Secrecy And The Myth Of Protection.

[Cotter]

 

John Green contends they are nothing more than expendable laboratory experiment animals and can be slaughtered with abandon.

 

 

How is that any different than how modern HS has been treated by itself?

 

If they are human, they are capable of the same type of treatment if given the opportunity.

 

If they are animals...well....same thing really.

 

I often wonder how some folks worry so much about BF, yet so little about each other when what they are concerned with is happening right before their eyes to friends, family, neighbors, and well...fellow humans.

[Guest]

Assuming they are "discovered" and classified as a new homo ___, species, how will the authorities deal with them? Round them up and place on reservations? How will the ensuing public panic be handled when it is learned these guys have been around for eons?

 

John Green contends they are nothing more than expendable laboratory experiment animals and can be slaughtered with abandon.

 

Added to the mix are organizations such as NAWAC contending "they" are on the verge of extinction, yet they proffer absolutely no evidence whatsoever of actual population numbers, estimated or otherwise. This also creates the problem for their other contention of habitat destruction (main focus appears to be anti-logging) when timberland use changes (over the past ~50 years) have been documented to be beneficial to known species, most of which are alleged to be food sources of the UHS/SAS/WA's.  IMO, such Quixano-esque behaviors only serve to be problematic within themselves, namely creating incidents where public safety is jeopardized.

 

IMO, the sum of all this equates to the conclusion that basically all of organized Bigfootery is a FUBAR of epic proportions with the fantasy brigade on one side of the aisle and the Seal team Six wannabe's on the other with little apparent latitude for common sense as just about any issue/argument I have ever been associated with, the answer(s) usually lie somwehere near the middle.

Oh there are plenty of us sensible types in this too but the attention often goes to the weirdos and loudmouths etc. as with all of societal life. alas

[Yuchi1]

How is that any different than how modern HS has been treated by itself?

 

If, they were granted citizenship, equal protection under the law would apply.

 

If they are human, they are capable of the same type of treatment if given the opportunity.

 

If they are animals...well....same thing really.

 

Beg to differ as once a homo sapien (US laws) reaches the viable fetus outside the womb status, they cannot be killed w/o due process.

 

I often wonder how some folks worry so much about BF, yet so little about each other when what they are concerned with is happening right before their eyes to friends, family, neighbors, and well...fellow humans.

 

Perhaps, with being wrapped up in "Finding Bigfoot", et. al. somehow alleviates having to concern oneself with the reality of what you mentioned above?

[Guest LarryP]

That's entirely up to you Larry. But providing some evidence of your claims would be needed first. And more importantly? Would help you back up your claims here And elsewhere.

 

 

I keep asking you this and you never answer. Specifically what evidence would you have me provide to you?

 

But I'm sure you already now that I'll never give you or anyone else the location except for very close friends and family. They already know.

 

And I'am not even remotely worried about hillbillies......

 

 

You should be. They'd make short work out of you or any other outsider if that's what they wanted to do.

 

And tromping around with a gun on what they consider to be their land or property is a sure way to become a chapter in the next Missing:411 book.

[sheri]

Yuchi, i don't know if one has ever killed a human. Common sense tells me it's quite possible though. The Indian tribes describe them killing humans and there are some stories from the past. It's not proof  but something to consider. I don't think it should be ruled out or treated as though it never happened. To me it's not a mythical creature. What I saw was real. Extremely fast and quite capable of ending ending my life if it wanted to. Yet it didn't. Because it didn't harm me, i still hike trails. which i love to do. Just not by myself. I don't think they need protection. I used to think we needed to prove they are real, until i realized I only felt that way because people didn't believe me. Now i don't care anymore about that. I do however understand other's wanting to prove they are real, but I don't think we need to provide more habitat. We have increased forested areas continually for decades and still are.

[Guest Crowlogic]

I keep asking you this and you never answer. Specifically what evidence would you have me provide to you?

 

But I'm sure you already now that I'll never give you or anyone else the location except for very close friends and family. They already know.

 

 

You should be. They'd make short work out of you or any other outsider if that's what they wanted to do.

 

And tromping around with a gun on what they consider to be their land or property is a sure way to become a chapter in the next Missing:411 book.

Unless they wear bullet proof vests a big bore heavy grain bullet will do the job.  If they weigh 1200 pounds they are dead meat.

I keep asking you this and you never answer. Specifically what evidence would you have me provide to you?

 

 

Larry send Norse a hand or a finger.  How about a finger nail or a solid well collected and documented hair ball.  Maybe a bone?  If you know them you know they die.  They do all the stuff other living beings do.  They leave traces behind and hard evidence.

[bipedalist]

Let's see what Michael Greene of Squeaky fame has to say about Sasquatch for Sale! See Bigfoot Marketplace thread for more.

Edited July 30, 2014 by bipedalist

[norseman]

 

Anecdotal stories, weak evidence and no proof that any were kidnapped or killed by the mythical entity you seek.

 

Police reports are not anecdotal stories, nor are they weak evidence. And I seek proof.

 

You? You howl obscenities from the sidelines.

 

 

You should be. They'd make short work out of you or any other outsider if that's what they wanted to do.

 

And tromping around with a gun on what they consider to be their land or property is a sure way to become a chapter in the next Missing:411 book.

 

I'm not worried about Hillbillies Larry..........

 

 

I keep asking you this and you never answer. Specifically what evidence would you have me provide to you?

 

But I'm sure you already now that I'll never give you or anyone else the location except for very close friends and family. They already know.

 

And that's why this conversation is a waste of time.

[Yuchi1]

Police reports are not evidence, in and of themselves, it is the information contained therein and said (411) information consisted primarily of eyewitness accounts which (if, you had any LE training would know) is one of the weakest forms of evidence.

 

BTW, you are no Teddy Roosevelt.

[norseman]

Police reports are not evidence, in and of themselves, it is the information contained therein and said (411) information consisted primarily of eyewitness accounts which (if, you had any LE training would know) is one of the weakest forms of evidence.

 

BTW, you are no Teddy Roosevelt.

 

Nope, but I do go Grendel hunting, and get stung and bitten, and fall down and get bucked off..........and you make jokes about it.

 

Eye witness testimony is weak in science............but not the law. People are convicted of crimes all the time based on eye witness testimony.

[dmaker]

Not everyone who takes the stand, tells the truth. I'm not saying that is what you're saying. I'm not looking to create a strawman, I am simply pointing out why testimony is not testable by the scientific method. 

[southernyahoo]

I think bigfoot has built in protection within our own minds. Hear me out........Most people don't believe they even exist, so the witnesses don't get taken seriously even when there may be physical evidence.  When there is evidence, it either tests out human or some other known animal and if they are human, they are protected already, ........if not through the law, then with secrecy or both.

 

I don't believe they could exist today without recognition if the above wasn't the truth.

 

Habitat? Well, who say's it's not protected and managed for a plethera of other reasons already?

 

I'm not anit-proof, I just think it should be done in a non-destructive manner because I think they are closer to us than what most scientists would wish to debate over when it comes to classification and ultimately determining their rights as beings. persons and or a separate species.

[dmaker]

I'm all for non-lethal evidence collection. To date, however, all evidence of this type ( DNA specifically) has failed to yield anything but known animals or fabrications.

[norseman]

Not everyone who takes the stand, tells the truth. I'm not saying that is what you're saying. I'm not looking to create a strawman, I am simply pointing out why testimony is not testable by the scientific method. 

 

 

In terms of anecodotal accounts and other evidence? Here it is boiled down to brass tacks:

 

1) Uncle Bob said he saw a Chupacabra in his barn, and told all of his friends at the bar. - Weakest.

 

2) Uncle Bob testified in a court of law that a Chupacabra burned down his house. - Weak.

 

3) Sheriff Wascoe testified in a court of law today that he believes a Chupacabra burned down Uncle Bob's house, based on evidence at scene. - Good.

 

4) Biologist Smith writes a paper on the species Chupacabra Rex based on a three year study that includes a skin sample. - Awesome

 

5) Dead Chupacabra placed at Academia's door step. - Done, over, stick a fork in it.

 

There are in my opinion different levels of gravitas concerning anecdotal accounts. And this happens in a court of law as well. The defense or prosecutor will attack the credibility of a witness based on a wide range of traits. But unlike Science? A court of law doesn't need bodily evidence to convict. You can be convicted for a crime based on eye witness testimony.

[Guest Crowlogic]

Norse that's about right.  But when we're dealing with something that has so much romanticism attached to it then romantic ideals will be put on the table in order to keep the game going.