Why Don't We Have a Bigfoot Body Yet?

[hiflier]

HAH! I'd hate t see your response if you took me seriously LOL. Wait a second....DID YOU?  

[Catmandoo]

 Interesting comments but we are not on the correct land mass to discuss pixies, gnomes and other 'living myths'.   Go to the United Kingdom. Years ago, Paul Vella (RIP)  explained some of the 'living myths' In England and Ireland. Some are not friendly. I can not remember if his post was on BFF v.1 or AIBR.  It would be a very bad idea to shoot a pixie or gnome because their kind would kick your ass. Hopefully, some of the current BFF members in the UK can expand on pixies, gnomes and leprechauns. The UK has deep history and strong PSI activity.

 

Unicorn and mermaid poop is available on Amazon.

[hiflier]

12 minutes ago, Catmandoo said:

 Interesting comments but we are not on the correct land mass to discuss pixies, gnomes and other 'living myths'

 

Whaddya mean? I see them in people's gardens all the time. My friends up the street have one in their yard. If it wasn't so danged expensive I'd fly Norseman out here right away because as we all know......photos aren't proof!

[norseman]

2 hours ago, MIB said:

 

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

 

 

While you know I’m sympathetic to everything you just said? If you stood in front of any scientific panel in the western world and offered up your evidence? They would laugh you out of the room. And they would absolutely compare it to pixies and gnomes. You know this. Which leads us back to square one. We need a body or a significant portion of one. We can shoot it, stab it, poison it, scare it into a heart attack, follow it around until it dies of old age, find a grave and dig it up, or invite it to dinner to hit it over the head with a fry pan. Scientifically it matters not one iota....

[Incorrigible1]

Feed it my ex-wife's cooking, so it looks like an accident.

[Catmandoo]

^^^^^    PETA will be all over you for animal cruelty.

[Patterson-Gimlin]

On 9/18/2019 at 12:03 PM, Huntster said:

 

 

Not all hunters are incompetent, but I would venture to guess that most are, and the percentage of incompetent hunters has increased with social urbanization. Moreover, hunters aren't hunting for sasquatches, and they are fairly well versed with hunting laws and regs, which literally didn't exist a century ago. 

 

While hunters seem quite able to kill bears and moose in Alaska, you might be surprised to learn that the overall success rate in Alaska for moose is @ 20%, and that is for nearly 100,000 hunters hunting 200,000 moose, the success rate in most game management units is much lower (under 10% is common), and the success rate for bears (especially brown or grizzly bears) is significantly lower than that.

 

 

I believe they are extremely rare. For example, there are only an estimated 45,000 brown/grizzly bears in all of North America, Canada and Alaska included. Of these, 75% of them are in Alaska, and of the Alaskan bears, the vast majority are concentrated in Game Management Units 3, 4, 5, 8, and 9.  If there are only an estimated 5,000 sasquatches on the continent, that's less than 10% of the grizzly population, and also extremely localized in remote habitat featuring great cover and concealment. 

 

Conversely, there are human habitations and structures literally everywhere, including in the middle of classified wilderness lands and parks. Many are often uninhabited, which encourages wild animals of all kinds to become emboldened to hang out in the area only to bevome invaded when the humans show up. This is a common theme with all kinds of animals.

 

 

No doubt about it. As an example, I'm an experienced, accomplished, and frequent Alaskan big game hunter, I'm a strong believer in the existence of sasquatches, and not only do I not hunt for them, I have come to the reasoned conclusion that the only way I would shoot one is in self defense. Of all the people on this forum, there are just a few who regularly state that they are pro kill and they regularly go out looking for sasquatches. 

 

 

 

 

I believe so, especially in the 1970's. Has NAWAC professed a pro kill position and mounted hunting expeditions to that end?

 

 

 

 

Probably, along with a lack of experience, know how, time, access, and sasquatches to shoot.

 

 

Good question. Everybody on this forum who is pro kill has proposed a number of scenarios. I'm confident that quite a few factors are important:

 

* Fresh reports in the area would be ideal

* A history of sightings in that area are important

* Funding, which isn't cheap; even a relatively local week long caribou hunt for me will cost a few hundred dollars just in fuel, communications subscriptions, spare parts, etc. That doesn't include food (I eat anyway at home) or license and tag (a sasquatch hunt might require some sort of license and tag, however, to legally justify the carry of firearms in the woods, depending on the politics of the area, but in Alaska, I already have a lifetime license), and I'm already all geared up

* The proper tactic is critical; baiting? Calling? Spot and stalk? Stalking upwind along a noisy creek like Patterson & Gimlin?

* Spending plenty of time on location........like weeks

* Complete access to the area, both legally and tactically

* A good plan for carcass preservation and extraction, including out of the woods as well as to a final destination, which would include a plan for interstate/international smuggling, all of which is illegal on the federal/international level (CITES)

* A good legal defense plan and funding in the possible event of criminal prosecution

 

 

 

I can tell you are a good hunter, Your factors seem quite logical. I am pro-kill for selfish reasons. I appreciate your insights. 

[markc]

I think there are many reasons one has not been brought in. 

1. Many hunters say they look human and cannot kill another human. 

2. Where you see one there will be another one pop up and even a third and sometimes a fourth one, so if you shoot one, chances are, you are going to die. 

3. They seem to provoke fear in people, so much that they cannot even think of shooting one. 

4. I think they do most of their moving around at night, rarely do they move in the day. Most hunters hunt in the daytime, and cannot see at night anyway. 

5. They know you are there even when in a tree stand, maybe because they are monkey like and are more alert to what goes on in trees than  do ground animals. 

6. If you believe they are the Nephilim with supper natural powers, then bullets do not hurt them at all or not for very long.

7. Some Indian tribes claim they have the  abilities to vanish  and you can only see them if they want you to. 

8. At least One Indian tribe believes that if you shoot or harm one, you will be cursed, and will die within 2 years and maybe your whole family. 

9. I heard this guy shot one and the other BF picked up the body and took of running with it almost strait up a cliff and disappeared, then the Gov. told him it never happened. 

Some people have claimed to have killed them. Is that true, I don't know, but if they did then where is the body? Some will say the Gov. covers those thing up. Who knows.  

[Celtic Raider]

On 9/23/2019 at 8:12 PM, WSA said:

One standard reply I give to people who ask this question is, "So, what you are saying is IF somebody HAD  killed a Sasquatch, you think you'd necessarily know about it"?  The reply is usually, "No, I'm not saying that". To which the only logical response is:  "Then how do you know somebody hasn't"?  End of discussion.

 

It is a conceit of the digital age to think that somehow EVERYTHING important is flashed out over the web as soon as it happens, to all points. You can see why we think that, but thankfully a whole lot of what occurs in our world is out of view, and shared only locally. For instance, we'll never know how many Class A sighting occur each year, only the numbers that show up in the BFRO's and similar databases.  I'd be willing to estimate that as high as 60% go unreported and undocumented. 

 

A number of people have claimed to have killed a sasquatch though, what they don't have is the requisite evidence to prove that they have. 

 

I would assume that a pro-kill group such as the NAWAC would be heavily promoting the success if they had indeed managed to kill a sasquatch, though I appreciate they may keep it under wraps for a few months to get their ducks in a row and to find a good PR company to make the grand presentation. What we might see is a smaller press release such as 'Exciting Development at Area X' etc. etc.

 

I'm not really sure what you're getting at here WSA, this seems like a bit of a cop out to the question 'Why Don't We Have a Bigfoot Body Yet?'.....................we may have just nobody knows about it...............I think we'd know about it all right if there were a body as someone would be looking to make some $$$$$ off of it 😉

 

 

[Huntster]

11 minutes ago, Celtic Raider said:

..............I think we'd know about it all right if there were a body as someone would be looking to make some $$$$$ off of it.....

 

True, the key words being "looking to". Yet again, government has a well established pattern of using the criminal code to gain possession of a "criminal's" assets. In this case, the "ownership" of the sasquatch is already well established legally: with no legal hunting or harvest regulations in place, the sasquatch belongs to government, regardless of where it is found, and regardless of whether or not it was legal to shoot, even defensively, with the possible exception of Indian lands. This is exponentially reinforced if the creature is determined to be of the genus Homo, and if it can hybridize with Homo sapiens, it's human.

 

In the vast majority of possible scenarios, the only thing a sasquatch shooter will be able to sell would be his story, and he'd better be damned careful of that, too, because his own words might land him in hot water. Just ask Justin Smeja..........

[starchunk]

On 9/25/2019 at 11:09 AM, Huntster said:

 

True, the key words being "looking to". Yet again, government has a well established pattern of using the criminal code to gain possession of a "criminal's" assets. In this case, the "ownership" of the sasquatch is already well established legally: with no legal hunting or harvest regulations in place, the sasquatch belongs to government, regardless of where it is found, and regardless of whether or not it was legal to shoot, even defensively, with the possible exception of Indian lands. This is exponentially reinforced if the creature is determined to be of the genus Homo, and if it can hybridize with Homo sapiens, it's human.

 

In the vast majority of possible scenarios, the only thing a sasquatch shooter will be able to sell would be his story, and he'd better be damned careful of that, too, because his own words might land him in hot water. Just ask Justin Smeja..........

 

Smeja is an interestingly good example, although much of his story never made since to me, he had the body of a smaller one and the emans to transport it out of there yet he didn't what he did take didn't stand up to examination. I always wondered if he trotted out a more fantastic story to cover up the fact that he poached a bear cub or two. He has, I believe been charged with poaching in Nevada, if I remember right, since then.

[Arvedis]

On 10/4/2019 at 4:14 AM, starchunk said:

 

Smeja is an interestingly good example, although much of his story never made since to me, he had the body of a smaller one and the emans to transport it out of there yet he didn't what he did take didn't stand up to examination. I always wondered if he trotted out a more fantastic story to cover up the fact that he poached a bear cub or two. He has, I believe been charged with poaching in Nevada, if I remember right, since then.

 

If you are interested to dig a little deeper, watch "dead Bigfoot." It's done pretty well. We know Smeja is not the sharpest tool in the shed. He's not really capable of an elaborate hoax. If he poached a bear, it seems a real roundabout way of avoiding consequences. He was effected emotionally by the experience and so was his friend who was with him and watching thorough binoculars.

 

Though it is obvious from his actions since the incident that he has put it behind him.

 

I think the guy just wanted to kill something, was reckless, and didn't know what he was getting into.

Edited March 21, 2021 by Arvedis

[norseman]

7 hours ago, Arvedis said:

 

I know this has been talked to death on this board and elsewhere already, but if you are interested to dig a little deeper, watch "dead Bigfoot." It's done pretty well. First, we know Smeja is not the sharpest tool in the shed. He's not really capable of an elaborate hoax. If he poached a bear, it seems a real roundabout way of avoiding consequences. He was effected emotionally by the experience and so was his friend who was with him and watching thorough binoculars.

 

Though it is obvious from his actions since the incident that he has put it behind him.

 

I think the guy just wanted to kill something, was reckless, and didn't know what he was getting into.

 

Not a big fan of Smeja.... but for what it’s worth he did pass a polygraph test.

[Huntster]

8 hours ago, Arvedis said:

.......If he poached a bear, it seems a real roundabout way of avoiding consequences........

 

If he had poached a bear, all he had to do was keep his mouth shut from the start, and he was in the clear. Nobody caught him with a poached animal, accused him of anything, or even knew what he was doing or where he was. He and his buddy came out of the woods with this story, and it took off from there.

 

I don't know if he shot a sasquatch, but if he did, and if he came out of the woods with it, I'd bet dollars to donuts that he wouldn't have owned it long after the government learned he had it. 

[ShadowBorn]

The reason one is not on a slab is do to that no one has the gut's to shoot one. No one want's to loose their life over shooting one of these creatures if they had the chance. Yes, that's right they do not want to die for the sake of science. I am not sure if it matters if they are part human since that is not a factor in this equation. It is for the sake of one's life and the fear of being ripped apart or seeing your partner being torn to pieces and knowing that you will be next and not being able to stop it. This is some thing not really to look forward too. Not to many men are wanting to risk their lives for the sake of science. Unless you are sure of an armed force then it is not worth the trouble. I am talking of a well trained squad willing to put it all on the line.