The Existance Of Bigfoot: Is The Magical/paranormal/spiritual/supernatural Really Necessary?

[Guest]

Somehow this is something that seems to crop up a lot with the Bigfoot community, that claims about Bigfoot seem to be wrapped up in magical/paranormal/spiritual/supernatural and otherwise otherworldly claims. No wonder there are still skeptics out there, putting aside no living or dead specimens of an actual Bigfoot.

Is it really necessary? Here we have a creature, that if it exists, takes up physical space on the same planet that we do in the same universe. That means that they have to abide by the same laws of physics as we do, putting aside such weasel words like "Well, we don't know everything now do we?", that means that Bigfoot are not magical, mystical, paranormal, spiritual, supernatural, or what have you. They're living, breathing, flesh-and-blood creatures just you or I or anyone else.

So are the otherworldly claims necessary? No. In fact I would argue not only are they unnecessary but harmful for the Bigfoot community. Why? Because of Orccam's Razor, that's why.

[norseman]

Different people have different perceptions about the world around them. Some people are pragmatic while others are deeply spiritual. So with a mystery like this, it draws different people, experiences and explanations. As a more pragmatic person, and having a experience of my own, I see this mystery as a living, breathing animal. But obviously there are some extra ordinary circumstances to this animal otherwise it would have been documented a long time ago. My mind tends to try to find the more mundane explanations to a extra ordinary mystery. But other people will not follow the same formula.

But there is one unescapable fact, no matter the explanation. Science needs a type specimen in order for this species to be recognized.

Many people within the community do not care about scientific recognition. So for the people who fit this category.........does it really matter what Bigfoot is? Ultimately I think for them it only matters what Bigfoot means TO THEM. And I'm cool with that.

But for the rest of us who do want scientific recognition? We cannot work with alien Bigfoot that lives on the back side of the moon and beams itself down and up. Or inter dimension Bigfoot that comes in and out of our reality at will........... Even if these explanations were plausible it would take a majority of theoretical physicists in this country to attempt to solve the problem. Not to mention the national security issues of a alien entity entering our air space at will and walking among us.

So yes, this type of discussion does nothing to help the cause of a biological Bigfoot. And we should not take any of it seriously simply because it's outside of the independent researchers purview, and as of right now it defies our understanding of science. So we should as a group stick to the facts that are workable for us. And focus our aim on collecting a type specimen and getting this species recognized and protected as quickly as possible.

So to recap? If it's an ape or a primitive form of hominid? It's workable........ If it's a alien? I seem to have misplaced my keys to the millennium falcon and there fore it is unworkable to me call NASA. If it's a inter dimensional ghost? We need to call the ghost busters and leave it to the experts.

[ThePhaige]

Neither of you are correct, or wrong either...so the debate continues

[Bonehead74]

It is only really necessary if there is a magical/paranormal/spiritual/supernatural aspect to bigfoot. The bigger question is, "Why are these aspects a part of the debate in the first place?".

These questions are injected into the discussion because some reported sightings/experiences with purported bigfoot, by credible witnesses, seem to contain 'supernormal' elements. Eliminate those reports (as many 'researchers' do without consideration, based solely on their presuppositions), and the issue conveniently resolves itself (with the added bonus that they'll sleep better at night). The problem is that doing so may not truly represent the reality of the phenomenon.

Edited April 14, 2013 by Bonehead74

[Guest]

Supernormal? What exactly is supernormal for Bigfoot? Do we even know what is normal for Bigfoot in the first place?

[Bonehead74]

Supernormal? What exactly is supernormal for Bigfoot?

I never said that there was anything supernormal for bigfoot. Please re-read my post.

Do we even know what is normal for Bigfoot in the first place?

Not really. Which is exactly why I advocate not throwing out data simply because it makes us uncomfortable or contradicts our worldview.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

We don't know much about Bigfoot. I think that's why people come up with the supernatural/paranormal stuff. To use something they can't explain to explain something else they can't explain. Not very realistic.

Edited April 15, 2013 by OntarioSquatch

[norseman]

Supernormal? What exactly is supernormal for Bigfoot? Do we even know what is normal for Bigfoot in the first place?

How bout we force Bigfoot to obey the laws of physics........that would be a start.

[ThePhaige]

^

Placing restraints on the definition of reality is not very realistic either. This is why a body alone will never suffice. We will need to either observe SSq in their natural environment or capture one alive... which I submit is not gonna happen. Not because they don't exist, but because they are much more diverse than most believe or are willing to admit. I also see under your public profile you have not had an encounter with a SSq so perhaps until you personally have had the experiences that deem the elimination of such realities from the equation...that you really are coming from a place of ignorance.

I guess until such a time it is my word against yours and we will agree to disagree.

Its not unlike the UFO world... does just having seen a craft automatically mean that the folks who claim to have been abducted are not being realistic?

Or the folks who had actually seen the curvature of the earth were considered unrealistic to the obvious flatness that the masses believed as fact?

[southernyahoo]

Is it really necessary?

Depends on what you see or experience. The words, magical , paranormal and supernatural exist to properly intimate things that are not normal, natural or explainable using conventional ideas. Some of the most ardent flesh and blood researchers have commented that what they witnessed would not have changed their mind if they were of the opinion BF were supernatural. I'm sure to them, it's easy to see why some have that perception.

[Bonehead74]

We don't know much about Bigfoot. I think that's why people come up with the supernatural/paranormal stuff. To use something they can't explain to explain something else they can't explain. Not very realistic.

The "supernatural/paranormal stuff" comes from an small number of claimed eyewitnesses' experiences. It may now be endorsed by certain people to justify bigfoot's elusiveness, but the witness reports came first. Analyzing all the available data is engaging reality. Selectively ignoring the bits we don't like is "not very realistic".

Edited April 15, 2013 by Bonehead74

[Guest]

I have a tough time tagging people as 'credible' who claim such preposterous events. Ghosts, aliens, shape-shifters, and inter-dimensional traveler's mileage may vary...

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

I forgot about the eyewitness reports. I didn't ignore them

[ThePhaige]

Some of the most ardent flesh and blood researchers have commented that what they witnessed would not have changed their mind if they were of the opinion BF were supernatural. I'm sure to them, it's easy to see why some have that perception.

It is also a fact that many researchers who were staunchly flesh and blood who had subsequent encounters that contradicted their previous stance had in fact embraced the otherness of the phenomenon. I would say I was also a staunch flesh and blood advocated prior top my encounters that proved to me otherwise. Certainly I feel they are flesh and blood, however with abilities we have yet to measure in a scientific methodology as yet.

[Bonehead74]

I have a tough time tagging people as 'credible' who claim such preposterous events.

Have you investigated any of these witnesses' claims first-hand before maligning them, or do you do it right out of the gate because they are clearly "preposterous"?