Guest Posted January 1, 2015 Posted January 1, 2015 Why is it any different than Grizzly bear habitat? Because they aren't grizzly bears. This is going to be a massive massive thing unlike anything else. Its not going to be the same as finding any other kind of animal, especially if they are a hominid.
Guest Posted January 1, 2015 Posted January 1, 2015 How do you know that we have not found a dead one? I have read several witness reports that indicate the contrary. Mt. St Helens eruption, forest fire in Oregon, one hit and killed by a large truck in Montana. In every case some government agency arrived, picked up the body, and hauled it off. If one of these cases is true your statement is false. Could be the case. Not saying it is but not saying it isn't either. Perhaps a dead body HAS been found and officials know about it but they are waiting to find out more about the species and its behaviour patterns before they reveal to the North American public there are 8ft hairy monsters stalking the woods? Perhaps they know they are there but are having tremendous difficulties and are unsuccessful in finding out more/studying them as of this moment and so are keeping it quiet for the time being?? I too have read and listened to plenty of accounts where it 'appears' certain things have been hushed up. Who really knows to say one way or the other? It is food for thought though. Certainly.
SWWASAS Posted January 1, 2015 BFF Patron Posted January 1, 2015 If they happened, they are true regardless what anyone thinks? This statement means nothing. I could say "If they didn't happen, they are untrue regardless what anyone thinks", and be just as captain obvious. The 800 lbs gorilla in the room is the first word "IF"! Is there any collaborating evidence short of a body? Is there evidence of a government cover up as in the Dennis Martin case? Anyhow we cannot just make blanket statements about things, we need to dig.
Guest DWA Posted January 1, 2015 Posted January 1, 2015 If they happened, they are true regardless what anyone thinks? This statement means nothing. On the contrary, it's critical. Scientists think they have no obligation to address this because it doesn't exist until it does. It exists - or not - whether they think it does or not; and the evidence makes it incumbent not upon the amateurs but upon the professional mainstream to find out what is causing it. This is an obligation, not an option.
SWWASAS Posted January 1, 2015 BFF Patron Posted January 1, 2015 If they happened, they are true regardless what anyone thinks? This statement means nothing. I could say "If they didn't happen, they are untrue regardless what anyone thinks", and be just as captain obvious. The 800 lbs gorilla in the room is the first word "IF"! Is there any collaborating evidence short of a body? Is there evidence of a government cover up as in the Dennis Martin case? I cannot fallow your logic. If several witness have observed BF being collected and hauled off that makes not only BF more likely to exist but that the government is likely to haul them off as reported. A body on a lab table does make things any more real unless you think that BF is a quantum creature that has to be observed to define it's state of existence. A quantum BF would not exist unless observed. A body on a lab table has nothing to do with the reality of reported happenings before or after it. Those happenings have to be evaluated on their own merit. One tenant of quantum physics is that there are no certainties, only probabilities. In the world of probability, the word "if" is very important. It should be noted that although many have tried, no one has disproven any of the tenants of quantum theory.
Guest DWA Posted January 1, 2015 Posted January 1, 2015 (edited) Yeah, this hyper-insistence on hyper-empiricism is the polar opposite weirdo extreme of paranormalism. Sasquatch is real, simple as that. All one has to do is evaluate the probability of any of the scenarios that would have to be true!!!!! for the comprehensive false positive (which can be proven, skeptics, might want to get on that) to be the case. Plain and simple: NONE OF THEM ARE HAPPENING. One might as well believe in fairies as in any scenario in which sasquatch isn't a real animal living right now in a forest not too too far from you. Period. Edited January 1, 2015 by DWA
norseman Posted January 1, 2015 Admin Posted January 1, 2015 If they happened, they are true regardless what anyone thinks? This statement means nothing. I could say "If they didn't happen, they are untrue regardless what anyone thinks", and be just as captain obvious. The 800 lbs gorilla in the room is the first word "IF"! Is there any collaborating evidence short of a body? Is there evidence of a government cover up as in the Dennis Martin case? I cannot fallow your logic. If several witness have observed BF being collected and hauled off that makes not only BF more likely to exist but that the government is likely to haul them off as reported. A body on a lab table does make things any more real unless you think that BF is a quantum creature that has to be observed to define it's state of existence. A quantum BF would not exist unless observed. A body on a lab table has nothing to do with the reality of reported happenings before or after it. Those happenings have to be evaluated on their own merit. One tenant of quantum physics is that there are no certainties, only probabilities. In the world of probability, the word "if" is very important. It should be noted that although many have tried, no one has disproven any of the tenants of quantum theory. Shoot this past me one more time? I think you meant to say "does not" after "a body in a lab table". As far as the quantum physics comparison? Sasquatch is a supposed 800 lbs animal.......and not a microscopic particle. Which means he should be observable with the naked eye. So we do not need big theories and super colliders to test for his existence. On the contrary, it's critical. Scientists think they have no obligation to address this because it doesn't exist until it does. It exists - or not - whether they think it does or not; and the evidence makes it incumbent not upon the amateurs but upon the professional mainstream to find out what is causing it. This is an obligation, not an option. If they happened? Of course they are true. So how do you propose we take the IF out of the equation?
Guest Posted January 1, 2015 Posted January 1, 2015 If they happened, they are true regardless what anyone thinks? This statement means nothing. I could say "If they didn't happen, they are untrue regardless what anyone thinks", and be just as captain obvious. The 800 lbs gorilla in the room is the first word "IF"! Is there any collaborating evidence short of a body? Is there evidence of a government cover up as in the Dennis Martin case? I cannot fallow your logic. If several witness have observed BF being collected and hauled off that makes not only BF more likely to exist but that the government is likely to haul them off as reported. A body on a lab table does make things any more real unless you think that BF is a quantum creature that has to be observed to define it's state of existence. A quantum BF would not exist unless observed. A body on a lab table has nothing to do with the reality of reported happenings before or after it. Those happenings have to be evaluated on their own merit. One tenant of quantum physics is that there are no certainties, only probabilities. In the world of probability, the word "if" is very important. It should be noted that although many have tried, no one has disproven any of the tenants of quantum theory. the government conspiracy is too convenient. It covers all the problems with BF and even has an out forthe lack of strong evidence. It seems the vast majority of people are convinced our government is incompetent and can't get anything right, except when it does to elaborate conspiracy theories. The government doesn't care about BF.
norseman Posted January 1, 2015 Admin Posted January 1, 2015 Because they aren't grizzly bears. This is going to be a massive massive thing unlike anything else. Its not going to be the same as finding any other kind of animal, especially if they are a hominid. I agree to a point, but do people go visit mountain gorillas in their own habitat? Sure. What I am saying is that precaution wise why should more emphasis be placed on Sasquatch than a Grizzly? the government conspiracy is too convenient. It covers all the problems with BF and even has an out forthe lack of strong evidence. It seems the vast majority of people are convinced our government is incompetent and can't get anything right, except when it does to elaborate conspiracy theories. The government doesn't care about BF. Have you ever read the Dennis Martin case?
HOLDMYBEER Posted January 1, 2015 Posted January 1, 2015 For the record, first collected gorilla body documented in 1847. First mentioned in the literature perhaps as early as 450 BC.
SWWASAS Posted January 1, 2015 BFF Patron Posted January 1, 2015 Shoot this past me one more time? I think you meant to say "does not" after "a body in a lab table". As far as the quantum physics comparison? Sasquatch is a supposed 800 lbs animal.......and not a microscopic particle. Which means he should be observable with the naked eye. So we do not need big theories and super colliders to test for his existence. If they happened? Of course they are true. So how do you propose we take the IF out of the equation? You are correct I meant to say "does not". Although quantum physics probably does apply to large things too, much of how that happens is unknown, so I agree that BF is probably not quantum. He makes entirely too much noise moving through the woods at times to be quantum and leaves those big footprints that skeptics like to discount. I am afraid that anytime witnesses are involved we have to leave the word "If" in any discussion about BF. Some may not be credible, may misidentify or may not see very well. Sometimes I forget how good my sight is compared with other people until they cannot see something or are too vain to wear their glasses.
Guest Posted January 1, 2015 Posted January 1, 2015 (edited) I agree to a point, but do people go visit mountain gorillas in their own habitat? Sure. What I am saying is that precaution wise why should more emphasis be placed on Sasquatch than a Grizzly? Have you ever read the Dennis Martin case? I've read a bit about it in the past. I know about the military involvement but it doesn't seem strange. What am I missing? For the record, first collected gorilla body documented in 1847. First mentioned in the literature perhaps as early as 450 BC.interestingYou woud never think that reading posts around here Edited January 1, 2015 by mbh
SweatyYeti Posted January 1, 2015 Posted January 1, 2015 (edited) Howl as you may, the science establishment has spoken on what they consider proof. There is a line drawn in the sand. The way I see it is we can all belly ache about the unfairness of the line OR strive to achieve it. Which is more productive? There are actually two lines drawn in the sand, norseman. The line drawn by 'Mainstream Science' has an extreme requirement....a physical specimen.....but that doesn't prevent us from being able to determine/know that the creatures exist, with a less extreme requirement....a very good film/video. A film...(such as the PGF)...or a video can reach that 'line in the sand'. Edited January 1, 2015 by SweatyYeti
Guest Posted January 1, 2015 Posted January 1, 2015 a physical specimen or sample shouldn't be seen as an extreme requirement
SWWASAS Posted January 1, 2015 BFF Patron Posted January 1, 2015 For the record, first collected gorilla body documented in 1847. First mentioned in the literature perhaps as early as 450 BC. A mountain gorilla was shot in 1902 and sent back to Germany for study. It was determined to be different than the low land gorilla known before and it seems there are three subspecies that were geographically separated and evolved separately. Sadly the P/G film is not convincing enough for a lot of scientists. The Gigantopithecus was defined with a portion of jawbone containing a few teeth. Something less than a full body could define BF but the problem with that is since there are no known to science North American great apes, science would be reluctant to accept that a jaw or skull brought in originated here. The supporting evidence for BF as to be better. Pro kill people need to remember that post kill documentation needs to pretty well document the kill in the location where it happened, so that location can be visited to support the contention the BF was killed in North America. Recall the problems with trying to find the P/G film location. The hard core scientist skeptics of BF, who have gone public in various videos and public statements, will not be silenced easily. Would not surprise me to have them claim you shot the BF in Asia someplace then brought it here. After their strong rejection of the possibility of existence, that is not going to reflect well on their credibility when a specimen is available. They will be the last to admit the species exists.
Recommended Posts