georgerm Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 i see a lot of semantical arguing is what i meant HG. Folks nitpicking words out of someones argument and making the debate about their wording instead of their concepts... I come from physics and such (not professionally but it's one of my interests and one of the "big idea" type of things I debate) those debates are all about ideas and concepts (and yes beliefs too) rarely does it devolve to finding the one word in an argument which you can use to nitpick a concept. I think most grownups understand a concept when it's expressed. To belittle one's idea merely with a basis of semantical and/or grammatical nitpicking is kinda...well it's not really furthuring the discussion is it? Well put. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 They are probably, IF the even exist, just a critter in the woods. If we were all debating a unknown squirrel would you have this same opinion? They sure are SMART critters, if they are. Naw, I don't have much of a soft spot for squirrels. They look too much like rats when you peel the skin off them. BTW, are you channeling Inc? You sound a lot like him...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgerm Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 For gad sakes, let's mellow out people...............we all have opinions and sometimes they are like parts to a puzzle since they all fit in somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuyInIndiana Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 Seriously, why should science be kept in the dark? No one said they should be kept in the dark. The point is they can be studied and understood without taking the life of one in the process. Those claiming it "MUST BE DONE for science!" often carry an obvious bent toward the need to be vendicated for having seen one and desiring some form of resolution over it. That's clearly not an altruistic motive for their discovery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 Ok folks, it's time to step away and take a few breaths. We've had several reports on this thread, and after reading this last page I understand why. I like a lively discussion as good as anybody but some of you are getting dangerously close to attacking the poster instead of argueing the points of the post. This is not acceptable within the rules of the forun. I'd prefer to keep this thread open but if it keeps rolling downhill it will be closed and warning levels will be elevated. in a word.....Be Nice! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted October 22, 2011 BFF Patron Share Posted October 22, 2011 Looks like no kill, or dgad wins if this tent rolls up tonight! Who's got the BBQ simmering with the beans? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 On the question of pro kill vs no kill I have always thought (summerized from Bigfoot would you shot one?) "That it was never pro kill vs no kill but when will we kill bigfoot. Either we shot Bigfoot to prove they exist or scientist will require a Holotype." So looking at pro kill vs no kill we should be studing Hominid vs Hominoid to make sure Bigfoot is not a Hominid. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 I don't think anyone owes anything to "science". Science has basically dismissed Bigfoot for 50 years. I think it may be for the best if the Bigfoot question is answered by the people who have put themselves out there, put in the work, and have faced ridicule by "mainstream" science. Maybe bringing forth an epic discovery that was right under their noses, on their continent, will cause them to put aside their intellectual arrogance and cause a nice humbling change to how "science" works. I do understand that it would ultimately be ideal for Bigfoot to be discovered and acknowledged as a species, but I think non-lethal methods should be given more of chance before shooting one is considered. Remember, "Squatching" with use of modern technology and methods (trailcams, call blasting, etc.) is still fairly new. And according to the most respected Bigfoot researchers, they are making more progress all the time. I think we can get it done this way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgerm Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 (edited) I don't think anyone owes anything to "science". Science has basically dismissed Bigfoot for 50 years. I think it may be for the best if the Bigfoot question is answered by the people who have put themselves out there, put in the work, and have faced ridicule by "mainstream" science. Maybe bringing forth an epic discovery that was right under their noses, on their continent, will cause them to put aside their intellectual arrogance and cause a nice humbling change to how "science" works. I do understand that it would ultimately be ideal for Bigfoot to be discovered and acknowledged as a species, but I think non-lethal methods should be given more of chance before shooting one is considered. Remember, "Squatching" with use of modern technology and methods (trailcams, call blasting, etc.) is still fairly new. And according to the most respected Bigfoot researchers, they are making more progress all the time. I think we can get it done this way. Well put and this applies to most of us............. Could shooting BF and bringing it in actually save BF and reduce the number of BFs that get shot? BFs get shot more often than many realize, and it will continue until federal legislation is inacted to make it a heavy crime. Laws won't be inacted until one is brought in so it's a Catch 22 or dilema. If we rely on the no kill theory, we may actually be contributing to the wounding and killing of many BFs. Should all with a gun to get with it? Only expert biggame hunters with the correct caliber and an understanding of bullets measured in grains should attempt to kill one. They know where to hit one so it won't suffer. They know how to track wounded animals which may require a track dog on a leash. This gets most of you off the hook. One report told of a guide being ripped to pieces after wounding a BF. The forest service reported a bear did it. Read below about numberous shootings. Here is a sample: http://robertlindsay.wordpress.com/2011/05/13/why-has-no-hunter-ever-shot-and-killed-a-bigfoot/ It is in BC that we find reports of the shootings of several sasquatches despitethe fact that it is illegal to do so. The earliest occurrence was in 1905 at Gardner Canal which is the longest fjord in BC at 114 kilometres in length. A sasquatch was reportedly killed here, but there are no details in regard to this event. John Green records that Bob Titmus interviewed two witnesses who shot at a sasquatch at Hartley Bay on an island near Bella Coola in 1967. The creature is said to have screamed and then fled. The witnesses were unable to find a the body of the creature. In February, 1969 at Khutze Inlet east of Graham Reach, three hunters were involved in an incident in which a sasquatch was shot at. Like the incident in 1967, the sasquatch screamed and ran into the woods. No trace of the creature was ever found after it fled. Whilst the violence done to a sasquatch has been recorded for posterity, there is little indication they are violent themselves with the excpetion of an incident that tookplace near Kitimat. Two generations ago, a Kitimat native shot a sasquatch. Several other sasquatches appeared and gave the impression thatthey were about to attack the man as he attempted to drag the body out He ultimately fled to his canoe and it says much aboutthe powers of restraint of the BC sasquatch that none of them attempted to pursue the man any further (Source: British Columbia Digest, 1963). Edited October 22, 2011 by georgerm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Biggie Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 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. WHAT?! How DARE her! We've been seeing each other and she feels the need to get pay back by cheating on me after Brad cheated on her?! We're THROUGH! If we were all debating a unknown squirrel would you have this same opinion? I'd just shoot the rat pest because that's exactly what a squirrel is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 22, 2011 Share Posted October 22, 2011 I don't think anyone owes anything to "science". Science has basically dismissed Bigfoot for 50 years. I think it may be for the best if the Bigfoot question is answered by the people who have put themselves out there, put in the work, and have faced ridicule by "mainstream" science. Maybe bringing forth an epic discovery that was right under their noses, on their continent, will cause them to put aside their intellectual arrogance and cause a nice humbling change to how "science" works. I do understand that it would ultimately be ideal for Bigfoot to be discovered and acknowledged as a species, but I think non-lethal methods should be given more of chance before shooting one is considered. Remember, "Squatching" with use of modern technology and methods (trailcams, call blasting, etc.) is still fairly new. And according to the most respected Bigfoot researchers, they are making more progress all the time. I think we can get it done this way. I agree but the thing is that when we find bigfoot scientist will require a body for taxonomy reason (holotype) Just by the act of trying to prove that bigfoot exist to the scienticic cumminity, it will lead to the killing of bigfoot by the general act of scientific collection of a speciem by colleges and museums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xspider1 Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 The Smithsonian will have a body eventually. One thing I definitely don't want to see at the Smithsonian is a taxidermy Bigfoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest StankApe Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 I would be fascinated by seeing a skeleton or taxidermy Sasquatch at the Smithsonian. One of the most eye opening things in my life was seeing a taxidermy Walrus at a zoo in South Dakota (it was donated by some local collector's estate after he died) I had NO IDEA they were so huge!!! That's beside the point though. Am I going to kill one? Nope, never seen one, doubt I ever will.I've been hunting a few times (it's cold!!) and as ex military man who knows what it's like to have a human being in my sights I am capable of it. But, just like hang gliding, it ain't my thang man! I'm not even that sure they even exist really. But, I think that the crux of this debate is that some people see "SCIENCE" as some big menacing, self satisfied machine. It really isn't, it's just people. All scientists are, are people who go out and do the work in their respective fields to teach the rest of us what makes the world (and the things on it and beyond it) tick. I think that the discovery/harvest of a sasquatch would be an exciting one for the bigfoot community. It would be an eye opener to the skeptics (regardless of their level of skepticality (yeah I just made that word up) a vindication ,of sorts, for many people who have felt ridiculed for their sightings (note I said many not all ) and a nice atta boy for those who have worked so very hard in their research of this elusive beast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
georgerm Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 (edited) I would be fascinated by seeing a skeleton or taxidermy Sasquatch at the Smithsonian. One of the most eye opening things in my life was seeing a taxidermy Walrus at a zoo in South Dakota (it was donated by some local collector's estate after he died) I had NO IDEA they were so huge!!! Would the authorities confiscate BF before it got to the Smithsonian? As I said in an a few posts back, does shooting a BF actually save many others from being shot? Edited October 23, 2011 by georgerm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted October 23, 2011 Share Posted October 23, 2011 As I said in an a few posts back, does shooting a BF actually save many others from being shot? No I personaly do not think so. Museum and colleges will require several bigfoot bodys for a reference collection. Different sizes, collor, sex, differnt geographic ranges (western bigfoot, eastern bigfoot, skunk ape to name a few). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts