Jump to content

Do any of you camp out in potential hot spots?...


Recommended Posts

Well said Hiflier.   While I cannot dismiss the paranormal I’ve not witnessed anything personally or heard anything convincing enough to believe BF is anything but flesh and blood.   

Edited by Twist
Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowBorn
Moderator
3 hours ago, hiflier said:

 

Christopher Knight remained in the same woodsy area of Maine for 21 years before his "discovery". Had a sheltered camp and everything and folks said it was so well hidden as to be almost impossible to find. Now imaging a creature that doesn't need an elaborate camp, blends in with it's surroundings, stays in remote, inaccessible regions, and doesn't need to steal things from people to survive. Putting the creature into these perspectives keeps it in the "real world" without question which, in my mind anyway, says to keep going in the manner that that we have been with perhaps a few changes in methodology according to what's available these days to assist in the search.

At one point I was all in that these creatures were flesh and blood. Then I had that one evening and that morning that just changed everything for me. Yes, I was suspicious at first about them being what every known researcher refuses to even talk about in the open. We all know why they refuse to talk about this subject of them being on the side of the paranormal. It's the ridicule that they will receive by their peers. They are worried about their reputation which means allot in this field.

 

Like I have said I have shared the views of most here on this Forum of them being flesh and blood. But this all changed when I tested that theory and found the truth. I cannot change what I found out about them.  I am sure that there others out there who know the truth. It has changed on what I believe including my faith. Not sure what else I can say. But if there is some type of paranormal going on with them. Well then i have found it in some odd way by testing my theory of what others have said. 

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
BFF Donor
1 hour ago, ShadowBorn said:

At one point I was all in that these creatures were flesh and blood. Then I had that one evening and that morning that just changed everything for me. Yes, I was suspicious at first about them being what every known researcher refuses to even talk about in the open. We all know why they refuse to talk about this subject of them being on the side of the paranormal. It's the ridicule that they will receive by their peers. They are worried about their reputation which means allot in this field.

 

Like I have said I have shared the views of most here on this Forum of them being flesh and blood. But this all changed when I tested that theory and found the truth. I cannot change what I found out about them.  I am sure that there others out there who know the truth. It has changed on what I believe including my faith. Not sure what else I can say. But if there is some type of paranormal going on with them. Well then i have found it in some odd way by testing my theory of what others have said. 

 

I can respect that and what you say along with others, ShadowBorn. But until ALL avenues for discovery of a physical flesh and blood creature are exhausted I'm not ready to go down that road. Someday maybe, but not right now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
BFF Donor
1 hour ago, hiflier said:

 

I can respect that and what you say along with others, ShadowBorn. But until ALL avenues for discovery of a physical flesh and blood creature are exhausted I'm not ready to go down that road. Someday maybe, but not right now.

 

I don't know how you qualify your stance. You see one captured and it wills itself out of a cage through mindspeak?

 

Live broadcast on national news has one cornered by SpecOps and it goes Predator mode?

Link to post
Share on other sites
wiiawiwb
BFF Donor

In regards to flesh and blood, several months ago I posted about a search I did in our SSR database. There are over 7,300 reports and, of those, there are 4 reports that mention blood. One of those involve a car, the other three a shooting. Of the three shootings, two are categorized as "low confidence"

 

I was, and still am, surprised by the less-than-a-handful reports there are where blood is seen.

Link to post
Share on other sites
bipedalist
BFF Patron
Quote

.... Mark Barton's interview goes into things that I have heard other places from other people though not in the same level of detail.    Go back to the older posts here and read what ThePhaige shared.   Consider parallels.....

@MIB  Yes I took what The Phaige said to heart but only after almost having a heart-attack, that and my own close nocturnal encounter of multiples, one of which approached and demonstrated phenomenal visual apparatus separates me from the -- "wild wood ape" that can be tamed-- approach to it's physiology.  Also, what wild wood ape has the time to make elaborate stick layouts and weaves which border on the miniature (not talking large stick breaks, stacks, twists and windfall here). Some of the sound recordings I have captured and the imitative capacities across time are troublesome for the "wild wood ape" hypothesis too.  However, they do have their ears on and they do retain and reproduce as well as improvise on stimuli, auditorily for sure.  I am just glad I have'nt lost any blood yet chasing, waiting or encountering these entities.  Like @BlackRockBigfoot I am counting the days to a big humidity and dry weather break for more outings. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
BFF Donor
1 hour ago, NatFoot said:

 

I don't know how you qualify your stance. You see one captured and it wills itself out of a cage through mindspeak?

 

Live broadcast on national news has one cornered by SpecOps and it goes Predator mode?

 

My stance with regard to BF is that it is, physically, a highly developed primate- in form......but not in brains. That has been my stance for a long time now, complete with my theory on where I position the species on the evolutionary primate line leading to Humans. Because of that stance I continue to pursue the creature as an entirely physical creature that branched off a couple of million years AFTER chimpanzees split off. The Sasquatch did NOT find its way into this modern world via some branch of Great Apes. Especially the Gigantopithicus/Orangutan branch in Southeast Asia.

 

The real bottom line here is that the Sasquatch is no more paranormal than we Humans or any other living creature. Of course we only have reports to base any of this on, so reports will just have to do. I'm also not quite sure you understood my previous post? Because if I see one captured it will NOT be "willing itself out of the cage". Nor will it go into Predator mode any more than Patty did. Mindspeak and invisibility are not the hallmarks of something  that is alive and breathing and only gets to the other side of a road by running there.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
BFF Donor
37 minutes ago, hiflier said:

 

My stance with regard to BF is that it is, physically, a highly developed primate- in form......but not in brains. That has been my stance for a long time now, complete with my theory on where I position the species on the evolutionary primate line leading to Humans. Because of that stance I continue to pursue the creature as an entirely physical creature that branched off a couple of million years AFTER chimpanzees split off. The Sasquatch did NOT find its way into this modern world via some branch of Great Apes. Especially the Gigantopithicus/Orangutan branch in Southeast Asia.

 

The real bottom line here is that the Sasquatch is no more paranormal than we Humans or any other living creature. Of course we only have reports to base any of this on, so reports will just have to do. I'm also not quite sure you understood my previous post? Because if I see one captured it will NOT be "willing itself out of the cage". Nor will it go into Predator mode any more than Patty did. Mindspeak and invisibility are not the hallmarks of something  that is alive and breathing and only gets to the other side of a road by running there.

 

We are having two different conversations. I was speaking to your comment re: until ALL avenues are expended you can't consider, yada yada yada.

 

I think I read it differently than you meant it. No harm, no foul.

 

I also agree....I don't think they're gigantos - much more human or much more something else. I wonder what that final poll netted out at? Homo was running away with it the last time I remember looking.

Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
BFF Donor
19 minutes ago, NatFoot said:

We are having two different conversations. I was speaking to your comment re: until ALL avenues are expended you can't consider, yada yada yada

 

Or, more accurately:

 

4 hours ago, hiflier said:

.....until ALL avenues for discovery of a physical flesh and blood creature are exhausted....

 

Because since we still lack physical proof of existence, though there is physical trace evidence, all avenues of physical provenance have not been rigorously pursued. And by that, of course, I am referring to the environmental DNA aspect of current and future investigations and research. Oh how I wish science, if they don't want to mount a scientific expedition, would at least get on board for that kind of program. Tacking it onto all of the environmental DNA sampling that they already do wouldn't be going all that much out of their way.

 

Sample some water for small-mouth bass, and dip another filter into the water for the Sasquatch. Go back to the lab (science can run testing in the field now too!). Run the PCR, run the tests for s-m bass, then run another PCR and test for primates. No extra trips into the field would be needed! Makes me wonder if any scientists are or have been doing that covertly and not telling their collegues back at the lab.

Edited by hiflier
Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowBorn
Moderator
30 minutes ago, hiflier said:

 

Sample some water for small-mouth bass, and dip another filter into the water for the Sasquatch. Go back to the lab (science can run testing in the field now too!). Run the PCR, run the tests for s-m bass, then run another PCR and test for primates. No extra trips into the field would be needed! Makes me wonder if any scientists are or have been doing that covertly and not telling their collegues back at the lab.

There was a show on just last week on Sunday on the Anima Channel. lt was about the Yeti in Nepal. It was a British biologist who I believe his name was Mark who he took with him on this expedition another scientist. Her job was to take EDNA on the mountain where this climber had found some large foot prints at around 17000 ' .  Now they said that there should have been no Human bare footed at that altitude.  Well the scientist who took the EDNA sample had taken three samples I believe. Any how One  sample was from some foot prints that were found in the snow. The other two samples were taken from a small pond on top of the mountain where they said that there should not be no human.

 

The first sample came back as a mountain goat that should not have been from Nepal. The second sample came back I believe as a snow leopard I believe. The third came back as human but was mixed with some thing unknown. Strange Right ! How many times have we heard Human in the samples in the States. But they were thrown out because they were contaminated.  How many times are we going to be throwing out these samples that people have collected. Yet ,science says that they are contaminated due to Human error. They need to stop doing this and start researching further into these samples. Stop trying to match these samples with some thing that is not yet in the data  base. Start collecting blood samples from all who are involve with the samples collected. So that these collectors can be ruled out of the samples. They need to start a data base on these thrown out samples so that we can get a clear picture of what we are dealing with. They said that on the sample of Nepal it was 99% Human. What is that 1% unkown ? It is not primate or it would have shown up on the Data base.  unknown means just that unknown.      

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
BFF Donor

Science DOES save the unknown DNA fragments and sequences that pop up now and then. There is a term for that type of material but I can't remember the name. I saw the reference to the unknown DNA repository in another article somewhere on my computer. I'll see if I can find it.

 

BINGO! They are called MOTU's: https://blog.csiro.au/loose-genes-and-haunted-ecosystems-meet-edna-environmental-saviour/

 

"....searching for DNA evidence of the unknown, and, when the reference database isn’t sufficient to define enigmatic DNA sequences, using placeholder MOTUs—Molecular Operational Taxonomic Units—the equivalent of unidentified species silhouettes....."

 

 

 

Edited by hiflier
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
ShadowBorn
Moderator
1 hour ago, hiflier said:

Science DOES save the unknown DNA fragments and sequences that pop up now and then. There is a term for that type of material but I can't remember the name. I saw the reference to the unknown DNA repository in another article somewhere on my computer. I'll see if I can find it.

 

BINGO! They are called MOTU's: https://blog.csiro.au/loose-genes-and-haunted-ecosystems-meet-edna-environmental-saviour/

 

"....searching for DNA evidence of the unknown, and, when the reference database isn’t sufficient to define enigmatic DNA sequences, using placeholder MOTUs—Molecular Operational Taxonomic Units—the equivalent of unidentified species silhouettes....."

 

@hiflier

You know Hiflier I am having a very hard time trying to understand what you are saying here. I am not sure that it means what you seem it tends to believe what it means. I keep reading over and over and it does not sound like what you are saying.

 

Quote

searching for DNA evidence of the unknown, and, when the reference database isn’t sufficient to define enigmatic DNA sequences, using placeholder MOTUs—Molecular Operational Taxonomic Units—the equivalent of unidentified species silhouettes 

I just do not see that this is a way on how that they may save and unknown . Are they saying that place the unknown DNA sequence in a MOTUs placeholder so that it can be later Identified as a species through DNA by the silhouettes sequence after more DNA has been gathered by the same species. Like I have said they are still not excluding the human factor in the DNA that they are collecting from the people who are collecting the samples. This is a problem and is leading this DNA research to a fubar.

Link to post
Share on other sites
hiflier
BFF Donor

Filtering out the DNA of Humans who handle samples is common practice. What MOTU's represent are DNA fragments that don't match a known species in the GenBank. But sometimes MOTU's will come in that match other MOTU's. When that happens then the fragments that match each other become a proxy that is considered a species but scientists have yet to determine what that species is. Until they arrive at a consensus the MOTU's are placeholders in order to have something in the database to match new Motu's coming in. It's sort of like giving a house lot on a street a number even though no one knows what the house that is going to be built on it looks like yet.  The street number is a placeholder for the house's future physical form. It's a numbered place to stack the wood and materials for building. That's my VERY basic understanding of MOTU's.

 

Is it possible that some of those MOTU's are fragments of Sasquatch DNA? Honestly the fragments could belong to anything. There are a lot of microbes and fungi that are not in the GenBank so much of the fragmented material could be from them. It is said that Humans are made up of so many microbes, bacteria and other stuff that if one counts up the actual Human cells in the Human body we are only something like 43% Human. Sounds wrong...but it's not.

Edited by hiflier
  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/27/2020 at 1:58 PM, Moonface said:

Hi Rod and others :)

 

I have no doubt that BF exists, but I struggle to believe that it roams the woods of the UK. Has anyone got any links to evidence of this?

 

I like the gazebo concept - very novel!

 

I live near some woodland and regularly go there for walks, often in semi-darkness. Due to my interest in BF, I always find myself wishing the beast was there! I have heard some rustling and occasional knocking. I did see 2 deer recently.

Please peruse this report including map. There are other reports around; just Google "Bigfoot in UK":

https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/bigfoot-roaming-uk-cluster-sightings-21484870

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...