Consistency of Evidence, Eyewitness Testimony and Cryptid Primates

[Twist]

1 minute ago, DWA said:

 

No. You don't need it to say "we got enough here to tell us there's an animal running around we don't know about."  We didn't use V T R to confirm the gorilla.  We used ...less evidence than we have for sasquatch.  By.A.Lot.

 

Yes we did use VTR to CONFIRM the gorilla, your right we used EVIDENCE and ANECDOTES to search out something that was SUPPOSED to exist.  Then we obtained V T R in the form of a gorilla carcus.  Then SCIENCE CONFIRMED IT did in fact EXIST !! 

 

Right now we should be using EVIDENCE and ANECDOTES to search out BF.  I'm of the opinion that science in genera should be doing more to research this species.  That all being said, we do not have confirmation of it, sans the people that have had 0 doubt sightings.  

 

[norseman]

 

I am not sure why you are arguing this with me.  Let me refer you to Grover Krantz and Jeff Meldrum.

-----------------------------------------

 

If track casts were physical evidence then Grover would not have been road hunting at midnight with a rifle. 

 

There would have been no need for it. And that's exactly why I'm arguing with you. You ignore his most important core message that we need to score a touch down.

 

This defacto discovery crap needs to be dropped, and people need to get back to work. It reminds me of participation awards at little league games.

[Guest DWA]

Well haven't I been saying that?  *We even know where to look.* Why isn't the looking going on (other than folks like NAWAC, and even they're doing it on their limited vacation time)?

[norseman]

No. Your message is the same as Bindernagel's, which is its already a defacto discovery...... The NAWAC doesn't support that mindset. Neither does Project Grendel or any other pro kill group that I'm aware of.

 

If we thought we already had compiled enough convincing evidence!? 

 

Why would we give up our vaca time to go out armed in the woods!!!!!?

 

Your not making a lick of sense.

[Guest DWA]

5 minutes ago, norseman said:

 

I am not sure why you are arguing this with me.  Let me refer you to Grover Krantz and Jeff Meldrum.

-----------------------------------------

 

If track casts were physical evidence  accepted as at least a pretext for research, the way they should be, rather than dismissed without examination, then Grover would not have been road hunting at midnight with a rifle. There, fixed.

 

There would have been no need for it. And that's exactly why I'm arguing with you. You ignore his most important core message that we need to score a touch down.

He is not saying that because "no physical evidence." He is saying that because scientists are not treating physical evidence the way scientists are supposed to.

 

5 minutes ago, norseman said:

 

This defacto discovery crap needs to be dropped, and people need to get back to work. It reminds me of participation awards at little league games.

I don't know why one should kowtow to stupidity. The mainstream isn't doing its job; it's invoking taboo, which last I checked is the province of New Guinea headhunters.

 

2 minutes ago, norseman said:

No. Your message is the same as Bindernagel's, which is its already a defacto discovery...... The NAWAC doesn't support that mindset. Neither does Project Grendel or any other pro kill group that I'm aware of.

 

If we thought we already had compiled enough convincing evidence!? 

 

Why would we give up our vaca time to go out armed in the woods!!!!!?

 

Your not making a lick of sense.

If my message is the same as Bindernagel's...I am clearly not concerned with who thinks I am making sense. They just don't know the score. Bindernagel over them.

That you personally don't think personally that there's sufficient evidence dictates what you think and do; it doesn't have to dictate anything to me.  Good luck; I wouldn't mind seeing one or more of these in the flesh.  But I don't have to to know they're real.  The evidence long ago took care of that for me.

[norseman]

That's because we have NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that's ever yielded DNA!

 

Its no great mystery.

 

I don't know why one should kowtow to stupidity. The mainstream isn't doing its job; it's invoking taboo, which last I checked is the province of New Guinea headhunters.

 

LOL.....What!?

[MIB]

2 hours ago, norseman said:

That's because we have NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that's ever yielded DNA!

 

Untrue.   

 

Blood, hair, and saliva are examples of physical evidence.  Samples of each processed by Ketchum and Sykes had testable DNA ... proven because testing was done and DNA results were published.   It was not confirmed to be bigfoot DNA, but it was tested and at least some of it absolutely DID have DNA.   Before them, we have also tested other samples in the past which showed unknown primate DNA. 

 

MIB

 

 

Edited September 28, 2016 by MIB

[norseman]

Right...of Possom, Skunk and Human DNA.

 

I guess I should have said;

 

2 hours ago, norseman said:

 

That's because we have NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that's ever yielded BIGFOOT DNA!

 

 

[MIB]

Yeah, I know, I was arguing semantics, and I knew what you meant.    

 

I wish we still had the remains of some of those samples originally tested as primate but unknown for retesting with today's capabilities.    They leave many doors open: mistake in testing, something known after all, or something else out there, and we can't know, we can only assert guesses as knowledge.    I think everyone should follow Justin Smeja's lead so far as retaining part of their sample so they can have it retested later if the answers they get just don't track with what they think they should have gotten.

 

MIB

[hiflier]

I sometimes find myself wishing people could honestly fathom what an enormous undertaking it is to bring one of these creatures down and then in. It concerns me some that many treat it rather lightly in their comments and it makes me wonder how many have truly thought the process through with any seriousness. It's easy to say get out there and bring one in. It's entirely another to realize the total effort at doing it with a complete plan in place from entering a remote habitat all the way to the delivery of a voucher to some facility. The time, the expense, the knowledge, the courage, the risks, and a near unbelievable amount of preparation and team work. All done with everyone's head down even after the deed is done and the body is on a slab.

 

If it's done right then there may be a body on a slab but who actually performed the task in truth should never be known- hard as it would be to keep that information secret. A secret that should be kept for months, years, or for always. No glory, no money....nothing. That would be the best way to deal with the situation in the aftermath of collecting a specimen. It would be the only way of respecting the creature at the deepest level. Find a carcass or a skeleton? different story entirely. Pulling the trigger though puts the whole thing into another category altogether on so many levels. The social fallout alone would be too much to bear. The identity of the shooter or the team would best be never known- for their own sakes and that of their families.

[ShadowBorn]

9 hours ago, norseman said:

That's because we have NO PHYSICAL EVIDENCE that's ever yielded DNA!

 

Its no great mystery.

 

I don't know why one should kowtow to stupidity. The mainstream isn't doing its job; it's invoking taboo, which last I checked is the province of New Guinea headhunters.

 

LOL.....What!?

Physical evidence is what is needed in this arena of this creature for it to be proven. One can do prints cast all day long but with out the animal that made them they are just prints.

[Guest DWA]

Animal's been discovered, gang.  Real.  Anything we do from here is cleaning up details like final taxonomical affiliation.  But there is at least one species of primate in North America that the scientific community hasn't acknowledged yet.  Doesn't mean it hasn't been discovered; it's just that the professionals didn't make the discovery.  (Even Bindernagel Meldrum et al are simply following up on evidence provided them by others who are for the most part amateurs.)

 

To insist that we need a body to acknowledge its mere existence is like saying the jury needs to see the murder committed in front of it to pronounce guilt.  (No.  Think about it.  PRECISE.SAME.THING.)  There is more than enough evidence to make it abundantly clear to anyone paying attention that an unconfirmed animal is out there, and that it is probably the world's largest hominid primate.

 

Of course we haven't gotten "bigfoot DNA." Until we have a confirmed specimen there is no such thing in our possession.  (At least that we know of.) What we do have, and we've gotten this more than once, is DNA that comes from a primate, but not a known one.

 

 

Edited October 18, 2016 by DWA

[Squatchy McSquatch]

4 hours ago, DWA said:

 

To insist that we need a body to acknowledge its mere existence is like saying the jury needs to see the murder committed in front of it to pronounce guilt.  (No.  Think about it.  PRECISE.SAME.THING.)  

 

 

 

Except in all those pesky murder cases where police, emergency technicians, coroners et al have inspected the dead body long before a jury has been chosen.

 

 

 

[hiflier]

22 hours ago, Squatchy McSquatch said:

 

Except in all those pesky murder cases where police, emergency technicians, coroners et al have inspected the dead body long before a jury has been chosen.

 

 

 

 

Sometimes a body isn't found and a conviction has been made. But the real issue is that the folks involved are professional crime people. People in authority. It's not like a bunch of amateurs pulled it off. In the case for BF it's mostly if not all amateurs. Has there been scientists involved. Danged few. But in any regard we won't be seeing a "conviction" achieved by anyone without at least irrefutable DNA. I think mainstream will go down fighting all the way on this one. I'm still highly suspect that the response has effectively been zilch. It's OK to find a new monkey in Brazil say, but boy don't let anyone catch you looking in your own back yard. To find a Sasquatch now would be a monumental embarrassment...

[Squatchy McSquatch]

1 hour ago, hiflier said:

 

Sometimes a body isn't found and a conviction has been made. But the real issue is that the folks involved are professional crime people. People in authority. It's not like a bunch of amateurs pulled it off. In the case for BF it's mostly if not all amateurs. Has there been scientists involved. Danged few. But in any regard we won't be seeing a "conviction" achieved by anyone without at least irrefutable DNA. I think mainstream will go down fighting all the way on this one. I'm still highly suspect that the response has effectively been zilch. It's OK to find a new monkey in Brazil say, but boy don't let anyone catch you looking in your own back yard. To find a Sasquatch now would be a monumental embarrassment...

 

Sorry pal..

 

You're so far off the mark it's comical.

 

BF hasn't been proven, accepted or classified.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited October 20, 2016 by Squatchy McSquatch