Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 09/14/2019 in all areas

  1. 5 points
    Background Science needs a type specimen (a body) to recognize Bigfoot as an extant species. Government recognition of the species will lead to habitat protection and its long term survival. There are laws in place which could be used to prosecute the first person to obtain a type specimen. Hypothetical Scenario An ordinary citizen obtains a type specimen and presents it to government authorities for recognition. Sasquatch is then recognized but there is public outcry over the kill and existing laws are used to prosecute the citizen. A Legal Defense Fund is created to help pay for the expenses of defending the citizen.
  2. 5 points
    I respectfully offer that if you knew how to conduct your own investigation into the film's subject you may think differently? My own efforts in that have determined that Patty couldn't be a person in a suit. I had a thread here that discusses Patty's shoulder width and how I was able to determine it's ratio to her height. The outcome of that when taken in context with the rest of the creature's actions speaks for itself. The only ones who dispute the fill are, and will continue to be, the ones who either do not do the work themselves or will not accept the work already done by others if they even know about what's already been determined. This isn't a slam on you, starchunk, it's only a reminder that at face value only the film will always be called into question. It's only after seeing what other researchers have done on the film that any arrivals at the truth can be made.
  3. 4 points
    Most hunters are out hunting game animals to put in a freezer. They have bought a license and a tag. The last thing on their minds is shooting something humanoid. Great apes throw things. We know this. I’m not sure the correlation between throwing things and being not rare though. Throwing things to make people leave is a great strategy for staying hidden. Think of a sniper taking a spoiler shot like in old westerns. Nothing says “go away” more. It’s the Grizzly Bear tactic of bluff charges and in close and personal that can get you extinct quick. If the human feels trapped and cornered and they have a gun? Your in for a really bad day. Rocks flying out of thin air and maybe some scary noises makes the human simply want to leave. But lets be real. I think many reports are either fabricated or misidentified animals. Doing my work up on caloric intake is a eye opener. Large omnivore like Grizzlies need hundreds if not thousands of square miles to survive. Bigfoot is not living on a 20 acre woodlot outside Chicago.... Not many of us are willing to shoot one. And I’ve been called every name in the book too for wanting to. Project Grendel was never anymore than 6-8 guys spread thin across the North American continent. We just shared ideas and notes. The GCBRO is another large outfit down south. They have their own TV show. Its a part time affair. Absolutely. I’m not aware of a professional dedicated team being bankrolled somewhere. The most popular scenario with PG was to set up a camping trip with sniper over watch. Sasquatch seems to be curious of human activity. Spies on the camp and a sniper up in a tree takes the shot. My only issue with the scenario is I have got a lot of time sleeping in the woods. I have nothing strange to report. No rock throwing or strange noises coming from the timber. I say we appeal to its stomach. I don’t know how to pick a fight with a Sasquatch or what his mate swoons him with. But a fawn in distress is a call every predator understands completely. There are basically three types of hunting calls. Each call is appealing to a certain behavior. Prey Sex Sparring Bigfoot may be too smart for this. Or he smells us or hears something he doesn’t like. Or maybe he is a like a bobcat. He comes in slower, takes longer, let’s the Bears take the bait first and observes what happens. When calling Bobcats you have to let Coyotes come and go. And you may let 3 coyotes go and never see a Bobcat. You have to have painstaking patience with cats unless you have hounds. The other obvious choice is to cut his tracks in snow. That’s my only experience with something out of the norm. But I was too young to act on it and my father wanted nothing to do with it. Which I understand. I wouldn’t risk my young son either. But with tracks to follow on a snowmobile? Or tracked ATV? Barring a snow storm you would be set. My MO anymore is just to enjoy my activities outdoors but have the capability to do something proactive IF an encounter happens. A big game rifle or large caliber handgun, a light, a sharp cutting tool and a game bag or tarp. It should be in everyone’s pickup or SUV if they take this thing seriously. You don’t have to be vocal about it like I am. Shoot, take what you can feesably carry and get out. Go get help.
  4. 4 points
    There is little likelihood that BF populations in the Appalachians and PWN have intersected since the European settlers surged Westward. They probably did not before that either because of the distances involved and isolation by the great American plains. In other words there are now pockets of diverse populations of BF that have several and perhaps hundreds of generations of genetic isolation. One can expect increasing genetic diversity and differences in appearance between distantly isolated groups. Perhaps the ones in Florida were isolated first because of the flow of settlement in the East Coast? The last to be isolated would be the ones in the PNW since that is were European settlement happened last. Just that might explain why those in the PNW may be more genetically healthy because interchange of individuals could still be conducted between various BF tribes. Genetic health would promote less genetic deviation and differences in appearance.
  5. 3 points
    Would anyone care to donate to Incorrigible1's Home for Wayward Cheerleaders?
  6. 3 points
    I'm sure we have killed bunches of them. Even in recent times. There are plenty of reports of people shooting at them, only to have them disappear into the woods. So far, nobody seems to have had the required balance of large reproductive rocks and/or low IQ to chase a wounded squatch into the brush it ran off into. If such a person has had those basic requirements, we've not found their body either. What I know is that if such an animal (or whatever it is) gets gut shot, or even a 'pass through' deep wound without any follow up medical treatment, it's almost guaranteed to succumb to blood loss or infection. The problem is just how far and deep it ran before it died. Maybe the ticket to finding a body is a tracker and cadaver dog on retainer and ready to fly off in a moments notice. I have always believed that the first body found would be as a result of road kill. There are reports of sightings along roads all the time. Some narrowly missed and some reported being hit. No real way to plan or do an expedition. I think that hunting them poses issues as I believe that they do remove/defend their dead when possible. Road kill would be problematic for that because of the human activity at a crash site. Police, ambulance, good Samaritans, etc. With all that going on, the rest might flee and leave their comrade. That would leave it for somebody to find and report. A problem is that they are a big, tough, critter. That means they are not likely to just drop on the roadway. In fact, none have so far. I think they run off as far as they can and then succumb to their injuries. We just haven't looked to find them. 17x7
  7. 3 points
    This is a really good point, and one I'd not considered in full. I just thought it seemed strange for an animal that is described as extremely elusive and possibly reclusive to approach an obvious human camp and make itself known, seems counter intuitive if the animal doesn't want to be found yet I can see how that is a way of sending a message without revealing itself and still remaining at least partially hidden. My initial line of thinking was that if the creature has a large habitat area and moves around a lot anyway which I think most would be agreed on they would just move to some other location within that large area without the humans even knowing. I guess if they have a water source though they may be very protective of that at certain times when other sources are hard to find maybe.
  8. 3 points
    Steve Streurfert provided me with a link to a podcast interviewing the man who owns the film and talks about it. https://www.spreaker.com/user/forkermedia/supernrml-special-edition-with-john-john One thing to consider is he described the edge latent image markings, and felt such markings indicated he likely had the original. However, I have the exact same markings on one of my copies, as shown here. On the top row, you can see how bold and obvious the original Kodachrome film type and related edge markings are. But then go to the second row, along the bottom, and see how subtle the markings are for a copy. It would be easy for someone to see only the bold obvious Kodachrome markings and miss the copy markings. So the man most likely just has a copy, like mine. Added: He also said the date code symbols repeat every 10 years, but the Kodak chart states quite clearly that the codes repeat every 20 years. So while the man may be of good intention, his facts are not quite on the mark.
  9. 3 points
    Muscle mass may be only part of the answer: "Our surplus motor neurons allow us to engage smaller portions of our muscles at any given time. We can engage just a few muscle fibers for delicate tasks like threading a needle, and progressively more for tasks that require more force. Conversely, since chimps have fewer motor neurons, each neuron triggers a higher number of muscle fibers. So using a muscle becomes more of an all-or-nothing proposition for chimps. As a result, chimps often end up using more muscle than they need. " This also may explain their lack of tools beyond sticks and stones.
  10. 3 points
    1 - Your opinion is based on nothing but assumptions. Derek owns his own business and has been booked for months in advance ( over a year ) out on work and has not had much opportunity to sit down and get the entire group together to discuss the results. Shane has been spearheading current efforts also in an effort to locate new nest sites to try and find fresh samples for testing. I will respond to hiflier separately as I have time, I am also starting work as I have moved and what time I do get it is out in the woods locally researching ( we all have day jobs ) reports. 2 - Yes, Derek and Shane spoke at one event this spring and Shane spoke at the other in OR just last month ( I was there holding the booth ), both of these should be on youtube. 3 - That is also nothing more than an opinion based on no substance. I am a member of the Olympic Project. Free time has been short for leadership in the OP and what time has been spared has gone back into field operation/expeds. I understand the frustration some have about this effort as it has been quiet for a long time now but things are still going on.
  11. 3 points
    Just got back from seven day Alaska cruise with my wife. I haven't been very active the past few years due to health issues. Doing better now dropped 50 lbs getting out walking and plan to get out there and do more time in the forests. We saw dozens of hump back whales some Orcas, porpoises, sea otters, seals but no bears. Lots of salmon in Sitka AK.
  12. 2 points
    I remain unsure about this topic, which is not a problem for me. Did you know that orcas are the most widely distributed mammal in the sea and without predators besides humans? It occurs to me that the BFs fill a similar niche in nature, as contrary to what some think, they are found in nearly every habitat. I remember an old forum member describing activity in an urban area in central Oklahoma, for one example. I later visited there myself and found some interesting evidence. That's just one place where BF activity is underestimated, but dedicated investigators know differently. They're often present in close proximity to human populations. Back on the topic, I sort of agree with something I heard elsewhere, what they are not. Not apes, not monkeys, not human, yet a kind of people. That's all I've got.
  13. 2 points
    Of course you are correct. I am much more suited for a Sasquatch costume. Pun intended.
  14. 2 points
    No offense. But you would look horrible in a cheerleader costume!
  15. 2 points
    Forgive me, but the questions seem unfair. If a person says they would not donate as a response to question one, the next question should not ask how much they would donate and not have a "0" as an option. The final question, too, there should be an option that says "I told you already, I would not donate." Sounds like the writer is assuming everyone would give money. Respectfully submitted.
  16. 2 points
    I gave the podcast a listen this morning and will provide a short summary of what this gentleman claims: A few years back he had a working relationship with Patricia Patterson so at that time he had inquired about the ownership and location of the original film. Mrs. Patterson informed him that the film was being held by an attorney in Florida and could not be freed up because Roger Patterson owed him a lot of money. She later backed off on this assertion. Now, just recently and by pure chance he goes to the estate sale of a prominent attorney In Florida and finds a film can labeled Bluff Creek 1967. The can contains what he believes is the original 24 feet or so of the Patty sequence of the PGF. The prior riding footage from earlier that day is not part of the reel. Some non-PGF material from ANE is also included. From what I can understand, he buys the can sight unseen and true contents unknown until he is able to get home and finally pry it open. He quickly gets an "expert independent analysis" done on the film. Among the results of the analysis: 1) The film is severely degraded because of improper processing and storage. 2) The analyst claims that the film was processed using the K-14 process. (wrong, since K-14 wasn't available until the early 70's). 3) What is left of the original film now consists of roughly 30 short strips of film that are stored in acid free envelopes. 4) The analysis claims that the film was broken and brittle because it was probably not processed at a legitimate Kodak lab, instead it is suggested that some kind of bootleg or home processing setup was used. To the analyst, it appears that the film which still has a powerful odor of acetic acid, was improperly washed and rinsed. 5) The front end leader has been cut off at a 45 degree angle very close to the first frames. The tail end leader is stuck together and can't be unrolled. There are no written or other markings. The new owner of the film has vowed not to disclose any further details of the film beyond the analysis. Where precisely he got it will remain a secret, and he also states that the film will not be made available for any further examination. He believes that the subject matter of the film, Patty, is a fake. Cool story except, as always, rather than providing any answers it just leads to even more questions...
  17. 2 points
    Sweet kayak, twenty pounds! Not low end, but I've had this on my list for a long time: https://hydrobikes.com/
  18. 2 points
    Im not advocating that the government goes around cleaning up dead bodies.... But ask yourself this. If the 411 books truly show a problem in our national parks and forests? And that came out? Tourism would go to zero. And all of the families of the missing and dead? Would file lawsuits. The government warns you about everything. Cliffs, Bears, trails, roads, cougars, etc. But they failed to warn you about a potentially violent 800 lbs ape man running amok in their forest? I’d say there is plenty of reason for them to care.
  19. 2 points
    I do believe we are looking at individual variation and maybe differing genus like trout populations in the east and west for instance based on possibly regional influences/barriers, but many of these guys may be trim like the most athletic NFL linebackers; I suspect you could call many of them massive. The way sasquatch have been viewed hauling away white-tails, razorbacks and elk I would say they have muscle mass above and beyond for sure in many cases. I was more talking height here than anything. My night-time education involved a 4 1/2 to 5 1/2 footer and I did not get the impression it was a juvenile sent on a counting coup adventure to directly approach me. It was not alone that night though and two others may have been on a counting coup mission. Aging in sasquatch is a little too far out there for me and others to probably speak to however. Based on some TN sightings they do suffer from bone infections or strokes, probably dental problems just like humans. I'm primarily in the southern appalachians now and have given thought as to how a wide body, tall sasquatch fits nicely in the North Cascades but maybe not so much in the Blue Ridge, having spent some time on both coasts now.
  20. 2 points
    If it evolved in North America rather than traveling here more or less in the form we know it, it's not an ape, it's a monkey. There are examples in zoology of similar-ish creatures filling similar niches that come from different roots ... essentially if a niche is open, something will evolve to fill it. An example is the mara or patagonian hare which is a rodent whose ancestors adapted to fill the niche since there are no true hares there as would be found in similar niches in Europe. There are a couple things seemingly wrong with the true monkey idea. First, no true monkeys that we know of have grown anywhere that large, second, none are bipedal, third, there's not a single hint in the fossil record from North America for either current or previous species of that size. For it to be correct we'd have to be breaking new ground in several areas at once ... seems less probable than an immigrant from Asia (or even Europe). Everything seems to point towards something from genus Homo sharing a close common ancestor with us, the question is ... what, which ancestor, and how far back? H. erectus is a serious possibility but far from the only one we should consider. IMHO, we should not take any cards off the table. None. We simply don't have enough information to support doing so, all we have are belief systems. Filtering what you will look at because if you find it, it won't fit your belief system, is about the surest way I can think of to be wrong. It's dogma, no more, no less. MIB
  21. 2 points
    My wives family were big time mushers. They put on the Priest Lake sled dog race for years. Houndsmen do it differently. Just one hold for all the dogs and a strike platform on top. Plott Hounds are considered best for bear.
  22. 2 points
    Tried a different sort of area last time out, just outside of a small town and beyond the farming belt around it. Camped above a nicely flowing stream, the green patch upper right is a farm field. Had a tolerable view while sipping on an Old Rasputin, watching a 4 point muley buck very warily make its way through the brush below and waiting for darkness to head down canyon to a nice petroglyph panel to offer a bit of tobacco and mojo to the Ancients in exchange for the view. Last time we were here we did the same nighttime hike down and when the wind shifted, there came with it a strong musky animal smell that even i picked up and i can't smell a thing out in this dry climate, uneventful this time, just a nice hike under a gibbous moon til it was obscured by clouds. Camped out on cots till the thunderstorm arrived at 3am, lightening illuminating the valley and distant mountains. i scrambled to get the tent set up and cots stashed, made it in with about 3 minutes to spare before the wall of wind and rain hit. It didn't last long, things quieted down to where we could hear 3 different packs of coyotes howling and yiping to one another along with a pair of great horned owls calling. That activity kept up intermittently til dawn. This area has had the most animal activity we've seen. I've scrambled around the state looking for the spot to dedicate a focused search, a lot of possibilities just need to take a block of time. Bi-pedal Bighorn:
  23. 2 points
    Here's the booted prints next to the barefoot prints for comparison. Just fun to find and wonder who made them, when and why. It's like detective work in many ways.
  24. 1 point
    That's why I think e-DNA is the best approach. It gives us a peripheral advantage that we've never had for determining the creature's existence. It's our best chance for discovery and that's where our focus and energy should be focused. I think there are citizen science programs linked into universities and F&W agencies that would allow the general public to be involved. Need to look into that aspect to be sure though.
  25. 1 point
    Kayak ... there's a better option at lower cost. Look into PackRafts ... Kokopelli Rogue-Lite. https://kokopellipackraft.com/product/rogue-lite/. The weight is around 5.5 pounds compared to the kayak's 20 pounds and it folds / packs smaller. I want one for hike-in fishing and access to islands in lakes for camping. I think it'd strap to an external frame pack very nicely. A parabolic mic is directional. Unless you have a specific direction to target, you're better off with an omni-directional mic. The built in mics on most audio recorders aren't that great so I use aftermarket mics with my small audio recorders. I very much like the Olympus ME-51S. If you want a very small directional mic, I've been playing with the Edutige ETM-008 and it seems to be pretty good. You can get both through Amazon fairly cheap. One recorder that does seem to have decent built in mics is the Tascam DR-05, not to say they can't be improved on, but the margin of improvement is slimmer. So far as recorders, the one I use in my pack while I'm hiking is an older Olympus. The ones I set out when I'm backpacking are Sonys. The Tascams are a bit bulkier and heavier .. mostly use those car camping where bulk and weight don't matter. Each type has strengths and weaknesses. My selections for each use is intended to play on their strengths and avoid their weaknesses. MIB
  26. 1 point
    Great Q and points ( to which I don't have the answer). I have asked in the past this Bark issue. That is, I would bet the person who was second to arrive would not expect to see the tracks covered. Gimlin probably covered them, the first person arrives seeing the tracks AND some covered tracks (2 or 3?) they pull the bark away and have no reason to put it back. Then person 2, 3, 4, and so on arrive. Those people then would not see the tracks covered. It might even been seen as a lie Gimlin tells as some other arriving witness would correctly state, "I didn't see a couple tracks covered" Yet, the reason they might not under that scenario is person #1 already removed them. Gimlin could be 100% honest, person #1 (Loverty, or even some unknown person to us at this time) takes the bark away. Then all that follow would state, "I didn't see or remove any bark" Cue the hardline skeptics here to say, "AaaaaaHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Gimlin is a liar!" We would expect someone could claim the site initially looked like this: 0 0 0 [ X] 0 0 [X] 0 0 0 ^Track ^bark ^bark Then, after they arrive... 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 <---- Just tracks
  27. 1 point
    A round of boxing is 3 min long. When you watch the round, a lot of things happen in just 3 min. I think we do need to consider all Bob and Roger claimed to do post- PGF event and see if they could fit them in. Maybe they could and maybe they couldn't. I'm open to both. I think people can accomplish a lot of things in a short period of time though. It's not like Patterson said, "If we ever see a bigfoot I want to do a stomp test" It would be more like Roger reloading the camera while Bob is doing something else such as mixing and pouring plaster. Then, as Roger walks over to the trackway with a newly loaded camera he starts filming the trackway. Then just seconds later he might say to Gimlin, "Bob claim up and jump off the stump for me. Let's see how deep you go. Wait, OK I'm Ready." That again just takes seconds. That activity alone is just one off the list which doesn't take long. They can do other activity while the plaster dries. Now the distances of travel, that is another thing all togather. We can only go by Gimlin's claim here but that all did occur after the PGF events occurred. Time is not so much an issue on that point but maybe others things are. We do know from Al at the store Gimlin got the boxes from Al at the store so Al can confirm that. It doesn't tell us if Patty is real or fake only that Al or someone said it might rain so, "Hey take these cardboard boxes" Gimlin did not use them but did claim to use some bark early in the AM when the rain came to try to cover the tracks. If there was no cardboard at the site the next day; that jives with the facts since Gimlin did not used the ruined/ wet boxes. Gimlin claimed to cover a couple tracks with bark. I don't know if others claimed to have seen this bark.
  28. 1 point
    What stood out for me in this article: https://www.sciencealert.com/there-s-a-bunch-of-eel-dna-in-loch-ness-raising-questions-about-nessie-s-identity is the fact that soooo much DNA was found that belonged to land mammals. Needless to say, no Nessie: "There was - and this may or may not be a surprise, depending on your feelings about the Loch Ness Monster - absolutely no evidence of any Jurassic-era animal DNA, including plesiosaurs, in any of the samples tested.......We find a large amount of eel DNA. Eels are very plentiful in Loch Ness, with eel DNA found at pretty much every location sampled - there are a lot of them," the researchers wrote on the project's website. "Researchers had earlier suggested that a giant eel might explain some sightings. That idea then lost popularity as theories about extinct reptiles became more common. But there have been ongoing reports of very large eels by a number of witnesses." Specifically, the DNA is from European eels (Anguilla anguilla), which does present another problem. As far as biologists know, these fish don't grow any larger than about 1.5 metres (4 feet, 11 inches). To be consistent with Nessie reports, an eel would have to be quite a bit bigger. The data doesn't reveal the size of the eels shedding their DNA into the loch, but the whole idea is not without precedent. Another strange beast sighted in a highland loch could have been an eel. In 1865, a huge "sea serpent" was reported in a loch in Leurbost, eel-like in appearance - leading to the conclusion that it was, probably, an eel. More research will need to be undertaken to understand how an eel fits in with Monster sightings, if it does at all, but the team's findings revealed more about the loch than just ruling out Nessie candidates." What this really means for us Sasquatch researchers is that soil samples needn't be the ONLY place to search for Sasquatch DNA: "One of the more intriguing findings was the large amount of DNA from land-based species in the Loch system," the researchers wrote. "These included high levels of DNA from humans and a variety of species associated with us, such as dogs, sheep and cattle. We also detected wild species local to the area e.g. deer, badgers, foxes, rabbits, voles and multiple bird species. These findings show eDNA surveys of major waterways may be useful for rapidly surveying the biological diversity at a regional level." There has been a lot of water sampling done everywhere at minimum in the last five years. I think some deeper research needs to be done by folks here into just what F&W and academia is finding for land mammal DNA in their local ponds and lakes. It's something we never really hear about. Just stick with the science and all will be well. https://labs.wsu.edu/edna/documents/2015/05/field-protocol.pdf/
  29. 1 point
    I fully believe there are bodies that have been found, they just get swept away by government agencies whom, for a variety of reasons, feel the need to keep the existence of Sasquatch a joke to the vast majority of the public and even the vast majority of themselves. I'm sure some of those bodies are hidden away in secret government storage areas or laboratories. There almost certainly bones that have been found buried deep in the bowels of the Smithsonian's archives, purposefully not labeled and "lost" so as they never see the light of day. You'd also have to factor in that there simply isn't anyone really out there looking for Bigfoot, alive or dead. I mean, sure, it might seem like Sasquatch is a big deal and super important to discover here on the bigfootforums. But the reality is that most people don't believe they're real. Most of the people that do believe aren't out in the woods looking for them. Most of the people that do venture into the woods looking for them don't have a clue what they're really looking for or how to really look for it (I'd venture to say that almost all the people who go out into the woods looking for Bigfoot do so because they watched a few episodes of Finding Bigfoot and thought it'd be fun to try it themselves). Basically, the number of researchers who are actively out in the forests of North America seriously looking for proof of Sasquatch's existence is so tiny compared to the area they'd need to cover it's harder than finding a needle in a haystack. I'm also willing to bet that at least half those serious researchers have techniques that are far more likely to drive a Sasquatch away than to attract them. I'm guessing that given the obvious intelligence and purported family groups of Bigfoot, they also have some sort of death ritual that involves disposal of the body in some manner. Sasquatch are NOT just any ole animals. They're far closer to people than they are animals. As far as hunting or shooting one goes. There just aren't many people out there trying to do that and the odd hunter than happens to get one in the crosshairs probably can't bring themselves to pull the trigger. As previously mentioned, most hunters are looking for food, hides, or trophies. They're after animals, not giant hairy people. It's real easy to sit in front of a computer screen or around a campfire and boast how you would never pass up the chance to bag yourself a Bigfoot. It's an entirely different thing to be in the moment, starring down the barrel of your gun at something that's "not supposed to exist" and looks far more human than animal. 99.9% of people wouldn't be able to take a shot like that. To expect that you'd find anyone from that 0.1% of the population that could take a deliberate kill shot in a situation like that to actually have the chance to do so... Well, you've got better odds when buying a Powerball ticket. I'm sure there, indeed, has been some hunters to happened upon a Sasquatch and blasted a hurried or panicked shot or two at the big guy. Maybe even hit them, but panicked or excited shots rarely land well enough to bring down a being the size of a Bigfoot. And who's to say they don't have much thicker skin that any known animals? It's entirely possible that a bullet simply wouldn't do as much damage to them as it would to a human. Bottom line is that there are a number of reasons why we "don't have" a body. At least not one known to the general public.
  30. 1 point
    Got hooked on dinosaurs as a kid. They were awesome! That led in due course to reading about anthropology. We had a set of 1939 Colliers Encyclopedia. There was a page that showed reconstructions of the Neanderthal man, the Cro-Magnon man, and ... the Piltdown man ... in the early 50's, the Piltdown man turned out to be a hoax. Somehow, that made it all more interesting to me. As for Bigfoot, I had to wait for the PGF; I was instantly hooked. ... I have never doubted that Patty was real.
  31. 1 point
    He didn't seem to be as well informed as I thought he would be on the Sasquatch subject. He also thinks Patty an th PGF is a hoax which tells me he hasn't done very much research on that aspect. Ah well.......
  32. 1 point
    Ticks are common here, especially in tall grass and bushes. I am a bit paranoid about them. My father picked one up 10-15 years back in Curry County (SW corner of Oregon for those not familiar with the state) and was diagnosed with Lyme disease not long after. He still has residual arthritic symptoms but didn't get it real real bad. Not to be messed with. My GF has a hay field and some acres of wooded grassland. I've gotten a couple working around her place. Our spring theme song is "ticks" by Brad Paisley. The coast range has some mosquitoes in pockets but generally not bad. The Cascades in my area ... Crater Lake and south ... are a mosquito-infested nightmare during the month or so following snow melt-off when the little b*st*rds are hatching in the mud at the end of melting drifts and in the remaining tarns and small marshes. I truly don't know how the PCT thru-hikers survive but I think I know why they hike so fast. There have been a few cases of mosquito-borne disease transmission here, not like the tropics, but non-zero. I generally wear a flannel shirt treated with permethrin, a bug bucket, mesh mittens, and a mesh jacket with a hood pulled up over the bug bucket to keep them away from my ears when I hike the Cascades from roughly early June to mid August depending on the year. MIB
  33. 1 point
    This type of shielding fashion pops up from time to time. I was curious so I bought an official HECS head covering. Bench tested it and threw it away. I can do better with a $5 aluminized mylar poncho. Here is a test for you on this upcoming outing. Drop a lot of money on HECS suits.....nothing with the color green. Buy $5 survival ponchos. Compare HECS group to the cheaper group. Remember to ground yourselves with a heel strap ground. I want to know how this stuff works in a lightning storm. If you want to go the HECS route, a head net will cover an audio recorder / trail cam with material to spare. Ground the fabric. Head covering is about $20. An audio recorder is easier to shield than a trail cam with flash. Both have switching regulated power supplies. They will have variable AC and DC magnetic fields. Ultrasonic noise will be present, more from the trail cam and the emissions are not symmetrical. HECS can do a little shielding on EMF but not ultrasonics. An interesting note on EMF emissions is the low amount that humans emit amongst other human emissions. There are researchers in Europe building detectors to locate living humans buried by avalanches. Their research is promising. Non hunting fashion material is available. "Ex-static conductive fabric" is about $5 per lineal foot in a 64" wide bolt so you can make your own coverings. Polyester fabric with a carbon thread pattern. Be aware that this type of material is sensitive to washing.............maybe 50 low temperature washings. All shielding materials are sensitive to water. Don't forget grounding means. Trouble shooting with a debit card is a bad idea. Further reading: https://lessemf.com/index.html https://lessemf.com/fabric1.html#1209 That little bear in my profile image walked up to me, sniffed, and walked away. I was wearing jeans and a tee shirt..........cotton, the fabric of life. What the hec.
  34. 1 point
    ^^^ In my opinion these Hollywood creations all have the same basic look to them. In other words, they look like they were made in Hollywood. Are they meant to look realistic? To actually fool anyone? To be kid friendly? It is important to consider the intent of the creator. What are they attempting to convey? Patty looks nothing like these slick L.A. movie industry offerings.
  35. 1 point
    If and when a body or bones with viable DNA are sequenced I suspect we will find that it has been sequenced before. I think the glitch happens when it mostly looks human, but parts do not. So the assumption is made that it is contaminated or fragmented human. I do not think a DNA lab will ever make the leap until they have a big chunk of BF flesh to test and verify that they can repeat the test with the same results. But what it is will not be evident, only that the chunk of meat has a lot of similarities to human, chimpanzee, and bonobo. It could be that if it is very close to human, a lab might even call in law enforcement. The skeleton or body has to be examined to define the morphology of the species. That is the tall order but in this case necessary to prove existence. DNA alone will not work.
  36. 1 point
    I can mostly agree, if you get really fresh blood or a good deal of hair with follicles then you could get a full genome. A tall order it seems.
  37. 1 point
    Just an update: I have had several exchanges of emails with the original poster, and he did clarify some things as much as he knew about the film owner and efforts to get it analyzed. He apparently made an assumption I was involved with the analysis, but it was a flawed assumption. I have still not had any direct contact with whomever owns the film in question. The most likely determination is that the film in question is simply a print copy of the ANE documentary, exactly the same as my Copy 14 in my inventory. So it would be equal to Copy 14, which is a good and useful copy, but nothing spectacular. I have no idea who might be doing an analysis for the owner (the number of qualified people in the world to do this properly, you can count on one hand and have a few fingers left over), and don't have much confidence this unknown analyst can do a truly comprehensive appraisal of the film, but the owner is well within his rights to select whomever he wants to do it. But the prospects of this find being something remarkable in the PGF research world are getting less by the day.
  38. 1 point
    MIB has a good point on lack of data available to make a determination of relative size and relationships. Jack Horner, a Canadian Palentologist, basically caused several species of dinosaurs to go extinct. Extinct is not the right word exactly, but he showed the species never existed. www.ted.com/talks/jack_horner_shape_shifting_dinosaurs/transcript?language=en Entertaining video. He wondered why baby dinosaurs were not found more frequently. They should be found more often than mature adults in the same strata because most likely do not achieve adult size. In our search for the origin of BF we are making a lot of assumptions based on very few findings. Relative size of likely candidates are perhaps premature because of lack of specimens. The size and morphology of giganto, homo erectus, etc are all based on very little data. From the mistakes made with the dinosaurs, I would expect similar problems with man kinds ancestors and members of our family tree. There is too little data to have any likelihood of assuming the correct evolution and origins of BF. .Meldrum contends that several species in our more recent human lineage likely have yet to be found. Fossels and ancient bones are very rare.
  39. 1 point
    Nature is remarkable. Evolution and punctuated equilibrium can work wonders in quick (geologic time) order. Species overall size has been enlarged/shrunk countless times. Indeed, we have our own Homo floresiensis as an example. Regarding diet, I've observed gray squirrels and prairie dogs cannibalizing neighbors. A deer species has been found to be a major predator of ground-nesting birds. As MIB states above, best not to limit the possibilities.
  40. 1 point
    Sunday, September 8, 2019 - Any ideas on how this tree got hung up in the bigger tree, with the roots dangling down? I'm open to suggestions. The darker bark behind it is a different tree, if you zoom. Also, 95% sure they're human, because there were boot prints not far away (though I suppose the booted dude could have been studying them, too, since the child prints wete much deeper than the booted prints), but its always kinda thrilling to find barefoot prints. Little 6" prints (rotten parents to let their littles run barefoot in that rocky muddy soil, who wants that mud in your vehicle?). CAN'T WAIT to explore a few months from now for prints on lonely shorelines after some serious cold weather! I think think my whole bigfoot search could be summarized as "things that make you go hmmmm in the woods"!
  41. 1 point
    As I posted in another thread, I have the Scout TK arriving tomorrow. I was going to go with either a Leupold or drop some coin on the Scout II. I went with the TK due to its ability to record images and video. Down the road I may upgrade to a better thermal unit that can record video out to a separate piece of equipment. However, for now I want to keep it simple. We are in the Smokeys a lot at night, and I think that a thermal scope will be worth the expense.
  42. 1 point
    Old Mort: The box shown in the image I received is the store package box for a 50' load in a magazine format, ready to be put into a camera to film. It has a "expiration date" (a sell by date for the store stocking it) Nov. 1969, and an emulsion number 726518670 V , which is of no consequence to analysis of processed film. I'm pretty sure the 7265 part is the film type, because I remember commercial ektachrome as 7255, and eastman color negative stock as 7251 (later 7254). I shot a lot of these last three in film school. There is also a picture of a metal film can such as what Kodak would return the processed 50' roll in to the customer, but no box. As a general impression based on what I know and see in the images sent to me, the ANE can likely holds either a release print of a 30 minute program reel, or maybe the edit master from which release print are printed from. The edit master would be one generation up in finer quality. The 50' roll is not likely anything from Roger, as he is not known to have ever used 50' magazine cameras and film. John Green however, is proven to have used a 50' magazine camera to film McClarin. That's as much as I know right now.
  43. 1 point
    Spent two days on the black river catching Apache trout. Apache Sitgreaves NF. Bighorn came off ridge and grazed right through camp this morn. Currently in Alpine Az, staying at RV park, getting showers and ice and catching up on emails and texts. Update on Smittybuilt RTT. I love the ease and simplicity of taking it down and putting it up. Stayed dry in pouring rain and hail. Don’t worry about lumpy ground or tree roots like with traditional tents. My only complaint is the platform is made out of some white material that bows a bit. We tried to keep sleeping bags in tent when it folded up. The hinge didn’t like that. And will try to pop out of its track. Would prefer if the deck was more rigid and deeper so the bedding could stay in the tent, dry and ready for bed time. It’s well worth 1200 bucks I think. A cabelas alaknak costs similar. And is just fabric and a pole set.It also doesn’t come with a rain fly and you would get wet in bad weather. My son likes the light bar and charging station that came with it. Hang a IPad off the ridge pole and we are watching westerns when the sun goes down and charging phones. These look like rainbow to me. They stock the river every friday.
  44. 1 point
    Headed out to the Deep Creek Mountains along the border between UT and NV. Some 12,000' peaks there, it's a remote range with little human presence. Access via the Pony Express trail, a long dusty washboarded affair. With wild horses: And squatchless salt flats: Up into here: Set up camp with much needed shade. Possible cougar scat in the pinyons behind Rover but no sightings: Scrambled up the peak behind for a looksee, tired old mountain top: Cooked up some grub at dusk and went for a stroll down the "trail." Poorwills and nighthawks overhead, crickets and katydids providing soundtrack. Nothing anomalous throughout the night. Following day we made 1300' of bushwhacked gain up through pinyon/sagebrush and 2 steps up, 1 back rottenrock scree to the various peaks S of camp. Saw jackrabbits and a golden eagle who met us at the summit, outside of indeterminate tracks, no other wildlife. Camp down there somewhere: Intended peak but after 1300' up at 8200' we retreated: Down through a slide/tumble scrapefest that often looked like this: Beautiful area with a little water flowing downstream but maybe still too dry...idk
  45. 1 point
    I think it would be fair to say he is in denial about most truthful aspects of the PGF.
  46. 1 point
    Paul du Chaillu brought the first gorilla carcass out of Africa for science, and he was regarded with derision and disbelief.........that’s right; even a carcass wasn’t enough for many. And it wasn’t against the law to shoot animals that didn’t exist back then. Today it is.
  47. 1 point
    Perhaps one of the best and most informed opinions is someone that is mostly forgotten in intelligent discussion about the P-G film. His name is Robert "Bob" Merle Titmus, who met with both Roger Patterson and Bob Gimlin right after the film was shot (in Canada) and was on the P-G filmsite late October 1967, not only to inspect the trackway that was left behind, but to make castings of the footprints as well. He told me by telephone when I was preparing my Bigfoot At Bluff Creek, "that is a genuine film." Bob was equipped to give a very informed opinion. Having researched the film myself for decades I am 100% confident the P-G film depicts what we have come to know as Bigfoot, not a man in a costume.
  48. 1 point
  49. -1 points
  50. -1 points
    No I just think "being on TV" isn't really anything that sets the bar very high.
This leaderboard is set to New York/GMT-04:00
  • Create New...