Lawrence Leavell
02-26-2008, 01:42 AM
I have been repeatedly disturbed by the fact that my postings on various forums, expressing opinions purely my own, directed at no one in particular, critical of no specific person’s actions, are regularly removed, taken down by the various administrators.
In my posts, I have expressed a general criticism of the basic assumptions that we, as Bigfoot researchers in general, have been operating under now and for more than 50 years. We have assumed we are dealing with non- or semi-intelligent primates incapable of verbal communication. These assumptions have held fast in spite of consistent non-results in our quests for proof of this creature’s existence, assumptions which seem, in view of our abject failure, to deny all reason.
We have tried for more than 50 years to prove the existence of a dumb ape known as Bigfoot. Hundreds of people have invested huge sums of money and untold thousands of hours in this quest. All who have tried to gain scientific proof has been to date been disappointed.
We have devised many methods of catching, trapping, killing, photographing, and otherwise proving the existence of this mysterious species. Nothing has worked, no effort has been successful.
Perhaps we are just bad hunters. This conclusion does not seem to be the case. Many highly accomplished hunters have engaged repeatedly in hunting for a Bigfoot. All such attempts, however, have been met with complete failure.
I would therefore submit that perhaps our base assumptions are incorrect and it is high time we review our techniques based upon a different point of view.
It seems to me that if I spent 50 years unsuccessfully using rabbit poop as bait, then I just might be persuaded to change my assumptions as to what bait might work to catch fish, at which point I just might be considered somewhat slow to figure this out.
I am reminded of the scientist who postulated the grasshopper’s auditory senses were on their legs, so he devised an experiment to determine is grasshoppers could hear with their legs. He began removing one leg at a time, and then exposed the grasshopper to a loud noise. Each time, the grasshopper jumped in response to the noise. He claimed his experiment to be a complete success after he had removed the last leg and the grasshopper ceased to jump at the noise.
Janice Carter holds the view that we seek an intelligent, sentient, sensitive creature, possessed of full verbal speech. This is quite a departure from the accepted description of Bigfoot which may well be derived more from our own prejudices than fact.
Also of mention, perhaps, is the idea of killing a Bigfoot. It would be most convenient for such killers to assign limited intelligence to their prey. If, on the other hand, it was established that Bigfoot were truly a sentient, sensitive species with full communication skills, then it would be difficult if not impossible to have an honest to goodness old time Big Game Hunt with Bigfoot as prey.
Perhaps it is mostly our own egos, our sense of superiority, which compels some of us to reject the possibility that there may actually be another intelligent great ape, one that is not human, and currently existing, intelligent enough to almost completely hide its presence from us.
Janice Carter claims and scientific papers over the past 200 years have stated that these creatures can see in the dark, and that they are as comfortable hunting at night as during the day. Perhaps this is how they avoid us so well. Humans rarely venture our after dark and, when we do, we bring with us artificial lights, lights the Bigfoot can easily see and so avoid.
Perhaps, as with the great cats of Africa, evolution has divided us into night and day groups, daylight versus nocturnal hunters, humans versus Nermanuh (Bigfoot).
In view of the clear and obvious fact that our basic assumptions about these creatures must be incorrect, it seems wholly reasonable to accept the thesis of an intelligent creature. If this is to be accepted, then we also accept that the Bigfoot, as a species, must be accorded legal protection and individual rights.
I am firmly convinced that rabbit poop is poor fish bait.
In my posts, I have expressed a general criticism of the basic assumptions that we, as Bigfoot researchers in general, have been operating under now and for more than 50 years. We have assumed we are dealing with non- or semi-intelligent primates incapable of verbal communication. These assumptions have held fast in spite of consistent non-results in our quests for proof of this creature’s existence, assumptions which seem, in view of our abject failure, to deny all reason.
We have tried for more than 50 years to prove the existence of a dumb ape known as Bigfoot. Hundreds of people have invested huge sums of money and untold thousands of hours in this quest. All who have tried to gain scientific proof has been to date been disappointed.
We have devised many methods of catching, trapping, killing, photographing, and otherwise proving the existence of this mysterious species. Nothing has worked, no effort has been successful.
Perhaps we are just bad hunters. This conclusion does not seem to be the case. Many highly accomplished hunters have engaged repeatedly in hunting for a Bigfoot. All such attempts, however, have been met with complete failure.
I would therefore submit that perhaps our base assumptions are incorrect and it is high time we review our techniques based upon a different point of view.
It seems to me that if I spent 50 years unsuccessfully using rabbit poop as bait, then I just might be persuaded to change my assumptions as to what bait might work to catch fish, at which point I just might be considered somewhat slow to figure this out.
I am reminded of the scientist who postulated the grasshopper’s auditory senses were on their legs, so he devised an experiment to determine is grasshoppers could hear with their legs. He began removing one leg at a time, and then exposed the grasshopper to a loud noise. Each time, the grasshopper jumped in response to the noise. He claimed his experiment to be a complete success after he had removed the last leg and the grasshopper ceased to jump at the noise.
Janice Carter holds the view that we seek an intelligent, sentient, sensitive creature, possessed of full verbal speech. This is quite a departure from the accepted description of Bigfoot which may well be derived more from our own prejudices than fact.
Also of mention, perhaps, is the idea of killing a Bigfoot. It would be most convenient for such killers to assign limited intelligence to their prey. If, on the other hand, it was established that Bigfoot were truly a sentient, sensitive species with full communication skills, then it would be difficult if not impossible to have an honest to goodness old time Big Game Hunt with Bigfoot as prey.
Perhaps it is mostly our own egos, our sense of superiority, which compels some of us to reject the possibility that there may actually be another intelligent great ape, one that is not human, and currently existing, intelligent enough to almost completely hide its presence from us.
Janice Carter claims and scientific papers over the past 200 years have stated that these creatures can see in the dark, and that they are as comfortable hunting at night as during the day. Perhaps this is how they avoid us so well. Humans rarely venture our after dark and, when we do, we bring with us artificial lights, lights the Bigfoot can easily see and so avoid.
Perhaps, as with the great cats of Africa, evolution has divided us into night and day groups, daylight versus nocturnal hunters, humans versus Nermanuh (Bigfoot).
In view of the clear and obvious fact that our basic assumptions about these creatures must be incorrect, it seems wholly reasonable to accept the thesis of an intelligent creature. If this is to be accepted, then we also accept that the Bigfoot, as a species, must be accorded legal protection and individual rights.
I am firmly convinced that rabbit poop is poor fish bait.