Food For Thought - Skeptics And Believers

[salubrious]

Honestly if Bigfoot were that intelligent then why would their existence be so minimal and inferior to humans, to where they have to hide from them in order to survive? That doesn't sound like superior intelligence to me.

BF is well adapted to the out of doors. Humans aren't and frequently require shelter. Because we need shelter and food, we need land. For that we need laws and infrastructure. We have developed all of this over thousands of years, but does that mean we are the smartest? No- and the assumption that it does is a form of human arrogance. We assume that because BF does not **seem** to have fire that they are inferior, but is that really true? Think about a creature that does not need fire to survive, where in fact that its adaptation (in this case, hair) could make it really dangerous to mess with fire.

 

Its not likely we will ever put this one to bed. Before gorillas were officially recognized as a species, there were only sketchy reports and unconfirmed sightings, similar to what we are seeing with BF. Only difference is, it was only about 50 years before gorillas were finally 'discovered'. BF has been here in the US longer than Europeans have (500+ years) and still BF is only recognized by Indian tribes, but to everyone else they have passed to myth and legend, almost entirely due to their ability to lay low. To stay that far off the radar takes some smarts.

Edited August 29, 2013 by salubrious

[roguefooter]

 I'm fairly sure that you know that was a figure of speech. But the point is still quite valid.

 

Even animals have their reasons to kill each other over things like territory, eliminating developmental issues, etc. Does killing equate being less intelligent? No. The ability to kill is a necessity for survival.

 

Some will argue that killing in our society is a necessity as well.

 

With that in mind,  it's obvious that they are not "minimal and inferior" by comparison to humans.

 

There's nothing obvious about it. For all we know they could have brought themselves to the point of extinction over territorial disputes, killed off the majority of their offspring or females, who knows? All we 'know' so to speak is that they apparently have numbers low enough to threaten their existence.

 

That's a bit of an oxymoron.

 

Only in an ethical sense. 

 

"Allowed" was a bad choice of word because it hasn't actually happened- this is more of a hypothetical issue. The ability to thrive beyond control is only the potential that we've reached, it doesn't mean that we're actually out of control. It's an ability. We also have the ability to control the numbers.

 

Even the primary objective of a bacteria or virus is to populate and survive. We only see them as being bad because they're a threat to us. As far as their objective goes they're learning to adapt and overcome.

 

 

Thriving beyond control does not equate to ensuring our survival as a species.

 

We have the ability to survive major planet catastrophes and wars. It doesn't mean all will survive but enough for species survival. We're also on the brink of branching out our survival beyond the planet.

 

 

BF is well adapted to the out of doors. Humans aren't and frequently require shelter. Because we need shelter and food, we need land. For that we need laws and infrastructure. We have developed all of this over thousands of years, but does that mean we are the smartest? No- and the assumption that it does is a form of human arrogance. We assume that because BF does not **seem** to have fire that they are inferior, but is that really true? Think about a creature that does not need fire to survive, where in fact that its adaptation (in this case, hair) could make it really dangerous to mess with fire.

 

 

Yeah but why did we develop like we did? Did we choose to? Or was it a natural progression for survival through intelligence? Remember that we were living just as they were at one point.

Edited August 30, 2013 by roguefooter

[salubrious]

Yeah but why did we develop like we did? Did we choose to? Or was it a natural progression for survival through intelligence? Remember that we were living just as they were at one point.

As I understand it during the second to last glacial intrusion we discovered that we could use other animal's pelts for warmth and so arrested our own physical development. You might want to take a look at the TED talks website; there is a very interesting talk by a famous anthopologist about the aquatic ape theory.

[Guest LarryP]

The ability to thrive beyond control is only the potential that we've reached, it doesn't mean that we're actually out of control. It's an ability.

 

 

 

Sorry, but "beyond control" is even worse than "out of control".

 

There's nothing obvious about it. For all we know they could have brought themselves to the point of extinction over territorial disputes, killed off the majority of their offspring or females, who knows?

 

 

 

That's nothing but pure conjecture on your part. There certainly isn't any evidence of that ever being the case.

 

All we 'know' so to speak is that they apparently have numbers low enough to threaten their existence.

 

 

 

How is that apparent?

[roguefooter]

^Because anything said about Bigfoot can be real.

[Guest Cervelo]

LarryP said

"That's nothing but pure conjecture on your part. There certainly isn't any evidence of that ever being the case."

As is all behavior attributed to Bigfoot....it's nothing but conjecture at this point, fun stuff to play "what ifs and could be's" but thats all Bigfoot is at this point spooky stories around a campfire

Boo!!

Edited September 2, 2013 by Cervelo

[hiflier]

Hello Cervelo,

 

Boo! Is correct. What's the story on that fantastic effigy?

Edited September 2, 2013 by hiflier

[Guest Cervelo]

That's from the movie The Village it's what kept the people in line and a little issue with the color red, to keep the kids in line as well.

It's a boogieman/social construct....well you get the point

[hiflier]

Hello Cervelo,

I get it. I'll be sure and think twice at the next knock on the door! Keeping in line is looking more and more attractive LOL.

[Guest LarryP]

As is all behavior attributed to Bigfoot....it's nothing but conjecture at this point, fun stuff to play "what ifs and could be's" but thats all Bigfoot is at this point spooky stories around a campfire.

 

 

 

For you, yes, for me, no.

[hiflier]

Hello Cervelo,

 

Don't get me wrong. I'm incapable of towing the line no matter HOW attractive it may be. My history has proved it time and time again. I get in trouble even in Tar Pit. Then again not many get out of there unscathed LOL. 

[norseman]

See thats the problem. You are useing biased theroies as excuses. Thats my problem. Not really the pics (yes I do know how hard it is to take good and fast pictures) but that everything is based on a bunch of people making claims and then attributing behaviour to those sightings. Im skeptical not because of the lack of proof but because of how nothing is vetted and everything is taken as fact on face value and word of mouth alone.

 

Entertain this notion for a second.

 

Sasquatch is a real animal, but science does not believe it is real.

 

How is anything going to be vetted, or not passed on by anecdotal accounts, by word of mouth, grainy photos, track casts etc?

 

Is this not what we would expect from amateurs? If the professionals ignore the subject?

 

I don't have labs behind me, or an army of biologists armed with tranquilizer guns, and I don't have a helicopter at my disposal, and most importantly I don't have a major university funding me.

 

I've got a rifle, hiking boots, I phone and a 4x4.

[Guest Cervelo]

This isn't direct at you Norse but inspired shall we say

You and I and every field biologist, game management employee taking population counts of untold number of species, pertroleum companies, military personnel, loggers, miners, farmers, hikers, hunters, campers, fishermen ect ect there are people out there on a daily basis for a whole host of other reasons that have nothing to do with bigfoot that see no evidence of any such creature.

This has been going on for hundreds of years now since the "discovery" of this country.

This isn't a snail darter or a microorganism folks, the suggestion that an undocumented hominid or great ape still walks among us is an extrordinary claim that only a body will put to rest.

Science ignores nothing much less one of the greatest discoveries of all time, what it appears to not do is waste time or resources on something with as little evidence or as improbable as Bigfoot.

It just doesn't warrant the attention some think it deserves and rightly so IMO.

[Guest Cervelo]

Hello Cervelo,

Don't get me wrong. I'm incapable of towing the line no matter HOW attractive it may be. My history has proved it time and time again. I get in trouble even in Tar Pit. Then again not many get out of there unscathed LOL.

Awww your doing fine...the only advice I can give is just don't take it to serious.

You'll most likley learn nothing about Bigfoot here but alot about people, most just like to hear themselves talk and have a place to express their opinion which is what fourms are all about.

Just learn how to play by the rules and its a blast!!

Its just entertainment with a little pretend science thrown in....

[norseman]

Your making my case for me.

 

As you say, we have thousands of layman walking around in the woods.............giving anecdotal accounts.

 

And that is my point, Darrell seems to be upset that the subject is all very UNscientific in it's method.........(nothing is vetted, word of mouth,etc).

 

Is this not what we should expect?

 

I'm not asking science to defend it's position, but in it's absence of this subject? What we have is what we should expect to have and Darrell's protest against it, underlines the fact of what many have been saying all along.