Leaderboard

So Bigfoot in North Dakota is acceptable for you. Moose are a known and documented species in North Dakota... The Bigfoot sighting reports I posted from North Dakota have a sighting at a trailer park in New Town, ND. I do not think that sighting was a fabricated report. It is absolutely absurd the idea that Bigfoot is a real species, comes into human communities in a place with no forest cover and remains an undocumented species. The trailer park report is from the southeast edge of New Town, ND. The southeast edge is seen in the upper left of this photo... That is where we are talking about Bigfoot being, and it is utterly absurd. So what is behind that rash of sightings in ND? The first sighting was at the trailer park on February 22, 2004. The next was eight miles south of the town also on the 22nd but no details were obtained. The third sighting was by two women with the "Bigfoot" being seen outside their home window on February 24, 2004 on Highway 22 eight mies southwest of Mandaree, and about 25 miles south/southwest of the initial trailer park sighting. The fourth sighting occurred on February 25 also on Highway 22 by a younger and older man. The "Bigfoot" was waking in the middle of the highway and when the vehicle came within sight of the subject, it walked of the highway and into a ditch, then out of sight. On the 26th and 27th tracks were found that were unambiguous. The went for three hundred yards along the side of Highway 22 and the returned to the pavement. People searching where the prints came off the pavement again could not find any travelling over two miles. The brazen nature of the sightings, the "Bigfoot" going to people's homes, walking in the middle of the highway, tracks along a highway that disappear and never reappear, this to me suggests hoaxing. Were this to be an actual Bigfoot exhibiting such behaviour and being in such an environment, there is no way Bigfoot should be unclassified. I think someone was playing Woods & Wildmen in and around New Town, ND.

Beautifully said, Jayjeti. Thanks for showing us what integrity looks like -- as you have with every post you've made (not just this one). Bravo. I have admired your posts for a long, long time, including the many posts you've made in defense of researchers and experiencers who have been loudly and unfairly maligned over and over and over.... It has been my great personal shame that I never joined you on those threads (or wasn't participating at the same time you were). Sometimes exhaustion and fear overcome me, and I'm unable to continue saying the things that need to be said. Thank you for continuing to say the things that need to be said, and in the most respectful way possible! And my profound apologies for leaving you to be the only one to be saying them in a few situations. Your courage and restraint are truly remarkable, and I'm so happy we have you to exemplify those things and teach us what they look like.

There have been four or five topics on government suppression of bigfoot from the public. 1. Though I perceive the government as less than fully competent, I do not perceive them as so incompetent that they have no knowledge of bigfoot whatsoever.. 2. Suppression of things bigfoot need not be a matter of national security, but more accurately a matter of national social stability. 3. Any such suppression today must be viewed through the filter of governmental attitudes of prior generations, with practices, if not policies, that persist into today. 4. If they knew about bigfoot in the late 1800's, up until WWII, then the Powell Doctrine would likely have been in force. Don't empower or acknowledge any "tribe" to the point that it might be perceived to have a legal claim on national lands. Giants were perceived back then to have roots in certain historical writings, and might thus have been "grandfathered" based on the dominant social structure of the times. 5. From WWII on, everything anomalous was viewed with great suspicion, and the Soviets were known to be attempting to create human/ape hybrids, so national security may have crept into consideration. 6. At this point, government suppression is likely just pragmatic. First, the species is predatory. Second, though likely uncommon, there is persistent indication that they species can be aggressive when threatened, and that some individuals may well prey on humans on occasion. Third, there is no way that the government can contain the species. Fourth, public knowledge would lead to public demands regarding the rights and treatment of the species on one hand and its containment for public protection reasons on the other. Every family that ever lost a child or other family member in the woods would be all over the government about this. Fifth, it would eventually come out that the government has been aware of them for generations, resulting in outrage on both sides of the spectrum. Sixth, no government agency currently has the capability to successfully protect either bigfoot as a species, or humans who come into contact with bigfoot. Seventh, no governmental manager at any level wants to deal with it so long as suppression of general public knowledge and resultant demands are successful. From my perspective, with the current focus on environmental issues, one would think that bigfoot would be embraced as a means to further environmental agendas. Despite that, I believe that the downsides must be perceived by government to heavily outweigh the upsides of disclosure. Given the opportunity to report one encounter up the chain while serving as an officer at Fort Lewis, I certainly chose not to do so, simply because of the headaches it would have caused me. Thank you, jayjeti, I was going to suggest that there was sufficient information in the account to track down H.A. Miller based on his college record as described. But I was too lazy to do so. I wonder if his degrees can be verified along with his medical residency.

No.... MIB said to "predefine the assumptions Hart was allowed to work from .. which failed." was disingenuous. Instead of asking me about the topic to get my take on it your comment wasn't making a statement or asking a question about the topic; it was just a blanket statement about me to the forum of which you leave open ended for others to fill in the details with their less than mature banter, which you repeat MIB's nonsense. When the conversation turns personal to focus on participants its digressed into a pettiness that should not be apart of adult discussion. You can deny it was an in my face comment all you want but you were championing Dr. Hart as someone who would clear the nonsense and set things straight; so, when you ask "Interesting, Wonder why Jayjeti dropped out of the conversation when Hart jointed us," other anti-Ketchum stalwarts ran with your inference. And I was part of the conversation with Dr. Hart. I asked Dr. Hart a few questions and thanked him for his response. Then he engaged in some interesting conversations with several, like Southernyahoo, about things I don't have the ability to ascertain right from wrong, but since I didn't wade into their jargon for two days you want to point out my odd absence in the face of your good doctor. I would prefer this discussion just focus on the topic. I joined myself to this thread asking this, "If this lab comes forward claiming to have duplicated her work will they be attacked with the same attacks, like it must have been contaminated to get those results, etc. as was done with Dr. Ketchum, or will this vindicate her, that her work was accurate? " No one seemed to want to answer the question if it would vindicate her, but mainly wanted to rehash how Melba messed it all up, and I became a participant in the discussion. I was a main participant but whether I was leading or controlling the conversation is a matter of perception. There were people, like you, wanting your facts put forward and bringing in participants in the discussion and I was answering your's and their comments.

http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/7225-the-ketchum-report/?p=82313 http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/36891-the-ketchum-report-continued/?p=704949 Bumping the old thread above and these other two because some of the membership needs to put some meat on this Ketchum bones stuff because they have pretty much dried up and blown away--- but like Todd Standing, become resurrected by manifold minions who seem to have trouble taking in the history and the facts.

12, 267 actual scientists considered state of evidence and conclude "No bigfoot." Two posters, one a self-appointed scientist consider state of evidence and conclude "No brainer. It's obvious bigfoot exists." Incorrigible1 considers overwhelming difference and concludes "Go with actual scientists." Drops mic.

Does this flight have barf bags?

Jayjeti, you and I had obvious differences when it came to Melba's study. I tried to assist by inviting Dr. Hart. I also did that because I felt that there was much misinformation getting posted that needed clarification. You were the primary one leading the conversation at that point. I was just noticing that you had gone quiet since Dr. Hart cleared things up. Anything else you are reading into my comment is on you. I'm not "inferring" anything. I have no problem coming right out and saying what I think. Who is doing the steering here? No.... MIB said to "predefine the assumptions Hart was allowed to work from .. which failed." was disingenuous.

Burying the dead probably originated for two reasons. 1. Most species are repelled by the stench of their own dead unless driven to the point of cannibalism. 2. Leaving your own dead around to be consumed by scavenging predators could condition those predators to hang around. Of course, more than a few predators are known to bury uneaten portions of kills. Knowing where Aunt Ug's carcass is when food gets scarce might be handy.

I wouldn't give Mr. M any greater degree of credibility than any other person who possesses his level of local knowledge...and that already is a high degree of credibility. This is the thing you can't avoid if you want to learn from those who have the most to teach: There are those who know more than you know, for good and identifiable reasons. Living somewhere for a long period of time, and becoming intimate with all the nuances of a location matter. Substituting your judgment for those who have this degree of knowledge is foolhardy. Saying I know what lives in the Winds (even though I've spent some solo time in the B/T Wilderness backcountry in my day), to the contradiction of somebody like Mr. Mioncynski would be to show my arse to the world. Don't think I will, no.