Moderated Bigfoot- Anybody Seen one?

[bipto]

So is it your position that a ton of feces can be dropped on a continuous basis, and consumed every day continuously and no one could notice the feces or fecer or the consumer?

Yes.

I mean, how many dung beetles have you seen feeding on dung piles in your area? Round numbers....

We'll count them up next time we're there. In the mean time, round number...lots.

 

[bipto]

Thanks for that confirmation of the threat about people being killed by TBRC members for being on public land.

There have been no threats. I think it's perfectly reasonable to suggest that if your effort results in unaffiliated people going into an area where others are using firearms to collect a specimen (that often walks on two legs), you're placing them in danger. That's logic, not a threat.

 

[bipto]

Are those blood samples in the hands of a capable lab, being tested, and are you waiting for results, as you stated at the BFF ?

or

Was the lab unreliable, didn't take you seriously, and did you chose not to move on the samples, as you stated here?

Or, both. We had multiple samples and only one went to the first lab.

 

[bipto]

Have you seen a bigfoot run down a deer? Or are you just guessing speeds?

As I said in the OP, it was an estimation based on what I observed.

 

[bipto]

My participation in this conversation has come to an end. It's clear that there are a few moderate people on this board interested in having a dialog, but the majority of posters aren't. At the end of the day, nothing I can say will move any of you in my direction and, since I've seen wood apes, there is clearly nothing you can say to make me change my mind regarding their existence. We are at an impasse. Further time and effort in my part is wasted. Surely, you can see that.

I'm disappointed that essentially no one here had anything to say about the one piece of physical evidence we have published thus far (namely, the hair sample). Also, nothing was said about the audio files I posted yesterday. Instead, much of the conversation has focused on trying to expose us as charlatans or hoaxers or worse. So be it. Most of you have already calcified your POV on the subject and there's really only one thing that will break you loose. Instead of spending my time here, I will go back and use it productively with my colleagues toward that end.

If anyone would like to continue a dialog, I'm available on Facebook (as is the TBRC and my podcast, The Bigfoot Show), our site has a contact form, and I'm still active on the BFF.

As Carol Burnett used to say, "I'm glad we had this time together..."

 

[DennyT]

paranormalist reports seeing the "bigfoot" of modern folklore:

Nearly 60 persons paid $75 apiece Saturday to join paranormal researchers in the search for Bigfoot in the Daniel Boone National Forest.

One of those said she was lucky enough that night to catch a glimpse of the creature.

Teresa uses only her first name, as do many Bigfoot believers, for fear of ridicule. She is an established spiritual medium and animal communicator from New Jersey.

....Her group stumbled upon the creature as he was trying to kill a deer. He was interrupted by bright lights shining in his face.
... The eight-foot-tall creature quickly ran away, deep into the forest, Teresa said, with her chasing him.

“I wanted to talk to him,” she said.
...
In order for the search to be legal, paranormal researcher Chad Morin paid $150 for a temporary special-use permit from the U.S. Forest Service to “attempt to locate the famed Bigfoot creature.”

“I think the permit pretty much speaks for itself,” Teresa said. “Why would you issue a permit if something doesn’t exist?

Well, if the permit doesn't speak for itself, you certainly do.

 

[mustbeso]

I have just returned from a trip to Glacier National Park in Montana which also has a large bear population. Finding bear scat is an everyday occurence, even on short hikes in and around the campgrounds and stores. I think the bear population is more than 1000 individuals(both species combined) in an area of about 1.1 million acres. I don't know how this compares to the mountains of Oklahoma, but not finding scat seems curious to me. Bipto, do you mostly set up cameras,etc. and wait or do you actively search this area? By the way, this was my 11th trip to Glacier, always camping with a few backpacking expeditions in the mix and no bigfoot sightings.

 

[Shiner]

Bipto,

Thanks for your courteous reply, mate. I commend you on your good manners. I could learn from you in that regard.

I feel like I've answered this question, in various forms, a hundred times. Sightings are brief, cameras take too long to turn on, wearable cameras that are always on are better sounding than they turn out to be in practice, I personally would rather have a better sighting than get a picture for someone else since pictures are crap evidence for this animal. IMHO.

I understand the difficulties with cameras. I spent a couple of years photographing reptiles in the bush. Part of any scientific approach to a wildlife study is photos. Photos of every single thing that may be remotely related to your quarry. Especially in your circumstances. The best way to get a photo of a moving animal is with multiple cameras. Hence my comment about everyone having a camera. A crap picture or three would be about 1000% more evidence than what you have to show for five years work.

I said they didn't take us seriously. Perhaps they ripped us off. It's not worth pursuing.

Of course its worth pursuing. Unless you don't believe that you have BF blood.

We have chosen not to move on the samples because we feel, if they are what we hipe they are, then they're incredibly rare. There isn't any reason to be rash about that happens next with them. They're being stored in an appropriate way to preserve and protect them from contamination.

So we can't handle the truth?

As I read it, the blood samples were stored to preserve the DNA. Over a year ago.


Your team includes......

....teachers, accountants, doctors,....

Yet, when talking about sticks and stones.......

.......but have very recently also been told that DNA could be obtained from them. No idea what the cost or procedure for that is,....

It doesn't wash, bipto. DNA, and collection procedures are fairly well understood by most people. Thanks to TV. To have "doctors" on the team and not be aware of this, suggests some dishonesty there.

Prove what with photos? I don't follow.

Prove that you found blood on the ground in a place were something was allegedly shot. I would have taken photos from multiple angles. I understand that it's a wooded area, and a whole magazine was emptied at the target. I would have looked for bullet holes, if not lead, in the trees in the obvious places.

Mr. Branson's opinions are his own.

Mr Branson seems to know a lot about your "wood apes", and you dismiss him outright. As AlaskaBushPilot has made clear, you aren't (can't be) far from peoples homes. Homes that have been there a long time. Surely if the beasts are as active as you say, the locals would have plenty of info for you.

Do you believe or discount Mr Bransons story?

Nobody in the group had positioned themselves in that area before we found the "sniper" lay. It would have been highly out of character for an armed member to be in positon to shoot into the campsite.

It was proposed earlier, that this could have been a hoaxer or lookout for hoaxers, and you maintained it was a wood ape.


Then you state this.

And I wouldn't say an animal seven feet tall is "human sized".

So which is it? The sniper lay was "human sized", and these creatures aren't. This leads to the assumption that a human lay there, and as you maintain none of your group could have been there, it may have been a hoaxer. This is a logical conclusion. BF done it, isn't .

There seems to be a complete disregard for scientific process in the whole organisation, and this is why people scoff. I think if you're honest, and you've been at this five years, you should stop, as you clearly haven't learned anything about what you are supposed to be doing.
You, as a group, I understand, downplay the blood samples, disregard the importance of scat, and cameras as you've decided as a group that these things aren't important enough to pursue. Then you present audio files of metal banging, and some "eyewitness reports".
Thanks for replying, and I understand if you don't reply, as I am bringing up some things others already have.

 

[DennyT]

Yes.



We'll count them up next time we're there. In the mean time, round number...lots.

well, if there are lots of dung beetles feeding then you could just scoop up some of the dung and send it for DNA? or are you saying that you see lots of dung beetles but all of them are just wiping their faces, having just polished off all the dung, so you can't get any?

....Cause that latter seems pretty unlikely. I'm not sure I have ever seen a dung beetle except on a pile of dung. Maybe I'm not looking in the right places.

 

[LTC8K6]

Well, I think they aren't going to find bigfoot, or publish anything useful.

 

[Resume]

I'm disappointed that essentially no one here had anything to say about the one piece of physical evidence we have published thus far (namely, the hair sample). Also, nothing was said about the audio files I posted yesterday.

You are burying the lead. You've known where to harvest a specimen for quite some time and yet . . .

This isn't like bagging a Pope and Young whitetail, this discovery is of tremendous historical and biological significance (not to mention economically) but like ghosts and Nessie and Aliens, the pudding proof is just out of reach.

Is it ineptitude or something else?

 

[The Shrike]

I'm disappointed that essentially no one here had anything to say about the one piece of physical evidence we have published thus far (namely, the hair sample). Also, nothing was said about the audio files I posted yesterday.

You published a paper on a bigfoot hair sample? Audio won't prove bigfoot, but a hair sample could.

 

[Castro]

Or, both. We had multiple samples and only one went to the first lab.

Or neither. What about coming back with a test result, bipto?

 

[GeeMack]

My participation in this conversation has come to an end. It's clear that there are a few moderate people on this board interested in having a dialog, but the majority of posters aren't. At the end of the day, nothing I can say will move any of you in my direction and, since I've seen wood apes, [...]

Unfortunately you can't objectively demonstrate that to be true.

[...] there is clearly nothing you can say to make me change my mind regarding their existence. We are at an impasse. Further time and effort in my part is wasted. Surely, you can see that.

It seems quite likely that further time and effort continuing what appears to be a snipe hunt would be wasted. But to each his/her own hobby.

I'm disappointed that essentially no one here had anything to say about the one piece of physical evidence we have published thus far (namely, the hair sample).

Here's what there is to be said about it: No hair sample has been objectively demonstrated to have come from a Bigfoot.

Also, nothing was said about the audio files I posted yesterday.

Here's what there is to be said about it: No audio recordings have been objectively demonstrated to have been caused by a Bigfoot.

Instead, much of the conversation has focused on trying to expose us as charlatans or hoaxers or worse.

There is no objective reason to give other explanations much consideration.

So be it. Most of you have already calcified your POV on the subject and there's really only one thing that will break you loose.

Our point of view is that of skepticism rather than faith. Objective evidence supporting the existence of Bigfoot would go a long way toward convincing us that your claims have merit. In the meantime, given that neither you nor anyone else on Earth has offered any such evidence, it is reasonable for intelligent people to not accept your claims as true.

Instead of spending my time here, I will go back and use it productively with my colleagues toward that end.

If you do what you've always done, you'll get what you've always got. Several people in this thread have offered reasonable ways to modify your failed methods to improve your opportunities to obtain objective evidence, if any such evidence exists. You dismissed those suggestions, hand waved them away. It seems Bigfoot believers would rather fail using unscientific methods instead of risking finding out that their fantasy creature doesn't exist if they apply legitimate science. Blaming the lousy methods, as you have repeatedly done, is not an honest assessment of the reason for your failure.

If anyone would like to continue a dialog, I'm available on Facebook (as is the TBRC and my podcast, The Bigfoot Show), our site has a contact form, and I'm still active on the BFF.

As Carol Burnett used to say, "I'm glad we had this time together..."

Come on back if you ever obtain any objective evidence that might demonstrate that there's any truth to your claim.

 

[GT/CS]

My participation in this conversation has come to an end. It's clear that there are a few moderate people on this board interested in having a dialog, but the majority of posters aren't. At the end of the day, nothing I can say will move any of you in my direction and, since I've seen wood apes, there is clearly nothing you can say to make me change my mind regarding their existence. We are at an impasse. Further time and effort in my part is wasted. Surely, you can see that.

I'm disappointed that essentially no one here had anything to say about the one piece of physical evidence we have published thus far (namely, the hair sample). Also, nothing was said about the audio files I posted yesterday. Instead, much of the conversation has focused on trying to expose us as charlatans or hoaxers or worse. So be it. Most of you have already calcified your POV on the subject and there's really only one thing that will break you loose. Instead of spending my time here, I will go back and use it productively with my colleagues toward that end.

If anyone would like to continue a dialog, I'm available on Facebook (as is the TBRC and my podcast, The Bigfoot Show), our site has a contact form, and I'm still active on the BFF.

As Carol Burnett used to say, "I'm glad we had this time together..."

Brian,
You never gave us anything to discuss other than strange noises and strange blobs. The folks here absorbed that information and asked questions to try go get an better understanding of what you were describing. That's kinda how mysteries are solved.

The fact is you claim that you and your friends have spent years, but only during your occasional free time and when you get around to it, observing what may be the greatest scientific discovery in centuries and you can't figure out how to prove it. Really? Why not ask some trappers, hunters, or scientists, to join you at your site. I mean, come on, it's an 8' tall ape; how difficult can it be to find????

Do you see how true skeptics find that a little difficult to understand? Put yourself in our shoes and see if what you're telling us makes any sense, or if what you're telling us has all the red flags associated with a hoax.

 

[clayflingythingy]

There have been no threats. I think it's perfectly reasonable to suggest that if your effort results in unaffiliated people going into an area where others are using firearms to collect a specimen (that often walks on two legs), you're placing them in danger. That's logic, not a threat.

An ethical/responsible hunter never, EVER, shoots at anything he/she can't POSITIVELY identify. Nor does an ethical hunter take a shot unless there is a safe backstop for the bullet if the shot misses or goes thru the animal.

An hiker walking thru your area X should be perfectly safe if the members of your group are ethical/responsible.

Are you suggesting your members will shoot at anything that moves without positively identifying the animal?

 

[AlaskaBushPilot]

Outing the TBRC

While waiting for Leflore county to get back to me I did some digging on the TBRC's 501 C 3 status and financial records, and see a pattern of deliberate concealment, but I think we can break through that with enough people working on it.

First of all, a 501 C (3) corporation is required to produce financial records and make them available to the public. By law, any member of the public must be provided with their financial information at their regular office address. Note that there is no office address anywhere on their website. There is also no information on obtaining financial records for members.

Isn't that interesting? Digging through nonprofit search engines like GuideStar and the Foundation Center results in some information, I'll report below, but this is an organization that apparently doesn't want people, including members, to know their financial information or even where its office is for obtaining records required by law.

Members (donors) and "stakeholders" to the TBRC must be provided with more detailed information including balance sheet, income statement, and statement of cash flows. The income statement would be interesting because expenses have to be reported there, and we are interested in things like alleged lab report expenses and rentals on cabins, etc.

For the fiscal year ending 2011 I found through Findthebest.com that the organization's address is a post office box (86621, plano Tx 75806-6621). But the officer named is Daryl Colyer 304 N Borden Lorena Tx. 76655. GuideStar has the physical address at Plano Tx 75086. No street and building number.

Organizations that take in less than $25 K submit a Form 990-N electronically to the IRS (known as an e-postcard), to the IRS each year, and all it has to do is say their employer identification number, tax year, legal name, secondary name, address, officer name and address, and web site. They are apparently in this category. Their EIN is 208267639.

They've been pretty adamant that no officers are on salary, but this conceals the tax benefits to what is actually a hobby, not a scientific endeavor. Their filing lists them as an organization for Natural Resource Conservation and Protection.

Expenses that officers incur like travel, accomodations, etc. are considered donations to the organization, which makes their personal hobby tax deductible. I could have written off three airplanes that way just by claiming I was looking for the tooth fairy as a charitable organization. Wouldn't you like to write of your vacation to Hawaii as a charitable donation?

This demonstrates the heavy financial incentive for officers and other members who want their vacations to be tax deductible. They cannot reach a conclusion that bigfoot doesn't exist because that means their vacations are no longer tax deductible.

I would love to see their articles of incorporation and their initial filing for tax exempt status. I wonder if they even mention bigfoot by that name. But to pry those out of this organization is going to take someone visiting their office, or a member requesting it from them by mail, email, or something.

Wouldn't it be juicy to see how much tax write-off each of them is taking for their vacation/hobby? Look how they claim to be doing this for "Charity", but refuse to answer basic questions about what they're doing with their money and so-called "research". This "Charity" is actually threatening by insinuation that people near them on public land will be shot.

 

[AttorneyTom]

Like most kids in the 70's, I had an interest driven by Leonard Nimoy and the Six Million Dollar Man. It went dormant until about 2002, then I started the Bigfoot Forums. I've been active in the field since about 2006, more so in recent years.

I was just wondering since you have been a member of the JREF here since 2006 and havent posted until just recently ?

 

[William Parcher]

In think that the continual use of "Wood Ape" as a name instead of Bigfoot or Sasquatch is interesting.

I think it's done intentionally for shock or drama value. "Good Lord he isn't even calling them Bigfoot or Sasquatch. Why on earth is he calling them some odd name that hardly anyone has ever heard or uses? Oh my God, he is calling them that because he really does have them in a habituation scenario and can call them whatever he wants."

 

[AttorneyTom]

In think that the continual use of "Wood Ape" as a name instead of Bigfoot or Sasquatch is interesting.

I think it's done intentionally for shock or drama value. "Good Lord he isn't even calling them Bigfoot or Sasquatch. Why on earth is he calling them some odd name that hardly anyone has ever heard or uses? Oh my God, he is calling them that because he really does have them in a habituation scenario and can call them whatever he wants."

I suppose the term "wood ape" is used to demonstrate that this particular area and their inhabitants are some sort of subspecies of BF. That way they are not confused with the other subspecies and family groups like the Grass Man or People ( Akron, OH).. Skunk Ape (FL) , .. the other folks down on Boggy Creek.. etc.