New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Bigfoot found??? - Page 10

post #271 of 273
5/29/11 at 8:44pm

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph DeMartino View Post

I love how the Bigfoot hunter knows they are from another galaxy, as opposed to, say, another planet in our own galaxy, or even a parallel universe.


To me, this is one of the most puzzling aspects of so many paranormal claims.  Once you invoke a phenomenon like this, how can you claim to know anything about it?  When someone claims to have a video or photograph that "must" be a ghost, for example, because (they claim) it's otherwise unexplainable, I want to ask:  what are the characteristics of a ghost that allow you to identifiy it as such?  How do you know it's a ghost, and not an angel, a demon, or an alien?  What properties does a ghost have that distinguishes it from any of those other paranormal entities?

 

As you suggest, the same applies here.  Once someone claims that bigfoot is coming via wormhole from another galaxy, he might just as well be saying literally anything.  What led him to that specific conclusion, I wonder?

Reply
post #272 of 273
6/1/11 at 7:20am

This is my favorite thread.

Reply
post #273 of 273
6/4/11 at 8:51am

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by cafink View Post

 


To me, this is one of the most puzzling aspects of so many paranormal claims.  Once you invoke a phenomenon like this, how can you claim to know anything about it?  When someone claims to have a video or photograph that "must" be a ghost, for example, because (they claim) it's otherwise unexplainable, I want to ask:  what are the characteristics of a ghost that allow you to identify it as such?  How do you know it's a ghost, and not an angel, a demon, or an alien?  What properties does a ghost have that distinguishes it from any of those other paranormal entities?

 

As you suggest, the same applies here.  Once someone claims that bigfoot is coming via wormhole from another galaxy, he might just as well be saying literally anything.  What led him to that specific conclusion, I wonder?

 

There's also the version showing a photograph (or a testimony by 'a reliable person') of something that clearly defies all laws of nature as we know them.

 

All such a photograph or testimony could probably "prove" was that, well, the natural laws weren't possibly obeyed there and then.

 

But what it certainly does NOT prove is that a specified phenomenon really tool place in front of the camera or the observer's eye, because that would need the laws of nature as we know them (the optical laws for instance) to be assumed intact. Why would they? And what proof is there they were?

 

 

Cees

 

 

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: After Hours Lounge