Jump to content

Leaderboard

  1. Huntster

    Huntster

    Sésquac


    • Points

      23

    • Content Count

      21,206


  2. Madison5716

    Madison5716

    Passionate Member


    • Points

      11

    • Content Count

      749


  3. Incorrigible1

    Incorrigible1

    Steering Committee


    • Points

      9

    • Content Count

      11,960


  4. SWWASAS

    SWWASAS

    Sésquac


    • Points

      9

    • Content Count

      5,665



Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 05/24/2020 in all areas

  1. 4 points
    Found another scratched up tree (5.17.20). All in all, it was a nice drive above the Charmed Lake, our main research site.
  2. 4 points
    OMG, I effing hate autocorrect. Gigantism. Big ass creatures. Fixed it. 😂 Thank you for making me laugh @hiflier and @BlackRockBigfoot ❤
  3. 2 points
    Yea there was a lot of high strangeness going on the other night...some I'm just not even comfortable mentioning to close friends I've made who are familiar with the subject of Bigfoot..it seems supernatural occurrences pick up when the Bigfoot activity is more frequent than normal ... My channel has had a surge in subscribers but I never ask for likes or subscribers, refuse any ads on my channel and have refused any donations and go fund me fundraiser requests.. Some of the cameras and equipment I was blessed with on the beginning from a member here, I've paid most that equipment forward to others in my area needing assistance..just wanted to throw that out there cause I try to keep it about sharing information and no monitary gain..
  4. 2 points
    There's a difference between belief / unbelief and debunking hoaxes. Do not think for one instant that my belief, and <knowledge>, of bigfoot automatically means I have to accept the lies as truth just to support existence. This is science. What you promote looks like religion and group-think. If you think I don't spend time in the field, you have a lot to learn. MIB
  5. 2 points
    They are not listed with an open season, and so you may not hunt them. If you do, you have taken that animal out of season, which is a violation, and possibly a felony. Obviously so.
  6. 2 points
    May 17, 2020 - While out scouting some forest roads, I had a bear run across the road about 5 car lengths ahead of me. I tried getting a video, but wasn't successful, you cant see much. It was pretty cool, though! This is the hill it ran up. I was driving slowly because this was the drop off on the other side. On May 14th, I got to go target shooting with some friends. That was fun!
  7. 2 points
    I was picturing a Bigfoot with a .44 Smith and Wesson sayin “Go ahead punk.....make my day!”
  8. 2 points
    https://bigfootforums.com/topic/9985-erickson-photo-of-a-squatch-behind-a-stump/
  9. 2 points
    Actually, before I asked I ran a search of the forum using the word "discovery" within thread titles only. There weren't many appropriate threads, and only a couple of short ones even addressed my questions. I don't want to derail this thread with further advances into this subject, but my mind is turning towards either resurrecting one of those earlier threads or starting a new one. Your answers deserve wide, regular, and recurring thought and discussion. However, in short, the preservation of large parcels of public lands for a non-political hominin by a government made up of homo sapiens in the current political environment brings up so many potential political problems that the understanding of why government wants these creatures to remain undiscovered becomes more than obvious.
  10. 1 point
    While it's pretty clear that people will propose and demand absolutely anything, an ideology of basic human rights extended to the entire animal kingdom means no more meat eating. If such lunacy actually occurs, it won't be in my lifetime, and I doubt my grandson will see it. Just like with other higher mammals, people will claim the authority to dictate terms for them. That's what we have environmental zealots for.
  11. 1 point
    I don’t think it matters if they are categorized as ape or human. The legal protections of humans is being pushed towards other species. Apes, Whales, etc. It’s just a matter of time. In fact one day it may include all species. That seems to be the trend. Not that I agree with it. If Sasquatch cannot speak for itself, petition government, trade in a nomadic lifestyle for 40 acres and a plow? Then it’s going to be treated differently than native Americans. More like an animal. Because it’s incapable of communicating with or meeting the government in the “middle”. There will be no buffalo robes on the ground passing around the peace pipe or putting X’s on parchment.... IMHO. Regardless they will be deemed a endangered species, due to their low population density. And that will change things in and of itself. A giant North American bipedal primate living in the modern age. You think Gorilla walks are popular now?
  12. 1 point
    I need to grab a copy of this book apparently. You've sold me.
  13. 1 point
    It's not my real name. It's my real texture.
  14. 1 point
    Good point. Probably so. Before actually reading The Nature of the Beast I was led astray by how others described Sykes bear results.......the now famous 40,000 year old polar bear in the Himalayas. I often asked, what is science going to do now with that bear running around where it shouldn't be? Well, in the book, Sykes indicated that there are people out now looking for it.
  15. 1 point
    I have thoroughly enjoyed the back and forth here, gents. Thank you!
  16. 1 point
    WSA mentioned the documentary "The Lost Kingdom of the Yeti" and I did watch it. Not bad. e-DNA testing of suspected Yeti snow prints in Bhutan by a team of eight French and British scientists. Result? Bear, but I'll bet that documentary cost as much to produce as "Finding Bigfoot" and "Expedition: Bigfoot" put together. It backed up Sykes' "Yeti" studies on the bear side of things. What I came away with was a conundrum. Did the doc make it to the public because the result was 'bear'? Had it been the Yeti would the doc have made it out to the masses? By the same token, if Finding Bigfoot accidentally FOUND bigfoot would we know about it? I doubt it. So would any solid proof go away and Cliff, Matt, Bobo and Renea see pressure the likes of which they've never known? Just how serious is this idea that proof will not be allowed for the reasons (and more?) that we've covered so far?
  17. 1 point
    Of all the reports (gathered privately, and which both government and the environmental industry cannot refute with their own data) involving hunters, the vast majority of hunters did not shoot the sasquatch. And of those who did, they did so thinking the sasquatch was another animal. Thus, "discovery" in and of itself will help prevent misidentification among hunters. Yeah, trying to get officials to admit anything in writing was guaranteed to put you in an unofficial record. Your name is among all those emails between officials that will never see the light of day. And that is why I won't challenge officials directly. It will achieve nothing but get me on an unofficial s**t list. Meldrum is the remaining scientific face, and he has been made the jester within the industry by opponents and the media. Mayor may be a scientist, but she took the sasquatch entertainment route. Her credibility is gone within science. I know nothing of Disotell, and have no desire to learn anything about him. Sykes is an interesting figure, but I think he's the flash in the pan. I think he correctly determined the North American phenomenon is a circus, and his Asian efforts actually produced some results, but those results actually just lead to more questions. I admit that I could be wrong about the effort here, but that would be because there are things happening that remain confidential. But he will produce nothing more unless Joe Sixpack delivers the goods.
  18. 1 point
    "Not a recognized species".........yeah, that's some tell-all government-speak if I ever heard any. As a retired government official, let me translate: "Yeah, they're out there, but we aren't saying what they are." There's another check toward confirming that they're human. This is a huge aspect, and I find it interesting that you used Kentucky in your question. Let me explain: East of the Rocky Mountains, public lands set aside as wildlife habitat tends to be fewer and much smaller in size than similar lands within and west of the Rockies, and especially in Alaska, where over half of all national park lands in terms of acreage is, not to mention national forests, national monuments, national wildlife refuges, etc, ad nauseam. Thus, any lands to be set aside east of the Rockies for either a new found, wild human species or new found North American ape is going to be economically and legally painful, to say the least. It might very well impact private property ownership rights in a large degree. Not as much in the West and Alaska, where huge areas are already set aside, and indeed, these are the very areas where sasquatch activity is already documented as the highest. As far as hunting goes, it hasn't been a factor in sasquatch decline, anyway, at least as far as government can show. If it was, we'd have a dead sasquatch or two turned in to fish and game authorities every few years. But I can see one huge change upon discovery; The sudden shouldering in of the environmental industry who, up to today, has been even more quiet about this phenomenon than government, if that was even possible. Little Bo Peep will get loud, boisterous, and assertive mere moments after "discovery" as if they've been leading the charge all along in "saving the sasquatch". "Donate here!" Will be inserted in all environmental websites, and that money will be used to pay lawyers to save Patty's progeny from the evil Huntster and his big, bad 338 WinMag Alaskan Special. Completely silent today, moments after discovery the environmental industry will charge in to claim its rightful authority to dictate policy to you, me, government, and all future humanity.
  19. 1 point
    News editors consider sasquatchery similar to small town mayors; it's entertainment. The stuff to build a festival on to make a few bucks. That could be occurring right now covertly, and probably is. I've commented several times on the "disappearance" of a few formally active participants on this forum, and I'm quite confident they are still active in sasquatchery. They just went dark.
  20. 1 point
    Well, night would make it easier to see the luminol. More contrast. Better recordability on a camera. A tarp is not always too easy to lug in, but I suppose, doable. Still though, more chances to "contaminate" the scene with a tarp. And don't call me Shirley.
  21. 1 point
    I don't think there is an aggressive government coverup going on like there might/would be regarding extraterrestrial visitors. They simply discourage recognition internally, and that sets the tone among personnel. With regard to the public, their loving patsies (media) take care of that for them with a similar, condescending attitude, which discourages people from even openly reporting encounters. Remember John Greene's 2006 interview with Gerry Matthews: http://www.bigfootproject.org/interviews/john_green.html
  22. 1 point
    ^^^ He made a mistake doing the math When I plug in the numbers, my calculator says: 55.31 / 48.87 = 1.131 He's saying 1.31. Then he uses 1.31 to make his next calculation, the body proportions of the subject... which of course is wrong. Always check the math!
  23. 1 point
    Dunno, but there was a lot of reference to his incredible strength, viciousness, and willingness to fight. That entire chapter of Sykes book clearly shows that he was impressed. His thought of an unknown line of Africans leaving the Dark Continent over 100,000 years ago, migrating east, and sparsely populating wild areas where the competition with us was lower makes all the sense in the world. That would have given small populations of them at least two or three Beringia openings to migrate to the New World in small numbers.
  24. 1 point
    In The Nature of the Beast Sykes starts off with a chapter on "the last Neanderthal". It's a fictional imagination of the death of the last Neandeerthal man. He explains that this reality has captures his imagination, he always wanted to write a book on the subject, and this new found interest in extant hominins us his expression of that last Neanderthal. I believe we are living during the era of the final decline and extinction of sasquatches. This decline has been ongoing, but the point of no return is imminent. I'm guessing that the species has perhaps a century or three left worldwide. I also believe government knows this and is simply letting it happen. It's similar to the new attitude toward forest fires; let it burn and focus on saving structures if possible. Let nature run its course. Of course, since these creatures might be able to successfully mate with us, their full extinction can be averted, but the Zana story shows that her hybrid children are so close to being like everybody else that they're just considered strange people, which we have aplenty anyway. Government might have already stored their dna, anyway. I've heard conspiracy theories of UFO crafts and extraterrestrial carcasses and live prisoners at facilities at Area 51 and Wright-Patterson AFB since the early 1970's, so who knows? When you're talking about government, nothing can be discounted. The discovery of the gorilla in 1856, combined with the Darwin publications of 1859 and 1871 of On the Origin of Species and The Descent of Man, pretty much deflated the balloon you're thinking of. The Scopes Monkey Trials culminated the revolution started by Darwin with the transfer of power government acquired from religion in 1925; primary education. From that point forward, some 95 years now, there has been no looking back. In essence, religion is going extinct faster than sasquatches are. An extant primitive human species will be a flash in the religious pan amounting to nothing.
  25. 1 point
    This is the video I was thinking of. I have not looked at this carefully enough to see it matches the picture you posted.
  26. 1 point
    As we see in this area of SW WA, the State owns a lot of the forest to the West of the Gifford Pinchot national forest. . State forest was what was logged and displaced my bigfoot group in my research area. Logging swept through the area and very little was not clearcut. Several very popular hiking, biking, and horse riding trails were completely cleared of timber. No attempts were made to create forested corridors along the trails. Because of the location away from the Seattle area environmental interests, it largely went unnoticed without protest. It was basically a demonstration of state greed. The only place that was not clear cut was a 10 acre patch of forest that was designated Special Forest Management Area. That just happened to be the epicenter of all bigfoot activity in my research area. I asked the state about the area and never received an answer. I can well imagine that if the state knew of the presence of BF in that section of forest, they did not want it known and prevent the logging. If the 10 acre plot was an attempt to protect the BF residents, it was not enough. When the clear cutting ended, the plot was completely surrounded by clear cut and movement in and out of the 10 acre plot had no cover. Within days of the last logging, all signs of BF activity ended. Before that I was finding footprints about every other month and having contact with the family group. I have no idea where they went. I suspect East into the Gifford Pinchot but have no evidence of that. Certainly there is far less logging in the National Forest.
  27. 1 point
    One thing and a couple of events have suggested to me that if the existence of BF is known, and they become a trophy kill for some segment of our society, BF will not simply let it quietly happen. They are near human enough that they will retaliate. No one armed or not would be safe in the woods or anyplace BF are close to. I wonder if some of the missing hunters are missing because they took a shot at BF. The government may even know how BF reacts, and decided that not admitting existence is the best course to take.
  28. 1 point
    I think the two criteria that were important to me are no glow and the distance a picture or video can be captured called the detection range. The FOV angle can be important as well so be sure you know whether it is a narrow or wide focus. My preference is Stealth Cam, and I have the 4K and G45NG models, but I wouldn't hesitate to get a Browning Dark Ops HD. Reconyx is the trailcam of professionals but they are so expensive I didn't see the value for the money spent. As far as preserving the pictures that are taken so they are not stolen or destroyed, I think you have four options: 1) Use a Trailcam metal box with a thick cable 2) Put it 11'+ on a tree or 3) Camouflage it 4) Get a wireless model if it will be in an area with cell service I think options #2 and #4 are the best but I didn't have climbing gear to get up in a tree and there is no cell service where I go. I've never had an issue with bears, although some do, so didn't consider it in my decision. I chose to camo mine because i thought a sasquatch would more likely see the metal box and cable before it saw a camo'd trailcam. As far as camo'ing it, I think you need to identify the exact tree you will put it on and then match the hatch. If it is going on an oak tree, get some oak bark from a downed tree. This website does a pretty good job of explaining various aspects of a trailcam and also offers good reviews. Once you know which models you are interested in, you can get a good deal if you are patient. I got great deals on my StealthCams at Dicks Sporting Goods. https://www.trailcampro.com/pages/trail-camera-tests Here is a picture of a Stealth 4K I camo'd that is sitting next to a chainsaw bear at home. Tomorrow, I'm doing an overnight and it's getting put up in my favorite location. When it is positioned up on a tree with braches of pine needles near it, it is very difficult to see. If I wasn't concerned with night-time videos, I could have put bark over the IR emitters and really gotten it near impossible to see. It's also important to camo the strap that goes around the tree otherwise it will giveaway the location. You can add velcro strips to the strap then velcro on pieces of bark to it.
  29. 1 point
    Formal discovery would be a absolute disaster on so many levels. I've been out in the woods a lot lately and in order to get to some of my destinations I have to backpack part of the way on recognized trails. Lots of families out with their very young kids. Does anyone really think that mom is going to skip along the trail with kiddies in tow if she knew she had now stepped into the area where King Kong really lives? The family ventures into the forest would all but disappear. They would be replaced by the knuckleheads who gotta to git me one of them-thar squatches. The forest would sound like your local shooting range. Then, of course, the government would step in and have to control vast swaths of land in every respect. Forget life as you knew it as it relates to recreating in the forest. It would no longer exist. That, and the unending predation of sasquatches that would commence, are the reasons I want things to stay exactly the way they are. The formal recognition of sasquatches will spell their ultimate demise.
  30. 1 point
    Good thread and good discussion, gentlemen. I have nothing to add right now, but will follow with interest.
  31. 1 point
    The uproar in North America over the discovery of the gorilla in the mid 1850's, and then Charles Darwin publishing On the Origin of Species in 1859 and The Descent of Man in 1871, was in itself like a bombshell. Another existing human species would be almost as Earth shattering as extraterrestrial visitors.
  32. 1 point
    Leaving the rest of your post for later, I'd like to address this, because it's the most significant part of your response. First, it's almost certain to be a hominin. The foot structure, bipedal posture, chattering language, and (most importantly) its ability to mate with us (Zana) makes it a done deal. However, if there is a mid-tarsal joint and sagital crest of any size, we're talking about enough structural variance to assign a different species within the Homo genus. But even if it is a novel North American ape, you are still talking about an endangered species designation and rewrite of the natural history record that is no small potatoes. African apes are big politics, there and internationally. A North American bipedal ape would be bigger than that. Much bigger.
  33. 1 point
    Okay, I'll start this off by stating something that a lot of members have chimed in on. And that is does the government know about this creature. Some of you are of the opinion that government doesn't care one way or the other whether or not Bigfoot exists. Some, including me, have said it doesn't seem possible that government wouldn't know about the existence of the creature. Considering the surveillance level of outfits like the Border Patrol and even more mundane groups like the ones that monitor migration patterns of things like ungulates, along with tagging bears and other animals like mountain lions and even wolves, it would seem difficult to think that Sasquatch is an unknown. Agencies like USF&W, with their forensics lab in Ashland, Oregon (of all places!), and the Forestry Service, both state and federal, plus the BLM and the logging industry, coupled with various state and local agencies with their respective departments of natural resources, one could hardly hold onto the opinion that Sasquatch is an unknown quantity. And that all plays into "government" knowing but not caring? I think the government actually cares very much, but then, that leads right into why Bigfoot existence hasn't been made public. Does it exist, or does it not? Well, there are knowers here that claim that the creature is VERY real. Thousands of reports also suggest that the creature is real. Then what gives? And that returns the subject to what the ramifications would be should the public become aware that the Bigfoot is real.
  34. 1 point
    I've been thinking about this a lot lately. Even 6 months ago I was in the, we need to prove it camp. Now...I don't know what that does for anyone...the elusive Sasquatch or Humanity. I just want to be a knower because I saw one and it was clear enough for me not to second guess myself....obviously from a safe position. Once/if that ever happens...doubt you guys will see much more of me around here.
  35. 1 point
    Please think hard about this question before answering. Take your time: What do you think "discovery" will achieve for both sasquatches and humanity, and will any good outweigh any bad?
  36. 1 point
    The potential of an unknown line of sub-Saharan Africans migrating into Asia over 100,000 years ago, as suggested by Sykes after his DNA work on Zana's progeny, is particularly interesting. Her physical description matches Patty from the PG film quite well.
  37. 1 point
    I have had some of the most expensive early on (Reconyx) but have changed tact to the cheaper but effective ones, the Apeman series; you can get good deals on ebay or other platforms with them. If ordering direct from China you can score big but that is slow and chancey I'd say. I would rather buy local and get fast shipping even if I don't get them wholesale. They have effective trigger speed (you pay hundreds extra for .5 secs or less trigger speed) but not overwhelming, excellent video, noglow, time lapse if you want it and burst pics+video options together. They have worked better for me than an expensive reconyx model in dayIight and night. I have had them deployed for about six to nine months with no malfunctions, and even dropped one or two at home or in the field and they hold up well and are waterproofed rather well. They make a good home security cam too. Great battery life with recommended lithium energizers even in the cold and in an active area. They have a mounting swivel mechanism you can screw into trees which is a little wonky and you need to be careful with tightening them or they flop around or belting onto tree trunks. Re: BF pics not to date yet; with an older set of reconyx without bear boxes I had a bear twist and try to chew into one, at least I think it was a hairy bear forepaw.
  38. 1 point
    Northwind, whatever you get I suggest that you do not relay on the camera to camouflage itself. Figure out some sort of natural covering material, mount it high, and hope it is not noticed by both humans, who likely would steal it, or BF to avoid. I an not at all sure that it is the IR that gives away the game camera in daylight operations. It could just be the strange box strapped to a tree that does not belong there. But the IR flash likely is the giveaway during the dark hours. Bigtreewalker has a photo sequence that shows what I think is a BF noticing a game camera during the daylight. He has not posted it because the BF is so far away that you cannot be sure what it is. But its behavior does not look human. Once it sees the camera it goes into the classic get behind trees and peek at the camera routine. A human would not have done that but would have marched right up to the camera and messed with it. But the fact that the BF saw the camera from that far away, demonstrates to me that they are wary of anything out of place in the woods. With all the game cameras deployed, something must be giving them away to BF who avoids them Most are not camouflaged, which is probably the biggest factor. As I have mentioned before, my back yard is wooded. If someone hung a game camera there, I would notice it immediately just because of it being out of place.
  39. 1 point
    Natfoot I would not say all. Since I have said that star wars fellow that is hairy and this to me would be the best match to what I saw. Beside I did see this little fellow who was about 5' tall and pretty heavy set for being so small. Which to me look like it could lift a nice size heavy 12" to 16" dia log that I would say be 10 ' feet long well over it's head and toss it. Sure do spend time a lot of your time on me. I really do not mind . Why would I be better suited looking for answers elsewhere when I can find answer here. I have just as much right to be here as you do . Why would you suggest that I did not see a Bigfoot? How would you know and how could you prove it? I have shown proof of the things that I have found that suggest that I have encountered a Bigfoot. So of those things have been lost on this very Forum since it was BF 1.0. How many times has this forum been moved from server to server. Since 2000 I have encountered the ridicule by some of or most of the members here on this very forum. But I have stuck around and have waivered. If you want to call me out then go ahead and do it on the forum. I do not have a problem with it. I know the truth and the truth is with me. Like I said I still have not found what I saw on the internet and the closes that I can think of is the book cover to the face of Enoch. A lot good people have left this forum and to me I have always wondered why. Why is there not a creature on a slab. It is not like they have not hunted for one. Yet, where is that body. Here we have a poll with suggestions of what we think it might be . But all that people can do is maybe guess. And come up with ideas of our past. All I said that on this poll there is nothing that matches so I suggested maybe one answer. Fine no one liked that answer and one suggested I take it to the paranormal so I did. Again I have not waivered from what I have encountered. Again I am talking about this on an open forum. When I came out with my encounter for the first time in public it was in a church. To that means a lot about what I am saying. I am not sure about your beliefs but for me it meant a lot. As you can see I am not coming out and attacking you. But you are very watch full at what I am saying . Now I see you as one wanting to kick me off this forum. Did I wrong you in some way?
  40. 1 point
    Good question. Few if any solid examples that I've seen around here or the web. I have a Browning BTX-3 Spec Ops that's older now. picked it up for about $140 at the time and my decision came after quite a bit of research. There's a lot of good choices out there with lots of features which makes it difficult to choose which one is best for the price. The Browning model I chose has a bunch of things going for it: Images or video of course, but it also has audio in real time so when displaying videos one can hear whatever is on the capture. It has the common feature of individual of burst images, black LEDS which limit what animals see, and the nice feature of having an on-board display so one doesn't need an extra card reader or have to wait to connect to another device to see what's on the SD card. I run a 32G card in the slot and power it with 4 lithium batteries which are best for low temperatures and long life. It has a fairly good field-of-view and fast capture although its response time when running videos at night is slower than I would like. Night videos are limited to ten seconds but it has fast recovery for shooting the next one. All in all I thought it was a nice complete package for the money with the no-glow LED's being at the top of the list of what I was looking for. But like I said, there are a lot of fine models out there and if you look around you can probably get something at a pretty reasonable price. I've been trying to see what my State's Game Wardens and F&W use but haven't made much of an effort. I do know that the cameras do not have a camo look to them, more of a solid dark, charcoal gray color. Mine's kind of a camo combination of greens, grays, and browns. Thinking of changing that to something more solid and darker. I think it would work better for situations where one hides the cam in shade as opposed to exposed in sunny locations..
  41. 1 point
    I had some unusual pictures with my old one. When I research into it all the BF pictures seem to originate from behind. Whether they can see IR or are observant enough to figure it out I don't know. I just bought a new Apeman H70. It is still IR though. I could afford a more expensive one but I have installed it on public land so there is a risk of it being stolen or damaged. I see researchers are now using multiple cameras and rather than trying to cover a lot of area they are pointing them at each other to see what is manipulating them.
  42. 1 point
    Interesting to see 'hominid' leading the pack. That's the way that I have been leaning over the past few years. The fossil record is a finicky sort of thing. My gut tells me that, if and when found, it will be something that currently does not appear in the record as opposed to a variation of an already discovered hominid. Again, that's just my intuition speaking...if I was called upon to defend that opinion I couldn't tell you why other than none of the currently known hominids seem to possess the right blend of intelligence. Clever enough to systematically avoid detection but not a handy tool user. The one thing that always bothers me is the vastly different accounts that appear. This one looks like an ape, this one looks like a human with more hair and this one looks like an extra from Quest For Fire. I know that some think that there are regional variations, but some of the descriptions seem to paint a picture of completely different species of creatures. I know that is completely improbable, but it would be something if there were not one but a couple of relic hominid population scattered across the land that explained the differing descriptions...
  43. 1 point
    What I find interesting and may have bearing on the question of BF is that both horses and camels originated on North America and migrated to Eurasia. There was a huge camel whose fossils have been found very near the artic circle in Canada that apparently was very adapted to the cold arctic. The last native NA horse disappeared from the fossil record only 8000 to 10,000 years ago only to be reintroduced back into NA in the 1600s by the Spanish. Could it be that BF had unknown origins in the Americas? There are certainly monkeys in South America who came from someplace and that could have evolved. It just seems to me that the origin and ancestral record of BF is so hard to imagine that it might be even stranger than we have imagined.
  44. 1 point
    I’m going to need goat limb proportions please!
  45. 1 point
    And for the same reason a chicken uses to cross a road. Why do mountain goats leave their habitat to frolick in towns? For the same reason chickens cross roads.......... https://www.matsugov.us/news/mountain-goat-takes-a-rest-downtown-palme (I added the video so that those who suspect that it was Bob in a goat suit could analyze it properly for the next half century.........)
  46. 1 point
    We're dealing with a linear ratio, so even if the subject was actually shorter than 87", the ratio I obtained would be the same regardless of height. For instance, if the height of the subject was actually only 80% of the height estimate I used, the upper leg length would likewise be decreased to 80% of the value I used, and the ratio of the two values would remain the same. Basically, we've multiplied the numerator and denominator by the same constant, which cancels and doesn't affect the value of the ratio. (For the record, I disagree with the "short Patty" height estimates, but that's outside the scope of my paper.) Regarding the arm length (and ratios including the arm length): While the arm length of the subject is outside the range of human proportions, the total arm length can be altered by a prosthetic worn over the hand. Whether that can be done convincingly is another question that's been debated ad nauseum. The motivation for zeroing in on the upper leg length is specifically because it allowed me to dispense with that can of worms entirely--no prosthetic can make your upper leg longer. You can't make that claim about any other limb segment, except for the upper arm, for which I couldn't find suitable corresponding human data. Hence the "unlike previously considered proportions" line in my conclusion.
  47. 1 point
    I think either science has missed the BF line of ancestors altogether or Gigantopithecus was misidentified at the onset. That very thing has happened very often, and gets more likely when all we have that defines that species is jaw and teeth fragments. Whatever their lineage, BF has a line of ancestors likely going back to someplace in common with man since both are presently bipedal. Speaking of that I had a thought this morning that made me laugh. . It would seem that modern humans have devolved. We went from a farming agrarian society with supermarkets shelves filled with plenty in a matter of two months to a hunter gatherer society searching our environment for simple things like meat, flour, sugar, and paper to wipe our ass. That sure was quick.
  48. 1 point
    My take on the trail cam photo is a jack rabbit or coyote running by and away from the cam. You can see the paw and shape of the hind leg. Trail cams are good at taking blurry pics in low light conditions.
  49. 1 point
    Your painting skeptics with an awfully broad stroke there Norse. 😎 If you want to make great claims such as the PGF portraying a real BF then expect the entire body of work to be scrutinized. It’s nothing new, it happens in all walks of life. All the hand waiving in the world and claims of skeptics not producing a suit does not make the complications with the timeline go away. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it yet again, Patty being real or a hoax, I don’t feel the timeline as presented fits. I don’t attack the timeline to disprove Patty, I attack the timeline because I don’t feel it fits. I will not be at all surprised if Patty is somehow proven to be real and we also discover she was filmed a week earlier than currently claimed.
  50. 1 point
    I guarantee you that they don't train X ray technicians with human test subjects. They send the students to hospitals, and they learn actual hands-on X raying on women with trauma, Cancer, other problems, and women in need of Mammograms. Exposing women to radiation is not right, Regardless of rules or no rules. You act as if rules against irradiating human beings are an obstacle to be over come in the name of Bigfoot. They already have to get mammograms regularly, and are exposed to radiation, now you want to ask them if they'll agree to a few more frames for the sake of a Bigfoot costume experiment? I'm frankly disgusted with this idea.
This leaderboard is set to New York/GMT-04:00
×
×
  • Create New...