How Will "it" Happen?

[Yuchi1]

how? purely  by accident, if ever.

 

my $ is on some little old lady in a 66 Bonneville plowing into one on the way home from bingo.

 

agreed with hiflier though, about the winter being a better chance...... although a summer lightning storm might shock a sample up, if found quickly.

 

come to think of it, with all the wildfires out west, you'd think a charred crispy critter might be found.

 

The '65 Bonneville had a much more pronounced center grille point and would be the better choice.

[Terry]

" I suppose if you are a Skeptic  you've already decided it won't ever happen."

 

Probably won't ever happen but if it does, I'd go with a LEGITIMATE research group making the discovery legit.  

 

t.

[TedSallis]

As for the original question, I think it will more than likely accidental than by other means. Pretty much everything else being done in the field so far seems to have failed. Do I believe

that the efforts of those dedicated men & women have been in vain? Absolutely not!!!! If it were not for those folks we would know next to nothing about them, and their efforts should

be applauded. I also have nagging little feeling the BF know what we are up to! or at the very least they have an idea that we are up to no good!

  Wingman1, what do you mean when you say we are "up to no good"?

[VAfooter]

Except the story is akin to using a BB gun to shoot gnats. The odds are extremely low of catching something like that on film. I think the semi truck has a better chance IMO

 

 

 

Very true, and I agree!

 

 

I was simply trying to show what kind of situation it would require for any video taken these days to not be dismissed outright as a hoax or misidentification. Very long odds of that happening. So yes, we do need a body. I even have doubts that body parts would do. If something did happen akin to my story, then I do think it might move the acceptance meter a bit, but science would still want/need specimans to study.

[Guest]

Actually, I don't think any old body part would do. A head, arm from the elbow down or leg from the knee down would likely be sufficient, but a randomly hacked off steak (or scavenged remains) or even a finger would still not be enough IMO.

As for media. Any still image, no matter how good will always be questioned. Film however, in the right circumstances, would gain lots of interest from science.

By right circumstances I mean, clear, HD (no one going to use real film) picture with the creature fully unobstructed, interacting with or around something that has a non-changeable size (I'm thinking along the lines of a vehicle, cabin etc) so that it could be measured at well above human possibility. Anything less IMO is basically useless. Interesting, but useless.

I think DNA can only take it so far also, take Sykes for example. He has found DNA of an animal that we (I didn't before the study) know once existed, and they're still going need to go out and more that likely 'collect a sample'.

CC

[Wingman1]

  Wingman1, what do you mean when you say we are "up to no good"?

My apologies Ted. I should have added up to no good from their perspective! Of course that is

assuming that they would know what exactly we were doing at all! I was in no way trying to demean

the efforts of those in the field doing the legwork! As much as I hate to admit it, presenting a

type specimen is probably the only thing the scientific community will accept as tangible evidence.

I do hope that someone will come across a recently dead BF, and the chance of that happening

are slim to none, and slim has already left town!

[TedSallis]

My apologies Ted. I should have added up to no good from their perspective! Of course that is

assuming that they would know what exactly we were doing at all! I was in no way trying to demean

the efforts of those in the field doing the legwork! As much as I hate to admit it, presenting a

type specimen is probably the only thing the scientific community will accept as tangible evidence.

I do hope that someone will come across a recently dead BF, and the chance of that happening

are slim to none, and slim has already left town!

 

No problem.  Thanks for clearing that up, and I agree with your conclusions.

[Guest]

Actually, I don't think any old body part would do. A head, arm from the elbow down or leg from the knee down would likely be sufficient, but a randomly hacked off steak (or scavenged remains) or even a finger would still not be enough IMO.

As for media. Any still image, no matter how good will always be questioned. Film however, in the right circumstances, would gain lots of interest from science.

By right circumstances I mean, clear, HD (no one going to use real film) picture with the creature fully unobstructed, interacting with or around something that has a non-changeable size (I'm thinking along the lines of a vehicle, cabin etc) so that it could be measured at well above human possibility. Anything less IMO is basically useless. Interesting, but useless.

I think DNA can only take it so far also, take Sykes for example. He has found DNA of an animal that we (I didn't before the study) know once existed, and they're still going need to go out and more that likely 'collect a sample'.

CC

The Denisovans were described based solely on a finger and some teeth. Science accepts this evidence as legitimate. Photographs can be manipulated and are relatively poor evidence because of that.

[Guest]

There are so many people and agencies working to make sure it never happens, I've got serious doubts a bout it happening any time soon.

[mesabe]

If a logging truck, or hunter don't take one out first, my next bet would be a partially decomposed body found in a frozen glacier. Or similar to the wooly mammoths found in frozen thawing tundra.

 

I'm sure in either case it would be examined at length by various scientific groups, declaring it a sub human, and debating how long it was frozen, etc. trying to prove it is prehistoric. It would probably be a long time before the general public learned any details.

 

Just my dos centavos.

[Guest]

The Denisovans were described based solely on a finger and some teeth. Science accepts this evidence as legitimate. Photographs can be manipulated and are relatively poor evidence because of that.

The difference being that entire denisovins specimens are completely unobtainable. Also, we talking about a creature that is one of the biggest pop culture myth/legends of the past half century.

This is my biggest argument in kill/no kill. Ok, one or part of one is found, DNA sequenced and 'proved'. There will still be a collection of an entire specimen.

The trouble is that cataloging a species that is still living and breathing since the invent of DNA sequencing is still new ground.

[Wingman1]

Excellent points CavemanChris! When an entire specimen cannot be found science can can only work with what has been found to come

to any logical conclusions. A small bone and teeth tells that there was a living being at a point in history, but that is about as far as it can

go. To determine what it's overall appearance was like, it diet, possible lifestyle, was it nomadic, or did it commune in family groups will

require far more evidence. Finding a sizable piece of a BF has proven to be just as difficult to obtain as a body so far, but I think it will

eventually happen. Probably not as quickly as we would like, but it will happen! A part of a BF will go very far in determining their existence,

but an entire specimen will give us what is needed to determine where BF sits in the evolutionary chain, what it's diet consists of, and many

other factors of it's biology. Of course when it comes to lifestyle, researches will need to get in close with them to gain any knowledge of their

lifestyle, their personal habits, and how they commune with each other. That is going to be the tough one, as I don't see the BF community

agreeing to that level of contact anytime soon, if ever!

[Guest]

The difference being that entire denisovins specimens are completely unobtainable. Also, we talking about a creature that is one of the biggest pop culture myth/legends of the past half century.

This is my biggest argument in kill/no kill. Ok, one or part of one is found, DNA sequenced and 'proved'. There will still be a collection of an entire specimen.

The trouble is that cataloging a species that is still living and breathing since the invent of DNA sequencing is still new ground.

Still new ground but becoming much more accepted. But yes someone will try to collect a specimen unless DNA analyses indicate it is a form of human. Even a separate species of human would very likely get protection immediately. Many alleged bigfoot hair samples tested before DNA analysis indicated human and were summarily thrown out. If these samples had not been tossed, we could possibly examine them more closely today. If they had been close enough to be human without being Homo sapiens that might not have shown under the less sophisticated techniques of the day. Today they might have shown the truth.

Excellent points CavemanChris! When an entire specimen cannot be found science can can only work with what has been found to come

to any logical conclusions. A small bone and teeth tells that there was a living being at a point in history, but that is about as far as it can

go. To determine what it's overall appearance was like, it diet, possible lifestyle, was it nomadic, or did it commune in family groups will

require far more evidence. Finding a sizable piece of a BF has proven to be just as difficult to obtain as a body so far, but I think it will

eventually happen. Probably not as quickly as we would like, but it will happen! A part of a BF will go very far in determining their existence,

but an entire specimen will give us what is needed to determine where BF sits in the evolutionary chain, what it's diet consists of, and many

other factors of it's biology. Of course when it comes to lifestyle, researches will need to get in close with them to gain any knowledge of their

lifestyle, their personal habits, and how they commune with each other. That is going to be the tough one, as I don't see the BF community

agreeing to that level of contact anytime soon, if ever!

DNA can give SOME indications of their appearance and even behavior. DNA from Denisovans and Neandertals indicate many things about them. Certainly not all. I am in the no kill camp but hoping and praying for a bigfoot body by the side of the road that I can grab some tissue from. That would answer more questions. Something along the lines of Goodall's work is going to be required for anything more than. That's the kind of work I want to see the most : )

[hiflier]

Hello mesabe,
 

If a logging truck, or hunter don't take one out first, my next bet would be a partially decomposed body found in a frozen glacier. Or similar to the wooly mammoths found in frozen thawing tundra.
 
I'm sure in either case it would be examined at length by various scientific groups, declaring it a sub human, and debating how long it was frozen, etc. trying to prove it is prehistoric. It would probably be a long time before the general public learned any details.
 
Just my dos centavos.

 

For only dos centavos you have brought up a situation that may be is not so far-fetched. Has it already happened just as you say? Well, also as you say we may never know. The National Fish and Wildlife Forensics Lab in Ashland Oregon comes to mind here. Not centrally located Nebraska mind you but Oregon. I have always found that curious. As curious as it's proximity to the National Interagency Fire Center located  in Boise, Idaho. Just a few towns over from Pocatello- home to Idaho State University where our friend Dr. Jeffery Meldrum has tenure. Sorry, that's just how my mind sometimes juggles the pieces around.
 
And in light of the recent wildfires in Washington State there's this tidbit to add to the pile:

"From Don Jeffrey Meldrum
I HAVE A VERY SPECIFIC REQUEST TO MAKE AT THIS TIME. An opportunity has arisen to conduct morphological and DNA analysis of SELECTED hair samples attributed to sasquatch. I am looking for reliable samples, by that I mean with a known chain of custody, having been collected in association with a visual encounter or documented footprints. Respond only if you have such a sample in your possession, stored in paper envelope, having been collected under reasonably sterile conditions, i.e. minimal or no direct handling.

RESPOND TO MY EMAIL ADDRESS ONLY: meldd@isu.edu."
 

Edited July 28, 2014 by hiflier

[Wingman1]

Still new ground but becoming much more accepted. But yes someone will try to collect a specimen unless DNA analyses indicate it is a form of human. Even a separate species of human would very likely get protection immediately. Many alleged bigfoot hair samples tested before DNA analysis indicated human and were summarily thrown out. If these samples had not been tossed, we could possibly examine them more closely today. If they had been close enough to be human without being Homo sapiens that might not have shown under the less sophisticated techniques of the day. Today they might have shown the truth.

DNA can give SOME indications of their appearance and even behavior. DNA from Denisovans and Neandertals indicate many things about them. Certainly not all. I am in the no kill camp but hoping and praying for a bigfoot body by the side of the road that I can grab some tissue from. That would answer more questions. Something along the lines of Goodall's work is going to be required for anything more than. That's the kind of work I want to see the most : )

 

I agree with that Antfoot, but given the way that the scientific community views the subject of Sasquatch, I'm betting that the only thing that will spur them into motion

is to produce a type specimen! For me personally, I'd rather not have to kill one to prove it exists! and still hope that a dead Sasquatch will eventually. It really comes

down to the amount of research and funding one is willing invest. I am still trying to figure out why there is such a rush is to find them. Many groups out there cite loss of habitat

as their motive for being pro kill, and I do not buy into the loss of  habitat argument, or that they need protection. They seem to be doing just fine on their own and

probably wouldn't want our help anyway