Has Bigfoot Science Stalled?

[Yuchi1]

Well boys, I'm a bit different from either of you.

 

Always, low in my conscious background, I know there's a boggerman out there, and what's troubling is that so many others DON'T know there's a boogerman out there.

 

I've read the narratives of folks and families that go out to enjoy the outdoors, and under very unusual circumstances - someone - worst of all - children disappear.  Out of curiosity or as a food source, both possibilities trouble me.

 

It troubles me doubly as so many people are either disbelievers, or worse - ignorant of what's out there.  I know what's out there now, but I didn't most of my life.

 

I want it recognized and realized.  So everyone will at least be aware that pumas, bears, wolves and coyotes are not the only potential threats.

 

So, I want one dead - at my feet.  I won't second guess myself, I won't concern myself over it.

 

My sensitivity toward humanity as such was abandoned as a young man -  as a matter of survival - so my sensitivities are not my foremost thoughts, and my sensitivities don't motivate or limit my determinations.  I don't care about their affected habitat, I don't care about their regional limitations, and I don't care about any other environmental sensitivities.  

 

I know its not human.  It may be half human, but it's definitely not human.  96% of our DNA is the exact same as a chimpanzee.  99% isn't human.  99.5% isn't human.

 

And that's all I need to know.

 

I can appreciate your sensitivity toward humanity being as you described as we (USA) often don't realize how cheap human life values are in many parts of the world. Case in point, when Matt was deployed in Iraq (2003-2004) outside a hamlet in the Sunni triangle they pulled up to see 6-8 toddlers to teenagers digging around in an old minefield for scrap, shrapnel, etc. and taking it over to this cat at the edge of the minefield, dressed in his frock, holding a bucket into which the kids were depositing the stuff. When they asked him if those were his kids (affirmative) and the area might have unexploded ordinance and one of those kids could get injured or killed, his response was "I have plenty of kids".

 

Regarding Paulides 411 book, interesting reading but not forensically proven, met him at a Gathering in the Kiamichi's a few years ago, good people.

 

IMO, they are at least half-human with the other side yet to be determined so maybe that would result on only half of a homicide indictment?

[FarArcher]

As a kid, through Middle School and High School, I never designed to go and do those things required of me.  For better or worse, I'll be the one who has to answer for them.

 

The Paulides books certainly bring attention to a number of odd circumstances, but I never load just one cartridge in my pistol.  When we examine not Native American stories, but simple examine the names they had for them, I'm not going to list them, but the names, properly interpreted include, "Man Eater," "Cannibal Man,"  "Cannibal Monster," "Evil Man-Eating Monster," "the Evil That Devours Mankind," "Devil Cannibal," "Wicked Cannibal," "Wicked Cannibal Giant," "Cannibal Being," and "Devourer of People."

 

Then we have the Woodwosa in Europe, and the carvings, tapestries, drawings and paintings depict large hairy critters most frequently taking women.

 

It's not like Paulides came up with this stuff suddenly, and I'm relying on his reports and narratives.  The same descriptions come from multiple peoples, from multiples lands and continents, from different eras.

 

It's no proper kind of proof, but when considered in the whole, I think it may be indicative of potential.  

 

If I killed one, there is no jury in the world that would say this thing is a human, nor that any sane, rational, prudent person would even mistake this thing for a human.  We only share a common bipedal basic shape.  Head up top, torso, arms off to each side, motivation provided by two legs.  That's it.  Like a Gibbon, chimpanzee, gorilla.  The same basic shape of head on top, and four limbs would also describe a bear, squirrel, or chipmunk. 

 

If I could bring into court that critter stuffed and mounted - the case would be thrown out.  Wouldn't even get to a homicide charge.  If it were against the law to kill a horse, and I shot a mule, (Norse would likely shoot me) I'm not guilty of killing a horse.  Even though the mule is half-horse.

 

You know that Yuchi.  It's not human.  I don't care what the face looks like - I've seen some cute monkey faces, even some with what could be described as human-like expressions.  

 

But that doesn't make them human.

[SWWASAS]

The "face looks human" thing is my biggest disconnect with the P/G film.     In no way can I look at Patty and conclude that she appears to be human.    Even the skeptics need to put a costume on her.     So many reports of hunters having BF in their sight and they elect not to shoot because of how human they look.   Is that just because BF is walking around on two legs or where is the looks human thing coming from?    One might have a lot of reasons to not shoot but it being human is not one of them unless you consider it might be a man in a costume.     So unless Patty is particularly hairy,  or some kind of genetic abnormality, or different than most BF, there is no way she is genetically very close to modern human.   

Edited March 23, 2016 by SWWASASQUATCHPROJECT

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

If not of the Home genus much closer than you may imagine.

Since they would be millions of years closer to us in divergence than any other example.

In fact they would be right at the point of divergence from higher primates, add a couple of million of years of evolution as well since that divergence for further evolution and development of unique abilities or brain development.

So not like shooting any other animal but a unique case in itself.

It may be legal, but it may be morally much like shooting a man.

To some it may not matter as much.

To others it may.

A "man" that has done nothing to any of you, by the way.

An innocent.

If you aren't hunting for food your hunting for ego gratification.

[FarArcher]

If someone thinks it's morally much like shooting a man, they shouldn't shoot.

 

As a species, we've been killing off others unlike us since time began.  As recently as the nineteenth century here in the US, the practice was a way of life.  Even tribes against tribes.

 

Currently, we're practicing the same thing in the Middle East.  For those who've served in the military on the triggers, there's not much morality that enters into the equation.

 

Most people don't butcher their own meat, fowl, or fish.  They like it all nice and packaged neatly underneath clear plastic, cleaned of blood.  Currently, we have a strong division of labor.

 

But someone has to kill it, gut it, dress it, butcher it, clean and package it.  Someone has to get their hands bloody to enable others with sensitivities to somehow work around what happened to bring the meat to their table.

 

You get enough blood on your hands, after a while it doesn't bother you a bit.

Edited March 23, 2016 by FarArcher

[Guest Cryptic Megafauna]

To go further afield, man is creating the sixth largest extinction the world has ever known.

Half of all species will be going bye bye, we may be one of them.

 

On the other point, I don't need to judge anyone either.

 

I wonder, as the years go, by if your perspective may change.

Nothing is cast in stone.

And I am of the Military but not that branch.

 

So I appreciate your service even if we may disagree on some philosophical point or other.

[Yuchi1]

I grew up on 400 acres in north Alabama with a shotgun or fly rod in hand at every possible moment. Killing was a part of life with the tenet I was taught there has to be a valid reason for it otherwise, it was both morally (violated the code of nature) and possibly legally wrong.  Others were apparently not reared in such a philosophy and thus developed an entirely different set of mores. 

 

Regarding the demonization of these entities, I instead rely upon my own real world field experiences wherein it would have been so easy for the alpha male of the Rogers county clan to have taken me/us down on dozens of occasions. The closest he came to belligerence was slamming down the tower stand and chunking the rock after we had harassed him multiple times that particular evening.  Also, I realize there can be those of a malevolent intent just as humans in that camp are rife on this planet however, even after one was shot (Louisiana hunt) the others made no overt attack upon us even as we probed into the thicket after the wounded one.

 

Regarding the "protection" theory as a foundation for using lethal force upon them, consider the possibility the authorities realize there is no viable "sanctuary" areas as these beings have basically done as they will for eons. Therefore, if you are in a position of authority, the most viable solution is to quickly and quietly eliminate them from the landscape. If 13,000+ feral hogs can be killed (Fort Sill, Oklahoma) over the course of a few months via air conveyances and using the latest TI/NV technology, the big guys probably would not have a snowballs' chance of survival. Think about this and draw your conclusions.

[MIB]

You get enough blood on your hands, after a while it doesn't bother you a bit.

 

And some time after that, it does again, a lot, unless  you've crossed the line into sociopathy.   It's not a line, it's a circle.

 

MIB

[FarArcher]

 

You get enough blood on your hands, after a while it doesn't bother you a bit.

 

And some time after that, it does again, a lot, unless  you've crossed the line into sociopathy.   It's not a line, it's a circle.

 

MIB

 

 

No.  It's neither sociopathy nor a circle.

 

It's conditioning.  A simple state of conditioning through repetition within a limited set of variables..

 

I can take place you in certain conditions and scenarios, and you'll soon enough become accustomed to things you'd never consider even occurs - much less get used to it. You'd do disgusting things - just to survive.  You're not immune. 

 

Not everyone gets to call all the shots all the time.  Sometimes you gotta play the cards you're dealt.

 

Or.  The alternative.

[JDL]

Check this out.  http://www.foxnews.com/science/2016/03/22/bear-bone-found-in-1903-alters-story-ireland.html?intcmp=hpbt4

 

A single piece of evidence, obtained decades ago, re-examined using modern forensic techniques, rewrites history.  That's the scientific process.

 

But our resident skeptics insist that:

 

The PGF, obtained decades ago, re-examined by NatGeo using modern forensic techniques and determined to depict a non-human subject, isn't part of the scientific process.

 

The scientific process is the scientific process no matter what subject is being examined.

 

I think our resident skeptics make up their own version of the scientific process to suit them.  And it changes by the post.

[Yuchi1]

^^^ Yeppers. Some of those skeptics would make even the most ardent russian history revisionist, green with envy.

[norseman]

Apes are human looking because humans ARE apes!

[JDL]

The Orang's beard seems most like yours.

[norseman]

My beard is better than the three of them put together!

[JDL]

Agreed.  And your nose reminds me of the bigfoot I've seen, though theirs were closer to those of African Americans.