Guest Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 This is a good point. You do realize though that there was no fossil record of Chimpanzee's until 2005. Sure. Did you realize that the common chimpanzee was first described in Johann Blumenbach's dissertation in 1775? Outside of them (Meldrum, Bindernagel, Krantz] name one internationally accredited scientific organization that has performed any sort of seriously funded research into the subject. World Book Encyclopedia sent Marlin Perkins and Sir Edmund Hillary to find yetis in Nepal back in the '60s, does that count? More to the point, why must the bolded apply in the search for bigfoot? Do the amateur researchers not know what they're doing? Is there a certain amount of money that must be spent before a bigfoot can be hit by a truck or shot by a hunter? Folks here love to mention mountain gorilla as an example of a "cryptid" that was discovered, but I think few appreciate that it was a military expedition rather than a scientific one, that obtained the first evidence of such creatures. Supposing the undiscovered exists in a way that defies our cataloging methodology, its discovery will require a paradigm shift. Maybe so, but remember that a key component to the Ketchum analysis story is that some dude shot a bigfoot and from that body a piece of tissue was collected. There's nothing paradigm-shifty about shooting something and collecting part of its remains. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 (edited) Excellent points Sas. But amateur researchers have much less (or none) availability to funding monies to actually do the research. There is also the issue of credibility with the public. Who are people going to take more seriously an amateur organization or a internationally accredited scientific one ? I think with groups like the BFRO, Olympic Project and the backing resources of Meldrum/Bindernagel and Ketchum's study that perhaps MAYBE we are finally getting to that point but we definitely haven't been anywhere near to it in the past. And love it or hate it, the Finding Bigfoot show can only help in getting more valuable resources interested in the subject. Edited February 9, 2012 by rockiessquatching Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 I think you demean the enormity of the task those gentlemen have undertaken. How many people does it take to discover bigfoot? If bigfoots are real, there doesn't seem to be anything more enormous about proving that than there is about proving the existence of any rare species. Recall that in the last couple of years, at least two individuals claim to have shot bigfoots. If they can be shot once, they can be shot again, and they can also be hit by a truck, washed out as remains in glacial meltwater, etc. As mentioned earlier, I have much respect for some of the well-known scientists who've advocated for real, live bigfoots. I don't necessarily think they are fools, but I do think they're wrong about bigfoots. But amateur researchers have much less (or none) availability to funding monies to actually do the research. But Smeja claims to have had enough funding to shoot a bigfoot, and so does the dude who claims to have shot a bigfoot in Oklahoma last summer. That's my point. Big, well-funded expeditions are not necessary so long as people with guns and trucks live, work, and play in areas frequented by bigfoots. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Biggie Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 Meantime, how do we know if our post will be read as responding to the immediately preceding post? What if someone posts while you're composing a reply? You can start your reply to that person by including their name(IE Saskeptic, or Sas for short) so all will know who you're talking to. It's also good for everyone to remember and cut most of a quote or quotes in your replies and leave only the points in the quote or quotes that you want to address. lol No ire or telling off going on here guys, just noticeable reminders about it to catch the eye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest exnihilo Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 Saskeptic you are missing the point. There appear to be ethical impediments to collecting a specimen if we give the physical hypothesis credence. Nobody ever shot an unknown bear species then freaked out and wondered if what they had done was murder. But that appears to be the narrative where BF is concerned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 Sure, but those ethical concerns apparently didn't stop Smeja and the Oklahoma guy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mitchw Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 Sas, you're right it's easy to shoot a critter. But in many accounts I've read at BFRO, hunters have had something in their sights which they couldn't identify or thought looked human. They are trained not to shoot if they aren't sure, even though Smeja did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 (edited) Those ethical concerns certainly came up for Smeja after the fact,and I am not referring to the reaction here, I mean his own personal reaction. Is it really so far fetched that we could be dealing with an intelligent species here, who's perspective is radically different from our own, that one of its own rules of survival is to avoid contact with us? After all the thousands of years that different variants of Human have survived on this planet,now there is only one? If we consider the possibility of intelligence, and some cultural aspects, it would certainly help explain things, like lack of bodies,either from road kill, or dropping dead somewhere.Assuming such a creature exist, and not knowing what there sensory capabilities are,combined with intelligence,would certainly complicate things. When you apply "animal" to Bigfoot its seems very unlikely, but if you apply intelligence, to me, it seems a little more likely. Edited February 9, 2012 by JohnC Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 I think that shows what a closer look than a breif encounter can afford does to a persons perception. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 I also applaud Dr. Melba Ketchum and Dr. Leila Hadj-Chikh, for taking on such a controversial and enormous task in the face of such ridicule, not only by the some of the public at large,but also by many of those who profess to be their peers. However,its not like we have not seen this kind of stubborn bias in science before, microbes come to mind, as well as other examples already mentioned in this thread. This would certainly be their motivation to overkill the science. Particularly if they are dealing with human results. This could explain the vast number samples, from such a wide geographical range,and just may be what they refer to when the state "the bar was raised" Speculation? yes it is,but is no more speculative than a skeptics speculation, and just as invalid hahah Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 Sure, but those ethical concerns apparently didn't stop Smeja and the Oklahoma guy. What caused Justin to leave without a body? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 If bigfoots are real, there doesn't seem to be anything more enormous about proving that than there is about proving the existence of any rare species I am going to disagree here only on the point that IF Bigfoot exists then it would have to be a VERY VERY elusive species. We can't just lump it in with any rare species. There are many reasons a species would be considered rare including location, access to location, distribution, density, and overall quantity of the species, etc. Then you add in the nocturnal elusiveness factor and it becomes exponentially harder to find. None of these are proof of anything but I would think they would have to hold true IF Bigfoot was real. (notice I underlined if to make myself more endearing to your skepticism LOL) I can't find it off hand but I recall a story about a photographer that spent over 2 years trying to get good pictures of Jaguars in South America. The same points above would apply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 If the 10th Mountain Division were to be tasked with retrieving a specimen, they probably could, along with several hundred other assorted furry critters and a few hikers and campers. Collateral damage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest exnihilo Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 Sure, but those ethical concerns apparently didn't stop Smeja and the Oklahoma guy. Listening to Smeja's account last night -- so far as it can be trusted -- it seems clear enough that he killed the juvenile with the intention of collecting it as a specimen. It seems equally clear that the act led to angst that was so unbearable that he and his companion high tailed it out of there without collecting the specimen. You may not be aware of this, Sasketic, but humans have an inherent resistance to killing other humans. That means that the cognitive function searches for criteria that qualify as "human," and treats all those meeting these criteria on a different basis than the rest of creation. If the stories are believed, upon close examination enough of these criteria are evident in BF to cause debilitating emotional reactions (panic) to the potential specimen-collectors. So you can say that the collection of these creatures leads to unique resistance in potential collectors. It appears most people just want to get the hell away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mitchw Posted February 9, 2012 Share Posted February 9, 2012 Here's a story for you Sas, of a hunter unable to shoot. I used my browser to call it up from BFRO. This kind of account goes at least some way to explain why there has been no body. http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=4713 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts