FB - Find Bigfoot announcement: "HUGE" new video coming Sept 10

Here's a new twist to finding the creature... www.msnbc.msn.com...

It's interesting as MSM is reporting it, and also for the fact the Dr Meldrum is involved.

reply to post by GoOfYFoOt


Fun stuff. It'd be nice for steady reliable film footage to be available.

I suspect, however, that getting footage, and/or even capturing a specimen would find more success in employing a small 3 person team of veteran former Special Forces types that know how to survive off the land, doing so with stealth, equipped with weapons for tranquilization, and/or conventional ammunition, to take month-long, or longer excursions with the sole goal of tracking and capturing/killing a specimen.

Such a thing wouldn't be cheap to set up, but, chances of success, I suspect, would be exponentially higher than typical so called 'researchers' that are self trained with more enthusiasm for tracking quarry than experience compared to experienced veterans trained and hardened for long term wilderness survival and tracking.

reply to post by Druscilla


I often thought a little military tactics would be needed to capture a bigfoot. This whole idea of throwing up a bunch of cameras, and tromping through the woods at night, then leaving after a couple of days doesn't make any sense.

How about an organized team spending 2-3 weeks out in the area looking for a big foot.

Originally posted by Druscilla
reply to post by GoOfYFoOt

 

Fun stuff. It'd be nice for steady reliable film footage to be available.

I suspect, however, that getting footage, and/or even capturing a specimen would find more success in employing a small 3 person team of veteran former Special Forces types that know how to survive off the land, doing so with stealth, equipped with weapons for tranquilization, and/or conventional ammunition, to take month-long, or longer excursions with the sole goal of tracking and capturing/killing a specimen.

Such a thing wouldn't be cheap to set up, but, chances of success, I suspect, would be exponentially higher than typical so called 'researchers' that are self trained with more enthusiasm for tracking quarry than experience compared to experienced veterans trained and hardened for long term wilderness survival and tracking.

Do you recall how long it took an experienced team of trackers to locate the Panda Bear?
From what I have researched, "bigfoot" is a night time dwellers, and does most of its eating and moving at night time. In dense areas. Bigfoot are much smarter than Panda Bears, and its going to take a highly skilled and trained team a lot of time and money to locate them.

While I am still 50/50 on this subject.. The one thing that makes me think are the Panda Bears.. They where once thought of as a myth, and it took experts close to 30 some years to find one in its natural habitat. And that is a bear.
Man is not as well suited for such heavy bush as some may think.

Still, its hard to say.. I totally did not buy into bigfoot at all, until I started to learn the reality of how long it took trackers to find other types of bears, and beasties out there in the heavy bush.
And those are animals of low intelligence levels.
Big foot as its been told, is more cunning and intelligent when it comes to being out in the bush, and how to handle the non prime zones in which they allegedly live.

I am starting to believe a bit more and more. the more learn about the missing links, and the process of tracking.
Your thread has been very helpful to in that process.

Originally posted by zysin5

Do you recall how long it took an experienced team of trackers to locate the Panda Bear?
From what I have researched, "bigfoot" is a night time dwellers, and does most of its eating and moving at night time. In dense areas. Bigfoot are much smarter than Panda Bears, and its going to take a highly skilled and trained team a lot of time and money to locate them.

While I am still 50/50 on this subject.. The one thing that makes me think are the Panda Bears.. They where once thought of as a myth, and it took experts close to 30 some years to find one in its natural habitat. And that is a bear.
Man is not as well suited for such heavy bush as some may think.

Still, its hard to say.. I totally did not buy into bigfoot at all, until I started to learn the reality of how long it took trackers to find other types of bears, and beasties out there in the heavy bush.
And those are animals of low intelligence levels.
Big foot as its been told, is more cunning and intelligent when it comes to being out in the bush, and how to handle the non prime zones in which they allegedly live.

I am starting to believe a bit more and more. the more learn about the missing links, and the process of tracking.
Your thread has been very helpful to in that process.

edit on 15-10-2012 by zysin5 because: (no reason given)

The statement regarding Pandas, though interesting, is yet another logical fallacy.
1. Bamboo forests are entirely different things compared to the deciduous submontane forests supposedly inhabited by Sasquatch. Bamboo forests are vastly more difficult to track in and navigate:

2. Pandas typically don't move around much and subsist on a diet of one thing (bamboo) which does not require them to move, or hunt, or do much of anything that could give away their position.

Different animal/species. Different habitat. Different habits.
For instance, according to common anecdote, Sasquatch are often attracted by curiosity to foreign sounds and happenings to their environment.
A well prepped, armed and stealthed team could exploit this curiosity having each person 10 meters up a tree with some stupid duck call or strange very loud noise sounding off periodically via a mechanical compressor in a reasonably clear area that all the team is triangulated on and around for a fair distance.

Most so-called 'researchers' pursuing the bigfoot problem simply go stomping around the wilderness, relatively untrained, learning as they go, and even though these people are essentially morons as it applies to actual real training in tracking, survival, biology, zoology, primatology, anthropology and any real application, education, or training, they still manage to come across tracks, or some other spoor like hair samples, stick structures, get rocks thrown at them, hear vocalizations, etc.

Put three people working as a team, that can spend a month straight in the bush, that are trained for such, into the field, and I'm pretty sure they'd do much better.

Originally posted by Druscilla

All the Annunaki talk is talk based on erroneous reasoning based off of someone else's totally erroneous work where the originating primary source material was never re-sourced for verification.
When doing ANY research, you need source the actual PRIMARY source material, even if building off of someone else's work.
That's how real science works, and that's why so many of these so-called 'researchers' on the fringe stay on the fringe, only contributing to the circus atmosphere of something that could do with some real science, where all these circus sideshow personalities such as the speaker in the quoted video scare off any desire for real science to jump in and do anything because no real scientists want to have their names associated with clowns like these.

I've spent a lot of wasted hours arguing with guys I know just trying to get them to realise what you say in your post. Unfortunatley these people are very impressed by somebody who uses long words, power point, and has a website.

With alternative subjects there tends to be a lot of building upon already erroneous conclusions, that and the kind of dot-joining that can only be described as "what?!!" resulting in a ponderous and unstable mountain of nonsense, presented as 'against the grain'...'what they don't want you to know'...'hidden'...etc.

Unfortunately for a lot of people, they themselves don't like to think too much or too hard, it hurts their heads and takes up valuable time, time that could be better spent watching somebody else do the thinking, the talking and the pointing.

reply to post by Druscilla


Thanks for taking the time to put that into a little better perspective for me..
I have been through bamboo thickets, and they are almost impossible to get through. I have never been through a bamboo forest, so I can agree with your statements.

Again I still am very much on the fence about bigfoot. I tend to lean more so that its just a myth. But I always wait to stand corrected.

Originally posted by seabhac-rua

I've spent a lot of wasted hours arguing with guys I know just trying to get them to realise what you say in your post. Unfortunatley these people are very impressed by somebody who uses long words, power point, and has a website.

With alternative subjects there tends to be a lot of building upon already erroneous conclusions, that and the kind of dot-joining that can only be described as "what?!!" resulting in a ponderous and unstable mountain of nonsense, presented as 'against the grain'...'what they don't want you to know'...'hidden'...etc.

Unfortunately for a lot of people, they themselves don't like to think too much or too hard, it hurts their heads and takes up valuable time, time that could be better spent watching somebody else do the thinking, the talking and the pointing.

True and quite sad.

It would seem, at least from a noticeable demographic present here on ATS, that a large number of people prefer 'easy' over factual.

It's only natural, of course, as part of the human condition, for people to desire and put their faith in things that make the world more 'special' and amazing in their eyes.
This is seen throughout history with the invention of mythologies, religions, ghost stories and the like.
People want to believe in something beyond what their dull, drab, boring, every day lives have on offer, so much so, that they willfully ignore anything contrary to their belief especially in spite of any and all real and actual evidence that disputes said beliefs.

It'd be so much nicer were such sorts open to the concept of finding amazement in the world around them as described from a rational, solid, reasonable approach.

Originally posted by zysin5
reply to post by Druscilla

 

Thanks for taking the time to put that into a little better perspective for me..
I have been through bamboo thickets, and they are almost impossible to get through. I have never been through a bamboo forest, so I can agree with your statements.

Again I still am very much on the fence about bigfoot. I tend to lean more so that its just a myth. But I always wait to stand corrected.

Fringe subjects are a tough lot.
Fringe subjects attract a large number of outright nutters that will do and say near anything to validate whatever delusional fantasy they want to promote.
Sadly, the smarter ones of this lot will obfuscate whatever delusional fantasy they're promoting with some actual factual material, mingling in all sorts of logical fallacy, irresponsible pseudo research, and outright lies just to support their case.

As implied above, many have a belief such they'll do everything in their power to deny and even turn the tables of blame regarding falsification using ad hominem attacks on established real science through delusional paranoid and seemingly popular terms of cover ups, and suppression of 'truth'.

Typically when something goes out of the way to fly the 'truth' flag, and/or attack established paradigm using the 'government cover-up' card, it's a good sign the majority of their position is lies such they feel the need to go out of their way to compare, or knock a competing idea down.

As far as Sasquatch, Yeti, etc. goes, it's a fascinating subject. The weight of evidence would seem to indicate there is indeed a large elusive bipedal 'something' running around in the wilderness.

As data is collected, one by one, the established institution of the serious scientific community seems to glance more and more toward eventually carrying out some real research. Jane Goodall herself seems mightily interested regarding this cryptid.
Such interest is voiced in passing, and usually with caution, but, considering all the hoaxes, and veritable menagerie of nutters voicing their opinions on the subject, Sasquatch is a bit radioactive in that no one really wants to touch it for fear of contaminating their credentials as a serious scientist.

Because of this, interested people in the subject should practice all caution in attempting to examine the subject with due diligence, and sound reasoning while resisting all temptations toward making assumptions or blindly believing.

I'd love to see the big hairy guy brought into the light of scientific daytime, but, with evidence and interest as is, it's hard to say when such might, if ever, occur.

apperently my post editing skills suck...

anyway this video has already been debunked by bigfoot international group.
i did some research based on the comments on the youtube videos and found that the damning evidence is that the tent is rick dyer's. he faked the bigfoot in the freezer.

yup, dyer admits it to.:bigfootevidence.blogspot.ca...

When ever Todd Standing is mentioned all credibility disappears.