Yes, the TRBC ought to consult a competent attorney before using the excuse that they were "attempting to harvest a specimen for scientific purposes", which iirc they said at the time. Ianal but in legal terms the issue is intent to kill.
-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
- Status
Can or can't
"they" speak english? that is the question.River
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2009
- Messages
- 4,962
That is part of the information I'm seeking. I'm curious if the story told online about emptying a shotgun at a sasquatch is the version he told police, or if there are shenanigans going on with the story. I have a hard time believing they told the police they were firing at a bipedal bigoot type creature. I'd like to read the report and see what was officially said.
Cbengalensis
Unregistered
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2012
- Messages
- 46
I wanted to introduce myself as a new member.
If my screen name is a bit lengthy, calling me CB will be fine.
If you're not into ornithology, the Coracais bengalensis is a real bird , and once I have priviliges to post an avatar, I'll post a portrait of it.
It is simply one of the many species of life that enchant me.
My interest here is ideas, and learning. I've observed the forum for some time and see some discussions of ideas, which fascinate me, and some discussions of people, which I have not interest whatsoever in being a part of.
I like to think that ideas can be disassociated from the people who may advocate or criticize them, and that we'll have a far better understanding of the ideas if we keep our focus on them.
I also think people can disagree respectfully, and alternate ideas are not enemies to be attacked or demolished.
I look forward to dialogues with like-minded people.
(the above in copied over from my “New Member” first posting)
That said, I posted in this thread since it seems as good a place as any to start.
I’m curious about one often stated idea, that this curious thing we call “Bigfoot” cannot exist, that it is impossible as a biological entity (obviously various members state this in many varied ways and choices of phrasing, so I’m paraphrasing the general concept as I perceive it from multiple postings).
It would seem to me that the issue of it’s being impossible to exist is invested with a lot of implied proofs, but lacking in one well-structured logical proof.
It would also seem to me that those implied proofs have as their premise a failure to acknowledge that indications this curious entity may actually exist have a broad range of degrees of reliability or unreliability which are not graded as to factual or evidentiary quality. In other words, all the images, sightings, tracks and other claimed evidence seem to be lumped together into one intellectual stew, hoping the most unpalatable will make the collective stew distasteful to the mind.
So I would simply like to ask, even though I know the question has been asked many times before, “why is a biological entity often called Bigfoot” impossible to exist?” I ask because I’ve never read what I find to be a persuasive answer.
Would anyone here like to join me in discussing this issue in a “friendly and lively way”?
CB
If my screen name is a bit lengthy, calling me CB will be fine.
If you're not into ornithology, the Coracais bengalensis is a real bird , and once I have priviliges to post an avatar, I'll post a portrait of it.
It is simply one of the many species of life that enchant me.
My interest here is ideas, and learning. I've observed the forum for some time and see some discussions of ideas, which fascinate me, and some discussions of people, which I have not interest whatsoever in being a part of.
I like to think that ideas can be disassociated from the people who may advocate or criticize them, and that we'll have a far better understanding of the ideas if we keep our focus on them.
I also think people can disagree respectfully, and alternate ideas are not enemies to be attacked or demolished.
I look forward to dialogues with like-minded people.
(the above in copied over from my “New Member” first posting)
That said, I posted in this thread since it seems as good a place as any to start.
I’m curious about one often stated idea, that this curious thing we call “Bigfoot” cannot exist, that it is impossible as a biological entity (obviously various members state this in many varied ways and choices of phrasing, so I’m paraphrasing the general concept as I perceive it from multiple postings).
It would seem to me that the issue of it’s being impossible to exist is invested with a lot of implied proofs, but lacking in one well-structured logical proof.
It would also seem to me that those implied proofs have as their premise a failure to acknowledge that indications this curious entity may actually exist have a broad range of degrees of reliability or unreliability which are not graded as to factual or evidentiary quality. In other words, all the images, sightings, tracks and other claimed evidence seem to be lumped together into one intellectual stew, hoping the most unpalatable will make the collective stew distasteful to the mind.
So I would simply like to ask, even though I know the question has been asked many times before, “why is a biological entity often called Bigfoot” impossible to exist?” I ask because I’ve never read what I find to be a persuasive answer.
Would anyone here like to join me in discussing this issue in a “friendly and lively way”?
CB
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
It's not impossible for it to exist.
It's impossible for it to be roaming the country as claimed, and remain unproven.
It's impossible for it to be roaming the country as claimed, and remain unproven.
Hundreds or thousands of them.
FatOldTrapper
New Blood
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2012
- Messages
- 6
This looked like good subject to cut my teeth on, as it looks interesting and CB has actually brought up a really good point. Please explain why that is impossible, not just that you think it is impossible. The US Forest Service has about 193 million acres under its control that is largely unpopulated. Throw in private land that is forested or woodland and you've got a truly massive area for large animals to thrive. I believe the total is over 700 million acres right now. If they were in small numbers, it would be dang near impossible to find them. Throw in Canada and the numbers get even bigger. Heck, Texas alone has about 60 million acres.
Two cases in particular come to mind that make this argument unreasonable. The Sumatran rhino is one of them. The total land mass of Indonesia is about 500 million acres. There are a couple of hundred rhinos at least. This year was the first time they've been seen in 26 years.
The second such scenario is the Eastern Lowland Gorilla in the Congo. Their total population was supposed to be about 50,000 until 2009. They "found" over 100,000 of them that people had just missed. How do you not notice 100,000 gorillas? And how did they find them? Word of mouth from locals, otherwise they wouldn't have.
I would post links, but I'm not at a point that I can post them yet.
Cbengalensis
Unregistered
- Joined
- Sep 16, 2012
- Messages
- 46
LTC8K6
It would appear that one option was neglected or overlooked, and that is that some claims might have merit while other claims are meritless, and that if some of the claims have merit, then the entity may exist.
The challenge would seem to be how or by what methodology claims are graded as to degree of merit.
CB
FatOldTrapper
New Blood
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2012
- Messages
- 6
Excellent! Post it up and let's see. That's a great exercise for everyone. There may be some points that haven't been thought of and there may be some that haven't been explored thoroughly enough for both categories.
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
Rhinos and Gorillas exist, with several species. Finding a new species is not the same as finding a non-existent creature. Rhinos and Gorillas exist, and they have a record of existence.
An 800 pound hairy biped does not exist, nor does any species of such, in North America, and it has no record of existence.
This is the same tired old argument that has been used before. While the West may not have known about a creature, that does not mean the creature was unknown or unproven.
If 800 pound hairy bipeds were roaming Texas in the numbers necessary for the sighting claims, the creature would already be proven to exist.
Here are the BFRO sighting lists per state, and these are just a fraction of the actual total claims of having seen bigfoot in each state.
http://208.109.31.181/GDB/default.asp
An 800 pound hairy biped does not exist, nor does any species of such, in North America, and it has no record of existence.
This is the same tired old argument that has been used before. While the West may not have known about a creature, that does not mean the creature was unknown or unproven.
If 800 pound hairy bipeds were roaming Texas in the numbers necessary for the sighting claims, the creature would already be proven to exist.
Here are the BFRO sighting lists per state, and these are just a fraction of the actual total claims of having seen bigfoot in each state.
http://208.109.31.181/GDB/default.asp
Well, activities in National Forests (I'm intimately familiar with the Chequamegon-Nicolet in Wisconsin) include, but are not limited to, logging, mining, hunting, trapping, fishing, bird watching, wildlife studies, camping, mushrooming, snowmobiling, cross-country skiing and biking, parking and necking. Your handle tells me you might know that these forests are criss-crossed with logging roads (called Rustic Roads in Wisconsin) and two tracks.
What doesn't happen in these forests is the discovery of a previously uncatalogued large primate biped.
LTC8K6
Penultimate Amazing
There's really only one basic claim.
