Guest Twilight Fan Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 Maybe some people don't care for proof. But me, I need some kind of hard evidence (or a personal encounter of my own) to be so sure on things like Bigfoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 Well, Im sure if you do have a personal encounter you will understand why so many say they dont care about scientific proof and you will understand how painful it is for people with first hand experiences to keep hearing those who have had no such experience asking when there will be proof. Discovery channel will not give people first hand experience - go out into the bush, sit with nature and maybe some amazing things will happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Twilight Fan Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 Maybe I couldn't imagine the feeling I might have if I saw one for myself! Fear, stunned, amazed, excited, shocked. All mixed together! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 Its all good! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Primate Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 I find the NEED for proof as well as the need to come to a negative conclusion about their existance fascinating . You just don't see those kind of emotions around other unknown or newly discovered animals.(or tribes) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 Going out on a limb, but if they actually were more ape-like and less people like I think we absolutely wouldn't have the ''gut-reactions'' seen thru out bigfootery. If it was just another animal out there the reaction would be lukewarm at best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 (edited) grayjay I agree. But something else has also occurred, a fantasy industry of sensationalism, fear and excitement, and a kind of club of self styled "BF trackers" and the belief an amateur can turn the pages on science. More often their hopes end with cable TV and some exposure in the BF community? If they were more beast like...perhaps less gut reaction. But, even as an "ape" they far exceed any concept we have of apes...and of course gorillas do cause deep compassionate responses in people. I think the sensationalism of past pulp writers, and the continued cowboy nature of the investigations encourage many to go out and with no real meaningful place to take any evidence the get...except duke it out on the net or join a group that dukes it out....or self publish. Which has created, now, such a ridiculed situation that conventional scientists run even faster. So, when will proof come? If this paper is ever published, maybe that will be enough to begin legal and community responses....education, etc and a movement to change our ways? Don't think FB guys will like that...so I expect the loudest howls to be from within the BF community on the paper...but who knows. We do know enough to not condone a citizen killing for proof. Given our knowledge now I don't think (unless they lie..hummmm) many could claim they were hunting a beast....it's all about what a given prosecutor decides to prosecute. Public opinion can go a long way. So, I agree that not one amateur or hunter or self appointed citizen should be trying to prove or attempting to capture or kill. I think that is mostly talk, until you read a stoy like the Sierra Kills.... I think we need to get over proof and think about what we can do now that is meaningful. Not much of our efforts are. Down to almost all amateur data...it is inherently useless to scientists (sans the Ketchum report hopefully) beyond getting interest to get them out there. Hard to believe but true. So, one has to decide thier path..if it's BF HUNTER join the internet crowd..if it really is science or beauty, discovery....drop the toys. Read some recent anthro techniques and go sit quitely, track lightly and let it go....sound monitoring is great, but limited venue there! Remote video maybe, if you can mkae in nondisruptive...trail cams..no, we know they avoid and it is disruptive (and not effective)? It is an interesting place we are in..almost proof and apparently still two camps...whether ape or no..it seems lines are being created....to Find Bigfoot or not? Edited February 19, 2012 by apehuman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LAL Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 Well, it's been a given we're the only surviving member of Genus homo and/or a special creation so another human-like something sharing "our" planet is something of an affront. Besides, sometimes they're eight feet tall. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 huh? not sure I am following that into an issue of proof? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 As soon as a body or significant body part is presented Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted February 19, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted February 19, 2012 (edited) It will be proved, not by philosophs and ne'er-do-wells, but by concerted efforts of individuals and a modicum of teamwork. Sound evidence has been confirmatory of something outside of the ape-camp (for some time now), not that it will matter without explanatory dna confirmations. There is no "limited venue" for sound collection efforts, you just need a place of reasonable but not total quiet, where stimulus-response patterns can be gleaned. To think existence is going to be proved by a Sierra wilderness kind of exploit by itself I think is short-sighted in that Sasquatch has adapted to moving around the periphery with brief forays into human habitations. I assume the "when" in the thread title is rhetorical in that we have another thread on the Ketchum study "when". Edited February 19, 2012 by bipedalist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 (edited) Significant..... Say a 2 lb chunk? Edited February 19, 2012 by indiefoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 Sorry Apehuman I was addressing Primate's post. While I think eventually we're going to need a body, I think to date the evidence collected across the board is enough to show something is out there we have too little knowledge about. I think the backlash regarding the evidence ''to date'' is that we don't have the body yet and some of the scepticism as well as some insistance on the pro's part is very rightly adamant in both cases because of the ''gut reactions'' to another type of peoples living beside us in the shadows. That is quite an unnerving thought, regardless of which side of the fence you're on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 Indie, How about a hand or foot or head. Something the average Joe on the street could look at and go "yup ya got something there dude". Let me me clarify my position. 1) there's evidence out there that you and I can debate and most likley agree on that it's very likley there's something unknown out there. I believe that based on my own personal experience. I also believe that most of what is proported to be Bigfoot evidence, behavior ect is not made by Bigfoot. 2) Proving Bigfoot exists to the rest of the world much less the scientific community is going to require a body or something awfully compelling. A 2lbs piece of whatever is that going to be enough? Not for me to speak for the rest of the world. They are two different issues in my mind. I'm not out looking for Bigfoot or on this fourm to prove he doesn't exist, but that doesn't mean I accept anything as proof he does until something really good comes along. Unless the Kechtum report comes with that really good stuff that can be subjected to the same standards of review that every other new species has passed it will fail as the proof required on it's on merit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 Who is to say our way is the right way and theirs is the wrong way? How can we say to another cultural system that their belief in bigfoot is incorrect, unfounded or unproven? Perhaps, we can look in ourselves and find appropriate answers to these questions. We can easily say other cultural systems belief in bigfoot is unproven, because up until this point, it is. This is not a faith based subject. They can absolutely believe whatever they want, but their beliefs don't prove anything. That's like saying since people believe in God, that proves he exists. It doesn't work that way. And as far as cultural differences go, sometimes it is not just a case of what is different, but there is such a thing as better or worse. Some cultures are just wrong and it's okay to say that. Stoning a woman to death for committing adultery is not just a "cultural difference". It's wrong. Obviously belief in bigfoot is much different than that, but there is no problem with our society expecting tangible proof before we call it a living, breathing species. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts