This Monster Can Not Be Stopped

[Sasfooty]

Ok, I have a hypothetical scenario for you BM.

In my scenario, we have a psychic person that has proven herself by helping police to solve many almost impossible cases. She "sees" things in her mind, & tells them where to look for the body in murder cases. Maybe she even "sees" the murderer & helps them find him or her.

The cops have seen her work & they "know" what she can do, but she doesn't appear to be any different than any other human, physiologically.

So (hypothetically again) some scientist decides to test her to find her psychic abilities, but she doesn't choose to cooperate.

To paraphrase Slicktrick "where would you cut a specimen to see the psychic fall out??"

[Guest BitterMonk]

That's an interesting hypothetical scenario but it's entirely off topic. The topic of this thread is whether or not claimants would continue to attribute paranormal attributes to the sasquatch if it were discovered to possess no such traits. You provided your own response but if you have more to contribute regarding the topic I'd be happy to hear you out.

Perhaps you could find the appropriate subforum and start a thread regarding your topic. I think it would garner some interesting responses.

[Guest gershake]

You continue to ignore our questions how it could be proven not to possess such traits?

[Sasfooty]

The topic of this thread is whether or not claimants would continue to attribute paranormal attributes to the sasquatch if it were discovered to possess no such traits.

Ok. I'll add a question that puts it more in line with the topic.

Would the cops still believe that the psychic had psychic abilities, if she refused to show them to the "scientist"?

You continue to ignore our questions how it could be proven not to possess such traits?

And you are right Gershake. For this scenario to be plausible, we need to know how it is possible.

[Guest BitterMonk]

You continue to ignore our questions how it could be proven not to possess such traits?

I haven't ignored the question. I've actually answered it more than once. I'll try again. In this hypothetical scenario the discovered sasquatch possesses no traits outside those that could be found in a current primatology or anthropology text book. I'm not asking what it would take to determine this. I'm starting from the premise that this is found to be true.

In that scenario, would we have people making claims to the contrary in the face of fact. For example, sasquatch is discovered and can't bend time. Would people still claim that there was a type of sasquatch that could bend time?

[Sasfooty]

In this hypothetical scenario the discovered sasquatch possesses no traits outside those that could be found in a current primatology or anthropology text book.

I don't believe it's possible to prove that.

Can you prove that it's possible?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof.

[Guest BitterMonk]

I don't believe it's possible to prove that.

So your belief system is that you can't prove the sasquatch isn't say, telepathic? In this scenario it's an established fact that they are indeed not telepathic. What prevents you from accepting this truth? Is it dogma as SA described?

[Sasfooty]

I'm not trying to prove they're not telepathic. That would be stupid, since I know better.

And no, it's not dogma. It's believing what I have seen & experienced. It's accepting truth for what it is.

Your scenario is all messed up since it's impossible to accomplish.

[Guest]

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?

Setting up the question and refining the question over & over until someone provides the answer you want isn't a valid enquirey. It is however manipulative behavior and generally left behind in childhood.

"BY NORMAL I MEAN AN ORGANISM CONFORMING TO THE KNOWN LAWS OF BIOLOGY AS WE UNDERSTAND THEM TODAY"

That leaves everything open. A olympic Athlete does not preform feats humans are incapable of, yet most people can't reproduce the preformance.

So far you have gone from a biological organism, to flopping around and naming lesser primates, ect....at this point your question belongs on a website such as Above Top Secret!! Or phrased differently leaving BF out of it. Such as "who believes in the paranormal? And would despite it being disproven by science?"

I asked you point blank how much time have you spent around Bigfoot? There was a point to that question. The point being you would never ask a question like this had you done so. So asking those to come forward who have and "announce" their unrelenting belief in BF as a paranormal entity, regardless of BF failing some scientific test, is not going to happen no matter how you rephrase the question because there is no way to FORCE someone to use PSI abilities if they don't choose to.

Failing the fact BF turns out to have a brain the size of a walnut.

It isn't that I don't understand your question, it's that I believe you don't.

Thank you for asking me about what I believe....

[Guest]

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.

But chimps can mimic any kind of behavior if they see it enough, including smoking.....and many primates sing even if it doesn't sound like singing to us. They do have traits that allow these specific things you have listed to happen. Whether primates actually DO any of these things is moot if you are only looking at a dissected body, they do have the biological resources to do so. Here is an article on the hearing range of primates and how much that varies from species to species which may relate to the infrasound you included in your list:

http://psychology.utoledo.edu/images/users/74/primate_hearing_from_a_mammalian_perspective.pdf

[Guest BitterMonk]

I'm not trying to prove they're not telepathic. That would be stupid, since I know better.

And no, it's not dogma. It's believing what I have seen & experienced. It's accepting truth for what it is.

I'm not asking you what you believe. I'm asking what you would do if discovery proved to not jive with what you believe. It's really a simple question.

Your scenario is all messed up since it's impossible to accomplish.

I would have to strongly disagree. It is absolutely possible to hypothesize the discovery of a sasquatch not possessing something like telepathy. The question is can someone espousing a telepathic sasquatch continue to do so when a sasquatch is presented that isn't telepathic?

[Guest BitterMonk]

Setting up the question and refining the question over & over until someone provides the answer you want isn't a valid enquirey.

Trust me. If I could have gone without having to restate the OP over and over again since people seemed to be struggling with grasping it I would have done so happily.

That leaves everything open.

No it doesn't. The principle is simple. I'll even simplify it even more for you and focus on a single point. A sasquatch is discovered that can't use telekinesis. Would there still be people making claims of telekinetic sasquatches?

I asked you point blank how much time have you spent around Bigfoot? There was a point to that question.

If there was no point to the question then there was no point in answering it. Besides, as I pointed out earlier I am not the focus of this thread. The focus of this thread is whether or not a discovery of a "normal" sasquatch would stop people from making "abnormal" claims. I hate to have to use words like abnormal and normal but I'm trying to simply the concept as much as I can for you since you seem to be struggling with it a bit.

Thank you for asking me about what I believe...

As I told Sas I don't care what you believe in regards to this thread. I only care in what you would choose to believe in the face of a hypothesized fact.

[Guest]

So your belief system is that you can't prove the sasquatch isn't say, telepathic? In this scenario it's an established fact that they are indeed not telepathic. What prevents you from accepting this truth? Is it dogma as SA described?

I'm lost now, in your scenario how was not being telepathic proven to be the case? I have my own theories on why they aren't but I want to hear how these biologists figured it out in your scenario. Can you elaborate please?

[Guest BitterMonk]

But chimps can mimic any kind of behavior if they see it enough, including smoking.....and many primates sing even if it doesn't sound like singing to us.

Is it really that complicated? A sasquatch is discovered that doesn't smoke. Period. That is the hypothetical situation. I'm not asking could a sasquatch learn to smoke, or would they choose to smoke if offered, or would they prefer menthols.

I have my own theories on why they aren't but I want to hear how these biologists figured it out in your scenario. Can you elaborate please?

It simply doesn't matter. If we were going to have a hypothetical discussion of how mankind might evolve on Mars we wouldn't have to first discuss how we got to Mars in order to have that hypothetical discussion.

We don't need to know how the sasquatch was proven to not be telepathic in order to ask "If sasquatch isn't telepathic would people still make claims about telepathic sasquatches".

[Guest]

Is it really that complicated? A sasquatch is discovered that doesn't smoke. Period. That is the hypothetical situation. I'm not asking could a sasquatch learn to smoke, or would they choose to smoke if offered, or would they prefer menthols.

Well you have lost me on this one since in my world no one can prove these things "yes" or "no" just by looking at a dissected specimen. In your scenario to have concluded some of the things you suggest, dissection would have had to occur. Knowing what I do know about science, about primate physiology, about physics, etc....this scenario would not occur until many sasquatch were observed and dissected therefore no fact could be stated until that happened. The people who believe in paranormal bigfoot would have a legitimate argument based on your scenario with only one specimen IMO.