Can You Really Shoot A Bigfoot?

[hiflier]

All these posts are excellent and go to the heart of how we are thinking and dealing with this issue in general. It shows that we've not only learned a great deal about discussing this subject but that we've also learned about ourselves to include the nuances that are mentioned. Discovery isn't going to be a cake walk no matter how one slices it. It takes guts to shoot one. Heck it even takes guts to be out there where some of us go. And it's going to take guts to shove a valid DNA result into the public arena. And I respect you all for even talking about it.

 

50 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

It's been up to Science to secure the DNA and the type specimen all along, not us.

 

QFT! My thinking all along in recent years.

 

19 minutes ago, Huntster said:

And I agree that eDNA presents a better opportunity to scientifically prove existence IF you can work through the hurtles of DNA testing funding and plowing through the denials of Science.

 

There are people working on that, Huntster. Unfortunately (fortunately?), I am held in confidence which does not allow me to go into details. Suffice it to say for now that positive things are currently in the works. At least positive enough to ask folks to hold off on shooting one for the time being.

 

 

Edited November 28, 2022 by hiflier

[Patterson-Gimlin]

15 minutes ago, hiflier said:

All these posts are excellent and go to the heart of how we are thinking and dealing with this issue in general. It shows that we've not only learned a great deal about discussing this subject but that we've also learned about ourselves to include the nuances that are mentioned. Discovery isn't going to be a cake walk no matter how one slices it. It takes guts to shoot one. Heck it even takes guts to be out there where some of us go. And it's going to take guts to shove a valid DNA result into the public arena. And I respect you all for even talking about it.

 

 

QFT! My thinking all along in recent years.

 

 

There are people working on that, Huntster. Unfortunately (fortunately?), I am held in confidence which does not allow me to go into details. Suffice it to say for now that positive things are currently in the works. At least positive enough to ask folks to hold off on shooting one for the time being.

 

 

Sounds good. Very interesting. Not better than shooting one. 🔫 

[hiflier]

5 minutes ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

Sounds good. Very interesting. Not better than shooting one. 🔫 

 

Then it must not really sound all that good OR interesting. Anyone with a geneticist or microbiology friend should present that chart to them just to see what they would say. I'd be curious to read their take on it.

 

 

[norseman]

2 hours ago, Huntster said:

 

It's been up to Science to secure the DNA and the type specimen all along, not us.

Science gets way more discoveries dropped in its lap than it making the discovery itself.

 

https://news.mongabay.com/2013/08/scientists-discover-new-flying-mammal-in-bushmeat-market/

 

 

 

 

[norseman]

2 hours ago, hiflier said:

My posts are here due to the thread title "Can You Really Shoot A Bigfoot." Because My two internal responses were "why would you?" and "no, you can't."

 

Why would you runs the gamut of all of the usual social/moral arguments, and no, you can't  is based on hunter experiences, including NAWAC's. But to just say either of those things and just leave everything hanging without having an alternative didn't seem to add anything of value to the discussion. But if there was an alternative to shooting one- considering all of the past failures to do so (some we know about, some we don't) then clarifying the method seemed the right thing to do.

 

Most folks know how to fire a gun. Many Bigfooters hunt and are highly experienced as hunters but there's been zero results. So CAN one shoot a Bigfoot? I seriously doubt it if most believe that a Bigfoot knows that your in the woods long before you know it is. There's a lot of contradiction in that area but what if someone has already collected Bigfoot DNA? Personally, I think the thread title should read "Would One Be ABLE To Shoot A Bigfoot." I seriously doubt the opportunity would arise. All the discussions on smelling gun oil, knowing what guns do, Bigfoot being experienced with the a history of the firestick, etc.

 

And then there's all those videos that get discussed here. Just how many of those show a real Bigfoot? How many show a man in a suit? Most discussions revolve around that conundrum and never arrive at a definitive answer. It tells me that in the field a hunter would be even more hard pressed to arrive at that definitive answer and be confident enough to pull the trigger. Ten pounds of Bigfoot WOULD put the matter to rest and there's no question about that. But IMO it will never happen. But let's say it did, then even if the flesh is unrecognizable regarding what it came from, Norseman said DNA can be obtained from it- which is true. But DNA can be obtained from only ten micro-grams of Bigfoot as well, or even way less. So, for "Can You Really Shoot A Bigfoot" my answer is one doesn't have to anymore. Because that creature, if it's out there? Leaves microscopic and genetic pieces of itself all over the environment- including in the air. So again, IMHO, is every bit as good as shooting one, and in every case (considering the risks) it's a much better choice. 

It doesn’t matter if ten micro grams registers a hit. Science demands a type specimen! Two actually. One male and one female.

 

DNA doesn’t help us with setting a morphological base line for the species. That’s why type specimens are required. 
 

So? By you advocating DNA collection to prove the species real? That by proxy makes you pro kill. Because DNA is only one tool in a line of stepping stones to the discovery of a new species. Which includes killing and dissection of a male and female representation of the species. 
 

The people here that say they don’t want to prove anything to science? They just want a sighting of their own. They can claim they are anti kill. But anyone who claims to want to prove the animal to science? We are all in the SAME boat. Might as well get chummy, because DNA will not be the end result, it’s just another tool to get us to where we are going. No different than a rifle, a dart gun, a boat, a snowmobile, a net, a helicopter, etc, etc, etc…

 

Dr. Mayor got Chimp like DNA in Kentucky. I applaud her efforts. But it still hasn’t lit a fire under the scientific community. And so the struggle continues… and we all contribute in our own way.🤷‍♂️

[hiflier]

Not sure I agree with that generally speaking but along with that I would still be interested in what a mainstream geneticist would offer as an opinion on what's in the chart. Would there be any harm in at least asking? I also think Dr. Disotell must have seen it along with others but I've never seen what he may have thought about it anywhere. It wouldn't be a tough avenue to go down if anyone can reach him. Should I be surprised that for as long as the chart has been here that no one I've heard of has done that? I would consider it an in-house inquiry that should bear some fruit, he being a geneticist as well as a primatologist and all. And he's also very familiar with who's who in the Bigfoot world which is another plus. Has Dr. Mayor already seen the chart? No doubt she has.

 

Whether anyone can shoot a Bigfoot or not may end up being a moot question if we can get some inside info on how the expert primatologists  have evaluated what we already have.

[hiflier]

4 minutes ago, norseman said:

Science demands a type specimen!

 

I'm really not one to wait on happenstance. Because historically 65 years of happenstsnce hasn't succeeded. Science needs to know something other than Human is out there first and foremost. How would that get done? Figure that out and science can handle the rest in however it desires. If you think the creature, rare as it is, needs to be shot then go do it. I'm certainly not the one who will stop you. But know this: I still consider it an absolute last resort after everything else that comes ahead of that has been tried. And that's the way science would want it, too., after all else fails. But WE ourselves can do things that fall under the umbrella of "all else" also- and I'm trying to encourage the idea that we should. So, in a way, I see it as somewhat irresponsible if we do nothing outside of just waiting for a Sasquatch to be shot.

 

[norseman]

49 minutes ago, hiflier said:

 

I'm really not one to wait on happenstance. Because historically 65 years of happenstsnce hasn't succeeded. Science needs to know something other than Human is out there first and foremost. How would that get done? Figure that out and science can handle the rest in however it desires. If you think the creature, rare as it is, needs to be shot then go do it. I'm certainly not the one who will stop you. But know this: I still consider it an absolute last resort after everything else that comes ahead of that has been tried. And that's the way science would want it, too., after all else fails. But WE ourselves can do things that fall under the umbrella of "all else" also- and I'm trying to encourage the idea that we should. So, in a way, I see it as somewhat irresponsible if we do nothing outside of just waiting for a Sasquatch to be shot.

 

I agree. I don't think its prudent for any one method to take precedence over another.
 

Its like two carpenters fighting over which is better. A saw or a hammer. 

