Researcher's Views On Bigfoot

[Guest]

What's the chances of giving all the para-normals their own section to post all of their 'FACTS' in, so that the people who have seen them, and actually know for a 'FACT' that they are F&B, don't have to be subjected to the Sci-Fi BF fantasm every single day? Or, possibly lump para-normal into the same boat as G&R?\m/ Is it really that different? I don't see why people can't post about G&R relative to BF, but can post away about inter-dimensional, shape-shifting, de-materializing entities, or deities. Semantics, as far as I'm concerned. UFO's, ghosts, and goblins should have their own place. I don't know...Maybe I misunderstand the purpose of this forum.

This doesn't have anything to do with the debate that's going on, btw. It just gets old seeing the same para-normal cr_p having 5 different threads saying the exact same thing!

[Guest]

BFF Rules & Guidelines

> Bigfoot are probably flesh and blood animals, albeit very intelligent and stealthy ones. Bigfoot are unlikely to be inter-dimensional, of another world, shape shifting, can disappear, or have any other abilities that may be considered paranormal. If you feel they are any of these things, you're still very welcome to participate, but don't expect to find many in your camp.

While This may not interest every member it does interest others. As long as the posts are within the guidelines this isn't a problem. Grayjay

[JDL]

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?

Sanderson's dead. Just because he wrote about a subject that you consider para-normal, does not make him a para-normalist, especially when he, himself, put forth science-based explanations for the phenomena.

You may tell me that a squatch's eyes shine bright red and that this is para-normal. I will tell you from direct experience and observation that they do shine a very bright and startling red, but only when reflecting bright light. Any optometrist can explain how an eye reflects the light and why it reflects only certain wavelengths.

Point is that just because you consider something to be para-normal does not make it so, particularly when there are scientific explanations that can describe the observed phenomenon. Saying that something is para-normal when there is a likely scientific explanation is purely subjective.

[Guest HairyGreek]

Point is that just because you consider something to be para-normal does not make it so, particularly when there are scientific explanations that can describe the observed phenomenon.

Perhaps you can point me to a post I have ever stated that something with a (valid, not empty conjecture) scientific explanation was paranormal? You do realize you said the total opposite not four or five posts above? You said yourself that paranormal is subjective and is in the eye of the beholder. Now your backpeddling again. I can't keep up if you are going to keep changing your stance.

Saying that something is para-normal when there is a likely scientific explanation is purely subjective.

Correct. ONLY if there is a LIKELY scientific explanation. Have I said otherwise? Still, a "likely scientific explanation" for gloing red eyes at night with little to no light source. You act like I come up with this stuff on my own. I read this stuff on THIS board from guys who have been in the field and witnessed it with no discernable light source. These are guys who think scientifcally and they are stumped. THAT is paranormal whether you like it or not.

There are guys who don't believe that Sas is paranormal who have seen it and while some are offering scientific hypothesis on what could cause it, it's not quite fitting the bill. A hypothesis using science fiction, not fact, is fun but it leaves it paranormal. The sad part about it is, on the thread in question, once it was suggested that anyone who does not agree with the scientific hypothesis put forward should have their stories "red flagged". Then the very people who had seen it were all "well, I guess it could have been that..."

That's science nowadays?

Again, it remains paranormal until you can assign it to a known scientific explanation. I think we are arguing semantics about something we agree on. There are extremes to the term which I have already stated repeatdly that I AGREE with you on. Why are you arguing with me?

The paranormal exists and Anderson wrote about it and included the theory of his witnesses that Sas was in this category. If he would even allow this in his writing whether he tried to look for a scientific explanation or not, that puts him way ahead of most guys on here that would cover their ears and go "la,la,la,la" every time someone suggests not everything about this creature fits into an entry in an encylopedia. See several posts up if you don't believe me.

Honestly, I don't see the point of arguing about it anymore. Neither of us will budge it seems about Anderson's personal thoughts on the matter. I think we do agree on what paranormal is though. It is something that science cannot explain within reason. MY point in always joining in on these arguments is, ALL paranormal will one day be "normal". Everything has an answer; it is just a matter of time. I don't get butt-hurt and nervous everytime someone uses the phrase paranormal.

EDIT: To add, I would love to start a fire-side thread discsussing and debating possible theories on what is currently considered paranormal. I had a lot of fun with Ray's challange and also researching possibilities to explaining glowing red eyes, not "eyeshine".

What's the chances of giving all the para-normals their own section to post all of their 'FACTS' in, so that the people who have seen them, and actually know for a 'FACT' that they are F&B, don't have to be subjected to the Sci-Fi BF fantasm every single day?

Prove it. If you can, then maybe the people running this forum would listen to your argument about taking it out of the forum since we would all then know for sure there was an actual F&B animal running around. Otherwise, you sound a lot like para ape to me. FYI, you are not "subjected" to anything since you willingly come here and click on your own volition any thread you deem interesting. Whether you agree with the content, it obviously made you think about the topic and post something. Isn't that what we are all here for despite differing opinions, backgrounds, etc? JMO...

Edited to add: There are three valid threads on the paranormal. One is this one, discussing the folks who are in different camps regarding what they believe (did not really need to be a discussion of "if" until the skeptics made it that). One is a proposition to paranormal proponants to offer up ideas to prove their theory (one that is more anti-paranormal as it is meant to be a challange to that way of thinking), and the third is a general paranormal discussion (which is what you requested above). I think the mods have done a great job of keeping threads that belonged in an already specific discussion, not topic, in the right place.

Edited September 1, 2011 by ChrisBFRPKY

[JDL]

Ok, first, Sanderson repeatedly put forth that ABSMs are flesh and blood. Just because he objectively reported that a small minority viewed them as para-normal does not mean that he viewed them as para-normal. He repeatedly made the point that almost all of the aboriginal and tribal peoples that he interviewed regarding ABSMs viewed them as flesh and blood.

The definition of para-normal itself does not change, but the definition of para-normal contains a variable. That variable is what can be explained by the current state of sicence - not what is explained by the current state of science, but what can be explained by the current state of science. Since the current state of science is constantly advancing, it is variable, thus what can be defined as paranormal is variable as well. Earthquakes were once paranormal. Wind was once paranormal. Flatulence was probably also considered paranormal by some at one time.

Any given person may consider a particular phenomenon as paranormal based on their personal understanding of science, but this does not make it paranormal. According to the definition of paranormal, a phenomonon is paranormal only if science cannot provide a potential explanation.

Each individual perspective is subjective. A snapshot of the current state of science is objective. Declaring a phenomenon paranormal based on your individual perspective is subjective. Defining a phenomenon as paranormal or not based on a snapshot of the current state of science is objective.

But, based on the definition of paranormal itself, if there are two hypotheses regarding a phenomenon, one that it is paranormal, and another describing how it hypothetically falls within the scope of current science, then, by definition, the phenomenon cannot be considered paranormal simply because a hypothesis explaining the phenomenon based on the current state of science does exist.

Since there are both hypotheses and physical evidence that define bigfoot as flesh and blood, bigfoot cannot be paranormal. According to the definition of paranormal, the simple existence of a hypothesis regarding bigfoot as flesh and blood based on current scientific understanding means that bigfoot cannot be paranormal. An assertion that bigfoot is paranormal can only be valid only if no competing hypothesis based on science exists. One can persist in asserting that bigfoot is paranormal only by stating that they believe it cannot be explained by the current state of science.

So how can someone put forth the belief that bigfoot cannot be explained as the ultimate explanation for bigfoot?

[Guest HairyGreek]

Ok, first, Sanderson repeatedly put forth that ABSMs are flesh and blood. Just because he objectively reported that a small minority viewed them as para-normal does not mean that he viewed them as para-normal. He repeatedly made the point that almost all of the aboriginal and tribal peoples that he interviewed regarding ABSMs viewed them as flesh and blood.

First, sorry for the name issue. Writing quick replies from work is not as easy as it sounds. Again, prove your second sentence. That's all I can say. BAGWAJINNI says that they are F&B too, BUT he also says they are spirit as well (or doesn't discount this). What's your point?

The definition of para-normal itself does not change, but the definition of para-normal contains a variable. That variable is what can be explained by the current state of sicence - not what is explained by the current state of science, but what can be explained by the current state of science. Since the current state of science is constantly advancing, it is variable, thus what can be defined as paranormal is variable as well. Earthquakes were once paranormal. Wind was once paranormal. Flatulence was probably also considered paranormal by some at one time.

Agreed. Where did I say otherwise?

Any given person may consider a particular phenomenon as paranormal based on their personal understanding of science, but this does not make it paranormal. According to the definition of paranormal, a phenomonon is paranormal only if science cannot provide a potential explanation.

Again, agreed. Where did I say otherwise?

Each individual perspective is subjective. A snapshot of the current state of science is objective. Declaring a phenomenon paranormal based on your individual perspective is subjective. Defining a phenomenon as paranormal or not based on a snapshot of the current state of science is objective.

Here is where you lose me. Perspective can be objective, but truth cannot. Truth is absolute. The absolute truth is that there is plenty of phenomenon science cannot explain or writes off as "it's probably just so-and-so". As you should know, Bigfoot is one of those things. There is nothing objective or subjective about it.

But, based on the definition of paranormal itself, if there are two hypotheses regarding a phenomenon, one that it is paranormal, and another describing how it hypothetically falls within the scope of current science, then, by definition, the phenomenon cannot be considered paranormal simply because a hypothesis explaining the phenomenon based on the current state of science does exist.

For every one scientist you can find who will say there very well could be a physical creature known as Bigfoot, I can find 30 who will say you may as well believe in a paranormal one. You may want to be legitimized, but without concrete proof, you can conjecture and hypothesize and theorize until you are blue in the face. This is NOT science to them. It is science fiction and may as well be paranormal until you have got a body. The same works from the paranormalist's argument. Show me the body.

Since there are both hypotheses and physical evidence that define bigfoot as flesh and blood, bigfoot cannot be paranormal. According to the definition of paranormal, the simple existence of a hypothesis regarding bigfoot as flesh and blood based on current scientific understanding means that bigfoot cannot be paranormal. An assertion that bigfoot is paranormal can only be valid only if no competing hypothesis based on science exists. One can persist in asserting that bigfoot is paranormal only by stating that they believe it cannot be explained by the current state of science.

There is hypothesis alright, but physical evidence? Verified physical evidence? The jury is still out on that one. There is a 40 year old argument about the only possibly legit video you have of Bigfoot. Footprints? Hair? DNA? Says who? Saskeptic, Parnassus, and any of their contemporaries can come on here and tear these up or at least provide enough reasonable doubt that any of them are worth less than nothing without a body. THEN you need to look at their arguments for "why no body". All you have as of right now is stories. Call them "eyewitness accounts" or "field reports" if you want; but it's all you got. Like the very same skeptics who pick and tear at what you believe, you do the same using the same language and arguments to the "paranormal" crowd which to the average layman, we ALL are who believe ANY form of Sas exists.

So how can someone put forth the belief that bigfoot cannot be explained as the ultimate explanation for bigfoot?

I know only one person on the board who does anything that remotely sounds like this and I am not defending their argument. You can take it up with him.

PS - I am finished with this thread. The last word is yours. I will happily read your reply though.

Edited September 1, 2011 by HairyGreek

[Guest FuriousGeorge]

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

Okay lol I'll give it a shot. lol .... Does pseudo-science count as a type of science?

The universe was created with equal amounts of matter and anti-matter which naturally destroy each other. For every particle, there is an anti-particle. Matter won the battle resulting in all things we perceive as tangible. However, antimatter was not completely destroyed and still exists. Nobel prizes for physics have been handed out for anti-matter>anti-proton discoveries.

With us or anything tangible, we have covalent bonds of opposite spinning electrons formed by the overlapping of partially filled orbitals of atoms that prevent us from walking through walls and shape shifting.

A "paranormal entity" can flip from particles into anti-particles by presenting them with an energy source that is beyond the particle pair production threshold. Gamma rays are given off during this process. Paranormal researchers try to detect paranormal entities with gamma-ray detectors just as Nasa does to look for anti-matter with gamma spectroscopy.

The only small problem I can see (other than spontaneously creating a high energy source) is that once the paranormal entity goes into antimatter mode, it will destroy all particles that it comes across including it's own anti-particles. Just a minor nuisance.

[Bonehead74]

JDL said:

...based on the definition of paranormal itself, if there are two hypotheses regarding a phenomenon, one that it is paranormal, and another describing how it hypothetically falls within the scope of current science, then, by definition, the phenomenon cannot be considered paranormal simply because a hypothesis explaining the phenomenon based on the current state of science does exist.

A problem with this line of reasoning:

You can't formulate a rigid flesh and blood hypothesis without discounting every account that contains a paranormal aspect.

Your only grounds for doing so (that I can see) are because these aspects don't agree with your presuppositional worldview. This is pure dogmatism, and in that sense, your views are indistinguishable from para ape's. Narrowing the field to FB vs. PN creates a false dichotomy. To do that, you have to cherry-pick reports and ignore those that don't fit your paradigm. Most so-called "paranormal" bigfoot reports contain physical traces, including tracks, odors, sounds, hair and blood, and objects moved/manipulated. Because of this, I'd like propose some new terminology, borrowed(stolen) from theology and philosophy.

1. "Hard" paranormalists, who deny any possibility of sasquatch being a flesh and blood creature, with or without special(paranormal) abilities. They do admit that these entities can interact with our physical reality, but they are not physical in and of themselves.

2. "Soft" paranormalists, who believe bigfoot are flesh and blood creatures, but are willing to attribute paranormal abilities to them. They believe these creatures interact with our physical reality because they are physical beings, but with some special abilities not yet understood by science.

3. Flesh & Blood bigfooters, who believe bigfoot are flesh and blood creatures, but deny any possibility that the creatures possess abilities beyond those recognized by the current scientific paradigm.

I find the hard paranormalism view to be untenable because it places all evidence, excluding eyewitness accounts, beyond the examination of science.

The soft paranormalists agree in large part with the F&B proponents, except they leave open the possibility that bigfoot may have abilities not yet accepted by science.

F&B bigfooters deny any reports (in whole or in part, I've seen them ignore certain aspects of a report because the rest of it fit their view) that contain any hint of high-strangeness.

Given these definitions, where do you think the above researchers fit in?

Where do you fit in?

[JDL]

I fit within the category of people who have had multiple encounters with a flesh and blood bigfoot at close range.

[Guest RayG]

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.

But cannonballs weren't flying through the air by themselves. They weren't paranormal cannonballs.

EDIT: Of course, the average man can't begin to explain how his iPhone works either sooo...

That's not surprising, some people are still baffled by the internet, but that doesn't mean it can't be explained.

EDIT: To add, I would love to start a fire-side thread discsussing and debating possible theories on what is currently considered paranormal. I had a lot of fun with Ray's challange and also researching possibilities to explaining glowing red eyes, not "eyeshine".

Personally, though I don't consider bigfoot as having paranormal abilities (I've said in the past bigfoot is no more paranormal than my cat), I enjoy a good discussion on the drawbacks, limitations, and possibilities for bigfoot possessing some sort of paranormal abilities. EB and others have indicated bigfoot is capable of shape-shifting, though they would never offer a good explanation of how this would be possible. (by good explanation, I mean something that doesn't require me to suspend the present laws of the universe, and certainly something better than the old, 'science doesn't know everything' excuse).

And by shape-shifting, I don't mean people that can turn themselves into some kind of human pretzel

Nor fish that inflate themselves

Nor science-fiction movie/TV make-believe

No, I'm talking about changing from one species to another. From human/bigfoot to wolf for example

Where the track left behind changes from the one on the left to the one on the right

Furious was closest to giving an actual explanation, as well as hinting at the perplexing problem that true shape-shifting would create.

In order for a man-sized creature to change into another species, unless you invoke some magical method that is beyond explanation, the molecular composition of that man-sized creature would have to be manipulated. In a nutshell, the atoms would have to be pulled apart and reassembled. Consider there are approximately 7,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 atoms in the average human body. In order to pull apart these atoms and begin the transformation, we would require sufficient energy to pull apart each of these 7,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 atoms. The resulting temperature output from such an endeavor would not only end all life on earth, it would make the heat at the center of the sun feel like a cool day at the beach.

And for those that say bigfoot can vibrate into another, invisible dimension, the same limitations prevent him from easily doing so. Vibrating 7,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 atoms would not go unnoticed.

RayG

[Sasfooty]

Personally, though I don't consider bigfoot as having paranormal abilities (I've said in the past bigfoot is no more paranormal than my cat),

I think they may be a little more paranormal than my cat, but he's pretty paranormal himself.

He died in 2006, but still comes by a couple of times a month, jumps up on my bed, lies on my feet, & scratches paranormal fleas.

Edited September 2, 2011 by Sasfooty

[Guest HairyGreek]

I forgot about our discussion Ray. I will respond, and then you have the final word.

But cannonballs weren't flying through the air by themselves. They weren't paranormal cannonballs.

That's not surprising, some people are still baffled by the internet, but that doesn't mean it can't be explained.

And? See my argument with JDL. I am saying these things were considered magic until someone figured out how they worked and began to explain them. This is what I am saying will happen with all things. That time just isn't yet. The iPhone thing was a joke. Obviously the internet can be explained. I was making the point the average person has no idea what it has or how it works (or really what the long-term effects are yet).

Personally, though I don't consider bigfoot as having paranormal abilities (I've said in the past bigfoot is no more paranormal than my cat)

At least you can prove your cat exists. It makes it a little easier to say that sort of thing, ya know?

I enjoy a good discussion on the drawbacks, limitations, and possibilities for bigfoot possessing some sort of paranormal abilities. EB and others have indicated bigfoot is capable of shape-shifting, though they would never offer a good explanation of how this would be possible. (by good explanation, I mean something that doesn't require me to suspend the present laws of the universe, and certainly something better than the old, 'science doesn't know everything' excuse).

The old "science doesn't know everything" excuse?

As LAL would say...Oh dear: http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg18524911.600-13-things-that-do-not-make-sense.html

As far as EG, I am not defending his shape-shifting belief and never claimed I was. I don't think this would be possible outside of some form of deception which is what my post indicated. Image manipulation such as telepathy or altering what you see somehow. I don't think it is possible for a solid 3D F&B being to shapeshift. I wouldn't begin to argue they could. The rest of your post is cool science and puts EG's theory (actually claim seems more accurate),or anyone else who believes that F&B can shape-shift to shame; but it concerns me little as this is something I am not arguing for.

By the way, that was a pretty post you put together.

Edited September 2, 2011 by HairyGreek

[Guest FuriousGeorge]

So could it then be theoretically recreated in a lab? It would take 7,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 atom smashers or particle accelerators working all at the same time to disassemble and 7,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 microfluidic assembly devices to rearrange the matter. One slip up and it would all turn into goo.

I'm going to get started on an iPhone App.

[Bonehead74]

I fit within the category of people who have had multiple encounters with a flesh and blood bigfoot at close range.

JDL,

After re-reading my post, I see that it looks like I am challenging you personally, but I was only using your statement as a jumping-off point to help articulate my thoughts. My 2 final questions were directed at the board as a whole, and not to single you out. The category you place yourself in wasn't one I considered because sightings claims are essentially hearsay unless corroborated by conclusive proof. That being said, I'll pencil you in under option #3.

What is frustrating about this subject is that so many people, including yourself, claim to have had sightings, but where is the conclusive proof that passes rigorous scientific scrutiny? As far as I've seen, it doesn't exist, at least in the public arena. So far, we only seem to have the options of belief and disbelief based on the available evidence (as opposed to proof), or knowing (if one is fortunate to have a sasquatch face-to-face encounter). The problem is, knowing requires a subjective experience that is not wholly open to scientific examination or able to provide proof to a neutral party, let alone a hostile one. Based on your encounters, I would call you a F&B knower.

Edited September 2, 2011 by Bonehead74

[Guest HairyGreek]

The answer to the shape-shifting question...