Does A Bigfoot/ufo Connection Exist?

[JDL]

Salmon

[Guest]

^^ Salmon is not meat ?

The correct answer is "Steak" because it does not necessarily mean "beef"- your mind just thinks of it that way.

Steak denotes a "cut" of something- could be a portobella mushroom "steak" or eggplant "steaks" as well...

Guess that's why I normally score above average on IQ tests...

[JDL]

Point was, that on the test I took, the answer was based on a specific religious doctrine, thus it was not objective.

[Guest]

^^ Salmon is not meat ?

The correct answer is "Steak" because it does not necessarily mean "beef"- your mind just thinks of it that way.

Steak denotes a "cut" of something- could be a portobella mushroom "steak" or eggplant "steaks" as well...

Guess that's why I normally score above average on IQ tests...

That's funny Art..

[gigantor]

From my point of view...

We have a being (BF) which has not been proven to exist, with many eyewitness claims which could be explained by known fauna, pareidolia or visual effects;

and a visual phenomena in the skies (UFOs) with many eyewitness claims which could be explained by known atmospheric anomalies, man made aircraft, pareidolia or visual effects.

The question is: could there be a connection between the two? Absolutely.

Edited December 27, 2011 by gigantor

[Guest BFSleuth]

Realityghost started his BF search from first investigating the hills where lights in the night sky would go from the sky down into the trees. He went in the daytime to check things out and that's when he started seeing BF sign and interacting with them by trading things.

http://www.youtube.com/user/Realityghost

http://www.docstoc.com/profile/realityghost

Strange lights tripped his game cameras in certain hot spots. Check out his series of research videos.

There do seem to be a few researchers reporting similar comments, at least in terms of lights in the woods in the vicinity of BF activity.

[gigantor]

umhummm... that's not hoaxed.

[Guest MikeG]

There is only one source of 99% pure copper in the world and that is located in Michigan. Raw copper of the same purity and traced back to this area has been found in India and Egypt going backing many thousands of years. It had to get there some how, that is just one example for why I think something tragic happened about 9-10,000 years ago that nearly destroyed us.

This needs picking apart, methinks.

It doesn't matter how pure the source of copper, unless the examples you refer to are of un-worked ore. Once smelted, and with it's low melting point that is terribly easy, the purity of the finished piece of copper is entirely down to the quality of the workmanship. In other words, you take standard Zambian copper ore, say, or your high grade Michigan ore, smelt it properly (and that doesn't need anything other than a wood-fire, some clay and some bellows)and the resultant copper is equally pure. You'd need better evidence than that to say that "X" piece of jewellery (or whatever) came from "Y" mine.

Even if the copper originated in Michigan, what are you claiming by suggesting that it was traded?

Frankly, with no knowledge of the subject, I would have thought it more likely that ancient copper goods found in Egypt were either actually manufactured in Egypt from ore mined in Egypt (in the Sinai) here is some further reading, or imported from trading partners in the Mediterranean. Both sources are clearly and repeatedly mentioned in inscriptions in Egypt.

Whilst writing I have also been googling, and I though you ought to read this. Most of what is claimed about ancient Michigan copper mining is apparently myth, including any global trading. Written by Dr Martin of Michigan Technological University Archaeological department.

You mention something tragic happening 10,000 years ago which nearly destroyed us.......That is pretty much exactly the time that the last ice age ended and human population number started to rise as a result. The ice age was clearly an enormous constraint on populations of most mammals, including us.

There have been huge global crises for the human population, but the last major one is theorised to have been 70,000 years ago rather than 10,000.

I am not sure where all this is getting us, other than giving me a few minutes of interesting research and memory-jogging. Maybe it just shows that "facts" are always worth checking, and that the simplest explanation is generally the most likely (lex parsimoniae).

Mike

Edited December 27, 2011 by MikeG

[Guest exnihilo]

There is a lot of evidence for an asteroidal or cometary impact on the North American ice sheet around 12,000 years ago, perhaps as a decisive factor in bringing the last ice age to a close. Setting aside the worldwide cultural evidence of a ubiquitous 'great flood' there is a layer of algae across the southern US that may correlate with a massive inundation around that time frame. This catastrophe would naturally coincide with the rise of 'Clovis' people out of prior, apparently distinct cultures (that presumably might represent different ethnicities). In any case micronesians have been genetically identified in South America as a remnant of an earlier, displaced population of the Americas. So perhaps the truth is a bit stranger than you might guess, or even can imagine.

Edited December 27, 2011 by exnihilo

[Guest BuzzardEater]

First, Peace on Earth and goodwill to man.

To begin, there are forty thousand kinds of spider in our database. Each is distinct. We have a spider for every occasion!

What is enlightenment? Is it the higher state of being that creators live in? What is a creator? I put it to you, we are! We achieved enlightenment the first time we grew an ear on a mouse's butt!

Who are the UFOs? Shoppers crashing the doors down before the Grand Opening. Why are they here? To buy, BUY,BUY!

What are we selling? Anything you want. Any spider. Any rodent. Any fish. A creature with any feature. Buy now, pay later!*

Why now? Well, the planetary economy is running out of inertia. Everyone except China is de facto bankrupt.

*Where does Bigfoot fit in? We are able to offer a weapons platform of unprecedented power and survivability! They have fully evolved nightsight and come in many sizes, anything you want from a small and agile but really viscious bare hander right up to our ten foot minimum eight hundred pound BattleBeast! We can equip them with a variety of weapons packs and configure for any gravity. BUY NOW!

_{This offer only good to December 2012. Void where prohibited.}

Edited December 27, 2011 by BuzzardEater

[Guest]

Those were question's I'd seen before in my travels on the internet, but you really did them justice Data. As long as we're ''floating'' questions I'll admit I get to eye-rolling when it comes to the thought everything that happens that we can't explain must be tied to mining our minerals.....don't know why it irks me, but it does.

So to your list I'm going to add-

What if Homo Erectus was the experiment and BF the original? Supposing we were the lab-rats who got out, bred like bunnies and Bigfoot can't get us back in the box, so to speak. No I'm not making fun of your post, that's a real question.

...or our oil for that matter

"What if..." Well, thats quite what SITCHIN is "translating" in his books. Thats a big cornerstone for some alternative history people. But you hit the point I was trying to make. Bring up a complete Idea or hypotheses and not just a worthless mistery.

What would it be worth if we find out that more than statistically expected BF witnesses drive a BMW? What would the BMW/BF relation help us? And the UFO/BF relation is the same for me. If the pro UFO/BF people bring up a Idea lets discuss it. But as you see, your the only one until now who have brought up something like this.

If someone comes up with a Idea that has a solution for the basic questions this relation throws up, Iam fine.

[Guest]

Data....Sitchin's a twit.

....Crickets......everyone copy just in case I get edited...lol. While new theories are interesting to me, he panders to the ''let's channel et's/ higher beings'' ect and hardly a day goes by I don't want to slap him. Pandering to folks looking for answers is lazy.

But like I said, grin....you had a very well spoken post above and this ought to be a great thread.

[Guest Dr. Boogie]

I think I just thought of a link between UFO's and Bigfoot. Personally, I always seem more aware of the sky when I'm in the open countryside or forest. In the city there are just too many other distractions, not to mention light pollution. Where do Bigfoot sightings usually take place? In the countryside and forest. Perhaps those in a position to see or look for Bigfoot are also in a place where they are more aware of what's happening in the sky? That might be a simple explanation as to why some people think there are more UFO sightings in places where Bigfoot is also sighted?

[Guest]

I do not necessarily believe Bigfoot is any smarter than us,I am not not sure it is any less intelligent than us. Your examples are all prime examples of a biased belief, based on a notion of superiority because we like to build things, and always crave "easier". We like to feel "superior", we all see it everyday,on every level. There attitudes and misconceptions carry over into our science, and make us come to what we consider"obvious" reasoning,is more "comfortable" reasoning.

Antfoot, I am just tossing stuff around here,,please don't take any offense,to me its all part of learning.

As I said earlier, everyone may have a bias but we do not all have the same bias. The very example of the this thread shows varying biases. You are every bit as biased towards a bigfoot that outwits humanity as I am towards peanut butter and jelly sandwiches. But my thinking is less based on a personal belief and more on the evidence that I have read. I have over the years come to believe that evolution is true and that BF is probably a fellow hominid evolved from a common ancestor with us. What that ancestor was or how long ago we separated is unknown to me and I have no bias towards any particular answer. From what I've seen of the BF reports including the Patterson film I suspect that they are australopithecine and that they have a crest of bone and muscle over the tops of their skulls. This would reduce the available room for a more sizable brain. This suggests to me that their brains are similar to the brains of gorillas and chimpanzees. I am not biased towards this idea just working with the knowledge available so far. If more compelling data comes along I will alter my thoughts on the matter but from what I know now they aren't particularly more intelligent than apes. I do suppose that it is possible that something else is going on but I have no ideas to that just yet. Perhaps they have a different brain structure than we do that makes them smarter than us, who knows? I am open to the possibilities. But BF's existence and behavior doesn't seem to be anything unlike ape behavior. It's just what I see. I am perhaps a little biased towards scientific thinking because science does work. Perhaps angels did it or UFOs but there is little to no evidence for those ideas yet. I am trying to be objective and that means keeping an eye on my biases. Which I try to do. As do scientists. Not always successfully but the competing biases and objectivity of other scientists does help to move us towards the truth.

[Guest MikeG]

Darwin's atheism was certainly an influence on his theory, as it was on most of the people who forget its a theory and accept it as fact.

John,

this is wrong on both counts, I'm afraid. In fact, on all three counts if you include the suggestion that most people who accept Darwinism are atheist as you seem to imply. Could you cite some evidence for this assertion, please?

Darwin wasn't an atheist when he started on his life's work, but as he developed his understanding of how species evolved, so began his questioning of faith leading ultimately to what he called his "agnosticism". It is twisting history to say that atheism influenced his work, and twisting history to make a point should be avoided at all costs. He actually studied theology at University with a view to becoming a priest, and even on the Beagle he wrote of looking for "centres of creation".

This old chestnut about science "theories" surely has been dealt with a thousand times. Mentally, replace the word "theory" with the word "theorem" and you will have a truer picture. To be accepted as a theory is the highest form of acceptance that there is in science. So, evolution is not "only a theory".......it has the highest degree of acceptance that science can give to anything. As someone else said, gravity is also a theory. The sun-centred solar system is a theory. A spheroidal planet Earth is a theory. Two hydrogen molecules combine with one oxygen molecule to make water, in theory.

Mike

Edited December 27, 2011 by MikeG