Friday, February 19, 2016

The Teddy Roosevelt Bigfoot Story

Legend vs. Legend. American Myth meets American President. One of the most famous bigfoot tales of all time is the Teddy Roosevelt story. A story about a time when Teddy Roosevelt and his team encountered a dangerous creature in the wild that fit the description of a bigfoot. Is the story true, or is it just a tall tale passed down over the years? Well, that's where things need to be straightened out. None of that actually happened. What did happen was Roosevelt wrote about another guy who told him a story about an encounter he had. See how things get changed over time?

There are quite a few odd myths surrounding Teddy Roosevelt and Bigfoot. One story is that Roosevelt killed Bigfoot during one of his hunting expeditions. Another says Roosevelt once had a face-to-face encounter with the creature, and some versions say he had to fight for his life.

If any of these things actually happened, there is no evidence. Roosevelt never saw a Bigfoot, never tracked one and never shot one. But he is responsible for one of the more interesting Bigfoot stories ever told, especially back in the pre-1950s era.

It’s tough to imagine Barack Obama or George W. Bush discussing Bigfoot, at least publicly. But Teddy Roosevelt may have been more qualified than most presidents to weigh in on the big, hairy guy. Roosevelt was known as the conservation president, and he dearly loved all things outdoors. He was a naturalist, a hunter and a student of zoology from a young age.

It really shouldn’t be surprising that such a man would entertain thoughts of a rare species of North American Ape living somewhere out there in the woods. He’d likely heard of such stories from Native Americans. Remember, back when Roosevelt was a young man the western states still had a lot of mystery about them.

Did Theodore Roosevelt believe in Bigfoot? Might he have had an encounter that he never revealed to anyone? At the very least he told a great story, but to understand the full weight of it, it’s important to understand a little bit about Roosevelt himself.

To read the full article of what actually happened, click here.


  1. Replies
    1. AKs fer all fer Obama outlaws tham fer US

    2. whut yous asayin caws tham wurds aint makin no sence no sir


    Sir, the SOHA-2 emergency evacuation plan is now read for your review. Upon your approval the practice drills will begin immediately. Thank you.

    1. I once thought I'd found one of Dr J's portals, but it was just an interdimensional vagina after all.

  3. If Iktomi is gone this place is nothing.

    1. Yeah, where would we be without zealots trying to pass off human remains and hoaxing accidents as evidence of bigfoot?

      Credible. That's where.

    2. Did you ever substantiate your ideas? No wonder you're a proper little cry baby. For someone who accuses people of being zealots, you sure do put a fanatical effort in boo-hoo-ing.

      : p

    3. Oh look, more projection.

      I've been waiting for you to work out for yourself why everyone but you knows that's a human skull and not bigfoot. Because it's the only way you'll learn. But you continue to be a disappointment. Adn after I've repeatedly given you a huge hint, too.

    4. Dismissing something because it doesn’t fit your expectations of something whose existence you don’t even think is credible, isn't very good logic... It isn't very clever. So please... As you've been asked before, please demonstrate how "Bigfoot" is not human.

      Stop crying about it, grow up, be responsible for your illogical face falls.

    5. Once AGAIN, have you SEEN the Patterson Gimlin footage? Do you have any idea what you're looking at there?

    6. Yes... I'm looking at a subject that has a human face when turned to the camera, human hands, human feet and is bipedal, just like a human. A very large, ugly human with hominid features and collective proportions outside of any known modern human... But a human none the less.

      relating to or characteristic of humankind.
      "the human body"
      synonyms: anthropoid
      "the survival of the human race"

      Now... If you want my attention, demonstrate to me how Patty is not human, crying's not gonna help you.

    7. ^ propositions men in park toilets

    8. I've been trying to avoid writing all this, hoping you'd figure things out on your own, but you're simply too obstinate in your ignorance and I'm tired of hearing the same crap from you ad nauseam. This might take multiple posts.

      Sorry, kid, but you're wrong there. That thing ain't human. It's something else. See if you can work out what.

      Admittedly the detail in the Patterson Gimlin film is limited, but that's not a human face. Not quite. Look under the nose. Look to each side. See if you can figure out what I'm getting at before you reply.

      There's no real detail on the hands, but they aren't diagnostic here. The feet, however, are also not human. Not quite. You can barely make it out in the film, but it's much clearer in the Patterson casts. Look at the heel. Again, try to figure out why that's important.

      Now here's the kicker, which you haven't noticed but which I gave you a hint about a while back: look at the neck. Do you see how the cervical vertebrae slope forward to meet the head? Do you see how they do not recurve upwards? They do in humans. Feel the back of your own neck to check. Even more important, look at how the head and neck move in relation to the shoulders. You can see it more clearly in the Hoffman Footage even with what little footage is there. Put succinctly, there's no "bounce" in either creature's head like you would expect in a human. This, along with the lack of a recurve in the neck, is a clear indicator that neither subject possesses the ligament that humans have connecting their neck vertebra to their skull. Both creatures are relying solely on muscles. This is important and also relates to their feet. Can you work out why?

      I could go on, but this is more than enough to go on for now.

      Continued below.

    9. Now consider the Humbolt Basin skull you keep dredging up. You keep going on about the nuchal crest etc. and other things that are not diagnostic, while missing (or ignoring) the things that show, quite clearly, that it is a human skull and not the skull of Patty or the Hoffman creature.

      First and foremost, in more ways than one, look at the teeth. Despite what some in the bigfoot community have claimed (and I'm not naming names, but some bigfoot believers can't tell a root from a tooth - it's embarrassing), those are fully human teeth in the Humbolt Basin skull. They show some heavy wear, but that's to be expected given that in size, form, enamel thickness, root depth etc. they are fully human. In other words significantly reduced from that of other primates and even our closer ancestors. The jaw joint, cheek bones, palate, and whatnot are also all fully human. This is important because this is the mouth you get after a couple million years of using tools to process your food instead of teeth.

      Now compare that to the face of Patty, with her overly wide cheekbones, deep maxilla (for large, long tooth roots), equally deep mandible (for the same reason), robust jawline, and so on. Even her ears, reduced as they are, are in the wrong place for a human, but in a good place for making room for larger jaw muscles (they're in the correct place for a human in the Humbolt Basin skull).

      Patty's face and jaws are those of a creature that has not spent the last few million years using tools instead of teeth. This goes along with what we know of bigfoot from native accounts (which in many ways are far more reliable than almost all modern bigfoot "sightings" even with all the mythology added in) that the bigfoot tribe eats its meat raw using neither fire nor tools. Supposed bigfoot deer kills are commonly identified by the lack of tools used to kill and process the carcass. It also agrees with a few of the more credible modern sightings. The Copalis Beach "cow man" account in particular comes to mind. The creature in that account reportedly had enormous. Those are not the teeth of a tool user or the teeth of the Humbolt Basin skull.

      Continued below.

    10. Moving backward on the Humbolt Basin skull we come to the neck (having already mentioned the ears). You've mentioned the nuchal crest repeatedly, but not once have you mentioned the nuchal ligament attachment, which is also definitely present on the Humbolt Basin skull. As I mentioned above, however, neither the Patterson Gimlin creature nor the Hoffman creature are shaped or move like they possess that ligament. Nor should you expect them to with feet like theirs (another hint). Even worse for your case the plane of the foramen magnum (the neck hole) in the Humbolt Basin skull has the same anterior inclination as that of every other modern human. Unless the creatures in the Patterson Gimlin and Hoffman films were both intentionally slouching for the sake of the cameraman, which is unlikely if they are real creatures, then they simply cannot have a forward inclining foramen magnum. Not with those necks. From the Patterson Gimlin and Hoffman footage we can expect bigfoot's foramen magnum to be shifted forwards like in other upright apes, humans included, but unlike humans it would have to be pointing straight down or even possibly slightly backwards.

      No, the Humbolt Basin skull is a fully human skull. Not a bigfoot. Not a bigfoot hybrid. Its odd shape is not proof of bigfoot. It's merely proof that native americans occasionally practiced cranial deformation, both accidentally with the ways they carried their infants, and intentionally. But we already know they did that. So did the Huns and all sorts of other people, none of whom count as bigfoot either.

      Now will you please stop prattling on about that fully human skull being "proof" of bigfoot? It's stuff like that which makes bigfoot research look like a joke.

    11. Okey doke! Allow me to clear something up. If you know anything about my take on Sasquatch, if you've been here long enough or if you've ever seen post post on other forums and comment sections, you'll know that I have ALWAYS maintained that there is two types of Sasquatch... These are the Patty Type, and the Native American type that has been reported for hundreds of years, acknowledged by Native tribes for thousands, and perfectly depicted in the forensic drawings by Harvey Pratt. Now, these are what separates what we see in the Patterson Gimlin footage and what we see in the Humbolt skull example. Very, very, very important for context before I move on. I'm pretty sure I've made this known to you, but I'm making that clear in case there's a small chance I haven't... Now...

      Again, please see a digitalised version of the subject in the Patterson Gimlin footage in the link believe;
      ... That is a human face. In the link provided below... You can quite clearly see bending fingers that are only seen ok human hands;
      ... In the footage below, you will see close up footage of the feet;
      ... Again, these features are not considered to be outside of human capabilities, because we have examples in modern people;

      "Posterior from the shoulder, her scapula can be seen “winging” or becoming more prominent with the right arm swinging forwards, combined with the head turning back, away from the camera. This is a natural occurrence for the body, since the arm is attached to the triangular-shaped scapula, which is stabilized by several muscles. There is no bone-to-bone contact of the scapula/humerus unit with the rest of the body skeleton, with the exception of a small anterior pivot point provided by the clavicle. This allows for the significant mobility exhibited by the shoulder, and the protrusion of the medial border (“winging”) of the scapula. As with the above described triceps changes, this would be very difficult to replicate in a costume, and would not be a physical characteristic commonly known outside of the medical community."
      - O. Allen Guinn, III, M.D., F.A.C.S.

    12. ... So you see, the pioneering plastic surgeon above is concurring that though there are massive muscles attached to Patty's neck, the anatomy can be observed to exist in humans he's operated on and studied. Now check this out;
      "Ophir cranium Virginia City: There is in this skull a peculiarity that is seen in some of the ancient Peruvian skulls, namely an interparietal bone. The general contour of the skull is that of a very low type; the anterior portion is very slightly developed and receding; the hinder portion is largely developed. It bears a similarity to the skull of the carnivorous apes, the cavity for the low-bone being very deep and now allowing of any grinding motion of the jaws, and belonged to a carnivorous man who could walk easier on all fours than on two feet."
      ... Sasquatch are often reported to use quadrupedal motion. Again, we have an example up top of a human skull accommodating what we see in the Patterson Gimlin footage.

      "Now consider the Humbolt Basin skull you keep dredging up. You keep going on about the nuchal crest etc. and other things that are not diagnostic, while missing (or ignoring) the things that show, quite clearly, that it is a human skull and not the skull of Patty or the Hoffman creature."
      ... Ok. I think I've posted this about a million times, but here it goes again. If you look at the Harvey Pratt forensic sketches;
      ... You'll notice that you are looking at something that accounts for a very powerful and robust human being. Now I'm wondering how much he would look like Patty if he were to be stripped of his hair, but what we quite clearly have here is something we can relate to what we see in the Humbolt skull. A robust human with ancient morphology, strong jaw, slight brow ridge, and powerful neck muscles which would undoubtedly require a large nuchal crest. Now, what we have here, is a subject that is quite clearly human in its appearance, to which David Paulides' and Harvey Pratt's research determined was of far greater frequency of reports that the Patty type. Bearing in mind that Sasquatch have always been referred to by nearly every single tribe in North America as another tribe of humans, most of the time "cannibalistic", in that they would eat their tribes and procreate with them. Now, you would have to be human to be cannibalistic towards native tribes, and you would have to be so close to our genetic make up to be able to procreate successfully. Let's take a look at legends of Zana, for example. In her son's skull morphology, we see traits shaded by both modern AND ancient Paleo peoples;
      "The Tkhina skull exhibits an original combination of modem and ancient features ... The facial section of the skull is significantly larger in comparison with the mean Abkhaz type ... All the measurements and indices of the superciliary cranial contour are greater not only than those of the mean Abkhaz series, but also than those of maximum size of some fossil skulls studied (or rather were comparable with the latter). The Tkhina skull approaches closest the Neolithic Vovnigi II skulls of the fossil series...
      On her part, anthropologist M.M.Gerasimova came to following conclusions:
      The skull discloses a great deal of peculiarity, a certain disharmony disequilibrium in its features, very large dimensions of the facial skeleton, increased development of the contour of the skull, specificity of the non-metric features (the two foramina mentale in the lower jaw, the intrusive bones in the sagittal suture, and the Inca bone). The skull merits further extended study."
      ... Now, what are the chances of an entire community describing Zana precisely as what we see in Harvey Pratt's forensic drawings, a 100 years before any idea of pop-cultures suggestion was a possible factor? Might I remind you, that she pretreated many times with Russian men.

    13. Using the idea that the Humbolt skull has human teeth, only reinforces my ideas once we look at the history of native people in the area, and to what is consistent with tool use of hairy tribes in their legends. The Paiutes have many traditions of the “Pahi-zoho” tall hairy tribes that would grab children in baskets, and eat them. The “Pahi Zoho” use the name “Tso ‘apittse”, a hairy cannibal similar to that in Paiute oral history described as a cannibal who hunts woman down, cuts them up and eats them. It is widely believed that the Saiduka, Si-te-Cah, Sai’i, or Saydocarah, all the different names for red headed giants could be similar to the “Pahi-Zoho”, “Pahaidzo’o”, and “Tso Apittse” legends to which have consistency of giant cannibal tribes who resided in caves and caught people in traps to eat. The Pyramid lake reservation close to the area has a museum with 2 statues outside the lobby representing the “pahizo’o” or hairy cannibal giants, which are measured at 7 feet and 4 inches tall, carrying a basket and a lamp... Tools. These oral histories are the same across the US;
      "Name: Basket Ogress
      Tribal affiliation: Kwakiutl, Tlingit, Heiltsuk, Salish
      Also Known As: Basket Woman, Giant Woman
      Native names: Dzunukwa, Tsonoqua, Axwadus
      Type: Monster, giant
      Related figures in other tribes: Gougou (Mi'kmaq)
      The Basket Ogress is a marauding giant common to the folklore of many Northwest Coast tribes. She catches humans, especially naughty or careless children, and carries them off in her enormous pack basket to eat them in her lair."

      Here is more evidence of tool use;
      ... And here's an excellent review by Daniel Dover of David Claerr's book on Sasquatch tool use, who's research was conducted in the research area of a dear friend Mike Brookreson;
      ... Are you also aware of how many legends there are of Sasquatch using clubs?

    14. "The Cryptomundo story on July 25th, California "Chimp" With Club: Is It Bigfoot?, was picked up by such outlets as The Anomalist and Boing Boing. The story now has jumped to the wire services, with UPI sending it around the world (from India to Florida) for Wednesday, July 26. In Monday’s 4:30 PM late dispatch from the Ventura County Sheriff’s department, via the Ventura County Star, authorities still were not able to locate the alleged "chimpanzee" seen with a club in his hand in a Thousand Oaks backyard. By late afternoon, there were no more sightings of the chimpanzee. No new reports of sightings occurred on Tuesday, July 25, either, to the best of our knowledge. I expect that if there is more activity, we could hear about it first from Cryptomundo readers. Cryptozoologist Chad Arment, author of two books on the subject as noted in the previous column, had this to say about one element of the event:
      There’s another question that’s begged: why was it called a "club"? That implies cultural purpose (a tool for bashing things), as opposed to just a big stick. Was the animal seen using it, or just carrying it? Did the stick appear modified in any way? Or is there a belief that any stick carried by an ape is a "club"? (And, I suppose, was "club" part of the original description, or did the newspaper modify the report?)"

      Now... Back the to the Humbolt skull. And NO!! It has an occipital bun, reminiscent of Paleo peoples, and Neanderthals. This skull was one of 2 or 3 of series of very unusual crania, found just a few miles from Lovelock cave. The tradition among the Paiute Indians, being that some very tall, reddish haired tribe, occasionally cannibalistic, once dwelt in the area. This being consistent with every other tribe in North America that have cannibalistic Giants intertwined in there Sasquatch legends. These Otamid, Paleo types sort of do resemble a cross between Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal man. Below is a report from the Paiute elders, that the tribe was also called “Numa Ticutta” People eaters... And they had red hair “all over their bodies”. source 2:
      ... And as maintained before, a feature of the Humbolt skull is the larger protrusions of the nuchel crest which is for the attachment of large neck muscles, to which a PhD in Andy White couldn't find a modern equivalent. Sasquatch, just as in the Harvey Pratt forensic drawings, and in the Patterson Gimlin footage, are are seen to have no necks.

      Nargh! I'll keep maintaining that skull is Sasquatch all the same thanks, "kid".

    15. Oh!! And as was put to you on the "New Bigfoot Video Commentary Sasquatch Sighting In Rock Creek" comment section. That Humbolt skull can't be used as proof, as it is so old that it's kind could easily have died out (in an impartial scientific sense). What it is however, is a skull that possessss all the morphological detail of what Sasquatch are reported to have, found in a place where Native Americans have always claimed tall, hairy, cannibalistic tribes had always resided. I also use it as a hominid fossil trail in the US that most anthropologists deny's there... So stop putting words in people's mouths.

      And Sasquatch are human.

    16. Then your "take" on bigfoot is utterly and completely wrong, laughable, and one of the main reasons why bigfoot "research" is such a complete and utter joke. The idea that there are somehow "two kinds of bigfoot" is simply special pleading by bigfoot "researchers" to try covering the lack of any real evidence by claiming human remains are somehow also proof of bigfoot, which is entirely bullshit.

      The idea that the Humbolt Basin skull is somehow related to neanderthals is equally laughable, and just bigfoot "researchers" clutching at straws. Yes, it's a robust individual, but so are most low technology remains. This may come as a shock to you, but modern humans in the past had harder lives than people today.

      How do we know it's not neanderthal? Well for starters, just look at the damn chin. That's the most obvious feature, but everything else also screams native american human. And your best counter to that is that it has an occipital bun? Well so do I. They are hardly exclusive to neanderthals, and aren't diagnostic for a neanderthal specimen unless they are part of a large suite of other characteristics which are NOT present on the Humbolt Basin skull. More importantly, the enhanced nuchal crest and occipital bun can be much more easily explained by the obvious cranial deformation seen in that skull and others found near it. Binding an infant's head, as many native groups often did, causes exactly the sort of narrowing of the cranium we see in that skull, which artificially makes the nuchal crest and other occipital features look larger than they should be. If Andy White is calling it a neanderthal skull, well then he really should know better. Hell, I have more neanderthal DNA in me than that skull. And if you're of European descent then it's likely you do too.

      Moving on, your claim that bigfoots used clubs is hardly a counter to the fact that if bigfoots really exist they are not tool makers. Clubs are just sticks. Heavy sticks, but sticks nonetheless. Even chimpanzees will use sticks. But I'm talking about real tools. Manufactured tools. The sort of tools that will allow for evolution of the chewing apparatus. Clubs cannot do that. And there's zero evidence for that in bigfoot, either materially or in native accounts. Bigfoot "technology" (for lack of a better word) hasn't even advanced to the point of the basic hand axe used by our own Homo erectus ancestors to good effect for millions of years (another huge goddamn hint for you right there). For that matter, bigfoot hasn't even been found to use anything approaching the sophistication of A. Robustus' digging bones (yet another huge hint).

      And again, Patty ain't human (unless it's a man in a suit). There are a number of non-human traits to Patty, some of which I've already mentioned here. However ALL the non-human characteristics of Patty and the very limited other credible possible bigfoot finds do point to something else. The same something else. Something specific. Something you are too wrapped up in your own bullshit and bluster and ignorance to figure out.

      Again I ask you to try to figure out what that is.

    17. Allow me to demonstrate how you are no more special than anyone else... When you have two distinct frequencies of data, in this case reports, then one merely refers to it. You have two types of regularly reported large hairy bipeds... This is fact. Do they necessarily have to be a different species? Not necessarily, remember that exchange we had regarding an example of hominids with morphological differences?
      ... Not to mention that you FAILED to address the digital version of Patty that looks so human it's unreal. In the following link, you'll notice a discussion about the origin of anatomically modern Homo sapiens;
      ... Here, Chris Stringer explains on the 4mins mark that in the lineage of both Homo sapiens and Neandertals, we see anatomical and morphological traits in their fossil and genetic data that are linked to their far, far, earlier emergence from Homo Heidelbergensis. These are modern scientists conducting research on the theory that same species hominids can and DID have varying anatomy and morphology, yet were the same species. Again... Knowing the subject matter and the data is important, it's how you develop theories in the most scienific manner. It appears you don't know how to apply special pleading very accurately... But do hypocritically.

      In your next babbling, I don't really know what you're implying? I've never claimed that the Humbolt skull is Neanderthal, only that it has traits to Paleo people's which is absolute fact. The robust jaw, brow ridge, occipital bone and large nuchal crest are all traits of fossil remains of Paleo peoples. This is back to basics stuff. Even if you take the time to read the damn paper, the anthropologists studying it can compare it to no known Native American specimen, though it has geographical traits of Otamids, which are simply the Native American version of Cro-Magnon.
      "More importantly, the enhanced nuchal crest and occipital bun can be much more easily explained by the obvious cranial deformation seen in that skull and others found near it."
      ... This is quite simply the most audacious claim I've read you post yet. And you had the nerve to claim anyone else was special pleading? You do not attain archaic morphology in your skull due to deformation, and there are no examples of this in the immediate region to where that skull was found. Please provide substance to your claims.

    18. Both the great apes and early hominids have prominent crests and ridges in their skull morphology with the most obvious being the sagittal and nuchal crests and the brow ridges. The sagittal crests in various hominids provide for large chewing muscles and most prominent in species where diet revolves around hard, tough material that needs significant chewing. It is also used to differentiate from males and females. Brow ridges in hominids is also related to diet, as large brow ridges support stresses placed on the skull by coarse diet. Along with the position of the foramen magnum, a larger nuchal crest in hominid's offers lots of information about a it's posture. It gives anchorage for neck muscles where the skull is not balanced vertically on top of the spine. This is how modern humans have a completely upright posture... The foramen magnum is centrally placed beneath the skull and a nuchal ridge is far, far smaller and pretty much absent in comparison. Deformation and head binding, two cultural traits not found in the region, does not account for what we see in that skull. Andy White has never called that skull Neanderthal, I don't what the heck you're talking about... And considering his a PhD in anthropology, he mentions nothing of that skull being the way it is due to deformation, and if that was the case, we would have numerous anthropological papers on the traits of Cro-Magnon attesting to this. There is nothing. Special pleading is a form of fallacious argument that involves an attempt to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception. Would you now like the definition of hypocrisy?

      A club is a weapon, a weapon is a tool... Painfully obvious stuff to which you're gibbering about, please stop, I have a tolerance that goes so far and you're sounding infantile. You've bens told before, dismissing something because it doesn't fit your expectations of something you don't even find credible is not good logic, it's not very clever, because your fundamental stance doesn't support anything you propose hence forth... ESPECIALLY because you seemingly know so little about the subject. You have thousands of years of native legends that attest to clubs, you have contemporary accounts of Sasquatch using the same tools to which Dr John Bindernagle regularly references an account of using a sharpened stick to fish... And then you have modern research that has demonstrated primitive tools made in the modern day in areas where there is considerable Sasquatch activity. Don't like it? Prove it wrong.

    19. "And again, Patty ain't human (unless it's a man in a suit). There are a number of non-human traits to Patty, some of which I've already mentioned here."
      ... Where? No... You've actually at best listed traits that should they stick, are found in hominids... Um... Primitive humans, if ya didn't know? Someone must ask, who the **** are you to make claims on the current state of research with quotation marks when you know as little as you so obviously do?

    20. > Both the great apes and early hominids have prominent crests and ridges in their skull morphology with the most obvious being the sagittal and nuchal crests and the brow ridges.

      Oh hell, do I have to rub your nose in it?

      Yes they have nuchal crests for attaching muscles, BUT THEY DO NOT POSSESS A NUCHAL LIGAMENT. Neither do the creatures in the Patterson Gimlin film or the Hoffman footage for reasons I've already given.

      Do you know what a ligament is?

      > You've actually at best listed traits that should they stick, are found in hominids.

      But NOT in genus Homo. So no, not primitive humans. Human like, but not actually human. And not exactly primitive, either. Patty shows several derived characters that are not primitive but exactly what one would expect to see given the likely history of her species.

      > Someone must ask, who the **** are you

      Someone who knows better than to associate his career, even tenured, with the clownshow mockery that is bigfoot research. Which is why keep exhorting you and the rest of bigfoot "research" to stop screwing around with the camera phones and plaster and alligator arms and vague thermal footage and ridiculous claims and get down to serious business. Bring me a real specimen. A bigfoot specimen. Even a single tooth. You have no idea what I could tell you from even just a single tooth.

      > when you know as little as you so obviously do?

      Every time you make a condescending, ignorant statement like that I just laugh at you all the more, because you REALLY have no clue who you're talking to. Schmuck.

    21. HOMO Neanderthalensis were bigger than Homo Sapiens, had larger brains, more muscle mass, stronger bones and were better adapted to the cold. They were very clever hunters, weapon makers, possibly acquired language before us and had been around for 2,000 years prior to Homo Sapiens. Horses, dogs and Homo Sapiens have a nuchal ligament... Curiously chimpanzees, pigs AND NEANDERTHALS do not. Neanderthals were ancient humans that had culture, and interbred with Homo Sapiens... I think we've put that to bed.

      None of your points about Patty's face are without relevance to hominids in our lineage. "Likely of her species"? And what would that be exactly? Can't be easy for someone so esteemed in (imaginary) credentials that you should struggle so much to demonstrate just how much of a clown show the evidence I list is. The Hoffman footage is a hoax and I don't care who the **** you are, at least you're learning.

      You've got a skull.

  4. You know any story involving Teddy Roosevelt and Bigfoot is going to be manliness incarnate. But what about Kennedy and Bigfoot? Not so much. And don't even think about Clinton and Bigfoot. Eww. That would be one big cigar.

  5. Hillary Clinton gets BOOED at MSNBC town hall when she says Bernie Sanders 'wasn't really a Democrat' until he decided to run for president

    LIKE GAME ON !!!