The Type Specimen Quiz

[norseman]

So far as the poll is concerned it looks about like a 2:1 ratio with the majority voting "no".

And if the responses in this thread corresponds with the "yes" vote in the poll, most of the "yes" people are woefully unprepared in actively pursuing a type specimen. Rather relying on passive means in which to collect a type specimen. Either by hoping to hit in with their vehicle (I wouldn't advise this) or by finding a dead body and collecting a tissue sample with their belt knife.

So at least so far, my suspicions are confirmed as to why we do not have a type specimen to provide to science. Because this is not the primary objective of the vast majority of the people in the field looking for the species to begin with.

[indiefoot]

Is a type specimen required to verify a new South American indigenous group, or would a photograph do?

[norseman]

Is a type specimen required to verify a new South American indigenous group, or would a photograph do?

I think science has pretty much established the existence of........Homo Sapiens.

[Guest]

I got baggies.

Yep, me too. I usually have baggies, trash bags, rubbing alcohol to keep the bacterial count down until it can be put on ice, pocket knife with saw blade and camp saw. The good thing about this set up is that you can use all of these for regular camping duties and it's light weight and easily backpackable.

[Guest]

Because this is not the primary objective of the vast majority of the people in the field looking for the species to begin with.

Expand your view of a type specimen. Consider fossilized or other ancient remains. Now every person who has ever conducted a paleontological survey of North American strata encompassing the last 12,000 years or so (plus every working man digging a well or a cable trough who's happened upon important remains) qualifies as capable of producing that specimen.

Now go back through time in, say, 50-year increments. How many people were out and about with weaponry capable of doing the job? Consider 2010, 1960, 1910, 1860, 1810, 1760, 1710, 1660, 1610 . . . and we'll be generous and call 1610 the earliest we might expect collection via firearms in North America. That's a lot of years of people with guns out in the woods in places that should have had bigfoots in them, if those Native American legends and historical sightings accounts are to be believed . . .

[17x7]

I could probably execute an Ezekiel or a Rear Naked Choke, and render the beast unconscious.

"Rear Naked Choke"??? Anybody else concerned about that description?

17x7

[norseman]

Expand your view of a type specimen. Consider fossilized or other ancient remains. Now every person who has ever conducted a paleontological survey of North American strata encompassing the last 12,000 years or so (plus every working man digging a well or a cable trough who's happened upon important remains) qualifies as capable of producing that specimen.

When I find bones in the woods, I usually can identify them fairly quickly. Most are all deer bones. Other than me walking onto something, I have no experience with excavating a dig site. And I'm sure there are plenty of permits and licenses that go along with a dig site on the national forest. It's so bad now that one cannot pick up a arrow head anymore without the park service writing you a ticket on the Columbia river. Your suppose to let it lay. Not my area of expertise for sure.

Now go back through time in, say, 50-year increments. How many people were out and about with weaponry capable of doing the job? Consider 2010, 1960, 1910, 1860, 1810, 1760, 1710, 1660, 1610 . . . and we'll be generous and call 1610 the earliest we might expect collection via firearms in North America. That's a lot of years of people with guns out in the woods in places that should have had bigfoots in them, if those Native American legends and historical sightings accounts are to be believed . . .

I think there are plenty of instances of people being capable for the job at hand. We don't even need firearms.......even a small band of Indians with bows and arrows and spears could have made quick work of a Sasquatch. The question is, why is it that most peoples are kind of superstitious about harming it? Indians seem content to leave it the hell alone. And many European hunters seem to feel creepy about shooting something so human. Many hunters refuse to hunt bear because when you skin it, it looks human like.

And of course we have a few written accounts of people shooting it and then not collecting the body for whatever the reason. Or that the animal was killed, the hunting party looked it over and then left. Giving only a eye witness account.

What we need is a scientific, military style, recon/hunter team set up. A group that is going to use night vision, infra red, call blasting, camera traps and all of the rest of the technology with one notable exception. That all of this technology is coupled with weapons systems capable of taking the animal quickly and efficiently. There would be no need for any of the team members to be "believers" or any of that.

Great restraint and responsibility would need to be a prerequisite for a operation like this. Misidentification would be the first problem, that no game warden is going to give two hoots about. Hoaxing would be another major concern, with two seconds of fame ending with lethal results and murder charges.

I have wrestled with the question many times in my own mind. I know that I would attempt to draw from the military community and not so much a civilian hunter background. The military is very capable of operating at night and in teams, they are professional and can also show great restraint. The question is how much interest is out there from ex military personnel in being involved with something like this?

[norseman]

"Rear Naked Choke"??? Anybody else concerned about that description?

17x7

A rear naked choke is a UFC term. With the naked portion thereof describing that the victim's throat is "naked". Or he is not in a defensible position to have an arm or hand between your arm and his throat.

[Guest]

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.

Not quite Sas. I love and have a healthy respect for science and as an Engineer the physical sciences are part of my daily life.

I would slightly modify what you said and say the reason 'science' as a body is not looking for proof of BF is because most scientists don't believe in it.

Remember though, that groupthink among the best scientific minds once held the world was flat, that the Sun orbit the Earth, and stated categorically that there were no tiny wild men in the bush, no tentacled seamonsters the size of large skiffs, and no large hairy unlike beasts on the wilds of Africa. And yet, we now know the Pygmy, the Colossal Squid, and the Gorilla, and our first probe OS just about to escape the heliosheath and enter interstellar space.

Science can be and has been wrong, and it happens most often when peer pressure and groupthink overtake logic and data. I have no problem with science requiring more solid evidence WRT the existence of BF, but they will never find what they refuse to look for.

[Guest Spazmo]

I have wrestled with the question many times in my own mind. I know that I would attempt to draw from the military community and not so much a civilian hunter background. The military is very capable of operating at night and in teams, they are professional and can also show great restraint. The question is how much interest is out there from ex military personnel in being involved with something like this?

Me too, Norseman.

I also feel that military experience would make the task a lot easier and give it much better odds. A team that already has experience "owning the night" would be ideal. It makes me wonder how many ex-military people are out there, bored and wishing they had something better to do.

[Guest]

I would slightly modify what you said and say the reason 'science' as a body is not looking for proof of BF is because most scientists don't believe in it.

But why don't they believe in it? A lot of folks here would say it's because there's some overriding "groupthink" as you put it that "it can't be so, therefore it isn't." That simply isn't true. You know who stick out like sore thumbs at our conventions? The conformists. The rank and file among scientists are rife with people expressly trying to upset the status quo, not merely support it. If I write a paper in support of some theory, big whoop. If I write a paper that challenges some theory (and I'm right), then I'm a hero. This is how science progresses, and this is how a great many (I'll not say "all") scientists think.

Science progresses by providing evidence that some widely held opinion is wrong. When that most recent widely held opinion has endured a barrage of challenges and remains a robust, predictive model, we'll call it a theory. Theories get to be theories only after numerous attempts to discredit them. So, rank and file scientists invest a lot of effort into trying to discredit others' ideas so that the best among them can emerge one day as unifying theories. Once a theory is established, there might be fewer people actively trying to overthrow it (because it's been demonstrated as nigh on impossible to do), but those rebels are still out there, pushing boundaries all the time.

There's no "no bigfoot theory." There's just exploring areas and describing what's there. I can't think of a theory that would be challenged if Norseman hauled a bigfoot out of the woods tomorrow. General relativity? No. Evolution by natural selection? No. Endosymbiont theory? Nope. Thus, there's no apple cart to be upset by a bigfoot discovery. Scientists would see a bigfoot discovery as a "win" all 'round.

Few are investing in that potentially huge pay-off, however, because few are impressed with the evidence purported for such creatures. That's it. No conspiracy, no groupthink, no protectionism of hallowed ideas - just folks unconvinced that there are real bigfoots to find.

[Guest Spazmo]

I've kinda been avoiding this thread...

The answer is yes. I have the means to take a specimen. But am I willing?

This is where one of our biggest problems lies. While I fully agree that we need a specimen, I also know that I am not willing to be the one to do it. That's just me.

I will, however, split Mr. Bigfoot's head apart with a hollow-point should he decide to attack. But that's as far as I'm willing to go.

If he's standing in front of me staring, he'll walk away completely unmolested.

And hopefully my camera will be running...

[GuyInIndiana]

.......even a small band of Indians with bows and arrows and spears could have made quick work of a Sasquatch.

And you base that upon ... ? Seriously? You know this 'how'?

[Guest]

Do I have the means? No, I don't own a gun. Would I take a specimen if possble? Yes I would.

[norseman]

And you base that upon ... ? Seriously? You know this 'how'?

Because they successfully hunted every other species of creature on the continent including mega fauna during the last ice age?

Is a 800 lbs ape any harder to take than a brown bear? Woolly Mammoth? Giant Ground Sloth?

Homo Sapiens are a two legged wolf pack, we are the most successful hunters to ever grace this planet. And we accomplished this in every eco system on the planet.

It seems by looking at Native American folklore the question wasn't could they, but should they.

But I'm open to your opinion as to why they could not have accomplished this.