Sasfooty Posted May 22, 2011 Posted May 22, 2011 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? This is irrelevant, since I don't subscribe to the theory that they shape shift. However, if I saw one shape shift, (numerous times) & science said that it was impossible, I would know something "hinkey" was going on. It could be that the subject wasn't cooperating or the scientist was lying, or mistaken if you want to be delicate about it.
indiefoot Posted May 22, 2011 Posted May 22, 2011 Science can't tell me what they don't yet know. They don't know what they don't know. BTW, I'm not a believer in telepathy, I have no idea if it exists or not. 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. Post#46 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.
Guest BitterMonk Posted May 22, 2011 Posted May 22, 2011 It could be that the subject wasn't cooperating or the scientist was lying, or mistaken if you want to be delicate about it. So you place more emphasis on personal experience than on the results of scientific study. Is that a fair assessment of your stance? If so how do you cope or rationalize your belief being in complete polar opposition to an established principle (in this hypothetical scenario)?
Guest BitterMonk Posted May 22, 2011 Posted May 22, 2011 Science can't tell me what they don't yet know. They don't know what they don't know. In this scenario they know exactly what they know. Post#46 Exactly. Said rubbish, as in something already seen or named, in referrence to BobbyO's post. Shape Shifting ?? Bwah, come on, the subject has enough ridiculousness attached to it without this way of thinking.
Sasfooty Posted May 22, 2011 Posted May 22, 2011 So you place more emphasis on personal experience than on the results of scientific study. Is that a fair assessment of your stance? Absolutely!!! If so how do you cope or rationalize your belief being in complete polar opposition to an established principle (in this hypothetical scenario)? COPE??? Why would I need to cope with it? I would simply know that their established principle was totally wrong. No need to cope.
Guest BitterMonk Posted May 22, 2011 Posted May 22, 2011 I would simply know that their established principle was totally wrong. Ah, but in this scenario the principle isn't wrong. Hence the question of how one would cope with such a principle. I think you've provided some excellent insights.
Guest gershake Posted May 22, 2011 Posted May 22, 2011 This is getting ridiculous, and at this point, while I've held it back from it so far, I'd like to ask you, BitterMonk, why you are assuming this scenario. Do you think it's a likely scenario? Half a dozen people in this thread have assured you it isn't.
Guest BitterMonk Posted May 22, 2011 Posted May 22, 2011 (edited) I'd like to ask you, BitterMonk, why you are assuming this scenario. Do you think it's a likely scenario? It's really quite simple. I was working yesterday and during a break the thought just occured to me. People make a broad array of claims about sasquatch. What if a sasquatch were discovered, but it didn't match all those claims? What happens to the people left out? From my perspective it is absolutely not unlikely that an eventual discovery wouldn't fit with everything that has been hypothesized to date. If that's true would we still see those debunked traits being claimed and if so what shape or form would they take? ETA - By "people left out" I mean people who made claims that didn't match the actual discovery. Edited May 22, 2011 by BitterMonk
Sasfooty Posted May 22, 2011 Posted May 22, 2011 Ah, but in this scenario the principle isn't wrong. Hence the question of how one would cope with such a principle. OHHHH!!!! I get it now!!!! I guess I'm a little slow. Here's your answer: If your scenario wasn't wrong, I would never have had my opinion of a "paranormal" sasquatch, because I would never have experienced what I've experienced. Next question?
indiefoot Posted May 22, 2011 Posted May 22, 2011 So in your scenario catching and studying one Sasquatch would tell you everything there is to know about all Saquatches. Maybe some have abilities that others don't, much like the primates we call Humans.
Sasfooty Posted May 22, 2011 Posted May 22, 2011 Maybe some have abilities that others don't, much like the primates we call Humans. That's a good point, Indie. I've thought this whole scenario is a little "outlandish" from the beginning.
Guest BitterMonk Posted May 22, 2011 Posted May 22, 2011 If your scenario wasn't wrong, I would never have had my opinion of a "paranormal" sasquatch, because I would never have experienced what I've experienced. I understand what you're saying. It goes back to placing a greater emphasis on perceived personal experience over empirical data. I get it.
Guest BitterMonk Posted May 22, 2011 Posted May 22, 2011 So in your scenario catching and studying one Sasquatch would tell you everything there is to know about all Saquatches. I said no such thing whatsoever. In fact, if you go back you'll see that I said something quite to the contrary.
Guest BitterMonk Posted May 22, 2011 Posted May 22, 2011 I've thought this whole scenario is a little "outlandish" from the beginning. You think it's outlandish to hypothesize that a discovered sasquatch wouldn't match every single attribute claimed? Do you think the discovery of a sasquatch that matched every single trait or ability ever claimed (from telepathy to riding in UFOs to braiding horse manes) is a less outlandish hypothesis?
Guest Posted May 22, 2011 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". 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. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ ShadowAngel I woundn't say YET that they are outside the limits of known Primate ability....mostly because we are still researching BF's ability to emit infrasound, via the mechanism of a different sized larynx based on how their skull is indeed attached to their spine. This was hypothisized on a BF tv show, just can't remember which one. Also Tibetian Monks are kicking it with their Chanting, as do Inuit Throat singers....totally possible, just not by everyone. ____________________ 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! _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Shapeshifting is a strictly Navaho belief, it has been ascribed to other Indian Nations willy nilly. The belief also states shapeshifting is done by a NDN PERSON, for personal gain, not Bigfoot.So applying Shapeshifting is just an assumption, urban legend applied to Bigfoot. Now you are correct in reports of BF disappearing into the ground ect, if you read the time stamp on my post, you'll see it was made at a ridiculious time in the AM and I honestly forgot about those reports. Yes, I have read them. ________________________________________________________________ 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. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Actually no, science only has a flimsy grasp on why or how humans PSI abilities are achieved despite PET Scans, MRI's, ect....so figuring out what part of the brain a BF is utalizing will be equally as challenging. ____________________________________________________________ To answer BM's query, until we can effectively communicate with BF's, just because we have one specimen does not preclude those paranormal abilities in any other specimen. Much like some dogs climb tree's not every one can....some people are Monet's but not all are. We haven't established anywhere near a baseline for what is "normal" for them or possible. That said I'd be severely shortsighted to believe if science said the one they got their mitts on was decidedly not able to preform paranormal feats. It has nothing to do with someone sticking to "DOGMA" it has everything to do with human scientist's history of being forced to revise over and over their "definative findings"!! Bull Sharks apparently have an ability to live as far north as Illinois....scientist's have had to revise their findings so many times on that deal it's laughable. Marine life can't possible exist at (pick a depth) and lo & behold!! They were wrong!! Phirana's can't live in Oaklahoma overwinter....yeah...they were wrong about that too. So with a very Iffy track record anyone who definatetavly believes what they are fed by science as being the last word on anything is a very lazy thinker. Science ALWAY's evolves and revises. So once again....Your Hypothetical is flawed, I'd lean more towards just calling a shovel a shovel and state it as "IN MY FANTACY" and begin again. Calling your query a "Hypothetical" is so far from reality as to be science-fiction. (JMO)
Recommended Posts