Guest DWA Posted July 25, 2014 Posted July 25, 2014 Not how science works. 99.999999999% of all the evidence in scientific history didn't prove anything; it was a stepping stone to proving something. The null set is a null concept.
Guest Crowlogic Posted July 25, 2014 Posted July 25, 2014 BTW, Crowlogic, I meant to say something about your friend in the Six Rivers National Forest. He was there for a year and saw nothing. I was there for a week and found tracks. Oh, they were sasquatch all right. No bear is leaving tracks that look human, but are about twice as big, clearly left right left right, and going 3/4 of an inch deep into soil my girlfriend and I couldn't dent with heavy packs and lug boots. Now given what he was doing, I'm pretty sure I was in country more remote than anything he ever saw there. But that doesn't even matter. Going about one's daily business and seeing nothing for a week, two years or fifty means nothing, if one's daily business isn't looking for animals. Way it is. Great nothing you saw is anything more than a reportage. I saw strange tracks once but it's just a reportage. We are long past the point were reportage is going to gain traction. Remember the OP i is about grand evidence being withheld for the good of the species. Reportages can be manufactured in unlimited quantity but not bone or tissue and DNA. THis is the evidence of which I speak. Everything else is entertainment at this point.
Guest DWA Posted July 25, 2014 Posted July 25, 2014 (edited) Refer to my last post. If all you have is proof, you don't have proof, because you never got started. Scientists always follow evidence to proof. Reportage is evidence, and that's not an opinion. Edited July 25, 2014 by DWA
Guest Crowlogic Posted July 25, 2014 Posted July 25, 2014 Not how science works. 99.999999999% of all the evidence in scientific history didn't prove anything; it was a stepping stone to proving something. The null set is a null concept. Wrong the set containing all of the three headed pink elephants is the null set. There are no three headed pink elephants. Therefore the set containing them is empty. The empty set is the null set. The set containing all proven Bigfoot DNA samples is the null set. We have no rigorously proven Bigfoot DNA. Each and every sample is tainted or outright bogus. If we had it we would already know where the creature came from and from which branch of the primate tree it came from. We do not have that. Refer to my last post. If all you have is proof, you don't have proof, because you never got started. The business of finding Bigfoot was started decades ago. We are well into the start.
Guest DWA Posted July 25, 2014 Posted July 25, 2014 Nope. When the first serious look at the evidence by anyone other than part-timers hasn't happened yet, we haven't gotten started. That's why we are where we are. I think you are trying way too hard here. You keep coming back with "no proof no proof" when no one's even arguing that. You just sound like you needed this proven 25 years ago and have just been getting more and more disappointed since. Sorry, that's just the way it sounds. This hunt's hotter than it's ever been and getting hotter by the week. If I thought this were a game, I would at least want to be playing.
norseman Posted July 26, 2014 Admin Posted July 26, 2014 Hey Norse, I hate to be the bearer of bad news. But until you succeed at killing one, you're the one who's lost in the forest of mumbo jumbo, both literally and figuratively and they're the ones who look like "Forest Shamans". Let's be honest. If Vegas oddsmakers were willing to take bets on whether or not Project Grendel will be successful at harvesting a BF in the next 5 years, they'd be giving 1000 to 1 odds that at the end of 5 years you've got nothing. That's not intended as an insult. It's just based on overall past performance by many others who have tried to achieve the same goal. The other problem with your approach is your definition of "intelligence". You're laboring under the laughably false impression that hunan intelligence represents the pinnacle on this planet. That is simply not the case. Oh yah? Who is packing the rifle? Me or biggie? Or are they too smart and choose to run it's prey down instead ? Like a Bear or Cougar? Maybe they then are as smart as us as well? I think you may be confusing intelligence with wisdom. Whatever that means, but when dolphins put their kind on the moon? I'll concede the point to you! Til then? Not so much. And a 1000:1? Your being too kind....... But no Iam not lost in the forest of Mumbo jumbo, because I only deal in tangible reality. I've seen tracks as a youth that makes me believe in the possibility it exists. But it may not. Or it may have and now does not. If it is out there? Iam not going to chum the water with zagnut bars and attempt to take it's picture. Science doesn't deal with pictures we know this. So Project Grendel is about collecting a type specimen, and putting as many boots on the ground as possible. More fishing lines in the water? The better the prospects, but it's still a extremely long shot. But sitting down and saying "it's not worth it", as a proponent? Is the worst case scenario.... Because that mindset protects the myth, and stalls the truth. If I knew there was a new species of monkey in the Amazon rain forest? Why would I not try to prove it's existence to science? Isn't that important? What if the species went extinct? When I died it's memory would die as well......I find that very sad.
Guest Posted July 26, 2014 Posted July 26, 2014 I agree with you Yuchi. They most definitely HAVE owned us for yhe last 47 years.
Guest LarryP Posted July 26, 2014 Posted July 26, 2014 Oh yah? Who is packing the rifle? Me or biggie? Or are they too smart and choose to run it's prey down instead ? Like a Bear or Cougar? Maybe they then are as smart as us as well? I think you may be confusing intelligence with wisdom. Whatever that means, but when dolphins put their kind on the moon? I'll concede the point to you! Til then? Not so much. Norse, you're projecting your beliefs as a human about what constitutes intelligence onto BF and other animals. But you're getting warmer when you talk about wisdom, as well as intelligence. With that being said, it is not wise to go into the wilderness with the intention of killing a Sasquatch.
norseman Posted July 26, 2014 Admin Posted July 26, 2014 Why not? Although not actively searching I've always been armed and would have downed one if the opportunity presented itself.....I am still here? Bigfoot army hasn't descended on me yet. As far as intelligence. I think most humans take our technology for granted, and don't realize what an advantage it really gives us. We probably really will never understand it unless a more advanced civilization is ever encountered, with our extinction on their mind. Not unlike what happened in the genus Homo over the course of hundreds of thousands of years.'
Guest LarryP Posted July 26, 2014 Posted July 26, 2014 Why not? .....I am still here? Bigfoot army hasn't descended on me yet. Because it's a really bad idea for a lot of reasons that have nothing to do with your safety. As you know, there is no Bigfoot army. But there are plenty of human armies. Which further highlights that intelligence/wisdom thing again. They don't kill each other by the thousands and millions like us super intelligent humans do. Man are we ever smarter than they are!
Guest Posted July 27, 2014 Posted July 27, 2014 LarryP, intelligence does not make us good or evil. Intelligence means that we can perform greater good or greater evil. Many operate under the illusion that greater intelligences are kind and gentle. Tigers, bears and eagles are more intelligent than their prey. They are not kind or gentle. Evil humans hunt other humans. They are not kind and gentle but they are intelligent.
Guest Posted July 27, 2014 Posted July 27, 2014 You won't get an argument from me on that Ant. Good points.
norseman Posted July 27, 2014 Admin Posted July 27, 2014 Because it's a really bad idea for a lot of reasons that have nothing to do with your safety. As you know, there is no Bigfoot army. But there are plenty of human armies. Which further highlights that intelligence/wisdom thing again. They don't kill each other by the thousands and millions like us super intelligent humans do. Man are we ever smarter than they are! But you again confuse wisdom and intelligence. The same technology that has the power to kill millions? Also is used to create electrical power for millions...... Either way it takes intelligence to make that work. But Squatch shows none of that intelligence, and I doubt they have wisdom either. That is human projection. They live like an animal because it doesn't occur to them to live any other way......it's not a choice. It just is. But I know this, if you start feeding a bear donuts? They will abandon eating carrion and berries. It's easy to habituate them. Animals will follow the path of least resistance. So if squatch could make his life easier? He would. It's not wise in nature to do things the hard way, you take opportunities as they come. It's the complete history of the Homo genus. Is Sasquatch is apart of this family? Why are they the only exception? 1
Guest Posted July 27, 2014 Posted July 27, 2014 @antfoot, not to mention that several animal species kill others of their own kind. Infanticide exists even in gorillas.
Guest LarryP Posted July 27, 2014 Posted July 27, 2014 But you again confuse wisdom and intelligence. Without intelligence you cannot be wise, Norse. synonyms: sagacity, intelligence, sense, common sense, shrewdness, astuteness, smartness, judiciousness, judgment, prudence, circumspection; More logic, rationale, rationality, soundness, advisability The same technology that has the power to kill millions? Also is used to create electrical power for millions...... Either way it takes intelligence to make that work. That just exhibits raw intelligence minus wisdom. They live like an animal because it doesn't occur to them to live any other way......it's not a choice. You're wrong. It is definitely a choice. BTW, we also live like animals. That's because we are an animal. You can add all the technological trappings you want. But ultimately we still have to eat, drink, and create or find shelter. We've just become more and more proficient at applying lipstick to the survival Pig. All that has to occur is lose electricity and water for a few days and we become Pigs minus any lipstick. As soon as that occurs, guess who's got the advantage? Then tell me who looks more wise and intelligent. LarryP, intelligence does not make us good or evil. Intelligence means that we can perform greater good or greater evil. Many operate under the illusion that greater intelligences are kind and gentle. Tigers, bears and eagles are more intelligent than their prey. They are not kind or gentle. Evil humans hunt other humans. They are not kind and gentle but they are intelligent. I never said intelligence makes us good or evil. But thanks for helping to emphasize my point about the difference between raw intelligence and wisdom. Raw intelligence only occurs between the ears. Wisdom also includes the heart. The heart is where they have it in spades over us humans. Which is why their 6th sense is so much more highly developed than ours. Their highly developed 6th sense gives them a huge advantage over us in any setting. But that is especially so in a wilderness setting.
Recommended Posts