Arvedis Posted September 1, 2019 Posted September 1, 2019 (edited) 47 minutes ago, Huntster said: I think his Zana DNA study was much more revealing and important than his yeti study. And, apparently, so did he. The details of her capture, unfortunately, appear lost to time. I can find none of them. But her domestication appears more detailed. She was essentially caged and treated like an Alaskan sled dog for three or so years. Eventually her captors were recognized as her source of food or pain. Slowly, she went from cage to chain, then treleased to wander when she realized that there was a never ending supply of food and wine at "home". It's like the old adage, "With a handful of peanuts, I can train a monkey to do that job." Hard to know which internet version was the real Zana but it doesn't sound like a pleasant life for her. She either didn't seem to have the intelligence or ability to control her situation. Not at all in character for a BF. We know she had offspring so apparently the males of the community took advantage of her. I don't need a Sykes study (widely ridiculed by his peers for all the effort) to tell me Zana was not a BF. Edited September 1, 2019 by Arvedis
Huntster Posted September 2, 2019 Posted September 2, 2019 1 hour ago, SWWASAS said: ......... Most states define what is allowed to be hunted. What are the laws in Alaska? ........ That's how it works in Alaska. If it can be legally hunted, it will be listed with a season and limit. If it is not listed, it cannot be hunted. ....... Personally I think the first person that drags one in, is going to have serious legal issues even if it is some kind of animal...... I emphatically agree. ......The best thing to do, no matter what really happens, is claim self defense and deny you were in a hunt. If the fabled coverup exists, they are likely to give you a pass if you don't tell anyone. If no coverup exists, then be suitably grief stricken, that you had to shoot it to save your life. The thing charged you and did not stop, so you had not choice but to open fire. Best not shoot it in the back. I again agree in full, and will go on to say that this will likely be a successful defense. I think it would be an easy job to convince a jury that you were justifiably afraid and feared for your life.........as long as it wasn't shot in the back. 1 hour ago, Arvedis said: .........it doesn't sound like a pleasant life for her. She either didn't seem to have the intelligence or ability to control her situation. Not at all in character for a BF......... How so? This is a common way to domesticate anything from elephants to humans to rats. Control their movement, food, and water until they become dependent on you. ........We know she had offspring so apparently the males of the community took advantage of her. I don't need a Sykes study (widely ridiculed by his peers for all the effort) to tell me Zana was not a BF. LOL........radical skeptics ridicule everything. I don't need skeptical bullspit to tell me what is or is not so, especially if said skeptics have invested no time or effort in the phenomenon except to shoot at it. And how can you say what a bigfoot is or is not? Aren't you one of the people who repeatedly says that we don't know what they are?
MIB Posted September 2, 2019 Moderator Posted September 2, 2019 6 hours ago, SWWASAS said: Did you feel like you are adequately armed when you had your sightings? First one, no, but it was wading in deep water about 65-75 yards away and we had plenty of time to fire up the truck and leave if we'd needed to. Second one, definitely. The only time I've had interaction with something when I wasn't adequately armed were two instances back in high school. Didn't see it either time. Both instances were with the same friend. "It", whatever it was, was closing the distance on us but stopped back in the tree line when we got into more open ground, it wouldn't follow us. After the 2nd "event", I swore never to go back into the woods without an adequate gun. The only time I've broken it was when I had to fly somewhere on a commercial airline, then hiked after arrival. I'm planning to pick up a good quality but disposable (in other words, it'll get the job done but I have no emotional investment in it) pistol for travel soon. Glock 29SF, most likely. So anyway, each of the times I've been approached, I've been carrying a substantial rifle or handgun. This is why I don't think they care about the presence of firearms despite the dogma others spew. MIB
Arvedis Posted September 2, 2019 Posted September 2, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, Huntster said: How so? This is a common way to domesticate anything from elephants to humans to rats. Control their movement, food, and water until they become dependent on you. Actually, it sounds a lot like the way people behaved with a colonialism mindset. People subjugated people they deemed inferior. So many things were awkwardly out of place with Zana that it probably seemed natural for man to control her and study her and then abuse her. People continue to subjugate humans and animals for any number of reasons. It sounds like she was mentally disabled in some way and unwilling to defend herself, though she clearly had the superior strength. Based on some writings by Ray Crowe which I won't bother to link, she was mistreated by an entire community of males. 1 hour ago, Huntster said: LOL........radical skeptics ridicule everything. I don't need skeptical bullspit to tell me what is or is not so, especially if said skeptics have invested no time or effort in the phenomenon except to shoot at it.And how can you say what a bigfoot is or is not? Aren't you one of the people who repeatedly says that we don't know what they are? I don't know if I have ever said that but if I did, so does everyone else. I am a radical skeptic of what? That Sykes' study proves she is not a BF? Those are the test results he reported. Her descendants are fully human. Sykes seems well meaning but it's hard to make a dent in "BF science" when there are no colleagues doing the same thing. They are actually dismissive of the study, not because it is valid or not but because they don't care. Only bloggers seem to have paid attention to the Sykes report and they don't seem to have a high opinion of the study either. Edited September 2, 2019 by Arvedis
Huntster Posted September 2, 2019 Posted September 2, 2019 11 minutes ago, Arvedis said: Actually, it sounds a lot like the way people behaved with a colonialism mindset. People subjugated people they deemed inferior. So many things were awkwardly out of place with Zana that it probably seemed natural for man to control her and study her and then abuse her. People continue to subjugate humans and animals for any number of reasons. It sounds like she was mentally disabled in some way and unwilling to defend herself, though she clearly had the superior strength. Based on some writings by Ray Crowe which I won't bother to link, she was mistreated by an entire community of males. Subjugation goes so far beyond colonialism as to be unrelated. Indeed, in the example of American colonialism, elite colonists were subjugated by the British, and themselves subjugated both chattel slaves and indentured servants. Today, almost all slavery has nothing to do with colonialism. If you become a slave, you ARE inferior. Somehow your masters/owners/subjugators got an upper hand on you. That is why intellectual, financial, and violent equality or (better) superiority is so critical to freedom. If you don't have all three, you will eventually become somebody's slave. I find it remarkable that you resist the likelihood that a 6'6" hirstute, massively built female in a land reputed to have almastys for centuries is an almas. What do you expect? That she signs a confession and submits a geneological tree that she's an almas? .........I don't know if I have ever said that but if I did, so does everyone else. I am a radical skeptic of what?....... I'm not sure. I'll tell you what: find a reference to a 6'6" wild homo sapien female who can carry 200 lbs around with one hand, can outrun a horse, and routinely swims raging rivers. I'll place my bet beforehand that she won't be homo sapien. ........That Sykes' study proves she is not a BF?....... Actually, Sykes himself suggests in his post research documentation that she is a yeti. How did you (like the radical skeptics on ISF) figure that he proves that she is not a bigfoot, especially since you have indicated that you're not fully familiar with his study? ........Those are the test results he reported........ Citation, please. ........Her descendants are fully human........ So are Neanderthals. That diesn't make Neanderthals Homo sapiens, and that also doesn't mean that Zana and sasquatches aren't another human species. ..........Sykes seems well meaning but it's hard to make a dent in "BF science" when there are no colleagues doing the same thing. They are actually dismissive of the study, not because it is valid or not but because they don't care........ They care enough to snipe at Sykes and his study.
Arvedis Posted September 2, 2019 Posted September 2, 2019 3 hours ago, Huntster said: Subjugation goes so far beyond colonialism as to be unrelated. Indeed, in the example of American colonialism, elite colonists were subjugated by the British, and themselves subjugated both chattel slaves and indentured servants. Today, almost all slavery has nothing to do with colonialism. If you become a slave, you ARE inferior. Somehow your masters/owners/subjugators got an upper hand on you. That is why intellectual, financial, and violent equality or (better) superiority is so critical to freedom. If you don't have all three, you will eventually become somebody's slave. I find it remarkable that you resist the likelihood that a 6'6" hirstute, massively built female in a land reputed to have almastys for centuries is an almas. What do you expect? That she signs a confession and submits a geneological tree that she's an almas? I'm not sure. I'll tell you what: find a reference to a 6'6" wild homo sapien female who can carry 200 lbs around with one hand, can outrun a horse, and routinely swims raging rivers. I'll place my bet beforehand that she won't be homo sapien. Actually, Sykes himself suggests in his post research documentation that she is a yeti. How did you (like the radical skeptics on ISF) figure that he proves that she is not a bigfoot, especially since you have indicated that you're not fully familiar with his study? Citation, please. So are Neanderthals. That diesn't make Neanderthals Homo sapiens, and that also doesn't mean that Zana and sasquatches aren't another human species. They care enough to snipe at Sykes and his study. Hey Hunster, I'm done with you. Sykes means nothing and the hirsute lady means nothing. I honestly don't care. You seem to enjoy irrelevant topics so I'll leave you to it.
Huntster Posted September 2, 2019 Posted September 2, 2019 4 hours ago, Arvedis said: ........Sykes means nothing and the hirsute lady means nothing......... What a childish and JREFish statement. When Sykes published "The Seven Daughters of Eve" as an Oxford professor of genetics, he was esteemed. When he publishes his theory on the ghost African markers of Zana, he "means nothing". Got some qualifications of your own to justify your condemnation of the esteemed professor? .......... I honestly don't care. You seem to enjoy irrelevant topics so I'll leave you to it. Good. Thank you. Au revoir.
starchunk Posted September 2, 2019 Posted September 2, 2019 19 hours ago, SWWASAS said: Well the rub is you got to know what they are, to know if they are huntable. Most states define what is allowed to be hunted. What are the laws in Alaska? Personally I think the first person that drags one in, is going to have serious legal issues even if it is some kind of animal. The best thing to do, no matter what really happens, is claim self defense and deny you were in a hunt. If the fabled coverup exists, they are likely to give you a pass if you don't tell anyone. If no coverup exists, then be suitably grief stricken, that you had to shoot it to save your life. The thing charged you and did not stop, so you had not choice but to open fire. Best not shoot it in the back. More and more things point to this thing being Humanish, shoot one, it's likely murder.
WSA Posted September 3, 2019 Posted September 3, 2019 ^^^^Been practicing law for 30 years and I'd say that shooting anything that looks remotely like Patty, even intentionally (and self-defense would be a "given" defense to that)would, at most result in a fine for hunting a protected, non-game animal, no matter what the DNA reads. Any other outcome that is predicted is in the realm of legal fantasy and not supported in the law or predicted facts. A fundamental precept of enforceable criminal statutes is that they not be so vague so as to not put a citizen on reasonable notice of the particulars of the prohibited act. Almost by definition, a statute that says "It is criminal to shoot this ape/human/hybrid/other, whatever it is, and we can't tell you what it is, but don't shoot it, because it might be human, but we don't know because we've never identified it" is comically vague and unenforceable. If you can't say up front, definitively, that is a species of human, you can't create a crime after the fact if it turns out to be one. As it stands now, as we all here know very well, even if you did define it as a human, there would be no definitive scientific basis to support that. You cannot place the burden on the perpetrator to discern if what he is about to do is homicide, or not, when the state could not reasonably tell that either when the law was passed by the legislature and signed by the executive. It is just nonsense to predict any other outcome, sorry. Now, the SECOND person to kill one, after the DNA is sequenced and the laws rewritten? Oh yeah, he or she better lawyer-up, bigly. 2
Huntster Posted September 3, 2019 Posted September 3, 2019 37 minutes ago, WSA said: ^^^^Been practicing law for 30 years and I'd say that shooting anything that looks remotely like Patty, even intentionally (and self-defense would be a "given" defense to that)would, at most result in a fine for hunting a protected, non-game animal, no matter what the DNA reads.......... Isn't killing a protected non-game animal felonious, Counselor? For example, shooting a polar bear or sea lion?
WSA Posted September 3, 2019 Posted September 3, 2019 Federal law Hunster, the Endangered Species Act....a much different, umm, animal, although it quite possibly could be a felony. While the penalties for a violation under the assorted and various state Bigfoot laws are assumed to vary widely (and I've not looked into that in detail...just a safe prediction) under the classification of the offense these are all, as far as I know, GAME laws. The point being debated here, as I understood it, is whether the killing of a BF is prosecutable as a homicide, predicted to result in a conviction for anything from manslaughter up to murder. "Not a snowball's chance" is where I stand on that point, and have not heard any cogent argument to the contrary. I would include in that prediction of unlikely outcomes all violent crimes in the nature of assault, attempted murder, reckless endangerment....the list is long. I would be glad to reconsider that opinion if such were to be advanced. But, if we give presumptive human status to a Sasquatch it opens the door to ridiculous outcomes. I mean, can we have a guardian ad litem appointed on a showing of incompetency so as to bring a civil action by the Biggie for slander, civil rights violations, access to Section 8 Housing and SNAP benefits? You see where this lead us? 1
NatFoot Posted September 3, 2019 Posted September 3, 2019 42 minutes ago, Huntster said: Isn't killing a protected non-game animal felonious, Counselor? For example, shooting a polar bear or sea lion? That's not the point, if I read him correctly.
bipedalist Posted September 3, 2019 BFF Patron Posted September 3, 2019 On 8/31/2019 at 12:43 PM, Huntster said: I don't understand why that would be bad. The only "giganto" fossils still ever found was a partial mandible and a bunch of teeth. AFAIC, that limited evidence leaves a whole lot of room for theory, including association with sasquatches. Question: if "science" can extract enough uncontaminated DNA from a 40,000 year old Denisovan finger bone and a 160,000 year old Denisovan jawbone to determine its humanity, why couldn't they do so from one of the Gigantopithecus fossils for comparison? I said sad not bad. Sure why couldn't they extract more dna if they chose to?
Huntster Posted September 3, 2019 Posted September 3, 2019 (edited) Quote That's not the point, if I read him correctly. What IS the point, then? My point is that killing a sasquatch is potentially serious legal doo doo. Just hiring a lawyer will start at $5K, and can easily go over $25K. If you get convicted on any felony whatsoever, you lost all kinds of rights. I'll pass on that, thanks. 3 minutes ago, bipedalist said: ..........Sure why couldn't they extract more dna if they chose to? Why wouldn't they choose to? Edited September 3, 2019 by Huntster
bipedalist Posted September 3, 2019 BFF Patron Posted September 3, 2019 My only point is that my opinion is that it is not a giganto. Sure hybrids exist, nobody knows where the bushes lead. I am not producing expert opinion here, just opinion. I am from the no-kill camp, preaching to the choir on that. Your rationale is as good as any for not proceeding down that "dead end".
Recommended Posts