Invisible Bigfoot & Alternative Thinking

[xspider1]

Native Peoples have had thousands of years more experience with this giant than the white man has ever had, so I tend to put more weight on what the Native elders say than what an armchair BF expert 'thinks'.

First, great avatar! I have copies of "Me Write Book: It Bigfoot Memoir" and "In Me Own Words: The Autobiography of Bigfoot", they are hilarious!

I have to say also that 'the white man' is an offensive phrase, at least to me, considering that 'white' doesn't really describe anyone, although the connotation is clearly negative and also, there are plenty of women involved in this. No peoples today can possibly claim more personal knowledge over another peoples in regard to these creatures, based on their heritage alone, in my opinion.

As to the idea if 'Invisible Bigfoot and Alternative Thinking': great topic in my opinion, JB and, some very, very interesting comments. I generally take the stand that it is wise to be careful speculating or 'knowing' what something isn't or cannot be when we really don't know what it is at all.

[Guest FuriousGeorge]

Please don't turn this thread into a conversation about race in a negative way. I'd appreciate it.

FG

[Guest]

I'm not offended by any color code you want to slap on me. Physicians Formula says I'm Ivory Beige, the census forms have me identified as white. My sister is pegged with black sometimes since she has brown skin, it's all relative. And using "man" to describe a generic form of human is just semantics. So getting back to the invisible bigfoot, he is reported as having gray skin for those that get close enough to see. That color might allow him to blend with the background if the hair isn't very thick or light colored.

[Sasfooty]

Maybe this is how they disappear, except without the towel.

[Guest]

Maybe this is how they disappear, except without the towel.

For you and RayG.. (love the Monty Python alot Ray!!)

Edited April 21, 2011 by Art1972

[Sasfooty]

Thank you, Art!! You can always come up with an appropriate post.

That's the best laugh I've had all day!

[southernyahoo]

No offense, but there's also one in the middle that looks like "Bart Simpson", must've been some bad hair day. Anywho, I also see what looks like a rattler in striking position. Which one is the cripplefoot BTW?

Just to the right of dead center in the image, with it's normal looking partner just above and to it's left, not citing a literal match obviously. Just noting how often they draw humanlike footprints. Whether they are suppose to be theirs or something elses is the question.

[Guest JudasBeast]

I was going through my favorites and came across a page I saved. The page is titled ‘Bigfoot in Russia’ and it was written by Paul Stonehill. It deals with Bigfoot, but as a supernatural phenomenon. According to what was written, one of the leading Russian authorities in this field did a serious scientific inquiry on this topic. Below are a few excerpts that I grabbed. The Flesh and blood supporters might want to pass on this one.

Maya Bykova coined a term for the phenomenon of Bigfoot's sudden disappearances: the creature "camouflages its biofield" to become invisible. This phenomenon has been noted in Bigfoot encounters in the Himalayas (although, Bykova noted, the creature knows no limits and can be encountered on all five continents).

The most stunning property attributed to Bigfoot is his ability to disappear and appear suddenly, as if "dissolving" into thin air. This unusual property has led to various, sometimes fantastic hypotheses of Bigfoot's origin. Some tend to look for its tracks in other dimensions, while others connect its appearance with UFO activity. Bykova believed that there was no basis for these suppositions. However, she carefully pointed out that because we have no access to the object of our inquiry, we cannot supply an adequate scientific explanation of the whole phenomenon. We can only try to piece together Bigfoot's characteristics using the testimonies of as many different witnesses as possible

Taken from the link

http://dagmar.lunarp...gfootRussia.htm.

[Guest freeeagle]

Thom Powell addressed it in The Locals while Jack "Kewaunee" Lapseritis took the controversial topic head on in The Psychic Sasquatch.

Some call it junk and others call it Fringe, but when Beckjord proposed the extra dimensional theory as being a means of camouflage and transportation for the big guy, could he have been on to something?

{imho} As time marches on, the progress in BF research will most likely continue to crawl at a snails pace. Maybe the Inter-dimensional vanishing Sasquatch with ESP deserves further looking into. Is it anymore crazy then standing in the middle of nowhere banging on a tree with a stick?

www.cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/invisible-bf/

www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/invisible.htm

http://paranormal.about.com/cs/bigfootsasquatch/a/aa042103.htm

http://www.kickacts.com/2010/04/19/invisible-bigfoot/

I'm lucky to have seen a bigfoot as close as 10 feet away, floating on his back drifting along http://www.bigfootencounters.com/ Biddeford Maine. I'm glad it was years back because I didn't want anyone to go hunting for him. I believe they are beings of the fourth demension. Visible at times, difficult to kill, thank God.

I also believe they chose to live life as they live it now. Close to nature with few tools and mixing with man is not their thing.

I encourage people to leave them alone and honor and respect for them.

It's there wishes to be left alone and let them live there life the way they have done for many years.

freeeagle

[Guest Silver Fox]

I was going through my favorites and came across a page I saved. The page is titled ‘Bigfoot in Russia’ and it was written by Paul Stonehill. It deals with Bigfoot, but as a supernatural phenomenon. According to what was written, one of the leading Russian authorities in this field did a serious scientific inquiry on this topic. Below are a few excerpts that I grabbed. The Flesh and blood supporters might want to pass on this one.

Maya Bykova coined a term for the phenomenon of Bigfoot's sudden disappearances: the creature "camouflages its biofield" to become invisible. This phenomenon has been noted in Bigfoot encounters in the Himalayas (although, Bykova noted, the creature knows no limits and can be encountered on all five continents).

The most stunning property attributed to Bigfoot is his ability to disappear and appear suddenly, as if "dissolving" into thin air. This unusual property has led to various, sometimes fantastic hypotheses of Bigfoot's origin. Some tend to look for its tracks in other dimensions, while others connect its appearance with UFO activity. Bykova believed that there was no basis for these suppositions. However, she carefully pointed out that because we have no access to the object of our inquiry, we cannot supply an adequate scientific explanation of the whole phenomenon. We can only try to piece together Bigfoot's characteristics using the testimonies of as many different witnesses as possible

Taken from the link

http://dagmar.lunarp...gfootRussia.htm.

We get so many reports of this that at least it is very interesting. Accounts of BF's vanishing into thin air are particularly noted in desert environments like the US-Mexican border the Texas desert (Sonoran Sasquatch). Disappearing in the desert would be highly adaptive.What is fascinating is that people in other parts of the world also say that their BF types can do the same thing - vanish into thin air. I think this is said of the Yeti in particular. None of it makes any sense at all, but maybe there is a scientific explanation somewhere. After all, the new physics is very weird.

It is also interesting that BF in North America is often associated with lights, orbs and UFO's. None of that makes any sense either, but it's notable how many people report this.

Use of telepathy by the BF is also noted in many reports in North America. This doesn't make sense either, but it's interesting how many reports say this.

I think all of this is worthy of further investigation, but at the moment, let's prove it exists first. We already sound insane enough just saying it's real. Start adding in disappearance, UFO's and telepathy and folks will just walk away and we will become even more fringe than we already are.

Despite all the evasiveness, BF is still flesh and blood and can definitely be killed and captured. Just it is not so easy to do so.

[Guest]

Thank you so much for this post. Agreed respect is the order of the day. I had been thinking along the lines that since Time and to a degree space are a "human construct" that leaves a lot of wiggle room in how both function. Just because we only percieve in 3-D does not preclude we are percieving all there is. It has been long accepted now that ultra-sound can break up kidney stones. We only know to the extent we have equiptment to measure, what infra-sound can do. In a repeatable controlled environment. No one yet has done a study using infra-sound in a molecular context, involving time or space perception.

If I'm wrong about that, more accurate info I'm sure will be forthcoming!

So far I don't see a paradox in using sound waves to alter our perceptions, much like someone passing a Moose in the woods and not seeing it. If I'm not mistaken we use sound waves in ground penetrating radar to illuminate gas pockets and other hidden topography, but at a decreased frequency than what may be needed to cause an observer to have a temporary "blind spot".

Came across this recently and found it very applicable to this thread.

http://www.fatemag.com/interviews/interview-with-michio-kaku/#more-376%22

His discussion on what we as humans can & cannot percieve is enlightening along with the 11 dimensions...Folks wanted science!

[Guest RayG]

Yes, science, not philosophy. Kaku poses lots of 'what if' questions and scenarios, but the scientific answers are still missing.

In the last half-dozen years or so string theory has received some unfavorable press, and some would say for good reason.

Not Even Wrong: The Failure of String Theory and the Search for Unity in Physical Law

From amazon.com:

• String theory is the only game in town in physics departments these days. But echoing Lee Smolin's forthcoming The Trouble with Physics (Reviews, July 24), Woit, a Ph.D. in theoretical physics and a lecturer in mathematics at Columbia, points out—again and again—that string theory, despite its two decades of dominance, is just a hunch aspiring to be a theory. It hasn't predicted anything, as theories are required to do, and its practitioners have become so desperate, says Woit, that they're willing to redefine what doing science means in order to justify their labors. The first half of Woit's book is a tightly argued, beautifully written account of the development of the standard model and includes a history of particle accelerators that will interest science buffs. When he gets into the history of string theory, however, his pace accelerates alarmingly, with highly sketchy chapters. Reading this in conjunction with Smolin's more comprehensive critique of string theory, readers will be able to make up their own minds about whether string theory lives up to the hype.

And from the amazon page for The Trouble With Physics: The Rise of String Theory, The Fall of a Science, and What Comes Next:

• String theory—the hot topic in physics for the past 20 years—is a dead-end, says Smolin, one of the founders of Canada's Perimeter Institute of Theoretical Physics and himself a lapsed string theorist. In fact, he (and others) argue convincingly, string theory isn't even a fully formed theory—it's just a "conjecture." As Smolin reminds his readers, string theorists haven't been able to prove any of their exotic ideas, and he says there isn't much chance that they will in the foreseeable future. The discovery of "dark energy," which seems to be pushing the universe apart faster and faster, isn't explained by string theory and is proving troublesome for that theory's advocates. Smolin (The Life of the Cosmos) believes that physicists are making the mistake of searching for a theory that is "beautiful" and "elegant" instead of one that's actually backed up by experiments. He encourages physicists to investigate new alternatives and highlights several young physicists whose work he finds promising. This isn't easy reading, but it will appeal to dedicated science buffs interested in where physics may be headed in the next decade.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/science/article672464.ece

http://www.scienceforums.net/topic/19570-robert-matthews-on-string-london-financial-times/

RayG

[Guest]

I fully expected someone to post an opposing view of the subject. LOL!! Peter Woit is a mathmatician from Columbia University with a blog to promote his views of where the field of physics is heading. Now not being educated enough to comment fully on the finer points of either gentleman's views I will draw this anology. Michio kaku has been promoting physics as accessable to everyday people on his TV series picked up by he science channel, along with teaching at Hardvard university. Following a trend begun by Carl Sagan, Stephen Hawking and others. Working to make things understandable.

Compare this to someone with a blog?

Pushing the anology further BFRO has done for bigfootery much the same as Michio Kaku had done for physics...brought it to the masses. I find it interesting due to the difference in "core ideas" that one is more readily accepted than the other??

...and yes Ray, I know you'll school me in the finer points of this, which is cool as I admit it's not my forte'. LOL!!!

:D

[Guest RayG]

Compare this to someone with a blog?

Ok, how about we compare this to someone who obtained a perfect score on the graduate school entrance exams to Princeton University in mathematics and physics (something never accomplished by anyone before him)... someone awarded with a Ph.D. from that same Princeton University (1942), and went on to be joint winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics (1965). The man who created the diagrams representing the mathematical expressions governing the behavior of subatomic particles -- Dr. Richard Feynman.

This is what Feynman had to say about string theory: "I don't like that they're not calculating anything," he said. "I don't like that they don't check their ideas. I don't like that for anything that disagrees with an experiment, they cook up an explanation—a fix-up to say, 'Well, it still might be true.'For example, the theory requires ten dimensions. Well, maybe there's a way of wrapping up six of the dimensions. Yes, that's all possible mathematically, but why not seven? When they write their equation, the equation should decide how many of these things get wrapped up, not the desire to agree with experiment. In other words, there's no reason whatsoever in superstring theory that it isn't eight out of the ten dimensions that get wrapped up and that the result is only two dimensions, which would be completely in disagreement with experience. So the fact that it might disagree with experience is very tenuous, it doesn't produce anything; it has to be excused most of the time. It doesn't look right."

Here's something else Feynman said about string theory: "String theorists don't make predictions, they make excuses."

And more quotes here, from credentialed scientists, including Michio Kaku himself.

RayG

[Guest]

Ok, how about we compare this to someone who obtained a perfect score on the graduate school entrance exams to Princeton University in mathematics and physics (something never accomplished by anyone before him)... someone awarded with a Ph.D. from that same Princeton University (1942), and went on to be joint winner of the Nobel Prize in Physics (1965). The man who created the diagrams representing the mathematical expressions governing the behavior of subatomic particles -- Dr. Richard Feynman.

This is what Feynman had to say about string theory: "I don't like that they're not calculating anything," he said. "I don't like that they don't check their ideas. I don't like that for anything that disagrees with an experiment, they cook up an explanation—a fix-up to say, 'Well, it still might be true.'For example, the theory requires ten dimensions. Well, maybe there's a way of wrapping up six of the dimensions. Yes, that's all possible mathematically, but why not seven? When they write their equation, the equation should decide how many of these things get wrapped up, not the desire to agree with experiment. In other words, there's no reason whatsoever in superstring theory that it isn't eight out of the ten dimensions that get wrapped up and that the result is only two dimensions, which would be completely in disagreement with experience. So the fact that it might disagree with experience is very tenuous, it doesn't produce anything; it has to be excused most of the time. It doesn't look right."

Here's something else Feynman said about string theory: "String theorists don't make predictions, they make excuses."

And more quotes here, from credentialed scientists, including Michio Kaku himself.

RayG

Really cool debate going on there! Thanks for the link!!

Thanks also for digging into it. I will still stick with the idea our mathmatics is not limited as much as currently held, and whether string theory is right or wrong that we a biological mammals suffer from limitations too. That said, Michiu Kaku's observation of "to a Fish there is no up". We actually have no idea what we are missing since for the most part none of the general populace looking terrible hard at this. All science is hard science until the next big breakthru. In your assertion there can be no breakthru's regarding our perceptions of

"reality". That's a bold position to take given time is experienced differently from people on the space station versus people on the planet. So despite the math, the perceptions are different. The body reacts differently to many days up there (earth rotations) versus the one day as the Earth rotates slowly.

With Time being put forth as the fourth dimension, it's hard to believe just because someone says there isn't more that, that actually is the end of the story. I will add I think the moniker "Dimension" is a misnomer and just muddies the concept.

Edited May 9, 2011 by grayjay