Leaderboard

Yes, they are. Very clever. Adaptability. In a London museum, there's a display ostensibly showing evolution in action over a relatively short period of time. Up top, and fading left to right, line after line, they've assembled moths that lived in London in the nineteenth century - top left being off-white moths - and this supposedly shows that as the Industrial Revolution used more coal, and as buildings and tree barks were gradually coated and darkened from the smoke, the moths adjusted and evolved darker and darker to match their environment. That's total BS. In reality, as the local environment gradually darkened, those moths who were off-white stood out more against the darker backgrounds and were picked off faster than those darker moths who blended more easily. That's not evolution - that's natural selection to be sure - but the moths didn't evolve, those that fit the environment of the moment just did better than those whose color didn't fit the environment of the moment. We - the scientific community I should say - assume we have a fairly complete fossil record of bipedals, and assume all bipedals came out of Africa - something I don't agree with. They've found a few fossils here and there - ON THE SURFACE - and arbitrarily assigned the fossils a strata they belonged to - as they were not found in situ. That makes my personal belief that the fossil record is significantly lacking, and what's portrayed is inaccurate and assumed. In North America alone, a lot of big animals went extinct 2,000 - 12,000 years ago. Big animals. Saber-tooth was one big cat - 600 to 800 pounds. The ancient Bison was 25% larger than current Bison. North American Camels weighed some 1,800 pounds. The Glyptodon - like a huge armadillo - got almost 11 feet long and weighed up to two tons. Short faced bear was HUGE - about 11-12 feet long and weighing 2,100 pounds. North American Jaguar weighed about 210 pounds. Giant Ground Sloth reached almost 10 feet long and weighed almost a ton. Anyone seeing a pattern here? Just because there are scrawny little fellows found in Africa, doesn't mean in North America or even other continents - that very primitive man wouldn't be much larger - as just about everything else was. The Woodwose in Europe was also reported to be a very large, hairy man. Like a primitive man. A primitive caveman, so to speak. And I think that's what this thing is. It's not an ape - but a very clever, very adaptable form of primitive man. Not human to be sure - but it's not ape, either. Adaptability is often a function of an ability to THINK and adapt - not be the white moths that get picked off the darker buildings and bark.

On the lines of extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, if you want to talk about another cryptic or use it as a point of reference you should be willing to come out and say exactly what you are talking about. There is nothing to be gained from cryptic stories of cryptic creatures as they relate to BF.

JDL, there are facts regarding animal behavior. I see nothing in Sasquatch that warrants more than what an large bipedal animal in a primate body can do. It's the body shape that gives it its abilities. Not a particularly difficult thing to comprehend really. Unless someone starts with woo and works backwards from there which I highly do not recommend. Billions of Human beings running around without any woo. But it's fine to project woo onto an animal? I think not. And that's all I'm saying. Tough crowd. So worried that this creature is in danger of being reduced to the level of the lowly bear? Well, bears aren't lowly IMO and are equally as intelligent and smart as Sasquatch or we Humans. The difference? A bear's physiology will only allow it to do so much. Same with Sasquatch. Same with us. But we have cognitive skills and abilities that Sasquatch will never have. Some proof you say? Look at what our bodies are capable of with the kind of brain we have. What we build, what we create. Hadron colliders, self driving cars and all else. Look at what Sasquatch creates with essentially the same body type. ZILCH. Sorry JDL and everyone else but my "opinion" stands well grounded in logic. The creature we call Sasquatch is simply no better than a bear in a better body. Ambushes, bludgeons, and then eats deer raw. Animal. Crows talk, communicate all kinds of chatter, steal shiny trinkets left out. and are very smart and intelligent. Sasquatch is no different. This isn't hard. Dolphin intelligence if you insist but their body types allow much less in the way of versatility than a Sasquatch.

And I agree with that to the level that they learn from creatures outside themselves. That do seem to have that capacity. If there were no Humans though I sincerely doubt they would rise much above what it would take for them to manage themselves withing a given habitat. They may have a limit to the tool box they develop for survival and unless outside influences and ideas enter their realm I truly doubt they would advance much. I've watched seagulls maneuver in to a bag of goodies nd even tip themselves upside down getting into that bag once Humans have left to go swimming or for a walk. Seagulls have that kind of capacity for learning such skills. Plug that idea into a seven foot tall bipedal creature thet has lived with us for couple of our more advanced centuries and there would be a lot to learn and mimic. Memory in the animal kingdom is everything beyond instinct that gives them the edge but it takes stimuli to initiate that memory whether it's being shot or habituated. Humans do not differ all that much in that regard BTW and so transferring that kind of behavior in the animal kingdom to Sasquatch is not a stretch by any means. It addresses many things about what folks witness. Nothing paranormal required really, just a sensitivity to its surroundings- which is normal- and a sensitivity to us....its hairless mirror image.

This ^, I had an intense six to eighteen months of this back in the 2006-2008 realm. Some lesser form of knowledge of a more distant interaction for years after that. The test phase of interaction, the obstacle course and the mind-blowing phase do occur for those at the closest edges of this science. I'm sure there may be other phases and I'm not really sure I want to go through them at this point from what I know. Not posting or talking like a "knower", just as an informant, take what you want, leave the rest, or file it all in a round basket really, I personally don't post up for attention. Came here to let others know what I know--it's called sharing---, and learn more about what I don't; simply that and nothing more. This is the intelligence gathering role that Thom Powell refers to in some of his work, nothing more nothing less. Maybe the reports analyzed become a living thing after some witnesses report back too, perhaps! I analyzed a ton of reports before, during and after my encounter. Many call this tainted reporting and research that I see mentioned in many circles. I realized I was on a trail and I followed it as far as I could and it led to a sighting. I'm sure I butt heads with many researchers in what I saw and report about. At this stage of reporting I am true to self and the chips can fall as they may. Can you tell flesh and blood juxtaposes against paranormality but in a happy comfortable medium in my world view of Sasquatch? If, as a witness I am contradicting so-called "researchers" then maybe the so-called researchers have not had the opportunity or circumstances to witness what has befallen me or just maybe they fail to report or fail to analyze what they have seen in the same way.

Seems to be a lot of holier than thou in this thread. At this point in BF research we cannot make any definitive statements about BF in regards to origin, intelligence, or habits etc. All discussion about these types of characteristics should be open to many different possibilities.

Remind me again .. how much experience do you have with them, first hand, face to face? Anything at all to suggest you have the foggiest idea what you're talking about instead of just yanking stuff out of your butt telling people who DO have the experience they didn't see what they saw because if they had it would inconveniently invalidate your foregone conclusion? Just checking ... MIB

I have a dissenting view. Remember, the guidelines are to promote discussion, not to promote proving. If you are able to step back from your own positions and watch in abstract how "business is conducted", it becomes pretty obvious that the rules are not there to facilitate resolution of the bigfoot question. I don't fault the mods, they just enforce the rules. They're among our most kind and welcoming individuals ... just don't become the job they have to do. (Says a guy with a warning point. ) I don't know where the Steering Committee falls so far as defining the rules and guidelines so I do not necessarily fault them. But someone, somewhere, has **designed** failure to resolve the bigfoot question into the very underlying structure and operation of the forum. Why? And .. accident or intent? Ironic that observation has to come from MIB, huh? I have no issues with witnesses, "mere" believers, knowers, or honest skeptics. My issues are with the scoffers masquerading as skeptics who are here adding nothing of value but asking disingenuous questions to derail debate, harassing people into silence, and so on. They are quite good at staying just inside the boundaries of acceptable conduct while still achieving their purposes. There's nothing that can be done about it unless the rules change. As it stands this is a debate forum, not a bigfoot issue resolution forum. It does not help the new witness who is dazed and confused with their world view turned upside down, it just throws them to the wolves. Even I, who have been "at this" for over 35 years and generally a pretty thick skin, have personal stories I will not share here because of the environment. I welcome honest questions, not the thinly veiled derision and ridicule I've seen others subjected to. The forum accomplishes its mandate ... discussion. If you are frustrated by the lack of progress, look at the rules and guidelines again with a sharper eye. If you're not getting what you're here for, perhaps what you're here for is not what the forum is here for. I would not recommend BFF to a new witness. The "help" water is too shallow and the "debate" water too deep for someone at that point in their journey. That's my observation. Hopefully I don't get tossed out on my rear for sharing it. MIB