Guest Peter O. Posted July 25, 2012 Posted July 25, 2012 (edited) This is the first time I've heard it suggested that BF is evil. No animal is evil, that doesn't make any sense. Could you please elaborate? edit: Not even humans are evil, in general, though specific ones do come to mind. But I don't want to prove Godwin's Law Edited July 25, 2012 by Peter O.
Guest Posted July 25, 2012 Posted July 25, 2012 Something along the lines of "Eaters of the Dead" We have heard the ape in the woods theory for over, what now 40+ years, and those who have followed that ideology have gotten no where. I have always thought the undiscovered primate in the woods people were a bit nutty, if that would be what they are, then specimens of said would be stuffed and mounted in someone’s office, den or on display at every major cities Natural History Museum. Man is a killer, the dominant predator and no dumb primitive ape is going to escape being found in North America. This thing is mostly human and a part something else in its genetic code and make up.......but it is all pure evil. I thought "Eaters of the Dead" corny (and the film, considerably worse); but, that aside -- the Neanderthals therein did not strike me as evil, as such. A merciless war was going on, between kindreds / sub-species; each was doing what it found it had to, for its own kind -- and not the other -- to survive and prosper. Of course, the homo sapiens sapiens, through whose eyes the story is seen, did not love "the other mob"; but objectively evil: that I don't see.
Guest poignant Posted July 25, 2012 Posted July 25, 2012 Let me clarify. Not saying that bigfoot are evil. I think they're fully flesh and blood. I just get that nagging feeling that their origins are malevolent.
Guest Posted July 25, 2012 Posted July 25, 2012 Anything's possible. Am apprehensive about getting into forbidden territory here; but on the "Old BFF" there was a poster who was a devout adherent of "Religion X". His line was that he considered BF to be a purely-and-simply flesh-and-blood creature; he wanted, and hoped, for it to be a purely-and-simply flesh-and-blood creature; because the only alternative that he saw, was its being a demon -- something that in his perception, no sane person would want anything to do with. I hope he was wrong. I hope you, poignant, are wrong. But there's so little that we know about this whole matter, that there's almost nothing I'd write off as full-on impossible.
Guest crabshack Posted July 25, 2012 Posted July 25, 2012 (edited) Let me clarify. Not saying that bigfoot are evil. I think they're fully flesh and blood. I just get that nagging feeling that their origins are malevolent. I agree fully. But that which they originated from, causes them to be evil. And no I don't believe in any of the psychic, alien, inter-dimensional stuff. Edited July 25, 2012 by crabshack
Guest Posted July 25, 2012 Posted July 25, 2012 crabshack: would wish to say -- if possible, please tell us more.
JanV Posted July 25, 2012 Posted July 25, 2012 I agree fully. But that which they originated from, causes them to be evil. And no I don't believe in any of the psychic, alien, inter-dimensional stuff. Evil and/or malevolent? These terms are human constructs and do not apply to animals, creatures of the natural world. Though I can see how we can be apply these terms to the motivations of individual human beings. It is only in movies (like Jaws) where the script writer adds the extra dimension to the animal character. My thought anyway.
Guest OntarioSquatch Posted July 25, 2012 Posted July 25, 2012 Sounds like more fantasy. How does crabshack know what they originated from?
Guest Posted July 25, 2012 Posted July 25, 2012 In my opinion, Sasquatch/Bigfoot is simply a undiscovered animal that has been blown up into massive proportions by the media and other things of the sort.
Guest Posted July 30, 2012 Posted July 30, 2012 Evil and/or malevolent? These terms are human constructs and do not apply to animals, creatures of the natural world. Though I can see how we can be apply these terms to the motivations of individual human beings. It is only in movies (like Jaws) where the script writer adds the extra dimension to the animal character. My thought anyway. Any animal with sufficiently advanced intellect may be thought of in some sense as having a "nature" that can be described as "good" or "evil" or some other pairing that conveys a similar distinction that can be collectively described as a personality or personality analogue. Some animals are "easy going", some are "agressive". Some are downright vicious. Animals have displayed the capacity to be loyal, to show affection, and yes, even to hate. So why can BF also not have a nature that could be described as "evil" in some sense of the word. The NAs certainly thought that some of them were such, and avoided them whenever and wherever possible. I know and occasionally correspond with people in the OK region would would readily describe some of their "locals" as "evil" (and have). Certainly dangerously unpredictable.
ohiobill Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 1. You have the skeptical ones who believe all this is just the work of a few pranksters…rightfully so; this has been proven to apply to a number of instances and is a cloud that hangs over any serious inquiries. 2. You have people who believe Bigfoot possibly exists, but if so, it is just a dumb undiscovered primate wondering around out in the woods that can be manipulated, stalked and hunted. This approach has had little if any success, yet there are many who will not deviate from this mindset. With little or no evidence to prove their point and for whatever reasons (i.e. inflated egos, jealously, status etc.), some will viciously attack the integrity and sanity of those who disagree with their position. (As far as I know, all the serious evidence used to "prove" the existence of bigfoot comes from this camp - I'm curious why you think it's been so unsucessful?) 3. You do have the people who (allege w/o proof to) have come to know the Bigfoot and (further allege w/o proof to) have regular close interaction with them. There are things they (allege w/o proof to) observe about them that add more questions than answers. Call it paranormal, intra-dimensional or whatever, but they(allege w/o proof to) witness things about them that have no natural explanation as we know it. Some do relate (tales or personal encounters that are unproveable about) experiencing telepathic communications, physical transformations and other paranormal stuff way out of the box and (claim w/o proof that) only a very few (specially enlightened ones such as themselves) will receive it. 4) You also have the ones, that have (claimed w/o prooof to have) actually experienced some of these unexplained things that happened in the field, and decided (one way or another) to try and find out for themselves, and not jump on any internet bandwagons.. and consider all intelligent opinions and options, from all that have experienced the same . My additions, in red above, underscore the difference in opinion we have on the subject and what the scientific community in general and the bigfoot community can't seem to agree upon. Personal experiences are unreliable and are not conclusive evidence of proof. Even if I have a sighting tonight from 10 feet away it will not be proof! Certainly eye shine at night caught on camera is not proof unless you can conclusively eliminate all the KNOWN animals in the area that exhibit eyeshine. A raccoon or owl on a branch 20 feet from a witness may exhibit proportions that cause one to extrapolate a 10 foot tall creature standing 50 feet away. Sadly, poor frail humans may "own" the world but we are woefully underevolved for nocturnal outdoor adventures and make many false assumptions about what is taking place around us at night. Making claims of paranormal abilities, time travel, personal wormholes and the such are so outrageous that they MUST be accompanied w/proof to be considered seriously.
salubrious Posted July 31, 2012 Moderator Posted July 31, 2012 Sadly, poor frail humans may "own" the world but we are woefully underevolved for nocturnal outdoor adventures and make many false assumptions about what is taking place around us at night. Making claims of paranormal abilities, time travel, personal wormholes and the such are so outrageous that they MUST be accompanied w/proof to be considered seriously. The 'extraordinary claims must be accompanied by extraordinary evidence' idea...Unfortunately it does not always work that way. I was 8 feet from one (leaving absolutely no doubt about what it was or how *big* it was); it just seemed that taking my eyes off of it to get my camera might be a Bad Idea...
ohiobill Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 The 'extraordinary claims must be accompanied by extraordinary evidence' idea... Unfortunately it does not always work that way. I was 8 feet from one (leaving absolutely no doubt about what it was or how *big* it was); it just seemed that taking my eyes off of it to get my camera might be a Bad Idea... It's not just an idea, it's a guiding principle in science. It has to work that way if you want to "prove" your theory. It is not meant as an attack on your truthfulness, I believe you saw something. But I'm confident it wasn't an 10 foot tall, infrasound-shooting, time-traveling, personal-wormhole-generating inter-dimensional being covered in hair. If you want me to believe that YOU need to bring a little something to the table.
georgerm Posted July 31, 2012 Posted July 31, 2012 Welcome to the forum Ohiobill. Did it seem evil Salubrious?
Guest Posted August 1, 2012 Posted August 1, 2012 (edited) Didn't some of the natives in the pnw call them "Skookum", which meant something like devil or evil? Edited August 1, 2012 by squating squatch
Recommended Posts