Kill vs. Not Kill - the bigfoot debate (article)

This board is open for discussion on the Australian Yowie, Bigfoot, Yeti & Sasquatch. Please keep on topic in this forum.
Post Reply
User avatar
Shazzoir
Long Time Contributor
Posts: 1075
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2005 12:40 pm
Position: Crypto Enthusiast
Gender: Female
Location: Brisbane, Qld

Kill vs. Not Kill - the bigfoot debate (article)

Unread post by Shazzoir » Sun Sep 02, 2018 8:38 pm

https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/techands ... id=UE01DHP

I would think most of us here are on the 'not kill' side of the fence, but feel free to discuss...

Shazz
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Dr. Carl Sagan

User avatar
Brindabella Ranger
Silver Status
Posts: 138
Joined: Wed Jan 22, 2014 8:40 am
Position: Flesh and Blood

Re: Kill vs. Not Kill - the bigfoot debate (article)

Unread post by Brindabella Ranger » Mon Sep 03, 2018 7:26 am

I echo these words, "“I am avowedly on the no-kill side,” John Kirk, President of the British Columbia Scientific Cryptozoology Club, told Gizmodo. “The notion of killing a possible relative of humans is tantamount to homicide.”
I kinda get the want to kill in desperation of gaining that elusive evidence... but it's still wrong. Thankfully very few people get close enough for a head shot.
The limits of our perceived world is constrained only by the inability to believe.

User avatar
Wolf
Long Time Contributor
Posts: 1364
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2016 10:46 pm
Position: Nature Lover

Re: Kill vs. Not Kill - the bigfoot debate (article)

Unread post by Wolf » Mon Sep 03, 2018 8:54 am

The 'Kill for evidence' argument is flawed.
There have been many killed over the decades.
Every time Big Bro steps in, removes the body, sometimes even replaces it with an obvious fake (or 'encourages' the shooter to do so) and has a discussion with anyone involved suggesting they play along with whatever the MIB tell them or face consequences.
The mightiest oak was once a nut that stood his ground https://www.sasquatchstories.com

micathia
Bronze Status
Posts: 97
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 6:55 pm

Re: Kill vs. Not Kill - the bigfoot debate (article)

Unread post by micathia » Mon Sep 03, 2018 10:12 am

Wolf wrote:
Mon Sep 03, 2018 8:54 am
The 'Kill for evidence' argument is flawed.
There have been many killed over the decades.
Every time Big Bro steps in, removes the body, sometimes even replaces it with an obvious fake (or 'encourages' the shooter to do so) and has a discussion with anyone involved suggesting they play along with whatever the MIB tell them or face consequences.
Exactly! This is the main reason I believe field researchers today shouldn't spend money on cameras to "prove" their existence. Their existence, as most of us here believe, is already proved. Governments just deny it all the time. On the other hand, focus on sound recording could be much better. Sounds are harder to fake (not easily identified by our ears but easily identified by professional equipment/software), and it will produce abundant information for us to understand their language, which is also the key to understand their intelligence.

inthedark
Gold Status - Frequent Poster
Posts: 284
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2018 11:40 am
Position: Unsure
Gender: Not Telling

Re: Kill vs. Not Kill - the bigfoot debate (article)

Unread post by inthedark » Mon Sep 03, 2018 10:33 am

Wolf wrote:
Mon Sep 03, 2018 8:54 am
The 'Kill for evidence' argument is flawed.
There have been many killed over the decades.
Every time Big Bro steps in, removes the body, sometimes even replaces it with an obvious fake (or 'encourages' the shooter to do so) and has a discussion with anyone involved suggesting they play along with whatever the MIB tell them or face consequences.
Peter Caine, the President of the Bigfoot Community AND the Association, has a carcass (woot)

inthedark
Gold Status - Frequent Poster
Posts: 284
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2018 11:40 am
Position: Unsure
Gender: Not Telling

Re: Kill vs. Not Kill - the bigfoot debate (article)

Unread post by inthedark » Mon Sep 03, 2018 11:10 am

micathia wrote:
Mon Sep 03, 2018 10:12 am

Exactly! This is the main reason I believe field researchers today shouldn't spend money on cameras to "prove" their existence. Their existence, as most of us here believe, is already proved. Governments just deny it all the time. On the other hand, focus on sound recording could be much better. Sounds are harder to fake (not easily identified by our ears but easily identified by professional equipment/software), and it will produce abundant information for us to understand their language, which is also the key to understand their intelligence.
The problem with that is that vocals can be fairly easily mistaken, and fairly easily faked. Consider, if some kind of 'language' is recorded in a forest, the same assumption made by the researcher (that it must be BF, because it's language) is the very thing which falsifies it. If it's too human to be an animal, then it can be produced by a human.

I'm as keen to see evidence as most .. but for me, anything which can be explained by something else (things like vocals, footprints, stick shelters, etc) is never going to cut it. I hate to see time and money wasted on pursuit of these approaches, when that time and money could be used on obtaining DNA evidence. Or a body!

micathia
Bronze Status
Posts: 97
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 6:55 pm

Re: Kill vs. Not Kill - the bigfoot debate (article)

Unread post by micathia » Mon Sep 03, 2018 12:40 pm

inthedark wrote:
Mon Sep 03, 2018 11:10 am

The problem with that is that vocals can be fairly easily mistaken, and fairly easily faked. Consider, if some kind of 'language' is recorded in a forest, the same assumption made by the researcher (that it must be BF, because it's language) is the very thing which falsifies it. If it's too human to be an animal, then it can be produced by a human.

I'm as keen to see evidence as most .. but for me, anything which can be explained by something else (things like vocals, footprints, stick shelters, etc) is never going to cut it. I hate to see time and money wasted on pursuit of these approaches, when that time and money could be used on obtaining DNA evidence. Or a body!
From what I have read (of course nothing can be approved), bigfoots are able to produce sounds that cover much larger "spectrum/frequency" than our speaking and hearing capacities. This can only be verified by professional devices. So we only hear what we can hear, and if we mimic, we can only mimic the part human can hear.

inthedark
Gold Status - Frequent Poster
Posts: 284
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2018 11:40 am
Position: Unsure
Gender: Not Telling

Re: Kill vs. Not Kill - the bigfoot debate (article)

Unread post by inthedark » Mon Sep 03, 2018 1:07 pm

micathia wrote:
Mon Sep 03, 2018 12:40 pm


From what I have read (of course nothing can be approved), bigfoots are able to produce sounds that cover much larger "spectrum/frequency" than our speaking and hearing capacities. This can only be verified by professional devices. So we only hear what we can hear, and if we mimic, we can only mimic the part human can hear.

How is this known, though? Without hard evidence of it, I mean? And surely, if such sounds are being captured by professional devices (or any decent sound recording equipment) and are captured in a properly controlled manner to obviate tampering or fakery, then such features of the vocals would be immediately identifiable. They would also be easily identified if they belonged to a known species.

I'm hoping this isn't just another case of 'no one is even trying' (like the failure to point trail cams at bait). This resistance to fairly simple tests is concerning.

micathia
Bronze Status
Posts: 97
Joined: Sun Oct 16, 2016 6:55 pm

Re: Kill vs. Not Kill - the bigfoot debate (article)

Unread post by micathia » Mon Sep 03, 2018 2:13 pm

inthedark wrote:
Mon Sep 03, 2018 1:07 pm


How is this known, though? Without hard evidence of it, I mean? And surely, if such sounds are being captured by professional devices (or any decent sound recording equipment) and are captured in a properly controlled manner to obviate tampering or fakery, then such features of the vocals would be immediately identifiable. They would also be easily identified if they belonged to a known species.

I'm hoping this isn't just another case of 'no one is even trying' (like the failure to point trail cams at bait). This resistance to fairly simple tests is concerning.


I like this video, but you prolly already watched before.

Wallofstink
Approved Member
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu Aug 02, 2018 10:41 pm

Re: Kill vs. Not Kill - the bigfoot debate (article)

Unread post by Wallofstink » Tue Sep 04, 2018 10:44 am

A movie about trying to prove its exists would be cool ! a father and son go camping looking for the elusive hairy feller. They have massive luck bag one. Get chased out of the Forrest by the troop. father killed son floors the Toyota barely makes it out alive big foot arms and legs flapping out of a tarp covering the bleeding beast .ch9 picks it up live in the chopper .
Before u know it Every news network streaming live a 4wd doing a 100 on the free way with a half dead injured 8 and a half foot booga lying down in a trailer feet dragging on the road ..massive oj Simpson like commotion . Bringing a body in is one thing but who u gonna give it too and how ?

gregvalentine
Gold Status - Frequent Poster
Posts: 270
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2016 7:42 pm
Position: Crypto Enthusiast
Location: Sydney

Re: Kill vs. Not Kill - the bigfoot debate (article)

Unread post by gregvalentine » Tue Sep 04, 2018 11:38 pm

Wallofstink wrote:
Tue Sep 04, 2018 10:44 am
A movie about trying to prove its exists would be cool ! a father and son go camping looking for the elusive hairy feller. They have massive luck bag one. Get chased out of the Forrest by the troop. father killed son floors the Toyota barely makes it out alive big foot arms and legs flapping out of a tarp covering the bleeding beast .ch9 picks it up live in the chopper .
Before u know it Every news network streaming live a 4wd doing a 100 on the free way with a half dead injured 8 and a half foot booga lying down in a trailer feet dragging on the road ..massive oj Simpson like commotion . Bringing a body in is one thing but who u gonna give it too and how ?
You've been lookin' at too many movies, mate . . .

gregvalentine
Gold Status - Frequent Poster
Posts: 270
Joined: Fri Sep 23, 2016 7:42 pm
Position: Crypto Enthusiast
Location: Sydney

Re: Kill vs. Not Kill - the bigfoot debate (article)

Unread post by gregvalentine » Tue Sep 04, 2018 11:44 pm

gregvalentine wrote:
Tue Sep 04, 2018 11:38 pm
You've been lookin' at too many movies, mate . . .
So how come "d.u.d.e." got translated to "mate"???

User avatar
Simon M
Long Time Contributor
Posts: 836
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2016 1:36 am
Position: Unsure
Location: South Western Victoria

Re: Kill vs. Not Kill - the bigfoot debate (article)

Unread post by Simon M » Wed Sep 05, 2018 4:53 am

Unless it was in self-defence I wouldn't agree with killing one of these things, whatever they really are. I suspect it would be murder.

User avatar
Shazzoir
Long Time Contributor
Posts: 1075
Joined: Sat Nov 19, 2005 12:40 pm
Position: Crypto Enthusiast
Gender: Female
Location: Brisbane, Qld

Re: Kill vs. Not Kill - the bigfoot debate (article)

Unread post by Shazzoir » Wed Sep 05, 2018 8:23 am

gregvalentine wrote:
Tue Sep 04, 2018 11:44 pm
gregvalentine wrote:
Tue Sep 04, 2018 11:38 pm
You've been lookin' at too many movies, mate . . .
So how come "d.u.d.e." got translated to "mate"???
Because 'd.u.d.e.' is an American expression and I suspect since this is a predominantly Aussie page and forum, that the substitution rule for 'mate' was implemented by the Admins/Dean. ;)

Shazz
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Dr. Carl Sagan

Yowie bait
Long Time Contributor
Posts: 2182
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2016 5:06 pm
Position: Believer

Re: Kill vs. Not Kill - the bigfoot debate (article)

Unread post by Yowie bait » Wed Sep 05, 2018 3:57 pm

I would only kill a bigfoot if it was a life and death situation and in hand to hand combat. If i did get the upper hand though, i would give the bigfoot a chance to give up and even then i doubt i could deliver the killing blow if it refused to give up.
Yowie Bait

User avatar
Dion
Long Time Contributor
Posts: 1821
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2005 1:44 pm
Position: Researcher
Location: Passing through the ethereal

Re: Kill vs. Not Kill - the bigfoot debate (article)

Unread post by Dion » Wed Sep 05, 2018 4:30 pm

I remember reading somewhere if you get into a fight with a junjudee and win.... they respect you.

It was some old indigenous lore I think?
“The day science begins to study non-physical phenomena, it will make more progress in one decade than in all the previous centuries of its existence.” - Nikola Tesla

User formally known as chewy

Yowie bait
Long Time Contributor
Posts: 2182
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2016 5:06 pm
Position: Believer

Re: Kill vs. Not Kill - the bigfoot debate (article)

Unread post by Yowie bait » Wed Sep 05, 2018 4:48 pm

Dion wrote:
Wed Sep 05, 2018 4:30 pm
I remember reading somewhere if you get into a fight with a junjudee and win.... they respect you.

It was some old indigenous lore I think?

I remember reading something like that. Maybe in the Cropper/ Healy book? Seems fair enough but i reckon theyd be dirty fighters!

There is also a report in that book of a fella having to wrestle a junjudee if he wanted to cross a bridge on his way home as well. It was a regular thing by the sounds of it. I think he was an older fella too.Lol!

Another from the forum i think says that you need to stick fight a junjudee if challenged and to use a smaller stick and to let the junjudee win so im not sure what to do if the situation arises. Keep your distance and watch for the low blow i suppose!
Yowie Bait

User avatar
Doorway
New Member
Posts: 27
Joined: Sun Jun 26, 2016 12:11 pm
Position: Researcher

Re: Kill vs. Not Kill - the bigfoot debate (article)

Unread post by Doorway » Wed Sep 05, 2018 5:32 pm

I am in the No Shoot camp

...but if someone did shoot a full grown Yowie or Bigfoot, who is gunna carry it out back to the vehicle or home or whatever ?
They must weigh half a tonne ! (sweat drop)

If any of the dead Yowies relos are around chances of getting back to the vehicle etc may be slim.
That might be a case of "goodnight Mr Hunter " (scared)

Bluedog
New Member
Posts: 20
Joined: Sun Aug 12, 2018 8:24 am

Re: Kill vs. Not Kill - the bigfoot debate (article)

Unread post by Bluedog » Wed Sep 05, 2018 7:40 pm

I think the only thing that will convince the scientific community and make them acknowledge the existence of Yowie, big foot will be a dead body of one.
I don't condone any person actively hunting one but maybe one day a body will be found be it road kill or self defence or natural causes.

Pertys80
Bronze Status
Posts: 83
Joined: Thu May 17, 2018 1:29 pm

Re: Kill vs. Not Kill - the bigfoot debate (article)

Unread post by Pertys80 » Tue Oct 30, 2018 3:26 am

micathia wrote:
Mon Sep 03, 2018 2:13 pm
inthedark wrote:
Mon Sep 03, 2018 1:07 pm


How is this known, though? Without hard evidence of it, I mean? And surely, if such sounds are being captured by professional devices (or any decent sound recording equipment) and are captured in a properly controlled manner to obviate tampering or fakery, then such features of the vocals would be immediately identifiable. They would also be easily identified if they belonged to a known species.

I'm hoping this isn't just another case of 'no one is even trying' (like the failure to point trail cams at bait). This resistance to fairly simple tests is concerning.


I like this video, but you prolly already watched before.
There would be very few people that could even get close to the Sierra sounds, even officer Jones off police academy would struggle. 😂
On a serious note though, killing a bigfoot wouldn't be an easy feat, let alone an ethical one..
Presenting the evidence would even be harder without the feds getting involved..
I heard about a lady in the US recently shooting one dead on here property, she was taken away and charged for illegally killing a Bear.

Yowie bait
Long Time Contributor
Posts: 2182
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2016 5:06 pm
Position: Believer

Re: Kill vs. Not Kill - the bigfoot debate (article)

Unread post by Yowie bait » Tue Oct 30, 2018 4:04 pm

Yeah they are bizzarre vocals. Probably harm yourself trying to duplicate them! (oops)
Yowie Bait

AL Pitman
Gold Status - Frequent Poster
Posts: 471
Joined: Thu Jan 21, 2010 4:18 pm
Position: Field Researcher
Location: Kungala nsw

Re: Kill vs. Not Kill - the bigfoot debate (article)

Unread post by AL Pitman » Thu Nov 01, 2018 12:20 pm

Why not leave out a food / bait laced with a sedative e.g. cerapaks
Then a study or examination could be carried out on the specimen with a much lower risk of becoming hairy man poo.
IF YOU DO NOT LOOK YOU WILL NOT SEE

AL PITMAN

Jim
New Member
Posts: 29
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 3:57 pm
Position: Nature Lover
Location: Melbourne, Inner Northern Suburbs

Re: Kill vs. Not Kill - the bigfoot debate (article)

Unread post by Jim » Thu Nov 01, 2018 1:06 pm

micathia wrote:
Mon Sep 03, 2018 2:13 pm
inthedark wrote:
Mon Sep 03, 2018 1:07 pm


How is this known, though? Without hard evidence of it, I mean? And surely, if such sounds are being captured by professional devices (or any decent sound recording equipment) and are captured in a properly controlled manner to obviate tampering or fakery, then such features of the vocals would be immediately identifiable. They would also be easily identified if they belonged to a known species.

I'm hoping this isn't just another case of 'no one is even trying' (like the failure to point trail cams at bait). This resistance to fairly simple tests is concerning.


I like this video, but you prolly already watched before.
Interesting video, some great recordings.

Sounds are very difficult to interpret with any certainty, as the maker of the video said. But he lost me when he suggested that some kind of language was being spoken, for which he, admittedly, says he's not a linguist so he can't be certain. His words; I'm not a linguist but I do have ears. That's like saying I'm not a heart surgeon but I do have hands....

The whole kill-v-no kill thing. As others have said, the scientific community would require a body as proof, without a doubt.

Cards on the table, I'm still a stubborn skeptic but have a persistent interest in the whole phenomena. I've spent a lot of time in the bush, a lot of time for work, and never had anything that could be construed as a yowie experience. However, fiends who live in the Otways in Victoria have described some things to me around their place that could be interpreted as yowie activity. They've never said that and the mere suggestion has been met with wry disbelief.

But that being said, if I had heard what they've described hearing, I'd be very close to putting my skepticism to bed! So I, personally, wouldn't require a dead body to tip me over to believer status.

Yowie bait
Long Time Contributor
Posts: 2182
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2016 5:06 pm
Position: Believer

Re: Kill vs. Not Kill - the bigfoot debate (article)

Unread post by Yowie bait » Thu Nov 01, 2018 4:49 pm

AL Pitman wrote:
Thu Nov 01, 2018 12:20 pm
Why not leave out a food / bait laced with a sedative e.g. cerapaks
Then a study or examination could be carried out on the specimen with a much lower risk of becoming hairy man poo.
Theyd probably smell the chemicals in the sedative Al. Plus if it worked another could show up lookin for its mate and youd be caught red handed examining the thing!! (taz)
Yowie Bait

theOTyoWAYS777
New Member
Posts: 24
Joined: Wed Nov 08, 2017 3:32 pm

Re: Kill vs. Not Kill - the bigfoot debate (article)

Unread post by theOTyoWAYS777 » Sun Nov 25, 2018 8:28 pm

However, fiends who live in the Otways in Victoria have described some things to me around their place that could be interpreted as yowie activity. They've never said that and the mere suggestion has been met with wry disbelief.



Hey man, what kind of potential yowie activity out the otways? And what area are your friends roughly? Ive had experiences out there.

Outback lurker
New Member
Posts: 30
Joined: Wed Aug 15, 2018 1:02 am
Position: Believer
Location: Adelaide SA

Re: Kill vs. Not Kill - the bigfoot debate (article)

Unread post by Outback lurker » Mon Nov 26, 2018 8:32 am

I'm in the "only in self defence " scenario myself,but even then wouldn't fancy my chances if the situation should arise.

Jim
New Member
Posts: 29
Joined: Fri Jan 09, 2009 3:57 pm
Position: Nature Lover
Location: Melbourne, Inner Northern Suburbs

Re: Kill vs. Not Kill - the bigfoot debate (article)

Unread post by Jim » Mon Dec 03, 2018 3:32 pm

theOTyoWAYS777 wrote:
Sun Nov 25, 2018 8:28 pm
However, fiends who live in the Otways in Victoria have described some things to me around their place that could be interpreted as yowie activity. They've never said that and the mere suggestion has been met with wry disbelief.



Hey man, what kind of potential yowie activity out the otways? And what area are your friends roughly? Ive had experiences out there.
Hey! Sorry, I've only just seen this.

I don't want to give anything away as these friends value their privacy very highly.

But there's an audio report on the AYR website that describes the area reasonably close to where these friends have lived for the past 20 years. It's nearby to the Carlisle State Park.

Friends have described howling that they've insisted isn't dogs, crashing sounds through the bush near their place, their dogs freaking out on occasion when they're usually big tough guard dogs. All the 'usual' stuff, I guess. I remember going to bed one night after spending a night by their outdoor fire pit. My mate sat up for 10 or 15 minutes after I went back in the house, after which he came in looking a bit peaky so I asked him if he was alright. He just said, 'There's something big that really isn't happy in the bush just out there...,' while pointing to where we'd been sitting, 'It's been making some f*&$ing weird noises and is crashing about.'

When I asked him more about it he just shrugged and when I went out, tentatively, to see if I could hear anything, whatever it was had cleared off. The sounds he imitated for me the next morning, after much coaxing!, weren't like any sounds I'd heard in the bush before, like a scratchy scream crossed with a guttural growling. Some of Rusty's recordings come close, actually.

They describe stuff like that occasionally but it never seems to bother them. The only thing missing from their descriptions is the 'feeling of dread' many supposed yowie encounters come with. They insist strange noises happen all the time and they don't really pay them much attention.

User avatar
Buck
Team Member
Posts: 231
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 7:20 am
Position: Yowie Hunter
Location: QLD

Re: Kill vs. Not Kill - the bigfoot debate (article)

Unread post by Buck » Thu Dec 06, 2018 1:41 pm

I’m definitely not interested in killing one or being killed by another, for killing one.

What’s more likely to happen is other hunters will be shot. It happens, people have been mistaken for Bear, Elk and deer and killed. To actively go and try to shoot something human shaped in the bush is courting disaster. For what? Just to prove they exist... it’s a shame that all the other evidence, footprints, photos, eyewitness accounts aren’t enough.

However, nature kills them all the time.

We just need to find where they died. Working out what happens after they die might be safer, kinder and smarter than killing one.
Descates- I think therefore I am
Ubuntu (African Proverb) - I am because you are.

Post Reply