Forums

I agree and disagree with MIB.   1) I absolutely agree that doing the same thing over and over and expecting a different result IS folly. I have always been pro kill and I remain so. Even when trolls call me a murderous psycho. Oh well. We can agree to disagree over the morality of it. But I think any sensible person has came to the logical solution that science will only accept a body on a slab or a large portion there of.   2) I absolutely disagree that conspiracies are ignorance. The Smithsonian is under staffed. Well OK….. If we were talking about a new species of butterfly? OK! But an 8 foot tall skeleton? Just misplaced that huh? Got lost in the shuffle? Bull puckey!!!   And the amount of surveillance capabilities our current government has at its disposal? There is no way. NO WAY, an 8 foot tall primate has not shown up on a border camera. A FLIR scope on a drone or helicopter. Military bases. Army. Air Force. USMC. US Navy. Coast Guard. Border Patrol. State Patrol. Sheriff Dept. Fire Dept. US Forest Service. US Fish and Game. State Game Wardens. On and on and on. Our Fire Dept had FLIR capabilities in the 1990s. We used to look for hot spots during mop up. I have a buddy that was Air National Guard. Flew mission to catch the Green River killer. Watched him pee on the side of the road from 12000 ft!   No one has seen anything? 🤨 Sure. You bet. I would argue that anyone who argues against a conspiracy IS ignorant. Ignorant of their government’s capabilities and ignorant of their governments ability to lie.   So why? Well this is the million dollar question right? I think that part of the problem is that the government never wants to admit to something they have no control over. “Hey guys, kinda hard to admit this now but there is a 8 ft tall primate running around North America….sorry we never mentioned this.”   And I think that depending on what it is? It may prove to be a headache for the government from an aboriginal claims point of view. Huntster eludes to this. It’s certainly possible. Read the head lines… “US Government signs treaty with Sasquatch tribe in the Hoh rainforest. Millions of acres are set aside for new tribal lands.”   Or maybe its recognition is no more than a rare Ape…. A bipedal North American Chimpanzee or Gorilla? No treaties will be signed but it will still impact how business is done on the National Forest! Full stop! They are talking about tearing out the dams on the Columbia and Snake rivers for Salmon because Killer whales are starving in the Pacific. Imagine a population of rare Apes in North America? Whats gonna change?    Maybe some people don’t want change?🤷‍♂️

I just got back from a birthday bonfire on the banks of the Fraser River with the research gang. Was blessed with a unique rendition of "Happy Birthday" by non other than Thomas Steenburg; hilarious!! 

I think this is the key factor. If the definition of "species" were to differentiate despite being able to breed, then that certainly opens up a very large can of worms.   "Wolves and dogs are classified as different species because they have distinct behaviors, physical traits, and ecological roles, despite being genetically similar enough to interbreed and produce fertile offspring. This classification is based on the concept of species, which considers factors like reproductive isolation and evolutionary history, rather than just the ability to mate."

To avoid the political pressure to classify or set aside more lands from access or resource development.   To avoid the realization that there is more than one species of Homo on this planet, which opens up numerous new questions/problems about human rights, laws, religious interpretations, politics, ethnicity, etc.

Bigfoot has not been proven to exist .. not by science, not with scientific acceptance.    You have things a circular sort of backwards .. cause and effect.   Existence in a zoo, etc. is de facto proof of existence.   You can't have a thing in a zoo without demonstrating the thing does exist.    A wiser, more insightful question would be to skip the zoo angle and just focus on why BF has not been proven to exist.     That lies in the history of bigfootery.    Someone else will hopefully have memorized the details.   Back in the late 60s or early 70s there was a conference with a lot of top scientists present.   "The big reveal" was promised.    That turned out to be a hoax and the scientists who attended were professionally shamed.   Mainstream science has been afraid to stick its neck out since.   Yeah, there have been some credentialed scientists who have been involved, but that has been as a personal interest, not with professional backing, not with grant funding, institutional backing, and the other stuff mainstream science needs to operate at full capacity rather than personal curiosity.    Those scientists who have been involved have had no more support from mainstream science than you or I have.      If you want to understand "this stuff", you have to embrace that understanding as one of your foundational pieces, not try to "but but but" to sweep the inconvenience away from your thinking.    Honestly, most people fail.   If you want to understand rather than try to manipulate from ignorance, don't be part of "most people."   Now .. so far as the evidence we do have, why it hasn't been enough?   Remember the Ketchum Study.   The best DNA samples we had to date were gathered and apparently tested.   That is destructive testing .. when you're done with the test the sample no longer exists.   Ketchum's study was a hoax.   It destroyed the best evidence to date.   The second tier of samples went to Brian Sikes.   He recognized / acknowledged that those were lower quality / lower probability samples, basically ones rejected by Ketchum.    Read his book.   If you want to understand, read his book.   The rest .. is a struggle because of limited evidence to test and even more limited funding for testing.    Adrian Erickson walked away.   We lost Wally Hersom this year.   Who is going to pay for it?   Who has deep enough pockets?   It doesn't matter what excuses we make, how good those excuses are or aren't, we need evidence solid enough that someone is willing to fund the testing.   If it is DNA, that costs a bunch.   I don't think audio, video, or track cast evidence alone can rise to the level needed for scientific acceptance by themselves.    Truly, we need an intact skeleton or a body on a slab.   I don't want to be the person to deliver that.   I'd rather they go undiscovered if those are my only choices.     First, we have to accept that this is indeed what has happened.    I question the validity of the assumption.       Remember that the Smithsonian has somewhat limited resources.   People who have worked there say they have a 50-100 year backlog of samples in boxes they simply have not had time and staff to open and catalog, never mind actually examine and review.   If the bigfoot evidence is in one of those, there's no conspiracy hiding that evidence, just simple economics.   I think the assumption of a conspiracy shows ignorance.   The other?   Hair -- Henner Fahrenbach studied unknown primate hair samples for a lot of years.   It wasn't hidden, it just didn't rise to the level needed for acceptance.   DNA -- as before, cost of testing.   Bones -- we do not have proof such bones exist, we only have anecdotes, so maybe there is nothing to examine beyond someone's delusional wishful thinking.    Hides -- the hide pieces tested so far have conclusively been shown to be regular animals: goats, rabbits, etc.   This is not hiding anything, this is lack of real evidence.   If we want PROOF, if we want acceptance of existence, we have to up our game rather than settling for making whiny excuses about our offerings to date not being believed.   There's no proof of a conspiracy, there's only whining because our entitled little selves are not getting our way.   Want different results?   Do something different.   Put something real on the table to look at.