Guest ajciani Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 What makes you say this? Every single human being, under law, has all kinds of protection. You can't kill humans or steal from them or lock them in cages. If Sasquatches are humans, then killing them, kidnapping them, selling their bodies or skins, or putting them in a zoo would all be extremely illegal. Just as it is for every other human. I guess that depends on what country you live in. Of course, we take these things as granted, but a wild human (not bigfoot) would be effectively kidnapped and locked up. In the US, they would be declared incapable of self survival (what were they doing while living in the woods?), and would be deemed a ward of the State. They would not be treated like a wild animal, but an uncivilized, incompetent person. If bigfoots are human enough, that we could expect them to understand language and law, then they will be treated as humans, rather than animals. Do bigfoots have language? Do bigfoots form social structures (family units)? Do bigfoots usually respect the marked boundaries of property, or the sanctity of the home? There is plenty to suggest that they have some rudimentary social training. I like the picture above: mom = sapiens, dad = erectus, offspring = bigfoot. You should consider that erectus might have been hairier than that, and the "sagital crest" of bigfoots might actually be a tall, rounded skull (like a sapiens) and a cow lick. If bigfoots are some type of wild, half-ape creature, then we might see some protections. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted July 6, 2011 Share Posted July 6, 2011 I think that, for the most part, they'll be left alone. Maybe some Dian Fossey type research, but nothing so drastic nor draconian as what you propose. Merely an opinion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 I guess finding them first would be in order before they are rehabilitated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 7, 2011 Share Posted July 7, 2011 Of course, we take these things as granted, but a wild human (not bigfoot) would be effectively kidnapped and locked up. In the US, they would be declared incapable of self survival (what were they doing while living in the woods?), and would be deemed a ward of the State. They would not be treated like a wild animal, but an uncivilized, incompetent person. It's just my opinion, but if they are truly out there and are descended from two members of the genus "homo" - I seriously doubt we'd force them to play by our rules. Every environmentalist would have a field day demanding huge sections of currently low-use or wilderness areas to be completely sealed off so they could observe their own way of life. Similarly to how uncontacted peoples are currently treated by most nations that have them. The risk of spreading diseases as well as general respect for them as a species would strongly encourage the US to follow the examples set by other countries that also harbor uncontacted (or extremely low level of contact) peoples. It's my view that society has largely moved on from the same attitude that viewed Native Americans as savages that needed to be civilized and tamed. I doubt we would root out sasquatches and force them to join society at large. If they're proven to be non-homo, then I'd imagine they'll have to go the route of other animal species in gaining recognition and protection under current/new laws. I'm not saying that bad things won't happen. You're going to get those people that want to capture them, want to stuff them and put them next to a bear and lion, etc. - regardless if they're "human" or "animal" or if they're protected or not. But by and large, I would like to think that the species would be protected from further encroachment of habitat loss or capturing for zoos, etc. were they discovered and especially proven to be "human". Maybe I'm naive - it is certainly possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest vilnoori Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 (edited) It's just my opinion, but if they are truly out there and are descended from two members of the genus "homo" - I seriously doubt we'd force them to play by our rules. Every environmentalist would have a field day demanding huge sections of currently low-use or wilderness areas to be completely sealed off so they could observe their own way of life. Similarly to how uncontacted peoples are currently treated by most nations that have them. The risk of spreading diseases as well as general respect for them as a species would strongly encourage the US to follow the examples set by other countries that also harbor uncontacted (or extremely low level of contact) peoples. It's my view that society has largely moved on from the same attitude that viewed Native Americans as savages that needed to be civilized and tamed. I doubt we would root out sasquatches and force them to join society at large. If they're proven to be non-homo, then I'd imagine they'll have to go the route of other animal species in gaining recognition and protection under current/new laws. I'm not saying that bad things won't happen. You're going to get those people that want to capture them, want to stuff them and put them next to a bear and lion, etc. - regardless if they're "human" or "animal" or if they're protected or not. But by and large, I would like to think that the species would be protected from further encroachment of habitat loss or capturing for zoos, etc. were they discovered and especially proven to be "human". Maybe I'm naive - it is certainly possible. I sincerely hope so. However history shows that in most cases the more powerful peoples dominate and eventually exterminate and/or assimilate the less. I am hoping that the long years of practice these creatures/people have had in human avoidance will not cease. All the same I think if they are proven then the next thing on the gov't agenda will be defining them, and dealing with them as either a rare animal, or a population of indigenous North Americans who need to be defined, counted and possibly registered. Canada for example has a lot of indigenous people who live in remote areas but the gov't still tries to number them and provide them with a paper identity. Successfully for the most part. Edited July 8, 2011 by vilnoori Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 IMNSHO this entire thread is folly and without merit. Please let me be wrong. Everything written here has been a waste of CPS risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted July 8, 2011 Share Posted July 8, 2011 ::note to self:: will take much greater interest in this thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest billgreen2010 Posted July 9, 2011 Share Posted July 9, 2011 all i got say is this to be very continued .....indeedy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 Could a Mod please clean up this thread all this discussion on books need to go to a different thread and get back on the Erickson subject. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest billgreen2010 Posted July 12, 2011 Share Posted July 12, 2011 i hope this erickson ky sasquatch project situation is over real soon or within this year TO BE CONTINUED Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rockinkt Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 (edited) Canada for example has a lot of indigenous people who live in remote areas but the gov't still tries to number them and provide them with a paper identity. Successfully for the most part.Could you please explain this?  Thank you.edited to clean up quote. Edited July 14, 2011 by rockinkt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 Could a Mod please clean up this thread all this discussion on books need to go to a different thread and get back on the Erickson subject. Booger, hit one of the report buttons on one of the quotes involved and file a request. Another mod should handle it since it involves me. Thanks Susie- I don't really look at myself as a researcher for bigfoot since I don't need the existence of bigfoot to be personally confirmed. Just like everyone else, I love reading about what other folks are finding, doing, or theorizing about bigfoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 14, 2011 Share Posted July 14, 2011 (edited) Due to multiple posts in violation of the forum rules this thread will be temporarily closed. Please keep future postings related to the thread topic and within the Forum Rules and Guidelines. Thank You, Grayjay Topic re-opened at 8:24 pm Edited July 15, 2011 by grayjay reopen topic Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted July 19, 2011 Share Posted July 19, 2011 From a statement by Dave Paulides, published on OregonBigfoot: First, Dr. Ketchum’s science has never been questioned, ever. Early in our organization of this effort we knew that a very few researchers that didn’t take part in our study, believers in the ape theory, researchers that were jealous and unable to find viable specimens on their own and general people in the community that live off bashing/hating others would be overly critical at the earliest opportunity. I guess that settles what conclusion the now-so-called Ketchum Project has arrived at re the debate whether BF is in the homo lineage... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted July 20, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted July 20, 2011 Erickson project website/trailer hasn't been updated in a looooong time......wonder what's up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts