Proof of life. Habeus Corpus?

I think we only need to place large amounts of goats and animals out in some open space and moniter them with cameras and we'll eventually be able to film Chupacubras and other strange critters feeding on some of them.

I guess you're right about man eating sharks having a place in the world. They just give me the creeps, that's all.

Man eater Sharks?
Come to India and try dealing with with man eater Tigers.
I forgot where I heard this, but from the 1800's till now their have been over 300,000 cases of Men/Women/Children, being eated or killed my tigers.
Deep

[Edited on 4-12-2003 by ZeroDeep]

That must be a pain, at least with sharks they can't walk on land...maybe in prehistoric times they could

-wD

What does Habeas Corpus have to do with a 'creature? thats a law term.

I would never kill such a type of being that was so rare. Now if people needed proof, I may tranquilize it and lock it in a cage, asuming it wouldnt be able to break out of it and kill me...

Anyone who would knowingly shoot toward a human-like shape is an irresponsible would be murderer. Can you be sure you are not shooting a guy in a monkey suit? Do hoaxers deserve to die? Can you absolutely tell the difference? If you see a Sasquatch and blow it away, what if it looks more like a big hairy crazy dude when you walk up to the corpse- Are you still a hero, or a murderer? Is there any justification for shooting something that cannot be differientiated from a human safely? If you think you can tell the difference, how? Remember, hoaxers in monkey suits are an existing subject, while Bigfoot is at best an unknown.

300,000 cases in 200 years.. oh boo-#ing-hoo, not like we are in danger of going extinct.. tigers on the other hand...


people kill each other/themselves off at a higher rate than all "dangerous" animals combined. I guess that means we have to kill every human, because we are a danger to ourselves.

[Edited on 4-12-2003 by EWom]

Originally posted by cudailikeman
What does Habeas Corpus have to do with a 'creature? thats a law term.

If you read earlier in the thread this was addressed.
It means literally, "You need a body"

In the case of proving the existence of a cryptid, having a body would extremely handy....

hrxll

Foolish thinking of killing a living creature just to have proof of existence, follow this theroy and we should start killing off one another just to prove that we also once lived.

Originally posted by MuseAndChimera
Foolish thinking of killing a living creature just to have proof of existence, follow this theroy and we should start killing off one another just to prove that we also once lived.

Is you look at any of the large species identifications of the last century a majority of the included harvesting of the creature to prove it's existence.

The Scientific community scoffed at the idea of a large man-creature in the mountains of the Congo, nearly a century of sightings and reports were laughed at, until a dutch officer and his men shot to Greater Mountain gorillas and dragged their carcasses back to civilization did the scientific community believe. This is one example amoung many. The Coelcanth, the Megamouth, the Woodland Bison are all examples of creatures that had to have their bodies brought back to prove their existence.

I don't disagree with your sentiment, but Mankind on whole and the Scientific community in particular needs a body to be convinced.

hrxll

Just because a body is required, doesn't mean it has to be a "dead" one. A live specimen would be much more preferred, but even such artifacts as hair, skin, bone, blood, feces, etc. would certainly start to work as proof (many of these, btw, have been found and identified for unknown primates...i.e. bigfoot).