Guest Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 (edited) On Dec 10th. Ketchum said in a radio interview the study will be released in weeks rather than months. In order for weeks to turn into months we have to hit the day where it is in fact months. Let's start the countdown timer. February 7th is the day when weeks do in fact turn into months, 2 months in fact. Edited December 16, 2012 by rockiessquatching Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 not referring to him Mulder,I don't think he is egotistical, and if scientifically was to be proven wrong about his theory, would not be upset. He has some doubts, but really didn't say anything disrespectful. I was referring to a couple other researchers out there, that I don't even care to mention. Fair enough. I've seen this accusation thrown at him before by others. I apologize for assuming you were targeting him. Lets say that Ketchum releases soon to the open arms of a loving media and the world gets warm fuzzies and marches into washington demanding research and protection for BF, how long would it take to draft and enforce a ban on hunters who would no doubt be the firat into the forest to claim the first specimen and therefore go down in history as the ultimate A-class hunter. We can, will and should keep the semantics at play but the protection of these creatures should be at the forethought of us al considering the impending release of results albeit from Ketchum, Sykes or another source. I'm not suggesting a love-in with sasquatch and i dont want to open up the kill/no-kill debate but i think species protection is something that should be discussed again now as it could just be around the corner that it plays out on the world stage...if anyone knows a thread that i can bump or should i start a new one? If they were doing it smart, not long at all, as several counties in CA have BF protection laws on the books. They could lift the basic language from them and substitute national for county. Species protection laws are fairly standard, only the specifics of the species being different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest spurfoot Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 This is not exactly a prediction, but for interest, think about how amusing it would be for the journal editor to have reserved a spot on Dec. 21 for the paper. The is the date for the supposed Mayan prophecy for "the world to end" . It would be the end of the world as the public knows it if publication occurs then. MSK's comments about sending in corrections sounds like it was just the usual typographical corrections that all papers need. Sounds like the end game. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted December 16, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted December 16, 2012 Galley proofs perhaps? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 (edited) Fair enough. I've seen this accusation thrown at him before by others. I apologize for assuming you were targeting him. If they were doing it smart, not long at all, as several counties in CA have BF protection laws on the books. They could lift the basic language from them and substitute national for county. Species protection laws are fairly standard, only the specifics of the species being different. You hit the nail on the head with 'specifics of the species' as that is something that is not known and cannot be until research is undertaken. It takes time which in those circumstances could be ill afforded. Could a temporary ban on all hunting be placed until a policy is fully drafted? But once again we come back to the problem of enforcing a ban (and law) across a massive expanse of wilderness. There will always be a private collector willing to pay a hunter for a 'stuffed trophy' - it pains me to put it like that but my guess is there are already sasquatch adorning a collection in the home of some well off millionaire fruitcake. Edited December 16, 2012 by kezra Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThePhaige Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 You hit the nail on the head with 'specifics of the species' as that is something that is not known and cannot be until research is undertaken. It takes time which in those circumstances could be ill afforded. Could a temporary ban on all hunting be placed until a policy is fully drafted? But once again we come back to the problem of enforcing a ban (and law) across a massive expanse of wilderness. There will always be a private collector willing to pay a hunter for a 'stuffed trophy' - it pains me to put it like that but my guess is there are already sasquatch adorning a collection in the home of some well off millionaire fruitcake. This is a serious issue, and seemingly all revolves around the Endangered Species Act: http://en.wikipedia....red_Species_Act . Many believe there is possibly a cover up by the federal Govt regarding the discovery and classification of SSq would be so costly requiring the enactments of law not dissimilar from the action taken with previous "endangered species" such as the Spotted Owl as an example: http://www.scu.edu/e...tions/iie/v4n1/ . Not to mention the huge bubble of reality that would pop on those who either deny the existence out of hand totally or those who are 100% in the primate camp. Having said that, it seems in many cases if you want to know whose up to what and the prospects of an agenda, then always follow the money. Heres a pretty good interview that discusses some of these kinds of topics. It revolves around William Jevning's experiences and who is the author of Notes From the Field. http://inspiredbybig...how-04-10-2012/ . Its a pretty good listen. This explains much of the eviscerating ad hominem attacks that Dr Ketchum has been having tossed about in her direction even without having the contents of the paper seen yet. Personally I already know Bigfoot exists but to my thinking this discussion is the real meat of the issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gigantor Posted December 16, 2012 Admin Share Posted December 16, 2012 Well, if BF exists, a whole lot of it's territory seems to be in federal lands. i.e national parks and preserves, so I disagree that it's "discovery" would necessarily create a land grab situation by the feds. They may attempt it, but I don't think they'll be successful. There is already millions of acres that are protected which happen to coincide with supposed BF habitat. The argument is a red herring IMO. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 (edited) ^They wouldn't have a choice...either they acted or the tree-hugger pressure groups would take it to court and FORCE them to do it. Edited December 16, 2012 by Mulder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 (edited) Well, if BF exists, a whole lot of it's territory seems to be in federal lands. i.e national parks and preserves, so I disagree that it's "discovery" would necessarily create a land grab situation by the feds. They may attempt it, but I don't think they'll be successful. There is already millions of acres that are protected which happen to coincide with supposed BF habitat. The argument is a red herring IMO. I agree, i think the land regulation is a moot point, it's not like they need perfect conditions like certain animals, with all the different sightings, they seem to do very well were ever there located. Another thing is major land developments are not as lucrative as they once were, in this bullish economy, might as well go down to the casino to the roulette table and bet it all on back, probably better odds than a large,undeveloped land purchase. Edited December 16, 2012 by zigoapex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 Im going to continue on the land regulation issue on the Ramifications of Species Verification thread soon if anyone is interested... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 I pray the tree hugger movement doesn't adopt the Sasquatch as their new poster child. Using the Sasquatch as a tool of adversity against a few million people carrying rifles in the woods is a seriously bad idea. Most of these movements are designed to line their own pockets after capturing the hearts [and dollars} of those who actually do care. I do a lot of taxidermy work for those so called millionaire fruitcakes and I can assure you that that demographic avoids having illegal mounts in their premises. It's average Joe who is more likely to have a mummified bigfoot hand on the mantle. The absolute moment that the Sasquatch is recognized it will automatically be protected. Once a body is produced, or irrefutable proof is properly recognized, it will be an absolute felony to be in "possession" of a body or parts. There will more than likely be a week or two amnesty for people to turn in anything they may posses. Remember that the real world will take over when the Sasquatch is recognized. People who think murder charges will be layed against Sasquatch shooters are living on that island where where the little guy screams at "the plane"! Anyone who has seen a Sasquatch knows they aren't Homo Sapien. A crown prosecutor would never issue those charges as they know it would never stand up in court. Charges under the Endangered species act is another matter. Those ones would be levied. People forget that there are circumstances that people can be shot. Self defence etc. However an endangered species is afforded more rights in many cases than a person. Down the road the Sasquatch would be provided a new type of consideration after a lot of input from the good people who have real knowledge of them. Most of them are likely already on these forums. Someone just has to have the cajones to bring one forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 Well, RL is at it again, saying a bunch of VERY inappropriate things about Ketchum (both directly and by proxy, using unnamed others he "quotes").. I just earned my "Banned by Lindsay" Merit Badge for telling him that he needed to "man up" and attribute his quotes to specific people if he wanted to justify using them to trash Ketchum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 The most fun way to get banned by him is to remark on his uncanny resemblance to Napoleon Dynamite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 (edited) ^^^ LOL! he does, never thought of it. To bad I already received my merit badge, would have loved to use Napoleon Dynamite to get it. Edited December 16, 2012 by zigoapex Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted December 16, 2012 Share Posted December 16, 2012 ^ & ^^ LOL! Is getting banned on the first post a record or is it typical for him to ban critics right out of the gate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts