Guest gerrykleier Posted July 19, 2012 Posted July 19, 2012 When the first case of a murder or disappearance is directly tied to a Bigfoot, there is a real danger of a hyperbolic reaction. I think you are right JDL. People will view them as monstrous, because they are so like humans. Face it, bears, mountain lions, etc...all of these things are responsible for numerous deaths and disappearances over the years, and yes people do have fear of them, but I think the fear of bigfoot would far outstrip the fear we have of these other natural predators. There will be a balancing factor, which is the shot-of-wonder involved in proving the existence of something so seemingly fabulistic in the modern era. If that angle is played hard enough at the start (and I agree that this seems to be one of the goals of the Ketchum camp), then it may be enough to counterbalance the natural fear people might have. For children, camping in the woods will never be the same! Well it's generally better to know the truth, even if it's unpleasant. We'll go through a long period of time as people sort this out in their minds. I imagine opinions will swing between the extremes-Ravenous Cannibal Killers vs Gentle Souled Forest Brothers are the likely poles. That seems to be how people work, and it's certainly how the Media and our Political system seem to. Eventually we'll come to some sort of common-knowledge handle on this situation and the only people who'll think that much about BF will be the people involved with them in some way-Hunters, Scientists, Hikers etc. Other than the annual August Animal Planet BIGFOOT WEEK, of course. Which will get better ratings? Shark Week or Bigfoot Week? GK
Guest Tontar Posted July 19, 2012 Posted July 19, 2012 So this is where the whole conspiracy theory is headed? Bigfoots abduct and kill people, possibly even raping them? So if bigfoots are shown to exist, people will be running from the forests in a panic just like in those good old B&W horror films? Loss of revenue for the parks, hunters heading into the woods to pop those nasty monsters once and for all? INteresting direction this is taking. I saw the new SyFi movie "Bigfoot" with Danny Partridge and Greg Brady in it. BF was what, 30 feet tall or so? Big, ugly monster that would stomp everyone with his 6 foot long feet. Or bite their heads off and toss the bodies. In the end, Greg Brady reached out for help off a precipice, and BF reached out, pulled them up, and was immediately shot by helicopters or planes, destroying Mt. Rushmore in the process. Maybe that movie is a kind of foreshadowing, eh? :-)
Guest Posted July 19, 2012 Posted July 19, 2012 Why is it on this thread is it assumed that bigfoot has been proved and then the discussion turns to what the discovery of bigfoot means? Like this current discussion that people will attribute missing hikers to bf now that bf has been proved. Its interesting, but it belongs on a "what if bigfoot was proved" thread rather than the Ketchum thread. As it stands, the Ketchum report has produced 0 evidence of bf.
Guest Particle Noun Posted July 19, 2012 Posted July 19, 2012 Sorry, I'll end each of my posts with : [/baseless speculation]
Guest Posted July 19, 2012 Posted July 19, 2012 (edited) there's zero evidence attributing wilderness deaths to bigfoot. nor does it jibe with the "accepted wisdom" that they fear humanity and our cameras. this strikes as similar to the moral panic around recreational drug use in the 1920s where sheriffs in small-town America attributed hashish use to insanity and decapitation. Edited July 19, 2012 by cheech44
bipedalist Posted July 19, 2012 BFF Patron Posted July 19, 2012 Funny that of all the BF sightings at summer camps, some involving BF poking their hands through screens or open windows of campers and such, not a single child has been documented as harmed or kidnapped in such incidents?
Guest BFSleuth Posted July 19, 2012 Posted July 19, 2012 I think the upshot of the revelation of BF as a species may turn out to be less sensational than many think. More likely there will be cautionary warnings along the same lines as traveling or hiking in grizzly territory. Be vigilant, stay in groups, etc. For children, camping in the woods will never be the same! True that, and it may be a good thing. For example, I was watching a documentary about cougar attacks on humans. They documented a case in BC where a little girl, wearing a life jacket, was walking from the family car down a trail to a swimming hole. She was attacked by a cougar that tried to bite the back of her neck, but the life jacket saved her. During the follow up investigation they noted a family was having a barbecue on the beach, with family puppies and small children running around in close proximity to undergrowth and other cover... an ideal set up for an ambush predator. They couldn't have planned a better bait situation. If you don't want to invite the neighbor for dinner, then don't cook in his kitchen.
Guest Shaun Posted July 19, 2012 Posted July 19, 2012 @bigfootnis, you're right. This thread has a habit of heading of on tangents. Understandable I suppose, as everyone needs something to discuss while we wait for the results to be published.
Guest BFSleuth Posted July 19, 2012 Posted July 19, 2012 True that Shaun, and I'm guilty as well. Perhaps the tangent addressing the ramifications of the discovery of BF aught to be discussed in the Is Science Good or Bad? thread...
Guest Particle Noun Posted July 19, 2012 Posted July 19, 2012 Admittedly, it is hard to stay on topic with so little available data on the subject. Moving this sort of speculation to Is Science Good or Bad seems like a good direction. I'd like to follow up and say I don't 'believe' that Bigfoot is out there kidnapping kids. However, I have little doubt that at some point, if they were proven to exist by this report, there would be some hysteria bubble somewhere at sometime on the subject.
JDL Posted July 19, 2012 Posted July 19, 2012 So the Ketchum report proves bigfoot to exist, simply because DNA exists. Based on recent rumor, it may prove that bigfoot is an extant hominid known to the fossil record. So there's a new thing in the woods, manlike, but not a man, monstrous in aspect because of this combination of traits. Now its behavior has to be characterized, which one can't easily do from DNA alone. How are people going to react when they find out that they are not only the ultimate lukers and exhibit the behavior of ambush predators, but that they are also comparable in intelligence to humans? [/baseless speculation personal experience]
Guest BFSleuth Posted July 19, 2012 Posted July 19, 2012 .... with great and well founded caution ....
Guest Particle Noun Posted July 19, 2012 Posted July 19, 2012 ...and a good deal of fascination and wonder as well. I don't for a minute believe the general reaction will be one of fear. I really believe it will be one of Wonder with a capital W. I think we sorely need it.
Guest BFSleuth Posted July 19, 2012 Posted July 19, 2012 ... okay, a sense of wonder with a dose of caution...
JDL Posted July 19, 2012 Posted July 19, 2012 Fact is, you talk to rural Americans, they've been living with bigfoot their whole lives. It can be done.
Recommended Posts