Isn't this how smokey the bear got started ?

[Wade]

Bigfoot Evidence: Bigfoot injured by a forest fire was taken away and hidden by the authorities, not even Robert Lindsay can top this story

 

[stonehart]

Bigfoot Evidence: Bigfoot injured by a forest fire was taken away and hidden by the authorities, not even Robert Lindsay can top this story

Have to ask the question why would the Government want to cover up the existence of Bigfoot?

 

[Wade]

O.K. Lets have another try at this


Bigfoot Evidence: Bigfoot injured by a forest fire was taken away and hidden by the authorities, not even Robert Lindsay can top this story

Bigfoot Evidence: Bigfoot injured by a forest fire was taken away and hidden by the authorities, not even Robert Lindsay can top this story

Bigfoot Evidence: Bigfoot injured by a forest fire was taken away and hidden by the authorities, not even Robert Lindsay can top this story


Very strange I seen to be getting clickable links on my tapatalk app but on my desktop they don't come out as links at all.

At any rate try googling bigfoot and battle mountain complex fire. According to the story They even had the big fella on a iv drip ! It's an old story that may have been posted before, I just stumbled across it. in the meantime I'll try calling.customer service In india

 

[GeoShift]

Only you can prevent forest fires.

 

[Goggs Mackay]

Have to ask the question why would the Government want to cover up the existence of Bigfoot?

A reason could be the same as the reason academia would not like to have to admit they'd missed a huge part of the human/primate evolution tree. Also religion might have a problem as what does a human-looking intelligent hominid existing say about the creation of man etc? It bugs me like you would not believe that not only is religion force-fed to us from a young age at school etc but due to their ridiculous sensibilities, the rest of us who like to know objective truth have to suffer for the superstitious beliefs of some.

Bigfoot being not accepted is just the same as the denial of even the possibility of ancient humans. No one single piece of evidence can prove human civilisation might be much older than we accept today but the sum total of all the pieces of evidence taken collectively- in my opinion- gives at the very least good reason to consider the possibility. We have to take into account also that if there really is reluctance to accept these hominids exist, then it is almost a given that there will indeed have been decent evidence that has been destroyed.
For example, imagine someone claims to have part of a bigfoot - a bone or tissue sample, even a body. They try to bring it to some authority and some academics get called in. They decide that this might upset the applecart too much so they dispose of the body! (remember that there will be thousands of text books all based on the fact he does not exist - most academics are incredibly proud of their work and if they have ever actually stated that bigfoot could not exist then they are going to be reluctant to have to reverse their opinion. It would make them look totally incompetant!)

All this is just supposition, I don't have any evidence that any of this might be the case but considering various examples in the past of the establishment's reluctance to accept paradigm changing ideas it isn't much of a leap.

 

[stonehart]

A reason could be the same as the reason academia would not like to have to admit they'd missed a huge part of the human/primate evolution tree. Also religion might have a problem as what does a human-looking intelligent hominid existing say about the creation of man etc? It bugs me like you would not believe that not only is religion force-fed to us from a young age at school etc but due to their ridiculous sensibilities, the rest of us who like to know objective truth have to suffer for the superstitious beliefs of some.

Bigfoot being not accepted is just the same as the denial of even the possibility of ancient humans. No one single piece of evidence can prove human civilisation might be much older than we accept today but the sum total of all the pieces of evidence taken collectively- in my opinion- gives at the very least good reason to consider the possibility. We have to take into account also that if there really is reluctance to accept these hominids exist, then it is almost a given that there will indeed have been decent evidence that has been destroyed.
For example, imagine someone claims to have part of a bigfoot - a bone or tissue sample, even a body. They try to bring it to some authority and some academics get called in. They decide that this might upset the applecart too much so they dispose of the body! (remember that there will be thousands of text books all based on the fact he does not exist - most academics are incredibly proud of their work and if they have ever actually stated that bigfoot could not exist then they are going to be reluctant to have to reverse their opinion. It would make them look totally incompetant!)

All this is just supposition, I don't have any evidence that any of this might be the case but considering various examples in the past of the establishment's reluctance to accept paradigm changing ideas it isn't much of a leap.

Fair enough that was a good enough answer for me

 

[Wade]

If this was a true story, then our government's desire to keep bf under wraps probably stems from them wanting to figure out a way to weaponize him first before admitting his existence

 

[stonehart]

If this was a true story, then our government's desire to keep bf under wraps probably stems from them wanting to figure out a way to weaponize him first before admitting his existence

hehehe awesome I can see it now. In a bunker a general turns to his aid with a cackling voice he says "Release the Bigfoot's!" Mawhahahahahaha

 

[Goggs Mackay]

Yeah, everyone knows you don't fuck with chewie. 'RRAAGHRAAAHHAEERHHR' -translation 'word'

 

[Wade]

O.K. Who would come out on top of a three way stand off

1. Armed Wookies

2. Armed Grizzlies

3. Armed Bigfoots'/feets'

 

[mike]

The article raised the religious aspect

Perhaps the justification for this arrogant position is derived from the Christian paradigm that humans are the sole heirs to the planet. The acknowledgement of another species so close to our own, even superior in terms of some sensory capabilities would destabilize the Christian paradigm that currently dominates western religious thought.

The whole made in his image thing starts to get dicey, if big foot can be shown to be a genetic progenitor of our species........

The final possibility centers on the fact that sasquatches may be human ancestors of such a close lineage that their genetic makeup offers the most intriguing possibilities for genetic research and cross breeding that have ever been considered.

Sasquatches may be the enduring descendents of the Homo erectus lineage that is generally considered to be extinct. Neanderthal man, Homo neandertalensis by way of Homo heidelbergensis, is another distinct possility.

If either or both of these human ancestors endures today in the manifestayion we call bigfoot, then the possibilities for interbreeding and other genetic experiments with humans become either intrguing or alarming, depending on which side of the ethical question one stands.

Thom Powells final words are this bleak conclusion: "How tragic, yet how predictable it is that the government denies the public access to knowledge of a living human relative, an anthropological bombshell, and one of the planet's most remarkable beings".

Bit just as valid an argument is also put forward for not having to admit ignorance

Perhaps the government entities that we trust as protectors are really just as baffled by this matter as anyone. As with the UFO phenomenon the knee-jerk reaction to government, when confronted with a genuone and profund mystery, is to classify the entire matter as a secret.

This avoids the uncomfortable alternative of having to stand up and acknowledge that the people we pay to understand threats and protect us from them have no real idea what is going on in this particular realm.

There is an axiom that may exist within government that boils down to: If we don't understand something, keep it a secret. That way no one will ever ask us to explain it.

 

[stonehart]

O.K. Who would come out on top of a three way stand off

1. Armed Wookies

2. Armed Grizzlies

3. Armed Bigfoots'/feets'

Armed Wookies

 

[stonehart]

 

[ProphetofOccam]

I realize this thread is a couple of months old, and I really am not interested in debating any of these type of matters -- I think it's literally insane. However, one thing keeps getting repeated or alluded to in this bigfoot stuff, and it's really bothering me. Not in a "man, that's irritating" way, but in a "guys, you really should know this fundamental information if you're trying to understand how bigfoot could be discussed in regards to evolution" way.

Simply put, every single creature on the planet is equally evolved. There are no "less evolved" creatures, plants, bacterium, or anything else of an organic nature, on the face of the planet. Every organic creature on the entirety of the Earth has been evolving, since the original common ancestor, for the same amount of time. There is nothing on the planet that you could point to and say "we evolved from that."

Bigfoot could not be a link in a chain of human evolution, nor could it be a relative who is the result of modern humans mating with "archaic" ancestors -- nothing on the planet is more evolved than anything else at any given time. We all come from a common ancestor at various points on the chain/tree, and we have all been evolving over the same number of years. Some species have gone through a greater number of readily perceptible changes, while others have experienced more subtle developments. Not a single living thing is "unchanged" from the moment of its split from the human line, or any line -- be it a flatworm, a bacterium, a fungus, a lungfish, or a chimpanzee. These are all modern creatures who may, or may not, simply resemble an ancestor.

By the simplest processes of evolution, there is no such thing as a living ancestor species. The mechanics of the theory make it literally impossible.

If bigfoot were found to exist, it would be just as evolved as us and everything else on the planet. It would be a modern creature. From the time we split from our common ancestor, it would have been adapting and evolving for a life of traipsing about and being blurry -- it would not simply be a magically unchanged form of said common ancestor. Space, time, and evolution don't allow for the existence of "primitive"creatures.

I suggest you guys check out The Ancestor's Tale, by Richard Dawkins, for a much more concise and complete explanation of these concepts, and all the concepts that make up how the mechanics of the theory of evolution work.

George

 

[bbridges]

If this was a true story, then our government's desire to keep bf under wraps probably stems from them wanting to figure out a way to weaponize him first before admitting his existence

...Or, try to use some of the genetics to build a 'super-soldier? ...