Huntster Posted May 6, 2011 Posted May 6, 2011 Huntster, on 04 May 2011 - 07:13 PM, said:If "every hunter isn't that responsible", why are they issued hunting licenses to hunt anything? Because you don't have to be intelligent to get a hunting license. Ray, it’s usually embarrassing to justify something stupid with yet more stupidity. How about admitting that reform is necessary so that we can just move ahead? Not sure what you were taught growing up It can be summed with this simple guideline: Don’t do stupid things. And hunting deer/bear/moose/etc., is a far cry from hunting a human-like bipedal target. So? Ever shoot somebody’s cow or dog while hunting moose or wolves? I haven’t, and I have shot moose and wolves aplenty. And, unless a fool (who you will likely have some sympathy for) puts on a gorilla suit and actually tries to make people believe that he’s a sasquatch, I wouldn’t shoot a person thinking it was a sasquatch. The bottom line is that if the science folks are waiting for somebody to shoot a sasquatch for them, you can’t make it illegal to shoot a sasquatch and expect somebody to do it for you. You just can’t have it both ways, Ray, regardless of how badly you want it that way.
Guest RayG Posted May 6, 2011 Posted May 6, 2011 I'm no longer certain what it is you're even arguing in favor of. Were you presenting a serious suggestion when you posted this? Just open a hunting season on sasquatches: open all year, limit of one. Indeed, a reward of $5,000 will be paid, but the carcass has to be surrendered to the state. If you were serious, then I stand by the comment I raised about irresponsible hunters seeking a human-like target. If you weren't serious, then... RayG
Guest Posted May 6, 2011 Posted May 6, 2011 Mulder said: You have no hairs from a Bigfoot, if you did, you would put the study here, and we could all see that evidence of Bigfoot hair, blood, etc... existed. If you did have any evidence of the above, it would have gotten 'us' somewhere. Of course the non-evidence that you claim IS evidence, hasn't gotten 'us' anywhere. Because simply, it is not evidence of Bigfoot, If it WAS evidence of bigfoot, it would have gotten 'us' somewhere. And the tautology strikes again: "It isn't evidence unless it is accepted. What you proffer isn't evidence. Why? Because it isn't accepted...if it WERE evidence it would be." Ah but there's the rub (or the beauty of it, depending on whose perspective you take). Dr. Ketchum may very well have not known what a Hupa hair looks like (yes there are differences between NA hair and those textbook pictures) or what Hupa DNA looks like (that was basically the issue with the Snelgrove Lake fiasco). I think she may have been quite excited when she saw hair and DNA that didn't fit her limited ideas of "human." So now you've moved on to accusing a respected, credentialed DNA expert of being unable to tell if something is human dna or not?
Guest Posted May 6, 2011 Posted May 6, 2011 . . . a respected, credentialed DNA expert . . . Because we respected, credentialed experts are infallible in your view?
Guest parnassus Posted May 6, 2011 Posted May 6, 2011 (edited) But my understanding of it is that these samples came from all over the world. Now why I thought that, I can't say, because I don't specifically remember reading that anywhere. Did she say she was restricting her analysis to hairs from one area? I would assume if she did that taking samples from the native human population would be one of the first steps she took......I think she knows what she is basically doing. Jodie In the first place I think the specimens were supposed to be from all over the country not the world. But the point is that Paulides can say anything he wants about where they came from. How would Ketchum know? Ketchum said she used existing databases not a sampling of the human population. Read these recent posts by Paulides and particularly note the "sensitivity" remark and the "forest people" descriptor and the phrase at the very end of the second quotation: "   The point of this blog is that everyone who is truly interested in bigfoot/sasquatch research should be reading everything possible as it relates to our bipedal topic and Native American and First Nations people. One of the few early researchers that took this association seriously was Ray Crowe. Ray wrote the “Track Record†and included many stories of the association between the two entities. Ray actually wrote many stories that nobody else would touch because of the sensitivity (http://www.nabigfootsearch.com/TrackRecord.html).    Many people have asked where NABS has been the last few years. Well, the DNA study has taken much of our time but we have also committed ourselves to understanding every facet of the Native American-First Nation association with the bipedal forest people. The more we have committed to this understanding, the more we are fascinated. If you don’t believe that this association isn’t very strong, read “Giants, Cannibals and Monsters†by Kathy Moskowitz Strain, you will be pleasantly surprised (http://www.amazon.com/Giants-Cannibals-Monsters-Bigfoot-Culture/dp/0888396503/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1303876785&sr=8-1)." ----- "   Researchers need to immediately move away from trying to prove the biped exists to a position of accumulating data about behavior. The idea of studying more footprints, casts and other associated information will prove nothing other then where the biped may be living, it will not prove it’s species. Additional evidence related to DNA is still being accumulated but it’s not being used to prove the existence, it’s being used to understand genetic abnormalities and family ties." http://www.nabigfootsearch.com/bigfootblog.html Family ties !!!??!! Edited May 6, 2011 by parnassus
Guest parnassus Posted May 6, 2011 Posted May 6, 2011 (edited) Duplicate post Edited May 6, 2011 by parnassus
Guest Posted May 6, 2011 Posted May 6, 2011 You are half correct: Coming form you, I consider that a victory! 2)Do you really think that if I got proof (or even good evidence) I’d submit it to Drew? Now, why would I do that? Specifically to Drew, no. But I do think that you're passionate enough about the subject that if you really had proof you wouldn't squirrel it away; you'd go public with it somehow.
southernyahoo Posted May 6, 2011 Posted May 6, 2011 Specifically to Drew, no. But I do think that you're passionate enough about the subject that if you really had proof you wouldn't squirrel it away; you'd go public with it somehow. How would he know it is proof? Proof is defined as "the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance of the mind of a truth or fact". How would he know it would convince anyone or the majority of people?
southernyahoo Posted May 6, 2011 Posted May 6, 2011 Family ties !!!??!! Parnassus, don't you think you could be misinterpreting his words? Is he talking about individual members of the (bigfoot tribe) being related to each other or bigfoots being related to Native American tribes? This goes far beyond the Hoopa people and you should know that by now. Your crystal ball is crapped out.
southernyahoo Posted May 6, 2011 Posted May 6, 2011 Ketchum said she used existing databases not a sampling of the human population. The existing data bases "IS" a sampling of the human population and is referenced all the time in real science. Where's my face palm pic!!!
Guest Posted May 6, 2011 Posted May 6, 2011 How would he know it is proof? If Huntster ever came in possession of a fresh bigfoot carcass I'm assuming he'd be able to make that call accurately.
Drew Posted May 6, 2011 Posted May 6, 2011 How would he know it is proof? Proof is defined as "the cogency of evidence that compels acceptance of the mind of a truth or fact". How would he know it would convince anyone or the majority of people? I would say, if he found something, and submitted the findings to a respected journal for publication, and they accepted the submission, then that would be one way of finding out if it is sufficient. If they reject the submission, I would hope he would fix the submission and resubmit it, instead of claiming Scientific bias by the journal.
southernyahoo Posted May 6, 2011 Posted May 6, 2011 You can't fix evidence, atleast not honestly. If the evidence supports the conclusion, then there is no reason for rejection. If it is still rejected then bias could be to blame.
Drew Posted May 6, 2011 Posted May 6, 2011 You can't fix evidence, atleast not honestly. If the evidence supports the conclusion, then there is no reason for rejection. If it is still rejected then bias could be to blame. No, but you can fix how the evidence is presented. For example, if it is rejected because you didn't provide a proper comparison of other primate hairs to compare the sample with, then you could provide a more complete library of comparison hairs in the report.
Huntster Posted May 6, 2011 Posted May 6, 2011 But I do think that you're passionate enough about the subject that if you really had proof you wouldn't squirrel it away; you'd go public with it somehow. Let's say a fellow obtains a fresh sasquatch carcass. It's still dripping blood. This fellow wants to maintain strict anonymity, but wants this discovery to be shared with professional wildlife management so that the species will be maintained. So he somehow ships the carcass to a scientist who is active in the phenomenon. He realizes that he will have to give this scientist some information on where/when/how the creature was obtained, but even goes as far as ask this scientist to keep his name private. Do you think "peers" (as part of their "review"), wildlife agencies, the environmental community, state governments, and/or other entities would demand the name and story of the individual who "obtained" the carcass, even to the point of threatening the scientist to whom the carcass was given?
Recommended Posts