Guest thermalman Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 (edited) Once they're accepted as citizens, form a special ops team out of them. No one more stealthier or frightening for the enemy to come up against. "Seal Team Squatch" - no camoflage needed. Edited November 29, 2012 by thermalman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 Her call for recognition as an indigenous people could be part of what has been the subject of the delays all along. Going on the assumption that her findings are accurate, and correct, and they are a human hybrid, then think about the can of worms that opens. By definition they would be subject to the rights, protections, any other human has. But think of the ramifications. No wonder Moneymaker is having a fit, how is suppose to form pay groups to go looking for indigenous people? How do we police their activities? What about the Missing 411 thing? Yes, I am sure there are people out there, if Melba is right, would really rather she wasn't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 I spend some time (probably an unhealthy amount) considering some of the moral and social implications of "The Day", should it ever come. In thinking of them as human, there are some profound questions to be answered...And while we make light of their constitutional rights, we may need to consider this with some seriousness. When I was a child, I lived in Botswana, home of the Bushmen, San, or iKung people...They have been hunted, persecuted, and abused to near extinction, because they do not recognized cultural 'norms' of the society around them. Since they do not recognize property, they are often in trouble for killing livestock...Which they see as just more food animals. Are we going to face a similar conflict with Sasquatch, if they are, in fact, human? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 Yep - I was right.. Nevermind folks.. So this is how Robin became introduced to Melba - through Igor and his time spent on her property... Interesting. Pfeifer says Bigfoots [bigfeet?] visit her home on the daily basis… to get food. They got so accustomed to the practice, that whenever she forgets to feed them, they start hitting her porch with sticks. Even though Yetis visit Pfeifer’s house every day, there are no photographs or video footage. However, that is no riddle for Yeti enthusiasts. They say the Bigfoot has been elusive because it possesses extrasensory abilities, making it possible for him to evade sightings and generate noise in video equipment. http://rt.com/news/yeti-conferense-correspondent-proof-381/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 Melissa, John C- A site you might want to check out is nonhumanrights.org and see how BF might gain personage. Way back when the African Americans(slaves) had to go thru a series of court proceedings to gain full personage beleive it or not so IMO full rights might be something that might only be achieved after a long untangleing in the courts and how government views them, could be wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 Once this animal is proven to exist, someone will have to do a study on why we as a society consistently ignored and dismissed all the evidence we had in front of us, and try to figure out why we seemingly just outright REFUSED to believe it was out there. Right now it's all circumstantial, but after undeniable proof is obtained, all of that "circumstantial" evidence becomes a MOUNTAIN of evidence that we have had the whole time. They might need to do a study on how bigfoot avoided HD cameras or avoided us finding a dead body. But I don't think they'll need a study to figure out why society and science didn't believe in bigfoot, because I think society and science will look back and still feel justified in not accepting a new species without conclusive proof. I think the main problem on both sides of the issue (skeptic vs proponent) is that each side thinks their evidence trumps the other side's evidence. And that makes sense -- it would be pretty weird if you believed bigfoot didn't exist and yet believed the evidence showed that bigfoot did exist. But I think a person's stance is more subjective and, therefore, legitimate than either side is willing to admit. It's obviously more complex than this, but as an example, I think the basic argument for a skeptic against the existence of bigfoot is based on three things: After so many years of bigfoot sightings, never once has a body conclusively been recovered. After so many years of bigfoot sightings, we still don't have video/photos that can be conclusively identified as bigfoot. The number of sightings/size of the creature contradict how difficult proof is to come by. There are plenty of ways to reconcile these three points AND bigfoot's existence, but I think it's very difficult for anyone to argue that those three points are incorrect. Even if we discover that bigfoot does exist, those three points will still have been true. Sorry for the rant, but I get frustrated with proponents implying that disbelievers don't consider the evidence. SOME don't consider it, but many do, and they still conclude that bigfoot likely doesn't exist. The crux of the issue is which you think is more likely: a bunch of people are mistaken in their stories about bigfoot? Or that a giant primate exists in North America and yet cannot be concretely photographed or videotaped, and never leaves a corpse? Both sides seem to think, "How can you not believe what I believe?!" But to me, it should be obvious that both sides are pretty far-fetched. I'm not trying to convince anyone to believe anything, I just want to point out this is a blurry issue (pun intended), and both groups have room to become more understanding. To make this less of a rant and more productive, I've always been curious if anyone has any idea what portion of those that believe bigfoot exists have had a personal sighting vs what portion believes bigfoot exists based on the evidence? I personally think that if I were to see a bigfoot for myself, I wouldn't care what the evidence said, I'd believe in bigfoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 Na - that's okay Ptangier.. It isnt going to happen. Bigfoot does not live in a house - it lives in the woods. It does not adhere to any of the social norms and can not even be force to conform to the same rules and standards that you and I do - so how do you give constituational rights to something like that? If bigfoot is interested in moving into the city, getting a job, paying taxes and functioning as a "human" - then okay.. But, it isn't going to happen. Honestly, I can't believe they are making the comparison to those living under slavery and bigfoot.... I'm not even going to discuss that. I spend some time (probably an unhealthy amount) considering some of the moral and social implications of "The Day", should it ever come. In thinking of them as human, there are some profound questions to be answered...And while we make light of their constitutional rights, we may need to consider this with some seriousness. Melba has already killed this idea herself .. How? She clearly stated - bigfoot is like us - but not us. IF that IS the finding and that finding holds up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 What do social norms have to do with humanity? That is the most urban industrialist statement I have heard in years. Welcome to forced social conformity.....no offense intended Melissa, I have a lot of respect for you, but that statement is part of humanities biggest flaw. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brianmk Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 (edited) ^^^ We may never get another sighting ever once they learn their rights are fully protected by the US Constitution (or the constitution of whatever country they happen to be walking thru) ... Edited November 30, 2012 by AaronD to remove a politically charged statement Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 (edited) I don't think the definition of being human requires conditions like living in a house, moving to the city, getting a job, or paying taxes. They are conditions for getting along in modern society. There are human beings (HSS) that don't live in a house or cities, have jobs, or pay taxes. However, they are still humans and have rights. I'm with you on the idea that it is a bit of a stretch to be issuing demands for their rights under the US Constitution. It's unfortunate this was included in their initial press release. If it is proven that they are indeed so closely HSS that they may have protections that should be afforded to them, then that conversation should come later. Let's get to the meat and potatoes of proof of their existence first. Edited November 29, 2012 by BFSleuth Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 What do social norms have to do with humanity? That is the most urban industrialist statement I have heard in years. Welcome to forced social conformity.....no offense intended Melissa, I have a lot of respect for you, but that statement is part of humanities biggest flaw. JohnC - how do you impose rights on something you can not expect them to adhere to themselves? That is social norms. We live in societies which are governed by laws. Take this for example: 7 - Enablement of corrective actions by private citizens, such as citizen arrests and prosecutions, access to grand juries, grand jury investigations, ballot initiative and referendum, open public meetings and records, access to publication outlets, and maintainance of a well- armed, trained, and organized militia than can operate independently of government supervision. How do you extend these rights to something that lives in the woods - and force that "being" to live by those same guidelines? You can't. You can't give one living being more protection than something else.. And that is what you would be doing - Bigfoot would have all the rights and protections under the law - but would not be responsible for those laws itself.... Besides, like I said - Melba Ketchum already (maybe unknowingly) killed this whole thing - by stating specifically "Bigfoot is like us - but not us." That alone kills the argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 Planet of the Apes anyone? ...anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 That is the can of worms isn't Melissa? You have to give them the rights and protections, its a moral and human responsibility, but then they might not want them, or even understand them, so there lies the problem. How many times have we already made that mistake in what we call "primitive" cultures.? My main point is, this alone could be the subject of resistance, and cover-up. This is why I have stressed, and will continue to stress, if her findings are accurate, this is much bigger deal than people realize, anthropologically, society wise, and could rewrite the very definition of human. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 The TBRC is actually seeing them, and they aren't noting this issue. I go with people that are actively seeing them over alleged bagel DNA. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted November 29, 2012 Share Posted November 29, 2012 (edited) Sure it will re-write history if true - but it will NOT change the laws which govern our society... People - you are talking about re-writing hundreds of years of laws - it just will not happen. Bigfoot will be protected under Endangered Species laws - or Animal protection laws (but those who do field research be careful what you wish for) but Bigfoot will not have Constitutional Rights.. I know it's a cool idea - but it will not happen. Nothing wrong with shooting the moon - but keep your feet grounded on Earth. But - also - Melba brought it up in her press release - then killed it all at the same time. It is either us - or it is not.. There is no in between. Sorry - but that's just the way it will be. Edited November 29, 2012 by Melissa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts