Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 12/29/2022 in all areas

  1. There is no mundane explanation for this phenomenon. You will hear people talk about bioluminescence, but that occurs only in marine life and terrestrial arthropods like fireflies. It also occurs in some fungi and microscopic organisms. It does not occur in mammals. Even if it did, it would be an odd evolutionary trait for a light gathering organ such the eye with its photoreceptors to also be a photo emitter. Like with other extraordinary attributes commonly associated with Sasquatch, someone looked around for the closest natural equivalent to explain it away. Tapetum lucidum is usually trotted out as an explanation, but many cases of these self illuminating eyes occur when there is no external light source. Even people who are firmly in the flesh and blood undiscovered ape camp like Moneymaker and the NAWAC folks have mentioned the self illuminating eyes phenomenon, regardless of the biological improbability of it. Long answer short… no one has an explanation. Even those of us who have witnessed it.
    3 points
  2. It’s just my catch all phrase.
    1 point
  3. I can buy the bolded part of the quote. It's like Cinderella, Science isn't allowed to even GO to the party. But, believe me, Science is in fact involved in this research- even without their Fairy Godmother. The mainstream's public excuse of no funding is only the face they put on for the public. And while most of science as the public perceives it seems reluctant, or even ambivalent, there ARE scientists who are actively involved in discovery. What I'm saying, to be clear, is that lack of funding has long been held up as the reason for doing nothing. There are scientists, though, that don't care about that. What they DO care about is the unspoken pressure of not attending the party to begin with. And if they DO go to the party then there is that midnight thing where everything gets forced to become as it was. Huntster, you said it best, the party police. Because surveillance in the wild isn't the only surveillance that takes place. A member here, Darby Orcutt said there is no conspiracy by science to hide Bigfoot from the public and I believe him. I think it's hidden by default when research gets squashed, as in never being allowed to publish any findings or papers. This is why I have said numerous times that we need to let science know that we support them and that we are in their court. Some of those guys are my rock stars. But it all comes down to what would or would not get filtered to the public. In my way of thinking, scientific discovery has already happened....and it has happened more than once....why we haven't been informed of that discovery is a entirely different matter altogether. If this creature is really out there then what I'm saying here is highly logical when one takes the time to think about it. Has to be.
    1 point
  4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cerutti_Mastodon_site
    1 point
  5. I strongly disagree. If you pay those whores, they'll "research" anything........just like everybody else. Money motivates Science just like it motivates everything else.
    1 point
  6. I doubt it could be done esp since even seeing one would be quite an effort. I expect one day one will be shot.
    1 point
  7. I know you've arrived at this kind of thinking over time, Norseman, and many have not yet arrived. In any case I would like to officially welcome you to my side of the fence as this has been my mindset for a long time. Basically since I've been here as a member of the Forum back in 2014 or so when I ran the "Is Sasquatch a Secret" thread. Sure, I have railed against the whole concept of the Bigfoot biz side of things, but I've never seen you yourself being so vocal about it. I have on occasion thought of all the money collectively spent by each and every BF researcher over the last 60 years or so along with all of the money spent creating trinkets and BF paraphenalia to sell to the public. All of that the money could have been used to solve the mystery either by now or a long time ago. But I'm the cynic of the Forum, right? The bad condescending member who tries to take all the fun out of the subject. Too passionate, too serious about discovery, and even wrote back seven years ago that the window for discovery was closing. And in truth/ I think our chances are worse now than they ever were. As far as discovery goes we are currently in a pretty impossible situation. How to proceed from here and make progress is the name of the game, especially when what we've been doing has been such an obvious and glaring failure. You said it best, and I can't help but concur, about the definition of idiocracy which is why I get so vocal about people following suit and doing the very same kind of field work that's been done to no avail for the last 60 years as far as solid physical proof goes. Better technology in the field or not. So again, welcome to this side of the fence. It ain't been fun over here, believe me. And this ISN'T where I launch into my DNA spiel. Everyone knows what that is by now as much as everyone knows what a bullet is. Either one carries the ability to prove the creature real. If anyone is truly serious about discovery then those, baring finding a dead one, are the two choices. But only if one is that serious and that sick of those pesky dangling carrots hung everywhere one turns, or a government that won't step up and say what the truth is. Okay, time for a breather....
    1 point
  8. I'm not saying a video would replace the need for physical proof, but I'm confident it could get us there, again, public opinion would sway and pressure to study these creatures would be immense enough for science to get on board in some capacity. It would be something tangible they could really work with. And no I don't think the PGF was ever tangible evidence, you had a pretty polarizing reaction from the get go. With crystal clear footage you would reduce this polarization because it would hypothetically be so clear it would be undeniable.
    1 point
  9. How do deer, elk, cats, porcupine or any other mammal survive below zero temps? Bulk, fat, hair, movement and an instinct for basic shelter.
    1 point
  10. Thanks....he's 10 months old and already big, good pup but when he sees something.....the chase is on and then he gets lost, had to buy a tracker for this beast!
    1 point
This leaderboard is set to New York/GMT-05:00
×
×
  • Create New...