Collection Of Voucher Specimens

[Guest Rex]

Call me wild and crazy but I'll be watching for the news story when they lead you downtown in cuffs (and bulletproof vest) while an angry crowd screams murderer and spits in your face.  Your home will be besieged with protesters, the media and every form of nutjob imaginable to haunt your family and friends. If the DNA results come back as lower primate you will likely only be charged with felony animal cruelty, but probably lose your home, guns, job and the right to vote. Should the results come back as a level of homo sapien classification, the charges will only escalate and the pain level even more intense, for you and yours. After the criminal case is concluded, the raft of civil actions will commence, effectively wiping out any remaining assets you have worked years to accrue.  If the kill occurs on federal lands, amp up the ante exponentially.

 

Then, a few years later while you're standing on top of the bridge railing, looking into the murky water below, a sparrow alights beside you and without a sound you hear the words, I told you so....

 

 

Just like they all immediately did to rick dyer eh?... 

 

Lord..

[JKH]

IMO, it has already been done fairly often.

[southernyahoo]

.

Outside of our own species the lines gray quite abit. Some people want to extend human rights to chimpanzees.

 

 

You see that's just the thing. They wanted to do that because the DNA is so close to human, and to keep genus classifications inline with DNA findings, it made sense to consider it.

 

Sasquatch is logicly inescabably closer to human than a chimp, so you have to expect that it will be a serious consideration with a voucher specimen in hand.

 

Sure the shooter might get a pass for the sake of a discovery, but only if this creature can be proven to 1. Not be human 2. Incognizant of it's actions (purely instinctual) and lacks understanding of what we would consider right and wrong.  

 

I bring these up because we consider an animal to be innocent and exempt from wrong on any harm it brings on us.

 

If you have a creature that is cognizant of it's actions and harms people intentionally, then it becomes a monster and people will want it exterminated.

[Yuchi1]

Just like they all immediately did to rick dyer eh?... 

 

Lord..

Biscardi was likely the only one that didn't know it was a rubber suit.

[norseman]

You see that's just the thing. They wanted to do that because the DNA is so close to human, and to keep genus classifications inline with DNA findings, it made sense to consider it.

Sasquatch is logicly inescabably closer to human than a chimp, so you have to expect that it will be a serious consideration with a voucher specimen in hand.

Sure the shooter might get a pass for the sake of a discovery, but only if this creature can be proven to 1. Not be human 2. Incognizant of it's actions (purely instinctual) and lacks understanding of what we would consider right and wrong.

I bring these up because we consider an animal to be innocent and exempt from wrong on any harm it brings on us.

If you have a creature that is cognizant of it's actions and harms people intentionally, then it becomes a monster and people will want it exterminated.

It's not going to be proven "human" period, in other words homo sap sap..... It might be a different species of homo ( i think that too is not probable) but if people are willing to extend human right to other species of great apes? The point is moot.

But scientists have gotten skulls and other partial specimens from Bili apes in the Congo for quite sometime. And as far as I know they haven't drug any villagers back to The Hague for genocide prosecution for killing Bili apes.

Mountain Gorillas are a different story but not because they have human rights but because they are extremely endangered.

http://www.janegoodall.org/chimpanzees-protecting-home

Above is Jane Goodall's chimp conservation website, she is on record saying that she is sure Sasquatch exists. But she collects no money for Sasquatch conservation....why? It's for the simple fact that in the eye of science Sasquatch does not exist. And you cannot conserve something that does not exist. Yuchi asks why the Smithsonian isn't hunting for Sasquatch and the simple answer is that with limited resources and millions of species yet to discover, some of which are going extinct? They must pick their battles wisely. A new species of beetle in a rainforest is a much safer bet than a bipedal primate in North America. That's the long and the short of it.

The only way to discover this species, especially one this controversial and un predicted by science? Is with a body or a good chunk of it. So that DNA sequencing is verifiable and repeatable. Unlike say a hair sample, which is destroyed in the process. It doesn't matter how we come up with that specimen, whether it's a fossil or a living specimen or something in between.

I say for the sake of expediency for discovery a bullet is the undeniable winner. Morality? It can wait, until after we prove it exists. Then we can enact laws and Jane Goodall can set up conservancy funds, etc. I'm for it 2000% as should all pro kill thinkers. Conservation should be the focal point in all our minds. And while killing one for the sake of all seems like an oxymoron? It's quite the opposite.

I know nothing I'm going to say will make any difference but I think you are being obstinate about dismissing the risk involved here, not to mention that numerous reliable sources state it isn't necessary to kill something to prove it exists. In a hypothetical situation, much like Justin's, let's assume that you are absolutely certain that you have a sasquatch in your sight and that you have clearly identified the target. What would be the real reason that you would want to kill one whether it's human or animal? It seems to me they have done extremely well on their own.

Are you an accredited scientist? It seems to you? Show us your data! I wanna think they are fine as well.

Here is a Montana Fish and Game grizzly bear biology report summary:

http://fwp.mt.gov/fwpDoc.html?id=25774

And while I know that biology reports are not always accurate? They are not waving their hand around and blindly saying everything is hunky dory either.

/////////////////////////////////

That's just one white man's opinion, did you ask the hairy man what he might think about it?

//////////////////////////////

If I could ask him? I'd just ask for a pint of blood and be done with it. But I cannot even sign my request to him.......

And I suggest you google "morphology". I don't need to interact with a chimp to realize its a different species than my own.

Sometimes I think people use the term species, when what they really mean is genus.

Edited March 18, 2015 by norseman

[WSA]

You raise good points Norseman, and not to quibble, but I think you put words in Dr. Goodall's mouth by stating she is "sure" Sasquatch exists. If she has said that, I'd like to know the source and would welcome that opinion. But, as far as I know, she has only come out as stating she "wants" to believe Sasquatch exists. Again, if you have other information, please share. 

[Guest DWA]

You raise good points Norseman, and not to quibble, but I think you put words in Dr. Goodall's mouth by stating she is "sure" Sasquatch exists. If she has said that, I'd like to know the source and would welcome that opinion. But, as far as I know, she has only come out as stating she "wants" to believe Sasquatch exists. Again, if you have other information, please share. 

It's in here.  http://www.bfro.net/news/GoodallTranscript.asp

 

I think she kinda hemmed and hawed after because, you know, scientists aren't supposed to be curious but stoopid about this, the society says so.  But yep, she did say it; and Jane, I know and you know that that is what you meant, and nothing speaks better to the scientist that is in you ...and should be in every scientist.

 

I think that Yuchi1 overlooks an important reality concerning public opinion about the sanctity of BF life. Do we need to be reminded at all that John Q. Public doesn't give a furry rat's posterior about BF? Is that suddenly and remarkably going to change because Norseman or anyone else plugs one? If there was that potential for outrage out there, we'd be seeing a magnitude larger interest in just the idea of the animal roaming wild. In this BFF bubble, some might have lost sight of the fact that this issue doesn't matter to the vast, vast majority who Yuchi1 is predicting will mutate into a howling mob clamoring for vengence. You've got to give a rip before that happens. (Nearly) nobody does.

So many times, we project onto the society what we think because we are immersed in this.  but I think you're right.  In fact, I care not a figinhell, nor should anyone, for the faux outrage of the people whose fault it will have been if a voucher specimen is taken, let 'em rant, and let me laugh.

[WSA]

Thanks for that...shows how you shouldn't rely on summaries of others. I'd never read that transcript, I don't think, only saw the last part quoted at some point. Thanks for clearing that up for me. And, well, this is welcome news to me she has that level of curiosity about it. 

[Guest DWA]

Yeah (and to all those that go "BFRO, pee-you," I read that transcript in several other places ...the first NPR's own website.  That is what she said).

 

Significant that two mainstream icons - Goodall and George Schaller, oh and forgot David Attenborough - vouch for the compelling nature of what we have for these animals.  And that they are, let's see, how to say this, oh whattheheck, old.  They have run out of powerful people to pizz off.  They can say what they want.

 

Now, if only the mainstreamers who have chided NAWAC for trying to kill one could get it through their thick skulls that NAWAC wouldn't need to kill one IF the mainstream took its task of solving mysteries for the society seriously, and started showing the interest that the evidence is telling them they should.

Edited March 18, 2015 by DWA

[daveedoe]

my signature line, I like the quote and its where I'm at.

[southernyahoo]

It's not going to be proven "human" period, in other words homo sap sap..... It might be a different species of homo ( i think that too is not probable) but if people are willing to extend human right to other species of great apes? The point is moot.

 

 

I'm afraid you just don't know that, it won't be your decision to make,it would be a consensus among scientists. 

 

Check this out........remember how human Neanderthals are suppose to be.......making fire and spears? Now some scientists are saying they were not and based on their nasal cavity. 

 

http://phys.org/news/2014-11-neanderthals-sub-species-modern-humans.html

 

Dr. Laitman states that this article is a significant contribution to the question of Neanderthal cold adaptation in the nasal region, especially in its identification of a different mosaic of features than those of cold-adapted modern humans. Dr. Laitman's body of work has shown that there are clear differences in the vocal tract proportions of these fossil humans when compared to modern humans. This current contribution has now identified potentially species-level differences in nasal structure and function.

Dr. Laitman said, "The strength of this new research lies in its taking the totality of the Neanderthal nasal complex into account, rather than looking at a single feature. By looking at the complete morphological pattern, we can conclude that Neanderthals are our close relatives, but they are not us."

 

 

We are suppose to have Neanderthal DNA in us, so part of you is Non- human!!! 

 

It's a good thing Neanderthals aren't still around, because there would be some major political incorrectness going on here.   

[Guest]

IMO, it's a harsh reality that it's going to have to come down to a body. 

 

However, with that, there's obtaining body, by shooting one, poisoning one, shoving one off a cliff, or that lucky lucky roadkill, and then maintaining custody of it until it is brought to an unimpeachable institution in front of media you won't have any luck suing a warden, ranger, sheriff or fed after the fact for stealing your bigfoot... they don't exist.

 

Personally, I'd be mailing out chunks of thigh muscle to every university with the facility to analyse it in any fashion, at least 50, 2 days before the transfer of custody in public view.

 

The what if it's homo question....

 

Well, I'd definitely avoid hunting in areas where they were reputed to take native american women, shoot the one that's by chance 75% sapiens and you'll have a rough time. Other thoughts about that, is do it before great apes declared to have human rights, and also to hunt in the south, the more I read, the more I think they have a possible giganto descendant down there. Eastern type, "Marked Hominid" as Coleman calls them, could be the most "dangerous" in the homo regard, possibly one we even know about, ergaster, heidelbergis (sp?). PNWers are a possible homo branch IMO, but "different" enough. Bear in mind here, that the Sierra Club or similar have millions to throw at superstar attorneys, who are going to play both the cute furry animal and it might be a man card, asking an idiot jury to "Look at it, why would you not think that was a man and shoot it?" scientific classification be damned. A courtroom is about grandstanding, showboating and the authorities being right, not about facts or anything like that.

 

All I'm saying is be prepared.

[Guest Divergent1]

It's not going to be proven "human" period, in other words homo sap sap..... It might be a different species of homo ( i think that too is not probable) but if people are willing to extend human right to other species of great apes? The point is moot.

But scientists have gotten skulls and other partial specimens from Bili apes in the Congo for quite sometime. And as far as I know they haven't drug any villagers back to The Hague for genocide prosecution for killing Bili apes.

Mountain Gorillas are a different story but not because they have human rights but because they are extremely endangered.

http://www.janegoodall.org/chimpanzees-protecting-home

Above is Jane Goodall's chimp conservation website, she is on record saying that she is sure Sasquatch exists. But she collects no money for Sasquatch conservation....why? It's for the simple fact that in the eye of science Sasquatch does not exist. And you cannot conserve something that does not exist. Yuchi asks why the Smithsonian isn't hunting for Sasquatch and the simple answer is that with limited resources and millions of species yet to discover, some of which are going extinct? They must pick their battles wisely. A new species of beetle in a rainforest is a much safer bet than a bipedal primate in North America. That's the long and the short of it.

The only way to discover this species, especially one this controversial and un predicted by science? Is with a body or a good chunk of it. So that DNA sequencing is verifiable and repeatable. Unlike say a hair sample, which is destroyed in the process. It doesn't matter how we come up with that specimen, whether it's a fossil or a living specimen or something in between.

I say for the sake of expediency for discovery a bullet is the undeniable winner. Morality? It can wait, until after we prove it exists. Then we can enact laws and Jane Goodall can set up conservancy funds, etc. I'm for it 2000% as should all pro kill thinkers. Conservation should be the focal point in all our minds. And while killing one for the sake of all seems like an oxymoron? It's quite the opposite.

Are you an accredited scientist? It seems to you? Show us your data! I wanna think they are fine as well.

Here is a Montana Fish and Game grizzly bear biology report summary:

http://fwp.mt.gov/fwpDoc.html?id=25774

And while I know that biology reports are not always accurate? They are not waving their hand around and blindly saying everything is hunky dory either.

/////////////////////////////////

That's just one white man's opinion, did you ask the hairy man what he might think about it?

//////////////////////////////

If I could ask him? I'd just ask for a pint of blood and be done with it. But I cannot even sign my request to him.......

And I suggest you google "morphology". I don't need to interact with a chimp to realize its a different species than my own.

Sometimes I think people use the term species, when what they really mean is genus.

I've spent some time reading the older threads. Throughout this forum on numerous threads for several years people have provided this information for you and others who are pro kill, did you not read those posts and check the sources for reliability? I was especially impressed with a member that no longer contributes that went by Saskeptic (sp?) What was wrong with his credentialing that you discounted his input? Still, you choose to ignore these contributions to promote your position for killing a sasquatch. I simply think there is more to it than establishing the existence of the species in your motives which was why I asked the question.

 

As to whether I'm a scientist? Yes, in a way, I have a BS in soil resource management and a master's in biotechnology. I retired from a job in a state forestry service and then ran my own nursery/farm and floral shop. Now I'm working for another state agency. I think I can speak intelligently enough about the process of science and basic terminology even though anthropology/primatology aren't my areas of expertise, are they yours?  So what do you do?

 

As for Jane Goodall, she was misquoted, she never said she believed in bigfoot. She said she would love for the creature to exist. See her comments at 7:30.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOWSGuN4zS8

 

The only justifiable kill would be self defense IMO, not to establish the existence of a species. I don't think the sasquatch are in any danger if they do exist, I certainly don't think you would be doing them any favors if you do one day happen get your voucher specimen as proof.

[Branco]

You seem to live in the land of la la a lot.

An 8 ft tall hairy creature that lives in the wild will never be classified as us. Patty exhibits morphology different from our own. How the foot has a mid tarsal break, how the knee rotates while walking and the limb proportions that are all wrong for human.

Add to that they use no tools or fire and can live in cold that would kill any human? They are not us...........

So it's not murder, but I could be charged with some form of poaching from Fish and Game. But being that it is a type specimen I doubt it. And I could bring charges back against the dept. for dereliction of duty of not telling the public that a large ape man prowled the woods.

Those that believe they can and should kill one of these creatures "for science" must live in the capitol city of La La Land.

 

Mankind comes in many various shapes, sizes, colors, and some have modes of travel that is not like that must of us use.

  

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2698298/Turkish-family-walks-fours-scientists-say-dont-like-four-legged-animals-ARENT-example-reverse-evolution.html

 

Where did you get the idea that man has always used and depended on fire and tools to survive?

 

It would be murder.if their DNA showed they are relic humans. (But, again, if they are relic humans it would be a violation of this country's "Scientific Integrity" regulations, per Obama's Presidential Memo of 2010 for any scientist to publish anything about the examination of the body.)

 

Residents of La La Land all share the same grossly erroneous beliefs that, (1) science & the federal government does not already know the DNA identity of these creature, (2) a body of one would be welcomed with opened arms by any scientist in the appropriate fields of study, (3) killing one would bring bring fame, glory and acclaim to all those who actually conspire to kill one of the creatures in a premeditated and deliberate manner and; (4) the worst that could happen to those involved would be a summons from a state game & fish enforcement officer for killing an animal for which there is no open season.

 

I strongly suspect that you could not find or afford an attorney who would pursue your "charges" (or claim) against the G&F agency for not telling you about the "ape man" after reading your posts on this forum.

 

The most voracious "pro-kill advocates" seem to be those who have never actually seen one of the creatures face-to-face, especially a young one that has not learned that some of "us" pose a serious and unjustified threat to them.

 

[norseman]

I'm afraid you just don't know that, it won't be your decision to make,it would be a consensus among scientists.

Check this out........remember how human Neanderthals are suppose to be.......making fire and spears? Now some scientists are saying they were not and based on their nasal cavity.

http://phys.org/news/2014-11-neanderthals-sub-species-modern-humans.html

We are suppose to have Neanderthal DNA in us, so part of you is Non- human!!!

It's a good thing Neanderthals aren't still around, because there would be some major political incorrectness going on here.

I didn't read that they didn't make fire or spears......only that they are a separate species of us. Something that has been known for some time. Same genus ( homo) but different species.

Now compare a modern thal full body reconstruction to Patty......it's not even on the same planet. A Thal looks similar to some modern humans.

Compare Meldrum's mid tarsal break which is a ape like quality to a Thal foot.

http://www.sciencephoto.com/media/170954/enlarge

The Thal foot has an arch the same as ours. Your proving my point for me.

As close as Thals were to us? They are a different species. Can you point to a modern human anywhere on the planet that resembles Patty? No.

For me at this point? I would bet my bottom dollar that Sasquatch does not belong to the Genus Homo. If we look at the Homo Erectus hand axe? What? At least 2 million years old? And the fact that we have no evidence of Sasquatch stone tool manufacture?

I think something more along the lines of Giganto or other ape species is much much more likely.

And yes, Europeans and Asians are 2-4% hybrids between Thals and humans. I've also read before that sexual compatibility between the two species was strained and that if the two species had waited much longer cross breeding would have been unsuccessful.

Edited March 19, 2015 by norseman