Guest Stan Norton Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 No, actually you're wrong. There are people who do know what BF can do and can objectively tell you what they can do based on experience. You are correct that they are more than just human and/or animal. With that being said, you need to be carefull not to try to use a cookie cutter approach for all BF. Just like people or any other entity, there is no one size fits all. Yet more speculative opinion I'm afraid. Where is your evidence for your assertions? Nothing you have said here has any substance in terms of the sasquatch phenomenon but simply adds to the pile of wishy washy silliness. The subjective nonsense in the sasquatch world is a perennial weed which, at this present time, appears to have found fertile soil. I mean, come off it!!
Guest LarryP Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 It is based on my own personal experiences, Stan. So there's nothing "subjective" about them to me at all. The only way I could even begin to provide evidence would be to invite you to the primary area where most of these experiences occured and then hope that they would occur with you present. Though I have little doubt that you would then desperately try to explain them away in true materialist fashion. As to the "credbility" issues you were complaining about upthread. That's your personal problem, not mine. I could care less about what anyone (including you) deems to be credible or not credible. Again, I am not a "researcher" and therefore I'm not an evidence gatherer. So if you want to write off everything I've said as "nonsense", then so be it. But I'm not backing off of anything just to make you happy.
Guest Stan Norton Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 It is based on my own personal experiences, Stan. So there's nothing "subjective" about them to me at all. The only way I could even begin to provide evidence would be to invite you to the primary area where most of these experiences occured and then hope that they would occur with you present. Though I have little doubt that you would then desperately try to explain them away in true materialist fashion. As to the "credbility" issues you were complaining about upthread. That's your personal problem, not mine. I could care less about what anyone (including you) deems to be credible or not credible. Again, I am not a "researcher" and therefore I'm not an evidence gatherer. So if you want to write off everything I've said as "nonsense", then so be it. But I'm not backing off of anything just to make you happy. So you are only here to trade platitudes? I thought this forum was all about learning about sasquatch and sharing? For a self-proclaimed vitalist your stance appears quite selfish and judgemental. I am merely pointing out the irony in you accusing others of making unsubstantiated statements when you yourself have just admitted that your purpose here is to withhold information. Do you not see? In my terribly materialistic existence as an ecologist working in nature conservation I deal with scientific facts, backed up by empirical evidence. That allows real world applications to assist biodiversity. Do you still object?
Guest Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 Ant, I didn't mean the heart literally as an organ. It was meant figuratively. If you're looking for scientific evidence of that reality then you need to open up your heart and stop just thinking with your head. (Hope you get that). Another purely subjective statement with no proof to back it up. If any major city in the US completely lost electricity and water for 3 days the result would be catastrophic. No, actually you're wrong. There are people who do know what BF can do and can objectively tell you what they can do based on experience. You are correct that they are more than just human and/or animal. With that being said, you need to be carefull not to try to use a cookie cutter approach for all BF. Just like people or any other entity, there is no one size fits all. haha open up my heart? more metaphor? that is all meaningless twaddle. Cities lose power every now and again and do not descend into catastrophe beyond our abilities to repair and rebuild. For three days things might get tighter and more stressed but there is no indication that people would descend into animalistic barbarity. SOME people will descend into barbarity more easily than others but that is to be expected and is not a real threat. Humans are COOPERATIVE species and will work together to repair damage and prevent harm wherever they can. They will not always succeed but they will try which is still much more than we see with bigfoot reports for the most part. YOU think they are more than the rest of creation, I do not. That would require evidence that no one has presented. Nothing in any report suggests anything more than some species of animal. That could include some species of human but I do not favor this idea as they do not act like us according to most reports. Some reports suggest they might aliens or spirits. Again without any evidence to support such ideas, these ideas are useless and uninformative. I do not use a cookie cutter approach to bigfoot. I believe there are many explanations for bigfoot and that more than one explanation for reports work quite well. What I claim is there is no real evidence to support any of these hypotheses just yet. It is based on my own personal experiences, Stan. So there's nothing "subjective" about