norseman Posted January 17, 2013 Admin Author Posted January 17, 2013 No it will be my first trip. MY buddy been going up for years to visit his grandpa PM sent, and yah let's stay in touch! Friggin awesome!!! better grab a plane ticket!
Guest DWA Posted January 17, 2013 Posted January 17, 2013 I know this is a convocation for kill-club members, and like any such convocation on this site, nothing wrong with it. But I think you guys need to talk about stuff, so here's something to chew on. I'm not pro-kill; I think that in the 21st century we can get confirmation by other means, and killing to satisfy curiosity never sat well with me (although yes, that's how we generally get specimens). I couldn't even collect bugs to mount when I was a kid. Kill them? To mount them? Why? I prefer them alive. Besides which, we don't know how many there are. Just that, right there. But I have to say - and yes, it's to satisfy my own curiosity - I'm good, OK sort-of, with a specimen, any way it happens. Because maybe I want to know just a little bit more than I did with mounting bugs. Cheers, and good luck.
norseman Posted January 19, 2013 Admin Author Posted January 19, 2013 I know this is a convocation for kill-club members, and like any such convocation on this site, nothing wrong with it. But I think you guys need to talk about stuff, so here's something to chew on. I'm not pro-kill; I think that in the 21st century we can get confirmation by other means, and killing to satisfy curiosity never sat well with me (although yes, that's how we generally get specimens). I couldn't even collect bugs to mount when I was a kid. Kill them? To mount them? Why? I prefer them alive. How exactly? Have we not seen tons of scat, hair samples come back inconclusive? What about the Ketchum DNA report? I'm pretty well convinced it's a nut shell game with a underlying agenda that I'm not fully understanding of. Anyhow, in half a century of a more passive approach? We have zilch, zero, nada. Skeptics laugh at us in our own forum........ And what concerns me most is that with the onset of time and human encroachment? This species could be in trouble. Besides which, we don't know how many there are. Just that, right there. It's much less dangerous in my mind for the species to harvest ONE type specimen so that we can then get mainstream biology to focus on the task at hand. Then to let this species remain a myth and roll the dice because of lack of understanding. If Biology doesn't get involved we never will have the answer. But I have to say - and yes, it's to satisfy my own curiosity - I'm good, OK sort-of, with a specimen, any way it happens. Because maybe I want to know just a little bit more than I did with mounting bugs. Well........Justin Smeja wasn't tarred and feathered and ignored because of his claims........everybody went down there to get some sort of definitive proof! People who have signed the petition to "save the species", went down there. What does that tell you? It tells me your not alone in your self conflict between solving the mystery and feeling guilt over the process that it takes to solve the mystery. Cheers, and good luck. Much appreciated!
Guest Posted January 24, 2013 Posted January 24, 2013 Hello Norseman, I finally have a decent Internet connection and a keyboard I wanted to answer the same questions I asked you earlier Parts of this does scare me, not so much the hunting or killing part. It's the extraction that make me nervous. I define scared as a heightened concern for ones safety or well being. Courage though is the cure for that. If things start to go sideways I'm not going anywhere until we run out of bullets! I'm on the side that says Sasquatch is human like, not wood ape so I'm not a big fan of shooting women and children. I see your point and I wouldn't stop you but I'll be giving you the stink eye for sure. If we found a female or a child we can find a male, the world can wait As for my mood, I won't be slapping high fives over the body. I'm gonna be all business until we get home. I don't really want to do this but the way I look at it someday someone is going to kill one, so it might as well be me.
Guest DWA Posted January 28, 2013 Posted January 28, 2013 How exactly? Have we not seen tons of scat, hair samples come back inconclusive? What about the Ketchum DNA report? I'm pretty well convinced it's a nut shell game with a underlying agenda that I'm not fully understanding of. Anyhow, in half a century of a more passive approach? We have zilch, zero, nada. Skeptics laugh at us in our own forum........ And what concerns me most is that with the onset of time and human encroachment? This species could be in trouble. I think that the evidence so far garnered simply hasn't attracted the attention of the scientific mainstream. And yes, for proof to happen without the delivery of a body, the mainstream will have to be on board with the possibility and open to evidence (of which, as you note, there is much) that, while it isn't proof itself, indicates that there's proof where it came from. And I will grant the likelihood looks not-too. Non-invasive proof is possible; the kipunji is one species that was confirmed on a photograph. A number of deep-sea animals, that's all we have. The only real diff between them and Patterson is that the mainstream acknowledges and sponsors the expeditions that get those photos. Their findings have automatic cachet. A photo doesn't get the oh-he-hoaxed-that-jellyfish treatment. And if you're just talking numbers, and I had to bet, I'd put more money on the likelihood of measures being implemented to save the species after a body is produced than I would put on before one is. Not being against hunting, and I'm not - just against killing for nothing but the sake of killing - it's impossible for me to get all high horse over this. I'm wishing the species luck, and hoping it gets it. Whatever that entails, and a timely specimen just might be one way.
norseman Posted January 28, 2013 Admin Author Posted January 28, 2013 I think that the evidence so far garnered simply hasn't attracted the attention of the scientific mainstream. And yes, for proof to happen without the delivery of a body, the mainstream will have to be on board with the possibility and open to evidence (of which, as you note, there is much) that, while it isn't proof itself, indicates that there's proof where it came from. And I will grant the likelihood looks not-too. Non-invasive proof is possible; the kipunji is one species that was confirmed on a photograph. A number of deep-sea animals, that's all we have. The only real diff between them and Patterson is that the mainstream acknowledges and sponsors the expeditions that get those photos. Their findings have automatic cachet. A photo doesn't get the oh-he-hoaxed-that-jellyfish treatment. As your saying, I think it is impossible for non invasive proof with Sasquatch because of the points you make. There is too much of a stigma surrounding the species for anything but a bona fide type specimen to force people to look. I wish that it wasn't that way, but I have lost hope in other methods. And if you're just talking numbers, and I had to bet, I'd put more money on the likelihood of measures being implemented to save the species after a body is produced than I would put on before one is. Not being against hunting, and I'm not - just against killing for nothing but the sake of killing - it's impossible for me to get all high horse over this. I'm wishing the species luck, and hoping it gets it. Whatever that entails, and a timely specimen just might be one way. Hunters should be very much against killing something for the sake of killing. With exceptions such as self defense and predator/vermin control. I.e. Coyotes are eating your sheep or something is eating your food crop. I think great apes should be protected, they are close enough to humans to deserve our protection as well as teaching us something about our own development. But in the case of Sasquatch........they are not a great ape yet.........they are not anything yet. They are just a myth. And it's going to take something extraordinary to change that.
Guest DWA Posted January 28, 2013 Posted January 28, 2013 ^^^Right. As conflicted as I might be about it, gotta admit: I'll go for confirmed over not. Better for my selfish self...but probably better for sasquatch too. Probably. It is homo sapiens we're talking about, and we'll have to see how that goes.
norseman Posted January 28, 2013 Admin Author Posted January 28, 2013 ^^^Right. As conflicted as I might be about it, gotta admit: I'll go for confirmed over not. Better for my selfish self...but probably better for sasquatch too. Probably. It is homo sapiens we're talking about, and we'll have to see how that goes. I dont think its a human, no fire no tool manufacture. But I do think its very important that the species is recognized.
MagniAesir Posted January 28, 2013 Posted January 28, 2013 II don't buy the whole highly intelligent but turned it's back on technology business Imo if it exists then it is an ape
norseman Posted January 28, 2013 Admin Author Posted January 28, 2013 II don't buy the whole highly intelligent but turned it's back on technology business Imo if it exists then it is an ape Agreed
Guest DWA Posted January 28, 2013 Posted January 28, 2013 I dont think its a human, no fire no tool manufacture. But I do think its very important that the species is recognized. Oh, sorry, I meant that the sasquatch is dealing with homo sapiens, and that's a problem.
norseman Posted January 28, 2013 Admin Author Posted January 28, 2013 Oh, sorry, I meant that the sasquatch is dealing with homo sapiens, and that's a problem. You mean like the 411 books?
adam2323 Posted January 28, 2013 Posted January 28, 2013 Agreed I am with you. Its an APE or some other creature. But Unlike alot on this forum I doont buy into the evolution theory. Whom ever and what ever is on the earth the good man above put here. Not trying to start a debate but my beliefs are my beliefs. I do find it strange that you can talk all you want about evoulution on here but throw out the word creation and they are ready to hang you..where I come from thats being a hypocrite...anyway bottom line is this no matter what kind of evidence photos HD video DNA its not gonna be accepted unless you have a body. It just goes agaist evetything scientist think they know so they are unwilling to even consider it. It doesnt fit into thier tiny little box they call brains
Guest DWA Posted January 28, 2013 Posted January 28, 2013 You mean like the 411 books? Well, I mean that when homo sapiens is dealing with another species, things tend to be far more problematical for the latter than for the former.
norseman Posted January 30, 2013 Admin Author Posted January 30, 2013 Well, I mean that when homo sapiens is dealing with another species, things tend to be far more problematical for the latter than for the former. I think like I spoke about earlier in this thread that humans can contribute alot to an endangered species. Look at the come back of the wolf, grizzlies, so forth.
Recommended Posts