Sunflower Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 I and a few others have decided that if they never become proven it's ok with us. So far, I see only disaster. They should be left alone to live their lives with their families. They have done pretty well all this time and why muck it up now. If humans have learned anything up to now, they should realize that medling is the wrong thing to do. We should all have some empathy. That means put yourself in their place and how they might feel about this. If they interact with us, then it should be their choice, not ours. If they visit you, feel grateful and be respectful. They do not belong in zoos or on display and it breaks my heart to think anyone would take a shot at them. They are intelligent, amazing and mean you no harm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bipedal Ape Posted February 14, 2012 Share Posted February 14, 2012 The best thing the sleeping Sasquatch footage could show is them waking it up and then we see the real movement/emotions of a real creature. That's probably too much to ask for though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 (edited) You have eleven kids Ray? That would be correct. Oldest is 31, youngest is 11. No twins or triplets, no blended family, all mine. What can I say, I've been a busy man. Some might say bigfoot saved my sanity. <grin> Sunflower, this skeptic wouldn't want to see them in zoos (or any animal for that matter), but killing one isn't the only option. Surely they die natural deaths, or come out on the losing end against a bear, or fall through the ice in winter, or... <fill in the blank>... RayG Edited February 15, 2012 by RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Will Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Wow Ray. I only no one family with 12, one with 9 and several with 8. I must say, I'm impressed. Kids are great! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Would make for some spectacular family outings lol We should have had more Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 OK so here we are on the 15th, the rumor said today was the day. So, where is it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 I've never heard the 15th mentioned. I believe the prevailing rumor is by the end of February. Someone *claiming* to be in the know told me to look for a release on a Thursday. Interestingly, Nature happens to publish on Thursdays. Just sayin'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Big Stinky Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 I don't see what's laughable about the sleeping Sasquatch. If, as is apparently the case, they have extended footage of this scene, of which we've only seen a single frame, how can we judge the entire clip as unworthy? Also, the Erickson Project itself did not put Caesar's face on the cover of anything; that was a poster mock-up/visual aid to accompany a blog speculation about a theatrical release. I agree with Christopher here. If there is a video extension of this screen grab of Matilda at this distance with this resolution the footage maybe epic. The best case scenario is that Matilda's measurements are outside of the range of human proportions. I think that these measurement/joint comparisons as shown by Bill Munns on Patty are very tough to refute. The Stink Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wheellug Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 The best thing the sleeping Sasquatch footage could show is them waking it up and then we see the real movement/emotions of a real creature. That's probably too much to ask for though. If that would have happened, would it not possibly cause a disruption in their feeling of security? Possibly causing them to migrate to another area. Could have caused all their future studies to finding another location. Just a thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 OK so here we are on the 15th, the rumor said today was the day. So, where is it? Rumormonger much? Patience, gwasshoppa! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Bipedal Ape Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 There always seems to be some excuse Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest slimwitless Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Is there something wrong with rumors? Context, people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 If you thought a 10' BF had every bit of your cognitive power (assume material cultureisn't a measure of intelligence) would you still perform the same type of BF Investigations ocurring now? Just a thought. I quickly assumed in my own work they were...it changed my experiments, and so results. They are quite smart...even if wild. This is not the assumption that most proponents of BF start with. There is no consensus about how to approach BF because of the lack of consensus of starting thoughts. I, for one, DO believe that material culture is an important indicator of intelligence. And see them as little better than gorillas or chimpanzees. Not that I think apes should be abused. I do think they are intelligent, just not as intelligent as we are. I am quite sure they feel. And I am quite sure BFs feel as well. I certainly think we should study them in detail. I have no problem with studying primitive human tribes today for that matter. As long as their rights are respected, great! Much the same with BF. Protect them when we need to, but to do that we really need to understand them which means deep study. I do believe we need a specimen but I do not believe we need a dead body on a slab. DNA, as the Ketchum report is reputed to have, would go a long way to proving BF is real. But actual study of BF in the wild would be badly needed just to provide protection for them if it is needed. We don't have any real data on diet or resource utilisation and hence cannot even begin to decide what kind of habitat is needed for them. Do they need caves? where and when do they migrate? there are many questions that can't be answered without this kind of study. Have any other scientific papers in history been released with a documentary for sale? On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races In the Struggle for Life by Charles Darwin This book is still in print and sold quite frequently. The first edition sold out in two days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Over the years there have been multiple hair and scat samples that have tested as being from an unknown primate. Straight line logic. Hair and scat samples from an unknown primate exist, therefore an unknown primate exists. Don't counfuse the Skeptics with logic...they wants their "slab monkey" and nothing but their slab monkey will do. Mulder, I have no idea where the DNA came from do you? Let me clarify my position for you since you seem to be struggling with it. I will keep it simple 1) animal gets reported 2) someone goes looking for animal 3) animal is found 4) new species discovered Happens all the time very simple really DNA of an unknown animal without the body or significant part of the body is not going to be accepted as existence of Bigfoot by the majority of the world. Enough for you super! But for most people, their going to want to see one, I know that's hard for you and others to accept but that's most likley how this plays out. DNAs great for proving evidence of known sub-species, but for Bigfoot ain't gonna cut it IMO. Then whence came the dna? Does "unknown primate" dna come from an aardvark? Does it come from a trout? Does it come from a butterfly? No. It comes from an unknown primate. Res ipsa loquitur. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 (edited) Don't counfuse the Skeptics with logic...they wants their "slab monkey" and nothing but their slab monkey will do. Really? "We need a body" is shorthand for "we need some form of diagnostic physical evidence." The latter could include a freshly killed bigfoot that someone has intentionally shot, a freshly dead bigfoot that was killed accidentally, a recently deceased bigfoot that died of any cause, a bigfoot fossil or other prehistoric remains that could range from an entire skeleton to a single tooth, a piece of a recently deceased carcass that could range from the entire skeleton to a single tooth, or (drum roll please) a unique DNA signature acquired from tissue samples somehow verified to have come from a bigfoot. To me, the best (and foolproof) non-lethal way to discover bigfoot is to look for their remains. Mike Edited February 15, 2012 by MikeG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts