dopelyrics Posted July 11, 2012 Author Share Posted July 11, 2012 But is that assuming the foootprints are genuine? Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest poignant Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 Sure. It's all up on the internet. Gripping action, slips, dermal ridges, injury pathology, remote locations. Look up Jeff Meldrum's work, the London Oregon Trackway, and Chilcutt, to name a few. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dopelyrics Posted July 11, 2012 Author Share Posted July 11, 2012 Great, thank you. If these foot prints are genuine then that puts the final nail in the coffin of the theory for me. Incidentally, I do think they are most likely real creatures and not misidentifications but I wanted to see if there was any mileage in a theory I'd not heard talk about before. And there doesn't seem to be! Best Lee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shelly Posted July 11, 2012 Share Posted July 11, 2012 The way evolution works is that animals adapt and evolve over time, but a person does not evolve back into an ape nor did apes evolve into people for that matter. Even if evolution did work that way, it wouldn't happen in a couple of hundred years. And, we know from the fossil record, that a lot of animals, like insects, crocodiles, sharks... have remained largely unchanged for millions of years. Besides, American Indians lived off the land for tens of thousands of years and didn't evolve or devolve particularly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
salubrious Posted July 12, 2012 Moderator Share Posted July 12, 2012 I asked if they could they be a group of slaves - people, like you and me - who escaped and live in the forest and live as a tribe and are being mis-identified. I would assume they lived together in groups before they arrived in America, living off the land, surviving very well. Please feel free to read my posts again if you like.. I don't know about you, Drew, but I find it easier to believe people are misidentifying known things rather than actually seeing a different footed, huge, no-tool-use, open-nostrilled creature. But then again, I have never seen one of these things that people have claimed to have seen. I would go for a more straight-forward explanation, if you like. i believe people are seeing something, I just don't know what exactly. I saw one from 8 feet in good lighting. There was no misidentifying it. I can understand if you've not seen one that the above might be an easy explanation. But if you ever see one you will instantly know that its nothing like that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dopelyrics Posted July 12, 2012 Author Share Posted July 12, 2012 Shelly - please. This thread has absolutely nothing to do with evolution. It's about misidentification. Salubrious - can you tell me more about your sighting. Sounds fascination. Best. Lee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 Salubrious's sighting is very detailed and worthy of reading through the entire thread. Listen to both the interviews he did on FB/FB and look at the drawing, then try to imagine driving right up to a creature that huge sitting in an agitated state in the middle of the road... then think about driving up to a second BF in the same position within minutes... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dopelyrics Posted July 12, 2012 Author Share Posted July 12, 2012 (edited) Wow, thank you. Edited July 12, 2012 by dopelyrics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 Actually, dopelyrics, I thought Shelly's post was spot on, considering your OP. Your "theory" would have required escaped African slaves to de-evolutionize themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dopelyrics Posted July 12, 2012 Author Share Posted July 12, 2012 Splash7 - How so? They escaped. They lived in the forest. They didn't change physically in any way: they didn't grow taller; they didn't grow massive feet with a mid-tarsal break; they didn't grow hair all over their bodies. They are normal human beings like you and me. But they live in the forest, as a hidden tribe or maybe on their own. Can you explain how that theory could possibly mean they de-evolutionized? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 Dopelyrics, I think the idea is that everyone is rejecting the idea that that many people actually are seeing something but 100% of them are misidentifying normal human beings. If there actually is something out there, then it DOES have those morphological differences which have been described. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dopelyrics Posted July 12, 2012 Author Share Posted July 12, 2012 (edited) Then if there is something out there, with those physical characteristics, then they aren't escaped slaves and my original question has been answered. Isn't everyone assuming that the morphological differences found in footprints are genuine? What if they aren't? What if they have been faked? But people are still seeing something in the forest? Could that be a misidentification? That's all I'm asking. Not everyone who has a sighting makes casts of the feet or even sees the tracks that the creature makes. Not everyone says they see a sagittal crest. Not all of them say they are 10 feet tall (some are, yes, but how reliable is that testimony?). Best. Lee Edited July 12, 2012 by dopelyrics Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 In order for people to be misidentifying what they are seeing in the woods, by your theory, human beings would have devolved or stagnated industrially. Humans, by nature, will try to better their lives, especially if they are given the means to do so. You suggested in your OP that maybe people were misidentifying human beings that chose to live more primitively than they would need or want to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dopelyrics Posted July 12, 2012 Author Share Posted July 12, 2012 I agree that people wouldn't live in the forest if they didn't have to. But it is also true that some people do live nomadic lives and shun home comforts also. But what if these slaves went into the forest in order to escape slavery, to essentially live free lives as best they could? What if they thought that in order to do that they had to remain hidden, away from the people that could do them harm? What if they managed to do this succesfully and eke out an existence? What if the life they led in africa wasn't that different to the life they lived in the forest of america? Is that devolving? Are you talking about devolving culturally? Because I can see that as a valid point, but physically devolving is way off the mark of what I suggested. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest BFSleuth Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 First of all I think the proposed OP theory is off base because what witnesses are reported seeing is often well outside the range of normal human physical characteristics: - Gigantic size and massive musculature - No visible neck - Elongated and massive arms and hands Second, the OP theory would require said humans to spread across the entire continent all the way up into Alaska and northern Canada. Third, the humans would also have to devolve their existence to not incorporate the use of fire and largely avoid the use of weapons or tools or leave evidence of campsites with the use of fire, weapons, or tools. I think we can safely say BF is not feral humans. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts