Guest Posted November 23, 2012 Posted November 23, 2012 DWA- a type specimen is not required nowadays. The discovery of Denisova has been proven with DNA from a tip if a finger and a tooth-- proven evidence.Those are not my assumptions those are statements from John Bingernail. What a type specimen would be needed for is for classification, not a dead specimen a live specimen and a group that can be studied living in their normal course of life. If someone were to kill a BF surely it would be proven to exsist but that only answers a limited amount of question specifically "does it exsist?". For the more fortunate that don't need that question answered and already KNOW that quetion has already been answered for themselves by eye-witness accounts. To prove to the world what someone already knows is redundant. For those that have had positive encounters with a BF their whole outlook on this subject has had a life altering impact on their approach on this matter for the most part. Why "kill" something to prove to the world? Motive?, well I won't go there , I think you can answer that for your self. Just remember this, we donot have a type specimen for Denisovan, it wasn't nessesary outside of enough DNA to prove it's exsistance( or that it exsisted long, long ago. IMHO folks we should just wait for the DNA and let the scientific world do their educated prodical.
Guest DWA Posted November 23, 2012 Posted November 23, 2012 ptangier: I know science doesn't need a specimen to acknowledge a new species. You know it. Know who doesn't? Science. They don't. I mean, listen to them. It may be just an excuse to sleep until a body gets dumped in their laps. But science has screamed, loud and long, for decades that this ain't real 'til you show them a body. (Oh. A tooth, or bone material, that is shown to be primate but can be matched with no known primate? That will be proof. Compared to that, DNA might as well be UFO.) Denisova was confirmed because there was a basis on which to confirm, just as with H. floriensis, to wit: mainstream funding and time finding and analyzing the remains. Don't have that here. Not only do I believe that a body is unnecessary; I believe (and Bindernagel agrees with me) that sufficient evidence exists, right now, to declare the sasquatch an extant species pending classification. There is more than enough evidence; everything else with this much evidence is proven to exist. The only difference here is that the mainstream doesn't recognize the evidence as evidence. The mainstream is, of course, wrong. Denial does that. There are scientists of significant training working with the TBRC. They know what they need. They know that anything short of a body is Patterson-Gimlin, period. To wit, no cigar. They could actually be wrong about that; but I understand why they feel the way they do. That whole "extraordinary proof" thing is in play. Science wants something extraordinary. That they could slam-dunk P-G without trial tells you what will likely be required to convince them. They aren't even looking at anything else.
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted November 23, 2012 Posted November 23, 2012 The TBRC might not have sufficient time to collect a type specimen before one of the DNA studies are out. The results will likely discourage people in the prokill camp.
Guest DWA Posted November 23, 2012 Posted November 23, 2012 Well, no, actually, the results of the DNA testing will actually show the need for a body. What will the DNA testing prove? Nothing, unless there is a type specimen, i.e., something known to be, or be from, a bigfoot. If we don't have that yet we still need to get it, and I don't think we have that yet.
Guest poignant Posted November 24, 2012 Posted November 24, 2012 While a type specimen is always welcome, having and recognizing sasquatch DNA is a step forward in the correct direction.
Guest DWA Posted November 24, 2012 Posted November 24, 2012 ^^^Oh sure, nothing wrong, ever, with testing samples. The material can be compared against the type specimen, and give us a head start on things like variety of hair colors, for example. And also there's nothing about the type specimen having to be killed by a human with a weapon. There's more than one way to skin that, um, bigfoot.
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted November 24, 2012 Posted November 24, 2012 Well, no, actually, the results of the DNA testing will actually show the need for a body. Maybe if they were to be confirmed as non-human, that would be the case.
Guest poignant Posted November 24, 2012 Posted November 24, 2012 And also there's nothing about the type specimen having to be killed by a human with a weapon. There's more than one way to skin that, um, bigfoot. Correct. But what are the odds?
Guest DWA Posted November 24, 2012 Posted November 24, 2012 Correct. But what are the odds? Oh, the odds are slim. Then you have such as the TBRC, including hot lead in their research formats. I'm no-kill, sentimentally, but guilty pleasure and all that.
Guest poignant Posted November 24, 2012 Posted November 24, 2012 I used to be no-kill. Now I'm one-kill. But after the premature DNA study snippet release today touting that they are human-hybrids...might have to reconsider.
Guest Posted November 24, 2012 Posted November 24, 2012 Bipto - if there are hunters in the area during hunting season, are you worried about one of them bagging a Wood Ape before you do? Is this a concern given they may not have the same agenda as you guys? Not at all. What we *all* need is a type specimen. The TBRC does not have to be the group to do that. We'd welcome news that a specimen had been collected for study. As far as agenda goes, I'm not sure what you mean by that. I'm assuming that when you say "practically every large animal in Oklahoma was wiped out" that you have some reference source for this information. What large animals existed prior to the early 1900's and which of those large animals exist in any numbers in Oklahoma today? Did they repopulate only from inside Oklahoma, or did some of the gene pool migrate in from surrounding states? Do you have statistics or information to note the populations of large animals prior to the early 1900's, the lowest population figures, and current recovered populations? A wood ape would never cross into Oklahoma because hunters killed large animals there back in the 1800's. That's just common sense. It's the same reason black bear would never cross the Red River out of Oklahoma into Texas. If there's anything wild animals respect, it's state borders.
Guest Posted November 24, 2012 Posted November 24, 2012 Bipto - does the Ketchum announcement have any bearing on the TBRC harvesting policy?
Guest Posted November 24, 2012 Posted November 24, 2012 I've said it elsewhere. My motivations for wanting scientific confirmation are purely selfish, and I understand how humans are. Go TBRC. Success, however it happens. Thanks. ptangier: I know science doesn't need a specimen to acknowledge a new species. You know it. Know who doesn't? Science. They don't. I mean, listen to them. It may be just an excuse to sleep until a body gets dumped in their laps. But science has screamed, loud and long, for decades that this ain't real 'til you show them a body. (Oh. A tooth, or bone material, that is shown to be primate but can be matched with no known primate? That will be proof. Compared to that, DNA might as well be UFO.) Denisova was confirmed because there was a basis on which to confirm, just as with H. floriensis, to wit: mainstream funding and time finding and analyzing the remains. Don't have that here. Not only do I believe that a body is unnecessary; I believe (and Bindernagel agrees with me) that sufficient evidence exists, right now, to declare the sasquatch an extant species pending classification. There is more than enough evidence; everything else with this much evidence is proven to exist. The only difference here is that the mainstream doesn't recognize the evidence as evidence. The mainstream is, of course, wrong. Denial does that. There are scientists of significant training working with the TBRC. They know what they need. They know that anything short of a body is Patterson-Gimlin, period. To wit, no cigar. They could actually be wrong about that; but I understand why they feel the way they do. That whole "extraordinary proof" thing is in play. Science wants something extraordinary. That they could slam-dunk P-G without trial tells you what will likely be required to convince them. They aren't even looking at anything else. Good god, how I love this post. How many times can I like it? Infinite? Bipto - does the Ketchum announcement have any bearing on the TBRC harvesting policy? All we have at the moment is a press release. No paper, no science to look at, no peer review. Just some words. They mean nothing until such time as her findings are allowed a proper and thorough study.
Guest DWA Posted November 24, 2012 Posted November 24, 2012 (edited) Thanks. Good god, how I love this post. How many times can I like it? Infinite? All we have at the moment is a press release. No paper, no science to look at, no peer review. Just some words. They mean nothing until such time as her findings are allowed a proper and thorough study. Hey, if liking it infinite will get me off of like-one-post-a-day-that's-all-sonny, then knock yourself out! I'm trying to get away from Ketchum Schmetschum and onto well, best case is that it might help. Might. But if you don't have that specimen, then, what did the DNA come from? Oh, and alcohol explains all sightings; Ray Wallace did all the tracks; and PG is Bob Hieronymous. Next? And as to affecting the harvesting policy: well, actually, just said it. Where did that DNA come from? requires the answer: um, this. [sound of crane lifiting something pretty heavy] Maybe some scientists' eyebrows will go up and they'll start the electric slide over to the fence if they like the looks of the Ketchum results. But the feel right now is 1000 cats exiting a bag without clearance. When it comes to convincing the mainstream, well, circuses haven't worked. Truth is, bipto, you guys sound like you're carrying the ball at the moment, unless a semi just hit something. Edited November 24, 2012 by DWA
Guest Posted November 24, 2012 Posted November 24, 2012 All we have at the moment is a press release. No paper, no science to look at, no peer review. Just some words. They mean nothing until such time as her findings are allowed a proper and thorough study. And as to affecting the harvesting policy: well, actually, just said it. Where did that DNA come from? requires the answer: um, this. [sound of crane lifiting something pretty heavy] I think you guys are missing my point. She has made herself available for interviews etc., and I will say that there is a better than evens chance that she will be using the fora offered to her to push hard for species protection. I'm not saying she will get it, but the window of opportunity for bagging one without some kind of kickback/demonisation may be narrowing.
Recommended Posts