gigantor Posted October 31, 2021 Admin Share Posted October 31, 2021 19 minutes ago, hiflier said: solid physical proof. Wait, I thought you were against killing a BF in order to obtain proof. We're all for obtaining solid physical proof, that's what we're trying to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted October 31, 2021 Share Posted October 31, 2021 16 minutes ago, hiflier said: Take it back, Norseman! Just where do you get off? Don't you think I am a rare poster these days because of the treatment I get from Steering Committee members like you and a certain Mod? And you have the nerve to NOT change your MO one bit. Attack the member, is that all you have to show me? Try something different for a change. You have no idea what I've been up to nor a clue to the preparations I've made NOR the connections I've managed to accomplish, who I've talked to, or anything else. And your attitude will assure you that you never will. Here, "Let me give you a piece of my mind." No. I will not take it back. I will gladly take a time out too. Ive supported your threads before. I’ve supported YOU before. And you come in here and hijack this thread and throw a temper tantrum? That’s not cool…… Im sorry to hear about your health issues. My wife almost died of sepsis a couple of weeks ago and I rushed home from elk camp. Who knew a kidney stone could become that infected? I hope you get to feeling better soon. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted October 31, 2021 Share Posted October 31, 2021 I am no-kill, but whoever gets to the gate first.....I wrote and published a book stressing shooting one as a last resort over finding remains. That book came out in 2015- six years ago. But 3 years ago I made the personal switch to a DNA program. I'm 72 and if I and my recessive hybrid genes can shift gears then anyone can.....maybe.... I won't kill one, but I'd cut something off a dead one, I'd grab a skeleton foot. There's a great website called "Bone ID" that we all should check out: http://www.boneid.net/ All that said, everyone knows my focus is on footprint DNA. Yes, one may say, but what about castings? Well, the hell with casting prints, there are thousands of those and hundreds owned by a certain professor in Idaho. A sterile scoop and a sterile container and I'm gone no casting required. In fact casting a print is the last thought in my head. There is a state biologist I have spoken to a few times over the past 2-3 years who know exactly what I am up to. And I don't care that he knows. If I did I wouldn't have told him. The gubmint has probably known for the past two years anyway, so why not him? He told me he enjoys our conversations. I told him I'd rather work with him and his agency that just about any so-called BF researcher. We're both about science and solid evidence to which he said he would have no problem investigating should there be any. This kind of researcher activity is what will move the needle because I'm hoping saying this will encourage others to do he same. Besides, he has access to a lab should the one I have lined up not pan out. I've also have about a five month head start this season (Fall/Winter) over last season. I wasn't ready last year until a few more informational pieces fell into place. This year I don't have that delay. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted October 31, 2021 Share Posted October 31, 2021 (edited) 15 minutes ago, norseman said: No. I will not take it back. I will gladly take a time out too. Ive supported your threads before. I’ve supported YOU before. And you come in here and hijack this thread and throw a temper tantrum? That’s not cool…… Im sorry to hear about your health issues. My wife almost died of sepsis a couple of weeks ago and I rushed home from elk camp. Who knew a kidney stone could become that infected? I hope you get to feeling better soon. Fine, don't take it back. Truth be known, don't really care what you do. Yes, thank you, and I've supported your threads, and have supported you, too. So what's the problem? And yes, I was sorry to hear about your wife's dealing with such a dangerous and painful thing. You did good. Oh, and about my health issues? Maybe you could inform me a bit about that because I'm certainly not aware of any. Am I not supposed to feel great at my age or something? Because, in fact, I DO feel great. Well, except for that recessive hybrid gene thing..... Edited October 31, 2021 by hiflier 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wiiawiwb Posted October 31, 2021 Share Posted October 31, 2021 2 hours ago, hiflier said: I'm be preaching to the choir to say so, Mr. Director, but I'll risk it, solid physical proof. IMH recessive hybrid opinion, THAT'S what will move the needle of this Forum and I 100% think that's what this Forum should be about, and talking about. It's my opinion but this Forum is strongest when it focuses on Sasquatch discovery, not the next great sleeping bag. I'm being harsh here but I initially signed up here to discover the creature and find ways to do that and have not given up on that. But it's MORE than that. Sasquatch discovery, and even the road to it, does come at a price few are willing to pay. Mainly because the implications of that discovery are rather serious, and I'm putting that lightly. There's more of course.....How thick is the skin around here anyway? I mean this could end up being like The Howling where Jack Nicholson says "Let me give you a piece of my mind" as he pulls the bullet out of his forehead What's wrong with each of us tugging on the oars in the way we know best? For some, it's the genetic angle, such as DNA, while others it is being out in the woods looking for whatever evidence he, or she, can gather. Some people might yawn, or even flip the digital page, should a blithesome discussion about a sleeping bag arise. I understand that completely. The simple truth is my eyes immediately glaze over once a discussion about theoretical genetic issues or historical lineage commences. My interests are not animated by those topics yet I believe they are important ones--as I do about matters for those who enter the woods so they may safely emerge from their endeavor. I think it is fantastic that we all can play to our strengths and come here to share those ideas and experiences whatever they may be. 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted October 31, 2021 Share Posted October 31, 2021 1 hour ago, Solvedit said: It does matter because of the fact that extreme inbreeding can make deeply recessive genes become active when the parents' main genes have replicated one too many times to have a viable offspring based on the genes that made them who they are. No it doesn't. The focus should be on proof of existence, TODAY and working toward that end, and that includes discussion topics. 1 hour ago, Solvedit said: It means the creatures' relatives live among us. No it doesn't. Proving they live among us is job one, everything else is moot speculation. Answers to what they really are will then naturally follow. I've seen way to much cart before the horse and in that I think most will agree. 1 hour ago, Solvedit said: It suggests a whole new angle to squatching. Have you been reading? No one WANTS a "whole new angle." Believe me I've tried to encourage that and it's an epic fail every time. Reread wiiawiwb's post above and get back to me. Most here don't care about discovery beyond seeing some thing just for themselves. That says a lot. Bringing proof to the public's awareness is not their intention. If pushed, though, I WILL give my thoughts on that- but I guarantee, no one will like it all that much. 1 hour ago, Solvedit said: There needs to be a crowdsourcing effort to identify human individuals who look like frame 352. Then what? Round those individuals up and force then to submit to testing? Sit on their front lawns, observe and photograph them, and say "see?" Incorrigible1 may have something to say about that 1 hour ago, Solvedit said: We also need to decide what would be moral or ethical to do with the information once it is obtained. That's the easy part, nothing should be done because you are jumping way ahead of the basic issue of first determining existence and so are drawing conclusions and presenting questions as the answers to questions without benefit of any kind of initial physical proof. Just to add to the points you are making, though, these ARE individuals that are fully covered from head to toe and weigh around 600 lbs. that you are talking about, right? Because in IMHO, the Sasquatch should be pretty easy to identify. 1 hour ago, Solvedit said: It also suggests that killing a bigfoot might be murder, pure and simple, because the DNA might turn out to be almost entirely human. Only if it can be proved what the creature's lineage and genetics are. Saying "because the DNA might turn out to be almost entirely human" is one thing, my friend, getting some is another. My goal in the field is DNA collection, first and foremost, unless,of course, I stumble upon remains. And even still, DNA testing will no doubt need to be, and will be done, by science. So, until that happens, killing a Bigfoot suggests nothing, sorry to say, until it is determined what the Sasquatch really is. And in five short sentences I've created a circular conundrum that only physical proof will break into. I hear what you are saying, believe me, I do but its way to premature. Physical evidence gathering is the ONLY path to be on. NOT trace evidence either- PHYSICAL evidence which has been lacking for the last hundred years which is why this dialog (and these threads) even exists. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted October 31, 2021 Share Posted October 31, 2021 (edited) 7 hours ago, wiiawiwb said: What's wrong with each of us tugging on the oars in the way we know best? For some, it's the genetic angle, such as DNA, It's an angle science will accept so, short of physical remains, it is THE angle. 7 hours ago, wiiawiwb said: ......while others it is being out in the woods looking for whatever evidence he, or she, can gather. Yes, but to what end? And could you describe what "whatever evidence" even means, please? Edited October 31, 2021 by hiflier 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted October 31, 2021 Share Posted October 31, 2021 (edited) Down votes don't answer the hard questions, they only anonymously side-step them. Here's another question. There is a fine group here in Maine that wishes to PROVE the existence of the Sasquatch to the world. The caveat? They want to do it without harming, shooting, trapping, or having the creature otherwise be subjected to any testing. That ideal falls right into line with many research philosophies. So how does this community think that such a goal could ever be possibly accomplished? How could even the implications of hybridization even ever be determined with such a hands-off approach? Edited October 31, 2021 by hiflier 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted October 31, 2021 Author Share Posted October 31, 2021 2 hours ago, Solvedit said: ........It means the creatures' relatives live among us. It suggests a whole new angle to squatching. There needs to be a crowdsourcing effort to identify human individuals who look like frame 352......... The scientific world just did that. Zana was a spitting image of Patty. They exhumed her remains and determined that she was 100% homo sapien, and likely an escaped African slave......."with issues", as a scientific opinion on this forum added. So there you have it. "Believe" the science, not the mystery of how an African slave had such remarkable "issues" that replicated in northern California 75 years later. Quote .......We also need to decide what would be moral or ethical to do with the information once it is obtained......... Let Dr. Margaryan be your guide; simply publish a paragraph on how disappointing it is that men take sexual advantage of wild women, then drop the entire subject for the rest of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted October 31, 2021 Share Posted October 31, 2021 (edited) 35 minutes ago, Solvedit said: Listen to the chairsquatcher shooting down every good idea. Boy am I ever glad to see that you thought up that term all by yourself. It shows such singularity of thought. One thing you're going to learn about me, Solvedit, I do NOT shoot down every good idea. The fact of the matter is there simply aren't that many good ideas, only repeat copycat research methods, although you seem to think that there are LOTS of good ideas. Which, of course, are only that- ideas. It's been well over a hundred years with no solid proof of existence, and fifty four of those are since Patty. So just how many supposedly "good ideas" do you think there have been? And to be equating these more urban folks with the Sasquatch is a truly illogical stretch and has zero science for making that connection. You're the one who's speculating on the connection without a shred of evidence to support the concept. Why? No monkey to prove your point. Why? Because there's no Sasquatch DNA to even make that determination. That's the truth and you know it. Edited October 31, 2021 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted October 31, 2021 Author Share Posted October 31, 2021 32 minutes ago, hiflier said: ........There is a fine group here in Maine that wishes to PROVE the existence of the Sasquatch to the world. The caveat? They want to do it without harming, shooting, trapping, or having the creature otherwise be subjected to any testing. That ideal falls right into line with many research philosophies. So how does this community think that such a goal could ever be possibly accomplished? How could even the implications of hybridization even ever be determined with such a hands-off approach? My only thought on how that can be possible is to get some scientist-god, extort him to say what you order him to say, then parade him around saying, "Bigfeet exist!" That seems to work with other current issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted October 31, 2021 Author Share Posted October 31, 2021 35 minutes ago, Solvedit said: .......They don't usually live in the woods. They usually aren't so extremely hairy or large or have domed heads unless two related individuals come together who have a high percentage of squatch dna. They may have taken DNA tests that are already public information. What's the point of looking in the woods if they rarely get to the woods? Nobody cares about the ones who live on the streets in Scranton. I like the ones who live in the woods, and I wish the ones who lived on the city sidewalks would relocate to the woods and become as hard to find as the ones already out there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted October 31, 2021 Share Posted October 31, 2021 1 minute ago, Huntster said: My only thought on how that can be possible is to get some scientist-god, extort him to say what you order him to say, then parade him around saying, "Bigfeet exist!" That seems to work with other current issues. I don't know about those "other current issue" to which you speak but the rest of your comment, implying some kind of extortion? Is pretty extreme, do you think? No one is going to get a scientist ordered in any way to address the Sasquatch existence issue unless there's something solid to back it up. In which case a scientist with solid proof will "parade" themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hiflier Posted October 31, 2021 Share Posted October 31, 2021 (edited) 46 minutes ago, Solvedit said: But you've been looking in the wrong place. They don't usually live in the woods. 46 minutes ago, Solvedit said: What's the point of looking in the woods if they rarely get to the woods? My understanding is the complete opposite, that the Sasquatches rarely get OUTA da woods. So who/what type of individuals are you actually referring to? Edited October 31, 2021 by hiflier Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted October 31, 2021 Author Share Posted October 31, 2021 2 minutes ago, hiflier said: .......the rest of your comment, implying some kind of extortion? Is pretty extreme, do you think?........ This entire subject is pretty extreme, don't you think? We're talking about a subject that has been discussed throughout human history, will not go away, yet is noticeably ignored by the very people who should be all over it, yet is being hashed out in an electronic hinterlands by a gaggle of laymen. Quote ........No one is going to get a scientist ordered in any way to address the Sasquatch existence issue unless there's something solid to back it up......... So, then, who needs a scientist? And exactly what do you need them for? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts