I have been fascinated by Bigfoot for years. I am of the opinion that something out there exists. For years, I thought it might be a version of Gigantopithecus, but now I don’t, considering the anthropological work that has been one on apes. They are vicious. If we are dealing with something so large and massive, we would know it. They would be lethal. Chimps are lethal. Gorillas can be lethal. There are very few stories about Bigfoot being vicious or lethal.
I find the Melba Ketchum research fascinating. My humble opinion is that she’s being denigrated primarily because she’s a blond and female. Robert Lindsey, who is the intellectual William F. Buckley type of the Bigfoot industry, seems to think Dr. Bryan Sykes is behind the attacks on Ketchum. Ketchum’s DNA research has basically proven (and some of Sykes also proves) that Bigfoot is a hominid.
The discussion now is about killing a Bigfoot to prove they exist. There is a huge problem with this. The idea is being increasingly embraced by the Bigfoot world, to kill one to prove it exists. If we are dealing with a sentient hominid, killing one, to prove the species exists would be nothing more than murder.
What truly disturbs me, if these creatures are sentient, and I have every reason to believe they are, then killing one, to prove the existence of the species, is murder. Not only that, but we will have failed to learn from what we have done, for centuries, to native human populations who get in our way.
Do we have a right to interfere with their culture, and they appear to have one. What about the Native American legends? If they are anywhere near true, then we are dealing with hominids who have been here in the US a heck of a lot longer than we have.
Do ethics apply?
It’s like this. A week or so ago, I was listening to a podcast about collecting evidence in a viable way. I know it sounds like a joke, but there are honorable people out there doing what they truly hope is viable research. Yes, there are frauds and idiots, but there are also some very good people. One such discussion was about game cameras. The researcher was very careful. He made sure the cameras were clean, handling them with gloves and plastic bags. When they were put in place, he was as careful as possible that there was no contamination on them.
When he went back for his photos, the photos on the scan card had been deleted. Inside the camera was a single hair. Before hanging the camera he had made sure the site was not contaminated. The hair did not match him. It did not match anyone who might be near it. It did not match any of their dogs. He said it was an unusual looking hair, which he handled with tweezers, bagged it, and is having it examined.
The implications, if it was a Bigfoot hair are shattering. The logical answer was someone was messing with him. If it was Bigfoot messing with him, then the capacity to delete photos indicates thinking and a mind. To hunt one for evidence is murder.
The camera had to be tampered with by a human. Doesn’t matter, shooting a Bigfoot to prove their existence is akin to murder.