Guest Posted November 20, 2011 Share Posted November 20, 2011 It IS possible to manufacture DNA in a lab now, BUT the process is time consuming, expensive, and the results are of uncertain quality. You are correct on all counts, of course. However, you must understand that Skeptics in general, and BF Skeptics in particular, operate on the presumption (however logically fallacious) that anything not conclusively proven true is automatically false. That is not the case. Wildlife codes the country over (including Federal) have a catch-all clause that states (paraphrasing) that only species for which harvesting is explicitly permitted may be taken or possessed in whole or in part. Any other species automatically falls into the prohibited category, and taking or possessing such animals in whole or in part is forbidden. Fair enough. I wasn't sure if this had included what I've seen some lawmakers call a "mythical" creature and have laughed at even addressing such a thing. I have seen local laws (Skamania County, etc.) that have protected Bigfoot. I guess the best course of action would be to have Bigfoot put on the Endangered Species List, but unfortunately that just isn't going to happen without proof. I am all for their protection as soon as possible. I also realize they need to be officially discovered first. I hope someone is successul in doing this very soon so these stories of wounded animals will stop. If it can be done non-lethally, that would be fantastic. Maybe one will tackle the president when he's camping then run off. jk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 20, 2011 Share Posted November 20, 2011 Mulder, Bigfoot are not a species. The law is very specific, as you point out. They don't exist in the eyes of the state. They might not be animals. They may not exist at all. Shooting at something that doesn't exist especially cannot be a violation of wildlife laws. If bigfoot is proven, then the laws you cite are applicable. That is a nice bit of Johnny Cochrane logic, but it wouldn't fly in court. The laws say you may only hunt those species that are on the permitted list. If it isn't on the permitted list, it is by definition forbidden to hunt, take or possess it. And in any event, the instant one is harvested, it IS proven and the laws apply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RedRatSnake Posted November 20, 2011 Share Posted November 20, 2011 The laws say you may only hunt those species that are on the permitted list. If it isn't on the permitted list, it is by definition forbidden to hunt, take or possess it. Around here they are pretty strict on that law ~ Every case I have seen that was suppose to contain bigfoot DNA turns out to be inconclusive for whatever reason, or apparently lost in a lab because they can't seem to get any results in a reasonable time frame . . . IMO these are all good indications of a hoax. What are the odds of nothing but contamination and delay everytime someone claims to have bigfoot DNA? Or as I like to call it blobDNA? This isn't the first time this behavior of getting mystery DNA has developed and was collectively followed with enthusiasm for some period on this forum. It's only a matter of time before people like myself take notice and hoaxing tactics will need to change. I will agree but change the Hoax call to maybe hopeful or quick to jump, I'll give some slack cause it is new and not everyone has the bread to pay for a top rated test and i don't see anyone paying for a hoax just yet, ( well maybe the discovery channel) still in my mind this approach is not going too prove a thing cause no matter what there needs to be a specimen in order to really know what it is, the DNA is just going to say ya there is something different but what, with out something to poke and probe it still leaves the door open. You are not the only one that has taken notice of whats happening, there are many that have been questioning the entire procedure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 20, 2011 Share Posted November 20, 2011 You are not the only one that has taken notice of whats happening, there are many that have been questioning the entire procedure. Something I predicted quite some time ago. The Skeptics are positioning themselves to minimize/dismiss outright any DNA finding supporting BF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairy Man Posted November 20, 2011 Share Posted November 20, 2011 Extraction of DNA from blood stains has been a standard forensic procedure for many years. If the DNA is there, polymerase chain reaction can make as many copies as needed overnight. Running the gels takes a few hours, but this is mainly just waiting around. The point is: These are biochemical lab tests; you set them up and let them run for a few hours while you go and do something else. not like finding a needle in a haystack or building the pyramids. The lab procedures for identifying species from blood just don't take that long. Three days at the most. Not getting results for months simply means you're getting the runaround: the longer you sit around without calling them out the greater the chance your sample will be "lost" like so many other " Bigfoot" samples seem to be. Sorry if you haven't found a lab that does your work in a timely fashion; people should be more assertive about getting decent service. Consult your local wildlife agency and LE for help in finding a lab or consult a major university. Just to be clear, I don't have any bigfoot blood or tissue - so there is no fear of my samples getting lost. The stuff I have tested are normally bones and teeth (human or animal). And I do use the same lab as all my local major university. They say the same thing about how long it takes. I have a question, not directed at any particular person, but I don't understand some statements that have been made. Several people, in other threads, have stated that until they see a body of bigfoot, then they won't believe - but then statements are made that the TBRC shouldn't shoot at anything on two legs. How do those two opinions work together? If you won't believe until there is a body - then why be upset at an attempt to get one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RedRatSnake Posted November 20, 2011 Share Posted November 20, 2011 positioning I don't think that's the case at all, in fact anyone that is involved in this BF thing i feel would be overjoyed if someone came in with a specimen, what you are seeing is folks just asking for hard evidence and facts, the problem is there is no hard evidence and the facts are this new DNA thing ain't looking very good with the delays and excuses, no conspiracy or secret skeptic meetings at the local cauldron, just a bunch of people interested in the same thing, some just like the idea of having a BF running around with out too many questions, others claim to have seen one and want some closure, some want a body before they jump into the fun, on and on ~ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonehead74 Posted November 20, 2011 Share Posted November 20, 2011 That is a nice bit of Johnny Cochrane logic, but it wouldn't fly in court. The laws say you may only hunt those species that are on the permitted list. If it isn't on the permitted list, it is by definition forbidden to hunt, take or possess it. And in any event, the instant one is harvested, it IS proven and the laws apply. I've seen some unbelievable things 'fly' in court. In my neck of the woods, I know of people who have shot and killed pythons, alligators, wallabies, monkeys, and a capybara, and I've seen nuisance bears killed out of season. None were charged with any wildlife violations, and those animals (except the bears) are not on the permitted list in my state. We seem to have an intractable disagreement. Until a bigfoot is shot and killed, I guess we'll just have to continue to disagree. The local sheriff was informed of the Echo incident. The details are available online here and on the TBRC's own website. Law enforcement and wildlife officers have unfettered access to the same info as you do. What charges have been filed against DC? None, because no crime was committed. My ultimate point here has been that it's poor form to accuse someone of being a criminal without some heavy-duty proof to back your accusations, and none has been provided. Using the laws you cite, we would need to know, really know, that bigfoot exists to accuse DC of a crime. We do not know that bigfoot exists = no violation of wildlife laws. We could go even further if we want to get into potential legal wrangling. (DISCLAIMER: WHAT FOLLOWS IS A HYPOTHETICAL SCENARIO THAT IN NO WAY REFLECTS DARYL COLYER'S TRUE ACTIONS AT ANY TIME, OR ANY VERSION OF REALITY AS WE KNOW IT!!!) The only witness is DC himself. If he was charged using the above mentioned 'catch-all' clause, he could simply state that he made the whole story up and only fired into the brush, there was no 'bigfoot' shot at. Which mutually exclusive story (originating from the same source) should be believed by a magistrate or jury in that case? How would you prosecute a case where the only source of the story both implicates and exonerates itself? One version would have no more credibility than the other and you left at an impasse. Any-who, I think I've made my position clear here, as have others, and I respect that. For myself, I believe that DC and the TBRC have been unjustly maligned and take exception to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 20, 2011 Share Posted November 20, 2011 positioning I don't think that's the case at all, in fact anyone that is involved in this BF thing i feel would be overjoyed if someone came in with a specimen, what you are seeing is folks just asking for hard evidence and facts, the problem is there is no hard evidence Tracks, hairs, body impressions, and now maybe DNA... and the facts are this new DNA thing ain't looking very good with the delays and excuses, Explanations are not "excuses" and it takes as long as it takes. If she rushed data out to the public you'd be screaming about the lack of "peer review" and violations of protocol. no conspiracy or secret skeptic meetings at the local cauldron, Need some straw to finish than strawman? There doesn't need to be a "conspiracy" when most Skeptics operate out of a common playbook. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RedRatSnake Posted November 20, 2011 Share Posted November 20, 2011 Tracks, hairs, body impressions, and now maybe DNA... Track's can very easily be made, Never any return on the Hair DNA, Body impressions by what an unknown animal with no record to use as a guide, Yes maybe some return on this new DNA Explanations are not "excuses" and it takes as long as it takes. If she rushed data out to the public you'd be screaming about the lack of "peer review" and violations of protocol. were not talking just this new DNA stuff here, were taking decades of waiting for good evidence. Need some straw to finish than strawman? There doesn't need to be a "conspiracy" when most Skeptics operate out of a common playbook. I would like to see you do better than this, it makes ya look weak with the refusal to acknowledge there needs to be solid evidence before some will accept any claim, not everyone see's it your way, as you do not see in the eyes of a skeptic, or in my case a non believer, your defending a claim of an animal that has never been acknowledged by science, but you constantly claim evidence at a scientific level, what's up with that ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Patty3 Posted November 20, 2011 Share Posted November 20, 2011 The local sheriff was informed of the Echo incident. The details are available online here and on the TBRC's own website. The only witness is DC himself. he made the whole story up and only fired into the brush, there was no 'bigfoot' shot at. The only part I can believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Luckyfoot Posted November 20, 2011 Share Posted November 20, 2011 . It's only a matter of time before people like myself take notice and hoaxing tactics will need to change. Double ROFL. End transmission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 20, 2011 Share Posted November 20, 2011 That is not the case. Wildlife codes the country over (including Federal) have a catch-all clause that states (paraphrasing) that only species for which harvesting is explicitly permitted may be taken or possessed in whole or in part. Any other species automatically falls into the prohibited category, and taking or possessing such animals in whole or in part is forbidden. Please post the regulatory language that makes you a criminal for the taking of the last fly you swatted or the last mouse you trapped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Patty3 Posted November 20, 2011 Share Posted November 20, 2011 (edited) Just to be clear, I don't have any bigfoot blood or tissue - so there is no fear of my samples getting lost. The stuff I have tested are normally bones and teeth (human or animal). And I do use the same lab as all my local major university. Several people, in other threads, have stated that until they see a body of bigfoot, then they won't believe - but then statements are made that the TBRC shouldn't shoot at anything on two legs. How do those two opinions work together? If you won't believe until there is a body - then why be upset at an attempt to get one? They didn't get a body now did they? I don't mind if this was a hoax and Alton Higgins along with the TBRC concocted this story for publicity. What's disturbing is that thousands of bigfooters are reading it and thinking it's OK to shoot at something walking upright. It's a matter of public safety and it was irresponsible on their part. If just one of these fanatics gets worked up then goes out loaded for bigfoot and sees someone in a ghillie suit hunting what's going to happen? It was the reason I posted the stupid hunting accidents of 2009, if someone can shoot a person for a turkey practically every year what will happen when their hunting for human shaped upright walkers? Edited November 20, 2011 by Patty3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Strick Posted November 20, 2011 Share Posted November 20, 2011 If just one of these fanatics gets worked up then goes out loaded for bigfoot and sees someone in a ghillie suit hunting what's going to happen? It was the reason I posted the stupid hunting accidents of 2009, if someone can shoot a person for a turkey practically every year what will happen when their hunting for human shaped upright walkers? I think your central point is golden, but you have expressed it, during the course of this thread, in a way that has sometimes bordered on the histrionic and hardly guaranteed to win you friends and influence people... However, welcome to the forum. I feel that the old pro-kill/no-kill argument has become moot in that the inherent dangers of misidentification and public safety when shooting at hairy, bipedal figures in the woods outweigh the benefits of obtaining a type specimen for science. There is no objective 'proof' of the existence of Bigfoot, but only a cursory glance at YouTube will reveal objective proof of kids donning Gorilla suits and fooling around in the woods and running out in front of cars. Any logical evaluation of the balance of probabilities would have to come down in favour of the latter when encountering Big Hairy off on the side of the trail. This should be enough to prevent the thoughtful Bigfooter from pulling that trigger..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 20, 2011 Share Posted November 20, 2011 (edited) Track's can very easily be made, Never any return on the Hair DNA, Body impressions by what an unknown animal with no record to use as a guide, Yes maybe some return on this new DNA Disingenuous much? Those physical traces DO have traits that can be objectively analyzed by the appropriate experts, such as Drs Meldrum, Fahrenbach, et al. The only ones squealing are Skeptics who don't like their conclusion. If they turned a 180 tomorrow and denounced their own results, I'm sure you'd be 100000000% supportive of them. Hypocrisy, thy name is Skeptic. were not talking just this new DNA stuff here, were taking decades of waiting for good evidence. Which we have, as the analayses of people like Drs Meldrum, Fahrenbach, et al show. I would like to see you do better than this, it makes ya look weak with the refusal to acknowledge there needs to be solid evidence before some will accept any claim see above. not everyone see's it your way, So what? Argument from division fallacy. as you do not see in the eyes of a skeptic, or in my case a non believer, I see through the eyes of an open-minded, intellectually honest person. I was convinced by the evidence BEFORE my personal sighting. your defending a claim of an animal that has never been acknowledged by science, Sideways argument from authority fallacy but you constantly claim evidence at a scientific level, what's up with that ? Gee, Red, I dunno...maybe all that evidence adduced by scientists such as Drs Meldrum, Fahrenbach, Sariamento, Swindler, et al? Or are you seriously going to claim they are not scientists? Please post the regulatory language that makes you a criminal for the taking of the last fly you swatted or the last mouse you trapped. Flies and house mice/rats are not considered "wildlife, Ptero...and I suspect you know that. Edited November 20, 2011 by Mulder Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts