Guest Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 "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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slabdog Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 This will be my prediction: Attempt at utilizing tracking darts - "The dart struck a tree!" "The BF was too fast and I missed" Attempt at utilizing tranquilizer darts - "The dose must not have been strong enough!" "The dart struck a tree!" "The BF was too fast and I missed" Attempt at utilizing taser - "I couldn't get close enough!" "The taser dart hit a tree!" "The BF was too fast and I missed" Only one best answer in my opinion. Harvest one. Drop the carcass off at Saskeptic's office. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 I think looking hard for remains in squatch habitat, a known zone with lots of sightings, makes good sense. Agree with Saskeptic there. Cadaver dogs, lots of em. If there are lots . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Drop the carcass off at Saskeptic's office. I'm not far from the loading dock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 If Ketchum and the crew are being truthful, and they have managed to get DNA from these "habituation" sites, and seem to be familiar enough with the residents, to give them names, and descriptions, of family structure, then surely they where close enough to have devised a way to take one down,if they felt that was the only way to prove the species. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 (edited) All those "ifs" John! I guess the problem is that as soon as they were to do that, there endeth any hope of a long term study of these creatures in that location. They would just clear off. Presumably they (Ketchum & co) are confident that they are about to produce the proof of existence required by science without resorting to harming one, and want to be in a position to allow themselves and others to study these creatures for years to come. One dart or one bullet and that all ends. Just guessing, of course!!! (But aren't we all?) Mike Edited February 15, 2012 by MikeG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Luckyfoot Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Prolly a different type of tracking device , definately not a chip, but they do use satellite tracking when tagging great whites and other large fishies and mammals in the ocean. Usually stay attached for a length of time then become unattched (No need to drug the animal either). The tech used in those could prolly be reformatted to use on a bigfoot. it would be an external type of unit , prolly not permanent , but would last for some lengh of time. Anywho, thought the O.P. was reading my mind. I had played around w/the thought myself. pfft. Even better. (you always have the best ideas after the fact..) If you are into Sasq expeditions, and are in an area you believe them to be... AND are leaving things out @ night to entice them....... How about leaving a fully charged (cheap) cellphone w/ gps capabilities? Phone gets taken, you can track it..... (Can you hear me now......?) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Biggie Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Mike nicely done with all the quotes in post #14 above! A +1 for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 (edited) I have taken the time to contact a few people I know working in related fields in a couple of different Universities, because oddly enough, I do not take what I read here as always being correct. Science, doe not require a body,especially if multiple samples are being provided,from diverse area's. A dead one found,great,a good find,but its irresponsible and reckless to keep saying we need a body. As disturbing as it is, I think there are people who would actually get some satisfaction over seeing some over zealous "researcher" accidentally killing someone over this notion that a body is a "must" I agree. I also think thre are non-lethal ways and ones that directed through academia are available and fairly cheaply for us BFers to contribute meaningfully and ethically. Probably not profitably though. If you define your goal, or hypothesis, for your experimental set, cllarly the task for us becomes easier in some ways. Is it proof? If so, then the video/DNA can work and can be used in much less aggresive ways than so far openly reported, what those might be? I won' t deviate here..it's something to discuss though..and I would like to see more brainstoorming on those topics. If we assume no individual citizen is to claim proof short of a body (and doesn't care, content to be a contributor and out there in the wild) then what? For those in the know, understanding is more important, now anyway, if we trust something will come of the purported Big News. But, what good our own understanding if we can not effectively and credibily translate it to scientists or stakeholders? The BF community fails miserably there. Turning to the TV/entertainment/website/tours aimed at an often poorly informed public has only made it worse (CBS prime news anchor yesterday referenced a story as hoaxed as Sasquatch!). Personally, I see sound recording as a premieum route for amateurs, not only in gaining understanding remotely and over time, but it is also an area where other amateur fanatics have successfully linked to conventional scientists. Orinthology groups like Audubon have done so, and this extends to many scienctific institutions now, such as Cornell. It is a gentle and quiet way to go (and very illuminating), but is burdened with what science so often is, many boring hours of review and analysis. Right now the motivaion is low because the outlet is poor also, and although a growing group of researchers it is too often ignored. However, sound right now is probably the toughest route to go precisely because we lack "proof" to take on to orinthologists. I have been there and although I can blow thier socks off, I can't get them the next step.... This sound route I also think meets so many ethical considerations given what we think we know about BFs. I also think technology can play a role, but either the covert and ambient light techniques improve so as not to be detected (and there by skew results and/or important life patterns) or they come out in the open and invite voluntary intereaction with BFs! far out? Maybe, but that type of model might cross the ethical boundaries of modern Anthrpology.... so, again the deeper discussion of why amateurs are looking (and should they), and if they must how to help keep them within reasonable bounds sound paramount to me. LOL sounds stuffy? Not really. Dr. Meldrum's Relict Hominoid Inquiry appears to be a serious attempt to bridge to amateurs. Even though K. Strain is employed in a relevant field she is not really employed to investigate BF's, I get the impression Dr. Meldrum isn't either actually. that he earns a living in paleontology and teaching, his BF inestigations his outside work? So, anyone of the many I read could have written that article, that now resides with a some sort of more lasting manner than whichever BF group is on top this year. Like it or not, to achieve proof, or any credibility for their work BFers must cater to conentional scientists. Unless what? Well, then that goes to what is the BFers goal? Hopefully the race to prove will soon be over and guns and such laid down. Anyway, classic biology techniques applied to quadrant type experimental methods don't seem too applicable now b/c of the technical reasons cited. One creative writer suggested the RF ID dust....and create a grid of "doors" to monitor. That is actually possible perhaps with enough $$In but remote power always an issue. In my personal experiences and research I do feel I crossed modern Anthro boundaries, as I fall in the "habituators" category. In my case I wasn't worried about it because I didn't think BF's were real. But, then you find out they are and take your video/evidence around, no one listens. You are under the radar...and at one point I thought I can get better video, then I thought ....well....it has been a long three years. But, I am here now and I do understand the need, the fever. But I also see a lot of waste, and just bad stuff as a "community" (which doesn't exist broadly really, but in pockets)...and it could be so much more. But then that sounds all high horse, and I don't mean it that way. I think many, many prior have said similar things....so you know, I am not married to any outcomes really. I know for myself I won't repeat what I did in the future, it was a pretty amazing lucky situation (or unlucky!) , but I now know better. a bit rambling...oh well! I know the title of thread is for "proof" and I guess, I just feel individuals need to get over that, the idea of one small group or person "proving"...I think the current state of the Myth Status pushes that achievment to killing one....and it seems to me no amateur or even monied whatever has that right...this is a Protected National Resource at worst and a Human with a family at best.....where do any of us get off thinking we can shoot one or capture one for the World? That goes back to my belief any of those actions must fall under an official "body" such as our Government or Public Universities, etc.. Edited February 15, 2012 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Even if tagged, if the creatures remain in deep woods with overhead branches, the satellite connection will be very spotty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 (edited) IC, I think that is less of a problem than it used to be. There are now collars which record information and upload it intermittently. This can be by time (hourly, daily etc), or it can be when enough satellites become "visible", as in the case of whales or turtles which have been tagged, and which spend a lot of their time underwater. I don't think it would be difficult to make a collar (or probably anklet in this case) which did its thing whenever it had satellites, but I reckon it would be hard to make one tough enough to withstand the attentions of a big, strong creature with opposable thumbs which was annoyed by its presence. As I wrote previously, the biggest issue is attaching said device. Whilst the batteries are getting smaller, it is still the batteries which determine that the notion of a miniature sub-dermal transmitter is just wishful thinking. Mike Edited February 15, 2012 by MikeG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 Why can't you just put a biochip with GPS capabilities ( when it is invented) into a syringe with a large bore needle on it, attach it to a board covered with pine straw or some other natural covering, and then just wait for it to step on it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 I can see a few issues with that Jodie! Firstly, such a thing hasn't been invented yet. I suspect it is a long way off. Secondly, talk about a needle in a haystack!!! How are you going to get a sasquatch to step on your board, when he had the whole of North America to step on (allegedly)? Thirdly, even if you could get a sasquatch to step on a needle and correctly insert this chip, it's in his foot! That's not a great place, from either the chip's point of view, or the sasquatch's! The chip will seldom "see" any satellites, and will be subject to just about the most abuse possible, and the sasquatch is pretty unlikely to enjoy the experience. Finally, what if a human were to step on it? Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jodie Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 If they are transient through the area, you could put it in the path where you suspect they are traveling. I certainly wouldn't place it in a high traffic area for humans. Most humans have hiking boots on anyway when way out in the more remote areas. If it did go through the shoe, it would be no worse than stepping on a nail. Bigfoot might be mad once he stepped on it but you would be no where nearby when he had his little accident. He may not be smart enough to realize that you are the cause. The worse thing he could do is pull it out of his foot and throw it, hopefully the chip would have been lodged in the tissue when he stepped on it. I wouldn't worry about it being in the foot, it's a big thick foot, after all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 15, 2012 Share Posted February 15, 2012 However, sound right now is probably the toughest route to go precisely because we lack "proof" to take on to orinthologists. I have been there and although I can blow thier socks off, I can't get them the next step.... Can you elaborate on this part please, apehuman? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts