Guest Posted October 30, 2012 Posted October 30, 2012 Of course it would ruin the mystery, regardless off it being the biggest zoological discovery of all time. Sure, it would be incredible for national parks listing 'sasquatch' on there list of animals to see and can you imagine the documentary that follows sasquatch around for a year. But, if humans knew about them, the death toll would rise i'm sure of it. I think it's better for them to stay in the realm of disbelief, it's a world there perfectly adapted for.
Guest Posted October 30, 2012 Posted October 30, 2012 I don't think discovery would ruin the mystery. There would be a ton of questions still to be answered.
Cotter Posted October 30, 2012 Posted October 30, 2012 I say yes. If they are intelligent as some folks claim, I think I could teach one to weed my garden and mow my lawn. That would rock.
Guest Twilight Fan Posted October 30, 2012 Posted October 30, 2012 Im with Twilight on this. It should never be found. Humans have a bad habit of murder and slaughter. For me there is already enough evidence to make hunting them illegal. I also believe they have good reasons to hide from us, they have been watching us for thounsands of years. If they are out there, they are masters in hiding from humans. Thanks, hesse, and welcome to the forums. You're very right. If Bigfoot has been watching our kind for many years, they must know how violent a species we can be, and would be smart to stay away from the majority of us. I used to want them to be found and officially recognized, but more and more, I cringe when I think of that happening. I don't think they need our protection at all. They are so good at self-preservation all on their own that most people don't even believe they exist. So I think it's kind of disingenuous when people give that as a reason for wanting them to be found and officially recognized--especially people/groups like the BFRC who say they want to kill one (or is it 6? I can't really stomach the Operation Persistence thread but I think someone commented there that the BFRC want to kill six Bigfoots?) so that they can be studied and given protection is disgusting. God, thank you! A VOICE OF REASON! +1 to you, good sir (or ma'am)...100% agree. Of course it would ruin the mystery, regardless off it being the biggest zoological discovery of all time. Sure, it would be incredible for national parks listing 'sasquatch' on there list of animals to see and can you imagine the documentary that follows sasquatch around for a year. But, if humans knew about them, the death toll would rise i'm sure of it. I think it's better for them to stay in the realm of disbelief, it's a world there perfectly adapted for. Indeed they are.
Guest Posted October 30, 2012 Posted October 30, 2012 Discovered, protected and given large tracts of habitat. Whenever I see talk of 'no because I know they exist and thats enough', it just makes me think that the person is just selfish and ignorant. Like it or not, their habitat is shrinking. America is not the Congo, they have the means and money to protect them.
Guest Twilight Fan Posted October 30, 2012 Posted October 30, 2012 Discovered, protected and given large tracts of habitat. Whenever I see talk of 'no because I know they exist and thats enough', it just makes me think that the person is just selfish and ignorant. Like it or not, their habitat is shrinking. America is not the Congo, they have the means and money to protect them. They already HAVE large tracts of habitat to roam. They don't need OUR permission to live on THEIR land. I think the opposite is true; it's selfish for people to think they have the right to expose a species to the world who would rather remain hidden. Ignorant as well.
Guest Posted October 30, 2012 Posted October 30, 2012 If it would put Any restrictions on the state or Natl forests we enjoy.. my answer is No. If I could not get into the "investigation" areas i enjoy, anymore..the answer is No. If it means more armed goofballs trying to bag one.. the answer is No. If it would mean any further government control on the outdoor resources we all enjoy.. my answer is No. Sasquatch seems to be doing ok, without anyone 'finding" it, and has obviously survived much worse periods of "manifest destiny" with a lot fewer laws and restrictions, when everything out in the woods and plains, was fair game and mercilessly slaughtered. Can't see.. how it can do any worse now, despite human "sprawl" into the countryside. Can't see.. how it needs our protection, nor cares or would abide by (territorially) anything that would set up trying to do so. I just want to learn and experience more.. and that is that.
Guest Posted October 30, 2012 Posted October 30, 2012 They already HAVE large tracts of habitat to roam. They don't need OUR permission to live on THEIR land. I think the opposite is true; it's selfish for people to think they have the right to expose a species to the world who would rather remain hidden. Ignorant as well. I think you are anthropomorphizing them. I don't think bigfoot (assuming they exist) or any animal would care whether they are "hidden" but only that are not immediately threatened or distrubed. I think its silly to say that a bigfoot would have "oh no, I can't have them scientifically document me" on their mind.
Guest Twilight Fan Posted October 30, 2012 Posted October 30, 2012 How can I anthro something that MIGHT be a human species? Seriously. You don't know they aren't human and I don't know they are. But the fact is: They MIGHT be. And you know what I meant. Human documentation leads to corruption and creatures being killed. Just look at all the meatheads on here who seek to harm them for "scientific purpose." Gimme a break!
17x7 Posted October 30, 2012 Posted October 30, 2012 "Had" to? Of course not. In fact, they are now an ENDANGERED species for a reason. Between civil unrest and poaching them for bush meat, there aren't very many mountain gorillas left alive. Only hundreds, and way under a thousand. Humans tend to destroy other species and other species are often better off without us knowing they exist. If it weren't for Dian Fossey, the gorillas of Rwanda would probably be extinct by now. That lady did amazing things to save them - she dedicated her entire life to their protection. Bless her heart. BF has a better chance of survival than the mountain gorillas. Mountain gorillas are being systematically driven into extinction for political reasons, more than man's 'desire to kill'. There are a ton of militias vying for control of Democratic Republic of Congo. It is perhaps the richest mineral nation in the world. Everyone wants it. Most of those militias are hiding in the same jungle as the gorillas. Therein lies the problem. Those militias don't want the world knowing what they are doing. The problem is that the mountain gorillas have half the world watching them. Animal Planet, Nat Geo, UN, and a whole host more that I can't think of right now are crawling all over the same jungle with those militias and they are all carrying cameras. As they film the gorillas, they also document the guerrillas and report their atrocities to the world. The guerrillas figured out a long time ago that if the gorillas go away, so do all the people watching them and they can go back to killing humans undocumented. As a result, gorillas are hunted and killed just to get rid of them. 17x7
Guest Twilight Fan Posted October 30, 2012 Posted October 30, 2012 BF has a better chance of survival than the mountain gorillas. Don't count on it. There would no doubt be as many trigger-happy fools looking to shoot one AFTER its discovery as there are right now. If not more.
Guest poignant Posted October 31, 2012 Posted October 31, 2012 Of course I want them to be found and officially recognized. Why I want them to be officially recognized? So that good people like Gimlin can go to their grave knowing that they weren't crazy. So that a whole bunch of other good people can also be exonerated and their reputations restored, for having simply witnesses and/or talked about one. So that we can know more about who we are and our human history.
Doc Holliday Posted October 31, 2012 Posted October 31, 2012 sure, publicly prove them.i agree with poignant & others that vindication of some good people would be a welcome thing. i dont think BF need protection, they seem to be doing a darn good job of avoiding us now. even if more people tried to poach them it doesnt mean the poachers would be successful. heck, look at all the interest "finding bigfoot" & other shows has generated.....& still no public discovery or verified stacking of bodies . sure, theres a couple groups claiming to be close ,but iirc, they've been at it for a while too.......& yet with so much going on real proof seems to be at about the same point its always been at,publicly anyways. imo,the only catch would be the unwanted publicity for the guy that "outs" them. probably best to do so anonymously if possible.
Guest Cowlitz2 Posted October 31, 2012 Posted October 31, 2012 The number of unknowns in the 50's seem like child's play considering what we don't know today...the saying "I don't know what I don't know" is true. The more we learn the more we don't know, thanks to science. My opinion.....and BF is NO exception. The mystery will continue even with a body. Happy Halloween.....
salubrious Posted October 31, 2012 Moderator Posted October 31, 2012 I want them discovered for entirely selfish reasons- mostly that I am not a nut case, that what I saw was in fact real. OTOH, I have no trust that they would be safer, and certainly the forest would be a much more dangerous place with gun-toting nutbags running around trying to bag one. So for that reason I'll own my being a nut case any day.
Recommended Posts