norseman Posted April 2, 2015 Admin Author Posted April 2, 2015 Grover Krantz: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lrFdtn0v-Gg
southernyahoo Posted April 2, 2015 Posted April 2, 2015 If another more primitive species of homo showed up? They would be treated like Apes if they could not function in society and follow our laws. I think that is obvious. Or you might find that they are treated just like they are right now......You know Norse, for someone who proposes to have their best interests at heart, I don't think putting them in cages would be doing anything but destruction. Talk to Jane Goodall about that. We could have their genetic makeup without the destruction, and this would be our greatest benefit of the discovery in my mind. Much is being done in the area of genetics and medicine. 1
Guest Divergent1 Posted April 2, 2015 Posted April 2, 2015 How would you get the genetic material without doing some damage? It's not like you could explain the need to them and they would automatically hand over a piece of flaking skin, hang nail, or hair ball. Either they wouldn't understand or they would take issue with someone having a genetic map of the individual donating the material. People pitched a fit when they found out 23&Me was owned by Google and questioned what Google was doing with their profiles. If bigfoot are that close to us then I doubt the reaction would be much different.
norseman Posted April 2, 2015 Admin Author Posted April 2, 2015 Or you might find that they are treated just like they are right now......You know Norse, for someone who proposes to have their best interests at heart, I don't think putting them in cages would be doing anything but destruction. Talk to Jane Goodall about that. We could have their genetic makeup without the destruction, and this would be our greatest benefit of the discovery in my mind. Much is being done in the area of genetics and medicine. Which is what? Ignored? Destruction of their habitat? I'm not a proponent of putting them in zoos, just don't tell me they are too big or smart to be put there. If we wish it to be? It will be. The fact of the matter is is that what happens to a few individuals in the name of science is not a reflection over the health of the species. You guys are always so emotional and narrow minded. You would rather roll the dice keeping this species in the dark than to see one shot and dissected or studied in a zoo. If aliens landed on Earth and proclaimed that a mass extinction asteroid was going to impact Earth and they were here to save our species. But the catch was they needed several humans to dissect in order to understand our biology and find a suitable replacement planet? The anti killers would rather roll the dice and see if the asteroid missed than to sacrifice a few for the benefit of the species! Your position is the illogical one. You can smugly proclaim that the are doing fine without us, but you cannot prove that and other large omnivore species health would suggest otherwise. How would you get the genetic material without doing some damage? It's not like you could explain the need to them and they would automatically hand over a piece of flaking skin, hang nail, or hair ball. Either they wouldn't understand or they would take issue with someone having a genetic map of the individual donating the material. People pitched a fit when they found out 23&Me was owned by Google and questioned what Google was doing with their profiles. If bigfoot are that close to us then I doubt the reaction would be much different. I volunteer Yuchi armed with a mouth swab to go ask for a DNA sample!!! As a Squatch super knower? It should be a snap...... I will hang up my rifle and gladly sing kumbaya around the fire.
Guest Divergent1 Posted April 2, 2015 Posted April 2, 2015 LOLOL...that visual almost reminds me of a Jack Links Jerky commercial.
southernyahoo Posted April 2, 2015 Posted April 2, 2015 How would you get the genetic material without doing some damage? It's not like you could explain the need to them and they would automatically hand over a piece of flaking skin, hang nail, or hair ball. Either they wouldn't understand or they would take issue with someone having a genetic map of the individual donating the material. People pitched a fit when they found out 23&Me was owned by Google and questioned what Google was doing with their profiles. If bigfoot are that close to us then I doubt the reaction would be much different. You don't need that much. If anyone is ever going to study and understand them, you have to be able to find them and their lair. Wherever they sleep and or give birth there would be plenty of genetic material. "THIS" is how we treat apes today. If they are members of homo, all that might be out of the question , and their genetic profiles might not be allowed to publish in data banks, which would limit it to private study. If a cure for some human disease was discovered, it might be proprietary.
southernyahoo Posted April 2, 2015 Posted April 2, 2015 Which is what? Ignored? Destruction of their habitat? I'm not a proponent of putting them in zoos, just don't tell me they are too big or smart to be put there. If we wish it to be? It will be. The fact of the matter is is that what happens to a few individuals in the name of science is not a reflection over the health of the species. You guys are always so emotional and narrow minded. You would rather roll the dice keeping this species in the dark than to see one shot and dissected or studied in a zoo. If aliens landed on Earth and proclaimed that a mass extinction asteroid was going to impact Earth and they were here to save our species. But the catch was they needed several humans to dissect in order to understand our biology and find a suitable replacement planet? The anti killers would rather roll the dice and see if the asteroid missed than to sacrifice a few for the benefit of the species! Your position is the illogical one. You can smugly proclaim that the are doing fine without us, but you cannot prove that and other large omnivore species health would suggest otherwise. I volunteer Yuchi armed with a mouth swab to go ask for a DNA sample!!! As a Squatch super knower? It should be a snap...... I will hang up my rifle and gladly sing kumbaya around the fire. Your ideas of saving them are inflated. Just as we don't know they are flourishing , we don't know they are in danger. "They" wouldn't be the only reason to preserve habitat either. One could assume you'd be doing them as much good to save all the other fauna and flora that they must feed on. They would simply be another reason for conservationists to do what they already do. Suppose they eat only deer, bear , elk , moose, fish, turkeys , etc etc etc, What would you be willing to give up so they can live? 1
norseman Posted April 2, 2015 Admin Author Posted April 2, 2015 Your ideas of saving them are inflated. Just as we don't know they are flourishing , we don't know they are in danger. "They" wouldn't be the only reason to preserve habitat either. One could assume you'd be doing them as much good to save all the other fauna and flora that they must feed on. They would simply be another reason for conservationists to do what they already do. Suppose they eat only deer, bear , elk , moose, fish, turkeys , etc etc etc, What would you be willing to give up so they can live? A couple of things. If I'm wrong? No harm no foul. One individual is removed from a healthy gene pool. But if your wrong? Extinction could be the prize. Your right that Sasquatch could be piggybacking it's conservation needs on the backs of other species. But it may not be either.,..... We don't know, until we study them with biologists. Grizzlies are still endangered in the lower 48, so not all large omnivores are doing well now. We know this? Because we study them!!
norseman Posted April 2, 2015 Admin Author Posted April 2, 2015 (edited) Long before Jane Goodall early European explorers like Capt. Von Beringe were shooting specimens to send back to Europe for study. Now today we protect them with guns instead....... Edited April 2, 2015 by norseman
southernyahoo Posted April 2, 2015 Posted April 2, 2015 A couple of things. If I'm wrong? No harm no foul. One individual is removed from a healthy gene pool. But if your wrong? Extinction could be the prize. Oh man, you go from a healthy gene pool when you kill one to extinction if I don't???? C'mon ,,,,,,,,,They get through the iceage, elimination of the megafauna, and heavy de-forestation, across this country plus a million + years of evolution before that and they are tedering on extinction if I want to observe first and collect samples instead of shooting one? Sorry, I can't be wrong. 1
norseman Posted April 2, 2015 Admin Author Posted April 2, 2015 (edited) You can be wrong, and probably are wrong. Replace your Sasquatch in the survival story of ice age and extinction of the mega fauna and European colonization with: A) Grizzly Bear B )Lynx C) Wolverine D) Woodland Caribou E) Wolf F) Native Salmon stocks G) Bison All currently fighting for survival in the lower 48 states. They made it through everything you mentioned and right now, today they need our help. I'm not going to even discuss the vast amount of species that have already gone extinct within the last thousand years, because of humans. You don't want to shoot one, I can totally understand that. But you can still be a pro kill proponent...........it's the logical choice. US law and a multitude of agencies are working very hard to ensure the species I've listed above do not go extinct...........absolutely nothing is left to chance. Your emotional knee jerk reaction to collecting a type specimen is illogical and unwarranted. Sorry bud. Edited April 2, 2015 by norseman 2
Guest Crowlogic Posted April 2, 2015 Posted April 2, 2015 The issue is silly. Each and every no kill advocate is as in the dark as the kill advocates. Nobody has anything to offer except stories and hearsay. So if a specimen is shot in California it isn't going to lead to the extinction of the Oho population. After all they are all over the place so there's a lot of them if you choose to believe. But since a camera only shooter has failed to get a dead ringer real no holds barred great photo a firearm shooter isn't likely to do much better. If there was anything at all to the regular spotters and habituators we would have rock solid proof and real science would already be involved. The reason we have none of this is because it's all smoke and mirrors. I hope Norse get one in the cross hairs and does the deed as it will finally put an end to the bigfoot circus assuming that there is actually something to draw a bead on.
Guest DWA Posted April 2, 2015 Posted April 2, 2015 I'd stop being so upset that one's True Belief was not rewarded on one's own personal schedule. It screams in every line.
norseman Posted April 2, 2015 Admin Author Posted April 2, 2015 The issue is silly. Each and every no kill advocate is as in the dark as the kill advocates. Nobody has anything to offer except stories and hearsay. So if a specimen is shot in California it isn't going to lead to the extinction of the Oho population. After all they are all over the place so there's a lot of them if you choose to believe. But since a camera only shooter has failed to get a dead ringer real no holds barred great photo a firearm shooter isn't likely to do much better. If there was anything at all to the regular spotters and habituators we would have rock solid proof and real science would already be involved. The reason we have none of this is because it's all smoke and mirrors. I hope Norse get one in the cross hairs and does the deed as it will finally put an end to the bigfoot circus assuming that there is actually something to draw a bead on. At one time you believed the species to be real, and then you changed your stance to be that they had gone extinct but Patty was still real. Where is your stance now? I do not believe they are doing fine and are all over the place. My personal observations are similar to yours. I believe my father and I saw tracks in the late 70's, I have since been packing horses and mules through out the Pacific NW since that time...............zip, zero, nada. Same could be said of the PGF, what happened to any follow on encounters? Did the deforestation at that time have a negative impact on the population? Probably wasn't positive I'd guess.......but here again we don't know. Because we haven't studied them because they don't officially exist or exist(ed). It boggles my mind that Southern Yahoo can think that the species is doing great. And I agree with you that if they were everywhere, we would know about them by now. The real problem is that "Finding Bigfoot" is in everyone's living room's anymore and people are seeing them under their beds......... The PGF wasn't someone seeing something that isn't there. And what's super cool is that we had a track way that coincides with the film subject.
Recommended Posts