Why Don't We Have a Bigfoot Body Yet?

[hiflier]

Dr. Scott Moody has retired.....ah well.

[Incorrigible1]

Key word in your excellent posting, QueenB, is "stories."

 

[norseman]

9 hours ago, QueenB said:

There are stories of a few people who did kill a Bigfoot, and those stories end with the bigfoots family exacting revenge by throwing huge rocks at the homes of these people, or in one case, by breaking a mans neck while he sat by a roaring campfire in the dark. So, there could very well be very few people willing to try killing the beast, because of their fear that he may exact revenge on them and their family. Meaning anyone who wants to kill Bigfoot may know that doing so could mean they’d have to already have a second home to escape to for awhile. 

 

Ape canyon story

 

Bauman story (it wasn’t dark)

 

The moral of the story? Hunting dangerous game? Is dangerous.

[starchunk]

3 minutes ago, norseman said:

 

Ape canyon story

 

Bauman story (it wasn’t dark)

 

The moral of the story? Hunting dangerous game? Is dangerous.

 

Unless its more than just "Game"

[norseman]

2 hours ago, starchunk said:

 

Unless its more than just "Game"

 

(In this context) Game = Wild animals..... not Yahtzee.

 

Besides it’s always a “game”. With no prize for second place.

[starchunk]

Just now, norseman said:

 

(In this context) Game = Wild animals..... not Yahtzee.

 

Besides it’s always a “game”. With no prize for second place.

 

 

if its human-ish then one can easily argue its not game anyway. Pro kill types tend to want it to be an ape to justify shooting one it seems.

[hiflier]

Unless a serious e-DNA program is instituted to find this creature the the justification for taking one lies in science's domain. Until about 15 years ago a voucher specimen of the creature was the only thing science would accept. Short of the e-DNA effort a body is all that would scientifically suffice. Since there IS no e-DNA program specifically in place for discovering the existence of Sasquatch taking one down, or preferably finding a dead one, is scientifically sound.

 

The article I posted about consciousness in the animal kingdom was interesting in that it would seem that it would make no difference ethically whether one shoots a deer or a Sasquatch. Morally though it may seem different because of the attributes and anthropomorphized qualities that we have engineered onto the creature. 

[Huntster]

2 hours ago, starchunk said:

Unless its more than just "Game"

 

Either way, whatever the species, and whatever you call it, if you're trying to kill it, it might defend itself, or others of it's kind may attack.

 

I got bit clean through my finger by a gopher I grabbed as a kid after flooding its den.

 

I got beaned by an arctic tern after hitting iand killing its mate with a railcar.

 

Hunting is simply dangerous. Hell, I've been shot by my hunting partners, and they were supposed to be on my side.

37 minutes ago, starchunk said:

if its human-ish then one can easily argue its not game anyway.......

 

The term "game" is a semantic game when applied to hunting. Some people hunt for sport, and some hunt for spiritual reasons, and some hunt for subsistence or a combination of the three (and more) reasons. Many states are changing their wildlife department names to reflect that propaganda game. 

 

And yes, hunting man can be considered "game" if done for sport.......which some sick individuals do.

 

Hunting for sasquatches at this point would be for the satisfaction of an ideological industry called "science". The only game in it all is ideological, and possibly political and social.

[starchunk]

26 minutes ago, hiflier said:

Unless a serious e-DNA program is instituted to find this creature the the justification for taking one lies in science's domain. Until about 15 years ago a voucher specimen of the creature was the only thing science would accept. Short of the e-DNA effort a body is all that would scientifically suffice. Since there IS no e-DNA program specifically in place for discovering the existence of Sasquatch taking one down, or preferably finding a dead one, is scientifically sound.

 

The article I posted about consciousness in the animal kingdom was interesting in that it would seem that it would make no difference ethically whether one shoots a deer or a Sasquatch. Morally though it may seem different because of the attributes and anthropomorphized qualities that we have engineered onto the creature. 

 

Anthromorphing it isnt neither proven or otherwise, "Taking one for Science" is potentially the equivalent of going into the Amazon and shooting one of the non contacted tribes to prove they're there.

[hiflier]

12 minutes ago, starchunk said:

Taking one for Science" is potentially the equivalent of going into the Amazon and shooting one of the non contacted tribes to prove they're there.

 

Couldn't disagree more. People find the tribes. The tribes are Homo Sapiens sapiens. That's a big difference. Science didn't even go in and shoot a Bili Ape to prove them real. Time to put things into proper perspective? If you don't like the idea of hooting a Sasquatch to gain a voucher specimen, and please don't think anyone likes the idea either, then push for a better way. I've mentioned e-DNA as a way. Push for that. instead of wasting time with the no-kill/pro-kill debate. Take action to back up your position.

 

Every now and then I bring up the Olympic Peninsula nesting site. I'm the only one who ever does. Why do you think that is? Sink you teeth into something that might have a chance of going somewhere because it's the only way to feel good about doing something positive that could result in keeping a Sasquatch out of someone's gunsight.

Edited September 24, 2019 by hiflier

[starchunk]

7 minutes ago, hiflier said:

 

Couldn't disagree more. People find the tribes. The tribes are Homo Sapiens sapiens. That's a big difference. Science didn't even go in and shoot a Bili Ape to prove them real. Time to put things into proper perspective? If you don't like the idea of hooting a Sasquatch to gain a voucher specimen, and please don't think anyone likes the idea either, then push for a better way. I've mentioned e-DNA as a way. Push for that. instead of wasting time with the no-kill/pro-kill debate. Take action to back up your position.

 

Every now and then I bring up the Olympic Peninsula nesting site. I'm the only one who ever does. Why do you think that is? Sink you teeth into something that might have a chance of going somewhere because it's the only way to feel good about doing something positive that could result in keeping a Sasquatch out of someone's gunsight.

 

There are similarities because like those tribes, they tend to avoid us, there is a parallel. Given carte blanch acceptance to any evidence doesn't prove it, nesting sites are as provable as stick structures, as in they aren't. Finding a dead one is a more favorable answer, the pro kill attitude is one of hubris.

[hiflier]

No, the very nature of the nesting sites are waaay different. Not even in the same ballpark given the situation. Again, I'm the only one who keeps the subject alive on this Forum in spite of the lack of subsequent discussions. I along with the subject itself basically get ignored and no one works to further the issue along.

 

And yes, I have pushed for finding a dead one. Every Autumn and early winter I have suggested planning that type of a hunt to be undertaken in the early Spring/late winter season? Why? Because there less chance that Nature has her way with decomposition, because sick, injured, or old creatures may not have survived the winter. Never mind the "they bury their dead" arguments as frozen ground wouldn't allow for it. As for the nest find? Go ahead and see how much (or how little) has been said about it since March 2018. Try and find any updates on the web. I'll save you the trouble......there are no updates. You have to ask yourself just why that is. There's more in my last post that you didn't address but that's okay.

Edited September 24, 2019 by hiflier

[norseman]

1 hour ago, starchunk said:

 

 

if its human-ish then one can easily argue its not game anyway. Pro kill types tend to want it to be an ape to justify shooting one it seems.

 

I could care less.... humans kill more humans on this planet than any other species. We do not drop atomic bombs on Lions, Tigers and Bears.

 

All of these moral questions will come after discovery....and not before. Right now Bigfoot is a figment of everyone’s imagination. We might as well be debating if it’s morally justified to shoot pixies and gnomes.

1 hour ago, starchunk said:

 

Anthromorphing it isnt neither proven or otherwise, "Taking one for Science" is potentially the equivalent of going into the Amazon and shooting one of the non contacted tribes to prove they're there.

 

Instead we shoot them dead in order to eradicate them from the jungle to exploit its resources!!! Hello?

 

We already know they are there. We already know the species they belong to...... Homo Sapien. Same as us. We do not care.

 

Albeit Brazil is not the USA and Indigenous native humans are not Sasquatch. It’s not exactly a apples to apples comparison.

[hiflier]

21 minutes ago, norseman said:

We might as well be debating if it’s morally justified to shoot pixies and gnomes

 

Isn't it?  

[MIB]

59 minutes ago, norseman said:

We might as well be debating if it’s morally justified to shoot pixies and gnomes.

 

No, not so.    Consider:

 

Pixies & gnomes - no physical evidence, not even trace physical evidence.  No hand/foot track casts, no hair to test, no scat samples, no PGF-quality film, no DNA to test.   One has wings.   Which human species has had wings?    Behavior from cultural lore .. despite the Disney adaptation, generally pretty dangerous and hostile to humans.   I don't know anyone claiming first-hand experience and have none to draw on myself.

 

Bigfoot - we have plentiful physical evidence including track casts, finger / footprints, hair, scat, saliva, blood.   DNA appears to test as human.    Behavior, based on first hand experience, shows curiosity to apparent territoriality, but all threats have been bluffs, not followed through, and no harm of any sort has been done.    

 

So I'd say pretty darn different indeed based on 1) difference in strength of evidence for existence and 2) probability of being genus Homo based on available evidence.

 

MIB