It Will Not Make Any Difference

[Guest DWA]

The major problem with all the Monday morning quarterbacking and hyper-empiricism ^^^your phrase brah I believe^^^ that I see out there is the result of lack of contact with earth, a daily dawn to dusk skate on concrete and asphalt, every night in a real bed.  Would never knock them, but the nature impairment is a judgment killer.

 

Thoreau called it The solid earth! the actual world! the common sense!

 

One finds it impossible to overemphasize how firmly girded with the latter those are who see the ground the way it looked before we got through with it.  You can rant and self-frustrate and rattle the bars all you want in response.

 

All we hear is the breeze blowing.

[JDL]

Thyould I or thyouldn't I?

 

OK, I dood it.

 

I understand the OP's perspective, but have a different take.  If you're going to shoot one, you need to have a plan for what you're going to do afterward.  You should also have  a reason for shooting one in the first place.

 

Pre-planning involves actively hunting one.  What's your reason and what are you going to do when you succeed?  The plan should include how you will control the situation between pulling the trigger and pulling away from the scene.

 

Contingency planning involves intentional shooting given the opportunity.  Again, what's your reason?  You're in a riskier situation between the shot and packing out.

 

Then there's the Smeja approach.  Don't plan and consistently make as many bad decisions in sequence as possible.

 

It may not require a body to prove they exist, but a body is most likely to achieve this objective.  A body is required if you just want a trophy, or choose still photography as your method of proof.  A body, by definition, may also include a sedated subject, but then you have to be an even better planner.

 

Personally I think that bigfoot as a species kill more people than people kill bigfoot.  And I believe that discovery, and a body, serve the larger public good.  This position stems from my belief that the government knows of them, and even with a prominent environmental agenda, chooses not to disclose them.  This implies a heavy downside to disclosure from the government's perspective, which leads me back to the beginning of this paragraph. 

 

The probable government downside to disclosure is the public recognition of a threat the government can't control.  A threat from a bonafide Boogey man.  The ultimate lurker.  So if you can't control the Boogey Man, control any chance of viable proof leading to "discovery", which includes any body the government comes across.

 

Which takes us to the furball control division of the "Men in Black".  Assuming that the government will attempt to confiscate a body, this has to be part of your plan if you shoot one.  Rapid media exposure and public disclosure seem to me the best countermeasures to this, and necessary to planning.

 

Most importantly, you should have an attorney on hand from the moment you pull the trigger.

[Wheellug]

If this were the case, it would be an excellent study for both military and agencies in the use of stealth and the sneaky skillset. 

[JDL]

I have pretty good low light vision.  Smokers generally do not.  While stationed at Ft. Lewis, and being one of the few non-smokers on battalion staff, I would sometimes amuse myself by messing with the smokers on dark nights.

 

Our special ops folks are generally well trained in stealth, but bigfoot are better at it and live by stealth.  That said, there's nothing bigfoot do, that our special ops do not also do from a stealth perspective except that bigfoot can physically access more different types of terrain and are better at taking advantage of vertical displacement, so they tend to sometimes position themselves where we would not think to look.

 

I believe that the best way to bring in a bigfoot is by using special ops trained personnel and technology.  It is becoming feasible to instrument an area in a manner that may bear fruit.

[ShadowBorn]

If this were the case, it would be an excellent study for both military and agencies in the use of stealth and the sneaky skillset.

This is my stuck point and my mind set of even coming close to shooting one of these creature's. Our Gov has so much control of our media that if one word was ever leaked out of one of these creatures was captured or shot. We would not see the light of day of these creatures or creature that has been shot. Besides some thing tells me that our Gov already has there way of tracking them. They might even know there true numbers and where they even live. With all of the sophistication that we have now in our new world they should be able to hear a pin drop any where in the world. They say that we are ten to twenty years ahead in our own sophistication so imagine that and combine that with these creatures. That will only lead to more ???...

[dmaker]

As to myth building, I'd just say if one were to discount something as myth, one might want to acquaint oneself with what happens in those locations, and what doesn't, and that requires a degree of personal risk. Absent that investment, the credibility of that person, despite numerous affirmations to the contrary, is essentially of small interest on this topic.

 

I take my evidence, or not, from those like DWA who have logged thousands of hours on the ground in N.A. woods, and others like him who have done the same.  You might as well try to explain a bicycle to a fish than try to be coherent with somebody who lacks that essential experience. There is a barrier to understanding that you will hit each and every time.   

 

What I have experience personally in my time outdoors in my life is not explainable to somebody who hasn't shared that experience. The more people we breed on this planet who lack that experience, the harder it becomes for any similar experiences to be shared on any meaningful level about a wood dwelling, ultra secretive primate. Here, just the most recent example is all.

Yes, yes. The spooky unknown and unknowable. We get it. Your point is that I cannot possibly fathom what you believe the woods can harbor without spending time in them? I cannot know what happens in those locations, etc. First of all, that is nonsense. I don't need to personally do a deep dive to view the evidence that has been produced of the creatures that dwell in our oceans depths, for example.  What does not seem to be happening in these mysterious locations you are so fond of mentioning is proof of bigfoot. You have not seen one, DWA has never seen one, despite your time bravely spent in the spooky, remote woods. So I am not really interested in your Grimms Brothers take on the scary forest. Evidence would be interesting. Testable, verifiable evidence would be far more interesting than your fairy tale notion of things that go bump in the night in the woods. 

 

Secondly, please stop claiming that I spend no time outdoors. I have explained numerous times that I probably spend more time outdoors than you do. I hike on a regular (weekly)  basis on the Bruce Trail. I returned last week from a week in the Upper Bruce Peninsula, and I fly to Campbell River, B.C for a week of camping ( no electricity, no phone) in a few days. I am no stranger to the outdoors. Sleeping on the ground gives you no extra credibility in my opinion. Whether you wake up with dew on your nose or not, you still did not encounter a bigfoot. 

Edited August 21, 2014 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

^^^But see, that's what we mean.  It's not just doing it.  It's being able to think about it.  I don't think you clearly understand how, in big red bold type, you telegraph that you just aren't.

[WSA]

(Fish. Meet bicycle)

 

The evidence I have from personal experience dmaker, I don't believe you would be able to comprehend, and that is where this fetches up time and again. If you think just being/sleeping somewhere remote is my whole point, you miss it completely. What I'm suggesting is go and deliberately immerse yourself in a world you only think you know, as I thought once as well.  Leave the safety net of your preconceived ideas at home.

 

You and I have never had that conversation (like so many conversations you won't get to have here) because there is absolutely no point in it. We speak languages not alike, and that won't change. Well, it could, but you see no value in undertaking that, as you have every right to avoid that if you choose. If you have some hope though of convincing me of anything, you should understand in what regard I hold your experience. I think you are a nice guy, as far as I can tell, but I've yet to hear anything from you that I couldn't read from a book. That kind of knowledge is not hard to come by, and is valuable, but I don't come here for that kind of knowledge. You may not care about how I feel, and that is fine too. Others may find value in what you post, and of course I'm only just one guy, so I'm not saying what value it would have for others.  

[WSA]

I have pretty good low light vision.  Smokers generally do not.  While stationed at Ft. Lewis, and being one of the few non-smokers on battalion staff, I would sometimes amuse myself by messing with the smokers on dark nights.

 

Our special ops folks are generally well trained in stealth, but bigfoot are better at it and live by stealth.  That said, there's nothing bigfoot do, that our special ops do not also do from a stealth perspective except that bigfoot can physically access more different types of terrain and are better at taking advantage of vertical displacement, so they tend to sometimes position themselves where we would not think to look.

 

I believe that the best way to bring in a bigfoot is by using special ops trained personnel and technology.  It is becoming feasible to instrument an area in a manner that may bear fruit.

JDL....exaclty the kind of knowledge I come here for. Thanks. I may not ever be in a situation where this knowledge is useful, or I may not choose to believe it at all, or maybe just some of it. But....if somebody tells me something like that, and it costs me nothing to retain it and have it available to  consider at an appropriate time, I have just gained knowledge that might help me make sense of a future experience, or help explain something I've already seen.  I've risked nothing by doing this, and gained a possible asset. Why would I not do that? 

[Guest DWA]

^^^^Because this is a myth and you simply need to shut it out of your consciousness.  No matter how many posts that takes.  Naaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhh....

[dmaker]

(Fish. Meet bicycle)

 

The evidence I have from personal experience dmaker, I don't believe you would be able to comprehend, and that is where this fetches up time and again. If you think just being/sleeping somewhere remote is my whole point, you miss it completely. What I'm suggesting is go and deliberately immerse yourself in a world you only think you know, as I thought once as well.  Leave the safety net of your preconceived ideas at home.

 

You and I have never had that conversation (like so many conversations you won't get to have here) because there is absolutely no point in it. We speak languages not alike, and that won't change. Well, it could, but you see no value in undertaking that, as you have every right to avoid that if you choose. If you have some hope though of convincing me of anything, you should understand in what regard I hold your experience. I think you are a nice guy, as far as I can tell, but I've yet to hear anything from you that I couldn't read from a book. That kind of knowledge is not hard to come by, and is valuable, but I don't come here for that kind of knowledge. You may not care about how I feel, and that is fine too. Others may find value in what you post, and of course I'm only just one guy, so I'm not saying what value it would have for others.  

Your personal experiences are not evidence and your sense of Bigfoot zen is irrelevant.  Though it does nicely illustrate that bigfoot lives in most peoples imaginations. When someone starts to say that you need a certain mind-set to appreciate bigfoot, then they are only demonstrating one reason why science does not take this seriously. 

Edited August 21, 2014 by dmaker

[Guest DWA]

^^^^And it even keeps me from opening this.  A limiter, I tell you, a limiter.

 

Which is what we get back to concerning the OP.  (This is just a genius of mine.  Let us bask for a moment.

 

(Moment over.)

 

It will make no difference who does what concerning this animal as long as the willful refusal of way too many people to understand how science is practiced - or, more importantly, not practiced by those who should be doing it -  in areas like this doesn't get adjusted more or less pronto.  The people who are "best" at this intentional oblivion are the ones who least understand that a body, in custody, is only the beginning of hope.

 

And they are why.

Edited August 21, 2014 by DWA

[WSA]

(Now, these things are the brake levers...wait. You don't have thumbs. Hmmmmm.....)     

 

The part about "why wouldn't I want to do that?" sort of gets lost in this whole bidness. Beats all I've ever seen.

Edited August 21, 2014 by WSA

[Guest DWA]

No one's immune.  When I first heard "you know these things might not be apes" I thought:  oh great.  A Sasquatch Could Be My Brother-in-Law.  Then I read Raincoast Sasquatch.  I once thought that for no one to be seeing these things, they must be so nomadic that one you saw in NJ this year you might see in the Yukon three years from now.  Then I realized that loads and loads of people are seeing these things, and our not thinking (takes a few minutes, gang) about this is the real problem.  I could go on.   

 

Most of the blocks I've had here have been removed by (1) reading other perspectives and (2) thinking.  But I'm not seeing either being done in some quarters, one of which actually (apparently) purchased Bindernagel's second book....the contents of which, if ever accessed, must have vanished down said worthy's gullet, because no valid explanation of the impact of those contents on that quarter's brainwave pattern (I said valid) has e'er been offered me.  No valid (I SAID VALID) demurrer to the sasquatch evidence has ever close to begun to be dreamed about being offered.  By anyone.  The closest I have ever heard to such assertion is "just because you don't accept it...".  Not exactly, son.  The evidence, being none, behind the demurrer is what doesn't accept it.  Science doesn't accept it.

 

The evidence is the treasure chest.  But you need the key.  And it is utterly up to you to build it.

Edited August 21, 2014 by DWA

[SWWASAS]

JDL I think you are spot on with your assessment of government involvement and knowledge and that special ops trained people are the best trained to ingress into BF territory and shoot one.     The problems only start with that.  As I keep saying that all needs to be thought out.    If the government is involved keeping the body is going to be the problem. 

 

Personally I do not want to be involved with that process.    The government has too much financial power over me through a retirement check.    I am not about to give that up for a chance to catch the golden ring and get credit for delivering BF.    Those that know one way or the other in government agencies have the same sword being held over their heads.    Perhaps they even have been sworn to secrecy.    If the military is involved you can be sure that is the case.    In response to my statement, skeptics will claim every one talks.    You should see the threats on the forms you have to sign for higher level clearances.    There is no jury trial, you meet a board of officers who are tasked to punish you by example, to keep everyone else that knows government secrets quiet.   Nothing, especially something that the general public think is a myth, is worth risking the rest of your life in prison.