Wow, he looks almost human!!
Mr. Flipper & Son Hear, See, and Get Footprints of Bigfoot on Pack Trip
by flipper 81 Replies latest jw friends
-
-
nvrgnbk
Glad you guys enjoyed the hike.
Take some plaster next time.
-
sweetface2233
It could have been a manbearpig.
-
flipper
O.K. Thanks for the replies. I had to work all night , so I finally can answer your responses.
IN RAINBOWS- I respectfully disagree with you. There is a lot of evidence that has been accumulating over the years to prove Bigfoot's existence. There have been hair samples collected and tested for DNA and have been found to have " no scientific match" with any known species of animal. Flesh samples wee found in Canada last October- and tested for DNA, and " no scientific match " was found for that either in any species of animal listed. There is indisputable " photographic and videographic " evidence with Roger Patterson's film from 1967 and other films as well. Just google " Bigfoot" or " Bigfoot videos " and you will see there is real footage of the creature. There have been hundreds of casts of Bigfoot footprints made and are being analyzed at Idaho State University and other places. Check out the book, " Sasquatch- Legend Meets Science " by Jeff Meldrum . You will have lots of convincing evidence thrown your way reading that book. Inform yourself.
FUNKY DEREK- If you look at the snow picture more carefully- my boot is just to the right of the white clearer area which is the footprint. It doesn't have as many pine needles in it- because it was freshly put there probably within a few days before. My family and I do not have a Bigfoot experience every time we go camping. My son saw one a year ago- so we went back to the same spot. Do yourself a favor- educate and inform yourself by reading Jeff Meldrum's book- " Sasquatch- Legend Meets Science " before you are so willing to criticize something you have done no research on. Meldrum is a Idaho State University professor of Anatomy and anthropology who, along with other scientists are currently researching, and bringing out new verified information on the proof of Bigfoot's existence. To bury one's head in the sand , is like Jehovah's Witnesses refusing to see that they don't have other options.
The proof is there. There have been DNA samples taken of hair, flesh, and scat - and all three have yielded an " unknown species " label attributed to the samples. No known match to other animals. So if you doubt this - prove me wrong by reading the book. Then once you have completely informed yourself - then you'd be better able to debate with me - instead of shooting words off your hip like you are all-knowing or something. If you come away after reading that book, then feel the same way- then fine, I'll respect that. But the evidence is irrefutable for Bigfoot's existence !
DETECTIVE- There certainly is an air of charm and mystery in that Bigfoot is elusive. I hope they stay a safe distance away from humans - as humans would just hurt them like they did out here in California to the grizzly bears in the late 1800's- now we have no more grizzlies out here since 1924 .
DORKTACULAR- There are a lot of people who are studying and researching this ape. However- it is not easy to make a 600 pound , 7 foot tall gorilla do what you want it to do, or cooperate. They are fast, agile, and great at being secretive and elusive. It's not like anyone is going to catch it with a butterfly net, for christ's sakes.
NATHAN NATAS- It would have been difficult to cast prints in the snow and perhaps them getting wet and breaking on the way hiking out. The roars were a mile or so away and might not have been caught on a recorder . We plan on more trips later in the summer or fall so there is no rush. But what we experienced was real and I know what I saw and heard.
LAYLA 33- It was a fun, enjoyable hike. Very peaceful. Yeah ! You should go hiking if you can get away !
DREW SAGAN- The bear print in my mud picture is very much like your bear print in your mud picture. However the Bigfoot prints in the snow are much bigger than bear prints- and differently shaped. 14 inches long, and 5 to 6 inches wide !
DANIEL p- The footprint in the road is a bear print we saw. But the print in the snow is very definable. It is the white shape without pine needles in it to the left of my foot ! 14 inches long by 6 inches wide.
Dwtnphotog- Funny stuff . My son has a beard but I bet Bigfoot's is longer !
NVR- Thanks. We did enjoy the hike. Would have been hard to set plaster in snow though.
SWEETFACE- A manbearpig ? Peace out, Mr. Flipper -
daniel-p
Flipper, it's so hard to see--it doesn't even seem like a depression from how the light is reflecting off the surface. It would have been nice to have a picture at a bit of an angle or something... but anyway, pretty cool.
-
Low-Key Lysmith
I think it's cool how flipper replies to every person that responds on his threads.
Just sayin'
On a more pertinent note:
I think it's kinda funny how people are so quick to say that creatures like this DEFINITELY don't exist. New animal species are being discovered all the time. Even some known species are very rarely ever seen by humans. Take the bear for example. Everyone would agree that they exist, but how often do people actually see a bear in the wild? Of course it depends on the region where you live. Bear sightings are pretty common in places like Alaska & Canada. I spend a tremendous amount of time outdoors in country that supposedly has lots of bears. I have only seen a handful in all of my 25+ years trudging around the mountains & forests. When I was in coastal Alaska, I saw quite a few, but that's pretty common there. Most Bigfoot sightings stem from heavily forested areas where it would be pretty easy for a creature like this to remain undiscovered. The world is a mysterious place. Who really knows what's out there?
-
-
BurnTheShips
Here in Florida we have the Skunk Ape. And yes we have pictures.
-
-
inrainbows
flipper
I respectfully disagree with you.
And I with you, which is cool.
There is a lot of evidence that has been accumulating over the years to prove Bigfoot's existence.
Yeah, for a given value of 'evidence'.
There have been hair samples collected and tested for DNA and have been found to have " no scientific match" with any known species of animal. Flesh samples wee found in Canada last October- and tested for DNA, and " no scientific match " was found for that either in any species of animal listed.
Cite your sources. Says-so means as little as eye-witness evidence. Your claims, you provide proof.
There is indisputable " photographic and videographic " evidence with Roger Patterson's film from 1967 and other films as well.
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_4_28/ai_n6145280
You see I have severe problems with you consider acceptable evidence. Saying that Patterson's film is evidence despite it being a busted hoax is like saying Osama didn't have a hand in 9/11 despite him admitting to on multiple occasions. For someone to carry on believing something despite clear evidence to the contrary is an indication of the pathology of their belief system, not on the accuracy of their beliefs.
Just google " Bigfoot" or " Bigfoot videos " and you will see there is real footage of the creature. There have been hundreds of casts of Bigfoot footprints made and are being analyzed at Idaho State University and other places. Check out the book, " Sasquatch- Legend Meets Science " by Jeff Meldrum . You will have lots of convincing evidence thrown your way reading that book. Inform yourself.
Jeff Meldrum has verified that the footprints made by a guy in aa bigfoot suit were genuine. Colour me unimpressed. Also, isn't the fact ONE (or a handful) of scientists say 'maybe' and MOST say 'almost definately NOT' at all significant. And foot prints are NOT absolute evidence.
You nicely evade dealing with how unlikely it is that NO firm evidence in the nature of pelts, bones, carcasses etc. has EVER been produced and verified to the levels of evidence acceptable to the majority of scientists.
But it really is okay you believe in bigfoot. I don't mind. You seem to have the problem with people NOT agreeing with you when you are the one failing to provide reasonable evidence.
