norseman Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 Well, we won't call feelings science, atleast I don't, but I have seen that straw man used to ridicule certain views. sexual attraction within a species is more than just "feelings". but of course we wont have a definitive answer until we have a slab monkey. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 5, 2013 Share Posted June 5, 2013 I think it is our ability to contemplate our actions. To consciously, rather than instinctively, weigh alternatives. This might be what you mean by brain use, I'm not sure. Inventing tools, planning their manufacture ... those come from brain use. I think we put too much weight, without thinking about it ... sort of human-centered or anthromorphic assumptions / prioritization ... into specifically WHICH tools we think show intelligence. If we were more adapted to living in the cold, had much better night vision, and a digestive system that handled raw food better, we might have never needed to "invent" fire. We would be different, but it would not preclude sapience. If we were vastly stronger, we might not have been driven to develop weapons to hunt with and to protect ourselves from animals with. We would be different, but it would not preclude sapience. Minus our physical limitations, we would not have had to develop technologies to overcome those limitations. MIB, I really liked what you wrote. If necessity is the mother of invention, this could be why the sasquatch species doesn't need clothing, cooked food or many tools. That's how I view it all. I think if Norseman is going to do it, he's going about it the right way - with a plan, with intention and with a firm goal in mind and ultimately he thinks it will be a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 Then you throw in people who are hunting a bipedal Hominid into the mix, and you've really got a recipe for disaster.It certainly should give any hunter who loads up on camo or uses a ghillie suit pause to reflect on their mortality.I hunt, probably will as long as I'm physically able, however, I certainly do my best to find places as far from where others will be as I can. I focus on deep, brushy canyons nobody in their right mind (which disqualifies me, right? ) would go. Tradeoffs. I think I'm still safer in the woods than on the highway getting there. MIB Roger that MIB. But after the 3rd time I had bullets fying through the branches a couple of feet over my head from some lazy Clown sitting in a tree staind drinking brown liquor and then once having to return fire in the Clowns direction to get his attention that he was firing in my direction, I decided to stick to fishing. Then you throw in "amateur researchers" wanting to collect a bi-pedal Hominid specimen......no thanks. Norseman, your chances are zero. That's because they know your intentions before you even leave the house. Forget about your chances once you're in their space. Bigfoot knows my intentions before I leave my house??? Wow that's fascinating!!! I'm still gonna bring one of these on our trip maybe they won't figure it out until its to late! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 ^^^^^^ It's amazing to me! In one breath they tell me that when hunters draw a bead on them and look into their eyes? The hunter loses his nerve. And then I say.......well.......don't count on it with me. So then they say that I do not have a chance because they can read people's minds and never get caught off guard........... So which is it? And then if I do shoot one? Then Bigfoot Army will descend upon me and eviscerate me in Ninja Spartan fashion!!! I should be scared right now............scared of people's logic and reason aptitude levels involved with Bigfoot that is. Don't get me wrong, it's a large primate and demands respect, I've checked that box already. I wonder where people get these kinds of ideas from? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bipedalist Posted June 6, 2013 BFF Patron Share Posted June 6, 2013 (edited) Yep, they got great depth perception alright....... remember those chimps with the spatial memory better than humans. Sort of like the Raptors, it's not the ones you see that get yah, LOL! Flankers..... .....Clown sitting in a tree staind drinking brown liquor..... MMMMMmmmmmm........ brown liquor...... Edited June 6, 2013 by bipedalist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 Ever hear of a 360 degree battlespace? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 Well, we won't call feelings science, atleast I don't, but I have seen that straw man used to ridicule certain views. sexual attraction within a species is more than just "feelings". but of course we wont have a definitive answer until we have a slab monkey. Norse, sexual attraction is a very poor measure of phylogenetic placement, though if it does occur between humans and bigfoot, would you say that would settle it? Having one Body won't prove it's habitat. They won't benefit from one specimen from one region,You know how the angencies treat rare species, you'd have to fight them every step of the way to protect them in each region. It needs proof from every region. If it's not human then that can be proven with these DNA studies which will prove it's range to a much greater extent. That should be an easy thing to collect and would be the standard after recognition anyways. Do you think one has to be taken from each region in the country to prove they are there? Can you be sure that taking one will stop the killing of more? What if the first one "was" murder? Were they ever "not" protected? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LarryP Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 ^^^^^^ It's amazing to me! In one breath they tell me that when hunters draw a bead on them and look into their eyes? The hunter loses his nerve. And then I say.......well.......don't count on it with me. FYI- I never said you would lose your nerve if presented with an opportunity to kill a BF. We've never even met. So there is no way I could know whether or not you would have the nerve to do so. So then they say that I do not have a chance because they can read people's minds and never get caught off guard........... So which is it? It's that one. Which is why you'll never have to worry about whether or not you'd have the nerve. Don't get me wrong, it's a large primate and demands respect, I've checked that box already. You've checked the wrong box. Because you're not dealing with a "primate". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wudewasa Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 You've checked the wrong box. Because you're not dealing with a "primate". Hmm, a large, bipedal, hirsute mammal with a mid tarsal break in the foot topped off with a sagittal crest.... Yup, definitely modern human, no doubt. When a body of one is examined and DNA is sequenced, then we can know for sure. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 (edited) Norseman- to answer your questions to posts# 67 and 69. #67 why don't you just call the US F&W serv. and ask the field biologist, I did and we talked about BF for 35 minutes. Edited June 6, 2013 by BigGinger To Remove Anti-Social Content Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest LarryP Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 You've checked the wrong box. Because you're not dealing with a "primate". Hmm, a large, bipedal, hirsute mammal with a mid tarsal break in the foot topped off with a sagittal crest.... Yup, definitely modern human, no doubt. When a body of one is examined and DNA is sequenced, then we can know for sure. I didn't say they were "modern human", I said they are not a primate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 (edited) Norseman- to answer your questions to posts# 67 and 69. #67 why don't you just call the US F&W serv. and ask the field biologist , I did and we talked about BF for 35 minutes. Yanno this is getting old............ Yesterday I posted through my Iphone either at the pit were I was being loaded or at my fuel stop...........I drove truck for about 12 hours yesterday. Today I'm dealing with a blown radiator, but sat down to eat breakfast. I do intend to call, when I can sit down with good cell service and can hear to punch numbers and listen to elevator music for awhile. Until that time comes? I would appreciate it if you would stop nagging me about it. You've checked the wrong box. Because you're not dealing with a "primate". Hmm, a large, bipedal, hirsute mammal with a mid tarsal break in the foot topped off with a sagittal crest.... Yup, definitely modern human, no doubt. When a body of one is examined and DNA is sequenced, then we can know for sure. I didn't say they were "modern human", I said they are not a primate. Ummmmmmmm...............humans are primates.............what's your point Larry? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human Right side...........between class and Family? What is that word? Order............and what order are Humans? Edited June 6, 2013 by BigGinger To Remove Edited Content From Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 ...then there's the high likelihood of forgiveness against the substantially lower one of permission. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest wudewasa Posted June 6, 2013 Share Posted June 6, 2013 I didn't say they were "modern human", I said they are not a primate. How do you know this? What evidence in the form of DNA or a body from one of them have you been privy to or possess in order to support your claim? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted June 6, 2013 SSR Team Share Posted June 6, 2013 You've checked the wrong box. Because you're not dealing with a "primate". Hmm, a large, bipedal, hirsute mammal with a mid tarsal break in the foot topped off with a sagittal crest.... Yup, definitely modern human, no doubt. When a body of one is examined and DNA is sequenced, then we can know for sure. I didn't say they were "modern human", I said they are not a primate. If Sasquatches aren't Primates, then i'm Barbara Bush. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts