Could It Be That Bigfoot Is Paranormal?

[Guest Almaariel]

I often wonder if the bigfoot is a form of jinn based on its eyes and the way it behaves and that it lives in forests. I'm not sure but putting it out there. Unless a body is produced who knows bigfoot could be jinns that live on earth like humans do.

[Guest HairyGreek]

And I also sincerely hope that the utterly baseless drive-by assertion of the invisible 'foot (and the corollary that "you all are just too narrow minded to accept it") doesn't continue to invade other threads. It's both rude and counterproductive.

And yet...here you are doing the exact same thing in the paranormal thread. Ah, the irony.

[Guest krakatoa]

And yet...here you are doing the exact same thing in the paranormal thread. Ah, the irony.

You fancy yourself a clever one don't you? I am seeing a theme amongst those that seem to believe in the more fanciful theories of bigfoot; one comprised heavily of insult, logical snafus, and projection. Certainly it doesn't apply to all, but you seem to be fitting right in on 2 out of 3 at least.

Let me try to clear up your error for you:

There was an open introduction implied by the OP to inspect evidence he was to introduce for a paranormal foot.

The title of the thread is "Evidence That Bigfoot is Paranormal". It is not "Paranormal Bigfoot Believers and Yes-Men Only."

Hence my interest and participation, up until the point it has become clear that there was to be nothing offered approaching evidence.

I attempted many times to engage the OP, who chose to ignore my and others attempts at discussion, instead spending his time spamming any thread he/she could.

Indeed, unlike the OP, I endeavored to keep the my discussion of the paranormal 'foot on a paranormal 'foot thread.

Please try to note the distinctions next time you feel inclined to accuse someone of hypocrisy.

Oh who do I think I'm fooling? I expect you'll continue your "rubber - glue" argument that is serving you so very well.

[Guest]

Have at it, but stay civil, watch the name calling.

[Guest HairyGreek]

You fancy yourself a clever one don't you? I am seeing a theme amongst those that seem to believe in the more fanciful theories of bigfoot; one comprised heavily of insult, logical snafus, and projection. Certainly it doesn't apply to all, but you seem to be fitting right in on 2 out of 3 at least.

Oh, yes. I certainly see myself as clever. Once again with the irony...everyone who doesn't agree with you has logical snafus and projects on others; but your not insulting, right? OK...let's continue.

Let me try to clear up your error for you:

There was an open introduction implied by the OP to inspect evidence he was to introduce for a paranormal foot.

He did his level best. That's the only way I can say it. Thanks for clearing up my "error" there.

The title of the thread is "Evidence That Bigfoot is Paranormal". It is not "Paranormal Bigfoot Believers and Yes-Men Only."

"Yes-Men Only"...and I'm the clever one? You seem to have us believers all pegged.

Hence my interest and participation, up until the point it has become clear that there was to be nothing offered approaching evidence.

Hence any phrase that implies "evidence" of the paranormal is a misnomer. Maybe you would be more happy if the thread title was renamed "Explanation of Why Bigfoot is Paranormal". Unfortunately, one of the other cult members intent on derailing all of the scientific progress made on the BFF started this thread and not me so I cannot ask for a Mod to change the name.

I attempted many times to engage the OP, who chose to ignore my and others attempts at discussion, instead spending his time spamming any thread he/she could.

Join the club. No really. There's a club. No membership dues.

Indeed, unlike the OP, I endeavored to keep the my discussion of the paranormal 'foot on a paranormal 'foot thread.

Please try to note the distinctions next time you feel inclined to accuse someone of hypocrisy.

I don't recall attempting to defend the OP within this thread. Perhaps I missed something? I also do not recall implying or stating you were a hypocrite. But if that's the way you feel...

Oh who do I think I'm fooling? I expect you'll continue your "rubber - glue" argument that is serving you so very well.

Correct. Thanks for coming back once again to say goodbye to all of us "Yes-Men". I will try not to project anymore logical snafus as they obviously insult you.

[Guest]

Hmm, to post, or not to post.... that is the question... ahh what the heck.

Ok, here's two things I'd like to address......

#1

(In reference to the Original Poster and his "evidence")

He did his level best. That's the only way I can say it.

HG- I do know what your intent is by saying this. It's not a defense of him, your just trying to be reasonable. Here's what I think regarding the OP, and his tactics, and why it has partially created one of the problems in this thread (and others). He has consistently posted what he consider's "evidence", stating emphatically that his completely anecdotal evidence, which isn't the same as physical evidence, is "FACT".

Furthermore, he has also consistently accused those who disagree with him with "not being open minded", something he should take to heart himself, as he cannot be budged off his paranormal beliefs, and does not seem to possess the ability to accept anything other than the paranormal explanation.

#2

I had hoped this thread would reveal some evidence on which the paranormalists were basing their claims. After all, that is the topic's title. Sadly, it missed that mark widely and with joyful abandon.

My only question or point regarding the above statement I guess, is we have little or no real evidence of a flesh and blood Bigfoot, so it seems a little extreme to say this when many people are willing to believe in, or at least acknowledge the possibility of the existence of, the flesh and blood version- based on much of the same anecdotal evidence (peoples reports, accounts and stories of encounters).

Yes, i'm aware there are numerous footprint casts, and a few pictures, and one or two films, that are "worthy" in the sense that people can actually debate their legitimacy- rather than just getting a good chuckle at them, and rightfully dismissing them.

I like to think I have an open mind, but I do admit I lean more heavily to the flesh and blood side of the debate.

Aside from the OP and his somewhat naive tendency to claim "FACT!", and his rigid unshakable paranormal explanation, I've actually seen some interesting theories written in this thread- so I'm not as quick to dismiss the idea, nor what the other members have written.

Claiming anyone "knows" for sure 100% either way, is probably not the best way to approach this subject.

That's the way I feel about it.

Art

[Guest HairyGreek]

It's a fun topic to discuss. You cannot make outright claims on either side as you cannot prove anything either way. And? Aren't we talking about Bigfoot here? Can anyone prove anything? I love all things mysterious and a combo of Bigfoot and the paranormal is like the double-mint twins. That doesn't mean I don't like to discuss or to be swayed regarding the science behind the possible bio-mechanics of a living Sasquatch or what its prime habitat would be.

Still, no one should come on here and act like they bested the TS with their supreme logic or his lack of argument when there are others willing to engage and discuss this topic and have a good time in the process. The snobbery of others is frankly annoying.

Finally, there are people who have posted within the thread who have had a deadly serious problem and/or encounter(s) with things on a regular basis that science, at this point, just can't explain. Those that aren't should be very thankful this isn't a part of their lives regardless of if they believe it or not. Why shouldn't they be able to speak up if they think this coincides with Sasquatch? Prove it doesn't. Anything else makes you sound like the TS in logic. JMO.

[Guest krakatoa]

I don't recall attempting to defend the OP within this thread. Perhaps I missed something? I also do not recall implying or stating you were a hypocrite. But if that's the way you feel...

Ah, so the following statement was just a description of hypocrisy directed randomly towards me, but since you didn't use the word "hypocrite" you are absolved of the charge:

And yet...here you are doing the exact same thing in the paranormal thread. Ah, the irony.

You insult me. You then call foul when I return the favor. Heads you win, tails I lose. How very sophisticated.

Oh, yes. I certainly see myself as clever. Once again with the irony...everyone who doesn't agree with you has logical snafus and projects on others; but your not insulting, right?

I cop to loose verbiage here. I did not mean that everyone entertaining notions of a paranormal 'foot shared these traits, and was not clear in making the distinction that a "theme" didn't apply to everyone. Truly they are traits shared by people on opposing sides of many issues. On the flip side, Pragmatic Theorist and Jodie are fine examples to follow in any discussion.

Maybe you would be more happy if the thread title was renamed "Explanation of Why Bigfoot is Paranormal".

Perhaps. Even more so if it was "Explanation of why I believe 'foot is Paranormal", so long as that explanation didn't involve taking pure conjecture and couching them as absolute representations of fact.

If you'd like to have a discussion thread that is purely theoretical and reduces the risks of people asking for evidence, I'd suggest opening a new thread with a more philosophical title.

