Huntster Posted October 10, 2022 Share Posted October 10, 2022 2 hours ago, norseman said: .......Human rights only extends to one species. Homo Sapiens.......... Currently, only one species of human exists, and I believe that several governments on Earth intend that to remain the case. But morally speaking, that isn't true. Moreover, international law appears to include these creatures: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights Quote .......How are you (the government) going to ensure the well being of a wild man ape living in wilderness?....... It isn't about "well being", but rights, and that includes our rights not to be harmed by them. And if they do break human laws, they can't be "destroyed" like we do with bears or sharks. Quote ........And if you fail to do so?........ The lawyers and human rights groups attack, which is precisely what government avoids by suppressing discovery. Quote Are Bigfeet gonna form a coalition and march on Washington? Of course not. The Do Gooders, millions of them, will do it for them. Quote Bigfeet don’t squeak......... Perhaps not, but they appear to speak. It sounds like a very primitive language, indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted October 10, 2022 Share Posted October 10, 2022 3 hours ago, Huntster said: Currently, only one species of human exists, and I believe that several governments on Earth intend that to remain the case. But morally speaking, that isn't true. Moreover, international law appears to include these creatures: https://www.un.org/en/about-us/universal-declaration-of-human-rights It isn't about "well being", but rights, and that includes our rights not to be harmed by them. And if they do break human laws, they can't be "destroyed" like we do with bears or sharks. The lawyers and human rights groups attack, which is precisely what government avoids by suppressing discovery. Of course not. The Do Gooders, millions of them, will do it for them. Perhaps not, but they appear to speak. It sounds like a very primitive language, indeed. Where does international law include these creatures? They are undiscovered. Therefor they are unclassified. Therefor they are not human. If they do become classified? Even then it’s a stretch…. Do gooders as you call them? Have talked about extending human rights to other primates? But nothing has materialized. Where they would fall on the tree of life? Is a guess at this point. Again human rights being bequeathed to them is an open ended question in my opinion. Sure. Like save the whales or mountain gorillas….. animals. Any human group would send a delegation. Bigfeet can’t do that because? It sounds like uncle Buck in the brush to me. Anyhow, I’m not saying that the government isn’t hiding information on Bigfeet. But I am saying it would be for a very different purpose. Which to me it sounds like you agree. Bigfeet do not offer the US military any technological advancements. My opinion is that the government may be scared of liability lawsuits. Missing 411 stuff. But maybe not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted October 10, 2022 Share Posted October 10, 2022 9 hours ago, norseman said: Where does international law include these creatures?......... in the first sentence of the document: Quote Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world......... Homo is the genus, and genus is the taxonomic rank between "family" and "species". Our "family" is Hominidea, and our "tribe" is "Hominini". I'm not saying that these creatures are definitely of the genus "homo" or family "hominidea". I'm saying that if they are, government would have a number of strong motives to suppress their existence. Quote .......They are undiscovered........ That's the common belief. I differ. I believe that they have been discovered by governments, and tgat discovery yas been suppressed. Quote ........Do gooders as you call them? Have talked about extending human rights to other primates? But nothing has materialized......... There are people who are trying to extend rights to hamsters, but hamsters are not human. If they were, they would gphave the same rights as you and I. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Backdoc Posted October 10, 2022 Share Posted October 10, 2022 On 10/7/2022 at 9:02 AM, Twist said: similar to extraterrestrials. ET: Those in power would need to keep ET/ Alien visitors under wraps due to public panic. I still say the government would have no interests to hide any Bigfoot proof. I can buy the idea that maybe- just maybe -there would be some concern they don't want people out there shooting at each other. I know there are some who have suggested 'bigfoot' is just an ET visiting earth. Not me. Even the ground rules stated in the BFF- while not specifically putting this off limits- essentially says this forum generally does not approach the concept of Bigfoot that way. Since I don't at all, I can agree with that 100%. Since it comes up, I can say such a link might be the only thing where government is motivated to keep evidence quiet. Even then, there are too many layers and private entities to accomplish this. We are not talking about some military unit who must keep quiet by orders due to some important spy activity. Thats possible to keep in that example because an apparatus already exists to do that. We are talking private citizen hunters, police, park rangers, sheriff deputies, and so on. That would not be possible. In the end those who think the government would (could) keep such a thing quiet cannot explain how this could be done or the motivation to my satisfaction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted October 10, 2022 Share Posted October 10, 2022 44 minutes ago, Backdoc said: ........We are not talking about some military unit who must keep quiet by orders due to some important spy activity. Thats possible to keep in that example because an apparatus already exists to do that. We are talking private citizen hunters, police, park rangers, sheriff deputies, and so on. That would not be possible......... Even top secret facilities with extreme security measures can't keep a lid on secrecy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Backdoc Posted October 10, 2022 Share Posted October 10, 2022 (edited) ^^^ Area 51 was as a concept was known for a long time. The government until recently refused to admit such a base even existed. They would not even acknowledge it in federal lawsuit (see Johnathan Turley representing workers claiming illness from work poisoning). I continue to believe Area 51 has 0% to do with UFO's. The point here is on the concept of Government keeping things secret. Top secret things -some now declassified- have gone on at Area 51 for years. Most of this has remained secret. One of the reasons this remained secret was 1) Military doing what they are ordered to do with a chain of command and 2) Private contractors working in that same Artificial World with signed contracts threating fines and jail if they spilled any secrets. Now anyone can pull up a YouTube video from former workers and pilots of telling of the U2, SR 71, Stolen Russian Mig Jet, and so on. In a very controlled environment like a lonely desert base, a government can keep a secret or a series of secrets for a long time. I will put aside my personal opinion of Bob Lezar or this thread will go down a big rabbit hole. For the government to want to keep a secret there needs to be a pressing need big enough to keep a secret. Such a secret needs to be on a level of importance our government might even kill to protect it. How would Bigfoot be that big thing? Edited October 10, 2022 by Backdoc Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted October 10, 2022 Share Posted October 10, 2022 4 hours ago, Huntster said: in the first sentence of the document: Homo is the genus, and genus is the taxonomic rank between "family" and "species". Our "family" is Hominidea, and our "tribe" is "Hominini". I'm not saying that these creatures are definitely of the genus "homo" or family "hominidea". I'm saying that if they are, government would have a number of strong motives to suppress their existence. That's the common belief. I differ. I believe that they have been discovered by governments, and tgat discovery yas been suppressed. There are people who are trying to extend rights to hamsters, but hamsters are not human. If they were, they would gphave the same rights as you and I. Again, discussing where it falls on the tree of life, and then debating what society’s reaction would be? I think is very speculative at best. But here is where I think your argument falls apart. What other cryptids are out there? Loch Ness monster? Giant birds? Etc? None of these examples are no where close to the genus Homo? So why would they suppress information about them as well? It’s not human rights… Maybe it’s more of a control issue? Cryptids are out there and there is nothing we can do about it? So we ignore the problem? Dunno. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Backdoc Posted October 10, 2022 Share Posted October 10, 2022 ^^ There was a Timothy Hutton movie back in the 1980's called Iceman. I will admit if they found some Iceman and unfroze him to bring him back to life, it would be groundbreaking. If a Bigfoot was ape-like Human vs Human-like ape, it would have some effect on the public consciousness. If Bigfoot is near human, then the issue of Bigfoot would be more magnified vs if Bigfoot was just some sort of Ape. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted October 10, 2022 Share Posted October 10, 2022 4 minutes ago, Backdoc said: ^^ There was a Timothy Hutton movie back in the 1980's called Iceman. I will admit if they found some Iceman and unfroze him to bring him back to life, it would be groundbreaking. If a Bigfoot was ape-like Human vs Human-like ape, it would have some effect on the public consciousness. If Bigfoot is near human, then the issue of Bigfoot would be more magnified vs if Bigfoot was just some sort of Ape. I will say this with certainty. It’s closer to a Human than a Chimpanzee. Which is our closest living relative. And I think some crusty old anthropologist naming it Americanus Gigantus vs Homo Gigantus is gonna have very little bearing on the deluge of craziness that will result from discovery. It’s absolutely positively not a Homo Sapien. 3 hours ago, Huntster said: Even top secret facilities with extreme security measures can't keep a lid on secrecy. No. But then comes slandering the person into obscurity as a crazy person. Paul Freeman? Roger Patterson? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted October 11, 2022 Share Posted October 11, 2022 4 hours ago, Backdoc said: ........How would Bigfoot be that big thing? If it is human. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Huntster Posted October 11, 2022 Share Posted October 11, 2022 4 hours ago, norseman said: Again, discussing where it falls on the tree of life, and then debating what society’s reaction would be? I think is very speculative at best........... Agreed, but I'm not doing it to try and get a jump on a pointy headed biologist or anthropologist waiting for somebody to deliver them a carcass. Having come to the conclusion that if sasquatches exist, governments (not just the U.S. federal government, either) has to know about it, so there must be at least one strong reason why they are suppressing it. The only reason I can think of is because sasquatches are hominins, and their existence complicates a world already in turmoil with racism and tribalism. Quote .........But here is where I think your argument falls apart. What other cryptids are out there? Loch Ness monster? Giant birds? Etc? None of these examples are no where close to the genus Homo? So why would they suppress information about them as well? It’s not human rights….... Maybe they don't exist. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted October 11, 2022 Share Posted October 11, 2022 37 minutes ago, Huntster said: Agreed, but I'm not doing it to try and get a jump on a pointy headed biologist or anthropologist waiting for somebody to deliver them a carcass. Having come to the conclusion that if sasquatches exist, governments (not just the U.S. federal government, either) has to know about it, so there must be at least one strong reason why they are suppressing it. The only reason I can think of is because sasquatches are hominins, and their existence complicates a world already in turmoil with racism and tribalism. Maybe they don't exist. You may be right. 🤷♂️ Maybe. But witnesses are treated with the same disdain by science as Bigfoot witnesses? And quite recently UFO witnesses? It all seems very similar. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Backdoc Posted October 11, 2022 Share Posted October 11, 2022 4 hours ago, Huntster said: If it is human. Too many times people attribute characteristics to ‘ Bigfoot’ I see shows like finding Bigfoot where they imply all kinds of things which no one can reasonably know even if we knew Bigfoot existed. They seem to almost know what Bigfoot’s favorite color is, favorite food, and so on. is Bigfoot human? The truth is how can anyone know what it is? When I see someone suggest Bigfoot is human I put this in the same category as knowing Bigfoot’s favorite color. I’ll assume the meaning is really Bigfoot is a human like ape. Bigfoot a human? Hmmmm. I have never had a sighting to make my own impression so I guess if those actual eyewitnesses flatly stated they are human then who should I be to say otherwise. But do they? In all these shows it just seems most the eyewitnesses say they saw a ‘ thing’ or creature. If they were describing a human they would say “ I saw this big guy, a big hairy dude in the woods”. If that’s the bulk of the description of Bigfoot sightings, then I stand corrected. as someone who is undecided I don’t have a dog in the fight. I think even Gimlin said in the Arthur c clark interview it looked like a big hairy human being or words to that effect. I have spent some time at the St. Louis zoo I will say those established, captive apes seem very human to me. Maybe we project that with our minds to make them seem more human the way I do with my dog. I might buy a North American primate is out there but I don’t think there’s a hidden North American human tribe waiting to be discovered. Maybe I just don’t understand what is meant by human. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted October 11, 2022 Share Posted October 11, 2022 12 minutes ago, Backdoc said: Too many times people attribute characteristics to ‘ Bigfoot’ I see shows like finding Bigfoot where they imply all kinds of things which no one can reasonably know even if we knew Bigfoot existed. They seem to almost know what Bigfoot’s favorite color is, favorite food, and so on. is Bigfoot human? The truth is how can anyone know what it is? When I see someone suggest Bigfoot is human I put this in the same category as knowing Bigfoot’s favorite color. I’ll assume the meaning is really Bigfoot is a human like ape. Bigfoot a human? Hmmmm. I have never had a sighting to make my own impression so I guess if those actual eyewitnesses flatly stated they are human then who should I be to say otherwise. But do they? In all these shows it just seems most the eyewitnesses say they saw a ‘ thing’ or creature. If they were describing a human they would say “ I saw this big guy, a big hairy dude in the woods”. If that’s the bulk of the description of Bigfoot sightings, then I stand corrected. as someone who is undecided I don’t have a dog in the fight. I think even Gimlin said in the Arthur c clark interview it looked like a big hairy human being or words to that effect. I have spent some time at the St. Louis zoo I will say those established, captive apes seem very human to me. Maybe we project that with our minds to make them seem more human the way I do with my dog. I might buy a North American primate is out there but I don’t think there’s a hidden North American human tribe waiting to be discovered. Maybe I just don’t understand what is meant by human. This is what it means to me. Purpose built tools. Stuff. Humans were the first animals that started accumulating items. Which has apexed with garages, uhauls and mini stg! Chimps will fashion a stick to fish for termites but will discard it when their belly is full. It’s rudimentary anyhow and can make a new one in a few minutes. The mind that made the 1.5 million year old hand axe? Was something wholly different. On another scale. Human. https://www.sapiens.org/archaeology/hand-ax/ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Backdoc Posted October 11, 2022 Share Posted October 11, 2022 (edited) ^^^^ Excellent video. Brilliant. I love the idea where these scientists used many people over time attempting to use the same or similar materials to attempt to replicate the desired effect. It reveals this is not so simple as it seems. It's something I have not thought much about. I don't know if 'bigfoot' is thought to use tools. I seem to remember an old Bigfoot show in the 1970's or 1980's vintage where a lady tells of watching for a long time some bigfoot at a shore of some beach using a rock to break up something it was eating. It would make sense some higher animal like a chimp would use what's nearby. The grab and go makes since for a rock to smash something but it wouldn't explain making primitive tools such as this video. The video does a great job illustrating those concepts. If a Bigfoot would use a tool, I would think it would be more along the lines of an ape grabbing that stick. Primitive man as a concept also had clothing and clothing might have a way to have a bag or pocket to carry tools or ingredients or whatever for later use. The harder the tool would be to create the more motivation it would be to keep the result of that hard work. I think the video is interesting. If bigfoot would use a tool (high or low-level sophistication) is not as important as what ability it might have to think in an advanced way. Can Bigfoot think in an advanced way? I would expect that answer to be yes. The Q next is just how advanced? Thanks for posting it. Edited October 11, 2022 by Backdoc 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts