Leaderboard

What I took away from the Two Reasons without adding in any of the religious elements, is that 1) Killing you during an encounter is always on the menu. Maybe choice number 10 or option 45, but always there. Therefore, be careful. They are strong and wild and you do not know them. Treat them with the respect and caution you would any wild animal (or potentially crazy human). And 2) They don't communicate, so we can't reason with them and we have no way of knowing what they're thinking. Anything else is some form of anthropomorphism. There is danger in making incorrect assumptions based on OUR beliefs that may or may not be true. I'm not interested in any of the religious interpretations one way or another, nor any woo. Carpenters' belief system influences how he views the creatures. We ALL have some sort of belief system about who we are in the grand scheme of things and who THEY are. But distilling the two reasons into the above made sense to me. YMMV.

Doesn't even have to be crazy, simply being from a human culture different than your own. In a very real sense, the greater the similarity, the greater the chance for misunderstanding because it appears more reasonable to plug in your own assumptions / values where you have gaps in your understanding of their assumptions / values. Think of the troubles of the past when "modern, sophisticated" European humans encountered "primitive, unsophisticated" tribal people in remote places .. might wind up being worshiped as a god or might wind up in the stew pot .. or maybe both. Be wary of an invitation to dinner 'til you're sure whether you're a participant or the main course. Same thing for "people" out there who might be even more "primitive" yet. In a way, if they're "less than people" (animals), the results of a meeting might be less unpredictable than if they're truly "people". Dunno, just .. kicking around ideas. I think if we're out there looking for sasquatch, it pays to consider all of the potential angles and not get too caught up on any 'til we know more thus assume less. Everything from ape camp to Scott Carpenter's ideas .. even consider ThePhaige's posts. Final truth will probably not be any of those but may combine bits and pieces from all .. and others .. mixed in a totally unexpected way. MIB

Man! You nailed it. Thanks very much. I'd completely forgotten Arthur C. Clarke's Mysterious World. I'm very grateful to you, Sir! Listening now to both of them, I don't hear any similarity. Here's the sound recorded by Officer Cooper: Here's the sound recorded by AULTimate OUTDOORS:

Glad it worked out for you. I remembered the segment from one of the many awesome videos that member Norseman shares.

I'll add some moon data which i thought was at least 'interesting' to this thread over the next few days, it may well help trapper too in his Utah outing.

Great story. The distance, and the fact that it didn't seem scary to you, mirrors my own sighting in about '78, here in BC.

I don’t need to invoke the two reasons Carpenter gives to not trust Sasquatches. I don’t trust grizzly bears, cougars or black bears either. The two reasons Carpenter states for not trusting Sasquatches are: 1) He believes that they are a hybrid between the Nephilim (fallen angels) and humans and thus that they don't have the same morality and conscience as humans. 2) They don’t talk or communicate with us. He assumes that they have the ability to communicate (mind-speak or other) but that they don’t want to share any truthful information about themselves. His first reason is just a belief and is not based on science. His second reason only makes sense if they are cognitively able to communicate, which we do not know. His second reason is the main reason I don’t trust anything that supposedly “ETs” or beings associated with UFOs say. Messages from ET’s are all inconsistent, contradictory, not informative and useless. Very trickster like. However, since I consider Sasquatch to be a different entity than beings associated with UFOs, I can’t really use that reason to not trust sasquatch. I don’t know what they are. Thus, when I visit areas with their presence, I proceed with caution knowing full well that they are a potential threat and are not my buddies or forest friends. I think that some folks who pursue interactions with sasquatches and treat them as teachers, elders, forest keepers or brothers are delusional. I agree with Carpenter in that those people who claim interactions with them and claim to communicate with them, have obtained conflicting and useless information. One possible hypothesis is self-delusion, whereas everybody hears their own internal voice when they go out into the forest to communicate with seen or unseen entities. They hear what they want to hear or what they want to believe. An alternative hypothesis is that the entities are trickers and are indeed deceiving and telling lies to every one of those experiencers, but that hypothesis is more complex and requires more assumptions than the simpler self-deception. And, we don’t have any scientific data to support either hypothesis (just anecdotal evidence which is very weak, dispersed, and not fully vetted).

Thanks, @BobbyO, I can appreciate your thoughts. And, I completely respect the massive work that you have done with the data! Like I said, I was keeping it simple. I do have data that support my theory, but I am not willing to fully disclose them at this time. They are strong enough for me to want to explore into that rabbit hole and see where it leads. As soon as I confirm or deny, I will be glad to relay the info as to what I have tried, etc. And you and the rest of the gang here, will be among the first to know when I am ready. I just think working a little outside the box is a good fit for me right now, and while incredibly valuable your data (and it is), I need to try some things that are different than what many people are doing, because it's not working.

I get the general way of thinking and don't overly disagree, but i just don't think you can be bringing in religion to this subject as it obviously brings up geographical issues and a whole world of questioning that simply can't be answered objectively.

I'm already there

I have no problem accepting that this video is a fake, but I am curious about something else... Is Justin Chernipeski really seen as authority on the possible validity of evidence? Anytime anyone shoots down someone else's work or evidence and then immediately begins to beg for money for their own projects just leaves me a bit wary. I have seen a couple of Justin's videos, and unfortunately nothing that I saw made me look at him as an authority on the subject. I am not trying to denigrate the guy, I am just curious as to why he is someone who should be used as a reference on possible hoaxes. Honest question. I must be missing something on this guy.