How does this save bigfoot?

[jasocal]

I've posed this question in another thread but the number of posts there may have drowned out my inquiry.

In a nutshell, how does finding this creature and proving it's existence protect it? If bigfood exists, what status could be more secure than having 99% of the population believe it a myth and the other 1% incapable, after decades of exploration, of finding authoritative evidence of its existence much less the creature itself?

You'll drag these poor brutes who presumably want nothing more than seclusion, into the light of parliamentary proceedings...show the world where they are and what they look like and hope that some political genuflection will prevent people from harming them.

I don't want to be flippant. I want to take everyone here at their word, but can this have been thought through?

[kova]

jasocal said:

I've posed this question in another thread but the number of posts there may have drowned out my inquiry.

In a nutshell, how does finding this creature and proving it's existence protect it? If bigfood exists, what status could be more secure than having 99% of the population believe it a myth and the other 1% incapable, after decades of exploration, of finding authoritative evidence of its existence much less the creature itself?

You'll drag these poor brutes who presumably want nothing more than seclusion, into the light of parliamentary proceedings...show the world where they are and what they look like and hope that some political genuflection will prevent people from harming them.

I don't want to be flippant. I want to take everyone here at their word, but can this have been thought through?

this is what I have been saying all along....

This is why todd contradicts himeself...

[Paul]

jasocal said:

I've posed this question in another thread but the number of posts there may have drowned out my inquiry.

In a nutshell, how does finding this creature and proving it's existence protect it? If bigfood exists, what status could be more secure than having 99% of the population believe it a myth and the other 1% incapable, after decades of exploration, of finding authoritative evidence of its existence much less the creature itself?

You'll drag these poor brutes who presumably want nothing more than seclusion, into the light of parliamentary proceedings...show the world where they are and what they look like and hope that some political genuflection will prevent people from harming them.

I don't want to be flippant. I want to take everyone here at their word, but can this have been thought through?

Personally I would like to know more about BF. To know more you have to be able to find them to do research. If you can find them you can shoot them.

If we can prove that they exists and share how to find them we can study them and even learn from them.

In the end the desire to study them probably stems from man's need to know everything about everything.


P.S. I reread what I stated using "we" can prove, etc. I don't really mean "we" as though I'm personally searching for BF more like "we" as the human race. I'll leave the BF search to others....I don't really feel prepared to deal with the size/strength of an animal like the puported BF.

[jasocal]

paul said:

Personally I would like to know more about BF. To know more you have to be able to find them to do research. If you can find them you can shoot them.

If we can prove that they exists and share how to find them we can study them and even learn from them.

In the end the desire to study them probably stems from man's need to know everything about everything.


P.S. I reread what I stated using "we" can prove, etc. I don't really mean "we" as though I'm personally searching for BF more like "we" as the human race. I'll leave the BF search to others....I don't really feel prepared to deal with the size/strength of an animal like the puported BF.

Paul,

If your chief concern is learning more about bigfoot, I think finding them is a reasonable, even necessary approach. I don't make any ethical judgement on your goal. My question is for those who claim to want to protect the species. Again, what status could be more secure for this species than being undiscovered? To be the subject of a slideshow for parliament? No, no...certainly not.

I'm starting to suspect I may have stumbled on the "Sylvanic" endgame.

[Paul]

jasocal said:

Paul,

If your chief concern is learning more about bigfoot, I think finding them is a reasonable, even necessary approach. I don't make any ethical judgement on your goal. My question is for those who claim to want to protect the species. Again, what status could be more secure for this species than being undiscovered? To be the subject of a slideshow for parliament? No, no...certainly not.

I'm starting to suspect I may have stumbled on the Sylvanic endgame.

To your point, yes I agree nothing could keep them safer than being undiscovered. What was that saying about the devil?? Something like his greatest feat was convincing the world that he did not exist?

Although, with all of the attention on BF somebody is going to eventually figure them out. And then being an unrecognized/unprotected species I can only assume that they would be slaughtered.

[kova]

Slaughtered??? lol, I think that if you can out right proove they exist they would be strongly protected by a load of hippy movements, archaeologist, endangered species groups, etc... The land would probably be protected... Fines would be set... some would probably be captured and studied (AND THEY SHOULD)... but as for people going around killing all of them... I think not.

Stop skipping the important first step... prooving they exist. Then you can go on your protect the species campaign.

[Paul]

kova said:

Slaughtered??? lol, I think that if you can out right proove they exist they would be strongly protected by a load of hippy movements, archaeologist, endangered species groups, etc... The land would probably be protected... Fines would be set... some would probably be captured and studied (AND THEY SHOULD)... but as for people going around killing all of them... I think not.

Stop skipping the important first step... prooving they exist. Then you can go on your protect the species campaign.

Kova, fine they would not be slaughtered they would be protected by hippies, my guess of what would happen is obviously far fetched and you have a much better grasp on what would happen.

I don't think that anyone is skipping squat. There are people (including Todd) looking everyday to find proof that BF exists (many people KNOW that they exist, but they need to get proof for people who have never had an encounter). How is that skipping anything?

I just don't understand why you guys don't get that fact. Do you guys not realize that there are many people out in the field looking for this animal?

The bottom line is if you are absolutely opposed to the idea that BF exists, then there is nothing available sufficient enough to prove that you are wrong but people are trying to provide that for YOU.

The thing that I don't understand is if you are absolutely certain that they don't exist, why bash people who are out there trying to get the proof to change YOUR mind (they don't need proof as they already have it based on real life in the flesh experiences)?

Is the idea that people are looking to prove the existence of BF so offensive to you that you cannot help but to come and heckle them?

If you are taking the time to read and write on a BF message board there must be some part of you that has some interest in BF, right? If so, let the researchers go get some footage, review it and decide for yourself.

In the meantime, how does it hurt to try and raise awareness of the animal? Also, if the animal does in fact exist wouldn't it seem prudent to try and get protection for the species? If awareness is increased and then followed up with better proof wouldn't that make it easier to get laws passed and get even more people on the band wagon?


You know maybe it's the fault of all of the hoaxers, BS'ers, etc that make it so hard for the average person to accept even the possibility that BF exists. That is probably the biggest thing about BF that intrigues me, why it causes such strong reactions in people.

[buddharat]

paul said:

The thing that I don't understand is if you are absolutely certain that they don't exist, why bash people who are out there trying to get the proof to change YOUR mind (they don't need proof as they already have it based on real life in the flesh experiences)?

I have never understood this either. I do a lot of research and read a lot about the unknown (everything ranging from cryptozoology to paranormal to extraterrestrial). I find this harsh critism for all the information in all those fields. It seems people would rather resort to personally insulting someone instead of looking at the data.

I've found there are two main types of skeptics (there's probably more so I hope people don't grasp onto that one thing just to say I'm wrong). 1.) Skeptical thinkers: People who think it might be possible but just look at the proof skeptically, and 2.) Debunkers: People who will come up with any excuse to disprove it, even if it is more ridiculous then the original answer (like swamp gas is the cause of UFO sightings).

When it comes to those two groups, I found you can reason and have good conversations with the first, but the second group is impossible to talk to. A ghost or bf could be standing right in front of them and they would say "oh it's a guy in a suit" or "I'm having a halucination right now".

[Paul]

buddharat said:

I have never understood this either. I do a lot of research and read a lot about the unknown (everything ranging from cryptozoology to paranormal to extraterrestrial). I find this harsh critism for all the information in all those fields. It seems people would rather resort to personally insulting someone instead of looking at the data.

I've found there are two main types of skeptics (there's probably more so I hope people don't grasp onto that one thing just to say I'm wrong). 1.) Skeptical thinkers: People who think it might be possible but just look at the proof skeptically, and 2.) Debunkers: People who will come up with any excuse to disprove it, even if it is more ridiculous then the original answer (like swamp gas is the cause of UFO sightings).

When it comes to those two groups, I found you can reason and have good conversations with the first, but the second group is impossible to talk to. A ghost or bf could be standing right in front of them and they would say oh it's a guy in a suit or I'm having a halucination right now.

Well I haven't spent any time researching ghosts and UFOs, mostly because I have never had any experiences with them. Even though I haven't had any expereince with them, I wouldn't go to a website and heckle a bunch of people who think that they have just because....I wouldn't waste my time messing with them about something I have no experience or interest in. Since I have no experience with those things I wouldn't feel that my opinion (especially a negative one) would add any value to the discussions.

[The Truth]

This just about sums up the debate about saving bigfoot:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=uusIL_61CHA

Also, since there have never been any dead bodies, he appears to be pretty good at protecting himself! Why ruin a good thing?

[Paul]

The said:

This just about sums up the debate about saving bigfoot:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=uusIL_61CHA

Also, since there have never been any dead bodies, he appears to be pretty good at protecting himself! Why ruin a good thing?

Ironic....fits right in with what we were discussing above. ;D

[jasocal]

Thanks for the contributions to the thread everyone.

For those who are focused on whether we're "skeptics" or believers...that's not really my point.

For the record, I'm a skeptic such that if I had to bet my life on the creature's existence...I'd have to say it does not. But like some respected scientists I've heard weigh in on the subject, I am fascinated by the anecdotal evidence and the folklore and I would be delighted if this creature really was out there. I don't hold believers in lower esteem...not at all.

My point is what it's always been and it's been echoed here and elsewhere. How does this save bigfoot? Can anyone construct a paragraph that starts with "Finding and photographing this species in a repeatable fashion then presenting the evidence to parliament and therefore the world creates a safer environment for the species than their current status because...." and then finish it with a cogent argument?

Maybe I'm wrong, but I don't get it. Is anyone else curious if the Sylvanic team will eventually say "Well, we've found them and we have proof...but we've decided it's in their best interest not to reveal it"?

[Paul]

jasocal said:

My point is what it's always been and it's been echoed here and elsewhere. How does this save bigfoot? Can anyone construct a paragraph that starts with Finding and photographing this species in a repeatable fashion then presenting the evidence to parliament and therefore the world creates a safer environment for the species than their current status because.... and then finish it with a cogent argument?

I can't. But....I can't think of any examples off the top of my head where we as people, country or civilization decided that ignoring something was the best approach, seems like people always want to know everything. Can you give reasoning as to why ignoring them would be the best approach? Personally as I've stated before I would like to know more about them especially if I am going to be in the same woods as them for their protection as well as mine. I am pretty sure that when you are in their woods and they don't want you there they are pretty good at convincing you to leave. And even though these situations can be scary, they don't seem hellbent on killing you (even though they could easily).

[jasocal]

Yes Paul, I can make the argument that "ignoring" them is the best course of action to preserving the species. Remember, you are generally talking about "learning" about the species and I have acknowledged that with that goal in mind, finding them would be essential. But I think you're confusing your curiousity with the stated goal of the Sylvanic organization which is the preservation of the species.

I have not said that leaving the animals alone is the best way to learn about them. I've said it's the best way to protect them. It's a very big distinction.

As for my argument, I think I've stated it a few times and forgive me, but I think it's rather obvious. This is an animal that has been reported from the Florida Everglades to the Canadian Northwest Territory on this continent and yet we can't find a hair, nor a mound of feces, nor a bone nor a tool nor a trail to demonstrate they've been here throughout recorded geologic history.

So what would we be "protecting" them from if we marched into Parliament with a slideshow of bigfoot and tell everyone where they are and how to find them?

[Paul]

jasocal said:

Yes Paul, I can make the argument that "ignoring" them is the best course of action to preserving the species. Remember, you are generally talking about "learning" about the species and I have acknowledged that with that goal in mind, finding them would be essential. But I think you're confusing your curiousity with the stated goal of the Sylvanic organization which is the preservation of the species.

I have not said that leaving the animals alone is the best way to learn about them. I've said it's the best way to protect them. It's a very big distinction.

As for my argument, I think I've stated it a few times and forgive me, but I think it's rather obvious. This is an animal that has been reported from the Florida Everglades to the Canadian Northwest Territory on this continent and yet we can't find a hair, nor a mound of feces, nor a bone nor a tool nor a trail to demonstrate they've been here throughout recorded geologic history.

So what would we be "protecting" them from if we marched into Parliament with a slideshow of bigfoot and tell everyone where they are and how to find them?

I thought that I agreed with you a while back. They can't get any safer if nobody can find them. Sorry but I just continued right from that to my point that even though that is true I doubt that people will stop looking for them, blah, blah, blah.

I think that your statement of no hair, feces, etc found is not entirely accurate though. Hair, feces, prints, etc have been found. I think that the problem is that since they officially "do not exist" what could a scientist compare it to to get a match?

There are reports of people shooting AT them, who knows if any have been killed during those encounters. Obviously they didn't drop on the spot, but could have walked a ways off and died. I think that what we would be protecting them from is encounters like that or when someone sees one AND has a gun and they just start shooting.

If we raise awareness so that people KNOW what they are seeing during an encounter AND grant protection so that people know that they can't just start shooting, that is the goal.