Operation Persistence

[Guest DWA]

Still, priliminary DNA report has been released showing 1/2 homo and 1/2 hybrid not to mention 5 years of ground breaking work, BUT it is still not enough to garner the respect due from the pro-kill camp. Shooting a close relitive, disregarding federal mandates agianst shooting non-game animals and ignoring, ignoring a living scientific discovery IMO is quite cavalier to say the very least. Some people will do anything to promote thier own agenda even in the face of overwhelming data to the contrary.

The DNA flap does not appear as if it is going to end well. With no type specimen to which these samples can be compared, there's no reason that it should (although hopefully it will intrigue a few more mainstream scientists and open minds a bit on this topic).

The respect due is from one set of Bigfooters to another.

Texas - to name only one state - has declared that its statutes don't forbid shooting a sasquatch. You don't have to be happy with that. I'm not. And although I am still hoping we don't shoot one to confirm it, and do not believe that necessary, I can't blanket-slag the "pro-kill camp." That monicker makes it sound as if they want open season on sasquatch, when nothing could be further from the truth. The truth is closer to this:

The longer we delay confirmation, the longer we delay the reservation of the lands that may be necessary to conserve the species in the long run.

That might not be "pro-kill." But it will, in the long run, have the same effect as an eternal open season on sasquatch.

Edited November 26, 2012 by DWA

[Guest]

Still, priliminary DNA report has been released showing 1/2 homo and 1/2 hybrid not to mention 5 years of ground breaking work, BUT it is still not enough to garner the respect due from the pro-kill camp.

Absolutely nothing has been released. Just words. Science requires any such study to be reviewed. You can't review a press release.

Some people will do anything to promote thier own agenda even in the face of overwhelming data to the contrary.

You should know.

If you'd taken the time to read the above posts, you'd see where I said it's not up to the TBRC what can constitute as "proof." If DNA alone is ever accepted by science and is enough to make federal and state authorities move to protect the animals and their habitat, then the necessity of a holotype will be behind us. Nobody in the TBRC *wants* to kill a wood ape. However, we're adult enough to know how science works in the real world and are acting accordingly.

The longer we delay confirmation, the longer we delay the reservation of the lands that may be necessary to conserve the species in the long run.

Bingo.

Yes, I will concede that animals have no clue about State borders, if you will concede that a fraction of all large animals moving through areas with roads get hit by cars/trucks (including the most intelligent primate)

I think DWA covered this pretty well. Of course animals get hit by vehicles. Even people do. You have to factor into any such eventuality the numbers of animals available. Presumably, the number of wood apes is a very small fraction of deer or even bear. Also, as DWA points out, there have been reports.

[Drew]

I think DWA covered this pretty well. Of course animals get hit by vehicles. Even people do. You have to factor into any such eventuality the numbers of animals available. Presumably, the number of wood apes is a very small fraction of deer or even bear. Also, as DWA points out, there have been reports.

The number of sightings dictates that there must be a viable population of the animals, so either they aren't moving, or they just don't get hit by cars/trucks. If they are not moving, then their rate of expansion would be very low. I can't imagine that they CAN'T get hit by cars, eventually an old one, or a young one, or one that had one too many over-ripe thimbleberries would have stumbled into a roadway at the wrong time.

[Guest]

Bipto- these are not just words, it was from findings from a DNA study that took 5 years showing mtDNA and nuDNA and by the DNA is proof, proof enough to put someone away for criminal infractions. You seem to ignor the fact that a valuable scientific resourse is more valuable alive than dead and that your impatience in the light of hard evidence still compells you to adhere to a stance that is losing its reason as more and more facts come out.

Sir, wouldn't it be more prudent to wait and see and that way be sure than to regret later that you have decieded to go down this unreasonable tract. If you truely feel that you are acting according to science then theres seems to be no way reasoning will reach you. Truely you need to rethink your assumptions and consider what would be best for the BF instead of your own(or TBRC) very own agenda.

[Guest DWA]

The number of sightings dictates that there must be a viable population of the animals, so either they aren't moving, or they just don't get hit by cars/trucks. If they are not moving, then their rate of expansion would be very low. I can't imagine that they CAN'T get hit by cars, eventually an old one, or a young one, or one that had one too many over-ripe thimbleberries would have stumbled into a roadway at the wrong time.

Assumptions still don't fly in science, and "either they aren't moving, or they just don't get hit by cars/trucks" is an assumption.

Scientists investigate the evidence. They don't dismiss it with assumptions. Does "no way one never gets hit, so none of these people saw a sasquatch" really sound to you like something that a reasonable man would regard as sensible?

Bipto- these are not just words, it was from findings from a DNA study that took 5 years showing mtDNA and nuDNA and by the DNA is proof, proof enough to put someone away for criminal infractions. You seem to ignor the fact that a valuable scientific resourse is more valuable alive than dead and that your impatience in the light of hard evidence still compells you to adhere to a stance that is losing its reason as more and more facts come out.

Sir, wouldn't it be more prudent to wait and see and that way be sure than to regret later that you have decieded to go down this unreasonable tract. If you truely feel that you are acting according to science then theres seems to be no way reasoning will reach you. Truely you need to rethink your assumptions and consider what would be best for the BF instead of your own(or TBRC) very own agenda.

DNA results convict because we have a person to whom to compare the specimen, to wit, the person being put away. Don't have that here, and need it. You don't have "proof" of an animal when all you can present is DNA.

OK. Let’s ask ourselves the only relevant question.

Do you feel the sasquatch confirmed right now?

Me neither, not even close, and maybe farther away depending on how this flap resolves.

To me, sasquatch confirmation was going to be: Whoa. That is what one looks like. Now I know P-G was a real bigfoot. (Count on this: confirmation of sasquatch will be verification of P-G.) And now I’m going to see more photos; more video; camera traps are inevitably going to get some; and I’ll start getting a good idea, soon, where it’s most likely to see one for myself.

Anyone feel that way now? Me neither.

If you have seen one that you know was one – P-G, for all I think it probably is a real sasquatch, has been psychologically contaminated beyond repair – this may seem, to you, as final vindication. For many, it certainly sounds as if it does.

But without a body, it really doesn’t look like we are any closer to finding out than we were a month, or ten years, ago.

Mainstream dollars and time are how the rest of us are going to find out about sasquatch, and see one or more of them, before we die. Unless we get what seems unusually lucky.

If this doesn’t put the mainstream on board, then to me, it’s irrelevant. P-G is far better. I’m betting that’s a sasquatch. I can’t even bet where this DNA came from.

A sasquatch won't be taken alive before the species is confirmed, says here, barring luck no one can foresee.

[Guest]

The number of sightings dictates that there must be a viable population of the animals, so either they aren't moving, or they just don't get hit by cars/trucks. If they are not moving, then their rate of expansion would be very low. I can't imagine that they CAN'T get hit by cars, eventually an old one, or a young one, or one that had one too many over-ripe thimbleberries would have stumbled into a roadway at the wrong time.

Yes, there is a viable population (presumably) and, yes, they do move. But in order to determine how many are there based on animal/vehicle collisions one would need to have the rate at which other animals with better understood populations are struck by cars (i.e., deer or bear). Your point seems to be that they're never struck by vehicles so they don't exist. There are a large number of accounts in the TBRC database (let alone the BFRO database) that are drive-by sightings. Therefore, it's likely that occasionally (or eventually) one will be struck by a car. Just because one hasen't been dragged before the television cameras establishing the species doesn't mean it hasn't already occurred but wasn't reported or won't happen in the future. But I think you know that.

Edited November 26, 2012 by bipto

[yowiie]

Why is the term "wood ape" used

[Guest]

Bipto- these are not just words, it was from findings from a DNA study that took 5 years showing mtDNA and nuDNA and by the DNA is proof, proof enough to put someone away for criminal infractions.

Can you provide a link to the study? Maybe a PDF download? No. Because there has been no such study released or reviewed. Period. Just a press release. Just, as I said, words.

You seem to ignor the fact that a valuable scientific resourse is more valuable alive than dead and that your impatience in the light of hard evidence still compells you to adhere to a stance that is losing its reason as more and more facts come out.

I'm not ignoring anything. Both types of data would be immeasurably valuable. We contend that observational data of how the apes live will never be collected in a way that is taken seriously be science until the animal is proven to exist. If that happens through DNA analysis, fine. If not, then we're on the track taken by science in 99.9999% of all cases when a new species of animal is established. We are "compelled" to establish and protect the animal. That's all.

Sir, wouldn't it be more prudent to wait and see and that way be sure than to regret later that you have decieded to go down this unreasonable tract. If you truely feel that you are acting according to science then theres seems to be no way reasoning will reach you. Truely you need to rethink your assumptions and consider what would be best for the BF instead of your own(or TBRC) very own agenda.

You, the person who's pointing to facts found in an unreleased, unreviewed DNA study, are telling me I'm being unreasonable?

Why is the term "wood ape" used

Because they behave as apes do and live in the woods.

Edited November 26, 2012 by bipto

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

it was from findings from a DNA study that took 5 years showing mtDNA and nuDNA and by the DNA is proof, proof enough to put someone away for criminal infractions.

It doesn't look like the TBRC is going to go on a woodape massacre anytime soon. If the news releases are true, then I think the paper will be published before they get a chance to shoot one again.

[See-Te-Cah NC]

Please pardon the inconvenience, folks.

Folks, I've already made a Moderator Statement about keeping the topic of discussion on track. This topic is concerning the TBRC's Operation Persistence and the findings of their research. There is no reason to attempt to mix possible conservation agendas - such as pro/no kill - into the thread. The TBRC has stated their position concerning what they believe Bigfoot is. The as-of-yet unreleased Ketchum Report has no bearing on their research at the moment. Because there is no proof that the creature in question is human, there should be nobody dragging the kill/no kill debate, along with the possible ethical ramifications, into the thread.

One last time - I'm asking that you keep on-topic and stop berating the OP about possibilities/probabilities regarding the morality of their research or the manner in which they have decided to conduct it.

This is an official Mod Statement.

Any further off-topic discussion will possibly be met with punitive measures.

See

[Guest]

This is why we can't have nice things...

[Guest DWA]

This is why we can't have nice things...

Chin up. Against the odds, we actually do.

But I and maybe others have a question that is right on topic.

In science, you usually see nothing before the final paper, complete with diagrams, artitsts' conceptions, etc.

Did you guys have a long sit-down before you decided what you were going to talk about and how? What were the objectives you were shooting for, particularly given the, er, response it's gotten here? I have my own thoughts about how I might approach this if it were me but wanted to see what the group thought about beforehand.

Edited November 26, 2012 by DWA

[Guest]

Everything we've released here has been in the spirit of sharing with the community those things we believe we've learned over the previous two years' operations. Definitely not from a scientific point of view since science is rarely performed via internet forums (though I'm sure, in some circles, it is). Part of our mission statement is a dedication to education. This is a manifestation of that spirit. In addition, as Daryl Colyer said on Bigfoot Show episode 39, we do not feel any special authority over or responsibility for the collection of incontrovertible proof. We hope that others pursuing similar objectives can use what we've said publicly to further their own work. Our ultimate objective is the conservation of the animal and its habitat. If proof comes though another vector, we'll simply start focusing on that sooner rather than later.

That being said, how we've related with the public via this thread and the various things we've said on the BFS is in no way how we'll proceed if and when we find ourselves in possession of incontrovertible proof. For that eventuality, we have had thorough discussions. Announcement on the BFF is not on that agenda.

[Guest DWA]

Everything we've released here has been in the spirit of sharing with the community those things we believe we've learned over the previous two years' operations. Definitely not from a scientific point of view since science is rarely performed via internet forums (though I'm sure, in some circles, it is). Part of our mission statement is a dedication to education. This is a manifestation of that spirit. In addition, as Daryl Colyer said on Bigfoot Show episode 39, we do not feel any special authority over or responsibility for the collection of incontrovertible proof. We hope that others pursuing similar objectives can use what we've said publicly to further their own work. Our ultimate objective is the conservation of the animal and its habitat. If proof comes though another vector, we'll simply start focusing on that sooner rather than later.

That being said, how we've related with the public via this thread and the various things we've said on the BFS is in no way how we'll proceed if and when we find ourselves in possession of incontrovertible proof. For that eventuality, we have had thorough discussions. Announcement on the BFF is not on that agenda.

Well, I can say that I wouldn't do things any differently and that my thinking would be pretty much along those lines.

I definitely figured as much about X. I wouldn't go sharing that with Time or Reader's Digest, but within the community, pro bono as it were, it might be fruitful to do, and I think it has been. You are definitely right - and too few get this right - that it is the mainstream, and not the proponents, who are responsible for proof. Simple test: who will be seen as not having done their jobs when the sasquatch is confirmed? It certainly won't be the proponents. (Hopefully the "skeptics" would come in for their lashings for obstructing an investigation.)

And yes, when it comes to getting evidence up the chain of custody to proof, you are most definitely right there.

Edited November 26, 2012 by DWA

[Guest]

Going back in the thread a bit, I would to mention again a suggestion about the game cams. Position those cameras all the way around the cabin so that nothing can approach the cabins at night without being photographed. Even if it keeps them from approaching the cabins at all, at least you won't have those huggie smudging moments where they are striking the cabin walls when you guys are getting much needed rest.