much time as they needed. Let them have free reign to bring to bear their expertise and resources onto the phenomena, to really focus on it in a long term project. I’m not talking about one expedition, or a weekend excursion where everyone has to go back to work on Monday, but rather an ongoing legitimate scientific study. I would be very interested to know what such a project turned up. Wonder how likely we are to see something like this any time soon?

For now, the fact that there seem to be wealthy men out there willing to contribute funding into the search is encouraging but I think unfortunately far from enough.

Again, it’s just the mainstream of science not trusting the evidence that’s turning up enough to follow it up. I think that, if the big guy actually exists, and mainstream scientists go Ivorybill on him, we’ll “find” him all right. Or rather: we’ll see the mainstream finally confirming something that has been very much there all along.

IF HE EXISTS. gotta toss that in. (Speaking of not trusting evidence LOL.)

http://www.cryptomundo.com/cryptozoo-news/bad-ben/

Staying on-topic about Bigfooters, millionaires, the BFRO, money, and Bigfoot within this comment section would be appreciated.

There is no reason these comments should become a love or hate fest for Radford, thank you.

“I hope this will quell the Bigfoot apologists who say that the reason there’s no hard evidence for Bigfoot is that no one is funding the research.”

Are you serious? You consider this to be full of scorn and derision? Wow. Someone would have to be incredibly thin-skinned to consider the above any kind of scorn; it’s simply making a point, and does not ridicule or attack anyone. I guess if you want to make up your own definitions of scorn and ridicule, you can interpret pretty much anything that way.

By the way, there’s no contradiction in what I wrote: I never said there was no money, in fact I said the opposite. All I said was that people are not eager to pour money into Bigfoot research. This is true; there is no contradiction.

As far as the evolutionary role of these activity cycles, it’s not really the habitat that the animals share that determines whether they are nocturnal or diurnal, I mean after all a wide variety of species both nocturnal and diurnal can share the same habitat and yet they have evolved differently. A whole range of different habitat types have diurnal and nocturnal animals living there, so it is not the habitat itself that determines it as this is almost universal. I would say a more significant factor would be what is best suited to the niche the animal fills within that habitat, as well as which is more conducive to gathering or exploiting new resources needed to survive, and avoiding predation. I won’t go too much more into it here because I get the feeling I am getting off topic, but diurnal and nocturnal lifestyles both have their advantages and disadvantages. The selective pressures of the animal’s role within the habitat is going to determine what sort of activity cycle best suits its survival and which disadvantages are acceptable in light of the benefits. It doesn’t matter what the habitat is, rain forest, temperate zone, arctic circle, whatever activity cycle a particular animal needs to survive best in its niche, or biological role, is the one it is going to adopt. The niches that the great apes, and indeed almost all monkeys, fill seems to favor a diurnal lifestyle. How this relates to the sasquatch is entirely debatable, but I am certainly not out of line in thinking it could be diurnal as there is biological evidence and sightings evidence to support that.

In the end, you are right that we don’t even really know what the sasquatch is exactly, or what its role within its habitat is to any great degree. We do not know its nutritional requirements, movement patterns, or reproductive habits. Really we actually don’t know a whole lot other than what we can speculate on from sightings reports and circumstantial evidence. This being the case, it is hard to make any solid comparisons to other known animals and I will admit that even though we don’t know of any now, an ape could develop a nocturnal lifestyle if it was evolutionary advantageous. I just don’t feel the evidence necessarily supports a predominantly nocturnal sasquatch at this time or even one that has evolved in any considerable way to have nocturnal adaptations such as keen night vision. Please notice that at no time have I stated that sasquatch can not be nocturnal or that the idea is totally far fetched or impossible. I am just presenting the case that it might not be nocturnal.

I would consider it reasonable that evolution to exploit the food niches available in the temperate zone could involve the development of bipedality, with attendant speed and agility on the ground; omnivory with a significant carnivorous component; and the adoption of a more nocturnal lifestyle, with attendant physical traits, including possibly night-specialized eyesight. After all, the animals I listed with day and night habits in North America aren’t all closely related to each other. A significant factor in how they evolved was the characters that got selected for their benefits in the habitat the animals shared.

Don’t know what the sas is. But a bipedal ape with night vision isn’t far fetched to me. There sure is a weirder bipedal ape running around (spinning blogs and creating the internet) than that, eh? And that one makes night vision you can wear.

Scorn, derision, arrogance:

“I hope this will quell the Bigfoot apologists who say that the reason there’s no hard evidence for Bigfoot is that no one is funding the research.”

Contradiction:

“…there is money available for Bigfoot research…”

“Can anyone really wonder why people aren’t eager to pour money into a topic that has yielded so little results?”

Which is it? There’s money available, or since bigfoot research is such an abject failure, there is no money?

cas·ti·gate (kst-gt)
tr.v. cas·ti·gat·ed, cas·ti·gat·ing, cas·ti·gates
To severely criticize.

There is such a thing as positive, constructive criticism. Such criticism helps because it is done not from a position of superiority or condescension, but from a position of truly wanting to make a positive contribution. It is not done out of a desire to inflate one’s own ego or self-importance.

Someone who can find nothing positive to say, at all, squarely fits into the category of cynic, by definition.

Your rants are, and have been, replete with examples of scorn, criticism and derision. I merely had to look on this same thread to find an example of it.