Has Bigfoot Science Stalled?

[Yuchi1]

 

 

Yuchi, thats a chance I'm willing to take. Because I'm convinced its not a member of the genus Homo. I would welcome any evidence to the contrary such as evidence of butchering game with stone tools or cooking their meat on a fire?

Regardless we will be cutting new ground and after its discovery I would be at the forefront of pushing legislation through to get the species protected. But I think its imperative to prove the species real at any cost first.

 

Problem (for you) is the absence of evidence they are not of the genus Homo.  Of well, I'm sure your family will be there at the greybar hotel on every visitation Sunday.

Can you show me where legal rights where given to a creature outside of our own species in US law? Homo Sapien Sapien?

And can you please answer my question in the kill club thread? I hate mucking up every BFF thread with our own vendetta for each other. Thank you.

 

 

Legal rights?  The bald eagle, California condor, common cormorant, spotted owl, et. al. were all given legal rights (protections) under federal law and our wildlife (game) laws have been in existence for decades, so extending legal protections to other entities has a well established body of jurisprudence.

 

What the BF situation entails is the very real possibility a homo _____, entity exists and killing one, with the knowledge and forethought that this may very well be the case leads to the (IMO) distinct possibility of criminal and/or civil prosecution/liability.

 

If...the shooter was of that vein, IMO, he/she would likely be in an untenable situation to defend the actions as compared to a normal, mainstream hunter that shot one in the perception of self-defense or a motorist that plows one with a vehicle.  IMO, those engaged in published intent to levy lethal force upon one of these entities most definitely places themselves in the first circumstance.

 

BTW, is it a vendetta or is it someone uncomfortable with the facts?

[georgerm]

 

 

 

Yuchi, thats a chance I'm willing to take. Because I'm convinced its not a member of the genus Homo. I would welcome any evidence to the contrary such as evidence of butchering game with stone tools or cooking their meat on a fire?

Regardless we will be cutting new ground and after its discovery I would be at the forefront of pushing legislation through to get the species protected. But I think its imperative to prove the species real at any cost first.

 

Problem (for you) is the absence of evidence they are not of the genus Homo.  Of well, I'm sure your family will be there at the greybar hotel on every visitation Sunday.

Can you show me where legal rights where given to a creature outside of our own species in US law? Homo Sapien Sapien?

And can you please answer my question in the kill club thread? I hate mucking up every BFF thread with our own vendetta for each other. Thank you.

 

 

Legal rights?  The bald eagle, California condor, common cormorant, spotted owl, et. al. were all given legal rights (protections) under federal law and our wildlife (game) laws have been in existence for decades, so extending legal protections to other entities has a well established body of jurisprudence.

 

What the BF situation entails is the very real possibility a homo _____, entity exists and killing one, with the knowledge and forethought that this may very well be the case leads to the (IMO) distinct possibility of criminal and/or civil prosecution/liability.

 

If...the shooter was of that vein, IMO, he/she would likely be in an untenable situation to defend the actions as compared to a normal, mainstream hunter that shot one in the perception of self-defense or a motorist that plows one with a vehicle.  IMO, those engaged in published intent to levy lethal force upon one of these entities most definitely places themselves in the first circumstance.

 

BTW, is it a vendetta or is it someone uncomfortable with the facts?

 

 

 

Very good points. Be aware of possible consequences when shooting bigfoot is the message.

 

Norse may want to take this risk in order to prove bigfoot once and for all. Then bigfoot protection laws can be enacted. It's a risk to move forward.

 

Let's find a dead one in the woods or laying along a road. Norse is off the hook then.

 

 

 Problem (for you) is the absence of evidence they are not of the genus Homo.  Of well, I'm sure your family will be there at the greybar hotel on every visitation Sunday.                 ha.....ha...... foul            Does this help the discussion?  

Edited February 5, 2016 by georgerm

[SWWASAS]

I am all for keeping Norse out of jail but my worst fear for a BF hunter is what BF might do to them should they succeed on shooting one. Dead is worse than jail. BF tend to be in small groups and could very well retaliate. We don't even know their social order so we do not know if shooting a female is worse than shooting a male. Males may hold their family groups together like male lions do. When the male lion is killed that controls a pride, other males take over dominance and even the cubs of the dead male are killed. It gets very ugly. For all we know something similar happens when male BF controlling a clan are killed or die. Skeleton or found body seems to avoid this sort of problem.

[ShadowBorn]

This should be our first priority, to look for a dead on or for it's bones. What I have been saying is that ( IMO ) Hunters in the past back in the 1700 - 1900's who have shot these creatures have not come forward with the body of so called creature, Why?. They shot this creature but yet they preferred to leave it where it was shot. So that alone must say some thing about this creature, as well as says some thing about science. As we all have seen with our own eyes that bones do not degrade like flesh does. But yet when it comes to these creatures we have not been able to find a single bone.  As far as science knows , we know that we buried our dead with what they carried in the field. 

 

But where do these creatures bury theirs, is it possible that they eat their own and smash their bones to dust. This way that it may not be found( now I know that this is hypothetical ).!1.) Either they do not exist, which I know this not to be true. 2.)They do exist and they have learned that some how they must hide their total DNA from us so that we do not learn about them. 3.)They exist and anyone who begins to study them is threaten with fines , maybe having their reputation tainted so that they may not find work. Anything to stall the research of this creature. Like the creation of hoaxers to throw off the creditability of others who have actually seen this creature. The evidence is all there but no one wants to push forward with it, or even take it to the next level where science can start to open doors. Like I have said it is that next level that no one speaks off that no one want to go down and this is where it is stuck at. Science! You either move forward or stay where you are at with the evidence that you have which is really nothing.. Pushing forward is the key.  

[hiflier]

Hello SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT,

Even in my hunting book I stress finding a dead one or a skeleton first and foremost. It gets mentioned several times and in a chapter which includes what to watch for during each of the four seasons each season has statements covering that very thing. In each case there is underlined that as soon as a body or skeletal remains is discovered the hunt is to be called off IMMEDIATELY. As far as whether or not shooting a female would be worse we need to think deeper into the future. What you say is true of lions and male bears too will kill cubs. IDK if that may be normal behavior for some apex animals on this planet which would include Humans as well. Because throughout history it has been Human males that have been killed off after losing battle .

IMO it stands to reason that killing a female or a juvenile places the future of a group at risk. If there was a choice that could be made, regardless of what is unknown about any social dynamics or ramifications, I would say to only take or target a male.

Edited February 5, 2016 by hiflier

[georgerm]

There is a BFRO report of an Oregon hiking guide shooting BF in front of three female hikers. The BF ripped the guide apart. The Forest Service told the female hikers it was a bear even though they probably described a bigfoot.  Moral of the story: When hunting bigfoot, wear a long sleeved jacket, and carry an elephant gun!

 

Science involves bigfoot theories, and observations yet key knowledge of its physical remains missing. According to old news clipping bigfoots have been shot dead, then brought to town on wagons or by other means. Most of the reports indicate eventually the body is buried outside of town and forgotten. So what?  Look in old grave yards for bigfoot headstones. Maybe someone has a bigfoot grave on their land. ...............  just long shots. A complete set of bones would push the science forward.

 

In the meantime, be careful out there all, including Norse. A ticked off BF would rip up three super bowl players in three minutes. The crime scene would be gruesome. If BF is homo, would it be tried for murder. When looking for BF I think of this phrase: "Fools rush in where Angels dare to Tread." Finding a ticked off BF is not my idea of fun.

Edited February 5, 2016 by georgerm

[dmaker]

This thread has bigfoot science in the title, yet people talk of old newspaper clippings and anecdotes still. 

[SWWASAS]

As far as I am concerned newspaper clippings are historical documents. Something does not have to be in a bound book to be historical. If anything the process of writing a book means a lot of word smith and introduces fabrication. Newspaper reports 100 years ago were pretty much documentation of what was observed at the time. Only in modern times do reporters introduce some sort of change the world political agenda and are frequently caught fabricating details.

[Incorrigible1]

This thread has bigfoot science in the title, yet people talk of old newspaper clippings and anecdotes still. 

And the typical assertions of "superman of the forest" stuff, superior vision, hearing, sense of smell, ripping any poor human killer of bigfoot asunder, etc. Can I get a "4-footed locomotion" claim?

As far as I am concerned newspaper clippings are historical documents. Something does not have to be in a bound book to be historical. If anything the process of writing a book means a lot of word smith and introduces fabrication. Newspaper reports 100 years ago were pretty much documentation of what was observed at the time. Only in modern times do reporters introduce some sort of change the world political agenda and are frequently caught fabricating details.

You will be in for a rude awakening.

 

http://www.readex.com/readex-report/tallest-tall-tales-using-historical-newspapers-unearth-secrets-cardiff-giants-success

 

http://www.encyclopedia.com/article-1G2-3450700241/tall-tales.html

Edited February 5, 2016 by Incorrigible1

[dmaker]

The age of the anecdote has no relationship to its truthfulness.

I am sure you can read old newspapers from Salem. Does that mean witches really existed then, or people just thought they did?

[SWWASAS]

This thread has bigfoot science in the title, yet people talk of old newspaper clippings and anecdotes still.

And the typical assertions of "superman of the forest" stuff, superior vision, hearing, sense of smell, ripping any poor human killer of bigfoot asunder, etc. Can I get a "4-footed locomotion" claim?

As far as I am concerned newspaper clippings are historical documents. Something does not have to be in a bound book to be historical. If anything the process of writing a book means a lot of word smith and introduces fabrication. Newspaper reports 100 years ago were pretty much documentation of what was observed at the time. Only in modern times do reporters introduce some sort of change the world political agenda and are frequently caught fabricating details.

You will be in for a rude awakening.

 

http://www.readex.com/readex-report/tallest-tall-tales-using-historical-newspapers-unearth-secrets-cardiff-giants-success

 

http://www.encyclopedia.com/article-1G2-3450700241/tall-tales.html

So what do you believe then? We cannot trust witness reports, newspapers, books, videos, etc etc. Science itself has foisted some of the largest fables on humanity. Being skeptic is an easy job. You don't believe anything. What a sad way to live your life.

The age of the anecdote has no relationship to its truthfulness.

I am sure you can read old newspapers from Salem. Does that mean witches really existed then, or people just thought they did?

I have met witches or people that claim to be them. I am sure they think witches exist. The only way you can say is that witches do not exist is to deny what the witches themselves think they are. Of course denial seems to be a big part of the skeptic methodology. But what is really going on here is we have people who think they know everything there is to know. There is a word for that, delusion.

Edited February 5, 2016 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[norseman]

Science is not about "belief".

But science can be fooled by charlatans, such as the case with Piltdown man. And science can be wrong by the simple fact that new evidence can show new realities that old evidence could not.

But we exist in the realm of Biology here......and unlike quantum mechanics, its a pretty straight forward endeavor.

[Incorrigible1]

It's true: I don't place much store in stories, anecdotes, nor many newspaper accounts. If you wish, I can provide newspaper reports of mermaids, fairies, etc.

 

I apologize that I place such little faith in the reports from my fellow man. If you find that sad, believe me, your gullibility makes the feeling mutual.

[dmaker]

 

 

This thread has bigfoot science in the title, yet people talk of old newspaper clippings and anecdotes still.

And the typical assertions of "superman of the forest" stuff, superior vision, hearing, sense of smell, ripping any poor human killer of bigfoot asunder, etc. Can I get a "4-footed locomotion" claim?

As far as I am concerned newspaper clippings are historical documents. Something does not have to be in a bound book to be historical. If anything the process of writing a book means a lot of word smith and introduces fabrication. Newspaper reports 100 years ago were pretty much documentation of what was observed at the time. Only in modern times do reporters introduce some sort of change the world political agenda and are frequently caught fabricating details.

You will be in for a rude awakening.

 

http://www.readex.com/readex-report/tallest-tall-tales-using-historical-newspapers-unearth-secrets-cardiff-giants-success

 

http://www.encyclopedia.com/article-1G2-3450700241/tall-tales.html

 

So what do you believe then? We cannot trust witness reports, newspapers, books, videos, etc etc. Science itself has foisted some of the largest fables on humanity. Being skeptic is an easy job. You don't believe anything. What a sad way to live your life.

The age of the anecdote has no relationship to its truthfulness.

I am sure you can read old newspapers from Salem. Does that mean witches really existed then, or people just thought they did?

I have met witches or people that claim to be them. I am sure they think witches exist. The only way you can say is that witches do not exist is to deny what the witches themselves think they are. Of course denial seems to be a big part of the skeptic methodology. But what is really going on here is we have people who think they know everything there is to know. There is a word for that, delusion.

 

Objective truth is not about trust. Testing evidence using scientific methods has nothing to do with trust. If something cannot be tested to determine its truth (falsifiability) then it has no place in a conversation claiming to adhere to scientific principles. You cannot falsify an anecdote. Even if that anecdote is found in a century old newspaper.

 

I don't claim to know everything there is to know. That is a very tired, old strawman. Please give that one a rest.

Edited February 5, 2016 by dmaker

[SWWASAS]

My point Norseman was that some people here to do accept anything from any source. I should have used the word "accept" instead of "believe." They even pick and choose the scientists that they choose to accept. Meldrum bad, Sykes good.