Proof of life. Habeus Corpus?

page: 1
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 1 2003 @ 08:36 AM
link   
I love the mysteries of Life. I'm astonished that there are so many things we seek, but have nothing but scant evidence.

The Scientific community (and humanity in general) scoffs at the notions of cryptids.

Much evidence is disregarded as of no consequence. Even DNA has been disregarded as not enough. Even when distinguished scientists in the field say, "I believe." the general scientific community sits back and says, "Nope, not yet."

To really prove existence, it seems you need a body.

I hate to kill indescriminately, but in the name of science would you depth charge Loch Ness, or Shoot Bigfoot? Assuming you could not capture such a beast.

Your thoughts?

hrxll



any

posted on Dec, 1 2003 @ 08:42 AM
link   
No, I wouldn't, the creature may be the last of it's kind.



posted on Dec, 1 2003 @ 09:14 AM
link   


I hate to kill indescriminately, but in the name of science would you depth charge Loch Ness, or Shoot Bigfoot? Assuming you could not capture such a beast.


Absolutely not. Wherever these creatures roam, they're better left untouched. Humans taint the purity of Mother Nature.



posted on Dec, 1 2003 @ 09:58 AM
link   
we should leave the creatures in peace and try to shoot them with cameras only, unless they are killing someone; then we have to kill or maim the creature to save the human.

The creatures need space and resources, so we should not invade their territory,

Today on cable they were showing a teenage girl getting eaten by a great white shark. They showed the attack over and over again and it made me sick. I felt that we should kill all the man eating sharks to save innocent lives.



posted on Dec, 1 2003 @ 10:04 AM
link   
Would I kill such a beast? No. I'd be to awe struck.

However, with man encroaching everywhere, eventually we will stumble across it's remains. Wether we find it in a natural state (but scientists would disprove that), or it is caught in a fisherman's net/sucked into a jet engine... man would probably be responsible for it's death.

But, now that I think about it... having a stuffed and mounted dragon WOULD make for an interesting conversation piece!



posted on Dec, 1 2003 @ 02:50 PM
link   
Isnt Habeus Corpus a legal term as well??? Never heard it with the idea of proof of life before.

Guess we learn something new everyday.


Pi

posted on Dec, 1 2003 @ 02:58 PM
link   
I figure, why shoot bigfoot, or depth charge the loch ness monster, or even dart gun the jersey devil, when in all reality, knowing that its out there, waiting for you, is all the more stimulating?

3.14.....pI



posted on Dec, 1 2003 @ 03:03 PM
link   
Because we as humans naturally feel threatened when its something we really dont know about. We wont be secure with their existance until we have had a chance to disect these wonderful creatures to find out more about them. I say leave them alone cause the worlds big enough for us all. Just my opinion



posted on Dec, 1 2003 @ 03:04 PM
link   
i dont think that killing these creatures would be on the top of the scientists or the hunters mind.obviously the fame in catching one of these alive would be better than actually killing it. having one alive would bring lots of $$$$. i think killing it would be the last aproach if even thought of at all. unless you are one of those people that would kill it just to say you killed it, then that changes everything.



posted on Dec, 1 2003 @ 03:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dreamz
Isnt Habeus Corpus a legal term as well??? Never heard it with the idea of proof of life before.

Guess we learn something new everyday.


yes Dreamz, you are right "habeus corpus" is a legal term, and it means (you need a body).

I was using the term to illustrate the problem with cryptids and the scietific community.

Sorry for the confusion.

hrxll



posted on Dec, 1 2003 @ 06:11 PM
link   
I would never kill such a being, this would be a creature pure and clean from human taint.

So many speices of animals have died from direct cause of humans, Its pathetic to see is kill so many then run and around crying to save these endangered animals.

Deep



posted on Dec, 1 2003 @ 10:36 PM
link   
I find all your respect for life very commendable. I can only try to match such noble sentiments, yet I fear that I err on the side of science.

In the 19th century the European scientific community was flame with stories of a enormous, fierce wild man of the congolese mountains. Most scientists of the time scoffed at the notion that a "wildman could exist". It wasn't until a Dutch officer and two of his men shot and killed two Greater Mountain Gorilla in 1903 were the claims actually verified.

If someone told you that something other than plants have existed since the time of the dinosaurs, you would have laughed at them. Until in 1938 when the body of a Coelcanth was being sold in a Madagascar fish market.

There have been irresponsible zoologists in the last century who have claimed all large species have been identifed. The Japanese discovered a new whale last week from DNA extracted from a corpse of a whale brought in by a fisherman.

It seems Science requires a body to place identification and verification beyond a shadow of doubt. Sad, but true.

hrxll



posted on Dec, 1 2003 @ 10:41 PM
link   
What do you mean?

Of course we should kill them... don't people need PROOF that they exist?



posted on Dec, 2 2003 @ 12:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by Aztec
we should leave the creatures in peace and try to shoot them with cameras only, unless they are killing someone; then we have to kill or maim the creature to save the human.

The creatures need space and resources, so we should not invade their territory,

Today on cable they were showing a teenage girl getting eaten by a great white shark. They showed the attack over and over again and it made me sick. I felt that we should kill all the man eating sharks to save innocent lives.



I disagree completely with some of your opinions.

We have left so little space for animals to live in peace already, and we invade them still; it should be an assumed risk if you go into the ocean, you could die. If you go into the forest you could die. If you go swimming in a river, or into the jungle, you could die.

If you're on a wilderness adventure, with a group of people, and someone is attacked by a bear.. be glad it wasn't you, and let the bear have it's meal.

With the few numbers of actually wild animals left in this world, and the over abundance of people, we should not kill an animal, because it is surviving, rather we should be glad that it is clearing out the gene pool a little bit.

I can honestly say if I was out in the woods, and a bigfoot attacked me, and I had a gun.. and I thought the only way I could survive was to kill it, I would probably kill myself first.. and make it a painless death.. rather than kill it.

I have no sympathy for stupid people who think they can swim with a shark, or walk with a bear, or camp with lions. The world will be a better place without those idiots.



posted on Dec, 2 2003 @ 02:20 AM
link   
I swim with sharks all the time although they're not man eaters. It's just the man eaters I hate. Millions of people live on the coast and we need protection. It's not like we're killing creatures of any value like bigfoots or something.

Would you really let a bear eat your buddy next to you?



posted on Dec, 2 2003 @ 01:19 PM
link   
Sure would.

If you are going into a wild animals environment, accept the fact that you are seen as a potential food source. Nobody is forcing you to go there, just like nobody is forcing anyone to swim in shark infested waters.

Killing animals because people are stupid is not the answer.



posted on Dec, 2 2003 @ 06:12 PM
link   
If its dangerous then yes.



posted on Dec, 2 2003 @ 06:15 PM
link   
Well, great white sharks do NOT tend to eat humans at all. They do not like the taste, simple as that. Most mistake them for sea lions or seals. So, it would be unfair to kill ALL sharks, right? That would wipe out an INCREDIBLE species. They can sense things from hundreds of meters away...they have an advanced "radar". They are incredible, to kill all of them would be wrong. Think about it..

-wD



posted on Dec, 2 2003 @ 06:24 PM
link   
Would I depth charge Nessie? No. What if there are only two left?

Sasquatch? Yes. There are more than two around, and to have proof of their existence could possibly do more good than harm. It'd be better to take one alive, though.



posted on Dec, 3 2003 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by Thomas Crowne
Sasquatch? Yes. There are more than two around, and to have proof of their existence could possibly do more good than harm. It'd be better to take one alive, though.


I disagree, with a large, rare animal like that, likely the second it is proven to exist, poachers will be all over the northwest wilderness looking for a new trophy.





top topics
 
0
<<   2 >>

log in

join


ATS Live Reality Remix IS ON-AIR! (there are 80 minutes remaining).
ATS Live Radio Presents - Reality Remix Live SE6 EP8 - Season Finale!

atslive.com

hi-def

low-def