It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Would you shoot an animal to prove it existed?

page: 3
<< 1  2   >>

log in


posted on Jan, 17 2006 @ 07:16 PM
If it posed any threat I think a rifle round to the head would work nicely, but if not I'd go along with maddness' plan.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
i'd tranq it, pose with it, bring a scientist to examine it, tag it, and then have it released into its habitat so we can track down more of the buggers.

Mabye obtain enough genetic material to see where it is along evolutionary lines.

posted on Jan, 20 2006 @ 09:32 AM
If they wanted to use thermal and find bigfoot they could. The fact is The park rangers all over the country already know exactly where they are and do not want anyone to find them. The best thing to do is leave them alone or we will end up killing all of them.

posted on Jan, 22 2006 @ 02:10 PM
My problem is if we kill it that could have the been the last one on earth of whatever that was, we know if bigfoot excists there are so many sitings there have to be more than one but if there is only one it has to be alive to really study, unless you are in danger don't shoot it.

posted on Jan, 22 2006 @ 07:18 PM
only with taser or other non lethal weapons. I will then shoot but not kill the animal or creature because it might lead to the death of that species

posted on Jan, 22 2006 @ 08:17 PM

Originally posted by ll0ll0ll0
This is something I have been debating personally. If you encountered a creature such as bigfoot or the like, would it be ok to kill it simply to provide proof that it is real?

[edit on 28-12-2005 by ll0ll0ll0]

see how i would do it if i was hunting for bigfoot i would not bring a rifle i would bring a high dosage tranquilizer gun and a handgun just incase it goes ape. if you big foot believers swear its so real tranquilze the dam thing and drag it over to a lab!!!

posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 04:28 AM
i'd try to catch it first but if that wasnt woring and i had no more options then i would kill it as long as it wasent the only 1 in existance

posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 10:37 AM
Why would anyone want to kill something so difficult to locate, tract down and even witness just once?

If people need to shoot things that bad put down you guns and pick up a camera or camcorder.

I would think that people who take the time to search, research and explore for cryptids would want to preserve the creature not finally wipe it out for good, even in the name of DNA testing and evolutionary identification.

Sounds skeptical and anti-cryptid. Shouldn't there be a level of preservation and a sense of loyalty to the creatures?


posted on Mar, 10 2006 @ 10:50 AM
I would "shoot" a picture of it. I would not shoot an animal just to prove it exists (even with the promise of fame and fortune).

The only way I'd shoot something would be in self-defence... and even then I'd rather use a taser.

So I'm a softy.

posted on Mar, 12 2006 @ 02:43 PM
I'd sight in on it, then second guess if I should, then tighten up on the trigger a bit and think about all that I could do for my family with the money its body would bring in. Then I'd wonder if IT had a family and start thinking how I'm really doing ok, not really behind in any payments or hurting for spare cash. Then I would wonder how my wife and kids would feel about daddy killing bigfoot, then I'd probably fire one off into the dirt to get it to haul ass as far away from me as fast as it could before I changed my mind and never tell a soul I saw him.
Damn, I havn't even really seen him and I'm kicking myself in the ass right now for letting him get away.

posted on Mar, 12 2006 @ 03:09 PM
Should be ok to shoot it with a Tazer gun. To kill it to prove you discovered it is silly.

posted on Mar, 12 2006 @ 08:26 PM
Not that I own a gun, but in the one-in-a-billion chance that I happen to have a gun placed in my hands the same moment I see bigfoot, I would definately shoot it. The only possible technicality is if it does belong to the genus homo, it could be considered homocide. I don't think anybody could seriously send you to jail for proving bigfoot exists though.

1. Make sure it doesn't look like a guy in a suit
2. Yell to give it warning you are going to shoot, last chance for the person to identify themselves as human. Getting charged with manslaughter isn't fun.
3. If it still acts non-human, take that sucker down.

Then again, last time I offered my opinion on this subject, I got a short story written about me. Here it is, just for laughs:

[dream sequence diddle-diddle-doots]

The Yarcofinator

A Short Feature by Majic®

Deep in the forest primaeval, the forest primaeval of old, of old, Bigfoot sits unconscious, tied to a folding chair. Yarcofin gently pistol whips him awake...

Yarcofin: Sorry I have to do this, but it's for the good of science.

Bigfoot: (slips hand out of rope bindings and rubs back of neck painfully) Wha? What? What the hell are you talking about?

Yarcofin: I can't allow you to escape.

Bigfoot: Hey, I'm not going anywhere, not after the way you coldcocked me like that. Geez, what was that, a baseball bat?

Yarcofin: Axe handle. Look, it's nothing personal, you just happen to be the first Bigfoot I've ever captured, and there's simply no way I'm going to let you go. Sorry. Not gonna happen, amigo. Dream on. Say your prayers. Prepare to join the choir invisible. Ticket punched. Chit yanked. Game canceled. Engagement disengaged. Bets off. Tent rolled. Stakes pulled. Visa revoked.

Yarcofin: (leans forward, hands on hips) BIGFOOT, I PWN U!

Bigfoot: Um, dude, I'm like totally not Bigfoot. I thought you would have figured that out already.

Yarcofin: Yeah, right. The old “you've got the wrong Bigfoot routine”. Nuh-uh. Fool me twice, shame on me.

Bigfoot: (turns to point finger at own back) Look, see the zipper? It's not even brown, it's silver (faces Yarcofin, sighs). Look, friend, I need to get this suit back by six o'clock or I'm out fifty bucks on the deposit. Can't we just forget this ever happened, already?

Yarcofin: I'm sorry, but not this time (lifts the pistol to Bigfoot's synthetic, ape-like face and cocks it with a loud, metallic double-click). There's no other way.

Yarcofin: Hasta la vista, Biggie. (pulls trigger)


Sounds good to me. You show that overgrown walking carpet who's boss, holmes.

posted on Mar, 14 2006 @ 03:26 PM
I do hunt wild game but if I'm not going to consume it I don't shoot it.

As for Bigfoot, would I shoot it? Absolutely not! What right do I have to shoot something that is 1. most likely in very small numbers. 2. Reported to be an intelligent animal with the ability to think and reason. 3. Usually reported to not be agressive. 4. I'm not going to eat it.

Would I dart it? Again, absolutely not! I have no idea how sensitive it may be to the drug/s. Many animals are very sensitive and have to be darted with just the right amount of just the right drug or they may die.

The best thing to do is bring a video camera. If you can get a good enough vid record of it, it should be all the proof needed. I believe that if Patterson would have had a modern camera, there would be no doubt. His footage is pretty hoax proof as it is.

That's the problem with man, always wanting to be rich, powerful and famous. And willing to kill for it.

By the way, after you shoot him, look in his eyes as he breathes his last breath....

posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 04:59 AM
To anyone thinking to shoot the animal just to prove it existed: it may do no good.

I saw a programme on Discovery on the "God Bear of Kamchatcka" (catchy title) where a Russian hunter shot this pretty massive bear of a kind he had never encountered before. He had no way of preserving it, being out in the wilderness, so he skinned it and took a photo of himself before the outstretched fur, sending that to the proper people in Moscow. They were intrigued since the bear seemed somewhat different than normal ones, but couldn't conclude anything further from a picture.

Okay, so it was a Discovery show rather than some article in your favourite scientific journal, and it wasn't necessarily the last bear of its kind, or even 100% certain of an unknown species of bear, but still... (I did wonder why the hunter didn't ship the fur to Moscow as well, but perhaps he needed cash.)

Anyhow, it would be a quandary for me. I'm rarely armed when wandering around in situations where I'd be even remotely likely to meet any strange creature, so shooting it is basically out. Then again, I don't normally carry a camera around either, and pics are too easily faked. And it would anyhow depend on both creature and situation: a new species of butterfly flying prettily around a sunlit glade, or a Gray-Bigfoot halfbreed rushing me with a rectal probe. There, it would be camera and gun, respectively.

posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 02:00 PM
I thought about this for, oh about 30 seconds, and much to my amazement I have decided I would not shoot it. Infact, I wouldn't even tell anyone I'd seen it. Guess I'm not such a greedy capitalist pig after all. Kinda disappointing actually. My own reality TV show "Hunting w/Seagull", down the tubes.

posted on Mar, 19 2006 @ 02:08 PM
No I wouldn't because if you're trying to prove it exists means that the species is almost extinct and shooting it would just harm their population.

posted on Mar, 21 2006 @ 07:31 PM

Originally posted by ll0ll0ll0
This is something I have been debating personally. If you encountered a creature such as bigfoot or the like, would it be ok to kill it simply to provide proof that it is real?

Not immediately, I'd want to make sure it wasn't a hoax or something. Then I'd shoot it. Might be the last one, can't let it get away. Things are rare, not like you see them all the time.

Then I'd stuff it and charge $30 admission to view it. Better yet, I'd build an entire theme park around it!

<< 1  2   >>

log in