xspider1

Sésquac
  • Content count

    2,795
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

780 Legendary

About xspider1

  • Rank
    Yeti

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Interests
    imo, the PGf subject is a real animal, not a costume

Contact Methods

  • Have you ever had an encounter with a sasquatch-like creature?
    Not sure

Recent Profile Visitors

4,606 profile views
  1. ^ makes sense to me, SW! And, excellent post above, MIB. I'm not a Bigfoot witness (yet), just wanted to say: very interesting discussion!!! I too would never doubt their ability to navigate much, much better than we do at night. Heck, my dog can run 50 mph circles in our yard any night of the year and avoid obstacles that I can't even get a glimpse of. Thank you all for sharing your experiences! Great thread.
  2. Hey!  Interesting post, when you said:

     

    ^^ I can think of one example where 98% of scientists are all in agreement and yet the topic on which they all agree is still a matter of intense debate despite the science. Forum rules do not allow me to go any further on the topic as some regard it as politics which is verbotin in the General section. Given that the science is so well-understood on that topic, one on which a monster formerly of joke and myth suddenly becomes real strikes me as 'not likely' no matter how many scientists are independently involved. "

     

    Can you tell me via PM what that topic is that you refer to?  thanks

     

    1. salubrious

      salubrious

      Hello xspider1,

       

      Sure, in the right situation (which would be in the premium section)! If you recall your forum rules though, they apply to PMs as well. But I can tell you that really famous people mention these findings quite frequently. 

       

      All the Best,

       

      Salubrious

  3. Not sure if Bigfoot smoke weed or not, but that might have something do with many of them having such red eyes http://www.bigfootbuzz.net/hunter-reports-seeing-red-eyed-bigfoot-in-quebec/. haha! Cool topic, hiflier! : }
  4. I'm a bit surprised that article made it to puplication in Scientific American myself. It seems that, pro or con, that could have been a lot better. Most of Science seems spoiled to using cookie-cutter approaches when describing animals. That doesn't seem to work with Bigfoot any better than it does with humans.
  5. ^ Exactly. Many things which really do exist are also hoaxed, imitated, imagined, etc. The fakes have nothing to do with reality, but they detract from the general consensus to the point that some may find themselves, at some point at least, in complete denial. : |
  6. Nifty Poll, gigantor. The results are interesting already! 8 )
  7. ^ yep! I knew something looked off with that skeleton and couldn't put my finger on it. The skull seems very disproportionate. We need ver. 1.1
  8. That looks like a good trip, georgerm. What type of boat is that? I've never seen one of those. 8 )
  9. That also says "up to 1 year in the county jail".
  10. That sounds like a good idea. I wish I was a couple thousand miles closer to that area. Maybe someday...
  11. ^ ^^ ^^^ that's very interesting (and some of it, scary) stuff ya'll said Has there ever been a single paper published in a major scientific journal that even tried to explain the truth about Bigfoot, as we know it? Because, as we know it; Bigfoot are large, hairy, elusive, perhaps scarce, bi-pedal primates that have not yet been fully explained by Science, right? A good, peer-reviewed paper that basically says: 'Bigfoot: denying that these animals exist, doesn't cut it anymore' might accelerate the search for proof.
  12. ^ I think so, JDL. To the adjective 'hybrid', I might just add: 'likely to have been genetically altered'. Doesn't that pretty much say that those samples "could be from bigfoot"? The only possibilities I see coming from the DNA analysis of any suspected Bigfoot tissue is either: A.) "No, that tissue is from animal Z" or, B.) "Ok, we don''t know what animal that tissue is from". Great stuff DNA, but I don't think it can ever prove Bigfoot ver. 1.0 by itself.
  13. I know somebody who worked at the store in TN that sold one of the winning tickets! That's prolly as close as I'll ever get to winning the lottery but, hey, at least I finally said something here that Twist could (sort of) agree with. I disagree. Certainly there are those who hoax Bigfoot (and also some crappy shows) but, from what I can tell, the majority of folks interested in this subject are honest and they apply whatever resources they can in an effort to solve the mystery. That will happen one day and the naysayers will have some splainin' to do! lol
  14. Great post, SWW. I've been trying to imagine if there could be a circumstance under which a DNA lab might come back and say: "Hey! You discovered Bigfoot". It looks like that just can't happen without being able to reference the DNA from a type specimen.
  15. ^ very well said wiiawiwb!