Guest Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 By normal I mean an organism conforming to the known laws of biology as we understand them today. No infrasound. Just a run of the mill primate. Point of order: Infrasound is a very real and accepted biological capability of some living animals. There is no recourse to the "paranormal" involved in infrasound. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 As a witness myself I believe what I saw was real, but if someone were to come forward and show me how they hoaxed me I wouldn't refuse to accept that I was hoaxed. Oh, I'm sure you would. But your analogy in this case is a little off. In direct comparison to your general question towards paranormal believers (Sasfooty being an example), your analogy would be more akin to Person A explaining how phenomenon X could be hoaxed. That wouldn't necessarily change your own belief on what you encountered, personally.Also, when dealing with this issue you can't directly compare the two. If Sasquatch really was an inter-dimensional shape-shifting, UFO driving relative of ours - they'd (theoretically) be able to walk around, eat a few bugs, and glare at you as they walked away. By this I mean that one can possess an ability and not use it, but one can not use an ability one does not posses. The paranormal believer must believe in the paranormal aspects, due to their belief in what they witnessed. A non-paranormal believer does not have to believe dogmatically in flesh-and-blood sasquatch, because a paranormal creature could create the same (non-paranormal) encounter that the non-paranormal witness saw. In this regard, non-paranormal believers/witnesses/whatever will always be more reasonable (or appear as such) as their position affords them ability to take or leave the paranormal aspects. The paranormal believer/witness must believe they were hoaxed, hallucinating, or that the paranormal aspect exists. Their position demands dogmatic adherence. I haven't talked to enough witnesses or done anything personally in that regard so I'm not going to pass judgment on them. I'm just saying from a logical point of view, that they'd have to be dogmatic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 (edited) 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? Now this is exactly the dilema! Human's as a type of primate have the ability to Douse for water wells, the water companies employ them when they have lost maps for 100 yr old waterlines, and once again the US Military has employed Remote Viewers. So what you consider paranormal has been proven to be normal for primates (humans) and apparently can be taught AND provide a paycheck. Indian Yogi can slow their autoniomous body functions down to where they are barely measurable. Also teachable. To decide off the top of your head what is or is not paranormal is not only in disregard of the facts but the same thing you accuse posters of. YOU don't believe it, despite me pointing out two of these examples previously. Didn't a scientist say somewhere we don't use 90% of our brains? Hasn't it also been proven that people we call "Prodigy's" have the ability to use more of their brain then the average Joe? Just because you can't doesn't mean other primates or humans can't. Just because you haven't met with a Dowser or watched them work doesn't mean it isn't or can't be done. That said...all I can add is either you have NO experience with a Bigfoot in person or you are in denial. People have been reporting unusual and inexplainable thing regarding them for years, yet you have decided to just disregard the information. How scientific of you. I'm Just glad Johnas Saulk didn't toss the mold!!! I have noticed the posters who decide it's in everyones best interest to decide what is acceptable BF behavior or acceptable capabilities never report what they have found in the field, describe their fieldwork, or report their latest sighting. Bigfoot is still an unknown. We can't explain how their vision works, how their organs function and have yet to give one a PET Scan...so deciding what they are capable of is premature. (JMO) Edited to add; all of this info has been common knowledge, google Dowsers, google remote viewing. It's your job to educate yourself. Edited May 22, 2011 by grayjay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted May 22, 2011 SSR Team Share Posted May 22, 2011 Whether Infrasound has been detected in Primate Species or not, i'm pretty adament that these one's do have Infrasound capabilities even though i never experienced even a hint of it in my Sighting. The reason why i say this is that although i don't believe every single Report in the Databbases i read are true, as i am a " knower " of their existence & not just a " believer ", the amount of Reports that suggest they do have Infrasound Capabilities of some kind suggest to me that they do have them, in some capacity or another. Shape Shifting ?? Bwah, come on, the subject has enough ridiculousness attached to it without this way of thinking. But to answer thee original question of " Can the paranormal sasquatch be killed by the discovery of a normal sasquatch ? ", i think it can/could do, but i'm not sure if it will.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 Who threw shapeshifting into it? Altho I will mention it's much easier to believe they can alter our perceptions so that it may appear to us we're seeing something that is in fact not real. Ask anyone waiting for five o'clock on a Friday at work how much slower the workday "seemed". Despite the known fact 24 hours is still 24 hours. It's very likely between misdirection and our temporarily heightened awareness at the time of a sighting, our perceptions may have been tampered with. Plus our optic nerve has been proven to not capture every image "we think we see". That said we really don't know what we see everyday, so how can we say we actually saw everything during a brief BF sighting? :D To clarify, not saying witness's are mistaken or reporting BS...am saying BF can most likely pull a fast one from time to time so that's why reports include seemingly disappearing Sasquatches and trackways that just end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BobbyO Posted May 22, 2011 SSR Team Share Posted May 22, 2011 Who threw shapeshifting into it? Wouldnn't shape shifting be classed as Paranormal ?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 LOL!! I'm guessing it's classed as impossible, but what do I know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 Infrasound is a known biological trait, but it isn't documented in any primate species. So what? 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. Not even close to a reasonable analogy, BM, and you know it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 Is this supposed to be a joke? Out of the 5 paranormal abilities you listed, at least 3 aren't paranormal (infrasound, swiping smokes, singing songs). Humans are run-of-the-mill primates and we swipe smokes and sing songs as well. Not sure what you're on about here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 Attempting in own way, to latch on to BitterMonk’s initial thoughts and requests for reciprocal thoughts thereon... As mentioned previously by me, I am among the minority on this forum who are decidedly open to the notion of the paranormal (in whatever shape) being in play, re the Bigfoot phenomenon – this “take†proceeding from the perception of “so many encounter reports from so many places, yet so little hard evidence of BF’s presenceâ€. The biggest factor, for me, informing the above “takeâ€, is (I’ll qualify it by saying that with my living on the east side of the Atlantic, I may have things wrong about North American geography, but would reckon self not totally clueless about same) – the, per reports, almost-ubiquity of Bigfoot in the United States, and perhaps to a lesser extent, in Canada. I could accept the possibility of a small population of purely-flesh-and-blood giant bipedal primates living and perpetuating their species, undiscovered and undocumented, in the U.S.’s Pacific Northwest, and north therefrom into Canada and Alaska, and possibly in remote fastnesses further east in Canada. In other, less secluded, parts of North America: such entities apparently being quite often seen all over same, but never physically detected and run to earth – in the strictly-f&b ballpark, this defeats my “belief†apparatus. In a situation of competing wildly-unlikely scenarios, the least-wildly-unlikely would seem to me, “something is going on, and it’s something beyond a purely-flesh-and-blood species. If – whatever they are – are physically here on earth; they are so, for only a minority of the time.†A friend of mine – open to the idea of paranormal involvement in this matter – raised to me the notion of there perhaps being a species of flesh-and-blood giant ape-men hiding out in the remotest wilderness parts of the north-west and north, of the North American continent; and at the same time, paranormal / supernatural manifestations, the same or similar in appearance, showing up in other, more crowded, parts of North America (and ditto elsewhere in the world), which could not support a physical population of such creatures, especially “unknown and uncataloguedâ€. This dual-or-parallel scenario struck me at the time, as “way out there, beyond unbelievable†– but the longer the Bigfoot phenomenon goes on, seemingly unresolved and unresolvable, the more open I find myself, to weirder contingencies. Some apprehension felt, re hereby making things still more confused... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 In my defense I don't think I'm trolling at all. To the contrary I think this is the very nature of the sasquatch discussion. That is of course, barring us having an actual sasquatch. If we can discuss the ramifications of the Ketchum paper in regards to how the sasquatch falls on the tree of life, why can't we discuss how that revelation would effect those who hold a personal belief that goes against said revelation? In my mind this is no different than the gigantopithecus vs hominid debate, with the only difference being the injection of a hypothetical discovery. Honestly, just presenting a body would not tell you whether bigfoot had paranormal capabilities. Keeping one in captivity wouldn't either since, to my knowledge, there is no testing that would verify PSI activities. That's the problem that ghost hunters run into in their research, you just hit a brick wall with trying to explain HOW the evidence you got manifested itself. Therefore, if they find bigfoot, he will most definitely be thought of as just a flesh and blood animal. The reactions to that news will vary depending on what people's experiences are: Sasfooty won't believe it because she has seen something different, I will probably not have a problem with it, then there will be all those that fall in between. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BitterMonk Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 (JMO) I'm only interested in your belief system as it applies to sasquatch. For the sake of this discussion the discovered sasquatch would possess no traits not currently found in a primatology or anthropology text book. Shape Shifting ?? Bwah, come on, the subject has enough ridiculousness attached to it without this way of thinking. I'm not trying to attribute any traits that haven't already been claimed. I'm simply saying if a sasquatch were discovered that possessed no traits outside those currently known for primates, would people still make claims about said rubbish. Is this supposed to be a joke? Out of the 5 paranormal abilities you listed, at least 3 aren't paranormal (infrasound, swiping smokes, singing songs). Humans are run-of-the-mill primates and we swipe smokes and sing songs as well. Not sure what you're on about here. No joke. When the gorilla and the orangutan were discovered they were doing none of those things. I'm simply saying that in a hypothetical world where the sasquatch was discovered (and found to also not be doing any of those things) would people still make claims of mind reading monkeys (as one example). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 This is your thread obviously, but my point is, if sasquatch were discovered and found to be singing songs and swiping smokes, why would that mean that it could shapeshift and read minds? I'm trying to say that I think you should distinguish between "paranormal" and "unusual". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WV FOOTER Posted May 22, 2011 Admin Share Posted May 22, 2011 Drugs are bad,Mmmkay! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BitterMonk Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 I'm trying to say that I think you should distinguish between "paranormal" and "unusual". I understand what you're saying but there's really no need to define the traits outside of those found amongst current primates, since for the sake of this discussion our discovered sasquatch only possesses those currently known traits. If that sasquatch were discovered, would people still make claims revolving around all those other traits such as mind reading, reality bending, etc. The paranormal believer must believe in the paranormal aspects, due to their belief in what they witnessed. A non-paranormal believer does not have to believe dogmatically in flesh-and-blood sasquatch, because a paranormal creature could create the same (non-paranormal) encounter that the non-paranormal witness saw. In this regard, non-paranormal believers/witnesses/whatever will always be more reasonable (or appear as such) as their position affords them ability to take or leave the paranormal aspects. The paranormal believer/witness must believe they were hoaxed, hallucinating, or that the paranormal aspect exists. Their position demands dogmatic adherence. Very good post and insightful comment. You've shucked it right on down to the cob so to speak. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts