Guest BitterMonk Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 (edited) In the spirit of hypotheticals I pose a simple question. Can the paranormal sasquatch be killed by the discovery of a normal sasquatch? By normal I mean an organism conforming to the known laws of biology as we understand them today. No infrasound. No shifting in and out of dimensions. No telepathy. No swiping smokes. No singing songs. Just a run of the mill primate. If such an animal were discovered would people espousing a paranormal entity refuse to accept the results? Would they proclaim a separate, as yet still undiscovered source for all their claimed phenomenon, or would they throw in the towel? Edited May 22, 2011 by BitterMonk Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Sean V Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 I imagine that they would just change the meaning of what a paranormal Sasquatch was. If a (once) living & breathing creature was brought in they would say that the creature they are searching for is some sort of spirit/entity, dimension shifting alien, or other non-corporeal being. I ran into paranormal researcher years back who believed that the Sasquatch was a "primal spirit", made up of the energies of long-dead humans & animals and that it could not be caught or killed by anyone. He stated that he would never accept that it was an F&B creature, even if a dead one was shown to him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 Get back to us with that question when it happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BitterMonk Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 So if a biologically normal sasquatch were discovered would you stop believing they were chain smoking in your backyard? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 (edited) You need to take infrasound out of the list since that is not paranormal. It is a biological feature that many mammals have. Edited May 22, 2011 by Jodie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BitterMonk Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 Infrasound is a known biological trait, but it isn't documented in any primate species. Hence the reason I left it out. You could say that flight was a known biological feature since birds and bats can fly, but I'm not aware of any flying monkeys short the Wizard of Oz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 I don't think they have enough cigarettes to be chain smoking. It's only happened a few times. Actually, I don't believe I ever said that I think they aren't biologically normal, whatever that means. I do think they have mental powers that aren't normal for us. Do you think that could be proven by dissecting one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 Everyone with a lick of common sense....DON'T TAKE THE BAIT!!!!!! :lol: Isn't there another way to take a Poll of suspected crayzee's??? Like...say a poll??? (jmo) btw....chimp's smoke, and with enough burn barrels around lighting a cig isn't rocket science....neither is swiping some. Folks leave them on workbenches, in sheds, ect....LOL!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 Well then, do we know bigfoot is definitely a primate? Or is he a primate in this particular scenario? There are reports of flying bigfoot, although I don't take them seriously, but for the sake of your question I would say that people would think there was something out there other than bigfoot performing all of the shenanigans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BitterMonk Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 The question isn't what I believe. The question is would you stop believing they possessed any traits outside the norm should one be discovered that lacked any of the attributed paranormal traits? Well then, do we know bigfoot is definitely a primate? Or is he a primate in this particular scenario? The two primary schools of thought for a normal, flesh and blood sasquatch are that it is either a great ape or a hominid. In either case it would be a primate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 The question isn't what I believe. The question is would you stop believing they possessed any traits outside the norm should one be discovered that lacked any of the attributed paranormal traits? Oh, now I see. You aren't answering any questions, just asking. So my answer is that no, I would not believe it. I would just think they were either lying about what they found or they found an abnormal one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BitterMonk Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 So my answer is that no, I would not believe it. So if sasquatch were confirmed, and subsequent confirmation led to studies equal to or greater than those that have been conducted on the orangutan, gorilla, chimpanzee, etc., you would refuse to believe that said animal exhibited no traits outside those known for other primates? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 The question isn't what I believe. The question is would you stop believing they possessed any traits outside the norm should one be discovered that lacked any of the attributed paranormal traits? Oh, well other than possibly having infrasound capability, I don't buy into paranormal bigfoot. I was just answering in general as to what I thought those that did would say, "If it isn't bigfoot, then it is something else". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 I already said what I would believe about it. Here it is again in case you missed it: "I would just think they were either lying about what they found or they found an abnormal one". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BitterMonk Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 "I would just think they were either lying about what they found or they found an abnormal one". I just wanted to make sure there was no confusion. I am curious though if there is any amount of established scientific testing that would convince you that the sasquatch possessed no traits outside the current established knowledge? In the spirit of fairness the library of knowledge regarding known great apes isn't exhausted. Would there be a time frame where you eventually relented once X number of years had passed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts