Leaderboard

Just my 2 cents. Firstly nobody needs to drag a body out of the wilderness in order to get scientific acceptance and as Nm said, a finger would be enough for science to classify a species. Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong on that, but I'm pretty sure I'm not. That wouldn't convince the general public however who need to have things literally in front of them before theyre going to believe in an 8ft tall hariy man that lives in the forests of North America, but who cares. The ethical aspect of killing one is real simple to me, they would highly likely be our closest living relative, they walk like us, look like us in general ( more than any other animal anyway ) and they may well be us. That's the ethical problem right there. Its one thing saying that you think you can pull the trigger on one, but I think actually doing it isn't or wouldn't be as straight forward as some would like to think because, as human beings, we have empathy in us and we are not talking about killing someone who is an enemy of sorts. Its the emotional side of this that I feel is the main issue. I have no doubt that a Sasquatch can be shot, they are animals that live and breathe and have the potential to make mistakes. What NM is talking about plan wise will have no room for error and every base would be covered, I have no doubt about that and I see no reason why it couldn't achieve its objective. But its the emotional side of this that I think would may be being overlooked in this, the ethical and behavioural side to the human being. If for example NM got together a team, it'd be highly likely that the majority if not all of that team had never seen a Sasquatch before and based on that, I don't believe anyone can say that they would definitely do this or definitely do that as I don't believe anyone can predict their behaviour when coming across a Sasquatch. Some flee, other freeze literally, others are petrified, some observe etc etc. Then we have to deal with the ethics of shooting one, which will all depend on the individual involved. Doubts may creep in as to what the people are seeing, is it actually a man in a suit, is it actually a human, what actually am I shooting at etc etc and that's even after the individual has tried to reason and are convinced of why they are actually shooting one on the first place and if/why they'd need human protection anyway. All of those things naturally I believe will come I to play and those things will cost people time, and I get the feeling when you are in the mixer with a Sasquatch in its own environment, time wouldn't necessarily be on your side. I don't believe the Sasquatch would be the issue in the killing of one, I believe the people would be the problem. This isn't anywhere near as straight forward as going out and shooting one, especially with multiple people, there lots and lots and lots to consider.

Has anyone found those splayed, sausage toe tracks since he has died?

Let me preface by saying I don't speak for Norse nor anyone else for that matter, and I certainly don't wish to put words in his mouth. Some time ago I addressed this very line of thinking in the Operation Persistence thread. What PT and many others seem to overlook is the "I don't give a rat's hiney" factor. Basically, that means that there are, were, and will be a certain class of men (and some women) who will carry out a noble task, the consequences be damned. Adventure and discovery are not for the timid. In some cases, doing what is "right" means risking your life, breaking rules, regulations, and in some cases laws to achieve a loftier goal. People such as our founding fathers, the defenders of the Alamo, and Rosa Parks come to mind, as do people such as Charles Lindbergh or Amelia Earhart who took their lives into their own hands to prove a point. While not nearly as dramatic or socially important, the fact is there are some people in the world such as Norseman and individuals in the NAWAC who appear to me to be willing to "take one for the team" in order to prove the existence of these creatures. So what is the penalty for killing a bigfoot out of season? A $1,000 fine? A $10,000 fine? $100,000? Jail time? One year? Ten years? The electric chair? I'll even make it simpler for you...what is the penalty for killing a grizzly bear out of season? Has it ever occurred to any of you anti-kill folks who like to tout laws, rules, and regulations to try and support your position that some people are willing to take their chances in a court of law? If we're dealing with the ultimate dead monkey here, those types of fines could easily be sidestepped. Prison time? Forget about it. There are plenty of people walking the streets today who have been determined guilty of murdering another human and never spend a day in jail for it. So exactly how much time do you think someone will get for killing a heretofore undiscovered creature whether animal, human, proto-human or whatever may prove to be the case? Are you same folks so naive to think that our legal system is so rigid that a successful hunter of the first ever bigfoot bagged would instantly go to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200? Do you not think that some concerned citizen or organization with money to burn would be more than happy to step up and pay the ticket, or finance the finest legal team money could buy to see that the shooter never saw the inside of a police station? Our legal system is deliberately designed that way. Regardless of what many may think, laws, rules, and regulations are not absolutes here in the United States. There is always wiggle room in our system of jurisprudence for judgements, dismissals, acquittals. Truth be told, I think the bottom line is it is hoped by some that these type of pleadings are really two different manifestations of fear. I think many in today's world are fearful that there are indeed those who will step outside the box and do what is necessary regardless of legal boogieman consequences. I also think it is a fear that it will destroy the myth or fantasy of bigfoot one way or another. Personally, I want it to end too...but I'm also convinced that it will take a body dead or alive to do so.

I think it is our ability to contemplate our actions. To consciously, rather than instinctively, weigh alternatives. This might be what you mean by brain use, I'm not sure. Inventing tools, planning their manufacture ... those come from brain use. I think we put too much weight, without thinking about it ... sort of human-centered or anthromorphic assumptions / prioritization ... into specifically WHICH tools we think show intelligence. If we were more adapted to living in the cold, had much better night vision, and a digestive system that handled raw food better, we might have never needed to "invent" fire. We would be different, but it would not preclude sapience. If we were vastly stronger, we might not have been driven to develop weapons to hunt with and to protect ourselves from animals with. We would be different, but it would not preclude sapience. Minus our physical limitations, we would not have had to develop technologies to overcome those limitations. Minus the need to develop in those ways, what other ways might we have gone? I suspect that's what we're dealing with ... something which, because it doesn't share our physical limitations, didn't have to put the same resource and effort and adaptation and development into surviving the elements so it went a different direction. Some of the "woo" stuff may be real, may be a result of development in directions we were too busy developing technologies to survive to be able to pursue. Beats me. I throw it out there as a question to ponder. We can't really answer it from here at the computer, we really need to be out "there". I suspect that the answers will come from habituation settings where communication is beginning. Habituation ... if you want trust you have to show trust. Plain and simple. Efforts to deliberately put a body on a slab undermine efforts to build trust. I'm not real interested in trusting people who are trying to kill me. I'm not interested in trusting those who associate with people who are trying to kill me. I believe we need to answer the question of sasquatch intelligence / sapience before the ethics of "collecting a specimen" can be determined. We learn nothing about their intelligence observing a corpse on a slab. To determine intelligence we have to watch the behavior, maybe even interact with, the live organism. I understand that this does not provide the instant gratification of "proof" many demand. That's my two bits worth for the morning. MIB

Here's the full video ( not just the "money shot") if anyone hasn't seen it. The lead in video concerns me. The tracks he "finds" just look so suspicious to me. Not the mark of an "elusive creature" IMO. Now if you will excuse me..... For some reason I feel compelled to go for a jog. ( always seems to happen whenever I listen to Freeman's voice in that video)

You missed out a key word there denialist,it was the word " all " when you said " if they looked and behaved like that...." Every single living and breathing thing on this planet can and does make mistakes, but luckily for that one ( if its the real deal ) the mistake it made that day didn't end with a gun shot. The sae can be said for all animals that try their upmost to avoid human detection and get photographed or filmed.

You have to understand that each state's wildlife management resources HAVE to deny species until they officially decide to manage them. They can claim them as non-indigenous or whatever simply because they have a set budget to work with until they write that species into the plan. If they added a species half-way through a budget cycle, it would take away funds already allocated towards another. As long as politicians control these things, you can always expect to be lied too until they deem it necessary to correct you and say they've known all along.