Leaderboard

Rather than thousands of posts on a bigfoot forum, DWA, perhaps consider going to the source: mainstream science. Take up your crusade with actual scientists. Prove to them the error of their ways. Or stay here and continue posting sour grapes comments.

MIB, I see the claim that there is evidence enough to warrant serious research. But I submit that many scientists have looked at the evidence for the yeti and sasquatch. Most have walked away out of frustration caused by the myriad hoaxers and enthusiastic amateurs who gum up the methodical scientific method. I would point you to the original Tom Slick expeditions which have examples of both of these problems. Also, the National Geographic and the Perkins expeditions. Even Joe Rogan became frustrated/disgusted with the "woo" surrounding the topic and that guy loves this sort of thing. It's not that it hasn't been attempted it's just that it's never borne fruit. IMO, To expect the continued attention of scientists at this point doesn't seem fair to me unless some novel evidence is collected.

Have you read the Ketchum threads. HH is not the only one who analyzed her results. I had no idea HH was a celebrity.... And why not mention Disotell? He is a professional. If HH and Disotell supported Melba's findings, would you still dismiss them? I wouldn't.

Hoaxing is of course more than likely the explanation. But if you want to know if there is adequate cover to stay out of sight most of the time, there is. Grassland has a lot of cover if you are willing to lay on the ground. You could be 10 feet from a target and they would not know you were there. However, quite obviously these creatures (if we entertain that they really were there) got spotted, which should not really be all that surprising if they were around. The difference is about documentation- if they are there, why are they not documented? That is really an entirely different question! The answer is of course they never got caught.

Yes, I asked Hart here because Jayjeti had questions, and some of the answers that were coming in seemed very uninformed and lacked actual facts. If wanting the facts brought forth makes me anti-Ketchum in the eyes of her supporters, so be it.

I'd feel bad for those poor scientists

what prompted you to regurgitate this after three years? You think maybe because I wasn't HERE three years ago? I find it interesting that TimberGhost no longer posts here. Nor Coonbo much. Could be the lack of activity, could be the Past Thread Police, or could be they weren't received so well. Maybe it would be better for myself if I tried to contact and communicate with past posters personally, and not bring up postings on threads. Lots of touchy folks hereabout.

You may have a degree in geology but my geology courses (I have a degree too) were taught in Oregon and we did field work in the PNW. Muddy river flats are rare in the forested areas that are associated with BF habitat. Unless you are a volcanologist Western Oregon and Washington is a very boring place geologically. It is all basalt or soils derived from basalt. Most river canyons are carved out of basalt and have steep sides and very narrow banks. Thick columnar basalt banks are very common. The entire region is volcanic and most surface is covered with basalt, and soils derived from basalt and ash. As I mentioned there may be fossils but the 2000+ foot thick Columbia Basalt flows buried much of the region under those flows. The subsequent volcanic eruptions as frequent as every few hundred years, geologically most of the forested region is very new geologically. It is the newest surface in the entire NA continent. I had a 4 inch layer of ash in my own yard when I trenched to put in my sprinkler system that was from a past Mt St Helens eruption. I live 25 miles south of the mountain. The soils of the Willamette valley are rich and deep but are the result of deposits from the Missoula Floods. While those floods may have trapped and covered BF, the layers are so thick that it is very unlikey they could ever be found. The Missoula Floods would have scoured any skeletons or fossils from the Columbia River banks and cleaned the river channel right down to basalt bed rock. 400 ft walls of water tend to do that. The draconian land use laws limit construction so there is very little excavation in the rural agricultural areas. Unless some construction site in a city uncovers a buried BF they will never be found. We have huge areas in Skamania County WA, (prime BF habitat) that are surface basalt flows that are as recent as a few hundred years old. So recent there is little or no vegetation growing on them. Dark Divide mentioned in Meldrums book is one of them. The river beds in the forested areas are mostly rock with very little sand. Mountain soils are thin, associated with volcanic eruptions ash, and decaying forest vegetation. Very acidic. Flash floods are very rare. Thunderstorms are rare in Western Oregon and Washington. People from the Mid West are amazed that it can rain without thunderstorms. I have lived where I do now for 20 years and I cannot think of a single reported flash flood in western Washington and Oregon. The only event that produced massive flash flooding was the eruption of Mt St Helens. The Kennewick man was not fossilized and there is indication that he was buried. Kennewick is in the arid region of Eastern Washington that is mostly grassland and has few trees. Not BF habitat. The only reason I mentioned that was that the soil there is not acidic but is alkaline. Bones do not break down in alkaline soil like they do in acidic forest soil. As I mentioned, the only fossils in the region are associated with uplifted pacific coast marine life and the fossil beds out on the John Day areas of eastern Oregon and similar areas in Eastern Washingon. The John Day fossil beds are in an arid intermountain basin and were formed in now dry lake beds. Few or no trees and not BF habitat. You have to have events in BF habitat to get BF fossils. So I strongly disagree that fossil formation in the mountainous areas of the PNW that is BF habitat is likely. If it were, plant or other animal fossils would be found in these areas. They are not. Volcanic ash flows may have trapped and preserved BF, but volcanoes are dynamic and those of the PNW may not be presently active, but they have been active enough to continue to grow in heights near or above 10,000 Feet. If they had been long dormant, they would have weathered away instead of build in height. Between the larger mountains are cindercones, smaller volcanic flows, etc. And BF here lives right in the middle of all of this.

So Bigfoot in North Dakota is acceptable for you. Moose are a known and documented species in North Dakota... The Bigfoot sighting reports I posted from North Dakota have a sighting at a trailer park in New Town, ND. I do not think that sighting was a fabricated report. It is absolutely absurd the idea that Bigfoot is a real species, comes into human communities in a place with no forest cover and remains an undocumented species. The trailer park report is from the southeast edge of New Town, ND. The southeast edge is seen in the upper left of this photo... That is where we are talking about Bigfoot being, and it is utterly absurd. So what is behind that rash of sightings in ND? The first sighting was at the trailer park on February 22, 2004. The next was eight miles south of the town also on the 22nd but no details were obtained. The third sighting was by two women with the "Bigfoot" being seen outside their home window on February 24, 2004 on Highway 22 eight mies southwest of Mandaree, and about 25 miles south/southwest of the initial trailer park sighting. The fourth sighting occurred on February 25 also on Highway 22 by a younger and older man. The "Bigfoot" was waking in the middle of the highway and when the vehicle came within sight of the subject, it walked of the highway and into a ditch, then out of sight. On the 26th and 27th tracks were found that were unambiguous. The went for three hundred yards along the side of Highway 22 and the returned to the pavement. People searching where the prints came off the pavement again could not find any travelling over two miles. The brazen nature of the sightings, the "Bigfoot" going to people's homes, walking in the middle of the highway, tracks along a highway that disappear and never reappear, this to me suggests hoaxing. Were this to be an actual Bigfoot exhibiting such behaviour and being in such an environment, there is no way Bigfoot should be unclassified. I think someone was playing Woods & Wildmen in and around New Town, ND.

What a joke! Cebidae and Atelidae are each families of New World monkeys. She just combined the two to come up with a 'new' name for a species and added the fictitious texicanus and nerteros pacificus, etc. to sound scientific. The whole story echoes what is written elsewhere about New World monkeys and uses a real historical person for the author.

Jay, It's a very interesting bit of writing, I'll admit. I enjoyed reading it, but the association with LNP spoils it for me. That's a big problem with the hoaxers and liars in this field (or any field, for that matter). Prove yourself mendacious, and even if you later produce or discover something (potentially) legit, that evidence is going to be seen as tainted and untrustworthy. Agreed Bonehead, it's possible for someone who has hoaxed before to be sent something real which they post, but when your reputation is tainted you need some good corroborating evidence to go with it. She does make videos possibly retelling some real accounts at Bigfoot Ballyhoo, but for this extraordinary document in particular its a shame she is the source.

Jay, It's a very interesting bit of writing, I'll admit. I enjoyed reading it, but the association with LNP spoils it for me. That's a big problem with the hoaxers and liars in this field (or any field, for that matter). Prove yourself mendacious, and even if you later produce or discover something (potentially) legit, that evidence is going to be seen as tainted and untrustworthy.

Thanks Bonehead for the page showing that Linda Newton-Perry, a fiction writer, has posted a number of hoaxes at Bigfoot Ballyhoo. http://squatchdetective.weebly.com/hall-of-shame---bigfoot-ballyhoo--linda-newton-perry.html This one should be viewed with a grain of salt as well given it has no firm authentication.

I can confirm the last. L-N-P is indeed a proven hoaxer. She was the creator of the Sru Lake hype. At least one of the people who she claimed as her source / a member of her "team" did not exist and the picture of him she was providing was a picture of someone else who was identified, located, and was was able to confirm the location the specific picture was taken. He was very shocked to find out his image was a star in a bigfoot hoax. Sru Lake is basically in my back yard, or at least my old back yard, and I've spent many hours there, and literally years within 10 miles or less. We knew it by a different name back then, changed for political correctness. Once the connection between the old and new names was apparent, I did my own followup investigation in person. There was zero evidence to support her claims. There was also zero evidence that could have been interpreted as supporting a coverup of what she claimed. It's bad. It's as bad as it gets in the BF world which is pretty darn bad. MIB

I had a feeling this story originated from Bigfoot Ballyhoo. From the mind of Linda Newton Perry along with all her other fabricated stories and phony contributors. She likes to pull pictures and names off the net and build phony stories around them.

Linda Newton-Perry makes it invalid, barring any third-party confirmation.

^^^ I think the point is Melba's study was fatally flawed from nearly the beginning. Even a broken clock shows the correct time twice per day and this would likely be the result of additional studies vs Ketchum study.

No.... MIB said to "predefine the assumptions Hart was allowed to work from .. which failed." was disingenuous. Instead of asking me about the topic to get my take on it your comment wasn't making a statement or asking a question about the topic; it was just a blanket statement about me to the forum of which you leave open ended for others to fill in the details with their less than mature banter, which you repeat MIB's nonsense. When the conversation turns personal to focus on participants its digressed into a pettiness that should not be apart of adult discussion. You can deny it was an in my face comment all you want but you were championing Dr. Hart as someone who would clear the nonsense and set things straight; so, when you ask "Interesting, Wonder why Jayjeti dropped out of the conversation when Hart jointed us," other anti-Ketchum stalwarts ran with your inference. And I was part of the conversation with Dr. Hart. I asked Dr. Hart a few questions and thanked him for his response. Then he engaged in some interesting conversations with several, like Southernyahoo, about things I don't have the ability to ascertain right from wrong, but since I didn't wade into their jargon for two days you want to point out my odd absence in the face of your good doctor. I would prefer this discussion just focus on the topic. I joined myself to this thread asking this, "If this lab comes forward claiming to have duplicated her work will they be attacked with the same attacks, like it must have been contaminated to get those results, etc. as was done with Dr. Ketchum, or will this vindicate her, that her work was accurate? " No one seemed to want to answer the question if it would vindicate her, but mainly wanted to rehash how Melba messed it all up, and I became a participant in the discussion. I was a main participant but whether I was leading or controlling the conversation is a matter of perception. There were people, like you, wanting your facts put forward and bringing in participants in the discussion and I was answering your's and their comments.

Since you have failed to respond, I have to ask again: who introduced anything resembling denialism? You talk often about keeping the subject on topic and avoiding arguments about existence, yet here you are preaching about denialism when no one said anything remotely denialist. Try taking your own advice and getting off your soapbox for a post or two. I'm sorry, the answer to my question is that no one did. My intention was not to derail this thread with this post, but to hopefully demonstrate to you, DWA, that you are more often the one that starts the derail, even with no valid seque.

12, 267 actual scientists considered state of evidence and conclude "No bigfoot." Two posters, one a self-appointed scientist consider state of evidence and conclude "No brainer. It's obvious bigfoot exists." Incorrigible1 considers overwhelming difference and concludes "Go with actual scientists." Drops mic.

Agree with all of the above, and though you've each said it in context, the biggest potential obstacle is this: If bigfoot is in fact a hybrid, then the assumption that any human DNA appearing in samples is just contamination is fundamentally wrong and results in discarded evidence. The only safeguard against this is to publish proper sample collection procedures to the community and to carefully collect DNA samples from every person in the chain of custody. If the samples show human DNA that corresponds to that of anyone in the chain of custody, then it is obviously contaminated. If it shows human DNA that does not correspond to anyone in the chain of custody, and the sample itself is clearly not of human origin, then the sample must be analyzed under the assumption that a hybrid origin is possible.

I think this whole argument is a giant black hole. Some people believe, some don't, neither one will ever convince the other of their position. Think for yourself and believe the way you wish and let others do the same.

I'm, potentially, 12 feet tall. Where are the studies? There is no such thing as "unknown" animal dna, any report would list the animal(s) most closely related/associated with the dna. Unless the scat is properly collected and tested it's just....poop on your desk. I thought that was self evident but apparently I was wrong. I noticed that the link to the facebook page showed sasquatch scat purportedly gathered by cliff barackman back in 1999 - cliff is "pro" researcher; what happened to his sample? He should have had the contacts/resources to have the sample analyzed, no? By the way that last link was interesting but I can't see that Nelson's results were ever replicated or that Nelson ever published his results (using google scholar as the search engine). Hello all. I have popped by to set the record straight. The photo attributed to Joe Beelart and I from 1999 is not my own (see the Facebook link above). This is another excellent example of poor documentation by people putting out information to the public. I had not even met Joe Beelart at the time the photograph was taken back in 1999. As it turns out, the "Cliff" involved in this photograph of what is almost certainly bear scat is Cliff Olsen, long time researcher and friend of Beelart. (Cliff Olsen and Joe Beelart are also the co-authors of "The Oregon Bigfoot Highway," a great book on bigfoot encounters along the Clackamas River, their main research area.) Just because the guy who pieced together the video (again, see the Facebook link above) says it's me, doesn't actually mean that it is me. There are a lot of Cliffs in this world, and a surprising number of Cliffs in Bigfoot research (I can think of at least four off the top of my head). I have seen some big craps in the woods, but nothing that I would bet came from a sasquatch. This is an avenue of bigfoot research that doesn't much interest me, though if I actually saw the poop come out of a sasquatch, all that would change immediately. Until then, I'm not messing around with this kind of crap, so to speak. Cliff I misread "popped by".

Sigh: I hope this puts to rest the myth that no potential sasquatch scat exists. There's plenty of scat out there that is found in association with sightings and tracks that does not conform to known animals, as I said earlier. http://www.bigfoot-lives.com/html/more_evidence_that_bigfoot_exi.html short version of Ivan Sanderson description of analysis, 1968. Other Photos. http://www.bigfootencounters.com/images/scat.htm comparative photos http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=22358 Someone with a similar experience to mine, though he didn't see or interact with it. https://www.facebook.com/video/video.php?v=168451576528987 A comparative video, 5 plus minutes. https://bigfoothistory.wordpress.com/tag/bigfoot-scat/ second account on the page is about a published and tenured anthropologist with a collection of bigfoot scat, just to establish here that there are actual scientists collecting this stuff. https://bigfoothistory.wordpress.com/2013/07/28/1998-marble-mountain-wilderness-california-man-collects-bigfoot-scat/ weird scat-related account. I consider the credibility of this marginal. http://www.bfro.net/GDB/show_report.asp?id=8259 An account from a PhD. Physiologist also witnessed by a veterinarian. The Physiologist gives his credentials for your verification. http://www.bigfootencounters.com/articles/argosy.htm a longer version of Sanderson's analysis. http://www.alamas.ru/eng/publicat/DNA_of_Bigfoot_e.htm A rollup of various DNA finding predating the Ketchum analysis. Note that the conclusion here is that bigfoot DNA is part human.