Guest Silver Fox Posted July 3, 2011 Share Posted July 3, 2011 Hi Silver Fox. Good to see you back here! Hey babe. The feeling is mutual. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted July 3, 2011 Share Posted July 3, 2011 Jodie, It's not a matter of campers running into Bigfoot. All that matters is the belief that it may happen. As it stands now, most campers, hunters and hikers don't believe in the existence of Bigfoot. However, if Bigfoot is proven to be real; what will the public perception be insofar as personal safety while out in the woods? Keep in mind that reality has nothing to do with perception. Remember what happened after Jaws was released in the early 70's? Now, with that in mind; what will be the comfort level of campers and hunters with the possibility of running into a 10ft tall 1000lb hominid? It's an interesting concept. Cisco I think reality does have something to do with perception or you wouldn't be making this point, though people still camp where grizzlies, cougar, black bear, coyotes and wolves live. They still swim in the ocean despite the shark attacks, and the sting of jellyfish or manowar. Education about the species would balance irrational reactions to some degree. I'd feel better trying to deal with a bigfoot in my camp than a grizzly or even a chimpanzee. I think BF act on a higher level of cognizance or we would have one in every zoo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest RICH G Posted July 3, 2011 Share Posted July 3, 2011 I am getting tired of reading this and this is my last post on this topic. Look, I am not going to say anything spacific but I will tell you to take what Silver Fox says with a grain of salt. If I were him I would not be speaking about the information he is putting out such as the location, what gender the bodies were and so on as fact such as he has. I can tell you that much us the details he is giving are not correct. I think Derek has made it clear that some of this story is true. What I can tell you is that none of us were there or have been there and the only ones that know what happened are the ones who were there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted July 3, 2011 Share Posted July 3, 2011 Man this is like that Enoch thread they just keep coming back! Not sure who to root for on this one..... And now back to the Drama of the Bigfoot DNA brought to you Jack Links jerky yummmmm..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 Hey babe. The feeling is mutual. Don't stay gone so long next time, I was afraid something had happened to you. I worry about everybody whom I consider to be my forum friends, so It's good to have you back and hanging around here today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Thepattywagon Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 Silver Fox, why are we just now being informed of a passenger being in the vehicle? And as if I don't have enough questions I could barrage you with regarding this Bigfoot shooting encounter, now I have even more. For instance, why did the passenger chastise the 'hunter' for shooting the BF, if we are to believe the entire encounter was so frightening to the 'hunter' that he had NO choice but to EXIT the safety of his vehicle and draw down on a creature waving it's arms at him. Seems to me, IF things were as you state, the passenger would be thanking the 'hunter' for saving him from a most decidedly gruesome death at the hands of a hairy creature and it's offspring. Lots of information has been dribbled out as this thread progresses. Ultimately, it won't matter IF the DNA results are conclusive. But it does make it tough to accept some of what is being ladled out here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Silver Fox Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 Silver Fox, why are we just now being informed of a passenger being in the vehicle? And as if I don't have enough questions I could barrage you with regarding this Bigfoot shooting encounter, now I have even more. For instance, why did the passenger chastise the 'hunter' for shooting the BF, if we are to believe the entire encounter was so frightening to the 'hunter' that he had NO choice but to EXIT the safety of his vehicle and draw down on a creature waving it's arms at him. Seems to me, IF things were as you state, the passenger would be thanking the 'hunter' for saving him from a most decidedly gruesome death at the hands of a hairy creature and it's offspring. I only heard about the passenger on Thursday afternoon in a phone call as I was heading to the beach on a vacation. This story is dribbled out to me in bits and pieces over time, that's why it evolves over time. You ask some interesting questions about the motivation of the shooter. I do not know his motivation. The shooter says that: 1. He thought the first BF was a bear. Not so, he knew it was a BF, but his story is he thought it was threatening him. I can't leap into this guy's mind and try to figure out his motivation. 2. One of the younger BF's was threatening him, so he shot it. I don't believe it. He just shot it for some unknown reason. 3. The hunter says he shot the young BF, it fell off a cliff, and he left it where it dropped. Actually, it died in his arms. I do believe that the shooter may have felt bad after shooting the young BF. I can't think of any other reason why a hunter would cradle a dying animal in his arms. 4. Although the shooter is not my idea of a good person (he's a narcissist), it's possible he may have felt bad after shooting the BF's. Narcissists don't typically feel guilty about anything they do, but that's not a rule. He may have some sort of a conscience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ronnie Bass Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 4. Although the shooter is not my idea of a good person (he's a narcissist), it's possible he may have felt bad after shooting the BF's. Narcissists don't typically feel guilty about anything they do, but that's not a rule. He may have some sort of a conscience. I hope I am not alone in seeing the irony here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Incorrigible1 Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 One of the dire consequences occasionally alleged is should one shoot down a sasquatch, it's family group will attack such a shooter with a vengeance. That's another possible motive for the shooting(s). Maybe the shooter was blood-thirsty. Maybe he was frightened, and maybe a little of both. I put forth the possibility, considering the time frame, that is remains were searched for some time after the shooting(s). Perhaps some additional possible dna or biological remains will propel the search onward. Good, bad, I'll leave that to the individual reader. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Silver Fox Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 How would SF know what the DNA said? It's interesting, but the only ones that would know would be members who had access to that information, and no insult intended, but SF would probably have to have someone interpret the results for him. They aren't likely to type up a neat little synopsis on samples until they are ready to release those conclusions in laymen's terms to the sample donors. For some reason I just can't see it, but it makes for an interesting twist in the story and goes right along with one of my pet theories that BF is something different altogether. I get leaks via folks associated with Erickson Project and Ketchum's DNA project. I have not seen any reports. People just tell me stuff. Anonymously. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rod Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 I hope I am not alone in seeing the irony here. Definitely not alone. Narcissism = Egoism,: A doctrine that individual self-interest is the actual motive of all conscious action. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 I hope I am not alone in seeing the irony here. No, not at all Ronnie. Yet as much as I know this is just a bunch of hearsay, I can't seem to tear myself away despite my derision. I just keep coming back for more and feeding the beast. Shame on me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Thepattywagon Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 I get leaks via folks associated with Erickson Project and Ketchum's DNA project. I have not seen any reports. People just tell me stuff. Anonymously. And do they leak information to you in hopes that you'll share it on a public forum? My guess is that whomever is breaching their NDA, they must know what you're doing with the info. And the reason they are doing it must be to build the hype around the project as much as possible, which would seem unnecessary if the DNA tests speak for themselves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Cervelo Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 Great point Patty I love the just enough "fact" in the story to draw in the true players that know what part is "fiction"....just haven't figured out the motivation? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest vilnoori Posted July 4, 2011 Share Posted July 4, 2011 The nuclear DNA has already been done. The MtDNA is Homo sapiens sapiens. The Nu DNA is not Homo sapiens sapiens. It is something completely different. Some "thing" bred with human females. 30,000 YBP in Europe. Silver Fox anything that can breed with humans are human. Just a different type of human. Once upon a time there were a lot of different kinds of human, and maybe there still are. Just because it is more hairy, less technological, less socially structured and less cultured does not mean they aren't people. It is not some "Thing." It is only maybe every bit as scary as plain old people, who you may recall, are dangerous hunters who have wiped out many species, regularly all over the planet butcher other members of their own kind, of all ages and gender, torture, maim, kill, steal, plunder and pillage. Our own species did a lot of damage with nothing more than sharpened sticks and rocks for hundreds of thousands of years. Like wolves or army ants we are even more dangerous because we gang up together to do our mayhem. If sasquatches do not do this then they are actually much less dangerous than, well, us. Since we have no DNA evidence associated with actual remains or fossil remains for any archaic humans other than Neanderthals, we cannot say for sure that Denisova was or was not one of the previously known members of the Homo lineage from the fossil record. Chances are very high that both Denisova and these new discoveries, if they are proven, are actually one of the branches of Homo erectus. The fact that there is some modern human DNA associated with them means nothing, since in ages past they probably did interbreed to some limited extent. You have only to look at big cats as an example. I've read that all cats are in essence a single species and can interbreed if it wasn't for physical and behavioral limitations, and humans have played with this, producing ligers, tigons and so on. Some hybrids show greater size than both parents, and this might be a mechanism to explain the greater size of sasquatch peoples. Perhaps, like cat hybrids, they are able to breed and the traits are perpetuated down the line. Once in a while there is a little influx of fresh modern human blood into the strain, which probably improves their size and maybe intelligence. All speculations at this point, of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts