The Type Specimen Quiz

[kitakaze]

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.

I think in a better world this post would have somewhere in the area of ten hits on the green rather than just the one I gave it.

You nailed it, Sas.

[Guest]

Maybe science would rather us go that route than to butcher and take it out in a game animal fashion?

I think that would work best. I'm not sure it would work with a female but I might attempt it with a male Sasquatch if I was within 3-4 hours of a fertility lab. Just depends on the situation really and would be one of the last things I would think to do depending on how far out I was. Sperm like 75-85 degree temps and will live at 3-4 hours on a surface, probably longer in the original testes.

Good point. This is something I never considered before, as an ape it may have communicable diseases to humans?

Yes, AIDS crossed over species back in 1950 but didn't get world attention or recognition until the early 1980's once it had made its way over here in the U.S. and other developed countries. I do the follow up with our AIDs clients which is why it would occur to me in the first place, but pathogens do go both ways and it might be a while before anyone noticed there was a problem or could figure out where it came from. Just something to be aware of, just put goggles and a face mask on before you remove anything from the bigfoot, then dispose of them ASAP in a plastic bag once done, and burn them just to be on the safe side.

Edited December 29, 2010 by Jodie

[Guest]

Seriously, I don't think the first person would get into a lot of legal trouble but they would probably not be too popular with the other "crazies" out there in the world depending on what bigfoot was determined to be. I can see PETA now throwing some blood on your front doorstep or worse.

All this talk really would depend on the situation as to whether you killed it yourself, accidentally hit a juvenile with a car, or just found it dead or pieces of the remains in the woods. It would belong to the state and you would be taking a risk removing any part of the body. I guess it would depend on how determined you were, what kind of contacts you had, whether it would be worth the risk or trouble to harvest the body.

[norseman]

(round 2)

*Can we be civilized this time people?*

A couple of points I wanted to address and I pm'd each poster personally.

1)John T- The "taking permit" for gold that he was talking about is actually called a HPA or Hydraulic Project Approval

http://wdfw.wa.gov/licensing/mining/

2)Pragmatic- I found tracks with my father when I was younger, nothing since then.

3)Drew- Michigan gun/hunting laws look unconstitional and should be challenged. Washington state had a similar law with bowhunters not being able to carry a pistol, and we successfully got that thrown out. We don't give up our 2nd amendment rights just because a overzealous game warden thinks we should.

Ok.....that's all I wanted to address for now.

[norseman]

http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/toolbox.htm

Pretty intersting article that support my point of view I believe.

[Guest]

I voted no but maybe I should have voted yes. I always carry a knife on me in Bigfoot(bear) country. No matter what. I keep my .270 WSM under the seat of my truck so if I did see one on my way to or from my base camp I guess you could say I would be prepared to shoot one if I was to see one while driving.....and I would too if I could make the shot. If one was around camp I could probably grab my rifle from under the seat so I guess I would be prepared while I was in camp as well. Do I carry my gun with me when I am hiking around though? No. Although I think I am going to get a proper shotgun for bear(bigfoot) defense. Would a six foot truck box work for hauling it out? I think yes, if you throw the legs and feet over the top of the tailgate, assuming rigor mortis hasn't set in yet and you have a tarp to cover them up. Wouldn't really want the cops to stop me with that thing in the back. So I guess Norseman, you should have added a few more answers to your poll like "sometimes" or "kinda" lol.

Edited January 6, 2011 by AlbertaSasquatch

[Guest Woodenbong]

I can honestly say NO, I don't even carry a gun in our snake infested country. I do however carry a knife, which would probably be useless against a BF attack, but hey thems the breaks.

I do however hope to collect a dead one, but thats a different thread.

[MagniAesir]

Magniaesir- Was the moose all in one piece? You can tell that I do not hunt, just fish.

Like John, I would just take the feet, hands, and head. This is going to sound bizarre but since I am in the medical profession, I would also include the testes, if male, or get the ovaries, if female, for the ova and sperm. You would need to keep the testes warm though, if the body was fresh, don't throw them in a cooler. It would be interesting to see if you could combine it with another primate's ova or sperm assuming any survived transport. I would want to see what it's organs looked like and if they were in the same places as ours. It depends on the circumstances of the situation, how I felt about the creature once I saw it up close, or if I felt it was safe or ethical to do such a thing. I keep thinking about all the unknowns like AIDS, no matter how well gloved you are things do splatter. I guess it's always good to have a general idea in mind as to what you would do and what precautions to take even if it is unlikely that you will ever be put in this position.

Rarely one piece, only twice have I been lucky enough to get a truck close to where the moose was. Both were gutted before loading, but it wouldn't have been an issue to load them intact had we wanted to.

Usually the animal is skinned and quartered before packing the pieces out.

It would be relatively easy to recover the whole remains in pieces if you really wanted.

[Guest]

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.

Personal I am a active hunter for a type specimen but sometimes if I am in a group setting I would realy on a passive approach.