Guest Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Saskeptic, I appreciate your reluctance to tread along the speculative path with me, What are you talking about? I'm completely playing along with the silly notion that no one could hide a camera that a bigfoot couldn't find. How much more willing to tread down the speculative path could I be? even hypothetically, but I should hope that the distinction between a trap that activates within, say, 50 feet on the outside is quite different than being shot from several hundred yards away. Who claims to have snipered a bigfoot from several hundred yards? I know of no such claims. And I should also think that an animal living in the wild and having the potential for insight might object to the impact of technological / industrial society on their ecosystem. They might even be hostile. You have seen "Avatar," right? Well, I'm glad you're citing a reputable source for your point of view exnihilo, but I still think you're evading/not grasping the issue. Is your explanation of WHY bigfoots avoid cameras because cameras are an "impact of technological / industrial society on their ecosystem?" That's OK - that can be your answer. The problem is that it just opens up more questions. If bigfoots avoid cameras for that reason, why don't they avoid roads, cars, cabins, fences, chicken coops, greases traps, campsites, dumpsters, deer stands, Sasfooty's house, fruit left in a pile by the side of a road, Zagnut bars, etc.? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest exnihilo Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Naturally this entire line of argument is fundamentally speculative; we are discussing what may or may not be plausible under hypothetical conditions, i.e., a physically real BF being accepted as a given. I have stated my inclinations as to what I consider to be the traits of a plausible physical creature. Feel free to disagree. If you don't see a difference between avoiding camera traps and rifle shots, then we disagree. If you cannot imagine a sapient creature viewing human incursions with caution or hostility given modern man's history of interactions with the natural world, then be my guest as well. We disagree. Nice jab at Avatar, BTW. I might have done the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 SY: lots of people bleach their hair....as your local high school or the hair care section of your local Walgreen's or other drug store will show. or just search videos for "bleach hair white". Yes parn, some people bleach their hair, but I doubt they could bleach the root end without bleaching the rest of the hair, and it would be an extremely odd thing to do. We don't know which end was bleached, but if it were the distal end it would make sense that a person had bleached their hair and it was growing back as their natural color, yet it would look rather odd to have white tips. This guy would stand out in a crowd. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 Mulder-- 1.''Please tell that to the Skeptics, as the "no scientific evidence" argument is one of their favorites. I'm just pointing out where they contradict themselves...it's not my fault they get all bent out of shape about it.'' 2.''And yet Science STILL insists there is no scientific evidence. We hear that from Skeptics all the time. Both statements cannot be correct, unless Science is refusing to engage the evidence that you yourself admit exists. It's that simple.'' 3.''And yet BF remains unadmitted by institutional science, which continues to insist that there is no scientific evidence for BF. No matter how much smoke you try to blow, Sas, you cannot logically or factually state that those two positions are compatable.'' Since Material WAS provided by a self-professed skeptic I'm not seeing the contradiction. Institutionalized Science as a whole isn't going to accept BF or evidence until such time as it is formated and presented in a recognizable articulate fashion. Rail all you want about it, but that's the fact. EVERYTHING until then is considered anocdotal or at best an incomplete hypothisis. Repeating your point doesn't serve to change anything. However spending some time talking to a Physical Anthropologist will clear it up. At that point either being able to answer the next ten hrs of questions with facts will show you WHY there is little interest. Simply put what a proponent takes to be fact, via observation or collected with no good chain of evidence, the scientific community doesn't. Until better hard evidence is obtained this is where things stand. I'm sure if you randomly spoke with some credentialed folks you'll see Skeptics aren't the problem. It's our own lack of usable material. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HucksterFoot Posted January 7, 2012 Share Posted January 7, 2012 That's a lot of smoke. :] Bigfoot is on the rampage now. I bet it smells like blueberries. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RioBravo Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 Well Hersom should know if he funded 75% or more of the dna analyses wouldn't he? I sure hope so. Wouldn't be the first time a rich man had wasted his money, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 Robert Lindsay (probably with some help from Richard Stubstad) points out that the book Tribal Bigfoot, by David Paulides, mentions on pages 372 & 373 2 years, 9 1/2 months, and nary a paper published (or possibly not even submitted or even written), nary an abstract presented at a scientific meeting for discussion, ideas, reaction, criticism, improvement. Looks like Lindsey quoted me directly from this forum on that one. You don't really expect that presentations of the paper and abstract occurs in public prior to publication by a journal do you Parn? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 If you don't see a difference between avoiding camera traps and rifle shots, then we disagree. I think the issue is that I do see a difference. I would expect bigfoots to avoid rifle shots, because those are dangerous. I would not expect a bigfoot - no matter how intelligent it is - to avoid a camera trap because I don't see what the bigfoots might think is dangerous about them. If you think bigfoots avoid camera traps for the same reason that they might avoid rifle shots, do you have an admittedly speculative but plausible explanation for how they developed that sense of cameras = danger? Our available evidence suggests that bigfoots are exceedingly good at avoiding cameras but show no similar aversion to all manner of other human objects - even humans! It appears that bigfoots are more afraid of cameras than they are of people, or their guns. This doesn't make sense to me, if we're dealing with a flesh and blood organism. It's OK not to have any idea why bigfoots avoid camera traps. I'm just wondering if anyone has a plausible explanation for it, 'cause I haven't seen one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest exnihilo Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 (edited) Again, Saskeptic, I hope it is obvious that avoiding being shot at long range is considerably more difficult than avoiding being photographed at 25 feet. There are numerous anecdotes that suggest that perhaps BF destroys or removes game cams when successfully ambushed by them (thus eliminating the need to posit that BF is invulnerable to ambush). Then we can also observe that game cams imply locomotion by modern humans on foot through rough terrain and dense foliage. Given the difficulty modern man has going off the trail in these environments, its pretty clear that the vast majority of camera traps are going to be situated in fairly obvious places. I could go on, but what's the point, it's only speculation. As I said earlier, the key for me is intelligence that is comparable to homo sapiens sapiens, which implies the ability to have insight into human intentions - and to formulate and execute a strategy to frustrate these intentions if necessary. Particularly when one allows that their seemingly prodigious stealth abilities provide them with the opportunity to know quite a bit more about us than we do about them. By the way, I'm not sure how seriously I take many of the BF killed by a hunter stories, though it stands to reason that a physical creature would present an occasional opportunity through the years. Edited January 8, 2012 by exnihilo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 I think the issue is that I do see a difference. I would expect bigfoots to avoid rifle shots, because those are dangerous. I would not expect a bigfoot - no matter how intelligent it is - to avoid a camera trap because I don't see what the bigfoots might think is dangerous about them. If you think bigfoots avoid camera traps for the same reason that they might avoid rifle shots, do you have an admittedly speculative but plausible explanation for how they developed that sense of cameras = danger? Our available evidence suggests that bigfoots are exceedingly good at avoiding cameras but show no similar aversion to all manner of other human objects - even humans! It appears that bigfoots are more afraid of cameras than they are of people, or their guns. This doesn't make sense to me, if we're dealing with a flesh and blood organism. It's OK not to have any idea why bigfoots avoid camera traps. I'm just wondering if anyone has a plausible explanation for it, 'cause I haven't seen one. Maybe they figure if they get their picture taken, Matt Moneymaker or Tom Biscardi will show up and then there goes the neighborhood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 Maybe they figure if they get their picture taken, Matt Moneymaker or Tom Biscardi will show up and then there goes the neighborhood. Aha, humor aside, thanks for addressing the actual question indiefoot! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 Seriously, if they have somehow figured out what photos are, they might add that to their list of thinks to avoid lest it bring the wrong kind of attention. Then you would have to ask why they throw rocks at campers. Could a cultural belief make them think having a photo would give an advantage over the subject of the photo? Just musing over reasons why they would resist having their photo taken if they knew what they were. IF, they are in communication with homo sapiens there might be all kinds of information and intelligence passed along. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest exnihilo Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 Aha, humor aside, thanks for addressing the actual question indiefoot! I see it as a territorial reaction. Just as you might object to a game cam in your backyard. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 I see it as a territorial reaction. Just as you might object to a game cam in your backyard. I get that, what I don't understand is why they'd get all territorial with a game cam and not with all the other human stuff that finds its way into their territories. Also, if bigfoots like to beat up on game cams so their photos don't get taken, why don't researchers just put up a whole bunch of fake game cams in bigfooty areas, cover the outside with something sticky, and come back later to collect hairs, fingerprints, etc? Seriously, if they have somehow figured out what photos are, So Janice Carter is having sit-downs with the bigfoots in which she shows them game cams, shows them photos taken from game cams, and instructs them that tourists will ruin their way of life once someone snaps a decent photo of one of them? Then she tells them to be sure to share this information with all the other bigfoots on this continent (and others) through their unique system of whooping and smacking trees? Then you would have to ask why they throw rocks at campers. Meh, if I was 7' tall and weighed 400 lbs and immensely strong and loud with superior night vision, I would not send interlopers the ambiguous message that I wanted them to leave by tossing rocks into their campground. I would charge them full-on and make it blatantly obvious that if they stayed I would eat them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest exnihilo Posted January 8, 2012 Share Posted January 8, 2012 (edited) Now Saskeptic, surely you are a nuanced enough thinker to realize that charging people indiscriminately will bring out the National Guard. Not a good outcome for the BF community. (Reports of charges are usually confined to very specific types of situations.) Edited January 8, 2012 by exnihilo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts