Avoiding Human Contact? Or Not?

[dmaker]

The myth of Sasquatch IS a fact, it was detectable to native Americans, which is why we have the myth in the first place.

You guys can speculate all you want to, about how that came about in history. From a real creature to peyote......I care not.

Really!? of course that doesnt make the creature factual in the eyes of science. A type specimen does...... I think we are past this stage of our relationship D? Inc?

But that is surely not what you meant with your earlier post? When you said:

 

"And lets remember that Sasquatch is detectable, otherwise we wouldnt be talking about it here. "

 

You were not talking about a coyote or a peyote, were you? No, you were stating sasquatch as if it were a fact. The discussion was around game cameras. If you care not whether sasquatch is detectable as a coyote or a peyote trip, then that makes no sense with your contribution to the discussion. Otherwise, you would be saying that a coyote could be a sasquatch. 

 

Also, if it was a peyote induced hallucination, how is that going to be captured on a game camera?

Edited November 25, 2015 by dmaker

[norseman]

Egads.

I do not care how YOU speculate the myth came into existence! And the choices I offered was a Sasquatch or peyote.....how did a Coyote get involved?

Sasquatch IS detectable, thats a fact. Its observable.....if it was not then no human would know about it.

Does this prove the creature is real to science? No! And I never said that nor implied it.

[dmaker]

No, sasquatch is detectable is NOT a fact. First of all, for it to be detectable it would have to exist as a real animal. That is not a proven fact.  Abstract ideas exist, yes, but they are hardly detectable or objectively observable. Which is what you were getting at, I assume during a conversation about game cams. 

[norseman]

No, sasquatch is detectable is NOT a fact. First of all, for it to be detectable it would have to exist as a real animal. That is not a proven fact. Abstract ideas exist, yes, but they are hardly detectable or objectively observable. Which is what you were getting at, I assume during a conversation about game cams.

Its not a proven animal, that is correct. But that does not mean it has not been detected or observed, and that IS a fact. Edited November 25, 2015 by norseman

[JDL]

If dmaker's opinion, AND IT IS ONLY AN OPINION, is correct, then bigfoot is only a myth and is undetectable.

 

And dmaker cannot prove that his opinion is fact.  Nor can he prove it to be fact that bigfoot are not detectable, no matter how hard he tries to claim that as fact.

 

But that won't stop him from trying.

Edited November 25, 2015 by JDL

[dmaker]

That sasquatch is not a proven animal is a fact, not my opinion. To be detectable, in the sense that Norse seemed to be claiming, sasquatch would have to be a real animal. That was my only point. 

[JDL]

It is fact that they have not been proven either to you or to science yet, but an animal need not be proven to exist, to be a real animal, and to be detectable. 

 

New animals, that were not formerly proven, are proven to exist all the time; because they are real animals and because they are detectable.

[dmaker]

 

No, sasquatch is detectable is NOT a fact. First of all, for it to be detectable it would have to exist as a real animal. That is not a proven fact. Abstract ideas exist, yes, but they are hardly detectable or objectively observable. Which is what you were getting at, I assume during a conversation about game cams.

Its not a proven animal, that is correct. But that does not mean it has not been detected or observed, and that IS a fact.

 

That is true, but also the reverse is true. Given that it is unproven, you cannot say for a fact that it has been detected. There is no proof of existence, hence no proof of detection. 

 

JDL is also correct to point out that an animal need not be proven to me or to science to be detectable or to even have been detected by some other individual. This remains a possibility, but an unproven one. 

 

Sasquatch is only externally detectable if it is a real animal. It need not be detected to exist. It could be real and remain undetected, but still be detectable. But it can only be detectable it is a real, flesh and blood animal. At lleast when talking about recording devices such as game cams, or physical traps of some other sort. 

 

The best way to put it, probably, would be "Sasquatch, if a real animal, will be detectable." 

 

Oye, bigfoot epistemology makes my head hurt.  

Edited November 25, 2015 by dmaker

[norseman]

I think big D needs to go back and reread the thread in order to gain context.

We are speculating about population densities.

But what is utterly mind boggling to me is that big D is promoting the idea that since Sasquatch doesnt officially exist, then its not observable......does that mean then that the PGF doesnt exist? Well of course it does....... we can speculate about it being authentic? But thats just speculation, but needs to be validated with a type specimen. But that does NOT mean I'm NOT observing a Sasquatch walk across a screen.

[dmaker]

But it doesn't mean that you are observing a sasquatch, either. That was kind of my point. You cannot say that bigfoot IS detectable ( the assumption being by external methods like game cams ) if bigfoot is not a real animal. There is an assumption presented as fact in your statement. A game cam cannot record something that does not exist. So your statement assumes existence and presents it as a fact. Which, it of course, is not. It has absolutely nothing to do with opinion, either. 

 

 

"But what is utterly mind boggling to me is that big D is promoting the idea that since Sasquatch doesnt officially exist, then its not observable."

 

Sigh.  No. I am saying that sasquatch is only observable if it exists.    Surely, this cannot be that difficult to understand? If sasquatch does not exist, then it is not observable. You agree with this? If so, then when you say something like " Sasquatch is observable", you are presenting existence as a fact. You are missing a necessary qualifier.

 

 

Though honestly, what is so ludicrous in the notion that "... Sasquatch doesnt officially exist, then its not observable"

 

What, exactly, is incorrect about that statement?

Edited November 25, 2015 by dmaker

[dmaker]

Anyway, it was not my intention for my comment to spark a semantic debate on existence. I think we understand each others points. If not, let's please drop it and get back on topic anyway. 

[southernyahoo]

The answer is, a whole lot of yes with a little bit of no mixed in.

[SWWASAS]

Dmaker glad you decided to drop your existence rant because it was looking like off topic trolling to me. The topic is why BF avoids human contact. Speaking of that why would someone that does not believe in existence even weigh in on this topic? Not existing for your benefit is the ultimate avoidance of humans.

[norseman]

But it doesn't mean that you are observing a sasquatch, either. That was kind of my point. You cannot say that bigfoot IS detectable ( the assumption being by external methods like game cams ) if bigfoot is not a real animal. There is an assumption presented as fact in your statement. A game cam cannot record something that does not exist. So your statement assumes existence and presents it as a fact. Which, it of course, is not. It has absolutely nothing to do with opinion, either.

"But what is utterly mind boggling to me is that big D is promoting the idea that since Sasquatch doesnt officially exist, then its not observable."

Sigh. No. I am saying that sasquatch is only observable if it exists. Surely, this cannot be that difficult to understand? If sasquatch does not exist, then it is not observable. You agree with this? If so, then when you say something like " Sasquatch is observable", you are presenting existence as a fact. You are missing a necessary qualifier.

Though honestly, what is so ludicrous in the notion that "... Sasquatch doesnt officially exist, then its not observable"

What, exactly, is incorrect about that statement?

Because if you scratch Sasquatch and add any undiscovered Beatle or Ant into your sentence it should become perfectly clear what is wrong with your statement.

Unless you believe there is nothing left to discover in zoology?

Just read we are suppose to drop it sorry.

Edited November 25, 2015 by norseman

[Catmandoo]

BigTreeWalker, this thread has wandered quite a bit so I will be brief. I am not able to PM.

Bond, D.S. and Henderson, F.P. (1963), The Conquest of Darkness. (AD 346297) Alexandria: Defense Documentation Center. Not on NTIS database.

Google that and you will see references to journal articles concerning the light hitting earth from planets and stars. Also "The Color of Light in Forests and Its Implications". John A Endler.

You did not mention the type of game cam that you use in the way of IR with red glow or filtered to non-human visible. Your raccoons are considered to be color blind but have nocturnal vision (starlight and planetary light). You did not indicate a baiting arrangement in the camera trap area. Raccoons with great smell and the ability to hear earthworms do fine in darkness.

I will cut it off here. Lighting conditions and nocturnal mammalian eye structure should be in a different thread ( soon ).