Forums

This makes me wonder:  How human-like would bigfoot have to be to be human as you describe?  How animal-like would they have to be to be considered animal like by science or the public at large?   To me, if bigfoot is essentially nearly Ape-like in intelligence and so on it would be an easy to think "It's an animal"   Obviously if Bigfoot could communicate or have a language and very high intellect good luck selling the idea bigfoot is an animal.    I just wonder how we define the traits for an animal and define the traits as a human.  What's the line?   To me anything equal to or less than an ape Bigfoot is an animal.   But how far beyond that takes us to a human?  I don't know the answer.   We do science experiments on Rats because they are a lower animal and a pest among other reasons.      -----------------------------------------   "Col. Hans Landa: Has a rat ever done anything to you to create this animosity you feel towards them?" ----------------------------------------------     We don't tend feel comfortable doing experiments on Chimps or Gorillas.  When we do I assume it is more restrictive for apes as they are a higher animal.          I think of the Helsinki Guidelines on human experimentation.  We have a higher order of requirements to experiment on people/ humans scientifically.  Rats don't get that same consideration.     What makes an ape-like  HUMAN?   What makes an APE (or Bigfoot for that matter) NON-HUMAN?   When does a ManApe stop becoming an Ape and start becoming a man?                    

“Hundreds of billions” is what AI says.

In the U.S., private lands produce the vast majority of timber, typically around 90% of the annual harvest, even though they own about 58% of the forest area; public lands (federal, state, local) supply the remaining 10-11%, with federal forests contributing a small fraction, around 6% of the total harvest. This dominance by private forests, especially family-owned forests, is crucial for the nation's domestic timber supply.    But that doesn't matter so much if sasquatches are "discovered", especially if they're determined to be of the Homo taxonomic family. Their basic human rights would still be a major political reality that would need to be addressed. Indeed, such a reality would most certainly extend government power over private timberlands.

A big part of the federal government is the US Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management and both agencies manage timber production and having a new endangered species that lives in practically every forest of the United States could severely hamper timber production. Timber management within these agencies most likely know all about Bigfoot but they will not help prove their existence because we all remember what the Spotted Owl  did to Timber production. Spotted Owls lived in certain and specific Northwest forest environments and they were not widespread throughout all the forest such as Bigfoot. Can someone find out what part of the GNP or gross national product is timber production?

Latest bigfoot discussion