Bigfoot/Sasquatch/Forest People in Tennessee

#1,078
#1,078
volinreallife said:
It's a fact until he has proof otherwise.
Click to expand...

It's not a fact either way. Because it's unproven doesn't make it a fact it doesn't exist. Many people including myself believe in God but there is no factual evidence that He exist. That's why it's called faith. I don't care whether you or anyone believes in Bigfoot or not but constantly ragging on him about it is juvenile IMO. If people want to act like a bunch of middle schoolers have at it. I think it comical myself. JMO TIFWIW.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,079
#1,079
InVOLuntary said:
It's not a fact either way. Because it's unproven doesn't make it a fact it doesn't exist. Many people including myself believe in God but there is no factual evidence that He exist. That's why it's called faith. I don't care whether you or anyone believes in Bigfoot or not but constantly ragging on him about it is juvenile IMO. If people want to act like a buck of middle schoolers have at it. I think it comical myself. JMO TIFWIW.
Click to expand...

This. Absence of proof is not proof of absence.
 
#1,084
#1,084
SergeantVol said:
Wouldn't the same logic apply to religion ?
Click to expand...

Not really. Your comparing apples to oranges.

Sasquatch is an animal that lives on earth and God is a powerful being that exists in and outside of earth.

So, if you try the why can't sasquatch have powers we don't understand, then you would in turn have to believe in mythical creatures like trolls or unicorns. Which also have never been found alive or fossilized.
 
#1,085
#1,085
goldenvol said:
Not really. Your comparing apples to oranges.

Sasquatch is an animal that lives on earth and God is a powerful being that exists in and outside of earth.

So, if you try the why can't sasquatch have powers we don't understand, then you would in turn have to believe in mythical creatures like trolls or unicorns. Which also have never been found alive or fossilized.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure you understood the analogy.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#1,086
#1,086
goldenvol said:
Not really. Your comparing apples to oranges.

Sasquatch is an animal that lives on earth and God is a powerful being that exists in and outside of earth.

So, if you try the why can't sasquatch have powers we don't understand, then you would in turn have to believe in mythical creatures like trolls or unicorns. Which also have never been found alive or fossilized.
Click to expand...

It's not apples and oranges at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,088
#1,088
InVOLuntary said:
I'm not sure you understood the analogy.
Click to expand...

Maybe not.

Was he saying if you have faith in a God you can't see or touch then you should have the same faith that a Bigfoot could exist?

If that's the argument, then I disagree because the two beings are not the same.

If we take sasquatch out of the picture and say that there could be a group/tribe of humans that live in an area that the civilized world hasn't seen yet. I can go with that.

But sasquatch apparently lives among us and I have a problem with that.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#1,089
#1,089
goldenvol said:
Maybe not.

Was he saying if you have faith in a God you can't see or touch then you should have the same faith that a Bigfoot could exist?

If that's the argument, then I disagree because the two beings are not the same.

If we take sasquatch out of the picture and say that there could be a group/tribe of humans that live in an area that the civilized world hasn't seen yet. I can go with that.

But sasquatch apparently lives among us and I have a problem with that.
Click to expand...

I get what you're saying, I'm talking more over a general sense of something existing that you have little physical evidence of.

I can buy Bigfoot is in the same "category" with things like the Loch Ness Monster, aliens,etc. God would be with ghosts, spirits, demons, etc.
 
#1,090
#1,090
VolsSportsFan said:
I get what you're saying, I'm talking more over a general sense of something existing that you have little physical evidence of.

I can buy Bigfoot is in the same "category" with things like the Loch Ness Monster, aliens,etc. God would be with ghosts, spirits, demons, etc.
Click to expand...

I agree
 
#1,091
#1,091
goldenvol said:
Not really. Your comparing apples to oranges.

Sasquatch is an animal that lives on earth and God is a powerful being that exists in and outside of earth.

So, if you try the why can't sasquatch have powers we don't understand, then you would in turn have to believe in mythical creatures like trolls or unicorns. Which also have never been found alive or fossilized.
Click to expand...

?? What -- not logical Captain.
 
#1,092
#1,092
goldenvol said:
Maybe not.

Was he saying if you have faith in a God you can't see or touch then you should have the same faith that a Bigfoot could exist?

If that's the argument, then I disagree because the two beings are not the same.

If we take sasquatch out of the picture and say that there could be a group/tribe of humans that live in an area that the civilized world hasn't seen yet. I can go with that.

But sasquatch apparently lives among us and I have a problem with that.
Click to expand...

Let me make it clear, I do not believe in the existence of Bigfoot but I do believe in God. Given that I believe the analogy was simply belief in something that their is no scientific evidence of it's existence. Not really comparing God and Bigfoot.
 
#1,093
#1,093
InVOLuntary said:
Let me make it clear, I do not believe in the existence of Bigfoot but I do believe in God. Given that I believe the analogy was simply belief in something that their is no scientific evidence of it's existence. Not really comparing God and Bigfoot.
Click to expand...

This. I was by no means comparing God and Bigfoot. I was applying the logic of religion. I am a Christian. While I have not seen a Bigfoot, that does not mean that there is not a possibility of its existence. The okapi and mountain gorilla were cryptids until their discovery. Both happened I'm the 20th century.
 
#1,094
#1,094
For me to speak in absolutes about a subject would infer that I am a subject matter expert I'm a given field. I can offer an opinion based on what I know. Do I think Bigfoot exists? No. Can I be absolutely certain that Bigfoot does not exist? No.
 
#1,095
#1,095
SergeantVol said:
This. I was by no means comparing God and Bigfoot. I was applying the logic of religion. I am a Christian. While I have not seen a Bigfoot, that does not mean that there is not a possibility of its existence. The okapi and mountain gorilla were cryptids until their discovery. Both happened I'm the 20th century.
Click to expand...

If I might interject this is something that is, I think erroneously, brought up by Squatch supporters. Saying that X wasn't discovered until Y date as some kind of logical assertion as to why BF hasn't been scientifically verified yet is actually pretty irrelevant when you consider WHY that was the case with the other examples given.

Let's take the okapi as an example. There was a crapload of them running around that the natives to the area were entirely aware of...not cryptically but as a native animal they called the atti. That's an entirely different thing of course than having them known and cataloged by Western science. The deep ocean has no doubt a bunch of creatures unknown to us but that's because it's a hell of a thing, even with current tech, to investigate that environment.

With Squatches we aren't depending on the gilt edge of discovery to know their habitat. If the tales of many (most?) of the "true believers" is accurate there's more Squatches than McDonalds in the US and just as widely distributed. That's right here/back yard stuff, not 1800's Congo. And hard science has nothing to show for it...zip/zilch/nada.

I understand the comparison with "well look how long it took to find X critter" and BF but once you get past the surface it's a pretty tenuous observation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#1,096
#1,096
hndog609 said:
If I might interject this is something that is, I think erroneously, brought up by Squatch supporters. Saying that X wasn't discovered until Y date as some kind of logical assertion as to why BF hasn't been scientifically verified yet is actually pretty irrelevant when you consider WHY that was the case with the other examples given.

Let's take the okapi as an example. There was a crapload of them running around that the natives to the area were entirely aware of...not cryptically but as a native animal they called the atti. That's an entirely different thing of course than having them known and cataloged by Western science. The deep ocean has no doubt a bunch of creatures unknown to us but that's because it's a hell of a thing, even with current tech, to investigate that environment.

With Squatches we aren't depending on the gilt edge of discovery to know their habitat. If the tales of many (most?) of the "true believers" is accurate there's more Squatches than McDonalds in the US and just as widely distributed. That's right here/back yard stuff, not 1800's Congo. And hard science has nothing to show for it...zip/zilch/nada.

I understand the comparison with "well look how long it took to find X critter" and BF but once you get past the surface it's a pretty tenuous observation.
Click to expand...
Yeah but you're forgetting the fact that they are all, even their young and extremely old are elite special forces units with supernatural ability to vanish into thin air.
 
#1,098
#1,098
MockingVol said:
Hence me not being able to post here :cray:
Click to expand...

I don't have a problem with people questioning the existence of Bigfoot. I don't believe in it either. I don't have an issue with Joking and making fun of the notion, it's the elementary school level of personal attacks that gets old to me.
 
#1,099
#1,099
The thing that makes an Appalachian Bigfoot hard for me to believe is that if you look at landscape photos of the Southeast from the nineteenth century you'll see that there was no forest. Our ancestors literally clear cut just about everything for building materials and to make charcoal. Bigfoot would've had to live pretty much out in the open for several generations and there's just not a volume of recorded sightings that would support it.
 
#1,100
#1,100
hndog609 said:
If I might interject this is something that is, I think erroneously, brought up by Squatch supporters. Saying that X wasn't discovered until Y date as some kind of logical assertion as to why BF hasn't been scientifically verified yet is actually pretty irrelevant when you consider WHY that was the case with the other examples given.

Let's take the okapi as an example. There was a crapload of them running around that the natives to the area were entirely aware of...not cryptically but as a native animal they called the atti. That's an entirely different thing of course than having them known and cataloged by Western science. The deep ocean has no doubt a bunch of creatures unknown to us but that's because it's a hell of a thing, even with current tech, to investigate that environment.

With Squatches we aren't depending on the gilt edge of discovery to know their habitat. If the tales of many (most?) of the "true believers" is accurate there's more Squatches than McDonalds in the US and just as widely distributed. That's right here/back yard stuff, not 1800's Congo. And hard science has nothing to show for it...zip/zilch/nada.

I understand the comparison with "well look how long it took to find X critter" and BF but once you get past the surface it's a pretty tenuous observation.
Click to expand...

While I think that is valid to a degree - the problem is that - we are not dealing with animals, and these people are a little something different than your normal garden variety person or critter. I have never seen an Angel, but I am confident they are with us here on earth and that people see them now and again. Note: I am not calling the forest people Angels.

I believe 1/3 of the population of Washington state believes in the forest people, not because a third are crazy, delusional, or confused; but because they, their friends, their relatives or someone they trust have seen or had experiences.

People who have had sighting or had encounters including myself - really aren't looking for scientific evidence or proof. I can tell you that it is well documented in old newspapers that "giant skeletons" have been found all over the US including Tennessee and sent off to the Smithsonian - never to be seen again.

I think there is also a TV show recently where they were searching for Giant skeletons. There are a few thermal image captures - DNA sequencing (granted this has been criticized) , pictures, videos, thousands of eye witness accounts, etc.

These debates, discussions and jokes are never ending, even among many bigfoot or sasquatch groups.

My sole intent was to hear about recent sighting or related unexplained events, etc. in East Tennessee, and thus far surprisingly - it has proven very successful- with 4 or 5 good contacts or sightings. Thanks to all that have contacted me and please keep me updated on any new activity. I genuinely appreciate it.

Now carry on with your debate, discussion, jokes, etc.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top