Guest Posted January 13, 2013 Posted January 13, 2013 (edited) ^^^^ Brilliant! plus +1. sorry not you Ray, the post above yours, Edited January 13, 2013 by Skunkfoot
norseman Posted January 13, 2013 Admin Posted January 13, 2013 I find it barbaric that we willingly kill other humans, innocent & guilty alike, and it happens every day. Do you find it barbaric that Dr. Krantz has his skeleton on display at the Smithsonian Museum? Did you take high school biology? Did you find it barbaric when you had to dissect a frog? If we're going to add sasquatch to the list of identified and classified animals, then proof has to be provided. If bagging one is easier than getting a photo, film, or snippet of DNA, then I say bag one. I don't find it barbaric........no. As a hunter I've had my hands in more than a few chest cavities in my time. But as a pro kill advocate I bet I get more hate mail than you do. This is a important disconnect between science and squatchdom. Most "researchers" are not out there with the intent nor the capability to take a type specimen. Well, when it is implied there is some sort of factual information out there, I'll say to them the same thing I'd say to any individual or organization -- prove it.RayG Which as a pro kill organization? (read my signature) They have a real shot at doing so.........unlike many other researchers out there.
Guest RayG Posted January 13, 2013 Posted January 13, 2013 I'd have to mark myself down as a pro-kill advocate as well, but only to establish the existence of the creature for identification and classification purposes. It doesn't have to be a bigfoot researcher that bags one, there are numerous hunters, property owners, truck drivers, etc. etc. that stand a far better chance. RayG
norseman Posted January 13, 2013 Admin Posted January 13, 2013 I'd have to mark myself down as a pro-kill advocate as well, but only to establish the existence of the creature for identification and classification purposes. Correct. I would never support a Bigfoot hunting season either. It doesn't have to be a bigfoot researcher that bags one, there are numerous hunters, property owners, truck drivers, etc. etc. that stand a far better chance. I'm not so optimistic, take Justin Smeja for example, let's say for the sake of argument that he did shoot two of them as the story goes. As a bear hunter, he had shot something that was obviously not a bear, and therefore he fled the scene without a body or substantial portion there of. And I think most hunters probably wouldn't even take the shot, if your elk hunting then your elk hunting. As a property owner if your chicken coop is getting raided your probably thinking coyote, and upon discovery of a large ape in your chicken coop your probably scared to death and not packing the right rifle anyhow. As far as one getting hit by a truck? Well I own my own trucking company and I'd gladly pay the damages for a new front end......... But for some reason that doesn't seem to happen very often. Of course in all of my years trucking I've hit many deer, but no bear or cougar, etc. And it's possible that we are dealing with a intelligence with what we would expect of a great ape. I don't really know if Chimps or Gorillas get hit by cars in Africa, but I would assume they are smarter than a deer concerning avoiding being hit. I think the best bet is to chip away at the mind set of the bigfoot "researcher", and make them realize that a type specimen is the only way.
Guest Posted January 13, 2013 Posted January 13, 2013 None of that. Show us a clear photo, or better yet a clear film of a squatch or group of squatches engaging in their squatchy things. Foraging, eating, picking nits, wood-knocking, etc. A clean DNA sample would do it. The clincher of course would be to bag one, drag it in, plunk it on a desk at Nature, and instantly become famous. More stories are ok for the campfire, but likely won't convince the majority of scientists. RayG Yeah, but what I listed aren't stories for the campfire - they're "factual information", and what you'd find at some of those conferences from other disciplines that were listed. So what you're actually after isn't factual info - just 2 specific examples thereof. On the DNA, they've got a hair sample in the Sykes project, and isn't the blood spot still under testing? And isn't the blood spot the result of attempting to bag a body to drop on a desk?
Guest RayG Posted January 14, 2013 Posted January 14, 2013 But how is it factual information about bigfoot if none of it has been matched to an actual bigfoot? Do you see the conundrum? If I record an audio, for example, of a coyote, but I don't ~see~ the coyote, and that same coyote is making noises that ~I~ don't recognize (nor does any other bigfoot enthusiast) as being coyote noises, I can chalk it up to being a bigfoot. Who could prove it wasn't? No one, so it's quite useless for me if I then claim I have audio of a bigfoot, when in fact, it isn't. It's only a bigfoot in my opinion. It's not then, factual information. The only factual part of it, is that audio was obtained, not the identity of the noise-maker. Likewise with the 'observed' wood-knocking. How is 'observed' defined? Did they merely hear and note wood-knocking activity, or have the made a positive visual ID of a bigfoot thumping a tree? And, if they ~did~ get a 'visual', was it by the naked eye only, or did they get it on film? With regards to the DNA, there has yet to be any major announcement by anyone outside of bigfootery, about the identification and classification of a new bipedal primate species wandering the woods of North America. The report from Trent University indicates that the samples submitted to them was not an unknown species, but bear. So, no, in the four decades I've been following this mystery, there hasn't been a single verifiable bit of factual information regarding bigfoot. If I'm totally wrong about this, as Bipto seems to believe, then never mind debating it on a bigfoot forum, bring that factual information to the people who will best be able to identify and classify the beastie. RayG
Guest Posted January 14, 2013 Posted January 14, 2013 (edited) @RayG Some of the information they cover may in fact turn out to be factual once some physical evidence is finally confirmed. Like I mentioned different folks probably take away different things from the conferences. If nothing else perhaps they draw more scientific minds to the idea of contributing to solving the mystery. Your argument sounds like because they don't have any absolute physical evidence, there is absolutely nothing to be gained from such an event. Would you rather we just all stop participating in whatever capacity because none of the information gleaned so far meets your standards? I applaud the TBRC for the hard work and personal commitment they have shown. No offense, but for a Mod/Staff member with 2000+ posts it sounds like you have a rather defeatist attitude about people applying their best efforts. Edited January 14, 2013 by Irish73
Guest RayG Posted January 14, 2013 Posted January 14, 2013 What I'm suggesting is something that may end the mystery instead of prolonging it. I'm also suggesting that in the four decades I've been a bigfoot enthusiast, I've yet to see any factual information specifically applicable to the creature we call sasquatch/bigfoot. Bipto may be about to change that, and since Bipto says I'm totally wrong about there being no factual information, I'm saying fine, if you have some, bring it to the appropriate people, become famous, and don't worry about flogging it at a bigfoot conference. My defeatist attitude isn't about people applying their best efforts, it's about what they do with the results. RayG
AaronD Posted January 14, 2013 Posted January 14, 2013 Hey, another Mod here with 2000+ posts Just weighing in, yeah conferences are great. Like minded folks converge to discuss their opinions and "findings" The last one I was at my wife embarassed me--Steve Kulls asked a show of hands of people who simply do NOT believe BF exists. My wife was the only one in about 400 that raised her hand and smiled--only time I ever wished I was 2" tall so I could crawl under something LOL But it has been an inside joke between me and Steve ever since then. I can see both sides here. On one hand, in a world where proof is scarce--hashing out the tidbits that we do have is all we can do. On the other hand, why haven't we been able to at least get a daggoned clear video of one--void of ambiguity??? We put a man on the moon about the same general time PGF was shot, presuming the subject really is what it's purported to be. Since then we've had little more to offer in the way of "proof" ---hence Ray's POV. I've narrowed my personal beliefs down to 2 possibilities: 1. Bigfoot is actually more advanced/intelligent/above us and we don't have a chance of a snowball in a blazing furnace of getting the upper hand to get our proof, or..... 2. It simply doesn't exist and millions of eyewitnesses are hallucinating, misidentifying, or tripping on fantasies. A simple ape or other animal less advanced than us would not have eluded us this long or successfully.
Guest Posted January 14, 2013 Posted January 14, 2013 I wouldn't be embarrassed. I would applaud your wife for being honest in a situation like that. I could NEVER get my wife to attend something like that, but if she did, she very well might raise her hand as well. I'm not 100% sure. Great post though.
Guest Posted January 14, 2013 Posted January 14, 2013 I've narrowed my personal beliefs down to 2 possibilities: 1. Bigfoot is actually more advanced/intelligent/above us and we don't have a chance of a snowball in a blazing furnace of getting the upper hand to get our proof, or..... 2. It simply doesn't exist and millions of eyewitnesses are hallucinating, misidentifying, or tripping on fantasies. A simple ape or other animal less advanced than us would not have eluded us this long or successfully. Well do you really think this is a viable one? A creature like this vs what human civilization has brought to fruition? Do people really think this creature is *more advanced* when they are simply living in the wild? We can try and attribute a host of miraculous things that this creature may have..none of which will remotely compare to human civilization. It boggles the mind that rational people think this purported creature can rival human civilization and avoid detection with *superior intelligence*. Unreal.
Guest RedRatSnake Posted January 14, 2013 Posted January 14, 2013 Hey, another Mod here with 2000+ posts Just weighing in, yeah conferences are great. Like minded folks converge to discuss their opinions and "findings" The last one I was at my wife embarassed me--Steve Kulls asked a show of hands of people who simply do NOT believe BF exists. My wife was the only one in about 400 that raised her hand and smiled--only time I ever wished I was 2" tall so I could crawl under something LOL 2. It simply doesn't exist and millions of eyewitnesses are hallucinating, misidentifying, or tripping on fantasies. A simple ape or other animal less advanced than us would not have eluded us this long or successfully. Xmod with 7,700 posts, posting ~ LOL ~ That's funny about your wife speaking up like that, it's cool to take this subject with some humor, it will otherwise just eat ya up. As for part two ~ I don't see how some ape could be smarter than us.
Guest RedRatSnake Posted January 14, 2013 Posted January 14, 2013 What if it's not an Ape? Any suggestions? I have thrown out Navy Seal Team training in the past, but that was not very well received. Tim
Guest Posted January 14, 2013 Posted January 14, 2013 What if it's not an Ape? It's Ron Jeremy on steriods
Recommended Posts