Leaderboard

The more I read the more I change my mind. The debate over what Bigfoot could be is a lot like the game clue. What was present in the past, that was at the right place and the right time to make the jump to North America? I’ve often argued against Homo Erectus as being too advanced to be a candidate....maybe not. 1) Topography Homo Erectus was the most wide spread species of human to ever roam the Earth before modern Homo Sapiens left Africa roughly 100,000 years ago. They were as Far East as China and Indonesia and even built rafts and sailed to Flores Island. We have no evidence of them in North America, other than a recent mastodon butcher site in California 130,000 years old. Along with other controversial sites like Calico site. 2) Technology It would seem that how good your technology was as a Erectus was based on where you lived in the world. Oldowan technology was the beginning technology that was replaced in Africa by Acheulean technology. But not in Eurasia. So it would seem this new technology was developed after part of the population left Africa. The farther away Erectus got from Africa it seems the more primitive tools became. Hobbit tools on Flores Is are very primitive by comparison. The Hobbit lived on Flores Island from 1 mya to 50k ya. Fire making too seemed to have fits and starts concerning Erectus. Evidence goes back 600,000 ya that Peking man a eastern variant of Homo Erectus used fire. So for almost 500,000 years Homo Erectus in Asia did not use fire. Or at least we see no evidence for it. Is it possible that if Homo Erectus made it to North America that it arrived without the knowledge of fire? And only the most rudimentary knowledge of stone tools? And if separated from others of its kind for 1 million years? It could have even regressed further? 3) Morphology Homo Erectus for the most part was roughly the same size and shape as modern humans. Although it seems they had a faster growth than modern humans as shown in the Turkana boy. But there was vast variances between sub species of Homo Erectus with the most glaring one being the hobbit on Flores Island that had evolved within 300,000 years much smaller known as “Island dwarfism”. Is there a possibility that this may have had an opposite affect for Homo Erectus going North over the Berengia land bridge? Bergmann’s rule is observed in many species including modern humans. 4) Evidence in North America The best evidence we have is a partial brow ridge found in Chapala lake area in Mexico. Although it’s largely been ignored. Other evidence includes the mastodon butcher site and various controversial tool sites claimed to be 200,000 years old or more. 5) Cannibalism We know Erectus practiced cannibalism. We know that legends about the Ebu Gogo on Flores Island claimed they would steal and eat human babies. I was recently reading Indian accounts in the premium section of the BFF written by Kathy Strain in which she documented Indian legends of Sasquatch stealing and eating children. It’s an uncanny parallel. 6) Gigantopethicus vs. Homo Erectus It would appear that Gigantopethicus was mostly a vegetarian, and primarily ate bamboo. It was also very very large. And there is some controversy as to whether it was bipedal or not? Is it the best fit to make such a trek to North America? Or would Homo Erectus be the better fit? The “Ebu Gogo” literally means the “Grandmother who eats anything”. Again the Yakima tribe has similar tales about Bigfoot eating things they would not touch. 7) Hammer and anvil Just like the mastodon butcher site, I found a Elk femur that had been cracked open to get to the bone marrow. And while I cannot rule a hunter messing around I find it unlikely. It was found in NE Washington very close to Canada and Idaho in the Selkirk mtns. 8 ) Not too hot, not too cold. Homo Erectus had a brain case about half the size of a modern human. So while they are not putting rockets on the moon? They would be considered a brainiac in the animal world. As a modern Chimp is much smaller braincase than Erectus is. And I would consider Chimps to be very smart. Is this why we cannot find one? Do they attempt to cover the evidence of their passing? Do they ritualistically eat their dead and bury the rest? Can they pick and choose when to start a fire or flake stone? Or have they evolved to not longer need them. A regression? Resources: http://www.animalplanet.com/tv-shows/monster-week/monster-articles/the-legend-of-the-ebu-gogo/ https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-2004-oct-03-adfg-bones3-story.html http://calicoarchaeology.com/ https://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-americas-first-humans-20170426-story.html http://factsanddetails.com/world/cat56/sub360/entry-2754.html https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bergmann's_rule

I've concluded, from many trips with others, that having a fire while sasquatching is detrimental to the mission. People naturally talk and the pops and hissing from the nearby fire can drown out a faint scream. It wreaks havoc if you decide the area around camp is good to record audio. I remember hearing lots of unusual vocalizations that were drowned out by crackles from the fire or campfire chatter. No audio wizardry was able to remove the background "noise" without affecting the scream. I think it is typical to load up the fire before everyone goes to bed for the night. It was my mistake to have an audio recorder nearby when there was the best scream ever. Oh well. Now, I make it a point to place an audio recorder a good quarter mile from the campsite.

This looks to be a summing up a few things: https://faculty.ucr.edu/~legneref/earlyhum/earlyman.htm And then there's this from a couple of years ago for those new to the find. It puts forth a scenario that is well within the span of existence for Homo Erectus: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/new-evidence-human-activity-north-america-130000-years-ago-180963046/

I learned that quickly. On my first recording attempt, there was noise from the nearby river and a hum from the tent heater. Still got a great howl and other stuff, but it could have been better. I've never understood why people go out with their recorders in a chatty group, I drop mine where people are unlikely to be.

The general area I went to has over a dozen ponds some of which you must bushwhack to reach. Nothing eventful to report except a small tree came/fell down at dusk about 125 yards from me. That could simply be coincidental but there was a fallen tree four outings in a row at another pond 1 1/4 miles from the one I went to Monday night. I wonder what the odds of that are. I'm embarrassed to say that there were no videos on the trail cam I had up for a month. I had a v-shaped block behind the trail cam, which pointed it toward the area of interest, but the v-block fell out and all of the videos were useless. Lesson learned.

Interesting article on Homo naledi. Meet Homo naledi: The mysterious human "cousin." http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/crux/2019/08/06/meet-homo-naledi-the-mysterious-human-cousin/#.XUr7075Ok0N

Yup. Her shoulder width is beyond human dimensions. Krantz pointed out that her shoulder width alone proves it couldn't have been a hoax. Nor do I recall if Bill did much analysis on shoulder width, or for that matter, hip width. Ultimately, it doesn't matter. The one thing that the PG film proved beyond a shadow of a doubt was the extent of denialism, especially within the supposedly curious halls of science and government management. There should be no doubt now, as Krantz put it: somebody is going to have to kill one and drag the carcass from campus to campus and rub their noses in it.

Patty's height to shoulder width ratio is also way off the scale compared to a Human's. Yes, that is something I noticed too, the proportions to me look real and not human. I've compared ratios with my own in a slightly crude comparison and even stretching the bounds of deviation given the footage, distance etc. the ratios are not close to overlapping. It's the reason why I can't write off Bigfoot as a hoax and why I've become very interested in the subject. With that said, I do think that if a 'collector' obtained a body or parts thereof it should easily prove the existence. I can't see in this day and age if the 'collector' was sensible and didn't send all the parts to the same place how the government or similar agencies could possibly cover up or obfuscate the reality....... I would think it may be the opposite in that many people would want to jump on the bandwagon and make their quick buck out of it on Youtube, Netfilx, Amazon Prime, Discovery Channel etc. etc. I don't see how all those sources together with multiple Universities could be shut down before the discovery got out.

Such talent.... Maybe we need a bigfoot poetry thread.

??? The hair is found where it was left. One cannot expect a sasquatch to hand the scientific mystery men a clump of hair from a golden comb that has been washed in alcohol. And this expectation of sterile "researchers" in the field is just more BS. As I posted just last month, I found a potential crime scene in the woods while searching for a list gun. I contacted the Alaska State Troopers and went to the site where a federal law enforcement officer met us. They started picking up bones and laying them out for a photo. No gloves, no washing their hands with alcohol, no surgical masks, no tools. These were potential murder victim bones. How about sone honesty here, folks: These mystery science Boss Hoggs simply won't allow any credible consideration that these creatures are out there.......alive or dead, today or yesteryear. You are kooks, plain and simple. These attitudes and platitudes from their ivy covered towers are as clear and undeniable as can be. Some openly proclaim them. If you bring in a skull, they will say it's a fraud or a diseased NBA players scull.

Heading out today for an overnight in an area that has produced in the past. Will retrieve (hopefully) the card from a trail cam there already and put up a 2nd trail cam. The weather forecast looks perfect. Will report back.

http://texascryptidhunter.blogspot.com/2015/01/drumming-chimps-and-wood-knocking.html

Hello georgerm, I've proposed this several time and folks are probably tired of it so this may be my last time. Animals can be intelligent but my thinking is that they are only as intelligent as the environment requires. I've proposed also that their logic is a simple one that they would understand and be familiar with. And that is: their first impression because of our smaller size is that we are juveniles. Animals and we Humans know what it can be like to mess with a creature's young. They back off because they think our much larger "Adults" are hiding but still keeping an eye on things. That's probably what Sasquatch parents do when juveniles get older. Since they cannot seem to detect OUR "parents' they shy away of the percieved unknown threat- of which there really isn't any of as we all know. But they don't know. To me it's a simple-minded thing but makes a good deal of sense.