That is that an 800 pound 8-9-10 foot tall hairy biped is roaming greater NA in significant numbers, and has been for a very long time, and this biped remains unknown to science.
It is impossible for this claim to be true, imo.
FatOldTrapper
New Blood
- Joined
- Sep 12, 2012
- Messages
- 6
Yes, I'm familiar with traffic in national parks, but over half of the forested land is in private hands. I'm also pretty familiar with how empty most of the places are once you get off the trails. If you get lost in these places, there is a better than fair chance you won't be found, even if a lot people are trying. If you are in there and don't want to be found, that's easy.
You're also saying that this creature is "unheard of." That's not the case at all, as you've mentioned a significant number of sightings. Clearly many, if not most, of the sightings are most likely BS or misidentifications. There are however others that don't necessarily come across that way and are from people that would normally be considered knowledgable. I personally have met 3 or 4 Forest Service employees that claim to have seen one. They weren't bragging and were honestly pretty hesitant to talk about it. These are people that spend every day in these woods and have nothing to gain from this. Then you have the historical accounts. Those accounts aren't just from native Americans, but early settlers as well, so you're using "unheard of" fairly liberally. Just because no one has dragged one out of the woods doesn't mean something isn't there if the population is small. I would be hesitant to shoot ANYTHING on two legs, even if I thought it was probably a bear. If looks at the thing don't last long, a hunter may not even have time to know what he's looking at, much less shoot it.
I also saw that there was some discussion about the term "wood ape" referring to this, yes I'm still catching up on the thread some. Just for reference, that's a pretty old term, at least in the South. I've heard men older than my grandfather use it, so it has been around since at least the Depression era, if not longer.
You're also saying that this creature is "unheard of." That's not the case at all, as you've mentioned a significant number of sightings. Clearly many, if not most, of the sightings are most likely BS or misidentifications. There are however others that don't necessarily come across that way and are from people that would normally be considered knowledgable. I personally have met 3 or 4 Forest Service employees that claim to have seen one. They weren't bragging and were honestly pretty hesitant to talk about it. These are people that spend every day in these woods and have nothing to gain from this. Then you have the historical accounts. Those accounts aren't just from native Americans, but early settlers as well, so you're using "unheard of" fairly liberally. Just because no one has dragged one out of the woods doesn't mean something isn't there if the population is small. I would be hesitant to shoot ANYTHING on two legs, even if I thought it was probably a bear. If looks at the thing don't last long, a hunter may not even have time to know what he's looking at, much less shoot it.
I also saw that there was some discussion about the term "wood ape" referring to this, yes I'm still catching up on the thread some. Just for reference, that's a pretty old term, at least in the South. I've heard men older than my grandfather use it, so it has been around since at least the Depression era, if not longer.
Yes, and If told people that a super elusive giant brown bear living undetected in the heart of Congo could exist, I would expect them to ask for good evidence before taking me seriously.
ScannerHead
Scholar
- Joined
- Oct 24, 2009
- Messages
- 105
Interesting that you paint with a broad brush and try to say that THIS is a singular claim that all people who believe in bf all subscribe to. It's like saying "All skeptics believe 'x y z'." which wouldn't be fair either.
That's very unfair. When did all sightings involve 800# animals that were nearly 10' tall? You try to invalidate all sightings by using a tactic to make the extreme claims out there make all reports look stupid. Not all those people out there make the same claims.
You try to dismiss all by being able to discount 'one'.
River
Illuminator
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2009
- Messages
- 4,962
All it will take take to change my mind is one specimen. Just like every other animal. I'm sure that will be forthcoming. Not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxonomy
I've said this before, but I will again now. Why should we take bigfoot any more serious than mermaids? (or insert any other social construct here) Why must we assume it might exist? (be specific)
What would have to be done before you would claim "bigfoot does not exist"?
When speaking about mermaids, must I assume it's a possibility that they still might exist? (exchange mermaids with bigfoots) Whats the difference? More media coverage?
- Status