Guest Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 I wonder if, when BF is identified as a species with all of the DNA samples currently being examined (as we are being led to believed, based on the radio interviews, leaked info, etc.), if all of the sudden finding and observing BF for researchers will become as achievable as running the 4 minute mile was for athletes after the record was broken? It was once an impossible barrier, but once it was broken, athletes were consistently breaking that barrier. The same thing happened after the discovery of the gorilla, a species once discredited as fantasy. Once it was proven, Europeans were easily able to find them. I do understand that in the case of the 4 minute mile, a lot of the barrier was a mental hurdle, but I think that was also the case with the gorilla (because the people did not believe it existed), and I believe to an extent there is a mental hurdle in regard to physically finding and directly observing BF for the majority of researchers (most of whom are average people, like myself). Naturally, more scientists & naturalists will become involved in BF research, which will expose more of their habits, etc., making it easier to find them and follow them for the average person. Also, for the average researcher who has help out hope & belief all this time, this concrete proof and acceptance by the scientific community can give the mental edge it takes to go deeper into the forest, remain in the best areas longer, and to find better ways to interact, film, and video them in ways that have never been done. Btw, I am not referring to those who already claim to interact with them regularly, but who have nothing other than blurry videos or blobsquatches to show for it. No offense at all to those folk. I am talking about Jane Goodall type interaction and filming. What do you guys think? Btw, if it sounds like I'm rambling tonight, please forgive me. My migraine meds are just starting to kick in now! I may have to read the responses to this tomorrow! Lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gigantor Posted July 21, 2011 Admin Share Posted July 21, 2011 (edited) Yes. There will eventually be BFs in zoos worldwide in order to humanely do research and study them. Bush Gardens will have their own family of BFs and you'll be able to "howl with the Bigfoots" for an additional fee. Edited July 21, 2011 by gigantor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 It may give the adventurous a bit more faith that they aren't fooling themselves to go looking, but it won't change their imediate situation as far as how often and at what length of time they could devote to it. Most enthusiast types will just go camping and let BF find them if it wants to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Holliday Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 imo, camping might decrease, jack links sales might increase, & more scientists may get involved . but, even if proven BF would probably still be the expert at avoiding us. if its been this difficult to find so far, it might take years of more trying to learn how to establish patterns & background enough to make them easy to locate. by then the general public wouldve moved on to the next fad, imo. so maybe then the jane goodall type could tell us about "jungle lovin'" & BF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 I wonder if, when BF is identified as a species with all of the DNA samples currently being examined (as we are being led to believed, based on the radio interviews, leaked info, etc.), if all of the sudden finding and observing BF for researchers will become as achievable as running the 4 minute mile was for athletes after the record was broken? It was once an impossible barrier, but once it was broken, athletes were consistently breaking that barrier. The same thing happened after the discovery of the gorilla, a species once discredited as fantasy. Once it was proven, Europeans were easily able to find them. I do understand that in the case of the 4 minute mile, a lot of the barrier was a mental hurdle, but I think that was also the case with the gorilla (because the people did not believe it existed), and I believe to an extent there is a mental hurdle in regard to physically finding and directly observing BF for the majority of researchers (most of whom are average people, like myself). Naturally, more scientists & naturalists will become involved in BF research, which will expose more of their habits, etc., making it easier to find them and follow them for the average person. Also, for the average researcher who has help out hope & belief all this time, this concrete proof and acceptance by the scientific community can give the mental edge it takes to go deeper into the forest, remain in the best areas longer, and to find better ways to interact, film, and video them in ways that have never been done. Btw, I am not referring to those who already claim to interact with them regularly, but who have nothing other than blurry videos or blobsquatches to show for it. No offense at all to those folk. I am talking about Jane Goodall type interaction and filming. What do you guys think? Btw, if it sounds like I'm rambling tonight, please forgive me. My migraine meds are just starting to kick in now! I may have to read the responses to this tomorrow! Lol Great observation. My opinion is the answer is yes for a couple of different reasons. Primarily because the money factor will come into play. Public and private funding will skyrocket and mainstream science will take the lead. Once it's accepted the flood gates will open. JMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 On the bright side, shows like "Finding Bigfoot" will cease to exist as we know it, and be replaced by scientifically-based programming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 On the bright side, shows like "Finding Bigfoot" will cease to exist as we know it, and be replaced by scientifically-based programming. You mean it's not scientifically based??! lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 You mean it's not scientifically based??! lol Perhaps, scifientifically... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wudewasa Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 First, bigfoot has to be "discovered." A voucher specimen will be needed to seal its place in the taxonomic scheme of things. If this purported species is so widespread in North America, it is not at all like the mountain gorilla. Here is the range map for mountain gorillas: http://www.ifaw.org/images_custom/save_animals/Primates/Mountain_Gorilla/Mountain_Gorilla_Global_Map.jpg Rod, I lament for the times past when nature programming was based on real journalism and cinematography. "Nature," "The Undersea World of Jacques Cousteau," Marty Stouffer's "Wild America," and Marlin Perkins "Wild Kingdom" graced our optic nerves and motivated our interests in the natural world. Now, we face staged scenarios that focus on a host sensationalizing their plight in the wild. The shows are more about the people than the animals that they are supposed to be observing and interacting with. Whatever colorful, eccentric, intense flavor of the week and their antithesis that producers can find is exploited for the sake of the masses. The freak show died in the circus, and now is broadcasted on as many channels as your provider allows you to access. DNA described before a specimen is obtained is essentially putting the cart before the horse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gigantor Posted July 21, 2011 Admin Share Posted July 21, 2011 wudewasa, have there not been other species recognized only by DNA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wudewasa Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 wudewasa, have there not been other species recognized only by DNA? Yes. However, the species taxon is a point of argument amongst taxonomists, as they generally fall into the "lumper" and "splitter" camps. Contention exists amongst scientific experts as to what criteria is credible to denote an organism as a species. While molecular biology has helped us sort some things out, ignoring structural morphology is a slippery slope. Sasquatch being recognized as a species by DNA alone will not set well with some members of the scientific community. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. DNA just isn't enough, concerning a hirsute, bipedal mammal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gigantor Posted July 21, 2011 Admin Share Posted July 21, 2011 Is it because the results are a comparative statistical analysis of the DNA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rockinkt Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 I wonder if, when BF is identified as a species with all of the DNA samples currently being examined (as we are being led to believed, based on the radio interviews, leaked info, etc.), if all It was once an impossible barrier, but once it was broken, athletes were consistently breaking that barrier. The same thing happened after the discovery of the gorilla, a species once discredited as fantasy. Once it was proven, Europeans were easily able to find them. It was easy for anyone to find a gorilla if you went to the right area. No Europeans actually were looking for them until they were shown to exist. Then, everybody and their dog that could get to the area found them easily - and still do. Since nobody has any area that squatches are easy to find - I think your analogy is incorrect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 Rod, I lament for the times past when nature programming was based on real journalism and cinematography. "Nature," "The Undersea World of Jacques Cousteau," Marty Stouffer's "Wild America," and Marlin Perkins "Wild Kingdom" graced our optic nerves and motivated our interests in the natural world. Now, we face staged scenarios that focus on a host Odd you should mention Stauffer before mentioning that last bit, as he was one of the ones that got caught "staging" not that long ago. DNA described before a specimen is obtained is essentially putting the cart before the horse. CNA does not come from nowhere...DNA comes from an actual flesh and blood creature. It is every bit as good as a body, better really (assuming a good clean sample) because it relys on genetic markers that either match or don't match. 100% objective analysis as opposed to traditional taxonomy via interpretation of visual characteristics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 21, 2011 Share Posted July 21, 2011 Sasquatch being recognized as a species by DNA alone will not set well with some members of the scientific community. Doesn't matter how it "sits" with the community. The facts will be the facts, and verfied DNA from a previously uncatalogued higher primate will be 100% dispositive evidence OF said primate, and any real scientist will accept that whether they like it or not. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Sagan Fallacy, long since refuted. DNA just isn't enough, concerning a hirsute, bipedal mammal. Special pleading. DNA sends people to Death Row. It is MORE than enough to admit a new species to the catalog of specie. (Esp since it's done all the time with other animals.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts