Jump to content

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 07/19/2021 in all areas

  1. LOL! Not exactly. I am busy preparing myself to move out of state for an Archaeology PhD Program that I have been admitted into. Consequently, I have not had much time to post. But never fear! Fall Break is right around the corner! And the forum's favorite flesh and blood advocate will be back in full force!
    5 points
  2. But...but...I don't want to go on vacation. I like this place. Oh wait! That wasn't me you were referring to...Never mind...forget what I said...
    4 points
  3. Hearty congrats, WB. That puts you in league with our resident almost-anthropologist.
    4 points
  4. Okay, regardless of when or where the PGF camera original was processed, no possible scenario will change or invalidate the evidence within the film that supports a conclusion of authenticity. If the information found by a new review of the original grossly contridicted anything Roger or Bob said, it would indeed damage the credibility of the person, but the proof that the film is authentic is not dependent upon the credibility of either Roger or Bob. Have you ever played "Pickup Sticks' the old fashioned game where you take a bundle of long sticks and throw them into a pile on the floor, and then you try to remove one stick without disturbing the others. Well, in the same sense, removing Roger or Bob's personal credibility would not disturb the pile of evidence that the PGF is real.
    4 points
  5. I have always had a keen interest regarding border patrol surveillance capabilities and have, off and on, done a bit of research along the lines of Border Patrol monitoring as it pertains to our hairy friend. What is NOT common knowledge, though, is the fact that there is now, and has been, a large network program for tracking animal migrations in place at the global scale https://wildlifedata.org/2020/04/18/movebank/ These network platforms are based in space and have expanded world wide, and will continue to expand, as more groups, universities and government agencies get involved and provide input. What does this mean for us and our Bigfoot research. How far behind in that research are we? And are we living in a bubble trying to circumvent a much more powerful and knowledgeable monitoring system that already knows what's going on, not just at, say, the US/Canada border but elsewhere? Wherever such creatures as the Sasquatch are suspected to exist- like the Yeren, the Yowie, the Almasty, and others- including our own North American Bigfoot- at the risk of bringing in a conspiracy theory- are they also being monitored? if so, who would know? If the answer to some seems obvious, then what are the chances of securing proof at the researcher level? And if proof is obtained what are the chances of exposing the creature's existence at the public level? https://wildlifedata.org/ These are just some of the groups involved even in something as relatively small scale as monitoring the Canada Lynx, according to an article by the Maine Department of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, which may or may not be a part of this global network but I think it would be ignorant to think it wouldn't be. And this is just concerning the Lynx. So are we researchers, and the public in general, the only ones in the dark when it comes to the Sasquatch? : IFW, USFWS, Defenders of Wildlife, Forest Products Council, Kendall Foundation, Maine Outdoor Heritage Fund, National Council of Air and Stream Improvement, Plum Creek Timberlands, Sweet Water Trust, USGS-Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit, University of Maine’s Cooperative Forestry Research Unit and the Wildlife Conservation Society.
    3 points
  6. Maybe knot tying is elementary to some experienced outdoorsmen here, but I'm still learning. So, Dan from Coalcracker Bushcraft, shows three great knots. One can never have too much knowledge of things that might help you in the woods. Enjoy!
    3 points
  7. It's true, I meant it in a condescending manner. But not as name calling, more as a definition of the individual.
    3 points
  8. Well, best of luck with it. Go easy and enjoy the journey, your alter ego has you covered here:)
    3 points
  9. I went fishing this winter on the coast and was climbing vantage grade up off the Columbia river on I 90. As Im passing this 48 wheeler lowboy semi truck pulling a giant excavator up the hill? I see De Atley construction on the side. I smiled to myself. That family has more money than about anyone in the state…. I bet my bottom dollar that if Mr. DeAtley wanted film developed on weekends or after hours? It happened no questions asked.
    3 points
  10. I haven't seen many finding bigfoot episodes and have never heard matt Moneymaker speak openly about his objections to paranormal subjects. He just rejects it out of hand.
    3 points
  11. If cattiness were a requisite for being an anthropologist, you'd have exceeded.
    3 points
  12. Please, don't oversimplify it. If we are to suggest that Bigfoot evolved from a extinct hominid then we have to look at the evidence in a relative sense. Moreover, while both of our candidates lack the associated height that is usually reported in sightings my theory doesn't have the burden to explain why it has re-evolved certain basal characteristics like an extremely hairy body or a mid tarsal break and lower intelligence. Furthermore I have suggested that that there is an actual selection history that can explain how an Australopithecus could evolve a larger body size, namely high predation rates. Which I'd imagine a 4ft, 100lb primate living in a sparsely wooded area would succumb to and it is a far more parsimonious explanation than bergman's principle or allen's rule ( which you used incorrectly by the way!).
    3 points
  13. Mort: Yes, I did provide the gentleman with more info on the film, and a way to likely identify the original, using the camera ID mark. All known copies of the PGF which were contact printed (made by Roger in Nov. 1967) have a partially blocked ID area. Apparently a guide roller in the printer blocks that area when the light is shined through the source film to the copy stock. It clips most of the ID half-circle shape, but not all, leaving a notch in the left aperture edge at the top. I continue to occasionally correspond with the gentleman, as we've become friends of a sort. He hasn't communicated to me anything that would suggest his film is definitievely the PGF original. But he hasn't communicated very much to me, and said he prefers not to share either the analyst's report or any images of the film, and I respect his decision in that matter. So I can't say with any certainty exactly what he and his analyst are looking for., other than the ID marks as i advised him to consider looking for. The only true and unaltered camera ID mark I've seen was on the transparancies Patricia had, which Roger had made by a lab from his original. Since they were made by a still print system, they didn't need the guide roller a contact printed film needs, so the ID mark was shown complete on the transparancies. I don't know anything about Frank Ishihara's claim of a lab-introduced latent image that is added in processing. I've never heard of a lab doing so. And the latent images that show on the contact copies (which do have the kodachrome stock identification and 1967 date code), do not have any other latent images except the copy stock name and date code. But some copies have the right side sprocket area masked off. This would be done if the printer was set up to add an optical sound track, so the area (on single perf film) keeps the right side unexposed by picture so it can be exposed with an optical sound track. It's possible the lab image was put on the right side and subsequent copies masked off the right side just because that's how the printer was set up at the time the copy was made. The use of the camera ID is twofold. 1. to identify the true camera used, and 2. to identify the camera original because the copies have a partial ID area, not a full one, like the original does. To those of you in the forum who don't know what camera ID marks are, the attached image shows the K-100 camera ID marks and how they look when printed and cropped.
    3 points
  14. I just read an article out of the UK from last March, 2021 about a new method for collecting DNA samples. Air. No joke: https://science.sciencemag.org/content/373/6553/376 So....I'm curious....IF one had the choice of which DNA sampling method to deploy which would it be? Snow, soil, water, or air? Don't know about air, but I gather that soil is the more expensive of the bunch with snow or water being about the same. It also comes down to cost of sampling materials, too. Snow may be more expensive than water if samples need to be transported, or stored outside of a lab and need to be in their maintain frozen state.
    2 points
  15. Well there is that saying: If you can see Rainier it's gonna rain in 24 hrs. If you can't see, it it IS raining. Guess they don't call it Rainier for nothing
    2 points
  16. With much levity and humor I submit: https://youtu.be/zljrlArPu2E?t=28 IMO, a bit of so called woo-ish laden traffic on a forum is NOT the reason "science" won't look into it. I'm sure it's a cocktail and I suspect a few ingredients but who here really knows why? Taken seriously by whom? Any scientist worth his salt should clearly be able to wade through surface level nonsense such as hoaxes and the ludicrous supernatural claims. Though it does seem there is data in the anomalous range that should not be ignored. Science may currently be unequipped with the tools to deal with that data but it's awfully foolish to throw it out. Look at the NIDS team, plenty of phenomena but none of it repeating. Then what? Nothing conclusive means nothing happened? As a scientist, I would think it would be fascinating to come up against a completely unknown phenomena-so much to grapple with. Yet those who do are often ridiculed by frustrated ninnies in their agentic state without the proper tools and understanding. Where will science be in 100 years, in a thousand years?? Hopefully not stagnating, ignoring things we don't understand. That's my trope, I'm sticking to it.
    2 points
  17. No. But we saw lots of sign. First night was at the Soda springs horse camp. All of the trails were marked no bikes. So I found a unmarked trail and rode it until I couldn't. I was suppose to be on Cortwright ridge but was on Carlton ridge. My buddies dad used to pack horses in there. I texted him the next day from Packwood and realized my mistake. We got up and went north out of Packwood up Skate crick to Horse crick and then up to Lookout mountain. Dense. Brushy. Bad road up Horse crick. Found one really good Elk trail. Cut cat tracks up there too… Skate crick itself was a mad house of people all camped along that crick. We left and went back by Soda springs to Cortwright ridge. Right spot this time. Cut alot of elk sign up there but again only on trail and it goes right into the William O Douglas wilderness. Cant take bikes in…. Today we did a morning ride out to the end of the road and then packed up and headed back over white pass. I wanted to check out Bethel ridge and show my wife where we hunted last year. Im so in love with that Rattlesnake country. Its home. Bull pine, Doug fir, tamarack, grassy meadows, you can see out of the forest. Tons of elk sign in there. Ate lunch and did another bike ride at McDaniels lake. Really sucks this area is spike only. That Gifford Pinchot forest around Packwood isn't being logged. Not that I saw. Yes there is elk there but you could be 20 ft from one and not have a shot. Rainer views are beautiful. But not in love with what I saw there. Not sure what Im gonna do yet. No Bigfoot activity. Last night the Varied Thrush were calling. Swainson thrush are my favorite.
    2 points
  18. Now, that's downright funny. The sasquatch community is associated with frauds, hoaxers, con artists, and nut cases, but I suppose law enforcement and the courts are only "associated" with the most honorable of people? Why do you think cops are now required to wear cameras to go along with their guns, tazers, radios, batons, cuffs, et al? Well, I'm not, but weren't you the one aligning yourself with official government scientists with the excuse that the PG film wasn't "conclusive evidence"? Seems like you enjoy waffling between official science and theory on your own terms. Is that "scientific"? I'm afraid I make my educated guesses on more factors than that, such as common threads among sighting reports, densities of reports, areas with a lack of reports, aboriginal tradition, trace evidence, and more. Some people converse on the subject with a basis that I can relate to, and some don't. For example, when somebody tries to tell me that they mind-speak with sasquatches after giving them a cigarette and Bic lighter, I'm pretty much done conversing with them. You originally seemed to converse from a good foundation, but I will admit that I'm starting to see cracks in your slab. Ummm.......that's what leopards use to attack their prey, Dude, and their strength is much less than that of a silverback gorilla. Leopards use their claws primarily to climb and as defensive weapons. They do not claw their prey to death. They bite the trachea, crush it, and hold on in order to strangle their prey. You're kinda' new at this, huh? Actually, it does not buttress your point, and you indeed continue to miss the point. Gorillas have absolutely no desire or intent to kill leopards, even leopards that attack them. The female gorillas in a group will immediately scream like banshees while grabbing their young and running like Hell, just like your reference describes, and the silverback will counter-attack to distract the leopard until he, too, can make good his escape, following his family and protecting the rear from more attacks. Well, I consider your point weak, and as you continue to try to defend it, I will continue to attack it. And THAT is how "science" works. It is "evidence" that the most powerful and feared predator on this continent is actually smart enough to take off like a bat out of Hell upon discovering that I'm in the vicinity, even though I have no panniculus carnosus whatsoever. Well, I'm not a scientist, and unlike you, I don't need "conclusive" evidence to believe that sasquatches exist, and the subject in the PG film is a sasquatch. Actually, I wish your point was true. If it was, then the endangered status of gorillas (even though there are many thousands of them) would be due to the mighty leopard which somehow failed to render gorillas extinct before science finally recognized them as a species in 1854. But since the goal of the gorillas is to escape leopard attacks instead of proactively hunting them down and killing them (like their cousins homo sapiens do), gorillas actually stand a pretty good "chance".
    2 points
  19. The "evidence" is not "conclusive". If it was, it would be "proof". Law enforcement and the ciurts have a saying: "cameras convict." That's why cameras are now everywhere, including on police officers chests. But not for people like you, government biologists, and academics (at least with respect to sasquatchery). Not even good enough to initiate investigation, even though the several scientists who did investigate stated that camera speed was crucial in determining validity. It's that close. You are free to theorize, and I am free to discount your theories. Why? Because it was not "conclusive". See how easy that was? And I say that most black bears would leave the scene immediately upon smelling a sasquatch, unless it was a very young sasquatch that was alone. I commend your attempt to use references to discount my position, but I'm afraid you have only confirmed me when. state that leopards do indeed prey upon young and female gorillas and perhaps old, ill, and injured males. Your own link stated that the silverback at Mbeli Bai was "in very poor physical condition". The references to gorilla body parts in leopard scat does not identify whether those parts are from healthy males. And the description of the leopard attack at Bai Hokou that was heard and followed upon by the witnesses brings up a couple of additional points. Gorillas live in rather tight family groups. A leopard attacking a female or youth on the fringes of the group by a leopard is more than likely to be counter-attacked in return by the silverback. Also, in this specific case, the silverback was seen by the witnesses after the event with no injury seen. Moreover, the relationships between leopards and African primates has little to do with the relationship between bears and sasquatches in North America, although it might be something to consider with regard to pumas and sasquatches. I specifically wrote that inland grizzly bears bolted and ran from me upon me being scented, not black bears, although I've had black bears run from me, too. I've also had bears of both species lay down in front of me at my bear bait station, knowing full well I was there, and eat my bait. I've had black bears lay down in front of me and take a nap.
    2 points
  20. You are certain that Bart's thermal is Justin taking a leak? That wouldn't even qualify for a newbie commenter on FB. Is that seriously the best you can do? Of course you wouldn't have something to offer the thread that is legit. It's just more of your trolling. Carry on lamer.
    2 points
  21. This is a great topic, I would like to point out that we do have four or five public thermal videos but not at the desired resolution. I am aware of two other videos that are fairly clear but not published. 1 The Brown Footage of WA. 2 The Brandenburg Footage of NM. 3 The Brown Footage of FL. 4 The Serrias Footage of CA. 5 The Squeaky Footage of NC I feel that the answer as to why we dont have that clear unambiguous thermal footage is primarily due to three reasons. Most sasquatch " researchers " do not have thermal cameras as most are not serious about field work and frankly spend maybe four weekends a year camping close to a few report locations. Most of these folks do not even break from a road or trail, they are glued to familar paths and do not bushwack. Thermal imagers have only in the last two or three years achieved even basic resolution standards ( 640x480 ) and cost about 4000$ on average. I will also say ( in my opinion ) that there simpley very few of these creatures out there. I look into reports on a daily basis and maybe 5 -10 % within the internal database are legitimate. I understand that people do not like to hear it but we have nothing that suggests they are doing great as a species or that we are even available/prepared enough as " researchers " to capture high quality video.
    2 points
  22. I respectfully disagree with what you said, Backdoc, in those highlighted statements. The most important consideration, by far, is what is seen on the film...(regarding the subject itself.) And, AFAIC....the analysis of those details can be rather simple....and easy to see: A bulging/contracting calf muscle....and quadracep muscle....on the subject's right leg... Articulating toes on the subject's right foot... Articulating fingers... Independent movement of the two sides of the buttocks... A very un-humanlike 'arm proportion'....with a 'shorter than normal' lower-arm....(meaning...no 'arm extensions')... A total lack of folds on the subject's body. There are plenty more realistic/un-suitlike details than those.....but those details, alone, can resolve this mystery....if one has a mind which can accept what they are clearly showing.
    2 points
  23. The proverbial chicken-or-the-egg question is one we all have to deal with. Can we lure them in or do they arrive only on their terms? I honestly don't know but part of the fun of being out in the field is guessing. My latest attempt will be to try to make the campsite impossible to ignore. It's hard to believe (for me), as I tend to be a traditionalist, but I'm actually considering using a FRED emergency device. In a way, it feels awkward (even cheesy) but if it catches the eye of a curious sasquatch, maybe it can produce. The FRED emergency device was designed for those who break down on the road. It is a warning device that sends out red strobe, or circling, lights designed to alert oncoming cars . You can't miss it. My hopes are it attracts the attention of a sasquatch across one of the ponds I frequent. Maybe it decides to come in a bit closer to investigate knowing humans are over across the pond and it is safe on their side. The thermal should be able to capture its movements. I'll give it a try and report back.
    2 points
  24. I think that is the best answer we have. We truly don't know what triggers a visit vs what prevents one. When we do a particular thing, we actually do quite a number of other things with it. We don't know that it was the thing we focused on doing rather than one of those side things, seemingly irrelevant things, that was the actual difference maker. We may also do the thing that really mattered in some other context and get results but not know why. We have relatively little data to draw from and we're making some big leaps .. unwarranted leaps .. based on that data. ... IMHO of course! I think setting up camp in the hottest spot we know gives us the best chance of other things going right ... if it's as good a spot as we think it is. MIB
    2 points
  25. Semantics .. shades of gray. I think we can attract their attention, lure in that sense, but they make a conscious choice about how, and whether, to react. When it comes to bigfoot, we compel nothing. It is safer for us that way. Critters that have been lured in can become aggressive when they find themselves frustrated, surprised, etc unable to actually obtain the bait that drew them in. I don't want to deal with that especially in the context of bigfoot. MIB
    2 points
  26. This is precisely the issue I have with camera traps. They capture all kinds of elusive and scarce animals such as really rare Wolverines but no clear photos of sasquatch. I know we have blurry images, obscure images and part images but no clear full height image like we have with so many other animals. They do seem to be seen with regularity by hunters who use camera traps so there's a bit of a disconnect there for me. My other issue is that the excuses or reasons behind this do seem contradictory, in that Sasquatch won't come near a camera trap as it emits a slight sound but will happily waltz up to a noisy camp site full of people and watch from the bushes or the smell of plastic keeps them away from a camera trap but they'll happily visit a cabin or a car or a tent which have much more smell to them. It just doesn't quite add up to me, something is off. I'm sceptical but firmly of the belief that Sasquatch is possible if not probable but this is a real big hurdle for a sceptic. I don't ascribe any unnatural characteristics to the sasquatch so don't buy into them having other worldly powers, inter dimensional etc. that some explain this away with.
    2 points
  27. Like I write, it's a matter of which scientists discuss it, and which scientists ignore it. The key now is identifying why it is so completely ignored by the scientists who count the most; those responsible for the management of our collective natural resources. Sasquatches being primates does not require their biologic structure to exactly match that of other primates, nor do North American predators negate the potential existence of these creatures. I cannot accept your claim that "a black bear would easily kill a Sasquatch", and certainly can't accept your reasoning for such a statement based upon your conjecture on the panniculus carnosus of a creature which has not yet been physically examined. I have extensive personal experience with black bears and their potential prey. Black bears here in Alaska almost never prey in adult anythings here larger than themselves including caribou and moose. Injured, sick, and calf ungulates (or sasquatches)? You bet. Even cub bears? No doubt. Cow caribou? If they can catch one (doubtful, especially since they inhabit different environments). Cow moose? No way, Dude, especially if she's in knee deep water. She'll enthusiastically kill that bear. This is well established science. I've seen these things myself. Mature black bear boars are dangerous predators. I've been tested by one myself. That bear is lucky I didn't kill him. I should have. But he wasn't after me. He wanted my dog. I can see a boar black bear taki g an unprotected sasquatch youth, but not a healthy, mature sasquatch weighing 400-800 lbs. Sorry. Ain't happening. And those reasons are exactly what I pointed out above; age, injury, and illness. Leopards will prey on female and young gorillas, but will think twice about attacking a healthy, mature silverback. Don't make me dig up references. If I do, I'll be unhappy. I'm getting busy around here. I strongly agree with you that sasquatches are physically, mentally, and intellectually overestimated. Their physical strength in particular tends to be wildly overestimated. But I'm quite certain that they're very strong physically, but if a 225 grain Swift A-Frame in 338 WinMag @ 2850 fps was used on one, it would work just as well as it would on a 1200 lb coastal brown bear. I have personally seen a boar grizzly bear suddenly turn, bolt, and run like Hell as if Satan himself just popped up in front of him. But it wasn't Satan. It was me. The bear caught my scent, and took off like he was on fire. In fact, I've seen that more than once. The first time was one of my most memorable wilderness experiences. And a good number of scientists disagree with you. I like this particular quote from one of the rare few who actually studied the film and documented his analysis (Dr. D.W. Grieve, an anatomist with expertise in human biomechanics at the University of London Royal Free Medical School: http://www.bigfoot-lives.com/html/report_on_the_film_of_a_suppos.html
    2 points
  28. Good solid standard V8. Had one in a '74 3/4 ton PU back when you could sit in the engine well to do work. Went home for lunch one cold Autumn day and back out for four more hours. Got home and heard a "meow" and lifted the hood only to find one of my cats had evidently gotten inside next to the radiator for warmth. It was so terrified when I started the engine and went back to work that it stayed where it was until I got back home and heard it cry out. I reached in to rescued her and it was like picking up a small bowling ball. All her muscles were locked up tight. Lucky she didn't panic and end up in a belt which is what happens to some.
    2 points
  29. That works both ways; many sasquatch sightings could be misidentified as bear sightings, specially since so many in science work so feverishly to discount the very existence of sasquatches. Who could blame somebody for doing so, believing that since sasquatches don't exist, that must be a huge, funny looking bear walking on two legs. Now, I must admit that's the first time I've read that claim despite over 20 years on this forum reading all kinds of claims from all manner of experts. Would you call that a scientific claim? On what would you base such a claim? I'm still waiting for most of official science to admit anything on this evidence.
    2 points
  30. @Wooly BoogerHave you shapeshifted into a MonkeMan??
    2 points
  31. Lol. Bad theory? I love how everyone has figured out this mystery creature that no one can prove exists. Norse identified some Neanderthal traits that sound very similar to those reported to be found with Sasquatch. How is that a ‘bad theory’? Ok. Y’all lay some more cherry-picked anthro-babble on us. Only peer reviewed information on Sasquatch, please. No assumptions or hypotheses…about this undiscovered creature that the scientific establishment pretty much universally finds foolish.
    2 points
  32. Not sure how true this may be. But it does sound like the real thing to me. I feel real good about this. The Gov knows what these creatures are and they have always known. This might be why the scientist do not want to bother looking for these creature. Here is what i am posting:https://youtu.be/7Ji77Dkestk
    2 points
  33. No. My results, whatever they may be or not be, have always been kept close to the vest and not shared. My efforts are only to prove to me what's out there. If I'm ever blessed with something remarkable, it would only be seen by a few but never offered for public consumption.
    2 points
  34. My hat's off to both @BlackRockBigfoot and @NathanFooter. Their thermal equipment left me in the proverbial dust at the starting line. Their Pulsars are the absolute best. Mine is good enough for me. Thermal imaging is a game changer. Maybe, just maybe, a sasquatch has no idea what this small black (maybe unseen) instrument is. In my opinion, it levels the playing field, at least, as much as can be done by us. It allows us to sneak up on the other side of a field, or pond, and record movement. We know from using it what is a fox, coyote, deer, or sasquatch. BRB recorded a deer in very fine detail. Right out of the starting gate, I recorded something I didn't know what it was. A Michelin Man figure with exceptionally wide shoulders. Eyebrow raiser for sure but not enough. In the end, and having said all the above, our equipment can only record what our efforts put us in the position to do. It's always back to basics.
    2 points
  35. Since the PGF has been proven as showing an "authentic" creature, the developing issue remains only as an interesting side note for old guys like me who are interested in history and specifically the colorful days of the late 1960's and the lore thereof. There's a mountain of fascinating history surrounding the PGF and in my opinion the PGF saga itself offers one of the very richest slices of Americana from that period. If done properly and accurately it would make for a superb Hollywood film. From a historical perspective, it would be nice to know the truth, wouldn't it?... But no, it wouldn't change anything, BD. We all have different perspectives and reasons for being on this forum. One thing that has perplexed me here though has been the vehement opposition by some supporters of the film to any efforts at investigation or examination of the PGF saga and it's associated lore such as the developing mystery. I truly see no reason to discount or discredit any individuals honest search for the truth. Perhaps this just isn't the place for that. As far as the new owner of the alleged "original" PGF, he is convinced that it is a hoaxed event and mentioned to me that he would willfully destroy the film first rather than allow anyone further access to it. So if he indeed does have the original - we will never know.
    2 points
  36. I'm not, I'm not sure why you think I am. Well the fact that they had clothes and the existence of fossilized feet seem to heavily suggest both of those things. They wouldn't lose technology or intelligence to this extent unless both of those traits became somehow less beneficial, which I don't see happening. It just seems like a huge leap in logic. Possibly, but it sufferssimilar issues that Neanderthalis does as a possible candidate. Well yes, because we're both Anthropologists or at least well versed in the relevant literature. So we know that Paranthropus or Australopithicines are the most likely candidates based on anatomical evidence that does exist. And I read through that mess of a thread, you are right, OOA is very much a settled issue in Anthropology and I'm not sure why they think a 12 million year old semi-bipedal Ape in germany disproves that.
    2 points
  37. Recently, I have been in touch with the gentleman who is the new owner of the alleged original PGF. He gave me an in depth summary of the impartial analysis that was performed on the film. I won't include all that here. I told him that my specific interest was in an examination of the edges of the film in order to ascertain whether or not the embedded latent images that Frank Ishihara has alluded to were present. The presence of these images would confirm once and for all that the PGF was indeed processed at Technicolor NW. Processing mystery solved etc. He seemed to want to ignore the issue. The film owner was adamant that there would not be any further examination of the film. This, despite my suggestion that such an examination could help as far as establishing his film's provenance. I pressed him for a little more info and he gave me this: "I received additional help from Bill Munns, which I am very grateful for. As a result of his input I sent a piece of film back to the analyst so any Kodak K-100 camera marks were present. (sic) He stated that there was indication of marks, but degradation was such that he could not find several in a row, or discern the outlines of the marks with any certainty. But, his conclusion was it was likely from a K-100 camera." And finally: "There are intermittent "half moon" looking light areas along the left side of the film (left side if you look at it with the emulsion side away from you) but, as he stated, whereas there were three or for in sequence, they were indistinct and he couldn't say for sure they were what we were looking for. But, as an examiner with his credentials and experience, he felt in his gut that the film was likely from a K-100. As I recall he said not all K-100s had that rotating exposure cutout, but that is unclear as well." Any comments or clarifications from Bill would be more than welcome of course. And my questions for Bill: 1. What is it exactly that they were looking for here, Ishihara's latent processing images or K-100 camera marks, or both? 2. Is the use of a K-100 now in question or is this new search for camera marks strictly to verify the possible authenticity of this alleged original?
    2 points
  38. Just send me the GPS location where the family group is, I'll put one round in each ear hole and drop off some body parts at your selected location.
    1 point
  39. 1 point
  40. True! It lends a sense of depth in referring to the creature as Sasquatch, over Bigfoot. In a way it is like walking through a forest and have someone ask."What is that?" And you answer,"That's a tree!" Well, that is a conversation ender right there! However, if you are walking through a forest and someone asks,"What is that?" And you reply," That is called a tree!" Right away that leaves the conversation open to lean more about this large thing . Such as,"Why is it called a tree? What function does it serve?" So if someone sees you reading a book and asks,"What are you reading?" And you reply,"It is a book about Bigfoot!". The emotion is flat! But if someone asks,"What are you reading?" And you reply "It is a book about the Sasquatch!" Right away this evokes an interest in, what is a Sasquatch? Because the subject now has a proper name which classifieds it as a separate creature. And a serious subject!
    1 point
  41. That's cool, I get it. Don't mind me, I'm just a word nerd.
    1 point
  42. My conclusions are based on reading literally thousands of BF incident reports and hundreds of videos as well as a handful of encounters across two different states and 25 years. This is a personal hobby, nothing more. I do not set out to prove anything to anybody and honestly do not care your position on BF. Just replying to your post. Very sorry it was inadequate for your needs. You have been added to ignore so please do not bother replying.
    1 point
  43. In the lower 48, sometimes your main danger isn't the wildlife, but humans. Here in WA state I have found discarded propane tanks, clear hose, beakers and other glassware etc...all the usual makings of a Breaking Bad operation out in the woods...at the end of little-used Forest Service roads. Now these folks are seriously dangerous because you can go to jail for many years for making that stuff, and the operators might just shoot first and forget the questions entirely. If you pull up on something like that, you should just turn around right away and leave with haste. But there are other practical things that are more useful and you would probably need more than worrying about bears or meth makers. I always carry any spare belts I replaced, the old ones, and a good tool kit. Two spare tires is a good idea, along with a tire plug kit and a pump. I went out in the hills above Naches, WA once and found out it WAS possible to get two flat tires on the same trip. Using the plug kit on the second flat, I still had to shove a bolt into the hole on the tire (pretty big hole) and made it back to civilization. Slowly. Recently, I picked up the item shown below and an Amazon return 50 watt solar panel and ditched the little gas generator I was using previously. I gave it a five star video review at Amazon. This one even beats the Jackery portable power units. It uses not just a lithium battery, but the LI-PO 4 battery, which will take many more charges than straight lithium and is far less dangerous. But it is a heavier unit due to the lithium iron phosphate battery. However, this unit comes with a nice little zipper case that includes the charging connectors for wall power, cigarette lighter, AND solar panel. It also comes with a built-in MPPT solar controller, if you can believe that. So you can plug a solar panel of any type right into the thing and it will stop charging automatically when it's full up. I personally recommend this 300-watt hour unit. Last trip I took was a group campout north of Rainier and the group generator stopped putting out power. Still, I was able to run a Samsung 32" TV and a small DVD player from this box and watch two complete movies...ran it down only to 40%. That's pretty good. LI-PO 4 battery will also give you full power right up (almost) to the point where you need to recharge. Some units get fading power and the cheapies that use a bunch of strung-together 18650 flashlight batteries aren't worth your time. You get one or two bad batteries in that series and the entire unit works much less. Here is the link to the unit at Amazon. Currently it is 265 with a 50 buck off coupon. You will never be sorry with this one. https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B08GPL38M3/ref=ppx_yo_dt_b_asin_title_o09_s01?ie=UTF8&psc=1
    1 point
  44. Do not disagree, nor do I believe hoaxing or mass delusions is the answer for Bigfoot. Until BF is on a slab and properly vetted it has to remain an option IMO. I’ve had what would be a BF experience but not direct sighting so I have to leave the option on the table for now.
    1 point
  45. An embellishment perhaps? A little spice to highlight the heroic feat...
    1 point
This leaderboard is set to New York/GMT-04:00
×
×
  • Create New...