Rockape Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 I once thought Bigfoot was probably real. A few people claimed to have seen something incredible. Some tracks were found. Then, the idea of Bigfoot was spread, first by "men's entertainment" magazines, then books, film, and later, and most importantly, by television, especially content starved cable television. Now, Bigfoot is literally everywhere. I live in a major city, Dallas, and I have found sighting reports originating in open areas only 45 minutes north and south from where I am sitting now. Stories of Bigfoot existed for hundreds of years before that. In my eyes there are 2 different options for Bigfoot. They are either supernatural or they do not exist. It just seems entirely impossible for a breeding population to be "sighted" in every state in the US, over 100 years, and not have a shred of verifiable evidence. And since I do not believe in the supernatural, I think you know where I come out on this...What say you? So everyone who has gone on record over the last hundred or more years who say they have saw/encountered them are either lying, crazy, mistaken or just making it up? That doesn't wash with me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 Go back to Pliny, Gilgemesh, Greek gods, trolls, etc. and there is a common thread that the phenomenon of the hairy man in the woods has been around since written word began, and most human cultures. This isn't a recent invention. http://bigfootforums.com/index.php?/topic/29570-historical-evidence-for-the-existence-of-relect-hominoids/ The concept of "paranormal" I think may be overblown. It is simply our way of describing things we don't understand. Primitive people thought guns were magic, but we understand the technology so they aren't magic to us. Certain aspects of "high strangeness" that has been associated with BF are observations made by humans that aren't privy to how what they are observing is possible, so "paranormal" is the catch phrase that is used. For example, if BF indeed does communicate with mindspeak as some folks claim, then how is it possible? On this issue I'm an open minded skeptic and it leads me to ask questions regarding how the perception transfer happens. If it is real, then I don't think it is "magic" nor is it "paranormal", I think it simply is what it is and we don't yet understand how it functions or how to use it. We might not have the biology to support full use of it, so for humans to understand it would be like trying to get a fish to understand climbing mountains. We used to speculate that elephants must have some kind of ESP because they seemed to coordinate movements between herds that were over 50 miles apart. Now we are just beginning to understand that the majority of their communication is in the infrasound range, below human hearing, and infrasound travels long distances through the ground. They lay their trunk on the ground and it makes an excellent infrasound microphone. It isn't paranormal, its just abilities of another biological entity that humans don't have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest MikeG Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 Spot on BFS.......take a +1 from me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salubrious Posted June 1, 2012 Moderator Share Posted June 1, 2012 In my eyes there are 2 different options for Bigfoot. They are either supernatural or they do not exist. It just seems entirely impossible for a breeding population to be "sighted" in every state in the US, over 100 years, and not have a shred of verifiable evidence. And since I do not believe in the supernatural, I think you know where I come out on this...What say you? Nah. I saw two of them from about 8 feet. They are real enough. Could have taken my truck apart if they wanted to. I think they have abilities that most humans don't understand, but nothing supernatural, any more than regular humans. OTOH, 'most humans' don't understand the abilities that humans have with regards to camouflage, stalking, movement in the forest, sensing motion through concentric rings in the forest, etc. Plain clueless when it comes to that, how in the heck is such an individual supposed to see something that is really expert at hiding?? FB/FB makes one really good point in this regard- they hide even at night. We are talking about a creature that is easily at the top of the food chain. Such a predator would also be expert at hiding and in particular not giving away its position, not if it wants to eat. Most of the sightings out there are accidents on the part of BF. A few are on account of intention, and its those that point to the fact that these guys are intelligent and should not be assumed that normal techniques for finding a dumb animal are going to work. That has been our M.O. for the last 50-60 years and its obviously not worked. We get out-maneuvered so fast in the forest its sad, and 99 44/100ths percent of the time we have no clue. Bone up on your tracking skills, stalking and movement, natural camouflage (any manufactured camo is for the birds and worthless) and your chances of an experience will go up. Or you could just get 'lucky', if that is the right word (could be an alternate meaning of the word you may not have been previously aware of; don't assume they are friendly) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rockape Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 (edited) Go back to Pliny, Gilgemesh, Greek gods, trolls, etc. and there is a common thread that the phenomenon of the hairy man in the woods has been around since written word began, and most human cultures. This isn't a recent invention. http://bigfootforums...lect-hominoids/ The concept of "paranormal" I think may be overblown. It is simply our way of describing things we don't understand. Primitive people thought guns were magic, but we understand the technology so they aren't magic to us. Certain aspects of "high strangeness" that has been associated with BF are observations made by humans that aren't privy to how what they are observing is possible, so "paranormal" is the catch phrase that is used. For example, if BF indeed does communicate with mindspeak as some folks claim, then how is it possible? On this issue I'm an open minded skeptic and it leads me to ask questions regarding how the perception transfer happens. If it is real, then I don't think it is "magic" nor is it "paranormal", I think it simply is what it is and we don't yet understand how it functions or how to use it. We might not have the biology to support full use of it, so for humans to understand it would be like trying to get a fish to understand climbing mountains. We used to speculate that elephants must have some kind of ESP because they seemed to coordinate movements between herds that were over 50 miles apart. Now we are just beginning to understand that the majority of their communication is in the infrasound range, below human hearing, and infrasound travels long distances through the ground. They lay their trunk on the ground and it makes an excellent infrasound microphone. It isn't paranormal, its just abilities of another biological entity that humans don't have. I think the use of sound is an interesting possibility and a likely one. It could be something they learned is a valuable tool for them, both in hunting and avoiding detection. Some Native Americans believed BF could "put you in a trance", or "hypnotize" you. I've always attributed that (if it does happen) to the "shock" of seeing something you aren't expecting and can't explain, in this case a bigfoot. It freezes you for a moment, just long enough for them to get away. But that could also be explained by the use of sound. A bit "out there" I admit but as shown with the case of elephants and I'm sure more animals it is possible. It could also explain some of the "paranormal" aspects some apply to BF. Edited June 1, 2012 by Rockape Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 Ever had the notion that we're dealing with an intelligent species that has an unprecedented ability to evade us? You want the answer? Get out in the field, persistently. That's the only way you're going to know at this point. This right here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 I have four options. 1. Intelligent and highly adapted humanoid being. 2. Includes above , but with supernatural abilities. 3. One **** lucky bipedal Gorilla. 4. Nonexistence. Nonexistence is last, if I ever get there then I'll have little interest and will move on. I would go by Occam's Razor for this one. #1 seems to be the simplest option as apposed to #2. #2 serves only to complicate #1. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 I don't see why the "stunning" mechanism wouldn't be possible or even probable. Several animals have this capability and use it to either hunt with or as an escape device. If you never developed weapons or fire, you would have to have some sort of defensive mechanism that enabled you to continue as a species. I have never seen one that I am aware of but I do believe they exist. I can easily imagine modern humans behaving close to the same as reported (except for the size), if we were exposed to the wild for just a couple of generations. The size and needed breeding population are the only things that give me pause. It takes a lot of protein to maintain the size/bulk often reported of these beings and, to me, that means meat...and alot of it. If a species injests that much meat to maintain the protein level necessary to sustain that kind of bulk, it should mean they also develope large brains...and large brains equal fire and tools. Then there is the needed population necessary to maintain a viable populations without degradation due to inbreeding etc. I figure for North america alone that has to be upwards of 15K breeding age beings give a life expectancy of 45-50 years (not going to live much longer without dental care). Am I off base? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 I would go by Occam's Razor for this one. #1 seems to be the simplest option as apposed to #2. #2 serves only to complicate #1. #2 only offers the idea that we may not be able to explain all of it's abilities at this time. It is counterpart to the idea that if it exists it has defied reason and current understanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 (edited) Then there is the needed population necessary to maintain a viable populations without degradation due to inbreeding etc. I figure for North america alone that has to be upwards of 15K breeding age beings give a life expectancy of 45-50 years (not going to live much longer without dental care). Am I off base? Some data puts the population at 2000 to 6000 in North America. IMO, life expectancy could be a touch higher due to extreme intelligence & its profound physiology (strength, senses, etc.) Edited June 1, 2012 by Sommersby Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 If we take FB/FB's mantra, that BF is a reality and we are left to explain how they remain hidden, that might get to the core of the point that southernyahoo is trying to make. IMHO there are too many credible sighting reports, trackways, etc. to dismiss BF as a reality, so it does then beg the question of how they can be extant and still be so elusive. The OP seems to indicate that the only option is to proclaim that it must be "supernatural", which by definition can be dismissed as outlandish. I think what SY and I are trying to say is that they have likely have abilities that we don't fully understand or comprehend. To then classify it as some sort of magic supernatural thing isn't necessary. I think they are very intelligent, have language, and have woods craft and physical attributes that compared to humans is extraordinary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WesT Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 We're on the same page BFS. A friend of mine, who you'll never find on the internet because he spends all his free time gathering and looking for evidence, had his first sighting about a month ago. He only saw it from the waiste up and said it didn't run in a straight line but zig-zagged away through the forest. He described the running pattern and speed he observed as super-human. I told him it sounded to me like, that what he couldn't see, was it was pushing off of trees to abruptly change direction as it ran. So what appears to be super-natural, more than likely has a natural explanation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 That reminds me of an observation of a BF that was running down a hill and turned 90º in an instant by putting a foot out and leaping off a tree. Makes me wonder why they would exhibit this behavior? There isn't any other animal on the planet that would be a threat to them that would require this kind of escape and evasion maneuver unless they already know that humans can shoot at them. Much of the supernatural claims might simply be extraordinary athleticism. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest WesT Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 I want to call it ground braciation because it's like swinging through the trees except on the ground. There isn't any other animal that is a threat to them now. But during the last ice age there were a lot of mega-fauna predators to run from and be fearful of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted June 1, 2012 Share Posted June 1, 2012 (edited) In my eyes there are 2 different options for Bigfoot. They are either supernatural or they do not exist. It just seems entirely impossible for a breeding population to be "sighted" in every state in the US, over 100 years, and not have a shred of verifiable evidence. And since I do not believe in the supernatural, I think you know where I come out on this...What say you? A ) That "either/or" thinking is a hallmark of illogic. and B ) that you, like many others, leave yourself plenty of "wiggle room" by inserting self-defined words like "verifiable" as adjective to evidence. Well, that may be the truth as you see it and how it all unfolded from your perspective. But the FACT is, it's a subject that has been around a long time. The defining characteristic of the figure is its "wildness"; from the 12th century they were consistently depicted as being covered with hair. Images of wild men appear in the carved and painted roof bosses where intersecting ogee vaults meet in the Canterbury Cathedral, in positions where one is also likely to encounter the vegetal Green Man. Source I've always been fond of this one: http://www.bfro.net/...kmair_small.jpg (sorry, upload doesn't seem to be working right now) Edited June 2, 2012 by MikeG poss. perjorative adjusted Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts