Comments on: What Scientists Can Do: The Real Bigfoot

By: Bob K.

Bob K. — Fri, 07 Sep 2007 18:21:42 +0000

Greenmartian, if I’m not mistaken, someone DID have that idea in the aftermath of the volcanos eruption, and in fact, did some digging. This was a number of years ago, and I doubt that (at least) the original searchers are still looking. The last I heard, they found some deer carcasses, but little else.

By: DARHOP

DARHOP — Tue, 05 Jun 2007 22:04:03 +0000

That would be one major dig. The area all around the base of the Mt. is still covered in ash. And it’s deep. Me and my brother road our HOGS up there last summer. (And let me say, I was relieved when we headed down. It’s spooky. The thing is still steaming) But if somebody did a major archaeological dig, I bet that would be as good a place as any to look. Maybe even better. The forests all around the Mt. are a great place for the BIG ONES to live. I’m gonna try and spend a week or so in the area this summer. Also Star Mt. and the Gifford Pinchot National Forest areas. I know they out there. Well, I believe they are. Many sightings in them areas.

By: mystery_man

mystery_man — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 02:55:46 +0000

That’s actually a pretty good idea, greenmartian2007.

By: greenmartian2007

greenmartian2007 — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 17:48:57 +0000

One additional comment..

As I am thinking…

When Mount Saint Helens erupted, wouldn’t that have provided a unique opportunity to look for Saquatch remains? Right in the same area as Skookum Meadows et. al.

The after effects of the eruption moved much faster than any Sasquatch could run.

Just a thought. It might be an area to look for remains.

By: mystery_man

mystery_man — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 15:52:10 +0000

Mattbille- I have done field work for known animals and I say that I agree with you completely. Actually, sustained work in the field is one of the best ways to study animals in my opinion. Unless Bigfoot is some complete freak of nature, then this sort of field work has every possibility of producing results and good observations, and therefore I do not think the fact that it has failed so far means that it is not a viable method. I agree that the problem is that we may just not know enough about their habits and location to make field work very effective, especially if the intent is for them to come to us. Even with known animals, it can take quite a long time to produce good results and these are animals whose behavior and movements have been well documented. I have gone out and been skunked before and I wasn’t even studying particularly rare animals ( the Japanese tanuki if you care to know). Some of the Bigfoot expeditions going out for just a few days at a time, looking for an animal that very little is known about and whose existence has not even been verified yet are almost certain to meet with results that leave much to be desired unless there is that chance encounter. This can further be compounded by bad data or faulty reports.
I think that if these field expeditions are going to produce anything near what Fossey achieved, then there is going to have to be more information available on these creatures. I am talking information on physiology, movements, any migrations, feeding habits, social structure, and so on. I definately think that weeding out the bad data will invariably help in this endeavor. Right now I just feel that the Bigfoot is still for the most part an enigma and not enough is known about them to mount a truly worthwhile field expedition and certainly not enough is known about them to start using the method of having them come to us. This could be a reason why they have failed with this method up to now, but I do not believe for a second that this method of research is unfeasible or unusable with Bigfoot. We need the information and perhaps just as importantly, we need the time to get it done.

By: MattBille

MattBille — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 14:01:57 +0000

Well, a dossier has been done: both Krantz and Bindernagel did their best to do one in book form. The problem is that everyone has a different opinion of which footprints, sightings, and films are genuine. A dossier on an animal that you can’t study (alive or dead) close up is going to remain speculative: it will not be considered authoritative in the scientific world. For example, the Krantz and Bindernagel dossiers will both have gaping holes in them if the P-G film is ever proved a hoax, since both authors relied on it considerably. I quite agree on the point of locating anomalous bones lying (or alleged to lie) in museum collections and retesting them, but you’re probably not going to find a funding source unless sasquatch is first established to exist in the wild by better evidence than we now have.
A side note: I’m not a field guy, but I noted the comment that camping out and waiting for the local wildlife to accept you and come around has failed. According to Ivan Sanderson, it’s usually the only thing that works. To speculate, it depends a great deal on the animal. Chimps who have had no human contact are reported to come right up to people to investigate them, while gorillas, much more cautious by nature, took months to accept Dianne Fossey and let her close to them. If sasquatch is both cautious by nature AND had learned to stay shy of humans, it’s probably going to take a Fossey/Sanderson approach to get evidence, absent a lucky chance encounter. The reason the approach may not have worked so far is that no one has done it long enough in the right place. That, of course, leads us back to the question of what the right place is, and how you determine that, which leads back to the question of which sightings and footprints one thinks are authentic.

By: joppa

joppa — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 00:31:40 +0000

A dossier on Bigfoot??? I suppose there already is one at the FBI and Homeland Security. The U.S. Forest Service probably has one or several, as well as the Bureau of Land Management, the Corps of Engineers and the Department of the Interior.

By: swnoel

swnoel — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 23:33:03 +0000

Good question MM

I’d also like to know which videos aren’t hoaxes…

I’ll be waiting for this one, I think I already know the answer.

None… they all are.

By: loyalfromlondon

loyalfromlondon — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 18:36:29 +0000

“There are other advanced primates at large in North America other than the Neo-Giant. They are just as important and equally interesting for human beings to get to know. We can approach them in a similar fashion to that suggested here for the Bigfoot/Sasquatch.”

I was once a firm believer in multiple species of North American primates but I now feel this belief may do more harm than good. It’s hard enough to get a serious scientific discussion going on Sasquatch. Adding other types of NA apes only confuses the issue.

By: MBFH

MBFH — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 16:54:44 +0000

Thanks for this Loren. I can’t believe that someone hasn’t already plotted at least a good batch of Bigfoot sightings on GIS – surely someone out there has?

I’d love to see what patterns would be thrown out by it: clusters of sightings, migrations, possible territories etc.

Someone out there please tell me it’s been done!