Mitchell Waite explains the difference between Bigfoot Hunters versus Bigfoot Researchers
For Arizona Bigfoot Researcher Mitchell Waite, this last summer was one of the most devastating. He's had multiple research locations destroyed due to out of control wildfires. Some of his most promising locations were among those burnt down.
Mitchell has found a new location and adopted a different approach towards his research. Rather than just taking photos, he's now collecting other data like migration patterns. "This is what researchers do. We don't just take pictures, we try to collect data and study traits, patterns and social structures," said Mitchell.
Since the old area of study was consumed by a forest fire, Mitchell is now trying to track down what he believes to be at least 8 Bigfoot individuals who might have migrated to another area to escape the fire.
I now have eight different high-probability Bigfoot footprint casts from a specific area. Therefore, I can confidently say there are at least eight Bigfoot individuals in this specific area with the possibility of more. We must also take into account some Bigfoot will migrate. This type of information may prove useful in tracking Bigfoot when they migrate.
Recently, the old area of study was consumed by a forest fire. I am now trying to determine where the eight or more migrated to escape the fire. Taking a look at resources on the map which fit the four criteria for Bigfoot to thrive, I have picked out the top three probable areas for migration. I started researching the first area and started finding evidence of Bigfoot activity. It is through the footprints in the new area I was able to determine I had found the old group, plus a few extras. On a side note, it was verified by vocalizations in the new area matching the old area from a specific Bigfoot. Another words, I found their new address.
This event made me realize that we do not have to rely on photos alone for identification. We should be using fingerprints, hair, vocalizations, scat, and even DNA to match up identification. Of course it will take an intensive study and tons of data collection to be effective, but I have enough data to start making some pretty good estimates. Eventually, I hope to track numbers, new comers, genders, size, birth rate, etc. This is what researchers do. We don't just take pictures, we try to collect data and study traits, patterns and social structures.
Mitchell Waite writes about Arizona Cryptozoology for the Examiner and you can follow-up with him and read some more of his articles here: www.examiner.com
From JUNE 11, 2011
Nice article. This guy seems to get it right.
ReplyDeleteFinally, a video investigative report by a local new channel ( fox - phoenix ) that was done in a professional manner, and did not have some dizzy blonde or perfect hair male news anchor make some snide remarks and giggle at the end. Alex Hearn and Mithcell Waite do get it and good luck to them. Hope to hear future reports from these guys.
ReplyDeleteChuck in Ohio
They are well known in Arizona for their absurd videos which show nothing and their grandiose claims of all sorts of non-existent evidence. They are publicity hounds and that's it. They are not different than Biscardi which they have very close contacts with.
ReplyDeleteBesides the fact they have been caught hoaxing Bigfoot eyeshine by nailing up reflectors on trees.
They are quite simply the best pair of Bigfoot researchers on the internet.
ReplyDeleteLOL, what an arrogant little man. OMg, where do I start?
ReplyDelete"I now have eight different high-probability Bigfoot footprint casts from a specific area. Therefore, I can confidently say there are at least eight Bigfoot individuals in this specific area with the possibility of more."
8 different "high-probability" casts does NOT equal "there are at least 8 individuals"
"We must also take into account some Bigfoot will migrate. This type of information may prove useful in tracking Bigfoot when they migrate. Recently, the old area of study was consumed by a forest fire. I am now trying to determine where the eight or more migrated to escape the fire."
What type of information? The "taking into account that some bigfoot migrate" type of information?
"Taking a look at resources on the map which fit the four criteria for Bigfoot to thrive, I have picked out the top three probable areas for migration."
What four criteria? You say that as if everyone knows. Is it a secret?
"I started researching the first area and started finding evidence of Bigfoot activity. It is through the footprints in the new area I was able to determine I had found the old group, plus a few extras."
How convenient! Wow you are good! You must have so many pictures that are indisputable! Please, present us with SOME evidence.
"On a side note, it was verified by vocalizations in the new area matching the old area from a specific Bigfoot."
What? You recognize it's voice? How did you "verify" this? Some type of analysis? Please, I'd like to learn how a "real" researcher verifies his claims...scientifically.
"Another words, I found their new address."
OMG, this is classic! "In other words" you're a moron.
"This event made me realize that we do not have to rely on photos alone for identification. We should be using fingerprints, hair, vocalizations, scat, and even DNA to match up identification."
You do realize that the only way we can identify an individual by scat IS through the DNA within it, right? And how do you propose fingerprinting them?
"Of course it will take an intensive study and tons of data collection to be effective, but I have enough data to start making some pretty good estimates."
Let's see some data Mr. All Talk!
"Eventually, I hope to track numbers, new comers, genders, size, birth rate, etc. This is what researchers do. We don't just take pictures, we try to collect data and study traits, patterns and social structures."
You're a good promoter. But you are not in any way scientific. I'd like to see your plan on tracking birth-rate. Don't just talk about collecting data, provide some. All you've ever done is promote yourself and show crappy videos that all have evidence (only you can see.) Put up or shut up buddy.
are you sure this whole thing isn't in your imagination?
ReplyDeleteMITCH WADE IS A JOKE WHEN IT COMES TO BIGFOOT RESEARCH. HE FAKES EVERYTHING AND HE IS ON THE SFB TEAM AS WELL. HOAXERS WORK BEST WITH HOAXERS, LEAVE IT AT THAT.
ReplyDeletelike most researchers, its all about recognizing how hard you work to discover. and when you do discover...usually for youself and not others. you are lucky he shares.
ReplyDelete