Para came on this board with the stated purpose of "proving Bigfoot was paranormal." He spammed various threads with monotonous statements of faith and thinly veiled insults on the cognitive abilities of those who didn't share his belief, and he refused to engage discussion on any of those threads on which I was participating. Para then started this thread with a specific title claiming evidence. How is it even remotely my fault that he failed to produce, and that I called him on it?

This is a seriously deficient standard to take.

I would suggest you do the following: Go back and read all my contributions to this thread, and instead of picking out small portions of things I said and trying to find points of contention, try to understand what those individual lines or words mean within the context of my overarching points within the posts, and within the context of the flow of this thread.

Because you are just getting silly now. You seem to have taken offense at something I posted that had nothing to do with you. I'm not sure why you felt compelled to do so, but you obviously felt the need to flex your wit at my expense -- a bit of posing that has now backfired miserably in my estimation, given my contributions to this thread predate yours by several days and were substantive, engaging, and on-topic. Your mileage, of course, may vary.

I'm more than happy to leave off, offer mutual apologies for hurt butts, and go on with our respective pursuits. But I'm not willing to have my words misrepresented or taken out of context to fulfill whatever narrative your pride demands.

[Guest]

To ALL concerned.....

Your attention please.....

I can honestly say there's far too many posts being written with ink supplied via wounded pride.

It's off topic- your arguing semantics, and while it may make you feel good to vent upon one another, it's at the point where its become too personal.

It is also not helping the thread progress, and its ultimately going to create work for moderators (ME), and will result in some personal communications that wont be pleasant. (For You).

Let's say we move on, and address the subject matter, and not how each other deals with it...?

Thank you for your kind understanding, and anticipated cooperation...!

Art

[xspider1]

It's a fun topic to discuss. You cannot make outright claims on either side as you cannot prove anything either way. And? Aren't we talking about Bigfoot here? Can anyone prove anything? I love all things mysterious and a combo of Bigfoot and the paranormal is like the double-mint twins.

You said it, HG! Been appreciating your reasonable and well thought posts here. We do not know what Bigfoot are so why not at least consider possibilities of what they could be?

Paranormal is a general term (coined ca. 1915–1920) that designates experiences that lie outside "the range of normal experience or scientific explanation".

Hmmm, well Bigfoot do seem to be outside the range of normal scientific explanation. (Just as everything we know now was, at one time).

[Guest LAL]

Here is a quote from the book "I Fought The Apemen of Mt. St. Helens"

Told by Fred Beck, written by R. A. Beck

In fairness to Fred Beck, his son added a great deal to the account. I don't think Fred himself made any extravagant claims in his interviews. If he had I think John Green would have dropped him like a hot potato. This clip is from The Mysterious Monsters with Peter Graves:

[Guest para ape]

I read a post somewhere that insinuated that the paranormal BF theory was a relatively new "fad". Apparently, it isn't as new as some would like to believe.

Here is a quote from the book "I Fought The Apemen of Mt. St. Helens"

Told by Fred Beck, written by R. A. Beck

Sasfooty,very good post!I read that myself just a few months ago and was intending on posting it as well.

I think there are quite a few people who believe that bigfoot is supernatural.Wide Eyed Willy told me an old hunter told him some of the same things about bigfoot that I have been saying.

[Guest]

Various Native American tribes oral traditions attribute hypnotism to bigfoot. Does that qualify as paranormal?

[Guest]

Well I did try to bring it into the conversation a few posts back as one explanation for what people describe as paranormal experiences, but I don't think I made my point very well.

That would mean you had to be dealing with something pretty intelligent so I suppose it's not a real popular explanation.

[Guest HairyGreek]

Various Native American tribes oral traditions attribute hypnotism to bigfoot. Does that qualify as paranormal?

Am I wrong that you have also studied the European "wildman" stories? Was that you? I thought your avatar looked familiar. Could you comment on if there was any paranormal component to their tales of hairy hominids?

@Para - beware of old hunters tales. They are a lot like old fisherman's tales.

@Jodie - I loved your theory. I wonder if the glowing eyes help. I seem to recall someone in the eyeshine/glow thread discuss how the amber hue almost put him in a trance as he was looking out the window at the eyes. He was speaking not literally, but still...interesting.

Edited September 7, 2011 by HairyGreek