Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 10/31/2015 in all areas

  1. I just called him to be sure. He has a small lawn mower with no ROPS. As soon as the Mods approves his membership, I'll defer questions to him. :-) (Treat him right, he deserves respect.)
    1 point
  2. Hello jayjeti, I agree, rule out Bigfoot and then look at the picture. Look at the bite marks on the ribs, the 1/2 inch width of the incisor marks, the arc/radius the bite, the severed skulls, the bones piled in a stack and see if someone can come up with another solution that fits the profile. Of course if it was only one creature doing the damage then there is much to be said about what it is not. But if several different species were present, or alternatingly present, then it becomes more difficult to nail down Bigfoot as a candidate. Still in all though, heads not connected to spines and bone piles would be strong cases for ruling out typical fauna even if the teeth marks aren't definitive in showing what exactly scavenged the animals. I have no issues understanding why BigTreeWalker was drawn to this discovery and then pursued it so tenaciously.
    1 point
  3. The obvious thing to me that it's not your regular established animal of the forest is the stacking of bones, like something was eating the flesh and dropping the bones in the same general spot, which would I assume is most likely to occur with something that is eating with hands. Adding the tooth impressions that can correspond to a hominid further impresses me of what it must be because I know sasquatches are real; I've seen it; I've had multiple encounters, and so we all have our biases. If someone automatically removes bigfoot from the equation and can only accept non-cryptid answers then we've reached an impasse as far as I'm concerned.
    1 point
This leaderboard is set to New York/GMT-05:00
×
×
  • Create New...