Guest Posted February 22, 2011 Share Posted February 22, 2011 Results may vary... c'mon now, that makes sense ! So does Christma tree lights gj Fireworks anyone Keep singing, keep playing, keep the interest.. if you re where you ought to be you will see. Smooth. There is something that dont make sense to me... dogmen. Is there a thread for those stinkers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BuzzardEater Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 Hi. I didn't read the entire thread. Excuse me if this is repetitive. Long ago on the coast of BC, Canada, coastal cultures began to experience a surplus of food. They became town dwellers, with permanent camps near food sources like oyster bars. They learned to exploit Salmon runs so successfully that they had storage issues. Over time they ventured into the woods less and less. They took up carving and gave potlatches. The nomadic mountain people of this era followed the herds and migratory routes, travelling far afield for little return. In time they began to resent the exhorbinant prices the caost people set on dried salmon. Many heavy skins bought only few salmon. "Let us put these fine, hard won skins on ourselves! We will black our faces and charge thier night gaurds! I am not paying those prices!" they declared in front of the wives, upon thier return from trading, nearly empty handed.This is what they did. So a screaming band of apparently wild men descended on the coastal village one moonless night. To thier surprise, the village emptied, fleeing in canoes. "There's a whole other village only a day's march away!" someone probably said, as they raided the pantry. The Sasquatch people were able to observe and profit from the nomad's example. What I'm saying is, these are a people. They are wearing raw skins. They are not nudists. As far as footwear goes, they have mega callouses, almost like a boot made from heavy parts of a hide. If they are tying on the skins with tendons or leather strips, I think they might be able to fashion some sort of sandal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted April 11, 2011 Share Posted April 11, 2011 If sasquatch were homo sapiens, we'd have an example by now. We'd certainly have more evidence that now exists. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest uprightchimp Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 no buzzardeater, the sassys are close to homo sapiens, but rest assured, the hair that you see on them is their OWN- & no they do NOT wear shoes/boots moccasins of ANY kind! they might be tribal somewhat, but very primative @ best. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xion Comrade Posted April 12, 2011 Share Posted April 12, 2011 Hi. I didn't read the entire thread. Excuse me if this is repetitive. Long ago on the coast of BC, Canada, coastal cultures began to experience a surplus of food. They became town dwellers, with permanent camps near food sources like oyster bars. They learned to exploit Salmon runs so successfully that they had storage issues. Over time they ventured into the woods less and less. They took up carving and gave potlatches. The nomadic mountain people of this era followed the herds and migratory routes, travelling far afield for little return. In time they began to resent the exhorbinant prices the caost people set on dried salmon. Many heavy skins bought only few salmon. "Let us put these fine, hard won skins on ourselves! We will black our faces and charge thier night gaurds! I am not paying those prices!" they declared in front of the wives, upon thier return from trading, nearly empty handed.This is what they did. So a screaming band of apparently wild men descended on the coastal village one moonless night. To thier surprise, the village emptied, fleeing in canoes. "There's a whole other village only a day's march away!" someone probably said, as they raided the pantry. The Sasquatch people were able to observe and profit from the nomad's example. What I'm saying is, these are a people. They are wearing raw skins. They are not nudists. As far as footwear goes, they have mega callouses, almost like a boot made from heavy parts of a hide. If they are tying on the skins with tendons or leather strips, I think they might be able to fashion some sort of sandal. They may be "people", but given their size, there is no conceivable reason they would wear anything. Massive fat pads on feet and all. If anything they would have trouble keeping themselves from burning up, which may have alot to do with why they are mostly found walking around or in creeks...To big to get cold under normal circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BuzzardEater Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 If sasquatch were homo sapiens, we'd have an example by now. We'd certainly have more evidence that now exists. Really? Your position is that we have been outsmarted by apes? Tut, tut. It's thinking beings that formulate strategies to destroy/hide/not leave evidence. Do Gorillas do this? Also, what evidence is there? One guy, forty years ago, caught a BF daydreaming and filmed her for a few seconds. Beyond that there are a few casts. I put it to you, if there weren't intelligence at work then there would be more evidence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BuzzardEater Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 no buzzardeater, the sassys are close to homo sapiens, but rest assured, the hair that you see on them is their OWN- & no they do NOT wear shoes/boots moccasins of ANY kind! they might be tribal somewhat, but very primative @ best. So primative that they have eluded man for centuries? I guess they are just lucky? I think you are underestimating them. A lot. Also, there is a difference between Sasquatches and Bigfoot. Bigfoot is a smaller southern variation. Sasquatch are the much larger Northern variety. I don't know about BF, but the Sasquatch know stuff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 (edited) Really? Your position is that we have been outsmarted by apes? Tut, tut. It's thinking beings that formulate strategies to destroy/hide/not leave evidence. Do Gorillas do this? Also, what evidence is there? One guy, forty years ago, caught a BF daydreaming and filmed her for a few seconds. Beyond that there are a few casts. I put it to you, if there weren't intelligence at work then there would be more evidence. Geez, talk about twisting and turning your own words. I responded to your posting: The nomadic mountain people of this era followed the herds and migratory routes, travelling (sic) far afield for little return. In time they began to resent the exhorbinant (sic) prices the caost (sic) people set on dried salmon. Many heavy skins bought only few salmon. Your words, "nomadic mountain people." And you turn it into being outsmarted by apes. Mmmkay, then, play your word games, if you wish. Tut, tut, indeed. So which are they, nomadic mountain people or apes? Edited April 13, 2011 by Incorrigible1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted April 13, 2011 Share Posted April 13, 2011 One belief that doesn't make sense to me is that there is some shadowy MIB govt agency that shows up whenever a monkee gets run over or otherwise deep-sixed, makes off with the carcass, and somehow makes the incident/accident & all official documentation go away and compels all concerned to maintain life long secrecy. Sorry folks, just not possible. Particularly when (and it will happen) someone totals a vehicle hitting & killing a monkee. Multiply the impossibility several times over if someone is killed or even seriously injured in this accident. When I hear this malarky, I think of what would and has to happen if my agency responded to such an accident within our jurisdiction. There are a number of things that are mandated by state law and failure to do will result in an officer losing his LE license and thus his job. The monkee would be treated as an unidentified animal and as such is property of the state. It would be turned over to NDGF. We would do an animal-vehicle accident investgation, write it up, and transmit it to the state DOT. A copy would stay here, and the insurance company would get a copy. Well within 24 hours, the local media would come to us and would be provided the information & report. No doubt they would go AP with this story. Within 48 hours, thousands if not tens of thousands of people would know of the accident and some have our official report in hand. Even if MIB existed, this is what they would face if/when they showed up... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts