Leaderboard

Its pretty well-known that many organisms have two aspects to better exploit the environment. The two aspects are 'robust' and 'gracile'. Some examples: ravens and crows, wolves and coyotes, rats and mice. Its well understood that humans are the gracile form of our species. Its a theory that our robust form is extinct. I can tell you that the two individuals I encountered were quite purposeful and obviously self-aware. Who knows if they are our actual robust form (one theory holds that Neanderthals are our robust form); I can't say anything about that.

This is a poor attitude, his line of thinking on an UNONOWN subject is different than yours so he should refrain from posting?

Same here. True story: I was on the fence for four years- 51% for existence vs. 49% against. The 51% was because I was open to the possibility coupled with a number of reports from various authorities like Forestry Service personnel and LEO's. Then I began to really look at the PGF and study what was on it. When I discovered a shoulder to height ratio of 2.3:1 that the subject in the film demonstrated it sealed the deal. The subject in the film was a real creature and that creature was a female Sasquatch. In the case of me looking at factual evidence to help lead to any conclusions? that one piece of research succeeded in breaking through my own personal deadlock on the issue existence. And the realization hit me pretty hard let me tell you. I have never had an encounter but to me that awakening was the next best thing. It certainly resulted in me having a new dialogue and perspective for the last 12 months or so. People may wonder why I am so suspicious and convinced that the knowledge of Sasquatch by a government person or agency has to be a fact. I think that because if I can figure out a shoulder ratio and see that it is far, far outside the norm then others a lot smarter than me can too. The smarter ones being zoologists, anthropologists, biologists, departments of natural resources, and who knows who else. Now, wanna hear my Sasqautch DNA testing rant? May as well as long as you are reading.....In all of the suspected Bigfoot DNA studies done to date has EVERYONE doing the testing been negligent in the handling of the samples? Has EVERYONE doing the testing not thought to have a control where anyone and everyone who came in contact with the samples was also tested so that their DNA could be filtered out. That EVERYONE has somehow failed in performing the most basic protocols because ALL of their Lab 101 training suddenly vanished and, more to the point, ONLY when handling supposed Sasquatch samples? Does this even sound possible? That EVERYONE involved in ANY Sasquatch DNA samples ever done were so collectively inept that EVERY sample was contaminated??!! Sure, I may come across as being a little too intense for a Forum, but it is these kinds of arguments that speak loudest when it comes to the subject of people not wanting the existence of Sasquatch to be disclosed. In other words, DNA testing is beautiful, precise, universally done in crime labs, universities, biology labs, ancestry websites, and everywhere else by the billions- and done correctly and by the book.........except in a lab that is testing Sasquatch samples. Sorry folks, ain't buying it.

No need to be a jerk. I have had an interest in cryptids since I saw Legend of Boggy Creek when it came out in the theater and I was 7. I'm no expert but I am still very curious. I've ordered Meldrum's paperback book (thanks for assuming I don't read real books too....). I'm not planning on becoming an "expert" in this - I just enjoy reading and discussing it. And thanks to all of you on the forum that have participated in this thread, answered my questions, and made me feel welcome. I follow a couple of simple concepts - Sagan's standard, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and Occam's Razor - the simplest solution tends to be the correct one. When I hear things like bigfoot can do telepathy, or he's from outer space, or another dimension etc. I dismiss these immediately. DNA definitely doesn't fall into that camp, but which is more likely? The DNA samples were contaminated by poor fieldwork handling, or botched testing or that bigfoot (which hasn't been proven to exist) is a human? Occam's Razor - probably the former, not the latter. I'm also willing to allow the evidence, truth, and facts to change my thinking and belief. I don't go looking to find facts to support my belief - I prefer to let the facts lead to a conclusion, no matter if it's what I was hoping for or not. James

I have personally exchanged emails over a long time with two different habituators. The following comments are a compilation of my experience with them. I agree in that I think habituators are molded by the BF into having appropriate (for the BF) behavior. The best model for what seems to happen is the Stockholm syndrome. That situation happens where people were taken hostage and held for a long time. Over time the hostages began to identify with and even aid the hostage taker. Similar things can happen in other high stress situations where someones life is in others hands like prisoner of war situations. Some turn and actually aid what should be their enemy. In nearly every habituation situation the humans involved are terrified initially. You discover these huge things have been living on your property often for a very long time. The humans try to understand and know what they are dealing with. Getting glimpses now and then when the BF allow. The tension eases when the humans begin to assume that the BF are not dangerous. Perhaps food is taken at some point. And wrongly the humans start to encourage that. That is a dangerous road because if anything disrupts the food provisioning the BF react badly. The BF are training and conditioning the humans. Strangers on the property cause the BF to not show themselves or even react angrily. In one case a woman decided to bring a stranger on the property to see the resident BF. The BF became angry with the human and would not show themselves to her for months. Trying to take pictures of the BF, humans are treated the same way and displease the BF involved. There seems to be a threat component directed at the humans when they do something that displease the BF. All consistent with the Stockholm syndrome and the humans being conditioned to please the BF. But, and this is a big but, in my experience the humans involved have deep seated psychological problems that long predate the introduction of BF into the mix. A skeptic would logically assume that is the real reason and it all some fantasy. While I cannot eliminate that possibility, the humans are otherwise functional and their problems do not require medication. It took a long time and some gentle persuasion to get these people to tell me their story. Most of it I believe but there are some components (mind speak or mind reading) that I have doubts about. The question in my mind is some sort of human psychological issue a result or a prerequisite for some sort of relationship with BF. While I don't like the ramifications of that in my case, I have to wonder about it just the same. Goodall was not a normal person but had special qualities that allowed her to ignore the danger and introduce herself into Mountain Gorilla groups. Someone like that is needed to do the same thing with a group of BF.

Correct. Goodall's approach worked because she was dealing with mere apes. The concept is good but the specific details will be wildly different. Consider, for instance, that habituation happens not when the bigfoots are conditioned by the humans but when the humans are conditioned by the bigfoots to behave in a manner compliant with their requirements .. not ours. Complete role reversal. If you want a more apt example, what we are looking for is for the bigfoots to send their equivalent of their Goodall to make contact with us. MIB

Thank you MIB. A DNA argument such as the one present needs to be laid out with a certain level of precision simply for the sake of its own clarity. I may NOT follow that therefore a lab, any lab, may be working under a cloud of fear when conducting Sasquatch DNA testing of some sort. Would it be conceivable though that a given lab, while being completely free to conduct those tests, would be under any pressure to NOT disclose the results? Evidently that must not be the case because labs HAVE released their results. Think at least of Dr. W. Henner Fahrenbach's (Ohio State University) initial investigations (the bolding is mine): https://www.bfro.net/REF/THEORIES/WHF/dnatests.htm "Status of the DNA Analysis of Hair Samples at Ohio State Univ. On August 5, 1995, two separate sets of hair samples were collected by three persons (P. Freeman, B. Laughery, and W. Sumerlin) in the Blue Mountains east of Walla Walla, Washington. The group first tracked three sets of fresh foot prints, then found freshly twisted-off trees with hair caught in them, and within a short time later observed a sasquatch at less than 100 feet with binoculars. The hair was sent to Dr. W. Henner Fahrenbach (Beaverton, Oregon), who determined microscopically that the hair appeared to have come from two individuals of the same species, that it differed in color, length and hair growth cycle between the two sets, had not been not cut, and was indistinguishable from human hair by any criterion. Hence, DNA analysis suggested itself as the only methodology of promise. Through a nation-wide search of pertinent laboratories and some fortuitous contacts, W.H.F. located an investigator (Dr. P. Fuerst) in the Department of Molecular Genetics of Ohio State University, who had a specific interest in DNA analysis of Wildman and sasquatch hair. The hair underwent lengthy and concerted analytical study by Dr. Fuerst and a graduate student, J. A. Poe, both with extensive experience in hair DNA analysis. Although the ultimate results have not generated a diagnostic sequence of a mitochondrial gene, which might have yielded information on the relationship of the sasquatch to other primates, we nonetheless decided to publish the outcome rather than let the study fade away as most preceding such events have. As of January 1998, the article is virtually finished except for some illustrative material and will be shortly submitted to the Journal of Cryptozoology. W. Henner Fahrenbach Ph.D." As far as the last phrase that I bolded and underlined? What does Dr. Fahrenback mean when he said, "......rather than let the study fade away as most preceding such events have."?

There has been extraordinary evidence galore regarding sasquatches: the PG film, footprint evidence galore, aboriginal folklore, sighting reports, game cam pics, other videos, sworn statements, police reports, police evidence collection, and on and on. No proof (which can and will only consist of a carcass), but lots and lots of evidence. With regard to Occam’s Razor, the simplest solution is that there is a very small population of relic hominids out there.

^^^^ Have to agree with that "rant." What we're expected to believe defies logic, defies statistics, defies Occam's Razor ... and I'm not buying it, either. Either BF is barely distinguishable from human and only then with great effort or there's an active conspiracy to suppress the actual test results. MIB

James33, there are 2 counties in Washington State with ordinances prohibiting the shooting/killing of a sasquatch. They are old. Also, if a sasquatch is killed, the matter is referred to the coroner to factor in the possibility of murder charges. For general reading, you may find the site 'bigfootencounters.com' interesting .I do not agree with everything that Bobbie Short posted. She passed in 2013. The only new update is a link to her book. She had a section on 'Hoaxes, Rumors' Read it.

Got an e-mail from them: Looks like it will be in Feb again. Yes, we are!! I am busy working on it right now!! Hopefully, it will be bigger and better. And now, you will also be able to tour our new museum and Research Center!! Where are you from ?? Hope to see you here. The dates are February 15 and 16.

All of government. The ones directly involved would be those at the highest levels. Most of the rest of government (like me) were simply not involved. In order to avoid ideological, racial, and environmental gridlock, they wouldn’t have to restructure laws..........they would have to restructure the foundations and basis of all of our laws. They would have to recognize and legally/politically recognize a whole new race of humans. This is BIG stuff, and if you can’t see that, you’re not very savvy.