Ok, This Might Sound Harsh, But..........

[Sunflower]

Well, you and your ego could take a hike in an active area, let us know how it turns out.  I'm not being a smart a&& just giving you some ideas since you think that all of us that "know" do nothing but fill in the blanks??????   Find out for yourself before the "myths" explode your head????

 

We can't possibly know everything but if you are convinced that the hairy people are just myths then you could prove that for us??? 

 

Shame is felt when a person does something wrong and feels remorseful................that is not what's going on here.

 

Please name the things you are open to concerning the hairy people??

[MIB]

Yeah, but Bigfoots have it? How does anyone know this? Really?

 

You'd have to have a captive breed population that you could observe in the wild, and if you had that then Bigfoot isn't a cryptid any more

 

Yes, people do know it, those who have experienced it first-hand.   So no, you would NOT have to.  

 

For someone with no experience, you sure are sure of yourself. 

 

MIB

Edited March 14, 2014 by MIB

[Guest keninsc]

Well, you and your ego could take a hike in an active area, let us know how it turns out.  I'm not being a smart a&& just giving you some ideas since you think that all of us that "know" do nothing but fill in the blanks??????   Find out for yourself before the "myths" explode your head????

 

We can't possibly know everything but if you are convinced that the hairy people are just myths then you could prove that for us??? 

 

Shame is felt when a person does something wrong and feels remorseful................that is not what's going on here.

 

Please name the things you are open to concerning the hairy people??

 

That is not what I said at all.

 

I said I doubted they had infrasound abilities. There are people who claim they are the product of alien genetic engineering and those who claim they are inter-dimensional creatures......none of which can be proved. Fact is, we have yet to prove the existence of Bigfoots. That's what this thread is about to determine who's willing to do what needs to be done to get the hard evidence that they are real. Oddly enough, I have found that almost 80% of people who claim to "hunt" for the creature aren't actually looking for the hard evidence but rather they're looking for recording vocalizations, footprints and stuff like that. These things can be faked and people can fall victim to charlatans and hoaxers. Look at the whole Rick Dyer thing, that's a mockery to anyone who takes looking for a real Bigfoot seriously.

 

If they are a real creature then odds are they have no super abilities, they don't have bio-luminescent eyes, as Matt Moneymaker seems to think and they can't slip away via the ole dimensional shift thing. They are simply creatures, like deer and bear and elk. Nothing more. 

Yes, people do know it, those who have experienced it first-hand.   So no, you would NOT have to.  

 

For someone with no experience, you sure are sure of yourself. 

 

MIB

 

.....and how do you know what my experience is?

[Sasfooty]

We can tell what your experience ISN'T by your statement that you wonder if infrasound real or a myth.

[BobbyO]

For me it's really simple.

For all of those who say no don't shoot one with a gun, get yourself out in the forest and shoot it with a camera.

If you shoot it with a camera well enough, there just might not be any need to shoot it with a gun.

Whilst no one has yet shot it with a camera on a par or better than the PGF in the last 40 or so years, there will always be the voices that say shoot it with a gun.

That's is of course if you want or believe that this animal should be or needs to be accepted by science, if you don't then you'll probably continue to not contribute to the subject whatsoever.

I can understand all sides of the argument personally.

But bottom line is, whilst there is this incredible lack of pictures, a body will definitely suffice where science is concerned.

[Guest keninsc]

We can tell what your experience ISN'T by your statement that you wonder if infrasound real or a myth.

 

True, I haven't experienced a Bigfoot casting infrasound or mental telepathy at me. The whole infrasound thing has only come into being in the last couple of years and is simply the latest "quirk" in the Bigfoot mythology. There is no proof of it in any other land based mammal however someone said they experienced it and suddenly it's the latest thing that the Biggy's do.

 

Fact is I have read a number of accounts from people claiming to have experienced this and I find there are other equally viable explanations for what they experienced, from fear to a drop in their sugar level due to over exertion. Not everyone experiences a foul smell with them, I have smelled what might have been one and the only reason I say it might have been one is because I was in an area where they were active at the time, only I wasn't aware of it and I hadn't yet heard the stories of my two friends. That doesn't make it a positive Bigfoot encounter.

[BobbyO]

True, I haven't experienced a Bigfoot casting infrasound or mental telepathy at me. The whole infrasound thing has only come into being in the last couple of years and is simply the latest "quirk" in the Bigfoot mythology. There is no proof of it in any other land based mammal however someone said they experienced it and suddenly it's the latest thing that the Biggy's do.

 

No it's not.

I've classified reports that point towards it recently that go back to at least the 70's, possibly ( but I'm not completely sure ) even earlier.

70's definitely.

[Guest keninsc]

For me it's really simple.

For all of those who say no don't shoot one with a gun, get yourself out in the forest and shoot it with a camera.

If you shoot it with a camera well enough, there just might not be any need to shoot it with a gun.

Whilst no one has yet shot it with a camera on a par or better than the PGF in the last 40 or so years, there will always be the voices that say shoot it with a gun.

That's is of course if you want or believe that this animal should be or needs to be accepted by science, if you don't then you'll probably continue to not contribute to the subject whatsoever.

I can understand all sides of the argument personally.

But bottom line is, whilst there is this incredible lack of pictures, a body will definitely suffice where science is concerned.

 

Other than the PGF, all I've ever seen are "blobsquatches" which could have been anything from a guy in a monkey suit to a bad photo of a bear. Also, we live in a time when you can make anything you like digitally with software you can down load for free.

No it's not.

I've classified reports that point towards it recently that go back to at least the 70's, possibly ( but I'm not completely sure ) even earlier.

70's definitely.

 

If they're classified then that's going to make it a little hard for us "normals" to see them and make our own determinations about them. I'd never heard anything about this infrasound thing until just after the military came forward with the microwave crowd dispersion device they came out with and showed how dolphins and whales had the ability to use sound to catch fish. Then suddenly, here come the reports of Bigfoot having this ability.

 

I keep hearing about the government has all sorts of stuff on Bigfoots and even give their security people a course on them so they don't freak out and shoot them.......and yeah, that's all supposed to be classified as well, but so is Area 51. And it's the most open classified secret in the world. And naturally, we can't verify any of it because it's all classified......and here we are talking about it.

 

Now, if you really had read this material, and it really is classified then you are in violation of the Government Secrecys Act of 1997 and that means we could all be getting a knock on our door because you been talking about stuff you shouldn't be talking about on the web.

 

Just saying.

Edited March 14, 2014 by keninsc

[Incorrigible1]

For me it's really simple.

For all of those who say no don't shoot one with a gun, get yourself out in the forest and shoot it with a camera.

If you shoot it with a camera well enough, there just might not be any need to shoot it with a gun.

Whilst no one has yet shot it with a camera on a par or better than the PGF in the last 40 or so years, there will always be the voices that say shoot it with a gun.

That's is of course if you want or believe that this animal should be or needs to be accepted by science, if you don't then you'll probably continue to not contribute to the subject whatsoever.

I can understand all sides of the argument personally.

But bottom line is, whilst there is this incredible lack of pictures, a body will definitely suffice where science is concerned.

Bravo.

[Guest keninsc]

Bravo.

 

I agree. A body can't just be blown off.

[Guest JiggyPotamus]

There are just so many variables in such a situation. Even if one could bring themselves to shoot the animal, difficult tasks still lie ahead. It would take a specific kind of personality to A.) shoot the animal, B.) Not regret shooting the animal, and then want to advertise to the world that they shot the animal, C.) take the correct actions to document the animal, including getting the body out of the woods, relatively intact, and D.) getting the animal to someone who is qualified to analyze it, all the while keeping the specimen safe. There are probably even more general variables than that, but my point is that not everyone could accomplish all of the tasks necessary to have this species documented. It is not as easy as point and shoot, then the species is recognized.

 

Personally I am pro-kill, but only under somewhat controlled conditions. I definitely do not want just anyone out there, or everyone out there, shooting at sasquatch willy-nilly. First I would want a very good marskman with the proper tool for the job, which would ensure a clean kill, meaning I wouldn't want to see an animal wounded, only to suffer and hole up somewhere, whether it lived or not. And the person must have a plan of action in place. One does not know where they would happen upon a bigfoot with the opportunity to shoot it, therefore the logistics of getting the body out of the woods is something that I think many overlook.

 

If the country is rugged, and the shooter is deep in the wilderness on foot, there are virtually no options for getting the body out. The person would most likely have to leave the body unattended, which could mean the life of the animal was taken for no greater benefit, since it could disappear through the actions of other sasquatch, or more likely, predators. One couldn't get an average sasquatch out of such country on something like a small ATV either. Others have stated that the person could take tissue samples, video, and pictures, but will that be enough to identify the species? Without the body, I say no.

 

Because there will always be those who claim the visual evidence is faked, and that we don't know what the DNA belongs to, even if it was not matched to anything in the database of known animals. And there are variables involved in DNA testing as well from what I understand. So even with a tissue sample and visual evidence, and even if a credible scientist published their findings from analyzing such evidence, science as a whole would not accept the species as the notorious bigfoot of legend. It will take a body to convince science, plain and simple.

 

So I wonder, out of the people who would be willing to pull the trigger, how many of them will ever be presented with such an opportunity, where they have an adequate weapon, will have an easier time of getting the specimen out of the woods, etc.? This number will be smaller than the number of people who would find themselves in a position to shoot a sasquatch, not worrying about the logistics and other problems. And we couldn't assume that all hunters would shoot a sasquatch, and since there are so many, someone would have shot one by now. I am convinced someone, somewhere, has shot a sasquatch and killed it. I can understand someone not wanting to tell anyone either, especially if the intent to shoot was almost spontaneous...see a monster, kill it, only to approach it and realize how human it looks, coupled with the fear that must be present, and realize that things are not so cut and dry. Your reality just changed, you could get in trouble, etc...

