Saving Bigfoot

[Guest parnassus]

I was recently looking in on another board where bigfoot believers had occasion to scoff at climate change.

There is evidently a mass extinction occurring, and it is related to man's impact on the planet. I find it found it strange that those people on that board would not be concerned about the major cause of extinction of animal species.

Increasingly, researchers are doing the numbers, and saying, yes, if present trends continue, a mass extinction is very likely underway. The evidence is pieced together from details drawn from all over the world, but it adds up to a disturbing picture. This time, unlike the past, it's not a chance asteroid collision, nor a chain of climatic circumstances alone that's at fault. Instead, it is chiefly the activities of an ever-growing human population, in concert with long-term environmental change.

The background level of extinction known from the fossil record is about one species per million species per year, or between 10 and 100 species per year (counting all organisms such as insects, bacteria, and fungi, not just the large vertebrates we are most familiar with). In contrast, estimates based on the rate at which the area of tropical forests is being reduced, and their large numbers of specialized species, are that we may now be losing 27,000 species per year to extinction from those habitats alone. .....And while the fossil record tells us that biodiversity has always recovered, it also tells us that the recovery will be unbearably slow in human terms -- 5 to 10 million years after the mass extinctions of the past. That's more than 200,000 generations of humankind before levels of biodiversity comparable to those we inherited might be restored.

link Edited November 28, 2010 by parnassus

[Guest fenris]

I didn't intend for this to be a battle of wills, I don't think there are any wrong answers here. To me,I already know they exist so I'm not overly concerned with proving it. Like both of you, I don't think they need our help at all. I see the "Save Bigfoot" on both sides of the argument, from those that have contact and those that want to know it's real. I guess the better question is will it make any difference to humanity if we find that this species existed, but died out, before we prove it existed? I think I'm having trouble understanding why proving and preserving the species will make any difference to us one way or the other since we have so little supposed interaction with it anyway. I certainly don't think it is impacting our existence on the planet at this point.I'm not sure that we are having any kind of impact on it's existence. Maybe I'm the selfish one here for not considering this a priority when I see greater needs among my own kind. I don't think anything will be taken away from my humanity regardless of what bigfoot turns out to be once he is proven to exist. If it is a matter of survival of the fittest, I'm rooting for human kind if it ever gets down to a competition between the two. In the mean time, I think bigfoot is better left to his own devices. I just wonder if I am in the minority for feeling this way.

Heres the middle ground, each of us, if we want the proof need to get off our duffs and go find it.

[Guest]

Y'all have been great. There are some very good points here. It does help me to understand other people's perspective and some of the issues that are related to the topic I hadn't seriously considered before.

[Huntster]

Well Hunster, I agree with you on the waste of money being spent on the snail darter issue, and what ever woodpecker that hasn't been seen in 50 years. I admit I am selfish in a further post so just lump me in with the rest of them However,why do you value Bigfoot over the snail darter or woodpeckers? What makes him more important to you?

First of all, the snail darter issue was a political/judicial game by the environmental industry to stop the construction of the Tellico Dam. The snail darter was not endangered. It was claimed by the environmental industry and it's lawyers that the snail darter was only found in the Little Tennessee River, but it was later shown that this claim was false.

Secondly, I don't necessarily find sasquatches "more important" than the ivory billed woodpecker. My position is that they are not less important, either. The U.S. government has invested millions on the ivory billed woodpecker since it was claimed to be seen in 2004, but neither the federal government or any state government (to my knowledge) has invested anything (time or money) in the sasquatch phenomenon, and this is especially significant when the PG film was released (one would think the California Dept. of Fish and Game would have shown some interest, huh?).

[Guest Lesmore]

First of all, the snail darter issue was a political/judicial game by the environmental industry to stop the construction of the Tellico Dam. The snail darter was not endangered. It was claimed by the environmental industry and it's lawyers that the snail darter was only found in the Little Tennessee River, but it was later shown that this claim was false.

Secondly, I don't necessarily find sasquatches "more important" than the ivory billed woodpecker. My position is that they are not less important, either. The U.S. government has invested millions on the ivory billed woodpecker since it was claimed to be seen in 2004, but neither the federal government or any state government (to my knowledge) has invested anything (time or money) in the sasquatch phenomenon, and this is especially significant when the PG film was released (one would think the California Dept. of Fish and Game would have shown some interest, huh?).

I don't know why the U.S. govt. has spent millions on the Ivory Billed Woodpecker and nothing on Sasquatch, but my hunch is that there is proof that the Ivory Billed Woodpecker existed, stuffed examples, etc.

In contrast there is not the same evidence existing that BF exists, or has existed.

I don't think it's a question that BF is less important than the IB Woodpecker....just more of a question is the IB Woodpecker was an animal that existed until a number of decades ago, while most of the jury is out that BF ever existed.

BTW, that's not to say BF, has never existed, or doesn't exist.....just that, in my view, the general societal, opinion is that BF was / is, a creature of myth.

Many of those that are members of this forum, do not conform to the general societal view.

Edited November 28, 2010 by Lesmore

[Huntster]

I don't know why the U.S. govt. has spent millions on the Ivory Billed Woodpecker and nothing on Sasquatch, but my hunch is that there is proof that the Ivory Billed Woodpecker existed, stuffed examples, etc.

In contrast there is not the same evidence existing that BF exists, or has existed.

Of course, you are likely correct. While we definately have proof that bipedal apes existed in the past, that past was long, long ago, and in Asia, not North America.

However, there are still plenty of reports from witnesses, and there is the PG film, which is enough evidence to warrant more interest than an absolute zip.

[Guest Lesmore]

Of course, you are likely correct. While we definately have proof that bipedal apes existed in the past, that past was long, long ago, and in Asia, not North America.

However, there are still plenty of reports from witnesses, and there is the PG film, which is enough evidence to warrant more interest than an absolute zip.

I agree with you. I can't explain all the eye witness reports .

But the eyewitness accounts, frankly don't sway me one way or the other.

What made me and continues to make me wonder, what BF is all about was my attendance at a PG presentation, during their tour through the Western U.S and Western Canada.

Being privileged to actually have attended Roger Patterson's presentation and viewed the PG film up close, on a large film/projector screen during one of his presentation tours....I do this day...some 40 years later...don't know what I saw.

I was in my late teens (19, maybe 20)....not really a teenager anymore, a young man. My buddy and I grabbed front row seats, as close to the front of the screen as we could. We wanted to get a close up view of the film.

To me it's always been critical to note that I saw the actual PG film used in the tour, on a very large screen...close up. Right from the moment I saw it, I've felt it wasn't a man dressed in a gorilla suit.

I also recall that after the film and during the question-answer part of the PG presentation...I clearly recall how everybody asked questions in a very sober, serious fashion.

The Civic auditorium must have held several hundred individuals and on reflection many years later, I was and still am...surprised somewhat, that no one questioned the credibility of either Mr. Patterson or Mr. Gimlin.

IMO, it was because many in the audience...mostly young to middle aged men....ended up with the same impression I had about this BF presentation.

They didn't know what to think.

Many came in excited and noisy...but after a few minutes of listening to Mr. Patterson and later after seeing the film...there was a very quiet atmosphere in the Civic Auditorium that day.

Back then, I had been at enough carnival exhibitions of strange beasts, to like to think that I knew a con job when I saw one.

IMO, PG weren't a con operation.

PG were either very, very good.....or, just telling it like it was, in regards to what they saw , experienced and filmed.

I tended and still do believe, they were relating their experience in an honest fashion.

I think sometimes it's hard to explain what life was like back in the 50's and 60's, unless you were living back then and did the kind of things that my friends and I did.

It was a different era...pre Political Correct society.....if you know what I mean.

But from beginning to end...the PG presentation was convincing to me and others in the auditorium on that day.

Mr. Patterson was very matter of fact, straightforward.

I still can't explain it.

Edited November 28, 2010 by Lesmore

[Huntster]

.......Many came in excited and noisy...but after a few minutes of listening to Mr. Patterson and later after seeing the film...there was a very quiet atmosphere in the Civic Auditorium that day.

This statement reminds me of the day I went to see Saving Private Ryan in the theater. People were talking, laughing, moving about, getting snacks, etc before the movie started, but when it was over, you could literally hear a pin drop. The entire theater was in a state of shock. You could see it in their faces as they shuffled out of the theater.

I've read several statements about some of the scientists who first evaluated the PG film. The general consensus was one of rejection, simply because the thought that such a creature exists was just too much for them to accept. In other words, they rejected the film not because of a fair evaluation of whether or not it was hoaxed, but because the realization that such a creature exists was just too traumatic.

I believe the same is true today. As the film has undergone more and more study over the decades, it has become almost more ridiculous to imagine that Patterson/Gimlin hoaxed this as it is to accept the fact that the creature existed.

I think sometimes it's hard to explain what life was like back in the 50's and 60's, unless you were living back then and did the kind of things that my friends and I did.

It was a different era...pre Political Correct society.....if you know what I mean.

Yeah, I definately know what you mean. I grew up then, too. It seems to me that today is more a lie than reality. Everybody is trying to "one-up" the last crazy act or scheme in order to get some sort of fame. It is the ultimate false world to me.

[Guest]

I agree with you. I can't explain all the eye witness reports .

But the eyewitness accounts, frankly don't sway me one way or the other.

What made me and continues to make me wonder, what BF is all about was my attendance at a PG presentation, during their tour through the Western U.S and Western Canada.

Being privileged to actually have attended Roger Patterson's presentation and viewed the PG film up close, on a large film/projector screen during one of his presentation tours....I do this day...some 40 years later...don't know what I saw.

I was in my late teens (19, maybe 20)....not really a teenager anymore, a young man. My buddy and I grabbed front row seats, as close to the front of the screen as we could. We wanted to get a close up view of the film.

To me it's always been critical to note that I saw the actual PG film used in the tour, on a very large screen...close up. Right from the moment I saw it, I've felt it wasn't a man dressed in a gorilla suit.

I also recall that after the film and during the question-answer part of the PG presentation...I clearly recall how everybody asked questions in a very sober, serious fashion.

The Civic auditorium must have held several hundred individuals and on reflection many years later, I was and still am...surprised somewhat, that no one questioned the credibility of either Mr. Patterson or Mr. Gimlin.

IMO, it was because many in the audience...mostly young to middle aged men....ended up with the same impression I had about this BF presentation.

They didn't know what to think.

Many came in excited and noisy...but after a few minutes of listening to Mr. Patterson and later after seeing the film...there was a very quiet atmosphere in the Civic Auditorium that day.

Back then, I had been at enough carnival exhibitions of strange beasts, to like to think that I knew a con job when I saw one.

IMO, PG weren't a con operation.

PG were either very, very good.....or, just telling it like it was, in regards to what they saw , experienced and filmed.

I tended and still do believe, they were relating their experience in an honest fashion.

I think sometimes it's hard to explain what life was like back in the 50's and 60's, unless you were living back then and did the kind of things that my friends and I did.

It was a different era...pre Political Correct society.....if you know what I mean.

But from beginning to end...the PG presentation was convincing to me and others in the auditorium on that day.

Mr. Patterson was very matter of fact, straightforward.

I still can't explain it.

Very interesting to hear that from someone who was there. Seems a similar reaction to when Gimlin gives his recounting of that day today.

[BobbyO]

I've been hearing this rational used on other threads as a reason for researchers to relinquish evidence in order to prove their claims. Is this emotional manipulation for selfish curiosity or is this genuine concern for the plight of an animal/huminoid?? that most of us aren't certain exists? As of 2005 over 100 million people world wide are homeless for various reasons. That rate may have increased due to changing political situations and the world economic crisis. That means that 1/4 of the world's human population is living like Bigfoot. I view the issue from this perspective. I just really don't care about proving Bigfoot exists although I'm interested in the subject. It's the holiday season and time to be thankful for what we have,that includes the luxury of worrying about Bigfoot. Maybe I missed something more subtle about the issue,assuming the big guy exists, why is preserving Bigfoot important to you?

Not sure where you're getting your figures from Jodie but i'm very sure they're incorect..

I live in a Country that is now labeled a " Developing World " Country or better known to many as a " Third World " Country & even if it's Financial situation is much better than many of it's Neighbours & even if that position of it being a " Developing Country " is lifted any time soon ( which i think it might well be if it hasn't already ), it doesn't matter as the people, the vas majority of them anyway, live in what me & you would describe as absolute poverty ..

I'd say that there was 100m people in SE Asia alone ( SE Asia that is, not all of Asia ) that are what we would class as homeless, easy..

& that definately is not 25% of the World's Population.

Am i right in understanding that your Post leans towards the angle that we should be worrying more about these people than BF, something that doesn't even exist in the eyes of the majority ??

[Guest Crowlogic]

The so called evidence holders withholding evidence are IMO withholding evidence because they have to evidence to begin with. So the best they can do is to pretend to have evidence and construct a smokescreen as to why they won't show it to the world. Consider this, most if not all Bigfoot researchers are people of modest means. In fact if any one of these people of modest means acquired proof positive they could in one fell swoop make a serious amount of money and do something to preserve and or lead true science to study. Its the oldest ploy in the book to cover lack of evidence by fabricating benign reasons for not presenting it.

That said I think Bigfoot has been extinct for better than 20 years now.

Edited November 29, 2010 by Crowlogic

[Guest Kerchak]

That said I think Bigfoot has been extinct for better than 20 years now.

Totally extinct? Even in the remote rugged almost inaccessible parts of British Columbia?

I am of the opinion there are far fewer than before but I don't think they are completely gone.

Where do you think the last remaining population/stronghold was before they all popped off?

Edited November 29, 2010 by Kerchak

[BobbyO]

That said I think Bigfoot has been extinct for better than 20 years now.

I know i've said it before Crow, & all in good spirit, but that stance of Years is EASILY one of my favourites that makes me smile because ther eis acyually less evidence for that, than actually for BF on the whole...

[Guest]

Not sure where you're getting your figures from Jodie but i'm very sure they're incorect..

I live in a Country that is now labeled a " Developing World " Country or better known to many as a " Third World " Country & even if it's Financial situation is much better than many of it's Neighbours & even if that position of it being a " Developing Country " is lifted any time soon ( which i think it might well be if it hasn't already ), it doesn't matter as the people, the vas majority of them anyway, live in what me & you would describe as absolute poverty ..

I'd say that there was 100m people in SE Asia alone ( SE Asia that is, not all of Asia ) that are what we would class as homeless, easy..

& that definately is not 25% of the World's Population.

Am i right in understanding that your Post leans towards the angle that we should be worrying more about these people than BF, something that doesn't even exist in the eyes of the majority ??

Yes, you are correct, it's under estimated. 2005 was the latest WHO stats I could find quickly doing an internet search. I have no doubt that by 2010 that figure is much greater. You have to also consider the lack of infrastructure in some of these places to even assess the problem. In 2005, the most homeless people, 73% of that 100+ million, resided in India according to what I read.

Comparing our world homeless population to Bigfoot was the first thing that came to mind at the time I posted. I had the TV on for background noise and was talking on the forum when a "Save the Children" commercial came on. I guess something clicked because I was reading a post on the Enoch thread where someone said they thought proving the existence of Bigfoot and preserving the species was more important than discovering the cure for AIDS or other diseases. It kind of flew all over me since I work in public health with HIV clients, a lot of which are facing homelessness since the economic crash, and federal funding has been cut for their meds. I thought, "Here I am worrying about Bigfoot, when there are so many other things in this world that are more urgent for the human race to be concerned about." But then I wondered, what motivates other people to think saving Bigfoot is an important thing to pursue? Because this topic is thrown around a lot on the forum in different threads. I'm really curious to know because it might provide some insight into why the bickering ensues in Bigfoot world and nothing gets accomplished. If I can understand where people are coming from, and suspend judgement, maybe it will make a difference somewhere down the road for anyone who reads the thread or wants to seriously consider pursuing the topic, including myself. My time might be better spent elsewhere since I don't think it's important to prove the existence of Bigfoot, much less preserve them, if they need our help at all.

[Guest Crowlogic]

I've been hearing this rational used on other threads as a reason for researchers to relinquish evidence in order to prove their claims. Is this emotional manipulation for selfish curiosity or is this genuine concern for the plight of an animal/huminoid??

"Researchers" frequently use the device of saying that they are withholding evidence as a means of protecting Bigfoot. The device is simply a construct to circumvent the reality that they have no evidence/proof in the first place. As for saving Bigfoot I'm of the opinion that went extinct at least 20 years ago. So by my watch its way too late to save anything!