Sightings Section

[Huntster]

17 hours ago, 7.62 said:

Recently there was a case where a father and son were arrested for shooting black bears in hibernation . I can't remember the state .

 

The arrest wasn't in Alaska. That is perfectly legal here.

[Franco]

17 hours ago, 7.62 said:

Are you suggesting that bears prey on bigfoot for food?

 

 

Recently there was a case where a father and son were arrested for shooting black bears in hibernation . I can't remember the state .

I not suggesting bears hint bf. I was just stating that if something is sleeping on the ground. They are exposed. 

Not a good survival tactic. 

[Huntster]

Gorillas nest on the ground. Both lowland and mountain gorillas. 

 

Nesting is a common feature of primates, including humans. Your Sealy mattress is a nest.

[Incorrigible1]

3 hours ago, NatFoot said:

He has his opinion. He thinks they are all liars. He thinks my grandmother and great grandfather are liars.

 

I take that a bit personally.

 

Doesn't matter though. Carry on all of you liars.

Hmm, I looked twice, couldn't find anyone using that term. Putting words in poster's mouths? Not cool. Deserving of another down vote.

 

Edited June 2, 2019 by Incorrigible1

[NatFoot]

1 hour ago, Incorrigible1 said:

Hmm, I looked twice, couldn't find anyone using that term. Putting words in poster's mouths? Not cool. Deserving of another down vote.

 

 

Look further, brother.

 

His late night posts make his position clear.

[norseman]

On 5/31/2019 at 11:57 PM, Patterson-Gimlin said:

I respect their opinion. Not there.

Didn't see what they saw.

 

So,this is not proven. Sightings are not new. Been reported for countless years. 

 

The mythical creatures remain just that.  

 

Who reports them is of no significance. 

 

The only thing that matters is real proof. There is none.

 

Yes, no proof as of yet. But you consider the PGF compellling yes?

 

The logical conclusion is that if Patty is real? Then others should be seeing the same creature that they caught in the film. And they do. 

 

I find some stories compelling enough, along with my own experience to strap on my boots and go look with a rifle for proof.

 

Proof is not going to spontaneously appear, unless some logging truck gets lucky, it takes a community out looking, reading reports, crunching data and willing to collect a type specimen if necessary.

 

 

 

 

[hiflier]

Community is right, Norse. If there has been any luck for someone finding a dead one or skeleton this past Spring but that is also an important endeavor. And late winter/ early Spring has the best chance so maybe in 2020? Speaking of which I hope your health is coming along. An experienced hunter on horseback is a valuable thing   

[Patterson-Gimlin]

6 hours ago, norseman said:

 

Yes, no proof as of yet. But you consider the PGF compellling yes?

 

The logical conclusion is that if Patty is real? Then others should be seeing the same creature that they caught in the film. And they do. 

 

I find some stories compelling enough, along with my own experience to strap on my boots and go look with a rifle for proof.

 

Proof is not going to spontaneously appear, unless some logging truck gets lucky, it takes a community out looking, reading reports, crunching data and willing to collect a type specimen if necessary.

 

 

 

 

I am very impressed with the Patterson film subject 

I agree the subject is worth further study. 

I just don't think there is  anything to shoot and document.

I do think it is a good reason to hike and other outdoor activities to be enjoyed. 

 

Chasing mythical creatures or real ones at least it is outside 

Edited June 3, 2019 by Patterson-Gimlin

[norseman]

2 hours ago, Patterson-Gimlin said:

I am very impressed with the Patterson film subject 

I agree the subject is worth further study. 

I just don't think there is  anything to shoot and document.

I do think it is a good reason to hike and other outdoor activities to be enjoyed. 

 

Chasing mythical creatures or real ones at least it is outside 

 

Well, if there is nothing to document then the subject is not worth further study in my book. Other than some anthropological study on the human condition. I do not 100 percent believe that to be true of course. But it has been a long time since I saw anything compelling.

 

But your right. Any excuse to get modern people outdoors is a good thing.  And there are plenty of things more weird in the woods than cryptid hunters.....like ecosexuals. 

 

[Catmandoo]

14 minutes ago, norseman said:

like ecosexuals. 

 Do you mean  arbor-sexuals?   Watch out for the splinters.   Don't get rubbed the wrong way!

 

Entries were merged. ( not monkeying around )

12 hours ago, Huntster said:

Gorillas nest on the ground. Both lowland and mountain gorillas. 

 

Nesting is a common feature of primates, including humans. Your Sealy mattress is a nest.

 

 Any one have info on the 'rock apes' of Vietnam and nest activity?

Edited June 3, 2019 by Catmandoo
more text

[9-dot]

I know this is a sightings thread, but there has been a fair bit of talk regarding DNA - and I don't follow the DNA observations.  I will add some of own ideas regarding DNA with the hope that discussion will enlighten me.

I want to counterbalance somewhat the negative attitudes on this forum toward the single Sasquatch DNA study with which I am most familiar.

I have difficulty understanding the averse stance (I would like to be able to say counter arguments – but I have read none) to the Melba S. Ketchum et al. 2012 paper Novel North American Hominins, Next Generation Sequencing of Three Whole Genomes and Associated Studies  – even among the intelligent, articulate knowers of Sasquatch that deserve my respect on this forum.  I am shocked by the promulgation of untruths regarding facts contained in the study and having to do with Ketchum’s qualifications and the methodology used in the study.  I get the impression that Ketchum opponents have only read some headlines or perhaps have only read apostate comments, which they then regurgitate.

I encourage anyone that wishes to familiarize themselves with the current status regarding Sasquatch DNA study to just read the paper.  Or for a simplified summary look to Scott Carpenter’s website.  Finally Christopher Noel long ago took a position with which I agree, and he stated that position more eloquently than I would likely be able to.

My disclaimer:  I do not know Melba Ketchum.  I am just a retired scientist, with advanced degrees in paleobiology, that is of the opinion that proof of the existence of an as yet unaccepted hominin is in our hands.  (See the links below)

Link to the entire Ketchum et al. Sasquatch DNA paper (available on line for many years with, amazingly, no paywall):
http://sasquatchgenomeproject.org/sasquatch_genome_project_002.htm
At this link one can also view in entirety:
The first round of reviews by reviewers for the journal Nature (with replies)
The second round of reviews by reviewers for the journal Nature (with replies)
The Ketchum appeal letter to the executive board of Nature
Peer reviews from the journal JAMEZ (with replies)
Email from the journal PLOS.
Reading the Ketchum paper peer reviews triggered the memory of peer review torture to which I was subjected many times in an earlier part of my life (now thankfully far in my past).

For Scott Carpenter’s summary of the Ketchum paper with description of the papers acceptance, and subsequent rejection, for publication here is a link:
http://bf-field-journal.blogspot.com/
 

And if one would like to read what I feel is a brief defense of the Ketchum paper try Christopher Noel’s note:
https://cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/the-ketchum-dna-study-one-year-later/

 

[hiflier]

One of the main points I was always intrigued by was the double-blind study. That's the way it should have been, and was, done. People had issues with her belief system interfereing with her summary and things she said afterwards but I never saw it as a detriment to the stronger scientific aspects of doing a double blind study. Of course I caught hell for my opinions but really didn't care and so haven't changed my stance or focus on the 12 independent-lab study and who those key players were along with their credentials. In the end, because of my layman's knowledge of that kind of science, I relied on arguing whether or not Dr. Ketchum's INTENT was to deceive the public and found no evidence that she purposely went about engineering some calculated program of deception.

 

The usual detractors may show up here however, and I expect them too. Would be surprised if no one did.

Edited June 4, 2019 by hiflier

[norseman]

1 hour ago, 9-dot said:

I know this is a sightings thread, but there has been a fair bit of talk regarding DNA - and I don't follow the DNA observations.  I will add some of own ideas regarding DNA with the hope that discussion will enlighten me.

I want to counterbalance somewhat the negative attitudes on this forum toward the single Sasquatch DNA study with which I am most familiar.

I have difficulty understanding the averse stance (I would like to be able to say counter arguments – but I have read none) to the Melba S. Ketchum et al. 2012 paper Novel North American Hominins, Next Generation Sequencing of Three Whole Genomes and Associated Studies  – even among the intelligent, articulate knowers of Sasquatch that deserve my respect on this forum.  I am shocked by the promulgation of untruths regarding facts contained in the study and having to do with Ketchum’s qualifications and the methodology used in the study.  I get the impression that Ketchum opponents have only read some headlines or perhaps have only read apostate comments, which they then regurgitate.

I encourage anyone that wishes to familiarize themselves with the current status regarding Sasquatch DNA study to just read the paper.  Or for a simplified summary look to Scott Carpenter’s website.  Finally Christopher Noel long ago took a position with which I agree, and he stated that position more eloquently than I would likely be able to.

My disclaimer:  I do not know Melba Ketchum.  I am just a retired scientist, with advanced degrees in paleobiology, that is of the opinion that proof of the existence of an as yet unaccepted hominin is in our hands.  (See the links below)

Link to the entire Ketchum et al. Sasquatch DNA paper (available on line for many years with, amazingly, no paywall):
http://sasquatchgenomeproject.org/sasquatch_genome_project_002.htm
At this link one can also view in entirety:
The first round of reviews by reviewers for the journal Nature (with replies)
The second round of reviews by reviewers for the journal Nature (with replies)
The Ketchum appeal letter to the executive board of Nature
Peer reviews from the journal JAMEZ (with replies)
Email from the journal PLOS.
Reading the Ketchum paper peer reviews triggered the memory of peer review torture to which I was subjected many times in an earlier part of my life (now thankfully far in my past).

For Scott Carpenter’s summary of the Ketchum paper with description of the papers acceptance, and subsequent rejection, for publication here is a link:
http://bf-field-journal.blogspot.com/
 

And if one would like to read what I feel is a brief defense of the Ketchum paper try Christopher Noel’s note:
https://cryptomundo.com/bigfoot-report/the-ketchum-dna-study-one-year-later/

 

 

I really hate that I have to go to these guys to debunk Ketchum....but here it is. Never mind the fact that Matilda was just a Chewbacca mask. And her DNA findings were part man part animal(s) essentially manbearpig from South Park. Which is biologically an impossibility. Ketchum has made us the laughing stock of the scientific community once again.

 

https://skepticalinquirer.org/newsletter/the_ketchum_project_what_to_believe_about_bigfoot_dna_science/?/sb/show/the_ketchum_project_what_to_believe_about_bigfoot_dna_science

[hiflier]

Sharon Hill wrote that with an entire slant to how she presented it. You may thing she is being objective but she is not. Her closing statement says it all"

 

"The legend will live on in the hearts of those who believe."

 

Someone who thinks the creature is real would write a completely different paper that Sharon Hill's. Period. Her quote above says that she doesn't So I'm not the leas bit surprised at how and why she wrote what she wrote. You know as well as I and everyone else that media is no friend to Bigfoot or those who think it's a real creature. Ms. Hill has NEVER written anything positive about the subject but only sought opportunities to slam it and anyone involved in the field.  Her job it to make sure Sasquatch remains a myth and more an emotional/psychological construct that anything in the way of being a real animal. Fake, myth, legend, belief. Don't you ever get tired of that crap? I mean I know you do like everyone else but to have that kind of a skeptic sway you and then bring her here to sway others? Seriously? She's only a mouthpiece at best.  

 

"The legend will live on in the hearts of those who believe."

[norseman]

10 minutes ago, hiflier said:

Sharon Hill wrote that with an entire slant to how she presented it. You may thing she is being objective but she is not. Her closing statement says it all"

 

"The legend will live on in the hearts of those who believe."

 

Someone who thinks the creature is real would write a completely different paper that Sharon Hill's. Period. Her quote above says that she doesn't So I'm not the leas bit surprised at how and why she wrote what she wrote. You know as well as I and everyone else that media is no friend to Bigfoot or those who think it's a real creature. Ms. Hill has NEVER written anything positive about the subject but only sought opportunities to slam it and anyone involved in the field.  Her job it to make sure Sasquatch remains a myth and more an emotional/psychological construct that anything in the way of being a real animal. Fake, myth, legend, belief. Don't you ever get tired of that crap? I mean I know you do like everyone else but to have that kind of a skeptic sway you and then bring her here to sway others? Seriously? She's only a mouthpiece at best.  

 

"The legend will live on in the hearts of those who believe."

 

 Like her or not? She brings up valid points. Ketchum’s paper was never published in a peer review journal. Ketchum’s website does not allow for a forum for rebuttal. Ketchum has this strange theory to explain the European halotype in her DNA sequence from 13000 years ago, when it’s most likely just an artifact of collection contamination from a researcher of European ancestory. The list goes on and on.....

 

And even more damning is that I can keep listing people other than Mrs. Hill throwing serious shade to the paper. And more importantly? Has any official government body come out and added validation to this monumental discovery? No. Even people like Meldrum supported Sykes over Ketchum and distances themselves from the whole affair. That’s how BAD it is!