Forums

I wasnt sure where to post it, someone suggested putting it in the General Forum since its 'at the top' and might be seen by the most members.   Yakima being pretty big (nearly 100,000) and a very common last name makes this a tough task without some luck.  There's not even a public obituary for Norm, which might have led to additional names. I did ask Kitakaze (who was prominent in the thread about the 'Chinook pressman' 15 years ago) why Norm possessed the camera original and how coincidental it was that his brother was the bigfoot hoaxer during that time, hoaxes no doubt done to spur some interest in Roger's book since Chinook had 10,000 copies.  Our cordial back-and-forth on FB came to an abrupt end.  

^^   This has been my feeling as well.  The "Capturing Bigfoot" thing is going to dominate the BFF discussion for the near future.  There needs to be one go to place to discuss it. Being from Midwest I just about skipped over this thread based on the title as I am not from "the Yakima Area".    The excellent information and thoughts offered by JAMESKRAV deserves to be seen by all!

What does this nature discovery mean?   Here are my completely uninformed thoughts:     First, I applaud the logic.    I will admit when we see something unusual, I am more prone to think it is in fact not unusual. It is just not as well understood.  Well, maybe just not well understood by me.  Once we understand it the real reason turns out to be pretty boring.   I would like to offer 2 examples:   1- Plaster cast "fingerprints". I heard on TV shows how these plaster footprints of Bigfoot had dermal ridges.  There was even claimed evidence of healed skin in the footprint's dermal ridge lines which "couldn't be faked".  Jimmy Chilcutte became a household name in the Bigfoot world as the FBI fingerprint expert who pointed these things out.   He concluded this could only be explained by an undiscovered primate making the prints.  This may be the case, but his analysis was flawed it seems.  The effect he noticed was able to be explained and reproduced by others giving the same ridges as an experimental result.  This meant there could be other explanations for the same lines he based his conclusions on.   2- The Skookum casts were thought to be a bigfoot siting in the mud.        It seems its more likely this was just a deer/elk type animal.  Of the two which is more likely.         We attribute things to unusual findings which can be significant.   Sometimes it is and sometimes it's not.     In the end we need to go wherever the facts take us.   Are the findings explained by some other natural process or typical process?        

For those who doubt the usefulness of DNA in identifying  Bigfoot as a new species or a Homo sapiens hybrid, please read this paper on the Likweli monkey, which has extensive DNA results to demonstrate its place in monkey phylogeny as a distinct species.  A similar paper on the Lesula monkey, another recent discovery, can be found in PLOS ONE.

This is an interesting post which needs more development.  However, I would suggest that both this discussion and the discussion about the film Capturing Bigfoot are better served if this is rolled into the main thread on that film.