Guest Posted November 13, 2014 Posted November 13, 2014 Plussed David NC Couldn't ALL reports of these creatures and anything like them....be considered "atypical"? Some posters opinions, would be that none of these reports are worthy of consideration or discussion, period. Why are theses reports being designated as having equal weight to each other? Is it a "need" to have all these reports fit neatly in some "acceptable" category or "unacceptable" category...if so,...is that "need" reflecting something else?
Guest Posted November 13, 2014 Posted November 13, 2014 Morning HWM, it’s good to see you aboard on this day. Have you considered starting a thread on abductions?
Guest Posted November 13, 2014 Posted November 13, 2014 Well Morning SSQ! Let me grab a coffee and look at this video over and see what it’s about.
Guest Posted November 13, 2014 Posted November 13, 2014 Well I stopped counting the numbers of times I watched this very brief video clip. The colors of the top of the animal stole looks brighter than the body mass does it not? Maybe a different shade of brown? Anybody but me see that too? The thing sitting down appears to be ripping apart something, I think I see flashes of red but it isn’t all that clear to me. The head of the creature has a long neck, unnaturally long I might add. I said it reminds me of a fur stole draped over a larger mass that otherwise is a very close semblance to Bigfoot and not a bear. Note the thick long arms. It sort of looks like a headless creature, sitting with something over the head and shoulders … That is my honest crack at this piñata guy! Let's hear what you have to say.
Bonehead74 Posted November 13, 2014 Posted November 13, 2014 Guys, What do you think this is? Here are 3 of the 4 video "analysts" (Just what analysis did they do, other than draw lines in the picture?): http://bigfootevidence101.blogspot.com/2013/08/a-tribute-to-dale-boswell-team-tracker.html http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2753753/It-one-Big-foot-lie-Australian-man-spent-12-000-touring-U-S-Bigfoot-carcass-says-heartbroken-discovering-elaborate-hoax.html http://bigfootevidence101.blogspot.com/2013/06/article-by-new-team-tracker-member-lynk.html As best as I can tell, they are all ex-flunkys of He Who Shall Not Be Named, who now claim they were duped by the whole "Hank" fiasco. Sorry if I award them no credibility based on their past poor discernment. As for the picture itself? No details other than it's from an anonymous source in east Texas. The image itself is interesting but ambiguous. If there are more details, I'd like to hear them.
Guest Posted November 13, 2014 Posted November 13, 2014 http://monsterusa.blogspot.com/2007/05/do-werewolves-roam-woods-of-england.html?m=1 Thank you BH, for a thoughtful comment regarding this posting, and my desire to learn more about this possible event. I sincerely appreciate your comment. GUMSHOE, Thank you! Enjoy your coffee and let me know what you think. I have errands to run this morning, so I'll "see" you later.
Guest Posted November 13, 2014 Posted November 13, 2014 Interesting image - I'm not sure why the "outlines" needed to be inserted....IMO they muddy the water rather than clarify....especially the 1st portion outlined. Sure would like a little discussion by the person who took the photo....describing the details of the shot....if there are other photos to compare...a number of questions that could be asked. As Bonehead said, "If there are more details, I'd like to hear them" Seems like when the 1st outline of what appears to be the "top" portion..is applied,....that portion seems to be lighter color. Fascinating though!
Guest Posted November 13, 2014 Posted November 13, 2014 I agree guys, I thought I seen two separate shades of brown there but I suppose it could have been all due to natural causes.
Guest Posted November 14, 2014 Posted November 14, 2014 Women killed in Freemont, Wyoming 4hours ago, authorities did not identify dangerous “unknown†animal(s) involved, FBI involved – Reuters New Service
Guest Posted November 14, 2014 Posted November 14, 2014 Women killed in Freemont, Wyoming 4hours ago, authorities did not identify dangerous “unknown†animal involved, FBI involved – Reuters New Service http://news.yahoo.com/wyoming-authorities-warn-dangerous-wildlife-predator-loose-214824626.html Hello Bonehead74 – When you read that story let me know what you make of it, please. I am curious how others may interpret it.
David NC Posted November 14, 2014 Posted November 14, 2014 Why would the FBI be involved in an animal attack of a woman on a Native American reservation? If she was not kidnapped, or does not appear to be a serial case, then it looks like it would be handled by locals.
Guest Posted November 14, 2014 Posted November 14, 2014 (edited) They do have federal jurisdiction on Native American Reservations yes. The locals would handle routine calls and could even request federal assistance however, if I understood the article correctly it said, “animal attack†and declined to identify the animal… I don’t understand why a federal agency would assume the investigation on animal attack. I do not think the reporter or her editor wouldn't use that word if they were referring to human suspect although, never say never as bizarre as things have been these days lately. I would think, the Bureau of Land Management would respond to animal attacks though, but there was mentioning of them in there either. Edited November 14, 2014 by Gumshoeye
David NC Posted November 14, 2014 Posted November 14, 2014 It read to me like they contacted the FBI for assistance, still very odd for an animal attack. We are not hearing all of the story.
Recommended Posts