"squatchholm" Syndrome

[LeafTalker]

Certain yogis were able to be in two places at once.

And humans have been known to "mindspeak" to each other.

I was in a room once with two friends (and many other people), when one of the friends suddenly said to the other, "[X], get out of my head!!!"

There are sooooo many stories of spiritual masters who could/can do everything the BF do.

We just got it trained/shamed out of us. They didn't.

That's what I think, anyway.

[Guest]

Paranormal is a general term that designates experiences that lie outside "the range of normal experience or scientific explanation" or that indicates phenomena understood to be outside of science's current ability to explain or measure. Paranormal phenomena are distinct from certain hypothetical entities, such as dark matter and dark energy, only insofar as paranormal phenomena are inconsistent with the world as already understood through empirical observation coupled with scientific methodology.

The preternatural is that which appears outside or beside the natural. In contrast to the supernatural, preternatural phenomena are presumed to have rational explanations that are unknown. The term is often used to distinguish from the divine (supernatural) while maintaining a distinction from what is known and understood.

I like that, kind of settles it if we ascribe to those definitions..

by that definition BFs are paranormal in that they are yet to be explained or proven scientifically - and we seem unable to do so (we'll see how this dna works out...)even though we may assume they are a relict or unknown something on our evolutionary track.-

it's been a very long while and no evidence has survived to tell us they are real...or what they are...and until that time, paranormal is as valid a working definition as preternatural (unless you are worried someone might think you nuts for saying paranormal, but not just Bigfoot generally..big ape lost in woods...?)

And they are certainly preternatural as well.......

My Merriam Webster shows paranormal synonymous with both supernatural and preternatural, but the definition of preternatural doesn't so reciprocate, as it is implied (i suppose) it is more a matter of the natural world not understood in contrast to beyond science ability to explain......

We actually know very very little about BFs.....so to me remaining open to the possibility might be valuable for designing methods to discover their nature....even for the hard core scientist/academic.... one would have to be immune to the many possibilities of the Universe to not wonder given the reports...

.it may be that BFs always remain beyond our measure...and so by definition.....be paranormal??

sorry really kind of off topic, but it can swing back with this thought: if BFs do possess paranormal ability...say telepathy...it raises the question of "Sasquatholm Syndrome" as a product of that mental contact.... whew...

Got to admit the "Bigfoot Fever" is out of proportion with any other obsession in my life, and I have many past hobbies/interests that were very consuming (as well as work)....so....that part...the 'attachment to BFs" bothers me on several levels...and see possibly this wasted "mind for BFs" in many? ouch! Cold Turkey may be the answer...or proof, one good long look at a friendly BF face!

Edited February 4, 2013 by apehuman

[Guest thermalman]

@pter. Skepticism is still what it is. "Doubt about the truth of something." In other words, you still don't believe any of the stories by witnesses. As a skeptic, if you believe even one witness, the definition of skepticism flies out the window. IMHO, one cannot dismiss ALL the witness accounts as false. It's highly improbable and illogical.

I should add, my own definition of witnesses are ones who visually see a BF. Audios, smells, and other non visual reports leave to much for error and would be very hard to prove, as we don't really know exactly what BF sounds and smells like.

Edited February 4, 2013 by thermalman

[JDL]

JDL could you go into a bit more detail what those would be please ?? . Practically speaking where would one draw the line ??

I define preternatural as explainable by current scientific knowledge, though as yet unexplained due to lack of sufficient information. For example, I disregarded reports of zapping as ridiculous until I started looking into the possibility of them using ultrasonic bursts. Now I consider it possible. Nothing supernatural here, but not something initially expected either, and the effect was the perception that they had some ability beyond the bounds of scientific explanation.

If you go for supernatural, that takes you beyond the bounds of current scientific knowledge being able to explain something, though I ascribe to the position that future scientific knowledge will be able to do so.

Still, based on what I've seen and experienced, they're no more supernatural than we are.

Edited February 4, 2013 by JDL

[Guest]

@pter. Skepticism is still what it is. "Doubt about the truth of something." In other words, you still don't believe any of the stories by witnesses. As a skeptic, if you believe even one witness, the definition of skepticism flies out the window. IMHO, one cannot dismiss ALL the witness accounts as false. It's highly improbable and illogical.

Belief is a matter of faith, not reason. The bigfoot phenomenon is not my religion. It is possible that all witness accounts are false for whatever reasons. I have repeatedly stated that the body of anecdotal tales, spoor, and film justify significant effort for scientific investigations into the bigfoot phenomenon in my opinion. Science is not conducted by anecdote.

I should add, my own definition of witnesses are ones who visually see a BF. Audios, smells, and other non visual reports leave to much for error and would be very hard to prove, as we don't really know exactly what BF sounds and smells like.

I was not aware that exactly what bigfoot looks like was known. Perhaps you could please enlighten us?

I ask you again, why are you misrepresenting my position and what reason do you have to be defensive?

[Guest thermalman]

You'll get a general idea of what BF looks like by reading the visual accounts on any forums. When the witness has eliminated all other known possibilities and is left with no other explanation for a description, other than possibly a BF ( as per the PGF film, I suppose). I don't believe they make up their experiences just to be ridiculed by skeptics and scofties. If they do, they deserve the rebuttals from the general population.

I'm not being defensive, just offering a logical approach to illogical assumptions by the skeptics. I don't feel I've misrepresented your position when full consideration and context of your skeptical stance, on the BF witness subject is affiliated with the definition of skepticism. You're either a skeptic or proponent, and based on your dialogue, you should make up your mind;

Pter quote: As such, I must be skeptical and, with regard to bigfoot, must admit to my null hypothesis being that it doesn't exist. Within the context of the null hypothesis of "bigfoot does not exist," the body of eyewitness accounts would be explained by things such as hoaxing, misidentification, and hallucination. After all, eyewitness accounts can be notoriously unreliable. Within the context of the alternative hypothesis of "bigfoot exists," I assume most eyewitness accounts would be attributable to an encounter with a bigfoot.

I came nowhere near, not even subtly, to calling all eyewitnesses liars. Hoaxers are liars, but people misidentifying something or hallucinating are not lying as they have no intention to deceive. I've also said I believe the body of evidence to date, while not conclusive, warrants a significant scientific undertaking to attempt solve the bigfoot phenomenon.

I understand I was not present at anyone else's purported encounter, and I do not generally dismiss other's reports as fabrications, although I regard them all with healthy skepticism.

Edited February 4, 2013 by thermalman

[NCBFr]

I was not aware that exactly what bigfoot looks like was known. Perhaps you could please enlighten us?

The general look taking in to account for regional and general species variation is known to those of us that have either seen it directly or taken the time to do the research.

[Guest]

I decline to kowtow to your null hypothesis. Sounds like a lot of buzz words and empty jargon. When it comes down to it. Either we are all liars or you are wrong. Judge for yourself.

[JDL]

Let's put the Null Hypothesis in perspective. I have seen a very large white bear in northern latitudes, but you have not and science has not yet documented such a creature.

Where does the Null hypothesis lead us?

I think at best you end up with a Schroedinger's cat scenario and nothing's solved until the hypothesizer sees one for himself.

So why mess with a witness if you're only going to tell them you're not going to accept their existence until you see one or someone drags in a body. We already know that. We don't need to hold your hand as you develop your own hypothesis and criteria for knowledge.

See one for yourself so you can "be just like us".

[Guest thermalman]

"Skeptics have no argument, just opinions based on negative based values. Once these values become positive.......its like.............."where art thou oh wise skeptic"?

It's hilarious to listen to skeptics proclaim how BF witnesses are everything negative (delusional, mistaken id, fabricators, hoaxers (aka liars), etc.), and how the PGF is just a costume. Yet, skeptics cannot prove or produce a single shred of evidence to back their assumptions. Witnesses saw what they saw, and the PGF has never been proven to be a hoax. So, as much as skeptics want evidence from BF proponents, the onus is equally the same for them to prove that there was a costume in the PGF, and that the witnesses are what the skeptics claim they are."-TM

Edited February 5, 2013 by thermalman

[norseman]

Certain yogis were able to be in two places at once.

And humans have been known to "mindspeak" to each other.

I was in a room once with two friends (and many other people), when one of the friends suddenly said to the other, "[X], get out of my head!!!"

There are sooooo many stories of spiritual masters who could/can do everything the BF do.

We just got it trained/shamed out of us. They didn't.

That's what I think, anyway.

Two places at once?

Did anyone check if the yogis had identical twins?

[LeafTalker]

Autobiography of a Yogi, by Paramahansa Yogananda. Amazing book. The story of the bi-locating yogi is in there.... Along with many other fascintating stories. Great read.

I also actually know somebody who learned how to levitate.

We humans be very talented (sometimes).

Edited February 5, 2013 by LeafTalker

[Martin]

It's hilarious to listen to skeptics proclaim how BF witnesses are everything negative (delusional, ...............

and then a proponent comes behind you proves that at least some are.

Edited February 5, 2013 by Martin

[Guest thermalman]

I don't disagree. Some are. Unfortunately, skeptics have the witnesses packaged together as one, while there are those that are 100% legit. It's sifting through the claims that one has to decide which is which. Proponents and skeptics, alike, need to address the claims on the same values; thereby, eliminating the most obvious flimflam. At times, that won't be easy.

[salubrious]

Pteronarcyd[/url]' timestamp='1360000959' post='694747']

I was not aware that exactly what bigfoot looks like was known. Perhaps you could please enlighten us?

The BF depicted in the PGF seems accurate to me, based on my own unambiguous encounter. I doubt Harry and the Hendersons would exist in the same way without the PGF.