• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Bigfoot risks extinction, says Canadian MP

No words adequately describe my response to this. I hope that MP loses his seat.
 
How convenient for the crypto-zoologists. "Oh, they existed... once... UNTIL MANKIND'S GREED DESTROYED THEM!!! <Sob!>"
 
Years ago, "Bigfoot Researchers" used to promote themselves by writing books, and then by getting on TV. These days they post blogs, create new Bigfoot message boards, form new groups, and participate in conferences. This guy Standing appears to be utilizing a unique and novel technique by hijacking the Canadian bureaucracy to promote his new video...
 
"When I get species protection for them nationwide, I will make my findings public and I will take this out of the realm of mythology. Bigfoot is real," Standing told Global National television news.

If you truly believed bigfoot was real, endangered, that you had documentary evidence of it, and were trying to affect governmental action to protect it than common sense would dictate that you would try to persuade bureaucrats with that footage of yours. Of course if you were just trying to get some hype for your silly little DVD than the strategy quoted above would be just typical.
 
From the petition:
The debate over their [Bigfoot's] existence is moot in the circumstance of their tenuous hold on merely existing.
Click to expand...
This sentence doesn't even make sense. Can anyone explain it?
 
The debate over whether or not bigfoot is endangered is moot in the circumstance that they never existed to begin with.
 
In Volume 11, #2 and #3 of Skeptic, from the "Junior Skeptic" portion of the magazine there is an article about the origin of the Sasquatch legend.

Bigfoot Part One:
Dawn of Sasquatch
written and illustrated
by Daniel Loxton
Ogres; Native Folklore and J. W.Burns— the Father of the Sasquatch; Native Eyewitnesses; The Legend Begins: A Star is Born; The Makeover: Sasquatch Becomes an Ape; Albert Ostman: Kidnapped; The Jacko Legend; The Bluff Creek Tracks: The Birth of Bigfoot; Ray Wallace; The Patterson Film; Bob Heironimus: The Man In the Suit.
Click to expand...

Bigfoot Part Two:
The Case For Sasquatch

written and illustrated
by Daniel Loxton
Behind The Legend;
Footprint Evidence:
Cripplefoot tracks:
Bigfoot fever; Conspiracies;
Hoaxes:
Hoaxing 101; Da Vinci Hoaxes;
Physical Evidence:
Bodies; Hair Samples; DNA;
The Bottom Line:
Could Sasquatches Exist?
Click to expand...

From the link provided by Skeptic Guy:
"Therefore, the petitioners request the House of Commons to establish immediate, comprehensive legislation to affect immediate protection of Bigfoot," says the petition signed by almost 500 of Lake's constituents in Edmonton, Alberta.
Click to expand...

Any forum members from this person's riding?
 
But imagine how horrible it would be to find a bigfoot's body in the remains of a stip-mined forest, and know that it really had lived recently, but we killed the last one before we could discover them.

There's no proof of bigfoot's existance, but there's no proof that a cure for cancer can be found in the Amazon, but this doesn't stop conservationists siting the possibility that there might be as a good reason to end the deforestation of the rainforests.
 
Skeptic Guy said:
The Canadian Government wants to place Big Foot on the protected species list.

"Bigfoot researcher Todd Standing, who was behind the petition, claims to have proof of its existence, and says he fears for its safety."

Mr. Randi may have to get out his checkbook soon! :rolleyes:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070502/wl_canada_afp/canadauspoliticsanimaloffbeat_070502173737
Click to expand...

"... comprehensive legislation to affect immediate protection of Bigfoot..."

So what's this mean? How you do protect something that there is no proof of...?
 
There is still a lot of the world's great forests that remain unexplored, especially in North and South America and Siberia. Some of it has only been mapped from the air by a couple of brief overflights. Therefore when we talk about protecting it from destruction we have to deal with that potential unknown and whatever it might contain.

I support the idea of protecting Bigfoot, and the Loch Ness Monster and Yeti etc, as potential creatures that might exist.
 
It does make sense on some level that on the off chance that it is found to exist that we should protect it (I believe there are already laws to protect Nessie), but on the other hand why waste time passing laws BEFORE we know that is exists?


Porterboy said:
There's no proof of bigfoot's existance, but there's no proof that a cure for cancer can be found in the Amazon, but this doesn't stop conservationists siting the possibility that there might be as a good reason to end the deforestation of the rainforests.
Click to expand...


Hahaha, what?
 
Porterboy said:
But imagine how horrible it would be to find a bigfoot's body in the remains of a stip-mined forest, and know that it really had lived recently, but we killed the last one before we could discover them.

There's no proof of bigfoot's existance, but there's no proof that a cure for cancer can be found in the Amazon, but this doesn't stop conservationists siting the possibility that there might be as a good reason to end the deforestation of the rainforests.
Click to expand...

By that line of reasoning just replace the word bigfoot with unicorn or a magic dragon. :p
Good luck on this forum. I don't even feel like listing the number of logical fallacies you have in your statement there.
 
I think we need to start an invisible dragon conversation group myself!
 
Solus said:
By that line of reasoning just replace the word bigfoot with unicorn or a magic dragon. :p
Good luck on this forum. I don't even feel like listing the number of logical fallacies you have in your statement there.
Click to expand...

What logical fallacies? Some of the world's forests are unknown- therefore we can't be 100% sure of what is in them. Therefore in principle we should be willing to protect anything unknown that is in that unknown area. It's fairly straightforward.

I'm not alone here, Arthur C Clarke agrees with me.
 
Porterboy said:
What logical fallacies? Some of the world's forests are unknown- therefore we can't be 100% sure of what is in them. Therefore in principle we should be willing to protect anything unknown that is in that unknown area. It's fairly straightforward.
Click to expand...

we don't know whats in these unexplored forests, therefore we do know, and it's Bigfoot.
 
There's something else we should consider:

Along with Bigfoot or any other cryptids that might lie unknown in the world's forests, we have to be prepared that there might even be people. I remember hearing how some explorers in New Guinea a couple of years ago came across a group of people who had never had any contact with the outside world. When these people were taken to visit a city they became mentally ill because it was so unlike anything they'd seen before.

The film "Last of the Dogmen" is all about this subject, although to be accurate, the Indians in the movie were not totally devoid of contact with the outside world, but they'd been isolated for several generation after fleeing from the cavalry at Sand Creek.
 
brodski said:
we don't know whats in these unexplored forests, therefore we do know, and it's Bigfoot.
Click to expand...

No, but it might be.. or something else unknown. The whole point of something being unknown is that we don't know what's in it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom