Rockape Posted January 3, 2016 Share Posted January 3, 2016 Has anyone heard of National Geographic, the Smithsonian or any college/university putting out the call, "bring us the body!" ? So why did you try to shoot one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWWASAS Posted January 3, 2016 BFF Patron Share Posted January 3, 2016 I read the article and it (Smithsonian) mentions "capture" (for study) or skeletal remains. Did not see anywhere it mentioning, "go out and shoot one". I wonder, if in being scientists and utilizing deductive reasoning, they are allowing for the scientific possibility that shooting one may result in an act of homicide and possible legal ramifications? I would bet even money that the Smithsonian has had a skeleton. They either recognized what it is, or did not and simply got rid of it in deep storage or Native American reburial programs. That article is very old, and freedom of information act requests have not been forthcoming with any information. We have discussed the reasons in other threads and most theories are as good as any other. Until invading Bigfooters seize the place and start looking in boxes and drawers, I do not think we will ever know at this point. Remember this is the same place that refused to recognize the achievement of the Wright Brothers for decades because they made the Smithsonian look very inept. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Twist Posted January 3, 2016 Share Posted January 3, 2016 (edited) ^^^^ I agree. Counting on the Smithsonian or anything from the past to prove bigfoot is going to be a practice in futility. It will be new research and boots on the ground that solve this mystery. Someone call Shaggy and Scooby, at least we'll find out if bigfoot is really just old man Jenkins in a mask! Edited January 3, 2016 by TWlST Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuchi1 Posted January 3, 2016 Share Posted January 3, 2016 Has anyone heard of National Geographic, the Smithsonian or any college/university putting out the call, "bring us the body!" ? So why did you try to shoot one? As has been well documented, the Louisiana Hunt happened within the first few months of my exposure to this field as I/we were in it for the money, period. And, it has also been well documented my subsequent change of position on killing one of these entities. Are you trying to dispute that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted January 3, 2016 Admin Share Posted January 3, 2016 Per, www.exploreforensics.co.uk..."skeletal remains are what is left after nature takes its course ​(emphasis added) having disposed of hair, skin and internal organs leaving the skeletal frame remaining". So if you show up with a dead corpse? they will turn you away? Silly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockape Posted January 3, 2016 Share Posted January 3, 2016 Has anyone heard of National Geographic, the Smithsonian or any college/university putting out the call, "bring us the body!" ? So why did you try to shoot one? As has been well documented, the Louisiana Hunt happened within the first few months of my exposure to this field as I/we were in it for the money, period. And, it has also been well documented my subsequent change of position on killing one of these entities. Are you trying to dispute that? Personally, I don't believe a word you say. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuchi1 Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 Per, www.exploreforensics.co.uk..."skeletal remains are what is left after nature takes its course ​(emphasis added) having disposed of hair, skin and internal organs leaving the skeletal frame remaining". So if you show up with a dead corpse? they will turn you away? Silly First, skeletal remains are the Smithsonian article mentions along with a live capture as acceptable forensic proof items, in the alternative so (IMO) your question probably depends upon whether hair, skin and internal organs are attached, what the facial profile looks like and then whether LE is then contacted (by them). Has anyone heard of National Geographic, the Smithsonian or any college/university putting out the call, "bring us the body!" ? So why did you try to shoot one? As has been well documented, the Louisiana Hunt happened within the first few months of my exposure to this field as I/we were in it for the money, period. And, it has also been well documented my subsequent change of position on killing one of these entities. Are you trying to dispute that? Personally, I don't believe a word you say. Considering your loyalties, that is perfectly understandable, no problem here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockape Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 My loyalties? Who would that be? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lake County Bigfooot Posted January 4, 2016 Author Share Posted January 4, 2016 (edited) I have been walking the pro-kill/no-kill fence for a while, leaning both ways for various reasons. I have come to the conclusion that we must have a body to prove existence of the creatures, but not that it has to be a dead body. I still think that we could creatively trap or sedate one for long enough to obtain adequate documentation. While they are extremely elusive, they are not beyond being brought into captivity or sedated for a time. If we could master the art of tracking them and knowing how to locate them, then the rest would fall in place. Areas like "area x" being the exception, but might be the key to getting close enough for long enough to figure out how to trap or sedate one. If you remember the Snell Lake incidence where the creature stepped onto a bed of nails, well that might indicate that they are not always able to detect a trap, it just has to be sophisticated enough to keep the creature contained or somehow sedated. Mention of them being captured in the early history of this country shows that is possible, you just need skilled horseman, dogs, and strong rope and the skill to lasso. Problem is today we rely on our tech world and our limited outdoor skills. We need to get back to the raw skills needed to overcome the obstacles. Yes, shooting one might be easier, but you still have to remove the body, what I am suggesting is far more humane and offers greater opportunity to study an individual before it's release. Edited January 4, 2016 by Lake County Bigfooot 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted January 4, 2016 Admin Share Posted January 4, 2016 Yuchi wrote: First, skeletal remains are the Smithsonian article mentions along with a live capture as acceptable forensic proof items, in the alternative so (IMO) your question probably depends upon whether hair, skin and internal organs are attached, what the facial profile looks like and then whether LE is then contacted (by them). /////////////////////// Wha? A dead body IS skeletal remains! If the carcass is complete and preserved? All the better for science! And as far as determining exactly where it exists on the tree of life? Thats for DNA to decide.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yuchi1 Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 No sir. Not according to the article you referenced earlier as (per the article) skeletal remains were defined as the skeleton which is bone, not hair, skin or internal organs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted January 4, 2016 Admin Share Posted January 4, 2016 Thats not what it says and you know it!! So what your telling people is, is that regardless of how they came upon a body, if it has any flesh on it? Dont bother.....science doesnt want it! Gee Whiz, what a assinine assertion, talk about false narratives!! How can anyone take what you say seriously!! I guess they must be tossing all those frozen mammoth finds in Siberia then! Dang nabit! Another carcass with too much flesh on it!! LOL!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockape Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 My loyalties? Who would that be? Yuchi, are you going to answer my question? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted January 4, 2016 Share Posted January 4, 2016 (edited) Hello Norseman and Yuchi1,From the linked Smithsonian article:"While most scientists believe the likelihood of the existence of such a creature is small, they keep an open mind as scientists should. One cannot prove anything on the basis of negative evidence, and the only satisfactory proof that an animal fitting the description of the "snowman" exists would be either to capture one and study it or to find undisputed skeletal evidence. Only these kinds of finds would result in the universal recognition of the "snowman" by all scientists." Looks like that is open to interpretation. As it's worded in my bolding there is no way to settle any disputes over what "undisputed Skeletal evidence" is talking about- a skeleton or a skeleton clothed in tissue. I interpreted it as a skeleton, as in just the bones. If there's a body it isn't a skeleton- it's a body. Depends on if one wishes to argur=e technicalities. But that's just me and my take on it. Edited January 4, 2016 by hiflier 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lake County Bigfooot Posted January 5, 2016 Author Share Posted January 5, 2016 (edited) Living in close proximity to many mounds dating back to the mound building cultures, one might readily wonder if such evidence of sasquatch could be buried in these mounds. I do not suggest that the mound builders were sasquatch, only that they might deem their skeletons as sacred. If we look back to the giants unearthed across early America we can surmise that something unusual was going on in this land. Native Americans as we know them were not the first to inhabit the America's, but seem to be more of a later entry after the formation of the Bearing Sea freezing over. I think that Native Americans crossed over at the same time frame or after Sasquatch. This seems to be confirmed by native cultures who state that the Sasquatch was here upon their arrival. Who knows exactly the interactions that took place, wars with the sasquatch were even reported. If you look at the way Native Americans lived, they certainly appeared like competition to the sasquatch, and would have been targeted for elimination, much like a lion will eliminate whatever other predators are trying to use it's range. Today our encroachment is on terms the sasquatch does not have context to understand. The removal of forest and replanting of the same. We must seem rather out of context to the sasquatch and it's understanding of survival. If a nuclear war or some other disaster took place and our numbers were reduced I would place my bet on the survival of the sasquatch in our place. Edited January 5, 2016 by Lake County Bigfooot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts