Guest Boolywooger Posted November 24, 2013 Posted November 24, 2013 Yet Bipto hasn't left the thread. That's a significant difference, eh? And he is to be commended for that, but I'm sure that he has been sorely tempted after the forty jillionth post trying to help him figure out how he had been hoaxed. Should it really the perseverance and intestinal fortitude of a saint to carry on a prolonged conversation on the BFF?
norseman Posted November 24, 2013 Admin Posted November 24, 2013 It's not really the same at all. If it were "apples to apples" then LCB would be questioning Bipto's veracity or state of mental health or sidetracking into a discussion demanding "proof" that BF exists or not. LCB's comments were offering what could be considered constructive criticism about NAWAC's weaponry and the use thereof as well as stating his opinion as to the nature of the creature being pursued. Both were germane to the topic whether you agree with his opinion or not. We have debated the tools of the trade often in this forum and more specifically this thread in the past. And as you say is absolutely on topic. What is distracting though is constantly rehashing if it's morally responsible to shoot a Squatch in this first place. I think I speak on behalf of the NAWAC and others that we are already past this question. As pointed out, a hunter has a moral obligation to make a clean kill, not letting the animal suffer, and in the case of a undiscovered species the stakes are even higher to capitalize on a fleeting opportunity so that it is not lost. With that said, this IS a species that we have little understanding of......which means that those of us who endeavor to take a type specimen must cut new territory. There are no manuals or experts to lean on.... so therefore mistakes will be made. But I for one do not believe this is a good reason to reverse course and give up.
Guest zenmonkey Posted November 24, 2013 Posted November 24, 2013 We have debated the tools of the trade often in this forum and more specifically this thread in the past. And as you say is absolutely on topic. What is distracting though is constantly rehashing if it's morally responsible to shoot a Squatch in this first place. I think I speak on behalf of the NAWAC and others that we are already past this question. As pointed out, a hunter has a moral obligation to make a clean kill, not letting the animal suffer, and in the case of a undiscovered species the stakes are even higher to capitalize on a fleeting opportunity so that it is not lost. With that said, this IS a species that we have little understanding of......which means that those of us who endeavor to take a type specimen must cut new territory. There are no manuals or experts to lean on.... so therefore mistakes will be made. But I for one do not believe this is a good reason to reverse course and give up. Awesome and well put my friend! Like I said earlier I have never shot anything and Ive only shot a gun a handful of times. I wouldn't want to pull the trigger but I do hate to use the ole "its for the greater good" but it is for a conservancy and one dead ape to study and learn how to protect the rest is good for me! I see how people disagree with the kill stance its a touchy subject but I always go back to biology 101. That is to take one in
Guest DWA Posted November 24, 2013 Posted November 24, 2013 And he is to be commended for that, but I'm sure that he has been sorely tempted after the forty jillionth post trying to help him figure out how he had been hoaxed. Should it really the perseverance and intestinal fortitude of a saint to carry on a prolonged conversation on the BFF? I am walking testimony that no, it shouldn't but yes, it does. I can't believe how good some people here are at that. I'm more than a little impatient with "you know, bipto, you are being deceived, and I'm going to go into length how I know. Ready?...". And a pile of blather follows backed up by a pile of [numero dos]. This should not be the only topic on which the only requirement to be a persistent naysayer is ignorance of the subject matter.
yowiie Posted November 24, 2013 Posted November 24, 2013 Bipto being hoaxed, what that about? Have I missed something
southernyahoo Posted November 24, 2013 Posted November 24, 2013 is it moral for mankind to simply ignore a species and do as we please? What is it going to take for mankind to be forced to acknowledge this? More foot casts? More photos? More hair samples? We have these..... They fall short, we know this, and yet in some sort of sad cycle this is what most researchers gear up for in order to solve the mystery. Hair samples and DNA absolutely should not fail unless they (BF) are human, in which case it is immoral to kill one and if one is taken, it is immoral to keep it and study it like some other animal. I simply predict a specimen to be a hot potato that few scientists will publicly acknowledge handling, studying or being associated with it's collection.
hiflier Posted November 24, 2013 Posted November 24, 2013 (edited) Hello All, Just to play devil's advocate here? Medical schools use cadavers for teaching. Why shouldn't science have a Sasquatch cadaver for the same reasons? We do autopsies do determine environmental causes of death. The argument for environmental pressures on habitat is a good one. The difference? We've proved Human Beings exist. With Sasquatch? Mmmmmnot so much. Edited November 24, 2013 by hiflier
Guest Posted November 24, 2013 Posted November 24, 2013 Absolutely hiflier, I say cut up and dissect bigfoot and the more cadavers the better.
hiflier Posted November 24, 2013 Posted November 24, 2013 (edited) Hello brent michalycia, One will do nicely. I'm not greedy. Medical teaching hospitals need hundreds. We only need one,; that's all it would take to put everything to rest. So........GO NAWAC! Edited November 24, 2013 by hiflier
norseman Posted November 24, 2013 Admin Posted November 24, 2013 Hair samples and DNA absolutely should not fail unless they (BF) are human, in which case it is immoral to kill one and if one is taken, it is immoral to keep it and study it like some other animal. I simply predict a specimen to be a hot potato that few scientists will publicly acknowledge handling, studying or being associated with it's collection. Or contaminated and there was only enough material for one test....... Poof it's gone. The upside to having a body or a large portion there of in the lab is huge. I predict that a type specimen will be the mother of all flames and scientists flocking in like moths............
MIB Posted November 25, 2013 Moderator Posted November 25, 2013 I would agree somewhat ... once it is safe, once there is no personal risk, in examining sasquatch, then most will be on the bandwagon trying distance themselves from their past positions and rationalize what they can't distance themselves from. MIB
southernyahoo Posted November 25, 2013 Posted November 25, 2013 Hello All, Just to play devil's advocate here? Medical schools use cadavers for teaching. Why shouldn't science have a Sasquatch cadaver for the same reasons? We do autopsies do determine environmental causes of death. The argument for environmental pressures on habitat is a good one. The difference? We've proved Human Beings exist. With Sasquatch? Mmmmmnot so much. All of whom donated their body to science or by their families. You simply won't have that with a squatch. If human, it will be a dead one you can't do anything for science with. I wouldn't mind being wrong, but would not want the backlash from killing a human for people that just wouldn't believe. There should be non-human ape DNA from the samples in the mitochondria that is often used for species ID. The human result here is beyond just contamination. 1
hiflier Posted November 25, 2013 Posted November 25, 2013 Hello southernyahoo, Your very last sentence hits the nail on the head. I've said as much myself. If a result comes back Human why is it unacceptable? Especially if all the precautions against contamination were in place and followed to the letter with documentation attesting to that fact? Do you think the subject is on the verge of a ltitgation proceeding that would nationally decide whether Sasquatch is Human? Is that what the hold up is and until it's resolved in the courts the scientists have been instructed to maintain a hands off approach? Dr. Meldrum could be some much more vocal on the subject than he currently is IMO.
Guest Posted November 25, 2013 Posted November 25, 2013 I know on the documentary show, one of the theories was that bigfoot is just an hairy human running around, living outdoors.
Recommended Posts