Blockbuster News

[Guest]

From wikipedia:

Exactly and an enthusiast in my mind is the equivalent of an interested hobbyist or knock-about.....seems like there are plenty of skeptic BF enthusiasts (highly interested people) on this forum as well so what difference would THAT make.

I'd like to see the double-blind test that will be used to admit who is qualified or disqualified as an enthusiast before they are allowed to participate in the science of the matter. That should be a good one. (OMG.....she clicked on a BF discussion website and visited the BFF, ding ding ding.....loser, loser....the gall and unmitigated inherent bias )

Of course, bipedalist and southernyahoo, you are correct. I should have used "true believer" or "die-hard proponent" or such, rather than "enthusiast."

And, I would like to address a conflation of my posts. Dr. Ketchum has not yet been published, so we do not know if she makes a good case or not, or even if she will pass her peer review hurdle. Without knowing more about her and her methods, there is no way I, or anyone else, should be dismissive of her efforts and research. (I did wonder why one particular DNA testing firm, not particularly renown, had all this drop into its lap, given the importance of the subject.)

What my concern is, most of the attendant issues here are being filtered through the lens of true belief (by way of true believers). Given that I once was a believer myself, I understand how the mindset (or hope) makes one more likely to dismiss that quiet inner-voice of doubt I submit should never be silenced in general, and especially as it concerns the topic of this thread.

Basically, I just wish we had the involvement of truly neutral individuals in all of this. Where is Walter Cronkite when we need him?

Edited July 19, 2011 by jerrywayne

[Guest]

I'll make this a separate post just because its better that way. Derekfoot, she was shot in the front of the chest right? I think I've read that as coming from the shooter. I'll say this, this is probably the most difficult post I'll ever make. I really want to be respectful too but life isn't always pretty.

In all the years I've been hunting, I've never had any such sizable piece as described fly off an animal when hit in the chest. Not even with a thru n thru using a .338 magnum. In this situation apparently the shooter was using a 25-06 which is more appropriate for smaller game. While the caliber has speed, it lacks knockdown power on larger animals unless you hit your target in a vital organ. A bullet to the chest will also often hit a rib, but even if it doesn't, when (if) it comes out the other side, the small piece of meat that does exit still looks like its been thru a meat grinder.

So how do we end up with what is being described as a small steak I ask? Believe me, I'm trying to pose this question as respectful and dignifying as possible, mostly for the victim but some for the shooter. Others may be thinking the same thing but there's no question this is delicate area. I know just how big and muscular a Sasquatch is from my personal encounters too, but given the prior description of the 'fatty' piece, I have to wonder if she was hit where there is only soft tissue, if she was indeed hit in the chest as stated. And while I've never personally seen a female Sasquatch, I don't believe they are usually fat throughout their outer upper torso. So where was she hit that would allow that much flesh to be jettisoned upon impact I ask? There's two places I can think of where flesh isn't held together by bone. Tell me I'm off-base please. Obviously the more detail, the more difficult it is to contemplate. I truly want to hear a more viable explanation, really! Maybe one of her biceps, or a flank of skin, anything? I'm trying to consider other alternatives too but they just don't fit and it makes me cringe thinking about it.

Edited July 19, 2011 by PragmaticTheorist

[Guest rockinkt]

So noted, 'vilnoori'. However, here in Ontario, over 75% of the land south of the Near North/North Bay to Tri-Town corridor (in other words all of Southern Ontario) is privately owned, and that is a vast tract of land, not far off the size of Pennsylvania, where serious damage to BF populations can be done.

The number of morons hunting from boats, highways, planes, using spotting lights at night, etc., charged and convicted in Ontario every year is quite staggering. I read roughly 25 of the mid-North/Northern Ontario newspapers each week and the number of illegal hunting charges and convictions contained therein boggles my mind. I don't know, maybe I'm just too naive and don't realize that it probably goes on as almost a routine, every day, practice.

Stopping these folks from doing their dirty work on Crown Land is job enough, let alone having to deal with infractions on private land, which becomes more complicated for enforcement and much easier to hide. And, I should add, I know from personal experience that we have a significant population of Sasquatch throughout the entire Southern Ontario area living and thriving on private lands.

It tells me that there is an active component of the general long gun owning population who don't give a **** about what the rules and laws require, so, to be quite honest, I have always feared the day Sasquatch is officially recognized because of our inability to control their safety and future.

- Dudlow

With all that going on and not one sasquatch shot or parts thereof. Doesn't that tell you something?

[southernyahoo]

IMHO, recognition would result in what I will refer to as an extended media moment during which people everywhere could be motivated, for whatever reasons, to go out and shoot one; because someone has apparently already just done that to a mother and child. This moment could go on for a couple of years as media changes its attitude from that of ridicule to that of serious news gathering on the subject of BF. This, in a sense, could become the next media fixation, the next reality show explosion, as we are now just beginning to see on television with the good ol' boys being filmed hunting BF. BF become targets overnight simply because they have finally been shown to exist, because they are now media darlings and because they could become the latest monsters to be hung upside down next to the brave hunters jostling for their photo op.

Recognition would also, sooner or later, draw attention to how widespread BF really are, regardless of how well they manage to hide themselves. Most researchers aren't even aware of how widespread their presence is. Lots of folks with high powered rifles tramping through the bush where people otherwise have no reason to go, will force entire BF clans to continually relocate, an exhausting and daunting task for any species, especially one which insists upon anonymity, all the while needing a stable and accessible food source.

I see nothing good, nothing that serves the survival interests of BF, coming of discovery. I fear for them.

- Dudlow

Dudlow, I can appreciate your concern, but keep in mind that there are researchers out there that have been looking for them for decades and never saw one, and from my own experience, they know how to fly under most peoples radar. I think the curiosity seekers will exhaust their interest pretty quickly. Most don't have the time, money or patience to stay after them.

[bipedalist]

What my concern is, most of the attendant issues here are being filtered through the lens of true belief (by way of true believers). Given that I once was a believer myself, I understand how the mindset (or hope) makes one more likely to dismiss that quiet inner-voice of doubt I submit should never be silenced in general, and especially as it concerns the topic of this thread.

Basically, I just wish we had the involvement of truly neutral individuals in all of this. Where is Walter Cronkite when we need him?

I think what DR stated on the MNBRT call-in he made was that much of the work has been outsourced. Whether that was just the nuDNA for original sequencing or whether it was all dna to other institution/labs for the sake of replicative effort I am not clear. Just thinking that they have backed this up with uber qualified multiple labs. I certainly hope it is as described anyhoo.

Just to be clear he stated he was up-to-date with all the findings and has been made aware of results and is holding them under the nda as far as he has been allowed. If the paper has been submitted I would think that would be possible.

[Guest]

Dudlow, you're not alone in your thinking. There are valid reasons for it too. I'll say more about it on a different platform very soon.

[bipedalist]

Most don't have the time, money or patience to stay after them.

Understatement of the year award winner ^^

Just think of poor DR 26 years in and now getting his just rewards hopefully. I'm just a spring chicken at 5 or so and counting (years in the field, son ).

[Guest rockinkt]

I'll make this a separate post just because its better that way. Derekfoot, she was shot in the front of the chest right? I think I've read that as coming from the shooter. I'll say this, this is probably the most difficult post I'll ever make. I really want to be respectful too but life isn't always pretty.

In all the years I've been hunting, I've never had any such sizable piece as described fly off an animal when hit in the chest. Not even with a thru n thru using a .338 magnum. In this situation apparently the shooter was using a 25-06 which is more appropriate for smaller game. While the caliber has speed, it lacks knockdown power on larger animals unless you hit your target in a vital organ. A bullet to the chest will also often hit a rib, but even if it doesn't, when (if) it comes out the other side, the small piece of meat that does exit still looks like its been thru a meat grinder.

So how do we end up with what is being described as a small steak I ask? Believe me, I'm trying to pose this question as respectful and dignifying as possible, mostly for the victim but some for the shooter. Others may be thinking the same thing but there's no question this is delicate area. I know just how big and muscular a Sasquatch is from my personal encounters too, but given the prior description of the 'fatty' piece, I have to wonder if she was hit where there is only soft tissue, if she was indeed hit in the chest as stated. And while I've never personally seen a female Sasquatch, I don't believe they are usually fat throughout their outer upper torso. So where was she hit that would allow that much flesh to be jettisoned upon impact I ask? There's two places I can think of where flesh isn't held together by bone. Tell me I'm off-base please. Obviously the more detail, the more difficult it is to contemplate. I truly want to hear a more viable explanation, really! Maybe one of her biceps, anything? I'm trying to consider other alternatives too but they just don't fit and it makes me cringe thinking about it.

None of this story makes any sense. Good luck trying to find a fact. I want to be respectful too - but when people start telling me that they can establish the truthfulness and credibility of a witness over the phone - well, enough said.

[Guest]

I know just how big and muscular a Sasquatch is from my personal encounters too, but given the prior description of the 'fatty' piece, I have to wonder if she was hit where there is only soft tissue, if she was indeed hit in the chest as stated. And while I've never personally seen a female Sasquatch, I don't believe they are usually fat throughout their outer upper torso.

Not to bring Patty into this, but if the Patterson film is indeed authentic, there is a great deal of fatty tissue on the torso of a female Sasquatch in the form of breasts. Just a thought.

[Guest]

Not to bring Patty into this, but if the Patterson film is indeed authentic, there is a great deal of fatty tissue on the torso of a female Sasquatch in the form of breasts. Just a thought.

Thanks, it was out of respect that I was trying to avoid saying it in the breakdown.

[BobbyO]

Dudlow, you're not alone in your thinking.

I've been saying it for Years too..

[Guest]

Its a BS story one way or another, the truth is not being told. Either there was no shooting of a sasquatch, or the guy has the bodies somewhere. Anyone into hunting and taxidermy would not leave 2 dead sasquatch bodies laying out. Just financial reasons alone someone would keep the body to sell to someone. I really hope that if he did shoot them, they will find their way into a real scientists hands so that every inch of them can be tested, skeletons preserved, etc.

That he was scared of murder charges is ridiculous as well, it will never happen. Maybe eventually you might get huge fines for killing a species at risk but that wont be until many have been autopsied and studied.

Can you imagine the price a taxidermist would get for a full body mount sasquatch with documentation of authenticity and dna? Doubtful it would be left to rot...

This of course is just my opinion as Im not a hunter, taxidermist or a scientist.

[Guest]

Bipedalist, poor Derek, what are you talking about? Maybe I don't understand your post. My just rewards? What exactly do you think I'm after?

Prag, I've come across a lot of animal remains in the woods. I think what might have happened was the body was gotten to by a cougar or bear. The first thing a predator will do is rip into the gut cavity and go for the protein rich organs. That act would definitively leave chunks of flesh behind. Then I think that it might have been found by its own kind and removed. No, I don't know this to be fact, but it very well could have happened like that. I've found multiple cat kills where pieces of flesh were left behind. Some of these kills are then dragged to a different area and partially buried.

And buy the way, the piece of flesh did not look like a steak. I'm the only one here posting that's seen it. Sure makes the story sound more radical though.

[bipedalist]

Chill baby, I thought we were all in this together, I'm a researcher.....thought it was a self explanatory post. Obviously you are taking it the wrong way. if you don't think discovery is a reward that's your problem I guess, not mine.

I've had a sighting at six ft. I don't need the proof (and I got all the reward I needed right then).

[Guest]

Prag, I've come across a lot of animal remains in the woods. I think what might have happened was the body was gotten to by a cougar or bear. The first thing a predator will do is rip into the gut cavity and go for the protein rich organs. That act would definitively leave chunks of flesh behind. Then I think that it might have been found by its own kind and removed. No, I don't know this to be fact, but it very well could have happened like that. I've found multiple cat kills where pieces of flesh were left behind. Some of these kills are then dragged to a different area and partially buried.

Okay then that does pose another question... What kind of contamination issues are presented with any other possible animals such as bears, cats, ravens, coyote, jays, possum, raccoon, etc., having come into contact with the remains? Can those foreign subject DNA remains simply be identified and omitted from the sample? Which of course would leave a trail in the analysis.

I don't know how a piece of meat would be missed by some of the animal opportunists in the wild unless it was a smorgasbord out there. Understood that snow was present some of the time.

Edited July 19, 2011 by PragmaticTheorist