Leaderboard

Sorry, but that's silly. People, on the whole, scoff because of the dearth of convincing evidence. Now, go ahead and berate me because I've not contributed to the effort to produce that evidence, but do try to discount my contention. In fact, I want to acknowledge existence. Very much so. But for people, on the whole, wants are a hill of beans.

With all due respect, I'm not buying that sasquatches are interdimensional tall grays. I also don't believe that a sasquatch is an alien. Call me crazy!

Ohhh, none. In truth I was being a bit glib about presenting a speculation: perhaps they progress along a different axis of cultural or intellectual advancement, one that can't be measured by technological achievements. Although I'd also say, though it isn't direct evidence per se, that consistent evasion of 50+ years of our efforts to prove their existence demonstrates a certain superior intellect. But consider it this way: some humans have achieved some remarkable things through meditation, controlling heart rate or body temperature for example. Perhaps there are powers of mind far beyond our comprehension, and sasquatch, not being so consumed with material problem solving by necessity, progressed along that path perpendicular to our own. There are reasons to think that could be the case. The Native Americans seem to think along these lines, and habituators frequently talk about them this way too. There are also those who claim experiences with sasquatch that transcend what we think of as "normal," and we insist that those posts get their own home down below the general section. I think MIB's point is astute and that's kind of been my creeping realization with myself over the past year or two: who am I to scoff at others' alleged experiences, when I seven or eight years ago would've scoffed at my own experiences since then? One final line of reasoning on intelligence vs culture: the Sierra Sounds and their spoken language. This is evidence-based, and it certainly indicates we're dealing with something way beyond extant great apes. If they have a spoken language, is it reasonable to expect that they produce no cultural artifacts because they're incapable? If they're too primitive of mind to produce technology, why do they seem to understand the uses of our own, such as guns and cameras? If they do understand our technology to some extent through observation, why don't they try to emulate it? Why don't they steal a grill lighter and build a little fire to cook over? My assertion is that they don't need to, they realize it would draw unwanted attention, and they choose not to.

So far, bigfoot is scoffed at because people, on the whole, don't seem t want to acknowledge existence. So far, among those who will consider existence, certain reported behaviors are scoffed at because people don't want to seriously consider the intelligence those behaviors might imply. And now, among those who will consider the intelligence, apparent cultural artifacts are dismissed or "re-spun" into something else because people don't want to consider what those artifacts imply. Hmmm ... nobody else sees a pattern here? Nobody sees that others are scoffing at what they accept but that they, themselves, become those others scoffing at someone else yet? Nobody has a mirror that functions, nobody dares to look and apply the same standards to themselves that they apply to others? Disappointing. Very disappointing. MIB

I don’t believe it.....

MindSquatch, get thee to the Paranormal Section. You'll be a rock star, there.

Wow . Interesting response. None of it is verifiable,but interesting none than less.

The assumption underlying these points is that production of technology is necessarily an indication of greater intelligence, or that any sufficiently intelligent species with the means to produce technology will do so. That's an anthropocentric attitude, one that likely doesn't always hold up. Try to imagine how they might see the issue: Poor humans, having to spend all this time and energy fussing over making things just to eat, or withstand the cold, or sleep comfortably. What a distraction it must be from what life is really about. Accomplishments of the species? How about enlightenment.

I would say "neither." If the yowie is real, it is not bigfoot. Similar, perhaps, but not same. No more than almasty or yeren. The similarity without sameness is suggestive of biological reality. Sameness would not be IF you understand evolutionary biology. There is no testable evidence for any sort of dematerialization of any sort, never mind rematerialiation, never mind preserving organization of structure and life through the process. Suggestions of similar processes shows lack of understanding of those processes, it amounts to word salad. If yowie is real, likely they arrived in a manner similar to human arrival: over water in the geologically recent past when the sea levels were lowered by glacial ice on land. Or aliens transported them. Even that, ridiculous as it sounds, is far less "out there" and far more scientifically supportable than your suggestions. MIB

We haven't found certain / sure bigfoot fossils anywhere we've looked so we should not be dogmatic about where we choose to look yet. There are exactly the same number of recognized fossils from North America as there are from Africa or Asia. Zero. That might suggest they are a very very recent development, coming from forested areas with acidic soils that don't preserve fossils, or until geologically recently lived on coastal margins that are now underwater, or something of that nature. The lack of fossils IS an issue. It's not a show-stopper but it requires consideration for anyone conducting serious research. Regarding N/S America, it seems that the sites being touted as proof of long human history in S. America were contamination. They were not pristine locations archeologically, local geological events seem to have stirred the layers causing recent human artifacts to mix with very old carbon deposits. We counted too heavily, too optimistically, on evidence that wasn't as strong as we thought. By the same understanding, we need to be very careful about jumping on the bandwagon with the purported 130,000 year old "evidence" of human habitation in N.A. By this I do not mean scoff or dismiss, I mean really REALLY study it carefully before pronouncing any judgement about age or legitimacy. If we build our understanding on false foundations, it's only a matter of time before that understanding crumbles. MIB