How to systematic hunt a cryptid?

I have been doing some Sasquatch research (i.e. reading ATS, watching Finding Bigfoot, scouring YouTube videos) and it seems there is a lack of scientific rigor that goes into Sasquatch. Most documentaries And TV shows just revolve a group of "scientists" or "researchers" (I use these terms loosely) and there tv crews wondering off into the woods to find a Bigfoot, like they are just going to stumble across this creature or they do silly "nighttime investigations." While I have seen some compelling evidence of some large creature, the vast majority seems circumstantial at best. Most evidence proves people don't know how to use their electronic equipment because the out come is a blob-squatch. So this leads me to my questions, let's say there is a large unknown creature roaming the forrested areas of the world. How would you systematically track/hunt/collect evidence/ of this creature?

This is how I would approach this problem. With the surveillance equipment available on the market today I would set up a camera network covering a known area of animal activity (i.e. a watering whole, game trails, areas know for saquatch activity) with the intent of covering this area from enough angles that any creature coming to there area would be spotted from multiple vantage points. This would cut down on misidentification. This approach could be beneficial because you could observe multiple areas remotely over a period a long period of time and your presence wouldn't alter the any of the local animal's behavior, possible spooking any Saquatchs in the immediate area.

So how would you find Saquatch or the cryptid of your choice?

It would pretty easy as long as you had sufficient manpower.

Set up a cordon around your Target area with ambushes set up on likely avenues of egress. Get everyone else on line and sweep through the area driving your Target into the ambushes.

Does systematically depth charging the length of Loch Ness and Lake Champlain count as a viable idea?

reply to post by Drunkenparrot


Would you want to kill Nessie or Champ!?! I think video/photographic proof would be way mor valuable and lucrative over the long run then a corpse.

reply to post by TheHistorian


Well the reports and findings (if you can call them that) I have read bigfoot is extremely intelligent so I would approach capturing or sighting it with militaristic fashion.

Scout food and water locations and set up observation keeping in mind it might be vegetarian or advanced enough to preserve or store food, you must learn the lay of the land too knowing it may know the land better so play on numbers to advantage when hunting. Use hunting dogs, scoutbirds learn how the local wildlife acts heck theres crap loads of stuff to try.

I can imagine it's all been tried too bigfoot is bigger than the lochness monster maybe the most sought after beast on the planet, so either it's not real or it's a damn lot smarter than the people looking for it

just my 2 pence on the topic

reply to post by RAY1990


If Bigfoot is intelligent and a team approached to capture/kill it would it have reinforcements or strategies in place to defend itself in case of attack? Are there reports of bigfoots acting aggressively when encountering people unexpectedly? Most times they seem to run the opposite direction and avoid humane contact all together.

I wonder if another large primate would act as a lure

Sorry double post


I guess you could study native American legends for a clue as to how to find one

reply to post by TheHistorian


I haven't read much on bigfoot for a long time but what little reports there is it seems (and I say this lightly) that they are very protective but yet apparently peaceful so they may have reinforcements but nothing a qualified squad could take care of, your catch would be larger too as you would know they are cornered but this is all if's and but's

Most sasquatch sightings are questionable at best anyways just like UFO's thats why they all get through into the "crazy" pile lol



EDIT

As for bigfoot tactics I have read before they are psychic and in touch with aliens lol I'll try to find a link their was a lot of info on it so they might have some badass reinforcements when push comes toshove

Patience.
Dedication.
Money.

Whatever supposed animal someone may be tracking, one needs to know the animal like a hunter hunting prey.
Deer hunters, for instance have a variety of tactics for stalking, setting up blinds, following/tracking spoor, bait luring, etc. This applies to pretty much all animals.

To facilitate this, one needs know/learn the animal.

To know the animal, there needs be a certain dedication to gathering information published speculating on the unknown animal's habits, and then some time, possibly an enormous amount of time in the field attempting to verify said speculations.

With sasquatch, for instance, there's all this noise about making calls and tree knocking.
If it's as smart an animal as some claim, some speculation aiming at this being a hominid (human relative much closer to human than apes), then alerting it to one's presence might not be ideal where you are in it's environment and alerting it to your presence makes you the watched instead of the watcher, the stalked instead of the stalker.

Various accounts lay claim that sasquatch is curious, and will participate in trade offerings of fruits, candy bars, and other such things where an offering is supposedly left somewhere, and on return the "researcher finds the offering replaced with a shiny rock, or the equivalent of sasquatch macaroni art, whatever; something seemingly indicating a trade has taken place.

How is it that no researchers set up camera traps on these supposed exchanges?
Often we see enigmatic furry close ups of something investigating a camera trap located high up in a tree, but are left with nothing but blurry speculation.
Is no one smart enough to place two camera traps covering each other? If bears, or sasquatch, or chupacabra, the great thunderbird or some other something goes to fingering around at the camera out of curiosity, then the other camera could then give some insight into what that blurry whatever something poking at the camera is.

We need a body.
Regardless of how one feels about killing Sasquatch, Orang Pendek, Nessie, Bat boy, one of those Amazon or African dinosaurs, or whatever, we NEED a body.
Photos and videos can be faked convincingly enough that pictures and video, though nice, will never suffice on their own.
Thus, whatever you're stalking, go loaded for bear. Hell, go loaded for Rhino or Elephant, and if you don't think you could do the deed, then stop wasting everyone's time with pretended "research" and leave the field open for someone that can bring a body home.

A day or two in the woods, on a lake, walking through abandoned underground tunnels in any given urban underground sewer/subway/bombshelter system will never do.

One needs spend periods of a month, if not longer in the field, sharing the environment with the subject, whatever that subject might be, living off the land even, as doing so gives insight into the animal's habits, where the animal might sleep, but it also gives maximum exposure as well as living room familiarity with the environment.
It's no longer just the supposed unknown animal's environment and home; it's your home now too.

This levels the playing field more in your favor. If the animal is aware of yoru presence, it also familiarizes the animal with you, and it may then even show itself if you seem to be a non-threat, or potentially yummy as food.

Have a helicopter on call and a sat phone and GPS.
If you ever do manage to bag a body, if it, for instance is bigfoot, there's not much of a chance of you dragging a 300+ cadaver through however many miles of dense forest and wild terrain.
It's and Old Man and the Sea situation where you might wind up fighting off sharks, wolves, meat eating parakeets, to make it back to civilization with only shreds of dubious evidence like the Old Man and the Sea marlin skeleton.
With a helicopter, sat phone, and GPS, should you catch the big fish, sasquatch, a Roc, and alien from some underground secret alien base, whatever, then, you've got a rapid response exit, regardless the cost.

Whatever the cost, you'll make it back 10-100x, or more if you bring home the bacon, body, or whatever it is.

All this can be done alone, by oneself, with enough time to do so.

Of note; I sometimes take a month-long retreat into the wilderness, various parts of the U.S., some even supposedly sasquatch country, and, I've never, not once, ever seen any evidence, or come across any indication of the existence of a Bigfoot.
I wasn't looking, however, but, spending that long in any environment, one becomes quite attuned to what's going on in one's surroundings, and quite familiar with everything.

Thus, lastly, one much be comfortable with finding absolutely nothing, and just enjoying the environment for what it is, regardless of what you're chasing.

Hrm. I think the first place to start is to learn how adjectives work and the difference between the words "systematic" and "systematically". Then I'd tackle the impossible task of learning the different meanings of the words "their", "there", and "they're". Once I had basic language skills down, and could communicate without looking like a 5th grader, I'd be in a much better place to start looking for cryptids.


Credibility is EVERYTHING in these fields. Stop self-sabotaging your ideas buy not knowing how to express them.

reply to post by Stunspot


My apologies to the grammar police. How dare I post something on you site without having you proof my posts. Again, a thousand apologies.

reply to post by TheHistorian


Jeeze, don't you get it? _I_ don't give a crap how you write. I was pointing out that _NEITHER DO YOU_ and it shows. If you want people to listen to you and not immediately dismiss what you have to say as the ravings of an idiot, learn how to not sound like one online.

And it's "on YOUR site", not "on you site". Christ.

reply to post by Stunspot


Sorry I left off the r grammar jerk. I was only half paying attention to what I was typing. It is members like you that make this site so unbearable. You know the easiest thing to do is just keep your two cents to yourself instead of trying to put people down by pointing out their flaws. Could my grammar/spelling be better? Yes. But your attitude is way worse. Kindly stop.

reply to post by Stunspot


Not everyone here is an English as a mother tongue speaker/reader.

You may wish to take that into consideration, quietly to yourself, and ... just deal with it.

ATS T&C requires all posts be done and did in English.
Some of us started out with Russian, Spanish, French, German, Japanese, or any other random grab-bag non-English language you want to toss into the ring.

If the spirit of the post is recognizable, then, don't sweat the small stuff.

reply to post by Druscilla


Thanks! I appreciate it...

I have to apologize because sometime my mind works faster then my fingers, especially when I am typing on my ipad.

Originally posted by Stunspot
Hrm. I think the first place to start is to learn how adjectives work and the difference between the words "systematic" and "systematically". Then I'd tackle the impossible task of learning the different meanings of the words "their", "there", and "they're". Once I had basic language skills down, and could communicate without looking like a 5th grader, I'd be in a much better place to start looking for cryptids.


Credibility is EVERYTHING in these fields. Stop self-sabotaging your ideas buy not knowing how to express them.

I love how you go off on the guy about proper use of words and you use the word "buy" for "by"!!!

Looks like you need to go back to 5th grade again, I love it when grammar Nazi's make idiots of themselves.

reply to post by deathlord


Perfectly reasonable. I did make a typo there. However, I think it also obvious that that was an oversight/mistake rather than a systematic lack of care.

Look, a person doesn't need perfect English to win my respect. And plenty of folks have English as a second language and that's super.

I'm talking about people with English as their first language who can't be arsed to even TRY clear communication. And then they get stroppy when you point out that they sound idiotic.

If a person can't be bothered to care about what they are writing, why on Earth should _I_ care about what they are writing?

reply to post by Stunspot


Haha, how did I know you would have a response like that? Aww, sounds like I hurt your feelings, you can dish it out but you can't take it.

Also, how do you know English is their first language, just because someone is located in the USA does not mean English is a first language. You do realize America is a melting pot of different cultures, right? I only made my reply because you wanted to be rude, so, I thought I would return the feelings. Unless you are omnipotent and know what language everyone learned first, get off your high horse and keep to yourself unless you have something to add to the conversation. There are a lot better ways to politely correct someone than being a complete jackass about it, that's the only thing I wanted to get across with my post to you.


Now, with that being said, I should add to the conversation myself haha. To the OP, I think we have a pretty reasonable system in place, sort of, to already find a species like this. We have well over 20 million registered hunters, a conservative estimate from the Fish and Wildlife, it just seems highly unlikely one wouldn't have been killed yet. That is just with registered hunters, not including every guy with a gun that does it illegally too. Also, being from North Carolina, I know there are plenty of people who go deep in the woods to make moonshine, then there are hikers, campers, trail bikers, etc. When you begin to add up all the people who go in the woods, it honestly makes for the best system to spot things. People find bones of every animal in the woods as it is, they might not pop up too terribly often but they still find them with a somewhat regular occurrence. To me, just the normal human uses of the woods makes for a great way to discover any species out there if they actually existed.

reply to post by deathlord


The heck...?! No, you didn't "hurt my feelings". Did you... did you actually think I was emotionally _invested_ in an internet discussion? Really?! No.

How did I know he's a native English speaker? Numerous reasons: mostly because his words read like someone who's crappy at their native language rather than someone learning a new one. It reads just like the papers I've helped idiot students with. Another being that were English the poster's second language, that's the FIRST thing they would've mentioned when I called them out on how terrible the writing was.

This is an issue that a HUGE number of folks in these fields of discussion need to pay attention to: when you communicate exclusively through text, quality of writing is one of the only cues one has to the cogency of the thoughts of the author. When the _content_ of what you are writing is controversial or fringey, the _expression_ of those ideas must be even more stringently examined. There's a bunch of crazy people who talk about this stuff and one of the few ways to sort them out is by seeing which of them can present their ideas in a way that isn't moronic. You can have the best ideas in the world, but if you talk about them like an 8 year old, people will think about them like you're an 8 year old.

This isn't being a "grammar nazi" or prescriptivist -- I'm urging that folks actually PAY ATTENTION to what they write. You don't need to get everything right to seem credible, but it doesn't take much to sound foolish. Go back over it at least once. Read it out loud if you have to. If doing so makes you sound like a hopper from "The Wire" or Cletus the Slack-Jawed Yokel from "The Simpsons", rethink how you put it. We are all in this together, and we need to do a better job of calling out the linguistically careless.