> All supposition gathered about Sasquatch sounds so implausible, anyway, that
> he could be explained away as a resident of the Fourth Dimension making
> quick visits to Earthian forests to just pick his favorite berries. Since
> his excrement is never found, he could habitually bury it as our cats do.
> One occasionally reads that Sasquatch smells obnoxious and we have skunks
> that are like that. UFO literature explains that craft
> appearing/disappearing spontaneously are merely making a dimensional switch.
> So Sasquatch might have that interesting capability. We inhabit the third
> dimension and, for all we know, the fourth may be loaded with exotic life
> Valerie Sanford
If Bigfoot is indeed a creature from the fourth dimension, to our eyes he would probably look like an indiscriminate blob. The idea that he would jump from the fourth to appear as a third dimensional primate that leaves footprints and occasionally hurls boulders at campers, seems like a stretch.
Attributing paranormal charateristics to Bigfoot is certainly a convenient way of dodging the scientific fallacies of his existence, but given what we know about the physical plane and how it works, is it a likely assumption? It's far easier to look at the lack of evidence and deduce that Bigfoot doesn't exist and is the simple product of human hoax and folklore. Not that I wouldn't leap with excitement if a Bigfoot was ever discovered. I'd love it if the stories were true.
A dear friend of mine is one of the foremost Sasquatch experts in the
world. It came about quite unintentionally; we both lived in the Pacific
Northwest and in the course of investigating the Native American history of the
area, he began investigating the place names of the region. He was not 'into'
the Bigfoot thing at all. He noticed, however, a recurrence of certain
motifs in Indian place-names, such as 'monster lake' or 'Spirit Mountain' and
in finding anecdotal evidence of Bigfoot sightings in connection with these
locations, he decided to do some personal sleuthing. He took his
girlfriend on several over-night trips to the places with these names and very soon
began to have experiences with the 'species.' The first one was when their
engine died, late at night, and soon thereafter an overpowering smell came
upon them, his girlfriend just blanked out - went instantly to sleep... I
forget the details of that first encounter, but it lead him into YEARS of in
depth research, and many, many first hand encounters with the beings
called 'Bigfoot' ... Years ago he told me that they could change dimensions...
Just - teleport. He also believes - as a result of some really outrageous
non-ordinary encounters - that they can shape-shift; that the form of the
'ape-man' is not the only form they can adopt... He was a high profile
authority in that world for years, and then dropped out completely, due to the
discord and problems it created in his life. Recently he came out with a new
book called "In The Spirit of Seatco." I haven't read the whole thing, but
his work with the tribes of the area (he now works in some capacity for
the Indian Tribes in Oregon has, apparently, confirmed much of his own
experience. I wasn't going to bother entering this particular conversation, but
the 'inter-dimensional' thing called me in. My friend's name is Henry
Franzoni, "In The Spirit Of Seatco" is published by, I think, Excalibur Press
(don't know where that is based...) His experiences in the research world
caused him to completely duck out of that scene for ten years, though his own
personal experiences continued. Some pretty intense stories I would not
post here - but I offer this corroboration to the idea of inter-dimensional
capability of this species...
What kind of drugs was he taking? ;-) Seriously, does he provide any proof?
There are essentially two camps in the Bigfoot saga: 1) the Cryptologists who believe he's an undiscovered primate, possibly descended from the Gigatopithecus, a giant cousin of the Orangutan, now extinct, and 2) the mystics who see Bigfoot as a paranormal creature, which includes shapeshifting and other elements from Shamanism. A shapeshifting Bigfoot is obviously a huge stretch, and conveniently, can't be rationalized with any scientific explanation. It's more in the realm of a theological discussion. Best,Dave
> Just - teleport. He also believes - as a result of some really outrageous
> non-ordinary encounters - that they can shape-shift; that the form of the
> 'ape-man' is not the only form they can adopt... <<<
When he first told me about all this, around 15 years ago or so, he
recounted a number of personal experiences with the teleportation, shape-shifting
things. I will not go there with you, as there seems to be no point. But I
did want to clarify that he had concluded those qualities about the
species as a result of personal experiences. His recent book, "In The Spirit Of
Seatco" seems to focus upon certain scientific theories, the wild stories
part - I haven't gotten to that yet! He told me he was not extremely
satisfied with the book, that he could do better, now, etc... but being
scientifically oriented, himself, this is where he sought to focus, apparently... I
am not sure about some of the conclusions he draws, though - as I said - I
have not finished the book. It does seem to dove-tail with the material
posted here, relative to what has been channeled about it... He's become
pretty tight lipped about the paranormal elements, it seems.
By any chance did he take photographs, get hair samples, or collect anything else a good scientist might do? So often in these cases, great eyewitness accounts rarely yield hard evidence. It's frustrating. His recent book, "In The Spirit Of
I think RA channeled that Bigfoot was from Maldek, an alleged planet in our solar system that was supposedly destroyed many eons ago, with the fragments left in what we now know as the asteroid belt. The theory lost favor among scientists when it was discovered that the chemical differences between different asteroids could not have originated from a single planet. I recall that JP channeled something quite similar to what Troy got about Bigfoot, so these interpretations are not new. But a shape-shifting, inter-dimensional Bigfoot is so outside the realm of how we know our world works, that I just can't go there. And science has soundly refuted claims that life as we know it could exist in the Sirius system, so channeling about that is suspect, in my opinion. If Bigfoot exists, and the Gigantopithecus theory doesn't work, perhaps he's an ancient ancestor of man, and more hominid than ape. Neanderthal, homo erectus, or something similar. Alas, no evidence. Best,Dave
> Seatco" seems to focus upon certain scientific theories, the wild stories
> part - I haven't gotten to that yet! He told me he was not extremely
> satisfied with the book, that he could do better, now, etc... but being
> scientifically oriented, himself, this is where he sought to focus, apparently... I
> am not sure about some of the conclusions he draws, though - as I said - I
> have not finished the book. It does seem to dove-tail with the material
> posted here, relative to what has been channeled about it... He's become
> pretty tight lipped about the paranormal elements, it seems.
Hi, Dave. In terms of collecting hair samples, etc., his experiences that
lead to the conclusions about the interdimensional / shape-shifting elements
were rather highly charged, in-the-moment-what-the-fuck-is-going-on type
situations, and though I wouldn't actually put it past him to seek to
collect whatever evidence he could under those conditions, I assume that if he
had, he would have presented it in some way that I'd know of. He never
expressed any 'off planet' origin theories to me, merely the inter-dimensional
element.. And, as i said, he has tried to make sense of his extraordinary
experiences in terms of the Quantum world view, String Theory, or whatever...
I am not interested in battling about what is 'reality' with you -- it
seems that you accept what you accept and out of hand reject that which has
not been accepted... That's not unusual, and I don't judge you for it at all.
As one who has personally experienced a great deal of 'para-normal'
phenomena, myself, I will attest that having seen so much with my own eyes that
is unfathomable, discernment becomes that much trickier than if one had not
had any such experiences.
A healthy dose of discrimination helps to fight off some of the silliness, fuzzy thinking, and occasional fraud in new age communities. I'm much more open than you think, but I'm cautious about information that, in general, is inconsistent with itself and contradictory, is inconsistent with what we know of human experience and the universe, is inconsistent in structure. There's a structure inherent in everything we can see or imagine, and where there isn't, we find artifice. I just what to know the truth.
Dave, it seems clear to me that you only want to know the "truth"
that coincides with your opinions and beliefs.
Seems as if you and Dave have somewhat in common. Look at it
carefully before you jump. (Or not, as you please.) Each of you
allows some slack, but because his slack and yours don't seem to
coincide, you say "It's like those truths doesn't [sic] exist for
you." What "truths" are you referring to? I am particularly
skeptical of reliance on self-proclaimed truths.
And given the scale of importances, what's the big deal anyway?
Importances are in the eye �� or the heart �� of the beholder, and the
beholders being human...
This is, I believe, my first post on Sasquatch, and/or on aliens with
a proprensity for crop tromping (fie upon thee, John, that was a cheap
shot), and hopefully my last. (Most often I just click on delete; it
only takes a moment.) But meanwhile I'm a sometime bible-reading
heathen, who greatly admires a line from Chapter 13 in 1st
Corinthians: "love [agape] does not insist on its own way." Ooooooo!
And there you have it: a criticism in camouflage!
On Jun 30, 2009, at 10:17 PM, Dave wrote:
> Well, even the founders of this country believed that truths were
> self-evident. ;-) Seriously, Michael has told us time and time again
> to validate the information we receive, and that's what I do.
> In my experience, if you're a truth seeker you quickly discover that
> life is too brief to aimlessly follow one dead-end after another, so
> you look for short cuts. Science, while not infallible, can add some
> structure to that search. Scientifically testing any explanation of
> the natural world, for example, not only helps you see the
> consistencies that unify the whole, but makes it easier to spot any
> contradictions that don't fit. At that point you either toss out what
> doesn't work, or you retain it all, eventually collapsing under your
> own weight from information overload.
Truth seekers are generally willing to discard old
beliefs, religious imprinting, etc., when they don't work anymore.
Truth seekers are generally looking for broader, unifying truth that
connects diverse phenomena or ideas.
You seem to have taken the easy path of least resistance, as is usual
for Flow, by joining up with your own "ism" belief system, "science".
It sounds good on the surface, but in practice the authority there has
all the issues of orthodoxy vs. heresy that the Catholic Church has
dealt with for hundreds of years. I am sure that a lot of the really
good scientists doing really good work, and who are shunned by the
establishment (ridiculed, de-funded or worse) are replaying past lives
around the church vs. heretics issue.
So you can just happily limit yourself to what mainstream science
accepts. That's fine, but you will always be a paradigm shift or two
behind the truth, and to me that is inconsistent with calling oneself a
Whatever, all is okay and all is choice and so on. We need religious
believers, even if they call it "science".
All the best, ed
I am fascinated by the passion with which many speak on these issues. As for myself, like Fox Mulder, i WANT to believe -- which, perhaps, is why I adopt so skeptical an attitude toward what might be called "fringe metaphysics" (please, All-- or rather, Some of you, don't take umbrage at the turn of phrase... no offense is meant!)
As to crop circles: the phenomenon is so pervasive, that a skeptic is left with question of -- how could SO MANY of these have been created with so few obvious hoaxes detected? Though some of the fields in which the circles have been found are quite isolated, many, perhaps most, especially in Britain where the phenomenon began, were made in rather densely populated areas, or where the fields were adjacent to the homes of the farmers. I recall Michael as having been channeled as saying that most UFO sightings are not "aliens"-- they are mistaken sightings of quotidian objects, or illusions, or hoaxes.... but that a small percentage ARE aliens.
As to the "whys"-- I know some have said that the patterns in crop circles are supposed to be rather like mandalas... which work on the unconscious, I believe. Still, if an alien race has the technological wherewithal to come here by whatever avenue, and have survived long enough to develop such technology without annihilating themselves (which indicates spiritual growth), why choose this cryptic method to communicate, especially when the evidence of how we humans actually communicate is everywhere? It is linguistic, even when abstract or symbolic. If they have a message for us there seem to be many more efficacious ways of delivering it. I can't believe that any serious attempt at communication would resort to puzzles and enigmas, even if that race's own methods of communication were radically different from our own.
Some have opined that crop circles are not alien-created but are the evidence of some supra-normal but still natural phenomena-- such as energy vortices, whether of Qi or Ley-energy or other geomantic forces.
At any rate, even if some few have been proven as hoaxes, the sheer number, size and complexity of the circles tends to indicate something more going on. I think the ones that are obviously pictorial or asymmetrical are more likely to be frauds, all things considered; a natural cause would be less likely to create such patterns. But as yet I haven't any settled opinion about the phenomenon as a whole.
It's odd-- I am a 4th Level Old Priest, and a Spiritualist-- and I ponder why I am SO skeptical in such cases. I think that it is because, being a Priest, I am concerned with the things people believe and how those beliefs shape behavior and decision-making. And when I see so much energy being invested in things that are either imponderables, or issues only marginal to the real business of spiritual growth and evolution of the soul, I find myself wanting to make doubly sure that such investment of energy is not a waste, or tending to blur focus on the really central issues we have to confront. If in being so skeptical I offend any I heartily apologize.
Namaste to All
ED: Truth seekers are generally willing to discard oldbeliefs, religious imprinting, etc., when they don't work anymore.Truth seekers are generally looking for broader, unifying truth thatconnects diverse phenomena or ideas.You seem to have taken the easy path of least resistance, as is usualfor Flow, by joining up with your own "ism" belief system, "science".It sounds good on the surface, but in practice the authority there hasall the issues of orthodoxy vs. heresy that the Catholic Church hasdealt with for hundreds of years. I am sure that a lot of the reallygood scientists doing really good work, and who are shunned by theestablishment (ridiculed, de-funded or worse) are replaying past livesaround the church vs. heretics issue. <<<DAVE: I disagree, Ed. Science constantly challenges its findings, rigorously reviews the hits and misses, and retains and builds on what can be verified. The goal is to find the objective truth. Science is actually the best tool we have to test reality.
ED: And if one researcher screwed up in one case, thatinvalidates everything else in the field. This would be true if youwere talking about one wrong line in a mathematical theorem making thewhole thing false, but that is a wrong analogy. <<<DAVE: What it does is make the idea of a hoax more plausible. It builds on the evidence against crop circles and moves us closer to finding the truth.
> In addition, I've read scientific papers that strongly refuted the
> findings of circle researchers and their anomalies. If you recall, one
> of the top circle researchers jumped to wild conclusions in a paper
> about a particular crop formation, only to find out later that the
> circle was a hoax,
ED: So one expert was tricked, and maybe he was agullible fool.DAVE: No. He was a biased fool and an expert that other experts based much of their proof on. That's a problem.
> and the metallic spheres in question that were the basis for his
> paper, had been planted there.
successfully maneuvered around the need to deal with the magneticanomalies and all the data about the plant stem nodes, holes where thesuperheated water escaped, scorch marks, and the fact that you can'tmechanically bend the stems 90 degrees without breaking them. You canonly do it by rapidly heating the stems with microwave energy. <<<DAVE: I'm unimpressed by the objectivity of the research. There's an obvious bias in the evidence that looks to support preconceived conceptions about crop circles, rather than seek more natural explanations. I read they didn't even do double blind trials or get it administered by an unbiased third party. With a breach of scientific protocols like that, it's no wonder that mainstream science won't touch their findings with a ten foot pole. And I can't believe microwave energy and metallic spheres from a meteor shower constitutes the best conclusion they could draw from the evidence. I think countless solutions could be discovered if they looked somewhere other than the sky. Blown nodes, for instance, could be a byproduct of damage done to the crops by the circle makers. The mere act of stomping on crops might cause the nodes to stretch and burst. Better yet, bent crops laying exposed to the sun for a couple days might heat up, causing the stems to expand till they burst from the gas trapped inside. I suspect many other explanations for these anomalies could be traced back to natural causes. Sadly, I'm not seeing much effort made in that direction. ED: Meanwhile the sudden appearance one afternoon of the huge Julia Setformation next to Stonehenge remains unchallenged.DAVE: The circlemakers site discusses that and offers a really plausible explanation. They didn't create the Julia Set, btw, but they know the group that did. Either way, why is it such a big deal that I believe in crop circles? I don't believe in Santa Claus, either. Am I to be persecuted for that, too? ;-) If we look at the long history of UFO hoaxes, we can't even prove that extraterrestrials are here, so the idea of alien engineered crop circles is a weighty claim that has no hard evidence. If I thought the research being done was better I might be more open minded, but I'm not seeing much objectivity demonstrated and the evidence is nominal. Thus, I'm not a believer. But I sure do love my kittens. ;-) Best,Dave
>>ED: But you have just casually deceived yourself into thinking that you