Sasquatch Coffee


Are Bigfoot Invisible?

Posted by: Loren Coleman on November 29th, 2008

You thought this weekend was going to be boring?

Apparently, Art Bell is returning to the Coast to Coast AM radio program with a bang. On Sunday night (Monday morning in the East), November 30, 2008, Bell will be airing a program with Michio Kaku on “Invisibility & DNA.”

Now that sounds unlikely to have anything to do with cryptozoology, but now this claim comes via an email received this morning:

This may be the first big scientific admission that we currently have many invisible forest people on this planet, since the west coast rumors from the 60′s government captivity studies. This may also be the big news that tightens up the sphincters of those thousands of overconfident flesh & blood Bigfoot believers, to the point that it causes them to hyperventilate at the mere thought that Bigfoot is in fact and has always been, primarily invisible in the higher dimensions. Perhaps this will also inspire a new market for camoflauged hyperventilation paper bags to guard against overreaction in regard to the aforementioned natural phenomenon.

Well, besides the overly arrogant tone of the email, it certainly does signal a new wrinkle to the debate to pull Sasquatch studies away from a grounded biological basis of research, and throw more speculations in the direction of explaining one unknown with another unknown.

Hold on to your hats, folks!

Loren Coleman – has written 5491 posts on this site.
Loren Coleman is one of the world’s leading cryptozoologists, some say “the” leading. Certainly, he is acknowledged as the current living American researcher and writer who has most popularized cryptozoology in the late 20th and early 21st centuries. Starting his fieldwork and investigations in 1960, after traveling and trekking extensively in pursuit of cryptozoological mysteries, Coleman began writing to share his experiences in 1969. An honorary member of Ivan T. Sanderson’s Society for the Investigation of the Unexplained in the 1970s, Coleman has been bestowed with similar honorary memberships of the North Idaho College Cryptozoology Club in 1983, and in subsequent years, that of the British Columbia Scientific Cryptozoology Club, CryptoSafari International, and other international organizations. He was also a Life Member and Benefactor of the International Society of Cryptozoology (now-defunct). Loren Coleman’s daily blog, as a member of the Cryptomundo Team, served as an ongoing avenue of communication for the ever-growing body of cryptozoo news from 2005 through 2013.


57 Responses to “Are Bigfoot Invisible?”

  1. Drosselmeyer responds:

    I, for one, am one of the many that believe Bigfoot is NOT a flesh and blood creature. Unfortunately, to say so on a site like this is just asking to be shot down (this comment is not aimed at Loren, by the way, who I know has a lot of experience in Fortean phenomena).

    I like Michio Kaku’s work, although he does seem to love the ‘parallel universe’ theory I find so ridiculous. I’ll have to try and remember to catch the show tomorrow. Sounds very interesting.

  2. Richard888 responds:

    I think I can relate to the frustration felt by the author of the arrogant email concerning the “flesh & blood Bigfoot believers.”

    In a previous thread we had a discussion about Bigfoot’s apparent ability to evade cameras. The discussion quickly became a debate about sound – whether cameras emit any and whether Bigfoot can hear it allowing it to avoid the cameras. There was a reluctance to think outside of the “sound box.” That is understandable because most discussions in Cryptomundo have a scientific slant to them and science is all about explaining unrecognized phenomena by recognized means (sound is a recognized means).

    But don’t even us scientists ever have feelings of being watched? Don’t we have precognitive dreams sometimes? What about hunches when something doesn’t feel right? None of those unusual abilities are part of the scientific mindset yet people, some with PhDs, use them with great success.

    My point is this. The mathematical mentality has given Homo sapiens an unfair advantage over the other beasts in the field. Why is it difficult to speculate than there is another primate who did not develop mathematically but intuitively so that the “feeling of being watched” is as easy as 2 + 2 = 4 to it, which is the reason it survived and why BF hunters can’t capture it.

    I realize intuition is not part of the scientific mindset but every scientist has some of it and probably runs his or her life according to it. So let’s not limit our thinking to the 5 senses.

  3. Cryptoraptor responds:

    Every great ape has been photographed millions of times and their complete skeletons are in museums. Most importantly, they have been studied, captured, and placed in zoos.

    Even skeletal evidence of MILLION year old hominids has been collected in remote areas.

    However, a modern day 8 foot tall man-ape living is the US keeps eluding scientists, bone collectors, and photographers.

    Solution: Bigfoot exists but can make himself invisible.

    With that logic ANYTHING and EVERYTHING imaginable exists. They’re just invisible.

  4. RocKiteman responds:

    FWIW: The television show THE INVISIBLE MAN, which ran on – and was cancelled WAY TOO EARLY by – the SciFi Channel, had an episode that dealt with the concept of BF being able to become invisible.

    In the series, the invisible man {played by Vincent Ventresca} was able to become invisible due to a ‘biosynthetic gland’ implanted in his scull. In the BF episode, it was suggested that the ‘bio’ part of the gland had originally come from our ‘big hairy bipedal friends’.

  5. TeacherChaisson responds:

    In the 1990s television series “The Invisible Man.” The experiment that gave the him his ability to become invisible was a result of studying Bigfoot species who all inherently had the ability to become invisible at will.

  6. shumway10973 responds:

    wouldn’t that mean that the barriers between “that” dimension/world/phase and ours is breaking down? I’ve often wondered about time “barriers” breaking down. I have read and heard stories about “ghosts” who were acting out their daily lives (like imprints do), but all at once they stopped, looked at the person(s) watching them and acted just as surprised/scared as the person(s) here. Acted more like the “barrier” between our time frames was weakened or something like that. By the way…I’ve always wondered if we really wanted to prove those things Art was mentioning above, “This may be the first big scientific admission that we currently have many invisible forest people on this planet, since the west coast rumors from the 60’s government captivity studies…” Things that are able to go invisible like that I wonder if they are something completely different than us (the visible beings). Who knows what their plans/desires are for our world, even us.

  7. DWA responds:

    Sheesh.

    OK. Trying to be nice here, I simply ask: where is the evidence – the testable evidence – for this proposition?

    Here’s how I can tell you have zero command of the evidence: You propound a theory to explain why no one ever sees them.

    The evidence is copious, and compelling, on this one point: many people are seeing an animal that behaves just like animals we know about. Doesn’t disappear; doesn’t orb; doesn’t call in the Mother Ship. Just acts like an ape.

    So. In answer to the question posed in the teaser for this blog: Yes.

    Until we see some evidence, and no, you must believe me! is NOT evidence, because no I don’t have to if I don’t want to.

  8. Andrew Minnesota responds:

    I’m on the same page as DWA on this one, there needs to be evidence to back up theories. I am a believer in certain things that fall into the realm of the paranormal. However asking me to believe that a creature that has been seen by thousands is actually invisible is ridiculous. It’s a science fiction theory. People who study tigers in the wild may be doing their research for years yet only see a tiger several times, this does not make them invisible.

  9. cryptidsrus responds:

    Looks like the “Is BF sort of supernatural thread” has not run out of steam yet. Richard888 is right. We have been here before.
    Let me just contribute my two cents then…

    I tend to agree with Drosselmeyer. However, I would be precise and say that although I consider Ole Hairy “supernatural,”—by that definition I mean in the term I employed before—”natural phenomenon/properties that has/have not been explained yet.”

    To a lot of people the “supernatural” term implies (for better or worse) something “illogical,” or “impossible;” sort of like a Fantasy. Not MY definition. So yes, I feel BF operates in a way outside of the boundaries of what is currently KNOWN; one can call it “magical,” as long as one understands the term to be (at least from the definition I’m giving) “within the bounds of nature and logic but unknown to current science or means of explanation.”

    DWA: I feel you, brother. :) The quandary here, I think, is—how does one “prove” something that apparently operates outside of the known empirical methods of proving most things???
    Ay, there’s the rub. To be honest, I tend to think we’ll somehow find a way to prove this within the proven boundaries (i.e., physical and occular evidence)—but after we do, we will be able to step back and find that these beings are able to go beyond the physical paradigm. In other words, use the method of the skeptic to achieve the ends of the believer. I’m perfectly willing to believe these may not be “real,” I just refuse to think that their existence operates within the boundaries of whether they can be physically proven or not. In other words, just because they cannot be (apparently) detected in a physical
    manner does not mean they do not act in a manner that goes beyond the “physical” and “known.” And we must be able to enterntain this. That’s what I meant by “think outside the box” in my previous post.

    One brainstorm here before I step back (and I would like Mystery_Man especially to talk about this—-Humans have intuition; so do animals—a sort of “Spidey sense.” Has it ever occured to anyone that maybe that’s what enables these creatures to aviod cameras and people??? No “supernatural,” just a more advanced version of what we and most of the animal kingdom have—a “Super Spidey-Sense”. Think about it. Just as plausible as anything else, right??? :)

  10. cryptidsrus responds:

    One thing:

    I also found Kaku’s email somewhat “tightly wound” (May I suggest decaf, Michio?). On the other hand, I think what old Michio is getting at (beneath all the layers of outrage and arrogance) is that scientists and researchers need to at least consider looking at these things from a perspective other than the usual materialistic one, which only investigate the “empirical, here and now.”

    If one follows the evidence, one would find that the evidence points AT LEAST in the direction of something beyond this material world. Kaku’s method of expressing that does show arrogance and I did not like how exaclty he put the email out, but I understand the underlying spirit of his commmunication. I guess he has run into the “Orthodox” hierarchy one too many times, know what I mean? Nobody likes to be marginalized for something that challenges the accepted hsitory of anything. He could have been more humble about it, I admit. Just my two cents. Time for the medication. :)

  11. Bob Malarkey responds:

    I agree with DWA and Andrew. This theory is just another way to explain why people can’t catch Sasquatch. There is no proof, no evidence to back it up, and until then, i will not give this theory a serious thought. I remember reading a while back about how Sasquatch could be an interdimensional being (like the aliens in Indiana Jones). I regarded it with extreme skepticism, and will do the same to this until adequate proof is given.

  12. MultipleEncounters responds:

    Well I’m not going to advocate ‘invisibility’ per se. I think its a misnomer sometimes used intentionally to be hyperbolic in what should be serious open-minded scientific discussions. The problem is, this field does not have sufficient scientists involved in it to keep the dialogue up long enough so others can comprehend what is a very complex scientific theory. There is something else going on with sasquatch that we don’t understand. And those who propose such claims should not be automatically excluded from science either. Science is bigger and broader then our measly limited views.

    How can I possibly say this? Well what is String Theory, M Theory and the whole Quantum Mechanics/Physics study based on? So much of it comes right back to alternate Universes. The greatest scientific minds of our time prescribe to the existence of such alternate realities. This scientific study exists, it, and the thousands of scientists alive who pursue the study, CANNOT be denied because of our desire to find some simple biological explanation for what some want so badly to be a giant extant ape.

    Accepted Scientific Method is an interesting animal in itself. Yet, ‘science’ is supposed to be about the exploration of the unknown, isn’t it? But the safe paradigm that too many prescribe to of only what we see/know, limits everyone’s thinking. In effect, Accepted Science has its eyes closed. Do UFO’s exist? I know they do. Many here reading have seen a ufo but won’t admit it publicly. Two countries have begun releasing their classified ufo files to the public. This is going to slowly begin changing that particular paradigm. Maybe our new president will even order the release of similar classified US files? But to the point, how do these UFOs get here? Most scientists who recognize there is something to ufo claims made by pilots, military, police, etc, do not believe they can possibly fly here from other planets, because it would just be too long a trip. This is where Quantum Physics comes into the picture. Ironically one of the main goals of the new Particle Accelerator spanning the border between France and Switzerland is to figure out how to transport matter. Do you think transporting matter is limited to our own physical world? Our science is just a child in respect to what is real, what is to be discovered. So people, don’t discount this word ‘invisibility’ out of hand just because you must hold onto the idea that the study of anything biological is limited to our 5 senses. Sure, what we were taught from our books had to be based on ‘accepted’ science. Some scientists live within these boundaries, some are true scientists and attempt to broaden the learning experience by breaking through the confines of that small box. Science is by its nature supposed to be the study of the unknown isn’t it?

    I can’t say that sasquatch are invisible nor have I ever seen an invisible sasquatch. (joke) But there is something ‘unusual’ going on with them. And ys, how could these creatures possibly avoid our detection for so long with the thousands of people out there trying to capture them in some way? And believe me, I’ve been scared to death by a sasquatch only 22′ away that was 100% biological. I’ve found their tracks, I’ve recorded them on audio, I’ve heard them as they observed me within 75′. I know they are biological creatures, well for the most part anyhow. But something else that we do not understand is going on too. Maybe the answer has already been given to explain how they remain so elusive. There have been so many researchers over the decades who unilaterally come to a similar conclusion that the mainstream ultimately scoffs at. Problem is, so many in the mainstream have never even seen a sasquatch, so who are they to set the rules?

    I’ll share a story. On one of the first few trips back to the area where I had a major encounter 5 years ago, inside a Wilderness area of Oregon, something happened. I was a few miles in. I carry a handgun for peace of mind, but I suspect that if they wanted to harm me, it would be of little consequence. Anyway, I had brought some fruit with me as gifts and would leave pieces here and there. So after an hour I ‘m walking along the edge of this small shallow lake and find a place to sit on the opposite side on some big downed logs just to be still and listen. A few minutes later I hear this ‘WHOMP’ that sounded just like two flat feet hit the ground at once only about 25 feet away. But I could see a good 75′ through the brush and not much (including something as big as a sasquatch) would be unseen. There is nothing visibly there but I began to feel this presence that I knew was right there in front of me. Still, visually, nothing was there. And then unexpectedly I was BLASTED with a VERY strong, very sweet but pleasant smelling skunk-like scent. A few seconds later I was blasted again. I then had the most unusual unexpected and unintentional response. I felt this complete peace around me and was not afraid. I even smiled at whatever presence was there next to me. Something was there but I will never know what (so I will keep an open mind). Then I reached into the cloth bag that I carried plums and apples in, and made a good sized pile next to me on the log. I then stood up, did my best to give warm thoughts and continued on my walk back out of the woods. That was the only thing unusual that took place that day. This isn’t far from where the late Grover Krantz had collected track casts of his own too. I know someone else who has collected casts in the area as well.

    Yes Richard888, the feeling that many have had of being watched is real, which contradicts ‘science’. As someone who spends thousands of hours in the woods, I have felt it many times. Almost every F&B bigfoot researcher knows the feeling of being watched too. Yet can they admit they are in essence relying on one of their non-accepted senses? I think not! They are too afraid to honestly think outside the box. But there is more to our little world then what we can see, feel and hear. It is we small minded humans who have not evolved enough to understand our world.

    Science (and some scientists) can be so stuffy sometimes. I think its partly because they assemble their years/decades of experience on past curriculum, which of course was previously based on the accepted knowns in science. But this limited thinking is the bases for the stagnant paradigm in learning, or at least to free & open thinking. Some really do need to take of the blinders. As with every status quo, it is only the bold and unconventional who ultimately develop new theories that take hold and break through the paradigm into another direction. Quantum Physics will likely be the mechanism that slowly but surely stretches and breaks through the paradigm this field is stuck in.

    OK, this was a bit bazar. It’s Saturday morning and I’m just surfing & writing and I pull this old vhs tape out from a pile to watch something while doing so. The first program up that I recorded probably many months ago is a NOVA program entitled ‘Parallel Universes and Parallel Lives’. Its about Quantum Theory and some scientist named Hugh Everett, who in the early 1970′s apparently first proposed the idea of parallel universes in a 137 page paper. Hugh Everett apparently became an icon in his field and was even a protege of Albert Einstein. I swear, it is completely random that I chose this tape. Didn’t even remember I had recorded it from Public Broadcasting months ago. What more proof do we need that there is some other force out there? lol

    Anyway… And yes I still also believe that sasquatch are real and F&B, BOY do I know they are real! But that doesn’t exclude they aren’t something else too. There is more then one alternative to what we perceive as real. We just don’t yet understand with our limited knowledge, limited theories, that our finite universe really isn’t all that finite after all.

  13. Dj Plasmic Nebula responds:

    Sure why not. :)

    Dragons/dinos breath fire.

    Eels have electricity

    Fireflies, fishes, ropens have bi luminescence

    Snakes have Venom and poison

    Dolphins were said to be telepathic

    why not bigfoot have invisibility.

    sure why not Megasaurus Rex (t-rex) have invisibility. who knows. :)

    i read that T-rex (w/e people call it), probably breathe fire. :)

    oooo hoooh i heard that they found worms that can sustain heat (immune to heat).. down down down down down the ground. :)

  14. DWA responds:

    A couple more things here deserve comment.

    from cryptidsrus:

    “DWA: I feel you, brother. :) The quandary here, I think, is—how does one “prove” something that apparently operates outside of the known empirical methods of proving most things???”

    Well, one can prove it, I think, because I don’t necessarily believe that what you describe is what we have here.

    My money says that, if the evidence for the sasquatch isn’t a complete fabrication (which is at the moment the theory that has the LEAST evidence going for it, i.e. zero), then the sasquatch is an animal. We haven’t confirmed it because science – society’s arbiter of the real – won’t touch it, and is leaving the field to part-time amateurs. Who aren’t out there enough; mishandle evidence when they do get it; give evidence to professionals who don’t treat it properly because they have an a priori negative mindset; and spout theories – like the one under discussion here – that scare scientists away because their credibility – their only stock in trade – is at stake.

    As to the “Spidey sense”: Not sure about the sasquatch’s. How ’bout ours? I think there may be a scientific explanation. Many describe the intense “feeling of being watched” in close proximity to encounters. No scientist worthy of the name can pooh-pooh that and claim to remain serious about the topic; that is one of the most commonly-described aspects of encounters. One theory: human response to a pheromone these animals emit when they’re agitated (or whatever they are when they emit it). That can’t be proven until we have the specimen in hand and can do the research. But at least it’s grounded in a scientifically-credible phenomenon. You have to prove the animal first. But in the meantime you’re not making scientists go woo-woo, and run like hell in the other direction.

    And from Multiple_Encounters:

    “Yes Richard888, the feeling that many have had of being watched is real, which contradicts ’science’. As someone who spends thousands of hours in the woods, I have felt it many times. Almost every F&B bigfoot researcher knows the feeling of being watched too. Yet can they admit they are in essence relying on one of their non-accepted senses? I think not!”

    This is addressed above. We may acknowledge fewer senses than we have (largely because scientists can’t test for more than the five yet). So, again: why resort to a paranormal explanation when it is possible it has a biological grounding?

    I see nothing in the evidence – not even in Multiple Encounters’ post of his experience – that could not be explained in terms of science, although it may require tests we can’t apply yet.

    Since we will need scientists to do the documentation and experimentation that enlightens everybody: why scare them away?

  15. Richard888 responds:

    That a “modern day 8 foot tall man-ape living is the US keeps eluding scientists, bone collectors, and photographers” is in itself an anomaly.

    Here are some common strategies people use to cope with this anomaly:
    1) Bigfoot does not exist. Reports are either false flags or hoaxes.
    2) Bigfoot is an extremely rare man-ape. Finding one is a numbers game. Keep looking.
    3) Bigfoot is an advanced ape that has evolved intuitively (much like we have evolved logically). Its intuition is so acute that the feeling of being watched feels like a *fact* to the Bigfoot. This allows it to leave before an observing entity detects it.
    4) Bigfoot is an interdimensional creature, not a zoological one. It can cross dimensions and become invisible when it chooses.

    I believe Number 2 is the best compromise between the data we have and science. Number 3 is not an option because it uses intuition as a logical tool and intuition is not recognized by science. But if intuition is recongized by people because people have personal intuitive experiences then Number 3 should not be ruled out. Numbers 2 and 3 are better than Number 1 that closes the subject and discourages research.

  16. norman-uk responds:

    Without discounting the possibility of interdimensional beings and sasquatch being so gifted, my impression is that normal methods of finding out about sasquatch have a long way to go yet before entering such unknown territory. Sasquatch would be flesh and blood whether interdimensional or not and thus should continue to be amenable to present conventional if increasingly sophisticated researches. There seems to be a common misunderstanding that the paranormal is not rational or scientific. Scientists often call for a ‘rational’ explanation. If as I believe, the paranormal is real then it is the scientists who would not be rational or scientific, not the paranormal. I dont think it would be fruitful in the search for sasquatch to pursue the invisibility theory.
    I have no doubt in its environment sasquatch is finely tuned with very good senses, such as smell etc. In addition maximum use is made of esp. and these attributes together must contribute to the hugh task of studying this wonderful creature and increasing our admiration for it. Personally, I think it likely the evidence for sasquatch is already in someones hands in the form of unrecognised DNA etc etc.
    Doesnt beat someone stumbling on a no longer needed body however, of a sasquatch that has led a full life and come to a peaceful end!

  17. amstar responds:

    Regarding invisibility and Bigfoot– my late husband was a Native American Elder and Medicine Person. He grew up in the “bush” in Northern Alberta and spent a number of years in British Columbia. He had two sightings of Sasquatch while working in logging camps in B.C. He also had experiences with Sasquatch while in ceremony and had a number of dreams with Sasquatch in them. He was taught by his Elders (Woods Cree oral history) that “Mountain Man” could appear and disappear at will and travelled through underground caves.

    One time, while doing a pipe ceremony, a Sasquatch appeared behind him, reached for his pipe and smoked it. My husband’s back was to it, but he felt something pull his pipe from above. People who were there (including one of his sisters) actually saw the Sasquatch behind him. My husband was a humble and honest man and would not lie about such a thing– especially about something that occurred in ceremony.

    If my husband was still alive and heard about this theory about Bigfoot being invisible, he would have laughed about us taking so long to figure out that truth about Bigfoot!

    This kind of talk about Sasquatch makes a lot of people uncomfortable — especially those of you who are logical and scientific and believe in only what you see (except maybe God). All I know is that my husband experienced many amazing and miraculous things in his lifetime that most people, especially scientists, would never believe could have happened. I experienced a few myself when I was with him. It would not surprise me one bit if Sasquatch had the ability to become invisible.

  18. Ferret responds:

    The idea of invisibility is at least theoretically (if not proven, not to sure) possible, and while the idea that certain lifeforms may have developed this as an adaptation is appealing, I’m really not sure how realistic the idea is. As someone who prefers to think of Cryptozoology as a branch of Zoology rather than the paranormal, only resorting to paranormal, supernatural, and ufological explanations when no other answer can be provided (although for the record I believe in ghosts, spirits, etc., UFOs, and ESP). I find this idea of an invisible Bigfoot unlikely to say the least. While it would fit the article that was posted on Cryptomundo recently regarding stone throwing in the paranormal and in Bigfoot research, I just find the concept of not only an invisible animal, but one that can either turn it on/off OR have only certain individuals with this trait a bit extraordinary. I’m not going to say I find the idea impossible, only that I think Bigfoot is much more likely to be an “ordinary” flesh and blood organism rather then something…”special”.

  19. MultipleEncounters responds:

    Amstar you have spoken some truth here that most elders in other tribes feel the same way about. I have experienced some these things too that cannot be explained, contrary to what DWA says. (DWA, there really is a realm outside the one we know and see every day.) Anyway Amstar, I have a small amount of Yaqui/Apache in me but I don’t know if that is the reason I have had the experiences I have. There is so much that modern science hasn’t figured out. It’s too bad really because maybe some big problems could be figured out if the smartest minds had all the pieces.

    Norman-uk, you too have a good grasp on things. Yes they are F&B and that does not discount the existence of these other dimensions. No doubt however this is a tough subject for many to grasp and it’s understandable.

    The Native Peoples probably knew more about sasquatch than all the research organizations of today. But of course the kind of knowledge was different in that they lived with these creatures on a regular basis. I have spoken with a few elders and the amount of knowledge does vary. I plan on having more discussions in the future about more delicate matters.

    It is interesting that this thread is maintaining a relative seriousness towards what is being proposed. Maybe there are a lot more people out there who prescribe to this controversial possibility than some think?

  20. browwiw responds:

    I’ll say that while I find the idea that bigfoot can make itself invisible to highly unlikely, I won’t completely discount it. That’s the privilege of being an agnostic: “Maybe. I dunno.” I don’t like attributing strange abilities to BF because we don’t see these traits in other large hominids or even other animal families. If BF could become invisible, we would have likely encountered several other species that had a very similar cloaking invisibility. Evolution tends to favor certain useful traits (example: eyes are incredibly useful and eyes and eye-like structures have developed from scratch at least seven times through the epochs of time) and we would see a prevalence of true invisibility in nature if it were biologically possible.

    My own feeling is that is that the mystery hominid is probably a creature possessed of incredible wood craft. It most likely has wilderness stealth skills that would make a Marine Force Recon commando blush with jealousy. I believe Loren has put forth the theory that troupes of BFs walk in each other’s tracks (to obscure their numbers). I’ve also heard the theory that BFs will drop and hunch up if it sees a potential threat. Their own remarkable skills coupled with the average modern human’s total lack of perceptiveness makes BF as good as invisible.

  21. browwiw responds:

    Also, a quick note on Ferret’s point about stone throwing.

    The reports of stone throwing BFs actually strengthens my belief that bigfoot is a hominid/primate. While reading some books on evolutionary psychology I discovered that the higher primates are the only creatures that throw things to get one another’s attention. Gorillas, chimps, bonobos, and humans all have the peculiar trait of throwing sticks and what not to get attention on convey “leave me alone”. You throws at a dog to leave you alone and he’ll just wonder why rocks are falling out of the sky. The gesture means nothing to the canine.

    So, the idea that bigfoot tosses rocks to get your attention or make you leave its territory seems perfectly logical and natural to me.

  22. mystery_man responds:

    I say let’s keep our brains in our heads here.

    There’s so much science bashing (always the easy route it seems) going on here that I just have to throw in a few cents.

    Saying that Bigfoot is invisible and that we should accept that based on what has been put forth is dangerously close to opening a whole Pandora’s box of any number of unfounded possibilities. Why not just say sasquatch are aliens or whatever else you want them to be? How could you argue against any idea put out of my imagination if you are willing to accept invisibility based on absolutely no evidence at all? Without evidence, this is just an idea, with no more merit than any other.

    There is a reason why scientists are not investigating invisible animals, and this is because it has not ever happened in any demonstrable way. Period. Oh there are creatures that are transparent or translucent, but this is apparently not what is being implied, and it is certainly not a trait of land animals or large primates. Inter-dimensional beings? Says who? You? Why? Show me. That’s not dogma, that’s a sensible way to really learn about how the world really works. There is no good reason at this point in time why any scientists should want to use good, hard to come by funding for something like this. As wrong as you may think scientists are (and we may be), that’s the hard reality.

    In my opinion, it is unwise to throw all known conventions of physics and biology out the door in these discussions. So when you have an elusive creature that has not been photographed often, do you say that maybe it is just very smart and stealthy biological entity, a creature for which there are at least passing comparisons to in the wild? Can’t we consider maybe this is just a very smart and very wary animal? Or do you throw out everything that scientists have gleaned about the natural world through years of hard work and verification and say that no they are wrong, there are creatures that can become invisible at will? If you are going to do that, you’d best come with reasons and evidence to show why science is wrong and why we should re write the book on what we currently know to include invisible Bigfoot. If not, it seems unfair to me to slam science for not wanting to accept the idea. Come one, it’s already hard enough to get anyone to seriously look at sasquatch period.

    Maybe these things such as invisible Bigfoot happen, I’ll throw a bone there. No body knows. And that’s the thing, we won’t know unless there is something somewhat tied to all of the good information we have about the universe (aka reality as we know it) to conclusively lead us in that direction. Honestly right now, it is something that cannot be proven or disproved at this point in time (very much like the notion that sasquatch are aliens), and therefore is just pure speculation.

    Think about it, If scientists had to seriously consider every “what if” notion such as this just because it COULD be true, we would be a long time coming to any real knowledge. And if we had to accept things based on no evidence or on speculation without real information to enlighten us, we would still be living in a flat world circled by a sun, where bloodletting was a sensible cure for sickness. It is partly the fault of blindly believing things without facts that prolonged transitions from faulty paradigms like that.

    I’m all for driving knowledge forward, but there are ways to do it. I certainly find it suspicious when people talk about how unexplainable the universe is, then proceed to explain in great detail about things such as how invisible beings work. Personally, I’d prefer to really learn about and get to the bottom of the mysteries of the world using what we already know as stepping stones.

    I get the impression from some people here who go on about what scientists are supposed to be like that they have never in fact met a real scientist. As hard as it may be for some here to believe, scientists aren’t trying to hold our knowledge back. They want to learn about the world and the universe as much as anyone else, and are not the uptight, evil people that many here seem to think. But they do need something to go on in order to study any revolutionary idea such as inter-dimensional or invisible beings. Scientists just cannot go out and study things on a whim.

    I’m sorry, but I really can’t understand why anyone would be surprised that scientists are not tripping over themselves to study invisible beings at this point in time. If anything, this sort of talk is going to drive them away. Is that what anyone here wants?

  23. mystery_man responds:

    Cryptidsrus- To answer your question, I don’t know about a “Spidey sense” per say, but I think sasquatch could certainly have very good physical senses, a high intelligence, and be very wary, which I guess could probably seem a lot like that. A lot of animals behave in that manner, so I am more willing to look into that possibility.

  24. amstar responds:

    Yes, this type of discussion does make some people uncomfortable.

    I am not dissing logic, scientists or scientific research as it all has its place in the world. My husband always encouraged aboriginal people, including his children, to learn both the native and western ways. He said, “If you learn 100% of your own culture and way of life and 100% of the white man’s ways, you will be operating at 200%– and that’s 100% more than most people.”

    My husband had one foot in this world and one in the “supernatural” spirit world and thus his perception of reality was different than mine. It took me a while to truly understand and appreciate the depth of his knowledge.

    I remember being up in Churchill, Manitoba with him, watching him chuckle at a world-renowned polar bear researcher who was using all kinds of expensive, sophisticated equipment trying to determine where polar bears lose the most heat. My husband told me that obviously they let go of the most heat in their bodies when they fart! (A pretty rational observation) Yet when he was dying, my husband welcomed and honored the Western physicians (and their medicines) who helped make him comfortable and relieved his suffering.

    Native peoples were interacting with Sasquatch in North America for hundreds if not thousands of years before the rest of us and their knowledge and understanding is just as “scientifically” valid. I personally don’t know what the truth is, but I, through my experiences with a native elder, know that I must weigh his teachings and observations in the same way as I would theories from any other scientist and researcher. We need to all just open our minds a little bit to new possibilities.

  25. cryptidsrus responds:

    Well, we certainly have good points from all sides.
    Mystery_Man: Good post, although let me make it clear, I’m not in any way shape or form “bashing” science. Others may be doing it here, but not me or (I will comfortably hazard a guess) most of the posters here. Without science, this century would not have some of the advantages it does. No question. Science has been with us from the beginning, along with other social institutions like religion and the law. I simply am questioning whether today’s empirical-type science, which tends to concentrate exclusively on the “material” side of experience (i.e., religion/spirituality will explain the WHY, science will explain the HOW) can adequately handle the data regarding BF when SOME of that data goes beyond the standard method for testing empirically (materialistic, with an emphasis on observation and repeatable results). We have a lot of physical evidence (footprints, hair samples, fecal matter, etc.) that some folks say is conclusive, others say not. We have the Patterson footage, which a lot of people say is definitive, others say it is not-plus they say it’s a hoax!!!
    We then have the attempts to film these beings countless of times—all of it has been either unsuccesful or been shown as either a hoax or mistaken identity. At least, it has been dismissed because there’s no “physical proof.” Then there is the eyewitness testimony—some of which points to evidence of an intelligent being which may or may not be operating outside the realm of ordinary “physical reality.” Some of it is believed, some of it is not. The ones that are dismissed most often are the ones that smack of them being “paranormal.” If it just Joe Everyman seeing a creature walking by the side of the road, it is ok—but a Sasquatch talking, interacting with humans (like MultipleEncounters and Amstar’s experineces)?—No, that is not within the realm of possibility!!! So—

    In other words, how do you, DWA and other folks here feel about what Amstar and MultipleEncounters have talked about???
    They have claimed (and countless other people have claimed) that this is more than just an “upright ape.” A lot of the most credible research on BF has been ascertained through eyewitness accounts—do you just dismiss these and other “out there” claims simply before they do not fit into an (I guess) A Priori theory of what is or is not “evidence?” Like Amstar and Multiple Encounters have said, Native Americans (and indigenous people all over the world) have a thousand-plus history of sightings and interaction with these beings in the form of oral tradition and legends—scientifically “worthless” to many—but should it be dismissed because the Establishment says it is illogical?

    To put it more clearly—-
    Remember the comment I made about “negative results” in that previous thread about “Supernatural Sasquatch?.” In Science, one must supposedly look at ALL available data—I refuse to dismiss evidence, no matter from whom it comes from, simply because it is not “rational,” “logical,” or because it smacks of “paranormal” or “supernatural.” By all means let’s try to “prove” this the “standard” way—let’s just not MAKE ASSUMPTIONS and dismiss anything that does not fit our preconceptions of what the “scientific way” or “reality” is. The same things happen in Ufo research. Physical, yes…Interdimensional? Heck, no!!! Let’s not even talk about reports of Sasquatch and Ufos (which has happened)!!!.

    Let’s not also forget that the words “logic,” “rational,” and “scientific method” may have different meanings for different people. In some traditions (mostly religious) one has to go beyond logic and reason to experience something “directly.” I’m not saying that everything one is told is true—all I’m saying is that if people like Amstar and MutipleEncounters can be shown to be reliable (and hundreds of other people as well) let’s not look down our noses and sniff “we don’t do that kind of stuff.” The overwhelming amount of evidence available points to the possibility of something unseen–let’s explore that. What may be “acceptable” to us now may not be the best way to deal with this for certain.

    To get to the point (finally-whew!!!:)) Mystery_Man:—
    You say “Show Me” is the most “sensible” way. Ok.
    1) Define “Sensible.”
    2) The traditional “scientific method” way of doing this can be used , but it is not accounting for all the data. It’s not even working as a way to finally ascertain whether or not BF exists.
    3) We can continue to try doing this the same way, “traditional” way, and maybe hope we’ll get something tangible. Or at least keep hoping these beings will (if they are as smart as us) will get around to deciding to show themselves to us in masse. Which I doubt.
    4) Or, we can tap into what MultipleEncounters talked about so provocatively. Read over it, Mystery_Man. We can try redefining the notion of what is “plausible” or not. And get the scientific method away from this “absolutist” track it’s been on for centuries. Let’s face it, Quantum Physics and Mechanics have rendered the notion of “real” and “show me” obsolete. I actually think the “alternate universe” theory and other theories have some merit.
    5) Show me??? Can you “show me” a Black Hole??? Maybe a Neutron Star??? Can you show me “mind?” I can try to describe an idea of what “mind” is; I can talk about “mind;” I can describe someone as having “a great mind;” but I can’t physically SHOW you “mind”, can’t I? Yet we “know” it’s there—”somehow.” Same for “truth.” And if we accept some of the arguments inherent i Quantum Physics, it would also be feasible to say “truth” and “reality” are subjective, maybe even relative.
    Anyway, I’m going outside to get fresh air now. This post has taken me an hour plus to write. I can’t get the intellectual “juice” out as easily as some people. Anyway, time for the meds now. :)

  26. cryptidsrus responds:

    Quickly here, DWA and Mystery_Man:

    By all means let us try to prove things in a “physical,” “biological” matter. Just don’t forget that if they are proved the “normal” way, there might be found to be components of them which are beyond “physical”.

    Ok, even more simple:
    “Once you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however IMPROBABLE, is the truth.”
    Arthur Conan Doyle—
    Rationalist AND believer in the Paranormal and Fairies. :)
    I’m good for some days now. Heh-heh-heh.

  27. norman-uk responds:

    In my opinion science is impeccable as far as I know anyway.But outside of that IS there an area or world where the rule is there are no rules? The problem is not with science but with scientists, (whome I am glad to say), are human and amongst all the human qualities are all the human faults. They may make all sorts of errors and stick to them. May be proud vain or dishonest, may turn science into a religion. May rely on authority rather than evidence. I,am not anti scientist but have felt chagrin at their sometimes irrational and dogmatic statements. I am not alone in my thoughts as research has been done on honesty etc in science research and found big problems. This in itself may not be true, but as in life, I can form an opinion and accept it -provisionly.
    What I am getting at is that I doubt anyone in science would take on the job of researching sasquatch invisibilty-but apart from noble exceptions, saquatch as and the like also get the cold shoulder from scientists or research bodies. Where there really is a good if incomplete case for something very extraordinary !

  28. mystery_man responds:

    Cryptidsrus- I appreciate you input.

    Let me make clear that I’m not saying these things are impossible. I’m saying we need a basis upon which to come to the conclusion that something is real. Science indeed does not know everything, and actually scientists will be the first to admit that. I want to get to the bottom of these mysteries too. But the way I go about it is through real information, established biology and physics (this stuff is not made up, it has been built upon by years of hard work and verification), BUILDING upon what we know rather than making stuff up, and then presenting ideas with evidence, facts, and precedents in nature. This is “sensible” to me. Letting the facts and observable evidence lead us to our conclusions, not saying that “well, Bigfoot can’t be photographed, it must be invisible.” That last part to me is not sensible.

    I didn’t really mean “show me” in the sense you seem to think. I guess you could say I mean “Show me HOW”. I’m not trying to be arrogant or close minded. I don’t want to close down possibilities, but I do ask that you show me why everything else that we know is wrong and that invisible inter-dimensional beings are possible. There is a universe with certain rules and laws that should not in my opinion be thrown aside lightly. There are many things that we cannot explain, but if we are going to get to any truth behind mysteries like this, science is a wonderful tool for doing it. If these laws are wrong, you have to show why. Contrary to what many here seem to think, many scientists are hesitant to say something is impossible, but you have to show why it is possible if it is to be seriously pursued.

    As far as “scientific method” goes, don’t fall for the myth that there is any one absolute method. Anyone who thinks archeologists, zoologists, astronomers, and biologists all use the same exact scientific method you learned about in grade school across the board, is mistaken. Scientists use a repertoire of different methodology and techniques depending on the circumstances to come to their conclusions, (not everything can be touched in a laboratory) and these conclusions are picked apart from all sides by other scientists. What you are left with is some semblance of the truth, whatever that may be. “Sensible” is letting the observable facts and incoming information amend what we already think we know about the natural world, and changing paradigms based on that.

    The “mind” is a very good point. We don’t understand it. Scientists will readily admit this. But they are trying to understand it through study and hard work rather than unfounded speculation.

    I must disagree with the physics analogy, though. A lot of people point out quantum physics to prove that science accepts things that are not proven, but in a way this is a faulty argument. There are many other things in physics that would be explained by the presence of some of these proposed theories. Black holes have been observed to some extent, at least their effects have. In some cases, a hypothesis fits in so well with what we know, and would explain so much, that it would actually be odd if the proposed particles or whatever did NOT exist. Therefore, despite a lack of physical evidence, a lot suggests some of these things happen, and the hypotheses somewhat give a working explanation for why things are the way they are. How does invisibility fit into the world in this manner? There is nothing that suggests it happens, nothing that would help us understand it in the known physical world (although you could throw in “yet”). How does it link to the rest of the universe? This is what I would want to know before taking it seriously.

    Like I said, the world and the universe is a fantastically complex and mysterious place, but I think in time, through the right approach, we will understand it little by little. Granted, some scientists are close minded, but not the ones doing their jobs right (like hopefully me). Hey, at least I’m willing to give sasquatch a chance.

    On another track. I have the utmost respect for Native American traditions. I have studied the Ainu, the Japanese equivalent, for some time now. Yet, while I respect and value these traditions, often known animals are attributed with supernatural abilities comparable with what is suggested in lore about the sasquatch. It does not mean it is true. For example, I am fairly sure that foxes cannot go invisible, teleport, project illusions, or possess human beings, all abilities for which Japanese have traditionally attributed to the fox. I think we should be careful about accepting these traditions as absolute fact.

    Anyway, in my opinion, science is not the enemy. Believing things without firm basis and adequate study is.

  29. DWA responds:

    Um, whew. Summing up my thoughts:

    for one thing, mystery_man’s post. Every jot dash and punctuation mark, especially this:

    ——————————-

    I’m sorry, but I really can’t understand why anyone would be surprised that scientists are not tripping over themselves to study invisible beings at this point in time. If anything, this sort of talk is going to drive them away. Is that what anyone here wants?

    ——————————-

    Maybe not, but that is for sure what you will get if you come at a scientist with what a Native elder told you once. How do I know? The past 50 years, is how. Says here: if science doesn’t prove the sasquatch, we will always be where we are on this. Howzat sittin’ witcha? If you’re OK with it, then fine, keep on going on about how science can’t find him because he’s invisible, and they just have to come to terms with that. Well, they have come to terms with that. And here’s how: the sasquatch doesn’t exist! Once again: if you are hoping science never searches for that critter, then science is playing right into your hands, and congratulations.

    Multiple_Encounters: I’m quite aware there’s a world beyond my perceptions. Guess what: so is science. Science is how I know what the world looks like to birds and bumblebees. (Hint: NOT the same world.) But guess also what: science isn’t going with this invisibility stuff, because science has observed it in precisely no creature we know to exist. Something I am saying is going over people’s heads here, so I’m saying it again: sometimes you just have to WAIT FOR SCIENCE TO CATCH UP WITH YOU. If you scare them, they will run. They cannot afford to go on your word; the world is who they have to convince, not you! And the world looks at invisible sasquatch, laughs, shakes its head, and marvels at the amazing shots scientists got of a squid, 6,000 feet down in the black depths of the sea, that isn’t a twentieth as big as the animal that, for years, has been looking into people’s windows, yet going unconfirmed by the very same scientific establishment.

    For those of us who understand the vast difference between personal proof (what you have seen yourself) and cultural proof (what everyone accepts as true), this talk of supernatural sasquatch is an utter hair-puller! Proponents shoot themselves, in the foot and multiple other body parts, with their utter inability to get together on search protocols. SCIENCE WILL NOT SEARCH FOR WHAT YOU TELL IT IT WILL NOT FIND, unless it knows you are wrong.

    All of the evidence says this: I am right, and you are wrong, if you think the sasquatch is anything other than a flesh and blood like the coyote, the bear, you and me. What you personally have seen is just your word; I am sorry that I cannot take it for anything other than anecdote. But I have read many, many, many sighting reports, and they don’t talk about this guy appearing, disappearing or smoking your pipe. They talk about an animal that behaves like, wait for it, an ANIMAL.

    If the Natives are right, then science has some catching up to do. If you want science never, ever to bother catching up, then talking about disappearing sas is – whether you like it or not – THE way to go. As cryptidsrus puts it, and well:

    By all means let us try to prove things in a “physical,” “biological” matter. Just don’t forget that if they are proved the “normal” way, there might be found to be components of them which are beyond “physical”.

    How could I say it better?

    But if you don’t prove the physical first…well, good luck with everything else. And if you don’t keep the non-physical out of the conversation: the physical will NEVER be proven. The sasquatch will never – so far as the world knows or cares – be real.

    Says so, right here.

    Wanna bet me?

  30. amstar responds:

    Hello again– this discussion is getting quite interesting.

    Based on what is still a limited understanding of my husband’s culture, world view and knowledge of what he referred to as the “supernatural” or “great mystery,” he believed that anything– human, animal, plant, fish– could exist as a real “flesh and blood” being or as a “spirit” — something that looks real but could appear and disappear at will and was not really of this earth. When he would see those spirit beings, he said that the hair on the back of his head would stand up and he would get a sense of uneasiness. If it was a negative spirit, he would get a real sense of something evil or bad — but it was extremely rare to encounter a negative spirit in this way.

    When he was about 17 or 18 he lived by himself in the woods for 10 months, accompanied by his dog, as part of his training. I asked him if he ever encountered a Sasquatch during that time, and he said no. I explained to him the sensations that many people describe when they have what may possibly be an encounter with a Sasquatch. He told me that there were a number of times when he was in the woods that he used to feel like someone or something was watching him and had feelings of uneasiness, but he always attribited it to the “spirits” that he new existed in the woods (and everywhere), and since he carried protection medicine he knew he would not be hurt.

    Maybe some people have encountered”flesh and blood” sasquatches and others have encountered sasquatches that are really spirits– and those are the ones that appear and disappear at will. And maybe we will never know the truth. My husband used to say that there are things that are meant to remain a “mystery” — things we don’t need to know and, thus, will never know for sure.

  31. clman1 responds:

    I believe that either the Sasquatch is much more intelligent than we credit them for or there has to be some sort of paranormal element to them.

    Look at all the other bizarre things that people encounter, UFOs, lake monsters, other fortean cryptids such as chupacapras, mothman, lizardman, not to mention ghosts.

    Will traditional science ever be able to explain any of these?

    I still believe there is strong evidence of sasquatch as a flesh and blood creature but is closer to human than we think and possessed of some other sense that at will he can remain undetected.

  32. MultipleEncounters responds:

    INVISIBLE
    Adjective: unable to be seen; not visible to the eye.

    Does this mean that sasquatch is not Flesh and Blood? I would say no. (Again, I’ve been scared to death 22′ from one of these creatures, not to mention other VERY visible encounters. He was as real to me as the trees that were nearby.)

    I probably won’t make the best analogies but bare with me here. I believe to some extent the use of the term ‘invisible’ is a bit misleading. The concept being considered, is that they actually have some form of ability to move into some alternate dimension. Do I have any kind of grasp on how? NOT A CHANCE. But Quantum Physics / String Theory proposes there are 11 of these ‘other’ dimensions. So maybe it is not that sasquatch becomes ‘invisible’ or to lose their F&B properties, they just can’t be seen in this dimension, or spectrum if you will. That is the whole premise behind this String Theory stuff. Mass still exists, its just on a different plane that we in this one cannot see. If a rock were to somehow ‘move’ into oone of these ‘other’ dimensions, it doesn’t physically become invisible, we just can’t see it. Of course this new science is difficult to comprehend for me too. But there is a science and it does propose alternate dimensions. This is what probably needs to be reconciled here just for the sake of keeping an open mind.

    Maybe here’s a ‘Show Me’.

    I’m guessing there are a fair number of people here who have seen a spirit/ghost at some time in their lives. Nobody needs to admit it. Most likely you were young as this is when our minds are more open to this kind of thing. Are spirits accepted by mainstream science? Nope. Can they be proven to exist by science? Nope. Science seems to be having just as hard a time proving ghosts as they do are our hairy friend. Only small steps are being made there. Do ghosts exist? I’d say a fair share of people will say they do. Like with sasquatch, I know ghosts exist. Oh but wait, they are invisible too. LOL

    Do we have souls? Is there a God? Many here (not all) will also say yes to both those questions. Can we prove this with science? Maybe we lessening the gap in respect to the fact that there are just some things that science can’t prove exist. Of course as for the latter question, we also have Faith. Ironically, faith does appear to be sufficient in answering the God question. No science needed there nor could science likely prove the question of God. But science has its place there too. It can analyze the Shroud of Turin, verify ancient texts, analyze DNA from those rare finds, etc. But ultimately science probably can’t prove the existence of God.

    It may be that these new breed of scientists/physicists, who study what we can’t see, may be able to make sense of so many mysteries we have been trying to explain for decades in our world. Apparently we now have a Nobel Prize Winning Physicist who has some theories about sasquatch? I thought we wanted modern science to take sasquatch more seriously?

    Guess we will just have to see what he has to say…

  33. MultipleEncounters responds:

    Loren, please omit the closing reference to him being Nobel Prize winner, I misread that caption on his page. Of course leave the ‘physicist’ part.

  34. kgehrman responds:

    Loren you sure know how to stir up the coals a bit when things are a little quiet, I’ll give you that.

    The subject of Bigfoot will probably not come up in tonight’s Art Bell show unless someone calls in and confronts Dr Kaku with the idea of “invisible forest people”.

    Something tells me that now, someone will!

  35. steele79 responds:

    well as much as i would like to believe in an 8 foot tall 800 pound humanoid. i think Bigfoot is as real as a politician that tells the truth. an old Indian legend to scare kids that white guys picked up on and add an over active imagination no physical evidence no body no blood no hair and only bad pictures and blurry video of nothing or fakes. Bigfoot is prob as real as the tooth fairy i really like this site and the work Loren does. but until as Thomas said until i can put my hand in his side and touch his wounds i wont believe

  36. Loren Coleman responds:

    From the published recap of last night’s Coast to Coast AM program, it does not seem that anything about an “invisible Bigfoot” was mentioned on the show, in spite of the emailer who started all of this.

    As far as I know, nothing was noted about even plain old ordinary Bigfoot during Art Bell’s appearance.

  37. raisinsofwrath responds:

    Many animals have heightened senses. I’ve seen this in practice quite a lot. Amazingly, most of the year it’s not all that difficult to view game animals but once hunting season starts they tend to disappear. Of course the younger animals are more readily seen but as they age they develop this instinctual ability to avoid detection. Of course how good they are at it depends on many factors.

    I think most Bigfoot believers will attest to the idea that BF is on a higher level of intelligence. Apes live in the preset, so comparatively not a good model. Combine super senses with an advanced intelligence and watch how stealthy BF can be.

    I have an open mind but invisibility is pushing it….Then again, who really knows how truly bizarre the universe is?

  38. graybear responds:

    There are thousands of black bears in the area where I live. I’ve seen only one. By the logic of this thread, that clearly means that they are mostly invisible. Think about it; natural abilities never develop in a vacuum. If the Bigfoot are invisible then other creatures which live a similar life style, such as bears or gorillas or bonobos or chimpanzees or orangutans or early man or current primitive tribesmen, should also have some measure of this ability. They don’t. If you think that they do, then prove it. Show me (oh, right, you can’t show me something that’s invisible!).
    Maybe we should just acknowledge what I have long suspected; the Bigfoot are actually Wookiees and their connection to flying saucers is obviously that the Rebel Alliance is dropping them off here for some ‘ape-time’.
    This whole idea is silly.

  39. mystery_man responds:

    MultipleEncounters- Yes, that’s exactly what I am hoping for if anyone is to get to the bottom of these mysteries in a scientific way. It seems to me that if these things such as invisible sasquatch really happen, then some novel approach may eventually be able to offer us a way to study them and understand how they really work. Even ghosts or spirits, if they exist, will not be beyond the realm of study if they are part of this universe and follow any kind of physical rules.

    I’m just saying give science a chance. If people want to take currently unproveable things on faith, that’s fine. But keep in mind that this is very, very subjective, and I would certainly not advocate believing in everything that COULD be real. You would be forced to accept everything that people say happens. As for things that explain concretely how the world works, science is an approach, a tool to try and definitively answer questions about how the universe operates. It’s a basis on which we can narrow down the truth.

    There have to be ways to limit what we accept as real rather than whatever ideas catch our fancy.

  40. MultipleEncounters responds:

    Mystery-man, I absolutely concur. I don’t think anybody, not Amstar, not myself, not any of the others who are open minded to this concept, are saying don’t use science. When I go out in the field, I attempt to collect ‘physical’ evidence not ‘invisible’ evidence.

    However I do think a few people haven’t quite grasped the difference from this part of Physics or M-Theory (Yes a science) and how it applies to what is being proposed. Agh, I wish Mr. Kaku could/would explain it. Anyway, it is a ‘science based’ action that Mr. Kaku would have addressed further as it applied to our hairy friend. And by the way, I tried to keep my eyes pried open to listen to it last night on my little AM-FM clock radio with poor reception. Someone named Neil did call in from Portland Oregon to ask him whether ‘beings’ could come and go, during this ‘Parallel Universe’ discussion he was having. He responded yes its possible, but I couldn’t hear the remainder of the response as there was too much static.

    I think Amstar put it best in that if you can learn the old ways and white man’s ways, you would be operating at 200%. That’s where science may need to adapt itself when it desires to understand the intangible. Maybe science hasn’t figured this out yet? That seems to be the middle ground that hasn’t been attained. Of course as she also said, some things are meant to remain a mystery. I understand this and there may be very good reasons for it.

    And still, when I go into the field, I seek the physical evidence, but I also listen to my sixth sense with an open mind, and show respect when something unexplained does happen, because it has. I just wish I could say when it does or doesn’t. I know that feeling of being watched too, as do the majority of good field researchers. And believe me, it is one strange sensation. I don’t buy the pheromone excuse either. To be able to sense a presence goes a step further but it happens even less often.

    Maybe what all the ‘science minded’ individuals kind of need to recognize is that there are humans who are more ‘sensitive’ to things then others. This lack of recognition is a big part of why there remains a big ‘gap’ in perception between numerous controversial phenomenon. But how can the scientist understand something he can’t measure right? Well some can, some scientists are not so tightly wrapped as others, and have experienced things for themselves. Of course many of them end up being considered on the fringe as they pursue their new interests. Like those who study bigfoot. :^) But now maybe physics is breaking down a few barriers, not directed at proving bigfoot of course, but the results may be related nonetheless.

    So here’s a hypothetical question for everyone. Say the new 27KM long Hadron Collider / Particle Accelerator does prove that these alternate universes do indeed exist. Say they eventually make something disappear from our plane of existence. Keep in mind, there are over 10,000 scientists working on this ambitious project. And probably 99% of them prescribe to this notion of the existence of alternate universes too. (Oh and by the way, the organization that is running the collider {CERN – Center for Nuclear Research} is partly responsible for inventing the internet, for our being able to have this discussion.) Anyway, with all the unusual claims that have been made about these strange F&B creatures, if alternate universes are finally proven, would their be a grounded consideration of a possible link? Nobody here can say that the thousands of physicists who are studying this field are not grounded either.

    There may be a dilemma to be faced in this field in the future. As someone inferred in a previous post, there is more then one science in this fascinating new world we live in. Me, I’m just a guy who goes out and chases a creature that most of the world says doesn’t exist. I guess they would also think that I must be chasing something that is invisible. But we know that isn’t so don’t we… :^)

  41. mystery_man responds:

    MultipleEncounters- Well, one thing I think needs to be remembered is that even if multiple universes are proven, it does not necessarily follow that there are invisible bigfoot or that they use these multiple universes as a way of of doing that. Multiple universes may very well be explained by science, but that only proves that they exist. It does not automatically prove that Bigfoot or any other animal can become invisible, or even that they use those multiple universes even if they can become invisible.

    I think at this point in time all of these physicists are proposing the possibility of these universes, NOT that there are beings using these universes to become invisible, teleport, or whatever else. Going from the existence of such universes to the idea that animals or creatures of some sort are able to tap into this power to gain invisibility is a big jump, that will require even more evidence and research to take as fact. Because the one exists does not necessarily follow that the other does, there is a distinction.

    I think people need to be cautious of making causative links or assumptions if such discoveries are made. Definitively proving multiple dimensions would open up one possibility that is grounded in fact and real research. It would not however absolve proponents of inter dimensional sasquatch of the responsibility of showing that that is the case in their hypothesis. Anyone who claims sasquatch can become invisible would still have to investigate and show that sasquatch exist in the first place, whether they in fact can become invisible, and if so show how these proven multiple universes actually relate to what they are claiming sasquatch can do, and what the processes are that facilitates this.

    Proving invisible sasquatch is not as simple as just showing that multiple universes exist or even that invisibility exists, even thought that would be an amazing step forward for those making these claims. Saying that one follows from the other is faulty logic. Just because something CAN happen doesn’t mean that is what IS happening here, anymore than having sasquatch proven as a real animal would prove a blobsquatch photo is actually a picture of a real sasquatch (although it sure would help make the distinction.)

    I suppose if you end up finding a sasquatch in your studies, we will get a lot closer to answering a lot of questions about these creatures. I’d be the first one to celebrate being wrong about invisibility. I wish you a lot of luck in your quest. :)

  42. browwiw responds:

    This is left field, but relevant enough that I wanted to mention it.

    Before I even got into cryptozoology and fringe phenomena I had heard of the theory of extraterrestrial sasquatchs in the roleplaying game “Dark*Matter”. The premise of Dark*Matter was pretty much The X-Files on steroids (every conspiracy theory you had ever heard of was real and the only reason the Illuminati, the Greys, and subterranean Reptilians hadn’t take over the world was because they were all trying to do it at once. Fabulous, moody game setting).

    Anyway, the in-game explanation for Bigfoot was that they were an abandoned offshoot of the bestial alien race, the ‘Weren’. The Weren were used as shock troopers and commandos by the technological superior Greys. Basically, today’s Bigfoot are the descendants of abandoned Weren commandos.

    Of course, this is pure fiction and entertainment, but I find it significant that the idea actually made it into a fairly popular roleplaying game as early as the late 90′s. Dark*Matter was a beautifully researched game and the writers did a fascinating job of creating a ‘unified field theory’ where all these conspiracy theories and legends could co-exist and interact. The game is no longer in print, but it was released by Wizards of the Coast under the Alternity rules system and more recently as addendum of d20Modern.

    Thanks for humoring an old school gamer geek.

  43. norman-uk responds:

    There are obviously conventional reasons why Sasquatch could loosley be decribed as invisible. These could include intelligence, alertness, shyness, being nocturnal, having a form of natural camouflage, e.s.p., speed in good or bad terrain, living remotely, and the ability somehow to deter close contact. In addition rarerity! Im not sure if this opinion is shared but I dont see how Sasquatch populations can escape human diseases unscathed and maintain large numbers.
    This does not rule out non conventional invisibility. If we were intelligent sea dwellers when creature first crawled onto land would we be finding it so difficult to envisage their ‘alternative life style’ or when creatures took to the air by natural means, us down to earthers drawing the line at flight, certainly not imagining the mastery of the air to be acheived by nature.This scepticism was certainly seen when man took to the air.
    In recent years the phenomenom of the ubiquitness of live has been revealed on this planet from the bowels of the earth to the heights. It is even suggested outside the planet, recently with the discovery of RNA, water on mars etc and possible life forms in red cells raining down on India.
    The point i,m making is that life seems to explore every environment it comes into contact with has it somehow found a way to”jump ship” so to speak. Perhaps the ability coming from bacteria or viruses from space where maybe, different dimensions are openly part of normal physics. Then entering larger life forms on earth. (I hope I dont sound too much like Von Daniken). Thus the ability to be invisible may be in mammalian genes like Sasquatch and even our own!
    I’d just like to comment on the quality of the discussion by others on this site it ha sbeen raekky excellent.

  44. amstar responds:

    Hello again! Just one more comment from me–I guess I just wanted to say that the main thing I learned from my husband over the 15 years I spent with him is that I really could not understand the reality he lived his life in. That is to say that his reality was quite different than my own, and it made it hard for him to live in “the modern world.”

    I guess that’s my point– we talk about what is real and unreal and proving it. This man saw and experienced things throughout his life that I am sure science cannot explain– and this WAS his reality. And I assure you, he was not crazy.

    To my husband, the idea of scientists proving that spirits do exist before anyone will actually believe they do is ludicrous. He did not doubt one bit that they exist because to do his work he had to interact with spirits practically on a daily basis!

    But he did come across lots of people who claimed they could see or do the things he could do and 99.9% of them could not and were simply deceiving people for personal gain. Those are the type of people we need to all watch out for– the individuals that claim they see a Sasquatch appear and disappear around every corner; and those that place Sasquatch costumes in ice-filled freezers and sell it for $50,000!

  45. DWA responds:

    amstar: Remember, I said we depend on science for the proof, not that it isn’t frustrating.

    As I also said: sometimes – frequently – it depends on science finding out what many already have proven for themselves.

  46. cryptidsrus responds:

    Graybear:
    You’re assuming this is a common “animal,” which apparently this is not. This could be a highly developed entity for all we know.

  47. DWA responds:

    Cryptidsrus:

    Sounds to me like graybear just thinks the whole thing a crock.

    Which no one – regardless their stance on invisibility – could consider likely who was properly acquainted with the evidence.

    That’s the truth. And I am quite comfortable that it will remain so.

    No one who holds a generally skeptical attitude toward the sasquatch is acquainted with the evidence. This is rather easy to demonstrate.

    Unlike, say, invisibility. ;-)

    Now, whether or not graybear thinks the whole thing a crock, this statement is very questionable from a scientific point of view:

    “If the Bigfoot are invisible then other creatures which live a similar life style, such as bears or gorillas or bonobos or chimpanzees or orangutans or early man or current primitive tribesmen, should also have some measure of this ability.”

    By that very reasoning, they would all look and act exactly alike, which of course is not the case. It’s no more defensible to say that they would all have THIS characteristic (e.g., the muzzle of a bear) than it is to say that they would all have THAT characteristic (e.g., the hands of the tribesman, or, OK, invisibility if you insist.)

    Species can adapt in different ways to hunt the same type of prey (for example, the coyote, the wolf, the bobcat, and the mountain lion, all of which hunt the whitetail deer, but each in a different way).

    Anyway. If invisibility were present, just for the sake of argument, there’s no reason to believe that all, or even several, species would possess it just because of “a similar life style.” Particularly when one considers that adaptations are random; what one species adopts to help it survive in a niche might never occur with another species occupying the same, or a very similar, niche.

    Evolution may (sort of) converge. It doesn’t tend to copy.

  48. MultipleEncounters responds:

    I can’t help but to add some more of my own postulations about this divide that is rarely discussed this freely. And thank you Loren for allowing us to entertain this yet provocative set of theories where old school usually dominates. I am surprised and pleased there is such open mindedness and that the discussion didn’t disintegrate into mocking as it has so many times in threads everywhere. I guess that’s partly because this time, science may be on a colision course in trying to prove this alternate dimension theory, which intentional or not, may somehow intertwine with with sasquatch mystery. Still without this segment of mainstream science considering what obviously many still consider as fantasy, there wouldn’t be much sincerity in the discussions at hand. But the fact is, science is working to prove the existence of these alternate universes and few dare mock them for doing so. It will be time, one of the very components of physics, that will reveal if there is something to it. Time, space, matter, even gravity, oh so much more complex then we see with our own filtered eyes.

    Yes Mystery-man, but once you have a viable proven phenomenon, then you have something to test with. That’s how science works too. Once upon a time it would have been fantasy to think we could see under the solid surface of the earth. How can you see through a solid object right? But now we have many ways of doing this, all developed by science. We also continue to expand our ability to view into different spectrums of light, matter, space, and sound. Those means continue to be adapted for use by these physicists trying to explore their independent as well as unified theories.

    So once they prove these alternate universes indeed exist, I can only assume they will try to detect life there too. Seems like a normal course of human curiosity right? We are doing it in space. I recall one of the things that Mr. Kaku said the other night was that dinosaurs could be right here in this same place we occupy now. Hard to fathom I know. Still maybe the proposition of bigfoot being there too wouldn’t be so different? There has been ample suggestion by many of these theoretical physicists that there is likely ‘life’ present there. No, not an easy thing to contemplate that’s for sure. Maybe what we consider to be the heavens also happens to be one of these places? Or not. :^)

    Again, I think the nomenclature of the word ‘Invisible’ Sasquatch needs to be adjusted because we’re probably talking about a being just as real as us, but also some laws of physics we just don’t get yet. If there is indeed solid basis for this key element of Quantum Physics, and any such admittedly-incredible link to sasquatch, they really wouldn’t be ‘invisible’ per se. We simply lack a comprehensive understanding of what this alternate dimension theory really is. I guess we are not advanced or evolved enough as a species to grasp such crazyness…

    The other thing about that scientific field is that most of the physicists (not all of course) are on the same page in respect to the existence of alternate universes. If that weren’t the case, you wouldn’t have so many able to cooperate on such massive projects such as the collider.

    When the mechanisms for proving alternate universes become available, well maybe then some of those same tools will be used to try and detect our friend? Wouldn’t that be a wild step into what we presently consider science fiction? Imagine a hand-held device that tells you if something is coming into phase, and tracks them much like thermal sensors track heat signatures. LOL OK I know, that was a wild leap, but fun. :)

    But of course until drastic inventions like that take place (probably not in my lifetime), I’ll look for those tracks here in our world using my existing senses. And yes, I include the extra one that allows me to feel I’m being watched. Because unfortunately, I don’t have one of those fancy new ‘patented’ out-of-phase sasquatch detectors yet. LOL

    Well I didn’t begin posting on this subject to advocate that sasquatch are from some other world or reality. I do know I’ve had a few things happen with respect to these amazing creatures that CANNOT be explained with ‘present’ biological science. I guess these events are for me to interpret because I am the only one who was there. But I do think we need to remain open minded in all manner of speaking, because what should be a conventional answer to sasquatch hasn’t emerged. I’ve seen em clearly move through the forest a couple of times as a large bipedal animal, based on that measurement of their ability, there is no way they should have been able to elude us all these decades. Yes they are powerfully agile and do indeed have heightened senses, but come on, are we really that inept with all of our technology, skills, and even weaponry? So maybe they have some extra ‘juice’ in order to remain one step ahead of us? Oddly, similar stories that come from seasoned researchers of strange things happening that can’t be explained evolve on their own. Same with mine. With any other mystery, the correlation of so many similiar reports would provide clues that deserve sincere investigation. On the contrary, many of these researchers became ostracized instead. So, they simply keep their mouths shut on the matter. That’s no way for a field to behave that can’t come up with an otherwise viable explanation. Science is supposed to remain open-minded, now physics should keep that door open just a little more.

    Most who have heard the story believe what happened at Ape Canyon as told by Fred Beck right? One of the great sasquatch/human conflicts that have been told. But how many of you have read his entire interview? Do we just believe what we want and throw away the other half? Wild stuff yes, but that does not make it false.

    Greybear, I don’t think deer or bear or similar animals can do what is being proposed. (Of course that might explain why all the deer seem to ‘disappear’ come hunting season. lol ) But you may be incorrect in including primitive tribesmen in that entirely. I don’t mean all of them, I’m talking about those who are the Shamans, those few who have been taught the old ways. Things that haven’t been shared with white man of today. This is what Amstar is also referring to. There are some who know how to be in both worlds. But I’m not one of them, of course a short vacation there might be quite an experience. lol

    Its been an enjoyable discussion.

  49. graybear responds:

    Bigfoot leave physical evidence of themselves; hair, footprints, scat, sightings. They also reportedly have a pretty strong body odor. That sounds like a ‘common’ animal to me (please include humans in that grouping). To me the Bigfoot is a hominid who is very good at hiding, apparently having had many centuries of practice. Truly otherdimensional beings never seem to leave such traces. Where are the elven or faery footprints, the Sidhe scat, the angel feathers? Am I simply not seeing the Good Folk dancing around the mushroom rings I find in the field behind my house?
    The invisible Bigfoot theory has about as much evidence to support it as the Bigfoot massacre theory, and it probably came from a similar source; a few reality challenged individuals tossing around ideas. I’ve done that myself when I was younger and the theories my friends and I came up with were uh novel. This theory is about in the same place. Von Daniken makes much more sense.
    And for the idea that human shamans can become invisible, my reply is that this probably came from much the same source as the idea that ninjas can become invisible. Show me.
    I don’t disbelieve in the idea of non-physical beings (seen too many ghosts to think that) but there is simply no support for the idea of invisible Bigfoot. Well camoflaged Bigfoot I can believe in, keen hearing beyond the ability of humans to sneak up on them, no problem, Bigfoot who live so far back in the woods that even the people who go looking for them get lost, makes sense. But Patty as the Invisible Woman? No.

  50. mystery_man responds:

    MultipleEncounters, DWA, cryptidsrus, and others here, I think it is extraordinary that we are able to discuss this and share our thoughts on these things without things devolving into mockery or disrespect. This is the way these touchy topics should be handled. I am pretty scientific in my approach of things but I try not to resort to flat dismissal. I’m willing to hear people out, even if I don’t agree. It’s good to see that everyone here is doing the same.

    There might be disagreement with some lines of reasoning or ideas being put forth, but that we can still engage on the issue in a reasonable matter is awesome.

  51. mystery_man responds:

    MultipleEncounters- Well, yes you are right that discoveries along the lines we were talking about, such as new universes, could lead to new lines of research that could uncover these kinds of creatures. That’s true. Science is all about stepping stones to new knowledge. I won’t say that research will never lead in that direction if there is something to build towards it. Some new physics research is pretty funky, so who knows? I would concede it is not impossible that one day we may find ourselves pursuing that line of reasoning in a serious manner.

    I’m just saying that right now, with the current evidence, knowledge, and known precedence for invisibility in the natural world (read- none.), there is no real reason to suppose that sasquatch or any other creature can become invisible. (Although they WOULD be invisible. :) ) Nothing says to me that sasquatch if it exists, deviates from a biological model, as it fits various known criteria for an animal, yet none for invisibility or inter dimensional beings (criteria we don’t even have at this point). Maybe they are, but there really isn’t much to scientificaly build a case for that on currently and so until there is I have to think that if sasquatch is out there, then it is most probably a biological entity.

    Until science comes up with a plausible reason and research that sets up the notion of invisible or extra dimensional creatures, it is a fairly far out notion, and I’d have to say that considering current established conventions I find it unlikely. I know that may sounds close minded, but scientists need more to go on than a willingness to believe. Anyway, at least I’m willing to talk about this stuff in the first place.

    Anyhow, I agree this has been a good discussion. I appreciate that you have come on here, engaged on the matter and explained your position in a clear, thought out manner.

  52. MultipleEncounters responds:

    Mystery-Man, of course its a biological entity, nobody said they weren’t. :) That is the apparent dilemma of perceiving the concept I think. But glad to hear you and others acknowledge open mindedness in this provocative topic. It has been a good discussion.

    Graybear, you’re not quite grapsing the concept I think. And I didn’t say that shamans become invisible either. Maybe its about perception? The paradigm is hard to shake when we grew up believing something too. But no, a few people didn’t get together and dream these things up. Good to hear you acknowledge having seeing ghosts too, that’s a tough admission for many to make. But knowing that there is this ‘other side’ so to speak, that should at least leave a door slightly cracked that there is some form of alternative ‘realm’ as it were. Whether its the same one being discussed, well I doubt it.

    Have you read any introductory articles on M theory or this Quantum Physics stuff? It might help to do so if you are open minded and at least wish to understand. Yeah I know, they are animals, everything alive is. They live, breath, probably sweat, vocalize, bleed, and yes poop. Nobody is saying they aren’t these things. This is the misunderstanding part I think. I guess it requires a little different way of looking at the universe, which maybe isn’t as easy for everyone to grasp. Yet you seem to acknowledge the existence of ghosts. Do we really know what they are or where they go?

    Once again, when I’m out there in the field, I’m out looking for physical evidence, sticks breaking, wood knocks, tracks, even breathing on rare occasion. I also carry a 44 magnum with very hot loads for my peace of mind. If I didn’t think they were a ‘biological’ entity as well, what would be the point of that? Whether it would actually stop a ill intended sasquatch, well hopefully I’ll never find that out. Twice over the last couple of decades I’ve had my 30-30 rifle trained on one, and I would NEVER shoot unless I absolutely had to. They are just too big and too powerful an ‘animal’. Yes, animal. I know, but how can sasquatch be an animal and sometimes invisible? That’s still the misuse of the term invisible I think, but I don’t think I have the background to be able to explain more then I already have.

    Anyway, here is the whole story told by Fred Beck and Ape Canyon for anyone who has never read it. Warning: Requires an open mind.

  53. mystery_man responds:

    MultipleEncounters- Ok, animals. I’m glad we are narrowing it down from inter-dimensional beings down to biological creatures. However, there isn’t much distinction when looking at it from what we actually have any real evidence for.

    What I have been saying applies to the concept of invisible animals (in the sense that they can somehow shift out of the visual spectrum) as much as it does to inter-dimensional beings. There’s no real evidence, established scientific foundation, or known precedence in the natural world for either of them. What we have learned about the world changes as time goes on, but it is built upon what has come before. Scientists don’t make this stuff up, research builds on principles that have come about through hard work and constant picking apart by peers. This is not to be taken too lightly.

    At least to the best of our knowledge, there is no current established connection whatsoever between invisible animals and the physics theories that are being discussed here. Maybe later there will be, but so far years and years of study of the natural world has yet to uncover anything at all to make us suppose animals become invisible. As far as we now know, animals simply do not become invisible. So if sasquatch is an animal, I think it is perfectly reasonable to suppose that neither does it. Until someone shows how science is wrong on this, I think it is fairly safe to rest on the scientific foundation and collection of knowledge gathered and expanded up over a long period of time by countless scientists through a lot of hard work that does not point to animals turning invisible.

    I guess I just don’t appreciate the “close minded” accusations sometimes aimed at people for not buying into these kinds of unconventional theories in some of these conversations.

    Maybe later, there will be a revelation and we will all be proven wrong, I can accept that. It would be awesome if this happened. But in the meantime, nothing points to animals that can turn invisible at this point in time. Are we to second guess all we have learned about this world and all of the scientific principles we have established so far? Paradigms are shifted under the weight of evidence. Considering this, thinking animals don’t turn invisible is a reasonably safe assumption based on how the world is currently known to work, and so I’d say is not really being close minded at all.

    Unless the idea can be grounded in terms of reality as we know it, on a firm scientific basis, then the idea of invisible animals is all speculation, NOT the idea that animals don’t become invisible. Until we know better (and science is the way to know better), that’s the way it is for now.

    Anyway, my obvious willingness to talk about this subject shows that I at least listen to these ideas. Open mindedness would entail proponents listening to mine as well.

  54. mystery_man responds:

    MultipleEncounters- I guess a good way to explain my position on this is this. I cannot say for sure whether sasquatch can become invisible or not, but there isn’t much to lead me to that conclusion. These things may become apparent at a later time.

    Obviously there are some strange things going on with sasquatch if they are indeed real. Reports that are not easily explained and the well known reaction that witnesses have of being watched shouldn’t be discarded. But I think it is prudent to look at all of the natural explanations, those grounded in scientific fact and precedence, before moving off into more far out, unsubstantiated conclusions. There could be natural, biological reasons that fit into what we know as to why the sasquatch might appear to be able to become invisible, why it avoids cameras, or why it has the effect it does on witnesses.

    I think these sorts of options should be explored more before we start jumping off into invisibility, quantum theory, alternate dimensions, and whatnot.

  55. DWA responds:

    graybear: Oh, OK, well that’s definitely not total dismissal of the sasquatch.

    But of course that’s not what we’re talking about here.

    And while I may not go as far as you in terms of dismissing things for which I don’t have evidence, one way or the other, I do have to say that invisible sasquatch haven’t been helping this topic gain scientific credibility.

    And no matter what anyone thinks about scientists, scientific credibility is what we’re stuck with, those of us who haven’t seen one, heard one, smelled one, and would simply want to know.

  56. RiverRun responds:

    If by invisible you mean highly camouflaged, I’ll listen. However, invisible? Not. Simply enough, if there is a real animal roaming the forests it is absolutely visible. Unless you have a camera :D (insert sarcasm here)

  57. twas brillig responds:

    “The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them … into the impossible.”

    – Clarke’s Second Law
    —————————————————-
    Considering how difficult and elusive they are perhaps it’s time to look outside of the box, I say it’s long overdue.

    “grounded research” only applies to a reality based on common knowledge and standard and rather dogmatic scientific models. There’s much esoteric and hidden knowledge that could aid in the research and when you realize the reality isn’t just comprised of the material plane, you may realize all things are possible, and in situations like this, the standard models need to be broken.

    Considering how often UFO sightings have been associated with big foot sightings, there may easily be a relationship.

    If we are to believe the stories related to The Montaulk Project by Preston Nichols, supposedly a thought form Sasquatch /Big foot was produced as a result of a thought amplifier machine being used at the compound that technology had been provided by aliens from Sirius.

    Tin hat anyone?



Leave your comments

You must be logged in to post a comment.

|Top | Content|


Cryptomundo Merch On Sale Now!

mmcm

Connect with Cryptomundo

Cryptomundo FaceBook Cryptomundo Twitter Cryptomundo Instagram Cryptomundo Pinterest

Advertisers

DFW Nites


Monstro Bizarro Everything Bigfoot The Artwork of Sybilla Irwin



Advertisement




|Top | FarBar|



Attention: This is the end of the usable page!
The images below are preloaded standbys only.
This is helpful to those with slower Internet connections.