bipedalist Posted December 9, 2013 BFF Patron Share Posted December 9, 2013 So my question to you is this Branco, why don't most nocturnal sightings include observation of unusual or atypical eyeshine or eyeglow but some of them do? Is it more about us or more about them? When you mention the orang type of creatures in the south are you talking a specific deviating large toe and the banana shaped prints or some other kind of track? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MIB Posted December 9, 2013 Moderator Share Posted December 9, 2013 (edited) So my question to you is this Branco, why don't most nocturnal sightings include observation of unusual or atypical eyeshine or eyeglow but some of them do? What makes you sure such detail is not widespread but being edited before publication "for the sake of credibility"? MIB Edited December 9, 2013 by MIB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 Branco, have you ever had any dealings with the "dog people"? These aren't the "wolf man" things that people report, but are almost identical to the BFs, except that their faces resemble dogs. Also, their vocalizations are canine-like & not the roars that we hear from the BFs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Branco Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 (edited) So my question to you is this Branco, why don't most nocturnal sightings include observation of unusual or atypical eyeshine or eyeglow but some of them do?Is it more about us or more about them? When you mention the orang type of creatures in the south are you talking a specific deviating large toe and the banana shaped prints or some other kind of track? So my question to you is this Branco, why don't most nocturnal sightings include observation of unusual or atypical eyeshine or eyeglow but some of them do?Is it more about us or more about them? When you mention the orang type of creatures in the south are you talking a specific deviating large toe and the banana shaped prints or some other kind of track? I and numerous other people who have had close-up audible encounters with primates in areas of the South where the two types of blacks are known to exist have pondered, discussed and argued that first question. Seldom do we see the bright eye shine usually associated with the red ones. In some cases eye shine has been seen when in vicinity of the smaller black ones, but not red eye shine.. Just another piece of the puzzle.One of the reasons that I and other firmly believe that the Red ones are more human-like is that feral human's eyes adapt over time to see better at night. As a consequence, their eyes reflect artificial light. Like the reflection from the red Bigfoot's eyes, the wave length and brightness of the light source affects the color of the eye-shine.Yes, the creature with the banana shaped, ape-like foot is the one mentioned at the bottom of that post. I'm not sure those did not originate in South America. An over-sized and tailless Howler, or a DeLoy's ape??? Edited December 9, 2013 by Branco Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Branco Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 What makes you sure such detail is not widespread but being edited before publication "for the sake of credibility"? MIB How would I know and why would I care? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Branco Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 Branco, have you ever had any dealings with the "dog people"? These aren't the "wolf man" things that people report, but are almost identical to the BFs, except that their faces resemble dogs. Also, their vocalizations are canine-like & not the roars that we hear from the BFs. No, thank goodness, I have never seen one of those things. Hope I never do. I should say though that MOST every time I have played recorded BF calls that elicited vocal responses from BF, the responses were followed by coyote calls, sometimes including canine sounds that were different from coyotes. We've argued about whether of not these were made by "coy-dogs", wolves (we have some relocated from Yellowstone) or by another BF. We've never considered the possibility it might have come from the "dog-man" thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
norseman Posted December 9, 2013 Admin Author Share Posted December 9, 2013 One mystery ape is hard enough to swallow......but three? Anyhow for the sake of sanity lets just concentrate on discussing the origins of ONE unknown species for now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sasfooty Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 Sorry. I guess you're wanting to keep everything "credible". 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Branco Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 (edited) One mystery ape is hard enough to swallow......but three? Anyhow for the sake of sanity lets just concentrate on discussing the origins of ONE unknown species for now. Swallow as little or as much as you can comprehend. Personally, I'll discuss all those I've studied;. Of course I would not attempt to suggest the limit of your discussion, but for the sake of your sanity, I would suggest you stick with one. Edited December 9, 2013 by Branco 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 Two species, possible. Five, wouldn't be so sure it ain't true. A problem a lot of people have with 'more than one species' is 'more than too many opportunities to trip over one.' Not true, at all. OK, actually, it is; thousands of people - almost certainly a sizable multiple of those who file reports - have tripped over one. But number of species has nothing to do with that calculus. Both the existing NA animal assemblage and the evidence for sasquatch tell us, loudly, to be prepared for more than one species to be confirmed once the mainstream gets serious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest lightheart Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 Branco, would you be willing to address my questions from post #45? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AaronD Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 What are they? Human hybrids....IMO, of course. The only (for lack of a better term) habituator I know personally is a NA shaman and he has called them "people" and described them as being a tribe. Does anyone know what Bob Gimlin's opinion is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 ^^^^Or...maybe.... http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2515969/Humans-evolved-female-chimpanzee-mated-pig-Extraordinary-claim-American-geneticist.html Hey. This guy is "one of the world's leading authorities on hybridisation in animals." I'm not saying he's right. But no one can say he's wrong. Right...? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Branco Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 Safooty & others interested: All of you have probably read this document by Craig Heinselman. It and the second (which is referenced in his report) is very interesting and both are relevant to the subject. The information in the second link is particularly interesting to me. http://www.bigfootencounters.com/biology/eyeshine.htm http://alamas.ru/eng/publicat/Shining_add_e.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest DWA Posted December 9, 2013 Share Posted December 9, 2013 Well, don't those give one pause. All too often, "no that can't happen" is shorthand for "I haven't reviewed the literature sufficiently." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts