Guest Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 As technology gets more advanced and the more people (also squatchers) go into the bush, how long will it take? It could very well be within the next few decades, so I hope I'll survive until then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PBeaton Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 krypto, I've got my fingers crossed for this year...but I said the same last year. Pat... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Twilight Fan Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 I take it you two are 100% believers. I've never seen anything "squatchy" so I'm not so sure. I would say that people will prove Bigfoot exists when a live (or dead) Bigfoot is found and taken from the forest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PBeaton Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Twilight Fan, Speakin' only for myself, I'm of the opinion they exist. Never seen one either...yet ! I still hope the remains or partial remains...or even a single bone will surface. Let the livin' live, the already dead could provide the evidence. Either way, once proven, I hope they get even better at hidin'. Pat... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 It has already been proved, the proof has not been published yet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 It has been proved for quite a few cultures. Im guessing therefor the question is really current western society centred and should perhaps go... when will the western worlds authorities put BF on the list of things it recognises as real? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Twilight Fan Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 @ indiefoot & Encounter: No, Bigfoot's existence has not yet been proven by anybody. Not westerners or anyone else. If they had proof, the rest of the world would by now accept (100%) that there is an ape in North America. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 (edited) Twighlight Fan, other cultures in the world are as valid as the western world culture. Find tibetans and nepalese who dont believe in the yetti as a given and excepted being in their world and you will have found a minority view in that culture. Find an indigenous person from indigenous cultures speaking on hairy wild men with all the same traits as Big Foot and little hairy foot and ask them whether their belief is just an unproven concept or a real, physical part of their world. My point is the western world has a certain view of what constitutes reality and a certain history of actuality which is different to other cultures. There are other cultures who take for an accepted fact or truth that the yetti/ yowie/ alma/ and many many many other names to mean the same... exists. These cultures are usually pretty polite with outsiders and sometimes secretive (due to the damage done to them by having a different way of seeing) so they dont go about saying the western thinker is wrong, they just have their belief. What you think is proof is not what a cultural aboriginal Australian thinks is proof. The western view is not superior to any other view. Edited February 18, 2012 by Encounter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Twilight Fan Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 (edited) Encounter - I understand that other cultures have their own ways of viewing the world, and the creatures in them. Even if BF exists, there is a huge difference between knowing something exists and proving something exists. I only point out this difference because just a few posts up, you said quite a few cultures have proven BF exists. But...they have not. Here's an example: Let's pretend a sasquatch is living in the woods next to my house. I can go hiking in those woods and see him every day. Maybe he shows himself because he is not threatened. Now, I can see that sasquatch all the time, and know he is real. But knowing is not proving. By keeping his existence a secret from the world, I prove nothing. The above is of course a hypothetical, to prove a point. I have never actually seen a sasquatch. Edited February 18, 2012 by Twilight Fan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Yes Twighlight Fan, this is why I said that perhaps the real question here concerns proof for the western world. Indigenous people who believe in sasquatch/dooligah etc in a sense recognise it as a proven fact a part of their reality - but they dont believe in proof the same way you do. I for one find it no more proof that someone analyse a beings bones, or there is a photograph which after much scrutiny some expert will declare untampered evidence, than if someone personally experiences that being and the world has a long history of reports of such a being. The questioner in this thread is assuming a western viewpoint on the concept of proof, and thats OK, Im clarifying this though as it is important to realise that the western concept of proof is not the same as all other cultures and the west is not more an authority on this than any other culture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Friday 2nd March 2012. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Twilight Fan Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 (edited) @ Encounter... I don't define proof by which culture created the word/meaning for the word. I define it by the Dictionary meaning of the word; (and Dictionaries are available in all countries, not just the USA). Thesaurus: Noun 1. proof - any factual evidence that helps to establish the truth of something; "if you have any proof for what you say, now is the time to produce it" proof n proof [pruËf] 1 (a piece of) evidence, information etc that shows definitely that something is true. Dictionary.com: proof /pruf/ noun 1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth. 2. anything serving as such evidence: What proof do you have? 3. the act of testing or making trial of anything; test; trial: to put a thing to the proof. 4. the establishment of the truth of anything; demonstration. Edited February 18, 2012 by Twilight Fan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 I'm not talking about other cultures. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Twilight Fan Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 ^You're not? Then what do you mean? It's obvious BF has not been proven to exist in the United States (or anywhere else). At least not to science or the majority of the world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 (edited) Twighlight Fan ..Sorry, where did I say I was talking about semantics? There are other ways of recognising proof, other ways of recognising evidence, other ways of understanding reality. Did you know when the British first came to the land now called Australia they declared there were no humans living there and thus once the brits started colonising Australia they did not seek to make any treaties with the very obvious aboriginal people living there (though made treaties with all other cultures they encountered before colonisation). The reason they declared noone there (human) was that aboriginal way of living did not fit their understanding of human culture or civilisation. They could see no proof of human territorial connection and even the evidence of aboriginal people in front of them was not an evidence they felt constituted proof. In fact in the first few years of colonisation the colony started to starve as the boats for resupply had not come from England. Aboriginal people (though being killed) tried to help the colonists by showing them there was heaps of food but because the colonists didnt recognise this food in their european context they saw no evidence of food anywhere. Their concept of reality meant they couldnt see the proof aboriginals were giving them of food, and they started to die. There were heaps of animals for food, fruits, vegatables but these colonials started to die until their boats finally came in with resupply and lots of rum. A couple of hundred years later, with many aboriginal languages and intricate culture recognised by non aboriginal australians, Aboriginal people had to go to court to prove their association with the land - land ownership. In aboriginal culture reality is seen quite differently and they belong to the land of their birth, they dont own it. They had to prove their "ownership" of the land for the government to recognise their important association to the land being spoken about, but it was difficult because the concept of ownership was not a truth to them - they had to tear their own reality to bits to give proof to the government. They didnt have fences, they didnt write on paper about ownership they didnt have the evidence required for western concepts of proof, though all knew they had lived their for many thousands of years. One case was finally one, very famous Mabo case. Edited February 19, 2012 by megatarsal to remove personal references Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts