UFOs, Bigfoot, Ghosts. It's All Real. And here's why....

Native American wise men say bigfoot is real, if they say it is real then it must be because they never lie and neverr make wars, hence they are known as wise.

[mod edit: spam removed]

[edit on 15-2-2010 by 12m8keall2c]

Originally posted by OnceReturned
why go to such lengths to explain paranormal phenomena, when all of the evidence suggests that they don't actually exist?

The problem with this is that there is no such thing as "Evidence of non-existence" and absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Why is it necessary to have a definite "side" on the subject? to justify willingness or lack thereof to pursue the subject. The ego sustaining basis of side-taking is the most fascinating aspect of the subject, at least for me.




-rrr

reply to post by super70


Please define "4th level crypto-zoologist" as opposed to 1st, 2nd or 3rd level.

[edit on 15-2-2010 by palg1]

Wow! Nice post!

There are some parts of it which I don't agree with, but it is very possible, and you've gone much further than most of us who document rather than explain.

I really liked reading this, so thanks! Good work

reply to post by super70


Interesting theory, thanks for sharing, S/F...

This type of thing has been postulated before, and with the lack of any other evidence it is as probable as anything IMO. Although I still think there is more likelyhood of the ET Hypothesis being correct in regards to UFOs.

You are correct however about our very limited concepts of spacetime and the very nature of time, so yea, IMHO your theory is possible.

reply to post by super70
(Thus the invention of religion. Ask a religious figure and they will tell you they have all the answers, just don't ask any scientific questions)
_____________________________________________________________
I am not a religious figure, but I do believe in God, and I do know that Jesus is returning, and I am not a bit afraid to answer any of your "scientific" questions! Do all of what you say exist? I can say with a resounding YES that they do! But you left out one species, and that was the werewolf.

ET's, UFO's, Giants, Dinosaurs, etc, they're all in the bible. Here's a short list for ya:
1) The Nephilim- Better known as the "Fallen ones or the Degraded"
2) The Giborim- Better known as "The Mighty Ones"
3) The Anakim- We know them as "The Tall Ones"
4) The Rephraim- AKA "The Giants"
5) The Amalekim- Know to the "Amalekites"

These 5 races survived until the 4th captivity of Israel. They were also second in rank of the fallen angels!

Also, those ripples you are discussing are nothing more than the acknowledgement of "Hawking's Paradox". I am well aware of the work of Stephen Hawkings by the way too! Delightful man. His theory is a 3-dimensional universe held in place by magnetic fields surrounded by wormholes.

This phenomenon could possibly explain why ufo's are able to dart outta sight in a whim! I can go on and on here, but I think you get my point and I do understand where you're coming from also.

Originally posted by djbj597922
People like this really bother me. Statements like this really bother me. For someone to say unequivocally that there is no other life in the universe is the same as saying that

"In a million acre apple orchid only one apple has grown on a single tree"

The whole idea of not believing there is other intelligent life out there is just ridiculous. It's beyond ridiculous. It's delusional.

Are you suggesting that not believing that UFOs are piloted by ETs is the same as not believing in intelligent life elsewhere in the universe? Because it is most certainly not. This is a common and fundamental flaw in the UFO dialogue. Intelligent life almost certainly exists elsewhere in the universe, this does not mean that UFOs are alien spaceships.

reply to post by thewind


You may not be afraid to answer scientific questions, but it is not acceptable to answer them by spouting baseless nonsense. There is no reason to believe any of what you have claimed here. There is no evidence for it, without accepting rediculous(and unvarified) interpretations of questionable ancient texts.

Also, the ripples he is talking about have nothing to do with the Hawking Paradox. The Hawking Paradox consists of the following two contradictory premesis, both believed to be true(hense the paradox):

1. The state of any physical system at any time can be determined using information about its current state. No information is ever lost.

2. Information is lost in a black hole.

You don't know what you're talking about. This is part of the reason that we cannot accept nonsensical theories based on nothing. It leads to these types of conversations.

Originally posted by palg1
reply to post by super70

 

Please define "4th level crypto-zoologist" as opposed to 1st, 2nd or 3rd level.

[edit on 15-2-2010 by palg1]

I'm sorry, you have misquoted me. If you go back and re-read that line, it says "4th GRADE level cryptozology". I was in the 4th grade you see, a bit of humor. Kind of fizzles when I need to explain it.

Originally posted by light-matter
Native American wise men say bigfoot is real, if they say it is real then it must be because they never lie and neverr make wars, hence they are known as wise.

[mod edit: spam removed]

[edit on 15-2-2010 by 12m8keall2c]

I agree 100%, the Native Americans could be trusted. This another troubling aspect of the Yeti debate. Why would they lie about this, and why would other cultures tell the same stories? Doesn't add up.

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Originally posted by ImplausibleDeniability

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer

Yes we do. The scientific method has managed to dislodge the human mind from stone aged thinking with a remarkable degree of consistency.

Well hang on there. If you think humans have everything figured out right now, you're the craziest person on this website.

I have never claimed any such thing. But, I'm not going to entertain someone's bizarre notion of "spacetime" and "ripples" so that they can believe in bigfoot and the Loch Ness monster in the absence of actual evidence. Nor will I subscribe to super70s view that we are somehow too unintuitive and unevolved to the point that we have no method whatsoever of reasonably excluding such implausible notions. For a website that purports to deny ignorance I sure do see an abundance of it here.

The only ignorance I see is in the fact that you can say that we can prove something wrong just because it cannot be measured by today's scientific methods. To not keep one's possibilities open is in itself ignorance. There IS NO device that can detect anything and everything and tell you whether it is real or not. The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.

And besides, when you get an entire cupboard full of dishes thrown at you by unseen hands, you start to question what you know and do not know.

reply to post by truthseeker1984


If your debating the validity of the scientific method, you have a long way to go. It is tremendously successful. In order to discount it as the single most justifiable and successful method of understanding our world you have show where it goes wrong, and provide something better. If you cannot provide something better, then by definition science is the best tool for understanding the world that we have. If, with our best tool, we can find no evidence of any of these phenomena, then what reason could we possibly have for believing in them? No on is suggesting that science has everything figured out, but admitting that does not mean we should make no effort to distinguish reality from frantasy. With no evidence, what reason is there to believe?

Originally posted by OnceReturned
reply to post by truthseeker1984

 

If your debating the validity of the scientific method, you have a long way to go. It is tremendously successful. In order to discount it as the single most justifiable and successful method of understanding our world you have show where it goes wrong, and provide something better. If you cannot provide something better, then by definition science is the best tool for understanding the world that we have. If, with our best tool, we can find no evidence of any of these phenomena, then what reason could we possibly have for believing in them? No on is suggesting that science has everything figured out, but admitting that does not mean we should make no effort to distinguish reality from frantasy. With no evidence, what reason is there to believe?

I totally understand your point and it is a very valid one. What I am simply saying is that all the "goings on" in this world reported by multiple people cannot simply be mass psychosis on the part of these people. The odds that out of 100 people, all 100 people are lying, or are psychotic are very slim. That leaves the small margin in which these phenomenon could actually be a reality, with no current scientific explanation for them. This is the field in which we find those few scientists that are willing to put their professional reputations on the line for the advancement of science. I just find it revolting that science won't take into account those 1/10 chance scenarios where the phenomena is unexplainable. You're right, the scientific method cannot explain them, so why should we be concerned with them? It is because by studying this phenomenon we could further our understanding of the world. We could make ourselves better because we could definitively prove that life after death exists or that ET's have indeed had contact with Earth, or that Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, and any other cryptozoological creature exists. Will it take a scientist that is ready to think outside the box to do this? Yes. Our biggest problem as a species is that we think we are the baddest mofo's to ever exist. Just because we have opposable thumbs, we think that we know all.

