Guest Posted January 1, 2011 Share Posted January 1, 2011 So, since you didn't see him(?) doing anything paranormal, do you think it is impossible that he could have if he had wanted to? The easiest answer is usually the right one. Nothing is impossible, but why make this mystery more difficult? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 1, 2011 Share Posted January 1, 2011 I just give up, this thread is doomed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted January 1, 2011 Share Posted January 1, 2011 Nothing is impossible, but why make this mystery more difficult? Right. I couldn't have said it better myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 1, 2011 Share Posted January 1, 2011 The paranormal explanation is lazy. The answer should be that if I don't understand or can't see the answer,it must be paranormal? What have you seen that may be interpreted as paranormal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted January 1, 2011 Share Posted January 1, 2011 I could write a book on what I've seen, heard, & felt. But I don't think (as Splash7 worded it), I want to open that can of worms. There is plenty of information to be found on the subject if you look for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 1, 2011 Share Posted January 1, 2011 I could write a book on what I've seen, heard, & felt. But I don't think (as Splash7 worded it), I want to open that can of worms. There is plenty of information to be found on the subject if you look for it. I would only be interested in what you have SEEN. The heard and felt things are open to personal interpretation. If you do not want to discuss it openly then why bring it up at all? If you are shy or fear ridicule then you can PM me. I will keep it private. I am not interested in looking up information on Bigfoot being paranormal, because I have not encountered anything in my field work that would point me in that direction. You are welcome to try to change my thought process. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted January 1, 2011 Share Posted January 1, 2011 OK. I'll PM you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Blackdog Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 (edited) I'd sure like to see those "holes in Crowley's "theory" big enough to sink the Titanic" too. Come on Mulder (not Melissa, this is for Mulder only), I want to see your interpretation of both reports detailing how Melissa's report sunk Crowley's theory to the bottom of the sea. Details please. Edited January 4, 2011 by Blackdog Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 I don't feel any need to repost what Melissa has already posted and done. All this is is a passive-agressive attempt to divert attention away from Melissa's data by repeated demands for the exact same information that has already been made available to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wolftrax Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 Ok, so far what I have seen is that Melissa believes ridged casting artifacts are caused by entrained air and particulate size. Considering that the patterns and ridge size match between casting artifact tests and "Squatch dermals" how exactly does her explanation show that "Squatch dermals" are not casting artifacts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 There is currently a dedicated thread dealing with the dermatoglyphs/casting artifacts subject, and this subject matter has already resulted in one cooling off period for this wider focused thread. I respectfully request from proponents and skeptics alike that we move on or keep that specific subject in BM's thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Spazmo Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 Yes, I'd like to see the same thing as Infoman mentioned, and I'm asking as nicely as I possibly can. Can we please keep that discussion to the thread BM created for it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest fenris Posted January 4, 2011 Share Posted January 4, 2011 I don't feel any need to repost what Melissa has already posted and done. All this is is a passive-agressive attempt to divert attention away from Melissa's data by repeated demands for the exact same information that has already been made available to you. It's also not 2006 or the BFF 1.0. Maybe discuss the topic and not the politics of the past. Just a thought for the new year.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted May 12, 2017 Share Posted May 12, 2017 On 12/11/2010 at 0:18 PM, Guest said: The saying goes that a picture is worth a thousand words, so I have posted some photos I took on a cross country flight my daughter and I took from San Diego to our home in Albququerque a couple months ago as an example. This flight covered about 600 miles by air, and had us fly over San Diego, Phoenix and then Albuquerque, but between these population centers there were huge expanses of sparsely populated land. Some of these shots were less than 20 miles from cities with half a million or more people in them. I'd say that anyone who has ever been in an airliner, looked out the windows, and thought about it knows that the habitat argument is shot to hell before it even starts. "But most of that is desert!" Inhabited by: coyote, bear, elk, deer, feral horse, burro...and that's just a start on the *large* animals... My problem is that no "skeptical" argument is based on logic. Just a sampling: - "Someone would have X by now." That presumes that no one has; and that had someone, we would all know. There's no logical reason to presume that. - "No fossils." Patently false; there are at least two extinct primate lines of high suspicion. Besides which no scientist would allow this in their own field, knowing that fossilization is fabulously rare, and that what we have found is only *so far.* - "People hallucinate/mis-identify/lie etc." Assumptions, all of them, and refuted by the volume and consistency of reports. This is invalid. One must prove these things are being done. Or else one has no argument. - Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WSA Posted May 15, 2017 Share Posted May 15, 2017 Since I'm currently reading Lee Berger's book on the discovery of A. sediba and H. naledi, it has been on my mind to see what the lessons of those discoveries might bring to this debate. It has some points to ponder on a couple of issues shared with the BF question, and the point of this thread. Fossil Remains: I of course always knew this on some level, but Berger's book really brings home the reality of just how small the entire fossil record is for our ancestral hominids and those collaterally related to us. Vanishingly small...like (up until the discovery of H. naledi) you could pretty much put it in a good sized shoebox, or at least a small suitcase. And this is presumably the total record of multi-species comprised of possibly billions of individuals over millions of years. Think about too about the thousands and thousands of man-hours invested in trying to find just this small amount of bones. The greater point being, of course, BF science has never had that kind of effort brought to bear on it. The places that effort has been expended is not (as far as we know) where BF fossils are likely to occur either, so the serendipitous find is off the table as well. In fact, we don't even know where that place is, if it exists at all. It is sort of obvious, but in order to find something, it has to exist. Might BF exist, but the fossil record for it does not? Or, if it is so small a record, could finding any trace of it be virtually unlikely to ever occur? Either way, you get no bones. Lack of a Body: Another lesson from the discovery of H. naledi. The only conclusion the team of scientists could reach about how the multiple individuals came to be all together in that remote chamber of the Rising Star cave is that they were deliberately placed there after their death. They were put there systematically, over a long period of time. This was done by a species with a brain 1/3 the size of ours. It took considerable effort and intention to do that the first time, and afterwards it became a cultural process they obviously did over and over again. Maybe the species had been doing it for millennia, or maybe they were unique and this was aberrational behavior, we just don't know at this point. But only due to a chance encounter by a caver who was looking for bones like those do we even know about it. Most fossil caches occur in Africa due to animal predation and scavenging, especially by leopards. These naledi bones were out of reach of animals, which might have been the purpose for their interment. Even more remarkable, somebody had been in that chamber of that cave in modern times...they found a cave survey marker attached to a wall...but made no note of the bones lying around. This goes to show you... not only do you need to have a person in the right place, but they must also be looking for what is there. That, and also that hominids are sneaky. You never know what they might do, probably something you don't expect, and it will take you a long, long time to figure it out. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts