Leaderboard

What would I know anyway! I live 15 miles away and been boots on the ground 3 times at the location as well as by there a bunch of times. If Wes and Woody want to rename some geographical feature designated by the USGS as Jack Mountain and call it Yacolt Mountain which is really 11 miles away, to match their story why should I care? I guess some would say we should give them that because maybe they know the area better than I do. I will buy that if someone can tell me what they were doing there in the first place. They maintain they were not bigfooters at that time. Were they spotlighting and poaching deer or parked and making out or something? Maybe they needed to make up a story to cover up what they really were doing there in the middle of the night?

It's interesting how different folks perceive things different ways. Those who already have issues with the Wes and Woody story took the linked article as informative while those who really didn't have issues with the story begin to question the motive of the author of the article. That had never crossed my mind Gumshoeye. I felt the article was simply putting everything we already knew into one concise paper so that those who had questions and were late to the party could get all the answers in one stop. From what I have read on Facebook, the author was someone who was a member and supporter, who felt betrayed after learning the specifics of the sighting that did not add up. As for the reason for the financial section, I think she (the author) put that in due to all of the complaints that are going on over on Reddit about the installation of a paid membership (which never really concerned me) and questions as to whether the "Story" was born to bolster listeners.

I've arrived at the conclusion that it isn't just the bigfoot proponents that "have it all figured out".

Darn right it is and most of us are proud of that fact... "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. On the BFF we accept very little at face value. We may have a tendency to over-analyze claims and be more skeptical than some other forums dedicated to this topic, but we think that is preferable to the alternative."

Who, WAG? I think he's showing more insight than the original question. Naive. However, if somehow the scientific community DID accept bigfoot as real ... there are still no clear answers. Assuming that whatever proof caused them to accept BF told them a little about what they are, those details factor into choosing the next steps. It depends a very great deal on how closely they are related to us and whether or not they are self-aware. That determines whether a wildlife management paradigm is ethical or not. If they are "people", then we can't "go there" ethically. At the same time, if they are too "primitive" or their culture too different than ours, we can't expect them to follow our laws either. When a more advanced culture meets a less advanced culture, the less advanced culture is destroyed each and every time. We can't put them on a reservation, we can't find them and we can't corner them. It's a messy can of worms. Anyone who can't see that is dealing with fantasy, not reality. Frankly, the legal complexity alone is reason enough for our gov't to suppress evidence as long as possible. Best answer I can come up with is what ptangier (where is that rascal, anyway?) suggested, a "free roam" policy, plus a no-kill legal policy ... say minimum $100,000 fine and minimum 10 years in prison. That might buy time to study in more detail and develop a workable approach. While that's happening, perhaps the idea we're not alone after all will sink in and people will chill a bit. Not much but it's all I've got. MIB