A Paranormal Proposition

[Guest HairyGreek]

Yes, but the para-sites only make it worse...much worse, IMO.

Duly noted. I don't think this was set up to be an opinion thread on the paranormal argument. You and LAL are missing the point of this completely, Eeyore. You are giving off too much negativity man. You are throwing off the aura around the discussion...oh, GREAT. Now you've turned my mood ring black. Well done.

[Guest]

For the record, I'm no a PN bigfoot guy. I'm just curious how those who are would recommend attracting a PN sasquatch, if such a being exists, instead of repeating the same dogmatic statements repeatedly(redundancy intentional). Bait stations? Small pet sacrifices? Complete first season DVD set of SyFy's Ghost Hunters? Maybe the oiuja board is starting to look good. My sincerest apologies to anyone whose day has been ruined by the existence of this thread.

You can ask some of the folks on here who are really into the paranormal sasquatch thing. MidnightWalkerSE is one, and he has a website devoted to his experiences. Midnight Owl is another, though I have not seen him in a while. He has a thread on here called "My face to face meeting with Bigfoot". They are both, for lack of a better word, followers of Arla Williams, who is a Native American spirit guide who seriously promotes the paranormal bigfoot. She lives near Hanobia, OK, and has a facebook page. She is a member of the Sisters of the Red Cloth, which is a group of NA Spirit Guides. They are all in a private facebook group called "International Society of Forest People's Friends". You can find out all you want to know to test your paranormal theories there. If you are approved for membership, just remain very humble & nice, and send PMs if you have any serious questions for any of them.

Edited August 26, 2011 by Jodie
edited out response to King and link to religious site

[Guest]

Btw, though I believe some of these folks from the paranormal camp may be experiencing something, I do not believe personally that whatever entity or entities they are experiencing are the same thing that the rest of us are talking about when we say "bigfoot" or "sasquatch". I do not believe those are the things that Roger Patterson claimed to film one of in 1967, that have been leaving large tracks across the continent, that have left hair and blood samples, that the young man allegedly killed two of in the Sierras last October, and that's DNA has been tested in Dr. Ketchum's lab in Texas. I believe the creatures that produced all of the aforementioned evidence is a flesh and blood animal that has all the physical characteristics of any other large mammal, but with great cunning and rarity. I believe that will be proven soon. Tangible evidence can be produced. Intangible evidence cannot be, and you can never disprove the paranormal completely.

[Guest HairyGreek]

Man, I don't know you personally, or where you stand "religiously", but based on your last paragraph, you are seriously setting yourself up for a very dangerous situation. You can save yourself the time and materials of making a religious symbol, unless you just want one to decorate your place with, because there is no power in anything you can make with your hands.

Very well said. My Ouija board statement was a joke too, I don't endorse them. But let's be careful here..we are treading a fine line with the forum rules in these posts.

[Guest HairyGreek]

Btw, though I believe some of these folks from the paranormal camp may be experiencing something, I do not believe personally that whatever entity or entities they are experiencing are the same thing that the rest of us are talking about when we say "bigfoot" or "sasquatch". I do not believe those are the things that Roger Patterson claimed to film one of in 1967, that have been leaving large tracks across the continent, that have left hair and blood samples, that the young man allegedly killed two of in the Sierras last October, and that's DNA has been tested in Dr. Ketchum's lab in Texas. I believe the creatures that produced all of the aforementioned evidence is a flesh and blood animal that has all the physical characteristics of any other large mammal, but with great cunning and rarity. I believe that will be proven soon. Tangible evidence can be produced. Intangible evidence cannot be, and you can never disprove the paranormal completely.

You got it right again. This stuff is not actually scientifically quantifiable and I think is being misidentified as the same creature being tracked this many years. Jodie raises the EMF theory, but I have seen that not work as well and I think that is as close as we get to PN. in the long run, what else can be thought of to prove or disprove the theory that they are PN? None that I or the thread starter can think of, so he is asking those believers to contribute a tangible shot at proving it. Sasfooty (not really clear on her beliefs) doesn't seem to think you can prove it to anyone but yourself. That is not good enough to come on here and purposly argue for it and create threads about it. That was the point of this. But maybe one of the others you mentioned have come up with something and can enlighten us.

[Sasfooty]

Sasfooty,

I do kinda get what you're trying to say and would like to hear more, but that answer makes me think if I asked you if you preferred steak salad or fried chicken, your answer would be yes!

Bonehead, I'm not trying to be evasive. I just don't know. I spend countless hours thinking about what they are, why they are here, & what they want from me.

They do leave little bits of evidence that they are real physical beings, such as an occasional track, limb twist, half eaten apple with little human looking teeth marks on it, an egg shell with a finger sized hole punched in the side, grass mashed down where they have been sleeping, & electric fences torn down & strung out. But there is also evidence that there is something definitely non physical about them, too.

I'm sorry, but I don't have the answer you are looking for. I have found that the more I learn about them, the more questions I have & the less I seem to know.

[Bonehead74]

Bonehead, I'm not trying to be evasive. I just don't know. I spend countless hours thinking about what they are, why they are here, & what they want from me.

They do leave little bits of evidence that they are real physical beings, such as an occasional track, limb twist, half eaten apple with little human looking teeth marks on it, an egg shell with a finger sized hole punched in the side, grass mashed down where they have been sleeping, & electric fences torn down & strung out. But there is also evidence that there is something definitely non physical about them, too.

I'm sorry, but I don't have the answer you are looking for. I have found that the more I learn about them, the more questions I have & the less I seem to know.

Sasfooty,

I know you weren't being evasive, no worries there. That's a perfectly honest answer and I respect your willingness to elaborate.

[Guest]

If bigfoot is "paranormal", then by definition it shouldn't leave physical evidence around. If it did, that would make it "normal," i.e., it could be examined, measured, quantified, identified. So I think it's a cop-out to think of bigfoot as both flesh-and-blood and paranormal. If bigfoot is paranormal, there should be no foot of one collected by those guys in Oklahoma, there should no hairs collected by people all over the country, there should be no DNA that Dr. Ketchum has apparently analyzed, etc.

The only thing that simultaneously explains the totality of experiences people claim for bigfoot and the apparent inability to confirm the identity of any physical evidence purported to be from these creatures is that there is no bigfoot outside of folklore. When the explanation for your experience is that the whole of scientific understanding of the physical universe is in error, that should be a big, flashy, red flag to seek an alternative and more parsimonious explanation. Given that we humans are really good at hallucinating, misidentifying, and storytelling, I'd consider those explanations far more likely than a paranormal bigfoot.

[Guest HairyGreek]

If bigfoot is "paranormal", then by definition it shouldn't leave physical evidence around. If it did, that would make it "normal," i.e., it could be examined, measured, quantified, identified. So I think it's a cop-out to think of bigfoot as both flesh-and-blood and paranormal. If bigfoot is paranormal, there should be no foot of one collected by those guys in Oklahoma, there should no hairs collected by people all over the country, there should be no DNA that Dr. Ketchum has apparently analyzed, etc.

The only thing that simultaneously explains the totality of experiences people claim for bigfoot and the apparent inability to confirm the identity of any physical evidence purported to be from these creatures is that there is no bigfoot outside of folklore. When the explanation for your experience is that the whole of scientific understanding of the physical universe is in error, that should be a big, flashy, red flag to seek an alternative and more parsimonious explanation. Given that we humans are really good at hallucinating, misidentifying, and storytelling, I'd consider those explanations far more likely than a paranormal bigfoot.

I totally agree with your first paragraph, but your second is why science is utterly useless without philosophy. You are basically saying that anything that cannot fit into a scientific explanation is "user error"? How small minded. I don't agree with a PN Bigfoot, especially if it is leaving evidence that is physical, but denying that there are things that don't fit into a neat little science book is simply ridiculous.

[Sasfooty]

You are basically saying that anything that cannot fit into a scientific explanation is "user error"? How small minded.

We should have a "Quote Of The Year" at the top of the page & this should be this year's quote.

[Guest]

You are basically saying that anything that cannot fit into a scientific explanation is "user error"?

No, I am saying that "user error" is the far more likely explanation. That doesn't mean there is no paranormal, only that the normal should be very carefully ruled out before considering the paranormal. We have abundant information that people misidentify things, hallucinate things, lie about things, and hoax things. Those things are are normal. Denying that these are potentially important explanations when considering "paranormal bigfoots" is the epitome of small-mindedness.

Seriously, are you fully convinced from the stories some have shared here that these normal explanations have been fully ruled out? If so, why, because the person relating the experience wrote something like "I wasn't drinking that night, I'm not crazy, and I never lie"? Do you just "have a hunch" that these people are accurately relating experiences as they happened? How on earth does the paranormal explanation make more sense than the user error explanation?

[Guest HairyGreek]

No, I am saying that "user error" is the far more likely explanation. That doesn't mean there is no paranormal, only that the normal should be very carefully ruled out before considering the paranormal. We have abundant information that people misidentify things, hallucinate things, lie about things, and hoax things. Those things are are normal. Denying that these are potentially important explanations when considering "paranormal bigfoots" is the epitome of small-mindedness.

Seriously, are you fully convinced from the stories some have shared here that these normal explanations have been fully ruled out? If so, why, because the person relating the experience wrote something like "I wasn't drinking that night, I'm not crazy, and I never lie"? Do you just "have a hunch" that these people are accurately relating experiences as they happened? How on earth does the paranormal explanation make more sense than the user error explanation?

I agree with your first paragraph. Thank you for the clarification. On the second, no. I actually don't like reports or stories for anything but providing a location that may hold possible evidence and sometimes tickling my "fear" or "laugh" meter depending on the story. I say this over and over and I would so steal it if it was not already being used by the person who qouted it, but I am in total support of Incorrigable1's sig.

"What do you bring to the table? Stories and passionate tales? I thank you for those, but even I require a little more" (paraphrasing, unless by chance I have managed to memorize it)

I think the only thing I would admit I have a "hunch" on without being able to prove it completely is the Samurai-chatter from the Sierra Sounds which I just can't see a human dupplicating and I get a very strange feeling when listening to. I don't want to go there though. If you want to argue about that, there are two threads in the Vid/Aud/Pics section going on.

Edited August 26, 2011 by HairyGreek

[Guest HairyGreek]

By the way, I prefer the term "supernatural" as opposed to paranormal. I know, I know...small difference. But supernatural still leaves itself open to explanation at some later date. Paranormal kind of lends itself to never being explained and I won't accept that as possible. One day, all things will be known which were unknown.

Not really sure why I needed another post to say this instead of just editing above. Sorry all.

Edited August 26, 2011 by HairyGreek

[Guest]

I heard Parker Brothers makes an inexpensive Ouija board...

Seriously, I have no idea. Ask the master of all things Bigfoot, Para-ape, how he would go about proving it. I think he would probably tell you to read a bunch of reports though. So, maybe you can ask the BFRO for their throw-away reports which include para-normal activity. I highly doubt anyone who includes that sort of info in their sighting makes it to their on-site investigation part. Then do your own field report on the ones closest to you. That's my first best guess. It is a shame that the burden of proof is being put on the people who don't believe Sas is super-natural.

Thank you. BTW, You have become my new best friend!

I also wonder why people think that having a frightening encounter in which the BF seemingly disappears is supernatural?

They are the masters of the woodlands...They know how to disappear because it's instinctual and they have a lot of practice.

[Guest]

I think the only thing I would admit I have a "hunch" on without being able to prove it completely is the Samurai-chatter from the Sierra Sounds which I just can't see a human dupplicating and I get a very strange feeling when listening to.

OK, so let's assume that recording is legit - that's really a bigfoot yelling out some gibberish that sounds a bit Japanese-y to American ears. What would make it a supernatural/paranormal/high strangeness bigfoot? It might be weird to consider a big, hairy monster that has a language and sounds like that, but would it be weird enough that we'd have to re-write the physics textbooks?