Super-Human Sasquatch

[norseman]

I honestly do not understand why someone who hates Bigfoot reports would hang out on a Bigfoot website that features a frickin SSR!!??

 

I’m not trying to be mean here or pick on skeptics. I like Dmaker as a person! I also find many many Bigfoot reports to be quite frankly out there......

 

But the logic escapes me as to Dmaker’s incredulousness over why Bigfooters on a Bigfoot forum pour over reports? Explain that one.

 

 

[hiflier]

This is a Bigfoot Forum; it has a BigFoot database. John Green has a database as well. Bringing in what's in those databases to the members is fine to do. So why would anyone want to bring up the psychology of belief? It's completely off topic and so not at all in context.

Edited April 17, 2018 by hiflier

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

dmaker’s explanation is that he’s studying the psychology of individuals who have fringe beliefs. If it weren’t for his own emotional involvement on the issue of the Bigfoot’s existence, and the fact that he focuses mainly on just subject, I might have actually believed that, and wouldn’t have put him in the category of people sensitive to cognitive dissonance, which the majority of skeptics in this field of research fall into. In reality, such individuals are not as confident in their belief as they like to claim they are. They wouldn’t actually be here if they were completely confident in their belief.

 

Edited April 17, 2018 by OntarioSquatch

[dmaker]

1 hour ago, hiflier said:

Then why comment? They are just stories. Who said anything about believing them. Yeeesh, lighten up.

If  you don't believe them, then why start a thread to discuss them and post numerous times in that thread?

1 hour ago, norseman said:

But the logic escapes me as to Dmaker’s incredulousness over why Bigfooters on a Bigfoot forum pour over reports? Explain that one.

I get that a large percentage here will be open to the creature's existence or lean that way, etc. I tire of the constant lecturing about "true skepticism" vs "scoffing", etc as well. Yet I see nary a critical eye turned upon almost anything. Surely discussing superhuman qualities of an undocumented creature collected solely in third party anecdotes might, just might, be an opportunity to display some of this vaunted skepticism I keep hearing about around here?

 

And people wonder why sometimes this whole thing just looks like one big adult make believe. 

 

[hiflier]

29 minutes ago, OntarioSquatch said:

dmaker’s explanation is that he’s studying the psychology of individuals who have fringe beliefs. If it weren’t for his own emotional involvement on the issue of the Bigfoot’s existence, and the fact that he focuses mainly on just subject, I might have actually believed that

 

Pretty well said. Question for O.S. and it's a bit more on topic. If Sasquatch is supposed to have an origin as you say not of this Earth. And maybe as others' say, is interdimensional, or as Dr. Mathew Johnson believes, uses portals, then why, if one assumes the stories are true, would Sasquatch run across a road, physically climb a hill, tear dogs apart, bite the neck of a deer and carry it off and, above all, why have witnesses even allowed to see it do all of these things like walk in snow, leave tracks, get shot, chase vehicles, hop fences, and a bunch of other things? And if one adds in the second person and third person accounts then up until 2000 there have been over 370 of these types of reports and other types as well.  

[dmaker]

I've never said that I'm "studying" the psychology of fringe belief adherents. I find them fascinating, but more in the head scratching, mind boggling way that I might be fascinated by a Scientologist's ability to profess belief. I've also said I am most puzzled by the resistance to fact and logic displayed by proponents of a, as you put it, fringe belief. The best way to see that in action is to challenge the belief. Or what others describe as "trolling".

 

[hiflier]

22 minutes ago, dmaker said:

If  you don't believe them, then why start a thread to discuss them and post numerous times in that thread?

 

Never said I didn't believe them, dmaker, and never said I did. All I did was what I did: post first-person-witness reports that described what they said was superhuman action by a Sasquatch. Didn't call the reports the truth and didn't call them lies. I reported the reports and that is all.

 

10 minutes ago, dmaker said:

The best way to see that in action is to challenge the belief. Or what others describe as "trolling".

 

The typical description for trolling used around here refers to posts that posses a tone of derision or mockery whether in text or images. If you fit none of that then there is no reason for mentioning it. But your 'puzzlement' does have, shall we say, odd ways of demonstrating itself at times  In the meantime there is a lot to discuss in the various lists I have posted on supposed Sasquatch behavior.

Edited April 17, 2018 by hiflier

[dmaker]

Understood, hiflier. I'm just using this thread of yours to make a point. Many, if not all, proponents here find the role playing explanation for bigfoot proponents to be insulting. But if you stop and look at a post like this, maybe you can understand why some people might feel that way.  You're talking about superhuman abilities found solely in third party stories of a creature that has not even been proven to exist as if they are real. And you all do this without batting an eye.  And then some of you boast of your skepticism. 

[norseman]

48 minutes ago, dmaker said:

 

I get that a large percentage here will be open to the creature's existence or lean that way, etc. I tire of the constant lecturing about "true skepticism" vs "scoffing", etc as well. Yet I see nary a critical eye turned upon almost anything. Surely discussing superhuman qualities of an undocumented creature collected solely in third party anecdotes might, just might, be an opportunity to display some of this vaunted skepticism I keep hearing about around here?

 

And people wonder why sometimes this whole thing just looks like one big adult make believe. 

 

 

Lean that way? We have lots of people here that have seen IT. You skeptics just cannot wrap yer head around that.

 

So what should we be discussing in Hiflier’s thread here Dmaker? Is it unlogical that a undocumented primate weighing 600-800 lbs MAY be stronger than a human? Where would you like to steer the conversation? I mean from my perspective looking at skeptics? There would be no conversation about any of this..... And yet you guys just keep hanging out and beating a dead horse. You think Bigfoot is fantasy......we get it, truly we do. And that is entirely your prerogative! It’s even the position of mainstream science! Bully fer you guys! 

 

I’m just utterly confused by your expectations of proponents. We talk about Bigfoot and reports and supposed traits. We talk about charlatans and debate DNA studies. We talk about field gear and expeditions into the mountains. Some of us even talk about forest shaman Bigfoot, ESP, Shape shifters and Alien cloned Bigfoot. I don’t participate in the paranormal section mostly, because I think it’s horse manure.

 

And just so you don’t think your alone I don’t put much stock in most reports either. But I’m not going to beat somebody up about it either. Bigfoot is a possibility in my mind no matter how slim. But over the many years I would think I would have bumped something out there with my own eyes. My rifle rides in the scabbard as a insurance policy.

 

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

 

1 hour ago, hiflier said:

Pretty well said. Question for O.S. and it's a bit more on topic. If Sasquatch is supposed to have an origin as you say not of this Earth. And maybe as others' say, is interdimensional, or as Dr. Mathew Johnson believes, uses portals, then why, if one assumes the stories are true, would Sasquatch run across a road, physically climb a hill, tear dogs apart, bite the neck of a deer and carry it off and, above all, why have witnesses even allowed to see it do all of these things like walk in snow, leave tracks, get shot, chase vehicles, hop fences, and a bunch of other things? And if one adds in the second person and third person accounts then up until 2000 there have been over 370 of these types of reports and other types as well.  

 

I’ve never claimed that they’re of unearthly origin or that they have any type of ability that other living organisms don’t have. My claim since the spring of 2015 has been that they’re Homo sapiens that have been genetically engineered, not a hybrid, and alien or clone.

 

As far as the multiverse (other Earths) theory goes, I believe that’s a key aspect of the general UFO phenomenon, not Bigfoot in particular, but I can understand why people might think of there being a direct connection between the two given the shortage of evidence.

 

 

 

Edited April 17, 2018 by OntarioSquatch

[hiflier]

6 hours ago, hiflier said:

thread is presenting what witnesses are claiming to have actually seen the creature doing

 

dmaker, "Witnesses are claiming" says it's 'their' stories. And I'll be honest with you, risky as it may be, I have my reasons for thinking that the PGF is a film clip of a real creature known as Sasquatch. It took me four years to come to that determination. But I would have to believe the reports since then to say that the Sasquatch is still extant. Some reports are compelling yes, but most, if not nearly all, lack too much information to be considered. And that includes the databases, the BFRO, and many other sources. And obviously books fail in their own way, too.

 

But the truth is, at the end of the day what convinces one of existence won't convince another. And what convinces one of non-existence won't convince another either. It's a personal choice and people base that choice on any number of things- and hopefully logic and science will play the largest role in any decision pro or con. But this Forum would be blank if no one posted a thought or an idea for discussion. So in a discussion where Sasquatch is a possibility then an extended discussion of well, what does it do, or what CAN it do, would be part and parcel of rounding out the creature.

 

If someone believes this animal to exist then it's only right to have information about it. So if this creature exists then can it perform such physical feats as reported by the witnesses? I don't know that answer. But, whether true or not there, are reports in the database that do claim these things that Sasquatch has allegedly done. I decided to collect only the first person accounts and place them in this thread. Obviously if the creature never existed then nothing reported is true. But, against everything you say, if it does exist then it calls into question of whether or not it can do all of the things in its claimed superhuman fashion. Those that believe in existence may have a bit more to say about these feats.

 

And then there are those that say it's all fabricated because the creature does not and never did exist. I really didn't expect them to go out of their way for whatever reason just come here and say 'no such creature' thinking they were somehow going to impress a believer or do anything else besides psychologically needle them. I think Patty was real, but that's me. If  Sasquatch is possible today then this thread is to look at and discuss whether or not the superhuman things would be possible as well. If someone doesn't think Sasquatch exists then this thread will be meaningless. It's why I asked, "Then why comment". Not to be mean; simply to know the purpose.

 

28 minutes ago, OntarioSquatch said:

I’ve never claimed that they’re of unearthly origin or that they have any type of ability that other living organisms don’t have. My claim since the spring of 2015 has been that they’re Homo sapiens that have been genetically engineered, not a hybrid, and alien or clone.

 

OntarioSquatch, it has been my thinking that the 'genetic engineering' was done naturally though millions-year-old ape and hominid branches. No space people required. Natural selection then 'chose' the branches that survive to this day. Science says there was co-mingling. Naledi may be an example of that? A new species doesn't necessarily mean it didn't stem from two or more species over time. Nature is trial and error: what works survives. 

Edited April 17, 2018 by hiflier

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

31 minutes ago, hiflier said:

 

OntarioSquatch, it has been my thinking that the 'genetic engineering' was done naturally though millions-year-old ape and hominid branches. No space people required. Natural selection then 'chose' the branches that survive to this day. Science says there was co-mingling. Naledi may be an example of that? A new species doesn't necessarily mean it didn't stem from two or more species over time. Nature is trial and error: what works survives. 

 

That was my take on the phenomenon as well prior to coming across information that led me to re-evaluate much of the data. While I was entirely confident in that theory, I can understand clearly now that I was improperly evaluating potential primate evolution given the ecological circumstances of our planet. 

 

If it’s any consolation, I found the general undiscovered ape theories to be much more enjoyable and interesting than my current take on the phenomenon. I’m sure it would be the same for most other researchers as well. This raises a moral issue of whether I should even be attempting to explain what I now understand, regardless of the actual truth behind the phenomenon.

 

Edited April 17, 2018 by OntarioSquatch

[Rockape]

3 hours ago, dmaker said:

And people wonder why sometimes this whole thing just looks like one big adult make believe. 

 

I wonder why someone can say "there is very little human looking about Patty", then turn around and say it's just a human in a suit.

3 hours ago, dmaker said:

Yet I see nary a critical eye turned upon almost anything.

 

Then you must be blind.

2 hours ago, dmaker said:

And then some of you boast of your skepticism. 

 

Not all of us feel like it is our personal life mission to discount everything said pro-bigfoot. All high-flier is doing is listing all the "super human" aspects people have reported. I see no reason to address them. Some I'm sure BF would be capable of if it does exist in the manner some say. Some are just woo. I don't really care.

Edited April 17, 2018 by Rockape

[PBeaton]

dmaker is just bein' his typical scoftic self. 

 

I don't understand why its unbelievable for some, that a primate as described by witnesses wouldn't be capable of extraordinary feats of strength or speed ? A primate like a gorilla far exceeds our strength, would seem logical a primate like sasquatch bein' even larger than a gorilla would be capable of the extraordinary feats described.

 

Does not matter what one presents, he can't/won't believe it...it's evident an he's made it repeatedly clear over an over. I honestly do not understand how someone who doesn't believe in bigfoot, pleads with people on a bigfoot forums to "Stop wasting your life on something that does not exist." yet continues to do just that. haha !

 

 

 

[dmaker]

12 hours ago, norseman said:

Lean that way? We have lots of people here that have seen IT. You skeptics just cannot wrap yer head around that.

No, you have people here who claim to have seen IT. You proponents just cannot wrap your head around the idea that a claim is not a fact. 

 

Don't you ever tire of the talk, talk, talk, talk, talk? That's all there ever is. Just talk. The evidentiary bar has not been raised in decades. Every serious attempt to do so, such as DNA analysis, fails miserably to support the bigfoot claim. It's just a steady march of stories, blobsquatches and hoaxes. And, of course, more talk. 

 

Don't you ever stop to think that if this animal existed, in the way it is reported, that there would be more than hoaxes, blurry photos and supposition by now? Discussing bigfoot's super human abilities or it's intelligence or it's range, etc seems so much horse before the cart when we can't even get a single scientifically verified piece of evidence that the creature even exists. 

 

Talk, talk, talk until you're all blue in the face. Not gonna make the creature real. 

9 hours ago, Rockape said:

I wonder why someone can say "there is very little human looking about Patty", then turn around and say it's just a human in a suit.

Rock, you are deliberately presenting that quote without any context. I said that while discussing that a costume is meant to disguise a human. Therefore Patty looks no more human than the person in the Barney costume. It was not meant as a pro-PGF comment and you know it. That you persist in trotting that quote around for years now as if it was cleverest thing you have ever thought of says a lot about your history of clever thoughts. And also quite a bit about your intellectual honesty. 

Edited April 17, 2018 by dmaker