Does A Bigfoot/ufo Connection Exist?

[Guest Alpinist]

Define UFO ... because that's a problem here

People generally immediately assume it means ship with occupants - WRONG

What most people see in Bigfoot territory are anomalous lights in either the sky or the forest. In my case and with several others I have spoken to, we are observing spheres of plasma like pure energy, which navigates the atmosphere with intelligence. There is definitely a correlation between these plasma sphere's and active bigfoot territory. What type of linkage one could assign to this, is in the realm of speculation.

The plasma spheres technically are UFO's, but clearly they are not metallic ships with ET's inside, though they do possess intelligences. All of which leads to another problem ... Define Extraterrestrial ....

[Guest]

"the extreme difficulty or rather impossibility of conceiving this immense and wonderful universe, including man with his capacity of looking far backwards and far into futurity, as the result of blind chance or necessity. When thus reflecting I feel compelled to look to a First Cause having an intelligent mind in some degree analogous to that of man; and I deserve to be called a Theist. This conclusion was strong in my mind about the time, as far as I can remember, when I wrote the Origin of Species; and it is since that time that it has very gradually with many fluctuations become weaker."

"In my most extreme fluctuations I have never been an Atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God. I think that generally (and more and more as I grow older), but not always, that an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind."

Quotes from Darwin

ag·nos·tic

   /ægˈnɒstɪk/ Show Spelled[ag-nos-tik] Show IPA

noun

1.

a person who holds that the existence of the ultimate cause, as God, and the essential nature of things are unknown and unknowable, or that human knowledge is limited to experience. Synonyms: disbeliever, nonbeliever, unbeliever; doubter, skeptic, secularist, empiricist; heathen, heretic, infidel, pagan.

Instead of considering design by a higher power,Darwin choose accident and logical obfuscation instead, and I am not saying he is wrong, I am saying he lacked objectivity, because its obvious he had a predetermined out come in mind. Selective adaptation is obvious, it occurs all the time,overall evolution is not so obvious.

"Andrew Knoll, a professor at Harvard explains an obstacle to the claim that RNA was the material from which life was formed. No RNA was available:

"Worst of all, even if we could produce the right components, combining them to form nucleotides, the building blocks of nucleic acids, is daunting. To date, no one has figured out how to do it."

Knoll is admitting here that no one can yet make the nucleotides which are the building blocks of RNA and DNA. Even if a competent scientist had all the right parts to start out with, he could not put them together to make even the nucleotide building blocks of RNA, let alone RNA itself. This information is vital to understanding any discussion of the origin of life. Try to find a public school biology book that admits that, and you will get an idea of what censorship is all about.

Knoll's quote continues:

"There is still another difficulty. Nucleotides are chiral molecules, which is to say that they come in two forms which are mirror images of each other-like your hands. RNA can be built from right-handed or left-handed molecules, but mixed chains won"t grow. How then could RNA-which in cells consists exclusively of right handed nucleotides-have emerged from a fifty-fifty mixture of left- and right-handed building blocks? Again, no one knows.

The problems are so difficult that many researchers have given up on the idea that RNA was the primordial molecule of life." {Andrew H. Knoll, Life on a Young Earth, 2003, p. 79.}

Others, instead of giving up on RNA, and deciding that life must have been formed by some simpler chemical, claim that RNA may have formed on some clay which served as a template on which RNA was built. They cite experiments which have shown that when a scientist places fresh building blocks of RNA (nucleotides) on clay daily, some will connect to form short strings. {Editor: JW Schopf, Life's Origin, James P. Ferris, "From Building Blocks to the Polymers of Life," 2002, p. 123.} When this information filters down to the school book level, it often sounds easy, but in reality, finding a scientist who would have been able to place fresh nucleotides on the clay every day before there were any living cells would have been a bit difficult because:

* Scientists can"t make nucleotides in the laboratory.

*

* In nature nucleotides are never produced except by living cells"

Now I am not presenting this stuff as personal beliefs, I am simply putting it here to show that evolution is a theory, and accepting it as concrete fact, is again, an example of our beliefs affecting our ability to think objectively without bias.

[Guest]

Dang double post

In Darwin's times, it was much safer and easier to not out right "deny" God

I think we should get back to the Ufo/Bigfoot connection anyways, otherwise we will be cut and pasting for weeks.

Edited December 27, 2011 by JohnC

[Guest Jodie]

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

Actually I was talking about unsmelted copper ore. It is quite easy to trace samples back to their source. I can Google too, but don't believe everything you read on the internet. It depends on who you want to believe when it comes to "facts" regarding ancient American History. If you had done more research you would have found that estimates of how much ore was removed from that mine previously is not not known , but evidence of mining goes back much later than the NA and it is anyone's guess as to how much ore has been removed overall, it is no myth.

The only thing I meant to accomplish by bringing up that example is to illustrate that global trade occured much sooner than anyone thinks and that there was a previous connection with the Americas prior to Columbus. If you want to accept that modern humans took 199,900 years to suddenly develop a modern civilization that would be your choice, but I'm not buying it. I am surely not giving aliens credit for it as someone referred to Sitchin earlier in the thread.

I believe we have had to start over many times as a result of natural disasters, you are free to think otherwise. But if you look into the history that is not Euro/Anglo centric you might be a little more open minded about the possibility. I suggest you read the material yourself if you can find good translations, and draw your own conclusions, as opposed to relying on other people's interpretation of events.

[Sasfooty]

What most people see in Bigfoot territory are anomalous lights in either the sky or the forest. In my case and with several others I have spoken to, we are observing spheres of plasma like pure energy, which navigates the atmosphere with intelligence. There is definitely a correlation between these plasma sphere's and active bigfoot territory. What type of linkage one could assign to this, is in the realm of speculation.

I would love to hear some speculation as to why these these plasma spheres, and other orbs, drift around in some people's back yards.

Mike said "the simplest explanation is generally the most likely", so what is the simplest explanation for this phenomena?

[Guest Alpinist]

When I say "Plasma Spheres I mean 1 to 2 foot diameter entities. We were able to gage the distance and aproximate size of these 3 entities by moving 15 feet to side and observing the relative change in position to the background trees.

As to speculation, well I'd probably be laughed off of a UFO forum if I said what I heard that these things might be ....

Edited December 28, 2011 by Alpinist

[Guest Bluegrass Sas]

Define UFO ... because that's a problem here

People generally immediately assume it means ship with occupants - WRONG

What most people see in Bigfoot territory are anomalous lights in either the sky or the forest. In my case and with several others I have spoken to, we are observing spheres of plasma like pure energy, which navigates the atmosphere with intelligence. There is definitely a correlation between these plasma sphere's and active bigfoot territory. What type of linkage one could assign to this, is in the realm of speculation.

The plasma spheres technically are UFO's, but clearly they are not metallic ships with ET's inside, though they do possess intelligences. All of which leads to another problem ... Define Extraterrestrial ....

Thank you, Alpinist.

I blame pop-culture for people making the consistent leap from a mere unidentified flying object, all the way to extraterrrestial biological entities.

Nearly 2 decades ago I saw one of these Plasma like spheres for probably a good minute. The one I observed was a brilliant white, and did seem to have intelligent movements to it. The light went off once(almost like hitting a light switch). Then back on, before turning off again and slowly moving off to the south. I could make out a vague sphere in the sky even while the light was off. But i never got the impression i was looking at any mechanical or constructed vehicle.

But here's the kicker.. It was within maybe 2 miles or less from an area known as the Pope Lick railroad trestles where the "Goatman" was encountered for decades(See Kentuckybigfoot.com/ spencer county).

I believe that there is some unique environmental factors, that could be creating electromagnetic anomolies that could explain these "hotspots." I would love to hit some of the bigfoot sighting hotspots with a Gauss meter, after a sighting.

As far as the Darwinism debate goes. IMHO as a agnostic, I'll gladly concede microevolutionary adaptions. But the some of the Macroevolutionary leaps suggested are laughable, without demonstrable proof. Yes, science has "laws."(think Newtonian). Also, lets please not equate the often more demonstrable hard sciences(physics/chemistry etc.) theories, with the "stamp collecting," theories, which are often missing far to much postage to deliver.

[Guest Jodie]

I thought about the electromagnetic aspect of it too, although I have not seen any glow balls close enough to say exactly what they were in my area. I did see that one flying amoeba thingy that I don't think had anything to do with extraterrestrials, but could possibly be another cryptid creature that lives in the atmosphere. Maybe they just tend to share the same kind of environment with bigfoot, coincidentally.

I suggested using a meter three years ago on another forum, but I don't know if anyone has ever tried it. Another thing I noticed is that bigfoot tends to be seen around fault lines, not always active, which is where these plasma balls are also seen. Now Sasfooty says she isn't aware of any fault lines near her, but I do have a large one not far north of me. Then there is the piezoelectric qualities that quartz and potassium have, so you could try looking at the mineral content of the soil/rocks in those areas.

Piezoelectric principles are used in sonar and ultrasound devices. Interestingly enough, not only does quartz and certain other crystals have this affect but the collagen in bone does also. This may tie into the infrasound theories regarding bigfoot, if it is true. The use of infrasound may affect the surrounding area if high in quartz, potassium, or certain other minerals creating the plasma balls as some kind of by product. I don't know enough about it or how you would test something like that in a bigfoot hotspot.

[JDL]

I would love to hear some speculation as to why these these plasma spheres, and other orbs, drift around in some people's back yards.

Mike said "the simplest explanation is generally the most likely", so what is the simplest explanation for this phenomena?

Let's say you've got a fault line through conductive minerals bearing significant pressures. The pressure creates a piezoelectric effect which generates a magnetic field. The magnetic field radiates into the air above and induces a photochemical reaction in ionized air. As the magnetic field fluctuates, the induced photochemical reaction appears to move.

This can only happen, though, if you have a source of ionization, and for this, of course, you need to have bigfoot creating static charges by grooming themselves with pinecones.

Jodie, GMTA

[Guest Jodie]

I see, only minus the pine cone theory.

[Guest MikeG]

Instead of considering design by a higher power,Darwin choose accident and logical obfuscation instead, and I am not saying he is wrong, I am saying he lacked objectivity, because its obvious he had a predetermined out come in mind.

Could you please back up this rather strange assertion?

Mike

[Guest FuriousGeorge]

Who came up with the term "Plasma Sphere"? That term was already coined for something else. http://plasmasphere.nasa.gov/ Thumbs down for originality.

[Sasfooty]

When I say "Plasma Spheres I mean 1 to 2 foot diameter entities. We were able to gage the distance and aproximate size of these 3 entities by moving 15 feet to side and observing the relative change in position to the background trees.

As to speculation, well I'd probably be laughed off of a UFO forum if I said what I heard that these things might be ....

Do you mean something like these?

I wouldn't laugh & would love to hear what you heard. You can PM me if you don't want to say in public.

[Guest Jodie]

Who came up with the term "Plasma Sphere"? That term was already coined for something else. http://plasmasphere.nasa.gov/ Thumbs down for originality.

Assuming it's plasma and the balls of light are sphere's, what else would you call it? Ball Lightening? That usually occurs with storms. I had an encounter with one that came through our television when I was a small child. It was orange/blue/and white and it made a sizzling noise. It chased me across the kitchen/den before it hit the antenna wire running through a crack in the sliding glass door and went outside.

[Guest]

Instead of considering design by a higher power,Darwin choose accident and logical obfuscation instead, and I am not saying he is wrong, I am saying he lacked objectivity, because its obvious he had a predetermined out come in mind. Selective adaptation is obvious, it occurs all the time,overall evolution is not so obvious.

"overall evolution" is only regular "selective adaptation" over a long period of time. There are no barriers to this at all. "Overall evolution" is simply the obvious extension of natural selection and nothing more.

Darwin's possible religious thinking (or lack thereof) is irrelevent when compared to the logical simplicity and effectiveness of the theory of evolution. This theory works and describes quite well what is found in the fossil record and genetically. This is incredible evidence for the validity of the theory as fossils were not expected to be very common in Darwin's day and genetics was completely unknown. How could his theory account for the genetic resemblances and differences between differing species if evolution was false? How would the historical appearances of fossils be explained if evolution was untrue? Simpler species appear first and later more complex species occur and then later even more complex species arrive. This is evolutionary in its implications. If we wish to make any sense of bigfoot and the other unknown hominoids out there we need to use evolutionary thinking to refine the searches.

"Andrew Knoll, a professor at Harvard explains an obstacle to the claim that RNA was the material from which life was formed. No RNA was available:

"Worst of all, even if we could produce the right components, combining them to form nucleotides, the building blocks of nucleic acids, is daunting. To date, no one has figured out how to do it."

Knoll is admitting here that no one can yet make the nucleotides which are the building blocks of RNA and DNA. Even if a competent scientist had all the right parts to start out with, he could not put them together to make even the nucleotide building blocks of RNA, let alone RNA itself. This information is vital to understanding any discussion of the origin of life. Try to find a public school biology book that admits that, and you will get an idea of what censorship is all about.

Knoll's quote continues:

"There is still another difficulty. Nucleotides are chiral molecules, which is to say that they come in two forms which are mirror images of each other-like your hands. RNA can be built from right-handed or left-handed molecules, but mixed chains won"t grow. How then could RNA-which in cells consists exclusively of right handed nucleotides-have emerged from a fifty-fifty mixture of left- and right-handed building blocks? Again, no one knows.

The problems are so difficult that many researchers have given up on the idea that RNA was the primordial molecule of life." {Andrew H. Knoll, Life on a Young Earth, 2003, p. 79.}

Others, instead of giving up on RNA, and deciding that life must have been formed by some simpler chemical, claim that RNA may have formed on some clay which served as a template on which RNA was built. They cite experiments which have shown that when a scientist places fresh building blocks of RNA (nucleotides) on clay daily, some will connect to form short strings. {Editor: JW Schopf, Life's Origin, James P. Ferris, "From Building Blocks to the Polymers of Life," 2002, p. 123.} When this information filters down to the school book level, it often sounds easy, but in reality, finding a scientist who would have been able to place fresh nucleotides on the clay every day before there were any living cells would have been a bit difficult because:

* Scientists can"t make nucleotides in the laboratory.

*

* In nature nucleotides are never produced except by living cells"

Now I am not presenting this stuff as personal beliefs, I am simply putting it here to show that evolution is a theory, and accepting it as concrete fact, is again, an example of our beliefs affecting our ability to think objectively without bias.

The Earth is believed by science to be approximately 4.5 billion years old.

The oldest fossils are approximately 3.5 billion years old.

That leaves a gap of approximately 1 billion years for the world to get something.

Humans have only been trying to figure how life arose chemically for about a hundred years now.