Leaderboard

Willy .you are well advised to hold your opinion for more data. Well Meldrum at best has had a night fleeting glimpse of BF with Todd Standing in camp but suspiciously not there to witness the encounter. Cliff, unless he has had one since I last talked to him several years ago, has not had an encounter. That could have changed in the intervening years. When they are pinning BF on being an ape, how can either explain the Sierra Sounds that an expert on linguistics has labeled language., other witness reports of Samrai Chatter, and my personal experience hearing an Asian child talking before an encounter. Reports in Florida are that swamp apes use some Spanish words. Last I heard apes do not have a spoken language. You have to use all the data when you pick a theory, not just pick and choose what matches your theory. Meldrum is hung up on size and lack of cultural artifacts. Cliff, is very into knocking and howls, and not wondering why they seem to evaporate when he does them. Both have chosen ape as their creature of choice for their own reasons.

I find that odd and almost unacceptable. Especially in light that suspected BF DNA comes back Human. It doesn't surprise me. I don't think they want discovery to happen otherwise they would stop at nothing to make it happen. Sure, that's a purist viewpoint But I weigh a lot of people and things on that viewpoint. Why? Because I think folks are too laid back on the biggest discovery science/zoology will ever have. EVER. So people's and academia's approach and attitude is something I just don't understand. I STILL wouldn't hand it over to Dr. Meldrum. And after what you just summarized? I DEFINITELY wouldn't hand a specimen over to him. What are they even DOING at a conference when time and money is so much is at stake? I don't get that. I don't need their tin badges- I want someone with a Silver Star! Thank you, Wyllystyle, for bring in your take on things.

Wow, just met with Jeff Meldrum and Cliff Barackman at a conference in Munising. Really muddied the water for me on what to believe. I’ve always tried to approach this thing from a scientific perspective and what we have evidence of and based on the Lake Chapala brow ridge, evolutionary timelines, the scant dna samples, etc. the most likely explanation for me was always something very similar to us like a Homo erectus. Barackman is absolutely convinced these things are NOT human (neither homo sapien, caveman, nor hybrid) but rather some sort of ape and Meldrum is still really pushing hard for a Gigantopethicus or Paranthropus explanation. He bases his assertion on the mid tarsal break of the foot, limb proportions, shape of the skull, and facial proportions. Neither wanted to talk at all about the DNA being so close to humans but both seemed like highly intelligent people who were each very well versed on the hominid A&P side of the house. I guess the only thing I felt certain of walking out of that conference was that we’re really not going to have any answers one way until a body is recovered and handed directly over to Science.

Well for sure the lack of a wood fire makes less evidence that you were there camping. I use a propane fire pit for heat. Don't smell smokey, reduces respiratory issues for me, and less fire hazard. I like the ambience of a wood fire but the smoke is very bad for me now. As a side note, and warning to others, I did a kitchen remodel about 2 years ago. It involved rebuilding a cabinet to install a new range. Lots of sanding and filling. Wore a dust mask but not a good one, and my glasses would fog up when I wore it. So idiot me, I did some sanding without the mask. So the combination of sawdust, Corian counter plastic dust, and my own idiocy, has damaged my lungs and made me very sensitive to dust, smoke etc. Use a good dust mask when you sand. The sad part is I have a fresh air respirator that I used to paint my airplane, and I was too lazy to go get it and use it. It pumps fresh air through a hose to the mask to breath. How dumb can you get?

If you look at the FIrst Peoples experience with fire it was always a dead giveaway of the presence of a raiding party in someone else's territory. Smoke in the daytime and light at night is visible for miles. So raiding parties would avoid making fire and putting out light and smoke to indicate their presence. BF may have figured that out over time and either rarely make fire in isolated areas or given up on it all together. The other factor not in their favor is that BF seem incapable of complex construction. Using fire frequently, means you have to know how to make it. Bow drills are the easiest way but hand twirling can be done but that is harder to make enough friction to ignite wood. That may be more construction than they are capable of imagining or copying. Flint is common in many areas but that requires steel to make a spark. Unless stolen from humans it is very unlikely for BF to have steel. .Given their dedication to avoid human contact, it may have just become easier for BF to avoid use of fire if they ever used it at all. Certainly in modern times smoke coming out of the woods where it shouldn't be, is certainly likely to get the attention of the forest service or private land owners. If cooking is not required for their digestive systems and they have enough fur to keep warm, then there is little reason for them to make fire in most climates.

Catmandoo... thanks for that. I didn’t know that was a thing with apes. I would just say to those who hypothesize how this could have been a tag on some other animal.....take the time to read this, in full. Many of the alternative explanations are discussed, in detail. No matter what your pet theory is about what the nature of BF might be, or how it will ultimately be confirmed or refuted, science needs to lead. This is field research in the best tradition...bold, clever, well documented and freely shared, and with a potential to move the needle just a little, or even a lot. If it can be done once, it is plausible it can be done again. Each time it is, if it is, it puts the confirmation bias explanation further off the table. We shall see, I guess. I for one give these folks huge props for dreaming this technique up, seeing it through and (especially) publishing it with this degree of thoroughness..

Allogrooming has several benefits. Apes sweat and the dried sweat crystalizes. The dried salty sweat is a way of getting a little source of electrolytes. The grooming routine also removes dead skin, dirt, vegetation and parasites in the way of ticks, fleas and lice. Grooming is important for social bonding. Young gorillas need to groom the silverbacks. Porcupines have a natural sodium-potassium imbalance. That is why they like to chew on objects that have been touched by sweaty humans ( not sure about sweaty yeti contact though ). Aren't there some posts in BFF v1 about minerals and clay eating that was apparent from hair analysis???? I read the paper on the cockleburr technique. Very novel. I have wondered if the cockleburr device was on the back and if so, why wasn't it detached if the animal slept on its back? Are they side sleepers?? I can't remember what type of string was used for suspension of the device above the ground. Common ordinary string and sewing thread have dyes that reflect ultraviolet light. They will light up like camo that was washed with a detergent containing 'brighteners'. A deer may be able to see the string. Look up deer vision at Atsko.

I'm sorry. I tried to not respond. So you are the one lucky enough to speak to the wealthy and elite BF, but everyone else sees the poor and bum ones? And the wealthy and elite BF look like us...but the poor criminals look like monkeys?

It sure would have been nice to have some other collaborating evidence.

Or maybe their brightest and best looking aren't the ones that are having surprise encounters.

In John Green's database there are variables that cover different characteristics. I know you are requesting any particulars from folks here who are knowers but thought I'd help you get the ball rolling The variables in the database include Human-like nose/ape-like nose, small nose/large flat nose. Human-like face/ape-like face and other distinguishing features such as eye shape, teeth, hair on the face, ears that show and facial skin color. These are but a few of the descriptive terms in the database that witnesses have reported. There's much, much more. I know because from 2013-2016 I worked on the database revising it. The revision involved breaking out many of the original variables into separate fields in order to do more specific searches when sorting for certain data groups. I also worked on getting it into chronological order which was my main goal.. And yes, it took three years on and off (mostly on) to do the work. I had emailed the late John Green in 2014 (I think) and told him what I was doing and he wrote back that he was delighted that someone had finally taken an interest in it after 12 years laying idle. In the summer of 2015 I wrote to him again and asked if he would sign an original copy of his 1978 Hancock House "Sasquatch: The Apes Among Us" which he graciously agreed to do. He was 86 at the time. I sent him the copy along with $20 to pay for its return mailing and he sent the book back signed with a $10 bill in change. A year and a half later, in May of 2016, he passed away. He was quite a guy.

Perfectly reasonable. Or the potential markers that would separate H. erectus from H. sapiens sapiens are not among the gene loci that are normally tested so the difference stays under radar. You would really need to know what test was being used, what the primary / original / design purpose for the chosen test was, to know whether it would have the proper granularity in the proper locations to find what we think we are looking for. The interesting thing about H. erectus is that the timeline does seem to match. A small population without much genetic diversity, cut off in North America, and driven by extreme selective pressures of ice age conditions, would seem to be subject to the factors necessary to drift from what we know of H. erectus to what we suspect of bigfoot within the time line. I don't know if that's the right answer but it would seem to cover the necessary components of potential right answers. MIB

In my experience with BF in a handful of encounters, when I do something that upsets them, if I back off, give them space to withdraw etc. things are fine. The time when I tried to corner one and get it to break cover, it got ugly and dangerous. If they feel like they are controlling the situation things seem to be OK. When I have tried to gain control, and this can apply to a lot of things, it causes problems and angry reactions on their part. If they are chasing you out of an area leave. GIve them what they seem to want. Almost all of my experience has been solo. But quite honestly solo is not safe on several levels. Break a leg without a PLB and you are toast. However I think solo has allowed contact in situations where a BF would never approach more than one person. So I honestly presume that risk may be worth the reward. The temperament of BF may depend on the region. If your local BF have had bad interactions with humans, been shot at, shot, or whatever, then probably all interactions are going to be ugly and dangerous for you. If your locals have had good experience with humans then the opposite may be true. You never know until you have contact. Grizzly in Colorado are going to be much more of a risk than BF. As a matter of fact BF may keep grizzly away if you are in their area, so having BF close may be a big positive. I would bet a lot of money that BF and Grizzly are mortal enemies. Grizzly are so bad tempered I cannot imagine them getting along with any other species. And it both are predators then the problems really get bad because of competition for game. Bear spray at a minimum or both a gun and that for the bears. If you try either on a BF I don't think we would hear from you again unless you carry more than a hand gun.

Bear spray is a good idea. Nowadays, amongst many different threats, you could encounter a rabid coyote or fox and need to protect yourself against a bite. How and where do you carry the bear spray? Sounds strange but a friend of mine would carry it in his backpack. I told him it wasn't going to do him any good there. Mine is carried in the right-side pouch of my backpack where it can be accessed in a second. A PLB is also an excellent idea. You never know when you need to call the cavalry and a PLB will get the job done.

Hiflier, you only have 1 page on this thread after 15 hours. Is this thread an I.Q. test? What you propose is a provocative action against a larger, faster animal. Not a David and Goliath scenario. You have a lot of ammo for your test. Throw your book. If it gets thrown back after a short delay, check it for DNA.

I line in central Arkansas. I first start trying to find and study the things in the Ouachita Mountains about 40 years ago after some friends and I heard one of them vocalize near our deer camp one cold December night. Never before heard any such loud and long unbroken human-like vocalizations. I quit hunting with a gun after that week. Had to know. Took me five years to find their tracks and one group's bedding area. Camped in that area every chance I got. Took two more years to entice one of the big male to walk up to the back of truck-camper at 2 AM. He was within two feet of me. The river bottoms of Arkansas, plus The Ozarks Mountains were the primary locations that I learned, without a doubt, that the things existed, were not monster's, and that they would interact with people that posed no threat to them if given the chance. After that I started a business that would allow me to finance my hobby, and permit trips into twelve Southeastern states so that I could spend a lot of time in the counties had know populations of BF. I worked and learned more in the State of Alabama than any other place, although West Virginia, Virginia, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Missouri and Kentucky were the best other states in that order. And I did learn a lot, but that was done by gaining the confidence of the older local residents that had learned A LOT MORE than I. Going into woods with someone who can show you evidence of the presence of them is an awesome way to learn. Enjoyed every minute of it. I confine my field work to AR now. Can't make those 10 to 16 hour drives any more.

It's tough. We all want to see something. But footsteps (that is, noises) and tracks are awesome! Those are a kind of gift to you. They don't have to be heard, if they don't want to be. They don't have to leave prints, if they don't want to. Somebody is saying "hi" to you because he wants to. I totally agree that he notices you looking for him, and that that pleases him. If it didn't, he wouldn't be returning the way he does, and he wouldn't be making it known to you that he's returning! Try to trust in the knowing that you're already "in connection" with this guy, and continue the good work you've started of building a relationship that doesn't "demand" of your friend, well, anything. Try not to "demand" that he show himself. Nobody likes demands, and they, least of all! -- with "showing themselves" having a connection to being killed, and all. I can't remember whether you've talked about leaving stuff out for them or not, but this is a good next step for us humans, so we can feel like we're doing something.... Just try leaving some apples out for him -- and tell him that you're doing that -- and see how it goes from there. You can even ask out loud for some sign that he took the apple (or apples), so that you'll know it's him. That's something they can do for you that doesn't make them feel in danger of being killed. Good luck! This is exciting!