Bigfoot myth or monster?

[xspider1]

35 minutes ago, norseman said:

Not when it comes to military tech watching 1000s of miles of borders and coast lines. It absolutely does not explain it.

 

They know it’s there. They have to know it’s there. But they don’t want us to know it’s there.

 

Did Scientific classification of the Mountain Gorilla, finally, in 1902 cause World panic?  Did millions of World Government employees conspire effectively to keep Mountain Gorillas a secret since the beginning of recorded history, up until 1902?  Of course not.  They were just an extraordinary discovery that required definitive proof before most people who had never seen one would 'believe'.  As Backdoc has indicated (several times I think) there is no massive, coordinated conspiracy required for Bigfoot to exist and not yet be classified. 

 

"A very large alpha predator that is intelligent living in remote dense mountainous terrain poses a significant threat."  How do you know they are an Alpha predator?  How do you know they are intelligent?  How do you know they are a threat?   just wondering  

 

I am more scared of Black Widow spiders than Bigfoot although, they are very non-aggressive and I hope I never need to kill one.  Unless there is no other viable option, Bigfoot, Black Widows and many other creatures are just too magnificent to kill, in my opinion.  

Edited 12 hours ago by xspider1

[xspider1]

35 minutes ago, norseman said:

No. Bigfoot would fall into either the extant or extinct category.

 

Until they fall into one category or the other, they don't fall into either.  And, if they are never classified, they will never fall into either category.  So, I think you are putting the cart before the horse.  I read your post (and certainly not trying to call you out, especially since you graciously run the show here and participate intelligently, probably more than anyone else.)  But, I still have not seen any indication that a full skeleton of both a male and a female Bigfoot would be required by Science.

[Huntster]

23 hours ago, norseman said:

.........The military is using scientists too. But they are not allowed to publish findings to peer reviewed publications.

Part of science is now dark. And has been since the bomb.........

 

This. The federal government have agencies full of scientists, and their work and publications are government property. It may or may not be published. So if it isn't published, is it still Science? Is it still truth?

 

Quote

.........if your work happens to pertain with above top secret research? We know who the real boss is...........

 

We've been told that even the POTUS has been kept in the dark over many issues over the "need to know" doctrine. But if the POTUS learns that aliens exist, and he/she announces it, does it make it so? If not, why not? Who then looks into the POTUS's claim and verifies it? 

 

Somebody has to be the final voice of discovery. Who is that, and how did he/she get that power?

 

Quote

.........Dr. Gary Nolan has stated they are building a retrieval team to beat the military out to these crash sites. All I can say is? Good Luck! 👀

 

You and I both agree something funky is going on with Bigfoot as well. Someone doesn’t want them discovered for what ever the reason.

 

Beating Uncle Sam to an alien crash site is pretty much beyond the capability of Joe Sixpack, but beating authorities of all levels to a fresh sasquatch habitation area? Very, very possible...........

[Huntster]

10 hours ago, xspider1 said:

Did Scientific classification of the Mountain Gorilla, finally, in 1902 cause World panic?...........

 

No, but the original "discovery" of lowland gorillas (a process during the years 1847-1859) came (part and parcel) with a world ideology/struggle that continues to this day: Darwinism.

[norseman]

11 hours ago, xspider1 said:

 

Did Scientific classification of the Mountain Gorilla, finally, in 1902 cause World panic?  Did millions of World Government employees conspire effectively to keep Mountain Gorillas a secret since the beginning of recorded history, up until 1902?  Of course not.  They were just an extraordinary discovery that required definitive proof before most people who had never seen one would 'believe'.  As Backdoc has indicated (several times I think) there is no massive, coordinated conspiracy required for Bigfoot to exist and not yet be classified. 

 

"A very large alpha predator that is intelligent living in remote dense mountainous terrain poses a significant threat."  How do you know they are an Alpha predator?  How do you know they are intelligent?  How do you know they are a threat?   just wondering  

 

I am more scared of Black Widow spiders than Bigfoot although, they are very non-aggressive and I hope I never need to kill one.  Unless there is no other viable option, Bigfoot, Black Widows and many other creatures are just too magnificent to kill, in my opinion.  

Gorillas don't eat meat and they don’t run down prey and break its neck.

 

They live in tropical Africa in lush jungles.

 

A Bigfoot is bipedal. A Bigfoot lives in mountainous regions of North America. It cannot sit around all day long 365 days a year eating leaves. Its tracking game in snow. Like we would…..

 

If you are more afraid of black widow spiders? So be it. But I bet if you were in the cabin at Ape Canyon? You would be quite scared.

