Lake County Bigfooot

2015 The State Of Sasquatch Science

1,544 posts in this topic

Hello Lake County Bigfoot,

When one considers that there was a land bridge about once every 100,000 years then what you say is very plausible. Human history is much older than 100ky so there could have been countless crossings back and forth along with what anthropologists see as the main ones populating North America.

Food for thought to support this? The camel originated in North America. The great Apes in Africa and Sumatra may have as well. Yes, there would- or should- be bones so I'm just tossing the idea out there.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

My loyalties? Who would that be?

 

Yuchi, are you going to answer my question?

 

And take the bait, no.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thats not what it says and you know it!!

So what your telling people is, is that regardless of how they came upon a body, if it has any flesh on it?

Dont bother.....science doesnt want it!

Gee Whiz, what a assinine assertion, talk about false narratives!!

How can anyone take what you say seriously!!

I guess they must be tossing all those frozen mammoth finds in Siberia then!

Dang nabit! Another carcass with too much flesh on it!!

LOL!!!!

 

​In removing your spin from this, you asserted the Smithsonian article wanted forensic evidence. In reading said article they said either a live capture or skeletal remains were acceptable means of obtaining forensic evidence. You were then furnished with a scientific definition of what comprised skeletal remains. Perhaps, you should have read the source article prior to using it as a reference especially as it apparently does not fit your "bloody, steaming body" narrative.

 

I call your wooly mammoth leg and raise you a Sasquatch skeleton.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

*slaps forehead*

Your over zealous anti kill stance is clouding your judgement. This is ridiculous......

Give me a reason WHY tissue being attached to a skeleton would be a deal breaker with establishing a type specimen for a new species????? Most type specimens ARE complete bodies, but in cases of extinct species fossil remains will suffice.

The Denisovians were proven as a distinct species with a single finger bone. Having a COMPLETE body to study? Is just icing on the cake.....

If you hit Sasquatch with your logging truck and drag its corpse to the Smithsonian? They WILL accept it AS IS......I promise....LOL.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

My loyalties? Who would that be?

 

Yuchi, are you going to answer my question?

 

And take the bait, no.

That figures, just more unsubstantiated claims by you.

Edited by Rockape
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I were to argue pro kill it would be to the end that one specimen would be taken as humanely as possible. When Bipto was active on the NAWAC thread I argued about the means being used to take a specimen. I did not agree that a shotgun at close range was the way to accomplish the task, but I thought high powered rifles with night vision scopes was a better alternative, and to stake out the area from above. I know that they are doing that at least some of the time now, which I think is a good approach. But if you can obtain a shot with a lethal round, why not opt for a tranquilizing round, say one suited to a moose or perhaps a rhino, this would not sacrifice the creature and surely would yield more information than a dead specimen. The answer is simple, most of us do not have access to that type of artillery, but we do have access to high powered rifles. If science would get on board with this subject before one is killed we might not need to argue in this fashion.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

*slaps forehead*

Your over zealous anti kill stance is clouding your judgement. This is ridiculous......

Give me a reason WHY tissue being attached to a skeleton would be a deal breaker with establishing a type specimen for a new species????? Most type specimens ARE complete bodies, but in cases of extinct species fossil remains will suffice.

The Denisovians were proven as a distinct species with a single finger bone. Having a COMPLETE body to study? Is just icing on the cake.....

If you hit Sasquatch with your logging truck and drag its corpse to the Smithsonian? They WILL accept it AS IS......I promise....LOL.

 

 

 

I simply quoted the source (Smithsonian article) you referenced and then produced another source article that gave the scientific (per that article) definition of skeletal remains.

 

Also, as per your Denisovian quote, it only takes a single finger bone and apparently not a bloody, steaming corpse.

 

Never said it was a "deal breaker" but possibly a prosecutable homicide, pending DNA analysis should you overtly shoot one.

 

Allow me to give you a hint....why do you think the apparent standard default when DNA testing of alleged BF material comes back as "contaminated with human DNA"?

 

IMO, skeletal remains would render a sound possibility of mitigating that problem.

 

Therefore, wouldn't it be the appropriate course of action to look for bones first, or in the alternative, I would suggest you hop in the logging truck and put the pedal to the metal.

 

IMO, you're upset that in trying to back into a foregone conclusion, you've created a set of unintended consequences that controverted your original position. So, why are you attacking me for pointing out your mistake in logic? Is it the message or the messenger?

Edited by Yuchi1
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why do you keep mudding the waters!?

This is NOT a debate about killing one.

Its a debate about what science will accept as PROOF. And your position that science will not accept a "steaming" body as proof?. But will accept a live specimen OR a skeleton ONLY is a lie........pure, plain and simple.

They do not care how its collected nor do they care what it is. If its a new species they will publish it.

There is no hurdle here, anything from a live specimen all the way down to a hair sample could be used by science to proof existence of this creature. And a dead corpse falls within those parameters.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.animalethics.org.au/policies-and-guidelines/wildlife-research/voucher-specimens

/////////////////

A 'voucher specimen' is any specimen, usually but not always a cadaver, that serves as a basis of study and is retained as a reference.

'Specimen' means the whole animal or a part thereof. (A voucher should be in an accessible collection; however, even if it is not, it remains a voucher.)

'Type' specimen is a particular voucher specimen which serves as a basis for taxonomic description of that subspecies.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a discussion about what is acceptable (Smithsonian) as evidence that could lead to proof. They (Smithsonian) apparently wants either a live capture or skeletal remains. This leaves the question as to why they omitted accepting a fresh kill from whatever source. Wonder why?

 

Perhaps? They've already got a few out back, in storage and know the correct classification thereof? (insert X Files theme music) :o

 

Your continual habit of calling me a liar has taken this discussion out of the context of a debate, a long time back.

Edited by Yuchi1
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why? They didnt.....your just interpreting what they said wrong. Probably because of your anti kill stance or you simply dont like admitting when your flat wrong or you flunked Biology 101 or all of thee above.

But its OK......I have the situation under control.

If any of you shoot Bigfoot but your scared that the Smithsonian is going to reject your perfectly awesome type specimen?

Call these guys!

http://www.skulltaxidermy.com/kits.html

In just a matter of weeks they will clean that type specimen up into a museum quality skeleton that is sparkle white!!!

When the Smithsonian curses you to high heavens for erasing important data points like stomach contents or vision or sexual reproduction? Yanno ? Things a sparkle white skeleton cannot reveal to science?

Just tell them that Yuchi told you to do it!!!!

*polite golf clap*

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I'd say that given the society's stance on the matter, the mainstream has pretty much given up any right to carp.  They'll have to deal with what they're given.  "Oh, I didn't know you wanted all that stuff.  Besides, with your level of interest, I figured a hand four times the size of mine was all I was willing to carry for, potentially, nothing..."

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you really want to film a TV show with some meat on the bones regarding bigfoot, I suggest you put a couple of trackers on horseback, add some dogs trained to pursue primates, and get them on the trail of one of these creatures. In the mean time we are stuck with this.

By Marissa Harshman, Columbian Health Reporter

Published: January 2, 2016, 6:05 AM

ON TV

• Catch Joseph Bongiovanni on the season premiere of “Finding Bigfoot†at 9 p.m. Sunday on Animal Planet.

• For more about Cascades Sasquatch Research Organization, visit http://bit.ly/SasquatchGroupor email Bongiovanni at bigfootresearch@hotmail.com

Joseph Bongiovanni said he has always been interested in the idea of Sasquatch, but the Kalama man never gave to much weight to the stories of the mysterious creature said to inhabit forests in the Pacific Northwest.

Surely, given modern technology, someone should have proven the species’ existence by now, he thought.

But that all changed in the spring of 2000 during a camping trip in the Gifford Pinchot National Forest.

Bongiovanni and two friends were hiking, looking for a spot to camp, when he spotted a tall, black figure. As soon as Bongiovanni spotted the creature, it took off running.

“It moved like an Olympic sprinter,†Bongiovanni said, “very fast and very fluid.â€

From that day on, Bongiovanni was a believer.

“The remote curiosity turned into ‘Holy cow. This is real,’ †he said. “Now, we have to prove it.

“It’s been a sickness ever since,†he added.

That “sickness†landed Bongiovanni, 39, on the radar of the people at the TV network Animal Planet. This weekend, a filmed expedition by Bongiovanni and two other Sasquatch investigators will air on the two-hour season premiere of the show “Finding Bigfoot,†which begins at 9 p.m. Sunday on Animal Planet.

‘Squatchers’

With his curiosity piqued by the 2000 Sasquatch sighting, Bongiovanni turned his attention to proving to the world that the hairy, bipedal nonhuman primate exists.

About six years ago, Bongiovanni — who works as an ophthalmic assistant at PeaceHealth Medical Group Eye Care in Vancouver — established the Cascades Sasquatch Research Organization. In addition to proving the existence of Bigfoot, Bongiovanni’s group advocates for serious research and federal protection of the species.

The group goes on regular expeditions in the Northwest in hopes of learning the habits and behavioral patterns of Sasquatch. They report everything about the environment — moon phase, temperature, precipitation, location, altitude — and anything they see or hear.

The “Squatchers,†as they call themselves, try to communicate with the creatures through calls and wood knocks.

The calls are loud, almost-howls. The Squatchers give out a call and wait for a return call. Typically, a Sasquatch will only respond once, Bongiovanni said. Bongiovanni hasn’t had much luck getting a return call, but his wife, Diana, has had success, he said.

The creatures also use wood knocks to communicate with one another, similar to the knocks done by apes. Like calling, the Squatchers knock and wait for knocks in return. Bongiovanni has had success with knocking, getting several responses before the forest goes quiet, he said.

But, overall, interaction is rare, Bongiovanni said.

“It’s very few and far between,†he said. “You get lucky with something once every 10 times.â€

Thermal technology

During a February expedition, Bongiovanni had his third Bigfoot sighting. His second sighting came in 2013, when he spotted a large silhouette while driving back from a hike near Mount St. Helens.

The February sighting occurred on an expedition to the west side of Mount St. Helens. Bongiovanni and a new member to his organization were walking along a river when they heard something pacing them in the woods. A short time later, a rock came flying toward them from the brush. A thermal camera picked up the warm rock lying in the road.

As they continued walking, Bongiovanni spotted a pale silhouette. When he lifted his flashlight toward the figure, it took off running, he said.

“That one actually made me even more sick in the head,†Bongiovanni said. “It was without a doubt.â€

That encounter is what led to Bongiovanni’s upcoming appearance on “Finding Bigfoot.â€

Bongiovanni sent a report about the incident to a Bigfoot researcher, who passed the report onto a producer at Animal Planet. The producer reached out to Bongiovanni soon after.

“It just kept snowballing from there,†Bongiovanni said.

On Memorial Day, Bongiovanni and two others — James “Bobo†Fay, a field researcher with Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization, and Matt Moneymaker, the organization’s founder — set out for an expedition in the Olympic Peninsula with an Animal Planet camera crew in tow.

The upcoming episode pits U.S. Squatchers against their counterparts in Canada. The U.S. group headed into the woods at about 8:30 p.m. and didn’t return to base camp until about 6 a.m. The cameras followed the group as they called and knocked.

Bongiovanni said he can’t reveal what, if anything, happened on the expedition. But the episode’s video preview shows Bongiovanni reacting to movement on a thermal camera the group had set up in the woods.

“What it is, I can’t say,†Bongiovanni said. “You’ll have to watch.â€

I did and I suggest you save yourself the trouble....

Edited by Lake County Bigfooot
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.