How Far Would You Go To Prove a Cryptid Real?

page: 1
4

log in

join

posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 04:56 PM
link   
Greetings, ATS!

I was listening to a coast to coast segment about Bigfoot and it raised a very interesting question. If the only way to prove the existence of Bigfoot is to kill one (so that you have a body to examine) would you do so? Why or why not?

This is hard for me to answer. I don't hunt; the one time my dad took me squirrel hunting (at my request) I became so horrified at the thought of shooting the squirrels that I went running through the woods yelling. I don't have anything against hunters, so long as the meat is used. But can I really justify the killing of an animal that is surely endangered just for evidence of its existence?

I don't know, ATS. Of course, I highly doubt I will ever be in a position to make that choice, but if I were....I don't know.

What would you do?




posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 05:02 PM
link   
reply to post by smyleegrl
 


Not for $10 million, Same reason why I never would shoot a person or a gorilla (or it would be self defense)
Not for science, not for money: I would never look myself straight in the eyes in the mirror again.

I would hunt it down relentless with a camera....still like the idea of earning $10 million.



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 05:48 PM
link   
Heck no I wouldn't go so far as to kill it...but I'd probably go to third base to prove it.



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 05:50 PM
link   
reply to post by smyleegrl
 


No... and NO . Killing is wrong.



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 07:58 PM
link   
If I saw a bigfoot on one of my wilderness excursions (I've never encountered anything bigfooty; no tracks, nothing), and were I armed enough to do so, yes, I would shoot a bigfoot, and be on the sat phone renting a helicopter to come get me and it out of there.

Pros for getting bigfoot confirmed and recognized:
1. Science recognizes it
2. Laws can be enacted to protect it
3. More land can be set aside and protected as habit
4. If it's a hominid as opposed to a primate, it may very well answer some interesting questions.
5. If it's a hominid, we might just have found someone new to talk to beyond apes, porpoises, and our pets.
6. If it's hominid it's next best thing to finding aliens.

Potential Cons for finding Bigfoot:
1. Monsanto and every other big Pharma will want their own captive LIVE specimens for every sort and kind of testing and Dr. Mengele-esque experimentation for or toward the development of any number of different sorts of drugs, gene therapy, and whatever else.
2. Poaching for live specimens, until laws are enacted will explode.
3. Until laws are enacted, recognition and public awareness on the least common denominator could drive the species to extinction with everyone else on the planet stomping into the woods to kill their own.
4. Not sure how this would work out, but, Zoos would want their own specimens, though this could be a 'good' (note quotations) thing if done responsibly.

It's a tough call.
I'm personally in favor of getting the species (if it exists) confirmed and under heavy protected status.
If it's a hominid, as opposed to a primate, arguments could be made that for protecting the species that they have the same rights and protection as human beings where killing one could equal a murder charge.

It'd be wonderful to have confirmation, especially if it's a hominid as we're the only hominids we know, and it'd be nice to know we're sharing the planet with someone else where then we might do more to protect the environment.



posted on Oct, 26 2012 @ 08:10 PM
link   
If I saw a bigfoot with my own eyes

That would be enough for me.I wouldn't kill one to verify it's existence to the world because I think that would be cruel to the thing.What good would it do ??

You'd have hunters trying to shoot one so they could mount their head next to a Rhino or Tiger on his wall.You'd have troops of well meaning tourists marching through his habitat hoping for a glimpse.There'd be scientist tagging it with a GPS tracker to record it's movements and it's territory,film makers making documentaries sticking a camera in it's face when it's trying to mate wi the missus.lol

Nah if I saw BF with my own eyes I'd keep it to myself and do the fella a genuine favour



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 12:56 AM
link   
reply to post by smyleegrl
 


No, because I would be up on murder charges for killing someone in a costume.



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 01:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by ahamarlin
reply to post by smyleegrl
 


Not for $10 million, Same reason why I never would shoot a person or a gorilla (or it would be self defense)
Not for science, not for money: I would never look myself straight in the eyes in the mirror again.

I would hunt it down relentless with a camera....still like the idea of earning $10 million.


my sentiments exactly and above all else never reveal where i saw my big foot or any new cryptid



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 01:16 AM
link   


Pros for getting bigfoot confirmed and recognized: 1. Science recognizes it 2. Laws can be enacted to protect it 3. More land can be set aside and protected as habit 4. If it's a hominid as opposed to a primate, it may very well answer some interesting questions. 5. If it's a hominid, we might just have found someone new to talk to beyond apes, porpoises, and our pets.
reply to post by Druscilla
 

Retracted first line stating your pros would bring on the cons after looking over it again your pros are meant in a good way so that they get protection ,but why kill it or even trap one.
If you got the chance to see one first hand would that not be good enough for you,

AND ABOVE ALL ELSE DONT TELL A SINGLE SOLE WHERE YOU SAW IT.

Why take a photo let alone kill the poor thing.

This is whats wrong with mankind in my eyes
kill it put it in a zoo
Dont get me wrong zoos are a good thing to save
endangered animals but lets face it they are only endangered
because of mankind.


edit on 28/10/2012 by maryhinge because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 02:00 AM
link   
As much as I hate to admit it, I have to be honest.. Yes. Yes I would kill it in the name of science. I know it's not right, but dare I say.. worth it? I know the majority will disagree, at least in public anyway
I for one would like to see this whole Bigfoot thing put to rest once and for all. We can welcome them with open arms after. Just sacrifice one lol..
edit on 28-10-2012 by Ear-Responsible because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 28 2012 @ 02:18 AM
link   
I would pay $10,000, fly to Peru, talk to local ranchers, and find someone to pay off to set up a surveillance camera system focused on the entrance to a giant 25 ft high, 75 ft long, by 20 ft wide, steel constructed cage, lined with wild plants to camouflage the cage, and place goats and chickens all the way as deep into the cage as possible, with clamps of course, to keep them from walking out, and a hanging drop down cage door, weighing 500-1000lbs.

And for my $10,000 investment I would have a $1,000,000 dollar circus side show.

I would call it the Chupa me Wevos, and rake the dough in.
edit on 28-10-2012 by magickmaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 29 2012 @ 02:10 PM
link   
Shooting is wrong, but it is the best way to know it's real. I mean a picture or film can be deceptive.



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 08:07 AM
link   
I can't condone killing a bigfoot.
As far as other cryptids go, I thought it would be cool to catch the Mothman in a big net like the zoologists catch bats in.
He wouldn't get hurt, just a bit tangled up, and no harm done! We could let him rest for a couple minutes to make sure he's OK, and then let him go.



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 08:13 AM
link   
Explanation: S&F!

I would of course shoot it for science! I'd use a tranq dart and an air rifle!

Personal Disclosure: LOL'ing at anybody who thinks shooting for science means killing. :shk:



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 08:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by maryhinge
Retracted first line stating your pros would bring on the cons after looking over it again your pros are meant in a good way so that they get protection ,but why kill it or even trap one.
If you got the chance to see one first hand would that not be good enough for you,

AND ABOVE ALL ELSE DONT TELL A SINGLE SOLE WHERE YOU SAW IT.

Why take a photo let alone kill the poor thing.

This is whats wrong with mankind in my eyes
kill it put it in a zoo
Dont get me wrong zoos are a good thing to save
endangered animals but lets face it they are only endangered
because of mankind.


If a Bigfoot falls in the woods and no one is around to see or hear it, then, no one will ever know.

Finding Bigfoot, if Bigfoot exists, and having Bigfoot recognized by science would be vastly significant in the results it would have, not only for Science, but, there'd be some significant results brought about in how we see and manage our environment, as well as whole the planet.

How many species have gone extinct, erased from the record, that we never even knew existed, never had a chance to know them, nor never had a chance to protect them?

If we don't find and recognize Bigfoot, we'll never 'know' the species, and when it's gone, forever, extinct, and only then found to have been real instead of myth, we'll regret it in never having had the chance to do anything about it.

Myths and Legends are laughed at; things of ridicule; ghost stories and tall tales all.
Recognition by Science would give Bigfoot real named specified legal status.

edit on 30-10-2012 by Druscilla because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 09:38 AM
link   
reply to post by smyleegrl
 
If you were a good shot, you could blow his bloody legs off! Shoot him in the ass! Pick a foot!


"I'm here to shoot yo ass or chew bubblegum..."

Potential live body if it didn't manage to escape and blood and pieces of pelt flying if it did.

Good evidence.



posted on Oct, 30 2012 @ 09:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Druscilla
 


I here where you are coming from Druscilla and your right(but dont tell anyone i said that)


you make a valid point once again





new topics
top topics
 
4

log in

join