Leaderboard

Hello DWA, You're right, astronomical events DO happen and they ARE real. AND they can be PREDICTED! Why? Because of the repeatable and rigorous TESTING! The Sagittarius A/G2 event WILL HAPPEN! HAS happened. And What you're trying to "feed" everyone is flawed. What you're saying is that the Hubble sees things that aren't there? Check the second link: http://www.mpe.mpg.de/ir/GC http://www.mpe.mpg.de/410882/flare1movie_gif.gif Now you see it too.

In no way am I being a jerk here, just a friendly warning....... Timothy Treadwell lived in his "bear maze" in Alaska for 13 years. He had his bears named, they were used to his presence and the guy even actually "pet" a few of them. In his thirteenth season, ole mother nature threw him a curve ball, and a old bear that was probably hungry decided to eat him and his girlfriend, and that was that. Human are not used to thinking about our selves as part of the food chain, but we are...........we are a sack of meat walking around. If you choose to not arm yourself as we humans have done for millennia? Well then lightning may strike and you may end up in a pile of manure on the forest floor. We have absolutely no idea what a Sasquatch is capable of, people like Sasfooty have had good experiences interacting with them, good for her. But as with the Treadwell example, the situation could change on a dime, or people in another part of the country may have a completely different experience. Even within a species there is every disposition from A to Z. And when that species can rip you to shreds? That needs to be in the back of your mind at ALL times. Another example is of the lady that owned the chimp that ripped her friends face off. This is a chimp that was raised as a human since he was a baby. I'll get off my soap box folks.........just be careful out there and use a little common sense.

Hello WSA. Everything you said is soooo NOT correct. This the way things get skewed when passing the information on to others. 1) Sagittarius A IS the black hole. It is the supermassive black hole theorized to exist at the center of our Milky Way Galaxy. 2)There is a gas cloud (G2) thats heading toward the galactic center in a month or two. If there is a star embedded it is thought that ome of the cloud will fall into Sagitarius A but the embedded star, if there is one will continue past. If G2 is all cloud it will mostly fall into the center. 3)The center of our Galaxy is 26 THOUSAND light years away not 26 hundred. A good thing to remember, a lot about survival is being correct

See, you distill it down when you put it in perspective regarding risk to family. I've got a four and two year old right now. Having them with me changes everything.

So... cut off the head, a hand, a foot and at least one backstrap!

OK, let's recap the discussion up to this point: - In the "Siege " story, You had the creatures running rampant on the property... stealing food stuffs, showing aggression toward the human occupants, and threatening to enter their home. They even disabled the non-lethal measures taken by the homeowners to keep them at bay. - You had the "Montana" story where the creatures decided to take what they wanted and enter homes at will. - In both instances, the creatures were allowed to continue the behavior(s) unmitigated until a limit had been reached by the humans involved. - At "Honobia," the creatures were approaching visiting family members (some of them women & children) and displaying aggression toward them, such as growling, throwing large rocks, and making approaches toward the victims, often in numbers. - When confronted, the creatures continued to display aggressive behavior. In the second story, a man that stood his ground was snatched off of the porch, beaten, and carried off into the night. A band of humans had to locate the man, now at death's door from his beating, and take him to the hospital where he subsequently died. (if the story is to be believed). - We're not talking about dogs here, nor are we talking about any creature that a man would have a reasonable chance of holding his own against without using superior intelligence and ingenuity. In our case, that usually means superior technology, like weapons... namely firearms. I want to ask a very serious question here - Which member here would have the gumption to stand up to one or more of these aggressive creatures unarmed or brandishing an axe, or expect their wife or children to do so? If one (or more) were trying to enter your home with your children inside, how adequate would an axe be? How about accounting for superior numbers of creatures that are larger, faster, and stronger than you are? Would you "pee on their heads?" Personally, I believe not. If you would in fact do so, you'd be a victim in short order, as would your family. It seems that there are those that assign the cognitive reasoning skills of a human to these creatures, not to mention a degree of concern for another creature, in this case a human. If they understand territory, they'd not violate mine, nor would they blame me for "knocking them down" when they "pee on my bush." If they understand my right to defend my territory, this implies that they could care less when they not only start, but continue to violate it. If they understand fear, they will understand that I have fear, too, and that they're crossing the line. All things being equal, I can see the suggestions and examples offered as being somewhat effective. However, things aren't equal in these two cases. That's why we had to develop technology through intelligence to overcome our inadequacies when dealing with a physically superior creature like this. I'll say it again - Anyone that anthropomorphizes these creatures does so at their own peril. Should we hunt them all down with the intention of exterminating them? Certainly not, but I'll be damned if I'm going to sing "Kumbaya" with them when they're intimidating, attacking, and stealing from me and mine. If we are all honest about it, nobody would. If it was trying to kill me, I really don't care whether all of them are alike. I'm worrying about the ones that are trying to kill me.

Hello All, So it sounds like "respect" is a word being used to cover up the real thing. FEAR. Wariness? Comes from fear. A knowledge of retaliatory action being taken as a result of not having "respect" is important. Smaller grizzlies run from the larger ones; and so it goes. A group of smaller birds will harrass and chase away the larger. We are smaller; the answer to the problem is a simple one: keep a healthy fear instilled. then "respect" will follow.

Perhaps using the word respect is too broad because of all its human connotations. A better word might be wary. For those in the situations described above the goal would be to control the encroachments by making the bigfoot wary of the potential for a negative human response. Self preservation is a powerful motivator.

Holy cow! Do I understand correctly, that some habituators are aware of this potential threat and are not proactively addressing this? "Hey, so long as the rabid dog left my property, who cares if it wanders into a playground"....... JDL - I understand your point, but passing off a problem BF to the neighbors (that may be unsuspecting), could end up being very bad for said neighbor.

Don't treat them like you don't know they're there. If you pretend they aren't there, they won't go away, it will make them feel bolder, and that you are completely oblivious. Don't leave things you want to protect, unprotected. Even if they can break in, they need to understand that they are pilfering and that the items are not free for the taking. Make them feel that you would object and that they can't just walk up and take something without having to worry about where you are. Demonstrate some vigilance. The first rule of counter-surveillance is that the first thing you want someone to see when they are looking at you is you looking back at them, or at least that you are alert. Demonstrate a willingness to protect, defend, resist. When they take something or cause damage, make a show of investigating. Walk your property showing an interest in what they did, how they approached, and how they left. Look for tracks whether you see any or not. Show the flag more often (and I recommend either carrying a firearm, or something that looks like one), so they realize that things will become progressively more difficult, and make a show of searching by sight locations from which they may be observing you. Call in some friends or law enforcement to assist or investigate. Taking something and having a bunch more humans show up in response is probably the worst outcome from their perspective. At some point, when they realize the pickings are easier elsewhere, they will move on. In short, respond to them as you would any human miscreant. They will understand this. I've told about the encounter when I saw and tried to approach the pregnant female and shortly after was stalked to within fifteen feet by more than one of them. I stopped fishing, skirted the copse of trees the closes one was hiding in, walked up to the campsite about ten yards away, picked up the axe, faced the copse and asked the closest one if he needed help. When he didn't respond, I told him that if he didn't need anything he should leave. Then I walked back down to the bank with the axe and started fishing again. They left and the normal sounds resumed. The people I know in Missouri, if they feel them pressing in (hackles rising, as they say), will stop work in their yard, tell the bigfoot that they know they are there and that they should leave. It has worked so far.

1) bingo 2) I would not consider that a good shot. But I would assume with all wounded dangerous game? Keep shooting. 3) Project Grendel is all about collecting a type specimen, no matter how that is accomplished. 4) they will absolutely be better off.

The issue about using foot prints for several different stories is an accusation, and I don't see a good analysis to prove this point. The photos are far too grainy to prove this issue. However, bigfooters are like fishermen, and they streach the truth about the size of caught fish, and this is within the code of fishermen or fisherwomen. If one simply claims they caught fish when none were caught, then this violates the code. There are few bigfoot researchers who can hold a candle to Peter Byrne's life on the trail of BF regardless of the mistakes he made. http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/byrne2.htm Shootng BF is one way to solve the mystery and in the long run, it will lead to laws to protect BF. A good shot could also shoot BF just above the knee and take it down but then what? BF should be better off. There is the chance of a truck hitting one which has nearly happened several times. Someone could also come across a sick BF.

Does it? Who does? I think John Napier pretty much nailed this one down when he pointed out shortly after the film was made that the centre of gravity of the supposed animal is just all wrong. You tell me which bits of the massive pile of evidence convince you it's a sasquatch. Not just arm flailing and shouting "there's just so much of it". A big pile of crap is still crap. Which bits of the big pile convince you? And no, I'm not a scientist. I never said I was, or claimed to have any special insights into science. You are the one who continually does. I , despite being an average layman, can see you are continually and constantly wrong about that, regardless of whether Bigfoot exists or not. I have no axe to grind on that, I don't believe it does, but I find it very interesting. Your continual claims that you know better than everyone else in the world, however, are irritating in the extreme. I just wish some people who do believe in Bigfoot would occasionally tell you how wrong you are, so you can't try to drag the argument back to whether it exists rather than addressing your claim that the evidence shows it exist. And perhaps the scientist's opinion is th same as the garbageman's because the garbageman has enough scientific training to see an obvious alternative explanation for such evidence as exists A perfectly valid and possible explanation. It's all mistakes and lies. I do not have to prove that, as I am not saying it IS the case, just that it is the most likely. You have to show me something that cannot be a mistake or a lie. The numbers don't come close to the tipping point on that. You can't trust the science because you don't understand it. All those people who do, have said it's nonsense. That's the problem with it.