Guest Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 (edited) I agree to a point, but do people go visit mountain gorillas in their own habitat? Sure. What I am saying is that precaution wise why should more emphasis be placed on Sasquatch than a Grizzly? Well it hasn't been until comparatively recently that people have been visiting gorillas in their own habitat. Prior to that, before much was known about them, people were terrified of them and they were seen as frightening monsters as anyone who ever read a Tarzan book or watched King Kong will tell you. If sasquatch is found, we won't know about their behaviour patterns for some time and, more telling, so many sasquatch witnesses have said they were frightened and/or intimidated due to its appearance and size. I must admit, I would imagine a sasquatch to be more intimidating and scary looking than a gorilla. I don't believe it is as much an 'ape' as a gorilla or orang-utan so there is that additional factor. We tend to separate the 'animals' from 'man' but sasquatch seems somewhat different and would be closer to us than any other animal and that makes it freaky. Well it does to me. As to the second question, it's pretty much the same answer The grizzly is a known quantity. The sasquatch isn't and as a result the unknown has to have different parameters until it becomes known. And it's pretty obvious a sasquatch would be more intelligent than a grizzly and probably capable of doing different things. Edited January 1, 2015 by Neanderfoot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 A mountain gorilla was shot in 1902 and sent back to Germany for study. It was determined to be different than the low land gorilla known before and it seems there are three subspecies that were geographically separated and evolved separately. Sadly the P/G film is not convincing enough for a lot of scientists. The Gigantopithecus was defined with a portion of jawbone containing a few teeth. Something less than a full body could define BF but the problem with that is since there are no known to science North American great apes, science would be reluctant to accept that a jaw or skull brought in originated here. The supporting evidence for BF as to be better. Pro kill people need to remember that post kill documentation needs to pretty well document the kill in the location where it happened, so that location can be visited to support the contention the BF was killed in North America. Recall the problems with trying to find the P/G film location. The hard core scientist skeptics of BF, who have gone public in various videos and public statements, will not be silenced easily. Would not surprise me to have them claim you shot the BF in Asia someplace then brought it here. After their strong rejection of the possibility of existence, that is not going to reflect well on their credibility when a specimen is available. They will be the last to admit the species exists. I disagree 1. There's nothing sad about scientists not being convinced from a film. That is how it should be. 2. If you could find a BF bone or part of one, science would absolutely accept it as a animal. It's absurd to think otherwise. 3. Your third point doesn't even make sense to me. It would be dead easy to figure out where a body originated. They could check stomach contents or analyze hair for pollen and local plant life. Thinking skeptics would nit pick where a body was found makes my head spin. Find the body, the rest will be okay. Do BF believers think skeptics are the enemy? It's not the case. BF lunatics, crackpots, and hoaxers do more damage to the legitimacy of the subject than skeptics ever could. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lake County Bigfooot Posted January 1, 2015 Author Share Posted January 1, 2015 (edited) Well according to the NAWAC they have nearly had one in the rifle scope on several recent occasions, so the possibility of getting a body in the next few years is becoming greater and greater. The area X creatures certainly seem to stay close and the opportunities seem to be fairly regular. The one question that I think we all have to some extent is whether government agencies will attempt to cover up such a resolution to the mystery. I think extreme caution would need to be followed in bringing a body forward. It's not as simple as calling Fox News and telling them to take a look at what you got in the freezer. For that reason I am sure the NAWAC has already planned the subsequent steps they will need to take upon a successful harvest of a specimen. Edited January 1, 2015 by Lake County Bigfooot Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SWWASAS Posted January 1, 2015 BFF Patron Share Posted January 1, 2015 My turn to disagree. 1. I have watched several videos of scientists analyzing the P/G video. Some accept it as evidence of existence, some disagree. One group or the other is wrong. 2. Science would accept a jaw as an animal but where is it from? How old is it? Was it flown in from Asia? Unless you physically link such a find with a location it does nothing to prove the existence of BF in North America. You saying where you found it is like any other witness report. Proof is what we are talking about here. 3. Bring a body from Asia to North America and lay it in the forest. Are spores and pollen in the fur going to tell you anything? It could be from either place at that point. How well are stomach contents going to show anything if the body is improperly stored for days? Bacteria destroys DNA in scat in a matter of fours. "Find the body and the rest will be OK?" The pro kill people have yet to convince me that they have this discovery process all worked out. The burden of proof is on the producer of the body if they deliver it some lab for validation of existence. A full battery of tests would cost hundreds of thousands of dollars. Have they contracted with a lab who is prepared and qualified for that examination if they are successful? I know of no group of scientists who are funded and prepared for that examination. Do the kill proponents here have that kind of money if a lab does not do it pro bono? What if it looks more human than animal? Will the lab call the police? All of these things need to be worked out before the body is taken, not afterward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 no scientist should accept only a video I missed your original point about the bone. I thought you were only talking about scientific acceptance. I don't know enough about bones or fossils to intelligently comment about how one would determine the original location. I'm not sure I agree with your third point. The police can tell when a body has been moved. I'm pretty confident that won't be an issue. But why would any skeptic care at that point. If a BF is found on any continent, they would be proved wrong. I can't comment on the pro-kill plan, because I'm not part of it. But if anyone finds a body I'm 100% sure we can find a lab willing to spend the money for the discovery of a lifetime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SweatyYeti Posted January 1, 2015 Share Posted January 1, 2015 (edited) a physical specimen or sample shouldn't be seen as an extreme requirement It is extreme, mbh....as that is the most definitive form of evidence. I'm not implying a negative connotation to the use of the word 'extreme'...as if there is something wrong in asking for a physical specimen. For 'mainstream scientists', it is a 'fair and reasonable' thing to require. My point is simply that a 'body' is not a requirement for 'proof' of the creature's existence...(at least, in the eyes of the general public). A good, up-close video of the creatures can, potentially, rise to the level of 'proof'. Edited January 1, 2015 by SweatyYeti Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 There are actually two lines drawn in the sand, norseman. The line drawn by 'Mainstream Science' has an extreme requirement....a physical specimen.....but that doesn't prevent us from being able to determine/know that the creatures exist, with a less extreme requirement....a very good film/video. A film...(such as the PGF)...or a video can reach that 'line in the sand'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 I've read a bit about it in the past. I know about the military involvement but it doesn't seem strange. What am I missing? Green Berets locked and loaded on a missing persons case is very strange. Even more strange that they do not participate or coordinate with the Park Service IC. And instead go off and do their own thing. The nail in the coffin is that another family a couple of miles away reports seeing a "bear" packing something over its shoulder. When the family gets home and hears the news of Dennis Martin missing they call the FBI. The FBI in turn sweeps it under the rug and never shares the information with the search. It was their best lead in the case. Years later the lead FBI agent on the Martin case and other similar missing children cases commits suicide. And lastly a park service ranger admits that there were "wild men" living in the park. Which I took to understand as feral humans and not Bigfoot. Despite thousands of searchers and special forces and air and ground assets, Dennis Martin vanishes into thin air. Something was not right with that case....... 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 Well according to the NAWAC they have nearly had one in the rifle scope on several recent occasions, so the possibility of getting a body in the next few years is becoming greater and greater. The area X creatures certainly seem to stay close and the opportunities seem to be fairly regular. The one question that I think we all have to some extent is whether government agencies will attempt to cover up such a resolution to the mystery. I think extreme caution would need to be followed in bringing a body forward. It's not as simple as calling Fox News and telling them to take a look at what you got in the freezer. For that reason I am sure the NAWAC has already planned the subsequent steps they will need to take upon a successful harvest of a specimen. The government didn't try to suppress the Georgia bigfoot in a freezer. It didn't prevent Ketchum from her work. There isn't a single instance of the government trying to suppress bigfoot on any level. The government has let every documentary ever made run. The government does not care it does not take this seriously at all period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GuyInIndiana Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 (edited) The government didn't try to suppress the Georgia bigfoot in a freezer. It didn't prevent Ketchum from her work. There isn't a single instance of the government trying to suppress bigfoot on any level. The government has let every documentary ever made run. The government does not care it does not take this seriously at all period. How much are THEY paying you to say that, Crow? ;-) Edited January 2, 2015 by GuyInIndiana Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Crowlogic Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 Green Berets locked and loaded on a missing persons case is very strange. Even more strange that they do not participate or coordinate with the Park Service IC. And instead go off and do their own thing. The nail in the coffin is that another family a couple of miles away reports seeing a "bear" packing something over its shoulder. When the family gets home and hears the news of Dennis Martin missing they call the FBI. The FBI in turn sweeps it under the rug and never shares the information with the search. It was their best lead in the case. Years later the lead FBI agent on the Martin case and other similar missing children cases commits suicide. And lastly a park service ranger admits that there were "wild men" living in the park. Which I took to understand as feral humans and not Bigfoot. Despite thousands of searchers and special forces and air and ground assets, Dennis Martin vanishes into thin air. Something was not right with that case....... Wild men..............wild modern men. Sure it's happened before and can again. I'd say wild feral human make more sense than bigfoot. How much are THEY paying you to say that, Crow? ;-) How much are you paying yourself to drink the bigfoot cool aid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 (edited) Green Berets locked and loaded on a missing persons case is very strange. Even more strange that they do not participate or coordinate with the Park Service IC. And instead go off and do their own thing. The nail in the coffin is that another family a couple of miles away reports seeing a "bear" packing something over its shoulder. When the family gets home and hears the news of Dennis Martin missing they call the FBI. The FBI in turn sweeps it under the rug and never shares the information with the search. It was their best lead in the case. Years later the lead FBI agent on the Martin case and other similar missing children cases commits suicide. And lastly a park service ranger admits that there were "wild men" living in the park. Which I took to understand as feral humans and not Bigfoot. Despite thousands of searchers and special forces and air and ground assets, Dennis Martin vanishes into thin air. Something was not right with that case....... I don't know everything about it but wasn't the military running training in the area? It doesn't seem that strange that they would help. Feral humans? Are we using that term loosely. Actual feral humans are pretty rare. I can't explain exactly what happened but I'm not seeing the BF/government conspiracy as being option number one. Sounds like it might just have been a bear... It is extreme, mbh....as that is the most definitive form of evidence. I'm not implying a negative connotation to the use of the word 'extreme'...as if there is something wrong in asking for a physical specimen. For 'mainstream scientists', it is a 'fair and reasonable' thing to require. My point is simply that a 'body' is not a requirement for 'proof' of the creature's existence...(at least, in the eyes of the general public). A good, up-close video of the creatures can, potentially, rise to the level of 'proof'. thanks for the clarification The government didn't try to suppress the Georgia bigfoot in a freezer. It didn't prevent Ketchum from her work. There isn't a single instance of the government trying to suppress bigfoot on any level. The government has let every documentary ever made run. The government does not care it does not take this seriously at all period.Rock solid post Edited January 2, 2015 by mbh Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 Note to government agents looking to pay off bigfoot enthusiasts. I'm open, but bring a large purse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 (edited) Sure because Bears pack children away over there shoulder without drawing blood......... It's not always easy addressing the facts and the Dennis Martin case proves nothing. But I seriously don't think this missing person case was the result of a Bear. They would have found part or all of a body. I use the term feral to describe a human living completely off the land with no outside contact or help. Edited January 2, 2015 by norseman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted January 2, 2015 Share Posted January 2, 2015 That's what I figured when you said feral. So, did the witnesses actually see a BF? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts