Pompous reporters for Wochit Entertainment and National Geographic assert without a single citation to back up their statement that Bigfoot is a fictional creature. A single link is not too much to ask for a journalist making such a presumptuous statement. I will give you my choice for a link and challenge these fake news purveyors (debunking the lies of National Geographic is something I'm quite familiar with) to add one single source to back up their claim. Here is mine: http://undebunkingbigfoot.blogspot.com/2014/02/best-evidence-for-existence-of.html. Now please add one to your pages and we'll see which one, and the material it references, that people find most convincing, shall we?
In Skamania County, Washington, which considers itself a Bigfoot refuge a 1984 law states that killing the mythical ape-like creature can get you a year in jail, a $1,000 fine or both. Even though Bigfoot is fictional, the Animal Legal Defense Fund included it on their list of animals who people cannot harm without repercussion. The fund states that Bigfoot is on the list because it points to the larger commonalities” between people and other animals.” http://news.nationalgeographic.com/20... http://www.wochit.com
Even though Bigfoot is fictional (sorry, cryptozoologists), the defense fund included it on their list because “we feel [it] points to the larger commonalities” between people and other animals, Rosengard says. (Read about a Bigfoot sighting in Yellowstone.)
In other words, we and our wild kin are all sentient creatures that deserve legal protection.
Bigfoot cannot "point towards larger commonalities" between mankind and animals unless it is real if you ask me. This may very well be the belief of those that made the law who just didn't want to come right out and say it because of the ridicule factor that these two reports are ignorantly further propagating. This isn't just my opinion, but an educated guess based on the fact that other such laws have admittedly been implemented because of the view of those who drafted them that the evidence is compelling...
Oregon Legislative Assembly—1977 Regular Session House Joint Resolution 52 Sponsored by Representative (later Governor) Kulongoski (at the request of Anita Paulsen)
Notwithstanding that Sasquatch are reputed to live in Devil’s Club swamps and feed on poison oak, there are those who insist on searching for them. Although no one has positively identified or captured one, this Legislative Assembly feels that it is a matter of time before this event will occur.
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2012/07/protecting-sasquatch
In another piece of dishonest reporting at mentalfloss.com the author goes through some mental gymnastics to fit his bias when they write:
The first place to outlaw Bigfoot slaughter explicitly was Skamania County, Washington. In 1969, two years after the release of the controversial Patterson-Gimlin film, the county found itself caught in the heat of peak Bigfoot fever. Believers flooded the Pacific Northwest with plans to track down the stealthy beast—and, as the Board of County Commissioners soon noticed, many visitors brought dangerous hunting weapons with them. Not only did this pose a risk to potential Bigfoots, but it also threatened the residents living in these supposed Sasquatch hotspots. More concerned with the safety of the latter than the former, the commissioners passed an official ordinance [PDF] stating that slaying Bigfoot was a felony punishable by up to five years in prison.
What else besides bias can explain the Bizarro World-esque inversion of reality of claiming the commissioners were "more concerned with the safety of the latter than the former" when the document itself clearly puts the former (the compelling evidence for Bigfoot) front and center before mentioning the weapons. The document does not support the assertion that the existence of the creature was not a real concern and simply added to the document as a means to an end. To the contrary, the order in which the concerns are laid out and more importantly the wording chosen, starting right off the bat with "evidence continues to accumulate indicating the possible existence... of a ape-like nocturnal primate." Noting an influx of scientific investigators before mentioning "believers" or casual hunters, and declaring the Sasquatch an endangered species, is another indication that the lawmakers were being fair and lending the credence to the subject that they thought it deserved.
More:
http://www.skamaniacounty.org/ordinance/Ord_1984-2.pdf
In 1991 a nearby area in Washington, Whatcom County, drafted very similar legislation, which again started out by citing evidence before getting into concerns about weapons. This time much more emphasis was put on the evidence making it even clearer that the law makers did indeed find the evidence persuasive...
Undiscovered Species Protection Act
Whereas, there is evidence to indicate the possible existence of an undiscovered species a primate mammal variously described as Bigfoot, Sasquatch, an ape-like creature or a subspecies of Homo Sapiens. Whereas, reported recent and past sightings, research by anthropologist, Primatologist, biologist, forensic experts, cryptozooligst, independent organizations, private individuals and the famous chimpanzee researcher Jane Goodall support this possibility.
I added the links in the above paragraph with info to back-up what is being stated.
Source: Big Government. Small Brains. Dumb Laws. http://www.dumblaws.com/law/1917
As I've noted in the past these self-proclaimed Bigfoot debunkers are better off pretending (as they seemingly often do) that such individuals don't exist!
Serious researchers will be aware that such laws are not very surprising given the fact that so many front line legal experts, otherwise known as police officers, have reportedly had encounters with these so-called fictional beasts.
http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3993&context=jclc
As an anonymous hunter sums it up:
I'm sorry but every single hunter, police officer, and other professions dedicated to observing details and analytical indetification throughout the last 250 years aren't misidentifying bears as something unknown. Does misidetifiation occur? Yes but not at the rate the debunkers claim. Regardless if the actual truth occurs at only the most minimal rate, there is still a certain degree of something unknown existing. I've personally taken dozens of specimens of dozens of species of wildlife in the past 25 years of hunting across several states. Granted, I've never experienced an unknown creature, never have I witnessed a bear in any situation where it could be misidentified as a naturally bipedal, shaggy haired, 8 foot tall, hominin. For me to lay the assertion out the people much more trained and experienced than I am, in somewhere I've never been, at a high rate are misidentifying bear as an ape man is way too much. Not everyone thinks in darker ways either. - http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2013/07/listen-to-last-nights-coast-to-coast-am.html?showComment=1373608459192#c7776496416280399501
Those who when it comes to this subject or other taboo topics are dismissive out of hand, insulting, condescending, who mock and sneer, etc., are usually misinformed/ignorant pseudo-skeptics. Even if they are right about the existence of Sasquatch, they are still engaging in horrendous journalism. They are many times nearly clueless about the extent and quality of the existing evidence, the minutia, the DNA studies, the peer-reviewed papers. If they are right, it is only because the happen to be. It isn't because they did their due-diligence and came to a conclusion. If they are wrong, we who simply say the evidence is compelling and worthy of study, will laugh in their face if they are ever proven so. I wonder how many of them choose to engage the subject in the manner that they do (not that they don't think it's real but the way they go about letting you know) because they are not very nice people. The type that must ridicule, humiliate or demean others to inflate their own egos.
In Skamania County, Washington, which considers itself a Bigfoot refuge a 1984 law states that killing the mythical ape-like creature can get you a year in jail, a $1,000 fine or both. Even though Bigfoot is fictional, the Animal Legal Defense Fund included it on their list of animals who people cannot harm without repercussion. The fund states that Bigfoot is on the list because it points to the larger commonalities” between people and other animals.” http://news.nationalgeographic.com/20... http://www.wochit.com
Even though Bigfoot is fictional (sorry, cryptozoologists), the defense fund included it on their list because “we feel [it] points to the larger commonalities” between people and other animals, Rosengard says. (Read about a Bigfoot sighting in Yellowstone.)
In other words, we and our wild kin are all sentient creatures that deserve legal protection.
Bigfoot cannot "point towards larger commonalities" between mankind and animals unless it is real if you ask me. This may very well be the belief of those that made the law who just didn't want to come right out and say it because of the ridicule factor that these two reports are ignorantly further propagating. This isn't just my opinion, but an educated guess based on the fact that other such laws have admittedly been implemented because of the view of those who drafted them that the evidence is compelling...
Oregon Legislative Assembly—1977 Regular Session House Joint Resolution 52 Sponsored by Representative (later Governor) Kulongoski (at the request of Anita Paulsen)
Notwithstanding that Sasquatch are reputed to live in Devil’s Club swamps and feed on poison oak, there are those who insist on searching for them. Although no one has positively identified or captured one, this Legislative Assembly feels that it is a matter of time before this event will occur.
http://www.lawyersgunsmoneyblog.com/2012/07/protecting-sasquatch
In another piece of dishonest reporting at mentalfloss.com the author goes through some mental gymnastics to fit his bias when they write:
What else besides bias can explain the Bizarro World-esque inversion of reality of claiming the commissioners were "more concerned with the safety of the latter than the former" when the document itself clearly puts the former (the compelling evidence for Bigfoot) front and center before mentioning the weapons. The document does not support the assertion that the existence of the creature was not a real concern and simply added to the document as a means to an end. To the contrary, the order in which the concerns are laid out and more importantly the wording chosen, starting right off the bat with "evidence continues to accumulate indicating the possible existence... of a ape-like nocturnal primate." Noting an influx of scientific investigators before mentioning "believers" or casual hunters, and declaring the Sasquatch an endangered species, is another indication that the lawmakers were being fair and lending the credence to the subject that they thought it deserved.
More:
http://www.skamaniacounty.org/ordinance/Ord_1984-2.pdf
In 1991 a nearby area in Washington, Whatcom County, drafted very similar legislation, which again started out by citing evidence before getting into concerns about weapons. This time much more emphasis was put on the evidence making it even clearer that the law makers did indeed find the evidence persuasive...
Undiscovered Species Protection Act
Whereas, there is evidence to indicate the possible existence of an undiscovered species a primate mammal variously described as Bigfoot, Sasquatch, an ape-like creature or a subspecies of Homo Sapiens. Whereas, reported recent and past sightings, research by anthropologist, Primatologist, biologist, forensic experts, cryptozooligst, independent organizations, private individuals and the famous chimpanzee researcher Jane Goodall support this possibility.
I added the links in the above paragraph with info to back-up what is being stated.
Source: Big Government. Small Brains. Dumb Laws. http://www.dumblaws.com/law/1917
As I've noted in the past these self-proclaimed Bigfoot debunkers are better off pretending (as they seemingly often do) that such individuals don't exist!
Serious researchers will be aware that such laws are not very surprising given the fact that so many front line legal experts, otherwise known as police officers, have reportedly had encounters with these so-called fictional beasts.
http://scholarlycommons.law.northwestern.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3993&context=jclc
 |
| Police Dash Cam Footage |
As an anonymous hunter sums it up:
I'm sorry but every single hunter, police officer, and other professions dedicated to observing details and analytical indetification throughout the last 250 years aren't misidentifying bears as something unknown. Does misidetifiation occur? Yes but not at the rate the debunkers claim. Regardless if the actual truth occurs at only the most minimal rate, there is still a certain degree of something unknown existing. I've personally taken dozens of specimens of dozens of species of wildlife in the past 25 years of hunting across several states. Granted, I've never experienced an unknown creature, never have I witnessed a bear in any situation where it could be misidentified as a naturally bipedal, shaggy haired, 8 foot tall, hominin. For me to lay the assertion out the people much more trained and experienced than I am, in somewhere I've never been, at a high rate are misidentifying bear as an ape man is way too much. Not everyone thinks in darker ways either. - http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2013/07/listen-to-last-nights-coast-to-coast-am.html?showComment=1373608459192#c7776496416280399501
Those who when it comes to this subject or other taboo topics are dismissive out of hand, insulting, condescending, who mock and sneer, etc., are usually misinformed/ignorant pseudo-skeptics. Even if they are right about the existence of Sasquatch, they are still engaging in horrendous journalism. They are many times nearly clueless about the extent and quality of the existing evidence, the minutia, the DNA studies, the peer-reviewed papers. If they are right, it is only because the happen to be. It isn't because they did their due-diligence and came to a conclusion. If they are wrong, we who simply say the evidence is compelling and worthy of study, will laugh in their face if they are ever proven so. I wonder how many of them choose to engage the subject in the manner that they do (not that they don't think it's real but the way they go about letting you know) because they are not very nice people. The type that must ridicule, humiliate or demean others to inflate their own egos.
