153 replies to this topic

[Tia]

I just stated that I don't follow them so what proof do you want?. I've also explained too many times to repeat once again I don't approve of cameras or anything like that near our guys.

I can get a few adults to back me up but because we are from the same family it must be the drugs the government pumps in the water here that makes us imagine all our past interactions. Boy even my poor old dog was drugged..... maybe I should sue the government for over 8 years of 'false interactions they've given us'.    hey I could even sue on behalf of at least 5 other witnesses that don't live here.

[vitruvian12]

Tia, on 26 February 2012 - 11:12 AM, said:

I just stated that I don't follow them so what proof do you want?. I've also explained too many times to repeat once again I don't approve of cameras or anything like that near our guys.

I can get a few adults to back me up but because we are from the same family it must be the drugs the government pumps in the water here that makes us imagine all our past interactions. Boy even my poor old dog was drugged..... maybe I should sue the government for over 8 years of 'false interactions they've given us'.    hey I could even sue on behalf of at least 5 other witnesses that don't live here.

Saying you have witnesses to back up your story isnt the same as actually hearing verification from a witness.

[Night Walker]

Tia, on 25 February 2012 - 03:16 PM, said:

As for migration I've followed what happens here and yes they do migrate at a certain time each year and return again. No I don't follow their path or anything but it's been happening since we moved here so I feel pretty confident in saying that at least our ones migrate yearly.

Neognosis, on 25 February 2012 - 09:24 PM, said:

Can you prove what you claim?

Tia, on 26 February 2012 - 11:12 AM, said:

I just stated that I don't follow them so what proof do you want?. I've also explained too many times to repeat once again I don't approve of cameras or anything like that near our guys.

I can get a few adults to back me up but because we are from the same family it must be the drugs the government pumps in the water here that makes us imagine all our past interactions. Boy even my poor old dog was drugged ...

You didn’t really expect a reasonable answer to that, did you Neo? Evidence can’t/won’t be collected/released in order to protect Bigfoot. It is standard practice:

On July 15 our CEO and founder, Tom Biscardi, was informed by our co-founder, Peggy Marx, that an acquaintance who she believed was credible claimed to have an injured Bigfoot in captivity. The woman insisted that doctors were caring for this creature, and that while we couldn’t see it intil it recovered from its injuries, they wanted assistance from us to protect, care for, and study it.
http://www.oregonbig...on_biscardi.php

Matt Whitton: "That's why I'm not revealin' the location. We have no intentions of revealing that to the public. Om, I'm sure north Georgia is gonna be pretty busy right now, as a whole ... my intention with this is to protect the species."
http://sopebocks.blo...tton-of_15.html


This witness asked for my (Melissa Hovey) help in seeking protection  for what he/she claimed was a Bigfoot that had been coming onto his/her property.
http://txsasquatch.blogspot.com.au/

Todd [Standing] is a very polite and well-spoken man. I genuinely liked the guy, as well as his message regarding sasquatches: protect them, and let them be.
http://cryptoreports...finding-bigfoot

Tia: I would actually get help and bury the creature and keep it quiet. After all people don't believe us anyway I'd prefer to protect the species then get to say "told you so". I guess I've matured enough not to give a crap about proving sceptics wrong.
http://www.unexplain...c=211261&hl=tia protect&st=0

Tia, on 26 February 2012 - 11:12 AM, said:

... maybe I should sue the government for over 8 years of 'false interactions they've given us'.    hey I could even sue on behalf of at least 5 other witnesses that don't live here.

If it was actually possible to sue someone for "false interactions" then I doubt that you would be the plaintiff, Tia.

Edited by Night Walker, 26 February 2012 - 10:22 PM.

[psyche101]

Wookietim, on 23 February 2012 - 03:57 PM, said:

You mean that you accept a network of witnesses that say they saw butterflies migrating... And that if you can predict where they will be seen (In general) then you accept those witness reports?

This is a pretty simplified version of what I said. These networks do predict hatchings and migration routes, so one can indeed go stand on a predicted sopt and see these butterflies. What you have neglected to mention is that the efforts are not just witnesses, they are going to the trouble of tagging them, and they can do this because the Butterflies actually exist.

Now if a network of enthusiasts were able to accurately predict where one might observe a Bigfoot migration or mating season, as with the Monarchs' we would not be having this conversation would we?

And as I mentioned, you can go to these "sightings" and pick up millions of bodies. Tiny little bodies as I said, nevertheless, millions of carcasses can be taken from any one witness location, and they are. Another thing that the Footers have failed miserably with. If any eyewitness accounts of Bigfoot led to a body, yet again, you and I would not be having this conversation at all.

Wookietim, on 23 February 2012 - 03:57 PM, said:

Well, then, I am glad that bigfoot researchers don't have thousands of witness reports... or have made rather accurate predictions on roughly where and when large numbers of sighting will occur... or anything like that.

No they have never predicted where a single Bigfoot sighting will occur, and that hypothetical sighting is yet to have happened, or yet again, you and I would not be having this conversation. What they do say is there where you see people, you see Bigfoot. I honestly do not find that any great insight to be quite honest.

Wookietim, on 23 February 2012 - 03:57 PM, said:

Oops - they actually have done that.

Please offer an example, I think quite a few here would be more than interested to find an accurate Bigfoot prediction exists. I feel you are more than greatly overstating their own claims. No organisation has ever accurately predicted a Bigfoot encounter, and verification of said animal is yet to surface.

[psyche101]

From Nightwalkers Crypto-Reports:


“People have been describing these types of animals in many different parts of North America for well over 400 years — that’s indisputable, that people have described seeing them,”

Christopher Columbus found the Americas in 1492, in 15601 he reached what is now know as the United States right? Settlement established New York in 1664, and what is now known as Pennsylvania after it was established in 1680. My AMerican history is not up to scratch, but I am of the understanding that by the mid 1600's many settlements were established.

So why did it take until 1811 for a white man to spot Bigfoot? How would Bigfoot know to avoid the White man when he first got there? And where did he hide for 150 years while man cleared his land away?

Edited by psyche101, 27 February 2012 - 03:31 AM.

[Night Walker]

psyche101, on 27 February 2012 - 03:30 AM, said:

From Nightwalkers Crypto-Reports:


“People have been describing these types of animals in many different parts of North America for well over 400 years — that’s indisputable, that people have described seeing them,”

???

Um, I think you've confused me for Matt Moneymaker...

“People have been describing these types of animals in many different parts of North America for well over 400 years — that’s indisputable, that people have described seeing them,” said Matt Moneymaker, founder and president of the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization, or BFRO, a network of scientists and amateur researchers interested in Bigfoot and its reported “cousins”: Sasquatch, Yeti and the Abominable Snowman.

http://www.cryptomun.../finding-bf-87/

[psyche101]

Night Walker, on 27 February 2012 - 04:24 AM, said:

???

Um, I think you've confused me for Matt Moneymaker...

“People have been describing these types of animals in many different parts of North America for well over 400 years — that’s indisputable, that people have described seeing them,” said Matt Moneymaker, founder and president of the Bigfoot Field Researchers Organization, or BFRO, a network of scientists and amateur researchers interested in Bigfoot and its reported “cousins”: Sasquatch, Yeti and the Abominable Snowman.

http://www.cryptomun.../finding-bf-87/

Crikey Me!

Sorry mate, I did not have you confused, I just blurted the line out without thinking, it should have read:

From Nightwalkers Crypto-Reports link:

This one

Sorry for any confusion.

Edited by psyche101, 27 February 2012 - 05:10 AM.

[Soul Kitchen]

psyche101, on 27 February 2012 - 03:30 AM, said:

Christopher Columbus found the Americas in 1492, in 15601 he reached what is now know as the United States right? Settlement established New York in 1664, and what is now known as Pennsylvania after it was established in 1680. My AMerican history is not up to scratch, but I am of the understanding that by the mid 1600's many settlements were established.

So why did it take until 1811 for a white man to spot Bigfoot? How would Bigfoot know to avoid the White man when he first got there? And where did he hide for 150 years while man cleared his land away?

Those that established settlements tended to stay there. They were hardly people of the wilderness.

And the few that were likely did not have much means or inclination for pursuing a written record of the encounter they may have had. Besides there is the factor of how mysterious and unknown America still was in the years before 1811, so an extraordinary aspect of an already extraordinary place wouldn't be so stirring, and if the witness passes on the story AND is believed by enough for the account to spread further, it still easily gets lost to legend in the end. There's not much going for the likelihood of the creation of recorded accounts of bigfoot encounters back then.

Edited by Soul Kitchen, 27 February 2012 - 05:46 AM.

[psyche101]

Soul Kitchen, on 27 February 2012 - 05:42 AM, said:

Large populations of white men had not been in America for long. And not all of them spent substantial time in the wilderness in which you'd find Bigfoot, and if we are to assume that Bigfoot was a naturally endangered species, that multiplies the unlikelihood of an encounter. And lastly there is the factor of how mysterious and unknown America still was in the years before 1811, so an extraordinary aspect of an already extraordinary thing wouldn't be very stirring, and if the witness passes on the story AND is believed by enough for the account to spread further, it still easily gets lost to legend in the end. There's not much going for the likelihood of the creation of recorded accounts of bigfoot encounters back then.

Despite all that, the article states that sightings have been happening for 4 hundred years. That is not the case, sightings have been reported for 200 years and some native legends have been adopted by footers. Also, would there be little record because America was being built, and in clearing the land, would that not be the most prime opportunity in history to have actual numerous encounters that can be documented with the purported beast? This is the period where America was "demystified". And why would such an incredible beast not create a great stir when the Gorilla caused a great stir amongst Zoological circles as the first physical specimens to be seen in thousands of years were brought to academic attention around the same time?
How did people not spend substantial amounts of time in the Wilderness when that is all that there was?
Bigfoot canot have been a critically endangered species for over 400 years, that would only end in extinction, and quite some time ago. A species canot stay "on the edge" forever, genetic diversity will end the species.
It sounds a great deal more like early settlers adopted the native legends, and a few people were spooked and explained that as Bigfoot. How can there not be a Bigfoot tale from the Settlement or colonisation of the land? The platypus created quite a fuss when settlers started to Document Australia, and it is far smaller than Bigfoot and lives largely in the water. So why would a massive upright ape not create a excitement like Berringe's Mountain Gorilla, even though the Lowland Gorilla was a neighbour and well known? Disclaimer in that I do not believe the Gorillas were unknown, but offered much excitement as physical specimens were available for close examination for the first time by this community.

Edited by psyche101, 27 February 2012 - 06:01 AM.

[Soul Kitchen]

psyche101, on 27 February 2012 - 06:00 AM, said:

Despite all that, the article states that sightings have been happening for 4 hundred years. That is not the case, sightings have been reported for 200 years and some native legends have been adopted by footers. Also, would there be little record because America was being built, and in clearing the land, would that not be the most prime opportunity in history to have actual numerous encounters that can be documented with the purported beast?

As you may or not remember from our previous discussions, I like to believe that Bigfoot is/was a naturally endangered animal on the worse end of natural selection, and with that an encounter would be inherently less likely than one with a gorilla in Africa, as gorillas were not only more common but easier to find as a result of their lifestyle. And the land clearing wasn't quite so aggressive and wide-reaching as what we see today, they were seldom conquering the land at that point. Manifest Destiny only came about in the 19th century, it would be then that I would expect for there to have been more encounters.

Quote

This is the period where America was "demystified".

Arguably, but there wasn't much of a movement in that sense, and Americans were largely limited to certain areas of the east then.

Quote

And why would such an incredible beast not create a great stir when the Gorilla caused a great stir amongst Zoological circles as the first physical specimens to be seen in thousands of years were brought to academic attention around the same time?

You said it yourself: Physical Specimens. There was hardly a stir at hearing the native's accounts of the Gorilla.

Quote

How did people not spend substantial amounts of time in the Wilderness when that is all that there was?
Bigfoot canot have been a critically endangered species for over 400 years, that would only end in extinction, and quite some time ago. A species canot stay "on the edge" forever, genetic diversity will end the species.
It sounds a great deal more like early settlers adopted the native legends, and a few people were spooked and explained that as Bigfoot. How can there not be a Bigfoot tale from the Settlement or colonisation of the land? The platypus created quite a fuss when settlers started to Document Australia, and it is far smaller than Bigfoot and lives largely in the water. So why would a massive upright ape not create a excitement like Berringe's Mountain Gorilla, even though the Lowland Gorilla was a neighbour and well known? Disclaimer in that I do not believe the Gorillas were unknown, but offered much excitement as physical specimens were available for close examination for the first time by this community.

The first thing a community of settlers do is create an establishment, and while the establishment grows, they manage to exclude themselves from the surrounding nature. And 400 years, when it comes to such processes as natural selection, is not a very long time at all. I think it figures just about right for them to have been endangered then and in the throes of extinction now.

The platypus was largely dismissed at first, despite the acquisition of a physical specimen. Everyone thought it was fake. What I was talking about is the stir caused by eyewitness accounts, not physical specimens. A physical specimen sure as **** would have caused a stir, I can assure you that.

[Night Walker]

psyche101, on 27 February 2012 - 05:08 AM, said:

Crikey Me!

Sorry mate, I did not have you confused, I just blurted the line out without thinking, it should have read:

From Nightwalkers Crypto-Reports link:

This one

Should have read: From CryPtoReporter's Crypto-Reports link

Having one of those days, mate?

[psyche101]

Soul Kitchen, on 27 February 2012 - 06:15 AM, said:

As you may or not remember from our previous discussions, I like to believe that Bigfoot is/was a naturally endangered animal on the worse end of natural selection, and with that an encounter would be inherently less likely than one with a gorilla in Africa, as gorillas were not only more common but easier to find as a result of their lifestyle. And the land clearing wasn't quite so aggressive and wide-reaching as what we see today, they were seldom conquering the land at that point. Manifest Destiny only came about in the 19th century, it would be then that I would expect for there to have been more encounters.

The concept of American expansionism is much older than minfest destiny though, that term was coined in the early 1800's, by which time the settlers had been there 200 years - the time that Australia has been settled for all in all. I am no aficionado of American History, but it strikes me that unless people were sitting on their hands for 200 years that much of North America was explored in this time. The French began colonising Alaska in the 1500's and it has a colourful HIstory describing many events and right up until  James Wolfe captured Quebec in 1759, colonies were moving Southward in addition to the Eastern Colonies expanding North. I cannot see why the Gorilla would be easier to find on a continent that was not colonised by the same means, and a far smaller presence. Land clearing should have been a prime opportunity to have many encounters. By 1700 a major population was established was it not?
And again, a species cannot possibly remain endangered across all time. If something was killing the species naturally, then it would be ling gone by now, amd if mans involvement somehow affects the species, then again the species should have been abundant at the settlement times.

Quote

In 1776, a revolution created a new nation from the British colonies of the Atlantic seaboard. The first colonial revolution for independence followed the emergence of those colonies as the most densely settled region of North America. North of the Rio Grande, the British colonial population of 2.5 million eclipsed the number of native peoples (about 800,000 in 1776) and the small enclaves of French (about 75,000) and Spanish (25,000). Numbers and the relative prosperity of the British colonies gave colonial British leaders a confidence that they could and should achieve independence. But the ethnic, racial, and regional diversity of that colonial population also gave the leading revolutionaries pause. Although most of the Continental Congressmen came from families of English origin, they meant to govern a far more diverse population, which included thousands of Germans, Dutch, Scots, Scots-Irish and at least 500,000 enslaved Africans. With good cause, the Founding Fathers of the revolutionary generation wondered if a union of thirteen disparate states could endure without a greater sense of common identity among the constituent people.

LINK

Quote

The first permanent English settlement in America was established at Jamestown, Virginia, in 1607 on the James River. Land was being abandoned in Virginia because of low fertility as early as the 1620's. North Carolina was first settled from the north by Virginians in search of new land for tobacco. The Northeast part of the state was settled by 1650 but the Pamlico was not opened to settlers until 1700. One of the first areas settled after 1700 was the lake rim around Lake Mattamuskeet. These high organic soils were productive and the area developed into the major grain growing area on the east coast.


Settlers further west on the Pamlico River encountered opposition by the Tuscarora Indians that resulted in the massacre of 200 settlers in only three hours in 1711. With help from South Carolina, the Indians were defeated in a battle near Snow Hill in 1713. 558 indians were killed and 392 captured. This ended indian opposition in the east and allowed rapid westward migration. The population of North Carolina was about 36,000 in 1720 and had grown to 345,000 by 1775.

Link


I honestly do not know about that, all these farms must have required some aggressive land reclamation.

Soul Kitchen, on 27 February 2012 - 06:15 AM, said:

Arguably, but there wasn't much of a movement in that sense, and Americans were largely limited to certain areas of the east then.

The French had been up North for 300 (in 1800) years and were working their way down, Bigfoot would have been in a squeeze.

Soul Kitchen, on 27 February 2012 - 06:15 AM, said:

You said it yourself: Physical Specimens. There was hardly a stir at hearing the native's accounts of the Gorilla.

Yet some sites try to make out that nobody could believe this? I do know that all the West knew was what they had learned from the tales of Hanno the Navigator and Andrew Batelle. Hanno told stories about hairy, giant man-beasts of terrible strength and temper, with a nasty habit of abducting and raping women, and Andrew Batelle described the Gorilla as  a “monster” covered in hair except for the face and hands, which slept in trees and fed on fruit. According to him, this “monster” was most similar to a man, but “with the stature of a giant”. I cannot see an actual specimen not creating some excitement amongst the scientific community?

Soul Kitchen, on 27 February 2012 - 06:15 AM, said:

The first thing a community of settlers do is create an establishment, and while the establishment grows, they manage to exclude themselves from the surrounding nature. And 400 years, when it comes to such processes as natural selection, is not a very long time at all. I think it figures just about right for them to have been endangered then and in the throes of extinction now.

It's a very, very long time to remain alive when considered an endangered species.


Also, by 1811, they had been establishing for a long time, 180 years. So this would hardly be "the first thing" and then if your theory is right, it seems to be running backwards, as there are far more reports of encounters now when the species must be almost gone, then there was when the species would have not been endangered.

Soul Kitchen, on 27 February 2012 - 06:15 AM, said:

The platypus was largely dismissed at first, despite the acquisition of a physical specimen. Everyone thought it was fake. What I was talking about is the stir caused by eyewitness accounts, not physical specimens. A physical specimen sure as **** would have caused a stir, I can assure you that.

Exactly, and it lived in water and was tiny by comparison to Biff, yet it was one of the first things found, but this behemoth leaves not a trace across all time? I do not see how we get a stuffed Platypus, yet not so much as a Biff toenail?

Edited by psyche101, 27 February 2012 - 07:23 AM.

[psyche101]

Night Walker, on 27 February 2012 - 06:40 AM, said:

Should have read: From CryPtoReporter's Crypto-Reports link

Having one of those days, mate?

I am always having one of those days! Particularly this year.

It's just the way I speak, I consider it your link as you presented it, but I agree it is information from a different person. I would call it Crypto-Reporters link if Crypto-Reporter had been a member that had posted it

Perhaps it really should have read

The Link presented by NightWalker that points to the  CryPtoReporter's webpage?

But I figured everyone knew what I meant, I had no intention of implicating you with Moneymaker, I assure you of that.

Edited by psyche101, 27 February 2012 - 07:28 AM.

[Night Walker]

I don't recall ever presenting that link (cryptoreports.com)...

You are making my brain hurt (more so - I am home sick today *cough*). Perhaps we should just move on...

[hucksterfoot]

psyche101, on 27 February 2012 - 03:30 AM, said:

From Nightwalkers Crypto-Reports:


“People have been describing these types of animals in many different parts of North America for well over 400 years — that’s indisputable, that people have described seeing them,”

Christopher Columbus found the Americas in 1492, in 15601 he reached what is now know as the United States right? Settlement established New York in 1664, and what is now known as Pennsylvania after it was established in 1680. My AMerican history is not up to scratch, but I am of the understanding that by the mid 1600's many settlements were established.

So why did it take until 1811 for a white man to spot Bigfoot? How would Bigfoot know to avoid the White man when he first got there? And where did he hide for 150 years while man cleared his land away?

I'll take that "15601" is a typo. :]

Quote

he reached what is now know as the United States right?

He reached Bahamas and then Central America, Panama.  

Isabella: You brought me back gold, slaves ...a Bigfoot

Quote

where did he hide for 150 years while man cleared his land away?

In the cupboard. Oh wait, maybe they were feral Vikings.

To add: John Cabot was attacked by potatoes - That's what happens when you discover the northern mainland bigfoot.