When A Skeptic Asked, "If you see a Bigfoot, should you shoot him?" Guess Who Chimed In? Hint: His Name Starts With The Letter T
There's a serious discussion going on about a LiveScience.com article titled, "If You Spot Bigfoot, Should You Shoot Him?" Benjamin Radford, deputy editor of Skeptical Inquirer science magazine, after watching Todd Standing getting debunked on the Canada episode of Finding Bigfoot, quoted this:
"No video is ever going to be evidence, ever. It's never going to be good enough…"Now rather than the usual Bigfoot-doesn't-exist rant, Radford who is a prominent skeptic, actually took this subject seriously. He agrees with Standing!
- Todd Standing
...
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. [Infamous 'Yeti Finger' Flunks DNA Test]
But definitive proof is a very high standard. Most Bigfoot enthusiasts — and the general public — would be satisfied with nothing less than the rock-solid definitive proof offered by a living or dead specimen.
Radford took what Standing said into serious consideration and suggests that a specimen is needed to prove that Bigfoot exist:
This issue brings up a longstanding debate within the Bigfoot community: Would be ethical to shoot and kill a Bigfoot? Some say yes, because that's the only way to prove they exist, and once proof is found, funds could be made available to protect them as an endangered species. Others say no -- that because Bigfoot sightings are so rare, they must have very small populations and killing one might drive the animals to extinction. Shooting a suspected Bigfoot with tranquilizer darts is an option that has gained some steam.
After Radford educated readers about the longstanding debate of Pro-Kill versus No-Kill, Mr. Todd Standing posted the following comment and he had some not-so-nice things to say about the Finding Bigfoot crew:
Hello Benjamin. This is Todd Standing. In response to your article, I do have crystal clear video and photo evidence of bigfoot. Look at a few of my youtube videos here...
I never gave it to the "Finding Bigfoot" show for many reasons the first of which is they refused to even acknowledge my physical evidence ( Scatt and Hair). Which would prove my work is real. Unless i can fake DNA. That raised a big red flag. The production company called "Snake oil productions" ( I am not kidding that is really their official legal title) Lied and cheat me so much the two original producers i agreed to work with quit the show before they even came to Canada to film. Then when i saw the production first hand i realized they are not even trying to find bigfoot and they all know it. It is as real as World Wresting Entertainment.
If you want to write an article about whether or not to shoot bigfoot please give me a call or send me an email. 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".
- Todd Standing
It looks to us that Standing is waging a serious campaign in order to stop the bleeding after being debunked by a team of Bigfoot investigators on national TV. As we reported last week, Standing went onto the Animal Planet's website and landed a preemptive strike against the show before it aired.
[via www.msnbc.msn.com]
Oh my goodness. Here we go, Shawn where's the merry-go-round music?
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with Todd on one thing, his evidence might be BS but he's right, in my opinion, that the show "finding bigfoot" isn't out to really achieve the goal of the title. It's like all them tacky shows they have out at the moment, Just another money making racket.
ReplyDeleteAnyway the only thing I pay much attention to any more is the DNA study. I just hope that doesn't turn out to be BS to.
Good for Standing. We all know that FindingBigfoot is a joke, Moneymaker has just found a formula that brought ratings for the short while. I respect Todd for standing up for himself. This is a guy doing the research the way we all know you are supposed to. Showing up in a location for 1 and a half days is not going to have any result. The FindingBigfoot team has produced no evidence whatsoever. It cracksme up that they get a return call or Ranae sees some eyeshine, and then that's it. They aren't investigating anything. Lets not investigate this further, lets just pack up and go to the other side of the state. This place is Squatchy! Fact! Then any time they investigate someone else's evidence who might be seen as getting too much of their own airtime, its instantly a hoax. I know that at least one of Standings pictures seems fishy, but I don't see that the other evidence put forward by witnesses is ever any better than the other stuff Standing has. If they believe peoples verbal accounts, then they need to take more consideration of actual video. It all boils down to childish fights amongst all of them if you ask me. Grow up and work together. John
ReplyDeleteThe BFRO are trying to make a case that Todd Standing is a hoaxer, but the louder they denounce him, while declaring every odd forest sound "A Squatch!" the more ordinary people like me will believe Todd, and laugh at the BFRO. (I have no association with either, and am not an active BF researcher.)
ReplyDeleteI don't see that they debunked Todd. They formed personal opinions. Bobo even said he was "pretty impressed" with Standing on the show.
ReplyDeleteIf you see a skeptic, should you shoot him? :)
ReplyDeleteThe show is for "entertainment".
ReplyDeleteWhy do you keep saying Finding Bigfoot debunked Todd Standing? They did not! Ridicule does not equal debunk.
ReplyDeleteCan't wait for that show to finally be cancelled. I'm sick of the words "squatch" and "squatchy". They sound almost vulgar and disrespectful.
100% agree 1311182244!! They in NO way debunked him.
ReplyDeleteThey didn't debunk him, they didn't want to stamp him a hoaxer and risk a lawsuit. They seem to agree on one thing though, they both call Sasquatch an animal and I bet they're both wrong on that one. So yes, it's wrong to shoot for that near-fact reason. But since the species obviously has been too smart to get captured in the past, where a body would've proven it all back then for us, unfortunately a body/part is still needed for the die-hard skeptical circus bloodhounds. Human or not, they would love nothing better than drag the debate, they will however be the big jokes themselves now. Let's hope, if the sad Smeja kills are in fact true, it's enough DNA needed. More good video will come eventually, and we already have Roger Patterson's showing one.
ReplyDeleteI was thinking the exact same thing Anonymous post #2 after me. (I also wish you anonymous posters would just pick a unique name so we know which anonymous is saying what.)
ReplyDeleteYou got it. That was me, hereby known as....
ReplyDeletePonkeyDunch.
Standing may or may not be hoaxing, but I still don't see how the FB people can look at that video of Standing's and say it is a fake after excepting some really bad videos in the past. That one a few eps back of the two women filming the side of the road for their documentary....
ReplyDeleteI also thought it was funny that the follow up accounts after Standing was 1) "something" peeing on a person's tent, and 2) a stone being thrown at someone else's tent. And of course both HAD to be a bigfoot. Couldn't be explained by a few drunk campers having a laugh. hehe. =)
What is wrong with you and your irresponsible blogging? Stop fanning the flames against Standing and at least be accurate in your posts. Finding Bigfoot did not debunk Standing and I don't understand why that is so hard to understand. From what I saw, they simply said "I can't rule out a guy in a suit". This is very very far from debunking. A debunk would be "I can see the zipper if you look close enough" or "the reflection of the lighting guy is seen in the eye of the creature" or "there is rope visible".
ReplyDeleteIf there's one thing that bothers me it's when bloggers with a considerable amount of influence, use their influence to sway their readers for the sole reason that it will get page views. I already wrote about this, there was no debunking in that video. I'm sort of surprised that such a successful and important blogger is willing to be so willfully ignorant about that?
Hair samples or bigfoot turds are just going to come back as unknown then they will say the evidence is spoiled or inconclusive science needs a body Bring the seals with you todd shoot one solve the mystery once and for all.
ReplyDeleteJust in case you ANONS, didnt understand what Todd is trying to say here, let me try to educate you all. Todd uncovered that (and why this doesnt get out is beyond me) Bigfoots are as regimented as a Special forces unit. He found out that in the daytime the BigGuys have sentries and look outs posted all over in terrain that humans can NOT cover quickly, guarding the family that is sleeping or doing what ever they do in the day. He had a female picked out for a tranquilizer shot from a rifle. Before he even raised his gun there was a large crash behind Todd.
ReplyDeleteThe crash was a diversion from ANOTHER BF (Large Male) making sure that Todd did not get any closer to the female. In other words they had Todd surrounded.
Had he or anyone else raised the rifle, the other BF would have been upon Todd before he could even aim. AND PROBABLY that would have been the last we EVER heard or seen of Mr. Todd Standing. It would have been Todd Laying-In a dirt grave never to be seen again.
THe point is that Todd is making is that if you try to shoot one you may never even get the shot off. Chances are, you are being watched by other "guards" or "sentries" and you will be dispatched immediately. It will be interesting given that Rick Dyer is advertising that he is going to KILL ONE, whether he makes it back alive to tell the story.
Those are TODDS points not mine. They are derived from Todds research in the secret Valley he studies them in. Robert Lindsay reports in his Blog "Where are the bodies and the bones" there is a Killing (Accidental usually, sometimes not) every 2 years or so. Hunters, people who have lost livestock or pets, have reportedly shot the creatures and got away with it. So I dont know how much of Todds data is accurate. But scenarios change. Todd is watching at the top of the Rocky Mountains, in East Texas maybe the BF dont have such an elaborate defense plan for their klan. What ever the answer is we dont have enough evidence either way.
Todds findings have me convinced I would never raise anything but maybe a camera in BF's direction, and then it will be desguised.
The point is, that its much more complicated than "we'll hell Sally lets just go shoot the dayum thing!!!!"
The above obviously conflicts with the sierra kills description as in that two ya-ya's with rifles took out a family pack. Personally I do not beleive the sierra kills and I think that may be the consensus on this site. I beleive bigfoot is not yet proven to exist but if it does exist then no doubt it would have some type of protective pack behaviour as all other primates do. Using the terrain would be the first thing they did. But this would really mean not going anywhere near humans and in this video there was a picnic bench clearly visible. As i have said before, if BF exists he is not wandering round campsites and picnic areas, it is in the 'deep green'. As for people shooting BF a couple of times a year...no evidence. Pack protective behaviour in such an advanced primate would be species wide and hardwired, so no way would BF in other areas be somehow incapable of this and therefore easy meat IMHO. But this is all pure theory. So far they don't exist IMHO.
ReplyDeleteyou gus are worse than kids. Its about personell opinions. raneae doesnt believe anything, matt thinks hes a hoaxer, cliff thinks the face[mask, which anybody would conclude is odd] is hoaxed but the other stuff is as reasonable as anything else out there, Bobo said he was 'quite impressed with the guys findings'. so they all have personell opinions of Standings work or parts of it. Seems reasonable to me.
ReplyDeleteIf Standing wants to say the BFRO are rying to ridicule him thats his opinion. who cares
cant believe I wrote the obvious
I'd shoot a bigfoot in a heartbeat. Probably beat him with a stick for a beer or two, then shoot him a couple more times just to be sure.
ReplyDeleteI would hand his body over to science on the condition I'm allowed to keep one rack of ribs for my smokehouse.