Leaderboard

I believe it relates to a theory promulgated by M.K. Davis about there being riflemen firing from concealment and massacreing a family group of Bigfoot at Bluff Creek based on a light spot on the hillside that he interpreted as muzzle flash on one copy of a frame from the PGF. Bill Munns quashed the idea by explaining that the spot only appears on one copy of the frame and is simply an artifact or fault introduced in the copying process. I think it's covered in one of the appendices of "When Roger Met Patty" but I may have read it elsewhere. Supposedly the killing is documented on a missing roll of cine film Roger shot that day. Evidently the theory still has a following. I'm certain others on the Forum can give a more accurate and detailed explanation but I honestly don't get into those weeds.

I hate to be the linguist/lawyer type, but this kind of language is a huge part of the problem with regard to the cryptid hominins. Modern: "relating to the present or recent times as opposed to the remote past." Human: "Of the genus Homo, of which Homo sapiens is the only extant human species." Neanderthals were modern humans. Denisovans were modern humans. You and I are modern humans. If sasquatches, almas, almasties, yerens, etc are discovered and (most likely) decided are of the genus Homo, they will also be modern humans. All of these are different species. Thus, if Sykes is saying that Zana was "100% Homo sapien", that is the term he should have used.........but he didn't. Why? Where is the timeline break you refer to? I believe Sykes suggests that Zana's progeny emerged from Africa over 100,000 years ago. That's it; I'm ordering "The Nature of the Beast" right now so I can quote properly.........

They DO say that about us, but I didn't create this sasquatch conspiracy, and I didn't accept it without seeing trace evidence with my own eyes. I also reject other similar theories like extraterrestrial visitations and abductions, extant dinosaurs in northern latitude lakes, werewolves, etc.

After creating a conspiracy theory and later admitting it's wrong, the following it creates always lives on, because many people simply can't accept the thought of following incorrect theories to begin with. They will fight for it to their dying day.

Yes, agreed. MIB

Yeah...I’m heading for the door too. Been real Steve. Check you later maybe.

An in-law who has met him said that Isdahl was the most arrogant fellow he had ever met. Seems to me that the man over-values his own intelligence and understanding by an amount that is off the scale. It was interesting to hear him talk of his own encounters, and those of folks he knows, but I have no idea how much is hot air; I am not encouraged by the quality of his rants. I am quite familiar with some of the locations he talks about, so I consider activity there to be quite probable, but his own accounts - still on my maybe list. The letters he reads - a bigger maybe. His stuff on John Green etc.? I can't really comment, since I clicked it off when he got to Bobby Short, because it had already started to smell bad.

I think that he originally tapped into the underlying dislike for the BFRO that permeates much of the Bigfoot community and really focused on highlighting that with his videos.. That translated into subscriptions and views for him, so he ran with it. Combine that desire for YouTube celebrity with what appears to be a naturally juvenile and abrasive personality...and you end up where Isdahl is right now. I think that he equates insulting known names in the field with YouTube success, so he is going to continue to push that envelope. His apparent rabid dislike for Meldrum, Gimlin, and Green is so strange. Disagree with their positions all day long, but the three of them come across as respectful and courteous men. Why would personal attacks be necessary here?

Me neither, I can't get past 45 seconds of the initial rant...

I feel for you. One of my least favorite things is buying vehicles.

A decision has been made although I think circumstance played a large part in it. As I have pontificated before, I'm a believer in rugged gear and think a phone is the weakest link in the chain. I was convinced I was going to get the 66i. My smartphone is old and will be non-functional soon. I'm on the prowl for a new phone and will see how things play out. Given that circumstance, I just bought the Mini and will use it with a new smartphone when I decide which one to get. I've seen some YT videos of GAIA and it's ability to record tracks and do a track back. I'm still skeptical. I'll try it and also load CalTopo on a new phone and see how it goes. If there is any reluctance, I'll sell the Mini and get the 66i. So there we have it...the bad news is I feel like I've compromised and gone to the dark side. The good news is I can kick the Mini to the curb and get the 66i if I'm not comfortable with things. Now...what smartphone shall I get?

Wasn't my downvote on you, Stardunk. All those negative vibes. Doofus.

We need a definitive answer to this question. I'm attempting to contact Ozzie Osborne.

End thread.