Operation Persistence

[southernyahoo]

.......Not only would I be divulging behavioral attributes we're better off not releasing,......

Hmmmmm, now what could a woodape do that would harm your efforts? Besides chuncking wood, or rocks?.........

[Guest poignant]

How much wood would a wood ape chuck if a wood ape would ch....I'll let you finish.

Edited October 1, 2012 by poignant

[Cisco]

Bipto

I have a question regarding their vision. I have read several sighting reports where the witnesses are really impacted by the appearance of the eyes. However, none of the witnesses really go into much detail as to why they were so impacted by this particular feature.

Earlier, you mentioned that the Bigfoot seem to rely on vision more than any other sense. This lines up with many of the reports and hypothesis from other researchers.

In order to have good night vision, the Bigfoot's eye would have to be proportionally larger than a humans eye. This is an assumption and I don't know very much about eye anatomy. However, most nocturnal animals have large eyeballs. Did you or some of the other TBRC researchers notice this particular feature or note that the eyes were unusually large. Perhaps the iris is shaped differently? Maybe even like a cats eye?

I've always been very curious as to the physical appearance of the eyes and why they would catch somebody's attention, more than the obvious characteristics of a Bigfoot, such as height, mass or body hair.

Anyhow, I'm interested to get your views as a researcher and a witness. Thanks

[Guest Suesquach]

Bipto, has anyone ever told you that you have the patience of a saint?

[Guest]

Bipto, has anyone ever told you that you have the patience of a saint?

Tell my wife.

[Cotter]

LOL Bipto!

Another quick question if you don't mind. And I apologize if you've already addressed this. But, have you, or members of your party seen/experienced eyeshine? If so, can you elaborate on your theories as to why they do it?

I'm tempted to take this to the PMP section, but we'll see if we can't git this thread back on track and rolling.

Thx.

[Guest]

Did you or some of the other TBRC researchers notice this particular feature or note that the eyes were unusually large. Perhaps the iris is shaped differently? Maybe even like a cats eye?

The eye shine I saw was perfectly round. Like two silver dollars side by side on a flat face. Note that I did not see the face, just the eyes. They were in some foliage uphill from me about 20 yards away. They were looking away from me at first so I saw them in profile. When I exclaimed to have seen them, they looked at me, then back in the original direction again (about a 45 degree angle), then at me again. Perhaps three times back and forth. They were clearly on a flat face. They were highly reflective in that I was shining my flashlight in that direction while the sun was still up and couldn't see the effect of that light. There wasn't much light hitting them, but they were reflecting a lot back. Once the animal realized it was busted, it put its face down flat towards the ground.

Now, I never saw that animal. The only other kind of critter with that kind of face that lives in those woods (besides the monkeys) would be an owl. However, as soon as it became clear we were agitated by what was in this bush, we heard at least three other large animals converging on its location (one from the east, one from the west, and one from the northwest), all on the slope of the mountain. We were also growled at by the animal to the east. We retreated from the area and heard the animals move away. All this was right behind the cabin in which we stay. It's our assumption that those eyes belonged to a wood ape. The area from which I saw the eye shine was very close to where I saw the "sniper lay."

Regarding other eye shine accounts, they're almost always described as round. Colors include green, orange, and yellow. One account was of oval shaped eyes. In that account, the witness was close enough to say they were the size of tennis balls. In every case, it was clear they were reflecting light, though as I said, in my case it wasn't very much and reflected quite brightly. To the best of my recollection, no one in the group has seen a face well enough to say if the eyes were disproportionally big (that is, larger in proportion that human eyes). The TBRC doesn't have a position on how they're reflecting that light, but we believe we've seen it happen.

Hi Bipto, any new updates for us? When is podcast 41 coming out?

Yesterday! Though there's little in it about the TBRC and Area X. Just a smidge.

Edited October 1, 2012 by bipto

[Guest]

Everyone has to keep an open mind, the increased brain activity from innovative thinking can make you smarter. This explains a lot, think about it, most skeptics aren't as sociable, energetic, or open to new ways of thinking.

[Guest VioletX]

Tennis balls!

Is that typical for Sasquatch? I had no idea they could be that big, is that including the eye sockets? Or is the glowing of the eye that gives it a bigger appearance?

[Guest]

Yes, we assume those eyes belonged to the large grey individual we've seen a few times now. That one's truly massive.

Everyone has to keep an open mind, the increased brain activity from innovative thinking can make you smarter. This explains a lot, think about it, most skeptics aren't as sociable, energetic, or open to new ways of thinking.

Reminds me of...

[Guest]

Exactly! ; )

[Guest FootDude]

There's no reason for me to get into them. Already, I say (without any real details) that there has been more than one incidence with gunfire and there's second guessing and "that seems odd" statements. Of course it seems odd because the specifics aren't known. The only information anyone here has is 1) there were about six episodes, and 2) they were apparently unproductive. Each person will construct the events in their heads with the details at hand (none) and make a conclusion for themselves. Therefore, it is odd. However, I can tell you this wasn't a shooting gallery kind of set up.

Let's pretend I accept your invitation and tell you the specifics of each incident. Not only would I be divulging behavioral attributes we're better off not releasing, I'd open the can of worms of having to defend each and every occurrence until the cows came home from god knows who. But, having not seen the area or experienced the activity or even knowing the individuals involved, there would still be endless debate about it requiring me to defend or clarify or otherwise repeat myself ad infinitum and, frankly, I'm not interested. My role as spokesman doesn't require I divulge everything I know or even all the specifics of the things I've already said. In fact, I'd say it's specifically my job not to.

I don't say this to be a ****. Really, I don't. It's just how things need to be.

According to this it seems like you're saying your Team has fired at Sasquatches 6 times total.

Of those 6 incidents, how many time have your Team been able to confirm drawing blood?

[Guest]

According to this it seems like you're saying your Team has fired at Sasquatches 6 times total.

Of those 6 incidents, how many time have your Team been able to confirm drawing blood?

I said about six times and I said I wasn't going to get drawn into conversations about them. We believe the animal from the first shooting was hit and we believe the blood we found belonged to it.

[Guest OntarioSquatch]

Man I'd love to hear about those shooting incidents. They're probably more entertaining than any BFRO report lol...

[Guest]

[redacted]

Edited October 1, 2012 by bipto