Cryptomundo
for Bigfoot, Lake Monsters, Sea Serpents and More

21 Responses to “Mid-America Bigfoot Research Center: Pro-Kill vs No-Kill”

1. airforce47 responds: March 18th, 2012 at 1:15 am

   I think you put it pretty well. I haven’t come across any comments like what you mentioned but I haven’t been really looking either.

   I will feel sad for whoever turns out to be the first to kill one of these specimens. The wrath they will endure will be far greater than what Justin Smeja just went through and his case may be still open.

   However, someone will sooner or later kill one either by design or accident and when it happens I just hope they get the body to a qualified forensic anthropologist. At least some good might come of it if enough evidence is gathered to prove the species exists. My best,

2. Jerry D. Coleman responds: March 18th, 2012 at 10:08 am

   IMO, this is an absolutely moot issue or at the very most the “cart before the horse” issue. First we must prove not believe. However one can or should be able to predict the arguments on each side of the proverbial Bigfoot fence with little thought process. Nonetheless, if there is an actual confirmed Bigfoot population or even a documented singular Bigfoot found it matters not what you, I or even God decides. A human WILL kill this creature. Ego, money, fame, adventure and all of those other endearing human qualities will not be held at bay. If one cannot and they cannot stop their neighbor from killing his wife or if one cannot stop their own country from slaughtering other humans, then what naive part of the universe are you in? The question is not Pro or No Kill. We can all debate and point out our own personal logic but in the end, if Bigfoot exists Bigfoot is dead and mounted, if not already privately on display in a billionaires den. The question is how to prepare and act with immediate action to save, protect and respect a discovered cryptid of such fame and desire.

3. PoeticsOfBigfoot responds: March 18th, 2012 at 11:13 am

   Does this imply that there are people out there looking to shoot a human-like figure wandering in the woods, which would look sort of like a hiker wearing a dark coat? Sheesh.

4. Desertdweller responds: March 18th, 2012 at 2:17 pm

   Jerry,

   In all likelihood, the incident that will provide “proof of Bigfoot” and the killing of Bigfoot will be one and the same. I don’t think we will have the luxury of establishing Bigfoot as a species and then making a consensus decision of whether or not to kill one.

   If Bigfoot exists (and I think they do), it exists in an environment with other large animals that can pose a threat to humans who go poking around in their territory.
   Given that, it is reasonable to expect that Bigfoot “hunters” go armed, even if they do not intend to shoot a Bigfoot.

   Taking children into the woods on a Bigfoot expedition? Bad idea.

   Common sense should preclude armed hunters going into the woods at night, looking for Bigfoot. A situation shown in the short film is a formula for disaster.
   The hunters were shooting at who knows what, did not know where each other were or what was in their field of fire. All we know by the end of the film is that something, or someone, was shot. Not expecting to find anything, they lacked a coherent plan of what to do if they did.

   For every armed person who goes into the woods, many more do who are unarmed.
   If Bigfoot is the creature we think him to be, huge, powerful, but peaceful, it might be a good idea not to antagonize him.

5. mandors responds: March 18th, 2012 at 3:07 pm

   Years ago, well meaning scientists studied the Methuselah Tree. They found several specimens, and they decided to to take a sample. After they cut down the tree, they started counting the rings. What they found was that they most likely had killed one of the oldest living things on earth. The tree had over 4,000 rings.

   Let’s not make a similar mistake with Bigfoot. Let’s not let our selfish quest for knowledge harm something irreplaceable.

6. diogenes responds: March 18th, 2012 at 8:50 pm

   i didn’t have an opinion about MBRC prior to this (and haven’t seen remarks referenced) but ater reading the above article how can one avoid it?

   quote: “our organization clearly states that we will not dictate to our members whether they be no-kill or pro-kill”

   That is the definition of complacency isn’t it?
   Ape or human, the 21st Century is not an era for even considering killing Bigfoot. Or, tolerating members, or co-researchers with that on their mind. Goodness boys.

7. DWA responds: March 18th, 2012 at 9:04 pm

   Jerry Coleman may be right.

   But he shouldn’t be right because somebody thought a dead body was the only way to get proof. It’s not.

   We already have the precedent of photographic holotype. The P/G film might have been accepted as tantamount to proof had it been garnered by a scientific expedition, funded by a mainstream organization, with prominent scientists present at the filming vouching for the authenticity of the film. That’s tough for dissenters to buck.

   Both technically and ethically, we have move, I think, beyond killing things to prove they’re alive. A trigger may be pulled; given our history as a species, maybe more than one. But no one should kill one of these animals who would not otherwise, simply because he considers it necessary to prove it. It’s not.

8. hudgeliberal responds: March 19th, 2012 at 10:18 am

   Well,I just hope that the person(s) that kill the first sasquatch are treated with NO respect and are jailed for murder. To think of shooting something that is NO threat to humans is just insane,then again we humans are a murderous species,in fact the only species that kill simply for sport. We will not be happy until we destroy everything on this once beautiful planet. Sigh.

9. Oakums responds: March 19th, 2012 at 10:24 am

   Honestly I don’t think it’s practical tp expect all parties involved with bigfoot to indulge in the spiritual “Natural Peacefulness” of Sasquatch or the bigfoot community. I feel as though many a grown men have spent a lot of their hard earned money and endured the ridicule of their friends and family at the cost of trying to prove the existence of a cryptid being. To me it seems like thats a perfect recipe for an angry bigfooter to shoot one just to prove it’s existence, seriously i promise no one will fully be a believer until there is a body. And when non believers hear about how “Oh i dun seen it, I had me gun but a sense of calm came over me and i din shoot it.” All they hear is “I had my chance to prove it to you, but I have morals.” or “I just made up that story.” I am in no way condoning the hunting of bigfoot or Pro-Kill groups, but I see what was said about that tree up there and feel it’s a completely different situation. That could have been the oldest tree or what not, According to the endless research on bigfoot that has been conducted I’m pretty sure it has been verified that these are a couple points we agree on. Theres not just one bigfoot. Bigfoots live in family units, or groups that reproduce. There are people who will take you to hunt bigfoot for enough money. Those three things alone make it seem to me that one dead bigfoot to the validity of a field of research that people have sunk millions into seems like a pretty fair trade off in the eyes of Pro-Kill groups.

10. Hapa responds: March 19th, 2012 at 11:48 am

    Oh My Giddy Aunt. If people searching for a species are divided over whether to do science (i.e. getting a type specimen) then Bigfoot will probably go extinct long before somebody could shoot or capture it. Photographs will not work (how many photos and films of supposed Sasquatch do we have? Hundreds? Why have none of them be called a Photographic Holotype? Because its moot without proof. Pics can be so easily altered, hoaxes can be so easily pulled, that pics are worthless as evidence.)

    Could this reluctance to kill be based on a fear that there is nothing to kill out there? I mean this is so far beyond rediculous I do know whether to cry or laugh or both. Is it any wonder why mainstream scientists continue to find new species while we have failed to find a Sasquatch after decades of looking? This is making Crypto-zoology look less like a science and more like laziness or a fine way to spend a weekend hoping to prove Bigfoot by yet another photo among many or by crossing our pinkies and singing “zip-pi-dee-doo-dah” in the hope that by pure Merlinesque magic we can make the world accept sasquatch’s existence by merely singing “Zip-pi-dee-doo-dah”! No wonder skeptics laugh at us!

    If you don’t want to get real proof, if you just want to take photographs and wish your wishiest wish that it will be accepted as fact, get a life. Get into something more intellectually honest. Like Politics.

11. AreWeThereYeti responds: March 19th, 2012 at 12:18 pm

    I really want to agree with DWA’s statement that we have moved, “beyond killing things to prove they’re alive.” However, given the present status of Bigfoot research, it’s still gonna require a “body on a slab.”

    Now, when it comes down to something mundane (at least to the general public) such as a new species of ant, frog, crab, etc., I find his argument compelling in that a well documented series of photographs/videos backed by a reputable scientific expedition could be accepted as “proof.” However, because of the controversy surrounding Bigfoot (and other cryptids), I fear that boat has sailed.

    That the P/G film was NOT obtained by: a scientific expedition, funded by a mainstream organization, with prominent scientists present at the filming means, unfortunately, that as compelling as it may be, it will never constitute “proof” of Patty’s existence. Even when seemingly “scientific” evidence is obtained – such as Dr. Ketchum’s alleged DNA sequence – controversy ensues. Should it turn-out to be legit (whatever that means), there is no type specimen to compare it to; best chance, she has “proved” the DNA of an “unknown” creature has been found. Is that creature Bigfoot? Who can say?

    While I dislike the “extraordinary claims…” measuring stick, it seems apropos in the case of Bigfoot. If all it took was a preponderance of good – and I stress GOOD – evidence, then the existing mountain of sightings reports coupled with footprint casts, hair samples, scat & the P/G film would’ve sealed the deal by now.

    I guess, in a perfect world, a National Geographic expedition would come in, tomorrow, with clear photographs/video of a sasquatch; warranting additional field research by accredited scientists who, hopefully, would then be able to provide ongoing photographic documentation along with footprint casts and hair/saliva/scat samples from which DNA could be extracted. Would a body then be needed? Probably not. But there is no guarantee this is ever gonna happen.

    Conversely a “body on a slab” would provide immediate, indisputable, proof…

12. Hapa responds: March 19th, 2012 at 12:33 pm

    I Just hope and pray that the Ketchum DNA study hits big time news real soon. It won’t be proof, but at least it will get the attention of the scientific mainstream.

    And DNA is far, far better than any picture or film could be.

13. DWA responds: March 19th, 2012 at 2:17 pm

    Let me make two things clear that might not be:

    1. Ketchum won’t get the attention of the scientific community.

    2. No way will a photographic holotype be accepted except under the terms I state.

    (2a. And the P/G film, under those terms, WOULD have been.)

    Ketchum can’t get a serious result without a type specimen, which of course there is not yet. “Unknown primate” has come back more than once; it’s not enough to get anyone worried about reputation on board.

    A photographic holotype requires that the man-in-suit possibility be the first thing tossed. From everything I have read and seen, it is unlikely – in the extreme – that P/G is a hoax. The same kind of analysis, applied to a video or photographs for which a mainstream-funded expedition vouches, would get much greater traction right off the bat.

    But count on it: until scientists stop tolerating laughter at things that haven’t been proven yet, the scientific community will need physical proof.

14. Desertdweller responds: March 19th, 2012 at 6:02 pm

    It appears to me that this controversy will not be settled until the “scientific skeptics” are served up a dead Bigfoot on a platter. So far, who provides the evidence is more important than the evidence itself.

    The undeniable problem is that whatever photographic evidence is presented, will be met by accusations of fakery. And these days, that evidence is supposed to be easy to fake.

    DNA evidence, until there is a species type to identify it with, will continue to come back “unknown primate”. And that conclusion will be used by the “scientific skeptics” to show that it proves nothing.

    I am absolutely opposed to shooting anything that cannot be identified by the shooter. But I have no doubt that a dedicated Bigfoot hunter knows what a Bigfoot is, and if he has one in his sights, would know what it is he’s aiming at.
    If we are serious about studying Bigfoot and preserving them as a species, then it may be necessary to kill one in order to move past this controversy. Even then, some people will probably consider the dead specimen to be a hoax.

    So there is a research group that is split between members who want to kill a Bigfoot and those that do not? I do not think the pro-kill group should be condemned. Given that all evidence short of a dead carcass is dismissed as fake, can anyone really blame the hunters?

    Strangely enough, those that dismiss the idea of Bigfoot seem to have no problem believing that there is a veritable cottage industry afoot in this country, manufacturing false evidence with remarkable consistency. This despite the fact that those coming forth with this evidence are generally met with ridicule. This unlikely scenario is apparently more believable to the skeptics than is the idea of Bigfoot’s existence.

    I am about at the point myself of being tempted to kill a Bigfoot just to put an end to this nonsense. It would be a shame to kill one of these creatures, but it may be worth it to get them taken seriously.

15. windigo responds: March 19th, 2012 at 8:32 pm

    The killing of an unknown species should never find justification in the heart of the research community. No matter how long it may take, this research must by accompanied by an adherence to moral and ethical principles. These creatures have never shown any significant aggression towards humans, that wasn’t already warranted by our treatment of them. Furthermore, in my over twenty years of researching of them, I have personally found that they have a childlike curiosity about us, and suspect that they relate to us as being much closer to themselves than other animals in their environment. I only wish we as humans could grasp a similar understanding of them, and find the capacity to accept them as sentient beings that are deserving of both our respect and admiration for their place in the world.

16. flame821 responds: March 19th, 2012 at 10:35 pm

    I think it is only a matter of time before a carcass is brought in. Whether it is a fresh purposeful kill, an accidental kill or a fortunate find of a ‘dropped dead and I found it’ variety won’t matter in the long run. While I personally root for GPS Tagging to study them and their society in more depth, unless you go into the woods with the equipment it isn’t going to do you any good. And lets face it, there are more guns with bullets in the woods than there are tranq darts or tracking tags, by sheer numbers it is more likely to be killed then tagged.

    As for researching going out to purposefully kill a creature, that’s tricky. You often hear witnesses remarking on how human it looked, or behaved. Despite our violent history (as a species) MOST people won’t willing pull the trigger on a fellow human unless they are in fear for their lives or the lives of their loved ones. Just as MOST hunters will not shoot what they cannot positively identify. There is always the chance of a confirmational bias kill as in ‘it’s bear season, I’m tracking a bear, I swear to god it looked like a bear from behind’ scenario but again, most hunters do tend to be extremely careful at what they shoot at, wanting to see a head or full body outline to make sure it isn’t some idiot trying to flush something out of the brush.

17. mystery_man responds: March 19th, 2012 at 11:49 pm

    It is true that photographic evidence can be accepted as a holotype for a new species, and I would like to think that this could work for Sasquatch as well. It could theoretically happen, but there are going to have to be very stringent requirements that have to be met for any such photographic evidence to be accepted seriously as proof in the scientific community.

    First, the footage would have to be completely unambiguous, clear, and undeniably showing a large, North American ape. It would have to be of good quality, without a shaking camera, and showing a good range of movement on which to base analysis. Preferably, the footage would be of a good length and at short range. There would have to be no doubt at all as to what was being seen, and there could be no doubt that what is seen could be anything other than a Sasquatch. There would have to be unanimous agreement that this is what the footage showed.

    Second, as DWA and others have stated, it would not hurt in the slightest if the footage was taken as part of an actual scientific study, and vouched for by actual biologists directly involved with the study. This would go a long way towards building credibility for any such footage, and would quite possibly tip the scales for footage that otherwise might be more controversial.

    Third, there would likely have to be some surrounding evidence involved. This could be footprints, or some sort of other physical evidence such as scat or even better, hairs. Photographic evidence should not exist in a vacuum, but rather be supported by corroborating physical evidence. This would further bolster the credibility of any footage.

    It is one thing to debunk a shaky video, but quite a bit more difficult if that footage is clear and unambiguous, vouched for by scientists who took it, and supported by other physical evidence. Likewise, while DNA evidence may turn out to be inconclusive on its own, it would be a lot more compelling when coupled with very clear, very concrete and indisputable footage of an unmistakeable Sasquatch.

    The reasons why these strict conditions I’m mentioning would likely have to be met for photographic evidence to even have a chance of acting as a holotype are varied. As AreWeThereYeti rightly stated, animals that we have good precedents for are much more likely to be accepted based on photographic evidence alone. A new kind of frog, lizard, heck, even large animals such as a new type of deer or rhino or something like that, all of these are animals that fit into the mold of what we know and what we have actual existing frames of reference for.

    What I mean is, these animals are firmly set into the scope of current knowledge of biology. A new type of bear found in North America, for instance, no matter how strange and unlike other bears it may be, is still fitting into a set paradigm for this type of animal in this locale. We have firm, undeniable proof that these sorts of animals exist here.

    A large, bipedal, temperate ape in North America, on the other hand, presents the old “extraordinary evidence” problem. Now, there is no reason why a temperate ape cannot or even should not exist, but the fact is that we do not have any living examples of this. Every current great ape we know of is tropical and that sets sort of a paradigm that requires strong evidence to overturn. Likewise for bipedalism. We know of no other currently existing hominid other than humans that is fully bipedal, so although of course there could be one and there have been in the past, and there is no reason there cannot>/em> be one, it has to be shown against our current understanding that there is one alive right now. Also, although I have gone on in depth before on how lack of fossil evidence does not negate the possibility of Sasquatch, we still do not really have it for a North American ape, or even any intermediate species anything like a North American ape. There is not only lack of Sasquatch fossils, but a huge whole in the fossil record for this type of creature, which further sets a paradigm that needs to be broken.

    There is nothing that says Sasquatch cannot be real, and I see no reason for science to completely discard the idea, but very strong evidence is needed to buck current paradigms. While none of these things mean that a Sasquatch cannot exist, it all makes it harder to convince others that everything we know now is wrong and that the paradigm needs to be re-evaluated.

    This all sets the bar higher for photographic evidence alone to be accepted as proof.

    Also, another problem is that there is a demonstrable, proven history of people trying to hoax Bigfoot footage and photographs. Of course this does not mean that all such evidence is hoaxed, but it certainly muddies the waters. When you have so many unreliable pieces of photographic evidence and so many proven hoaxes, it makes it more difficult to accept new evidence of this kind without seriously considering that it too might be hoaxed or faked somehow. It forces us to be very careful with photographic data.

    For all of these reasons, it is going to be hard to prove Bigfoot on photographic evidence alone. I wouldn’t say that it is impossible , but it is not an easy feat. For us to accept a new, large, North American bipedal ape as reality based solely on any such footage, it is going to have to be pretty amazing indeed. It certainly would help tremendously if it were brought forward by a reliable research team.

    I’d like to think that we could bloodlessly prove this creature exists, but in the absence of photographic evidence of the type I have described, a body or even a part of a body will be needed I’m afraid.

18. William responds: March 20th, 2012 at 9:01 am

    If anyone would actually kill a Bigfoot, I would think that all they would need to do to prove its existence would be to take photos of it with a cell phone from every possible angle and show the blood and the wound. I do not think this could be faked. Since they would likely be afraid of an attack by others of the species, they would probably need to remove a finger or toe of the BF and then vamoose. This is why I believe that Smeja character is a fraud because he claimed to have shot both an adult and a baby BF, yet got zero photos (what hunter doesn’t carry a cell phone or for that matter mostly anyone under 60 these days) and did not even take the body of the young BF along as incontraversial proof. The alleged DNA study of Ketchum I believe is baloney as well. The whole thing will end up being resolved by she or someone else claiming the Federal government came in and shut her down and confiscated the evidence. Just wait and see. It is not difficult to predict this stuff before it happens.

19. DWA responds: March 21st, 2012 at 10:03 am

    Desertdweller :

    “Strangely enough, those that dismiss the idea of Bigfoot seem to have no problem believing that there is a veritable cottage industry afoot in this country, manufacturing false evidence with remarkable consistency. This despite the fact that those coming forth with this evidence are generally met with ridicule. This unlikely scenario is apparently more believable to the skeptics than is the idea of Bigfoot’s existence.”

    Exactly. That is an incredibly credulous mindset, and it is evident in the stance of anyone who immediately responds negatively to a report of an encounter. Where is the money and time (copious money over copious time) that would be required to pull this off? What is the possible motive? There has been virtually zero ROI for this investment so far. It is simply not a rational scenario. Keep in mind that the Youtube and footprint hoaxes ARE NOT part of this; they are so obviously human-fabricated that they can easily be set aside.

    Either that, or the stance marks the person as very unacquainted with the evidence.

20. William responds: March 22nd, 2012 at 4:51 pm

    To add to my earlier post, I further believe that the motive behind all this is some sort of book and if sucessfull, even possibly movie spinoff of this fantastic “story” involving Ketchum and all the various twists and turns involved that eventually leads to a government coverup. Stuff like this naturally appeals to the masses.

21. Bens3rden responds: March 23rd, 2012 at 9:12 pm

    I think we’re better off to enjoy Bigfoot the way it is. Why chase after and kill it? It’s no wonder that it hides from us.

Sorry. Comments have been closed.

|Top | Content|