norseman Posted May 3, 2014 Share Posted May 3, 2014 Yes that would be better than CO2. But they are in Australia, and I bet you need credentials to buy a rig like that, I also bet they are hyper expensive. And your still stuck with shooting a giant dart at hundreds of feet per second. It's just not a good setup for dense cover.........driving around on the Serengeti? Sure. Again, it's my opinion that all of this comes with the Biologists and Universities AFTER discovery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted May 3, 2014 Share Posted May 3, 2014 http://www.airgundepot.com/pre-charged-pneumatic-air-rifles.html A modified pre-charged pneumatic air rifle might be just the ticket. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 If I read this correctly, that rig pushes an equivalent .50 cal. projectile with a .22 load? 100 yd. effective range? With a trajectory like a mortar round, maybe. I don't think it is unintentional that the muzzle velocity of that dart isn't given. If it gets anywhere over 700 fps, I'm going to be surprised. For a stationary target in open country? I guess so. But sure, take your best shot, I say. As a serious contender for verification of the species, I'm a little doubtful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Taylor Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 DNA evidence by itself will not prove the existence of Sasquatch simply because there is no control to compare it with. Unless you have another specimen to match the DNA with, it is useless by itself. The only way science will accept bigfoot is with a body. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIB Posted May 5, 2014 Moderator Share Posted May 5, 2014 DNA evidence by itself will not prove the existence of Sasquatch simply because there is no control to compare it with. Unless you have another specimen to match the DNA with, it is useless by itself. The only way science will accept bigfoot is with a body. Yes, it would. If there is a substantial enough sample for repeated testing by multiple labs, if there is something that shows up clearly primate but is no known primate and contamination can be eliminated, it proves the presence of SOMETHING. Unless you wish to postulate that there is yet another, non-bigfoot primate out there, of course. Is that what you wish to suggest? MIB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 (edited) MIB...I disagree. I cite the record. If multiple DNA studies (How many needed, exactly?) would be sufficient, then one would be also. If DNA is unique to a species, and we know that to be true, why would multiple studies prove more than a single one? If we had 500 examples of "unknown primate" to point to, what progress have we made? With as much infighting and aspersions as to methods as we've seen in just a few attempts, I think the script will not change, no matter who collects it, or how certain the results are. What I think everyone who has studied this problem long enough realizes is the idea of a relic hominid walking the earth is of such mind-blowing import to those invested in their version of reality that no number of DNA samples will shake that notion loose. Note: I don't say that is necessary for anyone who has had a sighting or an encounter. In the grand scheme of things though, even thousands of consistent sighting are discounted by a wave of the hand. My one consolation is that when... not if... a type specimen is taken, the blood of that animal will be on the hands of every person who could have made a difference, but who instead discounted the evidence so flippantly. Edited May 5, 2014 by WSA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 With one DNA sample, they can absolutely tell where a unknown species falls on the tree of life, and what it is most closely related to. With that said, how many samples have we seen contaminated and the sample itself is destroyed trying to extract DNA? I trust science............but it's a delicate fragile thing that can fall apart in your hands. If you shoot a biopsy dart at a Sasquatch in thick foliage and dark timber? When you go pick up your dart? You have no idea what you have. You may have Sasquatch DNA or you may have Douglas Fir DNA. You are gonna have many o'restless night waiting for the phone to ring from the DNA lab. If you shoot a 540 grain hammer head round at Sasquatch in thick foilage and dark timber? Your not going out to pick up a dart, your going out to collect a type specimen. From a scientific perspective, the positive sample is like a first down and the type specimen is like winning the super bowl. The positive sample is going to tell you that "yes" something is out there........and it's roughly "here" on the tree of life. A type specimen? Will tell them almost everything about the species..........what it had for lunch, how big it's brain is, how does it's eyes work? Is it capable of speech? How does it reproduce? It's the exclamation point to the end of this mystery.... In all honesty? What do you think science does with a positive DNA sample? How is it going to proceed concerning Sasquatch? Do you anti kill people think they are going to satisfied with that sample? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIB Posted May 5, 2014 Moderator Share Posted May 5, 2014 Because, IMHO, any one study might be flawed. (Ketchum.) However, if you have Sykes, Disotell, and a couple others independently coming to the same conclusion, the odds of a single lab using faulty equipment or faulty procedures drops considerably. It's a matter of chi-squared, plain and simple: repeatability supports validity. That's how lab science works. It does not prove the thing you found is rightly called "bigfoot" but it does predict there is something real, something beyond experimental error, in play. It might not sell to the general public who may not be as familiar with the principles involved but legitimate scientists will definitely start paying attention in greater numbers. MIB 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1980squatch Posted May 5, 2014 Author Share Posted May 5, 2014 ^^^^ yep, plussed. A bit slower of an unveil but it would get the job done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted May 5, 2014 Share Posted May 5, 2014 ^^^^^^^^^^ Absolutely it would. But with anti kill passive research tactics being the norm for oh say 30 years or so now? How are we doing employing these tactics? I'm not against collecting DNA samples, unless of course your looking eye to eye. Why squander such encounters if we are truly seeking proof? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIB Posted May 5, 2014 Moderator Share Posted May 5, 2014 We've been over this ground. I'm not seeking proof ... at least not yet. When I understand what I'm proving, my position is subject to change, but it will be informed change. 'til then, I'm playing careful, cautious, conservative regarding killing or not killing. It's easy to change my mind and pull the trigger, it's impossible to change it and un-pull a trigger. Simple as that. Good luck out there and .. be safe. MIB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuchi1 Posted May 10, 2014 Share Posted May 10, 2014 We've been over this ground. I'm not seeking proof ... at least not yet. When I understand what I'm proving, my position is subject to change, but it will be informed change. 'til then, I'm playing careful, cautious, conservative regarding killing or not killing. It's easy to change my mind and pull the trigger, it's impossible to change it and un-pull a trigger. Simple as that. Good luck out there and .. be safe. MIB Yes, there really is no shoot and release with lethal firearms. IMO, the other thing is with some of the DNA analysis that has been done, as Mr. Smeja may well have had the crap scared out of him when he was informed of the initial DNA analysis and then decided to insert some bear DNA into the mix as a possible CYA function. Same for another person (Louisiana) as once the initial batch was (allegedly) subjected to DNA analysis, he was pretty much frantic on getting all the other samples that were in the hands of others, back under his control. Would have like to have been a fly on the wall in both those instances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted May 11, 2014 Share Posted May 11, 2014 I would actually advocate this approach - drawbacks included - over killing one. Recognizing this as my personal feeling on the matter, and still rooting for the Grendels and the NAWACs because, well, my desire to know for sure trumps all, and sue me, I'm human. All approaches have drawbacks. NAWAC acknowledges that its approach has drawbacks it can't totally be ready for, and have decided to stand in the fire because of the importance of the type specimen. Anything we do has drawbacks. But for anyone who wants to know, daring the drawbacks is better than doing nothing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuchi1 Posted May 12, 2014 Share Posted May 12, 2014 I would actually advocate this approach - drawbacks included - over killing one. Recognizing this as my personal feeling on the matter, and still rooting for the Grendels and the NAWACs because, well, my desire to know for sure trumps all, and sue me, I'm human. All approaches have drawbacks. NAWAC acknowledges that its approach has drawbacks it can't totally be ready for, and have decided to stand in the fire because of the importance of the type specimen. Anything we do has drawbacks. But for anyone who wants to know, daring the drawbacks is better than doing nothing. DWA, One extremely important element of DNA retrieval (with the appropriate protocols in place) is the analysis would likely show (scientifically) exactly what we're dealing with, homo____ and thus avoid a tragedy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted May 12, 2014 Share Posted May 12, 2014 Well, I'd say the evidence is pretty firmly on the side of not homo, at this point. That aside: the means exist today to confirm an animal without taking one. It is more problematical. But given the leaps and bounds at which the kill alternative has progressed, anyone who sets his/her mind to doing it this way might - that's might - get there before a bullet does. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts