Guest BitterMonk Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 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. Ahem. 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 Ahem. But you said it your self right there " what we know about other primates" and looking at half of your list, those things are done by other primates. Did I miss something? Nevermind, I'm a lost cause. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 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. How can one know what they would do in a totally impossible situation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BitterMonk Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 Did I miss something? Yes, but I'm patiently trying to help you understand. I'm not asking you can a primate (us) cultivate a plant, process that plant, and then smoke it. I'm also not asking you if a sasquatch is telepathic or capable of changing colors like a cuttlefish. I'm asking you if a sasquatch was discovered that couldn't do those things would people still make those types of claims. How can one know what they would do in a totally impossible situation? There is absolutely nothing impossible in the scenario described, i.e. a sasquatch being discovered that can't do geometry for example. Again, you've stated you would refuse to accept such a fact, or rely on a belief system that included being lied to in order to explain the discrepancy between what was discovered to be true and what you believed. You've actually done a great job of answering the OP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 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. I guess this statement is causing confusion for several members, myself included. What are you defining as "traits inside those found amongst current primates"? We're primates. Spider monkeys are primates. As previously mentioned, humans have been scientifically documented to perform all kinds of very amazing feats. Nothing paranormal or magical about it. The ability to hold our breath for over 10 minutes (some islanders in the Polynesians have been witnessed to go much longer, but that isn't documented). To control our heart rate or even internal temperature. We can sing. We can farm tobacco, roll it, and smoke it. We can create fire. All of these things are well within the non-paranormal abilities of primates. Discovering a dead sasquatch body wouldn't rule out any of those things. I'd imagine if they ever find a sasquatch body, that it would have opposable thumbs and a high level of intelligence, which are the only two necessary ingredients for most of the activities we do. I also wouldn't define any of the above traits as paranormal and they are all "known traits". No primate has eyes that shine beams of light, shape-shifts into other animals, becomes invisible, flies, or emits infrasound. Those traits are not completely unheard of in the animal kingdom, but they are definitely outside the known limits of primate ability. Who threw shapeshifting into it? Shapeshifiting is a common belief associated with Sasquatch in some areas, mostly native american. The belief that sasquatches used to be humans or are dead human ghosts that morphed into their current state, or that they are spirits that can appear as a sasquatch or shapeshift into other animals or simply disappear. I've read reports where sasquatches went behind a small tree and then began to quickly vanish into mid air. Or continue walking like descending a staircase, into solid ground. They've been seen to walk over a hill and then shortly thereafter a UFO blasts off from the direction they were walking. Or communicate (in English, iirc) telepathically. You can not fault others for not taking paranormal sightings into account while you, yourself, including the extreme examples as well. A sighting of a bigfoot vanishing in midair is just as valid as a sighting of something less usual, but more palatable. I'd recommend you spend some time searching out different examples of shapeshifting, just as you recommended people google dowsing. Also, the whole "you only use 10% of your brain" thing is a complete myth: Snopes! To paraphrase Slicktrick "where would you cut a specimen to see the psychic fall out??" This depends on your own belief system. If you believe in the paranormal in the sense that there is a spiritual world or other dimension, supposed traits and abilities can come from and interact with that plane of existence. This is, by definition, impossible to document as the ability is from the same plane as the ability operates. Myself, I have yet to see or hear of a paranormal creature that existed in both worlds. Either an animal is an animal, ie: dogs and cats, or they are paranormal, ie: ghosts. But ghosts don't leave foot prints and scat, and dogs don't vanish into thin air or communicate telepathically. So if a dead sasquatch body is found, it will either have no special abilities, or those abilities will be able to be proved via dissection and/or observation - scientifically. And we'll discover them the same way we discover everything else. The way we know undersea creatures glow in the dark, skin color changes, or any other awesome ability that the animal kingdom possesses. They can all be scientifically proven. If sasquatch can communicate telepathically and they have a physical body, then they will have a physical organ or part of the brain that controls that telepathy. Plain and simple. edit: BM did a good job of clearing up the points I brought up in the first paragraph. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 I'm also not asking you if a sasquatch is telepathic or capable of changing colors like a cuttlefish. If Sasquatch could change colors like a cuttlefish, would it be paranormal? Are cuttlefish paranormal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BitterMonk Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 I guess this statement is causing confusion for several members, myself included. What are you defining as "traits inside those found amongst current primates"? We're primates. Spider monkeys are primates. As previously mentioned, humans have been scientifically documented to perform all kinds of very amazing feats. Nothing paranormal or magical about it. The ability to hold our breath for over 10 minutes (some islanders in the Polynesians have been witnessed to go much longer, but that isn't documented). To control our heart rate or even internal temperature. We can sing. We can farm tobacco, roll it, and smoke it. We can create fire. All of these things are well within the non-paranormal abilities of primates. Discovering a dead sasquatch body wouldn't rule out any of those things. I'd imagine if they ever find a sasquatch body, that it would have opposable thumbs and a high level of intelligence, which are the only two necessary ingredients for most of the activities we do. I also wouldn't define any of the above traits as paranormal and they are all "known traits". Let me see if I can phrase it this way. I'm not asking is it possible. I'm asking if it is discovered and doesn't do X or Y, are people still going to make claims about X or Y. No primate has eyes that shine beams of light, shape-shifts into other animals, becomes invisible, flies, or emits infrasound. Those traits are not completely unheard of in the animal kingdom, but they are definitely outside the known limits of primate ability. Exactly. When I was making reference to known behavior it was in regards to this, but you've done a better job of explaining it. In our hypothetical scenario we've discovered a primate that conforms to such rules. You could make other hypothetical arguments about all types of abilities but I'm not interested in those in this discussion. There are countless threads about "Can sasquatch do X, Y, or Z". I'm only interested in what happens to a belief system when confronted with a fact that flies in the face of said belief system. Hypothetically of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BitterMonk Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 If Sasquatch could change colors like a cuttlefish, would it be paranormal? Are cuttlefish paranormal? I'm not asking you is it possible for a sasquatch to change colors. I'm asking you if a sasquatch were proven not to be able to change colors would someone still make a claim to the contrary? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 Well, just so you know, & your hypothetical scenario doesn't have to include shapes hifting (in my case), I have never seen anything to cause me to think that they do that. However, I see no way for science to prove that they can't, if the Sasquatch doesn't cooperate. He could just refuse to shape shift if he had the ability, & science would have no way to prove anything except that he didn't shape shift. That would in no way prove that he couldn't. I'm not asking you is it possible for a sasquatch to change colors. I'm asking you if a sasquatch were proven not to be able to change colors would someone still make a claim to the contrary? If I had seen one change colors dozens of times, & several other people that I know had told me that they saw the same thing, I would still make claims that they could, no matter what science claimed to have proven. r Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 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. Most people accept that it is theoretically possible to get to mars. 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". I don't believe it is theoretically possible to prove that a Sasquatch doesn't have abilities not yet described. Calling your opinions science and opposing opinions "rubbish" is childish. This thread has had a very immature quality to it. I for one would love to see a mature discussion of what people are experiencing, this IMO is not the way to go about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BitterMonk Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 However, I see no way for science to prove that they can't, if the Sasquatch doesn't cooperate. He could just refuse to shape shift if he had the ability, & science would have no way to prove anything except that he didn't shape shift. Oustanding. So if the sasquatch were described as being unable to change shape your belief system would insert lack of cooperation as being the reason. Excellent! Would this be exclusive of the scientist lying to you or is it necessarily an either/or situation for you? Calling your opinions science and opposing opinions "rubbish" is childish. This thread has had a very immature quality to it. I for one would love to see a mature discussion of what people are experiencing, this IMO is not the way to go about it. I'm not calling my opinions science. I'm simply saying that in this hypothetical scenario science has established a fact. If you'll read back you'll also see that I was not the person that referred to shape shifting as being rubbish. I don't care if a person thinks a sasquatch can shape shift. This thread is about what would happen if you had that belief but it was proven to be wrong. If you'd like to see a discussion of peoples experiences I'd offer that there are numerous threads on this forum dealing with exactly that topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 I don't believe it is theoretically possible to prove that a Sasquatch doesn't have abilities not yet described. Why not? In theory, we're talking about watching the live population and dissecting dead specimens. If you cut them open and they bleed real blood, their skeletons are made from real bones, and their skin cells are just like other primate skin cells, would that not rule out the ability for the sasquatch to shape shift? Wouldn't a shape shifting creature need special cells, bones, and organs to do this feat? I would rule that it's totally possible to prove that an animal does not have certain abilities. Nobody seems to have a problem with saying that pigs can't fly. If someone said they saw a pig fly, you would blatantly ignore them, assuming they were mentally ill or on drugs. That's because science has proved that they can't do it. They weigh too much and don't have wings. I see all abilities by all creatures to follow this same format. If a Sasquatch can fly, communicate telepathically, or shape shift, it will have biological evidence of this. No biological evidence = no ability. Why would you assume otherwise? I'm honestly curious, not attempting to patronize you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
indiefoot Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 I'm not asking you is it possible for a sasquatch to change colors. I'm asking you if a sasquatch were proven not to be able to change colors would someone still make a claim to the contrary? The most science could say would be ."We find no known mechanism that would allow this creature to change colors". Science couldn't tell us they have no as yet un-described mechanism to make me perceive them to be a different color. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 Nobody seems to have a problem with saying that pigs can't fly. If someone said they saw a pig fly, you would blatantly ignore them, assuming they were mentally ill or on drugs. That's because science has proved that they can't do it. They weigh too much and don't have wings. Ahem. http://files.sydbarrettpinkfloyd.com/uploaded_images/pink-floyd-animals-719499.jpg (Just to lighten the mood a little... then again the drugs part might apply... ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BitterMonk Posted May 22, 2011 Share Posted May 22, 2011 Science couldn't tell us they have no as yet un-described mechanism to make me perceive them to be a different color. Why not? In this scenario science is looking you dead in the eye and telling you what the sasquatch is and isn't. Through what belief system or coping mechanism do you see science as being unable to tell you a fact? I honestly want an answer because that is exactly what this thread is about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts