Can You Really Shoot A Bigfoot?

[xspider1]

On 12/2/2022 at 9:29 AM, Huntster said:

So if Zana is now proven to be not only human, but Homo sapien, what are the chances that ALL of such examples are feral homo sapiens? As fantastic as that question seems, that answer appears to be scientifically likely. That answer explains:

 

* Their rare status, low numbers, and wide range

* Reports of extremely huge specimens and average sized specimens

* The repeated returns of human dna tests on various samples thought to be contaminated

* Government unwillingness to get involved

* Aboriginal descriptions that they are, indeed, wild people

 

Fascinating!  I always thought that all 'humans' were Homo sapiens and vice versa.  I didn't know that Homo ergaster, Homo erectus and Homo floresiensis are also defined as humans.  One can learn so much here, that's one reason why I like bigfootforums.com so much.   

 

The 6'6" woman I saw was indeed very thin.  If she had been extremely hairy with unusually long arms, short legs, a sagittal crest and if she looked like she could crush charcoal into a diamond with her bare hands then, I would have asked for a Bigfoot autograph!  Pertaining to the OP though, this does beg a question:  If adult 'humans' exist in even more shapes and sizes than we can clearly see and have scientifically verified (Example: 2'1"- 8'11" height, 5 - 1400 lbs. weight) then, how do we know that Bigfoot are not technically 'human' and therefore prohibited from any hunting stamp that would legalize killing one?  That is the issue I perceive, not an organized Government conspiracy.     
 

[Huntster]

12 hours ago, xspider1 said:

........If adult 'humans' exist in even more shapes and sizes than we can clearly see and have scientifically verified (Example: 2'1"- 8'11" height, 5 - 1400 lbs. weight) then, how do we know that Bigfoot are not technically 'human' and therefore prohibited from any hunting stamp that would legalize killing one?.......

 

Considering how Science has catagorized ancient hominins as various homo (human) species, it is almost a foregone conclusion that sasquatches (as represented by Patty)  are a human species, but not homo sapien. 

 

It is also quite clear, as now scientifically proven by the Zana affair, that feral homo sapiens can appear to be an example of an ancient hominin even to the point of dna analysis, which proves that they're homo sapien.

 

It is also quite clear, and repeatedly proven, that foolish people will don fur suits and try to hoax other people.

 

So, in all the above cases, intentionally killing a sasquatch would be homicide (note the word itself: homo-cide). Current law throughout the U.S. does not provide the legal defense of killing another human for the purposes of providing Science with specimens to fill their curiosity.

 

Finally, even if sasquatches are not of the genus homo, in some states, shooting an animal that isn't specifically listed as a game animal is prohibited.

 

Thus, in all the above possible scenarios, shooting a sasquatch is likely illegal and potentially prosecutable. 

 

Quote

........That is the issue I perceive, not an organized Government conspiracy.     

 

I think that the issue of government knowledge of the existence of sasquatch mostly colors the effort to force "discovery". As difficult as it is to find such a rare and intelligent creature, then kill it and extract it, it will be only then that you will face the unknown and unexpected resistance of publishing your triumph. 

 

I'm convince enough that it's an issue for me to avoid participating, especially since the hunt is still fully legal and possible, even armed for self defense. If Science as an industry is interested, they can do the same. If not, okay. They can study computer models of the climate. 

[norseman]

1 hour ago, Huntster said:

 

Considering how Science has catagorized ancient hominins as various homo (human) species, it is almost a foregone conclusion that sasquatches (as represented by Patty)  are a human species, but not homo sapien. 

 

It is also quite clear, as now scientifically proven by the Zana affair, that feral homo sapiens can appear to be an example of an ancient hominin even to the point of dna analysis, which proves that they're homo sapien.

 

It is also quite clear, and repeatedly proven, that foolish people will don fur suits and try to hoax other people.

 

So, in all the above cases, intentionally killing a sasquatch would be homicide (note the word itself: homo-cide). Current law throughout the U.S. does not provide the legal defense of killing another human for the purposes of providing Science with specimens to fill their curiosity.

 

Finally, even if sasquatches are not of the genus homo, in some states, shooting an animal that isn't specifically listed as a game animal is prohibited.

 

Thus, in all the above possible scenarios, shooting a sasquatch is likely illegal and potentially prosecutable. 

 

 

I think that the issue of government knowledge of the existence of sasquatch mostly colors the effort to force "discovery". As difficult as it is to find such a rare and intelligent creature, then kill it and extract it, it will be only then that you will face the unknown and unexpected resistance of publishing your triumph. 

 

I'm convince enough that it's an issue for me to avoid participating, especially since the hunt is still fully legal and possible, even armed for self defense. If Science as an industry is interested, they can do the same. If not, okay. They can study computer models of the climate. 

Your first statement may not hold true. There were plenty of bipedal walking archaic ape men in history that do not belong to the genus Homo. Of course what Patty is is yet to be realized. But just because she is bipedal does not make it a fore gone conclusion she is a Homo relative. The rift could be a wider one.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecine
 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paranthropus

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ardipithecus

 

[Huntster]

1 hour ago, norseman said:

Your first statement may not hold true. There were plenty of bipedal walking archaic ape men in history that do not belong to the genus Homo. Of course what Patty is is yet to be realized. But just because she is bipedal does not make it a fore gone conclusion she is a Homo relative. The rift could be a wider one.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecine

 

Possibly. But note this statement from your first link:

 

Quote

........Members of the human clade, i.e. the Hominini after the split from the chimpanzees, are now called Hominina.........

 

The Pan/Hominina split supposedly occurred 6-8 million years ago. Evolution continued for all after the split. Obviously, different conditions and pressured guided evolution in different way for different branches. Even among homo sapiens, we have differences that are incredibly obvious, like African pygmies differing from Arctic European Vikings.......or, say, between Zana and a member of the Dinka and Yoruba tribes today, from whom her genetics originate.

 

It would be best for Science, government, and sasquatches to keep sasquatches out of the genus Homo, and that is precisely why I think government is keeping out of the sasquatch business; they don't want to go there at all.

[norseman]

1 hour ago, Huntster said:

 

Possibly. But note this statement from your first link:

 

 

The Pan/Hominina split supposedly occurred 6-8 million years ago. Evolution continued for all after the split. Obviously, different conditions and pressured guided evolution in different way for different branches. Even among homo sapiens, we have differences that are incredibly obvious, like African pygmies differing from Arctic European Vikings.......or, say, between Zana and a member of the Dinka and Yoruba tribes today, from whom her genetics originate.

 

It would be best for Science, government, and sasquatches to keep sasquatches out of the genus Homo, and that is precisely why I think government is keeping out of the sasquatch business; they don't want to go there at all.

Yes, they are on the human side of the split between humans and chimps or Homo versus Pan.

 

But you will notice that Paranthropus Bosei does not have the associated “Homo” term included in its scientific name like we do or even Homo Erectus.

 

So there is another branch in the lineage that science sees separate from the genus Homo. All species in the genus Homo names start with the term “Homo”.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo

 

I will grant you that it’s messy. And where one classification stops and another starts is open for interpretation concerning any new species discovered.

 

The genus Homo is associated with meat eating, tool use and fire.

[hiflier]

31 minutes ago, norseman said:

The genus Homo is associated with meat eating, tool use and fire.

 

My own delineation reflects something a bit more detailed, although it may be something that Norseman if already inferring. For me it's meat eating that includes meat cooking (not just coming upon a burnt animal from a fire in the Savannah. And not just tool use, or using something in it's natural form like a stick or a rock, but tools that are intentionally manufactured through alteration (chipped stone for cutting, weapons, and defense). And fire that isn't happenstance or simply managed , but is actually intentionally created (flint, rubbing wood together). Early Human prototypes may not have reached those levels of advancement for hundreds of thousands of years, but they all eventually did, either on their own or through information sharing, mingling, or being absorbed into other tribes. And that's my personal cut off point because it implies a higher cognitive skill set- rudimentary as it sometimes was.

 

The whole idea is advancement. How many millions of years has a Chimp been using a stick for termites and algae fishing? They can be taught other more complex things of course, some quite complex. but don't create or perform those operations on their own. And this in a nutshell is my take, and therefore delineation, between us and Sasquatches. Because they haven't advanced either regardless of all of the Human examples around them that they could've learned from. Therefore their brain isn't our brain. No way. And that's really what it comes down to.

 

Edited December 4, 2022 by hiflier

[Huntster]

For me, it's speech. 

 

"In the beginning was the Word......."

[xspider1]

For me, it's do they have smartphones?  Any species that cannot endlessly scroll thru social media posts (that speak only truth ), should be preserved forever in jars of formaldehyde.  just joking!  I think we are discovering a lot more lately about how other animals communicate.  I heard about this study the other day on NPR.  It turns out that turtles talk, we just don't know what they're saying?   

 

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-022-33741-8

[guyzonthropus]

On 12/2/2022 at 5:51 PM, Huntster said:

For me it's speech,

 

So then the samurai chatter makes them a brother. It's been shown to be organized, rather than just nervous jibbering, and to hold to some consistency. Language is as language does....

And, or course, until humans become relatively fluent in even one other species language, even the aforementioned turtles, we'll never know the level of abstraction, perhaps a greater indicator of higher intelligence and a creative mind, a species  might command.

 

In regards to the creation of fire as an indicator of humanity, should a sasquatch watch a human use a lighter, and then later obtain one and figure it out(providing its not one of those sasquatch-proof lighters) and then use it to light a contained fire, would that count towards its humanity?

 

And lastly, while, in a sense, its a necessary evil, I see you guys putting a lot of faith in taxonomy, as a near monolithic truth. But really, all it takes is one grad student (ok maybe more than one, but you get the idea) looking for a really killer dissertation topic to screw the whole current set up. Subspecies become species, genus gets divided up and renamed, what was  once a separate species turns out to just be a juvenile form, a tooth from a Chinese apocathary(sp?) turns out to be just a big orangutan. But I guess the point is Taxonomy is a dynamic system in constant, if not rather slow-paced, flux, and changes in proximities and "associations" are ongoing as further evidence come to light. What is Homo today, or was sapiens yesterday, can find itself reclassified in short order (though I'd hate to be the fellow trying to defend the renaming of Homo sapiens to a panel of physical anthropologists!)

[Huntster]

5 hours ago, guyzonthropus said:

.........In regards to the creation of fire as an indicator of humanity, should a sasquatch watch a human use a lighter, and then later obtain one and figure it out(providing its not one of those sasquatch-proof lighters) and then use it to light a contained fire, would that count towards its humanity?........

 

Watch this chimp become a man:

 

 

[Backdoc]

^^^
 

crazy, disturbing, and yet thought provoking on a chimps capability 

 

 

[xspider1]

I have caught and kept Large Mouth Bass that had eggs and I felt bad because, no one I know eats bass caviar and; I did not require their protein to survive.  If I had been fishing for survival then, no worries.  They are a vicious fish that would eat me if they could.  Imagine killing a primate 'for Science' and, during the autopsy that would not doubt ensue if it were a suspected Bigfoot, discovering that the primate had been pregnant.  : /  That is a horror that I would hate to live with.  So, my answer to the question: "Can you really shoot a bigfoot?" is unequivocally: NO.  There are people who feel that even killing ants or mice that invade their homes is wrong.  I draw a line there, just as I would if a Sasquatch invaded my home or attacked.  I think that a safe capture and release is the correct approach.

[Huntster]

12 hours ago, Backdoc said:

^^^
 

crazy, disturbing, and yet thought provoking on a chimps capability 

 

 

 

..........and thought provoking on the intellect of the moron who handed the chimp a loaded and charged automatic rifle........

[norseman]

14 hours ago, Huntster said:

 

Watch this chimp become a man:

 

 

 

https://www.reckontalk.com/monkey-firing-ak-47-between-soldiers-in-africa-an-analysis/

[guyzonthropus]

Huntster....didn't they make a movie about apes getting guns just a while ago? I'd swear I've seen a different version of this very scenario! Lol what kind of idiot gives a chimp such a gun (not even a 7 day waiting period!) And then shows it the basic action/form of using it? Don't they realize this leads to those watering hole mass shootings. 

Loving your intro my of "watch this chimp become a man"...oh man!

Next thing you know, "now, if you examine the dexterity of the index finger, you can clearly see why this species has been elevated to the genus Homo. This trait has proven more indicative than even the opposable thumb!"