The Researchers And The Choice.

[Guest]

Forgive me for repeating myself, on a couple points..I think are valid ones. One of them, I'm just going to include in my future signature.

First.. I hold nothing back... besides specific locations of investigations and areas of ongoing activity. Anything else I've experienced or collected, is not even considered evidence, by most. I non issue, really.

A point I've made.. probably a dozen times here, in similar discussions.. is that sasquatch does not seem to need our help (general point). Here's why..

Ask yourself first.. if large predator mammals and their prey, were better off 100 -150 years ago in North America, or are they better off now ?

There is more preserved forever wild forest lands...set up N. America, then at Anytime before, or on any other continent (that I'm currently aware of).

How can sasquatch have made it through times of no hunting or trapping regulations or limits,  relentless slaughter of everything in the woods by everyone with a gun, times of manifest destiny .. where almost everyone carved out a living in the woods, and the general thoughts were.. to wipe out everything we were afraid of, that had teeth, and was bigger than us ?

I come to no conclusion about the population of sasquatch or how fine it's doing.. because i don't know. My common sense tells me though, that if it did (it Obviously did) make it thought times of mass large predator and game becoming almost extinct in the American frontier... then why the heck does it possibly need our protection... now ?

Which brings another problem to mind. How can something be protected, that cannot be studied ? How can something be protected, that we know almost nothing about.. including it's habit, actual food sources, or the size of it's territory... not to mention, how many are part of the clan , and if they are nomadic wanderers or some maybe stay put ? Summary..we have tons of theories and ideas, but know Nothing.

Why do we read reports of people seeing bears in the trash ? It's easy picking, that's why. Any creature will get it's meals the easy way... if it has the opportunity. Is sasquatch any different ? Should I think that urban sprawl is the cause of all this ?  Nope, not me.

What forest is being reduced, other than private lands being developed for housing tracks and human recreation areas ? Is that Definitely bad for sasquatch ? I don't know, but I doubt it.

The "Protection" issue.. is a cart being pushed waaaaaaaaaaaay before the horse.

There you have it, my two cents.

@ norseman.... I'm no kill, but don't fit well into your sentiments. I'm not only no kill... but no see 'em, and no find 'em 

, when I'm really out looking.

Edited December 30, 2013 by imonacan

[LeafTalker]

Yes, to cart before horse. Yes, to the statement that we don't know enough about the Sasquatch people to be making decisions about how to help them. Yes, to "It is [the Sasquatch person's] privilege to help mankind endure by lifting his heart, and ours to help him if we possibly can." (Oh my God, DWA, that might be the most beautiful thing I've ever read here.)

 

But here's the thing (for me). We cannot keep talking about "protecting" the Sasquatch people as if the issue of their survival is independent of the issue of our own survival. 

 

Some of us have talked about this before: We are looking in a mirror. Their problems are OUR problems. Our problems are THEIR problems. We need to fix this for ourselves, because our own lives are in jeopardy. And by extension, everyone else's are, too. 

 

We are the people who feed each other "pink slime" -- ammonia!!!! -- in our hamburgers. What is wrong with us? Our focus is on completely the wrong things. If we could learn to be respectful just of ourselves -- of each other -- some of that might leak over into our interactions with the rest of the world, and everyone would benefit.

 

Even the Sasquatch.  

Edited December 30, 2013 by LeafTalker

[hiflier]

Hello LeafTalker,

 

We are the people who feed each other "pink slime" -- ammonia!!!! -- in our hamburgers. What is wrong with us? Our focus is on completely the wrong things.

You're a good soul. It certainly would seem that our focus is skewed, but in all honesty it's because of our lack of information. If it wasn't for whistleblowers we wouldn't KNOW about the pink slime. What else don't we know about? Would Sasquatch, or the knowledge of Sasquatch, be more costly than knowing about the pink slime, Love Canal, or thalidomide?? In post two I mentioned the money part. I for one have never underestimated the potential for making lots of it or, more importantly, the potential LOSS of it when plans get that have been in the works for years get unexpectedly shot down.

I say this because I think science already has a type specimen.

Edited December 30, 2013 by hiflier

[LeafTalker]

I agree totally, hiflier. I think money is a huge factor in how things are going down here. 

 

I do also think, however, that there's a kind of collusion that goes on.... It may not be completely conscious; but many of us are afraid to process the information we DO have, and take some things to their logical conclusions..... So in effect, we collude with the moneyed interests.

 

Otherwise, even money couldn't do it. The money people -- the disinformation people -- can't do their work without our cooperation. 

 

It's time to stop cooperating, is all. 

 

Or not. We don't have to make good choices for ourselves. Even when we make bad choices, we are still exercising our authority to make choices. 

 

So on some level, it doesn't matter what happens, and it's all good, and everything will be okay, no matter what!

 

Here's another thing I think, actually.... I think it may not be an accident that the Big Reveal is taking this long. It may be that it is giving some of us more time to get more settled about our beliefs, thoughts, and feelings, so that, when the Big Reveal does happen, there will be many, many people who can speak knowledgeably and calmly about what the rest of the world will just be catching up with..... The TV show "Finding Bigfoot", for example, is doing a huge service for us, by allowing the idea of the Sasquatch people to seep into public consciousness -- again, so that, when we finally figure out these are real people, we will have had some "practice" thinking about them and coming to terms with the idea that they exist, and it won't be such a shock. 

 

Ha! Talked myself into feeling better about all this!

 

I think it will be okay. I really do.  

 

P.S. And I also agree with you that science already has a type specimen.....and doesn't want us to know that. 

Edited December 30, 2013 by LeafTalker

[JDL]

Ethical calculus.  Multiple issues, each with its own variables.

 

1.  Some researchers simply want to know more, not necessarily to disclose more.  They are engaged in a private pursuit shared only with those they consider to share their perspective.

2.  Some want to be the first to reveal the sasquatch in the form of indisputable evidence, so they will guard the information they obtain until they have the ironclad case.  They may pass on before everything they have learned is disclosed.

3.  Some want to protect the squatch.  This takes two forms:

     a.  Learn all you can to prove they require protection.

     b.  Prevent disclosure of their existence, thus protecting them from the greatest perceived threat to their existence, public knowledge of their presence

     and activities.

4.  Some believe or know that some squatch engage in behaviors that threaten people, namely abduction and predation.  Based on this there are three reasons they may keep what they know to themselves.

     a.  They may sympathize more with the squatch than the victims and fear that the public will retaliate if they find out.

     b.  They may feel that there is little that can be done about it anyway, and that the public will be incapable of dealing rationally with the knowledge.

     c.  They may recognize that government can not manage squatch, and that government can not manage public reaction to knowledge of the squatch

     and their more threatening behaviors.

 

Until recently I've been on the fence regarding kill, no kill based on the assumption that once the existence of squatch is proven, there will be a period of difficult adjustment followed by long term co-existence.  My quandary was whether or not the taking of a squatch life (I consider them people) is necessary to achieve this outcome.

 

Now, however, with the understanding that Paulides has provided, that there are probably populations of squatch that prey on people, the ethical calculus for me is greatly simplified.  If squatch are preying on people, often young children, then the public needs to be aware of the threat, and the life of a squatch, one that engages in this behavior or not, is a small price to pay to establish public awareness and effective management of the threat.

[LeafTalker]

We are the threat.

 

When are we going to effectively manage the threat to us of ourselves?

[hiflier]

Hello Leaftalker,

At this point I had to go back to the OP....
 

...I have heard the following ,,

 

they are doing fine on their own ,, -

A smokescreen for "i don't know"

 

 ,, we do not deserve to know ,, -

A smokescreen for "I don't know" ,,

 

not my place ,,.

A smokescreen for I don't know:

 

That's why none of it makes sense. Make sense now?
 

I do also think, however, that there's a kind of collusion that goes on....

Yes, but not at the level you think it is

 

It may not be completely conscious; but many of us are afraid to process the information we DO have

True. The first denial is in not acknowledging the fear of those in authority even in the lowest echelons

 

The money people --the disinformation people -- can't do their work without our cooperation. 

That's what the disinformation is FOR. So that you'll believe that.
 
It's time to stop cooperating, is all.

Again, one cannot underestimate the power of isolated fear. The internet and our personal devices have greatly increased our knowledge but it's a double-edged sword- it also keeps a large consensus fractured and relatively immoble 
 

We don't have to make good choices for ourselves. Even when we make bad choices, we are still exercising our authority to make choices. 

In the end this is the most important possession anyone can have- The Power of CHOICE!

  

Ha! Talked myself into feeling better about all this!

LOL, I do it all the time.......THANK GOODNESS!
 
I think it will be okay. I really do.  

I like your approach
 
P.S. And I also agree with you that science already has a type specimen.....and doesn't want us to know that.

I'm working pretty hard on that one, and have been.

Edited December 31, 2013 by hiflier

[JDL]

@ LeafTalker:  Clearly we do more damage to ourselves than anything else.  Can't dispute that.  I can't fully respond to your question with my opinions based on forum rules.

Edited December 31, 2013 by JDL

[LeafTalker]

@hiflier: Again, I totally agree. It's all about fear. We may yet crawl out from under it, though. For some of us, it takes courage just to live day to day. But we do it! So maybe at some point we'll find the courage to deal with this in a better way, too. (And I like your approach, too!)

 

@JDL: No worries. I think I understand. And I bet I would agree with a lot of what you would have to say.....  

Edited December 31, 2013 by LeafTalker

[hiflier]

Hello NathanFooter,

JDL is on the right track. There are social issues at least that no one has really worked out beyond the usual projections. I mean easy to talk about the fallout of discovering Sasquatch existence. Not so easy to read the ensuing aftermath. Still, all in all, it's difficult to think one has not been brought in. At least publicly. My thinking? If Sasquatch could successfully evade the military then the hunt would be on in force. I mean after all, no North American Primate, or a 100-year-long rumor of one, is going to be allowed to embarrass the U.S. It's why I say they already know about them and have one (or two).

Edited December 31, 2013 by hiflier

[Guest]

But North American primates.. Are being allowed to embarrass the US... and they ain't no sasquatch 

[MIB]

 I just think that a free -roam policy is the right approach.

 

I had to plus you for this.   I think it is naive to suggest any other approach is practical.  

 

I don't think setting aside "habitat" is beneficial.   They're too portable.   Too adaptable to differing environments.   Choices would be arbitrary.  They would be our choices, not theirs.  We don't know what they'd choose, we only imagine and presume.

 

I'm not sure we should change what we're doing, only how we do it and especially how we clean up afterwards.   If we really looked out for our own long term interests the Big Guys' needs would be met as well. 

 

MIB

[Trogluddite]

 Why do some field researchers hold back their findings .... because they don't really have any

 

and or say they wish the sasquatch to remain undiscovered ? ... because this helps hide the fact that they are trying to appear to research, not doing research

 

 Myself being a field researcher, I have asked my self this question hundreds of times and I am very confused and rather disturbed on the reasons I have heard.   

 

  I have heard the following ,, they are doing fine on their own ,, - ,, we do not deserve to know ,, - ,, not my place ,,. = "You're taking this seriously?! I was just trying to make a fast buck. But I can't admit that publicly."

 

 

I was a complete blank slate on bigfoot. Had not had a bigfoot thought since 1976 or 1977 ... maybe 1978, but that's it.  When MonsterQuest or a re-run of the Meldrum special (it had to be a rerun, I wasn't stateside when it originally aired) kindled the first ember of curiosity around 2008/2009, I bought a book or two and googled bigfoot research groups, but wholly cow - so many groups and then so many places where groups/individuals accused and cross-accused each other of sloppy research, bad intentions, or outright fraud.  I literally backed out and spent a significant amount of time researching groups/individuals to develop some idea of whose work warranted consideration.  

 

Sadly, many of the individuals (or groups founded by/associated with a specific individual) come off so badly that even the Royal Order of Snake Oil Salesmen wouldn't accept them as legitimate.  

 

Your question is very broad, so I'm not sure if you've already discounted these "researchers."  

[hiflier]

Hello imonacan,

Yep, that about sums it up. Oh the irony. Hard to break that one down isn't it.

@ MIB: Nicely put. Something that LeafTalker and I have come to terms with as well. As Earth  goes so do we....and everything else.

Edited December 31, 2013 by chelefoot
Rule 2C

[Guest]

I just want to pet one...