'Bigfoot' DNA sequenced in upcoming genetics study

reply to post by V4SL4ND


Belittle all you desire.

Coming face to face, only a few meters away from a black bear, cougar, boar, a couple wolves, all in the wild, alone without support from anyone else; these things can indeed be life threatening. Treat the situation incorrectly and you won't be coming back with any stories to tell. You won't be coming back at all.

Thus, I disagree with your position in regard to my own experience. It may very well be applicable in reference to your typical urbanite, but such application I don't think applies to me.
You are, of course, entirely welcome to voice whatever opinion you have, but, I'm fairly certain I know me much better than you know me.

I agree that it's easier for someone to say they'll do something where they've zero real experience in the matter, but, I'm fairly confident regarding the experiences I do have to draw on that had I need, I'd have no problem. I'm not some fragile little princess lacking the assertion to act on what needs be done.

Scoff away all you like, but, I beg to differ.

Howdy! there!

They have some more info (in regards to our favorite hairy human/thang what!) if you want to see it


This stuff has been on the News all day (Radio and TV) its everywhere

I'm not belittling, sorry you took it that way. But the fact is, coming in contact with something you thought to be only legend, in a life threatening situation, you nor I have any idea how we'd react.

I thought I made my point clear...I guess not, again, sorry. But to say you'd have done this or that in that situation, it doesn't sit well with me....no matter of experience, training, or backround could prepare you for a situation like that. Not saying you wouldn't shoot the big bad boogy man, maybe you would. Maybe you'd sh!t your pants...get in contact with one, I guess, shoot it & if you survive come back to internetland & tell us all about it.

Of course no one would believe you, & say something like, "I'd of hogtied that thing & provided a live sample for my local zoo", lol.

Love your sig by the way.

Originally posted by RUFFREADY
Howdy! there!

They have some more info (in regards to our favorite hairy human/thang what!) if you want to see it


This stuff has been on the News all day (Radio and TV) its everywhere

ROFL ... Thanks for the laugh

reply to post by Druscilla


I'm guessing you wouldn't say the same if this was a rumoured 'lost' tribe of humans in the rainforest. They would also need protection against encroachment but I can't imagine anyone suggesting shooting one to confirm their existence.

However, because Bigfoot look different it's ok to kill one, even though we know nothing about it's genetic make up?

I also don't concede that it would be 'necessary' to kill one, why not try tranquilizers first before we go steaming in with uzis?

reply to post by MarrsAttax


I'm not against tranquilizers.
If it was a lost tribe of regular old humans, and they were too elusive to capture on film for definite identification and to verify them as actually being there, well, they're just human, and we've plenty of those all over the planet, so dragging one out of the wilderness either full of holes, or full of Ketamine, M99, or some other tranquilizer makes no difference to me.
I've no emotional attachment to either solution where whichever solution proves most effective and expedient wins the day.
Whatever anyone's feelings, we need a body; alive or dead. Certainly a live specimen would have certain advantages over a dead specimen, but, a dead specimen also presents different advantages over a live specimen.
A detailed vivisection of a live specimen, for instance would kill it.
A study of interactive exchange, habits, intelligence testing, and many other things wouldn't be possible with a dead specimen.
Either way, alive or dead, a body will meet the requirement for demonstrable unambiguous observation in providing a specimen.
The quicker/sooner either happen, the quicker/sooner the species, if it is extant, can be universally recognized, and protected. Right now, if a bigfoot falls in the woods, no one knows since it's just a myth.
Given recognition, at least then we can goal to prevent the extinction of something we never had confirmation as real.
How many species of animals and insects have gone extinct right under our noses that we never knew about until it was too late?

Demonstrating unambiguous representative sampling by providing a body could be means to prevent the extinction of something that may very well be on the verge of disappearing forever.

reply to post by nv4711


What makes it a load of crap, just because you hadn't heard them? Or because they weren't broadcasted on MSM?

If it's as I believe, it would never be broadcasted on the news or even properly documented. For some reason certain agencies in our government are surpressing the bigfoot reality.

When I reported my sighting to the Fish and Wildlife...they weren't shocked or mocking. They told me that they know about them and they are called "Wildman". That they are harmless if you don't bother them. Then they asked me for the location and if I collected anything.

Look, before I personally saw one...I never considered any possibility of the things existing. I'm a urban gangster who just happened to be in the Army in a wild environment. The last type person anyone would believe saw a BF.

reply to post by Druscilla


OK, when I have a moment I will link you to the stories...

reply to post by V4SL4ND


According to certain researchers BF are the apex predator where ever they live. There have been sightings of grizzly and kodiak bears taking off at speed just catching a whiff.

One alleged abductee reports the FEMALE BF who captured him would bring bear carcasses back to the cave to feed him.

Let me quickly attempt to provide some links:

Here's a rather large database called the bfro

www.bfro.net...

There's also a book I purchased from amazon titled "Enoch". Now it was later debunked that the guy who provided the 1st person account of habitating with a BF admitted he lied the entire situation together. However, my opinion is that it was TOO detailed. So HE may have lied, but the accounts he reported were real. I believe he took someone elses account and attempted to make it his. Sort of like if you tell an acquaintance of yours of a event that's fascinating, and you knowing that person would never tell the story. So you tell the story as if you were the person who experienced it.

I'm looking for this one site that has stories I had never heard before...absolutely fascinating!

I can't find the link at this moment, perhaps I saved it on my home computer, but I will link it when I find it. It gives an account of some military personnel at a base in CA. They report that they used to see them on infrared while securing some landing strip.

This was just posted at "Bigfoot Evidence" pretty weird to say the least Is it real? I'd think if it was there would be more info and a long story from shooter etc..

Originally posted by DZAG Wright
reply to post by nv4711

 

What makes it a load of crap, just because you hadn't heard them? Or because they weren't broadcasted on MSM?

Because:

A) Your stories are urban myths
B) there must be a decapitated body - you telling me the family of that hapless hunter just shrug their shoulders and said "oh well...."
C) there is Hunter #2 - what did he tell the cops, EMT's, coroner - they believe his story? If they didn't, how was the death of his buddy explained?
D) In case of the guide, the event was "witnessed" by a bunch of tourists - Tourists have cameras, it goes together like oreos and milk, Sunny and Cher and America and obesity - so, nobody took pics of the attack, the mutilated body, the whole scene when wildlife rangers, cops, etc etc arrived? Nobody called the press to tell the story of his life?

Your stories have not happened. Period.

If it's as I believe, it would never be broadcasted on the news or even properly documented. For some reason certain agencies in our government are surpressing the bigfoot reality.

I still haven't heard a convincing argument why the Gov't would suppress Bigfoot evidence.

When I reported my sighting to the Fish and Wildlife...they weren't shocked or mocking. They told me that they know about them and they are called "Wildman". That they are harmless if you don't bother them. Then they asked me for the location and if I collected anything.

This has no bearing at all on the veracity of the stories you related. Comparably, if you report a UFO sighting and the cops take you seriously, that doesn't prove that unrelated UFO reports (or your report, for that matter) are true. It just proofs that the cops, or in your case the Rangers, do their job.

Originally posted by DZAG Wright
Let me quickly attempt to provide some links:

Here's a rather large database called the bfro

www.bfro.net...

There's also a book I purchased from amazon titled "Enoch". Now it was later debunked that the guy who provided the 1st person account of habitating with a BF admitted he lied the entire situation together. However, my opinion is that it was TOO detailed. So HE may have lied, but the accounts he reported were real. I believe he took someone elses account and attempted to make it his. Sort of like if you tell an acquaintance of yours of a event that's fascinating, and you knowing that person would never tell the story. So you tell the story as if you were the person who experienced it.

I'm looking for this one site that has stories I had never heard before...absolutely fascinating!

I can't find the link at this moment, perhaps I saved it on my home computer, but I will link it when I find it. It gives an account of some military personnel at a base in CA. They report that they used to see them on infrared while securing some landing strip.

Why are you making excuses for a proven liar? Because you want it to be true? So you rather believe the fabulations of an admitted liar than accepting that the story isn't true - because it sounded "too real"?

Your obvious naivety and gullibility are to be taken into account when reading anything that you're posting.

reply to post by DZAG Wright


Linking us to the BFRO home page is about the same as saying you found the stories "somewhere on the internet".

It gives the appearance of being just as vague and elusive as the mythical beast itself.

When discussing something, unless it's already been referenced before, or is essentially foundation material like the Patterson Gimlin film, we need exacting references that point to specific records.
Otherwise, this all devolves into unproven and unprovable fish stories, and before long Bigfoot is 50ft tall, breathing fire, eating whole villages of people.

We need specific sources, or, these stories can run away with themselves.

Originally posted by nv4711

Originally posted by DZAG Wright
reply to post by nv4711

 

What makes it a load of crap, just because you hadn't heard them? Or because they weren't broadcasted on MSM?

Because:

A) Your stories are urban myths
B) there must be a decapitated body - you telling me the family of that hapless hunter just shrug their shoulders and said "oh well...."
C) there is Hunter #2 - what did he tell the cops, EMT's, coroner - they believe his story? If they didn't, how was the death of his buddy explained?
D) In case of the guide, the event was "witnessed" by a bunch of tourists - Tourists have cameras, it goes together like oreos and milk, Sunny and Cher and America and obesity - so, nobody took pics of the attack, the mutilated body, the whole scene when wildlife rangers, cops, etc etc arrived? Nobody called the press to tell the story of his life?

Your stories have not happened. Period.

If it's as I believe, it would never be broadcasted on the news or even properly documented. For some reason certain agencies in our government are surpressing the bigfoot reality.

I still haven't heard a convincing argument why the Gov't would suppress Bigfoot evidence.

When I reported my sighting to the Fish and Wildlife...they weren't shocked or mocking. They told me that they know about them and they are called "Wildman". That they are harmless if you don't bother them. Then they asked me for the location and if I collected anything.

This has no bearing at all on the veracity of the stories you related. Comparably, if you report a UFO sighting and the cops take you seriously, that doesn't prove that unrelated UFO reports (or your report, for that matter) are true. It just proofs that the cops, or in your case the Rangers, do their job.

Look, I'm going to handle you as I handle my wife when she feels like being arumentive...."Alright buddy, whatever you say, you win." I have no desire to argue...take what I say with a grain of salt. If it isn't for you, then it isn't or you.

Originally posted by nv4711

Originally posted by DZAG Wright
Let me quickly attempt to provide some links:

Here's a rather large database called the bfro

www.bfro.net...

There's also a book I purchased from amazon titled "Enoch". Now it was later debunked that the guy who provided the 1st person account of habitating with a BF admitted he lied the entire situation together. However, my opinion is that it was TOO detailed. So HE may have lied, but the accounts he reported were real. I believe he took someone elses account and attempted to make it his. Sort of like if you tell an acquaintance of yours of a event that's fascinating, and you knowing that person would never tell the story. So you tell the story as if you were the person who experienced it.

I'm looking for this one site that has stories I had never heard before...absolutely fascinating!

I can't find the link at this moment, perhaps I saved it on my home computer, but I will link it when I find it. It gives an account of some military personnel at a base in CA. They report that they used to see them on infrared while securing some landing strip.

Why are you making excuses for a proven liar? Because you want it to be true? So you rather believe the fabulations of an admitted liar than accepting that the story isn't true - because it sounded "too real"?

Your obvious naivety and gullibility are to be taken into account when reading anything that you're posting.

I guess you're one of those people easily distracted and wouldn't recognize the truth if it bit you. You may not have enough experience to be able to wade through distractions?

reply to post by Druscilla


I'll get more detailed in a bit...

General Comment....in light of Matt Moneymakers Tweets and plastering it on the BFRO main page I've contacted Animal Planet. It's some of the most unprofessional behavior I've seen, and regardless of your position I'd encourage others to do the same.

corporate.discovery.com...

I used to enjoy the show, but find it all so distasteful now......

Originally posted by DZAG Wright

Originally posted by nv4711

Originally posted by DZAG Wright
Let me quickly attempt to provide some links:

Here's a rather large database called the bfro

www.bfro.net...

There's also a book I purchased from amazon titled "Enoch". Now it was later debunked that the guy who provided the 1st person account of habitating with a BF admitted he lied the entire situation together. However, my opinion is that it was TOO detailed. So HE may have lied, but the accounts he reported were real. I believe he took someone elses account and attempted to make it his. Sort of like if you tell an acquaintance of yours of a event that's fascinating, and you knowing that person would never tell the story. So you tell the story as if you were the person who experienced it.

I'm looking for this one site that has stories I had never heard before...absolutely fascinating!

I can't find the link at this moment, perhaps I saved it on my home computer, but I will link it when I find it. It gives an account of some military personnel at a base in CA. They report that they used to see them on infrared while securing some landing strip.

Why are you making excuses for a proven liar? Because you want it to be true? So you rather believe the fabulations of an admitted liar than accepting that the story isn't true - because it sounded "too real"?

Your obvious naivety and gullibility are to be taken into account when reading anything that you're posting.

I guess you're one of those people easily distracted and wouldn't recognize the truth if it bit you. You may not have enough experience to be able to wade through distractions?

Apparently, ignorance indeed is bliss. Say hi for me to your fellow denizens in LaLa Land.

I have to go and saddle my Unicorn now and go Nessy hunting.

Talking about Unicorns, did you hear that story where this Unicorn came out of the woods and gored this tourist guide to death? Man, what a scene that was! Of course, "certain agencies" covered it up, but its true, really. I swear. I've seen it myself - actually not really myself, but there is this guy who wrote a book (Hans-Christian Andersen) so its true.

And as far as experience goes - mine are from the real world, not Fantasy Island, like yours.

Originally posted by Caver78
General Comment....in light of Matt Moneymakers Tweets and plastering it on the BFRO main page I've contacted Animal Planet. It's some of the most unprofessional behavior I've seen, and regardless of your position I'd encourage others to do the same.

corporate.discovery.com...

I used to enjoy the show, but find it all so distasteful now......

Well, what do you expect from a guy whose name is "Moneymaker" - nomen est omen.

Did you watch the hyped "DNA" episode the other day?. Not that I expected anything really, but it turned out to be even more laughable than what I thought it would be.