Leaderboard

I was driving on I-78 near its Western end about 2 am one night, headed back to Manhattan. I was very familiar with the route, driving to and from Cincinnati twice a month to see my son. This was about five or six years ago. Up ahead, one of the roadside signs (big green interstate sign with the white border) had something new attached to it on the upper left side, a pair of incredibly bright, incredibly red reflectors. It was near a dairy farm built along a stream on the South and a high, forested ridge to the North. I could see these reflectors from nearly half a mile away as I came down the slope toward the sign. They caught my attention because of their unusual brightness and, being an engineer, I was interested in the obviously new material being used that was so brightly reflective. There was no one behind me, but there was another car ahead of me, slowing down as it approached the sign, and from its lights I could see that there was a silhouette positioned behind the sign and realized that some rural folks had put up an elaborate practical joke. I could see that the two reflectors were "eyes" within the outline of a "head", that there were fingers from the silhouette's right hand grasping the left side of the sign a couple of feet below its head, fingers from its left hand grasping the top of the sign near its middle, and two legs below the sign, the silhouette's right leg slightly bent and alingned with the sign's left post, and the silhouette's left leg bent and positioned to the right as if braced against the slope. For all the world it looked like the silhouette of an eight and a half foot tall Bigfoot positioned as if hiding behind the sign, peering out and waiting for the right moment to dash across the road. I was chuckling and admiring the people who had crafted the joke when I realized that the guy ahead of me was slowing to a near stop as he came adjacent to the sign and I shifted my attention to him, preparing to change lanes to avoid him. Suddenly, as he was passing the sign, he swerved into and out of the left lane as if startled, putting me in reaction mode and I slowed down; then he accelerated rapidly enough that I didn't have to stop to avoid running into him. I shifted my attention back to the sign just in time to look at it as I passed. It wasn't a two-dimensional silhouette as I had assumed. It was three-dimensional and massive. And it turned its head to follow me with its eyes as I passed it.

Back to the original question? Where professional scientists should review bigfoot evidence is the place other professional scientists should have presented their bigfoot evidence. If there's nothing for them to look at, it's not for lack of trying on the part of us amateurs, it's for lack of trying on the part of the other professionals. I mean .. they want material published by their credentialed peers, right? Not us? So isn't it incumbent on those peers to provide something? All we get is scoffed at when we put something up for examination, often not because of quality or lack of it, but because we don't have the credentials. MIB

I agree, the number of sighting report hoaxes is low enough as to be a non-factor. Video and photoshop hoaxing is all the rage, but its really just an adolescent rite of passage and also not a factor. Thanks. Lets remember for Friday night's sake.

You didn't do so well a couple of April Fools Day ago. Meldrum did not fare so well with snow walker, either. Just to name a couple...

Your European right? Are you saying your 8% of the creature in the bottom picture? A cat eyed nocturnal super predator ape? How would Homo Sapiens even produce offspring with such a thing? It might as well be a two legged Gorilla. Ten million years of evolution seperate Gorillas from Humans! But 40,000 years ago cat eyed super ape mixed genes with us? No way, this is crackpot conspiracy stuff.

Cricket, thanks for your response, and I'm glad you're here. One thing I suggested that you disagreed with was how the museum presentations of different cavemen were inaccurate and maybe in some instances - dishonest. I think the most obvious thing on the Neanderthal representations is minimal facial hair - some without facial hair at all, and very little body hair. For northern, harsh climates, that just doesn't ring true. And the clean shaven representations precedes Gillette by a significant margin. The eyes are much larger on for example Neanderthal, but the expressions on the faces show the eyes to be more human sized. The tissue covering the skull - that's a guess at best. One can take a chimp skull and depending on facial tissue thicknesses - can configure them to look mighty human - and vice versa. Why would a significantly different shaped skull be given the tissue coverage of a human? I have no doubt that everything was done by experts, and that the data they used to put tissue on the Neanderthal skulls were carefully measured and built up - I'm not disagreeing with that. But to use the norms for another species is not entirely honest. It's a creation. Not a re-creation. Did anyone try three depictions of the skull, side by side, - one human-like tissue build up, one more ape-like tissue build up, and one somewhere in between? That may give a more accurate representation range than to present a single point representation. And their bodies. Anyone try three depictions of the body - side by side - one human-like with less hair, one very hairy like an ape, and one somewhere in between? After all, the bone structure of a Neanderthal tells us they were very, very muscular. In addition, the climate and game available would indicate they probably had a very low body fat content. So they'd be very, very muscular - and anyone who's seen a wet cat compared with a dry cat knows what a difference the appearance looks like with thick body hair and without. I'm here now telling you that as I had this thing running right at me, in the open, for 60 yards, passing withing twenty feet or so, I was seeing a primitive man - mighty hairy, and mighty ugly. With really big, dark (sclera) eyes. Why would my first choice of what the BF is - be more likely a Neanderthal/variation? The countless narratives from Europe and the New World of the ability to cross breed with humans. My son got his DNA analyzed, and has 315 Neanderthal markers, and coming from northwestern Europe DNA. That 315 markers were more markers than 94% of the population. It's cool up there, and a bare-***ed species make no sense whatsoever. I really enjoy your intellect here - as you can literally discuss possibilities without blind fervor of a singular position. It's entirely possible that this Vendramini has touched partly on what may be more likely characteristics - and if it appeals to me even a bit - and elements of it does - it's because what he presented was very close to what I saw - just bigger/larger. When you throw in the other narratives of BF characteristics of showing reasonable intelligence, likely a rudimentary communication, families/packs, cooperative hunting, ability to avoid humans, and keeping to difficult terrain - it sounds like some kind of cave man didn't go extinct. But the kicker is that while these BF do things during daylight - they are primarily night hunters. Huge eyes. Neanderthal had huge eyes. Until we get a body, of course we won't know just how close they really are, but I can only go with a number of parallel indicators - and the visual sighting - but nothing like iare presented in museums.

Shouldn't be that hard then, right? 1 out of thousands? Go ahead and do so, then.

Welcome. Your expertise and experience are valued. I'm sure some will want to explore both the facts and assumptions underlying commonly accepted scientific positions in your field. With regard to bigfoot, I favor the hypothesis that they are near human and can interbreed with humans (based on Native American and other accounts) but, most importantly, from direct observation of their behavior and apparent intelligence. I expect that a Bigfoot skeleton may not be immediately distinguishable from an unusual human skeleton at first glance by someone who might not consider the possible existence of Bigfoot. Using the assumption that they are near human as a starting point, I would wonder what characteristics they might have retained/developed as the megafauna representative of our family tree. What bio mechanical adaptations would be required and which would be advantageous for a species that eschewed technology in favor of physical capabilities. I also have an interest in evidence of a large race of Native Americans in the past. My father was a geologist in Northern Nevada and in the 60's and 70's I had the opportunity to view several times naturally mummified remains of seven and eight foot tall Si-Teh-Cah skeletons recovered from various caves in Nevada, along with associated and distinctive stone, wood, and textile artifacts. The Bureau of Land Management has since taken possession of them. These people were still using the atlatl in a period when the bow had long been in use, presumably because available materials for bow construction could not withstand the stresses required of a proportionally large bow, and because the longer moment arm provided their longer arms gave them more power and distance with this weapon. I'm looking forward to your posts.

Observation: Michelle claims to have witnessed satanic ritual abuse Theory: Michelle is or is not telling the truth Hypothesis: If Michelle is telling the truth, then one can use psychoanalysis to determine her truthfulness Results: Psychotherapy failed miserably as did taking observations as evidence

No problem. I am sure you will achieve your goal. I bench press 485. I could do more but by having long arms and it makes it more difficult . I am Bigfoot. Size 16.lol. Nothing to boast about. Being tall is extremely over rated. Nothing fits. The world is designed for average people and worst of all my knees ache. I rather be known for my charity work and education.

I give up For the sake of my sanity, and forum expediency, I have saved two of my responses in this thread. One deals with falsifiability, the other with how my opinion is only my opinion. I will likely just copy paste them going forward since they both cover my thoughts on this whole phenomenon in general. It's not that I think my thoughts are worthy of posterity, but I simply cannot keep typing the same thing over and over again. The energy required does not merit it.

Nor do you bring up your size every or every other posting. My point stands. Truly dangerous people aren't the ones constantly mentioning it.

I never spoke to no Bindernagel, so I have no idea WTF he said, and I'd have no reason to believe him anyway. Besides, I never gave these things a single thought - I didn't think they existed either - and then there he was - running at me. At the time it happened - I never knew there was such a thing as a King Cobra - until he raised up as tall as me in the elephant grass maybe forty feet away. Knew about cobras, had seen kraits, mamba with the black mouth, got bit by a moccasin and once at night some other unknown hemotoxic snake - but never knew such a thing as a King Cobra existed. But I got my introduction to that, too. Ever had one pop up right in front of you? Of course you haven't. No insult intended, but it's also just my opinion that you're a delusional coward with a yellow streak a yard wide down your back - imagining you know something that you have no idea about. Just like the same way you apparently fear the possibility that these things exist, but you can't wrap your very limited capacity for the determining the obvious. These things are outside your universe of experience or knowledge. Your problem, not mine - but some folks like you just seem to have a long string of non-accomplishments that never ends - and I'd imagine even when you throw a boomerang, it never comes back. Some folks have it, and get it - folks like you never will.

That's all you got? And I used to be pro-life . . . You weren't there. You were nowhere in the vicinity. You saw nothing of the subject - therefore you're totally ignorant of the subject. What kind of narrow-minded, pompous jack*** would make such a determination about something they have no knowledge of? As you're someone with a total ignorance on the subject - do you remember the last time I wanted your opinion? Me neither. You guys are always wrong. Seems like every Nobel Prize Winner was ridiculed previously by those like-minded souls of the unknowing. Seems like every major advancement and technological discovery was ridiculed and dismiss out of hand by the unknowing. You see, the dummies who are the unknowing, just don't know what they don't know. I remember Otto Ovshinsky - who proposed amorphous semiconductors - and the entire world of physics, chemistry and electronics - poured on the ridicule - as they had firm calculations and all the scientific world that said - "impossible." Well, you can go sit with those guys. Ovshinsky was doubly ridiculed as he didn't have a degree - wasn't a physicist - wasn't a chemist - he was just the one who proved everyone wrong when his amorphous semiconductors started showing up in everyday appliances. Unknowing is not exactly a strong position to hold on any matter - unless one is pretentiously clinging to their lack of knowledge.

Unless you're an eyewitness - up really close - full view with nothing between you but air. This entire thing is relative. You have zero perspective as you have zero personal up close interaction/observation - so your view is inert. I thus discount your opinion entirely, as you know not what you speak of. You speak of something you are inexperienced with, and unaware of. But thank you for your opinion - I'm sure we're all challenged and refreshed by you sharing your non-basis thoughts.

I got used to it. People hated us - and I mean hated. Lots of California folks, especially having to pass through that ****hole's airports - young men who wore their shorts backwards, girls especially college-age - and I thumped a few folks on the head when they started spitting. I considered it part of my responsibility for continuing their education. That green beret was like a flare. There were so few of us, and while they hated all soldiers, being SF was the worst of the worst. You get used to it. Why would I expect anything different here?

So really, you see lots of books, papers, monographs, blog posts and interviews from lots of biologists, geneticists and scientists across the spectrum of disciplines telling us how intrigued they are by what has been reported so far? Me neither, and this is what I mean by "resist." If they are not, at a minimum, intrigued by what has happened so far when it is directly in their disciplinary wheel house, sorry....resistance is the only apt description. That they wouldn't have the professional integrity to at least acknowledge the real possibility....even while holding out for a type specimen...means they will never achieve any form of greatness in their fields, and will be forever doomed to playing catch-up to those with clearer vision. Here is but just one example.

Who is this "we" you so blithely lump us in with Norse? What you call the circumstantial evidence (and what I call "evidence") tells me physical remains exist. How could they not, if I trust my conclusions? BF remains would be certainly interesting, but I could probably predict with some degree of certainty what they look like, and many others could too. I'd be willing to wager as well, there is more than one person who would read this and say, "Well, they look like this here..." Don't think you have access to everything that has ever happened in this world, even though Bill Gates, Steve Jobs and Al Gore wanted you to believe that.

ever since knowing that they are real I have moved on . No more wondering if they are real since seeing them and knowing what they are capable of.No need to write an essay on this topic .Make's no difference.

What SY said, medical examiner or coroner will determine cause of death. Oh, and photograph/cast the heck out of those "human'looking" footprints, lol.