Allow me to clarify a few things...

A

Anonymous

Guest
I just introduced myself on the Chat board two days ago and I think I gave people the impression that it is a personal goal of mine to kill a Bigfoot. Just because I SUPPORT cryptid-hunters doesn't mean I am one. Heck, I can't be! I don't possess any firearms nor any hunting experience, and I don't want to spend the time and money to aquire them just so I can have a CHANCE at discovering something. Besides, many people have inquired at the forum of cryptozoology.com about what large cryptids they could "find" in their home state. Everyone but my fellow New Yorkers got replies. Apparently there is nothing large to be discovered here in NY anyway. No matter; I extend the definition of "cryptid" to encompass any unknown species that is to be placed in the kingdom Animalia. I asked my zoology professor what animal taxon I should focus on in my cryptozoological endeavors and he said that unknown spiders are probably my best bet. I would be thrilled to name my own spider species. That would be as great a "score" to me as harpooning a zeuglodon in Lake Champlain or shooting a pterosaur out of the sky. That reminds me: why has every pro VS anti-shooting debate I've ever seen revolved around Bigfoot? I guess an obvious answer would be: "because they are so much like us." Of course. But don't telebiologists care about the welfare of non-hominid cryptids? My message to telebiologists is that you shouldn't worry about ME harming any large cryptids. My respect for animals may not outweigh my desire to see myth become reality, but I'm just never going to get the chance to kill anything that requires the use of a powerful weapon. However, I absolutely refuse to condemn anyone else who decides to take the next and final step toward real discovery. Good luck comrades!
 

hachihyaku

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Sep 23, 2001
Messages
183
Reaction score
2
Points
49
I don't like killing animals for no reason, but I especially don't like killing them if they're endangered. The nature of cryptids is such that there's probably not a whole lot of them, so it would be more harmful to shoot a Bigfoot (say) than to let it go. What if you shot the last female of the species? You'd have proof of Bigfoot, but Bigfoots would be extinct. And we already have plenty extinct Bigfoot-like animals (Gigantopithecus etc.).

Our best bet is some kind of subdermal tracking device, so we can know where at least one individual is all the time. Since we've never found a dead body of a Bigfoot (to my knowledge) that means there either aren't many of them at all, they live in remote areas where humans rarely set foot, they bury their dead (could happen), or a combination of all. (I won't consider the "shapeshifting demon" theory, because then it's no longer cryptozoology.) In any case, it'd do more harm than good to shoot one.
 

stu neville

Commissioner.
Staff member
Joined
Mar 9, 2002
Messages
12,823
Reaction score
7,288
Points
314
Hear hear. Besides, a lot of people cliam to have shot Bigfeet to no apparent effect: not necessarily invunerability, it's just they're so heavy and strong bullets hurt them but won't bring them down - same is true of Grizzly Bears, from what I've read: unless you get a direct hit on their heart or head you'll just piss them off.

As for the subcutaneous traking device: good idea, but how can you get them, on the table in the first place? I asked a zoo vet this once, as he has to anaesthetise big animals quite often, including gorillas: they usually have to tranquilise them first, and then apply a general anaesthetic (depending on the animal); but as the type and degree of drugs used to trank them initially have been established over years of experimentation, this is quite routine now, but there were lots of mishaps in the experimental stage (for both creature and vet). Too much and you can trank them to death, too little and, well.... :eek:

So again, we'd be risking killing the very animal we wish to preserve. Leave 'em alone: the Native Americans did, and got on just fine. They seem to know far more about them then than we do now, after all.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I dont feel that a Bigfoot will need to be killed in order to learn almost everything we want to know about them. The reason why Bigfeet are so elusive is due to the fact that they seem to be very shy creatures but there is also the fact that hardly anyone is out looking for them. I remember reading somewhere that there has one been a few largley funded expiditions to track down a sasquatch in north america, this would soon change if there was 100% complete evidence i.e clear video footage, clear photographs or sadly a corpse, backed up with a lot of hype.
The story of the Sasquatch can be likend to the story of the Gorilla which was until recently dismissed as a myth told by pygmies to tourists. As soon as there was suitable evidence to prove that this creature existed there were tons of explorers and zoologists in the African jungle learning all they can about these animals. Im not saying that Sasquatch will be as easy to find than a gorilla as the space Bigfoot has to roam around in is far greater and they seem to migrate and move around an awful lot but there is more chance of seeing one if your out looking for one, they arent just going to fall into our laps like most people would like.
Its all to do with funding, if there was more interest and if zoologists and scientists where more open minded about the possibilty that there could be something out there we could very well be watching these sasquatches on the discovery channel soon eating berries off of a tree, who knows? they may even make it to your local zoo. But in saying that if i was out in the wild and a bigfoot charged me and i had my shotgun with me i wouldnt hesitate to kill it, ill be damned if im going to become a Sasquatches sunday dinner ;)
 

FelixAntonius

Justified & Ancient
Joined
Aug 8, 2001
Messages
1,160
Reaction score
222
Points
114
One of the worrying features of the requirements to prove the existance of a new species, rare or not, is that a dead specimen is required for study. This is something in which, I would like to be proved wrong!!!

I recently came across an article in the Daily (or Sunday) Telegraph, in which someone photographed & recorded a new speces or rodent & was then told to go back & get a body!!!!!!

Finally, after much heart searching & revulsion they obtaind the required specimen!!!!!

So if bigfoot or yeti coumes out of the woods, what hope is there for him or her?
 

evilsprout

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Jul 27, 2001
Messages
1,217
Reaction score
40
Points
69
You're quite right, David. For a creature to get official taxonomic status (ie its Scientific name) it needs to have a carefully stored and locatable type specimen. This is usually a whole carcass, but is in some cases merely a partial carcass, a pelt or even a bone fragment. The vu quang ox's specimen is a badly-taxidermised pelt, and the lihn duor (sp?) type specimen is a pair of horns.

A perfect photo of Bigfoot would be "proof" to the world (although everyone would scrutinise it for fraudulence), but science needs a body!

Obviously, though, finding a yeti roadkill or summat would solve this problem!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Evilsprout said:
A perfect photo of Bigfoot would be "proof" to the world (although everyone would scrutinise it for fraudulence), but science needs a body!

Obviously, though, finding a yeti roadkill or summat would solve this problem!


I fell that we almost do have a perfect photo of not the bigfoot but a relative, the skunk ape! These photographs have got to be one of the most important zoological pictures taken in the last 50 years but have they had world wide exposure? no, are they scrutinised beyond belief? yes.
To be honest i think the only way that were going to be able to prove that these things exist is if there is a live or dead body brought in, and to get a body i think someone will need to go out there with a gun and shoot one. I think well be waiting a while if were expecting to find a dead one or one hit by a car, for all we know these creatures may bury their dead? or perhaps eat there dead, we know absolutley nothing about them which is a shame.
On a last note if any of you are thinking about going into the woods and bagging yourself a bigfoot, its actually a proctected species in north america so if you do so prepare to goto jail for 20 or so years.
 

evilsprout

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Jul 27, 2001
Messages
1,217
Reaction score
40
Points
69
Yeah, Tang, that is probably one of the most convincing photos in cryptozoological history. The link you give seems to discount computer trickery or hoaxing, and I'm tempted to say it's either a skunkape, or "merely" an OOP Orang Utan (which is still a pretty damn good find!). If it's fake it's a bloody good one.

Nice to see Mr Beckjord get a mention too!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I agree completely with Evilsprout: those pics are incredibly lifelike, and I'm personally convinced they're legit, and I'm a very hard sell. I don't know what it was, but it wasn't faked. Looks like a damned big orangutan, which makes sense--the gigantopithecus (which many theorise was Sasquastch's predecessor) was supposed to be related to (or at least shares many similarities with) the orangutan. Makes sense to me the Skunk Ape would look like those pics, were s/he real. I guarantee the lady that took those had to have wetted her Depends, though.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Another thing id like to ad is if it is a fake then the people who faked it didnt miss out on anything, i.e flash reflecting from the eyes, finger nails on the creatures hands and the animals expression.

"I felt it might be helpful if I let you know that the expression displayed in the photo is not in the least like the facial expression which accompanies a pant-hoot. And indeed, one would not expect an animal startled by a flash to pant-hoot or to display a hoot face. The alleged ape in the photos appears to be displaying the 'full open grin,' an expression of extreme fear or anger in which the teeth (top and bottom) are exposed with the jaws parted. Behaviorally, this expression is also more consistent with the circumstances of an animal startled and frightened by a sudden camera flash than a pant-hoot would be....It's great to see that you folks are really trying to evaluate the photos objectively. Good luck to you!"

The creature in the pic looks similar to an Orang but i definately dont think thats what it is. I also think the reason this pic hasnt been taken seriously is becuase it has been associated with Bigfoot. As soon as anyone hears the mention of Bigfoot they are scared to go near it in fear of being ridiculed in their profession, pity they never saw this as a possible north american ape or perhaps even and escaped Orang, it would of got more attention that way.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I've posed the question to myself on a few different occasions, would I kill a Bigfoot [or some other fabulous creature] if I had a chance, just to prove it was real?
I'm still out on the matter though, as I have come up with different answers everytime I asked it, depending on my mood. I would like to think that I would merely try to photograph or observe the creature, yet if I felt it's intentions were hostile, like say it was in a mad rush towards my girlfriend or someone with me in the woods, BLAM! With no hesitation, that's the hick ex-military part of my brain. My more rational side would probably try to excuse the "crypto-cide", hiding behind science and a responsibility to the peoples of the future, or some other grandiose self-indulgent tidbit that would help me sleep at night, but really, just know in advance, if you ever see MY name in conjunction with shooting a cryptid merely to prove that it exists, it is purely EGO DRIVEN, and therefore may be construed as EVIL. It would only be a lust to see my name in print, forever entwined with whichever Fortean being it was that I slaughtered that would be inspiring me. I would then hope and expect to be pelted with rocks and garbage when ever I chose to speak in public. Possibly even have some Fortean Commandos burn down my little shack in the woods!

I don't think this will ever happen though, with anybody.
I come at the whole issue with my view skewed by rabid "Keelism", as I believe Bigfeet, Skunk Apes et al. are best looked at from the angle of Ultraterrestrials. I don't think we are capable of killing them. Well, I hope not anyway...
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
The only thing about killing a sasquatch is when you finally hike 3 days into the forest where your likely to see one and kill one, its not as if you can call a cab to drive the carcas to the local lab for analysis. youll need to carry it and by the looks of them, they arent exactly that light.
Id kill anything that threatend me if i was out in the forest, be it a bear wolf or bigfoot, maybe even fellow explorer. Still wanna come looking for Pendeks with me Torgo?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Your cricket bat is no match for my nunchuks, Tang; of course I'd go with you, mate! Actually, in that situation, I assure you I'd have a very "all-for-one" solidarity-based attitude.

The solution is simple: you carry back, say, the creature's arm, while I carry the head. We use ropes to keep it high enough in the trees to discourage scavengers and other sasquatches from taking the remainder of the body, until we can return for it. And as far as it being "unstoppable" goes, I have the theory that anything capable of harming someone is just as vulnerable if a weakness is found. Any gun that could drop a moose or bison would definitely put the human in the position of authority, I'd think. Just look at those Skunk Ape pics: a .45 would have no problem stopping that creature (especially after you'd emptied your clip into it at point-blank range [that woman was supposedly 10 feet away]), so imagine the effect teflon-coated hollowpoint "copkillers" (to take it further) and streetsweeper riot guns would have. Forget personal fame; science would view the world differently from that day forth, soley because of the evidence acquired by using the technology at our disposal.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Torgos, your plan sounds good but if we were going to have all those weapons wed need to do our yeti hunting in the USA, as i doubt wed be able to take our guns to Sumatra to find Pendeks or Canada to find the canadian sasquatch. Maybe its something you and I should consider doing in the future once i get a bit more secure finantially. Ive already talked to my GF about my dream of looking for a sasquatch and disapearing into the forest for a month and she was all for it aslong as i took a guide or someone who knew what they were dong. Theres a lot more dangerous things in them forest's than blair witches you know.
Your idea about bring back the head sounds good but we would have to store the body as you know how skeptical humans can be, even if we had the scalp and arm of a sasquatch people would still doubt its authenticity altho if you had its whole head intact im sure it would make a lot of people sit up and take notice.
If we do plan on taking a trip to find one of these large homnids what would you think would be the best for us to look for? I read somewhere that locals in florida say skunk apes are quite common and sighted regulary so maybe we could try hunting for one of these? Most of these creatures seem to be nocturnal so a couple of nightsights would probably be our best bet and we would hunt by night and sleep by day.
sound cool to you man?
 

stu neville

Commissioner.
Staff member
Joined
Mar 9, 2002
Messages
12,823
Reaction score
7,288
Points
314
So we're still on about killing it then?

A cautionary tale from Douglas Adams, in his wonderful "Last Chance to See", a book about endangered animals: can't recommend it enough.

In summary:

An old woman turns up outside the walls of a citadel with a wheelbarrow full of large, leatherbound books.

She calls up to the sentries to fetch the chieftain - he comes to the gates. She tells him that the books contain all of the knowledge in the world, they are the only copies, and that the citadel can buy them from her for one bag of gold.

The chieftain laughs, tells her to forget it, and closes the gates behind him: the old woman takes a book from the wheelbarrow, and burns it.

She calls up to the chieftain again, and tells him they can buy the remaining books for two bags of gold. The chieftain laughs in disbelief, and asks her how she can ask them for more money for fewer books - he tells her to forget it again.

So she burns another book, and offers the remainder for three bags of gold, to the same answer.

This continues, until she is down to two books, a fraction of all of the world's knowledge: she calls up to the chieftain: tells him they can have these two books for twenty bags of gold. He answers that they only have twenty bags of gold in the whole citadel: they cannot possibly afford it: but pleads with her not to destroy the remaining, priceless knowledge - sorry, she says, and burns the penultimate book.

There is one book left, with a tiny part of the world's knowledge left: the chieftain calls down to her - OK he says, you can have your twenty bags of gold - just don't let ALL the world's knowledge burn away.

Sorry, she says - it's not enough, and lights a match.

And the people of the citadel watch the last remnant of the world's knowldge vanish into ashes, wishing they'd realised earlier what a precious gift had been within their reach.


Still wanna kill a Sasquatch?

Stu
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Stu Neville said:
Still wanna kill a Sasquatch?

Stu

i dont really want to kill one, i think the only way id kill one is if it threatend me in anyway. And besides its a skunk ape im after :D

But on the serious side the amount of sasquatches there must be in North America would have to be quite huge. They are sighted from north Canada to Texas so im guessing that there must be at the very least 100 seperate familys of these creatures roaming north america, and lets face it if humans did learn of their existance they could benifit from our help if they did become endangered, im pretty sure their population is declining as they have had to retreat to more remote areas. In the years to come citys in the usa and canada will be getting bigger and the great outdoors will become even smaller forcing these creatures to either move or rethink their migrationary paths, if we document their beaviour and habits maybe we can learn to be more considerate to their needs. I know there will be the odd hill billy that will think that a bigfoot head would look good above his fireplace but there is nothing that can be done about that other than placing laws prohibiting the killing of these creatures. Im all for keeping them alive and not killing them but trying to convince the skeptics out there without doing so will be almost impossible.


Skunk Ape Recognized in the Courts



The South Dade News Leader dated Oct. 1977.

TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) A bill making it illegal to molest a skunk ape has been passed by a legislative committee as a lawmaker renews his effort to protect the legendary anthropoid. The Criminal Justice Committee passed the bill (HB58) by Rep. Paul Nuckolls, R-Fort Myers, Tuesday after Nuckolls unveiled it for the second year in a row. Last session, the bill passed committee but never reached the floor.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
One thing I'd like to know is this. Does there absolutely have to be a dead specimen before you can officially state that a creature exists, or would a live one do? These days we have some very good methods of trapping and transporting wild creatures without harming them, and personally I think that turning up with a cryptid that can still interact with the researchers would be a heck of a lot more impressive than just dragging in a corpse. Support cryptid-friendly investigation!

Right - can anyone lend me a very big net, I'm off to Loch Ness... :p


Razorwire
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I think the reason you might need a dead one, is because today computers can make all the photos and videos you need.

But I think a lot of other animals have been considered existing just from photos and eye witness descriptions. Like that striped rabbit that was only caught on camera.
 

evilsprout

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Jul 27, 2001
Messages
1,217
Reaction score
40
Points
69
I think in this day and age you should be able to have a blood or hair sample as the type specimen, due to DNA analysis, but a body is needed! I'm not saying it's right, but those are the rules.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I think creatures like the Striped rabbit are more easily believed because they are just rabbits but creatures that resemble humans tend to have a stigma attached to them. I think it probably stems from human ignorance that we are unique and you could argue the old religion card also which i think was a major hindrance in the gorilla case back when it was still a cryptid, it seemed creationists thought that it would be too much ammo for evolutionists to have in their favour.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
It is simply a matter of extraordinary claims need extraodirnary evidence. A striped rabbit doesn't sound that far out. But a living dinosaur, you need some pretty good proof to get somebody to believe in that.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Xanatic said:
It is simply a matter of extraordinary claims need extraodirnary evidence. A striped rabbit doesn't sound that far out. But a living dinosaur, you need some pretty good proof to get somebody to believe in that.

So very true Xanatic, but what puzzles me is why do people have a hard time believing such storys as Deloys Ape? It just seems to be a large spider monkey, is that extraordinary? I dont really think so considering there have been gibbons found almost 4 feet tall that can walk on two legs for short periods of time.
I feel that some people are awfully ignorant when it comes to what they think we know about our planet and the creatures that inhabit it. Only 20% of the congo has been explored and yet people refused to believe that this jungle that is abundant with life can house anything that we havent seen before. Seems a little bit daft wouldnt you agree?
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
A striped rabbit or a black and white dolphin both are fairly normal. But Deloy's Ape was on a continent where there were no real apes. Which makes it seem stranger.

And there is a big difference between scientists and normal people's attittude to such things as Congo. Most people believe we have uncovered pretty much all animals that exist. While any decent biologists will tell you that we probably only know one third.
 

evilsprout

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Jul 27, 2001
Messages
1,217
Reaction score
40
Points
69
A lot of it hangs on how it's reported. "Ape discovered on continent with no apes" is less credible than "Man Discovers Bigger-than-average Spider Monkey". Yet if it's the ape one's reported first, it's filed in the "weird" category, and no scientist will touch it.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Evilsprout said:
A lot of it hangs on how it's reported. "Ape discovered on continent with no apes" is less credible than "Man Discovers Bigger-than-average Spider Monkey". Yet if it's the ape one's reported first, it's filed in the "weird" category, and no scientist will touch it.

I think the fact that it was called Deloys Ape was a factor in the downfall of this story. I feel it should have been called DeLoys Monkey. Monkeys arent alien to south america and the creature in the picture strikes me as being just that, a monkey.
Agree or Disagree?
 

evilsprout

Gone But Not Forgotten
(ACCOUNT RETIRED)
Joined
Jul 27, 2001
Messages
1,217
Reaction score
40
Points
69
Agreed. It's face alone suggests it's allied to spider monkeys, which would make any resemblence to Old World Apes purely superficial.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
I think the Myakka pics do look like an orangutan, albeit a rather large one; in fact, that's what the woman told the cops she'd seen. I think the pictures were limited to only a few because the animal began retreating after the flash and so did the woman, once she realised how close she had been standing to it.

My feelings on killing a Skunk Ape or sasquatch is that I'd hate to do it, unless in self-defense; yet, science (as Evilsprout stated) is going to want a corpse for DNA, comparision to known animals, study of the brain to ascertain how it might think, what sort of eyesight it has...that sort of thing. Bringing a head back would silence all critics, because a complete head can't be faked; DNA can't be faked. Personally, I'd prefer taking it out for lunch in exchange for a trip to the lab; however, I doubt this type of animal would be very compliant. No one has ever killed one before, so the odds of killing the last on are virtually nil. As many of these that are reported across the US alone tells me there are more than enough keep the species going if one were to be killed. It's unreasonable to think there are only, say, twenty of these things creeping around the whole of the continent.

Tang, you asked how we could find one; we hit http://www.gcbro.com and search through reports that seem ¹believable and ²frequent. That would significantly boost the odds of locating and acquiring our objective.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Conners_76 said:
As for the Skunk Ape photos, I find them, on a purely instinctive basis, woefully unconvincing. They are far, far more likely to show an individual in an elaborate ape / orang utan costume than a genuine cryptid. Why did the photographer not take other shots to provide context? Why didn't she continue to take shots as it fled into the forest?

Why on earth has a huge, yeti-like creature gone undetected when it visits Florida residents in their own backyards?!

If it's an alien old-world ape, why does it so resemble the character from Bigfoot and the Hendersons rather than animals we can easily identify, like orang utans?

I don't this to sound bombastic, but these photos are not, IMHO, worthy of serious consideration.

Conners, like Torgos said the woman that took the pics thought that the creature in her garden was an orangutang and the only reason she reported it was because she felt it could pose a danger to her grand children, also the 2 pictures where only taken as she felt threatend when she realised it was so close, she only took the pictures cos she heard a rustling in the bushes and when the flash went off she was startled to see it was so close. Note: If it is a fake the fakers got the face expression down to a tee as a nature expert commented on how this would be the exact expression shed expect form an ape in this situation.

I wouldnt say it visits people in their own back yards but it seems to have done so in this one occasion but i doubt it was a very urban area, you will probably find she lives out in the boonies somewhere with the everglades close to her house. I also dont think it is unusual to consider the possibility of a large creature visiting peoples gardens without notice. I talked to my GFs father once who told me he always wondered what was destroying his flowers and going thru his trash, he thought it may be a racoon but one night as he watched tv he turned his porch light on to see a huge brown bear going thru his bins, now if a bear, which i would probably say would make more noise than an ape, can go undetected then why not this creature? There have been probably 100's of people reported seeing a Bigfoot/Skunk ape in their garden or peeping thru their windows so its not as if this case with the photos is entirely unique, the only difference here is that the woman managed to take a photograph, youd think there would be more photographs if there was such a large volume of sightings but ask yourself this, how many times have you seen something and wished you had a camera? Do you really have a camera handy all the time? and how many of us actually carry a camera everywhere we go?

also your comment about "why does it so resemble the character from Bigfoot and the Hendersons rather than animals we can easily identify, like orang utans?"
Well its obvious that the makers of the movie BFATH considered eye witness reports of what the creature looks like and its not exactly a trade secret what we all think and know what a creature like this (if it did exist) would look like.
You also said why does it not look like an Orang, well goto the link i added above with the actual pictures and scroll down, you will see a picture where loren compairs it to an Orang and if you ask me it looks like one.

Conners_76 said:
Tang, you asked how we could find one; we hit http://www.gcbro.com and search through reports that seem ¹believable and ²frequent. That would significantly boost the odds of locating and acquiring our objective.

Ill need to check that out, i suggest that if we do decide to undertake an expo to see what we can find we should build up a very maticulous game plan, well need to study these believable sightings and come up with ideas on how to best get a glimpse of one of these things. Well need to talk about it later perhaps when you get your net set up better so we can do voice. It seems it would be a wasted oppertunity for both of us not to persue this idea as we both live relativly close to each other and hey even if we dont get to see one of these babys im pretty sure wed have some giggles in the process.
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
Conners_76 said:
fair comments tang, I'd accept pretty much all of you rpoints there.

I do see the resemblance to an orang utan, but does the animal photographed by the woman not seem to be moving in a bipedal fashion, rather than squatting down or moving on all fours?

Well if the creature in the picture is a skunk ape then yeah i suppose it would be most likely to be standing up right as this is supposidly what they do and what also makes them so unique (apart for BF,OP,Yeti and other cousins) :p
It has a striking resemblance to an Orangutang, i think it is worth noting that Gigantopithecus blacki was thought to be closley related to the Orangutang, and one theory is that BF and the Skunk Ape are close relations to the GB.
I suppose that if the creature in the pictures is just an Out of place Orang then there are several different things we could take into consideration, one is we dont know how it came to be in its possition,perhaps it is the ancestor of released or escaped circus OTs that have adopted a different posture? Perhaps the animal in the picture is still and has stood up momenterally as OT often do and the time of the picture was just a coincidence to make the creature look more unique than it truely is.
I must add tho the possibility that the creature in the picture is a north American Equivelent/Relation to the OT that has evaded capture for so long isnt really far fetched. Afterall the area in which it inhabits has plenty of hiding places and isnt exactly the most hospitable of Areas. Also these creatures seem to be extremely intelligent, i think this is common with all wildmen type creatures and perhaps an integrel factor to why they have not been seen. I dont think they are intelligent as in they have their own languages like the OP supposidly has but i do feel that they are masters of their own environments, i should think these creatures will be able to hear and smell us before we could even get close which is why he have had a difficult time catching suitable video and photoraphic evidence. We also know nothing of their social structures, perhaps they even go as far as to bury their dead and this is why there are never bones found? Perhaps they eat their dead? (who knows) The lack of a dead body could be evidence to support a family structure or the lack of preadators, but if one of these guys did die and where left out in the open i dont think it would take too long before it would decompose or be eaten by bugs in a swamp.
We also have to consider that westerners are pretty new to North America, reports of this creature and similar types across north america and asia have been known to the first nations/native people of these countries for centuries. I dont think native stories should be ignored, ok some are based on superstition but sometimes truths lie behind these stories as often superstition was used to explain what they couldnt understand i.e how BF is immune to bullets could be that it has an incredibally thick hide, or how it has the ability to just vanish could be down to its knowledge of its environment and the colour of its fur blending into the forest.
 
Top