Guest krakatoa Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 Seems like nobody is considering the pain that he may have suffered from those others because he wouldn't conform to their beliefs. Sometimes the bullies just jump on the wrong guy, & when he fights back & turns out to have nastier tactics than they do, they want to cry foul. Wow. That is wrong in so many ways. Consider the pain he felt? People are bullies for demanding evidence of his outlandish claims? There is zero excuse for what he reportedly did. Zero. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 There is zero excuse for what he reportedly did. I believe you may have conveniently missed the post where I said EB should have left his family out of it. Nobody here is excusing him for that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest krakatoa Posted August 31, 2011 Share Posted August 31, 2011 I believe you may have conveniently missed the post where I said EB should have left his family out of it. Nobody here is excusing him for that. Ah. The problem is my reading comprehension, of course. Wait, no, I distinctly did read your posts, and IMO find that one hard to square with the rest of your defense of what is reported to be a generally ugly demeanor towards anyone that didn't toe the line on his claims. And so you create excuses for the rest of his boorish behavior based on what exactly? That you are sympathetic to his claims? Speaking of convenient. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Ah. The problem is my reading comprehension, of course. It does seem to be somewhat lacking. And so you create excuses for the rest of his boorish behavior based on what exactly? That you are sympathetic to his claims? I guess you probably are an expert on boorish behavior, huh? What's your reason for this, because you're not sympathetic to his claims? I base my opinion on knowing how it feels to be attacked by people who have no idea what they are talking about, for reasons known only to them. Sometimes the person who gets attacked, unexpectedly doesn't mind fighting dirty & somebody gets hurt. Occasionally it's an innocent person. It takes at least two sides to have a fight & one of those two isn't here to tell his side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Everyone, please step back a moment and take a deep breath. I think we have misread Sasfooty. However, there is nothing to be gained by comparing your situation to that of one who had mental health issues. There have been two warnings to change the course of the conversation, if it was too subtle then let me be more blunt, this line of conversation stops here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
See-Te-Cah NC Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 (edited) I realize that I'm a newbie here, and I don't have some of the contacts and credentials that you guys have. However, I am confused as to how BF can be paranormal. I suppose anything's possible, but I think It all boils down to belief. I have a spiritual background. My theological beliefs are based on what I consider to be evidence. Yet the evidence I believe to be true is not sufficient in and of itself to prove the existence of a spirit realm. I have to have faith to believe in these things based on how compelling the evidence is to me, especially since my evidence may not be 100% inconclusive. Until I have all of the conclusive facts I have no proof of my belief, even though I myself am quite positive that what I believe is both true and real. I believe both good and evil spiritual entities exist. I know that theological doctrines speaks of these various entities too. That being said, I suppose that Bigfoot could be fall into this category. I also think that BF could be an inter-dimensional being. However, if this creature is indeed paranormal what is it's purpose? If its of the ephemeral realm it doesn't appear to be doing what it is supposed to be doing... Which is the work of whichever polar opposite it derives from. If it's a spirit it sure does waste a lot of time in the woods where nobody can see it and would probably be more of a pixie or something of that nature. It would be pure speculation at best. My main questions are these: If Bigfoot is paranormal or inter-dimensional, then what is it's purpose? Who sent it? Why does it appear in the remote forests? Why would it feel the need to pretend to eat so it could fool us as to it's real purpose? Is it collecting pine needles to fuel the engines that drive it's spacecraft? Are they secretly plotting the overthrow of the governments of the Earth? Are they a group of displaced spiritual entities waiting for their call to oppress mankind? Is it vacationing in our dimension? I believe that Bigfoot is a flesh and blood creature even though I believe in supernatural beings and dimensions other than ours, much like I believe in God as an inter-dimensional, supernatural being and the gorilla as a flesh and blood being. I feel that, although BF exhibits some incredible abilities and traits, it would take a lot of faith to think that they're anything more than a very complex, fully biological being. Could it have some very specialized and unique capabilities? Certainly it could, but that wouldn't necessarily mean that it is a supernatural entity. JMHO. Maybe we should prove it's existence before we try to determine if it's paranormal or not. I believe that would be the best place to start. Edited September 1, 2011 by Jodie edited to conform to forum R&G Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HairyGreek Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 I think you have to have just as much faith in Bigfoot being a bipedal leftover of a species science says died 300,000 years ago as you do to believe in any Deity. Show me any physical Bigfoot proof that you "believe" to be true and I will show you someone who can refute it pretty soundly. It doesn't mean they are right, it just means faith crosses many lines that people don't like to see are there. It takes faith to NOT believe in anything too (more faith than I have). Everyone is counting on something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 (edited) Here's your citation: http://www.squatchop...an_T._Sanderson http://en.wikipedia....an_T._Sanderson Good enough? He sounds pretty interested in a lot of para-normal topics by his published works. He looked for scientific reasoning, but he did it about some subjects that may not have a scientific explanation...at least not yet or any time soon. I would put him in the para-normal camp just for the simple fact that he was willing to look at anything currently unexplainable. Loren Coleman is the same. I am not a big fan of para and his argument (or lack thereof), but these guys belong I think on the side of the list para put them on. I highly doubt either would agree with his belief in what Bigfoot is, but they wouldn't believe in mine either. Regardless, they would entertain any ideas on the subject before laughing like school kids about it just because they couldn't explain it. There's a difference between unexplained and para-normal, but let me qualify my previous statement. I've read Sanderson's ABSM book and do not recall him asserting that any of the many species he describes are para-normal. I recall him stating that in a few cases some locals view them as para-normal, but not that he, himself, did. As a matter of fact I specifically recall that he observed that the majority of people who described various ABSMs to him did not consider them para-normal, but real flesh and blood species. With regard to other topics about which he has written, he consistently puts forth potential explanations that lie within the realm of established science. This is not the approach of a para-normalist. As I've said before, the term para-normal is subjective. Just because one person considers something para-normal, does not mean that it falls within that definition, which actually shifts as our ability to study the natural world improves over time. I still assert that the use of the term para-normal says more about the person using it than about the phenomena it is used to describe. All one is really saying by declaring that something is para-normal is that they, themselves (and whoever they may be citing), are incapable of comprehending the phenomena. For example, given a hypothetical UFO, one person might describe it, or its behavior as para-normal. But all I have to do is look to the nearest physics department or only to the wealth of science fiction in print and on TV to find some well-researched (within the best of the genre) explanations of how such a thing exists within our physical universe and how its behavior can be explained. One man's para-normal is another man's "Oh, yeah, here's how that probably works". If there's a hypothesis based on known science that can potentially explain a phenomenon, then it's not para-normal by definition. A firearm may be magic (para-normal) to an isolated tribesman, but only because he has not had the benefit of being exposed to the products of metallurgy, chemistry, and physics. If such a person had the opportunity to study such things and made the effort to do so, he would no longer consider them to be magic (para-normal). Conversely, if you insist that I must consider something para-normal, you are stating that I could not possibly be capable of comprehending it. Edited September 1, 2011 by JDL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HairyGreek Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 (edited) JDL, I don't disagree with what you have said in the slightest. It also doesn't change my point in the slightest that the guy writes about the paranormal. Call it what you will, but backpedaling and getting all "what really is paranormal anyways?" doesn't really alter what the guy writes about and is known for. That is the only real point I was making. You actually just said a bunch of stuff I or others have said in the 'paranormal proposition' thread. EDIT: Sorry to include this late, but how many people would take him seriously if he admitted he did believe they were paranormal and admitted it? Would you read his book? I can tell you there are tons of people on this forum alone who have made it clear they wouldn't give it the time of day because it doesn't fit in their little picture of what "Sasquatch" should be. It wouldn't matter how good his science was. Please tell me I am wrong. Edited September 1, 2011 by HairyGreek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JDL Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 You seem to believe that Sanderson is a para-normalist because he writes about things that others may consider para-normal, rather than because he considers them to be para-normal. There is a distinction. If I write an explanation of how a firearm works and hand it to the isolated tribesman, he may then consider me to be a para-normalist, but that does not make me a para-normalist. By definition, if something can be explained by science, then it is not para-normal. We could extrapolate from this to state that if a hypothesis founded in science can potentially explain something, then it should not be considered para-normal. The only counter-argument is to assert that because something is unexplained, it is para-normal, and thus it is impossible to provide a potential explanation of it based on science. This is circular reasoning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HairyGreek Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 No, sorry. Science can hypothesize about these things, not explain them yet. There is a huge difference there. I can come up with any number of theories based on a scientific explanation and every single one can be wrong. This is not circular reasoning, it is common sense. The only people I have ever heard espouse your counter-argument are scientist claiming you can't prove the Divine. I certainly never said it or implied it. You are also still not addressing something I said. Ultimately, the guy is (was?) a writer and wants people to read his books. If he does believe in the paranormal (what science currently cannot explain), he most likely wouldn't be broadcasting it as many people wouldn't read what he had to say. I'll tell you what, we could always write Sanderson and ask him. Everyone has a mode of electronic communication nowadays. Is he still alive? If so, I say we give it a shot and see if he believes in the paranormal (let him decide if he would use that word) and if he thinks Bigfoot may fit in that category based on his years of research. Deal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 It wouldn't matter how good his science was. But his science could never be 'good enough', because by definition something that is paranormal is "of or pertaining to the claimed occurrence of an event or perception without scientific explanation."* [my emphasis] In other words, if his science WAS good enough, it would no longer be considered paranormal. Personally, I'd love to see someone present a well thought out hypothesis on shape-shifting. One that is based on actual science, not wishful thinking. One that would delve into the nuts and bolts of what would be required for a sasquatch-sized man-like critter to literally change/morph into something that isn't a sasquatch-sized man-like creature. The science behind it would be fascinating, and based on our present knowledge of the physics behind such a transformation, it's a sight we'd remember for the rest of our very brief life. RayG *dictionary.reference.com Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HairyGreek Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 (edited) I personally couldn't even begin to try and figure that one out. I think it would be much easier to try and explain that being done holographically or through telepathic influence (which would also explain the disappearing act); but then you need to bend your head around the idea of telepathy. That one isn't too hard when you realize how if a species gained the ability to communicate through the mind, you would have: No lies No problems sharing information/learning No worries about distance (possibly) No medical issue that could not be immediately diagnosed ...the list goes on. You would be near perfect if mouth and hand language was unnecessary. I don't think you could attribute telepathy to Sas though as they would rule the planet with ease if they could do this reliably. EDIT to add: Even when something new was proven, it was still widely considered paranormal until it was normal practice, so your first point I don't so much agree with. Edited September 1, 2011 by HairyGreek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 Something new, such as? RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest HairyGreek Posted September 1, 2011 Share Posted September 1, 2011 (edited) Well, since the greatest science (meaning impact on society, not impact on science itself) always seems to lie with advances in medicine and warfare...pick one from the last 1000 years. Gunpowder, pharmaceuticals, etc. Also, you are speaking from the perspective of a 21st century educated man from a western civilization. Can you even imagine the impact the sight of an iPhone would have on the newly found "lost tribe" of the Amazon? 200 years ago (a sliver of time, if that even) what we now take for granted would be considered worthy of something greater than what Jules Verne could imagine. If Cortez was thought a god, how much more so would the average American today? And we cannot even figure out how they built their pyramids... EDIT: Of course, the average man can't begin to explain how his iPhone works either sooo... Edited September 1, 2011 by HairyGreek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts