tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-629061224332673795.post373362365419067566..comments2023-07-15T05:32:20.508-07:00Comments on Frontiers of Zoology: Chronology of the Recent Bigfoot Shooting StoryUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger28125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-629061224332673795.post-49984382561084984332012-08-16T04:04:22.101-07:002012-08-16T04:04:22.101-07:00Very good points you wrote here..Great stuff...I t...Very good points you wrote here..Great stuff...I think you've made some truly interesting points.Keep up the good work. <a href="http://curielandrunion.com/" rel="nofollow">curiel and runion dui attorneys</a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-629061224332673795.post-4562548931265785752012-05-12T19:07:12.921-07:002012-05-12T19:07:12.921-07:00I agree that it should be some degree of murder. ...I agree that it should be some degree of murder. This poor creature was likely waving signals to its young to stay put. It's bad enough the parent was killed I'm unable to wrap my head around how a child that just witnessed its parent murdered could also be shot. If this comes out that justin plotted the hunt for a documentary being filmed to be the first to document the existance of BF.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-629061224332673795.post-31595308258560754722012-02-15T08:13:57.533-08:002012-02-15T08:13:57.533-08:00Dale- I think we are in agreement that an investig...Dale- I think we are in agreement that an investigation should take place. Be it a coroner'e inquest or what-have-you. If this piece of flesh is in existence, then it needs to be tested by an authoritative lab-not just the one associated with the shooter. If it then tests as absolutely 100% human, a full -on murder investigation needs to take place. If it isn't 100% bonafide human, then Game, Fish & Parks authorities, and possibly federal wildlife officials, need to step in and find out what exactly this guy did shoot. It would be their job to determine whether or not there is an unkown and unclassified indigenous species residing in North America so that protective laws could be put into place. However, as I stated earlier (in response to another anonymous poster's comment) the shooter in question could most likely beat any poaching charges because the animal was not officially in existance at the time of the shooting. After all, almost every known species had to fall as the hunter's or scientist's prey in order to become "real". <br />Though I am no hard-core beliver, I think bigfoot creatures may exist. If they do, then it is my humble opinion that some very small number of them must be sacrificed in order to protect the majority.<br />Thank you for the lively debate-TimAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-629061224332673795.post-1121130228605400702012-02-15T07:27:35.711-08:002012-02-15T07:27:35.711-08:00Thank you Tim. I much prefer it if people use thei...Thank you Tim. I much prefer it if people use their names: we have a couple other "Anonymous" posters here that are frankly wasting their time even posting here.<br /><br />And Blogger still has a problem with allowing me to post "in reply to replies" in this message board. So I must post again as if it is a new message beginning.<br /><br />No, as a matter of fact I have it on the word of local law authorities here in Indiana that shooting a person in a costume is still homicide unless there are strongly mitigating circumstances. Shooting at a person in a sheet because you mistook them for a ghost, for instance, would not be a valid excuse in a local court of law. The rule of thumb in force in other areas could vary, I'm well aware of the fact. I really don't know what it might be in California.<br /><br />Yes, I am awre that the coroner's office has to determine that a murder has been committed before prosecution can take over. I have pointed that out in the answers to earlier posts. BUT the Coroner's office can easily seize such an object as an alleged hunk of human flesh at any time on the merest suspicion that a crime <i> might</i> have been committed, by producng the proper warrants. That would be deemed necessary in this case because a private business now has possession of said sample<br /><br />As to what i <i> think</i> is really going on, that part is irrelevant also. Right now I am reserving opinion and allowing other information to come in. It seems a sure thing to me that if we have a human piece of flesh involved, there should definitely be an inquest into the matter and then criminal charges should be filed. And because I do not wish to hinder due process of the law, I am withholding any further opinions because that due process is far more important than the opinion would be at this time.<br /><br />Best Wishes, Dale D.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-629061224332673795.post-1963731123993107502012-02-15T07:07:28.283-08:002012-02-15T07:07:28.283-08:00Yes Dale, by the way I am Tim, I know someone isn&...Yes Dale, by the way I am Tim, I know someone isn't supposed to think that there would be gorillas in the woods. But, that person would no longer resemble a human being. Therefor, if a hunter mistook them for a game animal, and shot them, the blame would fall upon the guy in the costume, not the shooter. Also, the shooter could claim to have felt they were threatened or under attack and fired under self-defensive duress. This would be perfectly legitimate. No murder charges would be filed. <br />When it comes to the flesh sample "stated to be human after lab analysis", I believe that the state has to test the sample themselves and then do an investigation in order to find a body. Remember, the burden of proof rests upon the state. They need to prove that a murder took place, the accused does not need to prove that it did not.<br />Aside from all this, what do you think is going on here? Did this guy shoot what people have come to call "bigfoot" creatures? Did he kill legitimate, modern human beings? Or is this a publicity stunt being drug out in order for him and his collaborates to get a book out?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-629061224332673795.post-87109909270319680482012-02-15T01:13:48.653-08:002012-02-15T01:13:48.653-08:00And then I get yet another rant about "How ca...And then I get yet another rant about "How can you presume Bigfoot is real Blah Blah Blah".<br />Listen once again and read my words this time. We are not talking about anybody's opinion about Bigfoot, we are talking about a chunk of meat cut off a woman's thigh that the lab said was human. Period. If it WAS human, we have a problem and we have a crime. Has nothing to do with Bigfoot other than the person who shot the woman <i> said</i> he shot a Bigfoot. And a junkie high on dope can shoot his old man and claim afterward he was shooting at a bear. ALL the theorizing about Bigfoot is irrelevant at this point. The local coroner's office has got to get ahold of that chunk of meat to see if a crime has been committed and then act accordingly. It is irrelevant about what anybody says about "Bigfoot" one way or another. We don't know what's going on and we don't know if the guy that shot at a hairy woman was in his right mind or not: the story could be legitimate or it could NOT be legitimate. The one hard fact we have is a chunk of meat, presumably human, of an unarmed subject shot down in cold blood with the sole purpose of making money out of selling the body parts, which the shooter admitted to and proceeded to do accordingly.<br /><br />Now if you DON'T believe in Bigfoot then you have GOT to believe foul play was involved from that scenario alone and it does no good to poke fun and jeer at the notion of Bigfoot. THAT is completely irrelevant. And the idea that the shooter was in anyway justified in shooting an unarmed mother and child because he SAYS he thought he was shooting at a Bigfoot is irrelevant, and saying that "Anybody running around in these woods dressed in a gorilla suit deserves to get shot" is even more irrelevant. ALL of that is presuming without any real evidence at all that there was something to the story. We don't know if there was anything to that story, the guy could have gone over to his next door neighbor, a woman whose pubic hair grew over onto her inner thighs, which sometimes happens, kills her and her kids and cuts off a chunk of her inner thigh, the hairy part. And THEN he can get a friend to tell a wild scenario about they met a wild Bigfoot woman and he shot her. Do you find that any easier to believe? It is entirely possible, every step of the way.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-629061224332673795.post-8141043622132221322012-02-15T00:39:55.929-08:002012-02-15T00:39:55.929-08:00To Mr "Oh I Do believe in Sasquatch, I Do, I ...To Mr "Oh I Do believe in Sasquatch, I Do, I Do I Do..." sober up until you can make an intelligible and rational comment and I shall allow it through. Otherwise if all you're going to do is enter childish blubbering, I am going to squash you like a bug.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-629061224332673795.post-60939156732136284312012-02-15T00:37:11.202-08:002012-02-15T00:37:11.202-08:00I have just put a reply into the system and it fai...I have just put a reply into the system and it failed to go through. Your statement includes several errors including the last "I can guarantee no charges will be filed" for shooting somebody in a gorilla suit. Wrong, the presumption of the law would be you were not supposed to have any idea there were gorillas in the woods in the first place.<br /><br />In the case of the sample of flesh, it was stated to be human after laboratory analysis. That does indeed make a cause to suspect foul play and does indeed give the law the right to step in to seize the sample for further testing by the coroner's office. But it is the coroner who has to determine if it is a murder based on the results of an inquset, and that is a separate necessary step.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-629061224332673795.post-69092441972302596912012-02-14T19:56:59.095-08:002012-02-14T19:56:59.095-08:00I understand the viewpoint that you are taking. Te...I understand the viewpoint that you are taking. Technically, according to what has happened so far- this guy has claimed to have shot and killed something in the wild, a "claimed" piece of which has "supposedly" been tested in a lab and came up "human". I get it. But, the law cannot suppose that a murder has been committed until there is a body to match to the piece of flesh. A piece of flesh on its own could have cone from something, or someone, still alive or even long dead before this guy found it. I too believe that an investigation should take place in order to establish exactly what, if anything, has been killed.<br />Also, I am a resident of the Black Hills of South Dakota and have been hunting all my life. People occasionally get shot and even killed in the wild and I have never heard of murder charges being filed unit intent was established. In other words, a hunter must actually know that he or she is shooting at a person, or be woefully negligent in their judgment before taking the shot. Most of these are officially dismissed as accidents. If you are foolish enough to run around in the woods up here in a gorilla suite during hunting season you may very well be shot and I gaurantee that no charges will be filed.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-629061224332673795.post-36087693319831758832012-02-14T19:33:53.382-08:002012-02-14T19:33:53.382-08:00You would be mistaken. Shooting a man in a gorilla...You would be mistaken. Shooting a man in a gorilla suit would be murder, although I suppose a good lawyer would get that reduced to Accidental homicide or something.<br /><br />The basic fact is that you don't know if the scenario you present is true, you don't know if anything the man said is true, all you DO know is that he says he shot something and here is a piece of it, and the first thing the lab says is "it's human"<br /><br /><i> THAT is all you can prove legally in a court of law, everything else is mere presumption of events that occurred outside of your personal experience and therefore is only hearsay </i><br /><br />And under THOSE circumstances you have what the court would call a reasonable assumption of murder or at least enough for the coroner to hold the inquiry. And the sample becomes the <i>corpus delecti</i>, so there is no question about hiding it or locking it away from prying eyes.<br /><br />And I would appreciate it if you fellows bothered to look these things up before you come to me telling me I am wrong just because you do not recognize what is demonstrable evidence in this case and what is unsubstabntiated allegation and unwarranted surmise. We have a real piece of evidence in question, a hunk of human meat. And we have a lot of people claiming it represents some form of an unknown primate and the person who shot it is blameless of any wrongdoing. That isn't so. We have not got sufficient evidence to introduce an unknown primate into the case at this point antd we shall not have sufficint evidence to invoke an unknown primate UNTIL an official report is released which says it is an unknown primate. Until then the nearest likely candidate is still a <i>human</i> source, no matter what anybody believes about the <i>stories</i> one way or the other.<br /><br />The stories are in question but the hunk of meat is <b>not</b> in question. And the presumption is that it is human until proven otherwise. We are not starting from the standpoint of assuming there is an unknown primate involved but starting from the standpoint of <i> what is actually demonstrable at the present time</i> and the presumption that the sample is human far outweighs any <i> possible </i>claims made to the contrary.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-629061224332673795.post-49691150868117911082012-02-14T19:13:34.648-08:002012-02-14T19:13:34.648-08:00Ok-When we finally get to see the actual bodies, t...Ok-When we finally get to see the actual bodies, that is if they exist, if they look to be 7ft. tall and hairy as a bear would you then still say that the man had intended to kill so-called "humans". I do agree that the guy is a jerk, and I myself would have stopped him from these claimed actions had I been present. Furthermore, if the bodies look to be actually human in appearance, then I agree that he should be prosecuted for murder. But the DNA evidence even if it says "human" doesn't prove that the man had intended to shoot humans. It all depends on what this appeared to be to him. If it had really been a guy in a gorilla suite, I would even say that that was not murder since that person would not have appeared to be a human being. What I am saying is that even if his intentions were to kill bigfoot creatures, and the creatures turned out to be some type of human being- they have to actually appear to be human beings in order to prove that the guy wanted to "murder" human beings.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-629061224332673795.post-71145246880744571202012-02-14T18:31:28.219-08:002012-02-14T18:31:28.219-08:00Another anonymous comment:
"I don't know...Another anonymous comment:<br /><br />"I don't know if this is a for real story or not, but here is what I think about this thread. Dale stop being a ******** and endlessly stating 'its murder'. The man may have unethically shot some unknown type of human-like apes, but it stops at that. I don't even believe someone could be ultimately convicted of poaching in this case because regardless of any "laws" about killing a bigfoot-at the time of the shootings it remains an animal that is unproven to exist officially. An animal must be officially and scientifically proven to exist before there can be any legally enforceable laws protecting it."<br /><br />OK, you are also so blinded by your preconceived notions you can't see what is plainly stated. Once again, it means nothing that the story goes that "Somebody shot a Bigfoot" FORGET THAT PART, IT DOESN'T MEAN ANYTHING.<br />We have had a flat statement that somebody shot something of basically human appearance, an unarmed mother and a child, and that this person was so irresponsible that the gun had to be forcibly taken away from them afterward. NOW PAY ATTENTRION: pieces of whatever was shot were sent to the lab and identified as HUMAN. THAT makes it murder, smartass, no two ways around it. THAT is the ONE PROVABLE FACT of this whole sordid mess, the rest is only allegations and assumptions. Your own scenario is only a mass of allegations and assumptions and overlooks the established fact thay something that looked human was shot and the test results that were announced said it was human.<br /><br />AND FURTHERMORE, no other official statements have been forthcoming that definitely do NOT say that it could have been some nutcase saw a Mexican woman out alone on the road with two small children, shot her and SAID she was a Bigfoot, cut her up and thought he was going to sell her body parts at a profit.<br /><br />Julia Pastrana was a Mexican and we have posted her photo here before. If somebody saw Julia Pastrana running around with her clothes off they could very well call HER a Bigfoot. Google Julia Pastrana and then tell me it couldn't have been so.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-629061224332673795.post-50622182097223282262012-02-14T17:52:00.976-08:002012-02-14T17:52:00.976-08:00I just got an anonymous posting to this blog entry...I just got an anonymous posting to this blog entry. I shall excerpt parts of it below so you can see what was going on with that one.<br /><br />"i didn't know it was so easy to shoot a bigfoot, just drive off into the woods and you'll run into one or three and be able to kill them...although i guess in lieu of that i could just go digging in the snow and i might find a piece of one lying around. Maybe all the bigfoot 'researchers' should just take that approach...hey it's easy. somebody tell double mm he's putting waaaayy to much effort into it. If i found a piece of a bigfoot lying around i'd take it to a semi discredited dna lab. then, before the results were published, or even released, i'd post a lot of nonsense on racist blogs and throw around words like mitochondrial and most people wouldn't know if i knew what i was talking about but they would pretend they did because if they didn't other people would think they were dumb."<br /><br /><b> OK, already we can see what's up with this poster. The poster is taking a sarcastic, high-handed, snotty attitude about the situation. The poster hasn't a clue as to what "Mitochondrial" even means. The poster has no right venturing any opinions whatsoever because the poster doesn't know what he is talking about and even if there was a valuable result announced, they wouldn't know what the tehnical language meant and hence they wouldn't know if it WAS a valuable result or not. </b> <br /><br />"other people might get all caught up in the story by the sheer heartlessness of it and demand the arrest of the perps and some might get all paranoid about Big Government confiscating the samples, because you know the feds are really into suppressing bigfoot evidence and constantly raid all these labs that have all these samples. i guess it just depends on the personalities involved...if they are suckers or suspicious bastards."<br /><br /><b> Furthermore the poster does not recognise the concept of suggesting previously established legal protocols in hypothetical circumstances. The poster appoarantly does not understand the concept of hypothetical circumstances and assumes that people discussing a hypothetical situation must therefore necessarily believe it to be a real situation. On top of that, the poster now begins to become openly hostile and insulting as well as being snide and sarcastic, begins calling names and making <i> ad hominem</i> attacks.</b><br /><br /><br />"i'd keep the story going too, because by now, even though i didn't really have anything to do with it i'd be getting lots of hits on my blog by pretending to be an expert on the story. i'd publish timelines and emails i sent to other noninvolved experts and we'd all pat each other on the back and act like great chums and like we actually knew something or had something worthwhile to add. anyway, that's just what i would do......"<br /><br /><b> Meaning probably Robert's blog since I only just started running the story here. Also the poster seems to be both jealous about traffic on the blogs and is hostile to the sight of co-workers in the same field (which is apparantly all Greek to them) sharing a common interest in a topic that involves their field of interest and even what they have college degrees to advance opinions on. The poster is a surly, nasty sort who also would not have got his original message posted in its original form simply because the poster was being a loudmouthed ignorant jackass about it all.And while we are at it, let me add that having a hunk of meat with human DNA is not a difficult concept to believe. It is of course all too easy to see how one COULD get a chunk of flesh that tested out as human DNA. The part where it becomes hard to believe is when the flesh does NOT have human DNA in it. If you can't believe in Bigfoot, probably you might find the notion of a psychotic killer easier to swallow.That's all, and if you try something of this nature again, let me reassure you it WON'T get through.</b>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-629061224332673795.post-32240167818845074112012-02-14T03:07:12.927-08:002012-02-14T03:07:12.927-08:00Well, Robert, Let me put it this way:
When Melba ...Well, Robert, Let me put it this way:<br /><br />When Melba Ketcham announced initially that the sample in questuion tested out as 100% human, she had already generated her own worst-case scenario. At that point, the case was legally murder and no two ways about it. Subsequently sghe has retracted her initial findings, which means at the time of her first announcement, she was being completely inept in her profession and irresponsible in her judgement in making the announcement.<br /><br />NOW, IMHO, there are TWO basic sets of creatures being sampled and two different sets of DNA in the database. 10% of the way back between human and chimpanzee DNA is still in the Neanderthal range of tests: 25% of the way back is still in the Neanderthal range. When the Neanderthal results came out, we were already in the peculiar situation that the Neabnderthals were are next-nearest kin and the given rang for their DNA blocked out a large chunk of that coveted genetic terratory: we could maybe fit in Homo erectus at around the 50% mark but it would be a very tight squeeze and little genetic differentiation between Neanderethals and erectus. And the Australopithecines (of which there were supposed to be several grades and several species in between) have hardly any space apiece and all end up as being dangerously close to ordinary chimpanzee DNA. And of course this is talking mtDNA because that is the only part of Neanderthal DNA we have actually sampled and the only kind of DNA that is preserved in fossils. We have no idea what Neanderthal nuclear DNA was like and no way of finding out-and the same goes for all fossil types.<br /><br />I have no problems with any of the DNA results I am hearing but I think the PNW sasquatch is something very different from the Eastern Bigfoot and that is part of where the problem arises. In any event, I surely would not want to be in Melba Ketcham's shoes now, whatever the outcome turns out to be.<br /><br />Thank you for your input, Robert and as I mentioned before it is always a pleasure to have you here.<br /><br />Best Wishes, Dale D.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-629061224332673795.post-33867099210943887912012-02-13T20:47:59.454-08:002012-02-13T20:47:59.454-08:00Only the MtDNA tested human, and we know that for ...Only the MtDNA tested human, and we know that for a fact. It's rumored that the NuDNA is quite a bit different. I believe that the DNA of the entire sample is 10% of the way from a human to chimp, whatever the Hell that means. Actually, I was told it was 90% human, but as that makes no sense, I assume they mean 10% of the way from a human to chimp.<br /><br />About my blog: Yes, thank you very much sir! About our extensive information. Well, we are just the best Bigfoot blog out there, especially for scooping new stories. For overall information though, I have some excellent competition.Robert Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16213140951444357431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-629061224332673795.post-36733021822666476992012-02-13T20:29:05.423-08:002012-02-13T20:29:05.423-08:00It tested "presumptive for Bigfoot" beca...It tested "presumptive for Bigfoot" because we have no known type specimen. So far they have nearly 100 specimens that have tested "presumptive for Bigfoot," including one Yeti sample from Bhutan. And the entire genome has now been sequenced. That was done in November.Robert Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16213140951444357431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-629061224332673795.post-51682067405936973592012-02-13T18:00:51.819-08:002012-02-13T18:00:51.819-08:00Hi There Robert, good to see you back again.
I am...Hi There Robert, good to see you back again.<br /><br />I am afraid that if the authorities took that attitude they were being negligent in their duties. And I'm aftraid that if, after announcing a test result of 10% human DNA, there is a second announcement of "We don't know what the DNA is, we were screwed when we said that before"-it won't wash, it isn't good enough: They SAID it was human DNA and the Authorities MUST treat it as a case of possible homicide. At the very least the authorities need to seize the sample as ALLEGEDLY human and have the coroner do the tests on THAT.And they need to keep a weather eye on the shooter whatever else. Sounds like he has no scruples WHO he shoots and cuts up.<br /><br />The Fish and Game people would be involved if it were a case of poaching as Tyler suggests. My own inquiries have come back to me stating "The FBI knows about the case and they are investigating". Could be they were lying to me to give me the brush-off, but that sort of misrepresentation is also considered unethical.<br /><br />But this thing is not over yet, not by a long chalk.<br /><br />Good luck on your blog, I had not known before how extensive your information was over there.<br /><br />Best Wishes, Dale D.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-629061224332673795.post-41568294113258484782012-02-13T17:37:42.624-08:002012-02-13T17:37:42.624-08:00Hi Dale, LE authorities were told all of this stuf...Hi Dale, LE authorities were told all of this stuff, but they more or less laughed it off. They were told that the MtDNA tested 100% human and this could therefore be a possible homicide, but they thought that was ridiculous.<br /><br />They tossed it aside and eventually referred it to CA Department of Fish and Game as an animal matter. CA DFG did indeed investigate the case in December. I think they were looking for a body when they went to Smeja's house.Robert Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16213140951444357431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-629061224332673795.post-9026320651477952372012-02-13T17:35:25.843-08:002012-02-13T17:35:25.843-08:00Hi Dale. The word is that the NuDNA is NOT 100% hu...Hi Dale. The word is that the NuDNA is NOT 100% human at all. In fact, it is far off, anywhere from 10% - 37.5% of the way from a human to a chimp. If I had to guess, I would think that the NuDNA is either Homo Heidelbergensis or Homo Erectus, but I'm not sure. So Bigfoots are hybrids between humans and subhumans, which is really bizarre.<br /><br />You have done superior work on the hominid skulls, etc. Kudos to you. <br /><br />Please feel free to link me. And if you have an email contact, I would like to email you too if you don't mind. If not, you can find my email on the contact page.Robert Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16213140951444357431noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-629061224332673795.post-15312741887806209922012-02-13T17:25:54.888-08:002012-02-13T17:25:54.888-08:00Well, you see, that doesn't signify and it isn...Well, you see, that doesn't signify and it isn't even an issue in this case.<br /><br />WE CAN test for HUMAN DNA and the sample originally TESTED AS 100% HUMAN.<br /><br />So it's still legally MURDER, and it doesn't mean a blessed thing what your opinion is about "Bigfoot" one way or the other.<br /><br />Best Wishes, Dale D.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-629061224332673795.post-37174908792726361812012-02-13T16:25:05.748-08:002012-02-13T16:25:05.748-08:00Yeah, um... just one thing-- how on earth could an...Yeah, um... just one thing-- how on earth could anything test positive for bigfoot dna if there isn't any other proof the thing even exists?<br /> I say B S.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-629061224332673795.post-77913761517919746712012-02-13T14:35:48.443-08:002012-02-13T14:35:48.443-08:00I have just got back a message from the FBI saying...I have just got back a message from the FBI saying that the matter is indded being looked into and that there is no need to be alarmed or concerned.<br /><br />Best Wishes, Dale D.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-629061224332673795.post-55523572043385972422012-02-13T14:26:09.362-08:002012-02-13T14:26:09.362-08:00There's still another way he could be arrested...There's still another way he could be arrested: poaching. If I remember correctly, several states have given legal protection Sasquatches and any other primates indigenous to North America. The fact is that he shot a protected animal with the intention of selling it's parts, which is by definition poaching. Poaching of course is illegal.<br /><br />Best regards,<br />Tyler StoneTyler Stonehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03510615325159242706noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-629061224332673795.post-4451677060113881092012-02-13T13:50:12.460-08:002012-02-13T13:50:12.460-08:00Well robert We are getting to see yoour name aroun...Well robert We are getting to see yoour name around here quite often! I am thinking of putting a link to your blog on the companion blog, Frontiers of Anthropology: I just borrowed a couple of your genetic family trees from Cavalli=sforza because your copies were cleaner than the ones I had.<br /><br />Well you see Robert, that's not quite the way the law should take it. What we have here is a direct statement that Justin shot an unarmed mother and chile with the expressed motive of selling their body parts at a profit, followed thereafter by the statement that the body parts tested out to be 100% human.<br /><br />Now think about just that part without bothering with the rest of the bells and whistles. THAT'S ABSOLUTELY OBSCENE. And law enforcement authorities should have just cause to take everybody remotely associarted into custody under suspicion of murder or as accomplices, seize the samples and hold a coroner's inquest, probably not in that exact order.<br /><br />As to the legal staus of persisting hominines, that probably depends on making an absolute ruling, but Neanderthals at least are generally thought to be clasified as a type of <i> Homo sapiens </i>. And killing a member of our own species is just plain murder, whether or not that population has any recognized legal status or citizenship. And whether or not there has been a legal ruling on the case, these so-called Bigfoots are de facto Native Americans and should be treated as such.<br /><br />BTW, feel free to browse around the site and look at some of the skull material I have posted: my specialization is in measurement, comparison and analysis of human (and Hominid) skulls.<br /><br />Best Wishes, Dale D.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-629061224332673795.post-40399296937349434352012-02-13T13:20:39.782-08:002012-02-13T13:20:39.782-08:00Apparently according to the genetics study soon to...Apparently according to the genetics study soon to come out, the Bigfoots are not 100% human. They are some sort of subhuman or prehistoric human. You know those things like Neandertal or Java Man? Well, they never went extinct! They just turned into these things, these Bigfoots. So I'm not certain that it's murder. But I think you are correct that we can't have people killing these things that are so close to humans. Once we get confirmation, it is going to look a lot like homicide, correct. And needs to be treated as such.Robert Lindsayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16213140951444357431noreply@blogger.com