Leaderboard

https://bigfoottimes.net/books/the-10-best-bigfoot-books.php Just ten! Enjoy. Daniel Perez

Bought myself a full tang knife. I love my Marttiini, but I'm afraid of breaking it if I process wood with it, so. I found this online, from the Ukraine, from a new company called BPS Knives. It is big, with a 5-inch blade, but the handle is small for my small hands. I was eyeballing a different knife but I'm liking this one a lot, surprisingly. The sheath is lovely and hangs under my pack waist belt, which is a perfect fit. Time to go bushcrafting! I also picked up this little thing at Duluth Clothing store and it might be nice for carving.

In either case, Chimp DNA was the lab results, but an adventure is where it's at, Foxhill, elephant in the room or otherwise.

I'm currently settling my parents' estate, there are articles of clothes in this house from long ago, a pair of boots that mostly likely would yield elephant DNA. This is the divergence of logic that occurs between us, if I didn't know where it came from, I would no sooner be looking for an elephant in this house than looking for a chimp troupe in Kentucky. No doubt yours is a much more scientific approach, but considering the subject matter...meh for me I'll skip over a few of the normal processes of the scientific method......for now. Don't get me wrong I'm always up for an adventure and if that's how we gotta roll....I'm in!!! 👍

It depends. If your interest is only in a potential undiscovered "Bigfoot" species, then a chimp finding is disappointing. If your interest is in looking for explanations, whatever they may be, for alleged Sasquatch evidence, then confirming a chimp presence in eastern KY might suggest answers to some eyewitness reports or other potential evidence. Either way, the many question marks with regard to this finding perhaps highlights more than anything the gulf generally found between scientific research and media productions, although each has its purpose and place.

That would be interesting to know. Thank you. I did also find an additional detail that I had not seen before from Dr. Mayor in a newspaper article, and this perhaps answers the question I thought should be obvious from the sequencing data: they apparently identified the sample as *actual* chimpanzee rather than just related to chimpanzee: “The DNA findings do not suggest a new species, but rather a match to known species of chimpanzee,” she said. “Because there are no known non-human primates in North America this is an extremely surprising find, and one that warrants further investigation.” Source: https://www.nkytribune.com/2021/03/kentuckys-deep-forests-could-hide-piece-of-the-bigfoot-puzzle-investigators-discover-possible-dna/ If this is correct, it seems evident that the source would *have* to be either a pheromone chip, an escapee, a deliberate hoax, and/or...is there another possibility I'm missing? A non-native feral chimp population in KY? That would seem very far less likely than the other options...

Great deal. You'll have a lot of fun with each one of those. We can never have enough bushcrafting knives.

https://www.bigfurmovie.com/ http://thesasquatchvoice.blogspot.com/2014/11/how-todd-standing-operates-expose.html Hopefully the movie Big Fur will and the BF recreation being done by Ken Walker will calm the Nordegg digs of Sasquatch. Fraud Standing https://squatchdetective.wordpress.com/tag/ken-walker/ https://www.kansascity.com/entertainment/movies-news-reviews/article244495897.html I refuse to attend another Ocean Shores Sasquatch Summit because of the sideshow invitee named Standing/Rockwell

Hello All! I'm new here, and have had a fascination with Sasquatch/Bigfoot since I was 8 years old and saw "The Legend of Boggy Creek" at our local theater in a small town in Arkansas. I've spent a lot of time in the outdoors over the past 50 years, and never had a sighting, but have heard some things I can't quite explain. Anyway, glad to be here.

I don’t need to invoke the two reasons Carpenter gives to not trust Sasquatches. I don’t trust grizzly bears, cougars or black bears either. The two reasons Carpenter states for not trusting Sasquatches are: 1) He believes that they are a hybrid between the Nephilim (fallen angels) and humans and thus that they don't have the same morality and conscience as humans. 2) They don’t talk or communicate with us. He assumes that they have the ability to communicate (mind-speak or other) but that they don’t want to share any truthful information about themselves. His first reason is just a belief and is not based on science. His second reason only makes sense if they are cognitively able to communicate, which we do not know. His second reason is the main reason I don’t trust anything that supposedly “ETs” or beings associated with UFOs say. Messages from ET’s are all inconsistent, contradictory, not informative and useless. Very trickster like. However, since I consider Sasquatch to be a different entity than beings associated with UFOs, I can’t really use that reason to not trust sasquatch. I don’t know what they are. Thus, when I visit areas with their presence, I proceed with caution knowing full well that they are a potential threat and are not my buddies or forest friends. I think that some folks who pursue interactions with sasquatches and treat them as teachers, elders, forest keepers or brothers are delusional. I agree with Carpenter in that those people who claim interactions with them and claim to communicate with them, have obtained conflicting and useless information. One possible hypothesis is self-delusion, whereas everybody hears their own internal voice when they go out into the forest to communicate with seen or unseen entities. They hear what they want to hear or what they want to believe. An alternative hypothesis is that the entities are trickers and are indeed deceiving and telling lies to every one of those experiencers, but that hypothesis is more complex and requires more assumptions than the simpler self-deception. And, we don’t have any scientific data to support either hypothesis (just anecdotal evidence which is very weak, dispersed, and not fully vetted).

My fathers.