IMO, science is no better than religion in that there are a bunch of closed minded people not open to other possibilities outside of their predetermined parameters. Unfortunately, because science doesn't want to take a second look at the "paranormal" and try and disprove it completely by creating a device or something to prove that it doesn't exist (or on the other side of the coin, making something accessible to those of us who have experienced it and just need the tools to document it), there will never be advancement in this field.

Originally posted by truthseeker1984

Originally posted by OnceReturned
reply to post by truthseeker1984

 

If your debating the validity of the scientific method, you have a long way to go. It is tremendously successful. In order to discount it as the single most justifiable and successful method of understanding our world you have show where it goes wrong, and provide something better. If you cannot provide something better, then by definition science is the best tool for understanding the world that we have. If, with our best tool, we can find no evidence of any of these phenomena, then what reason could we possibly have for believing in them? No on is suggesting that science has everything figured out, but admitting that does not mean we should make no effort to distinguish reality from frantasy. With no evidence, what reason is there to believe?

I totally understand your point and it is a very valid one. What I am simply saying is that all the "goings on" in this world reported by multiple people cannot simply be mass psychosis on the part of these people. The odds that out of 100 people, all 100 people are lying, or are psychotic are very slim. That leaves the small margin in which these phenomenon could actually be a reality, with no current scientific explanation for them. This is the field in which we find those few scientists that are willing to put their professional reputations on the line for the advancement of science. I just find it revolting that science won't take into account those 1/10 chance scenarios where the phenomena is unexplainable. You're right, the scientific method cannot explain them, so why should we be concerned with them? It is because by studying this phenomenon we could further our understanding of the world. We could make ourselves better because we could definitively prove that life after death exists or that ET's have indeed had contact with Earth, or that Bigfoot, the Loch Ness Monster, and any other cryptozoological creature exists. Will it take a scientist that is ready to think outside the box to do this? Yes. Our biggest problem as a species is that we think we are the baddest mofo's to ever exist. Just because we have opposable thumbs, we think that we know all.

IMO, science is no better than religion in that there are a bunch of closed minded people not open to other possibilities outside of their predetermined parameters. Unfortunately, because science doesn't want to take a second look at the "paranormal" and try and disprove it completely by creating a device or something to prove that it doesn't exist (or on the other side of the coin, making something accessible to those of us who have experienced it and just need the tools to document it), there will never be advancement in this field.

Well said!

As far as created explanations go it does pretty well.

It sort of explains why evidence of certain human sensory experience has virtually no evidence. It is sort of systematic as well.

although with alien[?] abductions their are traces left that show up under black [UV] light. There are also burn & vegetation patterns often left behind. There are also radar signals when these craft are flitting around the skies at speeds & maneuverability that we are incapable of.

Science has a bias that things are 'explainable'/coherent.
Even if much of our reality/Universe is rational & explainable that does not preclude that there is some completely independent, autonomously coherent.

Coherent kind of means 'all of a piece'. All connected in one way, shape or form. That you can get to any part of the coherency from any other by traversing the coherency system.

Whether an independent coherency system would be reconcilable to ours or not is hard to know. It might conjoin easily. Or they could peripherally contact in some ephemeral, unpredictable way.

There may also be stuff that is not part of any coherent system. Stuff that is effectively discontinuous/incoherent/detached from ours or any coherent system. Like irrational numbers are irreconcilable with integers or rational numbers.

Science assumes everything is chained to cause & effect.
It doesn't consider that something may simply happen without need of a 'cause'. Science asks 'why'? I ask 'why not'? By asking 'why' it is kind of leading. It is sort of like you are suspicious, as though there is always something ulterior.

Science PRESUMES there is a theory behind things. I think that may actually be arguably flawed thinking. To be truly scientific you have to be at least open to the idea that there is no [working] theory behind something. That some things may exist as kinetic gestalts. Like a monopole.

Science presumes that there is always a path from here to there. But we know with real numbers there is always at least one infinity between any two real numbers & arguably multiple infinities.

The notion of magic is theory free practice.
Science is the notion of theory burdened practice.
Science has accountancy. Magic doesn't bother with accounting.

Maybe magic happens, but only if you are willing not to remember it, or maybe if it has no lasting effect. [magic is for the sensation of it? entertainment of it?]
Science, the passage of time has some kind of trailing impressionism of [the ghost of?] memory. Science takes the past into account. Magic does not & perhaps can not take the past into account.

Science is always at least somewhat burdened, but it is also dependable.
Magic is unburdened, but possibly undependable, but if one can't remember one can never really know.

The most common idea of using magic is that it leads into the [altered] future. so there is some time aspect of it, but it ignores the past.
Science attempts to make transitions into the future predictable because it uses the experience from [is rooted in; clings to] the past.

Science strongly implies that the past is the cause of the present & future, making it kind of fatalistic. It is or attempts to be deterministic. Thank goodness for the uncertainty principle arriving on scene.
The notion of magic is that cause may arise from somewhere other than the past, opening up at least the possibility of free will if not requiring it.

I don't want to dismiss science & say it is wrong, but science without magic is deadly, arguably suicidal.

Luckily for us even in finite integers there are infinities that arise between any of them. There is always an escape somewhere.

I am not sure where i am going with this,

except to say that science, left to its own devices worries me very, very much. Because it dismisses the usual mysteries of religion it becomes far more fatalistic. It is somewhat scary & ominous. It is obsessed with its own obsessiveness. It doesn't allow things just to be. It is sort of too busy with 'finding out'. Is it darkly suspicious? It is always looking for what is behind things, & perhaps not all things should have something behind them.

I know it sounds weird, but science worries me.

Maybe it is that the mind of science is so disquiet that it seems to sometimes desperately, compulsively seeking 'explanations', mind calming [the stopping of thought?]

Maturity says you likely should let the data wash over you. Learn it subtleties, its nuances before leaping into some rash overbearing conclusions.

Death is conclusive.
Life is inconclusive.

Science tries too hard to be conclusive.
I realize it does that sometimes as a defense from religious terminal certainty assaults, but once that is managed for the time being it needs to ratchet back from that hyperbole.

It should try to calm the mind to a smooth quiet idle, rather that trying to over-dramatically stop it dead. Not always an easy task, but it should not try to replace religion, it should simply be an effective defense from it.

[edit on 14-4-2010 by slank]

Originally posted by djbj597922

People like this really bother me. Statements like this really bother me. For someone to say unequivocally that there is no other life in the universe is the same as saying that

I never said any such thing.

The whole idea of not believing there is other intelligent life out there is just ridiculous. It's beyond ridiculous. It's delusional.

I don't operate on belief. I prefer evidence. We have no evidence of "intelligent life" existing anywhere else but on earth, and it's not particularly intelligent.

Excellent and very interesting post, OP. I have starred it

I am certainly of the belief that there are things, probably many things, that as yet we humans cannot understand or be aware of. I love reading about paranormal stuff, especially time slips, unexplained, etc; and I definitely think there is something to it.

The idea of something like Nessie being seen because of a ripple in spacetime is fascinating, something I'd never considered before but it makes a lot of sense - like briefly catching a glimpse of a dinosaur from the past, right?

Not that dissimilar from timeslips where people have reported suddenly seeing a street full of people in old-fashioned dress or visiting a hotel that seems oddly old-fashioned... so why not briefly seeing a dinosaur, too?

Definitely food for thought.

Nice post. Same thing would probably apply to people with NDE's S&F

AND its all connected to the ancient beings from Atlantis and Lemuria (Great White Brotherhood)

Originally posted by djbj597922

Originally posted by traditionaldrummer
No, those things are not real and you seem to have invented some bizarre notions of "spacetime" and "ripples" in order to validate your belief in things unsupported by actual evidence.

People like this really bother me. Statements like this really bother me. For someone to say unequivocally that there is no other life in the universe is the same as saying that

"In a million acre apple orchid only one apple has grown on a single tree"

The whole idea of not believing there is other intelligent life out there is just ridiculous. It's beyond ridiculous. It's delusional.

Well said!