Was the cryptozoologist's warning about Bigfoot necessary or not? скачать в хорошем качестве

Was the cryptozoologist's warning about Bigfoot necessary or not?

The other day a headline from Coast to Coast AM caught my eye, "Cryptozoologist Issues Warning About Bigfoot." Warning? What was up with that? About what? It turned out C2C was basically paraphrasing an Unexplained-Mysteries.com article...which was basically summing up an interview in the Mirror with self-appointed Bigfoot expert Thomas Markum. Except, Markum hadn't exactly "issued" a warning. His words were getting twisted and blown out of proportion. The statement he made that caused all the ruckus was, "Without a doubt a Bigfoot could easily kill a man if it wanted to. The size and strength would be unmatched by a human." The part of his statement that was de-emphasized was, "But this would be a very rare event, in my opinion. While the potential is there that Bigfoot could do human harm, it doesn't seem to be happening." No, it doesn't. Markum brought up the case of Albert Ostman, a Canadian who said that in 1924 a Bigfoot had abducted him for 6 days. Markum used the Ostman example as a time (unverified as it is) when a Bigfoot did abduct a human. Possibly. Even if it did happen...So? Ostman wasn't hurt. The Bigfoot family even offered him "sweet grass" to eat. Maybe they saw him as a stray in need of help. It wasn't like they beat him up or abused him or anything. My takeaway? If any warnings are going to be made, Bigfoot has more of a reason to issue them than we do. After all, we're the ones actively trespassing on his territory, armed and ready to take him down. So who actually poses more of a threat to who? REFERENCED ARTICLES https://www.coasttocoastam.com/articl... https://www.unexplained-mysteries.com... FOR MORE HAUNT JAUNTS Jaunt with us online anytime at https://www.hauntjaunts.net/. SUBSCRIBE TO OUR CHANNEL    / @hauntjaunts