BobZenor Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 (edited) Bob, since you cite the SS, what is your take on the "lights"? It sounds like some combination of ball lightning and Saint Elmo's fire from thunderstorms in the area. I also suspect drug use was involved or someone read one too many books on the paranormal. In other words I think they exaggerated a few things about that aspect but I don't have any problem believing that could happen even on consecutive days for example. It is weird how often it is associated with bigfoot. It was also part of the Tahquitz legends which sounds like a local area bigfoot based legend. It probably freaked them out and someone had the bright idea of using it to spice up the story. It was probably a bad attempt to sell the story to paranormal believers. Glowing plasmas from magnetic or electrical fields seem impossible but they certainly do happen. The new age spin on it didn't help their credibility on other matters but it doesn't change my opinion on the sounds they recorded. If anything it makes them seem kind of dumb and not able to manage a hoax. Edited February 18, 2012 by BobZenor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest exnihilo Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 I agree with you about the SS: it's hard to imagine them being faked. That does not make fakery impossible, but the recordings have passed some technical scrutiny it appears. OTOH the lights are one of those details that makes your heart sink a bit. I do think they did experience something and were trying to describe it honestly. But it is frustrating that seemingly credible BF evidence converges with paranormal events. This is one of those times where I almost feel like we are the victims of a deity that is somewhere laughing uncontrollably at our consternation. And it happens all too often within the BF phenomenon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimB Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 So if we go back to the evidence- we have personal reports, hairs and casts of footprints of unknown origin, and unclear pictures and videos. Those don't meet what I need to call them evidence. They are just curiosities. I'm not holding my breath for evidence that holds up- it's been too long. Tim B. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Every year humans meet an early demise because some hunter mistook them for a deer/bear/elk/moose/etc., which kind of undermines the argument that hunters would never mistake a deer/bear/elk/moose/etc. for a bigfoot. RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest exnihilo Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 I don't know that anyone is making that argument, Ray. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Sure they are. In this very thread even. Go back and read post #25 for example, where it is suggested that certain people, because of their training, "know the difference between a bear or human and bigfoot". Whoa, hold on, even State Troopers are capable of mistaking a human for a deer. Trooper John Bergeron for example, put a round through a woman walking her dogs back in December, near Norton, Massachusetts. The woman's injuries were not life-threatening, but she was mistakenly shot none the less. I'm sure the Trooper didn't intend to shoot her, but trained as he is in weaponry and police tactics, he was still mistaken in thinking that his target was a deer. Or post #60 "When a few hundred hunters say "that was no bear"", they could have argued to a judge "that was no human", after they put a bullet through that same human. It happens every year, yet for some reason bigfoot never gets mistaken for a deer/bear/elk/moose/etc. and mistakenly killed. One of the excuses being that the hunter would be afraid to report the mistaken kill, which conveniently ignores the multiple mistaken human kills that are reported. RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 In my opinion the fact that apes like the bili ape went officially undiscovered for so long, gives me enough reason to believe that there could be another species of undiscovered ape somewhere out there. We're dicovering new wildlife all the time, all over the globe. It's time the people open there eyes and minds reealize that there is more then enough habitat out there to support a population of this type of animal w.e it may be. I hope group gets together who are serious about finding this thing, and dont go running through the forest in the middle of the night making a bunch of calls and a tone of noise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest exnihilo Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Ray I have not seen it suggested that hunters are incapable of error. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RayG Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Yeah, but keep in mind lots of critters go undiscovered until they are... well... discovered. Every year there are new discoveries. And the timeline between finding the first bit of tangible evidence of the Bili Ape (a skull in 1996), and actually observing them for any length of time (20 hours, in 2006) was only 10 years. Bigfoot, on the other hand, has eluded scientific observation and positive identification for hundreds of years. RayG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PBeaton Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 RayG, Actually, it may have only been ten years from findin' the skull to observin' them, but they were still around all the while. When a bone of a sasquatch or some other definitive evidence is presented to science, I'm sure it'll be less than ten years for them(scientists etc.) to get out in the field an obtain footage an observe them for themselves. Pat... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Can't the same be said for Bili Apes up until 1996? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest gershake Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Isn't it pretty much proven bx now that they aren't even a separate species, anyway, but just a subspecies of chimps, such as bonobos? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest exnihilo Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 Ray, whether or not hunters and woodsmen in general are infallible is irrelevant. But between the assertion that woodsmen are fallible and the implication that their experiences do not make their accounts more credible lies a bridge of fallacy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 18, 2012 Share Posted February 18, 2012 RayG you make a great argument my friend, but u cannot deny that it is more them possible that there is something out there, the habitat is there, there is a fair amount of evidence, there are some sound theory's as to why no bones or bodies have ever been found, like i've stated in another post, i theorized that they may be canabalistic and may feed on there dead, others have mentioned that they may even burry their dead. To counter your argument RayG i would like to say that it may just be that your average Bigfoot or w.e this creature may be, and i truly believe there is something out there, weather it be ape or something else, is just more elusive then your average over sized chimp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 19, 2012 Share Posted February 19, 2012 And to Gershake from what i've researched the bili ape tho very similar to chimps, show very different behavrial paterns wich has lead to theory's, and i stress the word theory here, that it may be some sort of hybrid between gorillas and chimps, wich would cause me to believe that yes they are some sort of sub-species or hybrid like i said. It could be that w.e is living in these high altitude forest habitats and swamp habitats could be something very similar to the chimp but has developed very different behaviour due to evolution and extreme change in habitat. You have to remember that there were many times in history when land masses were connected and species would have been able to migrate between continents. Its not that far fetched to believe that some sort of ape made its home in these various habitats and figured out a way to survive and thrive undiscovered until today. Even if it was a sub-species of chimp causing all this noise, i still thinks thats pretty amazing, even discovering a new subspecies of animal is a significant find in my books. and like i said before, I do truly believe there is something out there. Mind you these are mostly personal theories i'm not speeking facts here, i understand i could be well of the mark and would love some insight from the more experienced bigfoot followers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts