Urban Bigfoot, Seriously?

[norseman]

I agree 200%

This is why I started project Grendel JDL, not only to have a discussion with out skeptics derailing threads but also supernatural and Bigfoot army proponents that had a laundry list of reasons why killing one specimen in the name of science was a ridiculous idea.

I don't care if some one states their opinion in our forum, but the discussion cannot be completely derailed as that is not apart of our mission statement. But here? It's an open forum and everyone's opinion is valid.

And while pro kill people can get into knock down drag outs over how something should be done? That debate is infinitely more valuable than debating the same old dirt of its existence

[Sasfooty]

Speaking of science & why there are no bones, fossils, or whatever...somebody back a few pages brought it up. Science is either incompetent or stifling evidence/proof. Probably both.

 

Here's an excerpt from an interesting article that I read a few days ago concerning giant skeletons that have been found in North America & apparently hidden from public view.

 

In spite of the title, it is not a religious article. It is about forbidden archaeology.
 

 

The Great Smithsonian Cover-Up

Has there been a giant cover-up? Why aren't there public displays of gigantic Native American skeletons at natural history museums?

The skeletons of some Mound Builders are certainly on display. There is a wonderful exhibit, for example, at the Aztalan State Park where one may see the skeleton of a "Princess of Aztalan" in the museum.
But the skeletons placed on display are normal-sized, and according to some sources, the skeletons of giants have been covered up.

Specifically, the Smithsonian Institution has been accused of making a deliberate effort to hide the "telling of the bones" and to keep the giant skeletons locked away.

In the words of Vine Deloria, a Native American author and professor of law:

"Modern day archaeology and anthropology have nearly sealed the door on our imaginations, broadly interpreting the North American past as devoid of anything unusual in the way of great cultures characterized by a people of unusual demeanor. The great interloper of ancient burial grounds, the nineteenth century Smithsonian Institution, created a one-way portal, through which uncounted bones have been spirited. This door and the contents of its vault are virtually sealed off to anyone, but government officials. Among these bones may lay answers not even sought by these officials concerning the deep past."

Two Giant Skeletons Near Potosi, WI

The January 13th, 1870 edition of the Wisconsin Decatur Republican reported that two giant, well-preserved skeletons of an unknown race were discovered near Potosi, WI by workers digging the foundation of a saw mill near the bank of the Mississippi river. One skeleton measured seven-and-a-half feet, the other eight feet. The skulls of each had prominent cheek bones and double rows of teeth. A large collection of arrowheads and "strange toys" were found buried with the remains.

 

 

http://www.sott.net/article/256712-A-giant-mystery-18-strange-giant-skeletons-found-in-Wisconsin-Sons-of-god-Men-of-renown

[Guest Darrell]

^ I get a kick out of those websites. There is nothing factual backing up what is on there. When it comes to all this "Giant" BS I like to link to this interview with a college professor who is also a published peer reviewed author (yep, just like Dr Meldrum): http://www.skeptic.com/podcasts/monstertalk/10/01/13/

Pretty interesting point of view.

[Painthorse]

Don't know if anyone caught the show on the History channel called "America Unearthed". There was an episode called "Giants in Minnesota".

 

Is there a cover up of these giant skeletons? IMO yes.

Why? Two of my favorite lines from the show 1) Science would have to be rewritten 2) Sometimes History isn't what we've been told.

Scott Wolter is a forensic geologist.

 

I know this is off subject but I'm a firm believer that Christopher Columbus did not discover America. There are relics from other civilizations that pre date Columbus. BUT history tells us otherwise. This history is also backed by science in the pre dating of not only fossils by also of relics and tools.

[sheri]

I'm sure you do Darrell. Question for you. Did you look up the old news articles in the New York Times ? What about other articles from various newspapers ? 

[Sasfooty]

^ I get a kick out of those websites. There is nothing factual backing up what is on there.

 

Typical scoftic excuse.

 

"I don't bleevee they exist because there are no bones."

 

"Oh, yes there are & here's a place to read about them".

 

"I don't bleevee those articles!"

 

I get a kick out of scoftics.

[Sunflower]

To those that think Morse Code is not being used, did you read what Tal wrote about his experiences....coincidence?  I doubt it.....

 

They do follow people, I don't know why, your guess is as good as mine, but I have probable proof.

 

They are very, very wary of their surroundings and even though it was dark and the middle of the night, my niece and I got growled at and not anyone here can prove that it didn't happen.  Two people, having the same experience, Holy Crap!

 

There's more but I have a life.................

[See-Te-Cah NC]

Are you insinuating that Bigfoot is using actual Morse Code? If so, I find that hard to believe. Perhaps you could present some of that probable proof you were referring to?

 

I might buy a crude type of signaling using numbered knocks, but Morse Code is just too much, IMO. I don't care who said what.

 

I also have a life, and it's far too valuable to even consider such without ironclad evidence. Probable just isn't getting it done for me, I'm afraid.

[Guest]

Typical scoftic excuse.

 

"I don't bleevee they exist because there are no bones."

 

"Oh, yes there are & here's a place to read about them".

 

"I don't bleevee those articles!"

 

I get a kick out of scoftics.

I get a kick out of conspiracy theories based on fantasy

Don't know if anyone caught the show on the History channel called "America Unearthed". There was an episode called "Giants in Minnesota".

 

Is there a cover up of these giant skeletons? IMO yes.

Why? Two of my favorite lines from the show 1) Science would have to be rewritten 2) Sometimes History isn't what we've been told.

Scott Wolter is a forensic geologist.

 

I know this is off subject but I'm a firm believer that Christopher Columbus did not discover America. There are relics from other civilizations that pre date Columbus. BUT history tells us otherwise. This history is also backed by science in the pre dating of not only fossils by also of relics and tools.

Believing Columbus was not the first to discover America is not a very radical idea. Does anyone other than a third grade student hold this belief? Obviously the Native Americans discovered America before him but Columbus wasn't even the first European.

I would also take any show on the history channel with a grain of salt

Do we actually buy this idea that discoveries are hidden because science would have to be rewritten? What does that even mean? Is there an illuminati of scientists that keep these earth shattering discoveries out of the public eye?

I would imagine most scientists would love to be the one to confirm a discovery that would rewrite science.

[Guest DWA]

^^^Well, here's one.  So where are they?

 

I mean, the ones who can tell me a good reason this isn't real.  Haven't heard from one of them yet.

[Painthorse]

@mbh, it's not out of the realm that history and some scientific claims are incorrect. A good example is what someone posted in a previous thread about the coelacanth. It was a given by science that it was no longer living on this planet. Plain and simple, that was "incorrect" as we now know. Using that as an example proves there is a flaw in what we have been given as scientific and historic facts may not always be correct by science and the history behind it.

 

The giant squid (yes I'm going there, lol) was only a fable until it was proven.

 

Gigantopithicus's discovery I believe was recognized by a tooth. (not quite absolutely sure on that)

[Guest]

Nobody would ever claim that science can't make mistakes or screw up. I have never said science hasn't or won't continue to make mistakes. I just don't believe there is an effort to cover up ground breaking discoveries.

I'm not sure how the coelacanth has much to do with this. Science had no evidence that the fish still existed. Why should they have thought differently? Obviously this assessment was changed when a specimen was presented. I don't see the connection. I don't even see how this remotely connects to Bigfoot.

I'm not sure if your statement about the giant squid is accurate. Many extraordinary sea creatures were accepted as fact in the past. Some much more outrageous than a really big squid. The first recorded giant squid corpse was in the 1500s and there have been hundreds since then. Was it ever actually considered a myth?

And your right about the giganto tooth but I don't really get your point. I think I'm misunderstanding your point or you're misunderstanding mine.

[Guest DWA]

Gigantopithecus is still only represented by jaw and tooth remains, the total of which would about fill a suitcase.

 

Just to show how much speculation goes into what we "know."

[dmaker]

"Plus understand this:  to come on here and contest people on what they are saying they personally saw, and to go on and on doing it, is to call them names without using the names.  That's simple; that's inarguable; and all one would have to do is put oneself in their shoes to see it.  Sorry, but the evidence favors them, and not those questioning them while keeping the evidence at ten-foot-pole distance." -DWA

 

Please, your constant anti-skeptic campaign is tiresome. There is difference in believing someone was mistaken and calling them names. You know it, I know it. But you hope to paint anyone as a villain who doubts any sighting report. 

 

@JDL, See, and others. Great posts. I will try to dial down the skeptical response. Perhaps I have been too zealous of late. I think if DWA and I agreed to put each other on ignore, this place would be a lot more tranquil.     

 

To try explain a bit why I do what I do here. I am not deliberately trying to pee in anyone's corn flakes. JDL, you mention that this is a Bigfoot board and you should expect conversations where people share their Bigfoot stories. And yes, it is that indeed, and probably foremost. But it is also a place where skeptical opinion is allowed, and in some ways encouraged and deemed healthy.  So if you want this to be a place where people come to swap Bigfoot stories, never ask for evidence of any claims, not matter how outrageous, then you may be disappointed whether I am here nor not. Or perhaps might enjoy the campfire chat area better.  I do believe ( because I was one once upon a time) that not everyone who comes here is a proponent or skeptic. There is a middle ground. There are people that come here because they want to learn more. Sometimes this learning process will end with the person shifting more to the proponent side, sometimes the opposite. As was the case with me. ( And despite what DWA will tell you, I have done quite a bit of reading on this subject)  There were many things that shifted my middle ground to the skeptical side, and one of those was the skeptical response found here at the BFF. There were many excellent posts by people like Saskeptic that helped me suss things out the way that I did. I am grateful for that. I probably would have ended up where I am without that, but nonetheless it is nice to see things challenged here. I think it is necessary. I think the curious and fence sitters need a counter to the proponent claim.  

 

It becomes combative at times because, well, people are people. There are some who rudely and brusquely shove aside skeptical comments and demand that you agree with them as theirs is the only logical conclusion. Things like that irk me and force me to engage. Ridiculous claims swallowed whole without evidence irk me as well. So I try to be there to challenge those claims and offer counter points to the anti skeptic agenda that seems to be quite strong with some.  But like I said, I don't really want this to become some sort of anti-Bigfoot jihad. But I do reserve the right to challenge things that I think should be challenged.  Perhaps less frequently and perhaps less dogmatically or zealously.  So yeah,I will work on that. I think some others here could also dial back the anti-skeptic agenda here. No one likes being dismissed or talked down to. 

Edited September 28, 2013 by dmaker

[norseman]

I want to clarify this statement - I don't hate agreeing with norseman. I hate that a sentient creature may have to be killed to prove its existence.

 

I'm not sure they are sentient or not, but yes I agree that it's not a very nice proposition to consider.

 

I certainly hope a flu bug or logging truck or some other random event beats me or anyone pro kill, for that matter, to the punch.

 

And no offense taken bud.