Can You Really Shoot A Bigfoot?

[Huntster]

18 minutes ago, hiflier said:

Never happen........

 

Correct, because government has no intention to officially recognize this species, whether it's by allowing somebody to shoot one or by dna proclamation.

 

Quote

........And that's the point..........

 

I disagree. The point is that the species will not be recognized because government will not allow it.

 

Quote

........Here's a scenario to consider. Someone with a gun enters someone else's house. The resident goes to defend their home and the gunman pulls out the gun and shoots the resident. Who's at fault? This is the way I think when I read someone saying they will only shoot a Sasquatch in self defense. BUT they will set up the Sasquatch to BE shot by entering its home...........

 

Sasquatches don't have homes because they do not legally exist, and that is the precise reason why government will not permit discovery. 

Edited November 24, 2022 by Huntster

[Twist]

33 minutes ago, hiflier said:

 

Never happen.

 

 

Me, too. And that's the point.

 

 

Yep, said as much. Here's a scenario to consider. Someone with a gun enters someone else's house. The resident goes to defend their home and the gunman pulls out the gun and shoots the resident. Who's at fault? This is the way I think when I read someone saying they will only shoot a Sasquatch in self defense. BUT they will set up the Sasquatch to BE shot by entering its home. IMO there is no justification for the takedown. It's one thing to legally cull the deer or elk population. It's entirely another to shoot something that so rare as to hardly ever be seen just because it showed its face.

 

But this mentality is here for the reading. I thought anything that promoted an illegal act was against Forum rules. I'll have to go and look at them again to be sure. In either case, both scenarios are completely unnecessary in this day and age. Science has gotten way more sophisticated in how they do things. It's time members embraced a more sophisticated approach as well. DNA is good enough for Meldrum, Mayor, the Olympic Project, and others at that level including USFS and F&W. And yet those examples have moved way ahead of this Forum to the point that nearly everything here is archaic in the accepted research methodologies that get all the respect and support. It's all old school thinking that promotes old school activities.

 

Hey, I love the outdoors as much as anyone else- even to the point of doing my own winter research looking for trackways to sample. Because one CAN teach this old dog new tricks and I've taken the time to research those new tricks and found then sound. Otherwise there is no way I would stay with this dialogue for one second at my age if it was a red herring. It isn't. The dialogue is as sound as the science behind it. The heavy lifters in Bigfootdom are, and HAVE been, collecting DNA. And that says it all in my book. It's been said here that I am a one trick pony. So what.

 

A couple of years ago someone in their mid seventies saw their first Bigfoot. Water samples were taken from the immediate area. Obviously that person didn't think shooting the creature was necessary. They were correct- it wasn't. Results are in, assessments of the data are being conducted. Any one of us could be in that very position. This person has my total respect on so many levels.

 

 

So your no longer pro kill ? 

[Incorrigible1]

1 hour ago, Twist said:

So your no longer pro kill ? 

But pro lecture.

[hiflier]

5 hours ago, Twist said:

So your no longer pro kill ? 

 

If it happens it happens. All I'm saying is it doesn't have to happen anymore. DNA first and then let science do what they feel they need to do. My guess is science won't go out and kill one.

 

3 hours ago, Incorrigible1 said:

But pro lecture.

 

Good, you're reading. But you've chosen to comment on me rather than comment on what I said? Disappointing.

[Brian]

I just want to see one then I will make a decision after that if I would shoot one! I As much as I say yes for the reason of conformation I am not sure !   

[xspider1]

On 11/24/2022 at 10:20 AM, hiflier said:

Read the second line of my signature. Then on on to the interwebs and type in "best way to prove Bigfoot is real" and see what comes up. There is nothing that addresses that query.

 

I googled that as per your request and got 21,300,00 results which is considerably more than nothing.  Among those results is the 3 year study done by the University of Oxford which I imagine you are familiar with: 

https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2014.0161  "In the first ever systematic genetic survey, we have used rigorous decontamination followed by mitochondrial 12S RNA sequencing to identify the species origin of 30 hair samples attributed to anomalous primates." 

 

I don't think there is a conspiracy among Bigfoot proponents against collecting DNA evidence to prove the existence of Bigfoot, that just has not been successful yet.  Many people with an interest in the subject that might see a huge footprint in the woods and then find hair, etc. nearby that might be associated with those prints would be inclined to collect a sample.  There's no need to think that most of Us are just 'living the lie' to keep others 'marginalized and ineffective' because, we're not.  

[hiflier]

1 hour ago, xspider1 said:

I googled that as per your request and got 21,300,00 results which is considerably more than nothing.

 

WOW! 21,300,000 results that tell us the "best way to prove Bigfoot is real"? You found millions and millions of sites that talk about that? Because that sure sounds like you struck gold there to me I am so impressed with your interweb skills! Personally? I didn't find a danged thing about the "best way to prove Bigfoot is real."  That was the search phrase I used after all. So I guess my Google search methods must really suck. And hey, good for you, you found the 2014 Dr. Sykes study. That means only 21,299,999 of your "best way to prove Bigfoot is real" Google sites are left to read. Looks like it's going to be a long night but it'll be worth it if it helps me to know exactly what the best way to prove Bigfoot is. Outside of shooting one that is, in which case someone's nightmare will have just begun.

 

And for the record, I didn't say researchers are "against" DNA. I said they don't go out and collect it outside of those high profilers I mentioned. Members here don't seem to ever bother bringing the subject up. And the only member that ever revives the subject- after it gets buried by days, weeks, or even months, by other threads and discussions that go nowhere-  is......guess who? Don't know why that should be, the technology is the BEST road to discovery most of us could have. And let's face it, pretty hard to be hoaxed by the raw data of a DNA test result.

 

 

Edited November 26, 2022 by hiflier

[Huntster]

On 11/24/2022 at 3:19 PM, hiflier said:

.........DNA first and then let science do what they feel they need to do. My guess is science won't go out and kill one..........

 

Science is already doing what they feel they need to do:

 

Nothing.

 

But once you provide a tantalizing tidbit of wake-up call, they'll be hiring sasquatch killers, capturers, and viewing guides like there's no tomorrow. 

 

For that matter, maybe that's already going on, and we're just the last two guys who don't know about it?:

 

http://www.bfro.net/news/roundup/expeds_2022.asp

 

Go on a bigfoot expedition, grab the first rock or pine cone hurled in your direction, and pay a lab the thousands of dollars they want for some eDNA tests. Reverse engineer your theory.

 

 

[hiflier]

7 hours ago, Huntster said:

But once you provide a tantalizing tidbit of wake-up call...

 

And maybe that's already been happening through someone from within our own community. Anyone asking around about that? You know, Bigfooter to Bigfooter? I mean how close to discovery might be anyone we already know. We research people and things outside of the community, right? So how about researching people or things from inside the community? Get some emails out and see for ourselves if anyone we know is doing anything to close the book on this mystery.

 

How about contacting, say, one of our own members? Like Darby Orcutt for instance. And even though Dr. Disotell transferred from NYU to UMass Amherst back in the Fall of 2019 perhaps he's still very involved in Bigfoot genetics. There are others. Ask Meldrum, ask Barackman. Ask Randles. These folks all know each other. We know them and they know us. Hard to believe any of those people are at a standstill on the subject of Sasquatch DNA. Hard to think they haven't been getting samples from people in the field within the last five years. Who else do we know?

 

Or does no one really care.

 

 

Edited November 26, 2022 by hiflier

[Huntster]

1 hour ago, hiflier said:

And maybe that's already been happening through someone from within our own community........

 

Precisely.

 

Quote

........Anyone asking around about that?..........

 

If they did, what's the likelihood of getting an honest answer? Secrecy is and always has been a hallmark with respect to this phenomenon, and there are lots of reasons for that.

 

Quote

........Or does no one really care.

 

I don't, but I'm sure lots of people out there in Curiosity Land do. I've come to understand and accept the reasons for sasquatch to remain a myth. Discovery would be the worse possible thing for them as a species.

[hiflier]

S3 of Expedition: Bigfoot started with kind of a wrap up from the second season as well as an interview with Jane Goodall. In that episode it was mentioned that Dr. Mayor had in fact gone back to the area in the Kentucky forest from where the initial Chimp DNA results had been obtained. Dr. Mayor took more samples to have them analyzed. Would anyone who knows anyone on the EB team want to ask them what if anything the second round of tests may have come up with?

[hiflier]

5 minutes ago, Huntster said:

If they did, what's the likelihood of getting an honest answer?

 

I don't think anyone would lie. A simple "I'm not at liberty to discuss it" would do. The apathy around here is palpable, so the important point I was making was to at least reach out. In the larger picture it would make for a good impression about where members stand on discovery. Barring taking that kind of simple action, we could just discuss the next footprint photo or speculate whether or not what's on someone's video or audio is real or not. None of it has moved the BFF needle- never mind science's. I've seen ten years of it, and some around here have seen way more than that. For me? Zero proof, and most here agree and have said as much, and yet....

 

Therefore I'm no longer the least bit interested in any of it. A true scientific method for discovery though? Yep, all over it. Count me in 110%

[Huntster]

17 minutes ago, hiflier said:

I don't think anyone would lie. A simple "I'm not at liberty to discuss it" would do.........

 

I'm pretty confident we get both responses, we get them from private parties and government, and they represent six of one, and a half dozen the other. In short, we're not getting the truth, we won't be getting it, and that's life. We get lied to about everything else, and frankly, the sasquatch lie seems to be based upon good intentions.

 

Look at how sasquatch hunters (and that's what they were, not "researchers") in the 1958-1990 era. They were brutal towards each other. The hostility and distrust was open and obvious. I believe that the difference today is that it's more quiet and based on secrecy.

[MIB]

2 hours ago, Huntster said:

The hostility and distrust was open and obvious.

 

Correct.   Further, that is the root of the lack of cooperation between groups today.   MOST of the big, well established groups of today have, at their core, one or two of the old time researchers.  A sort of "cult of personality" revolving around one big name, or once-was-a-big-name person, and many of those people, who started in the era you mention, absolutely HATE each other, loathe the ground the others walk on, likely rightfully so, as it is rooted in the brutality toward each other you mention.    Anyone today not having this understanding as a key building block of their views of what is happening within the community is simply not dealing with reality.  

 

MIB

[Duckman]

14 hours ago, hiflier said:

 

WOW! 21,300,000 results that tell us the "best way to prove Bigfoot is real"? You found millions and millions of sites that talk about that? Because that sure sounds like you struck gold there to me I am so impressed with your interweb skills! Personally? I didn't find a danged thing about the "best way to prove Bigfoot is real."  That was the search phrase I used after all. So I guess my Google search methods must really suck. And hey, good for you, you found the 2014 Dr. Sykes study. That means only 21,299,999 of your "best way to prove Bigfoot is real" Google sites are left to read. Looks like it's going to be a long night but it'll be worth it if it helps me to know exactly what the best way to prove Bigfoot is. Outside of shooting one that is, in which case someone's nightmare will have just begun.

 

And for the record, I didn't say researchers are "against" DNA. I said they don't go out and collect it outside of those high profilers I mentioned. Members here don't seem to ever bother bringing the subject up. And the only member that ever revives the subject- after it gets buried by days, weeks, or even months, by other threads and discussions that go nowhere-  is......guess who? Don't know why that should be, the technology is the BEST road to discovery most of us could have. And let's face it, pretty hard to be hoaxed by the raw data of a DNA test result.

 

 

That's a lot of lip, for someone who believe that Bigfoot is hiding in local government...

And you tell other people that they are wasting their time, the irony is hilarious.