Why Do Skeptics Take Bigfoot Seriously?

[Guest Cervelo]

T,

It then morphs into more of a study in human behavior, most of it kinda sad but entertaining in a morbid sort of way

I can say from my experience here you could not visit for a year, come back and it would be the same stuff different day.

Unless of course a body gets produced!

It's actually in a weird cycle now where the newbies are bringing up well beaten dead horses, but that's the nature of the beast.

Edited December 25, 2012 by Cervelo

[Guest RayG]

^Funny, Ray...that's not what my comment was addressing and you know it.

No humor intended. It's a serious question. Where are the checks and balances?

Where are the Rene Dahindens these days?

RayG

[Guest Theagenes]

Cervalo, it's an interesting and diverse community here for sure. There are some great contributors here on both the proponent side and the skeptic side. There are also a few posters that just leave me scratching my head in wonder. . .

[norseman]

Only if you subscribe to the outdated and morally questionable "shoot and stuff" school of species documentation. Modern wildlife research regards those tactics as hideously unethical, and would not use them on other species, so why would they (if they are being intellectually and morally consistent) insist this be done for BF.

Insisting on this primitive approach to wildlife science is linear thinking of the worst sort. There is more than one way to build a documentary case for BF. A mountain can be one giant mass of rock or a pile of pebbles and be just as large either way.

Malarkey.........

We have been using the "pebble" approach for over half a century.........it's got us NO WHERE. There is no MOUNTAIN.........just a very flat pebble field.

And in no way, shape or form has Biology decided that harvesting a type specimen is "outdated".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_(biology)

Type illustrations have also been used by zoologists, as in the case of the Réunion Parakeet, which is known only from historical illustrations and descriptions.^[11]:24

Recently, some species have been described where the type specimen was released alive back into the wild, such as the Bulo Burti Boubou (a bushshrike), described as Laniarius liberatus, in which the species description included DNA sequences from blood and feather samples. Assuming there is no future question as to the status of such a species, the absence of a type specimen does not invalidate the name, but it may be necessary in the future to designate a neotype for such a taxon, should any questions arise. However, in the case of the bushshrike, ornithologists have argued that the specimen was a rare and hitherto unknown color morph of a long-known species, using only the available blood and feather samples. While there is still some debate on the need to deposit actual killed individuals as type specimens, it can be observed that given proper vouchering and storage, tissue samples can be just as valuable even in case disputes about the validity of a species arise.

Do you honestly think that you are going to capture a pissed off 700 lbs bipedal ape and study him, take blood and tissue samples and release him back into the wild? Bigfoot is not a good candidate for a "type illustration", there fore they NEED A TYPE SPECIMEN.

Unfortunately it's mindsets like yours that is going to doom this species to being a cryptid forever.

[Guest]

T,

It then morphs into more of a study in human behavior, most of it kinda sad but entertaining in a morbid sort of way

One only gets out of this place what one is willing to put into this place.

If you come here with an open, honestly inquiring mind, you will find a great deal to potentially learn about BF.

If you come here with a cynical, closed mind, you will find your "study in human behavior" a la Kita's "Woods and Wildmen" meme.

I can say from my experience here you could not visit for a year, come back and it would be the same stuff different day.

Unless of course a body gets produced!

And the constant harping of Skeptics has NOTHING to do with that, right? Honest, ernest reasearchers like DDA and Derekfoot are just meanie old "b'leevers" who won't share with the class, right?

Never mind that anything new they (or anyone else) bring to the table is immediately ganged up on, spit on, urinated on then burned in effigy by our resident Skeptics...

Malarkey.........

We have been using the "pebble" approach for over half a century.........it's got us NO WHERE. There is no MOUNTAIN.........just a very flat pebble field.

Only if you fall into the trap of allowing Skeptics and Scofftics to set the terms of the debate. You can't win a rigged game.

And in no way, shape or form has Biology decided that harvesting a type specimen is "outdated".

*ahem*

http://books.google.com/books?id=56yecN8cT48C&pg=PT272&lpg=PT272&dq=is+it+ethical+to+kill+type+specimens&source=bl&ots=joeH2g0GwN&sig=FBIrQc4djSgn3tH9jpANJnnwdfk&hl=en&sa=X&ei=CPHZUJW2O_Gu2gWdiIHwDQ&ved=0CF4Q6AEwBQ ( from:

Hope for Animals and Their World: How Endangered Species Are Being Rescued ... By Jane Goodall )

and

It can no longer be regarded as ethical to kill threatened wild animals for obtaining skins for collections http://www.loris-conservation.org/database/wild_survey/necropsy/Collections.html

Not even the ISZN requires a type specimen any more: a clean DNA sequence is entirely acceptable:

All animals originally contain DNA so except for preparations where the DNA has been destroyed or for fossils which don’t usually contain DNA, then DNA is often part of type specimens. Directly extracted DNA from an animal (i.e. not amplified) might theoretically be a type since as it is part of an animal (Article 72.5.1), however it is usually present in such small quantities that to study it further requires amplification, using a copying process such as the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) before sequencing. The copied DNA cannot be a type since it is not part of an animal nor does it fit any of the other categories of things that can be types. If the copied DNA is sequenced, a sequence can be regarded as a description of the DNA originally in the animal, so the type can be the specimen or part of the specimen, e.g. a tissue sample, or pre-amplification DNA sample, on which the sequence is based (Article 72.5.6). Consequently new species can be described on the basis of DNA sequences, and while not mandatory, it is strongly recommended that the type specimen(s) from which the DNA was sequenced is preserved and deposited in a museum with a type label and data linking it to the sequence (for example a GenBank number).

http://iczn.org/category/faqs/frequently-asked-questions

So much for "shoot and stuff"

Do you honestly think that you are going to capture a pissed off 700 lbs bipedal ape and study him, take blood and tissue samples and release him back into the wild?

They do it with bears, lions, tigers, rhinos, and any other number of large, powerful, potentially lethal animals.

Bigfoot is not a good candidate for a "type illustration", there fore they NEED A TYPE SPECIMEN.

See my quote from the ICZN above.

[Guest]

The guy who claimed to know the location of the PGF suit had in his sig something like "You dont have to believe in Bigfoot to love Bigfoot."

Same reason I'm interested in the Dogman... and in Slenderman, which is an internet hoax from the start... it's interesting, and it's human instinct to wanna put a face and a name to the things that go bump in the night.

[norseman]

*ahem*

http://books.google....ved=0CF4Q6AEwBQ ( from:

Hope for Animals and Their World: How Endangered Species Are Being Rescued ... By Jane Goodall )

ahem indeed............

Jane Goodall and a few select others are in the same position as you are..........they are the extreme minority. Drawers and drawers and drawers of type specimens may sicken Ms. Goodall but they are there for a reason. And the reason they are there is because the scientific establishment as a whole demands it.

Even when concerning Sasquatch? The Smithsonian even states that a type specimen is needed.

As far as capturing large and dangerous animals? Squatch is not a rhino running on the Serengeti plain being followed by a helo and a guy with a dart gun. It's hard enough getting a photo of the freakin thing, and you think you can go out there and capture one?

GO FOR IT MULDER! Take Bobo with you.........maybe he can draw one in with a rave party.

Me? I'll continue doing what I'm doing.......hunting one with a rifle. It's the KISS principle after all.

[Guest]

^I note you completely disregarded my citation from the ICZN...

[norseman]

^I note you completely disregarded my citation from the ICZN...

I didn't disregard it.

In order to have a "type illustration"? You have to have a live animal in the lab.

So that would require a CAPTURE.........and I think I covered that completely didn't I?

Mulder? I absolutely feel like you and Jane do regarding a Squatch, but putting my personal feelings aside, I give shooting a Squatch about a million to one odds.......and a live capture being virtually impossible. Shooting one is by far and away the quickest way to solve this mystery........and it's not very quick.

[Oonjerah]

It's been 45 years since PGF ... waiting for more evidence.

O gosh! Evidence isn't good enough. Now we're waiting for proof.

Personally, I'd prefer to wait a few more years than murder a Sasquatch.

Meanwhile, the scientists are grinding out the proof. I believe we will have

proof when Dr. Ketchum's paper is published. Then some more from Sykes.

That will create a rush of research on Bf.

The lamestream & all who've held Bf in ridicule for decades won't change.

Meanwhile, the 30% who know or believe Bigfoot exists will keep rising.

I'd much rather wait than kill one.

For sure, I have enough patience for wait for amazing Erikson footage.

We need a body right now is Kid-speak!

WHY the rush?

Edited December 25, 2012 by Oonjerah

[norseman]

It's been 45 years since PGF ... waiting for more evidence.

O gosh! Evidence isn't good enough. Now we're waiting for proof.

Personally, I'd prefer to wait a few more years than murder a Sasquatch.

And why is that?

Meanwhile, the scientists are grinding out the proof. I believe we will have

proof when Dr. Ketchum's paper is published. Then some more from Sykes.

That will create a rush of research on Bf.

Ketchum's paper is a joke. And that's according to Dr. Todd Disotell.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nF94REQrzQ0

The lamestream & all who've held Bf in ridicule for decades won't change.

Meanwhile, the 30% who know or believe Bigfoot exists will keep rising.

I'd much rather wait than kill one.

For sure, I have enough patience for wait for amazing Erikson footage.

We need a body right now is Kid-speak!

WHY the rush?

So your willing to wait decades longer for some new "amazing footage"?????? M'kay.

Exactly what do you think this new footage will prove?

Kid speak concerning this issue is a freakin joke! If that was the case a kid would have to wait until they are middle aged before they get a happy meal........

And that's just starting the clock from the time the PGF was filmed.......the mystery is much older than that.

BTW? Evidence to science? Is a hair sample or scat sample that can directly be attributed to an unknown species.......and doesn't include photos, audio recordings, stories or casts.

Edited December 26, 2012 by norseman

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

I don't remember Dr. Todd Disotell saying her paper is a joke. He hasn't even read it. He had a problem with the press release and the info in it.

Edited December 26, 2012 by OntarioSquatch

[norseman]

I don't remember Dr. Todd Disotell saying her paper is a joke. He hasn't even read it. He had a problem with the press release and the info in it.

To say the least.......

[Guest]

^His opinion is his opinion. What is the basis of his authority to declare the study "a joke" sight unseen?

[norseman]

^His opinion is his opinion. What is the basis of his authority to declare the study "a joke" sight unseen?

Because the 15000 year time frame is impossible.