What Would Be The Ramifications Of Bigfoot Discovery

[hiflier]

Jacko's feet wouldn't have left the type of prints people say the Bigfoot leave? They had the more ape-like splayed great toe. Looked more like for gripping than for bipedal walking. Dunno, Spider Monkey? Not nearly as robust as Bigfoot reports describe.

Edited May 28, 2020 by hiflier

[7.62]

15 minutes ago, Huntster said:

I'm not so sure that they're supermen. We have two stories of 19th Century hunters and railroad men capturing sasquatches alive; Jacko and Zana. There are numerous other stories of hunters who had them in their sights or who actually shot them thinking they were other animals. 

 

Several years ago the Alaska State Troopers busted a small ring if Kireans who had killed a dozen or so black bears on a smaller island in Prince William Sound and had cut put their gall bladders. I've been offered $300 for them, but a quick Google search shows that they're worth $5K-$10K in Asia. That's just the gall bladder. Claws, teeth, hide, skull.......it can add up, and that's just a black bear.

I agree not supermen but not a typical 4 legged animal . They would develop techniques and strategies geared towards human hunters  . In my humble opinion I don't think they do that now.

 

I still think the best chance of killing one and recovering a body is just the will to squeeze the trigger . Put me in an active location on  top of a large custom made tree house  50 feet high and mount a $20,000 thermal on my .50   If they are there . Chances are better than average you will get a shot at one . 

31 minutes ago, hiflier said:

If the beasts are out there then I would also have to say yes. But this then goes back to the biggie: SOMEONE has to know about them. The question is (among so many others  ) is have whoever knows and doesn't want anyone else to know, covered all the bases and plugged all the holes someone might find to bust the thing open? I was ready to call this topic done, but maybe exhausting any ideas on beating the odds of discovery could be interesting. My odds? Why e-DNA of course  

 

@7.62  I might agree with you except for the fact that the Asian continent has....now lemme seeeee.....Ah yes, the Almasty, the Yeti and the Yeren. One would think with so much cheap labor, one with wealth could throw money and resources at finding something to see if it has any worth? I don't see anyone uprooting their cash just to come here and spend the equivalent of millions of US dollars with no guarantee on the investment. Of course, for the mere pittance of a half-mil I would try and help them 

I wasn't saying they would finance the hunt for hunters here but If the word on the blackmarket  is millions for body parts there will be U.S based hunters who will spend many tens of thousands for equipment and gear but as I said once they know they are being hunted all bets are off on how they would react. My guess is they vanish even more than they do now.

 

[Huntster]

2 hours ago, 7.62 said:

I agree not supermen but not a typical 4 legged animal . They would develop techniques and strategies geared towards human hunters  . In my humble opinion I don't think they do that now........

 

I'm pretty confident that they have for thousands of years. It's just easier or them now than ever before. 

 

.......I still think the best chance of killing one and recovering a body is just the will to squeeze the trigger .......

 

I agree completely. I think the problem would come with the delivery from the field to the "discovery", and the closer you get to "discovery", the more difficult it gets.

 

For example, imagine trying to get a sasquatch carcass from Prince of Wales Island to Dr. Meldrum at Idaho State University. I don't think it could be done without using a private marine vessel and smuggling it. 

 

 

[hiflier]

32 minutes ago, Huntster said:

For example, imagine trying to get a sasquatch carcass from Prince of Wales Island to Dr. Meldrum at Idaho State University. I don't think it could be done without using a private marine vessel and smuggling it.

 

He would only need a foot. 

[ShadowBorn]

3 hours ago, 7.62 said:

 

I still think the best chance of killing one and recovering a body is just the will to squeeze the trigger

To squeeze the trigger is not the problem. It is getting one in front of your sight when you want to kill one that's the problem. There have been many times I have thought on how I would drag one of these creatures to my truck. Then lifting the creature on the tail gate covering it up so that no one could see what I killed. Thinking to my self how I would hide it's bloody big feet. Never even thinking of an explanation if I was stopped by the police or even the DNR.  This was our talk every time we went hunting . My self and my friend Derek who knows about my encounters. 

 The problem would be is finding a freezer for it until I can talk to with people to send the creature to a lab. I am very sure that no one would even know if this ever took placed. I would not want to be in the public eye . At one time money was a thing for me but that has changed . Why should the public know who did the deed. My belief is that who ever does do the deed should not be known. If they are truly for science then they should remain unknown and let science sort it out. If our Gov has a specimen then let it remain for ever unknown. It is best for best worlds to remain unknown. Besides I kind a like it the way it is now. .

[hiflier]

ShadowBorn, I have a question then. If government knows of the existence of this creature and, if so, probably has procured a specimen, but hasn't make it public? Then hunters won't know and will go out there trying to bring one in. Now I get that I that the hunter would be the one responsible for their actions, but wouldn't the government also be responsible because it never disclosed that it already had one? If that is the case then a hunter who shoots one will have done so for no good reason beyond thinking that they were the first to succeed.

 

As a follow up to that, can we firmly decide that government MUST know they exist and therefore have studied them? Because if we decide that that's true, then is there still a call for hunting one simply on the basis that the public should be knowledgeable that these creatures exist. In other words, if that knowledge leads to an outcry of government having lied, followed by public sentiment to save the rest of the creatures and their habitats, then does that warrant trying to get one in order to get the truth into the open? 

Edited May 29, 2020 by hiflier

[Huntster]

19 minutes ago, hiflier said:

.......If government knows of the existence of this creature and, if so, probably has procured a specimen, but hasn't make it public? Then hunters won't know and will go out there trying to bring one in. Now I get that I that the hunter would be the one responsible for their actions, but wouldn't the government also be responsible because it never disclosed that it already had one?.......

 

Government at all levels does this daily with every issue under the sun. Everything is a secret, primarily because knowledge is power, and they want every bit of it.

[hiflier]

Yes, but that doesn't address the question of responsibility (moral or otherwise) for another creature (or other creatures) being at risk of dying unnecessarily.

[SWWASAS]

13 hours ago, hiflier said:

 

He would only need a foot. 

I specifically asked Meldrum what he would want if I could not provide an entire skeleton.      His choices in order are the skull,   femur,   feet, and lower arm and hands.    The femur shows if a creature is bipedal.      Unless you find one dead from natural causes or something like a falling tree,   I cannot imagine any single person managing to get a body out of the woods.    A good part of the time there is more than one, they seem to have family groups,   and whoever shoots one might have to fight their way out of the woods and deal with the logistics of moving a large dead animal at the same time.   When possession becomes known by authorities,  even if there is not a coverup, at some point in time,  some government agency will decide they have more right to possess the body than you do. 

Edited May 29, 2020 by SWWASAS

[Huntster]

18 minutes ago, hiflier said:

Yes, but that doesn't address the question of responsibility (moral or otherwise) for another creature (or other creatures) being at risk of dying unnecessarily.

 

Ah, the age old relationship between authority and responsibility.

 

If you're in total authority, you have seized all responsibility, and I cannot understand why everybody doesn't see that as a matter of course.

 

Apparently, just like folks need to be reminded that, "Deservins' got nothin to do with it", it's also true today that "Responsibility's got nothin to do with it".........

[hiflier]

20 minutes ago, SWWASAS said:

I specifically asked Meldrum what he would want if I could not provide an entire skeleton.      His choices in order are the skull,   femur,   feet, and lower arm and hands.    The femur shows if a creature is bipedal.      Unless you find one dead from natural causes or something like a falling tree,   I cannot imagine any single person managing to get a body out of the woods.    A good part of the time there is more than one, they seem to have family groups,   and whoever shoots one might have to fight their way out of the woods and deal with the logistics of moving a large dead animal at the same time.   When possession becomes known by authorities,  even if there is not a coverup, at some point in time,  some government agency will decide they have more right to possess the body than you do. 

 

Well, the man has about 200 footprint casts so he only needs a foot no matter what he say. Besides ANY body part no matter how small, like a pinky finger, will yield plenty of good DNA for species differentiation. And who couldn't smuggle a pinky out  of the woods unless like you say, you're dismembered by the deceased's buddies

[SWWASAS]

4 hours ago, hiflier said:

 

Well, the man has about 200 footprint casts so he only needs a foot no matter what he say. Besides ANY body part no matter how small, like a pinky finger, will yield plenty of good DNA for species differentiation. And who couldn't smuggle a pinky out  of the woods unless like you say, you're dismembered by the deceased's buddies

The problem being that in spite of his several hundred footprint casts,   the majority of his peers either think them hoaxes or human.    The more parts he has,  and I was specifically talking to him about bones,  the less his peers can claim that BF does not exist.  If he can produce a skull or femur that are significantly larger than human,  it forces his peers to face the possibility of existence of BF or theorize that there are 9 or 10 foot primitive humans running about.   While the deniers want him to be wrong, they are not likely to conjure up giants as an explanation. 

[hiflier]

Plenty of DNA inside of foot bones. Or a pinky bone for that matter. Think 40,000 year-old ancient DNA in the Denisovan pinky. Extracting the DNA wasn't easy, nor was there much of whatever science got, but it was enough to say different species of Human. Point being one doesn't need a head, leg, arm or any other large body part, nevermind an entire carcass. The US Geological Service can take their deep pockets and go get a carcass once the DNA in the specimen sample says primate other than Human. Trillions and trillions of mitochondrial and nuclear DNA ought to do the trick very nicely.

 

But if folks think only a large body part or carcass will do then who am I to stop anyone from bringing it in  

[SWWASAS]

You have to realize that the Denisovan pinky bone was special, in that it was found in strata that was known to be 40,000 years old in the cave.    The age of the strata made it special.     if you found the same thing laying on the ground in the woods,  you would have trouble getting anyone to think it special at all, other than it might trigger a missing person or crime investigation to find who it had belonged to.  .   A good example of this was the Kennewick Man.   The skeleton find triggered a murder investigation, and it was not until the coroner discovered an ancient arrowhead embedded in the hip that they realized they had something at all special.  Even that could have been only a 150  year old murder victim.     It was only when carbon dating was performed that they realized the person lived 1000's of years ago.     The controversial thing was that it pushed back human presence in North America further back that main stream science was comfortable with at the time.  The US Government had to be prevented from simply turning over the skeleton to the local NA tribes for reburial without scientific study by court order.   That fact sort of points to the fact that the government did not want the real NA story to be told.   The BF story may even be problematic for the government, if BF were here when the NA arrived.  The ramifications of that would be that what we accept as NA are merely one of many waves of emigrants to the continent and should have no special status.    The true NA (BF) may have been ignored for 100s of years and still are.  

[hiflier]

40 minutes ago, SWWASAS said:

You have to realize that the Denisovan pinky bone was special, in that it was found in strata that was known to be 40,000 years old in the cave.    The age of the strata made it special.

 

I know that.

 

40 minutes ago, SWWASAS said:

 if you found the same thing laying on the ground in the woods,  you would have trouble getting anyone to think it special at all, other than it might trigger a missing person or crime investigation to find who it had belonged to. 

 

Yep, and what's the method they use these days to determine that? It's called D-N-A. And when they run that test they will be in for a big surprise.

 

44 minutes ago, SWWASAS said:

A good example of this was the Kennewick Man.   The skeleton find triggered a murder investigation, and it was not until the coroner discovered an ancient arrowhead embedded in the hip that they realized they had something at all special.  Even that could have been only a 150  year old murder victim.     It was only when carbon dating was performed that they realized the person lived 1000's of years ago.     

 

That was in the Summer of '96. This is 2020, the age of DNA in both criminal investigations and in determining just about everything a finger bone would show right down to haplotype. The finger bone would look Human. The MODERN investigation methods would show different. Those investigations would also show that the bone had been mechanically severed and not chew off by an animal. Mechanical severing is serious business. That's why trying to present it to a lab could by quite problematic and so needs to be handled carefully.

 

I re-read your last two posts. You don't mention DNA and so I gather you're avoiding it, or even somehow indirectly dismissing it. I assure you it is a real part of the picture now. I'm 71 and normally resist change and new things in general. But in the case of DNA I have wholly accepted it because I have made myself understand it. If it wasn't for the discovery of the nests in the OP I may not have bothered to dig into the way that I have. I can say now that I'm glad I did. My how things change  The issue I see is that DNA is not the first go-to by many here. Example: Dr. Meldrum used it in an effort to determine a novel primate, Disotell ran the tests. Mayor used it too. But BF researchers here STILL think they have to come up with one or more body parts in order to show there's a Sasquatch in the woods. No question that if one happened across one that was dead, or "got killed", then it could be very advantageous for proof. But I'll be danged if I'm going to wait for that to happen when there is this amazing DNA technology available. Trying to get a voucher specimen, or a piece of one, shouldn't mean DNA technology gets left to collect dust on the shelf. It is a powerful tool that we all should try to get deployed by some means. The best candidates for doing the sampling live at the universities in everyone's state.

 

Bottom line: There are no legal repercussions for taking a DNA sample out of the woods.