All Activity

Howdy once again, I’ve had a lot to think about since I last posted, but first an update; I went to my mother-in-law’s to speak to the misses, I explained to her calmly that I believe in the existence of sasquatch and she doesn’t need to believe in it, but she has to support me in my pursuits. Even though I explained calmly and gave her time to understand it all (as a woman she's slightly slower than us men), she flipped out and started screaming at me to get out. I don’t know what I did wrong, but I’m in the process of booking a consultation with an attorney to draft up some legal jargon. Sorry for that dump of personal doo-whop, but I thought it best to update y’all on every aspect of my previous post. On the aspect of the “bigfoot scam”, I’m not really wanting to go into it heavily, but essentially there was a group in Wollongong that was planning a hunt for the beast, and skipping over some personal details, basically they managed to get into my bank and transfer out my funds to another account that I was unable to track. I notified authorities; however, they said that it’s unlikely that the assailants would be caught. Now I’m back to selling off my vinyl collection to keep up with bills. (on that note if anybody is a fan of weezer or radiohead, reach out, as I’m in the process of selling some older pressings). The hunt with the lads is still on for Sunday and I’ll let you all know how that goes in a separate post. Thanks for all your replies. Also, what equipment would be handy to bring on the hunt (there’s six of us for reference).

These snap shots are from Bills presentation. And he shows with a rigid mask that a human head is a bad fit. Patty has a very low brow, peaked skull. Sagittal crests in other great apes is an anchor point for heavy chewing muscles.

Not exactly. You’re putting the cart in front of the horse. Yes, I think they have remains. But they have obviously decided for whatever reason that they will not allow science to prove it’s existence to the public. And it’s not just our field. Check out the Giants community and the Smithsonian for example. People follow up on old reports of bones and it all leads back to the Smithsonian and a brick wall. And of course the Smithsonian is exempt from the Native American graves act. They don’t have to produce a single thing. Look at how long science clung to the Clovis first theory. And any one claiming that their dig was much older than 12,000 years old was a quack. The wrecked peoples careers over it. They were dead wrong. I still haven’t figured out motive yet. Is it just a knee jerk reaction? Is there some hidden history to the new world they don’t want us to know? I simply don’t know. But I do believe the narrative is slowly eroding away. I think people want the truth. I know I do.

A narrative that is not factually true is often made up for entertainment purposes.

Come back online so we can advise you. Don't be a fool and leave your wife over a glimpse of a furry creature that probably was a Bigfoot since you did see the eyes which were yellow. If you go hunting for a Bigfoot it will leave the area and you'll never see it again because they are probably smarter than humans as we're finding out.

https://sharonahill.com/modern-problems-with-scientific-naming-example-bigfoot/ Modern problems with scientific naming: Example – Bigfoot By Sharon A. Hill | November 18, 2024 2 Comments An article advanced-published on 14 November 2024 in the Journal of Mammalogy calls out the problem with poor naming practices of proposed new species in our internet age. One of the most famous examples of poor practice was that of Melba Ketchum, et al., who not only did a terrible job analyzing DNA from “Bigfoot” but also used a pop-up journal to give Bigfoot another useless name. The “Perspective” piece by Ruedas, Norris, and Timm, titled “Best practices for the naming of species“, explains that there are set rules to effectively naming new species. Naming is governed by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN) based on the 10th edition of Linnaeus’s Systema Naturæ published likely in 1758. Linnaeus’s system of nature called a consistent use of two Greek or Latin words to denote genus and species. A person who wishes to designate an organism as a new species must publish the name and description according to the rules in the code of the ICZN. But that frequently does not happen as it should leading to “descriptions that fail to meet standards outlined in the Code” that “can create problems for years afterwards, with any number of unfortunate—and often unforeseen—consequences.” For example, when authors propose new names that fail to meet the standards in the Code, these names are unavailable. They are called “naked names” (singular = nomen nudum; plural = nomina nuda). The description and name is invalid. The real world effect of these errors is that, if we cannot clearly define the organism we are talking about, we can’t effectively study or protect it. Ruedas, et al. goes on to describe what makes a good naming process. Additionally, they note issues with electronic publications, which are more prevalent now than in… uh… 1758. The ICZN Code addresses that. It might be argued, they say, that an HTML version of the description can never be the version of record because it’s impermanent. When you don’t have an actual Bigfoot there is more to the article

Okay. This gets interesting. I drove to and from work at Fort Carson everyday in the early 1990s and passed the Bigfoot statue that now adorns Green Mountain Falls and thought ... not a darn thing about Bigfoot. So I was searching for whatever Tirademan found and could not identify any local (Colorado) newspaper articles on the topic. However, I found the following TV Guide entry for March 1987. Which is relevant because the articles I did find about the Green Mountain Falls (CO) Bigfoot were all in Nebraska newspapers. These articles, like this November 2, 1988 article from the Omaha (NE) World-Herald were focused on Nebraska researchers traveling to Colorado to research the sightings which happened in March 1987. In 1989, researchers claim to have found hair left by Bigfoot which identified as primate; that story is from the Rapid City (SD) Journal's April 11, 1989 edition.

Here is Bill Munns explaining WHY Patty isn't a human in a suit. Including head dimensions. Morphology matters.

https://www.nps.gov/yose/learn/news/missing.htm

Well, I'm not sure what to think of that reference. "By Sharon A. Hill" If you click on her name, you get: https://sharonahill.com/author/sharona/ Her pic is a cartoon character.............like mine on this forum. That isn't an official anything. Frankly, I'm not sure what to think of Taxonomic Science. But it's clear that it isn't controlled by the U.S. government: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxonomy_(biology)

Modern problems with scientific naming: Example – Bigfoot By Sharon A. Hill | November 18, 2024 2 Comments "An article advanced-published on 14 November 2024 in the Journal of Mammalogy calls out the problem with poor naming practices of proposed new species in our internet age. One of the most famous examples of poor practice was that of Melba Ketchum, et al., who not only did a terrible job analyzing DNA from “Bigfoot” but also used a pop-up journal to give Bigfoot another useless name."

Depends. First, I think such requests should start with county sheriffs. These guys are elected by the citizenry directly. They are not as controlled by city governments, and more importantly, are the first responders in the more rural areas outside of the cities and towns. Secondly, such requests should continue with state fish and game agencies. These are the government biologists closest to the population, and are the primary wildlife management agencies. I wouldn't bother with federal wildlife or land management agencies. I don't believe they can be trusted to hand over any information. This would include the Army (Ft. Lewis). But I might be wrong..............

Time for someone to write the government and do a Freedom of Information Act request about Bigfoot. For those who see some major government involving in the issue, wouldn't a Freedom of Information Act request result in some level of information?

Another story about the Doerr Terrace hoaxer who impersonated a gorilla and broke up a community baseball game and picnic; the story was published in The Pittsburgh (PA) Press on August 27, 1920. Given that shots had been fired during the week-long gorilla scare, the government planned to use chlorine gas to smoke out the "gorilla," and that the ball players were armed with bats, this was probably a really stupid thing to do.

Or was the ape this man, arrested for vagrancy and charged with attacking two girls? This story occurred much closer in time to the events at Doerr Terrace; the article was published in The Pittsburgh (PA) Press on August 26, 1920.

Published in the Progress, Lewisburg (PA) Journal on October 29, 1920. Many newspaper articles about Doerr Terrace ape were published in Bigfoot in Pennsylvania by Timothy Renner. Notice that while a vagrant was arrested and blamed for the "ape," the constable declared that he found footprints of "an ape of no small dimensions." (Yes, I cannibalized a prior post; trying to keep around 200 clippings straight confuses the mind sometime.)

Norse, as you've stated, you believe that the government knows about Sasquatch. I agree with you. Given that fact, it stands to reason that they have already proved its existence with a body or two. Do you think this is a logical assumption?

^^ I agree with the "Don't even entertain the idea of killing one" at this point in your (Josh's) Bigfooting endeavors. It sounds like you might be way too fast to pull the trigger on what you think is a Yowie only to find that you've shot a person.

I dunno, she didn't stand with him during his darkest days, so she has shown her true colors. If someone abandons you in your time of need, they should be tossed to the curb. Marriage is supposed to be a commitment to your partner in good times and in bad. Especially in bad. Don't even entertain the idea of killing one. They are closer to human than you think and it would be akin to murder.

Well, I disagree that leaving one's wife because of a difference of opinion on some topic is a good idea; that type of advice should be sought from an accredited specialist in Australia. I agree that it would be useful to let others know the general nature of the scam that caught you so that others can benefit from your mistake. My two cents otherwise: 1) Every day there's some rash person who wakes up and thinks that they're going to be the one to solve the Bigfoot/Yowie question in one week where others have failed doing so over decades. I know; I see that idiot in the mirror every morning. Pull back from the emotional attachment some. 2) The best advice is from Cliff Barackman (whose podcast Bigfoot 'n Beyond includes some episodes focused on the Yowie). Go in the woods with family and friends and enjoy yourself. If you don't see a Bigfoot/Yowie, you've still had a good day. If you do, that's just the cherry on top of the sundae.

Cryptid Legends: America's Most Mysterious Undiscovered Beasts OutdoorHubView the full article

if your wife doubts you, leave her. it won't get better until you do. tell us more about the bigfoot scam that cost you money. we need details so we can avoid it.

Thank you for a very detailed history of Gigantopithicus. If no one knows what G. Blacki looked like? How are you so convinced that it’s skull ended up on the Patty skeleton 3d print? And you’re telling me that if modern forensic sculptors had a good video of a G. Blacki they could not recreate the skeleton? I know they could. That would be way easier and more accurate than recreating a whole animal based on a molar and jaw bone fragments. Cyclops? Are you suggesting modern forensic sculptors would make a cyclops out of an elephant skull? To my knowledge the cyclops myth comes from ancient peoples. Just as G. Blacki teeth were sold associated with dragons. Instead of a very large primate. I am not sure where you are going with any of this. It’s very obvious that Patty’s morphology is very different from a Homo Sapien. Dr. Jeff Meldrum’s project I think is an interesting one and something science does all the time. Calling it a “fake” does a disservice to him and to science. Science makes educated guesses based on available data. Velociraptors were the size of turkeys and feathered. No one knew this when Jurassic park came out. It’s ever evolving. But I am mystified by the fact that someone could look at Patty and say “that’s a human woman”! She looks nothing like a human woman. And morphology matters! It’s an expression of DNA after all. And if you diss on Dr. Jeff Meldrum because he created something that looks too “ape like” in your mind? Where are you getting the data it’s not? What are your credentials to say it’s wrong? Is this simply because of preconceived notions? Melba Ketchums DNA study? What the root cause here for such consternation? Thou protest too much.

Sorta' like finding a 40,000 year old splinter of finger bone in a cave and building a new human species. They do it all the time. Then they ignore the 800 lb two-legged critter running around in their back yards.

Things escalated quickly - the first article is from the Pittsburgh (PA) Gazette Times, published on August 24, 1920. Possibly as a result of that injury, the local authorities came up with a plan to use chlorine gas "of the kind used in battles during the world war" to smoke out the ape. What could possibly go wrong? The second article was published in the West Chester (PA) Daily Local News on August 24, 1920.