Bigfoot/Sasquatch/Forest People in Tennessee

#54
#54
I had some friends in high school that said their truck was attacked by one. I think it happened close to the obey river somewhere in the alpine/Jamestown area. I did not believe them, but they both were pale and scared to death. The truck was beat to shhhht to.

I personally think they were high.
 
#56
#56
volinreallife said:
I had some friends in high school that said their truck was attacked by one. I think it happened close to the obey river somewhere in the alpine/Jamestown area. I did not believe them, but they both were pale and scared to death. The truck was beat to shhhht to.

I personally think they were high.
Click to expand...

Did they do the jingle?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#60
#60
YorkVol said:
I'd be interested in some links to credible research on this topic. I'm a firm believer there are still a lot of things about this world we don't know about or understand.
Click to expand...

I have to run a business and don't quite have time to post links - but their dna has been successfully sequenced, I believe around 112 samples of hair, bone, teeth, skin, etc. submitted for the DNA study - thousands upon thousands of eye witness accounts including by the military, ministers, police officers, etc, thousands of footprints with accompanying casting and ridge analysis such as FBI fingerprinting. One gets shot and killed every few years, lots of unexplained giant bones, etc. etc. I am going out this afternoon to investigate two giant X's where something has broken trees at the midsection to form the X's. A couple of miles from no where. If I have time tomorrow I will try to post a picture.
 
#62
#62
I consider myself pretty reasonable and have no issues with the idea that "absence of proof is not proof of absence" but genuine interest goes at least back to the 60's and there's been an AWFUL lot of people looking for definitive proof (with ever increasing scope and technology) since. This brings us to the problem I alluded to earlier...the ratio of "evidence" that isn't definitive is way too high.

There should generally be some kind of relationship between being "seen" and being "found". We've got something that is supposedly being (and long been) seen (or evidence thereof) all the time and all over the place. And we're not talking about the absolute deepest, darkest Amazon here either. We're talking areas (LOTS of them apparently) where people tread. It doesn't take a bathysphere and a tight timetable for only a tiny fraction of people to investigate like wondering what is in the deep ocean depths. No, this is something that's supposed to be up here on land, with us, in our back yard so to speak. Everything I see (up to this point anyway) is very problematically (in my humble view) disproportionate in the amount of smoke present for literally no fire to be found.

Impossible? Not a fan of that word in most applications, including this one, but considering the above I can't help but find myself very, very far in the "improbable" camp.
 
#64
#64
volinreallife said:
I had some friends in high school that said their truck was attacked by one. I think it happened close to the obey river somewhere in the alpine/Jamestown area. I did not believe them, but they both were pale and scared to death. The truck was beat to shhhht to.

I personally think they were high.
Click to expand...

They could have been high - that's why I do research - to separate fact from fiction. The forest people are protective of their nurseries and hunting areas and if you accidentally got too close - they are not fond of it.

8 foot tall give or take and 800 to 1000 pounds -- there is a reason that grizzly and polar bears run from them ( reportedly )
 
#66
#66
hndog609 said:
I consider myself pretty reasonable and have no issues with the idea that "absence of proof is not proof of absence" but genuine interest goes at least back to the 60's and there's been an AWFUL lot of people looking for definitive proof (with ever increasing scope and technology) since. This brings us to the problem I alluded to earlier...the ratio of "evidence" that isn't definitive is way too high.

There should generally be some kind of relationship between being "seen" and being "found". We've got something that is supposedly being (and long been) seen (or evidence thereof) all the time and all over the place. And we're not talking about the absolute deepest, darkest Amazon here either. We're talking areas (LOTS of them apparently) where people tread. It doesn't take a bathysphere and a tight timetable for only a tiny fraction of people to investigate like wondering what is in the deep ocean depths. No, this is something that's supposed to be up here on land, with us, in our back yard so to speak. Everything I see (up to this point anyway) is very problematically (in my humble view) disproportionate in the amount of smoke present for literally no fire to be found.

Impossible? Not a fan of that word in most applications, including this one, but considering the above I can't help but find myself very, very far in the "improbable" camp.
Click to expand...

- that is exactly where I started a year ago.
 
#68
#68
Fullfillmer said:
I have to run a business and don't quite have time to post links - but their dna has been successfully sequenced, I believe around 112 samples of hair, bone, teeth, skin, etc. submitted for the DNA study - thousands upon thousands of eye witness accounts including by the military, ministers, police officers, etc, thousands of footprints with accompanying casting and ridge analysis such as FBI fingerprinting. One gets shot and killed every few years, lots of unexplained giant bones, etc. etc. I am going out this afternoon to investigate two giant X's where something has broken trees at the midsection to form the X's. A couple of miles from no where. If I have time tomorrow I will try to post a picture.
Click to expand...

You have time to write all that, but can't post one link to a page that shows credible research? There is a lot of info out there, much of it spectacular and sensational. If you are truly in the business of researching this, then I would think you would do us a favor and point us in the direction of genuine information. Help us out a little.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#70
#70
YorkVol said:
You have time to write all that, but can't post one link to a page that shows credible research? There is a lot of info out there, much of it spectacular and sensational. If you are truly in the business of researching this, then I would think you would do us a favor and point us in the direction of genuine information. Help us out a little.
Click to expand...

There's plenty of sightings in your neck of the woods too.
 
#71
#71
YorkVol said:
You have time to write all that, but can't post one link to a page that shows credible research? There is a lot of info out there, much of it spectacular and sensational. If you are truly in the business of researching this, then I would think you would do us a favor and point us in the direction of genuine information. Help us out a little.
Click to expand...

No matter what I post you or others will attack it - so what's the point, there are too many websites out there already discrediting evidence and research. I am intent on doing my own research - thus the request. My request was not to let me convince you that the forest people exist. Again I am more than fine having you and everyone else think they do not exist. There is a professor at Texas A and M that did the DNA gene sequencing - research her research if you like - (Melba Ketchum) but again for everyone that publishes research there are 20 that attack it.
 
#72
#72
Fullfillmer said:
They do exist - if you want to private message me - I will be happy to fill you in. I went into this investigation with the idea of proving to myself that they didn't exist. It didn't quite work out that way for me unfortunately.
Click to expand...

With all due repsect FullFillmer, here's my issue with it and why the numbers don't add up for me.

In order for any species to survive, the absolute one thing it has to do is breed. Now, given the fact that sightings for these things have been going on for hundreds of years (counting Native American encounters), don't you think at some point this species would have bred themselves into a large enough population that undisputable evidence would have been discovered by this point, at LEAST by finding a body or a skeleton? Unless there's some underground bigfoot poaching organization that's killing them and keeping their numbers extremely low, it makes no sense that their population would stay so low that they would continue to be this elusive. I mean other than humans with rifles or the occassional encounter with a grizzly bear, a species like Bigfoot would have no predators. There's nothing out there that would keep their numbers down that low that they wouldn't have been discovered by now. By comparison, they outlawed deer hunting in my area around 10 years ago and in just those 10 years the population has grown so dense that you practically have to step over them when you hike the trails. Don't you think that at least on SOME level the bigfoot population would experience a similar type of growth spurt?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#73
#73
Fullfillmer said:
- that is exactly where I started a year ago.
Click to expand...

I'd actually LIKE to believe in BF but have nothing to work with. If anything I've become incredibly irritated at the X=BF mentality. Example; someone goes into the woods and discovers X. X is not immediately explainable, certainly not conclusively anyway, as any number of known probabilities. So, obviously, the next reasonable (cough) assumption is that it is actually likely that it is something "improbable", like a BF. This is pretty much running at a dead sprint in the opposite direction of thoughtful science.

Not saying this is your approach but it would be most decorous of me to say it's the approach taken by a large number of those that share your interest.
 
#74
#74
Fullfillmer said:
No matter what I post you or others will attack it - so what's the point, there are too many websites out there already discrediting evidence and research. I am intent on doing my own research - thus the request. My request was not to let me convince you that the forest people exist. Again I am more than fine having you and everyone else think they do not exist. There is a professor at Texas A and M that did the DNA gene sequencing - research her research if you like - (Melba Ketchum) but again for everyone that publishes research there are 20 that attack it.
Click to expand...
Ok, where did I attack you or say anything contrary to your position? I stated my interest and asked for help. I'll check out the A&M research, but otherwise leave you to do your thing.
 
#75
#75
hndog609 said:
I'd actually LIKE to believe in BF but have nothing to work with. If anything I've become incredibly irritated at the X=BF mentality. Example; someone goes into the woods and discovers X. X is not immediately explainable, certainly not conclusively anyway, as any number of known probabilities. So, obviously, the next reasonable (cough) assumption is that it is actually likely that it is something "improbable", like a BF. This is pretty much running at a dead sprint in the opposite direction of thoughtful science.

Not saying this is your approach but it would be most decorous of me to say it's the approach taken by a large number of those that share your interest.
Click to expand...

I agree - taken in and of itself 4 thick trees - broken 8 to 10 feet high forming two X's means little to me quite honestly as does footprint casts, etc. My research has evolved and is evolving - but stuff like that does seem to resonate with some people.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top