Notices

View Poll Results: Do you believe Bigfoot exists?

Voters
67. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    16 23.88%
  • No

    51 76.12%
Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789
Results 801 to 838 of 838

Thread: Bigfoot?

  1. #801 Re: Bigfoot? 
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,057
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by WVBIG
    Once again you are completely clueless. These three hogs were killed in different locations. two were killed in southern swamps & one was killed in a suburban neighborhood in the midwest.
    Steven, I'm really getting fed up, sick and tired of always having to correct you because you're too fucking lazy to do your homework.


    "With the pig finally dead in a creek bed on the 2,500-acre Lost Creek Plantation, a commercial hunting preserve in Delta"

    http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...=1&image=large

    "Holyoak said the plantation's previous record was a 695-pound hog shot several years ago. Enough wild hogs roam Holyoak's plantation that he has made it a side business to allow people to hunt them, but he said "Hogzilla" was too big to let someone else shoot.

    "We killed it because we didn't want to take a chance of him getting away. Somebody else would have shot it," he said.

    Feral hogs, popularly known as wild hogs, are domestic hogs that escaped from farms and began living off the land. They lay waste to corn and peanut fields and deprive more than 100 species -- including squirrels and deer -- of food."

    http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5540839/
    Umm.....What did I get wrong? the definition in your post says they live & feed in the wild & the definition of a plantation clearly indicates swamps are likely to be a part of them. Besides, a hunting ranch usually means a ranch for deer, not Hogs. In fact, I know of exactly zero hunting ranches specifically tailored for hog hunting. I know this because I'm a hunter & watch a lot of hunting shows. Some of the southern deer ranches do also contain ferral hogs, which are hunted, because they don't have high fences to keep animals in or out.
    http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Plantation
    So it looks like YOU are the one who is too fucking lazy to do your homework.
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2. #802 Bigfoot? 
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,057
    Getting back on track once again. Do those of you who are skeptics of Bigfoot think it is any more likely that the Yeren (Chinese version of Bigfoot) exists because that is where Gigantopithecus blacki is known to have existed in the past?
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  3. #803 Re: Bigfoot? 
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by WVBIG
    Umm.....What did I get wrong?
    Let us count the ways, shall we?

    the definition in your post says they live & feed in the wild
    Correction #1. The definition states no such thing.

    "domestic hogs that escaped from farms and began living off the land. They lay waste to corn and peanut fields"

    the definition of a plantation clearly indicates swamps are likely to be a part of them.
    Correction #2. The definition of plantation that YOU provided states no such thing. From YOUR link:

    "1. a usually large farm or estate, esp. in a tropical or semitropical country, on which cotton, tobacco, coffee, sugar cane, or the like is cultivated, usually by resident laborers.
    2. a group of planted trees or plants.
    3. History/Historical.
    a. a colony or new settlement.
    b. the establishment of a colony or new settlement.
    4. Archaic. the planting of seeds, young trees, etc.
    –adjective
    5. (of clothing, furnishings, etc.) suitable for a plantation or for a tropical or semitropical country."

    In fact, I know of exactly zero hunting ranches specifically tailored for hog hunting.
    Correction #3. Not only does the link I provided state unequivocally that the owner of the plantation "has made it a side business to allow people to hunt them" there are plenty of websites offering the same, if you had actually taken the time to do your homework.

    http://www.wildhogridge.com/

    http://www.hoghunting.com/

    I know this because I'm a hunter & watch a lot of hunting shows.
    You evidently know sweet FA and are a liar and a moron.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #804 Bigfoot? 
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,057
    1) "escaped from farms and began living off the land" The keyword here is escaped
    2)Tropical or semi-tropical indicates swampy areas
    3)I read both of the links you originally posted twice & couldn't find anywhere in either one where it specifically says he has made a side business out of people hunting hogs. Hunting yes. But not specifically hunting the hogs.
    I do admit I was wrong about their not being hog hunting ranches though.
    4)Get back on track.
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #805 Re: Bigfoot? 
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by WVBIG
    1) "escaped from farms and began living off the land" The keyword here is escaped
    2)Tropical or semi-tropical indicates swampy areas
    3)I read both of the links you originally posted twice & couldn't find anywhere in either one where it specifically says he has made a side business out of people hunting hogs. Hunting yes. But not specifically hunting the hogs.
    I do admit I was wrong about their not being hog hunting ranches though.
    4)Get back on track.
    1)Escaped and living in the wild are two completely different things. I've already shown you the quote that refutes you.

    2) Tropical or semi-tropical does not indicate in the least swampy areas, that is entirely wrong. I've visited plenty of tropical areas in which no swamps were present whatsoever.

    3) Enough wild hogs roam Holyoak's plantation that he has made it a side business to allow people to hunt them

    Can you see that?

    Yes, you were absolutely wrong about everything I corrected for you, not just the hog hunting ranches.

    4)The track which YOU'VE placed before us? The ones wrought with fabrications? Have you shown a shred of intellectual honesty here?

    Back on track indeed.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #806  
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,057
    3) Yes I see it here. Just not in the article.
    Tropical: "Very hot. Humid" In the united States, these areas have swamps. Perhaps you've heard of the Everglades & the Bayous of Louisiana, Mississippi, etc...?
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #807  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by WVBIG
    3) Yes I see it here. Just not in the article.
    It came from the article.

    Tropical: "Very hot. Humid" In the united States, these areas have swamps. Perhaps you've heard of the Everglades & the Bayous of Louisiana, Mississippi, etc...?
    Did you know the Sahara desert is in the Tropics? Any swamps in the Sahara desert, Steven?
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #808  
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,057
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by WVBIG
    3) Yes I see it here. Just not in the article.
    It came from the article.

    Tropical: "Very hot. Humid" In the united States, these areas have swamps. Perhaps you've heard of the Everglades & the Bayous of Louisiana, Mississippi, etc...?
    Did you know the Sahara desert is in the Tropics? Any swamps in the Sahara desert, Steven?
    Did you know the Sahara desert isn't in the United States?
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #809  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by WVBIG
    Did you know the Sahara desert isn't in the United States?
    Did you know your ass was grass and I was a John Deere?

    /mowed
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #810  
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,057
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by WVBIG
    Did you know the Sahara desert isn't in the United States?
    Did you know your ass was grass and I was a John Deere?

    /mowed
    If this is your way of saying I'm wrong about the Sahara not being in the United States, read this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #811  
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by WVBIG
    If this is your way of saying I'm wrong about the Sahara not being in the United States
    No, just everything else, you actually got that one right. Congratulations.
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #812  
    Forum Freshman escAPEe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Tazewell County, Illinois
    Posts
    45

    Figure photographed at Silver Star Mountain in November 2005


    Two men photographed along the same ridge line in August 2008


    Comparing the unknown figure with the two men

    The height and physique of the unknown figure (seen in 3 photographs taken by a photographer in November 2005) dwarves the two men by comparison.

    Physical evidence such as this is what motivates and encourages investigators to keep searching.


    A Sasquatch (Big Foot) sketch depicted for identification purposes on a U.S. Air Force survival map used in Washington state for pilot training
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #813  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Quote Originally Posted by escAPEe
    The height and physique of the unknown figure (seen in 3 photographs taken by a photographer in November 2005) dwarves the two men by comparison.
    Have you heard of perspective?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #814 Bigfoot? 
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,057
    This from the same pic a couple pages back:"NEW COMPARISON PHOTOGRAPH -- On August 3, 2008 , a photographer named Rich Rodriguez accompanied a group which hiked the same Silver Star Mountain trail. He posted 85 photographs taken that trek in his public album at http://picasaweb.google.com/Rich1Rod...ainWashington#. The following photograph most closely corresponds to the location, lighting and perspective of Randee's shots back on November 17, 2005."
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #815  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,168
    Perhaps you can tell me which specific picture you are referring to. I cannot see on that shows the peak on which the entity appeared along with other persons from which size might be estimated.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #816 Bigfoot? 
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,057
    The one on Escape's post from this page that has the section from the possible Bigfoot pic superimposed on the same spot in the pic without snow.
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #817 Re: Bigfoot? 
    (Q)
    (Q) is offline
    Forum Isotope (Q)'s Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    2,650
    Quote Originally Posted by WVBIG
    The one on Escape's post from this page that has the section from the possible Bigfoot pic superimposed on the same spot in the pic without snow.
    Were those two photographs taken from the same spot during different times of the year? Is there a reason for that?
    Religious Fundamentalist Club - Member #1.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #818 Re: Bigfoot? 
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,057
    Quote Originally Posted by (Q)
    Quote Originally Posted by WVBIG
    The one on Escape's post from this page that has the section from the possible Bigfoot pic superimposed on the same spot in the pic without snow.
    Were those two photographs taken from the same spot during different times of the year? Is there a reason for that?
    I'm assuming the second photo (The one with no snow) was taken when the photographer could get there. Snow or not, it's obviously the same location & angle & at least very similar lighting. What I'd like to know however, is all the technical data for both photos. Specifically the focal length of the lense used in each photo.
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #819  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    it's obviously the same location & angle
    It is not obvious at all. Have you ever watched movies where one character is a giant? Many of those kind of shots are achieved simply by adjusting the perspective angle. The surrounds look perfectly natural, but the character is seemingly greatly enlarged. Attack of the 50 foot woman? Lord of the rings? Harry potter?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #820 Bigfoot? 
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,057
    Quote Originally Posted by KALSTER
    it's obviously the same location & angle
    It is not obvious at all. Have you ever watched movies where one character is a giant? Many of those kind of shots are achieved simply by adjusting the perspective angle. The surrounds look perfectly natural, but the character is seemingly greatly enlarged. Attack of the 50 foot woman? Lord of the rings? Harry potter?
    That's why I want to know the focal lengths of the lenses both photos were taken with. The picture showing the "Bigfoot" could've been taken with a longer focal length lense than the other photo was taken with. Making it look much bigger than the people in the other photo. But if one was taken more to the left or more to the right than the other, they couldn't line up so well. The lighting in the two photos is definitely different though. In the "Bigfoot" photo, the sun is coming in from the right as you can see by where it is hitting the ground. The second photo was apparently taken on an overcast day because you can't see the sun hilighting any particular spot & there are no shadows.
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #821  
    Forum Freshman escAPEe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Tazewell County, Illinois
    Posts
    45
    Three (3) photographs showing a mysterious moving figure were taken by a photographer while on the trail to the summit of Silver Star Mountain on 17-Nov-2005. The air was crisp, the snow was drifted waist deep and it was windy. His testimony is that he noticed something anomalous about a brush along the ridge trail he was hiking as he was facing south. He snapped his first photograph. What first appeared to be on odd brush turned out to be an upright figure which stood up and moved south away from him. He snapped a second photograph when it stood up. The third photograph was taken before it dropped from view heading down elevation off the ridge line away from him.

    Further investigation and a comparison photograph of this location was needed. From time to time, I search the Internet looking for photographs taken along this hiking trail. Prior to posting the suspect photographs in this thread, I searched again and found a recently posted album with 85 photographs taken by a party who hiked to the summit on 3-Aug-2008. Only one of the photographs is taken from what appears to be the same vantage point along the trail looking toward the bluff and ridge line where the mysterious figure was photographed back on 17-Nov-2005.


    Image 59 (circled) out of the 85 in this public album matches bluff and ridge line of 17-Nov-2005 photographs

    Studying the date and time stamps of the photographs in this album, I found that the first photograph was taken at 11:13am on 3-Aug-2008, the 59th photograph which appears to be a comparison shot was taken at 2:19pm and the last photograph was taken at 3:40pm. The first and last photographs span 4-1/2 hours. The sky was clear and sunny, but a haze persisted at the higher elevations which obfuscated views of the more distant horizons and muted any shadows.


    Technical properties displayed for the 3-Aug-2008 comparison photograph

    All of the photographs taken on 3-Aug-2008 were captured using a Sony DSC-T200 digital camera. The aperture setting of this particular shot was at f/5 and the exposure was 1/640 second. The focal length is 17mm. The two men (shown above) are clearly seen in good detail upon enlarging the photograph.

    What appears to be a dog (a reddish brown creature) appears in profile some 20 yards to the left and down slope. Such a dog travelling with the party does not appear in any of the other 84 photographs taken during this hiking trip.


    Is that a dog being seen in the comparison photograph? Why doesn't it appear in any of the other 84 photographs taken on this hiking trip?

    The simplest explanation is that the two men and a dog were travelling separately from the photographer and his party. Their paths crossed only this once and this is the only photograph in which these two men and a dog appeared. It is indeed providentially fortunate for the purposes of this investigation, as it is their presence on the distant ridge line which provides a point of comparison.

    Turning attention to the photographs showing the mysterious figure, I first looked for technical details in the image released to Cryptomundo by the photographer. I found that the image posted by Cryptomundo had such details removed.


    No technical details are available for the photograph which shows the figure from its head to its knees

    However, I next studied the initial two photographs posted and found the technical details intact.


    Photograph taken at 2:36pm on 17-Nov-2005


    Photograph taken at 2:37pm on 17-Nov-2005

    NOTE: The time of day is only 20 minutes different between the comparison photograph taken on 3-Aug-2008 and the photographs in question taken on 17-Nov-2005. The lighting angle facing south in both photographs should be similar. This also corroborates that someone hiking the Silver Star Mountain trail to its summit and back from the trail head would reach this location at approximately the same time of day (mid afternoon).

    On 17-Nov-2005, the technical properties show that both above photographs were taken with a Sony Cybershot digital camera set at an aperture of f/10 and exposure of 1/800 second. The focal length is 24mm. The date and time stamp does not record seconds-- but the minute had advanced from 2:36pm to 2:37pm when the second shot was taken. Less than a minute probably elapsed between all 3 photographs.

    The aperture and exposure settings used with the cameras on both occasions are appropriate for outdoor landscape photography. The depth of view places objects at long range in sharper focus. This is confirmed by the out of focus foreground visible in the photographs taken on 17-Nov-2005.

    The primary factor determining how large a distance object appears to the camera and resulting photograph is the focal length. Doubling the magnified size of a distant object is achieved by doubling the focal length.


    When adjusting the camera's distance from the main subject while changing focal length-- the main subject can remain the same size, while the other at a different distance changes size

    The comparison photograph showing 2 men on the ridge line taken on 3-Aug-2008 had a focal length of 17mm. The original three (3) photographs showing the mysterious figure beyond the ridge line taken on 17-Nov-2005 had a focal length of 24mm. The additional 7mm is a factor of 41%. The difference in each subject's relative distance from the photographers' vantage point appears minor (the two men are standing to the left of the summit and the figure is to the right of the summit and possibly down slope and farther away)-- so it should not cause a significant factor in comparative sizes.

    Therefore, the mysterious figure is appearing 41% larger than what it would have appeared had the original photographs taken on 17-Nov-2005 used a focal length of 17mm. Comparing the mysterious figure to the two men, the figure has triple the width or physique (a factor of 200%) and its height is unknown since the snow cover obstructs its full view from head to foot. The difference in the focal lengths between the comparison photograph and the photographs of the mysterious figure in question would account for a 41% difference in magnification. The mysterious figure still dwarves the men in comparison.


    Inlaid image showing the mysterious figure in comparison to two men at the same location

    I found that I had to reduce the inserted image of the mysterious figure by 50% to better match the curvature of the ridge line of the comparison photograph in the above illustration. A perfect match could not be achieved due to the wind swept snow cover on the ridge line. The reduced size of the inserted image should help even out the known inequality previously demonstrated due to the different focal length telescopic lens settings of the digital cameras.

    I trust this comparison helps illustrate why investigators theorize that the mysterious figure is clearly not a human being out for a walk on the summit of Silver Star Mountain that afternoon on 17-Nov-2005.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #822 Bigfoot? 
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,057
    Thanks for the info David
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #823  
    Forum Freshman escAPEe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Tazewell County, Illinois
    Posts
    45

    Indigenous creatures of Washington state illustrated on the map produced for the U.S. Air Force pilot survival training course

    The following paragraph is taken verbatim from the document copyrighted 2003 by the United States Government following the "No copyright claim under Title 17 USC..." notation:

    "TERRAIN - CLIMATE"

    "NORTH EAST "

    Generally, the climate is a combination of alpine, subalpine and montane. Hot dry summers and moderately cold and snowy winters. Frequent chinooks moderate winter temperatures. Temperatures average in the 80/90's in mid-summer to lows in the 10-20's in winter. A strong elevational gradient in precipitation occurs, ranging from 15 to over 40 in per year. Elevations range from about 2000 ft. to over 7000 ft. The expansive conifer forests throughout this mountainous region contain hemlock, yew, larch, cedar, spruce, pines and fir. The area has beaver, badger, grouse, waterfowl, rabbits, moose, deer, marten, coyote, squirrels, chipmunk, bears, cougars, bobcat, porcupines, and many sasquatch sightings."
    The detail on this U.S. Air Force survival map printed by the Federal government and its notation (quoted above) acknowledge the existence of sasquatch creatures in Washington state.


    Close-up image of Sasquatch (aka Bigfoot) shown on map
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #824  
    Forum Freshman escAPEe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Tazewell County, Illinois
    Posts
    45

    John Bindernagel and Jane Goodall

    SASQUATCH AND SCIENCE
    By John A. Bindernagel, B.S.A., MS, Ph.D.

    The sasquatch as a subject of scientific research

    Many people are of the opinion that if sasquatch reports are really worthy of investigation, university scientists and government wildlife biologists (the "scientific community") would currently be engaged in serious research into the ecology of this species. Since this is clearly not the case, the sasquatch research is often discounted as "fringe" science or worse.

    One aspect of my own sasquatch research and writing is that of assisting in validating the sasquatch as a subject for serious research by mainstream sceientists. I have attempted to acquaint students of natural history, field naturalists and colleagues in science with existing data and evidence. I do not try to convince them to necessarily accept the sasquatch as an existing animal, but rather to recognize that it is may be a subject worthy of serious discussion and some research effort.

    These efforts are finally yielding fruit as illustrated below:





    Presentation of papers on the sasquatch at recent professional conferences

    In 1999 I proposed a paper on the sasquatch at the upcoming Annual Meeting of the Northwest Section of The Wildlife Society. This meeting was to be held in Post Falls, Idaho. The paper was accepted and I presented it on March 10, 2000. The abstract is reproduced below.

    AN EXAMINATION OF REPORTED SASQUATCH FOOD HABITS AND BEHAVIOR FOR USE AS A BASIS FOR FUTURE MANAGEMENT.
    John A. Bindernagel, 920 Second Street, Courtenay, BC, Canada, V9N 1C3

    For a number of reasons, wildlife biologists have not yet included the sasquatch (or bigfoot) in conservation and management plans. Among them are the unliklihood of an upright great ape existing in North America, the apparent elusiveness of this species, and possible conditioning inherent in North American higher biological education. Recent physical evidence is presented which indicates that this situation may soon change. Several aspects of sasquatch ecology--especially food habits, feeding behavior, nesting behavior and intimidation behavior--are discussed as a basis for use in future management. A food habits list is presented based on eyewitness reports and feeding sign. Unique feeding sign associated with an eyewitness report of foraging on hibernating ground squirrels in the Cascade range of Oregon is illustrated and discussed. The omnivorous diet of the sasquatch is discussed and compared with bears and with the great apes of Africa and Asia. The possibility that the sasquatch may be North America's great ape is raised as a possible explanation for this otherwise inexplicable wildlife species. The ecological viability of a non-human large primate in North America is discussed with regard to various major habitats such as west coast rain forest, mountainous coniferous forest, and deciduous forest.

    Then, in 2000 I proposed a paper which was accepted for presentation at the 2001 Northwest Vertebrate Biologists Conference held in Victoria, British Columbia. Since the theme of the conference was Crossing Boundaries in Forest Management, I titled the paper: The Persistence of Sasquatch Reports in the Northwest: a future forest management concern?