 

I guess one of the points I am trying to make is that I wouldn't expect there to be that many instances where someone would shoot a sasquatch and document the species. The fact that it hasn't happened yet is proof enough, if you know sasquatch is real. Otherwise, that argument holds no water.

 

So would I shoot? Nope. Because I could not be positive that I could kill the animal, and I could not be positive that I could follow through properly, considering all of the things that could go wrong. Then there is the fact that extremely close encounters are much rarer than encounters at a distance. The further away the sighting, the more skilled the marksman must be, since the tendency to miss a shot increases proportionally with the distance of the shot. And then there is the fact that eyewitness reports suggest that a sasquatch who is extremely close to the witness is likely to flee quite rapidly, limiting the exposure time of the potential target.

 

And then there is the idea that many encounters probably occur within the woods, with trees and brush around. You could draw a bead on the animal, only to have it take a single step and disappear, due to the ample cover available. Like I said, there are a plethora of variables here. I understand you were more or less asking whether we would pull the trigger, but I think that the ideas I've illustrated must be taken into account in a serious discussion on the issue.

 

I find myself wondering if my pro-kill status has anything to do with what I believe sasquatch to be...or not to be. Some believe them to be human, or near-human, while I don't share this belief. I think they could be quite closely related to humans, but that doesn't make them human. Now I do not adamantly believe that a human life is worth more than any other type of life, although I think most people actually believe this to some extent, whether they realize it or not. But there is a huge difference between an animal that looks nothing like a human, and an animal that looks very much like a human yet is not one. But I wouldn't think that most people would value the life of a gorilla the same as that of a human. But even though a gorilla looks similar and behaves somewhat similar to a human in certain respects, this is much truer of a sasquatch in my opinion. I am just thinking out loud here by the way, not really making too much of a point, lol.

 

I think my belief in this debate stems mainly from wanting to advance our knowledge of these animals, although I also believe that discovery will benefit sasquatch in the long run. I think that eventually they will lose more and more habitat to human expansion, and since I believe they need an extremely large area to support an average sized population, I think they need to be protected. So I think that the sacrifice of a single animal would be worth it in the long run, for them and us. But there is not any guarantee that it would be a "single" sacrifice, if everyone is trying to shoot one. So it needs to planned out to a great degree, and then pursued with tenacity, in my opinion.

[Guest keninsc]

Wow, that's a reply!

 

I sort of thought that what I'd always have with me are heavy duty trash bags and an extra ruck sack that I could remove the head, hands and feet from the body and pack out if need be. I'd also have a couple of bicycle chains, like the Kryptonite brand and secure the rest of the body to a tree in a manner that would keep it from being taken away for a couple days. Then return with whatever I needed to get the rest of the body out.

 

As far as learning to cope with what you've done, well we do that all our lives really, so while the ends can't always justify the means one can take comfort in knowing that you have brought a cryptid from the mystical into reality. That's still no easy task, but it's at least some comfort.

[See-Te-Cah NC]

Infrasound has not been proven, only described by those that claim to have experienced it. I myself have experienced a strange fluttering noise in my ears when I believed I was in the presence of the creature, but never a colon-clearing event. As for infrasound interacting with a .308 or larger load? I don't believe that would be an issue. Infrasound is a speculation, while a load is a known commodity. Having shot quite a few dear with a .308 and a 30-06, I can tell you that it is a very destructive load. A center mass shot in the sternum of a Sasquatch would do monumental damage. I believe a shot of 100 yards or less would be lethal.

 

Personally, I'd not shoot the creature unless it were a matter of self defense. However, a shot with the appropriate round would render the creature dead, and thus a presentation for scientific study. I hope that one could be found dead of natural causes, or, at worst, peel one off of the grill of a logging truck.

[Guest keninsc]

Infrasound has not been proven, only described by those that claim to have experienced it. I myself have experienced a strange fluttering noise in my ears when I believed I was in the presence of the creature, but never a colon-clearing event. As for infrasound interacting with a .308 or larger load? I don't believe that would be an issue. Infrasound is a speculation, while a load is a known commodity. Having shot quite a few dear with a .308 and a 30-06, I can tell you that it is a very destructive load. A center mass shot in the sternum of a Sasquatch would do monumental damage. I believe a shot of 100 yards or less would be lethal.

 

Personally, I'd not shoot the creature unless it were a matter of self defense. However, a shot with the appropriate round would render the creature dead, and thus a presentation for scientific study. I hope that one could be found dead of natural causes, or, at worst, peel one off of the grill of a logging truck.

 

On that we agree!

[Sasfooty]

 As for infrasound interacting with a .308 or larger load? I don't believe that would be an issue.

 

I don't believe it would be either. If infrasound was used first, there would probably be no bullet to have an issue with.