Nice Bigfoot video compilation - 1967-2012

page: 4
43
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 05:24 AM
link   
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 




How do you know there are no fossil records? There are primate fossils from North America:

Yes primate fossil records, which you can't attribute to Bigfoot just to fit your theory.
No where in link 1 does it remotely say that it's the fossil record of a creature walking the planet today.

Again, link 2, does not show any proof of Bigfoot. None what so ever.



Hair samples have been found. Scat has been found. DNA has been found.

I would love to see that. Show me the evidence.




People have seen young ones.

Anecdote.



There is less evidence of "billions of years" than there is of Bigfoot.

Really? We must live in two different realities.



In a murder trial, we could convict on what we have

Somehow I doubt that. Why hasn't science then, with the tons of evidence you say exists, confirmed the existence of Bigfoot?



There are peer reviewed works.

Show me.



The problem is the arrogance of the establishment scientific community.

Aha, so the problem's not the charlatans, pseudo scientists, TV shows and people who invent stories for money? No, of course not, the problem lies with the people who actually know what they're doing and talking about, the experts.
Don't you think that scientists would love to find Bigfoot? Of course they would.

Again, no real evidence, just anecdotes. Bigfoot makes money, fact.
That's the only truth in the equation.

Sorry I didn't reply earlier but your comment didn't show up in my replies.

Would I like Bigfoot to exist? Of course I would. Do I like viewing stuff about Bigfoot? Of course I do.
It's good entertainment, but that's all it is. Good entertainment.




posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 02:01 AM
link   

Originally posted by ParaSpy2012
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 

Yes primate fossil records, which you can't attribute to Bigfoot just to fit your theory.
No where in link 1 does it remotely say that it's the fossil record of a creature walking the planet today.


You can't attribute them to something that doesn't fit, either. Point is, they have been known to be here, are sighted all the time as here, and could easily be here now. There isn't enough to prove 100% yet, but there is more than enough to warrant further investigation.


Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
Hair samples have been found. Scat has been found. DNA has been found.

Originally posted by ParaSpy2012
I would love to see that. Show me the evidence.


Look at any number of websites, programs, etc., and you will see tons of discussion on all that. There is a LOT out there.


Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
People have seen young ones.

Originally posted by ParaSpy2012
Anecdote.


Eye-witness evidence can convict a person of murder. Seems it should be enough to warrant an investigation into an unrecognized animal.


Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
There is less evidence of "billions of years" than there is of Bigfoot.

Originally posted by ParaSpy2012
Really? We must live in two different realities.


My reality means evidence, not unproven theories. No one can prove millions of years. Not observed. No closed system to date anything with accuracy. Not provable by the scientific method.


Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes
In a murder trial, we could convict on what we have

Originally posted by ParaSpy2012
Somehow I doubt that. Why hasn't science then, with the tons of evidence you say exists, confirmed the existence of Bigfoot?


Because mainstream science is filled with bull-headed people that don't want to be proven wrong. This isn't a secret. Look at how the discussion on dinosaurs has gone. Debates on warm vs. cold blood, whether they nurtured their young, and so much more.


Originally posted by ParaSpy2012
Aha, so the problem's not the charlatans, pseudo scientists, TV shows and people who invent stories for money? No, of course not, the problem lies with the people who actually know what they're doing and talking about, the experts.
Don't you think that scientists would love to find Bigfoot? Of course they would.


Of course, those that present clear fakes, or lie, or use bad science are a problem, but that doesn't mean the entire idea is bad; just those people. Do you toss out all meteorologists because of the many that lied about "global warming", and got caught? Do I think some want to find Bigfoot? Actually, no. If some of the theories are true, then it's probable that a firm discovery would throw a monkey wrench (no pun intended) into a lot of long held beliefs. Mainstream science is very slow to change.


Originally posted by ParaSpy2012
Would I like Bigfoot to exist? Of course I would. Do I like viewing stuff about Bigfoot? Of course I do.
It's good entertainment, but that's all it is. Good entertainment.


Well, it is very entertaining, save for some of the really BAD movies that have been made. Very few good ones in that area, sadly. Real? Remains to be seen. When local Indian tribes talked about them for centuries, and what they describe fits a lot of the modern sightings, then it's worth looking into. Until pretty recently, gorillas and orangutans were nothing but local legends. Then, all of a sudden, they were real, and are accepted. it's very possible for a large animal to not be "discovered".

There is something else to consider as well. There is a LOT of evidence that they are far smarter than some think. The old legends spoke of "wild men", not animals. People, of a somewhat different sort, would easily be able to elude those looking for them, if they so chose.



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 03:16 AM
link   
Nice Vid I was doing research on a totality unrelated subject on another forum,that involved Moors in Europe,and I came across this tapestry it went from Moors fighting Christians to Moors fighting Wild men,and I got to thinking what if the so-called wild men of European mythology are really the last remnants of Big Foot or Sasquatch they are larger than average men,extremely hairy no clothes which is necessary for living in cold climates in Europe and live out in the woods,they lack high technology of the times they fought with branches of trees,rocks etc.


Note the difference between the Christians and The wildmen

Note even the babies are hairy they appear to eat meat uncooked



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 04:41 AM
link   
reply to post by Spider879
 


Not sure where I am supposed to be looking in those tapestries. Can you do some up with labels? Interesting idea, in any case. Pretty much all of the Eastern European/Asian ones are called "wild men" by the locals,just as the ones here were by the early Indian tribes. Then, some of the faces in the better videos we can see these days.....well, they don't look like apes! Hard to know what to think anymore.



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 08:48 AM
link   
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 


This is part of a larger piece,and some what fanciful as other parts showed unicorns and what not,however the wild-men showed up on European coat of arms,so I am guessing that there must be some kernel of truth to those representations,after all the Moors were certainly not fanciful.

circa 1400 Source Charles Potter Kling Fund, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, Boston, Massachusett

In the German speaking world of the late fourteenth to fifteenth centuries the role of Wild people and fabulous beasts was one of the most favoured themes in art, poetry and pageant. Tapestry wallhangings were one colourful and prestigious medium used to depict this subject. Wildness implied everything that went against the established framework of Christian society, representing the unconfined side of man's nature, but in a liberating, romantic sense rather than evil or dark.

Wildmen, wildwomen and mythical beasts, as shown in this tapestry, imply freedom, energy, natural instincts and pleasures. Noblemen and merchants liked to see this theme represented in their houses and castles on tiles, embroideries and tapestries and even on some utensils. The subject was not confined to the German-speaking lands and in England the Green(e) man, still occasionally used as the name of a public house (pub) may be seen as one representation of this theme, although usually shown as much less wild and exotic-looking than the Wildmen of the tapestry.
collections.vam.ac.uk...



posted on Feb, 7 2013 @ 03:34 PM
link   
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 




but there is more than enough to warrant further investigation.

I agree.

Further investigation is the way forward, definitely.



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 02:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by Spider879
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 


This is part of a larger piece,and some what fanciful as other parts showed unicorns and what not,however the wild-men showed up on European coat of arms,so I am guessing that there must be some kernel of truth to those representations,after all the Moors were certainly not fanciful.

circa 1400 Source Charles Potter Kling Fund, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, Boston, Massachusett

In the German speaking world of the late fourteenth to fifteenth centuries the role of Wild people and fabulous beasts was one of the most favoured themes in art, poetry and pageant. Tapestry wallhangings were one colourful and prestigious medium used to depict this subject. Wildness implied everything that went against the established framework of Christian society, representing the unconfined side of man's nature, but in a liberating, romantic sense rather than evil or dark.

Wildmen, wildwomen and mythical beasts, as shown in this tapestry, imply freedom, energy, natural instincts and pleasures. Noblemen and merchants liked to see this theme represented in their houses and castles on tiles, embroideries and tapestries and even on some utensils. The subject was not confined to the German-speaking lands and in England the Green(e) man, still occasionally used as the name of a public house (pub) may be seen as one representation of this theme, although usually shown as much less wild and exotic-looking than the Wildmen of the tapestry.
collections.vam.ac.uk...



Appreciate the info. I have long believed that most legends contain some kernel of truth. It's very interesting, too, that cultures all over the world share tales of wild men. If you can, get a copy (it's been reprinted, and thus FAR more affordable now) of Sanderson's book, "Abominable Snowmen". I lucked across an old one in a used book store, and that is some interesting reading!



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 03:20 AM
link   

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

Originally posted by Spider879
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 


This is part of a larger piece,and some what fanciful as other parts showed unicorns and what not,however the wild-men showed up on European coat of arms,so I am guessing that there must be some kernel of truth to those representations,after all the Moors were certainly not fanciful.

circa 1400 Source Charles Potter Kling Fund, Museum of Fine Arts, Boston, Boston, Massachusett

In the German speaking world of the late fourteenth to fifteenth centuries the role of Wild people and fabulous beasts was one of the most favoured themes in art, poetry and pageant. Tapestry wallhangings were one colourful and prestigious medium used to depict this subject. Wildness implied everything that went against the established framework of Christian society, representing the unconfined side of man's nature, but in a liberating, romantic sense rather than evil or dark.

Wildmen, wildwomen and mythical beasts, as shown in this tapestry, imply freedom, energy, natural instincts and pleasures. Noblemen and merchants liked to see this theme represented in their houses and castles on tiles, embroideries and tapestries and even on some utensils. The subject was not confined to the German-speaking lands and in England the Green(e) man, still occasionally used as the name of a public house (pub) may be seen as one representation of this theme, although usually shown as much less wild and exotic-looking than the Wildmen of the tapestry.
collections.vam.ac.uk...



Appreciate the info. I have long believed that most legends contain some kernel of truth. It's very interesting, too, that cultures all over the world share tales of wild men. If you can, get a copy (it's been reprinted, and thus FAR more affordable now) of Sanderson's book, "Abominable Snowmen". I lucked across an old one in a used book store, and that is some interesting reading!


Thanks for the heads-up on Sanderson's Book and let us keep in mind that the Gorilla a must see attraction in any decent zoo,was as much mythical creature only coming to real light in 1902

Nearly 2,500 years ago an expedition from the Phoenician merchant city of Carthage to western coasts of Africa accidentally discovered a group of wild gorillas.

During the sixteenth century an English sailor by the name of Andrew Battel was captured by the Portuguese in West Africa. He spoke of two man-like apes (today easily recognized as chimpanzees & gorillas) that would visit the campfire when it was unattended.

The mountain gorilla was first discovered by a German officer, named Captain Robert von Beringe in 1902. Prior to this time, only lowland gorillas were known to exist. The mountain gorilla subspecies name is derived from Captain Robert von Beringe's last name (Gorilla beringei beringei).

Also most Africans have had no contacts with the Gorilla as they only recently penetrated the forest zones from the Savannah with the exception of the Ba-Twi or Pygmies the Big foot should not be dismissed out of hand.
edit on 12-2-2013 by Spider879 because: error
edit on 12-2-2013 by Spider879 because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 04:40 AM
link   

Originally posted by Spider879
Thanks for the heads-up on Sanderson's Book and let us keep in mind that the Gorilla a must see attraction in any decent zoo,was as much mythical creature only coming to real light in 1902

Nearly 2,500 years ago an expedition from the Phoenician merchant city of Carthage to western coasts of Africa accidentally discovered a group of wild gorillas.

During the sixteenth century an English sailor by the name of Andrew Battel was captured by the Portuguese in West Africa. He spoke of two man-like apes (today easily recognized as chimpanzees & gorillas) that would visit the campfire when it was unattended.

The mountain gorilla was first discovered by a German officer, named Captain Robert von Beringe in 1902. Prior to this time, only lowland gorillas were known to exist. The mountain gorilla subspecies name is derived from Captain Robert von Beringe's last name (Gorilla beringei beringei).

Also most Africans have had no contacts with the Gorilla as they only recently penetrated the forest zones from the Savannah with the exception of the Ba-Twi or Pygmies the Big foot should not be dismissed out of hand.
edit on 12-2-2013 by Spider879 because: error
edit on 12-2-2013 by Spider879 because: (no reason given)


It's a great book! He even goes into some detail on the different sorts of terrain, and which type (there are apparently more than one) that is commonly found in each place.

Gorillas were "myth", yes, and so were orangutans. With Bigfoot, an ape is possible, but what it they aren't apes? What if they really are "wild men"? Check the face in that video shot from the tent. If that's real, I can see why so many hunters state they could not shoot, because "it" looked too human!



posted on Feb, 12 2013 @ 05:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by LadyGreenEyes

Originally posted by Spider879
Thanks for the heads-up on Sanderson's Book and let us keep in mind that the Gorilla a must see attraction in any decent zoo,was as much mythical creature only coming to real light in 1902

Nearly 2,500 years ago an expedition from the Phoenician merchant city of Carthage to western coasts of Africa accidentally discovered a group of wild gorillas.

During the sixteenth century an English sailor by the name of Andrew Battel was captured by the Portuguese in West Africa. He spoke of two man-like apes (today easily recognized as chimpanzees & gorillas) that would visit the campfire when it was unattended.

The mountain gorilla was first discovered by a German officer, named Captain Robert von Beringe in 1902. Prior to this time, only lowland gorillas were known to exist. The mountain gorilla subspecies name is derived from Captain Robert von Beringe's last name (Gorilla beringei beringei).

Also most Africans have had no contacts with the Gorilla as they only recently penetrated the forest zones from the Savannah with the exception of the Ba-Twi or Pygmies the Big foot should not be dismissed out of hand.
edit on 12-2-2013 by Spider879 because: error
edit on 12-2-2013 by Spider879 because: (no reason given)


It's a great book! He even goes into some detail on the different sorts of terrain, and which type (there are apparently more than one) that is commonly found in each place.

Gorillas were "myth", yes, and so were orangutans. With Bigfoot, an ape is possible, but what it they aren't apes? What if they really are "wild men"? Check the face in that video shot from the tent. If that's real, I can see why so many hunters state they could not shoot, because "it" looked too human!

If they are humans then any killing outside of self defense should be punishable by manslaughter or murder I am gonna throw this out there I am willing to bet they are the last remaining pockets Neanderthal, and if they are then we already did too much damage and it would be kind enough of us to leave them alone.



posted on Feb, 18 2013 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Coast To Coast AM 02.17.2013 - Bigfoot DNA / Phoenix Lights - C2CAM

I am checking this out right now interesting stuff.
edit on 18-2-2013 by Spider879 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 01:10 PM
link   
Don't know if this has been discussed, but the video isn't working. Does anyone have an alternate upload/video?



posted on Apr, 25 2013 @ 09:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by supermarket2012
Don't know if this has been discussed, but the video isn't working. Does anyone have an alternate upload/video?


Go to time 1;18 for the Bigfoot part.



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 12:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Spider879
If they are humans then any killing outside of self defense should be punishable by manslaughter or murder I am gonna throw this out there I am willing to bet they are the last remaining pockets Neanderthal, and if they are then we already did too much damage and it would be kind enough of us to leave them alone.


If they are human, they should be given the same consideration as anyone else.

Have you seen the latest information on the DNA testing that was supposedly done? The lady vet in Texas (can't recall the name, too little sleep) is apparently claiming the DNA is mostly human, with some totally unknown elements in the nuclear DNA (from the male line). That would seem to fit some other tests we have heard about, but I don't really know what to make of those results. Well, not in line with this being an unknown animal or primitive sort of person. Stuff like that makes me head in a totally different direction.

Will have to check the videos out when quieter here.



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 12:27 AM
link   
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 




If they are human, they should be given the same consideration as anyone else. Have you seen the latest information on the DNA testing that was supposedly done? The lady vet in Texas (can't recall the name, too little sleep) is apparently claiming the DNA is mostly human, with some totally unknown elements in the nuclear DNA (from the male line). That would seem to fit some other tests we have heard about, but I don't really know what to make of those results. Well, not in line with this being an unknown animal or primitive sort of person. Stuff like that makes me head in a totally different direction. Will have to check the videos out when quieter here.

Only from the vid,I am not sure if the results are posted on Linda Moulton Howe's site she was the one doing the interview in the vid.



posted on Apr, 26 2013 @ 02:34 AM
link   

Originally posted by Spider879
reply to post by LadyGreenEyes
 




If they are human, they should be given the same consideration as anyone else. Have you seen the latest information on the DNA testing that was supposedly done? The lady vet in Texas (can't recall the name, too little sleep) is apparently claiming the DNA is mostly human, with some totally unknown elements in the nuclear DNA (from the male line). That would seem to fit some other tests we have heard about, but I don't really know what to make of those results. Well, not in line with this being an unknown animal or primitive sort of person. Stuff like that makes me head in a totally different direction. Will have to check the videos out when quieter here.

Only from the vid,I am not sure if the results are posted on Linda Moulton Howe's site she was the one doing the interview in the vid.


Yeah, just finished listening to that. The results are.....interesting.....

That "unknown male progenitor" is something that kind of gives me goosebumps. That should make my current reading all the more creepy. I just got the first of the Missing 411 books, and plan to start that whenever I get offline. The radio discussion of those is most interesting, and I have always loved a good mystery!





new topics
top topics
 
43
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join


Haters, Bigots, Partisan Trolls, Propaganda Hacks, Racists, and LOL-tards: Time To Move On.
read more: Community Announcement re: Decorum