Guest Jane H Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 Shoot it with a camera instead, there's no need to kill one. If you do see one you'll finally know they're real and you won't care about proving it. It's a rewarding feeling to know you're one of the few lucky ones that was given this chance sighting. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest StankApe Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 That's kinda selfish though isn't it? I want science to find them. I want people to know they exist. i highly doubt there will be some rush to see bigfoot if it was proven real. It's not like they are so easy to find. besides , even if that happened it would be a faddish thing that died out in 6 months or so. Like I said before, IF it's real. The Smithsonian will have a body eventually. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 Like I said before, IF it's real. The Smithsonian will have a body eventually. Right on. That said, I'm on record here at the BFF that the right photographic evidence could get me 90% or so convinced, so I'm happy to encourage people to try to photograph these things. If they're real, they'll show up on a game cam before the Smithsonian gets their 3-D one. Sadly, few people believe when I post things like this, and the discussion rapidly dissolves into people calling me a "scoftic" because if I'm not convinced by the PGF then nothing short of a "slab monkey" will convince me (like that's a bad thing anyway). Carry on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest StankApe Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 I'm a skeptic too, but I'm a skeptic who's staring at the fence of existence. I refuse to dismiss it out of hand because many things are very compelling. (sightings by credible people, footprints, hairs...etc) The PGF..... I could go either way (and have yet to be convinced by either argument.)I would love to see one for myself , but what good would that do? Cuz to be honest MY OPINION DOESN'T MEAN DOODLY SQUAT. to the world of science. That's what it's going to take to prove existence . well, maybe not existence, as saskeptic said , a super high quality video could do that and help gain some foothold in the mainstream scientific community. But eventually, one of the big fellers is gonna get bagged. They will need to be autopsied and studied and figured out so they can be protected (if they discover they even need protection). I know many of you don't like the idea of killing. But , if they had never killed animals for science, we would be very very ignorant of nature right now (more so than we already are). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuyInIndiana Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 (edited) Shoot it with a camera instead, there's no need to kill one. If you do see one you'll finally know they're real and you won't care about proving it. It's a rewarding feeling to know you're one of the few lucky ones that was given this chance sighting. EX-ACT-LY. I've yet to understand this mentality and near obsession with the "need" to "prove this" or "present one to the scientific community to study". You can surely tell my position is that it would be the eqivalant of a moral sin to intentionally kill a sasquatch for any other reason that immediate, personal self-defense. Edited October 21, 2011 by GuyInIndiana 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest StankApe Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 Do you consider it thusly when they took a Chimp or Baboon or Gorilla to study? If it exists, it's a critter in the woods. There's no Homo species that big! Why do you feel there's no need for science to know about it? That's really the crux of it! Do you feel only you have the right to know? Seriously, why should science be kept in the dark? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 (edited) That's kinda selfish though isn't it? I want science to find them. I want people to know they exist. What's more selfish, killing something that has a family & loves living, because YOU want science to "find" them, or wanting them left alone because you don't think they need to be "found"? Edited October 21, 2011 by Sasfooty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest StankApe Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 Ummm, well, I will change my wording if this will improve your understanding. The scientific community WILL kill one to study if they exist. Any body that is discovered (or harvested) WILL be studied (or should be anyway). IF someone takes high resolution video that shows that they truly exist. The Smithsonian (or similarly accredited scientific society) WILL hire some hunters and go out and harvest one to study. I think to try and pull semantics into the equation just to suit your opinion is kinda...well, honestly, nitpicky. On one side you have folks who think that they should be left alone and protected. I agree with this, to an extent. But science needs to study them if they exist. It would create an important bridge to all sorts of things in the hominid fossil record. I think that we owe it to the world in general (and to the animal itself) to study it as in depth as possible. Wanting to keep some sort of "specialness" for oneself in regards to "knowing" it exists is far more selfish IMO. On one hand you have "only I get to know" and on the other hand you have " everyone gets to know" I prefer the latter personally. P.S. if Bigfoot is discovered to exist and is a humanoid type of tribal animal, then the kill idea would change. It could then be studied in a similar manner to the indigenous tribes of south america.... But if it's just another ape, I fail to see what all the trouble is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spader Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 Does anyone remember the movie from the 80's where they thawed out the caveman and put him into an artificial habitat to study him? Even though in my teens at the time, the ethics bothered me. On one hand you unfreeze a 40,000 year old hominid(i would say human but cant remember what it was, cro~mag, human,etc.) it didnt fool him very long. But what if they just put him in a room and tried to develop a form of communication and understanding just by thrusting him into a lab setting. Bottom line i think he would not be able to process everything into his view of what the world was/is. Even though i am in the no kill camp, somehow sedating and capturing a Bigfoot is foolhardy at best, you would have an enraged 7~10 foot tall bionic strong creature who in time, would get out, and besides other than physical material nothing about their behavior would be learned. Im sorry, unless we find a way to secretly film their behavior there is, in my humble opinion, no other way of learning about them. Finding a corpse is very remote, unless killed accidently by a car, and hunting one down is just wrong.(again my personal feelings) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest StankApe Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 It was called Iceman, starring Timothy Hutton. I saw it when I was a kid, but I don't really remember what happened. I know it didn't end on an upbeat note tho... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HairyGreek Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 Ummm, well, I will change my wording if this will improve your understanding. The scientific community WILL kill one to study if they exist. Any body that is discovered (or harvested) WILL be studied (or should be anyway). IF someone takes high resolution video that shows that they truly exist. The Smithsonian (or similarly accredited scientific society) WILL hire some hunters and go out and harvest one to study. I think to try and pull semantics into the equation just to suit your opinion is kinda...well, honestly, nitpicky. Nah...she smacked the taste out of your mouth on that one. Sorry dude. It only becomes "nitpicky" and "semantics" when someone gives you the ol' public touche'. Happens to us all. Changing the argument from selfishness into what the creature is, is just deflection. Take it like a man. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest StankApe Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 (edited) Nah...she smacked the taste out of your mouth on that one. Sorry dude. It only becomes "nitpicky" and "semantics" when someone gives you the ol' public touche'. Happens to us all. Changing the argument from selfishness into what the creature is, is just deflection. Take it like a man. I disagree completely. She (didn't know it was a lady person) took my "I want" and used it to attempt to dismiss my entire argument. I re-worded it so as to express the intent without any possession of the idea. I see this happening a lot on these forums. Edited October 22, 2011 by StankApe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgerm Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 P.S. if Bigfoot is discovered to exist and is a humanoid type of tribal animal, then the kill idea would change. It could then be studied in a similar manner to the indigenous tribes of south america.... But if it's just another ape, I fail to see what all the trouble is. So to answer the question, you would shoot one or have a guide blast one for science to study ol' BF if it is just a big monkey like animal. But if BF lives in small groups and chatters with others, it will be saved from the blast of an elephant gun and will remain a mystery for another 60 years. During this time only the lucky ones will know. Once BF is "discovered", then what? Will it be ok to allow zoos to capture them so Satruday crowds can walk past big glass windows to see BF smurk at them? Can we control the political process so BF must be studied in the wild. Maybe we should do this first, then discover BF at the end of a gun or encrusted on the grill of logging truck. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 Im sorry, unless we find a way to secretly film their behavior there is, in my humble opinion, no other way of learning about them. Of course we have a few here claiming intimate knowledge and interaction with the creatures. I claim I'm nearing the finalization of a protection order against Jennifer Aniston because she won't leave me alone and stalks me nightly. One claim, without proof, is as likely as the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 I'm not exactly clear on how knowing bigfoot/sasquatch existed would benefit the average person. All of us who frequent this forum are statistical anomalies, most of the population would never spend significant chunks of the time they have on this earth looking for or discussing bigfoot. The altruistic position of doing it for the good of Science is laughable. Science is a trendy, manipulated tool that at the end of the day has very little to do with ethics. Many societies already recognize/ believe in bigfoot. so what we are really discussing is Late 20th-early 21 century Western Civilization doesn't recognize/believe, and is killing one for them cool..................in a word, NO! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts