norseman Posted December 27, 2010 Share Posted December 27, 2010 After answering the poll above, feel free to post your reasoning in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted December 27, 2010 Share Posted December 27, 2010 If by prepared, you mean pulling some sort of large wheeled device behind me so that I can bring back an entire bigfoot, fully intact, then no. If however, by prepared, you mean carrying a sharp knife so that I may sever a finger/head/foot, for examination/DNA purposes, then yes. RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted December 27, 2010 Author Share Posted December 27, 2010 If by prepared, you mean pulling some sort of large wheeled device behind me so that I can bring back an entire bigfoot, fully intact, then no. If however, by prepared, you mean carrying a sharp knife so that I may sever a finger/head/foot, for examination/DNA purposes, then yes. RayG I think that would be accepted by science as a type specimen (a portion thereof). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 27, 2010 Share Posted December 27, 2010 No. I think bigfoot moved out of Maryland. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 I got baggies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 Qualified "yes": Like Ray, I've almost always got a good, sturdy knife with me with which I can obtain some crucial tissue should I encounter a carcass. More important, I've always got a digital camera on hand so I can photograph such a thing nine ways to Sunday. I don't however, have the means to "take down" a bigfoot, unless we consider my field truck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 I could get a tissue sample with my knife. However, with my Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, I could probably execute an Ezekiel or a Rear Naked Choke, and render the beast unconscious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 I could get a tissue sample with my knife. However, with my Brazilian Jiu Jitsu, I could probably execute an Ezekiel or a Rear Naked Choke, and render the beast unconscious. yup, you will take him down with those moves, prolly from him laughing so hard, lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 If however, by prepared, you mean carrying a sharp knife so that I may sever a finger/head/foot, for examination/DNA purposes, then yes. RayG better make sure hes sleepin first Ray, lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 I vote we let Drew try his idea. I will hold the camera. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 (edited) Like several others, shy of running one over with my expedition Jeep I would not typically be equipped for truly bringing one back either. I normally carry a .45 and a 10" Tonto when in the field, along with digital camera and my Droid Incredible which can do digital photo/video/audio as well as GPS waypoint marking. If it isn't dead when I find it, and I don't 'find' it with the winch-mount bumper on the front of the Grand Cherokee at 30mph, the best I would be able to do is shoot it and hope for blood, and try and capture images and audio. However, none of that would be adequate for this particular animal and the Scientific Body Politic, it would just add to my own certainty. I do have some long guns that should be big bore enough to bring back a specimen, but while an avid shooter I am not a hunter and as such would not intentionally go out to bring back an animal out of fear of not making a humane kill shot. FWIW, I do believe that this is the only way to end the denial by the Scientific Body Politic WRT this particular animal, a complete body (where some earlier accepted species are defined by only a handful of teeth as an example). ETA: I do not require the agreement of the Scientific Body Politic as I am already convinced that there is a real flesh-and-blood animal responsible for at least some of the body of evidence, since it takes an unimaginable leap of faith IMO to ascribe 100% of the sightings, tracks, scat/spoor and other circumstanital evidence to hoaxing, misidentification or mental defect. Edited December 28, 2010 by infoman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drew Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 I vote we let Drew try his idea. I will hold the camera. OK! I will do it, as soon as you capture one and put it in a cage for me to grapple with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 What is this "Scientific Body Politic" thing? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 Do you know what the term Body Politic typically means? Add Scientific to it. As I use it Sas, it describes 'science' as a whole, while intimating what I see as the 'groupthink' or 'consensus thinking' element that has led science, as a singular body, to some truly poor positions over the past 20-30 years or so. It is not intended, and should not be taken as an anti-science, or anti-scientist slur, it is anti-bad science and anti-bad scientist. My favorite example of anthropogenic global warming is considered too political for discussion here, and it is - and it is because politics made up more of the 'belief system' than any real hard science did. Science should be apolitical, and personality should not enter into it either, but we see more and more of that in science where personality and peer pressure hold more sway than data. I am a hard core skeptic when it comes to bad science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 28, 2010 Share Posted December 28, 2010 Sounds like anti-science mumbo-jumbo to me, like the reason we have no bigfoot is because most scientists don't believe in it. Sorry for derail, Norseman. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts