To shoot or not to shoot Bigfoot. All this speculation is killing me.

If you see a Bigfoot, should you shoot him?

In the new Animal Planet reality TV show optimistically titled “Finding Bigfoot,” a team of experts examines video of an alleged Sasquatch spotted in the Canadian Rockies. The video, shot by a man named Todd Standing, shows something large and dark, standing atop a wooded ridge and then ducking back behind a bush. It could pretty much be anything, and when the experts concluded that the subject was probably not a Bigfoot, Standing expressed his frustration: “No video is ever going to be evidence, ever. It’s never going to be good enough…”

Standing, like many Bigfoot researchers, misses the problem: It’s not so much that any Bigfoot video is inherently worthless, it’s that his video, like all that have come before it, is of such poor quality that there’s no way to know what we’re seeing. It could have been anything — a guy in a dark jacket (or gorilla costume), a bear or even Bigfoot. The fatal flaw in Bigfoot photos and videos is the image quality, not the image subject. If Standing, the “Finding Bigfoot” team, or anyone else shot well-lit, clear video of what was obviously a 12-foot-tall, hairy bipedal creature in the woods, that would be compelling.

But even the highest-quality photograph or video can’t be considered definitive proof of Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, or any other mythical beast. Similarly, if the goal is to simply make scientists and the general public take Bigfoot seriously, then some verified remains of the creature – be they hair, teeth, blood, bones or something else — would do the trick.


Source: MSNBC/Life’s Little Mysteries

Todd Standing chimed in to the discussion on this article by noting the following:

In a five minute conversation i will illuminate you as to why that is a disastrous mistake. NEVER EVER FIRE UPON AND ATTEMPT TO TRANQ OR TRAP ONE OF THESE ANIMALS. There is an old saying first nations elders use to explain what happens to anyone that messes with the “Master of the Woods” “The Boss of the Mountain” ” The Shadow Guardian”…. The best translation i could come up with is “You will take you last Breathe”. [sic]

I don’t buy into Standing’s videos and stills. There are too many ways to fake these. Worse, I cringe at the supernatural angle he takes. Either these animals are real or not. Mr. Standing is attempting to promote Bigfoot as a forest spirit. Supernatural ideas will diminish seriousness about the subject of Bigfoot in the scientific community. I’m pretty jaded with all these “experts” who have seen and experienced Sasquatch telling the public exactly what they are and how they behave, magical or zoological. This is a fantasy until there is convincing biological evidence of the animal.

Incidentally, you can read about the alleged shooting that took place by searching the Sierra Kills incident. What came from that? A lot of hearsay. Not a whit of evidence. Promises, promises.

COMMENTING ON SOMEONE ELSE'S SITE IS NOT A RIGHT, IT'S A PRIVILEGE. READ AND UNDERSTAND THE COMMENT POLICY BEFORE SUBMITTING. NONSENSE IS NOT PERMITTED.

  8 comments for “To shoot or not to shoot Bigfoot. All this speculation is killing me.

  1. January 24, 2012 at 10:28 AM

    Are you suggesting that I will never be able to fulfill my dream of skinning a wood nymph?

    Bob

    • idoubtit
      January 24, 2012 at 6:12 PM

      Yeah, Bob. I’d say that a no go.

  2. TruScience
    January 24, 2012 at 6:05 PM

    Todd Standing is known as a hoaxer. No arguments for any of his stuff. He supposedly even placed an ad for actors at a very suspicious time.

    I say tranq one and stick a tiny GPS thingy in its hair between the shoulder blades where he can’r reach it. I recommend indigenous pine tar for the sticky. Maybe it won’t even notice it. Take pics (hands, feet, face and genitals)with a ruler for scale, then grab some hair and get yourself a good headstart outta there. A few days of data from something like this would answer a few questions.

    Seriously, the stuff you guys latch onto is bottom of the barrel.

    Supposedly the “Sierra Kills” flesh sample tested similarly to other bf samples, but was omitted from the DNA study for ethical reasons and because it wasn’t needed. Most of us in the community are appalled by the supposed actions of the shooter. The stories coming out about sierra kills don’t add up. Shortly after the kills, the shooter became part of the olympic project. The most likely “real incident” story seems to be two sasquatches shot, one big one little. Sample submitted, but bodies “lost”, possibly being withheld until DNA results are released. Then it would be triple slam. DNA results supported by video of creatures and study methods and then type specimen presented by OP.

    Nothing but net! swish

    We’ll see… I chuckle as I write. The amount of speculation is off the charts. I also think that pic on the other page is junk. See how much we agree? I really hope the shooter story is fake. We don’t need the blood.

    • idoubtit
      January 24, 2012 at 6:12 PM

      This is a NEWS site. NEWS you should be DOUBTFUL about. Get it? See the tag line…”Can you really believe this stuff?”

  3. Massachusetts
    January 25, 2012 at 6:25 PM

    First, TruScience, if people can’t even take a decent picture of this creature, how are you going to tranquilize it and attach tracking devices? It seems like a highly unlikely outcome.

    Second, nobody buys Todd Standing’s videos. We all agree on that I think. Since he was discredited years ago (a popular consensus view) I think it was really silly for Finding Bigfoot to review that footage and pull Todd Standing out of mothballs.

    He also works the “Oh my we’re going to die” angle about the dangers of Bigfoot, and other animals like bears, as an excuse to keep people away from the places he claims to have filmed (my opinion but not just mine for sure.) As Ranae pointed out in the show, that’s what field biologists do for a living. They are big boys and girls, who know how to live in the woods, and they carry bear spray!

    But, hypothetically, if Bigfoot is a real creature, it wouldn’t need to be supernatural or magical in anyway to present a big danger to someone meaning it harm. If it exists, then it’s by definition very large, very strong, probably very intelligent (as primates are apt to be), and lives in small groups, so other BF would conceivably come to the defense of a fallen comrade. However, that said, Standing was apparently working the supernatural angle, I agree.

    But back to the video evidence: IMHO all the Bigfoot videos are pretty atrocious and require faith and a big stretch of the imagination to accept as valid, OR are, at least, pretty likely to be misidentified people (I don’t necessarily mean people in a monkey suit, but often just people filmed from a distance, in silhouette) except perhaps for Patterson – Gimlin (PG).

    At least with PG you are seeing something that is either a hoax or a creature. And, as an optimistic person, I consider PG to be interesting to watch but of indeterminate authenticity. We must, after all, wonder:

    1. A Why don’t we have any other films, videos or even stills at least this good form hikers and BF searchers?
    1. B Why don’t we even have any trail cam images that are clear and unambiguous? There are tons of trail cams out there–tons.
    2. Why can’t the experts agree on PG’s authenticity? Some denounce it as a fake, others insist it’s an actual animal. And they often seem to site the same visual components of the film to make their contrary cases. For example, Jeff Meldrum, perhaps the most solid BF researcher, sites the feet as evidence, while others offer the feet as proof it’s just a costume!

    • TruScience
      February 1, 2012 at 6:31 AM

      In terms of getting in range for a tranq, the methods are proprietary at this time, but it is doable. It also will require a special projector (gun) to be able to select a dosage moments before shooting. Also very doable, but will have to be built. Habituators have also been in range many times, but will not violate the hard earned trust that got them there.

      Marble Mountain footage is one of the best, because you can see appendage porportions and after analysis that the creature is 9 feet tall. I also like Paul Freeman’s film. Patterson did everything right, clear until his death, Gimlin is doing the same. Owning “the hoax” would be very desireable, a book deal worth quite a bit if you could prove it, but no one has come close.

      We have the Jacob’s photo (a juvenile) from a trail cam, but the adults very rarely use trails, and they can smell the cameras. Sometime they turn them around. One camera was actually licked and then turned around, the saliva was collected and tested and is now part of the first major DNA study, coming out shortly.

      Who cares about PG? It’s just a film. The only experts are the guys who made it. Everyone else is just giving their opinion, usually based on whether they “believe” in BF or not.

      The feet are more convincing if you look at a Neanderthal track (we have some from a cave 30k years old) and the bones of its foot. The track is very similar to bigfoot tracks and the structure of the foot skeletally is very non-human. The heel protrudes farther rearward and the ankle is farther forward. The toes splay apart slightly. We use Neanderthal as an example, because they have classic hominoid feet, similar to Homo-erectus etc. This is where many people believe the identity of the creature lies, others favor gigantopithicus… the debate rages.

      Tracks are the most convincing aspect of this. Too many hoaxers would have had to do way too much homework, to get that many tracks right. It would also require uncommon engineering, fabrication, sculpting and molding skills and this would have needed to be available at least 150 years ago. Even today on the internet, I’m not finding a single good article on how to hoax good bigfoot prints. Because you can’t.

      • TruScience
        February 1, 2012 at 6:54 AM

        I just wanted to add that most of the disbelief comes from an exageration of our abilities as observers. The assumption is made that we should have more evidence than we do. There is also an assumption made that all the evidence collected, is being presented to the public, which has not been the case. The current DNA study is a great example. Once it became know that a study was being done. Samples started coming in from all over, hundreds of them. I believe it has boiled down to about a hundred good samples taken from about 20 clearly non-human individuals over a period of 20 years or so, just from the “amateurs”. Who knows what the government has…

        Bigfoot is not a secret. The logging companies know, the government knows and you probably know. Why it is treated like a secret is a good discussion about humans and the truth. Most of what you’ve all been taught (me too) were lies and guesses, stated as fact. Indoctrination, contrarianism and ego. We’re about to slowly come out of a very deep funk. This is just the start.

        When it is all over you will realize that life on earth has been manipulated many times and evolution is a minor effect. Your biblical God was anything, but that, and if you really need answers, you’re living way too soon.

        • F89
          February 15, 2012 at 1:55 PM

          I don’t understand-North America Bigfoot Search (NABS)Was quoted as stating
          “…we developed a theory of how to subtly take hair off the biped without causing injury and to continue to take their hair without them knowing it was occurring, it worked. It has worked dozens of times in several states across North America. Our system involved getting the root with the hair, as a bigfoot hair without a root is useless for DNA extraction.”
          So if you can get close enough to get hair without a Bigfoot noticing, why can’t the same technique be used to put a Tranq/GPS on one? Or get pictures as you’ve stated-
          “(hands, feet, face and genitals)with a ruler for scale, then grab some hair and get yourself a good headstart outta there.”

          So-NABS has collected hair dozens of times, and has LOTS of evidence (according to them)
          But they haven’t taken a picture showing scale, appendages, etc?

          What is going on here? Can you see why many are skeptical?

Comments are closed.