them to me at all. The only way I could even begin to provide evidence would be to invite you to the primary area where most of these experiences occured and then hope that they would occur with you present. Though I have little doubt that you would then desperately try to explain them away in true materialist fashion. As to the "credbility" issues you were complaining about upthread. That's your personal problem, not mine. I could care less about what anyone (including you) deems to be credible or not credible. Again, I am not a "researcher" and therefore I'm not an evidence gatherer. So if you want to write off everything I've said as "nonsense", then so be it. But I'm not backing off of anything just to make you happy. "desperately try to explain away" huh? More like trying to explain with available knowledge before jumping to a conclusion. Once all likely explanations are eliminated then the less likely explanations will have more sway but not before. So you are only here to trade platitudes? I thought this forum was all about learning about sasquatch and sharing? For a self-proclaimed vitalist your stance appears quite selfish and judgemental. I am merely pointing out the irony in you accusing others of making unsubstantiated statements when you yourself have just admitted that your purpose here is to withhold information. Do you not see? In my terribly materialistic existence as an ecologist working in nature conservation I deal with scientific facts, backed up by empirical evidence. That allows real world applications to assist biodiversity. Do you still object? This is a common mode of debate in Fortean circles unfortunately. No real information and outright refusal to share information for various reasons. I love ecology. Studying bigfoot and loch ness monster reports actually got me started in reading about ecosystems and how they work. One of the reasons I suspect that bigfoot is not as widespread as reports indicate.
Guest LarryP Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 So you are only here to trade platitudes? No, I'm not here to trade platittudes. Why do you ask? I thought this forum was all about learning about sasquatch and sharing? Which is exactly what I'm doing. If what I share doesn't jibe with your sensibilities then that's not my problem, Stan. That's your problem. For a self-proclaimed vitalist your stance appears quite selfish and judgemental. How so? I am merely pointing out the irony in you accusing others of making unsubstantiated statements when you yourself have just admitted that your purpose here is to withhold information. Do you not see? No, I don't see. That's because I've never said that my purpose here is to withold information. All I've said is that I am not an evidence gatherer, or a researcher. That's because I don't have the time nor the inclination to do research or gather evidence.. . In my terribly materialistic existence as an ecologist working in nature conservation I deal with scientific facts, backed up by empirical evidence. That allows real world applications to assist biodiversity. Do you still object? Unlike you Stan, I don't "object" to anything. Though I will admit that whenever I see anyone use the term "real world" I have to chuckle just a bit. That's because most peoples (especially scientists) real world is really nothing more than a collection of perceptual interpretations that have been pounded into them since early childhood. And I can tell you in no uncertain terms that those perceptual interpretations that constitute your perception of the real world are not going to serve you well if you really want to learn about Sasquatch.
Guest Stan Norton Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 No, I'm not here to trade platittudes. Why do you ask? Which is exactly what I'm doing. If what I share doesn't jibe with your sensibilities then that's not my problem, Stan. That's your problem. How so? No, I don't see. That's because I've never said that my purpose here is to withold information. All I've said is that I am not an evidence gatherer, or a researcher. That's because I don't have the time nor the inclination to do research or gather evidence.. . Unlike you Stan, I don't "object" to anything. Though I will admit that whenever I see anyone use the term "real world" I have to chuckle just a bit. That's because most peoples (especially scientists) real world is really nothing more than a collection of perceptual interpretations that have been pounded into them since early childhood. And I can tell you in no uncertain terms that those perceptual interpretations that constitute your perception of the real world are not going to serve you well if you really want to learn about Sasquatch. More platitudes. What a waste of my time...Will I never learn? Farewell. Good luck with your own perceptual interpretations. Remember to insult the intelligence of your doctor, airline pilot, mechanic etc etc next time you see them.
Guest LarryP Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 Farewell to you Stan. And there is no such thing as luck. Otherwise I'd wish you good luck as well. Just remember that one mans platittude is another mans knowledge. haha open up my heart? more metaphor? that is all meaningless twaddle. So I guess you've never loved anyone or had your heart broken? Or experienced heartache at the loss of a loved one? If all that amounts to is "meaningless twaddle" as far as your concerned, then I'd say we've reached a literal dead end.
