Sunday, September 21, 2014

Listen to This Sasquatch Double Howl From LordCryptid


Michigan Bigfoot researcher Jim Sherman has recorded some awesome Bigfoot howls. This most recent clip was actually recorded in 2012 in central Michigan. During the same night and for subsequent years there have been numerous recordings of wood knocks, howls, shrieks, whoops and other strange activity from this location. "This is one set of strange vocals that I have not yet determined a source for," says Sherman.




80 comments:

  1. that ain`t feckin` bigfoot f`cryin`outloud

    ReplyDelete
  2. Joe's mom was howling like that last night. She's a freak

    ReplyDelete
  3. sounds like a thing that is small and possibly a DUCK

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hey,I know that sound! In my absence I was in South America dropping live oxen on the guerrilla forces from 30,000 ft,just before they hit the ground they made the exact same sound but I digress

    ReplyDelete
  5. ^ The guy who gave SS the nickname 'FISH EYED FOOL'.. Way to go Mr Bigfeets aka Bigdaddy!

    BB

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yes sir.
      But I haven't messed with Steven since I said wasn't going to.
      Thanks BB.
      Mike H.

      Delete
  6. Ya know now that I have cleared my mind so to speak this morning,I have also heard a similar sound in Ohio but that turned out to be a certain "Field Reporter's" liver screaming for help

    ReplyDelete
  7. That could not possibly be a bigfoot, because they don't exist.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That stamement would have the same basis in truth as someone stating you have no brain... Of course you have a brain otherwise you wouldn't function, but that doesn't mean you have high intelligence.

      Of course there's Sasquatch otherwise people wouldn't be seeing them, but that doesn't mean the source in question is from two Sasquatch.

      Delete
    2. The scientific community discounts the existence of Bigfoot, as there is no evidence supporting the survival of such a large, prehistoric ape-like creature. The evidence that does exist points more towards a hoax or delusion than to sightings of a genuine creature.[5] In a 1996 USA Today article, Washington State zoologist John Crane said, "There is no such thing as Bigfoot. No data other than material that's clearly been fabricated has ever been presented."[14] In addition to the lack of evidence, scientists cite the fact that Bigfoot is alleged to live in regions unusual for a large, nonhuman primate, i.e., temperate latitudes in the northern hemisphere; all recognized apes are found in the tropics of Africa and Asia.

      Delete
    3. That got smashed the first time around;

      http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/we-dont-know-about-timbergiantbigfoots.html?m=0

      Glad I could help.

      Delete
    4. In other words John Crane has spent next to no time researching this subject at all, but USA today felt it wise to get his opinions. Knowing usa today it figures. Neurologist are not calling me up for advise on brain surgery, nor am I talking to them and giving advise because I know next to nothing about it. Maybe usa today if they do another article might want to call on Dr. Jeff Meldrum, Dr. John Bindernagle, John Myocinski, or a host of other qualified professionals that have a much better clue about the Sasquatch. Give Jane Goodall a ring, she might surprise them.
      Chuck

      Delete
    5. A good day to you JOE.

      Liked reading that note from John W. Jones yesterday and I agree with his assessment on a paramilitary type team with camera and audio production crew as having any kind of chance.
      Chuck

      Delete
    6. Can't agree more!

      Hopefully it'll be the start of more regular comments from him, he's a wealth of insight!

      Delete
    7. No, you don´t have reason. It is a strange creature. The Bigfoot is real creature. It is real because there are a LOT of evidence in a LOT of parts in this world. In America is Bigfoot, in South America is Ucumar (Argentina and Chile). In Australia is Yowie. In Asia is Yeti. But all are the same creature ;)

      Delete
    8. 7 27. I am not up to snuff on the Ucumar, but it sure makes sense. Will have to look in this one more. Thanks.
      Chuck

      Delete
    9. I'm gonna go and do some digging on the Ucumar now! And again... Plenty of giant skeletal remains in Argentina too.

      Delete
    10. Given expert opinion on bigfoot, costume/SFX, genetics...

      Bigfooter response: "they obviously haven't spent enough time researching it."

      Delete
    11. 10 SFX EXPERTS (recognized by their peers and industry) give opinions and analysis of PGF...

      "They obviously didn't spend enough time researching it. Bill Munns is trustworthy."

      99% of the biologists/primatologists/zoologist/anthropologists/geneticist give their opinions on Sasquatch...

      "They obviously haven't spent enough time researching. Dr. Jeffrey Meldrum, Dr. Melba Ketchum, John Mioczynski, and Dr. Grover Krantz are the ones who you should listen to."

      Delete
    12. You cannot counter long standing research with a lazy two second opinion on a source prior to it being stabelized and digitalized... It's not an equivalent.

      When you then consider that the scientists I reference (three out of those four you list l, arguably being some of them) that express open mindedness and enthsusiasm towards this subject, are indeed the very best in their respected fields, we have more means to label them as pioneers. Pioneers are usually considered to be ahead of the field, by the way.

      Delete
    13. You can't accept the fact that unbiased professionals voice an opinion that you dislike.

      "They obviously didn't spend enough time researching it."

      None of those people I listed are "the VERY best in their field," unless you consider bigfooting that field.

      Delete
    14. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    15. Nope! I'm pretty much fine knowing that the likes of Jane Goodall, Ian Redmond, Anna Nikaris, Zhoua Guoxing, Lyn Miles, Jeffrey McNeely, Chris Loether, Colin Groves and none other than George Schaller are very much enthusiastic about this subject (I wonder how many primates have been discovered between all them), not to mention open skeptics that promote the idea that there has to be something to reports like Esteban Sarmiento.

      Go and check out their resume's and tell me your 'unbiased professionals' (more like missinformed, restricted and apprehensive) have any baring on what their collective opinion entails.

      : p

      Delete
    16. All of that means nothing to me, should it? I think you stretch your fantasy a little thin TBH.

      Jane Goodall certainly has the romantic idea of bigfoot but even she scoffs at no trace ever being found.

      You see an interest or enthusiasm as open declarations of personal belief, & it's wrong.

      As it was, Nakaris is not a "believer" either. Provide a first person claim for anything other than genuine skepticism and romantic notions, I'll save you time though, you won't. Not in her only televised appearance on BF (The Definitive Guide) and not in any of her published works.

      That's an interesting time line guy, comeback 2 hours later and not like what you originally posted? Disingenuous fella aren't ya?

      Delete
    17. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    18. "Nothing to you", well they probably should mean something to you considering they consist of some of be very best primatologists and conservationists in the
      world, if you're gonna sound off of course. It helps when you're trying to prevent yourself looking daft. No, I see positivity towards the subject that renders you looking a little bit behind in your dogmatic stance; that there's
      not one shred of legitimacy to this field... You look as backward as the mainstream field who need to catch up with the experts that have exceeded them.


      Well, if you knew all too well Nekaris' stance on the subject, you'd know that she's taken considerable time researching eyewitness testimony that she's concluded is the just tip of the iceberg due to fear of ridicule, she holds major stock in settler's accounts and holds considerable enthusiasm towards tracks and their importance, even stating that there is a new branch of field biology that looks to name new species by the tracks they leave. She's also on Meldrum's RHI editorial board.

      "In early November, 2003, Richard Noll interviewed Dr. Jane Goodall. The full interview is to be included in the DVD of the Willow Creek Bigfoot Symposium.

      In the interview Dr. Goodall explains why she is convinced that bigfoot/sasquatches do exist, and the importance for science and academia to appreciate the best existing evidence and the need to obtain more. She states that a body will not be necessary to prove their existence if there is good enough photographic/video evidence.

      You can download a brief clip of the interview by clicking on the image of her, to the right.

      This .mov clip may take a while to download. If you're not sure whether it's downloading to your computer, then right click the image and select "Save Target
      As ..." from the pop up menu. Then save the .mov file to a folder on your computer, and view the file with Quicktime Movie Player (Download free Quicktime
      player)."

      http://www.bfro.net/news/goodall.asp

      "Scoffs"? Lies... What a poor effort at censorship, I have very little respect for people like that, but I'll just feel a little sorry, you are scraping the barrel and getting an education it seems.

      Also... The best I've had for a counter argument these days is people picking me up on spelling, I noticed a blip in my comment and quicky corrected it. Funny
      you should take the liberty of reacting to that so many hours later yourself, it's not like you can get your arguments to hold weight, that you shouldn't merely try and get the last word in now, is it?

      (Sigh)

      Delete
  8. Sorry boys. I thought you could use a little dose of reality in the little make-believe kingdom you've created.

    Most scientists discount the existence of Bigfoot and consider it to be a combination of folklore, misidentification, and hoax,[4] rather than a living animal, because of the lack of physical evidence and the large numbers of creatures that would be necessary to maintain a breeding population.[5][6]

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Again... That got smashed here;

      http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/we-dont-know-about-timbergiantbigfoots.html?m=0

      I would also suggest these scientists actually look at the mounds of physical evidence there actually is, like the inumerable track castings, and listen to their superiors in relevant fields that account for pioneering attitudes towards the facts regarding this subject.

      I hope you don't use Wikipedia for your school projects.

      Delete
    2. Classic denial by a fool.

      "There's no fossil record of anything fitting the description" of Bigfoot, said Radford. "There's simply nothing there."

      Delete
    3. Classic naivity of a fool.

      For a fossil record of six million years that chimps and gorillas have been on the African continent, we only have a handful of teeth.

      Delete
    4. Furthermore, we have 150 years worth of excavated giant human skeletal remains being documented in the US (burial is culture), outlining a far more intelligent creature with a far more evasive ability to concealing remains from family/social bonds in 70% of the country that's wilderness.

      Delete
    5. How many bigfeet do you need to maintain a population?there aren't that many Siberian tigers but their still hanging on xx

      Delete
    6. why doin't you look it up and tell us you lazy oaf?

      I've seen many specimens of the Siberian tigers. Absolutely zero bigfoots.

      Why is there no rigorous, documented, peer-reviewed evidence for Bigfoot?

      1) it's not a real creature

      2) it's not a real creature

      3) it's not a real creature

      Delete
    7. Quite correct Eva!

      It's simple, most psuedoskeptics are ignorant of the facts and celebrate their own ignorance to attain a sense of community. In sheer naivity of the facts regarding evidence, it's easy to come across so confident, but it only lasts as long as someone can point out these facts to which it then turns into aggresive denial, because they've sounded off.

      Delete
    8. "why doin't you look it up and tell us you lazy oaf?"

      Well that's rich considering you just got smashed with easily attainable info on the Internet.

      "I've seen many specimens of the Siberian tigers. Absolutely zero bigfoots."

      No... But you've been pointed in the direction of footage and reliable archeological studies that have documented giant human remains, haven't you?

      "Why is there no rigorous, documented, peer-reviewed evidence for Bigfoot?"

      Well just take a look at how backward and missinformed your mainstream sources are, maybe that's got something to do with it?

      1) fake creatures aren't seen.

      2) fake creatures don't leave sign.

      3) fake creatures don't have world beating scientists endorsing them.

      ; p

      Delete
    9. EVA R. It use to be that an estimation for North America was 2 to 6 thousand, but since the number of sightings and encounters every year is in the tens of thousands, vast majority go unreported and are held privately, I am quite certain that number is drastically low. Probably hundreds of thousands of them if not over 1 million. It was only 150 years ago when 60 million buffalo roamed the plains so the resources are there and plentiful, especially for a human type so intelligent as they are.
      Chuck

      Delete
    10. It doesn't matter that you've seen Siberian tigers but no bigfoot,bigfoot are more intelligent and very good at keeping out of the way.
      These scientists you speak off,are they the same one's that keep telling me about global warming,sorry i mean climate change? xx

      Delete
    11. And i'm not a lazy oaf 7:19 i've just been hoovering :) xx

      Delete
    12. you're crazy

      It's okay to harbor your little fantasies, but for morons like Joe to excoriate anybody who shows doubt and critical thinking skills is detestable. He obviously has self esteem issues and his bluster does more harm than good to anybody showing a passing interest in the subject.

      Thousands of creatures scattered across the continent without any physical evidence?

      And you have no doubt whatsoever?

      That shows a narrow-mindedness usually only associated with fundamentalist Christians or radical Muslims, and should be avoided.

      Delete
    13. Where's "you cheap punk" guy/girl when you need him/her? xx

      Delete
    14. Considering that every single source of evidence exists short of type specimen, is it healthy to maintain the tunnel vision, denialist stance that there is nothing what so ever to the claims of an unknown primate residing in the wilderness of the US?

      Is the present Bigfoot evidence reliable? Well about as reliable as any falsifiable source that can be presented as evidence in any scientific or judicial arena. There are in fact plenty of facts that denialists choose to ignore, like the pristine professionalism that has transitioned scientific careers into this field, by methods tried and tested to be legitimate and totally reliable. Like the very best primatologists and conservationists repeatedly telling you that there is nothing in the environment of the US that prohibits the existence of an unknown primate, and in fact... It is likely to be there.

      Nothing more fundementalist than people who not only don't understand consistent scientific method, but those that desocrate/interpret the true meaning of skepticism and it's application to denounce tens of thousands who have had impartial and unprovoked experiences that, which in turn have undeniable physical and biological evidence to back up.

      Pseudoskepticism is a fundementalist quasi-religion.

      Delete
    15. What about the enormous impact on the food chain these monsters would have.

      Sorry, no evidence. Althought they do seem to inhabit the exact same areas that bears do, which clears up a lot of the mystery.
      Two apex predators in the exact same niche?
      Another ample opportunity for a specimen (or parts of one) to be recovered, yet there are none.
      We get gator legs.

      Delete
    16. Well we know how much bears can survive on for their size, it's no different. Also... If they've always been there, then what difference would you be aware of? There wouldn't be any effect because the balance has always/is being maintained. Can you account for the underwater edible plant sources? Can you accout for the fish? Can you accout for berries?

      No; one apex predator actually. And you'll come across the occasional gator leg regardless.

      Delete
    17. They would be easily observable then at predictable times and places. That is what science does- it predicts the future. If I mix chemical A + chemical B I am certain it will produce chemical C.
      An apex predator with such an enormous intake of calories would be seen eating berries, during salmon runs, etc. Biologist study these things, and have been doing so for decades, yet I see no papers being published that suggest what you are proposing is even remotely possible.
      The Cascades Carnivore Project is an excellent example of this.
      And instead of relying on a cherry-picked handful of scientists, what about the tens of thousands of others who make no such claims?
      It is the same with members of the forestry service; the claims of the thousands that there is no such creature are dismissed as a massive, secret conspiracy in favor of the handful that support your fantastic belief.
      Humans lie all the time, for any reason. Without hard scientific evidence, preferably a specimen either living or dead, you are doomed to play defense on this one.
      You bear the burden of evidence. And the PGF obviously is not it.
      Imagine if a law were passed to protect the bigfoots; a tax was levied and eminent domain was used to secure private property.
      There is not a court in this country or a twelve member jury that would not have the case for bigfoot laughed out of court in mere moments.
      You're obviously not as clever as you think you are, just like the rest of us.
      If it can be a hoax, and we know the record on that, it has to be dismissed.
      I should think that anyone genuinely interested in proving their existence would be among the first to dismiss evidence that could do more harm to their cause then good.

      Delete
    18. "They would be easily observable then at predictable times and places. That is what science does- it predicts the future. If I mix chemical A + chemical B I am certain it will produce chemical C."

      If that was the case, we would be able to measure the behaviour of nomadic peoples, would we not? Can those methods also account for a creature that may well have to gage its opportunistic way of gathering food on it's requirement to evade people? No. Science does not predict the future, it analyses data to come to a conclusion based on what's plausible by it... In this case you cannot predict the behaviour of something that so sporadically leaves sign of itself in such unpredictably understood areas of residence. You have to be able to sufficiently track an animal and be aware of its residing habitat before you can make any clear estimations.

      "An apex predator with such an enormous intake of calories would be seen eating berries, during salmon runs, etc."

      Ok... Are you aware of how many reported sightings there are of Sasquatch doing exactly that under those exact circumstances? Do you know how many documented instances there are of people going missing around such activity and areas? Again... You need to frequent yourself with the wider data, though I'm very happy to help you in that direction.

      "Biologist study these things, and have been doing so for decades, yet I see no papers being published that suggest what you are proposing is even remotely possible."

      You'll also find some of the very best biologists studying this subject for decades, but as was drawn to your attention a couple of comments ago, you need a collective agknowledgement of the data by mainstream science for that to happen. John Bindenagle regularly get's his research agknowledged by his peers, but at the same frequency get's declined his requests to present his research to the wider scientific community because of the sensitive nature of what's being implied. The mainstream consensus is that the research doesn't exist without a body... And it will not listen until such a time. That doesn't mean that scientific research doesn't exist that points to an unknown primate leaving it. I've said it a million and one times, you have consistent scientific methods that have transitioned relevant fields, to be impartially applied here that cannot be prejudiced against because it's been proven to work. A lack of peer review does not prevent evidence from coming into being, because you might merely not have developed research to a stage of peer review, and that approach is unscientific and against all possibilities of future subjects of research in various fields of study having the equal possibility of ending up being peer reviewed. Research simply doesn't start at peer review. I'd like to remind you also that editors for journals have to be careful to select reviewers who have sufficient subject matter expertise to do justice to the manuscript. Therefore, highly technical papers or papers from niche subject areas may take longer to review, because it may take editors some time to locate appropriate reviewers.

      Delete
    19. "The Cascades Carnivore Project is an excellent example of this.
      And instead of relying on a cherry-picked handful of scientists, what about the tens of thousands of others who make no such claims?"

      Let's compare the Cascade Carnivore Study to the size of the PNW. Then, let's compare the number of months that study had gone on for, to that of the evidence accumulation for Sasquatch during the same length of time. It's an old argument and there have been trail cams erected all over the country for many years... Bigfoot ain't a wolverine, a wolf, a grizzly, a lynx... It's a type of human that has evaded people and in particular; technology for this long. Why? Because it is a a big pink flag in a sea of green... It is an intrusion in a home where they know the slightest bit of detail to stay one step ahead of all other apex predators, and us to survive... Not to mention that they could well be as normadic as was suggested previously.

      It also can be said that forward thinking ideas that challenge various paradigms are spawned by pioneers. You merely have to look through history to find evidence of that being the case... When you then consider that the scientists I reference that express open mindedness and enthsusiasm for this subject, are indeed the very best in their respected fields, more means to label these as pioneers. Pioneers are usually considered to be ahead of the field, you know.

      Delete
    20. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    21. "Humans lie all the time, for any reason. Without hard scientific evidence, preferably a specimen either living or dead, you are doomed to play defense on this one."

      Well that simply sounds like a safety net defence mechanism right there. When you have people from walks of life like geologists, lawyers, teachers, police officers, historians, wildlife biologists, primatologists, anthropologists, doctors, psychiatrists, business owners, forensic specialists, forestry commissioners reporting the exact same thing from unprovoked and impartial circumstances you have an issue to deal with called precessional consistency. More so when you put ocassions of mutiple eyewitness accounts where physical and biological evidence had been accumilated from the same site. When there is steady level of reports that span cultures, then mediums, then physical and biological evidence, then the reports by reliable professional people hold weight. The truth is that sheer frequency of professional people who are accustomed to decades worth of experience in wildlife and the wilderness account for much of the opinion and accounts to which from the basis of this field. Police officers for example, are trained in the art of observation and attention to detail.

      "You bear the burden of evidence. And the PGF obviously is not it."

      Nobody has ever suggested that the PGF proves the existence of Sasquatch, because the subject in that footage could have easily have died out with all the rest of its species. But the relevance of that footage is the necessary accumulation of all sources required to point towards proof. Burden of proof used by psuedoskeptics is a way out of testing evidence presented, which in science must be. It's a way out of testing something that inevitably has no counter argument or an exchange that does not conclude to a preferenced idea. This is in fact evidence of denial and limited argument.

      Delete
    22. "Imagine if a law were passed to protect the bigfoots; a tax was levied and eminent domain was used to secure private property. There is not a court in this country or a twelve member jury that would not have the case for bigfoot laughed out of court in mere moments."

      True for the current state of mainstream attitude towards this subject, but considering there is every source of evidence for this subject short of type specimen, there is also not a twelve member jury that would look at all the data available at the current state of research and deem that there is absolutely nothing to professional background eyewitness reports.

      "You're obviously not as clever as you think you are, just like the rest of us."

      I've never claimed to be cleverer than you, anyone actually, I just have a better understanding of the wider data and facts. But that's ok... I'm happy to help of course.

      "If it can be a hoax, and we know the record on that, it has to be dismissed."

      No... The evidence is as reliable as any falsifiable source that can be presented as evidence in any scientific or judicial arena. Even your precious peer review process has been shown to be manipulated and falsifiable, even lying to the wider scientific community, yet this stands as an irrefutable means of verification in your eyes.

      "I should think that anyone genuinely interested in proving their existence would be among the first to dismiss evidence that could do more harm to their cause then good."

      And I do... You have no idea what I'm skeptical about. But tried and tested, plain as day physical and biological evidence that cannot be part of any possible hoaxed senario does not represent anything that can possibly harm this field's legitimacy, and rhetorically maintaining it's not there because you have a default position that cannot be supported, isn't to the detriment of those sources... And is audacious in the extreme to suggest so.

      Delete
    23. I figured you coe back on much later.

      'But tried and tested, plain as day physical and biological evidence that cannot be part of any possible hoaxed senario'

      what are yoiu talking about?

      what evidence is there that could not have been created? Tracks?

      Please. Biological evidence please.

      This country was explored by people looking for furs. Yet they never shot or caught one?
      I find that ridiculous.

      Delete
    24. Yes, tracks... When they're found 50 miles into wilderness areas, it's a game changer.

      Is hair not biological evidence?

      http://www.texlaresearch.com/unknown-chimp-bear.jpg

      Also... There are in fact at least reports of Sasquatch being shot;

      http://www.bigfootlunchclub.com/2011/05/humans-shoot-and-kill-bigfoot-on.html?m=1

      http://www.pabigfootsociety.com/historical-bigfoot-articles.html

      ... Not to mention there are settlar's diaries and imumerable early newspaper reports of wildmen that you can access for yourself on the Internet.

      Delete
    25. I find the tracks less than compelling. Your good doctor travels the country selling the, does he not?

      More often than not the back stories are suspect.

      I have seen the tracks of a small, bounding mammal presented as bigfoot tracks to an audience of oohing and aahing enthusiasts.

      Again, if it could be a false positive, throw it out.

      You're only encouraging people to hoax.

      The exponential growth of digital photography has yet to unveil anything other than the standard blobsquatch.

      Stories are not enough. It's a good story, but a story nonetheless.



      Delete
    26. Well tracks is what wildlife biologists base much of their research on, when they're identified in having species traits that's transcend States and decades... More than compelling. There's also a lot of people who'd love to buy some replicas from a presentation, me for one.

      A definite percentage of of stories are false, but not all can be... It is in fact a bigger leap of faith the maintain the sheer number of reports are lies, hoaxes or missidentification that it is to realize there's at least something going on in relation to the professional backing and physical/biological evidence.

      Some people missidentify tracks or get hoaxed from time to time... I wonder the frequency of missidentification that occurs in identifying other animals that are not so much in the spotlight?

      You don't see wildlife biologists throwing out one of their key methods for an example of inaccurate practice, do you?

      No... I'm looking at consistent scientific method that has served the fields of wildlife biology all too well for decades. You are in fact contributing to censoring evidence when the plain and simple truth is, if it exists it's gonna leave sign.

      These creatures don't hang around to say cheese, and when you're confronted with something this big that you didn't know was there, you're more concerned with getting out a smoithly as possible. And precisely... How do you know a high percentage of these blobs aren't what they're being suggested they are?

      If we only had stories, you'd have a shout... But you're rhetorics don't cut it when it comes to the truth, bro.

      Delete
  9. J Randi for first gay President and me for first husband !

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I knew you were a dedicated Randi follower but wow just wow.

      Delete
  10. Last weekend we stayed in Grand Rapids Mi for the wedding of my oldest nephew. My Uncle Tom and Aunt Janet were there who live in Isabella County, Beal City to be exact. My Uncle Tom asked me if I still hunted. Told him I have not since leaving Michigan in 1983 but I love venison. They have three boys I was close to growing up, even had a wild UFO experience with them in the 70s. Anyway he told me his sons and grandsons take about 10 dear a year in Isabella county NE of Beal City. Said the land was quite swampy. Me being me I advised them about the findings Jim Sherman was getting. Jim does not let out what area of Isabella County, but I think it is in this area. They looked dumfounded at me when I told of the going ons, but listened intently and I think they believed me. Told them to have the boys keep and eye and ear out for strangness and check the ground for tracks. If they find a 14 to 20 inch human type track, well the big guys are still in the area. It makes sense also since this area is loaded with deer and any resource they need.
    Chuck

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Interesting. I love listening to these ocassions where you openly approach people on the subject, awesome to read their responses which are largely very enthusiastic too!

      Delete
  11. Interesting. For me Big Foot is real and it is a monkey-human :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I wonder if HOMO ERECTUS,
      Has 48 based pairs (chromosome) or 46 as in modern human, HSS. ???
      Im willing to bet! On this blog
      No one know's or even cares.
      Which would be strange considering sasquatch are supposed to be able to produce
      Viable offspring with HSS???

      Delete
    2. No one knows.

      http://www.sci-news.com/othersciences/anthropology/science-neanderthal-genome-fourth-lineage-01624.html

      Delete
    3. Blah blah blah, made up fact
      blah blah blah, hopeless speculation
      blah blah blah wild bunkum based on conjecture and assumption

      Delete
  12. Why is Lard Cryptid double howling?

    ReplyDelete