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

[norseman]

^

Placing restraints on the definition of reality is not very realistic either.

How so? Without reality........what do we have?

This is why a body alone will never suffice.

You need to flesh this out abit. Why won't a body satisfy the scientific community?

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.

A) In order for science to take a serious look at this species? We need proof it's worth the scientific community to take a look. Bobo can observe them in their natural environment until the cows come home. That is not going to change anything.

B ) I have observed tracks..........compelling tracks, but no Squatch. I don't think ghosts leave tracks, so it had to be a flesh and blood animal. And if the animal is alien to the planet earth and possesses warp drive? I'm wasting my time, because my mules and pickup truck cannot fly.

C) I make no pretenses that I'm some end all be all expert in the mystery of Sasquatch. But it's my reality that all living things on earth must obey the same laws of physics. If we are encountering some thing that does not? As you seem to be alluding to? Then we are not dealing with a living earthly creature as science understands it. And a couple of layman like you and I are not going to solve this mystery.

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?

I agree with you that science does not know all of the secrets of the universe. But as I've said above? I can only go on what I know to be reality. Again if your right and I'm wrong? And Sasquatch is something other than a living earthly creature? What are we talking about then? And what hope does anyone have in solving this mystery?

You have called me ignorant. Fair enough...........what do you think it is?

Edited April 15, 2013 by norseman

[Guest]

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"?

I disagree. Paranormal claims can be safely disregarded, and anything that follows after them should be considered suspect.

[norseman]

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.

So is it like Predator from the movies? An alien? And uses technology to cloak itself? Or is more like a spirit or an angel that zaps it's self in and out of existence?

Your laying your cards on the table one at a time, I'd like to see your whole hand.

[Bonehead74]

I disagree. Paranormal claims can be safely disregarded, and anything that follows after them should be considered suspect.

That's your perogative. Enjoy your dogmatism.

Edited April 15, 2013 by Bonehead74

[Guest]

That's your perogative. Enjoy your dogmatism.

I think you misunderstand me. The claim should still be examined even if the person reports that the Bigfoot levitated and telekinetically threw a still living tree at the witness with all due diligence. But the claim should still be regarded with a healthy dose of skepticism.

[norseman]

Something else here.......

As I said in my first post? Different people have different perceptions.

I've seen some magicians do some crazy cool, illusions...........but I know that in reality its a trick of the hand/eye. I do not believe that a magician can bend the laws of physics and neither do scientists. Obviously the magician isn't going to let you in on the trick because if he did he would be out of a job.

I'm not going to beat somebody up because they feel what they saw was "paranormal". It was right there! Right there........and then it was GONE! Well did the creature turn on it's cloaking device because it's really an alien from the planet X? Or does the animal know how to camouflage itself with it surroundings?

Cloaking devices are theoretically possible.......the military is working on them as we speak. But if Sasquatch has already invented such a device? Then that changes the goal posts as to WHAT we are dealing with. Again........if Sasquatch is technologically superior to us? Then they would be masters of earth and we would be running around naked in the woods eating berries and road kill.

[ThePhaige]

Well NM my post was directed at OntarioSasquatch and your post slipped in between there before I saw that you posted.

I am well aware of your pro kill status and I think your right , that could prove the existence of SSq in the physical sense, however

It would not explain the other rather odd things tons of others (including researchers) have without a doubt encountered with our interaction with the SSq. Things like mind-speak, time space alterations, disappearing and reappearing, invoking fear response, communicating intentions to name a few.

They have been discussed ad nauseam here and other places.

Ignorance is only a derogatory term if you have an over the top ego, it simply means someone doesn't know.. and in the world of SSq can most certainly be bliss. I wish I didn't have my experiences sometimes because of all the flack I've had to absorb, but I reached a point where I didn't care anymore about what people thought of me, and more about what is the truth. Unfortunately there are many people who are smarter than me that do keep their mouths shut. To myself and them who cares what science thinks at this point when we already know well beyond where they even begin.

There is only one who knows all the secrets of the universe and we cant speak of that here as per rules, but each and every one of us has some degree of ignorance, and that's just fact. Where I draw the line is when someone works a disinformation campaign or intentionally is trying to mislead people. That is a different story. Claiming to know that which is unknowable is just foolishness.

What do I believe they are... Sasquatch just as you do, that is what they are... a living earthly creature that does exhibit real abilities that we do not fully understand yet but I feel we will in time or perhaps we wont but we aren't going to get there by pigeon holing the data that is not known yet and shutting doors that obviously enough people have already opened or had opened to them.

[LeafTalker]

Again........if Sasquatch is technologically superior to us? Then they would be masters of earth and we would be running around naked in the woods eating berries and road kill.

This reminds me of something I've wondered about for a long time now: why we make (and never question) some of the assumptions we make in this kind of discussion.

We seem to think it's inevitable that someone who has more 'power' than someone else will misuse that power. (I think that's what 'technologically superior' means to most people, right? More powerful?)

We seem to think that powerful beings will just destroy everything (and everyone) less powerful.

That's how our fear-based culture looks at things, and that's what many of us try to do to the less powerful; but that's not how things have to be, not even with humans.

Doesn't it seem that, if the Sasquatch had the same desire to destroy everything less powerful that we have, that they would have wiped us out a long time ago, with just the simple physical advantages they clearly already have (greater size, strength, speed, agility, and so on)?

I think we keep overlooking the possibility that, in addition to being physically more powerful than we are, they might also be more evolved in their consciousness. They might not need to kill to establish dominance over other beings. It may be that they respect the desire of other beings to live as they like, and leave them to live those lives -- as we may someday, too.

[Bonehead74]

I disagree. Paranormal claims can be safely disregarded, and anything that follows after them should be considered suspect.

I think you misunderstand me. The claim should still be examined even if the person reports that the Bigfoot levitated and telekinetically threw a still living tree at the witness with all due diligence. But the claim should still be regarded with a healthy dose of skepticism.

These two statements stand in antithesis of each other. Any misunderstanding I have is related to how you can claim to concurrently hold both of these views. I do believe, though, that all bigfoot claims should be regarded with a healthy dose of skepticism, not just those of the more outre variety.

[norseman]

Again........if Sasquatch is technologically superior to us? Then they would be masters of earth and we would be running around naked in the woods eating berries and road kill.

This reminds me of something I've wondered about for a long time now: why we make (and never question) some of the assumptions we make in this kind of discussion.

We seem to think it's inevitable that someone who has more 'power' than someone else will misuse that power. (I think that's what 'technologically superior' means to most people, right? More powerful?)

We seem to think that powerful beings will just destroy everything (and everyone) less powerful.

That's how our fear-based culture looks at things, and that's what many of us try to do to the less powerful; but that's not how things have to be, not even with humans.

Doesn't it seem that, if the Sasquatch had the same desire to destroy everything less powerful that we have, that they would have wiped us out a long time ago, with just the simple physical advantages they clearly already have (greater size, strength, speed, agility, and so on)?

I think we keep overlooking the possibility that, in addition to being physically more powerful than we are, they might also be more evolved in their consciousness. They might not need to kill to establish dominance over other beings. It may be that they respect the desire of other beings to live as they like, and leave them to live those lives -- as we may someday, too.

Whether you believe Sasquatch is a ape or a human? Both being in the Primate family? When can you point to a episode in our history in which the strong did not dominate the weak? Neanderthals vs. Homo Sapien in Europe 30,000 years ago? Europeans entering into the Americas? A troupe of Chimps in the jungles of the Congo against rivals? North Korea vs. South Korea?

Or for that matter a German brown trout vs. a native Cut throat trout?

How is it in your hypothesis that Sasquatch has some how evolved past that? The strong dominate the weak, because of a strong survival instinct in allocating resources for it's offspring. This instinct has been twisted and morphed into something new and terrifying in the nuclear age to be sure. And it's still an open ended question IF humans can evolve past this Lizard brain knee jerk reaction so that we co exist peacefully and not turn our planet into cinders.........

But that is THE problem...........it's a evolutionary trait that served us well for millions of years, and is responsible for our survival today, that now threatens us all.

Without this survival instinct? Sasquatch would have never made it in the crucible of evolution. Whatever branch from the primate tree they had taken? Would have been a very very short one.

And to look at the supposed evidence? Sasquatch does dominate the weak.......accounts of males fighting over deer. Fighting over a fish with a Grizzly bear........whatever. This is what we would expect from a animal trying to survive in a wilderness. And if they were smarter than us? I think logic dictates that they would be using that superior brain to out compete us for resources..........instead of whacking bears over the head for a single fish.

[Guest]

Again........if Sasquatch is technologically superior to us? Then they would be masters of earth and we would be running around naked in the woods eating berries and road kill.

This reminds me of something I've wondered about for a long time now: why we make (and never question) some of the assumptions we make in this kind of discussion.

We seem to think it's inevitable that someone who has more 'power' than someone else will misuse that power. (I think that's what 'technologically superior' means to most people, right? More powerful?)

We seem to think that powerful beings will just destroy everything (and everyone) less powerful.

That's how our fear-based culture looks at things, and that's what many of us try to do to the less powerful; but that's not how things have to be, not even with humans.

Doesn't it seem that, if the Sasquatch had the same desire to destroy everything less powerful that we have, that they would have wiped us out a long time ago, with just the simple physical advantages they clearly already have (greater size, strength, speed, agility, and so on)?

I think we keep overlooking the possibility that, in addition to being physically more powerful than we are, they might also be more evolved in their consciousness. They might not need to kill to establish dominance over other beings. It may be that they respect the desire of other beings to live as they like, and leave them to live those lives -- as we may someday, too.

Whether you believe Sasquatch is a ape or a human? Both being in the Primate family? When can you point to a episode in our history in which the strong did not dominate the weak? Neanderthals vs. Homo Sapien in Europe 30,000 years ago? Europeans entering into the Americas? A troupe of Chimps in the jungles of the Congo against rivals? North Korea vs. South Korea?

Or for that matter a German brown trout vs. a native Cut throat trout?

How is it in your hypothesis that Sasquatch has some how evolved past that? The strong dominate the weak, because of a strong survival instinct in allocating resources for it's offspring. This instinct has been twisted and morphed into something new and terrifying in the nuclear age to be sure. And it's still an open ended question IF humans can evolve past this Lizard brain knee jerk reaction so that we co exist peacefully and not turn our planet into cinders.........

But that is THE problem...........it's a evolutionary trait that served us well for millions of years, and is responsible for our survival today, that now threatens us all.

Without this survival instinct? Sasquatch would have never made it in the crucible of evolution. Whatever branch from the primate tree they had taken? Would have been a very very short one.

And to look at the supposed evidence? Sasquatch does dominate the weak.......accounts of males fighting over deer. Fighting over a fish with a Grizzly bear........whatever. This is what we would expect from a animal trying to survive in a wilderness. And if they were smarter than us? I think logic dictates that they would be using that superior brain to out compete us for resources..........instead of whacking bears over the head for a single fish.

So they're dolphins then? Because dolphins are reasonably intelligent creatures and highly evolved and they don't seem to have this mythical "drive to kill all those less powerful than themselves" which I argue isn't something ingrained to humans either. But here's the thing about dolphins and, I suspect, Bigfoot: They ain't supernatural.

I disagree. Paranormal claims can be safely disregarded, and anything that follows after them should be considered suspect.

I think you misunderstand me. The claim should still be examined even if the person reports that the Bigfoot levitated and telekinetically threw a still living tree at the witness with all due diligence. But the claim should still be regarded with a healthy dose of skepticism.

These two statements stand in antithesis of each other. Any misunderstanding I have is related to how you can claim to concurrently hold both of these views. I do believe, though, that all bigfoot claims should be regarded with a healthy dose of skepticism, not just those of the more outre variety.

I think you are still misunderstanding me. There are degrees of skepticism, and any claims of a paranormal Bigfoot should be held with a higher degree of skepticism than a claim of a Bigfoot just waltzing along a creek bed.

Edited April 15, 2013 by Leftfoot

[Guest]

So are the otherworldly claims necessary? No. In fact I would argue not only are they unnecessary but harmful for the Bigfoot community. Why?

I think people should report their witness honestly, period.

They could back off the inferred conclusions though, all sides actually on that one...but the speculation is fun, and not much to disprove any theory, and there is no community, so why not?

I don't want a body and don't care if they are proven (seems a real can of worms and little benefit...a little pessimistic there perhaps)

Researchers should investigate and report without bias.

Willfully ignoring witnesses or data because it's unseemly is not a good idea IMO...

Especially if they are holding themselves out to the public as a "real research group."

On the other hand? I think holding back is done all the time. I don't share everything, many don't.

I think it's why there are so many "levels" of BF researchers...until one witnesses or experiences some of the stranger stuff it is ignored as fanciful

I think the conventional science promised and claimed, the Ketchum DNA study, did more to damage perceptions than the claims of the psychic crowd in total.

There are reasons the claims persist, but if it involves psychic or supernatural powers, we won't get our answers through science anytime soon...

Waiting for science to understand BFs will be too long for me, so I am grateful for all the diverse attempts at solving, and those bold enough to speak for themselves in spite of the pressure to conform...... (I thought BFers were all about pioneering ideas?)

and hope they continue.

Edited April 15, 2013 by apehuman

[norseman]

So they're dolphins then? Because dolphins are reasonably intelligent creatures and highly evolved and they don't seem to have this mythical "drive to kill all those less powerful than themselves" which I argue isn't something ingrained to humans either. But here's the thing about dolphins and, I suspect, Bigfoot: They ain't supernatural.

So Dolphins and Orcas don't attack and kill Sharks then? Or each other? Or fish, seals, etc?

And if you do not feel it's ingrained in humans? I would like to hear your explanation........as to why WW1, WW2, and all of the rest of the wars fought in the last century that killed tens of millions of humans happened.

You cannot really hold up a small sect of Buddhist monks that live peacefully in isolation as some sort of counter balance either. Humans as a whole are very violent creatures.

[Guest]

So they're dolphins then? Because dolphins are reasonably intelligent creatures and highly evolved and they don't seem to have this mythical "drive to kill all those less powerful than themselves" which I argue isn't something ingrained to humans either. But here's the thing about dolphins and, I suspect, Bigfoot: They ain't supernatural.

So Dolphins and Orcas don't attack and kill Sharks then? Or fish, seals, etc?

Self-defense and hunting for food. Your objection is rendered invalid.

[Guest]

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"?

Never investigated any of them. And yes, they are dismissed before the sentence is even finished. If it doesn't fit within the accepted parameters that I have deemed credible, I'm not interested whatsoever. Pretty close-minded for a professional investigator, huh? Same as if I were investigating a counterfeit ring, and one of the subjects claimed that an alien made the bills for them. Same ballpark, as far as I'm concerned.

And, quite frankly, if that is what they were, I wouldn't be interested in them because it would be pointless. What I've seen is like a huge, upright ape. Didn't strike me as a demon, alien, ghost, zombie, or a vampire. Definitely didn't turn into a bear, then warp to level 5. Seemed like a huge, upright gorilla. I have a tough time thinking it could hop in the space cruiser, and hit light speed back to Niburu.

How well is one's mental state who claims that they saw a spaceship land, and a BF walk down the ramp into the woods? I'd be pretty concerned, personally.

I don't think that makes me unreasonable, personally. I think it makes me a realist.

Edited April 15, 2013 by PacNWSquatcher