My Perspective and questions for you all

[hiflier]

46 minutes ago, James33 said:

I don't think that finding one would set off this wild chain reaction and all of sudden we'd be drowning in Sasquatch corpses

 

But finding one is a good start don't you think? That is square one and folks are trying do get past it. No one knows what if anything would occur until that happens. In the meantime people have their opinions and often times use those opinions to project some kind of future or some kind of reality yet to be proved. This is a pretty easy subject to do that with. A certain amount of logic and reasoning out though can work in one's favor but one has to somehow hold onto a lot of known quantities in order to present a scenario. Kind of an enjoyable thing to do actually. For instance, LOGICALLY , the Forestry Service should already know about Sasquatch. Taking it from there? It's pretty much an open discussion that contains its own set of precise questions- none of which lead to a good ending.

Edited November 6, 2018 by hiflier

[James33]

51 minutes ago, hiflier said:

 

But finding one is a good start don't you think? That is square one and folks are trying do get past it. No one knows what if anything would occur until that happens. In the meantime people have their opinions and often times use those opinions to project some kind of future or some kind of reality yet to be proved. This is a pretty easy subject to do that with. A certain amount of logic and reasoning out though can work in one's favor but one has to somehow hold onto a lot of known quantities in order to present a scenario. Kind of an enjoyable thing to do actually. For instance, LOGICALLY , the Forestry Service should already know about Sasquatch. Taking it from there? It's pretty much an open discussion that contains its own set of precise questions- none of which lead to a good ending.

Sorry - I wasn't clear.  I was responding to wiiawiwb statement about the government not wanting to create new laws, etc and how they'd cover it up and make it go away. I took the post to mean new laws to protect the creature?  My thought was that if we proved it, I don't think we'd have to rush to pass laws to protect it as there would not be a sudden avalanche of Bigfoots suddenly being killed. 

[hiflier]

Agreed there, bud. And in truth that outcome is way over the top to the extreme and I am sure no one on the Forum thinks such a thing would ever happen. There are already laws that help protect rare species. They are not perfect but they help. This is a personal opinion but  I do think there is something much more subtle going on. I will preface by saying that by my estimation, and it is only an estimation, there is about a trillion dollars in annual revenues at stake should a species of Bigfoot be disclosed publicly. A trillion dollars. That's a lot of cabbage and so I see no reason to not embrace the idea of a slow, manipulated, extinction of the species. Something that would happen by default stemming from policies that would result in population levels dwindling to the point of non-sustainability. It isn't an avalanche of Sasquatches suddenly being killed but in the long run it may as well be.

 

No one of course has to concur with this and many do not but I think historically there were more creatures than there are today. One of the things that drives my thinking- which also cannot be proven- is I think the number of reported sightings are artificially inflated which artificially inflates the assumed numbers of creatures and where they supposedly live. Who can one trust in this subject? If the number of reports are to be believed then the Department of Agriculture and the Departments of Natural Resources in nearly every state should be overrun with Sasquatches. Is this the case? I don't think it is even close. Something is wrong with that picture. There is a picture that is logical however but it take all of the pieces together to see it. And that picture is telling me that Bigfoot is being slowly strangled into extinction. What the point of no return on sustainability is is anyone's guess. I just cannot seem to shake a sense of urgency surrounding  the matter and, truth be told, that is what has been driving my passion regarding discovery the most.

Edited November 6, 2018 by hiflier

[Twist]

1 hour ago, Explorer said:

 

Twist, the BFs know everything we are up to up front because, according to habituators, they read our minds and communicate telepathically.

Habituators call them teachers and give them names.

The habituators obey the BF and they are told not to take photos.

Makes perfect sense why we don't have photos from habituators!

If what the habituators are telling was true, then I would lean towards believing these are deceptive demons or that the habituators need meds.

 

 

That may all very well be true Explorer, to some, and I still proclaim rubbish!

 

.....in regards to them being demons, nahhh.  Not the case.  Just my opinion of course.   

 

[MIB]

9 hours ago, hiflier said:

So one could have a thousand Goodalls but would it do any good?

 

Correct.   Goodall's approach worked because she was dealing with mere apes.    The concept is good but the specific details will be wildly different.     Consider, for instance, that habituation happens not when the bigfoots are conditioned by the humans but when the humans are conditioned by the bigfoots to behave in a manner compliant with their requirements .. not ours.   Complete role reversal.    If you want a more apt example, what we are looking for is for the bigfoots to send their equivalent of their Goodall to make contact with us.  

 

MIB

[NatFoot]

I have to admit getting a little confused on here at times. We seem to have these theories and ideas on what they can/can't do but people are very reluctant to actually just come out and say it.

 

JMHO of course.

 

[Huntster]

5 hours ago, James33 said:

The theory of evolution is not disputed among scientists......

 

They can’t even agree on the freaking weather forecast.

 

5 hours ago, James33 said:

.........."Hell, we share 96% of our DNA with chimps.........

 

..........Which are the genus Pan. Imagine the possibility of sharing 100% of our DNA with sasquatches. 

 

.........Adding another link in the chain or branch in the tree is not a problem........

 

I have no problem with another human sub-species. Indeed, Darwinism itself dictates that they have existed in the past. The problems will be delivered by others, and they will be legal, political, environmental, ideological, and religious. And that will be true despite your denial.

 

..........We discovered gorillas in 1902.......

 

No, we did not. We “discovered” the gorilla in 1853, which was almost precisely when “ The Origin of Species” was published, which Darwin wrote as discovery and research into apes was growing. Mountain gorillas, a sub-species of gorilla, were “discovered” in 1902.

 

........the world didn't spin off its axis........

 

We are still fighting the initial ideology that Darwin created with his ill founded and elementary theory.

 

.........I don't see why finding Bigfoot would be any different.

 

That’s because you haven’t invested enough thought into the situation.

 

[wiiawiwb]

2 hours ago, James33 said:

Sorry - I wasn't clear.  I was responding to wiiawiwb statement about the government not wanting to create new laws, etc and how they'd cover it up and make it go away. I took the post to mean new laws to protect the creature?  My thought was that if we proved it, I don't think we'd have to rush to pass laws to protect it as there would not be a sudden avalanche of Bigfoots suddenly being killed. 

 

James...are you aware that in California, there was a rush to save a 3" fish from extinction, the  minuscule delta smelt, and the state diverted 1.4 trillion gallons of water into the San Francisco Bay to save a handful of these fish. This occurred when California was experiencing a drought of the century. Just let your imagination run wild what will happen in each and every state in this country.

 

Set aside and preserve land,  study the creatures, stop timber harvesting,  and maybe even stop recreational endeavors such as hiking and backpacking until they know the impact. The list would go on and on and on. New laws that over reach to protect this endangered species might stifle commerce and transportation.  New departments in every state would have to be created to administer new laws.  Additional enforcement agents with additional costs.

 

The Federal government and every state are already overburdened with costs and are highly unlikely to want to add more fuel to that fire. They would prefer this creature called Bigfoot remains a myth.

[Huntster]

4 hours ago, James33 said:

Which part of the government? Who exactly?.........

 

All of government. The ones directly involved would be those at the highest levels. Most of the rest of government (like me) were simply not involved.

 

........Restructure laws? Why?........

 

In order to avoid ideological, racial, and environmental gridlock, they wouldn’t have to restructure laws..........they would have to restructure the foundations and basis of all of our laws. They would have to recognize and legally/politically recognize a whole new race of humans. 

 

This is BIG stuff, and if you can’t see that, you’re not very savvy.

[NatFoot]

4 minutes ago, wiiawiwb said:

 

James...are you aware that in California, there was a rush to save a 3" fish from extinction, the  minuscule delta smelt, and the state diverted 1.4 trillion gallons of water into the San Francisco Bay to save a handful of these fish. This occurred when California was experiencing a drought of the century. Just let your imagination run wild what will happen in each and every state in this country.

 

Set aside and preserve land,  study the creatures, stop timber harvesting,  and maybe even stop recreational endeavors such as hiking and backpacking until they know the impact. The list would go on and on and on. New laws that over reach to protect this endangered species might stifle commerce and transportation.  New departments in every state would have to be created to administer new laws.  Additional enforcement agents with additional costs.

 

The Federal government and every state are already overburdened with costs and are highly unlikely to want to add more fuel to that fire. They would prefer this creature called Bigfoot remains a myth.

 

The flip side is big government is always looking for more ways to exert power/control and collect more taxes. But, I get your point 100%. There is no other explanation for many state agencies across the nation to deny existence of breeding popularions of already known animals (mountain lions).

[James33]

9 hours ago, wiiawiwb said:

 

James...are you aware that in California, there was a rush to save a 3" fish from extinction, the  minuscule delta smelt, and the state diverted 1.4 trillion gallons of water into the San Francisco Bay to save a handful of these fish. This occurred when California was experiencing a drought of the century. Just let your imagination run wild what will happen in each and every state in this country.

 

Set aside and preserve land,  study the creatures, stop timber harvesting,  and maybe even stop recreational endeavors such as hiking and backpacking until they know the impact. The list would go on and on and on. New laws that over reach to protect this endangered species might stifle commerce and transportation.  New departments in every state would have to be created to administer new laws.  Additional enforcement agents with additional costs.

 

The Federal government and every state are already overburdened with costs and are highly unlikely to want to add more fuel to that fire. They would prefer this creature called Bigfoot remains a myth.

 

I see your point, but think it would be impossible to implement.  The fish and other animals that require protection we can FIND and STUDY and SEE and TRACK.  Bigfoot?  King of hide and seek for thousands of years. Isn't it already a law against killing one in certain states or areas? I don't see how much would really change unless Sasquatch just started co-mingling with campers on a first name basis. 

[James33]

9 hours ago, Huntster said:

 

All of government. The ones directly involved would be those at the highest levels. Most of the rest of government (like me) were simply not involved.

 

 

 

In order to avoid ideological, racial, and environmental gridlock, they wouldn’t have to restructure laws..........they would have to restructure the foundations and basis of all of our laws. They would have to recognize and legally/politically recognize a whole new race of humans. 

 

This is BIG stuff, and if you can’t see that, you’re not very savvy.

Whole new race of humans?  That's beyond a stretch, IMO.  You are assuming it's DNA is all human. What evidence do you have? 

[MIB]

1 hour ago, James33 said:

You are assuming it's DNA is all human. What evidence do you have?

 

Wow, you are completely oblivious to the history of bigfoot research, aren't you?   In earlier days quite a good number of samples were tested.   All showed either no testable DNA (lack of a medula) or the DNA present always looked too human to comply with the ape-camp theory of the day so, because the testing was so expensive, testing was discontinued and the sample disposed of according to established protocols  rather than being preserved to re-test when the technology improved.

 

"It would be better to sit by quietly and have people wonder if you're a fool than to open your mouth and remove their last doubt."  

 

I suggest some catch-up reading before participating further.    Meldrum's book is a decent start, but only a start.   A lot is older, predates the expansion of internet use, so you'll have to buy and read real books, a web search won't suffice.    They are not necessarily right but you can't rationally address what they say until you've read it.

 

MIB

 

Edited November 6, 2018 by MIB

[Twist]

This is a poor attitude, his line of thinking on an UNONOWN subject is different than yours so he should refrain from posting?    

 

 

[SWWASAS]

13 hours ago, MIB said:

 

Correct.   Goodall's approach worked because she was dealing with mere apes.    The concept is good but the specific details will be wildly different.     Consider, for instance, that habituation happens not when the bigfoots are conditioned by the humans but when the humans are conditioned by the bigfoots to behave in a manner compliant with their requirements .. not ours.   Complete role reversal.    If you want a more apt example, what we are looking for is for the bigfoots to send their equivalent of their Goodall to make contact with us.  

 

MIB

I have personally exchanged emails over a long time with two different habituators.      The following comments are a compilation of my experience with them.   I agree in that I think habituators are molded by the BF into having appropriate (for the BF) behavior.      The best model for what seems to happen is the Stockholm syndrome.     That situation happens where people were taken hostage and held for a long time.     Over time  the hostages began to identify with  and even aid the hostage taker.    Similar things can happen in other high stress situations where someones life is in others hands like prisoner of war situations.    Some turn and actually aid what should be their enemy.    In nearly every habituation situation the humans involved are terrified initially.    You discover these huge things have been living on your property often for a very long time.   The humans try to understand and know what they are dealing with.    Getting glimpses now and then when the BF allow.    The tension eases when the humans begin to assume that the BF are not dangerous.    Perhaps food is taken at some point.   And wrongly the humans start to encourage that.    That is a dangerous road because if anything disrupts the food provisioning the BF react badly.    The BF are training and conditioning the humans.   Strangers on the property cause the BF to not show themselves or even react angrily.     In one case a woman decided to bring a stranger on the property to see the resident BF.    The BF became angry with the human and would not show themselves to her for months.     Trying to take pictures of the BF, humans are treated the same way and displease the BF involved.   There seems to be a threat component directed at the humans when they do something that displease the BF.    All consistent with the Stockholm syndrome and the humans being conditioned to please the BF.  

 

But, and this is a big but,  in my experience the humans involved have deep seated psychological problems that long predate the introduction of BF into the mix.   A skeptic would logically assume that is the real reason and it all some fantasy.      While I cannot eliminate that 

possibility,   the humans are otherwise functional and their problems do not require medication.   It took a long time and some gentle persuasion to get these people to tell me their story.    Most of it I believe but there are some components (mind speak or mind reading) that I have doubts about.     The question in my mind is some sort of human psychological issue a result or a prerequisite for some sort of relationship with BF.     While I don't like the ramifications of that in my case,   I have to wonder about it just the same.   Goodall was not a normal person but had special qualities that allowed her to ignore the danger and introduce herself into Mountain Gorilla groups.    Someone like that is needed to do the same thing with a group of BF.  

 

Edited November 6, 2018 by SWWASAS