Are Bigfoot and ETs Connected?

[Mystic Wanderer]

I have long said that I think Bigfoot is an ET that can "disappear" at will; that is why there are so few witnesses. Yet, many have seen these creatures, and they seem to coincide with UFO sightings. No such thing as coincidences.

Watch this and tell us what you think.

https://youtu.be/WRHSUIYOt7s

[gordi]

Will try and watch later...

My gut feeling is that they are quite possibly Inter-Dimensional.
As are whatever is responsible for all of the Missing 411 victims.

G

[hounddoghowlie]

they seem to coincide with UFO sightings. No such thing as coincidences.

maybe like other animals in national parks and such where they come up to the road looking for food, bigfeet do the same with aliens. 

we should put up signs,

---

[Mystic Wanderer]

I want that sign @"hounddoghowlie". 


I'm going to print it out, put it in plastic, and post it in my front yard.  

[hounddoghowlie]

cool, i had to keep checking to make sure i spelled a couple of words right. it still looks like i spelt a couple wrong. 

and you know what i freaking did left out the last e in Extraterrestrial

[xuenchen]

High tech projection vs our primitive holograms 

[F2d5thCav]

One of the curious aspects of entity encounters that has been noted for decades is that, in many cases, the entities seen resembled an archetype already known to the observer.

It was, I believe, Vallée who advanced the idea that whatever the UFO phenomenon is, it is capable of "reading" one's mind and using one's internal imagery to provide "visuals" for what one sees during an encounter.

Thus, in the Middle Ages, people didn't typically see spacecraft and aliens; they encountered faeries and the like.

So what about Bigfoot?  Well, one thing that seems consistent is that BF is always seen in the outdoors.  Typically in forests or other wilderness areas.  What is the archetype connection here?

The Boogeyman.

Present, AFAIK, in all cultures.  An instinctual fear of large, bidpedal creatures that prey upon humans.

There is a guy in Australia who has advanced his notion that this common fear of all people is rooted in ancient history, and that the "Boogeymen" were the Neanderthal competitors of H. Sapiens.  He points out, accurately IMO, that we are treated to a Disney version of Neanderthals -- they look like beefy white people, and often depicted as gentle giants who spent a lot of time playing with their children, etc.  He also notes that we have no idea what their exterior looked like -- we don't KNOW they were hairless and of pale skin.  He thinks the situation was rather different -- that they were covered with fur and were fierce nocturnal predators whose confrontation with humanity was so ruthless that it meant only one group would survive.  He has some interesting ideas -- like that conflict was why modern humans domesticated dogs -- because their sense of smell and barking were of tremendous assistance in detecting a night attack before it was too late to respond effectively.

Our ancestors prevailed back then, but the terrible fear of the "Boogeyman" was remembered and dutifully passed from generation to generation.  Thus, we possess the archetype today, and whatever the UFO phenomenon is, it is capable of perceiving that archetype and manifesting it for its own purposes.

So, did they look like this --



Or this:



FWIW.

Cheers

[BIAD]

Nice piece F2d5thCav.

The one thing I find fascinating about the Bigfoot phenomena is how it directly conflicts with the paradigm each one
of us has grown up with. Mainstream science has shown us the route we took to become who we are and nowhere
on that evolutionary path is a large upright biped that continued its existence.

Nowhere... everyone who says they've seen, interacted and even collected physical evidence is either a liar or has
mistakenly observed an everyday animal and added their own desire for it to be this hairy creature. The scientific
community have asked for a carcass and none has been forthcoming. They even refused DNA analysis evidence and
scoffed at the results, even though separate laboratories in Texas and Italy performed the tests.

The rationality for such doubt does make sense if we assume that the empirical research-based bodies are transparent
and holds no political shackles. For a world where Bigfoot is proven to exist, also impacts humans on levels we rarely
contemplate.

Industries, religion, governance, science and social behaviour will be held accountable. Trust in these areas could alter
and that is dangerous. Acknowledgement of such an intelligent simian or crude human would undoubtedly bring about
change in who we are and how we see ourselves on this planet and in the universe.
Everything we know now will have to change.

At this present time we see ourselves as 'top-of-the-tree', we rule this planet as a species and all others are secondary.
Hairy or furry are animalistic traits, un-evolving creatures that haven't the cunning to utilise the materials around them
in any profound manner.

Without wings, one cannot fly and yet humans overcome the natural law of land-confined animals. We protected our
bodies by using materials and constructed buildings to avoid the elements. We controlled the animal kingdom to an
extent that farming is a backbone to our presence here on Earth.

And now you're going to tell us that we were wrong?! You're about to say that there is a cousin of our species living out
there with a guile that has tricked mainstream science and yet behaves in the manner that one step away from the wild
bear or gorilla?

But Bigfoot isn't on our map. We have an academia that conducts itself in such elevated and serious tones that cannot
allow such childish 'boogeymen' stories to have a place in evidence-based research. The mathematics are simple, there's
no such creature identified on the human evolutionary table, then any evidence of hair or flesh samples are not Bigfoot.
End of story.

If such a brute existed, why would it elude us? The majority of animals have behaviours we've come to accept as either
fearful of man and only occasionally interact with us on a opportunistic level or avoid us outright due to their needs not
involving the human species.
In either case, we have the inquisitiveness as sentient beings to observe them and learn more about them.
To put the question to bed of whether Bigfoot exists or not, we've not done this.
...................

The accepted reality is that aliens don't fly around in Ufos and large hairy hominids don't wander the darkness.
The question of whether Bigfoot and aliens are connected in some way is something science would merely chuckle at.
Hairy forest-dwelling beasts having an affinity with a highly technology-driven being that can traverse the vast distances
of space...? It cannot be.

One paradigm is designed on a 'earthy', brusque existence that equates to a world of unevolved tolerance and hardship.
The other is high science, rationality and astute awareness. A doctrine of perspicacious and a confidence of control.
There's an insult there in these explanations being connected, isn't there?!!

Bigfoot does appear quite often in alien encounter lore, even to the point where abductees report that such large beings
wander into the rooms during these experiences. Other accounts tell of medium seances where hairy -often 'smelly' giants,
visit and interact with those seeking knowledge of 'the other side'.

In the sixties and seventies, Bigfoot -or usually just a big hairy creature, was often mentioned being the vicinity of a Ufo
encounter in all parts of the world. Those who are interested in the Ufo phenomena went on to justify such sightings as 
there being a connection between both parties, but the truth is we just don't know.

The truth is -in my view, is that we just don't know who we are and what we're really doing here. What's out there is just
what we want to believe... or told to believe. 

[gordi]

What if Aliens had an interest in Human beings as a source of energy/hormones/food/A.N.other unknown reason?
What if they wanted to closely observe us, at ground level, over a prolonged period of time and have the added ability (and opportunity) to abduct us at will for those ends?
What if Aliens couldn't adapt to staying on the surface of our planet for extended periods, and decided to create a race which could?
What if they performed genetic manipulation of a primate species to create a stealthy, strong and intelligent race of "special forces" which could be placed here on Earth "Behind Enemy Lines" largely unobserved?

Would it be impossible or unreasonable to assume that, when the Aliens periodically return to Earth, they would engage with these units on the ground?
Or that these special forces might have been given attributes, like telepathy, infrasound... even cloaking or inter-dimensional abilities in order to be able to better perform their tasks here?

Maybe Bigfoot is actually the Security Detail/Special Forces/Enforcer/Kidnapper/Abductor for the Aliens?

Maybe I need more sleep? LOL

G

[Wallfire]

Some really good and interesting idea's coming to light here, thanks MW for this tread.
If I may add my 2 cents, humans have always had a need to explane what they dont understand, some one or something is the reason why bad things happen, religion, cults, and form because of this need.
The need is also in single people, superstition, if I do this or dont do this everything will be ok.
Is there a need to believe in bigfoot or alien's, and if the need is great enough will we believe and see what we want to ?
No one has found a bigfoot so it joined into the alien family, bigfoot cannot be found because it the same as aliens.
Me I dont think bigfoot is an alien, if it is out there it lives as part of our nature,  are there aliens walking our world, i think so.

[F2d5thCav]

@"Biad"

and nowhere on that evolutionary path is a large upright biped that continued its existence.

Yeess.  As Ivan T. Sanderson pointed out in his fascinating work, Abominable Snowmen: Legend Come to Life, there are those huge areas of rugged wilderness throughout the world, of which we have catalogued only a fraction of their fauna.  Just think about what is called the "montane" country of the NW USA and much of western Canada -- millions of square miles of forested ridges and mountains, most of which is only very rarely penetrated by humans, and even then, only in small numbers.

But science is perfectly comfortable declaring that such a biped could NOT live in that stunningly huge wilderness . . . never mind that said scientists don't go on years-long walkabouts through those wilderness areas and are often solely pontificating from the safety of their lectern.

We shouldn't forget a bunch of bananas when we walk through such areas, no telling when we might meet Magilla.

Cheers

[BIAD]

Yeess.  As Ivan T. Sanderson pointed out in his fascinating work, Abominable Snowmen: Legend Come to Life, there are those huge areas of rugged wilderness throughout the world, of which we have catalogued only a fraction of their fauna.  Just think about what is called the "montane" country of the NW USA and much of western Canada -- millions of square miles of forested ridges and mountains, most of which is only very rarely penetrated by humans, and even then, only in small numbers.

But science is perfectly comfortable declaring that such a biped could NOT live in that stunningly huge wilderness . . . never mind that said scientists don't go on years-long walkabouts through those wilderness areas and are often solely pontificating from the safety of their lectern.

We shouldn't forget a bunch of bananas when we walk through such areas, no telling when we might meet Magilla.

Cheers

I agree with you on all your aspects, just because scientists looked and saw nothing, doesn't mean there's nothing there.
The percentage of fossil discoveries is miniscule compared to the animals they say walked the Earth in the the past, yet
the public accept their rulings without doubt.
(In the Smithsonian, they had a brontosaurus skeleton with its head on the wrong end for years!)

It may have seemed ludicrous to suggest a hairy man-like being would live in the Himalayas, but like everything, the reports
are taken out of context, when in reality, most of the accounts tell of seeing them in the lower areas where the foliage is
better.

Taken out of context and sadly, so was Sanderson. The doubt is even mentioned here.

[Ninurta]

In my opinion, no, Bigfoot are not aliens. They have been here for thousands of years, just another part of the natural fauna.

At least the one I saw was not, I am certain, any sort of alien. it had an intelligence in it's eyes to be sure, but not not an intelligence that could build starships. More like an intelligence that could outwit me to no end, so long as I kept the contest to a natural environment. It had a more or less human face, but there was no weirdness reminiscent of far off planets.

It was a conservator of the land, just as Indians have claimed forever. I think what brought it out was checking out the hickories I had cut for bow staves, and it was just happenstance that I saw it at all. There is a possibility that it was curious as to why strangers were hanging out around my house in the darkness (it scared the hell out of one of them, for certain), but It's interest in the bow staves stays with me, and carries more weight IMO. The "strangers" were my problem, not Bigfoot's.

I'm familiar with Danny Vendramini's theories, but think he is as full of crap as the UFO=bigfoot folks. Myra Shackley proposed that Bigfoot (at least the Russian Almas variety) is a relict Neanderthal, but that is not at all like Vendramini's off the wall notions. Danny May be on the right track in sayng that Neanderthals were nocturnal, but his notions go off the rails when he claims they were predatory on humans. I think he gets that idea from the Vindija Neanderthal cannibals and the like, but human societies have had cannibals, too, and the Neanderthal population was never large enough to present a real threat to humanity, nor to leave a "boogey man" image in all living human psyches.

Nope. This just seems an attempt at a "Grand Unified Theory of the Paranormal" to me. and I do not believe, not even a little bit, that Bigfoot are in any way connected to aliens.

.

[Ninurta]

Here are a couple of fairly recent images taken on the east coast of Canada, either in Nova Scotia or Newfoundland, by a fella named Leo Frank. Mr Frank seems to be highly protective of his images, so what I post here will be held to a minimum, just to illustrate.

The face Mr. Frank claims to have captured is very similar to the face I saw, which to my mind lends some credence to his information - which has been analysed to by folks trying to pick it apart.

First a link, so that I don't have to post this particular image here. This is apparently the earlier of two facial images I know of taken by Mr. Frank.

Then there is this image, which although taken later, was the first one I saw:





Are they real photos? I don't know. I'll leave the analysis to others. All I a doing here is using it as an illustration of the face I saw on Bigfoot.

The head hair was longer, as in BIAD's video, and the eyes were clearer - they didn't look like they were cataract-ridden as these do, but the face itself was very, very similar to this. It was much more "human" than "simian". Some have called it "troll-like".



   

,

[BIAD]

Here are a couple of fairly recent images taken on the east coast of Canada, either in Nova Scotia or Newfoundland, by a fella named Leo Frank. Mr Frank seems to be highly protective of his images, so what I post here will be held to a minimum, just to illustrate.

The face Mr. Frank claims to have captured is very similar to the face I saw, which to my mind lends some credence to his information - which has been analysed to by folks trying to pick it apart...

Here's a video discussing the image.

[Mystic Wanderer]

Here are a couple of fairly recent images taken on the east coast of Canada, either in Nova Scotia or Newfoundland, by a fella named Leo Frank. Mr Frank seems to be highly protective of his images, so what I post here will be held to a minimum, just to illustrate.

The face Mr. Frank claims to have captured is very similar to the face I saw, which to my mind lends some credence to his information - which has been analysed to by folks trying to pick it apart.

First a link, so that I don't have to post this particular image here. This is apparently the earlier of two facial images I know of taken by Mr. Frank.

Then there is this image, which although taken later, was the first one I saw:





Are they real photos? I don't know. I'll leave the analysis to others. All I a doing here is using it as an illustration of the face I saw on Bigfoot.

The head hair was longer, as in BIAD's video, and the eyes were clearer - they didn't look like they were cataract-ridden as these do, but the face itself was very, very similar to this. It was much more "human" than "simian". Some have called it "troll-like".





,

I'm glad the one I saw was cloaked. At 10 years old, if I had seen that thing uncloaked, I would have fainted right then and there!  It was all I could do to get my legs to carry me out of there as it was.  

I always hesitate to tell people how young I was when I saw the creature because I'm sure they will chalk it up to a "child's imagination", but I assure you nothing about my experience was my imagination.  

[Ninurta]

Taken out of context and sadly, so was Sanderson. The doubt is even mentioned here.

Strangely, that sounds a lot like the one I saw in WV - especially the long hair part. I noticed it had longer hair on it's head than on it's body, and that struck me as strange, since such is rarely ever mentioned in reports.

One key difference is size - what I saw looked at least twice the height of what he reports.

Disclosure: This post is out of order, and should be before my post regarding the Bigfoot Face - I actually wrote it last night and forgot to hit the "post" button. Then I got caught up searching for the face images. I plead Demon Rum as the cause.

.

[Ninurta]

I'm glad the one I saw was cloaked. At 10 years old, if I had seen that thing uncloaked, I would have fainted right then and there!  It was all I could do to get my legs to carry me out of there as it was.  

I always hesitate to tell people how young I was when I saw the creature because I'm sure they will chalk it up to a "child's imagination", but I assure you nothing about my experience was my imagination.  

The first bear I ever saw was when I was about 9 years old, and I still recall it to this day. It was about 30 yards from where I am sitting right now, in a blackberry patch. Folks thought I was just being jerked around by my imagination then, too, but I wasn't. Now there are bears all over the place here, and no one doubts any more - but back then they were unheard of in this area. Therefore, I can understand your reluctance.

Now you may understand my reluctance to shoot the bigfoot I saw. Not only did it look relatively human, but it was big enough that I feared that a shot might piss it off enough to eat me, and it looked like it could get mean enough to do it if irritated...

.

[BIAD]

Disclosure: This post is out of order, and should be before my post regarding the Bigfoot Face
- I actually wrote it last night and forgot to hit the "post" button.
Then I got caught up searching for the face images. I plead Demon Rum as the cause.

You're forgiven... go in peace.




And save me a swig!

[Wallfire]

Found this video,  enjoy