Guest Kronprinz Adam Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 Over the years I've heard much talk of the "high-strangeness"... HI Bonehead74. I personally think the majority of modern reports of Bigfoot creatures describe a giant hominoid creature. Some reports are eerie (i.e. "local monsters" which scare rural areas, dissapearing small pets) but only a minority describes paranormal-fortean phenomena (vanishing Bigfoot, UFOs). I think proving the existence of an hominoid Bigfoot is not easy, so I think confirming these minority of fortean reports would be almost impossible. These events lack repeteabilty and solid evidence. They are simply on the thin edge of reality and paranormal realm...our imagination could play tricks on our minds and this will be not so healthy for our brains!!! Greetings. K. Adam. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 It would be odd if you are convinced that Sasquatch is Giganto's descendant. Sasquatch might be something we haven't seen before and the theory of evolution is constantly being revised. I sincerely think that one of our extinct animals is not extinct and it is now known as BF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HairyGreek Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 You are getting philosophical, but to my mind, unnecessarily so. We don't need to go farther than the bounds of our current knowledge to ask the question I posed. You missed my sarcasm. While talking of scientific ideas, you are the one who injected philosophy behind them. I only built my statement off of this. Your second sentence confuses me as you say the opposite below: "Well, you are just indicating the limits of your willingness to speculate there." So are you arguing for or against what you have already said? You make some assumptions there that are maybe not warranted. I'll point just to the most obvious one -- who is to say that bigfoot is the creator or holder of the technology instead of the product of that technology. We send a mars rover to mars, but if we could have sent a self-sufficient hairy fellow instead, I can't imagine that we wouldn't have done so. All I can make is assumptions since you didn't tie your theory even remotely to Bigfoot unless I missed something. I am not saying anything about who holds what tech or who is using it. I am saying, there seems no logical and/or scientific purpose to inject Bigfoot into our conscience if not to observe us since if it was to gauge our reactions to it's presence, there is more than enough cryptid animals to go around. If you are talking about some sort of extra-terrestrial pan-spermic tinkering, as if we are just one big menagerie for some otherworldly high-science society, then maybe you could say that more clearly? Again, your post leaves nothing but opportunity to make unwarranted assumptions since they make no conclusions having to do with Bigfoot, or the arguement that he may be PN, directly. Did I miss something? Well, you are just indicating the limits of your willingness to speculate there. "Doesn't work for me" does not constrain reality in any way at all. Just because I have already thought of these things and ruled them out based on my own beliefs and what facts I have to go on says nothing of my willingness to speculate. I simply choose not to revisit something that had already occurred to me. Hence my reference to the Thor movie; which shows that advanced science would seem like magic. This has always been the premise of the comic book which I also read in my youth. So you see, these ideas are not new to me. You are right about your last sentence though, and while a witty statement, it has nothing to do with your argument or what I wrote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Biggie Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 Bringing in a psychic/medium is a thought that has never occured to me. I thought about it a few years back and wondered why no one has tried that on all these paranormal shows out now. I wouldn't personally put any stock into what they said but I'm surprised that no one has tried that yet simply for the entertainment value to most people of a show about it. Take it for what it's worth but the only story I know of with a psychic involving a bf is one I saw on the BFRO last year I believe. A psychic was out in the woods and they sensed that bf was a real entity not a hoax like many people believe, and they got the vibe that they were animal not human, spirit or alien, and that it sometimes is curious about us but generally wants to be left alone on their land without people bothering them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest krakatoa Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 Evidence that Coffey is a con-man, like 99.9% of all so-called psychics. I'd say what I really felt, but that team is fond of setting their lawyers on people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Holliday Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 Psychics & BF, now there's a combo. I don't put a lot of stock in the whole psychic deal.if they could really see the future I figure they'd all be lined up buying winning lotto tickets instead of reading palms etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 28, 2011 Share Posted August 28, 2011 :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: I think you've figured them out!! Hahahahaha! I did know someone years ago, though, who's glasses were so thick, I'd almost bet he could see the future! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 You missed my sarcasm. My bad. While talking of scientific ideas, you are the one who injected philosophy behind them. I only built my statement off of this. Your second sentence confuses me as you say the opposite below: "Well, you are just indicating the limits of your willingness to speculate there." So are you arguing for or against what you have already said? I didn't say you couldn't be philosophical, I only said that it seemed you were doing so unnecessarily. That razor thing -- one shouldn't endlessly add categories. Anyway, you said it was sarcasm so what's the argument? All I can make is assumptions since you didn't tie your theory even remotely to Bigfoot unless I missed something. I didn't do that here, but I have done it many times before elsewhere. I am not saying anything about who holds what tech or who is using it. I am saying, there seems no logical and/or scientific purpose to inject Bigfoot into our conscience if not to observe us since if it was to gauge our reactions to it's presence, there is more than enough cryptid animals to go around. I don't follow this. I'm sure you mean consciousness, but even so, the injecting of bigfoot into our consciousness could well be arbitrary, unintended, clumsy bigfoot, etc. If you are talking about some sort of extra-terrestrial pan-spermic tinkering, as if we are just one big menagerie for some otherworldly high-science society, then maybe you could say that more clearly? Why would I need to add such things? You only need to consider whether bigfoot might be the product of a technology, not where the technology comes from, or why it was here. Again, your post leaves nothing but opportunity to make unwarranted assumptions since they make no conclusions having to do with Bigfoot, or the arguement that he may be PN, directly. Did I miss something? Yes, but it's not that important, really. Just because I have already thought of these things and ruled them out based on my own beliefs and what facts I have to go on says nothing of my willingness to speculate. It's only rhetorical, but to say "ruled them out" suggests that you and I see the state of knowledge on this subject very differently. I can't see how you can rule anything out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HairyGreek Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 Why would I need to add such things? You only need to consider whether bigfoot might be the product of a technology, not where the technology comes from, or why it was here. This could have been a much shorter conversation had you just said this the first time. I don't keep track of all your posts. Sorry. It's only rhetorical, but to say "ruled them out" suggests that you and I see the state of knowledge on this subject very differently. I can't see how you can rule anything out. Since it is only rhetorical, I won't expend the energy responding. As for the rest of the post, the response would take up a page that has nothing to do with the topic anymore. If you want to wax philosophical or bounce more science off my cranium, you can PM me. Thanks for coming back to the forum since it seems you have been away. So, regardless of the above, any ideas on how to document a para-normal Bigfoot or is that to arbitrary a term for you? Too small minded? Am I ruling anything out? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 This could have been a much shorter conversation had you just said this the first time. I don't keep track of all your posts. Sorry. I think if you want to be an expert at something you have to be familiar with the literature that already exists. You won't find it here, though. Since it is only rhetorical, I won't expend the energy responding. As for the rest of the post, the response would take up a page that has nothing to do with the topic anymore. If you want to wax philosophical or bounce more science off my cranium, you can PM me. Thanks for coming back to the forum since it seems you have been away. So, regardless of the above, any ideas on how to document a para-normal Bigfoot or is that to arbitrary a term for you? Too small minded? Am I ruling anything out? I must say you don't seem a happy fellow so there's no chance of me PMing you. Sorry to have mucked up your thread. Carry on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HairyGreek Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 (edited) Are you one of those guys who gets his feelings hurt by reading tone into an email or internet post? I promise you, I am not a "unhappy fellow" and this is not my thread. I also promise you if I was unhappy, there would be no uncertainty. Just wondering if you had any thoughts about capturing evidence based on your idea that this could be advanced science and not para-normal activity. If you would rather disappear from sight after exchanging clever banter, that is your prerogative. Edited August 29, 2011 by HairyGreek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest para ape Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 EDITED After reading some of the later posts, i understand what the intent of the thread is... I just didnt/dont want to see yet another Para-normal thread clogging up the General Discussion section.... Carry on.... ART And what's wrong with another paranormal thread? The paranormal aspects of bigfoot are a legitimate part of the phenomenon and should be discussed as well.That must be the reason my last topic was just deleted despite the fact that I didn't break any rules.What was wrong with a few paranormal threads,when the majority of them are non-paranormal in the first place.I hope no more of my threads are deleted for no reason as that is very upsetting to me. My suggestion for proving that the creature is paranormal,which has already been proven is to carry a high caliber gun and blast the creature to clearly show that it can't be killed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HairyGreek Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 Fair enough para ape. You first. Strap a video camera to a rifle, go out to the woods and shoot the first BF you see, and post the video here for us. An excellent idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 PARA APE We merged your threads because it uses up bandwith on the forum to have them all seperate. Your threads are not being deleted, they are being merged with existing threads on the same topic. You have been told this in PM, I'm hoping if you see it here you will take notice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest krakatoa Posted August 29, 2011 Share Posted August 29, 2011 I hope no more of my threads are deleted for no reason as that is very upsetting to me. Oh noes! As my grandma always used to say: "Hope in one hand, and poo in the other. See which one fills up first." If you ever offered anything at all in the way of content or comment that differed from the same thing you had written 111 times already, you might find yourself afforded a little more latitude. Just spitballin' here though. You seem pretty confident in your strategy of "It is what I say it is because I say it is times infinity!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts