Leaderboard

Centuries of eyewitness accounts, PGF, audio of large mammals unknown to those who study such, hair samples, fecal samples(has anyone had a thorough assay of the parasite load, that alone would prove quite significant were species specific forms found, but unknown in the known species of the region from which the sample was removed. This could also provide some insight to its phylogeny) the "unknown primate" DNA samples (which certainly merit cross comparison to determine if the anomalous elements are consistent or at least fall within a reasonable range of commonality) and just how many print castings are there now, would you imagine? A good few displaying aberrant dermatoglyph patterns of a complexity that until recently would have been a bit of a task to "take it to the substrate" as it were. If that is still not enough to incite interest and inquiry, on an academic level, within the fields of, say, genetics, taxonomy, physical anthropology, cultural anthropology, linguistics, evolutionary biology and comparative A&P,to name a few, on the possibility that even just one of those thousands of indicative events or artifacts is indeed genuine, for if that is so, then there's a lot of catching up to do, and the race is on. It surprises me that there have been no multi-discipline research teams put together by one or more unversities(perhaps even comprised of specialists from different universities, then sharing the data, each for their own pursuits) with better funding, latest tech, and grad students to do the grunt work. Certainly, similar research/study has been initiated on considerably less credible evidences, only the subject wasn't an unrecognized uber-primate whose acknowledgement by the scientific community could well cause quite some upheaval on a number of levels. But yeah ...I'd say it's mounting...none too fast ..but neverless

I was never taken by the Chehalis sounds. They simply weren't hominin in origin. They really don't compare to others, where there is no question whether it's hominin, only whether it's a modern human or "other" hominin. The sounds are important if we are ever going to know when we hear one, and the truth will rise above all the mis-identifications because it doesn't change.

Personally I think this guy is either having us all on with a hoax or just plain misguided. Either way, at this moment in the world of sasquatch research, it's difficult to see how any of this Utah material moves things forward. It's certainly not in the same league as the NAWAC guys in terms of self-skepticism and methods. There is now a video of what is purported to be a "kid" sasquatch and for the life of me, I don't see anything compelling there at all. Next...

The neighbor guy, I just talked to him this morning, is one of those know it alls that thinks he is intellectually superior to most people. He basically has been in academia most of his adult life. High school biology teacher then adminstrator up to the superintendent of schools level. Was a PHD candidate at one point but he had issues with his department head and they did not allow him to continue his PHD work. I get the impression he does not have the curiosity to be a researcher but is happy to learn and regurgitate scientific dogma. Anyway if someone said they had found something and had pictures I would have looked at them. I think people like him in the science mainstream will be hard to persuade even when that body has been on the lab table. They will doubt those that examined it.

Thanks Cryptic, I do my part of the research by making comparisons. I've learned enough over the last couple years that I can get a reasonable idea of which larger predator/scavengers fed on an animal. As far as dentition goes, the only thing that compares to a very reasonable extent with what we have found is hominid dentition. Yes for all of those that have a problem with the idea, comparisons can be made. One of our main references does just that with archeological sites. They also use ungulate ribs in their determination. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S030544031200427X In my original analysis I arrived at unknown predator. Here on the Bigfoot Forums I share what is the best fit. I guess I could say it was giant wild humans if that is more palatable to some. But why? When there is already large amounts of evidence pointing to bigfoot. Why make up something else just because the answer may be unacceptable to some. We look at it this way... It's a backdoor way to get mainstream science interested in the subject. Until that body comes in we will continue to work on it. Something else I have been considering. I will make this offer. If anyone is interested and going to be in the Kelso, WA area, drop me a PM. I can share some of our findings and the work I've been doing. Maybe if time allows go up to one of the kill sites.

I think Roger and Bob believed they filmed a real bigfoot. Their actions follow the logical coarse of someone who had encountered a real bigfoot. There is always the exact opposite of confirmation bias, (disconfirmation bias), where all information is regarded as a contaminant and infects and ruins all consistent repeating evidence to the point that nothing is legit.