Yuchi1 Posted May 1, 2015 Posted May 1, 2015 Yep, about as bad as folks out in the woods armed and with absolutely no idea (practical experience) of what they're hunting. By definition, that is a fool's errand under the heading of unprofessional hunter. As an analogy, there's a fella goes by the name of Woodswatcher, went around posturing himself as the BF hunter's, BF hunter. Claimed to have hunted everything that walks North America and to listen to him, even Capstick got his book material from him. However, (back in my killer era) on three (3) occasions, when things got "hot" and were about to get "western", this dude ran out of the woods and/or bailed on his position/duty. Turned out to be a total poser, as 99% of the people with an alligator mouth and spring lizard anus often turn out when the situation gets real. So, instead of "Death in the Long Grass", he was actually "Hauling Arse Outa the Woods" so he could "watch" from a safe distance. Now that I've made the evolution to realization of the folly, futility and foolishness of trying to kill one of these entities, I now have a life with meaning. It's often known as family, occasional excursions to this forum excepted.
norseman Posted May 1, 2015 Admin Author Posted May 1, 2015 I'm happy for you, now take you and your bias rhetoric and go away.
Yuchi1 Posted May 1, 2015 Posted May 1, 2015 You told the world I was on your ignore list? Make a regular practice of saying one thing and doing another?
masterbarber Posted May 1, 2015 Admin Posted May 1, 2015 bipto didn't even bother trying to defend his claims. Neither did Hairy Man. It's possible that you can reach a point where you just don't care if anyone really believes you, but instead just want to share your experiences. The BFF doesn't seem to be the right place for that though. With the amount of hoaxing that's happened in the past decade, it's reasonable to assume that any extraordinary claim will get questioned here, even if it's coming from credible individuals. Darn right it is and most of us are proud of that fact... "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. On the BFF we accept very little at face value. We may have a tendency to over-analyze claims and be more skeptical than some other forums dedicated to this topic, but we think that is preferable to the alternative." 2
Yuchi1 Posted May 1, 2015 Posted May 1, 2015 Heard that a small hammer and penecillin shot will fix that...
Doc Holliday Posted May 2, 2015 Posted May 2, 2015 Darn right it is and most of us are proud of that fact... "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. On the BFF we accept very little at face value. We may have a tendency to over-analyze claims and be more skeptical than some other forums dedicated to this topic, but we think that is preferable to the alternative." agreed, without it we'd most likely be waaay over in the twilight zone ......and an easy target for those that would try and pull a fast one .
Woodslore Posted May 5, 2015 Posted May 5, 2015 I find it interesting that so many will rush to save an animal that may or may not indeed exist. That we, if does exist, know next to nothing about really. Yet when an animal such as a pitbull, which we know a fair bit about, is mentioned many call for its immediate destruction. I find it interesting though that is me. Sorry not trying to hijack. Also I think if Sasquatch was discovered logging would not stop. Right whales being sighted off the coast of Nova Scotia didn't kill the fishing industry. It might make for a tighter management of the industry but the total complete closer of the industry, or halt there of is less then likely. Interesting to think on.
Bigtex Posted May 5, 2015 Posted May 5, 2015 Right now, there are three groups; (1) folks who have seen the creature and know it exists, (2) those who haven't and don't know, (3)those who haven't seen the creature, but can analyze the existing data to make an educated determination. And you are so right Woodslore, "it might make for tighter management"......ie, no more Bigfooting for amateurs like us. Come on Pro-Killers, loose the egos, and don't ruin it for the rest of us, we don't need any more regulations please:) 1
MagniAesir Posted May 6, 2015 Posted May 6, 2015 The only ones showing ego on this thread are the "knowers" 1
norseman Posted May 6, 2015 Admin Author Posted May 6, 2015 I find it interesting that so many will rush to save an animal that may or may not indeed exist. That we, if does exist, know next to nothing about really. Yety when an animal such as a pitbull, which we know a fair bit about, is mentioned many call for its immediate destruction. I find it interesting though that is me. Sorry not trying to hijack. Also I think if Sasquatch was discovered logging would not stop. Right whales being sighted off the coast of Nova Scotia didn't kill the fishing industry. It might make for a tighter management of the industry but the total complete closer of the industry, or halt there of is less then likely. Interesting to think on. thats why we need a discovery right? to learn more about thrm?
Woodslore Posted May 6, 2015 Posted May 6, 2015 Norse man I am not doubting that. I believe we need a body to prove beyond a doubt the existence. My post was just we rush to say don't shoot the beast that may not be real and we know only theory on but a pitbull well kill that! Kind of got the priorities mixed up. Also the idea that the logging industry will just halt and stop. Please. If right whales.did not kill the fishing industry come on.the.logging industry is too big of a beast to be killed like that. Yeah there might be more regulations and laws placed on the logging industry but it is not going to just stop. That's kind of a well dumb idea. I am not against a body being brought in. As I said in an earlier post it would be safer then tranqulizing one. How much would you use? What if the animal ods on the drug or in wakes up mid transit? Kill one and you are running fewer risks. I was just pointing out we are so willing to jump on the bloody hippie train for this yet an animal that is in most cases a product of its handler better kill it. Just think we got it backwards.
BobbyO Posted May 6, 2015 SSR Team Posted May 6, 2015 I think you're massively underestimating the impact of an upright primate being discovered in North America personally woodslore, with "upright" being the key word. Re-write the history books, text books, you name it. Logging will take a monstrous impact, and it will have to by law.
Cisco Posted May 6, 2015 Posted May 6, 2015 I don't know how I missed this thread but it's certainly interesting... I'm in the pro-kill camp and always have been. My reasons for this are pretty simple.... In that I want to know they are real because I have NOT seen one and likely never will. After all, I've spent 45 years hunting and fishing all over this country, as well as some others, and have not come across even a trace of Sasquatch; with the exception of ambiguous tracks that were 90% wishful thinking. I'll assume that most of us repel Sasquatch and a very small minority tend to attract them. I don't think killing one is, in any way, necessary for their survival or preservation. It's not like they're being hunted to extinction. In fact, killing one will only result in biological knowledge and, based on this, some assumptions about behavior. I disagree with BobbyO in there will not likely be any economic or financial ramifications for any industry. In fact, I think we'll see positive results in the way of increased public interest/ awareness and tourism dollars being poured into national parks, by people that want to see one or photograph one. People are afraid of the unknown and not what can be explained by science. Just look at the growth of the shark diving industry, post the movie Jaws, and with the explosion of documentary television. I can assure you, Sasquatch will fit quite neatly into that business model. Just use your imagination and think of the marketing potential. Sasquatch theme parks, rides, etc... As to the negative impact on the forestry industry, I don't see that happening at all. In order to make a dent, the federal government would have to sequestrate huge tracts of land, nationwide, used for logging, via Eminent Domain, and then tag it as a Sasquatch refuge. Considering the levels of logging control, already in place, in addition to the very broad habitat range of these animals, it would be completely unnecessary. This only happens with endangered animals that have highly specialized and limited habitat. All that would be needed is a law, making it illegal to kill these animals, any place and for any reason. What I do see happening is a legal war as to the classification of these beings as either animal or human. It gives me a head ache thinking of how that would play out in the courts. Regardless, I'd like to see one shot, simply to lay the issue to rest.
Yuchi1 Posted May 7, 2015 Posted May 7, 2015 (edited) Hypothetical Scenario: CNN reports that an outdoorsman from Washington state has apparently killed a bipedal entity that many are claiming is a BF. The body has been turned over to a local university for forensic analysis and further study. Meanwhile, the outdoorsman makes the circuit of news and talk shows where he describes in great detail his account of the entire endeavor, from beginning until that day. It soon comes into the public domain knowledge, he had planned on killing one of these entities for years yet had almost no working knowledge of what this entity actually was or even may have been thought to be. Then, news breaks the DNA analysis conducted by the university staff had been sent to several other sources for corroboration of findings and they all came back as exactly the same. The mitochondrial DNA came back as the same as found in all female homo sapiens and the nuclear DNA came back as not of any known, on record. Almost immediately, a group of Save the BF disciples file a motion with state district court asking the court to allow for a petition to hold a grand jury inquiry on the incident. The petition is granted, requisite number of signatures attained and verified with the grand jury empaneled shortly thereafter. During questioning of the outdoorsman (w/o benefit of counsel or rules of evidence restrictions) it is learned that he was advised to learn much more about this entity prior to embarking on a kill mission and that he had publically acknowledged the potential of liability/culpability for his actions. The grand jury returns a bill of indictment for manslaughter and the outdoorsman is then subjected to the time and expense of a highly charged legal battle. He is subsequently convicted and the court hands down a sentence of 20 years of being the stupid white guy that gets his arse kicked in all of the Jack Links commercials. True story! Edited May 7, 2015 by Yuchi1
Recommended Posts