Bigfoot And Americana

[norseman]

in the ostman story there were no infants present. and when his rifle roared over her head she spun nose to tail and ran.......

so much for mama bear.

[Guest]

Norseman,

Her children were unharmed in your Ostman scenario.

I think your mind is set. Your risk and your glory. When do you go?

[norseman]

^^^^^^

I already have been out. And I do not seek glory just scientific recognition for the species.

[Guest]

You use a guide gun?

[norseman]

You use a guide gun?

Yes

[Guest]

That has enough horsepower. Stainless or blue?

[norseman]

That has enough horsepower. Stainless or blue?

ive got a picture of it in "in the field/tree break".

[Guest]

Blue. Pretty country. I hope you aren't doing this alone.

Edited June 4, 2013 by Florida reader

[norseman]

Blue. Pretty country. I hope you aren't doing this alone.

thanks!

on that trip my son was with me, but yes i have gone solo many times. and your right its a calculated risk.

[Guest]

Have you ever seen a BF?

The reason i ask is because you are heavily committed to this thing with your son out there as well. You are far braver/more fearless than most. However, if anything bad happens and your holiday list gets shorter.

You should really look them in the eye before you commit to pulling that trigger on your Marlin.

Edited June 5, 2013 by Florida reader

[norseman]

ive seen tracks never the ape.

but i was packing a rifle into the mountains when i was ten. so no no fear, and dying in the mountains isnt exactly on my bad way to go list.....i love them.

and my son is a teenager now, much older than i was when i was going alone.

again its a calculated risk.....squatch or no

[Guest]

They don't look human, but there is something very human or close to it in their eyes. I don't mean a physical resemblance. You can see them think for lack of a better description.

You might want to try an aim point or similar sight on your rifle. You should keep your iron sights for backup.

[hiflier]

Hello Norseman,

After reading this thread and some others that are similar I have come to what I think is the crux of the issue. Yes, there is an anti-kill sentiment. And yes, even though most think science may ultimately be the deciding factor in Sasquatch's future security the kill idea still runs counter to most mindsets. And it's the mindset that is the real battleground as we all know. So with that in mind what is the lynch pin that is holding the line on anti-kill?

At the risk (and it is one) of waxing philosophical few have settled themselves with the very idea of death. Sasquatch could very well be a Humanoid. But as you say science needs one for that determination. But by putting one to death? That is the larger matter. For it may very well be that some view the Hairy One as a kindred species. Even so, I think the idea of death- by anything other than natural or accidental- is a thing that lurks in the back of everyone's brain.

To kill is to cause death. It's more than the issue of science even with a long range goal of survival of a species in mind. Unless Bigfoot is proved to exist then there is no way of knowing it's in danger or not. I would propose that if danger from Humans began to leave Bigfoot remains that were subsequently determined to be the result of Human activity on habitat then action would be taken.

You are saying to kill one before the likelihood, or possibility of it's more widespread destruction? That is a discussion alongside the antikill one which demonstrates that the kill issue is not a cut and dried one with only one proponent/component aspect. It spills into things moral, social, political, and archetypal. Personally I say having a type specimen will put a lot of unknowns to rest. I also think that progress will make that result inevitable by supplying a cadaver by default if in fact it hasn't already happened as has been mentioned.

Nothing like debate, eh, Norseman. I commend you for bringing the idea to light.

[norseman]

If for not collecting type specimens in the name of science? Modern Biology would not exist as it is today. But your right, science doesn't care if a body is produced by a bullet, a train, a virus, old age, a fall or any of the rest. But we need a body. And if we are seeing them, but not finding a body that met a natural end? What is the most expedient way in which to end the mystery?

 

It's been almost 50 years since the PGF. Most of the men involved with Sasquatch at that time are dead. How long is the majority willing to sit on their laurels and employ very passive research techniques?

 

If I had it my way? Anyone searching for Bigfoot would carry a high powered rifle with them and be trained in it's use. Instead of adding another inconclusive grainy photo or foot cast to the archive? He would have a real tangible chance of ending the mystery very quickly.

 

And then.......then we can understand what it is, what it needs, and if we are impacting it in a negative way. Until then it's all conjecture, nothing more. 

[hiflier]

Hello Norseman,

 

Thanks for the reply first of all. Understanding what it is would be a tremendous step forward. To make it clear, I have no doubt whatsoever on that point. Understanding what it needs and, moreso, our impact on it would IMO not be an answer that would be included in the autopsy/study. That would only come from starting observations in the field if at all possible and then maintain records over a time span in order for comparative changes in location, activity, and numbers to be noted. But regardless of that I agree, barring a team of dogs trained to sniff out deceased individuals, like around buildings collapsed by earthquakes and the like, a carcass would be the smoking gun so to speak that would rule out ALL speculation and/or doubt in generating species protection agendas.

Edited June 15, 2013 by hiflier