FarArcher

Members
  • Content count

    839
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

452 Outstanding!

About FarArcher

  • Rank
    Chiye-tanka

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Interests
    Finding things.

Contact Methods

  • Have you ever had an encounter with a sasquatch-like creature?
    Yes

Recent Profile Visitors

1,098 profile views
  1. What really matters to me is not so much the source of a theory, but its ability to account for observations. I was previously unaware of Dr. Myra Shackley holds the opinion that the large, currently identified critters - are Neanderthals. I think they very well could be - and certainly have similar observed characteristics to BF. That Jocko or whatever his name was, and the Russian hairy woman - certainly go further to give two examples known of, described, and written of. Not human. But a form of primitive man.
  2. I think that is the most succinct statement I've ever heard concerning these things. I cannot unknow what I know. I can't. Others can't. But for some windbag to tell us we're mass hallucinating - that's an idiot - and there's no getting around it.
  3. Those who have hunted in low light conditions have come to appreciate the larger objective lenses - of 40mm to 50mm. We all instinctively know that the larger a telescope, the more light it gathers. That's why huge array telescopes pull in more light and enable more fantastic views of galaxies far away, not seen with smaller objective lenses. However, the limitations of how much light can be gathered AND UTILIZED - depends on our own eyes - where our pupils can only open from 4mm up to 8mm. Only light that can get through those small openings are usable. So no matter how large of a rifle scope, how much light it can gather - we can only see what can be transition through our small pupils. For example, a good 50mm objective lens rifle scope can deliver more light than our pupils will pass and utilize. A larger eye - probably - but not necessarily - can support a pupil arrangement that can open much larger than the 4mm-8mm diameter of human eyes. It can take in, and process more light - and depending on the unique combinations or even mutations of rods and cones - just may see an expanded light spectrum that humans cannot. The BF I saw - huge eyes by comparison to what I've ever seen on any human. Big. I look at the skull of the Neanderthal, and there's a significant size increase over those of human skulls. Larger eye sockets indicate larger eyes. Larger eyes indicate larger pupils. Larger pupils pass more photons, giving much better night vision. The human eye only takes up 25% of the eye orbital cavity. But a detailed study from Oxford indicated that larger eyes and brains were found in those from the more northern regions than those more toward the equator. The biggest brains were from Scandanavia, averaging 1,484 ml, while the smallest brains were found in Micronesia - 1,200 ml. And those that lived within the Arctic Circle had eyeballs some 20% larger than those averaged below that region. The human skull is shaped more like a basketball, whereas the Neanderthal skull is shaped more like a football. Anyone who suggest they are more or less interchangeable - need to pay more attention to sports, until at a glance, they can see the rather distinctive differences.
  4. I think some of these "expeditions" is a reason for a bunch of guys to go out and drink, get out of the house, and away from the wife. Then you'll have those who are enthusiasts who have a total lack of good, solid field practices - and they nullify their own efforts. Then you'll have less than a handful of interested, real scientists, but again, they go looking and lacking light, movement, or noise discipline - they too, nullify their own efforts. Others go out with preconceived notions of how best to get good evidence of these things, and if they think for a moment they're up against an animal - well - if you don't know what you're seeking - you'll never find it as you'll use the wrong practices. A deer hunt is much different from a bear hunt, which is different from a rabbit hunt, which is much different from a lion hunt, which is different from a Cape Buffalo hunt. Same with fishing. You fish for bream in the Gulf of Mexico - your luck will positively suck. But I credit those who are serious, who take care to take the time to go and try to get any kind of evidence. One day. One day, we'll have good, solid evidence. Because they're out there. As many here know.
  5. Can you possibly get over the cat eyes? You'll note - if you look - the representations had both eyes - round eyes and another with cat eyes. A Neanderthal may walk into a bar - but after the bar empties - and everyone reaches their truck - where they keep their firearms - it's going to get shot to hell as it's going to scare a lot of folks. Vendramini is not and was not bound by his credentials. He's not a fool who learned much of his knowledge by rote, and repeats the same. I'm not saying he's right - but there are elements that ring a whole lot more true than the sanitized, approved narrative we've been fed. If you place your faith in "science," then you'll be shocked to later realize that everything changes - continuously - as they actually don't have it correct. Greek mythology for example can provide a lot of fables with colorful characters. Remember Achilles? Troy? Guess what? That story was determined by the "experts," scholars, and academia to be nothing more than a fantastic fable. Guess who found Troy? Not a scholar, expert, or academia - it was an amateur. And if anyone should have had a head's up - all they had to do was read of Alexander the Great. After crossing the Bosphorous, on the way to fight at Guagamela, Alexander made a pilgrimage to Achilles grave, offered sacrifices to Athena, poured libations to Achilles and the Greek soldiers, and crowned with a wreath the column that marked the grave. Was Troy real? Achilles? The Roman Emperor Julian likewise visited the grave of Achilles, and that's documented. So did Mehmed II, the Ottoman sultan who at age 22 conquered Constantinople. Since then, the location has since been lost - but its location was previously known. BF hunts at night - they run down deer - difficult enough to see in forests in the daytime. Look at the eye sockets of the Neanderthal up beside a human skull - I'd say they likely did the same thing - hunt primarily at night. Look at it! Vendramini is able to point out the obvious without having his academic credentials derided for breaking ranks. I've worked alongside some of the most brilliant and accomplished Ph.D's in the world - and they were the first to know that commonly accepted scientific knowledge - is incorrect. Had this same conversation a month or so ago with a Ph.D who's been published 25 times with his research - but he says in all public circles he cannot tell the truth - he has to play the game - but he's doing some bizarre things that science just doesn't allow. You follow science's latest findings. Keep good notes. A few years later, go back and look at your notes. It will likely have all changed.
  6. Thank you, Cricket. Yes, I read everything you write, and I'm still a bit stumped. I'm not saying BF is Neanderthal - but Neaderthal seems to be the closest thing in the fossil record, and in traditional narratives - that share at least a few behavioral characteristics - one of those being the ability to interbreed - maybe not wholesale - but on a very limited basis. Somewhere, I have a number of unique characteristics the Neanderthal has that were not in common with homo Erectus, nor were they shared with homo sapiens. In fact, some of these characteristics seem to have only manifest themselves in Neanderthal - and in Neanderthal alone. I thought I had it handy, but I have more packed bookshelves than the law allows - and I'll find - it'll just take some digging. Milady, I pose this question. If one were to use different soft tissue depth markers, would the Neanderthal skull look significantly different than if one used average human soft tissue depth markers?
  7. It is a big stretch. If you can't tell a Neanderthal from a human, you might want to lay off the tequila while at the Roadhouse chasing skirts. Look for once at the skulls - side by side. I never mentioned the genus. Go a bit further - one's a homo sapiens sapiens, and the other is called something else - homo neanderthalensis. See? Different. I was reviewing a bit of archaeological sites last night, and 2,000' deep, off the west coast of Cuba, there's a city on the bottom of the sea, and of all things present, there's among other things like streets - a clear, defined pyramid. 2,000 feet deep. You can check it out yourself - sidescan radar, computerized 3-D, rendition - the whole thing. Now due to the geology, it wasn't a plate slippage/submersion that suddenly sunk it that deep. And the narrative we've all been told - tells us sea levels never dropped that much. The point being - this BF is currently an anomaly. Unexplained, and impossible - according to anthropology - as the record is known. What we know about Neanderthal - is still very limited. And putting soft tissue the depth of human (homo sapiens sapiens) soft tissue on skulls - won't cut it.
  8. Norse, those markers they place on the bone are the average depths of soft tissue - of HUMANS. The Neanderthal isn't human - nor are the BF. If you read what I posted, I suggested using human depth soft tissue markers, then use ape soft tissue markers, and another splitting the difference - and see the difference. One can take average markers and put them on the skull of Rosie O'Donnell, and it won't look anything like her fat face. I don't care how much anatomy one has studied of humans, how expert they are - to use human soft tissue markers and applying that to Neanderthal or any other cave man skull is quite a stretch. It simply isn't credible. No one would have bit of trouble picking a human skull out of all the skulls of all other cave men skulls. And yet to use human data and applying human data to non-human faces is just BS. The skulls are just too different. I've repeated myself here - they eyes are very large in the BF. Now, look at the skull of the Neanderthal. HUGE sockets - way higher up on the head. But let's use human tissue markers to construct the face, and smaller exposed eyes. There may be genes that would indicate some to have red hair in Neanderthals - and oddly, two of our guys saw a BF with reddish hair sit across a cut and watch them for about 20 minutes shortly after sunrise. I'd say that red hair is something to add to the idea that maybe Neanderthals and BF have some commonalities. Mine had black skin. Black hair. Then that one had red hair - and lighter skin. So what does the all-knowing Neanderthal DNA experts tell us about those properties? Nothing! I have blonde hair and blue eyes - a friend is very, very black - and we're both human. Neanderthal isn't. And Bigfoot isn't.
  9. If you were to take an expedition out to find me - say - in a territory two miles by two miles - you wouldn't find me - ever. Field experience really comes in handy when discussing the subject.
  10. Because it chaps their butts. Can't stand it. Can't tolerate that someone else - knows something they don't. Thomas Fuller said, "Zeal is only fit for wise men, but is found mostly in fools." Ever note who work this site with zeal?
  11. Let's see. 1. They have no noise discipline. Walking, talking, radios squelching, and their howls invite other humans that may be in the area to reply in kind. 2. They have no movement discipline. For supposedly hunting a night hunter - they always take the easy route, again talking, walking AT NIGHT, and making themselves very prominent - easily detected by a night hunter. 3. They have no light discipline. They shine flashlights, sometimes have headlights, their cameramen have powerful IR lamps, and for an animal apparently with the vision to see in the near-infrared, they stick out like a crap in a dry, white bathtub. Using their approach, they wouldn't be able to document a red fox. It's all contrived. Entertainment. But. If anyone wanted to know the things necessary to avoid Bigfoot in the field - and keep them at distance - do what they do.
  12. JDL, I find this fascinating - the large Native Americans. The Spanish wrote of them, the Native Americans spoke of them, Magellan wrote of them, and you actually got to see some. I note that in US museums at least, we don't find these fossils of these 'giants' represented anywhere. In fact, all the published indications of large people, or often referred to as giant skeletons - have seemed to disappear. No telling what else mainstream anthropologists and paleoanthropologists threw away - when large bones and large skulls were found - that might throw a lot of shade upon their contrived narrative. Could have thrown away some BF fossils in their haste to remove any large bones or skulls. I note too, that archaeology and anthropology seem to have a lot of "anomalous artifacts." Things found that are quickly determined to be "intrusive" or anomalous. If it were true science - there would be no such thing as anomalous artifacts. Things would be reported as found - and let the rough end drag.
  13. Cricket, thanks for your response, and I'm glad you're here. One thing I suggested that you disagreed with was how the museum presentations of different cavemen were inaccurate and maybe in some instances - dishonest. I think the most obvious thing on the Neanderthal representations is minimal facial hair - some without facial hair at all, and very little body hair. For northern, harsh climates, that just doesn't ring true. And the clean shaven representations precedes Gillette by a significant margin. The eyes are much larger on for example Neanderthal, but the expressions on the faces show the eyes to be more human sized. The tissue covering the skull - that's a guess at best. One can take a chimp skull and depending on facial tissue thicknesses - can configure them to look mighty human - and vice versa. Why would a significantly different shaped skull be given the tissue coverage of a human? I have no doubt that everything was done by experts, and that the data they used to put tissue on the Neanderthal skulls were carefully measured and built up - I'm not disagreeing with that. But to use the norms for another species is not entirely honest. It's a creation. Not a re-creation. Did anyone try three depictions of the skull, side by side, - one human-like tissue build up, one more ape-like tissue build up, and one somewhere in between? That may give a more accurate representation range than to present a single point representation. And their bodies. Anyone try three depictions of the body - side by side - one human-like with less hair, one very hairy like an ape, and one somewhere in between? After all, the bone structure of a Neanderthal tells us they were very, very muscular. In addition, the climate and game available would indicate they probably had a very low body fat content. So they'd be very, very muscular - and anyone who's seen a wet cat compared with a dry cat knows what a difference the appearance looks like with thick body hair and without. I'm here now telling you that as I had this thing running right at me, in the open, for 60 yards, passing withing twenty feet or so, I was seeing a primitive man - mighty hairy, and mighty ugly. With really big, dark (sclera) eyes. Why would my first choice of what the BF is - be more likely a Neanderthal/variation? The countless narratives from Europe and the New World of the ability to cross breed with humans. My son got his DNA analyzed, and has 315 Neanderthal markers, and coming from northwestern Europe DNA. That 315 markers were more markers than 94% of the population. It's cool up there, and a bare-***ed species make no sense whatsoever. I really enjoy your intellect here - as you can literally discuss possibilities without blind fervor of a singular position. It's entirely possible that this Vendramini has touched partly on what may be more likely characteristics - and if it appeals to me even a bit - and elements of it does - it's because what he presented was very close to what I saw - just bigger/larger. When you throw in the other narratives of BF characteristics of showing reasonable intelligence, likely a rudimentary communication, families/packs, cooperative hunting, ability to avoid humans, and keeping to difficult terrain - it sounds like some kind of cave man didn't go extinct. But the kicker is that while these BF do things during daylight - they are primarily night hunters. Huge eyes. Neanderthal had huge eyes. Until we get a body, of course we won't know just how close they really are, but I can only go with a number of parallel indicators - and the visual sighting - but nothing like iare presented in museums.
  14. The day we had a deer approach us - stumbling, falling down, getting up and repeating the entire process multiple times - Dan put it down. That night as five of us sat around the fire, we heard something directly below us, so we walked over the the ledge and shined some flashlights. Four or five - I can't remember - sets of red eyes. Deer when spotlighted - will stand stationary for a minute or so - so these weren't deer. They slowly "disappeared" behind the trees. They were approaching the deer from that location we assumed, and the next morning, it had been picked up and carried off.
  15. Also could be wannabe tooters, that don't really have anything to toot about - on some subjects. Could be.