Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Captain Risky

To Kill Or To Capture Bigfoot... Mmmm

91 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

third_eye
Just now, Iilaa'mpuul'xem said:

If he wears the baseball hat back to front, he should be shot twice.

That's unkind, he wears the baseball cap back to front because his neck is already red enough and his shirts ain't got no collar cause that's what a proper redneck gentleman wears as shirts

~

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
DieChecker
6 minutes ago, Iilaa'mpuul'xem said:

If he wears the baseball hat back to front, he should be shot twice.

What if he wears the baseball cap with the brim sticking out the side?

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

If I saw Bigfoot wearing a baseball cap, or any hat really, I'd not shoot him. I'd only shoot old BF if he is nakid.

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Iilaa'mpuul'xem
1 minute ago, DieChecker said:

What if he wears the baseball cap with the brim sticking out the side?

Then Bubba J.. would be out of a job.

  • Haha 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bivy

Neither. Bigfoots does a better job taking care of themselves than we could ever pretend to.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats

I am not into killing anything and the idea to kill something to prove it exists is ironic,

Yet i am fully aware that a body or body part will likely be needed to prove that bigfoot exists to many im in that camp, but i really dont worry too much about bf getting killed since we have all the shows and people hunting it, all kinds of camera traps etc and not one good picture, not one so if we cant produce a pic im not concerned one will get killed, and live capture would be as hard or harder than a kill so not too concerned that will happen either,

And IF bf is of the hominid species killing it could get a person the death penalty.

Of course that is if bf is even real which i do not know.

Edited by the13bats

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CuCulaine
On ‎2018‎-‎11‎-‎17 at 1:25 AM, Jenn8779 said:

It seems a shame to have to kill something to prove it exists, if it does in fact exist, but that seems to be what will be necessary. If Bigfoot does turn out to be real, and someone does kill it for proof, I wonder how we'll feel about having done so? Will we feel justified or just vindicated? 

Excellent question, science needs a body or remains to verify it exists. But what if it was and doing genetic studies finds out they are a branch of present day humans, closer than chimps ? Would it be murder, or killing an animal without a permit ?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CuCulaine
On ‎2018‎-‎11‎-‎20 at 4:12 PM, Hammerclaw said:

After fifty plus years of being teased about it's existence, I'd nail that sucker in a cold minute. Respectability and three dollars will just buy you a weird cup of coffee at Starbucks.

You know the question of if BF exists or not is a matter of using Google Earth, follow the coast line from Prince Rupert to Vancouver you will see its so dense & big you could hide a whole Russian division and never know they were there.  Its way far from Central Park in reality, not as occupied as one would think. There is I think no reason why a small group of semi nocturnal animals couldn't exist relatively hidden. Especial if they had acute hearing, smell knowing humans are to be avoided.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CuCulaine
On ‎2018‎-‎11‎-‎20 at 12:42 AM, GoodReality said:

If Bigfoot was real and had successfully avoided capture all this time, the intelligence that they possess should give them a right not to be killed. 

Recent science has admitted they were wrong in assessing the intelligence of Nethandral (sp) they were far smarter and culturally advanced than previously thought including tech. So what makes you think they are nothing more than bright apes ?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GoodReality
3 hours ago, CuCulaine said:

So what makes you think they are nothing more than bright apes ?

I was just commenting on the intelligence of the mythical creature, like your post implies. I'm confused about what you disagree with me on. I did not state that if they existed they would be under humans. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hammerclaw
4 hours ago, CuCulaine said:

You know the question of if BF exists or not is a matter of using Google Earth, follow the coast line from Prince Rupert to Vancouver you will see its so dense & big you could hide a whole Russian division and never know they were there.  Its way far from Central Park in reality, not as occupied as one would think. There is I think no reason why a small group of semi nocturnal animals couldn't exist relatively hidden. Especial if they had acute hearing, smell knowing humans are to be avoided.

 

That's rationalizing belief. The "pristine" forests of North America have--over 90%--been logged. Most of what you see from orbit is secondary growth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats

I recall peter byrne saying the north west Forests were mostly unsearched and had some huge number of never found missing aircraft to make a point if a plane cant be found neither can bf while i mostly respect him that comparison doesnt really work for me because a crashed aircraft isnt on the move its getting coved by nature, it doesnt have have to feed or breed,

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
19 hours ago, CuCulaine said:

Excellent question, science needs a body or remains to verify it exists. But what if it was and doing genetic studies finds out they are a branch of present day humans, closer than chimps ? Would it be murder, or killing an animal without a permit ?

 

I've heard it said that you can't murder something that didn't officially exist. If there is a real bigfoot, then killing it shouldn't be a crime. Though I've heard/read that several places in the US (and Canada?) have passed local ordinances making killing a bigfoot illegal. Though I've always thought they did those for fun, and/or tourism. 

If you shot a badger, and the next week badgers were protected, I don't think they could charge you with the crime. Same here, I don't think proving bigfoot is "human" would lead to murder charges, since at the time of the killing, it was not shown to be human.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats

Die,

There was a time i would be right with you but not in this day and age, badgers and humans are very different as far as any laws go, pre or post killing.

Of course basically all little city ordinances about hunting unknown creatures while instated for fun and flash i would bet would be used if needed.

I could see a defender of a killer of bigfoot saying well gee i didnt know it was a human and a fallout of all the reports saying bf is human be it primitive or otherwise, and for some yahoo who boasts hes gonna go kill a bf is premeditated, and the rebuttle of that yahoo either knew the consequences or didnt care wont float,

I could see it becoming a huge legal circus and perhaps end the end the killer gets away with it but it would be a mess, i would say any pros of proving the creature did live would be outweighed with the negitivity of a cold blood killing.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
the13bats

Oh geez risky,

I better be more careful when i take out my trash in the middle of the night

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.