Why No Bigfoot Bones?


If Bigfoot exists, where are the bones? The question keeps getting asked, and rightfully so. But the answers, or at least a good answer is never forthcoming. So author D.L. Soucy attempts to present at least a partial answer as to why we can never find any Bigfoot bones:

I believe that we have found them, but because we are trained to believe that the Sasquatch are something they are not, the evidence is always classed in another category. So, even though we may have some evidence, we don't realize that we have evidence because we think it is evidence of something else. Confusing, isn't it?

My research shows that up until the early 1930s many scientists routinely (sort of) found skeletons and evidence of a race of human or human-like creatures that averaged 7 to 8 foot tall. However, in 1934,an official with the Smithsonian Institute issued what could be construed as an edict that all giant skeleton finds were bogus because the people finding the bones simply misidentified them. In short, the grand potentates of accepted scientific protocol said there are no giants. There never have been any giants. We have spoken, it is law. And after that point I find next to zero articles of anyone finding any giants bones.



Comments

  1. Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    2. THIS IS WHY I LOVE SOUCY!!!!!!!!!! KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!!!!!!!!!!

      Delete
    3. The important thing to keep in mind is that BF exists. Giants existed, but they are not the same.

      Many native American tribes have a tradition of both but as separate and distinct. There are many articles in Newspapers from the 1800s of people finding mummified remains of tall men and women, with red hair (on the head) and copper blades, shields, tools, beads, etc.

      Delete
    4. I agree with you, sir, and slightly disagree with you at the same time. We have two district hairy bipeds described to this day in the US; the ape like with long arms and the human/native faced with limbs in proportion (you do have occasions when both characteristics appear to blend).

      What's evident is both are human regardless of proportions, and if the biggest institutions in the US had had these skeletons on display for this long, the idea that wild hairy versions were to be living in the deep wilderness areas of the US wouldn't be so far fetched to people.

      The mummified remains are fascinating and I am aware of one such burial chamber in Death Valley that had hieroglyphs, to which when opened unveiled a tall mummified woman covered with fur holding a mummified baby.

      Delete
    5. "What's evident is both are human regardless of proportions"

      No, if a creature has an ape face and long limbs then it is not human. The morphological difference is too great to claim that it is the same species, or even a closely related extant Homo species.

      Delete
    6. "One of the main thrusts of Bigfoot research is to obtain a DNA sample for analysis to help solve Bigfoot’s genetic puzzle. Unfortunately possibly, several specimens have been obtained and analyzed and found to be contaminated. So, what is Bigfoot anyway? Ape, primitive man, human, or something else entirely. It is said that chimpanzee DNA is 98.5% Homo sapiens; not much room to squeeze between the human and the ape such things as: Australopithecines and Lucy, Alma, Homo Neanderthalis, Yowie, Mapinguari (Amazon), Yeran, Kaptur, Homo erectus, or Bigfoot, perhaps all are cousins? Perhaps the model for Bigfoot differs in different environments, which are what Darwin predicted from the variation in species found in the Galapagos.

      Perhaps the creature is an ape then, but only in the context of Desmond Morris describing humans as the “The Naked Ape.” Or as Jared Diamond suggests, we are “The Third Chimpanzee.” Then we are all apes, including Bigfoot. Keep in mind though, that apes have 48 chromosomes, and humans only 46.

      One of the first clues might possibly lie in the structure of the DNA molecule and other hereditary traits. Bigfoot can hybridize successfully with humans! In North America there are myriad stories of Bigfoot kidnapping and having sex with native women. Perhaps the most famous is the one in a rare book of Dr. Ed Fusch, “Seweneytl And The Stick Indians Of The Colville.” He tells of the Lake Band of the Colville Indians. They had a fishing camp in the late 1890’s near Keller, Washington, on the San Poil River.

      Bob Daigle, a friend of Mary Green’s, sent a hair sample collected from the Tennessee site to a DNA geneticist (named only as Dan), who found nothing but human results, the sample sequence being an exact match. He sequenced some 300 nucleotides from a mitochondrial gene called cytochrome b, and amplified a 1100 base pair fragment, then ran the results through GeneBank.
      The GeneBank is an open access annotated collection of nucleotide sequences and their protein translations. It lists some 100,000 distinct organisms and having in 2006 some 65 billion nucleotide bases and 61 million sequences.
      Control tests were run that were deliberately contaminated with dog and cat DNA despite which still the Fox hair turned out to be human. The rest of the scientific community and senior Bigfoot researcher’s deniability is reaching the point of being ridiculous. At some point some very public agency or noted personage is going to declare that the creatures are actually human beings, just different from modern man though a subtle shift in the genetic code. Perhaps just a few genes are involved though important ones and they might add up to huge differences and need to be identified. It might be what actually makes us human and them sub-human! This might be what made the jump between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens some 200 thousand years ago in Africa – we became intelligent beings almost overnight."

      - Ray Crowe

      Delete
    7. Good read joe fits !!

      TTL!

      How's things on your end of the world? R having a good summer? Hope things r good!

      Delete
    8. Hello buddy!! All's well here pal!! What's in like your end?! Any news?????

      Delete
    9. Ray Crowe's article "Monster DNA and Ancestory" is ignorant gibberish. It's true that "chimpanzee DNA is 98.5% Homo sapiens" but geneticists would never confuse human DNA for chimpanzee DNA. Hybrid DNA would never be confused for pure Homo sapiens DNA or vice versa. If a lab report comes back as 'Homo sapiens' then it's not Bigfoot DNA.

      Delete
    10. http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.com/2012/01/999-will-get-you-hexacopter-drone.html

      Didn't happen it was a scam

      http://spectrum.ieee.org/automaton/robotics/diy/update-eye3-drone-officially-too-good-to-be-true

      Delete
    11. 5:48...

      I think that until we have isolated the exact DNA or have a type specimen, then you have just as much claim to things being gibberish as I have to judge your own.

      It is theorized that Cro-Magnon Homo sapiens were the same as us but far more robust and larger. It's theorised further that agriculture made us the offshoot and far smaller. We also know that early hominids from the same species could look way differently from one another.

      Delete
    12. My favorite part of Ray Crowe's gibberish article is:
      "Perhaps the creature is an ape then, but only in the context of Desmond Morris describing humans as the “The Naked Ape.” Or as Jared Diamond suggests, we are “The Third Chimpanzee.” "

      It really highlights how badly he understands everything he was writing about.

      Humans are apes and always have been. All hominids are apes, that's their scientific classification. When Jared Diamond suggests that we are “The Third Chimpanzee" he was speaking metaphorically. (The book is sitting in my bookcase just to my left.) I'd suggest that Crowe goes out and buys it and actually sits down and read it, it'll actually help him understand the whole DNA deal a lot better.

      Delete
    13. "I think that until we have isolated the exact DNA or have a type specimen, then you have just as much claim to things being gibberish as I have to judge your own. "

      Ah ha ha that's hilarious. :D

      Oh wait, were you being serious? Holy hell, you really don't have the first clue about any of this, do you? I can't even begin to explain how stupid that is. Maybe go read an actual book about DNA rather than relying on ignorant people like Ray Crowe to invent gibberish explanations for you???

      Delete
    14. Great stuff, but I don't think Crowe is considering the concept metaphorically, because he is referring to the concept literally.

      Delete
    15. 6:40...

      I think I upset you there, didn't I? The truth is there is absolutely nothing in my comment that is wrong. You have just as much claim to what this subject is as me, Crowe, anyone until we have an actual source to declare legitimate.

      Ten thousand years worth of Native culture maintain Sasquatch were another tribe of humans. Bigfoot samples keep coming back as homo sapien, and you have no counter argument to the suggestion I put to you regarding Cro-Magnon.

      So shut the hell up Junior... But hey! You know all about DNA right?

      Delete
    16. Ray Crowe has forgotten more about Bigfoot than you'll ever know DSA. If you're going to go after someone in the genre, I'd pick on someone else. Mornin Joe. It's hotter than Rihanna's Capri pants in Texas. It's easy to find any animal now. Last clean water sources will be the spot they protect. In the interim I met some lovely folks on Facebook. But I digress. This is simply a public service announcement. If you are going out to look for Sasquatch bones, you won't find many. Hrdlisca saw to that. Just be sure and hydrate. Take plenty of water, mosquito spray, and a broad based moisturizer. And don't forget the sunblock.

      Delete
    17. Ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!!

      How are you dear Texan!! I wish I could say the same for our 'glorious' summer weather! It's raining as usual!!

      Delete
    18. I went out yesterday and squatched all night. Got into a bit of a dust up with Steven Streudel. I should have known better than to argue with a person whose Facebook profile clearly identifies him as a wizard or is it warlock. Nonetheless I'm here, Joe I haven't had my coffee. But I do think its time you Scott and I get this piece written. One of us had to work though. :). The horror. This is not a comment, just friendly banter.

      Delete
    19. Ha. It didn't work. But I tried it. :)

      Delete
    20. Expect an email in the next half hour!!

      Delete
    21. e-mail me as well will you, I want to here about Marty Feldman.

      Delete
    22. Every time I watch Mr.Deeds I see S.S. driving off at the end of the movie in the red Corvette and slamming into the tree.

      Crazy fish eyed fool.

      Delete
    23. Truly I've never met a more hostile soul on these topics. But to each his own. I take blobsquatch pics with a cell at my ranch. To me that's about as harmless as it gets. I guess that makes Internet self declared Ombudsmen tough guys angry though. But. I don't begrudge them. They will tell you they're protecting the integrity of the research while at the same time they are calling a biologist and distinguished military veteran they've never met and know nothing about a hoaxer. They've got a special group who can sit at their desks and poke great fun at others and really dig up the dirt by doing Google checks. That was the funny part :). We've checked you out MKB. We know all about you! I laughed my ass off. I thought really? You did a background check on a non researcher that posts fuzzy pictures? Maybe I'm the crazy one but that might be the most absurd thing I've ever heard. :) see a really smart person in this field will tell you to check your judgments and ego at the door because in an area of fringe science regarding an undiscovered species THERE ARE NO EXPERTS, that being said it was my fault for posting on blogs and in groups I have no familiarity with. I'm a bit of a southern rube. I expect people to treat me like I treat them. With humor but kindness. And when I run into argumentative crazed contrarian paranoia I'm pretty shocked by it. I should stick to posting here. But because of my bet I cannot. But then again this is simply a public service announcement to avoid contact with strangers. :). One more thing. I truly tried to figure out how I could have possibly offended anyone. Most real researchers know I'm a humorist who doesn't take myself too seriously but I do treat the subject matter with respect. My firm belief that until an accredited university funds a serious study with the actual intent of discovery then this will continue to be Groundhog Day is well known. There are some terrific researchers out there. And there are some private landowners who have large tracts of land with Subjects living on said tracks. By putting them together and fund their efforts and you'll get results. I have a great deal of respect for the researchers who go out and challenge themselves to do better each time. I also respect the landowners who feed and treat these Subjects with respect. Now put then together and fund them academically or privately and put the matter to bed once and for all. Petty squabbling and declaring reboots and all that nonsense makes you look like the horses ass you probably are. But. This Op Ed piece does not benefit people with blogs or talk shows or books to hawk. So they'll attack any persons character they wish because it interferes with the business of Bigfoot. I can only hope some day that someone will get a university grant and put guys like Derek R, Bart or Cliff or Stacy on it. Let my tell you that Bob Garett and Brandon Garett who along with guys like Ed Waterman are the new generation.

      Delete
    24. And if they get real funding and a good private tract of Subjects that haven't been harassed they'll get it done. But until then sadly we will have to wait on either an 18 wheeler to hit one or an amazingly lucky archeological find. I liked the old monsterquest intro. How'd it go again ? :)

      Delete
    25. "It's not you, boy, it's the company you keep."

      Maybe you should inform some people that believe there are experts in the field that there isn't.

      Delete
    26. Mikey,take S.S. with a grain of salt.
      Mike H.

      Delete
    27. Maybe you should reference some of these 'experts' or anyone who even labels themselves as that.

      Delete
    28. A large cut of BFRO standouts, Thom Powell, Biscardi, Dallas & Wayne, Rick Dyer, Jon W. Jones, and the list continues. All "experts."

      Delete
    29. Coming from someone who uses cynicism as a main playing card and clearly hasn't the slightest idea what he's talking about...

      I'll take that list with a pinch.

      Delete
    30. You can do what you want, you've never cared about truth or integrity to begin with.

      That doesn't negate that the BFRO is by far the largest and broadest Sasquatch organization by both member count and depth of knowledge/archived material.

      Doesn't change Biscardi being a prominent character in bigfooting since his mentor Ivan Marx was teaching him the ways.

      Doesn't keep Thom Powell from going on bigfoot show after bigfoot show to espouse his "must be correct" logic.

      Nor does it remove the "expertness" of Jon W. Jones, dead or alive.

      Just because YOU repeat something thirty times doesn't make it true, Joe.

      Delete
    31. Waynes shit bucket knows more about Bigfoot than Dick Ryder does.

      Delete
    32. Firstly, I never denied John ain't at a level of knowledge that has assured the progression of this field of study, but I doubt you'd have heard John referring to himself as an expert.

      You cynically place people who are ten of you in the same bracket as known hoaxers because that's all you've ever had in your locker... That and "there is no evidence".

      "Just because YOU repeat something thirty times doesn't make it true, Joe."

      Take your own advice bro.

      Delete
    33. Here is your oft-quoted expert Thom Powell, he's the beacon of sanity in this world...he clearly states he's 95% sure Sasquatch exists. Ouch.

      http://youtu.be/b1C4dcSR9q8

      Delete
    34. Sorry... That's detrimental how?? Ha ha ha ha ha!!

      Delete
    35. You 100% believe, right? It is a belief because even though some may see Sasquatch, in a hypothetical scenario, but due to your geographical and financial situation you are left simply to believe they exist.

      In your certainty, you often berate others with quotes by your experts in the subject, even though some of these people aren't convinced of what they are talking about. Thom Powell - High school science teacher, Oregon resident, large bigfoot evidence collection, penned several small works, doesn't believe 100% in bigfoot.

      It's not supposed to be detrimental, it's contextual.

      Delete
    36. Who are experts in this field? There are experienced and trustworthy individuals. Listen to John Myoncynski after he had an encounter, and he sought the truth. Jeff Meldrum certainly has had a lot of evidence come his way and speaks with a contemplative tone indicative of high intellect. MK Davis is a wealth of information. I could sit and listen to Esteban Sarmiento or John Bindernagle all day long. Ian Redmond is a class act, and a top notch primate man. Just as Peter Byrne is a wealth of information. They all have one thing in common. Not one would call themselves "experts" on Sasquatch. Bryan Sykes is a brilliant scientist I'm sure. But no. Again. No expert. People who have dedicated their lives to the subject may know less than a good old country boy hunter who knows how to study the behavior of animals by tracking them and observing carefully what they eat, where they bed, drink and how to lure them in with bait or calls to a given area. There are BFRO members who are very skilled at what they do. Cliff Barackman is sharp and Bobo has been at it for so long he probably thinks like one. But experts. Well. If your government had executed a few of these close cousins of ours and seized a few other bodies, then the closest thing to it would be the guy in the lab coat who examined the bodies. Other than that, Bob and Brandon could take you right to them. So could Lupe. You guys get so mad when I say this but Todd S probably could too. Heck, Matthew Johnson has been having some success of his own. So..... I'm going to go way out on a limb and declare the number of known experts is....wait for it...0. Mike. I read your comment above. I can take anything with both a grain of salt and a shot of tequila. But....when you call someone a hoaxer based on 1 minute of third hand audio, well that's not challenging or vetting evidence. That's being a ....well, I can't say.....too vulgar, people can disagree without degrading others. And if not. Well. They can go their separate ways like gentlemen. If they can mimic one for the time it takes to do so. But what do I know? Only enough to know I'm no expert and I'm reasonably certain if they do exist they are more rare than the Subject we debate

      Delete
    37. I have no reason to 'believe' anything when I have scientific facts... I would in fact be grossly inaccurate to deny methods that have unshakable credibility. I am therefore convinced by the evidence... Not just the accounts of people whom I know and trust. It is at this point I can either ignore the countless other instances, or lie to myself.

      If some researchers are not 100% sure, then 95% ain't a bad compromise, guess there's not much in 5% difference between us all, ha ha ha ha ha!!!

      It's kind of a glass half empty/half full concept; you say not convinced 100%, I say 95% sure.

      Delete
    38. Scientific facts that only you have, not Bryan Sykes, not Jeff Meldrum, not Ian Redmond, just you.

      It's fine to lie to yourself but don't lie to me please.

      5% can mean the world, you said earlier Chimpanzee is 98.5% similar to modern humans. The difference from 95% to 100% is even more dramatic.

      Delete
    39. Nope, scientific facts that Meldrum and Redmond have specifically analysed and in their expert opinion (in the sense of their respected fields) have concluded upon as that. Sykes, give him time... Geneticists are only as good as their samples

      Percentages on being sure and DNA aren't a very clever comparison.

      (Pffffft)

      Delete
    40. Take ^ this guy. Why do I admire him so? I'll tell you. I watched him go at skeptics for hours who were being rude, trash talking him. But he ended all his commentary with peace. He just had passion and no cynicism. And was bright on top of that. Watch Bob Garett tie fishing line to a cantaloupe. To alert him to when they arrive. Then watch that 7 foot eye shine. That's not hoaxing. Those guys are doing it and there's no cynicism to that either. Somewhere. Between the intellectual and the country boy. There's this commonality of belief that works and achieves results. The rest is the back of a cereal box. Kids. Stay in school!

      Delete
  2. TW Ploucy has the real evidence that DL Soucy and MK Davis doesn't.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Replies
    1. Yet you are here, all day every day trying to convince people of it.

      Funny that.

      Delete
    2. And your'e still here with a mouthful of caulk.

      Delete
    3. Didn't Joe lose a bet and had to stop posting or am I thinking of some other idiot?

      Delete
    4. but U got to wonder if they do!

      Delete
  4. Ugh, that video was terrible. At least half was pointless rambling and it could have been edited down by at least 30 minutes without losing anything.

    D.L. Soucy also goes to extreme lengths to cherry pick really old unverified newspaper articles that back up his ideas and he ignores all other evidence. Bringing up Weidenreich's Gigantopithecus v Gigantanthropus argument is ridiculous because there's been over 1000 giganto teeth found since that period and there's absolutely no doubt that it was an ape and not a human. Even the photo of the jawbone that D.L. Soucy included in his video obviously has large apelike canines.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There's thousands and thousands of photos of gigantopithecus teeth and jaws online can even buy resin replicas and hold them in your hand and touch and feel them for yourself. There's a whole mountain of evidence and properly researched articles that are available but for some reason DL Soucy tracks down a 70 year old article that has a discussion about how there was some uncertainty in the very earliest stages of giganto study about its classification and he reads the entire thing out as if it still has some relevance.

      Delete
    2. The giganto theory is new to me and I am going to do some digging to find out some more, I found it very interesting if I'm honest.

      Also... I find the notion that Soucy has cherry picked articles ridiculous. There are countless documented cases where giant skeletons have been discovered right up and down the US. There is nothing to state that they are unverified at all and I find it in fact a far greater leap of faith to suggest that two to three generations of scientists of the day had an agenda to fake major archaeological and anthropological finds in the name of their respected fields. Remember that some of the country's major institutions that have documented these finds over the past 200 years.

      Delete
    3. I love how DL Soucy can completely dismiss anecdotal evidence that doesn't fit his theory (ie: reports of super tall bigfoots are due to witnesses not being able to correctly judge height) but all other anecdotal evidence is important 'folklore' that he uses to construct a conspiracy theory to show that Big Science is hiding the truth. Especially when a crucial part of the 'evidence' for the cover up was a guy from the Smithsonian saying that reports of giant skeletons are exaggerated because the people reporting them weren't able to correctly judge their height. :D

      So I guess that DL Soucy is allowed to dismiss anecdotal evidence because people can't judge height correctly but a guy from the Smithsonian isn't? Huh.

      Delete
    4. "There are countless documented cases where giant skeletons have been discovered right up and down the US."
      "Documented cases" don't count for much if they're unverified newspaper articles. Are there any verified sources with actual photos or diagrams of these giant skeletons? Nope.

      "Remember that some of the country's major institutions that have documented these finds over the past 200 years."
      Nope, not good enough. Republishing unverified articles written by secondhand sources from small regional newspapers doesn't count for anything. There's no genuine evidence for giant human skeletons.

      Delete
    5. I find it ignorant in the extreme to suggest that people measuring the remains of giant skeletons couldn't measure properly, I sad kop out in fact. I find it humorous that someone should merely CLIAM that sources like the ones I am about to paste you are UNVERIFIED and then make a claim that people couldn't apply simple measurements, I think it's a measure of how far people like you have come from laying mature counter arguments down.

      "Scientific American issue of August 14, 1880, page 106:

      "Ancient American Giants.

      The Rev. Stephen Bowers notes, in the Kansas City Review of Science, the opening of an interesting mound in Brush Creek Township, Ohio. The mound was opened by the Historical Society of the township, under the immediate supervision of Dr. J. F. Everhart, of Zanesville. It measured sixty-four by thirty-five feet at the summit, gradually sloping in every direction, and was eight feet in height. There was found in it a sort of clay coffin including the skeleton of a woman measuring eight feet in length. Within this coffin was found also the skeleton of a child about three and a half feet in length, and an image that crumbled when exposed to the atmosphere. In another grave was found the skeleton of a man and woman, the former measuring nine and the latter eight feet in length. In a third grave occurred two other skeletons, male and female, measuring respectively nine feet four inches and eight feet. Seven other skeletons were found in the mound, the smallest of which measured eight feet, while others reached the enormous length of ten feet. They were buried singly, or each in separate graves. Resting against one of the coffins was an engraved stone tablet (now in Cincinnati), from the characters on which Dr. Everhart and Mr. Bowers are led to conclude that this giant race were sun worshipers."

      This good enough/ By the level in which you express denial, I don't think it will be... More to follow...

      Delete
    6. That's a republished article from a secondhand source who wasn't even present at the 'opening' of the mound. It's pretty much the dictionary definition of "unverified".

      I dunno man, you seem to really be struggling with this concept of verification. Maybe you need to go back to community college and do some remedial english classes or something? I don't know what else to suggest.

      Delete
    7. Sorry!! The source is verified by it's very publication in the Scientific American, old boy.

      Can you supply me with evidence of that article by the scientific American not being 'verified'? What a ridiculous statement. This is just one example of a repeated twist or version of texts that I very much enjoy exposing. I think you'll find that something as sufficient as that source would not take something so lightly and the fact that the Kansas City print was used in the scientific American is a very natural process of presenting compiled and written accounts to a wider public. If the scientific American did not itself deploy scientists to go out and conduct research it printed, does this then cast as equally a 'suspicious' reason to discount any article of the time for reasons that said research came from 'somewhere'. It does, it seems, if it challenges the paradigm.

      The author writing the article would be compiling sources from research accumulated by the Dr and an Entire Historical Society of the township with the intentions of getting the study to the public... Not with the scientific American in mind. You see, this is in many examples of published science today. Very, very normal in fact. Actually... I think you'll find that Dr. Everhart, not directly employed by the scientific American, would naturally have to depend on the said source to publish his findings. This was and is very common, right up to today and is a weak excuse... The same truthless accusation today of merely condemning researchers due the label of hoaxer. Anyone presenting research is therefore judged on a preconceived preference of what the truth is, unbelievable when people like yourself require evidence in the first place. Rhetorical crap. Anyway...

      Everhart who was chief academic with the soul responsibility of investigating the mound. When you have an archaeological study it is down to he sole chief academic to compile the entire research and present it. The Rev. Stephen Bowers (a reverend being one of the most credible people in the community in those days) notes, in the Kansas City Review of Science (a source that we have no reason to doubt other than the statement by you with nothing to back it up as a credible claim, especially when you have the scientific American disagreeing with you it seems) the opening of an interesting mound in Brush Creek Township, Ohio. The mound was opened by the Entire Historical Society of the township, under the immediate supervision of Dr. Everhart.

      I think you are unverified, and you need to go and study how thiese things work.

      Delete
    8. "Can you supply me with evidence of that article by the scientific American not being 'verified'?"

      Yep. If you go and read the original article from the Kansas City Review of Science and Industry Vol IV 1880-1 (page 149 - 150) you'll see that Rev Bowers was only presented with an engraved stone and he never saw the giant skeletons himself or even visit the mound site. He did not verify the skeletons.

      Delete
    9. So what? Read my posts properly;

      "The author writing the article would be compiling sources from research accumilated by the Dr and an Entire Historical Society of the township with the intentions of getting the study to the public... Not with the scientific American in mind. You see, this is in many examples of published science today. Very, very normal in fact. Actually... I think you'll find that Dr. Everhart, not directly employed by the scientific American, would naturally have to depend on the said source to publish his findings. This was and is very common, right up to today and is a weak excuse... The same truthless accusation today of merely condemning researchers due the label of hoaxer. Anyone presenting research is therefore judged on a preconceived preference of what the truth is, unbelievable when people like yourself require evidence in the first place. Rhetorical crap."

      So no, you don't confirm any unverification at all. I think you need to evaluate your understanding of how something is unverified.

      The fact that the source is published where it is, says it all.

      Delete
    10. "The author writing the article would be compiling sources from research accumilated by the Dr and an Entire Historical Society of the township with the intentions of getting the study to the public..."
      There was no study. Rev Bowers clearly stated what was presented to him and it was just a carved piece of rock. Mr Everhart claimed he had opened the mound in the presence of witnesses but Rev Bowers did not speak to those people so he did not have any secondary sources to back up Everhart's claims. If you want to claim that Rev Bowers had other supporting evidence you'll have to show evidence of that and not just assume that it happened.

      "You see, this is in many examples of published science today. Very, very normal in fact."
      No, the exact opposite is normal in science today. Citations are made to published peer-reviewed papers and not anecdotes. Peers are allowed to view and check the evidence before a journal will accept the paper.

      "Anyone presenting research is therefore judged on a preconceived preference of what the truth is, unbelievable when people like yourself require evidence in the first place."
      Well my research says that the article is bunk and you're judging me on a preconceived preference of what you want the truth to be, so it looks like you're guilty of prejudice.
      Besides which, research should ALWAYS be questioned and not just blindly accepted as truth. Research is only ever as good as the data its based on and in this case the data is terrible.

      "The fact that the source is published where it is, says it all. "
      Ah ha ha ha NOPE. Have you even read a copy of Scientific American from the 1880s? At the time it was a popular magazine written in simple language for the widest possible audience that mostly reported on new patents but also collected interesting articles from a bunch of other newspapers and journals. They had hardly any original articles and none of their material was fact checked or peer reviewed.
      All of them are available online if you want to go and actually read some rather than just reading re-re-re-reposted individual articles from conspiracy sites.

      Delete
    11. No, no, no, no... You're scraping the bottom of the barrel in so my instances, allow me to show you how wrong you are;

      The study you claim wasn't was exactly that. Again... The author writing the article would be compiling sources from research accumulated by the Dr and an Entire Historical Society of the township with the intentions of getting the study to the public. This has now been put twice to you, you present nothing so much as a maintained claim that it's a secondary source, when the leading figure would be representing an entire excavation group, who is in direct contact with said author, baring in mind that the skeletons by this time would have been shipped off for preservation. It is a kop out to require names of all excavators and witnesses, just as it is to request a peer reviewed study of the time to which is against the notion of a cover up at higher sources to which the paper trails clearly suggest.

      Scientific American has a long history of presenting scientific information on a monthly basis to the general educated public. You see, it has always been perfectly normal to present scientific research in the form of such mediums, and as was put to you just seconds ago... It is then down to later processes that peer reviewing would occur, to which I again have a widely developing theory group based on legitimate research to show there was never any intention of letting this happen.

      Oh... And low and behold, a hint of the victim card? I'm not judging you, I'm merely suggesting that your 'research' does not go further than a request of names of witnesses and excavators to which has very simple reasoning for the lack of. Your search merely shows that this information is lacking and that your argument in light of such a significant source clearly expressing the opposite of your sentiment, can merely be attributed to a time in which scientific research may have been a little more lax than todays. I am not guilty of prejudice, laughably enough, I'm maybe guilty of claiming you have no better argument than the average Joe who requires information AKA loop holes to wiggle out of consistent scientific documentation and data you claim isn't there. Research should always be questioned... But when you have names missing to a written report of an entire historical society, then that does not in no way shape at all show means to deny a source that has many other sources, notably other big hitters such as the Smithsonian, to back it up.

      Delete
    12. "The author writing the article would be compiling sources from research accumulated by the Dr and an Entire Historical Society of the township with the intentions of getting the study to the public."

      Nope. He clearly states in his article in Kansas City Review of Science and Industry Vol IV what was presented to him. There's absolutely no mention of any other materials. That's something you invented, a completely baseless assumption. If you want to keep asserting that you'll have to present some evidence. ANY evidence.

      "Scientific American has a long history of presenting scientific information on a monthly basis to the general educated public. You see, it has always been perfectly normal to present scientific research in the form of such mediums, and as was put to you just seconds ago... It is then down to later processes that peer reviewing would occur"

      So you're admitting that SA regularly publishes unverified, unreviewed reports on ongoing research? Are you sure that's a stance you want to take? Because that completely demolishes all your arguments that reports of giant mound skeletons are verified.

      Delete
    13. Yes, he states what was presented to him, but a stone tablet does not constitute no giant skeletons, that's the logic of a child. IO have not invented anything other than what the information suggests.

      Oh, and twisting words is probably an indication you're at the very end of your creativity me thinks.

      Tip; if you're gonna try and twist words of a comment, try and actually locate the point your trying to twist in said writings. There is nothing in my comment to suggest that I support the notion that the SA publishes unverified reports.

      ; )

      Delete
    14. There are hundreds of articles of giant skeletons replete with pictures. Multiple presidents have even mentioned them. Jim " I can't pronounce his name correctly but starts with a V" has a great lecture in this ". Look. It didn't fit their model of American discovery. It didn't make the new school textbooks so it never occurred. And Sasquatch didn't attack people Ib Oklahoma, East Texaa, Louisiana and Michigan. That never took place either. Just a routine park service clean up. Nothing to see here. Move along or maybe we will question you. Nope. The government is honest and. Does not lie to its citizens. Public Service Announcement. Kids. Stay in school.

      Delete
    15. Jim Vieira's classic case of impartial researcher!! The guy set out to investigate earth works and mounds (another topic of cover up - advanced cultures and stone masons) and uncovered report upon report upon report of giant skeletons being shipped off to the Smithsonian.

      Delete
    16. So what actual evidence do we have that giant skeletons were found at Brush Creek? We have the research accumilated by the Dr Everhart and Entire Historical Society of the township that in your mind should not be consisdered because you have an 'unverified source' that is unverifiable. We have newspaper articles from people who didn't see the skeletons but in the late 1800's traveling news media would more than likely depend on professionals of the time, especially an entire historical society that had quite possibly by then accumilated all the findings to be sent off and classified under the institutions of the time, and a strange decision by a scientific society's annual proceedings to not consider such findings, even though actual artifacts were presented with a paper on the study, for what reasons exactly?

      Precisely.

      Delete
  5. There are tens of thousands of documented ancient burial mounds in the US and only a couple thousand were ever excavated. If people want to argue that giants existed back in those days then sponsor a few archaeological digs and find some actual evidence, don't just keep copy/pasting unverified old newspaper articles.
    Old unverified newspaper articles fall under "anecdotal evidence" and you know that means they're not trustworthy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lies, lies, lies... The only person suggesting these studies were unverified is you. When you have institutions like the Scientific American and the Smithsonian leaving paper trails then your argument falls flat.

      The truth is you have 150 years worth of studies that go right up until the mid 20th century when we then have a transition in to modern mediums like footage. Many think that these people are dumb apes that would have been found by now, but burial mounds suggest a much higher intelligence capable of culture with highly social evasion capabilities and would also explain why there are hundreds of accounts of disturbing such burial sites in libraries up and down the US and would articulate further why we don't come across more remains, especially when 70% of the country is covered in wilderness, to which it turn suggests how hard it would be to locate such burial areas, especially once the old native regions of New England for example, were churned up and taken over during the industrial revolution and then covered up as quickly as possible to suit the economic boom. These places were the last burial areas where the Natives shared with the giant tribes; the Cherokee being one tribe for example.

      Delete
    2. "Paper trails" aren't evidence so the stories are still unverified. There were never any studies done either, unless you can actually post links to the papers which resulted from them.

      The mound builders were native peoples, there's literally tonnes and tonnes of evidence for this. The skeletons were almost always accompanied by human remains (weapons, pots, carved stones) so they weren't wood apes, they were human beings.

      Delete
    3. Circleville Herald, June 21, 1937
      BONES INDICATE DEAD RACE OF GREAT INDIANS
      PAULS VALLEY, Okla. (UP)
      Excavation work along the Washita River near here where the skeletons of a tribe of giant Indians recently were discovered continues under the direction of the University of Oklahoma and Tulsa University anthropologists.
      A half dozen of the skeletons, more than 7 feet tall, were uncovered after a rise in the river had caused a section of a bank to give way. Dr. Forrest E. Clements, head of the department of anthropology at the University of Oklahoma, estimated the race existed 750 years ago. He believed the find might lead to the discovery of a race of Indians unknown to anthropologists.
      The excavations have attracted considerable attention and visitors will be permitted only on Thursday, those in charge said. Pottery, arrowheads and other relics have been found. The jawbone of an animal believed to have been a deer also was uncovered. The WPA is furnishing a crew of 20 men to assist in the work. Clements said a detailed study of the finds, along with a study of layers of soil, will be necessary before an accurate estimate of theage of the skeletons can be made."

      Yes... The mound builders were native American alright, giant tribes of Native Americans that shared the land with smaller tribes.

      More to follow...

      Delete
    4. Ten skeletons "of both sexes and of gigantic size" were taken from a mound
      at Warren, Minnesota, 1883. (St. Paul Pioneer Press, May 23, 1883)
      A skeleton 7 feet 6 inches long was found in a massive stone structure that
      was likened to a temple chamber within a mound in Kanawha County, West
      Virginia, in 1884. (American Antiquarian, v6, 1884 133f. Cyrus Thomas,
      Report on Mound Explorations of the Bureau of Ethnology, 12th Annual Report,
      Smithsonian Bureau of Ethnology, 1890-91)

      12th Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution 1890-1891
      (published in 1894)
      (Pike County, Illinois)
      No. 11 is now 35 by 40 feet at the base and 4 feet high. In the center, 3 feet below the surface, was a vault 8 feet long and 3 feet wide. In the bottom of this, among the decayed fragments of bark wrappings, lay a skeleton fully seven feet long, extended at full length on the back, head west. Lying in a circle above the hips were fifty-two perforated shell disks about an inch in diameter and one-eighth of an inch thick.

      12th Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution 1890-1891
      (published in 1894)
      (Kanawha County, West Virginia)
      Spring Hill Inclosure, Kanawha County, West Virginia. In the bottom of Mound 11 (upper left) was found a skeleton "fully seven feet long."

      Largest in the collective series of mounds, the Great Smith Mound yielded at least two large skeletons, but at different levels of its deconstruction by Thomas' agents. It was 35 feet in height and 175 feet in diameter, and was constructed in at least two stages, according to the report. The larger of the two skeletons represented a man conceivably approaching eight feet in height when living.

      At a depth of 14 feet, a rather large human skeleton was found, which was in a partially upright position with the back against a hard clay wall...All the bones were badly decayed, except those of the left wrist, which had been preserved by two heavy copper bracelets...

      Nineteen feet from the top the bottom of this debris was reached, where, in the remains of a bark coffin, a skeleton measuring 7½ feet in length and 19 inches across the shoulders, was discovered. It lay on the bottom of the vault stretched horizontally on the back, head east, arms by the sides... Each wrist was encircled by six heavy copper bracelets...Upon the breast was a copper gorget...length, 3½ inches; greatest width 3¾ inches...

      Delete
    5. Even if the measurements of those skeletons were correct (which I'm not conceding as these are only anecdotal reports without any corresponding data or subsequent studies and papers to back them up) then they just show that they were skeletons of humans and not bigfoots since almost all of them had jewelery or other human implements.

      Reports of giant skeletons on mounds in no way support the existence of bigfoot.

      Delete
    6. Ha ha ha ha!!!

      These are not mere anecdotes, and any effort at lessening their significance isn't going to cut it. You'll move the goal posts amazingly, if someone brought you a dead Bigfoot, you'll just require another one, calling it a deformed tramp, wouldn't you? What I have to back these up are occasion upon occasion where consistency comes through the media of the day.

      Jewellery? Not a problem; there is absolutely nothing except a misconception of what this subject is (animal or human) to suggest that giants weren't interested in such, we know from similar archaeological studies that giant tools and even weapons have been found, we also have references to Sasquatch using tools. There are also legends of giants being manipulated as instruments of war, could some of these mounds with elaborate decoration be celebrating that?

      Reliable sources of giant skeletons on mounds does support the existence of Bigfoot, because this is in line with Native legends who maintain legends of cannibalistic giants, etc. If there were giant humans buried in the mounds then there were hairy versions in the forests which are in line with the reports of such today.

      Delete
    7. Wow. You're just inventing stuff out of thin air now. So your evidence is Battlefoots wearing jewellery? Yeah that seems legit.

      Delete
    8. No, I'm not making things up, I'm trying to apply a little imagination for a second to link to legends which there are plenty of.

      I've got to admit... 'Battlefoot' just made me scream laughing.

      Delete
    9. A little imagination = making things up.

      No need for imagination when you deal in facts and truths.

      You have great enthusiasm joe but you consistently stretch the truth and fabricate your own version of events. Until you start employing real 2014, modern age science, that hoojeeboohjee crap from 200 years ago doesn't cut it.

      Delete
    10. 'A little imagination' in this case meant, putting one and one together... Sometimes even simple math requires it.

      No need for imagination when you deal with facts, and when presented with archeological studies that document giant skeletal remains, what do people like you delve into?

      Paper trails spanning 150 years ain't anything other than what it means. What we can do in 2014 is not ignore history and the same sources that excelled a very significant era in scientific development in the Industrial Age.

      To you it 'don't cut', but that don't debunk anything in afraid.

      Delete
    11. And you haven't proven anything I'm afraid.

      Delete
    12. Not proven anything, but put a case forward that hasn't been debunked and therefore said sources will be used time and time again to point out example where skeletal remains HAVE been found and covered up.

      Delete
    13. State of neutrality. Just because no one wastes time to debunk harebrained concepts doesn't make that argument correct and true.

      You don't think Harry's wife, or the countless other people that have accessed and inventoried the Smithsonian Catacombs would have explained finding rather gigantic human bones?

      Delete
    14. Argh come on bro, there's line of threads here with people trying just that and I still don't see a reason to discount account upon account of giant skeletal remains... Fitting another atempt at playing things down (this time nobody's wasting their time), a 'neutrality' seems rich.

      There are miles worth of a catacombs at the Smithsonian, nowhere near to any percentage known as to what's concealed, over time and people come come and go, the turnover does the rest.

      Delete
    15. I still don't see a reason or any actual evidence that satisfies the requirements of existence to the Everyman concerning a single account you posted.

      Miles...miles...miles....miles

      Delete
    16. That's because you're either too dumb, chronically denial dependant or confused.

      Probably all three.

      Delete
    17. Well if the reports were done by the Smithsonian, or I could drive down the road a bit and look at the bones myself, or take my nephew...

      But it's a state of belief and trust, and I don't believe or trust you. You haven't given me a reason too.

      Delete
    18. The first part of your comment doesn't make sense, and it matters not if you believe or trust me, it's the lack of anything legitmate to back up your argument that concerns the subject matter... The results of which can be determined by those that have an excelled level of comprehension.

      Delete
  6. D'you notice a consistency across sources????

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yeah they're all from unverified sources who never presented any actual evidence that the skeletons ever existed. The sources are ALWAYS anecdotal.

      Delete
    2. Repeating it over and over again doesn't cut it. The only thing unverified is your uneducated opinion that has as much weight in fact as a nursery rhyme.

      Look at the imediate subject matter, look at the paper trails and pretend to be Sherlock for a second... The answers are all there.

      Delete
    3. Nope, "paper trails" don't count for anything, especially if you're doing your "research" by trawling dodgy old articles posted to conspiracy websites.
      If you want answers you need to look at actual evidence.

      Oh and Joe ... you're no Sherlock. You're not even Watson material.

      Delete
    4. I'm very, very sorry, but paper trails from some of the biggest institutions in the US, multiple examples of it, are as significant as you can get.

      These are not from any conspiracy site, these are from impartial sources that more and more impartial researchers are coming across.

      Denial's a bit*c bro.

      Delete
    5. Denial's a what?? A bitac? A bitoc?

      Dude, learn to spell. :P


      Also this:
      "paper trails from some of the biggest institutions in the US, multiple examples of it, are as significant as you can get."
      Uh, which institutions are we talking about here?

      Delete
    6. Save up that pocket money and get an iPhone, you might then ascertain an understanding of how you can make little spelling errors from time to time.

      Which institutions? The Smithsonian.

      Delete
    7. The Smithsonian very publicly denied the existence of giant mound skeletons, as D.L. Soucy explained in his video at the top of the page.

      The article in the 12th Annual Report of the Bureau of Ethnology to the Secretary of the Smithsonian Institution 1890-1891 wasn't from a Smithsonian publication, it was from a separate organisation that only reports to the Smithsonian.

      We've been over this before, Joe. You need to stop reposting these lies.

      Delete
    8. Yes, Soucy explained this in the context that the denial sparked a cover up of any further specimens found.

      Even if it wasn't a Smithsonian publication, we still have a paper trail direct to the Smithsonian, it merely backs my argument and not yours. You don't account for anything in defence of what happened to such research once it arrived at the Smithsonian Institute.

      The only lies are from people like you who keep denying consistent data, with mere accusations of lies. We've been over this before, yes, and your efforts were unimpressive then too.

      Delete
    9. Joe you're beat by an anon who is obviously a scientist who knows his stuff. You can cut and paste as much heresay and 19th century rubbish as you like but it won't make a mystery primate exist. You do know that to the Native American's and First Nation people of Canada the "Sasquatch" were people yes, big people who lived wild think less ape man and more 60's burn out with long scraggly head hair not at all like Patty. Infact, the Bigfoot you know and love didn't appear till the 1960's from an unvarified sighting confirmed only by mail with a guy named Roe I think?
      You want to really entertain us tell us about your views on the Ketchum paper and why it didn't appear in any respectable journal!

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

      Delete
    11. Actually, that's all I seem to get from this Anon, who could be anything other than a scientist and probably isn't, is a loop hole argument that means nothing in regard to authenticity of the report that the Scientific American decided to verify as legitmate. You've got a reliable source in SA suddenly not so reliable because it doesn't name whole excavation teams by their names, or has an author that compiled research after the specimens were shipped off for preservation. I could trounce through so many examples scientific research from secondary sources which would be good enough for you from any field from any error. The Scientific American isn't 'heresay' I'm afraid, it is in fact a very reliable source that has transcended centuries purely because of it's credibility and reliability.

      Dr Everhart mentions in his book that he presented a paper at the 1880 annual meeting of the American Association for the Advancement of Science where he exhibited the tablet, some clay from the mound and specimens of decayed bone. The Association's summarized proceedings confirm that he did present a paper but apparently they weren't that 'impressed'. This supports what I've been maintaining all along. An 'unimpressed commity', an archived archaic skull' in 1967... It doesn't even begin to consider the complexity and profound significance of such discoveries, and an unimpressed agenda driven comitty would to me, be a pathetic, convenient means to hide away an example of which there a inumerable. Using this as a means to justify does not justify when the source you use promotes a hierarchy of controlling the output of scientific research of the time.

      You take the hair off Patty and she looks like an ugly Native American;

      http://bf-field-journal.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/the-human-side-of-bigfoot-comparing.html?m=1

      ... I think you'll find ridiculous amounts of constistancy in reports of wild people that transcend cultures and people divided geographically. Sasquatch are as diverse as humans can be; the sightings confirm this.

      Delete
    12. Finally a good thread from all !

      Delete
    13. Newspapers of the day were reporting the agricultural expansion of the land previously owned by the natives and once the old native regions of New England for example, were churned up and taken over during the industrial revolution and then covered up as quickly as possible to suit the economic boom. 'Crazy stories' that were in fact being documented with consistency's across georgrsphical divides that lend to total credibility that is in turn in line with thousands of years of native culture. When you have some of the most senior institutions publishing such findings, then that means the inumerable instances where anthropologists and archeologists of the day were applying their professions are by sheer probablity legitimate... That's unless you think an entire generation of scientists were more Concerened with hoaxing an entire country; isn't plausible, doesn't add up and a major leap of faith. Remember; hoaxing can reflect credible popularitist concepts to seem legitimate.

      Though some hoaxing was indeed the case, you have media sources trying to keep up with more legitimate competitors and we have more accusations of untrustworthy sources such as newspapers that you don't have the slightest bit of fact to back up. Right the way through this thread you have merely maintained the same stance that 'everything is hoaxed' the same way that 'skeptics' employ today as the fundemental basis of their arguments. Dr Everhart's credibility has not been quashed by a typical effort to censor his work by the hierarchy deployed to do so with his and inumerable other instances. Hoaxing of legitimate popularist topics does not condemn scientific accumulation across an entire generation of scientists.

      Delete
    14. Your real life must be incredibly boring.

      Delete
    15. My real life consists of a frequency of healthy interactions you could only wish for.

      Delete
    16. Now I know you're lying.

      The only thing healthy in your day consists of drinking yourself unconscious every week.

      Delete
    17. That's one of the things yes... Around friends to boot.

      Delete
  7. No bones because there isn't any such creature. But given the above nonsense from "'squatch belieberz", with their less-than-scientific "beliefs", it's clear that common sense is nowhere near the minds of these people.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Yep you are 100% correct my friend, a lot of silly people on a massive snipe hunt

      Delete
    2. Yet you're here every day trying to persuade people of it with nothing akin to anything of science...

      Funny that.

      No bones? Smithsonian says "no".

      "A conscious entity practicing science can only draw on its subjective experiences to form beliefs. This means that no matter how objective science appears to be, there are generally only assumptions which must be taken entirely on faith."

      Delete
    3. Are you a Young Earth Creationalist Joe? Just asking

      Delete
    4. What are your scientific credentials Joe, just asking

      Delete
    5. Do you have a university degree of any kind? Just asking

      Delete
    6. Earth creationist? I promise you I have a better education than you.

      Psuedoskepticism is a fundemalists quasi-religion.

      Delete
    7. Man if Joe makes up one more lie his nose might not stop growing.

      Delete
    8. Do you believe in the story of creation as presented in the Bible Joe? Again what are your credentials in science and have you a degree?

      Delete
    9. Yeah, yeah... I can sleep well at night, I'm sure you're regular vomiting sessions entails anything but an average amount of education.

      Delete
    10. So are you a believer in the Biblical idea of the creation of the world?

      Delete
    11. What's your degree in Joe?

      Delete
    12. 9:42... You couldn't be further from the truth.

      9:44... My degree is in 'none of your business studies'.

      Delete
    13. So you're a believer in Darwinian revolution then? Why not list your academic qualifications Joe? What you hiding Joe?

      Delete
    14. I'm deliberately hiding any of my personal details, have done all along. If you want to know about me shoot me an email and we'll do it that way.

      Delete
    15. For someone so boastful about not hiding behind curtains, you sure do hide behind curtains.

      Jizzlefizzle1982@aol.com

      Delete
    16. Yeah, yeah... Let's see if that email materialises... Something tells me you haven't the bottle.

      Delete
    17. Surely disclosing your academic qualifications or religious beliefs is far different from giving out your phone number or address? Come on Joe tell us about your degree and your beliefs regarding evolution.

      Delete
    18. Come on Joe what's your beliefs regarding evolution and what's your degree in?

      Delete
    19. Shoot me an email and you'll find out.

      Delete
    20. He has a 2 year degree in horse puckey and follows the bigfootism, the sister of the Latter-Day Saints.

      Delete
    21. Come on Joe you're the one boasting about your intelligence what's the degree in? What's your beliefs regarding evolution?

      Delete
    22. Shoot me an email bro, you've got the bal*s right?

      Delete
    23. 12:06 joes calling you out! Email him. Go for it.

      Delete
  8. i'm getting a bigfoot boner

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. obamacare covers that!

      Delete
    2. it better because my pants are not doing a good job of that

      Delete
  9. Give it up Joe it's over. 2014 and still no monkey.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. True dat. Zero bigfoots. You'd think these footers would have got the memo by now.

      Delete
    2. With these 'monkeys'!

      http://youtu.be/cR2cREt95sU

      http://youtu.be/luue2Mv_VNM

      http://youtu.be/lOxuRIfFs0w

      The memo is you don't know what you're taking about.

      Delete
    3. Got monkey? No? Well then it's you who don't know what ya talking about.

      Delete
    4. Sometimes people are required to come out from behind the couch, open the links presented and know that your 'monkey' is there in all it's glory.

      Don't be afraid, nothing will hurt you.

      Delete
    5. Blokes in suits don't count. Only an actual undiscovered primate will do it of which you have none. Zero.

      Delete
    6. You gotz da monkey suitz?

      None caught doesn't mean none found. Silly boy.

      Delete
    7. "Lack of evidence is actually proof that they exist."


      -Clueless Joe F-i-t-z-g-e-r-a-l-d (Church of Bigfoot Disciple & Head FooTARD) as of 15JUL14 @ 9:34 a.m. EST

      Delete
    8. No lack of evidence; plenty of that... You do have a knack however of delving into the most child minded of fallacies; a negative proof fallacy being your worst and most frequented.

      You don't understand how science works and are a funny little minion in the school of pseudoskeptical vomit breeders.

      Delete
    9. Lack of adequate evidence.

      Delete
  10. Got Monkey?
    Dem Bigfoot dere critters aaaw shuwcks tho
    Oy your schmucks
    First

    vs

    Cut and Paste

    ReplyDelete
  11. "Lack of evidence is actually proof that they exist."


    -Clueless Joe F-i-t-z-g-e-r-a-l-d (Church of Bigfoot Disciple & Head FooTARD) as of 15JUL14 @ 9:34 a.m. EST

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Lack of intelligence in recognising consistent scientific method, is proof they don't exist.

      Clueless is your game, period.

      Delete
    2. There is no evidence and you have no understanding of the scientific method. The anon who was debating with you about Scientific American however knows his stuff

      Delete
    3. He knew how to unverify an 'unverified source'; yeah, he totally knew his stuff. He missed the fact that the evidence was actually presented to the people who counted/controlled.

      Very fundemental to the whole argument.

      You have never presented an argument against dermals and unknown primate hair, that is because you cannot counter science when it's presented to you... To then state that there is no evidence kind of tells me you don't know the scientific method at all.

      You are as always, too easy.

      Delete
    4. You never provide adequate evidence to back up your claims like unknown primate hair, where is the evidence or study or published scientific journal where this evidence is presented? Dermal ridges have been previously been dismissed as artifacts created by the way plaster dries so can not be considered valid proof of anything. Next you'll be talking conspiracies about the Ketchum paper....

      Delete
    5. Haven't I? I think I've even shown you images of unknown primate, but like a child backed into a corner, you can't even agknowledge it's there, like some coping mechanism... Creepy.

      There's a reason why unknown primate hair doesn't get published, and it's because it lacks medulla to classify it. It lacks this and therefore can't have DNA taken from it.

      Still with me? Sure??

      Species traits from decades and States apart identified by one of the best forensic specialists who's also one of the few primate prints experts in the world, not to mention scar tissue, kind of obliterates any notion of plaster cast drying marks... But like any other sweaty closure desperate mess, you would have no doubt closed this out of your mindset the first 50 times it was put to you.

      Delete
    6. Actually, you don't need the medulla to get DNA from hair, ask Dr. Sykes. Where are the reports of unknown primate hair? Turtle Man on Finding Bigfoot? If you're talking about Jimmy Chilcutt the self professed expert on primate footprints and human fingerprints who claimed to confirm dermal ridges and a scar on some of Meldrum's casts) then everything gets a little murky. In fact, the whole dermal ridge thing and claims made by Krantz and Meldrum have been refuted before in a paper from 1989 as Krantz had claimed that he even had casts that showed sweat glands. The authors of the paper showed that this wasn't possible using plaster in regular soil substrate to replicate that level of detail. I suggest you go to Oregon Research's website and read all the studies they've done on plaster casting and it's inability to capture fine detail and how it leaves behind these artifacts in the casts. How do you even know what Bigfoot's dermal ridges look like with no type specimen to work from?

      Delete
    7. "I have by now a dozen purported sasquatch hair samples, all morphologically congruent (which rules out hoaxing) and all effectively indistinguishable from a human hair of the particular structure (great variability is available among the latter). DNA extracted from both hair shaft or roots (hair demonstrably fresh) was too fragmented to permit gene sequencing. That characteristic is also sometimes found in human hair that lacks the medulla (as does sasquatch hair - at least what I am willing to identify as such)."

      - Dr Fahrenbach

      Your argument about Krantz and dermals might have held weight prior to Chilcutt coming along, and laughably, he's not self professed, ha! Go look at his CV, he'll make you cry. Any one who has spent ten minutes looking at numerous casts can see that there are many, many first time prints that have a similarity in style of dermal ridging in the same way that two sets of finger prints from opposite sides of the country would look similar in style at first, regardless of apparent uniqueness under analysis. These casts cannot be explained away with desiccation because they have scar tissue and toe bending that many people who have done proper analysis have sited as the creature gripping into earth. There is a clear difference between desiccation marks and complex dermal markings. You can look for yourself on any image search engine. What a one in a billion lottery win chance that would be to somehow get the same pattern decades apart from opposite sides of the country?! The pouring of liquid into a cast can make desiccation wrinkles, but when done by amateur casters and there is so, so much more casts to counter that argument. Casts that are attained 40 miles into the interior of wilderness areas throw your argument out even more so when the case with such. The hoaxers would have to be either psychic or mind controllers to predict to the exact yard where the researchers are going to be to the exact moment eh?

      How do I know unknown primates are leaving dermals? Because when an expert on primate prints, both human and non human, shows you species traits that are consistent with aforementioned prints, however have the same slight differences in similar respect to us and chimpanzees, then that tells you an unknown primate is leaving it.

      Delete
    8. "The fingerprint expert mentioned above is Jimmy Chilcutt, a latent fingerprint examiner from the Conroe Police Department. He watched Jeff Muldrum on television discussing a footprint cast he had which showed dermal ridges. Jimmy Chilcutt was a Bigfoot sceptic and felt that his fingerprint experience could be utilised to show the cast was a hoax.

      He contacted meldrum who duly agreed for chilcutt to examine the cast. The cast in question was made by Deputy James P. Akin of the Pike County Sheriff's Office Pike County, Georgia in 1997 from an impression found in the Elkins Creek flood plain. The cast was 17.5" long and 8.5" wide. Known as the Elkins Creek casting, chilcott examined it for several months and in particular, the areas where dermal ridges appeared.

      He concluded his examination saying that that the dermal ridges are that of a non human primate. This conclusion he says is based on the fact that humans have creases running perpendicular to the lateral ridges on the first joint of the toes where the toe meets the foot.

      In the Elkin Creek cast the dermal ridges flow lengthwise along the side of the foot. This deos not occurr in the Human or the known non-human primate.

      Chilcutt quickly turned from a sceptic to a believer and says that the 1967 blue creek mountain road cast and the 1984 Walla Walla, Table spring cast also show this type of ridge pattern."

      Delete
    9. Is Dr Fahrenbach the same one who claimed to have one of Fox the Bigfoot's hairs that turned out to be 100% human? How can he possibly claim with any authority to have any Bigfoot hair unless he's picked it from the animal itself! The problem with identifying hairs is that animals hair is different on different parts of the body same way that the hairs on your head are very different to the ones on your chest, armpits etc. It's why despite looking at the hairs for his study Sykes still had to DNA test the hairs from regular animals to get a definitive result.
      As for Jimmy Chilcutt he is an expert in human fingerprints and claims to be an expert in non-human primates dermal ridges. Out of the hundred or so casts Meldrum had at the time only three showed dermal ridges so 97% of them were junk. Only three out of a hundred! The first cast was the "Onion Mountain" cast supposedly from Greene but the chain of evidence is a bit shady. Greene was also known to clean up his casts using wire wool which would obviously leave marks and ridges on the cast! One of the other two casts was made by Freemon and Chilcutt looked at another of Freemon's casts and concluded that it had human dermals either by accident or on purpose perhaps supporting the belief that Freemon was a hoaxer. The scar cast was replicated using a fake rubber foot which left an impression very similar when a plaster cast was made. Chilcutt has never said it's Bigfoot but only a mystery primate.

      Delete
    10. On the Monster Talk podcast he did Chilcutt also stated that it's almost impossible to get a print with dermal as it requires the perfect substrate for lifting a good cast. Not only that but he also agrees fully with Crowley's work on plaster artifacts that I was referring to earlier and that it's very easy to be confused between artifacts and dermals. He's also been sent a number of Bigfoot hand prints all of which have been identified as human except one which was inconclusive as it was smudged so it couldn't be identified fully. So three single casts with no follow on casts or casts from the other foot just three single prints, one with a dubious chain of evidence, one by a suspected hoaxer and another by a cop. Think the cop print was the newest from the mid-80s too so no confirmed dermal prints from the mid 80s till when he started looking into Bigfoot some 10+ years later?

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

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

      Delete
    13. How can he? Because he's Department of Molecular Genetics at Ohio State University.

      "The two tufts of hair, each consisting of about a dozen strands, were sent to Ohio State University. These samples have the best possibility of being real, said Paul Fuerst, OSU associate professor of molecular genetics. Fuerst and a graduate student, Jamie Austin, are using a DNA testing procedure being developed by the FBI for analysis of hair strands that lack the roots normally needed for identification. Tests, which are being done for the Oregon Regional Primate Research Center, so far suggest the hair did not come from a known primate, Fuerst said."

      So you see, this is how these people can claim with all authority what they are doing. Once you have confirmed traits that are akin to an unknown primate, that sequences as human, then you are in a position to draw a conclusion that we are dealing with a subject/human so close to us it is very difficult to differentiate. If you have slight contamination of said sources, even more so. If we get into territory where experts are required to pluck samples for themselves, then it goes against so many breakthroughs it's unreal. What we also have is a theory as to why these results keep coming back as homo sapien, and it is based around the findings of Cro-Magnon skeletons that are the same species as us, however have larger, robust, archaic features.

      "Control tests were run that were deliberately contaminated with dog and cat DNA despite which still the Fox hair turned out to be human."

      Jimmy Chilcutt doesn't merely claim to be an expert in primate prints, he is one and has catalogued every known great ape. His credentials only come into conflict with uneducated anons such as yourself you state otherwise on the stance of knowing next to nothing in comparison of primate prints. And here in lies a major issue for your argument, because if dermals were the result of anomalies made by drying processes, then we would have these on a significant number of the other '97%' of casts made by amateur casters, wouldn't we? And we don't.

      Delete
    14. As wounds heal, the ridges curl inwards, this is true of inumerable scar tissues analysed over the years and what a one in a million chance this would be to have this replicated my accident by drying anomalies or attempts at hoaxing by hoaxers who aren't aware of such. This has not and cannot be replicated using a fake rubber foot and Sarmiento came no closer to showing this with his technique, a technique I might add that was his sole invention and quite a unique a process for anyone else to think up, not to mention a considerably ellaborate effort for something that prior to Chilcutt identifying dermals, the average hoaxer wouldn't have had knowledge of. This also cannot be explained away with any means of cleaning up tracks and wire wool either. You do not attain ridges from wire wool, and even if so, goes against your argument to which compared to badly made casts... Why don't we see these wool markings on other casts Greene cleaned up? If Chilcutt theorised that Freeman had faked the dermals, then that is in line with the criticism he had for his credibility, one that many enthusiasts don't agree with in line with the evidence to support he didn't hoax. Therefore, this sentiment is one that promotes Chilcutt's impartiality, but on the greater scheme of things, providing you are not looking for a loop hole to condemn the casts, means very little. I find it a very great leap of faith to suggest that dermals in line with consistency of species traits can be made by 'accident' and understanding the the intelligence of Chilcutt, I would take this statement with an air of cynicism of the imediate point in hand.

      Chilcutt does not say the dermals are made by a Bigfoot, no... But a mystery primate. Do you read what you wire sometimes?

      “Matt has shown artifacts can be created, at least under laboratory conditions, and field researchers need to take precautions.”

      Are laboratory conditions available to the average hoaxer? It goes back to the extent in which Sarmiento's unique technique isn't realistic. Chilcutt is merely stating the truth, but has no real baring on the circumstances in which the tracks were attained. If Chilcutt expressed the sentiment that it is extremely difficult to get prints from the average casting processes, then this is also an echo of the frequency of such casts and the very special and unique nature of such that have this trait occur. Again... Wouldn't all of these 'fake tracks' have these anomalies?

      Dubious sources? None more dubious than a source that twists words and circumstances to suit an agenda to dismiss outrightly something that threatens your perception of how such a legitmate source is relevant to this field of study.

      More to follow once I'm done in work...

      Delete
  12. I pop in on his site occasionally just for fun and what is absolutely apparent to me is that Joe's ship is getting sunk by cannonballs of logic and he can't plug the holes fast enough. He has been utterly pwned by those above and has to rely on 19th century articles and assumptions.to make his case. He has nothing and will always have nothing (except his fantasies). I'll drop in again next week and it will be the same. He's stuck in one gear and will never shift out. What a waste of life. Sad really.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think you and your kind have been out done by facts and consistent data that show you your history is a version from which you cling to like opium for the masses. My 'pwnage' is so apparent you need to promote the idea, right?

      I could have pasted instance upon instance of giant skeletal remains and plan to over the next few days to show how much you 'folk' lack a counter argument for sheer constistancy of reports from archeological studies.

      What I have is reliable scientific method from consistent fields of study that have propelled such for decades from those who have excelled all others in their respected fields... You have a collective effort at trying to counter such with the average quality of your comment.

      Dumb-dumbs.

      Delete
    2. You are not applying any kind of scientific method at all because you are not examining the evidence but just buying into what these so called experts are saying because it supports your preconceived notions regarding Bigfoot's authenticity. You're the same as a scofftic that says Bigfoot is impossible just with a reversed view and no real evidence to support any of your claims! How do you explain the lack of Bigfoot sightings prior to mid 60s when Roe allegedly had his sighting? How do you explain how Patty looks exactly like Roe's drawing that Patterson had used without permission in his book previous to his film? Have you not noticed the correlation in the increase in sightings and the increase in media and internet interest? You not think that people having sightings is possibly because their perception is compromised by countless tv shows, movies, podcasts etc telling them the woods are full of Sasquatch? You ever read the paper on how the Origin of the Species pretty much killed off the old werewolf sightings and instead the "Wildman" and "Apeman" sightings began? You do know the people digging up these "Giant Skeletons" in the 19th century were probably not very well educated by today's standards? Have you seen the latest studies done on memory and eyewitness testimony which basically says that eyewitness aren't worth a damn and that our memories are easily distorted and can not be depended on at all?

      Delete
    3. You know that if Bigfoot is proved real it won't disprove evolution don't you Joe? Just incase you are a Creationist :)

      Delete
    4. So called experts? And what credentials do you have to label professionals that have excelled all others in their respected fields as so called? You want degrees and religious stances from others, I doubt we'd be so lucky to have your credentials to compare to people such as a former advisors to the UN? You see, in this one example it's not merely my opinion or interpretation of what said experts have applied in the time they have been invested in this subject; it's in fact their past achievements to which outlines sheer credibility and consistency of scientific methods once transitioned to this field. It has nothing to do with any of my preconceived notions at all, because it is until such a time that such research and data is analysed that one based conclusions upon afterwards. This therefore serves as the evidence to back up claims I've made post analysing the facts... Otherwise I wouldn't be using those facts. This does not compare me to any strange comparison you conjure up, because I have been convinced of the data presented. This a very normal process of research, tried and tested by many before me and too many to come.

      You follow? Sure??

      Tribes in Alaska, prior to the 60's had described what was resided in their mountainous forest ranges as 'big black gorillas'... And here we have a direct similarity to the make up of Patty. There have been reports of wildmen for hundreds of years prior to anything in the 60's and this outlines an extremely gross naivity/ignorance with regards to the sheer cultural references of native Americans for ten thousand years of Native culture. From here, we have a transition in white settlers' diaries that for the time, had no way of influencing eachother due to seperation geographically. This is what lends credibility to the natives, because more believable (cynically in the eyes of those like you), as the Europeans saw wildmen as well. These accounts were then taken from diaries and written up in the news media of the day and are now in libraries up and down your great country... Hard to debunk eh? We have ten thousands of years of Native American culture. Wall paintings some 8 feet in height true to size and if you know anything about indigenous cultures you'll would know that ceremonies, dances, utensil designs like baskets, all these things indigenous people do to pass down historical events, identity and culture is because written texts can be manipulated and missinterpreted. There is an easily attainable timeline of Native American culture by the determining the age of settlement sites. Burnt wood and other means have been used to carbon date areas where indigenous peoples who maintain the Bigfoot culture have resided.

      Delete
    5. Unfortunately, like any developing subject today, there is nothing that isn't subseptable to popular culture. What we have here is merely more and more people converting to a thought progressing concept that is not out of the pales of reality and what is evident, is that there are people who are going to be left behind, just like the pre-90's UFO skeptics that had to so sheepishly erode away once the proverbial penny dropped. Unfortunately, with any source of pop culture, you will have versions, inaccuracies and a target audience. Also, hoaxing tends to mimic things prevalent in society to convey consistency and maintain an essence of legitimacy. This isn't a problem for most, you only have to look at the long term effect of pop culture had on UFO's, the concept has not been hindered, and we have nowhere near the physical evidence to support the case for aliens as we do relict hominids.

      You know nothing of anything remotely proper in science; your ever occurring contradictions to deny the same methods you claim to understand and apply consistently, are evident every time you decide to dribble on to that keyboard of yours. The geologists, lawyers, teachers, police officers, historians, wildlife biologists, primatologists, anthropologists, doctors, psychiatrists, business owners, forensic specialists, costume experts or forestry commissioners, conservationists... All of whom have a million times the integrity than role playing 'confident skeptics', who would find the notion that for ten thousand years people from different cultures have been part of the same secret society of ape suit wearing folk, jumping out and saying boo to people when they never knew what an ape looked like, risking everything with so many guns around... As pure entertainment.

      Your argument that Bigfoot sightings happened after the 1960's destroyed.

      And to Patterson's drawing; natural considering Roger was a keen artist and obsessive about the subject, but I don't see any similarity between the drawing and footage that cannot be attributed to the same consistent across countless sources. The fact that Roger filmed the exact specimen that people are reporting is testament to his success.

      Delete
    6. There is a reason that the subject has developed and an increase in sightings widely reported, and that's because the field is now linked with research groups exchanging research and ideas, the sheer majority of reports that are logged now a days because people have the courage to come forward now there is better understanding and the development of the internet to hide identification, this would indicate a far greater percentage of reports that don't surface.

      It is hilarious leap of faith the suggest that whole scientific societies spanning three generations should inaccurate, regardless if the era. In the 19th century archeology really couldn't fail, that's all it had to do is document what they unearthed, to which was done with ridiculous consistency and noted in major scientific sources. The only think these scientists could have got wrong was the origins of such finds due to their primitive undertanding (compared to us now) of passed cultures. It also don't take a scientists to use a measuring tape, ha ha ha ha!!!

      Eyewtiness testimony is notoriously inaccurate, however this doesn't account for full frontal accounts that document sheer, clear detail under cut circumstances of multiple witnesses at the same time, with tracks and hair accumilated from the same instance. You'll have a percentage of sightings that are inaccurate, but laughably, if one out of all the contemporary accounts are real... Then so is Bigfoot, and you have a serious pool of reliable professional sources to choose from in that sense.

      I find it very odd you should suggest I would be threatened should Bigfoot be confirmed a legitmate species by mainstream standards, kind of outlines your poor deliverance of an even irrelevant point and confused stance, as you will notice my past arguments site longstanding education and religious ideals that prop up the interests of a select minority; this along with the economic in-come from logging and national park tourism would be major factors against such a species being considered authentic by wider acceptance. So there we are... I think that was everything. As much as you're interested in me, I'll end by pointing out you are a coward and don't so much as reveal your name. You know nothing, have a naive undertanding of the subject and do believe you have learnt something for once in your existence by reading this comment.

      ; )

      Delete
    7. Once again Joe we get your tired old disputed points coupled with personal attacks which shows why you are disliked so much. The stories of the Native Americans and Canadian First Nation people have long been used to try and prove that Bigfoot exists by many researchers especially post PGF. The truth is that these people much like yourself have bent these tales of wild men and monsters to fit their already preconceived notions concerning this creature. They basically did the patronising white guy thing of going "this is what the creature is in your story, a Bigfoot!" Often the ogre like creature in the stories bears no resemblance to Bigfoot at all they might be giants made of stone, cannibal goddesses, giant wild MEN or creatures who look like men with 6 ft quartz spikes sticking out their big toe! What people like yourself have done is taken these stories and adapted them to YOUR beliefs creating a mythology that wasn't there before then going "here look at these Indian stories of Bigfoot he's been here for thousands of years!"
      You must know about the origins of the name Sasquatch right Joe? It comes from the 1920s when John W Burns collected local stories of these feral wild people not giant hairy bipeds, hairy people. When Green wrote about Burn's stories he compared these Sasquatches to giant hippies! Green also played down the importance of Native accounts as in Native culture there was no dividing line between the real and unreal, every weird strange creature of folklore was real magic and all.

      Delete
    8. Here's some history for you Joe that obviously you are unaware of, the first official hairy hominid sighting recorded of what we now know as Bigfoot wasn't till the 1960s. "Roe was the very first to describe a Sasquatch as an ape-like creature not a giant Indian," John Green
      This guy named Roe reported an encounter while hiking in 1955 with a giant hairy ape-woman who his daughter drew a sketch of which is identical to Patty. He even described the creature walking away from him and looking over it's shoulder in exactly the same way that Patty does in the PGF. This story is the first modern Bigfoot encounter before this Sasquatch was a feral Indian tribe in villages with clothes and fire etc. The problem is no one ever met the guy, the story was sent in the form of a letter with a sworn testimony that it was real! No one ever sat down face to face with Roe but some how after this story hit the media every Bigfoot looked like Roe's sighting. Patterson maybe was a keen artist but in his book (published the year before the film) he reported on this story stealing the artwork from Roe in typical Patterson fashion! It's strange that in his film the creature is identical to Roe's and even walks off in exactly the same fashion as in Roe's story! The whole modern Bigfoot idea rests on a letter written by a guy who claimed to see an ape-woman in the 1950s! The only validation for Roe'x story is a written testimony that came with the sighting! The whole thing could have been total bs and he died before anyone ever thought of tracking him down to meet him face to face! The mystery primate was created in a letter in the 50s with no evidence to back it up but it's steam rolled from there to now!

      Delete
    9. I have no problem with people like you not liking me, if you're going to insist in calling me a creationist then please, expect a little back. Nearly every single element of your comment posted has an attainable explanation in my comment up top, and what's evident is there is a trait in your comments that appears to end up opposing your own arguments.

      Sasquatch are people... The natives have always maintained they are another tribe of people. This isn't a convenience on the part of enthusiasts; Russian homonologists, some of the very best anthropogists of the past 60 years have maintained that wild people are relict hominids, regularly referencing the American Sasquatch. Furthermore, if you look at the images of Patty here;

      http://bf-field-journal.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/the-human-side-of-bigfoot-comparing.html?m=1

      You will notice that Patty with no hair looks exactly like a human... An ugly human with archaic features, but a human. If you look further at sketches made by Harvey Pratt, you will see a profoundly human based element to the facial features of his subjects. Let me outline something very clear to you... When you have thousands of years of cultural references of giant hairy people that transition contemporary accounts and mediums, then that isn't anything we've bent and is ignorant and audacious in the extreme that you should attempt to manufacture a scenario where that somehow backs your argument. It I'm fact helps prove me right.

      The stone giants you refer to; Genoskwa, are reported by native legends to be the exact same subject, but like the canibalistic legends, they roll around in mud so that it dries to their hair, which in turn repels primitive arrows. I might add, that nearly every single tribe in North America have referred to the Sasquatch as canibalistic. You have to be human to be cannibalistic, by the way.

      Delete
    10. So no... Dear sweet Anon. It is audacious, self obliterating and an embarrassing angle to peruse using legends of people who have the best understanding of the wilderness that maintain Sasquatch are human, against those that promote the relict hominid theory. It does nothing but support our argument. Greene, with all due respect to him... Was looking for his 'bipedal gorilla', and to come across a stone wall of opposition in the native cultures isn't such a suprise.

      Physical evidence that promotes the legends of canibalistic giants in nearly every tribe in North America?

      http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/could-this-be-bigfoot-skull-mk-davis-is.html?m=0

      http://www.scribd.com/mobile/doc/109783839

      For far too long the field has been looking for a bipedal gorilla. This has many problem because a gorilla would have been found by now, but a subject that buries it's dead and has language outlines culture and an intelligence that further articulates it's evasion capabilities. It is no wonder that in the last 15 years with the development of the Internet, where research groups and enthusiasts can share ideas and advance the field, that now we have a world beating geneticist conducting a hominid study?

      You maintain this argument about Roe and nothing prior, and then state that all Sasquatch reports in their droves are our 'myth', that's desperate bro... Very desperate and not a very clever angle of argument. This 'head turning Roe encounter', as equally unclever, whatever lack of verification there is. There are imumerable accounts of Sasquatch behaving the exact same way; the witness and subject moving in opposite directions, and the fact that it turns to see the opposing party is a very natural thing that all primates, both human and non human do. The fact that this 1955 encounter is consistent with other reports, especially those that aren't aware of such like the majority of impartial unprovoked encounters, doesn't mean anything but consistency that promotes behavioural traits.

      The concept of Sasquatch using tools and clubs are prevelant in accounts today; club wielding and fish spearing, whilst the use of fire in modern times would be a great give away of concealment.

      Patterson has so much more accounts to go by, the guy was one of the first modern researchers who spent ridiculous amounts of time in the libraries researching his interests. It's not only a lame argument to maintain a constant behavior traits as your argument, but a gross naivity to the fact that there were so much more for Roger to go by. Al Hodgson here;

      http://bigfootevidence.blogspot.co.uk/2014/06/watch-this-2005-interview-with-al.html?m=0

      ... States that when he got out of the army in 1946, that the local community around where Patty was filmed had a reoccurring issue with a gorilla type that was known by considerable amounts of people to exist and be some sort of a nusance. The only 'myth' we are talking about here is fom the likes of you, 'mything' up ideas of no pre-50's accounts when by your very own comments you blow yourself out of the proverbial water.

      Delete
    11. And you dear Joe for the millionth time have not read my post properly, I was suggesting that previous to Roe's encounter the accepted image of Sasquatch was a giant Indian with long head hair (no body hair) which lived in tribes, used tools, spoke a language and was entirely like a human being just larger. No ape looking creature but a wild man a large human WHO BORE NO PHYSICAL RESEMBLANCE AT ALL TO THE CREATURE THAT IS IN THE PGF NONE WHATSOEVER NADA NOT ALL THAT CREATURE WAS NOT DESCRIBED TILL ROE WROTE HIS ACCOUNT FROM 1955! The cannibal creatures and all the other MYTHICAL MAGICAL CREATURES FROM NATIVE MYTHOLOGY WERE NOT SASQUATCH BUT DIFFERENT BEASTS. It's people like yourself having a predisposed idea about the look (Patty) and traits of this mystery creature and it's existence and retro-fitting the beasts from legend to match your view!!! ACCORDING TO THE WORK OF WARD (WHO CREATED THE ANGLICISED WORD SASQUATCH) THESE CREATURES LOOKED AND ACTED NOTHING LIKE THE BIGFOOT OF TODAY AT ALL!!!! YOUR MYSTERY PRIMATE (HUMANS ARE PRIMATES TOO IDIOT) WAS NOT DESCRIBED BY THESE NATIVE TRIBES AND MOTE TO THE POINT IN NATIVE CULTURE THERE IS NO DEFINING LINE BETWEEN REALITY (HUMANS, WILDLIFE, GEOGRAPHY ETC) AND FANTASY (TALKING ANIMALS, GIANT CREATURES, DWARVES, CANNIBAL GODDESSES, GODS) SO EVERY CREATURE OF MYTH WAS REAL TO THEM AND THERE STORIES ARE OF NO USE AS ANY EVIDENCE WHAT SO EVER!!! NO SCIENTIFIC USE AT ALL!!!! NICE STORIES BUT NO EVIDENCE HERE IN ANY FORM WHATSOEVER, YOU OBNOXIOUS MORON! THE IDEA THAT THESE CREATURES USED TO USE FIRE BUT NOW DONT INCASE THEY ARE DISCOVERED IS QUITE POSSIBLY ONE OF THE DUMBEST THINGS YOU HAVE PROPOSED ON HERE! YOUR BIGFOOT THEORIES ARE RIDICULOUS AND TOTALLY LACKING IN ANY SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE TO BACK IT UP! YOU ARE A POMPOUS IDIOT WHO KNOWS NOTHING ABOUT HISTORY, CULTURAL HISTORY, BIOLOGY OR GENETICS! YOU ARE AN EPIC FAIL! QUIT PUSHING YOUR LAME DUCK THEORIES AND APPLY SOME CRITICAL THINKING SKILLS BECAUSE YOU ARE JUST EMBARRASSING YOURSELF AND MAKING US BRITS LOOK LIKE MORONS!
      Thanks :)

      Delete
    12. Ha ha ha ha ha!!! What's the mater bro, did I get you all angwy?

      If you didn't ascertain from my comment, there are two types of relict hominid widely reported today; the human 'wildman' type and the gorilla type. You fail to absorb anything that comes your way, and then suggest that characteristics that have been documented both in the past and present are not there. You have been proven wrong twice-three times now, it's no wonder you're angry. There have never been any recognized apes in the US. If you open a history book, you'll notice that many of the early references to great apes were man-like... It's called a anthropomorphism.

      "Meanwhile, newspaper reports (turn of to early part of the 20th century) were beginning to term these unusual creatures “gorillas” in deference to the newly discovered great apes of the African forests. The idea that the sightings were of men gone wild was gradually dropped in favour of the idea that they were gorillas or similar apes escaped from zoos or travelling shows. A newspaper report from Arkansas ended with the words “If this meets the eye of any showman who has lost one of his collection of beasts, he may know where to find it. At present it is the terror of all women and children in the valley. It cannot be caught and nobody is willing to shoot it. ”

      Again... You opposed yourself. Apes are humans; precisely. People didn't have an idea of what a gorilla was in the 19th century.

      Again... We have recorded language that has been verified and published by the University of Wyoming to be authentic. The book is called Manlike Monsters on Trial. Again... To evade civilisation as well as it has and maintain burial, it would have to reside in highly intelligent social groups... Tribes if you will.

      The reports of Sasquatch behavior from the 19th century, yelling and aggressive are reported today with the inumerable accounts of barking, whooping, chattering, distance leaping and frightfully quick Sasquatch. It's all there, and we even have footage of this in the Leaping Russian Yeti (an exact matching specimen to Patty I might add) you just need to account for the sheer frequency and diversity of reports... Maybe actually learn something more than the one thing you've maintained all through this thread; helps when you're ready to argue a particular subject matter. Also... Sasquatch not using fire these days is a perfectly rational explanation now that there are more people in the forests with guns... It is, in fact a very common sense approach to why they would spend their existence evading, only to give themselves away with smoke signals.

      I don't have anything to back up my theories, right? Well I do believe that through this comment section I have successfully put mounds of it together with which you have no means of debunking... Tracks, hair, footage, recorded language, archeological studies, thousands of years of cultural and contemporary references, the reliable mutiple eyewitnesses from credible & professional backgrounds... It's all there, you just need to try a little harder debunking it and at least learn to digest the contents of someone else's comments, or at least learn how to read between the lines of such.

      I don't need to make you look like an idiot.

      Peace and love from a Welshman.

      ; )

      Delete
    13. Tracks : casts are prone to plaster artifacts that even Jimmy Chilcutt agrees makes the dermal ridge argument dodgy at best and the three casts he claims are real one is from a hoaxer, one has a dodgy chain of evidence and the scar cast has been successfully copied using a rubber foot!
      Hair: nothing at all except brash claims from a former zoologist who again has no chain of evidence for his samples one of which was supposedly taken from Fox the Bigfoot which was 100% human, not unknown human but plain old regular Homo sapiens
      Footage: Impossible to prove authenticity with out a type specimen to compare to, Bill Munns is an untalented hack not matter what he puts in his CV and better SFX.artists have dismissed it as a hoax
      Recorded Language: you mean the Sierra sounds? Again with no type specimen it's worthless, well within human range and only a crypto linguist's opinion to support it, it's just a recording of gibberish
      Archeological studies: on Bigfoot since when? People hundred plus years ago with little understanding of human anatomy during a period of popular sideshow gaffs, hoaxes and unreliability or the journals and publications said reports came from. Where the bones Joe, oh yeah a conspiracy how convenient indeed.

      Delete
    14. 1000s of years of Cultural history: been over this ad nauseum previous to the mid 20th century Sasquatch bore no resemblance to Patterson's creature then suddenly it's all that is reported. Then there's all the obvious retro-fitting of ancient monster stories from a culture that has no dividing line between fantasy and reality this is of no scientific worth at all
      Eyewitnesses: There are no reliable eyewitnesses at all, everybody lies, everybody is susceptible to misidentification, hallucination, paradolia and as just about everyone has seen the PGF or heard bout Bigfoot then their perception of an unusual shape or sound is compromised. If you think Bigfoot you'll see Bigfoot. New studies have been conducted on memory and eyewitness testimony as time after time people are freed from jail because of DNA evidence proving innocence after bad eyewitness reports had led to a conviction. What it showed was basically we make lousy eyewitnesses, especially when stressed, we are pretty much useless at describing people of other races, we often have false memories of events that never happened, our memories are also very easy to manipulate and we are very easily fooled by paradolia. My favourite report was of an experiment where subjects were shown a video of a group of people throwing a ball to each other and the subjects were asked to count the number of times the ball was thrown, a simple task. However, at random intervals a guy in an ape suit ran between the ball throwers and even ran up to the camera. After the test the subjects were asked about the number of throws and the guy in the suit, less than half the number of subjects reported seeing the ape suit as their brains were totally absorbed with the throw counting task they'd been given that their visual memory failed to take in the guy in the monkey suit. We are lousy eyewitnesses and every human being is not only capable of telling lies, seeing things that aren't there are all of us are susceptible to outside influence. When it comes to the eyewitness' profession it also holds no bearing at all, doctors, teachers, policemen, professors, bin men, soldiers, nurses, ninjas it doesn't matter and lends 0 credibility to their sightings and has no scientific worth at all!!!! Rick Dyer was a corrections officer and his partner in the 2008 hoax was a cop! He even got fired from the police force over it!
      You have no conclusive scientific evidence to confirm the existence of Bigfoot never mind to claim it has language, an ancient tradition, it's human, it possesses intelligence greater than ours or that it has successfully been filmed. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence like a body or a live type specimen circumstantial evidence and tall tales don't mean squat.
      Once again you are a huge waste of skin constantly making ad hoc hypotheses because you won't come to terms with the fact you have nothing to prove this creature exists that is of any scientific merit. You suck with love from Yorkshire :)

      Delete
    15. Who does this sound like?
      1. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence: A person will make revolutionary pronouncements about the world or a Cryptid with only circumstantial evidence like blurry photos, foot casts, settlers diaries to back up their claim but extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof like a body.
      2. Burden of proof: The believer will argue a mountain of evidence (all circumstantial or of dubious origin) points to the existence of a creature and the burden of proof falls on the sceptic but in science the burden of proof falls on the one making the extraordinary claim that goes against all we currently know about biology etc and requires extraordinary evidence to back the claim like a body

      Delete
    16. 3.Authority, Credentials and Expertise: The believer and psuedoscientist will cite the credentials of leading proponents of their claim adding credibility to their argument but those credentials must be relevant to their claim and must have advanced training in the relevant field. Pointing to an advanced degree is an attempt to intimidate sceptics by inferring that a degree means they know more about everything than you but in reality they are only qualified to pass comment on their relevant field.
      4. Special Pleading and Ad Hoc Hypotheses: When the evidence is strongly against their hypothesis instead of admitting they are wrong they resort to special pleading to salvage their original hypothesis rather than admitting they are wrong, this is an ad hoc hypothesis and universally regarded as a failure. For example, Dr Sykes will prove Bigfoot exists- he doesn't - ah but the study is still on going and there will be another paper or there's a conspiracy!!

      Delete
    17. Just started work... You will receive a response in due course... Baring in mind that I'll be pasting large extracts from all the points I have made up top with the exception of a few others...

      If you thought you'd had a meltdown before, then saddle up bro!

      ; )

      Delete
    18. By the way Joe I'm an atheist what's your view Scientology maybe?

      Delete
    19. It doesn't matter what you cut and paste you have no evidence worthy of scientific analysis just stories, conspiracies and unfounded claims. You'll always lose till someone kills one or captures one :) Burden of proof is always on you....

      Delete
    20. Oh you'll see what I have a bit later on. Everything regarding tracks and archaeological studies are within the thread. in the mean time, here's this to tie you over...

      Extraordinary claims should not require extraordinary evidence. We live in an age where string theory and quantum physics are getting to be way beyond the pails of anything paranormal, yet the psuedoskeptics suggest that a living breathing subject that leaves physical and biological clues after itself is nothing to consider in any realm of fact. Especially when this is determined by the same scientific methods that have excelled respected fields. Laughably, circumstantial evidence is widely accepted in the court of law. Science doesn't prejudise or have a preconceived disposition to favour a preferenced conclusion... This is heuristics and actually what the scientific method was designed against. Nobody is suggesting this subject should be proven on the basis of the evidence alone, but if people are reporting, to which there is physical and biological evidence of an unknown primate, then what does that tell you? Science doesn't start at a body, it is a tool in investigating evidence leading up to that point.

      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.

      Authority, Credentials and Expertise; John Bindernagel, PhD, Courtenay, BC, Canada... Todd Disotell, PhD, New York University New York, NY... Colin Groves, PhD, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia... Chris Loether, PhD, Idaho Sate University, Pocatello, ID... Jeffrey McNeely, PhD
      Chief Scientist IUCN - World Conservation Union, Gland, Switzerland... Lyn Miles, PhD, University of Tennessee, Chattanooga... John Mionczynski, Wildlife Consultant, Atlantic City, WY... Anna Nekaris, PhD, Oxford Brooks University, Oxford, England... Ian Redmond, OBE, Conservation Consultant, Manchester, England... Esteban Sarmiento, PhD, Human Evolution Foundation, East, Brunswick, NJ... Zhou Guoxing, PhD, Beijing Museum of Natural History
      Beijing, China... People like this are highly relevant to the fields as their credentials entail. It is in fact, the pseudoscientific (scratch that, idiot) who fails to recognize the relevance of such profoundly excelled minds backing a subject that requires every field aforementioned. What my degree is in is irrelevant and obviously got you all upset.

      Special Pleading and Ad Hoc Hypotheses; "Sykes will prove Bigfoot exists- he doesn't - ah but the study is still on going and there will be another paper or there's a conspiracy!!" In fact, nobody is stating that there is a conspiracy, but stating that geneticists are only as good as their samples, and when the actual geneticist States that his work does not debunk Bigfoot and that there is a way from researchers to still test samples under him, then the fact that someone should insist we admit we're wrong, is rather embarrassing and shows a lack of integrity, honesty and outright denial of perverse proportions. We should ignore Sykes' rallying cry? This is in fact; special pleading. Special pleading is maintaining that scientific methods should be altered, bent and twisted to suit preconceived preferences and heuristical conclusions. What do I plead for? An even playing ground, t'is all.

      Like I said... Tune in later for another comment that makes you look like you need to brush up on your knowledge

      ; )

      Delete
    21. Tracks; wrong... We have shown in this thread that if dermals were down to plaster cast anomalies, we would see these in the inumerable other examples to which are made my amatuer casters. There is absolutely no evidence other than the cynicism of idiots to prove Freeman was a hoaxer, scar tissue is not a known physical trait to the average hoaxer and you won't accomplish this with rubber feet (a unique process invented by a skilled primatologist and not the average hoaxer), because there are traits to scar tissue like inward healing dermal lines that from sheer accident on plastic moulds wouldn't and don't occur; when you have the same traits in other sources you look silly... it's a leap of faith. Chilcutt stated that under laboratory conditions casts could be made this way but the three examples he has for dermals were very unlikely made in such conditions (another leap of faith) and to then expect an every day Joe to know the complex species traits and signs of feet tissue and such in mimicking tracks is again... A faith based leap. If these anomalies were from casting processes, we'd see them in all tracks. The fact that the frequency of dermals matches the professional opinion and expectancy of rarity says it all.

      Footage; when you have the likes of George Schaller, PhD recognized as the world's preeminent field biologist and conservationist, studying wildlife for over 50 years throughout Africa, Asia and South America. He is a senior conservationist at the Bronx Zoo-based Wildlife Conservation, John Bindernagel, former advisor to the UN, PhD, Courtenay, BC, Canada... Todd Disotell, PhD, New York University New York, NY... Colin Groves, PhD, Australian National University, Canberra, Australia... Chris Loether, PhD, Idaho Sate University, Pocatello, ID... Jeffrey McNeely, PhD
      Chief Scientist IUCN - World Conservation Union, Gland, Switzerland... Lyn Miles, PhD, University of Tennessee, Chattanooga... John Mionczynski, Wildlife Consultant, Atlantic City, WY... Anna Nekaris, PhD, Oxford Brooks University, Oxford, England... Ian Redmond, OBE, Conservation Consultant, Manchester, England... Esteban Sarmiento, PhD, Human Evolution Foundation, East, Brunswick, NJ... Zhou Guoxing, PhD, Beijing Museum of Natural History
      Beijing, China... Peer reviewing a piece of footage that says you're wrong bro. The fact that Munns was sacked once in a 30 years career spanning every element of SFX, is irrelevant to the successful careers of a long list of he most notable.

      Delete
    22. Recorded language; Cryptolinguistics have contributed to war efforts for a long time. Scott Nelson - Retired from the U.S. Navy as a Crypto-Linguist with over 30 years experience in Foreign Language and Linguistics, including the collection, transcription, analysis and reporting of voice communications. He is a two time graduate of the U.S. Navy Cryptologic Voice Transcription School (Russian and Spanish) and has logged thousands of hours of voice transcription in his target languages as well as in Persian. He is currently teaching Russian, Spanish, Persian, Philosophy and Comparative Religions at Wentworth College in Missouri. It's really quite simple... If you slow chatter down to half it's speed and you come up with a complex layered dialect; then it's pretty much self evident.

      "The existence of the Sasquatch Being is hereby assumed, since any Being must exist before his language. Any argument for the existence of Sasquatch or his language should be given outside of this standard and outside any transcription endeavor that uses this standard. Transcripts should stand alone as tools for the language researcher; whereas S.P.A. transcripts and excerpts should be freely used in other works to support language arguments. Since the Sasquatch Being has the ability to produce utterance at frequencies above and below those of human ability, he must also be capable of producing utterance within the limits of human ability. Consequently, utterances that that fall within human levels, while evidencing characteristics of unknown language, remain useful in comparison studies of Sasquatch Language. If a recorded utterance is not Human (i.e. exceeds human ability in Frequency, Pitch, Prosody, Resonance, etc.), and,
      If the utterance demonstrates language,
      Then the subject producing the utterance is deduced to be the Sasquatch Being, any alternative conclusion being absurd (i.e. extraterrestrials, demons, angels, etc. in contrast to an undocumented species native to this planet)."

      - Scott Nelson

      "These recordings later became the subject of a year-long University of Wyoming-based engineering study to determine their authenticity and to understand the nature of the vocalizations relative to those of humans and other primates. The results of that study were published by the University of British Columbia Press in 1980 in ?Manlike Monsters on Trial,? an anthology of professional papers presented at a 1978 UBC-sponsored symposium entitled Anthropology of the Unknown. The study concluded that the unusual vocalizations were primate in origin, and that at least one of the voices exceeded normal human ranges. Although the study did not rule out the possibility of human source, it established that the vocalizations were spontaneous at the time of recording and that there was no evidence of pre-recording or re-recording at altered tape speed."

      The published paper is called Manlike Monsters on Trial - early records and modern evidence by Majorie M Halpin and Michael Ames.

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

      Delete
    24. Eyewitnesses: the problem is, there are reliable sources, embarrassingly the legal system accounts for much of it (pfffffft). 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 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.

      Wanna fight?

      Delete
  13. Stand your ground Joe! There are plenty of people that understand your position and back you. The ones that do not believe will try to pick apart every minute detail or article that you provide. We, the silent majority, are watching. We have seen them, we know they exist. Those of you that haven't seen one should not ridicule others.
    The best argument for a bigfoot comes from the native Americans. They have hundreds of years of oral history related to the bigfoots. You skeptics have only been doing this since the late sixties. There is no comparison!
    Remember, just because you have not seen one does not mean they do not exist. It just means you have not seen one- yet.
    Stand your ground Joe and Mike. keep on posting guys.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Folks, we can post our opinions and views regarding Sasquatch dna till the cows come home(so to speak) when we cannot even take1 (yes one) darn authentic photo(s) or video of this so-called creature after ALL these years........

    ReplyDelete
  15. Great video D.L. Soucy,

    I am a co-researcher of Jim Vieira, Ross Hamilton, Chris Lesely and about dozen other authors and lecturers. We've compiled somewhere between 1,500 and 2,000 accounts of giant burials in America, Europe, and Asia of skeletons 6-1/2 to about 9 ft, and sometimes as tall as 12 ft- reported between 1700's and present day. I am familiar with the reports you drew attention to in your videos.

    Hoaxes could explain a percentage of these, as well as unintentional mis-measurement, or press sensationalism. Quite a number however can be traced to primary sources, field journals, anthropological papers, museum inventory records, or science papers. So I believe many of these raw newspaper reports could go 50/50 either way based on my experience with investigating a number of them.

    My co-researcher Cecelia Hall drafted a google map of N. America based on 1,800 files I sent her some months ago: http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Id37N6vImUc/Uu2u1ZWpGrI/AAAAAAAAxlw/FSEaeFWYrAk/s1600/1010960_526639300783862_916482378_n.jpg

    Some have suggested the "giant skeleton" map corresponds with bigfoot sightings maps. I think that's an interesting possibility, although it could also be that skeletons found were generally buried among mounds and village sites which were near river valleys and waterways, much in line with the best farm and town sites later American pioneers chose for themselves - basically just one culture replacing another.

    Who were the giants?. The skeletons of the 7 to 8 foot tall men tend to have been warriors buried in single or some times multiple burials, an honored class described in detail by Dragoo, Silverberg and others in the case of Adena culture mounds. Several sites into the 1950's and 60's yielded credible finds of 7 foot men at Dover Mound and Cresap mound by the Univ. of Kentucky and Carnegie museum of Penn. This tends to support at least some of the voluminous claims of extremely tall warrior types encountered by pioneers in early mound plundering.

    But bare in mind the average Adena male was 5 ft 6 to 5 ft 8 inches tall, these taller skeletons seem to have been of a tribal elite, and not the usual run of the mill individual.

    Similar burials of strikingly tall 6 ft 6 to 7 ft 3 skeletons are reportedly unearthed to the present day in Kurgan mounds of Ukraine, Russia, the Caucasus and central Asia.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Some of the early mound reports do describe Gorilla like skulls, and simian features not unlike those of a Neanderthal man. This could be a combination of upper-paleolithic or archaic traits among some of the ancient American Indians. Skulls such as the strange skulls (2 of them) unearthed in 1967 outside of Lovelock cave in the humboldt sink and dated to below 2,000 years old do exhibit pronounced brow ridge, occipital buns, and very robust mandibular development - the occipital bun being relatively rare among modern humans, whereas it is found primarily in robust upper paleolithic man, and the majority of Neanderthals.

    My theory is that the giant types of the American, Asian, and Euro-Asian mounds may be warriors of special selection bred for strength and stature, yet still exhibiting upper-paleolithic physical traits well into historic times.

    The question arises, could Heidelbergensis, Neanderthal, Denisovan, or other yet to be recognized sub-species, or species of Homo have been responsible for these giants, and the Sasquatch?

    Gigantopithecus and Meganthropus are yet another mystery as so few of their bone fragments have been located which could yield accurate estimates of their size & stature. They only add more to this puzzle.

    As for claims of a conspiracy, that is difficult to prove. There certainly are at least 50 to 100 reports on file them receiving alleged giant's bones over the past 100 years. I tend to think they may not actually know what they had received, and so much of their relics and bones have probably gone missing over the years, and or lousy inventory keeping... It's hard to paint a picture of nefarious Lizard men in a smoke filled room plotting the next conspiracy...

    However, the NAGPRA act has been rather effective in scooping up what could be potentially interesting remains and or artifacts from America and burying them indefinitely. Kennewick man, Spirit Cave man etc are 2 out of dozens examples. So if 7 foot tall skeletons with Neanderthal-like skulls are unearthed in Nevada, or Ohio, it would not surprise me that such remains would be re-buried under standard protocol. Conspiracy or not...

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thank you so much for that. It's a shame you couldn't have posted that comment a little sooner for everyone to enjoy it.

      Delete
  17. Of them* that is to say, there are 50 -100 reports of the Smithsonian institution receiving large bones or skeletons from American mounds.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. THE POSSIBLE CRO-MAGNON HYBRID CONNECTION

      http://squatchinluver.blogspot.co.uk/2014/05/the-possible-cro-magnon-hybrid.html?m=0

      Delete
    2. Thanks for that! Yes, the Cro-Magnon connection is another compelling theory. Fritz Zimmerman, Dale Drinnon and a couple of others are among the first gentleman I have encountered who endorsed this theory.

      I like Fritz's work, he has re-posted a number of Jim & I's work on his blog. He has also visited and been to and documented hundreds of burial mounds in the Mid West.

      Delete
    3. I find your insight fascinating and so important. Thank you so much for your comments.

      Delete
    4. You're welcome. I think we have chatted before have we not? I am Micah E Giantology on Facebook. I have about 1,600 to 1,700 files in my facebook album online. I joined several Giant and Sasquatch groups there, so its always fun to see what new info is around the corner. Cheers!

      Delete
    5. I'm not so sure we have met, sir... I am not on Facebook I'm afraid, but will most definitely look out for you in future and follow your work. It appears there is much to learn from you.

      Thanks again.

      Delete
    6. Ok LoL different Fitzgerlad then.
      Thanks!

      Delete
    7. PS. My name get's whited out from past attacks on this blog.

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

BREAKING: Finding Bigfoot Production Company Seeks Filming Permit In Virginia