Guest Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 BTW, can you direct me to where I can find your encounter? PM or here is fine. Go up a post from this or two and you'll find a summary of it. It was part of a whole series of things happening around my friend's house off and on for roughly a year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Go up a post from this or two and you'll find a summary of it. It was part of a whole series of things happening around my friend's house off and on for roughly a year. I envy your encounter, as well as many others who've had one. I would rather be on your end than mine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Mulder,your in good company, "many rural and wildland sightings are still reported each year by hunters, fishermen, trappers, loggers, farmers, ranchers, ranch hands, sheepherders, hikers, birdwatchers, bicycle riders, horse riders, mule packers, mushroom pickers, kayakers, canoeists, river guides, dirt bikers, snowmobilers, paintballers, sunbathers, meteor watchers, ATVer's, helicopter pilots, couriers, cave explorers, land surveyors, war reenactors, rock hunters, homesteaders, arrowhead collectors, herpatolgists, UPS drivers, nurses, homesteaders, bat researchers, crop pickers, tour train occupants SIS, field archeologists, ginseng diggers, metal detectors, pine nut pickers, lawnmowers, firewood gatherers SIS, newspaper carriers, downed pilots, pizza deliverers, frog giggers, siesmic drilling rig operators, frontiersmen (Daniel Boone), and other outdoor workers and recreationists. " did you read through that huge "spooky story" thread on the survivalist forum? There were hundreds of posts over 96 pages of one thread and probably 10% involved something you would immediately recognise as a bigfoot encounter. I'm guessing that many people have this experience but don't know how to frame it, so it becomes some spooky outdoors story instead of an eyewitness report. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 I took it off of http://lawnflowersjerkyandbigfoots.com The guy has spent a lot of time gathering sightings from the net,and grouping them,some of its pretty interesting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 I think your thinking is similar to mine but I would replace Homo erectus with an australopithecus species. Sapiens and neanderthals both used fire and likely got it form a common ancestor (Homo erectus) about 500,000 years ago. Furthermore there are possible hearths approximately 1.6 million years old in the Rift valley of Africa in association with erectus fossils and tools. One of the reasons I like erectus is the height, they were taller than us, and almost 2 million years ago. They also had more of an ape face. Either way the interesting part for me is that throughout the fossil record, these species lived side-by-side, sometime three or four of them in parallel. It wasn't until modern times with the presumptive extinction of Neanderthal did we find ourselves alone. I'll go ahead and quote that out "alone"... Years ago I watched "walking with cave men" or something like that, and that was one of the last things the narrator said. I thought, "how, in millions of years, do we finally find ourselves alone when these species coexisted for millions of years?" So, while I'm still unsure (despite the eye witness accounts, sorry) I can totally see how it would be completely possible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 His certitude is based solely on an unsubstantiated opinion. Mine is based on observed reality. No, his certitude is also based on observed reality. You have to admit that the reality is that bigfoot is not an officially recognized species. Let me put it this way: For a person who has seen bigfoot, you can either trust yourself and believe what you saw, or you can trust what is generally accepted and say "bigfoot is not known as a species like other animals are, I must have seen something different." For anyone who hasn't had a personal bigfoot experience, they can either trust some random person on the internet, or they can continue to go their merry way and accept reality as it always has been for them -- bigfootless. Furthermore, what makes bigfoot different from anything else? A couple years ago in my state, there were multiple sightings of mountain lions, but the authorities "knew" there were no longer any in the area. For the first handful of sightings, they were dismissed as "probable misidentifications". So it's not just bigfoot. And you know what? "Science" was wrong, and they admitted they were wrong, and we all moved on. AND they were super excited to see mountain lions back in the state. It's not like they denied evidence out of ego. They denied the evidence of sightings because it was outweighed by the previous evidence that mountain lions had left long ago. Let me ask, what is the minimum number of sightings of a cryptid before the general public should start believing sightings? Do you also believe in UFOs? The Loch Ness Monster? Mothman? Chupacabra, vampires, werewolves, unicorns, whatever? People claim to see things that most people think don't exist all the time. When according to you should we start believing them? All that being said... I'm not arguing that a person shouldn't believe you, or think you're crazy, or whatever. I'm just trying to point out that there are reasons that have nothing to do with you, your reliability, or your sanity, that I believe (there's that word again) should give you pause before you launch into your predictable "us against the world" spiel. Was there a point you didn't believe in bigfoot? Or if nothing else, was there a difference in your certainty before and after your sighting? If so, are you retroactively faulting yourself for believing what you know now to be true? His certitude is based solely on an unsubstantiated opinion. Mine is based on observed reality. And seriously... how can you make statements like this with a straight face? Of course it's observed reality, to you. I didn't observe any such thing; to me it's a story. If I told you I saw a talking banana today, would you call that observed reality? I don't do drugs and neither did the banana. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southernyahoo Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Mulder,your in good company, "many rural and wildland sightings are still reported each year by hunters, fishermen, trappers, loggers, farmers, ranchers, ranch hands, sheepherders, hikers, birdwatchers, bicycle riders, horse riders, mule packers, mushroom pickers, kayakers, canoeists, river guides, dirt bikers, snowmobilers, paintballers, sunbathers, meteor watchers, ATVer's, helicopter pilots, couriers, cave explorers, land surveyors, war reenactors, rock hunters, homesteaders, arrowhead collectors, herpatolgists, UPS drivers, nurses, homesteaders, bat researchers, crop pickers, tour train occupants SIS, field archeologists, ginseng diggers, metal detectors, pine nut pickers, lawnmowers, firewood gatherers SIS, newspaper carriers, downed pilots, pizza deliverers, frog giggers, siesmic drilling rig operators, frontiersmen (Daniel Boone), and other outdoor workers and recreationists. " I might want to save that list, sometimes a person will come on here and say something like " how has bigfoot gone undetected all this time?" . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 No, his certitude is also based on observed reality. You have to admit that the reality is that bigfoot is not an officially recognized species. Which is not the same as "bigfoot does not exist". Recognition by institutional science is not required for BF to exist, but it would help in documenting the species. Let me put it this way: For a person who has seen bigfoot, you can either trust yourself and believe what you saw, or you can trust what is generally accepted and say "bigfoot is not known as a species like other animals are, I must have seen something different."For anyone who hasn't had a personal bigfoot experience, they can either trust some random person on the internet, or they can continue to go their merry way and accept reality as it always has been for them -- bigfootless. Reality is not "personal". Reality is what is. Bigfoot exists in reality. I know this with absolute certainty because I saw it. All that being said... I'm not arguing that a person shouldn't believe you, or think you're crazy, or whatever. I'm just trying to point out that there are reasons that have nothing to do with you, your reliability, or your sanity, that I believe (there's that word again) should give you pause before you launch into your predictable "us against the world" spiel. Was there a point you didn't believe in bigfoot? Or if nothing else, was there a difference in your certainty before and after your sighting? If so, are you retroactively faulting yourself for believing what you know now to be true? I was convinced by the evidence prior to my encounter that there was a sufficient circumstantial evidentiary case to make the argument that BF existed with a high degree of certainty. And seriously... how can you make statements like this with a straight face? Of course it's observed reality, to you. I didn't observe any such thing; to me it's a story. If I told you I saw a talking banana today, would you call that observed reality? I don't do drugs and neither did the banana. But banana's do not talk. A talking banana violates basic physical and natural law. Show me where BF does that in general (the "paranaturalist" camp notwithstanding). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 One of the reasons I like erectus is the height, they were taller than us, and almost 2 million years ago. They also had more of an ape face. Either way the interesting part for me is that throughout the fossil record, these species lived side-by-side, sometime three or four of them in parallel. It wasn't until modern times with the presumptive extinction of Neanderthal did we find ourselves alone. I'll go ahead and quote that out "alone"... Years ago I watched "walking with cave men" or something like that, and that was one of the last things the narrator said. I thought, "how, in millions of years, do we finally find ourselves alone when these species coexisted for millions of years?" So, while I'm still unsure (despite the eye witness accounts, sorry) I can totally see how it would be completely possible. re the bolded: over two million years a short little australopithecus could easily evolve into a tall hulking brute and they already have a face between human and other ape. I agree about the last sentence completely. It'd be so great to have them around whether they're australopithecus or homo erectus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest KentuckyApeman Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 re the bolded: over two million years a short little australopithecus could easily evolve into a tall hulking brute and they already have a face between human and other ape. I agree about the last sentence completely. It'd be so great to have them around whether they're australopithecus or homo erectus. That brings up the question, what is evolution? Why do some species never evolve beyond a certain point in their development? Sharks, Crocs, even the coelacanth. If you answer, "Well they found their niche in nature, and that was it." I don't buy that(won't even rent it). There is constant change in nature(climate, habitat, food sources, etc). Shouldn't all species be in a constant state of evolution? According to Darwins theory, man evolved from a single celled paramecium. Yes I know, we can't 'see' evolution. It happens slowly over time. Yet some species seem locked in their development. Any thoughts? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 Evolution does still happen even in species that seem little changed for millions of years. The coelacanth of today is not the same species that lived 65 million years ago. The same with crocodiles. There have been hundreds of crocodile species that evolved and then went extinct between the early crocodiles and the ones we have today. Just because they look similar doesn't mean they are the same. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 BFRO has a great collection of sightings, and there are quite a few websites that have many others. Is there any one spot where someone has collected ALL available and authentic sighting reports? If not, anybody want to devote a year to it? It would be pretty useful! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest KentuckyApeman Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 BFRO has a great collection of sightings, and there are quite a few websites that have many others. Is there any one spot where someone has collected ALL available and authentic sighting reports? If not, anybody want to devote a year to it? It would be pretty useful! Guess what? You just volunteered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest exnihilo Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 That brings up the question, what is evolution? Why do some species never evolve beyond a certain point in their development? Sharks, Crocs, even the coelacanth. If you answer, "Well they found their niche in nature, and that was it." I don't buy that(won't even rent it). There is constant change in nature(climate, habitat, food sources, etc). Shouldn't all species be in a constant state of evolution? According to Darwins theory, man evolved from a single celled paramecium. Yes I know, we can't 'see' evolution. It happens slowly over time. Yet some species seem locked in their development. Any thoughts? This is the way I see it. Where species compete on a continual basis, they continually adapt to one another, so changes are likely to be minimal or incremental at best. This equilibrium is punctuated only by a major change in conditions. Usually these changes are environmental, but sometimes they are due to innovative strategies and behavior that cause revolutionary change in the ecosystem, which are ultimately reflected in morphological adaptation. Man's rise is an example of the latter, as there have been several phases of innovation and revolution followed by morphological adaptation (though the past 60,000 years have truly become an accelerating crescendo of technological change). Some of this adaptation appears to be a loss of robustness in favor of more gracile morphology, or in some sense a physical devolution. You can view that in two ways. On the one hand, behavioral and social adaptations are so forceful in themselves that the selection pressure for raw physical power evaporates. On the other hand, the winning strategy (the brain) is being reinforced with liberated resources from no-longer-needed musculo-skeletal robustness. This appears to go hand in hand with man's progressive technological innovations. And frankly, it is one of the most difficult aspects of BF-as-hominin to understand. Did they lose technology, or did they never develop it? Was it simply a path less traveled, taken deliberately? Or perhaps simply the nocturnal flip side of our diurnal coin? These questions are probably one of the great reservoirs of my skepticism towards the physical creature hypothesis. But, I'm interested to see what develops with the current investigation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 exnihilo that is a great post. I have often wondered what differences we would see in our own evolution had we not gone with the use of tools etc. to manipulate our own environment. What if our evolution was based more on dealing with the environment with out the use of tools etc.? How would "intelligence" be altered, how radically different would our perspective be? We can see some interesting differences culturally already within our own species. We see plenty of confusion about development verses intelligence. Are we more intelligent than "primitive" tribes people? Or do we just have culturally driven alternative ideals of intelligence and advancement? I remember in school, being warned by one of my profs to be careful of my own urban industrial tendencies clouding my observations of other cultures,and I wonder if that also applies to Bigfoot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts