georgerm Posted 6 hours ago Posted 6 hours ago Why hasn't Bigfoot been trapped, tranquilized, or shot and killed so it can be brought into a zoo or museum? This question is hard to understand because we have so many great hunters throughout the United States and one of these hunters should've brought in more than just one Bigfoot. I have read Bigfoot a report that states this has happened in the United States and a Mr. Smeja shot and killed a bigfoot. I read a report from one of the provinces in Canada, and a fellow did shoot and bring down a Bigfoot, and he described the situation. This report seemed to go nowhere and didn't add to the scientific evidence of the existence of Bigfoot. Why have none of these incidents really contributed to the evidence, study, and museum quality exhibitions in a museum? Even to this day the United States Forest Service still does not recognize the existence of Bigfoot and calls it a mythical creature. Why is this the present status of Bigfoot?
norseman Posted 4 hours ago Admin Posted 4 hours ago It almost certainly has happened. But the Smithsonian is exempt from the Indian graves act. So they could be hiding a-lot with that loophole. The Lovelock cave giants would be a well known example of this. What else is hidden in their basement?🤷🏻♂️
georgerm Posted 3 hours ago Author Posted 3 hours ago Let's guess at some of the reasons for hiding bigfoot evidence such as bones, bodies, actual hides, DNA, or hair.?
MIB Posted 1 hour ago Moderator Posted 1 hour ago 3 hours ago, georgerm said: Why is this the present status of Bigfoot? Bigfoot has not been proven to exist .. not by science, not with scientific acceptance. You have things a circular sort of backwards .. cause and effect. Existence in a zoo, etc. is de facto proof of existence. You can't have a thing in a zoo without demonstrating the thing does exist. A wiser, more insightful question would be to skip the zoo angle and just focus on why BF has not been proven to exist. That lies in the history of bigfootery. Someone else will hopefully have memorized the details. Back in the late 60s or early 70s there was a conference with a lot of top scientists present. "The big reveal" was promised. That turned out to be a hoax and the scientists who attended were professionally shamed. Mainstream science has been afraid to stick its neck out since. Yeah, there have been some credentialed scientists who have been involved, but that has been as a personal interest, not with professional backing, not with grant funding, institutional backing, and the other stuff mainstream science needs to operate at full capacity rather than personal curiosity. Those scientists who have been involved have had no more support from mainstream science than you or I have. If you want to understand "this stuff", you have to embrace that understanding as one of your foundational pieces, not try to "but but but" to sweep the inconvenience away from your thinking. Honestly, most people fail. If you want to understand rather than try to manipulate from ignorance, don't be part of "most people." Now .. so far as the evidence we do have, why it hasn't been enough? Remember the Ketchum Study. The best DNA samples we had to date were gathered and apparently tested. That is destructive testing .. when you're done with the test the sample no longer exists. Ketchum's study was a hoax. It destroyed the best evidence to date. The second tier of samples went to Brian Sikes. He recognized / acknowledged that those were lower quality / lower probability samples, basically ones rejected by Ketchum. Read his book. If you want to understand, read his book. The rest .. is a struggle because of limited evidence to test and even more limited funding for testing. Adrian Erickson walked away. We lost Wally Hersom this year. Who is going to pay for it? Who has deep enough pockets? It doesn't matter what excuses we make, how good those excuses are or aren't, we need evidence solid enough that someone is willing to fund the testing. If it is DNA, that costs a bunch. I don't think audio, video, or track cast evidence alone can rise to the level needed for scientific acceptance by themselves. Truly, we need an intact skeleton or a body on a slab. I don't want to be the person to deliver that. I'd rather they go undiscovered if those are my only choices. 1 hour ago, georgerm said: Let's guess at some of the reasons for hiding bigfoot evidence such as bones, bodies, actual hides, DNA, or hair.? First, we have to accept that this is indeed what has happened. I question the validity of the assumption. Remember that the Smithsonian has somewhat limited resources. People who have worked there say they have a 50-100 year backlog of samples in boxes they simply have not had time and staff to open and catalog, never mind actually examine and review. If the bigfoot evidence is in one of those, there's no conspiracy hiding that evidence, just simple economics. I think the assumption of a conspiracy shows ignorance. The other? Hair -- Henner Fahrenbach studied unknown primate hair samples for a lot of years. It wasn't hidden, it just didn't rise to the level needed for acceptance. DNA -- as before, cost of testing. Bones -- we do not have proof such bones exist, we only have anecdotes, so maybe there is nothing to examine beyond someone's delusional wishful thinking. Hides -- the hide pieces tested so far have conclusively been shown to be regular animals: goats, rabbits, etc. This is not hiding anything, this is lack of real evidence. If we want PROOF, if we want acceptance of existence, we have to up our game rather than settling for making whiny excuses about our offerings to date not being believed. There's no proof of a conspiracy, there's only whining because our entitled little selves are not getting our way. Want different results? Do something different. Put something real on the table to look at. 1
Recommended Posts