Guest Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 LarryP, that is not the heart but only the physiological response to loss and grief. Doesn't mean that I don't feel love but it is not the heart. That's all in my mind where all of my thinking and feeling is actually done. The physiological response is in response to my thoughts.
Guest LarryP Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 Then why do you feel it in your heart and not your head?
Guest Crowlogic Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 Nope. When the first serious look at the evidence by anyone other than part-timers hasn't happened yet, we haven't gotten started. That's why we are where we are. I think you are trying way too hard here. You keep coming back with "no proof no proof" when no one's even arguing that. You just sound like you needed this proven 25 years ago and have just been getting more and more disappointed since. Sorry, that's just the way it sounds. This hunt's hotter than it's ever been and getting hotter by the week. If I thought this were a game, I would at least want to be playing. Actually this requires almost no effort at all. It is very simple. Evidence of Bigfoot is not proof of Bigfoot. The hunt can be white hot, things go in cycles. Lot of people have more time these days, high unemployment can be thanked. It's hotter because the internet allows some to create a following and technology allows them to produce visuals of the hunt easily. So the hunt is hotter than ever and the results are as empty as ever. Perhaps less than empty as we have nothing even close to the PGF as a video source to hold up to the light. Strip away the hope and the fun and what have we? Bold claims and announcements that lead nowhere. If one guy like Patterson could get a good film than 100 Pattersons should have already brought home the prize. I assume the field being hot indicates at least 100 Pattersons out there. As the OP said, I have proof of Bigfoot but I am withholding it to protect the species. Can anyone in this field afford to give up that kind of fame and fortune? Nobody I've ever seen in the chase has ever seemed like they could pass on that money and fame. Certainly Janice Carter couldn't have. I've never seen a well monied Bigfoot hunter it's always average Joe's hoping for luck.
Guest Crowlogic Posted July 28, 2014 Posted July 28, 2014 Unlike you Stan, I don't "object" to anything. Larry one has to object to things in order to find truth. Blind acceptance gets nowhere. Without the questions there is no solution. I too am/was employed in the natural sciences. I have 100's of hours in the field seeking answers to questions demanding answers. Acceptance is the pious man's way out.
Guest Posted July 29, 2014 Posted July 29, 2014 Then why do you feel it in your heart and not your head? Physiological response. Your brain deals with particular sorts of thinking by giving it a physical sensation. This is a holdover from before we became reasoning beings. Our ancestors used sensation as the primary interface between the unconscious and the conscious brain. When we evolved our capacity for language, we kept the system because it is still useful and we haven't evolved the mental hardware and/or software to make getting rid of it a good idea yet.
Guest DWA Posted July 29, 2014 Posted July 29, 2014 (edited) Crowlogic: ummmm, ah, yeah, right. Got that. And you are one of many here, aren't you. Some are feeding them Twinkies, and I'm just as sure of that. Not that anything else you said is correct either, but I'd expect a scientist to know that. Edited July 29, 2014 by DWA
Squatchy McSquatch Posted July 29, 2014 Posted July 29, 2014 Twinkies and Scientists. Yessssss!!!! You're on the right track.
Guest Crowlogic Posted July 29, 2014 Posted July 29, 2014 (edited) As a scientist I would expect science and science is not being applied to the Bigfoot question. A kind of "Action News Science" is perhaps. Once again going back to the OP the withholding of the hard evidence as a means to preserve the safety of the species is ludicrous. Ludicrous to the point that the emperor is actually wearing no clothes. But those emperors can sit behind closed doors and assure the public that yes indeed they are wearing clothes. Face it the math no longer works. We've far too many methods and opportunities to put this to rest assuming there is something to put to rest. We can say that there are too many yahoos out there but those yahoos are as likely to nail the SOB as Dr Meldrum so to speak. It's a grand excuse that there are too many scammers. Scammers or not we are without proof. Evidence is not proof, belief is not proof. Show me/us one, just one modern Bigfoot researcher that is on the mark leading to a can and will bring it to a rightful conclusion. I will go on record an say there are none because the issue is the null set. Edited July 29, 2014 by Crowlogic
Recommended Posts