Guest Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 I can agree with that, although I still think it would've happened by the 19th Century if it was ever going to . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Folks, the difficulty in obtaining a bigfoot is immaterial. If you buy Smeja's story and the one from Oklahoma, then you acknowledge that in the past couple of years at least two people have been successful in shooting a bigfoot. It can be done. These creatures are not shape-shifters or interdimensional travelers, they are not so rare and inaccessible that they are for all intents and purposes unable to be encountered by a prepared field researcher, and they do not have super-sensory abilities to detect someone who means to threaten them and escape before the danger materializes. (If they do, then those systems sometimes fail them.) Bigfoots, intelligent though they might be, are mere animals, just like you and me. They eat, poop, mate, and die, and the latter can be hastened by a well-placed bullet. Bigfoots might inspire awe, and their obvious humanity may keep some people from shooting them, but for other people, that's not an obstacle. Saskeptic, your statements above do not seem to be coming from someone who is not convinced bigfoot exists. It seems hypocritical and irresponsible to on the one hand tell people what bigfoot is, and that it is OK to kill it. Then on the other, argue from the position it doesn't exist, and there is a high probability that someone is more likely to shoot a guy in a suit than to kill a real bigfoot. These two positions are at odds with each other, how do you reconcile this? Remember that most witnesses do not come to the conclusion they have seen one at the moment it occurs, they come to that realization after they can rationally think about it. I'll use Mr. Colyers first encounter as an example since I am familiar with it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Wait - Who is Mr. Colyers? Is this from another discussion with you I'm supposed to remember? How do I reconcile my statement? Well you might begin by noting the word "If." It's pretty important. Other than that, we spend an inordinate amount of time here discussing "what it will take" for science to recognize bigfoot. It will take a body, or a part thereof. I didn't make that rule, though I agree in its necessity, and it's been in place since at least the mid-18th Century. That's the reality. If (there's that word again) you want to demonstrate that there's bigfoots, then you've got to put up some reliable physical evidence that can stand as a type specimen. If you're unwilling to do that or support that, then you forfeit the right to complain that "science" won't recognize bigfoot. Now, how to prove it to us granite-headed scientists: 1) Go kill one yourself. If bigfoots exist and at least some people are OK with shooting them, then this WILL happen, regardless if you or I find it morally reprehensible. (And I do, btw. I'm not big into hunting sentient beings like elephants, whales, great apes, or people, but other people do, all the time.) 2) Wait for one to get hit by a truck (also inevitable) nonlethal methods: 3) Find remains of one dead from other causes; any Quaternary sediments downstream from primarily forested environments in temperate North America would be my target search material. 4) Set up sampling arrays of track plates, hair catchers, and game cams. I've written about this many times on the BFF and I don't know of anyone actually doing it. Instead, this suggestion is usually beaten down with a chorus of "can't work - bigfoots won't let themselves be photographed" closely followed by "meanie scientists won't accept it." Both rebuttals are misguided cop-outs in my estimation. 5) Ketchum approach - get lucky with analysis of putative bigfoot tissue obtained from a variety of sources. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slabdog Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 ^^^^ Dang it! Thanks a lot Sas! No way am I ever going to fit all that into my sig line! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Wait - Who is Mr. Colyers? Is this from another discussion with you I'm supposed to remember? How do I reconcile my statement? Well you might begin by noting the word "If." It's pretty important. Other than that, we spend an inordinate amount of time here discussing "what it will take" for science to recognize bigfoot. It will take a body, or a part thereof. I didn't make that rule, though I agree in its necessity, and it's been in place since at least the mid-18th Century. That's the reality. If (there's that word again) you want to demonstrate that there's bigfoots, then you've got to put up some reliable physical evidence that can stand as a type specimen. If you're unwilling to do that or support that, then you forfeit the right to complain that "science" won't recognize bigfoot. Now, how to prove it to us granite-headed scientists: 1) Go kill one yourself. If bigfoots exist and at least some people are OK with shooting them, then this WILL happen, regardless if you or I find it morally reprehensible. (And I do, btw. I'm not big into hunting sentient beings like elephants, whales, great apes, or people, but other people do, all the time.) 2) Wait for one to get hit by a truck (also inevitable) nonlethal methods: 3) Find remains of one dead from other causes; any Quaternary sediments downstream from primarily forested environments in temperate North America would be my target search material. 4) Set up sampling arrays of track plates, hair catchers, and game cams. I've written about this many times on the BFF and I don't know of anyone actually doing it. Instead, this suggestion is usually beaten down with a chorus of "can't work - bigfoots won't let themselves be photographed" closely followed by "meanie scientists won't accept it." Both rebuttals are misguided cop-outs in my estimation. 5) Ketchum approach - get lucky with analysis of putative bigfoot tissue obtained from a variety of sources. Thanks Saskeptic, I had a sense for a moment that you were slipping out of your persona. Mr. Colyer is the guy who claims to have shot one in Oklahoma. The "s" was missing the ' to indicate possesion. It appears we agree that hair catchers can provide good biological evidence for BF's existence so I'm curious, why haven't you applauded the efforts of people who collect this stuff for science using methods similar to options 3, 4, and 5? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 DNA keeps being discussed. What place does hair morphology take in this study. Is there not a science of hair and fiber analysis? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 It appears we agree that hair catchers can provide good biological evidence for BF's existence so I'm curious, why haven't you applauded the efforts of people who collect this stuff for science using methods similar to options 3, 4, and 5? Huh? Are you next going to ask me next if I've stopped beating my wife? If people are out there and collecting what they presume to be bigfoot evidence then I'm happy for them, though I wasn't aware that such folks were looking for my applause. Why would I have any objection to people looking for bigfoot, especially if they're doing so using proven methods in field biology? DNA keeps being discussed. What place does hair morphology take in this study. Is there not a science of hair and fiber analysis? Sure, but hair morphology in an of itself is far less reliable than DNA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Are you requiring only perfect solutions? Do you think one body will be enough? Part of a body will require a whole body, a skeleton won't be enough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 (edited) DNA keeps being discussed. What place does hair morphology take in this study. Is there not a science of hair and fiber analysis? Don't know yet, but I gather that some of the DNA comes from hair (or its follicles). If so, the source hair morphology may be documented for use as a possible future standard for comparison. Regarding the ethics of acquiring a body, if we were instead talking about a reclusive race of people, previously thought to be legend only, would we be so quick to demand a body? If the DNA classifies them as near human, or human hybrids, will people still demand a body? Even if one believes such conclusions regarding the DNA to be in error, would it be ethical for one to make this demand? Seems to me we're going to raise the bar to live capture. Edited February 13, 2012 by JDL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Firstly, I'm guessing that Saskeptic doesn't require anything.........("are you requiring........") Secondly, the list of species known only from parts of bodies, to my very limited knowledge, is quite long. Obviously, we haven't any complete bodies of dinosaurs, for instance. Indeed, we have no actual body parts at all if you want to be pedantic. Of extant or recently extinct species, I know of a few that are known from a wing, a finger, a jawbone, teeth, etc. I'm guessing that if you want something incontrovertible for sasquatch, short of having a whole body, then you need a body part which falls outside the size range for humans, or is otherwise morphologically distinct, and which contains DNA. A giant femur, or vertebrae, or jaw would probably do it. But don't rely on me..........there are biologists on here! JDL, I was just reading that a hair and fibre expert vetted the samples prior to testing so that the DNA analyses weren't overwhelmed with samples which weren't actually suspected to be sasquatch. Apparently there were an awful lot of hairs submitted to the Ketchum team. Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Huh? Are you next going to ask me next if I've stopped beating my wife? If people are out there and collecting what they presume to be bigfoot evidence then I'm happy for them, though I wasn't aware that such folks were looking for my applause. Why would I have any objection to people looking for bigfoot, especially if they're doing so using proven methods in field biology? Sure, but hair morphology in an of itself is far less reliable than DNA. Hair morphology would be an important data point to correspond to the DNA, and would be a verified standard for future biologists to do population and distribution studies. Unless you are emotionally invested in the failure of this study, it should have painted itself as a legitamate effort by proponents to solve this mystery. No more excuses, just put what ya got on the table, and let science be the judge once and for all. Who wouldn't applaud that Sas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Here ya go! Now where's the Bigfoot? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LO95C6eRjJo&feature=youtube_gdata_player Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 Who wouldn't applaud that Sas? I don't know. Who wouldn't applaud that? (Is this a riddle?) Are you requiring only perfect solutions? I don't know what you mean by this.Do you think one body will be enough? To prove that bigfoot exists? More than enough. How often have I written here that a single tooth would suffice?Part of a body will require a whole body, a skeleton won't be enough. What? Who told you that? I mean, the "part" it should be understood, must be diagnostic. If a bigfoot molar looks exactly likely a modern human molar and has non-distinguishable DNA from a modern human, then of course it's not going to be sufficient to prove there's a bigfoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BuzzardEater Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 JDL mentioned live capture. Of course everyone is so busy arguing it went by. Yet, it is the first useful comment I have observed on this thread for many pages. Finding DNA that tests out as human or mostly human is interesting. It may spark general interest. I think it will be ignored. Ketchum's quotes will damage her study and her credibility in the media. A hostile reading by a media outlet will be ruinous. I think there might be one. Putting Ketchum and her circus aside, the DNA won't tell us anything useful. We can't interview DNA. Similarly, a dead speciman would be fun to look at, but is a distraction. Proving they exist is only of interest to skeptics. A dead body will tell us we found a tall guy in the woods. The real questions are not addressed. Primarily, why are they living in the woods? Why won't they contact us? Why do they act hostile? What are they trying to do? Until we are able to get some real answers, I am content to know there is a tall guy in the woods, I assume he has DNA and leaves footprints. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Biggie Posted February 13, 2012 Share Posted February 13, 2012 ^^^^ Dang it! Thanks a lot Sas! No way am I ever going to fit all that into my sig line! You could always put the link to his post in your sig. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts