Guest Micahn Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 A few years ago I asked just about this same question on these forums. Most did not agree that Bigfoot/Werewolves sightings could be related. To me it seems logical to believe people could be seeing the same animals yet call them different things. To me anyway it all ties into what they do and do not believe in could be possible as well as what books/movies and such they have been exposed to over the years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronD Posted March 14, 2012 Share Posted March 14, 2012 I agree with that statement.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Kronprinz Adam Posted March 16, 2012 Share Posted March 16, 2012 Caesar, if you want some background on the variety of purported hominid and pongid crypto's, you can start with Sanderson's "Abominable Snowmen, Legend Come to Life" (1961)... The ideas of Mr. Sanderson are quite interesting, after an extensive research of myths, folklore and sightings, he concluded that there is the possibility of the survival of small quantities of hominids in historical times all around the world. It seems the belief on wildmen was widespread in many cultures, but basically forgotten in the industrialized world...until british explorers heard from the "Yeti" at the end of the 19th Century...and wondered how such a creature could possibly exist in the himalayan mountains!!! Now the reports of Sasquatch, Yowies and Siberian Snowmen emerged again...(and accompanied by the latest discoveries on human evolution, like Homo floresiensis and Denisovans), so we can ask ourselves: there is some truth behind these legends? Greetings. L. Adam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted March 17, 2012 Share Posted March 17, 2012 I also recently had a chance to read "Historical Evidence for the Existence of Relect Hominids" by Dmitri Bayanov. Had posted this as a topic in the Media forum, but not a lot of activity over there. This essay was posted on Dr. Medrum's Relect Hominid Inquiry website here: http://www.isu.edu/rhi/pdf/Bayanov.pdf Dr. Bayanov sites Sanderson's work and expands upon ancient writings and folk stories throughout the world. His point is that many fantastical beasts, gods, or demons can be attributed to relect hominids. Very interesting read. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonehead74 Posted March 17, 2012 Share Posted March 17, 2012 http://theblogsquatcher.blogspot.com/2009/06/did-darwin-transform-into-bigfoot.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 17, 2012 Share Posted March 17, 2012 Ok folks, if I could have your attention for a moment or two. There is a post above that gets into some fairly religious content, and since some of you have already responded to it, it would be difficult to delete the post without having to delete and edit the posts of those who have responded as well. For the record- the rule regarding religion: C. Political and religious topics are forbidden in all areas of the Forum with the following exceptions... Discussion relating to evolution as a branch of scientific study are acceptable but not when used as a means to push a political agenda with discussions. Religious references pertinent to the topic of discussion can be used in discussions but not in a manner that tries to demean, coerce, or recruit members in favor or disfavor of a specific belief system. Here's the rub: The rule as it reads can be sometimes vague. It states, that no religion is to be discussed at all, but then also gives an "exception clause", stating that in a few very certain cases, that it can be discussed as one aspect of a larger topic. The difficulty is that 99.9% of the time- it winds up causing a debate about religion itself, and/or winds up derailing the topic of the thread that its in. In this case(here and in other threads)- I'd ask that if someone has an opinion that involves religion, that you would leave out biblical passages, and references to any one particular "brand" of religion. In other words, you can mention that "some religions" have theories that suggest a particular idea, but do not cite which religion, or what part of any passage/book etc that it comes from. In no way at all will any debate about existence, or more in depth discussions about religion be accepted or tolerated. Most importantly- if you have any comments about this warning, or the subject- feel free to PM me for clarification. I do not want replies to this post in this thread...! Thank you for your understanding, and cooperation with this matter. Art Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronD Posted March 17, 2012 Share Posted March 17, 2012 Oookay, anyhoo...Thanks BFSleuth, very interesting indeed. And yes Adam, it seems the more industrialized a given culture is the less attention or credibility afforded to mythological entities and such. Talking with native americans is always envigorating as well because they still believe what their ancestors believed. Shapeshifting, however close or far removed from hollywoods renditions they may actually be, is an interesting concept as well. I've read a lot of books on the subject, from all "perspectives" and most agree that it does happen....again, just a theory on where such strange anomalies sprout from whether ape-like or wolf-like in appearance. But I might tend to side with the notion of surviving "hominids"..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted March 17, 2012 Share Posted March 17, 2012 http://theblogsquatc...to-bigfoot.html Thanks, Bone! Here is the author's home page, with additional reading. Titles like, "Entering Dubious Realms: Grover Krantz, Science, and Sasquatch". Lot's of papers regarding the history of our concept of BF. http://www.kean.edu/~bregal/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted March 17, 2012 Share Posted March 17, 2012 "Most agree that shapeshifting happens". Sorry, but let's get real for a minute. Most what agree? Books about shapeshifting or the paranormal? Find me a bit of peer-reviewed science, any at all, that allows for such a possibility. You can't take seriously any claims for stuff that falls outside the laws of physics without providing exceptional levels of proof. Goodness me, why is a simple flesh-and-blood animal subject to such incredible nonsense? Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Holliday Posted March 17, 2012 Share Posted March 17, 2012 gotta agree with mike here, i cant think of any substantial group where shapeshifting has been proven as an undeniable reality. if i had to choose a more believable creature, id say BF,imo, is more likely to exist than a werewolf.seems to me werewolves would be picking off people everywhere as easy meals if they truly did exist. & yes, i suppose old werewolf reports couldve been a mis-ID of a BF, which is sort of amusing considering the common theory on BF reports being all hoaxed or mis-IDs ...round & round it goes,lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronD Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 "Most agree that shapeshifting happens". Sorry, but let's get real for a minute. Most what agree? Books about shapeshifting or the paranormal? Find me a bit of peer-reviewed science, any at all, that allows for such a possibility. You can't take seriously any claims for stuff that falls outside the laws of physics without providing exceptional levels of proof. Goodness me, why is a simple flesh-and-blood animal subject to such incredible nonsense? Mike I meant most of the material I read alluded to some degree of belief in shapeshifting, I believe you took me wrong, but oh well....now if you're referring to Bigfoot when you say "a simple flesh-and-blood animal..." I must return your cynicism with HARDLY SIMPLE!!! or why would we even be here yakkin' at each other about theories, beliefs, hoaxes/proofs, liars, blah blah and why hasn't a single person been able to get anything but blurry disputable photos/videos? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 (edited) Aaron, if you read books about the paranormal, or mythology, or junk science, don't be surprised to find junk inside. Shapeshifting is makey-uppy nonsense. As for sasquatch not being a flesh-and-blood creature: well every other living animal on the planet is, including us, and I therefore say with 100% confidence, if sasquatch isn't a flesh-and-blood product of evolution, then it doesn't exist. Why are we here? Because of the possibility that there is an unverified flesh-and-blood mammal in the woods. Because which we haven't yet gathered a type specimen. Because we are awaiting the results of the most concerted attempt yet by science to prove the existence of this mammal. Because the work of science is never done. Because we all love a mystery. Because some people need their thrills vicariously. Because of man's eternal curiosity. The biggest curiosity for me is that people will still assign magic as their first answer to the remaining mysteries of the planet, even though not one single example of magic has ever been proven, and more than 200 years after the Enlightenment. It is truly bizarre. Mike Edited March 18, 2012 by MikeG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 Just speaking of the concept of *shapeshifting* in general, my mind just will not allow me to place too much credence in it. I lean towards believing that BF is real. Too many eyewitness accounts, both historical and modern for me to just ignore and/or write off as mis-identification, paredoila, hoaxing, or mass hallucinations. Having said that, I realize that a significant portion of the reports would most likely fall prey to one of the above. But, I do struggle with claims of *skinwalkers-shapeshifting/paranormal* attributes being associated with BF and can't help believe that such claims of association actually does the subject of BF more harm than good. Blurry and inconclusive pics or video, purported as proof, doesn't help either. So, needless to say, I sort of cringe when I see such claims made. But I cringe at a lot of things I guess as a fence-sitter on BF who leans towards belief. I cringe when I see those skeptical of BF being demeaning of *witnesses* of BF who have the courage to come forward. I just don't get their being so dismissive of good and upstanding folks who relate something they know that they experienced. If I were so fortunate as to see a BF and feel comfortable that what I saw was real, I wouldn't personally give a rats behind whether skeptics or science would believe me or not. Conversely, I cringe when I see *proponents* proffer up *weak* explanations/purported evidence, crying foul, and not understanding why some of the more sketically inclined might need some form of *scientific and testable* proof before they *buy-in* to the possibility that BF is a real and viable entity. Seems to be the life of a fence-sitter. Things from both the proponent and skeptic side make you cringe. I don't believe in *shapeshifting* or other *paranormal* explanations regarding BF at all. Such seems to me to be VERY weak and costly explanations in relation to the acceptance of the viability of the subject. Costly in that many proponents reject such notions. I also don't believe that all witness reports are the result of hoaxes, mis-identifications, hallucinations, or some other ridiculous proffer from the skeptical side. Like slicktrick said, it seemingly goes round and round. I'm truly envious of those who have made up their mind one way or the other on BF. Check out the TV show *Navajo Cops* on National Geographic if the subject of shapeshifting or BF interests you. They are presently investigating some reports of strange sounds/howling that people are reporting and have mentioned *skinwalkers/shapeshifting*, (as the belief is ingrained in their culture), along with BF as possible explanations. It will probably wind up being a coyote or something benign I suspect, but it has been interesting to watch. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronD Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 Mike, I never said Bigfoot wasn't flesh and blood, I said Bigfoot is hardly SIMPLE, which is why we have all kinds of theories, beliefs, etc etc and no one even can say that the creature has been proven beyond doubt to exist. If you know of zoo where one is exhibited, by all means do tell, otherwise it has yet to be a fact and the mystery continues--far from simple. And even science has its limits. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted March 18, 2012 Share Posted March 18, 2012 (edited) If it exists it is simple in the same way that every other mammal, including us, is simple. It, like us, and every other living thing on the planet, does/ would do what it needs to do to eat, drink, breed and avoid an early death. Why on earth would you connect "simple" and "exist" and "zoo"? Oh, and I didn't say it existed, and thus the sarky zoo comment is unnecessary. Science is only limited by time and resources. So far, we can say this with absolute certainty: everything that science has turned its attention to has been found to comply with the basic laws of physics, chemistry, maths etc, and that there isn't a single claim for the paranormal that has withstood any sort of scrutiny. So if you want to support claims of shapeshifting or the like............in nearly your own words............point me to the zoo. Mike Edited March 18, 2012 by MikeG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts