Backdoc Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 12 hours ago, PNWexplorer said: I agree with many of the negatives of the concept of a "Bigfoot bounty". However, I wonder if one of the positives would be getting those who have had encounters, or have fairly regular encounters and don't talk about them to finally open up. 1) There must be some amount of people who don't report a Bigfoot encounter. Whatever this number, it is probably an underreported since they don't want to be thought of as crazy or face ridicule that could come with it. Think of the abuse Gimlin had to endure from his coming forward in 1967. If I had a sighting only with no PGF-level or better proof, I would be very reluctant to come forward. On your point, if Bigfoot was shot or confirmed this probably would open the doors for more witness to come forward. But.... 2) There would also be a huge number of people claiming to have seen Bigfoot and a heck of a lot of new false reports. I think of a famous baseball game where a max of 30,000 attended and yet 2,000,000 claimed to have been at the game. People have a way of exaggerating their story if they can link it to some significant thing or event. If Bigfoot was killed and confirmed someone who had some unexplained event would suddenly chalk it up to being Bigfoot. 3) On the issue of Bigfoot being killed: Killing Bigfoot would be sad in the sense there cannot be many out there. In this way, if there is bigfoot it must be a near-extinct animal. Maybe it's the last one. Grover Krantz seems to be suggesting killing one is needed even it was the last one because it's essentially extinct anyway. That is, if it is thought not to exist what is the difference in killing one? If the news announced today someone shot Bigfoot and killed it, I would be OK with that under this idea: "The first one to kill a Bigfoot, they will give them a medal, the second person to kill one, they will get the electric chair" Grover Kranz. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted June 24 Admin Share Posted June 24 28 minutes ago, Backdoc said: 1) There must be some amount of people who don't report a Bigfoot encounter. Whatever this number, it is probably an underreported since they don't want to be thought of as crazy or face ridicule that could come with it. Think of the abuse Gimlin had to endure from his coming forward in 1967. If I had a sighting only with no PGF-level or better proof, I would be very reluctant to come forward. On your point, if Bigfoot was shot or confirmed this probably would open the doors for more witness to come forward. But.... 2) There would also be a huge number of people claiming to have seen Bigfoot and a heck of a lot of new false reports. I think of a famous baseball game where a max of 30,000 attended and yet 2,000,000 claimed to have been at the game. People have a way of exaggerating their story if they can link it to some significant thing or event. If Bigfoot was killed and confirmed someone who had some unexplained event would suddenly chalk it up to being Bigfoot. 3) On the issue of Bigfoot being killed: Killing Bigfoot would be sad in the sense there cannot be many out there. In this way, if there is bigfoot it must be a near-extinct animal. Maybe it's the last one. Grover Krantz seems to be suggesting killing one is needed even it was the last one because it's essentially extinct anyway. That is, if it is thought not to exist what is the difference in killing one? If the news announced today someone shot Bigfoot and killed it, I would be OK with that under this idea: "The first one to kill a Bigfoot, they will give them a medal, the second person to kill one, they will get the electric chair" Grover Kranz. Me too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted June 24 Share Posted June 24 1 hour ago, Backdoc said: ..........There must be some amount of people who don't report a Bigfoot encounter. Whatever this number, it is probably an underreported since they don't want to be thought of as crazy or face ridicule that could come with it.......... There is also the opposite of the misidentification phenomenon that skeptics invest so heavily in. Sketics claim that people see a bear and think it's a sasquatch, which undoubtedly occurs. Well, how many people see a sasquatch and believe that they saw a bear, since sasquatches "don't exist"? Quote ........There would also be a huge number of people claiming to have seen Bigfoot and a heck of a lot of new false reports........ No doubt. Glickman discussed this, and points out a relationship of manufactured reports to human population density and mass media exposure. I think he's correct (pages 6-7). https://oregonbigfoot.com/docs/nasirpt.pdf Quote .........Grover Krantz seems to be suggesting killing one is needed even it was the last one because it's essentially extinct anyway. That is, if it is thought not to exist what is the difference in killing one? .......... Under such logic, though, if they're already doomed to extiction, what need/benefit is there to discover their existence? Just for the benefit of a handful of pinhead evolutionary anthropologists who today are the very foundation of resistence to sasquatch discovery? Screw those guys. Let them continue their travel through their self imagined universe. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted June 24 Admin Share Posted June 24 2 hours ago, Huntster said: There is also the opposite of the misidentification phenomenon that skeptics invest so heavily in. Sketics claim that people see a bear and think it's a sasquatch, which undoubtedly occurs. Well, how many people see a sasquatch and believe that they saw a bear, since sasquatches "don't exist"? No doubt. Glickman discussed this, and points out a relationship of manufactured reports to human population density and mass media exposure. I think he's correct (pages 6-7). https://oregonbigfoot.com/docs/nasirpt.pdf Under such logic, though, if they're already doomed to extiction, what need/benefit is there to discover their existence? Just for the benefit of a handful of pinhead evolutionary anthropologists who today are the very foundation of resistence to sasquatch discovery? Screw those guys. Let them continue their travel through their self imagined universe. I disagree. A Sasquatch discovery would be knowledge for all of humanity. Not just for the pinheads. If they are doomed to extinction? But they are discovered first? They may be brought back at some point in the future. DNA technology is growing at a exponential rate. https://colossal.com/mammoth/ https://www.aljazeera.com/features/2023/1/29/back-from-extinction-resurrecting-the-tasmanian-tiger https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/tech-company-invests-150m-to-bring-back-the-dodo/ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted June 25 Share Posted June 25 2 hours ago, norseman said: .....A Sasquatch discovery would be knowledge for all of humanity. Not just for the pinheads......... Screw them, too. I "know". The rest of humanity doesn't appear to care. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Backdoc Posted June 25 Share Posted June 25 I’m not trying to rush anyone’s demise. This was Grover’s point. If one is shot, I cannot “ un-kill it”. Killing it accomplishes proof which may save the rest as Bigfoot might expect at least the same level of protection as some other rare animals. In that way i can make peace with the idea had Gimlin and Roger shot a killed Patty it does benefit our greater good in an ugly way. Such a discovery would benefit our understanding in a big way. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted June 25 Share Posted June 25 8 hours ago, Backdoc said: ...........Killing it accomplishes proof which may save the rest as Bigfoot might expect at least the same level of protection.......... That seems to be a common belief, but I fail to see it at all. What type of protection can mankind offer sasquatches? Clearly, they aren't being poached. People aren't out there chasing them down and shooting them. Almost universally, people are terrified of even the percieved presence of a sasquatch. Habitat protection? We already have that in spades. Indeed, it has been my contention that keeping sasquatches in the taxomomy of mythology is the best protection possible. Keep the human population believing that they don't exist, and they couldn't be more safe. That is what government is doing, it is intentional, and they should be commended for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Backdoc Posted June 25 Share Posted June 25 ^^^ I can't really say -just as you point out -what might really happen. Sadly, you could be correct, or the situation could be even worse. My premise is this: I am not shooting one. Most people are not or at least haven't successfully done so yet. I'm assuming one will be shot. That means we have 100% proof satisfying everyone Bigfoot exists. The ramifications beyond that we can guess but not is 100% certain. Once we live in a world where Bigfoot is proven beyond all doubt (we have the body!) that post-body world looks pretty promising on balance for those interested in Bigfoot. For instance, Meldrum looks pretty good if not a visionary. I would think since there are not 100 million people screaming for the right to hunt and eat a Condor, I have to assume the public at large would be in support of protecting Bigfoot or at least trying to capture another one alive even if to put them in a zoo. Maybe it would be the Roger Patterson Bigfoot Institute. I know there are some who will paint a story the government knows about bigfoot or is keeping bigfoot secret or whatever. I'm not going there. I am operating under this idea: If bigfoot is out there then bigfoot exists. People go into the woods. People have guns. Some people are afraid or curious. At some time, this combination would result in a bigfoot being shot someday. Most people have cell phones. Cell phones instantly send pics all over the world. They make videos. The make phone calls. At that point news would get out and some excitement would be generated. I don't wish for Bigfoot to be killed unless it is necessary. If this happens, I am just saying a greater good will come out of a very sad situation since Bigfoot would be just as dead if we are happy about it or not. History is defined as a timeline of BC and AD. I say this in Bigfoot would be No Body (NB) and Proven Body (PD) When we get to PD, it may or may not be a benefit to bigfoot but it sure would benefit my curiosity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted June 25 Share Posted June 25 2 minutes ago, Backdoc said: ........My premise is this: I am not shooting one.......... You and I are in the same camp. I will shoot one only in self defense, which is so unlikely as to be out of the realm of consideration. Quote ..........Most people are not or at least haven't successfully done so yet.......... Excellent choice of words. I have every reason to believe that sasquatches have been shot and killed. We have reports of such. One, from 1941 Ontario, has a moose hunter shooting and killing one by misidentifying it as a moose. Immediately after realizing what it is, he leaves and keeps his story quiet for decades. It is a very likely story. I'm sure this has occured several times. Quote .........I would think since there are not 100 million people screaming for the right to hunt and eat a Condor, I have to assume the public at large would be in support of protecting Bigfoot or at least trying to capture another one alive even if to put them in a zoo........ Anybody who would want to eat something as disgusting as a vulture should be able to do so as long as I can watch, and I'm quite sure that there are a few kooks willing to do it at least once. I'm also quite sure that there would be millions of people who would want to capture and imprison families of sasquatches for their viewing or "research" pleasure, and frankly, I'm also confident that the imprisoned sasquatches would prefer to be shot dead. Quote ........I don't wish for Bigfoot to be killed unless it is necessary. If this happens, I am just saying a greater good will come out of a very sad situation since Bigfoot would be just as dead if we are happy about it or not. History is defined as a timeline of BC and AD. I say this in Bigfoot would be No Body (NB) and Proven Body (PD) When we get to PD, it may or may not be a benefit to bigfoot but it sure would benefit my curiosity........... That particular dead bigfoot's problems would be over, but the problems of any and all remaining bigfeet would be exponentially magnified. The collective curiosity of mankind wouldn't be satisfied. It would be piqued. And that would be the greatest threat the species has ever faced. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Backdoc Posted June 25 Share Posted June 25 1 hour ago, Huntster said: Anybody who would want to eat something as disgusting as a vulture should be able to do so as long as I can watch, and I'm quite sure that there are a few kooks willing to do it at least once. I'm also quite sure that there would be millions of people who would want to capture and imprison families of sasquatches for their viewing or "research" pleasure, and frankly, I'm also confident that the imprisoned sasquatches would prefer to be shot dead. Many of us are familiar with the documentary on Netflix Bigfoot's Reflection. (Our poster Bill Miller RIP appears on this show in parts). One man interviewed makes a point I had not thought deeply about involving Bigfoot: He said if he found bigfoot or captured Bigfoot "what would he do with it"? He said apes at the zoo just seem "sad". He doesn't want that fate for Bigfoot in spite of wanted to see Bigfoot. It was more deeply philosophical that I was expecting. Actually, made to think a little bit. In the perfect world I guess I want to know they exist but want them observed and left only in the wild. If someone shoots one, let it be the last one shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted June 25 Share Posted June 25 2 hours ago, Backdoc said: He said if he found bigfoot or captured Bigfoot "what would he do with it"? He said apes at the zoo just seem "sad". He doesn't want that fate for Bigfoot in spite of wanted to see Bigfoot. It was more deeply philosophical that I was expecting. Actually, made to think a little bit...... Rick Noll is one of my sasquatch heroes. He's taken a much more private role since the Skookum Cast days. Too bad. He has a huge philosophical leadership role he has earned and could be shared. Quote .........In the perfect world I guess I want to know they exist but want them observed and left only in the wild........ I'm already there. I know they exist, but would love to observe one in the wild. But, being a hunter and outdoorsman, I know that once is never enough. It's addicting. Every grizzly bear I observe is a gift, and I yearn for more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Backdoc Posted June 25 Share Posted June 25 1 hour ago, Huntster said: Rick Noll is one of my sasquatch heroes. Never knew anything about him other than his appearance in Bigfoot's Reflection. What he said had an affect on me based on the deeply felt points he made. I didn't know his name when I made the reference earlier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted June 25 Share Posted June 25 He was an active participant in tne Bigfoot Forums 1.0 many years ago. He was a solid guy. I miss his wisdom. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted June 27 Admin Share Posted June 27 On 6/25/2024 at 9:59 AM, Backdoc said: Many of us are familiar with the documentary on Netflix Bigfoot's Reflection. (Our poster Bill Miller RIP appears on this show in parts). One man interviewed makes a point I had not thought deeply about involving Bigfoot: He said if he found bigfoot or captured Bigfoot "what would he do with it"? He said apes at the zoo just seem "sad". He doesn't want that fate for Bigfoot in spite of wanted to see Bigfoot. It was more deeply philosophical that I was expecting. Actually, made to think a little bit. In the perfect world I guess I want to know they exist but want them observed and left only in the wild. If someone shoots one, let it be the last one shot. There will be two type specimens collected for any extant species. One male and one female. Dr. Mayor was allowed to collected a pair of living pocket Lemurs for her discovery. They will live out the rest of their life in captivity. And once they die their bodies will become the type specimens for the entire species. Obviously bending trees over and plucking tiny primates out of them is not in our wheelhouse. We must take a different approach if we want our species of cryptid primate officially recognized by science. I am all for finding one dead. I am all for collecting DNA. But I am also all for shooting one. Simply because I think the species is better off recognized than not. Look at Grizzly Bears. Look at Mountain Gorillas. The rebuttal I hear is that people are not shooting and harassing them now. They are super tough to find and see, let alone shoot. But that doesn’t take in to account habitat loss, resources lost, etc. We just don’t have a before and after population number we can gauge the species health by. But if other large omnivorous are connected in any way? We can typically say it’s not going well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted June 27 Share Posted June 27 7 hours ago, norseman said: .........Dr. Mayor was allowed to collected a pair of living pocket Lemurs for her discovery. They will live out the rest of their life in captivity. And once they die their bodies will become the type specimens for the entire species. Obviously bending trees over and plucking tiny primates out of them is not in our wheelhouse. We must take a different approach if we want our species of cryptid primate officially recognized by science........... I am all for finding one dead. I am all for collecting DNA. But I am also all for shooting one.......... Becoming "allowed" obviously isn't part of your "different approach", or is it? Do you think that if a scientist with some sort of qualification can apply to the appropriate collection of agencies he/she will be "allowed" to collect a specimen? Or are you counting on the principle that it's easier to acquire forgiveness than permission? How about this approach?: Find a retired wildlife biologist to sign off on a request to both the federal government and a state or provincial government agencies (wildlife management agencies and government land owning agency) to harvest a sasquatch body. Then, after several years of official wrangling, you'd either have that permission, or you'd be officially denied, and the reason(s) for th3 denial would be documented. Then you can proceed appropriately, and even have your forgiveness documentation prepared. In fact, as an experienced technical writer and government contract expert, I'll even volunteer to spend the rest of my life assisting such a qualified biologist/primatologist/anthropologist/etc in the mundane word processing tasks of the administrative quest. Just find the qualified undersigner. Good luck with that, partner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts