Bigfoot Research--Still No Evidence (Continued)

[norseman]

Norseman  the comment of being able to pull the trigger on a human or anything looking human is very disturbing. Killing anything that has not harmed or threatened you or another and you do not plan to eat is to me murder IMO.

 

Your quite right. But from the context of being a soldier, I would have no problems serving my country, hopefully that sheds light on the first part of my comment.

 

And as far as Apes, I personally like Apes and they are my favorite exhibit at the zoo. I have no desire to hunt Chimps, Gorillas or Orangs. But if we do have a undiscovered primate species on our hands, I would have no problem pulling the trigger to prove they exist and get them recognized as a species.

 

The fact that they look like us, is inconsequential. 

 

The hardest thing I have ever done was put a pistol to the head of my favorite mule, who was old, down on the ground and suffering badly. You cannot not even understand how much I loved that mule. And the fact that he was a mule and not a human did not make it any easier........do you understand what I'm saying?

[David NC]

I understand very well. When you get the chance to put the scope on one wait until you can look it in the eyes before pulling the trigger.

[daveedoe]

I'm not sure what I should be called if not skeptic. I have had several incidents in the wood I can not explain, The only conclusion would be Bigfoot. The problem is like science I never saw anything. I need to see with my own two eyes. So I guess I'm divided exist or not. If exist I'm a no kill everyone will just have to wait for proof, if no exist does not matter.

does that make sense? confused may be a better word.

[Guest]

How can somebody be a skeptic and anti kill at the same time? 

 

Maybe that think a person would be killed instead.

[Guest]

Killing anything that has not harmed or threatened you or another and you do not plan to eat is to me murder IMO.

 

While I fully respect this point of view and have no issue with it whatsoever (it's a free country, after all), can we at least agree that this sentiment is resoundingly non-scientific? Animals die all the time in the name of science (much of which is done to advance the quality of human life). Biologists take specimens of already proven animals routinely in field studies. Even animal ethics institutions acknowledge the necessity of taking voucher specimens. Science has no issues with killing animals for a defined and defendable purpose. 

At the moment you have Bigfoot in your sights, you see that Bigfoot is an inteligent being looking more human than ape would you still pull the trigger? 

 

I would recommend the book Between Man and Beast, a recently released biography of Paul Du Chaillu, the man who first entered the African jungle for the purpose of bringing out gorilla specimens. He collected dozens of animals in his first trip but, as he went along, began feeling serious remorse for killing animals that appeared to be much like us in so many ways. On a subsequent trip, he made the choice not to kill any gorillas and instead collect other data about them and their habitat, including live specimens. 

 

Du Chaillu felt that the animal, already having been proven, no longer needed to be killed, except is self-defense. That's an opinion I expect I will share some day. 

[Guest]

BFF Members- and besides reasoning about animals in Africa, what does the law say about taking undiscovered living things which are considered non-game. It is not about our own reasoning to rationalize ones own point of view but What the mandates are that supposedly govern us all.

[Squatchy McSquatch]

oh. Oky.

There likewise is nothing that requires me to engage a viewpoint that isn't serious. But thanks for playing.

You lost but you're welcome.

 

Bigfoot is nothing more than an opinion at this point.

 

'No proof' is a very  valid point of argument if you don't believe in bigfoot.

 

But if you happen to have an interest in bigfoot;,

 

And you choose to engage this interest on a bigfoot forum,

 

I say the following: I have proof of bigfoot hoaxes. You have no proof of bigfoot.

 

You have Plenty Of Evidence, but no proof.

 

After 45+ years I'd be blaming the people looking for and not finding the thing.

 

I'm as serious as a heart attack, Jack

[Guest]

BFF Members- and besides reasoning about animals in Africa, what does the law say about taking undiscovered living things which are considered non-game. It is not about our own reasoning to rationalize ones own point of view but What the mandates are that supposedly govern us all.

I'm pretty sure there are no laws regarding a creature that is not recognized by general science as existing

Edited May 28, 2013 by mbh

[Guest DWA]

In many states, if it is not specifically named in the regs, you can't shoot it.  Period.

[Guest]

 

 

Bigfoot is nothing more than an opinion at this point.

 

'No proof' is a very  valid point of argument if you don't believe in bigfoot.

 

But if you happen to have an interest in bigfoot;,

 

And you choose to engage this interest on a bigfoot forum,

 

I say the following: I have proof of bigfoot hoaxes. You have no proof of bigfoot.

 

You have Plenty Of Evidence, but no proof.

 

After 45+ years I'd be blaming the people looking for and not finding the thing.

 

I'm as serious as a heart attack, Jack

 

 

How is this something we can even have a conversation about? I have personal experiences, including a sighting, that says they're real. Your position seems to demean and/or call into question the sanity of people like me. You're free to think we're nuts, of course, but to expect a reasonable discourse is, I think, a bit of a stretch. 

[Guest]

In many states, if it is not specifically named in the regs, you can't shoot it.  Period.

I stand corrected

How is it worded?

[Guest DWA]

How is this something we can even have a conversation about? I have personal experiences, including a sighting, that says they're real. Your position seems to demean and/or call into question the sanity of people like me. You're free to think we're nuts, of course, but to expect a reasonable discourse is, I think, a bit of a stretch. 

Pretty much.

 

I mean, I never go talking to people about something I know nothing about and when they tell me to read up, and tell me where, I go:

 

"No way!  I have no plans to read up, and you're full of [fertilizer]!"

 

The evidence is what it is.  You can talk about what you think it is all you want, and pretend it isn't there all you want.  Doesn't mean it isn't there.

 

And you can talk about proving a negative all you want.  But you CAN prove that all of this is the specific kind of false positives you claim they are.

 

Shoot, start with one state!  Disprove every BFRO sighting report from, say, TX.   Then go to NAWAC's site and do the same.  You will shake my tree, ga-ron-tee, if you can prove to me that every one of those reports is, in fact, something else.  Nice, sonny!  Nice, right, START.

 

And until you do, we just pat you on the head and tell you to go read up.  And wonder whether we, personally, would ever WANT to feel the way you do about....well, about anything.

 

Until it is proven what the evidence represents, it's unproven.  Simple as that.  The evidence doesn't care about anyone's timetable.   There is no deadline by which bigfoot isn't real, and nothing has even started until people care enough to go prove it the way science proves anything else.  Which is to say committed, full-time funded effort.

 

When one leaves a field to less-than-part-timers, it's simply not reasonable to expect results by last week, or next year.

 

And it's not reasonable to argue it with anyone who thinks otherwise.  So we're not arguing with you, just telling you the realness.

[Guest]

BFF Members- and besides reasoning about animals in Africa, what does the law say about taking undiscovered living things which are considered non-game. It is not about our own reasoning to rationalize ones own point of view but What the mandates are that supposedly govern us all.

It depends.  If you're really concerned, I'd call an attorney or game warden in your area, rather than going off of an internet message board. 

[Guest]

Leisureclass- that part of the point. In one of my earlier posts on this thread I said I had called the US Fish and Wildlife Service and asked them their view of shooting a BF. The field biologist said that they view all undiscovered animals(?) as a non-game animal. BF is not on the endamgered species act, but that non-game animals need to have a specific permit and/or  administered by the states. I have also been it contact with the Calif. Fish and Game Commission and they adhere to the federal standard of any undiscovered animals or flora as non-game and hence protected unless permited specifically.  As I have asked respondances to that post to do the same and call either your state or federal authorities 

 and haven't heard back.

[indiefoot]

http://kdwpt.state.ks.us/news/Services/Education,-Exhibition,-Collecting,-and-Salvage-Permits

 

I imagine you would get laughed at if you said you wanted a BF for you collection.