reply to post by hesse
One of the only things Facebook Find Bigfoot said that I agreed with was that Bigfoot, if it exists, must process information at a speed vastly
greater than us. If it's ability to see something, process the information, and react to that information was even 10x faster than ours it would seem
to be supernatural to us, and would also account quite well for the ability to seemingly disappear in an instant.
Imagine you're looking at one peeking at you behind a tree. You move to get a better view and you just glance at where you're going to put your
foot. In that instant it's seen you, processed everything it needs to (no threat), seen where you're moving to, identified cover, and when you look
back...Poof! Vanished into (seemingly) thin air.
While that is fascinating, taking this supposition into consideration whilst reading the book is truly terrifying. A lot of the accounts, as I'm sure
readers are aware, involve someone glancing away and looking back to find someone has 'disappeared.'
A creature that could process information at high speeds, and who's body would be strong enough to enable it to move at similar speeds, would be more
than capable of grabbing those who vanish.
One case from the Western edition really exemplifies this. I can't remember the name, and my mum currently has the book, but it involved an autistic
boy out in the woods with his dad. His parents had seperated so his dad very much cherished the time.
The boy was running around his dad, hiding behind the few trees in the area. Ducks behind one and then doesn't come out. Dad investigates and he's
not there. Starts calling, and gets no response.
Imagine you and a child are taking a walk in the woods. The kid, being a kid, isn't walking at your heel but dashing about. You lose sight of him for
an instant. Something has been watching and waiting. In the one instant where the child has moved into a place which will allow a 'clean getaway' it
dashes forward. It has already estimated your line of sight, estimate the speed it'd need to travel and plotted a course away before it even begins
to move. It flits in, grabs, and flits off.
Interestingly enough, in the above case, they dragged sniffer dogs to the car and gave them the boys scent. Expecting the dogs to cross the road
towards the path the pair had took, they were surprised when they instead ran back along the road the way the car had come, then stood against a high
wall and started barking. It was assumed they had no scent.
What struck me is that even when examining this, Paulides missed the most obvious and most probable scenarios:
Scenario 1: The dogs did not miss the scent. They picked up the freshest scent and followed it to where they could. This would mean the boy either
returned to the vehicle then climbed the wall or whatever took him carried him up the hill, out of the sight of his father, crossed the road and ran
back away then hopped the wall.
Scenario 2: The dogs had a stronger and more potent scent which they tracked back along the way it had come. Which would mean that whatever took the
boy had tracked the vehicle and, once it pulled over, hopped the wall, moved to investigate the vehicle and then headed toward the child