The Ufo Photo/video Numbers Vs Bigfoot

[norseman]

I have seen a huge uptick in Sasquatch videos over the course of my life. Get on youtube, you'll see hundreds of them. Compared to as a child? We had one.

That's not the issue, the issue is are they a hoax or not? Without physical evidence? We cannot say.

At least we have a shot with our cryptid ape, I don't think we have much chance of proving the existence of aliens, unless they decide to land at the local Waffle House and sign autographs. Basically if real? We are the Bigfoot of the relationship between humans and advanced alien species visiting our planet in interstellar craft.

[Guest Divergent1]

Greater technology doesn't make a being superior.

[Guest Divergent1]

Here are the latest thoughts on what make a species superior. I hate to think of myself as prey, but given the right circumstances I certainly could be, and that would make any concept of superiority I might have had a very moot point.

 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/12/11/human-intelligence-animals_n_4400395.html

Edited October 5, 2014 by Divergent1

[Teegunn]

I don't agree with most of the conclusions of that article.  Appreciate you posting the link - it was an interesting read, but I think context of intelligence, abilities (physical and sensory), etc are not really given their proper measure in that article.  There are no other animals as intelligent as humans - there are lots of animals better suited for many tasks or surviving in certain situations, but give most humans a little time to adapt and learn and they will outlive and still be the top of the food chain.  Sure, a bear can kill us, but they are not more intelligent.  On the whole, humans are far more intelligent, adaptable and aware than any animal we know of.  And it's not just societal, although society allows us combined knowledge and platforms to increase knowledge, and likely over time adapt our brains in ways they never used to be used.  Anyway, my point is that to our knowledge, there are no more intelligent beings on earth or anywhere else. 

[norseman]

Greater technology doesn't make a being superior.

Yes.....yes it does.

I'll re ask you that question when your living in a zoo on Persion 5 for the enjoyment of the aliens.

Frogs do not dissect humans in labs and for good reason.

[Guest DWA]

Greater technology makes a being technologically superior.  It didn't make us Europeans better people than the indigenous races we encountered.  In fact, our lifestyle is proving far less sustainable than theirs was.

[Guest Divergent1]

Yes.....yes it does.

I'll re ask you that question when your living in a zoo on Persion 5 for the enjoyment of the aliens.

Frogs do not dissect humans in labs and for good reason.

Define superior.  If you can't understand how another person thinks, how can you possibly understand how any other creature thinks to judge whether they have superior intellect? Everything regarding intelligence is from a anthropomorphic viewpoint and is, of course, biased. Take bigfoot for example, assuming he's out there, he is far superior to us in his natural habitat than we are. I can't think of a native species less suited to live on this earth than a human being. When the breakdown in civilization comes, and it always does based on history, we will never have  the level of technology that we have now again, and we might not be adaptable enough to survive. As far as I can tell, humans don't really serve any ecological purpose on the planet, and neither would aliens if they ever arrive. 

[norseman]

Define superior within the context of this thread?

Getting mystery ape DNA or body part as proof is trivial compared to collecting an alien flying a warp drive space craft. And if your not careful you might end up as "proof" yourself.

I realize that many believe the hogwash about Bigfoot being a mystic forest shaman that can teach humans about morality and Mother Earth. Utter nonsense but is a moot point regardless in this case. Unless of course the forest shaman has mystic powers.......

The alien is superior to humans and Bigfoot, therefore it's an uphill battle proving their existence.

Edited October 6, 2014 by norseman

[Wingman1]

I would have to say that the environments the BF and UFO's operate in are so vastly different that any

meaningful comparison could not be made. You can see so much more and much farther when looking

at the sky than you can looking into the forest. Some would say it is an apples to oranges comparison.

Now aside from the visual aspect, the difference between the two subjects are about as North pole to the

South Pole as you can get. I doubt that the scientific community would give it any serious consideration.

I do see where you are coming from on this though Crow.

Why do we not have any good, clear, definitive photos or videos? Who really knows? How many

photos/videos are there? I don't think we will ever really know. Mathematical equations would be

a bit difficult as well due to so many unknown variables. There are plenty of photos and videos

out there, but they tend to be of such terrible quality that anyone would be hard pressed to make

even a wild guess as to what it really is. How do they avoid they trail cams? again, who can say with

any certainty. If I were thinking out loud here, I think that it is could be possible that they actually see

the person mounting the cam to a tree, or while foraging for food they see it from a distance and realize

that it is something out of place, or even realize that the strange object on the tree was not there

yesterday! One just has to realize that a 7ft - 9ft bipedal being does not remain hidden for hundreds

of years by being dumb.

If they are indeed a real species and have for the most part remained hidden, then common sense

should tell us that their skills of avoidance and stealth are likely to be far better than any of us can

imagine, and most of what is currently known resides in the realm of conjecture and assumption.

These types of questions will only be answered when a type specimen is found and scientists are

able to study it. We also have to keep in mind that there will only so much that science can glean

from studying a specimen, and then field studies will have to be done to document the how's and

why's of their daily lives.That will be very difficult because nothing will change on their part. They

will not suddenly become available to us for study. It might become even harder to locate them as

there will more than likely be a larger influx of researchers, scientists, hunters,poachers, curiosity

seekers etc... and that will drive them deeper into the forests to avoid us. Oh! Just wait until PETA

or any of the other animal activist groups gets wind of it, that's going to be a really fun picnic for sure.

I think it is likely that there is someone out there with good clear up close photos and/or videos but

do not wish to share them with the BF Community for whatever reasons. I know that it is an unpopular

stance for many, and the statement of extraordinary claims will require extraordinary evidence is always

brought up, but it is not in any way incumbent upon them to provide us with any evidence or proof

whatsoever. As frustrating as that is to some us, especially if their evidence could solve this mystery

as early as tomorrow morning! We cannot force anyone to provide anything. Those folks have their

reasons whether we agree with them or not. No amount of ranting and foot stomping we do will change

their minds! That is simply the reality of the situation.

[Cotter]

" Plenty to disagree on here, but what I think is also significant is that less people are spending

time in remote areas than 30 years or so ago. " LCB

 

Where do you get that from?  Sorry, just noticed the answer to my question. You made it up.

Boom: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18698731

 

Now, I wonder how that correllates to population growth...

 

"Anyone who has ever tried to book a room near Yellowstone National Park in August knows that natural places can get very crowded. But biologist Oliver Pergams says those crowds can hide an important trend: Every year, a smaller percentage of Americans are fishing, camping or engaging in other nature-based activities."

 

"Since the late 1980s, the percentage of Americans taking part in such activities has declined at slightly more than 1 percent a year. The total effect, Pergams says, is that participation is down 18 percent to 25"

 

and

 

http://news.mongabay.com/2008/0204-parks.html

 

"People worldwide are spending less time out in nature, according to research published this week in Proceedings of the National Academy of Science (PNAS). The development, warn the authors, could have implications for future conservation policy issues.

Examining trends in visits to national parks in the United States, Japan, Spain, and U.S. state parks as well as the number of hunting, camping, and hiking permits issued annually, Oliver Pergams and Patricia Zaradic report a 18 to 25 percent decline in such activities since the late 1980s. Only day hikes, which represent a small proportion of United States park visits, have increased."

 

 

And for the trifecta:

 

http://www.webmd.com/balance/news/20080204/mother-natures-for-the-birds

 

"Americans may be giving Mother Nature the cold shoulder in favor of their TVs and computers, new research shows.

Experts report that the typical American spends up to 25% less time in nature than in 1987, and time spent in nature dropped by about 1% annually since then."

Well it didn't take long to verify my assumption,

 

read story below,  Less Americans Spending Time Outdoors, which shows precisely what I am saying, but really the idea was a no brainer, sorry Dmaker.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18698731

LOL!  Looks like I should read a few posts past the one I want to reply to.

 

We also have more forests now than back then, no?

[Guest DWA]

"" Plenty to disagree on here, but what I think is also significant is that less people are spending

time in remote areas than 30 years or so ago. " LCB"

 

Anybody who reads or kinda keeps track of the, you know, world on a general basis knows this.  And Cotter just pounds that 32-penny nail in further for those who don't.

 

But we are talking about a self-convicted, self-proclaimed even, uninformed-on-related-topics person here.

[Guest Divergent1]

Define superior within the context of this thread?

Getting mystery ape DNA or body part as proof is trivial compared to collecting an alien flying a warp drive space craft. And if your not careful you might end up as "proof" yourself.

I realize that many believe the hogwash about Bigfoot being a mystic forest shaman that can teach humans about morality and Mother Earth. Utter nonsense but is a moot point regardless in this case. Unless of course the forest shaman has mystic powers.......

The alien is superior to humans and Bigfoot, therefore it's an uphill battle proving their existence.

Superior to me means that an amoeba is inferior, but if you compare humans to other animals that are mammals I think you would be hard pressed to establish superiority of brain function between species.

 

I think either discovery would be monumental between bigfoot and/or UFO's.

 

I am not a mystic sasquatch fan. If the creature exists, he exists without fire or any other obvious tools so therfore he is certainly superior to us in adaptation to the planet.

 

If we are superior to bigfoot then we should have already found him by now and it's debatable about the alien discoveries. There was a sudden jump in technology shortly after WWII, that could be because of research related to the war effort or Roswell depending on what you choose to believe. If technological capability increases exponentially once a civilization starts down that pathway then we have evidently hit a road block.

Aliens might very well be responsible for some of what we define as a UFO but I seriously doubt they are biologocal entities.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Technological_singularity

Edited October 6, 2014 by Divergent1

[norseman]

So you think a shrew's brain function is on par with ours because it's a mammal ?

https://www.ted.com/talks/robert_sapolsky_the_uniqueness_of_humans

[Cotter]

Well, I think it's the definition of superior.

 

There are these little things called viruses that aren't even 'alive' that humans with all their fancy gadgetry cannot rule.

 

In the end, for species existence, are we really superior?
 

Look at how long other species have survived compared to us.

 

In other areas, we are indeed VASTLY superior to all other known inhabitants of this planet.

[NCBFr]

We are all winners!  Give everyone a gold participation medal.

Edited October 7, 2014 by NCBRR