 

Magnificent or non magnificent has nothing to do with scientific classification of biology. We don't just kill and classify ugly animals.🧐

[xspider1]

^ That is a good point, thank-you, Huntster.  I could only add that an ideology struggle over Darwinism doesn't make much, if any, sense to me.  Are there actually opinions with any credibility that deny random variations in organisms?  And, if so, is there any credible notion that favorable (along with unfavorable) variations are passed down to offspring?  That seems like a no-brainer to me.  And, I think (hope) that the favorable variations are prevailing, overall.  Although, these days, it often seems like evolution is going backwards..  

[norseman]

1 hour ago, Huntster said:

 

This. The federal government have agencies full of scientists, and their work and publications are government property. It may or may not be published. So if it isn't published, is it still Science? Is it still truth?

 

 

We've been told that even the POTUS has been kept in the dark over many issues over the "need to know" doctrine. But if the POTUS learns that aliens exist, and he/she announces it, does it make it so? If not, why not? Who then looks into the POTUS's claim and verifies it? 

 

Somebody has to be the final voice of discovery. Who is that, and how did he/she get that power?

 

 

Beating Uncle Sam to an alien crash site is pretty much beyond the capability of Joe Sixpack, but beating authorities of all levels to a fresh sasquatch habitation area? Very, very possible...........

The collective body of scientists is the final voice. In a peer reviewed journal. This is why Melba Ketchum got the smack down. She circumvented the whole process and her work was garbage.

 

But the Government is also the supreme judge because it controls the flow of information. Science cannot be done correctly without testable and repeatable results for the whole body to examine.

 

This doesn’t happen in compartmentalized cells each not knowing the results of the other. And then compound that globally among adversaries.

 

 

[xspider1]

25 minutes ago, norseman said:

Gorillas don't eat meat and they don’t run down prey and break its neck.

 

They live in tropical Africa in lush jungles.

 

A Bigfoot is bipedal. A Bigfoot lives in mountainous regions of North America. It cannot sit around all day long 365 days a year eating leaves. Its tracking game in snow. Like we would…..

 

If you are more afraid of black widow spiders? So be it. But I bet if you were in the cabin at Ape Canyon? You would be quite scared.

 

Magnificent or non magnificent has nothing to do with scientific classification of biology. We don't just kill and classify ugly animals.🧐

 

So, you have proof that Bigfoot run down prey and break their necks?  I guess I should be watching more youtube videos.  If Bigfoot are such an aggressive threat to humans then it seems like we would have a body already.  Instead, they seem to avoid us like the plague.  

 

I was not talking about classifying magnificent animals, I was talking about the notion that the only way to classify one was to kill a male and a female. 

 

You can bet all you want, but you don't know me.  There are many far more dangerous places than Ape Canyon, WA.

Edited 13 minutes ago by xspider1

[Huntster]

23 minutes ago, xspider1 said:

........... an ideology struggle over Darwinism doesn't make much, if any, sense to me...........

 

That might be because you were born and educated some 100+ years after its birth. There has been lots of time for it to evolve itself. An example would be the question about why there are still crocodiles, which have existed without any evolving, while there are no Plesiadapiforms anymore (or for a long, long, long time). 

 

Darwin's two major publications, Origin of Species (1859) and The Descent of Man (1871) came precisely during the discovery era of gorillas, and there was plenty of social, religious, and scientific hubbub during the period between Thomas Savage delivering a gorilla scull to the Boston Society of Natural History in 1847 and Paul duChaillu's return from Africa with a dead gorilla carcass in 1859.

[Backdoc]

15 hours ago, xspider1 said:

 

That is a prevailing opinion among some (a majority?) here.  I am not a Taxonomist, but I take exception to that 'rule'.  That is because our understanding of the natural world changes over time, as even Science changes and advances, and because Bigfoot are, obviously, an extraordinary case study.  Why in the world would a body on a slab be better, overall, than a live Specimen that could be examined and then potentially released back into the 'wild', perhaps relatively unharmed?  That is mostly a rhetorical question.  My mind is not likely to be changed regarding this; I just want more people to consider the fact that we do have options.

 

 

That all makes sense to me.  

 

I just think of it this way:  When it comes to Bigfoot What one piece of evidence would be so convincing nearly every scientist in world would accept it?

 

The answer is obvious. It is not a perfect new high def. Bigfoot video. It is not some DNA evidence.  It is not a footprint. 

 

There is only one answer:  A BODY.  That body could be a body on a slab or a body secure in a cage/ trap.  

 

 

I might require less.  But a Body would remove all doubt to 99.9999999999999% of the world. 

 

Take the iceman.  Until we had him some of that what thought of recent ancient man was educated guesswork.  Now they have a body.  It might generate more Q's but no one would say there is no recent ancient man to begin with esp now.