It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Living With Sasquatches

page: 54
69
<< 51  52  53    55  56  57 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 12 2017 @ 08:22 AM
link   
a reply to: CynConcepts

The reports of "dogmen" that often accompany reports of Sasquatch might have some explanation in this regard.




posted on May, 12 2017 @ 08:56 AM
link   
a reply to: CynConcepts

That's an extremely interesting concept and one worth exploring, but based off the daytime encounters (or testimony of such) as well as drawings and descriptions from tribal cultures, it seems to resemble something in the great ape family.



posted on May, 12 2017 @ 09:05 AM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko
My closest primate relative is a chimpanzee, yet in someone describing me would be hard pressed to see the similarities in a side by side comparison. Thus, my theory of a bear relative, just more evolved specifically for its nature.



posted on May, 12 2017 @ 09:10 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Au contraire! Why are you ignoring my source information? Ivan Marx. he wrote short stories and took "videos" and "pictures" of Bigfoot throughout the 60's and made a movie in 1971. He then made a documentary in 1976. He was big into the "red eye shine" which he wrote about in his early work concerning the paranormal. He then transposed it onto Bigfoot. So, again, I challenge you to find a story of Bigfoot prior to the 60's that contains any description of red eyes, glowing or otherwise...

It aligns with the thread because the "dim red light" was described in the very first post. For you to miss that seems strange. I understand you are big into the paranormal and that the red eyes are a big part of that, but when it comes to Bigfoot, by all accounts it appears to originated with an author/film maker who was born in 1921. If you can find an encounter that describes red eyes before he got big in the Bigfoot genre I encourage you to find it. I am not the one who needs to provide proof, those making wild claims do. I discovered this on accident in researching Bigfoot and found that Ivan was the earliest description of Bigfoot having red eyes. I spent years combing through newspaper clippings. I pretty much dismiss everything from the era of yellow journalism though when looking at clippings.
edit on 12-5-2017 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2017 @ 09:58 AM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

You gave a source which associates "red glowing eyes" with Bigfoot. You understand very little indeed if you think that I am "big into" the paranormal. Yet another example of your continual baseless assumptions about other posters.

Your source does not begin to substantiate your claim that no experience of Sasquatch earlier than that date mentions red eyes.

I didn't "miss"anything.. I've discussed that issue on several posts. Again you're feebly attempting to use an ad hom argument where none is needed.You have not proven your assertion by any means. Further you're repeatedly arguing in the most fallacious terms throughout.

No one here is making wild claims. OP did share experiences which, for some reason, you attack on nothing more than a subjective basis. The only thing approaching a fallacious claim here is your own appeals to authority ad nauseam.

Even if you had actually proven anything about your research or about the body of "literature" regarding the phenomenon, you still have done NOTHING to invalidate the experience here documented by the OP other than in your own mind.

Why don't you start by proving that all experiences with Saquatch are identical. That at least would give you a logical basis for the constant cries of hoax you level.

Or ... is there some other reason you're so desperate to discredit the OP? Someone mentioned disinfo earlier ...
edit on 12-5-2017 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on May, 12 2017 @ 10:03 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Hes shill like thats for sure. Not sure why hes so antisquatch



posted on May, 12 2017 @ 10:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: BASSPLYR
a reply to: Gryphon66

Hes shill like thats for sure. Not sure why hes so antisquatch


He's not Antisquatch at all ... at least in his statements though.



posted on May, 12 2017 @ 10:07 AM
link   
a reply to: BASSPLYR

Call me a shill, that's fine, but as has been laid out I am not anti squatch. I am anti hoax and I fully believe the OP is an attention seeker perpetuating a hoax. The build up to the video and then the video were the cement for me. The issues with the story were just the warm up.



posted on May, 12 2017 @ 10:10 AM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: BASSPLYR

Call me a shill, that's fine, but as has been laid out I am not anti squatch. I am anti hoax and I fully believe the OP is an attention seeker perpetuating a hoax. The build up to the video and then the video were the cement for me. The issues with the story were just the warm up.


.... and how many more times must you state this?

Anyone following the thread knows what you think ... what you're doing borders on harassment of the OP and little more.



posted on May, 12 2017 @ 10:12 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I know, the lack of the description of red eyes substantiates my claim...

Prior to Ivan = I can't find a single testimony that talks about red eyes
After Ivan = tons of stories contain a description of red eyes

You are arguing from silence, a logical fallacy. "Well, just because they don't contain them doesn't mean it wasn't there". Ultimately, red eyes are pretty scary, I am pretty sure it would have been included in descriptions. Yes, that is my opinion, but thinking that it was just excluded prior to Ivan seems a bit silly for you to believe.

Edit: I remember when the Yetis in Matterhorn (Disney Ride) went from normal to red eyes...it was 2012. Why? Because it was scarier and more striking. I immediately noticed the change even though there was no official announcement.
edit on 12-5-2017 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2017 @ 10:13 AM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

I had to state it because he believed I don't believe in or am "anti squatch". I yet again had to give my position. It was a direct reply concerning my view on this thread. It was relevant.

With permission from the Mods I am allowed to repost my removed after editing out what was determined to be rude.


That explanation was red eyes in photos, not glowing red eyes. Either way, eye shine is a type of glow because it is giving off light.

I already explained the death knock. You could also google it. It is the "window tapping" /"Wall knocking"/"Wood knocking" you describe. It's lifted from paranormal stories and started being associated with Bigfoot only relatively recently.

edit on 12-5-2017 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2017 @ 10:31 AM
link   
Night vision animals often display different color shines based on the type of light reflected. The same black bear may appear to have yellow, orange, or red eyes, as an example, based on what kind of light it is reflecting.

Is it possible that the type of lighting being reflected has changed and that is why more modern day testimonies share red eyes glowing or shining? Is it possible that the reason earlier ones did not say this is because they never seen it that way? Does that make sense?



posted on May, 12 2017 @ 11:53 AM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Gryphon66

I know, the lack of the description of red eyes substantiates my claim...

Prior to Ivan = I can't find a single testimony that talks about red eyes
After Ivan = tons of stories contain a description of red eyes

You are arguing from silence, a logical fallacy. "Well, just because they don't contain them doesn't mean it wasn't there". Ultimately, red eyes are pretty scary, I am pretty sure it would have been included in descriptions. Yes, that is my opinion, but thinking that it was just excluded prior to Ivan seems a bit silly for you to believe.

Edit: I remember when the Yetis in Matterhorn (Disney Ride) went from normal to red eyes...it was 2012. Why? Because it was scarier and more striking. I immediately noticed the change even though there was no official announcement.


I'm not arguing from silence ... I'm not arguing that Sasquatches have red eyes, blue eyes or any other kind of eyes.

Another intellectual dishonesty on your part.

You are the one making the argument that there is no mention of red eyes "prior to Ivan." You have yet to prove it.

I keep pointing that out. You keep trying to change the topic.



posted on May, 12 2017 @ 11:58 AM
link   
a reply to: CynConcepts

I pointed that out earlier. Source of lighting, type of lighting, direction of lighting ... the phenomenon is related to the angle and intensity of light.

That fact doesn't suit some folks argument, however, much less that there is no standard "taxonomy" of Sasquatch.



posted on May, 12 2017 @ 01:14 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66


You are the one making the argument that there is no mention of red eyes "prior to Ivan." You have yet to prove it.


So to be clear: I can prove that red eyes are in testimony after 1960 because I can find written records of such.

Before 1960 I can't find written records of such, but that doesn't prove that it wasn't part of the description?

You do understand that the lack of written record IS the proof right? You are now asking me to find proof that there is no written record. I've done that, and I've found no written record. You are now either welcome to prove ME wrong by finding a written record, or you must accept that it is most likely a modern addition to Bigfoot and people who claim they saw red eyes are either colorblind or lying.
edit on 12-5-2017 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2017 @ 01:15 PM
link   
a reply to: CynConcepts

What changed significantly about light sources between say 1945 and 1960?

Edit: I am assuming you agree campfire light is the same? If so, why do we have modern stories of red eyes beyond the campfire but not older stories of the same?
edit on 12-5-2017 by raymundoko because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 12 2017 @ 01:42 PM
link   
a reply to: raymundoko

You can't (or more specifically haven't) proven anything. You've made statements and claims.

You don't seem to understand that. You've said things, but have proven squat.

You expect us, apparently, to take you at your word, yet, you accord that same respect to no one else here.

We're done.



posted on May, 12 2017 @ 01:45 PM
link   
a reply to: Gryphon66

Show me where I expected you to take me at my word? How many times have I asked you to prove me wrong. I am basically begging you to go out there and NOT take me at my word.



posted on May, 12 2017 @ 01:54 PM
link   
Speaking of variations in reports ...

The size range is what 6-12 ft tall?

Descriptions of facial structure vary from human-like to ape-like to baboon/dog-bear like.

Some are solitary, some move in family groups; some avoid humans, some attack humans.

Some eat humans, some mate with humans.

Whatever the source of the phenomena is ... there seems to be considerable variations in individuals.



posted on May, 12 2017 @ 02:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: raymundoko
a reply to: Gryphon66

Show me where I expected you to take me at my word? How many times have I asked you to prove me wrong. I am basically begging you to go out there and NOT take me at my word.


Ray, I'm going to have one more whack at this because your last at least seems said in earnest.

YOU have made the claim that "glowing/luminescent" red eyes is a recent addition to what we can very loosely call Sasquatch lore. You then used that claim as evidence that OP is hoaxing ... a serious accusation.

You have made the claim. You have the responsibility of backing it up.

OP has stated repeatedly that her testimony of what she has experienced is basically all she has to offer.

You don't believe her statements and you keep repeating that you don't believe her statements.

Yet, you want us to believe that you have conducted an extensive investigation into "the literature" and have found no references to certain aspects of certain relations of experiences.

You speak as if your opinions regarding Sasquatch should be taken as scientific fact, but that my friend is just not true.
edit on 12-5-2017 by Gryphon66 because: noted



new topics

top topics



 
69
<< 51  52  53    55  56  57 >>

log in

join