Leaderboard

Honestly, I don't even wonder anymore - I KNOW they would be better off without us "discovering" them officially. Some say - We can protect their habitat. What indication do we have that that is even necessary? Some say - We can protect them. They can protect themselves - they have so far. Besides how can we protect them by proving them. That will bring the previous non-believing trophy hunters out of the woodwork searching for that ultimate trophy. Not to mention the money hungry crazies and what they might do....including TV producers. I can't think of one realistic thing we could do that would better their lives- that they would want from us. They don't want/need our help, or they would have made contact by now and asked for help. But I still want to know. Which is very selfish. But I am just human and the curiosity is killing me!

My problem with shooting a Bigfoot is that I'm not the decider of what lives or dies. I'm not talking about killing for food or even killing known, well-established species of animals for trophy or sport. I see no reason for him to have fired on the first animal - the alleged adult - to begin with, since it was no threat to him or his hunting partner. The shooting of the young one indicates to me that the individual possibly had no respect for the creature, and is confirmed by the content bipedalist quoted. I'm not pro-kill, but I admit that I'll be the first to click on any site that claims that a Sasquatch body has been taken, especially if it's from a creditable, scientifically-sound organization. I also admit that it wouldn't hurt my feelings if they were to peel one off of the grill of a logging truck. Not that I want one to die that way, but hey - even humans experience that misfortune from time to time. I've always thought the shooting events to be strange. Something just doesn't make sense with it. Either he was not being forthright with his account, or he has something that just hasn't been presented for whatever reason. The recent DNA studies have sort of lessened that likelihood, but there could still be a surprise or two remaining. I always thought that if the account as told was the truth that he kept the small one's body, or possibly a piece of the adult. He claimed that he wasn't aware of Bigfoot in the beginning, but maybe he was and saw an opportunity to take a specimen. That's if the account was accurate, obviously. Of course, in the end, I never discount the possibility that it was a hoax, even if it was just a tall tale in the beginning. The movie deal - without supporting evidence - is an indication that it might have eventually ended up being about cashing in on a sensational tale. It wouldn't be the first time someone attempted to capitalize on sensational claims. Yet it could be that the movie is an attempt to persuade others that there may be something more to the story. We'll have to see about that, but, as we all know, the track record of sensational claims of Bigfoot evidence, especially claims of shooting and killing one. Not only have they come up short, but are partly responsible for the fact that there are few that take the subject seriously.