 

Last resort? Science goes out and peruses bush meat markets! Thats not beneath them! They don't care. 
 

They care about discovery, full stop!
 

 

 

 

[hiflier]

17 minutes ago, norseman said:

Last resort? Science goes out and peruses bush meat markets! Thats not beneath them! They don't care. 
 

They care about discovery, full stop!

 

Totally agree, Norseman. If DNA showing a North American primate other than Homo Sapiens goes in one door and a physical foot goes in another then who wouldn't sit up and take notice  

[Huntster]

3 hours ago, norseman said:

Science gets way more discoveries dropped in its lap than it making the discovery itself.

 

https://news.mongabay.com/2013/08/scientists-discover-new-flying-mammal-in-bushmeat-market/

 

 

 

 

 

Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin dropped one in their lap, and scores of people have been trying to drill it through their thick skulls ever since..........all to little avail.

[Huntster]

2 hours ago, norseman said:

........Last resort? Science goes out and peruses bush meat markets!.........

 

I was thinking about this the other day.........

 

There's a big difference between the relationships between African people and chimps/gorillas/bonobos, and between aboriginal Americans and sasquatches. Africans eat apes regularly. But Americans regularly discuss sasquatches as either wild humans or spiritual entities. I know of no aboriginal accounts of them eating sasquatches. Indeed, they sometimes indicate the opposite. 

[norseman]

4 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin dropped one in their lap, and scores of people have been trying to drill it through their thick skulls ever since..........all to little avail.

No they didn't.

 

Thats like saying when you asked for a Milwaukee drill for Xmas? And I bought you a washing machine instead? And when you complained? And Im like…. well I don’t believe in buying people drills. So be happy with a washing machine.

 

 

Science has asked for physical proof. A chunk of the creature. Not film, not audio, not dental resin….

 

Now if we can shrink that chunk down to 10 micro nano grams? Awesome. 

But if Bob Gimlin had shot it, instead of Roger filming it? Science would have gotten their drill for Xmas.

 

And yet 60 odd years later? The washing machine sales are still going strong.

[norseman]

3 minutes ago, Huntster said:

 

I was thinking about this the other day.........

 

There's a big difference between the relationships between African people and chimps/gorillas/bonobos, and between aboriginal Americans and sasquatches. Africans eat apes regularly. But Americans regularly discuss sasquatches as either wild humans or spiritual entities. I know of no aboriginal accounts of them eating sasquatches. Indeed, they sometimes indicate the opposite. 

Makes perfect sense to me.

 

If a 400 lbs Gorilla ate meat? There would have been no bush meat trade. Just a bunch of villagers running scared.

 

It is reported Sasquatch eats meat. And is twice as large as a Gorilla.

[Huntster]

23 minutes ago, norseman said:

No they didn't.

 

Thats like saying when you asked for a Milwaukee drill for Xmas? And I bought you a washing machine instead? And when you complained? And Im like…. well I don’t believe in buying people drills. So be happy with a washing machine........

 

It's more like them bringing me a photo of the latest model of a Milwaukee drill, then telling me to go buy one myself because Santa Claus doesn't exist.......and if you think he does, then bring me his carcass.

 

Quote

........Science has asked for physical proof. A chunk of the creature. Not film, not audio, not dental resin….

 

Want a carcass? Pay my expenses up front, and give me legal indemnity. I'll do my best.

 

Otherwise, go pound sand.

 

Quote

........if Bob Gimlin had shot it, instead of Roger filming it? Science would have gotten their drill for Xmas.

 

And yet 60 odd years later? The washing machine sales are still going strong.

 

So are Milwaukee drill sales. I've got one. A nice one. But I had to buy it myself. I don't believe in Santa Claus.

[hiflier]

It's more like no one has a Milwaukee drill but they do have blurry photos of them and create a Forum to discuss their existence for 20 years. Not only that, if anyone asks experts who should know whether or not the drills are real? They don't get a truthful answer. Instead, the ones who should know about the drills will only talk about washing machines.

 

Edited November 28, 2022 by hiflier