Jump to content


Photo

Do You Want Science To Have A Body?


  • Please log in to reply
57 replies to this topic

Poll: Do You Want Science To Have A Body? (76 member(s) have cast votes)

Do You Want Science To Have A Body?

  1. Voted Yes (62 votes [81.58%])

    Percentage of vote: 81.58%

  2. No (14 votes [18.42%])

    Percentage of vote: 18.42%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#41 Twilight Fan

Twilight Fan

    Yowie

  • Inactive
  • 1,892 posts

Posted 07 March 2012 - 03:57 PM

High-five! :D
  • 0
Become a Premium Member of the Bigfoot Forums! I did and have NOT regretted it. It's cheap at only $20 for a year's worth of extras! My favorite part is being able to post freely where censorship is out of the question, in "The Tar Pit."

#42 FuriousGeorge

FuriousGeorge

    Skunk Ape

  • Inactive
  • 3,276 posts

Posted 07 March 2012 - 06:39 PM

I have flip flopped on my stance. Originally I thought "science" should have a body for examination because of simple math. That math was a guess of course. If the populations are low as presumed by many, and like most other species that have low populations, we are the cause through a large number of reasons whether it was a destruction of their environment or food sources or whatever. ANd we can usually help when we find out. But I have changed my mind because of the opinions here on this forum. I now say leave them alone too. Let them die off in a slow and miserable death. You have all convinced me. It's probably better to just leave the small few that are left to just vanish due to our neglect. Good points by all.
  • 0

Please consider joining the forum's Premium Membership Plan if you are 18 years of age, have made 75 or more posts and have a warning status of 2 strikes or less.

You'll find much more content and forums available for you as a Premium Member. For more info please contact an Administrator who will be more specific about the additional content afforded and walk you through the registration process.


#43 Caesar

Caesar

    Wildman

  • Inactive
  • 110 posts

Posted 07 March 2012 - 07:08 PM

I don't know if anyone here has watched the film the hunter, pretty much about a guy sent into tasmania to hunt and kill what might be the last tasmanian tiger alive. There immediate intention was to kill the creature, I don't care what there reasoning was, that's just wrong. I find that generally coincides with man's general mind state today. Whenever we discover a species there are a lot of people who work to preserve it, but there are just as many, if not more who try to turn the animals into a prize and stuff them, or into some lab experiment, and there lies the problem.

If BF has been around this long i don't think there populations are low enough to threaten extinction. This animal seems to display a higher form of intelligence then most creatures. They may have learned to simply retreat as we encroached on there habitat, who knows what kind of encounters these creatures had with natives. They could have learned long ago to stay well away from man. If they do exist, i believe observation is the key here, if we can ever find a way to properly observe them, Then maybe we can figure out how to get a body without having to use force, under those circumstances i would have no problem with it.

I great teacher once told me, mans fear is what kept him alive throughout the ages, he never gave into it he embraced and overcame it. That is why we are the dominant species today. BF may fear us as so many other creatures have learned to, let's be thankful they haven't been able to overcome that fear. :wild: PLANET OF THE BIGFOOT'S :wild: lol :huh:

P.s i really wanted an excuse to use that emote :wild: lol.
  • 0

#44 Katy

Katy

    Booger

  • Inactive
  • 49 posts

Posted 08 March 2012 - 10:19 AM

Caesar: The extinction of the tasmanian tiger has always fascinated me. I want to see that movie now
  • 0

#45 FuriousGeorge

FuriousGeorge

    Skunk Ape

  • Inactive
  • 3,276 posts

Posted 08 March 2012 - 10:52 AM

How long have hunters been leaving behind lead ammo fragments in gut piles after their deer or bear kill in bf territory? A gut pile is a free meal, ready to go. They don't have to work at it to get it. Do you know any animals that scavenge gut piles and can process lead? I don't. We figured the lead ammo fragment thing out because we had Californian Condors to examine. Without the specimen disappearing, I doubt we would have. Or even cared to find that one out.

How about a year with a freakish amount of rain from El Nino, washing farmland topsoil filled with pesticides into a bay? We didn't realize that it's time to change pesticides until most of the blue crabs disappeared in Chesapeake Bay a few years ago.

We kill a lot of things in large numbers (devastating numbers) and don't realize it. These are just two examples to show what I mean. The problem is much larger than I'm pointing out. There probably is not enough bandwidth to show the amount of examples. But we can fix things, if we know about them.

Or we can just leave them alone. It's all about weighing the risk of a few getting poached verses saving them all. Plus we would also have a reason to up law enforcement in order to catch poachers if we had a specimen.

I'm with you guys now though. Let's forget about them. Enjoy the lead.

Edited by FuriousGeorge, 08 March 2012 - 11:10 AM.

  • 0

Please consider joining the forum's Premium Membership Plan if you are 18 years of age, have made 75 or more posts and have a warning status of 2 strikes or less.

You'll find much more content and forums available for you as a Premium Member. For more info please contact an Administrator who will be more specific about the additional content afforded and walk you through the registration process.


#46 Caesar

Caesar

    Wildman

  • Inactive
  • 110 posts

Posted 09 March 2012 - 07:57 AM

If everyone really believes everything that possibly could be done to help the creature would be done, i'd agree with science having a body, although i may not necessarily agree with the process they implement to obtain that body.
:aikido: BY FORCE :aikido:

Edited by Caesar, 09 March 2012 - 07:58 AM.

  • 0

#47 Guest_Jodie_*

Guest_Jodie_*
  • Guests

Posted 19 March 2012 - 02:52 PM

First, let me say I've been skimming over this topic because I misread the title. I thought it said " Do You Want Science to Have Your Body?" .

I think it's a moot point. If they are being shot, all we have is stories, akin to the big fish that got away. If you can shoot it, kill it, and bring it in, go for it. I don't see it happening.

So whether we want one or not, looks like we don't have one, and aren't going to have one anytime soon. The DNA study results, if they are ever released, aren't going to be enough on its own without further studies being done or a body.

I'm not to worried about the sasquatch, if we get a body, it will be completely by accident with similar odds to that of winning the lottery. In some areas, the odds of seeing a bigfoot are less than winning the lottery. Either way, I'm not convinced it will result in the big pay out some think that it will.

But this hobby is all about fun, and for those of you that like the chase, have fun trying to track him down out there with night vision goggles, your parabolic ears in place, and other high tech toys. Time to call John "Proof" Prufrock. I'm sure if bigfoot is the least bit intelligent he will appreciate the high entertainment value that you will provide for him and his buddies. :lol:

http://Posted Image
  • 0

#48 doglover

doglover

    Wildman

  • Inactive
  • 228 posts

Posted 19 March 2012 - 03:02 PM

I agree with Knuck. I feel sure that BLM and Forest Service somewhere along the line have collected a specimen and have examined a specimen.
  • 0

#49 Mulder

Mulder

    Sasquatch

  • Members
  • 5,424 posts

Posted 19 March 2012 - 05:54 PM

I am ambivalent at this time. A confirmed DNA sample renders a body superfluous, as biological samples can only come from a biological being. That in and of itself would be 100% dispositive proof.

On the other hand, the vindictive part of me wants to throw a body right in the Skeptics' faces and shut them up once and for all.

The thing is, should an otherwise innocent creature be killed just to do that? Hard to justify.
  • 1
“In questions of science, the authority of a thousand is not worth the humble reasoning of a single individual." - Galileo

"I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled." - Michael Chrichton

"I would remind you to notice where the claim of consensus is invoked. Consensus is invoked only in situations where the science is not solid enough." - Michael Chrichton

#50 Captain Caveman

Captain Caveman

    Bukwas

  • Sésquac
  • 386 posts

Posted 22 March 2012 - 12:05 AM

As someone who's somewhat versed in ethics (e.g. Peter Singer), killing a BF can't really be justified. Throwing a body in people's faces, on the other hand... I can't really argue with. For this reason, I hope the Sierra Kills were real. Then it wasn't *me* who did it, but some hunter scapegoat.

n.b. never saw the big guy but hope to.
  • 0

#51 dozy

dozy

    Booger

  • Inactive
  • 54 posts

Posted 22 March 2012 - 12:56 PM

I'm torn on this one.

As someone who's somewhere between 85% and 90% convinced that they don't exist, the question feeds into two contradictory impulses.

The first is purely scientific inasmuch as, to whatever extent these things may genuinely exist, it would be better to have a type specimen and make the situation unambiguous. On that side of the argument, I say "shoot".

The second is pragmatic. If these things (as I suspect) don't actually exist, the only thing to be gained by a "go forth and shoot!" attitude is the reckless endangerment of people going about their lawful (or unlawful) business in the woods by people with more bullets than sense. I can see a situation where people in ghillie jackets, or fur, or dark militaristic clothing end up catching a bullet from some hyper-ventilating yahoo who, in their desire to prove to the world that their belief is justified, has a far itchier trigger finger than they ought to have. On that side, I say "don't shoot". I don't think a single innocent human life should be put in jeopardy by little more than a desire to satisfy a mania.

I guess the only real compromise position is to say "shoot; but you better be 100% certain of what it is that you're shooting at before you do". Even so: given the credulous enthusiasm with which people have responded to photographs which were obviously suits, that makes me rather reluctant to encourage putting a gun in their hands.

Edited by dozy, 22 March 2012 - 01:02 PM.

  • 0

#52 Captain Caveman

Captain Caveman

    Bukwas

  • Sésquac
  • 386 posts

Posted 22 March 2012 - 08:22 PM

Real or not, having a bunch of people running around the woods trigger-happy about a million-dollar hunt is not a good thing. (Regardless of the actual value of such a body of course.)
  • 0

#53 Hutch

Hutch

    Booger

  • Inactive
  • 16 posts

Posted 23 March 2012 - 10:53 AM

Truthfully, even if these continually drawn out studies prove a new strain of ape/human DNA heretofore unidentified, the questionable chain of custody of the source of such DNA will still leave the bulk of the scientific community questioning its authenticity. Seeing is beleiving and the production of a body is going to be paramount to general acceptance among the scientific community and the rest of the populace.

The general concern about protection of these animals real or imagined from hunters/poachers is a hoot! If these things to exist, the current lot of hunters and poachers who roam the forest sure have not done any notable damage to date!

According to the US Fish and Wildlife Service statistics for 2006:
  • 12.5 million people 16 years old and older enjoyed hunting a variety of animals within the United States. They hunted 220 million days and took 185 million trips. Hunting expenditures totaled $22.9 billion.
  • An estimated 10.7 million hunters pursued big game, such as deer and elk, on 164 million days.
  • There were 4.8 million hunters of small game including squirrels and rabbits.
  • They hunted small game on 52 million days and spent $2.4 billion on small game hunting trips and equipment.
  • 2.3 million hunted migratory birds such as doves or waterfowl
  • 1.1 million hunted other animals such as woodchucks and raccoons
Thats a lot of days in the woods with no confirmable Bigfoot kills in 2006n in the US. Now, multiply this by all the subsequent years since BF really became famous as a result of the PG films exposure and add in hunters in Canada as well. Even if you unequivicolly and unquestionably proved BF beyond any reasonable doubt, I have serious doubts that the woods will suddenly become filled with hunters/poachers who will suddenly experience great success in finding and bagging these creatures.

The other thing that most forget is that hunters are some of the greatest conservationist out there in terms of thier financial and resource contributions. It seems that there is a broad brush stroke assuming that everyone is suddenly going to want a BF above thier fireplace. Hardly the case. Prove the species and I can promise that you will see across the board protection for this animal. Poachers will be poachers and they are beyond the control of law or morality so they are going to kill what they are going to kill regardless - just don't throw 99.99% of the ethical hunting crowd into your assumption that proof of BF will lead to thier demise.

In the end, it all comes down to this - Show us a body and we'll believe. Everything short of that is smoke and mirrors.
  • 0

#54 BFSleuth

BFSleuth

    Sasquatch

  • Banned
  • 5,037 posts

Posted 23 March 2012 - 11:03 AM

Great points, Hutch! Hunters are by and large a great group of conservationists when it comes to developing and maintaining habitat and responsible harvest.

Your point about the total man days of hunting with lack of confirmed BF kills is well noted. However, I think that if we do have a published study that confirms the existence of BF based on DNA evidence with verified chains of custody of the tissue samples, then it will change the game. Currently the majority of hunters don't believe in the existence of BF (look at any hunting forum where they happen to have a topic about BF). If there is a media frenzy talking about this new finding, then it will open the eyes of hunters that there is a big animal out there to be had. With that knowledge they may be tempted to put some effort into a hunt.

What concerns me more than someone wanting fame and fortune for bringing a BF body to science is someone who wants fortune for selling BF body parts to the traditional medicine markets of Asia. We will definitely need laws and enforcement of laws to prevent this from happening once the species is established.
  • 0

#55 Hutch

Hutch

    Booger

  • Inactive
  • 16 posts

Posted 23 March 2012 - 11:18 AM

BFSlueth,

I agree with you with respect to poaching and the illegal parts trade. The problem is, what law or protections are you possibly going to enact to stop this? Poachers are poachers and even if you closed lands and made it a felony imprisonable by life behind bars, someone is still going to go for it. If they get caught in the woods, they are simply poaching deer or bear. The only way you nail someone for poaching BF is if they have a body or body parts that you can run DNA on.

Murder, drugs, rape, and much, much more are illegal - yet they still occur everyday as will poaching. What I am getting at is this - even with definitive proof, this animal is supposedly so keen at avoiding detection that I seriously doubt poachers will make any impact. The economic return vs days in the woods will prove BF poaching to be a less than minimum wage prospect.

The supposed Sierra Shooting should in my opinion be considered as a poaching incident. Researchers would not have thier prized 13-15lb hunk of meat which is now the big basis for thier research had these two BF's not been poached by someone hunting for bear out of season. Agreed?

So, based upon what I have read cruising around these sites in the past few days and getting up to speed on everything, we have a 1941 shooting by Pete in Manitoba, and a Sierra Shooting. All the other shootings by the government and timber companies are unsubstantiated. A total of 3 BF's poached in 60+ years is not what I would consider a massive attempt at trophy hunting.

Edited by Hutch, 23 March 2012 - 11:20 AM.

  • 0

#56 BFSleuth

BFSleuth

    Sasquatch

  • Banned
  • 5,037 posts

Posted 23 March 2012 - 11:33 AM

True that, Hutch. Not many have been taken, and I don't believe even with concerted effort hunters will have much of an impact (based on the level of intelligence and physical ability BF display).

However, I think that you may be underestimating how much Asian buyers are willing to spend for rare or endangered species for the traditional medicine trade. Some of the earliest references to Yeti are noted in ancient texts for traditional medicine.

I do a lot of business in Asia, and have had conversations that pretty well establish both the desire for consuming and the unreal prices paid for the chance to dine on, for example, tiger penis soup (and think about how many tigers died to make a soup to feed a business lunch of a dozen men). There is a status associated with being able to pay for and consume something like that. Their belief in the health benefits is also a driving force. They will spend money on their way of health care just like we do. If they had a chance to eat the last specimen of a species they would probably pay a premium.

Edited by BFSleuth, 23 March 2012 - 11:34 AM.

  • 0

#57 Hutch

Hutch

    Booger

  • Inactive
  • 16 posts

Posted 23 March 2012 - 12:41 PM

BFSlueth,

There are already folks out there offering up to $2 million for BF bodies or parts -see link below....

http://www.bigfootlu...illion-for.html

Considering the socio-economic status of many of those who engage in poaching activities, I would think that this would be enough of an incentive already to head into the woods with rifle in hand for those so inclined.

Again, let walk before we run. I don't think the UFO crowd is concerning themselves with zoning issues for alien craft landings just yet, so let's wait until we prove BF exists before we start worring about game management. Prove it exists and we'll worry about protections later.
  • 0

#58 Darrell

Darrell

    Chiye-tanka

  • Members
  • 807 posts

Posted 23 March 2012 - 03:19 PM

I dont think our government could ultimately keep any secret let alone the existance of bigfoot. But, I dont think science will ever have a body.
  • 0

"What is false cannot be made real, you cannot boil sand believing it will become rice"- Its not what you beleive, its what you can prove.....

 

"A lie doesnt become truth and wrong doesnt become right just because its accepted by a majority"