Guest ajciani 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. I would say that it is because they are human, or very close to it, that BF has been forgotten about. In all of the old accounts of interactions, BF is treated just as you would treat a wild human: a curiosity of deformity or circumstance; a freak. If BF was something more ape-like, such as a true missing link or an upright walking gorilla, instead of being captured and treated like freaks, they would have been captured and brought to science to study and display. They would have been marveled over and written about. The Church would probably have used them as proof of a divine origin, etc. This forum, and all of the current BF research organizations would simply not exist, because bigfoots could be seen in zoos. It is certainly their human form and human or near human intellect which has significantly contributed to keeping them forgotten, and separate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Docwos Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 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. I appreciate your response and I do understand your opinion. Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't most theories start with a dose of faith(belief) and a sprinkle of evidence. We were the center of the universe, we lived on a flat earth, stars were gods, science was the work of the devil, etc. My earlier point was merely to portray that other cultures use different aspects as solid evidence. An eyewitness account and DNA in our society can sentence a person to death, yet it can't prove the existence of an animal? Seems a bit hypocritical to me. Simply put, proof is a relative term based on who you are and the culture you live in. Of course, you are right in the fact that our society holds to a different standard than others, and most a say much better method at that. Personally, I believe this very system only promotes ideals and theories that fit into the mainstream, while it forces out any that threaten to put a cog in the proverbial wheel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 I completely understand what you are saying, but if we are talking about proving bigfoot scientifically, that is not relative. To gain acceptance as a documented species, just like every species that has come before it, there is a clear standard that has to be met. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Twilight Fan Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 ^This. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Docwos Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 I completely understand what you are saying, but if we are talking about proving bigfoot scientifically, that is not relative. To gain acceptance as a documented species, just like every species that has come before it, there is a clear standard that has to be met. Valid point Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
beerhunter Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 And after the mainstream scentists have that proof, the general public will become aware of BFs' existence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest exnihilo Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 I think trailcams would be a lot less disruptive if they were designed with the idea of remaining hidden from a wary and probing human intellect, not just a bunch of animals that 'don't know any better'. The big square black or even camo boxes practically shout "Ok now pose for me you clueless animals." I'd like to see one that's indistinguishable from a stump, or a rock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted February 20, 2012 BFF Patron Share Posted February 20, 2012 When strapped to a tree at shoulder height you have a point, when arranged in other ways strategically.... not so much. Doesn't seem to matter, the tree trunk is the security for the camera, if they get much more expensive and techno people will simply saw the trees in two and steal them. Planting them independent of tree-trunks can be done...... but it involves much more work and much more risk I think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Darrell Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 Got interested in BF when I was 11. that was in 1973. Been waiting to have BF's existense proven ever since. Figure I might still be waiting when I'm 89 if I make it that old. But who knows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts