Guest Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 I've been thinking about the capture of a young BF. I suspect that even a young BF possibly 2-3 years of age would still be a handful, and keeping it safe and the researchers safe would be just as difficult, plus they grow rapidly and what do you do with a creature that can tear a person apart in a heartbeat if it feels threatened? I suspect a live capture will be followed by a very quick release after verifying their existence. I believe that recovering an adult body would be next to impossible also due to the size and weight of such a huge creature. Truly, Something like a backhoe would be needed to move the body, and backhoes are just not that easy to move around and to use to retrieve the body from a wooded area. Should I discover a body I would take pictures, remove a finger for science, and leave the area immediately post haste. Sudden death by dismemberment is not appealing to me.. at all... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 (edited) Hairy Man said: HairyMan, on 22 July 2011 - 12:54 AM, said: Not to be a downer or anything, but isn't is reasonable to wait for the peer reviewed paper before getting all hyped up? I think way too much is being speculated here. If there is a body, ok. Science requires that. If it's a child, ok, what is done is done. Don't forget...science doesn't feel anything...it's a method...not a person....science requires what it requires...and it requires a lot. If there is DNA that proves that bigfoot is real, I'm totally good with it. Back stories be damned. Mark Mac said: That's as well said as I've ever seen HairyMan. Exactly my sentiments. Susi says: Amen my friends, amen.. Will the science community accept the DNA without a fight? The giggle factor still exists the last time I checked. Hubby said a body, or forget it. I worry that other people/science will react the same way, and will refuse to even touch this project w/o a body. Edited July 22, 2011 by SweetSusiq Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 I think if a baby or small child bigfoot was taken, it would be sold or donated to the millionaire backer who could provide an observation/study area. I don't see the shooter, regardless of character, being able to hide or keep the baby/child bigfoot. Of course, that's just me rambling on.....it just goes to show you how a story can grow and grow until there is no story left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 OMG, Jodie, I think that you nailed it! I just an amazed to think that they could keep that quiet longer then 24 hours. Surly a BF baby would be huge news, and really hard to keep quiet for long. Great, now we have Bigfoot Babies bouncing on Dereks Lap. I might have to face palm here, and I don't do that often. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest vilnoori Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 I thought the team was referring to the Kentucky habituation project as behavioural studies that would come in later. The bigfoot baby idea is just wishful thinking, I'm afraid. It really would be the best option, though, for figuring out exactly where on the hominin scale BF's fit, because we could attempt to raise it as a modern human. If it was language impaired it would tell us a lot. If it had autistic tendencies that too would tell us a lot. But if it actually became a bigger and better human than we are, and ended up as a pro wrestler or playing as a linebacker for a popular football team, well then!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Thepattywagon Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 The logistics of actually capturing a juvenile BF alive would be too problematic for me to wrap my small mind around. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 Well let's see if any these supposed "sources" suddenly change their story to include someone raising a bigfoot baby that was saved from this unfortunate situation. Just remember, he or she probably read it here first. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Strick Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 I've been thinking about the capture of a young BF. I suspect that even a young BF possibly 2-3 years of age would still be a handful I should say so, not to mention the hassle of chasing it round all day with all those cans of Febreze..... :huh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 I've been thinking about the capture of a young BF. I suspect that even a young BF possibly 2-3 years of age would still be a handful, and keeping it safe and the researchers safe would be just as difficult, plus they grow rapidly and what do you do with a creature that can tear a person apart in a heartbeat if it feels threatened? I suspect a live capture will be followed by a very quick release after verifying their existence. I believe that recovering an adult body would be next to impossible also due to the size and weight of such a huge creature. Truly, Something like a backhoe would be needed to move the body, and backhoes are just not that easy to move around and to use to retrieve the body from a wooded area. Should I discover a body I would take pictures, remove a finger for science, and leave the area immediately post haste. Sudden death by dismemberment is not appealing to me.. at all... As far as keeping a young bigfoot in captivity consider all the tigers that people all over the US keep. There are more tigers in captivity than in the wild. And these are animals that will and do attack and eat humans. And as far as loading an adult sas, they were out hunting bear(so the story goes) so they were prepared to at least deal with an animal that weighs up to 4-500lbs and only had to move it 100yrds or so to the road IF they weren't able to drive right to it. Just my thoughs on the matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 22, 2011 Share Posted July 22, 2011 (edited) I should say so, not to mention the hassle of chasing it round all day with all those cans of Febreze..... :huh: And a shovel to clean up the poop, plus a mop to clean up the urine, I'd insist on diapers or un_tear-able rubber pants. However, That would supply lots of DNA material. Edited July 23, 2011 by SweetSusiq Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Forbig Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 I've been thinking about the capture of a young BF. I suspect that even a young BF possibly 2-3 years of age would still be a handful It wasn't that long ago somebody calculated a 3 year old to be around 46 inches tall that's quite a handfull. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bsruther Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 It wasn't that long ago somebody calculated a 3 year old to be around 46 inches tall that's quite a handfull. If I calculated them at 24 inches tall, their guess would be no better than mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Forbig Posted July 23, 2011 Share Posted July 23, 2011 If I calculated them at 24 inches tall, their guess would be no better than mine. Yes I believe they were comparing to the human rate who would know what rate a Sasquatch really grows? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairy Man Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 Hairyman, the topic of the thread is about more then just DNA, its about some alleged bodies. There have been alleged bodies before and look how they turned out. So there is concern because of some of the contradictions. Luckily for all of us, society doesn't live by science alone. We would be in serious trouble if it did. We establish moral & ethical guidelines to keep science in line. If we didn't, there would be widespread cloning of humans and other ugly behavior using body parts of the unwilling. The same cloning issue will likely be faced with bigfoot someday. How evidence is retrieved is also part of science. There is a conduct we must abide by. A morality of our own will. Should we go trap ancient tribal members in the Amazon because science wants to study them? No because we know that would be wrong. Laws will be written even based on how these alleged samples were retrieved. The how is just as important as the what. My point is pretty simple. I'm not going to be morally outraged by a story that I don't know to be true. Nor am I going to be a hypocrite when I celebrate the DNA findings (if/when) that included any such tissue. Instead I am going to wait for the peer reviewed paper to come out. Then I will read the methods, the origins of any samples, and the findings. I'll make my judgement then. Until then, everything is speculation and pretty much pointless. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 24, 2011 Share Posted July 24, 2011 My point is pretty simple. I'm not going to be morally outraged by a story that I don't know to be true. Nor am I going to be a hypocrite when I celebrate the DNA findings (if/when) that included any such tissue. Instead I am going to wait for the peer reviewed paper to come out. Then I will read the methods, the origins of any samples, and the findings. I'll make my judgement then. Until then, everything is speculation and pretty much pointless. Bulls Eye Hairy Man. There are way too many here that are morally outraged at such a story that for all we know isn't even true. And if the story is true and puts the nail in the BF coffin, then I for one will be very glad such an unfortunate incident occurred. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts