• 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.

How to Analyze Cryptid Assertions

Night Walker said:
Saying that you understand theatrics while then referring to it as "lies" demonstrates that you don't understand theatrics beyond, perhaps, a superficial reductionist manner. It's very similar to Bigfooters saying that they understand science but demonstrating otherwise by insisting Bigfoot is real...
Click to expand...

Bologna sandwiches must be a popular brown bagger for the footers. You're funny in that, you want to have your cake and eat it too. When you can show me the bigfoot, (which admittedly we both know is a farce at this point) Admitting you're either hoaxing/story telling/lying does not change what your actions are doing. Myself and others posting here have done a pretty decent job of describing some situations where it might be har har funny to snipe hunt or play pranks. However, we've also pointed out situations or practices that may be well beyond a prank and more about a for profit basis. When you start fooling people for money, or dupe them in some way to gain profit, that is never going to be a good thing for you or for them. For example, if one were to use university space and resources to study bigfoot, or pull academic atrocities like the skookum elk lay. It's ridiculous. Meldrum published a paper trying to name the footprints from his prestigious position at Idaho State University.

Good for him? Nah, bad on the university for allowing the stupidity to continue on their penny. Seems like he goes unchallenged on those things for the most part. I'd much rather see our universities use their funding to promote more sound agendas. At some point there was a tally of funding that was given to Meldrum. Anyone have a current list of those grants?

As to the theatrics, I understand it well. I'm trying to point out the differences. You don't see people out in the woods with high powered weapons looking for superman, or for godzilla, or carrying shotties packin 00 buckshot to hunt down some mermaids? There's a good reason for that. Because no one is selling it as a real entity. It's in the fiction section where it belongs. It's fine to story tell, or to "folk lore" your willies off. The problem is when you have people out there teaching people its real, that we should give them money and resources to help the beast, preserve them or observe them to finally collect proof needed. ETC ETC ad nausea effect for funs.

Are there tax free entities out there for the protection and collection of mermaids? Why not? Superman? Yeah, so there is the rub. No one (perhaps slightly dumb, or deluded if they truly believe in a beast running around NA?! lol) running around the forests looking for signs of superman. ;)
 
The Shrike said:
I cover my tracks pretty well so they can try but they won't find anything.
Click to expand...

Watch out for that kryptonite bong I left in the tree house. :cool:

Superman spotted at Hardees with 4 mushroom and swiss burgers and 2 shakes. He appeared to be giggling as he inhaled the fast food wrappers and all.
Click to expand...
 
Mermaids are still being sighted, people still look for them, and good money is being offered for proof...

The Danish government is funding research on Trolls...

Why search for Superman when you can be your own superhero?

So, if you want to be "righteous as ****" about the real-world theatrics then it is also your right to do so. It is good to express oneself via unusual hobbies in this new millennium and we are in fine company: Saying that one is "righteous as ****" about Bigfootery in the cyber-world but doing nothing tangible about it in the real-world is the role-playing equivalent of Bigfooters who say they are doing research deep in the wilderness when they are obviously doing neither...

Go, Bigfoot-skepticism!!! Keep slaying that imaginary beast!!!
 
Night Walker said:
Mermaids are still being sighted, people still look for them, and good money is being offered for proof...

The Danish government is funding research on Trolls...

Why search for Superman when you can be your own superhero?

So, if you want to be "righteous as ****" about the real-world theatrics then it is also your right to do so. It is good to express oneself via unusual hobbies in this new millennium and we are in fine company: Saying that one is "righteous as ****" about Bigfootery in the cyber-world but doing nothing tangible about it in the real-world is the role-playing equivalent of Bigfooters who say they are doing research deep in the wilderness when they are obviously doing neither...

Go, Bigfoot-skepticism!!! Keep slaying that imaginary beast!!!
Click to expand...

You're funny with those examples. May as well include the bounties out there on bigfoots body. I've seen a couple million dollar ones, and one 10 million dollar one. Yet no one can produce the dang thing. Almost as if those offers could be 100 million and still no results!

You avoid the obvious point from my post, which says a lot.
 
River said:
've seen a couple million dollar ones, and one 10 million dollar one. Yet no one can produce the dang thing.
Click to expand...

Let's discuss bigfoot for a moment as though it were a real animal. It has no status with the Department of Fish and Game. That is, it is currently not illegal to track, hunt, capture, or shoot a bigfoot. If one were discovered, this would change but right now it's not a problem. People use hounds all the time to track mountain lion and bear. Hounds are also used to track humans and this works even when people are wearing shoes.

People who document wildlife on camera have a far tougher job. They don't want to tree a leopard and film it, they want to capture its natural behavior. It takes two or three years to get elusive animals on film. This includes things like Kakapo, Sumatran Rhino, forest elephants, Okapi, tigers, and leopards. Any good wildlife photographer would have a full documentary on bigfoot in the same timeframe, two or three years. Someone who hunts mountain lion or bear would have a bigfoot killed within a few weeks.

An actual film documentary of bigfoot would be worth a great deal of money; box office sales would exceed $500 million and revenues would probably exceed $1 billion in global distribution. A body would be worth far less than a documentary but it would also be much easier to obtain. Neither exists and it isn't for lack of demand or ability.
 
barehl said:
Let's discuss bigfoot for a moment as though it were a real animal. It has no status with the Department of Fish and Game. That is, it is currently not illegal to track, hunt, capture, or shoot a bigfoot. If one were discovered, this would change but right now it's not a problem. People use hounds all the time to track mountain lion and bear. Hounds are also used to track humans and this works even when people are wearing shoes.

People who document wildlife on camera have a far tougher job. They don't want to tree a leopard and film it, they want to capture its natural behavior. It takes two or three years to get elusive animals on film. This includes things like Kakapo, Sumatran Rhino, forest elephants, Okapi, tigers, and leopards. Any good wildlife photographer would have a full documentary on bigfoot in the same timeframe, two or three years. Someone who hunts mountain lion or bear would have a bigfoot killed within a few weeks.

An actual film documentary of bigfoot would be worth a great deal of money; box office sales would exceed $500 million and revenues would probably exceed $1 billion in global distribution. A body would be worth far less than a documentary but it would also be much easier to obtain. Neither exists and it isn't for lack of demand or ability.
Click to expand...

In regards to tracking or hunting Bigfoot or any other unknown animal. Most states in the US consider all wild animals/fauna a natural resource which they own and govern.
You are issued a license to harvest particular animals during the hunting seasons. So in most cases if you don't have a license to hunt it, it's illegal to do so regardless of what it is.
 
. . . and if they were, the fine/payoff ratio would be so laughably lopsided as to be a non-issue.

If the potential for fines is what deters people from shooting bigfoots, then why are the raptor rehab centers filled with hawks and eagles sporting gunshot wounds? Indeed, why would "poaching" be a thing at all? Clearly, the threat of prosecution is little deterrent to people interested in making a quick buck on the black market or even those without a financial motive who just like to kill "chicken hawks". Imagine the draw toward something with no clear prohibition on the books but for which one could easily score a $1 million spot on Nightline.
 
The prosecutor would be unable to tell the judge and/or jury what was shot because the creature is unknown. Not only is it scientifically undescribed it also has no accepted name. The body would have to be brought into a courtroom and the prosecutor would have to point at it while saying "he shot that thing I'm pointing at".

No prosecution or fine.
 
Cervelo said:
In regards to tracking or hunting Bigfoot or any other unknown animal. Most states in the US consider all wild animals/fauna a natural resource which they own and govern.
Click to expand...

You could be right. Indiana used to have a law like that.

Indiana Code - Section 14-22-1-1:
(a) All wild animals, except those that are:
(1) legally owned or being held in captivity under a license or permit as required by this article; or
(2) otherwise excepted in this article; are the property of the people of Indiana.

This was repealed in 2005.

The current law in Kentucky would prevent you from keeping a bigfoot as a pet assuming they are primates. However, you could keep one in Indiana as long as you have a permit.
 
William Parcher said:
Nobody would be prosecuted for shooting a Bigfoot.
Click to expand...

That seems most likely to me, especially since the shooter would be able to say, with a straight face, that he only shot it so it could be legally protected going forward.

Or that he was sincerely afraid the nine-foot tall monkey might be dangerous.

I think either one would fly.
 
No prosecutor would ever proceed on a gigantic hairy ape shooting. They couldn't even call it anything until after science decided what it is. The idea of it somehow being illegal to kill (at first) is absurd.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom