Wednesday, March 17, 2010

The Flatwoods Monster and Mass Confusion




So today I saw the HISTORY CHANNEL's 'MONSTERQUEST' episode on the Flatwoods Monster. Mind you, the episode was titled REPTILE MAN or whatever, so I was expecting something entirely different. Instead I was subjected to yet another analysis of the Starchild Skull and Stanton Friedman in the woods, scoping out evidence that the eyewitnesses of the Flatwoods monster where high on natural gases, and therefore hallucinating.

Meanwhile, a forensic artist pieced the Starchild Skull together and a Biological Archaeologist tested the skull for (more) oddities. I did find out some interesting things today, despite the fact that this episode was a hodge-podge of 'let's-throow-everything-in-there-including-the-baby-and-the-bathwater' ideology.

First off, the Starchild will never look human to satisfy any agenda. No matter how many artists these networks can hire to piece that thing together. Its eyeballs couldn't move (it's impossible for that being/child to have had normal eyes, unless the History Channel plans on airing an episode on FROG PEOPLE and having the Starchild Skull analyzed again), its neck was thick (with extra muscle and tendon to support the unusually proportioned head) and nothing like a humans, so don't give me any crap about cradle boarding or head modifications due to the culture in which that child was raised. The Starchild is biologically odd. It was born that way.

And speaking of culture, etc.,. we are talking about a being that is over 900 years old. It did not come from a cradle boarding culture, seeing as the female skull found with it was normal. In fact, I venture to guess that this child was probably feared...an outcast. And perhaps murdered. That would explain why the child was buried and the female skeleton wasn't. She probably had to bury the poor thing and chose to die beside it.

Who knows what the story is with the Starchild. But I am certain it is a sad one. Imagine if that person existed today.

On another note, finding out that the eyes never moved because it may have been able to see peripherally without looking side to side like we do, was awesome. But what really got me was finding out the FLATWOODS monster was reptilian!!! When did this piece of information come to light? Where have I been? I don't ever recall hearing the Flatwoods monster was a reptilian being with 2-fingers (on each hand) and that it terrorized so many people. Nevermind the fact that there's an old model car somewhere that bares the handprint of this creature. Burned straight through the paint.

And, now I find out the people of that part of Appalachia say the beast (or beasts, because now I know some hunter saw 3 at one time) is still there, and I can only ask why. I mean, maybe there was a reason in the 50's, but why keep coming back? And why in the same suit? Our technology has progressed since then, so why aren't they walking around in adaptable suits instead of hovering in hoverskirts.

But the one aspect I cannot wrap my head around is the fact that most of the eyewitnesses have had or died of or are still struggling with throat and lung cancer. Something is definitely there, in Flatwoods. Not sure if it's reptilian or what, and 100% not even certain what the Starchild has to do with it...seriously History Channel, what was that about...but anyways, I do believe something happened there back when Freddie May and company saw it, and it could still be happening.

And if those things are still scoping out that particular part of the U.S. I wonder what the hell they're looking for.

7 comments:

Rich said...

The Flatwoods story, especially when grouped with other stories, is just too hard to dismiss unless you follow "the simplest explanation is most probably the correct one, therefore it must be the simplest explanation that is the correct one."

The problem with simple explanations is that they can be almost as crazy as the account/story itself. In this case, it would be more accurate to just list the account/story/case as:

"unexplained and/or no satisfactory explanation"

When you combine all the UNEXPLAINED accounts of similar or somewhat similar content (especially those well documented/researched), one is left with circumstantial evidence of something worth looking into.

Not REALLY enough to "convict" but something that cannot be quite easily dismissed as "it was just this" or "it was just that."

The problem is what is this "something" and how does one look into it.

Well, we can always rely on our government and/or governments around the world to look into it for us. Who knows EXACTLY what is known.

Or

There are those who take it upon themselves to research such elusive things. Not an easy task to begin with and made terribly difficult, if not impossible, when you are trying to find something that always seems to stay beyond reach...mostly relying on witness accounts.

Whether indisputable evidence cannot be obtained or it is (was) obtained and somehow made to disappear, we are left "back at square one" again.

Digital stuff is easy to manipulate or really any picture/video can be faked, witnesses lie or misidentify things, radar return is plasma, the government is "does anybody know?" and it just keeps going on and on and on and on.

and on...

Oddlerian said...

It must have been intentionally posted at 11:11 am

Rich said...

Ask the author of this blog post, then we'll know for sure. But, then again we might be lied to. Hmmmmmmm, can this EVER be proven one way or the other? LOL.

Yes, there are a lot of people, I suppose, that find that when they look at the clock it tends to show the same numbers over and over and over again. A pattern of numbers in their life. Science basically says "so what"...has prosaic answers for this.

I tend to agree with science on this one, though there ARE indeed some interesting synchronicity stories out there with numbers/clocks and, better yet, just events in general. Perhaps even some that beg to be labeled as "unknown" rather than "oh, it is just blah blah, blah."

Maybe they should be labeled as "unknown." I think they should be if they are especially well documented and quite extraordinary. But, alas, the world does allow for extraordinary and extremely improbable things to happen. It is just I'm not so sure science has pinned down the exact reason(s) for this. So, for me, "unknown" may be a better fit.

I know I made this answer rather long-winded and maybe off track but who cares.

Tina Sena said...

I just realized this was posted at 11:11. No significance to me, but it was NOT intentional.

Rich said...

Your response was posted at 2:22...blog article posted at 11:11 and response at 2:22...cosmic games perhaps?...ha ha ha.

Rich said...

Your blog was posted at 11:11 AM and your response above was posted at 2:22 PM...1s and 2s, a cosmic game perhaps? Ha Ha Ha..lol.

Rich said...

ooops sorry about double post...another cosmic blip perhaps.