Wednesday, April 11, 2012

Superman Sides with the No-Kill Sasquatch Debate

For those that don't know. One of the most polarizing topics in the Bigfoot Community is the Kill/No-Kill debate. It may seem obvious what the two sides advocate, but why do they advocate killing or not killing Bigfoot? In a nutshell:

TEAM KILL: We will never prove Sasquatch exists without physical proof of a body.

TEAM NO-KILL: There are other scientific methods that are just as acceptable, even if it is to capture one. Some go further and say it is a morally cruel.

Most people have picked their sides and persuasion of of either argument is almost futile. But what would Superman do? More specifically Superboy?

At the ComicsAlliance.com they break down the 1977 Superboy/Sasquatch issue in great detail. Noting the Sasquatch issue was the transition from boy to man. We just wanted to share the panels in which several Bigfoot terrorize Smallville, takes out Superboy's girlfriend, and then Superboy stops short of killing a Sasquatch. You can click any of the photos below to see enlarged version.

SEVERAL BIGFOOT TERRORIZE SMALLVILLE

If I didn't get to turn a car or bend a street light,
I guess I would settle for a trash can to stomp on

BIGFOOT TAKES OUT SUPERBOYS GIRLFREIND WITH A ROCK

After Superboy uses superbreath to get rid of the the Sasquatch,
They resort to classic Sasquatch behavior rock throwing

SUPERBOY STOPS SHORT OF KILLING BIGFOOT

This was all a test? How cruel are Kryptonian robot teachers?





6 comments:

  1. TEAM KILL: We will never prove Sasquatch exists without physical proof of a body.

    TEAM LOGIC: A body need not be dead to be physical proof.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I once was a pro kill advocate. Thinking that in order to prove they exist we needed a body on a slab..I would hope that thinking was just the folly of my youth speaking. To kill something just to prove it lives seems somewhat idiotic to me now. If you told someone you Saw a red poodle would you need to kill it to prove it existed...no...I would hope we have moved beyond the need to kill what may be one of only a hand full of creatures just to prove it is real. Today we have very advanced technology and methods to aid in proving they exist without the need to blow ones chest out with a 30/06...if rumors be true that has been leaked out that at least part of the DNA of these creatures is human then wouldn't the planned killing of one be murder... Bottom line is...I don't need a dead walrus on a slab to prove they are real...I have only seen pictures of them and video...yet I don't expect a dead one laid at my feet to know it exists..that thinking should have went out 2 decades ago...I am not a proponent of kill or capture but do understand the reality is we will need a body. I just see no need for that body to be dead...

    Thanks
    Jeff Stewart

    ReplyDelete
  3. I wouldn't kill a Bigfoot if I came across one while hunting if for no other reason than I'm sure the local game warden would charge me with poaching.

    ReplyDelete
  4. While I agree with the "no-kill" position of "Anonymous," I have to correct the impression regarding DNA. There is no DNA data that has been made available. As far as the scientific world goes, it does not exist. Those who claim they have the DNA have been stringing the public along while making appearances. They are the high tech hoax form of Freezer Boy.

    ReplyDelete
  5. SASQUATCH LIVES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!

    ReplyDelete
  6. I am with the no-kill side because if we kill a 'squatch, wait... I just think it is morally wrong to kill our closest genetic animal

    ReplyDelete

Let's keep the language and material clean, keep in mind we have younger fans that get their Bigfoot News here too. If your comment is directed specifically to our editor, Guy Edwards, he will personally take time out of his day and ask one of us interns to reply to you in his name.

Please read our terms of use policy.