The Paranormal, UFO's, and Mysteries of the Unknown

MusicForFish

Ultra Maga Instinct
<Prior Amod>
34,060
133,803
OIP.x9zJi48LkPEdfoRGC5JNDAAAAA
 
Last edited:
  • 2Like
  • 1Dislike
Reactions: 2 users

Void

BAU BAU
<Gold Donor>
9,761
11,660
MusicForFish MusicForFish

How long did that take you? I hope you didn't put off more important work for this topic.

I still don't necessarily agree with what you are saying, at all, but I respect the work that you put into it. I'd love to see the "evidence" you say you have.
 
  • 3Like
  • 1Dislike
Reactions: 3 users

ZyyzYzzy

RIP USA
<Banned>
25,295
48,789
Hahahaha. What a surprise, this retard believes in Bigfoot too. Most gullible, stupid motherfucker ever.
 
  • 1Like
  • 1Solidarity
  • 1Potato
Reactions: 2 users

Chukzombi

Millie's Staff Member
72,944
214,177
Hahahaha. What a surprise, this retard believes in Bigfoot too. Most gullible, stupid motherfucker ever.
on the one hand Bigfoot is pretty lolz, but on the other, tons of ancient cultures around the world have legends about a large hairy wild manbeast thing roaming around the woods. its possible there once was something, but what people see now are most likely hoaxers
 
  • 1Picard
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 users

Chris

Potato del Grande
19,430
-10,740
on the one hand Bigfoot is pretty lolz, but on the other, tons of ancient cultures around the world have legends about a large hairy wild manbeast thing roaming around the woods. its possible there once was something, but what people see now are most likely hoaxers
Neanderthals. They really old myths.
 
  • 1Dislike
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 users

Chukzombi

Millie's Staff Member
72,944
214,177
Neanderthals. They really old myths.
see, i dont think neanderthals were wild beasts. just like people thought 12,000 years ago we were living in caves. now we know we had organized religion, agriculture and actual houses that far back. i think the Neanderthals were the megalith builders.

maybe its all an M Night Shamalamadingdong twist and the Neanderthals were telling the legends about wild men and that was actually us! dun dun dun!
 
  • 1Dislike
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 users

Chris

Potato del Grande
19,430
-10,740
see, i dont think neanderthals were wild beasts. just like people thought 12,000 years ago we were living in caves. now we know we had organized religion, agriculture and actual houses that far back. i think the Neanderthals were the megalith builders.

maybe its all an M Night Shamalamadingdong twist and the Neanderthals were telling the legends about wild men and that was actually us! dun dun dun!
Neanderthals buried their dead, their bodies would be around the megaliths. They are not, there are human bodies around Stonehenge though.

Which megaliths you think they built?
 
  • 1Dislike
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 users

Void

BAU BAU
<Gold Donor>
9,761
11,660
Does the formatting work for a blog post?
I'll follow this up with the response to what you asked Void Void
I even have pictures. Nothing alive though. As if I could just sit on something that cool and not share it repeatedly.


I had many a conversation with my grandpas, uncles, and their hunting buddies who have been deep woods hunters. The classic 'gone for 3-5 months in the bush but can’t haul all the kills due to weight' and various woodsmen and Forest Wardens (Canada’s version of the Rangers). I was assured by all of them that they could prove the existence of the Sasquatch species in a court of law.

This brings up a particularly important point regarding the history of Sasquatch investigations that raises a few questions about the rules of evidence used to judge whether Sasquatch is natural or not. My people could justifiably make that claim, however, scientists routinely say there is not enough evidence to prove the existence of the species. Why is that? It got me thinking, which is never a good thing.

The problem has to do with the way the subject has been classified/defined or rather not clearly or correctly classified/defined. Most of the time Sasquatch have been studied as if they were a nonexistent species and the rules of evidence that apply to the physical sciences have been applied. Those rules are stringent as they involve evidence such as DNA, photographs, remains. When placed in this category the sasquatch fails to meet the criteria of scientific proof, for obvious reasons. The species is a rare one. Finding them during regular visiting hours at the zoo isn’t reliable so scientists cannot perform repeatable experiments to ascertain their nature. More so due to in part to a lack of funds, physical evidence to spur research, taboo, and more.

It really comes down to classification and that is why my fam and extensions can accurately make the claim that sufficient evidence does exist to prove it in a court of law. Physical scientists do not consider things like eyewitness reports and circumstantial or anecdotal evidence. A court of law does. There is no single set of standards that can be applied across the board to define what scientific evidence is. Physical scientists cannot deny the veracity of sociological or psychological theories simply because the evidence to support them is based upon a pedigree of precision.

There is an acknowledged division between the hard and soft sciences, for example, genealogy and sociology. You do not approach the two disciplines in the same way. Let us compare those sciences to gain some insight into why there is such a division of opinion about the Sasquatch. First, we must ask, would it be fair to let a genealogist evaluate the credibility of a sociological theory using the standards of evidence and protocols that he normally uses in his genealogy investigations? No, they do not compare. That is exactly what has happened in the history of Sasquatch research. Skeptical scientists have consistently claimed that their existence cannot be proven and by their standards, they have been right.

But those are the wrong standards to apply because Sasquatch are natural events or processes and the preponderance of evidence suggests this is the case. So, we have this historical split and ongoing ambivalence with highly credible witnesses reporting sightings and encounters with Sasquatch that are followed by routine dismissals from scientists that are reported in the media and in a variety of Sasquatch media articles. What is the general public’s reaction? The public is quite naturally torn, confused, and dismissive.

Most people do not want to think of hunters, hikers, and wilderness experts as well as various forestry personnel as being incapable of distinguishing between a Sasquatch and a bear or a Sasquatch or a human fucking around. These are well-seasoned outdoorsmen that we depend upon reliably for our safety through their vital information about predatory animals, difficult hiking terrain, dangers, etc. while out in the forest. Yet thousands upon thousands of reports by such folk have been rejected or downgraded because there is no scientific proof and therefore, they must be treated as nothing more than anecdotal reports.

As I pointed out, hard scientists do not have much use for anecdotal evidence and yet these are the kinds of factual observations made by credible witnesses that legal cases and sociology are built upon. People want to have confidence in science and as we have seen, scientists have not been wrong. But neither have they made it clear just what they mean by scientific proof in the context of Sasquatch and the media hasn’t noticed this smaller yet important detail.

Obviously there isn’t enough physical hard scientific evidence to prove the species is real in this context, save for a handful of skulls and partial skeletons recovered over the last 150 years. Yes, there is enough legal and soft science type evidence to prove the species is real in this context. How do we resolve the results and the uncertainty and accept the reality of the species? Put it in its proper classification and definition as an unnatural phenomenon under the purview of such disciplines as sociology, cultural anthropology, social psychology, etc.

While the skeptical scientists and debunkers have been correct, to a degree, their assertion that there is no hard evidence is incorrect. Hunters, aboriginals, hikers, forest rangers, search and rescue have observed them, photographs and video clips containing recorded sound have all been documented and they corroborate Sasquatch sightings. This is hard evidence that substantiates the reality of this species.

Why would this even matter? How we classify the phenomenon makes all the difference in the world. Accepting that it is an established scientifically proven reality under the more open rules of soft science would remove the stigma from witnesses. Removing the stigma is important because it is a taboo subject in academia. But more importantly classifying it correctly as a non-natural phenomenon allows investigators to start focusing on the right questions instead of looking for hard evidence among the ever-increasing amount of data that they have accumulated.

9/11 taught us a lesson about not connecting dots and not making the cogent. The data was there, and several analysts were correctly interpreting it. But the executive part of the FBI and CIA did not cooperate with the data collection and analysis part, which resulted in an intelligence breakdown.

There is no official investigation being conducted into the species at present, which could be the biggest insult to science so far.
Do we have anything to lose by accepting the premise that the evidence proving Sasquatch is real? I don’t think we have shit all to lose. What do we have to lose by accepting the idea that it is not real?
If we are smashing protons and electrons together at colliders around the world while seeing matter appear that were only spoken in conspiracy theories in dark classrooms, what do we have to lose in exploring Sasquatch using all of the relevant scientific methodologies?
It bothers me that we have been witnessing science on the whole not putting in the time to research and corroborate the unknown or taboo subjects. It does a disservice to the foundations of Science.
Why would you think that being able to "prove" something in a court of law is an arbitrary line in the sand (so to speak) about scientific analysis, criteria, what-have-you? And are we talking civil court or criminal court? Preponderance of evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt? I mean, I don't think Bigfoot evidence reaches either one, but I'll humor you for a minute.

And why would something that is literally either a "hard" scientific fact or not be better classified under the "soft" sciences? This isn't a sociology theory, or a cultural anthropological analysis, etc. This is literally "Does this thing exist?" It doesn't get more hard science than that. There is nothing extenuating or diluting about it. It is, or it is not. Letting a sociologist dig into it isn't going to answer that question one bit, nor will it get anyone even one step closer to solving it.

Since you clearly spent a lot of time on that, I'm trying to give you an opportunity to explain some of the more confusing parts of it, at least to me. I don't understand where someone would even begin to think some of those things, but maybe I'm too old and closed-minded.
 
  • 2Like
  • 1Dislike
Reactions: 2 users

Chukzombi

Millie's Staff Member
72,944
214,177
Neanderthals buried their dead, their bodies would be around the megaliths. They are not, there are human bodies around Stonehenge though.

Which megaliths you think they built?
i said i wasnt doing cliff's notes posts anymore, so all i will say is there are megaliths laying around from all over the world which predate the known civilizations by thousands of years. my theory is that more advanced race of human (possibly neanderthal) was building these structures prior to 12,000 years ago and they were wiped out by the Youngar Dryas mass extinction event. what remained was us modern humans who were probably living in caves while the Neanderthals(or some other race of humans) were big dicking everything and so we built on top of their more advanced and more ancient structures in their absence.
 
  • 1Dislike
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 users

Chris

Potato del Grande
19,430
-10,740
i said i wasnt doing cliff's notes posts anymore, so all i will say is there are megaliths laying around from all over the world which predate the known civilizations by thousands of years. my theory is that more advanced race of human (possibly neanderthal) was building these structures prior to 12,000 years ago and they were wiped out by the Youngar Dryas mass extinction event. what remained was us modern humans who were probably living in caves while the Neanderthals(or some other race of humans) were big dicking everything and so we built on top of their more advanced and more ancient structures in their absence.
So why are their bodies only in Europe?
 
  • 1Dislike
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 users

Chukzombi

Millie's Staff Member
72,944
214,177
So why are their bodies only in Europe?
the bodies that were buried by the people who werent wiped out by the YD mass extinction event? not sure what you mean, but if the more advanced people were wiped out then there is nobody burying their bodies. if any survived then they would have moved to greener pastures and possibly co-mingled with modern humans, which is why we have neanderthal genes in us.
Positive evidence for admixture was first published in May 2010.[12] "The proportion of Neanderthal-inherited genetic material is about 1 to 4 percent[12] [later refined to 1.5 to 2.1 percent[11]] and is found in all non-African populations.
 
  • 1Dislike
  • 1Like
  • 1Committed
Reactions: 2 users

Chris

Potato del Grande
19,430
-10,740
the bodies that were buried by the people who werent wiped out by the YD mass extinction event? not sure what you mean, but if the more advanced people were wiped out then there is nobody burying their bodies. if any survived then they would have moved to greener pastures and possibly co-mingled with modern humans, which is why we have neanderthal genes in us.
Positive evidence for admixture was first published in May 2010.[12] "The proportion of Neanderthal-inherited genetic material is about 1 to 4 percent[12] [later refined to 1.5 to 2.1 percent[11]] and is found in all non-African populations.
If Neanderthals built, for example, the lower levels of Manchu Pichu, there would be Neanderthal remains in South America and along the route they took there.

Interbreeding doesn't remove earlier remains. Sudden mass extinction doesn't remove earlier remains.

You could argue that early Europeans had a higher Neanderthal percentage and therefore had higher strength, but wouldn't there be evidence of that in their bone structure?
 
  • 1Dislike
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 users

Chukzombi

Millie's Staff Member
72,944
214,177
If Neanderthals built, for example, the lower levels of Manchu Pichu, there would be Neanderthal remains in South America and along the route they took there.

Interbreeding doesn't remove earlier remains. Sudden mass extinction doesn't remove earlier remains.

You could argue that early Europeans had a higher Neanderthal percentage and therefore had higher strength, but wouldn't there be evidence of that in their bone structure?
many or all archaeological expeditions only dig to a set level. as in here is an incan site , the incans were only here during the last 1000 years, so we are only digging to that level. and thats all they find. digging deeper for much older artifacts is frowned upon.
 
  • 1Dislike
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 users

Loser Araysar

Chief Russia Reporter. Stock Pals CEO. Head of AI.
<Gold Donor>
79,821
159,026
i said i wasnt doing cliff's notes posts anymore, so all i will say is there are megaliths laying around from all over the world which predate the known civilizations by thousands of years. my theory is that more advanced race of human (possibly neanderthal) was building these structures prior to 12,000 years ago and they were wiped out by the Youngar Dryas mass extinction event. what remained was us modern humans who were probably living in caves while the Neanderthals(or some other race of humans) were big dicking everything and so we built on top of their more advanced and more ancient structures in their absence.

why would the neanderthals get wiped out but not the these modern humans?
 
  • 1Dislike
  • 1Like
Reactions: 1 users