Do you Believe in Bigfoot ?

You know I do. A possibility, but no hard proof so far.

To that end, you should check out Expedition Bigfoot which will premiering on the Travel Channel December 8th at 10PM. Apparently, the show is attempting to use an array of techno gear to prove that the crafty crypto actually exists.

One of the stars of the show is a guy named Ronnie LeBlanc who is a friend of a friend and a Massachusetts guy who does an excellent Podcast called "Monsterland" (along with Matty Blake-- host of "Curse of Oak Island: Digging Down") that is always amusing. You might like it, because these guys speak Squatch, Grey and Ghost and it's damned funny, to boot.

Also, check out the new TV show if you know anybody out in your neck of the woods that has cable and they'll let you in the house to watch.

If not, maybe you can promise to leave them alone it they set it up in the window so you can watch from outside
.

ROFL

:toast:
 
I normally don't follow his videos too much because you just don't know how legit they are but this one is pretty good.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/lUqBzbDelsM" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
This thread has a lot of views but no replies. I'm curious as to whether you think there's a possibility of the big hairy guy being real????

You must have missed my post @#8

To quote the philosopher Sagan, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence".

I recognize that large fauna can exist without being known to science.

The Saola is native to Vietnam and Laos, is a relative of antelopes and wasn't confirmed to exist until 1992.

So one cannot say it is impossible that a large unknown animal could be living in the forests of North America, but the probability for Bigfoot is very low.

The primary problem that if Bigfoot existed, it would be a species of unknown hominid.

There is only one hominid species know to inhabit the Americas, that would be us.

All other primates are monkeys, specifically "New World" monkeys, which is evolutionary distinct from "Old World" monkeys.

So the question becomes, how could this one species of hominid get here (outside of humans) and no others did?

Humans are thought to only have migrated here in the last 15 to 20,000 years, and there is plenty of fossil evidence of humans in Asia, Africa, and Europe prior to that.

If Bigfoot is an unknown Hominid species, where is all the fossil evidence for it in Africa, Asia, or Europe?

Have people seen things in the forest that they can't immediately explain?

I'm sure they have.

But that doesn't "prove" that they saw Bigfoot.

Humans are hardwired to find patterns and fit things in categories.

Think about it. People look at clouds and see shapes of animals, people, etc. People see Elvis, Jesus, Mary, etc. in their toast, the stain on a wall, the bark of a tree, etc.

We do this fore a very good reason.

The little primate very much in the before time that spotted the pattern of the lion in the grass lived to breed more little primates. The one that didn't, was lunch.

By the same token, putting things in categories helps stay alive as well. recognizing something is only half the step to escaping the lion, knowing what to do matters more.

So you have to categorize things, to know which patterns mean you found lunch, vs those that mean you are lunch.

IMHO, this hardwiring is responsible for the vast majority of conspiracy theories, beliefs in ancient aliens, UFO, paranormal, etc.

Yes, there may be an incident here or there that may warrant being investigated as a legitimate phenomena/event, but the vast majority are pattern matching and categorization run amok.

Take UFO's as an example.

OK, let's assume that there is a completely inexplicable sighting of something in the air.

Then by definition, it is an "unidentified flying object".

So how did that mean that it is a flying saucer filled with space aliens?

That is the sole possible explanation for something we don't know what it is?

That's because we are hardwired to put it in a category. "Unknown" just doesn't cut it.

BTW, IMHO, most of the "inexplicable" UFO signings could well be Ball Lightning.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/U9SrGOma5YE" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

You'll note my comments about finding patterns and categorizing things is essentially the same thing cited in the article I posted here
 
If you follow the videos I've been posting from the "How to Hunt" channel . He is telling us that these things have something unusual attached. They are either alien in origin or attached to a 3rd dimension. He's on a mission to unveil the truth and he knows our government has the facts.
 
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/HWTzOr5lh_I" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
Take UFO's as an example.

OK, let's assume that there is a completely inexplicable sighting of something in the air.

Then by definition, it is an "unidentified flying object".

So how did that mean that it is a flying saucer filled with space aliens?

That is the sole possible explanation for something we don't know what it is?

That's because we are hardwired to put it in a category. "Unknown" just doesn't cut it.

BTW, IMHO, most of the "inexplicable" UFO signings could well be Ball Lightning.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/U9SrGOma5YE" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

So.....ummmmm......what do you think of the recent release of the CSG 11 footage which was "released by the Navy" (not quite true) and covered by the NYT, CNN and everybody else. Have you studied the situation at all?

Briefly, through numerous encounters with both aerial and underwater unknown vehicles over the span of weeks, experienced and highly-trained Navy personnel, using some of the most advanced radar equipment on earth as well as pilot encounters at close range and film footage using various formats, including IR, gathered hard data which was analyzed and published here:

https://archive.org/stream/AForensi...lysis of CSG 11 Encounter with a AAV_djvu.txt

This is most certainly the best, most comprehensive evidence ever presented to the public that humans are being deliberately observed by objects/entitites that are capable of shit that is quite beyond anything human beings are capable of.

The report is quite lengthy. Most of it is footnotes and supporting data, but among the most compelling data is this:

Speed, acceleration, and power characteristics can be calculated based on statements
from two navy personnel who observed the radar tracks of the “Tic-Tacs” in real time. The
Senior Chief in charge of radar took notes while observing the radar in the CIC area, and noted
that his equipment indicated that the object moved from 80,000+ feet to 20,000 feet in 0.78
second. A second man, the Petty Officer stationed in the same room at the same time as the
Senior Chief, characterized the erratic movements of the objects from stationary at 80,000 feet to
stationary at 20,000 feet on radar as “as fast as a thought.” Calculations based on these
observations, 60,000 vertical feet in 0.78 second and an initial and final velocity of zero, and
assuming a constant acceleration (linear velocity) changing to a deceleration midway, yield a
maximum velocity of 104,895 mph at the midway point, and an acceleration of 12,250 g-forces
(see Appendix G). If one of the navy's jets of a similar size (F/A-18F at 18 tons) accelerated at
this rate, it would need 90 gigawatts of power.

So.....mass hallucination?... misidentification of the planet venus?.....swamp gas?

You seem like a guy comfortable with science. Is this enough science for you?

:poke:
 
So.....ummmmm......what do you think of the recent release of the CSG 11 footage which was "released by the Navy" (not quite true) and covered by the NYT, CNN and everybody else. Have you studied the situation at all?

Briefly, through numerous encounters with both aerial and underwater unknown vehicles over the span of weeks, experienced and highly-trained Navy personnel, using some of the most advanced radar equipment on earth as well as pilot encounters at close range and film footage using various formats, including IR, gathered hard data which was analyzed and published here:

https://archive.org/stream/AForensi...lysis of CSG 11 Encounter with a AAV_djvu.txt

This is most certainly the best, most comprehensive evidence ever presented to the public that humans are being deliberately observed by objects/entitites that are capable of shit that is quite beyond anything human beings are capable of.

The report is quite lengthy. Most of it is footnotes and supporting data, but among the most compelling data is this:



So.....mass hallucination?... misidentification of the planet venus?.....swamp gas?

You seem like a guy comfortable with science. Is this enough science for you?

:poke:

I’m interested in watching this which speaks to what you posted https://www.history.com/shows/unidentified-inside-americas-ufo-investigation
 
I’m interested in watching this which speaks to what you posted https://www.history.com/shows/unidentified-inside-americas-ufo-investigation

It's an excellent series and shows, in particular, how serious and concerned all of the witnesses and participants are in bringing this puzzling event to light despite the skepticism that is endemic on the topic.

For those that are curious there was a half-hour documentary version that preceded the series and it serves as a solid Cliff Notes version.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/PRgoisHRmUE" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>

I'd also plug the excellent podcast done by Joe Rogan with Commander David Fravor who was one of the guys flying around these objects and I dare anybody to listen to him and try to say that he's nuts. He's awesome to listen to.

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Eco2s3-0zsQ" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
The Joe Rogan video was very interesting. Long but interesting. I had my own UFO encounter experience back in 2009.
 
UFO's could be experimental blackops aircraft...via knowledge from the nephilim.

I assume you are about half serious, but, no, they can't. We don't have the material science necessary to build something that can withstand those kind of G forces.

The most advanced aircraft we can build would be shredded at something like 12 to 15 Gs. These things have to withstand about a thousand times that.

It ain't the Chinese or anybody else that is remotely human.

Of course, you could go with the "they're humans from way in the future come back in time to prevent the destruction of Earth" theory, but I can't even wrap my head around that one.

I couldn't prove it to OPT, but I'm pretty sure that they are either alien drones or ETs who have achieved mastery over gravity and, therefore, G forces don't affect them.

But to even have a shred of understanding about that stuff you need to listen to Bob Lazar's story. It's getting less crazy every year.
 
I assume you are about half serious, but, no, they can't. We don't have the material science necessary to build something that can withstand those kind of G forces.

The most advanced aircraft we can build would be shredded at something like 12 to 15 Gs. These things have to withstand about a thousand times that.

It ain't the Chinese or anybody else that is remotely human.

Of course, you could go with the "they're humans from way in the future come back in time to prevent the destruction of Earth" theory, but I can't even wrap my head around that one.

I couldn't prove it to OPT, but I'm pretty sure that they are either alien drones or ETs who have achieved mastery over gravity and, therefore, G forces don't affect them.

But to even have a shred of understanding about that stuff you need to listen to Bob Lazar's story. It's getting less crazy every year.

Not sure if I should put the :coffee: guy on that post or not...as it's above my pay scale.

It's an interesting topic though...

I've seen some weird shit in the sky more than a few times though. And no, I'm not even talking about chemtrails. :coffee:

I've seen silver orbs in daylight...then they move WAY fast, like, faster than any fighter jet...then disappeared. I was 100% sober too.

I've seen thousands of lights at night in rows moving from the east to the west. It freaked me the fuck out. I was at my family's house. They thought that I was messing with them. I told them to come outside. They were freaking out when they seen them. The rows just kept coming and coming like those old Atari videogames. Again, sober af. I have witnesses for that incident.

So yeah...I've also seen some weird unexplained shit above me (both in the daylight and at night).
 
So.....ummmmm......what do you think of the recent release of the CSG 11 footage which was "released by the Navy" (not quite true) and covered by the NYT, CNN and everybody else. Have you studied the situation at all?

Briefly, through numerous encounters with both aerial and underwater unknown vehicles over the span of weeks, experienced and highly-trained Navy personnel, using some of the most advanced radar equipment on earth as well as pilot encounters at close range and film footage using various formats, including IR, gathered hard data which was analyzed and published here:

https://archive.org/stream/AForensi...lysis of CSG 11 Encounter with a AAV_djvu.txt

This is most certainly the best, most comprehensive evidence ever presented to the public that humans are being deliberately observed by objects/entitites that are capable of shit that is quite beyond anything human beings are capable of.

The report is quite lengthy. Most of it is footnotes and supporting data, but among the most compelling data is this:



So.....mass hallucination?... misidentification of the planet venus?.....swamp gas?

You seem like a guy comfortable with science. Is this enough science for you?

:poke:

Ummmm I think I'll take anything written by a group called "THE SCIENTIFIC COALITION FOR UFOLOGY" with a grain of salt.

There are quite a few skeptical sources quoted on the Wiki article

What does the VP at Raytheon, who built the FLIR pod, have to say?

ATFLIR, designated AN/ASQ-228 by the U.S. Navy, is a single pod that combines mid-wave infrared targeting and navigation FLIRs, an electro-optical, or visual light, sensor, a laser rangefinder and target designator, and a laser spot-tracker. It can locate and designate targets day or night at ranges exceeding 40 nautical miles and altitudes surpassing 50,000 feet.

Even so, the video images are not definitive proof that the jet pilots were chasing an actual UFO.

“To really be sure, we would need the raw data,” said Dr. Steve Cummings, vice president of Technology Development and Execution at Raytheon Space and Airborne Systems. “Visual displays alone are not the best evidence.”

Then there's this article form the Skeptical Inquirer

According to the New York Times article, navy airmen—Commander David Fravor and Lt. Commander Jim Slaight—had been with a squadron on a training mission over the Pacific some 100 miles from San Diego. The date was November 14, 2004. The incident began when Fravor was radioed by a radar operator on a Navy cruiser, the USS Princeton, asking them to investigate some unknown objects at a particular vector. He was accompanied by another F-18.


When the two planes arrived at what is termed “merge point”—that is, so close that the Princeton’s radar could not distinguish them from the unknown object—the pilots saw nothing. But when Fravor looked down he saw the sea churning. Was this from a crashed aircraft as Fravor first thought or from, he would later suggest, possibly a submarine (as from the Nimitz’s own carrier strike group)?

Unfortunately, there are different versions of Fravor’s subsequent experience. First the New York Times, mentioning the churning water, states that “some kind” of white, oval aircraft about thirty to forty feet long was “hovering 50 feet above the churn.” But as Fravor descended, the object ascended toward him. He said, “We were at least 40 miles away, and in less than a minute this thing was already at our cap point” (Cooper 2017b).

Yet something is wrong in the information here: How could someone see what a forty-foot object was doing from forty miles away?

...

Whatever actually happened, the UFO then disappeared, Fravor said, having “accelerated like nothing I’ve ever seen” (Cooper et al. 2017b). When the two jets returned to their aircraft carrier, the USS Nimitz, something interesting occurred: “… everyone on the ship had learned of Commander Fravor’s encounter and was making fun of him” (Cooper et al. 2017b). They were playing alien movies such as Men in Black and The X-Files on the ship’s onboard closed-circuit TV (“Pilot report” 2017). Given that “everyone” made fun of Fravor, one must wonder why: Did he have a reputation as a UFO believer, or did they know something he didn’t?

...

It seems possible that Fravor’s sighting has become merged with the separate incident shown by the video. Both involve an object described as looking like a “tic-tac” candy mint—without apparent wings, rotors, windows, or other features—and completely white. This is indicative of an object seen on an infrared video (like the video in question). Thus, there may well be confusion as to what was supposedly seen by Fravor and what had been related to him. Such confusion could easily have occurred over the intervening thirteen years.

Either the first or second object in question, if seen only on a video screen, might well have been a drone or distant airplane. Even if it were too far away to be visible, its heat signature could have been viewed by infrared. Another possibility was given by Fravor himself. Interestingly, before the planes were sent to the site, the controller had made sure they were not weaponized. After the encounter, Fravor had “initially thought that perhaps this was an unannounced, classified missile test by a U.S. Navy submarine,” but he now concludes, “There is no way any aircraft or missile that I know of could conduct maneuvers like what we saw that day” (“Pilot report” 2017). Nevertheless, there is confusion over just what occurred. Fravor insists, “I know what I saw” (quoted in Finucane 2018), while just as surely admitting, “I have no idea what I saw” (quoted in Cooper et al. 2017b). We have observed this many times: A person has mistaken perceptions, or he experiences something that seems unusual, and soon is insisting that he knows what he saw, ego becoming involved. In fact, he only knows what he thinks he saw, and that can change over time.

In any event, this brings us to the video in question, which shows an object’s rapid acceleration to the left and disappearance from the video screen. What we see on the video is probably a trick of optics, according to Major McGaha. He believes the sudden leftward-zooming of the object resulted from the camera having momentarily reached the limit of its panning ability, at which time the F-18 was banking. This created the onscreen illusion that the object suddenly shot away. As corroboration, McGaha notes that the angle of the object’s moving off the screen is correlated to the bank angle of the F-18. What was no longer viewed was presumed to have disappeared at a tremendous speed.
 
I assume you are about half serious, but, no, they can't. We don't have the material science necessary to build something that can withstand those kind of G forces.

The most advanced aircraft we can build would be shredded at something like 12 to 15 Gs. These things have to withstand about a thousand times that.

It ain't the Chinese or anybody else that is remotely human.

Of course, you could go with the "they're humans from way in the future come back in time to prevent the destruction of Earth" theory, but I can't even wrap my head around that one.

I couldn't prove it to OPT, but I'm pretty sure that they are either alien drones or ETs who have achieved mastery over gravity and, therefore, G forces don't affect them.

But to even have a shred of understanding about that stuff you need to listen to Bob Lazar's story. It's getting less crazy every year.

Simple question Hawg,

Do you think any illusionist/magician actually makes something disappear, transports it, etc. or do they simply know how to make you look at a distraction so you don't notice them doing what they are actually doing?

IMHO, it's blatantly obvious that the latter is the explanation.

But that raises the question, how is it that we are "fooled" into thinking they did actually perform a feat of magic?

It's simple, they understand very well how human senses work and how we can fixate on certain things and so be fooled into thinking that "magic" just happened.

The same thing can happen in all the various reported UFO incidents.

People can assume that something "vanished", "maneuvered" at incredible speed, etc. the same way they think a magician has done the very same thing during their trick.
 
Simple question Hawg,

Do you think any illusionist/magician actually makes something disappear, transports it, etc. or do they simply know how to make you look at a distraction so you don't notice them doing what they are actually doing?

IMHO, it's blatantly obvious that the latter is the explanation.

But that raises the question, how is it that we are "fooled" into thinking they did actually perform a feat of magic?

It's simple, they understand very well how human senses work and how we can fixate on certain things and so be fooled into thinking that "magic" just happened.

The same thing can happen in all the various reported UFO incidents.

People can assume that something "vanished", "maneuvered" at incredible speed, etc. the same way they think a magician has done the very same thing during their trick.

You really need to watch the Rogan interview Hawg posted.
 
You really need to watch the Rogan interview Hawg posted.

All I know for sure is that I'd definitely love to see a debate where OPT gets to school Fravor on the mysteries of human perception and how he (and the dozens/hundreds of other witnesses etc.) were no different than a couple of High School kids from Long Island that got really nervous when they believed that David Copperfield made the Statue of Liberty disappear.
 
<iframe width="560" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ngGDZ6EwGh0" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture" allowfullscreen></iframe>
 
You really need to watch the Rogan interview Hawg posted.

Ummmmm you should probably read this.

Abstract
Although memory can be hazy at times, it is often assumed that memories of violent or otherwise stressful events are so well-encoded that they are largely indelible and that confidently retrieved memories are likely to be accurate. However, findings from basic psychological research and neuroscience studies indicate that memory is a reconstructive process that is susceptible to distortion. In the courtroom, even minor memory distortions can have severe consequences that are in part driven by common misunderstandings about memory, e.g. expecting memory to be more veridical than it may actually be.

Introduction
Pioneers in neuroscience such as Ramón y Cajal, Hebb, and Marr introduced the idea that memory is encoded in the patterns of synaptic connectivity between neurons. Increases in the strengths of these synapses encode our experiences and thereby shape our future behavior. Our understanding of the complex mechanisms that underlie learning and memory has progressed dramatically in recent decades, and studies have not provided evidence that memories are indelible. Quite the contrary, it is becoming clear that there are several ways through which memories can change.

The ‘imperfection’ of memory has been known since the first empirical memory experiments by Ebbinghaus1, whose famous ‘forgetting curve’ revealed that people are unable to retrieve roughly 50% of information one hour after encoding. In addition to simple forgetting, memories routinely become distorted2-7. The public perception of memory, however, is typically that memory is akin to a video recorder8 (Box 1).

...

How memory distortions occur
Memory distortions can occur in different ways. Most distortions involve some form of explicit or covert misleading information. One form of this phenomenon, the ‘misinformation effect’, has been thoroughly studied for the last 30 years4. This effect refers to a distortion in an original memory after being exposed to misleading information related to that memory, e.g. an impairment in the memory of the face of a perpetrator after being exposed to a photo of a police suspect who was not the true perpetrator. This ‘misinformation’ is considered misleading in that in distracts from the original memory, not because it is purposefully deceitful. Laboratory studies have shown that it is possible to induce memories in a participant that are entirely false, such as a special hospital visit at age 4 when no such visit happened4. Misleading information is often given unintentionally and can be as subtle as slight variations in the wording of a question. For example, when participants viewed footage of a car accident, the question “How fast were the cars going when they smashed into each other?” (italics added) elicited reports of 20% greater traveling speeds than the question “How fast were the cars going when they hit each other?”, despite the fact that participants in both conditions viewed the same footage2. The former question was also more likely to elicit a false memory of broken glass at the site of the crash2. Witnesses are often called to testify on specific details such as these and their reports may influence the likelihood of conviction and the degree of punishment, i.e. a harsher crime sentence for traveling at higher speeds.

Distortions in memory can also occur from feedback provided to the witness after their testimony. Positive post-identification feedback, such as informing a witness that their choice in a suspect line-up matched the police suspect or was the same as that of other witnesses, increases the eyewitness’ level of confidence in their choice33,34. Positive post-identification feedback also increases a witness’ later estimate of the amount of attention he or she paid to the crime and of how well they could see the scene and/or perpetrator34,35. Conversely, negative feedback can deflate confidence in a memory and other measures33,36. In addition, nonverbal feedback via body language and facial expressions can occur if the officers conducting the line-up are aware of which individual is the police suspect37. Even in the absence of feedback, mere repeated questioning of an event can increase a witness’ confidence in the accuracy of their memory38. Such changes in a witness’ reported estimations of confidence and attention are highly relevant in the courtroom, as judges and jurors often use these factors as indications of the accuracy and reliability of a witness's testimony.

Memory distortions can even occur in highly trained individuals. One series of studies examined highly selected military personnel in survival school who received a week of classroom instruction on how to handle stressful interrogations before they were exposed to a mock prisoner of war camp (POWC, see Box 3)39,40. The mock POWC provides a controlled setting of realistic and personally relevant stress. In one study of over 500 active-duty military personnel, participants were asked to identify their interrogator after being released from the mock POWC. These individuals had had a clear view of their assailant during the 30-40 minute interrogation. However, only approximately a third of the identifications were correct.

...

Memory distortions can also occur simply with the passage of time and with repeated recounting of events. Although it might not be surprising that mundane memories become weaker and more susceptible to distortion over time, emotional and traumatic ‘flashbulb memories’ are also susceptible to these automatic distortions. For example, after the September 11th terrorist attacks on New York City, U.S. citizens were asked to remember when they first heard about the attacks. They were asked to recall this episode approximately one to two weeks after 9/11, one year later, and three years later6. Memories of the details had changed in 37% of the people after one year and in 43% after three years. Interestingly, despite the drop in memory accuracy, confidence in the accuracy of the memory remained high — an example of a negative relationship between memory confidence and accuracy — and was driven primarily by attention paid to media reports and by talking about the attack in the intervening time6.

More at the link.

The simple fact of the matter is that memory is not a video recording that is unaltered, but a malleable item that changes with time.

It doesn't matter what he says today about how "sure" he is what he saw, the fact of the matter is that the items I posted in my response, simply don't add up.

Knowing what a 40 foot object is doing at a distance of 40 miles? Seriously?

One story has him saying he doesn't know what he saw and another saying he did? That's almost certainly his memory being malleable.
 
Ummmmm you should probably read this.



More at the link.

The simple fact of the matter is that memory is not a video recording that is unaltered, but a malleable item that changes with time.

It doesn't matter what he says today about how "sure" he is what he saw, the fact of the matter is that the items I posted in my response, simply don't add up.

Knowing what a 40 foot object is doing at a distance of 40 miles? Seriously?

One story has him saying he doesn't know what he saw and another saying he did? That's almost certainly his memory being malleable.

Yet he has video of the object and 4 other witnesses that tell the same story. :shrug_n: And also the military had been watching these object drop from 80,000 feet to 20,000 feet daily for two weeks. 80,000 feet is outer space.
 
All I know for sure is that I'd definitely love to see a debate where OPT gets to school Fravor on the mysteries of human perception and how he (and the dozens/hundreds of other witnesses etc.) were no different than a couple of High School kids from Long Island that got really nervous when they believed that David Copperfield made the Statue of Liberty disappear.

OK, I suspect I didn't fully explain my "magic trick" post.

My point was that humans are hardwired to interpret certain observations a certain way.

We will always try and find patterns, where they don't exist, and interpret things by matching against a stored "template" in our mind.

This has clear evolutionary benefits since if a human ancestor can identify the pattern of a predator in the grass/trees/bush, or they can match the template of a predator to something they see, then they have a better chance of getting away and making more offspring.

So let's do a hypothetical.

This hominid, sees a pattern in the grass, 30 feet away that matches the "lion" template.

He doesn't know this but, it's simply the grass moving in the wind.

He then sees one at 20 feet, but doesn't see anything in between.

Again, it's just the wind moving in the grass.

He's going to conclude there is a lion and it's moved ten feet closer, even though he never saw it move, and there really isn't a lion there.

He's going to get the heck out of Dodge to avoid being eaten by a non existent lion.

If he could talk, he would say he was certain he say the lion at 30 feet, saw it move incredibly quickly to 20 feet when he turned and got out of Dodge.

Humans can't avoid doing this. We will look at our field of view and match a pattern to what we see. If we see another thing appear, that is close enough to the first thing we matched a pattern to, we will interpret that as the thing moving.

THAT is what magicians/illusionists exploit.

They know how we observe.

They know how we pattern match and conclude how things we see are "the same thing" when they are not necessarily.

As I've said numerous times:

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.​

Somebody seeing something they don't know what it is does not prove it is anything other than an unknown.

You want to prove it is extraterrestrial, you've got to do a whole lot better than simply "I don't know what it is".
 
Back
Top