Leaderboard

I agree this thread might get more traction under the paranormal section. Simply, that there may be more leeway to talk about what it "might be" over there, and not just what it's not. Apologies if i wade into taboo areas. Personally, I don't know why BF can't be Flesh and Blood, while still having abilities that we don't yet understand with our own flesh and blood limitations. Really, our Human prejudice is what's holding most research back. For example, they have an incredible ability to hide and elude us. That's hardly up for argument. Some have put forward theories of "cloaking," but such notions are typically dismissed out of hand. Why? Because it makes us uncomfortable due to the fact that we (as Human flesh and blood) can't understand it. And that always cracks me up. We're talking about a completely unclassified animal, and yet we focus on what it CAN'T be for our own sense of security. Admittedly a weak analogy, but not so long ago we had no idea how bats did their bat thing at night. People (I'm assuming here) likely thought bats could see (optically) at night to find their insect prey. Or in ancient times, that they might be "magical." It was only through the advancement of science and (open minds) that their sonar was discovered. Yet it's a physical ability that we do not possess. This is all just a long-winded of saying that yes--I agree that the Big Fella is flesh and blood. But there may be numerous abilities they possess that we do not share. That does not mean those abilities are beyond the realm of possibility. I think this whole field is paralyzed by Human prejudice. To Hiflier, I think you nicely illustrate the Human prejudice I am referring to (not intended to be a barb, btw). You suggest that because their shape resembles ours, that they are somehow lesser because they don't exhibit technology. Last I checked, our technology is polluting the very air and water and total environment we depend on. No, I suspect their intelligence is extremely high. But in ways that we do not appreciate, or care to. Good topic! I just feel handcuffed trying to talk about it here. We're trying to put a very big Bigfoot into a very small box. Not gonna work...

I am sure many of you have been or are currently part of this debate, whether or not this is a flesh and blood creature. I am here to argue the point that it is simply that. When it comes down to deciphering all the information to the contrary, I cannot come to the conclusion that a creature that poops, sleeps, eats, makes its bed at night, and otherwise exhibits behavior consistent to a flesh and blood creature could be anything else. Now for those who contend otherwise I suggest that you begin such lines of questioning with the fundamental question of what truly exists. If you argue that this world is simply a product of other material processes, and no supernatural or spiritual realm exists, then you have no worries. On the other hand if you come to the conclusion that such forces do exist, and therefore might be in play, well then you have to except that in even this subject of Bigfoot, one must discern where the source of such activity is found. When I hear of some of the Dr. Johnson experiences, my mind is drawn to account for them in terms of spiritual forces that I believe to exist, ones that might be interested in those who dabble in conjuring them up...as a former LSD using teenager I dabbled in such things, which lead me to a series of "experiences" which I would term not flesh and blood, and I am concerned that those who dabble in the same fashion with Bigfoot might be unknowingly calling the wrong number and getting answered by another party, a party interested in manipulating the mind and thoughts of those vulnerable.

What I saw was definitely flesh and blood. It was physically superior in every way to a human. It's not a homo sapiens sapiens - but it's not an animal either - in my personal definition. I think it's a homo sapiens something-or-another. Some kind of primitive cave man. Who has adapted to becoming primarily nocturnal - and by taking to difficult terrain (for us) - is exercising a risk avoidance lifestyle to avoid humans overall. They're uniquely adapted to the life they live, and thus don't need, require, or even prefer those things we find "convenient" or even "necessary." And like us, they too, live in family groups, and likely have a rudimentary language, which has enabled tactical excellence.

Gotta Know, good thinking. I believe one reason "hunters" haven't found them is that they grossly underestimate their opponent - and for some unknown reason - assume too many erroneous beliefs. The "cloaking" concept cracks me up. They have a natural Ghillie suit, it's a flat, non-light-reflecting color, and they can low-crawl like a professional soldier. Put a Ghillie suit on a man and let him drop motionless in knee high grass - and he just "cloaked" up. Folks want to look for an eight foot critter, and because they don't see one somehow convinces them none were nearby. And that effectiveness is multiplied in low light or darkness - when the bulk of their activities take place. They do have some physical abilities we don't possess. Aside from the obvious superior strengths - speed, strength, stamina, size, power, natural Ghillie suit, and size, they have a couple other abilities we certainly don't have. Making them vastly superior to us in the field, except on occasions when one apparently gets a bit careless and has a chance meeting with a human. I've seen literal geniuses - who can't, or won't try to use a set of jumper cables without a manual. Oh, they're smart alright - but not so one would notice with any practicality. You're right - that box everyone keeps trying to limit them to is not small. It's mighty, mighty big. Otherwise, they'd be just another dumb animal easily stalked, trapped, or dropped. And that ain't happening.

I think the above reply exemplifies the problems that exist in today's education system - and we see it mocked with "man in the street" interviews - and folks give some of the dumbest, most unbelievable replies - when asked even basic, simple questions that clearly demonstrate their total ignorance of the subject. They'll hunt and hunt for exceptions - which generally apply to animals who don't wear clothing - and which have thick skins - and once the claws have penetrated, will tend to pull the skin back a bit to enable them to "generally" go first for the liver. But those who have recovered human remains from bear kills - believe it or not - know the tendencies, and the indicators of whether a person was killed or killed and eaten by bears. And if one doesn't understand, understand this: When a bear kills or consumes someone - there are claw, tooth marks - as bears tear into a body. They don't untie the shoes, remove the boots, socks, carefully undo the belt, unsnap the pants, slide down the drawers, remove the jacket, shirt, and t-shirt before feeding. It doesn't work that way. Period. We would on occasion find a helmet on a trail, then the AK maybe a few feet away, and then a blood smear with drag marks off in the jungle. Tigers have unique eating capabilities and habits, preferring to drag their prey off into a secluded spot to eat. They have a rasp for a tongue - and can literally "lick" the skin off their prey. They can rip and "lick" a uniform shirt off a man - shredding it to look like nothing you've ever seen before - and they too - go for the liver - first. Different predatory animals have different means and methods to consume their prey - and these methods and tendencies are well known. Except maybe, to you. Then, there's those who just want to tell part of a story - as the best lies - have just a bit of truth in them. Drew, I don't know why you have a weed up your kazoo, but for heaven's sake - don't just find exceptions and not realize where that exception fits in to a particular circumstance - and has nothing to do with the greater population of known samples. It's either extremely dishonest - or extremely inept. One or the other. You link showed one article from the Republican Journal. Let's see that you ignored. 1. You left out the fact that there were three tears in her flannel gown - that some believe may have been made while going OVER barbed wire. 2. You didn't post the Xenia Evening Gazette article that stated the girl died from a "blow to the head," 3. You left out the findings of the two physicians that initially indicated the girl died from a blow to the head. 4. You left out the second autopsy referred to in the Zanesville Signal that stated "Additional evidence revealed by physicians here who have performed a second autopsy, disclosing that three of the child's ribs had been broken prior to her death." 5. You also missed the October 14 article in the Findlay Morning Republican regarding "two footprints found near the body." Didn't say shoe prints, or boot prints. It specifically said, "footprints." 6. You also missed an October 15 article in the Chronicle Telegram that indicated "A third autopsy has revealed all of the ribs on the left side of her body were torn loose from the backbone." You seem to be a bit obtuse in your rush to criticize things I share. You seem to be extremely un-informed. Or dishonest. Just a friendly suggestion - if this is how you address a topic - superficially - you might want to try some men's fashion sites, or maybe some cooking sites - as they'll have the recipe attached to the proposed dishes. I mean, I'm sorry, but you're just not very good at this.

FarArcher hopes you don't do any research, then his claims can just be added to the Bigfoot-Record. In 1926 The two and a half year old girl, was murdered to get back at her father, who had enemies he owed money to. "The Other Children" were a 4 year old and a 6 month old in the same crib. Note the embellishment "Skull was Crushed", "3 Ribs Broken" and then you read the account... http://www.nyshistoricnewspapers.org/lccn/sn84024315/1926-10-13/ed-1/seq-1.pdf Bears skin stuff. It's called Banana Peeling. http://www.mednscience.org/files/pdf/ys1-barber.pdf See page 5 for banana peeling

I type pretty fast, so I'm not too worried about initiating an extinction level event with a typo. It would take a complete idiot - feel free to check yourself if you feel you may fall into such a category - to not understood exactly what I was speaking of - it was a typo. Sometimes I type in .223 which is a bad habit I really need to avoid in the future. That's because they really aren't exactly the same thing. I'm a reloader and the NATO 5.56 cartridges have a thicker cartridge wall, for higher pressures, but is internally a smaller volume, which can cause a bit of a problem if not accounted for. Plus, the throat/leade is different - and if I'm using some IMI brass or Lake City brass - their leade is 0.162" if you're using a NATO spec rifle, but the Remington leade is 0.085", and if you get confused it's easy to cram the bullet against the rifling a bit too hard. Resulting in excessive pressure. Now you can put a .223 in a 5.56 rifle with no problem, but the opposite can cause a cartridge rupture. And then that gets into whether or not you're using a "looser" AR series rifle, or a precision bolt action - but I'm not getting paid to educate you - so you can figure the rest out for yourself. I find your Longtabber comment interesting, since many here know I'm not this mysterious Longtabber. The reason I find it interesting is that on another site for football fans - fanatics, actually - when I note the tone of your reply, the word sequencing, the overreaction on an obvious typo, there's this one guy that types the same way - his screen name over there is "Skidmark," and just like you, I'm getting this "Skidmark" vibe. He's pretty open, and while just an irritation in general, he's - and let me be accurate - he's a self-identified "Cross-Dressing-Crossover-Role Male Pre-Op High Intensity." These days, I know some groups want accurate terms, and abhor the more common generalities . . . so I suppose in the same manner you get a "Longtabber" vibe reading my posts, I also get a "Skidmark" vibe reading your posts! Funny how that works!

Aye. For whatever reason, many think we've found pretty much all the possible bipedal species. Our climatologists, geologists, anthropologists, and their subgroup archaeologists are mutually supporting, yet every once in a while, a new find demonstrates we don't have everything to be discovered on the table. My youngest son recently had his DNA analyzed, and aside from being 100% from northwestern Europe, he also has 315 Neanderthal variants out of the possible 2872 variants, placing him in the highest 94% of the population. I too, think it's what I'd term "hybrid," meaning some kind of ancient hominid - as of yet - unidentified. Speaking with a Ph.D last week, I referred to them as "cave men." He asked, "what kind?" I replied, "How am I supposed to know? The big, butt-ugly kind." Methinks we'll someday find out, and we'll find out they probably share some 97% to 99% human DNA, but aren't human.