    My paper was not only accepted, but was given a prestigious position in the agenda as one of only five papers to be presented at the plenary session entitled Forest Management in the New Millenium.

    The abstract of this paper (subsequently published in the journal: Northwestern Naturalist, Vol.82, No 2) follows:

    The Persistence of Sasquatch Reports in the Northwest: a future forest management concern?


    "making sense" of otherwise puzzling reports, and may eventually serve as a basis for the development of management plans.

    Thus I have been given two opportunities to date to present my views at professional conferences. But most wildlife biologists still find it hard to even contemplate the possible existence of a mammal resembling an upright gorilla here on this continent. As a result, I began to look for other reasons to explain why we are so resistant to idea, remaining in denial, and continuing to ignore the fact that sightings of it which were (and are) being reported with remarkable regularity.

    I was aware that we North American-educated wildlife biologists had little or no exposure to the great apes biology. To many of my colleagues the reports of an animal resembling an upright gorilla throwing stones, beating its chest, breaking branches, and vocalizing loudly is too bizarre to make sense. Had we been more exposed to lectures and the literature regarding the anatomy and behavior of the great apes of Africa and Asia-gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos and orangutans-we might have recognized such descriptions as those of great apes, mammals not yet known from North America but which are at least recognized to exist elsewhere on the planet. Eventually, I began reviewing the publications of primatologists, those biologists who specialize in non-human primates such as gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos and orangutans and the monkeys and realized that it was this group of specialists who might better understand reports of sasquatch anatomy and behavior.

    I began soliciting the attention of professional primatologists and in this endeavor was very much encouraged by the decision of the editor of the prestigious International Journal of Primatology to review my book in Volume 21, no. 1 (February, 2000) of the journal. The favorable review follows:

    North America's Great Ape: the Sasquatch
    By John A. Bindernagel, Beachcomber Books, Courtenay, BC, Canada, 1998, xi + 270 pp., $25.00 (softcover).

    "When Sasquatch, or Bigfoot, captured the fancy of the U.S. news media in the late 1950's, it came in the wake of five decades of the traditional Hollywood stereotype of the ape as a ferocious, blood-thirsty, lustful monster. King Kong and his ilk were surpassed in popularity only by the likes of Frankenstein, Dracula, and the Werewolf. Curiously, over the ensuing years accounts of Bigfoot encounters were uniformly devoid of such sensationalized monster trappings. Instead, one gets the impression of a generally shy and retreating over-sized ape, punctuated by glimpses of behavior, many details of which actually anticipated by several decades what has only recently been discovered about the true nature of great ape natural history, the latter having been accomplished largely through the pioneering efforts of dedicated field primatologists.

    This observation might well serve as the jumping-off point for this book, as Dr. John Bindernagel sets out to present one wildlife biologist's assessment of the biology of the Sasquatch. Satisfied with the affirmative evidence supporting their existence, he moves on to consider what can be inferred about their anatomy, ecology and behavior. The three stated goals of the author are, first, to present a profile of the purported anatomy and behavior of the Sasquatch garnered from numerous eyewitness accounts, second, to point out the remarkable consistency of these described encounters, assembled over a considerable span of time from individuals of varied backgrounds and walks of life, and third, to show how similar these patterns of appearance and behavior are to those of the known great apes.
    Dr. Bindernagel summarizes the results of over 25 years of investigation, including many novel reports centered in British Columbia, and his firsthand examination of fresh 15-inch tracks that he personally discovered in Strathcona Park on Vancouver Island in 1988. From these he constructs an ecological profile of this North American ape. How do they locomote? What is their diet? What physical sign do they leave? What do they do over winter? How do they vocalize? How do they react to human contact? Next, in a series of appendices, he deftly and accurately navigates the primatology literature and draws fascinating parallels that will pique the specialist and non-specialist alike. The text citations are thoroughly noted, and a list of general references is provided. A short glossary will assist the uninitiated with unfamiliar terminology.

    With the publication of this book, Dr. Bindernagel joins the ranks of those few professional scientists who have ventured to openly, thoroughly, and objectively consider these data, approaching the subject as a valid topic of serious inquiry and investigation. It compellingly shifts the matter from the realm of folklore and mythology into the arena of biological science. He concedes, "I'm not really trying to convince anyone. I am just trying to explain why I accept the Sasquatch as a real animal." This objective is certainly accomplished in an interesting and informative fashion, deserving of any inquiring-minded naturalist's attention."

    D. Jeffrey Meldrum, Dept. of Biological Sciences, Idaho State University, Pocatello, ID 83209-8007



    I also submitted an abstract of a sasquatch paper for presentation at the conference entitled: The Apes: Challenges for the 21st Century, held in Chicago, IL in May, 2000. The abstract is as follows:

    THE SASQUATCH OR BIGFOOT: IS IT NORTH AMERICA'S GREAT APE? John A. Bindernagel, D.A. Blood and Associates, Wildlife Resource Consultants, 5771 Kerry Lane, Nanaimo, BC, Canada, V9T 5N5

    For a number of reasons, primatologists have not yet recognized the North American sasquatch (or bigfoot) as a nonhuman primate. The perceived unlikelihood of an bipedal great ape existing in North America, the unscientific treatment of sasquatch reports in the popular media, and the absence of scientific literature regarding this species are among these reasons. Recently-acquired physical and anecdotal evidence indicates that this subject warrants greater attention from the scientific community; primatologists may be more qualified than other zoologists to evaluate eyewitness sasquatch reports and hard evidence. Details of reported sasquatch anatomy conform closely with that of the African and Asian great apes. Consistently reported primate features of the animal include (1) prominent, square shoulders, (2) a flat face lacking a prominent snout, and (3) long digits terminating in nails rather than claws. Humanlike features include habitually bipedal locomotion, and feet with a prominent heel and a hallux wich is normally adducted. Especially apelike anatomical features include (1) arms which are disproportionately long compared with humans, (2) a short, thick neck, (3) large outward-facing nostrils, (4) prominent brow ridges, and (5) a recessive chin and forehead. The sasquatch foot is the best understood part of the animal on the basis of hundreds of track photographs and casts. Anatomical details of the sasquatch foot are illustrated and discussed. The hypothesis that the sasquatch is North America's great ape is raised as a logical explanation for evidence and reports collected in many parts of the continent over the past 150 years. It is suggested that unfamiliarity with details of great ape anatomy, ecology and behavior on the part of North American wildlife biologists may have contributed to widespread misunderstanding or premature dismissal of sasquatch reports by wildlife professionals in the past, and continues to do so.

    Although the conference organizers ultimately rejected the paper, they did so only after corresponding with me regarding the availability of DNA evidence for the sasquatch. Colleague Henner Fahrenbach of Beaverton, OR confirmed that the results of his attempts to have DNA analysis performed on purported sasquatch hair collected in the field were "inconclusive." It was on the basis of these findings that the paper was declined and organizers decided to restrict the conference to papers on the five known taxa of apes (that is, gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos, orangutans and gibbons.)

    I nevertheless attended the conference and was able to discuss the sasquatch as a possible great ape with zoo keepers, and primate researchers.

    Magazine Articles:

    In 1999 I was contracted to summarize my book in a 2000 word article for Beautiful British Columbia magazine, a geographical/travel magazine with a worldwide circulation of some 190,000 subscribers.

    The article--entitled "Sasquatches in our Woods" --was published in Beautiful British Columbia magazine, Volume 42. No. 2, Summer, 2000. pp 28-33. The credibility of the subject was enhanced with a sasquatch painting by internationally-acclaimed wildlife artist Robert Bateman as the lead illustration.

    I recently heard from Bryan McGill, editor of Beautiful British Columbia magazine that the article won an award in the essay category for the 21st Annual International Regional Magazine Association (IRMA) Awards. The award was for "a story that speculates on or interprets a particular theme or subject that pertains to the region, and that clearly presents the magazine's or writer's viewpoint to the reader…."

    The award is somewhat ironic in that I do not consider the sasquatch in British Columbia to be a regional issue at all, but was constrained to use only BC material in the article because of the regional nature of Beautiful BC magazine. (See page entitled Sasquatch Distribution in North America.)

    Despite these small successes in having the sasquatch recognized a s valid subject of scientific research, the resistance of the "scientific community" to consider the sasquatch worthy of serious discussion or examination remains an area of concern for me. I have increasingly come to realize just how conservative science is and, as a result avoid certain subjects. Anyone who had read widely in the area entitled philosophy of science will read about how scientists persisted in resisting previous discoveries, sometimes for hundreds of years.

    Part of this resistance can be explained by the problem of "prematurity" in scientific discovery. According to Guenther Stent, a discovery is defined as premature "if its implications cannot be connected by a series of simple, logical steps to canonical, or generally accepted, knowledge." (Stent, Guenther "Prematurity and uniqueness in Scientific Discovery," Scientific American. 227 (1972) 84-93). The existence in North America of an upright great ape fits Stent's description of prematurity in at least two ways. (1) None of the known great apes (gorillas, chimpanzees, bonobos, or orangutans) are habitually bipedal. (2) Great apes are known only from Africa and Asia and there is no precedent for an apelike animal in North America (ie we don't have any other apes or even monkeys here).

    This last point was brought home forcibly to me when a newspaper journalist sought out the opinion of Professor Lisa Gould, a primatologist at the University of Victoria in Victoria, BC. regarding my book. "Speaking from an evolutionary point of view, Gould says, "There's no way a huge ape can be in North America…" The reviewer observed that "The primatologist sees the sasquatch in the same light as the Yeti, or wild man, of Nepal and Tibet, part of human mythology." (Judith Isabella, Victoria Times Colonist, January 10, 1999, p 11 in Islander section) Professor Gould may be right in her "no way" statement, "from an evolutionary point of view." The idea that the current "evolutionary point of view" might be incorrect appears not to enter her thinking.

    But beyond all the commonly-stated reasons given for the sasquatch not to be here (not enough food, no precedents, evolutionary point of view, etc) there are the unthinkable implications of what this could mean in the larger picture. I use those words advisedly because of what I hear from fundamental Christians and others who are uncomfortable with our obvious anatomical similarities to non-human primates.

    Noted anatomist and paleoanthropologist Alan Walker addressed this recently when writing about his paleoanthropological discoveries. He wrote that "…surprises about the identity or attributes of our … ancestors may be deeply unsettling and unwelcome. Even professionals, if they are not vigilant, are liable to fall into the trap of refusing to evaluate the evidence objectively…." (The Wisdom of The Bones, p 50.)

    The idea that there is a possibility of an upright great ape existing, especially here in North America, is indeed "unwelcome" to many of us. This was recently brought home to me when, attempting to engage the attention of a colleague who is a zoology professor at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, BC, I sent him a review copy of my book. When I next saw him his response was predictable: "but John, if this thing exists, it would be the zoological discovery of the century, and…and..." He left the thought hanging, but the implication was that "and that is impossible." His head-shaking incredulence was overwhelming and helped me understand just how unthinkable the sasquatch as a real animal is for mainstream zoologists in the university atmosphere.

    His reaction helped me understand just how risky it would be for someone like him or his university colleagues to publicly show a serious interest in the subject of the sasquatch. It also helped me realize that for someone like him this was an unnecessary risk, with little to gain and much to lose. For this reason, we will one day acknowledge university academics like Professor Grover Krantz, recently retired from the Western Washington University, and Dr. Jeff Meldrum at Idaho State University.

    In my case, I acknowledge the courage of conference organizers who not only accepted papers on the sasquatch at professional conferences, but in one case elevated the submitted paper to a plenary session. Similarly the courage of the editor of the International Journal of Primatology must be recognized for his inclusion of a review of my book in that journal. It may be difficult for those outside of the scientific "establishment" to recognize the significance of such small incremental steps.

    In this regard it may also be worth documenting a conference presentation proposal which was rejected, and why it was declined. The sasquatch paper had been proposed for presentation at a national conference. The reasons given by the conference chair for rejection concluded with the comment : "Until there is "hard" evidence of their existence the issue will remain tabloid material and not part of the scientific community."

    The reference to "tabloid material" is noteworthy. I now recognize the public perception of the sasquatch as a subject of ridicule and humor is a significant factor in our society's continued resistance to this subject as one worthy of serious study. That professional biologists are unable to discount the inclusion of a wildlife subject in the tabloid media is unfortunate, to say the least. It may speak to their preconceptions and unwillingness to engage the subject of the sasquatch that they would allow themselves to be influenced by a form of the print media which they would otherwise ignore.

    Those of us making efforts to undertake serious research on the sasquatch cannot prevent the tabloid newspapers from addressing this subject. Similarity we cannot prevent other investigators from propounding some rather bizarre explanations for the nature of the sasquatch, or the media from embracing and exploiting some "far out" explanations. By providing readers with an opportunity to ridicule the subject and those engaged in it, they score points and provide an light news item which may be seen as a welcome alternative to more serious, depressing news. But such media coverage does add to the conditioning that this is indeed a fringe subject which is not valid for serious research effort or funding.
    FOR FURTHER INFORMATION: http://www.bigfootbiologist.org/index.html
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #825  
    Forum Freshman escAPEe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Tazewell County, Illinois
    Posts
    45
    “…if the skeptics are right and there is no such creature as Bigfoot, then it is a fact that thousands of Americans and Canadians are either prone to hallucinations, or compulsive liars, or unable to recognize bears, deer and vagrants.”

    Janet Bord, co-author of The Bigfoot Casebook
    For further reference, see http://bookmarketeer.com/ER406PineWindsPress.htm
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #826  
    Administrator KALSTER's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    South Africa
    Posts
    8,231
    Are you just spamming now escAPEe?
    Disclaimer: I do not declare myself to be an expert on ANY subject. If I state something as fact that is obviously wrong, please don't hesitate to correct me. I welcome such corrections in an attempt to be as truthful and accurate as possible.

    "Gullibility kills" - Carl Sagan
    "All people know the same truth. Our lives consist of how we chose to distort it." - Harry Block
    "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." - Aristotle
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #827 Bigfoot? 
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,057
    A German Anatomist & Anthropologist named Dr. Franz Weinreich (1873-
    1948) believed Gigantopithecus blacki was actually Hominidae and not Pongidae. Therefore it should have been called Gigantanthropus He based his
    hypothesis on similarities between the occlusal surfaces of the teeth of
    Giganto and those of Pithecanthropus & Sinanthropus. I believe this is significan't because it could unite those Bigfoot researchers who subscribe to the Giganto hypothesis with those who subscribe to the hypothesis that Bigfoot is a hominid.
    http://www.returnoftheniphilim.com/P...vianGiant.html

    note: If the link doesn't work, do a Google search for "Antediluvian Giant" & click on the first result.
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #828  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Posts
    9
    I personally don't believe in bigfoot and think that all video and camera footage presented to the public by various people are just fake :?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #829 Bigfoot? 
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,057
    Quote Originally Posted by wizzkid
    I personally don't believe in bigfoot and think that all video and camera footage presented to the public by various people are just fake :?
    With all due respect. Have you put any effort at all into studying the phenomenon?
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #830 Re: Bigfoot? 
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,057
    Quote Originally Posted by WVBIG
    Quote Originally Posted by wizzkid
    I personally don't believe in bigfoot and think that all video and camera footage presented to the public by various people are just fake :?
    With all due respect. Have you put any effort at all into studying the phenomenon?
    Since it's been over a month since I asked, I'll take that as a "No"
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #831  
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,057
    This is a question for the skeptics since you like to question & criticize our investigative skills. If you decided to be a little more open-minded & investigate a report of Bigfoot tracks being found & then someone told you they were fake, would you end your investigation with that piece of info?
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #832  
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,057
    A skeptic on another forum once asked what one thing would have to happen to make me stop believing Bigfoot exists. Since there are 9 different types of circumstantial evidence, I think there would have to be an event to disprove each type of evidence for me to stop believing. That being said, I suppose if my reason for believing was that I had myself had a sighting that was later proven either a hoax or a case of mistaken identity, I would at least seriously doubt the existence of Bigfoot. I believe this because in 1975 I saw what was at the time, a U.F.O. But in 1988 when the government released film of the Stealth Bomber, I realized that's what I saw in 1975. Ever since then, I feel confident that U.F.O.'s are top secret aircraft of our military & possibly other terrestrial militaries.
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #833  
    Forum Professor WVBIG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    1,057
    There is exciting news about the Al Beery/Ron Morehead recordings of alleged Bigfoot vocalizations. Just go to http://www.trueseekers.org and click on the yellow link at the top of the first page after you enter the site, to read the details
    Steven
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #834  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    West Virginia
    Posts
    7
    I'm baack!
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #835  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    101
    Never a valid video or valid proof found, I doubt its existence. The recent bigfoot hoax had high expectations. I figured that, since the people who captured and killed bigfoot have a history of bigfoot hoaxes, it kinda didn't seem credible. Eventually that bigfoot discovery was no longer publicized and forgot about. We have better evidence of UFO's than bigfoot.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #836  
    Forum Freshman escAPEe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Tazewell County, Illinois
    Posts
    45
    Last summer's Georgia hoax did incite hope that proof had been secured-- perhaps since the most likely chance for recovering physical evidence of these creatures will be when somebody finds the body of one recently dead from natural causes. The initial background story fit the profile of such a rare scenario and raised expectations among people who have had personal observations of these creatures.

    Now with the experience of that hoax behind us, we must all be more skeptical about subsequent claims. The level of proof now demands "habeas corpus" evidence-- the legal term is Latin and literally means "having the body." Presuming we are dealing with a new species, we should expect DNA analysis of a tissue sample to be unidentified and not match any known and catalogued species.

    Until the existence of a new species is verified after tissue analysis of a specimen, whatever video, film or audio documentation secured should be considered insufficient and inconclusive at best. We must proceed with skepticism as we collect, review and reach conclusions about any data.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #837  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    USa, Maine
    Posts
    8
    Just to toss this up there, Who says there dumb why couldnt they hide from us come on we ride around in loud vehicle, or shoot guns im sure they hear us comming from miles away..

    That not counting our smell now if there is SMart animal out there with scences of a animal IT would know we was coming for sure..

    ANd hey why wouldnt they bury there dead .. we DO!!

    maybe even Hibernation.. i know anyone one of us if we really wanted to could go out and hide from the rest of us why couldnt they...

    Just because its not human doesnt make it dumb....wouldnt u hide from us ??

    i cant say i believe in bigfoot, but hey there a chance thats for sure.. ill believe when we catch one.. but its possiable they do
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #838 Missing data 
    New Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    2
    1)There have been many reports of sightings by seemingly sane, honest people who have nothing to gain & risk ridicule for claiming a sighting of such a creature.
    Response: Witness based information can be biased.
    2)A recent two-pronged investigation of the Patterson/Gimlin concluded that a human could not replicate the walk of the subject of the film. In addition, a microscopic frame-by-frame analysis of the film revealed no trace whatsoever of a costume. But did show eye & mouth movement with corresponding muscle movement in the proper areas.
    Response: Who carried out this investigation?
    3)There have been tracks found by people very familiar with bears, that have been in found in areas where no hoaxer could have any hope of them ever being discovered. Some trails of tracks stretching for several miles.
    Response: This statement is not thought through. If the footprints would have been a fraud, in this case, the likely explanation is that the finders themselves produced them
    4)There have been hair samples missing a medulla that have been deemed "Unknown primate"
    Response: Can you add a source of information to this statement?
    5)There have been scat samples found that have failed to be linked to any known animals.
    Response: Can you add a source of information to this statement? Also, new species is found every day, and far from all animals known have a "scat record"
    6)There have been vocalization recordings that so far, have defied Identification.
    Response: This is not an indication of the existence of bigfoot. People and birds can mimic and alter their voices to unique sounds
    7)Many of these hair, scat, & vocalization samples have come from areas where Bigfoot sightings have been reported.
    Response: the location of the findings will not make the theory more plausable until these samples are proven genuine.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Page 9 of 9 FirstFirst ... 789
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •