Bigfooters Meet Up In The Big Sky Area To Compare Notes
The inaugural Big Sky Bigfoot Conference took place recently in Hot Springs, Montana. It is just further proof that the bigfoot bug is spreading, as conferences keep popping up everywhere, with new ones showing up each year. In case you missed the event, the Flathead Beacon published a great article describing the conference.
he emcee for the day is Ed Brown, a podcast and YouTube host who interviews big names from the Bigfoot world on a regular basis. He warms up the crowd asking who has had an experience, and a couple dozen hands go up in response, some more timidly than others.
The audience is made up of a wide selection of people, from older, hardened rancher-types to college students to parents and children to the occasional dog wandering through.
When he finally takes the stage, the first thing I notice about Kentucky Bigfoot researcher Michael Cook is his drawl; when he says Bigfoot can be identified by its awful smell, it sounds like “smay-yul.” He’s been featured on the History Channel’s show, “MonsterQuest,” as well as the National Geographic Channel’s “Bigfoot: The New Evidence.”
He begins by asking any hungover audience members who partied the night before during the conference’s evening of live music to raise their hands. Fewer admit to being hungover than to having seen Bigfoot.
Cook then describes his first experience with a Bigfoot in the backwoods, when he skipped school 15 years ago as a teenager because “the fishing was good.”
A 7-to-8-foot creature covered in hair presented itself, and Cook said he stared it in the eyes, a moment in time that has consumed him ever since. He started the Kentucky Sasquatch Research Team, and his organization has since investigated 342 sightings.
Cook is an affable country boy, wearing a laidback plaid shirt, ball cap, and sunglasses on top of his head. His presentation is less about arguing for Bigfoot’s existence and more about how he goes about his investigations; once I walked into this hotel, I entered a place where the existence of a large, bipedal, manlike creature is never in doubt.
For the entire article, click here.
Totally fresh!!
ReplyDeletewhars tham bigfoots ats cawz webe aheerin tham critters hootin and hollerin in da boosh fer yeers
DeleteI tripped and fell down the stairs and my nutts got stuffed in your mouth....
DeleteComparing turds more like it.
ReplyDeleteMust be fun comparing notes. Hey Jimmy did you see Bigfoot the other night? Nah didn't see it. Me too just checking. What about a month ago? Nah didn't see it again. Me too just checking. Excuse me can I have everyone's attention. Has anybody here actually seen Bigfoot. Oh ok then, not one person. This is awkward, has anyone seen the PGF? Thank f uck for that, I was starting to think that Bigfoot wasn't real.
Delete... And just to make sure their common sense doesn't lack, they remind themselves of the three whole databases of sightings from people who have most certainly seen them.
Deletepoop like turds need to do it next to a tree to mark where U have been for U SAFETY
Delete2;22
DeleteIrrelevant...not evidence that is verifiable...therefore unscientific.
You might as well have ten databases. What the hell, why not fifty databases? Not one of the reports in your databases can be verified. Not a single one. They are by nature, anecdotal. And while some are "investigated", it is not feasible to check every one. Ive never seen a Sasquatch, but with very little effort, I could submit a report to the BFRO that I promise you would be taken seriously. In fact, since I am an illustrator and sculptor with years of experience with anatomy, both zoological and otherwise, I could " document" some very convincing footprints. I can think of a few easy ways to create the illusion of flexible, expanding soft tissue and toe leverage. You wouldn't know the difference. Grover Krantz himself published a fake track that passed his secret criteria. My point is this: why would you consider anecdotes from sources you cannot verify as legitimate? If my proposed report and track evidence would pass muster, what makes it any different than any other report? I live in an area where there have been reports in the past, and there are individuals who would take the time to investigate. They are uncritical and credulous. And you would never know any better.
DeleteGo and have a listen to Sasquatch chronicles that'll answer your questions
DeleteLife is too short to listen to Sasquatch Chronicles.
DeleteMaybe Sasquatch Chronic-lies
DeleteI like Sasquatch chronicles
DeleteYeah Sasquatch chronicles is the best
Delete^ Sasquatch Chronic-lies and half truths.
Delete"You might as well have ten databases. What the hell, why not fifty databases? Not one of the reports in your databases can be verified."
Delete... Well, considering that we have these database of reports from every credible pillar in society that have had nothing to gain but potentially lost integrity, and considering we have whole cultures that for thousands of years have acknowledged such creatures at their core... You could say we have "50 databases" worth. Can you "promise it would be taken seriously"? I'm not so sure, I mean... Who would want to go through the process of having it investigated and be interviewed, a BFRO researcher coming to meet you and all, for literally no notoriety? And before you say there is anything of the sort attached to the people who now have reported such things, what are the names of those who have? Are police officers lying as well?? It gets into pretty desperate territory akin to a conspiracy theory if you think everyone is lying, not a good look from someone seemingly trying their hardest to be an "all knowing, witty and clever sceptic".
Pray tell... How could being an "illustrator and sculptor with years of experience with anatomy, both zoological and otherwise", help you in forging forensic species traits? The last time I checked, there are only a select few on the planet that have knowledge of human primate AND non-human primate dermatoglyphics, does this place you in that bracket of people? You see, this is the difference... We don't just have track impressions, we have the forensically verified species traits within them that suggest much, much more... These being recognised in samples found States apart and decades apart. You can't fake forensic sign.
By this very source, not to mention other sources verified by impartial professionals consistent with scientific methods that have worked for decades, we can deduce that those three whole databases of anecdotes that transition thousands of years of native culture indeed have reliable physical evidence in support, and we can ditch the cynicism for the suggestion of consorted effort at investigating the mystery.
I do however agree that some reports are uncritical and credulous... I in fact invest very little faith in the BFRO, their methods and their top brass.
To answer your question about my experience with anatomy both sculpting and illustrating, it is very relevant when it comes to recreating accurate life restorations. You can see my work at a few museums across the country, as I work for a studio that that has supplied life models for decades. Are you suggesting forensic scientists can't be fooled? That they are infallible? They are human beings. People with exhaustive training and impeccable credentials make mistakes, as do people in every profession. And suggesting police officers are honest by virtue of their profession is demonstrably false. There are many, many instances of lying police officers. Also, police are as prone to misidentifying as any other human being. The point I am trying to make here, is that there is no reason to accept every single report at face value.
DeleteYour sculpting and illustrating sounds fascinating, I must say that sounds really cool.
DeleteOk... To hoax convincing biological dermatoglyphics, one would have to have a knowledge of both human primate and non-human primate dermals and there are really not that many people on the planet that qualified. They then would have to have a lottery win's chance of faking the same biological idea that exceeds decades and States, and THEN fool multiple forensic experts. And this is it, forensic sign simply is not falsifiable. You will be very hard pressed to find a single example of where this has been the case; especially when it comes to a long line of forensic experts all coming to the same conclusion on a matter;
http://woodape.org/index.php/about-bigfoot/articles/90-anatomy-and-dermatoglyphics-of-three-sasquatch-footprints
Oh, and police officers can quite easily lie but let's be honest, they're relied upon in any other area they may be involved in and are trained in the observation of detail under stressful circumstances.
I agree one cannot accept every single report at face value... But you won't find an enthusiast that does.
It is interesting work. Putting skin texture on a 40ft Trex is a chore though! Regarding dermals, I agree that recreating them is beyond the capability of most people who would be inclined to hoax. We know that some of the lateral detail that has been interpreted as friction ridges on casts, is an artifact of the casting process that occurs under certain soil conditions. Meldrum agrees with this. Also, at least one track was faked using a walnut shell. That one got past Krantz. Honestly, my only point is that great scrutiny is called for when evaluating Bigfoot evidence. Personally, I think the valid reports in the data bases are quite small, and significant number of tracks are faked. Are all of them false? I am not confident that they are, only that they merit scrutiny.
DeleteHello sir, apologies for the late reply, the time zone difference can be a pain in maintaining enjoyable exchanges on this forum. I have some information that you may find interesting regarding dermatoglyphics.
DeleteOne of the forensic experts I am referring to, is Jimmy Chulcutt. I believe the casting process that has allegedly imitated biological dermals were by Matt Crowley. Contrary to popular awareness, Jimmy Chilcutt is very adamant that the prints he endorses to have sincere dermals are genuine (though the actual prints are different they still have the same texture and ridge flow pattern, like a humans however twice the size). Chilcutt stated that even Crowley (who's far more enthusiastic than what "sceptics" would prefer) has stated that even he feels that Walla Walla casts are genuine (25mins in the link below).
http://www.skeptic.com/podcasts/monstertalk/10/02/03/
Basically, artificial desiccation has it's own uniform style that does not match any one school of alleged Sasquatch traits, whilst the only way to mimic dermals is by Crowleys' method under laboratory methods, which the average Joe attempting to hoax wouldn't be aware of or have access to. On the 36mins mark of the link above, the casting tile that Crowley sent Jimmy Chilcutt was covered in artificial ridge artefacts from the pouring process. The three casts in question that Chilcutt examined didn't have this... This is because when you are walking barefoot on the forest floor, the foot comes in contact with both fallen leaves and the soil in making an impression. Therefore, these artefacts would be present in consistency right across the different soil areas of the foot fall and they're not. The delta ridges on prints change directions over 45 degrees; they converge and deviate. This is a major indicator that the dermals are biological and as Chulcutt states, these do not appear on any of the artefacts.
http://bigfootforums.com/index.php/topic/36334-suit-possibly-key-to-final-hoax-proof/page-5
... in link directly above, half way down the page, you will see a comparison of casting artefacts and biological dermals. My main emphasis of dermal ridges not even compared to Crowley's artificial casts, are on the morphology of the three Elk Wallow track casts, which show the greatest detail, especially in terms of the pattern of dermal ridges that were observed in the actual impressions pre-casting, and that has been preserved in parts of the plaster casts afterwards.
Thanks for the chat, and let me know what you think of that information and keep up the good work with your sculpting, I find it fascinating and only some of the most cleverest & talented people I am aware of are successful at this.
I heard Rick Dyer is going to be back in the spotlight
ReplyDelete"You know, I've spent 40 years looking. And I didn't find it. I guess that's got to say something."- Rene Dahinden
ReplyDeleteYet Renee contributed to one of the very best track casting libraries on the planet and endorsed to PGF to the end.
Delete"that's got to say something."... Yeah, extremely rare creatures.